Transient Pressure Analysis in Vertical Wells

TRANSIENT PRESSURE
ANALYSIS IN VERTICAL
WELLS
A PROJECT
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
OF AL-FATAH UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
By:
Haithem D. Alzanati
Waleed A. Algmati
Supervised by:
Dr. Said I. Aldbaib
Spring-2008
DEDICATION
This project is dedicated with all our heart to
our beloved Parents and to our dear brothers
and sisters
I
ABSTRACT
This work studied the well tests analysis and productivity
index evaluation of vertical wells in Amal oil fields.
First, different aspects of well testing where reviewed; including

objectives and Diffusivity equation solution, Limitations and
Applications.
Second, the Theory of Build-up Transient Pressure Analysis in

vertical wells was reviewed.
Third, the factors affecting pressure build-up behavior.
Finally, Three pressure build-up tests for three oil wells in Amal
field at different times to monitoring the reservoir parameters that
were estimated from these pressure tests, and pressure build-up
test for a certain well in Abu-Attiful field to investigate the
presence of parallel faults as outer boundary effect where analyzed
by Conventional Techniques (enhanced by a computer program).
I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all we would like to thank Allah the Merciful and

Almighty for giving us the support and power to finish
this work
We would like to thank our families specially our parents for their
asking Allah for us to do this project successfully.
We are extremely grateful to our advisor Dr. Said I. Aldbaib for

his guidance and patience during this study.
We would like to extend my gratitude to the faculty staff and

colleagues in the Petroleum Engineering Department for providing
a cooperative and friendly atmosphere throughout our stay at
Al-Fateh University.
Special thanks to Planning Department in Al Harouge Oil

Company for supplying us with the data of Wells,
We would like to extend a special thanks to Eng. Sofian A. Ayad,

for helping us on several aspects of this work.
II
Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………….. I
Acknowledgements………………………………………………….. II
Table of Contents……………………………………………………. III
List of Tables………………………………………………………… VI
List of Figures……………………………………………………….. VII
Chapter 1
Overview of Well Testing
1.1 Introduction………………………………………………….. 2
1.2 Well Testing Objectives………………………………......... 3
1.3 Diffusivity Equation…………………………………………. 3
1.3.1 Fluid Flow in Porous Media…………….………….. 4
1.3.2 Diffusivity Equation Assumption……..……………. 5
1.3.3 Radial Flow…………………………………..………. 6
1.3.4 Diffusivity Equation Solutions…………..…………. 7
1.4 Wellbore Storage……………………………………………. 11
1.5 Skin Effect……………………………………………………. 12
1.5.1 Reservoir Model……………………………………… 12
1.5.2 Effect of Wellbore Radius…………………………... 14
1.5.3 Positive Skin………………………………………….. 15
1.5.4 Negative Skin……………………………..………….. 15
1.6 Semi-Log Plot………………………………………………... 16
1.7 Pressure Derivative…………………………………………. 18
1.7.1 Derivative Computation…………………………….. 18
Chapter 2
Pressure Build-up Test Analysis
2.1 Introduction………………………….……………………….. 21
2.1.1 Test Objective……………..………...…………......... 21
2.1.2 How the Test is Run…………………………………. 21
2.2 Conventional BU Analysis Techniques…………………… 22
2.2.1 Basic Equations……………………………………… 22
2.2.2 The Semi-log Plots…………………………………… 24
2.2.3 Defining the Flow Rate and Production Time…… 27
III
2.2.4 Calculation of the Average Reservoir Pressure…. 29
2.2.5 The Super-Position Technique……………………... 32
2.2.6 Multi-phase Flow Analysis…………………………. 34
Chapter 3
Factors Affecting Pressure Build-up Behavior
3.1 Introduction……….………………………………………….. 37
3.2 Factors Affecting Early BU Period……………………….. 39
3.2.1 Well-bore Storage Effect……………………………. 39
3.2.2 Effect of Phase Redistribution in the well-bore….. 43
3.2.3 Effect of the Partial Penetration…………………… 44
3.2.4 Effect of Vertical Hydraulic Fracture……………... 46
3.3 Factors Affecting the Semi-log Straight Line Period…… 53
3.3.1 Pressure Behavior in Layered Reservoirs………… 53
3.3.2 Pressure Behavior in Naturally Fractured 56
Reservoirs………………………………………………
3.4 Factors Affecting Late BU Period………………………… 58
3.4.1 Effect of Linear Faults………………………………. 58
3.4.2 Effect of Interference from a near-by producer….. 68
Chapter 4
Well Test Interpretation Methodology
4.1 Introduction 72
4.2 Segmental Analysis Approach……………………………… 73
4.2.1 Advantages of the Segmental Analysis …….……… 75
4.2.2 Limitation of the Segmental Analysis……………… 75
4.3 Integrated Model Approach 76
4.3.1 Advantages of the Integrated Model Approach….. 77
4.3.2 Limitation of the Integrated Model Approach……. 77
4.4 Recommended Approach…………………………………… 78
Chapter 5
Field Cases
5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………... 92
5.2 Conventional Analysis Procedures for Build-up
Pressure Test in Well B-27/1966………………………….. 94
IV
Pressure Test in Well A-67/1996.………………………….. 196
Chapter 6
Conclusion and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusion……………………………………………………. 206
6.2 Recommendations……………………………………………. 208
Appendix A……………………………………………………………. 209

Appendix B……………………………………………………………. 215
Appendix C…………...………………………………………………. 254
Appendix D…………...………………………………………………. 308
References…………………………………………………………….. 315
V
List of Tables
Table
4.1 Reservoir parameters estimated for each flow

regime……………………………………………………….74
4.2 Step by step conventional analysis procedure for build-
up pressure test in vertical wells…………………...……79
B-1 Buildup test data (Pressure vs. Time) of well

B-27/1966…………………………………………………216
B-27/1973…………………………………………………217
B-27/1975…………………………………………………218
B-27/1983…………………………………………………219
B-42/1966…………………………………………………222
B-42/1972…………………………………………………223
B-42/1973……………………………………………..….224
B-42/1980…………………………………………………225
B-45/1972…………………………………………………228
B-45/1983…………………………………………………229
B-45/1984…………………………………………………231
A-67/1996…………………………………………………235
B-13 Shape Factors for Various Single-Well Drainage
Areas…………………………………………………….…254
VI
List of Figures
Figure
1-1 Infinite Acting Radial Flow………………………………. 4
1-2 Radial Flow………………………………………………… 6
1-3 Wellbore Storage………………………………………….. 11
1-4 Reservoir Model…………………………………………… 13
1-5 Finite Radius……………………………………………….. 14
1-6 Positive Skin……………………………………………….. 15
1-7 Negative Skin………………………………………………. 16
1-8 Semi Log Plot- Draw Down……………………………… 17
1-9 Pressure Derivative……………………………………….. 18
2-1 Production Rate and Pressure History of Two Rate

Flow Test…………………………………………………… 23
2-2 Horner Plot………………………………………………… 25
2-3 MDH Plot…………………………………………………... 26
3-1 Effect of Wellbore Storage on Log-Log Plot…………... 40

3-2 Effect of Wellbore Storage on MDH Plot………………. 40
3-3 Flow into a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture………………. 47
3-4 Effect of Vertical Hydraulic Fracture on Linear Plot… 49
3-5 Effect of Vertical Hydraulic Fracture on Log-Log
Plot…………………………………………………………... 49
3-6 Typical Build-up Curve for a Two-Layered System with
NO Cross Flow………………………………………. 55
3-7 Typical Build-up Curve for a Natural Fracture
System………………………………………………………... 57
3-8 Effect of a Single Sealing Fault…………………………... 60
3-9a Effect of Two Intersecting Faults (Case A)……………... 64
3-9b Effect of Two Intersecting Faults (Case B)……………... 64
3-10 Fluid Flow in Well Situated Between Two Parallel
Faults………………………………………………………... 65
3-11a Build-up a Well Located Between Two Parallel Faults
on MDH Plot……………………..…………….…………… 67
VII
3-11b Build-up a Well Located Between Two Parallel Faults
on Linear Plot………………………………………………. 67
4-1 Transient pressure performance in a vertical well 73
B – 27 (1966)
C-1 Log-Log plot of pressure drop and pressure derivative
vs. shut-in time 256
C-2 Log-Log plot of pressure drop vs. shut-in time 257
C-3 Log-Log plot of pressure derivative vs. shut-in time 258
C-4 Horner plot 259
B – 27 (1973)
C-8 Horner plot 263
B – 27 (1975)
C-12 Horner plot 267
B – 27 (1983)
B – 42 (1966)
VIII
B – 42 (1972)
B – 42 (1973)
B – 42 (1980)
B – 45 (1972)
B – 45 (1983)
IX
39 Log-Log plot of pressure derivative vs. shut-in time 296
B – 45 (1984)
A – 67 (1996)
Log-Log plot of pressure drop and pressure derivative
Log-Log plot of pressure drop vs. shut-in time 304
Log-Log plot of pressure derivative vs. shut-in time 305
Linear plot of Shut-in pressure and pressure derivative
Horner plot 307
X
Chapter One

Chapter 1 Overview of Well Testing

1.1 Introduction
Oil well test analysis is a branch of reservoir engineering.

Information obtained from flow and pressure transient tests
about in situ reservoir conditions are important to determining
the productive capacity of a reservoir. Pressure transient
analysis also yields estimates of the average reservoir pressure.
The reservoir engineer must have sufficient information

about the condition and characteristics of reservoir/well to
adequately analyze reservoir performance and to forecast future
production under various modes of operation. The production
engineer must know the condition of production and injection
wells to persuade the best possible performance from the
reservoir.
Pressures are the most valuable and useful data in

reservoir engineering. Directly or indirectly, they enter into all
phases of reservoir engineering calculations. Therefore
accurate determination of reservoir parameters is very
important.
A brief review of pressure transient analysis explains why

advances in technology have had such a significant impact on
well testing.
At the start of production, pressure in the wellbore drops

sharply and fluid near the well expands and moves toward the
area of lower pressure. This movement is retarded by friction
against the pore walls and the fluid’s own inertia and viscosity.
As the fluid moves, however, it in turn creates a pressure
imbalance that induces neighboring fluid to move toward the
well. The process continues until the drop in pressure that was
created by the start of production is dissipated throughout the
reservoir.
2
1.2 Well Testing Objectives
Only Well Testing provides information on the Dynamic

Behavior of the reservoir. A well test depending on its design
may provide the following objectives:
1. Reservoir flow capacity (kh).

2. Near wellbore conditions (damage, stimulation).
3. Initial or average reservoir pressure.
4. Reservoir flow behavior.
5. Reservoir size.
6. Inflow performance response.
7. Communication between wells.
8. To determine whether all the drilled length of oil well is
also a producing in horizontal wells;
1.3 Diffusivity Equation
At the start of production, pressure in the wellbore drops

suddenly. The fluid in the vicinity to the well expands and moves
towards lower pressure; this movement is retarded by viscous,
inertial and frictional forces.
As the fluid moves, it will in turn create a pressure

imbalance and this will induce neighbouring fluids to move, the
process continues until the pressure drop is dissipated.
The physical process occurring in the reservoir can be

described by the Diffusivity Equation.
3
Figure (1-1): Infinite Acting Radial Flow
In order to use the diffusivity equation it is necessary to

determine the boundary conditions, where the complex
boundary conditions may be solved by applying the “principle
of superposition” in space.
Variable flow rates can be tackled by applying the

“principle of superposition” in time that analyst to model the
effects that features such as faults and changes in reservoir size
could have on the pressure response.
The radial flow equation does not account for the drop in
pressure due to damage or improvement near the wellbore.
Instead, the term skin was invented. The early portion of the test
is also distorted by wellbore storage effects.
1.3.1 Fluid Flow in Porous Media:
The fluid flow in porous media can be expressed by

diffusivity equation; where this equation is combination of the
following equations:
4
• Continuity Equation in Radial Coordinates
1∂
(ρ r v ) = − ∂ (ρ φ ) ………………………….…………. Eq (1.1)
r ∂r ∂t
• Darcy's Law in Radial Coordinates
k ∂p
v=− ………………………………..…………………. Eq (1.2)
μ ∂r
• Equation of State
Ct = C + C f ……………………………………….…………. Eq (1.3)
Where:
1 ∂φ
Cf = …………………………………….….…………. Eq (1.4)
φ∂p
1 ∂ρ
C= …………………………..………….….…………. Eq (1.5)
p∂p
1.3.2 Diffusivity Equation Assumption:
1. Single phase fluid.

2. Laminar flow.
3. The permeability, (k) is isotropic and constant
4. The (ct) and (μ) constant.
5. Reservoir is homogeneous.
6. Isothermal condition.
7. Small pressure gradient.
5
The Radial Form of the Diffusivity Equation for Liquids:
∂2 p 1⎛ ∂ p ⎞ φ μ Ct ⎛ ∂ p ⎞
+ ⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ………………………. Eq (1.6)
∂ r r ⎝ ∂ r ⎠ 0.000264 k ⎝ ∂ t ⎠
2
Where:
0.000264 k
Hydraulic diffusivity index η =
φ μ Ct
1.3.3 Radial Flow (1-Dimension):
For steady state case;

1. Darcy’s Law
2. Laminar flow
∂p v μ
− = …………………………………………..………. Eq (1.7)
∂r k
Figure (1-2): Radial Flow
6
1.3.4 Diffusivity Equation Solutions:
To solve of diffusivity equation we need to identify:
Initial Condition: t = 0 p = pi
Boundary Conditions: 1. r → ∞ p( t ,r ) → pi
kh ⎛ ∂p ⎞
2. r = rw qsf = 0.00708 ⎜r ⎟
βμ ⎝ ∂r ⎠ r = rw
There are three basic solutions for diffusivity equation:
Case (a): The Infinite Acting System
This condition is used to represent the early-time pressure

behavior at the well bore, so long as the effects of outer
boundaries are not felt, or can be negligible.
The exact solution in this case, normally termed the "Line

Source Solution", has the following form:
qμβ ⎛ φμCt rw2 ⎞

P ( r ,t ) = Pi + 70.6 Ei ⎜ − ⎟ ………………… Eq (1.8)
kh ⎝⎜ 0.00105 kt ⎟⎠
The Exponential Integral can be defined by the following

relationship:
∞ −y
e
− Ei (− x ) = ∫ dy …………………………………………. Eq (1.9)
x y
The Exponential Integral is defined numerically as follows:
∞ ( −1 )n x n
− Ei (− x ) = −γ − ln( x ) − ∑ ……………………. Eq (1.10)
n =1 n.n!
7
The value of the summation term represents < 0.2% of the value
of –Ei (-x) for x< 0.01 and thus can be neglected, so:
− Ei (− x ) = − ln( x ) − 0.5772 ………………..…………… Eq (1.11)
Substitution of Equation (1.9) in Equation (1.8) would result in

the following equation, known in the literature as the
"Logarithmic Solution";
⎛ qμβ ⎛ kt ⎞⎞
P ( r ,t ) = Pi − ⎜⎜ 162.6 ⎜⎜ log − 3 . 23 ⎟⎟ ⎟ ……… Eq (1.12)
⎟
⎝ kh ⎝ φμC r
t w
2
⎠⎠
It is important to note that the solutions represented by Equation

(1.8) and (1.12) can be used so long as the effects of the
boundaries are not felt. Different authors have shown that the
effect of a boundary at a distance, (re) from the well bore can
always be neglected regardless of the boundary condition,
whether closed or at constant pressure, so long as the following
condition is stratified:
φμCt re2
t ≤ 948 ……………………………………………. Eq (1.13)
k
Case (b): The Closed Boundary System
In this case, the reservoir is considered to be of finite

radial extent, with no radial flow across the outer boundary,
thus:
dP
= 0 at r = re
dr
This condition is normally applied to wells producing in a

developed reservoir system or to a well in a volumetric system.
8
The exact solution of the diffusivity equation using no flow

condition across the outer boundary is too complex and includes
infinite series of Bessell function. However, Ramey and cobb
(1971) were able to show that for the square, circular, and
hexagonal drainage system, the pressure behavior at the
producing well can be divided into two periods as follows:
φμCt re2
1) Transient period, t ≤ 948
k
During this period, the closed system behaves essentially

as infinite system, and, consequently, Equation (1.12) can be
used to represent the pressure behavior at the well bore.
φμCt re2
2) Pseudo (Semi) steady state period, t > 948
k
During this period the pressure change at the well bore is

a linear function of time, (i.e. dP/dt = constant). The bottom
hole flowing pressure in this case can be represented by the
following equation:
qμβ ⎛ 2( 0.000264 )kt re 3 ⎞

P wf = Pi − 141.2 ⎜⎜ + ln − ⎟ …… Eq (1.14)
kh ⎝ φμCt re2 rw 4 ⎟⎠
it is important to note that if the shape of the system deviates

considerably from the square, radial, or hexagonal shape, or if
the well is shifted from the centre of the system, then there exists
a transitional period between the transient and semi-steady state
period which cannot be analyzed by any of the previous
equations. Type curve analysis, or trial and error procedures
suggested by Muskat and developed by Matthews and Russell
can be used in such a case.
9
Case (c): Constant Pressure at the Outer Boundary
In this case, the outer boundary of the drainage system is

maintained at a constant pressure, such as in the case of strong
natural water drive or water flood. This condition is represented
by (P=Pi at r=re).
The exact solution to this case problem is also too

complex. However, different investigators have shown that the
pressure behavior at the producing well can be divided into
three distinct periods as follows:
φμCt re2
1) Transient Period, t ≤ 948
k
During this period the system behaves essentially as an

infinite acting system, and consequently, Equation (1.12) can be
used to describe the pressure behavior at the well bore.
2) Transitional (Late Transient) Period
This period is defined for a circular drainage shape, by the

following relationship:
φμCt re2 φμCt re2

948 ≤ t ≤ 3800 …………………………Eq (1.15)
k k
Type curves analysis, or trial and error procedures, are

required to analyze the pressure behavior during this period.
φμCt re2
3) Steady State Period, t ≥ 3800
k
During this period, the pressure change at the well bore

(or at any point in the system) is independent of time, (i.e. dP/dt
= 0).
10
The reservoir pressure at any point, r, in this case can be

evaluated by direct integration of the Darcy Equation as
follows;
qμβ ⎛ re ⎞
P ( r ,t ) = Pi − 141.2 .ln ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ……………….………… Eq (1.16)
kh ⎝ rw ⎠
1.4 Wellbore Storage
Figure (1-3): Wellbore Storage
Fluid filled wellbore: (

dpw q − qsf B
=
)
dt 24Vwb cwb
Rising liquid level:

=
( )
dpw q − qsf B ⎛ 5.615 ρ wb ⎞⎛ g ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
dt 24 ⎝ 144 Awb ⎠⎝ g c ⎠
11
General: (
dpw q − qsf B
=
)
dt 24C
Wellbore storage definition:

C≡
(q − qsf )B
dpw
24
dt
1.5 Skin Effect
Skin is a term used to reflect the existence of damage and

the degree of damage severity or the improvement of production
by stimulation.
1.5.1 Reservoir Model:
• Consider an undisturbed formation of thickness (h) and

permeability (k).
• Assume that something (drilling the well, producing fluid from

the well, injecting fluid into the well) changes the permeability
near the wellbore. One simple model of this effect is to
assume that this altered zone has uniform permeability (ka)
and radius (ra), and that the rest of the reservoir is
undisturbed.
• For generality, we allow the permeability in the altered zone

to be either smaller or larger than the permeability in the
undisturbed formation.
12
Figure (1-4): Reservoir Model
• Added pressure difference due to Skin effect.
• Permeability around well can be damaged by well drilling

process, by fracture, acid or perforation. To accommodate for
this, Van Everdingen defined and area of infinitesimal size
around the wellbore
• Hawkins defined Skin of finite radius (rSkin) with (kSkin)
⎛ k ⎞ r
S = ⎜⎜ − 1⎟⎟ ln skin ……………….………….……… Eq (1.17)
⎝ k skin ⎠ rw
• Unfortunately, there is no unique (rSkin) , (kSkin) for any( S).
13
Figure (1-5): Finite Radius
S = 0 if (ks = k or rs = rw)
1.5.2 Effect of Wellbore Radius
• Alternative treatment of Skin Effect is “effective wellbore

radius” (Matthews and Russel), the radius which makes the
pressure drop in an ideal reservoir equal to that of an actual
reservoir with Skin:
rwa = rw e − S ……………….……………………..……… Eq (1.18)
• This is equivalent to Hawkins with (kskin = inf)
• For Skin = 0, rwa= rw

• For Skin > 0, rwa < rw
• For Skin < 0, rwa > rw
14
1.5.3 Positive Skin
If in the immediate vicinity close to the wellbore there is

an additional pressure drop due to skin, the well is said to be
damaged and (S > 0)
Figure (1-6): Positive Skin
1.5.4 Negative Skin
The mathematical equivalent to negative skin, is a larger

‘apparent’ wellbore, (rwa), the well is said to be stimulated and
(S < 0)
15
Figure (1-7): Negative Skin
1.6 Semi Log Plot
During radial flow, the pressure change is related to the

logarithm of the time. In other words, if pressure is plotted
against the log of time, infinite-acting radial flow will give a
straight line. For this reason the classical approach to well test
interpretation has been the semi-log plot, of (P vs. log Δt):
The plot above is the ‘MDH’ (Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson) plot; for
a drawdown, but the principles described below apply equally
well to a build-up.
• Considering the ideal case, of putting on production a well

with no wellbore storage and no skin, the blue curve is
obtained. The straight line representing radial flow is
established almost instantaneously, and from the slope of the
line the permeability-thickness product, (kh), is obtained.
• With wellbore storage but no skin the red curve is obtained.

Initially production is only from decompression of the
wellbore fluid, so the bottom hole pressure remains constant
16
for a short while, as if the well were still shut in. Once there
is movement of fluid through the sand face, the bottom hole
pressure starts to drop, and once the effects of storage are
over the red curve transitions onto the ideal curve.
• With skin but no storage, the green curve shows radial flow
immediately, parallel to but offset from the ideal blue line.
The offset on the y-axis corresponds to (ΔPs) at this flow rate
and the slope of the straight line can not be different, as it
represents the (kh) of the system.
• A typical test will reveal both wellbore storage and skin,

corresponding to the black curve transitioning on to the
green curve. The storage causes the delay, the skin the offset,
and once again the final straight line slope is unchanged, as
permeability is a reservoir property and is unaffected by
near-wellbore effects.
Figure (1-8): Semi Log Plot- Draw Down
17
1.7 Pressure Derivative
The introduction of the pressure derivative in (1983)

transformed the science of well test interpretation, which until
that time had been based upon the semi-log plot by including the
pressure derivative plot with the log-log plot.
Figure (1-9): Pressure Derivative
The slope of the semi-log plot is evaluated at all points, of which

(7) key points are shown in the plot:
• The data starts at point (1), before eventually stabilizing at

slope m in Infinite-Acting Radial Flow, points (6) and (7).
• Points (1) and (2) fall on the wellbore storage unit-slope in

early time and, during the transition to IARF, the derivative
peaks at point (4). The transition is complete at point (6), as
the derivative flattens to a value equivalent to m.
1.7.1 Derivative Computation:
To compute pressure derivative, (ΔP), pressure change, must be

computed:
ΔP= Pi – Pwf (Δt)
18
For drawdown data, and
ΔP= Pws (Δt) – Pwf (tp)
For build up data, where:
Pi = Initial formation pressure

Pwf = Bottom hole flowing pressure
Pws = Bottom hole shut-in pressure
Δt = Elapsed time since start of transient test
tp = Duration of production time prior to shut-in.
Compute (tp) as the cumulative production prior to the build up

test, divided by the last rate before shut-in.
Given drawdown transient data, the pressure derivative is

computed as the derivative of (ΔP) with respect to the natural
logarithm of the elapsed time:
dΔP p( ti +1 ) − p( ti −1 )
= ……………….………...… Eq (1.19)
d ln( Δt ) ln( ti +1 ) − ln( ti −1 )
For the elapsed time Δt = ti – t0
Where: t0 = the starting time for the transient data.
Given build up transient data, the preferred derivative

computation is
dΔP p( ti +1 ) − p( ti −1 )
= ……………….………….…...… Eq (1.20)
dτ τ i +1 −τ i −1
Where: τ = superposition time, and
t p + Δti
τ i = ln ……………….……………………...…...… Eq (1.21)
Δti
19
Chapter Two
Pressure Build-up Test

Analysis
Chapter 2 Pressure Build-up Test Analysis
Pressure Build-up Test Analysis

2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 Test Objectives:
The primary objectives of the Build-up Test are the

determination of:
1. The effective permeability-thickness product, (kh).

2. The skin factors, (S), and the pressure drop due to skin,
(∆Ps), and,
3. The average pressure, (P), in the drainage area.
Other information which can be obtained from the BU test

includes:
1. Hydraulic fracture length and orientation.

2. Detection of Faults and distance to nearest fault.
3. Qualitative and/or quantitative information about the well-
bore and reservoir conditions such as: phase segregation
in the well-bore, layering, natural fracturing, effective
interconnected porosity between wells, etc.
It is important to note that no one pressure BU test can be

providing all the abovementioned information. Consequently, it
is important to define Apriori the parameters that need to be
determined in order to make the proper choice and design of the
pressure build-up test.
2.1.2 How the Test Is Run:
1. The build-up test is run by maintaining the well at a

constant flow rate, (q), and prior to the start of the test.
The constant flow rate period is recommended mainly to
make the calculations as simple as possible.
21
2. Few hours prior to the shut down of the well, the pressure-
measuring device is lowered into the well bore, and the
measurement of the flowing bottom hole pressure, (Pwf), is
started.
3. The well is then shut down, and the bottom hole shut-in
pressure, (Pws), is recorded versus shut in time. The
duration of the shut-in period should be designed, apriori,
using the most probable formation and well-bore
parameters obtained from previous tests or from near-by
wells.
2.2 Conventional BU Analysis Techniques
2.2.1 Basic Equations:
If an oil well is produced at a constant flow rate, (q1), for a

certain time period, t, then the flow rate is changed to another
constant flow rate, (q2), figure (2-1), then the Super position
principle can be used to derive the following expression for the
pressure drop, (∆P), at the well bore at any time, (∆t), after the
rate change:
q1μB ⎛ t + Δt ⎞ q μB
P1 − Pwf = 162.6 ⎜ log ⎟ + 162.6 2 (log Δt )
kh ⎝ Δt ⎠ kh
q2 μB ⎛⎜ k ⎞
⎟ ......... Eq ( 2.1 )
+ 162.6 ⎜ log 2
− 3. 23 + 0. 87 S ⎟
kh ⎝ φμcrw ⎠
22
Figure (2-1): Production Rate and Pressure History of Two

Rate Flow Test
The build-up test can be considered as a two-rate test in which

the second flow rate, (q2), is equal to zero, i.e.
qμB ⎛ t + Δt ⎞
P1 − Pws = 162.6 ⎜ log ⎟ ………………………… Eq (2.2)
kh ⎝ Δt ⎠
Where:
t = Production time (in hours) at the second flow rate, q,

∆t = time in hours after shut-in, and
q = Stabilized production rate (STB/D) prior to shut-in.
If the production time, t, is much longer than the shut-in time,

∆t, then Equation (2.2) can be simplified into the following
form:
qμB qμB
P1 − Pws = 162.6 .log( t ) − 162.6 .log( Δt ) …..... Eq (2.3)
kh kh
23
2.2.2 The Semi-log Plots:
i. The Horner Plot:
The form of Equation (2.2) suggests that a plot of Pws versus

((t+∆t)/ ∆t) (normally known as the Horner Plot) should
produce a straight line on a semi-log plot. The slope of the
straight line would be equal to:
qμB qμB
m = 162.6 ,or , kh = 162.6 ….…..... Eq (2.4)
kh m
In order to calculate the skin factor, (S), consider the bottom

hole flowing pressure, (Pwf), at the instant prior to shutting the
well. Then:
qμB ⎛⎜ k ⎞
⎟
P1 − Pwf = 162.6 log − 3.23 + 0. 87 S
kh ⎜⎝ 2
φμcrw ⎟
⎠
Also consider the shut-in bottom hole pressure after exactly one
hour of shut-in time, (P1hr). Then substitution into Equation (2.2)
would result in the following relationship:
qμB
P1 − P1hr = 162.6 .log( t + 1 )
kh
If the flowing period is long enough such that log (t+1) is

approximately equal to log (t), then the above two equations can
be combined to derive the following expression for the skin
factor:
⎛ P1hr − Pwf k ⎞
S = 1.151⎜⎜ − log + 3. 23 ⎟ ….………...... Eq (2.5)
m 2
φμcrw ⎟
⎝ ⎠
24
A typical Horner plot is shown in figure (2-2). The derivation

during the early period will be discussed in chapter (3) (Factors
affecting pressure BU behavior).
Horner Plot
4300
4100
3900
3700
Pws
3500
3300
3100
2900
2700
100 1000 10000 100000
Horner time
Figure (2-2): Horner Plot
ii. The MDH Plot:
The form of Equation (2.3) suggests that a plot of (Pws vs. ∆t)
(normally known as the Miller, Dyes, and Hutchenson, MDH
plot) should produce a straight line on a semi-log plot. In this
case, the values of (kh) and (S) can be calculated using the same
equations developed earlier for the Horner method, (i.e.
Equations 2.4 and 2.5).
Important Remarks
1. It is important to note that the MDH technique should not

be used for any data points falling in the range (∆t>t/10).
2. The Horner plot is superior to the MDH plot since it can
always be used regardless of how short or long is the
production time. Also because the Horner plot straightens
25
more data points than would the MDH plot. This could be
a big advantage for the Horner plot in wells suffering from
gas segregation in the tubing.
3. Finally, it should be noted that P1hr used in Equation (2.5)
(in the Horner and MDH techniques) is not the actual
measured pressure after one hour but rather the pressure
taken from the extension of the semi-log straight line at (∆t
= one hour).
A typical MDH plot is shown in figure (2-3). The derivation

during the early period will be discussed in chapter three
(Factors affecting pressure BU behavior).
MDH Plot
4300
4100
3900
3700
Pws
3500
3300
3100
2900
2700
0.1 1.0 10.0
Shut-in time
Figure (2-3): MDH Plot
26
2.2.3 Defining the Flow Rate and Production Time:
One of the main concerns in the analysis of the pressure Build-

up test is the definition or choice of the flow rate, (q), and of the
flowing time, (t), when the well has been producing at a variable
rate prior to shut-in. Improper choice of the values of (q) and (t)
would lead to erroneous estimates of (k), (S), and the average
pressure. Different approaches have been proposed. The main
objective of these approaches was to maintain the use of the
normal Horner plot (i.e. Pws vs. t+∆t/ ∆t) even in the case of
variable flow rates. Two approaches that are widely used by
practicing engineers are:
i. The Corrected Time Method:
This method was suggested by Horner, and it utilizes the last

stabilized flow rate, (qlast), with a correct flow time, (tc), to
simulate the production history prior to the shut-in period.
Consequently, Equation (2.2) is now re-written as follows:
q L μB ⎛ t + Δt ⎞
P1 − Pws = 162.6 ⎜ log c ⎟ ….………………...... Eq (2.6)
kh ⎝ Δt ⎠
Where, tc=Np/q(last)
And, Np=cumulative oil production prior to the BU test.
In a later study of this approach, Odeh and Napor have made

two important conclusions:
1. The Horner corrected time approach could create

substantial error in the result if the last flow rate prior to
the BU test was not allowed to stabilize for a minimum
time period > Φµre2/k
2. The shut-in data points which can be trusted in the
corrected time method to calculate meaningful and
27
accurate results are limited by (∆t<tL), where (tL) is the

duration of the last flow period with stabilized flow rate, (q
last).
ii. The Pseudo t*- q* Method:
In this approach a pseudo flow rate, (q*), and a pseudo flowing

time, (t*), are used in the Horner plot to account for the
changing flow rate prior to the test. The pseudo values are
calculated as follows:
⎛ − ⎞
* ⎜
t =2 t−
1 n −1
2
⎜ N p i =0 i i +1 i
(2
⎟
)
. ∑ ( q ) t − t / 2 ⎟ ….……………...... Eq (2.7)
⎝ ⎠
Where:
qi = average flow rate during the period ti to ti+1

n = number of rate changes
t = actual flow time in days
Np = cumulative production (STB)
The pseudo production rate is defined as:
Np
q* = ….……………………………………………...... Eq (2.8)
t*
Some investigators have indicated that this method is normally
liable to produce higher errors in the analysis of Horner plot, as
compared to the corrected time method.
Consequently, this approach should only be used in case the

Horner corrected time method cannot be used; for example if
the duration of the last stabilized rate does not satisfy the
criteria presented earlier by Odeh and Napor, or in case the
production is declining continuously due to damage (such as in
case of sand and asphaltene precipitations).
28
2.2.4 Calculation of the Average Reservoir Pressure:
Different techniques have appeared in the literature for the

calculation of the average pressure in the drainage area. Most
of these techniques are based on extrapolating the straight line
of the semi-log plot to a certain time, and developing
correlations between the pressure value read at that time and
the average pressure of the system. The most popular
correlations are:
1. Matthews, Brons, and Hazepbrooek (MBH) type curves,

2. Miller, Dyes, and Hutchinson (MDH) type curves,
3. Dietz correlation for MDH plots,
4. Ramey and Cobb technique for Horner plots.
i. MBH Type Curves:
Extrapolating of the straight line in the Horner plot to ((t+∆t)/

∆t=1) is equivalent to assuming that the well is shut in for an
infinite time, (i.e ∆t= ∞). Consequently, such extrapolating of
the straight line should result in the correct value of the average
pressure. However, this is not correct since the equations
derived in the above analysis are for the infinite acting system,
and do not represent the effect of the closed boundary system.
Consequently, the above-mentioned extrapolating would result

in a pressure value (termed P*) which is always higher than the
average pressure of the system, but less than or equal to the
initial pressure.
Type curves relating the extrapolated (normally termed false)

pressure, (P*), to the average pressure of the system were
developed by Mattews, Brons, and Hazepbroek Appendix (D-2).
29
These type curves correlate the difference between the false and
the average pressure as a function of the dimensionless
production time of the system, (tpDA), and are presented for
different drainage shapes and well locations, where:
tpDA=0.000264kt / ΦµcA and A = drainage area (ft2)
ii. MDH Type Curves:
The MDH plot of (Pws vs. ∆t) does not allow for extrapolation to
infinite shut-in time; i.e. to a false pressure, (P*). An alternative
method for the determination of the average reservoir pressure
was presented by Miller, Dyes, and Hutchinson in the form of
the type curves given in Appendix (D-1), which correlate the
pressure difference (P-Pws), (where Pws is the shut-in pressure
on the straight line portion at any time, ∆t) versus the
corresponding dimensionless shut-in time, (∆tDA) where in this
case ∆tDA=0.000264k∆t / ΦµcA
It is important to note that the MDH type curves include the No-
flow boundary case as well as the constant pressure boundary
case, which is the case of a producer surrounded by injectors.
However, the principle draw back is that the method is
restricted to the circular or square shapes.
Tracy G.W. gas extended the MDH method to read directly the
real shut-in time at which the static pressure can be read from
the MDH plot. The equation derived by Tracy as follows:
φμce A
Δt s = 120.7 (For a test well offset by producers)
k
φμce A
Δt s = 253.5 (For a test well offset by producers on one
k
side and injectors or a gas cap on the other side)
30
φμce A
Δt s = 253.5 or 537.1 (For a test well surrounded by
k
injectors on all sides)
Finally, it is also important to note that the end of the straight

line portion in the case of No-flow type curve occurs at
(∆tDA=0.009). This important result can be used to determine
the real time when the semi-log straight line on the MDH plot
should end and the flattening of the pressure data starts. This
time can be calculated as follows:
φμce A
0.009 = 0.000264 kΔtend / φμcA or Δtend = 34.1 hours
k
iii. Dietz Method:
This method is based on extrapolating the straight line-portion

of the MDH plot to a certain shut-in time, at which the reading
on the straight line will be equivalent to the average pressure of
the drainage area. This shut-in time can be calculated using the
following equation:
tp φμct A
( Δt )p = = ……………………… Eq (2.9)
C At DA 0.0002637 kC A
The value of (CA) is dependent on the drainage shape and on the

relative position of the well as seen in the tables presented in
Appendix-B (Table 13).
iv. Ramey and Cobb Technique:
This method is based on extrapolating the straight line-portion

of the Horner plot to a certain time, at which the reading on the
straight line will be equivalent to the average pressure of the
drainage area. This Horner shut-in time can be calculated using
the following equation:
31
⎛ t + Δt ⎞ 0.0002637 kC At p
⎜ ⎟ = C t
A DA = …………..……. Eq (2.10)
⎝ Δ t ⎠p φμct A
Important Remarks:
1. The Dietz and Ramey and Cobb methods are practical and
simple to use since they do not require graph reading.
However, their use will introduce some error in the
calculation if:
a) The skin factor is <-3 (i.e. hydraulic fracturing or
extensive acidization)
b) Production time, (t < tpss), where tpss is the time
required to reach pseudo-steady state which can be
calculated using the following equation:
φμct A
t pss = (t DA ) pss
0.0002637 k
The value of (tDA)pss is read directly from the tables

given in Appendix-B (Table 13).
2. The MBH type curves method is considered superior to all

other correlations since it encompasses the entire range of
production time. However, it still requires some
modification when used in highly stimulated wells (i.e. S<-
3).
2.2.5 The Super-Position Technique:
From analytical point of view, the most accurate solution would

involve expressing the pressure behavior as a multi-rate test
using the Super-Position principle. The equation representing
multi-rate conditions can be written as follows:
32
μB n −1
Pi − Pwf = 162.6 ∑ (q j +1 − q j ).log (tn − t j )
kh j =0
qn μB ⎛⎜ k ⎞
⎟ ......... Eq ( 2.11 )
+ 162.6 log − 3.23 + 0. 87 S
kh ⎜⎝ 2
φμcrw ⎟
⎠
In the case of build-up test, the last flow rate, (qn), represents
the shut-in period, (i.e. qn=0). Consequently, the above equation
can be re-written in the following form:
μB n −1
Pi − Pwf = 162.6 ∑ (q j +1 − q j ).log (tn − t j ) ……..…. Eq (2.12)
kh j =0
Where t0 = 0
q0 = 0
tj = time in hours when the flow rate is changed from qj
to qj+1
tn = shut-in time when Pws is measured, (i.e. total flow time
+ ∆t)
A plot of (Pws) vs. the summation term should produce a straight

qμB
line with a slope, m, and equal to 162.6 , from which the
kh
permeability-thickness product can be calculated.
This method is most suitable for computer use if an accurate

record of the actual well rates is available. In actual field
practice, however, such data is not always available since only
average rates (on monthly or bi-monthly basis) calculated from
the cumulative production are normally available.
33
2.2.6 Multi-phase Flow Analysis
The Perrine technique is used to analysis BU tests when more

than one phase is flowing toward the well-bore. Its main
assumption is that the saturations of the different phases are
uniform throughout the drainage area. This is normally a very
acceptable assumption when only oil and water are flowing.
However, some error should be expected if a gas phase is also
flowing in the system. The error would be increasing as the
average pressure continuous to decline below the bubble point
pressure.
The Horner method of analysis described previously can be

used in the build-up test analysis in case of multi-phase flow.
The slope, m, of the semi-log plot is related to the different
relative permeability of the different phases as follows:
qo μo Bo
ko = 162.6
mh
q μ B
k w = 162.6 w w w
mh
k g = 162.6
( )
q g − qo Rs / 100 μ g Bg
.................................. Eq ( 2.13 )
mh
The skin factor can be calculated using the following equation:
⎛ P1hr − Pwf λt ⎞
S = 1.151⎜⎜ − log 2
+ 3 . 23 ⎟ ……………. Eq (2.14)
⎟
⎝ m φμct rw ⎠
Where the total mobility of the system, λt is defined as follows:
ko kw kg
λt = + +
μo μw μg
34
Since the oil, gas, and water compressibility are changing with
pressure, the main problem would be the choice of the pressure
at which the total compressibility should be evaluated. The most
logical would be using a pressure which is average between the
bottom hole flowing pressure and the reservoir average
pressure. This would require a troublesome trial and error
procedure since the calculation of the average pressure requires
the knowledge of the total compressibility apriori.
Consequently, a simpler approach was suggested in which the

flowing bottom hole pressure is used as a basis for the
calculation of the individual compressibility. The oil and water
compressibility are calculated as follows:
− 1 dBo Bg dRs
Co = +
Bo dp 1000 Bo dp
− 1 dBw Bg dRsw
Cw = +
Bw dp 1000 Bw dp
and ,
Ct = Co S o + Cw S w + C g S g ...............................................Eq ( 2.15 )
The calculation of the average pressure in the case of multi

phase flow system would follow the same procedures described
previously for the single phase flow system.
35
Chapter Three
Factors Affecting
Pressure Build-up
Behavior
Chapter 3 Factors Affecting Pressure Build-up Test Behavior
Factors Affecting Pressure Build-up Behavior

3.1 Introduction
The pressure behavior at the well bore can be considered as a

reflection of all natural and human factors affecting the
dynamic flow of the fluids toward the well bore. This includes
the conditions at the outer boundaries, formation rock
properties, structural configuration, well bore conditions, and
production history.
Whenever a change is imposed at the well bore in the form of a

change in the flow rate, a corresponding change in the bottom
hole pressure will occur. Factors dominating the change in
pressure are:
o During the Early Period:
¾ The fluid properties inside the well bore such as:

1. Storage capacity of the fluids inside the well bore,
directly related to the fluid compressibility, and,
2. Phase redistribution (mainly, gas segregation), when
the well is opened to flow, or when the well is shut
down.
¾ Factors related to the change of the rock properties in the

area immediately surrounding the well bore such as:
1. Permeability damage caused by mud penetration
and/or asphalthene precipitation.
2. Permeability improvement resulting from stimulation
jobs.
¾ Factors related to the path which the fluids take to enter

into the well bore. This includes:
1. Effect of partial penetration (and to a lesser extent
perforation density) which increases the distance
37
which the fluid needs to travel to reach to the well-

bore, and, consequently, will result in a positive skin.
2. Effect of hydraulic fracturing, which allows the liquid
to travel directly to the infinite conductivity fracture,
instead of the normal radial flow toward the well-
bore, and thus, resulting in a negative skin.
Other factors obstructing the fluid movement inside the tubing,

such as sand-particles accumulation or wax precipitation, (and
liquid condensation in wet gas reservoirs), are normally
recognizable from the change of the skin factor with long term
production, and cannot be recognized, nor, evaluated from a
single pressure test.
o During the Semi-log Straight Line Period:
In addition to the value of (kh/μ) which determines the slope of

the build-up straight line, the main formation heterogeneities
which affect the shape of the BU straight line are:
1. Presence of natural fractures, and
2. Production from a multi-layer system.
o During the Late-time Period:
The outer boundary conditions are responsible for the late-time

pressure behavior. This includes:
1. Outer-boundary condition (closed or constant
pressure) which determines the average pressure of
the system.
2. Presence of one or more sealing faults, and,
3. Pressure interference caused by near-by oil producing
wells or water injection wells.
Finally it is important to note that in actual field practice, more

than one of the above mentioned factors would be affecting the
pressure build-up behavior. Consequently, it is most important
to judge the result of the pressure build-up analysis against all
38
the available data from well production, well completion,

reservoir geology and well log analysis prior to making the final
reservoir characterization.
3.2 Factors Affecting Early BU Period
3.2.1 Well-bore Storage Effect:
In practice, the well is usually closed at the surface, and fluids

would continue to flow into the well bore for sometimes after
shut down, due to the ability of the well bore fluids to be
compressed.
This will cause a lag in the pressure build up. The early data
points would fall below the ideal build up straight line, and, can
normally be identified as having the shape of a "lazy S" on the
MDH or Horner plots as seen in figure (3-1).
How to Identify Well-bore Storage Effect:
When the well is shut down at the surface, the liquids in the well
bore will be compressed, due to the continuing flow of liquids
from the formation into the well bore. This effect will continue
for some time. The bottom hole pressure during this period can
be represented by the following equation:
( )
log Pws − Pwf = log
q
Vwb .cwb
+ log (Δt ) ……...………….. Eq (3.1)
Where,
Vwb = volume of the wellbore
Cwb = compressibility of the fluids inside the wellbore
Consequently, a plot of (Pws-Pwf) vs. ∆t should produce a

straight line on log-log paper with a slope equal to unity (i.e.
450) as seen in figure (3-2).
39
Log-Log Plot
1000
PD (Pws-Pwf)
Unit Slope
100
1 1/2 Cycle
10
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Shut-in time, (hours)
Figure (3-1): Effect of Wellbore Storage on Log-Log Plot
MDH Plot
300
Start of Semi-log Straight Line

250
PD (Pws-Pwf)
200
150
100
50
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Figure (3-2): Effect of Wellbore Storage on MDH Plot
40
The data points falling on the unit slope line are representing
the fluid behavior in the well bore, and, consequently, do not
reflect any of the formation characteristics.
The same approach can be applied to the Draw Down test case,
and a plot of the pressure draw down, (Pi – pwf) versus the
production time, (t), should produce a unit slope line when
plotted on a log-log paper.
Duration of Well-bore Storage Effect
Ramey Formula for Draw-Down Tests:
The production time, (t), required to reach the correct straight

line portion on the semi-log plot of (Pwf) versus flowing time, (t),
can be estimated using the following relationship suggested by
Ramey:
t D = ( 60 + 3.5 S ) C D ……...……………………………….. Eq (3.2)
Where,
0.000264 kt
tD = dimension-less production time =
φμcrw2
5.615C
CD = dimension-less well bore storage coefficient=
2πφ ct hrw2
C = theoretical well bore storage coefficient, bbl/psi, =Vwb.Cwb,
(if the well bore is completely filled with a single phase
fluid),
25.65 Awb
= , (if the fluid level in the well bore is changing)
ρ wb
Awb= cross sectional area of well bore (ft2)
Ρwb= well bore fluid density (lb/ft3), and,
S = skin factor
41
Equation, (3.2), can be simplified as to calculate the flowing

time, t, in hours, required to reach to the start of the correct
semi-log straight line, as follows:
t=
(200 ,000 + 12 ,000 S )C ……...………………………….. Eq (3.3)
(kh / μ )t
Chen Formula for Build-up Tests
The shut-in time, (∆t), required to reach the straight line period
(i.e. negligible well-bore storage effects), can be estimated using
the following relationships suggested by Chen:
Δt D = 50 C D .e0.14 S ........................................................... Eq ( 3.4 )

170 ,000C .e0.14 S
Δt = ....................................................... Eq ( 3.5 )
(kh / μ )t
The mathematical forms of Ramey formula and of Chen formula
indicate clearly that the duration of the well-bore storage effect
is dependent on the skin factor and on the formation
characteristics, in addition to the well-bore storage coefficient.
Consequently, tests run in damaged wells and/or producing
from low permeable formations; will require relatively much
longer time to reach the semi-log straight line.
Practical Aspects:
1. Equations (3.3 and 3.5) do not provide the practical

method of analysis, since their use requires the prior
knowledge of (k, S, and C).
Ramey has suggested that the approximate start of the semi-log

straight line will normally occur at approximately (1.5) cycles
after the time corresponding to the last data point on the
characteristic log-log unit-slope. In many cases, proceeding
42
(1.25) would be sufficient to define the start of the semi-log

straight line.
Consequently, this criteria is used to define the semi-log straight

line, and then Ramey or Chen equation are used, only, after
completing the Horner of MDH analysis, to check whether the
correct portion of the data was used in defining the semi-log
straight line or not.
2. The actual well-bore storage factor can be calculated

using the following formula:
qBΔt
C= ……...………………………………………….. Eq (3.6)
24 ΔP
Where ( Δ P) and ( Δ t) correspond to any point on the log-log

straight line. The calculated actual well bore storage factor is
normally different from the theoretical value of the well bore
storage coefficient mainly due to presence of free gas volume in
the well bore and/or inaccurate estimate of (Cwb) and (ρwb).
3.2.2 Effect of Phase Redistribution in the well-bore:
In addition to the distortion caused the well-bore storage effects,

some tests exhibit (what is normally termed as) a "humping"
effect, in which the bottom hole pressure builds to a "maximum"
value, then decreases, and finally starts building up again
toward the normal semi-log straight line .
This type of behavior is caused by "gas segregation", (or phase

re-distribution) in the tubing, where the rise of gas bubbles in
the tubing causes a back pressure on the formation.
There is no analytical definition of the magnitude or the

duration of the distortion caused by gas segregation in the
tubing.
43
This type of behavior is most evident in wells suffering from

considerable skin effect with restrictions to the flow near the
well-bore, where the effect of phase redistribution may continue
for very long period of time and may completely distort the
normal shape of build-up curve and would completely obscure
the unit slope line. In such cases, the (1.5) cycle rule would not
be applicable.
3.2.3 Effect of the Partial Penetration:
The different solutions presented in part-I have assumed that the

vertical well completely penetrates the formation, (i.e. the
producing interval is equal to the formation thickness).
However, it is a normal field practice to penetrate (or perforate)
only small section of the formation thickness, in order to keep a
safe vertical distance from the water table in strong bottom
water drive reservoir, and/or from the gas/oil contact in gas-cap
reservoirs, in order to minimize the coning problems.
Normal transient pressure analysis techniques can still be

applied to calculate the formation permeability and the initial
(or average) pressure. However, the skin factor calculated, in
such cases, is normally termed a total (or apparent) skin factor,
and represents the combined effect of two distinct factors,
• The first being the damage or stimulation of the formation

in the area immediately surrounding the well-bore
(mechanical skin), and,
• The second being the increased path length which the
fluids need to travel to reach to the well-bore, and the
change in the geometry of flow (dynamic skin).
The pressure behavior in the case of draw down or build-up

tests, in wells penetrating only a small section of the formation,
will be characterized by two straight lines on the semi-log as
illustrated by Kazemi and Seth.
44
Normally, the first straight line would be obscured by well bore

storage and other effects, but it could be identified under ideal
conditions.
The transition period between the two straight lines would be

dominated by semi-spherical flow conditions, and its duration
would depend mainly on the ration between the perforated
thickness and the full formation thickness, as well as, on the
ratio between the vertical and horizontal permeability.
One of the simplest and most popular solutions, which assume

that the perforated interval is situated at the center of the
formation, was presented by Saidikowski, in the following form:
ht
St = .S D + S p ……...…………………………………….. Eq (3.7)
hp
Where,
St = Total skin factor calculated from the build-up or draw
down test
ht = Total thickness of the formation
hp = Thickness of the perforated interval
SD = Mechanical skin factor due to damage or stimulation
The value of Sp can be read directly from the plot presented by

Brons and Marting, can be calculated using the following
equation:
⎛h ⎞⎛ ⎛h kh ⎞ ⎞
S p = ⎜ t − 1 ⎟ .⎜ ln⎜⎜ t ⎟ − 2 ⎟ ………………..……….. Eq (3.8)
⎟
⎜ hp ⎟ ⎜ rw kv ⎟
⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠
Where, (kh) and (kv) are the horizontal and vertical permeability
respectively. If the ratio (kh/kv) is not available from core
analysis, then it is recommended to use an average value from
nearest well. If this information was not available then it is
recommended to use a value of (kh/kv=1).
45
Other more complex formula for calculating (Sp) and (SD) take
into consideration the position of the perforated interval with
respect to the total thickness. These forms give higher value of
(Sp) than does Saidikowski equation, which assumes that the
perforated interval is at the middle portion of the formation.
Consequently, it is recommended that the value of (Sp)
calculated by the Saidikowski equations should be considered as
a minimum.
Finally it is important to realize that a common mistake made,

by the practicing engineer, when calculating a positive skin
from the build-up test is to conclude that the well is damaged
and, consequently, requires an acid job, where as the well is
actually very much stimulated !!! And the positive skin
calculated was mainly the result of partial penetration.
3.2.4 Effect of Vertical Hydraulic Fracture:
There are two solutions to the diffusivity equation in case of a

vertical hydraulic fracture:
• The Uniform Flux Fracture Solution
Which assumes that the flow rate from the formation to the
fracture per unit area is the same at all points along the
fracture, and consequently, there is some pressure drop along
the fracture, and
• The Infinite Conductivity Fracture Solution
Meaning that the fracture has infinite conductivity, and,

consequently no pressure drop will occur within the hydraulic
fracture as the fluid travels along the fracture length to the well
bore.
Only the uniform flux solution will be considered here since

industry experience indicate that this solution gave reliable and
46
realistic results in more than (90%) of the fractured wells which

have been tested to-date.
For a uniform flux fracture, the flow into the fracture, and,
consequently, divided into three distinct periods as shown in
figure (3-3):
1. The first period dominated by Linear flow, followed by

2. A second period dominated by Elliptical flow, and finally,
3. A third period dominated by Pseudo-radial flow.
Figure (3-3): Flow into a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture
47
1- The Linear Flow Period:
The linear flow occurs at the early-time period of the BU test,

and, consequently, could be simplified into the following form:
μ
Pws − Pwf =
4.064 qB
( )
. Δt ………………….. Eq (3.9)
h kφx 2 f
Where, xf = fracture half-length, feet
Equation (3.9) clearly suggested that a linear plot of (Pws vs.

Δt ) should result in a straight line at the early period, with
slope (mL) figure (3-4 ). The slope (mL) of the straight line can
be used to calculate the permeability as follows:
2
⎛ 4.064 qB ⎞ μ
k =⎜ ⎟ . ……………………….…………… Eq (3.10)
⎜ mL hx f ⎟ φ ct
⎝ ⎠
Equation (3.9) can be re-written in the following form:
μ
(
Log Pws − Pwf = Log ) 4.064 qB
2
+
1
Log ( Δt ) ...Eq ( 3.11 )
h kφx f 2
Consequently, a log-log plot of the pressure change vs ( Δt )

should produce a straight line, with a slope equal to 1/2 unit, as
shown in figure (3-5).
Finally, the following relationship can be used to define the end

of the linear flow period:
φμct x 2f
teL = 600 . …………………………………………. Eq (3.12)
k
48
Linear Plot
3400
3200
3000
Pws
2800
2600
2400
2200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.5
(t) , (hours)
Figure (3-4): Effect of Vertical Hydraulic Fracture on Linear

Plot
Log-Log Plot
1000
PD (Pws-Pwf)
Slope = 1/2 Cycle
100
10
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Figure (3-5): Effect of Vertical Hydraulic Fracture on Log-Log

Plot
49
Final Remarks
• It is clear now that the log-log plot is a primary tool for

the practicing engineer. If a unit slope (i.e. 450 is present,
then this is indicate of the well bore storage effects. If, on
the other hand, the slope = (1/2 unit), then this is
indicative of the presence of a hydraulic fracture. In ideal
cases, the well bore storage effect (i.e. unit slope) should
precede the vertical hydraulic fracture effect.
• If the value of k is known from a previous test run prior to
the formation, then xf can be calculated from the linear
period using Equation (3.10).
• It is important to note that if the fracture is behaving as an
infinite conductivity fracture, then, the time required to
reach the end of the linear flow period will be reduced by,
approximately, (10 times).
2- The Elliptical Flow Period
The equation representing the bottom hole pressure, during the

Elliptical flow period, can be written in the following form:
141.2qμB ⎛⎜ ⎛ 1
⎜
⎞ 1 ⎛ − 1 ⎞⎞
⎟ E⎜ ⎟⎟
Pw = Pi − π .t Dxf .erf
kh ⎜ ⎜ 2 t Dxf ⎟ 2 i ⎜ 4t Dxf ⎟⎠ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
...... Eq ( 3.13 )
Where,
0.000263kt 0.0002637 kΔt
t Dxf = ( for DD case ) or = ( for BU test )
φμct x f
2
φμct x f
2
erf (y)= error function of (y)
Pw = Pws, for the build-up case (or = Pwf, for the draw-down
case)
50
Important Remarks
Conventional analysis techniques (i.e. semi-log and log-log

plots) cannot be used for the analysis of the elliptical flow
period. Consequently, type curves, available in the literature,
are needed.
The duration of the Elliptical flow period can be very long for
long fractures in low permeability reservoirs. The following
equation can be used to estimate the start and end of the
elliptical flow period:
φμct x 2f φμct x 2f
600 ≤ t ≤ 7 ,500 ……………...…………… Eq (3.14)
k k
3- The Pseudo-radial Flow Period
At the end of the Elliptical period, a pseudo-radial flow period

develops. This period can be analyzed using the conventional
semi-log techniques.
The equation representing the bottom hole pressure, during the

pseudo-radial flow period, can be simplified into the following
form:
162.6 qμB ⎜⎛ kt ⎞
Pw = Pi − log − 2.358 ⎟ …………….. Eq (3.15)
kh ⎜ 2
φμct x f ⎟
⎝ ⎠
The form of Equation (3.15) suggests that during the pseudo-

radial flow period, the conventional semi-log techniques can be
applied to calculate the average permeability-thickness product.
51
Practical Aspects of Analysis
Normally in vertical hydraulic fracture systems, the value of kh

calculated based on the pseudo-radial flow equation (3.15) will
be higher than the actual value. This was attributed by Russell
and Truitt to the flattening of the semi-log slope due to the
presence of the hydraulic fracture. The degree of flattening will
depend mainly on the fracture radial penetration with respect to
the drainage radius. And consequently a correction factor to the
measured slope needs to be introduced as shown in the type
curve developed by Russell and Truitt figure (D-6).
The value of the correction factor is dependent on the fracture

half-length, which is also unknown. Consequently, the solution
requires a trial and error procedure as follows:
1) Assume a certain fracture length (start with a small fracture

length < 0.1 re).
2) Read the value of "R" from figure (D-6).
3) Calculate the fracture half length using the following
equation:
0.638 qBmR
2x f = …………………….……………… Eq (3.16)
mL hφ ce R
Where, mL = slope of the linear plot of (Pws vs. Δt ) (linear

flow period), and
mR = slope of the semi-log plot of (Pws vs Δt ) (pseudo-radial
flow period).
4) Compare the calculated fracture length to the assumed value.
If the two values are not approximately equal, use the new
calculated value for a second trial. Convergence should
occur within (3-4) trials.
5) Once convergence is achieved, calculate (kh) using the
following modified equation:
52
qμB
kh = 162.6 R …………………….…………………… Eq (3.17)
mR
Finally, it is important to note that the previous procedure

assumes an infinite-acting fracture in a closed boundary system
with (xf < 0.2re). It also assumes that the hydraulic fracture
thickness (hf) is equal to the formation thickness. If any of these
conditions were not met then some error will be introduced, and
consequently, type-curve analysis must be used.
3.3 Factors Affecting the Semi-log Straight Line Period
3.3.1 Pressure Behavior in Layered Reservoirs:
In general, the pressure analysis of a multi-layered system is

best accomplished by a trial and error procedure through
Numerical simulation of the layered system (using r-z, or x-y-z
coordinate models) if the individual permeability (or kh) of each
layer are to be calculated. Consequently, we restrict discussion
to the general BU features in a layered system without any
mathematical analysis.
The transient pressure behavior in layered systems is

categorized as follows:
• Layered systems with inter-layer cross flow, and

• Layered systems with no cross flow between the layers
except through the common well bore.
Layered Systems with Inter-Layer Cross Flow:
The transient pressure behavior in a system of two or more

vertically communicating layers can be simulated almost exactly
by an equivalent homogeneous one-layer system.
53
The permeability-thickness product determined from the slope of

the Horner plot represents the total capacity, (kh)t, of all the
layers in this case, where:
( kh )t = k1h1 + k 2 h2 + ........ + k n hn ……….……………… Eq (3.18)
And k1h1, k2h2, ….., knhn are the permeability-thickness product

of the individual layers.
For communicating layers, there is no direct method to identify

(or even to confirm) the presence of a multi-layer system from
the regular analysis of draw-down or build-up tests.
Layered Systems with No Cross Flow
A typical build-up curve of a two-layered system with no cross

flow, except through the common well bore, is characterized by
the following pressure performance as shown in figure (3-6):
¾ At the end of the well bore storage period (A), the pressure
build-up will have an initial straight line portion, (A-B),
¾ Followed by leveling off for a short period of time (B-C).
The duration of this period is a direct function of the
magnitude of permeability variation between the two
layers. If the two layers have relatively similar
permeability, then the leveling period, (B-C), might be
completely obscured,
¾ Afterwards, the pressure starts building up again (C-D) as
the less permeable, less depleted layer starts re-pressuring
the more permeable. The slope of the second straight line
will always be higher than the first straight line (A-B).
¾ Finally, the pressure starts converging to the average
reservoir pressure of the system, (D-E).
54
Figure (3-6): Typical Build-up Curve for a Two-Layered System

with NO Cross Flow
Important Remarks
o The individual permeability and skin factor of each of the

two layers cannot be calculated separately, since each of
the two build-up straight lines is influenced by the rock
properties and production history of both layers. Separate
testing of each zone is always recommended for such
systems.
o If the above characteristic performance of a two-layered
system is detected in a homogeneous reservoir which well
log analysis assures it has no vertical permeability
barriers, then the presence of a casing leak would be the
most logical explanation.
o A three-layered system would show the same qualitative
pressure build-up behavior as a two-layered system, so the
number of layers cannot be detected from the pressure
test.
55
3.3.2 Pressure Behavior in Naturally Fractured

Reservoirs
A typical build-up curve of a naturally fractured system, is

characterized by the following pressure performance, shown in
figure (3-7):
¾ At the end of the well bore storage period, the pressure build-
up will have an initial semi-log straight line portion, (A-B),
¾ As the pressure in the more permeable fracture system starts
to stabilize, the pressure build-up curve starts leveling off for
a short period, (B-C),
¾ Afterwards, the pressure starts building up again, (C-D),
parallel to the first straight line (A-B) as the matrix starts
feeding (i.e. pressuring) the fracture system,
¾ Finally, the pressure starts converging to the average
reservoir pressure of the system, (D-E).
Warren and Roots use two parameters to characterize the

fracture system; the fracture storativity, (F), and the inter-
porosity flow parameter, ( ε ), where,
(φ c ) f α km rw2
F= and ,ε = …….……………… Eq (3.19)
(φ c ) f + (φ c )m kf
Where, α = matrix fracture geometric factor
The subscript (f) and (m) correspond the fracture and the matrix
respectively.
The fracture storativity can be calculated directly from the semi-

log plot, figure (3-7), using the following equation:
ΔP
F = 10 m …………………….…………………….……… Eq (3.20)
56
Where, ΔP = vertical distance between the two parallel lines on

the semi-log plot
And, m = slope of the semi-log straight line
Figure (3-7): Typical Build-up Curve for a Natural Fracture

System
Final Remarks
If the compressibility value for the matrix and the fracture

are not available separately, then they are assumed to have
the same value. In this case, the fracture storativity, (F),
represents the percentage of fluid stored in the fractures.
Since most of the pore volumes is normally contained in the
matrix, rather than the fractures, consequently, the time
period between the end of the first straight line and the start
of the second parallel line can be very long, especially in the
early life of the reservoir. Consequently, this flattening period
is (in many instances) mistaken by the interpreter for the
pressure converging to the static reservoir pressure.
57
For reservoirs with very low matrix porosity and dense

fracture system, the flattening period might be very short and
might not be recognizable from the pressure plot. The
reservoir in this case will appear as a highly permeable,
single porosity system.
These remarks serve to point out the importance of consulting

the geological and petrophysical models based on other sources
of data (such as well completion history, well log analysis,
petrography, etc.) prior to interpreting any pressure test.
3.4 Factors Affecting Late BU Period
3.4.1 Effect of Linear Faults:
A- Case of One Sealing Fault
The case of one linear sealing fault can be simulated by

replacing the fault with an "image" well, at a distance (2d) from
the "real" well, having the same production history and the
same formation properties and well characteristics. Applying
the principle of Superposition, the bottom hole shut-in pressure,
(Pws), can be described by the following equations:
qμ B⎛ ⎛ φ μ c rw2 ⎞⎞
Pws = Pi + 70.6 ⎜ Ei ⎜ − ⎟⎟
kh ⎜⎝ ⎜⎝ 0.00105 k ( t + Δt ) ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠
qμ B⎛ ⎛ φ μ c rw2 ⎞ ⎞
− 70.6 ⎜ Ei ⎜ − ⎟⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎜
kh ⎝ ⎝ 0.00105 kΔt ⎠ ⎟⎠
qμ B⎛ ⎛ φ μ c ( 2 d )2 ⎞ ⎞
+ 70.6 ⎜ Ei ⎜ −
⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟
kh ⎝ ⎝ 0.00105 k ( t + Δt ) ⎠ ⎟⎠
⎜
q μ B ⎛ ⎛ φ μ c ( 2 d )2 ⎞ ⎞
− 70.6 ⎜ Ei ⎜ − ⎟⎟
kh ⎜⎝ ⎜⎝ 0.00105 kΔt ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠
For large production times, and early shut-in times, the

logarithmic approximation can be used to represent the first two
58
(Ei) terms due to the small value of (rw), the fourth term can be
considered negligible due to the large value of (2d)2 compared
to ( Δt ), and the third term can be considered constant, for all
practical purposes since ( Δt ) is small compared to the flowing
time. Consequently, for early shut-in periods, the above
equation can be modified into the following form:
qμ B⎛ t + Δt ⎞
Pi − Pws = 162.6 ⎜ log ⎟−
kh ⎝ Δt ⎠
q μ B ⎛⎜ ⎛⎜ φ μ c ( 2d )2 ⎞⎟ ⎞⎟
70.6 Ei − ............. Eq ( 3.21 )
kh ⎜⎝ ⎜⎝ 0.00105 kt ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠
Equation (3.21) clearly indicates that at early shut-in times the

(Ei) term will be negligible and consequently the regular Horner
or MDH plots should produce a straight line with slope, (m1),
which can be used to calculate (kh) and (S).
At late shut-in times, the logarithmic approximation can be

applied to all the four (Ei) terms. Consequently, the basic
equation can be modified into the following form:
Pi − Pws = 2( 162.6 ) ⎜ log ⎟ ……………….... Eq (3.22)
kh ⎝ Δt ⎠
This equation indicates that, at late shut-in times, the regular

Horner or MDH plots should produce a straight line with slope,
(m2=2m1) as shown in figure (3-8). This doubling of the slope is
the distinguishing feature of the pressure performance of a well
situated near a linear fault.
The following equation can be used to estimate the time

required to reach to the start of the second line:
5 φ μ cd2
Δt ≥ 3.81( 10 ) . ………………….……………… Eq (3.23)
k
59
The above equation indicates that the shut-in time required to

identify the second straight line will be very long for low
permeability reservoirs especially if the distance to the fault, (d)
is large.
Horner Plot
4500
m2 = 1220 psi/cycle
4000
3500
m1 = 620 psi/cycle
Pws
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000 10000 100000 1000000
Horner time
Figure (3-8): Effect of a Single Sealing Fault
Distance to Fault
1. Davis and Hawkins Formula:
kΔt x t + Δt x
d = 0.0122 for > 30
φμc Δt x
and ,
⎛ ⎛ Δt x ⎞ ⎞ kΔt x t + Δt x
d = 0.0122⎜⎜ 1 + 0.4⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟⎟ for < 30 .....Eq ( 3.24 )
⎝ ⎝ t + Δt x ⎠⎠ φ μ c Δ t x
Where,
Δt x = shut-in time read at the intersection of the two semi-log
straight lines.
60
2. Gray equation:
kΔtesl
d = 0.0328 ………………………...……………… Eq (3.25)
φμc
Where, Δtesl = shut-in time at the end of the first line segment
Important Remarks:
¾ Davis and Hawkins Equation (3.24) has a stronger

theoretical basis than Gray equation.
¾ Gray Equation (3.25) normally gives higher values of the
fault distances as compared to the Davis and Hawkins
equation (2-3 times in general).
¾ The Gray equation should be restricted to the cases where the
second straight line is not well defined, or for the case of two
(or more) intersecting faults.
¾ The slope of the first straight line should be used for
extrapolation to (P*).
Numerical technique to estimate distance to fault:
If the transition period between the end of the first straight line
and the start of the second line is very long and the second
straight line is not reached then it would not be possible to use
the Davis and Hawkins formula. Gray formula will normally
give much higher values for the distance to the fault than the
actual. In addition it is difficult sometimes to define ( Δtesl )
accurately on the semi-log plot. In such cases
If seismic data suggests the presence of a sealing fault, and the

BU test indicates a curving up-ward but is not run long enough
to identify the second slope, then the following numerical
procedure (involving the data points in the transition period) is
suggested by the author:
61
For large production times, the difference between the actual

measured pressure and the extrapolation of the first straight line
on the Horner plot can be approximated by the following
equation:
Pws ( measured ) − Pws ( extrapolated ) ≅

q μ B ⎛⎜ ⎛⎜ φ μ c ( 2 d )2 ⎞⎟ ⎞⎟
− 70.6 Ei − ............. Eq ( 3.26 )
kh ⎜⎝ ⎜⎝ 0.00105 kt ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠
Once the value of k has been determined using the first slope,
then Equation (3.26) can be applied to each data point in the
transition period to estimate the value of the distance to the
fault. Then all the calculated values of the distance, (d), are
averaged numerically to obtain the best estimate value.
It is important to remember that this procedure assumes apriori

the presence of only one fault. Consequently, the structural
maps must be consulted before applying this procedure.
B- Cases of Two Intersecting Faults
In this case, the shape of the increasing pressure at late shut-in

times will be dependent on the relative distances and orientation
of the two faults as follows:
• If the two faults are located at, practically, the same distance
from the shut-in well, then, the second slope will continue to
increase until it stabilizes at a value of (m2 > 2m1), figure (3-
9a )
• If, however, one fault is, relatively, much nearer than the
second fault, then the slope of the second line might stabilize
at (m2 = 2m1) for some time, until the effect of the second
fault is felt, and then, the slope will continue to increase until
it stabilizes at a new value (m3 > 2m1), figure (3-9b ).
62
If only two intersecting faults are affecting the system, then the
angle between the two faults can be calculated using the
following equation:
360
θ= ………………………………………………….. Eq (3.27)
m2
m1
Important Remarks:
¾ For a two (or more) fault system, Only the distance to the
nearest fault can be estimated using Gray's equation (3.25).
¾ The calculation of the distance to the second fault cannot be
obtained through conventional analysis techniques
¾ It is not possible to confirm whether only two or more faults
are causing the second slope to be greater than (2m1), since
there is no evident relationship between the number of faults
and the ratio between the two slopes.
63
Horner Plot
2740
2720 m2 = 65 psi/cycle
2700
2680
Pws
2660
m1 = 21 psi/cycle
2640
2620
2600
2580
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Horner time
Figure (3-9a): Effect of Two Intersecting Faults (Case A)
Horner Plot
2740
2700
2680
m2 = 42 psi/cycle
Pws
2660
2620
2600
2580
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Horner time
Figure (3-9b): Effect of Two Intersecting Faults (Case B)
64
C-Case of Parallel Faults
The case of a well situated between two (practically) parallel

faults is very similar to the case of a single well producing from
a long narrow reservoir (such as in the case of deltaic
channels).
As seen from the iso-potential diagram in figure (3-10), the flow,

in this case, will be radial in the regions nearest to the well-
bore, whereas, linear flow will be dominating away from the
well.
Figure (3-10): Fluid Flow in Well Situated Between Two

Parallel Faults
The Horner or MDH plots in this case, will result in the normal
semi-log straight line, m1, describing the radial flow around the
well-bore, then the pressure data points will continue to diverge
upward with an ever increasing slope, which is indicative of the
linear flow effect, figure (3-11a).
If seismic and geologic data suggests that the well is located

between two parallel faults or producing from a sand channel,
then a linear plot of (Pws vs. Δt ) (similar to the vertical
hydraulic fracture case) should be attempted, figure (3-11b). In
case the flowing time is short.
65
If the late data (of ever-increasing slope on the Horner or MDH

plots) defines a straight line on the linear plot, then this is
strong evidence that the well is producing from a parallel fault
system.
In the case of a well producing at the center of a long narrow

reservoir, the width of the producing channel can be calculated
using the following equation:
0.638 q B m1
w= ……………………………………….. Eq (3.28)
mL h φ ct
Where,
w = average width of the linear flow channel, feet
m1= slope of the semi-log Horner or MDH plots, and,
mL=slope of the straight line portion of the linear plot (Pws vs.
t + Δt − Δt ).
Equation (3.28) should give fairly good results in case the well
is situated very near to the center of the flow channel. The error
in the calculated value of w using equation (3.28) will increase
as the well is further away from the center of the channel.
66
MDH Plot
6000
5800
5600
Pws
5400
5200
5000
4800
0.001 0.010 0.100
Figure (3-11a): Build-up a Well Located Between Two Parallel

Faults on MDH Plot
Linear Plot
6350
6300
6250
6200
Pws
6150
6100
6050
6000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0.5
(t)
Figure (3-11b): Build-up a Well Located Between Two Parallel

Faults on Linear Plot
67
3.4.2 Effect of Interference from a near-by producer
If a producer is shut down for a build-up test, then the bottom

hole pressure will start increasing until the pressure stabilizes
at the reservoir average pressure.
However, if a near-by producer is kept on production, then the

pressure at the shut-in well will keep increasing until the effect
of the draw-down from the near-by producer is felt, then the
bottom hole pressure at the shut-in well will start decreasing
again.
A pressure build-up test specifically designed to feel the

interference from another producer (or injector) is normally
termed "Interference Test".
Interference Test Objectives
The main objectives of the interference test are:
¾ To validate the reservoir connectivity, and,

¾ To determine the directional flow patterns in the reservoir
A properly designed interference test is especially useful in the

determination of the orientation of a vertical hydraulic fracture,
and the orientation of the natural fracture system in the
reservoir.
All this information can be very useful as input to reservoir

simulation models. It also provides essential information in
planning EOR projects.
Other information which can be obtained from the analysis

includes: the determination of the average connected porosity
between the two wells, and the permeability and skin factor at
the shut-in well.
68
How the Test is Run
A normal Interference test is run by shutting down a well for

build-up test while one or more of the surrounding wells are
kept on production.
The production rates in the producing wells can be increased in

order to minimize the shut-in time requirements for the test.
The main objectives of running the test will dictate the proper
design of the test, and, the special setting of the surrounding
producers and their flow rates.
Mathematical Formulation
Only the simple case of one shut-in well and one near-by
producer will be considered here, for illustration.
Consider a well which was producing at a constant flow rate, q,

for a certain flowing period, t, prior to shut down. Also, assume
that another well "A" at a distance "d" from the first well was
producing at a constant flow rate, qA, for a time tA before the
observation well was shut down. Then, the total pressure drop at
the observation well at any time, Δt , after the shut down can be
calculated (using the Superposition Principle) as follows:
Pi − Pws = 162.6 ⎜ log ⎟
kh ⎝ Δt ⎠
q A μ B ⎛⎜ ⎛⎜ φ μcd2 ⎞⎞
⎟ ⎟ ......... Eq ( 3.29 )
− 70.6 Ei ⎜ −
kh ⎜⎝ ⎝ 0.00105 k ( t A + Δt ) ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠
At early shut-in time the Ei-term in Equation (3.29) will be

negligible since the Ei-argument will be large. Consequently, the
early shut-in time data should plot as a straight line on the
regular Horner plot the normal slope, m, which can be used to
69
calculate the average permeability in the drainage area of the

observation well.
As the shut-in time, Δt , increases, the Ei-term representing the

additional pressure drop caused by the continuous production of
well "A" will cause a bending over of the build-up curve.
The difference between the extrapolated semi-log straight line,

(Pext), and the observed actual pressure data, (Pobs), will be
equal to,
q A μ B ⎛⎜ ⎛⎜ φ μ cd2 ⎞⎞
Pext − Pobs = 70.6 Ei ⎜ − ⎟⎟
kh ⎝ ⎝ 0.00105 k ( t A + Δt ) ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠
⎜
m qA ⎛ ⎛ φ μ c d 2 ⎞⎞
=− ⎜ Ei ⎜ − ⎟ ⎟...... Eq ( 3.30 )
2.303 q ⎜ ⎜ 0.00105 k ( t A + Δt ) ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠⎠
Once the values of m and k have been determined from the

straight line portion of the Horner plot, the above equation can
be solved for the average interconnected porosity using the data
points after the pressure curve starts bending.
It is recommended to calculate all the porosity values using the

values of (Pext- Pobs) at different ( Δt ), and then calculating the
arithmetic average. Values of porosity obtained from
interference testing can be very useful in the initialization of the
numerical simulation model of the reservoir.
The theory can be extended by the use of the principle of

Superposition to the case of multiple producers, and multiple
injectors. However, the analysis of such a test would normally
require numerical simulation.
70
Chapter Four
Well Test Interpretation

Methodology
Chapter 4 Well Test Interpretation Methodology
Well Test Interpretation Methodology
4.1 Introduction
Interpretation of well tests data is much more difficult and

important step in the vertical wells tests, because of a considerable
wellbore storage effect, the flow geometry, outer boundary effect,
and reservoir module used during interpretation.
The objectives of well test interpretation are to estimate the

reservoir/well parameters such as: wellbore storage coefficient,
vertical and/or horizontal permeabilities, mechanical skin factor,
and average of reservoir pressure.
The analysis of individual flow regimes provides relevant

information about important reservoir and well characteristics;
and the pertinent equations for calculating reservoir and well
parameters, can be found in the chapter two.
There are two methods to the interpretation of well test data;

the Segmental Analysis Approach, and the Integrated Model
Approach. In this section, we will discuss both of the methods,
followed by the advantages and disadvantages of each of which.
72
4.2 Segmental Analysis Approach
In this method, two steps should be followed in the

interpretation of vertical well test data, Fluid Flow Regime
Identification, and Reservoir and Well Parameters Estimation.
¾ Fluid Flow Regime Identification:
The vertical well tests are best interpreted using a log-log

representation of the pressure-time data (ΔP vs. Δt) in conjunction
with the derivative curve (dΔP/d (logΔt) vs. Δt) to identify whether
the wellbore storage is affecting the early time readings or not,
and to diagnose the characteristics behavior of the system and
identify specific flow regimes as shown in the figure (4-1).
Log ( Pws-Pwfo ) or Log (d Pws / d log (∆t))
Pressure Drop Curve

( Pws -Pwfo )
Wellbore Storage Pressure Derivative Curve

(d Pws / d log (∆t ))
Effect
End of Radial flow

Wellbore
Storage Effect
Effect of Outer Boundary
Log ( ∆t )
Figure (4-1): Transient pressure performance in

a vertical well
73
Figure (4-1) illustrates the character of the log-log plot in

relation to the flow regimes under ideal conditions. The wellbore
storage will result in unit (1) slope on a log-log plot of the
pressure-time data curve.
The radial flow regime is characterized by the flattening of

the derivative curve (i.e., zero slopes). However, in many systems,
the duration of radial flow could be relatively short and can be
easily masked by wellbore storage effects.
The effect of outer boundary at late time, when the influence

of the constant pressure circle is seen, the pressure stabilizes and
the pressure derivative curve plunges.
¾ Reservoir and Well Parameters Estimation:
After the flow regimes are identified in the previous step;

then the specialized plots such as semi-log, square root, etc, must
be used to extract the effective reservoir /well parameters of each
flow regime, typically permeability and skin factor.
The following table summarizes the specialized plots and the

reservoir parameters estimated for each flow regime.
Table: 4-1
Pressure
Specialized Parameters
Transient Slope of the Best Straight line
Plots Estimated
Behavior
Wellbore C, wellbore
∆P vs. ∆t
Storage
on log-log plot
# storage
Effect coefficient
⎛ t + Δt ⎞ ⎛q μ B⎞
Radial Pws vs.⎜ ⎟ k
⎝ Δt ⎠ m = 162.6 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
Flow ⎝ k h ⎠ S
on semilog plot
74
4.2.1 Advantages of the Segmental Analysis
1. The procedure traditional methods used for vertical well

testing. Most practicing engineers are familiar with these and
will easily transfer their skills to vertical well interpretation.
2. Identifying the various flow regimes gives the analyst a

qualitative feeling for the degree of reliability of the
parameters calculated.
4.2.2 Limitation of the Segmental Analysis
1. Often the individual flow regimes are not readily identifiable.

They can be masked by preceding regimes, or merged with
subsequent regimes to form a non-descript transition.
2. The duration of each flow regime is the subject of

controversy in the well testing literature; this is not
surprising, because the times quoted for the duration of each
flow period are approximate.
3. The segmental analysis approach is limited to relatively

simple reservoir models. Great care must be taken when
analyzing complex systems such as wells intercepting
multiple vertical fractures or in the presence of constant
pressure boundary (gas cap or water drive) effects.
4. Each flow or shut-in period is analyzed separately. Different

(and often conflicting) answers can be obtained from
different flow or shut-in period.
75
4.3 Integrated Model Approach
In this approach, a wellbore and reservoir model is

postulated. This model describes the reservoir completely by
assuming such parameters as:
1. Directional permeability, (kx ), (ky ), and (kz ).

2. Reservoir dimensions, and reservoir thickness (h)
3. Vertical well dimensions and location.
4. Skin causing formation damage or improvement along the
wellbore
5. Inner boundary conditions such as constant rate, wellbore
storage, etc.
6. Outer boundary conditions such as infinite, no flow or
constant pressure, for the upper and lower boundaries as
well as the edges of the reservoir
Once the model has been specified, the appropriate

analytical equations (usually very complex) are utilized
[Thompson et al. (1991)] and rigorous superposition (convolution)
is applied to generate the synthetic pressures for the flow and time
durations of the test. These synthetic pressures are compared to
the corresponding measured pressures. If the fit between the two is
not very good, the reservoir description contained in the model is
altered. One or many of the variables can be modified and the
calculations are repeated until the comparison of synthetic and
measured pressures is acceptable. The model corresponding to this
match is considered to be the description of the reservoir. Usually
there exist options for numerical automating this iterative
procedure.
The procedure is also known as analysis by synthesis, or

history matching. It can be used for matching data from one flow
period or from many flow periods. The results reflect the
description of the reservoir as an integrated system, and include
simultaneous interaction of all the parameters contained in the
reservoir description.
76
4.3.1 Advantages of the Integrated Model Approach:
1. When specific flow regimes are not evident (this means that
the segmental analysis procedure is not possible) or
transition periods between specific flow regimes constitute a
significant part of the data, the integrated model approach
allows us to analyze all of the data, regardless of whether it
belongs to a specific flow regime or a transition.
2. The sensitivity of the analysis to any one variable can be

easily determined by altering that variable and observing the
change in the synthetic pressure response.
3. Can be used over any portion or sequence of flows or shut-

ins. A multi-rate, multi-shut-in test can be modeled and
history-matched to yield a single best fit of reservoir
parameters for all flow periods, or alternatively, a portion of
the data can be best fitted, and this best fit set of parameters
applied to the total flow history for comparison only.
4.3.2 Limitation of the Integrated Model Approach
1. The major limitation is the non-uniqueness of the solution,

and the false sense of security resulting from an apparent
good match. The problem is that many good matches can
sometimes be obtained with totally different models.
2. If the best fit is based on the pressure data, the reservoir

parameters can be different from when it is based on the
derivative of the pressure.
3. The integrated model approach requires the use of computer

programs, and is not a manual analysis procedure.
77
4.4 Recommended Approach
The two approaches discussed above have advantages and

disadvantages. From a practical standpoint, one needs to use both
approaches, whenever possible. The segmental analysis should be
used to identify the most likely model and to estimate the
appropriate reservoir characteristics. After that, the integrated
model should be used to confirm or fine tune the analysis of the
individual flow periods.
78
STEP BY STEP CONVENTIONAL ANALYSIS

PROCEDURE FOR BUILD-UP PRESSURE TESTS IN
VERTICAL WELLS.
Table: 4-2
1. Preparation of Data
1.1 Prepare general data required for the analysis (As given in the Field
Case)
1.2 Read in the pressure test data (i.e., Pws vs. ∆t)
1.3 For each data point calculate the corresponding values of:
(Pws-Pwfo), (d(Pws)/d(log∆t)), ((t+∆t)/∆t): Horner time), (d(Pws)/d(log
((t+∆t)/ ∆t)).
(Note: it is normally sufficient to use the three point method to
calculate the derivatives)
2. Preliminary Identification of Different Flow Periods
(Log-Log Plot)
2.1 Prepare a log-log plot of (Pws-Pwfo) vs. ∆t, & (d(Pws)/d(log ∆t)) vs. ∆t
2.2 The first curve (Pws-Pwfo) vs. ∆t is mainly used to identify whether the
well bore storage is affecting the early-time reading or not. If it is
evident (in the form of a unit slope line on the log-log plot) then:
Read the time, tsd , when the pressure data starts deviating from
the unit slope line. Then proceed 1¼ cycle (i.e., tsd ×18) to
estimate the end of the well bore storage effect.
Pick any point on the unit slope line and read from the plot ∆t
(hours) and the corresponding ∆P= Pws-Pwfo .
Calculate the well bore storage coefficient, C=((qB∆t)/(24∆P))
(bbl/Psi).
2.3 The second curve (d (∆Pws)/d (log ∆t)) vs. ∆t is used to identify start
and end of the main flow regime. The radial flow which should
appear the end of the well bore storage effect in the form of a
horizontal line, followed by the effect of outer boundary. The ideal
shape of this curve is given in the Chapter (4), (figure 4-1).
3. Radial Flow (Semi-Log) Analysis.
3.1 Prepare a semi-log plot of Pws vs. tH* and of (d (Pws)/d (log tH)) vs. tH
(i.e., the slope of the pressure curve). The plot of the average slope is
always recommended by the Dr: Urayet to enhance the recognition of
the semi-log straight line portion and its duration.
3.2 Read from the slope curve m, tsr, ter.
79
3.3 Calculate: k = 162.6 ⎛⎜ q μ B ⎞⎟

⎝ mh ⎠
4. Skin Factor Calculation.
4.1 Extrapolate the semi-log straight lines on the pressure curve to (1-
hour) and read the corresponding values of Pws (1hr).
4.2 Calculate: S = 1.151⎜
⎜ − log + 3. 23 ⎟⎟
⎝ m φμcrw
2
⎠
4.3 Calculate pressure drop due to skin effect (ΔPs).
4.4 Calculate: ΔPs=0.87mS
5. False Reservoir Pressure Calculations.
5.1 Extrapolate the straight line portion to ((t+∆t)/∆t) =1 and read the
false pressure, (P*).
6. Dimensionless Calculations.
6.1 Dimensionless time calculation (tDA).
kt
6.2 Calculate: t DA = 0.000264
φμct A
6.3 Dimensionless pressure drop calculation (ΔPD(MBH)).
6.4 Assuming the well to be in the center of a circular drainage area,
choose the appropriate MBH type curve (figure (D-2)). Enter with the
calculated value of (tDA), and read the corresponding value of the
dimensionless pressure drop, (ΔPD(MBH)).
7. Average Pressure Calculations.
m
7.1 Calculate: P = P* − × PD( MBH )
2.303
8. Flow Efficiency Calculations.
P − Pwf − ΔPs
8.1 Calculate: FE =
P − Pwf
9. Productivity Index Calculations.
9.1 Theoretical Productivity Index Calculations:
9.2 Calculate:
PI theoretical =
7.08 × 10 3 × k × h
⎛ ⎛r ⎞ 3 ⎞
μo × β o × ⎜⎜ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ - + S ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎠
9.3 Actual Productivity Index Calculation (based on pressure build-up
test data)
80
q
9.4 Calculate: PI ( actual ) =
( Pr − Pwf )
9.5 Actual Productivity Index Calculation (based on average pressure
estimated)
q
9.6 Calculate: PI ( actual ) =
( Pr − Pwf )
10. Radius of Investigation Calculations.
k ×t
10.1 Calculate: rinv =
948 × φ × μο × ct
* tH = Horner time
** Application of this step-by-step procedure is illustrated in the
attached Field Cases.
81
Log-Log plot of well tests data interpretation in the vertical wells

tests, considerable Wellbore Storage Effect, the Flow Geometry,
Outer Boundary Effect, and Reservoir Model.
Table: 4-3
Constant Wellbore Storage
Description:
At early time, both the pressure and the pressure derivative curves have a
unit slope in the log-log plot. Subsequently, the derivative plot deviates
downward. The derivative plot exhibits a peak if the well is damaged (that is
if skin is positive) or if an apparent skin exists due to the flow convergence
(for example, in a well with partial completion).
Infinite Acting Radial Flow
82
Description:
The response is characterized by stabilization (flattening) of the pressure
derivative curve at a level that depends on the (k×h) product.
Closed Reservoir
Description:
At early time, before the circular boundary is seen, the response corresponds
to that of an infinite system. When the influence of the closed circle is seen,
the system goes into a pseudosteady state. For a drawdown, this type of flow
is characterized on the log-log plot by a unity slope on the pressure
derivative curve. In a buildup, the pressure stabilizes and the derivative
curve plunges.
83
Constant Pressure Boundary
Description:
At early time, before the constant pressure circle is seen, the response
corresponds to that of an infinite system. At late time, when the influence of
the constant pressure circle is seen, the pressure stabilizes and the pressure
derivative curve plunges
Dual Porosity
Description:
At early time, only the fissures contribute to the flow, and a homogeneous
reservoir response may be observed, corresponding to the storativity and
84
permeability of the fissures. A transition period develops, during which the

interporosity flow starts. It is marked by a "valley" in the derivative. The
shape of this valley depends on the choice of interporosity flow model. Later,
the interporosity flow reaches a steady state. A homogeneous reservoir
response, corresponding to the total storativity (fissures + matrix) and the
fissure permeability, may be observed.
Fault
Impermea ble
Bou nda ry
Description:
At early time, before the boundary is seen, the response corresponds to that
of an infinite system. When the influence of the fault is seen, the pressure
derivative increases until it doubles, and then stays constant. At late time the
behavior is like that of an infinite system with permeability equal to half of
the reservoir permeability.
85
Intersecting Faults
Description:
At early time, before the first boundary is seen, the response corresponds to
that of an infinite system. When the influence of the closest fault is seen, the
pressure behavior may resemble that of a well near one sealing fault. Then
when the vertex is reached, the reservoir is limited on two sides, and the
behavior is like that of an infinite system with a permeability equal to
theta/360 times the reservoir permeability.
86
Channel
Description:
At early time, before the first boundary is seen, the response corresponds to
that of an infinite system. At late time, when the influence of both faults is
seen, a linear flow condition exists in the reservoir. During linear flow, the
pressure derivative curve follows a straight line of slope 0.5 on a log-log
plot. If the L1 and L2 are large and much different, a doubling of the level of
the plateau from the level of the first plateau in the derivative plot may be
seen. The plateaus indicate infinite-acting radial flow, and the doubling of
the level is due to the influence of the nearer fault.
87
Partial Completion
Description:
At early time, after the wellbore storage effects are seen, the flow is spherical
or hemispherical, depending on the position of the flowing interval.
Hemispherical flow develops when one of the vertical no-flow boundaries is
much closer than the other to the flowing interval. Either of these two flow
regimes is characterized by a -0.5 slope on the log-log plot of the pressure
derivative. At late time, the flow is radial cylindrical. The behavior is like
that of a fully completed well in an infinite reservoir with a skin equal to the
total skin of the system
Infinite Conductivity Fracture
88
Description:
At early time, after the wellbore storage effects are seen, the flow is spherical
or hemispherical, depending on the position of the flowing interval.
Hemispherical flow develops when one of the vertical no-flow boundaries is
much closer than the other to the flowing interval. Either of these two flow
regimes is characterized by a -0.5 slope on the log-log plot of the pressure
derivative. At late time, the flow is radial cylindrical. The behavior is like
that of a fully completed well in an infinite reservoir with a skin equal to the
total skin of the system.
Finite Conductivity Fracture
Description:
At early time, bilinear flow, characterized by a 0.25 slope on the log-log plot
of the derivative, may develop later. Subsequently the linear flow (with slope
of 0.5) perpendicular to the fracture is recognizable. At late time, the
behavior is like that of a fully completed infinite reservoir with a low or
negative value for skin. An infinite-acting radial flow pattern may develop
89
Radial Composite Reservoir
Description:
At early time, before the outer zone is seen, the response corresponds to an
infinite-acting system with the properties of the inner zone. When the
influence of the outer zone is seen, the pressure derivative varies until it
reaches a plateau. At late time the behavior is like that of a homogeneous
system with the properties of the outer zone, with the appropriate outer
boundary effects
90
Chapter Five
Field Cases
Chapter 5 Field Case
Field Case
5.1 Introduction
This section presents the details of the comprehensive

analysis of the pressure transient data using two techniques:
¾ Conventional Analytical Solution.
¾ Well-test 200 Software package developed by Schlumberger.
Also a comparison between the results of the two techniques is

presented.
Pressure transient tests were conducted on four vertical oil

wells namely:
¾ Build-Up pressure tests were run in three Wells B-27, B-42,

and B45 in Amal field belonging to AL HAROUGE Oil
Company.
¾ Build-Up pressure tests were run in one Well A-67 in Abu-

Attiful field belonging to ENI Oil Company.
The analysis of these buildup tests using the conventional

technique will follow the procedure suggested by Dr: A. A. Urayet
and shown in table (4-2).
92
Chapter 5 Field Case: Well B -27(1966)
93

Pressure Test.
Step (1): Prepare General Data Required for the Analysis.
General Information
Company Al Harouge Operating Company

Field Name Amal
Well No B-27
Test Date December 7, 1966
Test Type Buildup Test.
Well Information
Well Orientation Vertical

Well Completion Open Hole
Last Oil Production Rate, qo 5610 STB/day
Water Production Rate, qw 33 STB/day
Water Cut, W.C 0.69 %
Producing Time, tp 6336 hrs
Well Radius, rw 0.292 ft
Drainage Area, A 1865 acre
Rock Properties
Layer Net Thickness, h 201 ft

Layer Porosity, ø 9.83 %
Total Compressibility, Ct 9.50×10-6 /psi
Fluid Properties
Oil Formation Volume Factor, Bo 1.34 res bbl/STB

Water Formation Volume Factor, Bw 1.05 res bbl/STB
94
Oil Viscosity, μo 0.95 cp

Water Viscosity, μw 1.00 cp
The pressure data versus time data (i.e. Pws vs. ∆t) is shown in
table (B-1), Appendix-B
1.1) Read in the pressure test data (i.e. Pws vs. ∆t) and for each
data point calculate the corresponding value of (Pws-Pwf), (d
(ΔPws)/d (log ∆t)), ((t+∆t)/∆t): Horner time), (d (ΔPws)/d (log
((t+∆t)/ ∆t)). As shown in table (B-1), Appendix-B
Step (2): Identification of Wellbore Storage Effect and Flow

Periods.
2.1) Prepare a log-log plot of pressure drop (Pws-Pwf) and PD' vs.
∆t, as shown in figure (C-1).
2.2) From the log-log plot of (Pws-Pwf) vs. ∆t, unit slope line is not
evident then there is no wellbore storage effect. The plot is shown
in figure (C-2).
2.3) Prepare a pressure derivative (d (ΔPws)/d (log ((t+∆t)/ ∆t)) vs.

∆t on a log-log graph. The plot is shown in figure (C-3).
2.4) From figure (C-3), we can indicate radial flow period which,
can be clearly identified by a horizontal line during the period
(2.00 – 8.00) hours.
Step (3): Analysis of the Radial Flow Period.
3.1) Plot pressure data versus Horner time function, Pws vs.
((t+∆t)/ ∆t)) on semi-log paper as shown in figure (C-4), the slope
of the semi-log plot should also be shown on the same graph to
enhance the recognition of the radial flow periods and their
duration.
95
3.2) The semi-log plot of [Pws vs. ((t+∆t)/ ∆t))] and of its slope,
shows clearly that the Horner time from (tH=3169.25) to (tH
=793.06) can be fitted to a semi-log straight line as shown in
figure (C-4). This could be interpreted as the effect of radial flow.
3.3) Read the slope directly from the plot, m = 43.22psi/cycle.
m = 43.22 psi/cycle.
3.4) From this flow period the equivalent permeability (k) can be
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 5610 × 0.95 × 1.34 ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 43.22 × 201 ⎠
ko=133.66 md.
3.5) From this flow period the equivalent permeability (kw) can be
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 33 × 1.00 × 1.05 ⎞
k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 43.22 × 201 ⎠
kw=0.65 md.
Step (4): Skin Factor Calculations.
4.1) Extrapolate the straight line in figure (C-4) to ∆t=1 hour, (i.e.
((t+∆t)/∆t) =6337.50), and read, P1hr , and then calculate ΔP1hr :
Pws (1hr) =4108 psi, and Pwfo = 2179 psi
ΔP1hr = P 1hr - Pwf=4108 - 2179= 1929 psi
96
⎛ P − Pwf k ⎞
S = 1.151 ⎜⎜ 1hr − log + 3. 23 ⎟⎟
⎝ m φμcrw
2
⎠
⎡ 1929 ⎛ 133.66 ⎞ ⎤
S = 1.151 × ⎢ - log ⎜ -6 2 ⎟ + 3.23 ⎥
⎣ 43.22 ⎝ 0.0983 × 0.95 × 9.5 × 10 × 0.292 ⎠ ⎦
S= 44.37
In this case the high value of skin factor mainly means that the well
had high damage; we note the number grater than (25).
4.2) Calculation pressure drop due to skin effect:
ΔPs=0.87mS =0.87 × 43.22 × 44.37
ΔPs = 1668 Psi
Step (5): False Reservoir Pressure Calculations.
5.1) Extrapolate the straight line portion to ((t+∆t)/∆t) =1 and

read the false pressure, P*= 4257 psi.
P*= 4257 psi.
Step (6): Dimensionless Calculations.
6.1) Dimensionless Time Calculations:
kt
t DA = 0.000264
φμct A
133.66 × 6336.50
t DA = 0.000264 ×
0.0983 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6 × 1865 × 43560
tDA= 3.10
97
6.2) Dimensionless Pressure Drop Calculations:
Assuming the well to be in the center of a circular drainage area,

choose the appropriate MBH type curve (figure (D-2)). Enter with
the calculated value of tDA = 3.10, and read the corresponding
value of the dimensionless pressure drop, ΔPD(MBH)= 4.65.
ΔPD(MBH)= 4.65
Step (7): Average Pressure Calculations.
m
P = P* - ×P
2.303 D( MBH )
43.22
P = 4257 - × 4.65
2.303
P =4169 psi
Step (8): Flow Efficiency Calculations.
P - Pwf - ΔPs
FE =
P - Pwf
4169 - 2179 - 1668

FE =
4169 - 2179
FE= 0.1619 =16.19%
From our interpretation, we note that the well has low flow
efficiency due to high damage or high pressure drop that is related
to the effect of drilling mud or high invasion.
98
Step (9): Productivity Index Calculations
9.1) Theoretical Productivity Index Calculations:
7.08 × 10 -3 × k × h
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛r ⎞ 3 ⎞
μo × Bo × ⎜⎜ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ - + S ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎠
7.08 × 10 −3 × 133.66 × 201

PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛ 5085 ⎞ 3 ⎞
0.95 × 1.34 × ⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ - + 44.37 ⎟
⎝ ⎝ 0.292 ⎠ 4 ⎠
PI(theoretical)=2.80 BOPD/Psi.
9.2) Actual Productivity Index Calculation (based on pressure

build-up test data):
q
PI actual ( 4142 Psi ) =
( Pr − Pwf )
5610
(4142 - 2179)
PI(actual)=2.86 BOPD/Psi.
9.3) Actual Productivity Index Calculation (based on average

reservoir pressure estimated):
q
PI( actual 4169 Psi ) =
( Pr - Pwf )
5610
PI ( actual 4169 Psi ) =
(4169 - 2179)
99
The following table summarizes the Productivity Index estimation

for each method:
Method Result
Theoretical Productivity Index, (PI Theoretical) 2.80
Actual Productivity Index, (PI Actual 4142) 2.86
From the results above, we note that the high consistency in the
evaluation of Productivity Index for each method, the average
Productivity Index being (2.83).
Generally, in the actual we note the values of productivity index

from theoretical and actual (based on average reservoir pressure
estimated) closed of each to which, also we recommended to use
average reservoir pressure estimated to estimate productivity
index in the actual case.
Step (10): Radius of Investigation Calculations
k ×t
rinv =
948 × φ × μο × ct
133.66 × 8
rinv =
948 × 0.0983 × 0.95 × 9.5 × 10 −6
rinv=1127 ft
From log-log plot in figure (C-1), we cannot indicate or see the

effect of the outer boundary, also, when we calculate the radius of
investigation founded that the radius of investigation is less than
the drainage radius (the test does not reach to the outer boundary
because (rinv< re)
100
The following tables summarize the results obtained from pressure

build-up interpretation.
Flow Pressure Behavior Indicators
Wellbore Storage NO Wellbore Storage Effect

Radial Flow Clearly indicates during period (2-8)hours
Outer Boundary Non-appear
Test Results
Parameter Results Unit

Slope, (m) 43.22 psi/cycle
Effective Permeability to Oil, (ko) 133.66 md
Effective Permeability to Water, (kw) 0.63 md
Skin, (S) 44.37 #
Pressure Drop due to Skin, (ΔPs) 1668 Psi
False Reservoir Pressure, (P*) 4257 Psi
Dimensionless Time, (tDA) 3.10 #
Dimensionless Pressure Drop, (ΔPD)MBH 4.65 #
Average Pressure, ( P ) 4169 Psi
Flow Efficiency, (FE) 16.19 %
Theoretical 2.80 BOPD/Psi
Productivity
Actual4142 2.86 BOPD/Psi
Index, (PI)
Radius of Investigation, (rinv) 1127 ft
101
102

Pressure Test.
General Information

Field Name Amal
Well No B-27
Test Date June 11, 1973
Well Information

Last Oil Production Rate, q 3000 STB/day
Rock Properties

Fluid Properties

103


Periods.
in figure (C-6).

(11.00 – 14.00) hours.
((t+∆t)/ ∆t)) on semi-log paper as shown in figure (C-8), the slope
of the semi-log plot should also be shown on the same graph to
enhance the recognition of the radial flow periods and their
duration.
104
3.2) The semi-log plot of Pws vs. ((t+∆t)/ ∆t)) and of its slope,
shows clearly that the Horner time from (tH= 5183.79) to (tH
3.3) Read the slope directly from the plot, m = 55.84 psi/cycle.
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 3000 × 0.95 × 1.34 ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 55.84 × 201 ⎠
ko=55.32 md.
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 290 × 1.05 × 1.00 ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 55.84 × 201 ⎠
kw=4.41 md.
4.1) Extrapolate the straight line in figure (C-8) to ∆t=1 hour, (i.e.
((t+∆t)/∆t) =57011.73), and read, P1hr , and then calculate ΔP1hr :
ΔP1hr = P 1hr - Pwf=2618 - 1488= 1130 psi
105
S = 1.151⎜⎜ − log + 3. 23 ⎟
m 2
φμcrw ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎡ 1130 ⎛ 55.32 ⎞ ⎤
S = 1.151 × ⎢ - log ⎜ -6 2 ⎟ + 3.23 ⎥
⎣ 55.84 ⎝ 0.0983 × 0.95 × 9.5 × 10 × 0.292 ⎠ ⎦
S= 16.81
In this case the high value of skin factor mainly means the well still
had high damage, but less the value of skin obtained from the
previous test.
ΔPs=0.87mS =0.87 × 55.84 × 16.81
ΔPs = 817 Psi

P*= 2716 psi.
kt
t DA = 0.000264
φμct A
55.32 × 57010.73
t DA = 0.000264 ×
0.0983 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6 × 1865 × 43560
tDA= 11.50
106

the calculated value of tDA = 11.50 and read the corresponding
value of the dimensionless pressure drop, ΔPD(MBH)= 5.90
ΔPD(MBH)= 5.90
m
P = P* - ×P
2.303 D( MBH )
55.84
P = 2716 - × 5.90
2.303
P =2572 psi
P - Pwf - ΔPs
FE =
P - Pwf
2572 - 1488 - 817

FE =
2572 - 1488
FE= 0.2463 =24.63%
From our interpretation, we note that the well still had low flow
efficiency due to high damage or high pressure drop; but also note
increase in the value of flow efficiency from (16.19 to 24.63) %,
mainly due to decrease in the value of skin factor.
107

7.08 × 10 −3 × k × h
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛r ⎞ 3 ⎞
μo × Bo × ⎜⎜ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ - + S ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎠
7.08 × 10 −3 × 55.32 × 201
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛ 5085 ⎞ 3 ⎞
0.95 × 1.34 × ⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ - + 16.81⎟
⎝ ⎝ 0.292 ⎠ 4 ⎠

q
( Pr - Pwf )
3000
(2698 - 1488)

q
( Pr - Pwf )
3000
(2572 - 1488)
108

for each method:
Method Result
Theoretical Productivity Index, (PItheoretical) 2.76
Actual Productivity Index, (PI actual 2698) 2.48
Actual Productivity Index, (PI actual 2578) 2.76
evaluation of Productivity Index from the theoretical and actual
based on average reservoir pressure estimated, where the average
Productivity Index being (2.67). But the value of actual
productivity index obtained from actual test data has different
value (less than); as mentioned before (we recommended using
index)
k ×t
rinv =
948 × φ × μο × ct
41.10 × 20
rinv =
948 × .0983 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6
rinv=1147 ft

because (rinv< re).
109


Radial Flow Clearly indicates during period
(11.00-14.00) hours
Test Results
Parameter Result Unit

Skin, (S) 16.81 #
Productivity
Index, PI
110
111

Pressure Test.
General Information

Field Name Amal
Well No B-27
Test Date January 6, 1975
Well Information

Water Cut, W.C 15.61%
Rock Properties

Fluid Properties

112


Periods.
in figure (C-10).

(14.00 – 18.00) hours.
((t+∆t)/ ∆t)) on semi-log paper as shown in figure (C-12), the
slope of the semi-log plot should also be shown on the same graph
to enhance the recognition of the radial flow periods and their
duration.
113
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 1995 × 0.95 × 1.34 ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 27.64 × 201 ⎠
ko=74.32 md.
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 135 × 1.00 × 1.05 ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 27.64 × 201 ⎠
kw=4.15 md.
4.1) Extrapolate the straight line in figure (C-12) to ∆t=1 hour,

(i.e. ((t+∆t)/∆t) =58446.44), and read, P1hr , and then calculate
ΔP1hr :
ΔP1hr = P 1hr - Pwf=2544 - 1141= 1403 psi
114
S = 1.151⎜⎜ − log + 3. 23 ⎟
m 2
φμcrw ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎡ 1403 ⎛ 74.32 ⎞ ⎤
S = 1.151 × ⎢ - log ⎜ -6 2 ⎟ + 3.23 ⎥
⎣ 27.64 ⎝ 0.0983 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 × 0.292 ⎠ ⎦
S= 51.72
In this case the high value of skin factor mainly means the well had
high damage.
ΔPs=0.87mS =0.87 × 27.64 × 51.72
ΔPs = 1243 Psi.

P*= 2596 psi.
kt
t DA = 0.000264
φμct A
74.32 × 98445.44
t DA = 0.000264 ×
0.0983 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6 × 1865 × 43560
tDA= 26.80
115

ΔPD(MBH)= 6.0
m
P = P* - ×P
2.303 D( MBH )
27.64
P = 2596 - ×6
2.303
P =2524 psi
P - Pwf - ΔPs
FE =
P - Pwf
2524 - 1141 - 1244

FE =
2524 - 1141
FE= 0.10 =10.00%
From our interpretation, we note that the well had low flow
efficiency due to high damage or high pressure drop; so we note
increase in skin factor more than the previous test also increase in
water cut.
116
7.08 × 10 -3 × k × h
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛r ⎞ 3 ⎞
μo × Bo × ⎜⎜ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ - + S ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎠
7.08 × 10 -3 × 74.32 × 201

PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛ 5085 ⎞ 3 ⎞
0.95 × 1.34 × ⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ - + 51.724 ⎟
⎝ ⎝ 0.292 ⎠ 4 ⎠

q
PI actual ( 2581Psi ) =
( Pr - Pwf )
1995
(2581 - 1141)

q
( Pr - Pwf )
1995
(2524 - 1141)
117

for each method:
Method Result
Theoretical Productivity Index, (PITheoretical) 1.67
Productivity Index being (1.50)
Generally, in the actual we note the values of productivity index

from theoretical and actual (based on average reservoir pressure
estimated) closed of each to which, also we recommended to use
index in the actual case. On the hand we note decrease in flow
efficiency or productivity index one of these reasons are increase
in water cut.
k ×t
rinv =
948 × φ × μο × ct
74.32 × 22
rinv =
948 × 0.0983 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6
rinv=1394 ft

because (rinv< re)
118


(14.00-18.00)hours
Test Results

Skin, (S) 51.72 #
theoretical 1.67 BOPD/Psi
Productivity
Index, PI
119
120

Pressure Test.
General Information

Field Name Amal
Well No B-27
Test Date September 16, 1983
Well Information

Rock Properties

Fluid Properties

121


Periods.
2.2) From the log-log plot of (Pws-Pwf) vs. ∆t, unit slope line is
clearly indicates the characteristics of wellbore storage effect. The
plot is shown in figure (C-14).

(5.25 – 12.25) hours.
Step (3): Wellbore Storage Coefficient Calculation.
3.1) Read the time (tsd), when the pressure data starts deviating
from the unit slope line, then proceed 1 1 cycle (i.e., tsd × 18) to
4
estimate the end of wellbore storage effect. (tsd = 0.17 hrs).
The end of wellbore storage effect estimation:

tsd × 18 = 0.17 × 18 = 3.06 hrs.
122
3.2) Pick any point on the unit slope line and read from the plot
(∆t, hours) and the corresponding (∆P= Pws-Pwfo).
Then, ∆t=0.17 hrs and ∆P= 154.80 psi.
3.3) Calculate the wellbore storage coefficient.
⎛ qBΔt ⎞ ⎛ 1651 × 1.34 × 0.17 ⎞ =0.101 bbl/psi

C =⎜ ⎟=⎜ ⎟
⎝ 24 ΔP ⎠ ⎝ 24 × 154.8 ⎠
C =0.101 bbl/psi.
duration.
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 1651 × 0.95 × 1.34 ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 17.66 × 201 ⎠
ko=96.25 md.
123
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 670 × 1.05 × 1.00 ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 17.66 × 201 ⎠
kw=32.22 md.

ΔP1hr :
ΔP1hr = P 1hr - Pwf=2807 - 2604 = 203 psi
S = 1.151⎜⎜ − log + 3. 23 ⎟
m 2
φμcrw ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎡ 203 ⎛ 96.25 ⎞ ⎤
S = 1.151 × ⎢ - log ⎜ -6 2 ⎟
+ 3.23⎥
⎣ 17.66 ⎝ 0.0983 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 × 0.292 ⎠ ⎦
S= 6.47
In this case we note decrease in the value of skin factor.
ΔPs=0.87mS =0.87 × 17.66 × 6.47
ΔPs = 99.38 Psi.
124
6.1) Extrapolate the straight line portion to ((t+∆t)/∆t)=1 and read

the false pressure, P*= 2847 psi.
P*= 2847 psi.
kt
t DA = 0.000264
φμct A
96.25 × 188783
t DA = 0.000264 ×
0.0983 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6 × 1865 × 43560
tDA= 66.55

ΔPD(MBH)= 6.0
m
P = P* - ×P
2.303 D( MBH )
17.66
P = 2847 - ×6
2.303
125
P =2801 psi
P - Pwf - ΔPs
FE =
P - Pwf
2801 - 2604 - 99.38

FE =
2801 - 2604
FE= 0.4924 =49.24%
From our interpretation, we note that the well had increase in flow
efficiency due to decrease pressure drop due to skin.
7.08 × 10 -3 × k × h
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛r ⎞ 3 ⎞
μo × Bo × ⎜⎜ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ - + S ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎠
7.08 × 10 -3 × 99.38 × 201

PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛ 5085 ⎞ 3 ⎞
0.95 × 1.34 × ⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ - + 6.47 ⎟
⎝ ⎝ 0.292 ⎠ 4 ⎠

q
( Pr - Pwf )
126
1651
(2835 - 2604)

q
( Pr - Pwf )
1651
(2801 - 2604)

for each method:
Method Result
k ×t
rinv =
948 × φ × μο × ct
97.28 × 30.25
rinv =
948 × 0.0983 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6
127
rinv=1870 ft

because (rinv< re)
128

Flow Pressure Behavior Indicators:
Wellbore Storage Clearly indicates during period

(0.08-0.17) hours
(5.25-12.25) hours
Test Results:

Skin, (S) 6.46 #
Pressure Drop due to Skin, (ΔPs) 99.38 Psi
Productivity
Index, PI
129
130

Pressure Test.
General Information

Field Name Amal
Well No B-42
Test Date December 8, 1966
Well Information

Last Oil Production Rate, qo 9250 STB/day
Water Production Rate, qw 0
Water Cut, W.C 0
Rock Properties

Layer Porosity, ø 9.67%
Fluid Properties

131


Periods.
in figure (C-18).

(3.00 – 5.00) hours.
duration.
132
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 9250 × 0.95 × 1.34 ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 455.30 × 74 ⎠
ko=56.83 md.
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 0 × 1.00 × 1.05 ⎞
k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 455.30 × 74 ⎠
kw=0 md.

ΔP1hr :
ΔP1hr = P 1hr - Pwf=3488 - 2731 = 757 psi
133
S = 1.151⎜⎜ − log + 3. 23 ⎟
m 2
φμcrw ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎡ 757 ⎛ 56.83 ⎞ ⎤
S = 1.151 × ⎢ - log ⎜ -6 2 ⎟ + 3.23 ⎥
⎣ 455.30 ⎝ 0.0967 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 × 0.292 ⎠ ⎦
S= -4.59
In this case the negative value of skin factor mainly means the well
had stimulation.
ΔPs=0.87mS =0.87 × 455.30 × (-4.59)
ΔPs = -1819 Psi

P*= 4986 psi.
kt
t DA = 0.000264
φμct A
56.83 × 1920
t DA = 0.000264 ×
0.0967 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6 × 1865 × 43560
tDA= 0.41
134

ΔPD(MBH)= 2.55
m
P = P* - × PD( MBH )
2.303
455.30
P = 4986 - × 2.55
2.303
P =4481 psi
P - Pwf - ΔPs
FE =
P - Pwf
4481 - 2731 - (-1819)

FE =
4481 - 2731
FE=2.04=204%
From our interpretation, we note that the well had high value of
flow efficiency due to negative value of skin; consequently the
value of pressure drop due to skin was negative.
135
7.08 × 10 3 × k × h
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛r ⎞ 3 ⎞
μo × Bo × ⎜⎜ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ - + S ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎠
7.08 × 10 3 × 56.83 × 74
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛ 5085 ⎞ 3 ⎞
0.95 × 1.34 × ⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ - + ( −4.59 ) ⎟
⎝ ⎝ 0.292 ⎠ 4 ⎠

q
( Pr − Pwf )
9250
(3930 - 2731)

q
( Pr - Pwf )
9250
(4481 - 2731)
136

for each method:
Method Result
value (greater than); as mentioned before (we recommended using
index).
k ×t
rinv =
948 × φ × μο × ct
56.83 × 9
rinv =
948 × 0.0967 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6
rinv=786 ft

because (rinv< re)
137


(3.00-5.00)hours
Test Results

Skin, (S) -4.59 #
Pressure Drop due to Skin, (ΔPs) -1819 Psi
Flow Efficiency, (FE) 204 %
Productivity
Index, PI
138
139

Pressure Test.
General Information

Field Name Amal
Well No B-42
Test Date March 11, 1972
Well Information

Water Cut, W.C 0
Rock Properties

Fluid Properties

140


Periods.
in figure (C-22).

(6.00 – 9.00) hours.
duration.
141
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 4177 × 0.95 × 1.34 ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 371.95 × 74 ⎠
ko=31.42 md.
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 0 × 1.00 × 1.05 ⎞
k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 371.95 × 74 ⎠
kw=0 md.

ΔP1hr :
ΔP1hr = P 1hr - Pwf=1815 - 1418 = 397 psi
142
S = 1.151⎜⎜ − log + 3. 23 ⎟
m 2
φμcrw ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎡ 397 ⎛ 31.42 ⎞ ⎤
S = 1.151 × ⎢ - log ⎜ -6 2 ⎟ + 3.23 ⎥
⎣ 371.95 ⎝ 0.0967 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 × 0.292 ⎠ ⎦
S= -4.98
had stimulation.
ΔPs=0.87mS =0.87 × 371.95 × (-4.28)
ΔPs = -1612 Psi.

P*= 3598 psi.
kt
t DA = 0.000264
φμct A
31.42 × 62371.82
t DA = 0.000264 ×
0.0967 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 −6 × 1865 × 43560
tDA= 7.29
143

the calculated value of tDA=7.29, and read the corresponding value
of the dimensionless pressure drop, ΔPD(MBH)= 5.45
ΔPD(MBH)= 5.45
m
P = P* - ×P
2.303 D( MBH )
371.95
P = 3598 - × 5.45
2.303
P =2718 psi
P - Pwf - ΔPs
FE =
P - Pwf
2718 - 1418 - (-1612)

FE =
2718 - 1418
FE= 2.24 =224%
144
7.08 × 10 3 × k × h
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛r ⎞ 3 ⎞
μo × Bo × ⎜⎜ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ - + S ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎠
7.08 × 10 -3 × 31.42 × 74
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛ 5085 ⎞ 3 ⎞
0.95 × 1.34 × ⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ - + ( −4.98 ) ⎟
⎝ ⎝ 0.292 ⎠ 4 ⎠

q
( Pr - Pwf )
4177
(2275 - 1418)

q
( Pr - Pwf )
4177
(2718 - 1418)
145

for each method:
Method Result
index).
k ×t
rinv =
948 × φ × μο × ct
31.42 × 20.20
rinv =
948 × 0.0967 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6
rinv=876 ft

because (rinv< re)
146


(6.00-9.00)hours
Test Results

Skin, (S) -4.98 #
Productivity
Index, PI
147
148

Pressure Test.
General Information

Field Name Amal
Well No B-42
Well Information

Rock Properties

Fluid Properties

149


Periods.
in figure (C-26).

(9.00 – 14.00) hours.
duration.
150
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 3727 × 0.95 × 1.34 ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 453.88 × 74 ⎠
ko=22.97 md.
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 21 × 1.05 × 1.00 ⎞
k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 453.88 × 74 ⎠
kw=0.11md.

ΔP1hr :
ΔP1hr = P 1hr - Pwf=1450 - 1233 = 217 psi
151
S = 1.151⎜⎜ − log + 3. 23 ⎟
m 2
φμcrw ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎡ 217 ⎛ 22.79 ⎞ ⎤
S = 1.151 × ⎢ - log ⎜ -6 2 ⎟ + 3.23 ⎥
⎣ 453.88 ⎝ 0.0967 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 × 0.292 ⎠ ⎦
S= -5.40
had stimulation.
ΔPs=0.87mS =0.87 × 453.88 × (-5.40)
ΔPs = -2133 Psi

P*= 3772 psi.
kt
t DA = 0.000264
φμct A
22.97 × 79859.39
t DA = 0.000264 ×
0.0967 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 −6 × 1865 × 43560
tDA= 6.83
152

ΔPD(MBH)= 5.4
m
P = P* - ×P
2.303 D( MBH )
453.88
P = 3772 - × 5.4
2.303
P =2708 psi
P - Pwf - ΔPs
FE =
P - Pwf
2708 - 1233 - (-2133)

FE =
2708 - 1233
FE= 2.45 =245 %
153
7.08 × 10 -3 × k × h
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛r ⎞ 3 ⎞
μo × Bo × ⎜⎜ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ - + S ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎠
7.08 × 10 -3 × 22.97 × 74
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛ 5085 ⎞ 3 ⎞
0.95 × 1.34 × ⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ - + ( −5.40 ) ⎟
⎝ ⎝ 0.292 ⎠ 4 ⎠

q
( Pr - Pwf )
3727
(2073 - 1233)

q
( Pr - Pwf )
3727
(2708 - 1233)
154

for each method:
Method Result
index).
k ×t
rinv =
948 × φ × μο × ct
22.97 × 20
rinv =
948 × 0.0967 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6
rinv=745 ft

because (rinv< re)
155


(9.00 – 14.00)hours
Test Results

Skin, (S) -5.40 #
Productivity
Index, PI
156
157

Pressure Test.
General Information

Field Name Amal
Well No B-42
Well Information

Rock Properties

Fluid Properties

158


Periods.
in figure (C-30).

(5.00 – 14.00) hours.
duration.
159
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ ⎛ 2160 × 0.95 × 1.34 ⎞ ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 303.50 × 74 ⎠ ⎠
k=19.91 md.
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 85 × 1.00 × 1.05 ⎞
k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 303.50 × 74 ⎠
kw=0.65 md.

ΔP1hr :
ΔP1hr = P 1hr - Pwf=1670 - 1387 = 773 psi
160
S = 1.151⎜⎜ − log + 3. 23 ⎟
m 2
φμcrw ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎡ 773 ⎛ 19.91 ⎞ ⎤
S = 1.151 × ⎢ - log ⎜ -6 2 ⎟ + 3.23 ⎥
⎣ 303.50 ⎝ 0.0967 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 × 0.292 ⎠ ⎦
S= -4.92
had stimulation.
ΔPs=0.87mS =0.87 × 303.50 × (-4.92)
ΔPs = -1300 Psi.

P*= 3261 psi.
kt
t DA = 0.000264
φμct A
19.91 × 198183.77
t DA = 0.000264 ×
0.0967 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6 × 1865 × 43560
tDA= 14.70
161

ΔPD(MBH)= 6.00
m
P = P* - ×P
2.303 D( MBH )
303.5
P = 3261 - ×6
2.303
P =2710 psi
P - Pwf - ΔPs
FE =
P - Pwf
2710 - 1387 + 1300

FE =
2710 - 1387
FE= 1.98 =198 %
162
7.08 × 10 -3 × k × h
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛r ⎞ 3 ⎞
μo × Bo × ⎜⎜ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ - + S ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎠
7.08 × 10 -3 × 19.91 × 74
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛ 5086 ⎞ 3 ⎞
0.95 × 1.34 × ⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ - − 4.92 ⎟
⎝ ⎝ 0.292 ⎠ 4 ⎠

q
( Pr - Pwf )
2160
(2068 - 1387)

q
( Pr - Pwf )
2160
(2710 - 1387)
163

for each method:
Method Result
index).
k ×t
rinv =
948 × φ × μο × ct
19.91 × 24
rinv =
948 × 0.0967 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6
rinv=760 ft

because (rinv< re)
164


(5.00 – 14.00)hours
Test Results

Skin, (S) -4.92 #
Productivity
Index, PI
165
166

Pressure Test.
General Information

Field Name Amal
Well No B-45
Test Date March 16, 1972
Well Information

Well Completion Cased Hole
Rock Properties

Perforation Thickness, hp 32 ft
167
Fluid Properties


Periods.
in figure (C-34).

(6.00 – 8.00) hours.
168

duration.
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 4273 × 0.95 × 1.34 ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 160.88 × 37 ⎠
ko=148.59 md.
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ ⎛ 4 × 1.05 × 1.00 ⎞ ⎞
k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 160.88 × 37 ⎠ ⎠
kw=0.12 md.

ΔP1hr :
Pws (1hr) =2748 psi, and Pwfo = 1324.37 psi
169
ΔP1hr = P 1hr - Pwf= 2748 - 1324.37 = 1423.63 psi
S = 1.151⎜⎜ − log + 3. 23 ⎟
m 2
φμcrw ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎡ 1423.63 ⎛ 148.59 ⎞ ⎤
S = 1.151 × ⎢ - log ⎜ -6 2 ⎟ + 3.23 ⎥
⎣ 160.88 ⎝ 0.1867 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 × 0.292 ⎠ ⎦
S= 2.90
In this case the positive value of skin factor mainly means the well
had damage.
ΔPs=0.87mS =0.87 × 160.88 × 2.90
ΔPs = 406 Psi.

P*= 3366 psi.
kt
t DA = 0.000264
φμct A
148.59 × 50300.34
t DA = 0.000264 ×
0.1867 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6 × 1865 × 43560
170
tDA= 14.41

ΔPD(MBH)= 6.00
m
P = P* - × PD( MBH )
2.303
160.88
P = 3366 - ×6
2.303
P =2947 psi
P - Pwf - ΔPs
FE =
P - Pwf
2947 - 1324 - 406

FE =
2947 - 1324
FE= .7495 =74.95 %
From our interpretation, we note that the well has high flow
efficiency due to low damage or low pressure drop due to skin.
171
7.08 × 10 -3 × k × h
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛r ⎞ 3 ⎞
μo × Bo × ⎜⎜ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ - + S ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎠
7.08 × 10 -3 × 148.59 × 37
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛ 5086 ⎞ 3 ⎞
0.95 × 1.34 × ⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ - + 2.90 ⎟
⎝ ⎝ 0.292 ⎠ 4 ⎠

q
( Pr - Pwf )
4273
(2891 - 1324 )

q
( Pr - Pwf )
4273
(2947 - 1324 )
172

for each method:
Method Result
From the results above, we note that the consistency in the

k ×t
rinv =
948 × φ × μο × ct
148.59 × 22.05
rinv =
948 × 0.1867 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6
rinv=1432 ft
From log-log plot in figure (C-33), we can indicate or see the

investigation founded that the radius of investigation is greater
than the drainage radius (the test reaches to the outer boundary
because (rinv> re)
173


(6.00 – 8.00)hours
Outer Boundary Non Appear
Test Results

Skin, (S) 2. 90 #
Productivity
Index, PI
174
175

Pressure Test.
General Information

Field Name Amal
Well No B-45
Test Date July 30, 1983
Well Information

Rock Properties

176
Fluid Properties


Periods.
in figure (C-38).

(14.83 – 38.83) hours.
177
Step (3): Wellbore Storage Coefficient Calculation.
3.1) Read the time (tsd), when the pressure data starts deviating
from the unit slope line, then proceed 1 1 cycle (i.e., tsd × 18) to
4
estimate the end of wellbore storage effect. (tsd = 0.14 hrs).
The end of wellbore storage effect estimation:

tsd × 18 = 0.14 × 18 = 2.52 hrs.
3.2) Pick any point on the unit slope line and read from the plot
(∆t, hours) and the corresponding (∆P= Pws-Pwfo).
Then, ∆t=0.08 hrs and ∆P= 86.60 psi.
3.3) Calculate the wellbore storage coefficient.
⎛ qBΔt ⎞ ⎛ 967 × 1.34 × 0.08 ⎞ =0.05 bbl/psi

C =⎜ ⎟=⎜ ⎟
⎝ 24 ΔP ⎠ ⎝ 24 × 86.60 ⎠
C =0.05 bbl/psi.
duration.
shows clearly that the Horner time from (tH= 26859.50) to (tH =
10258.83.75) can be fitted to a semi-log straight line as shown in
178
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 967 × 0.95 × 1.34 ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 29.89 × 37 ⎠
ko= 181.00 md.
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 572 × 1.00 × 1.05 ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 29.89 × 37 ⎠
kw=88.30 md.

(i.e. ((t+∆t)/∆t) = 398313), and read, P1hr , and then calculate
ΔP1hr :
ΔP1hr = P 1hr - Pwf= 3155 - 2532 = 622.80 psi
S = 1.151⎜⎜ − log + 3. 23 ⎟
m 2
φμcrw ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎡ 622.80 ⎛ 137.44 ⎞ ⎤
S = 1.151 × ⎢ - log ⎜ -6 2 ⎟ + 3.23 ⎥
⎣ 29.89 ⎝ 0.1867 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 × 0.292 ⎠ ⎦
S= 17.08
179
had high damage, but greater than the value of skin obtained from
the previous test.
ΔPs=0.87mS =0.87 × 29.89 × 17.08
ΔPs = 443 Psi

P*= 3322 psi.
kt
t DA = 0.000264
φμct A
181.00 × 398311.55
t DA = 0.000264 ×
0.1867 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6 × 1865 × 43560
tDA= 139.04

180
ΔPD(MBH)= 6.00
m
P = P* - ×P
2.303 D( MBH )
29.89
P = 3322 - ×6
2.303
P =3244 psi
P - Pwf - ΔPs
FE =
P - Pwf
3244 - 2532 - 443

FE =
3244 - 2532
FE= 0.377 =37.70 %
efficiency due to high damage or high pressure drop; also we note
decrease in the value of flow efficiency from (74.95 to 37.70) %,
mainly due to increase in the value of skin factor.
7.08 × 10 -3 × k × h
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛r ⎞ 3 ⎞
μo × Bo × ⎜⎜ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ - + S ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎠
181
7.08 × 10 -3 × 181 × 37
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛ 5086 ⎞ 3 ⎞
0.95 × 1.34 × ⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ - + 17.08 ⎟
⎝ ⎝ 0.292 ⎠ 4 ⎠

q
( Pr - Pwf )
967
(3208 - 2532)

q
( Pr - Pwf )
967
(3244 - 2532)

for each method:
Method Result
182
k ×t
rinv =
948 × φ × μο × ct
181.00 × 61.83
rinv =
948 × 0.1867 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6
rinv=2647 ft

because (rinv< re).
183


(14.83 – 38.83)hours
Test Results

Skin, (S) 17.08 #
Productivity
Index, PI
184
185

Pressure Test.
General Information

Field Name Amal
Well No B-45
Test Date August 8, 1984
Well Information

Rock Properties

186
Fluid Properties


Periods.
in figure (C-42).

(13.00 – 37.00) hours.
187

duration.
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 888 × 0.95 × 1.34 ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 43.70 × 37 ⎠
ko= 113.67 md.
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 85 × 1.05 × 1.00 ⎞
k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 43.70 × 37 ⎠
kw=8.98 md.

ΔP1hr :
188
ΔP1hr = P 1hr - Pwf=3241 – 2454 = 787 psi
S = 1.151⎜⎜ − log + 3. 23 ⎟⎟
⎝ m φμcrw
2
⎠
⎡ 787 ⎛ 113.67 ⎞ ⎤
S = 1.151 × ⎢ - log ⎜ -6 2 ⎟ + 3.23 ⎥
⎣ 43.70 ⎝ 0.1867 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 × 0.292 ⎠ ⎦
S= 14.20
had high damage, but less than the value of skin obtained from the
previous test.
ΔPs=0.87mS =0.87 × 43.70 × 14.20
ΔPs = 540 Psi.

P*= 3485 psi.
kt
t DA = 0.000264
φμct A
189
113.67 × 438912.10
t DA = 0.000264 ×
0.1867 × 0.95 × 9.50 × 10 -6 × 1865 × 43560
tDA= 96.22

ΔPD(MBH)= 6.00
m
P = P* - × PD( MBH )
2.303
43.70
P = 3485 - ×6
2.303
P =3371 psi
P - Pwf - ΔPs
FE =
P - Pwf
3371 - 2454 - 540

FE =
3371 - 2454
FE= 0.4111 =41.11 %
190
efficiency due to high damage or high pressure drop; also we note
small increase in the value of flow efficiency from (37.70 to 41.11)
%, mainly due to decrease in the value of skin factor from (17.08
to 14.20).
7.08 × 10 -3 × k × h
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛r ⎞ 3 ⎞
μo × Bo × ⎜⎜ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ - + S ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎠
7.08 × 10 -3 × 113.67 × 37
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛ 5086 ⎞ 3 ⎞
0.95 × 1.34 × ⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ - + 14.20 ⎟
⎝ ⎝ 0.292 ⎠ 4 ⎠

q
( Pr - Pwf )
2160
(3330 - 2454)

191
q
( Pr - Pwf )
2160
(3371 - 1387)

for each method:
Method Result
index)
k ×t
rinv =
948 × φ × μο × ct
113.67 × 96
rinv =
948 × 0.1867 × 0.95 × 9.5 × 10 -6
rinv=2614 ft
192

because (rinv< re).
193


(13.00-37.00)hours
Test Results

Skin, (S) 14.20 #
Productivity
Index, PI
194
Chapter 5 Field Case: Well A -67(1996)
195

Pressure Test.
General Information
Company Eni Oil Company

Field Name Abu-Attufil
Well No A-67
Test Date January 28, 1996
Well Information

Water Cut, W.C 0
Rock Properties

Layer Porosity, ø 11 %
Fluid Properties

196


Periods.
in figure (C-46).

2.4) From figure (C-47), two flow periods can be clearly

identified:
¾ The radial flow appearing as horizontal line during the

period (1.00 – 4.00) hours.
¾ The linear flow period appearing as a half unit slope line

approximately during the period (20.00 – 100.00) hours.
Note: This case is similar to a well producing from a parallel fault

system (a long narrow reservoir).
197
duration.
=26.25) can be fitted to a semi-log straight line as shown in figure
(C-49). This could be interpreted as the effect of radial flow.
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 684 × 0.31 × 1.86 ⎞

k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 33.14 × 59 ⎠
k=32.80 md.
calculated:
⎛q μ B⎞ = ⎛ 0 × 1.05 × 1.00 ⎞
k = 162.6 ⎜ ⎟ 162.6 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mh ⎠ ⎝ 33.14 × 59 ⎠
k=0 md.
198
Step (4): Analysis of Linear Flow Period.
4.1) Plot pressure data versus ( tp + Δt − Δt ) on linear paper as

shown in figure (C-48), the slope of the linear plot should also be
shown on the same graph to enhance the recognition of the linear
flow periods and their duration.
4.2) The linear plot of Pws vs. ( tp + Δt − Δt ) and of its slope,

shows clearly that the square root time from
[ ( tp + Δt − Δt ) =6.88] to [ ( tp + Δt − Δt ) =4.20] can be
fitted to a linear straight line as shown in figure (C-48). This could
be interpreted as the effect of a linear flow.
4.3) Read the slope directly from the plot, mL=18.32 psi/hr0.5.
4.4) The average width of the linear flow channel:
0.638 qBm
w=
mL hφ ct
0.638 684 × 1.86 × 32.14

w=
18.32 59 × 0.11 × 2.15 × 10 − 5
w =596 ft.

(i.e. ((t+∆t)/∆t) =102), and read, P1hr , and then calculate ΔP1hr :
Pws (1hr) =6318 psi, and Pwf = 4908 psi
ΔP1hr = P 1hr - Pwf= 6318 - 4908 = 1410 psi
199
⎛ P − Pwf k ⎞
S = 1.151⎜⎜ 1hr − log + 3. 23 ⎟⎟
⎝ m φμcrw
2
⎠
⎡ 1410 ⎛ 32.80 ⎞ ⎤
S = 1.151 × ⎢ - log ⎜ -5 2 ⎟ + 3.23 ⎥
⎣ 33.14 ⎝ 0.11 × 0.31 × 2.15 × 10 × 0.25 ⎠ ⎦
S= 39.75
In this case the high value of skin factor mainly means that the well
had high damage.
ΔPs=0.87mS =0.87 × 33.14 × 39.75
ΔPs = 1146 Psi.

P*= 6318 psi.
kt
t DA = 0.000264
φμct A
32.80 × 101.00
t DA = 0.000264 ×
0.11 × 0.31 × 2.15 × 10 -5 × 103 × 43560
tDA= 0.27
200

ΔPD(MBH)= 2.20
m
P = P* - × PD( MBH )
2.303
33.14
P = 6318 - × 2.2
2.303
P =6286 psi
P - Pwf - ΔPs
FE =
P - Pwf
6286 - 4907 - 1146

FE =
6286 - 4907
FE= .1690 =16.90 %
From our interpretation, we note that the well has low flow
efficiency due to high damage or high pressure drop due to skin.
201
7.08 × 10 −3 × k × h
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛r ⎞ 3 ⎞
μo × Bo × ⎜⎜ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ - + S ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ rw ⎠ 4 ⎠
7.08 × 10 -3 × 32.80 × 59
PI theoretical =
⎛ ⎛ 1200 ⎞ 3 ⎞
0.31 × 1.86 × ⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ - + 39.75 ⎟
⎝ ⎝ 0.25 ⎠ 4 ⎠

q
( Pr - Pwf )
684
(6330 - 4907 )

q
( Pr - Pwf )
684
(6286 - 4907)
202

for each method:
Method Result
k ×t
rinv =
948 × φ × μο × ct
32.80 × 101.00
rinv =
948 × 0.11 × 0.31 × 2.15 × 10 -5
rinv=2183 ft
From log-log plot in figure (C-45), we can indicate or see the

investigation founded that the radius of investigation is greater
than the drainage radius (the test reaches to the outer boundary
because (rinv> re)
203


(1.00-4.00)hours
Linear Flow Clearly indicates during period
(20.00-100.00)hours
Outer Boundary Appear
Test Results

Effective Permeability to Water, (kw) 0 md
Skin, (S) 39.75 #
Productivity
Index, PI
204
Chapter Six
Conclusions
and
Recommendations
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusions
The work presented in this study can be summarized as

follows:
1. Only Well Testing provides information on the Dynamic

Behavior of the well and/or reservoir; as a function of oil
production, water cut, and average reservoir pressure.
2. The pressure response, which depends on the rock and fluid

properties beyond the wellbore, is then used to describe the
unknown reservoir system; and performed to improve the
characterization of the reservoir.
3. Well tests are performed on any well to evaluate well

productivity. Generally; during our analysis and
interpretation we note the values of productivity index from
theoretical and actual (based on average reservoir pressure
estimated) closed of each to which, also we recommended to
use average reservoir pressure estimated to evaluate the
productivity index.
4. The average value of reservoir permeability in the range

between (20-150 md), and productivity index between (1.5-3
BOPD/Psi); that is depending on well condition, well
location, reservoir rock and fluid properties.
5. There are different values of parameters estimated for each

well at different times due to the depletion of reservoir
pressure, which caused decreasing in oil production or
increase in value of water cut.
6. The well has high value of skin factor or high pressure drop
due to skin has low value of productivity index or vice versa.
206
7. The main flow regimes that had detected in these reservoirs

are volumetric behavior, radial flow, and linear flow.
207
6.2 Recommendations
From the course of this work, the following are the main
recommendation in build-up tests:
1. We recommend using the average reservoir pressure to

evaluate the productivity index.
2. At least two digital gauges should be used instead of

Amerada gauge to measure the pressure test data to get clear
flow regimes.
3. We recommend in build-up tests, downhole shut-in should be

performed in order to minimize the effect of wellbore storage
on the quality of the test, and to better identify the flow
regimes.
208
Appendix-A
Appendix-A Nomenclature
Nomenclature
∆t = Shut-in time, (hour)
∆tend = End of duration time, (hour)
∆ts = shut-in time at static pressure, (hour)
A = Drainage area, (ft2)
Awb = Area of wellbore, (ft2)
C = Wellbore storage coefficient, (bbl/psi)
CA = Shape factor conversion constant
Ce =
Cf =
Cg = Gas compressibility, (psi-1)
Co = Oil compressibility, (psi-1)
Ct = Total compressibility, (psi -1)
Cw = Water compressibility, (psi-1)
Cwb = Compressibility of fluid in wellbore, (psi-1)
d = Distance to fault, (feet)
Ei =
g = Acceleration of gravity, (32.2 ft/sec2)
gc = Gravitational constant, (32.2 lbf ft/sec2/lbm)
h = Formation thickness, (feet)
hp = Thickness of the perforated interval, (feet)
ht = Total thickness of the formation, (feet)
k = Absolute permeability,(md)
kg = Effective permeability to gas, (md)
210
kh = Horizontal permeability, (md)

ko = Effective permeability to oil,(md)
kskin = Permeability of disturbed zone
kv = Vertical permeability, (md)
kw = Effective permeability to water,(md)
Kx = Permeability in x-direction, (md)
Ky = Permeability in y-direction, (md)
Kz = Permeability in z-direction, (md)
mL = Slope of the linear plot of (Pws vs. )
mR = slope of the semi-log plot of (Pws vs )
n = Number of rate changes
Np = Cumulative oil production, (STB)
P = Pressure, (psi)
P1hr = Extrapolating Pws from straight line to ∆t= 1 hr, (psi)
Pext = Extrapolated pressure of semi-log straight line
Pi = Initial reservoir pressure, (psi)
Pobs = Observed actual pressure, (psi)
Pw =
Pwf = Flowing wellbore pressure, (psi)
Pws = Shut-in wellbore pressure, (psi)
q = Oil production rate, (STB/day)
q* = Pseudo flow rate, , (STB/day)
qi = Average flow rate during the period ti to ti+1, (STB/day)
Last oil production rate before the shut of reservoir,
qlast (STB/day)
211
qsf = Flow rate into wellbore at sand face, (STB/D)

re = Drainage radius, (feet)
rskin = Wellbore radius of disturbed zone, (feet)
rw = Wellbore radius, (feet)
rwa Apparent wellbore radius, (feet)
S = Skin
SD = Mechanical skin factor due to damage or stimulation
Total skin factor calculated from the build-up or draw
St = down test
t = Flowing time, (hour)
t* = Pseudo flowing time, (hour)
teL = End time of linear flow, (hour)
tp = Producing time, (hour)
tpDA = Dimensionless production time of the system, (hour)
tpss = Time required to reach pseudo-steady state, (hour)
v = Velocity,(ft/sec)
Vwb = Wellbore volume, (bbl)
βg = Gas formation volume factor, (scf/STB)
βo = Oil formation volume factor, (res bbl/STB)
βw = Water formation volume factor, (bbl/STB)
ΔP = Pressure drop, (psi)
ΔPs = Pressure drop due to skin, (psi)
Δtesl = shut-in time at the end of the first line segment
Δtx = shut-in time read at the intersection of the two semi-log
straight lines.
212
η = Hydraulic diffusivity index

μg = Water viscosity,(cp)
μo = Oil viscosity,(cp)
μw = Water viscosity,(cp)
ρwb = Density of fluid in wellbore, (lbm/ft3)
τ = Superposition time,(hour)
Latin Abbreviation
α = Time parameter defined by (α =157.952 φ μ ct)

μ = Oil viscosity, (cp)
φ = Porosity, fraction
λt = total mobility of the system
α = matrix fracture geometric factor
213
Appendix-B
Appendix-B Pressure Test Data: Well B -27/1966
Table: (B-1)
Buildup Test Data (Pressure vs. Time) of Well: B-27 (1966) for the
Test Interpretation Analysis by Conventional Technique
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt Pws Pws - Pwf tH = PD’ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
(hrs) (Psia) (Psia) # # #
0.00 2179.0 0.0 --- --- ---
0.25 2904.0 725.0 25347.00 4209.55 4209.55
0.30 3560.0 1381.0 21122.67 5405.94 3815.56
0.45 4005.0 1826.0 14082.11 1388.99 1682.02
1.00 4092.0 1913.0 6337.50 187.35 322.27
1.25 4104.0 1925.0 5070.20 267.39 243.89
1.30 4111.0 1932.0 4875.23 247.65 198.24
1.45 4115.0 1936.0 4371.00 49.33 67.14
2.00 4117.0 1938.0 3169.25 32.72 36.01
3.00 4126.0 1947.0 2113.17 53.57 49.78
4.00 4133.0 1954.0 1585.13 48.65 45.08
5.00 4137.0 1958.0 1268.30 20.64 26.58
6.00 4137.0 1958.0 1057.08 29.87 30.37
7.00 4141.0 1962.0 906.21 38.50 38.50
8.00 4142.0 1963.0 793.06 --- ---
PD’ = Pressure Derivative.

tH = Horner time.
216
Table: (B-2)
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt Pws Pws - Pwf t H = PD’ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
0.00 1488.0 0.0 --- --- ---
1.00 2358.0 870.0 57011.73 499.37 499.37
2.00 2615.0 1127.0 28506.37 537.61 414.24
3.00 2654.0 1166.0 19004.58 142.75 207.58
4.00 2662.0 1174.0 14253.68 52.65 68.70
5.00 2666.0 1178.0 11403.15 45.90 45.32
6.00 2670.0 1182.0 9502.79 32.73 30.72
7.00 2671.0 1183.0 8145.39 7.47 13.74
8.00 2671.0 1183.0 7127.34 19.55 17.81
9.00 2673.0 1185.0 6335.53 19.55 21.82
10.00 2673.0 1185.0 5702.07 36.24 40.23
11.00 2676.0 1188.0 5183.79 75.93 65.91
12.00 2679.0 1191.0 4751.89 62.10 64.70
14.00 2682.0 1194.0 4073.20 65.52 71.55
16.00 2687.0 1199.0 3564.17 111.53 103.94
18.00 2694.0 1206.0 3168.26 112.13 112.13
20.00 2698.0 1210.0 2851.54 --- ---

tH = Horner time.
217
Table: (B-3)
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
0.00 1141.0 0.0 --- --- ---
1.00 2045.0 904.0 98446.44 719.79 719.79
2.00 2433.0 1292.0 49223.72 900.00 691.76
3.00 2523.0 1382.0 32816.15 311.58 394.98
4.00 2537.0 1396.0 24612.36 123.10 160.47
5.00 2550.0 1409.0 19690.09 123.90 116.57
6.00 2559.0 1418.0 16408.57 79.24 84.32
7.00 2562.0 1421.0 14064.63 65.52 69.58
8.00 2567.0 1426.0 12306.68 72.43 63.76
9.00 2570.0 1429.0 10939.38 39.75 42.72
14.00 2574.0 1433.0 7032.82 27.67 27.83
16.00 2576.0 1435.0 6153.84 27.02 25.45
18.00 2577.0 1436.0 5470.19 20.70 26.03
20.00 2578.0 1437.0 4923.27 47.17 47.17
22.00 2581.0 1440.0 4475.79 --- ---

tH = Horner time.
218
Table: (B-4)
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
0.00 2675.2 70.9 --- --- ---
0.08 2759.1 154.8 2372288.50 135.38 135.38
0.17 2776.9 172.6 1116371.59 181.28 136.39
0.25 2788.9 184.6 759133.00 73.07 89.04
0.50 2794.3 190.0 379567.00 35.26 39.81
0.75 2799.2 194.9 253045.00 34.94 35.23
1.00 2802.1 197.8 189784.00 34.57 33.96
1.25 2804.7 200.4 151827.40 31.38 32.37
1.50 2807.0 202.7 126523.00 33.60 33.66
1.75 2811.1 206.8 108448.43 35.96 33.98
2.25 2812.2 207.9 84349.00 25.09 24.98
2.75 2813.2 208.9 69013.00 13.20 16.68
3.25 2815.0 210.7 58395.77 21.37 22.73
3.75 2817.6 213.3 50609.80 38.40 34.99
4.25 2820.2 215.9 44655.82 38.08 35.26
5.25 2821.2 216.9 36150.14 20.77 22.27
6.25 2822.3 218.0 30366.28 15.14 16.99
7.25 2823.6 219.3 26177.97 20.12 19.22
8.25 2824.4 220.1 23005.00 19.63 19.59
9.25 2825.4 221.1 20518.08 19.27 18.88
10.25 2826.4 222.1 18516.41 17.67 17.99
12.25 2828.0 223.7 15493.49 18.64 20.05
14.25 2830.0 225.7 13319.11 29.71 26.87
16.25 2675.2 70.9 11679.95 23.48 23.34
219
Horner ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt Pws Pws - Pwf PD’ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
time ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
18.25 2830.6 226.3 10400.07 17.02 17.32
20.25 2831.6 227.3 9373.00 11.07 12.94
22.25 2831.6 227.3 8530.57 17.39 16.55
24.25 2832.9 228.6 7827.10 17.39 16.37
26.25 2832.9 228.6 7230.83 12.54 18.14
28.25 2833.7 229.4 6718.98 41.16 41.16
30.25 2835.4 231.1 6274.82 --- ---

tH = Horner time.
220
Table: (B-5)
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
0.00 2731.0 0.0 --- --- ---
0.25 3238.0 507.0 7682.24 893.12 893.12
0.30 3372.0 641.0 6402.03 1061.96 767.96
0.45 3448.0 717.0 4268.36 289.33 375.02
1.00 3499.0 768.0 1921.31 279.49 298.77
2.00 3623.0 892.0 961.16 438.79 414.51
3.00 3705.0 974.0 641.10 460.95 455.13
4.00 3762.0 1031.0 481.08 455.13 456.09
5.00 3806.0 1075.0 385.06 454.34 458.61
6.00 3842.0 1111.0 321.05 481.26 479.27
7.00 3876.0 1145.0 275.33 495.35 492.53
8.00 3904.0 1173.0 241.04 495.55 495.55
9.00 3930.0 1199.0 214.37 --- ---

tH = Horner time.
222
Table: (B-6)
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
0.00 1418.0 0.0 --- --- ---
1.00 1629.0 211.0 62372.82 416.21 416.21
2.00 1869.0 451.0 31186.91 710.97 576.71
3.00 1979.0 561.0 20791.61 528.44 545.18
4.00 2033.0 615.0 15593.96 422.48 439.65
5.00 2073.0 655.0 12475.36 402.13 403.72
6.00 2104.0 686.0 10396.30 389.94 388.52
7.00 2130.0 712.0 8911.26 366.62 370.51
8.00 2150.0 732.0 7797.48 367.93 366.84
9.00 2170.0 752.0 6931.20 359.40 354.23
10.00 2185.0 767.0 6238.18 320.94 314.15
11.00 2198.0 780.0 5671.17 236.42 239.81
12.00 2204.0 786.0 5198.65 169.01 188.69
14.00 2216.0 798.0 4456.13 218.95 226.53
16.00 2231.0 813.0 3899.24 315.05 311.40
18.00 2250.0 832.0 3466.10 393.34 397.34
20.00 2269.0 851.0 3119.59 901.84 901.84
20.20 2275.0 857.0 3088.71 --- ---

tH = Horner time.
223
Table: (B-7)
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
1.00 1233.0 0.0 --- --- ---
2.00 1276.0 43.0 39930.70 463.26 463.26
3.00 1414.0 181.0 26620.80 1728.50 1493.53
4.00 1748.0 515.0 19965.85 1522.39 1335.88
5.00 1784.0 551.0 15972.88 356.23 580.47
6.00 1811.0 578.0 13310.90 394.55 410.71
7.00 1841.0 608.0 11409.48 534.45 514.46
8.00 1877.0 644.0 9983.42 554.76 536.99
9.00 1902.0 669.0 8874.27 473.84 487.45
10.00 1923.0 690.0 7986.94 471.06 471.03
11.00 1943.0 710.0 7260.94 466.52 468.99
12.00 1960.0 727.0 6655.95 471.40 466.85
14.00 1993.0 760.0 5705.24 444.77 475.33
16.00 2016.0 783.0 4992.21 608.84 557.99
18.00 2058.0 825.0 4437.63 443.32 432.15
20.00 2061.0 828.0 3993.97 315.94 315.94
21.00 2073.0 840.0 3803.83 --- ---

tH = Horner time.
224
Table: (B-8)
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
0.00 1387.0 0.0 --- --- ---
0.02 1397.0 10.0 9909189.50 136.05 136.05
0.04 1478.0 91.0 4954595.25 206.77 168.44
0.05 1492.0 105.0 3963676.40 153.62 167.35
0.10 1541.0 154.0 1981838.70 146.69 152.42
0.15 1564.0 177.0 1321226.13 177.36 179.45
0.20 1592.0 205.0 990919.85 215.24 207.70
0.25 1612.0 225.0 792736.08 216.85 222.27
0.30 1630.0 243.0 660613.57 245.73 244.11
0.40 1663.0 276.0 495460.43 266.21 239.22
0.50 1689.0 302.0 396368.54 170.69 183.82
1.00 1711.0 324.0 198184.77 220.84 207.75
1.30 1753.0 366.0 152450.05 267.15 239.45
2.00 1784.0 397.0 99092.89 264.07 253.38
2.30 1806.0 419.0 86167.86 254.89 234.01
3.00 1823.0 436.0 66062.26 169.71 190.62
4.00 1847.0 460.0 49546.94 250.83 246.76
5.00 1877.0 490.0 39637.75 306.33 297.05
6.00 1901.0 514.0 33031.63 311.63 313.71
8.00 1941.0 554.0 24773.97 330.34 321.70
10.00 1974.0 587.0 19819.38 290.24 293.96
12.00 1993.0 606.0 16516.31 276.82 281.79
14.00 2014.0 627.0 14156.98 286.17 277.63
16.00 2029.0 642.0 12387.49 246.62 246.84
225
⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt Pws Pws - Pwf Horner time PD’ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
18.00 2041.0 654.0 11011.21 204.71 215.95
20.00 2049.0 662.0 9910.19 232.37 229.30
22.00 2061.0 674.0 9009.35 237.57 237.57
24.00 2068.0 681.0 8258.66 --- ---

tH = Horner time.
226
Table: (B-9)
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
0.00 1324.4 0.0 --- --- ---
1.00 2565.7 1241.3 50301.34 433.44 433.44
2.00 2764.3 1440.0 25151.17 424.05 351.11
3.00 2802.8 1478.4 16767.78 189.47 234.14
4.00 2817.6 1493.2 12576.09 142.38 152.13
5.00 2839.2 1514.8 10061.07 169.57 199.70
6.00 2851.1 1526.8 8384.39 126.53 136.70
7.00 2858.0 1533.6 7186.76 134.47 136.72
8.00 2867.7 1543.3 6288.54 152.96 142.11
9.00 2874.8 1550.4 5589.93 106.87 109.95
10.00 2878.2 1553.8 5031.03 78.56 73.97
11.00 2881.6 1557.2 4573.76 43.83 44.29
16.00 2882.5 1558.1 3144.77 19.36 26.18
18.00 2884.2 1559.8 2795.46 60.20 55.20
20.00 2888.1 1563.8 2516.02 77.92 72.94
22.00 2891.0 1566.6 2287.38 34.43 34.43
22.05 2891.0 1566.6 2282.19 --- ---

tH = Horner time.
228
Table: (B-10)
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
0.00 2532.2 0.0 --- --- ---
0.08 2618.8 86.6 4978895.38 129.42 129.42
0.16 2691.4 159.2 2489448.19 167.28 167.28
0.25 2709.5 177.3 1593247.20 167.78 185.60
0.33 2738.7 206.5 1207005.70 260.49 249.34
0.42 2767.9 235.7 948361.83 308.44 293.41
0.50 2793.5 261.3 796624.10 261.35 276.18
0.58 2805.4 273.2 686745.05 271.88 294.30
0.83 2861.3 329.1 479894.43 420.07 397.23
1.08 2916.3 384.1 368807.99 383.71 375.91
1.33 2942.2 410.0 299483.37 312.31 339.95
1.58 2967.5 435.3 252096.92 400.32 388.27
1.83 2997.0 464.8 217657.58 427.10 409.52
2.33 3038.1 505.9 170950.16 348.68 353.25
2.83 3063.9 531.7 140747.13 306.35 311.70
3.33 3085.6 553.4 119614.08 290.17 292.58
3.83 3102.2 570.0 103998.79 289.55 286.44
4.33 3118.5 586.3 91989.81 266.72 263.96
4.83 3129.3 597.1 82467.16 228.19 230.85
5.83 3148.0 615.8 68322.02 200.96 199.62
6.83 3159.9 627.7 58318.94 164.90 167.74
7.83 3169.2 637.0 50870.93 142.54 139.41
8.83 3175.9 643.7 45109.90 106.47 107.32
10.83 3183.4 651.2 36779.54 73.54 73.64
229
⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
12.83 3188.0 655.8 31046.33 45.56 47.70
14.83 3189.8 657.6 26859.50 29.25 32.65
18.83 3192.9 660.7 21154.03 32.28 31.51
22.83 3195.8 663.6 17447.85 30.17 28.77
26.83 3197.6 665.4 14846.75 19.46 23.07
30.83 3198.4 666.2 12920.61 31.17 32.08
34.83 3201.0 668.8 11436.88 47.84 40.97
38.83 3203.2 671.0 10258.83 23.30 25.36
42.83 3203.2 671.0 9300.83 11.61 13.84
46.83 3204.1 671.9 8506.48 11.61 13.23
50.83 3204.1 671.9 7837.15 22.80 23.25
54.83 3205.6 673.4 7265.48 35.88 35.87
58.83 3206.4 674.2 6771.55 54.75 54.75
61.83 3208.2 676.0 6443.04 --- ---

tH = Horner time.
230
Table: (B-11)
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
0.00 2454.0 0.0 --- --- ---
0.25 2637.0 183.0 1755649.40 176.40 176.40
0.50 2733.0 279.0 877825.20 372.41 372.41
0.75 2808.0 354.0 585217.13 449.07 442.51
1.00 2867.0 413.0 438913.10 504.41 500.38
1.25 2919.0 465.0 351130.68 539.82 525.39
1.50 2962.0 508.0 292609.07 488.12 491.37
1.75 2991.0 537.0 250807.91 458.00 477.55
2.00 3019.0 565.0 219457.05 544.43 528.42
2.25 3050.0 596.0 195073.04 532.49 523.49
2.50 3071.0 617.0 175565.84 471.06 477.14
2.75 3091.0 637.0 159605.40 440.06 438.40
3.00 3106.0 652.0 146305.03 399.84 414.92
3.25 3120.0 666.0 135050.88 449.93 438.98
3.50 3136.0 682.0 125404.46 432.12 426.00
3.75 3147.0 693.0 117044.23 379.79 389.99
4.00 3158.0 704.0 109729.03 386.13 379.30
4.25 3168.0 714.0 103274.44 351.04 381.22
4.50 3176.0 722.0 97537.02 501.84 466.05
4.75 3192.0 738.0 92403.55 430.48 396.64
5.00 3196.0 742.0 87783.42 160.57 208.08
5.25 3199.0 745.0 83603.30 169.78 173.78
5.50 3203.0 749.0 79803.20 202.59 180.89
5.75 3207.0 753.0 76333.54 103.60 121.22
231
⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
6.00 3207.0 753.0 73153.02 112.81 164.77
6.25 3211.0 757.0 70226.94 435.71 398.64
6.50 3222.0 768.0 67525.94 536.44 496.86
6.75 3229.0 775.0 65025.01 403.48 390.97
7.00 3235.0 781.0 62702.73 189.94 210.64
7.25 3235.0 781.0 60540.60 101.88 128.91
7.50 3238.0 784.0 58522.61 172.10 167.10
7.75 3240.0 786.0 56634.82 215.27 209.12
8.00 3244.0 790.0 54865.01 219.88 207.58
8.25 3246.0 792.0 53202.47 151.96 170.75
8.50 3248.0 794.0 51637.72 196.28 196.46
8.75 3251.0 797.0 50162.38 241.75 240.45
9.00 3254.0 800.0 48769.01 271.66 265.10
9.50 3261.0 807.0 46202.27 261.28 259.20
10.00 3266.0 812.0 43892.21 230.21 229.39
10.50 3271.0 817.0 41802.15 192.23 196.03
11.00 3274.0 820.0 39902.10 177.84 190.47
11.50 3278.0 824.0 38167.27 238.86 225.59
12.00 3283.0 829.0 36577.01 219.86 210.24
12.50 3286.0 832.0 35113.97 143.32 136.57
13.00 3288.0 834.0 33763.47 58.71 66.81
15.00 3288.0 834.0 29261.81 35.68 37.19
16.00 3290.0 836.0 27433.01 54.67 53.17
17.00 3291.0 837.0 25819.36 79.42 72.49
18.00 3294.0 840.0 24385.01 60.43 64.24
19.00 3294.0 840.0 23101.64 67.34 66.74
20.00 3297.0 843.0 21946.61 67.34 63.87
21.00 3297.0 843.0 20901.58 49.50 50.25
22.00 3299.0 845.0 19951.55 49.50 44.05
24.00 3299.0 845.0 18289.00 28.20 34.32
232
⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
25.00 3300.0 846.0 17557.48 58.12 52.09
27.00 3302.0 848.0 16257.00 62.14 56.76
29.00 3304.0 850.0 15135.90 32.22 34.79
31.00 3304.0 850.0 14159.45 18.41 20.99
33.00 3305.0 851.0 13301.37 18.41 25.31
35.00 3305.0 851.0 12541.35 62.15 49.18
37.00 3308.0 854.0 11863.49 62.15 55.56
45.00 3308.0 854.0 9754.60 25.26 31.16
54.00 3312.0 858.0 8129.00 67.85 59.25
57.00 3314.0 860.0 7701.21 65.59 63.51
63.00 3316.0 862.0 6967.86 60.97 63.81
69.00 3319.0 865.0 6362.04 79.39 74.94
75.00 3322.0 868.0 5853.16 71.34 73.70
81.00 3324.0 870.0 5419.67 78.25 75.25
87.00 3327.0 873.0 5045.97 65.60 68.35
93.00 3328.0 874.0 4720.48 89.79 89.79
96.00 3330.0 876.0 4573.00 --- ---

tH = Horner time.
233
Appendix-B Pressure Test Data: Well A -67/1996
Table: (B-12)
Buildup Test Data (Pressure vs. Time) of Well: A-67 (1996) for the
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
0.000 4907.81 0.00 --- --- ---
0.006 4907.84 0.03 17315.29 #NUM! #NUM!
0.006 4907.87 0.06 16528.27 2.04 #NUM!
0.006 4907.92 0.11 15809.70 2.92 3.07
0.007 4907.98 0.17 15151.00 4.73 4.79
0.007 4908.09 0.28 14545.00 6.92 6.84
0.007 4908.22 0.41 13985.62 8.70 8.76
0.008 4908.38 0.57 13467.67 10.90 11.34
0.008 4908.57 0.76 12986.71 15.86 15.89
0.008 4908.87 1.06 12538.93 21.05 21.04
0.008 4909.20 1.39 12121.00 26.30 26.99
0.009 4909.63 1.82 11730.03 35.77 36.14
0.009 4910.20 2.39 11363.50 47.61 47.88
0.009 4910.92 3.11 11019.18 61.26 61.54
0.009 4911.81 4.00 10695.12 76.82 77.38
0.010 4912.88 5.07 10389.57 96.03 96.63
0.010 4914.19 6.38 10101.00 119.09 119.50
0.010 4915.75 7.94 9828.03 144.98 145.20
0.011 4917.59 9.78 9569.42 172.51 172.43
0.011 4919.69 11.88 9324.08 199.94 200.84
0.011 4922.04 14.23 9091.00 233.22 232.27
0.011 4924.75 16.94 8869.29 261.08 260.75
235
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
0.012 4927.57 19.76 8658.14 287.38 289.28
0.012 4930.69 22.88 8456.81 325.43 325.00
0.012 4934.14 26.33 8264.64 361.30 360.76
0.013 4937.82 30.01 8081.00 394.39 394.86
0.013 4941.75 33.94 7905.35 430.70 430.70
0.013 4945.95 38.14 7737.17 468.18 467.49
0.013 4950.40 42.59 7576.00 501.86 501.88
0.014 4955.03 47.22 7421.41 536.05 536.33
0.014 4959.90 52.09 7273.00 572.29 572.69
0.014 4964.97 57.16 7130.41 611.37 612.08
0.014 4970.31 62.50 6993.31 655.08 654.60
0.015 4975.91 68.10 6861.38 696.32 695.82
0.015 4981.72 73.91 6734.33 734.94 735.14
0.015 4987.73 79.92 6611.91 775.16 774.93
0.016 4993.96 86.15 6493.86 814.36 814.13
0.016 5000.36 92.55 6379.95 852.54 852.84
0.016 5006.95 99.14 6269.97 892.87 892.62
0.016 5013.73 105.92 6163.71 932.02 934.55
0.017 5020.67 112.86 6061.00 977.83 980.59
0.017 5034.98 127.17 5865.52 1040.94 1043.45
0.018 5049.83 142.02 5682.25 1110.94 1110.44
0.018 5065.13 157.32 5510.09 1179.07 1178.26
0.019 5080.86 173.05 5348.06 1243.29 1243.23
0.019 5096.89 189.08 5195.29 1308.12 1307.40
0.020 5113.32 205.51 5051.00 1369.41 1367.73
0.021 5129.93 222.12 4914.51 1421.49 1421.35
0.021 5146.69 238.88 4785.21 1473.48 1474.08
0.022 5163.61 255.80 4662.54 1529.81 1531.67
236
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
0.022 5180.76 272.95 4546.00 1598.14 1590.28
0.023 5198.31 290.50 4435.15 1619.48 1619.32
0.023 5215.08 307.27 4329.57 1640.81 1646.69
0.024 5232.24 324.43 4228.91 1697.45 1694.48
0.024 5249.37 341.56 4132.82 1736.97 1746.37
0.025 5266.53 358.72 4041.00 1803.66 1809.56
0.028 5351.14 443.33 3637.00 1909.02 1912.56
0.031 5432.64 524.83 3306.45 2007.93 2001.22
0.033 5509.99 602.18 3031.00 2070.58 2065.29
0.036 5582.79 674.98 2797.92 2103.68 2098.29
0.039 5650.80 742.99 2598.14 2105.18 2099.74
0.042 5713.64 805.83 2425.00 2073.64 2069.93
0.044 5771.10 863.29 2273.50 2018.60 2015.73
0.047 5823.42 915.61 2139.82 1944.29 1936.36
0.050 5870.62 962.81 2021.00 1832.85 1825.71
0.054 5931.95 1024.14 1865.62 1673.82 1666.68
0.058 5982.91 1075.10 1732.43 1479.69 1477.79
0.063 6024.14 1116.33 1617.00 1267.06 1269.77
0.067 6056.60 1148.79 1516.00 1064.07 1068.69
0.071 6082.14 1174.33 1426.88 882.62 887.22
0.075 6101.88 1194.07 1347.67 723.83 729.81
0.079 6117.20 1209.39 1276.79 596.91 602.19
0.083 6129.26 1221.45 1213.00 498.64 502.78
0.088 6138.92 1231.11 1155.29 422.96 425.92
0.092 6146.80 1238.99 1102.82 363.37 365.66
0.096 6153.30 1245.49 1054.91 316.32 316.05
0.100 6158.77 1250.96 1011.00 273.83 274.11
0.108 6167.52 1259.71 933.31 231.81 230.75
237
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
0.117 6174.34 1266.53 866.71 189.39 186.86
0.125 6179.34 1271.53 809.00 129.82 133.39
0.133 6181.94 1274.13 758.50 90.82 97.96
0.142 6184.28 1276.47 713.94 93.58 94.24
0.150 6186.72 1278.91 674.33 100.25 99.60
0.158 6189.12 1281.31 638.89 103.18 102.76
0.167 6191.44 1283.63 607.00 103.77 103.19
0.183 6195.72 1287.91 551.91 100.79 100.34
0.200 6199.43 1291.62 506.00 95.12 95.14
0.217 6202.63 1294.82 467.15 89.37 89.53
0.233 6205.42 1297.61 433.86 84.39 84.54
0.250 6207.88 1300.07 405.00 80.12 80.28
0.267 6210.07 1302.26 379.75 76.67 76.76
0.283 6212.05 1304.24 357.47 73.66 73.66
0.300 6213.84 1306.03 337.67 70.55 70.64
0.317 6215.46 1307.65 319.95 67.94 67.79
0.333 6216.95 1309.14 304.00 64.97 64.83
0.367 6219.56 1311.75 276.45 61.03 61.00
0.400 6221.79 1313.98 253.50 57.41 57.50
0.433 6223.73 1315.92 234.08 54.16 54.19
0.467 6225.42 1317.61 217.43 50.95 51.11
0.500 6226.90 1319.09 203.00 48.60 48.66
0.533 6228.24 1320.43 190.38 46.50 46.60
0.567 6229.43 1321.62 179.24 44.96 44.15
0.600 6230.54 1322.73 169.33 38.33 39.93
0.633 6231.29 1323.48 160.47 41.56 41.30
0.667 6232.43 1324.62 152.50 45.33 43.45
0.750 6234.45 1326.64 135.67 37.99 38.39
238
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
0.833 6236.12 1328.31 122.20 35.28 35.49
0.917 6237.53 1329.72 111.18 33.70 33.80
1.000 6238.79 1330.98 102.00 32.87 32.80
1.250 6241.93 1334.12 81.80 31.48 31.44
1.500 6244.35 1336.54 68.33 29.99 30.15
1.750 6246.32 1338.51 58.71 29.37 29.41
2.000 6248.02 1340.21 51.50 28.93 29.96
2.250 6249.48 1341.67 45.89 35.03 34.66
2.500 6251.38 1343.57 41.40 38.76 37.49
2.750 6252.87 1345.06 37.73 35.20 35.58
3.000 6254.17 1346.36 34.67 33.74 33.84
3.250 6255.32 1347.51 32.08 32.85 32.87
3.500 6256.37 1348.56 29.86 32.00 32.04
3.750 6257.31 1349.50 27.93 31.38 31.47
4.000 6258.19 1350.38 26.25 31.27 31.58
4.250 6259.01 1351.20 24.76 33.10 30.66
4.500 6259.88 1352.07 23.44 19.87 21.37
4.750 6259.99 1352.18 22.26 16.03 18.94
5.000 6260.60 1352.79 21.20 29.27 27.41
5.250 6261.26 1353.45 20.24 31.66 31.76
5.500 6261.91 1354.10 19.36 34.73 34.56
5.750 6262.63 1354.82 18.57 36.77 36.23
6.000 6263.30 1355.49 17.83 35.61 35.77
6.250 6263.92 1356.11 17.16 35.39 35.47
6.500 6264.53 1356.72 16.54 35.60 35.59
6.750 6265.11 1357.30 15.96 35.74 35.94
7.000 6265.68 1357.87 15.43 37.07 37.07
7.250 6266.26 1358.45 14.93 38.39 38.15
239
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
7.500 6266.83 1359.02 14.47 38.32 38.36
7.750 6267.37 1359.56 14.03 38.54 38.59
8.000 6267.91 1360.10 13.63 39.04 38.90
8.250 6268.43 1360.62 13.24 38.74 39.11
8.500 6268.93 1361.12 12.88 40.73 40.46
8.750 6269.47 1361.66 12.54 41.06 40.86
9.000 6269.95 1362.14 12.22 40.21 40.61
9.250 6270.44 1362.63 11.92 41.74 41.67
9.500 6270.93 1363.12 11.63 42.87 42.50
9.750 6271.42 1363.61 11.36 41.73 41.87
10.000 6271.86 1364.05 11.10 41.46 41.75
10.250 6272.32 1364.51 10.85 42.95 42.63
10.500 6272.77 1364.96 10.62 42.54 42.53
10.750 6273.20 1365.39 10.40 42.07 42.15
11.000 6273.62 1365.81 10.18 42.04 42.20
11.250 6274.03 1366.22 9.98 43.00 42.82
11.500 6274.45 1366.64 9.78 42.88 42.69
11.750 6274.84 1367.03 9.60 41.66 41.92
12.000 6275.22 1367.41 9.42 42.00 42.18
12.250 6275.60 1367.79 9.24 43.44 43.35
12.500 6275.99 1368.18 9.08 44.32 44.12
12.750 6276.37 1368.56 8.92 44.03 44.12
13.000 6276.74 1368.93 8.77 44.30 44.30
13.250 6277.11 1369.30 8.62 44.54 44.84
13.500 6277.47 1369.66 8.48 46.64 46.33
13.750 6277.86 1370.05 8.35 46.83 46.51
14.000 6278.21 1370.40 8.21
14.250 6278.56 1370.75 8.09
240
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
14.500 6248.91 1341.10 7.97
14.750 6279.27 1371.46 7.85
15.000 6279.64 1371.83 7.73
15.250 6279.97 1372.16 7.62 47.06 47.40
15.500 6280.31 1372.50 7.52 47.82 47.58
15.750 6280.64 1372.83 7.41 47.14 47.38
16.000 6280.96 1373.15 7.31 47.90 47.77
16.250 6281.29 1373.48 7.22 47.88 47.88
16.500 6281.60 1373.79 7.12 47.88 48.13
16.750 6281.92 1374.11 7.03 49.37 49.11
17.000 6282.24 1374.43 6.94 49.31 49.05
17.250 6282.55 1374.74 6.86 47.65 47.78
17.500 6282.84 1375.03 6.77 46.74 47.01
17.750 6283.13 1375.32 6.69 47.41 47.27
18.000 6283.42 1375.61 6.61 47.24 47.38
18.250 6283.70 1375.89 6.53 47.91 47.62
18.500 6283.99 1376.18 6.46 46.84 46.98
18.750 6284.25 1376.44 6.39 46.64 47.07
19.000 6284.53 1376.72 6.32 49.00 48.71
19.250 6284.81 1377.00 6.25 49.64 49.19
19.500 6285.09 1377.28 6.18 47.58 48.02
19.750 6285.34 1377.53 6.11 48.22 48.21
20.000 6285.62 1377.81 6.05 48.80 48.65
20.250 6285.87 1378.06 5.99 48.50 48.50
20.500 6286.14 1378.33 5.93 48.13 48.13
20.750 6286.38 1378.57 5.87 47.79 47.94
21.000 6286.64 1378.83 5.81 48.34 48.18
21.250 6286.88 1379.07 5.75 47.96 48.28
241
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
21.500 6287.13 1379.32 5.70 49.51 49.01
21.750 6287.38 1379.57 5.64 48.07 48.57
22.000 6287.61 1379.80 5.59 49.66 49.66
22.250 6287.87 1380.06 5.54 51.22 51.05
22.500 6288.11 1380.30 5.49 51.82 51.64
22.750 6288.37 1380.56 5.44 51.32 51.14
23.000 6288.60 1380.79 5.39 49.79 50.31
23.250 6288.84 1381.03 5.34 51.39 51.40
23.500 6289.08 1381.27 5.30 53.03 52.67
23.750 6289.33 1381.52 5.25 52.49 52.49
24.000 6289.56 1381.75 5.21 51.95 51.95
24.250 6289.80 1381.99 5.16 51.36 51.17
24.500 6290.02 1382.21 5.12 49.64 50.40
24.750 6290.24 1382.43 5.08 52.44 52.06
25.000 6290.48 1382.67 5.04 52.95 52.37
25.250 6290.70 1382.89 5.00 49.99 50.18
25.500 6290.91 1383.10 4.96 48.14 48.53
25.750 6291.11 1383.30 4.92 48.62 49.22
26.000 6291.32 1383.51 4.88 52.69 51.90
26.250 6291.55 1383.74 4.85 51.96 51.96
26.500 6291.75 1383.94 4.81 51.27 45.92
26.750 6291.97 1384.16 4.78 18.31 22.41
27.000 6291.90 1384.09 4.74 10.07 16.70
27.250 6292.05 1384.24 4.71 41.43 37.51
27.500 6292.23 1384.42 4.67 49.41 48.79
27.750 6292.44 1384.63 4.64 53.67 52.82
28.000 6292.65 1384.84 4.61 52.86 53.51
28.250 6292.85 1385.04 4.58 55.96 55.52
242
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
28.500 6293.08 1385.27 4.54 56.42 55.76
28.750 6293.28 1385.47 4.51 52.96 53.39
29.000 6293.48 1385.67 4.48 52.08 52.75
29.250 6293.67 1385.86 4.45 55.24 55.02
29.500 6293.89 1386.08 4.42 57.05 56.37
29.750 6294.09 1386.28 4.39 54.80 55.02
30.000 6294.29 1386.48 4.37 53.87 53.87
30.250 6294.48 1386.67 4.34 52.94 53.40
30.500 6294.67 1386.86 4.31 54.78 54.79
30.750 6294.87 1387.06 4.28 56.64 56.17
31.000 6295.07 1387.26 4.26 55.67 55.67
31.250 6295.26 1387.45 4.23 54.69 55.17
31.500 6295.45 1387.64 4.21 56.58 56.58
31.750 6295.65 1387.84 4.18 58.49 57.75
32.000 6295.85 1388.04 4.16 55.99 56.48
32.250 6296.03 1388.22 4.13 56.45 55.94
32.500 6296.23 1388.42 4.11 53.86 54.11
32.750 6296.39 1388.58 4.08 52.80 53.30
33.000 6296.58 1388.77 4.06 54.70 54.71
33.250 6296.75 1388.94 4.04 56.67 56.93
33.500 6296.95 1389.14 4.01 60.16 58.87
33.750 6297.14 1389.33 3.99 55.94 56.98
34.000 6297.31 1389.50 3.97 57.95 57.68
34.250 6297.51 1389.70 3.95 58.34 58.08
34.500 6297.68 1389.87 3.93 57.21 57.47
34.750 6297.87 1390.06 3.91 57.60 57.07
35.000 6298.04 1390.23 3.89 54.80 55.33
35.250 6298.21 1390.40 3.87 55.19 55.46
243
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
35.500 6298.38 1390.57 3.85 57.22 56.68
35.750 6298.56 1390.75 3.83 55.96 55.96
36.000 6298.72 1390.91 3.81 54.71 58.40
36.250 6298.89 1391.08 3.79 85.14 121.74
36.375 6299.06 1391.25 3.78
36.500 6295.53 1387.72 3.77
36.625 6292.00 1384.19 3.76
36.750 6299.57 1391.76 3.75
37.000 6299.67 1391.86 3.73 42.63 326.23
37.250 6299.82 1392.01 3.71 53.18 51.19
37.500 6299.98 1392.17 3.69 51.80 51.80
37.750 6300.12 1392.31 3.68 50.42 50.71
38.000 6300.27 1392.46 3.66 50.74 51.04
38.250 6300.41 1392.60 3.64 52.86 52.86
38.500 6300.57 1392.76 3.62 54.96 54.37
38.750 6300.72 1392.91 3.61 53.53 54.13
39.000 6300.87 1393.06 3.59 55.68 55.38
39.250 6301.03 1393.22 3.57 56.03 55.42
39.500 6301.18 1393.37 3.56 52.75 53.96
39.750 6301.32 1393.51 3.54 56.76 56.77
40.000 6301.49 1393.68 3.53 60.78 59.56
40.250 6301.65 1393.84 3.51 57.46 58.07
40.500 6301.80 1393.99 3.49 57.82 57.20
40.750 6301.96 1394.15 3.48 54.40 55.03
41.000 6302.09 1394.28 3.46 54.77 55.40
41.250 6302.25 1394.44 3.45 58.88 58.26
41.500 6302.40 1394.59 3.43 59.25 59.25
41.750 6302.56 1394.75 3.42 59.60 59.28
244
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
42.000 6302.71 1394.90 3.40 58.02 58.02
42.250 6302.86 1395.05 3.39 56.42 57.40
42.500 6303.00 1395.19 3.38 60.69 60.04
42.750 6303.17 1395.36 3.36 61.01 60.69
43.000 6303.31 1395.50 3.35 59.42 60.07
43.250 6303.47 1395.66 3.34 61.74 61.08
43.500 6303.62 1395.81 3.32 60.10 60.09
43.750 6303.77 1395.96 3.31 58.42 58.76
44.000 6303.91 1396.10 3.30 58.77 58.77
44.250 6304.06 1396.25 3.28 59.09 59.09
44.500 6304.20 1396.39 3.27 59.44 60.12
44.750 6304.35 1396.54 3.26 63.89 62.17
45.000 6304.51 1396.70 3.24 58.00 58.35
45.250 6304.63 1396.82 3.23 54.19 56.27
45.500 6304.77 1396.96 3.22 62.87 60.43
45.750 6304.93 1397.12 3.21 56.86 57.91
46.000 6305.04 1397.23 3.20 57.22 57.93
46.250 6305.20 1397.39 3.18 61.75 60.69
46.500 6305.33 1397.52 3.17 59.97 60.68
46.750 6305.48 1397.67 3.16 62.43 61.71
47.000 6305.62 1397.81 3.15 60.60 61.33
47.250 6305.76 1397.95 3.14 63.11 63.11
47.500 6305.91 1398.10 3.13 65.62 64.53
47.750 6306.06 1398.25 3.12 61.56 62.29
48.000 6306.19 1398.38 3.10 61.90 61.90
48.250 6306.34 1398.53 3.09 62.20 61.84
48.500 6306.47 1398.66 3.08 60.31 60.30
48.750 6306.61 1398.80 3.07 58.36 59.86
245
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
49.000 6306.73 1398.92 3.06 65.47 63.96
49.250 6306.90 1399.09 3.05 63.47 63.10
49.500 6307.01 1399.20 3.04 59.29 61.19
49.750 6307.16 1399.35 3.03 66.44 64.15
50.000 6307.30 1399.49 3.02 59.86 61.39
50.250 6307.42 1399.61 3.01 62.50 63.27
50.500 6307.57 1399.76 3.00 69.77 67.05
50.750 6307.72 1399.91 2.99 60.74 62.30
51.000 6307.83 1400.02 2.98 61.09 61.08
51.250 6307.98 1400.17 2.97 61.34 60.56
51.500 6308.09 1400.28 2.96 56.93 59.30
51.750 6308.22 1400.41 2.95 66.74 65.55
52.000 6308.37 1400.56 2.94 69.44 68.24
52.250 6308.51 1400.70 2.93 64.96 64.55
52.500 6308.64 1400.83 2.92 58.01 59.63
52.750 6308.75 1400.94 2.91 60.75 61.56
53.000 6308.89 1401.08 2.91 68.34 65.90
53.250 6309.03 1401.22 2.90 61.29 62.10
53.500 6309.14 1401.33 2.89 59.14 60.78
53.750 6309.27 1401.46 2.88 66.84 65.60
54.000 6309.41 1401.60 2.87 67.14 67.14
54.250 6309.54 1401.73 2.86 67.46 67.88
54.500 6309.68 1401.87 2.85 70.27 69.02
54.750 6309.82 1402.01 2.84 65.54 65.12
55.000 6309.94 1402.13 2.84 58.25 60.36
55.250 6310.05 1402.24 2.83 63.63 63.20
55.500 6310.19 1402.38 2.82 66.44 65.16
55.750 6310.31 1402.50 2.81 61.62 62.90
246
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
56.000 6310.43 1402.62 2.80 64.48 63.62
56.250 6310.56 1402.75 2.80 62.16 62.59
56.500 6310.67 1402.86 2.79 62.46 62.89
56.750 6310.80 1402.99 2.78 65.33 64.90
57.000 6310.92 1403.11 2.77 65.63 65.63
57.250 6311.05 1403.24 2.76 65.91 65.91
57.500 6311.17 1403.36 2.76 66.20 66.65
57.750 6311.30 1403.49 2.75 69.15 66.92
58.000 6311.43 1403.62 2.74 58.74 60.97
58.250 6311.52 1403.71 2.73 61.73 61.72
58.500 6311.66 1403.85 2.73 64.63 64.19
58.750 6311.76 1403.95 2.72 64.96 65.85
59.000 6311.90 1404.09 2.71 70.63 69.28
59.250 6312.02 1404.21 2.70 68.22 67.76
59.500 6312.15 1404.34 2.70 63.00 63.92
59.750 6312.25 1404.44 2.69 63.30 64.22
60.000 6312.38 1404.57 2.68 69.07 67.69
60.250 6312.50 1404.69 2.68 66.59 66.59
60.500 6312.62 1404.81 2.67 64.08 64.54
60.750 6312.73 1404.92 2.66 64.35 64.82
61.000 6312.85 1405.04 2.66 67.42 66.95
61.250 6312.97 1405.16 2.65 67.70 67.70
61.500 6313.09 1405.28 2.64 67.97 67.97
61.750 6313.21 1405.40 2.64 68.25 67.30
62.000 6313.33 1405.52 2.63 62.80 64.23
62.250 6313.43 1405.62 2.62 65.95 65.95
62.500 6313.56 1405.75 2.62 69.07 69.07
62.750 6313.67 1405.86 2.61 72.26 72.26
247
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
63.000 6313.81 1406.00 2.60 75.42 75.43
63.250 6313.93 1406.12 2.60 78.66 78.66
63.500 6314.08 1406.27 2.59 81.87 80.90
63.750 6314.21 1406.40 2.58 79.27 79.27
64.000 6314.35 1406.54 2.58 76.62 76.62
64.250 6314.47 1406.66 2.57 73.98 74.47
64.500 6314.60 1406.79 2.57 74.25 75.25
64.750 6314.72 1406.91 2.56 80.53 79.03
65.000 6314.87 1407.06 2.55 77.80 76.31
65.250 6314.98 1407.17 2.55 66.11 69.61
65.500 6315.09 1407.28 2.54 75.43 75.43
65.750 6315.23 1407.42 2.54 84.78 80.74
66.000 6315.37 1407.56 2.53 69.88 69.87
66.250 6315.46 1407.65 2.52 54.92 60.51
66.500 6315.55 1407.74 2.52 73.53 70.47
66.750 6315.70 1407.89 2.51 73.74 70.67
67.000 6315.79 1407.98 2.51 55.54 60.68
67.250 6315.88 1408.07 2.50 68.16 66.09
67.500 6316.01 1408.20 2.50 68.36 68.37
67.750 6316.10 1408.29 2.49 68.66 69.18
68.000 6316.23 1408.42 2.49 72.01 70.45
68.250 6316.33 1408.52 2.48 66.01 68.63
68.500 6316.44 1408.63 2.47 75.72 75.73
68.750 6316.57 1408.76 2.47 85.49 84.44
69.000 6316.71 1408.90 2.46 88.97 87.38
69.250 6316.85 1409.04 2.46 82.90 82.90
69.500 6316.97 1409.16 2.45 76.81 78.41
69.750 6317.09 1409.28 2.45 80.31 78.70
248
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
70.000 6317.22 1409.41 2.44 74.13 74.12
70.250 6317.32 1409.51 2.44 67.94 69.02
70.500 6317.43 1409.62 2.43 68.17 68.18
70.750 6317.53 1409.72 2.43 68.43 68.43
71.000 6317.64 1409.83 2.42 68.66 67.57
71.250 6317.74 1409.93 2.42 62.34 65.07
71.500 6317.83 1410.02 2.41 72.46 71.36
71.750 6317.96 1410.15 2.41 75.98 73.78
72.000 6318.06 1410.25 2.40 66.31 67.97
72.250 6318.16 1410.35 2.40 66.54 67.10
72.500 6318.26 1410.45 2.39 70.12 69.56
72.750 6318.37 1410.56 2.39 70.35 70.91
73.000 6318.47 1410.66 2.38 73.97 72.85
73.250 6318.59 1410.78 2.38 70.82 71.39
73.500 6318.68 1410.87 2.37 71.10 72.22
73.750 6318.80 1410.99 2.37 78.11 76.41
74.000 6318.91 1411.10 2.36 74.97 75.54
74.250 6319.02 1411.21 2.36 75.23 75.23
74.500 6319.13 1411.32 2.36 75.48 76.05
74.750 6319.24 1411.43 2.35 79.18 77.45
75.000 6319.36 1411.55 2.35 72.51 74.24
75.250 6319.45 1411.64 2.34 76.26 75.68
75.500 6319.58 1411.77 2.34 76.47 76.48
75.750 6319.67 1411.86 2.33 76.77 76.76
76.000 6319.80 1411.99 2.33 76.98 75.81
76.250 6319.89 1412.08 2.32 70.24 73.16
76.500 6320.00 1412.19 2.32 81.03 78.69
76.750 6320.12 1412.31 2.32 77.75 78.34
249
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
77.000 6320.22 1412.41 2.31 78.02 79.20
77.250 6320.34 1412.53 2.31 85.38 81.82
77.500 6320.46 1412.65 2.30 71.36 74.33
77.750 6320.54 1412.73 2.30 75.22 75.21
78.000 6320.67 1412.86 2.29 79.00 77.81
78.250 6320.76 1412.95 2.29 75.69 77.49
78.500 6320.88 1413.07 2.29 83.14 80.73
78.750 6320.99 1413.18 2.28 76.15 77.36
79.000 6321.09 1413.28 2.28 76.41 77.01
79.250 6321.20 1413.39 2.27 80.29 77.85
79.500 6321.31 1413.50 2.27 69.54 71.37
79.750 6321.39 1413.58 2.27 69.80 71.02
80.000 6321.50 1413.69 2.26 77.36 77.99
80.250 6321.60 1413.79 2.26 88.72 86.25
80.500 6321.74 1413.93 2.25 85.24 83.38
80.750 6321.83 1414.02 2.25 70.66 72.51
81.000 6321.93 1414.12 2.25 67.13 68.38
81.250 6322.01 1414.20 2.24 71.11 73.61
81.500 6322.12 1414.31 2.24 90.09 87.59
81.750 6322.25 1414.44 2.24 94.11 89.71
82.000 6322.37 1414.56 2.23 71.72 74.23
82.250 6322.44 1414.63 2.23 64.41 66.93
82.500 6322.54 1414.73 2.22 72.18 70.92
82.750 6322.63 1414.82 2.22 72.41 73.05
83.000 6322.73 1414.92 2.22 76.45 75.81
83.250 6322.83 1415.02 2.21 76.68 76.68
83.500 6322.93 1415.12 2.21 76.91 78.83
83.750 6323.03 1415.22 2.21 88.72 88.73
250
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
84.000 6323.16 1415.35 2.20 100.58 95.42
84.250 6323.29 1415.48 2.20 81.45 84.68
84.500 6323.37 1415.56 2.20 81.75 84.34
84.750 6323.50 1415.69 2.19 97.57 93.02
85.000 6323.62 1415.81 2.19 86.11 86.75
85.250 6323.72 1415.91 2.18 78.52 81.14
85.500 6323.82 1416.01 2.18 86.63 85.98
85.750 6323.94 1416.13 2.18 90.82 88.85
86.000 6324.05 1416.24 2.17 83.16 83.16
86.250 6324.15 1416.34 2.17 75.46 76.78
86.500 6324.24 1416.43 2.17 75.69 77.69
86.750 6324.34 1416.53 2.16 87.90 85.24
87.000 6324.46 1416.65 2.16 84.12 83.45
87.250 6324.55 1416.74 2.16 76.35 79.02
87.500 6324.65 1416.84 2.15 84.63 81.26
87.750 6324.76 1416.95 2.15 72.72 73.39
88.000 6324.83 1417.02 2.15 64.85 69.58
88.250 6324.92 1417.11 2.14 85.36 81.98
88.500 6325.04 1417.23 2.14 85.57 84.89
88.750 6325.13 1417.32 2.14 81.75 81.75
89.000 6325.24 1417.43 2.13 77.86 79.23
89.250 6325.32 1417.51 2.13 82.23 83.60
89.500 6325.44 1417.63 2.13 94.79 89.29
89.750 6325.55 1417.74 2.13 74.37 78.51
90.000 6325.62 1417.81 2.12 78.78 78.08
90.250 6325.74 1417.93 2.12 78.94 76.86
90.500 6325.81 1418.00 2.12 66.69 70.16
90.750 6325.90 1418.09 2.11 75.23 73.14
251
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
91.000 6325.99 1418.18 2.11 71.24 73.34
91.250 6326.07 1418.26 2.11 79.86 79.86
91.500 6326.18 1418.37 2.10 88.48 84.27
91.750 6326.28 1418.47 2.10 71.81 73.21
92.000 6326.35 1418.54 2.10 63.56 67.09
92.250 6326.43 1418.62 2.09 76.48 74.36
92.500 6326.53 1418.72 2.09 76.66 76.67
92.750 6326.61 1418.80 2.09 76.89 78.32
93.000 6326.71 1418.90 2.09 85.66 84.23
93.250 6326.81 1419.00 2.08 85.89 85.89
93.500 6326.91 1419.10 2.08 86.12 86.12
93.750 6327.01 1419.20 2.08 86.35 87.79
94.000 6327.11 1419.30 2.07 95.25 91.63
94.250 6327.23 1419.42 2.07 82.44 83.89
94.500 6327.30 1419.49 2.07 78.36 80.53
94.750 6327.41 1419.60 2.07 87.26 83.62
95.000 6327.50 1419.69 2.06 74.37 77.28
95.250 6327.58 1419.77 2.06 78.97 80.43
95.500 6327.68 1419.87 2.06 92.36 89.43
95.750 6327.79 1419.98 2.05 88.18 87.44
96.000 6327.88 1420.07 2.05 79.58 81.05
96.250 6327.97 1420.16 2.05 79.78 79.04
96.500 6328.06 1420.25 2.05 75.54 76.28
96.750 6328.14 1420.33 2.04 75.75 77.24
97.000 6328.23 1420.42 2.04 84.88 82.65
97.250 6328.33 1420.52 2.04 80.60 79.85
97.500 6328.41 1420.60 2.04 71.84 74.08
97.750 6328.49 1420.68 2.03 76.53 76.53
252
t + Δt ⎛ d ( Pws ) ⎞
Δt ⎝ d (log( t H )) ⎠
98.000 6328.58 1420.77 2.03 81.24 81.24
98.250 6328.67 1420.86 2.03 85.97 85.97
98.500 6328.77 1420.96 2.03 90.72 89.21
98.750 6328.87 1421.06 2.02 86.40 85.64
99.000 6328.96 1421.15 2.02 77.50 79.02
99.250 6329.04 1421.23 2.02 77.71 78.47
99.500 6329.13 1421.32 2.02 82.48 81.72
99.750 6329.22 1421.41 2.01 82.69 82.69
100.000 6329.31 1421.50 2.01 82.89 81.35
100.250 6329.40 1421.59 2.01 73.86 75.39
100.500 6329.47 1421.66 2.00 74.06 75.61
100.750 6329.56 1421.75 2.00 83.51 83.51
101.000 6329.65 1421.84 2.00 #NUM! #NUM!

tH = Horner time.
253
Appendix-B Shape Factors for Closed Drainage Areas
Table: (B-13)
Shape Factors for Various Single-Well Drainage Areas
254
Appendix-C
Appendix-C Well: B -27(1966)
Log-Log Plot
10000
PD (Pws-Pwf) & PD'
1000
100
10
0.1 1.0 10.0
Figure (C-1): Log-Log plot of pressure drop and pressure derivative vs. shut-in time
256
Log-Log Plot
10000
Unit Slope
NO Wellbore
Storage Effect
PD (Pws-Pwf)
1000
100
0.1 1.0 10.0
Figure (C-2): Log-Log plot of pressure drop vs. shut-in time
257
Log-Log Plot
10000
1000
PD'
Radial Flow
100
10
0.1 1.0 10.0
Figure (C-3): Log-Log plot of pressure derivative vs. shut-in time
258
Horner Plot
4300 4500
m = 43.22 psi/cycle
4100 4000
3500
3900
3000
3700
2500
PD'
Pws
3500
2000
3300
1500
3100
1000
2900 500
2700 0
100 1000 10000 100000
Horner time
Figure (C-4): Horner plot
259
Log-Log Plot
10000
PD (Pws-Pwf) & PD'
1000
100
10
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
260
Log-Log Plot
10000
Unit Slope
PD (Pws-Pwf)
NO Wellbore
Storage Effect
1000
100
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
261
Log-Log Plot
1000
Radial Flow
PD'
100
10
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
262
Horner Plot
2800 600
2750
m = 55.84 psi/cycle
500
2700
2650
400
2600
PD'
Pws
2550 300
2500
200
2450
2400
100
2350
2300 0
1000 10000 100000
Horner time
263
Log-Log Plot
10000
PD (Pws-Pwf) & PD'
1000
100
10
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
264
Log-Log Plot
10000
Unit Slope
PD (Pws-Pwf)
NO Wellbore
Storage Effect
1000
100
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
265
Log-Log Plot
1000
PD'
100
Radial Flow
10
0 1 10 100
266
Horner Plot
2600 800
700
2500 m = 27.64 psi/cycle
600
2400
500
PD'
Pws
2300 400
300
2200
200
2100
100
2000 0
1000 10000 100000
Horner time
267
Log-Log Plot
1000
PD (Pws-Pwf) & PD'
100
10
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
268
Log-Log Plot
1000
Unit Slope
Wellbore
Storage Effect
PD (Pws-Pwf)
100
10
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
269
Log-Log Plot
1000
Wellbore
PD'
Storage Effect
100
Radial Flow
10
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
270
Horner Plot
2850 160
2830
140
2810
m = 17.66 psi/cycle 120
2790
2770 100
PD'
Pws
2750 80
2730 60
2710
40
2690
20
2670
2650 0
1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Horner time
271
Log-Log Plot
10000
PD (Pws-Pwf) & PD'
1000
100
0.1 1.0 10.0
273
Log-Log Plot
10000
Unit Slope
NO Wellbore
Storage Effect
PD (Pws-Pwf)
1000
0.1 1.0 10.0
274
Log-Log Plot
1000
Radial Flow
PD'
100
0.1 1.0 10.0
275
Log-Log Plot
4000 1000
m = 455.30 psi/cycle
3900 900
3800 800
3700 700
Pws
3600 600
3500 500
3400 400
3300 300
3200 200
100 1000 10000
Horner time
276
Log-Log Plot
1000
PD (Pws-Pwf) & PD'
100
1 10 100
277
Log-Log Plot
1000
Unit Slope
NO Wellbore
PD (Pws-Pwf)
Storage Effect
100
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
278
Log-Log Plot
1000
Radial Flow
PD'
100
1 10 100
279
Horner Plot
2300 1000
900
2200
m = 371.95 psi/cycle 800
2100
700
2000 600
PD'
Pws
1900 500
400
1800
300
1700
200
1600 100
1000 10000 100000
Horner time
280
Log-Log Plot
10000
PD (Pws-Pwf) & PD'
1000
100
10
1 10 100
281
Log-Log Plot
1000
Unit Slope
PD (Pws-Pwf)
100
NO Wellbore
Storage Effect
10
1 10 100
282
Log-Log Plot
10000
PD'
Radial Flow
1000
100
1 10 100
283
Horner Plot
2200 1600
2100
1400
2000
1900 1200
1800
1000
PD'
Pws
1700
800
1600
1500 600
1400
400
1300
1200 200
1000 10000 100000
Horner time
284
Log-Log Plot
1000
PD (Pws-Pwf) & PD'
100
10
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
285
Log-Log Plot
1000
PD (Pws-Pwf)
Unit Slope
100
NO Wellbore
Storage Effect
10
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
286
Log-Log Plot
1000
Radial Flow
PD'
100
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
287
Horner Plot
2200 500
2100
2000
400
1900 m = 300.50 psi/cycle
1800
PD'
Pws
1700 300
1600
1500
200
1400
1300
1200 100
1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000
Horner time
288
Log-Log Plot
10000
PD (Pws-Pwf) & PD'
1000
100
10
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
290
Log-Log Plot
10000
Unit Slope
NO Wellbore
Storage Effect
PD (Pws-Pwf)
1000
1 10 100
291
Log-Log Plot
1000
Radial Flow
PD'
100
10
1 10 100
292
Horner Plot
2950 500
2900
2850 400
2800
300
2750
PD'
Pws
2700
200
2650
2600 100
2550
2500 0
1000 10000 100000
Horner time
293
Log-Log Plot
1000
PD (Pws-Pwf) & PD'
100
10
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
294
Log-Log Plot
1000
Unit Slope
Wellbore
PD (Pws-Pwf)
Storage Effect
100
10
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
295
Log-Log Plot
1000
PD'
100 Radial
Flow
10
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
296
Horner Plot
3300 700
m = 29.89 psi/cycle
3200 600
3100
500
3000
400
PD'
Pws
2900
300
2800
200
2700
2600 100
2500 0
1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Horner time
297
Log-Log Plot
1000
PD (Pws-Pwf) & PD'
100
10
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
298
Log-Log Plot
1000
Unit Slope
NO Wellbore
PD (Pws-Pwf)
Storage Effect
100
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
299
Log-Log Plot
1000
PD'
Radial Flow
100
10
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
300
Horner Plot
3400 m =43.70 psi/cycle 700
3300 600
3200
500
3100
400
PD'
Pws
3000
300
2900
200
2800
2700 100
2600 0
1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Horner time
301
Appendix-C Well: A -67(1996)
Log-Log Plot
10000.00
1000.00
PD (Pws-Pwf) & PD'
100.00
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
303
Log-Log Plot
10000.00
1000.00
100.00
PD (Pws-Pwf)
10.00 Unit Slope
1.00
NO Wellbore
Storage Effect
0.10
0.01
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
304
Log-Log Plot
10000
1000
Linear Flow
Radial Flow
PD'
100
10
1
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
305
Linear Plot
6500 2500
mL =18.32 psi/hr0.5
6400
6300 2000
6200
6100 1500
Pws
6000
5900 1000
5800
5700 500
5600
5500 0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
t + Δt - Δt
Figure (C-48): Linear plot of Shut-in pressure and pressure derivative vs. shut-in time
306
Horner Plot
6500 2500
m =33.14 psi/cycle
6400
6300 2000
6200
6100 1500
Pws
6000
5900 1000
5800
5700 500
5600
5500 0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Horner time
307
Appendix-D
Appendix-D .
Figure (D-1): Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson dimensionless pressure for circular and square drainage area.
309
Appendix-D .
Figure (D-2): Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek dimensionless pressure for a well in the center of equilateral
drainage areas.
310
Appendix-D .
Figure (D-3): Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek dimensionless pressure for well locations in a square drainage
area.
311
Appendix-D .
Figure (D-4): Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek dimensionless pressure for different well locations in a 2:1
rectangular drainage area.
312
Appendix-D .
Figure (D-5): Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek dimensionless pressure for different well locations in 4:1 and 5:1
rectangular drainage areas.
313
Appendix-D .
0.9
R=Measured Slope Of Build-Up Data /

0.8
Theoretical Slope Of Build-up Data

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fracture Length / Well Spacing (Lf/D)
Figure (D-6): Correction factor for slope of pressure build-up data because of vertical fracture.
314
References
. References
References
1. Urayet, A. A.: "Advanced Topics in Transient Pressure

Analysis", Part of the Technical Program Organized for the
Petroleum Research Center, Tripoli, 2004.
2. Urayet, A. A.: "Transient Pressure Analysis", Part of the

Technical Program Organized for the Petroleum
Engineering Department, Al Fateh University, Tripoli, 2000.
3. Matthews: "Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells", pp.1-

114, 1967.
4. Tarek Ahmed and Paul D. McKinny, "Advanced Reservoir

Engineering", pp. 1-162, 2005.
5. Amanat U. Chaudhry: "Oil Well Testing Handbook",

Advanced TWPSOM Petroleum Systems, Inc, Houston,
Texas, pp.13-365, 2004.
6. Dominique Bourdet: "Well Test Analysis: the use of

Advanced Interpretation Models, pp.1-302, 2002.
316

Transient Pressure Analysis in Vertical Wells

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transient Pressure Analysis in Vertical Wells

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRANSIENT PRESSURE

Dr. Said I. Aldbaib

First, different aspects of well testing where reviewed; including

Second, the Theory of Build-up Transient Pressure Analysis in

Third, the factors affecting pressure build-up behavior.

First of all we would like to thank Allah the Merciful and

We are extremely grateful to our advisor Dr. Said I. Aldbaib for

We would like to extend my gratitude to the faculty staff and

Special thanks to Planning Department in Al Harouge Oil

We would like to extend a special thanks to Eng. Sofian A. Ayad,

Appendix A……………………………………………………………. 209

4.1 Reservoir parameters estimated for each flow

B-1 Buildup test data (Pressure vs. Time) of well

2-1 Production Rate and Pressure History of Two Rate

3-1 Effect of Wellbore Storage on Log-Log Plot…………... 40

4-1 Transient pressure performance in a vertical well 73

Overview of Well Testing

Overview of Well Testing

Oil well test analysis is a branch of reservoir engineering.

The reservoir engineer must have sufficient information

Pressures are the most valuable and useful data in

A brief review of pressure transient analysis explains why

At the start of production, pressure in the wellbore drops

1.2 Well Testing Objectives

Only Well Testing provides information on the Dynamic

1. Reservoir flow capacity (kh).

1.3 Diffusivity Equation

At the start of production, pressure in the wellbore drops

As the fluid moves, it will in turn create a pressure

The physical process occurring in the reservoir can be

Figure (1-1): Infinite Acting Radial Flow

In order to use the diffusivity equation it is necessary to

Variable flow rates can be tackled by applying the

1.3.1 Fluid Flow in Porous Media:

The fluid flow in porous media can be expressed by

• Continuity Equation in Radial Coordinates

• Darcy's Law in Radial Coordinates

1.3.2 Diffusivity Equation Assumption:

1. Single phase fluid.

The Radial Form of the Diffusivity Equation for Liquids:

1.3.3 Radial Flow (1-Dimension):

For steady state case;

Figure (1-2): Radial Flow

1.3.4 Diffusivity Equation Solutions:

To solve of diffusivity equation we need to identify:

There are three basic solutions for diffusivity equation:

Case (a): The Infinite Acting System

This condition is used to represent the early-time pressure

The exact solution in this case, normally termed the "Line

qμβ ⎛ φμCt rw2 ⎞

The Exponential Integral can be defined by the following

The Exponential Integral is defined numerically as follows:

− Ei (− x ) = − ln( x ) − 0.5772 ………………..…………… Eq (1.11)

Substitution of Equation (1.9) in Equation (1.8) would result in

It is important to note that the solutions represented by Equation

Case (b): The Closed Boundary System

In this case, the reservoir is considered to be of finite

This condition is normally applied to wells producing in a

The exact solution of the diffusivity equation using no flow

During this period, the closed system behaves essentially

During this period the pressure change at the well bore is

qμβ ⎛ 2( 0.000264 )kt re 3 ⎞

it is important to note that if the shape of the system deviates