Chapter 4

Conventional Methods Of
Well Test Analysis
( Semi – Log Analysis )

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ١

 Ei-Function Solution

qBµ ⎛ 948φµct r 2
⎞
p = pi + 70.6 Ei⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟
kh ⎝ kt ⎠

Ei (-x) = ln (1.781 x ) 6

4
-Ei(-x)
2

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٢

0.001 -x 100
 Reservoir Pressure Profile
2,000
Pressure, psi

Negative skin

Unsteady-state pressure
(s=0)

Positive (damage) skin

500
1 10 100 1,000 10,000

Distance from center of wellbore, ft

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٣
 Incorporating Skin into the
Ei-Function Solution

• For r = rw
qBµ ⎡ ⎛ 948 φ µ c t rw2 ⎞ ⎤
p = pi + 70.6 ⎢ Ei ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ − 2 s ⎥
kh ⎢⎣ ⎝ kt ⎠ ⎥⎦
• For r > ra
q Bµ ⎛ 948 φ µ c t r ⎞ 2

p = pi + 70.6 Ei ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟
kh ⎝ kt ⎠
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٤
 Log Approximation to the
Ei-Function

y = mx + b
qBµ Use |m| in computations
pwf = pi − 162.6 from this point forward
kh
⎡ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤
⎢ log10 (t ) + log10 ⎜⎜ 2⎟
⎟ − 3.23 + 0.869s⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ φµct rw ⎠ ⎥⎦

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٥

Drawdown Test

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٦

 q

Production Rate
o

o t
Time
Bottomhole Pressure

Pi

o t
Time
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٧
 Pressure Drawdown Analysis

Early deviation caused

by wellbore effects
BHFP

p1hr
Straight line = “transient” flow

Slope = -m

Late deviation caused

by boundary effects
(end of transient)

log (Flowing
Dr. HeshamTime (Hours))
A. Bahaa ٨
TIME REGIONS OF DRAWDOWN TEST

ETR MTR LTR

Transient

Pwf

Steady State Unsteady State Pseudo Steady

Log t
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٩
 Conventional Methods For
Draw Down Test Analysis

Plot Straight Slope Calculated

Line Parameters

P vs. log t MTR m K , s , ∆ps

P vs. t LTR m’ A , CA

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ١٠

 ANALYSIS OF TRANSIENT FLOW DATA

q βµ
Permeability K = − 162 .6
mh

⎛ (P1hr − Pi ) ⎛ K ⎞ ⎞
Total skin S = 1.151⎜⎜ − log⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + 3.23⎟⎟
⎝ φµ Ct r w ⎠
2
⎝ m ⎠

Pressure loss due to skin ∆ P s = − 0 . 87 mS

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ١١

 Drawdown Test Graph

1,200

Usually several cycles apart

(t2, pwf2) p1hr is p at

1 hr on best-
Pressure, fit line
psi
Plot pressure vs. time (t1, pwf1)

Powers of 10
700
0.1 1 10 100 1,000
Elapsed Test Time, hrs

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ١٢

 Example
Estimate the skin and effective permeability from a drawdown
test :
• q = 250 STB/D pi = 4,412 psia
• h = 46 ft φ = 12%
• rw = 0.365 ft B = 1.136 RB/STB
• ct = 17 x 10-6 psi-1 µ = 0.8 cp
162.6qBµ
k=
mh
⎡p − p ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤
s = 1.151⎢ i 1hr
− log10 ⎜ ⎟ + 3.23⎥
⎜ φµc r 2 ⎟
⎢⎣ m ⎝ t w⎠ ⎥⎦
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ١٣
 Graphical Solution

3,600
Extrapolate to get p1 hr
slope = p10 hr-p1 hr
p1hr ≅ 3,540 psi
≅ -100
Pressure, psi

m ≅ 100
p10hr ≅ 3,440 psi
One log cycle
Plot data points
from field data
3,300
1 10 100
Time, hrs
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ١٤
 Solution
• q = 250 STB/D pi = 4,412 psia
• h = 46 ft φ = 12%
• rw = 0.365 ft B = 1.136 RB/STB
• ct = 17 x 10-6 psi-1 µ = 0.8 cp
162.6qBµ
k=
p1hr ≅ 3,540 psi mh
⎡p − p ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤
s = 1.151⎢ i 1hr − log10 ⎜ ⎟ + 3.23⎥
⎜ φµc r 2 ⎟
⎢⎣ m m ≅ 100 ⎝ t w⎠ ⎥⎦

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ١٥

 Exercise
The following data are available for a drawdown test :
h= 130 ft porosity = 20%
rw = 3.0 inch pi = 1154 psi
Ko = 89 mmd
qo = 348 stb/d = -22 psi/cycle
Bo = 1.14 rb/stb µo = 3.93 cp
S = +4.6
Ct = 8.74 x 10-6 psi-1
p1hr = 954 psi
Calculate the effective permeability , skin , and flow
efficiency

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ١٦

 Multi-phase Flow
Reservoirs below BPP

Individual Phases

Total System q β µo
k o
= 162 .6 o o

mh
⎛k⎞ 162.6
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = λ t = q q β µ
⎝ µ ⎠t mh t = 162 .6
g g g

q = (β q + (q − q R )β + β q )
k g
mh
t o o gt o s g w w
q β µ
k w
= 162 .6 w w w

mh
q = q −q R s
g gt o

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ١٧

ANALYSIS OF PSEUDO – STEADY STATE DATA

Transient Late Pseudo – Steady State

Slope = m’
Pwf

Time
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ١٨
 ANALYSIS OF PSEUDO – STEADY
STATE DATA

0.2339 qβ
Drainage pore volume , ft3 Ah φ = − '
m Ct
Divide
by φh
0 . 2339 q β
Drainage area , ft
A = − '
φ
2

mC t
h

Ct = CoSo + C w S w +C g S g +C f
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ١٩
 ANALYSIS OF PSEUDO – STEADY
STATE DATA

Drainage area shape factor

m ⎡ 2.303(P1hr − P int )⎤
C A = 5.456 ' . exp ⎢ ⎥
m ⎣ m ⎦
m = slope of semi – log straight line
m’ = slope of Cartesian straight line
P1hr = pressure at t = 1 hr. from semi – log straight line
Pint = pressure at t = 0 from Cartesian straight line
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٢٠
 Reservoir Shapes

Dietz shape factor CA = 4.5132

Dietz
Dietzshape
shapefactor
factorCCAA==12.9851
30.8828

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٢١

 Reservoir Shapes

Dietz shape factor CA = 10.8374

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٢٢

 Reservoir Shapes

Dietz shape factor CA = 5.379

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٢٣

 Dietz Shape Factors

CA = 31.62 CA = 19.17 CA = 27.1

CA = 31.6 CA = 21.9
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa CA = 0.098٢٤
 The Total Skin Factor
Transient tests measure the total skin (s) which can be composed of

S = Sd + Sr + Sp + St + Sgp + Stp + Sws + Sf

Sd = altered permeability (damage or stimulation)
Sr = restricted entry
Sp = perforations
St = turbulence (usually only in gas wells)
Sgp= gravel pack
Stp = two-phase flow near the wellbore
Sws = slanted well (negative skin)
Sf = Fracture (negative skin)
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٢٥
 Example
A well with disappointing productivity is perforated in 10 ft
of a total formation thickness of 50 ft . Vertical and
horizontal permeabilities are believed to be equal . A PBU
test was run ; results and basic properties are as follows :
Pwf = 1190 psi P1hr = 1940 psi
porosity = 20 % viscosity = 0.5 c.p
m= 50 psi / cycle permeability = 3.35 md
Ct = 15*10-6 psi-1 rw = 0.25 ft
Determine the source of low
Dr. Hesham productivity problem
A. Bahaa ٢٦
 Solution
Total Skin
⎛ (P1hr − Pwf ) ⎛ K ⎞ ⎞
S = 1.151⎜⎜ − log⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟ + 3.23⎟
⎟ S = 12.3
⎝ m ⎝ φµ C t r 2
w ⎠ ⎠
Skin due to incompletely perforated interval
⎛ ht ⎞⎡ ⎛ ht kH ⎞ ⎤
sp = ⎜ − 1 ⎟ ⎢ ln ⎜ ⎟− 2⎥
⎝ hp ⎠⎣ ⎝ rw kV ⎠ ⎦
Sp = 13.2
ht
s= sd + sp
hp

Skin due to damage Sd = - 0.18

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٢٧
 Problems with Drawdown Tests
• It is difficult to produce a well at a strictly
constant rate .
• Even small variations in rate distort the
pressure response .
Alternative to Drawdown Tests
• There is one rate that is easy to maintain –
a flow rate of zero.
• A buildup test is conducted by shutting in a
producing well and measuring the resulting
pressure response.
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٢٨
Analysis Of Buildup Pressure Data
By Conventional Methods
(Semi-Log Analysis)

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٢٩

 q

Production Rate
o

t t+∆t
Time
Bottomhole Pressure

Pi

t t+∆t
Time
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٣٠
 Superposition
qres qB qB

0
= +
-qB
t

∆p

0
= +
tp tp+∆t t tp tp+∆t tp tp+∆t
٣١
 Buildup Test - Superposition

qBµ ⎡ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤
pws = pi − 162.6 ( )
⎢log10 t p + ∆t + log10⎜⎜ ⎟ − 3.23 + 0.869s⎥
2⎟
kh ⎢⎣ φµ
⎝ t w⎠
c r ⎥⎦
qBµ ⎡ ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤
+ 162.6 ⎢log10(∆t ) + log10⎜⎜ ⎟ − 3.23 + 0.869s⎥
2⎟
kh ⎢⎣ φµ
⎝ t w⎠
c r ⎥⎦

qBµ ⎛ t p + ∆t ⎞
pws = pi − 162.6 log 10 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
kh ⎝ ∆t ⎠
y = mx + b
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٣٢
Horner Straight Line Equation

* tp + ∆t
p = p − m log( )
ws ∆t
As the shut in time tends to infinity ,
Horner function tends to 1

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٣٣

 Time Regions in the Pressure
Build-up
Transient Transient Influence of
well reservoir boundaries p*
response response
p

pws ETR LTR

MTR

t p + ∆t 1.0
log ٣٤
∆t
 Horner Plot
Late deviation caused
by boundary effects
p* (end of transient)

p
Straight line = “transient” flow
pws Slope = -m

p1hr

Early deviation caused

by wellbore effects

1.0 t p + ∆t ٣٥
Log
∆t
Buildup Straight-Line Analogy

162.6qBµ
k=
mh
Horner time ratio

t p + ∆t
pi = b @ =1
∆t
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٣٦
 HORNER PLOT

P*

P1 Slope = m = P1 – P2
Pws

P2

Cycle

1 10 100 1000
t p + ∆t
Log
Dr. Hesham ∆A.t Bahaa ٣٧
 Estimating Skin Factor
From a Buildup Test

⎡ p1hr − pwf ⎛ k ⎞ ⎤
s = 1.151⎢ − log 10 ⎜⎜ ⎟
2 ⎟
+ 3.23⎥
⎢⎣ m ⎝ φµ c t rw ⎠ ⎥⎦

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٣٨

Horner Pseudo-Producing Time

24 N p
tp =
qlast

qlast Bµ ⎛ t p + ∆t ⎞
pws = pi − 162.6 log10 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
kh ⎝ ∆t ⎠
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٣٩
 EFFECT OF NO-FLOW BOUNDARY ON
HORNER PLOT

P* Slope = m’

Slope = m
Pws

∆ tx

1 10 100 1000
t p + ∆t
Log
Dr. Hesham∆A.t Bahaa ٤٠
• If m’ = 2m then , the no-flow boundary is a
sealing fault . The distance from the wellbore to
the fault is calculated from the following equation :

0 .000148 K ∆ t x
L=
φµ C t
• If m’ is not equal to 2m , then the no-flow
boundary is any other type of no-flow boundaries .
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٤١
 Models From Horner Plot

Ideal Positive skin Negative skin Regular

Wellbore storage boundary

Double
slope

Phase separation Fault or nearby Naturally Stratified

in tubing boundary fractured system
(“gas hump”)
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٤٢
 Miller – Dyes – Hutchinson (MDH)
It is applied when tp >>>∆t by plotting Pws versus log∆t

ETR MTR LTR

Slope = m
Pws

٤٣
∆t
 MDH Method

*
p =p 1hr
+ m log tp

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٤٤

Estimating The Average
Reservoir Pressure

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٤٥

 THE DIFFERENT NOMENCLATURES
OF RESERVOIR PRESSURE
• Pi initial reservoir pressure
It is the pressure at zero production time . Once a
production occurs , the reservoir pressure will
need infinite shut-in time to reach its initial value .
-
• P volumetric average reservoir pressure
It is the pressure at which a reservoir would
stabilize if all wells are shut – in and the pressures
through – out the reservoir are given enough time
to equalize .It can be calculated by MBH method .
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٤٦
 THE DIFFERENT NOMENCLATURES
OF RESERVOIR PRESSURE

• Pe reservoir pressure
It is the pressure at the reservoir outer boundary .
*
• P extrapolated reservoir pressure
It is the pressure which obtained from the
extrapolation of Horner plot straight line through
the analysis of pressure build – up data .

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٤٧

Pi

P* t p + ∆t
Log
∆t
=1 @ ∆t ∞
−

1 t p + ∆t
Log
∆t
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٤٨
 Estimation Methods

• Middle Time Region Methods

– Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek Method (MBH)

– Ramey-Cobb Method

• Late Time Region Methods

– Modified Muskat Method

– Arps-Smith Method

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٤٩

 Middle-Time Region Methods
• Based on extrapolation and correction of MTR
pressure trend
• Advantage
– Use only pressure data in the middle-time region

• Disadvantages
– Need accurate fluid property estimates
– Need to know drainage area shape, size, well location
within drainage area
– May be somewhat computationally involved

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٥٠

 Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek (MBH)
− m
PR =P +*
. P DMBH
2 .303
PDMBH is a dimensionless pressure determined at a
dimensionless producing time as :

0 .0002637 K t p
t DA =
φµ C t A
The relation between PDMBH and t DA is presented
in charts for the different drainage geometries .
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٥١
 Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
Procedures
• Plot pws vs (tp+∆t)/∆t on semilog coordinates

• Extrapolate to (tp+∆t)/∆t=1 to find p*

• Calculate the dimensionless producing time tpAD

• Using the appropriate MBH chart for the drainage

area shape and well location, find pMBHD
• Calculate p
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٥٢
 Curves for Square Drainage Area
6

3
pMBHD

-1
0.01 0.1 1 10
tpAD ٥٣
 Curves for 2x1 Rectangle
6

3
pMBHD

-1
0.01 0.1 1 10
٥٤
tpAD
 Curves for 4x1 Rectangle
5

2
pMBHD

-1

-2
0.01 0.1 1 10
٥٥
tpAD
 EXAMPLE
Producing time prior to shut-in, tp = 482 hr
Porosity, Ø = 0.15
Viscosity, µ = 0.25 cp
Total compressibility, ct = 1.615 x 10-5
Drainage area, A = 1500 x 3000 ft (a 2x1 reservoir)
2

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٥٦

 SOLUTION
2750

p*=2689.4

2650
m=26.7

Shut-in well
pressure, psia
2550

2450
Step
Step1:2:Plot
Extrapolate
pressureslope
vs. Horner
m to find
timep*ratio
2400
106 105 104 103 102 10 1
Horner time ratio ٥٧
Step 3: Calculate dimensionless producing time

0.0002637kt p
t pAD =
φµct A

=
(0.0002637)(7.5)(482)
(0.15)(0.25)(1.615×10 )(1500)(3000)
−5

= 0.35
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٥٨
Step 4: On appropriate MBH curve, find pMBHD

5
2x1 rectangle
4

3
2.05
pMBHD 2

0
tpAD = 0.35
-1
0.01 0.1 1 10
tpAD
٥٩
 Step 5: Calculate average reservoir pressure, p

p MBHD (t pAD )
m
p = p*−
2.303
26.7
= 2689 .4 − (2.05)
2.303
= 2665 .6 psi
The difference is less than 1 % from the P* value

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٦٠

 Matthews-Brons- Hazebroek
• Advantages
– Applies to wide variety of drainage area
shapes, well locations
– Uses only data in the middle-time region
– Can be used with both short and long
producing times
• Disadvantages
– Requires drainage area size, shape, well
location
– Requires accurate fluid property data
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٦١
 Ramey- Cobb Method
Procedures
• Plot pws vs (tp+∆t)/∆t on semilog coordinates
• Calculate the dimensionless producing time tpAD
• Find the Dietz shape factor CA for the drainage
area shape and well location
• Calculate HTRavg
• Extrapolate middle-time region on Horner plot to
HTRavg
• Read p at HTRavg
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٦٢
 Horner Time Ratio (HTR)

⎛ t p + ∆t ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = C At pAD
⎝ ∆t ⎠ p

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٦٣

 Example using Ramey-Cobb Method
Step 1: Plot pressure vs. Horner time ratio
Step 2: Calculate dimensionless producing time

0.0002637kt p
t pAD =
φµct A

=
(0.0002637)(7.5)(482)
(0.15)(0.25)(1.615×10−5 )(1500)(3000)
= 0.35
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٦٤
 Ramey- Cobb
Step 3: Find the Dietz shape factor CA for the
drainage area shape and well location

⎛ t p + ∆t ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = C At pAD
⎝ ∆t ⎠ p
= (21.8)(0.35)
= 7.63 Shape factor CA = 21.8369

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٦٥

 Ramey- Cobb

2750

2650

Pws
p = 2665.8
2550

2450 HTR = 7.63

2400
106 105 104 103 102 10 1
Horner time ratio
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٦٦
Graphical Presentation
Toolbox

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٦٧

 Flow Period Characteristics Plot Used

Infinite-acting radial Semilog straight line P vs. log ∆t

flow ( drawdown ) ( MDH plot )
Infinite-acting radial Horner straight line P vs. log( t+ ∆t )
flow ( build-up ) /∆t (Horner plot )
Wellbore storage Straight line p vs. t or log ∆p vs. log ∆t
unit slope log ∆p vs. ( log-log plot )
log ∆t plot
Finite conductivity Straight line slope ¼ , ∆p vs. ∆t 1/4
fracture log ∆p vs. log ∆t
Infinite conductivity Straight line slope 1/2 ∆p vs. ∆t 1/2
fracture , log ∆p vs. log ∆t plot
Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٦٨
 Flow Period Characteristics Plot Used

Dual porosity S- shaped transition P vs. log ∆t

systems between parallel semilog
straight lines
Closed boundary Pseudosteady state , P vs. ∆t
pressure linear with time

Impermeable fault Doubling of slope on P vs. log ∆t

semilog straight line

Constant pressure Flat lines on all p,t plots Any

boundary

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٦٩

The End Of
Chapter 4

Dr. Hesham A. Bahaa ٧٠