SPE-193261-MS

Alternative Method for Pressure Transient Analysis

Francy Franco, Alexander Rincon, and Marcos Useche, Schlumberger

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 12-15 November 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
An alternative method is presented for estimation of reservoir properties that are usually estimated in a
classic buildup test are obtained using flowing conditions thereby eliminating the need for shut-in periods
and measurement of static pressure data.
The proposed approach is based on the effect of two consecutive periods of production with different
rates in a single well-reservoir model. The well is initially produced at a constant rate until pseudo-steady
state conditions are reached, followed by a different rate that will generate a pressure transient response
measured at bottom of the wellbore. A mathematical formulation is applied to estimate the reservoir pressure
as function of radius of investigation, which is equal to the bottom hole pressure observed during a shut-
in buildup test.
A single well-reservoir model with known petrophysical parameters, fluid properties, pressure and
temperature is used as a reference to evaluate the proposed methodology. The reservoir (i.e. the simulation
model) is tested by applying two methods: the first one, is the simulation of a classic buildup test, and the
second one, is the simulation of two flow rates periods according to the new theory; the results are compared
with the model of reference, calculating percentage of error for permeability, skin, and average reservoir
pressure. Additionally, it is demonstrated that a shut-in period is not required to obtain data equivalent to a
classic buildup test since it is possible to calculate it from dynamic behavior.
The ability to complete a well pressure transient analysis test from flowing conditions and provide valid
and reliable results has a direct impact in reduction of cost and deferred production for companies involved
in oil and gas operations.

Introduction
Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA) is an important diagnostic tool that supports the characterization and
performance evaluation of oil and gas reservoirs. It supports estimation of parameters such as reservoir
permeability (K), average reservoir pressure and drainage area.
Besides PTA, well logging, seismic survey and petrophysical methods are applied to get a more detailed
description of the reservoir. These measurements, however, are useful for obtaining a static description of
the reservoir which is of very limited use in performance forecasting and the optimization of the depletion
program.
2 SPE-193261-MS

Build up and drawdown pressure tests are applicable for both, exploration and development projects,
however once the production starts, it is generally not practical to close a well until original reservoir
pressure is restored. This paper presents an analytical procedure, based on transient flow equations, to
calculate a virtual buildup pressure test derived from flowing conditions data; hence, classic PTA analysis
can be performed utilizing the equivalent shut in period data generated with the proposed methodology. This
calculation is relevant in operations where it is not desired to close the well for a Buildup pressure test. The
formulated methodology has been evaluated using initially an ideal cylindrical reservoir with homogeneous
properties, containing a slightly compressible fluid, zero skin, and totally horizontal. The method was then
extended to two non-ideal scenarios: (1) Skin ≠ 0 and (2) a compressible fluid.

Comparison between Transient flow and Pseudo-Steady State (Pss) flow

Transient flow is defined as the flow regime where the radius of pressure wave propagation from the
wellbore has not reached any boundaries of the reservoir. Lee (1982) describes the solution for the diffusivity
equation of a well producing in the center of an infinite cylindrical reservoir (Transient conditions). The
solution assumes that, (1) the production rate is constant, qβ; (2) the well radius equal to zero; (3) the initial
pressure is uniform before production begins, Pi; (4) the well drains an infinite area. The solution becomes
as described in the equation below,

(1)

When , the equation (1) can be approximated to:

(2)

For transient flow, a semi-log plot of bottom hole pressure vs time is a straight line.
Under Pseudo-steady state flow, the radius of investigation reaches the reservoir boundaries, and the
reservoir pressure, as function of time, changes at constant rate for a specific production rate. Lee (1982),
presents the solution for the diffusivity equation under Pseudo-steady state condition (Pss). The solution
assumes that: (1) the production rate is constant, qβ; (2) the initial pressure is uniform before production
begins, Pi; (3) the well, with radius rw, is centered in a cylindrical reservoir with radius re, and (4) there is
not flow across the outer boundary.
Then, for times greater than , the solution becomes,

(3)

The equation (3) is a variation of the less common version:

(4)

For Pss flow a cartesian plot of bottom hole pressure (Pwf) vs time is described by a straight line.
Solutions of diffusivity equation for transient flow (eq.2) and pseudo-steady state flow (eq.4) take the
wellbore radius, (rw), as reference; however, the general form of these equations for any radius (r = rr) in
the reservoir, is:
Transient flow:

(5)
SPE-193261-MS 3

PSS flow:

(6)

For both conditions, transient flow and Pseudo-steady state flow, a semi-log plot of reservoir pressure as
function of radius, for a constant production rate, is a straight-line with same slope, m, figure 1 (a):

Figure 1—(a) Pressure profile for transient flow and Pss flow with production
rate q1, (b) Pressure profile for transient flow and Pss flow with production rate q2

(7)

The slope, m, is function of fluid properties (βμ), reservoir properties (kh), and production rate (q); thus,
for the same reservoir the slope depends only on production rate as represented in figure 1 (b).

Effective reservoir pressure

A well producing at a constant rate q1 generates a pressure wave that, after some time, reaches pseudo-
steady state (PSS) flow condition; if the production rate is changed to a new rate q2 (q2 ≠ q1), a pressure
disturbance is introduced in the reservoir and after a time, t, the transient wave will reach a point "A" as
showed in figure 2. The distance between the wellbore and the point "A" can be estimated using the radius
of investigation equation.

Figure 2—Effect of a transient flow in the reservoir

4 SPE-193261-MS

(8)

Figure 2 shows a common pressure point A for a transient curve , when production rate q2 is lower
than q1 (q2 < q2) a transient curve , when production rate q1 is greater than q1 (q2 > q1); and a pseudo-
steady State curve . This common point corresponds to the reservoir pressure at ri = rA. Analogically,
there is also a transient curve following the same profile of the pseudo-steady state curve .
The pressure in the common point A, represents the out bounded pressure for the new transient wave
traveling in the reservoir; between radius rA and the external boundary of the reservoir re, the pressure curve
is still following the pseudo-steady state behavior generated by the original production rate q1, and it has not
been affected by the transient pressure wave generated by the new rate q2, which means that the reservoir
pressure at radius beyond ri only has been affected by the initial production rate q1.
Franco, Rincon & Useche (2018) concluded that: (1) during transient flow, the reservoir pressure (PA)
at radius of investigation (rA) is its effective reservoir pressure, (2) any pressure distribution curve at Pss
conditions has an equivalent transient curve which is defined by the bottom hole pressure Pwf at the radius rw,
and the effective pressure Peff at radius of investigation rA. Thus, the transient equation in terms of effective
pressure and radius of investigation is:

(7)

Where Peff is the effective pressure, Pwf is the bottom hole pressure, rr is the radius of investigation and
rw is the wellbore radius.

Estimation of Pws
Buildup test is started by shutting the well right after a production period. When production rate is zero, the
pressure pulse travels from the wellbore into the formation, and the equation (7) becomes,
(8)
Where Peff is the effective pressure at radius of investigation r, and Pws is the static bottomhole pressure.
As the production rate during build-up is equal to zero, the pressure transient curve versus log radius on
figure 3(a) has a slope equal to zero, thus, the measured pressure at the bottom hole is equal to the effective
reservoir pressure at the radius rA. This analysis is a good approximation even though in real reservoirs
there is not an instantaneous change from q1≠0 to q2 = 0. Instead, there is a transitional and progressive zone
where q1 is decreasing until production rate reaches q2 as shown in Fig 3 (b). Then Pws equals to Peff is an
approximation mostly function of fluid compressibility, and permeability.
SPE-193261-MS 5

Figure 3—(a) Effect of a Build-up curve in the reservoir, (b) Transition zone between q1 ≠ 0 and q2 = 0

Thus, any method that calculates Peff, as function of time, will provide equivalent data to a build-up
response, and the method that is presented in this paper combines flow regime analysis for both, finite and
infinite-acting reservoir to estimate data that correspond to the bottomhole pressure versus time during a
shut-in period. From Fig 2 and using the equation (7), the transient curves , and are described by:
Curve :

(9)

Curve :

(10)

The right term, on the equations 9 and 10, is the same for a specific time, so:

using equation (8):

(11)

Methodology
The Equation 11 provides the equivalent data to a buildup pressure test. The steps to apply this method
are the following:
1. Install a downhole gauge or online sensor in the well.
2. Fix the well at a constant production rate, q1 for a time long enough to reach Pss conditions and take
the last Pwf1.
3. After Pss is reached, change to a new constant production rate, q2.
4. Register the changing downhole pressure, Pwf2, as function of time (transient response).
5. Using the data from previous step, calculate Pws(t) applying equation (11).
6. Once Pws vs time data has been estimated, apply any classical Build up test analysis, such as derivative
or Horner analysis to estimate reservoir properties.
6 SPE-193261-MS

This method does not require to shut-in the producing well to restore reservoir pressure. So, it can be
considered as an Equivalent Build-Up (EBU).

Validation of EBU Methodology

To evaluate this new analytical method, a commercial reservoir simulator was used to analyze several cases
considering two different scenarios. The Scenario 1 in each case simulates two consecutive flow rates
whereas in Scenario 2 a classic buildup test is simulated and used as reference.

Case 1
Scenario 1: An oil well produces for 365 days a constant rate of 60 bopd, then, the production rate is reduced
to 30 bopd for 5 days
Scenario 2: An initial production period, as defined in Scenario 1, is followed by a 5 days shut-in period
to simulate a buildup pressure test.
The reservoir and fluid parameters for these scenarios are described as follows,
Radial model. re = 5000 ft, rw = 0.25 ft
Depth = 4,200 ft
Swcr ~20%
Permeability = 200 md
ø = 20%
Ct = 6.3 × 10E-6 psia-1
Thickness = 50 ft
Pi = 2160 psia
Gravity = 18 API
Pb = 1,800 psi
figure 4(a) shows the Pwf performance as function of time for Scenario 1, and figure 4(b) shows different
pressure profiles as function of radius for 60 bopd (Pss flow), 30 bopd (transient flow - Scenario 1), and for
0 bopd (buildup test - Scenario 2). The results obtained from Scenario 1 were used as input in equation 11
to calculate the equivalent buildup data versus time (Appendix B for all Cases/Scenarios). The oil viscosity
was considered as function of pressure, and its calculation was done following the procedure presented in
Appendix A and applied for all Cases/Scenarios.

Figure 4—(a) Pwf vs time Case 1 Scenario 1 (b) Pressure profiles vs radius from production Scenarios Case 1.
SPE-193261-MS 7

figure 5(a) compares data resulting from EBU analysis (Scenario 1) and from buildup test data
(Scenario2). figure 5(b) shows the results from Scenarios 1 and 2 using a classical build up test analysis, in
this paper Horner Analysis was implemented, however derivative analysis can be an alternative.

Figure 5—(a) Simulated and calculated PBU data Case 1, (b)Horner build up test analysis for Case 1 scenarios

PTA results using data from Case 1 scenarios are summarized in the table 1:

Table 1—PTA results case 1

Case 2
This case has different conditions than Reservoir 1, mainly varying the permeability and the range of
production rates. For this reservoir, the evaluated scenarios are:
Scenario 1: An oil well producing during 365 days at constant rate of 600 bopd to assure PSS flow
conditions are reached, then the production rate was increased to 1000 bopd for 5 days.
Scenario 2: An initial production period, as defined in Scenario 1, followed by a 5 days shut-in period
to simulate a buildup pressure test.
The reservoir and fluid parameters are:
Radial model. re = 5000 ft, rw = 0.25 ft
Depth = 4,200 ft
Swcr ~20%
Permeability = 20 md
ø = 20%
Ct = 9.9 ×10E-06
Thickness = 900 ft
Pi = 2640 psia
Gravity = 24 API
Pb = 1,340 psi
8 SPE-193261-MS

figure 6(a) shows the Pwf behavior as function of time, notice there is an additional drawdown as the
second production rate is greater that the initial one, and figure 6(b) shows different pressure profiles as
function of radius: pressure profiles for 600 bopd (Pss flow), for 1000 bopd (Transient flow - Scenario 1),
and for 0 bopd (Buildup test - Scenario 2).

Figure 6—(a) Pwf vs time Case 2 Scenario 1. (b) Pressure profiles vs radius from production Scenarios Case 2.

Results for Scenario 1 were taken to apply the equation 11 which calculates an equivalent buildup test
data from flowing conditions. Oil viscosity was considered as function of pressure. figure 7(a) compares the
close match of the actual buildup test data obtained from the data resulting from EBU analysis. The figure
7(b) shows the results of Cases 1 and 2 using a classical build up test analysis - Horner Plot

Figure 7—(a) Simulated and calculated PBU data Case 2 (b)Horner build up test analysis for Case 2 scenarios

Results from Case 2 are summarized in the table 2

Table 2—PTA results Case 2

SPE-193261-MS 9

Non-ideal solution - Skin ≠ zero

Nonzero skin can be interpreted as two serial cylinders with disparate permeability. In the case of skin
greater than zero (S > 0) the well is damaged, and in the case of skin lower than zero (S < 0) the well is
stimulated, figure 8 (a).

Figure 8—(a) Pressure drop due to skin, (b) Transient pressure profile in reservoir with skin > 0

Two scenarios are considered for this solution:

1. When radius of investigation is smaller than the radius of the damaged zone, (ri < rs). In this case
the analysis follows the non-skin solution as the pressure transient wave is traveling through the
first cylinder from rw to rs with a single permeability zone k2.
2. When radius of investigation is greater than radius of skin, (ri > rs), figure 8 (b). I in this case the
transient pressure equation is presented by Lee (1982):

(12)

Where:

(13)

The equation (12) can be written as:

(14)

For a time, t, the term on the right side of equation (14) is independent of production rate, and fluid
properties, so the analysis applied for non-skin solution is valid:
For production rate, q1:

For production rate, q2:

10 SPE-193261-MS

Solution for this equation system is described by the equation (11).

Case 3
This case uses the reservoir and fluid described in the Reservoir 2, but it includes an area around the well
with a reduced permeability, which is equivalent to a positive 3 skin factor. Scenarios 1 and 2 are same
as set in Case 2.
Scenario 1: An oil well producing during 365 days at constant rate of 600 bopd to assure PSS flow
conditions are reached, then the production rate was increased to 1000 bopd for 5 days.
Scenario 2: An initial production period, as defined in Scenario 1, followed by a 5 days shut-in period
to simulate a buildup pressure test.
figure 9(a) shows the Pwf behavior as function of time for Scenario 1, and figure 9(b) shows the same
three pressure profiles as function of radius as in Case 2: pressure profiles for 600 bopd (Pss flow), for 1000
bopd (Transient flow - Scenario 1), and for 0 bopd (Buildup test - Scenario 2), but now every curve has two
different slopes for each production rate, which are consequence of skin. Results for Scenario 1 were taken
to apply the equation 11 which calculates an equivalent buildup test data from flowing conditions.

Figure 9—(a) Pwf vs time Case 3 Scenario 1. (b) Pressure profiles from production scenarios Case 3.

The figure 10(a) compares data resulting from EBU analysis and the actual buildup test data; the figure
10(b) shows the results of cases 1 and 2 using a classical build up test analysis - Horner Plot

Figure 10—(a) Simulated and calculated PBU (b)Horner build up test analysis for Case 3

Results from Case 3 are summarized in the table 3:

SPE-193261-MS 11

Table 3—PTA results Case 3.

Non-ideal solution - Compressible fluids

For compressible fluids viscosity, μ, and compressibility factor have a significant role in the pressure
distribution curve into the reservoir; however, it has been demonstrated by Al-Hussainy, Ramey & Crawford
(1966), that the solution approach for slightly compressible fluids can be applied to compressible fluids by
using pseudo-pressure function.
Thus, assuming (1) constant production rate, qgsc; (2) well radius equal to zero; (3) the initial pressure is
uniform before production starts, ψi; (4) the well drains an infinite area, (5) Darcy flow. Lee (1982) presents
the solution for the diffusivity equation of a well producing in the center of an infinite cylindrical reservoir
(Transient conditions):

(15)

Where

In a more general form, the equation 15 can be expressed by:

(16)

Following the same deduction that was applied for uncompressible fluids, for two different production
rates, showing in figure 10, there is a common pressure point at the radius of investigations which suggests
that combination of the two respective transient equations will provide the value of effective Pseudo
pressure.

Figure 10—Pseudo pressure profile as function of radius

12 SPE-193261-MS

(17)

This deduction suggests that EBU is applicable for uncompressible fluids.

Conclusions
• This paper proves that EBU concept formulated in this manuscript is applicable under the assumed
conditions and provides accurate results; further investigation may extend its application to
additional non-ideal scenarios such us multiphase flow, non-Darcy flow, and dual porosity.
• EBU requires an initial pseudo-steady state condition in the reservoir, which is a common condition
in flowing wells in stablished production operations.
• EBU enables to estimate the properties of the reservoir without shut-in periods; this has a significant
impact in reduction of deferred production and cost for oil companies.
• Maintain constant rate is a challenge in real operations; nevertheless, this can be satisfied in
certain reservoirs and well completions, like by using artificial lift methods that control withdrawal
rates. Testing and validation of EBU methodology from existing well test data that satisfies these
conditions could be the next step forward of this study.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank to Schlumberger for supporting the development of this theory and for giving
permission to publish this paper.

Nomenclature
β= Volumetric factor.
(Bμ)1 = Fluid properties correspond to average condition between Pwf1 and Peff.
(Bμ)2 = Fluid properties correspond to average condition between Pwf2 and Peff.
ct = Total compressibility factor.
h= Thickness.
K= Permeability.
K1 = Permeability of zone without damage.
K2 = Permeability of zone with damage.
Peff = Effective pressure.
Pi = Initial reservoir pressure.
Pr = Reservoir pressure at radius, r.
Pwf1 = Bottom hole pressure at Pss conditions.
Pwf2 = Bottom hole pressure at transient conditions, function of time.
Pws = Buildup pressure as function of time.
= Average reservoir pressure.
q1 = Initial production rate that originates Pss flow.
q2 = Production rate that originates a pressure transient wave.
qgsc = Gas production rate at standard conditions.
SPE-193261-MS 13

rA = Radius at the point A.

re = External radius of the cylindrical reservoir.
ri = Radius of investigation.
rr = Radius at any point, r.
rw = Wellbore radius.
t= Time.
T= Temperature.
μ= Viscosity.
ΔPskin = Pressure drop due to skin.
ψi = Pseudo pressure at initial reservoir pressure.
ψwf = Pseudo pressure at bottom hole.
ψwf1 = Bottom hole Pseud pressure at Pss conditions.
ψwf2 = Bottom hole Pseudo pressure at transient conditions, function of time.
ψeff = Effective Pseudo pressure.
ψws = Buildup Pseudo pressure as function of time.

References
Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J., and Crawford, P.B. 1966. The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media. Journal of
Petroleum Technology. SPE-1243-A-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/1243-A-PA.
Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A., and Pirard, Y.M. 1989. Use of Pressure Derivative in Well Test Interpretation. SPE Formation
Evaluation. SPE-12777-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/12777-PA.
Horner, D.R. 1951. Pressure Build Up in Wells. Presented at 3rd World Petroleum Congress, 28 May-6 June, The Hague,
the Netherlands. WPC-4135
Lee, J. 1982. Fluid Flow in Porous Media. In Well testing. Richardson, Texas: Textbook Series, SPE.
McCain, W. 1990. Properties of Black Oils. In The Properties of Petroleum Fluids. Tulsa, Oklahoma: PennWell.
Franco, F., Rincon, A., and Useche, M. 2018. Optimized Isochronal Flow Tests. SPE Formation Evaluation. SPE-193252-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/193252-MS.
14 SPE-193261-MS

Appendix A.
Calculation of average permeability.
As EBU requires to reach pseudo-steady state conditions, the pressure is not uniform in the reservoir and
instead there is a pressure distribution curve, and some parameters such as viscosity and volumetric factor
are changing while radius of investigation; thus, for a specific radius of investigation is necessary to calculate
the average values for these parameters before using them in the equation (7).
For the present analysis, the pressure is over saturation pressure so viscosity changes linearly as function
of pressure, McCain (1990).

Figure 11—Oil viscosity versus pressure

As it is necessary to calculate an average viscosity that generates the accurate pressure drop, Peff – Pwf.
Pressure drop is split in n segments where viscosity values are obtained:

(18)

But, for transient flow, pressure drop is a straight line in scale semi log
SPE-193261-MS 15

(19)

Which is approximately:
16 SPE-193261-MS

Appendix B.
Numerical simulation results.

Table 4—Pressure profile as function of radius at 2.5 days of shut-in.

SPE-193261-MS 17

Table 5—Bottom hole pressure as function of time