Chapter 15

Well Testing
Methods in
Multilayered Oil
Reservoir Systems

15.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses various types and testing of layered oil reservoir
systems including multilayered responses in fractured reservoirs. It also
describes crossflow identification and the nature and degree of communica-
tion between layers. Performance equations for cases of constant flowing
pressure and constant producing rate are presented and discussed. This
chapter also reviews "layer effect" on pressure and/or production behavior
including economic aspects of interlayer crossflow.

15.2 Identification of Layered Oil Reservoir Systems

Figure 15-1 shows the classification of layered oil reservoir systems.

Layered reservoir Layered reservoir Composite Interlayered

with crossflow without crossflow reservoirs crossflow

Layers Layers Also known as Crossflow can

communicate at communicate only commingled reservoirs. occur between
the contact planes. through the Well responses are not layers.
See Figure 15-2 wellbore. straightforward because See
See Figure 15-3 one must account for Figures 15-6
communication between
the layers at the
observation well.
See Figure 15-5

Figure 1 5 - 1 . C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of oil r e s e r v o i r s y s t e m s .

504
 Well Testing Methods in Multilayered Oil Reservoir Systems 505

15.3 Analyzing Pressure Behavior in Multilayered Systems

Multilayered reservoirs can be classified into two categories: layered
reservoirs with crossflow, in which layers are hydrodynamically communi-
cating at the contact places and layered reservoirs without crossflow, in
which layers communicate only through the wellbore. This type of system
without crossflow is also called a "commingled system."

Layered Reservoir with Crossflow

Figure 15-2 shows a four-layer oil reservoir with crossflow allowed
between the layers. Pressure transient testing in such reservoirs is the same
as the behavior of the homogeneous system. The following relationships can
be applied for such systems.
Permeability-thickness product
?/

(kh),-
j=l

Porosity-compressibility product
/7

(c~cth)t - Z(chcth)j (15-2)

j=l

The total number of layers is n. The individual layer permeabilities may

be approximated from

Figure 15-2. Four-layer crossflow reservoir.

506 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Layered Reservoir without Crossflow

Figure 15-3 shows a four-layer reservoir with the layers separated by a shale
barrier. Oil production is commingled at the well, so layers communicate only
through the well. Early-time pressure drawdown behavior in such a system
yields a straight line on the semilog plot as shown in Figure 15-4. Boundary
effects cause the upward bending in Figure 15-4. After a long production time,
pseudo-steady-state conditions exist and pressure behavior will be linear with
time. Refs. 3, 5, and 7 have proposed methods for estimating both the location
of the oil, water banks in Figure 14-14, and the permeability of the two fluid
banks in a two-zone system. Pseudo-steady state begins approximately at: 8

(tDA)pss ~ 23.5 (kT-L~ kl>k2 (15-4)

\K2,]

Well

Sand ---~I!I ~
I:! kl, ~bl, hl
Shale barrier ~ _ - -i~"' "X--qls Imperious layer

Sand k2, $2, h2

ili
Shale barrier ~ 2 :-[i " ~ Imperious layer
Sand --I1,- k3'@'h3
Shale barrier ~ ' ~ ---- ~ Imperious layer

Figure 15--3. Three-layer without crossflow reservoir.

hi~h2
(~bpgC)1 = (~bpgC)2
r e Ir w = 2000 kl/k2
100

10

~- 10 2 -

II

Approximateend of
transient state

toa = 0.OOO264kJ/~,: A

Figure 15-4. Muskat straight line intercepts for two-layer reservoirs without cross-
flow (after Ramey and Miller, JPT, Jan. 1972). 4
 Well Testing Methods in Multilayered Oil Reservoir Systems 507

Time at the beginning of pseudo-steady state also depends on

9 relationship between 4~, h, and compressibility in the various layers,
9 reservoir shape,
9 number of layers, and
9 well location.
Figure 15-4 shows a graph of dimensionless pressure, PD, versus dimen-
sionless time, tD, for a two-layer reservoir with permeability ratios k l / k 2 of
1, 2, 10, and 100. All four curves are for re/rw of 2000. The dimensionless
terms are

0.000264kt
tD -- ~#gCr 2 (15-5)
D

0.000264kt
tDA = q~#gcA (15-6)

kh(pi - pwf )
PD -- 141.2q#o13o (15-7)

where

-~ _ k l h l + k2h2
hi + h2 (15-8)
m

h - h~ + h2 (15-9)

= ~lhl + ~2h2
hi -Jr-h2 ( l 5-1 O)

Figure 15--4 indicates that during the early transient period, the slope of
the straight line is 1.151 (2.303/2). The approximate semilogarithmic period
ends at tD -- 5 x 105 and behavior beyond the end of the semilogarithmic
period is strongly influenced by permeability ratio.

Composite Reservoirs
This type of reservoir is also known as commingled reservoirs. Layers
communicate only through the wellbore as shown in Figure 15-5. In recent
years, investigators ~-3 have conducted studies on wells with commingled
fluid production from two or more noncommunicating zones. In those cases,
fluid is produced into the wellbore from two or more separate layers and is
carried to the surface through a common wellbore.
508 Oil Well Testing Handbook

~"" Well
I
"Ill
I J II III IIIIII II . - ........

I!!
t Zone 1
"'li
~,, q~,, hi

Ill I k 1, ~bl,hl
Zone2 Ii I k2, c~2,h2 crossflow t
e~0
.=.

Zone 3
!' il
!1
k~,~, h~
k2, q~2,h2
crossflow T

Figure 15-5. Reservoir consisting of commingled zones and crossflow layers.

Interlayer Crossflow Reservoir

Figure 15-6 shows that the crossflows between the layers can occur; the
pressure and production behavior of a gas well can be interpreted by the use
of homogeneous reservoir theory. An oil well in a layered reservoir with
crossflow behaves as a well in a homogeneous, single-layer reservoir that
possesses the same dimensions and pore volume as the crossflow system and

~Well Direction of flow

Cap rock

Lower
layer

Drainage =x Higher I
boundary x ermeablhty
........ l. . . . . . layer

Base
rock

Figure 15-6. Schematic view of a portion of a two-layer reservoir with interlayer

crossflow.
 Well Testing Methods in Multilayered Oil Reservoir Systems 509

a permeability-thickness product (kh) equal to the total kh of the crossflow

system. The occurrence of crossflow can be confirmed by the homogeneous-
like appearance of the pressure and/or production behavior.

15.4 Concept of Reservoir Layer Fracture Conductivity

Raghavan et al. 7 have introduced the concept of reservoir layer conduc-
tivity, CRDi, given by

CRDj = - ~ (15--11)

where ~Tj- diffusivity of layer j, ~ - k/(~Ct#g), CRD- Ejn=l CRDj, and an

equivalent fracture length and equivalent fracture conductivity are defined,
respectively, by

-Xf -- ~ CRDjXfj" (15-12)

j=l

and

(15-13)
ht
The dimensionless fracture conductivity is then defined by

CfD -~_~f (15--14)

Camacho et al. 6 have studied the correlations of multilayer responses with

the single-layer solutions for a number of cases. They assume that the
fractures are not in communication. If fractures are in communication, the
values of CfD are somewhat higher and the ratio hf/xfj is an important factor
in the performance of the fractured well. When layers are stimulated by
fractures, then maximum productivity will be achieved if the fracture tip in
each layer begins to affect the well response at approximately the same time.
For a two-layer gas reservoir system, the criterion for maximum productiv-
ity is given by

CfD2h2 CRD2Xf2 (15-1S)

CfDlhl CRD1Xfl
510 Oil Well Testing Handbook

100

,--& 10

II
O

nr 0.1 iiiii IIIll /

0.001
0.001 0.1 1 10 100
CRD2Xf2
C~lXfl
Figure 15--7. Criteria for maximum productivity (after Camacho et al., 1987). 6

where

kx/j
The dashed lines in Figure 15-7 represent Eq. 15-15. These results are
based on the assumption that boundary effects are negligible. The reservoir
layer conductivity concept does not apply if boundary effects dominate the
pressure response. During pseudo-steady-state flow the well response is
given by (well in a circular reservoir)

15.5 Pressure Production Performance

Response Equations
The pressure production performance relationships for the cases of con-
stant producing pressure and constant producing rate are given below. 4'1~

Constant Producing Pressure

For the case of constant bottom-hole producing pressure, the follow-
ing formula for producing rate developed in Ref. 5 has also provided
 Well Testing Methods in Multilayered Oil Reservoir Systems 511

the method to calculate cumulative production from multilayered

reservoirs.

(kh)t = klhl + k2h2, (Oh)t = ~lhl -+- ~2h2

qo - (kh)t(Pi -Pwf) e_AB (15-16)

141.2/3o#o (ln rwr-f-e-0.75)

where

0.0127(kh),
AB=
((gh)tc#~ ( ln rZ-~ 0.75)

Constant Producing Rate

Transient bottom-hole pressure performance of a well in a reservoir with
crossflow is given by 3

Pwf = Pi --
162.6qo#o~o
(kh),Tsc log
(kh)tt - 3.23
(Oh)t#oCr2 1 (15-17)

For semisteady state (larger times), the pressure behavior is described by

Pwf = Pi -
141.2qo#o~o IO.O00528(kh)tt
(kh), (~h)t~o~r~e
+,n(rw) ,1,18,
where t = time in hours; (kh)t = klhl + k2h2; (chh)t = (~blhl) + (~b2h2); and
ht = hi -+- h 2 .
The time at which semisteady state starts is given by

t -~ 1136.4 (Oh)t#~ (hr) (15-19)

(kh),
For semisteady-state flow, the slope of the plot of flowing bottom-hole
pressure versus time is given by

Slope - 0.07455 qo/3o (psi/hr) (15-20)

512 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Figure 15-8. Idealized constant-rate pressure performance in two-layer reservoir

with crossflow (after Russell and Prats, JPT, June 1962). 8

Figure 15-8 shows an idealized constant-rate flowing bottom-hole pres-

sure performance curve, and reservoirs of this type should possess the
properties shown on this plot.

15.6 Investigating Degree of Communication

and Type of Crossflow
Figure 15-9 presents the methods that can be used to identify the degree
of communication between layers and type of crossflow.

15.7 Pressure Buildup Characteristics in Layered

Reservoir Systems
Figure 15-10 shows pressure buildup behavior in single-well, multilayer
reservoir systems. Lefkovits et al. 1. and Raghavan et al. 7 have stated that, after
the initial semilog straight line, the buildup curve flattens, then steepens, and
finally flattens toward the average reservoir pressure as indicated in the figure.
This is not always correct. The C-D portion in Figure 15-10 can be insigni-
ficant for some systems. This is particularly true for large contrasts in porosity
or thickness, for more than two layers, or for nonsymmetrical systems.
Classifications and pressure response characteristics including detailed analy-
sis of multilayer reservoir systems are described in the previous sections.
 Well Testing Methods in Multilayered Oil Reservoir Systems 513

Determining degree of communication and

type of crossflow

Petrophysical Formation Analyses of

Flow tests on analyses testing production and
cores pressure
performance

Detecting type of flow h

Detecting degree of Without

Crossflow
communication crossflow

Oil flow will Production characteristics

Degree of communication can be are of exponential decline
decline
determined before the well is completed exponentially type, after one of the
after a short reservoir layers ceases to
period of time produce. The decline rate
(see Figure 15-2) will gradually decrease
(see Figure 15-3)

Figure 15-9. Systemic diagrams to determine degree of communication and type

of crossflow.

Figure 15-10. Schematic pressure buildup curve for layered reservoir system. 5
514 Oil Well Testing Handbook

15.8 Pressure Analysis Methods for Oil Wells

Producing Commingled Zones
The following methods can be used to analyze multilayer reservoir systems.

Conventional Analysis Method (Horner Plot)

Early portion of the Horner buildup plot is linear with a slope of approxi-
mately 1.151. This early straight line provides a means of estimating k h
directly. Under certain conditions buildup data can be extrapolated to static
pressure. Late buildup is the result of additional buildup and is carried by
fluids flowing from the lower k h to higher k h zone. This will be greater if
permeability ratio and producing time are large. This method requires a plot
of buildup pressure versus log (tp + A t ) / A t . Buildup pressures would clearly
be a linear function of log (tp + A t ) / A t . Slope of such semilog plot would be
1.151. The average reservoir permeability can be estimated from the follow-
ing equation:

- 162.6qo#o/3o
k - _ (15-21)
rnh

where m is the slope of straight line of semilog plot. Figure 15-11 illustrates
how to determine p for a two-layer reservoir having permeability ratio

30 i i
p,= 32.5 i i I
"'--.
• 35 . . . . . . . . . . 2:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"'--
i
3,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
!
i I
iJ
!/
kl/k2 = 2
hl/h2 = 1
(qSlZoCt)l=(qJlZoCt)2
.....

""--. i i/ re/rw=2000
A = 38.5 ~ . . . . . -'-'~'-- . i to = 6 x 107
,~ 40
I

45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

t+At . . 18"5 ~i ii
At . . i ,,
,
i
50
1 10 100 1000

t, ~xt )

Figure 15-11. Extrapolation of initial Horner straight line to static pressure for a
two-layer reservoir.
 Well Testing Methods in Multilayered Oil Reservoir Systems 515

of 2. The entire pressure buildup can be computed by using the following

equation:

kh
(p, - - po(t + z x t ) o - po(zxt) (15-22)
141.3qo#o~o

Extrapolation of the proper straight line to a time ratio of unity gives the
false pressure, p*. Thus we can determine graphically the MBH dimension-
less function of (p* - p ) as

kh
( p * - p ) - 2(A - p * ) - 2 ( 3 8 . 5 - 32.5) - 12
70.65qo#o/3o

l n ( t +AtA?~J -- ln(18.5) -- 2.92

The value of A can be found from Horner plot as shown in Figure 15-11.
Therefore p is equal to

141.3qo#o~o(A - p * )
kh

Figure 15-11 shows that the proper straight line does indeed extrapolate to
the fully static pressure at this value of time ratio. Fractional production rate
from each layer during the early transient period is approximately equal to

ql klhl
q klhi -+-k2h2

and

q2 = 1 - ~ ql
= k2h2
q q2 klhl -Jr-k2h2

At pseudo-steady state, the fractional production rate from such layer is

equal to

ql hi,hi
q hi q~l -}- h2q~2

and

q2= 1 ql h2q~2
q q2 hlqS1 + h2~2
516 Oil Well Testing Handbook

M D H Method

This plot also provides a straight line for the case buildup and slope
of 1.151 for a producing time of any length, k h can be estimated as well
as static pressure. The following equation can be used to construct
ideal M D H plots for any drainage shape for producing times of any
length:

kh
( P - Pws) = p D ( t D ) -- p D ( A t ) D -- 27rtDA (15-23)
141.3qo#o/3o

This plot should yield a straight line with a slope of approximately 1.151 on
semilog graph paper. If the early straight line can be identified, the average
reservoir permeability can be determined from

- 162.6qo#oflo
k- _ (15-24)
mh

where m is the slope of the MDH straight line in psi/cycle. Estimation of

static pressure depends greatly on the permeability ratio. Figure 15-12 can
be used to reveal the essential character of pressure buildup for any specific
flow system and determine fully static pressure. Figures 15-12 and 15-13
indicate that an initial straight line exists only to a shut-in time of about
AtDA -- 0.01. If values of AtDA greater than 0.01 are obtained, the choice of
straight line should be suspect.

Extended Muskat Plot

Length of buildup to reach the proper straight line decreases as producing

time increases. This method can be used to estimate flow capacity and static
pressure and to determine reservoir pore volume. This method employs
(p assumed) the logarithm of ( p - Pws) against Cartesian buildup time, At.
The pressure fi is the fully static pressure desired for material balance study.
The following equation provides a basis for making a dimensionless Muskat
plot for a well located in any drainage region, shut-in after a producing time
of any length:

kh
(fi - Pws) = p D ( t D ) -- p o ( A t ) D -- 27rtOA (15-25)
141.3qo#oflo
 Well Testing Methods in Multilayered Oil Reservoir Systems 517

0.5--
Producing
time, to .,,~////~.,,,r Start of
2.5 x 106 ~ Muskat
1.0 5.0• 7 ~ ~ / / J / ~ MrU~khtt
1.0xl07 ~ / ~ ~ " / ..... line
~" 2.0
/ / / / ~ ~ " End ~ the straight line

~2 2.5 / / / / / / Producing kl/k2= 2

/ / / / ~ " 2.0 x 1077 (~/zc), = (4~)2

3.0
y/j/, S i
3.5 "// I I I i
10--4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10
AtOA

Figure 15-12. MDH buildup for a well in the center of a closed, two-layer reservoir
with a permeability ratio of 2. 4

Producing time, tD
, ~

2.5 2.5 x 106 ~

~ 5.0
1xlO 7
c'l
xlO 7
7.5
3•
=~ 10.0
I 4xlO 7

6xlO 7 kl/k 2 = 10
12.5
II ,--r--7. ~ (q)/ZgC)1= (q~#gC)2
i
re/r w = 2000
15.0 lxl08
L~ ,~ Start of Muskat straight line
End of the straight line
17.5 I I I I
10 -4 10 -3 10-2 10-1 1 10
tDa = 0.000264kt / r

Figure 15-13. MDH buildup curves (after Raghavan et al., JPT, Sept. 1974). 7
518 Oil Well Testing Handbook

7
hl/h 2 = 1 kl/k2 J
5.0 1.0
(0/ZgC)l (dPltgC)2= 1
:~
:~6 relrw= 2000 ....... 2.0
C'q 5 ............ "2
0.80
4.0
" 4
0.60 ~
- ~, 3.0 I
, 3

2 .......................... i ~ ....... -
0.40
II II

m 0.20
1

0 9 i 0.00
10 -1 1 10 102
tDa = 0.000264 kt / OUgc A

Figure 15-14. Muskat straight line intercepts for two-layer reservoirs (after Ramey
and Miller, JPT, Jan. 1972). 4

The Muskat method should be used with extreme care for determining
static pressure. Figure 15-14 is a plot of Muskat straight-line intercepts
versus the logarithm of producing time for selected permeability ratios.
Thus, knowing the Muskat straight-line intercept at known permeability
ratio, average reservoir permeability may be estimated by

k--h - 141.3qo#oflo (intercept)Muska t (15-26)

(~ - P~,)a,=0
m

kt
tDA = 0.000264_ (15-27)
O#ociA

Interpretation equation for A~c is

A~c - -(0.350)(0.000264) k (m lOgl0/hr) -1 (15-28)

#o

where m is the slope of the Muskat plot straight line. For example, a two-
layer reservoir with permeability contrast of 2. From Figure 15-14, the value
is 0.87. The slope of all the straight lines for the reservoir with a permeability
contrast of 2 is -0.350 logl0.
Figure 15-15 presents a family of Muskat plots for a permeability ratio
of 2, producing time, tD being considered. The upper limiting curve repre-
sents the producing time required to reach pseudo-steady state before
 Well Testing Methods in Multilayered Oil Reservoir Systems 519

kl/k 2 - 2
hl/h 2 = 1 Approximate start of
Producing time, tD
(q~#gC)l = (qS/ZgC)2= 1 Muskat straight line
re/r w = 2000
> 5.0 X 107
4.0 x 107
3.0X 107
r
2.0X lO 7

1.Ox 107
II

5 . 0 x 10 6

,, 2.5 x 10 6
lO-1

0 0.003 0.006 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27

Atoa = O.O00264kt/r

Figure 15--15. Muskat plot for four-layer reservoir with a permeability contract of 2.
(after Ramey and Miller, Jan. 1972). 4

shut-in. For producing times less than those shown, longer shut-in times
should be expected.

Other Methods

Cobb etal. 4 have provided techniques to determine average reservoir

pressure in commingled systems. It requires some knowledge of the layer
properties and correlations for specific systems. The following types of tests
may be used to estimate individual zone properties for two-layer reservoir
with communication only at the wellbore:
9 single-well test,
9 pulse tests, and
9 flow meter surveys.
Apparent kh/#o is always equal to or greater than the actual total (kh/#o)t
for the reservoir. Apparent dpcth is always equal to or less than the total
(Octh)t for the reservoir. Deviation of apparent values from actual total
values depends on the pulse duration.
520 Oil Well Testing Handbook

800 I I I
I I ee*
[ Straight line section [ Jr
700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]- ....... Slope, m ........... ! ........ ~ / L .......

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
ii~. . . . . . . . . . . . . t~ ii _ i' ~ . l ~ .. . . . . . . . . . . .
9-.
r~ 600 _ _ _ ~

~. 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~

...... f ........... -i ....................... ~ ......................

400 ......

i i
300
'

.................. -/.,- ..................... " ....................... i ......................

i 9 i

200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i/
Flowing pressure ' !
i .............
L
I" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i i i

10 102 103 104

(t+At)/At

Figure 15-16. Pressure buildup behavior in two-layer oil reservoir.

The pressure builds up first in the more permeable layer, giving a straight-
line section as shown in Figure 15-16. Then the less permeable layer, which
is at a higher average pressure, begins to feed fluid into the more permeable
layer. This causes the rise above the straight line. Finally, equalization will
occur and the curve will flatten as indicated by the dotted line. Figure 15-16
shows pressure buildup behavior in two-layer oil reservoir including the
effects of wellbore.

15.9 F a c t o r s Affecting M u l t i l a y e r e d
Reservoir P e r f o r m a n c e

The following factors can affect the performance of multilayered reservoir

systems:
9 R e l a t i v e p e r m e a b i l i t y : If both layers have the same relative permeability
characteristics, average water saturation will be higher in the tighter
layer than in the more permeable layer, because the average pressure is
always higher in the less permeable layer.
9 P o r e size: If pore size in the tight layer is smaller than that in the more
permeable layer, then it will tend to reduce crossflow. This effect can be
estimated from capillary pressure curves.
9 R e s e r v o i r g e o m e t r y : Geometrical nature and extent of interlayer com-
munication have some effect on observed field performance.
9 P e r m e a b i l i t y anisotropy: In most petroleum reservoirs, vertical perme-
ability is significantly Iess than horizontal permeability.
 Well Testing Methods in Multilayered Oil Reservoir Systems 521

9 Reservoir n-layer system: Analysis of performance can be handled to

acceptable accuracy merely by the previously presented formulae
~ . kjhj and ~ . qSjhj for (kh)t and (Oh)t, respectively.

15.10 Economic Aspects of Interlayer Crossflow

The absence or presence of crossflow between interlayer can control the
economic success of oil production venture. Some of the advantages of
interlayer crossflow are listed below:
9 shorter operating life,
9 higher ultimate oil production,
9 reduced perforating and completion costs, and
9 less engineering time for interpretation of routine tests.
Note: Without-crossflow reservoir can be converted into crossflow reser-
voir by fracturing. Thus a vertical fracture can help to establish vertically
adjacent gas production strata which were not in communication prior to
the fracture job except at the wellbore.

15.11 Summary
This chapter reviews various types and testing of layered oil reservoir
systems including multilayered responses in fractured reservoirs. It also
describes crossflow identification and the nature and degree of communica-
tion between layers. Performance equations for cases of constant flowing
pressure and constant producing rate are presented and discussed. This
chapter also reviews "layer effect" on pressure and/or production behavior
including economic aspects of interlayer crossflow.

References and Additional Reading

1. Lefkovits, H. C., Hazebrock, P., Allen, E., and Matthews, C. S., "A Study
of the Behavior of Bounded Reservoirs Composed of Stratified Layers,"
Soc. Petroleum Eng. J. (March 1961), 43-58.
2. Cobb, W. M., "A Study of Transient Flow in Stratified Reservoirs with
Commingled Fluid Production," Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA, 1970.
3. Russell, D. G., and Prats, M., "The Practical Aspects of Inter Layer
Cross Flow," J. Petroleum Technol. (June 1962), 589-594.
522 Oil Well Testing Handbook

4. Cobb, W. M., Ramey, H. J., Jr., and Miller, F. G., "Well Test Analysis
for Wells Producing Commingled Zones," J. Petroleum Technol. (Jan.
1972), 27-37: Trans. A I M E 253.
5. Earlouhger, R. C., Jr., Kersch, K. M., and Kunzman, W. J., "Some
Characteristics of Pressure Buildup Behavior in Bounded Multiple Layer
Reservoirs without Crossflow," J. Petroleum Technol. (Oct. 1974), 1178-
1186; Trans. A I M E 257.
6. Camacho, V., Raghavan, R., and Reynolds, A. C., "Response of Wells
Producing Layered Reservoirs, Unequal Fracture Length," S P E Forma-
tion Eval (Feb. 1987), 9-28.
7. Raghavan, R., Topaloglu, H. N., Cobb, W. M., and Ramey, H. J., Jr.,
"Well Test Analysis for Wells Producing from Two Commingled Zones
of Unequal Thickness," J. Petroleum Technol. (Sept. 1974), 1035-1043;
Trans. A I M E 257.
8. Russell, D. G., Goodrich, J. H., Perry, G. E., and Brushkotter, J. F.,
"Methods for Predicting Gas Well Performance," J. Petroleum Technol.
(Jan. 1966), 99-108.