AND
INTERPRETATION
D. Bourdet
CONTENTS
Pages
1  PRINCIPLES OF TRANSIENT TESTING..................................................................................... 1
11 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1
12 DEFINITIONS & TYPICAL REGIMES................................................................................................ 7
2  THE ANALYSIS METHODS......................................................................................................... 27
21 LOGLOG SCALE........................................................................................................................ 27
22 PRESSURE CURVES ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 28
23 PRESSURE DERIVATIVE ............................................................................................................. 37
24 THE ANALYSIS SCALES............................................................................................................... 44
3  WELLBORE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................... 47
31 WELL WITH WELLBORE STORAGE AND SKIN, HOMOGENEOUS RESERVOIR................................. 47
32 INFINITE CONDUCTIVITY OR UNIFORM FLUX VERTICAL FRACTURE ............................................ 48
33 FINITE CONDUCTIVITY VERTICAL FRACTURE............................................................................. 50
34 WELL IN PARTIAL PENETRATION ............................................................................................... 53
35 HORIZONTAL WELL................................................................................................................... 57
36 SKIN FACTORS............................................................................................................................ 71
4  FISSURED RESERVOIRS  DOUBLE POROSITY MODELS.................................................. 75
41 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................. 75
42 DOUBLE POROSITY BEHAVIOR, RESTRICTED INTERPOROSITY FLOW (PSEUDOSTEADY STATE
INTERPOROSITY FLOW).......................................................................................................................... 77
43 DOUBLE POROSITY BEHAVIOR, UNRESTRICTED INTERPOROSITY FLOW (TRANSIENT INTERPOROSITY
FLOW) ................................................................................................................................................. 85
44 COMPLEX FISSURED RESERVOIRS............................................................................................... 90
5  BOUNDARY MODELS................................................................................................................... 95
51 ONE SEALING FAULT ................................................................................................................. 95
52 TWO PARALLEL SEALING FAULTS .............................................................................................. 97
53 TWO INTERSECTING SEALING FAULTS...................................................................................... 101
54 CLOSED SYSTEM..................................................................................................................... 104
55 CONSTANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY........................................................................................... 111
56 COMMUNICATING FAULT......................................................................................................... 113
57 PREDICTING DERIVATIVE SHAPES............................................................................................. 117
6  COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS....................................................................................... 119
61 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 119
62 RADIAL COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR ............................................................................................... 120
63 LINEAR COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR................................................................................................ 123
64 MULTICOMPOSITE SYSTEMS..................................................................................................... 125
7  LAYERED RESERVOIRS  DOUBLE PERMEABILITY MODEL........................................ 127
71 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 127
72 DOUBLE PERMEABILITY BEHAVIOR WHEN THE TWO LAYERS ARE PRODUCING INTO THE WELL 129
73 DOUBLE PERMEABILITY BEHAVIOR WHEN ONLY ONE OF THE TWO LAYERS IS PRODUCING INTO THE
WELL ............................................................................................................................................... 131
74 COMMINGLED SYSTEMS: LAYERED RESERVOIRS WITHOUT CROSSFLOW................................... 133
8  INTERFERENCE TESTS............................................................................................................. 135
81 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN RESERVOIRS WITH HOMOGENEOUS BEHAVIOR.................................. 135
82 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN DOUBLE POROSITY RESERVOIRS ....................................................... 139
83 INFLUENCE OF RESERVOIR BOUNDARIES ................................................................................. 143
84 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIR........................................................ 143
85 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN A TWO LAYERS RESERVOIR WITH CROSS FLOW.................................. 146
9  GAS WELLS................................................................................................................................... 149
91 GAS PROPERTIES..................................................................................................................... 149
92 TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF GAS WELL TESTS.............................................................................. 150
93 DELIVERABILITY TESTS............................................................................................................ 154
10  BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS........................................................ 159
101 BOUNDARIES IN FISSURED RESERVOIRS............................................................................... 159
102 BOUNDARIES IN LAYERED RESERVOIRS............................................................................... 160
103 COMPOSITE CHANNEL RESERVOIRS...................................................................................... 162
11  COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES ................................................................. 165
111 FISSUREDLAYERED RESERVOIRS........................................................................................ 165
112 FISSURED RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIRS......................................................................... 166
113 LAYERED RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIRS.......................................................................... 167
12  OTHER TESTING METHODS.................................................................................................. 169
121 DRILLSTEM TEST................................................................................................................. 169
122 IMPULSE TEST..................................................................................................................... 172
123 RATE DECONVOLUTION....................................................................................................... 173
124 CONSTANT PRESSURE TEST (RATE DECLINE ANALYSIS) ....................................................... 174
125 VERTICAL INTERFERENCE TEST............................................................................................ 175
13  MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS .................................................................................................. 179
131 PERRINE METHOD ............................................................................................................... 179
132 OTHER METHODS................................................................................................................. 180
14  TEST DESIGN ............................................................................................................................. 183
141 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 183
142 TEST SIMULATION............................................................................................................... 183
143 TEST DESIGN REPORTING AND TEST SUPERVISION ................................................................ 184
15  FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST ANALYSIS....................................................... 185
151 RATE HISTORY DEFINITION.................................................................................................. 185
152 ERROR OF START OF THE PERIOD......................................................................................... 186
153 PRESSURE GAUGE DRIFT ..................................................................................................... 188
154 PRESSURE GAUGE NOISE ..................................................................................................... 188
155 CHANGING WELLBORE STORAGE......................................................................................... 189
156 TWO PHASES LIQUID LEVEL................................................................................................. 190
157 INPUT PARAMETERS, AND CALCULATED RESULTS OF INTERPRETATION................................ 191
16  CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 193
161 INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE ............................................................................................ 193
162 REPORTING AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS....................................................................... 203
APPENDIX  ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS..................................................................................... 205
A1 DARCY'S LAW......................................................................................................................... 205
A2 STEADY STATE RADIAL FLOW OF AN INCOMPRESSIBLE FLUID.................................................. 205
A3 DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION........................................................................................................... 206
A4 THE "LINE SOURCE" SOLUTION ................................................................................................ 208
NOMENCLATURE............................................................................................................................. 209
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 212
Most figures presented in this set of course notes are extracted from "Well Test Analysis: The Use of
Advanced Interpretation Models", D. Bourdet, Handbook of Petroleum Exploration and Production 3,
ELSEVIER SCIENCE, 2002. http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/628241
 1 
1  PRINCIPLES OF TRANSIENT TESTING
11 Introduction
11.1 Purpose of well testing
Description of a well test
During a well test, a transient pressure response is created by a temporary change
in production rate. The well response is usually monitored during a relatively short
period of time compared to the life of the reservoir, depending upon the test
objectives. For well evaluation, tests are frequently achieved in less than two days.
In the case of reservoir limit testing, several months of pressure data may be
needed.
In most cases, the flow rate is measured at surface while the pressure is recorded
downhole. Before opening, the initial pressure p
i
is constant and uniform in the
reservoir. During flow time, the drawdown pressure response ∆p is expressed :
) (t p p p
i
− = ∆ (psi, Bars) ( 11)
When the well is shutin, the buildup pressure change ∆p is estimated from the
last flowing pressure p(∆t=0) :
) 0 ( ) ( = ∆ − = ∆ t p t p p (psi, Bars) ( 12)
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
∆t
BU
∆t
Dd
∆p
Dd
∆p
BU
p
i
p(∆t=0)
drawdown buildup
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
∆t
BU
∆t
Dd
∆p
Dd
∆p
BU
p
i
p(∆t=0)
drawdown buildup
Figure 11 Drawdown and buildup test sequence.
The pressure response is analyzed versus the elapsed time ∆t since the start of the
period (time of opening or shutin).
Well test objectives
Well test analysis provides information on the reservoir and on the well.
Associated to geology and geophysics, well test results are used to build a
reservoir model for prediction of the field behavior and fluid recovery to different
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 2 
operating scenarios. The quality of the communication between the well and the
reservoir indicates the possibility to improve the well productivity.
Exploration well : On initial wells, well testing is used to confirm the exploration
hypothesis and to establish a first production forecast: nature and rate of produced
fluids, initial pressure (RFT, MDT), reservoir properties.
Appraisal well : The previous well and reservoir description can be refined (well
productivity, bottom hole sampling, drainage mechanism, heterogeneities,
reservoir boundaries etc.)
Development well : On producing wells, periodic tests are made to adjust the
reservoir description and to evaluate the need of a well treatment, such as work
over, perforation strategy etc. Communication between wells (interference testing),
monitoring of the average reservoir pressure are some usual objectives of
development well testing.
Information obtained from well testing
Well test responses characterize the ability of the fluid to flow through the
reservoir and to the well. Tests provide a description of the reservoir in dynamic
conditions, as opposed to geological and log data. As the investigated reservoir
volume is relatively large, the estimated parameters are average values.
Reservoir description :
• Permeability (horizontal k and vertical k
v
)
• Reservoir heterogeneities (natural fractures, layering, change of characteristics)
• Boundaries (distance and shape)
• Pressure (initial p
i
and average p )
Well description :
• Production potential (productivity index PI, skin factor S)
• Well geometry
By comparing the result of routine tests, changes of productivity and rate of
decrease of the average reservoir pressure can be established.
11.2 Methodology
The inverse problem
The objective of well test analysis is to describe an unknown system S (well +
reservoir) by indirect measurements (O the pressure response to I a change of
rate). This is a typical inverse problem (S=O/I).
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 3 
I S O
input system output
As opposed to the direct problem (O=IxS), the solution of the inverse problem is
usually not unique. It implies an identification process, and the interpretation
provides the model(s) whose behavior is identical to the behavior of the actual
reservoir.
Interpretation models
The models used in well test interpretation can be described as a transfer function;
they only define the behavior (homogeneous or heterogeneous, bounded or
infinite). Well test interpretation models are often different from the geological or
log models, due to the averaging of the reservoir properties. Layered reservoirs for
example frequently show a homogeneous behavior during tests.
Analytical solutions are used to generate pressure responses to a specific
production rate history I, until the model behavior O is identical to the behavior of
S.
Input data required for well test analysis
• Test data : flow rate (complete sequence of events, including any operational
problem) and bottom hole pressure as a function of time.
• Well data : wellbore radius r
w
, well geometry (inclined, horizontal etc.), depths
(formation, gauges).
• Reservoir and fluid parameters : formation thickness h (net), porosity φ,
compressibility of oil c
o
, water c
w
and formation c
f
, water saturation S
w
, oil
viscosity µ and formation volume factor B. The different compressibility's are
used to define the total system compressibility c
t
:
( )
f w w w o t
c S c S c c + + − = 1 (psi
1
, Bars
1
) ( 13)
The reservoir and fluid parameters are used for calculation of the results. After the
interpretation model has been selected, they may always be changed or adjusted if
needed.
Additional data can be useful in some cases : production log, gradient surveys,
bubble point pressure etc. General information obtained from geologist and
geophysicists are required to validate the well test interpretation results.
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 4 
11.3 Types of tests
Test procedure
• Drawdown test : the flowing bottom hole pressure is used for analysis. Ideally,
the well should be producing at constant rate but in practice, drawdown data is
erratic, and the analysis is frequently inaccurate.
• Buildup test : the increase of bottom hole pressure after shutin is used for
analysis. Before the buildup test, the well must have been flowing long enough
to reach stabilized rate. During shutin periods, the flow rate is accurately
controlled (zero).
• Injection test / falloff test : when fluid is injected into the reservoir, the
bottom hole pressure increases and, after shutin, it drops during the falloff
period. The properties of the injected fluid are in general different from that of
the reservoir fluid.
• Interference test and pulse test : the bottom hole pressure is monitored in a
shutin observation well some distance away from the producer. Interference
tests are designed to evaluate communication between wells. With pulse tests,
the active well is produced with a series of short flow / shutin periods, the
resulting pressure oscillations in the observation well are analyzed.
• Gas well test : specific testing methods are used to evaluate the deliverability
of gas wells (Absolute Open Flow Potential, AOFP) and the possibility of non
Darcy flow condition (rate dependent skin factor S'). The usual procedures are
Back Pressure test (Flow after Flow), Isochronal and Modified Isochronal tests.
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
Clean
up
Initial
shutin
Variable
rate
Stabilized
rate
Buildup
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
Clean
up
Initial
shutin
Variable
rate
Stabilized
rate
Buildup
Clean
up
Initial
shutin
Variable
rate
Stabilized
rate
Buildup
Figure 1.2 Typical test sequence. Oil well.
Well completion
• Production test : the well is completed as a production well (cased hole and
permanent completion).
• Drill stem test (DST) : the well is completed temporarily with a downhole
shutin valve. Frequently the well is cased but DST can be made also in open
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 5 
hole. The drill stem testing procedure is used only for relatively short tests. The
drill string is not used any more, and production tubing is employed.
Flowhead
BOP Stack
Casing
Tubing
Test tool
Packer
Flowhead
BOP Stack
Casing
Tubing
Test tool
Packer
Figure 1.3 Onshore DST test string.
11.4 Well testing equipment
Surface equipment
• Flow head : is equipped with several valves to allow flowing, pumping in the
well, wire line operation etc. The wellhead working pressure should be greater
than the well shutin pressure. The Emergency Shut Down is a failsafe system
to close the wing valve remotely.
• Choke manifold : is used to control the rate by flowing the well through a
calibrated orifice. A system of twin valves allows to change the choke (positive
and adjustable chokes) without shutting in the well. The downstream pressure
must be less than half the upstream pressure.
• Heater : Heating the effluent may be necessary to prevent hydrate formation in
highpressure gas wells (the temperature is reduced after the gas expansion
through the choke). Heaters are also used in case of high viscosity oil.
• Test separator : In a three phases test separator, the effluent hits several plates
in order to separate the gas from the liquid phase. A mist extractor is located
before the gas outlet. The oil and water phases are separated by gravity. The oil
and water lines are equipped with positive displacement metering devices, the
gas line with an orifice meter. Surface samples are taken at the separator oil and
gas lines for further recombination in laboratory.
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 6 
Burner
Burner
Heater
Separator
Surge
tank
Air
compressor
Water
pump
Rig HP
pump
Gas
Oil
Water
Choke
maniflod
Flowhead
Transfer pump
Oil
manifold
Gas
manifold
Burner
Burner
Heater
Separator
Surge
tank
Air
compressor
Water
pump
Rig HP
pump
Gas
Oil
Water
Choke
maniflod
Flowhead
Transfer pump
Oil
manifold
Gas
manifold
Figure 1.4 Surface set up.
• Oil and gas disposal : The oil rate can be measured with a gauge tank (or a
surge tank in case of H
2
S). Oil and gas are frequently burned. Onshore, a flare
pit is installed at a safe distance from the well. Offshore, two burners are
available on the rig for wind constraint. Compressed air and water are injected
together with the hydrocarbon fluids to prevent black smoke production and oil
drop out.
Downhole equipment
• Pressure gauges : Electronic gauges are used to measure the bottom hole
pressure versus time. The gauge can be suspended down hole on a wireline, or
hung off on a seating nipple. When they are not connected to the surface with a
cable, the gauges are battery powered and the pressure data is stored in the
gauge memory. No bottom hole pressure is available until the gauge is pulled to
surface. With a cable, a surface read out system allows to monitor the test in
real time, and to adjust the duration of the shutin periods.
• Down hole valve : By closing the well down hole, the pressure response is
representative of the reservoir behavior earlier than in case of surface shutin
(see wellbore storage effect in Section 12.1). DST are generally short tests.
Several types of down hole valve are available, operated by translation, rotation
or annular pressure. A sample of reservoir fluid can be taken when the tester
valve is closed.
• Bottom hole sampler : Fluid samples can also be taken with a wire line bottom
hole sampler. During sampling, the well is produced at low rate.
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 7 
• RFT, MDT :The Repeat Formation Tester and the Modular Formation
Dynamics Tester are open hole wire line tools. They are primary used to
measure the vertical changes of reservoir pressure (pressure gradient), and to
take bottom hole samples. From the pressure versus depth data, fluid contacts
(oil–water OWC and gas–oil GOC) are located, communication or presence of
sealing boundaries between layers can be established. RFT and MDT can also
provide a first estimate of the horizontal and vertical permeability near the well
by analysis of the pressure versus time response.
12 Definitions & typical regimes
12.1 Wellbore storage
When a well is opened, the production at surface is first due to the expansion of
the fluid in the wellbore, and the reservoir contribution is negligible. After any
change of surface rate, there is a time lag between the surface production and the
sand face rate. For a shutin period, the wellbore storage effect is called afterflow.
Pressure profile
Ï
Ï
Ï
Î
r
rw
pi
pw
Figure 15 Wellbore storage effect. Pressure distribution.
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 8 
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
q
surface
q
sand face
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
q
surface
q
sand face
Figure 16 Wellbore storage effect. Sand face and surface rates.
Wellbore storage coefficient
For a well full of a single phase fluid,
w o
V c
p
V
C =
∆
∆
− = (Bbl/psi, m
3
/Bars) ( 14)
where :
c
o
: liquid compressibility (psi
1
, Bars
1
)
V
w
: wellbore volume (Bbl, m
3
)
When there is a liquid level, with ∆ ∆ p g h = ρ , ∆ ∆ V V h
u
= and
ρ : liquid density (lb/cu ft, kg/m
3
)
g/g
c
: gravitational acceleration (lb
f
/ lb
m
, kg
f
/ kg
m
)
V
u
: wellbore volume per unit length (Bbl/ft, m
3
/m)
) (
144
c
u
g g
V
C
ρ
= (Bbl/psi)
) (
10197
c
u
g g
V
C
ρ
= (m
3
/Bars) ( 15)
Elapsed time, ∆t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m
W
B
S
Elapsed time, ∆t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m
W
B
S
Figure 17 Wellbore storage effect.
Specialized analysis on a linear scale.
Specialized analysis
Plot of the pressure change ∆p versus the elapsed time ∆t time on a linear scale. At
early time, the response follows a straight line of slope m
WBS
, intercepting the
origin.
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 9 
t
C
B q
p ∆ = ∆
24
(psi, Bars) ( 16)
Result : wellbore storage coefficient C.
WBS
m
qB
C
24
= (Bbl/psi, m
3
/Bars) ( 17)
12.2 Radial flow regime, skin (homogeneous behavior)
When the reservoir production is established, the flowlines converge radially
towards the well. In the reservoir, the pressure is a function of the time and the
distance to the well.
Pressure profile
Ï
Ï
Ï
Î
Í
Í Í
Í Î
Î
Ï
p
wf
r
w r
r
i
p
p
i
S = 0
p
wf
r
w r
r
i
p
p
i
S = 0
Figure 18 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution. Zero skin.
r
w
r
p
wf
(S=0)
p
wf
(S>0)
r
i
∆p skin
p
p
i
S > 0
r
w
r
p
wf
(S=0)
p
wf
(S>0)
r
i
∆p skin
p
p
i
r
w
r
p
wf
(S=0)
p
wf
(S>0)
r
i
∆p skin
p
p
i
S > 0
Figure 19 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution.
Damaged well, positive skin factor.
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 10 
r
w
r
p
wf
(S=0)
p
wf
(S<0)
r
i
∆p skin
p
p
i
S < 0
r
w
r
p
wf
(S=0)
p
wf
(S<0)
r
i
∆p skin
p
p
i
r
w
r
p
wf
(S=0)
p
wf
(S<0)
r
i
∆p skin
p
p
i
S < 0
Figure 110 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution.
Stimulated well, negative skin factor.
Skin
The skin is a dimensionless parameter. It characterizes the well condition : for a
damaged well S > 0, and for a stimulated well S < 0.
Skin
p
qB
kh
S ∆ =
µ 2 . 141
(field units)
Skin
66 . 18
p
qB
kh
S ∆ =
µ
(metric units) ( 18)
• Damaged well (S > 0) : poor contact between the well and the reservoir (mud
cake, insufficient perforation density, partial penetration) or invaded zone
• Stimulated well (S < 0) : surface of contact between the well and the reservoir
increased (fracture, horizontal well) or acid stimulated zone
Steady state flow in the circular zone :
r
w
r
s
k
s
k
r
w
r
s
k
s
k
w
S
w
S
S
S w S w
r
r
kh
qB
r
r
h k
qB
p p ln
2 . 141
ln
2 . 141
0 , ,
µ µ
− = −
=
(psi, field units)
w
S
w
S
S
S w S w
r
r
kh
qB
r
r
h k
qB
p p ln
66 . 18
ln
66 . 18
0 , ,
µ µ
− = −
=
(Bars, metric units) ( 19)
The skin is expressed :
S
k
k
r
r
S
S
w
= −

\

.
 1 ln ( 110)
Equivalent wellbore radius :
S
e r r
w we
−
= (ft, m) ( 111)
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 11 
Specialized analysis
For homogeneous reservoirs, a pressure versus time semilog straight line
describes the radial flow regime. The analysis gives access to the reservoir
permeability thickness product kh, and to the skin coefficient S.
Log ∆t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m
∆p
(1hr)
Log ∆t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m
∆p
(1hr)
Figure 111 Radial flow regime.
Specialized analysis on semilog scale.
Semilog straight line of slope m :
∆ ∆ p
qB
kh
t
k
c r
S
t w
= + − +
¸
(
¸
(
162 6 323 087
2
. log log . .
µ
φµ
(psi, field units)
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ − + ∆ = ∆ S
r c
k
t
kh
qB
p
w t
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 5 . 21
2
µ φ
µ
(Bars, metric units)( 112)
Results:
kh
qB
m
= 162 6 .
µ
(mD.ft, field units)
m
qB
kh
µ
5 . 21 = (mD.m, metric units) ( 113)
S
p
m
k
c r
t w
= − +

\

.
 1151 323
2
. log .
∆
1 hr
φµ
(field units)


.

\

+ −
∆
= 10 . 3 log 151 . 1
2
hr 1
w t
r c
k
m
p
S
φµ
(metric units) ( 114)
12.3 Examples of infinite acting radial flow behaviors
In the following examples, two wells A and B are tested twice with the same rate
sequence, and the four test responses are compared on linear and semilog scales.
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 12 
The two wells have very different characteristics. Well A is in a low permeability
reservoir. During one test the skin is moderate with S=6, and during the other test
the well has no skin damage (S=0). Well B is in a higher permeability reservoir
(four times larger than for well A) but the skin factors are large, respectively S=25
and S=60 (this large value is relatively exceptional. It suggests a completion
problem such as limited entry).
0
2000
4000
6000
0 10 20 30 40
time, hours
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
s
i
no skin
moderate skin
Figure 1.12 Test history plot well A (low permeability).
On the test history plots Figure 1.12 and Figure 1.13, the two wells show
apparently a similar behavior. For each well, the flowing pressure is low during
one test (the last flowing pressure is 3200 psi before shutin), and higher during the
other test (last flowing pressure of 5500psi before shutin).
0
2000
4000
6000
0 10 20 30 40
time, hours
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
s
i
high skin
very high skin
Figure 1.13 Test history plot well B (higher permeability).
On semilog scale, the pressure response is more characteristic of the well and
reservoir condition than on the previous linear scale plots. In the case of well A
with low permeability and low skin, the pressure drop during drawdown is mainly
produced in the reservoir, and the slope of the semilog straight line is high.
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 13 
0
1000
2000
3000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
time, hours
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
s
i
no skin
moderate skin
∆p skin
Figure 1.14 Semilog responses for well A.
0
1000
2000
3000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
time, hours
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
s
i
high skin
very high skin
∆p skin
Figure 1.15 Semilog responses for well B.
Conversely, with the higher permeability example of well B, most of the pressure
drop is due to skin damage, and the response tends to be flat with a low semilog
straightline slope.
12.4 Fractured well (infinite conductivity fracture) : linear flow regime
xf
Figure 116 Fractured well. Fracture geometry.
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 14 
Linear flow regime
At early time, before the radial flow regime is established, the flowlines are
perpendicular to the fracture plane. This is called linear flow.
Figure 117 Infinite conductivity fracture. Geometry of the flow lines.
Linear and radial flow regimes.
Specialized analysis
Plot of the pressure change ∆p versus the square root of elapsed time ∆t : the
response follows a straight line of slope m
LF
, intercepting the origin.
∆ ∆ p
qB
hx c k
t
f t
= 4 06 .
µ
φ
(psi, field units)
t
k c hx
qB
p
t f
∆ = ∆
φ
µ
623 . 0 (Bars, metric units) ( 115)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m
L
F
t ∆
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m
L
F
t ∆
Figure 118 Infinite conductivity fracture.
Specialized analysis with the pressure versus the square root of time.
Result : the half fracture length x
f
x
c k
q B
hm
f
t LF
= 4 06 .
µ
φ
(ft, field units)
LF t
f
hm
qB
k c
x
φ
µ
623 . 0 = (m, metric units) ( 116)
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 15 
12.5 Fractured well (finite conductivity fracture) : bilinear flow regime
Bilinear flow regime
w k
f
w k
f
f
w k
f
w k
f
f
Figure 119 Finite conductivity fracture. Geometry of the flow lines during the
bilinear flow regime.
When the pressure drop in the fracture plane is not negligible, a second linear flow
regime is established along the fracture extension. This configuration is called bi
linear flow regime.
Specialized analysis
Plot of the pressure change ∆p versus the fourth root of elapsed time ∆t
4
:
straight line of slope m
BLF
, intercepting the origin.
4
4
11 . 44 t
k c w k h
qB
p
t f
∆ = ∆
µ φ
µ
(psi, field units)
4
4
28 . 6 t
k c w k h
qB
p
t f f
∆ = ∆
φµ
µ
(Bars, metric units) ( 117)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
mBLF
4
t ∆
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
mBLF
4
t ∆
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
mBLF
4
t ∆
Figure 120 Finite conductivity fracture. Specialized analysis with the
pressure versus the fourth root of time.
Result : the fracture conductivity k
f
w
f
2
1
8 . 1944


.

\

=
BLF t
f f
hm
qB
k c
w k
µ
φµ
(mD.ft, field units)
2
1
46 . 39


.

\

=
BLF t
f f
hm
qB
k c
w k
µ
φµ
(mD.m, metric units) ( 118)
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 16 
12.6 Well in partial penetration : spherical flow regime
Spherical flow regime
Spherical flow can be observed in wells in partial penetration, before the top and
bottom boundaries are reached. Later, the flow becomes radial.
k
V
k
H
k
H
h
w
h
k
V
k
H
k
H
k
V
k
H
k
H
h
w
h
Figure 121 Well in partial penetration. Geometry of the flow lines. Radial,
spherical and radial flow regimes.
Specialized analysis
Plot of the pressure versus the reciprocal of the square root of time 1 ∆t . The
response follows a straight line of slope m
SPH
:
∆
∆
p
qB
k r
qB c
k t
S S
t
S
= − 706 2452 9
3 2
. .
µ µ φµ
(psi, field units)
t k
c qB
r k
qB
p
S
t
S S
∆
− = ∆
2 3
3 . 279 33 . 9
φµ µ
µ
(Bars, metric units) ( 119)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m
S
P
H
t ∆ 1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m
S
P
H
t ∆ 1
Figure 122 Well in partial penetration. Specialized analysis with the pressure
versus 1/ the square root of time.
Result : the spherical permeability k
s
3 2
SPH
9 . 2452


.

\

=
m
c
qB k
t
S
φµ
µ (mD, field units)
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 17 
3 2
SPH
3 . 279


.

\

=
m
c
qB k
t
S
φµ
µ (mD, metric units) ( 120)
The permeability anisotropy is expressed with :
k
k
k
k
H
V
H
s
=

\

.

3
( 121)
12.7 Fissured reservoir (double porosity behavior)
In fissured reservoirs, the fissure network and the matrix blocks react at a different
time, and the pressure response deviates from the standard homogeneous behavior.
Pressure profile
Î
Í
Í Í
Í
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Î
Î
Î
Í
Í Í
Í
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Î
Î
Î
Î
r
r
i
r
r
i
p
f
r
r
i
p
p
m
p
wf
p
i
r
w r
r
i
r
r
i
p
f
r
r
i
p
p
m
p
wf
p
i
r
w
Figure 123 Double porosity behavior. Pressure distribution.
Fissure system homogeneous regime.
First, the matrix blocks production is negligible. The fissure system homogeneous
behavior is seen.
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 18 
Î
Í
Í Í
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Î
Î Í
Í Í
Í Í
Î
Î
Í
Í Í
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Î
Î Í
Í Í
Í Í
Î
rr
p
m
> p
f
r
r
i
r
i i
p
p
wf
p
i
r
w rr
p
m
> p
f
r
r
i
r
i i
r
i
r
i i
p
p
wf
p
i
r
w
Figure 124 Double porosity behavior. Pressure distribution.
Transition regime.
When the matrix blocks start to produce into the fissures, the pressure deviates
from the homogeneous behavior to follow a transition regime.
Î
Í
Í
Í
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Î
Î Í
Í Í
Í
Í
Î
Î
Í
Í
Í
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Î
Î Í
Í Í
Í
Í
Î
r
i
r
i i
rr
p
m
= p
f
r
p
p
wf
p
i
r
w
r
i
r
i i
r
i
r
i i
r
i
r
i i
rr
p
m
= p
f
r
p
p
wf
p
i
r
w
Figure 125 Double porosity behavior. Pressure distribution.
Total system homogeneous regime (fissures + matrix).
When the pressure equalizes between fissures and matrix blocks, the homogeneous
behavior of the total system (fissure and matrix) is reached.
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 19 
12.8 Limited reservoir (one sealing fault)
When one sealing fault is present near the producing well, the pressure response
deviates from the usual infinite acting behavior after some production time.
Pressure profile
Î
Í
Í Í
Í
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Î
Î
Î
Í
Í Í
Í
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Î
Î
Î
Î
r
i
p
wf
r
w
r
p
p
i
L r
i
p
wf
r
w
r
p
p
i
L
Figure 126 One sealing fault. Pressure profile at time t
1
.
The fault is not reached, infinite reservoir behavior.
r
i
p
wf
r
w
r
p
p
i
L r
i
p
wf
r
w
r
p
p
i
L
Figure 127 One sealing fault. Pressure profile at time t
2
.
The fault is reached, but it is not seen at the well. Infinite reservoir behavior.
r
i
p
wf
r
w
r
p
p
i
L
r
i
p
wf
r
w
r
p
p
i
L
Figure 128 One sealing fault. Pressure profile at time t
3
.
The fault is reached, and it is seen at the well. Start of boundary effect.
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 20 
r
i
p
wf
r
w
r L
p
p
i
r
i
p
wf
r
w
r L
r
i
p
wf
r
w
r L
p
p
i
Figure 129 One sealing fault. Pressure profile at time t
4
.
The fault is reached, and it is seen at the well. Hemiradial flow.
t
1
: the fault is not reached, radial flow
t
2
: the fault is reached
t
3
: the fault is seen at the well, transition
t
4
: hemiradial flow
Figure 130 One sealing fault. Drainage radius.
Specialized analysis
A second semilog straight line with a slope double (2m). Result : the fault
distance L.
Log ∆t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
2
m
m
Log ∆t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
2
m
m
Figure 131 One sealing fault.
Specialized analysis on semilog scale.
The time intersect ∆t
x
between the two lines is used to estimate the fault distance
L :
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 21 
t
x
c
t k
L
φµ
∆
= 01217 . 0 (ft, field units)
t
x
c
t k
L
φµ
∆
= 0141 . 0 (m, metric units) ( 122)
12.9 Closed reservoir
In closed reservoir, when all boundaries have been reached, the flow changes to
Pseudo Steady State : the pressure decline is proportional to time.
Pressure profile
As long as the reservoir is infinite acting, the pressure profile expands around the
well during the production (and the well bottom hole pressure drops).
Î
Í
Í
Í
Í
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Î
Î
R
e
r
i
(t
1
)
Î
Í
Í
Í
Í
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Î
Î
Î
Î
R
e
r
i
(t
1
)
p
wf
r
w
r
r
i
(t
2
) = R
e
p
p
i
t
4
t
1
t
2
t
3
Infinite acting
Pseudo Steady State
r
i
(t
1
)
p
wf
r
w
r
r
i
(t
2
) = R
e
p
p
i
t
4
t
4
t
1
t
1
t
2
t
2
t
3
t
3
Infinite acting
Pseudo Steady State
r
i
(t
1
)
Figure 132 Circular closed reservoir. Pressure profiles.
Time t
1
: the boundaries are not reached, infinite reservoir behavior: the
pressure profile expands.
Time t
2
: boundaries reached, end of infinite reservoir behavior.
Times t
3
and t
4
: pseudo steady state regime, the pressure profile drops.
During the pseudo steady state regime, all boundaries have been reached and the
pressure profile drops (but its shape remains constant with time).
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 22 
Specialized analysis
During drawdown, plot of the pressure versus elapsed time ∆t on a linear scale. At
late time, a straight line of slope m* characterizes the Pseudo Steady State regime:
( ) ∆ ∆ p
qB
c hA
t
qB
kh
A
r
C S
t w
A
= + − + +
¸
(
¸
(
0234 162 6 0 351 087
2
. . log log . .
φ
µ
(psi, field units)
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ + − + ∆ = ∆ S C
r
A
kh
qB
t
hA c
qB
p
A
w
t
87 . 0 351 . 0 log log 5 . 21 0417 . 0
2
µ
φ
(Bars, metric
units) ( 123)
Time, t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
p
i
p

slope m*
pseudo steady state
Time, t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
p
i
p

slope m*
pseudo steady state
Figure 1.33 Drawdown and buildup pressure response.
Linear scale. Closed system.
Result : the reservoir pore volume φ hA.
φ hA
qB
c m
t
= 0 234 .
*
(cu ft, field units)
*
0417 . 0
m c
qB
hA
t
= φ (m
3
, metric units) ( 124)
During shutin, the pressure stabilizes to the average reservoir pressure p p
i
( ) < .
12.10 Interference test
Pressure profile
With interference tests, the pressure is monitored in an observation well at distance
r from the producer. The pressure signal is observed with a delay, the amplitude of
the response is small.
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 23 
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 100 200 300 400 500
p
i
Observation well
Producing well
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
3500
4000
4500
5000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 100 200 300 400 500
p
i
Observation well
Producing well
Figure 134 Interference test. Response of a producing and an observation
well. Linear scale.
Î
Î
Í
Í
Í
Í
Ï
Ï
Producing well
Observation well
Î
Î
Í
Í
Í
Í
Ï
Ï
Producing well
Observation well
r
p
p
wf
r
w
r r
i
p
p
i
r
p
p
wf
r
w
r r
i
p
p
i
Figure 135 Interference test. Pressure distribution.
12.11 Well responses
A limited number of flow line geometries produce a characteristic pressure
behavior: radial, linear, spherical etc. For each flow regime, the pressure follows a
welldefined time function: log , , ∆ ∆ ∆ t t t 1 etc. A straight line can be
drawn on a specialized pressure versus time plot, to access the corresponding well
or reservoir parameter.
A complete well response is defined as a sequence of regimes. By identification of
the characteristic pressure behaviors present on the response, the chronology and
time limits of the different flow regime are established, defining the interpretation
model.
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 24 
For a fractured well for example, the sequence of regimes is :
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
1. Linear
2. Radial
Figure 1.36 Fractured well example.
In the case of a well in a channel reservoir :
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
1. Radial
2. Linear
Figure 1.37 Example of a well in a channel reservoir.
12.12 Productivity Index
The Productivity Index is the ratio of the flow rate by the drawdown pressure drop,
expressed from the average reservoir pressure p .
( )
PI =
−
q
p p
wf
(Bbl/D/psi, m3/D/Bars) ( 125)
The Ideal Productivity Index defines the productivity if the skin of the well is zero.
( )
( )
PI
S=0
=
− −
q
p p p
wf skin
∆
(Bbl/D/psi, m3/D/Bars) ( 126)
During the infinite acting period p p
i
≈ , the Transient Productivity Index is
decreasing with time.
PI =
+ − +

\

.


kh
B t
k
c r
S
t w
162 6 323 087
2
. log log . . µ
φµ
∆
(Bbl/D/psi, field units)


.

\

+ − + ∆
=
S
r c
k
t B
kh
w t
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 5 . 21
PI
2
φµ
µ
(m3/D/Bars, metric units) ( 127)
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 25 
The Pseudo Steady State Productivity Index is a constant
( )
PI =
− + +

\

.


kh
B
A
r
C S
w
A
162 6 0 351 087
2
. log log . . µ
(Bbl/D/psi, field units)
( )


.

\

+ + −
=
S C
r
A
B
kh
A
w
87 . 0 351 . 0 log log 5 . 21
PI
2
µ
(m3/D/Bars, metric units) ( 128)
12.13 Pressure profile and Radius of Investigation
The Exponential Integral of Equation A16 defines the pressure as a function of
time and distance :
( )


.

\

∆
− − = ∆ ∆
t k
r c
kh
qB
r t p
t
001056 . 0
Ei
2 . 141
5 . 0 ,
2
φµ µ
(psi, field units)
( )


.

\

∆
− − = ∆ ∆
t k
r c
kh
qB
r t p
t
0001423 . 0
Ei
66 . 18
5 . 0 ,
2
µ φ µ
(Bars, metric units) ( 129)
For small x, ( ) ( ) x x γ ln Ei − = − : the Exponential Integral can be approximated by
a log (with γ = 1.78, Euler's constant).
( )
( )
[ ]
∆ ∆
∆
∆ p t r
qB
kh
k t c r
t
,
.
log . . = +
162 6
0 000264 0809
2
µ
φµ (psi, field units)
( ) ( ) [ ] 809 . 0 000356 . 0 log
5 . 21
,
2
+ ∆ = ∆ ∆ r c t k
kh
qB
r t p
t
φµ
µ
(Bars, metric units) ( 130)
(The semilog straight line Eq. 112 corresponds to Eq. 130 for r=r
w
).
p
wf
Log r
p
p
i
t
4
t
1
t
2
t
3
p
wf
Log r
p
p
i
t
4
t
4
t
1
t
1
t
2
t
2
t
3
t
3
Figure 138 Pressure profile versus the log of the distance to the well.
When presented versus log(r), the pressure profile at a given time is a straight line
until the distance becomes too large for the logarithm approximation of the
Chapter 1  Principles of transient testing
 26 
Exponential Integral. Beyond this limit, the profile flattens, and tends
asymptotically towards the initial pressure.
The radius of investigation r
i
tentatively describes the distance that the pressure
transient has moved into the formation. Several definitions have been proposed, in
general r
i
is defined with one of the two relationships :
( )
0 000264
1
4
2
. k t c r
t i
∆ φµ = or =
1
2
γ
(field units)
( )
4
1
000356 . 0
2
= ∆
i t
r c t k φµ or =
1
2
γ
(metric units) ( 131)
(in dimensionless terms of Equation 2.4 or 82, t r
D iD
2
1
4
= or t r
D iD
2
2
1
=
γ
).
This gives respectively,
r k t c
i t
= 0 032 . ∆ φµ (ft, field units)
t i
c t k r φµ ∆ = 037 . 0 (m, metric units) ( 132)
and
r k t c
i t
= 0 029 . ∆ φµ (ft, field units)
t i
c t k r φµ ∆ = 034 . 0 (m, metric units) ( 133)
(the radius of investigation is independent of the rate).
The radius of investigation r
i
is sometimes viewed as the minimum distance of any
event, such as a reservoir limit, that cannot be observed during the test period.
With the sealing fault example of Figure 130, the pressure transient reaches the
fault 4 times earlier the boundary can be observed on the producing well pressure
behavior.
In practice, for an initial flow period, the radius of investigation of Equation 132
or 133 is relatively consistent with the distance estimated by a simulation, when a
boundary effect is introduced at the end of the test period. For a shutin periods,
Equations 132 and 133 are not always accurate.
 27 
2  THE ANALYSIS METHODS
21 Loglog scale
For a given period of the test, the change in pressure ∆p is plotted on loglog scale
versus the elapsed time ∆t. This data plot is then compared to a set of
dimensionless theoretical curves.
10
2
10
1
∆P,
psi
10
0
10
1
10
3
(3.6 sec)
10
2
(36 sec)
10
1
(6 mn)
∆t, hr
10
0
10
1
10
2
Figure 21 Loglog scale.
( ) { }
( ) { }
p A p A f kh
t B t B g k C S
D
D
= =
= =
∆
∆
, ,...
, , , ...
( 21)
The shape of the response curve is characteristic : the product of one of the
variables by a constant term is changed into a displacement on the logarithmic
axes. If the flow rate is doubled for example, the amplitude of the response ∆p is
doubled also, but the graph of log(∆p) is only be shifted by log(2) along the
pressure axis. With the loglog scale, the shape of the data plot is used for the
diagnosis of the interpretation model(s).
log log log
log log log
p A p
t B t
D
D
= +
= +
∆
∆
( 22)
The loglog analysis is global : it considers the full period, from very early time to
the latest recorded pressure point. The scale expands the response at early time.
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 28 
22 Pressure curves analysis
22.1 Example of pressure typecurve : "Well with wellbore storage and
skin, homogeneous reservoir"
Dimensionless terms
Dimensionless terms are used because they illustrate pressure responses
independently of the physical parameters magnitude (such as flowrate, fluid or
rock properties). For example, describing the well damage with the dimensionless
skin factor S is much more meaningful than using the actual pressure drop near the
wellbore.
Dimensionless pressure
p
kh
qB
p
D
=
1412 . µ
∆ (field units)
p
qB
kh
p
D
∆ =
µ 66 . 18
(metric units) ( 23)
Dimensionless time
t
k
c r
t
D
t w
=
0 000264
2
.
φµ
∆ (field units)
t
r c
k
t
w t
D
∆ =
2
000356 . 0
φµ
(metric units) ( 24)
Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient
C
C
c hr
D
t w
=
08936
2
.
φ
(field units)
2
1592 . 0
w t
D
hr c
C
C
φ
= (metric units) ( 25)
Dimensionless time group
t
C
kh t
C
D
D
= 0 000295 .
µ
∆
(field units)
C
t kh
C
t
D
D
∆
=
µ
00223 . 0 (metric units) ( 26)
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 29 
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
Approximate start of
semilog straight line
C
D
e
2S
10
60
10
50
10
40
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
3 1
0.3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
Approximate start of
semilog straight line
C
D
e
2S
10
60
10
50
10
40
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
3 1
0.3
Figure 22 Pressure typecurve: Well with wellbore storage and skin,
homogeneous reservoir. Loglog scale.
C
D
e
(2S)
= 10
60
to 0.3.
Dimensionless curve group
C e
S
C
c hr
e
S
D
t w
2
08936
2
2
=
.
φ
(field units)
S
e
hr c
C
S
e C
w t
D
2
1592 . 0
2
2
φ
= (metric units) ( 27)
The curve label C
D
e
2S
defines the well condition. It ranges from C
D
e
2S
=0.3 for
stimulated wells, up to 10
60
for very damaged wells.
Loglog matching procedure
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
Figure 23 Buildup example. Loglog plot
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 30 
The loglog data plot ∆p, ∆t is superimposed on a set of dimensionless typecurves
p
D
, t
D
/C
D
. The early time unit slope straight line is matched on the "wellbore
storage" asymptote but the final choice of the C
D
e
2S
curve is frequently not unique
(Figure 212).
Results of loglog analysis
Pressure match p p
D
∆ = PM : the permeability thickness product
( ) PM 2 . 141 µ qB kh = (mD.ft, field units)
( ) PM 66 . 18 µ qB kh = (mD.m, metric units) ( 28)
Time match ( ) t C t
D D
∆ = TM : the wellbore storage coefficient

.

\

=
TM
1
000295 . 0
µ
kh
C (Bbl/psi, field units)

.

\

=
TM
1
00223 . 0
µ
kh
C (m
3
/Bars, metric units) ( 29)
Curve match : the skin
D
Match
S
D
C
e C
S
2
ln 5 . 0 = ( 210)
22.2 Shutin periods
Drawdown periods are in general not suitable for analysis because it is difficult to
ascertain a constant flowrate. The response is distorted, especially with the loglog
scale that expands the response at early time. Buildup periods are preferably
used : the flowrate is nil, therefore well controlled.
Example of a shutin after a single rate drawdown
Buildup responses do not show the same behavior as a first drawdown in a
reservoir at initial pressure. After a drawdown of t
p
, the well shows a pressure
drop of ∆p(t
p
). It takes an infinite time to reach the initial pressure during buildup,
and to produce a pressure change ∆p
BU
of amplitude ∆p(t
p
). Buildup responses
depend upon the previous rate history.
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 31 
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
Time, t
p
i
0 t
p
t
p
+∆t
q
0
∆t
BU
∆p
BU
(∆t)
∆p (t
p
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
Time, t
p
i
0 t
p
t
p
+∆t
q
0
∆t
BU
∆p
BU
(∆t)
∆p (t
p
)
Figure 24 History drawdown  shutin.
The diffusivity equation used to generate the well test analysis solutions is linear.
It is possible to add several pressure responses in order to describe the well
behavior after any rate change. This is the superposition principle.
For a buildup after a single drawdown at rate q, an injection period at q is
superposed to the extended flow period.
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
Time, t
q
0
q
p
i
0 t
p
∆t
∆p
(∆t)
∆p
(tp+∆t)
∆p
(tp)
(∆p
(tp+∆t)
 ∆p
(∆t)
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
Time, t
q
0
q
p
i
0 t
p
∆t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
Time, t
q
0
q
p
i
0 t
p
∆t
∆p
(∆t)
∆p
(tp+∆t)
∆p
(tp)
(∆p
(tp+∆t)
 ∆p
(∆t)
)
Figure 25 History extended drawdown + injection.
Loglog analysis : buildup type curve
( )
[ ]
( )
( ) ( )
p t p t p t t p t
D
D
BU
D
D
D p
D
D p
D
∆ ∆ ∆ = − + + ( 211)
The pressure buildup curve is compressed on the ∆p axis when ∆t>>t
p
.
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 32 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
buildup type curve
t
pD
p
D
(t
pD
)
C
D
e
2S
drawdown
type curve
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
buildup type curve
t
pD
p
D
(t
pD
)
C
D
e
2S
drawdown
type curve
Figure 26 Drawdown and buildup type curves (t
pD
= 2).
Semilog analysis : superposition time
( ) [ ]
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ − +
∆ +
∆
= ∆ ∆ S
r c
k
t t
t t
kh
qB
t p
w t p
p
BU
87 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
µ φ
µ
(psi, field units)
( ) [ ]
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ − +
∆ +
∆
= ∆ ∆ S
r c
k
t t
t t
kh
qB
t p
w t
p
p
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 5 . 21
2
BU
φµ
µ
(Bars, metric units)
( 212)
With the superposition time, the correction compresses the ∆t scale.
Dimensionless times, t
D
/ C
D
and [ t
pD
t
D
/ (t
pD
+ t
D
) C
D
]
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
5
0
buildup type curve
t
pD
p
D
(t
pD
)
C
D
e
2S
drawdown
type curve
Dimensionless times, t
D
/ C
D
and [ t
pD
t
D
/ (t
pD
+ t
D
) C
D
]
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
5
0
buildup type curve
t
pD
p
D
(t
pD
)
C
D
e
2S
drawdown
type curve
Figure 27 Drawdown and buildup type curves of Figure 26
on semilog scale.
Horner method
p p
qB
kh
t t
t
ws i
p
= −
+
162 6 . log
µ
∆
∆
(psi, field units)
t
t t
kh
qB
p p
p
i ws
∆
∆ +
− = log 5 . 21
µ
(Bars, metric units) ( 213)
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 33 
Horner time, [(t
pD
+ t
D
) / t
D
]
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
5
0
m
P*
Horner time, [(t
pD
+ t
D
) / t
D
]
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
5
0
m
P*
Figure 28 Horner plot of buildup type curve of Figure 26.
Horner analysis :
• The slope m,
• The pressure at ∆t =1 hour on the straight line
• The extrapolated pressure to infinite shutin time (∆t =
∞
): p*.
Results :
kh
qB
m
= 162 6 .
µ
(mD.ft, field units)
m
qB
kh
µ
5 . 21 = (mD.m, metric units) ( 113)
S
p
m
k
c r
t
t
t w
p
p
= − +
+
+

\

.


1151
1
323
2
. log log .
∆
1 hr
φµ
(field units)


.

\

+
+
+ −
∆
= 10 . 3
1
log log 151 . 1
2
hr 1
p
p
w t
t
t
r c
k
m
p
S
φµ
(metric units) ( 214)
In an infinite system, the straight line extrapolates to the initial pressure and p*=p
i
.
Multi rate superposition
At time ∆t of flow period # n, the multirate type curve is :
( )
[ ]
( ) ( )
[ ]
( ) p t
q q
q q
p t t p t t t p t
D
D
MR
i i
n n
i
n
D n i
D
D n i
D
D
D
∆ ∆ ∆ =
−
−
− − + − +
−
−
=
−
∑
1
1
1
1
( 215)
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 34 
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
∆t
Period #
1,2,…, 5, 6,…….....10, 11
q
1
,…. q
5
=0, q
6
,………..q
10
, q
11
=0
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
∆t
Period #
1,2,…, 5, 6,…….....10, 11
q
1
,…. q
5
=0, q
6
,………..q
10
, q
11
=0
Figure 29 Multi rate history. Example with 10 periods before shutin.
The multirate superposition time is expressed :
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) t q q t t t q q
kh
B
p t p
n n
n
i
i n i i i ws
∆ − + − ∆ + − − = ∆
−
−
=
− ∑
log log 6 . 162 ) (
1
1
1
1
µ
(psi, field units)
( ) ( ) ( ) ) ( log log 5 . 21 ) (
1
1
1
1
t q q t t t q q
kh
B
p t p
n n
n
i
i n i i i ws
∆ − + − ∆ + − − = ∆
−
−
=
− ∑
µ
(Bars, metric
units) ( 216)
Limitations if the time superposition: the sealing fault example
In the following example, the well is produced 50 hours and shutin for a pressure
buildup. A sealing fault is present near the well and, at 100 hours, the flow
geometry changes from infinite acting radial flow to hemiradial flow.
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
s
i
Time, hours
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
5000
4500
4000
3500
Radial Hemiradial
Radial Hemiradial
Infinite reservoir
Sealing fault
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
s
i
Time, hours
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
5000
4500
4000
3500
Radial Hemiradial
Radial Hemiradial
Infinite reservoir
Sealing fault
Figure 210 History drawdown – buildup. Well near a sealing fault.
During the 50 initial hours of the shutin period (cumulative time 50 to 100 hours),
both the extended drawdown and the injection periods are in radial flow regime.
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 35 
The superposition time of Equations 212 or 213 is applicable, and the Horner
method is accurate.
At intermediate shutin times, from 50 to 100 hours (cumulative time 100 to 150
hours), the extended drawdown follows a semilog straight line of slope 2m when
the injection is still in radial flow (slope m). Theoretically, the semilog
approximation of Equation 211 with Equation 212 is not correct.
Ultimately, the fault influence is felt during the injection and the 2 periods follow
the same semilog straight line of slope 2m (shutin time >> 100 hours, cumulative
time >> 150 hours). The semilog superposition time is again applicable.
In practice, when the flow regime deviates from radial flow in the course of the
response, the error introduced by the Horner or multirate time superposition
method is negligible on pressure curve analysis results. It is more sensitive when
the derivative of the pressure is considered.
Time superposition with other flow regimes
The time superposition is sometimes used with other flow regimes for straightline
analysis. When all test periods follow the same flow behavior, the Horner time can
be expressed with the corresponding time function. For fractured wells, Horner
time corresponding to linear (Equation 115) and bilinear flow (Equation 117) is
expressed respectively :
( )
( ) t t t
p
+ − ∆ ∆
1 2
1 2
(hr
1/2
) ( 217)
( ) ( )
4 1 4 1
t t t
p
∆ − ∆ + (hr
1/4
) ( 218)
The Horner time corresponding to spherical flow of Equation 119 has been used
for the analysis of RFT pressure data.
( )
( )
∆ ∆ t t t
p
−
−
− +
1 2
1 2
(hr
1/2
) ( 219)
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 36 
22.3 Pressure analysis method
The analysis is made on loglog and specialized plots. The purpose of the
specialized analysis is to concentrate on a portion of the data that corresponds to a
particular flow behavior. The analysis is carried out by the identification of a
straight line on a plot whose scale is specific to the flow regime considered. The
time limits of the specialized straight lines are defined by the loglog diagnosis.
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
s
i
a
(t
p
+∆t )/ ∆t
s
lo
p
e
m
1 10
1
10
2
10
3 10
4
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
slope m
p(1hr) p*
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
s
i
a
(t
p
+∆t )/ ∆t
s
lo
p
e
m
1 10
1
10
2
10
3 10
4
1 10
1
10
2
10
3 10
4
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
slope m
p(1hr) p*
Figure 211 Buildup example of Figure 23. Semilog Horner analysis.
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
C
D
e
2S
10
60
10
50
10
40
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
3 1
0.3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
C
D
e
2S
10
60
10
50
10
40
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
3 1
0.3
Figure 212 Buildup example of Figure 23. Loglog match.
For the radial flow analysis of a buildup period, the semilog superposition time is
used. The slope m of the Horner / superposition straight line defines the final
pressure match of the loglog analysis.
m p
p
D
151 . 1
PM =
∆
= (psi
1
, Bars
1
) ( 220)
Once the pressure match is defined, the C
D
e
2S
curve is known accurately. Results
from loglog and specialized analyses must be consistent.
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 37 
23 Pressure derivative
23.1 Definition
The natural logarithm is used.
dt
dp
t
t d
dp
p ∆ =
∆
= ∆
ln
' (psi, Bars) ( 221)
The derivative is plotted on loglog coordinates versus the elapsed time ∆t since
the beginning of the period.
23.2 Derivative typecurve : "Well with wellbore storage and skin,
homogeneous reservoir"
Radial flow
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
∆p' = constant
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
∆p' = constant
Figure 213 Pressure and derivative responses on loglog scale.
Radial flow.
∆ ∆ p
qB
kh
t
k
c r
S
t w
= + − +
¸
(
¸
(
162 6 323 087
2
. log log . .
µ
φµ
(psi, field units)
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ − + ∆ = ∆ S
r c
k
t
kh
qB
p
w t
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 5 . 21
2
µ φ
µ
(Bars, metric units)( 112)
The radial flow regime does not produce a characteristic loglog shape on the
pressure curve but it is characteristic with the derivative presentation : it is
constant.
∆p
qB
kh
' . = 70 6
µ
(psi, field units)
kh
qB
p
µ
33 . 9 ' = ∆ (Bars, metric units) ( 222)
In dimensionless terms,
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 38 
( )
dp
d t C
D
D D
ln
. =05 ( 223)
Wellbore storage
∆ ∆ p
qB
C
t =
24
(psi, Bars)
( 16)
∆ ∆ p
qB
C
t ' =
24
(psi, Bars) ( 224)
During wellbore storage, the pressure change ∆p and the pressure derivative ∆p'
are identical. On loglog scale, the pressure and the derivative curves follow a
single straight line of slope equal to unity.
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p' Slope 1
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p' Slope 1
Figure 214 Pressure and derivative responses on loglog scale.
Wellbore storage
Derivative of Section 22 example
During the transition between the wellbore storage and the infinite acting radial
flow regime, the derivative shows a hump, function of the C
D
e
2S
group.
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
∆
p
'
(
p
s
i
)
s
l
o
p
e
1
0.5 line
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
∆
p
'
(
p
s
i
)
s
l
o
p
e
1
0.5 line
Figure 215 Derivative of buildup example Figure 23. Loglog scale.
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 39 
Derivative typecurve
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
10
60
10
40
10
50
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
C
D
e
2S
10
3
10
2
10
3
1
0.3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
10
60
10
40
10
50
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
C
D
e
2S
10
3
10
2
10
3
1
0.3
Figure 216 "Well with wellbore storage and skin, homogeneous reservoir"
Derivative of typecurve Figure 22. Loglog scale.
C
D
e
(2S)
= 10
60
to 0.3.
Derivative match
The match point is defined with the unit slope pressure and derivative straight line,
and the 0.5 derivative stabilization.
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
Figure 217 Derivative match of example Figure 23. Loglog scale.
23.3 Other characteristic flow regimes
During other characteristic flow regimes, the pressure changes with the elapsed
time power 1/n :
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 40 
( ) B t A p
n
+ ∆ = ∆
1
(psi, Bars) ( 225)
With:
• 1/n =1 during the pure wellbore storage and the pseudo steady state regimes,
• 1/n =1/2 in the case of linear flow,
• 1/n =1/4 for bilinear flow,
• 1/n =1/2 when spherical flow is established.
The logarithm derivative is:
( )
n
t
n
A
t d
dp
p
1
ln
' ∆ =
∆
= ∆ (psi, Bars) ( 226)
The loglog pressure derivative curve (∆p', ∆t) follows a straightline slope of 1/n.
Infinite conductivity fracture (linear flow)
On loglog scale, the pressure and derivative follow two straight lines of slope 1/2.
The level of the derivative halfunit slope line is half that of the pressure.
∆ ∆ p
qB
hx c k
t
f t
= 4 06 .
µ
φ
(psi, field units)
t
k c hx
qB
p
t f
∆ = ∆
φ
µ
623 . 0 (Bars, metric units) ( 115)
t
k c hx
qB
p
t f
∆ = ∆
φ
µ
03 . 2 ' (psi, field units)
t
k c hx
qB
p
t f
∆ = ∆
φ
µ
311 . 0 ' (Bars, metric units) ( 227)
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Slope 1/2
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Slope 1/2
Figure 218 Pressure and derivative responses on loglog scale.
Infinite conductivity fracture.
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 41 
Finite conductivity fracture (bilinear flow)
A loglog straight line of slope 1/4 can be observed on pressure and derivative
curves, but the derivative line is four times lower.
∆ ∆ p
qB
h k w c k
t
f t
= 4411
4
4
.
µ
φ µ
(psi, field units)
4
4
28 . 6 t
k c w k h
qB
p
t f f
∆ = ∆
φµ
µ
(Bars, metric units) ( 117)
∆ ∆ p
qB
h k w c k
t
f t
' . = 1103
4
4
µ
φµ
(psi, field units)
4
4
571 . 1 ' t
k c w k h
qB
p
t f f
∆ = ∆
φµ
µ
(Bars, metric units) ( 228)
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Slope 1/4
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Slope 1/4
Figure 219 Pressure and derivative responses on loglog scale.
Finite conductivity fracture.
Well in partial penetration (spherical flow)
∆
∆
p
qB
k r
qB c
k t
S S
t
S
= − 706 2452 9
3 2
. .
µ µ φ µ
(psi, field units)
t k
c qB
r k
qB
p
S
t
S S
∆
− = ∆
2 3
3 . 279 33 . 9
φµ µ
µ
(Bars, metric units) ( 119)
t k
c qB
p
S
t
∆
= ∆
2 3
4 . 1226 '
µ φ µ
(psi, field units)
t k
c qB
p
S
t
∆
= ∆
2 3
6 . 139 '
φµ µ
(Bars, metric units) ( 229)
The shape of the loglog pressure curve is not characteristic but the derivative
follows a straight line with a negative halfunit slope.
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 42 
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Slope –1/2
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Slope –1/2
Figure 220 Pressure and derivative responses on loglog scale.
Well in partial penetration.
Closed system (pseudo steady state)
The late part of the loglog pressure and derivative drawdown curves tends to a
unitslope straight line. The derivative exhibits the characteristic straight line
before it is seen on the pressure response.
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Slope 1
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Log ∆t
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Slope 1
Figure 221 Pressure and derivative responses on loglog scale.
Closed system (drawdown).
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ + − + ∆ = ∆ S C
r
A
kh
qB
t
hA c
qB
p
A
w t
87 . 0 351 . 0 log log 6 . 162 234 . 0
2
µ
φ
(psi, field units)
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ + − + ∆ = ∆ S C
r
A
kh
qB
t
hA c
qB
p
A
w
t
87 . 0 351 . 0 log log 5 . 21 0417 . 0
2
µ
φ
(Bars, metric
units) ( 122)
t
hA c
qB
p
t
∆ = ∆
φ
234 . 0 ' (psi, field units)
t
hA c
qB
p
t
∆ = ∆
φ
0417 . 0 ' (Bars, metric units) ( 230)
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 43 
23.4 Data differentiation
The algorithm uses three points, one point before (left = 1) and one after
(right = 2) the point i of interest. It estimates the left and right slopes, and
attributes their weighted mean to the point i. On a p vs. x semilog plot,
dp
dx
p
x
x
p
x
x
x x
=

\

.
 +

\

.

+
∆
∆
∆
∆
∆
∆
∆ ∆
1
2
2
1
1 2
( 231)
It is recommended to start by using consecutive points. If the resulting derivative
curve is too noisy, smoothing is applied by increasing the distance ∆x between the
point i and points 1 and 2. The smoothing is defined as a distance L, expressed on
the time axis scale. The points 1 and 2 are the first at distance ∆x
1,2
>L.
The smoothing coefficient L is increased until the derivative response is smooth
enough but no more, over smoothing the data introduces distortions. With this
smoothing method, L is usually no more than 0.2 or 0.3.
Log (superposition)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
1
2
i
L
∆p
2
∆x
1
∆x
2
∆p
1
Log (superposition)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
1
2
i
L
Log (superposition)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
1
2
i
L
∆p
2
∆x
1
∆x
2
∆p
1
Figure 222 Differentiation of a set of pressure data.
At the end of the period, point i becomes closer to last recorded point than the
distance L. Smoothing is not possible any more to the right side, the end effect is
reached. This effect can introduce distortions at the end of the derivative response.
23.5 Buildup analysis
For a shutin after a single drawdown period (the Horner method is applicable), the
derivative is generated with respect to the modified Horner time given in the
superposition Equation 212 :
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 44 
∆
∆
∆
∆
∆ p
dp
d
t t
t t
t t
t
t
dp
dt p
p
p
p
'
ln
=
+
=
+
(psi, Bars) ( 232)
For a complex rate history, the multirate superposition time is used.
In all cases, the derivative is plotted versus the usual elapsed time ∆t : the loglog
derivative curve is not a raw data plot but is dependent upon the rate history
introduced in the time superposition calculations.
Limitations if the time superposition: the sealing fault example
When the response deviates from the infinite acting radial flow regime, the
derivative with respect to the time superposition can introduce a distortion on the
response, as illustrated on the loglog derivative of the buildup example of Figure
210 for a well near a sealing fault.
Elapsed time ∆t, hours
10
2
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
s
i
1 0
4
1 0
3
1 0
2
10
1
drawdown
buildup
Elapsed time ∆t, hours
10
2
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
s
i
1 0
4
1 0
3
1 0
2
10
1
drawdown
buildup
drawdown
buildup
Figure 223 Loglog plot of the buildup example of Figure 210. Well near a
sealing fault.
24 The analysis scales
The loglog analysis is made with a simultaneous plot of the pressure and
derivative curves of the interpretation period. Time and pressure match are defined
with the derivative response. The C
D
e
2S
group is identified by adjusting the curve
match on pressure and derivative data.
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
 45 
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
C
D
e
2S
10
60
10
50
10
40
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
3 1
0.3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1
C
D
e
2S
10
60
10
50
10
40
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
3 1
0.3
Figure 224 Pressure and derivative typecurve for a well with wellbore
storage and skin, homogeneous reservoir.
The double loglog match is confirmed with a match of the pressure typecurve on
semilog scale to adjust accurately the skin factor and the initial pressure. A
simulation of the complete test history is presented on linear scale in order to
control the rates, any changes in the well behavior, the average pressure etc.
 46 
 47 
3  WELLBORE CONDITIONS
31 Well with wellbore storage and skin, homogeneous
reservoir
31.1 Characteristic flow regimes
1. Wellbore storage effect. Result: wellbore storage coefficient C.
2. Radial flow. Results: permeabilitythickness product kh and skin S.
31.2 Loglog analysis
C
D
e
2S
=10
30
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
0.5 line
s
l
o
p
e
1
C
D
e
2S
=0.5
high skin
low skin
C
D
e
2S
=10
30
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
0.5 line
s
l
o
p
e
1
C
D
e
2S
=0.5
high skin
C
D
e
2S
=10
30
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
0.5 line
s
l
o
p
e
1
C
D
e
2S
=0.5
high skin
low skin
Figure 31 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in an infinite
homogeneous reservoir. Loglog scale.
C
D
e
(2S)
= 10
30
and 0.5.
31.3 Semilog analysis
C
D
e
2S
=10
30
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
50
40
30
20
10
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Slope m
C
D
e
2S
=0.5
∆ skin
Slope m
C
D
e
2S
=10
30
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
50
40
30
20
10
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Slope m
C
D
e
2S
=0.5
∆ skin
Slope m
Figure 32 Semilog plot of Figure 31.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 48 
32 Infinite conductivity or uniform flux vertical fracture
Two models are available: one considers a uniform flux distribution along the
fracture length and, with the other, the fracture conductivity is infinite.
32.1 Characteristic flow regimes
1. Wellbore storage
2. Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. Results: fracture halflength x
f
.
3. Pseudo radial flow: derivative stabilization at 0.5. Results: permeability
thickness product kh and the geometrical skin S.
32.2 Loglog analysis
Dimensionless terms
t
k
c x
t
Df
t f
=
0 000264
2
.
φµ
∆ (field units)
t
x c
k
t
f t
Df
∆ =
2
000356 . 0
φµ
(metric units) ( 31)
On Figure 33, C
D
= 0. The two models are slightly different during the transition
between linear flow and radial flow. With the uniform flux model, the transition is
shorter and the pressure curve is higher.
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
Df
Uniform flux
Infinite condutivity
S
lo
p
e
1
/
2
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
Df
Uniform flux
Infinite condutivity
S
lo
p
e
1
/
2
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Figure 33 Responses for a well intercepting a high conductivity fracture.
Loglog scale.
No wellbore storage effect C
D
= 0. Infinite conductivity and uniform flux.
Match results
The kh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. 28) and the fracture
halflength x
f
from the time match :
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 49 
TM
1 000264 . 0
t
f
c
k
x
φµ
= (ft, field units)
TM
1 000264 . 0
t
f
c
k
x
φµ
= (m, metric units) ( 32)
The fracture stimulation is seen as a negative skin during the radial flow regime.
With infinite conductivity fracture, this geometrical skin effect is defined from the
fracture halflength x
f
as :
x r e
f w
S
=
−
2 (ft, m) ( 33)
And, for the uniform flux solution,
x r e
f w
S
=
−
2 7 . (ft, m) ( 34)
Figure 34 Flow line geometry near a fractured well.
32.3 Linear flow analysis
The half fracture length x
f
is also estimated from Equation 116.
m
L
F
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Square root of dimensionless time, √ √√ √t
Df
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Uniform flux
Infinite condutivity
m
L
F
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Square root of dimensionless time, √ √√ √t
Df
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
m
L
F
m
L
F
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Square root of dimensionless time, √ √√ √t
Df
Square root of dimensionless time, √ √√ √t
Df
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Uniform flux
Infinite condutivity
Figure 35 Square root of time plot of Figure 33.
Early time analysis.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 50 
32.4 Fractured well with wellbore storage
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
Df
C
D
=0
10
3
, 10
4
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
Df
C
D
=0
10
3
, 10
4
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Figure 36 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storage. Infinite
conductivity fracture. Loglog scale.
C
D
= 0, 10
3
, 10
4
.
32.5 Damaged fracture with wellbore storage
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
2
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
1 0
1
10
1
10
2
S=1
S=0.3
S=0
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
2
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
1 0
1
10
1
10
2
S=1
S=0.3
S=0
Figure 37 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storageand skin.
Infinite conductivity fracture. Loglog scale.
S = 0, 0.3, 1.
33 Finite conductivity vertical fracture
With the finite conductivity fracture model, there is a pressure gradient along the
fracture length. This happens when the permeability of the fracture is not very high
compared to the permeability of the formation, especially when the fracture is
long.
33.1 Characteristic flow regimes
1. Wellbore storage
2. Bilinear flow : 1/4 slope straight line. Results : fracture conductivity k
f
w
f
.
3. Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. Results : fracture halflength x
f
.
4. Pseudo radial flow : derivative stabilization at 0.5. Results : permeability
thickness product kh and the geometrical skin S.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 51 
33.2 Loglog analysis
The dimensionless fracture conductivity k
fD
w
fD
is defined as :
f
f f
fD fD
kx
w k
w k = ( 35)
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Slope
1/4
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
0.5 line
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Slope
1/4
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
0.5 line
Figure 38 Response for a well intercepting a finite conductivity fracture. Log
log scale.
No wellbore storage effect C
D
= 0, k
fD
w
fD
= 100.
For large fracture conductivity k
fD
w
fD
, the bilinear flow regime is short lived and
the 1/4slope pressure and derivative straight lines are moved downwards. The
behavior tends to a high conductivity fracture response (when k
fD
w
fD
is greater
than 300, see Figure 310).
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Slope
1/4
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
0.5 line
1
10
100
k
fD
w
fD
=
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
Slope
1/4
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
0.5 line
1
10
100
k
fD
w
fD
=
Figure 39 Response for a well intercepting a finite conductivity fracture. Log
log scale.
No wellbore storage effect C
D
= 0, no fracture skin, k
fD
w
fD
= 1, 10 and 100.
Match results
The kh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. 28) and the fracture
halflength x
f
from the time match (Eq. 32). The fracture conductivity k
f
w
f
is
estimated from the match on the bilinear flow 1/4 slope.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 52 
The fracture negative skin is defined by two terms: the geometrical skin of an
infinite conductivity fracture (Eq. 33), and a correction parameter G to account
for the pressure losses in the fracture.
f
w
f
f f
x
r
x k
w k
G S
2
ln
LKF
+


.

\

= ( 36)
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless fracture conductivity, k
fD
w
fD
r
w
e
/
x
f
0.5
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless fracture conductivity, k
fD
w
fD
r
w
e
/
x
f
0.5 0.5
Figure 310 Effective wellbore radius for a well with a finite conductivity
fracture. Loglog scale.
33.3 Bilinear and linear flow analyses
The fracture conductivity k
f
w
f
is estimated with Equation 118, the fracture half
length form Equation 116.
33.4 Flux distribution along the fracture
0.5
5
k
fD
w
fD
>300
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
Dimensionless distance, x /x
f
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
f
l
u
x
,
q
f
D
3
2
1
0
Uniform flux
Infinite conductivity
Finite conductivity
0.5
5
k
fD
w
fD
>300
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
Dimensionless distance, x /x
f
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
f
l
u
x
,
q
f
D
3
2
1
0
Uniform flux
Infinite conductivity
Finite conductivity
Uniform flux
Infinite conductivity
Finite conductivity
Figure 311 Stabilized flux distribution.
Uniform flux, Infinite conductivity (k
fD
w
fD
> 300) and Finite conductivity
fracture (k
fD
w
fD
= 0.5 and 5) models.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 53 
34 Well in partial penetration
34.1 Definition
h
h
w
z
w
S
w
k
V
k
H h
h
w
z
w
S
w
k
V
k
H
Figure 312 Geometry of a partially penetrating well.
h
w
: open interval thickness
z
w
: distance of the center of the open interval to the lower reservoir boundary
k
H
: horizontal permeability
k
V
: vertical permeability
34.2 Characteristic flow regimes
1. Wellbore storage.
2. Radial flow over the open interval : a first derivative plateau at 0.5 h/h
w
.
Results : permeabilitythickness product for the open interval k
H
h
w
, and the
skin of the well, S
w
.
3. Spherical flow : 1/2 slope derivative straight line. Results : permeability
anisotropy k
H
/k
V
and location of the open interval in the reservoir thickness.
4. Radial flow over the entire reservoir thickness : second derivative stabilization
at 0.5. Results : permeabilitythickness product for the total reservoir k
H
h, and
the total skin S
T.
The total skin combines the wellbore skin S
w
and an additional geometrical skin
S
pp
due to distortion of the flow lines, as depicted on Figure 121:
• S
pp
is large when the penetration ratio h
w
/h or the vertical permeability k
V
is low
(high anisotropy k
H
/k
V
).
• For damaged wells, the product (h/h
w
)S
w
can be larger than 100.
S
h
h
S S
T
w
w pp
= + ( 37)
A skin above 30 or 50 is indicative of a partial penetration effect.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 54 
34.3 Loglog analysis
Influence of k
V
/ k
H
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
k
V
/k
H
= 10
1
10
2
10
3
first stabilization
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
k
V
/k
H
= 10
1
10
2
10
3
first stabilization
10
3
10
2
10
1
Figure 313 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage
and skin. Loglog scale.
h
w
/h = 1/5 in center of the interval, C
D
= 33, S
w
=0, k
V
/ k
H
= 0.10, 0.01 and
0.001.
When the vertical permeability k
V
is low (low k
V
/k
H
), the start of the spherical
flow regime is delayed (1/2 derivative slope moved to the right).
Influence of z
w
/h
10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
2
10
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
h
e
m
i
s
p
h
e
r
ic
a
l s
p
h
e
r
ic
a
l
10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
2
10
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
h
e
m
i
s
p
h
e
r
ic
a
l s
p
h
e
r
ic
a
l
10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
2
10
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
h
e
m
i
s
p
h
e
r
ic
a
l s
p
h
e
r
ic
a
l
Figure 314 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage
and skin. Loglog scale.
h
w
/h = 1/10, C
D
= 6, S
w
=0, k
V
/k
H
= 0.005, z
w
/h = 0.5 and 0.2.
Match results
The k
H
h product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. 28). The wellbore skin
S
w
and the penetration ratio h
w
/h are estimated from the first radial flow when
present (derivative plateau at 0.5 h/h
w
) :
h
h
p
p
m
m
w
= =
∆
∆
2nd stab.
1st stab.
2nd line
1st line
( 38)
The permeability anisotropy k
V
/k
H
and location of the open interval are estimated
from the spherical flow 1/2 slope match.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 55 
34.4 Semilog analysis
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
40
30
20
10
0
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
Slope m
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
k
V
/k
H
=
∆ S
pp
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
40
30
20
10
0
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
Slope m
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
k
V
/k
H
=
∆ S
pp
10
3
10
2
10
1
Figure 315 Semilog plot of Figure 313.
Influence of k
V
/ k
H
on S
pp
(S
w
=0).
The final semilog straight line defines k
H
h and S
T
. When a first semilog straight
line is seen (radial flow over the open interval), it defines the permeability
thickness k
H
h
w
(penetration ratio h
w
/h with Eq. 38), and the wellbore skin S
w
.
34.5 Geometrical skin S
pp
When the penetration ratio h h
w
and the dimensionless reservoir thickness
anisotropy group ( ) h r k k
w H V
are not very small, S
pp
can be expressed :
( )( )
( )( )
S
h
h
h
r
k
k
h
h
h
h
h
h
z h h z h
z h h z h
pp
w w w
w
w
w w
w w
= −

\

.


\

.
 +
+
+ − +
− − −
¸
(
¸
(
(
(
(
1
2
2
4 4
4 4
ln ln
π
H
V
( 39)
With h h
w
= 0.1 and k
H
/k
V
= 1000, S
pp
= 68 whereas with h h
w
= 0.5 and
k
H
/k
V
= 10, S
pp
= 6 only.
34.6 Spherical flow analysis
Plot of ∆p versus 1 ∆t . The straight line is frequently not well defined and the
analysis is difficult : on example k
V
/k
H
=10
3
of Figure 313, the spherical flow
regime is established between t
D
/C
D
=10
4
and 10
6
. The straight line is very
compressed, it ends before
D D
C t 1 =0.01.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 56 
When the open interval is in the middle of the formation, the slope m
SPH
of the
spherical flow straight line gives the permeability anisotropy from Equations 120
and 121. If the open interval is close to the top or bottom sealing boundary, flow
is semispherical and the slope m
SPH
must be divided by two in Equation 120.
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
40
35
30
15
20
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
k
V
/k
H
=
slopes m
SPH
10
3
10
2
10
1
Dimensionless time function,
D D
C t 1
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
40
35
30
15
20
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
k
V
/k
H
=
slopes m
SPH
10
3
10
2
10
1
Dimensionless time function,
D D
C t 1 Dimensionless time function,
D D
C t 1
D D
C t 1
Figure 316 Spherical flow analysis of responses Figure 313. One over
square root of time plot.
34.7 Influence of the number of open segments
When the open interval is distributed in several segments, the ability of
vertical flow is improved compared to the single segment partially
penetrating well of same h
w
. On the examples Figure 317 with 1, 2 and 4
segments, the –1/2 slope is displaced towards early time when the number of
segments is increased (the global skin is respectively 17.9, 15.9 and 13.9).
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
10
2
1 0
1
10
1
segments
1
2
4
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
10
2
1 0
1
10
1
segments
1
2
4
segments
1
2
4
segments
1
2
4
Figure 317 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage
and skin. Loglog scale. One, two or four segments.
h
w
/h = 1/4, C
D
= 100, S
w
=0, k
V
/k
H
= 0.10, one segment centered, two or four
segments uniformly distributed in the interval.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 57 
34.8 Constant pressure upper or lower limit
In the case of a bottom water / oil contact or a gas cap on top of the producing
interval, no final radial flow regime develops after the spherical flow regime: the
pressure stabilizes and the derivative drops.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
10
2
1 0
1
10
1
oil
water
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
D
10
2
1 0
1
10
1
oil
water
oil
water
Figure 318 Responses for a well in partial penetration with a bottom
constant pressure boundary. Loglog scale.
h
w
/h = 1/5, C
D
= 1000, S
w
=0, k
V
/k
H
= 0.005, one segment on top.
The dotted derivative curve describes the response with sealing upper and
lower boundaries.
35 Horizontal well
35.1 Definition
h
z
w
L L
k
H
k
H
k
V
h
z
w
L L
k
H
k
H
k
V
Figure 319 Horizontal well geometry.
L : effective half length of the horizontal well
z
w
: distance between the drain hole and the bottomsealing boundary
k
H
: horizontal permeability
k
V
: vertical permeability
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 58 
35.2 Characteristic flow regimes
Vertical radial flow
Linear flow
Horizontal radial flow
Vertical radial flow
Linear flow
Horizontal radial flow
Figure 320 Horizontal well flow regimes.
1. Wellbore storage.
2. Vertical radial flow : a first derivative plateau at ( )
V H
k k L h 2 5 . 0 . Results :
the permeability anisotropy k
H
/k
V
and the wellbore skin S
w
(or the vertical
radial flow total skin S
TV
of Equation 315).
3. Linear flow between the upper and lower boundaries : 1/2 slope derivative
straight line. Results : effective halflength L and well location z
w
of the
horizontal drain.
4. Radial flow over the entire reservoir thickness : second derivative stabilization
at 0.5. Results : reservoir permeabilitythickness product k
H
h, and the total skin
S
TH.
35.3 Loglog analysis
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
First
stabilization
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
L k k
H V
2 C
k L
H
2
k h
H
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
First
stabilization
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
L k k
H V
2 C
k L
H
2
k h
H
Figure 321 Response for a horizontal well with wellbore storage and skin in a
reservoir with sealing upper and lower boundaries. Loglog scale.
With long drain holes, the 1/2 derivative slope is moved to the right and the first
derivative stabilization is moved down. When the vertical permeability is
increased, the first derivative stabilization is also moved down.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 59 
Match results
The k
H
h product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. 28). The effective
halflength L and well location z
w
are estimated from the intermediate time 1/2
slope match. The vertical radial flow total skin S
TV
and the permeability anisotropy
k
H
/k
V
are estimated from the first radial flow in the vertical plane (permeability
thickness 2 k k L
V H
and derivative plateau at ( ) 025 . h L k k
H V
).
Influence of L
The examples presented Figures 322 to 341 are generated with h = 100 ft and
r
w
= 0.25 ft.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
L/h = 30
15
5
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
L/h = 30
15
5
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
L/h = 30
15
5
Figure 322 Influence of L on pressure and derivative loglog curves.
C
D
=1000, S
w
=5, k
V
/k
H
=0.004, r
w
=0.25ft, z
w
/h =0.5, L =3000, 1500 and
500ft.
When the effective well length is increased, the first derivative stabilization during
the vertical radial flow is lowered and the linear flow regime is delayed.
During the linear flow, the location of the halfunit slope straight line is a function
of L
2
.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
L/h = 2.5, 5, 10
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
L/h = 2.5, 5, 10
Figure 323 Influence of L on pressure and derivative loglog curves.
SQRT (k
V
k
H
)*L constant, (∆p
1st stab
)
D
= 0.223. C
D
=100, S
w
=0, k
V
/k
H
=0.2,
L =250ft; k
V
/k
H
=0.05, L =500ft; k
V
/k
H
=0.0125, L =1000ft; h =100ft, r
w
=0.25ft, z
w
/h =0.5.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 60 
When the effective well length is short, the behavior becomes similar to that of a
well in partial penetration.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
L/h = 2.5, 5, 10
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
L/h = 2.5, 5, 10
Figure 324 Influence of L on pressure and derivative loglog curves.
SQRT (k
V
k
H
)*L constant, (∆p
1st stab
)
D
=1. C
D
=100, S
w
=0, k
V
/k
H
=0.01,
L =250ft; k
V
/k
H
=0.0025, L =500ft; k
V
/k
H
=0.000625, L=1000ft; h =100ft,
r
w
=0.25ft, z
w
/h =0.5.
Influence of z
w
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
1
10
2
z
w
/h = 0.125, 0.25, 0.5
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
1
10
2
z
w
/h = 0.125, 0.25, 0.5
Figure 325 Influence of z
w
on pressure and derivative loglog curves.
C
D
=1000, S
w
=2, L =1500ft, k
V
/k
H
=0.02, h =100ft, r
w
=0.25ft, z
w
/h =0.5,
0.25, 0.125.
35.4 Dimensionless variables
In the derivation of the model, the lengths are transformed in order to introduce the
permeability anisotropy between vertical and horizontal directions. The apparent
open interval thickness h
a
, the position of the horizontal drain hole with respect to
the lower boundary of the zone z
wa
, and the apparent wellbore radius are defined
as:
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 61 
V
H
a
k
k
h h = (ft, m) ( 310)
V
H
w wa
k
k
z z = (ft, m) ( 311)
[ ]
4 4
2
1
V H H V w wa
k k k k r r + = (ft, m) ( 312)
Several authors use the ratio h
D
of the apparent thickness h
a
of Equation 310, by
the well halflength L, as a leading parameter of horizontal well behavior.
V
H a
D
k
k
L
h
L
h
h = = ( 313)
35.5 Vertical radial flow semilog analysis
(
(
¸
(


.

\

+ − +
¸
−
∆
= ∆
4 4
2
2
1
log 2 87 . 0
23 . 3 log
2
6 . 162
V
H
H
V
w
w t
H V
H V
k
k
k
k
S
r c
t k k
L k k
qB
p
µ φ
µ
(psi, field units)
(
(
¸
(


.

\

+ − +
¸
−
∆
= ∆
4 4
2
2
1
log 2 87 . 0
10 . 3 log
2
5 . 21
V
H
H
V
w
w t
H V
H V
k
k
k
k
S
r c
t k k
L k k
qB
p
µ φ
µ
(Bars, metric units) ( 314)
The skin S
TV
measured during the vertical radial flow is expressed with the
wellbore skin S
w
and the anisotropy skin S
ani
of Equation 334 :
S S S S
k k k k
TV w ani w
V H H V
= + = −
+
ln
4 4
2
( 315)
Sometimes, the vertical radial flow skin is expressed as S
'
TV
, defined with
reference to the equivalent fully penetrating vertical well :
TV D TV
V
H
TV
S h S
k
k
L
h
S 5 . 0
2
'
= = ( 316)
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 62 
35.6 Linear flow analysis
∆
∆
p
qB
Lh
t
c k
qB
k k L
S
qB
k h
S
t H V H
w
H
z
= + +
8128
2
1412
2
1412 . . . µ
φ
µ µ
(psi, field units)
z
H
w
H V
H t
S
h k
qB
S
L k k
qB
k c
t
h L
qB
p
µ µ
φ
µ 66 . 18
2
66 . 18
2
246 . 1
+ +
∆
= ∆ (Bars, metric units)( 317)
During the linear flow regime, the flow lines are distorted vertically before
reaching the horizontal well, producing a partial penetration skin S
z
.
S
k
k
h
L
r
h
k
k
z
h
z
H
V
w V
H
w
= − +

\

.


\

.

¸
(
¸
(
(
1151 1 . log sin
π π
( 318)
35.7 Horizontal pseudoradial flow semilog analysis
∆
∆
p
qB
k h
k t
c r
S
H
H
t w
TH
= − +
¸
(
¸
(
162 6 323 087
2
. log . .
µ
φµ
(psi, field units)
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ −
∆
= ∆
TH
w t
H
H
S
r c
t k
h k
qB
p 87 . 0 10 . 3 log 5 . 21
2
φµ
µ
(Bars, metric units) ( 319)
S
TH
measured during the horizontal radial flow combines S
'
TV
of Equation 3.16
and the geometrical skin S
G
of the horizontal well (function of the logarithm of
the well effective length and a partial penetration skin S
zT
, close to the linear flow
skin S
z
of Equation 3.18) :
S
h
L
k
k
S S
TH
H
V
w G
= +
2
( 320)
S
L
r
S
G
w
zT
= − + 081 . ln ( 321)


.

\

+ − −
(
(
¸
(
¸

.

\



.

\

+ − =
2
2
2
2
3
1
5 . 0
sin 1 log 151 . 1
h
z
h
z
L
h
k
k
h
z
k
k
h
r
L
h
k
k
S
w w
V
H
w
H
V w
V
H
zT
π π
( 322)
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 63 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
z
w
/h = 0 .125
0.25
0.5
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
4
3
2
1
0
S
l
o
p
e
s
m
H
R
F
Slope m
VRF
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
z
w
/h = 0 .125
0.25
0.5
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
4
3
2
1
0
S
l
o
p
e
s
m
H
R
F
Slope m
VRF
Figure 326 Semilog plot of Figure 325.
Dimensionless half length, L/r
w
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
s
k
i
n
,
S
G
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
2
0
 2
 4
 6
 8
 10
k
V
/k
H
= 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001
k
V
/k
H
= ∞
z
w
/h =0.5
z
w
/h =0.1
Dimensionless half length, L/r
w
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
s
k
i
n
,
S
G
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
2
0
 2
 4
 6
 8
 10
k
V
/k
H
= 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001
k
V
/k
H
= ∞
z
w
/h =0.5
z
w
/h =0.1
Figure 327 Semilog plot of the geometrical skin S
G
versus L/r
w
.
Influence of k
V
/k
H
. h/r
w
=1000, z
w
/h=0.5, 0.1.
Dimensionless half length, L/r
w
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
s
k
i
n
,
S
G
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
2
0
 2
 4
 6
 8
 10
1000 2000 4000
k
V
/k
H
= ∞
z
w
/h =0.5
z
w
/h =0.1
h/r
w
= 500
Dimensionless half length, L/r
w
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
s
k
i
n
,
S
G
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
2
0
 2
 4
 6
 8
 10
1000 2000 4000
k
V
/k
H
= ∞
z
w
/h =0.5
z
w
/h =0.1
h/r
w
= 500
Figure 328 Semilog plot of the geometrical skin S
G
versus L/r
w
.
Influence of h/r
w
. k
V
/k
H
=0.1, z
w
/h=0.5, 0.1.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 64 
35.8 Discussion of the horizontal well model
Several well conditions can produce a pressure gradient in the reservoir, parallel to
the wellbore. The vertical radial flow regime is then distorted, and the derivative
response deviates from the usual stabilization at ( ) 025 . h L k k
H V
). During
horizontal radial flow, the geometrical skin can be larger or smaller than S
G
of
Equation 321 and 322.
Nonuniform mechanical skin
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
2
Skin S
wi
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
2
Skin S
wi
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
2
Skin S
wi
Figure 329 Influence of nonuniform skin on pressure and derivative curves.
C
D
= 100, L =1000 ft, h =100 ft, r
w
=0.25 ft, z
w
/h =0.5, k
V
/k
H
=0.1. The well is
divided in 4 segments of 500 ft with skins of S
wi
=4, 4, 4, 4 (uniform damage),
S
wi
=8, 5.33, 2.66, 0 (skin decreasing along the well length), S
wi
=0, 8, 8, 0
(damage in the central section), S
wi
=8, 0, 0, 8 (damage at the two ends).
The two ends of the well are more sensitive to skin damage (the total skin S
TH
is
more negative on the curve S
wi
=0, 8, 8, 0).
Finite conductivity horizontal well
When the pressure gradients in the wellbore are comparable to pressure gradients
in the reservoir, the flow is threedimensional (pseudospherical), and the
derivative is displaced upwards during the early time response. During horizontal
radial flow, the total skin S
TH
is less negative.
Partially open horizontal well
When only some sections of the well are open to flow, the response first
corresponds to a horizontal well with the total length of the producing segments.
Later, each segment acts like a horizontal well, and several horizontal radial flow
regimes are established until interference effects between the producing sections
are felt. Then, the final horizontal radial flow regime is reached for the complete
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 65 
drain hole. The more distributed the producing sections, the more negative the
total skin S
TH
.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
0.25
0.125
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
0.25
0.125
Figure 330 Influence of number of open segments on pressure and
derivative loglog curves. Total halflength 2000 ft, effective halflength 500 ft.
C
D
=100, 1, 2, 4 segments with S
wi
=0, ΣL
eff
= L /4, L =2000ft, h =100ft,
r
w
=0.25ft, z
w
/ h =0.5, k
V
/k
H
=0.1.
When the producing segments are uniformly distributed along the drain hole, the
total skin S
TH
can be very negative even with a low penetration ratio. On the
examples Figure 331, with penetration ratios of 100, 50, 25 and 12.5%, S
TH
is
respectively –7.9, 7.4, 6.6 and –5.1.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
100%
50%
25%
12.5%
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
100%
50%
25%
12.5%
Figure 331 Influence of the penetration ratio on pressure and derivative log
log curves. Four segments equally spaced.
C
D
=100, 4 segments with S
wi
=0, ΣL
eff
= L /8, L /4, L /2 and L, L =2000ft,
h =100ft, r
w
=0.25ft, z
w
/h =0.5, k
V
/k
H
=0.1.
Nonrectilinear horizontal well
During the vertical radial flow, the upper and lower sealing boundaries can be
reached at different times when the well is not strictly horizontal. The transition
between vertical radial flow and linear flow is then distorted.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 66 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
Figure 332 Nonrectilinear horizontal wells. Pressure and derivative curves.
C
D
=100, L =2000ft (500+1000+500), S
wi
=0, h =100ft, r
w
=0.25ft, k
V
/ k
H
=0.1,
(z
w
/ h)
i
=0.5 or 0.95 (average 0.725).
Anisotropic horizontal permeability
In anisotropic reservoirs, horizontal well responses are also sensitive to the well
orientation.
k
y
k
x
k
z
k k L
z y
2 k L
y
2
k k h
x y
k
y
k
x
k
z
k
y
k
x
k
z
k k L
z y
2 k L
y
2
k k h
x y
Figure 333 Horizontal permeability anisotropy.
Effective permeability during the three characteristic flow regimes towards a
horizontal well.
The final horizontal radial flow regime defines the average horizontal permeability
k k k H
x y
= . During the linear flow regime, only the permeability k
y
normal the
well orientation is acting. At early time, the average permeability during the
vertical radial flow is k k
z y
.
1.0E02
1.0E01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
p
D
&
p
D
'
k k L
z y
2
k k h
x y
k L
y
2
Figure 334 Influence of the permeability anisotropy during the three
characteristic flow regimes.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 67 
When the isotropic horizontal permeability model is used for analysis, the apparent
effective halflength is :
L k k L
a y x
=
4
(ft, m) ( 323)
(the vertical permeability k
z
is unchanged).
k
x
k
y
k
x
k
y
k
x
k
y
k
x
k
y
Figure 335 Horizontal well normal to the maximum permeability direction :
apparent effective length increased.
k
x
k
y
k
x
k
y
k
x
k
y
k
x
k
y
Figure 336 Horizontal well in the direction of maximum permeability :
apparent effective length decreased.
Horizontal wells should be drilled preferably in the minimum permeability
direction.
Changes in vertical permeability
In a layered reservoir with crossflow, the horizontal radial flow regime gives the
average horizontal permeability :
k k h h H
Hi i
n
i
n
=
∑ ∑
1 1
(mD) ( 324)
During the vertical radial flow, the changes of permeability are acting in series.
When the contrast in vertical permeability is not too large, the resulting average
vertical permeability is defined (assuming the well is centered in layer j) :
k
h h
h k h k
h h
h k h k
V
i j
j
i Vi j Vj
j
i j
j
n
i Vi j Vj
j
n
=
+
+
+
+
+

\

.




−
−
+
+
∑
∑
∑
∑
05
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
. (mD) ( 325)
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 68 
In the example Figure 337 with n=3 and j=2, the match with a homogeneous layer
is defined with k k H
H
= 107
2
. and ( ) k k k V
H H
= + = 05 0 082 0 028 0 0514
2
. . . . .
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
One equivalent layer
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
One equivalent layer
Figure 337 Horizontal well in a reservoir 3 layers with crossflow. Pressure
and derivative loglog curves.
C
D
=100, L =1000ft, S
w
=0, h =100ft (30+30+40), r
w
=0.25ft, z
w
/h =0.55 (well
centered in h
2
), k
H1
/k
H2
=1.5, k
H3
/k
H2
=0.8, (k
V
/k
H
)
1
=0.08, (k
V
/k
H
)
2
=0.05, (k
V
/
k
H
)
3
=0.03. One layer: k
H
= (k
1
h
1
+ k
2
h
2
+ k
3
h
3
) / (h
1
+h
2
+h
3
), k
V
/k
H
=0.0514.
On Figure 338, a thin reduced permeability interval is introduced in the main
layer. When a homogeneous layer of total thickness is used for analysis, the
effective well length is too small and the vertical permeability overestimated.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
One layer =
h
1
+h
2
+h
3
h
3
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
One layer =
h
1
+h
2
+h
3
h
3
Figure 338 Horizontal well in a reservoir 3 layers with crossflow. Pressure
and derivative loglog curves.
C
D
= 100, L = 1000 ft, S
w
=0, h =100 ft (h
1
=45ft, h
2
=5ft, h
3
=50ft), k
1
=k
3
=100k
2
,
r
w
=0.25 ft, (k
V
/k
H
)
i
=0.1, z
w
/h = 0.25 (well centered in h
3
).
• One layer (h
1
+h
2
+h
3
) : k= (k
1
h
1
+ k
2
h
2
+ k
3
h
3
) / (h
1
+h
2
+h
3
), L = 550 ft,
S
w
=0.2, k
V
/k
H
=0.4, z
w
/h = 0. 5 (well centered in h
1
+h
2
+h
3
).
• One layer (h
3
) : k= k
3
, L = 1000 ft, S
w
=0, k
V
/k
H
=0.1, z
w
/h = 0. 5 (well
centered in h
3
).
Presence of a gas cap or bottom water drive
When the constant pressure boundary is reached at the end of the vertical radial
flow regime (or hemi radial in the examples Figure 339), the pressure stabilizes
and the derivative drops. It the thickness of the gas zone is not large enough, the
derivative stabilizes at late time to describe the total oil + gas mobility thickness.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 69 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
No gas cap
h
gas
h
oil
h
gas
= 20 ft
100 ft
500 ft
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
No gas cap
h
gas
h
oil
h
gas
= 20 ft
100 ft
500 ft
Figure 339 Horizontal well in a reservoir with gas cap and sealing bottom
boundary. Pressure and derivative loglog curves.
C
D
= 100, L = 1000 ft, S
w
=2, h =100 ft, r
w
=0.25 ft, (k
V
/k
H
)=0.1, z
w
/h = 0.2
(well close to the bottom boundary). Gas cap : h
gas
= 0.20, 1.0, 5.0 h,
µ
gas
=0.01 µ
oil
, c
t gas
=10 c
t oil
.
35.9 Other horizontal well models
Multilateral horizontal well
As for partially penetrating horizontal wells, the different branches of multilateral
wells start to produce independently until interference effects between the
branches distort the response. At later time, pseudo radial flow towards the
multilateral horizontal well develops.
In the case of intersecting multilateral horizontal wells in reservoir with isotropic
horizontal permeability, increasing the number of branches does not improve the
productivity. With the examples of Figure 340, the total skin S
TH
of the horizontal
well is S
TH
=6.8 (one branch) and respectively –6.6 and –6.2 with two and four
branches.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
Figure 340 Multilateral horizontal wells. Pressure and derivative curves.
C
D
= 100, L = 1000 ft (500+500 or 250+250+250+250), S
wi
=0, h =100 ft,
r
w
=0.25 ft, k
V
/k
H
=0.1, z
w
/h = 0.5.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 70 
When the distance between the two producing segments is large enough, the
response becomes independent of the orientation of the branches. The responses
Figure 341 tend to be equivalent to the example with two segments of Figure 3
30. The total skin S
TH
is more negative when the distance between the branches is
increased. For the two multilateral horizontal wells of Figure 341, S
TH
=7.1 (and
S
TH
=6.8 with one branch).
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
Figure 341 Multilateral horizontal wells. Pressure and derivative curves.
C
D
= 100, L = 1000 ft (500+500), S
wi
=0, h =100 ft, r
w
=0.25 ft, k
V
/k
H
=0.1, z
w
/h
= 0.5. The distance between the 2 parallel branches is 2000ft, on the second
example the intersection point is at 1000ft from the start of the 2 segments.
Fractured horizontal well
Two configurations are considered : longitudinal and transverse fractures. At early
time, the different fractures produce independently until interference effects are
felt. With longitudinal fractures, bilinear and linear flow regimes can be observed,
possibly followed by horizontal radial flow around the different fractures. For a
single fracture of halflength x
f
, the slope m
BLF
and m
LF
are expressed :
4
11 . 44
H t f f
BLF
k c w k x
qB
m
µ φ
µ
= (psi.hr
1/4
, field units)
4
28 . 6
H t f f f
BLF
k c w k x
qB
m
φµ
µ
= (Bars.hr
1/4
, metric units) ( 326)
t H f
LF
c k x h
qB
m
φ
µ
06 . 4 = (psi.hr
1/2
, field units)
H t f
LF
k c x h
qB
m
φ
µ
623 . 0 = (Bars.hr
1/2
, metric units) ( 327)
With transverse fractures, the flow is first linear in the formation and radial in the
fracture, it changes into linear flow, and later into the horizontal radial flow regime
around the fracture segments. The radial linear flow regime yields a semilog
straight line whose slope is function of the fracture conductivity. For a single
transverse fracture of radius r
f
, the slope m
RLF
and m
LF
are:
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 71 
w k
qB
m
f
RLF
µ
3 . 81 = (psi, field units)
f f
RLF
w k
qB
m
µ
75 . 10 = (Bars, metric units) ( 328)
H t f
LF
k c r h
qB
m
φ
µ
17 . 5 = (psi.hr
1/2
, field units)
H t f
LF
k c r h
qB
m
φ
µ
793 . 0 = (Bars.hr
1/2
, metric units) ( 329)
Once the interference effect between the different fractures is fully developed, the
final pseudo radial flow regime towards the fractured horizontal well establishes.
As for partially open horizontal wells, the time of start of the final regime is a
function of the distance between the outermost fractures.
36 Skin factors
36.1 Anisotropy pseudoskin
An equivalent transformed isotropic reservoir model of average radial permeability
is used, by a transformation of variables in the two main directions of permeability
k
max
and k
min
. With
k k k =
max min
(mD) ( 330)
x x
k
k
x
k
k
'
max
min
max
= = 4 (ft, m) ( 331)
y y
k
k
y
k
k
'
min
max
min
= = 4 (ft, m) ( 332)
The wellbore is changed into an ellipse whose area is the same as in the original
system, but the perimeter is increased. The elliptical well behaves like a cylindrical
hole whose apparent radius is the average of the major and minor axes, and
produces an apparent negative skin :
[ ]
r r k k k k
wa w
= +
1
2
4 4
min max max min
(ft, m) ( 333)
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 72 
S
k k k k
k k
k
ani
= −
+
= −
+
ln
ln
min max max min
min max
4 4
2
2
( 334)
S
ani
is in general low but, for horizontal wells, when k
V
/k
H
<<1, S
ani
=1 may be
observed.
36.2 Geometrical skin
A B C A B C
Figure 342 Configuration of wells A, B and C.
A = fully penetrating vertical well, B = well in partial penetration,
C = horizontal well.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
S
G
>0
S
G
<0
A : vertical well
B : partial penetration
C : horizontal well
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
S
G
>0
S
G
<0
A : vertical well
B : partial penetration
C : horizontal well
Figure 343 Pressure and derivative response of wells A, B and C. Loglog
scale.
Chapter 3  Wellbore conditions
 73 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
30
20
10
0
S
G
>0
S
G
<0
A : vertical well
B : partial penetration
C : horizontal well
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
30
20
10
0
S
G
>0
S
G
<0
S
G
>0
S
G
<0
A : vertical well
B : partial penetration
C : horizontal well
Figure 344 Semilog plot of Figure 343 examples.
36.3 The different skin factors
Name Description Type
S
w
Infinitesimal skin at the wellbore. Positive or negative
S
G
Geometrical skin due to the streamline curvature
(fractured, partial penetration, slanted or horizontal
wells).
Positive or negative
S
ani
Skin factor due to the anisotropy of the reservoir
permeability.
Negative
S
RC
Skin factor due to a change of reservoir mobility
near the wellbore (permeability or fluid property,
radial composite behavior).
Positive or negative
S
2φ
Skin factor due to the fissures in a double porosity
reservoir.
Negative
D.q
Turbulent or inertial effects on gas wells. Positive
 74 
 75 
4  FISSURED RESERVOIRS  DOUBLE
POROSITY MODELS
41 Definitions
41.1 Permeability
The fluid flows to the well through the fissure system only and the radial
permeability of the matrix system does not contribute to the mobility (k
m
= 0).
The permeability thickness product kh estimated by the interpretation is used to
define an equivalent bulk permeability of the fissure network, over the complete
thickness h:
kh k h
f f
= (mD.ft, mD.m) ( 41)
Fissure
Matrix
Vug
Fissure
Matrix
Vug
Fissure
Matrix
Vug
Figure 41 Example of double porosity reservoir, fissured and multiplelayer
formations.
41.2 Porosity
φ
f
and φ
m
: ratio of pore volume in the fissures (or in the matrix), to the total
volume of the fissures (of the matrix).
V
f
and V
m
: ratio of the total volume of the fissures (or matrix) to the reservoir
volume (V
f
+ V
m
= 1).
φ φ φ = +
f f m m
V V ( 42)
In practice, φ
f
and V
m
are close to 1. The average porosity of Equation 4.2 can be
simplified as :
φ φ = + V
f m
( 43)
41.3 Storativity ratio ω ω ω ω
( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )
ω
φ
φ φ
φ
φ
=
+
=
+
Vc
Vc Vc
Vc
Vc
t
f
t
f
t
m
t
f
t
f m
( 44)
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 76 
41.4 Interporosity flow parameter λ λ λ λ
λ α = r
k
k
w
m
f
2
( 45)
α is related to the geometry of the fissure network, defined with the number n of
families of fissure planes. For n = 3, the matrix blocks are cubes (or spheres) and,
for n = 1, they are slab.
α =
+ n n
r
m
( ) 2
2
(ft
2
, m
2
) ( 46)
r
m
is the characteristic size of the matrix blocks. It is defined as the ratio of the
volume V of the matrix blocks, to the surface area A of the blocks :
r nV A
m
= (ft, m) ( 47)
When a skin effect (S
m
in dimensionless term) is present at the surface of the
matrix blocks, the matrix to fissure flow is called restricted interporosity flow.
S
k
r
h
k
m
m
m
d
d
= ( 48)
n=3, cubes
h
d
k
m
r
m
k
d
n=1, slabs
Figure 42 Matrix skin. Slab and sphere matrix blocks.
The analysis with the restricted interporosity flow model (pseudosteady state
interporosity flow) provides the effective interporosity flow parameter λ
eff
:
λ
eff
= n
r
r h
k
k
w
m d
d
f
2
( 49)
λ
eff
is independent of the matrix block permeability k
m
.
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 77 
41.5 Dimensionless variables
p
kh
qB
p
D
=
1412 . µ
∆ (field units)
p
qB
kh
p
D
∆ =
µ 66 . 18
(metric units) ( 410)
t
C
kh t
C
D
D
= 0 000295 .
µ
∆
(field units)
C
t kh
C
t
D
D
∆
=
µ
00223 . 0 (metric units) ( 411)
( )
C
C
Vc hr
Df
t
f
w
=
08936
2
.
φ
(field units)
( )
2
1592 . 0
w f t
Df
hr Vc
C
C
φ
= (metric units) ( 412)
( )
C
C
Vc hr
Df m
t
f m
w
+
+
=
08936
2
.
φ
(field units)
( )
2
1592 . 0
w m f t
m Df
hr Vc
C
C
+
+
=
φ
(metric units) ( 413)
The storativity ratio ω correlates the two definitions of dimensionless wellbore
storage :
C C
Df m Df +
= ω ( 414)
42 Double porosity behavior, restricted interporosity flow
(pseudosteady state interporosity flow)
42.1 Loglog analysis
Pressure type curves
Three component curves :
1.  (C
D
e
2S
)
f
at early time, during fissure flow.
2.  λ
eff
e
2S
during transition regime, between the two homogeneous behaviors.
3.  (C
D
e
2S
)
f+m
at late time, when total system behavior is reached.
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 78 
A double porosity response goes from a high value (C
D
e
2S
)
f
when the storativity
corresponds to fissures, to a lower value (C
D
e
2S
)
f+m
when total system is acting.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
C
D
e
2S
=
Start of semilog radial flow
10
30
10
3
10
10
5
5x10
3
0.1
λe
2S
= 10
30
10
10
10
6
10
2
0.5
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
C
D
e
2S
=
Start of semilog radial flow
10
30
10
3
10
10
5
5x10
3
0.1
λe
2S
= 10
30
10
10
10
6
10
2
0.5
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
C
D
e
2S
=
Start of semilog radial flow
10
30
10
3
10
10
5
5x10
3
0.1
10
30
10
3
10
10
5
5x10
3
0.1
λe
2S
= 10
30
10
10
10
6
10
2
0.5
Figure 43 Pressure typecurve for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity flow.
Typical responses
The limit "approximate start of the semilog straight line" shows that the wellbore
storage stops during the fissure regime with example A. With example B, wellbore
storage lasts until the transition regime and, during the fissure regime, the fissure
(C
D
e
2S
)
f
curve does not reach the semilog straightline approximation.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
5x10
3
10
30
10
4
10
10
10
5
1
0.1
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
C
D
e
2S
=
λe
2S
= 10
30
10
2
Start of semilog radial flow
3x10
4
10
7
A
B
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
5x10
3
10
30
10
4
10
10
10
5
1
0.1
5x10
3
10
30
10
4
10
10
10
5
1
0.1
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
C
D
e
2S
=
λe
2S
= 10
30
10
2
Start of semilog radial flow
3x10
4
10
7
A
B
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
C
D
e
2S
=
λe
2S
= 10
30
10
2
Start of semilog radial flow
3x10
4
10
7
λe
2S
= 10
30
10
2
Start of semilog radial flow
3x10
4
10
7
A
B
Figure 44 Pressure examples for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity flow.
o = A : (C
D
e
2S
)
f
= 1, (C
D
e
2S
)
f+m
= 0.1, ω = 0.1, λ
eff
e
2S
= 3.10
4
.
■ = B : (C
D
e
2S
)
f
= 10
5
, (C
D
e
2S
)
f+m
= 10
4
, ω = 0.1, λ
eff
e
2S
= 10
7
.
On semilog scale, two parallel straight lines are present with example A. With
example B, only the total system straight line is seen.
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 79 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
B
A
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
B
A
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
Figure 45 Semilog plot of Figure 44 examples.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
5x10
3
10
30
10
10
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
C
D
e
2S
=
10
4
1
0.1
λe
2S
= 10
30
10
2
10
5
3x10
4
10
7
λC
D
/ω(1ω) = 10
2
3x10
4
3x10
5
λC
D
/(1ω) 10
3
10
30
10
10
10
5
1
B
B
A
A
0.1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
5x10
3
10
30
10
10
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
C
D
e
2S
=
10
4
1
0.1
λe
2S
= 10
30
10
2
10
5
3x10
4
10
7
λC
D
/ω(1ω) = 10
2
3x10
4
3x10
5
λC
D
/(1ω) 10
3
10
30
10
10
10
5
1
B
B
A
A
0.1
5x10
3
10
30
10
10
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
C
D
e
2S
=
10
4
1
0.1
λe
2S
= 10
30
10
2
10
5
3x10
4
10
7
λC
D
/ω(1ω) = 10
2
3x10
4
3x10
5
λC
D
/(1ω) 10
3
10
30
10
10
10
5
1
B
B
A
A
0.1
Figure 46 Pressure and derivative examples of Figure 44 for a well with
wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state
interporosity flow.
λ
eff
C
Df+m
/ω(1ω) =10
2
, 3x10
4
. λ
eff
C
Df+m
/(1ω) = 10
3
, 3x10
5
.
With the derivative, example A shows two stabilizations on 0.5. The derivative of
example B stabilizes on 0.5 only during the total system homogeneous regime.
On the derivative typecurve, the transition is described with two curves, labeled
( )
( )
[ ]
λ ω ω
eff
C
D f m +
− 1 (decreasing derivative) and
( )
( ) λ ω
eff
C
D f m +
− 1 .
Match results
( ) PM 2 . 141 µ qB kh = (mD.ft, field units)
( ) PM 66 . 18 µ qB kh = (mD.m, metric units) ( 28)

.

\

=
TM
1
000295 . 0
µ
kh
C (Bbl/psi, field units)
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 80 

.

\

=
TM
1
00223 . 0
µ
kh
C (m
3
/Bars, metric units) ( 29)
( )
S
C e
C
D
S
f m
Df m
=
+
+
05
2
. ln ( 415)
( )
( )
ω =
+
C e
C e
D
S
f m
D
S
f
2
2
( 416)
( )
λ λ
eff eff
=
−
e e
S S 2 2
( 417)
Pressure and derivative response
When the three characteristic regimes of the restricted interporosity flow model
are developed, the derivative exhibits a valley shaped transition between the two
stabilizations on 0.5.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
0.5 line
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
0.5 line
Figure 47 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage
in double porosity reservoir, pseudosteady state interporosity flow.
C
Df+m
= 10
3
, S = 0, ω = 0.1, λ
eff
= 6.10
8
(C
D
e
2S
f
=10
4
, λ
eff
e
2S
= 6.10
8
and C
D
e
2S
f+m
= 10
3
)
42.2 Influence of the heterogeneous parameters ω ωω ω and λ λλ λ
eff
Influence of ω ωω ω
With small ω values, the transition regime from C
D
e
2S
f
to C
D
e
2S
f+m
is long. On
the derivative responses, the transition valley drops when ω is reduced. On semi
log scale, the first straight line is displaced upwards and the horizontal transition
between the two parallel lines is longer.
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 81 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
1
ω = 10
3
10
2
10
1
ω = 10
3
0.5
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
1
ω = 10
3
10
2
10
1
ω = 10
3
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
1
ω = 10
3
10
2
10
1
ω = 10
3
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
1
ω = 10
3
10
2
10
1
ω = 10
3
0.5
Figure 48 Double porosity reservoir, pseudosteady state interporosity flow.
Influence of ω ωω ω. Loglog scale.
C
Df+m
=1, S =0, λ
eff
=10
7
and ω =10
1
, 10
2
and 10
3
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
1
s
lo
p
e
m
10
2
ω = 10
3
s
lo
p
e
m
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
1
s
lo
p
e
m
10
2
ω = 10
3
s
lo
p
e
m
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
1
s
lo
p
e
m
10
2
ω = 10
3
s
lo
p
e
m
Figure 49 Semilog plot of Figure 48.
Influence of λ λλ λ
eff
The interporosity flow parameter defines the time of end of the transition regime.
The smaller is λ
eff
, the later the start of total system flow. On the pressure curves,
the transition regime occurs at a higher amplitude and, on the derivative responses,
the transition valley is displaced towards late times.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
λ = 10
6
, 10
7
, 10
8
10
6
λ = 10
8
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
λ = 10
6
, 10
7
, 10
8
10
6
λ = 10
8
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
λ = 10
6
, 10
7
, 10
8
10
6
λ = 10
8
Figure 410 Double porosity reservoir, pseudosteady state interporosity flow.
Influence of λ λλ λ
eff
. Loglog scale.
C
Df+m
=100, S =0, ω =0.02 and λ
eff
=10
6
, 10
7
and 10
8
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 82 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
12
8
4
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
6
10
7
λ = 10
8
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
12
8
4
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
6
10
7
λ = 10
8
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
10
6
10
7
λ = 10
8
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
Figure 411 Semilog plot of Figure 410.
42.3 Analysis of the semilog straight lines
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
s
lo
p
e
m
Double porosity
Homogeneous
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
s
lo
p
e
m
Double porosity
Homogeneous
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
s
lo
p
e
m
Double porosity
Homogeneous
Figure 412 Semilog plot of homogeneous and double porosity responses.
C
D
= C
Df+m
= 100, S = 0, ω = 0.01 and λ
eff
= 10
6
During fissure flow, when the first semilog line is present,
( ) (
(
¸
(
¸
+ − + ∆ = ∆ S
r Vc
k
t
kh
qB
p
w f t
87 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
µ φ
µ
(psi, field units)
( ) (
(
¸
(
¸
+ − + ∆ = ∆ S
r c V
k
t
kh
qB
p
w f t
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 5 . 21
2
µ φ
µ
(Bars, metric units)(418)
The second line, for the total system regime is :
( ) (
(
¸
(
¸
+ − + ∆ = ∆
+
S
r Vc
k
t
kh
qB
p
w m f t
87 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
µ φ
µ
(psi, field units)
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 83 
( ) (
(
¸
(
¸
+ − + ∆ = ∆
+
S
r c V
k
t
kh
qB
p
w m f t
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 5 . 21
2
µ φ
µ
(Bars, metric units)( 419)
The vertical distance δp between the two lines gives ω :
ω
δ
=
−
10
p m
( 420)
When only the first semilog straight line for fissure regime is present, if the total
storativity is used instead of that of the fissure system, the calculation of the skin
gives an over estimated value S
f
:
S S
f
= + 05
1
. ln
ω
( 421)
42.4 Buildup analysis
Loglog pressure buildup analysis
When the production time t
p
is small, the three characteristic regimes of a double
porosity response are not always fully developed on buildup pressure curves.
Whatever long are the three buildup examples of Figure 413, only example A
3
exhibits a clear double porosity response. The buildup curve A
1
does not show a
double porosity behavior, but only the buildup response of the fissures. For
example A
2
, the buildup curve flattens at the same ∆p level as the λ
eff
e
2S
transition, there is no evidence of total system flow regime.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Homogeneous behaviour,
( fissures C
D
e
2S
f
= 1 and total system C
D
e
2S
f+m
= 0.1)
Double porosity,
( drawdown and buildup)
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
t
p1
= 10
2
t
p2
= 9x10
3
t
p3
= 3x10
5
A
3
A
2
A
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Homogeneous behaviour,
( fissures C
D
e
2S
f
= 1 and total system C
D
e
2S
f+m
= 0.1)
Double porosity,
( drawdown and buildup)
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
t
p1
= 10
2
t
p2
= 9x10
3
t
p3
= 3x10
5
A
3
A
2
A
1
Figure 413 Drawdown and buildup pressure responses for a well with
wellbore storage and skin in double porosity reservoir, pseudosteady state
interporosity flow. Loglog scale.
C
Df+m
= 0.1, S = 0, ω = 0.1, λ
eff
= 3.10
4
(C
D
e
2S
f
=1, λ
eff
e
2S
= 3.10
4
and
C
D
e
2S
f+m
= 0.1). t
pD
/C
D
= 100 (A
1
), 9.10
3
(A
2
), 3.10
5
(A
3
).
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 84 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
8
6
4
2
0
drawdown
buildup
A
3
A
2
A
1
t
p3
= 3x10
5
t
p1
= 10
2
t
p2
= 9x10
3
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
8
6
4
2
0
drawdown
buildup
A
3
A
2
A
1
t
p3
= 3x10
5
t
p1
= 10
2
t
p2
= 9x10
3
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
8
6
4
2
0
drawdown
buildup
A
3
A
2
A
1
t
p3
= 3x10
5
t
p1
= 10
2
t
p2
= 9x10
3
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
Figure 414 Semilog plot of drawdown and buildup pressure responses of
Figure 413.
Horner & superposition analysis
In example A
3
, the initial pressure p
i
is obtained by extrapolation of the second
straight line, the first one extrapolates to p
i
+ m ln (1/ω). If the drawdown stops
during the transition (example A
2
), only the first semilog straight is seen and its
extrapolated pressure p* is between p
i
and p
i
+ m ln (1/ω), depending upon t
p
.
Horner time, (t
pD
+ t
D
)/ t
D
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,
(
p

p
i
)
D
0
2
4
6
p* > p
i
s
lo
p
e
m
A
1
s
lo
p
e
m
p* = p
i
A
2
A
3
Horner time, (t
pD
+ t
D
)/ t
D
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,
(
p

p
i
)
D
0
2
4
6
p* > p
i
s
lo
p
e
m
A
1
s
lo
p
e
m
p* = p
i
A
2
A
3
Figure 415 Horner plot of the three Buildups of Figure 413.
A
1
(t
pD
/C
D
= 100), A
2
(t
pD
/C
D
= 9.10
3
) and A
3
(t
pD
/C
D
= 3.10
5
).
Derivative buildup analysis
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Buildup
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
1
10
1
10
2
A
3
A
1
A
2
0.5
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Buildup
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
1
10
1
10
2
A
3
A
1
A
2
A
1
A
2
0.5
Figure 416 Drawdown and buildup derivative responses of Figure 413.
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 85 
43 Double porosity behavior, unrestricted interporosity flow
(transient interporosity flow)
43.1 Loglog analysis
Pressure typecurve
Two pressure curves :
1.  β' at early time, during transition regime before the homogeneous behavior of
the total system
2.  (C
D
e
2S
)
f+m
later, when the homogeneous total system flow is reached
The two families of curves have the same shape: the β ' transition curves are
equivalent to C
D
e
2S
curves whose pressure and time are divided by a factor of two.
β' is defined as :
( )
β δ
λ
' ' =
+
−
C e
e
D
S
f m
S
2
2
( 422)
The constant δ' is related to the geometry of the matrix system. For slab matrix
blocks δ '=1.89, and for sphere matrix blocks δ ' = 1.05.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
C
D
e
2S
=
Start of semilog radial flow
10
30
10
3
10
10
5
5x10
3
0.1
β ' = 10
30
10
10
10
3
5
0.1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
C
D
e
2S
=
Start of semilog radial flow
10
30
10
3
10
10
5
5x10
3
0.1
10
30
10
3
10
10
5
5x10
3
0.1
β ' = 10
30
10
10
10
3
5
0.1
β ' = 10
30
10
10
10
3
5
0.1
Figure 417 Pressure typecurve for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow.
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 86 
Typical responses
A long transition on a β' curve is seen on example A. With example B, the
wellbore storage is large, and the transition is shorter on the t
D
/C
D
time scale.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
Start of semilog radial flow
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
10
10
0.1
6x10
3
β' = 10
30
5
10
6
10
10
A
B
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
Start of semilog radial flow
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
10
10
0.1
6x10
3
β' = 10
30
5
10
6
10
10
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
Start of semilog radial flow
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
10
10
0.1
6x10
3
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
10
10
0.1
6x10
3
β' = 10
30
5
10
6
10
10
A
B
Figure 418 Pressure examples for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, and slab matrix
blocks.
o = A : (C
D
e
2S
)
f+m
= 10, ω = 0.001, β' = 10
6
, λe
2S
= 1.8914*10
5
.
■ = B : (C
D
e
2S
)
f+m
= 6.10
3
, ω = 0.001, β' = 10
10
, λe
2S
= 1.1348*10
6
.
On semilog scale, example A shows a first straight line of slope m/2 during
transition, before the total system straight line of slope m. With example B, only
the total system straight line is present.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
B
A
slope
m
/2
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
B
A
slope
m
/2
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
Figure 419 Semilog plot of Figure 418 examples.
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 87 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
5
10
30
6x10
6
10
4
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
10
10
0.1
6x10
3
β' = 10
30
5
10
6
10
10
3x10
3
3x10
4
λC
D
/(1ω)
2
= 3x10
2
3x10
5
B
B
A
A
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
5
10
30
6x10
6
10
4
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
10
10
0.1
6x10
3
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
10
10
0.1
6x10
3
β' = 10
30
5
10
6
10
10
β' = 10
30
5
10
6
10
10
3x10
3
3x10
4
λC
D
/(1ω)
2
= 3x10
2
3x10
5
3x10
3
3x10
4
λC
D
/(1ω)
2
= 3x10
2
3x10
5
B
B
A
A
Figure 420 Pressure and derivative examples of Figure 418.
λC
D
f+m
(1ω)
2
= 3.10
2
, 3.10
3
, 3.10
4
, 3.10
5
.
With the derivative, example A shows a first stabilization on 0.25 before the final
stabilization on 0.5 for the total system homogeneous regime. The derivative of
example B exhibits only a small valley before the stabilization on 0.5.
The end of transition, and the start of the total system homogeneous regime, is
described by a ( ) ( ) λ ω C
D
1
2
− derivative curve.
Match results
On a double porosity response with unrestricted interporosity flow, after the
wellbore storage hump the derivative exhibits a first stabilization on 0.25 before
the final stabilization on 0.5.
( )
λ δ
β
=
+
−
'
'
C e
e
D
S
f m
S
2
2
( 423)
ω is difficult to access with the transient interporosity flow model.
Slab and sphere matrix blocks
With the two types matrix geometry, the pressure curves look identical but the
derivatives are slightly different. At late transition time, the change from 0.25 to
the 0.5 level is steeper on the curve generated for slab matrix blocks.
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 88 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
1
sphere
slab
0.5
0.25
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
1
sphere
slab
0.5
0.25
Figure 421 Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, slab and
sphere matrix blocks. Loglog scale.
C
D
e
2S
f+m
=1, β'=10
4
and ω=10
2
.
Slab: λe
2S
= 1.89 10
4
, Sphere: λe
2S
= 1.05 10
4
.
43.2 Influence of the heterogeneous parameters ω ωω ω and λ λλ λ
Influence of ω ωω ω
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
ω = 10
3
ω = 10
3
0.5
ω = 10
1
ω = 10
1
0.25
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
ω = 10
3
ω = 10
3
0.5
ω = 10
1
ω = 10
1
0.25
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
ω = 10
3
ω = 10
3
0.5
ω = 10
1
ω = 10
1
0.25
ω = 10
3
ω = 10
3
0.5
ω = 10
1
ω = 10
1
0.25
Figure 422 Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, slab
matrix blocks. Influence of ω ωω ω on pressure and derivative curves.
C
Df+m
=1, S =0, λ =10
7
and ω =10
1
, 10
2
and 10
3
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
slo
p
e
m
/2
10
1
10
2
ω = 10
3
s
lo
p
e
m
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
slo
p
e
m
/2
10
1
10
2
ω = 10
3
s
lo
p
e
m
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
slo
p
e
m
/2
10
1
10
2
ω = 10
3
10
1
10
2
ω = 10
3
s
lo
p
e
m
Figure 423 Semilog plot of Figure 422.
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 89 
Influence of λ λλ λ
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
λ = 10
6
, 10
7
, 10
8
λ = 10
8
0.5
0.25
λ = 10
6
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
λ = 10
6
, 10
7
, 10
8
λ = 10
8
0.5
0.25
λ = 10
6
λ = 10
6
, 10
7
, 10
8
λ = 10
8
0.5
0.25
λ = 10
6
Figure 424 Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, slab
matrix blocks. Influence of λ λλ λ on pressure and derivative curves.
C
Df+m
=100, S =0, ω =0.02 and λ =10
6
, 10
7
and 10
8
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
slop
e
m
/2
10
6
10
7
λ = 10
8
s
lo
p
e
m
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
slop
e
m
/2
10
6
10
7
λ = 10
8
s
lo
p
e
m
slop
e
m
/2
10
6
10
7
λ = 10
8
s
lo
p
e
m
Figure 425 Semilog plot of Figure 424.
43.3 Buildup analysis
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Buildup
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
1
10
1
10
2
A
3
A
2
0.5
A
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Buildup
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
1
10
1
10
2
A
3
A
2
0.5
A
1
Figure 426 Drawdown and buildup derivative responses, double porosity
reservoir, unrestricted interporosity flow, slab matrix blocks.
C
Df+m
= 0.1, S = 0, ω = 0.1, λ = 3.10
4
. t
pD
/C
D
= 100 (A
1
), 9.10
3
(A
2
), 3.10
5
(A
3
).
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 90 
44 Complex fissured reservoirs
44.1 Matrix skin
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
S
m
= 0
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.25
0.1
10 100
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
S
m
= 0
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.25
0.1
10 100
1
Figure 427 Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, slab
matrix blocks with interporosity skin.
C
Df+m
= 1, S = 0, ω = 0.01, λ = 10
5
. S
m
= 0, 0.1, 1, 10, 100.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
1
10
1
10
2
S
m
= 1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10 100
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
1
10
1
10
2
S
m
= 1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10 100
Figure 428 Comparison of Figure 427 derivative responses with the
restricted interporosity flow model.
λ
eff
= 2.500x10
6
(S
m
= 1), λ
eff
= 3.323x10
7
(S
m
= 10), λ
eff
= 3.333x10
8
(S
m
= 100).
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
S
m
= 0
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.25
0.1
10 100
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
S
m
= 0
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.25
0.1
10 100
1
Figure 429 Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, sphere
matrix blocks with interporosity skin.
C
Df+m
= 1, S = 0, ω = 0.01, λ = 10
5
. S
m
= 0, 0.1, 1, 10, 100.
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 91 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
1
10
1
10
2
S
m
= 1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10 100
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
1
10
1
10
2
S
m
= 1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10 100
Figure 430 Comparison of Figure 429 derivative responses with the
restricted interporosity flow model.
λ
eff
= 1.66x10
6
(S
m
= 1), λ
eff
= 1.96x10
7
(S
m
= 10), λ
eff
= 2.00x10
8
(S
m
=
100).
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
10
1
10
2
unrestricted slab
unrestricted sphere
restricted
0.5
0.25
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
10
1
10
2
unrestricted slab
unrestricted sphere
restricted
0.5
0.25
Figure 431 Loglog plot of pressure and derivative responses for a well with
wellbore storage and skin in double porosity reservoir, restricted and
unrestricted interporosity flow, slab and sphere matrix blocks.
C
Df+m
= 1, S = 3, ω = 0.02, λ = 10
4
. C
D
e
2S
f+m
=403, λe
2S
= 2.48*10
7
.
Slab: β' = 3.07*10
9
, Sphere: β' = 1.71*10
9
44.2 Triple porosity solution
The model considers two sizes of matrix blocks. The blocks are uniformly
distributed in the reservoir. Alternatively, the matrix blocks can be fissured.
Two block sizes Fissured matrix blocks
fissure, block 1, block 2 fissure, microfissure, block
Two block sizes Fissured matrix blocks Two block sizes Fissured matrix blocks
fissure, block 1, block 2 fissure, microfissure, block fissure, block 1, block 2 fissure, microfissure, block
Figure 432 Multiple matrix blocks.
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 92 
When the blocks are uniformly distributed, δ
i
defines the contribution of the group
i to the total matrix storage (δ
1
+ δ
2
=1):
( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )
δ
φ
φ φ
φ
φ
i
t
mi
t
m
t
m
t
mi
t
m
Vc
Vc Vc
Vc
Vc
=
+
=
=
1 2
( 424)
fissure fissure + group 1 total system
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
fissure fissure + group 1 total system
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
Figure 433 Triple porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity flow,
two sizes of matrix blocks uniformly distributed, different λ λλ λ
eff
.
C
Df+m
= 1, S = 0, ω = 0.01, λ
eff1
=10
5
, δ
1
=0.1, λ
eff2
=5x10
7
, δ
2
=0.9.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
to
ta
l s
y
s
te
m
fis
s
u
r
e
fis
s
u
r
e
+
g
r
o
u
p
1
(
s
lo
p
e
m
)
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
to
ta
l s
y
s
te
m
fis
s
u
r
e
fis
s
u
r
e
+
g
r
o
u
p
1
(
s
lo
p
e
m
)
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
to
ta
l s
y
s
te
m
fis
s
u
r
e
fis
s
u
r
e
+
g
r
o
u
p
1
(
s
lo
p
e
m
)
Figure 434 Semilog plot of Figure 433 example.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
total system
group 1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.5
fissure
group 2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
total system
group 1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.5 0.5
fissure
group 2
Figure 435 Triple porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity flow,
two sizes of matrix blocks uniformly distributed, same λ λλ λ
eff
.
C
Df+m
= 1, S = 0, ω = 0.01, λ
eff1
= λ
eff2
=10
6
, δ
1
=0.1, δ
2
=0.9.
The dashed curves describe the double porosity responses for only blocks 1
(small valley) and only blocks 2.
Chapter 4  Fissured reservoirs
 93 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
(
s
lo
p
e
m
)
fis
s
u
r
e
(
s
lo
p
e
m
)
group 1
group 2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
(
s
lo
p
e
m
)
fis
s
u
r
e
(
s
lo
p
e
m
)
group 1
group 2
Figure 436 Semilog plot of Figure 435 example.
The thin curves describe the double porosity responses for only blocks 1
(final semilog straight line for fissures + blocks 1) and only blocks 2 (final
semilog straight line for fissures + blocks 2).
 94 
 95 
5  BOUNDARY MODELS
51 One sealing fault
51.1 Definition
L L
Well Image
(q) (q)
L
L
r
D
w
= ( 51)
51.2 Characteristic flow regimes
1. Radial flow
2. Hemiradial flow
51.3 Loglog analysis
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
1
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
1
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
Figure 51 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage
and skin near one sealing fault in a homogeneous reservoir. Loglog scale.
C
D
= 10
4
, S = 0, L
D
= 5000.
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 96 
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
L
D
=100
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
300 1000 3000
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
L
D
=100
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
300 1000 3000
Figure 52 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
homogeneous reservoir limited by one sealing fault.
Several distances. C
D
= 100, S = 5, L
D
= 100, 300, 1000, 3000.
51.4 Semilog analysis
The time of intercept ∆t
x
between the two semilog straight lines can be used to
estimate the distance between the well and the sealing fault :
L
k t
c
x
t
= 0 01217 .
∆
φµ
(ft, field units)
t
x
c
t k
L
φµ
∆
= 0141 . 0 (m, metric units) ( 122)
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
L
D
=100
300
1000
3000
slope m
s
lo
p
e
2
m
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
L
D
=100
300
1000
3000
slope m
s
lo
p
e
2
m
Figure 53 Semilog plot of Figure 52.
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 97 
52 Two parallel sealing faults
52.1 Definition
L2
Well
L1
52.2 Characteristic flow regimes
1. Radial flow
2. Linear flow
52.3 Loglog analysis
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
A
B
º A
º B
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
A
B
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
A
B
º A
º B
º A
º B
Figure 54 Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous
reservoir limited by two parallel sealing faults. Loglog scale.
One channel width, two well locations. C
D
= 3000, S = 0, L
1D
= L
2D
= 3000
(curve A) and L
1D
= 1000, L
2D
= 5000 (curve B).
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 98 
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
L
1D
=
L
2D
=
500
1000
2500
5000
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
L
1D
=
L
2D
=
500
1000
2500
5000
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
L
1D
=
L
2D
=
500
1000
2500
5000
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
Figure 55 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near two
parallel sealing faults. Homogeneous reservoir.
The well is located midway between the two boundaries, several distances
between the two faults are considered. C
D
= 300, S = 0
L
1D
= L
2D
= 500, 1000, 2500 and 5000.
52.4 Semilog analysis
On semilog scale, only one straight line is present. During the late time linear
flow, the responses deviate in a curve above the radial flow line. The time of end
of the semilog straight line is function of the channel width and the well location.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0
10
20
30
40
slope m
10
1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
1
L
1D
= L
2D
= 500
1000
2500
5000
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0
10
20
30
40
slope m
10
1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
1
L
1D
= L
2D
= 500
1000
2500
5000
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0
10
20
30
40
slope m
10
1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
1 10
1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
1
L
1D
= L
2D
= 500
1000
2500
5000
Figure 56 Semilog plot of Figure 55.
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 99 
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
A
slope
m
10
3
1
B
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
A
slope
m
10
3
1
B
Figure 57 Semilog plot of Figure 54.
52.5 Linear flow analysis
0
10
20
30
40
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D L
1D
= L
2D
= 500
1000
2500
5000
(t
D
/C
D
)
1/2
0 350 100 200 300 250 50 150
slope m
ch
0
10
20
30
40
0
10
20
30
40
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D L
1D
= L
2D
= 500
1000
2500
5000
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D L
1D
= L
2D
= 500
1000
2500
5000
(t
D
/C
D
)
1/2
0 350 100 200 300 250 50 150
(t
D
/C
D
)
1/2
0 350 100 200 300 250 50 150
slope m
ch
Figure 58 Square root of time plot of Figure 55.
The pressure change ∆p is plotted versus the square root of the elapsed time ∆t .
The slope m
ch
and the intercept ∆p
chint
of the linear flow straight line are used to
estimate the channel width and the well location.
( )
t
ch
c k L L h
qB
m
φ
µ
2 1
133 . 8
+
= (psi.hr
1/2
, field units)
( )
t
ch
c k L L h
qB
m
φ
µ
2 1
246 . 1
+
= (Bars.hr
1/2
, metric units) ( 52)
t ch
c k hm
qB
L L
φ
µ
133 . 8
2 1
= + (ft, field units)
t ch
c k hm
qB
L L
φ
µ
246 . 1
2 1
= + (m, metric units) ( 53)
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 100 
S p
qB
kh
S
ch
− ∆ =
chint
2 . 141 µ
(field units)
S p
qB
kh
S
ch
− ∆ =
int ch
66 . 18 µ
(metric units) ( 54)


.

\

−
+
=
+
ch
2 1
2 1
1
2
arcsin
1
S
e
r
L L
L L
L
w
π π
( 55)
52.6 Buildup analysis
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
10
4
C
D
10
6
º C
º D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
10
4
C
D
10
6
º C
º D
Figure 59 Buildup responses for a well with wellbore storage in a
homogeneous reservoir limited by two parallel sealing faults.
One channel width, two well locations. The dotted curves describe the
drawdown responses. C
D
= 3000, S = 0, L
1D
= L
2D
= 5000 (curve C) and
L
1D
= 2000, L
2D
= 8000 (curve D). Production time: t
pD
/C
D
= 2000.
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
pD
+t
D
)/ t
D
1 10
1
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
lo
p
e
m
10
3
D
C
9
8
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
pD
+t
D
)/ t
D
1 10
1
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
lo
p
e
m
10
3
D
C
9
8
Figure 510 Horner plot of Figure 59.
The extrapolation p* of the Horner straight line does not correspond to the infinite
shutin time pressure.
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 101 
[(t
pD
+t
D
)/C
D
]
1/2
 [t
D
/C
D
]
1/2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0 20 30
3
4
5
6
7
slope m
ch
50
D
C
9
8
10 40
[(t
pD
+t
D
)/C
D
]
1/2
 [t
D
/C
D
]
1/2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0 20 30
3
4
5
6
7
slope m
ch
50
D
C
9
8
10 40
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0 20 30
3
4
5
6
7
slope m
ch
50
D
C
9
8
10 40
Figure 511 Square root of time plot of Figure 59.
p
D
versus [(t
pD
+t
D
)/C
D
]
1/2
 [t
D
/C
D
]
1/2
.
For an infinite channel, when both the drawdown and the shutin periods are in
linear flow regime, the superposition function is expressed as t t t
p
+ − ∆ ∆ .
The extrapolation of the linear flow straight line to infinite shutin time, at
t t t
p
+ − = ∆ ∆ 0 , is used to estimate the initial reservoir pressure.
53 Two intersecting sealing faults
53.1 Definition
L2
Well
L1
θ
θ
w
The angle of intersection θ between the faults is smaller than 180°, the wedge is
otherwise of infinite extension.
L
D
is the dimensionless distance between the well and the faults intercept. The
well location in the wedge is defined with θ
w
. The distances L
1
and L
2
between the
well and the sealing faults are expressed as :
L L r
D w w 1
= sinθ (ft, m) ( 56)
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 102 
( ) L L r
D w w 2
= − sin θ θ (ft, m) ( 57)
53.2 Characteristic flow regimes
1. Radial flow
2. Linear flow
3. Fraction of radial flow
53.3 Loglog analysis
If for example the angle between the faults is 60° (π/3), the wedge is 1/6 of the
infinite plane (2π), and the derivative stabilizes at 3.
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
10
4
A
B
180°/ θ = 3
º A
º B
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
10
4
A
B
180°/ θ = 3
º A
º B
º A
º B
Figure 512 Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous
reservoir limited by two intersecting sealing faults. Loglog scale.
C
D
= 3000, S = 0, L
D
= 5000, θ = 60°, θ
w
= 30°(curve A) and θ
w
= 10°
(curve B).
θ = ° 360
∆
∆
p
p
1st stab.
2nd stab.
( 58)
Between the two stabilizations, the derivative follows a half unit slope straight
line.
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 103 
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
θ =
10°
20°
45°
90°
135°
1
10
1
10
2
180°
180°
10°
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
θ =
10°
20°
45°
90°
135°
1
10
1
10
2
180°
180°
10°
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
θ =
10°
20°
45°
90°
135°
1
10
1
10
2
180°
180°
10°
Figure 513 Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous
reservoir limited by two intersecting sealing faults. Loglog scale.
Several angles of intersection θ, the well is on the bisector θ
w
= 0.5 θ, the
distance to the two faults is constant L
1D
= L
2D
= 1000, the distance L
D
to the
fault intercept changes.
C
D
= 1000, S = 0, θ = 10°, L
D
= 11473; θ = 20°, L
D
= 5759; θ = 45°, L
D
=
2613; θ = 90°, L
D
= 1414; θ = 135°, L
D
= 1082; θ = 180°, L
D
= 1000.
53.4 Semilog analysis
On a complete response, two semilog straight lines can be identified. The first, of
slope m, describes the infinite acting regime. The second, with a slope of
(360/θ)m, defines the fraction of radial flow limited by the wedge.
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
6
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
20
40
slope m
10
3
1
θ = 10°
20°
45°
90°
135°
60
10
5
slope (360°/θ) m
180°
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
6
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
20
40
slope m
10
3
1
θ = 10°
20°
45°
90°
135°
60
10
5
slope (360°/θ) m
180°
Figure 514 Semilog plot of Figure 513.
θ = ° 360
m
m
1st line
2nd line
( 59)
The end of the first semilog straight line, and the level of the second straight line,
is a function of the well location in the wedge.
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 104 
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
A
slope
m
10
3
1
B
s
l
o
p
e
6
m
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
A
slope
m
10
3
1
B
s
l
o
p
e
6
m
Figure 515 Semilog plot of Figure 512.
54 Closed system
54.1 Definition
A rectangular reservoir shape is considered. The well is at dimensionless distances
L
1D
, L
2D
, L
3D
, and L
4D
from the four sealing boundaries, the dimensionless area
of the closed reservoir is expressed as:
( )( )
A
r
L L L L
w
D D D D
2
1 3 2 4
= + + ( 510)
54.2 The pseudo steady state regime
Time, t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
p
i
p

slope m*
pseudo steady state
Time, t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
p
i
p

slope m*
pseudo steady state
Figure 516 Drawdown and buildup pressure response. Linear scale.
Closed system.
The well, at initial reservoir pressure p
i
, is produced at constant rate until all
reservoir boundaries are reached. At the end of the drawdown, the pseudo steady
state regime is shown by a linear pressure trend. The well is then closed for a shut
in period, the pressure builds up until the average reservoir pressure p is reached,
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 105 
and the curve flattens. The difference p p
i
− , between the initial pressure and the
final stabilized pressure defines the depletion.
54.3 Loglog behavior
On loglog scale, a straight line of slope unity on the late time drawdown pressure
and derivative curves characterizes the pseudo steady state flow regime. During
buildup, the pressure curves flattens to ∆p and the derivative drops.
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
A
B
slope 1
A & B
0.5
º A
º B
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
A
B
slope 1
A & B
0.5
º A
º B
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
A
B
slope 1
A & B
0.5
º A
º B
º A
º B
Figure 517 Drawdown and buildup responses for a well with wellbore
storage in a closed square homogeneous reservoir. Loglog scale.
The dotted curves describe the drawdown responses. C
D
= 25000, S = 0.
Curve A: L
1D
= L
2D
= L
3D
= L
4D
= 30000. Curve B: L
1D
= L
2D
= 6000, L
3D
=
L
4D
= 54000. (t
p
/C)
D
= 1000. (t
p
/C)
D
= 1000.
54.4 Drawdown analysis
Loglog analysis
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
A/r
w
2
= 10
6
0.5
10
8
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
A/r
w
2
= 10
6
0.5
10
8
10
7
Figure 518 Drawdown responses for a well with wellbore storage in a closed
square homogeneous reservoir.
Three reservoir sizes, the well is centered or near one of the boundaries.
C
D
= 100, S = 0, A/r
w
2
= 10
6
, 10
7
, 10
8
(L
1D
= 200).
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 106 
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
D C
s
l
o
p
e
1
/
2
slope 1
º C º D
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
D C
s
l
o
p
e
1
/
2
slope 1
º C º D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
D C
s
l
o
p
e
1
/
2
slope 1
º C º D º C º D
Figure 519 Pressure and derivative drawdown responses for a well with
wellbore storage in a closed channel homogeneous reservoir.
C
D
= 1000, S = 0. Curve C: L
1D
= L
3D
= 20000, L
2D
= L
4D
= 2000.
Curve D: L
1D
= L
2D
= L
3D
= 2000, L
4D
= 38000.
Analysis of semilog straight lines
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
slope
m
10
3
1 10
5
s
lo
p
e
2
m
A/r
w
2
= 10
6
10
7
10
8
10
6
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
slope
m
10
3
1 10
5
s
lo
p
e
2
m
A/r
w
2
= 10
6
10
7
10
8
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
slope
m
10
3
1 10
5
s
lo
p
e
2
m
A/r
w
2
= 10
6
10
7
10
8
10
6
Figure 520 Semilog plot of Figure 518.
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
10
20
slope m
10
3
1
30
10
5
s
lo
p
e
4
m
A
B
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
10
20
slope m
10
3
1
30
10
5
s
lo
p
e
4
m
A
B
Figure 521 Semilog plot of Figure 5.17 drawdown examples.
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 107 
Linear and semilinear flow analysis
0 40 80 20 60
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
D
/C
D
)
1/2
0
10
20
30
40
s
lo
p
e
2
m
c
h
50
slope mch
D
C
0 40 80 20 60 0 40 80 20 60
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
D
/C
D
)
1/2
0
10
20
30
40
s
lo
p
e
2
m
c
h
50
slope mch
D
C
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
D
/C
D
)
1/2
0
10
20
30
40
s
lo
p
e
2
m
c
h
50
slope mch
D
C
(t
D
/C
D
)
1/2
0
10
20
30
40
s
lo
p
e
2
m
c
h
50
slope mch
D
C
Figure 522 Linear flow analysis plot of Figure 519.
The slope for the infinite channel behavior (curve C of Figure 519) is expressed
in Equation 5.2. For the limited channel (curve D) the slope of the linear flow
straight line is double :
( )
t
c k L L h
qB
m
φ
µ
4 2
hch
27 . 16
+
= (psi.hr
1/2
, field units)
( )
t
c k L L h
qB
m
φ
µ
2 1
hch
494 . 2
+
= (Bars.hr
1/2
, metric units) ( 511)
Pseudosteady state analysis
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0
0
10
20
30
40
200 000
A/r
w
2
= 10
6
10
7
10
8
400 000 600 000 800 000
50
slope m*
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0
0
10
20
30
40
200 000
A/r
w
2
= 10
6
10
7
10
8
400 000 600 000 800 000
50
slope m*
Figure 523 Pseudo steady state flow analysis plot of Figure 518.
During pseudosteady state regime, the drawdown dimensionless pressure is
expressed as :
p t
A
r C
S
D DA
w A
= + + + 2 05 05
2 2458
2
π . ln . ln
.
( 512)
The dimensionless time t
DA
is defined with respect to the drainage area :
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 108 
t
k
c A
t
DA
t
=
0 000264 .
φµ
∆ (field units)
t
A c
k
t
t
DA
∆ =
φµ
000356 . 0
(metric units) ( 513)
The "shape factor" C
A
characterizes the geometry of the reservoir and the well
location.
With real data, the pressure during pseudo steady state flow regime is expressed :
( ) ∆ ∆ p
qB
c hA
t
qB
kh
A
r
C S
t w
A
= + − + +
¸
(
¸
(
0 234 162 6 0 351 087
2
. . log log . .
φ
µ
(psi, field units)
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ + − + ∆ = ∆ S C
r
A
kh
qB
t
hA c
qB
p
A
w
t
87 . 0 351 . 0 log log 5 . 21 0417 . 0
2
µ
φ
(Bars, metric
units) (122)
the slope m* of the pseudosteady state straight line provides the reservoir
connected pore volume :
φ hA
qB
c m
t
= 0 234 .
*
(cu ft, field units)
*
0417 . 0
m c
qB
hA
t
= φ (m
3
, metric units) ( 123)
When kh and S are known from semilog analysis, the shape factor C
A
is estimated
from the intercept ∆p
int
of the pseudosteady state straight line :
(
¸
(
¸

.

\


.

\

− − −
=
S . r A m
*
p p
w
i
.
e . C
A
87 0 log
2
int
303 2
2458 2 ( 514)
or
( )
[ ] m
*
p . p
e
m
m
C
i
A
int
303 2
*
456 . 5
− −
= ( 515)
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 109 
54.5 Buildup analysis
Loglog analysis of buildup
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
1
10
6
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
10
4
t
pDA
=10, 2
10
5
t
pDA
=0.6
º
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
1
10
6
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
10
4
t
pDA
=10, 2
10
5
t
pDA
=0.6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
1
10
6
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
10
4
t
pDA
=10, 2
10
5
t
pDA
=0.6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
1
10
6
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
10
4
t
pDA
=10, 2
10
5
t
pDA
=0.6
º
Figure 524 Buildup responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
closed rectangle homogeneous reservoir.
The well is close to one boundary. Three production times are considered.
C
D
= 292, S = 0, L
1D
= 500, L
2D
= 1000, L
3D
= 3500, L
4D
= 1000
t
pD
/C
D
(t
pDA
) = 16400 (0.6), 54600 (2), 273000 (10).
The rectangular reservoir configuration used for the buildup examples of Figure
524 is described in the Shape Factors Tables with C
A
= 0.5813 and the start of
pseudo steady state is defined at t
DA
= 2 (Eq. 513 or, with Eq. 26, t
D
/C
D
=
54600). The well is closed for buildup before (t
pDA
= 0.6) or during the pure
pseudo steady state flow regime (t
pDA
= 2 and 10).
When all reservoir boundaries have been reached during drawdown, the shape of
the subsequent buildup is independent of t
p
on loglog scale. At late times, the
stabilized dimensionless pressure p
D
is expressed as :
p
A r
C
S
D
w
A
= +

\

.
 + 1151 0 35
2
. log . ( 516)
Semilog analysis of buildup
When t
p
>>∆t, the Horner time can be simplified with t
p
+∆t ≅ t
p
:
log log log
t t
t
t t
p
p
+
= −
∆
∆
∆ ( 517)
For different production time t
p
in a depleted reservoir, the Horner straight lines of
slope m are parallel.
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 110 
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
pD
+t
D
)/ t
D
1 10
1
10
2
0
2
4
6
s
lo
p
e
m
10
3
10
8
10
4
10
5
10
6
t
pDA
= 0.6, 2, 10
p

D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
pD
+t
D
)/ t
D
1 10
1
10
2
0
2
4
6
s
lo
p
e
m
10
3
10
8
10
4
10
5
10
6
t
pDA
= 0.6, 2, 10
p

D
Figure 525 Horner plot of Figure 524.
The Horner plot Figure 525 is presented in dimensionless terms. The straight line
extrapolated pressure p
D
*
changes with t
p
and, later, the curves flatten to reach
p
D
= 8 62 . of Equation 5.16. For examples t
pDA
= 2 and 10, p p
D D
*
> , but not for
the example with t
pDA
= 0.6. With real pressure, the average pressure p decreases
when t
p
increases.
When the same production time is used for Horner analysis of the three buildup
periods (t
pDA
= 2 on Figure 526), the difference between the straight line
extrapolated pressure
*
p and the average shutin pressure p becomes a constant.
3
5
9
7
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
pD
+t
D
)/ t
D
s
lo
p
e
m
t
pDA
=0.6
p

D
t
pDA
=2, 10
p*
D
= 8.1
3
5
9
7
3
5
9
7
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
pD
+t
D
)/ t
D
s
lo
p
e
m
t
pDA
=0.6
p

D
t
pDA
=2, 10
p*
D
= 8.1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
pD
+t
D
)/ t
D
s
lo
p
e
m
t
pDA
=0.6
p

D
t
pDA
=2, 10
p*
D
= 8.1
Figure 526 Horner plot of Figure 524 with same t
p
.
For the three examples, the Horner time is t
pD
/C
D
= 16400 (t
pDA
=0.6).
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 111 
55 Constant pressure boundary
55.1 Definition
water
gas
water
gas
L L
Well Image
(q) (q)
55.2 Loglog analysis
The dimensionless stabilized pressure is defined as :
( ) p L S
D D
= + ln 2 ( 518)
The derivative follows a negative unit slope straight line.
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
L
D
=100
10
4
300 1000 3000
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
L
D
=100
10
4
300 1000 3000
Figure 527 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near one
constant pressure linear boundary in a homogeneous reservoir.
Several distances. C
D
= 100, S = 5, L
D
= 100, 300, 1000, 3000.
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 112 
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
sealing fault : 1
constant pressure
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
sealing fault : 1
constant pressure
Figure 528 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore
storage near two perpendicular boundaries in a homogeneous reservoir.
The closest boundary is sealing, the second at constant pressure.
C
D
= 100, S = 0, θ= 90°, θ
w
= 20°, L
D
= 1000.
55.3 Semilog analysis
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0
5
10
15
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
L
D
=
3000
1000
300
100
slope m
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
L
D
=
3000
1000
300
100
slope m
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
L
D
=
3000
1000
300
100
slope m
Figure 529 Semilog plot of Figure 527.
The time of intercept ∆t
x
between the semilog straight line and the constant
pressure is used, as for a sealing fault, to estimate the distance of the boundary :
L
k t
c
x
t
= 0 01217 .
∆
φµ
(ft, field units)
t
x
c
t k
L
φµ
∆
= 0141 . 0 (m, metric units) ( 122)
The difference of pressure between the start of the period and the final stabilized
pressure, [
( )
p p
t
−
= ∆ 0
], can also be used to estimate L :
( ) [ ] S m t p p
e r L
w
− = ∆ −
=
) 0 ( 151 . 1
5 . 0 (ft, m) ( 519)
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 113 
56 Communicating fault
In the case of communicating fault, two different configurations are considered.
With the semipermeable boundary model, also called leaky fault, the vertical
plane fault is not sealing but acting as a flow restriction. Conversely, a finite
conductivity fault improves the drainage because the fault permeability is larger
than the surrounding permeability of the reservoir.
56.1 Semi permeable boundary
Definition
The partially communicating fault, at distance L from the well, has a thickness w
f
and a permeability k
f
. The dimensionless fault transmissibility ratio α is expressed
as :
L k
w k
f f
= α ( 520)
Characteristic flow regimes
1. Radial flow
2. Hemiradial flow
3. Leak
4. Radial flow
w
f
k
f
w
f
k
f
Loglog analysis
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5 0.5
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5 0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5 0.5
Figure 530 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage
near a semipermeable linear boundary. Homogeneous reservoir. Loglog
scale.
C
D
= 10
4
, S = 0, L
D
= 5000, α = 0.05.
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 114 
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
α = 0.001
1
α = 1 , 0.1, 0.01
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
α = 0.001
1
α = 1 , 0.1, 0.01
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
α = 0.001
1
α = 1 , 0.1, 0.01
Figure 531 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a semi
permeable linear boundary.
Several transmissibility ratios. C
D
= 100, S = 5, L
D
= 300, α = 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001.
Semilog analysis
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0
5
10
15
20
slope
m
s
lo
p
e
2
m
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
1 10
5
10
6
α = 1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
slope
m
s
lo
p
e
2
m
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
1 10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
1 10
5
10
6
α = 1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Figure 532 Semilog plot of Figure 531.
56.2 Finite conductivity fault
Definition
With the finite conductivity fault model, flow is possible along the fault plane,
depending upon the fault dimensionless conductivity F
cD
(a zero fault conductivity
F
cD
corresponds to the semipermeable fault solution).
kL
w k
F
f f
cD
= ( 521)
The resistance to flow across the fault plane is described with the skin factor S
f
.
The definition of the dimensionless skin S
f
includes the possibility of a region of
altered permeability k
a
with an extension w
a
around the fault:
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 115 


.

\

+ =
f
f
a
a
f
k
w
k
w
L
k
S
2
2π
( 522)
The skin factor S
f
is related to the transmissibility ratio a of Eq. 520:
f
S
π
α = ( 523)
Characteristic flow regimes
1. Radial flow
2. Constant pressure
boundary effect
3. Bilinear flow
4. Radial flow
L
w
f
k
f
L
w
f
k
f
Loglog analysis
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
0.5
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
0.5
Figure 533 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore
storage near a finite conductivity fault. No fault skin. Loglog scale.
C
D
= 10
3
, S = 0, L
D
= 1000, F
cD
= 100, S
f
= 0.
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 116 
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
F
cD
= 1 10 100 1000 10000
10
7
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
9
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
F
cD
= 1 10 100 1000 10000
10
7
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
9
10
7
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
9
Figure 534 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a finite
conductivity fault. No fault skin and several conductivity. Loglog scale.
C
D
= 100, S = 5, L
D
= 300, S
f
= 0, F
cD
= 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000.
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1
0.5
10
7
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
9
S
f
=10 S
f
=100
S
f
=1000
0.5
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1
0.5
10
7
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
9
10
7
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
9
S
f
=10 S
f
=100
S
f
=1000
0.5
Figure 535 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a finite
conductivity fault. Several fault skin and conductivity. Loglog scale.
C
D
= 100, S = 5, L
D
= 300, F
cD
= 10, 1000, S
f
= 10, 100, 1000.
Semilog analysis
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0
5
10
15
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
2
m
S
f
= 0
S
f
= 100
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
2
m
S
f
= 0
S
f
= 100
Figure 536 Semilog plot for a well with wellbore storage near a finite
conductivity fault.
C
D
= 10
3
, S = 0, L
D
= 1000, F
cD
= 100, S
f
= 0 or 100.
Chapter 5  Boundary models
 117 
57 Predicting derivative shapes
Figure 537 Closed reservoir example.
Example of a drawdown in a closed system, the shape of the reservoir is a
trapezoid. After wellbore storage, the response shows :
1  the infinite radial flow regime (derivative on 0.5),
2  one sealing fault (derivative on 1),
3  the wedge response (derivative on π /θ),
4  linear flow (derivative straight line of slope 1/2),
5  pseudo steady state (straight line of slope 1).
0.5
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
180/θ
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
s
l
o
p
e
1
0.5
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
180/θ
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
s
l
o
p
e
1
Figure 538 Derivative response for a well in a closed trapezoid.
 118 
 119 
6  COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS
61 Definitions
With the radial composite model, the well is at the center of a circular zone of
radius r. With the linear composite model, the interface is at a distance L. The well
is located in the region "1". The parameters of the second region are defined with a
subscript "2".
Radial composite Linear composite
(k/µ)
1
, (φc
t
)
1
(k/µ)
2
, (φc
t
)
2
(k/µ)
1
, (φc
t
)
1
(k/µ)
2
, (φc
t
)
2
R L
Radial composite Linear composite
(k/µ)
1
, (φc
t
)
1
(k/µ)
2
, (φc
t
)
2
(k/µ)
1
, (φc
t
)
1
(k/µ)
2
, (φc
t
)
2
Radial composite Linear composite Radial composite Linear composite
(k/µ)
1
, (φc
t
)
1
(k/µ)
2
, (φc
t
)
2
(k/µ)
1
, (φc
t
)
1
(k/µ)
2
, (φc
t
)
2
(k/µ)
1
, (φc
t
)
1
(k/µ)
2
, (φc
t
)
2
(k/µ)
1
, (φc
t
)
1
(k/µ)
2
, (φc
t
)
2
(k/µ)
1
, (φc
t
)
1
(k/µ)
2
, (φc
t
)
2
(k/µ)
1
, (φc
t
)
1
(k/µ)
2
, (φc
t
)
2
R L
Figure 61 Models for composite reservoirs.
61.1 Mobility & storativity ratios
( )
( )
M
k
k
=
µ
µ
1
2
( 61)
( )
( )
F
c
c
t
t
=
φ
φ
1
2
( 62)
61.2 Dimensionless variables
The dimensionless variables (including the wellbore skin S
w
) are expressed with
reference to the region "1" parameters.
p
k h
qB
p
D
=
1
1
1412 . µ
∆ (field units)
p
qB
h k
p
D
∆ =
1
1
66 . 18 µ
(metric units) ( 63)
t
C
k h t
C
D
D
= 0 000295
1
1
.
µ
∆
(field units)
Chapter 6  Composite reservoir models
 120 
C
t h k
C
t
D
D
∆
=
1
1
00223 . 0
µ
(metric units) ( 64)
( )
C
C
c hr
D
t w
=
08936
1
2
.
φ
(field units)
( )
2
1
1592 . 0
w t
D
hr c
C
C
φ
= (metric units) ( 65)
skin
1
1
2 . 141
p
qB
h k
S
w
∆ =
µ
(field units)
skin
1
1
66 . 15
p
qB
h k
S
w
∆ =
µ
(metric units) ( 66)
r
r
r
D
w
= ( 67)
L
L
r
D
w
= ( 68)
62 Radial composite behavior
62.1 Influence of heterogeneous parameters M and F
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
M = 10
0.5
M = 2
M = 0.5
M = 0.1
0.5 M D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
M = 10
0.5
M = 2
M = 0.5
M = 0.1
M = 2
M = 0.5
M = 0.1
0.5 M D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Figure 62 Radial composite responses, well with wellbore storage and skin,
changing mobility and constant storativity. Loglog scale.
The two dotted curves correspond to the closed and the constant pressure
circle solutions. C
D
= 100, S
w
= 3, r
D
= 700, M = 10, 2, 0.5, 0.1, F =1.
Chapter 6  Composite reservoir models
 121 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
25
20
15
10
5
0
slope
m
slopes m M
M=10
M=2
M=0.5
M=0.1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
25
20
15
10
5
0
slope
m
slopes m M
M=10
M=2
M=0.5
M=0.1
M=10
M=2
M=0.5
M=0.1
Figure 63 Semilog plot of Figure 62.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
F = 10
0.5
F = 0.1
F = 10
F = 0.1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
F = 10
0.5
F = 0.1
F = 10
F = 0.1
F = 10
F = 0.1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Figure 64 Radial composite responses, well with wellbore storage and skin,
constant mobility and changing storativity. Loglog scale.
C
D
= 100, S
w
= 3, r
D
= 700, M = 1, and F =10, 2, 0.5, 0.1.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
15
10
5
0
s
lo
p
e
m
F=10
F=0.1
slo
p
e
s
m
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
15
10
5
0
s
lo
p
e
m
F=10
F=0.1
slo
p
e
s
m
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
15
10
5
0
s
lo
p
e
m
F=10
F=0.1
slo
p
e
s
m
Figure 65 Semilog plot of Figure 64.
62.2 Loglog analysis
The permeability thickness product k
1
h of the inner region is estimated from the
pressure match, and C from the time match :
( ) PM 2 . 141
1 1
µ qB h k = (mD.ft, field units)
( ) PM 66 . 18
1 1
µ qB h k = (mD.m, metric units) ( 69)
Chapter 6  Composite reservoir models
 122 

.

\

=
TM
1
000295 . 0
1
1
µ
h k
C (Bbl/psi, field units)

.

\

=
TM
1
00223 . 0
1
1
µ
h k
C (m
3
/Bars, metric units) ( 610)
At early time, the homogeneous (C
D
e
2S
)
1
curve defines the wellbore skin factor
S
w
. The mobility ratio M is estimated from the two derivative stabilizations.
M
p
p
=
∆
∆
2nd stab.
1st stab.
( 611)
62.3 Semilog analysis
The first semilog straight line defines the mobility of the inner zone, and the
wellbore skin factor S
w
.
( )
∆ ∆ p
qB
k h
t
k
c r
S
t w
w
= + − +

\

.


162 6 323 087
1
1
1
1
2
. log log . .
µ
φµ
(psi, field units)
( )


.

\

+ − + ∆ = ∆
w
w t
S
r c
k
t
h k
qB
p 87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 54 . 21
2
1
1
1
1
φµ
µ
(Bars, metric units) ( 612)
The second line, for the outer zone, defines M and the total skin S
T
.
( )
∆ ∆ p
qB
k h
t
k
c r
S
t w
T
= + − +

\

.


162 6 323 087
2
2
2
2
2
. log log . .
µ
φµ
(psi, field units)
( )


.

\

+ − + ∆ = ∆
T
w t
S
r c
k
t
h k
qB
p 87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 5 . 21
2
2
2
2
2
φµ
µ
(Bars, metric units) ( 613)
The total skin S
T
includes two components : the wellbore skin factor S
w
and a
radial composite geometrical skin effect S
RC
of Equation 110, function of the
mobility ratio M and the radius r
D
of the circular interface :
D w T
r
M
S
M
S ln 1
1 1

.

\

− + = ( 614)
When the mobility near the wellbore is higher than in the outer zone (M>1), the
geometrical skin is negative.
Chapter 6  Composite reservoir models
 123 
62.4 Buildup analysis
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
2
10
1
10
1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Buildup
1.5
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
2
10
1
10
1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Buildup
1.5
Figure 66 Drawdown and buildup responses for a well with wellbore storage
and skin in a radial composite reservoir, changing mobility and constant
storativity. Loglog scale.
The dotted curves describe the drawdown response. C
D
= 11500, S
w
= 5,
r
D
= 2000, M = 3, F=1.
With a strong reduction of mobility (M>>10), drawdown and buildup responses
can show the behavior of a closed depleted system, before the influence of the
outer region is seen.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Buildup
t
p
0.5
50
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Buildup
t
p
0.5
50
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Buildup
t
p
0.5
50
Figure 67 Drawdown and buildup responses for a well with wellbore storage
and skin in a radial composite reservoir.
The dotted pressure and derivative curves correspond to the drawdown
solution. C
D
= 1000, S
w
= 0, r
D
= 10000, M =100, F =1 and t
p
/C
D
=3200.
63 Linear composite behavior
63.1 Influence of heterogeneous parameters M and F
The second homogeneous behavior is defined with the average properties of the
two regions :
k
M
k
µ µ

\

.
 = +

\

.


\

.

APPARENT
05 1
1
1
. (mD/cp) ( 615)
Chapter 6  Composite reservoir models
 124 
M = 10
M = 0.5
M = 0.1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
M = 10
M = 0.5
M = 0.1
M = 10
M = 0.5
M = 0.1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Figure 68 Linear composite responses, well with wellbore storage and skin,
changing mobility and constant storativity. Loglog scale.
The two dotted curves correspond to the sealing fault and the constant pressure
boundary solutions. C
D
= 100, S
w
= 3, L
D
= 700, M = 10, 2, 0.5, 0.1, F=1.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
15
10
5
0
s
lo
p
e
m
M=10
M=0.1
M=2
M=0.5
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
15
10
5
0
s
lo
p
e
m
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
15
10
5
0
s
lo
p
e
m
M=10
M=0.1
M=2
M=0.5
M=10
M=0.1
M=2
M=0.5
Figure 69 Semilog plot of Figure 68.
63.2 Loglog analysis
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Radial
Radial
Linear
Linear
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Radial
Radial
Linear
Linear
Figure 610 Comparison of radial and linear interfaces. Well with wellbore
storage and skin in composite reservoirs. Loglog scale.
C
D
= 200, S
w
= 0, F=1, r
D
= L
D
= 300. Linear composite : M = 5.
Radial composite : M =1.667.
The two derivative stabilizations are used to estimate the mobility ratio M :
Chapter 6  Composite reservoir models
 125 
M
p
p p
=
−
∆
∆ ∆
2nd stab.
1st stab. 2nd stab.
2
( 616)
64 Multicomposite systems
64.1 Three inner regions with abrupt change of mobility
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.05
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
2 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
R
D
=1000, M=0.1
R
D
=2500, M=0.15
R
D
=50000, M=0.5
0.5
0.33
0.1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.05
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
2 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
R
D
=1000, M=0.1
R
D
=2500, M=0.15
R
D
=50000, M=0.5
0.5
0.33
0.1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.05
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
2 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
R
D
=1000, M=0.1
R
D
=2500, M=0.15
R
D
=50000, M=0.5
0.5
0.33
0.1
Figure 611 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore
storage and skin in a 4 regions radial composite reservoir.
C
D
= 5440, S
w
= 0, F =1. r
1D
= 1000, k/µ
2
= 1.5 k/µ
1
, r
2D
= 2500, k/µ
3
= 5 k/µ
1
,
r
3D
= 50,000, k/µ
4
= 10 k/µ
1
.
The dashed curves correspond to radial composite responses with only one
zone (R
D
= 1000, M = 0.1, R
D
= 2500, M = 0.15, R
D
= 50,000, M = 0.5).
64.2 Two inner regions with a linear change of mobility
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
R
D
=1000
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.05
R
D
=10000
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
R
D
=1000
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.05
R
D
=10000
Figure 612 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore
storage and skin in a radial composite reservoir, linear change of
transmissivity.
C
D
= 1000, S
w
= 0, F =1. From R
1D
= 1000 to R
2D
= 10,000, M decreases
linearly from 1 to 0.1. The dashed curves correspond to radial composite
responses (M=0.1, R
D
= 1000, R
D
= 10,000).
 126 
 127 
7  LAYERED RESERVOIRS  DOUBLE
PERMEABILITY MODEL
71 Definitions
The layer "1" is assumed to be the high permeability layer.
The twolayers model can be used for multilayers systems. Layer "1" describes
the sum of the high permeability zones, and layer "2" the lower permeability
intervals.
h', k'
Z
h
1
, k
1
, k
Z1
h
2
, k
2
, k
Z2
S
1
S
2
h', k'
Z
h
1
, k
1
, k
Z1
h
2
, k
2
, k
Z2
h', k'
Z
h
1
, k
1
, k
Z1
h
2
, k
2
, k
Z2
S
1
S
2
S
1
S
2
Figure 71 Model for double permeability reservoir.
71.1 Permeability and porosity
kh k h k h
TOTAL
= +
1 1 2 2
(mD.ft, mD.m) ( 71)
( ) ( ) ( ) φ φ φ c h c h c h
t
TOTAL
t t
= +
1 2
(ft/psi, m/Bars) ( 72)
71.2 Mobility ratio κ κκ κ
κ =
+
=
k h
k h k h
k h
kh
TOTAL
1 1
1 1 2 2
1 1
( 73)
When κ=1, the response is double porosity.
71.3 Storativity ratio ω ωω ω
( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )
ω
φ
φ φ
φ
φ
=
+
=
c h
c h c h
c h
c h
t
t t
t
t
TOTAL
1
1 2
1
( 74)
Chapter 7  Layered reservoirs
 128 
71.4 Interlayer cross flow coefficient λ λλ λ
λ =
+
+ +
r
k h k h
h
k
h
k
h
k
w
Z Z Z
2
1 1 2 2
1
1
2
2
2
2
'
'
( 75)
λ is a function of the vertical permeability k
z
' in the low permeability "wall" of
thickness h' between the layers, and of vertical permeabilities in the two layers k
z1
and k
z2
.
If the vertical resistance is mostly due to the "wall", a simplified λ can be used to
characterize this interlayer skin :
λ =
+
r
k h k h
k
h
w Z
2
1 1 2 2
'
'
( 76)
When there is no skin at the interface and the vertical pressure gradients are
negligible in the high permeability layer 1, λ is expressed:
λ =
+
r
k h k h
k
h
w Z
2
1 1 2 2
2
2
2
( 77)
When λ=0, there is no reservoir crossflow.
71.5 Dimensionless variables
p
k h k h
qB
p
D
=
+
1 1 2 2
1
1412 . µ
∆ (field units)
p
qB
h k h k
p
D
∆
+
=
µ 66 . 18
2 2 1 1
(metric units) ( 78)
t
C
k h k h t
C
D
D
=
+
0 000295
1 1 2 2
.
µ
∆
(field units)
C
t h k h k
C
t
D
D
∆ +
=
µ
2 2 1 1
00223 . 0 (metric units) ( 79)
( ) ( )
[ ]
C
C
c h c h r
D
t t w
=
+
08936
1 2
2
.
φ φ
(field units)
( ) ( ) [ ]
2
2 1
1592 . 0
w t t
D
r h c h c
C
C
φ φ +
= (metric units) ( 710)
Chapter 7  Layered reservoirs
 129 
72 Double permeability behavior when the two layers are
producing into the well
72.1 Loglog pressure and derivative responses
Three characteristic flow regimes :
1. First, the behavior corresponds to two layers without cross flow.
2. At intermediate times, when the fluid transfer between the layers starts, the
response follows a transition regime.
3. Later, the pressure equalizes in the two layers and the behavior describes the
equivalent homogeneous total system. The derivative stabilizes at 0.5.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
0.5
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
0.5
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
0.5
Figure 72 Response of a well with wellbore storage and skins in a double
permeability reservoir. The two layers are producing into the well.
C
D
= 1000, S
1
=S
2
= 0, ω = 0.02, κ = 0.8, λ = 6.10
8
( ) PM 2 . 141
2 2 1 1
µ qB h k h k = + (mD.ft, field units)
( ) PM 66 . 18
2 2 1 1
µ qB h k h k = + (mD.m, metric units) ( 711)

.

\
 +
=
TM
1
000295 . 0
2 2 1 1
µ
h k h k
C (Bbl/psi, field units)

.

\

+
=
TM
1
00223 . 0
2 2 1 1
µ
h k h k
C (m
3
/Bars, metric units) ( 712)
The heterogeneous parameters κ, ω and λ are adjusted preferably with the
derivative curve. When the two skins S
1
and S
2
are different, the well condition
influences the shape of the derivative transition, and it is difficult to conclude the
match uniquely.
λ provides an estimate of the vertical permeabilities. From Equations 76 and 77 :
( ) k k h k h
r
h
Z
w
' ' = +
1 1 2 2
2
λ
(mD) ( 713)
Chapter 7  Layered reservoirs
 130 
( ) k k h k h
r
h
Z
w
2 1 1 2 2
2
2
2
= +
λ
(mD) ( 714)
72.2 Influence of the heterogeneous parameters κ κκ κ and ω ωω ω
It is assumed in that the two skin coefficients are equal: S
1
= S
2
( = 0).
10
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
κ = 1
0.99
0.999
0.9
0.6
κ = 0.999
0.6
0.5
10
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
κ = 1
0.99
0.999
0.9
0.6
κ = 0.999
0.6
0.5
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
κ = 1
0.99
0.999
0.9
0.6
κ = 0.999
0.6
0.5
Figure 73 Double permeability responses when the two layers are producing
into the well. Well with wellbore storage and skins, high storativity contrast.
The two dotted curves describe the homogeneous reservoir response
(C
D
e
2S
= 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1). C
D
= 1, S
1
= S
2
= 0,
ω = 10
3
, λ = 4.10
4
. Four mobility ratios : κ = 0.6, 0.9, 0.99 and 0.999.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
6
4
2
0
κ = 1, 0.999
0.6
0.9
0.99
κ = 0.99
κ = 0.6
Two layers no crossflow
Double permeability
s
lo
p
e
m
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
6
4
2
0
κ = 1, 0.999
0.6
0.9
0.99
κ = 0.99
κ = 0.6
Two layers no crossflow
Double permeability
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
6
4
2
0
κ = 1, 0.999
0.6
0.9
0.99
κ = 0.99
κ = 0.6
Two layers no crossflow
Double permeability
s
lo
p
e
m
Figure 74 Semilog plot of Figure 73.
The thick dotted curves correspond to the homogeneous reservoir response
(C
D
e
2S
= 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1).The thin dotted curves
correspond to the two layers responses with no reservoir crossflow (for κ =
0.6 and 0.99, λ = 0).
Chapter 7  Layered reservoirs
 131 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
1
κ = 1
0.99
0.999
0.9
0.6
κ = 0.999
0.6
0.5
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
1
κ = 1
0.99
0.999
0.9
0.6
κ = 0.999
0.6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
1
κ = 1
0.99
0.999
0.9
0.6
κ = 0.999
0.6
0.5
Figure 75 Double permeability responses when the two layers are producing
into the well. Well with wellbore storage and skins, low storativity contrast.
Loglog scale.
The two dotted curves describe the homogeneous reservoir response
(C
D
e
2S
= 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1). C
D
= 1, S
1
= S
2
= 0,
ω = 10
1
, λ = 4.10
4
. Four mobility ratios : κ = 0.6, 0.9, 0.99 and 0.999.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
6
4
2
0
κ = 1
0.999
0.99
0.9
0.6
κ = 0.99
κ = 0.6
Two layers no crossflow
Double permeability
s
lo
p
e
m
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
6
4
2
0
κ = 1
0.999
0.99
0.9
0.6
κ = 0.99
κ = 0.6
κ = 0.99
κ = 0.6
Two layers no crossflow
Double permeability
s
lo
p
e
m
Figure 76 Semilog plot of Figure 75.
The thick dotted curves correspond to the homogeneous reservoir response
(C
D
e
2S
= 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1).The thin dotted curves
correspond to the two layers responses with no reservoir crossflow (for κ =
0.6 and 0.99, λ = 0).
73 Double permeability behavior when only one of the two
layers is producing into the well
73.1 Loglog pressure and derivative responses
Three characteristic flow regimes :
1. First, the perforated layer response is seen alone, and the behavior is
homogeneous.
2. When the second layer starts to produce by reservoir cross flow, the response
deviates in a transition regime. The derivative drops.
3. Later, the pressure equalizes in the two layers, and the equivalent homogeneous
behavior of the total system is seen. The derivative stabilizes at 0.5.
Chapter 7  Layered reservoirs
 132 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
layer 2 produces
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.5/(1κ)
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
layer 2 produces
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.5/(1κ)
0.5
layer 2 produces
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.5/(1κ)
Figure 77 Response for a well with wellbore storage and skin in double
permeability reservoir, only layer 2 produces into the well. Loglog scale.
C
D
=1000, S
1
= 100, S
2
= 0, ω = 0.1, κ = 0.9, λ = 6.10
8
.
73.2 Discussion of double permeability parameters
When only the low permeability layer is producing, the derivative tends to
stabilize at 0.5/(1κ) during the first homogeneous regime. The response is then
similar to the behavior of a well in partial penetration.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
layer 2 produces
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
2
10
1
10
1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
layer 1 produces
layer 1
layer 2
the two layers produce
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
layer 2 produces
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
2
10
1
10
1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
layer 1 produces
layer 1
layer 2
the two layers produce
Figure 78 Response for a well with wellbore storage and skin in double
permeability reservoir, only one layer is producing into the well.
The dotted curve describes the double permeability response when the two
layers are producing into the well (no skin). C
D
= 1, ω = 0.2,κ = 0.9, λ = 10
4
,
S
1
= 100, S
2
= 0 and S
1
= 0, S
2
= 100.
When only the high permeability layer produces into the well, the two derivative
stabilizations are almost at the same level: 0.5/κ for the first (0.55 in the example
of Figure 78) and 0.5 for the second. The response tends to be equivalent to the
double porosity solution with restricted interporosity flow.
73.3 Analysis of semilog straight lines
The response can follow two semilog straight lines. When one of the two layers
(called layer i) starts to produce alone, the first line is expressed :
Chapter 7  Layered reservoirs
 133 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
30
20
10
0
slope m
slope m the two layers produce
layer 2 produces
layer 1 produces
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
30
20
10
0
slope m
slope m the two layers produce
layer 2 produces
layer 1 produces
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
30
20
10
0
slope m
slope m the two layers produce the two layers produce
layer 2 produces
layer 1 produces
Figure 79 Semilog plot of Figure 78.
The dotted curve corresponds to the homogeneous reservoir response, no
skin (C
D
e
2S
= 1).
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ − + ∆ = ∆
i
w i t
i
i i
S
r c
k
t
h k
qB
p 87 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
µ φ
µ
(psi, field units)
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ − + ∆ = ∆
i
w i t
i
i i
S
r c
k
t
h k
qB
p 87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 54 . 21
2
µ φ
µ
(Bars, metric units)( 715)
The second line, for the total system regime, gives the total mobility :
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ − + ∆ = ∆ S
r c
k
t
kh
qB
p
w TOTAL t
TOTAL
TOTAL
87 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
µ φ
µ
(psi, field units)
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ − + ∆ = ∆ S
r h c
kh
t
kh
qB
p
w t
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 54 . 21
2
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
µ φ
µ
(Bars, metric
units) ( 716)
The global skin S measured on the total system semilog straight line is not only a
function of the two layers skins S
1
and S
2
, but also of κ, ω and λ.
74 Commingled systems: layered reservoirs without crossflow
74.1 Same initial pressure
When there is no reservoir crossflow, the amplitude of the response is larger than
that of the equivalent homogenous system (thin dashed curves on Figure 74 and
Figure 76). The semilog slope decreases slowly with time, to reach the equivalent
total system slope of Equation 716.
In a n layers system, the pseudoskin factor S
L
due to layering is defined as :
Chapter 7  Layered reservoirs
 134 
( )
( )
S
k h
kh
kh c h
kh c h
L
j j
j
n
t
j
t
=
=
∑
1
2
1 TOTAL
TOTAL
ln
φ
φ
( 717)
On the example κ=0.999 and ω=0.001 of Figure 74, the pseudoskin is estimated
at S
L
=3.5. For the curve κ=0.9 and ω=0.1 of Figure 76, S
L
is only 0.9.
When the layers have different mechanical skin factors S
i
, the response is also a
function of the skin contrast between the different layers. The global skin can be
defined with two components : S
L
of Equation 717, and an average mechanical
skin S . The average mechanical skin S is approximated with :
S
k h
kh
S S
j j
j
n
j j
i
n
j
= =
= =
∑ ∑
TOTAL 1 1
κ ( 718)
74.2 Different initial pressure
When the layers have a different initial pressure, the bottom hole pressure tends
asymptotically towards the average initial pressure if the well is not opened to
surface production. For an infinite system, p
i
is defined as :
p
k h
kh
p
i
j j
j
n
i j
=
=
∑
TOTAL 1
(psi, Bars) ( 719)
If the nonproducing commingled reservoir is closed, the final average reservoir
pressure is p :
p
V c
Vc
p
j t j
t j
n
i j
=
=
∑
TOTAL 1
(psi, Bars) ( 720)
where V
j
is the pore volume of layer j. The final average reservoir pressure p can
be greater or smaller than the "infinite" average initial pressure p
i
of Equation 7
19.
 135 
8  INTERFERENCE TESTS
81 Interference tests in reservoirs with homogeneous
behavior
81.1 Responses of producing and observation wells
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 100 200 300 400 500
p
i
Observation well
Producing well
Time (hours)
4910
4920
4930
180 200 220
p
wf
Observation well
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 100 200 300 400 500
p
i
Observation well
Producing well
Time (hours)
4910
4920
4930
180 200 220
p
wf
Observation well
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 100 200 300 400 500
p
i
Observation well
Producing well
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
3500
4000
4500
5000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 100 200 300 400 500
p
i
Observation well
Producing well
Time (hours)
4910
4920
4930
180 200 220
p
wf
Observation well
Time (hours)
4910
4920
4930
180 200 220
p
wf
Time (hours)
4910
4920
4930
180 200 220
p
wf
Observation well
Figure 81 Response of a producing and an observation well. Linear scale.
On the second graph, the observation well pressure is presented on enlarged
scale at time of shutin.
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
Producing well
Observation
well
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
Producing well
Observation
well
Figure 82 Buildup response of the producing and observation wells. Log
log scale.
81.2 Loglog analysis with linesource solution
Dimensionless parameters
The line source solution, also called the exponential integral (Ei), or Theis
solution, is expressed as :
Chapter 8  Interference tests
 136 
( )
D D D
t r p 4 Ei
2
2
1
− − = ( 81)
p
D
is defined in Equation 23 and the time group t
D
/r
D
2
is :
t
r c
k
r
t
t D
D
∆ =
2 2
000263 0
φµ
.
(field units)
t
r c
k
r
t
t D
D
∆ =
2 2
000356 . 0
µ φ
(metric units) ( 82)
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
PRESSURE
DERIVATIVE
Intersection
Approximate start
of radial flow
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
PRESSURE
DERIVATIVE
Intersection
Approximate start
of radial flow
Dimensionless time, t
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
PRESSURE
DERIVATIVE
Intersection
Approximate start
of radial flow
Dimensionless time, t
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
PRESSURE
DERIVATIVE
Intersection
Approximate start
of radial flow
Figure 83 The Theis solution (exponential integral). Loglog scale, pressure
and derivative responses.
With the line source response, the pressure and derivative curves intersect at
t
D
/r
D
2
= 0.57 and p
D
= p'
D
= 0.32. The 0.5 derivative stabilization starts 10 times
later, approximately at t
D
/r
D
2
= 5.
Match results
The permeability thickness product kh is estimated from the pressure match with
Equation 28. The time match
( ) D D t r
t
2
∆ gives the effective porosity
compressibility product φ c
t
:

.

\

=
TM
1 000263 0
2
r
k
c
t
µ
φ
.
(psi
1
, field units)

.

\

=
TM
1 000356 . 0
2
r
k
c
t
µ
φ (Bars
1
, metric units) ( 83)
Chapter 8  Interference tests
 137 
81.3 Influence of wellbore storage and skin effects at both wells
Dimensionless time, t
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1 1 10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
4
C : r
D
= 300, C
D
= 3000, S = 30
B : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 10000, S = 10
A : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 3000, S = 0
Line source well
Dimensionless time, t
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
1 1 10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
1 1 10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
4
C : r
D
= 300, C
D
= 3000, S = 30
B : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 10000, S = 10
A : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 3000, S = 0
Line source well
Figure 84 Influence of wellbore storage and skin effects on interference
pressure responses. Loglog scale.
The dotted curve corresponds to the Theis solution. Two distances:
r
D
= 1000 : C
D
= 3000, S = 0 (curve A) and C
D
= 10000, S = 10 (curve B).
r
D
= 300 : C
D
= 3000, S = 30 (curve C).
Dimensionless time, t
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1 1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
4
C : r
D
= 300, C
D
= 3000, S = 30
B : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 10000, S = 10
A : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 3000, S = 0
Line source well
Dimensionless time, t
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
1 1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
4
C : r
D
= 300, C
D
= 3000, S = 30
B : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 10000, S = 10
A : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 3000, S = 0
Line source well
Figure 85 Derivative curves of Figure 84. Loglog scale.
The dotted derivative curve corresponds to the Theis solution.
Chapter 8  Interference tests
 138 
10
2
10
1
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
B
Line source well
Intersections
A
10
2
10
1
10
1
1 10
2
10
1
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
B
Line source well
Intersections
A
Dimensionless time, t
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
B
Line source well
Intersections
A
Figure 86 Pressure an derivative curves of Figure 84 and Figure 85,
examples A and B. Loglog scale.
The dotted derivative curve corresponds to the Theis solution.
81.4 Semilog analysis of interference responses
When t
D
/r
D
2
> 5, the infinite acting radial flow regime is reached.
p p
qB
kh
t
k
c r
i wf
t
− = + −

\

.

162 6
32275
2
.
µ
φ µ
log log . ∆ (psi, field units)


.

\

− + ∆ = − 10 . 3 log log
5 21
2
r c
k
t
kh
qBµ .
p p
t
wf i
µ φ
(Bars, metric units) ( 130)
81.5 Anisotropic reservoirs
Active
well
k
max
x
y
Observation
well at (x, y)
k
min
θ
Active
well
k
max
x
y
Observation
well at (x, y)
k
min
θ
Figure 87 Interference test in an anisotropic reservoir. Location of the active
well and the observation well.
With a coordinate system centered on the active well, the observation well location
is defined as (x,y) and k
x
, k
y
, k
xy
are the components of the permeability tensor.
Chapter 8  Interference tests
 139 
When several observation well responses are matched against the exponential
integral type curve of Figure 83, the pressure match is the same for all responses
and only the time match changes. The apparent permeability is :
k k k k k k
x y xy
= = −
max min
2
(mD) ( 84)
The apparent distance r
D,x,y
of the observation well is function of the well location
with respect to the main permeability directions. The dimensionless time
corresponding to well (x,y) is defined as :
t
r
t
c
k k
k y k x k xy
D
D
x y
t
x y xy
2 2 2
0000263
2

\

.
 =
+ −

\

.


,
max min
. ∆
φµ
(field units)


.

\

− +
∆
=


.

\

xy k x k y k
k k
c
t
r
t
xy y x
t
y x
D
D
2
000356 0
2 2
min max
,
2
µ φ
.
(metric units) ( 85)
With three observation well responses, k
x
, k
y
and k
xy
can be estimated. The major
and minor reservoir permeability k
max
and k
min
are be defined with
( )
k k k k k k
x y x y xy max
/
. = + + − +
¸
(
¸
(
¦
´
¹
¹
`
)
05 4
2
2
1 2
(mD) ( 86)
( )
k k k k k k
x y x y xy min
/
. = + − − +
¸
(
¸
(
¦
´
¹
¹
`
)
05 4
2
2
1 2
(mD) ( 87)
The angle between the major permeability axis and the xaxis of the coordinate
system is expressed with :
θ =
−

\

.


arctan
max
k k
k
x
xy
( 88)
When only one observation well response is available for interpretation, the
reservoir anisotropy is not accessible. The pressure match gives the average
permeability k k
max min
but the porosity compressibility product φ c
t
estimated
from the time match with Equation 83 can be wrong.
82 Interference tests in double porosity reservoirs
The responses are expressed with the dimensionless pressure p
D
versus the
dimensionless time group t
fD
/r
D
2
defined with reference to the fissure system
storativity (φ V c
t
)
f
:
Chapter 8  Interference tests
 140 
r c
V
t k
r
t
f t D
Df
2 2
) (
000263 0
µ φ
∆
=
.
(field units)
( )
t
r Vc
k
r
t
f t D
Df
∆ =
2 2
000356 . 0
µ φ
(metric units) ( 89)
82.1 Double porosity reservoirs with restricted interporosity flow
Pressure type curves
Three curves are needed to define to a double porosity interference response :
1. During the fissure flow regime, the interference response follows the
exponential integral solution.
2. When the transition starts, the response deviates from the fissure curve and
follows a λ r
D
2
transition curve.
3. Later, the total system equivalent homogeneous regime is reached and a second
exponential integral curve is seen at late time.
The distance between the two homogeneous regime curves is a function of the
storativity ratio ω. The level of the pressure change ∆p during the transition is
defined by λ r
D
2
.
When the distance r
D
between the active and the observation wells is large, the
λ r
D
2
transition stabilizes at a low ∆p value and, beyond a certain distance r
iD
, ∆p
becomes less than the pressure gauge resolution. This distance r
iD
represents the
radius of influence of the fissures around the active well.
Dimensionless time, t
D f
/r
D
2
10
1
10
1
10
4 1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
ω =0.1 ω =0.01 ω =0.001
λ r
D
2
= 5
1
0.1
0.01
Dimensionless time, t
D f
/r
D
2
10
1
10
1
10
4 1
10
2
10
3 10
1
10
1
10
4 1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
ω =0.1 ω =0.01 ω =0.001
λ r
D
2
= 5
1
0.1
0.01
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
ω =0.1 ω =0.01 ω =0.001
λ r
D
2
= 5
1
0.1
0.01
Figure 88 Interference pressure typecurve for a double porosity reservoir,
restricted (pseudosteady state) interporosity flow.
λr
D
2
= 5, 1, 0.1, 0.01.
Chapter 8  Interference tests
 141 
Pressure and derivative response
When the observation well is located inside the radius of influence r
iD
, the fissure
flow regime is seen first. The interference response is observed faster than for the
equivalent homogeneous reservoir.
The t
Df
time scale of Figure 89 shows that the transition is observed at the same
time in the active well and in the observation wells. With the t
Df
/r
D
2
time scale of
Figure 810, the time of transition is a function of the λ r
D
2
group.
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D f
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
4
10
5
10
9
10
6
10
7
10
8
A
B
Active well
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D f
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
4
10
5
10
9
10
6
10
7
10
8
A
B
Active well
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
Dimensionless time, t
D f
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
4
10
5
10
9
10
6
10
7
10
8
A
B
Active well
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
Figure 89 Interference responses in double porosity reservoirs with
restricted interporosity flow (t
Df
time scale).
ω = 0.1, λ = 5 X 10
8
, two distances : r
D
= 1000 (curve A) and r
D
= 5000 (B).
The dotted curve describes the derivative response at the active well.
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
3
1 10
1
10
2
A
B
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
A
B
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
3
1 10
1
10
2
A
B
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
A
B
Dimensionless time, t
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
3
1 10
1
10
2
A
B
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
A
B
Figure 810 Interference responses of Figure 89, t
Df
/r
D
2
time scale.
Chapter 8  Interference tests
 142 
82.2 Double porosity reservoirs with unrestricted interporosity flow
Pressure typecurve
Two pressure curves :
1.  The interference response starts on a β r
D
2
transition curve.
2.  When the total system equivalent homogeneous regime is reached, the
response follows the exponential integral curve.
10
1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
ω =0.1 ω =0.01 ω =0.001
β r
D
2
= 6000
600
60
6
Dimensionless time, t
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
10
1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
10
1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
ω =0.1 ω =0.01 ω =0.001
β r
D
2
= 6000
600
60
6
Dimensionless time, t
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
ω =0.1 ω =0.01 ω =0.001
β r
D
2
= 6000
600
60
6
Dimensionless time, t
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
Figure 811 Interference pressure typecurve for a double porosity reservoir,
unrestricted (transient) interporosity flow
β r
D
2
= 6*10
3
, 6*10
2
, 60 and 6.
For slab matrix blocks, β λ ω = 3 5 and, for sphere matrix blocks β λ ω = 3 .
Pressure and derivative response
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
A
B
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
A
B
10
2 10
1
10
3
1 10
1
10
2
10
4
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
A
B
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
A
B
Dimensionless time, t
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
A
B
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
A
B
A
B
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
A
B
10
2 10
1
10
3
1 10
1
10
2
10
4
10
2 10
1
10
3
1 10
1
10
2
10
4
Figure 812 Interference responses in double porosity reservoirs with
unrestricted interporosity flow. Loglog scale.
Two wells, with same parameters as on Figure 810
Chapter 8  Interference tests
 143 
83 Influence of reservoir boundaries
Active
well
Linear
sealing
fault
Period
#2
Period
#3
Period
#3
A O
1
O
2
Active
well
Linear
sealing
fault
Period
#2
Period
#3
Period
#3
Active
well
Linear
sealing
fault
Period
#2
Period
#3
Period
#3
A O
1
O
2
A O
1
O
2
Figure 813 Interference in a reservoir with a sealing fault.
Location of the active well A and the two observation wells O
1
and O
2
.
In case of one sealing fault, the derivative stabilizes at p'
D
=1 at late time. The time
of transition from 0.5 to 1 can be earlier, or later, than in the active well.
10
1
10
2
1
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1 1 10
1
10
3
10
2
O
1
O
2
Active well 10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
1
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1 1 10
1
10
3
10
2
O
1
O
2
Active well
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1 1 10
1
10
3
10
2
O
1
O
2
Active well
Figure 814 Interference in a reservoir with a sealing fault. Pressure and
derivative curves of the two observation wells. Loglog scale.
84 Interference tests in radial composite reservoir
When the mobility around the active well is higher than the mobility of the
reservoir (Figure 816), the interference signal travels faster. When the active well
is located in a low mobility region (Figure 817), the interference signal is delayed.
Chapter 8  Interference tests
 144 
Active
well
A
O
1
O
2
R/2 2R
R
(k/µ)
1
(k/µ)
2
Active
well
A
O
1
O
2
R/2 2R
R
(k/µ)
1
(k/µ)
2
Figure 815 Interference in a radial composite reservoir. Location of the active
well A and the observation wells O
1
and O
1
.
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
Figure 816 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. The
mobility of the inner zone is 4 times larger (M=4, F=1).
The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to the Theis
solution for region 2 parameters.
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
Figure 817 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. The
mobility of the inner zone is 4 times smaller (M=1/4, F=1).
The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to theTheis
solution for region 2 parameters.
Chapter 8  Interference tests
 145 
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
O
2
Line source
region 2
M=4
M=1/4
M=4
M=1/4
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
O
2
Line source
region 2
M=4
M=1/4
M=4
M=1/4
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
O
2
Line source
region 2
M=4
M=1/4
M=4
M=1/4
Figure 818 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. Pressure
curves of examples Figure 816 and Figure 817.
The mobility of the inner zone is 4 times smaller or 4 times larger.
The dotted pressure curve corresponds to the Theis solution for region 2
parameters.
When there is a reduction of storativity φc
t
around the active well, the interference
signal reaches the observation well faster (Figure 819).
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
Figure 819 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. Well O
2
.
The storativity of the inner zone is 4 times smaller (M=1, F=1/4).
The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to the Theis
solution for region 2 parameters.
Chapter 8  Interference tests
 146 
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
Figure 820 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. Well O
2
.
The storativity of the inner zone is 4 times larger (M=1, F=4).
The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to the Theis
solution for region 2 parameters.
When both the active well and the observation well are located in the inner
reservoir region, the interference response can show the 2 usual derivative
stabilizations of the radial composite model (Figure 821).
10
1
10
2
1
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
Active well
Line source region 2
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
2
10
4
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
1
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
Active well
Line source region 2
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
Active well
Line source region 2
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
2
10
4
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
2
10
4
Figure 821 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. Well O
1
.
The mobility and the storativity of the inner zone are 10 times larger
(M=F=10).
The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to the Theis
solution for region 2 parameters.
85 Interference tests in a two layers reservoir with cross flow
The dimensionless pressure p
1+2D
and the dimensionless time group t
1+2D
/r
D
2
are
defined with the parameters of the total system.
For the example used in the following, the contrast between the layers is not high
(ω =0.4 and κ =0.7), and the active well is expected to show the equivalent
homogeneous behavior.
Chapter 8  Interference tests
 147 
On Figure 822, only one layer is perforated at the observation well. When only
the high permeability layer 1 is communicating with the observation well, the
response is seen before the equivalent homogeneous solution for the total system.
When the interference is monitored through the low permeability layer 2, the early
time response is delayed compared to the Theis solution for the total system. After
the double permeability transition, the two responses merge on the equivalent
homogeneous total system curve.
10
1
10
2
1
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D 1+2
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Layer 1
Layer 2
Line source
total system
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
1
10
2
10
1
1 10
1 10
2
10
1
1 10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D 1+2
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Layer 1
Layer 2
Line source
total system
Dimensionless time, t
D 1+2
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Layer 1
Layer 2
Line source
total system
Figure 822 Interference responses in a double permeability reservoir, one
layer is perforated in the observation well. Loglog scale.
The dotted pressure and derivative curves correspond to the Theis solution
for the total system equivalent homogeneous reservoir.
ω=0.4, κ=0.7 and λ=10
6
.
When two layers are perforated, a cross flow is present in the well at the start of
the interference response, and the observation well becomes active (even though it
is not producing at surface). The resulting response (Figure 823) is close to the
response of layer 1 alone : when several layers are perforated, the high
permeability layer dominates the observation well behavior.
10
1
10
2
1
Dimensionless time, t
D 1+2
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
Line source
total system
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
1
Dimensionless time, t
D 1+2
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
Line source
total system
Dimensionless time, t
D 1+2
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
Line source
total system
Figure 823 Interference responses in a double permeability reservoir, the two
layers are perforated in the observation well.
Same parameters as on Figure 822, the dotted curves correspond to the
total system equivalent homogeneous Theis solution.
 148 
 149 
9  GAS WELLS
Two different types of test are used with gas wells. Transient analysis provides a
description of the producing system, as for oil wells. With deliverability testing,
the theoretical rate at which the well would flow if the sandface was at
atmospheric pressure, "the Absolute Open Flow Potential" AOFP, is estimated.
91 Gas properties
91.1 Gas compressibility and viscosity
The viscosity µ and the compressibility of gas c
g
change with the pressure.
c
p Z
Z
p
g
= −
1 1 ∂
∂
(psi
1
, Bars
1
) ( 91)
Z is the real gas deviation factor. For an ideal gas Z=1, and the compressibility is
c
g
=1/p.
91.2 Pseudopressure
The pseudopressure m(p), also called "real gas potential", is defined :
( )
( ) ( )
m p
p
p Z p
dp
p
p
=
∫
2
0
µ
(psia
2
/cp, Bars
2
/cp) ( 92)
The pressure p is expressed in absolute unit, m(p) has the unit of (pressure)
2
/
viscosity , (psia
2
/ cp with the usual system of units). The reference pressure p
0
is
an arbitrary constant, smaller than the lower test pressure.
The complete pressure data is converted into pseudopressure m(p) before analysis.
The change of pseudopressure, expressed as m(p)m(p[∆t=0]), is independent of
the reference pressure p
0
.
91.3 Pseudotime
The pseudotime t
ps
is sometimes used as a complement of m(p).
( ) ( )
t
p c p
dt
ps
t
t
=
∫
1
0
µ
(hr.psi/cp, hr.Bars/cp) ( 93)
In order to estimate µ and c
t
before calculation of the superposition with the
pseudo time t
ps
, the pressure must be known during the complete flow rate
sequence
Chapter 9  Gas wells
 150 
92 Transient analysis of gas well tests
92.1 Simplified pseudopressure for manual analysis
On Figure 91, µZ is plotted versus p for a typical natural gas at constant
temperature :
 When the pressure is less than 2000 psia, the product µZ is almost constant and
m(p) simplifies into :
( ) m p
Z
pdp
p p
Z
p
p
i i
= =
−
∫
2
0
2
0
2
µ µ
(psia
2
/cp, Bars
2
/cp) ( 94)
On lowpressure gas wells, it is possible to analyze the test in terms of pressure
squared p
2
.
 When the pressure is higher than 3000 psia, the product µZ tends to be
proportional to p and p/µZ can be considered as a constant. The pseudopressure
m(p) becomes :
( ) ( ) m p
p
Z
dp p p
p
Z
p
p
i
i i
= = −
∫
2 2
0
0
µ µ
(psia
2
/cp, Bars
2
/cp) ( 95)
On highpressure wells, the gas behaves like a slightly compressible fluid, and the
pressure data can be used directly for analysis.
 Between 2000 psia and 3000 psia, no simplification is available and m(p) must
be used.
µ Z constant
µ
Z
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
io
n
a
l
t
o
p
Pressure (psia)
µ
Z
(
c
p
)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
µ Z constant
µ
Z
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
io
n
a
l
t
o
p
Pressure (psia)
µ
Z
(
c
p
)
Pressure (psia)
µ
Z
(
c
p
)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Figure 91 Isothermal variation of µ µµ µZ with pressure.
Chapter 9  Gas wells
 151 
92.2 Dimensionless parameters
Nomenclature
In field units, the standard pressure is p
sc
=14.7psia and the temperature is
T
sc
= 520°R (60°F, all temperatures are expressed in absolute units). The gas rate
is expressed in standard condition as q
sc
in Mscf/D (10
3
scft/D ). With the metric
system, p
sc
=1 Bar, T
sc
= 288.15°K (15°C) and cubic meters are used for gas rates
(m
3
/D.).
When the pseudopressure is used, the dimensionless terms are defined with
respect to the gas properties at initial condition (subscript i). With the pressure and
pressuresquared approaches, the properties are defined at the arithmetic average
pressure of the test (symbol ).
Dimensionless pressure
m(p):
( ) ( ) [ ]
( ) ( ) [ ] p m p m
Tq
kh
p m p m
p
T
Tq
kh
p
i
sc
i
sc
sc
sc
D
− ∗ =
− ∗ =
−
−
4
5
10 03 . 7
10 987 . 1
(field units)
[ ]
[ ] ) ( ) (
1296 . 0
) ( ) (
33 . 37
p m p m
q T
kh
p m p m
p
T
q T
kh
p
i
sc
i
sc
sc
sc
D
− =
− =
(metric units) ( 96)
p
2
:
( )
( )
p
kh
ZTq
T
p
p p
kh
ZTq
p p
D
sc
sc
sc
i
sc
i
= ∗ −
= ∗ −
−
−
1987 10
7 03 10
5 2 2
4 2 2
.
.
µ
µ
(field units)
( )
( )
2 2
2 2
1296 . 0
33 . 37
p p
Tq z
kh
p p
p
T
Tq Z
kh
p
i
sc
i
sc
sc
sc
D
− =
− =
µ
µ
(metric units) ( 97)
p:
( )
( )
p
khp
ZTq
T
p
p p
khp
ZTq
p p
D
sc
sc
sc
i
sc
i
= ∗ −
= ∗ −
−
−
3976 10
1406 10
5
3
.
.
µ
µ
(field units)
Chapter 9  Gas wells
 152 
( )
( ) p p
Tq Z
p kh
p p
p
T
Tq Z
p kh
p
i
sc
i
sc
sc
sc
D
− =
− =
µ
µ
0648 . 0
66 . 18
(metric units) ( 98)
Dimensionless time
m(p):
D
i ti w
t
k
c
r
t =
0 000263
2
.
φµ
∆ (field units)
t
r
c
k
t
w ti i
D
∆ =
2
000356 0
µ φ
.
(metric units) ( 99)
p
2
and p:
D
t w
t
k
c r
t =
0 000263
2
.
φµ
∆ (field units)
t
r c
k
t
w t
D
∆ =
2
000356 0
µ φ
.
(metric units) ( 910)
Dimensionless wellbore storage
As for oil wells, the wellbore storage coefficient is expressed in Bbl/psi (or
m
3
/Bars).
m(p):
C
C
c hr
D
ti w
=
08936
2
.
φ
(field units)
2
1592 . 0
w ti
D
hr c
C
C
φ
= (metric units) ( 911)
p
2
and p:
C
C
c hr
D
t w
=
08936
2
.
φ
(field units)
2
1592 . 0
w t
D
hr c
C
C
φ
= (metric units) ( 912)
Dimensionless time group t
D
/C
D
m(p):
t
C
kh t
C
D
D i
= 0 000295 .
µ
∆
(field units)
Chapter 9  Gas wells
 153 
C
t kh
C
t
i D
D
∆
=
µ
00223 . 0 (metric units) ( 913)
p
2
and p:
t
C
kh t
C
D
D
= 0 000295 .
µ
∆
(field units)
C
t kh
C
t
D
D
∆
=
µ
00223 . 0 (metric units) ( 914)
Skin
On gas wells, the skin coefficient S' is expressed with a rate dependent term, also
called turbulent effect or nonDarcy skin.
S S Dq
sc
' = + ( 915)
In a multirate sequence, the analysis is made with respect to the rate change (q
n

q
n1
), and the skin is estimated from the change of ∆p
skin
between the flow periods n
and n1. S' is expressed :
( ) ( )
( ) S
q S Dq q S Dq
q q
S D q q
n n n n
n n
n n
' =
+ − +
−
= + +
− −
−
−
1 1
1
1
( 916)
During shutin periods (q
n
=0) and during a period immediately after shutin (q
n1
=
0), the actual flow rate is used in Equation 916.
S = intercept
D
=
s
lo
p
e
q
n
+q
n1
(Mscf/D)
S
'
=
S
+
D
(
q
n
+
q
n

1
)
6
8
10
12
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
S = intercept
D
=
s
lo
p
e
q
n
+q
n1
(Mscf/D)
S
'
=
S
+
D
(
q
n
+
q
n

1
)
S = intercept
D
=
s
lo
p
e
q
n
+q
n1
(Mscf/D)
S
'
=
S
+
D
(
q
n
+
q
n

1
)
q
n
+q
n1
(Mscf/D)
S
'
=
S
+
D
(
q
n
+
q
n

1
)
6
8
10
12
6
8
10
12
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Figure 92 Variation of the pseudoskin with the rate q
n
+ q
n1
.
Chapter 9  Gas wells
 154 
93 Deliverability tests
93.1 Deliverability equations
Empirical approach (Fetkovich, or "C & n")
( )
q C p p
sc i wf
n
= −
2 2
(Mscf/D, m
3
/D) ( 917)
The initial pressure p
i
and the stabilized flowing pressures p
wf
are expressed in
absolute units. The coefficients C and n are two constant terms. n can vary from 1
in the case of laminar flow, to 0.5 when the flow is fully turbulent.
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
p
i
2

p
w
f
2
(
p
s
i
a
2
)
AOF=9000 Mscft/D
p
wf
=14.7 psia
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
10
3
10
4
10
5
1
/
n
=
s
l
o
p
e
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
p
i
2

p
w
f
2
(
p
s
i
a
2
)
AOF=9000 Mscft/D
p
wf
=14.7 psia
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
3
10
4
10
5
1
/
n
=
s
l
o
p
e
Figure 93 Deliverability plot for a backpressure test.
Loglog scale, pressuresquared method.
The Absolute Open Flow Potential (AOF) is the theoretical rate for a bottom hole
flowing pressure p
wf
= 14.7 psia (p
wf
=1 Bar).
Theoretical approach (LIT, or Houpeurt's, or Jone's, or "a & b")
In a closed system, the difference between the pseudosteady state flowing pressure
p
wf
and the following shutin average pressure p is expressed from Equation 516 as :
( ) ( )
m p m p
T
kh
A r
C
S q
T
kh
Dq
wf
w
A
sc sc
− = + +

\

.
 + 1637 0 35 087 1422
2
2
log . . (psia
2
/cp,
field units)
Chapter 9  Gas wells
 155 
( ) ( )
2
2
1296 . 0 87 . 0 351 . 0 log 1491 . 0
sc sc
A
w
wf
q D
kh
T
q S
C
r A
kh
T
p m p m +


.

\

+ + = −
(Bars
2
/cp, metric units) ( 918)
With a circular reservoir of radius r
e
, C
A
= 31.62 and ∆m(p) is simplified :
( ) ( )
m p m p
T
kh
r
r
S q
T
kh
Dq
wf
e
w
sc sc
− = +

\

.
 + 1637 2
0 472
087 1422
2
log
.
. (psia
2
/cp, field units)
( ) ( )
2
1296 . 0 87 . 0
472 . 0
log 2 1491 . 0
sc sc
w
e
wf
q D
kh
T
q S
r
r
kh
T
p m p m +


.

\

+ = − (Bars
2
/cp,
metric units) ( 919)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
∆
m
(
p
)
/
q
(
p
s
i
a
2
D
/
c
p
M
s
c
f
)
a = intercept
tra
n
s
ie
n
t, b
=
s
lo
p
e
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
s
ta
b
iliz
e
d
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
∆
m
(
p
)
/
q
(
p
s
i
a
2
D
/
c
p
M
s
c
f
)
a = intercept
tra
n
s
ie
n
t, b
=
s
lo
p
e
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
s
ta
b
iliz
e
d
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
∆
m
(
p
)
/
q
(
p
s
i
a
2
D
/
c
p
M
s
c
f
)
a = intercept
tra
n
s
ie
n
t, b
=
s
lo
p
e
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
s
ta
b
iliz
e
d
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
Figure 94 Deliverability plot for an isochronal or a modified isochronal test.
Linear scale, pseudopressure method.
Before the pseudosteady state regime, the response follows the semilog
approximation and ∆m(p) is :
( ) ( )
m p m p
T
kh
k t
c r
S q
T
kh
Dq
wf
i ti w
sc sc
− = + +

\

.
 + 1637 323 087 1422
2
2
log . .
∆
φµ
(psia
2
/cp, field units)
( ) ( )
2
2
1296 . 0 87 . 0 10 . 3 log 1491 . 0
sc sc
w ti i
wf
q D
kh
T
q S
r c
t k
kh
T
p m p m +


.

\

+ +
∆
= −
µ φ
(Bars
2
/cp, metric units) ( 920)
The two ∆m(p) deliverability relationships can be expressed as a(t) q
sc
+ b q
2
sc
.
During the infinite acting regime, a(t) is an increasing function of the time whereas
"a" is constant when pseudosteady state is reached. The coefficient "b" is the
same in the two equations.
The Absolute Open Flow Potential is :
Chapter 9  Gas wells
 156 
( )
q
a a b m p m p
b
sc AOF
sc
,
( ) ( )
=
− + + −
2
4
2
(Mscf/D, m
3
/D) ( 921)
93.2 Back pressure test (Flow after flow test)
The well is produced to stabilized pressure at three or four increasing rates and the
different flow periods have the same duration.
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6800
6900
7000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6800
6900
7000
6800
6900
7000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
00
10,000
20,000
30,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
Figure 95 Pressure and rate history for a backpressure test.
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
∆
m
(
p
)
/
q
(
p
s
i
a
2
D
/
c
p
M
s
c
f
)
2000
2500
3000
3500
a = intercept
b
=
s
lo
p
e
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
∆
m
(
p
)
/
q
(
p
s
i
a
2
D
/
c
p
M
s
c
f
)
2000
2500
3000
3500
a = intercept
b
=
s
lo
p
e
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
∆
m
(
p
)
/
q
(
p
s
i
a
2
D
/
c
p
M
s
c
f
)
2000
2500
3000
3500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2000
2500
3000
3500
a = intercept
b
=
s
lo
p
e
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
Figure 96 Deliverability plot for a backpressure test.
Linear scale, pseudopressure method.
93.3 Isochronal test
The well is produced at three or four increasing rates and a shutin period is
introduced between each flow. The drawdown periods, of same duration t
p
, are
stopped during the infinite acting regime. The intermediate buildups last until the
initial pressure p
i
is reached. A final flow period is extended to reach stabilized
flowing pressure.
Chapter 9  Gas wells
 157 
0 200 400 600 800
Time, hours
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6800
6900
7000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
p
wf, stab
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
Time, hours
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6800
6900
7000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
p
wf, stab
Time, hours
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6800
6900
7000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
6800
6900
7000
6800
6900
7000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
p
wf, stab
Figure 97 Pressure and rate history for an isochronal test.
p
i
2
(
o
r
p
w
s
2
)

p
w
f
2
(
p
s
i
a
2
)
AOF=8000 Mscft/D
p
wf
=14.7 psia
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
3
10
4
10
5
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
,
1
/
n
=
s
l
o
p
e
p
i
2
(
o
r
p
w
s
2
)

p
w
f
2
(
p
s
i
a
2
)
AOF=8000 Mscft/D
p
wf
=14.7 psia
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
3
10
4
10
5
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
p
i
2
(
o
r
p
w
s
2
)

p
w
f
2
(
p
s
i
a
2
)
AOF=8000 Mscft/D
p
wf
=14.7 psia
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
3
10
4
10
5
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
,
1
/
n
=
s
l
o
p
e
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
,
1
/
n
=
s
l
o
p
e
Figure 98 Deliverability plot for an isochronal or a modified isochronal test.
Loglog scale, pressuresquared method.
93.4 Modified isochronal test
The intermediate shutin periods have the same duration t
p
as the drawdown
periods, and the last flow is extended until the stabilized pressure is reached.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6300
6500
6700
6900
7100
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
p
wf, stab
p
ws4
p
ws3
p
ws2
p
ws1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6300
6500
6700
6900
7100
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
p
wf, stab
p
ws4
p
ws3
p
ws2
p
ws1
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6300
6500
6700
6900
7100
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
6300
6500
6700
6900
7100
6300
6500
6700
6900
7100
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
p
wf, stab
p
ws4
p
ws3
p
ws2
p
ws1
Figure 99 Pressure and rate history for a modified isochronal test.
 158 
 159 
10  BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS
RESERVOIRS
101 Boundaries in fissured reservoirs
A sealing fault can be reached during the fissure flow regime (Figure 101). The
double porosity transition is observed during the semiradial flow regime, after a
first derivative stabilization at 1.
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
start of the sealing fault
fissure regime transition total system
1 1
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
start of the sealing fault
fissure regime transition total system
1 1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
start of the sealing fault
fissure regime transition total system
1 1 1 1
Figure 101 Well with wellbore storage near a sealing fault, double porosity
reservoir, pseudosteady state interporosity flow.
C
D
= 10
4
, S = 0, L
D
= 5000, ω = 0.2, λ
eff
= 10
9
.
In a channel double porosity reservoir with unrestricted interporosity flow, a 1/4
slope derivative straight line can be observed at transition time (Figure 102).
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.25
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
s
lo
p
e
1
/4
0.5
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
7
10
8
º
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.25
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
s
lo
p
e
1
/4
0.5
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
7
10
8
º
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.25
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
s
lo
p
e
1
/4
0.5
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
7
10
8
ºº
Figure 102 Well with wellbore storage in a double porosity channel reservoir,
unrestricted interporosity flow, slab matrix blocks.
The thin curves correspond to the infinite double porosity reservoir response.
C
D
= 10, S = 0, L
1D
= L
2D
= 300, ω = 10
3
, λ = 10
6
.
When the four sealing boundaries of a closed system are reached during the fissure
flow, the double porosity transition is superimposed to the start of the pseudo
steady state regime (Figure 103). With mixed boundaries, derivative responses
can exhibit several consecutive humps (Figure 104).
Chapter 10  Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs
 160 
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
º
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5 0.5
ºº
Figure 103 Drawdown response for a well with wellbore storage at the center
of closed square double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity
flow.
The thin dotted curves correspond to the equivalent homogeneous closed square
reservoir. The infinite reservoir double porosity derivative response is presented
by the thick dotted curve. C
D
= 100, S = 0, L
iD
= 1000, ω = 0.1, λ
eff
= 10
6
.
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
2
º
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
2
º
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
2
ºº
Figure 104 Well with wellbore storage in a square double porosity reservoir
with composite boundaries, pseudo steady state interporosity flow.
The dotted curve corresponds to the equivalent infinite double porosity
reservoir. C
D
= 100, S = 0, ω = 0.1, λ
eff
= 10
6
, L
1D
= L
2D
= 500 (sealing),
L
3D
= 1500 (constant pressure) and L
4D
= 1500 (sealing).
102 Boundaries in layered reservoirs
On Figure 105, the reservoir cross flow is not established when the fault is seen.
The boundary is reached first in Layer 1, and the derivative deviates earlier than on
the equivalent homogeneous response. In layered channel reservoirs, the channel
width can appear smaller (Figure 106).
Chapter 10  Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs
 161 
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
1
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
1
0.5
1
Figure 105 Well with wellbore storage in a double permeability reservoir with
a sealing fault.
The dotted curves describe the sealing fault response in the equivalent
homogeneous reservoir. C
D
= 100, S
1
= S
2
= 0, L
D
= 500, ω = 0.15, κ = 0.7,
λ = 10
10
.
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
Figure 106 Well with wellbore storage in a double permeability reservoir with
two parallel sealing faults.
The dotted curves describe to the channel response of the equivalent
homogeneous reservoir. C
D
= 100, S
1
= S
2
= 0, L
1D
= L
2D
= 1000,
ω = 0.15, κ = 0.7, λ = 10
10
.
In a closed double permeability reservoir, a derivative hump can be observed at
intermediate time, as on the composite example of Figure 104. On Figure 107,
the closed circular boundary is reached during the early time commingled
response. After the wellbore storage effect and the early time infinite behavior, a
second unit slope straight line, followed by a hump is seen. Later, the derivative
stabilizes at 0.5 / (1  κ) until the final unit slope line for the pseudo steady state
regime becomes evident.
The first unit slope straight line describes the wellbore storage, the second is a
function of layer 1 storage ω A/r
w
2
and the final corresponds to the reservoir
storage (A/r
w
2
in dimensionless terms).
Chapter 10  Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs
 162 
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
s
l
o
p
e
1
s
l
o
p
e
1
0.5/(1κ)
º
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
s
l
o
p
e
1
s
l
o
p
e
1
0.5/(1κ)
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
s
l
o
p
e
1
s
l
o
p
e
1
0.5/(1κ)
ºº
Figure 107 Drawdown response for a well with wellbore storage in a closed
circle double permeability reservoir.
The dotted curves correspond to the closed equivalent homogeneous
reservoir. C
D
= 100, S
1
= S
2
= 0, r
D
= 5000, ω = 0.002, κ = 0.7, λ = 10
10
.
103 Composite channel reservoirs
In channel reservoirs, when the mobility changes near the edges of the channel
banks (Figure 108), or along the channel length (Figure 109), the responses tend
to be equivalent to that of a homogeneous channel with a different width.
When the mobility contrast is large, drawdown responses can show at intermediate
time a closed system behavior, or channel with constant pressure boundary
response (Figure 1010). Buildup responses can be severely distorted (Figure 10
11).
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
M=0.2, 1, 5
M= 5
0.2
º
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
M=0.2, 1, 5
M= 5
0.2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
M=0.2, 1, 5
M= 5
0.2
ºº
Figure 108 Well with wellbore storage in a composite channel. The interfaces
are parallel to the boundaries.
C
D
= 100, S = 0, L
1D
= L
2D
=1000, d
1D
= d
2D
=500, M
1
= M
2
= 0.2, 1 and 5.
Chapter 10  Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs
 163 
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
M=0.2, 1, 5
M =0.2
5
º
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
M=0.2, 1, 5
M =0.2
5
º
Figure 109 Well with wellbore storage in a composite channel. The interfaces
are perpendicular to the boundaries.
C
D
= 100, S = 0, L
1D
= L
2D
=1000, d
1D
= d
2D
=2000, M
1
= M
2
= 0.2, 1 and 5.
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
2
10
6
10
1
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
7
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
M=0.02
M= 50
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
s
l
o
p
e
1
closed
channel
channel with
constant pressure
º
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
2
10
6
10
1
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
7
10
2
10
6
10
1
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
7
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
M=0.02
M= 50
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
s
l
o
p
e
1
closed
channel
channel with
constant pressure
º
Figure 1010 Drawdown responses for a well with wellbore storage in
composite channel. The interfaces are perpendicular to the boundaries.
On the dotted curves, the interfaces are changed into sealing and constant
pressure boundaries. C
D
= 100, S = 0, L
1D
= L
2D
=500, d
1D
= d
2D
=1500,
M
1
= M
2
= 0.02, 1 and 50.
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
M=5, 1, 0.2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
M=5, 1, 0.2
º
M = 50
ºº
M = 50
Figure 1011 Pressure and derivative drawdown and buildup responses of
curve M=50 of Figure 1010.
The two dotted derivative curves are drawdown, the buildup response (thick
line) is generated for (t
p
/C)
D
= 650.
 164 
 165 
11  COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES
111 Fissuredlayered reservoirs
On Figure 111, a double permeability response where the two layers are fissured
is presented. For each layer, restricted interporosity flow is assumed. The
parameters correspond to the triple porosity example of Figure 4.33. When the
vertical communication is good in a fissured layered reservoir, grouping of matrix
size by layers has no effect on the response.
When reservoir cross flow between layers is not allowed (λ =0), the response is
different.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
no crossflow
crossflow
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
o o o o triple porosity
double permeability
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
no crossflow
crossflow
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
o o o o triple porosity
double permeability
Figure 111 Fissured layered reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity
flow, different λ λλ λ in each layer.
C
Df+m
= 1, S
1
= S
2
= 0, ω = 0.1, κ= 0.7, λ =10
3
or λ =0.
ω
1
=0.01, λ
eff1
=10
5
, ω
2
=0.01, λ
eff2
=5x10
7
. The (o) dotted curve
corresponds to the triple porosity response of Figure 4.33.
Fissured layered responses depend upon which transition, the double porosity or
the double permeability transition, is seen first.
On Figure 112, the high permeability layer 1 is fissured and not layer 2. When the
interporosity flow parameter is small (λ
eff1
=10
8
), layer 1 is in fissure regime when
the double permeability transition starts. The reservoir cross flow is established
between the layer 2 and the fissure network of layer 1 and the response becomes
equivalent to the double permeability response κ = 0.99 of Figure 73 (for a
storativity ratio ω =10
3
).
If layer 1 is in total system flow (λ
eff1
=10
3
) at start of the double permeability
transition, the double porosity transition in layer 1 is first seen during the two
layers no cross flow regime. The double permeability transition tends to be similar
to that of the double permeability response κ = 0.99 of Figure 75 (ω =10
1
).
Chapter 11  Combined heterogeneities
 166 
10
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
λ
1
= 10
8
0.5
λ
1
= 10
3
double permeability ω=10
3
double permeability ω=10
1
10
1
10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
λ
1
= 10
8
0.5
λ
1
= 10
3
double permeability ω=10
3
double permeability ω=10
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
λ
1
= 10
8
0.5
λ
1
= 10
3
double permeability ω=10
3
double permeability ω=10
1
Figure 112 Fissured layered reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity
flow, only layer 1 is fissured.
C
Df+m
= 1, S
1
= S
2
= 0, ω = 0.1, κ = 0.99, λ =4.10
4
, ω
1
=0.01, λ
eff1
=10
3
or
λ
eff1
=10
8
.
The (o) dotted curve corresponds to the double permeability response of
Figure 73 with ω = 10
3
, κ = 0.99 and λ =4.10
4
and the ( ) to the double
permeability response of Figure 75 with ω = 10
1
, κ = 0.99 and λ =4.10
4
.
112 Fissured radial composite reservoirs
On Figure 113, the inner region of a radial composite reservoir is fissured. The
radial composite model corresponds to the curve M=10 of Figure 62.
When λ
eff1
=10
4
, the response shows first a characteristic double porosity valley
transition. After, it is equivalent to the radial composite with a homogeneous inner
region. When λ
eff1
=10
6
, the radial composite interface is seen during the fissure
regime. The two transitions are combined at the same time.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
λ
1
=10
4
λ
1
=10
6
radial composite
double porosity λ
1
=10
6
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
λ
1
=10
4
λ
1
=10
6
radial composite
double porosity λ
1
=10
6
Figure 113 Radial composite reservoir, the inner region is fissured, pseudo
steady state interporosity flow.
C
D
= 100, S = 3, M=10, F =1 r
D
= 700. ω
1
=0.01, λ
eff1
=10
4
or λ
eff1
=10
6
.
The (o) dotted curve corresponds to the radial composite response of Figure
62 with M=10, the dashed curve describes the double porosity response
with ω
1
=0.01 and λ
eff1
=10
6
.
Chapter 11  Combined heterogeneities
 167 
113 Layered radial composite reservoirs
On Figure 114, the reservoir is twolayer without cross flow, but layer 2 is radial
composite with a strong reduction of mobility at r
2D
= 100. The derivative tends to
follow a unit slope straight line at intermediate time (examples M
2
=100 or 1000).
After the derivative hump, the two layers commingled infinite reservoir response is
seen, and the derivative tends to stabilize.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
M
2
=1000
100
10
M
2
=1000
M
2
=10
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
M
2
=1000
100
10
M
2
=1000
M
2
=10
Figure 114 Layered reservoir, no cross flow, layer 1 homogeneous, layer 2
radial composite.
C
D
= 30, S
1
= S
2
=0, ω=0.1, κ=0.5, λ=0. r
2D
= 100, M
2
= 10, 100, 1000, F
2
= 1.
The radial composite double permeability model can be used to describe the
presence of a flow barrier between the layers. When no cross flow is allowed in
the inner region of radius r
D
, the valley shaped derivative transition is delayed, and
it tends to be steeper than the double permeability infinite reservoir response
(Figure 115). When the reservoir cross flow is only possible in the inner region,
the responses change to the two layers without cross flow at late time (Figure 11
6). Before, the derivative deviates above the 0.5 stabilization and produces a
smooth hump.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
r
D
=30
r
D
=100 300
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
r
D
=30
r
D
=100 300
Figure 115 Layered reservoir, no cross flow in the inner region.
C
D
= 1, S
1
= S
2
=0, ω=0.1, κ=0.9, M=F =1. λ
1
=0, λ
2
=4 10
4
, r
D
=30, 100, 300.
The dotted curves correspond to the double permeability response of Figure
75 with κ=0.9.
Chapter 11  Combined heterogeneities
 168 
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
r
D
=30
r
D
=100 300
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
r
D
=30
r
D
=100 300
Figure 116 Layered reservoir, no cross flow in the outer region.
C
D
= 1, S
1
= S
2
=0, ω=0.1, κ=0.9, M=F =1. λ
1
=4 10
4
, λ
2
=0, r
D
=30, 100, 300.
The dotted curves correspond to the double permeability response of Figure
75 with κ=0.9 and the dashed curves to the commingled reservoir (λ=0).
 169 
12  OTHER TESTING METHODS
121 Drillstem test
121.1 Test description
During a drillstem test, a down hole shutin valve controls the well. Before
opening, the well is partially filled with a liquid cushion designed to apply a
pressure p
0
above the valve, smaller than the formation pressure p
i
. When the tester
valve is opened, an instantaneous drop of pressure (p
i
 p
o
) is applied to the
sandface. The formation starts to produce into the well, the level rises in the drill
string and the bottom hole flowing pressure increases.
If the liquid level reaches the surface, the rate tends to stabilize and the DST
procedure becomes similar to that of a standard production test. When no flow to
surface is desired, the down hole valve is closed before the liquid has reached the
surface (Figure 121). This flow period is called a "slug test".
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
p
i
p
0
shutin
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
p
i
p
0
shutin
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
p
i
p
0
shutin
Figure 121 Example of DST pressure response. The rate is less than critical.
Linear scale.
The sequence is initial flow, initial shutin, flow period and final shutin.
121.2 Slug test analysis
During a slug test period, the pressure increases and the flow rate declines. In some
cases, the rate is not controlled by the downstream pressure but by the well
condition. It becomes constant and the pressure increases linearly with time. With
this flow condition, called critical flow, the flowing pressure is not suitable for
interpretation.
When rate is less than critical, slug test analysis methods use a dimensionless
pressure ratio p
rD
, defined as the drop of pressure (p
i
p
wf
) normalized by (p
i
 p
o
).
Chapter 12  Other testing methods
 170 
0
p p
t p p
p
i
wf i
rD
−
−
=
) (
( 121)
The ratio p
rD
is very sensitive to the accuracy of the initial pressure p
i
, especially
after some production time, when (p
i
 p
wf
) becomes small.
Slug test pressure type curve
On the type curve Figure 122, the dimensionless pressure ratio p
rD
is presented
versus the dimensionless time t
D
/C
D
. The C
D
e
2S
curves describe the well
condition.
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
r
a
t
i
o
,
p
r
D
=
[
p
i

p
w
f
(
t
)
]
/
[
p
i

p
0
]
C
D
e
2S
=10
1

1
s
l
o
p
e
C
D
e
2S
=10
60
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
3
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
r
a
t
i
o
,
p
r
D
=
[
p
i

p
w
f
(
t
)
]
/
[
p
i

p
0
]
C
D
e
2S
=10
1

1
s
l
o
p
e
C
D
e
2S
=10
60
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
r
a
t
i
o
,
p
r
D
=
[
p
i

p
w
f
(
t
)
]
/
[
p
i

p
0
]
C
D
e
2S
=10
1

1
s
l
o
p
e
C
D
e
2S
=10
60
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
3
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
Figure 122 Slug test type curves on loglog scale.
When the well is opened, p
rD
= 1 and, when the liquid level rises in the well, the
ratio drops. The same pressure ratio is used for the data and the dimensionless
curves, the pressure match is PM =1.
Knowing the wellbore storage coefficient from the changing liquid level
relationship of Equation 15, the time match gives the permeability thickness
product:
MATCH
000295 . 0

.

\

∆
=
t
C t C
kh
D D
µ
(mD.ft, field units)
MATCH
00223 . 0

.

\

∆
=
t
C t C
kh
D D
µ
(mD.m, metric units) ( 122)
the skin is estimated from the C
D
e
2S
curve match with Equation 210.
Chapter 12  Other testing methods
 171 
Analysis of slug test with the derivative type curve
The product of the slug test pressure change (p
i
p
wf
) by the elapsed time ∆t can be
matched directly against a derivative typecurve, without having to differentiate
the data.
( ) ) (t p p t
p p C
kh
t d
dp
wf i
i D
D
− ∆
−
=
) (
000295 . 0
ln
0
µ
(field units)
( ) ) (t p p t
p p C
kh
t d
dp
wf i
i D
D
− ∆
−
=
) (
00223 . 0
ln
0
µ
(metric units) ( 123)
The permeability thickness product is estimated either from the time match
(Equation 12.2) or from the pressure match :
( )
MATCH
0
ln
000295 . 0
) (


.

\

− ∆
−
=
) (t p p t
t d dp p p C
kh
wf i
D D i
µ
(mD.ft, field units)
( )
( )
MATCH
0
ln
00223 . 0


.

\

− ∆
−
=
) (t p p t
t d dp p p C
kh
wf i
D D i
µ
(mD.m, metric units) ( 124)
121.3 Buildup analysis
When the well is closed down hole before the liquid level has reached the surface,
the decreasing rate has to be estimated as a function of time in order to analyze the
subsequent buildup.
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
0
100
200
300
400
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
(
B
O
P
D
)
p
0
p
6
q
5
p
1
p
2
p
1
q
6
p
6
q
1
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
0
100
200
300
400
0
100
200
300
400
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
(
B
O
P
D
)
p
0
p
6
q
5
p
1
p
2
p
1
q
6
p
6
q
1
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
(
B
O
P
D
)
p
0
p
6
q
5
p
1
p
1
p
2
p
2
p
1
q
6
p
6
p
6
q
1
Figure 123 Example of rate estimation during a DST flow period.
The increasing pressure curve of the flow period is discretized into constant
pressure steps (Figure 123). Knowing the liquid gravity, the pressure difference is
converted into the corresponding height of fluid. From the capacity of the drill
pipe, the height is converted into volume.
Chapter 12  Other testing methods
 172 
122 Impulse test
122.1 Test description
With impulse tests, the well is produced only a few minutes and then closed.
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
p
i
t
p
∆t
4500
4700
4900
5100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
p
i
t
p
∆t
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
p
i
t
p
∆t
4500
4700
4900
5100
4500
4700
4900
5100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Figure 4 Example of impulse pressure response. Linear scale.
122.2 Impulse test analysis
The complete well pressure response is analyzed on a single analysis plot. During
the short flow, the impulse response is expressed as
( )
p p t
i wf p
− and, during the
shutin, as ( )( )
p p t t
i ws p
− + ∆ . The pressure and derivative type curves are used
to analyze the pressure response: during the flowing time, the impulse response is
matched against a pressure type curve and, during the shutin period, the response
deviates from the usual pressure response to reach the derivative curve with same
C
D
e
2S
.
The pressure match is defined, as in Equation 123 :
( )
( )
dp
d t
kh
Q
t t p p
D
D t
p i ws
ln
.
= + −
0 000295
µ
∆ (field units)
( )( )
ws i p
t D
D
p p t t
Q
kh
t d
dp
− ∆ + =
µ
00223 . 0
ln
(metric units) ( 125)
where Q
t
is the amount of fluid produced during the short flow t
p
.
Chapter 12  Other testing methods
 173 
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
=
(
p
i

p
w
f
)
t
p
o
r
(
p
i

p
)
(
t
p
+
∆
t
)
(
p
s
i
)
well shutin
well flowing
1
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
=
(
p
i

p
w
f
)
t
p
o
r
(
p
i

p
)
(
t
p
+
∆
t
)
(
p
s
i
)
well shutin
well flowing
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
=
(
p
i

p
w
f
)
t
p
o
r
(
p
i

p
)
(
t
p
+
∆
t
)
(
p
s
i
)
well shutin
well flowing
Figure 125 Impulse match.
As for slug test analysis, the result of impulse test interpretation is very sensitive to
the accuracy of the initial pressure p
i
used for the data plot.
The results can be controlled with a conventional analysis of the shutin period
after the few minutes flow period (Figure 126). The derivative analysis is not
affected by a possible error in initial pressure, and the pressure curve can be used
to estimate the skin accurately.
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
Figure 126 Pressure and derivative analysis of the impulse shutin period.
Loglog scale, ∆ ∆∆ ∆p and ∆ ∆∆ ∆p' versus ∆ ∆∆ ∆t.
123 Rate deconvolution
In the multi rate superposition method presented in Section 22.2 (Eq. 215), the
rate history is described by several steprate changes occurring at different flow
times t
i
. In the case of a variable production, the rate increments are infinitesimal
and the multi rate superposition is changed into the convolution integral.
The pressure response due to a variable rate q(t) can be expressed with the time
derivative of the rate history:
Chapter 12  Other testing methods
 174 
∫
=
− = ∆
t
d t p q
kh
B
t p
D
0 τ
τ ) τ ( ) τ ( '
2 . 141
) (
µ
(psi, field units)
∫
=
− = ∆
t
d t p q
kh
B
t p
D
0 τ
τ ) τ ( ) τ ( '
66 . 18
) (
µ
(bars, metric units) ( 126)
The objective of the deconvolution is to transform the measured pressure response
∆p(t), after any variable rate sequence q(t), into an equivalent constant flow rate
test that can be analyzed with the usual methods.
Several algorithms have been proposed for deconvolution of well test
measurements, using real data of Laplace transformed data. Results are very
dependent upon the quality of the rate curve. The technique has also been
envisaged for interpretation of buildup tests affected by wellbore storage effect.
With accurate sandface flow rate measurement at early shutin time, the effect of
afterflow can theoretically be eliminated from the pressure buildup response.
124 Constant pressure test (rate decline analysis)
When a well is producing at constant wellbore pressure, the declining rate can be
analyzed versus time.
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
Effective dimensionless time, t
De
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
r
a
t
e
,
q
D
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
Infinite reservoir
r
e
/r
we
= 1000
5000
2500
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
Effective dimensionless time, t
De
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
r
a
t
e
,
q
D
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
Infinite reservoir
r
e
/r
we
= 1000
5000
2500
Effective dimensionless time, t
De
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
r
a
t
e
,
q
D
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
1
Infinite reservoir
r
e
/r
we
= 1000
5000
2500
Figure 127 Decline curves on loglog scale. Closed reservoir. q
D
versus t
De
.
With loglog rate type curves, the dimensionless flow rate q
D
is expressed as :
( )
q
B
kh p p
q t
D
i wf
=
−
1412 .
( )
µ
(field units)
Chapter 12  Other testing methods
 175 
( )
) (
66 . 18
t q
p p kh
B
q
wf i
D
−
=
µ
(metric units) ( 127)
For semilog analysis, the reciprocal of the rate 1/q is graphed vs. log ∆t.
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ − + ∆
−
= S
r c
k
t
p p kh
B
q
w t wf i
87 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
1
2
µ φ
µ
(D/Bbl, field units)
(
¸
(
¸
+ − + ∆
−
= S
r c
k
t
p p kh
B
q
w t wf i
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log
) (
5 . 21
1
2
µ φ
µ
(D/m
3
, metric units)( 128)
Results: the permeability is estimated from the slope m
q
of the 1/q straight line and
the skin from the intercept at 1 hour.
) (
6 . 162
wf i q
p p m
B
kh
−
=
µ
(mD.ft, field units)
) (
5 . 21
wf i q
p p m
B
kh
−
=
µ
(mD.m, metric units) ( 129)
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ − = 23 . 3 log
hr 1 1
151 . 1
2
w t q
r c
k
m
q
S
µ φ
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ − = 10 . 3 log
hr 1 1
151 . 1
2
w t
q
r c
k
m
q
S
µ φ
( 1210)
125 Vertical interference test
Vertical interference tests are used to estimate vertical permeability in a single
layer, or quantify the presence of a sealing interval. An example of usual
application is the characterization of low permeability in feasibility studies related
to underground storage projects.
Different types of equipment can be used in order to isolate several intervals in the
same well.
Chapter 12  Other testing methods
 176 
h
w
z
wobs
h
wobs
z
w
k
H1
, k
V1
k
H3
, k
V3
k
H2
, k
V2
k
V
k
H
Homogeneous reservoir Three layers reservoir
h
w
z
wobs
h
wobs
z
w
k
H1
, k
V1
k
H3
, k
V3
k
H2
, k
V2
k
V
k
H
h
w
z
wobs
h
wobs
z
w
h
w
z
wobs
h
wobs
z
w
k
H1
, k
V1
k
H3
, k
V3
k
H2
, k
V2
k
V
k
H
k
H1
, k
V1
k
H3
, k
V3
k
H2
, k
V2
k
V
k
H
Homogeneous reservoir Three layers reservoir
Figure 128 Well and reservoir configurations.
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5 line
Z
wobs
/h = 0.6
10 10
3
10
7
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
0.8
0.7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5 line
Z
wobs
/h = 0.6
10 10
3
10
7
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10 10
3
10
7
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
0.8
0.7
Figure 129 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration
with wellbore storage. Loglog scale. Several distances.
C
D
= 6, S
w
=0, k
V
/k
H
= 0.005. Producing segment: h
w
/h = 1/10, z
w
/h = 0.5;
observation segment: h
wobs
/h = 1/100, z
wobs
/h = 0.6, 0.7, 0.8.
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5 line
10 10
3
10
7
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
k
V
/k
H
= 0.5
0.05
0.005
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5 line
10 10
3
10
7
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10 10
3
10
7
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
k
V
/k
H
= 0.5
0.05
0.005
Figure 1210 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration
with wellbore storage. Loglog scale. Several vertical permeability.
C
D
= 6, S
w
=0. Producing segment: h
w
/h = 1/10, z
w
/h = 0.5; observation
segment: h
wobs
/h = 1/100, z
wobs
/h = 0.6.
Vertical permeability: k
V
/k
H
= 0.5, 0.05, 0.005.
Chapter 12  Other testing methods
 177 
With the doublestage testing method, two tests are performed on the same layer:
the first, on a thick interval, is used to define the horizontal permeability. By
inflating internal packer in the thick interval, three discrete intervals are isolated to
provide vertical interference responses.
Test 1 : radial flow Test 2 : spherical flow
Observation interval
Flowing interval
Observation interval
Test 1 : radial flow Test 2 : spherical flow Test 1 : radial flow Test 2 : spherical flow Test 1 : radial flow Test 2 : spherical flow
Observation interval
Flowing interval
Observation interval
Figure 1211 Doublestage test.
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5 line
10 10
3
1 10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
Test 1
Partial penetration
Observation
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5 line
10 10
3
1 10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10 10
3
1 10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
Test 1
Partial penetration
Observation
Figure 1212 Doublestage test loglog responses.
C
D
= 7, S
w
=0. Producing segment: h
w
/h = 1/10, z
w
/h = 0.5; observation
segment: h.
wobs
/h = 1/20, z
wobs
/h = 0.35. Vertical permeability: k
V
/k
H
= 0.3.
 178 
 179 
13  MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS
131 Perrine method
131.1 Hypothesis and definitions
An equivalent monophasic liquid of constant properties is defined as the sum of
the three phases: oil, water and gas. The three phases are assumed to be uniformly
distributed in the reservoir, and the saturations are constant during the test period.
The equivalent rate is expressed:
( )
( )
qB q B q B q B
q B q B q q R B
t
o o w w g g
o o w w sg o s g
= + +
= + + −
(Bbl/D, m
3
/D) ( 131)
where q
sg
is the gas rate measured at surface, and q
o
R
s
the dissolved gas at bottom
hole conditions.
It is assumed that the total mobility (k/µ)
t
of the equivalent monophasic fluid can
be expressed as the sum of the effective phase mobilities :
( ) k k k k
t
o o w w g g
µ µ µ µ = + + (mD/cp) ( 132)
The effective total compressibility c
t
includes the effect of free gas liberated (or
dissolved) in the oil and the water phases :
( ) ( )
c c S c S c S c S B B
R
p
S B B
R
p
t f o o w w g g o g o
s
w g w
sw
= + + + + +
∂
∂
∂
∂
(psi
1
, Bars
−1
) ( 133)
131.2 Analysis
In the usual equations for oil reservoirs, the mobility k/µ and the rate q are changed
into the total mobility (k/µ)
t
and the equivalent rate (qB)
t
. For loglog analysis,
dimensionless pressure and time are respectively :
( )
( )
p
k h
qB
p
D
t
t
=
µ
1412 .
∆ (field units)
( )
( )
p
qB
h k
p
t
t
D
∆ =
66 . 18
µ
(metric units) ( 134)
Chapter 13  Multiphase reservoirs
 180 
( ) t
C
k h
C
t
D
D
t
= 0 000295 .
µ
∆ (field units)
( )
t
C
h k
C
t
t
D
D
∆ =
µ
000223 . 0 (metric units) ( 135)
The slope m of the semilog straight line is expressed
( )
( ) h k
qB
m
t
t
µ
6 . 162 = (psi, field units)
( )
( ) h k
qB
m
t
t
µ
5 . 21 = (Bars, metric units) ( 136)
The analysis yields the effective mobility of this equivalent fluid. When the
relative permeabilities k
r"o,w,g"
of the different phases are known, the absolute
permeability can be estimated :
( )
( )
k k k k k
t
ro o rw w rg g
µ µ µ µ = + + (mD/cp) ( 137)
132 Other methods
132.1 Multiphase pseudopressure
For solution gas drive reservoir, the pseudo pressure is expressed :
m p
k S
B
dp
ro o
o o
p
( )
( )
=
∫
µ
0
(psi/cp, Bars/cp) ( 138)
For gas condensate reservoir, the molar density of the oil and gas phases ρ
o,g
are
used:
m p
k
k
dp
o
ro
o
g
rg
g
p
p
( ) = +

\

.

 ∫
ρ
µ
ρ
µ
0
(psi/cp, Bars/cp) ( 139)
The relative permeability curves are needed to calculate the multiphase pseudo
pressure functions. As the saturation profile depends upon the rate history, m(p)
depends upon the test sequence.
Chapter 13  Multiphase reservoirs
 181 
132.2 Pressure squared method
For loglog analysis, dimensionless pressure is expressed with respect to the oil
rate:
( )
p
ah
q
p
D
o
=
282 4
2
.
∆ (field units)
( )
2
33 . 37
p
q
h a
p
o
D
∆ = (metric units) ( 1310)
where a is assumed to be a constant, defined as :
k
B
a p
o
o o
µ
= ( 1311)
 182 
 183 
14 TEST DESIGN
141 Introduction
Once the objectives of the test have been defined, the program is established taking
into account the different operational constraints. Test simulations are generated to
ensure the objectives can be achieved, and to define the optimum testing sequence.
Test programming and conduct, as well as the definition of the responsibilities
during testing, are presented in a different section. In the following, only test
simulation is discussed.
142 Test simulation
142.1 Simulation procedure
• Before generating the simulations, all parameters must have been defined: static
parameters, reservoir parameters and the anticipated flow rate.
• In order to evaluate the expected reservoir model, a first simulation can be
generated for a long constant rate drawdown.
• By examination of this ideal response, the minimum duration of the flow and
shutin periods can be estimated.
• A multirate simulation is generated for prediction of the actual test response.
Taking into account possible pressure gauge noise or drift, the test program is
adjusted to ensure a complete and significant pressure response for the lowest
test duration.
• The simulation can be converted into data in order to control the quality of the
future analysis.
142.2 Test design tips
Test design is a compromise between cost and reliability. The final test program is
defined from not only technical considerations, but also taking into account the
desired degree of confidence in the results. Test sequences are sometimes designed
with two or several buildup periods after different flow rates, some relatively
short, since wellbore problems frequently distort early time data. For gas wells for
example, the Modified Isochronal test sequence, possibly followed by a long build
up period, is well adapted to transient analysis purpose.
Chapter 14  Test design
 184 
In multirate testing, an increasing flowrate sequence is preferred to a decreasing
rate history. With decreasing rates, the multirate correction with the time
superposition function can be very sensitive to inaccurate rate data.
143 Test design reporting and test supervision
Test design is not limited to the definition of the different flow periods. From
examination of the pressure change observed on the test simulation, the
requirements for the pressure gauge characteristics are defined. Guidelines for
clean up (gas wells) and initial shutin can be established. If the reservoir pressure
is decreasing, it may be necessary to evaluate the pressure trend accurately before
the test (interference test design). In such a case, the duration of the reservoir
pressure survey before the start of the operation is part of the design program.
Experience of tests in neighboring wells can be used to establish specifications
such as gauge depths, use of a down hole shutin tool, etc.
In the ideal case, the same person is in charge of the design and of the test
supervision. The experience gained from the design study can be used to adjust in
real time the program to any unexpected event (well shutin for operational or
safety reason), or to a different pressure behavior.
During the test supervision, any action that can affect the pressure data must be
recorded (such as leak, operation on the well or change of annular pressure during
shutin, etc.)
 185 
15  FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST
ANALYSIS
151 Rate history definition
Two approaches can be used in order to simplify the rate history:
1. An equivalent production time is defined as the ratio of the cumulative
production divided by the last rate (called equivalent Horner time). On the test
example of Figure 151, t
p
=120.
2. When there is a shutin period in the rate history, if the bottom hole pressure
has almost reached the initial pressure p
i
, it is assumed that the rate history
prior this shutin is negligible. On the test example, t
p
=20.
t
p
=120
t
p
=20
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
0 50 500 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
3500
3700
3900
4000
3800
3600
t
p
=120
t
p
=20
t
p
=120
t
p
=20
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
0 50 500 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
3500
3700
3900
4000
3800
3600
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
0 50 500 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0 50 500 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
3500
3700
3900
4000
3800
3600
3500
3700
3900
4000
3800
3600
Figure 151 Example of a two drawdowns test sequence.
Linear scale.
t
p
=20
t
p
=120
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
t
p
=20
t
p
=120
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
t
p
=20
t
p
=120
t
p
=20
t
p
=120
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
Figure 152 Loglog plot of the final buildup.
The derivative is generated with three different rate histories.
In practice, if the duration of the analyzed period is ∆t, it is possible to simplify the
rate history for any rate changes that occurred at more than 2∆t before the start of
the period. All rate variations immediately before the analyzed test period must be
introduced in the superposition time.
Chapter 15  Factors complicating well test analysis
 186 
152 Error of start of the period
a
Time, t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
169.7 169.8 169.9 170.0 170.1 170.2 170.3
3750
3790
3830
3810
3770
b
e
c
d
a
Time, t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
169.7 169.8 169.9 170.0 170.1 170.2 170.3 169.7 169.8 169.9 170.0 170.1 170.2 170.3
3750
3790
3830
3810
3770
3750
3790
3830
3810
3770
b
e
c
d
Figure 153 Example of Figure 151 at time of shutin. Time and pressure
errors.
 Shutin time error: curve a = 0.1 hr before and curve b = 0.1 hr after the
actual shutin time.
 Shutin pressure error: curve c = 10 psi below and curve d = 10 psi above
the last flowing pressure.
 Error in time and pressure: curve e.
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
a
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
a
Figure 154 Case a: shutin time too early.
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
b
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
b
Figure 155 Case b: shutin time too late.
Chapter 15  Factors complicating well test analysis
 187 
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
c
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
c
Figure 156 Case c: last flowing pressure too low.
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
d
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
d
Figure 157 Case d: last flowing pressure too high.
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
e
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
e
Figure 158 Case e: shutin time too late, last flowing pressure is taken in the
buildup data, during the wellbore storage regime.
A good loglog match can be obtained in case e but the resulting skin is under
estimated. Pressure errors are clearly shown on the linear scale test simulation plot.
Chapter 15  Factors complicating well test analysis
 188 
153 Pressure gauge drift
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
(
p
s
i
)
0
100
200
300
0 100 200 300
Drift +
Drift 
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
(
p
s
i
)
0
100
200
300
0
100
200
300
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Drift +
Drift 
Figure 159 Final buildup of Figure 151. Drift of ± ±± ± 0.05 psi/hr.
Linear scale.
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
Drift +
Drift 
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
Drift +
Drift 
Figure 1510 Loglog plot of the buildup example. Drift of ± ±± ± 0.05 psi/hr.
The effect of a constant drift is inverse during flow and shutin periods.
154 Pressure gauge noise
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
(
p
s
i
)
0 100 200 300
0
100
200
250
150
50
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
(
p
s
i
)
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
0
100
200
250
150
50
0
100
200
250
150
50
Figure 1511 Final buildup of Figure 151. Noise of +1 psi every 2 points.
Linear scale.
Chapter 15  Factors complicating well test analysis
 189 
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
Figure 1512 Loglog plot of the buildup example. Noise of +1 psi every 2
points.
Three points derivative algorithm. No smoothing.
155 Changing wellbore storage
Changing wellbore storage happens when the compressibility of the fluid in the
wellbore is not constant. It is observed for example when, in a damaged oil well,
free gas is liberated in the production string.
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
C gas
C oil
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
C gas C gas
C oil
Figure 1513 Loglog plot of a drawdown example of changing wellbore
storage.
During drawdown, the response describes first the compressibility of the oil but,
when the pressure drops below bubble point, the gas compressibility dominates.
The wellbore storage coefficient of Equation 14 is then increased.
Chapter 15  Factors complicating well test analysis
 190 
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
C gas
C oil
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
C gas
C oil
Figure 1514 Loglog plot of a buildup example of changing wellbore storage
During buildup periods, the response corresponds to the gas wellbore storage
coefficient immediately after shutin, and changes to the lower oil wellbore storage
later. This produces a steep increase of derivative and, in some cases; the
derivative follows a slope greater than unity at the end of the gas dominated early
time response.
Due to the variable compressibility of gas, changing wellbore storage is also
frequently evident on gas wells with a large drawdown.
156 Two phases liquid level
In diphasic wells (oil + water, or gas + condensate), a phase redistribution in the
wellbore can produce a characteristic humping effect.
diphasic flow changing liquid level end of phase
segregation effect
diphasic flow changing liquid level end of phase
segregation effect
diphasic flow changing liquid level end of phase
segregation effect
Figure 1515 Changing liquid level after phase segregation.
When, after shutin, water falls at the bottom of the well for example, the weight of
the column between the pressure gauge and the formation is not constant as long as
the water level rises and the gauge pressure is not parallel to the formation
pressure. In some cases, the buildup pressure can show a temporary decreasing
trend after some shutin time. During this time interval, the derivative becomes
negative.
Chapter 15  Factors complicating well test analysis
 191 
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
2000
3000
4000
3500
2500
18 28
Pressure difference before
phase segregation
Pressure difference after
phase segregation
humping
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
2000
3000
4000
3500
2500
18 28
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
2000
3000
4000
3500
2500
2000
3000
4000
3500
2500
18 28
Pressure difference before
phase segregation
Pressure difference after
phase segregation
humping
Figure 1516 Example of buildup response distorted by phase segregation.
Humping effect.
If the interface between the two phases stabilizes, or reaches the depth of the
pressure gauge, the pressure difference between gauge and formation returns to a
constant, and the remaining buildup data can be properly analyzed.
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
Figure 1517 Loglog plot of the buildup example of phase segregation.
When phase redistribution is expected, the pressure gauge should be as close as
possible to the perforated interval (or even below).
157 Input parameters, and calculated results of interpretation
Errors in the static parameters influence the calculated interpretation results, but
the choice of the interpretation model is in general not affected. Frequently, the
analysis is initialized with approximate values, and refined with adjusted
parameters later, without significantly changing the interpretation model.
The net thickness h and the oil viscosity µ are for example frequently not
accurately defined during exploration testing. Well test interpretation provides the
kh/µ group from the loglog pressure match or the semilog slope m. Any error on
h or µ directly influences the permeability estimate k. The skin Equation 114
Chapter 15  Factors complicating well test analysis
 192 
shows that, for a given kh/µ group, S is hardly dependent upon h (with a logarithm
relationship), and not upon the viscosity µ. (present in the k/µ group).
From the equations used to calculate the different interpretation results, the
influence of any error in the static parameters can be evaluated. The radius of
investigation for example, and the distance to a possible boundary, are dependent
upon h (with the square root relationship of Equation 132 or 122), but
independent of µ.
Before comparing results of interpretation to geological or geophysical data, the
significance of the model parameters must be clearly understood. This can be
illustrated with the different averaging methods used for the permeability:
• The apparent vertical permeability k
V
is a harmonic average as shown in Eq. 3
25
• The horizontal permeability k
H
, is the arithmetic average of each layer
permeability (Eq. 324 for example).
• In the case of permeability anisotropy, the horizontal permeability is defined as
the geometric average of Eq. 84.
Boundary distances are frequently estimated by assuming strictly radial flow in a
single homogeneous layer. In the case of a permeability anisotropy or
heterogeneous reservoir properties such as layering (see Section 102) the distance
to a reservoir boundary can be different from that indicated by the simple
interpretation model used for analysis.
 193 
16  CONCLUSION
161 Interpretation procedure
161.1 Methodology
Well test analysis is a three steps process:
1. Identification of the interpretation model. The derivative plot is the primary
identification tool.
2. Calculation of the interpretation model. The loglog pressure and derivative
plot is used to make the first estimates.
3. Verification of the interpretation model. The simulation is adjusted on the three
usual plots: loglog, test history and superposition.
The consistency of the interpretation model is finally checked against nontesting
information.
Model selection (derivative)
Estimate parameters : kh, C,
heterogeneities , boundaries
(derivative) and S (pressure)
Simul #1 . . . . . . #n
Loglog
analysis
•Adjust initial pressure p
i
•Check the data (variable skin,
consistent rate history)
•Check the model response on a
larger time interval
Test
history
simulation
Adjust parameters (p
i
, S, C...)
Superposition
simulation
Next model
End
Model selection (derivative)
Estimate parameters : kh, C,
heterogeneities , boundaries
(derivative) and S (pressure)
Simul #1 . . . . . . #n
Loglog
analysis
•Adjust initial pressure p
i
•Check the data (variable skin,
consistent rate history)
•Check the model response on a
larger time interval
Test
history
simulation
Adjust parameters (p
i
, S, C...)
Superposition
simulation
Next model
End
1
2
3
Model selection (derivative)
Estimate parameters : kh, C,
heterogeneities , boundaries
(derivative) and S (pressure)
Simul #1 . . . . . . #n
Loglog
analysis
•Adjust initial pressure p
i
•Check the data (variable skin,
consistent rate history)
•Check the model response on a
larger time interval
Test
history
simulation
Adjust parameters (p
i
, S, C...)
Superposition
simulation
Next model
End
Model selection (derivative)
Estimate parameters : kh, C,
heterogeneities , boundaries
(derivative) and S (pressure)
Simul #1 . . . . . . #n
Loglog
analysis
•Adjust initial pressure p
i
•Check the data (variable skin,
consistent rate history)
•Check the model response on a
larger time interval
Test
history
simulation
Adjust parameters (p
i
, S, C...)
Superposition
simulation
Next model
End
1
2
3
1
2
3
Chapter 16  Conclusion
 194 
161.2 The diagnosis: typical pressure and derivative shapes
Flow regime identification
GEOMETRY LOGLOG TIME RANGE
shape slope Early Intermediate Late
Radial
0
No
Double
porosity
restricted
Homogeneous
behavior
Semi infinite
reservoir
Linear
1/2
1/2
Infinite
conductivity
fracture
Horizontal
well
Two sealing
boundaries
Bilinear
1/4
1/4
Finite
conductivity
fracture
Finite
conductivity
fault
Double
porosity
unrestricted
with linear
flow
Spherical
1/2
No
Well in
partial
penetration
Pseudo
Steady State
1
1
Wellbore
storage
Layered no
crossflow
with
boundaries
Closed
reservoir
(drawdown)
Steady State
1
0
(−∞) (−∞) (−∞) (−∞)
Conductive
fault
Constant
pressure
boundary
Pressure curve
Derivative curve
Chapter 16  Conclusion
 195 
Changes of properties during radial flow
Mobility decreases : Sealing boundaries, composite reservoirs, horizontal well
with a long drain hole.
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g
(
∆
p
’
)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m1
m
2
>
m
1
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g
(
∆
p
’
)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g
(
∆
p
’
)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m1
m
2
>
m
1
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m1
m
2
>
m
1
Figure 161 The mobility decreases (kh ↓ ↓↓ ↓).
Loglog and semilog scales.
Mobility increases : Composite reservoirs, constant pressure boundaries, layered
systems, wells in partial penetration.
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g
(
∆
p
’
)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m
1
m2
<
m1
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g
(
∆
p
’
)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g
(
∆
p
’
)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g
(
∆
p
’
)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m
1
m2
<
m1
Figure 162 The mobility increases (kh ↑ ↑↑ ↑).
Loglog and semilog scales.
Storativity increases : Double porosity reservoirs, layered and composite
reservoirs.
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g
(
∆
p
’
)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m1
m
2
=
m
1
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g
(
∆
p
’
)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g
(
∆
p
’
)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g
(
∆
p
’
)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m1
m
2
=
m
1
Figure 163 The storativity increases (φ φφ φ c
t
h ↑ ↑↑ ↑).
Loglog and semilog scales.
Storativity decreases : Composite systems.
Chapter 16  Conclusion
 196 
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g
(
∆
p
’
)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m1
m2
=
m1
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g
(
∆
p
’
)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g
(
∆
p
’
)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g
(
∆
p
’
)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
∆
p
m1
m2
=
m1
Figure 164 The storativity decreases (φ φφ φ c
t
h ↓ ↓↓ ↓).
Loglog and semilog scales.
161.3 Summary of usual loglog responses
Well models
Wellbore storage and Skin (3.1)
1 Wellbore storage, C
2 Radial, kh and S
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
kh
C
1
S
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
kh
C
1
S
Infinite conductivity fracture (3.2)
1 Linear, x
f
2 Radial, kh and S
T
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
kh, S
1/2
x
f
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
kh, S
1/2
x
f
Finite conductivity fracture (3.3)
1 Bilinear, k
f
w
f
2 Linear, x
f
3 Radial, kh and S
T
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1/2
k
f
w
f
kh, S
T
x
f
1/4
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1/2
k
f
w
f
kh, S
T
x
f
1/4
Partial penetration (3.4)
1 Radial, h
w
and S
w
2 Spherical (mobility ↑), k
V
3 Radial, kh and S
T
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1/2
h
w
, S
w
kh, S
T
k
V
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1/2
h
w
, S
w
kh, S
T
k
V
Chapter 16  Conclusion
 197 
Horizontal well (3.5)
1 Radial vertical, k
V
and S
w
2 Linear (mobility ↓), L
3 Radial, kh and S
T
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1/2
L
k
V
, S
w
kh, S
T
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1/2
L
k
V
, S
w
kh, S
T
Reservoir models
Double porosity, restricted
interporosity flow (4.2)
1 Radial fissures, k
2 Transition (storativity ↑), ω
and λ
3 Radial fissures + matrix, kh
and S
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
kh, S
ω ωω ω
λ λλ λ
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
kh, S
ω ωω ω
λ λλ λ
Double porosity, unrestricted
interporosity flow (4.3)
1 Transition, λ
2 Radial fissures + matrix, kh
and S
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
λ λλ λ
kh, S
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
λ λλ λ
kh, S
Radial composite (6.2)
1 Radial inner, k
1
h and S
w
2 Transition (mobility ↑ or ↓), r
3 Radial outer, k
2
h and S
T
k
1
h > k
2
h; or k
1
h < k
2
h
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
r
k
2
h, S
T
k
1
h, S
w
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
r
k
2
h, S
T
k
1
h, S
w
Linear composite (6.3)
1 Radial inner, k
1
h and S
w
2 Transition (mobility ↑or ↓), L
3 Radial total, (k
1
h+k
2
h)/2 and
S
T
k
1
h > k
2
h; or k
1
h < k
2
h
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
(k
1
+k
2
)h/2,
S
T
k
1
h, S
w
L
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
(k
1
+k
2
)h/2,
S
T
k
1
h, S
w
L
Chapter 16  Conclusion
 198 
Double permeability, same skin
S
1
=S
2
(7.2)
1 No crossflow
2 Transition (storativity ↑), ω,
κ and λ (k
V
)
3 Radial, kh
1
+kh
2
and S
T
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
ω ωω ω, κ κκ κ
kh, S
T
λ λλ λ
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
ω ωω ω, κ κκ κ
kh, S
T
λ λλ λ
Double permeability, partial
penetration S
1
= ∞ ∞∞ ∞ (7.3)
1 Radial, k
2
h
2
and S
2
2 Transition (mobility ↑), λ (k
V
)
3 Radial, kh
1
+kh
2
and S
T
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
λ λλ λ
k
2
h
2
, S
w
kh, S
T
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
λ λλ λ
k
2
h
2
, S
w
kh, S
T
Boundary models
Sealing fault (5.1)
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Transition (mobility ↓), L
3 Hemiradial
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
L
kh, S
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
L
kh, S
Channel (5.2)
Centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L
1
+L
2
Offcentered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Hemiradial, L
1
3 Linear, L
1
+L
2
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1/2
kh, S
L
1
L
1
+L
2
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1/2
kh, S
L
1
L
1
+L
2
Channel closed at one end (5.4)
Centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L
1
+L
2
3 Transition (mobility ↓), L
3
4 Hemilinear
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1/2
kh, S
1/2
L
1
+L
2
L
3
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1/2
kh, S
1/2
L
1
+L
2
L
3
Chapter 16  Conclusion
 199 
Intersecting faults (5.3)
Centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L
1
+L
2
3 Fraction of radial, θ
Offcentered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Hemiradial, L
1
3 Linear, L
1
+L
2
4 Fraction of radial, θ
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
L
1
+L
2
1/2
kh, S
L
1
θ θθ θ
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
L
1
+L
2
1/2
kh, S
L
1
θ θθ θ
Closed system centered (5.4)
Drawdown :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Pseudo steady state, A
Buildup :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Average pressure, p and A
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1
kh, S
A
P

∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1
kh, S
A
P

Closed channel (5.4)
Drawdown :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L
1
+L
2
3 Pseudo steady state, A
Buildup :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L
1
+L
2
3 Average pressure, p and A
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1/2
kh, S
L
1
+L
2
1
P

A
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1/2
kh, S
L
1
+L
2
1
P

A
Closed with intersecting faults (5.4)
Drawdown :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L
1
+L
2
3 Fraction of radial, θ
4 Pseudo steady state, A
Buildup :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L
1
+L
2
3 Fraction of radial, θ
4 Average pressure, p and A
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1/2
kh, S
L
1
+L
2
A θ θθ θ
P

∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1/2
kh, S
L
1
+L
2
A θ θθ θ
P

Constant pressure boundaries (5.5)
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Transition (mobility ↑), L
One boundary
Multiple boundaries
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1
kh, S
L
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
∆t
∆
p
'
&
∆
p
1
kh, S
L
Chapter 16  Conclusion
 200 
161.4 Consistency check with the test history simulation
In the following examples, the initial pressure is 5000 psi. The interpretation
model, defined from loglog analysis of the short shutin period, may be
inconsistent when applied to the complete rate history.
Increase of derivative response after the last buildup point (second sealing
boundary)
The loglog derivative plot suggests the presence of a sealing fault.
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
Figure 165 Loglog plot of the final buildup.
Homogeneous reservoir with a sealing fault.
The sealing fault model is not applicable on the extended production history.
p
i
=4914 psia
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
4400
4800
5000
4600
0 200 400 800 1000 1200 600
p
i
=4914 psia
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
4400
4800
5000
4600
4400
4800
5000
4600
0 200 400 800 1000 1200 600 0 200 400 800 1000 1200 600
Figure 166 Test history simulation. Linear scale.
Homogeneous reservoir with a sealing fault.
When a second sealing fault, parallel to the first, is introduced farther away in the
reservoir, the extended production history match is correct.
Chapter 16  Conclusion
 201 
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
Figure 167 Loglog plot of the final buildup.
Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
4400
4800
5000
4600
0 200 400 800 1000 1200 600
p
i
=5000 psia
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
4400
4800
5000
4600
0 200 400 800 1000 1200 600
p
i
=5000 psia
Figure 168 Test history simulation. Linear scale.
Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.
Decrease of derivative response after the last buildup point (Layered semi
infinite reservoir)
The loglog derivative plot suggests the presence of two parallel sealing faults.
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
Figure 169 Loglog plot of the final buildup.
Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.
With the parallel sealing faults model, the initial pressure before the production
history is too high.
Chapter 16  Conclusion
 202 
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
0 200 400 800 1000 600
3000
4000
5000
3500
4500
p
i
=5443 psia
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
0 200 400 800 1000 600 0 200 400 800 1000 600
3000
4000
5000
3500
4500
3000
4000
5000
3500
4500
p
i
=5443 psia
Figure 1610 Test history simulation. Linear scale.
Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.
The reservoir is a two layer no crossflow, one layer is closed. At late time, the
derivative stabilizes to describe the radial flow regime in the infinite layer. The
hump at intermediate time corresponds to the storage of the limited zone.
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
∆
p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
∆
p
’
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
Figure 1611 Loglog plot of the final buildup.
Two layers reservoir, one infinite and one closed layer.
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
0 200 400 800 1000 600
3000
4000
5000
3500
4500
p
i
=5000 psia
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,
q
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
0 200 400 800 1000 600 0 200 400 800 1000 600
3000
4000
5000
3500
4500
3000
4000
5000
3500
4500
p
i
=5000 psia
Figure 1612 Test history simulation. Linear scale.
Two layers reservoir, one infinite and one closed layer.
Chapter 16  Conclusion
 203 
162 Reporting and presentation of results
162.1 Objectives
A well test interpretation report should present not only the different matches, but
also all information necessary to redo the analysis. The analysis work may be
checked several years after completion. When all rates and parameters used to
generate the interpretation solution are not clearly defined, it is may be impossible
to reevaluate the test.
162.2 Example of interpretation report contents
Summary conclusion
• Main results,
• Hypothesis used (if any),
• Problems and inconsistencies not solved (if any).
Test data
• Rate history (sequence of events for the test),
• Static parameters,
• Comparison of the gauge responses and choice of the pressure gauge used for
analysis (when several gauges have been used).
Analysis procedure
• Diagnosis (comparison of different periods, discussion of the pressure
response).
• Choice of the interpretation model(s) and justification.
• Discussion of the results, sensitivity to the hypothesis etc.
Match with the different models
• Loglog,
• Semilog,
• Test simulation.
 204 
 205 
Appendix  ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS
A1 Darcy's law
Darcy's law expresses the rate through a sample of porous medium as a function of
the pressure drop between the two ends of the sample.
Figure A1 Rate through a sample.
A
q
dp / dl
dl
dp k
V
A
q
µ
= = (A1)
With: q : volumetric rate
A : cross sectional area of the sample
V : flow velocity
k : permeability of the porous medium
µ : viscosity of the fluid
The flow velocity V is proportional to the conductivity k/µ and to the pressure
gradient dp/dl.
A2 Steady state radial flow of an incompressible fluid
q
rw
re
q
Figure A2 Radial flow.
In case of radial flow, the Darcy's law is expressed, in the SI system of units:
dr
dp k
V
rh
q
µ π
= =
2
(A2)
For steady state flow condition, the pressure difference between the external and
the internal cylinders is:
w
e
w e
r
r
kh
q
p p ln
2π
µ
= − (A3)
This relationship is used in the definition of the dimensionless pressure
Equation 23.
Appendix  Analytical solutions
 206 
A3 Diffusivity equation
A3.1 Hypotheses
• Constant properties: k, µ, φ and the system compressibility.
• Pressure gradients are low.
• The formation is not compressible and saturated with fluid.
A3.2 Darcy's law
p grad
k
V
→ →
=
µ
(A4)
A3.3 Principle of conservation of mass (continuity equation)
The difference between the mass flow rate in, and the mass flow rate out the
element, defines the amount of mass change in the element during the time dt.
t
V div
∂
ρ ∂
φ ρ − =
→
(A5)
The density
v
m
= ρ is used.
A3.4 Equation of state of a constant compressibility fluid
The compressibility, defined as the relative change of fluid volume, is expressed
with the density ρ:
p p
v
v
c
∂
ρ ∂
ρ ∂
∂ 1 1
= − = (A6)
With a constant compressibility, the fluid equation of state is:
( )
0
0
p p c
e
t
−
= ρ ρ (A7)
For a liquid flow in a porous medium, the total system compressibility c
t
is
attributed to an equivalent fluid:
f w w o o t
c S c S c c + + = (13)
Appendix  Analytical solutions
 207 
A3.5 Diffusivity equation
Combining Equations 4 and 5, then 7:
t
p
c
t
p grad
k
div
t
∂
∂
ρ φ
∂
ρ ∂
φ
µ
ρ = =


.

\

→
(A8)
With radial coordinates,
t
p
k
c
r r
p
r
r
p
r
p
r
r r
r
p
r
r
t
∂
∂ µ ρ φ
∂
ρ ∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
ρ
∂
∂
ρ
∂
∂
∂
ρ ∂
=


.

\

+ + =


.

\

2
2
1 1
(A9)
And with Equation 7,
r
p
c
r
t
∂
∂
ρ
∂
ρ ∂
= (A10)
( )
t
p
k
c
r
p
c r
r
p
r
p
r
r
t
t
∂
∂ µ ρ φ
∂
∂
ρ
∂
∂
ρ
∂
∂
ρ =


.

\

+ +
2
2
2
1
(A11)
With the condition of lowpressure gradients, the approximation ( ) 0
2
≅
r
p
∂
∂
is
used to linearize.
t
p
k
c
p
r
r
p
r
r
p grad div
t
∂
∂ φµ
∂
∂
∂
∂
= ∇ =


.

\

= 
.

\

→
2
1
(A12)
The ratio
t
c
k
φµ
is called hydraulic diffusivity.
A3.6 Diffusivity equation in dimensionless terms
(customary oil field system of units and metric system of units)
p
qB
kh
p
D
∆ =
µ 2 . 141
(field units)
p
qB
kh
p
D
∆ =
µ 66 . 18
(metric units) (23)
Appendix  Analytical solutions
 208 
t
r c
k
t
w t
D
∆ =
2
000264 . 0
φµ
(field units)
t
r c
k
t
w t
D
∆ =
2
000356 . 0
φµ
(metric units) (24)
w
D
r
r
r = (67)
The diffusivity equation is :
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
t
p
p
r
r
p
r
r ∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
= ∇ =


.

\

2
1
(A13)
A4 The "line source" solution
• Initial condition : the reservoir is at initial pressure.
p
D
= 0 at t
D
< 0
• Well condition : the rate is constant, the well is a "line source".
1
0
− =


.

\

→
D
D
D
r
p
r
Lim
r
∂
∂
(A14)
• Outer condition : the reservoir is infinite.
0 =
∞ →
D
p
Lim
r
(A15)
The solution is called Exponential Integral.
( )


.

\

− − =
D
D
D D D
t
r
r t p
4
Ei
2
1
,
2
(81)
( )
∫
∞ −
− = −
x
u
du
u
e
x Ei (A16)
 209 
NOMENCLATURE
Customary Units and Metric System of Units
Quantity and customary unit (Conversion to Metric unit)
A = Surface, sq ft (
*
9.290 304
*
10
2
= m
2
)
B = Formation volume factor, RB/STB (m
3
/m
3
)
c
g
= Gas compressibility, psi
1
(
*
1.450 377
*
10
1
= Bars
1
)
c
o
= Oil compressibility, psi
1
(
*
1.450 377
*
10
1
= Bars
1
)
c
t
= Total compressibility, psi
1
(
*
1.450 377
*
10
1
= Bars
1
)
c
t
−
= Total compressibility at the average pressure of the test, psi
1
(
*
1.450 377
*
10
1
= Bars
1
)
C = Wellbore storage coefficient, Bbl/psi (
*
2.305 916 = m
3
/Bars)
C
A
= Shape factor
D = Turbulent flow coefficient
e = Exponential (2.7182 . . .)
E
i
= Exponential integral
F = Storativity ratio (inner zone / outer zone)
k = Permeability, mD (mD)
k
d
= Matrix skin permeability, mD (mD)
k
f
= Fracture or fissures permeability, mD (mD)
k
H
= Horizontal permeability, mD (mD)
k
m
= Matrix blocks permeability, mD (mD)
k
s
= Spherical permeability, mD (mD)
k
V
= Vertical permeability, mD (mD)
h = Thickness, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
1
= m)
h
d
= Matrix skin thickness, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
1
= m)
h
w
= Perforated thickness, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
1
= m)
L = Distance, or half length of an horizontal well, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
1
= m)
m = Straight line slope (semilog or other)
m(p) = Pseudo pressure or gas potential, psia
2
/cp (
*
4.753767
*
10
3
= Bars
2
/cp)
m* = Slope of the pseudo steady state straight line, psi/hr (
*
6.894757
*
10
2
= Bars/hr)
M = Mobility ratio (inner zone / outer zone)
n = Number of fissure plane directions, or turbulent flow coefficient
p = Pressure, psi (
*
6.894757
*
10
2
= Bars)
p
f
= Fissure pressure, psi (
*
6.894757
*
10
2
= Bars)
PI = Productivity index, Bbl/D/psi (
*
2.305 916 = m
3
/D/Bars)
p
i
= Initial pressure, psi (
*
6.894757
*
10
2
= Bars)
PM = Pressure match, psi
1
(
*
1.450 377
*
10
1
= Bars
1
)
p
m
= Matrix blocks pressure, psi (
*
6.894757
*
10
2
= Bars)
p
sc
= Standard absolute pressure, 14.7 psia (1 Bara)
p
w
= Well pressure, psi (
*
6.894757
*
10
2
= Bars)
p* = Extrapolated pressure, psi (
*
6.894757
*
10
2
= Bars)
p
−
= Reservoir average pressure, or during the test, psi (
*
6.894757
*
10
2
= Bars)
q = Flow rate, bbl/D (
*
1.589 873
*
10
1
= m
3
/D)
or Mscf/D (= 10
3
scft/D) (
*
2.831 685
*
10
1
= m
3
/D)
Nomenclature  Systems of units
 210 
r = Radius, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
1
= m)
r
f
= Fracture radius in a horizontal well, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
1
= m)
r
i
= Radius of investigation or influence of the fissures, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
1
= m)
r
m
= Matrix blocks size, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
1
= m)
R
s
= Dissolved Gas Oil ratio, cf/bbl (
*
1.7810
*
10
1
= m
3
/m
3
)
r
w
= Wellbore radius, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
1
= m)
S = Skin coefficient, or saturation
S
m
= Matrix skin
S
pp
= Geometrical skin of partial penetration
S
T
= Total skin
S
w
= Skin over the perforated thickness
t = Time, hr (hr)
t
p
= Horner production time, hr (hr)
T = Temperature absolute, °R (
*
5/9 = °K)
TM = Time match, hr
1
(hr
1
)
T
sc
= Standard absolute temperature, 520°R (15°C = 288.15°K)
v = Volume, cu ft (
*
2.831 685
*
10
2
= m
3
)
V = Volume ratio (fissures or matrix), or flow velocity
x
f
= Half fracture length, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
1
= m)
w
a
= Width of altered permeability region near a conductive fault, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
1
= m)
w
f
= Fracture width, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
1
= m)
z
w
= Distance to the lower reservoir limit, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
1
= m)
Z = Real gas deviation factor
Z
−
= Real gas deviation factor at the average pressure of the test
α = Geometric coefficient in λ , or transmissibility ratio of a semipermeable fault
β = Transition curve of a double porosity transient interporosity flow
δ = Constant of a β curve
∆ = Difference
γ = Euler's constant (1.78 . . . )
φ = Porosity, fraction
φ
f
= Fissures porosity, fraction
φ
m
= Matrix blocks porosity, fraction
κ = Mobility ratio
λ = Interporosity (or layer) flow coefficient
λ
eff
= Effective interporosity flow coefficient
µ = Viscosity, cp (cp)
µ
−
= Viscosity at the average pressure of the test, cp (cp)
θ = Angle between two intersecting faults
θ
w
= Well location between two intersecting faults
σ = Geometrical coefficient of the location of a well in a channel
ω = Storativity ratio
ρ = Density, lb/cu ft (
*
1.601 646
*
10
1
= kg/m
3
)
Nomenclature  Systems of units
 211 
Subscripts
a = Apparent or altered permeability region near a conductive fault
AOF = Absolute Open Flow Potential
BLF = Bilinear flow (slope m)
BU = Buildup
ch = Channel (slope m)
cp = Constant pressure (slope m)
d = Damage (matrix skin)
D = Dimensionless
e = Equivalent, External
eff = Effective
f = Fracture, fissures, fault or formation
G = Geometrical
H = Horizontal
hch = Channel closed at one end (slope m)
i = Initial or investigation
int = Intersection of straight line
L = Layer
LF = Linear flow (slope m)
m = Matrix
max = Maximum permeability direction
min = Minimum permeability direction
o = Oil
p = Production (time)
pp = Partial penetration
ps = Pseudo (time)
PSS = Pseudo steady state
q = Rate decline (slope m)
r = Ratio, or relative
RC = RadialComposite
RF = Radial flow (slope m)
RLF = Radiallinear flow (slope m)
S = Skin, or spherical
sc = Standard conditions
SLF = Semi linear flow (slope m)
SPH = Spherical flow (slope m)
t, T = Total
V = Vertical
w = Well, or water
wf = Flowing well
ws = Shutin well
WBS = Wellbore storage regime (slope m)
z = Partial penetration
1 = Inner zone, or high permeability layer(s)
2 = Outer zone, or low permeability layer(s)
 212 
REFERENCES
Chapter 1
11. Matthews, C. S. and Russell, D.G.: "Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in
Wells", Monograph Series no 1, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME,
Dallas (1967).
12. Earlougher, R. C., Jr.: "Advances in Well Test Analysis", Monograph Series
no 5, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1977).
13. Lee, J.: "Well Testing", Textbook Series, Vol. 1, Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1982).
14. Bourdarot, G.: " Well Testing : Interpretation Methods," Editions Technip,
Institut Français du Pétrole.
15. van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans., AIME ( 1949) 186,
305324.
16. van Everdingen, A. F.: "The Skin Effect and its Influence on the Productive
Capacity of a Well." Trans., AIME ( 1953) 198, 171176.
17. Miller, C. C., Dyes, A. B., and Hutchinson, C. A.: "Estimation of
Permeability and Reservoir Pressure from BottomHole Pressure Buildup
Characteristics," Trans., AIME ( 1950) 189, 91104.
18. Russell, D. G. and Truitt, N. E.:"Transient Pressure Behavior in Vertically
Fractured Reservoirs,"J. Pet. Tech. ( Oct., 1964) 11591170.
19. Clark, K. K.:"Transient Pressure Testing of Fractured Water Injection
Wells," J. Pet. Tech. ( June, 1968) 1639643; Trans., AIME ( 1968) 243.
110. Gringarten, A. C., Ramey, H. J., Jr. and Raghavan, R.: "Applied Pressure
Analysis for Fractured Wells,"J. Pet. Tech. ( July, 1975) 887892.
111. Gringarten, A. C., Ramey, H. J., Jr. and Raghavan, R.: "UnsteadyState
Pressure Distribution Created by a Well with a Single Infinite Conductivity
Fracture," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. ( Aug., 1974) 347360.
112. CincoLey, H., SamaniegoV, F. and Dominguez, N.: "Transient Pressure
Behavior for a Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture," Soc. Pet.
Eng. J. ( Aug., 1978) 253264.
113. Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R. D. and Pollock, C. B.: "Evaluation and
Performance Prediction of LowPermeability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive
Hydraulic Fracturing,"J. Pet. Tech. ( March, 1979) 362372.
References
 213 
114. CincoLey, H. and SamaniegoV, F:"Transient Pressure Analysis for
Fractured Wells,"J. Pet. Tech.( Sept., 1981) 17491766.
115. Brons, F. and Marting, V. E.: "The Effect of Restricted FluidEntry on Well
Productivity,"J. Pet. Tech. ( Feb., 1961) 172174; Trans., AIME ( 1961) 222.
116. Moran, J. H. and Finklea, E. E.:"Theoretical Analysis of Pressure
Phenomena Associated with the Wireline Formation Tester," J. Pet. Tech.(
Aug., 1962) 899908. Trans., AIME ( 1962), 225.
117. Culham, W. E.:"Pressure Buildup Equations for SphericalFlow Problems,"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. ( Dec., 1974) 545555.
118. Warren , J. E. and Root, P. J.:"Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept., 1963) 245; Trans., AIME ( 1963) 228.
119. Brons, F. and Miller, W. C.:"A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure
Readings," J. Pet. Tech.( Aug., 1961) 803805.
120. Jones, P.: "Reservoir Limit Tests," Oil and Gas J. ( June 18, 1956) 54, n
o
59,
184.
Chapter 2
21. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "ShortTime Well Test Data Interpretation in The
Presence of Skin Effect and Wellbore Storage," J. Pet. Tech. ( Jan., 1970) 97.
22. Agarwal, R.G., AlHussainy, R. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "An Investigation of
Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow. I: Analytical
Treatment," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. ( Sept., 1970) 279.
23. McKinley, R. M.: "Wellbore Transmissibility from Afterflow Dominated
Pressure Buildup Data," J. Pet. Tech. ( July, 1971) 863.
24. Earlougher, R. C., Jr., Kersh, K. M. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.:"Wellbore Effects
in Injection well Testing," J. Pet. Tech.( Nov., 1973) 12441250.
25. Gringarten, A. C., Bourdet D. P., Landel, P. A. and Kniazeff, V. J.: "A
Comparison between Different Skin and Wellbore Storage TypeCurves for
EarlyTime Transient Analysis," paper SPE 8205, presented at the 54th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 2326,
1979.
26. Ramey, H.J., Jr. and Cobb, W.M.:"A General Pressure Buildup Theory for
a Well in a Closed Drainage Area," J. Pet. Tech.( Dec., 1971) 14931505;
Trans., AIME ( 1971), 252.
27. Horner, D. R.: "Pressure Buildups in Wells", Proc., Third World Pet.
Cong., E. J. Brill, Leiden (1951) II, 503521. Also, Reprint Series, No. 9 —
References
 214 
Pressure Analysis Methods, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (
1967) 2543.
28. Agarwal, R. G.:"A New Method to Account for Production Time Effects
When Drawdown Type Curves Are Used to Analyze Buildup and Other Test
Data," paper SPE 9289, presented at the 55th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of SPE, Dallas, Tx., Sept. 2124, 1980.
29. Raghavan, R.:"The Effect of Producing Time on Type Curve Analysis," J.
Pet. Tech.( June, 1980) 10531064.
210. Bourdet, D. Ayoub, J. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "Use of Pressure Derivative in
WellTest Interpretation", SPEFE (June 1989) 293302
211. Balsingame, T.A., Johnston, J.L. and Lee, W.;J.: "TypeCurves Analysis
Using the Pressure Integral Method," paper SPE 18799 presented at the 1989
SPE California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, April 57.
212. Balsingame, T.A., Johnston, J.L. Rushing, J.A., Thrasher, T.S. Lee, W.;J.
and Raghavan, R. : " Pressure Integral TypeCurves AnalysisII: Applications
and Field Cases," paper SPE 20535 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 2326.
213. Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "A New Approach for Constructing
Derivative Type Curves for Well Test Analysis," SPEFE (March 1988) 197
206.
214. Duong, A.N.: "A New Set of Type Curves for Well Test Interpretation
Using the Pressure Derivative Ratio," paper SPE 16812 presented at the 1987
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 2730.
Chapter 3
31. Bourdet, D. P., Whittle, T. M., Douglas, A. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "A New
Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test Analysis," World Oil ( May, 1983) 95
106.
32. Tiab, D. and Puthigai, S. K.:”PressureDerivative Type Curves for
Vertically Fractured Wells,” SPEFE ( March, 1988) 156158.
33. Alagoa, A., Bourdet, D. and Ayoub, J.A.:”How to Simplify The Analysis of
Fractured Well Tests,” World Oil ( Oct. 1985)
34. Wong, D.W., Harrington, A.G. and CincoLey, H.:”Application of the
PressureDerivative Function in the PressureTransient Testing of Fractured
Wells,"SPEFE.( Oct., 1985) 470480.
35. Gringarten, A. C.and Ramey, H. J. Jr.: "An Approximate Infinite
Conductivity Solution for a Partially Penetrating LineSource Well",
Soc.Pet.Eng. J. (Apr.1975) 347360.
References
 215 
36. Kuchuk, F.J. and Kirwan, P.A.: "New Skin and Wellbore Storage Type
Curves for Partially Penetrated Wells". SPEFE, Dec. 1987, 546554.
37. Papatzacos, P. : "Approximate PartialPenetration Pseudoskin for Infinite
Conductivity Wells", SPER.E. (May 1987) 227234.
38. Daviau, F., Mouronval, G., Bourdarot, G and Curutchet P.: "Pressure
Analysis for Horizontal Wells",. paper S.P.E. 14251, presented at the SPE 60th
Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 2225, 1985.
39. Clonts, M. D. and Ramey, H. J. Jr.: "Pressure Transient Analysis for Wells
with Horizontal Drainholes",. paper S.P.E. 15116, presented at the 56th
California Regional Meeting, Oakland, CA., April 24, 1986.
310. Goode, P. A. and Thambynayagam, R. K. M.: "Pressure Drawdown and
Buildup Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Media", SPEFE (Dec.
1987) 683697.
311. Kuchuk, F. J., Goode, P.A., Wilkinson, D.J. and Thambynayagam, R. K. M.:
"PressureTransient Behavior of Horizontal Wells With and Without Gas Cap
or Aquifer", SPEFE (March 1991) 8694.
312. Kuchuk, F.: "Well Testing and Interpretation for Horizontal Wells", JPT
(Jan. 1995) 3641.
313. Ozkan, E., Sarica, C., Haciislamoglu, M. and Raghavan, R.: "Effect of
Conductivity on Horizontal Well Pressure Behavior", SPE Advanced
Technology Series, Vol. 3, March 1995, 8594.
314. Ozkan , E. and Raghavan, R.: "Estimation of Formation Damage in
Horizontal Wells", paper S.P.E. 37511, presented at the 1997 Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 911 March 1997.
315. Yildiz, T. and Ozkan, E.: "Transient Pressure Behavior of Selectively
Completed Horizontal Wells", paper S.P.E. 28388, presented at the SPE 69th
Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 2528, 1994.
316. Larsen, L. and Hegre, T.M.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Multifractured
Horizontal Wells", paper S.P.E. 28389, presented at the SPE 69th Annual Fall
Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 2528, 1994.
317. Larsen, L.: "Productivity Computations for Multilateral, Branched and
Other Generalized and Extended Well Concepts", paper S.P.E. 36754,
presented at the SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Denvers, Colorado, Oct. 69, 1996.
318. Kuchuk, F.J. and Habashy, T.: "Pressure Bahavior of Horizontal Wells in
Multilayer Reservoirs With Crossflow", SPEFE (March 1996) 5564.
319. Brigham, W. E. :"Discussion of Productivity of a Horizontal Well", SPERE
(May. 1990) 254255.
References
 216 
Chapter 4
41. Barenblatt , G. E., Zheltov, I.P. and Kochina, I.N.: "Basic Concepts in the
Theory of Homogeneous Liquids in Fissured Rocks" J. Appl.. Math.
Mech..(USSR) 24 (5) (1960)12861303).
42. Warren , J. E. and Root, P. J.:"Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept., 1963) 245255; Trans., AIME, 228.
43. Odeh, A.S.: "UnsteadyState Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Mar., 1965) 6064; Trans., AIME, 234.
44. Kazemi, H.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
with Uniform Fracture Distribution" Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec., 1969) 451462;
Trans., AIME, 246.
45. de Swaan, O. A.: "Analytic Solutions for Determining Naturally Fractured
Reservoir Properties by Well Testing", Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June, 1976) 117122;
Trans., AIME, 261.
46. Najurieta, H.L.: "A Theory for Pressure Transient Analysis in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs" J. Pet. Tech. (July 1980), 1241.
47. Streltsova, T.D.: "Well Pressure Behavior of a Naturally Fractured
Reservoir", Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct., 1983) 769.
48. Moench, A. F.: "DoublePorosity Models for a Fissured Groundwater
Reservoir With Fracture Skin", Water Resources Res., Vol. 20, NO. 7 (July
1984) 831846.
49. Mavor, M. J. and Cinco, H.: "Transient Pressure Behavior of Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 7977, presented at the 1979 California
Regional Meeting of the SPE of AIME, Ventura, California, April 1820, 1979.
410. Bourdet, D. and Gringarten, A. C.: "Determination of Fissure Volume and
Block Size in Fractured Reservoirs by TypeCurve Analysis", paper S.P.E.
9293, presented at the SPEAIME 55th Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX..,
Sept. 2124, 1980.
411. Bourdet, D. Ayoub, J. A, Whittle, T. M., Pirard, Y. M. and Kniazeff V.:
"Interpreting Well Test in Fractured Reservoirs", World Oil (Oct., 1983) 7787.
412. Gringarten, A. C.: "Interpretation of Tests in Fissured and Multilayered
Reservoirs with DoublePorosity Behavior: Theory and Practice", J. Pet. Tech.
(April 1984), 549564.
413. Bourdet, D. Ayoub, J. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "Use of Pressure Derivative in
WellTest Interpretation", SPEFE (June 1989) 293302.
414. Bourdet, D., Alagoa A., Ayoub J. A. and, Pirard, Y. M. : "New Type Curves
Aid Analysis of Fissured Zone Well Tests", World Oil (April, 1984) 111124.
References
 217 
415. CincoLey, H., Samaniego, F. and Kuchuk, F.: "The Pressure Transient
Behavior for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Multiple Block Size", paper
SPE 14168, presented at the 60th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept.
2225, 1985.
416. Abdassah, D. and Ershaghi, I.: "TriplePorosity Systems for Representing
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs", SPEFE, April 1986, 113127.
417. Belani, A.K. and Yazdi, Y.J.: "Estimation of Matrix Block Size Distribution
in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 18171, presented at the 63rd
Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct.; 25, 1988.
418. Stewart, G. and Ascharsobbi, F.: "Well Test Interpretation for Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 18173, presented at the 63rd Annual Fall
Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct.; 25, 1988.
Chapter 5
51. Clark, D. G. and Van GolfRacht, T. D.: "Pressure Derivative Approach to
Transient Test Analysis: A HighPermeability North Sea Reservoir Example,"
J. Pet. Tech. ( Nov., 1985) 20232039.
52. Wong, D.W., Mothersele, C.D., Harrington, A.G. and CincoLey, H.:
"Pressure Transient Analysis in Finite Linear Reservoirs Using Derivative and
Conventional Techniques: Field Examples", paper S.P.E. 15421, presented at
the 61st Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, La., Oct. 58, 1986.
53. Larsen, L., and Hovdan, M.: "Analysis of Well Test Data from Linear
Reservoirs by Conventional Methods", paper SPE 16777, presented at the 62d
Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Tex., Sept. 2730, 1987.
54. Tiab, D. and Kumar, A.:”Detection and Location of Two Parallel Sealing
Faults around a Well,” J. Pet. Tech. (Oct., 1980), 17011708.
55. van Poollen, H. K.:"Drawdown Curves give Angle between Intersecting
Faults", The Oil and Gas J. (Dec.20, 1965), 7175.
56. Prasad, Raj K.: "Pressure Transient Analysis in the Presence of Two
Intersecting Boundaries" J. Pet. Tech. ( Jan., 1975) 8996.
57. Tiab, D. and Crichlow, H.B..:”Pressure Analysis of MultipleSealingFault
Systems and Bounded Reservoirs by Type Curve Matching,” SPEJ ( Dec.,
1979) 378392.
58. Brons F. and Miller, W.C.: "A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure
Readings", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1961), 803805; Trans. AIME, 222.
59. Dietz D.N.: "Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure From BuildUp
Surveys", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1965), 955959
References
 218 
510. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.:"Estimating Drainage Shapes From Reservoir Limit
Tests", J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1971), 12661268; Trans. AIME, 251
511. Matthews, C.S., Brons, F. and Hazebroek, P.: "A Method for Determination
of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir", Trans., AIME (1954) 201, 182
191.
512. Yaxley, L.M.: "The Effect of a Partially Communicating Fault on Transient
Pressure Behavior," paper S.P.E. 14311, presented at the 60th Annual Fall
Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 2225, 1985.
513. Cinco, L.H., Samaniego, V.F. and Dominguez, A.N.: "UnsteadyState Flow
Behavior for a Well Near a Natural Fracture", paper S.P.E. 6019, presented at
the 51st Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA., Oct. 36, 1976.
514. Abbaszadeh, M.D. and CincoLey, H. :"Pressure Transient Behavior in a
Reservoir With a FiniteConductivity Fault", SPEFE, (March 1995) 2632.
Chapter 6
61. Carter R.D.: "Pressure Behavior of a Limited Circular Composite
Reservoir," Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Dec. 1966, 328334; Trans., AIME, 237.
62. Satman, A.: "An Analytical Study of Transient Flow in Systems With Radial
Discontinuities," paper S.P.E. 9399, presented at the 55th Annual Fall Meeting,
Dallas, Tex., Sept. 2124, 1980
63. Olarewaju, J.S. and Lee, W.J.: "A Comprehensive Application of a
Composite Reservoir Model to PressureTransient Analysis", SPERE, Aug.
1989, 325231.
64. Abbaszadeh, M. and Kamal, M.M. :"PressureTransient Testing of Water
Injection Wells", SPERE, Feb. 1989, 115124.
65. Ambastha, A.K., McLeroy, P.G. and Sageev, A.: " Effects of a Partially
Communicating Fault in a Composite Reservoir on Transient Pressure Testing,"
paper S.P.E. 16764, presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Tex.,
Sept. 2730, 1987.
66. Kuchuk, F.J. and Habashy, T.M. :"Pressure Behavior of Laterally
Composite Reservoir", SPEFE, (March 1997) 47564.
67. Levitan, M.M. and Crawford, G.E. : "General Heterogeneous Radial and
Linear Models for Well Test Analysis," paper S.P.E. 30554, presented at the
70th Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX, Oct. 2225, 1995.
68. Oliver, D.S.: "The Averaging Process in Permeability Estimation From
WellTest Data," SPEFE, (Sept. 1990) 319324.
References
 219 
Chapter 7
71. Tariq, S. M. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Drawdown Behavior of a Well with
Storage and Skin Effect Communicating with Layers of Different Radii and
Other Characteristics," paper S.P.E. 7453, presented at the 53rd Annual Fall
Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct. 13, 1978.
72. Gao, CT.: "SinglePhase Fluid Flow in a Stratified Porous Medium With
Crossflow, SPEJ, Feb. 1984, 97106.
73. Wijesinghe, A.M. and Culham, W.E.: "SingleWell Pressure Testing
Solutions for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Arbitrary Fracture
Connectivity", paper S.P.E. 13055, presented at the 59th Annual Fall Meeting,
Houston, Tex., Sept. 1619, 1984.
74. Bourdet, D.: "Pressure Behavior of Layered Reservoirs with Crossflow",
paper S.P.E. 13628, presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, CA, March. 2729, 1985.
75. Prijambodo, R., Raghavan, R. and Reynolds, A.C.: "Well Test Analysis for
Wells Producing Layered Reservoirs With Crossflow", SPEJ, June 1985, 380
396.
76. EhligEconomides, C.A. and Joseph, J.A. : "A New Test for Determination
of Individual Layer Properties in a Multilayered Reservoir", paper S.P.E.
14167, presented at the 60th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 2225,
1985.
77. Larsen, L.: "Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to
Analyze PressureTransient Data From Layered Reservoirs", paper S.P.E.
18122, presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX, Oct. 25,
1988.
78. Larsen, L. : "Boundary Effects in PressureTransient Data From Layered
Reservoirs", paper S.P.E. 19797, presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting,
San Antonio, TX, Oct. 811, 1989.
79. Park, H. and Horne, R.N.: "Well Test Analysis of a Multilayered Reservoir
With Crossflow", paper S.P.E. 19800, presented at the 64th Annual Fall
Meeting, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 811, 1989.
710. Chen, HY, Poston, S.W. and Raghavan, R. : "The Well Response in a
Naturally Fractured Reservoir: Arbitrary Fracture Connectivity and Unsteady
Fluid Transfer", paper S.P.E. 20566, presented at the 65th Annual Fall Meeting,
New Orleans, LA, Sept. 2326, 1990.
711. Liu, Cq. and Wang, XD.: "Transient 2D Flow in Layered Reservoirs With
Crossflow", SPEFE, Dec. 1993, 287291.
References
 220 
712. Larsen, L.: "Experiences With Combined Analyses of PLT and Pressure
Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs", paper SPE 27973 presented at
University of Tulsa Centennial Symposium, Tulsa, OK, Aug. 2931, 1994.
713. Boutaud de la Combe, J.L., Deboaisne, R.M. and Thibeau, S.:
"Heterogeneous Formation: Assessment of Vertical Permeability Through
Pressure Transient Analysis  Field Example", paper SPE 36530, presented at
the 1996 Annual Fall Meeting, Denvers, CO, Oct. 69, 1996.
714. Larsen L.: "Wells Producing Commingled Zones with Unequal Initial
Pressures and Reservoir Properties", paper SPE 10325, presented at the 56th
Annual Fall Meeting, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 57, 1981.
715. Agarwal, B., Chen, HY. and Raghavan, R.: "Buildup Behaviors in
Commingled Reservoirs Systems With Unequal Initial Pressure Distributions:
Interpretation", paper SPE 24680, presented at the 67th Annual Fall Meeting,
Washington, DC, Oct. 47, 1992.
716. Aly, A., Chen, H.Y. and Lee, W.J.: "A New Technique for Analysis of
Wellbore Pressure From MultiLayered Reservoirs With Unequal Initial
Pressures To Determine Individual Layer Properties", paper SPE 29176,
presented at the Eastern Regional Conference, Charleston, WV, Nov. 810,
1994.
717. Gao, C., Jones, J.R., Raghavan, R. and Lee, W.J.: "Responses of
Commingled Systems With Mixed Inner and Outer Boundary Conditions Using
Derivatives," SPEFE (Dec. 94) 264271.
718. Chen, HY., Raghavan, R. and Poston, S.W.: "Average Reservoir Pressure
Estimation of a Layered Commingled Reservoir," paper SPE 26460 presented
at the 68th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct. 36, 1993.
Chapter 8
81. Theis, C.V.: "The Relation Between the Lowering of the Piezometric
Surface and the Rate and Duration of Discharge of a Well Using GroundWater
Storage," Trans., AGU (1935), 519524.
82. Tiab, D. and Kumar, A.:”Application of the p’
D
Function to Interference
Analysis,” J. Pet. Tech. (Aug., 1980), 14651470.
83. Jargon, J.R.:" Effect of Wellbore storage and Wellbore Damage at the
Active Well on Interference Test Analysis," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1976) 851858.
84. Ogbe, D.O. and Brigham, W.E.:" A Model for Interference Testing with
Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects at Both Wells," paper S.P.E. 13253,
presented at the 59th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX, Sept. 1619, 1984.
85. Papadopulos, I.S.: "Nonsteady Flow to a Well in an Infinite Anisotropic
Aquifer," Proc. 1965 Dubrovnik Symposium on Hydrology of Fractured Rocks
References
 221 
86. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Interference Analysis for Anisotropic FormationsA Case
History," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1975) 129098; Trans., AIME, 259.
87. Deruyck, B.G., Bourdet, D.P., DaPrat G. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Interpretation
of Interference Tests in Reservoirs with Double Porosity Behavior  Theory and
Field Examples", paper S.P.E. 11025, presented at the 57th Annual Fall
Meeting, New Orleans, La., Sept. 2225, 1982.
88. Ma, Q. and Tiab, D: "Interference Test Analysis in Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs," paper SPE 29514, presented at the SPE Production Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, April 24, 1995.
89. Satman, A. et Al.: "An Analytical Study of Interference in Composite
Reservoirs," Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Apr. 1985, 281290.
810. Chu, L. and Grader, A.S.: "Transient Pressure Analysis of Three Wells in a
ThreeComposite Reservoir," paper SPE 22716, presented at the 66th Annual
Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX., Oct. 69, 1991.
811. Chu, W.C. and Raghavan, R.: "The Effect of Noncommunicating Layers on
Interference Test Data," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1981) 370382.
812. Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "Interference Testing of a TwoLayers
Commingled Reservoir," SPEFE. (Dec. 1989) 595603.
813. Brigham, W.E.: "Planning and Analysis of PulseTests," J. Pet. Tech. (May
1970) 618624; Trans., AIME, 249
814. Kamal, M. and Brigham, W.E.: "PulseTesting Response for Unequal Pulse
and ShutIn Periods," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1975) 399410; Trans., AIME, 259
815. Kamal, M.: "Interference and Pulse Testing  A Review," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec.
1983) 225770
Chapter 9
91. AlHussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr. and Crawford. P. B.:"The Flow of Real
Gases Through Porous Media", J. Pet. Tech. (May 1966), 624636; Trans.
AIME, 237
92. AlHussainy, R. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.:"Application of Real Gas Flow Theory
to Well Testing and Deliverability Forecasting", J. Pet. Tech. (May 1966), 637
642; Trans. AIME, 237
93. Agarwal, R.G.:"Real Gas PseudoTime  A New Function for Pressure
Buildup Analysis of MHF Gas Wells", paper S.P.E. 8279, presented at the
54th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 2326, 1979.
References
 222 
94. Houpeurt A.:"On the Flow of Gas in Porous Medias", Revue de l'Institut
Français du Pétrole, 1959, XIV (11), 14681684.
95. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.:"Gas Well Testing with Turbulence,
Damage and Wellbore Storage", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1968), 877887.
96. "Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells", Energy Resources
Conservation Board, Calgary, Alta., Canada (1975).
97. Bourdarot, G.: " Well Testing : Interpretation Methods," Editions Technip,
Institut Français du Pétrole, p. 258.
98. Rawlins, E.L. and Schellardt, M.A.:"BackPressure Data on NaturalGas
Wells and Their Application to Production Practices," Monograph 7, USBM
(1936).
99. Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F.H., Vary, J.A.,
Elenbaas, J.R. and Weinaug, C.F.:"Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering,"
McGrawHill Book Co.,Inc., New York (1959).
910. Bourgeois, M.J. and Wilson, M.R. :"Additional Use of Well Test Analytical
Solutions for Production Prediction," paper S.P.E. 36820, presented at the 1996
SPE EUROPEC, Milan, Italy, Oct. 2224, 1996.
Chapter 10
101. Stewart, G.: "Future Developments In Well Test Analysis: Introduction of
Geology", Hart's Petroleum Engineer International (Sept. 1997), 7376.
102. Larsen, L.: "Boundary Effects in PressureTransient Data From Layered
Reservoirs,". paper S.P.E. 19797, presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting,
San Antonio, Tex., Oct. 811, 1989.
103. Joseph, J., Bocock, A., NaiFu, F. and Gui, L.T.: "A Study of Pressure
Transient Behavior in Bounded TwoLayered Reservoirs: Shengli Field,
China", paper SPE 15418, presented at the 61st Annual Fall Meeting, New
Orleans, LA, Oct. 58, 1986.
104. Bourgeois, M.J., Daviau, F.H. and Boutaud de la Combe, JL. : "Pressure
Behavior in Finite ChannelLevee Complexes", SPEFE, (Sept. 1996) 177183.
Chapter 11
111. AlGhamdi, A. and Ershaghi, I.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Dually
Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 26959, presented at the III Latin American
Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentine, April 2729, 1994.
References
 223 
112. Larsen, L.: "Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to
Analyze PressureTransient Data From Layered Reservoirs", paper S.P.E.
18122, presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX, Oct. 25,
1988.
113. Poon, D.C.C. :"Pressure Transient Analysis of a Composite Reservoir With
Uniform Fracture Distribution," paper SPE 13384 available at SPE,
Richardson, TX.
114. Satman, A.: "PressureTransient Analysis of a Composite Naturally
Fractured Reservoir," SPEFE, June 1991, 169175.
115. Kikani, J. and Walkup, G.W.: "Analysis of PressureTransient Tests for
Composite Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," SPEFE, June 1991, 176182.
116. Hatzignatiou, D.G., Ogbe, D.O., Dehghani, K. and Economides, M.J.:
"Interference Pressure Behavior in Multilayered Composite Reservoirs," paper
S.P.E. 16766, presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Tex., Sept.
2730, 1987.
Chapter 12
121. Ramey, H.J. Jr., Agarwal, R.G. and Martin, I.: "Analysis of 'Slug Test' or
DST Flow Period Data," J. Cdn. Pet; Tech. (JulySept.. 1975) 14, 37.
122. de Franca Correa A.C. and Ramey, H.J. Jr. "A Method for Pressure Buildup
Analysis of Drillstem Tests," paper S.P.E. 16808, presented at the 62nd Annual
Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX, Sept. 2730, 1987.
123. Peres, A.M.M., Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "A New General Pressure
Analysis Procedure for Slug Tests," SPEFE. (Dec. 1993) 29298.
124. Ayoub, J.A., Bourdet, D.P. and Chauvel, Y.L.: "Impulse Testing," SPEFE.
(Sept. 1988) 53446; Trans., AIME, 285
125. CincoLey, H. et al.: "Analysis of Pressure Tests Through the Use of
Instantaneous Source Response Concepts," paper S.P.E. 15476, presented at the
61st Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Oct. 58, 1986.
126. Kucuk, F, and Ayestaran, L,: "Analysis of Simultaneously Measured
Pressure and Sandface Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing," paper S.P.E.
112177, presented at the 58th Annual Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Oct. 5
8, 1983.
127. Bourdet D. and Alagoa A.: "New Method Enhances Well Test
Interpretation," World Oil ( Sept, 1984).
128. Jacob, C.E. and Lohman, S.W.: "Nonsteady Flow to a Well of Constant
Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer," Trans., AGU (Aug. 1952) 559569.
References
 224 
129. Uraiet, A.A. and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady Flow to a Well Producing at a
Constant Pressure". J. Pet. Tech., Oct. 1980, 18031812.
1210. EhligEconomides, C.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Pressure Buildup for Wells
Produced at Constant Pressure". SPEJ, Feb. 1981, 105114.
Chapter 13
131. Perrine, R.L.:"Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves", Drill. and Prod. Prac.,
API (1956), 482509.
132. Martin, J.C.:"Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reservoirs and the
Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analyses," Trans.,
AIME (1959) 216, 309311.
133. Fetkovich, M.J.:"The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells," paper S.P.E. 4529,
presented at the 48th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 30 Oct.3,
1973.
134. Raghavan, R.: "Well Test Analysis: Wells Producing by Solution Gas Drive
Wells," SPEJ, (Aug. 1976) 196208; trans., AIME, 261.
135. AlKhalifah, A.A., Aziz, K. and Horne, R.N.:"A New Approach to
Multiphase Well Test Analysis", paper S.P.E. 16473 presented at the 62nd
Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX, Sept. 2730, 1987.
136. Weller, W.T.:"Reservoir Performance During TwoPhase Flow," J. Pet.
tech. (Feb. 1966) 240246; Trans., AIME, Vol 240.
137. Raghavan, R.: "Well Test Analysis for Multiphase Flow" SPEFE,
(Dec.1989) 585594
138. Jones, J.R. and Raghavan, R.: "Interpretation of Flowing Well Responses in
GasCondensate Wells" SPEFE, (Sep.1988) 578594.
139. Jones, J.R., Vo, D.T. and Raghavan, R.: "Interpretation of Pressure Buildup
Responses in GasCondensate Wells" SPEFE, (March 1989) 93104.
54 55 56 57
CLOSED SYSTEM ..................................................................................................................... 104 CONSTANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY ........................................................................................... 111 COMMUNICATING FAULT......................................................................................................... 113 PREDICTING DERIVATIVE SHAPES .............................................................................................117
6  COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS....................................................................................... 119 61 62 63 64 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 119 RADIAL COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR ............................................................................................... 120 LINEAR COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR................................................................................................ 123 MULTICOMPOSITE SYSTEMS .....................................................................................................125
7  LAYERED RESERVOIRS  DOUBLE PERMEABILITY MODEL........................................ 127 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 127 DOUBLE PERMEABILITY BEHAVIOR WHEN THE TWO LAYERS ARE PRODUCING INTO THE WELL 129 DOUBLE PERMEABILITY BEHAVIOR WHEN ONLY ONE OF THE TWO LAYERS IS PRODUCING INTO THE WELL ............................................................................................................................................... 131 74 COMMINGLED SYSTEMS: LAYERED RESERVOIRS WITHOUT CROSSFLOW ...................................133 8  INTERFERENCE TESTS ............................................................................................................. 135 81 82 83 84 85 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN RESERVOIRS WITH HOMOGENEOUS BEHAVIOR .................................. 135 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN DOUBLE POROSITY RESERVOIRS ....................................................... 139 INFLUENCE OF RESERVOIR BOUNDARIES ................................................................................. 143 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIR ........................................................ 143 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN A TWO LAYERS RESERVOIR WITH CROSS FLOW ..................................146 71 72 73
9  GAS WELLS................................................................................................................................... 149 91 92 93 GAS PROPERTIES ..................................................................................................................... 149 TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF GAS WELL TESTS .............................................................................. 150 DELIVERABILITY TESTS ............................................................................................................154
10  BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS ........................................................ 159 101 102 103 BOUNDARIES IN FISSURED RESERVOIRS............................................................................... 159 BOUNDARIES IN LAYERED RESERVOIRS ............................................................................... 160 COMPOSITE CHANNEL RESERVOIRS ......................................................................................162
11  COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES ................................................................. 165 111 112 113 FISSUREDLAYERED RESERVOIRS ........................................................................................ 165 FISSURED RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIRS......................................................................... 166 LAYERED RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIRS..........................................................................167
12  OTHER TESTING METHODS.................................................................................................. 169 121 122 123 124 125 DRILLSTEM TEST ................................................................................................................. 169 IMPULSE TEST ..................................................................................................................... 172 RATE DECONVOLUTION ....................................................................................................... 173 CONSTANT PRESSURE TEST (RATE DECLINE ANALYSIS) ....................................................... 174 VERTICAL INTERFERENCE TEST ............................................................................................175
13  MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS .................................................................................................. 179 131 132 PERRINE METHOD ............................................................................................................... 179 OTHER METHODS .................................................................................................................180
14  TEST DESIGN ............................................................................................................................. 183 141 142 143 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 183 TEST SIMULATION ............................................................................................................... 183 TEST DESIGN REPORTING AND TEST SUPERVISION ................................................................184
15  FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST ANALYSIS....................................................... 185 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 RATE HISTORY DEFINITION .................................................................................................. 185 ERROR OF START OF THE PERIOD......................................................................................... 186 PRESSURE GAUGE DRIFT ..................................................................................................... 188 PRESSURE GAUGE NOISE ..................................................................................................... 188 CHANGING WELLBORE STORAGE ......................................................................................... 189 TWO PHASES LIQUID LEVEL ................................................................................................. 190 INPUT PARAMETERS, AND CALCULATED RESULTS OF INTERPRETATION ................................191
16  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 193 161 162 INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE ............................................................................................ 193 REPORTING AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS .......................................................................203
APPENDIX  ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS..................................................................................... 205 A1 A2 A3 A4 DARCY'S LAW ......................................................................................................................... 205 STEADY STATE RADIAL FLOW OF AN INCOMPRESSIBLE FLUID .................................................. 205 DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION........................................................................................................... 206 THE "LINE SOURCE" SOLUTION ................................................................................................208
NOMENCLATURE............................................................................................................................. 209 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 212
Most figures presented in this set of course notes are extracted from "Well Test Analysis: The Use of Advanced Interpretation Models", D. Bourdet, Handbook of Petroleum Exploration and Production 3, ELSEVIER SCIENCE, 2002. http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/628241
1  PRINCIPLES OF TRANSIENT TESTING
11 Introduction
11.1 Purpose of well testing
Description of a well test
During a well test, a transient pressure response is created by a temporary change in production rate. The well response is usually monitored during a relatively short period of time compared to the life of the reservoir, depending upon the test objectives. For well evaluation, tests are frequently achieved in less than two days. In the case of reservoir limit testing, several months of pressure data may be needed. In most cases, the flow rate is measured at surface while the pressure is recorded downhole. Before opening, the initial pressure pi is constant and uniform in the reservoir. During flow time, the drawdown pressure response ∆p is expressed :
∆p = pi − p (t ) (psi, Bars)
When the well is shutin, the buildup pressure change ∆p is estimated from the last flowing pressure p(∆t=0) :
( 11)
∆p= p(t)− p(∆t =0) (psi, Bars)
pi Pressure, p ∆t Dd ∆p Dd p(∆t=0) ∆t BU ∆p BU
( 12)
Rate, q
drawdown Time, t
buildup
Figure 11 Drawdown and buildup test sequence.
The pressure response is analyzed versus the elapsed time ∆t since the start of the period (time of opening or shutin).
Well test objectives
Well test analysis provides information on the reservoir and on the well. Associated to geology and geophysics, well test results are used to build a reservoir model for prediction of the field behavior and fluid recovery to different 1
The quality of the communication between the well and the reservoir indicates the possibility to improve the well productivity.Principles of transient testing operating scenarios.Chapter 1 . skin factor S) • Well geometry By comparing the result of routine tests. perforation strategy etc. change of characteristics) • Boundaries (distance and shape) • Pressure (initial pi and average p ) Well description : • Production potential (productivity index PI. drainage mechanism. Exploration well : On initial wells. Information obtained from well testing Well test responses characterize the ability of the fluid to flow through the reservoir and to the well. such as workover. heterogeneities. well testing is used to confirm the exploration hypothesis and to establish a first production forecast: nature and rate of produced fluids. monitoring of the average reservoir pressure are some usual objectives of development well testing. layering. Appraisal well : The previous well and reservoir description can be refined (well productivity. Reservoir description : • Permeability (horizontal k and vertical kv) • Reservoir heterogeneities (natural fractures. This is a typical inverse problem (S=O/I). MDT). initial pressure (RFT. reservoir boundaries etc. bottom hole sampling. changes of productivity and rate of decrease of the average reservoir pressure can be established. 11.2 Methodology The inverse problem The objective of well test analysis is to describe an unknown system S (well + reservoir) by indirect measurements (O the pressure response to I a change of rate). the estimated parameters are average values. Communication between wells (interference testing). As the investigated reservoir volume is relatively large. reservoir properties. Tests provide a description of the reservoir in dynamic conditions. 2 . as opposed to geological and log data.) Development well : On producing wells. periodic tests are made to adjust the reservoir description and to evaluate the need of a well treatment.
gradient surveys. After the interpretation model has been selected. until the model behavior O is identical to the behavior of S. Additional data can be useful in some cases : production log. water saturation Sw. • Well data : wellbore radius rw. they only define the behavior (homogeneous or heterogeneous. The different compressibility's are used to define the total system compressibility ct : ct =co(1−Sw)+cwSw+c f (psi1. they may always be changed or adjusted if needed. gauges). well geometry (inclined.).Chapter 1 . due to the averaging of the reservoir properties. including any operational problem) and bottom hole pressure as a function of time. Interpretation models The models used in well test interpretation can be described as a transfer function. General information obtained from geologist and geophysicists are required to validate the well test interpretation results. oil viscosity µ and formation volume factor B. Analytical solutions are used to generate pressure responses to a specific production rate history I. compressibility of oil co. bounded or infinite). Input data required for well test analysis • Test data : flow rate (complete sequence of events. • Reservoir and fluid parameters : formation thickness h (net). porosity φ. Layered reservoirs for example frequently show a homogeneous behavior during tests. water cw and formation cf. 3 .Principles of transient testing I input S system O output As opposed to the direct problem (O=IxS). the solution of the inverse problem is usually not unique. Well test interpretation models are often different from the geological or log models. Bars1) ( 13) The reservoir and fluid parameters are used for calculation of the results. and the interpretation provides the model(s) whose behavior is identical to the behavior of the actual reservoir. It implies an identification process. bubble point pressure etc. depths (formation. horizontal etc.
q Initial shutin Clean Variable up rate Buildup Stabilized rate Time. the flow rate is accurately controlled (zero). the well should be producing at constant rate but in practice. Oil well. The usual procedures are Back Pressure test (Flow after Flow). Isochronal and Modified Isochronal tests. Interference tests are designed to evaluate communication between wells. and the analysis is frequently inaccurate. • Interference test and pulse test : the bottom hole pressure is monitored in a shutin observation well some distance away from the producer. the bottom hole pressure increases and. With pulse tests. the well must have been flowing long enough to reach stabilized rate.Chapter 1 . p Rate. AOFP) and the possibility of nonDarcy flow condition (rate dependent skin factor S'). • Injection test / falloff test : when fluid is injected into the reservoir. drawdown data is erratic. During shutin periods. • Gas well test : specific testing methods are used to evaluate the deliverability of gas wells (Absolute Open Flow Potential. • Drill stem test (DST) : the well is completed temporarily with a downhole shutin valve. the resulting pressure oscillations in the observation well are analyzed.2 Typical test sequence. Before the buildup test. it drops during the falloff period. the active well is produced with a series of short flow / shutin periods. The properties of the injected fluid are in general different from that of the reservoir fluid. Frequently the well is cased but DST can be made also in open 4 .Principles of transient testing 11. t Figure 1.3 Types of tests Test procedure • Drawdown test : the flowing bottom hole pressure is used for analysis. after shutin. Pressure. • Buildup test : the increase of bottom hole pressure after shutin is used for analysis. Well completion • Production test : the well is completed as a production well (cased hole and permanent completion). Ideally.
wire line operation etc.3 Onshore DST test string. A mist extractor is located before the gas outlet. • Heater : Heating the effluent may be necessary to prevent hydrate formation in highpressure gas wells (the temperature is reduced after the gas expansion through the choke).4 Well testing equipment Surface equipment • Flow head : is equipped with several valves to allow flowing. the gas line with an orifice meter. Surface samples are taken at the separator oil and gas lines for further recombination in laboratory.Principles of transient testing hole. The oil and water lines are equipped with positive displacement metering devices. • Test separator : In a three phases test separator. The wellhead working pressure should be greater than the well shutin pressure.Chapter 1 . The oil and water phases are separated by gravity. • Choke manifold : is used to control the rate by flowing the well through a calibrated orifice. pumping in the well. Heaters are also used in case of high viscosity oil. 5 . The Emergency Shut Down is a failsafe system to close the wing valve remotely. A system of twin valves allows to change the choke (positive and adjustable chokes) without shutting in the well. The drill stem testing procedure is used only for relatively short tests. the effluent hits several plates in order to separate the gas from the liquid phase. The drill string is not used any more. 11. The downstream pressure must be less than half the upstream pressure. Flowh ead B OP S tack Casing Tu bing Tes t tool P ack er Figure 1. and production tubing is employed.
or hung off on a seating nipple. Downhole equipment • Pressure gauges : Electronic gauges are used to measure the bottom hole pressure versus time.4 Surface set up. No bottom hole pressure is available until the gauge is pulled to surface.1). The gauge can be suspended down hole on a wireline. When they are not connected to the surface with a cable.Principles of transient testing Flowhead Choke maniflod Heater Gas Burner Rig HP pump Gas manifold Separator Water Surge tank Transfer pump Oil manifold Burner Oil Water pump Air compressor Figure 1.Chapter 1 . 6 . operated by translation. Several types of down hole valve are available. • Oil and gas disposal : The oil rate can be measured with a gauge tank (or a surge tank in case of H2S). the gauges are battery powered and the pressure data is stored in the gauge memory. a surface read out system allows to monitor the test in real time. the well is produced at low rate. Offshore. • Bottom hole sampler : Fluid samples can also be taken with a wire line bottom hole sampler. With a cable. During sampling. two burners are available on the rig for wind constraint. the pressure response is representative of the reservoir behavior earlier than in case of surface shutin (see wellbore storage effect in Section 12. Onshore. Compressed air and water are injected together with the hydrocarbon fluids to prevent black smoke production and oil drop out. • Down hole valve : By closing the well down hole. rotation or annular pressure. Oil and gas are frequently burned. and to adjust the duration of the shutin periods. DST are generally short tests. a flare pit is installed at a safe distance from the well. A sample of reservoir fluid can be taken when the tester valve is closed.
communication or presence of sealing boundaries between layers can be established. Pressure distribution. After any change of surface rate. and to take bottom hole samples. 12 Definitions & typical regimes 12. fluid contacts (oil–water OWC and gas–oil GOC) are located.1 Wellbore storage When a well is opened. 7 . From the pressure versus depth data. For a shutin period. the wellbore storage effect is called afterflow. RFT and MDT can also provide a first estimate of the horizontal and vertical permeability near the well by analysis of the pressure versus time response. MDT :The Repeat Formation Tester and the Modular Formation Dynamics Tester are open hole wire line tools. the production at surface is first due to the expansion of the fluid in the wellbore.Principles of transient testing • RFT.Chapter 1 . and the reservoir contribution is negligible. there is a time lag between the surface production and the sand face rate. They are primary used to measure the vertical changes of reservoir pressure (pressure gradient). Pressure profile rw r pi pw Figure 15 Wellbore storage effect.
Specialized analysis on a linear scale. Specialized analysis Plot of the pressure change ∆p versus the elapsed time ∆t time on a linear scale. m3/m) ( 14) C =144 Vu (Bbl/psi) ρ (g gc) Vu (m3/Bars) ρ (g gc) ( 15) C =10197 Pressure change. kg/m3) g/gc : gravitational acceleration (lbf / lbm. m3) When there is a liquid level.Principles of transient testing Rate. kgf / kgm) Vu : wellbore volume per unit length (Bbl/ft. m WB S 8 . Bars 1) Vw : wellbore volume (Bbl. Sand face and surface rates. C =− ∆V =coVw (Bbl/psi. q Pressure.Chapter 1 . t Figure 16 Wellbore storage effect. ∆t Figure 17 Wellbore storage effect. with ∆p = ρ g ∆h . ∆p Elapsed time. p q surface q sand face Time. Wellbore storage coefficient For a well full of a single phase fluid. the response follows a straight line of slope mWBS. ∆V = Vu ∆h and ρ : liquid density (lb/cu ft. intercepting the origin. At early time. m3/Bars) ∆p where : co : liquid compressibility (psi1.
Bars) 24C ( 16) Result : wellbore storage coefficient C. p pi rw ri r pwf(S=0) pwf(S>0) ∆p skin S>0 Figure 19 Radial flow regime. 9 . positive skin factor. Pressure profile p pi rw ri r S=0 pwf Figure 18 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution. C= qB (Bbl/psi.Principles of transient testing ∆p= qB ∆t (psi. skin (homogeneous behavior) When the reservoir production is established. Zero skin. Damaged well. In the reservoir.2 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution. the pressure is a function of the time and the distance to the well.Chapter 1 . m3/Bars) 24 m WBS ( 17) 12. the flowlines converge radially towards the well.
field units) ln − ln kS h rw kh rw 18.Chapter 1 . S − p w . S = 0 = − (Bars. S 141. S = 0 = p w.2qBµ rS (psi. Pressure distribution. negative skin factor.66qBµ rS − p w.Principles of transient testing p pi pwf(S<0) pwf(S=0) ∆p skin rw ri r S<0 Figure 110 Radial flow regime. partial penetration) or invaded zone • Stimulated well (S < 0) : surface of contact between the well and the reservoir increased (fracture.66qBµ S= ( 18) • Damaged well (S > 0) : poor contact between the well and the reservoir (mudcake. and for a stimulated well S < 0. m) ( 111) . Skin The skin is a dimensionless parameter. insufficient perforation density. It characterizes the well condition : for a damaged well S > 0. horizontal well) or acid stimulated zone Steady state flow in the circular zone : k ks rw rs p w. Stimulated well.66qBµ rS 18.2qBµ kh S= ∆pSkin (metric units) 18. metric units) ( 19) ln ln kS h rw kh rw The skin is expressed : k r S= − 1 ln S kS rw Equivalent wellbore radius : ( 110) rwe = rw e − S (ft.10  . kh ∆pSkin (field units) 141.2qBµ rS 141.
10 + 0.151 1 hr − log + 3.6 ( 113) ∆p k S = 1151 1 hr − log .87 S (Bars. Pressure change.11  .ft. The analysis gives access to the reservoir permeability thickness product kh.10 (metric units) 2 m φµ c t rw ( 114) 12.6 ∆p = 21. and the four test responses are compared on linear and semilog scales.5 m kh = 162. field units) log ∆t + log 2 kh φ µ ct rw qBµ k − 3.87 S (psi. Semilog straight line of slope m : ∆p = 162. and to the skin coefficient S.3 Examples of infinite acting radial flow behaviors In the following examples.m.Chapter 1 .23 + 0. ∆p m ∆p(1hr) Log ∆t Figure 111 Radial flow regime. two wells A and B are tested twice with the same rate sequence.Principles of transient testing Specialized analysis For homogeneous reservoirs. metric units) kh = 21.23 (field units) 2 φµ ct rw m ∆p k S = 1. metric units)( 112) log ∆t + log 2 kh φ µ c t rw qBµ (mD. a pressure versus time semilog straight line describes the radial flow regime.5 Results: k qBµ − 3. Specialized analysis on semilog scale. . + 3. field units) m qBµ (mD.
the pressure drop during drawdown is mainly produced in the reservoir. 6000 pressure.13 Test history plot well B (higher permeability). the flowing pressure is low during one test (the last flowing pressure is 3200 psi before shutin). In the case of well A with low permeability and low skin. psi high skin 4000 very high skin 2000 0 0 10 20 30 40 time. Well A is in a low permeability reservoir. . and during the other test the well has no skin damage (S=0). 6000 pressure.12 and Figure 1. psi no skin 4000 moderate skin 2000 0 0 10 20 30 40 time. During one test the skin is moderate with S=6.Principles of transient testing The two wells have very different characteristics. hours Figure 1. respectively S=25 and S=60 (this large value is relatively exceptional. hours Figure 1. On semilog scale. Well B is in a higher permeability reservoir (four times larger than for well A) but the skin factors are large. For each well.13.Chapter 1 . the pressure response is more characteristic of the well and reservoir condition than on the previous linear scale plots. the two wells show apparently a similar behavior. It suggests a completion problem such as limited entry).12  .12 Test history plot well A (low permeability). and higher during the other test (last flowing pressure of 5500psi before shutin). On the test history plots Figure 1. and the slope of the semilog straight line is high.
psi very high skin 2000 ∆ p skin 1000 high skin 0 0. 12. hours Figure 1. psi moderate skin 2000 1000 ∆ p skin no skin 0 0.Principles of transient testing 3000 pressure change.13  .4 Fractured well (infinite conductivity fracture) : linear flow regime xf Figure 116 Fractured well.Chapter 1 . hours Figure 1.15 Semilog responses for well B. with the higher permeability example of well B.1 1 10 100 time.14 Semilog responses for well A.001 0. most of the pressure drop is due to skin damage. . and the response tends to be flat with a low semilog straightline slope.01 0. Fracture geometry. Conversely. 3000 pressure change.1 1 10 100 time.01 0.001 0.
Specialized analysis with the pressure versus the square root of time. Result : the half fracture length xf x f = 4.623 Pressure change. before the radial flow regime is established.14  . ∆p mL F ∆t Figure 118 Infinite conductivity fracture. metric units) ( 116) . the flowlines are perpendicular to the fracture plane. Specialized analysis Plot of the pressure change ∆p versus the square root of elapsed time response follows a straight line of slope mLF. Figure 117 Infinite conductivity fracture.Chapter 1 .06 x f = 0. This is called linear flow. Linear and radial flow regimes. Geometry of the flow lines.06 qB hx f qB hx f µ φ ct k µ φ ct k ∆t (psi. field units) ∆t (Bars.Principles of transient testing Linear flow regime At early time. intercepting the origin. ∆t : the ∆p = 4. field units) µ (m.623 qB φ ct k hmLF qB φ ct k hm LF µ (ft. metric units) ( 115) ∆p = 0.
∆p m BLF 4 ∆t Figure 120 Finite conductivity fracture. intercepting the origin.Principles of transient testing 12. This configuration is called bilinear flow regime.28 qBµ h k f w 4 φ µ ct k qBµ 4 ∆t (psi. metric units) ( 117) 4 h k f wf 4 φµ c t k Pressure change. Result : the fracture conductivity kfwf 1 qBµ k f w f = 1944. field units) ∆t (Bars. 4 ∆t : ∆p = 44. field units) (mD. When the pressure drop in the fracture plane is not negligible.5 Fractured well (finite conductivity fracture) : bilinear flow regime Bilinear flow regime wf kf Figure 119 Finite conductivity fracture. Specialized analysis Plot of the pressure change ∆p versus the fourth root of elapsed time straight line of slope mBLF. metric units) ( 118) . Specialized analysis with the pressure versus the fourth root of time.m.8 φµ c t k hm BLF 1 qBµ k f w f = 39.ft. a second linear flow regime is established along the fracture extension.46 φµ ct k hm BLF 2 2 (mD.11 ∆p = 6.Chapter 1 . Geometry of the flow lines during the bilinear flow regime.15  .
∆p qBµ φ µ ct qBµ − 2452.9qBµ mSPH S m SP H 1 ∆t 23 (mD. before the top and bottom boundaries are reached. the flow becomes radial.Chapter 1 .33 Pressure change.16  . kV kH kH hw h Figure 121 Well in partial penetration.6 Well in partial penetration : spherical flow regime Spherical flow regime Spherical flow can be observed in wells in partial penetration. Specialized analysis Plot of the pressure versus the reciprocal of the square root of time 1 response follows a straight line of slope mSPH : ∆t .Principles of transient testing 12. metric units) ( 119) Figure 122 Well in partial penetration. Radial. Result : the spherical permeability ks φµ ct k S = 2452. Specialized analysis with the pressure versus 1/ the square root of time.6 ∆p = 9. The ∆p = 70. Later. field units) .9 3 2 k S rS k S ∆t qBµ φµ c t qBµ − 279. Geometry of the flow lines.3 3 2 k S rS k S ∆t (psi. spherical and radial flow regimes. field units) (Bars.
The fissure system homogeneous behavior is seen. the fissure network and the matrix blocks react at a different time.3qBµ mSPH 23 (mD. Fissure system homogeneous regime. First.Chapter 1 . Pressure distribution.Principles of transient testing φµ c t k S = 279.17  . metric units) ( 120) The permeability anisotropy is expressed with : kH kH = kV k s 3 ( 121) 12.7 Fissured reservoir (double porosity behavior) In fissured reservoirs. and the pressure response deviates from the standard homogeneous behavior. the matrix blocks production is negligible. Pressure profile p pi rw pm ri r pf pwf Figure 123 Double porosity behavior. .
Total system homogeneous regime (fissures + matrix). Pressure distribution.Chapter 1 . Pressure distribution. .Principles of transient testing pi p r w ri r pwf pm > pf Figure 124 Double porosity behavior. When the matrix blocks start to produce into the fissures. When the pressure equalizes between fissures and matrix blocks. Transition regime. the homogeneous behavior of the total system (fissure and matrix) is reached. the pressure deviates from the homogeneous behavior to follow a transition regime.18  . pi p r w ri r pm = pf pwf Figure 125 Double porosity behavior.
The fault is reached. The fault is reached.8 Limited reservoir (one sealing fault) When one sealing fault is present near the producing well. but it is not seen at the well. Pressure profile at time t3. p pi rw L r ri pwf Figure 128 One sealing fault. infinite reservoir behavior. Start of boundary effect. p pi rw L ri r pwf Figure 127 One sealing fault.Principles of transient testing 12. .19  . The fault is not reached. and it is seen at the well.Chapter 1 . Pressure profile at time t2. Pressure profile p pi rw ri L r pwf Figure 126 One sealing fault. Pressure profile at time t1. Infinite reservoir behavior. the pressure response deviates from the usual infinite acting behavior after some production time.
Principles of transient testing p pi rw L r ri pwf Figure 129 One sealing fault. radial flow t2 : the fault is reached t3 : the fault is seen at the well. and it is seen at the well. Result : the fault distance L. Drainage radius. Hemiradial flow. t1 : the fault is not reached.20  . The fault is reached. ∆p Log ∆t Figure 131 One sealing fault. 2m m Pressure change. The time intersect ∆tx between the two lines is used to estimate the fault distance L: . transition t4 : hemiradial flow Figure 130 One sealing fault. Specialized analysis on semilog scale. Pressure profile at time t4.Chapter 1 . Specialized analysis A second semilog straight line with a slope double (2m).
During the pseudo steady state regime. Pressure profiles. when all boundaries have been reached. infinite reservoir behavior: the pressure profile expands. metric units) φµ c t ( 122) 12. end of infinite reservoir behavior. the pressure profile drops. . Time t1: the boundaries are not reached. the flow changes to Pseudo Steady State : the pressure decline is proportional to time. all boundaries have been reached and the pressure profile drops (but its shape remains constant with time). field units) φµ ct k∆t x (m. Pressure profile As long as the reservoir is infinite acting. the pressure profile expands around the well during the production (and the well bottom hole pressure drops). Time t2: boundaries reached.9 Closed reservoir In closed reservoir. ri (t1) Re p pi rw t1 ri (t1) t2 t3 ri (t2) = Re r t4 Infinite acting pwf Pseudo Steady State Figure 132 Circular closed reservoir.01217 L = 0.Principles of transient testing L = 0.0141 k∆t x (ft. Times t3 and t4: pseudo steady state regime.Chapter 1 .21  .
351 + 0.0417 (m3.6 log 2 − log( C A ) + 0.22  . metric units) ct m * φ hA = 0. metric φ c t hA kh rw ( 123) ∆p = 0. the amplitude of the response is small. the pressure is monitored in an observation well at distance r from the producer. Result : the reservoir pore volume φ hA.234 ( 124) During shutin. . field units) φ ct hA kh rw qB qBµ A ∆t + 21. plot of the pressure versus elapsed time ∆t on a linear scale. the pressure stabilizes to the average reservoir pressure p ( < pi ) .33 Drawdown and buildup pressure response.Principles of transient testing Specialized analysis During drawdown. field units) ct m * qB φ hA = 0. a straight line of slope m* characterizes the Pseudo Steady State regime: ∆p = 0. 12.87 S (Bars. Closed system.10 Interference test Pressure profile With interference tests.87 S (psi. qB (cu ft.234 qB qBµ A ∆t + 162. The pressure signal is observed with a delay. t Figure 1.5 log 2 − log(C A ) + 0. Linear scale.351 + 0.Chapter 1 . p ppseudo ste ady state slope m* Time. At late time.0417 units) pi Pressure.
defining the interpretation model. . A straight line can be drawn on a specialized pressure versus time plot. For each flow regime.23  . Linear scale. spherical etc.Principles of transient testing 5000 pi Observation well Pressure (psia) 4500 Producing well 4000 3500 0 100 200 Time (hours) 300 400 500 Figure 134 Interference test. 1 ∆t etc. A complete well response is defined as a sequence of regimes. the pressure follows a welldefined time function: log ∆t . linear. Response of a producing and an observation well.Chapter 1 . to access the corresponding well or reservoir parameter. Producing well Observation well p pi rw ri r pwf Figure 135 Interference test. Pressure distribution. 12. ∆t . By identification of the characteristic pressure behaviors present on the response.11 Well responses A limited number of flow line geometries produce a characteristic pressure behavior: radial. the chronology and time limits of the different flow regime are established.
24  PI = kh (Bbl/D/psi.10 + 0. m3/D/Bars) ( 126) During the infinite acting period p ≈ pi .87 S 2 φµ ct rw . Radial (2) (1) 2.Chapter 1 . expressed from the average reservoir pressure p . Linear Figure 1. 12. metric units) PI = k 21. the sequence of regimes is : 1. PI = ( p − pwf ) q (Bbl/D/psi.87 S 2 φµ ct rw kh (m3/D/Bars.36 Fractured well example.12 Productivity Index The Productivity Index is the ratio of the flow rate by the drawdown pressure drop. Radial (2) Figure 1. PI (S=0) = ( p − pwf ) − ∆pskin q (Bbl/D/psi.37 Example of a well in a channel reservoir.6 Bµ log ∆t + log − 3. the Transient Productivity Index is decreasing with time.Principles of transient testing For a fractured well for example. field units) ( 127) . In the case of a well in a channel reservoir : 1. k 162.23 + 0. m3/D/Bars) ( 125) The Ideal Productivity Index defines the productivity if the skin of the well is zero.5Bµ log ∆t + log − 3. Linear (1) 2.
13 Pressure profile and Radius of Investigation The Exponential Integral of Equation A16 defines the pressure as a function of time and distance : φµ ct r 2 141.6∆qBµ log 0. r ) = [ ( [ ( ) ) ] ] (The semilog straight line Eq.0001423k∆t kh For small x. metric units) ( 129) ∆p (∆t .351 + 0.66qBµ (Bars.87 S rw (m3/D/Bars. field units) kh 21.Principles of transient testing The Pseudo Steady State Productivity Index is a constant PI = kh A − log( C A ) + 0.5 Ei − 0. Ei(− x ) =− ln (γ x ) : the Exponential Integral can be approximated by a log (with γ = 1.2qBµ (psi. 112 corresponds to Eq. metric units) ( 128) 12.001056k ∆t kh 2 φ µ ct r 18. metric units) ( 130) kh ∆p( ∆t . Euler's constant).78. r ) =− 0.000264 k ∆t φµ ct r 2 + 0. When presented versus log(r).351 + 0. r ) = log 0. 162.25  . p pi Log r t1 pwf t2 t3 t4 Figure 138 Pressure profile versus the log of the distance to the well.87 S 162.809 (psi.000356k ∆t φµ ct r 2 + 0.Chapter 1 . r ) =− 0. 130 for r=rw). field units) − Ei ∆p (∆t .5Bµ log 2 − log(C A ) + 0.5 0.6 Bµ log 2 rw kh (Bbl/D/psi. the pressure profile at a given time is a straight line until the distance becomes too large for the logarithm approximation of the .5qBµ ∆p (∆t .809 (Bars. field units) PI = A 21.
and tends asymptotically towards the initial pressure.000356k ∆t φµ c r ) = 1 or = γ1 4 2 t i 2 t i 2 (field units) (metric units) 2 ( 131) 2 (in dimensionless terms of Equation 2.000264k ∆t φµ c r ) = 4 or = γ1 (0. the profile flattens.26  . for an initial flow period. With the sealing fault example of Figure 130. that cannot be observed during the test period. field units) ri = 0. ( 133) .032 k∆t φµ ct (ft. field units) ri = 0. ri = 0. For a shutin periods.029 k∆t φµ ct (ft.4 or 82. when a boundary effect is introduced at the end of the test period. t D riD = 1 1 2 or t D riD = 2 ).Principles of transient testing Exponential Integral. the pressure transient reaches the fault 4 times earlier the boundary can be observed on the producing well pressure behavior.Chapter 1 .037 k∆t φµc t (m. Several definitions have been proposed. metric units) and ( 132) ri = 0. The radius of investigation ri tentatively describes the distance that the pressure transient has moved into the formation.034 k∆t φµct (m. Beyond this limit. the radius of investigation of Equation 132 or 133 is relatively consistent with the distance estimated by a simulation. Equations 132 and 133 are not always accurate. metric units) (the radius of investigation is independent of the rate). such as a reservoir limit. In practice. 4 γ This gives respectively. The radius of investigation ri is sometimes viewed as the minimum distance of any event. in general ri is defined with one of the two relationships : 1 (0.
The scale expands the response at early time.. S ..)} ( 21) The shape of the response curve is characteristic : the product of one of the variables by a constant term is changed into a displacement on the logarithmic axes..2 . psi 100 101 103 (3.6 sec) 102 (36 sec) 101 (6 mn) 100 101 102 ∆t.. With the loglog scale. {B = g( k . This data plot is then compared to a set of dimensionless theoretical curves. but the graph of log(∆p) is only be shifted by log(2) along the pressure axis. from very early time to the latest recorded pressure point. the shape of the data plot is used for the diagnosis of the interpretation model(s).)} { A= f ( kh. . pD = A ∆p. C. the change in pressure ∆p is plotted on loglog scale versus the elapsed time ∆t.. If the flow rate is doubled for example. log pD = log A + log ∆p log t D = log B + log ∆t ( 22) The loglog analysis is global : it considers the full period.27  . 102 101 ∆P. hr Figure 21 Loglog scale.THE ANALYSIS METHODS 21 Loglog scale For a given period of the test. t D = B ∆t . the amplitude of the response ∆p is doubled also.
Chapter 2 . describing the well damage with the dimensionless skin factor S is much more meaningful than using the actual pressure drop near the wellbore.28  ( 26) .000356k tD = ∆t (metric units) 2 φµ c t rw tD = Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient ( 24) CD = CD = 0.66qBµ ( 23) Dimensionless time 0.00223 CD µ C . Dimensionless pressure pD = kh ∆p (field units) 1412qBµ . For example.1 Example of pressure typecurve : "Well with wellbore storage and skin. fluid or rock properties).The analysis methods 22 Pressure curves analysis 22.8936C (field units) 2 φ ct hrw 0.000264 k ∆t (field units) 2 φµ ct rw 0.000295 (field units) CD µ C tD kh ∆t (metric units) = 0. homogeneous reservoir" Dimensionless terms Dimensionless terms are used because they illustrate pressure responses independently of the physical parameters magnitude (such as flowrate. kh ∆p (metric units) pD = 18.1592C 2 φ c t hrw (metric units) ( 25) Dimensionless time group tD kh ∆t = 0.
1592C 2S (metric units) C D e 2S = e 2 φ c t hrw CD e 2 S = The curve label CD e2S defines the well condition. Dimensionless curve group 0.3 for stimulated wells. ∆t (hours) Figure 23 Buildup example. ∆p (psi) 102 101 1 103 102 101 1 101 102 Elapsed time. tD/CD Figure 22 Pressure typecurve: Well with wellbore storage and skin. It ranges from CD e2S =0. Loglog scale.8936C 2 S (field units) e 2 φ ct hrw 0.Chapter 2 . up to 1060 for very damaged wells.3. Loglog plot . pD Approximate start of semilog straight line 10 1060 1050 1040 1030 1020 1015 1010 8 10 106 104 103 102 10 3 1 0. ( 27) Loglog matching procedure 103 Pressure change.29  . CDe(2S) = 1060 to 0.3 CDe2S 1 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. homogeneous reservoir.The analysis methods 1 02 Dimensionless Pressure.
The response is distorted. The early time unit slope straight line is matched on the "wellbore 2S storage" asymptote but the final choice of the CD e curve is frequently not unique (Figure 212).30  . metric units) Time match TM = (t D C D ) ∆t : the wellbore storage coefficient ( 28) C = 0. ∆t is superimposed on a set of dimensionless typecurves pD.m.00223 (m /Bars.000295 kh 1 (Bbl/psi.Chapter 2 .66qBµ (PM ) (mD.ft. Buildup periods are preferably used : the flowrate is nil. After a drawdown of tp. the well shows a pressure drop of ∆p(tp).2qBµ (PM ) (mD. especially with the loglog scale that expands the response at early time. . metric units) µ TM ( 29) Curve match : the skin C D e 2 S Match S = 0. Buildup responses depend upon the previous rate history. field units) kh = 18. It takes an infinite time to reach the initial pressure during buildup.The analysis methods The loglog data plot ∆p.2 Shutin periods Drawdown periods are in general not suitable for analysis because it is difficult to ascertain a constant flowrate. and to produce a pressure change ∆pBU of amplitude ∆p(tp). Example of a shutin after a single rate drawdown Buildup responses do not show the same behavior as a first drawdown in a reservoir at initial pressure. field units) µ TM kh 1 3 C = 0. Results of loglog analysis Pressure match PM = p D ∆p : the permeability thickness product kh = 141. therefore well controlled. tD /CD.5 ln CD ( 210) 22.
p ∆p (∆t) ∆p (tp+∆t) ∆p (tp) Rate.∆p (∆t) ) pi Pressure.Chapter 2 . p ∆pBU(∆t) ∆p (tp) ∆t BU Rate.The analysis methods pi Pressure. For a buildup after a single drawdown at rate q. q q 0 0 tp Time.31  .shutin. q q 0 q 0 tp Time. The diffusivity equation used to generate the well test analysis solutions is linear. (∆p (tp+∆t) . an injection period at q is superposed to the extended flow period. t tp+∆t Figure 24 History drawdown . It is possible to add several pressure responses in order to describe the well behavior after any rate change. This is the superposition principle. t ∆t Figure 25 History extended drawdown + injection. . Loglog analysis : buildup type curve [p D ( ∆t ) D ]BU = pD ( ∆t ) D − pD t p + ∆t ( ) D + pD t p ( ) D ( 211) The pressure buildup curve is compressed on the ∆p axis when ∆t>>tp.
pD pD(tpD ) buildup type curve 5 CDe2S drawdown type curve tpD 0 101 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless times. Horner method pws = pi − 162.The analysis methods 10 2 Dimensionless Pressure. pD pD(tpD ) 10 buildup type curve 1 tpD 101 101 1 10 102 Dimensionless time.87 S (Bars. the correction compresses the ∆t scale. Semilog analysis : superposition time [∆p(∆t )]BU [∆p(∆t )]BU t p ∆t k + log − 3. field units) log 2 φ µ ct rw t p + ∆t t p ∆t qBµ k = 21. tD /CD 103 104 CDe2S drawdown type curve Figure 26 Drawdown and buildup type curves (tpD = 2). metric units) log 2 kh t p + ∆t φµ ct rw = 162. metric units) kh ∆t .87 S (psi.23 + 0.5 log (Bars.6 p ws t p + ∆t qBµ log (psi.Chapter 2 .10 + 0. 10 Dimensionless Pressure.32  ( 213) . tD / CD and [ tpD tD / (tpD + tD) CD ] Figure 27 Drawdown and buildup type curves of Figure 26 on semilog scale.5 + log − 3. field units) ∆t kh t p + ∆t qBµ = p i − 21.6 qBµ kh ( 212) With the superposition time.
Results : qBµ (mD.ft.6 ( 113) ∆p tp +1 k S = 1151 1 hr − log . Multi. metric units) m kh = 162. + log + 3. pD P* 5 m 0 1 10 102 103 104 105 Horner time.10 (metric units) 2 m tp φµ c t rw ( 214) In an infinite system.33  .m. Horner analysis : • The slope m. the straight line extrapolates to the initial pressure and p*=pi.The analysis methods 10 Dimensionless Pressure. field units) m qBµ kh = 21.23 (field units) 2 tp φµ ct rw m ∆p t p +1 k S = 1.5 (mD. • The pressure at ∆t =1 hour on the straight line • The extrapolated pressure to infinite shutin time (∆t = ∞): p*.151 1 hr − log + log + 3.rate superposition At time ∆t of flow period # n. [(tpD + tD) / tD ] Figure 28 Horner plot of buildup type curve of Figure 26. the multirate type curve is : [ pD ( ∆t ) D ] MR = ∑q i =1 n −1 qi − qi −1 pD (t n − ti ) D − pD ( t n + ∆t − ti ) D + pD ( ∆t ) D ( 215) n −1 − qn [ ] .Chapter 2 .
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
Pressure, p
∆t Period # 1,2,…, 5,
Rate, q
6,…….....10,
11
q1,…. q5=0, q6,………..q10, Time, t
q11=0
Figure 29 Multi rate history. Example with 10 periods before shutin.
The multirate superposition time is expressed :
p ws (∆t ) = pi −162.6 p ws (∆t ) = p i −21.5
units)
Bµ n−1 ∑ (qi − qi −1 )log(t n + ∆t − ti )+(qn − qn−1 )log(∆t ) (psi, field units) kh i =1
Bµ n −1 ∑ (qi − qi −1 ) log(t n + ∆t − t i ) + (q n − q n −1 ) log(∆t ) (Bars, metric kh i =1
( 216)
Limitations if the time superposition: the sealing fault example
In the following example, the well is produced 50 hours and shutin for a pressure buildup. A sealing fault is present near the well and, at 100 hours, the flow geometry changes from infinite acting radial flow to hemiradial flow.
5000 4500 Pressure, psi 4000 3500 Infinite reservoir Sealing fault Radial Hemiradial
Radial
Hemiradial
0
50
100
150 Time, hours
200
250
300
Figure 210 History drawdown – buildup. Well near a sealing fault.
During the 50 initial hours of the shutin period (cumulative time 50 to 100 hours), both the extended drawdown and the injection periods are in radial flow regime.
 34 
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
The superposition time of Equations 212 or 213 is applicable, and the Horner method is accurate. At intermediate shutin times, from 50 to 100 hours (cumulative time 100 to 150 hours), the extended drawdown follows a semilog straight line of slope 2m when the injection is still in radial flow (slope m). Theoretically, the semilog approximation of Equation 211 with Equation 212 is not correct. Ultimately, the fault influence is felt during the injection and the 2 periods follow the same semilog straight line of slope 2m (shutin time >> 100 hours, cumulative time >> 150 hours). The semilog superposition time is again applicable. In practice, when the flow regime deviates from radial flow in the course of the response, the error introduced by the Horner or multirate time superposition method is negligible on pressure curve analysis results. It is more sensitive when the derivative of the pressure is considered.
Time superposition with other flow regimes
The time superposition is sometimes used with other flow regimes for straightline analysis. When all test periods follow the same flow behavior, the Horner time can be expressed with the corresponding time function. For fractured wells, Horner time corresponding to linear (Equation 115) and bilinear flow (Equation 117) is expressed respectively :
(t
p
+ ∆t
)
12
− ( ∆t )
12
(hr1/2)
1/4
( 217)
(t p + ∆t )1 4 −(∆t )1 4 (hr
)
( 218)
The Horner time corresponding to spherical flow of Equation 119 has been used for the analysis of RFT pressure data.
( ∆t )−1 2 − (t p + ∆t )
−1 2
(hr1/2)
( 219)
 35 
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
22.3 Pressure analysis method
The analysis is made on loglog and specialized plots. The purpose of the specialized analysis is to concentrate on a portion of the data that corresponds to a particular flow behavior. The analysis is carried out by the identification of a straight line on a plot whose scale is specific to the flow regime considered. The time limits of the specialized straight lines are defined by the loglog diagnosis.
4000 p* 3750 Pressure, psia
slop em
p(1hr)
slope m
3500
3250 3000 1 101 102 (tp +∆t )/ ∆t 103 104
Figure 211 Buildup example of Figure 23. Semilog Horner analysis.
1 02 Dimensionless Pressure, pD
1060 1050 1040 1030 1020 1015 1010 8 10 106 104 103 102 10 3 1 0.3
10
CDe2S 1
101 101
1
10
102
103
104
Dimensionless time, tD/CD
Figure 212 Buildup example of Figure 23. Loglog match.
For the radial flow analysis of a buildup period, the semilog superposition time is used. The slope m of the Horner / superposition straight line defines the final pressure match of the loglog analysis.
PM =
p D 1.151 (psi1, Bars1) = ∆p m
( 220)
2S Once the pressure match is defined, the CD e curve is known accurately. Results from loglog and specialized analyses must be consistent.
 36 
Chapter 2  The analysis methods
23 Pressure derivative
23.1 Definition
The natural logarithm is used.
∆p ' =
dp dp (psi, Bars) = ∆t dt d ln ∆t
( 221)
The derivative is plotted on loglog coordinates versus the elapsed time ∆t since the beginning of the period.
23.2 Derivative typecurve : "Well with wellbore storage and skin, homogeneous reservoir"
Radial flow
Log ∆p Log ∆p' ∆p' = constant
Log ∆t Figure 213 Pressure and derivative responses on loglog scale. Radial flow.
∆p = 162.6
∆p = 21.5
qBµ k − 3.23 + 0.87 S (psi, field units) log ∆t + log 2 φ µ ct rw kh
qBµ k − 3.10 + 0.87 S (Bars, metric units)( 112) log ∆t + log 2 kh φ µ c t rw
The radial flow regime does not produce a characteristic loglog shape on the pressure curve but it is characteristic with the derivative presentation : it is constant.
∆p ' = 70. 6 qB µ (psi, field units) kh
∆p ' = 9.33
qBµ (Bars, metric units) kh
( 222)
In dimensionless terms,
 37 
Bars) 24C ( 224) During wellbore storage.38  . Loglog scale. 103 Pressure derivative. Log ∆p Log ∆p' Slope 1 Log ∆t Figure 214 Pressure and derivative responses on loglog scale. On loglog scale.The analysis methods dp D = 0.5 d ln( t D C D ) Wellbore storage ( 223) ∆p = qB ∆t 24C (psi. function of the CD e group.Chapter 2 . Bars) ( 16) qB ∆p' = ∆t (psi.5 line 1 103 102 101 1 101 102 Elapsed time. ∆t (hours) Figure 215 Derivative of buildup example Figure 23. . the pressure change ∆p and the pressure derivative ∆p' are identical. Wellbore storage Derivative of Section 22 example During the transition between the wellbore storage and the infinite acting radial 2S flow regime. ∆p' (psi) 102 pe slo 1 101 0. the derivative shows a hump. the pressure and the derivative curves follow a single straight line of slope equal to unity.
3 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.5 derivative stabilization. the pressure changes with the elapsed time power 1/n : . tD/CD Figure 217 Derivative match of example Figure 23. p'D 10 1 103 102 10 3 1 0. homogeneous reservoir" Derivative of typecurve Figure 22. and the 0.The analysis methods Derivative typecurve 1 02 CDe2S 1060 1040 1050 1030 1020 1015 1010 108 106 104 Dimensionless Pressure erivative. Dimensionless Pressure Derivative. 23.39  . Loglog scale.3 Other characteristic flow regimes During other characteristic flow regimes. Derivative match The match point is defined with the unit slope pressure and derivative straight line. p'D 1 02 10 1 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. tD/CD Figure 216 "Well with wellbore storage and skin. Loglog scale.Chapter 2 . CDe(2S) = 1060 to 0.3.
when spherical flow is established. Bars) d ln ∆t n ( 226) The loglog pressure derivative curve (∆p'.03 qB hx f qB hx f ∆t (psi. The logarithm derivative is: ∆p ' = dp A 1n = (∆t ) (psi. for bilinear flow. Infinite conductivity fracture. ∆t) follows a straightline slope of 1/n. Infinite conductivity fracture (linear flow) On loglog scale. Bars) With: • 1/n =1 • 1/n =1/2 • 1/n =1/4 • 1/n =1/2 ( 225) during the pure wellbore storage and the pseudo steady state regimes. metric units) ( 115) ∆p = 0.311 Slope 1/2 Log ∆p Log ∆p' Log ∆t Figure 218 Pressure and derivative responses on loglog scale.Chapter 2 . metric units) ( 227) ∆p' = 0. the pressure and derivative follow two straight lines of slope 1/2.623 ∆p' = 2. in the case of linear flow. field units) ∆t (Bars.The analysis methods ∆p = A (∆t )1 n + B (psi. . The level of the derivative halfunit slope line is half that of the pressure. field units) ∆t (Bars.40  . ∆p = 4.06 qB hx f qB hx f µ φ ct k µ φ ct k µ φ ct k µ φ ct k ∆t (psi.
6 ∆p = 9.33 qBµ φ µ ct qBµ − 2452. Finite conductivity fracture.28 qBµ h k f wf 4 φµ c t k 4 ∆t (Bars.The analysis methods Finite conductivity fracture (bilinear flow) A loglog straight line of slope 1/4 can be observed on pressure and derivative curves.4 ∆p ' = 139.6 qBµ φ µ ct 3 k S 2 ∆t (psi.9 3 2 (psi. but the derivative line is four times lower. ∆p = 44.571 qBµ h k f wf 4 φµ ct k ∆t (Bars. metric units) − 279. metric units) ( 228) Slope 1/4 Log ∆p Log ∆p' Log ∆t Figure 219 Pressure and derivative responses on loglog scale.3 3 2 k S rS k S ∆t ( 119) ∆p' = 1226. field units) 4 ∆p = 6. metric units) ( 229) The shape of the loglog pressure curve is not characteristic but the derivative follows a straight line with a negative halfunit slope.03 qBµ h k f w 4 φ µ ct k ∆t (psi. field units) qBµ φµ c t 3 k S 2 ∆t (Bars. Well in partial penetration (spherical flow) ∆p = 70.41  . field units) 4 ∆p' = 1. metric units) ( 117) ∆p' = 11.Chapter 2 . .11 qBµ h k f w 4 φ µ ct k 4 ∆t (psi. field units) k S rS k S ∆t qBµ φµ c t qBµ (Bars.
The derivative exhibits the characteristic straight line before it is seen on the pressure response.0417 ∆t + 21.234 A log 2 − log(C A ) + 0.Chapter 2 .234 qB ∆t (psi. Log ∆p Log ∆p' Slope 1 Log ∆t Figure 221 Pressure and derivative responses on loglog scale.87 S (psi. ∆p = 0. Closed system (drawdown). Well in partial penetration.5 log 2 − log(C A ) + 0. field units) φ ct hA qB ∆p ' = 0.42  .0417 ∆t (Bars. Closed system (pseudo steady state) The late part of the loglog pressure and derivative drawdown curves tends to a unitslope straight line.6 φ ct hA kh ( 122) units) ∆p ' = 0. metric units) φ ct hA ( 230) . metric kh φ c t hA rw qB qBµ ∆t + 162.351 + 0.351 + 0. field units) rw qB qBµ A ∆p = 0.The analysis methods Log ∆p Log ∆p' Slope –1/2 Log ∆t Figure 220 Pressure and derivative responses on loglog scale.87 S (Bars.
3. 23.2>L.The analysis methods 23. The smoothing is defined as a distance L. ∆p ∆p ∆x2 + ∆x1 ∆x 2 dp ∆x 1 = ∆x1 + ∆x2 dx ( 231) It is recommended to start by using consecutive points. L is usually no more than 0.2 or 0. If the resulting derivative curve is too noisy. one point before (left = 1) and one after (right = 2) the point i of interest. The points 1 and 2 are the first at distance ∆x1. point i becomes closer to last recorded point than the distance L. This effect can introduce distortions at the end of the derivative response. the derivative is generated with respect to the modified Horner time given in the superposition Equation 212 : . With this smoothing method. L Pressure change. On a p vs.5 Buildup analysis For a shutin after a single drawdown period (the Horner method is applicable). ∆p 2 i 1 ∆x1 ∆p1 ∆x2 ∆p2 Log (superposition) Figure 222 Differentiation of a set of pressure data. Smoothing is not possible any more to the right side. and attributes their weighted mean to the point i. At the end of the period. the end effect is reached. x semilog plot.43  . smoothing is applied by increasing the distance ∆x between the point i and points 1 and 2.Chapter 2 . The smoothing coefficient L is increased until the derivative response is smooth enough but no more. It estimates the left and right slopes. over smoothing the data introduces distortions.4 Data differentiation The algorithm uses three points. expressed on the time axis scale.
hours Figure 223 Loglog plot of the buildup example of Figure 210. psi 1 03 1 02 drawdown buildup 101 102 101 1 10 102 103 104 Elapsed time ∆t.Chapter 2 . as illustrated on the loglog derivative of the buildup example of Figure 210 for a well near a sealing fault. 1 04 Pressure change. The CD e2S group is identified by adjusting the curve match on pressure and derivative data. 24 The analysis scales The loglog analysis is made with a simultaneous plot of the pressure and derivative curves of the interpretation period. .The analysis methods ∆p ' = t p + ∆t dp dp ∆t = (psi. the multirate superposition time is used.44  . ∆p and Pressure Derivative. Well near a sealing fault. the derivative is plotted versus the usual elapsed time ∆t : the loglog derivative curve is not a raw data plot but is dependent upon the rate history introduced in the time superposition calculations. the derivative with respect to the time superposition can introduce a distortion on the response. Time and pressure match are defined with the derivative response. Bars) t p ∆t tp dt d ln t p + ∆t ( 232) For a complex rate history. Limitations if the time superposition: the sealing fault example When the response deviates from the infinite acting radial flow regime. In all cases.
3 CDe2S 1 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. the average pressure etc. A simulation of the complete test history is presented on linear scale in order to control the rates. . pD and Derivative. any changes in the well behavior.45  .The analysis methods 1 02 Dimensionless Pressure. homogeneous reservoir. tD/CD Figure 224 Pressure and derivative typecurve for a well with wellbore storage and skin. The double loglog match is confirmed with a match of the pressure typecurve on semilog scale to adjust accurately the skin factor and the initial pressure. p'D 10 1060 1050 1040 1030 1020 1015 1010 108 106 104 103 102 10 3 1 0.Chapter 2 .
.46  .
2 Loglog analysis 1 02 Dimensionless Pressure.5. Radial flow.WELLBORE CONDITIONS 31 Well with wellbore storage and skin.3 . . Loglog scale. 31.5 line 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.47  .1 Characteristic flow regimes 1.5 103 104 0 101 1 10 102 Dimensionless time. tD/CD Figure 31 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in an infinite homogeneous reservoir. pD 40 30 20 10 Slope m Slope m CDe2S =1030 ∆ skin CDe2S =0. homogeneous reservoir 31. Results: permeabilitythickness product kh and skin S.3 Semilog analysis 50 Dimensionless Pressure. CDe(2S) = 1030 and 0. tD/CD Figure 32 Semilog plot of Figure 31. p'D CDe2S =1030 10 high skin 1 pe slo 1 CDe2S =0. pD and Derivative. 2. Wellbore storage effect.5 low skin 0. Result: wellbore storage coefficient C. 31.
Dimensionless Pressure. Results: permeabilitythickness product kh and the geometrical skin S. Pseudo radial flow: derivative stabilization at 0. the transition is shorter and the pressure curve is higher. 3. p'D 10 1 /2 e1 lop S 0. Results: fracture halflength xf.Wellbore conditions 32 Infinite conductivity or uniform flux vertical fracture Two models are available: one considers a uniform flux distribution along the fracture length and. the fracture conductivity is infinite. No wellbore storage effect CD = 0.5 line 101 Uniform flux Infinite condutivity 102 104 103 102 101 1 Dimensionless time. CD = 0. Loglog scale. 28) and the fracture halflength xf from the time match : . With the uniform flux model.48  . tDf 10 102 103 Figure 33 Responses for a well intercepting a high conductivity fracture.000356k φµ ct x 2 f ∆t (metric units) ( 31) On Figure 33. 32.2 Loglog analysis Dimensionless terms t Df = t Df = 0. Wellbore storage 2. Infinite conductivity and uniform flux.000264 k ∆t (field units) φµ ct x 2 f 0.Chapter 3 . 32.1 Characteristic flow regimes 1. with the other. Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. pD and Derivative. Match results The kh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. The two models are slightly different during the transition between linear flow and radial flow.5.
0 Square root of dimensionless time. metric units) φµ ct TM ( 32) The fracture stimulation is seen as a negative skin during the radial flow regime. With infinite conductivity fracture. ( 33) x f = 2.000264k 1 (ft.000264k 1 (m.Chapter 3 . 32. Dimensionless Pressure.8 1. m LF Uniform flux Infinite condutivity . this geometrical skin effect is defined from the fracture halflength xf as : x f = 2 rw e − S (ft. m) ( 34) Figure 34 Flow line geometry near a fractured well. for the uniform flux solution.4 0 0 0. Early time analysis. √tDf Figure 35 Square root of time plot of Figure 33.2 0. field units) φµ ct TM 0.2 0. m) And.6 0.Wellbore conditions xf = xf = 0.3 Linear flow analysis The half fracture length xf is also estimated from Equation 116.4 0.8 0.7 rw e − S (ft.49  . pD 1.
Infinite conductivity fracture.1 Characteristic flow regimes 1.3 S=0 102 102 101 1 10 102 103 Dimensionless time. 33 Finite conductivity vertical fracture With the finite conductivity fracture model. 10 . . Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. 10 . pD and Derivative. 4. 3 4 CD = 0. 2. 1. Loglog scale. 32. 33. there is a pressure gradient along the fracture length. Wellbore storage Bilinear flow : 1/4 slope straight line.3. 102 4 3 10 10 102 101 1 10 102 103 Dimensionless time.Wellbore conditions 32.5 Damaged fracture with wellbore storage 10 Dimensionless Pressure.5 line 104 103. tD/CD Figure 37 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storageand skin. Results : fracture halflength xf. Results : fracture conductivity kfwf. 3. tDf Figure 36 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storage. Loglog scale. Pseudo radial flow : derivative stabilization at 0. especially when the fracture is long. Results : permeabilitythickness product kh and the geometrical skin S. S = 0.50  .5. pD and Derivative. 0. p'D 1 S=1 101 S=0. p'D 10 1 CD=0 101 1/2 pe S lo 0.4 Fractured well with wellbore storage Dimensionless Pressure. Infinite conductivity fracture. This happens when the permeability of the fracture is not very high compared to the permeability of the formation.Chapter 3 .
p'D 1 0. 10 Dimensionless Pressure. 10 and 100.Wellbore conditions 33. see Figure 310). pD and Derivative. The fracture conductivity kfwf is estimated from the match on the bilinear flow 1/4 slope. pD and Derivative.51  . .Chapter 3 . tD /CD Figure 38 Response for a well intercepting a finite conductivity fracture. 32). kfDwfD = 100. Loglog scale. Loglog scale. the bilinear flow regime is short lived and the 1/4slope pressure and derivative straight lines are moved downwards. no fracture skin. Match results The kh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq.5 line 101 1/2 pe Slo /4 Slope 1 102 103 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. No wellbore storage effect CD = 0. tD /CD Figure 39 Response for a well intercepting a finite conductivity fracture. The behavior tends to a high conductivity fracture response (when kfDwfD is greater than 300.5 line 1/2 pe Sl o 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. No wellbore storage effect CD = 0. p'D 1 kfDwfD= 101 1 10 102 100 103 /4 Slope 1 0. For large fracture conductivity kfDwfD. 28) and the fracture halflength xf from the time match (Eq. kfDwfD = 1.2 Loglog analysis The dimensionless fracture conductivity kfDwfD is defined as : k fD w fD = k f wf kx f ( 35) 10 Dimensionless Pressure.
.Wellbore conditions The fracture negative skin is defined by two terms: the geometrical skin of an infinite conductivity fracture (Eq.Chapter 3 .5 and 5) models. the fracture halflength form Equation 116. and a correction parameter G to account for the pressure losses in the fracture. kfDwfD Figure 310 Effective wellbore radius for a well with a finite conductivity fracture.3 Bilinear and linear flow analyses The fracture conductivity kfwf is estimated with Equation 118. 33. 33.6 .5 0 0 .4 Flux distribution along the fracture 3 Uniform flux Infinite conductivity Finite conductivity kfDwfD >300 Dimensionless flux.2 . 33). x /xf Figure 311 Stabilized flux distribution.52  .5 rwe / xf 101 + ln 2rw xf ( 36) 102 101 1 10 102 103 Dimensionless fracture conductivity.8 1 Dimensionless distance. Infinite conductivity (kfDwfD > 300) and Finite conductivity fracture (kfDwfD = 0. Uniform flux. Loglog scale.4 . k f wf S LKF = G kxf 1 0. qfD 2 1 5 0.
hw : open interval thickness zw : distance of the center of the open interval to the lower reservoir boundary kH : horizontal permeability kV : vertical permeability 34. Sw. and the total skin ST.Wellbore conditions 34 Well in partial penetration 34. Results : permeabilitythickness product for the total reservoir kHh. The total skin combines the wellbore skin Sw and an additional geometrical skin Spp due to distortion of the flow lines.5. 3. Results : permeability anisotropy kH/kV and location of the open interval in the reservoir thickness. Spherical flow : 1/2 slope derivative straight line. Results : permeabilitythickness product for the open interval kHhw. Wellbore storage. . ST = h S w + S pp hw ( 37) A skin above 30 or 50 is indicative of a partial penetration effect.2 Characteristic flow regimes 1. • For damaged wells. and the skin of the well. Radial flow over the entire reservoir thickness : second derivative stabilization at 0.Chapter 3 . 4.53  . Radial flow over the open interval : a first derivative plateau at 0.5 h/hw. 2. as depicted on Figure 121: • Spp is large when the penetration ratio hw/h or the vertical permeability kV is low (high anisotropy kH/kV).1 Definition Sw h hw zw kV kH Figure 312 Geometry of a partially penetrating well. the product (h/hw)Sw can be larger than 100.
kV / kH = 0. 0.Chapter 3 . the start of the spherical flow regime is delayed (1/2 derivative slope moved to the right). p'D 102 103 2 10 1 10 first stabilization 10 1 kV/kH = 101 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 102 0. The wellbore skin Sw and the penetration ratio hw/h are estimated from the first radial flow when present (derivative plateau at 0. Match results The kHh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq.5 line 103 106 Dimensionless time.10.54  .Wellbore conditions 34.005. pD and Derivative. Influence of zw/h 102 Dimensionless Pressure. Loglog scale. pD and Derivative. . Sw=0.2. When the vertical permeability kV is low (low kV/kH). CD = 6. Loglog scale. hw/h = 1/5 in center of the interval. hw/h = 1/10. p'D 10 hem isp h eric al 1 sph eric al 0. 28).5 and 0.3 Loglog analysis Influence of kV / kH Dimensionless Pressure.01 and 0.5 line 101 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. h m1st line ( 38) The permeability anisotropy kV/kH and location of the open interval are estimated from the spherical flow 1/2 slope match. kV/kH = 0. zw/h = 0. tD/CD Figure 314 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage and skin.5 h/hw) : hw ∆p2nd stab. m2nd line = = ∆p1st stab. Sw=0.001. tD/CD Figure 313 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage and skin. CD = 33.
pD 40 Slope m kV/kH = 103 102 101 30 20 10 0 ∆ Spp 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.Wellbore conditions 34. Spp can be expressed : S pp π h h = − 1 ln 2 rw hw hw kH h h + ln h k V hw 2+ w h (z + hw 4)(h − z + hw 4) ( 39) (z − hw 4)(h − z − hw 4) With hw h = 0.5 and kH/kV = 10. Spp = 68 whereas with hw h = 0.Chapter 3 . 38). Influence of kV / kH on Spp (Sw=0). Spp = 6 only.55  .01. 34. When a first semilog straight line is seen (radial flow over the open interval).5 Geometrical skin Spp When the penetration ratio hw h and the dimensionless reservoir thicknessanisotropy group (h rw ) k H kV are not very small.1 and kH/kV = 1000. . tD/CD Figure 315 Semilog plot of Figure 313.4 Semilog analysis Dimensionless Pressure. The straight line is frequently not well defined and the analysis is difficult : on example kV/kH =103 of Figure 313.6 Spherical flow analysis Plot of ∆p versus 1 ∆t . and the wellbore skin Sw. it ends before 1 t D C D =0. The straight line is very compressed. it defines the permeabilitythickness kHhw (penetration ratio hw/h with Eq. The final semilog straight line defines kHh and ST. the spherical flow regime is established between tD/CD=104 and 106. 34.
2 and 4 segments. two or four segments.7 Influence of the number of open segments When the open interval is distributed in several segments. pD Figure 316 Spherical flow analysis of responses Figure 313.08 0.06 0. CD = 100.Chapter 3 .9 and 13. the –1/2 slope is displaced towards early time when the number of segments is increased (the global skin is respectively 17. two or four segments uniformly distributed in the interval. . kV /kH = 0. hw/h = 1/4.10. the ability of vertical flow is improved compared to the single segment partially penetrating well of same hw. one segment centered. If the open interval is close to the top or bottom sealing boundary. flow is semispherical and the slope mSPH must be divided by two in Equation 120. Loglog scale.9. 1 t D CD kV/kH = 103 102 101 slopes mSPH Dimensionless Pressure.Wellbore conditions When the open interval is in the middle of the formation. p'D segments 1 2 4 10 1 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. the slope mSPH of the spherical flow straight line gives the permeability anisotropy from Equations 120 and 121. 40 35 30 15 20 0 0. 102 Dimensionless Pressure. On the examples Figure 317 with 1. One over square root of time plot.04 0. 34.56  . One.9). 15. Sw=0. pD and Derivative.02 0.1 Dimensionless time function. tD/CD Figure 317 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage and skin.
L : effective half length of the horizontal well zw : distance between the drain hole and the bottomsealing boundary kH : horizontal permeability kV : vertical permeability .57  . The dotted derivative curve describes the response with sealing upper and lower boundaries. pD and Derivative. 35 Horizontal well 35. CD = 1000. Sw=0.Wellbore conditions 34. no final radial flow regime develops after the spherical flow regime: the pressure stabilizes and the derivative drops. one segment on top.1 Definition kV kH kH h L L zw Figure 319 Horizontal well geometry. Loglog scale. hw/h = 1/5.Chapter 3 .8 Constant pressure upper or lower limit In the case of a bottom water / oil contact or a gas cap on top of the producing interval. kV/kH = 0.005. 102 Dimensionless Pressure. tD/CD Figure 318 Responses for a well in partial penetration with a bottom constant pressure boundary. p'D 10 1 oil water 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.
tD/CD Figure 321 Response for a horizontal well with wellbore storage and skin in a reservoir with sealing upper and lower boundaries. Vertical radial flow : a first derivative plateau at 0.Chapter 3 . the first derivative stabilization is also moved down. 3.Wellbore conditions 35. 1.5(h 2 L ) k H kV . Results : effective halflength L and well location zw of the horizontal drain. Results : reservoir permeabilitythickness product kHh.2 Characteristic flow regimes Vertical radial flow Linear flow Horizontal radial flow Figure 320 Horizontal well flow regimes. the 1/2 derivative slope is moved to the right and the first derivative stabilization is moved down.5 kH h 101 C 102 102 101 1 10 kV k H 2 L 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. 35. 2. Loglog scale.58  .5. With long drain holes. Linear flow between the upper and lower boundaries : 1/2 slope derivative straight line. and the total skin STH. When the vertical permeability is increased. Wellbore storage. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 First stabilization 1/2 pe Slo k H L2 0.3 Loglog analysis Dimensionless Pressure . 4. Results : the permeability anisotropy kH/kV and the wellbore skin Sw (or the vertical radial flow total skin STV of Equation 315). . Radial flow over the entire reservoir thickness : second derivative stabilization at 0.
rw =0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 L/h = 2.5. Sw =5. L =1000ft. The vertical radial flow total skin STV and the permeability anisotropy kH/kV are estimated from the first radial flow in the vertical plane (permeability thickness 2 kV k H L and derivative plateau at 0. L =250ft.5. CD =1000.0125.25ft. L =500ft. L =3000. CD =100. During the linear flow. 10 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. zw /h =0. kV /kH =0.05.25ft.004. rw =0.2. kV /kH =0.25(h L) k H kV ). Dimensionless Pressure . 28). the location of the halfunit slope straight line is a function of L2. pD and Derivative p'D 102 10 5 15 L/h = 30 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 1 Dimensionless time. The effective halflength L and well location zw are estimated from the intermediate time 1/2 slope match. SQRT (kV kH)*L constant.Chapter 3 . kV /kH =0. zw /h =0.223. 1500 and 500ft. tD/CD Figure 323 Influence of L on pressure and derivative loglog curves. When the effective well length is increased.25 ft.59  . 5.Wellbore conditions Match results The kHh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. the first derivative stabilization during the vertical radial flow is lowered and the linear flow regime is delayed. h =100ft. Sw =0. Dimensionless Pressure . kV /kH =0. Influence of L The examples presented Figures 322 to 341 are generated with h = 100 ft and rw = 0. tD/CD Figure 322 Influence of L on pressure and derivative loglog curves. .5. (∆p1st stab)D= 0.
(∆p1st stab)D =1.25. the position of the horizontal drain hole with respect to the lower boundary of the zone zwa. L =1500ft.25.4 Dimensionless variables In the derivation of the model. 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. 102 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. SQRT (kV kH)*L constant.60  . Sw =0. kV /kH =0. tD/CD 0. rw =0.125.5.5 Figure 325 Influence of zw on pressure and derivative loglog curves.02. 10 Figure 324 Influence of L on pressure and derivative loglog curves. zw /h =0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 L/h = 2. L=1000ft.5. 0. kV /kH =0. pD and Derivative p'D 1 101 zw/h = 0. 35. Sw =2.Wellbore conditions When the effective well length is short.125.01. kV /kH =0. The apparent open interval thickness ha.000625.25ft. the lengths are transformed in order to introduce the permeability anisotropy between vertical and horizontal directions. L =250ft. 0. the behavior becomes similar to that of a well in partial penetration. 102 Dimensionless Pressure . tD/CD 5.25ft. Influence of zw 10 Dimensionless Pressure .Chapter 3 . kV /kH =0. zw /h =0. rw =0. CD =1000. h =100ft. h =100ft. L =500ft. CD =100. 0.5.0025. and the apparent wellbore radius are defined as: .
field units) (Bars.Chapter 3 . the vertical radial flow skin is expressed as S'TV. m) ( 310) z wa = z w (ft.5qBµ − 3.5 Vertical radial flow semilog analysis ∆p = kV k H ∆t 162.23 log 2 φ µ ct rw 2 kV k H L k 1 k + 0.6qBµ − 3.10 log 2 φ µ ct rw 2 kV k H L k 1 k + 0. hD = ha h = L L kH kV ( 313) 35.Wellbore conditions ha = h kH kV kH kV (ft. defined with reference to the equivalent fully penetrating vertical well : ' STV = h kH STV = 0.5 hD S TV 2 L kV ( 316) .61  . m) ( 311) 1 rwa = rw 4 kV k H +4 k H kV 2 [ ] (ft. by the well halflength L.87 S w − 2 log 4 V + 4 H 2 kH kV ∆p = kV k H ∆t 21. metric units) ( 314) The skin STV measured during the vertical radial flow is expressed with the wellbore skin Sw and the anisotropy skin Sani of Equation 334 : S TV = S w + S ani = S w − ln 4 kV k H + 4 k H kV 2 ( 315) Sometimes. as a leading parameter of horizontal well behavior. m) ( 312) Several authors use the ratio hD of the apparent thickness ha of Equation 310.87 S w − 2 log 4 V + 4 H 2 kH kV (psi.
metric units)( 317) + kH h 2Lh φ c t k H 2 kV k H L During the linear flow regime.62  . close to the linear flow skin Sz of Equation 3.66 qBµ 18.6 ∆p = 21.5 kH kV π z w sin h 2 h 1 zw zw − + L2 3 h h 2 2 ( 320) S G = 0. metric units) log 2 k H h φµ c t rw STH measured during the horizontal radial flow combines S'TV of Equation 3.81 − ln ( 321) S zT = −1.16 and the geometrical skin SG of the horizontal well (function of the logarithm of the well effective length and a partial penetration skin SzT .5 k H ∆t qBµ − 3.7 Horizontal pseudoradial flow semilog analysis ∆p = 162.23 + 0.10 + 0.Wellbore conditions 35. S z = −1151 .246 qB µ ∆t 18. 1412 qBµ . field units) φ ct k H 2 kV k H L 2L h kH h ∆p = 1.87 S TH (Bars.87 S TH (psi.6 Linear flow analysis ∆p = 8128 qB µ ∆t . 1412 qBµ . producing a partial penetration skin Sz.66 qBµ Sw + S z (Bars.18) : S TH = h 2L kH S w + SG kV L + S zT rw k H h π rw log kV L h kV 1 + kH − 0. + Sw + S z (psi.151 ( 322) . the flow lines are distorted vertically before reaching the horizontal well. π r kH h k π z log w 1 + V sin w kV L kH h h ( 318) 35.Chapter 3 . field units) log 2 k H h φ µ ct rw ( 319) k H ∆t qBµ − 3.
25 0.125 0.5 m es op Sl F HR 1 0 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. zw/h=0.1. .5 zw/h =0. 0. 0.1.01. SG 0 2 4 6 8 . 0.5 zw/h =0. pD 3 2 F Slope m VR zw/h = 0 . zw/h=0.63  . Influence of kV/kH.001 kV/kH = ∞ zw/h =0. 0. 2 1000 Geometrical skin. L/rw zw/h =0.1. kV/kH =0.Chapter 3 .1 h/rw = 500 2000 4000 kV/kH = ∞ Figure 328 Semilog plot of the geometrical skin SG versus L/rw.1 103 104 105 Dimensionless half length. tD/CD Figure 326 Semilog plot of Figure 325. SG 0 2 4 6 8 .Wellbore conditions 4 Dimensionless Pressure.5.1.5.10 102 kV/kH = 1.10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless half length. 2 Geometrical skin. L/rw Figure 327 Semilog plot of the geometrical skin SG versus L/rw. Influence of h/rw. h/rw =1000. 0.
0). 0. each segment acts like a horizontal well. parallel to the wellbore. 0 (damage in the central section). the geometrical skin can be larger or smaller than SG of Equation 321 and 322.1. 8.25(h L) k H kV ). During horizontal radial flow. kV/kH=0. and several horizontal radial flow regimes are established until interference effects between the producing sections are felt. Swi=8. Swi=8.Chapter 3 . L =1000 ft. 8. Then. the flow is threedimensional (pseudospherical). and the derivative is displaced upwards during the early time response. Swi=0. The vertical radial flow regime is then distorted. 8. the response first corresponds to a horizontal well with the total length of the producing segments.25 ft. 5. 4. h =100 ft. CD = 100.Wellbore conditions 35. Nonuniform mechanical skin 10 Dimensionless Pressure .66. zw/h =0. 2. tD/CD Figure 329 Influence of nonuniform skin on pressure and derivative curves. rw =0. Partially open horizontal well When only some sections of the well are open to flow. pD and Derivative p'D Skin Swi 1 101 102 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. During horizontal radial flow.64  .5. 8 (damage at the two ends). 4. The well is divided in 4 segments of 500 ft with skins of Swi=4. Finite conductivity horizontal well When the pressure gradients in the wellbore are comparable to pressure gradients in the reservoir. 0 (skin decreasing along the well length). Later. 0. the final horizontal radial flow regime is reached for the complete .8 Discussion of the horizontal well model Several well conditions can produce a pressure gradient in the reservoir. the total skin STH is less negative. 8.33. The two ends of the well are more sensitive to skin damage (the total skin STH is more negative on the curve Swi=0. and the derivative response deviates from the usual stabilization at 0. 4 (uniform damage).
65  . zw /h =0. L =2000ft. tD/CD Figure 330 Influence of number of open segments on pressure and derivative loglog curves. zw / h =0. Total halflength 2000 ft. Dimensionless Pressure .9. rw =0. L /2 and L.1. tD/CD 100% 50% 25% 12. Nonrectilinear horizontal well During the vertical radial flow.1. ΣLeff= L /8. 25 and 12.Chapter 3 . pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0. L =2000ft.5 101 0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 101 102 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.5. 50. The more distributed the producing sections.6 and –5. CD =100.25 0.125 102 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time.Wellbore conditions drain hole.4. 4 segments with Swi =0. . effective halflength 500 ft.5.25ft. ΣLeff= L /4. CD =100. 1. The transition between vertical radial flow and linear flow is then distorted.5% 105 106 107 Figure 331 Influence of the penetration ratio on pressure and derivative loglog curves. the more negative the total skin STH. Dimensionless Pressure . the upper and lower sealing boundaries can be reached at different times when the well is not strictly horizontal. kV/kH =0. On the examples Figure 331.25ft. rw =0. When the producing segments are uniformly distributed along the drain hole. kV /kH =0. STH is respectively –7. 2. the total skin STH can be very negative even with a low penetration ratio. h =100ft. h =100ft. 7. 6.1. with penetration ratios of 100. L /4.5%. Four segments equally spaced. 4 segments with Swi =0.
0E+03 1. rw =0.5 or 0. the average permeability during the vertical radial flow is k z k y .0E+01 pD & pD' 1. only the permeability ky normal the well orientation is acting.0E+04 1. L =2000ft (500+1000+500). The final horizontal radial flow regime defines the average horizontal permeability k H = k x k y . During the linear flow regime. 1. kz ky kx kz ky 2L k y L2 kx k y h Figure 333 Horizontal permeability anisotropy.725).95 (average 0. Swi =0.0E+02 1. At early time.0E+00 k y L2 1. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 101 102 101 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. Pressure and derivative curves.0E01 kxky h kzk y 2L 1. CD =100.Chapter 3 .0E02 1.0E+01 1.1. kV / kH =0.Wellbore conditions Dimensionless Pressure . Anisotropic horizontal permeability In anisotropic reservoirs.25ft. h =100ft. (zw / h)i=0.0E+00 1. Effective permeability during the three characteristic flow regimes towards a horizontal well.0E01 1.66  .0E+05 tD/CD Figure 334 Influence of the permeability anisotropy during the three characteristic flow regimes. tD/CD 105 106 107 Figure 332 Nonrectilinear horizontal wells. . horizontal well responses are also sensitive to the well orientation.
Chapter 3 .Wellbore conditions When the isotropic horizontal permeability model is used for analysis. m) (the vertical permeability kz is unchanged). the horizontal radial flow regime gives the average horizontal permeability : k H = ∑ k Hi hi 1 n ∑ hi 1 n (mD) ( 324) During the vertical radial flow. Horizontal wells should be drilled preferably in the minimum permeability direction. Changes in vertical permeability In a layered reservoir with crossflow. ky ky kx kx Figure 336 Horizontal well in the direction of maximum permeability : apparent effective length decreased. the resulting average vertical permeability is defined (assuming the well is centered in layer j) : n j −1 ∑ hi + h j 2 ∑ hi + h j 2 j +1 + n k V = 0. the changes of permeability are acting in series.5 j −1 1 ∑ hi kVi + h j 2 kVj ∑ hi kVi + h j 2 kVj 1 j +1 (mD) ( 325) .67  . ky ( 323) ky kx kx Figure 335 Horizontal well normal to the maximum permeability direction : apparent effective length increased. the apparent effective halflength is : La = 4 k y k x L (ft. When the contrast in vertical permeability is not too large.
Sw=0. the match with a homogeneous layer . It the thickness of the gas zone is not large enough. kV/kH=0.25 (well centered in h3). . CD = 100. kH3/kH2=0. L = 1000 ft.5. kH1/kH2=1. One layer: kH= (k1h1+ k2h2+ k3h3) / (h1+h2+h3).25ft. (kV /kH)2=0. On Figure 338. Presence of a gas cap or bottom water drive When the constant pressure boundary is reached at the end of the vertical radial flow regime (or hemi radial in the examples Figure 339). zw/h = 0. a thin reduced permeability interval is introduced in the main layer. L =1000ft. • One layer (h1+h2+h3) : k= (k1h1+ k2h2+ k3h3) / (h1+h2+h3). (kV/kH)i=0.5 (0.68  . (kV / kH)3=0.08. pD and Derivative p'D 1 101 One equivalent layer 102 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. L = 550 ft. pD and Derivative p'D 1 101 One layer = h1+h2+h3 h3 102 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. the pressure stabilizes and the derivative drops.4.05. 10 Dimensionless Pressure . kV/kH=0. When a homogeneous layer of total thickness is used for analysis. k1=k3=100k2. h3=50ft). zw/h = 0.028)k H 2 = 0. 10 Dimensionless Pressure .1. zw /h =0. is defined with k H = 107 k H 2 and k V = 0.Chapter 3 .0514. h =100ft (30+30+40). tD/CD Figure 338 Horizontal well in a reservoir 3 layers with crossflow. Pressure and derivative loglog curves.2.1. L = 1000 ft. the effective well length is too small and the vertical permeability overestimated.082 + 0. h =100 ft (h1=45ft.Wellbore conditions In the example Figure 337 with n=3 and j=2. h2=5ft.55 (well centered in h2). rw =0. 5 (well centered in h1+h2+h3). the derivative stabilizes at late time to describe the total oil + gas mobility thickness.25 ft. tD/CD Figure 337 Horizontal well in a reservoir 3 layers with crossflow. zw/h = 0. CD =100. Pressure and derivative loglog curves. Sw=0. rw =0. (kV /kH)1=0.0514 k H . kV/kH=0. Sw =0.8. • One layer (h3) : k= k3. 5 (well centered in h3).03. Sw=0.
ct gas=10 ct oil. zw/h = 0.Wellbore conditions 10 Dimensionless Pressure .5. kV/kH=0. µgas=0. In the case of intersecting multilateral horizontal wells in reservoir with isotropic horizontal permeability. tD/CD Figure 339 Horizontal well in a reservoir with gas cap and sealing bottom boundary. rw =0. Pressure and derivative loglog curves. CD = 100. 35. zw/h = 0.69  . rw=0. (kV/kH)=0. With the examples of Figure 340.0 h.0. pseudo radial flow towards the multilateral horizontal well develops. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 101 102 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. Dimensionless Pressure . At later time.1. pD and Derivative p'D 1 No gas cap 101 hgas = 20 ft 102 hgas hoil 101 1 10 102 103 104 100 ft 500 ft 105 106 103 Dimensionless time. the total skin STH of the horizontal well is STH =6.20.6 and –6.25 ft.01 µoil. increasing the number of branches does not improve the productivity. the different branches of multilateral wells start to produce independently until interference effects between the branches distort the response.25 ft. 1.1.Chapter 3 . Sw=2.9 Other horizontal well models Multilateral horizontal well As for partially penetrating horizontal wells. Pressure and derivative curves. h =100 ft. . Gas cap : hgas= 0. tD/CD Figure 340 Multilateral horizontal wells. 5.2 (well close to the bottom boundary).2 with two and four branches. CD = 100. Swi=0. L = 1000 ft (500+500 or 250+250+250+250).8 (one branch) and respectively –6. L = 1000 ft. h =100 ft.
623 (Bars.11 m BLF = 6. zw/h = 0. Swi=0. the slope mBLF and mLF are expressed : m BLF = 44.hr1/4. the flow is first linear in the formation and radial in the fracture. metric units) ( 326) m LF = 4. With longitudinal fractures. it changes into linear flow. the different fractures produce independently until interference effects are felt. metric units) ( 327) With transverse fractures.hr1/4.Wellbore conditions When the distance between the two producing segments is large enough.1. The responses Figure 341 tend to be equivalent to the example with two segments of Figure 330.25 ft. possibly followed by horizontal radial flow around the different fractures.1 (and STH =6. Pressure and derivative curves. At early time. h =100 ft. L = 1000 ft (500+500). For a single fracture of halflength xf. For a single transverse fracture of radius rf. the slope mRLF and mLF are: . rw=0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 101 102 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. For the two multilateral horizontal wells of Figure 341. CD = 100. bilinear and linear flow regimes can be observed.hr1/2.5.06 qB hx f qB hx f µ k H φ ct µ φ ct k H (psi. and later into the horizontal radial flow regime around the fracture segments. Dimensionless Pressure . the response becomes independent of the orientation of the branches. tD/CD Figure 341 Multilateral horizontal wells. on the second example the intersection point is at 1000ft from the start of the 2 segments. field units) qBµ x f k f w f 4 φµ ct k H (Bars. The radial linear flow regime yields a semilog straight line whose slope is function of the fracture conductivity.Chapter 3 . The total skin STH is more negative when the distance between the branches is increased. STH =7.70  .28 qBµ xf kf w4 φ µ ct k H (psi.hr1/2.8 with one branch). kV/kH=0. Fractured horizontal well Two configurations are considered : longitudinal and transverse fractures. field units) m LF = 0. The distance between the 2 parallel branches is 2000ft.
metric units) ( 329) Once the interference effect between the different fractures is fully developed. 36 Skin factors 36. but the perimeter is increased. m) ( 332) The wellbore is changed into an ellipse whose area is the same as in the original system.Chapter 3 . and produces an apparent negative skin : rwa = 1 rw 2 [ 4 k min k max + 4 k max k min ] (ft. As for partially open horizontal wells. by a transformation of variables in the two main directions of permeability kmax and kmin. the time of start of the final regime is a function of the distance between the outermost fractures.Wellbore conditions m RLF = 81. metric units) ( 328) m LF = 5.17 qB hr f qB hr f µ φ ct k H µ φ ct k H (psi. m) ( 331) y' = y = y4 (ft.75 (Bars. The elliptical well behaves like a cylindrical hole whose apparent radius is the average of the major and minor axes.71  .3 qBµ kf w qBµ k f wf (psi.hr1/2.hr1/2.793 (Bars. m) ( 333) . field units) m RLF = 10.1 Anisotropy pseudoskin An equivalent transformed isotropic reservoir model of average radial permeability is used. the final pseudo radial flow regime towards the fractured horizontal well establishes. field units) m LF = 0. With k = k max k min (mD) x' = x k k max k k min =x 4 k min k max k max k min ( 330) (ft.
for horizontal wells. Dimensionless Pressure . Loglog scale. A = fully penetrating vertical well. B = well in partial penetration. B and C. C = horizontal well.72  . tD/CD Figure 343 Pressure and derivative response of wells A. when kV/kH <<1.Wellbore conditions Sani = − ln 4 = − ln k min k max + 4 k max k min 2 k min + k max 2 k ( 334) Sani is in general low but. Sani =1 may be observed. 36.2 Geometrical skin A B C Figure 342 Configuration of wells A. . B and C. pD and Derivative p'D 102 SG>0 10 1 101 102 102 SG<0 A : vertical well B : partial penetration C : horizontal well 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.Chapter 3 .
Skin factor due to the fissures in a double porosity reservoir.Wellbore conditions Dimensionless Pressure . Type Positive or negative Positive or negative Negative Positive or negative Negative Positive Sani SRC S2φ D.3 The different skin factors Name Sw SG Description Infinitesimal skin at the wellbore. partial penetration. 36.q .Chapter 3 . Skin factor due to the anisotropy of the reservoir permeability. tD/CD Figure 344 Semilog plot of Figure 343 examples. pD 30 A : vertical well B : partial penetration C : horizontal well 20 SG>0 10 SG<0 0 102 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. Skin factor due to a change of reservoir mobility near the wellbore (permeability or fluid property. Geometrical skin due to the streamline curvature (fractured.73  . slanted or horizontal wells). radial composite behavior). Turbulent or inertial effects on gas wells.
74  ..
Vf and Vm : ratio of the total volume of the fissures (or matrix) to the reservoir volume (Vf + Vm = 1). φf and Vm are close to 1.DOUBLE POROSITY MODELS 41 Definitions 41.m) ( 41) Matrix Fissure Vug Figure 41 Example of double porosity reservoir.2 can be simplified as : ( 42) φ = Vf + φm 41. fissured and multiplelayer formations.2 Porosity φf and φm : ratio of pore volume in the fissures (or in the matrix).FISSURED RESERVOIRS . to the total volume of the fissures (of the matrix).4 . 41. mD. The average porosity of Equation 4.3 Storativity ratio ω ( 43) ω= (φ Vct ) f (φ Vct ) f = (φ Vct ) f + (φ Vct )m (φ Vct ) f +m . over the complete thickness h: kh = k f h f (mD. φ = φ f V f + φ mVm In practice. The permeability thickness product kh estimated by the interpretation is used to define an equivalent bulk permeability of the fissure network.1 Permeability The fluid flows to the well through the fissure system only and the radial permeability of the matrix system does not contribute to the mobility (km = 0).ft.75  ( 44) .
cubes n=1. defined with the number n of families of fissure planes. slabs Figure 42 Matrix skin. m) When a skin effect (Sm in dimensionless term) is present at the surface of the matrix blocks. ( 47) Sm = k m hd rm k d km rm ( 48) hd kd n=3. the matrix blocks are cubes (or spheres) and. α= n(n + 2) 2 2 (ft . For n = 3. . Slab and sphere matrix blocks.Fissured reservoirs 41.Chapter 4 . The analysis with the restricted interporosity flow model (pseudosteady state interporosity flow) provides the effective interporosity flow parameter λeff : λ eff =n 2 rw k d rm hd k f ( 49) λeff is independent of the matrix block permeability km. the matrix to fissure flow is called restricted interporosity flow.4 Interporosity flow parameter λ 2 λ = α rw km kf ( 45) α is related to the geometry of the fissure network. It is defined as the ratio of the volume V of the matrix blocks. to the surface area A of the blocks : rm = nV A (ft. for n = 1.76  . m ) 2 rm ( 46) rm is the characteristic size of the matrix blocks. they are slab.
2.1592C (metric units) 2 (φ Vct ) f + m hrw ( 413) The storativity ratio ω correlates the two definitions of dimensionless wellbore storage : C Df + m = ω C Df ( 414) 42 Double porosity behavior.8936C (field units) 2 (φ Vct ) f hrw 2 (φVct ) f hrw 0.1592C (metric units) ( 412) C Df + m = C Df + m = 0. during fissure flow. 3. . .Fissured reservoirs 41.(CDe2S)f+m at late time.1 Loglog analysis Pressure type curves Three component curves : 1. .000295 (field units) CD µ C tD kh ∆t (metric units) = 0. when total system behavior is reached. .5 Dimensionless variables pD = kh ∆p (field units) 1412qBµ .77  . restricted interporosity flow (pseudosteady state interporosity flow) 42.8936C (field units) 2 (φ Vct ) f +m hrw 0. between the two homogeneous behaviors.66qBµ ( 410) tD kh ∆t = 0.λeff e2S during transition regime. kh ∆p (metric units) pD = 18.(CDe2S)f at early time.00223 CD µ C ( 411) C Df = C Df = 0.Chapter 4 .
With example B. λeffe = 107. 102 Dimensionless Pressure. .Chapter 4 . λeffe = 3. pD Start of semilog radial flow 10 CDe2S = 1030 λe2S = 1030 1010 1010 103 106 5 0. 102 Dimensionless Pressure.1 5x103 10 B 107 3x104 102 1 A 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. pseudo steady state interporosity flow. On semilog scale. ω = 0. two parallel straight lines are present with example A. ω = 0. With example B.1. (CDe )f+m = 104.1 102 5x103 0. 2S 2S 2S ■ = B : (CDe )f = 105. the fissure (CDe2S)f curve does not reach the semilog straightline approximation. wellbore storage lasts until the transition regime and. tD/CD Figure 43 Pressure typecurve for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir.Fissured reservoirs A double porosity response goes from a high value (CDe2S)f when the storativity corresponds to fissures.78  . pseudo steady state interporosity flow. only the total system straight line is seen. 2S 2S 2S o = A : (CDe )f = 1. during the fissure regime. tD/CD Figure 44 Pressure examples for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir. (CDe )f+m = 0.1.5 1 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.1. Typical responses The limit "approximate start of the semilog straight line" shows that the wellbore storage stops during the fissure regime with example A. to a lower value (CDe2S)f+m when total system is acting. pD Start of semilog radial flow CDe2S λe2S = 1030 = 1030 1010 105 104 1 0.104.
pD 8 6 em sl o p em slop B 4 A 2 0 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.000295 kh 1 (Bbl/psi. 3x105. 102 Dimensionless Pressure . labeled (λ eff CD f +m ) [ω (1 − ω )] (decreasing derivative) and (λ eff CD f +m ) (1 − ω ) . λeffCDf+m/ω(1ω) =102.5.Chapter 4 . example A shows two stabilizations on 0. On the derivative typecurve.66qBµ (PM ) (mD.Fissured reservoirs 10 Dimensionless Pressure. pD and Derivative p'D CDe2S λe2S = 1030 = 1030 1010 105 104 1 0.2qBµ (PM ) (mD.1 B A 103 λCD/ω(1ω) = 102 3x104 3x105 λCD/(1ω) 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. metric units) C = 0.ft.79  . tD/CD Figure 46 Pressure and derivative examples of Figure 44 for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir. field units) kh = 18. With the derivative. pseudo steady state interporosity flow. tD/CD slop em Figure 45 Semilog plot of Figure 44 examples. The derivative of example B stabilizes on 0. field units) µ TM ( 28) . 3x104.m.1 5x103 10 1010 105 1030 B A 107 3x104 102 1 1 0. Match results kh = 141. the transition is described with two curves.5 only during the total system homogeneous regime. λeffCDf+m/(1ω) = 103.
pD and Derivative p'D 102 10 0.00223 kh 1 3 (m /Bars.5 ln (C 2S De ) f +m C Df + m f +m f ( 415) (C e ) ω= (C e ) D 2S D ( 416) λ eff = λ eff e −2 S e 2 S ( ) ( 417) Pressure and derivative response When the three characteristic regimes of the restricted interporosity flow model are developed. Dimensionless Pressure . tD/CD Figure 47 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage in double porosity reservoir. ω = 0. . CDf+m = 103.Fissured reservoirs C = 0.80  .Chapter 4 . On semilog scale. the transition regime from CDe2Sf to CDe2Sf+m is long.5. the derivative exhibits a valley shaped transition between the two stabilizations on 0. pseudosteady state interporosity flow. S = 0.5 line 1 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.1.108 (CDe2Sf =104. the transition valley drops when ω is reduced. metric units) µ TM 2S ( 29) S = 0.108 and CDe2Sf+m = 103) 42. the first straight line is displaced upwards and the horizontal transition between the two parallel lines is longer.2 Influence of the heterogeneous parameters ω and λeff Influence of ω With small ω values. λeff= 6. On the derivative responses. λeffe2S= 6.
the transition regime occurs at a higher amplitude and. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 101 102 103 101 ω = 103 101 102 ω = 103 101 0. Influence of λeff. tD/CD 106 . the transition valley is displaced towards late times. tD/CD slo m pe ω = 103 102 101 m pe slo Figure 49 Semilog plot of Figure 48. ω =0. Loglog scale.02 and λeff=106. S =0. On the pressure curves. 108 λ = 108 106 Figure 410 Double porosity reservoir. 107 and 108 . Influence of ω. 107 . CDf+m =100. tD/CD Figure 48 Double porosity reservoir.5 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time. pseudosteady state interporosity flow. pseudosteady state interporosity flow. on the derivative responses. pD 8 6 4 2 0 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time. S =0. 102 Dimensionless Pressure .Fissured reservoirs 102 Dimensionless Pressure . 102 and 103 10 Dimensionless Pressure . CDf+m =1. The smaller is λeff. λeff=107 and ω =101. the later the start of total system flow. Influence of λeff The interporosity flow parameter defines the time of end of the transition regime. Loglog scale.Chapter 4 . pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 101 λ = 102 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time.81  .
Chapter 4 . tD/CD Figure 411 Semilog plot of Figure 410.01 and λeff= 106 During fissure flow.87 S (Bars. metric units)(418) 2 kh (φV ct ) f µ rw ∆p = 162. ω = 0.87 S (psi. S = 0.6 qBµ kh The second line. pD λ 8 em slop = 107 108 106 slop em 4 0 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time.10 + 0.3 Analysis of the semilog straight lines 10 Dimensionless Pressure. tD/CD Figure 412 Semilog plot of homogeneous and double porosity responses.23 + 0.6 qBµ k log ∆t + log − 3. field units) 2 (φVct ) f µ rw qBµ k log ∆t + log ∆p = 21. pD 8 6 4 2 0 101 em slop Double porosity Homogeneous 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.82  . field units) 2 kh (φVct ) f +m µ rw . for the total system regime is : ∆p = 162.5 − 3. CD = CDf+m = 100.87 S (psi. when the first semilog line is present. k log ∆t + log − 3.Fissured reservoirs 12 Dimensionless Pressure .23 + 0. 42.
1).103 (A2).83  . 3. ( drawdown and buildup) Dimensionless Pressure.104 and CDe2Sf+m = 0.Chapter 4 . pD 10 A3 A2 A1 1 tp1 = 102 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 tp2 = 9x103 tp3 = 3x105 106 Dimensionless time. The buildup curve A1 does not show a double porosity behavior.4 Buildup analysis Loglog pressure buildup analysis When the production time tp is small. ω = 0. Whatever long are the three buildup examples of Figure 413. metric units)( 419) 2 kh (φV ct ) f + m µ rw The vertical distance δp between the two lines gives ω : ω = 10 −δp m ( 420) When only the first semilog straight line for fissure regime is present. ( fissures CDe2Sf= 1 and total system CDe2Sf+m= 0.10 + 0. the calculation of the skin gives an over estimated value Sf : S f = S + 0. . CDf+m = 0. Loglog scale. the buildup curve flattens at the same ∆p level as the λeffe2S transition. λeffe2S= 3. only example A3 exhibits a clear double porosity response. S = 0.1. For example A2. pseudosteady state interporosity flow.1) Double porosity.Fissured reservoirs ∆p = 21. if the total storativity is used instead of that of the fissure system.1. but only the buildup response of the fissures.105 (A3).5 ln 1 ω ( 421) 42.5 qBµ k log ∆t + log − 3. the three characteristic regimes of a double porosity response are not always fully developed on buildup pressure curves. λeff= 3. Homogeneous behaviour. 9. there is no evidence of total system flow regime. tD/CD Figure 413 Drawdown and buildup pressure responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in double porosity reservoir. tpD/CD = 100 (A1).104 (CDe2Sf =1.87 S (Bars.
105). pD drawdown buildup 6 tp1 = 102 m tp3 = 3x105 tp2 = 9x103 m pe slo A3 4 pe slo A2 A1 2 0 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. only the first semilog straight is seen and its extrapolated pressure p* is between pi and pi + m ln (1/ω). Derivative buildup analysis 1 Dimensionless Pressure Derivative p'D 0. A2 (tpD/CD = 9. tD/CD A3 A2 A1 Figure 416 Drawdown and buildup derivative responses of Figure 413.pi)D 0 slo pe m 2 A1 4 slo pe m p* > pi A2 p* = pi 6 1 101 102 103 104 105 A3 106 Horner time.Fissured reservoirs 8 Dimensionless Pressure. the first one extrapolates to pi + m ln (1/ω). depending upon tp. . (tpD+ tD)/ tD Figure 415 Horner plot of the three Buildups of Figure 413.84  . (p .103) and A3 (tpD/CD = 3. the initial pressure pi is obtained by extrapolation of the second straight line. tD/CD Figure 414 Semilog plot of drawdown and buildup pressure responses of Figure 413.5 101 Drawdown Buildup 102 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. If the drawdown stops during the transition (example A2).Chapter 4 . A1 (tpD/CD = 100). Dimensionless Pressure Difference. Horner & superposition analysis In example A3.
05.1 1 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. and for sphere matrix blocks δ ' = 1. β ' is defined as : β '= δ ' (C De 2S ) f +m λe −2 S ( 422) The constant δ' is related to the geometry of the matrix system. during transition regime before the homogeneous behavior of the total system 2. tD/CD Figure 417 Pressure typecurve for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir. transient interporosity flow. . pD CDe2S = 1030 β ' = 1030 1010 103 5 0. For slab matrix blocks δ '=1. 102 Start of semilog radial flow Dimensionless Pressure.Chapter 4 .85  .(CDe2S)f+m later.β ' at early time. unrestricted interporosity flow (transient interporosity flow) 43.1 Loglog analysis Pressure typecurve Two pressure curves : 1.1 5x103 10 1010 103 5 0.89.Fissured reservoirs 43 Double porosity behavior. . . when the homogeneous total system flow is reached The two families of curves have the same shape: the β ' transition curves are equivalent to CDe2S curves whose pressure and time are divided by a factor of two.
pD 8 B 6 4 2 0 101 slope m /2 em slop slop em A 1 10 102 103 Dimensionless time. 2S 2S ■ = B : (CDe )f+m = 6. With example B.103.001. β' = 106. 2S 2S o = A : (CDe )f+m = 10. only the total system straight line is present. and slab matrix blocks.001. tD/CD 104 105 Figure 419 Semilog plot of Figure 418 examples. ω = 0. 10 Dimensionless Pressure. pD Start of semilog radial flow CDe2S β' = 1030 = 1030 1010 6x103 10 0.86  . λe = 1. β' = 1010. tD/CD Figure 418 Pressure examples for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir. transient interporosity flow.Chapter 4 . On semilog scale.8914*105. 102 Dimensionless Pressure. λe = 1.1348*106.1 10 A 1 B 1010 106 5 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. and the transition is shorter on the tD/CD time scale. . With example B. before the total system straight line of slope m.Fissured reservoirs Typical responses A long transition on a β ' curve is seen on example A. ω = 0. the wellbore storage is large. example A shows a first straight line of slope m/2 during transition.
3.5. the change from 0.5. 3.25 before the final stabilization on 0. . λ =δ' (C De 2S β 'e f +m −2 S ) ( 423) ω is difficult to access with the transient interporosity flow model.104. The derivative of example B exhibits only a small valley before the stabilization on 0. Slab and sphere matrix blocks With the two types matrix geometry. pD and Derivative p'D CDe2S β' = 1030 = 1030 1010 6x103 10 0.102.5 for the total system homogeneous regime. 2 λCDf+m (1ω) = 3.Fissured reservoirs 102 Dimensionless Pressure . tD/CD Figure 420 Pressure and derivative examples of Figure 418. the pressure curves look identical but the derivatives are slightly different. With the derivative.25 to the 0.Chapter 4 .1 10 1030 B A 6x106 1010 106 5 1 10 4 B A 3x103 3x104 3x105 101 101 5 λCD/(1ω)2 = 3x102 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. example A shows a first stabilization on 0. 3. The end of transition.103.87  . At late transition time.25 before the final stabilization on 0. and the start of the total system homogeneous regime. is described by a (λ C D ) (1 − ω )2 derivative curve. Match results On a double porosity response with unrestricted interporosity flow.105. after the wellbore storage hump the derivative exhibits a first stabilization on 0.5 level is steeper on the curve generated for slab matrix blocks.
25 1 10 102 103 slab 104 0.89 104. Loglog scale. transient interporosity flow. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 sphere 101 101 0. .5 Dimensionless Pressure .25 0.Chapter 4 . CDe2Sf+m=1. tD/CD Figure 423 Semilog plot of Figure 422. transient interporosity flow. pD and Derivative p'D 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time.Fissured reservoirs Dimensionless Pressure . Sphere: λe2S = 1. Slab: λe2S = 1. 43.88  . tD/CD Figure 421 Double porosity reservoir. CDf+m =1. Influence of ω on pressure and derivative curves. β'=104 and ω=102.05 104. 102 and 103 10 Dimensionless Pressure . slab matrix blocks.5 105 Dimensionless time. slab and sphere matrix blocks. tD/CD Figure 422 Double porosity reservoir.2 Influence of the heterogeneous parameters ω and λ Influence of ω 102 10 1 101 102 101 ω = 103 ω = 103 ω = 101 ω = 101 0. pD 8 6 4 2 0 101 ω = 103 m /2 slope m pe sl o 102 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time. S =0. λ =107 and ω =101.
104. transient interporosity flow. ω = 0.5 101 Drawdown Buildup 10 2 Dimensionless Pressure Derivative p'D A3 A2 A1 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. double porosity reservoir. . tD/CD Figure 424 Double porosity reservoir.103 (A2). ω =0. Influence of λ on pressure and derivative curves.105 (A3).89  . CDf+m =100. pD and Derivative p'D 102 10 1 101 102 101 0. tD/CD Figure 425 Semilog plot of Figure 424.Chapter 4 .3 Buildup analysis 1 0.1. 107 and 108 10 Dimensionless Pressure . slab matrix blocks. slab matrix blocks. pD 8 6 4 2 0 101 m/2 slope m pe sl o λ = 108 107 106 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time.1. tD/CD Figure 426 Drawdown and buildup derivative responses. unrestricted interporosity flow. 107.Fissured reservoirs Influence of λ Dimensionless Pressure . tpD/CD = 100 (A1). 43.02 and λ =106. 108 0. S =0. S = 0. 3.5 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time. λ = 3.25 λ = 108 λ = 106 λ = 106. CDf+m = 0. 9.
323x107 (Sm = 10). pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0. Sm = 0.1 Matrix skin Dimensionless Pressure . λ = 105.90  . λ eff = 3.25 101 Sm= 0 0.Chapter 4 . λ eff = 2. Sm = 0. λ = 105.5 100 106 107 Figure 427 Double porosity reservoir. Dimensionless Pressure Derivative p'D 1 101 102 10 Sm= 1 102 103 104 105 10 100 106 107 Dimensionless time. 1. 1.01.5 100 107 Figure 429 Double porosity reservoir. S = 0. tD/CD 10 105 0. CDf+m = 1. slab matrix blocks with interporosity skin.1 1 102 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. 0. 100.1 1 102 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. 10. CDf+m = 1.1. .Fissured reservoirs 44 Complex fissured reservoirs 44. 10.01. λ eff = 3.333x108 (Sm = 100). Dimensionless Pressure . tD/CD 10 106 0. 100.500x106 (Sm = 1). sphere matrix blocks with interporosity skin. S = 0.1. ω = 0. ω = 0. transient interporosity flow. transient interporosity flow.25 101 Sm= 0 0. tD/CD Figure 428 Comparison of Figure 427 derivative responses with the restricted interporosity flow model. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0. 0.
Chapter 4 . 2S 2S CDf+m = 1. slab and sphere matrix blocks. λ = 10 4. pD and Derivative p'D unrestricted slab unrestricted sphere 0.Fissured reservoirs Dimensionless Pressure Derivative p'D 1 101 102 10 Sm= 1 102 103 104 105 10 106 100 107 Dimensionless time. fissure.25 101 restricted 102 101 1 0. block Two block sizes Fissured matrix blocks Figure 432 Multiple matrix blocks.96x107 (Sm = 10). The blocks are uniformly distributed in the reservoir.91  . λ eff = 1. .71*10 9 44. ω = 0. 10 Dimensionless Pressure .02. block 2 fissure. λ eff = 2.00x108 (Sm = 100). restricted and unrestricted interporosity flow.2 Triple porosity solution The model considers two sizes of matrix blocks. S = 3. λe = 2. λ eff = 1. Sphere: β' = 1. microfissure. Alternatively. the matrix blocks can be fissured.5 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. Slab: β' = 3. tD/CD Figure 431 Loglog plot of pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in double porosity reservoir. CDe f+m=403. tD/CD Figure 430 Comparison of Figure 429 derivative responses with the restricted interporosity flow model.66x106 (Sm = 1). block 1.07*10 9.48*107.
Chapter 4 . λeff1 =105. pseudo steady state interporosity flow. tD/CD ur e fiss m pe (slo m ste l sy ota t ) p1 rou +g ure fiss Figure 434 Semilog plot of Figure 433 example. tD/CD Figure 433 Triple porosity reservoir. δi defines the contribution of the group i to the total matrix storage (δ1 + δ2 =1): δ i= 10 (φVct = )mi (φVct )mi = (φVct )m1 + (φVct )m2 (φVct )m ( 424) Dimensionless Pressure . 10 Dimensionless Pressure. two sizes of matrix blocks uniformly distributed. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 group 1 101 fissure group 2 102 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 0. different λeff. δ1 =0.5 101 fissure fissure + group 1 total system 102 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time.01. The dashed curves describe the double porosity responses for only blocks 1 (small valley) and only blocks 2.01. same λeff. Dimensionless Pressure . two sizes of matrix blocks uniformly distributed.1. . pD 8 6 4 2 0 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time.Fissured reservoirs When the blocks are uniformly distributed. λeff1 = λeff2 =106 . tD/CD Figure 435 Triple porosity reservoir. ω = 0. CDf+m = 1. δ1 =0. ω = 0. λeff2 =5x107.9. CDf+m = 1.9. δ2 =0. S = 0.5 total system 107 Dimensionless time. δ2 =0. pseudo steady state interporosity flow.1. S = 0.92  . pD and Derivative p'D 1 0.
The thin curves describe the double porosity responses for only blocks 1 (final semilog straight line for fissures + blocks 1) and only blocks 2 (final semilog straight line for fissures + blocks 2).93  .Fissured reservoirs 10 Dimensionless Pressure. pD group 1 8 6 4 2 0 101 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. . tD/CD 105 106 107 pe (slo ure fiss m) group 2 m pe (slo em yst ) ls tota Figure 436 Semilog plot of Figure 435 example.Chapter 4 .
94  ..
BOUNDARY MODELS 51 One sealing fault 51.5 101 101 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. tD /CD Figure 51 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage and skin near one sealing fault in a homogeneous reservoir. Radial flow 2.95  .1 Definition L Well (q) L Image (q) ( 51) LD = L rw 51.5 . Loglog scale. . CD = 104. S = 0. LD = 5000.2 Characteristic flow regimes 1.3 Loglog analysis Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 1 1 0. Hemiradial flow 51.
S = 5.Boundary models 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 LD=100 1 300 101 1 101 102 103 104 105 1000 3000 Dimensionless time.Chapter 5 .4 Semilog analysis The time of intercept ∆tx between the two semilog straight lines can be used to estimate the distance between the well and the sealing fault : L = 0.96  .0141 k∆t x (ft. 51. 300.01217 L = 0. field units) φµ ct k∆t x (m. metric units) φµ ct ( 122) 20 Dimensionless Pressure pD 15 10 m e2 slop LD=100 300 1000 3000 slope m 5 0 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. tD /CD Figure 52 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a homogeneous reservoir limited by one sealing fault. 3000. LD = 100. Several distances. tD /CD Figure 53 Semilog plot of Figure 52. . CD = 100. 1000.
Radial flow 2.1 Definition L2 Well L1 52. One channel width. tD /CD Figure 54 Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous reservoir limited by two parallel sealing faults.Chapter 5 .97  . Loglog scale. Linear flow 52.5 101 101 1 101 102 B A 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. L2D = 5000 (curve B). S = 0. . L1D = L2D = 3000 (curve A) and L1D = 1000. CD = 3000. two well locations.Boundary models 52 Two parallel sealing faults 52.3 Loglog analysis 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D ºA 101 1 pe slo /2 ºB 1 0.2 Characteristic flow regimes 1.
several distances between the two faults are considered.Chapter 5 .98  . 2500 and 5000. only one straight line is present. 40 Dimensionless Pressure pD L1D= L2D= 30 1000 20 2500 10 slope m 500 5000 0 101 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. . tD /CD Figure 55 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near two parallel sealing faults. The time of end of the semilog straight line is function of the channel width and the well location.4 Semilog analysis On semilog scale. 1000. S = 0 L1D = L2D = 500.Boundary models 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D L1D= L2D= 500 1000 2500 5000 101 1 101 101 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. 52. the responses deviate in a curve above the radial flow line. The well is located midway between the two boundaries. During the late time linear flow. CD = 300. tD /CD Figure 56 Semilog plot of Figure 55. Homogeneous reservoir.
246 µ qB (psi.Boundary models 20 Dimensionless Pressure pD B 15 10 5 0 101 1 101 102 103 104 slope m A 105 Dimensionless time. The pressure change ∆p is plotted versus the square root of the elapsed time ∆t .Chapter 5 .hr1/2. metric units) h(L1 + L2 ) kφ ct µ kφ ct µ kφ ct ( 52) L1 + L2 = 8.133 L1 + L2 = 1. field units) (m. 52. tD /CD Figure 57 Semilog plot of Figure 54.hr1/2. The slope mch and the intercept ∆pchint of the linear flow straight line are used to estimate the channel width and the well location.133 mch = 1.246 qB hmch qB hmch (ft.5 Linear flow analysis 40 Dimensionless Pressure pD L1D= L2D= 500 30 slope mch 1000 20 2500 5000 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 (tD /CD)1/2 Figure 58 Square root of time plot of Figure 55. mch = 8. metric units) ( 53) .99  . field units) h(L1 + L2 ) kφ ct µ qB (Bars.
Production time: tpD/CD = 2000.Boundary models S ch = S ch kh ∆pchint − S (field units) 141.2qBµ kh = ∆p ch int − S (metric units) 18. L2D = 8000 (curve D).6 Buildup analysis Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 ºC 101 1 /2 ºD 1 0. . CD = 3000. two well locations. The dotted curves describe the drawdown responses. The extrapolation p* of the Horner straight line does not correspond to the infinite shutin time pressure. One channel width. L1D = L2D = 5000 (curve C) and L1D = 2000. 9 D Dimensionless Pressure pD 8 C 7 6 5 4 3 1 101 (tpD +tD )/ tD 102 103 slop em Figure 510 Horner plot of Figure 59.100  .5 101 101 1 101 102 103 D C 104 pe slo 105 106 Dimensionless time.Chapter 5 .66 qBµ ( 54) L + L2 −Sch L1 1 = arcsin 1 2π r e L1 + L2 π w ( 55) 52. tD /CD Figure 59 Buildup responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous reservoir limited by two parallel sealing faults. S = 0.
pD versus [(tpD+tD)/CD]1/2 .[tD/CD]1/2. the superposition function is expressed as t p + ∆t − ∆t . 53 Two intersecting sealing faults 53.1 Definition L2 Well θ θw L1 The angle of intersection θ between the faults is smaller than 180°. LD is the dimensionless distance between the well and the faults intercept.Chapter 5 . The distances L1 and L2 between the well and the sealing faults are expressed as : L1 = LD rw sin θ w (ft. For an infinite channel.Boundary models 9 Dimensionless Pressure pD D 8 C 7 6 5 4 3 0 10 20 30 [tD /CD]1/2 40 50 [(tpD +tD )/CD]1/2 slope mch Figure 511 Square root of time plot of Figure 59. The well location in the wedge is defined with θw. m) ( 56) . is used to estimate the initial reservoir pressure. the wedge is otherwise of infinite extension. at t p + ∆t − ∆t = 0 . The extrapolation of the linear flow straight line to infinite shutin time. when both the drawdown and the shutin periods are in linear flow regime.101  .
and the derivative stabilizes at 3. Loglog scale. θ = 60°. tD /CD B A 101 Figure 512 Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous reservoir limited by two intersecting sealing faults. Fraction of radial flow 53. the derivative follows a half unit slope straight line.102  . LD = 5000. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 ºB ºA 180°/ θ = 3 1 0.5 101 101 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.2 Characteristic flow regimes 1. . θ = 360° ∆p1st stab. θw = 30° (curve A) and θw = 10° (curve B). ∆p2nd stab. S = 0. m) ( 57) 53. Linear flow 3. CD = 3000.Boundary models L2 = LD rw sin(θ − θ w ) (ft. Radial flow 2. the wedge is 1/6 of the infinite plane (2π). ( 58) Between the two stabilizations.Chapter 5 .3 Loglog analysis If for example the angle between the faults is 60° (π/3).
θ = 45°. θ = 20°. Several angles of intersection θ.Chapter 5 . 60 Dimensionless Pressure pD θ = 10° 20° 40 slope (360°/θ) m 45° 20 slope m 90° 135° 180° 101 102 103 104 105 106 0 101 1 Dimensionless time. 53. is a function of the well location in the wedge. The first. θ = 135°. tD /CD Figure 514 Semilog plot of Figure 513. defines the fraction of radial flow limited by the wedge. LD = 5759. θ = 360° m1st line m2nd line ( 59) The end of the first semilog straight line. of slope m. Loglog scale.Boundary models Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 10° 101 180° 1 180° 101 101 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. LD = 2613.4 Semilog analysis On a complete response. two semilog straight lines can be identified.103  . .5 θ. describes the infinite acting regime. S = 0. The second. θ = 10°. θ = 90°. with a slope of (360/θ)m. θ = 180°. LD = 1414. and the level of the second straight line. the distance to the two faults is constant L1D = L2D = 1000. CD = 1000. LD = 1000. LD = 1082. the well is on the bisector θw = 0. LD = 11473. the distance LD to the fault intercept changes. tD /CD θ= 10° 20° 45° 90° 135° Figure 513 Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous reservoir limited by two intersecting sealing faults.
Linear scale. the dimensionless area of the closed reservoir is expressed as: A = ( L1D + L3 D )( L2 D + L4 D ) 2 rw 54. At the end of the drawdown. The well is then closed for a shutin period.1 Definition A rectangular reservoir shape is considered. 54 Closed system 54.2 The pseudo steady state regime pi Pressure. is produced at constant rate until all reservoir boundaries are reached. the pseudo steady state regime is shown by a linear pressure trend. . at initial reservoir pressure pi.Boundary models 20 Dimensionless Pressure pD 6m sl op e B 15 10 5 0 101 m slope A 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. Closed system. t Figure 516 Drawdown and buildup pressure response. The well is at dimensionless distances L1D.104  . the pressure builds up until the average reservoir pressure p is reached. The well. p ( 510) ppseudo ste ady state slope m* Time. L2D. tD /CD Figure 515 Semilog plot of Figure 512. L3D.Chapter 5 . and L4D from the four sealing boundaries.
(tp/C)D = 1000. tD /CD slope 1 Figure 517 Drawdown and buildup responses for a well with wellbore storage in a closed square homogeneous reservoir. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 ºB 101 ºA A&B B 1 0.4 Drawdown analysis Loglog analysis 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 A/rw2 = 106 1 0. 54. A/rw2 = 106. CD = 100. During buildup.3 Loglog behavior On loglog scale. The difference pi − p . 108 (L1D = 200). the well is centered or near one of the boundaries.5 A 101 101 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. . Curve A: L1D = L2D = L3D = L4D = 30000. 107. S = 0. 54. Three reservoir sizes. Loglog scale.Boundary models and the curve flattens. L3D = L4D = 54000. The dotted curves describe the drawdown responses. (tp/C)D = 1000. tD /CD 105 106 107 108 Figure 518 Drawdown responses for a well with wellbore storage in a closed square homogeneous reservoir. a straight line of slope unity on the late time drawdown pressure and derivative curves characterizes the pseudo steady state flow regime. CD = 25000. between the initial pressure and the final stabilized pressure defines the depletion.5 101 101 1 101 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.105  . Curve B: L1D = L2D = 6000.Chapter 5 . S = 0. the pressure curves flattens to ∆ p and the derivative drops.
Chapter 5  Boundary models
Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D
102 ºD 101 D 1 0.5 101 101 1 101 102 103 104
pe slo
ºC
slope 1
C
1/2
105
106
Dimensionless time, tD /CD
Figure 519 Pressure and derivative drawdown responses for a well with wellbore storage in a closed channel homogeneous reservoir. CD = 1000, S = 0. Curve C: L1D = L3D = 20000, L2D = L4D = 2000. Curve D: L1D = L2D = L3D = 2000, L4D = 38000.
Analysis of semilog straight lines
20 Dimensionless Pressure pD 15 10 5 0 101
m slope
A/rw2 = 106
107
108
2m e slop
1
101
102
103
104
105
106
Dimensionless time, tD /CD
Figure 520 Semilog plot of Figure 518.
30 Dimensionless Pressure pD B 20
pe slo 4m
10
slope m
A
0 101
1
101
102
103
104
105
Dimensionless time, tD /CD
Figure 521 Semilog plot of Figure 5.17 drawdown examples.
 106 
Chapter 5  Boundary models
Linear and semilinear flow analysis
50 Dimensionless Pressure pD 40 30 20 10 0
2 pe slo
D
m ch
C
mh slope c
0
20
40 (tD /CD )1/2
60
80
Figure 522 Linear flow analysis plot of Figure 519.
The slope for the infinite channel behavior (curve C of Figure 519) is expressed in Equation 5.2. For the limited channel (curve D) the slope of the linear flow straight line is double :
mhch = 16.27 m hch = 2.494
qB µ (psi.hr1/2, field units) h(L2 + L4 ) kφ ct qB µ (Bars.hr1/2, metric units) h(L1 + L2 ) kφ c t
( 511)
Pseudosteady state analysis
50 40 30 20 10 0 0 200 000 400 000 600 000 800 000 Dimensionless time, tD /CD A/rw2= 106 107 slope m*
Dimensionless Pressure pD
108
Figure 523 Pseudo steady state flow analysis plot of Figure 518.
During pseudosteady state regime, the drawdown dimensionless pressure is expressed as :
p D = 2π t DA + 0.5 ln
A 2.2458 + 0.5 ln +S 2 CA rw
( 512)
The dimensionless time tDA is defined with respect to the drainage area :  107 
Chapter 5  Boundary models
t DA = t DA
0.000264 k ∆t (field units) φµ ct A 0.000356k = ∆t (metric units) φµ c t A
( 513)
The "shape factor" CA characterizes the geometry of the reservoir and the well location. With real data, the pressure during pseudo steady state flow regime is expressed :
∆p = 0.234
qBµ A qB ∆t + 162.6 log 2 − log(C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S (psi, field units) kh rw φ ct hA qB qBµ A ∆t + 21.5 log 2 − log(C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S (Bars, metric kh φ c t hA rw
(122)
∆p = 0.0417
units)
the slope m* of the pseudosteady state straight line provides the reservoir connected pore volume :
qB (cu ft, field units) ct m * qB φ hA = 0.0417 (m3, metric units) ct m *
φ hA = 0.234
( 123)
When kh and S are known from semilog analysis, the shape factor CA is estimated from the intercept ∆pint of the pseudosteady state straight line :
C A = 2.2458e
or
2 2.303 pi − p* m−log A rw −0.87 S int
( 514)
* m − 2.303 p i − pint m C A = 5.456 e m*
[ (
) ]
( 515)
 108 
Chapter 5  Boundary models
54.5 Buildup analysis
Loglog analysis of buildup
Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 º 101 tpDA=0.6 0.5 101 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time, tD /CD tpDA=10, 2
1
Figure 524 Buildup responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a closed rectangle homogeneous reservoir. The well is close to one boundary. Three production times are considered. CD = 292, S = 0, L1D = 500, L2D = 1000, L3D = 3500, L4D = 1000 tpD/CD (tpDA) = 16400 (0.6), 54600 (2), 273000 (10).
The rectangular reservoir configuration used for the buildup examples of Figure 524 is described in the Shape Factors Tables with CA = 0.5813 and the start of pseudo steady state is defined at tDA = 2 (Eq. 513 or, with Eq. 26, tD/CD = 54600). The well is closed for buildup before (tpDA = 0.6) or during the pure pseudo steady state flow regime (tpDA = 2 and 10). When all reservoir boundaries have been reached during drawdown, the shape of the subsequent buildup is independent of tp on loglog scale. At late times, the stabilized dimensionless pressure p D is expressed as :
2 A rw = 1151 log . + 0.35 + S CA
pD
( 516)
Semilog analysis of buildup
When tp>>∆t, the Horner time can be simplified with tp+∆t ≅ tp :
log
t p + ∆t
∆t
= log t p − log ∆t
( 517)
For different production time tp in a depleted reservoir, the Horner straight lines of slope m are parallel.
 109 
10 102 103 (tpD +tD )/ tD 104 105 106 Figure 525 Horner plot of Figure 524.Chapter 5 . p* > p D .6. . the curves flatten to reach D p D = 8. 2. 10 tpDA=0. For the three examples.110  . later. With real pressure. The straight line extrapolated pressure p * changes with tp and.6. For examples tpDA = 2 and 10.16.62 of Equation 5. When the same production time is used for Horner analysis of the three buildup periods (tpDA = 2 on Figure 526). the Horner time is tpD/CD = 16400 (tpDA =0.1 7 tpDA=2. The Horner plot Figure 525 is presented in dimensionless terms.Boundary models 10 Dimensionless Pressure pD 8 6 4 2 0 1 101 pD slop em tpDA = 0.6).6 5 slo pe m 3 1 101 102 (tpD +tD )/ tD 103 104 Figure 526 Horner plot of Figure 524 with same tp. but not for D the example with tpDA = 0. the difference between the straight line extrapolated pressure p * and the average shutin pressure p becomes a constant. 9 Dimensionless Pressure pD pD p*D= 8. the average pressure p decreases when tp increases.
CD = 100. Several distances.Chapter 5 .1 Definition gas water L Well (q) L Image (q) 55.111  .Boundary models 55 Constant pressure boundary 55. S = 5.2 Loglog analysis The dimensionless stabilized pressure is defined as : p D = ln(2 LD ) + S The derivative follows a negative unit slope straight line. 3000. tD /CD 300 1000 3000 Figure 527 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near one constant pressure linear boundary in a homogeneous reservoir. . 1000. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 ( 518) 101 1 LD=100 101 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. 300. LD = 100.
to estimate the distance of the boundary : L = 0.112  . The time of intercept ∆tx between the semilog straight line and the constant pressure is used. 55. m) ( 519) . θw = 20°. can also be used to estimate L : L = 0.5rw e [1. field units) φµ ct k∆t x (m. θ= 90°. the second at constant pressure. as for a sealing fault. tD /CD Figure 528 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage near two perpendicular boundaries in a homogeneous reservoir. The closest boundary is sealing. tD /CD Figure 529 Semilog plot of Figure 527. S = 0.5 101 101 sealing fault : 1 constant pressure 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.01217 L = 0.151 (p − p(∆t = 0)) m − S ] (ft.0141 k∆t x (ft. [ p − p( ∆t = 0) ].3 Semilog analysis Dimensionless Pressure pD 15 LD= 3000 1000 300 100 10 slope m 5 0 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. LD = 1000.Chapter 5 .Boundary models Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 1 0. metric units) φµ c t ( 122) The difference of pressure between the start of the period and the final stabilized pressure. CD = 100.
LD = 5000.Boundary models 56 Communicating fault In the case of communicating fault.5 102 103 104 105 106 101 1 101 Dimensionless time. two different configurations are considered. S = 0.1 Semi permeable boundary Definition The partially communicating fault. at distance L from the well. 56. Homogeneous reservoir. The dimensionless fault transmissibility ratio α is expressed as : α= k f wf k L ( 520) Characteristic flow regimes 1. .Chapter 5 .113  . Hemiradial flow 3. Radial flow wf kf Loglog analysis 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 1 0. CD = 104. has a thickness wf and a permeability kf.5 10 1 0. Loglog scale. Radial flow 2. With the semipermeable boundary model. Conversely.05. also called leaky fault. Leak 4. a finite conductivity fault improves the drainage because the fault permeability is larger than the surrounding permeability of the reservoir. the vertical plane fault is not sealing but acting as a flow restriction. α = 0. tD /CD Figure 530 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage near a semipermeable linear boundary.
FcD = k f wf kL ( 521) The resistance to flow across the fault plane is described with the skin factor Sf.1 0.5 101 101 α=1. The definition of the dimensionless skin Sf includes the possibility of a region of altered permeability ka with an extension wa around the fault: .01. 0.001.001 1 1 0.114  .01 0.Boundary models Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 α = 0. tD /CD Figure 532 Semilog plot of Figure 531. CD = 100. 104 105 0.2 Finite conductivity fault Definition With the finite conductivity fault model. LD = 300.1. 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time. Semilog analysis 20 Dimensionless Pressure pD 15 m slope e slop 2m 10 5 0 101 1 α=1 0. 0. 56.1. depending upon the fault dimensionless conductivity FcD (a zero fault conductivity FcD corresponds to the semipermeable fault solution). α = 1. tD /CD 0. 0.001 101 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.01 106 Figure 531 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a semipermeable linear boundary. Several transmissibility ratios. flow is possible along the fault plane.Chapter 5 . S = 5.
Radial flow L wf kf Loglog analysis 102 101 0. No fault skin.5 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 1 101 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time. S = 0. 520: α= π Sf ( 523) Characteristic flow regimes 1. FcD= 100. 3 CD = 10 .5 0.Chapter 5 . LD = 1000. . Constant pressure boundary effect 3. tD /CD Figure 533 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage near a finite conductivity fault.Boundary models Sf = 2π k wa w f + L k a 2k f ( 522) The skin factor Sf is related to the transmissibility ratio a of Eq. Radial flow 2. Loglog scale. Sf = 0. Bilinear flow 4.115  .
1000. LD = 300. No fault skin and several conductivity. 1000. 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 1 1 0.116  . S = 5. Loglog scale. 100. FcD = 100. Sf = 0.5 Sf=10 101 101 102 103 104 Sf=100 105 106 107 108 109 Sf=1000 0. LD = 300. FcD = 1. CD = 100. . 3 CD = 10 . tD /CD Figure 535 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a finite conductivity fault. Semilog analysis 15 Dimensionless Pressure pD Sf = 100 10 2m pe sl o em slop 5 e slop m Sf = 0 0 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time.Boundary models 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 1 0. 1000.Chapter 5 . LD = 1000. CD = 100. Sf = 10. 10. S = 5. FcD = 10. 10000.5 101 FcD = 1 10 100 1000 10000 102 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 Dimensionless time. Loglog scale. Sf = 0 or 100. Several fault skin and conductivity.5 Dimensionless time. 100. S = 0. tD /CD Figure 536 Semilog plot for a well with wellbore storage near a finite conductivity fault. tD /CD Figure 534 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a finite conductivity fault.
4 .Boundary models 57 Predicting derivative shapes Figure 537 Closed reservoir example. 103 102 101 1 101 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time. 3 .the wedge response (derivative on π /θ). 5 . . 2 .one sealing fault (derivative on 1).linear flow (derivative straight line of slope 1/2).5 1 pe slo e slop 1/ 2 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 1 180/θ Figure 538 Derivative response for a well in a closed trapezoid. After wellbore storage. tD /CD 0.117  . Example of a drawdown in a closed system.pseudo steady state (straight line of slope 1).5). the shape of the reservoir is a trapezoid. the response shows : 1 .Chapter 5 .the infinite radial flow regime (derivative on 0.
.118  .
1 Mobility & storativity ratios M= (k µ )1 (k µ )2 (φ ct )1 (φ ct )2 ( 61) F= ( 62) 61. (φct)1 R (k/µ)1. The parameters of the second region are defined with a subscript "2".66qBµ 1 ( 63) tD k h ∆t = 0.6 . the well is at the center of a circular zone of radius r. The well is located in the region "1".000295 1 (field units) µ1 C CD . (φct)2 (k/µ)1.COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS 61 Definitions With the radial composite model.119  .2 Dimensionless variables The dimensionless variables (including the wellbore skin Sw) are expressed with reference to the region "1" parameters. (k/µ)2. pD = k 1h ∆p (field units) 1412qBµ 1 . With the linear composite model. (φct)1 L (k/µ)2. pD = k1 h ∆p (metric units) 18. 61. (φct)2 Radial composite Linear composite Figure 61 Models for composite reservoirs. the interface is at a distance L.
M = 10. Loglog scale. CD = 100. Sw = 3. tD/CD Figure 62 Radial composite responses.66qBµ1 Sw = rD = r rw L rw ( 66) ( 67) LD = ( 68) 62 Radial composite behavior 62.120  .5 M = 0. .1 Influence of heterogeneous parameters M and F 102 Dimensionless Pressure . rD = 700.00223 1 CD µ1 C CD = CD = 0.Composite reservoir models tD k h ∆t (metric units) = 0. 2.2qBµ1 k1h ∆pskin (metric units) Sw = 15. F =1. changing mobility and constant storativity.1. 0.Chapter 6 .1 Dimensionless time. The two dotted curves correspond to the closed and the constant pressure circle solutions.1592C (metric units) 2 (φ ct )1 hrw ( 64) ( 65) k1h ∆pskin (field units) 141.5 101 102 101 0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0.5 M 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 M = 10 M=2 M = 0. 0.8936C (field units) 2 (φ ct )1 hrw 0.5. well with wellbore storage and skin.
m.Chapter 6 . CD = 100. pD 20 15 10 5 0 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. well with wellbore storage and skin. 0.2qBµ1 (PM ) (mD. tD/CD Figure 64 Radial composite responses.5.1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.1.5 101 101 F = 0.Composite reservoir models 25 Dimensionless Pressure. tD/CD slope m M=10 M=2 M=0. 62.2 Loglog analysis The permeability thickness product k1h of the inner region is estimated from the pressure match. 15 Dimensionless Pressure. constant mobility and changing storativity. pD and Derivative p'D 102 F = 10 10 F = 10 F = 0.121  ( 69) .5 M=0. Sw = 3. field units) k1 h = 18.1 sm slope 5 0 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. Loglog scale. and F =10. and C from the time match : k1h = 141.5 0. Dimensionless Pressure . 0. 2.66 qBµ1 (PM ) (mD.1 1 0.1 slopes m M Figure 63 Semilog plot of Figure 62. metric units) . rD = 700.ft. pD F=10 10 m slope F=0. M = 1. tD/CD Figure 65 Semilog plot of Figure 64.
and the wellbore skin factor Sw.122  .23 + 0.23 + 0. metric units) µ1 TM ( 610) At early time. field units) 2 k1h (φµ ct )1 rw ∆p = 21. field units) 2 (φµ ct )2 rw ∆p = 21. metric units) ( 612) 2 k1h (φµ ct )1 rw The second line.6 qBµ 1 k1 log ∆t + log − 3.3 Semilog analysis The first semilog straight line defines the mobility of the inner zone. M= ∆p2nd stab.000295 k1h 1 (Bbl/psi.54 k1 qBµ1 log ∆t + log − 3.5 qBµ 2 k2h k2 log ∆t + log − 3. ∆p = 162.6 qBµ 2 k2 h k2 log ∆t + log − 3.Chapter 6 . field units) µ1 TM k h 1 3 C = 0. function of the mobility ratio M and the radius rD of the circular interface : ST = 1 1 S w + − 1 ln rD M M ( 614) When the mobility near the wellbore is higher than in the outer zone (M>1). the homogeneous (CD e2S)1 curve defines the wellbore skin factor Sw. ∆p = 162. .87 ST 2 (φµ ct )2 rw (Bars. ∆p1st stab. metric units) ( 613) The total skin ST includes two components : the wellbore skin factor Sw and a radial composite geometrical skin effect SRC of Equation 110.87 S w (Bars.10 + 0.87 S w (psi. the geometrical skin is negative.00223 1 (m /Bars.10 + 0.Composite reservoir models C = 0. for the outer zone.87 S T (psi. ( 611) 62. defines M and the total skin ST. The mobility ratio M is estimated from the two derivative stabilizations.
Composite reservoir models 62.5 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. With a strong reduction of mobility (M>>10). tD/CD Figure 67 Drawdown and buildup responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a radial composite reservoir. 63 Linear composite behavior 63. M =100. F =1 and tp/CD=3200. rD = 2000.1 Influence of heterogeneous parameters M and F The second homogeneous behavior is defined with the average properties of the two regions : 1 k = 0. Sw = 0.Chapter 6 . pD and Derivative p'D Drawdown Buildup 10 1. M = 3.5 1 + k µ (mD/cp) 1 µ APPARENT M ( 615) . changing mobility and constant storativity.4 Buildup analysis 102 Dimensionless Pressure . tD/CD Figure 66 Drawdown and buildup responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a radial composite reservoir. before the influence of the outer region is seen. Loglog scale.5 1 0. F=1. Dimensionless Pressure .123  . CD = 1000.5 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. The dotted curves describe the drawdown response. rD = 10000. drawdown and buildup responses can show the behavior of a closed depleted system. CD = 11500. pD and Derivative p'D 102 Drawdown Buildup 10 50 1 tp 101 1 10 102 0. Sw = 5. The dotted pressure and derivative curves correspond to the drawdown solution.
rD = LD = 300.2 Loglog analysis Dimensionless Pressure .Composite reservoir models 102 Dimensionless Pressure . pD and Derivative p'D 102 10 Radial Linear 1 0. Loglog scale.1 5 0 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.1. well with wellbore storage and skin. Sw = 3.5 101 101 1 10 102 Radial Linear 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. tD/CD Figure 610 Comparison of radial and linear interfaces. 0. 2. 15 Dimensionless Pressure. F=1. Linear composite : M = 5.Chapter 6 . F=1.1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. changing mobility and constant storativity. CD = 100. The two derivative stabilizations are used to estimate the mobility ratio M : .124  . Sw = 0.5. LD = 700. The two dotted curves correspond to the sealing fault and the constant pressure boundary solutions. tD/CD Figure 69 Semilog plot of Figure 68. CD = 200. M = 10.5 101 102 101 M = 10 M = 0. tD/CD Figure 68 Linear composite responses. 63. Well with wellbore storage and skin in composite reservoirs. pD 10 m slope M=10 M=2 M=0.5 M = 0. 0.5 M=0.667. Loglog scale. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0. Radial composite : M =1.
M = 0.000.000). M=0.000. r3D = 50. RD = 2500.15. 64. From R1D = 1000 to R2D = 10. The dashed curves correspond to radial composite responses (M=0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0. RD = 1000.15 RD=50000.05 102 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. F =1.5 0. − ∆p2nd stab.000. 2 ∆p1st stab. CD = 1000. M = 0.1.5 RD=1000. .33 101 0. M decreases linearly from 1 to 0. r1D = 1000. M=0.1 0. F =1. tD/CD Figure 611 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a 4 regions radial composite reservoir. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 RD=1000 0. The dashed curves correspond to radial composite responses with only one zone (RD = 1000.5 k/µ1. Sw = 0. CD = 5440. k/µ2 = 1. RD = 50.05 102 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. tD/CD Figure 612 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a radial composite reservoir. ( 616) 64 Multicomposite systems 64.5 RD=10000 101 0. M=0.125  . k/µ4 = 10 k/µ1.1.5). r2D = 2500. k/µ3 = 5 k/µ1. RD = 10.2 Two inner regions with a linear change of mobility Dimensionless Pressure . linear change of transmissivity. Sw = 0.Composite reservoir models M= ∆p2nd stab.1 RD=2500. M = 0.1.Chapter 6 .1 Three inner regions with abrupt change of mobility Dimensionless Pressure .
126  ..
kZ2 Figure 71 Model for double permeability reservoir. kZ1 h'.ft. k2. the response is double porosity.3 Storativity ratio ω ω= (φ ct h)1 (φ ct h)1 = (φ ct h)1 + (φ ct h)2 (φ ct h)TOTAL ( 74) . and layer "2" the lower permeability intervals. 71.7 . 71.DOUBLE PERMEABILITY MODEL 71 Definitions The layer "1" is assumed to be the high permeability layer.127  .2 Mobility ratio κ κ= k1h1 k1h1 = k1h1 + k 2 h2 khTOTAL ( 73) When κ=1. k'Z S2 h2. k1. mD. S1 h1. Layer "1" describes the sum of the high permeability zones. m/Bars) ( 71) ( 72) (φ ct h)TOTAL = (φ ct h)1 + (φ ct h)2 71.m) (ft/psi.LAYERED RESERVOIRS . The twolayers model can be used for multilayers systems.1 Permeability and porosity khTOTAL = k1h1 + k 2 h2 (mD.
8936C 2 + (φ ct h) 2 rw 1 ] (field units) [(φ ct h )1 + (φ ct h)2 ]rw2 0. k h + k 2 h2 pD = 1 1 ∆p (metric units) 18.4 Interlayer cross flow coefficient λ 2 rw λ= k1h1 + k 2 h2 2 h h h' + 1 + 2 2 k ' Z k Z1 k Z 2 ( 75) thickness h' between the layers. If the vertical resistance is mostly due to the "wall". a simplified λ can be used to characterize this interlayer skin : λ is a function of the vertical permeability k z' in the low permeability "wall" of λ= 2 rw k 'Z k1h1 + k 2 h2 h' ( 76) When there is no skin at the interface and the vertical pressure gradients are negligible in the high permeability layer 1.5 Dimensionless variables pD = k1h1 + k 2 h2 ∆p (field units) 1412qBµ 1 .Layered reservoirs 71. 71.1592C (metric units) ( 710) . and of vertical permeabilities in the two layers kz1 and kz2.66qBµ ( 78) tD k h + k 2 h2 ∆t = 0.Chapter 7 .000295 1 1 (field units) C µ CD tD k h + k 2 h2 ∆t (metric units) = 0.128  .00223 1 1 CD µ C ( 79) CD = CD = [(φ c h) t 0. λ is expressed: 2 rw kZ2 λ= k1h1 + k 2 h2 h2 2 ( 77) When λ=0. there is no reservoir crossflow.
2qBµ (PM ) (mD.8.ft. CD = 1000. and it is difficult to conclude the match uniquely. ω = 0. tD/CD Figure 72 Response of a well with wellbore storage and skins in a double permeability reservoir. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0.66qBµ (PM ) (mD. metric units) k1h1 + k 2 h2 1 (Bbl/psi. S1 =S2 = 0.5 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.Layered reservoirs 72 Double permeability behavior when the two layers are producing into the well 72.Chapter 7 . when the fluid transfer between the layers starts. the response follows a transition regime. the well condition influences the shape of the derivative transition. the pressure equalizes in the two layers and the behavior describes the equivalent homogeneous total system.02. When the two skins S1 and S2 are different.000295 ( 711) ( 712) The heterogeneous parameters κ. First. κ = 0.1 Loglog pressure and derivative responses Three characteristic flow regimes : 1. λ provides an estimate of the vertical permeabilities. 2. ω and λ are adjusted preferably with the derivative curve.5. At intermediate times. λ = 6. 3.00223 1 1 (m /Bars. field units) k1 h1 + k 2 h2 = 18. metric units) µ TM C = 0. From Equations 76 and 77 : k ' Z = ( k1h1 + k 2 h2 ) λ 2 rw h' (mD) ( 713) . The derivative stabilizes at 0.108 k1h1 + k 2 h2 = 141.m. field units) µ TM k h + k 2 h2 1 3 C = 0. the behavior corresponds to two layers without cross flow. Later. 102 Dimensionless Pressure .129  . The two layers are producing into the well.
99 and 0. κ = 0. λ = 0).6 and 0. λ = 4.999 0. 0. The thick dotted curves correspond to the homogeneous reservoir response (CD e2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1).6 0.999 0.99.104.6 4 0.130  .99 0.The thin dotted curves correspond to the two layers responses with no reservoir crossflow (for κ = 0.Layered reservoirs k Z 2 = ( k1h1 + k 2 h2 ) λ h2 2 rw 2 (mD) ( 714) 72.Chapter 7 .6 1 0. CD = 1. .9 0.99 κ = 0. The two dotted curves describe the homogeneous reservoir response (CDe2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1). tD/CD Figure 74 Semilog plot of Figure 73.6 em slop 2 Two layers no crossflow Double permeability 101 1 10 102 103 104 0 Dimensionless time.99 102 101 κ= 1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. ω = 103.2 Influence of the heterogeneous parameters κ and ω It is assumed in that the two skin coefficients are equal: S1 = S2 ( = 0).9 0.999 0. Four mobility ratios : κ = 0. pD and Derivative p'D κ = 0. 10 Dimensionless Pressure .5 101 0. Well with wellbore storage and skins. high storativity contrast.6. S1 = S2 = 0.999.9. 6 Dimensionless Pressure. tD/CD Figure 73 Double permeability responses when the two layers are producing into the well. pD κ = 1. 0.
9.99 κ = 0.Layered reservoirs 10 Dimensionless Pressure . tD/CD 103 104 Figure 76 Semilog plot of Figure 75. pD and Derivative p'D κ = 0.99. Four mobility ratios : κ = 0.99 0.5 101 101 κ = 1 0.999. First. Later. the perforated layer response is seen alone. 73 Double permeability behavior when only one of the two layers is producing into the well 73.1 Loglog pressure and derivative responses Three characteristic flow regimes : 1.9 0. 2.999 0. low storativity contrast.The thin dotted curves correspond to the two layers responses with no reservoir crossflow (for κ = 0.6 1 0. The two dotted curves describe the homogeneous reservoir response (CDe2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1).9 0. 0.999 1 10 102 Dimensionless time. The derivative drops. .131  . the pressure equalizes in the two layers.5. the response deviates in a transition regime. λ = 4.6 m pe slo 2 0 101 1 10 102 Dimensionless time. When the second layer starts to produce by reservoir cross flow.999 0. The derivative stabilizes at 0. and the behavior is homogeneous.104. 0.99 0. λ = 0). tD/CD 103 104 Figure 75 Double permeability responses when the two layers are producing into the well.6 0. 6 Dimensionless Pressure.99 and 0. CD = 1. S1 = S2 = 0. The thick dotted curves correspond to the homogeneous reservoir response (CD e2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1). ω = 101. and the equivalent homogeneous behavior of the total system is seen.6 κ = 0. pD Two layers no crossflow Double permeability 4 κ= 1 0.Chapter 7 . 3. Well with wellbore storage and skins.6. Loglog scale.6 and 0.
Chapter 7  Layered reservoirs
Dimensionless Pressure , pD and Derivative p'D
102 layer 2 produces 10 0.5/(1κ) 1 0.5
101 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Dimensionless time, tD/CD
Figure 77 Response for a well with wellbore storage and skin in double permeability reservoir, only layer 2 produces into the well. Loglog scale. CD =1000, S1 = 100, S2 = 0, ω = 0.1, κ = 0.9, λ = 6.108.
73.2 Discussion of double permeability parameters
When only the low permeability layer is producing, the derivative tends to stabilize at 0.5/(1κ) during the first homogeneous regime. The response is then similar to the behavior of a well in partial penetration.
102 Dimensionless Pressure , pD and Derivative p'D the two layers produce 10 layer 2 produces 1 layer 1 produces 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time, tD/CD 0.5 layer 2 layer 1
Figure 78 Response for a well with wellbore storage and skin in double permeability reservoir, only one layer is producing into the well. The dotted curve describes the double permeability response when the two layers are producing into the well (no skin). CD = 1, ω = 0.2,κ = 0.9, λ = 104, S1 = 100, S2 = 0 and S1 = 0, S2 = 100.
When only the high permeability layer produces into the well, the two derivative stabilizations are almost at the same level: 0.5/κ for the first (0.55 in the example of Figure 78) and 0.5 for the second. The response tends to be equivalent to the double porosity solution with restricted interporosity flow.
73.3 Analysis of semilog straight lines
The response can follow two semilog straight lines. When one of the two layers (called layer i) starts to produce alone, the first line is expressed :
 132 
Chapter 7  Layered reservoirs
30 Dimensionless Pressure, pD the two layers produce 20
slope m
layer 2 produces
10 layer 1 produces 0 101 1 10 102 103
slope m
104
105
Dimensionless time, tD/CD
Figure 79 Semilog plot of Figure 78. The dotted curve corresponds to the homogeneous reservoir response, no skin (CD e2S = 1).
∆p = 162.6 ∆p = 21.54
ki qBµ − 3.23 + 0.87 S i (psi, field units) log ∆t + log 2 k i hi (φ ct )i µ rw ki qBµ − 3.10 + 0.87 S i (Bars, metric units)( 715) log ∆t + log 2 k i hi (φ ct )i µ rw
The second line, for the total system regime, gives the total mobility :
∆p = 162.6 ∆p = 21.54
units)
kTOTAL qBµ − 3.23 + 0.87 S (psi, field units) log ∆t + log 2 khTOTAL (φ ct )TOTAL µ rw
qBµ khTOTAL
khTOTAL − 3.10 + 0.87 S (Bars, metric log ∆t + log 2 (φ ct h)TOTAL µrw
( 716)
The global skin S measured on the total system semilog straight line is not only a function of the two layers skins S1 and S2, but also of κ, ω and λ.
74 Commingled systems: layered reservoirs without crossflow
74.1 Same initial pressure
When there is no reservoir crossflow, the amplitude of the response is larger than that of the equivalent homogenous system (thin dashed curves on Figure 74 and Figure 76). The semilog slope decreases slowly with time, to reach the equivalent total system slope of Equation 716. In a n layers system, the pseudoskin factor SL due to layering is defined as :  133 
Chapter 7  Layered reservoirs
SL =
(kh φ ct h) j 1 n k jhj ln ∑ 2 j =1 khTOTAL ( kh φ ct h) TOTAL
( 717)
On the example κ=0.999 and ω=0.001 of Figure 74, the pseudoskin is estimated at SL=3.5. For the curve κ=0.9 and ω=0.1 of Figure 76, SL is only 0.9. When the layers have different mechanical skin factors Si, the response is also a function of the skin contrast between the different layers. The global skin can be defined with two components : SL of Equation 717, and an average mechanical skin S . The average mechanical skin S is approximated with :
S=∑
n
k jhj
j =1 khTOTAL
S j = ∑κ j S j
i =1
n
( 718)
74.2 Different initial pressure
When the layers have a different initial pressure, the bottom hole pressure tends asymptotically towards the average initial pressure if the well is not opened to surface production. For an infinite system, p i is defined as :
pi = ∑
n
k jhj
j =1 khTOTAL
pi j (psi, Bars)
( 719)
If the nonproducing commingled reservoir is closed, the final average reservoir pressure is p :
p=∑
n
V j ct j
j =1 Vct TOTAL
pi j (psi, Bars)
( 720)
where Vj is the pore volume of layer j. The final average reservoir pressure p can be greater or smaller than the "infinite" average initial pressure pi of Equation 719.
 134 
8  INTERFERENCE TESTS
81 Interference tests in reservoirs with homogeneous behavior
81.1 Responses of producing and observation wells
4930 5000 pi Observation well Pressure (psia) 4500 Producing well Observation well 4920 pwf
4000
3500 0 100 200 Time (hours) 300 400 500
4910 180 200 Time (hours) 220
Figure 81 Response of a producing and an observation well. Linear scale. On the second graph, the observation well pressure is presented on enlarged scale at time of shutin.
103 Producing well Pressure Change, ∆p and Derivative (psi) 102
101 Observation well 1 102 101 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)
Figure 82 Buildup response of the producing and observation wells. Loglog scale.
81.2 Loglog analysis with linesource solution
Dimensionless parameters
The line source solution, also called the exponential integral (Ei), or Theis solution, is expressed as :
 135 
000263 k 1 (psi1.57 and pD = p'D = 0.Interference tests 2 p D = − 1 2 Ei − rD 4t D ( ) ( 81) pD is defined in Equation 23 and the time group tD/rD2 is : t D 0. Loglog scale. Approximate start of radial flow PRESSURE ( 82) Figure 83 The Theis solution (exponential integral). pressure and derivative responses. metric units) 2 µr TM φ ct = ( 83) . approximately at tD/rD2 = 5. The 0. field units) µ r 2 TM 0.5 derivative stabilization starts 10 times later. the pressure and derivative curves intersect at tD/rD2 = 0.32.000263k = ∆t (field units) 2 φµ ct r 2 rD t D 0. Match results The permeability thickness product kh is estimated from the pressure match with Equation 28.000356 k 1 φ ct = (Bars1. The time match t D r 2 ∆t gives the effective porosity D compressibility product φ ct : ( ) 0.Chapter 8 .136  . With the line source response.000356k = ∆t (metric units) 2 rD φ µ ct r 2 101 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 1 Intersection DERIVATIVE 101 102 103 102 101 1 101 102 tD /rD2 103 104 Dimensionless time.
Two distances: rD = 1000 : CD = 3000. S = 30 S = 10 S=0 Figure 84 Influence of wellbore storage and skin effects on interference pressure responses. S = 30 S = 10 S=0 104 102 101 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time.Chapter 8 . S = 10 (curve B). rD = 300 : CD = 3000. S = 30 (curve C). CD = 3000. CD = 10000. CD = 3000. rD = 1000. 101 Dimensionless Pressure Derivative p'D Line source well 1 101 C: 102 B: A: 103 rD = 300. . CD = 10000. rD = 1000.137  .Interference tests 81. tD /rD2 Figure 85 Derivative curves of Figure 84. tD /rD2 rD = 300. CD = 3000. rD = 1000. CD = 3000. Loglog scale. S = 0 (curve A) and CD = 10000. Loglog scale. rD = 1000. The dotted derivative curve corresponds to the Theis solution. The dotted curve corresponds to the Theis solution.3 Influence of wellbore storage and skin effects at both wells 101 Line source well Dimensionless Pressure pD 1 101 C: 102 B: A: 103 104 102 101 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time.
Location of the active well and the observation well. metric units) kh φ µ ct r 2 ( 130) 81.5 qBµ k log ∆t + log − 3. field units) 2 kh φ µ ct r 21. The dotted derivative curve corresponds to the Theis solution.2275 (psi. 81.4 Semilog analysis of interference responses When tD/rD2 > 5. Loglog scale. .6 qBµ log ∆t + log − 3.5 Anisotropic reservoirs y Observation well at (x. the infinite acting radial flow regime is reached. examples A and B.138  . ky. the observation well location is defined as (x.10 (Bars. y) kmin θ Active well kmax x Figure 87 Interference test in an anisotropic reservoir. pi − p wf = p i − p wf = k 162. 1 tD /rD2 101 Figure 86 Pressure an derivative curves of Figure 84 and Figure 85.Chapter 8 .Interference tests 1 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D Intersections Line source well 101 A B 102 102 101 Dimensionless time. With a coordinate system centered on the active well.y) and kx. kxy are the components of the permeability tensor.
y tD r 2 D k max k min (metric units) = 0. The dimensionless time corresponding to well (x. the pressure match is the same for all responses and only the time match changes.000356∆t k y 2 + k x 2 − 2k xy φ µ ct y xy x.5k x + k y − k x − k y ( 2 2 + 4 k xy 1/ 2 ( 87) The angle between the major permeability axis and the xaxis of the coordinate system is expressed with : θ = arctan k max − k x k xy ( 88) When only one observation well response is available for interpretation. The pressure match gives the average permeability k max k min but the porosity compressibility product φ ct estimated from the time match with Equation 83 can be wrong.000263∆t (field units) 2 = φ µ ct k x y 2 + k y x 2 − 2 k xy xy rD x .y of the observation well is function of the well location with respect to the main permeability directions.Chapter 8 .x.5k x + k y + k x − k y ( ) ) 2 2 + 4 k xy 1/ 2 (mD) (mD) ( 86) k min = 0. the reservoir anisotropy is not accessible. kx. ky and kxy can be estimated. 82 Interference tests in double porosity reservoirs The responses are expressed with the dimensionless pressure pD versus the dimensionless time group tfD/rD2 defined with reference to the fissure system storativity (φ V ct)f : . The major and minor reservoir permeability kmax and kmin are be defined with k max = 0.139  . y x ( 85) With three observation well responses. The apparent permeability is : 2 k = k max k min = k x k y − k xy (mD) ( 84) The apparent distance rD.Interference tests When several observation well responses are matched against the exponential integral type curve of Figure 83.y) is defined as : tD k max k min 0.
1 1 ω =0. .140  .Interference tests t Df r2 D t Df 2 rD = = 0.01 0.01.01 ω =0. 2 λrD = 5. the response deviates from the fissure curve and follows a λ rD2 transition curve.000356k ∆t (metric units) ( 89) 82. 101 Dimensionless Pressure pD 1 0. the λ rD2 transition stabilizes at a low ∆p value and.1 1 101 λ rD2 = 5 102 101 ω =0. 0. beyond a certain distance riD. When the distance rD between the active and the observation wells is large. restricted (pseudosteady state) interporosity flow. Later. tD f /rD2 Figure 88 Interference pressure typecurve for a double porosity reservoir. the total system equivalent homogeneous regime is reached and a second exponential integral curve is seen at late time.Chapter 8 . ∆p becomes less than the pressure gauge resolution.1 Double porosity reservoirs with restricted interporosity flow Pressure type curves Three curves are needed to define to a double porosity interference response : 1. 0. 2. The distance between the two homogeneous regime curves is a function of the storativity ratio ω. the interference response follows the exponential integral solution. The level of the pressure change ∆p during the transition is defined by λ rD2.1. 1. 3. During the fissure flow regime.000263k∆t (field units) (φV ct ) f µ r 2 (φVct ) f µ r 2 0.001 103 104 102 101 Dimensionless time. When the transition starts. This distance riD represents the radius of influence of the fissures around the active well.
101 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D Active well 1 101 A 102 rD=1000 105 106 107 108 109 B rD=5000 104 Dimensionless time. The dotted curve describes the derivative response at the active well. 101 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D A 1 B 101 B rD=5000 102 102 101 1 101 A rD=1000 102 103 2 Dimensionless time. λ = 5 X 108.Interference tests Pressure and derivative response When the observation well is located inside the radius of influence riD. With the tDf/rD2 time scale of Figure 810. tDf /rD time scale. The tDf time scale of Figure 89 shows that the transition is observed at the same time in the active well and in the observation wells. .1. The interference response is observed faster than for the equivalent homogeneous reservoir. tD f /rD2 Figure 810 Interference responses of Figure 89. two distances : rD = 1000 (curve A) and rD = 5000 (B). ω = 0.141  . the fissure flow regime is seen first. tD f Figure 89 Interference responses in double porosity reservoirs with restricted interporosity flow (tDf time scale).Chapter 8 . the time of transition is a function of the λ rD2 group.
01 101 ω =0. .1 ω =0. 2. Loglog scale.001 102 tD f /rD2 103 104 Dimensionless time. with same parameters as on Figure 810 . For slab matrix blocks. unrestricted (transient) interporosity flow β rD2= 6*103.The interference response starts on a β rD2 transition curve.When the total system equivalent homogeneous regime is reached. 101 Dimensionless Pressure pD 6 60 600 β rD2 = 6000 101 1 102 101 1 ω =0.2 Double porosity reservoirs with unrestricted interporosity flow Pressure typecurve Two pressure curves : 1. for sphere matrix blocks β = λ 3ω . tD f /rD2 Figure 812 Interference responses in double porosity reservoirs with unrestricted interporosity flow. β = 3λ 5ω and. . 6*102. the response follows the exponential integral curve. Figure 811 Interference pressure typecurve for a double porosity reservoir.142  . Two wells.Interference tests 82.Chapter 8 . 60 and 6. Pressure and derivative response 101 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D A 1 B A 101 rD=1000 B rD=5000 102 102 101 1 101 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.
Chapter 8 . the interference signal travels faster. or later.5 to 1 can be earlier. ∆p and Derivative (psi) 101 Active well O2 1 101 1 101 Elapsed time. the interference signal is delayed. .Interference tests 83 Influence of reservoir boundaries Period #2 Period #3 O1 Linear sealing fault Period #3 A Active well O2 Figure 813 Interference in a reservoir with a sealing fault. 84 Interference tests in radial composite reservoir When the mobility around the active well is higher than the mobility of the reservoir (Figure 816). Location of the active well A and the two observation wells O1 and O2. the derivative stabilizes at p'D=1 at late time. When the active well is located in a low mobility region (Figure 817). 102 O1 Pressure Change. The time of transition from 0. In case of one sealing fault. ∆t (hours) 102 103 Figure 814 Interference in a reservoir with a sealing fault. Pressure and derivative curves of the two observation wells.143  . Loglog scale. than in the active well.
Chapter 8 . The mobility of the inner zone is 4 times smaller (M=1/4.144  . The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to theTheis solution for region 2 parameters. F=1). . ∆t (hours) 103 1 Figure 816 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. F=1). The mobility of the inner zone is 4 times larger (M=4. ∆p and Derivative (psi) 102 O1 101 O2 Line source region 2 101 1 101 102 Elapsed time. ∆p and Derivative (psi) 102 Active well 101 O1 1 101 1 101 Elapsed time. The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to the Theis solution for region 2 parameters. 103 Active well Pressure Change.Interference tests (k/µ)1 (k/µ)2 R A O1 O2 Active well R/2 2R Figure 815 Interference in a radial composite reservoir. ∆t (hours) O2 Line source region 2 102 103 Figure 817 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. Location of the active well A and the observation wells O1 and O1. 103 Pressure Change.
The dotted pressure curve corresponds to the Theis solution for region 2 parameters.Interference tests 103 Pressure Change.145  . Pressure curves of examples Figure 816 and Figure 817. When there is a reduction of storativity φct around the active well. ∆p (psi) 102 O1 101 M=4 M=1/4 O2 M=4 M=1/4 Line source region 2 1 101 1 101 Elapsed time. The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to the Theis solution for region 2 parameters.Chapter 8 . Well O2. 103 Pressure Change. ∆t (hours) 102 103 Figure 819 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. The storativity of the inner zone is 4 times smaller (M=1. ∆t (hours) 102 103 Figure 818 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. . the interference signal reaches the observation well faster (Figure 819). F=1/4). ∆p and Derivative (psi) 102 Active well 101 O2 Line source region 2 1 101 1 101 Elapsed time. The mobility of the inner zone is 4 times smaller or 4 times larger.
85 Interference tests in a two layers reservoir with cross flow The dimensionless pressure p1+2D and the dimensionless time group t1+2D/rD2 are defined with the parameters of the total system. .Interference tests 103 Pressure Change. Well O1.Chapter 8 . The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to the Theis solution for region 2 parameters. For the example used in the following.4 and κ =0. The mobility and the storativity of the inner zone are 10 times larger (M=F=10). the interference response can show the 2 usual derivative stabilizations of the radial composite model (Figure 821). The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to the Theis solution for region 2 parameters. When both the active well and the observation well are located in the inner reservoir region. the contrast between the layers is not high (ω =0. F=4). ∆p and Derivative (psi) 102 Line source region 2 101 Active well 1 102 101 O1 1 101 102 103 104 Elapsed time. and the active well is expected to show the equivalent homogeneous behavior.7). Well O2. ∆p and Derivative (psi) 102 Active well 101 Line source region 2 O2 1 101 1 101 Elapsed time.146  . ∆t (hours) Figure 821 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. The storativity of the inner zone is 4 times larger (M=1. ∆t (hours) 102 103 Figure 820 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. Pressure Change.
When only the high permeability layer 1 is communicating with the observation well. . 1 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 Line source total system 102 102 101 1 Dimensionless time.Interference tests On Figure 822. 1 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D Layer 1 101 Layer 2 102 102 101 Line source total system 1 2 101 Dimensionless time. After the double permeability transition. When two layers are perforated.147  .7 and λ=106. a cross flow is present in the well at the start of the interference response. the response is seen before the equivalent homogeneous solution for the total system. Loglog scale.4. and the observation well becomes active (even though it is not producing at surface). only one layer is perforated at the observation well. the two layers are perforated in the observation well. tD 1+2 /rD2 101 Figure 823 Interference responses in a double permeability reservoir. The resulting response (Figure 823) is close to the response of layer 1 alone : when several layers are perforated. The dotted pressure and derivative curves correspond to the Theis solution for the total system equivalent homogeneous reservoir. the early time response is delayed compared to the Theis solution for the total system.Chapter 8 . When the interference is monitored through the low permeability layer 2. the two responses merge on the equivalent homogeneous total system curve. κ=0. the high permeability layer dominates the observation well behavior. tD 1+2 /rD Figure 822 Interference responses in a double permeability reservoir. one layer is perforated in the observation well. ω=0. Same parameters as on Figure 822. the dotted curves correspond to the total system equivalent homogeneous Theis solution.
.148  .
smaller than the lower test pressure. Bars2/cp) ( 92) The pressure p is expressed in absolute unit.149  . hr.Bars/cp) ( 93) In order to estimate µ and ct before calculation of the superposition with the pseudo time tps. also called "real gas potential". "the Absolute Open Flow Potential" AOFP. the pressure must be known during the complete flow rate sequence . (psia2 / cp with the usual system of units). cg = 1 1 ∂Z − p Z ∂p (psi1.psi/cp. Transient analysis provides a description of the producing system.GAS WELLS Two different types of test are used with gas wells.2 Pseudopressure The pseudopressure m(p). as for oil wells. With deliverability testing. 91 Gas properties 91. The change of pseudopressure. The complete pressure data is converted into pseudopressure m(p) before analysis. expressed as m(p)m(p[∆t=0]). is defined : m( p) = 2 p0 ∫ µ ( p)Z ( p) dp p p (psia2/cp. The reference pressure p0 is an arbitrary constant.9 . For an ideal gas Z=1. and the compressibility is cg=1/p. is estimated. 91.1 Gas compressibility and viscosity The viscosity µ and the compressibility of gas cg change with the pressure. is independent of the reference pressure p0. the theoretical rate at which the well would flow if the sandface was at atmospheric pressure. Bars1) ( 91) Z is the real gas deviation factor. m(p) has the unit of (pressure)2 / viscosity . t ps = ∫ 0 t 1 dt µ ( p)ct ( p) (hr.3 Pseudotime The pseudotime tps is sometimes used as a complement of m(p). 91.
Bars2/cp) ( 94) On lowpressure gas wells. .150  . no simplification is available and m(p) must be used. µZ is plotted versus p for a typical natural gas at constant temperature : . .02 µ Z constant 0.04 to nal rtio o rop Zp p 0. the product µZ tends to be proportional to p and p/µZ can be considered as a constant.When the pressure is less than 2000 psia.When the pressure is higher than 3000 psia. .Chapter 9 . The pseudopressure m(p) becomes : 2p m( p) = µZ p0 ∫ dp = ( p − p0 ) µ p 2 pi (psia2/cp.03 µ Z (cp) µ 0.00 0 2000 4000 Pressure (psia) 6000 8000 Figure 91 Isothermal variation of µZ with pressure. it is possible to analyze the test in terms of pressuresquared p2. and the pressure data can be used directly for analysis. 0.Between 2000 psia and 3000 psia.1 Simplified pseudopressure for manual analysis On Figure 91. the gas behaves like a slightly compressible fluid.01 0. Bars2/cp) Zi i ( 95) On highpressure wells.Gas wells 92 Transient analysis of gas well tests 92. the product µZ is almost constant and m(p) simplifies into : m( p) = 2 µZ ∫ p pdp = p0 2 p 2 − p0 µ i Zi (psia2/cp.
Tsc = 288. psc =1 Bar.03∗10 pi2 − p 2 µ ZTq sc kh Tsc 2 pi − p 2 pD = 37.Gas wells 92. the dimensionless terms are defined with respect to the gas properties at initial condition (subscript i).2 Dimensionless parameters Nomenclature In field units.151  .987 ∗ 10 −5 −4 kh Tsc [m( pi ) − m( p )] Tq sc p sc kh = 7.Chapter 9 . With the pressure and pressuresquared approaches.).1296 µ zTqsc p: ( ( ) ) ( ) (metric units) ( 97) p D = 3. Dimensionless pressure m(p): p D = 1. the standard pressure is psc =14. The gas rate is expressed in standard condition as qsc in Mscf/D (103scft/D ).1296T q sc p2: (field units) (metric units) ( 96) p D = 1.33µ Z Tqsc psc kh pi2 − p 2 = 0.7psia and the temperature is Tsc = 520°R (60°F. all temperatures are expressed in absolute units).33T q sc p sc kh [m( p i ) − m( p)] = 0.976∗10 −5 = 1406∗10 .15°K (15°C) and cubic meters are used for gas rates (m3/D. With the metric system.03 ∗ 10 [m( pi ) − m( p )] Tq sc T sc kh [m( p i ) − m( p)] pD = 37. When the pseudopressure is used.987∗10 −5 −4 kh Tsc 2 pi − p 2 µ ZTq sc psc ( ) (field units) kh = 7. −3 kh p Tsc ( pi − p) µ ZTq sc psc kh p ( pi − p) µ ZTq sc (field units) . the properties are defined at the arithmetic average pressure of the test (symbol ).
8936C (field units) 2 φ cti hrw 0. m(p): CD = CD = p2 and p: 0.152  .000263k tD = tD = φ µ ct rw 2 0.000263k φµ i cti rw 2 0.66 µ Z Tq sc kh p 0.000295 (field units) CD µi C .000356k ∆t (field units) ∆t (metric units) ( 910) φ µ c t rw 2 Dimensionless wellbore storage As for oil wells. the wellbore storage coefficient is expressed in Bbl/psi (or m3/Bars).1592C 2 φ c ti hrw (metric units) ( 911) CD = CD = 0.Gas wells pD = = kh p 18.1592C 2 φ c t hrw (metric units) ( 912) Dimensionless time group tD/CD m(p): tD kh ∆t = 0.8936C (field units) 2 φ ct hrw 0.Chapter 9 .0648µ Z Tq sc Tsc ( pi − p) p sc (metric units) ( 98) ( pi − p) Dimensionless time m(p): tD = tD = p2 and p: 0.000356k ∆t (field units) ∆t (metric units) ( 99) φ µ i cti rw 2 0.
S ' = S + Dq sc ( 915) In a multirate sequence. S' is expressed : S' = q n ( S + Dq n ) − q n −1 ( S + Dq n −1 ) q n − q n −1 = S + D(q n + q n −1 ) ( 916) During shutin periods (qn =0) and during a period immediately after shutin (qn1 = 0).Chapter 9 .Gas wells tD kh ∆t (metric units) = 0.000295 (field units) CD µ C tD kh ∆t (metric units) = 0.153  . . the skin coefficient S' is expressed with a rate dependent term. 12 S'=S+D(qn+qn1) 10 lope D=s 8 S = intercept 6 0 2000 4000 qn+qn1 (Mscf/D) 6000 8000 Figure 92 Variation of the pseudoskin with the rate qn + qn1.00223 CD µi C p2 and p: ( 913) tD kh ∆t = 0. and the skin is estimated from the change of ∆pskin between the flow periods n and n1. the analysis is made with respect to the rate change (qn qn1).00223 CD µ C ( 914) Skin On gas wells. the actual flow rate is used in Equation 916. also called turbulent effect or nonDarcy skin.
109 pwf=14. the difference between the pseudosteady state flowing pressure pwf and the following shutin average pressure p is expressed from Equation 516 as : m p − m p wf = 1637 field units) () ( ) 2 A rw T T 2 log + 0.Gas wells 93 Deliverability tests 93. pressuresquared method. or Houpeurt's.pwf2 (psia2) 108 1/n =s lop e 107 AOF=9000 Mscft/D 106 103 104 Rate. to 0. m3/D) ( 917) The initial pressure pi and the stabilized flowing pressures pwf are expressed in absolute units. or "C & n") 2 q sc = C pi2 − pwf ( ) n (Mscf/D. Theoretical approach (LIT. The coefficients C and n are two constant terms. qsc (Mscf/D) 105 Figure 93 Deliverability plot for a backpressure test. n can vary from 1 in the case of laminar flow.87 S q sc + 1422 Dq sc (psia2/cp. kh kh CA .35 + 0.154  .Chapter 9 .1 Deliverability equations Empirical approach (Fetkovich.7 psia pi2. or Jone's. The Absolute Open Flow Potential (AOF) is the theoretical rate for a bottom hole flowing pressure pwf = 14. or "a & b") In a closed system. Loglog scale.7 psia (pwf =1 Bar).5 when the flow is fully turbulent.
87 S q sc + 0.155  .1491 (Bars2/cp. qsc (Mscf/D) 6000 8000 Figure 94 Deliverability plot for an isochronal or a modified isochronal test. metric units) ( 918) With a circular reservoir of radius re.000 ed biliz st a e l op =s 30.87 S q sc + 1422 Dq sc 2 kh kh φµ i cti rw T 2 log k∆t + 3. field units) 2 log kh rw kh 0. The coefficient "b" is the same in the two equations.1491 + 0.b ent ns i 20. CA = 31.1296 T D q sc 2 kh kh φ µ i c ti rw ( 920) m p − m p wf = 0. field units) () ( ) () ( ) T T k∆t 2 log + 3.Chapter 9 . During the infinite acting regime. the response follows the semilog approximation and ∆m(p) is : m p − m p wf = 1637 (psia2/cp.1491 metric units) ∆m(p)/q (psia2D/cpMscf) 35.1296 D q sc kh rw kh (Bars2/cp.87 S q sc + 0.23 + 0.000 a = intercept 25. metric units) The two ∆m(p) deliverability relationships can be expressed as a(t) qsc + b q2sc.62 and ∆m(p) is simplified : m p − m pwf = 1637 () ( ) () ( ) 40. ( 919) m p − m p wf = 0.351 + 0.472re T T 2 2 log + 0.000 0.87 S q sc + 0. The Absolute Open Flow Potential is : .Gas wells m p − m p wf () ( ) 2 A rw T T 2 log = 0.000 0 2000 4000 Rate. a(t) is an increasing function of the time whereas "a" is constant when pseudosteady state is reached.000 tra . Before the pseudosteady state regime.1296 D q sc kh kh CA (Bars2/cp. Linear scale.10 + 0.472re T T 2 + 0. pseudopressure method.87 S q sc + 1422 Dq sc (psia2/cp.
000 6800 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Time (hours) Figure 95 Pressure and rate history for a backpressure test.Gas wells q sc . The drawdown periods. AOF = − a + a 2 + 4b m( p) − m( psc ) 2b ( ) (Mscf/D. 3500 ∆m(p)/q (psia2D/cpMscf) 3000 b= pe slo 2500 a = intercept 2000 0 2000 4000 Rate. m3/D) ( 921) 93. A final flow period is extended to reach stabilized flowing pressure.156  . are stopped during the infinite acting regime.000 6900 10.2 Back pressure test (Flow after flow test) The well is produced to stabilized pressure at three or four increasing rates and the different flow periods have the same duration. qsc (Mscf/D) 6000 8000 Figure 96 Deliverability plot for a backpressure test. qsc (Mscf/D) pwf2 pwf3 30. Linear scale. 93.Chapter 9 .3 Isochronal test The well is produced at three or four increasing rates and a shutin period is introduced between each flow. The intermediate buildups last until the initial pressure pi is reached. pseudopressure method. pi 7000 Pressure (psia) pwf1 Rate. . of same duration tp.000 pwf4 20.
000 6800 0 200 400 Time. qsc (Mscf/D) 105 Figure 98 Deliverability plot for an isochronal or a modified isochronal test.000 20. hours 600 0 800 Figure 97 Pressure and rate history for an isochronal test.000 0 600 Figure 99 Pressure and rate history for a modified isochronal test.000 Rate. stab pws2 pws3 pws4 pi 30. qsc (Mscf/D) Rate. 108 sta bil tra ize ns d 1/ ien n= t. .pwf2 (psia2) 107 pwf=14. Loglog scale.000 10.000 pwf. 93.4 Modified isochronal test The intermediate shutin periods have the same duration tp as the drawdown periods.Chapter 9 . and the last flow is extended until the stabilized pressure is reached. 7100 pws1 Pressure (psia) 6900 6700 6500 6300 0 100 200 300 400 Time (hours) 500 pwf1 pwf2 pwf3 pwf4 pwf.Gas wells pi 7000 Pressure (psia) pwf1 pwf2 6900 pwf3 pwf4 10. qsc (Mscf/D) 30. pressuresquared method.157  . stab 20.7 psia 106 AOF=8000 Mscft/D 105 103 104 Rate. slo pe pi2 (or pws2 ).
.158  .
S = 0.159  . The double porosity transition is observed during the semiradial flow regime. after a first derivative stabilization at 1. With mixed boundaries. ω = 103. the double porosity transition is superimposed to the start of the pseudosteady state regime (Figure 103). λ = 106. . CD = 10. L1D = L2D = 300. a 1/4 slope derivative straight line can be observed at transition time (Figure 102). ω = 0. pseudosteady state interporosity flow. CD = 104. derivative responses can exhibit several consecutive humps (Figure 104). double porosity reservoir.25 1 101 slope 0. The thin curves correspond to the infinite double porosity reservoir response. tD /CD transition 104 105 total system 106 1 1 Figure 101 Well with wellbore storage near a sealing fault. slab matrix blocks. When the four sealing boundaries of a closed system are reached during the fissure flow. LD = 5000. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 º 101 1/4 slo pe 1/ 2 1 0.10 . S = 0.5 101 101 1 fissure regime 101 102 103 Dimensionless time. λeff = 109.BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS 101 Boundaries in fissured reservoirs A sealing fault can be reached during the fissure flow regime (Figure 101). In a channel double porosity reservoir with unrestricted interporosity flow. tD /CD 106 107 108 Figure 102 Well with wellbore storage in a double porosity channel reservoir.2.5 101 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. unrestricted interporosity flow. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 start of the sealing fault 1 0.
Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 º 101 1 0. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 º 101 2 1 0. In layered channel reservoirs. ω = 0. S = 0. L3D = 1500 (constant pressure) and L4D = 1500 (sealing).160  . pseudo steady state interporosity flow. S = 0. tD /CD 104 105 Figure 104 Well with wellbore storage in a square double porosity reservoir with composite boundaries. The boundary is reached first in Layer 1. CD = 100.1. the channel width can appear smaller (Figure 106).1. λeff = 106.5 101 101 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time. LiD = 1000. the reservoir cross flow is not established when the fault is seen. . pseudo steady state interporosity flow. ω = 0.5 101 101 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. L1D = L2D = 500 (sealing). and the derivative deviates earlier than on the equivalent homogeneous response. tD /CD Figure 103 Drawdown response for a well with wellbore storage at the center of closed square double porosity reservoir. The infinite reservoir double porosity derivative response is presented by the thick dotted curve. The thin dotted curves correspond to the equivalent homogeneous closed square reservoir. The dotted curve corresponds to the equivalent infinite double porosity reservoir. CD = 100. λeff = 106.Chapter 10 . 102 Boundaries in layered reservoirs On Figure 105.
tD /CD 104 105 Figure 105 Well with wellbore storage in a double permeability reservoir with a sealing fault. S1 = S2 = 0. Later. κ = 0.7. On Figure 107. The dotted curves describe the sealing fault response in the equivalent homogeneous reservoir. . the second is a function of layer 1 storage ω A/rw2 and the final corresponds to the reservoir storage (A/rw2 in dimensionless terms).κ) until the final unit slope line for the pseudo steady state regime becomes evident. The dotted curves describe to the channel response of the equivalent homogeneous reservoir. as on the composite example of Figure 104.Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 1 1 0. 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 /2 e1 slop 1 0.5 / (1 . a second unit slope straight line. the derivative stabilizes at 0.5 101 101 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time. ω = 0.161  . λ = 10 .15. The first unit slope straight line describes the wellbore storage.7. S1 = S2 = 0. followed by a hump is seen. λ = 1010. After the wellbore storage effect and the early time infinite behavior. κ = 0. LD = 500.15. 10 ω = 0. tD /CD Figure 106 Well with wellbore storage in a double permeability reservoir with two parallel sealing faults. the closed circular boundary is reached during the early time commingled response. a derivative hump can be observed at intermediate time. In a closed double permeability reservoir.Chapter 10 . CD = 100.5 101 101 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. L1D = L2D = 1000. CD = 100.
tD /CD 105 106 slo 101 pe Figure 107 Drawdown response for a well with wellbore storage in a closed circle double permeability reservoir. when the mobility changes near the edges of the channel banks (Figure 108). κ = 0. L1D = L2D =1000. ω = 0. When the mobility contrast is large. . tD /CD M=0. λ = 1010. M1 = M2 = 0. rD = 5000.2 1 0.5 101 101 1 101 0. or channel with constant pressure boundary response (Figure 1010). The interfaces are parallel to the boundaries. drawdown responses can show at intermediate time a closed system behavior. 103 Composite channel reservoirs In channel reservoirs.2. CD = 100. 5 Figure 108 Well with wellbore storage in a composite channel.Chapter 10 . 1. S1 = S2 = 0.2. 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D º 101 1/2 pe s lo M= 5 0. the responses tend to be equivalent to that of a homogeneous channel with a different width.Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 º pe slo 1 1 0. d1D = d2D =500.7. Buildup responses can be severely distorted (Figure 1011). or along the channel length (Figure 109). 1 and 5. The dotted curves correspond to the closed equivalent homogeneous reservoir. S = 0.5 101 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.5/(1κ) 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. CD = 100.002.162  1 107 .
The interfaces are perpendicular to the boundaries. 1.Chapter 10 . the buildup response (thick line) is generated for (tp/C)D = 650.163  . tD /CD 105 106 M=0.2.5 101 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. tD /CD 106 107 Figure 1010 Drawdown responses for a well with wellbore storage in composite channel. 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D º 101 M=5.02 channel with constant pressure 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. S = 0. d1D = d2D =1500. CD = 100.2 5 1 0. . 5 Figure 109 Well with wellbore storage in a composite channel. CD = 100. M1 = M2 = 0. the interfaces are changed into sealing and constant pressure boundaries. L1D = L2D =500. On the dotted curves.2. S = 0.5 101 1 101 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. L1D = L2D =1000.02. 1 and 50.2 M = 50 1 0. 1. The two dotted derivative curves are drawdown. 0. d1D = d2D =2000.Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D º 101 pe slo 1/2 M =0. The interfaces are perpendicular to the boundaries. 103 Dimensionless Derivative p'D º closed channel slo pe 1 102 M= 50 101 e1 slop /2 1 0.5 101 101 102 M=0. M1 = M2 = 0. tD /CD Figure 1011 Pressure and derivative drawdown and buildup responses of curve M=50 of Figure 1010. 1 and 5.
164  ..
ω2 =0. The reservoir cross flow is established between the layer 2 and the fissure network of layer 1 and the response becomes equivalent to the double permeability response κ = 0.1. different λ in each layer.COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES 111 Fissuredlayered reservoirs On Figure 111. the double porosity or the double permeability transition. Dimensionless Pressure .01. ω = 0. The double permeability transition tends to be similar to that of the double permeability response κ = 0. κ= 0. tD/CD Figure 111 Fissured layered reservoir.99 of Figure 73 (for a storativity ratio ω =103). restricted interporosity flow is assumed.7. is seen first. If layer 1 is in total system flow (λeff1 =103) at start of the double permeability transition. layer 1 is in fissure regime when the double permeability transition starts. Fissured layered responses depend upon which transition.33. grouping of matrix size by layers has no effect on the response. pD and Derivative p'D 10 double permeability 1 no crossflow crossflow oooo 0. When the interporosity flow parameter is small (λeff1 =108). S1 = S2 = 0. λeff2 =5x107.11 . the high permeability layer 1 is fissured and not layer 2.5 101 triple porosity 102 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. λeff1=105.33. λ =103 or λ =0. ω1 =0. When reservoir cross flow between layers is not allowed (λ =0). On Figure 112. . pseudo steady state interporosity flow. CDf+m = 1. The (o) dotted curve corresponds to the triple porosity response of Figure 4.01. When the vertical communication is good in a fissured layered reservoir.99 of Figure 75 (ω =101).165  . the double porosity transition in layer 1 is first seen during the two layers no cross flow regime. the response is different. For each layer. The parameters correspond to the triple porosity example of Figure 4. a double permeability response where the two layers are fissured is presented.
the radial composite interface is seen during the fissure regime. the dashed curve describes the double porosity response with ω1 =0. ω1 =0.99. it is equivalent to the radial composite with a homogeneous inner region. The two transitions are combined at the same time. CDf+m = 1.Chapter 11 .01. tD/CD Figure 113 Radial composite reservoir.1. The radial composite model corresponds to the curve M=10 of Figure 62. κ = 0. CD = 100. κ = 0. When λeff1 =104. S1 = S2 = 0. λ =4. λeff1 =103 or λeff1 =108.01 and λeff1=106.99 and λ =4. λeff1=104 or λeff1=106. S = 3. After.104. pseudo steady state interporosity flow. F =1 rD = 700. pD and Derivative p'D 102 double porosity λ1=106 radial composite 10 1 λ1=10 4 0. Dimensionless Pressure . pseudo steady state interporosity flow.Combined heterogeneities 10 Dimensionless Pressure . When λeff1 =106. The (o) dotted curve corresponds to the radial composite response of Figure 62 with M=10. pD and Derivative p'D 1 double permeability ω=101 λ 1= 103 0.01. the response shows first a characteristic double porosity valley transition. . κ = 0.104. tD/CD Figure 112 Fissured layered reservoir. the inner region of a radial composite reservoir is fissured. ω = 0. 112 Fissured radial composite reservoirs On Figure 113. only layer 1 is fissured. ω1 =0.5 λ1=106 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. M=10.5 101 double permeability ω=103 λ 1= 108 102 101 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. the inner region is fissured. The (o) dotted curve corresponds to the double permeability response of Figure 73 with ω = 103.166  .99 and λ =4.104 and the ( ) to the double permeability response of Figure 75 with ω = 101.
100. . tD/CD Figure 115 Layered reservoir. the reservoir is twolayer without cross flow. The dotted curves correspond to the double permeability response of Figure 75 with κ=0. the responses change to the two layers without cross flow at late time (Figure 116). 4 CD = 1.167  . the derivative deviates above the 0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0.5 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. 300. ω=0. rD=30. no cross flow in the inner region. M2 = 10. tD/CD Figure 114 Layered reservoir. ω=0.9. layer 2 radial composite. Dimensionless Pressure . Dimensionless Pressure . layer 1 homogeneous.1. The radial composite double permeability model can be used to describe the presence of a flow barrier between the layers. the valley shaped derivative transition is delayed. 1000. When the reservoir cross flow is only possible in the inner region. κ=0.9. S1 = S2 =0. After the derivative hump. λ=0. 100. κ=0. λ1=0. λ2=4 10 . pD and Derivative p'D 102 M2=1000 100 10 M2=1000 M2=10 10 1 0.Chapter 11 .5 101 101 rD=30 rD=100 300 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. r2D = 100.1. and it tends to be steeper than the double permeability infinite reservoir response (Figure 115).5. F2 = 1. but layer 2 is radial composite with a strong reduction of mobility at r2D = 100. The derivative tends to follow a unit slope straight line at intermediate time (examples M2 =100 or 1000). When no cross flow is allowed in the inner region of radius rD. M=F =1. and the derivative tends to stabilize. Before. CD = 30.Combined heterogeneities 113 Layered radial composite reservoirs On Figure 114. S1 = S2 =0. no cross flow.5 stabilization and produces a smooth hump. the two layers commingled infinite reservoir response is seen.
Chapter 11 . 300. no cross flow in the outer region.1. 4 CD = 1. tD/CD Figure 116 Layered reservoir. The dotted curves correspond to the double permeability response of Figure 75 with κ=0.9 and the dashed curves to the commingled reservoir (λ=0). κ=0. . 100.168  .9. ω=0. S1 = S2 =0.Combined heterogeneities Dimensionless Pressure . M=F =1. rD=30. λ2=0.5 101 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 rD=30 rD=100 300 0. λ1=4 10 .
When the tester valve is opened. smaller than the formation pressure pi. The rate is less than critical. The formation starts to produce into the well. a down hole shutin valve controls the well. Before opening. defined as the drop of pressure (pipwf ) normalized by (pi . slug test analysis methods use a dimensionless pressure ratio prD. the rate tends to stabilize and the DST procedure becomes similar to that of a standard production test. If the liquid level reaches the surface.1 Test description During a drillstem test. the well is partially filled with a liquid cushion designed to apply a pressure p0 above the valve.2 Slug test analysis During a slug test period. In some cases. When no flow to surface is desired. the down hole valve is closed before the liquid has reached the surface (Figure 121).po). The sequence is initial flow. the level rises in the drill string and the bottom hole flowing pressure increases. the pressure increases and the flow rate declines.169  . initial shutin. It becomes constant and the pressure increases linearly with time. With this flow condition. This flow period is called a "slug test". . flow period and final shutin.OTHER TESTING METHODS 121 Drillstem test 121. When rate is less than critical. 121. the rate is not controlled by the downstream pressure but by the well condition.12 .po) is applied to the sandface. an instantaneous drop of pressure (pi . 5100 pi 5000 Pressure (psia) 4900 4800 4700 4600 0 1 2 3 Time (hours) 4 5 6 p0 shutin Figure 121 Example of DST pressure response. Linear scale. the flowing pressure is not suitable for interpretation. called critical flow.
170  . µC ( 122) . prD =[pi. tD/CD Figure 122 Slug test type curves on loglog scale. The CDe2S curves describe the well condition.pwf(t)]/[pi. The same pressure ratio is used for the data and the dimensionless curves. the dimensionless pressure ratio prD is presented versus the dimensionless time tD/CD. when the liquid level rises in the well.Chapter 12 .pwf ) becomes small. 1 Dimensionless pressure ratio.000295 ∆t MATCH µC t D CD (mD. metric units) kh = 0. When the well is opened.p0] CDe2S=1060 101 CDe2S=101 102 1 slo pe 103 101 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time. field units) 0.00223 ∆t MATCH kh = the skin is estimated from the CDe2S curve match with Equation 210.m. especially after some production time. prD = 1 and. when (pi . Slug test pressure type curve On the type curve Figure 122. Knowing the wellbore storage coefficient from the changing liquid level relationship of Equation 15. the pressure match is PM =1. the ratio drops. the time match gives the permeability thickness product: tD CD (mD.ft.Other testing methods prD = pi − p wf (t ) pi − p 0 ( 121) The ratio prD is very sensitive to the accuracy of the initial pressure pi.
3 Buildup analysis When the well is closed down hole before the liquid level has reached the surface.4 1.Chapter 12 .00223kh = ∆t pi − p wf (t ) (metric units) d ln t D Cµ ( pi − p0 ) ( ) ( ) ( 123) The permeability thickness product is estimated either from the time match (Equation 12.2 p6 p6 p1 p0 300 200 100 400 Rate (BOPD) Figure 123 Example of rate estimation during a DST flow period.6 Time (hours) 1. Knowing the liquid gravity. metric units) ( 124) 121.ft.000295kh = ∆t pi − p wf (t ) (field units) d ln t D C µ ( pi − p0 ) dp D 0.8 2 p2 p1 q1 q5 q6 0 2.000295 ∆t pi − p wf (t ) MATCH 0. the pressure difference is converted into the corresponding height of fluid.171  .m. 5000 4900 Pressure (psia) 4800 4700 4600 4500 1 1. . The increasing pressure curve of the flow period is discretized into constant pressure steps (Figure 123).00223 ∆t p i − p wf (t ) MATCH ( ) (mD. the decreasing rate has to be estimated as a function of time in order to analyze the subsequent buildup.Other testing methods Analysis of slug test with the derivative type curve The product of the slug test pressure change (pipwf ) by the elapsed time ∆t can be matched directly against a derivative typecurve. without having to differentiate the data. dp D 0.2) or from the pressure match : kh = kh = µ C ( pi − p0 ) dp D d ln t D 0. field units) µ C ( p i − p 0 ) dp D d ln t D ( ) (mD. From the capacity of the drill pipe. the height is converted into volume.2 1.
000295kh t p + ∆t ( pi − p ws ) (field units) = d ln t D Qt µ dp D 0.5 1 Time (hours) 1.5 2 ∆t Figure 4 Example of impulse pressure response. the impulse response is expressed as pi − pwf t p and. 122. 5100 pi Pressure (psia) 4900 4700 tp 4500 0 0. . the response deviates from the usual pressure response to reach the derivative curve with same CDe2S. the well is produced only a few minutes and then closed. as ( pi − pws ) t p + ∆t . during the shutin. as in Equation 123 : ( ) ( ) dp D 0.172  . The pressure and derivative type curves are used to analyze the pressure response: during the flowing time.Chapter 12 . During the short flow.00223kh = t p + ∆t ( pi − p ws ) (metric units) d ln t D Qt µ ( ) ( ) ( 125) where Qt is the amount of fluid produced during the short flow tp. The pressure match is defined.1 Test description With impulse tests.2 Impulse test analysis The complete well pressure response is analyzed on a single analysis plot.Other testing methods 122 Impulse test 122. Linear scale. during the shutin period. the impulse response is matched against a pressure type curve and.
the result of impulse test interpretation is very sensitive to the accuracy of the initial pressure pi used for the data plot. The results can be controlled with a conventional analysis of the shutin period after the few minutes flow period (Figure 126).173  .Other testing methods 102 Pressure change. ∆t (hours) 1 101 Figure 125 Impulse match.Chapter 12 . ∆t (hours) Figure 126 Pressure and derivative analysis of the impulse shutin period.2 (Eq. the rate history is described by several steprate changes occurring at different flow times ti. 103 Pressure change. As for slug test analysis. The pressure response due to a variable rate q(t) can be expressed with the time derivative of the rate history: . 123 Rate deconvolution In the multi rate superposition method presented in Section 22. ∆p and Derivative (psi) 102 101 102 101 1 101 Elapsed time. In the case of a variable production. the rate increments are infinitesimal and the multi rate superposition is changed into the convolution integral. 215). ∆p= (pipwf)tp or (pip)(tp+∆t) (psi) well flowing well shutin 101 1 103 102 101 Elapsed time. and the pressure curve can be used to estimate the skin accurately. ∆p and ∆p' versus ∆t. Loglog scale. The derivative analysis is not affected by a possible error in initial pressure.
the declining rate can be analyzed versus time. kh pi − pwf ( ) q (t ) (field units) . the effect of afterflow can theoretically be eliminated from the pressure buildup response.174  . field units) D (t − τ)dτ (bars. qD versus tDe. into an equivalent constant flow rate test that can be analyzed with the usual methods. 1 Dimensionless rate. tDe Figure 127 Decline curves on loglog scale. Closed reservoir. With accurate sandface flow rate measurement at early shutin time. The technique has also been envisaged for interpretation of buildup tests affected by wellbore storage effect.2 Bµ ∆p(t ) = kh ∆p(t ) = 18. Results are very dependent upon the quality of the rate curve. Several algorithms have been proposed for deconvolution of well test measurements. qD Infinite reservoir 101 5000 102 2500 re/rwe 104 105 106 107 = 1000 108 103 103 Effective dimensionless time. metric units) ( 126) The objective of the deconvolution is to transform the measured pressure response ∆p(t). 124 Constant pressure test (rate decline analysis) When a well is producing at constant wellbore pressure.Chapter 12 . using real data of Laplace transformed data.Other testing methods 141. after any variable rate sequence q(t). the dimensionless flow rate qD is expressed as : qD = 1412 B µ . With loglog rate type curves.66 Bµ kh τ=0 t τ=0 ∫ q' (τ) p ∫ q' (τ) p t D (t − τ)dτ (psi.
kh = 162.10 2 φ µ c t rw mq ( 1210) 125 Vertical interference test Vertical interference tests are used to estimate vertical permeability in a single layer.ft.10 + 0.151 − log + 3.151 − log + 3. An example of usual application is the characterization of low permeability in feasibility studies related to underground storage projects. 1 Bµ k = 162. metric units) m q ( p i − p wf ) 1 q (1hr ) k S = 1.6 − 3. log ∆t.87 S (D/Bbl. Different types of equipment can be used in order to isolate several intervals in the same well.m.5 − 3. field units) m q ( p i − p wf ) ( 129) Bµ (mD.5 Bµ (mD.Other testing methods qD = 18.23 + 0.175  .6 kh = 21.Chapter 12 . . the reciprocal of the rate 1/q is graphed vs.23 2 φ µ ct rw mq 1 q (1hr ) k S = 1. metric units)( 128) log ∆t + log 2 q kh ( pi − pwf ) φ µ ct rw Results: the permeability is estimated from the slope mq of the 1/q straight line and the skin from the intercept at 1 hour.66 Bµ q (t ) (metric units) kh p i − p wf ( ) ( 127) For semilog analysis. or quantify the presence of a sealing interval.87 S (D/m3. field units) log ∆t + log 2 q kh pi − p wf φ µ ct rw ( ) Bµ k 1 = 21.
zw/h = 0.Other testing methods hwobs hw zw zwobs kH1. observation segment: hwobs/h = 1/100.7 0.176  .8 105 106 0.05.Chapter 12 . zw/h = 0. Loglog scale. Vertical permeability: kV/kH = 0. 0.005. kV3 Homogeneous reservoir Three layers reservoir Figure 128 Well and reservoir configurations.5.6.5 line 107 Dimensionless time.5. Sw=0. kV2 kV kH kH3. kV1 kH2. Loglog scale. CD = 6. CD = 6. Several distances. 0. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 1 Zwobs/h = 0. 0. Producing segment: hw/h = 1/10. kV/kH = 0. zwobs /h = 0. Producing segment: hw/h = 1/10.5 line 106 107 101 10 102 103 Dimensionless time.05 0.005.7.005 104 105 0. Sw=0. tD /CD Figure 1210 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage. tD /CD Figure 129 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage.5 0. observation segment: hwobs/h = 1/100. .6 101 10 102 103 104 0. 0. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 1 kV/kH = 0. zwobs /h = 0.8.5. Several vertical permeability.6.
By inflating internal packer in the thick interval. on a thick interval. Sw=0.3. tD /CD Figure 1212 Doublestage test loglog responses.177  . zw/h = 0. three discrete intervals are isolated to provide vertical interference responses. .Other testing methods With the doublestage testing method. Vertical permeability: kV/kH = 0.5 line 101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Observation Dimensionless time. Observation interval Flowing interval Observation interval Test 1 : radial flow Test 2 : spherical flow Figure 1211 Doublestage test. observation segment: h. is used to define the horizontal permeability.wobs/h = 1/20.Chapter 12 . Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 Partial penetration 101 Test 1 1 0.35. zwobs /h = 0. CD = 7.5. Producing segment: hw/h = 1/10. two tests are performed on the same layer: the first.
178  ..
dimensionless pressure and time are respectively : pD = (k µ )t h ∆p (field units) 1412 (qB) t . For loglog analysis. m3/D) ( 131) where qsg is the gas rate measured at surface. and qo Rs the dissolved gas at bottom hole conditions.179  . and the saturations are constant during the test period. It is assumed that the total mobility (k/µ)t of the equivalent monophasic fluid can be expressed as the sum of the effective phase mobilities : (k µ )t = k o µ o + k w µ w + k g µ g (mD/cp) ( 132) The effective total compressibility ct includes the effect of free gas liberated (or dissolved) in the oil and the water phases : ct = c f + S o co + S w cw + S g c g + S o B g Bo (psi1. The three phases are assumed to be uniformly distributed in the reservoir. (k µ )t h pD = ∆p (metric units) 18. the mobility k/µ and the rate q are changed into the total mobility (k/µ)t and the equivalent rate (qB)t.1 Hypothesis and definitions An equivalent monophasic liquid of constant properties is defined as the sum of the three phases: oil. Bars−1) ( ) ∂∂ Rp s + S w B g Bw ( ) ∂∂Rp sw ( 133) 131. water and gas.2 Analysis In the usual equations for oil reservoirs.13 .66 (qB )t ( 134) .MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS 131 Perrine method 131. The equivalent rate is expressed: (q B ) t = q o Bo + q w Bw + q g B g = q o Bo + q w Bw + q sg − q o Rs B g ( ) (Bbl/D.
m(p) depends upon the test sequence. Bars/cp) µ o Bo 0 p ( 138) For gas condensate reservoir. . When the relative permeabilities kr"o.5 (k µ )t h m = 162. metric units) ( 136) The analysis yields the effective mobility of this equivalent fluid.000223 CD (qB )t (k µ )t h (qB )t m = 21.w.180  .000295 CD (k tD = 0. the absolute permeability can be estimated : (k µ )t = k k ro µ o + k rw µ w + k rg µ g (mD/cp) ( ) ( 137) 132 Other methods 132. the molar density of the oil and gas phases ρo.g are used: m( p) = k ro k rg ρo dp (psi/cp. the pseudo pressure is expressed : m( p) = ∫ k ro ( S o ) dp (psi/cp.6 µ )t h C ∆t (field units) µ )t h C ∆t (metric units) ( 135) The slope m of the semilog straight line is expressed (psi. field units) (Bars.1 Multiphase pseudopressure For solution gas drive reservoir. Bars/cp) + ρg ∫ µo µg p0 p ( 139) The relative permeability curves are needed to calculate the multiphase pseudopressure functions.Chapter 13 .g" of the different phases are known.Multiphase reservoirs (k tD = 0. As the saturation profile depends upon the rate history.
181  .Chapter 13 .Multiphase reservoirs 132.4 q o ah pD = ∆ p 2 (metric units) 37.2 Pressure squared method For loglog analysis.33 q o ( ) ( ) ( 1310) where a is assumed to be a constant. dimensionless pressure is expressed with respect to the oil rate: pD = ah ∆ p 2 (field units) 282. defined as : ko = ap µ o Bo ( 1311) .
.182  .
the minimum duration of the flow and shutin periods can be estimated. possibly followed by a long buildup period. • In order to evaluate the expected reservoir model.TEST DESIGN 141 Introduction Once the objectives of the test have been defined. reservoir parameters and the anticipated flow rate. but also taking into account the desired degree of confidence in the results. Test programming and conduct. and to define the optimum testing sequence. • A multirate simulation is generated for prediction of the actual test response. • The simulation can be converted into data in order to control the quality of the future analysis. Test simulations are generated to ensure the objectives can be achieved. 142 Test simulation 142. some relatively short. only test simulation is discussed.1 Simulation procedure • Before generating the simulations. are presented in a different section. the Modified Isochronal test sequence. .2 Test design tips Test design is a compromise between cost and reliability. Test sequences are sometimes designed with two or several buildup periods after different flow rates. as well as the definition of the responsibilities during testing. 142. the program is established taking into account the different operational constraints. In the following. Taking into account possible pressure gauge noise or drift. For gas wells for example. • By examination of this ideal response.183  . a first simulation can be generated for a long constant rate drawdown. is well adapted to transient analysis purpose. all parameters must have been defined: static parameters. the test program is adjusted to ensure a complete and significant pressure response for the lowest test duration.14. The final test program is defined from not only technical considerations. since wellbore problems frequently distort early time data.
operation on the well or change of annular pressure during shutin.Chapter 14 .184  . or to a different pressure behavior. etc. In the ideal case. the same person is in charge of the design and of the test supervision. The experience gained from the design study can be used to adjust in real time the program to any unexpected event (well shutin for operational or safety reason). Experience of tests in neighboring wells can be used to establish specifications such as gauge depths. use of a down hole shutin tool. an increasing flowrate sequence is preferred to a decreasing rate history. etc. the duration of the reservoir pressure survey before the start of the operation is part of the design program. From examination of the pressure change observed on the test simulation. If the reservoir pressure is decreasing. any action that can affect the pressure data must be recorded (such as leak. During the test supervision. With decreasing rates. Guidelines for clean up (gas wells) and initial shutin can be established.Test design In multirate testing. it may be necessary to evaluate the pressure trend accurately before the test (interference test design). In such a case. the requirements for the pressure gauge characteristics are defined.) . 143 Test design reporting and test supervision Test design is not limited to the definition of the different flow periods. the multirate correction with the time superposition function can be very sensitive to inaccurate rate data.
∆t (hours) 102 103 Figure 152 Loglog plot of the final buildup. if the duration of the analyzed period is ∆t.15 . tp=20. tp=120. p Rate. . 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 tp=20 101 tp=120 1 102 101 1 101 Elapsed time. In practice. t tp=120 tp=20 400 450 500 Figure 151 Example of a two drawdowns test sequence. if the bottom hole pressure has almost reached the initial pressure pi. q 3900 3800 3700 3600 3500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Time. 4000 Pressure. When there is a shutin period in the rate history. The derivative is generated with three different rate histories. On the test example of Figure 151. Linear scale.185  . 2. it is possible to simplify the rate history for any rate changes that occurred at more than 2∆t before the start of the period.FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST ANALYSIS 151 Rate history definition Two approaches can be used in order to simplify the rate history: 1. On the test example. An equivalent production time is defined as the ratio of the cumulative production divided by the last rate (called equivalent Horner time). it is assumed that the rate history prior this shutin is negligible. All rate variations immediately before the analyzed test period must be introduced in the superposition time.
Time and pressure errors. .1 170.1 hr before and curve b = 0. .Chapter 15 .0 Time. .3 Figure 153 Example of Figure 151 at time of shutin. t 170. 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 a 1 102 101 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time.186  .9 170.7 169.2 170.Shutin pressure error: curve c = 10 psi below and curve d = 10 psi above the last flowing pressure.Shutin time error: curve a = 0. 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 b 1 102 101 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time. ∆t (hours) Figure 154 Case a: shutin time too early. p d 3790 a b 3770 c 3750 169.8 169. .Factors complicating well test analysis 152 Error of start of the period 3830 e 3810 Pressure.Error in time and pressure: curve e.1 hr after the actual shutin time. ∆t (hours) Figure 155 Case b: shutin time too late.
Chapter 15 . . ∆t (hours) Figure 157 Case d: last flowing pressure too high. during the wellbore storage regime. ∆t (hours) Figure 158 Case e: shutin time too late.Factors complicating well test analysis 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 c 1 102 101 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time. ∆t (hours) Figure 156 Case c: last flowing pressure too low. last flowing pressure is taken in the buildup data. 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆ p’ (psi) 102 101 d 1 102 101 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time. A good loglog match can be obtained in case e but the resulting skin is under estimated. 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 e 1 102 101 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time.187  . Pressure errors are clearly shown on the linear scale test simulation plot.
Noise of +1 psi every 2 points. The effect of a constant drift is inverse during flow and shutin periods. Drift of ± 0.Factors complicating well test analysis 153 Pressure gauge drift 300 Pressure change ∆p (psi) Drift + 200 Drift 100 0 0 100 200 300 Elapsed time.188  . ∆t (hours) Figure 1511 Final buildup of Figure 151. 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 Drift + 101 Drift 1 102 101 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time.05 psi/hr.05 psi/hr. . ∆t (hours) Figure 159 Final buildup of Figure 151. Linear scale. Drift of ± 0.Chapter 15 . ∆t (hours) Figure 1510 Loglog plot of the buildup example. Linear scale. 154 Pressure gauge noise 250 Pressure change ∆p (psi) 200 150 100 50 0 0 100 200 300 Elapsed time.
103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 C oil C gas 1 102 101 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time.Chapter 15 . when the pressure drops below bubble point.189  . Three points derivative algorithm. During drawdown. . 155 Changing wellbore storage Changing wellbore storage happens when the compressibility of the fluid in the wellbore is not constant. the gas compressibility dominates. free gas is liberated in the production string. It is observed for example when. No smoothing. The wellbore storage coefficient of Equation 14 is then increased. in a damaged oil well. Noise of +1 psi every 2 points. ∆t (hours) Figure 1512 Loglog plot of the buildup example.Factors complicating well test analysis 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 1 102 101 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time. ∆t (hours) Figure 1513 Loglog plot of a drawdown example of changing wellbore storage. the response describes first the compressibility of the oil but.
190  . the response corresponds to the gas wellbore storage coefficient immediately after shutin. In some cases. a phase redistribution in the wellbore can produce a characteristic humping effect. the buildup pressure can show a temporary decreasing trend after some shutin time. ∆t (hours) Figure 1514 Loglog plot of a buildup example of changing wellbore storage During buildup periods.Factors complicating well test analysis 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 C gas 1 102 101 1 C oil 101 102 103 Elapsed time. diphasic flow end of phase segregation effect Figure 1515 Changing liquid level after phase segregation. the derivative follows a slope greater than unity at the end of the gas dominated early time response. the weight of the column between the pressure gauge and the formation is not constant as long as the water level rises and the gauge pressure is not parallel to the formation pressure. 156 Two phases liquid level In diphasic wells (oil + water. water falls at the bottom of the well for example. or gas + condensate). changing liquid level When. the derivative becomes negative. . This produces a steep increase of derivative and. Due to the variable compressibility of gas. after shutin. in some cases. and changes to the lower oil wellbore storage later. During this time interval. changing wellbore storage is also frequently evident on gas wells with a large drawdown.Chapter 15 .
t 28 Figure 1516 Example of buildup response distorted by phase segregation. the analysis is initialized with approximate values. q 2500 2000 18 Time. When phase redistribution is expected. If the interface between the two phases stabilizes. p humping Pressure difference after phase segregation 3000 Pressure difference before phase segregation Rate. but the choice of the interpretation model is in general not affected.Factors complicating well test analysis 4000 3500 Pressure. Humping effect. the pressure difference between gauge and formation returns to a constant. and the remaining buildup data can be properly analyzed. Any error on h or µ directly influences the permeability estimate k. and refined with adjusted parameters later. 157 Input parameters.191  . the pressure gauge should be as close as possible to the perforated interval (or even below). Frequently. ∆t (hours) Figure 1517 Loglog plot of the buildup example of phase segregation. and calculated results of interpretation Errors in the static parameters influence the calculated interpretation results. 104 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 103 102 101 103 102 101 1 101 102 Elapsed time.Chapter 15 . The skin Equation 114 . without significantly changing the interpretation model. or reaches the depth of the pressure gauge. Well test interpretation provides the kh/µ group from the loglog pressure match or the semilog slope m. The net thickness h and the oil viscosity µ are for example frequently not accurately defined during exploration testing.
the influence of any error in the static parameters can be evaluated. Boundary distances are frequently estimated by assuming strictly radial flow in a single homogeneous layer. the horizontal permeability is defined as the geometric average of Eq. for a given kh/µ group. . but independent of µ.192  . 84. is the arithmetic average of each layer permeability (Eq. 324 for example).Factors complicating well test analysis shows that. S is hardly dependent upon h (with a logarithm relationship). The radius of investigation for example. In the case of a permeability anisotropy or heterogeneous reservoir properties such as layering (see Section 102) the distance to a reservoir boundary can be different from that indicated by the simple interpretation model used for analysis. • In the case of permeability anisotropy. and the distance to a possible boundary. the significance of the model parameters must be clearly understood. (present in the k/µ group). This can be illustrated with the different averaging methods used for the permeability: • The apparent vertical permeability kV is a harmonic average as shown in Eq. and not upon the viscosity µ. From the equations used to calculate the different interpretation results. 325 • The horizontal permeability kH. Before comparing results of interpretation to geological or geophysical data. are dependent upon h (with the square root relationship of Equation 132 or 122).Chapter 15 .
16  CONCLUSION
161 Interpretation procedure
161.1 Methodology
Well test analysis is a three steps process: 1. Identification of the interpretation model. The derivative plot is the primary identification tool. 2. Calculation of the interpretation model. The loglog pressure and derivative plot is used to make the first estimates. 3. Verification of the interpretation model. The simulation is adjusted on the three usual plots: loglog, test history and superposition.
Loglog analysis
Model selection (derivative)
1
Estimate parameters : kh, C, heterogeneities , boundaries (derivative) and S (pressure)
Simul
#1 . . . . . . #n
2
Test history simulation
•Adjust initial pressure pi •Check the data (variable skin, consistent rate history) •Check the model response on a larger time interval
3
Superposition simulation
Adjust parameters (pi, S, C...)
Next model End
The consistency of the interpretation model is finally checked against nontesting information.
 193 
Chapter 16  Conclusion
161.2 The diagnosis: typical pressure and derivative shapes
Flow regime identification
GEOMETRY
LOGLOG
shape slope Early Double porosity restricted
TIME RANGE
Intermediate Late Homogeneous Semi infinite behavior reservoir
Radial
No 0
1/2 1/2
Linear
Infinite conductivity fracture
Horizontal well
Two sealing boundaries
Bilinear
1/4 1/4
Finite conductivity fracture
Finite conductivity fault
Double porosity unrestricted with linear flow
Spherical
No 1/2 1 1
0 1 (−∞)
Pressure curve Derivative curve Wellbore storage
Well in partial penetration
Pseudo Steady State
Layered no crossflow with boundaries Conductive fault
Closed reservoir (drawdown)
Steady State
Constant pressure boundary
 194 
Chapter 16  Conclusion
Changes of properties during radial flow
Mobility decreases : Sealing boundaries, composite reservoirs, horizontal well with a long drain hole.
Pressure derivative, log (∆p’) Pressure change, ∆p
m2
m1
>
m1
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
Figure 161 The mobility decreases (kh ↓). Loglog and semilog scales.
Mobility increases : Composite reservoirs, constant pressure boundaries, layered systems, wells in partial penetration.
Pressure derivative, log (∆p’) Pressure change, ∆p
m2 < m1
m1
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
Figure 162 The mobility increases (kh ↑). Loglog and semilog scales.
Storativity increases : Double porosity reservoirs, layered and composite reservoirs.
Pressure derivative, log (∆p’) Pressure change, ∆p
m2
=m
1
m1
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
Figure 163 The storativity increases (φ ct h ↑). φ Loglog and semilog scales.
Storativity decreases : Composite systems.
 195 
Chapter 16  Conclusion
Pressure derivative, log (∆p’)
Pressure change, ∆p
m2
= m1
m1
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
Elapsed time, log (∆t)
Figure 164 The storativity decreases (φ ct h ↓). φ Loglog and semilog scales.
161.3 Summary of usual loglog responses
Well models
1 ∆p' & ∆p C S kh ∆t
Wellbore storage and Skin (3.1) 1 2 Wellbore storage, C Radial, kh and S
Infinite conductivity fracture (3.2) 1 2 Linear, xf Radial, kh and ST
∆p' & ∆p 1/2 xf ∆t kh, S
Finite conductivity fracture (3.3) 1 2 3 Bilinear, kf wf Linear, xf Radial, kh and ST
∆p' & ∆p
xf kh, ST kfwf 1/2
1/4 ∆t
Partial penetration (3.4)
∆p' & ∆p
1 2 3
Radial, hw and Sw Spherical (mobility ↑), kV Radial, kh and ST
1/2 kV hw , Sw ∆t kh, ST
 196 
3) 1 2 Transition. kh and S ω kh. S λ ∆t Radial composite (6. or k1h < k2h ∆p' & ∆p k1h. (k1h+k2h)/2 and ST k1h > k2h. k Transition (storativity ↑).Chapter 16 .5) 1 2 3 Radial vertical. unrestricted interporosity flow (4. k1h and Sw Transition (mobility ↑or ↓). restricted interporosity flow (4. r Radial outer. Sw ∆t L kh. λ Radial fissures + matrix. ω and λ Radial fissures + matrix. k1h and Sw Transition (mobility ↑ or ↓). L Radial total.197  .3) 1 2 3 Radial inner. L Radial. ST k1h. kh and S kh. or k1h < k2h ∆p' & ∆p (k1+k2)h/2.2) 1 2 3 Radial fissures.2) 1 2 3 Radial inner. ST Linear composite (6.Conclusion Horizontal well (3. S λ ∆t ∆p' & ∆p Double porosity. ST Reservoir models ∆p' & ∆p Double porosity. Sw r ∆t k2h. kV and Sw Linear (mobility ↓). Sw ∆t L . k2h and ST k1h > k2h. kh and ST ∆p' & ∆p 1/2 kV.
S ∆t ∆p' & ∆p 1/2 1/2 L3 kh. L1+L2 Offcentered : 1 Radial. λ (kV) Radial. κ λ ∆t kh. kh and S 2 Linear. L3 4 Hemilinear ∆p' & ∆p 1/2 L1 L1+L2 kh.4) Centered : 1 Radial. ST Boundary models 1 2 3 Radial. S ∆t L1+L2 .Chapter 16 . ST ∆p' & ∆p Double permeability. kh and S 2 Hemiradial. partial penetration S1= ∞ (7. L1+L2 Channel closed at one end (5. L1+L2 3 Transition (mobility ↓). same skin S1=S2 (7. L Hemiradial ∆p' & ∆p Sealing fault (5. κ and λ (kV) Radial. S L ∆t Channel (5.Conclusion ∆p' & ∆p Double permeability. kh and S Transition (mobility ↓).3) 1 2 3 Radial. Sw λ ∆t kh. L1 3 Linear. kh and S 2 Linear.2) Centered : 1 Radial. kh1+kh2 and ST ω. k2h2 and S2 Transition (mobility ↑). kh1+kh2 and ST k2h2.2) 1 2 3 No crossflow Transition (storativity ↑).198  .1) kh. ω.
Chapter 16 . kh and S Transition (mobility ↑). kh and S 2 Linear. L1+L2 4 Fraction of radial. S ∆t 1/2 A P ∆p' & ∆p θ 1/2 kh. L1+L2 3 Average pressure. kh and S 2 Linear.4) Drawdown : 1 Radial. A Buildup : 1 Radial. kh and S 2 Linear. p and A 1 ∆p' & ∆p L1+L2 kh.3) Centered : 1 Radial. L1+L2 3 Fraction of radial. A Buildup : 1 Radial. L1+L2 3 Pseudo steady state. L One boundary Multiple boundaries ∆p' & ∆p Constant pressure boundaries (5. S 1 ∆t .Conclusion Intersecting faults (5. L1 3 Linear. L1+L2 3 Fraction of radial. kh and S 2 Linear. kh and S 2 Hemiradial. L1+L2 3 Fraction of radial.199  .5) L kh. S ∆t Closed channel (5.4) Drawdown : 1 Radial. kh and S 2 Linear.4) Drawdown : 1 Radial. S L1+L2 ∆t P A 1 2 Radial. θ 4 Pseudo steady state. kh and S 2 Pseudo steady state. θ Offcentered : 1 Radial. S ∆t θ ∆p' & ∆p P 1 A kh. θ Closed system centered (5. p and A Closed with intersecting faults (5. A Buildup : 1 Radial. kh and S 2 Average pressure. p and A ∆p' & ∆p L1 1/2 L1+L2 kh. θ 4 Average pressure.
defined from loglog analysis of the short shutin period. Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 103 102 101 1 103 102 101 1 101 102 103 104 Elapsed time. Homogeneous reservoir with a sealing fault. may be inconsistent when applied to the complete rate history. is introduced farther away in the reservoir. Linear scale. Pressure.4 Consistency check with the test history simulation In the following examples. ∆t (hours) Figure 165 Loglog plot of the final buildup. t 800 1000 1200 Figure 166 Test history simulation.Conclusion 161. The sealing fault model is not applicable on the extended production history. . When a second sealing fault. The interpretation model. Homogeneous reservoir with a sealing fault. q 4600 4400 0 200 400 600 Time. parallel to the first.Chapter 16 .200  . the initial pressure is 5000 psi. the extended production history match is correct. Increase of derivative response after the last buildup point (second sealing boundary) The loglog derivative plot suggests the presence of a sealing fault. p 5000 4800 pi=4914 psia Rate.
Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 103 102 101 103 102 101 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time.201  . Pressure. . Linear scale. p 5000 4800 pi=5000 psia Rate. the initial pressure before the production history is too high. With the parallel sealing faults model. Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.Chapter 16 . Decrease of derivative response after the last buildup point (Layered semi infinite reservoir) The loglog derivative plot suggests the presence of two parallel sealing faults. q 4600 4400 0 200 400 600 Time. t 800 1000 1200 Figure 168 Test history simulation. Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults. Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.Conclusion Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 103 102 101 1 103 102 101 1 101 102 103 104 Elapsed time. ∆t (hours) Figure 167 Loglog plot of the final buildup. ∆t (hours) Figure 169 Loglog plot of the final buildup.
Linear scale. Linear scale. At late time. The hump at intermediate time corresponds to the storage of the limited zone.Conclusion Pressure.202  . t 800 1000 Figure 1612 Test history simulation. Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 103 102 101 103 102 101 1 101 102 103 104 Elapsed time. q 200 400 600 Time. one infinite and one closed layer. p 5000 4500 4000 pi=5443 psia Rate. The reservoir is a two layer no crossflow. one layer is closed. 5000 Pressure. p pi=5000 psia 4500 4000 3500 3000 0 Rate. ∆t (hours) Figure 1611 Loglog plot of the final buildup. q 3500 3000 0 200 400 600 Time. . the derivative stabilizes to describe the radial flow regime in the infinite layer. Two layers reservoir. t 800 1000 Figure 1610 Test history simulation. Two layers reservoir. one infinite and one closed layer. Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.Chapter 16 .
but also all information necessary to redo the analysis.1 Objectives A well test interpretation report should present not only the different matches. . • Semilog. • Discussion of the results. • Static parameters. 162. Analysis procedure • Diagnosis (comparison of different periods. Test data • Rate history (sequence of events for the test). • Choice of the interpretation model(s) and justification. • Comparison of the gauge responses and choice of the pressure gauge used for analysis (when several gauges have been used). • Test simulation. • Hypothesis used (if any).Conclusion 162 Reporting and presentation of results 162.2 Example of interpretation report contents Summary conclusion • Main results. • Problems and inconsistencies not solved (if any).Chapter 16 . When all rates and parameters used to generate the interpretation solution are not clearly defined. The analysis work may be checked several years after completion. discussion of the pressure response). sensitivity to the hypothesis etc. Match with the different models • Loglog.203  . it is may be impossible to reevaluate the test.
.204  .
Appendix . the Darcy's law is expressed. q A dp / dl Figure A1 Rate through a sample. . the pressure difference between the external and the internal cylinders is: (A2) pe − p w = r qµ ln e 2π kh rw (A3) This relationship is used in the definition of the dimensionless pressure Equation 23.ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS A1 Darcy's law Darcy's law expresses the rate through a sample of porous medium as a function of the pressure drop between the two ends of the sample. in the SI system of units: q k dp =V = 2πrh µ dr For steady state flow condition. q k dp =V = A µ dl With: q A V k : volumetric rate : cross sectional area of the sample : flow velocity : permeability of the porous medium : viscosity of the fluid (A1) µ The flow velocity V is proportional to the conductivity k/µ and to the pressure gradient dp/dl. A2 Steady state radial flow of an incompressible fluid q rw q re Figure A2 Radial flow. In case of radial flow.205  .
• Pressure gradients are low. • The formation is not compressible and saturated with fluid. is expressed with the density ρ: c=− 1 ∂v 1 ∂ ρ = v∂p ρ∂p (A6) With a constant compressibility. the total system compressibility ct is attributed to an equivalent fluid: ct = c o S o + c w S w + c f (13) .1 Hypotheses • Constant properties: k.Appendix .2 Darcy's law V= → k → µ grad p (A4) A3. defines the amount of mass change in the element during the time dt. div ρ V = −φ The density ρ = → ∂ρ ∂t (A5) m is used. the fluid equation of state is: ρ = ρ0 e ct ( p − p 0 ) (A7) For a liquid flow in a porous medium.4 Equation of state of a constant compressibility fluid The compressibility. A3. v A3. µ.Analytical solutions A3 Diffusivity equation A3.3 Principle of conservation of mass (continuity equation) The difference between the mass flow rate in. defined as the relative change of fluid volume.206  . and the mass flow rate out the element. φ and the system compressibility.
66qBµ pD = . φµ ct A3.5 Diffusivity equation Combining Equations 4 and 5. ∂ρ ∂p = ρ ct ∂r ∂r (A10) ∂p ∂p 1 ∂ 2 p rρ +ρ + r ρ ct ∂ r2 ∂r r ∂r ( ) 2 = φ ρ µ ct ∂ p k ∂t (A11) With the condition of lowpressure gradients. ( ) ∂p ∂r 2 ≅ 0 is ∂ p φµ ct ∂ p 1 ∂r div grad p = = ∇2 p = k ∂t r ∂r → ∂ r (A12) The ratio k is called hydraulic diffusivity.2qBµ kh pD = ∆p (metric units) 18.Appendix . (A8) 1 r ∂r ∂ rρ ∂ p ∂r ∂p ∂ p ∂ ρ φ ρ µ ct ∂ p 1 ∂ 2 p = rρ ∂ r2 + ρ ∂ r + r ∂ r ∂ r = k ∂t r (A9) And with Equation 7. the approximation used to linearize.207  (23) . then 7: k → ∂ρ ∂p = φ ρ ct div ρ grad p = φ µ ∂t ∂t With radial coordinates.6 Diffusivity equation in dimensionless terms (customary oil field system of units and metric system of units) kh ∆p (field units) 141.Analytical solutions A3.
(A15) p D (t D .Analytical solutions tD = tD 0.000356k = ∆t (metric units) 2 φµ c t rw r rw (24) rD = (67) The diffusivity equation is : 1 rD ∂ rD ∂ pD ∂ rD ∂ rD = ∇ 2 pD = ∂ pD ∂ tD (A13) A4 The "line source" solution • Initial condition : the reservoir is at initial pressure. ∂ pD Lim rD r → 0 ∂ rD = −1 (A14) • Outer condition : the reservoir is infinite.rD ) =− ∞ 2 1 rD Ei − 2 4t D (81) Ei(− x ) =− ∫ e −u du u x (A16) . Lim p D = 0 r→∞ The solution is called Exponential Integral. the well is a "line source".208  .000264k ∆t (field units) 2 φµ ct rw 0.Appendix . pD = 0 at tD < 0 • Well condition : the rate is constant.
or during the test.048*101 = m) Matrix skin thickness. psi (*6.894757*102 = Bars/hr) Mobility ratio (inner zone / outer zone) Number of fissure plane directions. mD (mD) Horizontal permeability. mD (mD) Vertical permeability.450 377*101 = Bars1) Wellbore storage coefficient. psi (*6.NOMENCLATURE Customary Units and Metric System of Units A B cg co ct ct− C CA D e Ei F k kd kf kH km ks kV h hd hw L m m(p) m* M n p pf PI pi PM pm psc pw p* p− q = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Quantity and customary unit (Conversion to Metric unit) Surface.894757*102 = Bars) 1 Pressure match.048*101 = m) Straight line slope (semilog or other) Pseudo pressure or gas potential. mD (mD) Thickness. RB/STB (m3/m3) 1 1 Gas compressibility. 14. mD (mD) Spherical permeability.450 377*101 = Bars1) Total compressibility at the average pressure of the test.7182 .209  .894757*102 = Bars) Flow rate.305 916 = m3/D/Bars) Initial pressure. . ft (*3.048*101 = m) Perforated thickness.305 916 = m3/Bars) Shape factor Turbulent flow coefficient Exponential (2.894757*102 = Bars) Productivity index.894757*102 = Bars) Standard absolute pressure. psi (*1. or half length of an horizontal well. psi (*1. mD (mD) Fracture or fissures permeability. psi (*1. mD (mD) Matrix blocks permeability. .831 685*101 = m3/D) .450 377*10 = Bars1) Oil compressibility.290 304*102 = m2) Formation volume factor. psi1 (*1. ft (*3.450 377*101 = Bars1) Matrix blocks pressure.894757*102 = Bars) Reservoir average pressure.) Exponential integral Storativity ratio (inner zone / outer zone) Permeability. psi/hr (*6. psi1 (*1. psi (*6. psi (*6.450 377*101 = Bars1) 1 Total compressibility.894757*102 = Bars) Extrapolated pressure.753767*103 = Bars2/cp) Slope of the pseudo steady state straight line. psia2/cp (*4. Bbl/psi (*2. psi (*6.7 psia (1 Bara) Well pressure. ft (*3. sq ft (*9. or turbulent flow coefficient Pressure. mD (mD) Matrix skin permeability. psi (*6. Bbl/D/psi (*2. psi (*6.589 873*101 = m3/D) 3 or Mscf/D (= 10 scft/D) (*2. ft (*3.048*101 = m) Distance. bbl/D (*1.894757*102 = Bars) Fissure pressure.
or transmissibility ratio of a semipermeable fault Transition curve of a double porosity transient interporosity flow Constant of a β curve Difference Euler's constant (1.15°K) Volume.048*101 = m) Radius of investigation or influence of the fissures.048*101 = m) Matrix blocks size. cp (cp) Angle between two intersecting faults Well location between two intersecting faults Geometrical coefficient of the location of a well in a channel Storativity ratio Density. ft (*3. ft (*3. or saturation Matrix skin Geometrical skin of partial penetration Total skin Skin over the perforated thickness Time. hr (hr) Horner production time. or flow velocity Half fracture length. cf/bbl (*1.048*101 = m) Fracture width. lb/cu ft (*1.210  . ft (*3. ) Porosity. fraction Matrix blocks porosity.7810*101 = m3/m3) Wellbore radius.048*101 = m) Fracture radius in a horizontal well. 520°R (15°C = 288. .048*101 = m) Distance to the lower reservoir limit. .048*101 = m) Width of altered permeability region near a conductive fault. hr1 (hr1) Standard absolute temperature.601 646*101 = kg/m3) ∆ α β δ γ φ φf φm κ λ λeff µ µ− θ θw σ ω ρ . cu ft (*2.048*101 = m) Dissolved Gas Oil ratio. ft (*3.048*101 = m) Skin coefficient. fraction Mobility ratio Interporosity (or layer) flow coefficient Effective interporosity flow coefficient Viscosity.Nomenclature . cp (cp) Viscosity at the average pressure of the test.831 685*102 = m3) Volume ratio (fissures or matrix). hr (hr) Temperature absolute.048*101 = m) Real gas deviation factor Real gas deviation factor at the average pressure of the test Geometric coefficient in λ . ft (*3. °R (*5/9 = °K) Time match. fraction Fissures porosity. ft (*3. ft (*3. ft (*3.Systems of units r rf ri rm Rs rw S Sm Spp ST Sw t tp T TM Tsc v V xf wa wf zw Z Z− = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Radius. ft (*3.78 .
211  . or spherical Standard conditions Semi linear flow (slope m) Spherical flow (slope m) Total Vertical Well. fault or formation Geometrical Horizontal Channel closed at one end (slope m) Initial or investigation Intersection of straight line Layer Linear flow (slope m) Matrix Maximum permeability direction Minimum permeability direction Oil Production (time) Partial penetration Pseudo (time) Pseudo steady state Rate decline (slope m) Ratio. External Effective Fracture.Systems of units Subscripts a AOF BLF BU ch cp d D e eff f G H hch i int L LF m max min o p pp ps PSS q r RC RF RLF S sc SLF SPH t. T V w wf ws WBS z 1 2 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Apparent or altered permeability region near a conductive fault Absolute Open Flow Potential Bilinear flow (slope m) Buildup Channel (slope m) Constant pressure (slope m) Damage (matrix skin) Dimensionless Equivalent. or low permeability layer(s) . or water Flowing well Shutin well Wellbore storage regime (slope m) Partial penetration Inner zone. fissures.Nomenclature . or relative RadialComposite Radial flow (slope m) Radiallinear flow (slope m) Skin. or high permeability layer(s) Outer zone.
Lee.. 111. C. H. and Raghavan. Vol... and Hurst. ." J. Pet.: "The Skin Effect and its Influence on the Productive Capacity of a Well.: "Well Testing". 12.: "Estimation of Permeability and Reservoir Pressure from BottomHole Pressure Buildup Characteristics. R. Jr. R."J.. 1975) 887892.. N." Soc. Jr.:"Transient Pressure Testing of Fractured Water Injection Wells. Carter. Dyes.. 1978) 253264. Agarwal. J. Clark. 18. B. A. R.:"Transient Pressure Behavior in Vertically Fractured Reservoirs. 1979) 362372. C. K. J.. Eng. Ramey. D. F. SamaniegoV. Pet. AIME ( 1949) 186. Monograph Series no 5.: "UnsteadyState Pressure Distribution Created by a Well with a Single Infinite Conductivity Fracture. AIME ( 1953) 198. S. Russell. and Raghavan. 13. B. 1974) 347360. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. Dallas (1982). J. D.. A. Gringarten. G. ( Aug. H. 17. Tech." Trans. J. G. and Hutchinson. Matthews. Monograph Series no 1. 305324. ( March. C. Pet."J." Soc. C. A. C.. 16. 1964) 11591170." Trans. 171176. R. Pet. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME.."J. F. N.: " Well Testing : Interpretation Methods. 113. Gringarten. Bourdarot. ( June. Textbook Series. 1968) 1639643. A. E. 1. Institut Français du Pétrole. Eng.. 19. AIME ( 1968) 243.212  . Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. Earlougher. F. and Truitt. ( Oct. Pet. 112. Tech.: "Applied Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells. AIME ( 1950) 189.: "Evaluation and Performance Prediction of LowPermeability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic Fracturing. D.: "Advances in Well Test Analysis". J.. 110.: "Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells". and Pollock.G. ( July. Dallas (1967).. W. Jr. 15. 91104. van Everdingen. Ramey.: "Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture. Tech. CincoLey. H." Trans. and Russell. ( Aug. 14. A." Editions Technip. C. R. A. Dallas (1977). and Dominguez. Pet. Miller..G. K.. Trans. Tech.. van Everdingen. C. C.: "The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs.REFERENCES Chapter 1 11.
213  . V. ( June 18. AIME ( 1971). E. Eng. Sept. H. M.: "An Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow. F:"Transient Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells. Tech. 184. Bourdet D. Earlougher. Trans. AIME ( 1963) 228. Nev. Third World Pet.:"Wellbore Effects in Injection well Testing." paper SPE 8205. H. E. Reprint Series.. V. Tech. ( July. 225."J.. No. and Cobb."J. 1970) 97.: "The Effect of Restricted FluidEntry on Well Productivity. 1970) 279. Leiden (1951) II. 1961) 172174. 120. Jr. E. F. Kersh. ( Jan. AIME ( 1962). 1956) 54. J.. Moran. P.M.. Jr. C. 22. and SamaniegoV.. (Sept. Tech. 1963) 245. E. J. and Ramey. Pet. ( Feb.( Aug. Also. Tech." J. W. H. Pet. 23. I: Analytical Treatment. Trans. Pet.:"Theoretical Analysis of Pressure Phenomena Associated with the Wireline Formation Tester. no 59. 27. H...: "A Comparison between Different Skin and Wellbore Storage TypeCurves for EarlyTime Transient Analysis. C. Trans.:"A General Pressure Buildup Theory for a Well in a Closed Drainage Area. P. 1971) 14931505. J. 118.: "Wellbore Transmissibility from Afterflow Dominated Pressure Buildup Data. Trans. C.: "Reservoir Limit Tests. Tech. R. Tech... D. Cong. Warren .G. Pet. W. 24. J. Jr. M. R. Culham. A. W. R. 1981) 17491766.." J. Gringarten.: "ShortTime Well Test Data Interpretation in The Presence of Skin Effect and Wellbore Storage. 117. 1962) 899908.( Nov. E. Jr.. 115." Oil and Gas J. CincoLey. Pet.. Pet. E...J.( Dec. ( Dec. Eng. Horner. and Miller. Pet. Landel. Ramey. A. 1973) 12441250. 25." J. R. F. and Ramey.: "Pressure Buildups in Wells".References 114. 1974) 545555.. 119. McKinley.. J.. Brill. J. Pet. 2326. P. ( Sept. P. 116.:"A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure Readings. R. J.. Brons." J.:"Pressure Buildup Equations for SphericalFlow Problems. 503521. Pet.. Tech. Proc. 252...." Soc. and Marting. 1971) 863." Soc. Ramey.. 26. Las Vegas.. 1961) 803805. Tech. Pet. and Finklea. Jr.( Aug." J. H." J. and Kniazeff.( Sept. AIME ( 1961) 222. J. J. Brons. AlHussainy. Eng. J.. Pet. 9 — . Chapter 2 21. presented at the 54th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE. 1979.:"Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs" Soc. Agarwal. J. and Root.. K. H. Jones.
J." paper SPE 18799 presented at the 1989 SPE California Regional Meeting." paper SPE 16812 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.A. 1988) 156158. M. M.. Onur. Whittle. 210. Gringarten.J.: "A New Approach for Constructing Derivative Type Curves for Well Test Analysis. R. Lee. 1985) 34. D.214  . J.Eng." SPEFE (March 1988) 197206. W. Johnston. and Lee. Sept. 28. Jr. 2124." J. Johnston..."SPEFE. Bourdet. W. Wong. Tech. . Y.( Oct.1975) 347360. Douglas.A. Thrasher. 212. Alagoa. 32. T.. and Pirard.Pet. Bourdet. and CincoLey.L. D. M. M. Rushing. H.N. G. 29. Agarwal.:”How to Simplify The Analysis of Fractured Well Tests. Duong. Bakersfield.” SPEFE ( March." World Oil ( May. Balsingame.:”PressureDerivative Type Curves for Vertically Fractured Wells. J.S. 33. Balsingame..: "TypeCurves Analysis Using the Pressure Integral Method. and Puthigai.:"The Effect of Producing Time on Type Curve Analysis. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. New Orleans. R. Y. Pet. J..W. D.” World Oil ( Oct. and Reynolds. Dallas.and Ramey." paper SPE 9289. April 57. A. J. (Apr.A.( June. S. 1980. T. A. Tx. and Pirard. SPEFE (June 1989) 293302 211.References Pressure Analysis Methods. T. : " Pressure Integral TypeCurves AnalysisII: Applications and Field Cases. C.. Bourdet. Soc. H.:"A New Method to Account for Production Time Effects When Drawdown Type Curves Are Used to Analyze Buildup and Other Test Data. A. A. 213. 214..: "Use of Pressure Derivative in WellTest Interpretation". D." paper SPE 20535 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. and Ayoub. J.: "A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test Analysis. Ayoub. Dallas ( 1967) 2543. and Raghavan. Tiab. A. Raghavan. 1983) 95106... Dallas. Sept. Harrington.J. R. D. presented at the 55th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE.A.C. A. T. 1985) 470480.G.: "A New Set of Type Curves for Well Test Interpretation Using the Pressure Derivative Ratio. A. 35. Chapter 3 31. 2326.:”Application of the PressureDerivative Function in the PressureTransient Testing of Fractured Wells.: "An Approximate Infinite Conductivity Solution for a Partially Penetrating LineSource Well". A. Sept. J.L. P.. 1980) 10531064. K. 2730.
Colorado. and Raghavan. and Hegre.. P. Brigham. P. F. F. 319. Sept.P. T. 1986. 1995) 3641. SPEFE. presented at the SPE 69th Annual Fall Meeting. presented at the 1997 Production Operations Symposium. paper S.. 310. 314. Kuchuk. Branched and Other Generalized and Extended Well Concepts". Papatzacos. SPEFE (Dec. and Thambynayagam. 3. 311. SPER.: "Effect of Conductivity on Horizontal Well Pressure Behavior". J. Oklahoma. paper S. 8594. C. 2528. W. E. 1996. Sept.E. 28388. G and Curutchet P. April 24. T. H. Wilkinson. E. 313. New Orleans. P. R. Oct. LA. .J. T. Kuchuk. :"Discussion of Productivity of a Horizontal Well". 69.: "Pressure Transient Analysis for Wells with Horizontal Drainholes". 546554. CA. Bourdarot. LA. 2528. 15116. F.E. SPEFE (March 1996) 5564.J. L. Oakland. Kuchuk. Daviau.P. and Kirwan. 318.. D. M. Larsen. presented at the 56th California Regional Meeting. R. Sept. Goode.. 38. paper S. 37511. Mouronval. K. presented at the SPE 69th Annual Fall Meeting.: "Transient Pressure Behavior of Selectively Completed Horizontal Wells". 1994. SPEFE (March 1991) 8694.P.E. J... Yildiz. SPERE (May. E.: "Productivity Computations for Multilateral.J. and Habashy. Ozkan. 316. paper S.References 36. 2225. R. paper S. presented at the SPE 60th Annual Fall Meeting. D.: "Estimation of Formation Damage in Horizontal Wells". K. Kuchuk.A. 37. L. M. E. F. SPE Advanced Technology Series. R. 312. A.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Multifractured Horizontal Wells".: "Pressure Analysis for Horizontal Wells". JPT (Jan. and Thambynayagam.: "PressureTransient Behavior of Horizontal Wells With and Without Gas Cap or Aquifer". March 1995. New Orleans. G. M.P. 1987.215  . 315. 317.A. P.: "Pressure Drawdown and Buildup Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Media". 911 March 1997.M.. 1990) 254255. 14251. Vol. (May 1987) 227234. 1987) 683697. 28389. Dec. Las Vegas.. and Ozkan.E.E.: "New Skin and Wellbore Storage Type Curves for Partially Penetrated Wells". F. and Raghavan. paper S. M. Oklahoma City. 36754. Jr. Larsen. : "Approximate PartialPenetration Pseudoskin for InfiniteConductivity Wells". and Ramey.P..E. 1994.E. 1985. Nev. Denvers. Sarica. presented at the SPE Annual Fall Meeting..: "Pressure Bahavior of Horizontal Wells in Multilayer Reservoirs With Crossflow".P. Clonts. Ozkan .: "Well Testing and Interpretation for Horizontal Wells". Goode. Haciislamoglu. 39.
References Chapter 4 41. Appl. Eng.P. Mavor. Bourdet. 1979. I.. Bourdet.: "Well Pressure Behavior of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir".. SPEFE (June 1989) 293302.P. J. Pet.N. Bourdet. J. 47. J. Math.216  . : "New Type Curves Aid Analysis of Fissured Zone Well Tests". J.. 1965) 6064. Pet. M. presented at the SPEAIME 55th Annual Fall Meeting. A.: "Determination of Fissure Volume and Block Size in Fractured Reservoirs by TypeCurve Analysis". Zheltov. paper SPE 7977. M. 411. and Pirard.. Y. AIME.: "Transient Pressure Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs". M. Eng. Ayoub. Gringarten. AIME. de Swaan. G. D. Eng. 1969) 451462. 45. 413. 261.. 228. Soc.: "UnsteadyState Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs" Soc. D.. AIME. (April 1984). Bourdet. M.. Eng.: "Interpretation of Tests in Fissured and Multilayered Reservoirs with DoublePorosity Behavior: Theory and Practice". 1984) 111124. Odeh. Pirard. D. Warren . T. Moench.D. A. Y. Kazemi. and Gringarten. Trans. Pet. 20. C. Vol. (June. J.: "A Theory for Pressure Transient Analysis in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs" J. 1983) 769.: "Analytic Solutions for Determining Naturally Fractured Reservoir Properties by Well Testing". M. World Oil (April. Trans. Ayoub. and. 46... F. April 1820. paper S. 49. Ayoub J. (Sept.. TX.: "Basic Concepts in the Theory of Homogeneous Liquids in Fissured Rocks" J. H. 1241. . Soc.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs with Uniform Fracture Distribution" Soc. Pet. 549564. P. NO. C... D. H. I. J... Whittle. Dallas. Tech. 1963) 245255.: "DoublePorosity Models for a Fissured Groundwater Reservoir With Fracture Skin". Eng. Pet. A. E. Pirard.. Mech. Barenblatt . and Kniazeff V. 44. Water Resources Res. J. (July 1980). 246. Y. (Dec. 42. and Cinco. 7 (July 1984) 831846. 412.: "Use of Pressure Derivative in WellTest Interpretation". A.:"Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs" Soc. A. Ventura. AIME. Najurieta. 1983) 7787. 414. Sept.. World Oil (Oct. J. A. A. Pet.E. J. 9293. Pet. A. E. Alagoa A.. 410. 48. and Root. Tech.L. 43. O.S. 1976) 117122. 234. (Mar. Trans.. Trans. H.(USSR) 24 (5) (1960)12861303). J. T. (Oct. California. 1980. J.: "Interpreting Well Test in Fractured Reservoirs". 2124. presented at the 1979 California Regional Meeting of the SPE of AIME. and Kochina. Streltsova.
: "Pressure Transient Analysis in the Presence of Two Intersecting Boundaries" J. 417. Dietz D.: "Pressure Derivative Approach to Transient Test Analysis: A HighPermeability North Sea Reservoir Example.: "Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure From BuildUp Surveys". NV.E. Dallas. 25. April 1986. and Miller. 57. Stewart. Mothersele. 1979) 378392. Houston. La.20. H.D. 17011708..: "Analysis of Well Test Data from Linear Reservoirs by Conventional Methods".. Brons F.: "Well Test Interpretation for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs".J.. 59.G. 1961). and Kuchuk. 1986.: "TriplePorosity Systems for Representing Naturally Fractured Reservoirs". 7175.. and Yazdi. and Ershaghi. I. A. Pet. Samaniego. and CincoLey. 2730.N. 1965)... and Van GolfRacht. Clark. 416. and Ascharsobbi. van Poollen. (Oct. Y. SPEFE. 418. 15421.. 1988. Sept.. C. Tex.: "Estimation of Matrix Block Size Distribution in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs".C. Pet.References 415. (Aug. Tex. Tech. G. 2225. CincoLey.. and Crichlow.217  . (Aug. 1987. Sept. (Dec. Tech. D. paper SPE 16777. Abdassah. Prasad. 25. D.:”Detection and Location of Two Parallel Sealing Faults around a Well. J. L. Tech. 803805. 1988. presented at the 60th Annual Fall Meeting. presented at the 61st Annual Fall Meeting. paper S. presented at the 62d Annual Fall Meeting. Las Vegas. Belani. and Hovdan. 1985. Harrington. 1985) 20232039.B. 222. 54. The Oil and Gas J. H. T. D. D. 955959 . paper SPE 14168.. Chapter 5 51. AIME.. G. F. presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting.” SPEJ ( Dec. 1980). paper SPE 18171. 55.W. 58.. A. Pet." J..” J.K. Wong. Trans. Houston. Larsen. presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting.: "Pressure Transient Analysis in Finite Linear Reservoirs Using Derivative and Conventional Techniques: Field Examples". ( Jan. Tiab.. K. Tex. M. Tiab.. 1965).:”Pressure Analysis of MultipleSealingFault Systems and Bounded Reservoirs by Type Curve Matching. Tech. A. 58.: "A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure Readings". Pet. paper SPE 18173. Tech. H. New Orleans. Oct.P. 52. Oct.:"Drawdown Curves give Angle between Intersecting Faults". F. 53. J. Oct. ( Nov. D. Pet. 56. W. and Kumar. 1975) 8996. 113127. H. D.: "The Pressure Transient Behavior for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Multiple Block Size". F. Raj K.
Jr. 1989. New Orleans. P. Abbaszadeh. Trans.. 1990) 319324. paper S.E. 65. Samaniego. :"Pressure Behavior of Laterally Composite Reservoir". Trans. Satman. 1985. 66.P. 2730.E. Oct.: "A Method for Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir".M.F. (March 1995) 2632.. 67. Dallas. presented at the 55th Annual Fall Meeting. Tex. L. 237.: "The Effect of a Partially Communicating Fault on Transient Pressure Behavior.M. A. and Lee. 2225. Kuchuk. and Hazebroek.. :"Pressure Transient Behavior in a Reservoir With a FiniteConductivity Fault".D. 36. F. and Habashy.E.: " Effects of a Partially Communicating Fault in a Composite Reservoir on Transient Pressure Testing.P.E. SPEFE. 1995.. G. C..M. SPEFE. SPERE.: "The Averaging Process in Permeability Estimation From WellTest Data. 1989. Aug.: "UnsteadyState Flow Behavior for a Well Near a Natural Fracture". Pet. Ambastha. A. McLeroy. Brons. R. M. and Kamal. and CincoLey. 68." Soc. AIME.C. 115124. Oliver. . 9399. Sept.S." paper S. 16764. W. TX. V. 14311. 1980 63. LA. J. : "General Heterogeneous Radial and Linear Models for Well Test Analysis.: "An Analytical Study of Transient Flow in Systems With Radial Discontinuities. Earlougher. 1987. 2124. Oct. T. M.P. and Sageev. 12661268.H. and Dominguez. Matthews.218  . Tech.: "A Comprehensive Application of a Composite Reservoir Model to PressureTransient Analysis". A.. Olarewaju. NV. AIME. H. Pet. AIME (1954) 201.P. 514. P." paper S.: "Pressure Behavior of a Limited Circular Composite Reservoir. Cinco. (March 1997) 47564. and Crawford.N. J." paper S. 62.E. 1976. Las Vegas. (Oct. Sept.P.S. 2225. 1966. SPERE. D. :"PressureTransient Testing of WaterInjection Wells". 251 511." paper S. A.J. Chapter 6 61.References 510. 328334. M. Dallas. L. Sept. 6019.:"Estimating Drainage Shapes From Reservoir Limit Tests". presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting. 325231. 1971). 182191. presented at the 60th Annual Fall Meeting. Dallas. Dec. presented at the 70th Annual Fall Meeting. F. 512.J. (Sept. 513. Feb. J.M. Eng. Levitan." SPEFE. Abbaszadeh.. M. Trans.S. Carter R.. 64.K. Tex.E. Yaxley. presented at the 51st Annual Fall Meeting.G.D.. 30554.
M.: "Drawdown Behavior of a Well with Storage and Skin Effect Communicating with Layers of Different Radii and Other Characteristics. 7453.P.: "Transient 2D Flow in Layered Reservoirs With Crossflow". 14167. presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting. Oct. : "A New Test for Determination of Individual Layer Properties in a Multilayered Reservoir". paper S. Dec. Prijambodo. paper S.P. and Ramey. and Wang.W. 78.219  . : "Boundary Effects in PressureTransient Data From Layered Reservoirs". Las Vegas. W.E. XD. CA. Sept. 1984. 72.. Feb.: "Pressure Behavior of Layered Reservoirs with Crossflow". 2326. 97106. 1993.M. San Antonio. and Reynolds. J. 2729. Bakersfield. 1985. Oct. D. H. A.P. 20566. 1985. presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting. Cq.E. R.. Houston. paper S. CT. TX.: "Well Test Analysis of a Multilayered Reservoir With Crossflow".References Chapter 7 71. presented at the 60th Annual Fall Meeting. paper S. Sept. 1978.A. presented at the 65th Annual Fall Meeting. 710. J. presented at the 53rd Annual Fall Meeting.P. 19800. June 1985. Jr. San Antonio.: "SingleWell Pressure Testing Solutions for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Arbitrary Fracture Connectivity". 811. Liu. . 380396. A.P.A. Larsen. R. 711.: "Well Test Analysis for Wells Producing Layered Reservoirs With Crossflow".E.P. 75.: "Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to Analyze PressureTransient Data From Layered Reservoirs".E. and Raghavan. New Orleans. 1990.P.E. 1619. 13055. SPEJ. LA. S. : "The Well Response in a Naturally Fractured Reservoir: Arbitrary Fracture Connectivity and Unsteady Fluid Transfer". 13628. Oct. Park. presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting. 287291. and Horne. 76.E. Gao. 13. 79. 19797. Chen. 1988. Wijesinghe. 77. C.. Houston. Sept. paper S." paper S. L. 1984. NV. 811. Raghavan. Tariq. Tex.E.N. SPEFE.: "SinglePhase Fluid Flow in a Stratified Porous Medium With Crossflow. Tex. 25. 2225. R. SPEJ. L. TX. paper S. and Joseph. March.C. presented at the 59th Annual Fall Meeting. HY. presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting. H. Oct. and Culham. 1989. S. paper S. 18122.E. TX. 74.. Poston. R.E. EhligEconomides. 1989. Bourdet. 73.P. Houston. Larsen.
OK.J. 1992.:" A Model for Interference Testing with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects at Both Wells. Tex. 84. 83.. Gao. C. Jones. 715. S. R. S. Aug. 1994. 717." Proc. Theis. Tech. paper SPE 36530.: "The Relation Between the Lowering of the Piezometric Surface and the Rate and Duration of Discharge of a Well Using GroundWater Storage.E.: "Average Reservoir Pressure Estimation of a Layered Commingled Reservoir. TX. 1994. 1619." paper S. Oct. and Brigham." SPEFE (Dec. Larsen L. WV. 94) 264271. 36. 714. Deboaisne. HY. Chen. Chapter 8 81. 1965 Dubrovnik Symposium on Hydrology of Fractured Rocks .Y. and Poston. 1980). CO. L. presented at the 67th Annual Fall Meeting. 14651470. Tulsa. and Lee. 85. paper SPE 29176. Pet. Papadopulos. presented at the 1996 Annual Fall Meeting. R. Chen.: "Nonsteady Flow to a Well in an Infinite Anisotropic Aquifer. paper SPE 24680.References 712. R. D. D. Oct. Charleston. 47. Oct. Chen.L. W. and Thibeau.: "Heterogeneous Formation: Assessment of Vertical Permeability Through Pressure Transient Analysis .. and Kumar.: "Wells Producing Commingled Zones with Unequal Initial Pressures and Reservoir Properties". paper SPE 10325.S. Denvers. Sept.Field Example". Aly.R.. AGU (1935). paper SPE 27973 presented at University of Tulsa Centennial Symposium.P. J.. Oct. presented at the Eastern Regional Conference. B. Agarwal. HY. 1984.. Boutaud de la Combe. 1981. 57. Washington. and Raghavan. Pet. 713. A." paper SPE 26460 presented at the 68th Annual Fall Meeting. presented at the 56th Annual Fall Meeting.: "A New Technique for Analysis of Wellbore Pressure From MultiLayered Reservoirs With Unequal Initial Pressures To Determine Individual Layer Properties".” J. San Antonio. 1996. 2931.. TX. H. A.: "Experiences With Combined Analyses of PLT and PressureTransient Data From Layered Reservoirs"...:”Application of the p’D Function to Interference Analysis. 82. 810. Ogbe. 13253. Houston.220  . Jargon." Trans. J. Raghavan.:" Effect of Wellbore storage and Wellbore Damage at the Active Well on Interference Test Analysis. Larsen. I.: "Responses of Commingled Systems With Mixed Inner and Outer Boundary Conditions Using Derivatives. Tech. 718. 1993.V. 716.W. (Aug. 1976) 851858.J. (Aug. W.E. Nov. 519524." J. DC. J. Raghavan. 69.R.O..: "Buildup Behaviors in Commingled Reservoirs Systems With Unequal Initial Pressure Distributions: Interpretation". W. Houston.M. C. Tiab. and Lee. R. presented at the 59th Annual Fall Meeting.
E.: "Interference and Pulse Testing ." Soc." J. Pet. R.: "An Analytical Study of Interference in Composite Reservoirs.: "Transient Pressure Analysis of Three Wells in a ThreeComposite Reservoir." J. Ma. Kamal. Trans. H. Pet. 259 815. AlHussainy... 2326. and Crawford. and Raghavan. 1989) 595603. J..E." J. R. 8279. 88. (May 1966).: "Interference Testing of a TwoLayers Commingled Reservoir. DaPrat G. Apr. TX. H.: "Interference Analysis for Anisotropic FormationsA Case History. OK.. Pet.S. Trans. and Ramey. paper S. presented at the 66th Annual Fall Meeting. (May 1966).: "Interpretation of Interference Tests in Reservoirs with Double Porosity Behavior . Agarwal. Jr.. and Reynolds.J. R. Jr. A. 813. B. Eng. Ramey. Satman. NV." Soc.C. AIME. M. 637642. 281290. Jr. H. W. 624636. J.E." SPEFE. (Dec. and Brigham. W. P.J. Ramey. Kamal.P. L. H. (Oct. presented at the 54th Annual Fall Meeting. 811. Tech. 810. New Orleans. J. 1975) 399410. and Grader.221  .:"Application of Real Gas Flow Theory to Well Testing and Deliverability Forecasting".A Review. 69." paper SPE 22716. D. and Ramey. Bourdet. M. Pet.: "Planning and Analysis of PulseTests. 87.G. Tech. 237 93. paper S. Trans. Eng. (Dec. Pet. 1982. Jr. Pet. 1983) 225770 Chapter 9 91. Deruyck." paper SPE 29514.A New Function for Pressure Buildup Analysis of MHF Gas Wells".J. et Al. Q. 259.P.. AIME.Theory and Field Examples".:"Real Gas PseudoTime . Tech. April 24. W. Pet.. La. AIME. A.References 86. D: "Interference Test Analysis in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs.:"The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media".G. presented at the 57th Annual Fall Meeting.P. AIME. Sept. 89. 11025. 1979. 1981) 370382. Chu. J.: "PulseTesting Response for Unequal Pulse and ShutIn Periods. Trans. AlHussainy. Chu. (May 1970) 618624. 1991.E. 1995.. 249 814. 1985. Tech. Pet." J. Sept. (Feb..J. . M. Las Vegas.: "The Effect of Noncommunicating Layers on Interference Test Data. A. 237 92. 2225. Tech. Oct. and Tiab. AIME. Onur. Trans. R. Dallas. Oklahoma City. (Oct.C. Tech. 812. 1975) 129098. Brigham. B. presented at the SPE Production Operations Symposium.
G.. J." Editions Technip. 1986. E. R. New Orleans. Institut Français du Pétrole. 2224. 96.E. presented at the 61st Annual Fall Meeting. San Antonio.. M. Elenbaas. Stewart. 19797. "Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells". 877887. 103.R.. 58.J. LA. Wattenbarger.: "Future Developments In Well Test Analysis: Introduction of Geology". 1989. Tech.Inc. SPEFE. H. 1959. presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting. Joseph. paper S. and Boutaud de la Combe. 104. Alta. 7376. 36820.:"Gas Well Testing with Turbulence.: "A Study of Pressure Transient Behavior in Bounded TwoLayered Reservoirs: Shengli Field. Argentine. M.E.P. p. 102. Bocock. presented at the 1996 SPE EUROPEC. Poettmann.: " Well Testing : Interpretation Methods. presented at the III Latin American Conference.L.T. Hart's Petroleum Engineer International (Sept. D. Tex." Monograph 7." McGrawHill Book Co. Oct. . Oct. NaiFu. 98.. Rawlins. J.A. 99. and Wilson. Chapter 10 101. Daviau. L. New York (1959). Pet.H. 258. Bourgeois.. JL.. and Ershaghi. G. F. Katz. Houpeurt A. Bourgeois.:"BackPressure Data on NaturalGas Wells and Their Application to Production Practices. J. (Sept. paper SPE 26959. April 2729. I. R. Italy. Canada (1975). Jr.R. Cornell. Vary. USBM (1936).222  .:"Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering. : "Pressure Behavior in Finite ChannelLevee Complexes". D. 1997). 97. XIV (11). 1996. Revue de l'Institut Français du Pétrole.J. Chapter 11 111. (Aug. and Ramey. AlGhamdi. China". J. Calgary. A.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Dually Fractured Reservoirs". M.: "Boundary Effects in PressureTransient Data From Layered Reservoirs. L. and Gui. paper SPE 15418. 811.. C.References 94. Damage and Wellbore Storage". F. 1968). and Schellardt. 95. 910. 1994.. Oct.. and Weinaug.F. M.". 14681684..P.A.H. Larsen.. Energy Resources Conservation Board. Milan.. :"Additional Use of Well Test Analytical Solutions for Production Prediction. Bourdarot.L.J. F.:"On the Flow of Gas in Porous Medias". Buenos Aires.A." paper S. A. 1996) 177183. Kobayashi.
Y. K. et al. Peres." SPEFE. New Orleans.C. AIME. L. D.C.A." J. TX.E. 126. and Ayestaran. S. Tex." paper S. 124. 25.: "A New General PressureAnalysis Procedure for Slug Tests. and Ramey.P. Dallas. presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting.. 112177. 115. D. and Chauvel. 16766. Chapter 12 121.: "Interference Pressure Behavior in Multilayered Composite Reservoirs." SPEFE.: "Nonsteady Flow to a Well of Constant Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer. A.J. 2730. H. and Reynolds.: "New Method Enhances Well Test Interpretation. 114.: "Analysis of 'Slug Test' or DST Flow Period Data. Bourdet. Kikani.. Bourdet D. Larsen. Trans. Kucuk. CincoLey. (JulySept. "A Method for Pressure Buildup Analysis of Drillstem Tests. Satman. Dehghani.P. Onur. (Sept.223  . J.C. Sept. AGU (Aug. presented at the 61st Annual Fall Meeting.J.J. 176182.: "Analysis of Simultaneously Measured Pressure and Sandface Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing." Trans." World Oil ( Sept. and Economides. I." SPEFE.: "PressureTransient Analysis of a Composite Naturally Fractured Reservoir. de Franca Correa A.P. Agarwal.G...P. :"Pressure Transient Analysis of a Composite Reservoir With Uniform Fracture Distribution. 1993) 29298. . R. June 1991. 1975) 14." paper S.. Ogbe. 1983.. and Lohman.L. TX.: "Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to Analyze PressureTransient Data From Layered Reservoirs". 128. presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting.E. Tech. TX. A. CA. 122. 169175. Oct. and Martin.. G. 37. Oct. J.G." paper SPE 13384 available at SPE. Oct. Jacob. H. M. Poon. (Dec.W. 116. 2730. 15476. Ramey. 123.W. M.M.. Jr. 113. D. Richardson.References 112. Cdn. 1988) 53446." SPEFE. 127. San Francisco. Ayoub." paper S. LA.M.E.E. Jr.O.: "Analysis of Pressure Tests Through the Use of Instantaneous Source Response Concepts. 1987.C. presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting. 1988.: "Impulse Testing. Pet. paper S.P.: "Analysis of PressureTransient Tests for Composite Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. June 1991. L. C. F. Dallas. 1986. presented at the 58th Annual Fall Meeting. 18122. and Alagoa A. 58. Hatzignatiou. 1952) 559569. 285 125.E. Sept. 1984). Houston.P.. 58.E. A. D. H. 1987. and Walkup." paper S. 16808.
J. 1980. Trans. R. Vo. Jr.:"Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reservoirs and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analyses. R.E. paper S. 30. 1976) 196208.: "Well Test Analysis: Wells Producing by Solution Gas Drive Wells. Uraiet..:"A New Approach to Multiphase Well Test Analysis".P. Feb. R.References 129." J.:"Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves". (Aug. . Raghavan. C.E. 136. API (1956). 134. Las Vegas. 16473 presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting. Aziz.P.. Chapter 13 131. and Horne. Jones. Drill. J. M.1988) 578594. trans. Nev. Fetkovich. 1981. Pet.: "Pressure Buildup for Wells Produced at Constant Pressure". and Ramey.: "Unsteady Flow to a Well Producing at a Constant Pressure". R.L. AIME. Martin. presented at the 48th Annual Fall Meeting..J. 1987. 105114.: "Well Test Analysis for Multiphase Flow" SPEFE. and Raghavan. (Sep. 18031812. K." paper S.R.1989) 585594 138.N.. AIME (1959) 216.224  . 482509. AIME. 309311. 132. Oct. 135. W. AlKhalifah. R.: "Interpretation of Flowing Well Responses in GasCondensate Wells" SPEFE. and Raghavan.Oct. 261.A. 1210.. R. 2730. (Dec. D.3. R. A.EhligEconomides.A. TX. Perrine. (Feb.. 137. 133. SPEJ. 1966) 240246.R.. Jones. J.C.:"Reservoir Performance During TwoPhase Flow. 1973. and Raghavan.J. Raghavan. Sept. Vol 240. Weller. A. Dallas. Tech. Prac. (March 1989) 93104. J. Sept.T.:"The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells. Pet. H. tech." Trans. and Prod." SPEJ..: "Interpretation of Pressure Buildup Responses in GasCondensate Wells" SPEFE.T. 139. 4529.A.