WELL TESTING

AND
INTERPRETATION

D. Bourdet






CONTENTS
Pages
1 - PRINCIPLES OF TRANSIENT TESTING..................................................................................... 1
1-1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1
1-2 DEFINITIONS & TYPICAL REGIMES................................................................................................ 7

2 - THE ANALYSIS METHODS......................................................................................................... 27
2-1 LOG-LOG SCALE........................................................................................................................ 27
2-2 PRESSURE CURVES ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 28
2-3 PRESSURE DERIVATIVE ............................................................................................................. 37
2-4 THE ANALYSIS SCALES............................................................................................................... 44

3 - WELLBORE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................... 47
3-1 WELL WITH WELLBORE STORAGE AND SKIN, HOMOGENEOUS RESERVOIR................................. 47
3-2 INFINITE CONDUCTIVITY OR UNIFORM FLUX VERTICAL FRACTURE ............................................ 48
3-3 FINITE CONDUCTIVITY VERTICAL FRACTURE............................................................................. 50
3-4 WELL IN PARTIAL PENETRATION ............................................................................................... 53
3-5 HORIZONTAL WELL................................................................................................................... 57
3-6 SKIN FACTORS............................................................................................................................ 71

4 - FISSURED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE POROSITY MODELS.................................................. 75
4-1 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................. 75
4-2 DOUBLE POROSITY BEHAVIOR, RESTRICTED INTERPOROSITY FLOW (PSEUDO-STEADY STATE
INTERPOROSITY FLOW).......................................................................................................................... 77
4-3 DOUBLE POROSITY BEHAVIOR, UNRESTRICTED INTERPOROSITY FLOW (TRANSIENT INTERPOROSITY
FLOW) ................................................................................................................................................. 85
4-4 COMPLEX FISSURED RESERVOIRS............................................................................................... 90

5 - BOUNDARY MODELS................................................................................................................... 95
5-1 ONE SEALING FAULT ................................................................................................................. 95
5-2 TWO PARALLEL SEALING FAULTS .............................................................................................. 97
5-3 TWO INTERSECTING SEALING FAULTS...................................................................................... 101


5-4 CLOSED SYSTEM..................................................................................................................... 104
5-5 CONSTANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY........................................................................................... 111
5-6 COMMUNICATING FAULT......................................................................................................... 113
5-7 PREDICTING DERIVATIVE SHAPES............................................................................................. 117

6 - COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS....................................................................................... 119
6-1 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 119
6-2 RADIAL COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR ............................................................................................... 120
6-3 LINEAR COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR................................................................................................ 123
6-4 MULTICOMPOSITE SYSTEMS..................................................................................................... 125

7 - LAYERED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE PERMEABILITY MODEL........................................ 127
7-1 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 127
7-2 DOUBLE PERMEABILITY BEHAVIOR WHEN THE TWO LAYERS ARE PRODUCING INTO THE WELL 129
7-3 DOUBLE PERMEABILITY BEHAVIOR WHEN ONLY ONE OF THE TWO LAYERS IS PRODUCING INTO THE
WELL ............................................................................................................................................... 131
7-4 COMMINGLED SYSTEMS: LAYERED RESERVOIRS WITHOUT CROSSFLOW................................... 133

8 - INTERFERENCE TESTS............................................................................................................. 135
8-1 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN RESERVOIRS WITH HOMOGENEOUS BEHAVIOR.................................. 135
8-2 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN DOUBLE POROSITY RESERVOIRS ....................................................... 139
8-3 INFLUENCE OF RESERVOIR BOUNDARIES ................................................................................. 143
8-4 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIR........................................................ 143
8-5 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN A TWO LAYERS RESERVOIR WITH CROSS FLOW.................................. 146

9 - GAS WELLS................................................................................................................................... 149
9-1 GAS PROPERTIES..................................................................................................................... 149
9-2 TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF GAS WELL TESTS.............................................................................. 150
9-3 DELIVERABILITY TESTS............................................................................................................ 154

10 - BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS........................................................ 159
10-1 BOUNDARIES IN FISSURED RESERVOIRS............................................................................... 159
10-2 BOUNDARIES IN LAYERED RESERVOIRS............................................................................... 160
10-3 COMPOSITE CHANNEL RESERVOIRS...................................................................................... 162

11 - COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES ................................................................. 165
11-1 FISSURED-LAYERED RESERVOIRS........................................................................................ 165
11-2 FISSURED RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIRS......................................................................... 166
11-3 LAYERED RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIRS.......................................................................... 167

12 - OTHER TESTING METHODS.................................................................................................. 169
12-1 DRILLSTEM TEST................................................................................................................. 169
12-2 IMPULSE TEST..................................................................................................................... 172
12-3 RATE DECONVOLUTION....................................................................................................... 173
12-4 CONSTANT PRESSURE TEST (RATE DECLINE ANALYSIS) ....................................................... 174
12-5 VERTICAL INTERFERENCE TEST............................................................................................ 175

13 - MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS .................................................................................................. 179
13-1 PERRINE METHOD ............................................................................................................... 179
13-2 OTHER METHODS................................................................................................................. 180






14 - TEST DESIGN ............................................................................................................................. 183
14-1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 183
14-2 TEST SIMULATION............................................................................................................... 183
14-3 TEST DESIGN REPORTING AND TEST SUPERVISION ................................................................ 184

15 - FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST ANALYSIS....................................................... 185
15-1 RATE HISTORY DEFINITION.................................................................................................. 185
15-2 ERROR OF START OF THE PERIOD......................................................................................... 186
15-3 PRESSURE GAUGE DRIFT ..................................................................................................... 188
15-4 PRESSURE GAUGE NOISE ..................................................................................................... 188
15-5 CHANGING WELLBORE STORAGE......................................................................................... 189
15-6 TWO PHASES LIQUID LEVEL................................................................................................. 190
15-7 INPUT PARAMETERS, AND CALCULATED RESULTS OF INTERPRETATION................................ 191

16 - CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 193
16-1 INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE ............................................................................................ 193
16-2 REPORTING AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS....................................................................... 203

APPENDIX - ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS..................................................................................... 205
A-1 DARCY'S LAW......................................................................................................................... 205
A-2 STEADY STATE RADIAL FLOW OF AN INCOMPRESSIBLE FLUID.................................................. 205
A-3 DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION........................................................................................................... 206
A-4 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



1-1 Introduction
1-1.1 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
down-hole. 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) ( 1-1)

When the well is shut-in, the build-up pressure change ∆p is estimated from the
last flowing pressure p(∆t=0) :

) 0 ( ) ( = ∆ − = ∆ t p t p p (psi, Bars) ( 1-2)

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 build-up
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 build-up

Figure 1-1 Drawdown and build-up test sequence.

The pressure response is analyzed versus the elapsed time ∆t since the start of the
period (time of opening or shut-in).


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.


1-1.2 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
) ( 1-3)

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 -

1-1.3 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.

• Build-up test : the increase of bottom hole pressure after shut-in is used for
analysis. Before the build-up test, the well must have been flowing long enough
to reach stabilized rate. During shut-in periods, the flow rate is accurately
controlled (zero).

• Injection test / fall-off test : when fluid is injected into the reservoir, the
bottom hole pressure increases and, after shut-in, it drops during the fall-off
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
shut-in 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 / shut-in 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
shut-in
Variable
rate
Stabilized
rate
Build-up
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q








P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
Clean
up
Initial
shut-in
Variable
rate
Stabilized
rate
Build-up
Clean
up
Initial
shut-in
Variable
rate
Stabilized
rate
Build-up

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 down-hole
shut-in 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.


1-1.4 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 shut-in pressure. The Emergency Shut Down is a fail-safe 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
high-pressure 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 shut-in 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 shut-in
(see wellbore storage effect in Section 1-2.1). 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.




1-2 Definitions & typical regimes

1-2.1 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 shut-in period, the wellbore storage effect is called afterflow.

Pressure profile

Ï
Ï
Ï
Î


r
rw
pi
pw

Figure 1-5 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 1-6 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) ( 1-4)

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) ( 1-5)

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 1-7 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) ( 1-6)

Result : wellbore storage coefficient C.

WBS
m
qB
C
24
= (Bbl/psi, m
3
/Bars) ( 1-7)



1-2.2 Radial flow regime, skin (homogeneous behavior)

When the reservoir production is established, the flow-lines 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 1-8 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 1-9 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 1-10 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) ( 1-8)

• 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) ( 1-9)

The skin is expressed :

S
k
k
r
r
S
S
w
= −
|
\

|
.
| 1 ln ( 1-10)

Equivalent wellbore radius :

S
e r r
w we

= (ft, m) ( 1-11)






Chapter 1 - Principles of transient testing



- 11 -

Specialized analysis

For homogeneous reservoirs, a pressure versus time semi-log 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 1-11 Radial flow regime.
Specialized analysis on semi-log scale.


Semi-log 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)( 1-12)

Results:

kh
qB
m
= 162 6 .
µ
(mD.ft, field units)
m
qB
kh
µ
5 . 21 = (mD.m, metric units) ( 1-13)


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) ( 1-14)


1-2.3 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 semi-log 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 shut-in), and higher during the
other test (last flowing pressure of 5500psi before shut-in).


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 semi-log 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 semi-log 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 Semi-log 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 Semi-log 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 semi-log
straight-line slope.



1-2.4 Fractured well (infinite conductivity fracture) : linear flow regime

xf

Figure 1-16 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 flow-lines are
perpendicular to the fracture plane. This is called linear flow.


Figure 1-17 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) ( 1-15)

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 1-18 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) ( 1-16)







Chapter 1 - Principles of transient testing



- 15 -

1-2.5 Fractured well (finite conductivity fracture) : bi-linear flow regime

Bilinear flow regime


w k
f
w k
f
f
w k
f
w k
f
f

Figure 1-19 Finite conductivity fracture. Geometry of the flow lines during the
bi-linear 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) ( 1-17)

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 1-20 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) ( 1-18)



Chapter 1 - Principles of transient testing






- 16 -


1-2.6 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 1-21 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) ( 1-19)
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 1-22 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) ( 1-20)

The permeability anisotropy is expressed with :

k
k
k
k
H
V
H
s
=
|
\

|
.
|
3
( 1-21)



1-2.7 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 1-23 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 1-24 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 1-25 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 -


1-2.8 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 1-26 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 1-27 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 1-28 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 1-29 One sealing fault. Pressure profile at time t
4
.
The fault is reached, and it is seen at the well. Hemi-radial 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
: hemi-radial flow





Figure 1-30 One sealing fault. Drainage radius.


Specialized analysis

A second semi-log 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 1-31 One sealing fault.
Specialized analysis on semi-log 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) ( 1-22)



1-2.9 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 1-32 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) ( 1-23)

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 build-up 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) ( 1-24)

During shut-in, the pressure stabilizes to the average reservoir pressure p p
i
( ) < .



1-2.10 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 1-34 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 1-35 Interference test. Pressure distribution.



1-2.11 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
well-defined 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.



1-2.12 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) ( 1-25)

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) ( 1-26)

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) ( 1-27)





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) ( 1-28)



1-2.13 Pressure profile and Radius of Investigation

The Exponential Integral of Equation A-16 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) ( 1-29)

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) ( 1-30)

(The semi-log straight line Eq. 1-12 corresponds to Eq. 1-30 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 1-38 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) ( 1-31)


(in dimensionless terms of Equation 2.4 or 8-2, 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) ( 1-32)

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) ( 1-33)


(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 1-30, 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 1-32
or 1-33 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 shut-in periods,
Equations 1-32 and 1-33 are not always accurate.





- 27 -


2 - THE ANALYSIS METHODS


2-1 Log-log scale

For a given period of the test, the change in pressure ∆p is plotted on log-log 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 2-1 Log-log scale.



( ) { }
( ) { }
p A p A f kh
t B t B g k C S
D
D
= =
= =


, ,...
, , , ...
( 2-1)

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 log-log 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
= +
= +


( 2-2)

The log-log 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 -

2-2 Pressure curves analysis

2-2.1 Example of pressure type-curve : "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) ( 2-3)


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) ( 2-4)


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) ( 2-5)


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) ( 2-6)





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
semi-log 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
semi-log 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 2-2 Pressure type-curve: Well with wellbore storage and skin,
homogeneous reservoir. Log-log 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) ( 2-7)

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.



Log-log 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 2-3 Build-up example. Log-log plot




Chapter 2 - The analysis methods






- 30 -
The log-log data plot ∆p, ∆t is superimposed on a set of dimensionless type-curves
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 2-12).


Results of log-log 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) ( 2-8)


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) ( 2-9)


Curve match : the skin

D
Match
S
D
C
e C
S
2
ln 5 . 0 = ( 2-10)



2-2.2 Shut-in 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 log-log
scale that expands the response at early time. Build-up periods are preferably
used : the flowrate is nil, therefore well controlled.


Example of a shut-in after a single rate drawdown

Build-up 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 build-up,
and to produce a pressure change ∆p
BU
of amplitude ∆p(t
p
). Build-up 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 2-4 History drawdown - shut-in.


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 build-up 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 2-5 History extended drawdown + injection.



Log-log analysis : build-up type curve

( )
[ ]
( )
( ) ( )
p t p t p t t p t
D
D
BU
D
D
D p
D
D p
D
∆ ∆ ∆ = − + + ( 2-11)

The pressure build-up 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
build-up 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
build-up type curve
t
pD
p
D
(t
pD
)
C
D
e
2S
drawdown
type curve

Figure 2-6 Drawdown and build-up type curves (t
pD
= 2).


Semi-log 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)
( 2-12)

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
build-up 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
build-up type curve
t
pD
p
D
(t
pD
)
C
D
e
2S
drawdown
type curve

Figure 2-7 Drawdown and build-up type curves of Figure 2-6
on semi-log 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) ( 2-13)





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 2-8 Horner plot of build-up type curve of Figure 2-6.

Horner analysis :

• The slope m,
• The pressure at ∆t =1 hour on the straight line
• The extrapolated pressure to infinite shut-in time (∆t =

): p*.

Results :

kh
qB
m
= 162 6 .
µ
(mD.ft, field units)
m
qB
kh
µ
5 . 21 = (mD.m, metric units) ( 1-13)

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) ( 2-14)

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 multi-rate 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
( 2-15)





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 2-9 Multi- rate history. Example with 10 periods before shut-in.


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) ( 2-16)




Limitations if the time superposition: the sealing fault example

In the following example, the well is produced 50 hours and shut-in for a pressure
build-up. A sealing fault is present near the well and, at 100 hours, the flow
geometry changes from infinite acting radial flow to hemi-radial 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 Hemi-radial
Radial Hemi-radial
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 Hemi-radial
Radial Hemi-radial
Infinite reservoir
Sealing fault

Figure 2-10 History drawdown – build-up. Well near a sealing fault.


During the 50 initial hours of the shut-in 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 2-12 or 2-13 is applicable, and the Horner
method is accurate.

At intermediate shut-in times, from 50 to 100 hours (cumulative time 100 to 150
hours), the extended drawdown follows a semi-log straight line of slope 2m when
the injection is still in radial flow (slope m). Theoretically, the semi-log
approximation of Equation 2-11 with Equation 2-12 is not correct.

Ultimately, the fault influence is felt during the injection and the 2 periods follow
the same semi-log straight line of slope 2m (shut-in time >> 100 hours, cumulative
time >> 150 hours). The semi-log 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 straight-line
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 1-15) and bi-linear flow (Equation 1-17) is
expressed respectively :

( )
( ) t t t
p
+ − ∆ ∆
1 2
1 2
(hr
1/2
) ( 2-17)

( ) ( )
4 1 4 1
t t t
p
∆ − ∆ + (hr
1/4
) ( 2-18)

The Horner time corresponding to spherical flow of Equation 1-19 has been used
for the analysis of RFT pressure data.

( )
( )
∆ ∆ t t t
p


− +
1 2
1 2
(hr
-1/2
) ( 2-19)




Chapter 2 - The analysis methods






- 36 -

2-2.3 Pressure analysis method

The analysis is made on log-log 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 log-log 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 2-11 Build-up example of Figure 2-3. Semi-log 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 2-12 Build-up example of Figure 2-3. Log-log match.


For the radial flow analysis of a build-up period, the semi-log superposition time is
used. The slope m of the Horner / superposition straight line defines the final
pressure match of the log-log analysis.

m p
p
D
151 . 1
PM =

= (psi
-1
, Bars
-1
) ( 2-20)

Once the pressure match is defined, the C
D
e
2S
curve is known accurately. Results
from log-log and specialized analyses must be consistent.






Chapter 2 - The analysis methods



- 37 -
2-3 Pressure derivative

2-3.1 Definition

The natural logarithm is used.

dt
dp
t
t d
dp
p ∆ =

= ∆
ln
' (psi, Bars) ( 2-21)

The derivative is plotted on log-log coordinates versus the elapsed time ∆t since
the beginning of the period.


2-3.2 Derivative type-curve : "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 2-13 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log 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)( 1-12)

The radial flow regime does not produce a characteristic log-log 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) ( 2-22)

In dimensionless terms,




Chapter 2 - The analysis methods






- 38 -
( )
dp
d t C
D
D D
ln
. =05 ( 2-23)


Wellbore storage

∆ ∆ p
qB
C
t =
24
(psi, Bars)
( 1-6)
∆ ∆ p
qB
C
t ' =
24
(psi, Bars) ( 2-24)

During wellbore storage, the pressure change ∆p and the pressure derivative ∆p'
are identical. On log-log 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 2-14 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale.
Wellbore storage


Derivative of Section 2-2 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 2-15 Derivative of build-up example Figure 2-3. Log-log scale.







Chapter 2 - The analysis methods



- 39 -

Derivative type-curve

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 2-16 "Well with wellbore storage and skin, homogeneous reservoir"
Derivative of type-curve Figure 2-2. Log-log 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 2-17 Derivative match of example Figure 2-3. Log-log scale.



2-3.3 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) ( 2-25)

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 bi-linear 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) ( 2-26)

The log-log pressure derivative curve (∆p', ∆t) follows a straight-line slope of 1/n.



Infinite conductivity fracture (linear flow)

On log-log scale, the pressure and derivative follow two straight lines of slope 1/2.
The level of the derivative half-unit 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) ( 1-15)

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) ( 2-27)

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 2-18 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale.
Infinite conductivity fracture.







Chapter 2 - The analysis methods



- 41 -
Finite conductivity fracture (bi-linear flow)

A log-log 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) ( 1-17)

∆ ∆ 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) ( 2-28)

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 2-19 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log 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) ( 1-19)

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) ( 2-29)

The shape of the log-log pressure curve is not characteristic but the derivative
follows a straight line with a negative half-unit 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 2-20 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale.
Well in partial penetration.



Closed system (pseudo steady state)

The late part of the log-log pressure and derivative drawdown curves tends to a
unit-slope 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 2-21 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log 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) ( 1-22)

t
hA c
qB
p
t
∆ = ∆
φ
234 . 0 ' (psi, field units)
t
hA c
qB
p
t
∆ = ∆
φ
0417 . 0 ' (Bars, metric units) ( 2-30)








Chapter 2 - The analysis methods



- 43 -

2-3.4 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 semi-log plot,


dp
dx
p
x
x
p
x
x
x x
=
|
\

|
.
| +
|
\

|
.
|
+






∆ ∆
1
2
2
1
1 2
( 2-31)

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 2-22 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.



2-3.5 Build-up analysis

For a shut-in 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 2-12 :




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) ( 2-32)

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 log-log
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 log-log derivative of the build-up example of Figure
2-10 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
build-up
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
build-up
drawdown
build-up

Figure 2-23 Log-log plot of the build-up example of Figure 2-10. Well near a
sealing fault.




2-4 The analysis scales


The log-log 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 2-24 Pressure and derivative type-curve for a well with wellbore
storage and skin, homogeneous reservoir.


The double log-log match is confirmed with a match of the pressure type-curve on
semi-log 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


3-1 Well with wellbore storage and skin, homogeneous
reservoir

3-1.1 Characteristic flow regimes

1. Wellbore storage effect. Result: wellbore storage coefficient C.
2. Radial flow. Results: permeability-thickness product kh and skin S.

3-1.2 Log-log 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 3-1 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in an infinite
homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
C
D
e
(2S)
= 10
30
and 0.5.

3-1.3 Semi-log 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 3-2 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-1.





Chapter 3 - Wellbore conditions






- 48 -
3-2 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.

3-2.1 Characteristic flow regimes

1. Wellbore storage
2. Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. Results: fracture half-length x
f
.
3. Pseudo radial flow: derivative stabilization at 0.5. Results: permeability-
thickness product kh and the geometrical skin S.

3-2.2 Log-log 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) ( 3-1)

On Figure 3-3, 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 3-3 Responses for a well intercepting a high conductivity fracture.
Log-log 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. 2-8) and the fracture
half-length 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) ( 3-2)

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 half-length x
f
as :

x r e
f w
S
=

2 (ft, m) ( 3-3)

And, for the uniform flux solution,

x r e
f w
S
=

2 7 . (ft, m) ( 3-4)


Figure 3-4 Flow line geometry near a fractured well.


3-2.3 Linear flow analysis

The half fracture length x
f
is also estimated from Equation 1-16.

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 3-5 Square root of time plot of Figure 3-3.
Early time analysis.




Chapter 3 - Wellbore conditions






- 50 -
3-2.4 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 3-6 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storage. Infinite
conductivity fracture. Log-log scale.
C
D
= 0, 10
3
, 10
4
.

3-2.5 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 3-7 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storageand skin.
Infinite conductivity fracture. Log-log scale.
S = 0, 0.3, 1.


3-3 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.

3-3.1 Characteristic flow regimes

1. Wellbore storage
2. Bi-linear flow : 1/4 slope straight line. Results : fracture conductivity k
f
w
f
.
3. Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. Results : fracture half-length 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 -
3-3.2 Log-log analysis

The dimensionless fracture conductivity k
fD
w
fD
is defined as :

f
f f
fD fD
kx
w k
w k = ( 3-5)

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 3-8 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 1/4-slope 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 3-10).

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 3-9 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. 2-8) and the fracture
half-length x
f
from the time match (Eq. 3-2). The fracture conductivity k
f
w
f
is
estimated from the match on the bi-linear 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. 3-3), 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
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
= ( 3-6)

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 3-10 Effective wellbore radius for a well with a finite conductivity
fracture. Log-log scale.


3-3.3 Bi-linear and linear flow analyses

The fracture conductivity k
f
w
f
is estimated with Equation 1-18, the fracture half-
length form Equation 1-16.


3-3.4 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 3-11 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 -

3-4 Well in partial penetration
3-4.1 Definition

h
h
w
z
w
S
w
k
V
k
H h
h
w
z
w
S
w
k
V
k
H

Figure 3-12 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

3-4.2 Characteristic flow regimes

1. Wellbore storage.

2. Radial flow over the open interval : a first derivative plateau at 0.5 h/h
w
.
Results : permeability-thickness 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 : permeability-thickness 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 1-21:

• 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
= + ( 3-7)

A skin above 30 or 50 is indicative of a partial penetration effect.





Chapter 3 - Wellbore conditions






- 54 -
3-4.3 Log-log 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 3-13 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage
and skin. Log-log 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 3-14 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage
and skin. Log-log 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. 2-8). 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
( 3-8)

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 -

3-4.4 Semi-log 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 3-15 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-13.
Influence of k
V
/ k
H
on S
pp
(S
w
=0).

The final semi-log straight line defines k
H
h and S
T
. When a first semi-log 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. 3-8), and the wellbore skin S
w
.


3-4.5 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
( 3-9)

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.


3-4.6 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 3-13, 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 1-20
and 1-21. If the open interval is close to the top or bottom sealing boundary, flow
is semi-spherical and the slope m
SPH
must be divided by two in Equation 1-20.

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 3-16 Spherical flow analysis of responses Figure 3-13. One over
square root of time plot.



3-4.7 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 3-17 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 3-17 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage
and skin. Log-log 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 -
3-4.8 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 3-18 Responses for a well in partial penetration with a bottom
constant pressure boundary. Log-log 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.



3-5 Horizontal well

3-5.1 Definition

h
z
w
L L
k
H
k
H
k
V
h
z
w
L L
k
H
k
H
k
V


Figure 3-19 Horizontal well geometry.


L : effective half length of the horizontal well
z
w
: distance between the drain hole and the bottom-sealing boundary
k
H
: horizontal permeability
k
V
: vertical permeability




Chapter 3 - Wellbore conditions






- 58 -
3-5.2 Characteristic flow regimes

Vertical radial flow
Linear flow
Horizontal radial flow
Vertical radial flow
Linear flow
Horizontal radial flow

Figure 3-20 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 3-15).
3. Linear flow between the upper and lower boundaries : 1/2 slope derivative
straight line. Results : effective half-length 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 permeability-thickness product k
H
h, and the total skin
S
TH.



3-5.3 Log-log 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 3-21 Response for a horizontal well with wellbore storage and skin in a
reservoir with sealing upper and lower boundaries. Log-log 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. 2-8). The effective
half-length 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 3-22 to 3-41 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 3-22 Influence of L on pressure and derivative log-log 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 half-unit 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 3-23 Influence of L on pressure and derivative log-log 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 3-24 Influence of L on pressure and derivative log-log 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 3-25 Influence of z
w
on pressure and derivative log-log 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.



3-5.4 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) ( 3-10)

V
H
w wa
k
k
z z = (ft, m) ( 3-11)

[ ]
4 4
2
1
V H H V w wa
k k k k r r + = (ft, m) ( 3-12)

Several authors use the ratio h
D
of the apparent thickness h
a
of Equation 3-10, by
the well half-length L, as a leading parameter of horizontal well behavior.

V
H a
D
k
k
L
h
L
h
h = = ( 3-13)



3-5.5 Vertical radial flow semi-log 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) ( 3-14)

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 3-34 :

S S S S
k k k k
TV w ani w
V H H V
= + = −
+
ln
4 4
2
( 3-15)

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
'
= = ( 3-16)






Chapter 3 - Wellbore conditions






- 62 -

3-5.6 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)( 3-17)

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
( 3-18)



3-5.7 Horizontal pseudo-radial flow semi-log 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) ( 3-19)

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
( 3-20)

S
L
r
S
G
w
zT
= − + 081 . ln ( 3-21)

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ − −
(
(
¸
(

¸

|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ − =
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
( 3-22)








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 3-26 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-25.


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 3-27 Semi-log 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 3-28 Semi-log 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 -

3-5.8 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 3-21 and 3-22.


Non-uniform 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 3-29 Influence of non-uniform 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 three-dimensional (pseudo-spherical), 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 3-30 Influence of number of open segments on pressure and
derivative log-log curves. Total half-length 2000 ft, effective half-length 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 3-31, 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 3-31 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.



Non-rectilinear 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 3-32 Non-rectilinear 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 3-33 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
.

1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E-01 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 3-34 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 half-length is :

L k k L
a y x
=
4
(ft, m) ( 3-23)

(the vertical permeability k
z
is unchanged).


k
x
k
y
k
x
k
y
k
x
k
y
k
x
k
y

Figure 3-35 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 3-36 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) ( 3-24)

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) ( 3-25)





Chapter 3 - Wellbore conditions






- 68 -
In the example Figure 3-37 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 3-37 Horizontal well in a reservoir 3 layers with crossflow. Pressure
and derivative log-log 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 3-38, 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 over-estimated.

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 3-38 Horizontal well in a reservoir 3 layers with crossflow. Pressure
and derivative log-log 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 3-39), 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 3-39 Horizontal well in a reservoir with gas cap and sealing bottom
boundary. Pressure and derivative log-log 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
.



3-5.9 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 3-40, 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 3-40 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 3-41 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 3-41, 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 3-41 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, bi-linear and linear flow regimes can be observed,
possibly followed by horizontal radial flow around the different fractures. For a
single fracture of half-length 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) ( 3-26)

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) ( 3-27)

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 semi-log
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) ( 3-28)

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) ( 3-29)

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.



3-6 Skin factors

3-6.1 Anisotropy pseudo-skin

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) ( 3-30)

x x
k
k
x
k
k
'
max
min
max
= = 4 (ft, m) ( 3-31)

y y
k
k
y
k
k
'
min
max
min
= = 4 (ft, m) ( 3-32)

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) ( 3-33)




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
( 3-34)

S
ani
is in general low but, for horizontal wells, when k
V
/k
H
<<1, S
ani
=-1 may be
observed.





3-6.2 Geometrical skin



A B C A B C

Figure 3-42 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 3-43 Pressure and derivative response of wells A, B and C. Log-log
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 3-44 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-43 examples.





3-6.3 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


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

4-1 Definitions

4-1.1 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) ( 4-1)


Fissure
Matrix
Vug
Fissure
Matrix
Vug
Fissure
Matrix
Vug

Figure 4-1 Example of double porosity reservoir, fissured and multiple-layer
formations.


4-1.2 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 ( 4-2)

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
( 4-3)

4-1.3 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
( 4-4)




Chapter 4 - Fissured reservoirs






- 76 -

4-1.4 Interporosity flow parameter λ λ λ λ

λ α = r
k
k
w
m
f
2
( 4-5)

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
) ( 4-6)

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) ( 4-7)

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
= ( 4-8)

n=3, cubes
h
d
k
m
r
m
k
d
n=1, slabs

Figure 4-2 Matrix skin. Slab and sphere matrix blocks.

The analysis with the restricted interporosity flow model (pseudo-steady 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
( 4-9)

λ
eff
is independent of the matrix block permeability k
m
.






Chapter 4 - Fissured reservoirs



- 77 -
4-1.5 Dimensionless variables

p
kh
qB
p
D
=
1412 . µ
∆ (field units)
p
qB
kh
p
D
∆ =
µ 66 . 18
(metric units) ( 4-10)

t
C
kh t
C
D
D
= 0 000295 .
µ

(field units)
C
t kh
C
t
D
D

=
µ
00223 . 0 (metric units) ( 4-11)

( )
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) ( 4-12)

( )
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) ( 4-13)

The storativity ratio ω correlates the two definitions of dimensionless wellbore
storage :

C C
Df m Df +
= ω ( 4-14)


4-2 Double porosity behavior, restricted interporosity flow
(pseudo-steady state interporosity flow)

4-2.1 Log-log 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 semi-log 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 semi-log 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 semi-log 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 4-3 Pressure type-curve 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 semi-log 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 semi-log straight-line 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 semi-log 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 semi-log 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 semi-log radial flow
3x10
-4
10
-7
λe
-2S
= 10
-30
10
-2
Start of semi-log radial flow
3x10
-4
10
-7
A
B

Figure 4-4 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 semi-log 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 4-5 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-4 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(1-ω) = 10
-2
3x10
-4
3x10
-5
λC
D
/(1-ω) 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(1-ω) = 10
-2
3x10
-4
3x10
-5
λC
D
/(1-ω) 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(1-ω) = 10
-2
3x10
-4
3x10
-5
λC
D
/(1-ω) 10
-3
10
30
10
10
10
5
1
B
B
A
A
0.1

Figure 4-6 Pressure and derivative examples of Figure 4-4 for a well with
wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state
interporosity flow.
λ
eff
C
Df+m
/ω(1-ω) =10
-2
, 3x10
-4
. λ
eff
C
Df+m
/(1-ω) = 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 type-curve, 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) ( 2-8)

|
.
|

\
|
=
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) ( 2-9)

( )
S
C e
C
D
S
f m
Df m
=
+
+
05
2
. ln ( 4-15)

( )
( )
ω =
+
C e
C e
D
S
f m
D
S
f
2
2
( 4-16)

( )
λ λ
eff eff
=

e e
S S 2 2
( 4-17)


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 4-7 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage
in double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady 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
)


4-2.2 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 4-8 Double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.
Influence of ω ωω ω. Log-log 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 4-9 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-8.


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 4-10 Double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.
Influence of λ λλ λ
eff
. Log-log 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 4-11 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-10.


4-2.3 Analysis of the semi-log 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 4-12 Semi-log 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 semi-log 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)(4-18)

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)( 4-19)

The vertical distance δp between the two lines gives ω :

ω
δ
=

10
p m
( 4-20)

When only the first semi-log 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
( 4-21)


4-2.4 Build-up analysis

Log-log pressure build-up analysis

When the production time t
p
is small, the three characteristic regimes of a double
porosity response are not always fully developed on build-up pressure curves.
Whatever long are the three build-up examples of Figure 4-13, only example A
3

exhibits a clear double porosity response. The build-up curve A
1
does not show a
double porosity behavior, but only the build-up response of the fissures. For
example A
2
, the build-up 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 build-up)
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 build-up)
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 4-13 Drawdown and build-up pressure responses for a well with
wellbore storage and skin in double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state
interporosity flow. Log-log 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
build-up
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
build-up
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
build-up
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 4-14 Semi-log plot of drawdown and build-up pressure responses of
Figure 4-13.


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 semi-log 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 4-15 Horner plot of the three Build-ups of Figure 4-13.
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 build-up 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
Build-up
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
Build-up
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 4-16 Drawdown and build-up derivative responses of Figure 4-13.






Chapter 4 - Fissured reservoirs



- 85 -

4-3 Double porosity behavior, unrestricted interporosity flow
(transient interporosity flow)

4-3.1 Log-log analysis

Pressure type-curve

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
( 4-22)

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 semi-log 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 semi-log 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 4-17 Pressure type-curve 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 semi-log 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 semi-log 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 semi-log 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 4-18 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 semi-log 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 4-19 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-18 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
/(1-ω)
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
/(1-ω)
2
= 3x10
-2
3x10
-5
3x10
-3
3x10
-4
λC
D
/(1-ω)
2
= 3x10
-2
3x10
-5
B
B
A
A

Figure 4-20 Pressure and derivative examples of Figure 4-18.
λC
D
f+m
(1-ω)
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
( 4-23)

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 4-21 Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, slab and
sphere matrix blocks. Log-log 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
.


4-3.2 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 4-22 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 4-23 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-22.








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 4-24 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 4-25 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-24.



4-3.3 Build-up 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
Build-up
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
Build-up
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 4-26 Drawdown and build-up 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 -


4-4 Complex fissured reservoirs

4-4.1 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 4-27 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 4-28 Comparison of Figure 4-27 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 4-29 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 4-30 Comparison of Figure 4-29 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 4-31 Log-log 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




4-4.2 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 4-32 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
( 4-24)

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 4-33 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 4-34 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-33 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 4-35 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 4-36 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-35 example.
The thin curves describe the double porosity responses for only blocks 1
(final semi-log straight line for fissures + blocks 1) and only blocks 2 (final
semi-log straight line for fissures + blocks 2).





- 94 -





- 95 -


5 - BOUNDARY MODELS

5-1 One sealing fault

5-1.1 Definition
L L
Well Image
(q) (q)

L
L
r
D
w
= ( 5-1)

5-1.2 Characteristic flow regimes


1. Radial flow

2. Hemi-radial flow






5-1.3 Log-log 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 5-1 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage
and skin near one sealing fault in a homogeneous reservoir. Log-log 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 5-2 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.


5-1.4 Semi-log analysis

The time of intercept ∆t
x
between the two semi-log 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) ( 1-22)

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 5-3 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-2.






Chapter 5 - Boundary models



- 97 -

5-2 Two parallel sealing faults

5-2.1 Definition
L2
Well
L1



5-2.2 Characteristic flow regimes



1. Radial flow

2. Linear flow



5-2.3 Log-log 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 5-4 Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous
reservoir limited by two parallel sealing faults. Log-log 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 5-5 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.



5-2.4 Semi-log analysis

On semi-log 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 semi-log 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 5-6 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-5.








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 5-7 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-4.


5-2.5 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 5-8 Square root of time plot of Figure 5-5.


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) ( 5-2)


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) ( 5-3)




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) ( 5-4)


|
|
.
|

\
|

+
=
+
ch
2 1
2 1
1
2
arcsin
1
S
e
r
L L
L L
L
w
π π
( 5-5)



5-2.6 Build-up 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 5-9 Build-up 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 5-10 Horner plot of Figure 5-9.

The extrapolation p* of the Horner straight line does not correspond to the infinite
shut-in 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 5-11 Square root of time plot of Figure 5-9.
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 shut-in 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 shut-in time, at
t t t
p
+ − = ∆ ∆ 0 , is used to estimate the initial reservoir pressure.




5-3 Two intersecting sealing faults

5-3.1 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) ( 5-6)





Chapter 5 - Boundary models






- 102 -

( ) L L r
D w w 2
= − sin θ θ (ft, m) ( 5-7)

5-3.2 Characteristic flow regimes


1. Radial flow

2. Linear flow

3. Fraction of radial flow





5-3.3 Log-log 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 5-12 Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous
reservoir limited by two intersecting sealing faults. Log-log 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.
( 5-8)

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 5-13 Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous
reservoir limited by two intersecting sealing faults. Log-log 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.


5-3.4 Semi-log analysis

On a complete response, two semi-log 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 5-14 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-13.

θ = ° 360
m
m
1st line
2nd line
( 5-9)

The end of the first semi-log 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 5-15 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-12.



5-4 Closed system

5-4.1 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
= + + ( 5-10)

5-4.2 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 5-16 Drawdown and build-up 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.


5-4.3 Log-log behavior

On log-log scale, a straight line of slope unity on the late time drawdown pressure
and derivative curves characterizes the pseudo steady state flow regime. During
build-up, 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 5-17 Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore
storage in a closed square homogeneous reservoir. Log-log 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.


5-4.4 Drawdown analysis

Log-log 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 5-18 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 5-19 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 semi-log 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 5-20 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-18.

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 5-21 Semi-log plot of Figure 5.17 drawdown examples.







Chapter 5 - Boundary models



- 107 -
Linear and semi-linear 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 5-22 Linear flow analysis plot of Figure 5-19.

The slope for the infinite channel behavior (curve C of Figure 5-19) 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) ( 5-11)



Pseudo-steady 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 5-23 Pseudo steady state flow analysis plot of Figure 5-18.


During pseudo-steady 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
.
( 5-12)

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) ( 5-13)

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) (1-22)


the slope m* of the pseudo-steady 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) ( 1-23)


When kh and S are known from semi-log analysis, the shape factor C
A
is estimated
from the intercept ∆p
int
of the pseudo-steady state straight line :

(
¸
(

¸

|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
− − −
=
S . r A m
*
p p
w
i
.
e . C
A
87 0 log
2
int
303 2
2458 2 ( 5-14)

or
( )
[ ] m
*
p . p
e
m
m
C
i
A
int
303 2
*
456 . 5
− −
= ( 5-15)






Chapter 5 - Boundary models



- 109 -

5-4.5 Build-up analysis

Log-log analysis of build-up

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 5-24 Build-up 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 build-up examples of Figure
5-24 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. 5-13 or, with Eq. 2-6, t
D
/C
D
=
54600). The well is closed for build-up 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 build-up is independent of t
p
on log-log 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 . ( 5-16)


Semi-log analysis of build-up

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
+
= −


∆ ( 5-17)

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 5-25 Horner plot of Figure 5-24.

The Horner plot Figure 5-25 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 build-up
periods (t
pDA
= 2 on Figure 5-26), the difference between the straight line
extrapolated pressure
*
p and the average shut-in 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 5-26 Horner plot of Figure 5-24 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 -

5-5 Constant pressure boundary

5-5.1 Definition

water
gas
water
gas


L L
Well Image
(q) (-q)


5-5.2 Log-log analysis

The dimensionless stabilized pressure is defined as :

( ) p L S
D D
= + ln 2 ( 5-18)

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 5-27 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 5-28 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.


5-5.3 Semi-log 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 5-29 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-27.


The time of intercept ∆t
x
between the semi-log 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) ( 1-22)

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) ( 5-19)







Chapter 5 - Boundary models



- 113 -
5-6 Communicating fault

In the case of communicating fault, two different configurations are considered.
With the semi-permeable 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.


5-6.1 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 ( 5-20)

Characteristic flow regimes


1. Radial flow

2. Hemi-radial flow

3. Leak

4. Radial flow

w
f
k
f
w
f
k
f



Log-log 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 5-30 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage
near a semi-permeable linear boundary. Homogeneous reservoir. Log-log
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 5-31 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.


Semi-log 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 5-32 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-31.




5-6.2 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 semi-permeable fault solution).

kL
w k
F
f f
cD
= ( 5-21)

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

( 5-22)

The skin factor S
f
is related to the transmissibility ratio a of Eq. 5-20:

f
S
π
α = ( 5-23)


Characteristic flow regimes


1. Radial flow

2. Constant pressure
boundary effect

3. Bi-linear flow

4. Radial flow
L
w
f
k
f
L
w
f
k
f




Log-log 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 5-33 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore
storage near a finite conductivity fault. No fault skin. Log-log 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 5-34 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a finite
conductivity fault. No fault skin and several conductivity. Log-log 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 5-35 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a finite
conductivity fault. Several fault skin and conductivity. Log-log scale.
C
D
= 100, S = 5, L
D
= 300, F
cD
= 10, 1000, S
f
= 10, 100, 1000.


Semi-log 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 5-36 Semi-log 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 -


5-7 Predicting derivative shapes



Figure 5-37 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 5-38 Derivative response for a well in a closed trapezoid.





- 118 -





- 119 -



6 - COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS

6-1 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 6-1 Models for composite reservoirs.


6-1.1 Mobility & storativity ratios

( )
( )
M
k
k
=
µ
µ
1
2
( 6-1)

( )
( )
F
c
c
t
t
=
φ
φ
1
2
( 6-2)

6-1.2 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) ( 6-3)

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) ( 6-4)

( )
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) ( 6-5)

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) ( 6-6)

r
r
r
D
w
= ( 6-7)

L
L
r
D
w
= ( 6-8)



6-2 Radial composite behavior

6-2.1 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 6-2 Radial composite responses, well with wellbore storage and skin,
changing mobility and constant storativity. Log-log 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 6-3 Semi-log plot of Figure 6-2.


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 6-4 Radial composite responses, well with wellbore storage and skin,
constant mobility and changing storativity. Log-log 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 6-5 Semi-log plot of Figure 6-4.



6-2.2 Log-log 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) ( 6-9)



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) ( 6-10)

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.
( 6-11)

6-2.3 Semi-log analysis

The first semi-log 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) ( 6-12)

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) ( 6-13)

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 1-10, 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
|
.
|

\
|
− + = ( 6-14)

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 -
6-2.4 Build-up 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
Build-up
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
Build-up
1.5

Figure 6-6 Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage
and skin in a radial composite reservoir, changing mobility and constant
storativity. Log-log 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 build-up 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
Build-up
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
Build-up
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
Build-up
t
p
0.5
50

Figure 6-7 Drawdown and build-up 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.



6-3 Linear composite behavior

6-3.1 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) ( 6-15)




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 6-8 Linear composite responses, well with wellbore storage and skin,
changing mobility and constant storativity. Log-log 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 6-9 Semi-log plot of Figure 6-8.


6-3.2 Log-log 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 6-10 Comparison of radial and linear interfaces. Well with wellbore
storage and skin in composite reservoirs. Log-log 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
( 6-16)



6-4 Multicomposite systems

6-4.1 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 6-11 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).


6-4.2 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 6-12 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


7-1 Definitions

The layer "1" is assumed to be the high permeability layer.

The two-layers model can be used for multi-layers 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 7-1 Model for double permeability reservoir.


7-1.1 Permeability and porosity

kh k h k h
TOTAL
= +
1 1 2 2
(mD.ft, mD.m) ( 7-1)

( ) ( ) ( ) φ φ φ c h c h c h
t
TOTAL
t t
= +
1 2
(ft/psi, m/Bars) ( 7-2)

7-1.2 Mobility ratio κ κκ κ

κ =
+
=
k h
k h k h
k h
kh
TOTAL
1 1
1 1 2 2
1 1
( 7-3)

When κ=1, the response is double porosity.

7-1.3 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
( 7-4)







Chapter 7 - Layered reservoirs






- 128 -

7-1.4 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
'
'
( 7-5)

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
'
'
( 7-6)

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
( 7-7)

When λ=0, there is no reservoir crossflow.


7-1.5 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) ( 7-8)

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) ( 7-9)

( ) ( )
[ ]
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) ( 7-10)






Chapter 7 - Layered reservoirs



- 129 -

7-2 Double permeability behavior when the two layers are
producing into the well

7-2.1 Log-log 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 7-2 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) ( 7-11)

|
.
|

\
| +
=
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) ( 7-12)

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 7-6 and 7-7 :

( ) k k h k h
r
h
Z
w
' ' = +
1 1 2 2
2
λ
(mD) ( 7-13)





Chapter 7 - Layered reservoirs






- 130 -

( ) k k h k h
r
h
Z
w
2 1 1 2 2
2
2
2
= +
λ
(mD) ( 7-14)

7-2.2 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 7-3 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 7-4 Semi-log plot of Figure 7-3.
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 7-5 Double permeability responses when the two layers are producing
into the well. Well with wellbore storage and skins, low storativity contrast.
Log-log 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 7-6 Semi-log plot of Figure 7-5.
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).


7-3 Double permeability behavior when only one of the two
layers is producing into the well

7-3.1 Log-log 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/(1-κ)
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/(1-κ)
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/(1-κ)

Figure 7-7 Response for a well with wellbore storage and skin in double
permeability reservoir, only layer 2 produces into the well. Log-log scale.
C
D
=1000, S
1
= 100, S
2
= 0, ω = 0.1, κ = 0.9, λ = 6.10
-8
.


7-3.2 Discussion of double permeability parameters

When only the low permeability layer is producing, the derivative tends to
stabilize at 0.5/(1-κ) 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 7-8 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 7-8) and 0.5 for the second. The response tends to be equivalent to the
double porosity solution with restricted interporosity flow.


7-3.3 Analysis of semi-log straight lines

The response can follow two semi-log 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 7-9 Semi-log plot of Figure 7-8.
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)( 7-15)

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) ( 7-16)

The global skin S measured on the total system semi-log straight line is not only a
function of the two layers skins S
1
and S
2
, but also of κ, ω and λ.



7-4 Commingled systems: layered reservoirs without crossflow

7-4.1 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 7-4 and
Figure 7-6). The semi-log slope decreases slowly with time, to reach the equivalent
total system slope of Equation 7-16.

In a n layers system, the pseudo-skin 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
( 7-17)

On the example κ=0.999 and ω=0.001 of Figure 7-4, the pseudo-skin is estimated
at S
L
=3.5. For the curve κ=0.9 and ω=0.1 of Figure 7-6, 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 7-17, 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 ( 7-18)



7-4.2 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) ( 7-19)

If the non-producing 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) ( 7-20)

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


8-1 Interference tests in reservoirs with homogeneous
behavior

8-1.1 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 8-1 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 shut-in.

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 8-2 Build-up response of the producing and observation wells. Log-
log scale.



8-1.2 Log-log analysis with line-source 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
− − = ( 8-1)

p
D
is defined in Equation 2-3 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) ( 8-2)

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 8-3 The Theis solution (exponential integral). Log-log 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 2-8. 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) ( 8-3)







Chapter 8 - Interference tests



- 137 -

8-1.3 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 8-4 Influence of wellbore storage and skin effects on interference
pressure responses. Log-log 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 8-5 Derivative curves of Figure 8-4. Log-log 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 8-6 Pressure an derivative curves of Figure 8-4 and Figure 8-5,
examples A and B. Log-log scale.
The dotted derivative curve corresponds to the Theis solution.


8-1.4 Semi-log 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) ( 1-30)



8-1.5 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 8-7 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 8-3, 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) ( 8-4)

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) ( 8-5)

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) ( 8-6)

( )
k k k k k k
x y x y xy min
/
. = + − − +

¸

(
¸
(
¦
´
¹
¹
`
)
05 4
2
2
1 2
(mD) ( 8-7)

The angle between the major permeability axis and the x-axis of the coordinate
system is expressed with :

θ =

|
\

|
.
|
|
arctan
max
k k
k
x
xy
( 8-8)

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 8-3 can be wrong.




8-2 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) ( 8-9)



8-2.1 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 8-8 Interference pressure type-curve for a double porosity reservoir,
restricted (pseudo-steady 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 8-9 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 8-10, 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 8-9 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 8-10 Interference responses of Figure 8-9, t
Df
/r
D
2
time scale.




Chapter 8 - Interference tests






- 142 -

8-2.2 Double porosity reservoirs with unrestricted interporosity flow

Pressure type-curve

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 8-11 Interference pressure type-curve 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 8-12 Interference responses in double porosity reservoirs with
unrestricted interporosity flow. Log-log scale.
Two wells, with same parameters as on Figure 8-10







Chapter 8 - Interference tests



- 143 -
8-3 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 8-13 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 8-14 Interference in a reservoir with a sealing fault. Pressure and
derivative curves of the two observation wells. Log-log scale.



8-4 Interference tests in radial composite reservoir

When the mobility around the active well is higher than the mobility of the
reservoir (Figure 8-16), the interference signal travels faster. When the active well
is located in a low mobility region (Figure 8-17), 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 8-15 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 8-16 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 8-17 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 8-18 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. Pressure
curves of examples Figure 8-16 and Figure 8-17.
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 8-19).


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 8-19 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 8-20 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 8-21).


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 8-21 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.



8-5 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 8-22, 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 8-22 Interference responses in a double permeability reservoir, one
layer is perforated in the observation well. Log-log 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 8-23) 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 8-23 Interference responses in a double permeability reservoir, the two
layers are perforated in the observation well.
Same parameters as on Figure 8-22, 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.

9-1 Gas properties

9-1.1 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
) ( 9-1)

Z is the real gas deviation factor. For an ideal gas Z=1, and the compressibility is
c
g
=1/p.

9-1.2 Pseudo-pressure

The pseudo-pressure 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) ( 9-2)

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 pseudo-pressure m(p) before analysis.
The change of pseudo-pressure, expressed as m(p)-m(p[∆t=0]), is independent of
the reference pressure p
0
.

9-1.3 Pseudo-time

The pseudo-time 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) ( 9-3)

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 -

9-2 Transient analysis of gas well tests

9-2.1 Simplified pseudo-pressure for manual analysis

On Figure 9-1, 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) ( 9-4)

On low-pressure 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 pseudo-pressure
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) ( 9-5)

On high-pressure 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 9-1 Isothermal variation of µ µµ µZ with pressure.







Chapter 9 - Gas wells



- 151 -
9-2.2 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 pseudo-pressure is used, the dimensionless terms are defined with
respect to the gas properties at initial condition (subscript i). With the pressure and
pressure-squared 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) ( 9-6)

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) ( 9-7)

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) ( 9-8)


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) ( 9-9)

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) ( 9-10)


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) ( 9-11)

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) ( 9-12)


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) ( 9-13)

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) ( 9-14)



Skin

On gas wells, the skin coefficient S' is expressed with a rate dependent term, also
called turbulent effect or non-Darcy skin.

S S Dq
sc
' = + ( 9-15)

In a multirate sequence, the analysis is made with respect to the rate change (q
n
-
q
n-1
), and the skin is estimated from the change of ∆p
skin
between the flow periods n
and n-1. 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
( 9-16)

During shut-in periods (q
n
=0) and during a period immediately after shut-in (q
n-1
=
0), the actual flow rate is used in Equation 9-16.


S = intercept
D
=
s
lo
p
e
q
n
+q
n-1
(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
n-1
(Mscf/D)
S
'
=
S
+
D
(
q
n
+
q
n
-
1
)
S = intercept
D
=
s
lo
p
e
q
n
+q
n-1
(Mscf/D)
S
'
=
S
+
D
(
q
n
+
q
n
-
1
)
q
n
+q
n-1
(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 9-2 Variation of the pseudo-skin with the rate q
n
+ q
n-1
.





Chapter 9 - Gas wells






- 154 -

9-3 Deliverability tests

9-3.1 Deliverability equations

Empirical approach (Fetkovich, or "C & n")


( )
q C p p
sc i wf
n
= −
2 2
(Mscf/D, m
3
/D) ( 9-17)

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 9-3 Deliverability plot for a backpressure test.
Log-log scale, pressure-squared 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 pseudo-steady state flowing pressure
p
wf
and the following shut-in average pressure p is expressed from Equation 5-16 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) ( 9-18)

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) ( 9-19)


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 9-4 Deliverability plot for an isochronal or a modified isochronal test.
Linear scale, pseudo-pressure method.


Before the pseudo-steady state regime, the response follows the semi-log
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) ( 9-20)


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 pseudo-steady 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) ( 9-21)



9-3.2 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 9-5 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 9-6 Deliverability plot for a backpressure test.
Linear scale, pseudo-pressure method.



9-3.3 Isochronal test

The well is produced at three or four increasing rates and a shut-in period is
introduced between each flow. The drawdown periods, of same duration t
p
, are
stopped during the infinite acting regime. The intermediate build-ups 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 9-7 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 9-8 Deliverability plot for an isochronal or a modified isochronal test.
Log-log scale, pressure-squared method.

9-3.4 Modified isochronal test

The intermediate shut-in 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 9-9 Pressure and rate history for a modified isochronal test.




- 158 -




- 159 -


10 - BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS
RESERVOIRS


10-1 Boundaries in fissured reservoirs

A sealing fault can be reached during the fissure flow regime (Figure 10-1). The
double porosity transition is observed during the semi-radial 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 10-1 Well with wellbore storage near a sealing fault, double porosity
reservoir, pseudo-steady 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 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
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 10-2 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 10-3). With mixed boundaries, derivative responses
can exhibit several consecutive humps (Figure 10-4).




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 10-3 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 10-4 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).



10-2 Boundaries in layered reservoirs

On Figure 10-5, 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 10-6).











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 10-5 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 10-6 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 10-4. On Figure 10-7,
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/(1-κ)
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/(1-κ)
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/(1-κ)
ºº

Figure 10-7 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
.




10-3 Composite channel reservoirs

In channel reservoirs, when the mobility changes near the edges of the channel
banks (Figure 10-8), or along the channel length (Figure 10-9), 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 10-10). Build-up 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 10-8 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 10-9 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 10-10 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 10-11 Pressure and derivative drawdown and build-up responses of
curve M=50 of Figure 10-10.
The two dotted derivative curves are drawdown, the build-up response (thick
line) is generated for (t
p
/C)
D
= 650.




- 164 -




- 165 -


11 - COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES


11-1 Fissured-layered reservoirs

On Figure 11-1, 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 11-1 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 11-2, 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 7-3 (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 7-5 (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 11-2 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 7-3 with ω = 10
-3
, κ = 0.99 and λ =4.10
-4
and the ( ) to the double
permeability response of Figure 7-5 with ω = 10
-1
, κ = 0.99 and λ =4.10
-4
.




11-2 Fissured radial composite reservoirs

On Figure 11-3, the inner region of a radial composite reservoir is fissured. The
radial composite model corresponds to the curve M=10 of Figure 6-2.

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 11-3 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
6-2 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 -


11-3 Layered radial composite reservoirs

On Figure 11-4, the reservoir is two-layer 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 11-4 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 11-5). 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 11-5 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
7-5 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 11-6 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
7-5 with κ=0.9 and the dashed curves to the commingled reservoir (λ=0).






- 169 -


12 - OTHER TESTING METHODS


12-1 Drillstem test

12-1.1 Test description

During a drillstem test, a down hole shut-in 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 12-1). 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
shut-in
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
shut-in
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
p
i
p
0
shut-in

Figure 12-1 Example of DST pressure response. The rate is less than critical.
Linear scale.
The sequence is initial flow, initial shut-in, flow period and final shut-in.


12-1.2 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


=
) (
( 12-1)

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 12-2, 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 12-2 Slug test type curves on log-log 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 1-5, 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) ( 12-2)

the skin is estimated from the C
D
e
2S
curve match with Equation 2-10.







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 type-curve, 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) ( 12-3)

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) ( 12-4)


12-1.3 Build-up 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 build-up.

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 12-3 Example of rate estimation during a DST flow period.


The increasing pressure curve of the flow period is discretized into constant
pressure steps (Figure 12-3). 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 -
12-2 Impulse test

12-2.1 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.


12-2.2 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
shut-in, 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 shut-in 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 12-3 :

( )
( )
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) ( 12-5)

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 shut-in
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 shut-in
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 shut-in
well flowing

Figure 12-5 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 shut-in period
after the few minutes flow period (Figure 12-6). 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 12-6 Pressure and derivative analysis of the impulse shut-in period.
Log-log scale, ∆ ∆∆ ∆p and ∆ ∆∆ ∆p' versus ∆ ∆∆ ∆t.




12-3 Rate deconvolution


In the multi rate superposition method presented in Section 2-2.2 (Eq. 2-15), the
rate history is described by several step-rate 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) ( 12-6)

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 build-up tests affected by wellbore storage effect.
With accurate sandface flow rate measurement at early shut-in time, the effect of
afterflow can theoretically be eliminated from the pressure build-up response.




12-4 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 12-7 Decline curves on log-log scale. Closed reservoir. q
D
versus t
De
.


With log-log 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) ( 12-7)


For semi-log 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)( 12-8)

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) ( 12-9)


( )
(
(
¸
(

¸

+ − = 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
( 12-10)




12-5 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
w-obs
h
w-obs
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
w-obs
h
w-obs
z
w
k
H1
, k
V1
k
H3
, k
V3
k
H2
, k
V2
k
V
k
H
h
w
z
w-obs
h
w-obs
z
w
h
w
z
w-obs
h
w-obs
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 12-8 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
w-obs
/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
w-obs
/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 12-9 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration
with wellbore storage. Log-log 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
w-obs
/h = 1/100, z
w-obs
/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 12-10 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration
with wellbore storage. Log-log 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
w-obs
/h = 1/100, z
w-obs
/h = 0.6.
Vertical permeability: k
V
/k
H
= 0.5, 0.05, 0.005.









Chapter 12 - Other testing methods



- 177 -
With the double-stage 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 12-11 Double-stage 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 12-12 Double-stage test log-log responses.
C
D
= 7, S
w
=0. Producing segment: h
w
/h = 1/10, z
w
/h = 0.5; observation
segment: h.
w-obs
/h = 1/20, z
w-obs
/h = 0.35. Vertical permeability: k
V
/k
H
= 0.3.






- 178 -





- 179 -


13 - MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS


13-1 Perrine method

13-1.1 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) ( 13-1)

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) ( 13-2)

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
) ( 13-3)



13-1.2 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 log-log 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) ( 13-4)




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) ( 13-5)

The slope m of the semi-log 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) ( 13-6)

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) ( 13-7)




13-2 Other methods

13-2.1 Multiphase pseudo-pressure

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) ( 13-8)

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) ( 13-9)

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 -

13-2.2 Pressure squared method

For log-log 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) ( 13-10)

where a is assumed to be a constant, defined as :

k
B
a p
o
o o
µ
= ( 13-11)





- 182 -





- 183 -


14- TEST DESIGN


14-1 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.



14-2 Test simulation

14-2.1 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
shut-in 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.


14-2.2 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.



14-3 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 shut-in 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 shut-in 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 shut-in 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
shut-in, etc.)







- 185 -


15 - FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST
ANALYSIS


15-1 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 15-1, t
p
=120.

2. When there is a shut-in 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 shut-in 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 15-1 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 15-2 Log-log plot of the final build-up.
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 -

15-2 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 15-3 Example of Figure 15-1 at time of shut-in. Time and pressure
errors.
- Shut-in time error: curve a = 0.1 hr before and curve b = 0.1 hr after the
actual shut-in time.
- Shut-in 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 15-4 Case a: shut-in 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 15-5 Case b: shut-in 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 15-6 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 15-7 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 15-8 Case e: shut-in time too late, last flowing pressure is taken in the
build-up data, during the wellbore storage regime.


A good log-log 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 -
15-3 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 15-9 Final build-up of Figure 15-1. 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 15-10 Log-log plot of the build-up example. Drift of ± ±± ± 0.05 psi/hr.

The effect of a constant drift is inverse during flow and shut-in periods.



15-4 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 15-11 Final build-up of Figure 15-1. 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 15-12 Log-log plot of the build-up example. Noise of +1 psi every 2
points.
Three points derivative algorithm. No smoothing.



15-5 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 15-13 Log-log 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 1-4 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 15-14 Log-log plot of a build-up example of changing wellbore storage

During build-up periods, the response corresponds to the gas wellbore storage
coefficient immediately after shut-in, 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.



15-6 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 15-15 Changing liquid level after phase segregation.

When, after shut-in, 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 build-up pressure can show a temporary decreasing
trend after some shut-in 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 15-16 Example of build-up 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 build-up 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 15-17 Log-log plot of the build-up 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).



15-7 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 log-log pressure match or the semi-log slope m. Any error on
h or µ directly influences the permeability estimate k. The skin Equation 1-14



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 1-32 or 1-22), 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. 3-24 for example).
• In the case of permeability anisotropy, the horizontal permeability is defined as
the geometric average of Eq. 8-4.

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 10-2) the distance
to a reservoir boundary can be different from that indicated by the simple
interpretation model used for analysis.







- 193 -
16 - CONCLUSION

16-1 Interpretation procedure

16-1.1 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 log-log 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: log-log, test history and superposition.




The consistency of the interpretation model is finally checked against non-testing
information.

Model selection (derivative)
Estimate parameters : kh, C,
heterogeneities , boundaries
(derivative) and S (pressure)
Simul #1 . . . . . . #n
Log-log
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
Log-log
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
Log-log
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
Log-log
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 -

16-1.2 The diagnosis: typical pressure and derivative shapes


Flow regime identification


GEOMETRY LOG-LOG 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

Bi-linear



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 16-1 The mobility decreases (kh ↓ ↓↓ ↓).
Log-log and semi-log 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 16-2 The mobility increases (kh ↑ ↑↑ ↑).
Log-log and semi-log 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 16-3 The storativity increases (φ φφ φ c
t
h ↑ ↑↑ ↑).
Log-log and semi-log 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 16-4 The storativity decreases (φ φφ φ c
t
h ↓ ↓↓ ↓).
Log-log and semi-log scales.



16-1.3 Summary of usual log-log 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 Bi-linear, 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 Hemi-radial

∆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

Off-centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Hemi-radial, 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 Hemi-linear

∆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
Off-centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Hemi-radial, 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
Build-up :
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
Build-up :
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
Build-up :
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 -



16-1.4 Consistency check with the test history simulation

In the following examples, the initial pressure is 5000 psi. The interpretation
model, defined from log-log analysis of the short shut-in period, may be
inconsistent when applied to the complete rate history.


Increase of derivative response after the last build-up point (second sealing
boundary)

The log-log 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 16-5 Log-log plot of the final build-up.
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 16-6 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 16-7 Log-log plot of the final build-up.
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 16-8 Test history simulation. Linear scale.
Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.




Decrease of derivative response after the last build-up point (Layered semi
infinite reservoir)

The log-log 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 16-9 Log-log plot of the final build-up.
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 16-10 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 16-11 Log-log plot of the final build-up.
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 16-12 Test history simulation. Linear scale.
Two layers reservoir, one infinite and one closed layer.







Chapter 16 - Conclusion



- 203 -

16-2 Reporting and presentation of results

16-2.1 Objectives

A well test interpretation report should present not only the different matches, but
also all information necessary to re-do 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 re-evaluate the test.


16-2.2 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

• Log-log,
• Semi-log,
• Test simulation.





- 204 -





- 205 -

Appendix - ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS

A-1 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 A-1 Rate through a sample.

A
q
dp / dl

dl
dp k
V
A
q
µ
= = (A-1)

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.


A-2 Steady state radial flow of an incompressible fluid

q
rw
re
q

Figure A-2 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
(A-2)

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

µ
= − (A-3)

This relationship is used in the definition of the dimensionless pressure
Equation 2-3.




Appendix - Analytical solutions






- 206 -

A-3 Diffusivity equation

A-3.1 Hypotheses

• Constant properties: k, µ, φ and the system compressibility.
• Pressure gradients are low.
• The formation is not compressible and saturated with fluid.


A-3.2 Darcy's law

p grad
k
V
→ →
=
µ
(A-4)

A-3.3 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 − =

(A-5)
The density
v
m
= ρ is used.


A-3.4 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
= − = (A-6)

With a constant compressibility, the fluid equation of state is:

( )
0
0
p p c
e
t

= ρ ρ (A-7)

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 + + = (1-3)





Appendix - Analytical solutions



- 207 -

A-3.5 Diffusivity equation

Combining Equations 4 and 5, then 7:

t
p
c
t
p grad
k
div
t


ρ φ

ρ ∂
φ
µ
ρ = =
|
|
.
|

\
|

(A-8)

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
(A-9)

And with Equation 7,

r
p
c
r
t


ρ

ρ ∂
= (A-10)

( )
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
(A-11)

With the condition of low-pressure 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
(A-12)

The ratio
t
c
k
φµ
is called hydraulic diffusivity.


A-3.6 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) (2-3)



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) (2-4)

w
D
r
r
r = (6-7)

The diffusivity equation is :

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
t
p
p
r
r
p
r
r ∂





= ∇ =
|
|
.
|

\
|
2
1
(A-13)


A-4 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


(A-14)

• Outer condition : the reservoir is infinite.

0 =
∞ →
D
p
Lim
r
(A-15)

The solution is called Exponential Integral.

( )
|
|
.
|

\
|
− − =
D
D
D D D
t
r
r t p
4
Ei
2
1
,
2
(8-1)

( )

∞ −
− = −
x
u
du
u
e
x Ei (A-16)





- 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 (semi-log 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 semi-permeable 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 = Bi-linear flow (slope m)
BU = Build-up
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 = Radial-Composite
RF = Radial flow (slope m)
RLF = Radial-linear 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 = Shut-in 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

1-1. Matthews, C. S. and Russell, D.G.: "Pressure Build-up and Flow Tests in
Wells", Monograph Series no 1, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME,
Dallas (1967).

1-2. Earlougher, R. C., Jr.: "Advances in Well Test Analysis", Monograph Series
no 5, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1977).

1-3. Lee, J.: "Well Testing", Textbook Series, Vol. 1, Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1982).

1-4. Bourdarot, G.: " Well Testing : Interpretation Methods," Editions Technip,
Institut Français du Pétrole.

1-5. van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans., AIME ( 1949) 186,
305-324.

1-6. van Everdingen, A. F.: "The Skin Effect and its Influence on the Productive
Capacity of a Well." Trans., AIME ( 1953) 198, 171-176.

1-7. Miller, C. C., Dyes, A. B., and Hutchinson, C. A.: "Estimation of
Permeability and Reservoir Pressure from Bottom-Hole Pressure Build-up
Characteristics," Trans., AIME ( 1950) 189, 91-104.

1-8. Russell, D. G. and Truitt, N. E.:"Transient Pressure Behavior in Vertically
Fractured Reservoirs,"J. Pet. Tech. ( Oct., 1964) 1159-1170.

1-9. Clark, K. K.:"Transient Pressure Testing of Fractured Water Injection
Wells," J. Pet. Tech. ( June, 1968) 1639-643; Trans., AIME ( 1968) 243.

1-10. Gringarten, A. C., Ramey, H. J., Jr. and Raghavan, R.: "Applied Pressure
Analysis for Fractured Wells,"J. Pet. Tech. ( July, 1975) 887-892.

1-11. Gringarten, A. C., Ramey, H. J., Jr. and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady-State
Pressure Distribution Created by a Well with a Single Infinite Conductivity
Fracture," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. ( Aug., 1974) 347-360.

1-12. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego-V, F. and Dominguez, N.: "Transient Pressure
Behavior for a Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture," Soc. Pet.
Eng. J. ( Aug., 1978) 253-264.

1-13. Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R. D. and Pollock, C. B.: "Evaluation and
Performance Prediction of Low-Permeability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive
Hydraulic Fracturing,"J. Pet. Tech. ( March, 1979) 362-372.





References



- 213 -
1-14. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V, F:"Transient Pressure Analysis for
Fractured Wells,"J. Pet. Tech.( Sept., 1981) 1749-1766.

1-15. Brons, F. and Marting, V. E.: "The Effect of Restricted FluidEntry on Well
Productivity,"J. Pet. Tech. ( Feb., 1961) 172-174; Trans., AIME ( 1961) 222.

1-16. Moran, J. H. and Finklea, E. E.:"Theoretical Analysis of Pressure
Phenomena Associated with the Wireline Formation Tester," J. Pet. Tech.(
Aug., 1962) 899-908. Trans., AIME ( 1962), 225.

1-17. Culham, W. E.:"Pressure Build-up Equations for Spherical-Flow Problems,"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. ( Dec., 1974) 545-555.

1-18. Warren , J. E. and Root, P. J.:"Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept., 1963) 245; Trans., AIME ( 1963) 228.

1-19. Brons, F. and Miller, W. C.:"A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure
Readings," J. Pet. Tech.( Aug., 1961) 803-805.

1-20. Jones, P.: "Reservoir Limit Tests," Oil and Gas J. ( June 18, 1956) 54, n
o
59,
184.



Chapter 2

2-1. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Short-Time Well Test Data Interpretation in The
Presence of Skin Effect and Wellbore Storage," J. Pet. Tech. ( Jan., 1970) 97.

2-2. Agarwal, R.G., Al-Hussainy, 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.

2-3. McKinley, R. M.: "Wellbore Transmissibility from Afterflow Dominated
Pressure Build-up Data," J. Pet. Tech. ( July, 1971) 863.

2-4. Earlougher, R. C., Jr., Kersh, K. M. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.:"Wellbore Effects
in Injection well Testing," J. Pet. Tech.( Nov., 1973) 1244-1250.

2-5. Gringarten, A. C., Bourdet D. P., Landel, P. A. and Kniazeff, V. J.: "A
Comparison between Different Skin and Wellbore Storage Type-Curves for
Early-Time Transient Analysis," paper SPE 8205, presented at the 54th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 23-26,
1979.

2-6. Ramey, H.J., Jr. and Cobb, W.M.:"A General Pressure Build-up Theory for
a Well in a Closed Drainage Area," J. Pet. Tech.( Dec., 1971) 1493-1505;
Trans., AIME ( 1971), 252.

2-7. Horner, D. R.: "Pressure Build-ups in Wells", Proc., Third World Pet.
Cong., E. J. Brill, Leiden (1951) II, 503-521. Also, Reprint Series, No. 9 —



References






- 214 -
Pressure Analysis Methods, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (
1967) 25-43.

2-8. 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. 21-24, 1980.

2-9. Raghavan, R.:"The Effect of Producing Time on Type Curve Analysis," J.
Pet. Tech.( June, 1980) 1053-1064.

2-10. Bourdet, D. Ayoub, J. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "Use of Pressure Derivative in
Well-Test Interpretation", SPEFE (June 1989) 293-302

2-11. Balsingame, T.A., Johnston, J.L. and Lee, W.;J.: "Type-Curves Analysis
Using the Pressure Integral Method," paper SPE 18799 presented at the 1989
SPE California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, April 5-7.

2-12. Balsingame, T.A., Johnston, J.L. Rushing, J.A., Thrasher, T.S. Lee, W.;J.
and Raghavan, R. : " Pressure Integral Type-Curves Analysis-II: Applications
and Field Cases," paper SPE 20535 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.

2-13. Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "A New Approach for Constructing
Derivative Type Curves for Well Test Analysis," SPEFE (March 1988) 197-
206.

2-14. 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. 27-30.



Chapter 3

3-1. 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.

3-2. Tiab, D. and Puthigai, S. K.:”Pressure-Derivative Type Curves for
Vertically Fractured Wells,” SPEFE ( March, 1988) 156-158.

3-3. Alagoa, A., Bourdet, D. and Ayoub, J.A.:”How to Simplify The Analysis of
Fractured Well Tests,” World Oil ( Oct. 1985)

3-4. Wong, D.W., Harrington, A.G. and Cinco-Ley, H.:”Application of the
Pressure-Derivative Function in the Pressure-Transient Testing of Fractured
Wells,"SPEFE.( Oct., 1985) 470-480.

3-5. Gringarten, A. C.and Ramey, H. J. Jr.: "An Approximate Infinite
Conductivity Solution for a Partially Penetrating Line-Source Well",
Soc.Pet.Eng. J. (Apr.1975) 347-360.




References



- 215 -

3-6. Kuchuk, F.J. and Kirwan, P.A.: "New Skin and Wellbore Storage Type
Curves for Partially Penetrated Wells". SPEFE, Dec. 1987, 546-554.

3-7. Papatzacos, P. : "Approximate Partial-Penetration Pseudoskin for Infinite-
Conductivity Wells", SPE-R.E. (May 1987) 227-234.

3-8. 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. 22-25, 1985.

3-9. 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 2-4, 1986.

3-10. Goode, P. A. and Thambynayagam, R. K. M.: "Pressure Drawdown and
Buildup Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Media", SPEFE (Dec.
1987) 683-697.

3-11. Kuchuk, F. J., Goode, P.A., Wilkinson, D.J. and Thambynayagam, R. K. M.:
"Pressure-Transient Behavior of Horizontal Wells With and Without Gas Cap
or Aquifer", SPEFE (March 1991) 86-94.

3-12. Kuchuk, F.: "Well Testing and Interpretation for Horizontal Wells", JPT
(Jan. 1995) 36-41.

3-13. 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, 85-94.

3-14. 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, 9-11 March 1997.

3-15. 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. 25-28, 1994.

3-16. 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. 25-28, 1994.

3-17. 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. 6-9, 1996.

3-18. Kuchuk, F.J. and Habashy, T.: "Pressure Bahavior of Horizontal Wells in
Multilayer Reservoirs With Crossflow", SPEFE (March 1996) 55-64.

3-19. Brigham, W. E. :"Discussion of Productivity of a Horizontal Well", SPERE
(May. 1990) 254-255.




References






- 216 -

Chapter 4

4-1. 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)1286-1303).

4-2. Warren , J. E. and Root, P. J.:"Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept., 1963) 245-255; Trans., AIME, 228.

4-3. Odeh, A.S.: "Unsteady-State Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Mar., 1965) 60-64; Trans., AIME, 234.

4-4. Kazemi, H.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
with Uniform Fracture Distribution" Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec., 1969) 451-462;
Trans., AIME, 246.

4-5. de Swaan, O. A.: "Analytic Solutions for Determining Naturally Fractured
Reservoir Properties by Well Testing", Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June, 1976) 117-122;
Trans., AIME, 261.

4-6. Najurieta, H.L.: "A Theory for Pressure Transient Analysis in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs" J. Pet. Tech. (July 1980), 1241.

4-7. Streltsova, T.D.: "Well Pressure Behavior of a Naturally Fractured
Reservoir", Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct., 1983) 769.

4-8. Moench, A. F.: "Double-Porosity Models for a Fissured Groundwater
Reservoir With Fracture Skin", Water Resources Res., Vol. 20, NO. 7 (July
1984) 831-846.

4-9. 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 18-20, 1979.

4-10. Bourdet, D. and Gringarten, A. C.: "Determination of Fissure Volume and
Block Size in Fractured Reservoirs by Type-Curve Analysis", paper S.P.E.
9293, presented at the SPE-AIME 55th Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX..,
Sept. 21-24, 1980.

4-11. Bourdet, D. Ayoub, J. A, Whittle, T. M., Pirard, Y. M. and Kniazeff V.:
"Interpreting Well Test in Fractured Reservoirs", World Oil (Oct., 1983) 77-87.

4-12. Gringarten, A. C.: "Interpretation of Tests in Fissured and Multilayered
Reservoirs with Double-Porosity Behavior: Theory and Practice", J. Pet. Tech.
(April 1984), 549-564.

4-13. Bourdet, D. Ayoub, J. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "Use of Pressure Derivative in
Well-Test Interpretation", SPEFE (June 1989) 293-302.

4-14. 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) 111-124.




References



- 217 -

4-15. Cinco-Ley, 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.
22-25, 1985.

4-16. Abdassah, D. and Ershaghi, I.: "Triple-Porosity Systems for Representing
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs", SPEFE, April 1986, 113-127.

4-17. 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.; 2-5, 1988.

4-18. 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.; 2-5, 1988.



Chapter 5

5-1. Clark, D. G. and Van Golf-Racht, T. D.: "Pressure Derivative Approach to
Transient Test Analysis: A High-Permeability North Sea Reservoir Example,"
J. Pet. Tech. ( Nov., 1985) 2023-2039.

5-2. Wong, D.W., Mothersele, C.D., Harrington, A.G. and Cinco-Ley, 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. 5-8, 1986.

5-3. 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. 27-30, 1987.

5-4. Tiab, D. and Kumar, A.:”Detection and Location of Two Parallel Sealing
Faults around a Well,” J. Pet. Tech. (Oct., 1980), 1701-1708.

5-5. van Poollen, H. K.:"Drawdown Curves give Angle between Intersecting
Faults", The Oil and Gas J. (Dec.20, 1965), 71-75.

5-6. Prasad, Raj K.: "Pressure Transient Analysis in the Presence of Two
Intersecting Boundaries" J. Pet. Tech. ( Jan., 1975) 89-96.

5-7. Tiab, D. and Crichlow, H.B..:”Pressure Analysis of Multiple-Sealing-Fault
Systems and Bounded Reservoirs by Type Curve Matching,” SPEJ ( Dec.,
1979) 378-392.

5-8. Brons F. and Miller, W.C.: "A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure
Readings", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1961), 803-805; Trans. AIME, 222.

5-9. Dietz D.N.: "Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure From Build-Up
Surveys", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1965), 955-959



References






- 218 -

5-10. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.:"Estimating Drainage Shapes From Reservoir Limit
Tests", J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1971), 1266-1268; Trans. AIME, 251

5-11. 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.

5-12. 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. 22-25, 1985.

5-13. Cinco, L.H., Samaniego, V.F. and Dominguez, A.N.: "Unsteady-State 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. 3-6, 1976.

5-14. Abbaszadeh, M.D. and Cinco-Ley, H. :"Pressure Transient Behavior in a
Reservoir With a Finite-Conductivity Fault", SPEFE, (March 1995) 26-32.



Chapter 6

6-1. Carter R.D.: "Pressure Behavior of a Limited Circular Composite
Reservoir," Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Dec. 1966, 328-334; Trans., AIME, 237.

6-2. 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. 21-24, 1980

6-3. Olarewaju, J.S. and Lee, W.J.: "A Comprehensive Application of a
Composite Reservoir Model to Pressure-Transient Analysis", SPE-RE, Aug.
1989, 325-231.

6-4. Abbaszadeh, M. and Kamal, M.M. :"Pressure-Transient Testing of Water-
Injection Wells", SPE-RE, Feb. 1989, 115-124.

6-5. 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. 27-30, 1987.

6-6. Kuchuk, F.J. and Habashy, T.M. :"Pressure Behavior of Laterally
Composite Reservoir", SPEFE, (March 1997) 47-564.

6-7. 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. 22-25, 1995.

6-8. Oliver, D.S.: "The Averaging Process in Permeability Estimation From
Well-Test Data," SPEFE, (Sept. 1990) 319-324.





References



- 219 -


Chapter 7

7-1. 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. 1-3, 1978.

7-2. Gao, C-T.: "Single-Phase Fluid Flow in a Stratified Porous Medium With
Crossflow, SPEJ, Feb. 1984, 97-106.

7-3. Wijesinghe, A.M. and Culham, W.E.: "Single-Well 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. 16-19, 1984.

7-4. Bourdet, D.: "Pressure Behavior of Layered Reservoirs with Crossflow",
paper S.P.E. 13628, presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, CA, March. 27-29, 1985.

7-5. Prijambodo, R., Raghavan, R. and Reynolds, A.C.: "Well Test Analysis for
Wells Producing Layered Reservoirs With Crossflow", SPEJ, June 1985, 380-
396.

7-6. Ehlig-Economides, 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. 22-25,
1985.

7-7. Larsen, L.: "Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to
Analyze Pressure-Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs", paper S.P.E.
18122, presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX, Oct. 2-5,
1988.

7-8. Larsen, L. : "Boundary Effects in Pressure-Transient Data From Layered
Reservoirs", paper S.P.E. 19797, presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting,
San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11, 1989.

7-9. 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. 8-11, 1989.

7-10. Chen, H-Y, 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. 23-26, 1990.

7-11. Liu, C-q. and Wang, X-D.: "Transient 2D Flow in Layered Reservoirs With
Crossflow", SPE-FE, Dec. 1993, 287-291.




References






- 220 -
7-12. 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. 29-31, 1994.

7-13. 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. 6-9, 1996.

7-14. 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. 5-7, 1981.

7-15. Agarwal, B., Chen, H-Y. 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. 4-7, 1992.

7-16. Aly, A., Chen, H.Y. and Lee, W.J.: "A New Technique for Analysis of
Wellbore Pressure From Multi-Layered Reservoirs With Unequal Initial
Pressures To Determine Individual Layer Properties", paper SPE 29176,
presented at the Eastern Regional Conference, Charleston, WV, Nov. 8-10,
1994.

7-17. 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) 264-271.

7-18. Chen, H-Y., 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. 3-6, 1993.



Chapter 8

8-1. Theis, C.V.: "The Relation Between the Lowering of the Piezometric
Surface and the Rate and Duration of Discharge of a Well Using Ground-Water
Storage," Trans., AGU (1935), 519-524.

8-2. Tiab, D. and Kumar, A.:”Application of the p’
D
Function to Interference
Analysis,” J. Pet. Tech. (Aug., 1980), 1465-1470.

8-3. Jargon, J.R.:" Effect of Wellbore storage and Wellbore Damage at the
Active Well on Interference Test Analysis," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1976) 851-858.

8-4. 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. 16-19, 1984.

8-5. Papadopulos, I.S.: "Nonsteady Flow to a Well in an Infinite Anisotropic
Aquifer," Proc. 1965 Dubrovnik Symposium on Hydrology of Fractured Rocks




References



- 221 -

8-6. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Interference Analysis for Anisotropic Formations-A Case
History," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1975) 1290-98; Trans., AIME, 259.

8-7. 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. 22-25, 1982.

8-8. 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 2-4, 1995.

8-9. Satman, A. et Al.: "An Analytical Study of Interference in Composite
Reservoirs," Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Apr. 1985, 281-290.

8-10. Chu, L. and Grader, A.S.: "Transient Pressure Analysis of Three Wells in a
Three-Composite Reservoir," paper SPE 22716, presented at the 66th Annual
Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX., Oct. 6-9, 1991.

8-11. Chu, W.C. and Raghavan, R.: "The Effect of Noncommunicating Layers on
Interference Test Data," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1981) 370-382.

8-12. Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "Interference Testing of a Two-Layers
Commingled Reservoir," SPEFE. (Dec. 1989) 595-603.

8-13. Brigham, W.E.: "Planning and Analysis of Pulse-Tests," J. Pet. Tech. (May
1970) 618-624; Trans., AIME, 249

8-14. Kamal, M. and Brigham, W.E.: "Pulse-Testing Response for Unequal Pulse
and Shut-In Periods," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1975) 399-410; Trans., AIME, 259

8-15. Kamal, M.: "Interference and Pulse Testing - A Review," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec.
1983) 2257-70



Chapter 9

9-1. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr. and Crawford. P. B.:"The Flow of Real
Gases Through Porous Media", J. Pet. Tech. (May 1966), 624-636; Trans.
AIME, 237

9-2. Al-Hussainy, 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

9-3. Agarwal, R.G.:"Real Gas Pseudo-Time - A New Function for Pressure
Build-up Analysis of MHF Gas Wells", paper S.P.E. 8279, presented at the
54th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 23-26, 1979.




References






- 222 -
9-4. Houpeurt A.:"On the Flow of Gas in Porous Medias", Revue de l'Institut
Français du Pétrole, 1959, XIV (11), 1468-1684.

9-5. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.:"Gas Well Testing with Turbulence,
Damage and Wellbore Storage", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1968), 877-887.

9-6. "Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells", Energy Resources
Conservation Board, Calgary, Alta., Canada (1975).

9-7. Bourdarot, G.: " Well Testing : Interpretation Methods," Editions Technip,
Institut Français du Pétrole, p. 258.

9-8. Rawlins, E.L. and Schellardt, M.A.:"Back-Pressure Data on Natural-Gas
Wells and Their Application to Production Practices," Monograph 7, USBM
(1936).

9-9. 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,"
McGraw-Hill Book Co.,Inc., New York (1959).

9-10. 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. 22-24, 1996.



Chapter 10

10-1. Stewart, G.: "Future Developments In Well Test Analysis: Introduction of
Geology", Hart's Petroleum Engineer International (Sept. 1997), 73-76.

10-2. Larsen, L.: "Boundary Effects in Pressure-Transient Data From Layered
Reservoirs,". paper S.P.E. 19797, presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting,
San Antonio, Tex., Oct. 8-11, 1989.

10-3. Joseph, J., Bocock, A., Nai-Fu, F. and Gui, L.T.: "A Study of Pressure
Transient Behavior in Bounded Two-Layered Reservoirs: Shengli Field,
China", paper SPE 15418, presented at the 61st Annual Fall Meeting, New
Orleans, LA, Oct. 5-8, 1986.

10-4. Bourgeois, M.J., Daviau, F.H. and Boutaud de la Combe, J-L. : "Pressure
Behavior in Finite Channel-Levee Complexes", SPEFE, (Sept. 1996) 177-183.



Chapter 11

11-1. Al-Ghamdi, 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 27-29, 1994.





References



- 223 -
11-2. Larsen, L.: "Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to
Analyze Pressure-Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs", paper S.P.E.
18122, presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX, Oct. 2-5,
1988.

11-3. Poon, D.C.C. :"Pressure Transient Analysis of a Composite Reservoir With
Uniform Fracture Distribution," paper SPE 13384 available at SPE,
Richardson, TX.

11-4. Satman, A.: "Pressure-Transient Analysis of a Composite Naturally
Fractured Reservoir," SPE-FE, June 1991, 169-175.

11-5. Kikani, J. and Walkup, G.W.: "Analysis of Pressure-Transient Tests for
Composite Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," SPE-FE, June 1991, 176-182.

11-6. 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.
27-30, 1987.



Chapter 12

12-1. Ramey, H.J. Jr., Agarwal, R.G. and Martin, I.: "Analysis of 'Slug Test' or
DST Flow Period Data," J. Cdn. Pet; Tech. (July-Sept.. 1975) 14, 37.

12-2. 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. 27-30, 1987.

12-3. Peres, A.M.M., Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "A New General Pressure-
Analysis Procedure for Slug Tests," SPEFE. (Dec. 1993) 292-98.

12-4. Ayoub, J.A., Bourdet, D.P. and Chauvel, Y.L.: "Impulse Testing," SPEFE.
(Sept. 1988) 534-46; Trans., AIME, 285

12-5. Cinco-Ley, 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. 5-8, 1986.

12-6. 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.

12-7. Bourdet D. and Alagoa A.: "New Method Enhances Well Test
Interpretation," World Oil ( Sept, 1984).

12-8. Jacob, C.E. and Lohman, S.W.: "Nonsteady Flow to a Well of Constant
Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer," Trans., AGU (Aug. 1952) 559-569.




References






- 224 -
12-9. Uraiet, A.A. and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady Flow to a Well Producing at a
Constant Pressure". J. Pet. Tech., Oct. 1980, 1803-1812.

12-10. Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Pressure Buildup for Wells
Produced at Constant Pressure". SPEJ, Feb. 1981, 105-114.




Chapter 13

13-1. Perrine, R.L.:"Analysis of Pressure Build-up Curves", Drill. and Prod. Prac.,
API (1956), 482-509.

13-2. Martin, J.C.:"Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reservoirs and the
Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analyses," Trans.,
AIME (1959) 216, 309-311.

13-3. 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.

13-4. Raghavan, R.: "Well Test Analysis: Wells Producing by Solution Gas Drive
Wells," SPEJ, (Aug. 1976) 196-208; trans., AIME, 261.

13-5. Al-Khalifah, 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. 27-30, 1987.

13-6. Weller, W.T.:"Reservoir Performance During Two-Phase Flow," J. Pet.
tech. (Feb. 1966) 240-246; Trans., AIME, Vol 240.

13-7. Raghavan, R.: "Well Test Analysis for Multiphase Flow" SPEFE,
(Dec.1989) 585-594

13-8. Jones, J.R. and Raghavan, R.: "Interpretation of Flowing Well Responses in
Gas-Condensate Wells" SPEFE, (Sep.1988) 578-594.

13-9. Jones, J.R., Vo, D.T. and Raghavan, R.: "Interpretation of Pressure Build-up
Responses in Gas-Condensate Wells" SPEFE, (March 1989) 93-104.


5-4 5-5 5-6 5-7

CLOSED SYSTEM ..................................................................................................................... 104 CONSTANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY ........................................................................................... 111 COMMUNICATING FAULT......................................................................................................... 113 PREDICTING DERIVATIVE SHAPES .............................................................................................117

6 - COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS....................................................................................... 119 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 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 7-4 COMMINGLED SYSTEMS: LAYERED RESERVOIRS WITHOUT CROSSFLOW ...................................133 8 - INTERFERENCE TESTS ............................................................................................................. 135 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-4 8-5 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 7-1 7-2 7-3

9 - GAS WELLS................................................................................................................................... 149 9-1 9-2 9-3 GAS PROPERTIES ..................................................................................................................... 149 TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF GAS WELL TESTS .............................................................................. 150 DELIVERABILITY TESTS ............................................................................................................154

10 - BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS ........................................................ 159 10-1 10-2 10-3 BOUNDARIES IN FISSURED RESERVOIRS............................................................................... 159 BOUNDARIES IN LAYERED RESERVOIRS ............................................................................... 160 COMPOSITE CHANNEL RESERVOIRS ......................................................................................162

11 - COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES ................................................................. 165 11-1 11-2 11-3 FISSURED-LAYERED RESERVOIRS ........................................................................................ 165 FISSURED RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIRS......................................................................... 166 LAYERED RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIRS..........................................................................167

12 - OTHER TESTING METHODS.................................................................................................. 169 12-1 12-2 12-3 12-4 12-5 DRILLSTEM TEST ................................................................................................................. 169 IMPULSE TEST ..................................................................................................................... 172 RATE DECONVOLUTION ....................................................................................................... 173 CONSTANT PRESSURE TEST (RATE DECLINE ANALYSIS) ....................................................... 174 VERTICAL INTERFERENCE TEST ............................................................................................175

13 - MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS .................................................................................................. 179 13-1 13-2 PERRINE METHOD ............................................................................................................... 179 OTHER METHODS .................................................................................................................180

14 - TEST DESIGN ............................................................................................................................. 183 14-1 14-2 14-3 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 183 TEST SIMULATION ............................................................................................................... 183 TEST DESIGN REPORTING AND TEST SUPERVISION ................................................................184

15 - FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST ANALYSIS....................................................... 185 15-1 15-2 15-3 15-4 15-5 15-6 15-7 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 16-1 16-2 INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE ............................................................................................ 193 REPORTING AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS .......................................................................203

APPENDIX - ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS..................................................................................... 205 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 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

1-1 Introduction
1-1.1 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 down-hole. 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 shut-in, the build-up pressure change ∆p is estimated from the last flowing pressure p(∆t=0) :

( 1-1)

∆p= p(t)− p(∆t =0) (psi, Bars)
pi Pressure, p ∆t Dd ∆p Dd p(∆t=0) ∆t BU ∆p BU

( 1-2)

Rate, q

drawdown Time, t

build-up

Figure 1-1 Drawdown and build-up test sequence.

The pressure response is analyzed versus the elapsed time ∆t since the start of the period (time of opening or shut-in).

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-

Chapter 1 . monitoring of the average reservoir pressure are some usual objectives of development well testing. As the investigated reservoir volume is relatively large. initial pressure (RFT. change of characteristics) • Boundaries (distance and shape) • Pressure (initial pi and average p ) Well description : • Production potential (productivity index PI.) Development well : On producing wells. such as workover. heterogeneities. reservoir properties.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 quality of the communication between the well and the reservoir indicates the possibility to improve the well productivity. Reservoir description : • Permeability (horizontal k and vertical kv) • Reservoir heterogeneities (natural fractures. Information obtained from well testing Well test responses characterize the ability of the fluid to flow through the reservoir and to the well. changes of productivity and rate of decrease of the average reservoir pressure can be established. reservoir boundaries etc. skin factor S) • Well geometry By comparing the result of routine tests. bottom hole sampling. well testing is used to confirm the exploration hypothesis and to establish a first production forecast: nature and rate of produced fluids. Appraisal well : The previous well and reservoir description can be refined (well productivity. periodic tests are made to adjust the reservoir description and to evaluate the need of a well treatment. Tests provide a description of the reservoir in dynamic conditions. the estimated parameters are average values. drainage mechanism. as opposed to geological and log data. layering.Principles of transient testing operating scenarios. 1-1. Communication between wells (interference testing). MDT). Exploration well : On initial wells. perforation strategy etc. -2- . This is a typical inverse problem (S=O/I).

horizontal etc. It implies an identification process.Chapter 1 . until the model behavior O is identical to the behavior of S. Additional data can be useful in some cases : production log. Bars-1) ( 1-3) The reservoir and fluid parameters are used for calculation of the results. they may always be changed or adjusted if needed. compressibility of oil co. Input data required for well test analysis • Test data : flow rate (complete sequence of events. bubble point pressure etc. porosity φ.). gauges). -3- . depths (formation. General information obtained from geologist and geophysicists are required to validate the well test interpretation results. Layered reservoirs for example frequently show a homogeneous behavior during tests. Well test interpretation models are often different from the geological or log models. • Well data : wellbore radius rw. Analytical solutions are used to generate pressure responses to a specific production rate history I.Principles of transient testing I input S system O output As opposed to the direct problem (O=IxS). due to the averaging of the reservoir properties. the solution of the inverse problem is usually not unique. water cw and formation cf. After the interpretation model has been selected. • Reservoir and fluid parameters : formation thickness h (net). including any operational problem) and bottom hole pressure as a function of time. 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. bounded or infinite). gradient surveys. The different compressibility's are used to define the total system compressibility ct : ct =co(1−Sw)+cwSw+c f (psi-1. water saturation Sw. well geometry (inclined. oil viscosity µ and formation volume factor B. they only define the behavior (homogeneous or heterogeneous.

Well completion • Production test : the well is completed as a production well (cased hole and permanent completion). Isochronal and Modified Isochronal tests. • Injection test / fall-off test : when fluid is injected into the reservoir. it drops during the fall-off period. the well must have been flowing long enough to reach stabilized rate. the well should be producing at constant rate but in practice. • Build-up test : the increase of bottom hole pressure after shut-in is used for analysis. Oil well. Pressure. Before the build-up test. The usual procedures are Back Pressure test (Flow after Flow). Interference tests are designed to evaluate communication between wells. The properties of the injected fluid are in general different from that of the reservoir fluid. the bottom hole pressure increases and. • Gas well test : specific testing methods are used to evaluate the deliverability of gas wells (Absolute Open Flow Potential. drawdown data is erratic.Principles of transient testing 1-1. p Rate. after shut-in. During shut-in periods.Chapter 1 . • Interference test and pulse test : the bottom hole pressure is monitored in a shut-in observation well some distance away from the producer. Frequently the well is cased but DST can be made also in open -4- . the resulting pressure oscillations in the observation well are analyzed.3 Types of tests Test procedure • Drawdown test : the flowing bottom hole pressure is used for analysis. With pulse tests. the active well is produced with a series of short flow / shut-in periods. AOFP) and the possibility of nonDarcy flow condition (rate dependent skin factor S'). t Figure 1.2 Typical test sequence. q Initial shut-in Clean Variable up rate Build-up Stabilized rate Time. the flow rate is accurately controlled (zero). and the analysis is frequently inaccurate. Ideally. • Drill stem test (DST) : the well is completed temporarily with a down-hole shut-in valve.

A mist extractor is located before the gas outlet. Heaters are also used in case of high viscosity oil. The drill stem testing procedure is used only for relatively short tests. • Test separator : In a three phases test separator.Chapter 1 . pumping in the well. The downstream pressure must be less than half the upstream pressure. the gas line with an orifice meter. • Choke manifold : is used to control the rate by flowing the well through a calibrated orifice.3 Onshore DST test string. • Heater : Heating the effluent may be necessary to prevent hydrate formation in high-pressure gas wells (the temperature is reduced after the gas expansion through the choke). The drill string is not used any more. The oil and water phases are separated by gravity. the effluent hits several plates in order to separate the gas from the liquid phase. wire line operation etc. Flowh ead B OP S tack Casing Tu bing Tes t tool P ack er Figure 1. A system of twin valves allows to change the choke (positive and adjustable chokes) without shutting in the well. Surface samples are taken at the separator oil and gas lines for further recombination in laboratory. The oil and water lines are equipped with positive displacement metering devices.4 Well testing equipment Surface equipment • Flow head : is equipped with several valves to allow flowing. The Emergency Shut Down is a fail-safe system to close the wing valve remotely. and production tubing is employed.Principles of transient testing hole. The wellhead working pressure should be greater than the well shut-in pressure. -5- . 1-1.

A sample of reservoir fluid can be taken when the tester valve is closed. Onshore. • Oil and gas disposal : The oil rate can be measured with a gauge tank (or a surge tank in case of H2S). Oil and gas are frequently burned. the well is produced at low rate. Several types of down hole valve are available. two burners are available on the rig for wind constraint. During sampling.1). No bottom hole pressure is available until the gauge is pulled to surface. the pressure response is representative of the reservoir behavior earlier than in case of surface shut-in (see wellbore storage effect in Section 1-2. Compressed air and water are injected together with the hydrocarbon fluids to prevent black smoke production and oil drop out.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. The gauge can be suspended down hole on a wireline.4 Surface set up. a flare pit is installed at a safe distance from the well. a surface read out system allows to monitor the test in real time. • Bottom hole sampler : Fluid samples can also be taken with a wire line bottom hole sampler. or hung off on a seating nipple. -6- . and to adjust the duration of the shut-in periods. rotation or annular pressure. operated by translation. Offshore. With a cable. the gauges are battery powered and the pressure data is stored in the gauge memory. When they are not connected to the surface with a cable. Downhole equipment • Pressure gauges : Electronic gauges are used to measure the bottom hole pressure versus time.Chapter 1 . • Down hole valve : By closing the well down hole. DST are generally short tests.

the wellbore storage effect is called afterflow. For a shut-in period. After any change of surface rate. fluid contacts (oil–water OWC and gas–oil GOC) are located. 1-2 Definitions & typical regimes 1-2. 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. there is a time lag between the surface production and the sand face rate. From the pressure versus depth data. Pressure profile rw r pi pw Figure 1-5 Wellbore storage effect. Pressure distribution. the production at surface is first due to the expansion of the fluid in the wellbore. MDT :The Repeat Formation Tester and the Modular Formation Dynamics Tester are open hole wire line tools. and the reservoir contribution is negligible.Principles of transient testing • RFT.1 Wellbore storage When a well is opened. They are primary used to measure the vertical changes of reservoir pressure (pressure gradient). -7- .Chapter 1 . and to take bottom hole samples. communication or presence of sealing boundaries between layers can be established.

m WB S -8- .Chapter 1 . intercepting the origin. At early time. ∆t Figure 1-7 Wellbore storage effect. ∆V = Vu ∆h and ρ : liquid density (lb/cu ft. ∆p Elapsed time. q Pressure. with ∆p = ρ g ∆h . m3/m) ( 1-4) C =144 Vu (Bbl/psi) ρ (g gc) Vu (m3/Bars) ρ (g gc) ( 1-5) C =10197 Pressure change. t Figure 1-6 Wellbore storage effect. Specialized analysis on a linear scale. m3) When there is a liquid level. Wellbore storage coefficient For a well full of a single phase fluid. Bars -1) Vw : wellbore volume (Bbl. the response follows a straight line of slope mWBS. C =− ∆V =coVw (Bbl/psi. Specialized analysis Plot of the pressure change ∆p versus the elapsed time ∆t time on a linear scale. kgf / kgm) Vu : wellbore volume per unit length (Bbl/ft. p q surface q sand face Time. kg/m3) g/gc : gravitational acceleration (lbf / lbm. Sand face and surface rates.Principles of transient testing Rate. m3/Bars) ∆p where : co : liquid compressibility (psi-1.

the flow-lines converge radially towards the well. p pi rw ri r pwf(S=0) pwf(S>0) ∆p skin S>0 Figure 1-9 Radial flow regime. the pressure is a function of the time and the distance to the well. Pressure profile p pi rw ri r S=0 pwf Figure 1-8 Radial flow regime. m3/Bars) 24 m WBS ( 1-7) 1-2. -9- . Bars) 24C ( 1-6) Result : wellbore storage coefficient C. Zero skin. C= qB (Bbl/psi. skin (homogeneous behavior) When the reservoir production is established. Pressure distribution. Pressure distribution.2 Radial flow regime. positive skin factor.Chapter 1 . Damaged well. In the reservoir.Principles of transient testing ∆p= qB ∆t (psi.

partial penetration) or invaded zone • Stimulated well (S < 0) : surface of contact between the well and the reservoir increased (fracture. S = 0 = p w. S 141. metric units) ( 1-9) ln ln kS h rw kh rw The skin is expressed :  k  r S= − 1 ln S  kS  rw Equivalent wellbore radius : ( 1-10) rwe = rw e − S (ft. m) ( 1-11) . Pressure distribution.2qBµ kh S= ∆pSkin (metric units) 18.10 - .Principles of transient testing p pi pwf(S<0) pwf(S=0) ∆p skin rw ri r S<0 Figure 1-10 Radial flow regime.66qBµ rS − p w. horizontal well) or acid stimulated zone Steady state flow in the circular zone : k ks rw rs p w. S = 0 = − (Bars. kh ∆pSkin (field units) 141.66qBµ rS 18.2qBµ rS 141. Skin The skin is a dimensionless parameter.66qBµ S= ( 1-8) • Damaged well (S > 0) : poor contact between the well and the reservoir (mudcake.Chapter 1 .2qBµ rS (psi. It characterizes the well condition : for a damaged well S > 0. and for a stimulated well S < 0. field units) ln − ln kS h rw kh rw 18. Stimulated well. insufficient perforation density. S − p w . negative skin factor.

Pressure change. Semi-log straight line of slope m : ∆p = 162. field units) log ∆t + log 2 kh  φ µ ct rw   qBµ  k − 3. and the four test responses are compared on linear and semi-log scales.10  (metric units) 2   m φµ c t rw   ( 1-14) 1-2.Principles of transient testing Specialized analysis For homogeneous reservoirs.5 Results:  k qBµ  − 3.87 S  (Bars.151 1 hr − log + 3. .6 ∆p = 21. ∆p m ∆p(1hr) Log ∆t Figure 1-11 Radial flow regime. metric units)( 1-12) log ∆t + log 2 kh  φ µ c t rw    qBµ (mD. metric units) kh = 21.Chapter 1 . and to the skin coefficient S. + 3. Specialized analysis on semi-log scale.23 + 0.5 m kh = 162.23 (field units) 2 φµ ct rw  m    ∆p k S = 1.m. a pressure versus time semi-log straight line describes the radial flow regime. The analysis gives access to the reservoir permeability thickness product kh.6 ( 1-13)  ∆p  k S = 1151 1 hr − log .11 - .87 S  (psi.ft. two wells A and B are tested twice with the same rate sequence. field units) m qBµ (mD.10 + 0.3 Examples of infinite acting radial flow behaviors In the following examples.

13.12 Test history plot well A (low permeability). For each well.13 Test history plot well B (higher permeability). During one test the skin is moderate with S=6. and higher during the other test (last flowing pressure of 5500psi before shut-in). the flowing pressure is low during one test (the last flowing pressure is 3200 psi before shut-in).12 - . psi no skin 4000 moderate skin 2000 0 0 10 20 30 40 time. respectively S=25 and S=60 (this large value is relatively exceptional. Well A is in a low permeability reservoir. It suggests a completion problem such as limited entry).Principles of transient testing The two wells have very different characteristics. the pressure drop during drawdown is mainly produced in the reservoir. psi high skin 4000 very high skin 2000 0 0 10 20 30 40 time. . hours Figure 1. and during the other test the well has no skin damage (S=0). 6000 pressure. In the case of well A with low permeability and low skin. hours Figure 1. 6000 pressure. the two wells show apparently a similar behavior.12 and Figure 1. Well B is in a higher permeability reservoir (four times larger than for well A) but the skin factors are large. On the test history plots Figure 1. On semi-log scale. the pressure response is more characteristic of the well and reservoir condition than on the previous linear scale plots.Chapter 1 . and the slope of the semi-log straight line is high.

.01 0. psi moderate skin 2000 1000 ∆ p skin no skin 0 0.15 Semi-log responses for well B. Fracture geometry. hours Figure 1.Chapter 1 .1 1 10 100 time. 1-2.1 1 10 100 time.4 Fractured well (infinite conductivity fracture) : linear flow regime xf Figure 1-16 Fractured well.14 Semi-log responses for well A. hours Figure 1. 3000 pressure change. most of the pressure drop is due to skin damage.001 0.Principles of transient testing 3000 pressure change. and the response tends to be flat with a low semi-log straight-line slope.01 0.13 - . with the higher permeability example of well B. Conversely.001 0. psi very high skin 2000 ∆ p skin 1000 high skin 0 0.

intercepting the origin. field units) ∆t (Bars. ∆t : the ∆p = 4. field units) µ (m. Specialized analysis with the pressure versus the square root of time.623 Pressure change.Principles of transient testing Linear flow regime At early time.14 - . before the radial flow regime is established. ∆p mL F ∆t Figure 1-18 Infinite conductivity fracture. Result : the half fracture length xf x f = 4. This is called linear flow.Chapter 1 . metric units) ( 1-16) . Specialized analysis Plot of the pressure change ∆p versus the square root of elapsed time response follows a straight line of slope mLF.06 x f = 0. Geometry of the flow lines.623 qB φ ct k hmLF qB φ ct k hm LF µ (ft. Figure 1-17 Infinite conductivity fracture. Linear and radial flow regimes.06 qB hx f qB hx f µ φ ct k µ φ ct k ∆t (psi. the flow-lines are perpendicular to the fracture plane. metric units) ( 1-15) ∆p = 0.

28 qBµ h k f w 4 φ µ ct k qBµ 4 ∆t (psi. ∆p m BLF 4 ∆t Figure 1-20 Finite conductivity fracture.11 ∆p = 6. metric units) ( 1-18) .Principles of transient testing 1-2.15 - . Specialized analysis Plot of the pressure change ∆p versus the fourth root of elapsed time straight line of slope mBLF.5 Fractured well (finite conductivity fracture) : bi-linear flow regime Bilinear flow regime wf kf Figure 1-19 Finite conductivity fracture. This configuration is called bilinear flow regime.m.Chapter 1 . a second linear flow regime is established along the fracture extension. field units) (mD. Result : the fracture conductivity kfwf 1  qBµ  k f w f = 1944. Specialized analysis with the pressure versus the fourth root of time. intercepting the origin.8 φµ c t k  hm BLF  1  qBµ  k f w f = 39.ft. 4 ∆t : ∆p = 44. Geometry of the flow lines during the bi-linear flow regime. field units) ∆t (Bars. metric units) ( 1-17) 4 h k f wf 4 φµ c t k Pressure change. When the pressure drop in the fracture plane is not negligible.46 φµ ct k  hm BLF          2 2 (mD.

spherical and radial flow regimes. 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 .3 3 2 k S rS k S ∆t (psi.9qBµ  mSPH  S m SP H 1 ∆t     23 (mD. kV kH kH hw h Figure 1-21 Well in partial penetration. Result : the spherical permeability ks  φµ ct k S =  2452. The ∆p = 70. Geometry of the flow lines. field units) .6 Well in partial penetration : spherical flow regime Spherical flow regime Spherical flow can be observed in wells in partial penetration. metric units) ( 1-19) Figure 1-22 Well in partial penetration.9 3 2 k S rS k S ∆t qBµ φµ c t qBµ − 279. Radial.33 Pressure change.6 ∆p = 9. ∆p qBµ φ µ ct qBµ − 2452. Later. before the top and bottom boundaries are reached.Chapter 1 .16 - . Specialized analysis with the pressure versus 1/ the square root of time. field units) (Bars. the flow becomes radial.Principles of transient testing 1-2.

Chapter 1 . and the pressure response deviates from the standard homogeneous behavior.7 Fissured reservoir (double porosity behavior) In fissured reservoirs. First. the fissure network and the matrix blocks react at a different time. . The fissure system homogeneous behavior is seen. Pressure profile p pi rw pm ri r pf pwf Figure 1-23 Double porosity behavior. metric units) ( 1-20) The permeability anisotropy is expressed with : kH  kH  =  kV  k s  3 ( 1-21) 1-2.Principles of transient testing  φµ c t k S =  279. Pressure distribution.3qBµ  mSPH      23 (mD. the matrix blocks production is negligible. Fissure system homogeneous regime.17 - .

Principles of transient testing pi p r w ri r pwf pm > pf Figure 1-24 Double porosity behavior. the pressure deviates from the homogeneous behavior to follow a transition regime. Pressure distribution. When the pressure equalizes between fissures and matrix blocks. Total system homogeneous regime (fissures + matrix). Pressure distribution. pi p r w ri r pm = pf pwf Figure 1-25 Double porosity behavior.Chapter 1 . the homogeneous behavior of the total system (fissure and matrix) is reached. Transition regime. When the matrix blocks start to produce into the fissures.18 - . .

Principles of transient testing 1-2. Pressure profile at time t1. Infinite reservoir behavior. The fault is reached.Chapter 1 . The fault is not reached. Start of boundary effect. the pressure response deviates from the usual infinite acting behavior after some production time. and it is seen at the well. . Pressure profile at time t3. p pi rw L r ri pwf Figure 1-28 One sealing fault. infinite reservoir behavior. but it is not seen at the well. The fault is reached.8 Limited reservoir (one sealing fault) When one sealing fault is present near the producing well. Pressure profile at time t2.19 - . Pressure profile p pi rw ri L r pwf Figure 1-26 One sealing fault. p pi rw L ri r pwf Figure 1-27 One sealing fault.

Specialized analysis A second semi-log straight line with a slope double (2m). Specialized analysis on semi-log scale. 2m m Pressure change. t1 : the fault is not reached. Drainage radius. Result : the fault distance L. ∆p Log ∆t Figure 1-31 One sealing fault. Pressure profile at time t4.Principles of transient testing p pi rw L r ri pwf Figure 1-29 One sealing fault. The fault is reached. Hemi-radial flow. transition t4 : hemi-radial flow Figure 1-30 One sealing fault. and it is seen at the well. The time intersect ∆tx between the two lines is used to estimate the fault distance L: . radial flow t2 : the fault is reached t3 : the fault is seen at the well.Chapter 1 .20 - .

Time t2: boundaries reached.21 - .Chapter 1 . the pressure profile expands around the well during the production (and the well bottom hole pressure drops). ri (t1) Re p pi rw t1 ri (t1) t2 t3 ri (t2) = Re r t4 Infinite acting pwf Pseudo Steady State Figure 1-32 Circular closed reservoir.Principles of transient testing L = 0. field units) φµ ct k∆t x (m. Time t1: the boundaries are not reached. end of infinite reservoir behavior. the pressure profile drops.0141 k∆t x (ft.9 Closed reservoir In closed reservoir. Times t3 and t4: pseudo steady state regime. the flow changes to Pseudo Steady State : the pressure decline is proportional to time.01217 L = 0. all boundaries have been reached and the pressure profile drops (but its shape remains constant with time). . Pressure profile As long as the reservoir is infinite acting. During the pseudo steady state regime. metric units) φµ c t ( 1-22) 1-2. when all boundaries have been reached. infinite reservoir behavior: the pressure profile expands. Pressure profiles.

234  qB qBµ  A ∆t + 162.351 + 0.Chapter 1 .87 S  (Bars. Result : the reservoir pore volume φ hA. Closed system. metric units) ct m * φ hA = 0.22 - .0417 (m3.0417 units) pi Pressure. a straight line of slope m* characterizes the Pseudo Steady State regime: ∆p = 0.234 ( 1-24) During shut-in. .5 log 2 − log(C A ) + 0.10 Interference test Pressure profile With interference tests.87 S  (psi. the amplitude of the response is small.Principles of transient testing Specialized analysis During drawdown.33 Drawdown and build-up pressure response. t Figure 1. field units) φ ct hA kh  rw   qB qBµ  A ∆t + 21. the pressure is monitored in an observation well at distance r from the producer. p ppseudo ste ady state slope m* Time. metric φ c t hA kh  rw    ( 1-23) ∆p = 0. 1-2.6 log 2 − log( C A ) + 0. The pressure signal is observed with a delay. qB (cu ft. plot of the pressure versus elapsed time ∆t on a linear scale. Linear scale. the pressure stabilizes to the average reservoir pressure p ( < pi ) . field units) ct m * qB φ hA = 0. At late time.351 + 0.

to access the corresponding well or reservoir parameter. ∆t . the pressure follows a well-defined time function: log ∆t . linear. Response of a producing and an observation well.Chapter 1 . . By identification of the characteristic pressure behaviors present on the response.Principles of transient testing 5000 pi Observation well Pressure (psia) 4500 Producing well 4000 3500 0 100 200 Time (hours) 300 400 500 Figure 1-34 Interference test. Linear scale. 1 ∆t etc. the chronology and time limits of the different flow regime are established. Producing well Observation well p pi rw ri r pwf Figure 1-35 Interference test. A complete well response is defined as a sequence of regimes. defining the interpretation model. spherical etc. 1-2.23 - . For each flow regime. A straight line can be drawn on a specialized pressure versus time plot.11 Well responses A limited number of flow line geometries produce a characteristic pressure behavior: radial. Pressure distribution.

Chapter 1 . metric units) PI =   k 21. m3/D/Bars) ( 1-26) During the infinite acting period p ≈ pi . the Transient Productivity Index is decreasing with time. PI (S=0) = ( p − pwf ) − ∆pskin q (Bbl/D/psi. Linear Figure 1. the sequence of regimes is : 1.   k 162.12 Productivity Index The Productivity Index is the ratio of the flow rate by the drawdown pressure drop. expressed from the average reservoir pressure p .23 + 0. field units) ( 1-27) . Linear (1) 2. Radial (2) (1) 2.37 Example of a well in a channel reservoir. 1-2.24 - PI = kh (Bbl/D/psi.87 S    2 φµ ct rw   kh (m3/D/Bars.36 Fractured well example. PI = ( p − pwf ) q (Bbl/D/psi.Principles of transient testing For a fractured well for example.10 + 0. m3/D/Bars) ( 1-25) The Ideal Productivity Index defines the productivity if the skin of the well is zero.5Bµ  log ∆t + log − 3. Radial (2) Figure 1.87 S  2   φµ ct rw   . In the case of a well in a channel reservoir : 1.6 Bµ  log ∆t + log − 3.

13 Pressure profile and Radius of Investigation The Exponential Integral of Equation A-16 defines the pressure as a function of time and distance : φµ ct r 2  141.6 Bµ  log   2 rw   kh (Bbl/D/psi.25 - . metric units) ( 1-30) kh ∆p( ∆t . 162. Ei(− x ) =− ln (γ x ) : the Exponential Integral can be approximated by a log (with γ = 1.0001423k∆t  kh   For small x. metric units) ( 1-28) 1-2. 1-12 corresponds to Eq. When presented versus log(r). metric units) ( 1-29) ∆p (∆t . field units) PI =   A 21. field units) kh 21.87 S  162.87 S    rw   (m3/D/Bars.Principles of transient testing The Pseudo Steady State Productivity Index is a constant PI = kh   A − log( C A ) + 0.6∆qBµ log 0. the pressure profile at a given time is a straight line until the distance becomes too large for the logarithm approximation of the .001056k ∆t  kh   2  φ µ ct r 18.Chapter 1 . field units) − Ei ∆p (∆t . r ) =− 0.351 + 0.5 0. r ) = log 0.5 Ei −  0.78.000264 k ∆t φµ ct r 2 + 0.5qBµ ∆p (∆t . Euler's constant).809 (Bars.2qBµ   (psi.66qBµ   (Bars.351 + 0. r ) = [ ( [ ( ) ) ] ] (The semi-log straight line Eq.809 (psi. p pi Log r t1 pwf t2 t3 t4 Figure 1-38 Pressure profile versus the log of the distance to the well. 1-30 for r=rw).000356k ∆t φµ ct r 2 + 0.5Bµ  log 2 − log(C A ) + 0. r ) =− 0.

that cannot be observed during the test period.Principles of transient testing Exponential Integral. metric units) (the radius of investigation is independent of the rate).000356k ∆t φµ c r ) = 1 or = γ1 4 2 t i 2 t i 2 (field units) (metric units) 2 ( 1-31) 2 (in dimensionless terms of Equation 2. The radius of investigation ri is sometimes viewed as the minimum distance of any event.034 k∆t φµct (m.032 k∆t φµ ct (ft. field units) ri = 0. With the sealing fault example of Figure 1-30. and tends asymptotically towards the initial pressure. in general ri is defined with one of the two relationships : 1 (0.037 k∆t φµc t (m.000264k ∆t φµ c r ) = 4 or = γ1 (0. for an initial flow period. In practice. 4 γ This gives respectively. the radius of investigation of Equation 1-32 or 1-33 is relatively consistent with the distance estimated by a simulation. For a shut-in periods. metric units) and ( 1-32) ri = 0. The radius of investigation ri tentatively describes the distance that the pressure transient has moved into the formation. ri = 0. t D riD = 1 1 2 or t D riD = 2 ). the pressure transient reaches the fault 4 times earlier the boundary can be observed on the producing well pressure behavior. Beyond this limit.4 or 8-2.029 k∆t φµ ct (ft. Equations 1-32 and 1-33 are not always accurate. ( 1-33) . such as a reservoir limit. field units) ri = 0.Chapter 1 . the profile flattens. Several definitions have been proposed. when a boundary effect is introduced at the end of the test period.26 - .

.. The scale expands the response at early time. psi 100 10-1 10-3 (3. the amplitude of the response ∆p is doubled also. log pD = log A + log ∆p log t D = log B + log ∆t ( 2-2) The log-log analysis is global : it considers the full period. {B = g( k . .. pD = A ∆p. With the log-log scale..2 . 102 101 ∆P. 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). hr Figure 2-1 Log-log scale. S .6 sec) 10-2 (36 sec) 10-1 (6 mn) 100 101 102 ∆t.)} ( 2-1) 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.27 - . t D = B ∆t . but the graph of log(∆p) is only be shifted by log(2) along the pressure axis. If the flow rate is doubled for example.THE ANALYSIS METHODS 2-1 Log-log scale For a given period of the test. C.)} { A= f ( kh. the change in pressure ∆p is plotted on log-log scale versus the elapsed time ∆t.. This data plot is then compared to a set of dimensionless theoretical curves.

fluid or rock properties).The analysis methods 2-2 Pressure curves analysis 2-2.Chapter 2 .000264 k ∆t (field units) 2 φµ ct rw 0. kh ∆p (metric units) pD = 18.8936C (field units) 2 φ ct hrw 0.1 Example of pressure type-curve : "Well with wellbore storage and skin.1592C 2 φ c t hrw (metric units) ( 2-5) Dimensionless time group tD kh ∆t = 0.66qBµ ( 2-3) Dimensionless time 0. Dimensionless pressure pD = kh ∆p (field units) 1412qBµ . describing the well damage with the dimensionless skin factor S is much more meaningful than using the actual pressure drop near the wellbore.28 - ( 2-6) . homogeneous reservoir" Dimensionless terms Dimensionless terms are used because they illustrate pressure responses independently of the physical parameters magnitude (such as flowrate.000356k tD = ∆t (metric units) 2 φµ c t rw tD = Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient ( 2-4) CD = CD = 0.00223 CD µ C .000295 (field units) CD µ C tD kh ∆t (metric units) = 0. For example.

CDe(2S) = 1060 to 0.3 CDe2S 1 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. Log-log plot .The analysis methods 1 02 Dimensionless Pressure. ∆t (hours) Figure 2-3 Build-up example. ( 2-7) Log-log matching procedure 103 Pressure change.Chapter 2 . pD Approximate start of semi-log straight line 10 1060 1050 1040 1030 1020 1015 1010 8 10 106 104 103 102 10 3 1 0. homogeneous reservoir. up to 1060 for very damaged wells. ∆p (psi) 102 101 1 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 Elapsed time. Log-log scale.8936C 2 S (field units) e 2 φ ct hrw 0.3 for stimulated wells. Dimensionless curve group 0. It ranges from CD e2S =0. tD/CD Figure 2-2 Pressure type-curve: Well with wellbore storage and skin.29 - .3.1592C 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.

Chapter 2 . field units) kh = 18. metric units) Time match TM = (t D C D ) ∆t : the wellbore storage coefficient ( 2-8) C = 0.2 Shut-in periods Drawdown periods are in general not suitable for analysis because it is difficult to ascertain a constant flowrate. It takes an infinite time to reach the initial pressure during build-up. therefore well controlled.000295 kh  1    (Bbl/psi. The response is distorted.m.66qBµ (PM ) (mD.The analysis methods The log-log data plot ∆p.2qBµ (PM ) (mD. field units) µ  TM  kh  1  3 C = 0. the well shows a pressure drop of ∆p(tp). Example of a shut-in after a single rate drawdown Build-up responses do not show the same behavior as a first drawdown in a reservoir at initial pressure. Results of log-log analysis Pressure match PM = p D ∆p : the permeability thickness product kh = 141. especially with the log-log scale that expands the response at early time.5 ln CD ( 2-10) 2-2. After a drawdown of tp. Build-up responses depend upon the previous rate history. tD /CD. . metric units) µ  TM  ( 2-9) Curve match : the skin C D e 2 S Match S = 0.00223   (m /Bars. ∆t is superimposed on a set of dimensionless type-curves pD.ft.30 - . and to produce a pressure change ∆pBU of amplitude ∆p(tp). 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 2-12). Build-up periods are preferably used : the flowrate is nil.

∆p (∆t) ) pi Pressure. an injection period at -q is superposed to the extended flow period. (∆p (tp+∆t) . q q 0 -q 0 tp Time. For a build-up after a single drawdown at rate q.31 - . Log-log analysis : build-up type curve [p D ( ∆t ) D ]BU = pD ( ∆t ) D − pD t p + ∆t ( ) D + pD t p ( ) D ( 2-11) The pressure build-up curve is compressed on the ∆p axis when ∆t>>tp.The analysis methods pi Pressure. . q q 0 0 tp Time. This is the superposition principle.Chapter 2 . p ∆p (∆t) ∆p (tp+∆t) ∆p (tp) Rate. t ∆t Figure 2-5 History extended drawdown + injection. t tp+∆t Figure 2-4 History drawdown .shut-in. It is possible to add several pressure responses in order to describe the well behavior after any rate change. The diffusivity equation used to generate the well test analysis solutions is linear. p ∆pBU(∆t) ∆p (tp) ∆t BU Rate.

6 p ws t p + ∆t qBµ log (psi. metric units) kh ∆t . pD pD(tpD ) build-up type curve 5 CDe2S drawdown type curve tpD 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless times. tD /CD 103 104 CDe2S drawdown type curve Figure 2-6 Drawdown and build-up type curves (tpD = 2).5 log (Bars. 10 Dimensionless Pressure. the correction compresses the ∆t scale.Chapter 2 .32 - ( 2-13) .23 + 0. metric units) log 2 kh  t p + ∆t φµ ct rw    = 162. Horner method pws = pi − 162. Semi-log analysis : superposition time [∆p(∆t )]BU [∆p(∆t )]BU   t p ∆t k + log − 3. field units) ∆t kh t p + ∆t qBµ = p i − 21.10 + 0.87 S  (psi.87 S  (Bars. tD / CD and [ tpD tD / (tpD + tD) CD ] Figure 2-7 Drawdown and build-up type curves of Figure 2-6 on semi-log scale.The analysis methods 10 2 Dimensionless Pressure.5 + log − 3.6 qBµ kh ( 2-12) With the superposition time. pD pD(tpD ) 10 build-up type curve 1 tpD 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 Dimensionless time. field units) log 2 φ µ ct rw  t p + ∆t     t p ∆t qBµ  k = 21.

6 ( 1-13)  ∆p  tp +1 k S = 1151 1 hr − log . the straight line extrapolates to the initial pressure and p*=pi. metric units) m kh = 162. the multi-rate 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 ( 2-15) n −1 − qn [ ] .151 1 hr − log + log + 3. Horner analysis : • The slope m.  + 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   ( 2-14) In an infinite system. field units) m qBµ kh = 21.ft.23 (field units) 2  tp φµ ct rw  m   ∆p  t p +1 k S = 1.The analysis methods 10 Dimensionless Pressure.Chapter 2 .m.5 (mD. • The pressure at ∆t =1 hour on the straight line • The extrapolated pressure to infinite shut-in time (∆t = ∞): p*. [(tpD + tD) / tD ] Figure 2-8 Horner plot of build-up type curve of Figure 2-6. Multi.rate superposition At time ∆t of flow period # n. Results : qBµ (mD.33 - .

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 2-9 Multi- rate history. Example with 10 periods before shut-in.

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
( 2-16)

Limitations if the time superposition: the sealing fault example

In the following example, the well is produced 50 hours and shut-in for a pressure build-up. A sealing fault is present near the well and, at 100 hours, the flow geometry changes from infinite acting radial flow to hemi-radial flow.

5000 4500 Pressure, psi 4000 3500 Infinite reservoir Sealing fault Radial Hemi-radial

Radial

Hemi-radial

0

50

100

150 Time, hours

200

250

300

Figure 2-10 History drawdown – build-up. Well near a sealing fault.

During the 50 initial hours of the shut-in 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 2-12 or 2-13 is applicable, and the Horner method is accurate. At intermediate shut-in times, from 50 to 100 hours (cumulative time 100 to 150 hours), the extended drawdown follows a semi-log straight line of slope 2m when the injection is still in radial flow (slope m). Theoretically, the semi-log approximation of Equation 2-11 with Equation 2-12 is not correct. Ultimately, the fault influence is felt during the injection and the 2 periods follow the same semi-log straight line of slope 2m (shut-in time >> 100 hours, cumulative time >> 150 hours). The semi-log 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 straight-line 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 1-15) and bi-linear flow (Equation 1-17) is expressed respectively :

(t

p

+ ∆t

)

12

− ( ∆t )

12

(hr1/2)
1/4

( 2-17)

(t p + ∆t )1 4 −(∆t )1 4 (hr

)

( 2-18)

The Horner time corresponding to spherical flow of Equation 1-19 has been used for the analysis of RFT pressure data.

( ∆t )−1 2 − (t p + ∆t )

−1 2

(hr-1/2)

( 2-19)

- 35 -

Chapter 2 - The analysis methods

2-2.3 Pressure analysis method
The analysis is made on log-log 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 log-log diagnosis.
4000 p* 3750 Pressure, psia
slop em

p(1hr)
slope m

3500

3250 3000 1 101 102 (tp +∆t )/ ∆t 103 104

Figure 2-11 Build-up example of Figure 2-3. Semi-log 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

10-1 10-1

1

10

102

103

104

Dimensionless time, tD/CD

Figure 2-12 Build-up example of Figure 2-3. Log-log match.

For the radial flow analysis of a build-up period, the semi-log superposition time is used. The slope m of the Horner / superposition straight line defines the final pressure match of the log-log analysis.

PM =

p D 1.151 (psi-1, Bars-1) = ∆p m

( 2-20)

2S Once the pressure match is defined, the CD e curve is known accurately. Results from log-log and specialized analyses must be consistent.

- 36 -

Chapter 2 - The analysis methods

2-3 Pressure derivative
2-3.1 Definition
The natural logarithm is used.

∆p ' =

dp dp (psi, Bars) = ∆t dt d ln ∆t

( 2-21)

The derivative is plotted on log-log coordinates versus the elapsed time ∆t since the beginning of the period.

2-3.2 Derivative type-curve : "Well with wellbore storage and skin, homogeneous reservoir"
Radial flow

Log ∆p Log ∆p' ∆p' = constant

Log ∆t Figure 2-13 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log 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)( 1-12) log ∆t + log 2 kh  φ µ c t rw   

The radial flow regime does not produce a characteristic log-log 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

( 2-22)

In dimensionless terms,

- 37 -

38 - .5 line 1 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 Elapsed time. Log-log scale. Bars) 24C ( 2-24) During wellbore storage. function of the CD e group. Wellbore storage Derivative of Section 2-2 example During the transition between the wellbore storage and the infinite acting radial 2S flow regime. ∆p' (psi) 102 pe slo 1 101 0. ∆t (hours) Figure 2-15 Derivative of build-up example Figure 2-3. 103 Pressure derivative.The analysis methods dp D = 0.Chapter 2 . the pressure change ∆p and the pressure derivative ∆p' are identical.5 d ln( t D C D ) Wellbore storage ( 2-23) ∆p = qB ∆t 24C (psi. the derivative shows a hump. the pressure and the derivative curves follow a single straight line of slope equal to unity. Log ∆p Log ∆p' Slope 1 Log ∆t Figure 2-14 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale. Bars) ( 1-6) qB ∆p' = ∆t (psi. On log-log scale. .

homogeneous reservoir" Derivative of type-curve Figure 2-2. CDe(2S) = 1060 to 0. p'D 1 02 10 1 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. tD/CD Figure 2-16 "Well with wellbore storage and skin. Log-log scale.Chapter 2 . p'D 10 1 103 102 10 3 1 0. and the 0. tD/CD Figure 2-17 Derivative match of example Figure 2-3.39 - . Derivative match The match point is defined with the unit slope pressure and derivative straight line. Dimensionless Pressure Derivative.3 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.3.The analysis methods Derivative type-curve 1 02 CDe2S 1060 1040 1050 1030 1020 1015 1010 108 106 104 Dimensionless Pressure erivative. 2-3.5 derivative stabilization.3 Other characteristic flow regimes During other characteristic flow regimes. Log-log scale. the pressure changes with the elapsed time power 1/n : .

when spherical flow is established.40 - .The analysis methods ∆p = A (∆t )1 n + B (psi.Chapter 2 .623 ∆p' = 2. Infinite conductivity fracture (linear flow) On log-log scale.03 qB hx f qB hx f ∆t (psi. metric units) ( 1-15) ∆p = 0.311 Slope 1/2 Log ∆p Log ∆p' Log ∆t Figure 2-18 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale. . The level of the derivative half-unit slope line is half that of the pressure. field units) ∆t (Bars. metric units) ( 2-27) ∆p' = 0. The logarithm derivative is: ∆p ' = dp A 1n = (∆t ) (psi. for bi-linear flow. ∆t) follows a straight-line slope of 1/n. Bars) With: • 1/n =1 • 1/n =1/2 • 1/n =1/4 • 1/n =-1/2 ( 2-25) during the pure wellbore storage and the pseudo steady state regimes. in the case of linear flow. Infinite conductivity fracture. ∆p = 4. the pressure and derivative follow two straight lines of slope 1/2. field units) ∆t (Bars. Bars) d ln ∆t n ( 2-26) The log-log pressure derivative curve (∆p'.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.

33 qBµ φ µ ct qBµ − 2452.9 3 2 (psi.6 ∆p = 9.6 qBµ φ µ ct 3 k S 2 ∆t (psi.Chapter 2 . metric units) − 279.4 ∆p ' = 139. Well in partial penetration (spherical flow) ∆p = 70. field units) 4 ∆p = 6.11 qBµ h k f w 4 φ µ ct k 4 ∆t (psi. ∆p = 44.571 qBµ h k f wf 4 φµ ct k ∆t (Bars. metric units) ( 2-28) Slope 1/4 Log ∆p Log ∆p' Log ∆t Figure 2-19 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale. but the derivative line is four times lower.28 qBµ h k f wf 4 φµ c t k 4 ∆t (Bars.03 qBµ h k f w 4 φ µ ct k ∆t (psi. Finite conductivity fracture. field units) qBµ φµ c t 3 k S 2 ∆t (Bars.41 - .3 3 2 k S rS k S ∆t ( 1-19) ∆p' = 1226.The analysis methods Finite conductivity fracture (bi-linear flow) A log-log straight line of slope 1/4 can be observed on pressure and derivative curves. field units) k S rS k S ∆t qBµ φµ c t qBµ (Bars. metric units) ( 2-29) The shape of the log-log pressure curve is not characteristic but the derivative follows a straight line with a negative half-unit slope. metric units) ( 1-17) ∆p' = 11. field units) 4 ∆p' = 1. .

∆p = 0.5 log 2 − log(C A ) + 0. metric units) φ ct hA ( 2-30) . Closed system (drawdown).6 φ ct hA kh ( 1-22) units) ∆p ' = 0.234   A log 2 − log(C A ) + 0.234 qB ∆t (psi.87 S  (psi.The analysis methods Log ∆p Log ∆p' Slope –1/2 Log ∆t Figure 2-20 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale. Closed system (pseudo steady state) The late part of the log-log pressure and derivative drawdown curves tends to a unit-slope straight line.351 + 0.0417 ∆t (Bars. Well in partial penetration.0417 ∆t + 21. metric kh  φ c t hA rw    qB qBµ ∆t + 162.Chapter 2 . The derivative exhibits the characteristic straight line before it is seen on the pressure response. field units) φ ct hA qB ∆p ' = 0.42 - .351 + 0. Log ∆p Log ∆p' Slope 1 Log ∆t Figure 2-21 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale. field units) rw      qB qBµ  A ∆p = 0.87 S  (Bars.

The points 1 and 2 are the first at distance ∆x1. ∆p 2 i 1 ∆x1 ∆p1 ∆x2 ∆p2 Log (superposition) Figure 2-22 Differentiation of a set of pressure data. The smoothing is defined as a distance L. With this smoothing method. and attributes their weighted mean to the point i. If the resulting derivative curve is too noisy. L is usually no more than 0. L Pressure change.Chapter 2 . This effect can introduce distortions at the end of the derivative response.2 or 0. At the end of the period. It estimates the left and right slopes. Smoothing is not possible any more to the right side. 2-3. over smoothing the data introduces distortions.  ∆p   ∆p    ∆x2 +   ∆x1  ∆x  2 dp  ∆x  1 = ∆x1 + ∆x2 dx ( 2-31) It is recommended to start by using consecutive points.The analysis methods 2-3.43 - . smoothing is applied by increasing the distance ∆x between the point i and points 1 and 2. point i becomes closer to last recorded point than the distance L. On a p vs. one point before (left = 1) and one after (right = 2) the point i of interest.2>L. expressed on the time axis scale.4 Data differentiation The algorithm uses three points. x semi-log plot.5 Build-up analysis For a shut-in after a single drawdown period (the Horner method is applicable). the end effect is reached. the derivative is generated with respect to the modified Horner time given in the superposition Equation 2-12 : . The smoothing coefficient L is increased until the derivative response is smooth enough but no more.3.

hours Figure 2-23 Log-log plot of the build-up example of Figure 2-10. The CD e2S group is identified by adjusting the curve match on pressure and derivative data. psi 1 03 1 02 drawdown build-up 101 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Elapsed time ∆t. . 1 04 Pressure change. the derivative with respect to the time superposition can introduce a distortion on the response. Bars) t p ∆t tp dt d ln t p + ∆t ( 2-32) For a complex rate history. Time and pressure match are defined with the derivative response. Limitations if the time superposition: the sealing fault example When the response deviates from the infinite acting radial flow regime.The analysis methods ∆p ' = t p + ∆t dp dp ∆t = (psi. 2-4 The analysis scales The log-log analysis is made with a simultaneous plot of the pressure and derivative curves of the interpretation period.Chapter 2 . the multirate superposition time is used. In all cases. as illustrated on the log-log derivative of the build-up example of Figure 2-10 for a well near a sealing fault. ∆p and Pressure Derivative.44 - . Well near a sealing fault. the derivative is plotted versus the usual elapsed time ∆t : the log-log derivative curve is not a raw data plot but is dependent upon the rate history introduced in the time superposition calculations.

45 - . the average pressure etc. tD/CD Figure 2-24 Pressure and derivative type-curve for a well with wellbore storage and skin.Chapter 2 . . The double log-log match is confirmed with a match of the pressure type-curve on semi-log scale to adjust accurately the skin factor and the initial pressure. pD and Derivative.3 CDe2S 1 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.The analysis methods 1 02 Dimensionless Pressure. p'D 10 1060 1050 1040 1030 1020 1015 1010 108 106 104 103 102 10 3 1 0. A simulation of the complete test history is presented on linear scale in order to control the rates. any changes in the well behavior. homogeneous reservoir.

.46 - .

pD and Derivative. pD 40 30 20 10 Slope m Slope m CDe2S =1030 ∆ skin CDe2S =0. 3-1. 2. 3-1.WELLBORE CONDITIONS 3-1 Well with wellbore storage and skin. tD/CD Figure 3-2 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-1.5 line 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. . Wellbore storage effect. CDe(2S) = 1030 and 0.3 . Radial flow. p'D CDe2S =1030 10 high skin 1 pe slo 1 CDe2S =0. Results: permeability-thickness product kh and skin S. Log-log scale. Result: wellbore storage coefficient C.3 Semi-log analysis 50 Dimensionless Pressure.2 Log-log analysis 1 02 Dimensionless Pressure.1 Characteristic flow regimes 1.5. homogeneous reservoir 3-1. tD/CD Figure 3-1 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in an infinite homogeneous reservoir.47 - .5 103 104 0 10-1 1 10 102 Dimensionless time.5 low skin 0.

The two models are slightly different during the transition between linear flow and radial flow.1 Characteristic flow regimes 1. Results: permeabilitythickness product kh and the geometrical skin S. No wellbore storage effect CD = 0. Infinite conductivity and uniform flux. 3-2. 3. Dimensionless Pressure.000356k φµ ct x 2 f ∆t (metric units) ( 3-1) On Figure 3-3.48 - . Pseudo radial flow: derivative stabilization at 0. CD = 0. Results: fracture half-length xf. tDf 10 102 103 Figure 3-3 Responses for a well intercepting a high conductivity fracture. 2-8) and the fracture half-length xf from the time match : .5. with the other. Wellbore storage 2.5 line 10-1 Uniform flux Infinite condutivity 10-2 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 Dimensionless time. With the uniform flux model. Match results The kh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. p'D 10 1 /2 e1 lop S 0. the fracture conductivity is infinite. the transition is shorter and the pressure curve is higher. Log-log scale.Wellbore conditions 3-2 Infinite conductivity or uniform flux vertical fracture Two models are available: one considers a uniform flux distribution along the fracture length and. Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. pD and Derivative.Chapter 3 .000264 k ∆t (field units) φµ ct x 2 f 0.2 Log-log analysis Dimensionless terms t Df = t Df = 0. 3-2.

3-2. m) ( 3-4) Figure 3-4 Flow line geometry near a fractured well.0 Square root of dimensionless time. m) And. Dimensionless Pressure.8 1. √tDf Figure 3-5 Square root of time plot of Figure 3-3. field units) φµ ct TM 0.49 - .2 0. this geometrical skin effect is defined from the fracture half-length xf as : x f = 2 rw e − S (ft. m LF Uniform flux Infinite condutivity . for the uniform flux solution. With infinite conductivity fracture.8 0.4 0. ( 3-3) x f = 2. Early time analysis. pD 1.000264k 1 (m. metric units) φµ ct TM ( 3-2) The fracture stimulation is seen as a negative skin during the radial flow regime.6 0.3 Linear flow analysis The half fracture length xf is also estimated from Equation 1-16.000264k 1 (ft.2 0.Wellbore conditions xf = xf = 0.Chapter 3 .7 rw e − S (ft.4 0 0 0.

3 4 CD = 0.1 Characteristic flow regimes 1. Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. tD/CD Figure 3-7 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storageand skin. 10 . 0. 1.3 S=0 10-2 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 Dimensionless time.5. 3-3 Finite conductivity vertical fracture With the finite conductivity fracture model.Chapter 3 . Infinite conductivity fracture. Results : permeabilitythickness product kh and the geometrical skin S. 4. Results : fracture conductivity kfwf. 3-2. Infinite conductivity fracture. Log-log scale.Wellbore conditions 3-2.4 Fractured well with wellbore storage Dimensionless Pressure. 3-3. Wellbore storage Bi-linear flow : 1/4 slope straight line.5 Damaged fracture with wellbore storage 10 Dimensionless Pressure. pD and Derivative. especially when the fracture is long.3. This happens when the permeability of the fracture is not very high compared to the permeability of the formation. Pseudo radial flow : derivative stabilization at 0. . Log-log scale. 2. p'D 1 S=1 10-1 S=0. p'D 10 1 CD=0 10-1 1/2 pe S lo 0. pD and Derivative. there is a pressure gradient along the fracture length. 10 .5 line 104 103. 10-2 -4 -3 10 10 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 Dimensionless time. 3.50 - . tDf Figure 3-6 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storage. S = 0. Results : fracture half-length xf.

Loglog scale. 10 Dimensionless Pressure. see Figure 3-10). For large fracture conductivity kfDwfD. tD /CD Figure 3-9 Response for a well intercepting a finite conductivity fracture.5 line 10-1 1/2 pe Slo /4 Slope 1 10-2 10-3 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.2 Log-log analysis The dimensionless fracture conductivity kfDwfD is defined as : k fD w fD = k f wf kx f ( 3-5) 10 Dimensionless Pressure. . kfDwfD = 1.51 - . no fracture skin.Wellbore conditions 3-3. p'D 1 kfDwfD= 10-1 1 10 10-2 100 10-3 /4 Slope 1 0. The behavior tends to a high conductivity fracture response (when kfDwfD is greater than 300. pD and Derivative. kfDwfD = 100.Chapter 3 .5 line 1/2 pe Sl o 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. Loglog scale. 2-8) and the fracture half-length xf from the time match (Eq. p'D 1 0. 10 and 100. pD and Derivative. Match results The kh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. the bilinear flow regime is short lived and the 1/4-slope pressure and derivative straight lines are moved downwards. 3-2). tD /CD Figure 3-8 Response for a well intercepting a finite conductivity fracture. The fracture conductivity kfwf is estimated from the match on the bi-linear flow 1/4 slope. No wellbore storage effect CD = 0. No wellbore storage effect CD = 0.

x /xf Figure 3-11 Stabilized flux distribution.3 Bi-linear and linear flow analyses The fracture conductivity kfwf is estimated with Equation 1-18.Chapter 3 .52 - . 3-3.2 .5 and 5) models. and a correction parameter G to account for the pressure losses in the fracture. Infinite conductivity (kfDwfD > 300) and Finite conductivity fracture (kfDwfD = 0.5 rwe / xf 10-1   + ln 2rw  xf  ( 3-6) 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 Dimensionless fracture conductivity.5 0 0 . 3-3). kfDwfD Figure 3-10 Effective wellbore radius for a well with a finite conductivity fracture.Wellbore conditions The fracture negative skin is defined by two terms: the geometrical skin of an infinite conductivity fracture (Eq. qfD 2 1 5 0.  k f wf S LKF = G  kxf  1 0.4 .6 . . 3-3. Uniform flux. the fracture halflength form Equation 1-16. Log-log scale.4 Flux distribution along the fracture 3 Uniform flux Infinite conductivity Finite conductivity kfDwfD >300 Dimensionless flux.8 1 Dimensionless distance.

5 h/hw. Wellbore storage.Chapter 3 . ST = h S w + S pp hw ( 3-7) A skin above 30 or 50 is indicative of a partial penetration effect. . Radial flow over the entire reservoir thickness : second derivative stabilization at 0.Wellbore conditions 3-4 Well in partial penetration 3-4. and the skin of the well. Results : permeability-thickness product for the open interval kHhw. hw : open interval thickness zw : distance of the center of the open interval to the lower reservoir boundary kH : horizontal permeability kV : vertical permeability 3-4.53 - . Results : permeability anisotropy kH/kV and location of the open interval in the reservoir thickness. and the total skin ST. 2. Spherical flow : -1/2 slope derivative straight line. 4. The total skin combines the wellbore skin Sw and an additional geometrical skin Spp due to distortion of the flow lines. 3. Sw.2 Characteristic flow regimes 1.5. Radial flow over the open interval : a first derivative plateau at 0. • For damaged wells. as depicted on Figure 1-21: • 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 3-12 Geometry of a partially penetrating well. the product (h/hw)Sw can be larger than 100. Results : permeability-thickness product for the total reservoir kHh.

2-8). zw/h = 0.01 and 0.3 Log-log analysis Influence of kV / kH Dimensionless Pressure. tD/CD Figure 3-14 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage and skin. kV / kH = 0.005.54 - .10. Log-log scale. pD and Derivative. CD = 33.Chapter 3 .001. hw/h = 1/10. Sw=0. tD/CD Figure 3-13 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage and skin. hw/h = 1/5 in center of the interval.5 line 10-1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time.5 line 10-3 106 Dimensionless time. Log-log scale.2. Match results The kHh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. p'D 102 10-3 -2 10 -1 10 first stabilization 10 1 kV/kH = 10-1 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 10-2 0. . When the vertical permeability kV is low (low kV/kH). pD and Derivative. 0. CD = 6. h m1st line ( 3-8) The permeability anisotropy kV/kH and location of the open interval are estimated from the spherical flow -1/2 slope match. Influence of zw/h 102 Dimensionless Pressure.5 and 0. kV/kH = 0.Wellbore conditions 3-4.5 h/hw) : hw ∆p2nd stab. m2nd line = = ∆p1st stab. p'D 10 hem i-sp h eric al 1 sph eric al 0. Sw=0. The wellbore skin Sw and the penetration ratio hw/h are estimated from the first radial flow when present (derivative plateau at 0. the start of the spherical flow regime is delayed (-1/2 derivative slope moved to the right).

tD/CD Figure 3-15 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-13.01. the spherical flow regime is established between tD/CD=104 and 106. pD 40 Slope m kV/kH = 10-3 10-2 10-1 30 20 10 0 ∆ Spp 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.5 and kH/kV = 10. The straight line is very compressed. it defines the permeabilitythickness kHhw (penetration ratio hw/h with Eq.6 Spherical flow analysis Plot of ∆p versus 1 ∆t . and the wellbore skin Sw.Chapter 3 .1 and kH/kV = 1000. 3-4. When a first semi-log straight line is seen (radial flow over the open interval). Spp = 6 only. Spp = 68 whereas with hw h = 0. Influence of kV / kH on Spp (Sw=0).4 Semi-log analysis Dimensionless Pressure. 3-8). . 3-4.5 Geometrical skin Spp When the penetration ratio hw h and the dimensionless reservoir thicknessanisotropy group (h rw ) k H kV are not very small. 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)  ( 3-9) (z − hw 4)(h − z − hw 4)      With hw h = 0. it ends before 1 t D C D =0. The final semi-log straight line defines kHh and ST. The straight line is frequently not well defined and the analysis is difficult : on example kV/kH =10-3 of Figure 3-13.55 - .Wellbore conditions 3-4.

1 t D CD kV/kH = 10-3 10-2 10-1 slopes mSPH Dimensionless Pressure.9). One. hw/h = 1/4. Log-log scale.Wellbore conditions When the open interval is in the middle of the formation. 2 and 4 segments.Chapter 3 .06 0.10. On the examples Figure 3-17 with 1. two or four segments. p'D segments 1 2 4 10 1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. one segment centered. flow is semi-spherical and the slope mSPH must be divided by two in Equation 1-20. 15. CD = 100. the ability of vertical flow is improved compared to the single segment partially penetrating well of same hw. . 3-4. 102 Dimensionless Pressure. If the open interval is close to the top or bottom sealing boundary. Sw=0. tD/CD Figure 3-17 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage and skin.56 - .02 0. pD Figure 3-16 Spherical flow analysis of responses Figure 3-13. One over square root of time plot. 40 35 30 15 20 0 0. the slope mSPH of the spherical flow straight line gives the permeability anisotropy from Equations 1-20 and 1-21. two or four segments uniformly distributed in the interval.9 and 13.9. kV /kH = 0. the –1/2 slope is displaced towards early time when the number of segments is increased (the global skin is respectively 17.7 Influence of the number of open segments When the open interval is distributed in several segments.08 0.1 Dimensionless time function.04 0. pD and Derivative.

L : effective half length of the horizontal well zw : distance between the drain hole and the bottom-sealing boundary kH : horizontal permeability kV : vertical permeability . The dotted derivative curve describes the response with sealing upper and lower boundaries. Log-log scale. hw/h = 1/5. kV/kH = 0. tD/CD Figure 3-18 Responses for a well in partial penetration with a bottom constant pressure boundary.Chapter 3 . pD and Derivative.1 Definition kV kH kH h L L zw Figure 3-19 Horizontal well geometry.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. CD = 1000. p'D 10 1 oil water 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.005. one segment on top. 3-5 Horizontal well 3-5.57 - . no final radial flow regime develops after the spherical flow regime: the pressure stabilizes and the derivative drops. Sw=0. 102 Dimensionless Pressure.Wellbore conditions 3-4.

Results : the permeability anisotropy kH/kV and the wellbore skin Sw (or the vertical radial flow total skin STV of Equation 3-15). 1. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 First stabilization 1/2 pe Slo k H L2 0. 3-5. Log-log scale. 4. Radial flow over the entire reservoir thickness : second derivative stabilization at 0.Chapter 3 . Wellbore storage.2 Characteristic flow regimes Vertical radial flow Linear flow Horizontal radial flow Figure 3-20 Horizontal well flow regimes. 2. Vertical radial flow : a first derivative plateau at 0.3 Log-log analysis Dimensionless Pressure . 3.5 kH h 10-1 C 10-2 10-2 10-1 1 10 kV k H 2 L 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. When the vertical permeability is increased. the 1/2 derivative slope is moved to the right and the first derivative stabilization is moved down. Results : reservoir permeability-thickness product kHh.Wellbore conditions 3-5. Linear flow between the upper and lower boundaries : 1/2 slope derivative straight line.5(h 2 L ) k H kV . the first derivative stabilization is also moved down. . and the total skin STH. Results : effective half-length L and well location zw of the horizontal drain. tD/CD Figure 3-21 Response for a horizontal well with wellbore storage and skin in a reservoir with sealing upper and lower boundaries.5. With long drain holes.58 - .

L =1000ft.25(h L) k H kV ). 5. Sw =5. CD =1000.223. L =250ft.5.Wellbore conditions Match results The kHh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq.Chapter 3 . 10 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.004. L =500ft. the location of the half-unit slope straight line is a function of L2. kV /kH =0. Influence of L The examples presented Figures 3-22 to 3-41 are generated with h = 100 ft and rw = 0. . tD/CD Figure 3-23 Influence of L on pressure and derivative log-log curves. The effective half-length L and well location zw are estimated from the intermediate time 1/2 slope match. zw /h =0. Dimensionless Pressure .5. Dimensionless Pressure . Sw =0. the first derivative stabilization during the vertical radial flow is lowered and the linear flow regime is delayed. 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 0.2.25ft.5. When the effective well length is increased. pD and Derivative p'D 102 10 5 15 L/h = 30 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 1 Dimensionless time. SQRT (kV kH)*L constant. rw =0.0125. h =100ft.25ft. During the linear flow. kV /kH =0. zw /h =0.59 - . 1500 and 500ft. kV /kH =0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 L/h = 2.25 ft. CD =100. rw =0.05. kV /kH =0. 2-8). (∆p1st stab)D= 0. L =3000. tD/CD Figure 3-22 Influence of L on pressure and derivative log-log curves.

Sw =2. the position of the horizontal drain hole with respect to the lower boundary of the zone zwa. L =1500ft. 0.000625. L =250ft. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 L/h = 2. tD/CD 5. (∆p1st stab)D =1.5.5. kV /kH =0.25ft. zw /h =0. L =500ft. 0.Wellbore conditions When the effective well length is short.5. Influence of zw 10 Dimensionless Pressure . kV /kH =0. and the apparent wellbore radius are defined as: . SQRT (kV kH)*L constant. Sw =0.0025. kV /kH =0.25ft.4 Dimensionless variables In the derivation of the model. 0. CD =100. h =100ft.125. 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. 3-5. 102 Dimensionless Pressure . the behavior becomes similar to that of a well in partial penetration. The apparent open interval thickness ha.01. CD =1000. rw =0.5 Figure 3-25 Influence of zw on pressure and derivative log-log curves. L=1000ft. the lengths are transformed in order to introduce the permeability anisotropy between vertical and horizontal directions. kV /kH =0.60 - . pD and Derivative p'D 1 10-1 zw/h = 0. 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. rw =0. 10 Figure 3-24 Influence of L on pressure and derivative log-log curves. zw /h =0.Chapter 3 .25.25.02.125. tD/CD 0. h =100ft.

metric units) ( 3-14) The skin STV measured during the vertical radial flow is expressed with the wellbore skin Sw and the anisotropy skin Sani of Equation 3-34 : S TV = S w + S ani = S w − ln 4 kV k H + 4 k H kV 2 ( 3-15) Sometimes. defined with reference to the equivalent fully penetrating vertical well : ' STV = h kH STV = 0.6qBµ  − 3. by the well half-length L. m) ( 3-12) Several authors use the ratio hD of the apparent thickness ha of Equation 3-10.23 log 2 φ µ ct rw 2 kV k H L   k  1 k + 0.5 hD S TV 2 L kV ( 3-16) .Chapter 3 . field units) (Bars. the vertical radial flow skin is expressed as S'TV. as a leading parameter of horizontal well behavior.5 Vertical radial flow semi-log analysis ∆p = kV k H ∆t 162. m) ( 3-11) 1 rwa = rw 4 kV k H +4 k H kV 2 [ ] (ft.87 S w − 2 log  4 V + 4 H  2  kH kV     (psi. hD = ha h = L L kH kV ( 3-13) 3-5.10 log 2 φ µ ct rw 2 kV k H L   k  1 k + 0.87 S w − 2 log  4 V + 4 H  2  kH kV     ∆p = kV k H ∆t 21.Wellbore conditions ha = h kH kV kH kV (ft.5qBµ  − 3. m) ( 3-10) z wa = z w (ft.61 - .

field units) φ ct k H 2 kV k H L 2L h kH h ∆p = 1.81 − ln ( 3-21) S zT = −1. close to the linear flow skin Sz of Equation 3.66 qBµ Sw + S z (Bars.5  k H ∆t qBµ  − 3.10 + 0.Wellbore conditions 3-5.16 and the geometrical skin SG of the horizontal well (function of the logarithm of the well effective length and a partial penetration skin SzT . the flow lines are distorted vertically before reaching the horizontal well. metric units)( 3-17) + kH h 2Lh φ c t k H 2 kV k H L During the linear flow regime.6 Linear flow analysis ∆p = 8128 qB µ ∆t .87 S TH  (psi. metric units) log 2 k H h  φµ c t rw    STH measured during the horizontal radial flow combines S'TV of Equation 3.62 - . 1412 qBµ .246 qB µ ∆t 18. + Sw + S z (psi. producing a partial penetration skin Sz.7 Horizontal pseudo-radial flow semi-log analysis ∆p = 162. S z = −1151 .87 S TH  (Bars. 1412 qBµ .66 qBµ 18.6 ∆p = 21.Chapter 3 .5 kH kV   π z w   sin    h     2 h  1 zw zw   −  + L2  3 h h 2    2 ( 3-20) S G = 0.151 ( 3-22) . π r  kH h k   π z  log  w  1 + V  sin w   kV L kH   h   h    ( 3-18) 3-5.23 + 0. field units) log 2 k H h  φ µ ct rw  ( 3-19)  k H ∆t qBµ  − 3.18) : 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.

1.5 m es op Sl F HR 1 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.1. L/rw zw/h =0. Influence of h/rw.125 0.5. tD/CD Figure 3-26 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-25.Chapter 3 . 0. 0.001 kV/kH = ∞ zw/h =0. 2 Geometrical skin.10 102 kV/kH = 1.01. pD 3 2 F Slope m VR zw/h = 0 .1. 0. SG 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 . SG 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 . zw/h=0.25 0.63 - .10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless half length. . h/rw =1000. zw/h=0.5. 2 1000 Geometrical skin.1 103 104 105 Dimensionless half length.5 zw/h =0.Wellbore conditions 4 Dimensionless Pressure. kV/kH =0. 0. 0.1. L/rw Figure 3-27 Semi-log plot of the geometrical skin SG versus L/rw.1 h/rw = 500 2000 4000 kV/kH = ∞ Figure 3-28 Semi-log plot of the geometrical skin SG versus L/rw.5 zw/h =0. Influence of kV/kH.

0.1. 5.64 - . The two ends of the well are more sensitive to skin damage (the total skin STH is more negative on the curve Swi=0. The vertical radial flow regime is then distorted. the geometrical skin can be larger or smaller than SG of Equation 3-21 and 3-22. 8 (damage at the two ends). rw =0. Swi=0. The well is divided in 4 segments of 500 ft with skins of Swi=4. the final horizontal radial flow regime is reached for the complete . pD and Derivative p'D Skin Swi 1 10-1 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. 8. 4.25(h L) k H kV ).5. 0). L =1000 ft. h =100 ft. each segment acts like a horizontal well. 0 (skin decreasing along the well length). Finite conductivity horizontal well When the pressure gradients in the wellbore are comparable to pressure gradients in the reservoir. 0 (damage in the central section). CD = 100. and several horizontal radial flow regimes are established until interference effects between the producing sections are felt. Swi=8.Wellbore conditions 3-5. the flow is three-dimensional (pseudo-spherical). 0. and the derivative response deviates from the usual stabilization at 0.66. Then. Swi=8. During horizontal radial flow. 8. 8. zw/h =0. Later. 8. and the derivative is displaced upwards during the early time response. 4. 4 (uniform damage).33.Chapter 3 . the response first corresponds to a horizontal well with the total length of the producing segments. kV/kH=0. During horizontal radial flow. Partially open horizontal well When only some sections of the well are open to flow.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.25 ft. tD/CD Figure 3-29 Influence of non-uniform skin on pressure and derivative curves. parallel to the wellbore. Non-uniform mechanical skin 10 Dimensionless Pressure . 2.

50. kV/kH =0. with penetration ratios of 100.4.25ft. h =100ft. Non-rectilinear horizontal well During the vertical radial flow.Wellbore conditions drain hole. ΣLeff= L /8.5. On the examples Figure 3-31. rw =0. . STH is respectively –7. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 10-1 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. Dimensionless Pressure .6 and –5. tD/CD 100% 50% 25% 12. kV /kH =0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0.1.25ft.125 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. CD =100. 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. the more negative the total skin STH. -7.5 10-1 0. CD =100. When the producing segments are uniformly distributed along the drain hole. Four segments equally spaced.5% 105 106 107 Figure 3-31 Influence of the penetration ratio on pressure and derivative loglog curves. L /4. effective half-length 500 ft. The more distributed the producing sections.65 - .1. ΣLeff= L /4. zw /h =0. 4 segments with Swi =0. L =2000ft. L /2 and L. h =100ft. the total skin STH can be very negative even with a low penetration ratio. Dimensionless Pressure . rw =0.25 0. L =2000ft.9.5. -6. zw / h =0. 1.1. tD/CD Figure 3-30 Influence of number of open segments on pressure and derivative log-log curves. 4 segments with Swi =0. 2. Total half-length 2000 ft.Chapter 3 . 25 and 12.5%.

pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 10-1 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. Pressure and derivative curves.1. h =100ft. kV / kH =0. kz ky kx kz ky 2L k y L2 kx k y h Figure 3-33 Horizontal permeability anisotropy.0E+00 k y L2 1.0E+03 1. During the linear flow regime.725). the average permeability during the vertical radial flow is k z k y .66 - . CD =100. rw =0. At early time. (zw / h)i=0. . 1.0E-02 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 tD/CD Figure 3-34 Influence of the permeability anisotropy during the three characteristic flow regimes. L =2000ft (500+1000+500).5 or 0.95 (average 0. Swi =0. tD/CD 105 106 107 Figure 3-32 Non-rectilinear horizontal wells.0E+01 1.0E-01 1.25ft. The final horizontal radial flow regime defines the average horizontal permeability k H = k x k y . horizontal well responses are also sensitive to the well orientation.0E+02 1.0E-01 kxky h kzk y 2L 1.0E+01 pD & pD' 1. Anisotropic horizontal permeability In anisotropic reservoirs.Wellbore conditions Dimensionless Pressure .Chapter 3 . only the permeability ky normal the well orientation is acting.0E+00 1. Effective permeability during the three characteristic flow regimes towards a horizontal well.

Wellbore conditions When the isotropic horizontal permeability model is used for analysis. the changes of permeability are acting in series. ky ky kx kx Figure 3-36 Horizontal well in the direction of maximum permeability : apparent effective length decreased.67 - . ky ( 3-23) ky kx kx Figure 3-35 Horizontal well normal to the maximum permeability direction : apparent effective length increased. the horizontal radial flow regime gives the average horizontal permeability : k H = ∑ k Hi hi 1 n ∑ hi 1 n (mD) ( 3-24) During the vertical radial flow. Changes in vertical permeability In a layered reservoir with crossflow.5  j −1 1    ∑ hi kVi + h j 2 kVj ∑ hi kVi + h j 2 kVj   1  j +1 (mD) ( 3-25) . m) (the vertical permeability kz is unchanged). Horizontal wells should be drilled preferably in the minimum permeability direction.Chapter 3 . When the contrast in vertical permeability is not too large. the apparent effective half-length is : La = 4 k y k x L (ft. 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.

10 Dimensionless Pressure . L = 1000 ft. rw =0. 5 (well centered in h1+h2+h3).1. (kV/kH)i=0.2.1. the effective well length is too small and the vertical permeability over-estimated. Sw =0.25ft. • One layer (h1+h2+h3) : k= (k1h1+ k2h2+ k3h3) / (h1+h2+h3).Chapter 3 . Sw=0. Sw=-0. CD = 100.25 (well centered in h3). zw/h = 0. zw/h = 0. kV/kH=0.082 + 0. the pressure stabilizes and the derivative drops. kH1/kH2=1. L =1000ft. CD =100. pD and Derivative p'D 1 10-1 One equivalent layer 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. is defined with k H = 107 k H 2 and k V = 0. h =100ft (30+30+40). • One layer (h3) : k= k3. . zw /h =0. Sw=0. Pressure and derivative log-log curves. pD and Derivative p'D 1 10-1 One layer = h1+h2+h3 h3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. (kV / kH)3=0.55 (well centered in h2).8. 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 3-39). Pressure and derivative log-log curves.05. kV/kH=0. the derivative stabilizes at late time to describe the total oil + gas mobility thickness.5 (0. k1=k3=100k2.68 - .0514 k H . zw/h = 0. a thin reduced permeability interval is introduced in the main layer. rw =0. On Figure 3-38. 10 Dimensionless Pressure . tD/CD Figure 3-37 Horizontal well in a reservoir 3 layers with crossflow. L = 1000 ft. kV/kH=0. L = 550 ft. the match with a homogeneous layer .4.03.028)k H 2 = 0. It the thickness of the gas zone is not large enough. h =100 ft (h1=45ft. kH3/kH2=0.08. When a homogeneous layer of total thickness is used for analysis. h2=5ft. tD/CD Figure 3-38 Horizontal well in a reservoir 3 layers with crossflow.0514.25 ft. (kV /kH)2=0. (kV /kH)1=0.Wellbore conditions In the example Figure 3-37 with n=3 and j=2. h3=50ft). One layer: kH= (k1h1+ k2h2+ k3h3) / (h1+h2+h3).5. 5 (well centered in h3).

25 ft.1.20. CD = 100.Wellbore conditions 10 Dimensionless Pressure . pseudo radial flow towards the multilateral horizontal well develops.0 h. kV/kH=0. Swi=0. CD = 100. h =100 ft.01 µoil. Sw=2. ct gas=10 ct oil. zw/h = 0. µgas=0. 3-5. the total skin STH of the horizontal well is STH =-6. Pressure and derivative curves. tD/CD Figure 3-39 Horizontal well in a reservoir with gas cap and sealing bottom boundary.0.Chapter 3 .2 (well close to the bottom boundary). In the case of intersecting multilateral horizontal wells in reservoir with isotropic horizontal permeability.9 Other horizontal well models Multilateral horizontal well As for partially penetrating horizontal wells. 5. Pressure and derivative log-log curves. tD/CD Figure 3-40 Multilateral horizontal wells. h =100 ft. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 10-1 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. rw=0. Dimensionless Pressure .6 and –6. L = 1000 ft (500+500 or 250+250+250+250).69 - . With the examples of Figure 3-40. L = 1000 ft. the different branches of multilateral wells start to produce independently until interference effects between the branches distort the response.8 (one branch) and respectively –6. 1.25 ft. Gas cap : hgas= 0. . rw =0. pD and Derivative p'D 1 No gas cap 10-1 hgas = 20 ft 10-2 hgas hoil 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 100 ft 500 ft 105 106 10-3 Dimensionless time. At later time.2 with two and four branches. (kV/kH)=0.1. zw/h = 0.5. increasing the number of branches does not improve the productivity.

it changes into linear flow. and later into the horizontal radial flow regime around the fracture segments. STH =-7.25 ft. Swi=0.8 with one branch). pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 10-1 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. L = 1000 ft (500+500).11 m BLF = 6. For the two multilateral horizontal wells of Figure 3-41.70 - . Dimensionless Pressure .5. bi-linear and linear flow regimes can be observed.1 (and STH =-6. The distance between the 2 parallel branches is 2000ft. Fractured horizontal well Two configurations are considered : longitudinal and transverse fractures.06 qB hx f qB hx f µ k H φ ct µ φ ct k H (psi.hr-1/2. metric units) ( 3-27) With transverse fractures. the different fractures produce independently until interference effects are felt.28 qBµ xf kf w4 φ µ ct k H (psi.hr-1/4.hr-1/2. For a single fracture of half-length xf. Pressure and derivative curves. field units) m LF = 0. field units) qBµ x f k f w f 4 φµ ct k H (Bars. kV/kH=0. on the second example the intersection point is at 1000ft from the start of the 2 segments. The total skin STH is more negative when the distance between the branches is increased. the slope mRLF and mLF are: . the response becomes independent of the orientation of the branches. possibly followed by horizontal radial flow around the different fractures. The responses Figure 3-41 tend to be equivalent to the example with two segments of Figure 330. rw=0.Wellbore conditions When the distance between the two producing segments is large enough. the slope mBLF and mLF are expressed : m BLF = 44. the flow is first linear in the formation and radial in the fracture. zw/h = 0.hr-1/4.Chapter 3 . The radial linear flow regime yields a semi-log straight line whose slope is function of the fracture conductivity. For a single transverse fracture of radius rf.1. tD/CD Figure 3-41 Multilateral horizontal wells. h =100 ft. With longitudinal fractures. CD = 100.623 (Bars. metric units) ( 3-26) m LF = 4. At early time.

As for partially open horizontal wells.1 Anisotropy pseudo-skin An equivalent transformed isotropic reservoir model of average radial permeability is used. the time of start of the final regime is a function of the distance between the outermost fractures. field units) m RLF = 10.hr-1/2.Wellbore conditions m RLF = 81. m) ( 3-31) y' = y = y4 (ft.17 qB hr f qB hr f µ φ ct k H µ φ ct k H (psi. but the perimeter is increased. metric units) ( 3-28) m LF = 5.793 (Bars.75 (Bars. and produces an apparent negative skin : rwa = 1 rw 2 [ 4 k min k max + 4 k max k min ] (ft. field units) m LF = 0.71 - . The elliptical well behaves like a cylindrical hole whose apparent radius is the average of the major and minor axes. the final pseudo radial flow regime towards the fractured horizontal well establishes. 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 ( 3-30) (ft. by a transformation of variables in the two main directions of permeability kmax and kmin.3 qBµ kf w qBµ k f wf (psi. m) ( 3-32) The wellbore is changed into an ellipse whose area is the same as in the original system.hr-1/2. m) ( 3-33) . 3-6 Skin factors 3-6. metric units) ( 3-29) Once the interference effect between the different fractures is fully developed.Chapter 3 .

Log-log scale. when kV/kH <<1.Chapter 3 . B = well in partial penetration.72 - . for horizontal wells. .Wellbore conditions Sani = − ln 4 = − ln k min k max + 4 k max k min 2 k min + k max 2 k ( 3-34) Sani is in general low but.2 Geometrical skin A B C Figure 3-42 Configuration of wells A. pD and Derivative p'D 102 SG>0 10 1 10-1 10-2 10-2 SG<0 A : vertical well B : partial penetration C : horizontal well 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. Dimensionless Pressure . Sani =-1 may be observed. B and C. 3-6. tD/CD Figure 3-43 Pressure and derivative response of wells A. A = fully penetrating vertical well. B and C. C = horizontal well.

Type Positive or negative Positive or negative Negative Positive or negative Negative Positive Sani SRC S2φ D. Turbulent or inertial effects on gas wells. Skin factor due to the anisotropy of the reservoir permeability.73 - . partial penetration. slanted or horizontal wells). radial composite behavior). 3-6. Skin factor due to a change of reservoir mobility near the wellbore (permeability or fluid property. Skin factor due to the fissures in a double porosity reservoir. pD 30 A : vertical well B : partial penetration C : horizontal well 20 SG>0 10 SG<0 0 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.3 The different skin factors Name Sw SG Description Infinitesimal skin at the wellbore.q . tD/CD Figure 3-44 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-43 examples.Wellbore conditions Dimensionless Pressure .Chapter 3 . Geometrical skin due to the streamline curvature (fractured.

.74 - .

fissured and multiple-layer formations.3 Storativity ratio ω ( 4-3) ω= (φ Vct ) f (φ Vct ) f = (φ Vct ) f + (φ Vct )m (φ Vct ) f +m .m) ( 4-1) Matrix Fissure Vug Figure 4-1 Example of double porosity reservoir. φ = φ f V f + φ mVm In practice. The average porosity of Equation 4. over the complete thickness h: kh = k f h f (mD.2 Porosity φf and φm : ratio of pore volume in the fissures (or in the matrix).4 . mD.ft.75 - ( 4-4) .FISSURED RESERVOIRS . 4-1.DOUBLE POROSITY MODELS 4-1 Definitions 4-1. to the total volume of the fissures (of the matrix). φf and Vm are close to 1. Vf and Vm : ratio of the total volume of the fissures (or matrix) to the reservoir volume (Vf + Vm = 1).2 can be simplified as : ( 4-2) φ = Vf + φm 4-1. 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).

they are slab. defined with the number n of families of fissure planes. Slab and sphere matrix blocks. α= n(n + 2) -2 -2 (ft .76 - .4 Interporosity flow parameter λ 2 λ = α rw km kf ( 4-5) α is related to the geometry of the fissure network. to the surface area A of the blocks : rm = nV A (ft.Fissured reservoirs 4-1. slabs Figure 4-2 Matrix skin. For n = 3. for n = 1. the matrix blocks are cubes (or spheres) and.Chapter 4 . m) When a skin effect (Sm in dimensionless term) is present at the surface of the matrix blocks. The analysis with the restricted interporosity flow model (pseudo-steady state interporosity flow) provides the effective interporosity flow parameter λeff : λ eff =n 2 rw k d rm hd k f ( 4-9) λeff is independent of the matrix block permeability km. the matrix to fissure flow is called restricted interporosity flow. It is defined as the ratio of the volume V of the matrix blocks. cubes n=1. . m ) 2 rm ( 4-6) rm is the characteristic size of the matrix blocks. ( 4-7) Sm = k m hd rm k d km rm ( 4-8) hd kd n=3.

1592C (metric units) 2 (φ Vct ) f + m hrw ( 4-13) The storativity ratio ω correlates the two definitions of dimensionless wellbore storage : C Df + m = ω C Df ( 4-14) 4-2 Double porosity behavior. 2.77 - .1592C (metric units) ( 4-12) C Df + m = C Df + m = 0.(CDe2S)f at early time. between the two homogeneous behaviors. during fissure flow. 3.5 Dimensionless variables pD = kh ∆p (field units) 1412qBµ .λeff e-2S during transition regime. restricted interporosity flow (pseudo-steady state interporosity flow) 4-2. .8936C (field units) 2 (φ Vct ) f +m hrw 0. .8936C (field units) 2 (φ Vct ) f hrw 2 (φVct ) f hrw 0.000295 (field units) CD µ C tD kh ∆t (metric units) = 0.Chapter 4 .(CDe2S)f+m at late time. .00223 CD µ C ( 4-11) C Df = C Df = 0.1 Log-log analysis Pressure type curves Three component curves : 1.66qBµ ( 4-10) tD kh ∆t = 0. . when total system behavior is reached.Fissured reservoirs 4-1. kh ∆p (metric units) pD = 18.

2S 2S -2S ■ = B : (CDe )f = 105. tD/CD Figure 4-3 Pressure type-curve for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir.1.1. 2S 2S -2S o = A : (CDe )f = 1.1 5x10-3 10 B 10-7 3x10-4 10-2 1 A 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. during the fissure regime. only the total system straight line is seen. pD Start of semi-log radial flow CDe2S λe-2S = 10-30 = 1030 1010 105 104 1 0. (CDe )f+m = 104. tD/CD Figure 4-4 Pressure examples for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir. On semi-log scale. ω = 0. λeffe = 3. two parallel straight lines are present with example A. wellbore storage lasts until the transition regime and. With example B. With example B.78 - . ω = 0. 102 Dimensionless Pressure. . pseudo steady state interporosity flow.5 1 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. the fissure (CDe2S)f curve does not reach the semi-log straight-line approximation. λeffe = 10-7.Fissured reservoirs A double porosity response goes from a high value (CDe2S)f when the storativity corresponds to fissures. (CDe )f+m = 0.10-4.1 10-2 5x10-3 0.1. to a lower value (CDe2S)f+m when total system is acting. pseudo steady state interporosity flow. 102 Dimensionless Pressure. pD Start of semi-log radial flow 10 CDe2S = 1030 λe-2S = 10-30 1010 10-10 103 10-6 5 0. Typical responses The limit "approximate start of the semi-log straight line" shows that the wellbore storage stops during the fissure regime with example A.Chapter 4 .

1 B A 10-3 λCD/ω(1-ω) = 10-2 3x10-4 3x10-5 λCD/(1-ω) 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.ft. field units) kh = 18.66qBµ (PM ) (mD. λeffCDf+m/ω(1-ω) =10-2. labeled (λ eff CD f +m ) [ω (1 − ω )] (decreasing derivative) and (λ eff CD f +m ) (1 − ω ) . pD and Derivative p'D CDe2S λe-2S = 10-30 = 1030 1010 105 104 1 0.5. With the derivative. 3x10-5.79 - .5 only during the total system homogeneous regime.Fissured reservoirs 10 Dimensionless Pressure. tD/CD slop em Figure 4-5 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-4 examples. pseudo steady state interporosity flow. the transition is described with two curves. Match results kh = 141. The derivative of example B stabilizes on 0. On the derivative type-curve. 102 Dimensionless Pressure .2qBµ (PM ) (mD. example A shows two stabilizations on 0. metric units) C = 0. pD 8 6 em sl o p em slop B 4 A 2 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. λeffCDf+m/(1-ω) = 10-3. field units) µ  TM  ( 2-8) .m.Chapter 4 . 3x10-4. tD/CD Figure 4-6 Pressure and derivative examples of Figure 4-4 for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir.1 5x10-3 10 1010 105 1030 B A 10-7 3x10-4 10-2 1 1 0.000295 kh  1    (Bbl/psi.

S = 0. the transition regime from CDe2Sf to CDe2Sf+m is long. the transition valley drops when ω is reduced.Chapter 4 . CDf+m = 103.5 line 1 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. metric units)  µ  TM  2S ( 2-9) S = 0. λeff= 6.Fissured reservoirs C = 0. .1. pD and Derivative p'D 10-2 10 0. Dimensionless Pressure . λeffe-2S= 6. tD/CD Figure 4-7 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage in double porosity reservoir. the derivative exhibits a valley shaped transition between the two stabilizations on 0.5. the first straight line is displaced upwards and the horizontal transition between the two parallel lines is longer.10-8 and CDe2Sf+m = 103) 4-2.2 Influence of the heterogeneous parameters ω and λeff Influence of ω With small ω values. pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.80 - .00223 kh  1  3  (m /Bars.10-8 (CDe2Sf =104. On the derivative responses. On semilog scale. ω = 0.5 ln (C 2S De ) f +m C Df + m f +m f ( 4-15) (C e ) ω= (C e ) D 2S D ( 4-16) λ eff = λ eff e −2 S e 2 S ( ) ( 4-17) Pressure and derivative response When the three characteristic regimes of the restricted interporosity flow model are developed.

02 and λeff=10-6. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-1 ω = 10-3 10-1 10-2 ω = 10-3 10-1 0. 10-2 and 10-3 10 Dimensionless Pressure .Fissured reservoirs 102 Dimensionless Pressure . The smaller is λeff. CDf+m =100.Chapter 4 .5 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time. the later the start of total system flow. CDf+m =1. Log-log scale. 102 Dimensionless Pressure . tD/CD Figure 4-8 Double porosity reservoir. pseudo-steady state interporosity flow. Influence of λeff. Influence of ω. tD/CD slo m pe ω = 10-3 10-2 10-1 m pe slo Figure 4-9 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-8. S =0. the transition regime occurs at a higher amplitude and. λeff=10-7 and ω =10-1. S =0. On the pressure curves. tD/CD 10-6 . pseudo-steady state interporosity flow. 10-7 . Influence of λeff The interporosity flow parameter defines the time of end of the transition regime. 10-7 and 10-8 . the transition valley is displaced towards late times. pD 8 6 4 2 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 10-1 λ = 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. ω =0.81 - . Log-log scale. on the derivative responses. 10-8 λ = 10-8 10-6 Figure 4-10 Double porosity reservoir.

S = 0.3 Analysis of the semi-log straight lines 10 Dimensionless Pressure.5 − 3. field units) 2 (φVct ) f µ rw      qBµ  k log ∆t + log ∆p = 21. field units) 2 kh  (φVct ) f +m µ rw    . for the total system regime is : ∆p = 162. 4-2. pD λ 8 em slop = 10-7 10-8 10-6 slop em 4 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. ω = 0.23 + 0. tD/CD Figure 4-11 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-10.82 - . CD = CDf+m = 100. when the first semi-log line is present.87 S  (Bars.87 S  (psi.6  qBµ  k log ∆t + log − 3.87 S  (psi. tD/CD Figure 4-12 Semi-log plot of homogeneous and double porosity responses.Chapter 4 .6 qBµ kh The second line.   k log ∆t + log − 3. metric units)(4-18) 2 kh  (φV ct ) f µ rw    ∆p = 162. pD 8 6 4 2 0 10-1 em slop Double porosity Homogeneous 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.Fissured reservoirs 12 Dimensionless Pressure .10 + 0.23 + 0.01 and λeff= 10-6 During fissure flow.

tD/CD Figure 4-13 Drawdown and build-up pressure responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in double porosity reservoir.83 - . only example A3 exhibits a clear double porosity response. ( fissures CDe2Sf= 1 and total system CDe2Sf+m= 0. . λeffe-2S= 3. there is no evidence of total system flow regime.5  qBµ  k log ∆t + log − 3. the three characteristic regimes of a double porosity response are not always fully developed on build-up pressure curves. if the total storativity is used instead of that of the fissure system.10-4 (CDe2Sf =1. tpD/CD = 100 (A1). the build-up curve flattens at the same ∆p level as the λeffe-2S transition. CDf+m = 0.1) Double porosity. S = 0.103 (A2). 3.Fissured reservoirs ∆p = 21.1. 9. metric units)( 4-19) 2 kh  (φV ct ) f + m µ rw    The vertical distance δp between the two lines gives ω : ω = 10 −δp m ( 4-20) When only the first semi-log straight line for fissure regime is present. the calculation of the skin gives an over estimated value Sf : S f = S + 0.Chapter 4 .87 S  (Bars. Whatever long are the three build-up examples of Figure 4-13.4 Build-up analysis Log-log pressure build-up analysis When the production time tp is small. Homogeneous behaviour.105 (A3). but only the build-up response of the fissures. ω = 0.5 ln 1 ω ( 4-21) 4-2.1.10 + 0. For example A2.10-4 and CDe2Sf+m = 0.1). pseudo-steady state interporosity flow. pD 10 A3 A2 A1 1 tp1 = 102 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 tp2 = 9x103 tp3 = 3x105 106 Dimensionless time. Log-log scale. λeff= 3. The build-up curve A1 does not show a double porosity behavior. ( drawdown and build-up) Dimensionless Pressure.

A1 (tpD/CD = 100). tD/CD A3 A2 A1 Figure 4-16 Drawdown and build-up derivative responses of Figure 4-13. .84 - .5 10-1 Drawdown Build-up 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. tD/CD Figure 4-14 Semi-log plot of drawdown and build-up pressure responses of Figure 4-13. Dimensionless Pressure Difference. the initial pressure pi is obtained by extrapolation of the second straight line.105). A2 (tpD/CD = 9. If the drawdown stops during the transition (example A2). depending upon tp.pi)D 0 slo pe m -2 A1 -4 slo pe m p* > pi A2 p* = pi -6 1 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 A3 10-6 Horner time. only the first semi-log straight is seen and its extrapolated pressure p* is between pi and pi + m ln (1/ω). (p . (tpD+ tD)/ tD Figure 4-15 Horner plot of the three Build-ups of Figure 4-13. the first one extrapolates to pi + m ln (1/ω).Fissured reservoirs 8 Dimensionless Pressure.Chapter 4 .103) and A3 (tpD/CD = 3. Horner & superposition analysis In example A3. pD drawdown build-up 6 tp1 = 102 m tp3 = 3x105 tp2 = 9x103 m pe slo A3 4 pe slo A2 A1 2 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. Derivative build-up analysis 1 Dimensionless Pressure Derivative p'D 0.

tD/CD Figure 4-17 Pressure type-curve for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir. 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. during transition regime before the homogeneous behavior of the total system 2. pD CDe2S = 1030 β ' = 1030 1010 103 5 0. β ' is defined as : β '= δ ' (C De 2S ) f +m λe −2 S ( 4-22) The constant δ' is related to the geometry of the matrix system.1 1 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. and for sphere matrix blocks δ ' = 1. .1 5x10-3 10 1010 103 5 0. For slab matrix blocks δ '=1.05. . transient interporosity flow.89. 102 Start of semi-log radial flow Dimensionless Pressure.1 Log-log analysis Pressure type-curve Two pressure curves : 1.85 - .Chapter 4 .(CDe2S)f+m later.β ' at early time.Fissured reservoirs 4-3 Double porosity behavior. unrestricted interporosity flow (transient interporosity flow) 4-3. .

103. ω = 0. β' = 1010. the wellbore storage is large. λe = 1. 2S -2S ■ = B : (CDe )f+m = 6.001. tD/CD Figure 4-18 Pressure examples for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir. pD Start of semi-log radial flow CDe2S β' = 1030 = 1030 1010 6x103 10 0.1348*10-6. before the total system straight line of slope m.1 10 A 1 B 1010 106 5 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. 10 Dimensionless Pressure. λe = 1. β' = 106. On semi-log scale. 2S -2S o = A : (CDe )f+m = 10. only the total system straight line is present. 102 Dimensionless Pressure. With example B. and slab matrix blocks. tD/CD 104 105 Figure 4-19 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-18 examples.001.86 - . transient interporosity flow. With example B. ω = 0.Fissured reservoirs Typical responses A long transition on a β ' curve is seen on example A. pD 8 B 6 4 2 0 10-1 slope m /2 em slop slop em A 1 10 102 103 Dimensionless time. example A shows a first straight line of slope m/2 during transition. .8914*10-5.Chapter 4 . and the transition is shorter on the tD/CD time scale.

2 λCDf+m (1-ω) = 3. tD/CD Figure 4-20 Pressure and derivative examples of Figure 4-18. λ =δ' (C De 2S β 'e f +m −2 S ) ( 4-23) ω is difficult to access with the transient interporosity flow model.5. Slab and sphere matrix blocks With the two types matrix geometry.10-3.10-5. after the wellbore storage hump the derivative exhibits a first stabilization on 0.10-2. the change from 0.25 to the 0. 3. and the start of the total system homogeneous regime. pD and Derivative p'D CDe2S β' = 1030 = 1030 1010 6x103 10 0. is described by a (λ C D ) (1 − ω )2 derivative curve. .25 before the final stabilization on 0.5 level is steeper on the curve generated for slab matrix blocks. The end of transition. With the derivative. the pressure curves look identical but the derivatives are slightly different.87 - .5.1 10 1030 B A 6x106 1010 106 5 1 10 4 B A 3x10-3 3x10-4 3x10-5 10-1 10-1 5 λCD/(1-ω)2 = 3x10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. The derivative of example B exhibits only a small valley before the stabilization on 0.5 for the total system homogeneous regime.25 before the final stabilization on 0. At late transition time. 3. 3.10-4. Match results On a double porosity response with unrestricted interporosity flow.Fissured reservoirs 102 Dimensionless Pressure .Chapter 4 . example A shows a first stabilization on 0.

25 0.88 - . S =0. Influence of ω on pressure and derivative curves. λ =10-7 and ω =10-1. 10-2 and 10-3 10 Dimensionless Pressure . . Sphere: λe-2S = 1. β'=104 and ω=10-2.Chapter 4 . pD and Derivative p'D 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time.89 10-4. 4-3. transient interporosity flow.25 1 10 102 103 slab 104 0. slab matrix blocks.05 10-4. tD/CD Figure 4-23 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-22.5 105 Dimensionless time. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 sphere 10-1 10-1 0. CDe2Sf+m=1. CDf+m =1. transient interporosity flow. pD 8 6 4 2 0 10-1 ω = 10-3 m /2 slope m pe sl o 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time.Fissured reservoirs Dimensionless Pressure . tD/CD Figure 4-22 Double porosity reservoir.5 Dimensionless Pressure .2 Influence of the heterogeneous parameters ω and λ Influence of ω 102 10 1 10-1 10-2 10-1 ω = 10-3 ω = 10-3 ω = 10-1 ω = 10-1 0. Slab: λe-2S = 1. tD/CD Figure 4-21 Double porosity reservoir. Log-log scale. slab and sphere matrix blocks.

1.3 Build-up analysis 1 0. λ = 3. slab matrix blocks.5 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time. Influence of λ on pressure and derivative curves.Chapter 4 . tpD/CD = 100 (A1). ω = 0. 4-3. pD and Derivative p'D 102 10 1 10-1 10-2 10-1 0. unrestricted interporosity flow. slab matrix blocks. CDf+m = 0. tD/CD Figure 4-24 Double porosity reservoir. tD/CD Figure 4-25 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-24.89 - .5 10-1 Drawdown Build-up 10 -2 Dimensionless Pressure Derivative p'D A3 A2 A1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.Fissured reservoirs Influence of λ Dimensionless Pressure . 9. S =0. S = 0.1.105 (A3). 10-7. CDf+m =100. tD/CD Figure 4-26 Drawdown and build-up derivative responses. 10-8 0.02 and λ =10-6. ω =0. 3. transient interporosity flow.10-4. pD 8 6 4 2 0 10-1 m/2 slope m pe sl o λ = 10-8 10-7 10-6 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time. 10-7 and 10-8 10 Dimensionless Pressure . double porosity reservoir.25 λ = 10-8 λ = 10-6 λ = 10-6. .103 (A2).

sphere matrix blocks with interporosity skin. S = 0.Chapter 4 . 1. Dimensionless Pressure Derivative p'D 1 10-1 10-2 10 Sm= 1 102 103 104 105 10 100 106 107 Dimensionless time.25 10-1 Sm= 0 0.1 Matrix skin Dimensionless Pressure . Sm = 0.323x10-7 (Sm = 10). transient interporosity flow. 100. λ = 10-5.1 1 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.Fissured reservoirs 4-4 Complex fissured reservoirs 4-4. ω = 0. . S = 0. λ eff = 2. transient interporosity flow. Sm = 0. 10.1 1 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.333x10-8 (Sm = 100). CDf+m = 1.01. 1. tD/CD 10 106 0. λ eff = 3.1.01. tD/CD Figure 4-28 Comparison of Figure 4-27 derivative responses with the restricted interporosity flow model. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0.1.5 100 107 Figure 4-29 Double porosity reservoir. 0.500x10-6 (Sm = 1). CDf+m = 1. Dimensionless Pressure . slab matrix blocks with interporosity skin. 100. 10. λ = 10-5. ω = 0.25 10-1 Sm= 0 0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0.90 - . tD/CD 10 105 0. 0. λ eff = 3.5 100 106 107 Figure 4-27 Double porosity reservoir.

10 Dimensionless Pressure . tD/CD Figure 4-31 Log-log plot of pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in double porosity reservoir.96x10-7 (Sm = 10). λ eff = 1. λe = 2.2 Triple porosity solution The model considers two sizes of matrix blocks. The blocks are uniformly distributed in the reservoir. fissure.71*10 9 4-4. block Two block sizes Fissured matrix blocks Figure 4-32 Multiple matrix blocks. the matrix blocks can be fissured. Slab: β' = 3. .Chapter 4 . λ eff = 1.48*10-7. block 1.66x10-6 (Sm = 1). Sphere: β' = 1. λ eff = 2. ω = 0. CDe f+m=403. slab and sphere matrix blocks. restricted and unrestricted interporosity flow.91 - . S = 3. λ = 10 -4.02. 2S -2S CDf+m = 1.25 10-1 restricted 10-2 10-1 1 0. pD and Derivative p'D unrestricted slab unrestricted sphere 0.07*10 9.Fissured reservoirs Dimensionless Pressure Derivative p'D 1 10-1 10-2 10 Sm= 1 102 103 104 105 10 106 100 107 Dimensionless time. microfissure. block 2 fissure.5 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. Alternatively. tD/CD Figure 4-30 Comparison of Figure 4-29 derivative responses with the restricted interporosity flow model.00x10-8 (Sm = 100).

Dimensionless Pressure . different λeff. two sizes of matrix blocks uniformly distributed. CDf+m = 1. two sizes of matrix blocks uniformly distributed. pD and Derivative p'D 1 0.Chapter 4 . pseudo steady state interporosity flow. δ1 =0. ω = 0.9.01.01. pD 8 6 4 2 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. δ2 =0.92 - . ω = 0. tD/CD ur e fiss m pe (slo m ste l sy ota t ) p1 rou +g ure fiss Figure 4-34 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-33 example. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 group 1 10-1 fissure group 2 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 0.5 10-1 fissure fissure + group 1 total system 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. The dashed curves describe the double porosity responses for only blocks 1 (small valley) and only blocks 2. S = 0. same λeff.1. 10 Dimensionless Pressure.1. λeff1 =10-5. pseudo steady state interporosity flow. λeff1 = λeff2 =10-6 .5 total system 107 Dimensionless time. λeff2 =5x10-7. 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 ( 4-24) Dimensionless Pressure .Fissured reservoirs When the blocks are uniformly distributed.9. δ2 =0. CDf+m = 1. tD/CD Figure 4-35 Triple porosity reservoir. . S = 0. tD/CD Figure 4-33 Triple porosity reservoir. δ1 =0.

93 - . pD group 1 8 6 4 2 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.Fissured reservoirs 10 Dimensionless Pressure.Chapter 4 . tD/CD 105 106 107 pe (slo ure fiss m) group 2 m pe (slo em yst ) ls tota Figure 4-36 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-35 example. The thin curves describe the double porosity responses for only blocks 1 (final semi-log straight line for fissures + blocks 1) and only blocks 2 (final semi-log straight line for fissures + blocks 2). .

94 - ..

CD = 104.5 . Hemi-radial flow 5-1.95 - . tD /CD Figure 5-1 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage and skin near one sealing fault in a homogeneous reservoir.3 Log-log analysis Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 1 1 0. S = 0. .BOUNDARY MODELS 5-1 One sealing fault 5-1. LD = 5000.2 Characteristic flow regimes 1. Log-log scale.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.1 Definition L Well (q) L Image (q) ( 5-1) LD = L rw 5-1. Radial flow 2.

metric units) φµ ct ( 1-22) 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. LD = 100.4 Semi-log analysis The time of intercept ∆tx between the two semi-log straight lines can be used to estimate the distance between the well and the sealing fault : L = 0. CD = 100. tD /CD Figure 5-3 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-2.Boundary models 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 LD=100 1 300 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 1000 3000 Dimensionless time. Several distances. 1000.96 - . . 5-1.0141 k∆t x (ft.01217 L = 0. S = 5. field units) φµ ct k∆t x (m. tD /CD Figure 5-2 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a homogeneous reservoir limited by one sealing fault.Chapter 5 . 3000. 300.

Radial flow 2. CD = 3000. S = 0. two well locations.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 B A 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.3 Log-log analysis 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D ºA 101 1 pe slo /2 ºB 1 0. L1D = L2D = 3000 (curve A) and L1D = 1000.1 Definition L2 Well L1 5-2. Linear flow 5-2.Chapter 5 . . Log-log scale.Boundary models 5-2 Two parallel sealing faults 5-2. L2D = 5000 (curve B).97 - . tD /CD Figure 5-4 Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous reservoir limited by two parallel sealing faults.2 Characteristic flow regimes 1. One channel width.

the responses deviate in a curve above the radial flow line. tD /CD Figure 5-5 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near two parallel sealing faults. only one straight line is present.Boundary models 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D L1D= L2D= 500 1000 2500 5000 101 1 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. During the late time linear flow. 5-2. 2500 and 5000.4 Semi-log analysis On semi-log scale. 1000. CD = 300. The well is located midway between the two boundaries. Homogeneous reservoir. S = 0 L1D = L2D = 500. tD /CD Figure 5-6 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-5.98 - . The time of end of the semi-log straight line is function of the channel width and the well location. . several distances between the two faults are considered. 40 Dimensionless Pressure pD L1D= L2D= 30 1000 20 2500 10 slope m 500 5000 0 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.Chapter 5 .

metric units) ( 5-3) .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 5-8 Square root of time plot of Figure 5-5.246 qB hmch qB hmch (ft.133 mch = 1.Boundary models 20 Dimensionless Pressure pD B 15 10 5 0 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 slope m A 105 Dimensionless time. The slope mch and the intercept ∆pchint of the linear flow straight line are used to estimate the channel width and the well location.Chapter 5 . The pressure change ∆p is plotted versus the square root of the elapsed time ∆t . 5-2.hr-1/2.133 L1 + L2 = 1. tD /CD Figure 5-7 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-4.hr-1/2. field units) h(L1 + L2 ) kφ ct µ qB (Bars.99 - . mch = 8.246 µ qB (psi. metric units) h(L1 + L2 ) kφ ct µ kφ ct µ kφ ct ( 5-2) L1 + L2 = 8. field units) (m.

CD = 3000.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 D C 104 pe slo 105 106 Dimensionless time.Chapter 5 . L1D = L2D = 5000 (curve C) and L1D = 2000. One channel width.100 - .Boundary models S ch = S ch kh ∆pchint − S (field units) 141. tD /CD Figure 5-9 Build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous reservoir limited by two parallel sealing faults. S = 0. Production time: tpD/CD = 2000. L2D = 8000 (curve D). .2qBµ kh = ∆p ch int − S (metric units) 18. The extrapolation p* of the Horner straight line does not correspond to the infinite shut-in time pressure. The dotted curves describe the drawdown responses.66 qBµ ( 5-4)  L + L2 −Sch L1 1 = arcsin 1  2π r e L1 + L2 π w      ( 5-5) 5-2. two well locations. 9 D Dimensionless Pressure pD 8 C 7 6 5 4 3 1 101 (tpD +tD )/ tD 102 103 slop em Figure 5-10 Horner plot of Figure 5-9.6 Build-up analysis Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 ºC 101 1 /2 ºD 1 0.

when both the drawdown and the shut-in periods are in linear flow regime.101 - .[tD/CD]1/2.Chapter 5 . The well location in the wedge is defined with θw. is used to estimate the initial reservoir pressure.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 5-11 Square root of time plot of Figure 5-9. pD versus [(tpD+tD)/CD]1/2 . at t p + ∆t − ∆t = 0 . The distances L1 and L2 between the well and the sealing faults are expressed as : L1 = LD rw sin θ w (ft. m) ( 5-6) . LD is the dimensionless distance between the well and the faults intercept. The extrapolation of the linear flow straight line to infinite shut-in time. 5-3 Two intersecting sealing faults 5-3. For an infinite channel. the superposition function is expressed as t p + ∆t − ∆t . the wedge is otherwise of infinite extension.1 Definition L2 Well θ θw L1 The angle of intersection θ between the faults is smaller than 180°.

θ = 60°. and the derivative stabilizes at 3. tD /CD B A 101 Figure 5-12 Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous reservoir limited by two intersecting sealing faults. ∆p2nd stab. Log-log scale. CD = 3000.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. the wedge is 1/6 of the infinite plane (2π).Boundary models L2 = LD rw sin(θ − θ w ) (ft. Fraction of radial flow 5-3. . θ = 360° ∆p1st stab. m) ( 5-7) 5-3.102 - . S = 0.3 Log-log analysis If for example the angle between the faults is 60° (π/3). Radial flow 2.Chapter 5 . ( 5-8) Between the two stabilizations. LD = 5000. Linear flow 3. the derivative follows a half unit slope straight line. θw = 30° (curve A) and θw = 10° (curve B).2 Characteristic flow regimes 1. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 ºB ºA 180°/ θ = 3 1 0.

4 Semi-log analysis On a complete response. of slope m. LD = 1414. . tD /CD θ= 10° 20° 45° 90° 135° Figure 5-13 Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous reservoir limited by two intersecting sealing faults. The second. and the level of the second straight line. the distance to the two faults is constant L1D = L2D = 1000. 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 10-1 1 Dimensionless time. θ = 360° m1st line m2nd line ( 5-9) The end of the first semi-log straight line. S = 0. CD = 1000. LD = 2613. θ = 90°. tD /CD Figure 5-14 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-13. LD = 11473. is a function of the well location in the wedge. LD = 5759.Boundary models Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 10° 101 180° 1 180° 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. with a slope of (360/θ)m. Log-log scale. the well is on the bisector θw = 0. θ = 45°. describes the infinite acting regime. θ = 10°. θ = 180°. two semi-log straight lines can be identified.5 θ.Chapter 5 . LD = 1000. defines the fraction of radial flow limited by the wedge. Several angles of intersection θ. θ = 135°.103 - . the distance LD to the fault intercept changes. θ = 20°. 5-3. The first. LD = 1082.

5-4 Closed system 5-4. At the end of the drawdown. .104 - . The well is then closed for a shutin period. Linear scale.1 Definition A rectangular reservoir shape is considered. The well. at initial reservoir pressure pi. Closed system. p ( 5-10) ppseudo ste ady state slope m* Time. the pressure builds up until the average reservoir pressure p is reached. is produced at constant rate until all reservoir boundaries are reached. the pseudo steady state regime is shown by a linear pressure trend. The well is at dimensionless distances L1D. t Figure 5-16 Drawdown and build-up pressure response. L2D.2 The pseudo steady state regime pi Pressure. the dimensionless area of the closed reservoir is expressed as: A = ( L1D + L3 D )( L2 D + L4 D ) 2 rw 5-4. tD /CD Figure 5-15 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-12.Boundary models 20 Dimensionless Pressure pD 6m sl op e B 15 10 5 0 10-1 m slope A 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. L3D. and L4D from the four sealing boundaries.Chapter 5 .

107.Boundary models and the curve flattens.4 Drawdown analysis Log-log analysis 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 A/rw2 = 106 1 0. tD /CD 105 106 107 108 Figure 5-18 Drawdown responses for a well with wellbore storage in a closed square homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale. L3D = L4D = 54000. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 ºB 101 ºA A&B B 1 0. During build-up. tD /CD slope 1 Figure 5-17 Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage in a closed square homogeneous reservoir. A/rw2 = 106. a straight line of slope unity on the late time drawdown pressure and derivative curves characterizes the pseudo steady state flow regime. The difference pi − p . .Chapter 5 . 108 (L1D = 200). 5-4. between the initial pressure and the final stabilized pressure defines the depletion.5 A 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. (tp/C)D = 1000. S = 0. the pressure curves flattens to ∆ p and the derivative drops. (tp/C)D = 1000. the well is centered or near one of the boundaries.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.105 - . Curve B: L1D = L2D = 6000. 5-4. CD = 100. CD = 25000. The dotted curves describe the drawdown responses. Three reservoir sizes. Curve A: L1D = L2D = L3D = L4D = 30000.3 Log-log behavior On log-log scale. S = 0.

Chapter 5 - Boundary models

Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D

102 ºD 101 D 1 0.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104
pe slo

ºC

slope 1

C
1/2

105

106

Dimensionless time, tD /CD

Figure 5-19 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 semi-log straight lines
20 Dimensionless Pressure pD 15 10 5 0 10-1
m slope

A/rw2 = 106

107

108

2m e slop

1

101

102

103

104

105

106

Dimensionless time, tD /CD

Figure 5-20 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-18.
30 Dimensionless Pressure pD B 20
pe slo 4m

10

slope m

A

0 10-1

1

101

102

103

104

105

Dimensionless time, tD /CD

Figure 5-21 Semi-log plot of Figure 5.17 drawdown examples.

- 106 -

Chapter 5 - Boundary models

Linear and semi-linear 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 5-22 Linear flow analysis plot of Figure 5-19.

The slope for the infinite channel behavior (curve C of Figure 5-19) 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.hr-1/2, field units) h(L2 + L4 ) kφ ct qB µ (Bars.hr-1/2, metric units) h(L1 + L2 ) kφ c t
( 5-11)

Pseudo-steady 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 5-23 Pseudo steady state flow analysis plot of Figure 5-18.

During pseudo-steady 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

( 5-12)

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

( 5-13)

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   
(1-22)

∆p = 0.0417
units)

the slope m* of the pseudo-steady 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

( 1-23)

When kh and S are known from semi-log analysis, the shape factor CA is estimated from the intercept ∆pint of the pseudo-steady state straight line :

C A = 2.2458e
or

2 2.303 pi − p*  m−log A rw  −0.87 S    int     



( 5-14)

* m − 2.303 p i − pint m C A = 5.456 e m*

[ (

) ]

( 5-15)

- 108 -

Chapter 5 - Boundary models

5-4.5 Build-up analysis
Log-log analysis of build-up
Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 º 101 tpDA=0.6 0.5 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time, tD /CD tpDA=10, 2

1

Figure 5-24 Build-up 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 build-up examples of Figure 5-24 is described in the Shape Factors Tables with CA = 0.5813 and the start of pseudo steady state is defined at tDA = 2 (Eq. 5-13 or, with Eq. 2-6, tD/CD = 54600). The well is closed for build-up 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 build-up is independent of tp on log-log scale. At late times, the stabilized dimensionless pressure p D is expressed as :
2   A rw = 1151 log . + 0.35 + S CA  

pD

( 5-16)

Semi-log analysis of build-up

When tp>>∆t, the Horner time can be simplified with tp+∆t ≅ tp :

log

t p + ∆t

∆t

= log t p − log ∆t

( 5-17)

For different production time tp in a depleted reservoir, the Horner straight lines of slope m are parallel.

- 109 -

Boundary models 10 Dimensionless Pressure pD 8 6 4 2 0 1 101 p-D slop em tpDA = 0. the difference between the straight line extrapolated pressure p * and the average shut-in pressure p becomes a constant.1 7 tpDA=2. When the same production time is used for Horner analysis of the three build-up periods (tpDA = 2 on Figure 5-26). the Horner time is tpD/CD = 16400 (tpDA =0. For the three examples.6. With real pressure. later. but not for D the example with tpDA = 0. The straight line extrapolated pressure p * changes with tp and.6).Chapter 5 .6 5 slo pe m 3 1 101 102 (tpD +tD )/ tD 103 104 Figure 5-26 Horner plot of Figure 5-24 with same tp.6. . 10 tpDA=0. For examples tpDA = 2 and 10. p* > p D . the curves flatten to reach D p D = 8. the average pressure p decreases when tp increases.110 - . 9 Dimensionless Pressure pD p-D p*D= 8. 2. The Horner plot Figure 5-25 is presented in dimensionless terms.16.62 of Equation 5. 10 102 103 (tpD +tD )/ tD 104 105 106 Figure 5-25 Horner plot of Figure 5-24.

S = 5. . tD /CD 300 1000 3000 Figure 5-27 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near one constant pressure linear boundary in a homogeneous reservoir.1 Definition gas water L Well (q) L Image (-q) 5-5.Chapter 5 .2 Log-log analysis The dimensionless stabilized pressure is defined as : p D = ln(2 LD ) + S The derivative follows a negative unit slope straight line. 3000. LD = 100. CD = 100. Several distances. 300. 1000.Boundary models 5-5 Constant pressure boundary 5-5.111 - . Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 ( 5-18) 101 1 LD=100 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.

[ p − p( ∆t = 0) ]. S = 0.151 (p − p(∆t = 0)) m − S ] (ft. as for a sealing fault.5rw e [1. The closest boundary is sealing. tD /CD Figure 5-29 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-27. metric units) φµ c t ( 1-22) The difference of pressure between the start of the period and the final stabilized pressure. θw = 20°. tD /CD Figure 5-28 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage near two perpendicular boundaries in a homogeneous reservoir. to estimate the distance of the boundary : L = 0.Chapter 5 .01217 L = 0.0141 k∆t x (ft. LD = 1000. m) ( 5-19) .112 - . The time of intercept ∆tx between the semi-log straight line and the constant pressure is used. 5-5. CD = 100.Boundary models Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 1 0. the second at constant pressure. θ= 90°.3 Semi-log analysis Dimensionless Pressure pD 15 LD= 3000 1000 300 100 10 slope m 5 0 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. can also be used to estimate L : L = 0.5 10-1 10-1 sealing fault : 1 constant pressure 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. field units) φµ ct k∆t x (m.

1 Semi permeable boundary Definition The partially communicating fault. two different configurations are considered. S = 0. Radial flow wf kf Log-log analysis 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 1 0.113 - .05. at distance L from the well. a finite conductivity fault improves the drainage because the fault permeability is larger than the surrounding permeability of the reservoir. With the semi-permeable boundary model. Homogeneous reservoir.5 102 103 104 105 106 10-1 1 101 Dimensionless time.5 10 -1 0. tD /CD Figure 5-30 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage near a semi-permeable linear boundary. Leak 4. also called leaky fault. 5-6. Log-log scale.Boundary models 5-6 Communicating fault In the case of communicating fault. Hemi-radial flow 3.Chapter 5 . LD = 5000. CD = 104. Conversely. has a thickness wf and a permeability kf. the vertical plane fault is not sealing but acting as a flow restriction. . α = 0. Radial flow 2. The dimensionless fault transmissibility ratio α is expressed as : α= k f wf k L ( 5-20) Characteristic flow regimes 1.

001 1 1 0.01 106 Figure 5-31 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a semipermeable linear boundary. depending upon the fault dimensionless conductivity FcD (a zero fault conductivity FcD corresponds to the semi-permeable fault solution). tD /CD Figure 5-32 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-31. The definition of the dimensionless skin Sf includes the possibility of a region of altered permeability ka with an extension wa around the fault: . flow is possible along the fault plane. CD = 100. Several transmissibility ratios. Semi-log analysis 20 Dimensionless Pressure pD 15 m slope e slop 2m 10 5 0 10-1 1 α=1 0.01 0. 0. 0. α = 1. S = 5.001. FcD = k f wf kL ( 5-21) The resistance to flow across the fault plane is described with the skin factor Sf.001 101 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.01.Boundary models Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 α = 0. 104 105 0.2 Finite conductivity fault Definition With the finite conductivity fault model. tD /CD 0.Chapter 5 .1.1 0.114 - . 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time.1. 5-6. LD = 300.5 10-1 10-1 α=1. 0.

S = 0. Radial flow L wf kf Log-log analysis 102 101 0.5 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time. No fault skin.Chapter 5 .Boundary models Sf = 2π k  wa w f  + L  k a 2k f      ( 5-22) The skin factor Sf is related to the transmissibility ratio a of Eq. . 3 CD = 10 . Radial flow 2. tD /CD Figure 5-33 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage near a finite conductivity fault. FcD= 100.5 0.115 - . LD = 1000. Sf = 0. Log-log scale. Constant pressure boundary effect 3. Bi-linear flow 4. 5-20: α= π Sf ( 5-23) Characteristic flow regimes 1.

. Log-log scale. S = 5. 1000. FcD = 100. Semi-log 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.116 - . S = 0. 1000. tD /CD Figure 5-35 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a finite conductivity fault. LD = 1000.5 Dimensionless time. 100. tD /CD Figure 5-36 Semi-log plot for a well with wellbore storage near a finite conductivity fault. CD = 100. 10000. LD = 300. FcD = 10.5 10-1 FcD = 1 10 100 1000 10000 10-2 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 Dimensionless time. 1000. Sf = 0. CD = 100. 100. tD /CD Figure 5-34 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a finite conductivity fault. No fault skin and several conductivity. Several fault skin and conductivity.5 Sf=10 10-1 101 102 103 104 Sf=100 105 106 107 108 109 Sf=1000 0. 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 1 1 0. 10. Log-log scale. Sf = 0 or 100. LD = 300.Chapter 5 . Sf = 10. FcD = 1. S = 5. 3 CD = 10 .Boundary models 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 1 0.

the wedge response (derivative on π /θ).Boundary models 5-7 Predicting derivative shapes Figure 5-37 Closed reservoir example. 2 . 3 .one sealing fault (derivative on 1).Chapter 5 . Example of a drawdown in a closed system. 4 .5 1 pe slo e slop 1/ 2 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 1 180/θ Figure 5-38 Derivative response for a well in a closed trapezoid. 103 102 101 1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time.pseudo steady state (straight line of slope 1). the response shows : 1 .linear flow (derivative straight line of slope 1/2). . After wellbore storage. the shape of the reservoir is a trapezoid.the infinite radial flow regime (derivative on 0. tD /CD 0. 5 .5).117 - .

118 - ..

With the linear composite model.000295 1 (field units) µ1 C CD . (φct)1 R (k/µ)1. (φct)2 (k/µ)1.6 .2 Dimensionless variables The dimensionless variables (including the wellbore skin Sw) are expressed with reference to the region "1" parameters.66qBµ 1 ( 6-3) tD k h ∆t = 0.119 - . the well is at the center of a circular zone of radius r. the interface is at a distance L.COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS 6-1 Definitions With the radial composite model. pD = k1 h ∆p (metric units) 18. (φct)2 Radial composite Linear composite Figure 6-1 Models for composite reservoirs.1 Mobility & storativity ratios M= (k µ )1 (k µ )2 (φ ct )1 (φ ct )2 ( 6-1) F= ( 6-2) 6-1. The well is located in the region "1". (φct)1 L (k/µ)2. (k/µ)2. The parameters of the second region are defined with a subscript "2". pD = k 1h ∆p (field units) 1412qBµ 1 . 6-1.

0. well with wellbore storage and skin. 0. F =1. Sw = 3. tD/CD Figure 6-2 Radial composite responses.5 10-1 10-2 10-1 0. 2.120 - .2qBµ1 k1h ∆pskin (metric units) Sw = 15. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0. CD = 100.1 Dimensionless time. rD = 700.5.1.66qBµ1 Sw = rD = r rw L rw ( 6-6) ( 6-7) LD = ( 6-8) 6-2 Radial composite behavior 6-2.5 M = 0. changing mobility and constant storativity.5 M 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 M = 10 M=2 M = 0.1 Influence of heterogeneous parameters M and F 102 Dimensionless Pressure . M = 10. Log-log scale.Composite reservoir models tD k h ∆t (metric units) = 0.8936C (field units) 2 (φ ct )1 hrw 0.00223 1 CD µ1 C CD = CD = 0. .1592C (metric units) 2 (φ ct )1 hrw ( 6-4) ( 6-5) k1h ∆pskin (field units) 141.Chapter 6 . The two dotted curves correspond to the closed and the constant pressure circle solutions.

5 M=0. tD/CD slope m M=10 M=2 M=0.1. pD 20 15 10 5 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. rD = 700. pD F=10 10 m slope F=0.1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. tD/CD Figure 6-5 Semi-log plot of Figure 6-4. tD/CD Figure 6-4 Radial composite responses.m.ft. M = 1.1 slopes m M Figure 6-3 Semi-log plot of Figure 6-2.1 sm slope 5 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. 6-2. Sw = 3. 2.66 qBµ1 (PM ) (mD. constant mobility and changing storativity.5. 0.2qBµ1 (PM ) (mD. field units) k1 h = 18. Log-log scale.1 1 0.5 0. CD = 100. well with wellbore storage and skin. and C from the time match : k1h = 141.121 - ( 6-9) . 15 Dimensionless Pressure. Dimensionless Pressure .5 10-1 10-1 F = 0.Composite reservoir models 25 Dimensionless Pressure. metric units) . pD and Derivative p'D 102 F = 10 10 F = 10 F = 0.Chapter 6 .2 Log-log analysis The permeability thickness product k1h of the inner region is estimated from the pressure match. 0. and F =10.

87 S w  (Bars.54  k1 qBµ1   log ∆t + log − 3. ( 6-11) 6-2.10 + 0.87 S w  (psi.23 + 0.122 - .Chapter 6 .3 Semi-log analysis The first semi-log straight line defines the mobility of the inner zone. ∆p = 162. function of the mobility ratio M and the radius rD of the circular interface : ST = 1  1  S w +  − 1 ln rD M M  ( 6-14) When the mobility near the wellbore is higher than in the outer zone (M>1).5 qBµ 2 k2h  k2  log ∆t + log − 3. metric units) ( 6-12) 2  k1h  (φµ ct )1 rw   The second line.87 ST 2  (φµ ct )2 rw    (Bars. the geometrical skin is negative. field units) 2   (φµ ct )2 rw   ∆p = 21. field units)  µ1  TM  k h 1  3 C = 0. M= ∆p2nd stab. for the outer zone.6  qBµ 1  k1  log ∆t + log − 3.000295 k1h  1   (Bbl/psi. field units) 2  k1h  (φµ ct )1 rw   ∆p = 21. defines M and the total skin ST.87 S T  (psi. ∆p1st stab. the homogeneous (CD e2S)1 curve defines the wellbore skin factor Sw.00223 1   (m /Bars. ∆p = 162. . metric units) µ1  TM  ( 6-10) At early time.23 + 0.6 qBµ 2 k2 h   k2  log ∆t + log − 3. The mobility ratio M is estimated from the two derivative stabilizations. metric units) ( 6-13)   The total skin ST includes two components : the wellbore skin factor Sw and a radial composite geometrical skin effect SRC of Equation 1-10.10 + 0. and the wellbore skin factor Sw.Composite reservoir models C = 0.

5 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.Composite reservoir models 6-2. changing mobility and constant storativity. pD and Derivative p'D Drawdown Build-up 10 1. before the influence of the outer region is seen. Sw = 0. Sw = 5. rD = 2000.Chapter 6 . F=1. pD and Derivative p'D 10-2 Drawdown Build-up 10 50 1 tp 10-1 1 10 102 0.123 - . tD/CD Figure 6-7 Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a radial composite reservoir. Log-log scale. M = 3. CD = 11500. drawdown and build-up responses can show the behavior of a closed depleted system.1 Influence of heterogeneous parameters M and F The second homogeneous behavior is defined with the average properties of the two regions : 1  k      = 0.5 1 0. 6-3 Linear composite behavior 6-3. F =1 and tp/CD=3200. rD = 10000.5 1 +   k µ  (mD/cp) 1  µ  APPARENT  M ( 6-15) . The dotted curves describe the drawdown response.4 Build-up analysis 102 Dimensionless Pressure . With a strong reduction of mobility (M>>10). The dotted pressure and derivative curves correspond to the drawdown solution.5 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. CD = 1000. tD/CD Figure 6-6 Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a radial composite reservoir. M =100. Dimensionless Pressure .

Log-log scale. The two derivative stabilizations are used to estimate the mobility ratio M : . 15 Dimensionless Pressure. Radial composite : M =1. Sw = 0. F=1.1. changing mobility and constant storativity. M = 10.2 Log-log analysis Dimensionless Pressure . LD = 700. CD = 200.Composite reservoir models 102 Dimensionless Pressure . F=1. Sw = 3.Chapter 6 .667. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0. The two dotted curves correspond to the sealing fault and the constant pressure boundary solutions.5. well with wellbore storage and skin. tD/CD Figure 6-9 Semi-log plot of Figure 6-8. Log-log scale.5 M=0. 6-3.5 10-1 10-2 10-1 M = 10 M = 0. Linear composite : M = 5. pD and Derivative p'D 102 10 Radial Linear 1 0. 0.5 M = 0.5 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 Radial Linear 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. 0.1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. pD 10 m slope M=10 M=2 M=0. tD/CD Figure 6-8 Linear composite responses. CD = 100. rD = LD = 300.124 - . 2. tD/CD Figure 6-10 Comparison of radial and linear interfaces.1 5 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. Well with wellbore storage and skin in composite reservoirs.

1 RD=2500.5 RD=10000 10-1 0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 RD=1000 0. F =1. r3D = 50.5 k/µ1.15.Composite reservoir models M= ∆p2nd stab.000.05 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. 2 ∆p1st stab. 6-4. M = 0. Sw = 0. M decreases linearly from 1 to 0.15 RD=50000.5 0.2 Two inner regions with a linear change of mobility Dimensionless Pressure .5).Chapter 6 .5 RD=1000. M=0. r2D = 2500. RD = 1000.000). M = 0.1 Three inner regions with abrupt change of mobility Dimensionless Pressure . − ∆p2nd stab.1. Sw = 0. tD/CD Figure 6-12 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a radial composite reservoir. k/µ4 = 10 k/µ1. F =1. linear change of transmissivity. RD = 2500.33 10-1 0.000. From R1D = 1000 to R2D = 10. RD = 10. r1D = 1000. CD = 1000. M=0.1.000. k/µ2 = 1. M=0. The dashed curves correspond to radial composite responses (M=0. RD = 50.125 - .1. ( 6-16) 6-4 Multicomposite systems 6-4. . The dashed curves correspond to radial composite responses with only one zone (RD = 1000.05 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time.1 0. CD = 5440. tD/CD Figure 6-11 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a 4 regions radial composite reservoir. M = 0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0. k/µ3 = 5 k/µ1.

.126 - .

2 Mobility ratio κ κ= k1h1 k1h1 = k1h1 + k 2 h2 khTOTAL ( 7-3) When κ=1.LAYERED RESERVOIRS .7 . k2. S1 h1.DOUBLE PERMEABILITY MODEL 7-1 Definitions The layer "1" is assumed to be the high permeability layer. and layer "2" the lower permeability intervals. mD. kZ2 Figure 7-1 Model for double permeability reservoir. 7-1. kZ1 h'. k'Z S2 h2.127 - .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 ( 7-4) . m/Bars) ( 7-1) ( 7-2) (φ ct h)TOTAL = (φ ct h)1 + (φ ct h)2 7-1. the response is double porosity. k1.ft. 7-1. The two-layers model can be used for multi-layers systems. Layer "1" describes the sum of the high permeability zones.1 Permeability and porosity khTOTAL = k1h1 + k 2 h2 (mD.m) (ft/psi.

5 Dimensionless variables pD = k1h1 + k 2 h2 ∆p (field units) 1412qBµ 1 .Chapter 7 .128 - .Layered reservoirs 7-1.1592C (metric units) ( 7-10) .8936C 2 + (φ ct h) 2 rw 1 ] (field units) [(φ ct h )1 + (φ ct h)2 ]rw2 0. If the vertical resistance is mostly due to the "wall".66qBµ ( 7-8) tD k h + k 2 h2 ∆t = 0. 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' ( 7-6) When there is no skin at the interface and the vertical pressure gradients are negligible in the high permeability layer 1.00223 1 1 CD µ C ( 7-9) CD = CD = [(φ c h) t 0. and of vertical permeabilities in the two layers kz1 and kz2.4 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 ( 7-5) thickness h' between the layers. there is no reservoir crossflow.000295 1 1 (field units) C µ CD tD k h + k 2 h2 ∆t (metric units) = 0. 7-1. k h + k 2 h2 pD = 1 1 ∆p (metric units) 18. λ is expressed: 2 rw kZ2 λ= k1h1 + k 2 h2 h2 2 ( 7-7) When λ=0.

8. field units) k1 h1 + k 2 h2 = 18. λ provides an estimate of the vertical permeabilities. the pressure equalizes in the two layers and the behavior describes the equivalent homogeneous total system. The two layers are producing into the well. From Equations 7-6 and 7-7 : k ' Z = ( k1h1 + k 2 h2 ) λ 2 rw h' (mD) ( 7-13) . 2. S1 =S2 = 0.5. CD = 1000.ft. field units) µ  TM  k h + k 2 h2  1  3 C = 0. metric units)  µ  TM  C = 0. the well condition influences the shape of the derivative transition.Chapter 7 . κ = 0.66qBµ (PM ) (mD. λ = 6. tD/CD Figure 7-2 Response of a well with wellbore storage and skins in a double permeability reservoir. At intermediate times. the response follows a transition regime. the behavior corresponds to two layers without cross flow.Layered reservoirs 7-2 Double permeability behavior when the two layers are producing into the well 7-2. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0.1 Log-log pressure and derivative responses Three characteristic flow regimes : 1.02. 102 Dimensionless Pressure .10-8 k1h1 + k 2 h2 = 141. First.5 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.m.000295 ( 7-11) ( 7-12) The heterogeneous parameters κ.129 - .00223 1 1  (m /Bars. The derivative stabilizes at 0. and it is difficult to conclude the match uniquely. 3. when the fluid transfer between the layers starts. When the two skins S1 and S2 are different. Later. ω and λ are adjusted preferably with the derivative curve. metric units) k1h1 + k 2 h2  1    (Bbl/psi. ω = 0.2qBµ (PM ) (mD.

CD = 1.99. κ = 0.99 0. 10 Dimensionless Pressure .Layered reservoirs k Z 2 = ( k1h1 + k 2 h2 ) λ h2 2 rw 2 (mD) ( 7-14) 7-2.6.99 10-2 10-1 κ= 1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. tD/CD Figure 7-3 Double permeability responses when the two layers are producing into the well. The thick dotted curves correspond to the homogeneous reservoir response (CD e2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1). The two dotted curves describe the homogeneous reservoir response (CDe2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1).6 em slop 2 Two layers no crossflow Double permeability 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 0 Dimensionless time.99 and 0. pD and Derivative p'D κ = 0.The thin dotted curves correspond to the two layers responses with no reservoir crossflow (for κ = 0.Chapter 7 .99 κ = 0.9 0.2 Influence of the heterogeneous parameters κ and ω It is assumed in that the two skin coefficients are equal: S1 = S2 ( = 0).999 0.10-4. λ = 0). Four mobility ratios : κ = 0. tD/CD Figure 7-4 Semi-log plot of Figure 7-3. pD κ = 1. 0.6 4 0.9 0. .999 0. Well with wellbore storage and skins. λ = 4.999 0.6 1 0.9.6 and 0. 6 Dimensionless Pressure.999. S1 = S2 = 0.5 10-1 0. 0. ω = 10-3.6 0. high storativity contrast.130 - .

0. and the equivalent homogeneous behavior of the total system is seen. the pressure equalizes in the two layers.6 and 0.9 0.9.1 Log-log pressure and derivative responses Three characteristic flow regimes : 1.6 m pe slo 2 0 10-1 1 10 102 Dimensionless time. .10-4.6.999 0. CD = 1. The thick dotted curves correspond to the homogeneous reservoir response (CD e2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1).999 0. the response deviates in a transition regime. Four mobility ratios : κ = 0. λ = 4. Log-log scale.6 κ = 0.99 0.9 0. pD and Derivative p'D κ = 0. tD/CD 103 104 Figure 7-5 Double permeability responses when the two layers are producing into the well. 6 Dimensionless Pressure.131 - .99 κ = 0.5 10-1 10-1 κ = 1 0.Chapter 7 .99 and 0. 7-3 Double permeability behavior when only one of the two layers is producing into the well 7-3. and the behavior is homogeneous. Well with wellbore storage and skins. ω = 10-1.99 0.999 1 10 102 Dimensionless time.6 0. The derivative stabilizes at 0.6 1 0.99. the perforated layer response is seen alone. 3. S1 = S2 = 0. low storativity contrast. The derivative drops. First. tD/CD 103 104 Figure 7-6 Semi-log plot of Figure 7-5. 0.Layered reservoirs 10 Dimensionless Pressure . When the second layer starts to produce by reservoir cross flow. pD Two layers no crossflow Double permeability 4 κ= 1 0. The two dotted curves describe the homogeneous reservoir response (CDe2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1).5.999. λ = 0).The thin dotted curves correspond to the two layers responses with no reservoir crossflow (for κ = 0. Later. 2.

Chapter 7 - Layered reservoirs

Dimensionless Pressure , pD and Derivative p'D

102 layer 2 produces 10 0.5/(1-κ) 1 0.5

10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106

Dimensionless time, tD/CD

Figure 7-7 Response for a well with wellbore storage and skin in double permeability reservoir, only layer 2 produces into the well. Log-log scale. CD =1000, S1 = 100, S2 = 0, ω = 0.1, κ = 0.9, λ = 6.10-8.

7-3.2 Discussion of double permeability parameters
When only the low permeability layer is producing, the derivative tends to stabilize at 0.5/(1-κ) 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 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time, tD/CD 0.5 layer 2 layer 1

Figure 7-8 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 = 10-4, 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 7-8) and 0.5 for the second. The response tends to be equivalent to the double porosity solution with restricted interporosity flow.

7-3.3 Analysis of semi-log straight lines
The response can follow two semi-log 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 10-1 1 10 102 103
slope m

104

105

Dimensionless time, tD/CD

Figure 7-9 Semi-log plot of Figure 7-8. 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)( 7-15) 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    
( 7-16)

The global skin S measured on the total system semi-log straight line is not only a function of the two layers skins S1 and S2, but also of κ, ω and λ.

7-4 Commingled systems: layered reservoirs without crossflow
7-4.1 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 7-4 and Figure 7-6). The semi-log slope decreases slowly with time, to reach the equivalent total system slope of Equation 7-16. In a n layers system, the pseudo-skin 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

( 7-17)

On the example κ=0.999 and ω=0.001 of Figure 7-4, the pseudo-skin is estimated at SL=3.5. For the curve κ=0.9 and ω=0.1 of Figure 7-6, 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 7-17, 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

( 7-18)

7-4.2 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)

( 7-19)

If the non-producing 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)

( 7-20)

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

8-1 Interference tests in reservoirs with homogeneous behavior
8-1.1 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 8-1 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 shut-in.

103 Producing well Pressure Change, ∆p and Derivative (psi) 102

101 Observation well 1 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)

Figure 8-2 Build-up response of the producing and observation wells. Loglog scale.

8-1.2 Log-log analysis with line-source solution
Dimensionless parameters

The line source solution, also called the exponential integral (Ei), or Theis solution, is expressed as :

- 135 -

The time match t D r 2 ∆t gives the effective porosity D compressibility product φ ct : ( ) 0. Match results The permeability thickness product kh is estimated from the pressure match with Equation 2-8.000263 k  1    (psi-1.000356 k  1  φ ct =   (Bars-1. metric units) 2 µr  TM  φ ct = ( 8-3) . With the line source response. the pressure and derivative curves intersect at tD/rD2 = 0. The 0.136 - .Interference tests 2 p D = − 1 2 Ei − rD 4t D ( ) ( 8-1) pD is defined in Equation 2-3 and the time group tD/rD2 is : t D 0.57 and pD = p'D = 0. Approximate start of radial flow PRESSURE ( 8-2) Figure 8-3 The Theis solution (exponential integral). Log-log scale.000356k = ∆t (metric units) 2 rD φ µ ct r 2 101 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 1 Intersection DERIVATIVE 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 tD /rD2 103 104 Dimensionless time. pressure and derivative responses.000263k = ∆t (field units) 2 φµ ct r 2 rD t D 0.5 derivative stabilization starts 10 times later. field units) µ r 2  TM  0.32. approximately at tD/rD2 = 5.Chapter 8 .

3 Influence of wellbore storage and skin effects at both wells 101 Line source well Dimensionless Pressure pD 1 10-1 C: 10-2 B: A: 10-3 10-4 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time. S = 30 (curve C). rD = 1000. CD = 3000. CD = 10000. rD = 1000. 101 Dimensionless Pressure Derivative p'D Line source well 1 10-1 C: 10-2 B: A: 10-3 rD = 300. S = 30 S = 10 S=0 10-4 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time. CD = 3000. CD = 3000. S = 30 S = 10 S=0 Figure 8-4 Influence of wellbore storage and skin effects on interference pressure responses. tD /rD2 rD = 300. The dotted derivative curve corresponds to the Theis solution. S = 10 (curve B). S = 0 (curve A) and CD = 10000.Chapter 8 . rD = 1000. CD = 3000.137 - . Log-log scale. tD /rD2 Figure 8-5 Derivative curves of Figure 8-4. rD = 1000. . rD = 300 : CD = 3000. Two distances: rD = 1000 : CD = 3000. CD = 10000. The dotted curve corresponds to the Theis solution.Interference tests 8-1. Log-log scale.

Log-log scale. kxy are the components of the permeability tensor. field units) 2 kh φ µ ct r    21.Interference tests 1 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D Intersections Line source well 10-1 A B 10-2 10-2 10-1 Dimensionless time. y) kmin θ Active well kmax x Figure 8-7 Interference test in an anisotropic reservoir. Location of the active well and the observation well.y) and kx.6 qBµ   log ∆t + log − 3.Chapter 8 .2275 (psi. examples A and B. 1 tD /rD2 101 Figure 8-6 Pressure an derivative curves of Figure 8-4 and Figure 8-5.5 Anisotropic reservoirs y Observation well at (x. the observation well location is defined as (x.138 - . With a coordinate system centered on the active well.10  (Bars. 8-1. pi − p wf = p i − p wf =  k 162. . The dotted derivative curve corresponds to the Theis solution.5 qBµ  k  log ∆t + log − 3. the infinite acting radial flow regime is reached.4 Semi-log analysis of interference responses When tD/rD2 > 5. metric units)  kh  φ µ ct r 2   ( 1-30) 8-1. ky.

Chapter 8 . ky and kxy can be estimated.y) is defined as :   tD  k max k min 0.000356∆t    k y 2 + k x 2 − 2k xy  φ µ ct y xy  x. the reservoir anisotropy is not accessible. y  x  ( 8-5) With three observation well responses. The dimensionless time corresponding to well (x. 8-2 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 : . y    tD  r 2  D    k max k min  (metric units)  = 0. the pressure match is the same for all responses and only the time match changes. kx.5k x + k y −  k x − k y    ( 2 2 + 4 k xy    1/ 2 ( 8-7) The angle between the major permeability axis and the x-axis of the coordinate system is expressed with : θ = arctan   k max − k x     k xy  ( 8-8) When only one observation well response is available for interpretation.5k x + k y +  k x − k y    ( ) ) 2 2 + 4 k xy    1/ 2   (mD)    (mD)  ( 8-6)  k min = 0.y of the observation well is function of the well location with respect to the main permeability directions.139 - . The major and minor reservoir permeability kmax and kmin are be defined with  k max = 0.x. 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 8-3 can be wrong. The apparent permeability is : 2 k = k max k min = k x k y − k xy (mD) ( 8-4) The apparent distance rD.000263∆t    (field units)  2 = φ µ ct  k x y 2 + k y x 2 − 2 k xy xy   rD  x .Interference tests When several observation well responses are matched against the exponential integral type curve of Figure 8-3.

1.1 Double porosity reservoirs with restricted interporosity flow Pressure type curves Three curves are needed to define to a double porosity interference response : 1.000356k ∆t (metric units) ( 8-9) 8-2.Interference tests t Df r2 D t Df 2 rD = = 0. restricted (pseudo-steady state) interporosity flow. ∆p becomes less than the pressure gauge resolution. This distance riD represents the radius of influence of the fissures around the active well.1 1 10-1 λ rD2 = 5 10-2 10-1 ω =0.01 0.Chapter 8 .140 - .1. During the fissure flow regime. the λ rD2 transition stabilizes at a low ∆p value and. tD f /rD2 Figure 8-8 Interference pressure type-curve for a double porosity reservoir.01. Later. The distance between the two homogeneous regime curves is a function of the storativity ratio ω. .001 103 104 102 101 Dimensionless time.000263k∆t (field units) (φV ct ) f µ r 2 (φVct ) f µ r 2 0. 0. beyond a certain distance riD. 3.01 ω =0. When the transition starts. 0. 2 λrD = 5. the total system equivalent homogeneous regime is reached and a second exponential integral curve is seen at late time. When the distance rD between the active and the observation wells is large. 2. The level of the pressure change ∆p during the transition is defined by λ rD2.1 1 ω =0. the response deviates from the fissure curve and follows a λ rD2 transition curve. 101 Dimensionless Pressure pD 1 0. the interference response follows the exponential integral solution.

1. . The dotted curve describes the derivative response at the active well. λ = 5 X 10-8. tD f /rD2 Figure 8-10 Interference responses of Figure 8-9. tDf /rD time scale. The tDf time scale of Figure 8-9 shows that the transition is observed at the same time in the active well and in the observation wells. the fissure flow regime is seen first.141 - .Chapter 8 . 101 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D Active well 1 10-1 A 10-2 rD=1000 105 106 107 108 109 B rD=5000 104 Dimensionless time. 101 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D A 1 B 10-1 B rD=5000 10-2 10-2 10-1 1 101 A rD=1000 102 103 2 Dimensionless time. The interference response is observed faster than for the equivalent homogeneous reservoir. ω = 0. two distances : rD = 1000 (curve A) and rD = 5000 (B). tD f Figure 8-9 Interference responses in double porosity reservoirs with restricted interporosity flow (tDf time scale). With the tDf/rD2 time scale of Figure 8-10.Interference tests Pressure and derivative response When the observation well is located inside the radius of influence riD. the time of transition is a function of the λ rD2 group.

with same parameters as on Figure 8-10 . .Chapter 8 . Log-log scale. 2.142 - . .2 Double porosity reservoirs with unrestricted interporosity flow Pressure type-curve Two pressure curves : 1.001 102 tD f /rD2 103 104 Dimensionless time. for sphere matrix blocks β = λ 3ω .The interference response starts on a β rD2 transition curve. 101 Dimensionless Pressure pD 6 60 600 β rD2 = 6000 10-1 1 10-2 10-1 1 ω =0. Two wells.Interference tests 8-2. 6*102. β = 3λ 5ω and. 60 and 6. tD f /rD2 Figure 8-12 Interference responses in double porosity reservoirs with unrestricted interporosity flow. Pressure and derivative response 101 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D A 1 B A 10-1 rD=1000 B rD=5000 10-2 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.When the total system equivalent homogeneous regime is reached.01 101 ω =0. unrestricted (transient) interporosity flow β rD2= 6*103. For slab matrix blocks.1 ω =0. Figure 8-11 Interference pressure type-curve for a double porosity reservoir. the response follows the exponential integral curve.

the interference signal is delayed. ∆t (hours) 102 103 Figure 8-14 Interference in a reservoir with a sealing fault. or later. When the active well is located in a low mobility region (Figure 8-17). the derivative stabilizes at p'D=1 at late time. ∆p and Derivative (psi) 101 Active well O2 1 10-1 1 101 Elapsed time.143 - . In case of one sealing fault. The time of transition from 0. than in the active well. Location of the active well A and the two observation wells O1 and O2. Log-log scale. . 8-4 Interference tests in radial composite reservoir When the mobility around the active well is higher than the mobility of the reservoir (Figure 8-16). Pressure and derivative curves of the two observation wells.5 to 1 can be earlier.Chapter 8 .Interference tests 8-3 Influence of reservoir boundaries Period #2 Period #3 O1 Linear sealing fault Period #3 A Active well O2 Figure 8-13 Interference in a reservoir with a sealing fault. 102 O1 Pressure Change. the interference signal travels faster.

F=1). 103 Pressure Change. 103 Active well Pressure Change. .Chapter 8 .Interference tests (k/µ)1 (k/µ)2 R A O1 O2 Active well R/2 2R Figure 8-15 Interference in a radial composite reservoir. The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to theTheis solution for region 2 parameters. F=1). ∆t (hours) O2 Line source region 2 102 103 Figure 8-17 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. ∆p and Derivative (psi) 102 O1 101 O2 Line source region 2 10-1 1 101 102 Elapsed time. The mobility of the inner zone is 4 times smaller (M=1/4. Location of the active well A and the observation wells O1 and O1.144 - . The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to the Theis solution for region 2 parameters. The mobility of the inner zone is 4 times larger (M=4. ∆p and Derivative (psi) 102 Active well 101 O1 1 10-1 1 101 Elapsed time. ∆t (hours) 103 1 Figure 8-16 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir.

The storativity of the inner zone is 4 times smaller (M=1. 103 Pressure Change.Chapter 8 . ∆p (psi) 102 O1 101 M=4 M=1/4 O2 M=4 M=1/4 Line source region 2 1 10-1 1 101 Elapsed time. ∆p and Derivative (psi) 102 Active well 101 O2 Line source region 2 1 10-1 1 101 Elapsed time. ∆t (hours) 102 103 Figure 8-19 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. the interference signal reaches the observation well faster (Figure 8-19). The mobility of the inner zone is 4 times smaller or 4 times larger. F=1/4). . The dotted pressure curve corresponds to the Theis solution for region 2 parameters. Well O2. ∆t (hours) 102 103 Figure 8-18 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. Pressure curves of examples Figure 8-16 and Figure 8-17.145 - . The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to the Theis solution for region 2 parameters.Interference tests 103 Pressure Change. When there is a reduction of storativity φct around the active well.

the contrast between the layers is not high (ω =0. Pressure Change. Well O1. ∆p and Derivative (psi) 102 Active well 101 Line source region 2 O2 1 10-1 1 101 Elapsed time. 8-5 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. Well O2.Interference tests 103 Pressure Change. The storativity of the inner zone is 4 times larger (M=1.Chapter 8 . ∆t (hours) Figure 8-21 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. When both the active well and the observation well are located in the inner reservoir region. ∆p and Derivative (psi) 102 Line source region 2 101 Active well 1 10-2 10-1 O1 1 101 102 103 104 Elapsed time. . the interference response can show the 2 usual derivative stabilizations of the radial composite model (Figure 8-21). 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.7). and the active well is expected to show the equivalent homogeneous behavior. The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to the Theis solution for region 2 parameters. F=4).4 and κ =0. ∆t (hours) 102 103 Figure 8-20 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. The mobility and the storativity of the inner zone are 10 times larger (M=F=10).146 - .

Log-log scale. . When the interference is monitored through the low permeability layer 2. ω=0. κ=0. When only the high permeability layer 1 is communicating with the observation well.7 and λ=10-6. and the observation well becomes active (even though it is not producing at surface). the high permeability layer dominates the observation well behavior. Same parameters as on Figure 8-22. The resulting response (Figure 8-23) is close to the response of layer 1 alone : when several layers are perforated. the early time response is delayed compared to the Theis solution for the total system. one layer is perforated in the observation well. the dotted curves correspond to the total system equivalent homogeneous Theis solution. When two layers are perforated. 1 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D Layer 1 10-1 Layer 2 10-2 10-2 10-1 Line source total system 1 2 101 Dimensionless time. the two responses merge on the equivalent homogeneous total system curve.Interference tests On Figure 8-22. The dotted pressure and derivative curves correspond to the Theis solution for the total system equivalent homogeneous reservoir. tD 1+2 /rD Figure 8-22 Interference responses in a double permeability reservoir.147 - . After the double permeability transition. tD 1+2 /rD2 101 Figure 8-23 Interference responses in a double permeability reservoir. a cross flow is present in the well at the start of the interference response.Chapter 8 .4. only one layer is perforated at the observation well. the response is seen before the equivalent homogeneous solution for the total system. 1 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 10-1 Line source total system 10-2 10-2 10-1 1 Dimensionless time. the two layers are perforated in the observation well.

148 - ..

149 - . t ps = ∫ 0 t 1 dt µ ( p)ct ( p) (hr.psi/cp. the theoretical rate at which the well would flow if the sandface was at atmospheric pressure. The complete pressure data is converted into pseudo-pressure m(p) before analysis. cg = 1 1 ∂Z − p Z ∂p (psi-1. 9-1. With deliverability testing.3 Pseudo-time The pseudo-time tps is sometimes used as a complement of m(p). smaller than the lower test pressure. also called "real gas potential".1 Gas compressibility and viscosity The viscosity µ and the compressibility of gas cg change with the pressure. "the Absolute Open Flow Potential" AOFP. Bars2/cp) ( 9-2) The pressure p is expressed in absolute unit. is defined : m( p) = 2 p0 ∫ µ ( p)Z ( p) dp p p (psia2/cp. 9-1. expressed as m(p)-m(p[∆t=0]). 9-1 Gas properties 9-1. The reference pressure p0 is an arbitrary constant.9 . is independent of the reference pressure p0. Bars-1) ( 9-1) Z is the real gas deviation factor. is estimated. The change of pseudo-pressure. (psia2 / cp with the usual system of units). Transient analysis provides a description of the producing system. and the compressibility is cg=1/p. the pressure must be known during the complete flow rate sequence . hr. For an ideal gas Z=1. m(p) has the unit of (pressure)2 / viscosity .Bars/cp) ( 9-3) In order to estimate µ and ct before calculation of the superposition with the pseudo time tps.GAS WELLS Two different types of test are used with gas wells.2 Pseudo-pressure The pseudo-pressure m(p). as for oil wells.

00 0 2000 4000 Pressure (psia) 6000 8000 Figure 9-1 Isothermal variation of µZ with pressure. no simplification is available and m(p) must be used. 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. .1 Simplified pseudo-pressure for manual analysis On Figure 9-1.When the pressure is less than 2000 psia.Between 2000 psia and 3000 psia. and the pressure data can be used directly for analysis. 0.Chapter 9 . Bars2/cp) ( 9-4) On low-pressure gas wells. the product µZ tends to be proportional to p and p/µZ can be considered as a constant. The pseudo-pressure m(p) becomes : 2p m( p) = µZ p0 ∫ dp = ( p − p0 ) µ p 2 pi (psia2/cp.02 µ Z constant 0.150 - . Bars2/cp) Zi i ( 9-5) On high-pressure wells.03 µ Z (cp) µ 0. µZ is plotted versus p for a typical natural gas at constant temperature : . . the gas behaves like a slightly compressible fluid.01 0.Gas wells 9-2 Transient analysis of gas well tests 9-2. it is possible to analyze the test in terms of pressuresquared p2.04 to nal rtio o rop Zp p 0.When the pressure is higher than 3000 psia. .

When the pseudo-pressure is used.15°K (15°C) and cubic meters are used for gas rates (m3/D. With the pressure and pressure-squared approaches.). With the metric system. the standard pressure is psc =14. all temperatures are expressed in absolute units).987∗10 −5 −4 kh Tsc 2 pi − p 2 µ ZTq sc psc ( ) (field units) kh = 7.03∗10 pi2 − p 2 µ ZTq sc kh Tsc 2 pi − p 2 pD = 37.33µ Z Tqsc psc kh pi2 − p 2 = 0. the properties are defined at the arithmetic average pressure of the test (symbol ). The gas rate is expressed in standard condition as qsc in Mscf/D (103scft/D ).2 Dimensionless parameters Nomenclature In field units.33T q sc p sc kh [m( p i ) − m( p)] = 0. −3 kh p Tsc ( pi − p) µ ZTq sc psc kh p ( pi − p) µ ZTq sc (field units) .Gas wells 9-2.1296T q sc p2: (field units) (metric units) ( 9-6) p D = 1.151 - . Tsc = 288. psc =1 Bar.1296 µ zTqsc p: ( ( ) ) ( ) (metric units) ( 9-7) p D = 3.03 ∗ 10 [m( pi ) − m( p )] Tq sc T sc kh [m( p i ) − m( p)] pD = 37. Dimensionless pressure m(p): p D = 1.7psia and the temperature is Tsc = 520°R (60°F.987 ∗ 10 −5 −4 kh Tsc [m( pi ) − m( p )] Tq sc p sc kh = 7. the dimensionless terms are defined with respect to the gas properties at initial condition (subscript i).976∗10 −5 = 1406∗10 .Chapter 9 .

000263k φµ i cti rw 2 0.000356k ∆t (field units) ∆t (metric units) ( 9-10) φ µ c t rw 2 Dimensionless wellbore storage As for oil wells.Chapter 9 .000263k tD = tD = φ µ ct rw 2 0.152 - .0648µ Z Tq sc Tsc ( pi − p) p sc (metric units) ( 9-8) ( pi − p) Dimensionless time m(p): tD = tD = p2 and p: 0. the wellbore storage coefficient is expressed in Bbl/psi (or m3/Bars).000356k ∆t (field units) ∆t (metric units) ( 9-9) φ µ i cti rw 2 0.66 µ Z Tq sc kh p 0.Gas wells pD = = kh p 18.1592C 2 φ c ti hrw (metric units) ( 9-11) CD = CD = 0.8936C (field units) 2 φ ct hrw 0.8936C (field units) 2 φ cti hrw 0.1592C 2 φ c t hrw (metric units) ( 9-12) Dimensionless time group tD/CD m(p): tD kh ∆t = 0.000295 (field units) CD µi C . m(p): CD = CD = p2 and p: 0.

12 S'=S+D(qn+qn-1) 10 lope D=s 8 S = intercept 6 0 2000 4000 qn+qn-1 (Mscf/D) 6000 8000 Figure 9-2 Variation of the pseudo-skin with the rate qn + qn-1.Chapter 9 . and the skin is estimated from the change of ∆pskin between the flow periods n and n-1. the analysis is made with respect to the rate change (qn qn-1).00223 CD µ C ( 9-14) Skin On gas wells.153 - .Gas wells tD kh ∆t (metric units) = 0.00223 CD µi C p2 and p: ( 9-13) tD kh ∆t = 0. 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 ) ( 9-16) During shut-in periods (qn =0) and during a period immediately after shut-in (qn-1 = 0). . S ' = S + Dq sc ( 9-15) In a multirate sequence.000295 (field units) CD µ C tD kh ∆t (metric units) = 0. the actual flow rate is used in Equation 9-16. also called turbulent effect or non-Darcy skin. the skin coefficient S' is expressed with a rate dependent term.

or Jone's. qsc (Mscf/D) 105 Figure 9-3 Deliverability plot for a backpressure test. The Absolute Open Flow Potential (AOF) is the theoretical rate for a bottom hole flowing pressure pwf = 14.154 - .Gas wells 9-3 Deliverability tests 9-3.35 + 0.1 Deliverability equations Empirical approach (Fetkovich. to 0. 109 pwf=14. or "C & n") 2 q sc = C pi2 − pwf ( ) n (Mscf/D. m3/D) ( 9-17) The initial pressure pi and the stabilized flowing pressures pwf are expressed in absolute units. the difference between the pseudo-steady state flowing pressure pwf and the following shut-in average pressure p is expressed from Equation 5-16 as : m p − m p wf = 1637 field units) () ( ) 2  A rw T T  2  log + 0. Theoretical approach (LIT. or Houpeurt's. n can vary from 1 in the case of laminar flow. kh kh  CA  . Log-log scale.7 psia (pwf =1 Bar).pwf2 (psia2) 108 1/n =s lop e 107 AOF=9000 Mscft/D 106 103 104 Rate.7 psia pi2. or "a & b") In a closed system. pressure-squared method.Chapter 9 . The coefficients C and n are two constant terms.5 when the flow is fully turbulent.87 S  q sc + 1422 Dq sc (psia2/cp.

Chapter 9 . During the infinite acting regime.1296 T D q sc 2   kh  kh φ µ i c ti rw  ( 9-20) m p − m p wf = 0.1491 metric units) ∆m(p)/q (psia2D/cpMscf) 35.87 S  q sc + 1422 Dq sc (psia2/cp.10 + 0.87 S q sc + 0. the response follows the semi-log approximation and ∆m(p) is : m p − m p wf = 1637 (psia2/cp. a(t) is an increasing function of the time whereas "a" is constant when pseudo-steady state is reached. Before the pseudo-steady state regime. The Absolute Open Flow Potential is : .1296 D q sc   kh kh  CA  (Bars2/cp.b ent ns i 20. Linear scale.351 + 0.87 S  q sc + 1422 Dq sc 2 kh kh  φµ i cti rw   T  2  log k∆t + 3. metric units) The two ∆m(p) deliverability relationships can be expressed as a(t) qsc + b q2sc.000  0.Gas wells m p − m p wf () ( ) 2  A rw T T  2  log = 0. metric units) ( 9-18) With a circular reservoir of radius re.472re T  T 2 + 0.000 ed biliz st a e l op =s 30.1491 (Bars2/cp. The coefficient "b" is the same in the two equations. field units) () ( ) () ( )  T T  k∆t 2  log + 3.155 - . ( 9-19) m p − m p wf = 0.1296 D q sc   kh  rw kh  (Bars2/cp. CA = 31. qsc (Mscf/D) 6000 8000 Figure 9-4 Deliverability plot for an isochronal or a modified isochronal test.000 a = intercept 25.87 S q sc + 0.472re T  T 2  2 log + 0.000 0 2000 4000 Rate. pseudo-pressure method. field units)  2 log kh  rw kh   0.87 S q sc + 0.62 and ∆m(p) is simplified : m p − m pwf = 1637 () ( ) () ( ) 40.23 + 0.000 tra .1491 + 0.

m3/D) ( 9-21) 9-3. qsc (Mscf/D) 6000 8000 Figure 9-6 Deliverability plot for a backpressure test. Linear scale.Chapter 9 .3 Isochronal test The well is produced at three or four increasing rates and a shut-in period is introduced between each flow. of same duration tp.000 pwf4 20. A final flow period is extended to reach stabilized flowing pressure.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. The intermediate build-ups last until the initial pressure pi is reached.000 6900 10. 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.000 6800 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Time (hours) Figure 9-5 Pressure and rate history for a backpressure test.156 - . qsc (Mscf/D) pwf2 pwf3 30. pi 7000 Pressure (psia) pwf1 Rate. .Gas wells q sc . pseudo-pressure method. 9-3. The drawdown periods. are stopped during the infinite acting regime.

Log-log scale.Gas wells pi 7000 Pressure (psia) pwf1 pwf2 6900 pwf3 pwf4 10. and the last flow is extended until the stabilized pressure is reached.000 6800 0 200 400 Time.000 0 600 Figure 9-9 Pressure and rate history for a modified isochronal test. stab pws2 pws3 pws4 pi 30. qsc (Mscf/D) 105 Figure 9-8 Deliverability plot for an isochronal or a modified isochronal test.7 psia 106 AOF=8000 Mscft/D 105 103 104 Rate. hours 600 0 800 Figure 9-7 Pressure and rate history for an isochronal test. qsc (Mscf/D) Rate.4 Modified isochronal test The intermediate shut-in periods have the same duration tp as the drawdown periods.000 20.000 pwf.Chapter 9 .000 10. pressure-squared method.157 - . qsc (Mscf/D) 30. 9-3.000 Rate. . 108 sta bil tra ize ns d 1/ ien n= t. slo pe pi2 (or pws2 ). 7100 pws1 Pressure (psia) 6900 6700 6500 6300 0 100 200 300 400 Time (hours) 500 pwf1 pwf2 pwf3 pwf4 pwf.pwf2 (psia2) 107 pwf=14. stab 20.

.158 - .

L1D = L2D = 300. ω = 0. tD /CD 106 107 108 Figure 10-2 Well with wellbore storage in a double porosity channel reservoir. LD = 5000. S = 0. a 1/4 slope derivative straight line can be observed at transition time (Figure 10-2). after a first derivative stabilization at 1. . In a channel double porosity reservoir with unrestricted interporosity flow. CD = 10. When the four sealing boundaries of a closed system are reached during the fissure flow. derivative responses can exhibit several consecutive humps (Figure 10-4). Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 start of the sealing fault 1 0. double porosity reservoir. CD = 104. The thin curves correspond to the infinite double porosity reservoir response. unrestricted interporosity flow. ω = 10-3. The double porosity transition is observed during the semi-radial flow regime.159 - . slab matrix blocks.BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS 10-1 Boundaries in fissured reservoirs A sealing fault can be reached during the fissure flow regime (Figure 10-1). λ = 10-6. tD /CD transition 104 105 total system 106 1 1 Figure 10-1 Well with wellbore storage near a sealing fault. With mixed boundaries. the double porosity transition is superimposed to the start of the pseudosteady state regime (Figure 10-3).5 10-1 10-1 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. λeff = 10-9. S = 0.2. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 º 101 1/4 slo pe 1/ 2 1 0.10 . pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.5 10-1 10-1 1 fissure regime 101 102 103 Dimensionless time.25 1 101 slope 0.

ω = 0.160 - .5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time. . the channel width can appear smaller (Figure 10-6). CD = 100.1.1. pseudo steady state interporosity flow. The dotted curve corresponds to the equivalent infinite double porosity reservoir. ω = 0. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 º 101 2 1 0. LiD = 1000.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. S = 0. the reservoir cross flow is not established when the fault is seen. tD /CD 104 105 Figure 10-4 Well with wellbore storage in a square double porosity reservoir with composite boundaries.Chapter 10 . λeff = 10-6.Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 º 101 1 0. 10-2 Boundaries in layered reservoirs On Figure 10-5. L3D = 1500 (constant pressure) and L4D = 1500 (sealing). pseudo steady state interporosity flow. The boundary is reached first in Layer 1. S = 0. In layered channel reservoirs. The thin dotted curves correspond to the equivalent homogeneous closed square reservoir. λeff = 10-6. CD = 100. L1D = L2D = 500 (sealing). tD /CD Figure 10-3 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. and the derivative deviates earlier than on the equivalent homogeneous response.

After the wellbore storage effect and the early time infinite behavior.7. the derivative stabilizes at 0. 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 /2 e1 slop 1 0. a second unit slope straight line. as on the composite example of Figure 10-4. CD = 100. a derivative hump can be observed at intermediate time.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time. followed by a hump is seen. tD /CD Figure 10-6 Well with wellbore storage in a double permeability reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.κ) until the final unit slope line for the pseudo steady state regime becomes evident. κ = 0. κ = 0. LD = 500. The first unit slope straight line describes the wellbore storage. ω = 0.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. CD = 100. L1D = L2D = 1000. -10 ω = 0.161 - . 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). The dotted curves describe to the channel response of the equivalent homogeneous reservoir. S1 = S2 = 0. S1 = S2 = 0. the closed circular boundary is reached during the early time commingled response. Later.5 / (1 .15.Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 1 1 0. In a closed double permeability reservoir.Chapter 10 . On Figure 10-7. λ = 10 . .15.7. λ = 10-10. The dotted curves describe the sealing fault response in the equivalent homogeneous reservoir. tD /CD 104 105 Figure 10-5 Well with wellbore storage in a double permeability reservoir with a sealing fault.

The interfaces are parallel to the boundaries. rD = 5000. tD /CD 105 106 slo 101 pe Figure 10-7 Drawdown response for a well with wellbore storage in a closed circle double permeability reservoir.7.162 - 1 107 .5 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. 5 Figure 10-8 Well with wellbore storage in a composite channel. ω = 0. CD = 100. d1D = d2D =500. When the mobility contrast is large. drawdown responses can show at intermediate time a closed system behavior. 1. L1D = L2D =1000.2.5/(1-κ) 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. tD /CD M=0. λ = 10-10. the responses tend to be equivalent to that of a homogeneous channel with a different width.Chapter 10 .Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 º pe slo 1 1 0. 10-3 Composite channel reservoirs In channel reservoirs. Build-up responses can be severely distorted (Figure 1011). 1 and 5. when the mobility changes near the edges of the channel banks (Figure 10-8). The dotted curves correspond to the closed equivalent homogeneous reservoir. κ = 0. 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D º 101 1/2 pe s lo M= 5 0.002.2 1 0. S1 = S2 = 0.2. CD = 100. or channel with constant pressure boundary response (Figure 10-10). . or along the channel length (Figure 10-9). M1 = M2 = 0. S = 0.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 0.

S = 0.2.02. the build-up response (thick line) is generated for (tp/C)D = 650. 5 Figure 10-9 Well with wellbore storage in a composite channel.Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D º 101 pe slo 1/2 M =0. tD /CD Figure 10-11 Pressure and derivative drawdown and build-up responses of curve M=50 of Figure 10-10.2 M = 50 1 0. d1D = d2D =1500. 0. .5 10-1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. The two dotted derivative curves are drawdown.2. L1D = L2D =1000. 1. The interfaces are perpendicular to the boundaries.5 10-1 101 102 M=0. CD = 100. the interfaces are changed into sealing and constant pressure boundaries.163 - . L1D = L2D =500. 103 Dimensionless Derivative p'D º closed channel slo pe 1 102 M= 50 101 e1 slop /2 1 0. 1 and 5. M1 = M2 = 0. On the dotted curves. The interfaces are perpendicular to the boundaries.Chapter 10 .5 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. 1 and 50. CD = 100.2 5 1 0. tD /CD 106 107 Figure 10-10 Drawdown responses for a well with wellbore storage in composite channel.02 channel with constant pressure 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. tD /CD 105 106 M=0. M1 = M2 = 0. S = 0. d1D = d2D =2000. 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D º 101 M=5. 1.

.164 - .

When reservoir cross flow between layers is not allowed (λ =0).11 . pD and Derivative p'D 10 double permeability 1 no crossflow crossflow oooo 0. λeff1=10-5. a double permeability response where the two layers are fissured is presented. ω = 0. For each layer.99 of Figure 7-3 (for a storativity ratio ω =10-3). Dimensionless Pressure . 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. the response is different. .33.COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES 11-1 Fissured-layered reservoirs On Figure 11-1. grouping of matrix size by layers has no effect on the response. On Figure 11-2. The parameters correspond to the triple porosity example of Figure 4.33. the double porosity or the double permeability transition. pseudo steady state interporosity flow.165 - .7. restricted interporosity flow is assumed. κ= 0. S1 = S2 = 0. ω1 =0. The (o) dotted curve corresponds to the triple porosity response of Figure 4. 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 7-5 (ω =10-1). tD/CD Figure 11-1 Fissured layered reservoir. When the interporosity flow parameter is small (λeff1 =10-8).1.01. CDf+m = 1. When the vertical communication is good in a fissured layered reservoir. Fissured layered responses depend upon which transition. ω2 =0.01. different λ in each layer. layer 1 is in fissure regime when the double permeability transition starts. is seen first. If layer 1 is in total system flow (λeff1 =10-3) at start of the double permeability transition. the high permeability layer 1 is fissured and not layer 2.5 10-1 triple porosity 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. λ =10-3 or λ =0. λeff2 =5x10-7.

the response shows first a characteristic double porosity valley transition. ω1 =0. After. . κ = 0.99 and λ =4. it is equivalent to the radial composite with a homogeneous inner region. S1 = S2 = 0. only layer 1 is fissured. The two transitions are combined at the same time.99.5 λ1=10-6 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. κ = 0. the inner region is fissured. When λeff1 =10-6.10-4 and the ( ) to the double permeability response of Figure 7-5 with ω = 10-1. tD/CD Figure 11-2 Fissured layered reservoir. 11-2 Fissured radial composite reservoirs On Figure 11-3. The (o) dotted curve corresponds to the radial composite response of Figure 6-2 with M=10. F =1 rD = 700. CDf+m = 1.01. The (o) dotted curve corresponds to the double permeability response of Figure 7-3 with ω = 10-3. pD and Derivative p'D 102 double porosity λ1=10-6 radial composite 10 1 λ1=10 -4 0.10-4.5 10-1 double permeability ω=10-3 λ 1= 10-8 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.1. ω1 =0. λeff1=10-4 or λeff1=10-6. ω = 0. pD and Derivative p'D 1 double permeability ω=10-1 λ 1= 10-3 0.99 and λ =4. When λeff1 =10-4. tD/CD Figure 11-3 Radial composite reservoir. the inner region of a radial composite reservoir is fissured. Dimensionless Pressure . pseudo steady state interporosity flow. M=10.Combined heterogeneities 10 Dimensionless Pressure . λ =4. pseudo steady state interporosity flow. S = 3.166 - . the radial composite interface is seen during the fissure regime.Chapter 11 .01.10-4. CD = 100. κ = 0.01 and λeff1=10-6. the dashed curve describes the double porosity response with ω1 =0. The radial composite model corresponds to the curve M=10 of Figure 6-2. λeff1 =10-3 or λeff1 =10-8.

layer 2 radial composite.5 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. κ=0. tD/CD Figure 11-5 Layered reservoir.9. r2D = 100. and it tends to be steeper than the double permeability infinite reservoir response (Figure 11-5). The radial composite double permeability model can be used to describe the presence of a flow barrier between the layers. -4 CD = 1. no cross flow in the inner region. Before.1. the valley shaped derivative transition is delayed. S1 = S2 =0.5 10-1 10-1 rD=30 rD=100 300 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. CD = 30. rD=30. Dimensionless Pressure . the responses change to the two layers without cross flow at late time (Figure 116).5. the two layers commingled infinite reservoir response is seen. the reservoir is two-layer without cross flow. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0. κ=0. the derivative deviates above the 0.1. . After the derivative hump. but layer 2 is radial composite with a strong reduction of mobility at r2D = 100.Chapter 11 . pD and Derivative p'D 102 M2=1000 100 10 M2=1000 M2=10 10 1 0.167 - . no cross flow. 100. λ2=4 10 . The dotted curves correspond to the double permeability response of Figure 7-5 with κ=0. layer 1 homogeneous. λ=0. S1 = S2 =0. λ1=0. 300.Combined heterogeneities 11-3 Layered radial composite reservoirs On Figure 11-4. Dimensionless Pressure . and the derivative tends to stabilize. tD/CD Figure 11-4 Layered reservoir.5 stabilization and produces a smooth hump. ω=0. The derivative tends to follow a unit slope straight line at intermediate time (examples M2 =100 or 1000). When the reservoir cross flow is only possible in the inner region. M=F =1. When no cross flow is allowed in the inner region of radius rD. 1000. M2 = 10. F2 = 1.9. ω=0. 100.

Chapter 11 . 300.168 - . rD=30. The dotted curves correspond to the double permeability response of Figure 7-5 with κ=0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 rD=30 rD=100 300 0. κ=0. ω=0.9. λ1=4 10 . tD/CD Figure 11-6 Layered reservoir. S1 = S2 =0. no cross flow in the outer region.1. 100.5 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. -4 CD = 1. M=F =1.Combined heterogeneities Dimensionless Pressure . . λ2=0.9 and the dashed curves to the commingled reservoir (λ=0).

If the liquid level reaches the surface. the rate is not controlled by the downstream pressure but by the well condition. With this flow condition. flow period and final shut-in.169 - . The sequence is initial flow. When no flow to surface is desired. . When rate is less than critical. The rate is less than critical. called critical flow. The formation starts to produce into the well. the down hole valve is closed before the liquid has reached the surface (Figure 12-1). slug test analysis methods use a dimensionless pressure ratio prD. defined as the drop of pressure (pi-pwf ) normalized by (pi . the level rises in the drill string and the bottom hole flowing pressure increases. 12-1. an instantaneous drop of pressure (pi .po). the rate tends to stabilize and the DST procedure becomes similar to that of a standard production test. the flowing pressure is not suitable for interpretation.2 Slug test analysis During a slug test period.po) is applied to the sandface. initial shut-in. the well is partially filled with a liquid cushion designed to apply a pressure p0 above the valve.12 . It becomes constant and the pressure increases linearly with time. Before opening. 5100 pi 5000 Pressure (psia) 4900 4800 4700 4600 0 1 2 3 Time (hours) 4 5 6 p0 shut-in Figure 12-1 Example of DST pressure response.OTHER TESTING METHODS 12-1 Drillstem test 12-1. In some cases. Linear scale.1 Test description During a drillstem test. smaller than the formation pressure pi. the pressure increases and the flow rate declines. When the tester valve is opened. This flow period is called a "slug test". a down hole shut-in valve controls the well.

170 - . prD = 1 and. when the liquid level rises in the well.00223  ∆t  MATCH kh = the skin is estimated from the CDe2S curve match with Equation 2-10. tD/CD Figure 12-2 Slug test type curves on log-log scale.pwf(t)]/[pi. The CDe2S curves describe the well condition. when (pi . the time match gives the permeability thickness product:  tD CD  (mD. 1 Dimensionless pressure ratio. prD =[pi. the ratio drops. The same pressure ratio is used for the data and the dimensionless curves.Chapter 12 . field units)   0.ft. the dimensionless pressure ratio prD is presented versus the dimensionless time tD/CD. Knowing the wellbore storage coefficient from the changing liquid level relationship of Equation 1-5.m. When the well is opened.Other testing methods prD = pi − p wf (t ) pi − p 0 ( 12-1) The ratio prD is very sensitive to the accuracy of the initial pressure pi.000295  ∆t  MATCH µC  t D CD  (mD. the pressure match is PM =1. µC ( 12-2) . metric units) kh =   0. especially after some production time. Slug test pressure type curve On the type curve Figure 12-2.p0] CDe2S=1060 10-1 CDe2S=10-1 10-2 -1 slo pe 10-3 10-1 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time.pwf ) becomes small.

8 2 p2 p1 q1 q5 q6 0 2.4 1. field units) µ C ( p i − p 0 )  dp D d ln t D    ( ) (mD. dp D 0. . From the capacity of the drill pipe.3 Build-up analysis When the well is closed down hole before the liquid level has reached the surface.ft. 5000 4900 Pressure (psia) 4800 4700 4600 4500 1 1.2 1. The increasing pressure curve of the flow period is discretized into constant pressure steps (Figure 12-3). the pressure difference is converted into the corresponding height of fluid. without having to differentiate the data.00223  ∆t p i − p wf (t )    MATCH ( ) (mD.6 Time (hours) 1.171 - .00223kh = ∆t pi − p wf (t ) (metric units) d ln t D Cµ ( pi − p0 ) ( ) ( ) ( 12-3) The permeability thickness product is estimated either from the time match (Equation 12. the height is converted into volume.Chapter 12 .Other testing methods Analysis of slug test with the derivative type curve The product of the slug test pressure change (pi-pwf ) by the elapsed time ∆t can be matched directly against a derivative type-curve.m. the decreasing rate has to be estimated as a function of time in order to analyze the subsequent build-up.000295  ∆t pi − p wf (t )    MATCH 0. metric units) ( 12-4) 12-1.000295kh = ∆t pi − p wf (t ) (field units) d ln t D C µ ( pi − p0 ) dp D 0.2 p6 p6 p1 p0 300 200 100 400 Rate (BOPD) Figure 12-3 Example of rate estimation during a DST flow period.2) or from the pressure match : kh = kh = µ C ( pi − p0 )  dp D d ln t D    0. Knowing the liquid gravity.

. The pressure match is defined. the response deviates from the usual pressure response to reach the derivative curve with same CDe2S. during the shut-in. 5100 pi Pressure (psia) 4900 4700 tp 4500 0 0. Linear scale. 12-2. the impulse response is matched against a pressure type curve and.Chapter 12 .000295kh t p + ∆t ( pi − p ws ) (field units) = d ln t D Qt µ dp D 0. as ( pi − pws ) t p + ∆t .Other testing methods 12-2 Impulse test 12-2.172 - .5 2 ∆t Figure 4 Example of impulse pressure response.5 1 Time (hours) 1. During the short flow. during the shut-in period. as in Equation 12-3 : ( ) ( ) dp D 0. the impulse response is expressed as pi − pwf t p and. the well is produced only a few minutes and then closed.1 Test description With impulse tests.2 Impulse test analysis The complete well pressure response is analyzed on a single analysis plot.00223kh = t p + ∆t ( pi − p ws ) (metric units) d ln t D Qt µ ( ) ( ) ( 12-5) where Qt is the amount of fluid produced during the short flow tp. The pressure and derivative type curves are used to analyze the pressure response: during the flowing time.

Chapter 12 . 12-3 Rate deconvolution In the multi rate superposition method presented in Section 2-2. ∆p= (pi-pwf)tp or (pi-p)(tp+∆t) (psi) well flowing well shut-in 101 1 10-3 10-2 10-1 Elapsed time. 103 Pressure change. ∆p and Derivative (psi) 102 101 10-2 10-1 1 101 Elapsed time. and the pressure curve can be used to estimate the skin accurately. the rate history is described by several step-rate changes occurring at different flow times ti. As for slug test analysis.Other testing methods 102 Pressure change. The derivative analysis is not affected by a possible error in initial pressure.173 - . The results can be controlled with a conventional analysis of the shut-in period after the few minutes flow period (Figure 12-6). ∆t (hours) 1 101 Figure 12-5 Impulse match. The pressure response due to a variable rate q(t) can be expressed with the time derivative of the rate history: . ∆p and ∆p' versus ∆t. In the case of a variable production. ∆t (hours) Figure 12-6 Pressure and derivative analysis of the impulse shut-in period. the rate increments are infinitesimal and the multi rate superposition is changed into the convolution integral. Log-log scale.2 (Eq. the result of impulse test interpretation is very sensitive to the accuracy of the initial pressure pi used for the data plot. 2-15).

Other testing methods 141. kh pi − pwf ( ) q (t ) (field units) . qD versus tDe. With accurate sandface flow rate measurement at early shut-in time. using real data of Laplace transformed data. field units) D (t − τ)dτ (bars. Closed reservoir. 1 Dimensionless rate. qD Infinite reservoir 10-1 5000 10-2 2500 re/rwe 104 105 106 107 = 1000 108 10-3 103 Effective dimensionless time. the dimensionless flow rate qD is expressed as : qD = 1412 B µ . tDe Figure 12-7 Decline curves on log-log scale. 12-4 Constant pressure test (rate decline analysis) When a well is producing at constant wellbore pressure. the declining rate can be analyzed versus time. into an equivalent constant flow rate test that can be analyzed with the usual methods. With log-log rate type curves.Chapter 12 . the effect of afterflow can theoretically be eliminated from the pressure build-up response. after any variable rate sequence q(t).2 Bµ ∆p(t ) = kh ∆p(t ) = 18. The technique has also been envisaged for interpretation of build-up tests affected by wellbore storage effect. metric units) ( 12-6) The objective of the deconvolution is to transform the measured pressure response ∆p(t). Several algorithms have been proposed for deconvolution of well test measurements.66 Bµ kh τ=0 t τ=0 ∫ q' (τ) p ∫ q' (τ) p t D (t − τ)dτ (psi.174 - . Results are very dependent upon the quality of the rate curve.

.6 − 3.m. Different types of equipment can be used in order to isolate several intervals in the same well. field units) m q ( p i − p wf ) ( 12-9) Bµ (mD.10 + 0.87 S  (D/Bbl.ft.87 S  (D/m3.6 kh = 21.23 + 0.175 - . the reciprocal of the rate 1/q is graphed vs. kh = 162. or quantify the presence of a sealing interval. metric units) m q ( p i − p wf ) 1 q (1hr )  k S = 1.5 − 3.5 Bµ (mD. field units) log ∆t + log 2 q kh pi − p wf  φ µ ct rw    ( )   Bµ k 1 = 21. metric units)( 12-8) 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. log ∆t.   1 Bµ k = 162.Chapter 12 .151 − log + 3.10 2 φ µ c t rw  mq    ( 12-10) 12-5 Vertical interference test Vertical interference tests are used to estimate vertical permeability in a single layer.66 Bµ q (t ) (metric units) kh p i − p wf ( ) ( 12-7) For semi-log analysis.23 2 φ µ ct rw  mq    1 q (1hr )  k S = 1. An example of usual application is the characterization of low permeability in feasibility studies related to underground storage projects.Other testing methods qD = 18.151 − log + 3.

zw/h = 0.Other testing methods hw-obs hw zw zw-obs kH1.6 10-1 10 102 103 104 0.176 - . . Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 1 Zw-obs/h = 0.8. kV2 kV kH kH3. Vertical permeability: kV/kH = 0. 0. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 1 kV/kH = 0.5. tD /CD Figure 12-10 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage. Log-log scale.5. kV3 Homogeneous reservoir Three layers reservoir Figure 12-8 Well and reservoir configurations.8 105 106 0.05. kV1 kH2. 0. Sw=0. observation segment: hw-obs/h = 1/100.05 0. Several vertical permeability.6. Producing segment: hw/h = 1/10. observation segment: hw-obs/h = 1/100. Sw=0.5 0.5.005 104 105 0. zw/h = 0.005. tD /CD Figure 12-9 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage.7 0. kV/kH = 0. CD = 6. zw-obs /h = 0. zw-obs /h = 0.7. 0.005.Chapter 12 . Log-log scale. 0.5 line 107 Dimensionless time. Several distances. Producing segment: hw/h = 1/10.5 line 106 107 10-1 10 102 103 Dimensionless time.6. CD = 6.

35. on a thick interval. three discrete intervals are isolated to provide vertical interference responses. Sw=0.Other testing methods With the double-stage testing method. observation segment: h. two tests are performed on the same layer: the first. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 Partial penetration 101 Test 1 1 0. zw-obs /h = 0. is used to define the horizontal permeability. Vertical permeability: kV/kH = 0. zw/h = 0.3. Producing segment: hw/h = 1/10.Chapter 12 . tD /CD Figure 12-12 Double-stage test log-log responses.177 - .5 line 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Observation Dimensionless time.w-obs/h = 1/20. CD = 7. Observation interval Flowing interval Observation interval Test 1 : radial flow Test 2 : spherical flow Figure 12-11 Double-stage test.5. . By inflating internal packer in the thick interval.

.178 - .

and qo Rs the dissolved gas at bottom hole conditions. 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.179 - . 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) ( 13-2) 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 (psi-1. m3/D) ( 13-1) where qsg is the gas rate measured at surface. dimensionless pressure and time are respectively : pD = (k µ )t h ∆p (field units) 1412 (qB) t . (k µ )t h pD = ∆p (metric units) 18. and the saturations are constant during the test period. 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 ( 13-3) 13-1.MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS 13-1 Perrine method 13-1.13 .2 Analysis In the usual equations for oil reservoirs.66 (qB )t ( 13-4) . water and gas. The three phases are assumed to be uniformly distributed in the reservoir. For log-log analysis.

Bars/cp) µ o Bo 0 p ( 13-8) For gas condensate reservoir. metric units) ( 13-6) The analysis yields the effective mobility of this equivalent fluid.w.5 (k µ )t h m = 162. field units) (Bars.Chapter 13 . When the relative permeabilities kr"o. As the saturation profile depends upon the rate history.6 µ )t h C ∆t (field units) µ )t h C ∆t (metric units) ( 13-5) The slope m of the semi-log straight line is expressed (psi.g are used: m( p) =  k ro k rg  ρo  dp (psi/cp.000295 CD (k tD = 0. Bars/cp) + ρg ∫  µo µg   p0 p ( 13-9) The relative permeability curves are needed to calculate the multiphase pseudopressure functions.180 - .1 Multiphase pseudo-pressure For solution gas drive reservoir.Multiphase reservoirs (k tD = 0. the pseudo pressure is expressed : m( p) = ∫ k ro ( S o ) dp (psi/cp. m(p) depends upon the test sequence. .g" of the different phases are known.000223 CD (qB )t (k µ )t h (qB )t m = 21. the molar density of the oil and gas phases ρo. the absolute permeability can be estimated : (k µ )t = k k ro µ o + k rw µ w + k rg µ g (mD/cp) ( ) ( 13-7) 13-2 Other methods 13-2.

2 Pressure squared method For log-log analysis.181 - . defined as : ko = ap µ o Bo ( 13-11) .33 q o ( ) ( ) ( 13-10) 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.Chapter 13 .Multiphase reservoirs 13-2.4 q o ah pD = ∆ p 2 (metric units) 37.

182 - ..

14-2 Test simulation 14-2. Test simulations are generated to ensure the objectives can be achieved.183 - . since wellbore problems frequently distort early time data. and to define the optimum testing sequence.2 Test design tips Test design is a compromise between cost and reliability. possibly followed by a long buildup period. The final test program is defined from not only technical considerations. reservoir parameters and the anticipated flow rate. For gas wells for example. • In order to evaluate the expected reservoir model. all parameters must have been defined: static parameters. a first simulation can be generated for a long constant rate drawdown. are presented in a different section. Taking into account possible pressure gauge noise or drift. • The simulation can be converted into data in order to control the quality of the future analysis.TEST DESIGN 14-1 Introduction Once the objectives of the test have been defined. • By examination of this ideal response. the program is established taking into account the different operational constraints. 14-2. Test sequences are sometimes designed with two or several buildup periods after different flow rates. but also taking into account the desired degree of confidence in the results. as well as the definition of the responsibilities during testing. In the following. some relatively short.14. only test simulation is discussed. is well adapted to transient analysis purpose.1 Simulation procedure • Before generating the simulations. the Modified Isochronal test sequence. the minimum duration of the flow and shut-in periods can be estimated. Test programming and conduct. the test program is adjusted to ensure a complete and significant pressure response for the lowest test duration. . • A multirate simulation is generated for prediction of the actual test response.

or to a different pressure behavior. If the reservoir pressure is decreasing.Chapter 14 . The experience gained from the design study can be used to adjust in real time the program to any unexpected event (well shut-in for operational or safety reason).) .Test design In multirate testing. From examination of the pressure change observed on the test simulation. the multirate correction with the time superposition function can be very sensitive to inaccurate rate data. With decreasing rates. the duration of the reservoir pressure survey before the start of the operation is part of the design program. use of a down hole shut-in tool. operation on the well or change of annular pressure during shut-in. the requirements for the pressure gauge characteristics are defined. it may be necessary to evaluate the pressure trend accurately before the test (interference test design). an increasing flowrate sequence is preferred to a decreasing rate history.184 - . Experience of tests in neighboring wells can be used to establish specifications such as gauge depths. 14-3 Test design reporting and test supervision Test design is not limited to the definition of the different flow periods. the same person is in charge of the design and of the test supervision. any action that can affect the pressure data must be recorded (such as leak. During the test supervision. In the ideal case. etc. Guidelines for clean up (gas wells) and initial shut-in can be established. In such a case. etc.

All rate variations immediately before the analyzed test period must be introduced in the superposition time. t tp=120 tp=20 400 450 500 Figure 15-1 Example of a two drawdowns test sequence. it is assumed that the rate history prior this shut-in is negligible. An equivalent production time is defined as the ratio of the cumulative production divided by the last rate (called equivalent Horner time). 4000 Pressure.15 . 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. On the test example of Figure 15-1. p Rate.185 - . ∆t (hours) 102 103 Figure 15-2 Log-log plot of the final build-up. In practice. tp=20. tp=120. 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 tp=20 101 tp=120 1 10-2 10-1 1 101 Elapsed time. if the duration of the analyzed period is ∆t. q 3900 3800 3700 3600 3500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Time. The derivative is generated with three different rate histories. When there is a shut-in period in the rate history. On the test example. Linear scale. . if the bottom hole pressure has almost reached the initial pressure pi.FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST ANALYSIS 15-1 Rate history definition Two approaches can be used in order to simplify the rate history: 1. 2.

1 170.9 170.186 - . . ∆t (hours) Figure 15-5 Case b: shut-in time too late.1 hr before and curve b = 0. Time and pressure errors. 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 b 1 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time.7 169.Shut-in pressure error: curve c = 10 psi below and curve d = 10 psi above the last flowing pressure. p d 3790 a b 3770 c 3750 169. t 170. .2 170.Shut-in time error: curve a = 0.Error in time and pressure: curve e. . . 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 a 1 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time.8 169.Factors complicating well test analysis 15-2 Error of start of the period 3830 e 3810 Pressure. ∆t (hours) Figure 15-4 Case a: shut-in time too early.1 hr after the actual shut-in time.3 Figure 15-3 Example of Figure 15-1 at time of shut-in.Chapter 15 .0 Time.

103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 e 1 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time. ∆t (hours) Figure 15-8 Case e: shut-in time too late. last flowing pressure is taken in the build-up data.Factors complicating well test analysis 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 c 1 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time.187 - . ∆t (hours) Figure 15-6 Case c: last flowing pressure too low.Chapter 15 . 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆ p’ (psi) 102 101 d 1 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time. A good log-log match can be obtained in case e but the resulting skin is under estimated. during the wellbore storage regime. Pressure errors are clearly shown on the linear scale test simulation plot. . ∆t (hours) Figure 15-7 Case d: last flowing pressure too high.

The effect of a constant drift is inverse during flow and shut-in periods. ∆t (hours) Figure 15-11 Final build-up of Figure 15-1.188 - . Linear scale. ∆t (hours) Figure 15-10 Log-log plot of the build-up example. 15-4 Pressure gauge noise 250 Pressure change ∆p (psi) 200 150 100 50 0 0 100 200 300 Elapsed time. Drift of ± 0. 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 Drift + 101 Drift 1 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time. ∆t (hours) Figure 15-9 Final build-up of Figure 15-1. Drift of ± 0.Chapter 15 . Noise of +1 psi every 2 points.05 psi/hr.05 psi/hr. . Linear scale.Factors complicating well test analysis 15-3 Pressure gauge drift 300 Pressure change ∆p (psi) Drift + 200 Drift 100 0 0 100 200 300 Elapsed time.

15-5 Changing wellbore storage Changing wellbore storage happens when the compressibility of the fluid in the wellbore is not constant. ∆t (hours) Figure 15-13 Log-log plot of a drawdown example of changing wellbore storage. the response describes first the compressibility of the oil but. in a damaged oil well. The wellbore storage coefficient of Equation 1-4 is then increased. No smoothing. ∆t (hours) Figure 15-12 Log-log plot of the build-up example.Factors complicating well test analysis 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 1 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time. the gas compressibility dominates. It is observed for example when. During drawdown.189 - . Noise of +1 psi every 2 points. 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 C oil C gas 1 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time. Three points derivative algorithm. . when the pressure drops below bubble point.Chapter 15 . free gas is liberated in the production string.

changing liquid level When.Chapter 15 . In some cases. Due to the variable compressibility of gas. the build-up pressure can show a temporary decreasing trend after some shut-in time. 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. . During this time interval. 15-6 Two phases liquid level In diphasic wells (oil + water. changing wellbore storage is also frequently evident on gas wells with a large drawdown. the derivative becomes negative. diphasic flow end of phase segregation effect Figure 15-15 Changing liquid level after phase segregation.Factors complicating well test analysis 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 C gas 1 10-2 10-1 1 C oil 101 102 103 Elapsed time. a phase redistribution in the wellbore can produce a characteristic humping effect. the response corresponds to the gas wellbore storage coefficient immediately after shut-in. This produces a steep increase of derivative and. and changes to the lower oil wellbore storage later. ∆t (hours) Figure 15-14 Log-log plot of a build-up example of changing wellbore storage During build-up periods. or gas + condensate).190 - . water falls at the bottom of the well for example. after shut-in. in some cases. the derivative follows a slope greater than unity at the end of the gas dominated early time response.

but the choice of the interpretation model is in general not affected. p humping Pressure difference after phase segregation 3000 Pressure difference before phase segregation Rate. the pressure gauge should be as close as possible to the perforated interval (or even below).Factors complicating well test analysis 4000 3500 Pressure. and the remaining build-up data can be properly analyzed. without significantly changing the interpretation model. t 28 Figure 15-16 Example of build-up response distorted by phase segregation. the analysis is initialized with approximate values. Frequently. and calculated results of interpretation Errors in the static parameters influence the calculated interpretation results. The skin Equation 1-14 . the pressure difference between gauge and formation returns to a constant.191 - . and refined with adjusted parameters later. Well test interpretation provides the kh/µ group from the log-log pressure match or the semi-log slope m. or reaches the depth of the pressure gauge. Humping effect. 104 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 103 102 101 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 Elapsed time. If the interface between the two phases stabilizes. When phase redistribution is expected. Any error on h or µ directly influences the permeability estimate k. The net thickness h and the oil viscosity µ are for example frequently not accurately defined during exploration testing. q 2500 2000 18 Time.Chapter 15 . 15-7 Input parameters. ∆t (hours) Figure 15-17 Log-log plot of the build-up example of phase segregation.

but independent of µ. S is hardly dependent upon h (with a logarithm relationship). . 3-24 for example). and not upon the viscosity µ. (present in the k/µ group). Before comparing results of interpretation to geological or geophysical data. 8-4.Chapter 15 . and the distance to a possible boundary. 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 10-2) the distance to a reservoir boundary can be different from that indicated by the simple interpretation model used for analysis.192 - . is the arithmetic average of each layer permeability (Eq. the influence of any error in the static parameters can be evaluated. The radius of investigation for example. the horizontal permeability is defined as the geometric average of Eq. for a given kh/µ group. From the equations used to calculate the different interpretation results.Factors complicating well test analysis shows that. are dependent upon h (with the square root relationship of Equation 1-32 or 1-22). the significance of the model parameters must be clearly understood. • In the case of permeability anisotropy. 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. 325 • The horizontal permeability kH.

16 - CONCLUSION
16-1 Interpretation procedure
16-1.1 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 log-log 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: log-log, test history and superposition.

Log-log 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 non-testing information.

- 193 -

Chapter 16 - Conclusion

16-1.2 The diagnosis: typical pressure and derivative shapes
Flow regime identification

GEOMETRY

LOG-LOG
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

Bi-linear

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 16-1 The mobility decreases (kh ↓). Log-log and semi-log 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 16-2 The mobility increases (kh ↑). Log-log and semi-log 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 16-3 The storativity increases (φ ct h ↑). φ Log-log and semi-log 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 16-4 The storativity decreases (φ ct h ↓). φ Log-log and semi-log scales.

16-1.3 Summary of usual log-log 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 Bi-linear, 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 -

or k1h < k2h ∆p' & ∆p k1h.3) 1 2 Transition. r Radial outer. unrestricted interporosity flow (4.Chapter 16 .2) 1 2 3 Radial fissures. k1h and Sw Transition (mobility ↑or ↓).5) 1 2 3 Radial vertical. (k1h+k2h)/2 and ST k1h > k2h. L Radial total. kh and S kh. ST k1h. Sw ∆t L kh. k2h and ST k1h > k2h. kh and ST ∆p' & ∆p 1/2 kV. k Transition (storativity ↑). L Radial. ST Linear composite (6. ST Reservoir models ∆p' & ∆p Double porosity.Conclusion Horizontal well (3. S λ ∆t Radial composite (6. ω and λ Radial fissures + matrix.197 - . or k1h < k2h ∆p' & ∆p (k1+k2)h/2. λ Radial fissures + matrix. kh and S ω kh. kV and Sw Linear (mobility ↓). restricted interporosity flow (4. Sw ∆t L . Sw r ∆t k2h. S λ ∆t ∆p' & ∆p Double porosity.2) 1 2 3 Radial inner.3) 1 2 3 Radial inner. k1h and Sw Transition (mobility ↑ or ↓).

ST Boundary models 1 2 3 Radial. S L ∆t Channel (5. kh1+kh2 and ST ω. kh and S 2 Linear. L1 3 Linear.198 - . k2h2 and S2 Transition (mobility ↑). ω. L3 4 Hemi-linear ∆p' & ∆p 1/2 L1 L1+L2 kh. kh and S 2 Hemi-radial. L1+L2 3 Transition (mobility ↓). S ∆t L1+L2 .3) 1 2 3 Radial. partial penetration S1= ∞ (7.2) 1 2 3 No crossflow Transition (storativity ↑). kh and S 2 Linear.1) kh. kh and S Transition (mobility ↓). same skin S1=S2 (7. L1+L2 Off-centered : 1 Radial. kh1+kh2 and ST k2h2. L1+L2 Channel closed at one end (5.4) Centered : 1 Radial.2) Centered : 1 Radial. L Hemi-radial ∆p' & ∆p Sealing fault (5. ST ∆p' & ∆p Double permeability.Chapter 16 . λ (kV) Radial.Conclusion ∆p' & ∆p Double permeability. Sw λ ∆t kh. S ∆t ∆p' & ∆p 1/2 1/2 L3 kh. κ and λ (kV) Radial. κ λ ∆t kh.

S L1+L2 ∆t P A 1 2 Radial. kh and S 2 Pseudo steady state. L1 3 Linear. θ Off-centered : 1 Radial. A Build-up : 1 Radial.5) L kh. S -1 ∆t . θ 4 Average pressure. S ∆t Closed channel (5.3) Centered : 1 Radial. A Build-up : 1 Radial. kh and S 2 Linear. p and A ∆p' & ∆p L1 1/2 L1+L2 kh. L1+L2 3 Pseudo steady state. kh and S Transition (mobility ↑). A Build-up : 1 Radial. L1+L2 3 Fraction of radial. kh and S 2 Linear.4) Drawdown : 1 Radial. L1+L2 3 Fraction of radial. kh and S 2 Linear. S ∆t θ ∆p' & ∆p P 1 A kh. θ 4 Pseudo steady state. L1+L2 3 Average pressure. L1+L2 3 Fraction of radial. θ Closed system centered (5. L One boundary Multiple boundaries ∆p' & ∆p Constant pressure boundaries (5. kh and S 2 Linear. L1+L2 4 Fraction of radial. kh and S 2 Average pressure.4) Drawdown : 1 Radial. kh and S 2 Linear. p and A Closed with intersecting faults (5.Conclusion Intersecting faults (5.199 - . S ∆t 1/2 A P ∆p' & ∆p θ 1/2 kh.4) Drawdown : 1 Radial.Chapter 16 . kh and S 2 Hemi-radial. p and A 1 ∆p' & ∆p L1+L2 kh.

Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 103 102 101 1 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 Elapsed time. Homogeneous reservoir with a sealing fault. .Chapter 16 . Pressure. Linear scale. The interpretation model. q 4600 4400 0 200 400 600 Time. The sealing fault model is not applicable on the extended production history. defined from log-log analysis of the short shut-in period. Increase of derivative response after the last build-up point (second sealing boundary) The log-log derivative plot suggests the presence of a sealing fault. ∆t (hours) Figure 16-5 Log-log plot of the final build-up. the extended production history match is correct. Homogeneous reservoir with a sealing fault. t 800 1000 1200 Figure 16-6 Test history simulation. is introduced farther away in the reservoir. p 5000 4800 pi=4914 psia Rate. parallel to the first. When a second sealing fault.4 Consistency check with the test history simulation In the following examples.Conclusion 16-1.200 - . may be inconsistent when applied to the complete rate history. the initial pressure is 5000 psi.

201 - . the initial pressure before the production history is too high. ∆t (hours) Figure 16-9 Log-log plot of the final build-up. t 800 1000 1200 Figure 16-8 Test history simulation. q 4600 4400 0 200 400 600 Time. Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults. . ∆t (hours) Figure 16-7 Log-log plot of the final build-up.Chapter 16 . With the parallel sealing faults model. Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults. p 5000 4800 pi=5000 psia Rate. Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 103 102 101 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time. Pressure. Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.Conclusion Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 103 102 101 1 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 Elapsed time. Linear scale. Decrease of derivative response after the last build-up point (Layered semi infinite reservoir) The log-log derivative plot suggests the presence of two parallel sealing faults.

one layer is closed. the derivative stabilizes to describe the radial flow regime in the infinite layer. q 3500 3000 0 200 400 600 Time. p 5000 4500 4000 pi=5443 psia Rate. Linear scale. At late time. Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults. Two layers reservoir. ∆t (hours) Figure 16-11 Log-log plot of the final build-up. one infinite and one closed layer. The reservoir is a two layer no crossflow. q 200 400 600 Time. t 800 1000 Figure 16-10 Test history simulation. . p pi=5000 psia 4500 4000 3500 3000 0 Rate. Two layers reservoir. Linear scale. t 800 1000 Figure 16-12 Test history simulation.Conclusion Pressure.Chapter 16 . Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 103 102 101 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 Elapsed time. The hump at intermediate time corresponds to the storage of the limited zone.202 - . one infinite and one closed layer. 5000 Pressure.

• Problems and inconsistencies not solved (if any). it is may be impossible to re-evaluate the test. Test data • Rate history (sequence of events for the test).Chapter 16 . • Semi-log. Match with the different models • Log-log. • Test simulation. • Static parameters. • Choice of the interpretation model(s) and justification. . 16-2. • Hypothesis used (if any). Analysis procedure • Diagnosis (comparison of different periods. • Comparison of the gauge responses and choice of the pressure gauge used for analysis (when several gauges have been used). When all rates and parameters used to generate the interpretation solution are not clearly defined. discussion of the pressure response). • Discussion of the results. The analysis work may be checked several years after completion.1 Objectives A well test interpretation report should present not only the different matches.2 Example of interpretation report contents Summary conclusion • Main results. sensitivity to the hypothesis etc.Conclusion 16-2 Reporting and presentation of results 16-2. but also all information necessary to re-do the analysis.203 - .

.204 - .

205 - . 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 (A-1) µ The flow velocity V is proportional to the conductivity k/µ and to the pressure gradient dp/dl.Appendix . in the SI system of units: q k dp =V = 2πrh µ dr For steady state flow condition. In case of radial flow.ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS A-1 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. the pressure difference between the external and the internal cylinders is: (A-2) pe − p w = r qµ ln e 2π kh rw (A-3) This relationship is used in the definition of the dimensionless pressure Equation 2-3. . q A dp / dl Figure A-1 Rate through a sample. A-2 Steady state radial flow of an incompressible fluid q rw q re Figure A-2 Radial flow. the Darcy's law is expressed.

• The formation is not compressible and saturated with fluid. the total system compressibility ct is attributed to an equivalent fluid: ct = c o S o + c w S w + c f (1-3) . defines the amount of mass change in the element during the time dt.Analytical solutions A-3 Diffusivity equation A-3. div ρ V = −φ The density ρ = → ∂ρ ∂t (A-5) m is used. v A-3. is expressed with the density ρ: c=− 1 ∂v 1 ∂ ρ = v∂p ρ∂p (A-6) With a constant compressibility. φ and the system compressibility. defined as the relative change of fluid volume.2 Darcy's law V= → k → µ grad p (A-4) A-3.4 Equation of state of a constant compressibility fluid The compressibility. • Pressure gradients are low.3 Principle of conservation of mass (continuity equation) The difference between the mass flow rate in. the fluid equation of state is: ρ = ρ0 e ct ( p − p 0 ) (A-7) For a liquid flow in a porous medium.206 - .Appendix . µ. and the mass flow rate out the element.1 Hypotheses • Constant properties: k. A-3.

207 - (2-3) .5 Diffusivity equation Combining Equations 4 and 5. the approximation used to linearize.6 Diffusivity equation in dimensionless terms (customary oil field system of units and metric system of units) kh ∆p (field units) 141. ∂ρ ∂p = ρ ct ∂r ∂r (A-10) ∂p ∂p 1 ∂ 2 p  rρ +ρ + r ρ ct  ∂ r2 ∂r r ∂r ( ) 2  = φ ρ µ ct ∂ p  k ∂t  (A-11) With the condition of low-pressure gradients.Analytical solutions A-3. then 7:  k →  ∂ρ ∂p = φ ρ ct div  ρ grad p  = φ  µ  ∂t ∂t   With radial coordinates. (A-8) 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  (A-9) And with Equation 7.Appendix .66qBµ pD = . ( ) ∂p ∂r 2 ≅ 0 is  ∂ p   φµ ct ∂ p  1  ∂r   div  grad p  = = ∇2 p = k ∂t  r ∂r  → ∂ r  (A-12) The ratio k is called hydraulic diffusivity.2qBµ kh pD = ∆p (metric units) 18. φµ ct A-3.

Appendix .rD ) =− ∞ 2 1  rD Ei − 2  4t D      (8-1) Ei(− x ) =− ∫ e −u du u x (A-16) . Lim p D = 0 r→∞ The solution is called Exponential Integral.Analytical solutions tD = tD 0. the well is a "line source".  ∂ pD Lim  rD  r → 0  ∂ rD   = −1   (A-14) • Outer condition : the reservoir is infinite.000264k ∆t (field units) 2 φµ ct rw 0. (A-15) p D (t D . pD = 0 at tD < 0 • Well condition : the rate is constant.000356k = ∆t (metric units) 2 φµ c t rw r rw (2-4) rD = (6-7) The diffusivity equation is : 1 rD ∂  rD    ∂ pD ∂ rD ∂ rD     = ∇ 2 pD = ∂ pD ∂ tD (A-13) A-4 The "line source" solution • Initial condition : the reservoir is at initial pressure.208 - .

mD (mD) Matrix skin permeability. mD (mD) Horizontal permeability.048*10-1 = m) Straight line slope (semi-log or other) Pseudo pressure or gas potential. psi/hr (*6.048*10-1 = m) Perforated thickness. or turbulent flow coefficient Pressure. psi-1 (*1. bbl/D (*1.894757*10-2 = Bars) Reservoir average pressure.7 psia (1 Bara) Well pressure.894757*10-2 = Bars) -1 Pressure match.305 916 = m3/Bars) Shape factor Turbulent flow coefficient Exponential (2. mD (mD) Vertical permeability. mD (mD) Matrix blocks permeability.450 377*10 = Bars-1) Oil compressibility. psi (*6. ft (*3. ft (*3. ft (*3.290 304*10-2 = m2) Formation volume factor.450 377*101 = Bars-1) Wellbore storage coefficient.048*10-1 = m) Matrix skin thickness. psi (*6.894757*10-2 = Bars) Extrapolated pressure.450 377*101 = Bars-1) Matrix blocks pressure. psi (*6.894757*10-2 = Bars) Flow rate. psi (*6. mD (mD) Spherical permeability. psia2/cp (*4. ft (*3.894757*10-2 = Bars) Fissure pressure. psi-1 (*1. psi (*6.450 377*101 = Bars-1) -1 Total compressibility. mD (mD) Thickness.) Exponential integral Storativity ratio (inner zone / outer zone) Permeability.048*10-1 = m) Distance.753767*10-3 = Bars2/cp) Slope of the pseudo steady state straight line.894757*10-2 = Bars) Productivity index. or during the test. or half length of an horizontal well.450 377*101 = Bars-1) Total compressibility at the average pressure of the test. Bbl/psi (*2. 14.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. psi (*6. psi (*1.589 873*10-1 = m3/D) 3 or Mscf/D (= 10 scft/D) (*2. . psi (*1.894757*10-2 = Bars) Standard absolute pressure.209 - .831 685*101 = m3/D) . psi (*1. Bbl/D/psi (*2.7182 . sq ft (*9.305 916 = m3/D/Bars) Initial pressure.894757*10-2 = Bars/hr) Mobility ratio (inner zone / outer zone) Number of fissure plane directions. RB/STB (m3/m3) -1 1 Gas compressibility. psi (*6. mD (mD) Fracture or fissures permeability. .

ft (*3. ft (*3. ft (*3.15°K) Volume. fraction Mobility ratio Interporosity (or layer) flow coefficient Effective interporosity flow coefficient Viscosity. .048*10-1 = m) Real gas deviation factor Real gas deviation factor at the average pressure of the test Geometric coefficient in λ .831 685*10-2 = m3) Volume ratio (fissures or matrix). .048*10-1 = m) Dissolved Gas Oil ratio.048*10-1 = m) Fracture radius in a horizontal well. °R (*5/9 = °K) Time match. ) Porosity. cf/bbl (*1. lb/cu ft (*1. or saturation Matrix skin Geometrical skin of partial penetration Total skin Skin over the perforated thickness Time.601 646*101 = kg/m3) ∆ α β δ γ φ φf φm κ λ λeff µ µ− θ θw σ ω ρ . 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. hr-1 (hr-1) Standard absolute temperature.7810*10-1 = m3/m3) Wellbore radius. cu ft (*2.Nomenclature . 520°R (15°C = 288. ft (*3.048*10-1 = m) Skin coefficient. ft (*3.048*10-1 = m) Fracture width. ft (*3. 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. fraction Fissures porosity. or transmissibility ratio of a semi-permeable fault Transition curve of a double porosity transient interporosity flow Constant of a β curve Difference Euler's constant (1. hr (hr) Temperature absolute.048*10-1 = m) Matrix blocks size.048*10-1 = m) Width of altered permeability region near a conductive fault.048*10-1 = m) Distance to the lower reservoir limit. or flow velocity Half fracture length. cp (cp) Viscosity at the average pressure of the test.048*10-1 = m) Radius of investigation or influence of the fissures. fraction Matrix blocks porosity. hr (hr) Horner production time.210 - .78 .

or low permeability layer(s) . or water Flowing well Shut-in well Wellbore storage regime (slope m) Partial penetration Inner zone.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. 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. or relative Radial-Composite Radial flow (slope m) Radial-linear flow (slope m) Skin. External Effective Fracture. fissures.211 - . T V w wf ws WBS z 1 2 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Apparent or altered permeability region near a conductive fault Absolute Open Flow Potential Bi-linear flow (slope m) Build-up Channel (slope m) Constant pressure (slope m) Damage (matrix skin) Dimensionless Equivalent. or spherical Standard conditions Semi linear flow (slope m) Spherical flow (slope m) Total Vertical Well. or high permeability layer(s) Outer zone.Nomenclature .

and Raghavan. 1-6."J. Monograph Series no 1."J. R. J.. and Raghavan. E. 1978) 253-264. 1-4." Editions Technip." Soc. F." Trans. ( July. Pet. Clark. van Everdingen. ( Aug..: "The Skin Effect and its Influence on the Productive Capacity of a Well. Monograph Series no 5.: "Pressure Build-up and Flow Tests in Wells".. Institut Français du Pétrole." Trans. 1-12. D. C. Russell. AIME ( 1949) 186. Dallas (1982).: "Applied Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells." J. Earlougher.. 1964) 1159-1170. A.. Tech. Matthews. 1974) 347-360. van Everdingen. C. Pet. J. AIME ( 1968) 243.. Cinco-Ley.:"Transient Pressure Behavior in Vertically Fractured Reservoirs. 91-104.. 1-7." Trans. Gringarten. B. H. J. Eng. K. Dallas (1977). Pet. Pet.G.: "Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. . G. ( Oct.:"Transient Pressure Testing of Fractured Water Injection Wells. H. S. R. Tech. J. Dallas (1967). R. Lee. Textbook Series. Dyes. Tech. B. A. J. Miller. A. Eng. D. F. N. R. Jr.. 305-324. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. Carter.: "Well Testing".: "Unsteady-State Pressure Distribution Created by a Well with a Single Infinite Conductivity Fracture."J. 1-3. 1-8. G.G. C. N. F.: "Evaluation and Performance Prediction of Low-Permeability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic Fracturing. Tech. 1-5.. Bourdarot. AIME ( 1953) 198. Ramey. and Dominguez. Samaniego-V.: "The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs. and Hurst.REFERENCES Chapter 1 1-1. 1-13. Jr. 1-2. and Hutchinson. Pet. C. K.. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. 1-10. C. Pet. 1-11.: "Advances in Well Test Analysis". W. C... 1979) 362-372. and Russell. Agarwal." Soc. A.. 1.. ( Aug.212 - . C. 171-176. A. and Truitt.: " Well Testing : Interpretation Methods. ( June. 1975) 887-892. R. Jr. AIME ( 1950) 189. Trans.. C. D. Vol. 1968) 1639-643. Gringarten.. 1-9. and Pollock. ( March. H. A.: "Estimation of Permeability and Reservoir Pressure from Bottom-Hole Pressure Build-up Characteristics. Ramey.

: "The Effect of Restricted FluidEntry on Well Productivity. 1-17." paper SPE 8205.." Soc. Ramey.:"Wellbore Effects in Injection well Testing.. M. 1-19. Horner.. 1981) 1749-1766. Jr. Cinco-Ley. and Cobb. 1971) 1493-1505. Chapter 2 2-1. Tech... Eng.. F. Eng.. (Sept. P. J. 1961) 803-805. Trans." Oil and Gas J. E. 1971) 863. R. Cong. no 59. 252. P. Eng.: "Wellbore Transmissibility from Afterflow Dominated Pressure Build-up Data. F:"Transient Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells.( Dec. Warren . 1979. A. J.M. P. Jr.. Pet. J. Pet.. 225. Pet.213 - . 1-20. R. H. ( Jan. 1973) 1244-1250. E. 23-26. R. Leiden (1951) II. and Ramey. Nev. Jr. Ramey. Tech.. Sept. H. 9 — . Third World Pet. Moran. Pet.References 1-14. J. presented at the 54th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE. and Miller. W. 1961) 172-174.:"A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure Readings. Landel. K. E. E. 1963) 245. Tech. Gringarten. H... 2-3. 1-18. J. and Root. and Ramey. Jones.. Tech.( Nov. J. J. Tech. E." J.. Earlougher. Agarwal. Trans. No. 2-4. Las Vegas. W. McKinley. 1962) 899-908. D. AIME ( 1961) 222.( Sept. AIME ( 1963) 228. AIME ( 1962). 2-2. and Kniazeff.: "An Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow.G. A. V. Pet. E.:"A General Pressure Build-up Theory for a Well in a Closed Drainage Area. and Samaniego-V. J. ( Sept. I: Analytical Treatment. Pet. 184. H.. V.." J. Reprint Series.. C. 1970) 97. AIME ( 1971). J. 503-521. Pet. ( Dec. 2-7. Tech. Pet.: "Pressure Build-ups in Wells". 1970) 279. Trans." J. C.. R. and Marting.( Aug.: "Short-Time Well Test Data Interpretation in The Presence of Skin Effect and Wellbore Storage. M. 2-5.. F." J." Soc. J.. Brill." J. ( Feb. C.: "Reservoir Limit Tests. P. 1956) 54. Bourdet D."J. Tech. Brons. Pet.. ( July. J. Kersh. Culham.:"Pressure Build-up Equations for Spherical-Flow Problems. R. 2-6. H. 1-16. Proc. 1-15. H. Trans."J. 1974) 545-555. W.:"Theoretical Analysis of Pressure Phenomena Associated with the Wireline Formation Tester.." J.: "A Comparison between Different Skin and Wellbore Storage Type-Curves for Early-Time Transient Analysis. Pet. Tech. Jr.:"Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs" Soc. and Finklea.J.. Also.. ( June 18.( Aug. Jr... Brons. Al-Hussainy. Pet.

New Orleans." paper SPE 18799 presented at the 1989 SPE California Regional Meeting." J. Duong. and Reynolds. Rushing. D.A. Dallas ( 1967) 25-43.” SPEFE ( March." paper SPE 20535 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. J. 1985) 3-4. R. T. and Lee. Tech. A.L.: "A New Set of Type Curves for Well Test Interpretation Using the Pressure Derivative Ratio.: "Type-Curves Analysis Using the Pressure Integral Method. Bourdet."SPEFE.1975) 347-360. A. and Cinco-Ley. R. J. 2-14. J." SPEFE (March 1988) 197206.Pet. and Puthigai. Ayoub.” World Oil ( Oct. Raghavan. 1980. P. Tx.( June.. T.. 2-8.S. W. Sept.:”Application of the Pressure-Derivative Function in the Pressure-Transient Testing of Fractured Wells. D. 2-13. D. 2-9. Soc. J. Onur. M. H.A. Harrington.. 27-30.: "An Approximate Infinite Conductivity Solution for a Partially Penetrating Line-Source Well". and Pirard. G. Johnston. 1985) 470-480. A. A.. presented at the 55th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE.G.W. A. Wong.References Pressure Analysis Methods. J... Douglas.A. 2-12. J. Bakersfield.214 - . and Ayoub.:"A New Method to Account for Production Time Effects When Drawdown Type Curves Are Used to Analyze Buildup and Other Test Data.: "Use of Pressure Derivative in Well-Test Interpretation". Chapter 3 3-1. M.. April 5-7.N. Lee. : " Pressure Integral Type-Curves Analysis-II: Applications and Field Cases. SPEFE (June 1989) 293-302 2-11. A.Eng. Balsingame. Y.. M." World Oil ( May. T. 3-2. 1980) 1053-1064. Jr. Sept..J. Bourdet." paper SPE 16812 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. . 23-26. D.:"The Effect of Producing Time on Type Curve Analysis.: "A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test Analysis. Johnston. Thrasher. Whittle.( Oct.. Tiab.and Ramey. R.:”Pressure-Derivative Type Curves for Vertically Fractured Wells. Dallas. and Raghavan. and Pirard. 3-5. Agarwal. Gringarten. J.L. Dallas. Alagoa. W.C.J. A." paper SPE 9289. K. A.: "A New Approach for Constructing Derivative Type Curves for Well Test Analysis. S. 21-24. D.:”How to Simplify The Analysis of Fractured Well Tests. Balsingame. 3-3. H. C. 1988) 156-158. Pet. 1983) 95106.. (Apr. Y. Sept. 2-10. Bourdet.A. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. T. M.

1987. SPE Advanced Technology Series. G. Larsen.E.P. 15116. F. Kuchuk. Ozkan . Oklahoma City. and Raghavan. W. F. SPERE (May.E. D. Denvers. paper S. J.. 28389.E.A. Papatzacos. F. 9-11 March 1997. LA.. P.A. Kuchuk.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Multifractured Horizontal Wells". R. 3-19. L. SPEFE (March 1996) 55-64.E. and Ozkan. Vol. New Orleans. E.. K. paper S.: "New Skin and Wellbore Storage Type Curves for Partially Penetrated Wells". E. 25-28. 1987) 683-697.. 22-25.: "Pressure Analysis for Horizontal Wells".P. J.: "Well Testing and Interpretation for Horizontal Wells". . Branched and Other Generalized and Extended Well Concepts". Daviau. F. JPT (Jan.P. presented at the SPE 69th Annual Fall Meeting. 3-12. and Ramey. Colorado. G and Curutchet P. Jr. paper S. M.. Yildiz. presented at the 56th California Regional Meeting.: "Pressure Bahavior of Horizontal Wells in Multilayer Reservoirs With Crossflow". 85-94.: "Pressure Drawdown and Buildup Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Media". 6-9. New Orleans. CA.E. 25-28. and Habashy. Oct. Goode. M. 3-11. R.P. presented at the 1997 Production Operations Symposium. Kuchuk. P. Sept. SPEFE.E. 1986. 1994.: "Pressure Transient Analysis for Wells with Horizontal Drainholes".E. P. Oakland. 28388.: "Productivity Computations for Multilateral. L.: "Transient Pressure Behavior of Selectively Completed Horizontal Wells". 1985. and Thambynayagam. Sarica. Clonts. and Raghavan. presented at the SPE Annual Fall Meeting. Haciislamoglu. Ozkan. 1994. C. Kuchuk.215 - .. M. D. M. R. Sept.P. SPEFE (March 1991) 86-94.: "Effect of Conductivity on Horizontal Well Pressure Behavior". Mouronval. Sept. A. Goode.J. Dec. presented at the SPE 60th Annual Fall Meeting. 36754. 3-18. (May 1987) 227-234. :"Discussion of Productivity of a Horizontal Well".References 3-6. and Kirwan. 3-13. F. presented at the SPE 69th Annual Fall Meeting. 3-8. paper S. E. 3-9.. 14251. Wilkinson. T. Larsen. and Thambynayagam.: "Pressure-Transient Behavior of Horizontal Wells With and Without Gas Cap or Aquifer". 546-554. 3-17.: "Estimation of Formation Damage in Horizontal Wells". E.J. paper S. P. March 1995. Brigham. R. Las Vegas.. T. Nev. 3-7. 3-14. 3-15. SPE-R.J. LA.. April 2-4. 1996. H. 1990) 254-255. 3-16. K. T. and Hegre. 37511. Bourdarot.M.. 1995) 36-41. paper S. Oklahoma. : "Approximate Partial-Penetration Pseudoskin for InfiniteConductivity Wells". 3. SPEFE (Dec. 3-10.P.

Eng. J. I. April 18-20. J.: "Use of Pressure Derivative in Well-Test Interpretation".: "Unsteady-State Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs" Soc. A.: "Determination of Fissure Volume and Block Size in Fractured Reservoirs by Type-Curve Analysis". Y. World Oil (Oct. and.. F.N. J. Ayoub. 1979. and Root. Pet. 4-5. A.E.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs with Uniform Fracture Distribution" Soc. Trans.. H. Kazemi. (April 1984). 4-14. AIME. Math. G. A.: "Well Pressure Behavior of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir". J.216 - . J. 1980. Dallas.D. (Dec. 7 (July 1984) 831-846. presented at the 1979 California Regional Meeting of the SPE of AIME. A. 4-2. 4-9. Bourdet. Appl. 246. Warren .:"Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs" Soc. de Swaan. Bourdet. and Kniazeff V. D. Eng. . Moench..: "Interpretation of Tests in Fissured and Multilayered Reservoirs with Double-Porosity Behavior: Theory and Practice". Tech. (Sept. O. T. Pet. 549-564... D. Soc.: "Transient Pressure Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs". Pirard. Gringarten. M.. and Gringarten. Najurieta. : "New Type Curves Aid Analysis of Fissured Zone Well Tests". 4-8. World Oil (April. 1983) 769. T. 1983) 77-87.S. C. 228. NO. Eng. 4-11. Whittle. D. I. and Cinco. Eng. and Pirard.. Bourdet. E. Pet. Odeh. 1963) 245-255. California. and Kochina. AIME. J. Tech. J. 4-3. Soc. Pet..: "Basic Concepts in the Theory of Homogeneous Liquids in Fissured Rocks" J. 261.P. Y. paper SPE 7977.P. M. C. Pirard. A. Pet. Y.(USSR) 24 (5) (1960)1286-1303). 9293. 4-12. J. 20. TX.: "Interpreting Well Test in Fractured Reservoirs". J. Vol. 4-13. J. Sept. Pet. (Oct. AIME. AIME. Alagoa A. (Mar.: "Double-Porosity Models for a Fissured Groundwater Reservoir With Fracture Skin".. SPEFE (June 1989) 293-302. Bourdet. M. A. M. Ventura.. P. (June. M. Streltsova. A. 4-6.L.References Chapter 4 4-1.: "A Theory for Pressure Transient Analysis in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs" J. 1984) 111-124. paper S. Mavor. 4-4. Trans.. 4-7. J. E. Zheltov.. Trans. 1965) 60-64.. H. Trans. Ayoub J. Mech..: "Analytic Solutions for Determining Naturally Fractured Reservoir Properties by Well Testing". Barenblatt . 1976) 117-122. 4-10.. 1241. Ayoub. (July 1980). A. D. Pet. 21-24. 1969) 451-462. Eng. 234.. H. Water Resources Res.. presented at the SPE-AIME 55th Annual Fall Meeting..

Prasad. Tex. M. 5-8. van Poollen. A.: "Pressure Transient Analysis in Finite Linear Reservoirs Using Derivative and Conventional Techniques: Field Examples". paper S. 1975) 89-96.. 803-805. 5-2. New Orleans. La. H. and Kuchuk. H. ( Jan. Oct. presented at the 62d Annual Fall Meeting. 1986. L. 4-18. D.:”Pressure Analysis of Multiple-Sealing-Fault Systems and Bounded Reservoirs by Type Curve Matching. 1985) 2023-2039. 4-17. Dallas. A.. Tech. H. 1988. Wong. G.. Trans. F.” J... F.: "A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure Readings". NV. Stewart.P.: "Pressure Derivative Approach to Transient Test Analysis: A High-Permeability North Sea Reservoir Example. D. H. 5-8. Tech. 5-6. Y. Houston. and Van Golf-Racht. 1979) 378-392.C. (Aug. April 1986." J. paper SPE 16777. AIME. Tech. and Ascharsobbi. presented at the 60th Annual Fall Meeting. presented at the 61st Annual Fall Meeting..B. 27-30. K. Tiab.N. (Oct.J. Sept. Tex. The Oil and Gas J. paper SPE 14168. Mothersele. Pet. D. paper SPE 18173. 15421.:"Drawdown Curves give Angle between Intersecting Faults". 1961). D. G.” SPEJ ( Dec. J. Oct. A. 5-7. Pet. W. Samaniego. Larsen. presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting.20. and Yazdi. Sept.217 - . Raj K. 222. and Miller.: "Estimation of Matrix Block Size Distribution in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs". 1985. 1965). ( Nov. Las Vegas. and Cinco-Ley. Dietz D. F. 5-9. 113-127.E. Chapter 5 5-1. (Aug.. Tiab. 5-3. D..G. 1701-1708. Harrington.: "Pressure Transient Analysis in the Presence of Two Intersecting Boundaries" J. J.: "Well Test Interpretation for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs".:”Detection and Location of Two Parallel Sealing Faults around a Well. 1988. Pet. D. Tech.. 5-4. presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting. paper SPE 18171.References 4-15. 2-5. 5-5. 1987. Pet.: "Triple-Porosity Systems for Representing Naturally Fractured Reservoirs". Houston. 1965). Clark.: "The Pressure Transient Behavior for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Multiple Block Size"..K. Cinco-Ley.: "Analysis of Well Test Data from Linear Reservoirs by Conventional Methods". and Crichlow.. T.D. 955-959 . Tex. Brons F. Oct.. 1980). SPEFE..: "Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure From Build-Up Surveys". and Ershaghi.W. and Hovdan. (Dec. Pet. Tech. C.. and Kumar. Belani. I. 2-5. 71-75. Abdassah. 22-25. 4-16..

K. Chapter 6 6-1. :"Pressure Transient Behavior in a Reservoir With a Finite-Conductivity Fault". 1266-1268." paper S.G. Sept. P. F. 6-2. NV. 6-6. paper S. Ambastha. TX. Tex. Dec. 237. M... (Sept. Oct. (March 1997) 47-564. Las Vegas.: "A Method for Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir". Dallas.M.. M. 1985.F. 1976. (March 1995) 26-32." paper S. Earlougher.218 - . Yaxley." paper S. AIME." paper S. 1971).P.: "The Averaging Process in Permeability Estimation From Well-Test Data. 1966. SPE-RE. 3-6. M. Aug. and Crawford. 14311." SPEFE. 5-13. R. 22-25.E. 325-231. presented at the 60th Annual Fall Meeting.E. 6-5. :"Pressure Behavior of Laterally Composite Reservoir". Tex. T. 328-334.. 21-24. A.. Oct. A.: "An Analytical Study of Transient Flow in Systems With Radial Discontinuities. Sept.E.M. 1980 6-3.:"Estimating Drainage Shapes From Reservoir Limit Tests". A.P. New Orleans.M. Trans. Oliver. presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting.M. Pet. and Cinco-Ley. 1989. 1989.N.J.C. and Kamal. :"Pressure-Transient Testing of WaterInjection Wells"..P. H. Satman.S. : "General Heterogeneous Radial and Linear Models for Well Test Analysis. F.J. Olarewaju. SPEFE.: " Effects of a Partially Communicating Fault in a Composite Reservoir on Transient Pressure Testing. Dallas. Sept. W. D. Levitan.E. J.: "Unsteady-State Flow Behavior for a Well Near a Natural Fracture". 5-14. 16764. Tech. McLeroy. AIME.H. J.S. J. Abbaszadeh. Matthews. SPE-RE. 1987. 6-8.E. Abbaszadeh. .P. and Habashy. V. presented at the 55th Annual Fall Meeting. Pet. 5-12. Dallas. LA.. Brons. 1995. 115-124.P. Jr. M. 27-30. Feb.: "A Comprehensive Application of a Composite Reservoir Model to Pressure-Transient Analysis". presented at the 51st Annual Fall Meeting. 1990) 319-324. and Lee. (Oct. C.S. 9399. 6019." Soc.. Eng.: "Pressure Behavior of a Limited Circular Composite Reservoir. Trans.E.D. 22-25. Cinco.References 5-10.. 251 5-11. 182191.: "The Effect of a Partially Communicating Fault on Transient Pressure Behavior. Samaniego. 6-4. A. and Sageev. AIME (1954) 201. P. Kuchuk. presented at the 70th Annual Fall Meeting. Trans.D. 6-7. G. 30554. SPEFE. and Dominguez. Carter R. L. and Hazebroek. L.

J. 7-4. and Ramey. Wijesinghe. presented at the 53rd Annual Fall Meeting. Oct. 1-3. R. Sept. Oct. 1989.: "Well Test Analysis of a Multilayered Reservoir With Crossflow". : "The Well Response in a Naturally Fractured Reservoir: Arbitrary Fracture Connectivity and Unsteady Fluid Transfer". paper S.P.E. C. presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting. and Horne.P. 7-3. H. Prijambodo. San Antonio. paper S. C-T. 1984. LA. presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting.References Chapter 7 7-1. : "A New Test for Determination of Individual Layer Properties in a Multilayered Reservoir". and Wang. Tariq. Raghavan. and Culham. 20566. Park.: "Drawdown Behavior of a Well with Storage and Skin Effect Communicating with Layers of Different Radii and Other Characteristics. 8-11. Bakersfield. San Antonio. Sept. M. SPEJ.: "Single-Well Pressure Testing Solutions for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Arbitrary Fracture Connectivity"..P. 13055.A. 19797. paper S. presented at the 60th Annual Fall Meeting. A. Oct. Dec. R. SPE-FE. 7-5." paper S. Liu.: "Transient 2D Flow in Layered Reservoirs With Crossflow". 22-25.. March. paper S. and Reynolds. Jr.A.. S. S.E. W. 7-6. presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting. . presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting. SPEJ. D. 1978. Tex. 19800.E. 14167. New Orleans. 1984. Feb. L. A. Poston. Bourdet. June 1985. L. Larsen.P. 1985. 7-7. C-q.P. 23-26. X-D. 16-19.. 7-11. 1993. 7-8. R. Houston. 7-9. R. TX.C. Larsen.E. 18122. 7-10. 1988. presented at the 59th Annual Fall Meeting. 1985. Chen.W. 7-2. 1989. : "Boundary Effects in Pressure-Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs". Ehlig-Economides. 8-11. Gao. Tex. Houston. TX.E.: "Pressure Behavior of Layered Reservoirs with Crossflow".M. and Joseph.E. Houston.P. Oct.E. NV. H-Y. 7453. 2-5.E. 97-106. 13628.: "Well Test Analysis for Wells Producing Layered Reservoirs With Crossflow".P. paper S.219 - . 287-291. H. presented at the 65th Annual Fall Meeting.E.: "Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to Analyze Pressure-Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs". paper S. 27-29. 1990. CA.N. 380396. and Raghavan. Sept. TX.P. Las Vegas. J.: "Single-Phase Fluid Flow in a Stratified Porous Medium With Crossflow. paper S.

Raghavan. presented at the Eastern Regional Conference. D..:" A Model for Interference Testing with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects at Both Wells.R. 519-524. 7-18.. Chen. L. Larsen L. Chen. 1980).E. W. 8-5. (Aug. Aly. J. S.J. Jones. OK. 7-16. Tulsa. San Antonio.S. 29-31." paper SPE 26460 presented at the 68th Annual Fall Meeting. J. paper SPE 10325.. H-Y. TX. Tech. R.: "Heterogeneous Formation: Assessment of Vertical Permeability Through Pressure Transient Analysis . paper SPE 29176. and Lee. Papadopulos. Deboaisne. Gao.References 7-12. 6-9. and Poston. R. Oct.. 7-15. TX. Tiab. R. Houston..: "A New Technique for Analysis of Wellbore Pressure From Multi-Layered Reservoirs With Unequal Initial Pressures To Determine Individual Layer Properties".: "Buildup Behaviors in Commingled Reservoirs Systems With Unequal Initial Pressure Distributions: Interpretation".: "Responses of Commingled Systems With Mixed Inner and Outer Boundary Conditions Using Derivatives." J. 3-6. AGU (1935). 1996. D. B.P. Washington. presented at the 67th Annual Fall Meeting. Houston. paper SPE 27973 presented at University of Tulsa Centennial Symposium. paper SPE 24680.Y.: "Experiences With Combined Analyses of PLT and PressureTransient Data From Layered Reservoirs".: "Nonsteady Flow to a Well in an Infinite Anisotropic Aquifer. DC. 8-3. 7-17.V.-L. 1465-1470. CO. and Brigham. Aug." Trans.. 16-19. 1976) 851-858. and Thibeau. (Aug. Larsen. and Kumar.220 - .R. Denvers. W.E. Sept. 8-10. 1965 Dubrovnik Symposium on Hydrology of Fractured Rocks .: "Wells Producing Commingled Zones with Unequal Initial Pressures and Reservoir Properties". Charleston. presented at the 56th Annual Fall Meeting. presented at the 59th Annual Fall Meeting. 7-13. Agarwal. 8-4.Field Example". presented at the 1996 Annual Fall Meeting. Tex. 5-7. paper SPE 36530. Nov." Proc. and Lee. 1992. 8-2. Chen. 1993. 7-14. 94) 264-271. 4-7. 1994. Oct.:”Application of the p’D Function to Interference Analysis.:" Effect of Wellbore storage and Wellbore Damage at the Active Well on Interference Test Analysis. Oct.: "Average Reservoir Pressure Estimation of a Layered Commingled Reservoir." paper S. Ogbe. Pet. 1994. H. Raghavan.O. and Raghavan. C. Oct. 1981. Boutaud de la Combe. WV. Chapter 8 8-1. S.: "The Relation Between the Lowering of the Piezometric Surface and the Rate and Duration of Discharge of a Well Using Ground-Water Storage.. A. A. I. Pet. Jargon.” J. C..J.M. W. 1984. R. H-Y.W. Tech. Theis. J." SPEFE (Dec.. 13253.

: "Pulse-Testing Response for Unequal Pulse and Shut-In Periods..A New Function for Pressure Build-up Analysis of MHF Gas Wells". 8-13. and Reynolds. A.E. and Grader. Jr.: "The Effect of Noncommunicating Layers on Interference Test Data. 1995.A Review. Las Vegas. presented at the SPE Production Operations Symposium.E. presented at the 54th Annual Fall Meeting. Trans. AIME. H. Brigham.. 1975) 399-410. Al-Hussainy. Pet. L. Tech. J. B. (Dec. April 2-4. AIME. 8-9. B. Pet.C. TX.. Tech.:"Application of Real Gas Flow Theory to Well Testing and Deliverability Forecasting"." Soc. A. Tech.. (Feb. D. Bourdet.. AIME. presented at the 57th Annual Fall Meeting. Eng. Pet. Jr.J. W. and Ramey. 6-9.:"The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media"." paper SPE 29514. 637642.: "Interpretation of Interference Tests in Reservoirs with Double Porosity Behavior . Tech. Chu. New Orleans. 259. Trans. 281-290. 624-636. La. 1985. J.References 8-6. 8-10." paper SPE 22716.J. NV. 1981) 370-382. J. 22-25. Pet. and Brigham. Ramey. Ma.J. Tech." J.: "Interference Testing of a Two-Layers Commingled Reservoir.J. Oklahoma City. A. (May 1966). and Crawford.P. Pet.G. 1989) 595-603.221 - .P.E. (Oct. 8279. (Oct. presented at the 66th Annual Fall Meeting.: "Interference Analysis for Anisotropic Formations-A Case History. Chu. 1975) 1290-98.: "Interference and Pulse Testing . (Dec. Kamal. Oct. Jr. Kamal. DaPrat G.E. 237 9-2. H." J. R. Apr. 1983) 2257-70 Chapter 9 9-1. Satman. and Raghavan." J. M. 1979. 8-11. 8-8.S. P. (May 1966). and Ramey. Pet. and Tiab.. Trans. Tech. W. (May 1970) 618-624. AIME.: "Transient Pressure Analysis of Three Wells in a Three-Composite Reservoir. W.G. R..:"Real Gas Pseudo-Time . 1991. Ramey. 23-26. 259 8-15. H." SPEFE. 237 9-3. 11025. Pet. 8-12. paper S. Onur..P. R." Soc. 249 8-14. R.. Dallas. AIME. Q." J. D: "Interference Test Analysis in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Pet. Sept. et Al. 8-7. Jr.: "Planning and Analysis of Pulse-Tests. Al-Hussainy.: "An Analytical Study of Interference in Composite Reservoirs. 1982.Theory and Field Examples". Trans. . OK. Eng. Agarwal. Sept. paper S.C. J. M. H. Deruyck. M. Trans.

9-7. LA.. Energy Resources Conservation Board. presented at the 1996 SPE EUROPEC. USBM (1936). presented at the III Latin American Conference. SPEFE. 9-10. 19797.H. . M. Chapter 11 11-1. Hart's Petroleum Engineer International (Sept." Editions Technip. Calgary.. (Sept. Tech. 8-11. 9-6.. and Wilson. 1468-1684.. 1959. Jr.: " Well Testing : Interpretation Methods. :"Additional Use of Well Test Analytical Solutions for Production Prediction. M. New Orleans. 1996.:"On the Flow of Gas in Porous Medias". Oct.:"Back-Pressure Data on Natural-Gas Wells and Their Application to Production Practices... Al-Ghamdi. F. J-L. Bocock. 10-3. Larsen. 1989. p. R. Buenos Aires.. Italy. J.Inc. San Antonio. J. Vary.222 - . 9-9. Oct. Revue de l'Institut Français du Pétrole. presented at the 61st Annual Fall Meeting. Bourdarot. L. "Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells". 1994.H. Cornell.. L." Monograph 7.. Argentine. 1968). A. 22-24. April 27-29. 5-8. and Boutaud de la Combe. paper SPE 15418.A.:"Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering..E.. 9-8. A. Milan. Pet. D. F.J. and Schellardt.A. D. C. Stewart.: "Future Developments In Well Test Analysis: Introduction of Geology". Alta. paper S.R. paper SPE 26959. Nai-Fu.T. and Gui. Wattenbarger. XIV (11)." paper S.. J.A. (Aug. Kobayashi. H. Bourgeois. M. R. M.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Dually Fractured Reservoirs". and Ramey. New York (1959). Joseph.References 9-4. Institut Français du Pétrole. China". 1996) 177-183. Elenbaas.: "Boundary Effects in Pressure-Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs." McGraw-Hill Book Co.L. and Weinaug. Damage and Wellbore Storage". presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting. 10-2. F. and Ershaghi. Bourgeois. Poettmann. J. Canada (1975). I. E. 10-4. 73-76. Rawlins.J. Chapter 10 10-1. G. : "Pressure Behavior in Finite Channel-Levee Complexes". 9-5.F.".J. Daviau.P.R.E. 1986.P.L. 1997). Oct.:"Gas Well Testing with Turbulence. Tex. 258. Katz. Houpeurt A. 36820. G.: "A Study of Pressure Transient Behavior in Bounded Two-Layered Reservoirs: Shengli Field. 877-887.

presented at the 61st Annual Fall Meeting. et al. New Orleans. 176-182." SPE-FE. presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting.C. Tech. D. Houston. . M. Kucuk." World Oil ( Sept. Jr. :"Pressure Transient Analysis of a Composite Reservoir With Uniform Fracture Distribution.P." paper S.P.E.J." paper S. de Franca Correa A.E. A. 1987. and Walkup. 11-4. 169-175.: "Impulse Testing. Peres. Richardson." SPEFE. 1986. 16766. and Chauvel. 58. Agarwal.: "Analysis of 'Slug Test' or DST Flow Period Data. and Ayestaran. Jr. LA. presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting.: "Analysis of Simultaneously Measured Pressure and Sandface Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing. and Economides. June 1991. TX. Kikani. Poon. Ogbe. K. Bourdet D.C. J. Cdn. 11-6. (Dec.P. presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting.: "Nonsteady Flow to a Well of Constant Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer. 12-6. 1952) 559-569.223 - . Pet. (Sept.. "A Method for Pressure Buildup Analysis of Drillstem Tests.G." paper S. 1984).: "Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to Analyze Pressure-Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs". H. J. 12-8.E.: "Pressure-Transient Analysis of a Composite Naturally Fractured Reservoir. Tex.E. and Lohman. Ramey. 112177. Cinco-Ley.: "Analysis of Pressure-Transient Tests for Composite Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. G.E. 1993) 292-98.. D.J. Onur. CA. 16808. June 1991. H. Bourdet. and Reynolds. 12-4." Trans. 15476. L. 27-30.C.P. 12-2. Oct. F. 1987. Dallas. Oct.W. 1988. Trans. R. 285 12-5.P. S.L.: "Analysis of Pressure Tests Through the Use of Instantaneous Source Response Concepts. 1975) 14." J..G.E... H