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-

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

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

• Gas well test : specific testing methods are used to evaluate the deliverability of gas wells (Absolute Open Flow Potential. • Injection test / fall-off test : when fluid is injected into the reservoir. Well completion • Production test : the well is completed as a production well (cased hole and permanent completion). p Rate. and the analysis is frequently inaccurate. Interference tests are designed to evaluate communication between wells. q Initial shut-in Clean Variable up rate Build-up Stabilized rate Time. the resulting pressure oscillations in the observation well are analyzed. Before the build-up test.Chapter 1 . the active well is produced with a series of short flow / shut-in periods. the flow rate is accurately controlled (zero). t Figure 1.3 Types of tests Test procedure • Drawdown test : the flowing bottom hole pressure is used for analysis. The usual procedures are Back Pressure test (Flow after Flow). During shut-in periods. Oil well. Pressure. drawdown data is erratic. • Interference test and pulse test : the bottom hole pressure is monitored in a shut-in observation well some distance away from the producer. Isochronal and Modified Isochronal tests. the bottom hole pressure increases and. the well must have been flowing long enough to reach stabilized rate.2 Typical test sequence. after shut-in. AOFP) and the possibility of nonDarcy flow condition (rate dependent skin factor S').Principles of transient testing 1-1. With pulse tests. Frequently the well is cased but DST can be made also in open -4- . the well should be producing at constant rate but in practice. it drops during the fall-off period. Ideally. • Drill stem test (DST) : the well is completed temporarily with a down-hole shut-in valve. The properties of the injected fluid are in general different from that of the reservoir fluid. • Build-up test : the increase of bottom hole pressure after shut-in is used for analysis.

The oil and water lines are equipped with positive displacement metering devices. The wellhead working pressure should be greater than the well shut-in pressure. • Choke manifold : is used to control the rate by flowing the well through a calibrated orifice.4 Well testing equipment Surface equipment • Flow head : is equipped with several valves to allow flowing. pumping in the well. The downstream pressure must be less than half the upstream pressure. A mist extractor is located before the gas outlet. the effluent hits several plates in order to separate the gas from the liquid phase. and production tubing is employed. • 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). 1-1.Principles of transient testing hole. The drill stem testing procedure is used only for relatively short tests. Heaters are also used in case of high viscosity oil. The oil and water phases are separated by gravity.Chapter 1 . Surface samples are taken at the separator oil and gas lines for further recombination in laboratory. The Emergency Shut Down is a fail-safe system to close the wing valve remotely. The drill string is not used any more. the gas line with an orifice meter. -5- . • Test separator : In a three phases test separator. wire line operation etc. Flowh ead B OP S tack Casing Tu bing Tes t tool P ack er Figure 1.3 Onshore DST test string. A system of twin valves allows to change the choke (positive and adjustable chokes) without shutting in the well.

-6- . No bottom hole pressure is available until the gauge is pulled to surface. the gauges are battery powered and the pressure data is stored in the gauge memory. the well is produced at low rate. and to adjust the duration of the shut-in periods. two burners are available on the rig for wind constraint. • Down hole valve : By closing the well down hole.4 Surface set up.1). DST are generally short tests. Oil and gas are frequently burned. operated by translation. 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. When they are not connected to the surface with a cable. With a cable. 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. Onshore. During sampling. rotation or annular pressure. Offshore. • Oil and gas disposal : The oil rate can be measured with a gauge tank (or a surge tank in case of H2S). a flare pit is installed at a safe distance from the well. • Bottom hole sampler : Fluid samples can also be taken with a wire line bottom hole sampler. Several types of down hole valve are available. or hung off on a seating nipple. A sample of reservoir fluid can be taken when the tester valve is closed. 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. a surface read out system allows to monitor the test in real time.Chapter 1 .

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

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

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

Chapter 1 .66qBµ S= ( 1-8) • Damaged well (S > 0) : poor contact between the well and the reservoir (mudcake. Stimulated well. S − p w . S = 0 = − (Bars.66qBµ rS 18. partial penetration) or invaded zone • Stimulated well (S < 0) : surface of contact between the well and the reservoir increased (fracture.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.2qBµ kh S= ∆pSkin (metric units) 18. Pressure distribution.2qBµ rS 141. insufficient perforation density. It characterizes the well condition : for a damaged well S > 0. and for a stimulated well S < 0. S = 0 = p w. kh ∆pSkin (field units) 141.10 - . Skin The skin is a dimensionless parameter. 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. field units) ln − ln kS h rw kh rw 18. horizontal well) or acid stimulated zone Steady state flow in the circular zone : k ks rw rs p w. m) ( 1-11) .2qBµ rS (psi.66qBµ rS − p w. negative skin factor. S 141.

two wells A and B are tested twice with the same rate sequence. .10  (metric units) 2   m φµ c t rw   ( 1-14) 1-2.23 (field units) 2 φµ ct rw  m    ∆p k S = 1.ft.23 + 0.Principles of transient testing Specialized analysis For homogeneous reservoirs. The analysis gives access to the reservoir permeability thickness product kh.m.6 ∆p = 21. + 3. metric units)( 1-12) log ∆t + log 2 kh  φ µ c t rw    qBµ (mD. and to the skin coefficient S. ∆p m ∆p(1hr) Log ∆t Figure 1-11 Radial flow regime. field units) m qBµ (mD.87 S  (psi.87 S  (Bars. metric units) kh = 21.5 m kh = 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. Semi-log straight line of slope m : ∆p = 162. a pressure versus time semi-log straight line describes the radial flow regime.6 ( 1-13)  ∆p  k S = 1151 1 hr − log .11 - .10 + 0.3 Examples of infinite acting radial flow behaviors In the following examples.151 1 hr − log + 3. Specialized analysis on semi-log scale.5 Results:  k qBµ  − 3.Chapter 1 . Pressure change.

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

001 0.1 1 10 100 time. Fracture geometry.Principles of transient testing 3000 pressure change.13 - .4 Fractured well (infinite conductivity fracture) : linear flow regime xf Figure 1-16 Fractured well. hours Figure 1.01 0.15 Semi-log responses for well B. most of the pressure drop is due to skin damage. 3000 pressure change. Conversely.14 Semi-log responses for well A. hours Figure 1.001 0.Chapter 1 . psi very high skin 2000 ∆ p skin 1000 high skin 0 0. and the response tends to be flat with a low semi-log straight-line slope. with the higher permeability example of well B. psi moderate skin 2000 1000 ∆ p skin no skin 0 0. .1 1 10 100 time.01 0. 1-2.

Geometry of the flow lines.Chapter 1 . field units) ∆t (Bars. metric units) ( 1-15) ∆p = 0. Specialized analysis with the pressure versus the square root of time. Specialized analysis Plot of the pressure change ∆p versus the square root of elapsed time response follows a straight line of slope mLF.623 Pressure change.14 - . metric units) ( 1-16) . Figure 1-17 Infinite conductivity fracture. ∆p mL F ∆t Figure 1-18 Infinite conductivity fracture.06 qB hx f qB hx f µ φ ct k µ φ ct k ∆t (psi. ∆t : the ∆p = 4.623 qB φ ct k hmLF qB φ ct k hm LF µ (ft. Result : the half fracture length xf x f = 4.06 x f = 0. the flow-lines are perpendicular to the fracture plane.Principles of transient testing Linear flow regime At early time. Linear and radial flow regimes. field units) µ (m. before the radial flow regime is established. This is called linear flow. intercepting the origin.

Geometry of the flow lines during the bi-linear flow regime. Result : the fracture conductivity kfwf 1  qBµ  k f w f = 1944.8 φµ c t k  hm BLF  1  qBµ  k f w f = 39. Specialized analysis Plot of the pressure change ∆p versus the fourth root of elapsed time straight line of slope mBLF.ft. Specialized analysis with the pressure versus the fourth root of time.28 qBµ h k f w 4 φ µ ct k qBµ 4 ∆t (psi. metric units) ( 1-17) 4 h k f wf 4 φµ c t k Pressure change. This configuration is called bilinear flow regime. intercepting the origin. 4 ∆t : ∆p = 44. field units) (mD. field units) ∆t (Bars. When the pressure drop in the fracture plane is not negligible. ∆p m BLF 4 ∆t Figure 1-20 Finite conductivity fracture.Chapter 1 . a second linear flow regime is established along the fracture extension.5 Fractured well (finite conductivity fracture) : bi-linear flow regime Bilinear flow regime wf kf Figure 1-19 Finite conductivity fracture.46 φµ ct k  hm BLF          2 2 (mD.m.11 ∆p = 6.15 - . metric units) ( 1-18) .Principles of transient testing 1-2.

16 - . the flow becomes radial. 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 .33 Pressure change. spherical and radial flow regimes. before the top and bottom boundaries are reached. metric units) ( 1-19) Figure 1-22 Well in partial penetration. field units) (Bars. Result : the spherical permeability ks  φµ ct k S =  2452. The ∆p = 70.3 3 2 k S rS k S ∆t (psi.6 Well in partial penetration : spherical flow regime Spherical flow regime Spherical flow can be observed in wells in partial penetration.Chapter 1 .9 3 2 k S rS k S ∆t qBµ φµ c t qBµ − 279.Principles of transient testing 1-2. field units) . kV kH kH hw h Figure 1-21 Well in partial penetration. Later. ∆p qBµ φ µ ct qBµ − 2452. Radial.9qBµ  mSPH  S m SP H 1 ∆t     23 (mD. Specialized analysis with the pressure versus 1/ the square root of time.6 ∆p = 9. Geometry of the flow lines.

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

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

and it is seen at the well. Pressure profile at time t2. Pressure profile at time t3. p pi rw L ri r pwf Figure 1-27 One sealing fault. but it is not seen at the well. The fault is reached. Pressure profile at time t1. The fault is reached. infinite reservoir behavior. The fault is not reached. p pi rw L r ri pwf Figure 1-28 One sealing fault.Principles of transient testing 1-2.19 - . Start of boundary effect. Pressure profile p pi rw ri L r pwf Figure 1-26 One sealing fault.8 Limited reservoir (one sealing fault) When one sealing fault is present near the producing well. . Infinite reservoir behavior. the pressure response deviates from the usual infinite acting behavior after some production time.Chapter 1 .

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

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

6 log 2 − log( C A ) + 0. Linear scale.0417 (m3.87 S  (Bars. At late time. metric units) ct m * φ hA = 0. plot of the pressure versus elapsed time ∆t on a linear scale.33 Drawdown and build-up pressure response.0417 units) pi Pressure. p ppseudo ste ady state slope m* Time.234 ( 1-24) During shut-in.22 - .Principles of transient testing Specialized analysis During drawdown.Chapter 1 .351 + 0.234  qB qBµ  A ∆t + 162. qB (cu ft. Closed system.5 log 2 − log(C A ) + 0. 1-2. the pressure is monitored in an observation well at distance r from the producer. Result : the reservoir pore volume φ hA.87 S  (psi. field units) ct m * qB φ hA = 0. t Figure 1. .351 + 0.10 Interference test Pressure profile With interference tests. The pressure signal is observed with a delay. the pressure stabilizes to the average reservoir pressure p ( < pi ) . the amplitude of the response is small. field units) φ ct hA kh  rw   qB qBµ  A ∆t + 21. metric φ c t hA kh  rw    ( 1-23) ∆p = 0. a straight line of slope m* characterizes the Pseudo Steady State regime: ∆p = 0.

∆t .23 - . A complete well response is defined as a sequence of regimes. .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. the pressure follows a well-defined time function: log ∆t . Pressure distribution. to access the corresponding well or reservoir parameter. 1-2. Response of a producing and an observation well. By identification of the characteristic pressure behaviors present on the response. spherical etc. A straight line can be drawn on a specialized pressure versus time plot. 1 ∆t etc. For each flow regime. defining the interpretation model. Linear scale. 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.Chapter 1 . linear.11 Well responses A limited number of flow line geometries produce a characteristic pressure behavior: radial.

23 + 0. metric units) PI =   k 21. PI (S=0) = ( p − pwf ) − ∆pskin q (Bbl/D/psi.5Bµ  log ∆t + log − 3. 1-2. Radial (2) Figure 1. Linear (1) 2. Radial (2) (1) 2. expressed from the average reservoir pressure p . Linear Figure 1. In the case of a well in a channel reservoir : 1.87 S    2 φµ ct rw   kh (m3/D/Bars. the sequence of regimes is : 1.Chapter 1 . m3/D/Bars) ( 1-25) The Ideal Productivity Index defines the productivity if the skin of the well is zero.6 Bµ  log ∆t + log − 3.Principles of transient testing For a fractured well for example. the Transient Productivity Index is decreasing with time. field units) ( 1-27) .87 S  2   φµ ct rw   .10 + 0.12 Productivity Index The Productivity Index is the ratio of the flow rate by the drawdown pressure drop. m3/D/Bars) ( 1-26) During the infinite acting period p ≈ pi .36 Fractured well example.37 Example of a well in a channel reservoir. PI = ( p − pwf ) q (Bbl/D/psi.24 - PI = kh (Bbl/D/psi.   k 162.

0001423k∆t  kh   For small x. field units) kh 21.87 S  162.Chapter 1 .001056k ∆t  kh   2  φ µ ct r 18.351 + 0. r ) = [ ( [ ( ) ) ] ] (The semi-log straight line Eq.000264 k ∆t φµ ct r 2 + 0.809 (psi.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. metric units) ( 1-28) 1-2.25 - .2qBµ   (psi. field units) PI =   A 21.87 S    rw   (m3/D/Bars. r ) =− 0.Principles of transient testing The Pseudo Steady State Productivity Index is a constant PI = kh   A − log( C A ) + 0. r ) =− 0.6∆qBµ log 0. 162.6 Bµ  log   2 rw   kh (Bbl/D/psi.66qBµ   (Bars.351 + 0.5qBµ ∆p (∆t .78. field units) − Ei ∆p (∆t . p pi Log r t1 pwf t2 t3 t4 Figure 1-38 Pressure profile versus the log of the distance to the well. 1-12 corresponds to Eq. 1-30 for r=rw).5 0.000356k ∆t φµ ct r 2 + 0.809 (Bars.5 Ei −  0.5Bµ  log 2 − log(C A ) + 0. r ) = log 0. When presented versus log(r). metric units) ( 1-30) kh ∆p( ∆t . Ei(− x ) =− ln (γ x ) : the Exponential Integral can be approximated by a log (with γ = 1. the pressure profile at a given time is a straight line until the distance becomes too large for the logarithm approximation of the . metric units) ( 1-29) ∆p (∆t . Euler's constant).

037 k∆t φµc t (m. and tends asymptotically towards the initial pressure. when a boundary effect is introduced at the end of the test period. Several definitions have been proposed. metric units) (the radius of investigation is independent of the rate).000264k ∆t φµ c r ) = 4 or = γ1 (0. that cannot be observed during the test period. Equations 1-32 and 1-33 are not always accurate. The radius of investigation ri is sometimes viewed as the minimum distance of any event.Chapter 1 . for an initial flow period. With the sealing fault example of Figure 1-30. field units) ri = 0. The radius of investigation ri tentatively describes the distance that the pressure transient has moved into the formation. in general ri is defined with one of the two relationships : 1 (0. For a shut-in periods. field units) ri = 0. the radius of investigation of Equation 1-32 or 1-33 is relatively consistent with the distance estimated by a simulation. 4 γ This gives respectively.032 k∆t φµ ct (ft. such as a reservoir limit. the pressure transient reaches the fault 4 times earlier the boundary can be observed on the producing well pressure behavior.Principles of transient testing Exponential Integral. t D riD = 1 1 2 or t D riD = 2 ).26 - .029 k∆t φµ ct (ft. the profile flattens. In practice. ri = 0.034 k∆t φµct (m. Beyond this limit. ( 1-33) . metric units) and ( 1-32) ri = 0.4 or 8-2.000356k ∆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.

This data plot is then compared to a set of dimensionless theoretical curves... The scale expands the response at early time. S . hr Figure 2-1 Log-log scale... C.)} { A= f ( kh. .. the shape of the data plot is used for the diagnosis of the interpretation model(s).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. t D = B ∆t . from very early time to the latest recorded pressure point. If the flow rate is doubled for example. With the log-log scale.2 . but the graph of log(∆p) is only be shifted by log(2) along the pressure axis. 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.)} ( 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.6 sec) 10-2 (36 sec) 10-1 (6 mn) 100 101 102 ∆t.27 - . pD = A ∆p. {B = g( k . 102 101 ∆P.

000295 (field units) CD µ C tD kh ∆t (metric units) = 0.66qBµ ( 2-3) Dimensionless time 0.Chapter 2 .000356k tD = ∆t (metric units) 2 φµ c t rw tD = Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient ( 2-4) CD = CD = 0. homogeneous reservoir" Dimensionless terms Dimensionless terms are used because they illustrate pressure responses independently of the physical parameters magnitude (such as flowrate.1592C 2 φ c t hrw (metric units) ( 2-5) Dimensionless time group tD kh ∆t = 0.28 - ( 2-6) . fluid or rock properties).8936C (field units) 2 φ ct hrw 0. kh ∆p (metric units) pD = 18. 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.1 Example of pressure type-curve : "Well with wellbore storage and skin.The analysis methods 2-2 Pressure curves analysis 2-2.00223 CD µ C . For example.000264 k ∆t (field units) 2 φµ ct rw 0.

Dimensionless curve group 0. 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 0.3.8936C 2 S (field units) e 2 φ ct hrw 0. ∆p (psi) 102 101 1 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 Elapsed time. Log-log plot .3 CDe2S 1 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. ∆t (hours) Figure 2-3 Build-up example.29 - . ( 2-7) Log-log matching procedure 103 Pressure change. tD/CD Figure 2-2 Pressure type-curve: Well with wellbore storage and skin.Chapter 2 .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. It ranges from CD e2S =0. homogeneous reservoir. CDe(2S) = 1060 to 0. Log-log scale.The analysis methods 1 02 Dimensionless Pressure.3 for stimulated wells. up to 1060 for very damaged wells.

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.00223   (m /Bars.30 - . metric units) Time match TM = (t D C D ) ∆t : the wellbore storage coefficient ( 2-8) C = 0. therefore well controlled. ∆t is superimposed on a set of dimensionless type-curves pD.5 ln CD ( 2-10) 2-2.2qBµ (PM ) (mD. Results of log-log analysis Pressure match PM = p D ∆p : the permeability thickness product kh = 141. Build-up periods are preferably used : the flowrate is nil. especially with the log-log scale that expands the response at early time.2 Shut-in periods Drawdown periods are in general not suitable for analysis because it is difficult to ascertain a constant flowrate. metric units) µ  TM  ( 2-9) Curve match : the skin C D e 2 S Match S = 0. tD /CD. The response is distorted.66qBµ (PM ) (mD.000295 kh  1    (Bbl/psi. .Chapter 2 . the well shows a pressure drop of ∆p(tp). field units) kh = 18. 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).ft.The analysis methods The log-log data plot ∆p. After a drawdown of tp.m. Build-up responses depend upon the previous rate history. field units) µ  TM  kh  1  3 C = 0. and to produce a pressure change ∆pBU of amplitude ∆p(tp). It takes an infinite time to reach the initial pressure during build-up.

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

10 Dimensionless Pressure. field units) log 2 φ µ ct rw  t p + ∆t     t p ∆t qBµ  k = 21.6 qBµ kh ( 2-12) With the superposition time.6 p ws t p + ∆t qBµ log (psi. the correction compresses the ∆t scale.32 - ( 2-13) .87 S  (psi.5 + log − 3. Horner method pws = pi − 162. pD pD(tpD ) build-up type curve 5 CDe2S drawdown type curve tpD 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless times.Chapter 2 . metric units) log 2 kh  t p + ∆t φµ ct rw    = 162. tD /CD 103 104 CDe2S drawdown type curve Figure 2-6 Drawdown and build-up type curves (tpD = 2). 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. pD pD(tpD ) 10 build-up type curve 1 tpD 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 Dimensionless time.5 log (Bars.87 S  (Bars. field units) ∆t kh t p + ∆t qBµ = p i − 21.23 + 0. Semi-log analysis : superposition time [∆p(∆t )]BU [∆p(∆t )]BU   t p ∆t k + log − 3.10 + 0.The analysis methods 10 2 Dimensionless Pressure. metric units) kh ∆t .

6 ( 1-13)  ∆p  tp +1 k S = 1151 1 hr − log .5 (mD. Results : qBµ (mD.23 (field units) 2  tp φµ ct rw  m   ∆p  t p +1 k S = 1.  + log + 3.10  (metric units) 2  m  tp φµ c t rw   ( 2-14) In an infinite system.rate superposition At time ∆t of flow period # n. • The pressure at ∆t =1 hour on the straight line • The extrapolated pressure to infinite shut-in time (∆t = ∞): p*.ft.Chapter 2 .33 - . metric units) m kh = 162. pD P* 5 m 0 1 10 102 103 104 105 Horner time. Horner analysis : • The slope m.151 1 hr − log + log + 3. field units) m qBµ kh = 21. 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 [ ] .The analysis methods 10 Dimensionless Pressure. Multi. [(tpD + tD) / tD ] Figure 2-8 Horner plot of build-up type curve of Figure 2-6. the straight line extrapolates to the initial pressure and p*=pi.m.

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 -

function of the CD e group. . ∆t (hours) Figure 2-15 Derivative of build-up example Figure 2-3.5 d ln( t D C D ) Wellbore storage ( 2-23) ∆p = qB ∆t 24C (psi.38 - . Bars) 24C ( 2-24) During wellbore storage. ∆p' (psi) 102 pe slo 1 101 0. On log-log scale. Log ∆p Log ∆p' Slope 1 Log ∆t Figure 2-14 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale. the pressure and the derivative curves follow a single straight line of slope equal to unity. Log-log scale. the pressure change ∆p and the pressure derivative ∆p' are identical. Wellbore storage Derivative of Section 2-2 example During the transition between the wellbore storage and the infinite acting radial 2S flow regime. Bars) ( 1-6) qB ∆p' = ∆t (psi.5 line 1 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 Elapsed time. the derivative shows a hump.The analysis methods dp D = 0.Chapter 2 . 103 Pressure derivative.

3 Other characteristic flow regimes During other characteristic flow regimes.39 - . Log-log scale.Chapter 2 .3 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. 2-3.The analysis methods Derivative type-curve 1 02 CDe2S 1060 1040 1050 1030 1020 1015 1010 108 106 104 Dimensionless Pressure erivative. Dimensionless Pressure Derivative. p'D 10 1 103 102 10 3 1 0. Log-log scale. homogeneous reservoir" Derivative of type-curve Figure 2-2. CDe(2S) = 1060 to 0. tD/CD Figure 2-17 Derivative match of example Figure 2-3.5 derivative stabilization.3. p'D 1 02 10 1 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. and the 0. Derivative match The match point is defined with the unit slope pressure and derivative straight line. the pressure changes with the elapsed time power 1/n : . tD/CD Figure 2-16 "Well with wellbore storage and skin.

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. The logarithm derivative is: ∆p ' = dp A 1n = (∆t ) (psi. in the case of linear flow. when spherical flow is established. Infinite conductivity fracture (linear flow) On log-log scale. metric units) ( 2-27) ∆p' = 0. Infinite conductivity fracture.311 Slope 1/2 Log ∆p Log ∆p' Log ∆t Figure 2-18 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale. 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. The level of the derivative half-unit slope line is half that of the pressure.The analysis methods ∆p = A (∆t )1 n + B (psi. for bi-linear flow.40 - . ∆t) follows a straight-line slope of 1/n. .623 ∆p' = 2. the pressure and derivative follow two straight lines of slope 1/2.Chapter 2 . metric units) ( 1-15) ∆p = 0. ∆p = 4. field units) ∆t (Bars. field units) ∆t (Bars. Bars) d ln ∆t n ( 2-26) The log-log pressure derivative curve (∆p'.03 qB hx f qB hx f ∆t (psi.

metric units) − 279.03 qBµ h k f w 4 φ µ ct k ∆t (psi.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. metric units) ( 1-17) ∆p' = 11. ∆p = 44.Chapter 2 .6 ∆p = 9. field units) k S rS k S ∆t qBµ φµ c t qBµ (Bars.571 qBµ h k f wf 4 φµ ct k ∆t (Bars.33 qBµ φ µ ct qBµ − 2452. but the derivative line is four times lower. metric units) ( 2-28) Slope 1/4 Log ∆p Log ∆p' Log ∆t Figure 2-19 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale. Finite conductivity fracture. .3 3 2 k S rS k S ∆t ( 1-19) ∆p' = 1226. 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.9 3 2 (psi.11 qBµ h k f w 4 φ µ ct k 4 ∆t (psi. field units) 4 ∆p' = 1. field units) qBµ φµ c t 3 k S 2 ∆t (Bars.28 qBµ h k f wf 4 φµ c t k 4 ∆t (Bars. field units) 4 ∆p = 6.4 ∆p ' = 139.41 - . Well in partial penetration (spherical flow) ∆p = 70.6 qBµ φ µ ct 3 k S 2 ∆t (psi.

∆p = 0.0417 ∆t (Bars. field units) rw      qB qBµ  A ∆p = 0.87 S  (psi.5 log 2 − log(C A ) + 0.234   A log 2 − log(C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S  (Bars.6 φ ct hA kh ( 1-22) units) ∆p ' = 0. Log ∆p Log ∆p' Slope 1 Log ∆t Figure 2-21 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale. Well in partial penetration.The analysis methods Log ∆p Log ∆p' Slope –1/2 Log ∆t Figure 2-20 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale. field units) φ ct hA qB ∆p ' = 0. Closed system (pseudo steady state) The late part of the log-log pressure and derivative drawdown curves tends to a unit-slope straight line.0417 ∆t + 21. The derivative exhibits the characteristic straight line before it is seen on the pressure response. Closed system (drawdown).42 - . metric units) φ ct hA ( 2-30) . metric kh  φ c t hA rw    qB qBµ ∆t + 162.Chapter 2 .234 qB ∆t (psi.351 + 0.

43 - . On a p vs. 2-3. smoothing is applied by increasing the distance ∆x between the point i and points 1 and 2.  ∆p   ∆p    ∆x2 +   ∆x1  ∆x  2 dp  ∆x  1 = ∆x1 + ∆x2 dx ( 2-31) It is recommended to start by using consecutive points. At the end of the period. This effect can introduce distortions at the end of the derivative response. The smoothing is defined as a distance L. The smoothing coefficient L is increased until the derivative response is smooth enough but no more. the derivative is generated with respect to the modified Horner time given in the superposition Equation 2-12 : . and attributes their weighted mean to the point i. It estimates the left and right slopes. the end effect is reached. With this smoothing method. point i becomes closer to last recorded point than the distance L. L is usually no more than 0. over smoothing the data introduces distortions. expressed on the time axis scale. The points 1 and 2 are the first at distance ∆x1.Chapter 2 . one point before (left = 1) and one after (right = 2) the point i of interest.The analysis methods 2-3. Smoothing is not possible any more to the right side.2>L. x semi-log plot. If the resulting derivative curve is too noisy.2 or 0.4 Data differentiation The algorithm uses three points. L Pressure change. ∆p 2 i 1 ∆x1 ∆p1 ∆x2 ∆p2 Log (superposition) Figure 2-22 Differentiation of a set of pressure data.5 Build-up analysis For a shut-in after a single drawdown period (the Horner method is applicable).3.

The analysis methods ∆p ' = t p + ∆t dp dp ∆t = (psi. the multirate superposition time is used. ∆p and Pressure Derivative. 1 04 Pressure change. the derivative with respect to the time superposition can introduce a distortion on the response. 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. as illustrated on the log-log derivative of the build-up example of Figure 2-10 for a well near a sealing fault. 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. .44 - . 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. 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. In all cases.Chapter 2 . Bars) t p ∆t tp dt d ln t p + ∆t ( 2-32) For a complex rate history. psi 1 03 1 02 drawdown build-up 101 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Elapsed time ∆t.

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

.46 - .

Results: permeability-thickness product kh and skin S. 3-1. Radial flow. pD 40 30 20 10 Slope m Slope m CDe2S =1030 ∆ skin CDe2S =0.5 line 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. homogeneous reservoir 3-1. p'D CDe2S =1030 10 high skin 1 pe slo 1 CDe2S =0. Wellbore storage effect.47 - .5 low skin 0.1 Characteristic flow regimes 1.3 .5 103 104 0 10-1 1 10 102 Dimensionless time. tD/CD Figure 3-1 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in an infinite homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale. CDe(2S) = 1030 and 0.3 Semi-log analysis 50 Dimensionless Pressure.5. .WELLBORE CONDITIONS 3-1 Well with wellbore storage and skin. tD/CD Figure 3-2 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-1. 2. 3-1.2 Log-log analysis 1 02 Dimensionless Pressure. pD and Derivative. Result: wellbore storage coefficient C.

Results: permeabilitythickness product kh and the geometrical skin S. Results: fracture half-length xf.000356k φµ ct x 2 f ∆t (metric units) ( 3-1) On Figure 3-3. 2-8) and the fracture half-length xf from the time match : . CD = 0. 3. 3-2.Chapter 3 .2 Log-log analysis Dimensionless terms t Df = t Df = 0.1 Characteristic flow regimes 1.5 line 10-1 Uniform flux Infinite condutivity 10-2 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 Dimensionless time. Log-log scale. The two models are slightly different during the transition between linear flow and radial flow. p'D 10 1 /2 e1 lop S 0. With the uniform flux model.000264 k ∆t (field units) φµ ct x 2 f 0. tDf 10 102 103 Figure 3-3 Responses for a well intercepting a high conductivity fracture. Infinite conductivity and uniform flux. the transition is shorter and the pressure curve is higher.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. Dimensionless Pressure. Match results The kh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq.48 - . Pseudo radial flow: derivative stabilization at 0. the fracture conductivity is infinite.5. Wellbore storage 2. Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. 3-2. pD and Derivative. with the other. No wellbore storage effect CD = 0.

√tDf Figure 3-5 Square root of time plot of Figure 3-3. Early time analysis.6 0. for the uniform flux solution.4 0.49 - .2 0.7 rw e − S (ft. With infinite conductivity fracture. ( 3-3) x f = 2.8 0. field units) φµ ct TM 0. m) And.Wellbore conditions xf = xf = 0. pD 1.000264k 1 (ft.3 Linear flow analysis The half fracture length xf is also estimated from Equation 1-16. Dimensionless Pressure.4 0 0 0.8 1. this geometrical skin effect is defined from the fracture half-length xf as : x f = 2 rw e − S (ft.0 Square root of dimensionless time. 3-2.2 0. metric units) φµ ct TM ( 3-2) The fracture stimulation is seen as a negative skin during the radial flow regime. m LF Uniform flux Infinite condutivity . m) ( 3-4) Figure 3-4 Flow line geometry near a fractured well.Chapter 3 .000264k 1 (m.

4.Chapter 3 . 3. Pseudo radial flow : derivative stabilization at 0. 10 . 0.5 line 104 103. 1. 2.4 Fractured well with wellbore storage Dimensionless Pressure. tDf Figure 3-6 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storage. especially when the fracture is long. Infinite conductivity fracture. 10-2 -4 -3 10 10 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 Dimensionless time. pD and Derivative. Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. Wellbore storage Bi-linear flow : 1/4 slope straight line.3 S=0 10-2 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 Dimensionless time. 3-2. 3-3. p'D 1 S=1 10-1 S=0. pD and Derivative. Infinite conductivity fracture. Results : fracture half-length xf. Results : fracture conductivity kfwf. Log-log scale. Log-log scale.3. 3 4 CD = 0. 10 .50 - . S = 0.5. there is a pressure gradient along the fracture length.1 Characteristic flow regimes 1. Results : permeabilitythickness product kh and the geometrical skin S. p'D 10 1 CD=0 10-1 1/2 pe S lo 0. tD/CD Figure 3-7 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storageand skin.5 Damaged fracture with wellbore storage 10 Dimensionless Pressure. 3-3 Finite conductivity vertical fracture With the finite conductivity fracture model. This happens when the permeability of the fracture is not very high compared to the permeability of the formation. .Wellbore conditions 3-2.

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 = 100. For large fracture conductivity kfDwfD. no fracture skin. 10 and 100. No wellbore storage effect CD = 0. 10 Dimensionless Pressure. The fracture conductivity kfwf is estimated from the match on the bi-linear flow 1/4 slope.Chapter 3 .51 - . The behavior tends to a high conductivity fracture response (when kfDwfD is greater than 300. p'D 1 0. Loglog scale. 2-8) and the fracture half-length xf from the time match (Eq. . pD and Derivative. the bilinear flow regime is short lived and the 1/4-slope pressure and derivative straight lines are moved downwards.5 line 1/2 pe Sl o 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. tD /CD Figure 3-9 Response for a well intercepting a finite conductivity fracture. p'D 1 kfDwfD= 10-1 1 10 10-2 100 10-3 /4 Slope 1 0. Match results The kh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. Loglog scale. see Figure 3-10). No wellbore storage effect CD = 0. 3-2). tD /CD Figure 3-8 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. kfDwfD = 1. pD and Derivative.Wellbore conditions 3-3.

4 Flux distribution along the fracture 3 Uniform flux Infinite conductivity Finite conductivity kfDwfD >300 Dimensionless flux. qfD 2 1 5 0. Log-log scale. 3-3.6 .5 and 5) models.  k f wf S LKF = G  kxf  1 0. kfDwfD Figure 3-10 Effective wellbore radius for a well with a finite conductivity fracture.52 - . x /xf Figure 3-11 Stabilized flux distribution.Chapter 3 . Infinite conductivity (kfDwfD > 300) and Finite conductivity fracture (kfDwfD = 0. 3-3). Uniform flux.3 Bi-linear and linear flow analyses The fracture conductivity kfwf is estimated with Equation 1-18.5 0 0 .5 rwe / xf 10-1   + ln 2rw  xf  ( 3-6) 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 Dimensionless fracture conductivity. and a correction parameter G to account for the pressure losses in the fracture. 3-3.8 1 Dimensionless distance.Wellbore conditions The fracture negative skin is defined by two terms: the geometrical skin of an infinite conductivity fracture (Eq. . the fracture halflength form Equation 1-16.2 .4 .

Wellbore storage. 2.2 Characteristic flow regimes 1. Results : permeability-thickness product for the open interval kHhw.53 - .5.Chapter 3 . and the skin of the well. Sw. • For damaged wells. the product (h/hw)Sw can be larger than 100. 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. 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. Spherical flow : -1/2 slope derivative straight line. Radial flow over the open interval : a first derivative plateau at 0.Wellbore conditions 3-4 Well in partial penetration 3-4. . The total skin combines the wellbore skin Sw and an additional geometrical skin Spp due to distortion of the flow lines. and the total skin ST. 4.1 Definition Sw h hw zw kV kH Figure 3-12 Geometry of a partially penetrating well. 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). Results : permeability-thickness product for the total reservoir kHh.5 h/hw. 3. Results : permeability anisotropy kH/kV and location of the open interval in the reservoir thickness.

5 and 0. tD/CD Figure 3-13 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage and skin.01 and 0.54 - . CD = 6. 2-8).2. Sw=0. kV/kH = 0.005. hw/h = 1/5 in center of the interval. Log-log scale.Chapter 3 .5 line 10-1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. . 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 0.10. pD and Derivative. Sw=0. p'D 10 hem i-sp h eric al 1 sph eric al 0. tD/CD Figure 3-14 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage and skin.5 line 10-3 106 Dimensionless time. pD and Derivative.Wellbore conditions 3-4. Influence of zw/h 102 Dimensionless Pressure. 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). Log-log scale. When the vertical permeability kV is low (low kV/kH).3 Log-log analysis Influence of kV / kH Dimensionless Pressure. m2nd line = = ∆p1st stab. 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. CD = 33. Match results The kHh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. zw/h = 0.5 h/hw) : hw ∆p2nd stab. kV / kH = 0.001. hw/h = 1/10.

4 Semi-log analysis Dimensionless Pressure.1 and kH/kV = 1000. 3-4. 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. The straight line is very compressed. The final semi-log straight line defines kHh and ST.6 Spherical flow analysis Plot of ∆p versus 1 ∆t . tD/CD Figure 3-15 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-13. Spp = 6 only. 3-8).55 - . it defines the permeabilitythickness kHhw (penetration ratio hw/h with Eq.Wellbore conditions 3-4. 3-4. and the wellbore skin Sw. The straight line is frequently not well defined and the analysis is difficult : on example kV/kH =10-3 of Figure 3-13.5 and kH/kV = 10. When a first semi-log straight line is seen (radial flow over the open interval).5 Geometrical skin Spp When the penetration ratio hw h and the dimensionless reservoir thicknessanisotropy group (h rw ) k H kV are not very small. 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.01. the spherical flow regime is established between tD/CD=104 and 106. . Influence of kV / kH on Spp (Sw=0). Spp = 68 whereas with hw h = 0. it ends before 1 t D C D =0.Chapter 3 .

pD Figure 3-16 Spherical flow analysis of responses Figure 3-13. 40 35 30 15 20 0 0. . two or four segments uniformly distributed in the interval. CD = 100. tD/CD Figure 3-17 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage and skin. Sw=0. kV /kH = 0. 2 and 4 segments. Log-log scale.9). One. 102 Dimensionless Pressure.04 0. the –1/2 slope is displaced towards early time when the number of segments is increased (the global skin is respectively 17. pD and Derivative. flow is semi-spherical and the slope mSPH must be divided by two in Equation 1-20.1 Dimensionless time function. One over square root of time plot. p'D segments 1 2 4 10 1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. 3-4. If the open interval is close to the top or bottom sealing boundary.7 Influence of the number of open segments When the open interval is distributed in several segments. the slope mSPH of the spherical flow straight line gives the permeability anisotropy from Equations 1-20 and 1-21. the ability of vertical flow is improved compared to the single segment partially penetrating well of same hw. hw/h = 1/4.9 and 13.08 0.10. On the examples Figure 3-17 with 1.Chapter 3 .56 - . two or four segments. 1 t D CD kV/kH = 10-3 10-2 10-1 slopes mSPH Dimensionless Pressure.06 0.02 0. one segment centered.Wellbore conditions When the open interval is in the middle of the formation.9. 15.

3-5 Horizontal well 3-5. Log-log scale.005. kV/kH = 0. The dotted derivative curve describes the response with sealing upper and lower boundaries. Sw=0.8 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. 102 Dimensionless Pressure. 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 . hw/h = 1/5. pD and Derivative. CD = 1000. one segment on top.Chapter 3 . p'D 10 1 oil water 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. tD/CD Figure 3-18 Responses for a well in partial penetration with a bottom constant pressure boundary.1 Definition kV kH kH h L L zw Figure 3-19 Horizontal well geometry.Wellbore conditions 3-4.57 - .

5(h 2 L ) k H kV . Wellbore storage. 3. 2.5.Wellbore conditions 3-5. tD/CD Figure 3-21 Response for a horizontal well with wellbore storage and skin in a reservoir with sealing upper and lower boundaries. 1. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 First stabilization 1/2 pe Slo k H L2 0. and the total skin STH. 3-5. Radial flow over the entire reservoir thickness : second derivative stabilization at 0. Results : effective half-length L and well location zw of the horizontal drain.3 Log-log analysis Dimensionless Pressure .Chapter 3 . Linear flow between the upper and lower boundaries : 1/2 slope derivative straight line. Log-log scale. When the vertical permeability is increased. the 1/2 derivative slope is moved to the right and the first derivative stabilization is moved down. Vertical radial flow : a first derivative plateau at 0. the first derivative stabilization is also moved down.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. With long drain holes. Results : the permeability anisotropy kH/kV and the wellbore skin Sw (or the vertical radial flow total skin STV of Equation 3-15).2 Characteristic flow regimes Vertical radial flow Linear flow Horizontal radial flow Figure 3-20 Horizontal well flow regimes. 4. Results : reservoir permeability-thickness product kHh. .58 - .

L =250ft.25(h L) k H kV ). kV /kH =0. (∆p1st stab)D= 0.2.25ft.Wellbore conditions Match results The kHh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq.5. pD and Derivative p'D 102 10 5 15 L/h = 30 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 1 Dimensionless time. rw =0. 5. zw /h =0. CD =1000. Dimensionless Pressure . L =3000. Influence of L The examples presented Figures 3-22 to 3-41 are generated with h = 100 ft and rw = 0.0125. the first derivative stabilization during the vertical radial flow is lowered and the linear flow regime is delayed.223. When the effective well length is increased. 10 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. rw =0. tD/CD Figure 3-22 Influence of L on pressure and derivative log-log curves.5. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 L/h = 2. During the linear flow. The effective half-length L and well location zw are estimated from the intermediate time 1/2 slope match. L =1000ft. SQRT (kV kH)*L constant. tD/CD Figure 3-23 Influence of L on pressure and derivative log-log curves. h =100ft. Dimensionless Pressure .05.004.25ft.25 ft. kV /kH =0. L =500ft.5. 2-8). Sw =0. CD =100.59 - . kV /kH =0. Sw =5. zw /h =0. . 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.Chapter 3 . kV /kH =0. the location of the half-unit slope straight line is a function of L2. 1500 and 500ft.

SQRT (kV kH)*L constant. 0.5.60 - . CD =1000. 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. zw /h =0.5 Figure 3-25 Influence of zw on pressure and derivative log-log curves. 0. kV /kH =0.25. and the apparent wellbore radius are defined as: . 102 Dimensionless Pressure . rw =0.25ft. L=1000ft. h =100ft. the lengths are transformed in order to introduce the permeability anisotropy between vertical and horizontal directions.4 Dimensionless variables In the derivation of the model.5. Sw =0. h =100ft. L =250ft. kV /kH =0. tD/CD 0. zw /h =0.Chapter 3 . Sw =2.25. kV /kH =0. 3-5. pD and Derivative p'D 1 10-1 zw/h = 0. L =1500ft. The apparent open interval thickness ha. L =500ft. kV /kH =0.01.0025.000625.5. Influence of zw 10 Dimensionless Pressure .Wellbore conditions When the effective well length is short. rw =0. 10 Figure 3-24 Influence of L on pressure and derivative log-log curves.02. 0. CD =100. 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. the position of the horizontal drain hole with respect to the lower boundary of the zone zwa. tD/CD 5.25ft. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 L/h = 2. the behavior becomes similar to that of a well in partial penetration.125. (∆p1st stab)D =1.125.

23 log 2 φ µ ct rw 2 kV k H L   k  1 k + 0. hD = ha h = L L kH kV ( 3-13) 3-5.6qBµ  − 3. defined with reference to the equivalent fully penetrating vertical well : ' STV = h kH STV = 0. field units) (Bars. by the well half-length L.Wellbore conditions ha = h kH kV kH kV (ft.Chapter 3 .87 S w − 2 log  4 V + 4 H  2  kH kV     (psi. the vertical radial flow skin is expressed as S'TV. m) ( 3-11) 1 rwa = rw 4 kV k H +4 k H kV 2 [ ] (ft. m) ( 3-12) Several authors use the ratio hD of the apparent thickness ha of Equation 3-10. as a leading parameter of horizontal well behavior.61 - . 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.5qBµ  − 3. m) ( 3-10) z wa = z w (ft.87 S w − 2 log  4 V + 4 H  2  kH kV     ∆p = kV k H ∆t 21.5 hD S TV 2 L kV ( 3-16) .10 log 2 φ µ ct rw 2 kV k H L   k  1 k + 0.5 Vertical radial flow semi-log analysis ∆p = kV k H ∆t 162.

producing a partial penetration skin Sz.151 ( 3-22) . the flow lines are distorted vertically before reaching the horizontal well. close to the linear flow skin Sz of Equation 3. 1412 qBµ .Wellbore conditions 3-5.66 qBµ 18. field units) log 2 k H h  φ µ ct rw  ( 3-19)  k H ∆t qBµ  − 3.81 − ln ( 3-21) S zT = −1.18) : 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. S z = −1151 .6 Linear flow analysis ∆p = 8128 qB µ ∆t .5  k H ∆t qBµ  − 3.6 ∆p = 21.66 qBµ Sw + S z (Bars.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 . + Sw + S z (psi.87 S TH  (Bars. field units) φ ct k H 2 kV k H L 2L h kH h ∆p = 1. metric units)( 3-17) + kH h 2Lh φ c t k H 2 kV k H L During the linear flow regime.62 - .5 kH kV   π z w   sin    h     2 h  1 zw zw   −  + L2  3 h h 2    2 ( 3-20) S G = 0. metric units) log 2 k H h  φµ c t rw    STH measured during the horizontal radial flow combines S'TV of Equation 3.23 + 0.87 S TH  (psi.Chapter 3 . 1412 qBµ .246 qB µ ∆t 18. π r  kH h k   π z  log  w  1 + V  sin w   kV L kH   h   h    ( 3-18) 3-5.7 Horizontal pseudo-radial flow semi-log analysis ∆p = 162.10 + 0.

SG 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 . h/rw =1000. zw/h=0. Influence of kV/kH. 2 1000 Geometrical skin.5.Wellbore conditions 4 Dimensionless Pressure.1. pD 3 2 F Slope m VR zw/h = 0 .125 0. L/rw zw/h =0.Chapter 3 . L/rw Figure 3-27 Semi-log plot of the geometrical skin SG versus L/rw.01.5 zw/h =0.1.5 zw/h =0. zw/h=0. 0.1.5.1 103 104 105 Dimensionless half length. kV/kH =0. 0. tD/CD Figure 3-26 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-25.10 102 kV/kH = 1.63 - . 0. 0.5 m es op Sl F HR 1 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. 0.001 kV/kH = ∞ zw/h =0. . 2 Geometrical skin.10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless half length.1 h/rw = 500 2000 4000 kV/kH = ∞ Figure 3-28 Semi-log plot of the geometrical skin SG versus L/rw.25 0. Influence of h/rw.1. SG 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 .

Swi=8.25(h L) k H kV ). The vertical radial flow regime is then distorted. 8. pD and Derivative p'D Skin Swi 1 10-1 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. 0. Non-uniform mechanical skin 10 Dimensionless Pressure . The well is divided in 4 segments of 500 ft with skins of Swi=4. parallel to the wellbore.5. Later. Swi=8. 8.Chapter 3 .1.64 - .33. h =100 ft. 8 (damage at the two ends).8 Discussion of the horizontal well model Several well conditions can produce a pressure gradient in the reservoir.25 ft. 0. 0 (damage in the central section). Swi=0. the geometrical skin can be larger or smaller than SG of Equation 3-21 and 3-22. 4 (uniform damage). During horizontal radial flow. the final horizontal radial flow regime is reached for the complete . The two ends of the well are more sensitive to skin damage (the total skin STH is more negative on the curve Swi=0. Partially open horizontal well When only some sections of the well are open to flow. CD = 100. and the derivative response deviates from the usual stabilization at 0. 0). 8. 4. and several horizontal radial flow regimes are established until interference effects between the producing sections are felt. 5. each segment acts like a horizontal well. the response first corresponds to a horizontal well with the total length of the producing segments. Then.66. 8. the flow is three-dimensional (pseudo-spherical). and the derivative is displaced upwards during the early time response. kV/kH=0. tD/CD Figure 3-29 Influence of non-uniform skin on pressure and derivative curves. rw =0. 0 (skin decreasing along the well length). 2. zw/h =0. 4.Wellbore conditions 3-5. During horizontal radial flow. Finite conductivity horizontal well When the pressure gradients in the wellbore are comparable to pressure gradients in the reservoir. the total skin STH is less negative. L =1000 ft.

5%. 50. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 10-1 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.9. tD/CD 100% 50% 25% 12. h =100ft. 25 and 12. L /2 and L. 2. ΣLeff= L /4. Dimensionless Pressure . L /4. When the producing segments are uniformly distributed along the drain hole. L =2000ft. h =100ft.25 0.6 and –5. STH is respectively –7.Chapter 3 .5. Total half-length 2000 ft. The more distributed the producing sections. CD =100. The transition between vertical radial flow and linear flow is then distorted.25ft.25ft. zw / h =0. kV /kH =0. 4 segments with Swi =0.5 10-1 0.4. the upper and lower sealing boundaries can be reached at different times when the well is not strictly horizontal. Non-rectilinear horizontal well During the vertical radial flow. tD/CD Figure 3-30 Influence of number of open segments on pressure and derivative log-log curves.5. effective half-length 500 ft. the total skin STH can be very negative even with a low penetration ratio. On the examples Figure 3-31.Wellbore conditions drain hole.65 - .125 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. Four segments equally spaced. . L =2000ft. 1. rw =0. zw /h =0. the more negative the total skin STH. 4 segments with Swi =0. CD =100. -7. -6.1. ΣLeff= L /8. kV/kH =0. rw =0.5% 105 106 107 Figure 3-31 Influence of the penetration ratio on pressure and derivative loglog curves. Dimensionless Pressure . with penetration ratios of 100.1. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0.1.

0E+00 k y L2 1. 1.0E+01 pD & pD' 1. kz ky kx kz ky 2L k y L2 kx k y h Figure 3-33 Horizontal permeability anisotropy. CD =100. rw =0. Effective permeability during the three characteristic flow regimes towards a horizontal well.725). Pressure and derivative curves. Anisotropic horizontal permeability In anisotropic reservoirs. h =100ft.25ft. (zw / h)i=0.0E-01 1. L =2000ft (500+1000+500).0E+01 1.0E-02 1. The final horizontal radial flow regime defines the average horizontal permeability k H = k x k y . only the permeability ky normal the well orientation is acting. .0E+03 1.0E+00 1.0E+04 1. kV / kH =0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 10-1 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.0E+05 tD/CD Figure 3-34 Influence of the permeability anisotropy during the three characteristic flow regimes. Swi =0. During the linear flow regime.0E-01 kxky h kzk y 2L 1.1.5 or 0.Wellbore conditions Dimensionless Pressure .Chapter 3 . horizontal well responses are also sensitive to the well orientation. tD/CD 105 106 107 Figure 3-32 Non-rectilinear horizontal wells.0E+02 1. the average permeability during the vertical radial flow is k z k y .66 - .95 (average 0. At early time.

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.67 - . the apparent effective half-length is : La = 4 k y k x L (ft. ky ( 3-23) ky kx kx Figure 3-35 Horizontal well normal to the maximum permeability direction : apparent effective length increased. 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) . the resulting average vertical permeability is defined (assuming the well is centered in layer j) : n j −1    ∑ hi + h j 2  ∑ hi + h j 2 j +1  + n k V = 0. the changes of permeability are acting in series.Wellbore conditions When the isotropic horizontal permeability model is used for analysis. m) (the vertical permeability kz is unchanged).Chapter 3 . Horizontal wells should be drilled preferably in the minimum permeability direction. When the contrast in vertical permeability is not too large. ky ky kx kx Figure 3-36 Horizontal well in the direction of maximum permeability : apparent effective length decreased.

kH1/kH2=1. L =1000ft. On Figure 3-38. h =100 ft (h1=45ft. is defined with k H = 107 k H 2 and k V = 0. Sw =0. the pressure stabilizes and the derivative drops. • One layer (h1+h2+h3) : k= (k1h1+ k2h2+ k3h3) / (h1+h2+h3). zw/h = 0. (kV /kH)1=0. • One layer (h3) : k= k3. Pressure and derivative log-log curves. rw =0.68 - . kV/kH=0.2.028)k H 2 = 0. kH3/kH2=0. zw /h =0. It the thickness of the gas zone is not large enough.25 (well centered in h3). h =100ft (30+30+40). (kV / kH)3=0. tD/CD Figure 3-38 Horizontal well in a reservoir 3 layers with crossflow.25 ft.08. 10 Dimensionless Pressure . h3=50ft). CD =100.25ft. Sw=-0. 10 Dimensionless Pressure .Wellbore conditions In the example Figure 3-37 with n=3 and j=2. the derivative stabilizes at late time to describe the total oil + gas mobility thickness.5.4. (kV /kH)2=0. CD = 100.082 + 0. 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). L = 1000 ft. L = 1000 ft. kV/kH=0. a thin reduced permeability interval is introduced in the main layer. 5 (well centered in h3). Pressure and derivative log-log curves.Chapter 3 .1.55 (well centered in h2). zw/h = 0. . tD/CD Figure 3-37 Horizontal well in a reservoir 3 layers with crossflow. the match with a homogeneous layer . 5 (well centered in h1+h2+h3).0514 k H .0514. One layer: kH= (k1h1+ k2h2+ k3h3) / (h1+h2+h3). rw =0. h2=5ft.1.5 (0. kV/kH=0. 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)i=0. Sw=0. When a homogeneous layer of total thickness is used for analysis. zw/h = 0. 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. L = 550 ft.03.8. the effective well length is too small and the vertical permeability over-estimated. Sw=0. k1=k3=100k2.05.

0 h. Pressure and derivative log-log curves. Pressure and derivative curves.2 with two and four branches. .0.20.01 µoil. the different branches of multilateral wells start to produce independently until interference effects between the branches distort the response. In the case of intersecting multilateral horizontal wells in reservoir with isotropic horizontal permeability. Dimensionless Pressure . 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.6 and –6. kV/kH=0. Gas cap : hgas= 0. zw/h = 0.5.9 Other horizontal well models Multilateral horizontal well As for partially penetrating horizontal wells. With the examples of Figure 3-40.25 ft. 5. L = 1000 ft (500+500 or 250+250+250+250). h =100 ft. h =100 ft. tD/CD Figure 3-39 Horizontal well in a reservoir with gas cap and sealing bottom boundary. Swi=0.Wellbore conditions 10 Dimensionless Pressure . ct gas=10 ct oil. At later time.8 (one branch) and respectively –6. increasing the number of branches does not improve the productivity. CD = 100. (kV/kH)=0.1. rw =0.25 ft. CD = 100. pseudo radial flow towards the multilateral horizontal well develops. 3-5.1. zw/h = 0. 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. Sw=2. tD/CD Figure 3-40 Multilateral horizontal wells.2 (well close to the bottom boundary). 1.69 - . µgas=0.Chapter 3 . the total skin STH of the horizontal well is STH =-6.

the response becomes independent of the orientation of the branches. For the two multilateral horizontal wells of Figure 3-41. The total skin STH is more negative when the distance between the branches is increased. With longitudinal fractures. the different fractures produce independently until interference effects are felt. The distance between the 2 parallel branches is 2000ft.hr-1/2. The radial linear flow regime yields a semi-log straight line whose slope is function of the fracture conductivity. it changes into linear flow. Fractured horizontal well Two configurations are considered : longitudinal and transverse fractures.28 qBµ xf kf w4 φ µ ct k H (psi. bi-linear and linear flow regimes can be observed.hr-1/4. Swi=0. on the second example the intersection point is at 1000ft from the start of the 2 segments.1. field units) m LF = 0.5. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 10-1 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time.Chapter 3 . CD = 100. rw=0. metric units) ( 3-26) m LF = 4.623 (Bars. The responses Figure 3-41 tend to be equivalent to the example with two segments of Figure 330.70 - . field units) qBµ x f k f w f 4 φµ ct k H (Bars. Dimensionless Pressure . For a single transverse fracture of radius rf. For a single fracture of half-length xf.hr-1/4.Wellbore conditions When the distance between the two producing segments is large enough. the flow is first linear in the formation and radial in the fracture. h =100 ft.hr-1/2.06 qB hx f qB hx f µ k H φ ct µ φ ct k H (psi. the slope mBLF and mLF are expressed : m BLF = 44. tD/CD Figure 3-41 Multilateral horizontal wells. zw/h = 0. possibly followed by horizontal radial flow around the different fractures.8 with one branch).25 ft. L = 1000 ft (500+500).1 (and STH =-6. At early time. and later into the horizontal radial flow regime around the fracture segments. the slope mRLF and mLF are: .11 m BLF = 6. metric units) ( 3-27) With transverse fractures. STH =-7. kV/kH=0. Pressure and derivative curves.

field units) m RLF = 10. field units) m LF = 0.hr-1/2.71 - . m) ( 3-33) . 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.17 qB hr f qB hr f µ φ ct k H µ φ ct k H (psi. m) ( 3-31) y' = y = y4 (ft. metric units) ( 3-29) Once the interference effect between the different fractures is fully developed. metric units) ( 3-28) m LF = 5.hr-1/2. the final pseudo radial flow regime towards the fractured horizontal well establishes.Wellbore conditions m RLF = 81. and produces an apparent negative skin : rwa = 1 rw 2 [ 4 k min k max + 4 k max k min ] (ft. As for partially open horizontal wells.793 (Bars.3 qBµ kf w qBµ k f wf (psi. 3-6 Skin factors 3-6. m) ( 3-32) The wellbore is changed into an ellipse whose area is the same as in the original system.Chapter 3 .1 Anisotropy pseudo-skin An equivalent transformed isotropic reservoir model of average radial permeability is used. The elliptical well behaves like a cylindrical hole whose apparent radius is the average of the major and minor axes. but the perimeter is increased.75 (Bars. the time of start of the final regime is a function of the distance between the outermost fractures. by a transformation of variables in the two main directions of permeability kmax and kmin.

Chapter 3 . 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.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. . B and C. B = well in partial penetration. C = horizontal well.72 - . Log-log scale. for horizontal wells. A = fully penetrating vertical well. Dimensionless Pressure . when kV/kH <<1. tD/CD Figure 3-43 Pressure and derivative response of wells A. 3-6.2 Geometrical skin A B C Figure 3-42 Configuration of wells A. Sani =-1 may be observed. B and C.

3 The different skin factors Name Sw SG Description Infinitesimal skin at the wellbore.Wellbore conditions Dimensionless Pressure . 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. 3-6. slanted or horizontal wells). Geometrical skin due to the streamline curvature (fractured. tD/CD Figure 3-44 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-43 examples. Turbulent or inertial effects on gas wells.q .73 - . radial composite behavior). Skin factor due to the fissures in a double porosity reservoir. partial penetration.Chapter 3 . Type Positive or negative Positive or negative Negative Positive or negative Negative Positive Sani SRC S2φ D. Skin factor due to the anisotropy of the reservoir permeability. Skin factor due to a change of reservoir mobility near the wellbore (permeability or fluid property.

74 - ..

mD.m) ( 4-1) Matrix Fissure Vug Figure 4-1 Example of double porosity reservoir.75 - ( 4-4) . The average porosity of Equation 4. to the total volume of the fissures (of the matrix).2 Porosity φf and φm : ratio of pore volume in the fissures (or in the matrix). φ = φ f V f + φ mVm In practice.3 Storativity ratio ω ( 4-3) ω= (φ Vct ) f (φ Vct ) f = (φ Vct ) f + (φ Vct )m (φ Vct ) f +m .ft.DOUBLE POROSITY MODELS 4-1 Definitions 4-1. Vf and Vm : ratio of the total volume of the fissures (or matrix) to the reservoir volume (Vf + Vm = 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 (km = 0). 4-1.4 . over the complete thickness h: kh = k f h f (mD.2 can be simplified as : ( 4-2) φ = Vf + φm 4-1. φf and Vm are close to 1. The permeability thickness product kh estimated by the interpretation is used to define an equivalent bulk permeability of the fissure network. fissured and multiple-layer formations.FISSURED RESERVOIRS .

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

.1592C (metric units) ( 4-12) C Df + m = C Df + m = 0.(CDe2S)f at early time.5 Dimensionless variables pD = kh ∆p (field units) 1412qBµ .77 - . .66qBµ ( 4-10) tD kh ∆t = 0.(CDe2S)f+m at late time. when total system behavior is reached. during fissure flow.000295 (field units) CD µ C tD kh ∆t (metric units) = 0. 2. .λeff e-2S during transition regime.Fissured reservoirs 4-1. 3.8936C (field units) 2 (φ Vct ) f hrw 2 (φVct ) f hrw 0. restricted interporosity flow (pseudo-steady state interporosity flow) 4-2.1592C (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. kh ∆p (metric units) pD = 18.00223 CD µ C ( 4-11) C Df = C Df = 0. .1 Log-log analysis Pressure type curves Three component curves : 1. between the two homogeneous behaviors.Chapter 4 .8936C (field units) 2 (φ Vct ) f +m hrw 0.

λeffe = 10-7. pD Start of semi-log radial flow 10 CDe2S = 1030 λe-2S = 10-30 1010 10-10 103 10-6 5 0. pseudo steady state interporosity flow. 102 Dimensionless Pressure. to a lower value (CDe2S)f+m when total system is acting. wellbore storage lasts until the transition regime and. 102 Dimensionless Pressure. during the fissure regime. 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.1. With example B. two parallel straight lines are present with example A. ω = 0. tD/CD Figure 4-4 Pressure examples for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir.Chapter 4 . (CDe )f+m = 104. (CDe )f+m = 0. With example B.Fissured reservoirs A double porosity response goes from a high value (CDe2S)f when the storativity corresponds to fissures. .1 10-2 5x10-3 0.5 1 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.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.10-4. λeffe = 3. On semi-log scale. 2S 2S -2S o = A : (CDe )f = 1.1. tD/CD Figure 4-3 Pressure type-curve for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir. 2S 2S -2S ■ = B : (CDe )f = 105.1. only the total system straight line is seen. the fissure (CDe2S)f curve does not reach the semi-log straight-line approximation. pseudo steady state interporosity flow.78 - . ω = 0. pD Start of semi-log radial flow CDe2S λe-2S = 10-30 = 1030 1010 105 104 1 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.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.5 only during the total system homogeneous regime. field units) µ  TM  ( 2-8) .Fissured reservoirs 10 Dimensionless Pressure. With the derivative.79 - . pseudo steady state interporosity flow.000295 kh  1    (Bbl/psi.1 5x10-3 10 1010 105 1030 B A 10-7 3x10-4 10-2 1 1 0. The derivative of example B stabilizes on 0.Chapter 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. tD/CD slop em Figure 4-5 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-4 examples. 3x10-5. On the derivative type-curve. 3x10-4.5.m. the transition is described with two curves. Match results kh = 141. pD and Derivative p'D CDe2S λe-2S = 10-30 = 1030 1010 105 104 1 0. λeffCDf+m/ω(1-ω) =10-2. 102 Dimensionless Pressure . example A shows two stabilizations on 0. λeffCDf+m/(1-ω) = 10-3.66qBµ (PM ) (mD. metric units) C = 0.2qBµ (PM ) (mD.ft. field units) kh = 18. labeled (λ eff CD f +m ) [ω (1 − ω )] (decreasing derivative) and (λ eff CD f +m ) (1 − ω ) .

metric units)  µ  TM  2S ( 2-9) S = 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. Dimensionless Pressure . pD and Derivative p'D 10-2 10 0.2 Influence of the heterogeneous parameters ω and λeff Influence of ω With small ω values. .00223 kh  1  3  (m /Bars.5 line 1 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.Chapter 4 . λeffe-2S= 6. the transition regime from CDe2Sf to CDe2Sf+m is long. the derivative exhibits a valley shaped transition between the two stabilizations on 0. S = 0. tD/CD Figure 4-7 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage in double porosity reservoir.Fissured reservoirs C = 0. CDf+m = 103. the transition valley drops when ω is reduced.5. On the derivative responses.1.10-8 (CDe2Sf =104.10-8 and CDe2Sf+m = 103) 4-2. ω = 0. λeff= 6. the first straight line is displaced upwards and the horizontal transition between the two parallel lines is longer.80 - . On semilog scale. pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.

Influence of λeff. Influence of λeff The interporosity flow parameter defines the time of end of the transition regime. 10-8 λ = 10-8 10-6 Figure 4-10 Double porosity reservoir. tD/CD Figure 4-8 Double porosity reservoir. pD 8 6 4 2 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time.5 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time. tD/CD 10-6 . the transition regime occurs at a higher amplitude and. the transition valley is displaced towards late times. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 10-1 λ = 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. The smaller is λeff. pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.81 - .Chapter 4 . 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 . Influence of ω. the later the start of total system flow. S =0. Log-log scale. 102 Dimensionless Pressure .Fissured reservoirs 102 Dimensionless Pressure . on the derivative responses. S =0. ω =0. On the pressure curves. Log-log scale. 10-7 and 10-8 . 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. CDf+m =1. 10-7 . λeff=10-7 and ω =10-1. pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.02 and λeff=10-6. CDf+m =100.

S = 0. tD/CD Figure 4-11 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-10.10 + 0.82 - . field units) 2 kh  (φVct ) f +m µ rw    .87 S  (Bars.Fissured reservoirs 12 Dimensionless Pressure . tD/CD Figure 4-12 Semi-log plot of homogeneous and double porosity responses. field units) 2 (φVct ) f µ rw      qBµ  k log ∆t + log ∆p = 21.87 S  (psi.6 qBµ kh The second line.Chapter 4 . CD = CDf+m = 100. when the first semi-log line is present.   k log ∆t + log − 3.6  qBµ  k log ∆t + log − 3. metric units)(4-18) 2 kh  (φV ct ) f µ rw    ∆p = 162.5 − 3.23 + 0.3 Analysis of the semi-log straight lines 10 Dimensionless Pressure.23 + 0. pD 8 6 4 2 0 10-1 em slop Double porosity Homogeneous 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. 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.87 S  (psi. for the total system regime is : ∆p = 162.01 and λeff= 10-6 During fissure flow. ω = 0.

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. For example A2.5 ln 1 ω ( 4-21) 4-2. ω = 0. The build-up curve A1 does not show a double porosity behavior. tD/CD Figure 4-13 Drawdown and build-up pressure responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in double porosity reservoir. the calculation of the skin gives an over estimated value Sf : S f = S + 0. Whatever long are the three build-up examples of Figure 4-13. ( drawdown and build-up) Dimensionless Pressure.1) Double porosity. Homogeneous behaviour. 3.Chapter 4 .10 + 0.1. only example A3 exhibits a clear double porosity response. λeff= 3. Log-log scale.105 (A3). 9. if the total storativity is used instead of that of the fissure system.87 S  (Bars.Fissured reservoirs ∆p = 21. CDf+m = 0. S = 0. pseudo-steady state interporosity flow. tpD/CD = 100 (A1).103 (A2).1. 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.5  qBµ  k log ∆t + log − 3. there is no evidence of total system flow regime. λeffe-2S= 3.1).83 - . ( fissures CDe2Sf= 1 and total system CDe2Sf+m= 0.10-4 and CDe2Sf+m = 0. the build-up curve flattens at the same ∆p level as the λeffe-2S transition.10-4 (CDe2Sf =1.4 Build-up analysis Log-log pressure build-up analysis When the production time tp is small. the three characteristic regimes of a double porosity response are not always fully developed on build-up pressure curves. but only the build-up response of the fissures. .

tD/CD A3 A2 A1 Figure 4-16 Drawdown and build-up derivative responses of Figure 4-13. A2 (tpD/CD = 9. (p . only the first semi-log straight is seen and its extrapolated pressure p* is between pi and pi + m ln (1/ω). Dimensionless Pressure Difference. . Derivative build-up analysis 1 Dimensionless Pressure Derivative p'D 0. the initial pressure pi is obtained by extrapolation of the second straight line. the first one extrapolates to pi + m ln (1/ω). Horner & superposition analysis In example A3. A1 (tpD/CD = 100).103) and A3 (tpD/CD = 3. 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.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.84 - .Chapter 4 . If the drawdown stops during the transition (example A2).5 10-1 Drawdown Build-up 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.Fissured reservoirs 8 Dimensionless Pressure. tD/CD Figure 4-14 Semi-log plot of drawdown and build-up pressure responses of Figure 4-13. depending upon tp. (tpD+ tD)/ tD Figure 4-15 Horner plot of the three Build-ups of Figure 4-13.105).

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.1 Log-log analysis Pressure type-curve Two pressure curves : 1. For slab matrix blocks δ '=1.89. and for sphere matrix blocks δ ' = 1.1 1 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. . unrestricted interporosity flow (transient interporosity flow) 4-3.85 - . . . 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 5x10-3 10 1010 103 5 0. during transition regime before the homogeneous behavior of the total system 2.Chapter 4 . pD CDe2S = 1030 β ' = 1030 1010 103 5 0.β ' at early time.(CDe2S)f+m later. 102 Start of semi-log radial flow Dimensionless Pressure.Fissured reservoirs 4-3 Double porosity behavior. tD/CD Figure 4-17 Pressure type-curve for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir. transient interporosity flow.05.

With example B. With example B. 2S -2S o = A : (CDe )f+m = 10.103. tD/CD 104 105 Figure 4-19 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-18 examples. and the transition is shorter on the tD/CD time scale. tD/CD Figure 4-18 Pressure examples for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir. 10 Dimensionless Pressure. transient interporosity flow. β' = 106. the wellbore storage is large. . 102 Dimensionless Pressure. λe = 1.8914*10-5. λe = 1.001. ω = 0.1 10 A 1 B 1010 106 5 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. pD Start of semi-log radial flow CDe2S β' = 1030 = 1030 1010 6x103 10 0. β' = 1010.Fissured reservoirs Typical responses A long transition on a β ' curve is seen on example A.86 - . and slab matrix blocks. ω = 0. before the total system straight line of slope m. On semi-log scale. 2S -2S ■ = B : (CDe )f+m = 6.1348*10-6.Chapter 4 . example A shows a first straight line of slope m/2 during transition. pD 8 B 6 4 2 0 10-1 slope m /2 em slop slop em A 1 10 102 103 Dimensionless time.001. only the total system straight line is present.

10-4. pD and Derivative p'D CDe2S β' = 1030 = 1030 1010 6x103 10 0.Chapter 4 .10-3. The end of transition.5. At late transition time. Slab and sphere matrix blocks With the two types matrix geometry.5 level is steeper on the curve generated for slab matrix blocks. after the wellbore storage hump the derivative exhibits a first stabilization on 0. 3. tD/CD Figure 4-20 Pressure and derivative examples of Figure 4-18.25 before the final stabilization on 0. The derivative of example B exhibits only a small valley before the stabilization on 0.Fissured reservoirs 102 Dimensionless Pressure .10-5. .5. 3. Match results On a double porosity response with unrestricted interporosity flow.87 - .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. and the start of the total system homogeneous regime. With the derivative. 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 for the total system homogeneous regime. is described by a (λ C D ) (1 − ω )2 derivative curve. 3.25 before the final stabilization on 0. the pressure curves look identical but the derivatives are slightly different. the change from 0.10-2.25 to the 0. example A shows a first stabilization on 0. 2 λCDf+m (1-ω) = 3.

pD and Derivative p'D 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time. Sphere: λe-2S = 1. 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. Slab: λe-2S = 1. transient interporosity flow. CDf+m =1.5 105 Dimensionless time. tD/CD Figure 4-23 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-22. . tD/CD Figure 4-21 Double porosity reservoir. β'=104 and ω=10-2.89 10-4.2 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 0.25 1 10 102 103 slab 104 0.88 - . slab matrix blocks. transient interporosity flow. CDe2Sf+m=1.Fissured reservoirs Dimensionless Pressure . 10-2 and 10-3 10 Dimensionless Pressure . tD/CD Figure 4-22 Double porosity reservoir. λ =10-7 and ω =10-1.25 0.05 10-4. 4-3.Chapter 4 .5 Dimensionless Pressure . slab and sphere matrix blocks. Influence of ω on pressure and derivative curves. Log-log scale. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 sphere 10-1 10-1 0. S =0.

tD/CD Figure 4-25 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-24. ω = 0.10-4. pD and Derivative p'D 102 10 1 10-1 10-2 10-1 0.1. S = 0. slab matrix blocks. tD/CD Figure 4-26 Drawdown and build-up derivative responses. unrestricted interporosity flow. . transient interporosity flow. tpD/CD = 100 (A1). 3. 10-7 and 10-8 10 Dimensionless Pressure .89 - .105 (A3). double porosity reservoir.5 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time. 10-7. CDf+m =100. slab matrix blocks.Fissured reservoirs Influence of λ Dimensionless Pressure .Chapter 4 . tD/CD Figure 4-24 Double porosity reservoir.02 and λ =10-6.5 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. 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. Influence of λ on pressure and derivative curves.25 λ = 10-8 λ = 10-6 λ = 10-6.1.103 (A2). ω =0. 10-8 0. λ = 3. 9. CDf+m = 0. S =0. 4-3.3 Build-up analysis 1 0.

1.5 100 107 Figure 4-29 Double porosity reservoir. λ = 10-5. 0.01. slab matrix blocks with interporosity skin. tD/CD 10 105 0. S = 0. transient interporosity flow. λ eff = 3.323x10-7 (Sm = 10). Dimensionless Pressure . tD/CD Figure 4-28 Comparison of Figure 4-27 derivative responses with the restricted interporosity flow model. CDf+m = 1.90 - .1 1 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.1. λ = 10-5.25 10-1 Sm= 0 0.25 10-1 Sm= 0 0. tD/CD 10 106 0. CDf+m = 1. transient interporosity flow. 1.Fissured reservoirs 4-4 Complex fissured reservoirs 4-4.01. ω = 0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0. 0. ω = 0.1 1 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.500x10-6 (Sm = 1). Sm = 0. 1.333x10-8 (Sm = 100).1 Matrix skin Dimensionless Pressure . Dimensionless Pressure Derivative p'D 1 10-1 10-2 10 Sm= 1 102 103 104 105 10 100 106 107 Dimensionless time. λ eff = 2. λ eff = 3. sphere matrix blocks with interporosity skin. 100.Chapter 4 . pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0. 10. 10. Sm = 0. .5 100 106 107 Figure 4-27 Double porosity reservoir. S = 0. 100.

restricted and unrestricted interporosity flow. S = 3. 10 Dimensionless Pressure . λ eff = 2.96x10-7 (Sm = 10). 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. fissure.66x10-6 (Sm = 1).5 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.25 10-1 restricted 10-2 10-1 1 0.2 Triple porosity solution The model considers two sizes of matrix blocks. The blocks are uniformly distributed in the reservoir. CDe f+m=403. pD and Derivative p'D unrestricted slab unrestricted sphere 0. ω = 0. tD/CD Figure 4-30 Comparison of Figure 4-29 derivative responses with the restricted interporosity flow model. λe = 2.91 - .48*10-7. λ = 10 -4. slab and sphere matrix blocks. Alternatively.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. Sphere: β' = 1.71*10 9 4-4.02. block 1. λ eff = 1. block Two block sizes Fissured matrix blocks Figure 4-32 Multiple matrix blocks.00x10-8 (Sm = 100). 2S -2S CDf+m = 1.07*10 9. the matrix blocks can be fissured. . λ eff = 1. Slab: β' = 3.Chapter 4 . block 2 fissure.

pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 group 1 10-1 fissure group 2 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 0. . S = 0.1. 10 Dimensionless Pressure. different λeff. Dimensionless Pressure .5 total system 107 Dimensionless time. CDf+m = 1. same λeff. CDf+m = 1. ω = 0. λeff2 =5x10-7. tD/CD Figure 4-35 Triple porosity reservoir.01.5 10-1 fissure fissure + group 1 total system 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. pseudo steady state interporosity flow. two sizes of matrix blocks uniformly distributed. δ2 =0.1. 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 . λeff1 =10-5.Fissured reservoirs When the blocks are uniformly distributed. ω = 0. S = 0.9.92 - . pD 8 6 4 2 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. δ1 =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. two sizes of matrix blocks uniformly distributed.01. pD and Derivative p'D 1 0. δ1 =0. pseudo steady state interporosity flow. λeff1 = λeff2 =10-6 .Chapter 4 . tD/CD Figure 4-33 Triple porosity reservoir. δ2 =0.9. The dashed curves describe the double porosity responses for only blocks 1 (small valley) and only blocks 2.

pD group 1 8 6 4 2 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.93 - . 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).Fissured reservoirs 10 Dimensionless Pressure. .Chapter 4 .

.94 - .

. 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.5 .3 Log-log analysis Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 1 1 0.2 Characteristic flow regimes 1.1 Definition L Well (q) L Image (q) ( 5-1) LD = L rw 5-1. LD = 5000.95 - . Log-log scale. S = 0.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. CD = 104.BOUNDARY MODELS 5-1 One sealing fault 5-1. Hemi-radial flow 5-1. Radial flow 2.

0141 k∆t x (ft. tD /CD Figure 5-2 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a homogeneous reservoir limited by one sealing fault. CD = 100. 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.96 - . 3000.Chapter 5 . S = 5.4 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. tD /CD Figure 5-3 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-2.01217 L = 0. Several distances. 5-1. LD = 100. field units) φµ ct k∆t x (m. .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. 1000. 300.

two well locations. . One channel width.Chapter 5 .97 - . S = 0. tD /CD Figure 5-4 Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous reservoir limited by two parallel sealing faults.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 B A 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. Linear flow 5-2. L1D = L2D = 3000 (curve A) and L1D = 1000.3 Log-log analysis 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D ºA 101 1 pe slo /2 ºB 1 0.2 Characteristic flow regimes 1. L2D = 5000 (curve B).Boundary models 5-2 Two parallel sealing faults 5-2. Radial flow 2. Log-log scale. CD = 3000.1 Definition L2 Well L1 5-2.

the responses deviate in a curve above the radial flow line. The well is located midway between the two boundaries. tD /CD Figure 5-5 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near two parallel sealing faults. 5-2. CD = 300. Homogeneous reservoir. several distances between the two faults are considered.4 Semi-log analysis On semi-log scale.Chapter 5 . 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. 2500 and 5000. . The time of end of the semi-log straight line is function of the channel width and the well location. S = 0 L1D = L2D = 500.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. tD /CD Figure 5-6 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-5. During the late time linear flow. 1000.98 - . only one straight line is present.

field units) (m.246 qB hmch qB hmch (ft. The pressure change ∆p is plotted versus the square root of the elapsed time ∆t . metric units) h(L1 + L2 ) kφ ct µ kφ ct µ kφ ct ( 5-2) L1 + L2 = 8.hr-1/2.99 - .Boundary models 20 Dimensionless Pressure pD B 15 10 5 0 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 slope m A 105 Dimensionless time. tD /CD Figure 5-7 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-4.Chapter 5 .246 µ qB (psi.133 L1 + L2 = 1. The slope mch and the intercept ∆pchint of the linear flow straight line are used to estimate the channel width and the well location. mch = 8. metric units) ( 5-3) .133 mch = 1. field units) h(L1 + L2 ) kφ ct µ qB (Bars.hr-1/2. 5-2.5 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.

tD /CD Figure 5-9 Build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous reservoir limited by two parallel sealing faults.100 - .66 qBµ ( 5-4)  L + L2 −Sch L1 1 = arcsin 1  2π r e L1 + L2 π w      ( 5-5) 5-2. L2D = 8000 (curve D).Boundary models S ch = S ch kh ∆pchint − S (field units) 141. L1D = L2D = 5000 (curve C) and L1D = 2000. The dotted curves describe the drawdown responses.Chapter 5 . .6 Build-up analysis Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 ºC 101 1 /2 ºD 1 0. Production time: tpD/CD = 2000. CD = 3000.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 D C 104 pe slo 105 106 Dimensionless time. The extrapolation p* of the Horner straight line does not correspond to the infinite shut-in time pressure. One channel width. 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 5-9.2qBµ kh = ∆p ch int − S (metric units) 18. S = 0. two well locations.

at t p + ∆t − ∆t = 0 . pD versus [(tpD+tD)/CD]1/2 .101 - . m) ( 5-6) .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.[tD/CD]1/2.1 Definition L2 Well θ θw L1 The angle of intersection θ between the faults is smaller than 180°. when both the drawdown and the shut-in periods are in linear flow regime. The distances L1 and L2 between the well and the sealing faults are expressed as : L1 = LD rw sin θ w (ft. the wedge is otherwise of infinite extension. For an infinite channel. The well location in the wedge is defined with θw. is used to estimate the initial reservoir pressure.Chapter 5 . LD is the dimensionless distance between the well and the faults intercept. the superposition function is expressed as t p + ∆t − ∆t . 5-3 Two intersecting sealing faults 5-3. The extrapolation of the linear flow straight line to infinite shut-in time.

5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.2 Characteristic flow regimes 1. θ = 60°. LD = 5000.Boundary models L2 = LD rw sin(θ − θ w ) (ft. and the derivative stabilizes at 3. θw = 30° (curve A) and θw = 10° (curve B). Fraction of radial flow 5-3. S = 0. the derivative follows a half unit slope straight line. . Radial flow 2. ∆p2nd stab. 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. ( 5-8) Between the two stabilizations.3 Log-log analysis If for example the angle between the faults is 60° (π/3). CD = 3000. the wedge is 1/6 of the infinite plane (2π). Linear flow 3.102 - . θ = 360° ∆p1st stab. Log-log scale.Chapter 5 . m) ( 5-7) 5-3. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 ºB ºA 180°/ θ = 3 1 0.

with a slope of (360/θ)m. The second.4 Semi-log analysis On a complete response. θ = 45°. 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. of slope m. θ = 90°. θ = 180°. defines the fraction of radial flow limited by the wedge. LD = 2613. CD = 1000. . tD /CD Figure 5-14 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-13. θ = 135°. Several angles of intersection θ. LD = 1082. θ = 360° m1st line m2nd line ( 5-9) The end of the first semi-log straight line. the well is on the bisector θw = 0. the distance LD to the fault intercept changes. 5-3.Chapter 5 . LD = 5759. 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.5 θ. two semi-log straight lines can be identified. θ = 20°. LD = 11473. θ = 10°. LD = 1000.103 - . The first. the distance to the two faults is constant L1D = L2D = 1000. Log-log scale.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. describes the infinite acting regime. and the level of the second straight line. S = 0. LD = 1414. is a function of the well location in the wedge.

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

5-4. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 ºB 101 ºA A&B B 1 0. Curve A: L1D = L2D = L3D = L4D = 30000. between the initial pressure and the final stabilized pressure defines the depletion. L3D = L4D = 54000. S = 0. CD = 25000. the well is centered or near one of the boundaries. S = 0. a straight line of slope unity on the late time drawdown pressure and derivative curves characterizes the pseudo steady state flow regime. 108 (L1D = 200). 5-4. 107. tD /CD 105 106 107 108 Figure 5-18 Drawdown responses for a well with wellbore storage in a closed square homogeneous reservoir. (tp/C)D = 1000.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. Log-log scale. Curve B: L1D = L2D = 6000.Chapter 5 . tD /CD slope 1 Figure 5-17 Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage in a closed square homogeneous reservoir.105 - .3 Log-log behavior On log-log scale. The difference pi − p .Boundary models and the curve flattens. During build-up. Three reservoir sizes.4 Drawdown analysis Log-log analysis 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 A/rw2 = 106 1 0. the pressure curves flattens to ∆ p and the derivative drops. The dotted curves describe the drawdown responses. A/rw2 = 106. . CD = 100. (tp/C)D = 1000.5 A 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.

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 -

9 Dimensionless Pressure pD p-D p*D= 8. For examples tpDA = 2 and 10. The straight line extrapolated pressure p * changes with tp and. 10 tpDA=0.16. later. The Horner plot Figure 5-25 is presented in dimensionless terms. When the same production time is used for Horner analysis of the three build-up periods (tpDA = 2 on Figure 5-26). .Boundary models 10 Dimensionless Pressure pD 8 6 4 2 0 1 101 p-D slop em tpDA = 0.6.1 7 tpDA=2. the difference between the straight line extrapolated pressure p * and the average shut-in pressure p becomes a constant. p* > p D .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. the curves flatten to reach D p D = 8.62 of Equation 5.6. the Horner time is tpD/CD = 16400 (tpDA =0. the average pressure p decreases when tp increases. 10 102 103 (tpD +tD )/ tD 104 105 106 Figure 5-25 Horner plot of Figure 5-24.110 - . With real pressure. 2.Chapter 5 . For the three examples.6). but not for D the example with tpDA = 0.

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. S = 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. .1 Definition gas water L Well (q) L Image (-q) 5-5. Several distances.111 - . 300. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 ( 5-18) 101 1 LD=100 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. 3000.Chapter 5 .Boundary models 5-5 Constant pressure boundary 5-5. 1000. LD = 100. CD = 100.

151 (p − p(∆t = 0)) m − S ] (ft. metric units) φµ c t ( 1-22) The difference of pressure between the start of the period and the final stabilized pressure.112 - . tD /CD Figure 5-28 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage near two perpendicular boundaries in a homogeneous reservoir. The time of intercept ∆tx between the semi-log straight line and the constant pressure is used. 5-5. CD = 100. [ p − p( ∆t = 0) ]. θ= 90°. to estimate the distance of the boundary : L = 0.Chapter 5 . tD /CD Figure 5-29 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-27.0141 k∆t x (ft.5rw e [1.5 10-1 10-1 sealing fault : 1 constant pressure 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. The closest boundary is sealing. can also be used to estimate L : L = 0.Boundary models Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 1 0. m) ( 5-19) . S = 0.3 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. as for a sealing fault. LD = 1000. field units) φµ ct k∆t x (m. the second at constant pressure.01217 L = 0. θw = 20°.

has a thickness wf and a permeability kf.5 10 -1 0. S = 0. Hemi-radial flow 3. CD = 104. tD /CD Figure 5-30 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage near a semi-permeable linear boundary. The dimensionless fault transmissibility ratio α is expressed as : α= k f wf k L ( 5-20) Characteristic flow regimes 1. α = 0.113 - . .05. two different configurations are considered. Radial flow wf kf Log-log analysis 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 1 0.1 Semi permeable boundary Definition The partially communicating fault.Chapter 5 . 5-6.Boundary models 5-6 Communicating fault In the case of communicating fault. With the semi-permeable boundary model. LD = 5000. Homogeneous reservoir. Conversely. also called leaky fault. Radial flow 2. 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. the vertical plane fault is not sealing but acting as a flow restriction.5 102 103 104 105 106 10-1 1 101 Dimensionless time. Log-log scale. Leak 4.

001 1 1 0.Chapter 5 . 0. 0.Boundary models Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 α = 0.5 10-1 10-1 α=1. flow is possible along the fault plane. Semi-log analysis 20 Dimensionless Pressure pD 15 m slope e slop 2m 10 5 0 10-1 1 α=1 0.01. α = 1. The definition of the dimensionless skin Sf includes the possibility of a region of altered permeability ka with an extension wa around the fault: . tD /CD 0. S = 5. CD = 100.114 - . Several transmissibility ratios. depending upon the fault dimensionless conductivity FcD (a zero fault conductivity FcD corresponds to the semi-permeable fault solution).2 Finite conductivity fault Definition With the finite conductivity fault model. 0.001 101 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.1. tD /CD Figure 5-32 Semi-log plot of Figure 5-31. FcD = k f wf kL ( 5-21) The resistance to flow across the fault plane is described with the skin factor Sf.1.01 0. 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time. 104 105 0. LD = 300.01 106 Figure 5-31 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a semipermeable linear boundary.1 0.001. 5-6.

Log-log scale. No fault skin.Chapter 5 . Radial flow 2. .5 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Dimensionless time.5 0. 5-20: α= π Sf ( 5-23) Characteristic flow regimes 1. Sf = 0. Constant pressure boundary effect 3. tD /CD Figure 5-33 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage near a finite conductivity fault. 3 CD = 10 . FcD= 100. Bi-linear flow 4.115 - . S = 0. Radial flow L wf kf Log-log analysis 102 101 0.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. LD = 1000.

10. Several fault skin and conductivity.5 10-1 FcD = 1 10 100 1000 10000 10-2 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 Dimensionless time. FcD = 10. tD /CD Figure 5-34 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a finite conductivity fault. CD = 100.116 - .Chapter 5 . LD = 300. . 100. 100. 10000. 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. CD = 100. 1000. LD = 1000.5 Dimensionless time. 1000.5 Sf=10 10-1 101 102 103 104 Sf=100 105 106 107 108 109 Sf=1000 0. Sf = 10. S = 0. LD = 300. Log-log scale. FcD = 100. No fault skin and several conductivity. S = 5. 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 1 1 0. S = 5. Log-log scale.Boundary models 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 1 0. Sf = 0. 1000. 3 CD = 10 . tD /CD Figure 5-35 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a finite conductivity fault. FcD = 1. tD /CD Figure 5-36 Semi-log plot for a well with wellbore storage near a finite conductivity fault. Sf = 0 or 100.

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

.118 - .

With the linear composite model. The well is located in the region "1". pD = k1 h ∆p (metric units) 18. The parameters of the second region are defined with a subscript "2".1 Mobility & storativity ratios M= (k µ )1 (k µ )2 (φ ct )1 (φ ct )2 ( 6-1) F= ( 6-2) 6-1. (k/µ)2.119 - . the well is at the center of a circular zone of radius r. 6-1. (φct)2 (k/µ)1. pD = k 1h ∆p (field units) 1412qBµ 1 . (φct)1 R (k/µ)1.COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS 6-1 Definitions With the radial composite model. the interface is at a distance L. (φct)1 L (k/µ)2.6 .2 Dimensionless variables The dimensionless variables (including the wellbore skin Sw) are expressed with reference to the region "1" parameters.000295 1 (field units) µ1 C CD . (φct)2 Radial composite Linear composite Figure 6-1 Models for composite reservoirs.66qBµ 1 ( 6-3) tD k h ∆t = 0.

8936C (field units) 2 (φ ct )1 hrw 0.5. Log-log scale. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0.2qBµ1 k1h ∆pskin (metric units) Sw = 15.00223 1 CD µ1 C CD = CD = 0. changing mobility and constant storativity. tD/CD Figure 6-2 Radial composite responses.120 - . M = 10. The two dotted curves correspond to the closed and the constant pressure circle solutions.1 Dimensionless time. well with wellbore storage and skin.5 10-1 10-2 10-1 0.1.5 M 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 M = 10 M=2 M = 0. . CD = 100.66qBµ1 Sw = rD = r rw L rw ( 6-6) ( 6-7) LD = ( 6-8) 6-2 Radial composite behavior 6-2.Chapter 6 .1592C (metric units) 2 (φ ct )1 hrw ( 6-4) ( 6-5) k1h ∆pskin (field units) 141. 0. 0. F =1. rD = 700.1 Influence of heterogeneous parameters M and F 102 Dimensionless Pressure . 2. Sw = 3.5 M = 0.Composite reservoir models tD k h ∆t (metric units) = 0.

Log-log scale. Dimensionless Pressure .5 0.1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.Composite reservoir models 25 Dimensionless Pressure. 15 Dimensionless Pressure.5.1.1 slopes m M Figure 6-3 Semi-log plot of Figure 6-2.Chapter 6 .2 Log-log analysis The permeability thickness product k1h of the inner region is estimated from the pressure match. 0.1 sm slope 5 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. tD/CD slope m M=10 M=2 M=0. tD/CD Figure 6-5 Semi-log plot of Figure 6-4. rD = 700.121 - ( 6-9) .2qBµ1 (PM ) (mD. M = 1. constant mobility and changing storativity.5 10-1 10-1 F = 0. 0. well with wellbore storage and skin. and F =10. tD/CD Figure 6-4 Radial composite responses.ft. 6-2. pD F=10 10 m slope F=0.66 qBµ1 (PM ) (mD. field units) k1 h = 18.5 M=0. 2. Sw = 3. CD = 100. pD 20 15 10 5 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. metric units) . and C from the time match : k1h = 141. pD and Derivative p'D 102 F = 10 10 F = 10 F = 0.1 1 0.m.

metric units) µ1  TM  ( 6-10) At early time. The mobility ratio M is estimated from the two derivative stabilizations.23 + 0.122 - .87 S w  (Bars. M= ∆p2nd stab. and the wellbore skin factor Sw.000295 k1h  1   (Bbl/psi.6  qBµ 1  k1  log ∆t + log − 3.10 + 0. ∆p = 162.6 qBµ 2 k2 h   k2  log ∆t + log − 3.54  k1 qBµ1   log ∆t + log − 3.87 ST 2  (φµ ct )2 rw    (Bars. for the outer zone.3 Semi-log analysis The first semi-log straight line defines the mobility of the inner zone.Composite reservoir models C = 0. 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. field units) 2  k1h  (φµ ct )1 rw   ∆p = 21. defines M and the total skin ST. the geometrical skin is negative. ( 6-11) 6-2. the homogeneous (CD e2S)1 curve defines the wellbore skin factor Sw. 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). field units)  µ1  TM  k h 1  3 C = 0.10 + 0. ∆p1st stab. ∆p = 162.Chapter 6 .00223 1   (m /Bars.23 + 0.87 S T  (psi.5 qBµ 2 k2h  k2  log ∆t + log − 3. field units) 2   (φµ ct )2 rw   ∆p = 21. . metric units) ( 6-12) 2  k1h  (φµ ct )1 rw   The second line.87 S w  (psi.

123 - . M = 3.5 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. changing mobility and constant storativity. Sw = 0. CD = 11500. The dotted curves describe the drawdown response. CD = 1000.4 Build-up analysis 102 Dimensionless Pressure .Composite reservoir models 6-2.5 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.5 1 0. drawdown and build-up responses can show the behavior of a closed depleted system. M =100.1 Influence of heterogeneous parameters M and F The second homogeneous behavior is defined with the average properties of the two regions : 1  k      = 0. With a strong reduction of mobility (M>>10). The dotted pressure and derivative curves correspond to the drawdown solution. F=1. Log-log scale.5 1 +   k µ  (mD/cp) 1  µ  APPARENT  M ( 6-15) . Sw = 5. Dimensionless Pressure . before the influence of the outer region is seen.Chapter 6 . rD = 10000. 6-3 Linear composite behavior 6-3. pD and Derivative p'D Drawdown Build-up 10 1. F =1 and tp/CD=3200. tD/CD Figure 6-6 Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a radial composite reservoir. pD and Derivative p'D 10-2 Drawdown Build-up 10 50 1 tp 10-1 1 10 102 0. rD = 2000. tD/CD Figure 6-7 Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a radial composite reservoir.

2. F=1. Sw = 0. Radial composite : M =1. Linear composite : M = 5. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0. Log-log scale. 6-3.1 5 0 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. tD/CD Figure 6-8 Linear composite responses.Chapter 6 .1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. well with wellbore storage and skin. M = 10.5 10-1 10-2 10-1 M = 10 M = 0. The two derivative stabilizations are used to estimate the mobility ratio M : . Sw = 3. tD/CD Figure 6-9 Semi-log plot of Figure 6-8. tD/CD Figure 6-10 Comparison of radial and linear interfaces.5 M = 0. 15 Dimensionless Pressure. Log-log scale.5 M=0. CD = 100.Composite reservoir models 102 Dimensionless Pressure .2 Log-log analysis Dimensionless Pressure . The two dotted curves correspond to the sealing fault and the constant pressure boundary solutions.124 - . pD and Derivative p'D 102 10 Radial Linear 1 0. LD = 700. pD 10 m slope M=10 M=2 M=0. CD = 200.5 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 Radial Linear 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. 0.667. 0.5. F=1. Well with wellbore storage and skin in composite reservoirs.1. changing mobility and constant storativity. rD = LD = 300.

M=0.Composite reservoir models M= ∆p2nd stab. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 RD=1000 0. − ∆p2nd stab. RD = 10. . F =1. M = 0. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0. The dashed curves correspond to radial composite responses with only one zone (RD = 1000.1. tD/CD Figure 6-11 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a 4 regions radial composite reservoir.5 k/µ1. Sw = 0. CD = 1000. 6-4.Chapter 6 .5). M=0. RD = 2500. M decreases linearly from 1 to 0. k/µ4 = 10 k/µ1.5 RD=10000 10-1 0.125 - . linear change of transmissivity. F =1. r1D = 1000.5 RD=1000. M = 0.05 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.1 RD=2500.1. From R1D = 1000 to R2D = 10. r3D = 50. k/µ3 = 5 k/µ1. CD = 5440. k/µ2 = 1. The dashed curves correspond to radial composite responses (M=0. r2D = 2500.1 Three inner regions with abrupt change of mobility Dimensionless Pressure .15 RD=50000. 2 ∆p1st stab. M = 0.000. tD/CD Figure 6-12 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a radial composite reservoir. RD = 1000.5 0.33 10-1 0.15.000).2 Two inner regions with a linear change of mobility Dimensionless Pressure . ( 6-16) 6-4 Multicomposite systems 6-4.1 0.05 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. RD = 50.000.000. Sw = 0.1. M=0.

126 - ..

LAYERED RESERVOIRS .m) (ft/psi. k'Z S2 h2.127 - .ft. kZ2 Figure 7-1 Model for double permeability reservoir.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) .DOUBLE PERMEABILITY MODEL 7-1 Definitions The layer "1" is assumed to be the high permeability layer. S1 h1. kZ1 h'. 7-1. and layer "2" the lower permeability intervals. 7-1.1 Permeability and porosity khTOTAL = k1h1 + k 2 h2 (mD. k1.7 . Layer "1" describes the sum of the high permeability zones. m/Bars) ( 7-1) ( 7-2) (φ ct h)TOTAL = (φ ct h)1 + (φ ct h)2 7-1. The two-layers model can be used for multi-layers systems.2 Mobility ratio κ κ= k1h1 k1h1 = k1h1 + k 2 h2 khTOTAL ( 7-3) When κ=1. mD. the response is double porosity. k2.

00223 1 1 CD µ C ( 7-9) CD = CD = [(φ c h) t 0. 7-1.1592C (metric units) ( 7-10) .66qBµ ( 7-8) tD k h + k 2 h2 ∆t = 0.8936C 2 + (φ ct h) 2 rw 1 ] (field units) [(φ ct h )1 + (φ ct h)2 ]rw2 0.Chapter 7 . λ is expressed: 2 rw kZ2 λ= k1h1 + k 2 h2 h2 2 ( 7-7) When λ=0.000295 1 1 (field units) C µ CD tD k h + k 2 h2 ∆t (metric units) = 0. If the vertical resistance is mostly due to the "wall". and of vertical permeabilities in the two layers kz1 and kz2.128 - . there is no reservoir crossflow.5 Dimensionless variables pD = k1h1 + k 2 h2 ∆p (field units) 1412qBµ 1 . k h + k 2 h2 pD = 1 1 ∆p (metric units) 18.Layered reservoirs 7-1. 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 1.4 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.

At intermediate times.10-8 k1h1 + k 2 h2 = 141.8.2qBµ (PM ) (mD. field units) µ  TM  k h + k 2 h2  1  3 C = 0. CD = 1000.00223 1 1  (m /Bars. The derivative stabilizes at 0. the well condition influences the shape of the derivative transition. tD/CD Figure 7-2 Response of a well with wellbore storage and skins in a double permeability reservoir.02. the behavior corresponds to two layers without cross flow.5. When the two skins S1 and S2 are different. metric units) k1h1 + k 2 h2  1    (Bbl/psi. λ provides an estimate of the vertical permeabilities. From Equations 7-6 and 7-7 : k ' Z = ( k1h1 + k 2 h2 ) λ 2 rw h' (mD) ( 7-13) .66qBµ (PM ) (mD. λ = 6. when the fluid transfer between the layers starts. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0. ω = 0. ω and λ are adjusted preferably with the derivative curve. The two layers are producing into the well. 2. the response follows a transition regime. κ = 0. metric units)  µ  TM  C = 0.ft.Layered reservoirs 7-2 Double permeability behavior when the two layers are producing into the well 7-2.129 - . S1 =S2 = 0.5 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. First. Later.m. field units) k1 h1 + k 2 h2 = 18. and it is difficult to conclude the match uniquely.000295 ( 7-11) ( 7-12) The heterogeneous parameters κ.Chapter 7 . 3. the pressure equalizes in the two layers and the behavior describes the equivalent homogeneous total system. 102 Dimensionless Pressure .1 Log-log pressure and derivative responses Three characteristic flow regimes : 1.

high storativity contrast. κ = 0. 0.6 and 0.130 - .2 Influence of the heterogeneous parameters κ and ω It is assumed in that the two skin coefficients are equal: S1 = S2 ( = 0).99 0. Well with wellbore storage and skins.6 4 0. pD κ = 1. pD and Derivative p'D κ = 0.6. The thick dotted curves correspond to the homogeneous reservoir response (CD e2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1). λ = 0). tD/CD Figure 7-3 Double permeability responses when the two layers are producing into the well.999 0.The thin dotted curves correspond to the two layers responses with no reservoir crossflow (for κ = 0.99 κ = 0.5 10-1 0.6 em slop 2 Two layers no crossflow Double permeability 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 0 Dimensionless time. 10 Dimensionless Pressure .6 1 0.999. 0.9 0.Chapter 7 . CD = 1.99 10-2 10-1 κ= 1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. 6 Dimensionless Pressure.10-4. The two dotted curves describe the homogeneous reservoir response (CDe2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1).Layered reservoirs k Z 2 = ( k1h1 + k 2 h2 ) λ h2 2 rw 2 (mD) ( 7-14) 7-2.9 0. tD/CD Figure 7-4 Semi-log plot of Figure 7-3.99. . Four mobility ratios : κ = 0.9.999 0.99 and 0. ω = 10-3.6 0. λ = 4. S1 = S2 = 0.999 0.

6 m pe slo 2 0 10-1 1 10 102 Dimensionless time.Chapter 7 .999 0. λ = 0).5 10-1 10-1 κ = 1 0. tD/CD 103 104 Figure 7-6 Semi-log plot of Figure 7-5.999 0.9. When the second layer starts to produce by reservoir cross flow. . 0. First.5.6. Four mobility ratios : κ = 0. and the equivalent homogeneous behavior of the total system is seen. and the behavior is homogeneous. 0.10-4.6 and 0. low storativity contrast.99. The derivative stabilizes at 0. λ = 4.6 1 0.9 0. Well with wellbore storage and skins.999. the response deviates in a transition regime. ω = 10-1. 7-3 Double permeability behavior when only one of the two layers is producing into the well 7-3.99 0. tD/CD 103 104 Figure 7-5 Double permeability responses when the two layers are producing into the well. 3. The two dotted curves describe the homogeneous reservoir response (CDe2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1).131 - .99 and 0. Log-log scale. 6 Dimensionless Pressure.99 κ = 0. The derivative drops.6 0.9 0. 2. S1 = S2 = 0. The thick dotted curves correspond to the homogeneous reservoir response (CD e2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1). the pressure equalizes in the two layers. the perforated layer response is seen alone.999 1 10 102 Dimensionless time. CD = 1.The thin dotted curves correspond to the two layers responses with no reservoir crossflow (for κ = 0.99 0.6 κ = 0. pD Two layers no crossflow Double permeability 4 κ= 1 0. Later. pD and Derivative p'D κ = 0.1 Log-log pressure and derivative responses Three characteristic flow regimes : 1.Layered reservoirs 10 Dimensionless Pressure .

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. metric units) 2 µr  TM  φ ct = ( 8-3) .5 derivative stabilization starts 10 times later. The 0. pressure and derivative responses.000263 k  1    (psi-1.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 0.000356 k  1  φ ct =   (Bars-1.32. Approximate start of radial flow PRESSURE ( 8-2) Figure 8-3 The Theis solution (exponential integral). approximately at tD/rD2 = 5.000263k = ∆t (field units) 2 φµ ct r 2 rD t D 0.Chapter 8 . the pressure and derivative curves intersect at tD/rD2 = 0. Match results The permeability thickness product kh is estimated from the pressure match with Equation 2-8. field units) µ r 2  TM  0.136 - .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.57 and pD = p'D = 0. With the line source response. Log-log scale.

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. Log-log scale. tD /rD2 Figure 8-5 Derivative curves of Figure 8-4. . rD = 300 : CD = 3000.Chapter 8 . 101 Dimensionless Pressure Derivative p'D Line source well 1 10-1 C: 10-2 B: A: 10-3 rD = 300.Interference tests 8-1. The dotted derivative curve corresponds to the Theis solution. CD = 3000. rD = 1000. rD = 1000. rD = 1000. The dotted curve corresponds to the Theis solution. Two distances: rD = 1000 : CD = 3000. Log-log scale. S = 30 S = 10 S=0 10-4 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time. CD = 3000. S = 30 (curve C). CD = 10000. CD = 3000. S = 0 (curve A) and CD = 10000. rD = 1000. tD /rD2 rD = 300. S = 30 S = 10 S=0 Figure 8-4 Influence of wellbore storage and skin effects on interference pressure responses. CD = 3000. S = 10 (curve B). CD = 10000.137 - .

the observation well location is defined as (x. pi − p wf = p i − p wf =  k 162. kxy are the components of the permeability tensor.y) and kx. Location of the active well and the observation well.4 Semi-log analysis of interference responses When tD/rD2 > 5. 8-1.6 qBµ   log ∆t + log − 3. The dotted derivative curve corresponds to the Theis solution. the infinite acting radial flow regime is reached. Log-log scale. examples A and B.5 qBµ  k  log ∆t + log − 3. y) kmin θ Active well kmax x Figure 8-7 Interference test in an anisotropic reservoir.Chapter 8 .138 - . ky. With a coordinate system centered on the active well. 1 tD /rD2 101 Figure 8-6 Pressure an derivative curves of Figure 8-4 and Figure 8-5.10  (Bars.5 Anisotropic reservoirs y Observation well at (x. metric units)  kh  φ µ ct r 2   ( 1-30) 8-1.2275 (psi. 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. .

the pressure match is the same for all responses and only the time match changes.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. ky and kxy can be estimated.Interference tests When several observation well responses are matched against the exponential integral type curve of Figure 8-3. y    tD  r 2  D    k max k min  (metric units)  = 0. y  x  ( 8-5) With three observation well responses.000356∆t    k y 2 + k x 2 − 2k xy  φ µ ct y xy  x. the reservoir anisotropy is not accessible. kx.x.000263∆t    (field units)  2 = φ µ ct  k x y 2 + k y x 2 − 2 k xy xy   rD  x . The major and minor reservoir permeability kmax and kmin are be defined with  k max = 0. 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 : . 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.y of the observation well is function of the well location with respect to the main permeability directions.y) is defined as :   tD  k max k min 0.Chapter 8 .139 - . The dimensionless time corresponding to well (x. The apparent permeability is : 2 k = k max k min = k x k y − k xy (mD) ( 8-4) The apparent distance rD.

001 103 104 102 101 Dimensionless time. the interference response follows the exponential integral solution. The distance between the two homogeneous regime curves is a function of the storativity ratio ω. .1 Double porosity reservoirs with restricted interporosity flow Pressure type curves Three curves are needed to define to a double porosity interference response : 1. 2. beyond a certain distance riD. 3.140 - .Chapter 8 .1 1 10-1 λ rD2 = 5 10-2 10-1 ω =0. 2 λrD = 5. 0. The level of the pressure change ∆p during the transition is defined by λ rD2. When the distance rD between the active and the observation wells is large.1 1 ω =0. tD f /rD2 Figure 8-8 Interference pressure type-curve for a double porosity reservoir. 1.Interference tests t Df r2 D t Df 2 rD = = 0. ∆p becomes less than the pressure gauge resolution. the response deviates from the fissure curve and follows a λ rD2 transition curve. This distance riD represents the radius of influence of the fissures around the active well.01. the total system equivalent homogeneous regime is reached and a second exponential integral curve is seen at late time.000356k ∆t (metric units) ( 8-9) 8-2. the λ rD2 transition stabilizes at a low ∆p value and.01 0. When the transition starts.01 ω =0. restricted (pseudo-steady state) interporosity flow.000263k∆t (field units) (φV ct ) f µ r 2 (φVct ) f µ r 2 0. 0. 101 Dimensionless Pressure pD 1 0.1. During the fissure flow regime. Later.

tD f /rD2 Figure 8-10 Interference responses of Figure 8-9. The dotted curve describes the derivative response at the active well.Chapter 8 .141 - . tDf /rD time scale. two distances : rD = 1000 (curve A) and rD = 5000 (B). 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. tD f Figure 8-9 Interference responses in double porosity reservoirs with restricted interporosity flow (tDf time scale).Interference tests Pressure and derivative response When the observation well is located inside the radius of influence riD.1. the time of transition is a function of the λ rD2 group. 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. 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. λ = 5 X 10-8. The interference response is observed faster than for the equivalent homogeneous reservoir. . ω = 0. With the tDf/rD2 time scale of Figure 8-10. the fissure flow regime is seen first.

101 Dimensionless Pressure pD 6 60 600 β rD2 = 6000 10-1 1 10-2 10-1 1 ω =0. Figure 8-11 Interference pressure type-curve for a double porosity reservoir. unrestricted (transient) interporosity flow β rD2= 6*103.When the total system equivalent homogeneous regime is reached.142 - . 6*102.Chapter 8 . . tD f /rD2 Figure 8-12 Interference responses in double porosity reservoirs with unrestricted interporosity flow.001 102 tD f /rD2 103 104 Dimensionless time.Interference tests 8-2. with same parameters as on Figure 8-10 . 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. For slab matrix blocks. Log-log scale. the response follows the exponential integral curve.2 Double porosity reservoirs with unrestricted interporosity flow Pressure type-curve Two pressure curves : 1. for sphere matrix blocks β = λ 3ω . Two wells. 60 and 6. . 2.1 ω =0.01 101 ω =0.The interference response starts on a β rD2 transition curve. β = 3λ 5ω and.

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

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

∆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.145 - . F=1/4). The mobility of the inner zone is 4 times smaller or 4 times larger. The storativity of the inner zone is 4 times smaller (M=1. 103 Pressure Change. Pressure curves of examples Figure 8-16 and Figure 8-17.Chapter 8 . The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to the Theis solution for region 2 parameters. ∆t (hours) 102 103 Figure 8-19 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir.Interference tests 103 Pressure Change. . the interference signal reaches the observation well faster (Figure 8-19). Well O2. ∆p and Derivative (psi) 102 Active well 101 O2 Line source region 2 1 10-1 1 101 Elapsed time. When there is a reduction of storativity φct around the active well. The dotted pressure curve corresponds to the Theis solution for region 2 parameters. ∆t (hours) 102 103 Figure 8-18 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir.

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

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

148 - ..

m(p) has the unit of (pressure)2 / viscosity . Bars2/cp) ( 9-2) The pressure p is expressed in absolute unit.2 Pseudo-pressure The pseudo-pressure m(p). the theoretical rate at which the well would flow if the sandface was at atmospheric pressure.psi/cp. The change of pseudo-pressure. The complete pressure data is converted into pseudo-pressure m(p) before analysis. With deliverability testing. also called "real gas potential". For an ideal gas Z=1.149 - . smaller than the lower test pressure. The reference pressure p0 is an arbitrary constant.3 Pseudo-time The pseudo-time tps is sometimes used as a complement of m(p).Bars/cp) ( 9-3) In order to estimate µ and ct before calculation of the superposition with the pseudo time tps. the pressure must be known during the complete flow rate sequence .1 Gas compressibility and viscosity The viscosity µ and the compressibility of gas cg change with the pressure. expressed as m(p)-m(p[∆t=0]). "the Absolute Open Flow Potential" AOFP. cg = 1 1 ∂Z − p Z ∂p (psi-1. 9-1 Gas properties 9-1. as for oil wells. hr. 9-1. is defined : m( p) = 2 p0 ∫ µ ( p)Z ( p) dp p p (psia2/cp. and the compressibility is cg=1/p.9 . is independent of the reference pressure p0. is estimated. Transient analysis provides a description of the producing system. t ps = ∫ 0 t 1 dt µ ( p)ct ( p) (hr. (psia2 / cp with the usual system of units).GAS WELLS Two different types of test are used with gas wells. 9-1. Bars-1) ( 9-1) Z is the real gas deviation factor.

µZ is plotted versus p for a typical natural gas at constant temperature : .When the pressure is higher than 3000 psia. the gas behaves like a slightly compressible fluid.150 - . . .Gas wells 9-2 Transient analysis of gas well tests 9-2. and the pressure data can be used directly for analysis. no simplification is available and m(p) must be used. 0. Bars2/cp) ( 9-4) On low-pressure gas wells. The pseudo-pressure m(p) becomes : 2p m( p) = µZ p0 ∫ dp = ( p − p0 ) µ p 2 pi (psia2/cp.04 to nal rtio o rop Zp p 0.Between 2000 psia and 3000 psia. Bars2/cp) Zi i ( 9-5) On high-pressure wells.Chapter 9 .When the pressure is less than 2000 psia. 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. .00 0 2000 4000 Pressure (psia) 6000 8000 Figure 9-1 Isothermal variation of µZ with pressure.1 Simplified pseudo-pressure for manual analysis On Figure 9-1. the product µZ tends to be proportional to p and p/µZ can be considered as a constant. it is possible to analyze the test in terms of pressuresquared p2.01 0.02 µ Z constant 0.03 µ Z (cp) µ 0.

33T q sc p sc kh [m( p i ) − m( p)] = 0. the properties are defined at the arithmetic average pressure of the test (symbol ). all temperatures are expressed in absolute units).2 Dimensionless parameters Nomenclature In field units.). The gas rate is expressed in standard condition as qsc in Mscf/D (103scft/D ). With the pressure and pressure-squared approaches.1296 µ zTqsc p: ( ( ) ) ( ) (metric units) ( 9-7) p D = 3. the dimensionless terms are defined with respect to the gas properties at initial condition (subscript i). Dimensionless pressure m(p): p D = 1.33µ Z Tqsc psc kh pi2 − p 2 = 0.03 ∗ 10 [m( pi ) − m( p )] Tq sc T sc kh [m( p i ) − m( p)] pD = 37.976∗10 −5 = 1406∗10 .Gas wells 9-2. With the metric system.03∗10 pi2 − p 2 µ ZTq sc kh Tsc 2 pi − p 2 pD = 37.Chapter 9 .987∗10 −5 −4 kh Tsc 2 pi − p 2 µ ZTq sc psc ( ) (field units) kh = 7. the standard pressure is psc =14.987 ∗ 10 −5 −4 kh Tsc [m( pi ) − m( p )] Tq sc p sc kh = 7. When the pseudo-pressure is used. psc =1 Bar.1296T q sc p2: (field units) (metric units) ( 9-6) p D = 1. −3 kh p Tsc ( pi − p) µ ZTq sc psc kh p ( pi − p) µ ZTq sc (field units) .151 - .7psia and the temperature is Tsc = 520°R (60°F. Tsc = 288.15°K (15°C) and cubic meters are used for gas rates (m3/D.

000356k ∆t (field units) ∆t (metric units) ( 9-10) φ µ c t rw 2 Dimensionless wellbore storage As for oil wells. the wellbore storage coefficient is expressed in Bbl/psi (or m3/Bars).000295 (field units) CD µi C .Gas wells pD = = kh p 18.0648µ Z Tq sc Tsc ( pi − p) p sc (metric units) ( 9-8) ( pi − p) Dimensionless time m(p): tD = tD = p2 and p: 0.8936C (field units) 2 φ cti hrw 0.8936C (field units) 2 φ ct hrw 0.66 µ Z Tq sc kh p 0.1592C 2 φ c t hrw (metric units) ( 9-12) Dimensionless time group tD/CD m(p): tD kh ∆t = 0. m(p): CD = CD = p2 and p: 0.000263k φµ i cti rw 2 0.000356k ∆t (field units) ∆t (metric units) ( 9-9) φ µ i cti rw 2 0.152 - .1592C 2 φ c ti hrw (metric units) ( 9-11) CD = CD = 0.Chapter 9 .000263k tD = tD = φ µ ct rw 2 0.

. also called turbulent effect or non-Darcy skin. and the skin is estimated from the change of ∆pskin between the flow periods n and n-1.000295 (field units) CD µ C tD kh ∆t (metric units) = 0.Chapter 9 .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). 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. the actual flow rate is used in Equation 9-16.00223 CD µ C ( 9-14) Skin On gas wells. S ' = S + Dq sc ( 9-15) In a multirate sequence.Gas wells tD kh ∆t (metric units) = 0. the skin coefficient S' is expressed with a rate dependent term.153 - . the analysis is made with respect to the rate change (qn qn-1).

Chapter 9 . n can vary from 1 in the case of laminar flow. Log-log scale.1 Deliverability equations Empirical approach (Fetkovich. 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. qsc (Mscf/D) 105 Figure 9-3 Deliverability plot for a backpressure test. or Jone's. kh kh  CA  .87 S  q sc + 1422 Dq sc (psia2/cp.Gas wells 9-3 Deliverability tests 9-3. or "a & b") In a closed system.35 + 0. to 0. pressure-squared method. Theoretical approach (LIT. m3/D) ( 9-17) The initial pressure pi and the stabilized flowing pressures pwf are expressed in absolute units.5 when the flow is fully turbulent.7 psia (pwf =1 Bar). 109 pwf=14.pwf2 (psia2) 108 1/n =s lop e 107 AOF=9000 Mscft/D 106 103 104 Rate.7 psia pi2. or Houpeurt's. The Absolute Open Flow Potential (AOF) is the theoretical rate for a bottom hole flowing pressure pwf = 14. The coefficients C and n are two constant terms.154 - . or "C & n") 2 q sc = C pi2 − pwf ( ) n (Mscf/D.

( 9-19) m p − m p wf = 0. metric units) ( 9-18) With a circular reservoir of radius re. During the infinite acting regime.155 - .1296 D q sc   kh kh  CA  (Bars2/cp.87 S q sc + 0.1296 T D q sc 2   kh  kh φ µ i c ti rw  ( 9-20) m p − m p wf = 0. field units) () ( ) () ( )  T T  k∆t 2  log + 3. the response follows the semi-log approximation and ∆m(p) is : m p − m p wf = 1637 (psia2/cp.b ent ns i 20. The coefficient "b" is the same in the two equations. field units)  2 log kh  rw kh   0. pseudo-pressure method.472re T  T 2 + 0.1491 metric units) ∆m(p)/q (psia2D/cpMscf) 35. CA = 31.000 a = intercept 25.1491 + 0.87 S q sc + 0.1491 (Bars2/cp.351 + 0.000 0 2000 4000 Rate.87 S  q sc + 1422 Dq sc 2 kh kh  φµ i cti rw   T  2  log k∆t + 3. qsc (Mscf/D) 6000 8000 Figure 9-4 Deliverability plot for an isochronal or a modified isochronal test. metric units) The two ∆m(p) deliverability relationships can be expressed as a(t) qsc + b q2sc.87 S q sc + 0. a(t) is an increasing function of the time whereas "a" is constant when pseudo-steady state is reached.000 tra .Gas wells m p − m p wf () ( ) 2  A rw T T  2  log = 0.000  0. The Absolute Open Flow Potential is : . Linear scale.10 + 0.Chapter 9 .62 and ∆m(p) is simplified : m p − m pwf = 1637 () ( ) () ( ) 40. Before the pseudo-steady state regime.23 + 0.87 S  q sc + 1422 Dq sc (psia2/cp.1296 D q sc   kh  rw kh  (Bars2/cp.472re T  T 2  2 log + 0.000 ed biliz st a e l op =s 30.

of same duration tp. qsc (Mscf/D) 6000 8000 Figure 9-6 Deliverability plot for a backpressure test. pi 7000 Pressure (psia) pwf1 Rate. m3/D) ( 9-21) 9-3.Gas wells q sc .Chapter 9 . pseudo-pressure method. .156 - . qsc (Mscf/D) pwf2 pwf3 30.000 pwf4 20. 3500 ∆m(p)/q (psia2D/cpMscf) 3000 b= pe slo 2500 a = intercept 2000 0 2000 4000 Rate. The intermediate build-ups last until the initial pressure pi is reached.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.000 6800 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Time (hours) Figure 9-5 Pressure and rate history for a backpressure test. 9-3. are stopped during the infinite acting regime. A final flow period is extended to reach stabilized flowing pressure. Linear scale.000 6900 10. AOF = − a + a 2 + 4b m( p) − m( psc ) 2b ( ) (Mscf/D.2 Back pressure test (Flow after flow test) The well is produced to stabilized pressure at three or four increasing rates and the different flow periods have the same duration.

qsc (Mscf/D) 30. stab pws2 pws3 pws4 pi 30.000 0 600 Figure 9-9 Pressure and rate history for a modified isochronal test. and the last flow is extended until the stabilized pressure is reached. .000 Rate. qsc (Mscf/D) Rate.000 20.4 Modified isochronal test The intermediate shut-in periods have the same duration tp as the drawdown periods. slo pe pi2 (or pws2 ). 9-3.000 6800 0 200 400 Time.Gas wells pi 7000 Pressure (psia) pwf1 pwf2 6900 pwf3 pwf4 10.157 - . Log-log scale. hours 600 0 800 Figure 9-7 Pressure and rate history for an isochronal test. 108 sta bil tra ize ns d 1/ ien n= t. 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. stab 20.000 pwf.pwf2 (psia2) 107 pwf=14.000 10. 7100 pws1 Pressure (psia) 6900 6700 6500 6300 0 100 200 300 400 Time (hours) 500 pwf1 pwf2 pwf3 pwf4 pwf. pressure-squared method.Chapter 9 .

158 - ..

double porosity reservoir.5 10-1 10-1 1 fissure regime 101 102 103 Dimensionless time. CD = 104.10 .159 - . unrestricted interporosity flow.BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS 10-1 Boundaries in fissured reservoirs A sealing fault can be reached during the fissure flow regime (Figure 10-1). tD /CD 106 107 108 Figure 10-2 Well with wellbore storage in a double porosity channel reservoir. The double porosity transition is observed during the semi-radial flow regime. LD = 5000. S = 0. CD = 10. the double porosity transition is superimposed to the start of the pseudosteady state regime (Figure 10-3). λ = 10-6. 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). Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 start of the sealing fault 1 0. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 º 101 1/4 slo pe 1/ 2 1 0. The thin curves correspond to the infinite double porosity reservoir response. after a first derivative stabilization at 1. . ω = 0. ω = 10-3. When the four sealing boundaries of a closed system are reached during the fissure flow. slab matrix blocks. S = 0. λeff = 10-9. derivative responses can exhibit several consecutive humps (Figure 10-4). pseudo-steady state interporosity flow. With mixed boundaries.2.5 10-1 10-1 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. tD /CD transition 104 105 total system 106 1 1 Figure 10-1 Well with wellbore storage near a sealing fault. L1D = L2D = 300.25 1 101 slope 0.

L3D = 1500 (constant pressure) and L4D = 1500 (sealing). . L1D = L2D = 500 (sealing). pseudo steady state interporosity flow. 10-2 Boundaries in layered reservoirs On Figure 10-5. LiD = 1000. the channel width can appear smaller (Figure 10-6). The dotted curve corresponds to the equivalent infinite double porosity reservoir. CD = 100.1. pseudo steady state interporosity flow. and the derivative deviates earlier than on the equivalent homogeneous response. ω = 0. In layered channel reservoirs.160 - . The boundary is reached first in Layer 1. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 º 101 2 1 0. S = 0.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time. λeff = 10-6.Chapter 10 . tD /CD Figure 10-3 Drawdown response for a well with wellbore storage at the center of closed square double porosity reservoir. tD /CD 104 105 Figure 10-4 Well with wellbore storage in a square double porosity reservoir with composite boundaries. The thin dotted curves correspond to the equivalent homogeneous closed square reservoir. ω = 0. the reservoir cross flow is not established when the fault is seen. λeff = 10-6.Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 º 101 1 0.1. CD = 100. The infinite reservoir double porosity derivative response is presented by the thick dotted curve. S = 0.

followed by a hump is seen. Later. On Figure 10-7. tD /CD 104 105 Figure 10-5 Well with wellbore storage in a double permeability reservoir with a sealing fault. The first unit slope straight line describes the wellbore storage. κ = 0. In a closed double permeability reservoir. the closed circular boundary is reached during the early time commingled response. as on the composite example of Figure 10-4. a second unit slope straight line.7.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 Dimensionless time. The dotted curves describe to the channel response of the equivalent homogeneous reservoir.κ) until the final unit slope line for the pseudo steady state regime becomes evident. -10 ω = 0.15.Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 1 1 0. ω = 0. the derivative stabilizes at 0. The dotted curves describe the sealing fault response in the equivalent homogeneous reservoir. κ = 0.15.161 - . CD = 100. L1D = L2D = 1000. λ = 10 . 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 101 /2 e1 slop 1 0. . S1 = S2 = 0. a derivative hump can be observed at intermediate time. λ = 10-10. 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).5 10-1 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. S1 = S2 = 0.5 / (1 .Chapter 10 .7. tD /CD Figure 10-6 Well with wellbore storage in a double permeability reservoir with two parallel sealing faults. CD = 100. After the wellbore storage effect and the early time infinite behavior. LD = 500.

M1 = M2 = 0. rD = 5000. 1.2.5/(1-κ) 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. the responses tend to be equivalent to that of a homogeneous channel with a different width.002. when the mobility changes near the edges of the channel banks (Figure 10-8). S = 0. The interfaces are parallel to the boundaries.162 - 1 107 . or along the channel length (Figure 10-9). S1 = S2 = 0. The dotted curves correspond to the closed equivalent homogeneous reservoir.2. CD = 100. 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D º 101 1/2 pe s lo M= 5 0. Build-up responses can be severely distorted (Figure 1011). tD /CD M=0.7. d1D = d2D =500. ω = 0.Chapter 10 . κ = 0. CD = 100.2 1 0. or channel with constant pressure boundary response (Figure 10-10). When the mobility contrast is large. 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.Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 º pe slo 1 1 0.5 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. . L1D = L2D =1000. 1 and 5. 10-3 Composite channel reservoirs In channel reservoirs. drawdown responses can show at intermediate time a closed system behavior. 5 Figure 10-8 Well with wellbore storage in a composite channel. λ = 10-10.5 10-1 10-1 1 101 0.

CD = 100. S = 0. 1 and 5.5 10-1 101 102 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. 1. 1 and 50. M1 = M2 = 0. tD /CD 105 106 M=0. The interfaces are perpendicular to the boundaries.5 10-1 101 102 M=0. L1D = L2D =1000.02.2 M = 50 1 0.2 5 1 0. tD /CD 106 107 Figure 10-10 Drawdown responses for a well with wellbore storage in composite channel.2. 5 Figure 10-9 Well with wellbore storage in a composite channel. 1. 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D º 101 M=5. tD /CD Figure 10-11 Pressure and derivative drawdown and build-up responses of curve M=50 of Figure 10-10.163 - . . d1D = d2D =1500.Chapter 10 . the interfaces are changed into sealing and constant pressure boundaries. The two dotted derivative curves are drawdown. M1 = M2 = 0.2. d1D = d2D =2000.Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs 102 Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D º 101 pe slo 1/2 M =0. 103 Dimensionless Derivative p'D º closed channel slo pe 1 102 M= 50 101 e1 slop /2 1 0. On the dotted curves. the build-up response (thick line) is generated for (tp/C)D = 650.02 channel with constant pressure 103 104 105 Dimensionless time. S = 0. CD = 100. The interfaces are perpendicular to the boundaries. 0. L1D = L2D =500.5 10-1 1 101 102 103 104 Dimensionless time.

164 - ..

When the interporosity flow parameter is small (λeff1 =10-8).1. the response is different.7. On Figure 11-2. the double porosity transition in layer 1 is first seen during the two layers no cross flow regime. is seen first. κ= 0. ω = 0.5 10-1 triple porosity 10-2 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless time. Fissured layered responses depend upon which transition. tD/CD Figure 11-1 Fissured layered reservoir.99 of Figure 7-3 (for a storativity ratio ω =10-3).99 of Figure 7-5 (ω =10-1). grouping of matrix size by layers has no effect on the response. When reservoir cross flow between layers is not allowed (λ =0). Dimensionless Pressure . the double porosity or the double permeability transition.01. 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. λeff1=10-5. S1 = S2 = 0.01. ω1 =0.11 . pD and Derivative p'D 10 double permeability 1 no crossflow crossflow oooo 0. layer 1 is in fissure regime when the double permeability transition starts. ω2 =0.165 - . λ =10-3 or λ =0. restricted interporosity flow is assumed. The (o) dotted curve corresponds to the triple porosity response of Figure 4. different λ in each layer.33. If layer 1 is in total system flow (λeff1 =10-3) at start of the double permeability transition. The parameters correspond to the triple porosity example of Figure 4. For each layer. λeff2 =5x10-7.COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES 11-1 Fissured-layered reservoirs On Figure 11-1. the high permeability layer 1 is fissured and not layer 2. CDf+m = 1.33. pseudo steady state interporosity flow. When the vertical communication is good in a fissured layered reservoir. . a double permeability response where the two layers are fissured is presented. The double permeability transition tends to be similar to that of the double permeability response κ = 0.

99.5 10-1 double permeability ω=10-3 λ 1= 10-8 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 Dimensionless time. The (o) dotted curve corresponds to the double permeability response of Figure 7-3 with ω = 10-3.1.Combined heterogeneities 10 Dimensionless Pressure . The radial composite model corresponds to the curve M=10 of Figure 6-2.99 and λ =4. pseudo steady state interporosity flow. F =1 rD = 700.10-4. ω = 0.01. the inner region is fissured. tD/CD Figure 11-3 Radial composite reservoir. When λeff1 =10-4. the response shows first a characteristic double porosity valley transition. CDf+m = 1. κ = 0. . 11-2 Fissured radial composite reservoirs On Figure 11-3.10-4. CD = 100. pD and Derivative p'D 102 double porosity λ1=10-6 radial composite 10 1 λ1=10 -4 0. pseudo steady state interporosity flow.Chapter 11 . S1 = S2 = 0. the radial composite interface is seen during the fissure regime.01 and λeff1=10-6. λeff1 =10-3 or λeff1 =10-8. λeff1=10-4 or λeff1=10-6. κ = 0. tD/CD Figure 11-2 Fissured layered reservoir. When λeff1 =10-6. ω1 =0. ω1 =0.166 - . Dimensionless Pressure . S = 3. The (o) dotted curve corresponds to the radial composite response of Figure 6-2 with M=10.10-4 and the ( ) to the double permeability response of Figure 7-5 with ω = 10-1. pD and Derivative p'D 1 double permeability ω=10-1 λ 1= 10-3 0.01. After. The two transitions are combined at the same time. κ = 0. λ =4. the inner region of a radial composite reservoir is fissured. it is equivalent to the radial composite with a homogeneous inner region. M=10.99 and λ =4.5 λ1=10-6 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. only layer 1 is fissured. the dashed curve describes the double porosity response with ω1 =0.

λ1=0. M=F =1.5. no cross flow in the inner region.5 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time. the valley shaped derivative transition is delayed. κ=0. 1000. The dotted curves correspond to the double permeability response of Figure 7-5 with κ=0. F2 = 1.9.1. ω=0. λ2=4 10 .Combined heterogeneities 11-3 Layered radial composite reservoirs On Figure 11-4. layer 2 radial composite. S1 = S2 =0. the responses change to the two layers without cross flow at late time (Figure 116). After the derivative hump. S1 = S2 =0. Dimensionless Pressure .9. r2D = 100. When the reservoir cross flow is only possible in the inner region. The radial composite double permeability model can be used to describe the presence of a flow barrier between the layers. but layer 2 is radial composite with a strong reduction of mobility at r2D = 100. The derivative tends to follow a unit slope straight line at intermediate time (examples M2 =100 or 1000). tD/CD Figure 11-5 Layered reservoir. CD = 30. layer 1 homogeneous. no cross flow. Dimensionless Pressure . 300. rD=30. the two layers commingled infinite reservoir response is seen. the reservoir is two-layer without cross flow. the derivative deviates above the 0. and the derivative tends to stabilize. When no cross flow is allowed in the inner region of radius rD.Chapter 11 .5 10-1 10-1 rD=30 rD=100 300 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.167 - . λ=0. κ=0. 100. tD/CD Figure 11-4 Layered reservoir. .5 stabilization and produces a smooth hump. ω=0. -4 CD = 1.1. 100. and it tends to be steeper than the double permeability infinite reservoir response (Figure 11-5). pD and Derivative p'D 102 M2=1000 100 10 M2=1000 M2=10 10 1 0. M2 = 10. Before. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 0.

100.Chapter 11 . λ1=4 10 . . λ2=0. tD/CD Figure 11-6 Layered reservoir. ω=0. no cross flow in the outer region. The dotted curves correspond to the double permeability response of Figure 7-5 with κ=0. rD=30.9 and the dashed curves to the commingled reservoir (λ=0). κ=0.5 10-1 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Dimensionless time.1. -4 CD = 1. S1 = S2 =0.9. pD and Derivative p'D 10 1 rD=30 rD=100 300 0.168 - .Combined heterogeneities Dimensionless Pressure . 300. M=F =1.

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

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

without having to differentiate the data.2 p6 p6 p1 p0 300 200 100 400 Rate (BOPD) Figure 12-3 Example of rate estimation during a DST flow period. dp D 0.Chapter 12 . the pressure difference is converted into the corresponding height of fluid.171 - .ft. metric units) ( 12-4) 12-1. The increasing pressure curve of the flow period is discretized into constant pressure steps (Figure 12-3). Knowing the liquid gravity.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 12.2) or from the pressure match : kh = kh = µ C ( pi − p0 )  dp D d ln t D    0. the height is converted into volume. the decreasing rate has to be estimated as a function of time in order to analyze the subsequent build-up. field units) µ C ( p i − p 0 )  dp D d ln t D    ( ) (mD.m.4 1.2 1.8 2 p2 p1 q1 q5 q6 0 2.3 Build-up analysis When the well is closed down hole before the liquid level has reached the surface.6 Time (hours) 1.000295kh = ∆t pi − p wf (t ) (field units) d ln t D C µ ( pi − p0 ) dp D 0.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. From the capacity of the drill pipe.00223  ∆t p i − p wf (t )    MATCH ( ) (mD. 5000 4900 Pressure (psia) 4800 4700 4600 4500 1 1.000295  ∆t pi − p wf (t )    MATCH 0. .

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 impulse response is expressed as pi − pwf t p and. Linear scale. 5100 pi Pressure (psia) 4900 4700 tp 4500 0 0.2 Impulse test analysis The complete well pressure response is analyzed on a single analysis plot.000295kh t p + ∆t ( pi − p ws ) (field units) = d ln t D Qt µ dp D 0.5 2 ∆t Figure 4 Example of impulse pressure response. The pressure and derivative type curves are used to analyze the pressure response: during the flowing time. 12-2. the response deviates from the usual pressure response to reach the derivative curve with same CDe2S.Chapter 12 . the well is produced only a few minutes and then closed.1 Test description With impulse tests. During the short flow.5 1 Time (hours) 1. as in Equation 12-3 : ( ) ( ) dp D 0. during the shut-in period.Other testing methods 12-2 Impulse test 12-2. during the shut-in. as ( pi − pws ) t p + ∆t .172 - . . The pressure match is defined. the impulse response is matched against a pressure type curve and.

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

metric units) ( 12-6) The objective of the deconvolution is to transform the measured pressure response ∆p(t). kh pi − pwf ( ) q (t ) (field units) .Chapter 12 .Other testing methods 141.2 Bµ ∆p(t ) = kh ∆p(t ) = 18.66 Bµ kh τ=0 t τ=0 ∫ q' (τ) p ∫ q' (τ) p t D (t − τ)dτ (psi.174 - . 12-4 Constant pressure test (rate decline analysis) When a well is producing at constant wellbore pressure. 1 Dimensionless rate. the declining rate can be analyzed versus time. Several algorithms have been proposed for deconvolution of well test measurements. 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. qD versus tDe. tDe Figure 12-7 Decline curves on log-log scale. into an equivalent constant flow rate test that can be analyzed with the usual methods. Results are very dependent upon the quality of the rate curve. after any variable rate sequence q(t). qD Infinite reservoir 10-1 5000 10-2 2500 re/rwe 104 105 106 107 = 1000 108 10-3 103 Effective dimensionless time. With log-log rate type curves. Closed reservoir. using real data of Laplace transformed data. the effect of afterflow can theoretically be eliminated from the pressure build-up response. the dimensionless flow rate qD is expressed as : qD = 1412 B µ . field units) D (t − τ)dτ (bars.

175 - . . log ∆t.Chapter 12 .ft. metric units) m q ( p i − p wf ) 1 q (1hr )  k S = 1.m. 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. 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. field units) m q ( p i − p wf ) ( 12-9) Bµ (mD. kh = 162.66 Bµ q (t ) (metric units) kh p i − p wf ( ) ( 12-7) For semi-log analysis.151 − log + 3.5 − 3. or quantify the presence of a sealing interval.6 kh = 21.23 2 φ µ ct rw  mq    1 q (1hr )  k S = 1.23 + 0.5 Bµ (mD.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.6 − 3.87 S  (D/m3.87 S  (D/Bbl.   1 Bµ k = 162.151 − log + 3.10 + 0. the reciprocal of the rate 1/q is graphed vs. field units) log ∆t + log 2 q kh pi − p wf  φ µ ct rw    ( )   Bµ k 1 = 21.Other testing methods qD = 18.

0.05.8. Sw=0. kV3 Homogeneous reservoir Three layers reservoir Figure 12-8 Well and reservoir configurations. Vertical permeability: kV/kH = 0.7 0. zw-obs /h = 0.005. zw/h = 0.6. tD /CD Figure 12-9 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage. zw/h = 0. observation segment: hw-obs/h = 1/100. . Log-log scale.Chapter 12 . 0.5 line 107 Dimensionless time. Sw=0.5 line 106 107 10-1 10 102 103 Dimensionless time.05 0. tD /CD Figure 12-10 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage. kV/kH = 0.005.176 - . Several vertical permeability. kV1 kH2.5. kV2 kV kH kH3. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 1 kV/kH = 0. Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 101 1 Zw-obs/h = 0.8 105 106 0.6.5 0. 0.7. Producing segment: hw/h = 1/10.5.6 10-1 10 102 103 104 0. 0. Several distances. CD = 6.005 104 105 0.5. CD = 6. Producing segment: hw/h = 1/10.Other testing methods hw-obs hw zw zw-obs kH1. Log-log scale. zw-obs /h = 0. observation segment: hw-obs/h = 1/100.

Vertical permeability: kV/kH = 0. zw/h = 0.35. on a thick interval.3. .w-obs/h = 1/20. tD /CD Figure 12-12 Double-stage test log-log responses.5. Producing segment: hw/h = 1/10. three discrete intervals are isolated to provide vertical interference responses. By inflating internal packer in the thick interval. zw-obs /h = 0.177 - .Other testing methods With the double-stage testing method. Observation interval Flowing interval Observation interval Test 1 : radial flow Test 2 : spherical flow Figure 12-11 Double-stage test. two tests are performed on the same layer: the first. observation segment: h. CD = 7. is used to define the horizontal permeability.Chapter 12 . Dimensionless Pressure pD and Derivative p'D 102 Partial penetration 101 Test 1 1 0. Sw=0.5 line 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 Observation Dimensionless time.

.178 - .

and qo Rs the dissolved gas at bottom hole conditions. and the saturations are constant during the test period.1 Hypothesis and definitions An equivalent monophasic liquid of constant properties is defined as the sum of the three phases: oil. (k µ )t h pD = ∆p (metric units) 18.13 .2 Analysis In the usual equations for oil reservoirs. 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.MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS 13-1 Perrine method 13-1. dimensionless pressure and time are respectively : pD = (k µ )t h ∆p (field units) 1412 (qB) t . The three phases are assumed to be uniformly distributed in the reservoir. m3/D) ( 13-1) where qsg is the gas rate measured at surface.179 - . water and gas. Bars−1) ( ) ∂∂ Rp s + S w B g Bw ( ) ∂∂Rp sw ( 13-3) 13-1.66 (qB )t ( 13-4) . For log-log analysis. 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. the mobility k/µ and the rate q are changed into the total mobility (k/µ)t and the equivalent rate (qB)t.

5 (k µ )t h m = 162.Chapter 13 . . the molar density of the oil and gas phases ρo.Multiphase reservoirs (k tD = 0. metric units) ( 13-6) The analysis yields the effective mobility of this equivalent fluid.180 - .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. When the relative permeabilities kr"o.1 Multiphase pseudo-pressure For solution gas drive reservoir. field units) (Bars.g are used: m( p) =  k ro k rg  ρo  dp (psi/cp.w. m(p) depends upon the test sequence. 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. Bars/cp) µ o Bo 0 p ( 13-8) For gas condensate reservoir.000223 CD (qB )t (k µ )t h (qB )t m = 21.g" of the different phases are known.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. the pseudo pressure is expressed : m( p) = ∫ k ro ( S o ) dp (psi/cp. As the saturation profile depends upon the rate history.

Multiphase reservoirs 13-2. dimensionless pressure is expressed with respect to the oil rate: pD = ah ∆ p 2 (field units) 282.4 q o ah pD = ∆ p 2 (metric units) 37. defined as : ko = ap µ o Bo ( 13-11) .33 q o ( ) ( ) ( 13-10) where a is assumed to be a constant.2 Pressure squared method For log-log analysis.181 - .Chapter 13 .

182 - ..

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

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

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

Shut-in time error: curve a = 0. . Time and pressure errors.1 hr after the actual shut-in time.9 170.2 170. t 170.Error in time and pressure: curve e.1 170. .0 Time. ∆t (hours) Figure 15-4 Case a: shut-in time too early.Chapter 15 . 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 b 1 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time.186 - . . p d 3790 a b 3770 c 3750 169. . ∆t (hours) Figure 15-5 Case b: shut-in time too late.7 169.8 169.3 Figure 15-3 Example of Figure 15-1 at time of shut-in.Shut-in pressure error: curve c = 10 psi below and curve d = 10 psi above the last flowing pressure. 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 101 a 1 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time.Factors complicating well test analysis 15-2 Error of start of the period 3830 e 3810 Pressure.1 hr before and curve b = 0.

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

Noise of +1 psi every 2 points. ∆t (hours) Figure 15-9 Final build-up of Figure 15-1. The effect of a constant drift is inverse during flow and shut-in periods. Drift of ± 0. ∆t (hours) Figure 15-11 Final build-up of Figure 15-1. 15-4 Pressure gauge noise 250 Pressure change ∆p (psi) 200 150 100 50 0 0 100 200 300 Elapsed time. Linear scale.05 psi/hr.05 psi/hr. Drift of ± 0. ∆t (hours) Figure 15-10 Log-log plot of the build-up example.188 - .Chapter 15 . 103 Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 102 Drift + 101 Drift 1 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time. . 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.

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

the derivative becomes negative.Chapter 15 . 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. the response corresponds to the gas wellbore storage coefficient immediately after shut-in. the derivative follows a slope greater than unity at the end of the gas dominated early time response. diphasic flow end of phase segregation effect Figure 15-15 Changing liquid level after phase segregation. changing wellbore storage is also frequently evident on gas wells with a large drawdown.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. 15-6 Two phases liquid level In diphasic wells (oil + water. Due to the variable compressibility of gas. the build-up pressure can show a temporary decreasing trend after some shut-in time. after shut-in. water falls at the bottom of the well for example. changing liquid level When. a phase redistribution in the wellbore can produce a characteristic humping effect.190 - . During this time interval. In some cases. or gas + condensate). and changes to the lower oil wellbore storage later. This produces a steep increase of derivative and. ∆t (hours) Figure 15-14 Log-log plot of a build-up example of changing wellbore storage During build-up periods. in some cases. .

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

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

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 -

L Radial. kV and Sw Linear (mobility ↓).3) 1 2 3 Radial inner. kh and S kh. k Transition (storativity ↑). (k1h+k2h)/2 and ST k1h > k2h. k1h and Sw Transition (mobility ↑or ↓). ω and λ Radial fissures + matrix. Sw ∆t L kh. kh and ST ∆p' & ∆p 1/2 kV. kh and S ω kh. ST Reservoir models ∆p' & ∆p Double porosity. ST k1h. L Radial total.197 - .Conclusion Horizontal well (3. restricted interporosity flow (4.5) 1 2 3 Radial vertical. unrestricted interporosity flow (4. S λ ∆t Radial composite (6.3) 1 2 Transition. Sw r ∆t k2h.Chapter 16 . ST Linear composite (6. S λ ∆t ∆p' & ∆p Double porosity.2) 1 2 3 Radial inner. or k1h < k2h ∆p' & ∆p (k1+k2)h/2. k1h and Sw Transition (mobility ↑ or ↓). k2h and ST k1h > k2h. r Radial outer.2) 1 2 3 Radial fissures. Sw ∆t L . or k1h < k2h ∆p' & ∆p k1h. λ Radial fissures + matrix.

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

S -1 ∆t .3) Centered : 1 Radial. θ 4 Average pressure. S L1+L2 ∆t P A 1 2 Radial. S ∆t θ ∆p' & ∆p P 1 A kh. L1+L2 3 Fraction of radial. kh and S 2 Linear. p and A Closed with intersecting faults (5. L1+L2 3 Fraction of radial.5) L kh. A Build-up : 1 Radial.Chapter 16 . kh and S 2 Linear. p and A ∆p' & ∆p L1 1/2 L1+L2 kh. θ Off-centered : 1 Radial. kh and S 2 Linear. S ∆t 1/2 A P ∆p' & ∆p θ 1/2 kh. kh and S 2 Average pressure. kh and S 2 Linear.199 - . p and A 1 ∆p' & ∆p L1+L2 kh. kh and S Transition (mobility ↑). L1+L2 3 Average pressure. L1+L2 3 Pseudo steady state. A Build-up : 1 Radial. S ∆t Closed channel (5. kh and S 2 Hemi-radial. L1+L2 3 Fraction of radial. kh and S 2 Linear. A Build-up : 1 Radial.4) Drawdown : 1 Radial. L One boundary Multiple boundaries ∆p' & ∆p Constant pressure boundaries (5. kh and S 2 Pseudo steady state. θ Closed system centered (5.Conclusion Intersecting faults (5.4) Drawdown : 1 Radial. L1 3 Linear.4) Drawdown : 1 Radial. L1+L2 4 Fraction of radial. θ 4 Pseudo steady state.

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

q 4600 4400 0 200 400 600 Time. Linear scale. p 5000 4800 pi=5000 psia Rate. ∆t (hours) 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. Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults. Pressure.201 - . . 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. t 800 1000 1200 Figure 16-8 Test history simulation. ∆t (hours) Figure 16-7 Log-log plot of the final build-up.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. Pressure change ∆p and pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi) 103 102 101 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 Elapsed time. Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.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. ∆t (hours) Figure 16-11 Log-log plot of the final build-up. one infinite and one closed layer. Linear scale. p pi=5000 psia 4500 4000 3500 3000 0 Rate. t 800 1000 Figure 16-12 Test history simulation. one layer is closed.Conclusion Pressure. one infinite and one closed layer. p 5000 4500 4000 pi=5443 psia Rate. q 3500 3000 0 200 400 600 Time. Two layers reservoir. 5000 Pressure. q 200 400 600 Time. Linear scale. Two layers reservoir. The hump at intermediate time corresponds to the storage of the limited zone. . Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.Chapter 16 . The reservoir is a two layer no crossflow.202 - . At late time. the derivative stabilizes to describe the radial flow regime in the infinite layer. t 800 1000 Figure 16-10 Test history simulation.

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

.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. q A dp / dl Figure A-1 Rate through a 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. the Darcy's law is expressed. A-2 Steady state radial flow of an incompressible fluid q rw q re Figure A-2 Radial flow. in the SI system of units: q k dp =V = 2πrh µ dr For steady state flow condition.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. In case of radial flow.Appendix .

4 Equation of state of a constant compressibility fluid The compressibility. φ and the system compressibility. div ρ V = −φ The density ρ = → ∂ρ ∂t (A-5) m is used. v A-3.Analytical solutions A-3 Diffusivity equation A-3.3 Principle of conservation of mass (continuity equation) The difference between the mass flow rate in. µ. • Pressure gradients are low. the total system compressibility ct is attributed to an equivalent fluid: ct = c o S o + c w S w + c f (1-3) .2 Darcy's law V= → k → µ grad p (A-4) A-3.206 - . defined as the relative change of fluid volume. A-3. and the mass flow rate out the element.Appendix . the fluid equation of state is: ρ = ρ0 e ct ( p − p 0 ) (A-7) For a liquid flow in a porous medium.1 Hypotheses • Constant properties: k. • The formation is not compressible and saturated with fluid. is expressed with the density ρ: c=− 1 ∂v 1 ∂ ρ = v∂p ρ∂p (A-6) With a constant compressibility. defines the amount of mass change in the element during the time dt.

∂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.6 Diffusivity equation in dimensionless terms (customary oil field system of units and metric system of units) kh ∆p (field units) 141.Analytical solutions A-3.207 - (2-3) . the approximation used to linearize. φµ ct A-3. then 7:  k →  ∂ρ ∂p = φ ρ ct div  ρ grad p  = φ  µ  ∂t ∂t   With radial coordinates. ( ) ∂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.66qBµ pD = .2qBµ kh pD = ∆p (metric units) 18.5 Diffusivity equation Combining Equations 4 and 5.Appendix . (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.

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

450 377*101 = Bars-1) -1 Total compressibility. mD (mD) Fracture or fissures permeability. mD (mD) Spherical permeability.894757*10-2 = Bars/hr) Mobility ratio (inner zone / outer zone) Number of fissure plane directions.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.048*10-1 = m) Perforated thickness. ft (*3.894757*10-2 = Bars) -1 Pressure match.589 873*10-1 = m3/D) 3 or Mscf/D (= 10 scft/D) (*2. 14. psi (*1.753767*10-3 = Bars2/cp) Slope of the pseudo steady state straight line. Bbl/psi (*2. mD (mD) Vertical permeability. psi (*6.450 377*10 = Bars-1) Oil compressibility.305 916 = m3/Bars) Shape factor Turbulent flow coefficient Exponential (2.7 psia (1 Bara) Well pressure. psi-1 (*1. mD (mD) Horizontal permeability. .) Exponential integral Storativity ratio (inner zone / outer zone) Permeability. psia2/cp (*4.305 916 = m3/D/Bars) Initial pressure.894757*10-2 = Bars) Reservoir average pressure.894757*10-2 = Bars) Extrapolated pressure. ft (*3. bbl/D (*1. mD (mD) Thickness. psi/hr (*6. psi (*6.290 304*10-2 = m2) Formation volume factor. or turbulent flow coefficient Pressure. psi (*1. RB/STB (m3/m3) -1 1 Gas compressibility.048*10-1 = m) Distance.048*10-1 = m) Matrix skin thickness. or during the test. psi (*6. .894757*10-2 = Bars) Flow rate.831 685*101 = m3/D) . psi-1 (*1. mD (mD) Matrix blocks permeability.7182 . ft (*3. Bbl/D/psi (*2. psi (*6. or half length of an horizontal well. mD (mD) Matrix skin permeability. ft (*3. psi (*6.450 377*101 = Bars-1) Matrix blocks pressure. sq ft (*9.894757*10-2 = Bars) Fissure pressure.894757*10-2 = Bars) Standard absolute pressure.894757*10-2 = Bars) Productivity index. psi (*6.450 377*101 = Bars-1) Wellbore storage coefficient.048*10-1 = m) Straight line slope (semi-log or other) Pseudo pressure or gas potential. psi (*6.450 377*101 = Bars-1) Total compressibility at the average pressure of the test. psi (*1.209 - .

048*10-1 = m) Radius of investigation or influence of the fissures.048*10-1 = m) Distance to the lower reservoir limit.210 - . hr (hr) Temperature absolute.048*10-1 = m) Fracture radius in a horizontal well. ft (*3. °R (*5/9 = °K) Time match. or flow velocity Half fracture length.048*10-1 = m) Skin coefficient.048*10-1 = m) Width of altered permeability region near a conductive fault. . cp (cp) Viscosity at the average pressure of the test. fraction Matrix blocks porosity. . ft (*3. ft (*3. 520°R (15°C = 288. ft (*3. ) Porosity. or saturation Matrix skin Geometrical skin of partial penetration Total skin Skin over the perforated thickness Time. ft (*3.048*10-1 = m) Matrix blocks size. lb/cu ft (*1.Nomenclature .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.78 .048*10-1 = m) Fracture width. ft (*3. 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 (1.15°K) Volume. ft (*3. ft (*3.7810*10-1 = m3/m3) Wellbore radius. 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 Mobility ratio Interporosity (or layer) flow coefficient Effective interporosity flow coefficient Viscosity. hr-1 (hr-1) Standard absolute temperature.048*10-1 = m) Dissolved Gas Oil ratio. hr (hr) Horner production time.831 685*10-2 = m3) Volume ratio (fissures or matrix). cf/bbl (*1.048*10-1 = m) Real gas deviation factor Real gas deviation factor at the average pressure of the test Geometric coefficient in λ . fraction Fissures porosity. cu ft (*2.601 646*101 = kg/m3) ∆ α β δ γ φ φf φm κ λ λeff µ µ− θ θw σ ω ρ .

fault or formation Geometrical Horizontal Channel closed at one end (slope m) Initial or investigation Intersection of straight line Layer Linear flow (slope m) Matrix Maximum permeability direction Minimum permeability direction Oil Production (time) Partial penetration Pseudo (time) Pseudo steady state Rate decline (slope m) Ratio. External Effective Fracture. or water Flowing well Shut-in well Wellbore storage regime (slope m) Partial penetration Inner zone. 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.211 - . or high permeability layer(s) Outer zone.Nomenclature . or relative Radial-Composite Radial flow (slope m) Radial-linear flow (slope m) Skin. fissures. or spherical Standard conditions Semi linear flow (slope m) Spherical flow (slope m) Total Vertical Well.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. or low permeability layer(s) .

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

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

and Cinco-Ley. T." paper SPE 18799 presented at the 1989 SPE California Regional Meeting. 2-8. A. 3-5. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. (Apr. D.and Ramey. and Reynolds. T.A. 21-24. and Raghavan. D. A.” World Oil ( Oct.Pet."SPEFE. A. and Ayoub. A. 3-3.1975) 347-360. A. J. and Puthigai. A.A. J. Duong. D..Eng. Sept. S. Thrasher.References Pressure Analysis Methods. R. Chapter 3 3-1. Raghavan.. Rushing.S.: "A New Set of Type Curves for Well Test Interpretation Using the Pressure Derivative Ratio. K. Dallas. J.A.:”Pressure-Derivative Type Curves for Vertically Fractured Wells. Y. SPEFE (June 1989) 293-302 2-11. and Pirard. 2-9. H. 2-13.. April 5-7. Lee. P.:”How to Simplify The Analysis of Fractured Well Tests. Dallas. Bourdet. Ayoub. Harrington. Tech. C. and Pirard. A. W. Agarwal." paper SPE 16812 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Sept. 2-12. . Sept. Pet. D. 1988) 156-158. W. J.W.L. Balsingame. : " Pressure Integral Type-Curves Analysis-II: Applications and Field Cases. Onur. J.( Oct.: "Use of Pressure Derivative in Well-Test Interpretation"." World Oil ( May. 2-14. 1985) 470-480. Balsingame. Wong..: "Type-Curves Analysis Using the Pressure Integral Method. G." SPEFE (March 1988) 197206. Bourdet. M.. Bakersfield. 1985) 3-4. 23-26.J.214 - ." paper SPE 9289.. Whittle. Y.C." paper SPE 20535 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Alagoa.. New Orleans. Tiab. J. Dallas ( 1967) 25-43. J. R. H. Douglas. A. M.N. 27-30. 1983) 95106.:"The Effect of Producing Time on Type Curve Analysis." J.L. Bourdet. M.( June.: "A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test Analysis. Gringarten.:"A New Method to Account for Production Time Effects When Drawdown Type Curves Are Used to Analyze Buildup and Other Test Data.: "An Approximate Infinite Conductivity Solution for a Partially Penetrating Line-Source Well"..:”Application of the Pressure-Derivative Function in the Pressure-Transient Testing of Fractured Wells. Tx. T.” SPEFE ( March.J. 1980.: "A New Approach for Constructing Derivative Type Curves for Well Test Analysis. T. D. R. and Lee. presented at the 55th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE. M. 2-10.. Soc. Johnston.. 3-2. 1980) 1053-1064.G. Jr.A. Johnston..

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

1979. Eng. Barenblatt . A. M.. NO. I. Pet. 4-14.E. and Gringarten. Ayoub.(USSR) 24 (5) (1960)1286-1303). A. Tech.. Eng. Tech.: "Double-Porosity Models for a Fissured Groundwater Reservoir With Fracture Skin". H. A. Alagoa A.. Bourdet. 9293.. 1983) 77-87. Trans. 1976) 117-122. H. M.: "Analytic Solutions for Determining Naturally Fractured Reservoir Properties by Well Testing". and Kniazeff V.: "Unsteady-State Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs" Soc. Bourdet. J. 4-4. 4-2.216 - .N. 4-6. J..L. 4-9. 1984) 111-124. Bourdet. (Sept. D. 4-3. Eng. AIME. Zheltov. Y. T. Odeh. Warren . presented at the SPE-AIME 55th Annual Fall Meeting. Trans. SPEFE (June 1989) 293-302.: "Interpretation of Tests in Fissured and Multilayered Reservoirs with Double-Porosity Behavior: Theory and Practice". C. 234. Y. Pet..D. Trans. I. Math..: "Use of Pressure Derivative in Well-Test Interpretation". and. M. 1963) 245-255. M.: "Well Pressure Behavior of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir". Mavor. Trans. (June. G. H. A. 549-564. paper S.: "Transient Pressure Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs".. Ventura.P.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs with Uniform Fracture Distribution" Soc. Pet. (Oct. F.. P. (Mar. Pirard. 4-5. Pirard. April 18-20. . 1965) 60-64. Soc. Mech. O. 4-13. 4-12. 4-10... California. E. 228. D. C. 21-24. Soc. (April 1984). J. Pet. D. Sept. Moench. de Swaan. J.: "A Theory for Pressure Transient Analysis in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs" J. 261. presented at the 1979 California Regional Meeting of the SPE of AIME. Pet.S. Appl. 1241.. Dallas.. : "New Type Curves Aid Analysis of Fissured Zone Well Tests". 4-11. J. T. and Pirard. J. Eng.. J.: "Interpreting Well Test in Fractured Reservoirs".References Chapter 4 4-1. 1980. 1983) 769. and Root. 1969) 451-462.. E. A. and Kochina.. A. and Cinco. AIME. Ayoub J.. A. A. 7 (July 1984) 831-846. World Oil (April. TX. 20. 4-7.: "Determination of Fissure Volume and Block Size in Fractured Reservoirs by Type-Curve Analysis".: "Basic Concepts in the Theory of Homogeneous Liquids in Fissured Rocks" J. J. J. Eng. M. AIME. Bourdet.. Pet. Water Resources Res. paper SPE 7977. Najurieta.:"Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs" Soc. AIME. Whittle. 246. Kazemi. 4-8.P. J. (Dec. Streltsova. Gringarten. Vol. D. Pet. World Oil (Oct. J. Y. (July 1980). Ayoub.

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

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

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

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

M. AIME..J. Onur. Pet." J. R. H. April 2-4. Al-Hussainy. AIME. Tech. D. (Oct.: "Pulse-Testing Response for Unequal Pulse and Shut-In Periods. Kamal." J.P. and Tiab. Agarwal. Oct." Soc. 259. Sept. Bourdet. Pet. Chu.C. 281-290." paper SPE 29514. Trans. Trans. Ma. Sept. 1975) 1290-98.. AIME.S. B.: "An Analytical Study of Interference in Composite Reservoirs. Trans. H. Kamal. Q. (May 1970) 618-624. J.:"Real Gas Pseudo-Time .:"Application of Real Gas Flow Theory to Well Testing and Deliverability Forecasting". 1979. paper S. Eng. and Ramey. La.221 - . A. 8-12. NV.J.A Review. presented at the 66th Annual Fall Meeting. Pet. and Brigham. R. Jr. and Crawford. 637642.P. 624-636. Satman. 237 9-3.G. Deruyck. 1981) 370-382.. 8-11. TX.P. OK.: "Transient Pressure Analysis of Three Wells in a Three-Composite Reservoir. M. Brigham.E.G. H.. 8-9. AIME. Al-Hussainy." Soc. 1975) 399-410. Pet. 237 9-2." J. Eng. Chu. 1982. J." J. Pet. 8279. presented at the 57th Annual Fall Meeting. R. W.. DaPrat G. Tech. Pet. . (Dec. 8-13. 8-10. H. Ramey. and Raghavan. presented at the 54th Annual Fall Meeting.Theory and Field Examples". M. AIME. Tech... Apr. (Dec. 11025.: "The Effect of Noncommunicating Layers on Interference Test Data. B. J. 249 8-14. Oklahoma City. 1991.J.E. (May 1966). 1983) 2257-70 Chapter 9 9-1. New Orleans. P.:"The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media".J. (May 1966). Jr.A New Function for Pressure Build-up Analysis of MHF Gas Wells". et Al. W. presented at the SPE Production Operations Symposium. (Feb. 1995.E. A.E." SPEFE. A. paper S. and Reynolds. D: "Interference Test Analysis in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. 22-25. Tech.: "Planning and Analysis of Pulse-Tests. 1989) 595-603. Trans.References 8-6.. Las Vegas. W..: "Interference Testing of a Two-Layers Commingled Reservoir.: "Interference Analysis for Anisotropic Formations-A Case History. Tech. (Oct.C. L. Trans. 1985. Pet.: "Interpretation of Interference Tests in Reservoirs with Double Porosity Behavior . 259 8-15. R." paper SPE 22716. and Grader. Jr. Jr. 6-9.: "Interference and Pulse Testing . 8-8. 23-26. Dallas. J. Pet. and Ramey. 8-7. Ramey. Tech.

P.:"Gas Well Testing with Turbulence. p." McGraw-Hill Book Co. Institut Français du Pétrole.R. XIV (11). "Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells". 9-8. 10-2. Stewart. presented at the 1996 SPE EUROPEC.. H. SPEFE. paper S. F. M.A. Energy Resources Conservation Board.H. L.. Buenos Aires.:"Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering." paper S. April 27-29. 19797. J. Calgary. (Sept. M.. Alta. and Ershaghi. 1986. 877-887. and Boutaud de la Combe. F.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Dually Fractured Reservoirs". J-L.. M. E. Chapter 11 11-1.H. 1996) 177-183. Argentine. and Ramey. . LA. presented at the 61st Annual Fall Meeting. 1968). 8-11.222 - . Joseph. : "Pressure Behavior in Finite Channel-Levee Complexes". paper SPE 15418. and Gui. D.: "Boundary Effects in Pressure-Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs. L." Monograph 7. 1994. J. Bourgeois. I. Revue de l'Institut Français du Pétrole.: "Future Developments In Well Test Analysis: Introduction of Geology". R. D. M.P.. 1997). 22-24. A. C. Oct. Italy.: " Well Testing : Interpretation Methods. 9-9. and Schellardt. J. 258. F. Jr. San Antonio.References 9-4. Chapter 10 10-1. paper SPE 26959.E.. Elenbaas.E. New Orleans.A. Canada (1975). (Aug. Katz.. Daviau." Editions Technip. Bocock. G. Wattenbarger. 1989. 1996. 9-5.". A. 9-6. Larsen. :"Additional Use of Well Test Analytical Solutions for Production Prediction.Inc.J.L..J. China".F. J.:"On the Flow of Gas in Porous Medias". Damage and Wellbore Storage". 10-4. Milan.:"Back-Pressure Data on Natural-Gas Wells and Their Application to Production Practices.R.J.. Cornell. presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting. Oct. Houpeurt A. Nai-Fu.. 1468-1684. Tech.: "A Study of Pressure Transient Behavior in Bounded Two-Layered Reservoirs: Shengli Field. 10-3... 9-7.L. USBM (1936).T. and Wilson. Al-Ghamdi. Oct. and Weinaug. Bourgeois. R. 73-76. Tex. presented at the III Latin American Conference. Vary. Poettmann. G. Bourdarot. New York (1959). Rawlins. 9-10. 5-8. 36820.A. Hart's Petroleum Engineer International (Sept. 1959. Kobayashi. Pet.

Peres. and Walkup. 12-8. I. Jr. 37. 1952) 559-569.C. F. 18122. Oct. Larsen. 58. Poon. 15476. CA. 11-3. 16808.P.P.C. San Francisco. M.. 11-4. L. TX.223 - ." J. 1983. Richardson. TX.E. H.P. R. presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting. 176-182. and Martin. 1993) 292-98. Cdn.E. S. 12-7. Tech. 5-8. "A Method for Pressure Buildup Analysis of Drillstem Tests." SPEFE. 27-30. Jacob.C. 1988) 534-46. 27-30." World Oil ( Sept. H. 12-2.: "Impulse Testing. 12-4." paper S." SPEFE." paper S.W. Ayoub.E. G. de Franca Correa A. and Lohman.References 11-2. 285 12-5. and Chauvel. presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting. June 1991." paper S. D. and Ramey. Oct. A. Cinco-Ley.M.M. Houston.: "Analysis of 'Slug Test' or DST Flow Period Data.E. Trans. J." SPE-FE. Dehghani. et al. Sept.C.P. paper S. 1975) 14.: "Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to Analyze Pressure-Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs".. LA. Sept. presented at the 61st Annual Fall Meeting. Chapter 12 12-1.." paper S. D. D. and Alagoa A. 12-3. Dallas.L." paper SPE 13384 available at SPE. (July-Sept.. Bourdet. TX.P.: "Analysis of Pressure-Transient Tests for Composite Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. June 1991. :