Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Petroleum
journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/petlm

The impact of hydraulic flow unit & reservoir quality index

on pressure profile and productivity index in multi-segments
reservoirs
Salam Al-Rbeawi a, *, Fadhil Kadhim b
a
METU-Northern Cyprus Campus, Cyprus
b
University of Technology, Iraq

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The objective of this paper is studying the impact of the hydraulic flow unit and reservoir quality
Received 7 November 2016 index (RQI) on pressure profile and productivity index of horizontal wells acting in finite reservoirs.
Received in revised form Several mathematical models have been developed to investigate this impact. These models have
7 April 2017
been built based on the pressure distribution in porous media, depleted by a horizontal well,
Accepted 19 May 2017
consist of multi hydraulic flow units and different reservoir quality index. The porous media are
assumed to be finite rectangular reservoirs having different configurations and the wellbores may
have different lengths. Several analytical models describing flow regimes have been derived
wherein hydraulic flow units and reservoir quality index have been included in addition to rock and
fluid properties. The impact of these two parameters on reservoir performance has also been
studied using steady state productivity index.
It has been found that both pressure responses and flow regimes are highly affected by the
existence of multiple hydraulic flow units in the porous media and the change in reservoir quality
index for these units. Positive change in the RQI could lead to positive change in both pressure drop
required for reservoir fluids to move towards the wellbore and hence the productivity index.
Copyright © 2017, Southwest Petroleum University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on
behalf of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction used to reach the same destination point which is to perfectly

Hydraulic flow unit and reservoir quality index are two
common concepts used by geologists and petrophysicist to
describe oil and gas formations while pressure profile and pro-
ductivity index are two common terms used by reservoir engi-
neers to characterize the formations. Both petroleum geologists
and engineers have long recognized the importance of these four
concepts in petroleum industry as they have considered them as
excellent tools to properly describe oil and gas formations and to
quantify and characterize them. Unfortunately, there is no direct
relation between the four terms even though they have been
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: salam@metu.edu.tr (S. Al-Rbeawi).
Peer review under responsibility of Southwest Petroleum University.
simulate and model the porous media.
Hydraulic flow unit, has been well recognized as a part of the
porous media, shows lateral and vertical consistency in rock and
fluid properties. Several definitions for the flow unit were pro-
posed in the last decades by Hearn et al. [1], Ebanks [2], Gunter
et al. [3], and Tiab and Donaldson [4]. It was pointed out that the
hydraulic flow unit is very useful in the reservoir characteriza-
tion as it combines the most important two petrophysical
properties: porosity and permeability. These two properties
control reservoir quality in terms of reservoir storativity and
transmissibility. In 1993, Amaefule et al. [5] presented the
mathematical model for the RQI as:
sffiffiffiffi
k
RQI ¼ 0:0314 (1)
∅

In this model, the RQI should be in (mm) and the permeability

Production and Hosting by Elsevier on behalf of KeAi in (md). Different RQIs could be an indication for the existence of
multiple hydraulic flow units in the porous media which

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petlm.2017.05.004
2405-6561/Copyright © 2017, Southwest Petroleum University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430
definitely affects the expected reservoir pressure profiles and
flow regimes. The determination of the hydraulic flow units can
be conducted either using the static based or the dynamic based
methodology (Emami and Lumely [6]). In the static based tech-
nique, the two most likely used approaches are: developing
relationship between reservoir rock and fluid properties by core
and/or log derived data and the statistical measurement of
reservoir permeability and the degree of the heterogeneity of the
formation or the stochastic modeling. While the dynamic based
technique is focused on dynamic fluid flow data in the reservoir
which might be included in building reservoir simulation to
identify the hydraulic flow units and characterize the formation.
Obviously both hydraulic flow unit and RQI are affected by the
permeability variation in the porous media. Heterogeneous for-
mations may exhibit different permeabilities in the horizontal
and vertical direction, therefore, multiple flow units and
different RQIs are expected to be characterized for such forma-
tions. As a matter of fact the permeability plays also great role on
pressure distribution in porous media during production pe-
riods. Production pulse, moving in the porous media, depends
mainly on the permeabilities in both directions. Accordingly,
flow regimes are significantly controlled by the permeability in
the plane where reservoir fluids flow towards wellbore. For early
radial flow regime, developed at early time of production, ver-
tical permeability is the controlling parameters for the flow in
the vertical plane. Horizontal permeability is the controlling
parameter for pseudo-radial flow regime, developed at late time
of production, where the flow takes place in the horizontal plan.
The permeability couples the two topics: the hydraulic flow unit
and the RQI with the pressure profile and productivity index as it
appears to be the key parameter in both of them.
Several models have been presented in the literature for the
pressure responses of horizontal wells acting in finite reservoirs
(Diyashev and Economides [7], Joshi [8], Daviau et al. [9], Ozkan
et al. [10], Kuchuk et al. [11]…etc). Additionally, all types of flow
regimes, typically develop in the vicinity of horizontal wellbore
or in the outer drainage area, have been very well established in
the literature. The proposed models for these flow regimes
include reservoir permeability as one of the controlling param-
eters for the pressure drop resulting from these flow regimes.
Great attention was given to the anisotropic formation where the
permeability in the vertical direction is not the same to the
horizontal plan permeability (Goode and Thambynayagam [12],
Economides et al. [13]). The impact of the anisotropy on reservoir
performance is similar to the impact of changing horizontal
wellbore length. More attention also has been focused on the
change of both permeability and porosity in the porous media.
The idea of double and triple porosity-permeability porous me-
dia has been introduced in the last couple decades to the pres-
sure distribution models for all types of oil and gas formations.
For naturally fractured formations (NFR), the fractures always
have high permeability compared to the matrix permeability
Fig. 1. Horizontal well intersecting multi hydraulic flow units.
415
while the porosity of fractures is not worthy like the matrix
porosity (Fuentes-Cruz and Valko [14], Kuchuk and Biryukov
[15]). Moreover, the existence of vugs in naturally fractured
formations makes reservoirs consist of three porous media,
therefore pressure profile and flow regime are highly influenced
by these three different porous media (Brown et al. [16], Ozkan
et al. [17], Ozkan O. et al. [18]. For hydraulically fractured for-
mations, there are always two or three porous media in the
formations: matrix, hydraulic fractures, and possibly naturally
induced fractures. Therefore, pressure behavior, flow regimes,
and productivity index are also significantly affected by the
characteristics of these porous media. Teng et al. [19] presented a
study for pressure transient analysis for complex fracture net-
works in shale gas reservoir with multiple-porosity transport
mechanism. They stated that incorporating various migration
mechanisms of shale gas in complex fracture network may be
very challenge to accurately simulate the porous media.
Unfortunately, there is no previous work that has been done
for directly investigating the impact of the hydraulic flow units
and reservoir quality indices on pressure behavior and flow re-
gimes. There are very few conducted researches on pressure
behavior and flow regime of compartmentalized reservoirs and
layered formations (Rahman and Ambastha [20], Medeiros et al.
[21]). The reservoirs were assumed to consists of multiple seg-
ments or multiple compartments where different petrophysical
properties exist in each segment and compartment.
This study partially focuses on the impact of the existence of
multiple hydraulic flow units in the reservoirs and different RQIs
on pressure behaviors, flow regimes, and productivity index of
horizontal wells acting in finite reservoirs. The resulting
dimensionless pressure and pressure derivative is used to
investigate this impact and a set of plots for the productivity
index is established reflecting the change in reservoir perfor-
mance corresponding to the existence of hydraulic flow units. In
the next sections of this research, the term “homogenous for-
mation” will be used to describe the formations with single hy-
draulic flow unit.
2. Mathematical modeling
Consider a reservoir consisting of multiple hydraulic flow
units and different petrophysical properties. The hydraulic flow
units communicate individually with the wellbore and there is
no direct connection between them. The reservoir is a rectan-
gular shape formation with two side boundaries ð2xeD & 2yeD Þ
and height (h). It is depleted by a horizontal well extending along
all the hydraulic flow units as shown in Fig. 1. The flow rate from
each segment is controlled by the permeability and the length of
the segment in addition to other physical and petrophysical
properties of the reservoir fluids and rocks such as viscosity and
porosity.
416 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430

The total wellbore pressure drop at any point close to the finite reservoir have multiple hydraulic flow units and different
beginning of the horizontal section in dimensionless form is reservoir quality index. The solution of these complicated
written as follows: models can be conducted using state of the arte computational
tools such as MATHLAB. By assuming synthetic data are calcu-
p XN lating the dimensionless parameters. These parameters are the
PwD ¼ xeD yeD QDi PDi (2) input data for the MATHLAB code. The dimensionless pressure
2 i¼1 drop at the wellbore is calculated by applying Eq. (2). While for
productivity index calculation, the pressure terms (PDx þ PDy þ
where: (N) is the number of the hydraulic flow units.
PDz þ PDxy þ PDxz þ PDyz þ PDxyz), explained in Appendix-A, should
The dimensionless pressure drop caused by each segment can
be calculated first and dimensionless productivity index is
be written as follow:
calculated by applying Eq. (32).

28 9
ZtD < X∞  x   x  =
4 1
¼ 4 1þ ej p xeD hDi tD =4 sin jp eDi cos jp wDi cosðjp=2ðxD xeDi þ xwDi ÞÞ
2 2 2
PDi
: pxeD j¼1 j 2 2 ;
0
( )
X∞  y 
em p yeD hDi tD =4 cos mp wDi cosðmp=2ðyD yeDi þ ywDi ÞÞ
2 2 2
 1þ2 (3)
m¼1
2
( )3
X∞  z 
el p LD hDi tD cos lp wDi cosðlp=2ðzD LDi þ zwDi ÞÞ 5dtD i ¼ 1; 2; 3; ……N
2 2 2
 1þ2
2
l¼1

while the dimensionless flow rate can be written as follows: 3. Pressure behaviors

h L As it can be noticed in the proposed model for the total

QDi ¼ PN Di Di i ¼ 1; 2; 3; ……N (4)
pressure drop, given in Eqs. (2) and (3), reservoir quality index
i¼1 hDi LDi
RQI and the number of the hydraulic flow units (N) affect
In the above mentioned models, the reservoir quality index reservoir pressure response and the flow regimes that are ex-
RQI is included in the term (hDi) such that: pected to be developed due to the depletion process. These ef-
rffiffiffiffiffi fects change with production time as the pressure responses and
hi ðRQIÞi ðmct Þr flow regimes change with time also. The effects can be observed
hDi ¼ ¼ (5)
hr ðRQIÞr ðmct Þi clearly during early time of production and they can be recog-
nized on intermediate time production. However, late produc-
where the subscript (r) refers to a reference hydraulic flow unit tion time does not exhibit any response for the existence of
or reservoir segment. hydraulic flow units as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. This can be
Lwi explained as early radial flow regime is the dominant flow in
LDi ¼ (6) early time production when reservoir fluids move radially in the
h
vertical plane towards the wellbore. This flow is controlled by
and: reservoir permeability and wellbore length; therefore, different
early radial flow regimes might be observed as a result of RQI
X
N impact. When early radial flow regimes end, the pressure pulse
LD ¼ LDi (7) reaches upper and lower formation boundaries, linear flow re-
i¼1
gimes are created and single pseudo-radial flow regime is
The proposed model given in Eq. (3) differs from the currently developed later in the outer drainage area where reservoir fluids
applied models for pressure heavier of horizontal wells in finite move radially in the horizontal plane towards the wellbore.
reservoirs by introducing reservoir quality index, represented by Different trends for pressure response can be seen as the RQIs
Eq. (5), to the pressure distribution model. It is important to have different values. Figs. 4 and 5 show two totally different
emphasize that the attention has been focused on finite reser- pressure profiles for two RQI values. The formation, shown in
voirs to investigate whether reservoir quality index has an Fig. 4, consists of three hydraulic flow units, two of them have
impact on pressure behavior at late production time when steady RQI greater than the third one in the middle which is considered
state condition dominates fluid flow as the reservoir boundary is as the reference hydraulic flow unit. The dimensionless pressure
reached. For infinite acting reservoirs, the following model derivative value for early radial flow regime for this case ðtD *PD0 ¼
should be used instead of Eq. (3) (Al-Rbeawi and Tiab [22]): 0:0057Þ is less than the derivative value of the homogenous
formation ðtD *PD0 ¼ 0:025Þ. This change in the pressure deriva-
ZtD  yD " 
2
   tive is similar to the change resulted by increasing the wellbore
p e 4tD 1þxD 1xD length more than the actual wellbore length (LD ¼ 10.0). There-
PDi ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi erf pffiffiffiffiffi erf pffiffiffiffiffi
4 tD 2 tD 2 tD fore, the existence of hydraulic units in this case may lead to
0
( )# better performance than homogenous reservoirs. For the for-
X∞  z 
l2 p2 L2D hDi tD wDi mation, shown in Fig. 5, the RQIs of the two hydraulic flow units
 1þ2 e cos lp cosðlp=2ðzD LDi þzwDi ÞÞ
l¼1
2 are less than the RQI of the reference hydraulic flow unit. In this
case, the dimensionless pressure derivative for early radial flow
dtD i¼1;2;3;……N ð8Þ
regime ðtD *PD0 ¼ 0:054Þ is greater than the dimensionless pres-
Appendix-A shows the mathematical formulation for the sure derivative ðtD *PD0 ¼ 0:025Þ for homogenous reservoir
pressure behavior and productivity index of a horizontal well in depleted by horizontal well (LD ¼ 10.0). This behavior is similar to
 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430 417

Fig. 2. Pressure responses for different time interval.

Fig. 3. Pressure responses for different time interval.

Fig. 4. Early radial flow regimes for two horizontal wells.

Fig. 5. Early radial flow regimes for two horizontal wells.

418 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430

Fig. 6. Early radial flow regimes for two horizontal wells.

the pressure behavior of short wellbore length (LD < 10.0), which
causes negative impact on reservoir performance.
Figs. 6 and 7 show the combined effect of the existence of
multiple hydraulic fractures and different RQIs as well as
different wellbore lengths for each hydraulic flow unit. The for-
mation, given by Fig. 6, consists of two hydraulic flow units
having longer wellbores and greater RQIs than the reference
hydraulic flow unit. Therefore, there is a positive impact on
pressure response represented by the pressure derivative value
ðtD *PD0 ¼ 0:0046Þ, which is less than the value of pressure de-
rivative for the case of equal wellbore lengths for the three hy-
draulic flow units, ðtD *PD0 ¼ 0:0057Þ. The formation, given by
Fig. 7, consists of two hydraulic flow units having longer well-
bores and smaller RQIs than the reference hydraulic flow unit.
Therefore, there is a negative impact on pressure response rep-
resented by the pressure derivative value ðtD *PD0 ¼ 0:074Þ,
which is greater than the value of pressure derivative for the case
of equal wellbore lengths for the three hydraulic flow units,
ðtD *PD0 ¼ 0:054Þ.
The application of pressure behavior of horizontal wells in
infinite acting reservoirs with different hydraulic flow units is
shown in Fig. 8. It can be seen clearly that the impact of RQI is
observed at early production time when early radial flow regime
dominates fluid flow towards horizontal wellbore. Early linear

Fig. 7. Early radial flow regimes for two horizontal wells.

Fig. 8. Horizontal wells in infinite acting reservoirs.

 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430
flow regime might also be undergone the effect of reservoir
heterogeneity. However, pseudo-radial flow is reached faster in
case of homogenous formation than the cases where the reser-
voir does have quality of index less than the one for homogenous
formation. This could be understood by the resistance to flow
resulted by low RQIs.
4. Flow regimes
Three flow regimes can be recognized for horizontal well-
bores acting in infinite homogenous formations; early radial,
1 X N
linear, and pseudo-radial flow regime. Four flow regimes could
be distinguished for horizontal wellbore acting in finite reser-
voirs; early radial, linear, pseudo-radial for large drainage area
and short wellbore length, and late linear or boundary domi-
nated flow regime. These flow regimes also develop in forma-
tions depleted by horizontal wells with the existence of multiple
hydraulic flow units and different reservoir quality indices. The
most important thing in this case is the retention time required
for these flow regimes. This time depends on the reservoir
quality index for each hydraulic flow unit. For the hydraulic flow
unit with RQI greater than the reference unit, the retention time
is shorter than the reference unit. As a result, early radial and
linear flow regime could vanish faster than the flow regimes
developed in the reference unit and pseudo-radial or late linear
could start faster than the reference unit.
(11)
4.1. Early-radial flow regime
The flow pattern for early radial flow regime is a correspon-
dence to radial flow of reservoir fluids towards the wellbore in
the vertical plan as shown in Fig. 9.
Early radial flow is obtained from the short time approxi-
mation in which Eqs. (2) and (3) is modified to the following
dimensionless form:
" ! # Based on the equivalent wellbore length, early radial flow
X
N
QDi tDerf
PwD ¼ lin 2 þ 0:897
i¼1
4NhDi LD yD þ z2D
1
where (tDerf) represents the elapsed time by early radial flow
regime or the time when early radial flow is vanished. This time
is a function of reservoir height and reservoir permeability or
Fig. 9. Early radial flow regime.
419
reservoir quality index. Theoretically, it lasts until pressure pulse
reaches the upper and lower impermeable boundaries.
Early radial flow regime may not be observed for tight for-
mation and long wellbore, formations with (LD > 50). It is also not
observed for severe wellbore storage effect. This flow regime is
characterized by a constant horizontal line or constant pressure
derivative equals to (1/4LD) on pressure derivative curve for
homogenous formations. For the case where different hydraulic
flow units exist, pressure derivative line can be mathematically
described by:
0
QDi
tD xPPwD ¼ (10)
ER 4LD i¼1 hDi
Therefore, it is reasonable to use the difference between the
two pressure derivative values, the one for the homogenous
formations and the one given in Eq. (10) to recognize the exis-
tence of multiple hydraulic flow units. The difference in the
pressure derivatives of horizontal wells caused by the existence
of multiple hydraulic flow units can be seen as the change in the
pressure derivative caused by the change in the wellbore length.
Therefore, the equivalent length of the wellbore could be greater
than the original wellbore length if the RQIs of the hydraulic flow
units are greater than the reference one and vice versa. The
equivalent dimensionless wellbore length can be written as
follows:
tD *PD0 h
LDe ¼ LDa
tD *PD0 a
where: (LDa) is the actual dimensionless wellbore length.
ðtD *PD0 Þa and ðtD *PD0 Þh are the dimensionless pressure derivative
of the actual wellbore and the wellbore acting in homogenous
formation respectively. Accordingly, the equivalent wellbore
lengths for the horizontal well have actual wellbore length
(LDa ¼ 20), given in Figs. 10 and 11, are ðLDe y89Þ and ðLDe y15Þ
respectively.
(9) regime can be written as follows:
0
tD *PwD ¼ (12)
ER 4LDe
In field units:
  35:3Q mB
0
t*Pwf ¼ (13)
ER kLwe
Therefore, the term (kLwe) can be calculated from real test by
knowing the pressure derivative:
35:3Q mB
kLwe ¼   (14)
0
t*Pwf
ER
Knowing that the wellbore length can't be changed, i.e
(Lwe ¼ Lw), then the average permeability of the formation can be
calculated from Eq. (14).
4.2. Linear flow regime
Linear flow regime develops after the pressure pulse reaches
the upper and lower boundaries. It corresponds to reservoir fluid
flow linearly in the horizontal plan as shown in Fig. 12. This flow
regime is affected by the existence of multiple hydraulic flow
units and different RQIs as the pressure pulse could move faster
in the porous media of high permeability and vice versa.
420 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430

Fig. 10. Pressure derivative for two horizontal wells.

Fig. 11. Pressure derivative for two horizontal wells.

Therefore, linear flow regime may last for short time for the   rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
hydraulic flow unit with RQI greater than the reference RQI. It is 0 2:035 Q B m
t*Pwf ¼ qffiffiffi t (16)
characterized by a straight line of slope (1/2) on pressure de- LF
Lw h ∅k ∅2 ct
rivative curve as shown in Figs. 13 and 14. Mathematically, this
flow regime can be represented using dimensionless form by: and:
  rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4:07 Q B m

1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Pwf ¼ qffiffiffi tþC (17)
tD *PD0 LF ¼ ptD (15) LF ∅2 ct
2 Lw h ∅k
In field units: Where (C) is a constant determined by the pressure at
(t ¼ 1.0 h). It can be seen that both pressure and pressure de-
rivative of linear flow regime are pfunctions
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi of reservoir quality
index represented by the term ð k=∅ Þ. Increasing RQI could
cause a decrease in the pressure drop required by reservoir fluids
to move from the drainage area towards the wellbore. As a result,
the reservoir performance could be better in the hydraulic flow
units with high RQI.

4.3. Pseudo-radial flow regime

Pseudo-radial flow regime develops for large drainage area

and short horizontal wellbore when reservoir fluids radially
move towards the wellbore in the horizontal plan. It occurs after
a reasonably long time and is characterized by constant pressure
0 ¼ 0:5Þ for all cases. For reservoirs with
derivative value ðtD *Pwf
multiple hydraulic flow units and different RQIs, this flow regime
might be observed but the pressure derivative value does not
have the constant value of (0.5) as shown in Figs. 15 and 16. The
reason for that is the developing of pseudo-radial flow regime for
Fig. 12. Linear flow regime.
each hydraulic flow unit at different production times. The flow
 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430 421

Fig. 13. Linear flow regime.

Fig. 14. Linear flow regimes.

Fig. 15. Pseudo-radial flow regime.

regimes for the hydraulic flow units with high RQIs may reach  
the boundaries before the flow regimes of the hydraulic flow 0 35:3Q mB
t*Pwf ¼ (19)
units with low RQIs. PR khN
The difference between the two pressure derivative values of
pseudo-radial flow regimes can be used to calculate the number
of the hydraulic flow units: 4.4. Late linear or boundary dominated flow regime

0:5
tD *PD0 PR ¼ (18) Late linear flow regime develops when pressure pulse reaches
2N the two side boundaries of reservoir and steady state condition
In field units: dominates reservoir fluids flow from the outer drainage area
422 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430

Fig. 16. Pseudo-radial flow regime.

towards the wellbore. At that time, all the pressure pulses from 4.4.1. Productivity index
all hydraulic flow units reach the boundaries, thereafter, one and Productivity index is one of the major parameters in reser-
unique late linear flow regime is observed. This flow regime is voirs management and development. It defines the production
characterized by straight line of slope (1.0) on pressure and rate corresponding to specific pressure drop. For a horizontal
pressure derivative curves. Mathematically, it is given by: well, the productivity index is affected by several parameters
such as the length of the horizontal wellbore, formation prop-
ðPwD ÞSS ¼ 2ptDA (20) erties, fluid properties, and the geometry of reservoir drainage
area. It is also highly affected by the degree of formation het-
or: erogeneity and the degree of anisotropy. This can be easily un-
derstood from the reservoir performance model for horizontal
0

well presented by Joshi [8] and modified by several researchers
tD *PwD SS
¼ 2ptDA (21)
lately. This model says that:
where:
khDP
Q¼   pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2ffi n o (24)
1 aþ a Lw
2
Iani h Iani h
tDA ¼ xeD yeD tD (22) 141:2 mB ln Lw þ 2Lw ln rw ðIani þ1Þ
4
In field units, it can be written as: where:
0 1 sffiffiffiffiffiffi
  QB B
0 t C kH
t*Pwf ¼ 0:2338 2 @ SS  A (23) Iani ¼ (25)
SS hLw t*P 0 kV
wf SS

where: (tSS) and ðt*Pwf0 Þ

SS are the time and pressure derivative " (  2 )#0:5
values respectively determined from steady state pressure de- r
rivative curve. Figs. 17 and 18 show late linear flow regime for a ¼ Lw 0:5 þ 0:25 þ eh (26)
Lw
two cases of hydraulic flow units.

Fig. 17. Late linear or boundary dominated flow regime.

 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430 423

Fig. 18. Late linear or boundary dominated flow regime.

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi PwD ¼ 2ptDA

4xeD yeD |fflfflffl{zfflfflffl}
reh ¼ (27) transient pressure response
p  
p
þ xeD yeD PDx þ PDy þ PDz þ PDxy þ PDxz þ PDyz þ PDxyz
The above mentioned model, Eq. (24), describes reservoir 2
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
performance in the steady state condition which is most ðPwD Þss steady state response
important for predicting the future performance of the forma-
(31)
tion (Diyashev and Economides [7]). The dimensionless pro-
ductivity index can be written as follows: The proposed productivity index is then calculated from the
second pressure drop, steady state pressure response, consid-
ering different reservoir configurations, wellbore lengths, an-
1 141:2Q mB isotropies, and multiple hydraulic flow units and different RQIs.
JD ¼   pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2ffi n o ¼ khDP
aþ a2 Lw Iani h Iani h
ln Lw þ 2Lw ln rw ðIani þ1Þ
1 JD ¼ p
¼ (28)
ðPwD ÞSS
where ðPwD ÞSS is the steady state dimensionless pressure drop.
The productivity index can be calculated as:
Q case where three hydraulic flow units exist. For both of them, the
J¼ ¼ CJD (29)
DP
where:
kh
C¼ (30)
141:2mB
Reservoir performance depends on the degree of heteroge-
neity represented by the change in the formation properties at
different locations in the porous media such as the change in the
permeability and porosity or the change in the reservoir quality
index. It also depends on the degree of anisotropy represented by
the ratio of the vertical to horizontal permeability (Iani).
To investigate the impact of the hydraulic flow unit and
reservoir quality index on the productivity index of formations
depleted by horizontal wells, analytical models have been pro-
posed in this study. These models have been derived based on
the argument given by Babu and Odeh [23]. In their research,
they stated that the total pressure drop resulted from the
depletion process of a horizontal well acting in finite reservoir
could be separated to two terms; one representing the transient
pressure drop which is a function of time and formation prop-
erties and the other is the pressure drop at steady state when the
time does not have significant impact on pressure profile at any
point in the reservoir.
It can be written as:
1
  (32)
2 x eD y eD PDx þ PDy þ PDz þ PDxy þ PDxz þ PDyz þ PDxyz
The terms ðPDx þ PDy þ PDz þ PDxy þ PDxz þ PDyz þ PDxyz Þ are
explained in the Appendix-A. Fig. 19 illustrates the productivity
index for short horizontal well (LD ¼ 10.0) acting in homogenous
finite reservoir while Fig. 20 shows the productivity index for the
productivity index increases as the reservoir quality index in-
creases. This fact is explained by high permeability value corre-
sponding to high RQI which means high flow rate and low
pressure drop.
For formations consisting of multiple hydraulic flow units and
different RQIs, the productivity index could have the following
behaviors:
- For large drainage area represented by ðxeD < 0:5Þ and
ðyeD < 0:5Þ, the productivity index has the maximum value for
all cases of RQIs.
- The productivity index decreases with the decrease in the
drainage area.
- For small drainage area represented by ðxeD > 0:5Þ, shown in
Fig. 21, the productivity has the maximum value for all RQIs
when the formations have square-shape drainage area.
- The impact of the hydraulic flow units and the RQI on pro-
ductivity index is identical for all wellbore length as shown in
Fig. 22 which demonstrates the productivity index for long
horizontal well (LD ¼ 50.0) with the existence of three hy-
draulic flow units and different RQIs.
- Productivity index of multiple hydraulic flow units depends
on the resultant effect of both wellbore lengths and RQIs of all
hydraulic flow units. Figs. 23 and 24 show the positive change
in productivity index for four hydraulic flow units depleted by
424 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430

Fig. 19. Productivity index for homogenous formation.

Fig. 20. Productivity index for three hydraulic flow units.

equal wellbore lengths and different RQIs. Two of the units

have RQIs greater than the reference while one only has RQI kr ¼ 10 md ∅ ¼ 17% m ¼ 1:6 cp ct ¼ 8*106 psi1
less than the reference RQI. h ¼ 100 ft Lw ¼ 1200 ft

4.4.2. Model verification STB

xe ¼ 2400 ft ye ¼ 2400 ft Q ¼ 1000
The proposed model given by Eq. (3) has been verified by the Day
comparison with results of currently used models for pressure RBBL
distribution in homogenous reservoirs depleted by horizontal B ¼ 1:15 rw ¼ 0:1 ft Pi ¼ 8; 000 psi
STB
wells such as the model presented by Daviau et al. [9]. For this
purpose the following synthetic data were used:

Fig. 21. Productivity index for three hydraulic flow units.

 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430 425

Pressure profiles for the formation of interest using Daviau

Unit No. Length, Lw, ft Permeability, k, md et al. [9] and the proposed model are shown in Fig. 25. Excellent
matching between the results of the two models indicated the
1 300 10
2 300 10
applicability of the proposed model in this study.
3 300 10
4 300 10

Fig. 22. Productivity index for three hydraulic flow units.

Fig. 23. Productivity index for three hydraulic flow units.

Fig. 24. Productivity index for three hydraulic flow units.

426 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430

4.4.3. Model validation STB RBBL

The proposed models for pressure behavior and productivity xe ¼ 200 ft ye ¼ 200 ft Q ¼ 200 B ¼ 1:0 rw ¼ 0:1 ft
Day STB
index have been validated using the data given by Medeiros et al.
[21]. The following information has been used for the verification:

Unit No. Length, Lw, ft Permeability, k, md

kr ¼ 10 md ∅ ¼ 17% m ¼ 0:6 cp ct ¼ 8*106 psi1 1 40 10

2 40 1
h ¼ 40 ft Lw ¼ 120 ft 3 40 10
4 0 100

Fig. 25. Pressure profiles by Daviau et al. 1989 and proposed model.

Fig. 26. Pressure profile for the example.

Fig. 27. Productivity index for the example.

 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430 427

Pressure profile for the formation of interest is shown in Fig. 26. k Reservoir permeability, md
Dimensionless pressure derivative for early radial flow kH Reservoir horizontal permeability, md
regime is determined to be: kV Reservoir vertical permeability, md
kr Reference hydraulic flow unit permeability, md

tD *PD0 ER ¼ 0:0012 h Formation height, ft

Lw Half wellbore length, ft
Lwe Equivalent wellbore length, ft
while dimensionless pressure derivative for homogenous for- Lwi Wellbore length for specific hydraulic flow unit, ft
mation can be calculated as follows: LDe Equivalent dimensionless wellbore length
LDi Dimensionless wellbore length for specific hydraulic

1 flow unit
tD *PD0 ER ¼ ¼ 0:083
4LD N Number of hydraulic flow units
Pwf Wellbore pressure, psi
Therefore, the dimensionless equivalent wellbore length is: Pwfi Wellbore pressure for specific hydraulic flow unit, psi
PwD Wellbore dimensionless pressure
0:083 PwDi Wellbore dimensionless pressure for specific hydraulic
LDe ¼ ¼ 208:3
0:0012 flow unit
Q Flow rate, STB/D
The average permeability for the formation, considering the Qi Flow rate of specific hydraulic flow unit, STB/D
wellbore length and permeability of the porous medium of each QDi Dimensionless flow rate for specific hydraulic flow unit
hydraulic flow unit, is: t Time, hr
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffi tD Dimensionless time
LDe pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rw Wellbore radius, ft
k¼ ¼ 69:3 ¼ 8:3 md xe Distance to reservoir side boundary, ft
LD
xw X-coordinate for production point
x X-coordinate for origin point
The productivity index of the formation is shown in Fig. 27.
ye Distance to reservoir side boundary, ft
The dimensionless productivity index is determined to be:
yw Y-coordinate for production point
JD ¼ 3:012 y Y-coordinate for origin point
zw Z-coordinate for production point
The productivity index can be calculated as follows: z Y-coordinate for origin point
4 Porosity
J ¼ CJD m Viscosity, cp
hi Diffusivity coefficient for specific hydraulic flow unit,
ft2/sec
C¼
kh
¼
8:33*40
¼ 3:93 hr Reference diffusivity coefficient, ft2/s
141:2mB 141:2*0:6*1


STB Appendix
J ¼ 3:012*3:93 ¼ 11:84 psi
Day
Pressure distribution:

Pressure profile for horizontal well acting in finite reservoir

5. Conclusions where multi hydraulic flow units and different reservoir quality
indices are existed can be determined from the pressure distri-
(1) The existence of multiple hydraulic flow units, having bution of each hydraulic flow unit. The three instantaneous
different reservoir quality indices, has recognizable impact source solutions for the diffusivity equation can be applied to
on pressure profiles, flow regimes, and productivity porous medium of each hydraulic flow units as follows:
indices of reservoirs depleted by horizontal wells. 2 !
(2) The impact of RQI could be similar to the impact of Lwi 4 4xe X∞
1 p2 j2 h2i t
changing wellbore length. Accordingly, the equivalent Sðx; tÞ ¼ 1þ exp  sin
xe pLwi j 4x2e
j¼1:0
wellbore length increases with increasing RQIs. 3 (A-1)
(3) Early and intermediate production time are most affected      
Lwi xwi x 5
by the impact of the hydraulic flow units and the RQIs  jp cos jp cos jp
2xe 2xe 2xe
unlike the late time production.
(4) The number of the hydraulic flow units and the average
reservoir permeability can be determined from pressure " !
1 X
∞
p2 m2 h2i t
response of the formation of interest. Sðy; tÞ ¼ 1þ2 exp  cos
2ye m¼1:0
4y2e
   # (A-2)
Nomenclatures yw y
 mp cos mp
2ye 2ye
B Oil formation volume factor, RB/STB
ct Total compressibility, psi1
428 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430

" ! #
1 X
∞
p2 l2 h2i t  z   z
w
Sðz; tÞ ¼ 1þ2 exp  cos lp cos lp ZtD X
h
l¼1:0
4h2 h h 4 N X
∞
1 j2 p2 hDi x2 tD=4
PDx ¼ e eD
(A-3) pxeD i¼1 j¼1
j (A-9)
0
Pressure drop from each hydraulic flow unit is given by:  x   x 
sin jp eDi cos jp wDi cosðjp=2ðxD xeDi þ xwDi ÞÞ
2 2
2
Zt X
∞
Qi Lwi 1 1 41 þ 4xe 1
DPwfi ¼ exp
2Lwi ð∅mct Þ xe 2ye h pLwi j¼1:0 j ZtD X
0 N X
∞
!  3 PDy ¼ 2 em
2
p2 hDi y2eD tD=4
    
p2 j2 h2i t Lwi xwi x 5 i¼1 m¼1 (A-10)
  sin jp cos jp cos jp 0
4x2e 2xe 2xe 2xe  y 
" !  cos mp wDi cosðmp=2ðyD yeDi þ ywDi ÞÞ
X ∞   # 2
p2 m2 h2i t yw y
 1þ2 exp  cos mp cos mp
m¼1:0
4y2e 2ye 2ye
" ! #
X∞
p2 l2 h2i t  z   z ZtD X
w N X
∞
 1þ2 exp  cos lp cos lp dt
el p2 hDi L2D tD
2

l¼1:0
4h 2 h h PDz ¼ 2
0
i¼1 l¼1 (A-11)
(A-4)  z 
cos lp wDi cosðlp=2ðzD LDi þ zwDi ÞÞ
In dimensionless form, the pressure drop caused by each 2
segment can be written as follow:

28 9
ZtD < X∞  x   x  =
p 4 1þ 4 1
ej p xeD hDi tD =4 sin jp
2 2 2 eDi wDi
PwDi ¼ xeD yeD QDi cos jp cosðjp=2ðxD xeDi þ xwDi ÞÞ
2 : pxeD j¼1 j 2 2 ;
0
( )
X∞  y 
em p yeD hDi tD =4 cos mp wDi cosðmp=2ðyD yeDi þ ywDi ÞÞ
2 2 2
 1þ2 (A-5)
m¼1
2
( )3
X∞  z 
 1þ2 el2 p2 L2D hDi tD
cos lp wDi
cosðlp=2ðzD LDi þ zwDi ÞÞ 5dtD
2
l¼1

ZtD XN X ∞ X ∞
8 1 p2 hDi ðj2 x2 þm2 y2 ÞtD=4
Then, total pressure drop for the horizontal well is: PDxy ¼ e eD eD
pxeD i¼1 m¼1 j¼1
j
0
 x   x 
XN sin jp eDi cos jp wDi cosðjp=2ðxD xeDi þ xwDi ÞÞ
p 2 2
PwD ¼ xeD yeD QDi PwDi (A-6)  y 
2 i¼1 cos mp wDi cosðmp=2ðyD yeDi þ ywDi ÞÞ
2
(A-12)
ZtD XN X∞ X∞
Productivity index: 8 1 p2 hDi ðj2 x2 þ4l2 L2 ÞtD=4
PDxz ¼ e eD D
pxeD i¼1 j¼1
j
l¼1
Productivity index model can be generated based on the 0
 x   x 
argument given by Babu-Odeh [23], which considered the total sin jp eDi cos jp wDi cosðjp=2ðxD xeDi þ xwDi ÞÞ
pressure drop for horizontal well acting in finite reservoir is 2 2
 z 
consisted of two parts, the first one for the transient period and cos lp wDi
cosðlp=2ðzD LDi þ zwDi ÞÞ
the second one for steady state period. Accordingly the pressure 2
drop, given by Eq. (A-6), can be written as: (A-13)

p 
PwD ¼ 2ptDA þ xeD yeD QDi PDx þPDy þPDz þPDxy þPDxz þPDyz ZtD X
N X
∞ X
∞
2 hDi ðm2 y2eD þ4l2 L2D ÞtD=4
ep
2
 PDyz ¼ 4
þPDxyz i¼1 l¼1 m¼1
0
(A-7)  y   y 
sin jp eDi cos jp wD cosðmp=2ðyD yeD þ ywD ÞÞ
2 2
 z 
xeD yeD cos lp wDi
cosðlp=2ðzD LDi þ zwDi ÞÞ
tDA ¼ tD (A-8) 2
4
(A-14)
The pressure term in the second part of right hand side of Eq.
(A-7) are defined as follows:
 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430 429

16
ZtD XN X ∞ XN X∞
1 p2 hDi ðj2 x2 þm2 y2 þ4L2 ÞtD=4 64 X N X ∞ X N X ∞
1
PDxyz ¼  
PDxyz ¼ e eD eD D
pxeD i¼1 m¼1
l¼1 j¼1 jp nDi j xeD þ m yeD þ 4LD
2 2 2 2 2 2
pxeD i¼1 m¼1 j¼1
j
l¼1
0
 x   x   x   x 
sin jp eDi cos jp wDi cosðjp=2ðxD xeDi þ xwDi ÞÞ sin jp eDi cos jp wDi cosðjp=2ðxD xeDi þ xwDi ÞÞ
2 2

2 2  ywDi 
ywDi   z 
cos mp cosðmp=2ðyD yeDi þ ywDi ÞÞ
cos mp cosðmp=2ðyD yeDi þ ywDi ÞÞcos lp wDi 2
2 2  z 
cosðlp=2ðzD LDi þ zwDi ÞÞ cos lp wDi cosðlp=2ðzD LDi þ zwDi ÞÞ
2
(A-15) (A-22)

For long time of production, the integration of the above The dimensionless parameters used in this study are defined
mentioned models lead to the following models: as follows:

16 X N X ∞
1  x   x  kr hDPP
PDx ¼ sin jp eDi cos jp wDi PPD ¼ (A-23)
pxeD i¼1 j¼1 j p xeD nDi
3 2 2 2 2 141:2Q mB

cosðjp=2ðxD xeDi þ xwDi ÞÞ

0:000263hr t
(A-16) tD ¼ (A-24)
x2f

X
N X
∞
1  y 
PDy ¼ 8 cos mp wDi Lw
xeD ¼ (A-25)
i¼1 m¼1
m2 p2 h 2
Di yeD 2 (A-17) xe
cosðmp=2ðyD yeDi þ ywDi ÞÞ
Lw
yeD ¼ (A-26)
 z  ye
X
N X
∞
1 X
∞
PDz ¼ 2 cos lp wDi
i¼1 l¼1
l2 p2 hDi L2D l¼1
2 (A-18) x
xD ¼ (A-27)
cosðlp=2ðzD LDi þ zwDi ÞÞ xe

xw
32 X N X ∞ X∞
1 xwD ¼ (A-28)
PDxy ¼
xe
pxeD i¼1 m¼1 j¼1 jp2 nDi j2 x2eD þ m2 y2eD
 x   x  y
sin jp eDi cos jp wDi cosðjp=2ðxD xeDi þ xwDi ÞÞ yD ¼ (A-29)
2 2 ye
 y 
cos mp wDi cosðmp=2ðyD yeDi þ ywDi ÞÞ
2 yw
ywD ¼ (A-30)
(A-19) ye

z
32 X N X ∞ X ∞
1 zD ¼ (A-31)
PDxz ¼   h
pxeD i¼1 jp2n j2 x2 þ 4l2 L2
l¼1 j¼1 Di eD D
 x   x  yw
sin jp eDi cos jp wDi cosðjp=2ðxD xeDi þ xwDi ÞÞ zwD ¼ (A-32)
2 2 h
 z 
cos lp wDi cosðlp=2ðzD LDi þ zwDi ÞÞ
2
(A-20)
References
X
N X
∞ X
∞
1
PDyz ¼ 16   [1] C.L. Hearn, W.J. Ebanks, R.S. Tye, V. Ranganathan, Geological factors influ-
i¼1 l¼1 m¼1p2 nDi m2 y2eD þ 4l2 L2D encing reservoir performance of the Hartzog draw field, Wyoming, JPT 36
 y   y  (8) (1984) 1335e1344, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/12016-PA.
sin jp eDi cos jp wD cosðmp=2ðyD yeD þ ywD ÞÞ [2] W. Ebanks, Flow unit concept: integrated approach to reservoir description
2 2 for engineering projects, AAPG Bull. 71 (5) (1987) 551e552, http://
 z  dx.doi.org/10.1306/94887168-1704-11D7-8645000102C1865D.
cos lp wDi cosðlp=2ðzD LDi þ zwDi ÞÞ [3] G.W. Gunter, J.M. Finneran, D.J. Hartmann, J.D. Miller, Early determination
2 of reservoir flow units using an integrated petrophysical method, in: Paper
(A-21) Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition Held on
San Antonio, TX, USA, 5e8 October, 1997, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
38679-MS.
430 S. Al-Rbeawi, F. Kadhim / Petroleum 3 (2017) 414e430
[4] D. Tiab, E. Donaldson, Petrophysics: Theory and Practice of Measuring
Reservoir Rock and Fluid Transport Properties, second ed., Gulf Profes-
sional Publishing, Oxford, UK, 2011.
[5] J.O. Amaefule, M. Altunbay, D. Tiab, D.G. Kersey, D.K. Keelan, Enhanced
reservoir description: using core and log data to identify hydraulic (flow)
units and predict permeability in uncored intervals/wells, in: Paper Presented
at the SPE 68th Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition Held on Houston,
TX, USA, October 1993, pp. 3e6, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/26436-MS.
[6] M. Emami Niri, D. Lumley, Probabilistic reservoir-property modelling
jointly constrained by 3d-seismic data and hydraulic-unit analysis, SPE
Reserv. Eng. Eval. 19 (2) (2016) 253e264, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
171444-PA.
[7] I.R. Diyashev, M.J. Economides, The dimensionless productivity index as a
general approach to well evaluation, SPE Prod. Oper. 21 (3) (2006)
pp.397e405, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/94644-PA.
[8] S.D. Joshi, Augmentation of well productivity with slant and horizontal
wells (includes associated papers 24547 and 25308 ), JPT 40 (6) (1988)
729e739, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/15375-PA.
[9] F. Daviau, G. Mouronval, G. Bourdarot, P. Curutchet, Pressure analysis for
horizontal wells, SPE J. SPE Form. Eval. 3 (4) (1988) 716e724, http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/14251-PA.
[10] E. Ozkan, R. Raghavan, S.D. Joshi, Horizontal well pressure analysis, 1989,
December 1, SPE Form. Eval. 4 (4) (1989) 567e575, http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/16378-PA.
[11] F.J. Kuchuk, P.A. Goode, B.W. Brice, D.W. Sherrard, R.K.M. Thambynayagam,
Pressure-transient analysis for horizontal wells, JPT 42 (8) (1990)
974e979, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/18300-PA.
[12] P.A. Goode, R.K.M. Thambynayagam, Pressure drawdown and buildup
analysis of horizontal wells in anisotropic media, SPE Form. Eval. 2 (4)
(1987) 683e697, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/14250-PA.
[13] M.J. Economides, C.W. Brand, T.P. Frick, Well configurations in anisotropic
reservoirs. SPE formation evaluation, SPE Form. Eval. 12 (4) (1996)
257e262, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/27980-PA.
[14] G. Fuentes-Cruz, P.P. Valko, Revisiting the dual-porosity/dual-permeability
modeling of unconventional reservoirs: the induced-interporosity flow
field, SPE J. 20 (1) (2015) 125e141, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/173895-PA.
[15] F. Kuchuk, D. Biryukov, Pressure-transient tests and flow regimes in frac-
tured reservoirs, SPE Reserv. Eng. Eval. 18 (2) (2015) 187e204, http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/166296-PA.
[16] M. Brown, E. Ozkan, R. Raghvan, H. Kazemi, Practical solution for pressure
transient response of fractured horizontal wells in unconventional shale
reservoirs, SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. J. 14 (6) (2011) 663e676, http://
dx.doi.org/10.8221/125043-PA.
[17] E. Ozkan, M.L. Brown, R. Raghavan, H. Kazemi, Comparison of fractured-
horizontal-well performance in tight sand and shale reservoirs, SPE Reserv.
Eng. Eval. 14 (2) (2011) 248e259, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/121290-PA.
[18] O. Ozcan, H. Sarak, E. Ozkan, R.S. Raghavan, A trilinear flow model for a
fractured horizontal well in a fractal unconventional reservoir, in: Paper
Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Held In
Amsterdam, Netherland, 27e29 October, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
170971-MS.
[19] W. Teng, Y. Jiang, R. Jiang, J. He, X. Gao, Z. Liu, Pressure transient analysis of
complex fracture networks in shale gas reservoirs with multiple-porosity
transport mechanisms, in: Paper Presented at the SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting Held in Canto, OH, USA, 13e15 September, 2016, http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/180970-MS.
[20] N.M.A. Rahman, A.K. Ambastha, Generalized 3D analytical model for
transient flow in compartmentalized reservoirs, 2000, September 1, SPE J.
5 (3) (2000) 276e286, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/65106-PA.
[21] F. Medeiros, E. Ozkan, H. Kazemi, A semianalytical, pressure-transient
model for horizontal and multilateral wells in composite, layered, and
compartmentalized reservoirs, in: Paper Presented at the 2006 SPE Annual
Technical Conference & Exhibition Held on San Antonio, TX, USA, 24e27
September, 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/102834-MS.
[22] S.J.H. Al-Rbeawi, D. Tiab, Transient pressure analysis of horizontal wells in
a multi-boundary system, in: Paper Presented at the SPE Production and
Operation Symposium Held on Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 27e29 March,
2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/142316-MS.
[23] D.K. Babu, A.S. Odeh, Productivity of a Horizontal Well (includes associated
papers 20306, 20307, 20394, 20403, 20799, 21307, 21610, 21611, 21623,
21624, 25295, 25408, 26262, 26281, 31025, and 31035), SPE Reserv. Eng. 4
(4) (1989) pp.417e421, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/18298-PA.