Pressure-Transient
Analysis for
Summary. In recent years, pres-
sure-transient behavior of horizontal
wells has received considerable at-
tention because of the increase in
horizontal drilling. This paper pre-
sents an interpretation method for
horizontal-well pressure-transient
testing that is applied to a buildup
test from a horizontal well in the Prud-
hoe Bay field. The complex flow
geometry associated with horizontal
wells makes well-test interpretation
difficult. Unique determination of the
system parameters from pressure
data with a short testing time (typical
test times for vertical wells) and/or
production time is not possible. We
must run drawdown and buildup
tests and acquire the downhole flow
rate with pressure to estimate the
reservoir parameters accurately.
974
Horizontal Wells
Flkrl J. Kuchuk, SPE, and Peter A. Goode, SPE,
Schiumberger-Doll Research; Bradley W. Brice, * SPE, and
David W. Sherrard, * * SPE, Standard Alaska Production Co.; and
R.K. Michael Thambynayagam, SPE, Schlumberger Well Services
Introduction
Interpretation of well tests from horizontal
wells is much more difficult than interpre-
tation of those from vertical wells because
of a considerable wellbore storage effect, the
3D nature of the flow geometry and lack of
radial symmetry, and strong correlations be-
tween certain parameters. Also, zonal var-
iations of vertical permeability and shale
distribution complicate interpretation.
A well-defined flow period, comparable
to that of the infinite-acting radial flow peri-
od (free from storage and boundary effects)
of a vertical well, is not apparent for
horizontal wells, largely because most
horizontal wells exhibit partial penetration
effects even when they are fully perforat-
ed.I-1O Specific methods have been pro-
posed to identify flow regimes and their
durations under ideal conditions. Although
Reiss II and Sherrard et al. 12 presented
performance and production data from
several horizontal wells and mentioned in-
terpretation of well-test data, they did not
show how to extend the identification and
usage of flow regimes to the interpretation
of real pressure-transient tests.
This paper presents a method for the in-
terpretation of well-test data from horizontal
wells and analyses of pseudosynthetic and
real well-test data.
Solutions With and
Without Gas Cap or Aquifer
In a horizontal well, there is usually con-
siderable wellbore volume (50 to 100 bbl)
below the measurement point, even if the
downhole flow rate is measured or a down-
hole shut-in device is used. The storage
effect with this additional volume typically
lasts longer than that in a vertical well in the
same formation because the anisotropy re-
duces the effective permeability at early times
to .JkHkV' For a horizontal well, the down-
hole pressure at any point in the wellbore
(from the surface to sandface) is given by
Pw(t)=p;- j qmD (T)llPWf(t-T)dT,
t
o
.................. (1)
'Now at BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.
.. Now at BP Exploration Co. Ltd. (Scotland)
Copyright 1990 Society of Petroleum Engineers
where llPwf is the constant-flow-rate re-
sponse of the system, including the effect of
the wellbore volume below the measuring
point where the downhole flow rate, qm'
and pressure, P w ' are acquired simultane-
ously. qmD=qm1q is the normalized flow
rate. The Laplace transform of llPwf is
given as 13 ,14
• llPsf(s)
llPwf(s) = ... (2)
1+ [(Clq)s21lPsf(s)]
C is the wellbore storage coefficient re-
sulting from the volume below the meas-
uring point or the total volume of the well
if the downhole flow rate is not acquired and
IIp sf is given by
where oCt) is the Dirac delta function and
ilps is the pressure drop caused by skin.
llPf is the constant-flow-rate response of a
horizontal well (Fig. 1) completed in an in-
finite anisotropic medium bounded above
and below by horizontal planes. The hori-
zontal and vertical permeabilities are denot-
ed by kH and kv, respectively. The flow of
a slightly compressible fluid of constant
compressibility and viscosity is assumed
throughout the medium. Gravity effects are
neglected. For the formation response, two
types of top and bottom boundary conditions
are considered. In the first case, both the top
and the bottom boundaries have no-flow
conditions. In the second case, one of the
boundaries is at constant pressure (the sys-
tem has either a gas cap at the top boundary
or an active aquifer at the bottom bounda-
ry), while the other is a no-flow boundary.
For convenience we call the first model the
"no-flow-boundary model" and the second
model the "constant-pressure-boundary
model. " In this paper we assume that in the
latter model the constant-pressure boundary
is at the top (the gas-cap case), but the equa-
tions may be readily adapted for the case of
an aquifer at the bottom.
The Laplace transform of the constant-
flow-rate response of the system described
August 1990 • JPT

No-Flow
or
Constant Pressure Boundary
No-Flow Boundary
Fig. 1-Horizontal well model (after Ref. 9).
earlier (formation), I::1Pf, is given by 9
{3[ 00
I::1Pf(s)=--; F(a)+2 j~1
j7rZ j7rZw ]
XF(~j )cos-cos-- , ........ (4)
h h
where ~j=a+[j(7rLv,lh).,jkvIkH p,
the no-flow-boundary case, and by
2{3 [ (j - Vz )7rZ
I::1Pf(s)=- F(~j)cos---
a h
(j- Vz)7rZ w ]
Xcos , ............. (5)
h served for vertical wells may develop.
where ~j=a+[(j-Vz)(7rL'hlh).,jkvlkH)2,
for the constant-pressure-boundary case. In
Eqs. 4 and 5 the pressure is evaluated at
z=zw+(rwl2)(1 +.,jkv1kH)' and
F(v)=J
r 00 du sin 2 u
' .......... (6)
o u 2 .,j u2 +v
where (3= 141.2qp,/(k Hh), a=L'ti,r/>p,c t
-;- (0.000263k Hs) , and s is the Laplace
transform variable.
Because we are using the line-source ap-
proximation, Eqs. 4 and 5 are valid only
when tD/r~D>25 (see Ref. 9 for the defi-
nitions). This is an important limitation be-
cause several minutes may be required to
satisfy this condition for large anisotropy.
Eq. 1 is used with a given downhole flow
rate, qm' to compute downhole-pressure
data with skin and wellbore storage (re-
sulting from the volume below the rate
measuring point) for a horizontal well with
and without the gas-cap effect (Eqs. 4 and
5). Eq. 2 should be used if flow-rate meas-
urements are not available.
Distinct flow periods may occur during
a transient-pressure test from horizontal
wells (see the Appendix). The first period
is characterized by radial flow around the
well, where there is negligible effect from
the ends of the well and no effect from the
boundaries. If a vertical barrier (the bottom
or top no-flow boundary) to flow exists near
JPT· August 1990
4400
4200
..
Oi
4000
i
."
!.. 3800
dr.wdown (SOlid)
3600
buildup
~~--~~---r------.-~~~------+
0.01
Fig. 2-Pressure and flow rate for the drawdown test and Build-
up Test A.
the well and if the influence of that boundary
is noticed before any significant effect froIl).
the ends ofthe well, a second period (hemi-
radial flow) will develop. After this period,
if the well is very long compared to the for-
mation thickness, with reasonable vertical
permeability, a linear flow period may de-
velop in the case of two no-flow boundaries.
If one of the boundaries is a constant-pres-
for sure boundary, the linear flow period will
not be observed and a wellbore steady-state
pressure controlled by the pressure at the
boundary will be achieved. In the case of
an infinite reservoir bounded by two no-flow
planes (parallel to the x-y plane), a third (fi-
nal) radial flow period similar to that ob-
Interpretation
Although analytic solutions and their char-
acteristic behavior for the constant-flow-rate
case are available in the literature, 1-9 it is
well known that in any real well, the con-
stant-flow-rate condition is difficult to
achieve. At early times, wellbore storage
(even with a shut-in device or downhole-rate
measurements) masks the well-defined char-
acteristics of the pressure response. At late
times, constructing a complete model for a
given horizontal well while the transient
travels away from the wellbore is difficult
because of the mUltiple boundaries. More-
over, a slight decline of the flow rate as a
function of time smoothes the sharp features
of the pressure behavior, which usually car-
ries information about the system.
Interpretation of well-test data from a
horizontal well presents two problems that
must be solved sequentially and iteratively.
The first is definition (diagnosis) of the
system-i.e., identification of boundaries.
Geological and geophysical methods may
provide clues about the presence and loca-
tion of the boundaries. These sources, how-
ever, may not reveal the interference
boundaries between the wells. The second
problem is the estimation of the distance to
the boundaries from the wellbore and other
unknown reservoir parameters (e.g., perme-
abilities and skin).
10000
8000
6000
c
iii
Ii
~
4000
it
I i '\ ~
(oymbolo) I ~.. '" 2000
.~
'-,
0.1 10 100
time, hr
The identification of flow regimes for a
transient test from a horizontal well can be
invaluable when used with deconvolved
-pressure (the system influence function).
The transition and duration of each flow
period can disclose the fine details of the sys-
tem, particularly if used with proper display
techniques (e.g., log-log, semilog, and pres-
sure derivative), each of which may exhibit
particular features of the system.
Display techniques can be a powerful
identification tool, particularly if the well-
bore-storage effect is minimized by meas-
uring downhole flow rate or by using a
downhole shut-in tool. The interpretation of
a given horizontal well test can be enhanced
considerably if geological and geophysical
methods can independently confirm the pres-
ence and location of the boundaries.
For identification and estimation, the con-
ventional, convolution, deconvolution, and
nonlinear least-squares estimation methods
are used. Because these methods have been
presented in detail in the literature (e.g.,
Ref. 15), we will not discuss them here.
Their application to horizontal well-test ex-
amples (with the solutions presented earli-
er), however, is demonstrated in the next
section.
Simulated Example
In this section, we analyze transient tests
from a hypothetical well where we used Eq.
1 to generate the pressure response. The for-
mation and fluid properties and production
data for this example are kH= 100 md;
kv=1O md; S=10; Ly,=500 ft; r/>=0.20;
p,=0.80 cp; ct =2.0x 10- 5 psi-I; rw=
0.35 ft; h= 100 ft; zw=20 ft; Pi =4,400 psi;
q=lO,OOO BID (before buildup); tp=7,053
hours; and C=O.OI bbl/psi (for the horizon-
tal section of the well).
The reservoir is assumed to be of infinite
extent but is bounded by no-flow or
constant-pressure boundaries at the top and
bottom. Although a synthetic model (the sys-
tem given by Fig. 1 with known parameters)
is used, the measured flow rate, which came
from an actual well, is used to compute the
downhole pressure, Pw, from Eq. 1. Well-
bore storage is also included in the model
975
 .. 100
Q.
.Q.
100
,;
~
.
,;
>
"iii "iii
.2: >
...:;; , . ...~
.
'

10 100
0.01 0.1 10 100
0.01 0.1
time, hr lime, hr

Fig. 3-Comparison of derivatives for the drawdown test. Fig. 4-Comparison of derivatives for Buildup Test A.

TABLE 1-CROSS CORRELATION

OF PARAMETERS
kH
(md)
kH 1.000
kv -0.668
S -0.266
C -0.771
"Display techniques
can be a powerful
identification tool,
particularly if the
wellbore.storage effect
is minimized by
measuring downhole
flow rate or by using a
downhole shut·in tool."
976
to simulate the storage effect below the rate
measuring point (tool). Although the
wellbore pressure is simulated, it is treated
kv C as if it were real for interpretation purposes.
(md) S (bbl/psi) Thus, the simulated pressure, Pw' is called
the measured pressure.
1.000
0.619 1.000 Drawdown Test
0.989 0.800 1.000
Fig. 2 shows the well bore pressure and ac-
tual flow rate for a 72-hour pseudosynthetic
drawdown test. Note that the drawdown
pressure exhibits a semilog straight-line peri-
od between 1.5 and 10 hours. As Fig. 3
shows, however, the derivative of Pw does
not confirm the existence of an infinite-
acting radial flow period. Consider the first,
and perhaps most basic, question: how can
we identify this system from the wellbore
pressure with and without flow rate? The
pressure and pressure derivative unfor-
tunately do not show any recognizable fea-
tures of the system, with the exception that
an infinite-acting radial flow period ob-
served from the semilog plot is not con-
firmed by the pressure derivative. Next,
system identification is continued with
wellbore-pressure and flow-rate measure-
ments. 15· 1? Although in this paper we use
the identification methods described in Ref.
15, the same task can be performed with the
slightly different techniques discussed in
Refs. 16 and 17.
Fig. 3 also presents the derivatives of the
deconvolved pressure (dpd1d In t and dPdl
dfsp,r) with respect to In t and !spt (Le.,
11-Ji ) and the derivative of the normalized
pressure (d! w1dfiet) with respect to fiel' The
convolution and deconvolution enable us to
look at the behavior of the system without
the effects of flow-rate variations. Exami-
nation of the spherical derivative is impor-
tant for horizontal wells because they usually
exhibit partial-penetration effects. This is not
a unique set of identification (diagnostic)
plots. Depending on a priori information
about the system, different sets of pressure
and/or derivative plots generally can be
used. The deconvolution and logarithmic
convolution derivatives in Fig. 3 become
almost identical after I hour. Because of the
additional wellbore storage, they look like
the derivative of the wellbore pressure with
the wellbore storage.
Fig. 3 shows that both the logarithmic
convolution and deconvolution derivatives
become slightly flat between 0.6 and 2
hours. It also shows that a long transition
period exists between 2 and 50 hours, with
an increasing sl~pe and finally another flat-
tening period toward the end of the test.
These features agree with certain character-
istics of a horizontal well in a homogeneous
reservoir. As discussed earlier, a horizon-
tal well can experience a few infinite-acting
radial flow periods (a flat derivative on a
log-log graph), depending on the geometry
and the parameters of the system. The ques-
tions now are whether these two flattening
periods result from infinite-acting radial
flow regimes and if they do, which regimes
(first and second, first and third, or second
and third) cause them.
Although the early-time deconvolved
pressure might be affected by the additional
wellbore storage (below the measurement
point), its derivative shows another transi-
tion period between 0.25 and 0.6 hours with
an increasing slope. This suggests that the
first radial flow period is masked by the
wellbore storage and that the two flattening
periods are the result of the second and third
radial flow.periods. The long transition peri-
od between these two radial flow periods
also supports the same assumption (obser-
vation). Visual examination of derivatives
will not answer any further questions about
these flow periods, but the derivatives can
be used to estimate certain parameters that
can help to identify essential features of the
well/reservoir system.
The slopes for the second and third radial
flow periods obtained from the derivative
of the deconvolved pressure (Fig. 3) are ap-
proximately 55 and 115 psi/cycle, respec-
tively. Note that the slope of the third radial
flow period is almost twice that of the second
one. This does not violate the assumptions
we made about the flow regimes. It may,
however, imply another possible interpreta-
tion-i.e., the flattenings could be results of
the first and second radial flow periods, be-
cause the slope of the first period is half the
August 1990 • JPT
 100
"0
Q.
,;
III
~
iii
~
t a.
'C
dpst'dlnt
10
0.01 0.1
time,
Fig. 5-Comparison of derivatives of the deconvolved and com·
puted pressures for the drawdown test.
slope of the second period. For now let us
assume that they are the second and third
flow periods. With Eq. A-3, the geometric
mean of the horizontal and vertical permea-
bilities (.JkHkV) from the second radial
flow period is 47 md. kH from the third ra-
dial flow period is 113 md (with Eq. A-7).
The formation thickness is used for this per-
meability calculation because the flow re-
gime is assumed to be the third radial flow
period. With these estimates, kv is 19.8 md.
As a result of many different flow periods,
the total skin obtained from the analysis of
each flow period is different, as the Appen-
dix shows, while the damage skin is the
same. The Appendix also shows that the
horizontal and vertical permeabilities must
be known to compute the damage skin. De-
pending on the flow period, the standoff dis-
tance, well length, and formation thickness
should also be known. Using the estimated
permeabilities in Eqs. A-4 and A-8, we es-
timated the damage skins from the second
and third flow periods to be 12.9 and IS,
respectively. The damage skin obtained
from different flow periods should be the
same if the analysis is correct.
In the absence of a buildup test or any
other test preceding the drawdown test, the
next interpretation step is naturally the ap-
plication of the nonlinear least-squares es-
timation to investigate various aspects of the
model, to improve the above estimates, and
to obtain additional parameters. Thus, the
buildup test will be analyzed next.
Buildup Test A
A 72-hour pseudosynthetic buildup test is
created after 7,053 hours of production from
the· same well. Fig. 2 also presents the
pressure and afterflow rate for the buildup
test. Because of the large total well volume,
the measurable afterflow rate period is
approximately 4 hours. Fig. 4 presents the
derivatives with respect to Homer time
[dPw/d In thoro where thor =(tp +.:It)/.:lt]
and multirate superposition time (dPwl
d In t sup ), which eliminates the effect of
flow-rate variation during the drawdown on
JPT • August 1990
4300
4120
..
a. 3940
..f€
::I
3760
Horner:
p' = 4376 psi
3580
0 observed
gen. rate convolution:
computed
p' = 4400 psi
3400
10 102
100
hr
Fig. 6-Horner and generalized rate convolution for Buildup
Test A.
the buildup pressure. Fig. 4 also presents
the derivatives of the logarithmic convolu-
tion (dJ w/dAt) and deconvolution [dp dl
d In t and abs(dpd1d!spt)]. The basic char-
acteristics of these derIvatives are similar to
the derivatives of the drawdown at early
times. Note that the logarithmic convolution
and deconvolution derivatives are not avail-
able after 4 hours because the afterflow be-
comes zero at that time. Note also that the
derivative of the shut-in pressure is smooth
compared to the drawdown pressure. These
derivatives confirm the findings from the
drawdown test.
Final Interpretation
For the nonlinear least-squares estimation,
the measured pressure and its deriyative, the
deconvolved pressure and its derivative, and
other measured and processed data can be
used as observed system behaviors to match
the computed response. To avoid perform-
ing convolution during the first estimation
step, we use the deconvolved pressure as an
observed system behavior because the effect
of the flow-rate variation is eliminated. In
this case the reservoir model (the system
response) is given by Eq. 2. If we were to
use the measured wellbore pressure and its
derivative as an observed behavior and Eq. 1
for the computed response, we would have
to perform a number of convolution opera-
tions at each estimation step (iteration),
depending on the number of unknown pa-
rameters.
We now examine various aspects of the
model with the nonlinear least-squares es-
timation to ensure that the model satisfies
the estimated parameters and all the assump-
tions. Earlier identification indicates that the
reservoir model is bounded at the top and
bottom by two no-flow planes. We assume
that formation thickness, standoff (zw), and
well half-length (L'h) are known. The ver-
tical and horizontal penneabilities, skin, and
wellbore storage-i.e., the additional
storage below the measurement point, be-
cause the deconvolved pressure will be
used-are estimated. One important step in
".
'.
.....
104
time functions
.nonlinear estimation is to determine a
posteriori cross correlation of the estimates
(see Ref. 18 for a full sensitivity analysis).
The cross-correlation analysis indicates,
though not absolutely, what can be deter-
mined from a nonlinear estimation.
Table 1 presents the cross-correlation
matrix for the parameters, which are esti-
mated without measured errors. Note that
kv and wellbore storage are strongly cor-
related. The skin is correlated to both kH
and kv; for large measurement errors (not
shown here), however, it is correlated to
kH more than to kv. If the wellbore storage
resulting from the horizontal section of the
well is constant, then the storage coefficient
can be estimated accurately. On the other
hand, if the wellbore storage is not constant,
it affects the estimation of reservoir param-
eters, particularly kv (the parameter most
sensitive to measurement errors).
Fig, 5 displays a good match between the
deconvolved (drawdown) and computed
pressure derivatives. The estimates obtained
from this match are kH= 100.0 md, kv=
9.0 md, S=6.7, and C=0.012 bbllpsi.
These estimates compare well with the ac-
tual (model-input) values presented earlier.
When these estimates are compared with the
estimates from the flow regimes (Fig. 3),
which are used as initial guesses, we observe
that the vertical permeability and skin have
changed the most.
In the following nonlinear estimation, the
measured drawdown pressure and its deriva-
tive are used as observed system behaviors.
The model pressure for this case is computed
with Eq. I, which is the convolution of the
measured flow rate and the pressure com-
puted with Eq. 2. Using estimates from the
deconvolved pressure as initial guesses, we
are able to estimate the actual parameters
(model-input values) after a few iterations.
Although the final match is not presented,
it was, as expected, a perfect match. Note
that for each parameter, at least one convo-
lution and evaluation of Eq. 2 with Eq. 4
must be performed per iteration. The func-
tion evaluation from Eq. 4 is not trivial.
977

o measured
+
_ _ .... (Caool)
computed without rMe
computed with rite
iii
a.
..
100
vi
~
.'
OJ
>
...~
10
0.01 0.1
time, hr
Fig. 7-Comparison of measured and computed derivatives for
Test B.
Nevertheless, this last estimation is impor-
tant because in the previous estimation the
deconvolved pressure, which is processed
data, is used as an observed system be-
havior. If the model is correct and the initial
guesses are close to their actual values, we
should be able to obtain the final estimates
after a few iterations (convolutions). For an
actual well test, it is certainly true that the
estimates may be completely different from
the values obtained from the deconvolved
pressure. A substantial improvement can
and probably will be made in the estimates.
We may even have a complete mismatch.
In that case, we should return to the system-
identification step, possibly through exten-
sive use of other information such as geo-
logical and geophysical data, which may
provide additional features about the system.
In this iterative process, the geological and
geophysical data used for the model con-
struction may also be altered, with justifi-
cation, to satisfy the observed system
behavior.
If the estimates obtained from the final es-
timation using the wellbore pressure and
flow rate are satisfactory, the impulse
response-the derivative of the formation
pressure, !:..pJ, from Eq. 4 without storage
and skin effects-of the system should be
the same as the derivative of the decon-
volved pressure after the wellbore-storage
effect becomes negligible. This comparison
is shown in Fig. 5. Note that after the
wellbore-storage period, the impulse
response is almost the same as the deriva-
tive of the deconvolved pressure. The im-
pulse response indicates that the second
radial flow period, identified from the
derivative of the deconvolved pressure, is
almost invisible because of the effect of the
upper boundary. However, the deconvolved
derivative exaggerates the actual flattening.
It also indicates that the first radial flow peri-
od is entirely masked by the wellbore
storage and the third radial flow period is
accurately identified. Fig. 5 shows that the
maximum deviation between the impulse
response and deconvolved derivative is less
978
4400
~
Ie.. 2)
4200
Ii
a.
.;
;; 4000
II)
II)
l'! Horner:
a. p'
m
3800
gen. rate convolution
p'
m =
3600
10
Fig. a-Horner and generalized rate convolution for Test B.
than 1 psi after 0.3 hours. It is important
to look at and compare the impulse response
with the deconvolved pressure to determine
whether the postulated (identified) model
satisfies the subtle features of the real reser-
voir. If the deconvolved pressure is unavail-
able, the logarithmic convolution or
Gladfelter 17 deconvolution pressure may
also be used if a certain set of conditions is
met. 15 ,17 The start of each flow period
given in Refs. 8 and 9 can also be used to
determine whether the estimated parameters
satisfy the time conditions.
We can also apply the same estimation
procedure to the buildup data. As stated
earlier, the behaviors of the drawdown and
buildup tests are quite similar, as Figs. 3 and
4 show. Thus, a nonlinear estimation for the
buildup test is not performed. In the absence
of the downhole flow-rate measurements,
we have to perform a nonlinear estimation
for the buildup test using Eq. 2. Although
it may not be desirable, we may also have
to compute the downhole flow rate using the
constant wellbore storage model to perform
the above analyses.
We have now constructed a model with
. its parameters, excluding the reservoir pres-
sure. To complete the test interpretation, we
also must estimate the reservoir pressure
(extrapolated or initial). For the above anal-
ysis, the absolute pressure change
[!:..Pw=Pw(t)-Pw(t=O)] is used for iden-
tification and estimation. The initial well-
bore pressure, [Pw(t=O)], measured just
before the test (drawdown or buildup), can
be different from the initial or average reser-
voir pressure for producing wells. Thus, an
additional correction to the estimated reser-
voir parameters may be required.
The Horner or other semilog methods
have been used extensively for the determi-
nation of reservoir pressure. As Ref. 15
shows, however, these methods may not
work well because the behavior of many
wellireservoir systems cannot be simulated
by the simple logarithmic approximation of
the exponential integral solution and because
flow-rate variations before and during the
, . ..I
"~
, ,
' ............
..... .
'
.,
,.~"
ft·······. U... 'wMllofl.
= 4382 psi
= 89.5 psl/eyl. \,
= 4402 psi
\..0 '00000
",",
130 psl/eyle
1 2
10 10 103 104 105
time functions
buildup test are not precisely accounted for.
The first reason is particularly true for
horizontal wells that experience many differ-
ent flow regimes. 4 These problems can be
minimized if we use the generalized
rate-convolution technique IS to estimate
reservoir pressure.
Fig. 6 presents the shut-in pressure as a
function of Horner time and generalized
rate-convolution (lotrcr) time. As discussed
in Ref. 15, such a graphic representation of
the Homer and generalized rate convolution
is useful to compare and understand the sys-
tem's behavior. It is well known that the
Horner method is not useful if the storage-
free, infinite-acting radial flow period is not
apparent. On the other hand, the general-
ized rate-convolution method can yield the
extrapolated pressure at any time, provided
that the production period is sufficiently
long. This plot magnifies the early-time
data, as does a conventional Horner plot.
Thus, it is often beneficial to display the late-
time portion ofthe same graph (upper right
corner of Fig. 6). As this figure shows, the
Horner curve bends upward even at late
times, which implies that the semilog
straight line is not fully developed. Also, the
extrapolated pressure, p*, obtained from the
Horner plot is 4,376 psi, which is 24 psi
lower than the initial pressure before the
drawdown test (i.e., the model-input pres-
sure). For most vertical wells, knowing the
initial or average pressures may help to ob-
tain the correct semilog straight line. For
horizontal wells, however, this knowledge
may not be helpful unless the flow period
is precisely known.
The pressure obtained from the general-
ized rate convolution is exact. The general-
ized rate convolution provides a uniform and
consistent analysis for verification of the
model and its parameters using the transient
well test and past production data.
Buildup Test B
To show some of the interpretation problems
associated with horizontal wells, let us sup-
pose that we run a 24-hour buildup test,
August 1990 • JPT

8400
9 5/8" casing 8590'
.., 8600 i - - - * ' I r - - - - T O P SADLEROCHIT 8631'
~
15.
<l>
"0
(ij
8800 F----:------"M:-----GOe 8825'
7" LINER 8960'
()
',e
>
<l>
9000 HOT904S'
-----------.
owe 9090'
9200
2200 3000 3800
Departure, It
Fig. 9-Location and completion of Well JX·2.
which happens to be conventional wisdom,
after 72 hours of production for the same
well. As will be shown later, the field ex-
ample has similar flowing and buildup time
periods. Fig. 7 presents the derivative of the
shut-in pressure with respect to the Horner
time (measured curve). Note that the deriva-
tive becomes flat after 6 hours, resulting in
a horizontal permeability of 166 md (assum-
ing that the flattening of the derivative is a
result of the third radial flow period). The
damage skin cannot be obtained from Fig.
7 with Eq. A-8 because the vertical perme-
ability is unknown.
The change in shut-in pressure and its
derivative with respect to the Horner time
is used for the nonlinear estimation to im-
prove the estimates from the earlier analy-
sis for Test B. For this estimation, the model
pressure is computed by Eq. 2 with a con-
stant wellbore storage (total well volume).
We assume that the formation thickness,
standoff, and other reservoir parameters are
known, as in the previous case. As Fig. 7
shows, the match between the measured and
computed pressures and their derivatives
(denoted by "computed without rate, Case
I ") is not satisfactory and the residuals are
large. However, note that the computed
pressure is able to capture the system's
global behavior. Nevertheless, it is usually
difficult to simulate the downhole pressure
with a constant storage model, particularly
at early times. As shown later, we experi-
ence the same difficulty in the interpretation
of the field example.
As stated earlier, vertical permeability is
very difficult to estimate without wellbore
flow-rate measurements because it is strong-
ly correlated with wellbore storage. The es-
timates obtained from this match ("com-
puted without rate, Case 1") are kH= 1,962
md, kv=0.002 md, S=O, and C=O
bbl/psi. These estimates are not acceptable
because the wellbore storage cannot be zero,
given the finite volume of the well. For most
naturally producing wells, at least a lower
bound for the wellbore storage is given by
C=ctVw , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
JPT • August 1990
20000
lSooo
Q
iii
GAS c
f 10000
41/ 2" SLOTIED LINER OIL ;I
~
WATER 5000
4600 5400
0
0 300
Fig. 10-PI for Well JX-2.
where ct = reservoir compressibility arid
Vw=wellbore volume. For production
wells, ct should be equal to or less than the
compressibility of the wellbore fluid because
of the pressure loss and presence of gas in
the production string. Of course, Eq. 7 is
exact if c t is replaced by the compressibility
of the wellbore fluid, if known.
With a lower limit of C=0.08 bbl/psi, ob-
tained with Eq. 7, another nonlinear estima-
tion is carried out, as Fig. 7 shows (denoted
by "computed without rate, Case 2"). Al-
though the residuals are more or less the
same for Cases 1 and 2, Fig. 7 shows that
the match is improved at late times. Note
that at early times, the model with a low ver-
tical permeability and small storage and the
model with a high vertical permeability and
large storage exhibit almost the same be-
havior.
The estimates for Case 2 are k H =182
md, kv=1.6 md, S=4.5, and C=0.15 bbl/
psi. Although these estimates are better than
the previous ones, they are still not close to
the true values. Note that the horizontal per-
meability is almost the same as the one com-
puted from the derivative (166 md). Unfor-
tunately, that is a misleading confirmation.
Let us assume that during this buildup test
the afterflow rate is measured with the well-
bore pressure. The measured and computed
derivatives obtained with the afterflow
measurements are also shown in Fig. 7
("computed-with-rate" curve). The match
is excellent, and the computed derivative
traces the measured data well. The estimates
are kH= 133 md, kv=6.6 md, S=9.2, and
C= 0.01 bbl/psi. These estimated values are
not significantly different from the actual
values and are considerably improved by
just using the afterflow measurements. The
identification steps, however, suffer exten-
sively without drawdown-pressure and flow-
rate data. In other words, it is difficult to
identify the system and flow regimes from
the buildup data because the duration of the
measurable afterflow rate is short compared
with that of the wellbore-storage effect.
Fig. 8 shows the shut-in pressure as a
function of the Horner time and generalized
rate-convolution time. The late-time portion
600 900 1200 1500
8P. pSi
of the same plot is shown in the upper right
corner. The Horner curve bends continuous-
ly upward at late time. Unfortunately,
neither the Horner (without enlargement)
nor its derivative (Fig. 7) is able to show
the late-time curvature of the Horner plot.
The Horner semilog straight line yields a
slope of 89.5 psi/cycle, which is 30% less
than the actual slope of the third radial flow
period and is slightly larger than the slope
of the second radial flow period. The sys-
tem's impulse response (Fig. 5), however,
indicates that the semilog straight-line period
observed in Figs. 7 and 8 is a transition peri-
od between the second and third radial flow
periods. Fig. 8 shows thatp* obtained from
the Horner plot is 4,382 psi, 18 psi lower
than the initial pressure. For most real well
tests, a 10- to 20-psi error in the pressure
estimate is considered small. It is not unrea-
sonable to think that the conventional in-
terpretation performed for Test B is correct
because the derivative indicates a radial flow
period and because the Horner semilog
straight-line plot produces the almost-correct
initial pressure (if known). Fig. 8 also shows
that the generalized rate convolution yields
the correct initial pressure (actually 2 psi
higher). Note that the slope increases slightly
when the generalized rate-convolution time
becomes greater than 80 (less than 1 hour).
Discussion
It is natural to question whether the stand-
off (zw or h-z w) and the formation thick-
ness can be estimated simultaneously with
other parameters. In principle, it is possible
to identify no-flow or constant-pressure
boundaries and to estimate the standoff and
formation thickness uniquely, provided that
the downhole flow rate is measured ac-
curately or the wellbore storage is constant
and known. Drawdown tests are preferable
for the estimation of the standoff and for-
mation thickness because the wellbore flow
rate can be measured accurately. On the
other hand, the measurable afterflow during
buildup tests could be too short for some
cases to minimize the weIIbore-storage ef-
(To Page 1028)
979

o with respect to Horner time
+ with respect to logarithmic superposition time
0.1
0.01
time, hr
Fig. ii-Pressure derivatives for the Well JX-2 buildup test.
Pressure-Transient
Analysis for
Horizontal Wells
(From Page 979)
fect. The linearized sensitivity analysis in-
dicates that min[zw' (h-z w)] and hare
strongly correlated with each other, kv, and
C. Furthermore, identification and estima-
tion may become a problem if the standoff
is too small « 10 ft).
Field Example
This well-test example for Well IX-2 in the
Prudhoe Bay field was discussed in detail by
Sherrard et al. 12 The well was drilled in an
oil zone of the Ivishak formation and is ap-
proximately 120 to 134 ft (the exact location
is not known) below a gas cap and 5 to 10 ft
above a continuous shale zone (Fig. 9). The
horizontal section of the well is 1,576 ft long
(Ly, =788 ft) and is completed with a 4.5-
in. slotted liner. The fluid and formation
properties-and production data for this well
are </>=0.21; /L=1.3 cp; ct =4.0x 10- 5
psi-I; rw=0.35 ft; jf=3,746 psi; q=
17,037 BID; and tp =85.5 hours.
The average reservoir pressure at the time
of the test was below the bubblepoint pres-
sure. The producing GOR, however, was
the same as the solution GOR. Thus, a
reduction of oil permeability caused by liber-
ated solution gas is to be expected in the res-
ervoir. Moreover, the effect of permeability
reduction, which results from liberated so-
lution gas near the wellbore, may appear as
positive skin.
According to Sherrard et al. , 12 Well IX-
2 was shut in for a 24-hour buildup test after
six 12-hour flow tests, during which the
pressure and surface flow rates were meas-
ured. The pressure was below the bubble-
point pressure of the reservoir during the
flow periods and subsequent buildup test.
Unfortunately, each flow test cannot be an-
alyzed individually because the downhole
pressure and surface flow rate measurements
were sparse.
1028
3800
3600 ~m
-.
'iii ::::
Co
~3400
''\. :::I
11/
11/
co
ii.
3700
~'\
3200 36g0
3680-+------------,.---
3000+-~~TTr---"--~-~~~~--~-~~'~~
1 10 10
Fig. i2-Horner plot for the Well JX-2 buildup test.
Fig. 10 presents the inflow performance
obtained from the pressure and surface-flow-
rate data of the flow tests. Although the data
scatter at high pressure drops and rates, pos-
sibly because of a severe gas evolution in the
wellbore and reservoir, a linear relationship
between pressure drop and flow rate is indi-
cated. The straight line does not go through
the origin because the system most likely did
not reach a steady- or pseudosteady-state
period during a 12-hour flowing period-
i.e., the gas-cap effect might not have com-
pletely dominated the wellbore pressure be-
havior. Nevertheless, the productivity index
for Well IX-2 from Fig. 10 is 12 bbl/
'(psi-D).
Fig. 11 presents the derivatives of the
shut-in pressure with respect to the Horner
time and logarithmic-multirate time (because
the multirate test precedes the buildup). It
shows that the pressure derivative declines
rapidly after 8 hours. This normally indi-
cates a gas cap. The late-time decline of the
pressure derivative as a function of time for
horizontal wells can be somewhat mislead-
ing (unless it becomes exactly zero), how-
ever, because some combinations of well!
reservoir parameters can give a similar
. appearance-e.g., Fig. 7 in Ref. 9. The
derivatives in Fig. 11 do not indicate any
radial flow period.
In the Horner plot (Fig. 12), a straight line
is drawn through the shut-in pressure be-
tween 9 and 24 hours, but the derivative plot
(Fig. 11) does not indicate a well-defined
radial flow period. Fig. 12 also shows the
late-time section of the Horner plot, which
indicates that the shut-in pressure bends
downward as time increases. In any case,
the Horner semilog straight-line period, if
it exists, must result from the second radial
flow period. It cannot result from the third
one because of the gas cap, and it cannot
result from the first one because the bottom
boundary is near the well. The permeability
and skin calculated from the Horner plot
(with Eqs. A-3 and A-4) are 37.2 md and
4.0, respectively. Note that for the perme-
ability calculation, the well length is used
because it is assumed that the flow period is
' == 3804.4 psi
-123.8 psi/cycle
..'.~
." "'.,
...
'.
10
'.".
100
(.p+<'>.) 1<'>.
the second radial. p*, calculated from the
Horner semilog straight line shown in Fig.
12, is 3,804.4 psi, which is 40.6 psi higher
than the initial average pressure before the
multirate test. We may think that a 40.6-psi
pressure difference is reasonable because the
extrapolated pressure of developed systems
is usually equal to or greater than the aver-
age reservoir pressure. As in Test B, even
though the Horner semilog straight line in-
dicates an acceptable extrapolated pressure
(it is not far from the initial average pres-
sure), the calculated permeability and skin
could be incorrect.
As stated earlier, interpretation of well-
test data from horizontal wells is generally
much more difficult than interpretation of
those from vertical wells. Our difficulty in
interpreting the buildup-test data from Well
JX-2 is compounded by a prolonged well-
bore-storage-dominated buildup period and
ambiguity about the location of the gas cap
and the well length. Additionally, the pro-
ducing time was short and disturbed by the
six flow tests, during which the flow rates
were not exactly constant and were meas-
ured only at the surface.
General diagnostic steps did not really
provide any definite clues about the exis-
tence or location of the boundaries. Thus,
the reservoir model for the nonlinear esti-
mation is essentially based on geological,
geophysical, and well-log information. The
reservoir is therefore assumed to be infinite
in the x and y directions and bounded by
constant-pressure and no-flow boundaries at
the top and bottom, respectively. Horizontal
and vertical permeabilities, damage skin,
wellbore storage, gas-cap location (h-z w ),
and completed horizontal length of the well
are estimated. As we know from the analy-
sis of the synthetic data, the estimation of
these parameters may not be unique and may
be strongly correlated.
Before performing a nonlinear estimation,
we defined upper and lower bounds for these
parameters on the basis of a priori informa-
tion (e.g., cores, well tests, and logs) about
the reservoir because we are dealing with
August 1990 • JPT
 1000
1/1
c..
Q'
o
Q "
Q'
measured
100 computed with L1I2 =746 ft
computed with L1I2=650 ft
computed with h-z w =134 ft
0.01 0.1
time,
Fig. 13-Comparison of measured and computed derivatives for the Well JX-2 build-
up test.
an almost ill-posed estimation problem. The
bounds are 50<k H<300 md, 0.01 <kv<
40 md, 250<L v2 <788 ft, 20<h-z w <
134 ft, and om < C < 0.3 bbl/psi. The dis-
tance to the bottom no-flow boundary from
the wellbore, zW' is assumed to be 10 ft.
Note that bounds for the skin are not speci-
fied because we have no idea what they are.
Furthermore, the estimated parameters
should yield a PI of -12 bbl/(psi-D), which
is obtained from the production data.
With these bounds, a nonlinear estimation
is performed with Eq. 2, the above reservoir
model, and the surface flow-rate data from
the flow tests. In other words, the produc-
tion history before buildup is partially (be-
cause it is the surface flow rate) accounted
for by superimposing the rate data with Eq.
2. Fig. 13 presents the match of the deriva-
tive of the 24-hour measured buildup pres-
sure with the model response. Note that the
match is reasonable except for the mismatch
at late times. The estimates from this match
are k H=88.3 md, kv=2.7 md, S=2.9,
Llh =746 ft (the wellbore half-length),
(h -zw) =25 ft, and C=0.15 bbl/psi. The
estimated standoff (h-z w ), the distance to
the gas cap from the wellbore, is small when
compared with the 135 ft obtained from
openhole logs. Given the history of gas
underrunning in the Prudhoe Bay field, how-
ever, a short distance to the constant-pres-
sure boundary could be justified. Fig. 13
also presents the match with the same data
and model with a fixed value of h-z w =
134 ft. This match is very poor compared
with ,the previous one. The new estimates
are kH=50.0 md, kv=17.2 md, S=8.1,
Ly, =746 ft, and C=0.17 bbl/psi. The PI's
obtained from the estimates of the first and
second matches are 14 and 14.5 bbl/(psi-D),
respectively. Although 14 is closer to the ob-
served value, both PI's are practically the
same, given that the observed PI is obtained
from the transient tests.
JPT • August 1990
1 10
hr
The above matches are least sensitive to
the length of the well because the shut-in
pressure is dominated by the well bore
storage for a long time. Fig. 13 also shows
the sensitivity of the match when L y, is
changed from 746 to 650 ft while all other
parameters remain the same (as in the case
for Lv, =746 ft). Fig. 13 shows that the
new match has not changed appreciably.
Note that the computed derivatives are the
same at early times for all three cases. The
cases for Lv, =746 ft (with h-z w =25 ft)
and h-z w = 134 ft (with L'/2 =746 ft) be-
have exactly the same until 1 hour, and then
they diverge at late times. The PI for the
case of L '/2 =650 ft becomes 12.4 bbl/(psi-
D), which is almost the same as the observed
PI. The uniqueness problem is now that the
case of Lv, =746 ft is a better match and
has a smaller sum of the squares of residuals
than the case of Lv, =650 ft. On the other
hand, the PI for Lv, =650 ft is much closer
to the observed value than that in the other
case.
We tried other combinations of parame-
ters to improve the first match. 19 As in
Test B, the shut-in pressure does not have
any sensitivity to such parameters as well
length, vertical permeability, and distances
to the top and bottom boundaries when
masked by the wellbore storage. The esti-
mates from the first match (L '/2 =746 ft) are
taken as a best possible set of the estimates.
However, they could be nonunique because
of the storage effect at early times and mis-
match at late times. The mismatch may also
suggest that the model used for estimation
is not accurate. The measure of the unique-
ness of the estimates from the match cannot
be judged simply by inspecting the sum of
the squares of the residuals and the plot of
measured data with the model response un-
less the uniqueness of each parameter is in-
vestigated beforehand. As Shah et al. 18
point out, a linearized sensitivity analysis
may indicate uniqueness of the estimates.
" .. a drawdown test
followed by a buildup
test will produce
satisfactory results for
the estimation of
reservoir parameters
for horizontal wells if
downhole flow rate
and pressure are
measured."
Conclusions
In this paper we applied interpretation tech-
niques to pseudosynthetic and real well tests
from horizontal wells, showing that the
measurement of downhole flow rate is cru-
cial for system identification as well as pa-
rameter estimation. Use of only pressure
data, particularly for wells with constant-
pressure boundary andlor wellbore storage,
has major drawbacks for the identification
of the reservoir system and subsequent es-
timation of its parameters. Although the
third radial flow period is essential in es-
timating the horizontal permeability in the
absence of the measured downhole flow
rate, the lack of its evolution in a reason-
able testing time makes interpretation diffi-
cult. Large anisotropy ratio and the existence
of multiple boundaries with unknown dis-
tances to the wellbore increase the complex-
ity of the interpretation problems.
The deconvolved pressure and its deriva-
tive computed from measured downhole
pressure and flow rate are effective system-
identification tools that can also provide ini-
tial estimates for the nonlinear estimation.
Relying solely on nonlinear estimation
without diagnostics may lead to an erroneous
model and estimates.
Drawdown and buildup data tend to pro-
vide similar reservoir information at early
times. At late times, they may provide com-
plementary information about the system.
The generalized rate convolution, which
combines the measured drawdown and
buildup flow rates with the shut-in pressure
for the estimation of the reservoir pressure,
works better than the Horner method. Long
buildup tests provide useful information for
the onset of the third radial flow period,
while the same information may not easily
be obtained from drawdown tests because
of the small flow-rate fluctuations at late
times. Nevertheless, a drawdown test fol-
lowed by a buildup test will produce salis-
1029
factory results for the estimation of reser- 2. Giger, F.M.: "Horizontal Wells Production Appendix-Flow Periods
voir parameters for horizontal wells if down- Techniques in Heterogeneous Reservoirs,"
This Appendix provides the definitions,
hole flow rate and pressure are measured. paper SPE 13710 presented at the 1985 SPE
Middle East Oil Technical Conference and slopes, and skin equations that can be used
Exhibition, Bahrain, March 11-14. to obtain reservoir parameters from the var-
Nomenclature
3. Daviau, F. et at.: "Pressure Analysis for ious flow regimes associated with horizontal
c = system total compressibility, psi - I Horizontal Wells," SPEFE (Dec. 1988) wells. All the slopes and skins relate to cases
C = wellbore storage constant, bbl/psi 716-24. where flow rate is constant. The durations
f = time function 4. Goode, P.A. and Thambynayagam, R.K.M.: of flow regimes are discussed in detail in
h = formation thickness, ft "Pressure Drawdown and Buildup Analysis Refs. 3 through 5, 8, and 9.
J = reciprocal productivity index or for Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Media, "
SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 683-97; Trans., AIME,
rate-normalized pressure 283.
Two No-Flow Boundaries. First Radial
k = permeability, md 5. Clonts, M.D. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Pres- Flow Period. This radial flow around the
. L = length sure-Transient Analysis for Wells With Hori- well may continue until the effect of the
m = slope zontal Drainholes," paper SPE 15116 nearest boundary is felt at the wellbore. It
p = pressure, psi presented at the 1986 SPE California Regional may not develop because of large anisotro-
q = flow rate, BID Meeting, Oakland, April 2-4. py. The behavior of the period is very simi-
6. Joshi, S.D.: "Augmentation of Well Produc- lar to the early-time behavior of partially
r = radius, ft tivity With Slant and Horizontal Wells," JPT
s = Laplace image space variable penetrated wells. The semilog straight-line
(June 1988) 729-39; Trans., AIME, 285.
S = damage skin slope is
7. Karcher, BJ., Giger, F.M., and Combe, J.:
t = time, hours "Some Practical Formulas To Predict 162.6qp,
o = Dirac delta function Horizontal Well Behavior," paper SPE 15430
mrl = 2.JkH V y, , ..•.••..•. (A-I)
11 = pressure diffusivity, ft 2 /hr presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical k L
p, = oil viscosity, cp
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Oct. 5-8. and damage skin is
T = dummy integration variable
8. Ozkan, E., Raghavan, R., and Joshi, S.D.:
tP = system porosity "Horizontal-Well Pressure Analysis,"
SPEFE (Dec. 1989) 567-75; Trans., AIME, S=1.151 1~Plhr +3.2275
Subscripts 287. L mrl
d = deconvolved 9. Kuchuk, F.J. et at.: "Pressure-Transient Be-
D = dimensionless or normalized havior for Horizontal Wells With Gas Cap
hor = Horner time or Aquifer," paper SPE 17413 presented at
the 1988 SPE California Regional Meeting,
H = horizontal
Long Beach, March 23-25.
i = initial 10. King, G.R. and Ertekin, T.: "Comparative
I = linear
lct = logarithmic convolution time
Evaluation of Vertical and Horizontal
Drainage Wells for the Degasification of Coal ~
-IOg( tPp,c )l, .......... (A-2)
m = measured Seams," SPERE (May 1988) 720-34. trw

p = production 11. Reiss, L.H.: "Production From Horizontal

Wells After 5 Years," JPT (Nov. 1987)
where ~Plhr=Pw(t=O)-Pw(t=l hour) for
r = radial drawdown tests and ~lhr=Pw(~t=l
1411-16; Trans., AIME, 283.
rct = rate convolution time 12. Sherrard, D.W., Brice, B.W., and Mac- hour)-pw(~t=O) for buildup tests, and Pw
s = skin Donald, D.G.: "Application of Horizontal at I hour for both tests is obtained from the
sf = sand face Wells at Prudhoe Bay," JPT (Nov. 1987) first radial flow period on the semilog,
sl = semilog 1417-25. Horner, or derivative plots.
spt = spherical time 13. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "Ap- Second Radial Flow Period. This hemi-
ss = steady-state plication of the Laplace Transformation to cylindrical flow period follows the first radi-
Flow Problems," Trans., AIME (1949) 198, al flow and may occur when the well is close
sup = superposition time 171-76.
t = total 14. Agarwal, R., AI-Hussainy, R., and Ramey,
to one ofthe no-flow boundaries. The slope
V = vertical H.J. Jr.: "An Investigation of Wellbore obtained from this flow regime is twice that
w = well or wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid obtained from the first period.
wf = well bore flowing Flow: I. Analytical Treatment," SPEl (Sept.
1970) 279-90; Trans., AIME, 249. I 62.6qp,
1/2 = half mr2 =2mrl =,,---;- , ...... (A-3)
15. Kuchuk, F.J.: "Application of Convolution
I = derivative -vkHkVLv,
and Deconvolution To Transient Well Tests,"
* = extrapolated paper SPE 16394 to be published in the Dec. and
= average 1990 SPEFE.
= Laplace transform 16. Joseph, J., Ehlig-Economides, C., and
~Plhr
A

Kuchuk, F.J.: "The Role of Downhole Flow S=2.302) +3.2275

Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Schlumberger-Doll Re-
search and Standard Alaska Production Co.
for permission to publish this paper. We are
also grateful to D.1. Wilkinson for his valu-
able comments. The interpretation of the
Measurements in Reservoir Testing," paper
SPE 18379 presented at the 1988 SPE Euro-
l mr 2
pec Conference, London, Oct. 17-19.
17. Ayestaran, L., Nawaz, H., and Kuchuk, F.J.:
"The Use of Convolution Type Curves for
the Analysis of Drawdown and Buildup
Tests," paper SPE 18535 presented at the

Prudhoe Bay example is that of the authors
and does not necessarily reflect the opinion
of any Prudhoe Bay owner.
References
1. Giger, F.M., Reiss, L.H., and Jourdan, A.P.:
"Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Horizon-
tal Drilling," paper SPE 13024 presented at
the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 16-19.
1030
1988 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Charleston, WV, Nov. 2-4.
18. Shah, P.C. et at.: "Estimation of the Perme-
abilities and Skin Factors in Layered Reser-
voirs Using Downhole Rate and Pressure
Data," SPEFE (Sept. 1988) 555-66.
19. Kuchuk, F.J. et at.: "Pressure Transient
Analysis and Inflow Performance for Hori-
zontal Wells," paper SPE 18300 presented
at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 2-5.
~ )J, ..........
-IOg( tPp,ctrw (A-4)
where ~p Ihr has to be obtained from this
flow period's plots.
Intermediate-Time Linear Flow Period.
This flow regime may develop after the ef-
fects of the upper and lower boundaries are
felt at the wellbore if the horizontal well is
August 1990 • JPT
much longer than the formation thickness. Authors
The slope of the linear straight line (pres-
sure vs. the square root of time) is given by

mil = 8.128q
2L'j,h
J J.t , ....... (A-5)
kH<PCt
and the skin is given by

2L V,VkHk v
S= .:lPOhr +2.303
141.2qJ.t
Kuchuk Goode Brice Sherrard

xlogL
rh7rrw (
1+ ~
[4
k;; ) sin (h7rZ w )l' Flkrl J. Kuchuk is a program leader at Schiumberger-Doll Re-
search Corp. in Ridgefield, CT. He previously worked for
Schlumberger in Houston and for Sohio Petroleum Co. in San
............... (A-6) Francisco. His interests include well testing, reservoir model-
ing, and bottom hole-flowing-pressure measurements. He
where .:lPOhr is the intercept. served on the 1983-85 SPE Editorial Review Committee, a 1986
Third (Intennediate) Radiid Flow Period. SPE Annual Meeting technical committee, and the 1986 SPE
After the effects of the top and bottom Well Testing Forum Series Committee. He holds an MS degree
boundaries are felt at the wellbore, a third from the Technic,al U. of Istanbul and MS and PhD degrees from
Stanford U., all in petroleum engineering. Peter A. Goode
radial flow pattern develops in the x-y plane. is a member of the professional staff at Schiumberger-Doll Re-
This period does not exist for wells with a Thambynayagam search Corp. He previously was a senior reservoir engineer
gas cap or aquifer. The semilog straight-line at Sohio Petroleum Co. and at Santos Ltd. in South Australia.
slope is He holds a BS degree in mathematics from the U. of Adelaide. Bradley W. Brice
is a staff reservoir engineer with BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. in Anchorage. His
162.6qJ.t responsibilities include technical coordination of horizontal drilling efforts at Prudhoe
mr3 = , .............. (A-7) Bay. Recognized as an expert at implementing nonconventional wells, he was
kHh responsible for the design and implementation of the Northwest Fault Block Water-
flood Tracer Program and primary development of the Eileen West End. Brice was
and the skin is the Alaska Section's 1988 Engineer ofthe Year and a 1989 Distinguished Lecturer.
Brice was a reservoir engineer at Shell Oil Co. before 1974. He holds a degree from
S=2.303 [4 Lv, r.:lPlhr the U. of Missouri at Rolla. David W. Sherrard works at BP Exploration Co. Ltd.
~k;; h L m r 3 in Scotland. He previously was a senior reservoir engineer at Standard Alaska Pro-
duction Co. and a reservoir and production engineer in the North Sea and Alaska.
He holds a BA degree in engineering from Cambridge U. and an MS degree in pe-
troleum engineering from Heriot-Watt U. R.K. Michael Thambynayagam is a
manager of interpretation engineering at Schlumberger Well Services in Houston.
He also has worked for Sohio in San Francisco and for BP Petroleum Co. in London.
............... (A-8) Thambynayagam is a researcher, consultant, and coauthor of papers on process,
petroleum, and reservoir engineering. He holds a PhD degree in chemical engineer-
where ing from the U. of Manchester, U.K.

7rrw (r
Sz = -2.303 10gL-h- 1+ ~
(4)
k;; Constant-Pressure Boundary. If one sure at the boundary. Eq. A-lO is valid only
boundary is a constant-pressure boundary when VkH1kv (hILv,)<2.5.

x sin( 7rZ w
h
)l- rL~-;;;Lv,
(k;; ~
and a steady-state pressure is achieved at the
wellbore, then the skin is
51 Metric Conversion Factors
bbl
ep
x 1.589 873
x 1.0*
E-OI = m 3
E+OO = mPa·s
ft x 3.048' E-Ol = m
in. x 2.54* E+OO = em
psi x 6.894 757 E+OO = kPa
psi -1 x 1.450377 E-Ol = kPa- 1
'" Conversion factor is exact.
where .:lPlhr has to be obtained from this
Provenance
flow period's plots.
Eq. A-9 is valid only when VkH1kv(hl
L'/,)<5.
x log
l 8h
7rrw(1+Vk v lk H )
cot (7rZw)
--
2h
Original SPE manuscript, Pressure-Trans-
ient Analysis for Horizontal Wells, re-
ceived for review Oct. 2, 1988. Paper
Other flow regimes may also develop,
depending on the outer boundaries in the x
and y directions (see Ref. 4) and the well + (h-z w )
Lv,
(k;;
~-;;;
l, ......... (A-lO)
accepted for publication May 29, 1990. Re-
vised manuscript received April 26, 1990.
Paper (SPE 18300) first presented at the
geometry. For example, we may have a
spherical flow period if a horizontal well is 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
much shorter in length than the formation where .:lPss = pressure drop difference be- Exhibition held in Houston, Oct. 2-5.
thickness. tween the well pressure and constant pres- JPT

JPT • August 1990 1031