Contributions in Petroleum Geology & Engineering (ff) 8Contributions in Petroleum Geology and Engineering Volume 8 Well Test Analysis Copyright © 1001 by Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, "Tenas. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of “America. This book, or parts thereof, may not be "reproduced in any form without permission ‘of the publisher. Printed on Acid-Pree Paper (2) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data | ‘Sabet, Mohamed A. Wel test analysis M.A. Sabet. p. em, (Contributions in petroleur geology & cngincering: 8) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN O-872O1 584 (hardcover, printed on acid-free apes) | 1. Ol! welling. T. Tie. TE Seles, "TNSTLSISS| 1901 22/3982" 0287—8e20 -3968 cP ISBN 0-87201-584X ISBN 0-87201-066-X (Series) 1 3, Contents Preface . cece Vii Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing ... Heuristic Derivation of the Drawdown Equation, 1; Park Jones ‘Method, 16; The Pressure Derivative Method, 20; The Skin Effect, 23; ‘The Radial Flow Equation, 27; Detection of a Linear Boundary, 32; Computer Programs to Evaluate the Exponential Integral, 38; Radius cof Investigation, 40; The Steady State Case, 47; Conclusions, 48, Fundamentals of Pressure Buildup Testing Principle of Superposition, 53; Derivation of Horner's Equation, 54; Derivation of MDH Equation, 60; Determination of P, 70; Detec- tion of a Linear Boundary; 98; Conclusions, 103, Fundamentals of Multirate Flow Testing ..... = 105 ‘Two-Rate Flow Testing, 105; Multirate Flow Testing, 112; Modified ‘Two-Rate Flow Test Analysis, 124; Approximation of Flow by Straight Lines, 129; Superposition, Convolution, and Deconvolu- tion, 140. Wellbore Effects... . - 146 Wellbore Storage Eifects, 146; Type-Curve Analysis, 153; Real ‘Time Detection of End of Wellbore Storage, 157; Gringarten’s ‘Type-Curves, 160; Bourdet’s Type-Curves (Pressure Derivative Method), 168, Hyydraulieally Froctured Wells, 175; Partial Penetra- tion and Partial Perforation, 182; Other Wellbore Effects, 183; Con- clusions, 184.5. Gas Well Testing . 186 ‘The Real Gas Potential, 186; Adaptation of Liguid Well sting Equations to Gas Well Testing, 190; Wellbore Storage Effects, 199; Deliverability, 195; Real Gas Pseudo Time, 207; Wells Producing from Low Permeability Reservoirs, 215. 6. Testing of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs - 221 Origin of Fractures, 222, A Conceptual Overview of the Models, 296; Model by Warren and Root, 298; Model by Streltsova, 233; Model by Kazemi, 237; Model by deSwaan, 238; Model by Naju- rieta, 242; Model by Adams et al., 253; Type-Curve Analysis, 260; ‘The Pressure Derivative Method, 264; Conclusions, 272. 7. Testing of Layered Reservoirs .....+4.+sessseseeeeeee+ 274 Commingled Reservoirs, 277; Crossflow Reservoirs, 280; Composite. Reservoirs, 281; Conclusions, 289, 8. Interference and Pulse ‘Testing .... aol Interpretation of Interference Test Data, 292; Interpretation of Pulse ‘Test Data, 903; Effects of Skin and Wellbore Storage on Interference Data, 317; Effects of Wellbore Storage on Pulse Test Data, 319; Pulse Test Design, 821; Interpretation of Pulse ‘Tests by PC-BOAST, 323 9, Drill Stem, Closed Chamber, and Slug Testing «+. ..+.. 330 Drill Stem “esting (DST), 331; Closed Chamber Testing (CCT), 348; Slug Testing (ST), 350; Closed Chamber Slug Testing, 961 10. Injection Well Testing . Basic Concepts and Definitions, ls, 377; The Empirical Approach to the Falloff Test Interpretation Problem, 384; Conclusions, 388. LL. A Bridge Between Theory and Practice . . = 390 ‘The Dimensionless Form of the Radial Flow Equation, 391; Essene tials of Laplace ‘Ikansform, 392; The Inverse Laplace Transform, 398; Constant Rate Solution of the Radial Flow Equation in a Bounded, Cireular Reservoir, 400; Wellbore Storage and Skin Ef- fect, 410; Multilayered, Commingled Reservoirs, 419: Naturally Fractured Reservolis, 424; Slug Testing, 431; Testing of Hydrauli- cally Fractured Wells: A Case of Finite Conductivity Vertical Frac- ‘ure, 437; Testing of Hydraulically Fractured Wells: A Case of Inf- nite’ Conductivity Vertical Fracture, 445; Deconvolution, 447; Conclusion, 451 = 454 Preface ‘This book is an outgrowth of a five-day course which I have presented repeatedly in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Australia, The book is aimed at practicing engineers and geologists who ‘want to understand the basics, limitations, and applications of well testing _methods to be able to practice wel test analysis with proficiency. Therefore, this book is not a handbook of well tet analysis, nor is ita theoretical over- ‘view; it isa book that explains theories, emphasizes simplified mathematics, and presents numerous examples to demonstrate how the theories may be applied to real-world problems. ‘The material presented in this book is applicable in several disciplines: po- ‘troleum engineering and geology; groundwater hydrology; and toxie waste Aisposal in deep wells, which is a branch of environmental engineering and geology. Each of these disciplines uses a different system of units, and the system of units used by one diseipline in the United States is often different from that used by the same discipline in Europe and in other parts of the ‘world. Thus, any attempt to satisfy the needs ofall these disciplines would hhave resulted in utter confusion and chaos. For this reason I had to choose ‘only one system of units for the entire book and I chose the U.S. oilfield sys- tem, not because I think it is a better system, but because I am more familiar with that system. Readers who use other systems of units should begin by converting their measurements of rate and pressure, respectively, to barrels, per day and pounds per square inch, After gaining sufficient confidence in the subject, they will then be able to adapt the formulae in this book to their particular system of units In writing the book, Thave addressed myself to those readers who in their undergraduate curricula have had two years of mathematics, and have since forgotten their mathematics and are now rusty. Ihave also assumed that, except for the availability of a very limited field library, the readers have no ready access to extensive libraries, either because time is limited, or becausewell-stocked libraries are not within reach, With these two constraints in mind, Thave attempted to make the mathematical presentation as clear and simple as possible, and I have tried to treat the different topics as completely as possible. ‘The first ten chapters should prepare the reader to practice well test anal- ysis with a good understanding of the basic theory. Chapter 11 prepares eaders to expand their knowledge by reading research articles from the lit- ‘erature. But even in Chapter 11 I have attempted to maintain the presenta- tion of the theory in a simplified form. “The book contains a few computer programs. The purpose of these pro- grams is threefold: to help in demonstrating the theory; to show that seem ‘nely difficul tes results ean easily be programmed on the computer; and to ‘encourage the readers to write their own programs. Thus, these programs fare by no means efficient, because they are not intended for everyday use. M.A. Sabet Littleton, Colorado1 Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing ‘The fundamental objectives of drawdown testing are to obtain the aver- age permeability, k, of the reservoir rock within the drainage area of the tvell, and to assess the degree of damage or stimulation induced inthe vicin- ity of the wellbore through drilling and completion practices. Other objec- tives are to determine the pore volume, Vp, and to detect reservoir inhomo- sgeneities within the drainage area of the well. This chapter is aimed at introducing the reader to all of these objectives. ‘There isa difference, however, between objectives and realizations. Al- though the objective is to determine the permeability, k, the test actually yields the transmissibility, T = k hig. Tb obtain k, we must assume that we mow the pay thickness, h, and the fluid viscosity, z. Likewise, our objective is to obtain Vp, but the test yields Vp C,, and we have to assume that we know the total compressibility, Cy, in order to determine V,. HEURISTIC DERIVATION OF THE DRAWDOWN EQUATION Let us assume that we are dealing with a reservoir that can be divided into large, horizontal segments such that each segment is uniform with re- spect to porosity, permeability, thickness, water saturation, and rock com- pressibility. Furthermore, each segment is saturated with water and black ‘oll of constant viecosity and compressibility, and only the oil is mobile. Each segment is drained by one or more wells, and each well penetrates and is ‘open through the entire pay section of the reservoir. If all these conditions are met, then the flow to each well will be radial, ic, the oil moves toward the well equally from all dizeetions. 12 Well Tist Analysis ‘We will focus our attention on one well which drains a circular, 80-2ere avea of the reservoir This means that all the oil thatthe well produces comes ‘nly from the 80-acre drainage area. In other words, the outer boundary of the drainage isa closed, no-flow boundary. This does not mean that the boundary is formed by any physical barriers such as sealing faults or perme- ability pinchouts. "To understand how such a boundary could form without any physical barriers, consider the uniform segment of the reservoir of Figure 1-1 in ‘which a number of wells are drilled on a grid pattern, If all the wells prodhice atthe same rate then to determine the drainage area of any well in the pattern, one would simply divide the distances between the wells in half Of couse, if we shut-in one well then the neighboring wells would ‘extend their drainage areas to include the drainage area ofthe shut-in well, Tes therefore evident that the size and shape ofthe drainage boundary of a swell producing from a homogeneous reservoir depends on the relative post tons and production rates of the neighboring wells. However, as long as no Changes in the production rates ovcur, the drainage boundary ofeach well in Figure 1-1. Well pattem in a homogeneous reservoir segment, showing a drain- ‘age area with a no-fiow boundary. Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 3 the pattern is a no-flow boundary, i, no flow takes place across the boundary. Later we will present methods for estimating the size of the drainage area of a well, but without additional data its exact shape cannot bbe determined by well testing alone. “To perform a drawdown test on our well, we fist close the well until the pressure stabilizes throughout its drainage area, We wil eall the stl Then Tower a pressure recorder to a level slightly ‘above the perforations, and open the well to produce at a strate. The presure recorder records the pressure P, until the instant the wells opened for production. Thereafter, it records the flowing bottom-hole pressure, Puy versis Hime. From the recorded Pai itis posible to plot AP = P, ~ Pyrver~ sus time, as shown io Figure 1.2 20: eesas 80: f 90. APHPI-Pat, psi 110. 120 130. 140: 150. ‘ 30 v0 the Figure 1-2. Rectangular plot ofthe frst 100 hrs of dravidown data from Table 1-1 \ “Let us suppose that with a flow rate of 100 B/D we obtain the data shown {in Table 1-1, The first 100 hours of these data are plotted on Figure 1-2. The Figure is characterized by throe segments: an almost vertical straight line be- ‘ween 0 and 0.5 hour; a curve between 0.5 and 20 or 30 hrs; and a sloping, straight line thereafter. Infact, a quick check on the data of Table 1-1 shows that beyond 40 lus AP is a linear function of tise. For example, between 404 Wall Tist Analysis Table 1-1 Pressure Drawdown Data (= 100 BID, ry = 1,059 fy = 0.89 M1) t =P t aP t ‘a ow o_o) 0) os 001 sr2t 10 9263 ~—~—«650~~«BST oo =o 18s m0 | 13022, oe te 004 e778 © 4010280160005 bos = 714985 tO5B1 «2800781 04 7477100 100804000207 94 016 7035 18011347 650028867 025, 8175 25011688 800.0——805.10 0.80 sose 400 1205014000 58.68 and 65 hrs, the slope is equal to 0.2429 psi/hr, which isthe same as the slope Detween 40 and 1,000 hrs. Figure 1-3 isa plot of the early data of Table 1-1 with an expanded time scale, Itis evident that these data do not fall on a straight line; they form a ‘curve, Therefore, based on our observations of Figures 1-2 and 1-3, we must conchide that Figure 1-2 is characterized by only two segments: a curve be- ‘tween O and 40 hrs; and a straight line thereafter. 9 oc = t+—] | it | Se Boo 062 00s 006, ojo 012 04 O16 Producing Time tp (hrs) Figure 1-3. Rectangular plot of eatly drawdown data from Table 1-1 with an ex panded scale. Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 5 Figure 1-4 is the same as Figure 1.2 except that the time seale has been changed. Figure 1-4 suggests that the curve ends at about 15 hrs, not at 40 hrs as Figure 1-2 shows. However, if we check the data in Table 1-1 between 10 and 16 hrs we get a linear slope of 0.597 pai/hr, and between 16 and 25 his the linear slope is 0.978 psi/hr, Both slopes are quite different from the Linear slope of 0.2429 psi/hr which was determined beyond 40 hrs. We must therefore conclude that in spite of appearances, the curvature begins at 0 and continues to 40 hrs. 2 AP=(Pi-Pul) psi 0 130 eo 0 es ed coe cata) Producing Time tp (hrs) Figure 1-4. Same plot as Figure 1-2, but with a different scale. ‘We summarize our observations as follows: 1. A plot on rectangular graph paper of the pressure drop AP versus time ‘as observed in a well producing at a constant rate from a bounded rainage area consists of a curve followed by a straight line. The curve begins at t = 0. This curve represents what is known as the unsteady state, the early transient state, or the infinite acting state, All three ex- pressions are used interchangeably. The straight line represents what is known as the semi-steady state, the pseudosteady state, or the quasi- steady state 2. The beginning of the semi-steady state cannot be visually discerned from the plot because the scale of the plot may influence our judg- ‘ment. Since real field data are usually noisy (je., contain spurious6 Well ast Analysis ‘pressures caused by temperature variations, solar lunar gravitational fides, closing and opening of wells in the field, and presence of 8). ‘sual determination ofthe beginning ofthe straight line on the rectan- iqular plot (Figure 1-2) could be wrong. Figure 1-5 isa plot of the same data given in Table 1-1 versus the log of time. Comparison between Figures 1-2 and 1-5 shows that the early tran- sient state is represented on Figure 1-5 by a straight line, and the semi-steady state is represented by a curve that Is concave downward, It is clear from Figure 5 that the early transient state ends and the semt-steady state begins at about 40 hrs. Thus, the beginning ofthe straight line on the rectangular ‘plot could be better determined on the semi-log plot, but this is not always the case when one is dealing with actual field data. Later on we will learn the Park Jones method, which could be helpful in determining the beginning of the semi-steady state, 8 tt 2 2 r fe a 8 ee ie TOP Producing Time tp (hrs) Figure 1-5. Semiog plot of drawdown data from Table (Our observations can be stated in a different way. During the early tran sient state, AP is a linear function of log t. Thus, AP = mlog t + Constant where m = the absolute value ofthe slope ofthe straight line on the semi-log plot (Figure 1-5). Fundamentals of Drawdown Tasting 7 For brevity, we will refer to the absolute value ofthe slope as the lope. Tt should be clear that the slope, m, describes the rate of decline ofthe flowit om-hole pressure, Pyts du eri Vale OF the constant, we choose t = 1 hr, then log Ie follows that the constant is equal to APg. (or AP). Then the equa tion could be writen as AP = mlogt + APiie gay ‘During the semi-steady state, AP is a linear funetion of time. Thus, AP = mnpst + Cue (2) where ms, = slope ofthe straight line on the rectangular plot (Figure 1-2), “This lope describes the rate of decline ofthe flowing bottom-hole pressure, Pais during the psendosteady state (ps) ya = poeudosteady state intercept Te is evident that we cannot write Cpa = APgr 1» since at t= 0, AP = 0. Therefore, to determine Cye we must choose t > 40 hrs and substitute in Equation 1-2, or extrapolate the straight line backwards and read the inter- cept on the ordinate, TReturning to Equation 1-1, the unsteady state equation, we wish to in- «quire about the nature ofthe slope m. For this purpose, we reason as fol- lows: autihLyBy cong ey ewe wold ee i Dots ole pressure Py to decline at a rate which is higher than the rate ob- _ ayn WH served at smaller values of g, ie. the slope, m, of the straight line Fi -5 must be proportional to q. However, since q is measured in igure Ny stock tank barrels (STB), we must multiply q by the formation volume factor B, t0 obtain the flow rate in reservoir barrels (RB). be greater in the case of a low permeability reservoir than in the ease 2. The slope, m, must be related to the permeability, k, of the reservoir rock. Its evident that for the same q, the rate of pressure decline must the net reservoir thickness h. For Constant q, the larger the value of h, the lower the value of m. ‘The slope, m, must also be proportional to the oil viscosity, . The sigher the viscosity, the higher the rate of pressure drop, m. Seabee ohne aire po Biome se nati8 Well Test Analysis We conclude, therefore, that: m oe But kh Ca Bu : kb oe where ©, = constant ‘To determine the value of the constant, Cy, in Equation 1-3, we need to ‘measure m from Figure 1-5. We also need to know some rock and fluid properties, Let us assume that on the basis of our knowledge from well logs, ‘core analyses, and PVT data, we obtained the following information: 50 md h=s0ft 0.8 ep 1.85 RBISTB ‘To determine m from Figure 1-5, we choose data points at the beginning and at the end of any logarithmic cycle. For example, from Figure 1-5, we could ‘choose the data points at t = 0.1 and 1.0 hr. The slope, m, is given by: ime TAT ~ 92.33 ~ fog 0.1 log LO = 17.56 psifeycle Had we chosen another cycle, we would have obtained the same result. For example, choosing the data at t = 1.0 and 10 hrs, 92.93 ~ 109.89 Tog I= log 10 = 17.56 paileycle We could, of course, choose other points that do not fall on the ends of a cycle, The computation of m isthe same as before. As an example, fort = 0.2 and 0.7 br, we get m= 80-90 Tog0.2—Tog 0.7 = 18.38 paileyele Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 9 ‘which is essentially the same value obtained earlier, given the fact that the ‘presures were read off the plot of Figure 1-5. It is important to develop the habit of reading the slope off the straight line on the semi-log plot, not from the pressure-time data table. ‘Now we are ready to determine the value of the constant, Cy, in Equation 1a: mkh = Bee aBoe 17.56 x 50 x 20 . i % 1.35 x 0.8 \ Ol = 162.6 » cordingly, m= 1028.48 , : Accordingly, ce 4) and Equation 1-1 could be writen as: 62.6 4 Bo = Y TES AB Hog t+ Ay (5) ‘Tofind the dimensions of m, we substitute the dimensions of q, (L°/T); 1, (MILT); k, (L4}; and h, (L), The dimensions of m are determined to be that of pressure (M/L T°), which means that log tis dimensionless. This is true, since In t = fdtit, and In t = 2.303 log t. Having found the expression for m in Equation 1-1, we now wish to find the expression for mg, in Equation 1-2, Before we do that, however, we must develop a clear understanding of the meaning of the early transient (un- steady or infinite acting) state and the semi-steady (pseudosteady or quasi steady) state, For this purpose it is necessary to refer to Figures 1-6a—1-6e. ‘When the well is first put on produetion at a constant rate q, the pressure in the wellbore drops and a pressure disturbance spreads through the drain- age area of the well. The rate at which the pressure disturbance spreads does not depend on the distance to the drainage boundary. That is why the tran: sient state is also called the infinite acting state. During the infinite acting state the rate of decline of P.; and the manner by which the pressure distur: bance spreads through the reservoir are determined by the reservoir ane £luid characteristics such as the porosity, @, viscosity, 4, permeability k, ané total compressibility, Cz, Note that these characteristics do not include the flow rate, q. In other words, the rate of spread of the pressure disturbance i independent of q. This is very much the same as the spread of sound wave through a medium. Sound travels in air at the same speed whether one whis pers or shouts, However, our ability to hear depends on the amplitude of the10 Wall Tat Analysts Sy ST Pate Figure 1-68, A well in a Figure t-6b, Well produced ata bounded, circtiar drainage area, constant rate, q. Pressure tran- ‘The well ie closed. Piisanimagt —_sients at t= {, and at t= te aro nary surface. fot parallel Infinite acting state. mn owt Figure 1-60, Beginning of som Figure 16d. The semi-steady Steady stato, Traneionts have f- slate. Transients at ty, t, and ts nally reached drainage bound. are paral. ary. Figure 4-00. The walla produo Ing in a semisteady state. Note that AP = P, — Pye = Pe ~ Pw. Figure 1-6. Schematic diagrams showing unsteady and semi-steady states, Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 11 sound wave. Likewise, our ability to detect the pressure drop, Ap, depends ‘on q. The larger q is, the larger the pressure drop and the easier itis to de- tect. "There is a strong analogy between the manner by which sound travels in sir and the way a pressure disturbance travels in the reservoir, If one stands ‘at some distance away from a vertical cliff and holler, then until the sound ‘wave reaches the cliff it travels in a manner independent of the distance to the cliff In other wordk, the sound wave travels asi the distance to the cliff ‘wore infinite, That is exactly what happens in the reservoir during the infi- nite acting state, The pressure disturbance travels as if the drainage area ‘were infinite. “The arrival of the pressure disturbance at the drainage boundary marks the end of the early transient state and the beginning of the semi-teady state, Intuitively, one should not expect the change from early transient to semisteady state to occur instantaneously. It actually takes a few seconds in the case of a circular drainage area, and it takes longer for other shapes. ‘This short period of time which separates the early transient state from the semi-steady state is called the late transient state. Due to its complenity and Short duration, the late transient states not used in practical well test analy- ‘Note that during the unsteady state the cumulative production of the well {sa very small fraction of the oil present in its drainage area. Therefore, if ‘we close the well during the early transient state, we should expect the pres- sure in the well to stabilize essentially at the pressure P; measured before ‘opening the well to production. On the other hand, after the semisteady state has been reached, the entire drainage area of the well is gradually temptied. Accordingly, if the well s elosed sometime after the semi-steady State is reached, the pressure in the wellbore should stabilize at an average pressure, & which is lower than the initial pressure, Py. Figure 1-6e shows that during the semi-steady state the pressure transients affect the entire drainage area of the well. Then, if Par declines by one psi, the pressure declines by one psi throughout the drainage area of the well, which means that the average pressure inthe drainage area, P,also declines by one psi. Accordingly, during the semi-steady state the following condition ‘must hold: P ~ Pyg = constant Simple application of material balance during the semi-steady state yields: aBt -p Dt Vp PP) (16)12 Wall Test Analysis where t= total time since the well was put on produetion, hrs G. total compresbility, Vpst = C8, +, 8, +C, Cy, Go, Gy = oll, water and rock compressibility, respectively Sy Sy = oil and water saturation, respectively V, = reservoir pore volume, RB For a cylindrical drainage area, Vp = wh 615.615 (RB) where f= radius of drainage area, ft From Equation 1-6 we gett = 0.0417 @ Bs on PAP ‘Do find the expression for tgs in Equation 1.2, let us rewrite this equa: ‘Hon: Py~ Per = myo t + Cpe a ‘Now, by subtracting! Equation 1-7 from Equation 1-2 we eliminate P, and obtain: : oat Pace fy OHA t+ Cpe a8) ‘Since we have already established that during the semi-steady state @ — Pu) is a constant, then: 0.07 gl | ree VC py = 2041 a Be as) eV, 0 Accordingly, Equation 1-2 could be written as: O07 ao. BP) (10) PP ‘Equation 1-10 deseribes what is known as the reservoir limit test. To per- form this test, the well is produced at a constant rate, q, until the semi- Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 13, steady state is reached, then a pressure recorder is lowered into the well, without closing the well or disturbing the flow, and left for 72 hrs or longer. If the well is indeed producing at the semi-steady state, then a plot of AP versus the time t yields a straight line. From the slope of the straight line, itis possible to determine C, V,. If C, could be determined with confidence, it ‘would then be possible to determine V,. ‘With respect to our well, we have already established that ngs ~ 0.2499 psifhz, Let us assume that from PVT and well-og data we determined C, at 15.55 x 10° (psi~!, then we apply Equation 1-9 to caleulate V,: 0.0417 x 100 x 1.35 0.2489 x 15.55 x 10-* = 1.489 10° RB y, and, 6h 489 x 108 x 5.615 x 1058 x20 = 012 ‘To complete the formulation of Equation 1-10, we have to find the expres- sion for (P ~ Py). For this purpose we apply Darcy's law to radial flow and. ‘then find the volumetric average pressure, P. The procedure is explained by Craft and Hawkins (1959), where the equivalent of the following equation hhas been derived: Po Peg = 32522 Bo tl ygg 0.472 nl : poran SBR gate wy ‘Thus, the final form of the semi-steady state equation is as follows: 325.2 q Ba ul), 0472 1 2g Bl tee] au 0.472 “| (413) a14 Well Test Analysis “To complete the formulation of the transient drawdown equation (Fqus- tion 1-5), we mus find the expression for AP. We could arbitrarily choose to express AP as follows: AP, = m log C’ and proceed to find the expression for the constant, C’. With this choice, Equation 1-5 is written as: AP = mlog (C' ) ren) Since we have established that the dimension of m is that of pressure, then (C’f) nmst be dimensionless, And, from measurement of the slope, m, we are able to caleulate the transmissibility, , defined as, T=khip But the reservoir i also characterized by its storage, S, defined by, ay S-6hG ne Yow “Thus, we may intuitively suspect thatthe dimensionless expression (C’t) n- ‘cludes both T and § as well as the wellbore radius rq, since it has not been included in the expression for m. Indeed, the following expression is dimen- sionless and satisfies our intuition: oy, Gy ; \t aN oe ae wh where N = « number oe is, 4 Ni a J - ‘TodetermineN, we choose any data point from Table 1-1 during the early transient state, i¢., at < 40 hrs. By choosing t = 0.1 hr and the corre- sponding AP = 74.8 psi, and substituting in Equation 1-14, we get: ce N= 5.916 x 10-* Since log N= ~ 3.23, Equation 1-5 can now be written in its complete form as: Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 15 k ap =m log t+ tog [-* | ~ 3.29 ee 15) fe lecal | uw oe Equations 119 and 1-15 are valid when the following set of ld units is used: psi, STB/D, RB/STB, md, ft, hr, ', and ep. Although the time, tin Equation 1-18 is given in hours, the slope ofthe straight line on the semi-log plot will not change if tis plotted in days, min- tte, or seconds, Let us consider the casein svhich is measured in minutes Equation 1-15 could be written as: " real en Ce arm fg (+o locke ‘This equation shows again that a plot of AP versus log t, where tis in min- utes, yields a straight line of slope m. The same results obtained when tis measured in days or in seconds, From the preceding discussion and refults we conclude that if a well is ‘closed until the pressure stabilizes at P, and then produced at a constant rate, 4, the following sequence of events takes place. uring the early transient state, a plot of AP = P, ~ Puy versus log t gives a straight line of slope m = 162.6 q B, x/k h. From the slope, itis fy possible to determine the transmissibility, T, and if the viseosity 1, s <7 Keown, determine the production eapacity Kh, and ifh is known, de. termine k. If the wel is closed during the transient state, the pressure will stabilize essentially at P 2. Shortly after the pressure transient reaches the drainage boundary, the “emi-steady state begins. During this state the rate of pressure diop as ‘measured at the wel is equal to the rate of pressure drop throughout the drainage area of the well, which means that P ~ Pyris a constant, where P is the pressure at which the well would stabilize if it was closed during the semf-steady state. A plot of AP = P; ~ Pas (or just Py) versus t gives a straight line of slope mgs from which the product V, G.can be determined. However, identification of the beginning of the straight line on the rectangular plot can be difficult and uncertai. Depending on the scale used, it is quite possible to identify a straight line that, in reality falls in the transient state, which would give the {impression thatthe drainage area of the wel is smaller than it really i.16 Well Test Analysis [dentification ofthe straight line on the rectangular plot fs even more dif- ficult when the production rte, q, is small in comparison to the production capacity ofthe well, kh, Tb see this, let us assume in our example of Table rT thatthe reservoir thickness s 100 f instead of 20 ft. Equations 1-13 and 115 clearly show that both m and mp, are inversely proportional to the net pay thickness, h. Thus, when h ~ 100 ft, the pressure drop is obtained by Iltiplying the pressure data in Table L-l by 0.2. ~~ Figure 17 is a plot of the pressure-time data, assuming that his 100 ft. Tt should be clear ftom this figure that neither the beginning nor the slope of the straight line could be determined with any degree of accuracy. Bearing in mind that these data are ideal, actual field data would be much moro Aiffca to interpret. Le AP=(Pi-Pul) ps 4" cy 7 e810 1040 Producing Time tp (hes) Figure 1-7. Semi-og plot of (Pt ~ Pw) vs producing time, t. Data from Table 1-1 multiplied by 0.2 eee PARK JONES METHOD “This method, introduced by Park Jones (1956), i sometimes helpful in de- tecting the semi-steady state, expecially when Pye fluctuates due to small fluctuations inthe production rate, q. To develop the necessary equations, we first rewrite the transient drawdown equation (Equation 1-15) in terms Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 17 of he natural ogenth, In, and then take the dervative with respect ot as jn 5918 x 10-4 Inte onan dap _6qBp and 44? 706.9 ae” kht ‘Next, we define the function Y, as follows: y= 24 dar ab dt ‘Then, for the transient state, 1004» Y kht (L186) and tog Y= ~Iog + ng OHA an ‘Equation 1-17 shows that during the transient state a plot of ¥ versus t on Jog-log graph paper should yield a straight line, making an angle of 45°. Itis, ‘possible to determine the permeability, k, by choosing any time, t, and read- ing the corresponding value of Y off the graph and then substituting in Equation 1-16. Differentiation of the semi-teady state drawdown equation (Equation 1-13) with respect to t yields: aap _ 0.0417 By at VG from which, 1 YY (eins) (43) “Thus, during the smtsteady state a plot of ¥ vers ton log og graph pa yields horizontal ine with an intecept equal to 1/V, Cy. OF couse, the18 Well Test Analysis interpreter does not need to know a priori the beginning of the semi-steady state, All thats needed isto calculate the Y function and then plot ¥ versus ¢ fn log-log graph paper, (This plot will be referred to here as the Park Jones plot.) ‘Dpillustrate the application of the Park Jones method, we will utilize the data of Table 1-1 and Equations 1-13 and 1-15 to fill in additional data points, ‘The results aze shown in Table 1-2, and Figure 1-8 is the correspond- ing Park Jones plot. Table 1-2 / IMustration of the Park Jones Method Field Data ‘alculation of ¥ Function dap 1 ap at en, (osn (ositne) ° es = = o4 var resi" = 10 9233 sat 220 20 9782 30 o78 30 0071 22 047 40 102.80 uv 035 50 104860 geo 12007 02, - 90012027 ons: 0.082 wo 120.42 0.243 04s 0.243 08s + Batteo 495 [98.51 + 62012} = 220 Referring to Figure 1-8 and choosing t ~ 4.5 rs, the corresponding Y = 0.3, Thus, by Equation 1-16, Lots w j= LOLA He Yat 1604.4 x 0.8 Osx Wx45 = 50 md Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 19 0 10 7 7 toe TOY Producing Time t, hrs Figure 18. Park Jones plo; data from Table +2 From the intercept of the horizontal line which describes the semi-steady state on Figure 1-8, the reservoir pore volume of the drainage area of the ‘well is caleulated by Equation 1-18 as follows: 1 Veeco YG a 0.0432 x (15.55 x 1 = 1.489 x 10 RB Its evident that the Park Jones method is helpful in detecting the begin: ning of the semicdeady state, hut it requires highly arcurate data. Ale, when the rate of pressure decline is very small, and when real field data are ‘being used, itis possible to obtain the horizontal line which is characteristic ‘of the semi-steady state even though the well is stil in the transient state, In ‘other words, the Park Jones method is not always successful in correctly20, Well Test Analysis {identifying the beginning of the semi-steady state. The main strength of the Park Jones method is in interpreting the transient state. Because it is often difficult to stabilize the production rate, q, from the instant of producing the well, the semi-log plot of AP versus t may not clearly project the straight line as predicted by Equation 1-15, On the Park Jones plot, however, the data could form a scatter, but the lope of the straight ine to be fitted to the seatter is always equal to one. . Tt is important to remember that if several wells afe producing from the same interconnected segment of the reservoir, and if the well being tested is thought to be producing at the semi-steady stato, then all the wells in that segment of the reservoir must be producing at the semi-steady state. Thus, regardless of what the Park Jones plot shows, the interpreter can decide from the production history of the neighboring wells whether all the wells are producing at the semi-steady state. Also, i the Park Jones plot indicates that the semi-steady state has been reached but calculation of V, leads to an un- realistically small r., then the interpreter should realize that the appearance of the semi-steady state on the plot is erroneous, "THE PRESSURE DERIVATIVE METHOD. ‘This method, introduced by Bourdet etal. (1084), is somewhat similar to ‘the Park Jones method. However, in the presure derivative method, the de- rivative s taken with respect tologt, and the results are also plotted on log- Jog graph paper. During the transient drawdown period, the necessary equation is derived as follows: k = m|log t+ - (0-15 AP mllogt + log Es - 9.28 (15) and ———~ wit? m\ as) og 5. ‘Thus, a plot of d AP/d(log t) versus ton log-log graph paper should yield « horizontal line with an intercept equal to m. During the semi-steady state, we refer to the semi equation: LO0017 Be 6 9m fing 2472 - ap = 20872 2m [og A ag weady state drawdown Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 2 dap _daP) dt Since Fogg” dt * IQoe5 when ASP ONT GB, dt Tog)” VG 0 * Damage Pan <0 —+ Stimulation ‘APan = 0 + No damage or stimulation ‘To account for the skin effect, Equations 1-15 and 1-13 are modified as follows: D ap =m [loge + og 5k ~ 9.95] + Pan o portoves reg 99 2 ana ap = 2079 52m fig A ar aay We could define APjys in any way we please. For example, we could de- fine it as: Pa where s is a dimensionless number called the skin factor. However, in well testing, AP, has been defined as: _ML2 a Be Fh AP ain = 087 msPy Well Tast Analysis observed prossure vransiont ke > k= stimulation Pan = Pitta ~ Pld ~ He) Figure 1-10. The skin zone. Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 25 Accordingly, Equations 1-15 and 1-13 are written as follows: k oO ee 42m fg 2 + 04055 o: AP =m [logt+ 3] (29) and AP = img t+ Gye 40.87 ms 2 where Flog K-28 +0875 sm, = 20817 4 Bo ve ViG Ata, Cpe = 2m flog It should be evident thats cannot be determined by Equation 1-28 unless the permeability k, is known Since both k and sare readily obtainable from the transient drawdown equation (Equation 1-22), Equation 1-23 is not used for the determination of either k ors, Its main use is to determine V, 6, ‘By solving Kiguation 1-22 for s, one obtains: kt ai eGR +3.23) 34) ‘To find s, choose any time t on the semi-log straight line and substitute the corresponding AP in Equation 1-24. For example, let us refer to Figure 1-5. ‘We already found that mn = 17.56 pstieyele. Let us choose t = 2.5 hrs; the26 Will Tost Analysis corresponding pressure drop AP = 99.33 psi, Substituting in Equation 1-24 we get +3.93| [s0.38 30x25 =0.00 ‘Asa special case, we could set ¢ equal to 1 hr in the expression for s (Equa- tion 1-24), Tn this ease the expression for s becomes: Pe k peta Big Bog = ‘Equation 1-25 is the standard equation for determination of s. To use this equation, one must choose t = Ihr, and if there is no straight line at one hhour, one simply extends the straight line to one hour and then reads the corresponding AP on the semi-log plot. ‘Te is important to keep in mind that the skin factor, s, represents the change in the permeability in the vicinity of the wellbore only if the reser- voir is horizontal and homogeneous with respect to permeability, porosity, ‘water saturation, thickness, and compressibility; contains oi of constant vis- cosity and low compressibility; and the well penetrates the entire pay sec- tion, If one or moze of these conditions is not met, or if errors are made in ‘estimating any of the reservoir or fluid parameters, then s will be found dif- ferent from zero even though its real value is zero, “To see how this could happen, let us suppose that we mistakenly took h equal to 30 ft instead of 20 ft, Then, k = 83.33 md, and by substituting in Equation 1-25, we obtain s = 0.21. ‘Although this value of ss not sufficiently large to warrant any action, the result shows that an error made in estimating a reservoir parameter could result ina value ofs that is not zero. Thus, in reality, sis not only a measure of the changes in permeability that occur in the vicinity of the wellbore; itis the sum of all reservoir heterogeneities and errors made in estimating reser- voir and fluid parameters as well a the changes in permeability in the vi ity of the wellbore. Under most circumstances it is not possible to know how much of sis due to inherent reservoir conditions that deviate from the ideal conditions. ‘in the preceding example it was assimed that an error had occurred only in the net thickness, h, However, rock compressibility, fluid saturations, and oil compressibility are usually uncertain quantities. When the reservoir pressure is close to the bubble point pressure of the oil it contains, estimates ‘of oil compressibility under testing conditions could be in error by a factor of Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 97 10 or more, In our example, substitution of ©, = 15.55 x 10-5 instead of 15.55 x 10° in Equation 1-25 would result in a value of s of 1.20. Tt should be evident that: 520 + Damage <0 ~ Stimulation $= 0 + No damage or stimulation Avalue of s which is different from 0 does not necessarily indicate damage or stimulation unless the reservoir and the oil contained in it are homogene- ‘ous with respect to all parameters, and that the correct values ofall these parameters have been inserted in Equation 1-25. Recently, Villalobos etal. (1989) showed that because of turbulence, a positive skin will he obtained ‘when analyzing tests of high volume oil wells ‘The skin effect ean also be viewed as a modification of the wellbore ra- dius, To see this, Equation 1-22 is written in terms of the natural logarithm, as follows: _ 0.6 Bu {,, 5.916 x 10-# kt ap = DEAR E lig SOC aas ouGre fnssicxio~ i one) a ng = appt wel rad Then, Ta = Fw e°* ‘and the equation can be written in terms of ra, as follows: HC Tay Ls Teshould be evident that for positives, tyy < ty and for negatives, tgs > Tye THE RADIAL FLOW EQUATION Jn the preceding sections we have derived the dravidown equations on the basis of simple mathematics and intuitive reasoning. These equations are valid only when the pressure, Py, is recorded inthe wellbore. Ifthe pressure is measured in an observation well located at a distance r > ry, then the ‘equations we have derived until now are not valid.28 Well ost Analysis [An equation that is valid at an observation well is derived by solving the radial flow equation, which is @ linear, partial differential equation given (1-26) where S and T are the storage (¢ h C) and transmissibility (K hip), respeo- tively. The pressure, Py 18 that observed at any given time, t, at any point ‘within the drainage area of the well located a distance r = 14. The constant 3,192 (=1/2.64 x 10-4) is necessary when field units (psi, ft, hr, md, STBY D, ep) are used. ‘Derivation of Equation 1-26 is based on the following assumptions: 1, The flow is radial 2, The fluid is slightly compressible. 3. (@PIan}* = 0. Radial flow occurs only if, within the drainage area ofthe well, the zeservoi is Ihorizontal, each of its properties (k, Sey Cy bi the same in all directions, the well penetrates the entire pay section, and the reservoir is thin such that vertical variation of P due to gravity is insignificant. The second requirement ‘means thatthe fluid compressibility is constant, which means that Equation 1- ‘26 isnot suitable for gas reservoirs. The third requirement means that the pres- sure gradient P/ér at any point located at a distance r from the well i small such that (@P/9r)? = 0. For example, if dP/@r = 0.01, then (9P/2:}* = 0. There- fore, if AP atthe wellbore is very large, then Equation 1-26 may not be appica- ble. Also if the skin zone is not infinitesimal but extends a finite distance, ty from the well, then Equation 1-28 may not be applicable inthe strict sense. Its very important to keep these requirements in mind because ignoring them often leads to wrong interpretations. ‘The transient solution to Equation 1-26 is given by: azn | (1-28) \ where AP =P\-Pre : ja presse observed at time € at distance from the well Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 29 Atte to, Pra = Pos, and Equation 1-28 becomes equal to Equation 1-15. ‘This actually happens a few seconds after producing the well at the constant rate, q, because the exponential integral, ~ Ei {x}, can then be approx- {mated by a logarithmie function. In general, for x < 0.02, the exponential {integral is approximated by: Ei { —x} = ~ 2.908 log x + 0.25) Forr > ry, x could attain values less than 0.02 at large values of producing time, t. Thus, the logarithmic approximation is valid at r= ry when t is ‘greater than a few seconds. For r > rq, the approximation is valid providing that the producing time, , is sufficiently large such that x < 0.02. Forx > 10, the exponential integral is essentially equal to zero. The exponential in- ‘twgral is presented in graphical form in Figures 1-11, 1-12, and 1-13. Tt can also be evaluated on @ computer through the use of the programs given later in this chapter. 10%, 107 4 ‘i t 10 5-9) Figure 1-11. Evaluation of the exponential integral. X = 0.001 - 0.4Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 31 : “To see an application of the exponential integral, let us suppose that we c wish to ealeulate the pressure drop that should be observed at a point lo- 7 cated 100 ft from our well. For this purpose we evaluate Equation 1-28 as follows xe (gp 770.8 X 100 1.35 x 0.8 | | = =7.6248 Ei | By evaluating the exponential integral at different values of t, we obtain the | data shown in Table I-4, J Suppose that AP at the producing well is not equal to zero, but the skin word be iH | zone is infinitesimal. What would be the pressure drop at the observation 10 KH) : well? The answer is that the pressure drop atthe observation well will not | ‘change from that shown in Table 1-4. This is because APa occurs only ia Figure 1-12. Evaluation ofthe exponenti | the vicinity ofthe producing wellbore. Thismay not be true, however, if the 10 I H Table 1-4 é Pressure at Observation Well 7 i (r= 100 1) x i ' -5 { = C | (we) oon 7 i 0s Boa x 10-+ = * | 008 Bare to 52x10 | O10 ‘69 x 10-* ox8 O45 oosr 043 7 o20 0333 O88 00 0.49 358 ono O70 B08 ‘00 O96 12 200 528 ree 00 to 1489 “00 2am teva VO Die rita ag t 500 23a iver sooo 3028 aor 8D 20 3705 mas ano ste a8 Figure 1-13, Evaluation of the exponential integral. X = 1.0 - 10.0.32 Well st Analysis skin zone is large and the observation well s very close to the producing well. DETECTION OF A LINEAR BOUNDARY [A linear boundary is « physical boundary such as a sealing fault, the oi ‘water contact, permeability pinchout, or an abrupt change in the diffusi ity, 9, defined by: 2.64 x10. 5 2.64 x 10-4 k on ‘Suppose that the tested well is located near a linear boundary, as shown in Figure 1-14, Intuitively, one would expect the pressure drop as observed in ‘the tested well to be greater than the pressure drop that would occur if the boundary did not exist. To account for the additional pressure drop due to the presence of the linear boundary, an image wel is placed on the other side of the boundary at a distance equal to the distance between the original well and the boundary (Figure 1-14), and the boundary itself is removed. The pressure drop at the original well would be the sum of the pressure drop as caloulated by Equation 1-22 and the pressure drop due to the image well as wel! ‘mage Figure 1-14, Well near a linear bound- ary, Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 33, calculated by Equation 1-28. Thus, the pressure drop at the tested well is given by: G (2d) AP =m flog t +5] = (1-29) where AP =P; ~ Pye = distance between well and barrier (Figure 1-14), ft At the beginning of the test, when tis very sinall, the exponential integral is ‘essentially equal to zero and the pressure drop at the well is represented by Equation 1-29. As t increases, the exponential integral is represented by the logarithmic approximation, and thus the pressure drop is given by: arm flogt 3}~m og (M82#G- 28 «05 =m toge +5} fot te gE apa 8.25} = 2m log t + constant (1-30) According to Equations 1-29 and 1-80, the slope of the straight line on the semi-log plot doubles as t becomes large. Thus, in the presence of a linear boundary, a plot of AP versus t on semi-log graph paper produces the usual straight line of lope m, and as t becomes large, the slope gradually increases ‘to 2m. The skin factor, s, can be determined by Equation 1-95 by finding Phir on the straight line of slope m. It cannot be determined from the straight line of slope 2m, beceuse, as Equation 1-30 shows, the constant term (the intercept) includes two unknown quantities: the skin factor, , and the dis- tance, d, to the linear boundary. Once the skin factor is determined from the early straight line, it would then be possible to solve Equation 1-80 for the distance, d. “Table 1-5 presents a listing ofthe drawdown data plotted on Figure 1-15. Note the presence of the two straight lines as predicted by Equation 1-30, Note also that the change from m to 2m occurs over more than one cycle of time, Krom the slope, m = 17.56 psi/eyele, and using the same flow, PV'I, and reservoir description parameters of our well, the permeability is found equal to 50 md. From the value of APjy, = 122.8 psi and Equation 1-25, the skin factor, s, is estimated at 2.‘M4 Well Test Analysis Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 35, Table 1-5 ‘Toestimate the distance, d, between the well and the linear boundary, we Detection ofa Linear Boundary make use of Equation 1-20: eee 58 Aor =m +o -3: om om (es) log t+ ogee nae 20 ‘so29 0.87 s+ log_—_* sx 20 * +0.87 s+ log* __, - 008 20 14589 ; P85 uC, a ox0 40 os ‘ ; 2 0 09 qeast ofetore 2ts k— — 640 +0875 2g} an O80 20 traa0 oEGh 930 soo ‘e000 : me ee Thus, d = 0.5 x 10-7 039) ar k where y= fa log ~ Io + 8.28 ~ 0.495 , i BE EG | ‘To determine d in our example, we choose any point on the straight line of ° slope 2m and substitute in Equation 1-32. Choosing t = 10 hrs and AP = 165.5 psi, \ 4205 x 10-(0e0-1-t+332-089 g =48 ft ‘The distance to the linear boundary may also be estimated by finding t,, g the time at which the straight lines of slopes m and 2m intersect (Figure a 1.15), Then by equating Equations 1-22 and 1-30 we get: 7 si + k é milo som[s2s—t taal & id * 570, Ga a8 kt f - or d= 0.012 | =| ow Cl 7 In our example, t, = 0.45. Thus, the distanee, d, is given by: ‘ see 0 i 10 10" 90 x 0.9 Figure 1-15. Semi-log plot showing change in slope due to a linear boundary; data from Table 1-5. sar it36° Well st Analysis [At this polnt itis necessary to stress the following: 1. ‘The first part of Equation 1-29 Is a solution of the radial flow Equa- tion 1-28 at r = rq. The second part of Equation 1-29 is a solution of Equation 1-26 atr ~ 2d. The summation of the two solutions, as given by Equation 1-29, is known as superposition with respect to distance, ‘Later we will see the other form of superposition: superposition with respect to time. 2, The presence of a linear boundary causes the slope of the straight line on the semi-log plot to change from m to 2m, But, the occurrence of ‘ovo steaight lines of slopes m and 2m does not by itself imply the pres- cence of a linear boundary. Later we will see that a change in the slope of the straight line could occur in response to other forms of reservoir hheterogeneities. Thus, unless there is supporting evidence from gecl- ogy and/or seismic interpretation, well tests can only infer the exist- cence of the boundary, {tis possible to extend the method of images to account for intersecting ‘and parallel boundaries. For example suppose our wel is located near two linear, mutually perpendicular boundaries, as shown in Figure 1-16, In this Image Wt oS ° nage imaoe & ‘ Figure 1-16, Well near two perpendicular boundaries. Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 97 ‘case we place three images as shown in the figure. To account for images 1 and 3, we simply add the data of Tables 1-{ and 1-5. To account for the secondl image, we evaluate Equation 1-28 with r = 2 V2 d. The results are shown in Table 1-6 and plotted on Figure 1-17. Note that in this case the slope of the second straight line is 4 times the first slope. In general, the fol- owing rule applies: ope of won ara ie = 22 where m = slope of the first straight line, psileycle {= angle between the two boundaries If the two boundaries are parallel, then the number of images would be infinite, in much the same way as when one views himself/herself between ‘two parallel mirrors. Of course one need only account for a finite number of & i 2g ISN z 2 zd = 144 3 g Yo* 107 10 10% 1 Producing Time tp, hrs Figure 1-17. SemHiog plot showing change in slope dus to two perpendicular boundaries; data from Table 16. : perpen38 Well Test Analysis mages, since the distant images would have a negligible effect, and the more distant the image isthe longer it will take for its effect to be felt at the producing well. ‘COMPUTER PROGRAMS TO EVALUATE THE EXPONENTIAL INTEGRAL ‘Programs 1-1 and 1- were written in GWBASIC, For values of x = 1.5, ‘evaluation of ~ Ei (—x) was based on the following expression: -Bi(-a)- faa tne 9) — Ms (u/3!) + I 1 was found sufficient to carry the integration to the upper limit of 10.5 instead of o» and to evaluate the series to x", For x > 1.5, itis best to inte- tate by Simpson's Rule over the interval x and x + 10.5. But to obtain good accuracy, the interval was divided into 2,000 intervals. Because GWBASIC has no direct means of calculating nl, it was calculated by evaluating the ‘Gamma Function: Ti+) Although, in this particular program, the factorial could have been easily ‘evaluated inside the loop (lines 60-100), the Gamma Funetion was given to show an alternate method of calculation. Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 39) Program 1-1 Evaluation of Exponential Integral Given the Value of x CLSDEFDEL AHOZINPUT XA IFA > 15 THEN GOTO 210 REM INTEGRAL(EXP( ~ X90) = LNOQ = X + SUM( = 1) ~ Nex ~ NWN) Y4 = L0a(10.8) ~ LOGI) Y= 0va~0 FORN = 17031 osus 140 B= YB + ((~ 1)" Nw (10.5) ” NY GAMMA) YS.= 3+ ((= 1)“ N)(A~ NVINSeGAMMA) NEXT Ya= Yi + Y2— YOPRINT “THE INTEGRAL IS "v4 oro 330 EM GAMMA + 1) =X! XeNet Pim 316150068 42, G2 = SAR(2 PUY) xEXPLY xLOGQY) + (1 ~ 190" RYZE Y) ~ Y) GAMMA = G2IK#(K + 1) RETURN REM INTEGRATION BY SIMPSON'S RULE DEF FNFOQ = EXP( ~ XK: B= A+ 105 KK = 2007DIM YC): D = (B ~ AYIKK = 1: X= A FOR J = 1 TO KK: YW) = FNEQO: X= X + DINEXT J ono) TO KK = 2 STEP 2 (000 = 000+ 2m YY) NeXT ev-9 FORJ = 270 kk -1 STEP2 EV~EV+ 44 YY) NEXT Dise(vV(t)+ EV + 00D + YK) PRINT "THE INTEGRALS ":¥ END Program 1-2 Determination of x Given the Value of the Exponential Integral ‘OLS: DEFDBL AH,OZDIM Zi-001): DEF FNDOX = EXP — 70% INPUT "WHAT IS THE GIVEN VALUE OF ~ El(~)":¥INPUT "YOUR ESTIMATE OF x" Ax FOR = 1 70 100 GosuB 110 IPARSYY ~ ¥4) < ont THEN 410 X12 x= (¥ — YayENODH) =x sgagese Bs (orvram cotnuad on nx page)40 Wall Tost Analysis Program 1-2 5 Continued 400 NEXT 110 IFA > 1.8 THEN GOSUB 290 :RETURN, 420 EM INTEGRAL(EXP( ~ XV) = LIX) ~ X + SUM((— 1) “ NeX” NINEND) 490 ¥1 = LOG(t0.5) ~ LOGrA) 140 ¥2.=0¥3 = 450 FORN=1 7031 460 GOSUE 370 YB ¥2 + (= 1) * Npx((105) * NN GAMMA) 180 Y8.= 8 + (= 1)" N)w(A” NVINRGAMNA) 390 NEXT N 200 Ya= Yi + ¥2—Y9 210 RETURN 220 REM GANMAQ + 1) =X! 230 Xt= Net 240 P= a.14180204 250 YO= XI +2 250 G2 = SOR(2xPIYO}+EXP(YO*LOGNO) + (1 ~ 11{90%YOx¥0)/(12#Y0) ~ YO) 270 GAMMA = G2IRK1#(K1 + 1) 280 RETURN 290 REM INTEGRATION BY SIMPSON'S ULE 300 B=A+ 105 10 KK = 2001: D = (8 — AMKK ~ 9): XO = A 820 FOR J = 1 TO KK: 2) = FNO(K2) X2 = X2 + DINEXT J 300 00D = 0: FOR J ='STO KK ~2 STEP 2 {340.000 = ODD + 24210) 350 NEXT J 380 EV=0 370 FOR J = 270 KK 1 STEP 2 280 EV =EV + 4424) 290 NEXT J 400 Y4 = Did (Z(t) + EV + ODD + ZIKK):RETURN 4310 PRINT “THE VALUE OF X I 420 END Program 1-2 is used when the value of ~ Ei (~x) is given and it is desr~ able to determine x. The program is based on the Newton-Raphson method and makes use of the entire Program I-1 as a subroutine. RADIUS OF INVESTIGATION “The radius of investigation, rin, of a given test is the effective distance travelled by the pressure transients, as measured from the tested well. Intul- tively, one would expect riy to be proportional to the duration of the pro- duction time, ty, of the test. Thus, ray of a test that lasts for 24 hrs is larger Fondamentals of Drawdown Testing 41 than the fey of atest that only lasts for 6 hrs providing, of course, that the semi-steady state is not reached during the first 6 hrs of the test. Ifthe se steady state is reached at t, = 5 hs, for example, then the radius of invest gation for any t, > 5 hrs is equal to the radius of drainage, re ‘The radius of investigation depends on the speed by which the pressure ‘waves (transients) propagate through the reservoir rock. This speed is deter- 1mined by the reservoir and fluid properties, such as: porosity, fluid vis- cosity, a; total compressibility, Cs and permeability, k, However, like sound ‘waves, the speed of pressure waves must not vary due to variations in ampli- ‘tude. Since, for a given reservoir, pressure amplitude variations are directly related to variations in the production rate, q, the speed of the pressure ‘waves must be independent of q. ‘To find the radius of investigation, we have to seek an expression for the speed of the presure waves through the reservoir rock. To do that, we must first become familiar with the meaning of an impulse; second, we must re- view the rules of differentiation under the sign of integration; and, third, the reader should review the beginning of Chapter 2 regarding the principle of superposition with respect to time. ‘A.unit impulse, or an impulse, is simply a pulse of a very short duration, At, such that qB, At ~ 1 RB. If, for example, we inject in a well for At = T minute, then to create an impulse, we must inject at the constant rate, q By, ‘of 1,440 RBID, because with this injection rate q B, At = 1 RB. If we choose to inject for only 15 seconds, we must inject at the rate of 5.760 RB/D in ‘order to initiate the impulse. Although creating an impulse cannot be achieved in practice, the impulse i a significant concept which forms the basis of impulse testing (see Chapter 8). ‘Having defined the impulse, let us refresh our memories with some of the clementary aspects of calculus. In particular, # uy and ty are functions of both r and t, then, eH au, uy ot eau, a at42 Well Test Analysis a then 8 {ew} ext bet Huj=brit, wee, 2 {mous} ao te t “Let us imagine that at t = 0 we initiate an impulse in the reservoir by {injecting in a well while observing the pressure in an observation well lo- ‘cated a distance r froin the injection well. Our objective isto determine the time of artival of the impulse at the observation well, and thus be able to determine the speed of the presure wave through the reservoir, Let, = qBs ~ injection rate, RB/D qB, + production rate, RB/D "Tofind the pressure drop AP, = Pj ~ P,x at the observation well, we super- pose Equation 1-28 as follows: 70.6 (~ Bt py Kb (aPeade= and (AP.Je™ ‘The sum is given by: AP. = (APradi GBs 70.6 a Bus fp | —248 6 nC _ -msam Ia kt a Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 43 rh 45 fb which, in the limit as At — -bs t Denes (1-33) Equation, 1.38 is known as the unit impulse response. We could ignore the negative signin this equation and keep in mind that an impulse induced by injection causes a pressure rise atthe observation well P,, > P), whereas an impulse induced by production causes a pressure drop (P, > P,,). Without the requirement that q B At/24 = 1 RB, the derivation would have led to: 1,604.4 g B Ate APs MEAT kt Let Q = total production or injection, RB, then Q = q B At/24 and the ‘above equation becomes: 1,604.4 Qu kRt (1-34) 948 6 Cl kt Equation 1-34 is valid when the elapsed time, ¢, is much greater than the uration of the impulse, At. ‘Equation 1-33 has been evaluated, without the 24 multiplier, atr = 10ft for a reservoir of the following parameters: @ = 0.12; 4 = 0.8 ep;Deserta Coenen aseciencenatie Ladson 44 Well st Analysis ©, = 15.55 x 10-Ppsi; k= 50 ma; and h = 20 ft. The results are given in ‘Table 1-7 and displayed on Figure 1-18. Note that the maximum pressure response occurs at taux Which is given by: fossec. ‘| te ‘This result could have also been obtained by differentiating Equation 1-33 ‘with respect to t and equating to 0. "The equation for tna ives the relationship between the time of arrival of the pressure wave and the distance z. Thus, in general, for a drawdown test that lass for period of time ty the rads of investigation i given by a ry = 0.0525 el 1.35) x6 : Although the radius of investigation is independent of q, our ability to measure the change in pressure, AP, at an investigation well depends on q- Table 1-7 Radius of Investigation (r= 10 ft) (ts) AP & esas 04 {aeH0E-08 ONO ‘5.660705 08 ee7e9e-02 020 BaO10SE=08 «2 7OGSELOD © S.z8RAOE-O1 OD {asvi4e 03 —«4.00806E +00 «5 S7BRSE-01 040 {aist7e—08 —«SADIZTE+0O —«7SS7SQE-O1 0.60 {enezie-03 —«B2B17E+00 —«BSSERSE-01 0.60 Lose 0s —««GESIGTEY0O © 9.S0627E-01 0.70 22628603 —«“714055E +00 © B.7SS01E-01 0.80 2ee7sie-0s —«729888E +00 -—«.BHaSBE-01 0.00 2ea0s5 08 —«7-34108E +00 ———*1.00000E+00 1.00, 511330603 7. 80885E+00 —«9.95809E-01 1.10 300e2E 08 «7. 22706E +00 © S.BAABTE-OV 1.20 Beradse—08 © 7NZT7E+00 © .88809E-01 10, 3962495-03 «GO7776Es00—«GSNSBE-O1 140. G2assoe 03 —«G.88021E 400 98NK0BE-01 180 “52050608 —«GB7S7OE400 —«9.08069E-01 1.60 ‘arsse—0a «GS 1006E+00 © B.S7OZNE-01 1.70 SopiesE—o9 —«G 0074E +00 .REASTE-O1 1.80 SS77r6eE—03 —«G2047SEF00 —«BASIOE-01 190 Bee070E-03 —-«G.0S170E+00 —«S.2ABEDE-01 2.00 Sous7se 0s ——-S902H0E400 ——BOKUAZE-O1 210 “By md athe remand prosute op and ns, reapsciveh Fundamentals of Drawdown ‘esting 45 J] ©. [~~ Ge : ° LJ °F 1 2 4 5 6 & (ve x €-03) 3. Impulse response at r = 10 f; data from Table 1-7 ‘The higher is, the lees the pressure drop andthe eer rw measure it. Even with the use of very sensitive pressure gauges, the pressure Grop aan obervation sel st be ager han the background noe gener. ated by lunar-solar tides and other activities in the field in order for us to detect it, and thus q must be sufficiently large. ‘Table 1-1 shows two sets of data. The first set consists of time, t, and AP as calculated by Equation 1-33. This set of data is plotted on Figure 118. The second set of data is obtained by normalizing the data of the firs set. The normalization is made by dividing each time increment in the fist set by tian and each AP by AP. These data are shown on Figure 1-19. The pur- pose of Figure 1-19 is to show the form ofthe response at the observ ‘well. While the amplitude ofthe response shown on Figure 1-18 will dim: ish as the distance to the observation well, s, increases, the form of the re sponse as shown on Figure 1-19 will not change. The reader can easily verify this conclusion by placing the observation well at r = 100 ft, for example, substituting in Equation 1-33, and then calculating the normalized time and pressure "The form of the impulke response is rather strange: it appears as if t eon. sits of diferent presuze components. Some of these components travel faster than others, which makes the response somewhat diffused even though it was generated by a sharp pulse. For this reason, its not possible to obtain the radius of investigation by simply substituting into Equation 1-28,46 Well Test Analysis 10 09 oo OS TO 1S 20 25 SO Normalized Time Figure 1-19. Normalized impulse response; data from Table 1-7. as this procedure could conceivably give a radius of investigation which is ‘much larger than that obtained by Equation 1-35 due to the fact that some pressure components do travel faster than others, as shown by the norma- lized pressure response of Figure 1-19. TEqustion 1-95 could have also been derived by a totally different method {tis reasonable to expect the slope of the transient drawdown to be equal to the slope of the semi-steady state drawdown at r= r,, Thus, by equating Equations 1-16 and 1-18 we get: 1,604.4 4 5.615, Elite eho 948 6 Ce K Thus, Ge 0:36) Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 47 where tps = time to reach the semt-steady state, hrs For any producing time, tp, Equation 1-36 can be written as: te MBS EC ee " k which is the same result obtained through the impulse response. However, as we will ee later, if the shape ofthe drainage area isa square rather than & circle, Equation 1-36 is not entirely correct because it takes a little longer to reach the semi-steady state, and the equation for tis given by: eo HMRC, aan "THE STEADY STATE GASE, So far ‘ve have discussed both the transient and semi-steady state cases. Now we introduce the steady state case that occurs if thé pressure at the boundary of the drainage area is maintained constant. This happens ifthe boundary of the drainage area of the wel isthe oil-water contact and the ‘water drive is active, or ifthe well is surrounded by injection wells as in a ‘water-flooding situation. It can also happen if the gas-oil contact between large gas cap and the oil zone forms the boundary of the drainage area of the ‘well. In all these situations, the tested well experiences the usual transient flow period which is followed by the steady state. tis seldom, if ever, that a true steady state can be reached except under flooding conditions. But, as we will se, there is a major advantage to the study of the steady state case When the pressure transients reach the drainage boundary where the pressure is maintained constant, the flow through the boundary must equal the production rate ofthe well q. Asa result, no pressure decline in Pu is further observed at the producing well, and the pressure at the external boundary, ,, must remain equal tothe initial presse, ,. Under these con Alitions, the drawdown equation is given by: less asm ty” 3303]48 Well Tet Analysis Equation 1-98 is derived in Chapter 11. The equation shows that during the steady stat the presure drop, P. ~ Pag is not dependent on time. Ace cordingly, when testing # wel that produces from a drainage ares bounded bya constant presse boundary, the observed pressure atthe well wll ni tally decline as deeribed by the transient flow: equation (Equation 1-22) find once the presure transients have reached the drainage boundary, the presi drop will remain at the constant value given by Equation 1-38, “Thus, a plot of AP = P, ~ Pa (or just Pg) versus time on rectangular graph ‘paper wil give the usual curve, whichis characteristic of the transient flow period, followed by a horizontal line, On semi-log araph paper the data will Show the usual straight Line of slope, m, followed by a horizontal line. “The results stated above can also occur in practice during the transient state the case ofa high productivity well which produces from a reservoir af high permeability, To see this, consider the following reservoir, produe- tion, and fluid data: q= 2,500 STB/D B, = 1.5 RB/STB po = L2ep fy = 0.33 ft = 18x 10-%psi b= 2005 6 = 0.08 = 4,600 psi s=5 k= 3,000 ma With these data, we can eastly evaluate Equation 1-22 and plot the results ‘on rectangular graph paper as shown in Figure 1-20. Figure 1-20 shows that between 300 and 1,670 hours, the pressure dropped by only one psi. Under actual field conditions, it would be very difficult to discern this very small pressure drop over such a long period of time, and therefore one could easily conclude that the steady state has been reached during the test when in fact the well is producing in the transient state. “The error can sometimes be discovered when one attempts to caleulate r, by Equation 1-38. Thus, assuming steady state conditions were reached at += 300 hours, we can substitute in Equation 1-38 as follows: 16 925.2250 %15x12 [0 4 5. “——“zo00xam «(°F 0.33 * 2.303, From which r, = 8,081 ft Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 49 Pi = Pet, psi ap. 1“ of By 204 & 200400 ‘abo 1000 1260 1400 1600 1800 the Figure 1-20, Rectangular plot of drawdown data of a high productivity well, But by Equation 1-35, ry is calculated as follows: ,000 x 300 I Faw = 0.0825 | 5:00 S00 ___ 0.x 12x 18 x 10-*| = 12,597 ft Since ry must be less than or equal to r,, one may conclude that neither the steady state nor the semi-steady state has been reached at t = 300 hours, ‘CONGLUSIONS In this chapter we have uncovered the subject of drawdown testing under ideal reservoir, fluid, and flow conditions. Before we leave this chapter, however, we must bring the following points into perspective:50 Well Test Analysis 1. Ifthe reservoir is homogeneous with respect to all description parame ters and the production rate fs held constant from the instant of pro- ducing the well, then a plot of AP = P, ~ Py. (or just Pj) versus t on Semi-log graph paper ofthe transient state data gives a straight line. From the slope of the straight line and its intereept, we could deter- rine the transmissibility, T, andthe skin factor, s. But we must be cog- nizant of the fact thatthe mere presence ofthe straight line does not indicate that the reservoir is homogeneous. : 2, The vale of th kn facto 5, meaning ony he reser homogeneous with respect to all description parameters and in caleu- lating, the correct, representative parameters have been substituted in the appropriate equation. 3, Under the most favorable condition, determination of the beginning Of the sem-steady state is highly uncertain. 4. Detection of linear boundaries from well tests is only feasible if tis made with a good understanding of the geology (stratigraphy and structure) ofthe reservoir. 5. In Darey units (Darey, om, se, ep, atm, color) the diffusivity, n, i defined as: arey-atm ey But, 1 Darey = 9.869 x 10-8 em* ep = 0.01 (dyne-see)iem* Latm = 1.01325 x 10° dymelom? ‘Thus, by substituting in the expression for 9, we get: i cem*lsee on Darey-atm _em® In other words, S60 Since 1 atm = 14,696006 pst and 1 ft ~ 30.4801 em 2.637 x 10-*k mest, ft Then en pir 1 2. Fundamentals of Drawdown Testing 51 REFERENCES Jones, Park,“ Reservoir Limit Test,” Oil and Gas Journal, June 18, 1956, pp. 184-196, Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J. A., and Pirard, Y. M., “Use of Pressure Derivative in Well Test Interpretation,” SPE paper 12777, 1984, presented at Call- fornia Regional meeting, Long Beach, CA. |. Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M. F, Applied Petroloum Reserooir Engi- neering. Englewood Clifis: Prentice Hall, Ine. 1958, pp. 287-288. . Villalobos, H. L. et al., “Pressure Transient Behavior of Naturally Frac- ‘tured Reservoirs Considering the Effect of High-Velocity Flow,” SPE pa- per 19787, presented at the 6th Annual Technical Conference and Exhi- ition, San Antonio, Texas, Oct. 8-11, 1989,2 Fundamentals of Pressure Buildup ‘Testing Preeure buildup testing the industry most favored method of well test tng. One reason for this preference stat presre buildup tess do nat e- ings e the close sypervion demanded by oer methods of testing. Another Ras hat when th wel sshutn during the trazset stato, the buildup Tepes, the nial reservoir presure atte level of measurement Ifthe aT Shatin daring the somisteady stato, then es posble to estate {he average tacrvolr pressure inthe drainage area ofthe wall. Although tous denedown snd butldup tet yield the average permeeblity, ky and {En tactor a Gravidown tt doesnot yea Py feast be estimated frm ati wal surveys before running the tot. “hese butts performed a follows dhe wel s produce at « constant rte fora period of tine, apres recorder Is lowered into the fal soy before cosng the well, nd then the wells lowed. I 1 were Yesbletoprodo the well ta constant rat, fom the instant of open- igthe wall to production, then there would be no restsltions onthe length Teeing tine, before shutting the well in However, when ty very SEMID the radios of investigation ofthe drawdown period would be very al lo and the permeability as etimated onthe basi ofthe buildup test Srould only represent the reservoir rock In the immediate vicinity of the Vellboe: Thi could be mileadng Ue permeabity ofthe reservoir rock Wik nunediste vii af the wellbore has bee altered in the course of ling and completing tho well, Usa snot posible to stablize the flow rte from the Instant the wells pot on production, Therefore itis ne teary to produce the well at a constant rate fran extended period of tine, ‘This ensures thatthe test results ane not heavily affected by Muctuations in 52 Fundamentals of Pressure Buildup Testing 53 the flow rate which normally occur when the well is first opened to flow, and extends the radius of investigation of the test beyond the immediate vie cinity of the wellbore, Later on we will discuss the effects of rate fluctuation ‘on the test interpretation results ‘The theory of well test analysis is based on the assumption that wells are closed for buildup or opened for drawdown instantaneously. This is not really true; it takes some time to open or close a well. The theory is also based on the assumption that upon shutting the well in no fluid enters the ‘wellbore, and upon opening the well to produce in a drawdown test, all the production comes from the reservoir, not from the expansion of the fluid contained in the wellbore. In reality, however, the fluids we are dealing with are compresible. Therefore, the reservoir fluid must enter the wellbore upon shutting the well in, so as to transmit the pressure buildup. Likewise, ‘upon opening the well for production, part of the production must come from the expansion of the wellbore fluids, atleast for a short period of time. (On the other hand, if the well is equipped with a packer and tubing, it ‘would be possible to use downhole opening and closing devices to reduce the volume of fluid in the wellbore and thus reduce the effects of wellbore fluid compressibility, In mast cases, however, the well is simply opened or closed at the wellhead. As a result, an important condition of the theory is viola- ted. Later on we will study wellbore effects which develop as a consequence of closing the wel at the surface rather than near the sand face. In this chap- ter we will not consider wellbore effects. ‘A pressure buildup testis performed when the well is producing either in the transient or semi-steady state. In both cases, formulation of the pressure buildup equations is accomplished by superposing the drawdown equations (Equations 1-22 and 1-23) with respect to time. Therefore, the principle of superposition with respect to time must be clearly understood in order to understand the theory of pressure buildup testing. PRINCIPLE OF SUPERPOSITION Suppose that after producing a wel at a constant rate for a certain length of time we decide to shut it in for pressure buildup. Intuitively, we expect fluid movement to continue in the reservoir after shutting the well in, The fact that we shut-in the well means that q=0 at the wellhead. We account for the fluid movement which continues in the reservoir after the well is shut-in as follows: we let the well produce indefinitely at the same constant 4, aun al the instant of shutting the wel in we inject in the same well at the same q, and then we sum the pressure drawdown due to producing q and the same pressure data multiplied by ~ 1 and shifted to the instant of closing the well. The result would be the pressure buildup.i | I 54 Well Test Analysis Table 241 ‘The Principle of Superposition ae Time Shifted Drawdown Data Drawdown Data Multiplied By - 1 Summation + =P P ate on, si) (os ys o 2 ° 1 29 1229 2 82 182 3 3313 3913 4 1935 1335. 5 1952 ° 0 1352 ° 1368 - 1229 1 137 7 1978 = 1282 2 98 8 1388 Tiaa 3 73 a 1307 = 1935 3 62 0 1405 = 1952 5 53. " wate = 1968 8 48 2 sa19 = 1978 7 a 3 12s = 1388 8 a7 4 143.0 = 1307 8 33 15 vaa6 = 1408 10 a 2 1458 | 1438 6 22 25 1075 1488 2 w ‘Asan example, Table 2-1 shows the pressure data obtained by producing ‘well at 100 STB/D, To close this well after, say, 5 hrs of production, we mul- tiply these pressure data by — 1 to designate injection, and then shift the data by 5 rs and sum the pressures as shown in Table 2-1 and on Figure 2-1. ‘This is the principle of superposition used to derive the pressure buildup equations. a DERIVATION OF HORNER'S EQUATION, Derivation of the pressure buildup equation, known as Horner's equa- tion, follows exactly the same superposition procedure discussed earlier. Be- fore we go through the derivation, however, let us refer to Figure 2-2 to get acquainted with the following nomenclature: ‘ty = production time prior to shut-in, hrs [At = shut-in time, measured from the instant of shutting the well in, hs. ‘Thus, At = 0 at the instant of closing the well. Fundamentals of Pressure Buildup Testing 55 150 " 50. 109: 303 6 iOS Time, hours Figure 2-1. Graphical ilustration of superposition, + 27] a a aw o 3 7 1012 Time t, hrs Figure 2-2. Relationship between t,t, and At56 Well Test Analysis ‘t= time measured from the instant of opening the well to produce at a ‘constant q, hrs The fence ten andy sold be mad cle. na gen es the production time ty before shut-in isa fixed number. For example, we may produce the well for 50 hrs before shutting it in, then t, for that test would be 50 his. In another test we may only produce the well for one hour and then shut it infor buildup. Tn this eae f, = Ihe. The time, t, is measured from the instant of opening the well for production. Thus, t > 0. In particu- lar, after the well is shut-in, the following relationship holds: tat tat en "To derive Horner's equation, we recall Equation 1-22, the transient drav- down equation. We then add to it the same equation shifted in time by t, and multiplied by ~ 1 to designate injection. Thus, 162.6 q Baw 80PeA fog t+ 5] (23) 162.6 (-@) Bo tog 4) +5 AES (ED Bet [log (tt) +53] ‘Then AP yy = AP, + APs 162.6 4 Bs tog ¢— tog (t~ EGA EH tog t— log - GI] By substituting Equation 2-1 in the above expression, we get: AP, = 162:6.4 Bot flog (4, + at) - log At] kb i] ox a= fone] J” eo where Pay = P.= Boy the presure as measured inthe wellbore from the stant of shutting the well in t+ At ~ Horner's time at Vv Fundamentals of Pressure Buildup Testing 57 Equation 2-2 is known as Horner's equation. According to this equation, aplot of AP, (or just P.) versuslog(t, + At)/At should give a straight line of slope m. This plot is referred to here as Homer's plot ‘Note that Horner's equation (Equation 2-2) does not include any informa- tion about the skin factor, s, That is because in the process of superposition the term cancels out. Thus the pressure buildup not dependent on the “which implies that in the caae Of positive San Tre, dasa) the pres ‘sure in the wellbore must instantaneously rise, upon shutting the well in, by the amount of APau, before it begins to build up as if there were no skin. In the case of negative skin, the pressure must instantaneously drop by the amount APais before it begins to build up. ‘To obtain an expression for the skin factor, s, we rewrite Equations 1-22 and 2-2 as follows: Py Pagar eg = ™ [og ty + 5] (1-29) +at Py = Pep = m log tt @2) where Pafgy,-9 = flowing bottom-hole pressure at the instant of shutting the well in By subtracting Equation 2-2 from 1-22, we obtain: e +a Par Patgag =m floes, +5 -tog | Ths, Fe Fetou 4 Jog tA tog at Since log —K_, ~ 3.23 40.875 SoG [Poe — Pos kat = 1st [2 “ener _ Jog Kat | ™ om ‘When ty is large as compared to At, then t, + At = ty, and log & + At! ‘be 4%) =0. Also, by choosing At = 1 hr, the above equation becomes: Pete-d jog Kk saa Poas ig a a where Prir = Pospsecie58 Well Test Analysis Equation 2-3 can also be written as: JAP _ jog —_k Se GH + 3.23) (23) where AP = Pega ~ Pogues es) Asan example, Table 2.2 shows the buildup data a taken fom Table 21, and Figure 2-3 is the resulting Horner's plot of these data. From Figure 2-3 and Table 2-2, we get: m = 17.56 psileycle APgueo = Pi Petgae.g 7 135.2 psi ap. Progarei ” 17 pst ‘Thus, AP, = 121.5 psi For q = 100 STBID, B, = 1.35 RBISTB, «= 0.8 ep , h= 20 ft, 6 = 0.19, C= 15.55 x 10-%psi, and ry » 0.39 ft, 162.6 q By « mh | 168.6 x 100 x 1.35 x 0.8 17.56 x 20 wast 225 50 so 1451 T7536 | piaxdax sas x10 exoa* 2 =19 ‘Thus, APyue = 0.87 ms = 0.87 x 17.56 x 1.9 = 29 pst Note that this well was produced for only 5 hrs before it was shut-in. Intui- tively, therefore, one expects that after shutting the well in for 5 hrs, the initial reservoir pressure, P,, would be reached. However, this is one of the instances in which intuition fails. As the data of Table 2.2 shows, at At = 5 hs, AP,, = 5.3 psi In fact, by Equation 2-2 one can verify that at At = 100 hts, Pyy = 0.37 psi, and after shutting the well in for 1,000 hs Py, = 0.04 psi. The reason, of course, is that buildup involves the superposition of the pressure drawdown due to production and the pressure buildup due to injec- at oon, Pws, psi 3004 3000: 2996. 2992 2988: Fundamentals of Pressure Buildup Testing 59 Table 22 Pressure Buildup Data from Table 2-1 Sepent78 palace (tp + At)/ at Figure 2-8. Horner's plot; data from Table 2-2.60 Well Tet Analysis tion. Upon shutting the well in, the pressure transients created by the draw- down continue to propagate through the reservoir in much the same way as sound waves continue to propagate in the air after one stops hollering. The ‘transients created by the injection will always lag behind those created by the drawdown. It should not be surprising then that the pressure continues +o build up in the well for days or even for weeks following a short produe- tion period. Theoretically, the transients due to production and injection should meet at infinity after shutting the well in for an infinite period of time. ‘When a pressure buildup test is performed by closing the well during the transient state, then one of the objectives of the testis to determine P,, the initial reservoir pressure within the drainage area of the well. We have seen that it takes a very long shut-in time for the pressure to approach P,, and it is not economically feasible to keep a well shut in just to obtain P,. However, Equation 2-2 provides us with the means of estimating P, without having to shut the well in for a long period of time. Note that: beat ‘Thus, as At becomes large, W/At approaches zero. And since log(l) = 0, APs, = 0, 0. F, = Puy Therelore, to find P,, itis necessary to plot Py, ver sus Horner's time as shown in Figure 2-3 and extend the straight line to Horner's time equal to 1 to obtain P. It should be emphasized that this procedure is only valid when the flow is radial, which means that the reservoir is homogeneous with respect to all description parameters and the fluid contained init s slightly compressible and has constant propertics, and the well was shut-in while producing in ‘the transient state, IF any ofthese conditions is not met, then extension ofthe straight ine on Horner's plot will not yield P, For example, ifthe reservoirs naturally fractured, then extension of the straight lineon Horner’ plot may rot necessarily yield P, unless the well has been shut infor a very long time, almost twice the producing time. Also, if at closing, the well was producing in the semi-steady tate then extrapolation of the straight Line will not yield B, DERIVATION OF MDH EQUATIO ‘There is another buildup equation known as the MDH (Miller, Dyes, and ‘Hutchinson, 1950) equation which represents the pressure buildup when the well is closed while producing in the semi-steady state, To derive the MDH Fundamentals of Pressure Buildup Testing 61 equation, we superpose the semi-steady state drawdown equation (Equa: tion 1-28) and the transient drawdown equation (Equation 1-22) as follows: AP, = mat + Cpe + 0.87 ms (1.23) and AP; =~ m (log (t=) + 3] ‘Note that the transient drawdown equation is multiplied by ~1 to designate Injection, and it is shifted in time by the duration of the producing time t, in accordance with the principle of superposition. Note also that although the well was producing in the semi-steady state before shut-in, the injection be- sins at the instant the well is closed. Therefore, the injection must take place in the transient state. Eventually, of course, the injection will proceed into the semi-steady state and the superposition then must only involve the semi- steady state equation By summing the previous two equations, we get AP, = AP; + APs = tye t ~ m log (tt) + Ce + 0.87 msm where APy, =P, — Poe Since t= t, + at AP y= ~m log At + sips (fp + 48) + Cpu ~ m flog —* = and i eG By evaluating Equation 1.28 at t = ty, Le, at At = 0, we obtain: My ty + Cpe + 0.87 ms By eliminating P, from the preceding two equations and cancelling like terms, we get Pag ~ Pes dgueog 7 BIOLAL~ tgg At + m5 es) [Equation 25 is known as the MDH equation. For small values oft, a plot ‘of Pe, Versus Aton semi-log graph paper should gave a straight lin of slope m. By determining AP, from the pt, it would be possible to calulate the skin factor, , by Equation 2.3. As At inereases, however, the term Ms At i Equation 2-5 becomes significant, and the semi-log straight line gradually62 Well Test Analysis changes into a curve concave downward. When At becomes equal t0 tps Pz ‘becomes equal to B the average reservoir ‘Tosee these results, consider the data of ‘Table I-1. We know that the semi- steady states reached at t = 40 brs, and tips = 0.2429 psi/hr. Let us assume that the well is produced for 80 hus and then closed for 60 hrs. We can per- form the superposition as shown in Table 2-3 and plot the results on an MDH plot as shown in Figure 2-4, To verify that for At © tye, APy, is indeed equal to (P, ~ P) = 19.44 pai, swe neod to apply material balance. We already know from Chapter 1 that YV, of the 80-acre drainage area is equal to 1.489 x 10° RB. Then, (q/24) t) By = GV, (Pi - PY ‘or (100/24) x 80 x 1.35 = (15.55 x 10-8) (1.489 x 10°) (P, - P) ‘Then (P; - B) = 19.44 psi In general, if the well is producing in the semi-steady state and then closed for At & tym, the observed shut-in pressure, Pye, will equal the aver- age reservoir pressure, P ‘This result seems rather strange, because it shows that if a well has been producing in the semi-steady state for any length of time and then closed, the pressure will stabilize at P as soon as At becomes equal t0 ty, Whereas ‘we have seen that it takes an infinite amount of time for the pressure to reach P; when the well is closed while producing in the transient state fol- lowing a short produetion period. However, during the semi-steady state Table 2-3 Buildup Test While the Well Is Producing ih the Semi-Steady State 1 BP, =P Pas Ps ‘at toe) si) os on 80, 13022 ° a 19048 = 9259 4 2 sso 9762 33.09 2 83 19095 S007 3024 3 2 131.19 = 10200 28.29 4 8 19143 = 10460 28.83 5 0 1926 = 109.89 zen 10 100 135.08 S168 19.00 20 120 139.98 = 12050 19.46 0 190 4237 = 12293 19.48 50 +40 14479 = 125.38 19.46 60 Fundamentals of Pressure Buildup Testing 63 16 20: 24 28 (aope = 1758 pace APws, 32 36: 40: 10 10* ‘Shut-in Time, At, hrs Figure 2-4. MDH plot; data from Tablo 2-3. there are no outward propagating transients, the whole drainage area is ‘equally drained, and P ~ Pyremains constant, Asa result, the stabilization time is finite and is equal t0 tp: ‘Suppose that onthe basis of a presure buildup test of our wel, following avery short transient flow period and a long shut-in period, we determined that P, = 3,000 psi. We then put the well on production atthe rate of 100 STBID for a period of 3 months (t, = 2,160 hrs) before we closed it for a second pressure buildup that yielded the data shown in Table 2-4. Tt is re- aquired to determine k, s, and B ‘We know that sinee the well was producing in the semi-steady state before shut-in, we could interpret the test by the MDH method, calculate k and s (igure 2-4) and calculate P by material balance. However, Table 2-4 in- ‘cludes a tabulation of Horner's time so we might try a Horner's plot, even though the well was closed while producing in the semi-steady state, and Homer's equation was derived by superposing the transient drawdown equation (Equation 1-28).64 Wall Tost Analysis Table 24 Pressure Buildup Test at ty = 2,160 hrs, P, = 9,000 psi at Pa (ore) oH (+ stat G00 2088 = 010 24093 zreo10 015 pases ‘ago 02 2ades togor0 025 2403 3.41.0 030 2aars 7200 040 2408 54010 os 24895 S281 080 24850 27010 400 2486.7 2610 150 2588 vast 200 24987 10st 250 2653 2050 00 Zao 719 00 2805 Seo 500 2488.0 #0 650 24098 x03, 5.00 24708 ano 0.00 2are0 2170 1500, 2ars9 ‘aso 20.01 2araa 4090 25.00 Zanes ors 3000 2arse 730 40.00 Bars so 50.00 2ars2 ue 100.00 Bare 2s ‘Figure 2-5 is the Horner's plot ofthe data of Table 2-4, It is obvious that this plot is remarkably similar to the MDH plot (Figure 24). In fact, from the slope ofthe straight line on Horner's plot and the value of AP, we ob- ‘ain the same values of k and s which we obtained from the MDH plot. By applying material balance, we can easily verify that P = 2,473.1 pst By ex- ‘apolating the straight lin in Figure 25 to the Horner's time of one, we ‘obtain a pressure of 2,515.3 psi. This pressure is usually given the symbol, P+, and is known as P star. Obviously, the value of P*, in this particular example, i less than P; and greater than P “The results obtained from this exercise cause us to raise the following ‘questions: 1. Why ist that Horner's plot is applicable to the case of closing the well in the semi-steady state even though Horner's equation was derived by superposing only the transient drawdown equation? Fundamentals of Pressure Buildup Testing 65 2520. 2500) 2480) 2420. 2400) Peay ee Figure 2-5, Horner's plot; data from Table 2-4 2. What is the relationship between P* and each of P, and PP 3. Isit posible to utilize the relationships between P*, P,, and Ptodeter- mine P without having to lose the well for @ long period of time ? ‘To respond to these questions, let us frst substitute in Equation 1-22, the transient drawdown equation, and calculate Py: at the instant of closing the wel, asif the well were producing in the transient state for the entire 2,160 hours of production. Thus, P,— Puc = m [log t+ 5] (2-29) 3,000 ~ Pye = 17.56 [log 2,160 + 5.26] from which, (Pus)ranint = 2.849 psi Now, Py ~ (Peieaniens = 3,000 ~ 2,849 = 151 psi and from Table 2-4, P, ~ Pag. ~ 9,000 ~ 2,364.6 = 635.4 psi Since, P, - P* = 3,000 ~ 2,515.3 = 484.7 psi6G Well ast Analysis ‘Then by ignoring roundoff errors, the above calculations lead to the follow- {ng conclusions: = PY = AP — Prfgasag) ~ (Pi Paden} Thus, P,~ P* = (QPpa)oa-0 ~ (APranieeat-0 es) Figure 2-6 is a plot of the transient drawdown as evaluated by Equation 1.22 and the semi-steady state drawdown as copied from the data of Table 1-1 and our knowledge that mys = 0.2429 pail. "This plot suggests thatthe semi-steady state pressure drop, APj., can be represented as follows: AP = APranstent + Z(t) where AP pe = P,~ Prins te APrrandieat ™ Pi ~ (Pot)iracsioet Z(t) = the difference between AP, and APyanient at any given time t > be AP=(PI-Put) psi 0600 Bd0«1000-—«1200 Producing Time, tp (hrs) Figure 2-6. Comparison between actual and alliransiont drawdown data, Fundamentals of Presure Buildup Testing 67 Thus AP, = m [log t + 3] + Z(t) oF AP ya = m [log t +3 + Y(9] en where Y(0) = Z(ty/m It isnot difficult to verify that for a small At, Y(tp + At) = Y(t). For examn- ple, at t, = 2,160 hrs, Y(2,160) = (635.4 ~ 151)/17.56 = 37.6, and at At = 20 his, ¥(2,180) = (640.3 ~ 151)/17.56 = 27.9. Also, for a small at, Y(At) = 0. For example, Z(2) = SP pgp ~ APramin, By substituting in Equations 1-23 and 1-92 we obtain: (20) = 116.5 ~ 115.2 3 psi 3117.56 =0.07 and, ¥(20) ‘We can now derive another expression for the buildup when the well is closed while producing at the semi-steady state, by superposing Equation 2-7 as follows: (APp)y = m flog +3 + (9) en (Pade = ~ mlog (t=) + +¥ (C49) ‘The sum is given by: PaRanm og #L AY a0 -Y 0] a Since for a small At, Y(ty + At) = Y(t), and Y(at) = 0, then P teat, Poem fos tatey ea] es) Eiquation 2-9 shows that a plot of Py, versus Homers time on semtlog graph paper should be a straight line of slope m. As At increases, however, the approximation Y(t + At) = Y(t) becomes invalid, and the straight line6$ Wall Tet Analysis sradually changes into a curve in the same way as it does on the MDH plot Ultimately Py, atains the value of F By Equation 2.9 we can oaleulate P* at Horner's time of unity as follows: Pt =P,- mY) = 8,000 ~ 17.56 x 97.6 = 2,515.3 psi which is essentially the same value obtained graphically on Figure 2.5. To describe the straight line portion on Horner's plot, we write: Pay = P* — m log (ty + Aty/at (210) We will make use of this equation later, to determine the average reservoir pressure, B ‘We have now seen that Horner's plot is valid whether the wel is closed in the transient or semi-steady state. We have also seen that the MDH equation is-valid when the well is shut-in while producing in the semi-steady state. It ‘would be of interest to find out if the MDH equation is also valid when the well is closed during the transient state. For this purpose, we rewrite Horner's equation (Equation 2-2) as follows: P,— Py, = m [log (tp + AU) ~ log At) In the event that ty is much larger than At, then (ty + At) ~ t,, and the equation becomes: = Pos = m [log t ~ log At] But, at at 0, the transient drawdown equation is written as follows: P,~ Poigateo ™ m [log ty + 5] Fy climinatingP, from the previous two equations, we get Pas ~ Patgar ao = m [og At + 5] en) Equation 2-1 shows that during the transient state, the MDH plot is valid sslongas i, + At) = ty Le, when tislarge compared to At, From a prac- tral point of view, itis sufficient that ty = 5 Bt. In conclusion, Horner’ plot is always valid whether we close the wel ‘transient or semi-steady state. If the well i closed in the semi-steady state for Fundamentals of Pressure Buildup Testing large At, then the semi-log straight line will change into a curve conc: downward, The MDH plots valid ifthe wel i closed in the transient st providing that t, > 5 At. The MDH plot is valid if the wll is closed in semi-steady state, and inthis case the semi-log straight line will change a curve, concave downward, as At becomes large. For At = th, the pressure will be equal to B Wie summarize our conclusions as follows: 1. Horner's method: a. well closed in the transient state: t+ at] a », well closed in the semi-steady state, and AC is small: n-Paemfogtetate yg] e 2. MDH method: a. well closed in the semfsteady state Pas ~ Prigarag = 1 log At ~ my At +m 5 e@ b, well closed in the transient state and t, > 5 At: Poa Poigar eo =m [log At + 5] @ 3, Pressure relationships: 8. - Pt = AP gy @ b.Pt ~m¥ () (2-0 evaluated at At = 4, Skin Factor: In all cases the skin factor is given by: kK ~ lon eet 8.3 @ i= Pe s= 1151