UESO #200271 (EXP

)

[ESO/06/066]

Received: ? 2006

(November 26, 2006)

Propagation of Radius of Investigation from Producing Well
B.-Z. HSIEH G. V. CHILINGAR Z.-S. LIN

QUERY SHEET Q1: Au: Please review your paper as a whole for correctness. Although you may have submitted your paper electronically, errors might have been introduced during the copy-editing and typesetting processes. It is very important that you check your paper for accuracy in all respects. Also, please check author names, affiliations, and contact information on the article opening page to be certain all is accurate and up-to-date. Thank you! Q2: Au: Please check all artwork throughout article for correctness. Images may have been obtained from electronic files supplied. Please ensure that there were no software interpretation problems. Q3: Au: Please confirm that all artwork is to appear in black and white on the web and in the print edition. If you are interested in any color artwork, please see the “Instructions for Authors” for a pricing breakdown, or contact me immediately for a quote: cheryl.hufnagle@taylorandfrancis.com Q4: Au: Please provide Keywords.

UESO #200271 (EXP)

[ESO/06/066]

Received: ? 2006

(November 26, 2006)

Taiwan. LIN Department of Resources Engineering National Cheng Kung University Tainan. Q2.1095 to 10−9 . E-mail: zsaylin@mail. Introduction As fluid is produced from the reservoir by a producing well. respectively. USA 10 Z. from a producing well by both analytical and numerical methods. The coefficient in the equation is a constant. 2006) . the amount of pressure change from the initial formation pressure at the pressure front of the pressure disturbance area. Q3 G. 29:000–000. i. Taiwan Abstract The purpose of this study is to estimate the pressure disturbance area.. depending on the wellbore storage volume. the pressure disturbance area expands outward from the wellbore and increases as time increases. LLC ISSN: 1556-7036 print/1556-7230 online DOI: 10. 2007 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group. the coefficient varied from 4 to 71. CA. 2006) Energy Sources. or the propagation of the radius of investigation.1080/15567030601003759 Propagation of Radius of Investigation from Producing Well B. The pressure Address correspondence to Zsay-Shing Lin. Part A. University Rd. A linear coefficient in the relation between the square of the dimensionless radius of investigation and the dimensionless time is studied and derived. Keywords 15 20 25 30 Q4 1.15.-Z. Taiwan 5 Q1. CHILINGAR Environmental Engineering Department University of Southern California Los Angeles. HSIEH Department of Resources Engineering National Cheng Kung University Tainan.ncku. The skin factor does not affect the result of the calculated radius of investigation. V.e. 1. The coefficient of radius of investigation is independent of the level of the flow rate for a well producing at a constant flow rate. National Cheng Kung University. Dept. of Resources Engineering. and varied with different criterions of radius of investigation defined.tw 1 UESO #200271 (EXP) [ESO/06/066] Received: ? 2006 (November 26. For the dimensionless pressure defined at the pressure front changing from 0. The wellbore storage volume will affect the propagation of the radius of investigation only at an early time. Tainan City. edu.. No.-S. the coefficient is not a constant for the case of larger pressure drops defined at the pressure front. For a well producing with variable flow rates.UESO #200271 (EXP) [ESO/06/066] Received: ? 2006 (November 26. 701.

And no mention in the literature is made on the condition at the pressure front or the boundary of the disturbed area. Lee. Analytical Solution for Estimation of Radius of Investigation For an isotropic porous medium that is isothermal and homogeneous. 1964. Van Poolen. 1982): 1 ∂pD ∂pD ∂ 2 pD + = 2 rD ∂rD ∂tD ∂rD where pD = tD = rD = kh(pi − p) 141.-Z. 1957.2 B. Basic Theory 2.. The radius of investigation equation 2 with a dimensionless form is riD = αtD . with uniform thickness. Tek et al. The radius of the pressure disturbance area is called the radius of investigation (ri ). 1967. 1962. this study is going to establish the radius of investigation equation in terms of dimensionless radius and dimensionless time for different criterion of dimensionless pressure defined at the pressure front. Chaudhry. constant porosity and constant permeability.. The radius of investigation created by a producing well is a function of time. the propagation of the radius of investigation) from a producing well using both analytical and numerical methods.000264kt 2 µcφrw r rw (2) (1) 60 (3) (4) For a well producing at a constant production rate with zero wellbore radius in an infinite cylindrical reservoir with uniform initial pressure before production begins. such as 2 a linear relationship between the square of the dimensionless radius of investigation (riD ) and the dimensionless time (tD ) was found in the literature (Muskat. Matthews and Russell. or the radius of drainage. Lee. Van Poolen. 1957). These radius of investigation equations are derived for the case of constant flow rate.. 1962.2qµB 0. where α is a coefficient. Hsieh et al. the dimensionless equation describing single phase fluid flow in a circular reservoir is (Lee. 2004). It is infrequent that the coefficient (α) in the equation is obtained for the case of variable flow rates. Tek et al. 1964. skin factor and wellbore storage are not considered in the studies of radius of investigation in the literature. The effects of skin and wellbore storage to the linear coefficient are also included in this study. disturbance area created by a producing well is the area enclosed by the pressure front where the disturbed pressure (or the pressure drop from the original pressure) being defined an extremely small value (a value very close to zero). Also. The purpose of this study is to estimate the pressure disturbance area (i. Jones. 1982). 1934. Also. 65 . Some other studies obtained the coefficient of 16 and 18. 35 40 45 50 55 2. 1982.4 (Jones. The radius of investigation with the coefficient (α) of 4 is used very often in well test analysis (Muskat.1. 1934.e.

(5) can be estimated by defining a small dimensionless pressure (pD ) value.5772 − ln x + u n k=1 (−1)k+1 x k k(k!) (6) In a well producing at variable flow rates. which is proportional to the pressure drop ( p) at the pressure front for the defined small value. the value of rD /4tD in Eq. For the case of variable flow rates. 75 80 85 .2q1 µB r2 1 Ei − D 4tD 2 n 70 70. or pressure drop ( p) at the pressure front. The radius of investigation (ri ) is the distance from the center of wellbore to the pressure front where the pressure difference between the initial pressure and formation pressure. (7) or Eq. is less than the defined small value. a linear 2 relationship between the square of the dimensionless radius of investigation (riD ) and the dimensionless time (tD ) can be obtained from the analytical Ei solution (Eq. the pressure disturbance area gradually extends outward in the formation as producing time increases. the pressure drop in the formation at the “nth” flow rate (n > 2) can be calculated by using the superposition of Eq. (5)). Note that the coefficient (α) of the radius of investigation equation is dependent on a criterion of pD value chosen. 1977): ( p)total = − or pD1 = − where pD1 = and tD [t − ti−1 ] = 0. 2 For the case of constant flow rate. the relationship between the dimensionless radius of investigation (riD ) and the dimensionless time (tD ) can be estimated from Eq. (5) as follows (Earlougher.6µB kh q1 Ei − 2 rD 4tD n + i=2 (qi − qi−1 )Ei − 2 rD 4tD [t − ti−1 ] (7) + i=2 qi − qi−1 q1 Ei − 2 rD 4tD [t − ti−1 ] (8) When a well is producing with a constant or variable flow rates. 1977): r2 1 pD = − Ei − D 2 4tD where −Ei (−x) = E1 (x) = ∞ x (5) e−u du = −0. (8) by specifying ( p)total or pD1 value. Thus. 2 µcφrw kh( p)total 141.Radius of Investigation from Producing Well 3 the analytical solution of the diffusivity equation for an infinite cylindrical reservoir is (Earlougher.000264k(t − ti−1 ) .

but also from a numerical solution.2. ft rw . stb/day µo . One phase of oil flow can be simulated by using two-phase oil-water flow with zero water relative permeability. Radius of Investigation Studies from Analytical Solution In this study.-Z. The radius of investigation is the distance from the wellbore to the pressure front. and the constant permeability of 150 md. ft Values 150 150 0. (ii) piD = 0. The pressure front in the reservoir is changing as function of time due to a well is produced. unit pi .1095 (criterion I). The IMEX simulator (CMG. md φ.35 . psi−1 Values 3. 3.2 1. the radius of investigation. 2004) used in 90 this study is basically a three-phase black-oil simulator with a Cartesian or cylindrical grid system. Note that the pressure front is a point or a line where the pressure drop in the formation is equal to a 100 certain small value.20 60 0.4 B. rb/stb ct . constant porosity of 0. The numerical simulation is started with dividing a reservoir into grids.06 2. the numerical simulation can be run to model a well to produce at specific flow rates. Results An oil reservoir used in this study has a uniform thickness of 60 ft. fraction h. or pressure front. In other words. is a function of time. and (iii) piD = 0.1095) to Eq. psi q. the relationship between the dimensionless radius of investigation and the dimensionless time Table 1 Table 1 Basic reservoir parameters used in this study Parameters. cp Bo .2.000 100 13. unit kh . The oil PVT data and rock fluid properties shown in Table 1 are used in the study of the radius of investigation for both the analytical solution and the numerical solution. The following criterions are used to define the pressure front: (i) piD = 0. The simulator is also capable of modeling two-phase (oil-water or gas-water) fluid flow.000 psi 105 (Table 1).001095 (criterion III). the radius of investigation equation is derived not only from the analytical solution.01 ∗ 10−6 Parameters. Formation pressures for each grid block at each time step from the result of the simulation run can be used to track the pressure front changes as function of time. the pressure front is defined as a line or a curve where the pressure drop 110 from the original pressure is equal to a certain small value. The initial reservoir pressure is 3.01095 (criterion II). either at constant rate or variable rates. we can obtain the results of riD /4tD . md kv . Applying criterion I of the radius of investigation (or piD defined at pressure front 2 of 0. Thus. Hsieh et al. 2.1. and is derived from the solution of the diffusivity 115 equation. After rock 95 and fluid properties are assigned to each grid block. (5). 3. Numerical Solution for Estimation of Radius of Investigation In this study.

To study the propagation of the radius of investigation for the well producing at variable flow rates. The coefficients (α) of the increasing flow rates test are slightly larger than those obtained from the constant flow rate test (Table 3).28 42. The coefficients (α) obtained are 4.00 10.1095.01095.06 34. The above results are obtained for the well producing at constant flow rate.69 51. Eq.01095.312 for different piD defined at the pressure front of 0.Radius of Investigation from Producing Well 5 2 is riD = 4tD . the coefficients (α) obtained are 3. the estimated pressure disturbance area is larger for the criterion of dimensionless pressure (piD ) defined as the pressure front becomes smaller.39 17. based on constant flow rate of Eq. The value of the linear coefficient (α) is 4.101.1095 0. By applying different criterions of dimensionless pressure (piD ) at the pressure front. 0.39tD . the result of superposition. The coefficient (α) increases with decreasing dimensionless pressure (piD ) defined at the pressure front. 120 125 Table 2 130 135 Figure 1 140 Figure 2 Table 3 145 Figure 3 Table 2 The linear coefficient (α) values derived from different criterion piD defined at pressure front for a constant flow rate test by using analytical solution r2 1 piD = − Ei − iD 2 4tD 0.. 0.001095. In other words. and 1.001095.82 26.001095). When criterion II of the radius of investigation is applied. 17.00 to 71.411. 0. (5) is used.001095 10−4 10−5 10−6 10−7 10−8 10−9 =y α= α= 4.e.374.84 71. at the same producing time. The radius of investigation equation is riD D iD at pressure front is 0. 10.887. For the flow rate increasing from an initial flow rate (q1 = 100 stb/day) to a higher flow rate (q2 = 150 stb/day) (Figure 1). 0.01095. respectively (Figure 2).15 2 riD tD . 0.22 59.15 when the criterion value of the dimensionless pressure (piD ) defined at the pressure front is changed from 0.0 ∗ 10−9 . we obtain equations of the radius of investigation with different coefficients (α) (Table 2).01095 0.1095.1095 to 10−9 (Table 2). The coefficient (α) is varied from 4. piD defined at pressure 2 front is 0. 17.0 ∗ 10−9 . the relationship between the radius of investigation and time is obtained for the dimensionless pressures at the pressure front of 0. (8). For the flow rate decreasing from an initial flow rate (q1 = 100 stb/day) to a lower flow rate (q2 = 50 stb/day) (Figure 3). and 71. 10.82t for criterion III (p 10.01095.1095. the relationship between radius of investigation and time is riD = 2 = 17.814.312 for the criterion piD defined at the pressure front of 0. and 1. and 71. i.819. This equation is the same as the radius of investigation equation derived by Lee (1982) and can be expressed as ri = (kt/948µcφ)1/2 .

001095.-Z. Figure 1.0 ∗ 10−9 . The coefficients (α) for these cases are slightly smaller than those obtained from the constant flow rate test (Table 3).001095.1095.. respectively. and 1. 17. The coefficients (α) obtained for the middle flow rate increasing test are 4.494.e.316 for the criterion piD defined at the pressure front of 0. The designed variable flow rate test (an increasing flow rate test) and the calculated bottom-hole pressure. 0. the radius of investigation equation for a 150 three-rate test is also analyzed.246. In addition to the two-rates studied above. The coefficients (α) of the middle flow rate increasing test are larger than those obtained from the constant flow rate test (Table 3). and 1.0 ∗ 10−9 .01095.849. Figure 4 Figure 2. The first three-rate test was designed to increase the flow rate from the initial rate (q1 = 100 stb/day) to a higher flow rate (q2 = 150 stb/day).6 B. then decrease that to q3 = 100 stb/day (i. a middle flow rate increasing test) (Figure 4). The integrate results of the dimensionless radius of investigation for the increasing flow rate test by using analytical solution. and 71. 0. Hsieh et al. . respectively. 10. 155 0.

782.814tD = 0. 17.9999 = 17. 0. respectively.819tD = 0. The designed variable flow rate test (a decreasing flow rate test) and the calculated bottom-hole pressure.001095 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 = 4.9999 = 10.9999 a R 2 = the coefficient of determination.Radius of Investigation from Producing Well Table 3 2 The radius of investigation equations (riD = αtD ) from different riD analysis criteria by using analytical solution Flow rates q = 100 stb/day (Constant rate) q1 = 100 stb/day q2 = 150 stb/day q1 = 100 stb/day q2 = 50 stb/day q1 = 100 stb/day q2 = 150 stb/day q3 = 100 stb/day q1 = 100 stb/day q2 = 150 stb/day q3 = 100 stb/day riD criteria I for piD = 0.9999 = 17..9999 = 10.280.316 for the criterion piD defined at the pressure front of 0.9998 2 riD = 17.101tD = 0. The coefficients (α) 160 obtained for the middle flow rate decreasing test are 3.9991 = 3.e. then to increase that to q3 = 100 stb/day (i.001095.9956 2 riD = 10.246tD = 0. and 1. 10.698tD R 2 = 0.01095.698. a middle flow rate decreasing test) (Figure 5).9983 = 4.00tD = 1a = 4.374tD = 0. . Figure 5 Figure 3.1095 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 7 riD criteria II for piD = 0.494tD = 0.82tD =1 = 17. 0.01095 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 riD criteria III for piD = 0.9999 = 17.280tD R 2 = 0.411tD = 0.782tD R 2 = 0. and 71.9981 = 10.887tD = 0. The second three-rate test was designed to decrease the flow rate from the initial rate (q1 = 100 stb/day) to a lower flow rate (q2 = 50 stb/day). The coefficients (α) of the middle flow rate decreasing test are smaller than those obtained from the constant flow rate test (Table 3).39tD =1 = 10.849tD = 0.0 ∗ 10−9 .9999 2 riD = 3.1095.

The grid size in radial direction is small at the vicinity of the wellbore and increases gradually as the distance outward 170 from the wellbore increases.e. Numerical simulation studies conducted to investigate the propagation of the radius of investigation include production well producing at constant flow rate and at variable flow rates.-Z. Table 4 Figure 5. 360 degree) in θ direction (tangent direction). The formation parameters used in the numerical model is the same as that used in analytical model (Table 1).. and 1 single layer in k direction (vertical direction).000 grids in r direction (radial direction). The designed triple flow rates test (a middle flow rate decreasing test) and the calculated bottom-hole pressure. a numerical simulation study is also used. 1 grid (i. Figure 4.2. 3. A cylindrical oil reservoir is simulated with 5. .8 B. The designed triple flow rates test (a middle flow rate increasing test) and the calculated bottom-hole pressure. Radius of Investigation Studies from Numerical Solution 165 To verify the results of the radius of investigation from the analytical solution. The results from numerical simulation studies for both constant and variable 175 flow rates cases are the same as these from analytical solution (Tables 3 and 4). Hsieh et al.

the entire linear coefficients (α) are 3. CD = 102 .799tD = 0.9999 = 10.36.98.1095.9999 = 4. For the different skin factors (s = 2.9998 2 riD = 17. CD = 103 .868tD = 0.986tD = 0.679tD R 2 = 0.9983 = 4.986.9999 = 10.01095. respectively (Figure 6).767tD R 2 = 0.01095 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 riD criteria III for piD = 0.799 for the criterion piD defined at the pressure front of 0.01095. The results show that the radius of investigation (riD ) is independent of skin factor (s).1095. and 0.001095. and 17. From the result of dimensionless radius of investigation (riD ) versus dimensionless 195 time (tD ) plotted on log-log plot axis for different wellbore storage volumes (CD = 0.804tD = 0. and 0.799tD = 0.9999 2 riD = 3.9981 = 10. except at an early time (or small tD ). and CD = 105 ) with criterion of piD = 0. and 17.9999 = 17. 10.1095.381tD = 0.001095.363. 10.Radius of Investigation from Producing Well Table 4 2 The radius of investigation equations (riD = αtD ) from different riD analysis criteria by using numerical simulation Flow rates q = 100 stb/day (Constant rate) q1 = 100 stb/day q2 = 150 stb/day q1 = 100 stb/day q2 = 50 stb/day q1 = 100 stb/day q2 = 150 stb/day q3 = 100 stb/day q1 = 100 stb/day q2 = 150 stb/day q3 = 100 stb/day riD criteria I for piD = 0. for all wellbore storage volumes studied (Figure 7).227tD = 0. 8. Radius of Investigation Affected by Skin Factor We investigated the effect of skin factor (s) to the propagation of the radius of investigation in simulation studies by varying skin factors.9956 2 riD = 10.249tD R 2 = 0.3. and CD = 105 ) are obtained and plotted the results of 2 riD versus tD on linear coordinates (Figure 7) for different criterion piD defined at the 190 pressure front. in terms of dimensionless wellbore storage volume (CD ). 3.464tD = 0.363tD = 0.833tD = 0.344tD = 0. CD = 103 . and 10).4.9999 = 17.80 for the criterion piD defined at the pressure front of 0. 0.9999 = 10. the propagation of the radius of investigation influenced by the wellbore storage effect Figure 7 .9999 = 17. The results show that the coefficients (α). on the propagation is also investigated in this study.9999 3. The radius of investigation equations for different skin factors are the same as result from the equations of no-skin factor (s = 0).082tD = 0.9991 = 3. respectively. Radius of Investigation Affected by Wellbore Storage 185 Figure 6 The effect of wellbore storage volume.9999 = 17.001095 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 = 3. The results are very close to these with no wellbore volume. 180 5. 0. By using numerical simulation studies. are 3. CD = 104 . CD = 104 .1095 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 2 riD R2 9 riD criteria II for piD = 0. the radius of investigation equation for different wellbore storage volume (CD = 102 .

5.-Z. 105 ) by using numerical simulation. the propagation time required to reach the specific boundary or distance is longer for the large wellbore storage volume 205 than for the small wellbore storage volume. Figure 6. CD = 104 . 102 . CD = 103 . 10) by using numerical simulation. 104 . The integrate results of the dimensionless radius of investigation for different skin factor (S = 0. The curves 200 of dimensionless radius of investigation (riD ) versus dimensionless time (tD ) for different wellbore storage volumes (CD = 102 . and CD = 105 ) diverge from the straight line of CD = 0. In other words. The degree of deviation is increased as the wellbore storage volume (CD ) increases (Figure 8). 2. A linear relationship exists between the dimensionless radius of investigation (riD ) and dimensionless time (tD ) in log-log plot when the wellbore storage effect is ended (CD = 0) (Figure 8). 103 . . Hsieh et al. Figure 8 Figure 7. 8. only in the early dimensionless time is observed (Figure 8). The integrate results of the dimensionless radius of investigation for different wellbore storage volumes (CD = 0.10 B.

1095. dimensionless time log-log plot for different wellbore storage volumes (CD = 0. we obtained different coefficients (α). The coefficient (α) of 4. 105 ) at the criterion pD = 0. the slope in the plot of the square of dimensionless radius of investigation verses dimensionless time is not affected much by the rate changes (Figure 10).1095. any flow would suffice—time required to achieve a particular radius of investigation is independent of flow rate.39. the coefficient (α) increases and vice versa in the latter time (Figure 9).01095. which vary from 4 to 71. in which the coefficient is 10. This result is the same as from Lee (1982). Using different criterion piD defined at the pressure front.001095. The results from our study shows that radius of investigation is independent of any constant flow rate. such as piD = 0. 4.Radius of Investigation from Producing Well 11 Figure 8. mentioning that “in principle. 103 . In other words. the rate change affecting the slope in the plot of the square of dimensionless radius of investigation versus dimensionless time also decreases (Figure 11). 210 215 220 Figure 9 225 Figure 10 230 Figure 11 . The results are very close to the case of constant flow rate. Dimensionless radius of investigation vs.” However.15 for the pressure front varied from 0.1095 to 10−9 . When the criterion piD defined at the pressure front decreases. Discussion A linear relationship between the square of the dimensionless radius of investigation and 2 dimensionless time (riD = αtD ) was studied in this study for both constant flow rate and 2 variable flow rate tests. the radius of investigation affected by a rate change in a well for the criterion piD defined at the pressure front of 0. 104 . was obtained from the results of all tests with constant flow rate for the criterion piD defined at the pressure front 2 of 0.1095 is observed (Figure 9). or riD = 4tD . When flow rate increases from previous constant flow rate for two-rate cases. respectively. the widely-used radius of investigation equation riD = 4tD is derived by the assumption of the dimensionless pressure defined at the pressure front of 0. 102 . For the pressure front defined as piD = 0.1095.

The integrate results of the dimensionless radius of investigation for entire constant flow rate and variable flow rate tests at the criterion pD = 0.12 B. The radius of investigation equations in dimensionless terms are derived with different criterions of radius of investigation defined. The integrate results of the dimensionless radius of investigation for entire constant flow rate and variable flow rate tests at the criterion pD = 0. Conclusions The propagation of the radius of investigation from a production well has been studied 235 by both analytical and numerical methods. The conclusions of this study are as follows: Figure 10.1095. the results of the dimensionless radius of investigation varied with dimensionless time are the same as those from producing well (Figure 12). Figure 12 5.-Z. Hsieh et al. In the radius of investigation studies by both analytical solution and numerical solution for injecting well. .01095. Figure 9.

The integrate results of the dimensionless radius of investigation for the injecting well and the producing well at a constant flow rate test. The constant coefficient (α) in constant flow rate cases varies from 4 to 71.1095 to 10−9 . 2.15 when the defined dimensionless pressure at the pressure front of the radius of investigation is changed from 0.Radius of Investigation from Producing Well 13 Figure 11. 1. Figure 12. independent of flow rate is valid only for constant flow rate cases. riD = 400tD . 2 The widely-used radius of investigation equation. 3. The integrate results of the dimensionless radius of investigation for entire constant flow rate and variable flow rate tests at the criterion pD = 0.001095.1095. The radius of investigation is affected by a rate change in a well for the case of 245 dimensionless pressure defined at the pressure front less than or equal to 0. The relationship between the square of the dimensionless radius of investigation 2 and the dimensionless time (riD = αtD ) is linear for the case of constant flow 240 rate and may not be linear for the case of variable flow rates. .

Technol. dimensionless pressure drop. 2004. dimensionless initial formation pressure. U. ft dimensionless radius of investigation. Earlougher. The radius of investigation is independent of skin factor. psi dimensionless pressure defined at the pressure front. H. dimensionless wellbore radius. J. Muskat. Van Poolen. Grove. R. A. TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers of the AIME. CMG. Trans. The flow of compressible fluids through porous media and some problems in heat conduction. M. 1934. R. P. C. hours dimensionless time. dimensionless the linear coefficient in the radius of investigation equation. Advances in Well Test Analysis. psi−1 wellbore storage effect. Jr. M. June:613–618. 1977. Lee. The 250 propagation of the radius of investigation is affected by wellbore storage effect only at an early time. dimensionless radius. ft permeability. Radius-of-drainage and stabilization-time equations. 1967. dimensionless dimensionless pressure of variable flow rates. User’s Guide IMEX Advanced Oil/Gas Reservoir Simulator. Calgary. Nomenclature c CD B h k q p pD pD1 pi piD r rD ri riD rw s t tD α p ( p)total φ µ fluid compressibility. Tek. G. September 14:138–146. D. dimensionless radius of investigation. TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers of the AIME. TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers of the AIME. 2004. fraction 270 viscosity. The radius of investigation equation for an injecting well is the same as that from a producing well. 1962. H. J. dimensionless time. ft skin factor. md flow (production) rate. Well Testing. C. K. References Chaudhry. Petrol. Physicals 71.-Z. Alberta: Com. M. cp . AIME 210–302. Jones. 1964. Hsieh et al. depending on the size of wellbore storage volume.14 B. Dallas.255 puter Modelling Group Ltd. and Russell. S. 1982. 4.. Oil Gas J. stb/day pressure. L. Method for predicting the back-pressure 265 behavior of low-permeability natural gas wells. Reservoir limit test on gas wells. 1957. psi porosity. rb/stb formation thickness.. 260 Matthews. Dallas. ft dimensionless radius.. dimensionless formation volume factor. F. psi dimensionless pressure. Dallas. Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells. psi pressure drop in variable flow rates. and Poettmann. Oil Well Testing Handbook.. Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful