You are on page 1of 79

MONTANUNIVERSITT LEOBEN

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

TEXTBOOK SERIES
VOLUME 4

WELL TESTING

by
Zoltn E. HEINEMANN
Professor for Reservoir Engineering
Leoben, October 2003

www.petroman.ir

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form.


Only students of the University of Leoben may copy for studying purposes.
Edited by DI Barbara Schatz - October 2003

www.petroman.ir

Table of Contents

Table of Contents
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................1
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
1.6.
1.7.

Methods .................................................................................................................................1
Evaluation of Formation Tests .............................................................................................. 6
Productivity Index ............................................................................................................... 11
Skin Effect ........................................................................................................................... 11
Principle of Superposition ................................................................................................... 15
Wellbore Storage ................................................................................................................. 17
Pressure Change .................................................................................................................. 21
1.7.1 Drainage Radius ........................................................................................................ 27
1.7.2 Multi-Phase Filtration ............................................................................................... 27
1.7.3 Equations for Gas-Flow ............................................................................................ 28

2 Pressure Drawdown Analysis ...............................................................................33


2.1. Semilog Plot ........................................................................................................................ 33
2.2. Type Curve Matching ......................................................................................................... 34
2.3. Reservoir Limit Testing ...................................................................................................... 35

3 Pressure Build Up Curve ......................................................................................43


3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.

Horner Plot .......................................................................................................................... 43


Type Curve Matching ......................................................................................................... 45
Skin Factor .......................................................................................................................... 46
Reservoir Pressure ............................................................................................................... 47
Gas Producing Wells ........................................................................................................... 51

4 Multiple Well Testing............................................................................................55


4.1. Interference Test ................................................................................................................. 55
4.2. Pulse Test ............................................................................................................................ 58

5 Nomenclature .........................................................................................................69
6 References...............................................................................................................71
7 Appendix.................................................................................................................73

www.petroman.ir

Table of Contents

www.petroman.ir

List of Figures

List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Pressure drop in a production well inside a finite reservoir ..............................................2
Figure 1.2: Pressure distribution inside a quadratic reservoir with two wells (From Matthews and
Russel [11]) ........................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.3: Production test at an increasing production rate ...............................................................3
Figure 1.4: Production test at an decreasing production rate ...............................................................4
Figure 1.5: Pressure buildup measurement .......................................................................................... 4
Figure 1.6: Pressure response for an interference test ......................................................................... 5
Figure 1.7: Pressure response for a pulse test ...................................................................................... 5
Figure 1.8: Dimensionless pressure for a single well in an infinite radial system. Solution
according to Equation 1.30 (no skin, no wellbore storage) .............................................10
Figure 1.9: Skin zone of finite thickness (after EARLOUGHER[4])..................................................12
Figure 1.10:Infinitely acting reservoir with several wells..................................................................15
Figure 1.11:Effect of wellbore storage on sand face flow rate ..........................................................19
Figure 1.12:Type-curves for a single well inside a homogenous reservoir with wellbore storage and
skin effects (after BOURDET et al. [2] ) .......................................................................... 23
Figure 1.13:Log-log plot vs. (after BOURDET et al.[2]) ..................................................................24
Figure 1.14:Type curves - homogenous reservoir with wellbore storage and skin
(after BOURDET et al.[2] )............................................................................................... 26
Figure 1.15:Dimensionless pressure for a well in the center of a closed circular reservoir, no
wellbore storage, no skin (EARLOUGHER and RAMEY[5]) ........................................30
Figure 1.16:Dimensionless pressure for a single well in various closed rectangular systems, no
wellbore storage, no skin (EARLOUGHER and RAMEY[5]) .......................................30
Figure 1.17:Dimensionless pressure for a single well in various closed rectangular systems, no
wellbore storage, no skin (EARLOUGHER and RAMEY[5]) .......................................31
Figure 2.1: Evaluation of the transient pressure drop (after MATTHEWS and RUSSEL[11])...........33
Figure 2.2: Semilog plot of pressure drawdown data ........................................................................ 39
Figure 2.3: Reservoir limit testing for pressure drawdown data........................................................40
Figure 3.1: Pressure buildup curve with skin effect and wellbore storage ........................................44
Figure 3.2: Pressure buildup curve with a limited drainage area.......................................................48
Figure 3.3: MBH dimensionless pressure for a well in the center of equilateral drainage areas
(after MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZENBROEK[10]) ........................................................52
Figure 3.4: MBH dimensionless pressure for different well locations in a square drainage area
(after MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZENBROEK[10]) .......................................................53
Figure 4.1: Illustration of type curve matching for an interference test (after EARLOUGHER[4]) ..56
Figure 4.2: Schematic illustration of rate (pulse) history and pressure response for a pulse test ......59
Figure 4.3: Schematic pulse-test rate and pressure history showing definition of time and pulse
response amplitude. ......................................................................................................... 60
Figure 4.4: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for first odd pulse
(after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7]) .................................................................................. 61
Figure 4.5: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for first even pulse
(after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7]) .................................................................................. 62
Figure 4.6: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for all odd pulses
except the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7] )................................................63

www.petroman.ir

List of Figures

Figure 4.7: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for all even pulses
except the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7] )................................................64
Figure 4.8: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for the first odd pulse
(after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7]) .................................................................................. 65
Figure 4.9: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for the first even pulse
(after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7]) ................................................................................. 66
Figure 4.10:Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for all odd pulses except
the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM[7]) .........................................................66
Figure 4.11:Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for all even pulses except
the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM[7]) .........................................................67

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-1

1 Introduction
In a well, which opens a hydrocarbon or water-bearing layers, the bottom-hole pressure can be
measured during production and during a following shut in period. From these data, conclusions
can be drawn about the reservoir, the efficiency of the sand face perforation and about the
quantitative relationship between production rate and bottom-hole pressure.
Wells interfere with each other. Opening or shut-in a well causes pressure changes in
neighboring wells. They can be recorded with high precision, whereby the permeability and
porosity of a reservoir can be determined.
Hydrodynamic well tests, also called formation tests, have a basic significance. They allow to
determine the state of reservoirs and wells and help to optimize production and recovery.
Formation tests can be carried out in an uncased bore-hole (this is a drillsteam test) as well as
in a completed well. The methods differ, but the basic principles remain the same.
In wildcat, exploration, and appraisal wells, economical, environmental and safety
considerations often constrain the applicable methods and the duration of the tests severely.
This can limit the knowledge we can gain from the well. However, tests performed before the
onset of field production have distinguished advantage because the reservoir may remain in a
single phase state throughout the test duration. When the first wells are drilled in a virgin
reservoir representative fluid samples can be collected. In most of the cases, only these samples
are representative for PVT (dependency of pressure-volume-temperature) analysis. Once the
field has been produced and the oil reservoir pressure has dropped below the bubble point or the
gas reservoir pressure below the dew point, it is not possible anymore to determine the original
fluid composition.
The two basic categories of well tests are transient and stabilized tests. The goal of the stabilized
tests is to determine a relationship between the average pressure of the drainage area, the bottom
hole pressure and the production rate, in other words, to determine the productivity index.
In this textbook, the most important methods of well tests and their evaluations are presented.
For the theoretical basis, reference is made to the textbook Fluid Flow in Porous Media[6].
For more in depth study, the SPE Monographs from Matthews and Russel[11], Earlougher[4] and
Lee[8] are recommended.

1.1. Methods
During the production of a well at a constant rate, the bottom-hole pressure decreases
continuously (Figure 1.1).

www.petroman.ir

1-2

Introduction

Bottom-hole pressure

pwf
pi

Transient filtration

Steady-state or pseudo
steady-state filtration

q = constant
Steady-state
Latetransient

Time

Pse ud
os

te ady
-state

Figure 1.1: Pressure drop in a production well inside a finite reservoir


At the beginning, the pressure decrease is especially quick, but with time becomes more and
more moderate. Beyond a certain point, the pressure curve can become linear. This point divides
the curve into two parts:
transient and
steady state or pseudo-steady state period.
The filtration is steady state if no more pressure changes occur. This indicates that the formation
has a boundary with constant pressure. The pressure distribution between this boundary and the
well casing is constant. A linear change of the bottom-hole pressure indicates a finite drainage
area. The production is the consequence of the fluid expansion within this area.
The drainage area of a well is determined by its share in the total production the formation. If
there is only one well, the drainage area is identical with the reservoir. In transient conditions,
the drainage area changes. Figure 1.2 shows the pressure distribution in a theoretically
homogenous square shaped reservoir with two production wells. The bottom hole pressures are
not shown for either well, these are far below the bottom of the sketch. The ratio of production
rates is 1:2.

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-3

Pressure

Drainage Boundary

Well 1

Well 2

Relative Rate 1

Relative Rate 2

Figure 1.2: Pressure distribution inside a quadratic reservoir with two wells (From Matthews
and Russel[11] )
If the production rate is changing during the tests, the pressure change is also more complicated.
Fig 1.3 shows a test with a rate increasing in steps, whereas Figure 1.4 shows a test with a rate
decreasing in steps. If the time periods are short, the pressure change remains transient.

Production
rate

q4
q3
q2
q1

Bottom-hole
pressure

t
pi

Time
Figure 1.3: Production test at an increasing production rate

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

Production
rate

1-4

Bottom-hole
pressure

Time
Figure 1.4: Production test at an decreasing production rate

Production
rate

Among the possible tests, the pressure buildup test has a special significance. After producing
at constant rate, production is stopped and the pressure buildup is measured (Figure 1.5).

Bottom-hole
pressure

t1

pws
pwf

t1

Time
Figure 1.5: Pressure buildup measurement
Figure 1.6 shows an interference test. While the active well produces at a constant rate, the
observation well is shut in. The pressure in the observation well increases at first (in the case of
an earlier production) and then decreases due to the influence of the active well.

www.petroman.ir

1-5

Production
rate

Introduction

qA

qB =0

Bottom-hole
pressure

pwsB

Time
Figure 1.6: Pressure response for an interference test

Production
rate

It is possible to produce periodically from the active well, as shown in Figure , i.e. the well
pulsates. The pressure changes in the observation well are very small, but can still be recorded
by a differential manometer. The time lag between the pulse and the answer is in relation to the
product of porosity and total compressibility of the formation.

qA
qB =0

Bottom-hole
pressure

pwsB

Time

Figure 1.7: Pressure response for a pulse test

www.petroman.ir

1-6

Introduction

1.2. Evaluation of Formation Tests


In Section 1.1 filtration states were characterized as transient, steady state and pseudo-steady
state. These terms are derived from theoretical hydrodynamics and designate the dependence of
these processes on time. For the purpose of evaluating a formation test, we need a mathematical
model which sets up a quantitative relationship between the production rate, the pressure and
the parameters of the reservoir and of the fluid.
The success of a formation test can be assured by the coordination of three elements:
the object,
the measurement,
the mathematical model.
None of these three elements is definitive. Measurements can be carried out at different states
of objective reservoirs and wells. A test should be conducted only if the states fulfill the
conditions of the mathematical model used for the evaluation. The tests should be accomplished
in such a way that the pressure change at the given location and during the evaluated time period
is determined by only one (or at least by only a few) unknown parameters of the system.
The evaluation always takes place on the basis of a solution of the mathematical model. The
application of dimensionless variables often makes the evaluation easier. These are
the dimensionless radius
rD = r r w ,

(1.1)

the dimensionless time


kt
t D = ----------------,
2
c tr w

(1.2)

or
2

r
t D A= t D -----w
A

(1.3)

and the dimensionless pressure


pD ( t D ,r D ) = 2hk
------------- [ p(t ,r) pi ] ,
qB
where

www.petroman.ir

(1.4)

Introduction

1-7

ct
rw
A
h
q
B
pi

- the permeability
- the porosity
- the fluid viscosity
- the effective compressibility
- the radius of the well
- the drainage area surface
- the formation thickness
- the flow rate
- the formation volume factor
- the initial pressure

In field units Equation 1.2-Equation 1.4 are written in the following form:
0,0002637kt
t D = -----------------------------2
c tr w

(1.5)

0,60536 10 kt
t D A= --------------------------------------c t A

(1.6)

hk [ p (t ,r) p ] .
p D ( t D ,rD ) = 0,00708
------------------------i
qB

(1.7)

pD is, in contrast to its designation, a pressure difference. The pressure p ( r, t) value is


calculated from the model, therefore p D always refers to the solution and not to the measured
pressure difference.
In the case of formation tests, the pressure measured at the place of production (or of injection),
the bottom-hole pressure, has a special significance. Here r = r w , thereby r D = 1 , and these
conditions are specially designated for the dimensionless pressure:
p Dw ( t D ) = p D ( t D, r D = 1 ) + s

(1.8)

The quantity s is a dimensionless pressure change defined as the skin factor.


As a matter of fact, the permeability in the immediate vicinity of the well deviates from the
original one, due to the influence of the filtrate and the formation opening. Usually it is smaller
and causes an additional pressure drop. If pwf ( t ) is the bottom hole flowing pressure, Equation
1.4 and Equation 1.7 lead to the following definition:
------------- [ pw f ( t ) p i]
p Dw ( t D ) = 2hk
qB

(1.9)

This is the reason why p Dw ( t D ) is not equal to p D ( t D, r D = 1 ) . For field units, 2 has to be
replaced with the constant 0.00708.

www.petroman.ir

1-8

Introduction

Example 1.1
3

In an infinite acting reservoir, a well produces 40 m d [ 251,5 bbl d ] oil for five days. pwf
is to be calculated without considering a skin effect ( s = 0 ). The dimensionless pressure for
the homogeneous, infinite acting reservoir, with constant well rate is given in Figure 1.8.
The data are
pi
Bo
o
h
q
t
ko

ct
rw

= 33.24 MPa [4819.8 psi]


= 1.52 [ ]
= 1.28x10-3 Pa s [1.28 cP]
= 12 m [39.37 ft]
= -40 m3/d = -0.463x10 -3 m3/s [-251.5 bbl/d]
= 5 d = 0.432x10-6 s
= 0.16x10-12 m2 [160 mD]
= 0.18 [ ]
= 3.86x10-9 Pa-1 [2.662x10-5 1/psi]
= 0.1 m [0.328 ft]

Solution:
From Equation 1.2:
kt
t D = ----------------2
c t rw
12

0,1610
432000 m s Pa
t D = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
9
2
2
0,18 1,2810 3,86 10 0,1 Pa s m
6

t D = 7,77 10 [ ]

The dimensionless well radius is r D = 1 and ( t D r D ) = 7,77 10 . From Figure 1.8, the
dimensionless pressure can be read, p D = 8,0 . We use Equation 1.9 for computing the bottom
hole pressure:

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-9

(p w f )

ideal

qB p + p
= ------------i
2hk D
3

0,463 10 1,52 1,28 10 8 + 33,24 106


( p w f )ideal = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
2 12 0,1610
( p w f )ideal = 32,64 MPa
In field units:
251,5 1,28 1,52 8 + 4819,8 = 4732 psi
( p w f )ideal = -----------------------------------------------------0,00708 39,37 160
The index ideal implies that no skin effect was considered.

www.petroman.ir

1-10

Introduction

10

10

5 4

5 4

10-1

5 4

5
4

5
4

108

103

5
4

5
4

107

tD/rD

10-2 4
10

102

5
4

5
4

106

10

5
4

5
4

105

5
4

5
4

104
10

5 4

5 4

10-1

5 4

10-1
10-2

pD

Figure 1.8: Dimensionless pressure for a single well in an infinite radial system. Solution
according to Equation 1.30 (no skin, no wellbore storage).

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-11

1.3. Productivity Index


A well produces or injects with rate q. As consequence, there is a potential difference between
the well bottom and an arbitrary point in the formation. For a horizontal formation this can be
expressed as a difference of pressures at the same depth:
p (t ) = pwf ( t ) p ( r, t ) .

(1.10)

It is obvious that the production rate is a function of this pressure difference:


q = f ( p )

(1.11)

and q 0 if p 0 .
The productivity index is defined as
J =

lim ----q--- .
p 0 p

(1.12)

For practical purposes, the productivity index can be approximated with finite values:
q
J = ------- .
p

(1.13)

1.4. Skin Effect


The rock properties around a well normally deviate from the original ones, due to the influence
of the mud filtrate, the well completion and the formation opening (see Figure 1.9). This altered
zone is called "skin zone" and has a radius rs and a permeability k s . For this radius pseudo
steady-state flow can be assumed and therefore the Dupuit equation can be applied:
2hk ps
q = ---------------s ----------,
B
rs
ln ----rw

(1.14)

or if k s = k , i.e. no skin effects,


p ,
q = 2hk
------------- ----------B
r
ln -----s
rw

(1.15)

www.petroman.ir

1-12

Introduction

Finite skin

rw
rs

Wellbore
ks

Figure 1.9: Skin zone of finite thickness (after EARLOUGHER [4])


where
p is the pressure drop over the radius r w r r s with the original permeability and
p s - the same with changed permeability.
Let be
p skin = ( p w f )real ( pwf ) ideal

(1.16)

the supplementary pressure drop over the "skin zone". It is evident that this can be expressed
by the pressure differences too:
p skin = ps p

(1.17)

Then following from Equation 1.4 and Equation 1.9:


qB s .
p skin= ------------2hk

(1.18)

Inserting p s , p and p skin from Equation 1.14, Equation 1.15 and Equation 1.18 into
Equation 1.16 it follows:
r
k
s = ---- 1 ln -----s .
ks
rw

(1.19)

Equation 1.19 is called Hawkins formula. Based on this equation the dimensionless skin factor
s could be calculated if both rs and ks were known. This is never the case, therefore traditionally
the supplementary pressure drop pskin will be regarded as it would occur just on the well

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-13

surface. This means that the altered zone is imagined as a skin on this surface. The skin factor
s is positive if k s k . If a formation treatment is carried out with success, it is possible that
ks > k , and then s is negative.
The values r s and k s cannot be determined from the value s simultaneously. This difficulty can
be eliminated by introducing an apparent well radius r w a . The radius r w a would cause the
same pressure drop without skin as the real well radius r w with a skin. For that, the following
condition must be fulfilled:
re
re
ln -------= ln ----- + s ,
rw
rw a

(1.20)

thus
s

r w a = rw e .

(1.21)

The values s and r w a are not descriptive enough, therefore a flow efficiency and a damage factor
are defined. Flow efficiency:
J actual
p p w f + pskin
FE = ---------------- = --------------------------------------- ,
J ideal
p pw f

(1.22)

where J is the productivity index defined in Equation 1.12 and p is the average pressure of the
drainage area (in an infinite-acting reservoir, p = pi ).
The damage factor:
J actual
p skin
DF = 1 ---------------- = ------------------- = 1 FE .
Jideal
p pwf

Example 1.2
In Example 1.1, the measured bottom-hole pressure was
( p w f )real = 30,82 MPa [ 4469 psi ] .
The following values are to be calculated:
the skin factor

www.petroman.ir

(1.23)

1-14

Introduction

the flow efficiency


the borehole damage factor.

Solution:
The supplementary pressure loss caused by the skin is calculated by Equation 1.16:
p skin = ( p w f )real ( pwf ) ideal = 30,82 32,64 = 1,82 MPa .
In field units:
p skin = 4469 4732 = 263 psi .
The skin factor according to Equation 1.18 is:
6
p skin
1,82 10
------------------------------------------s =
=
= 24,37 .
5
q B
0,746 10
------------2hk

In field units:
p skin
264
s = -------------------------- = ---------------- = 23,97 .
qB
10,97
------------------------0,00708hk
The flow efficiency according to Equation 1.22 is:
J actual
p pwf + p skin
33,24 30,82 1,82
0,60
---------------- = --------------------------------------= ------------------------------------------------- = ---------- = 0,248 25% .
Jideal
p pwf
33,24 30,82
2,42
In field units:
J actual
4469 264
---------------- = 4819,8
------------------------------------------------= 0,25 = 25% .
Jideal
4819,8 4469
The damage factor is 1 minus flow efficiency, i.e. 75%.

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-15

1.5. Principle of Superposition


The first and second theorem of superposition were discussed in "Fluid Flow in Porous
Media"[6], Chap. 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. This is only a short summary of the conclusions drawn there.
In Figure 1.10, the formation is produced with three wells. Well 1 begins production at t 1 = 0
at a constant rate q1 , and causes a pressure decline in the observation well p 3, 1 ( t ) . Well 2
starts production later, at time t 2 . If well 2 was the only production well, the pressure change
in well 3 would be p3 , 2 ( t t 2 ) .

Well 1
q1
Well 3
p

r1
r2
Well 2
q2

Figure 1.10: Infinitely acting reservoir with several wells


According to the principle of superposition (second theorem), if both wells produce, the
pressure change can be calculated by adding these differences:
p 3 = p 3, 1 + p3 , 2 .

(1.24)

By means of the dimensionless variables, Equation 1.25 can be written in the following way for
any number of wells:

p ( t, r) = ------------2hk

q j Bj pD (tD tDj, r Dj ) ,

(1.25)

j=1

where t D j are the dimensionless times of putting the individual wells into operation and r Dj are
the dimensionless distances of wells from the point of observation. If there is a producing well
at this point, one has to add to p according to Equation 1.24 the pressure loss p skin for this
(and only for this) well.

www.petroman.ir

1-16

Introduction

Imagine that n wells (j = 1, ...., n) are located at the same point, and each of them produces at a
constant rate q j beginning at time t j . Equation 1.25 remains valid, we have only to substitute
r D1 = r D2 = ... = r Dn = 1 .
If "all wells" are at the same location, it is sufficient to regard only one well whose rate changes
at the time t D j with q j (this change can be positive or negative). The pressure change caused
by one well producing at a varying rate can also be calculated by summarizing up the
elementary pressure changes:
B
p ( t, r) = ------------2hk

q j pD (tD tD j, r D j ) .

(1.26)

j=1

With the skin effect, Equation 1.26 is written in the following way:
B
p ( t, r) = ------------2hk

qj pD (t D tDj, r Dj ) + qn s

(1.27)

j =1

Example 1.3
3

The rate of well q 1 = 40 m d [ 251.6 bbl d ] in Example 1.1 and 1.2 is reduced after five
3

days to q = 25 m d [ 157,2 bbl d] . The bottom-hole flowing pressure after 20 days is to be


calculated.

Solution:
For the terms of Equation 1.26, there are:
t1

= 0

t2

6
= 5 d = 0,432 10 s

6
= 20 d = 1,728 10 s
3

q1 =

q 1 = 40 m d = 0,463 10

q2 =

q 2 q 1 = 15 m d = 0,017410

q2

m s [ 251,5 bbl d ]
3

m s [ 94,33 bbl d ]

3
3
= 25 m d = 0,000289 m s [ 157,23 b b l d ]

The dimensionless time differences according to Equation 1.2 are:

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-17

k ( t t ) = 17,991 1,728106 = 3,109 107 [ - ]


t D t D 1 = ----------------1
2
c tr w
6

t D t D 2 = 17,991 ( 1,728 0,432 ) 10 = 2,332 10 [ - ]

In field units:
6

t D t D 1 = 20 1,554 10 = 3,108 10 [ - ],
6

t D t D 2 = 1,554 10 15 = 2,331 10 [ - ].
From Equation 1.8:
7

pD ( t D t D1 ) = p D ( 3,109 10 ) = 8,94
7
pD ( t D t D2 ) = p D ( 2,332 10 ) = 8,82
and the bottom hole flowing pressure after 20 days is:
B [ q p ( t t ) + q p ( t t ) + q s ]
pwf = pi + ------------1 D D
D1
2 D D
D2
2
2hk
3

1,28 10 1,52 [ 0,463 10 3 8,94+


pwf = 33,24 10 + ---------------------------------------------------- 12
2 12 0,1610
6

pwf

+ 0.17410

8,82 0,289 10

24,34 ] = 31,68 MPa.

In field units:
1,28 1,52
pwf = 4819,8 + 141,2 ---------------------------39,37 160
pwf 3 ( 251,6 8,94 + 94,55 8,82 157,23 23,97 ) = 4593,71 psi.

1.6. Wellbore Storage


In the mathematical model, the sandface flow is taken into account. It is equal to the production
rate, measured at the well head, only if the well flow is steady-state. If the bottom-hole pressure
changes - and this is always the case in hydrodynamic formation tests - the sandface flow is no
longer equal to the production rate. If the bottom-hole pressure increases (decreases), the fluid
content of the well increases (decreases) too. This after-production of after-injection should be

www.petroman.ir

1-18

Introduction

taken into consideration during the evaluation of the transient pressure change.
Ramey[14] defined the wellbore storage constant in the following way:
G
C = -------------p w

(1.28)

where
G - the fluid mass change in the well, kg [ lbm] ,
3

- the fluid density in the well,


kg m [ lbm c u ft ] ,
p w - the bottom-hole pressure change, Pa [ psi ] .
This term can apply to filled up wells and to wells with free fluid level (see Example 1.4). Let
q be the constant well rate and q sf the sandface rate. Then
G = ( q q sf )Bt ,

(1.29)

where B is the formation volume factor.


After the substitution of Equation 1.29 into Equation 1.28, we obtain
p
dpw
-- ------------w = C
-- ----------q qsf = C
.
B t
B dt

(1.30)

We now divide this equation by q and introduce the dimensionless variables defined in Equation
1.2 and Equation 1.4:
2

c tr w
dt = ----------------dt D ,
k

(1.31)

qB
dpw = ------------- dp D w .
2hk

(1.32)

q B dp
------------q sf
Dw
dp D w
C
2hk
C
1 ------ = ------- --------------------------- = -------------------------------------.
2 dt
q
qB c r2
D
2c
hr
t w
t w
-----------------dt
D
k

(1.33)

We get

It is more convenient to apply a dimensionless wellbore storage constant:


C
CD = ------------------------2
2c thr w

(1.34)

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-19

and write the Equation 1.33 in a shorter form:


q sf
dpDw
C D ------------= 1 ------ .
q
dt D

(1.35)

With field units, Equation 1.34 has the following form:


5,6146C
C D = ------------------------2 .
2ct hr w

(1.36)

1
C1

qsf/q

C2
C3

0
0

tD
Figure 1.11: Effect of wellbore storage on sand face flow rate C 3 > C2 > C1
Figure 1.11 shows the ratio of sandface flow and production rate for that case where the
production rate is constant. If C = 0 , i.e. if there is no after-production, then q sf = q for any
time.

Example 1.4
The

tubings

of

the

well
2

Vu = 0,015 m m [ 2,875 10

in

Example

1.1

have

an

internal

volume

of

bbl ft ] and a total length L = 3125 m [ 10252,6 ft ] . The


9

compressibility of the oil in the tubing is c o = 1,3 10


3

Pa

[ 8,97 10

1 psi] and the

density = 764 kgm [ 47,7 lbm cu ft] . The wellbore storage constant has to be
determined.

www.petroman.ir

1-20

Introduction

Solution:
a) On the assumption that the well is filled up:
G = V u Lc o po
and from Equation 1.28:
9

C = Vu Lc o = 0,015 3125 1,3 10

= 61 10

m Pa .

In field units:
2

C = Vu Lc o = 2,875 10

10252,6 8,97 10

= 2,664 10

bbl psi .

The dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient from Equation 1.34:


9

C
61 10
2
CD = ------------------------2 = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 1,1610 [ ] .
9
2
2c thr w
2 0,18 3,86 10 12 0,1
In field units:
3

2644 10 5,6146
2
CD = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 1,17 10 [ ] .
5
2
2 0,18 2,662 10 39,37 0,328
b) On the assumption that the oil level rises:
A pressure increase of p means a rising of the oil level by
p
h = ------- ,
g
therefore
G = V u h = V u p
------- ,
g
and
Vu
0,015
6 3
C = ------ = ------------------------- = 2 10 m Pa .
g
764 9,81

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-21

In field units:
2

2,87510
2
C = ---------------------------- = 8,679 10 bbl psi .
47,7 144
The dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient is
6

C
2 10
CD = ------------------------2 = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 3817,76 [ - ] .
9
2
2ct hr w
2 0,18 3,86 10 12 0,1
In field units:
2

8,679 10 5,6146
CD = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 3821,33 [ - ] .
5
2
2 0,18 2,662 10 39,37 0,328

1.7. Pressure Change


The equations for the one-phase flow were derived in "Fluid Flow in Porous Media"[6], Chapter
2. The solutions for idealized cases are given in Chapter 3. It sufficient to repeat the most
important formulae here.
The pressure change caused by a well producing from an infinite acting, horizontal formation
with relatively small thickness at a constant rate can be calculated with the following formula:
2
r
D
1 --------p D ( t D, r D ) = -- Ei
4tD
2

(1.37)

or
2
1
p ( t , r ) -- ln t r + 0,80907
D D D

D
D
2

(1.38)

where the approximation error of Equation 1.38 less then 1 % if


tD
-----> 10 .
2
rD

(1.39)

The solution for Equation 1.37 is shown in Figure 1.8. At the bottom-hole r D = 1 , therefore
the condition represented by Equation 1.39 is practically always fulfilled, and Equation 1.38 is

www.petroman.ir

1-22

Introduction

simplified to:
pD ( t D , r D = 1 ) = 1-- [ ln t D + 0,80907 ] ,
2

(1.40)

or with consideration of the Equation 1.8:


pDw ( t D ) = 1-- [ ln t D + 0,80907 + 2s ] .
2

(1.41)

In the case of CD > 0 , where CD is the dimensionless wellbore storage constant, Equation 1.41
can be written in the following form:
2s

pDw ( t D ) = 0,5 [ ln ( t D C D ) + 0,80907 + ln ( CD e ) ] .

(1.42)

Note that Equation 1.41 and Equation 1.42 are identical. By splitting the ln expressions CD
drops out. These equations are valid only if q sf = q and the wellbore volume has no influence
on the bottom-hole pressure.
At the start of a well, the whole amount of fluid will be produced from the wellbore volume.
That means, the sandface rate q sf is zero at a small t D . For this case we can write Equation 1.35
in the following form:
dpDw
CD ------------= 1,
dt D

(1.43)

or integrated, under consideration that pDw = 0 at t D = 0 ,


tD
pDw = ------- .
CD

(1.44)

During the transition time, the sandface rate rises and converges to q. A dimensionless pressure
p Dw ( t D ) could theoretically be calculated for this period via superposition by using Equation
1.27.
Figure 1.8 shows the function Equation 1.37 in a log-log diagram. Figure 1.12 shows the same,
but also taken into consideration are the skin and the wellbore storage effects. Equation 1.42 is
valid only over the marked limit. All curves have a slope 1 for small t D .

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-23

Dimensionless pressure, pD

10

CDe

5
4
3

10

2s

30
20

10
3

10
2
10

7
5
4
3

0.3

106
104

10
1015
10108
10

0 .1

1
7
5
4
3

Approximate start of
semi-log straight line

2
-1

10

-1

10

3 4 5 7

3 4 5 7

10

3 45 7

10

3 4 5 7

10

3 4 5 7

10

Dimensionless time, tD/C D

Figure 1.12: Type-curves for a single well inside a homogenous reservoir with wellbore
storage and skin effects (after BOURDET et al.[2])
values. This is a consequence of Equation 1.44. Figure 1.13 is the same as the previous one, but
the derivates of the functions p Dw are also drawn in the form
dp Dw t D
tD
------------------------------- vs. ------.
d ( tD CD ) C D
CD

www.petroman.ir

(1.45)

1-24

Introduction

10

7
5
4
3

2s

CD e

2
30

10

pD'(tD/CD)

10

20

10
1015
1010
8
10
106

7
5
4
3
4

10

10
2

10

1
10

7
5
4
3

1
0.3

0.1

-1

10

10

-1

3 4 5 7

3 4 5 7

10

3 45 7

10

3 4 5 7

10

3 4 5 7

10

Dimensionless time, tD/C D

tD
tD
Figure 1.13: Log-log plot p' ------vs. ------(after BOURDET et al.[2] )
CD
CD
In view of Equation 1.44, it follows that
dpDw
------------------------= p' D w = 1 .
d ( tD CD )

(1.46)

Hence the function p Dw ( t D CD ) has the same slope of 1, as the function,p Dw if t D is small.
Contrary to large t D values all the functions pDw ( t D C D ) converge to
dpDw
------------------------= p' D w = 0,5 ( t D CD ) .
d ( tD CD )

(1.47)

From the combination of Equation 1.9 and Equation 1.41 follows:


qB [ ln t + 0,80907 + 2s ] =
pwf ( t ) = p i + ------------D
4hk

(1.48)

k
pwf ( t ) = p i + 2,3026qB
--------------------------- lgt + lg ---------------- + 0,35137 + 0,86859s .
4hk
c r2

(1.49)

t w

If the reservoir is not acting infinitely, but is bounded at a concentric circle rDe , then Equation

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-25

1.41 after van Everdingen and Hurst takes the following form:
p Dw ( t D ) = 1-- [ ln t D + 0,80907 + 2s + Y ( tD , r D e )] ,
2

(1.50)

4t D
3
Y ( t D, r D ) = ( ln t D + 0,80907 ) + -------+ 2 ln r De -- +
2
4
r De

(1.51)

where,

n t D

e
J 1 ( n r De )
) + 4 ------------------------------------------------------------2 2
2
n [ J 1 ( n r De ) J 1 ( n ) ]

Y ( t D, r D

Equation 1.49 is modified correspondingly:


p wf ( t ) = pi + 2,3026qB
---------------------------
4hk
k
p wf ( t ) aa lgt + lg ----------------+ Y ( tD , r D e ) + 0,35137 + 0,86859s .
2
ct r w

(1.52)

If t D is small and the inflow radius is smaller than r e then Y ( tD , r De ) = 0 and the function
Equation 1.50 is equal to Equation 1.41. If t D is large, then the last term of function Equation
1.51 disappears and
2t D
3
p Dw ( t D ) = -------+ ln r De -- + s
2
4
r De

(1.53)

A
( p D w( t DA )) = 2t D A + 1-- ln -----2 + 1-- ln 2,2458
---------------- + s ,
2 r
2
CA
w

(1.54)

or

where
2

= r De
2
tD (r w

tD A =
A)
C A = 31,62

the area of the reservoir,


(see Equation 1.3), and
is a shape factor

The conversion into Equation 1.54 has the purpose to make the formula valid also for

www.petroman.ir

1-26

Introduction

non-circular finite formations. Only the shape factor CA -as was shown by Ramey and Cobb[15]
- will be different. Table 1.1 indicates the shape factors and the validity limits of Equation 1.54.
Converting Equation 1.53 into dimensioned variable:
re 3
qt
q ln ----pwf pi = --------------------2 + ------------ -- + s
r
2kh
w 4
c t hre

(1.55)

For production at constant rate, the average pressure in the reservoir is given by
qt
p = pi + ----------------------2 .
c t hre

(1.56)

Combining Equation 1.55 and Equation 1.56 and rearrange it, one obtains:
re 3
q ln ----pwf p = ------------ -- + s

2kh rw 4

(1.57)

The pD functions are presented in log-log diagrams, dependent on t D , t D C D or t D A . Figure


1.8, Figure 1.13 and Figure 1.14 show a few examples. These curves are the so-called
type-curves.
2

10

CDe

5
4
3

1030

pD and pD'(t D/CD)

2s

10
3

10
102

7
5
4
3

0 .3

106
104

1020
15
10
10108
10

0.1

1
7
5
4
3
2
-1

10

10

-1

3 4 5 7

3 4 5 7

10

3 45 7

10

3 4 5 7

10

3 4 5 7

Dimensionless time, tD/C D


Figure 1.14: Type curves - homogenous reservoir with wellbore storage and skin (after

www.petroman.ir

10

Introduction

1-27

BOURDET et al.[2])

1.7.1 Drainage Radius


The drainage radius r D , i.e. the extension of a pressure funnel (cone) in an infinite acting
formation, at the production time t can be estimated with the following formula:
kt .
r d 5,858 ---------- ct

(1.58)

For field units, the formula has to be written as


kt .
r d 0,029 ---------- ct

(1.59)

For a bounded formation with symmetrical shape and with the well in its center, the transient
period will change into the pseudo-steady-state period when the radius r D has reached the
2

boundary. With A = r d , the stabilization time from Equation 1.58 is the following:
c t A
t s 0,1 --------------k

(1.60)

or in field units
c t A
t s 380 --------------.
k

(1.61)

1.7.2 Multi-Phase Filtration


Below the bubble point, the gas dissolves in the reservoir, and therefore the one-phase filtration
equations are, strictly speaking, not applicable. However, they may be used for multiple-phase
flow situations with some modifications (see MILLER et al. [12], PERRINE[13], MARTIN [9].
Neglecting the capillary forces the equations describe the multi-phase filtration in a precise way,
if the total compressibility c t and the total mobility ( k )t are substituted:
c t = c + So co a + Sw c w + Sg c g ,

(1.62)

k ro
-k-- = k ------+
t
o

(1.63)

k rg
------- +
g

k rw
-------- .
w

www.petroman.ir

1-28

Introduction

The apparent two phase compressibility for saturated oil is


B o B g R s
1 --------coa = -----+ ------ -------- .
B o p B o p

(1.64)

This provides for the practical advantage that the evaluation of formation tests can be performed
in the case of multi-phase filtration in the same way as for single-phase filtration.

1.7.3 Equations for Gas-Flow


The viscosity and especially the density of the gas change vary significantly with pressure.
Therefore the filtration equation of the gas is not linear. This difficulty can be overcome by
introducing the real gas pseudo pressure according to AL-HUSSAINY, RAMEY and
CRAWFORD[1].
p
p
m( p) = 2 ----------------------dp
p b ( p )Z ( p )

(1.65)

where pb is a freely chosen reference pressure. By applying m ( p ) , the filtration equation of the
gas becomes formally equal to that of the low-compressible fluids. In this case, Equation 1.9
changes into the following form:
p scTq
m( pwf ) = m (p i ) + --------------------[ p (t ) + s + D q ] .
2hkTsc Dw D

(1.66)

The term D q is the dimensionless pressure drop caused by the turbulence in the well
environment.
After the introduction of the function m( p) , it is sufficient to discuss the liquid case. All
procedures can be adapted for gas-bearing formations by means of this modification.

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-29

Table 1.1: Shape Factors for Bounded Drainage Areas (after RAMEY and COBB[15])
CA

ln C A

1 2 ln C 2,2458
A ---------------C
A

exact for
t
>
DA

less than 1% error


for t
>
DA

use infinite system


solution with less than
1% error for t
<
DA

31.62

3.4538

-1.3224

0.1

0.06

0.100

31.6

3.4532

-1.3220

0.1

0.06

0.100

27.6

3.3178

-1.2544

0.2

0.07

0.090

27.1

3.2995

-1.2452

0.2

0.07

0.090

21.9

3.0865

-1.1387

0.4

0.12

0.080

0.098

-2.3227

+1.5659

0.9

0.60

0.015

30.8828

3.4302

-1.3106

0.1

0.05

0.090

12.9851

2.5638

-0.8774

0.7

0.25

0.030

4.5132

1.5070

-0.3490

0.6

0.30

0.025

3.3351

1.2045

-0.1977

0.7

0.25

0.010

21.8369

3.0836

-1.1373

0.3

0.15

0.025

10.8374

2.3830

-0.7870

0.4

0.15

0.025

4.5141

1.5072

-0.3491

1.5

0.50

0.060

2.0769

0.7309

+0.0391

1.7

0.50

0.020

3.1573

1.1497

-0.1703

0.4

0.15

0.005

in bounded reservoirs

60

www.petroman.ir

1-30

Introduction

=20
00
re / rw
=
2
re /r
20
w =
240 0
re /r
0
re /r w = 260
w =
re /r 2800 0
w =
30
00

14

re /r

13

12

pD

11
10

r e/rw

8
7
6
10

7 8

10

7 8

10

tD

Figure 1.15: Dimensionless pressure for a well in the center of a closed circular reservoir, no
wellbore storage, no skin (EARLOUGHER and RAMEY[5])
14

12

10

D
1

pD

4
2
0
-3
10

5 6 7 8

10

-2

5 6 7 8 10-1

5 6 7 8

tDA

Figure 1.16: Dimensionless pressure for a single well in various closed rectangular systems,
no wellbore storage, no skin (EARLOUGHER and RAMEY[5])

www.petroman.ir

Introduction

1-31

14

12

10

D
2

pD

4
2
0
-3
10

5 6 7 8

10

-2

5 6 7 8 10-1

5 6 7 8

tDA

Figure 1.17: Dimensionless pressure for a single well in various closed rectangular systems,
no wellbore storage, no skin (EARLOUGHER and RAMEY [5])

www.petroman.ir

1-32

Introduction

www.petroman.ir

Pressure Drawdown Analysis

2-33

2 Pressure Drawdown Analysis


2.1. Semilog Plot
A well is put into operation at the time t = 0 at a constant production rate. The bottom-hole
pressure change is shown in Figure 1.1. Two parts of this curve are especially significant: the
transient period and the pseudo-steady state period.

pwf [psi]

Early deviation caused


by wellbore effects
pIhr
Slope =

162.6 q B
kh

Beginning of deviation at
end of transient period

0.1

1.0

10

100

Flow time, t [hrs]


Figure 2.1: Evaluation of the transient pressure drop (after MATTHEWS and RUSSEL[11] )
Figure 2.1 shows this curve vs. lgt . During transient period ( t < t s ) , the drainage radius has not
reached the external boundary yet, therefore the formation can be considered as infinite and
Equation 1.49 is valid. The bottom-hole pressure p wf is a linear function of lgt . If the measured
points allow a reliable drawing of a straight line, the permeability capacity of the formation hk
can be calculated from the slope of the line. From Equation 1.49:
2,3026 q B
m = ---------------- ---------4
hk

(2.1)

hk = 0,183 qB
---------- .
m

(2.2)

and

In field units, Equation 2.2 is written as

www.petroman.ir

2-34

Pressure Drawdown Analysis

hk = 162,6 qB
---------- .
m

(2.3)

From the pressure drawdown curve the skin effect can also be calculated, provided that the
initial pressure is known. From the straight line one reads the value p wf at t 1 , and from
Equation 1.49:
p i p w f( t 1 )
k
s = 1,1513 ---------------------------- + lg t 1 + lg ---------------- + 0,35137 .
m
c r 2
t w

(2.4)

In field units
p i p w f( t 1 )
k
s = 1,1513 ---------------------------- + lg t 1 + lg ----------------- 3,2275 .
m
c r 2
t w

(2.5)

In the case of small time values, the measured points deviate form the straight line because of
after-production. If the production time is not long enough, there is no possibility for the semilog
evaluation. Here the method of type curve matching can be applied.

2.2. Type Curve Matching


This method is applicable for all transient measurements (pressure drawdown, pressure buildup,
interference, pulse test) if the p D ( t D ) -function is known for the given case.
Type curve matching is based on the fact that if the same events are represented in the log-log
coordinate system with the variables p D vs. t D CD and p = p pi vs. t the two curves will
be shifted apart from each other, but otherwise will be the same. This statement is caused by the
coordinates transformation Equation 1.2 and Equation 1.4. The shifting of log-log coordinate
systems can be calculated immediately from these equations.
k

C
C
lg( t D CD ) = lg t + lg ---------------- lg ---------------------------- = lgt lg ------------- ,
2
2
2hk
c r
2c hr

(2.6)

2hk
lgp D = lg p pi + lg ------------- .
qB

(2.7)

t w

Type curve matching consists of the following steps:


a.) Selection of the type curve diagram (sheet A). In this case it is Figure 1.14.
b.) A transparent sheet of paper (sheet B) is positioned on the type curve diagram, and
the coordinate lines are drawn. In this way it is provided that both systems of

www.petroman.ir

Pressure Drawdown Analysis

2-35

coordinates are identical.


c.) The measured p -values and the derivates p't are drawn vs. t on sheet B.
d.) By parallel shifting this series of points is adapted to one of the type curves.
e.) After the successful adaptation, a reference point is selected, i.e. the Match Point. Its
coordinates on sheet A and sheet B are
( p D ) M , ( t D CD ) M and pM t M .
2s

At the same time also the value of CD e


f.) From Equation 2.7 follows

can be determined.

qB ( pD ) M
k = ---------- ---------------.
2h ( p ) M

(2.8)

g.) The wellbore storage constant can be calculated from Equation 2.6:
tM
2hk
C = ------------- -------------------------.
( t D C D )M

(2.9)

Therefore,
C
C D = ------------------------2 .
2c t hr w

(2.10)

h.) The skin factor is defined by


s = 0,5 ln [ ( C D e

2s

CD ) ] .

(2.11)

Type curve matching is less reliable than semilog evaluation and should only be applied if the
latter method is not usable. In field units Equation 2.8 and Equation 2.10 are:
( pD )
M
k = 141,2 qB
---------- ---------------,
h ( p ) M

(2.12)

5,6416 C
0,8936 C
C D = -------------------------= -------------------------.
2
2
2ct hr w
c t hr w

(2.13)

2.3. Reservoir Limit Testing


If the reservoir is bounded and the production time is sufficiently log, then Equation 1.54 will
describe the pressure change:

www.petroman.ir

2-36

Pressure Drawdown Analysis

A 1 2,2458
pDw ( t D ) = 2t D A + 1-- ln ---- + -- ln ---------------- ,
2 r 2 2 CA
w
or with dimensioned variables according to Equation 1.3 and Equation 1.4:
pwf = m t + b ,

(2.14)

qB
m = --------------- ,
c thA

(2.15)

qB ln ----A
2,2458
b = pi + ------------ 2 + ln ---------------- + 2s .
4hk r
CA
w

(2.16)

where

The measured p wf -values are drawn as function of t, and a straight line is positioned along these
points. From the slope m , the pore volume of the reservoir can be calculated:
qB
hA = ----------- .
c tm

(2.17)

In field units:
6 qB
hA = 5,37 10 ----------.
c t m

(2.18)

Theoretically, the shape factor CA could also be determined from b, but the unreliability is so
great that it should not be done.

Example 2.1
A pressure drawdown test was carried out in an undersaturated oil reservoir. The data and results
are the following:
pi
Boi
o
h

Swi
ct

= 20.7 MPa [3002.3 psi]


= 1.32 [ ]
= 9.2x10-3 Pas [9.2 cp]
= 21 m [68.9 ft]
= 0.17 [ ]
= 0.26 [ ]
= 1.2x10-9Pa-1 [8.27x10-6 1/psi]

www.petroman.ir

Pressure Drawdown Analysis

pi
rw
q

2-37

= 20.7 MPa [3002.3 psi]


= 0.1 m [0.328 ft]
= -17.2 m3 /d [108.2 bbl/d]

On the basis of the transient pressure development, the following values are to be determined:
the permeability,
the skin effect,
the wellbore stoarage constant.

Solution:
a.) Semilog analysis
The measured pressure values are applied in Figure 2.2 to the semilog coordinate
sheet.
The gradient is
p
5
m = ------------- = 2,72 10 Pa cycle = [ 39,44 psi cycle ]
cycle
and the extrapolation of the straight line give at t 1 = 10 hour the pressure
p wf = 18,54 MPa [ 2688,3 psi ] .
From Equation 2.2,
3

17,2 1,32 9,2 10 = 0,074 10 12 m2 .


k = 0,183 qB
---------- = 0,183 ----------------------------------------------------------5
hm
86400 ( 2,72 ) 10 21
From Equation 2.4, the skin effect is
p i p w f( t 1 )
k
s = 1,1513 ---------------------------- + lg t 1 + lg ----------------- + 0,35173
m
2
ct r w
6

( 20,7 18,54) 10
ss = 1,1513 ------------------------------------------------+ lg36000 + x
5
0,27 10
12

0,074 10
s > + lg ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + 0,35137
0,17 9,210 3 1,2 10 9 0,1 2

ss = ( 1,1513 [ 7,94 + 4,56 + 0,595 + 0,35173 ] ) = 2,8 .


In field units:
108,2 1,32 9,2 = 78,7 mD ,
k = 162,9 qB
---------- = 162,9 ----------------------------------------------hm
39,44 68,9

www.petroman.ir

2-38

Pressure Drawdown Analysis

3001,5 2688,3
s = 1,1513 --------------------------------------- + lg10 + x
39,44
78,5
3,2275
s > + lg -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
2
0,17 9,2 8,2710 0,328
s = 1,1513 [ 7,96 + 1,0 + 7,7514 3,2275 ] = 2,8 .
b.) Type curve matching method
In Figure 2.2, the measured pressure differences p and the product p't ,
depending on t , are applied to transparent log-log diagrams and matched by parallel
shifting with curves in Figure 1.15.
The matched curve corresponds to C D e

2s

= 10 .

We choose the match point:


pDM
(tD/CD )M
pM
tM

= 5.6
= 3.4
= 1 MPa [145 psi]
= 1 hour

Using Equation 2.8 - Equation 2.11,


3
p D M qB
5,6 17,2 9,210 1,32
12 2
k = -------------------- = ------------------------------------------------------------------= 0,1026 10
m ,
6
pM 2h
1 10 86400 2 21
12
tM
2 0,1026 10
21 3600
C = 2hk
------------- -------------------------= ----------------------------------------------------------------------------= x
3
( t D CD ) M
9,2 10 3,4
6

C = 1,558 10

m Pa 0,06756 bbl psi ,


6

C
1,55810
CD = -----------------------= -------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 5788,6 ,
2
2
9
2c tr w h
2 0,17 1,2 10 0,1 21
2s

8
CD e
s = 0,5 ln --------------= 0,5 ln 10
-------- = 4,8 .
CD
CD

In field units:
0,8936C
0,8936 0,06756
CD = -------------------= ----------------------------------------------------------------------------= 5793,1
2
6
2
c thr w
0,17 8,25 10 68,9 0,328
8

s = 0,5 ln 10
-------- = 4,87
CD

www.petroman.ir

Pressure Drawdown Analysis

2-39

Bottom-hole
pressure [MPa]

18.8

18.6

18.4

m=-0.272x10 Pa
18.2

18.0
10

5 6

10

5 6

10

Time [hrs]

Figure 2.2: Semilog plot of pressure drawdown data

Example 2.2
From the pressure drawdown measurement in Example 2.1, the pore volume and the original oil
in place (OOIP) are to be determined.

Solution:
In Figure 2.3, the measured bottom-hole pressure for t > 100 hours, depending on t, are drawn.
The slope of the straight line is
5
1
m = 0,0508 10 Pa hour = 1,41 Pa s = 0,7366 psi h .

From Figure 2.16:


qB
17,2 1,32
5
3
hA = ----------- = -------------------------------------------------------------= 1,55 10 pm .

c tm
86400 1,2 10 ( 1,41 )
The OOIP:
5
hA( 1 S w i)
1,55
10 ( 1 0,26)
3 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------N =
=
= 87,110 m .
Boi
1,32

www.petroman.ir

2-40

Pressure Drawdown Analysis

In field units:
6

hA = 5,37 10

108,2 1,32
-------------------------------------------------------= 126 ac ft ,
6
8,2710 ( 0,7366 )

hA ( 1 S w i)
7758 126 ( 1 0,26 )
5
N = 7758 -------------------------------= --------------------------------------------------------- = 5,47 10 bbl .
1,32
Boi

19.0

Bottom-hole
pressure [MPa]

m=-0.00508x10 Pa per hour

18.5

18.0

17.5

17.0
0

100

200

300

Production time [hrs]

Figure 2.3: Reservoir limit testing for pressure drawdown data

www.petroman.ir

Pressure Drawdown Analysis

2-41

Table 2.1: Pressure Decline


p = pi - p wf

pt

Time

Bottom Hole Pressure

hour

105 Pa

[psi]

105 Pa

[psi]

105 Pa

[psi]

000
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
015
020
030
040
050
060
070
080
100
120
***
144
168
192
216
240

207.00
201.35
197.80
195.35
193.80
192.00
190.88
189.90
188.95
188.08
187.20
185.30
184.75
184.10
183.16
183.47
183.25
183.08
182.91
182.70
181.40
***.**
180.22
179.00
177.75
176.59
175.30

3001.5
2919.6
2868.1
2826.8
2810.1
2784.0
2767.7
2753.5
2727.4
2737.6
2714.4
2686.8
2678.9
2669.4
2664.5
2660.3
2657.1
2654.7
2652.2
2649.1
2630.3
****.*
2613.2
2595.5
2577.3
2560.6
2541.8

05.65
09.20
12.05
13.20
15.00
16.12
17.10
18.05
18.92
19.80
21.70
22.25
22.90
23.24
23.53
23.75
23.92
24.09
24.30
25.60
**.**
26.78
28.00
29.25
30.41
31.70

081.9
133.4
174.7
191.4
217.5
233.7
247.9
261.7
274.3
287.1
314.6
322.6
332.0
337.0
344.2
344.4
346.8
349.3
352.0
371.0
***.*
388.3
406.0
424.1
440.9
459.6

5.60
6.50
7.20
7.30
7.00
6.60
5.90
5.00
4.60
4.20
2.50
1.70
1.30
1.26
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.02
1.01
0.00
*.**

081.2
094.3
104.4
105.9
101.5
095.7
085.6
072.5
066.7
060.9
036.3
024.7
018.9
018.3
017.4
016.7
016.0
014.8
014.6
014.5
***.*

www.petroman.ir

2-42

Pressure Drawdown Analysis

www.petroman.ir

Pressure Build Up Curve

3-43

3 Pressure Build Up Curve


A well produces at constant rate during a time period t p . Then it is shut in. Figure 1.5 shows the
bottom hole pressure curve. The pressure development for the time t after shut in can be
calculated by means of the superposition principle. By this method, the pressure buildup caused
by an injection rate q starting at time t p will be superposed on the pressure decline caused by a
contious production at a rate q. By using Equation 1.27,
q B [ p ( [ t + t ] ) p ( t ) ] .
p ws p i = ------------Dw
D
D
2hk D w p

(3.1)

After substituting of Equation 1.50,


q B
p ws = p i + ------------- [ ln [ t p + t ] D + 0,80907 + Y ( [ t p + t D ] , rDe )
D
4hk
p ws ln t D 0,80907 Y ( [ t D, r De ] D r De ) ]
p + t
q B ln t---------------p ws = pi + ------------+ Y( [ tp + t ] , r D e) Y( t D, r De ) .
D
4hk t

(3.2)

3.1. Horner Plot


This method for evaluation pressure buildup test was introduced by HORNER (1951). If the
reservoir is sufficiently large and the shut in time is short, from Equation 1.51 it follows that
Y ( [ tp + t ]D , r D e) Y ( t D p, rDe ),
Y ( t D , r De ) 0,

(3.3)

and Equation 3.2 yields the following form:


q B ln t---------------p + t
p ws = p i + ------------+ Y ( t D p, r D e)
4hk
t
t p + t
qB Y ( t , r )
p ws = 2,3026qB
--------------------------- lg ---------------+ p i + ------------4hk
t
4hk Dp De
t p + t
0,183 q
B (t , r )
p ws = 0,183 qB
---------- lg ---------------+ p i + -------------------------Y
Dp D e
hk
t
2,3026 hk
t p + t
m Y(t , r )
p ws = m lg ---------------+ p i + ---------------t
2,3026 D p De

www.petroman.ir

(3.4)

(3.5)
(3.6)

3-44

Pressure Build Up Curve

t p + t
pws = m lg ---------------+ p
t

(3.7)

Figure 3.1 shows a measured pressure buildup curve as a function of lg[ ( t p + t ) t ] The
slope of the straight part, according to Equation 3.7 is
p
m = --------------- = 0,183 qB
---------- .
Cycle
hk

(3.8)

From this,
qB
hk = 0,183 ---------- .
m

(3.9)

In field units:
hk = 162,6 qB
---------- .
m

(3.10)

15.0

Bottom-hole pressure [MPa]

p* = 14.594
14.7

r) = 14.
pws(1 hou

14.4

272

14.1

13.8
pwf = 13.534
13.5
5
10

5 4 3

10

5 4

10

5 4

10

5 4

(t+ t)/ t

Figure 3.1: Pressure buildup curve with skin effect and wellbore storage

www.petroman.ir

Pressure Build Up Curve

3-45

3.2. Type Curve Matching


Pressure buildup curves can also be evaluated by type curve matching and the same type curves
as for the pressure drawdown analysis are used. We plot:
(i) pws = p ws ( t ) pw f ( t p ) vs t
t p + t
(ii) p'ws t ---------------vs t
tp
The reason for that can be shown in the following way. From Equation 1.4,
qB p ( t ) .
p wf ( t p ) p i = ------------2hk Dw Dp

(3.11)

After substraction of this equation from Equation 3.1, we get


q B
p ws = ------------- [ p D w( t D ) + p D w( t D p) p D w( [ t p + t ] D ) ]
2hk

(3.12)

p Dws ( t D ) = p Dw ( t D ) + pDw ( t Dp ) p Dw ( [ t p + t ]D ) .

(3.13)

or

In the case of
p Dw ( t D p ) p Dw ( [ t p + t ]D ) p D w( t D ) ,

(3.14)

Equation 3.12 can be reduced to the form


pDws ( t D ) = p D w( t D ) ,

(3.15)

where pDw will be calculated by Equation 1.43. The requirement in Equation 3.14 is met if t p
is long and t is short.
Just after shut in (for very small t ), the sandface flow rate q sf is equal to the last well rate,
notified with q. The actual well rate is now zero. Equation 3.13 becomes
( t p + t )
t D
t pD
2s
pDws = 0,5 ln --------- + ln -------+ ln -------------------------D + 0,80907 ln ( CD e ) .
CD
CD
CD
Derivate to respect t D CD :

www.petroman.ir

(3.16)

3-46

Pressure Build Up Curve

tp D
t D
p'Dws = 0,5 ( t D CD ) 0,5 ( ( t p + t ) D CD ) = 0,5 ----------------------- --------, (3.17)
t p D + t D CD
or after recordering,
t p D + t D t D
-------------------------------- p' Dws = 0,5 .
tp D
CD

(3.18)

3.3. Skin Factor


From the pressure buildup curve, the skin factor can also be determined. If the well were closed
at the bottom, the pskin pressure difference would have to disappear at once and the curve
would have to follow Equation 1.52 during this short time:
k
q B
pwf = pi + 0,183 ---------- + lg( t p + t ) lg ---------------- +x
hk
c r2
t w
p

(3.19)

+ 0,35137 + Y ( [ t p + t ] D, r De ) + 0,86859 s .

If Equation 3.19 is subtracted from Equation 3.5 and if it is taken into consideration that
Y ( t p + p D , rDe ) = Y ( tDp , rDe ) , then
k
pws p w f = 0,183 qB
---------- lg t + lg ---------------- + 0,35137 + 0,86859s .
hk
c r 2

(3.20)

t w

If one substitutes t = 1 s , it follows from Equation 3.20 that


p ws( 1) pw f ( t p )
k
.
s = 1,1513 ------------------------------------------- + lg ---------------- + 0,35137
m
c r2
t w

(3.21)

Using field units, two constants have to be changed in Equation 3.19 and Equation 3.20:
k
pws p w f = 162,6 qB
---------- lg t + lg ---------------- + 3,2275 + 0,86859s .
hk
c r 2
t w

If one substitutes t = 1 hour , it follows from Equation 3.22 that

www.petroman.ir

(3.22)

Pressure Build Up Curve

3-47

pws ( 1 hour) p w f( t p )
k
s = 1,1513 ------------------------------------------------------- + lg ----------------- 3,2275 .
m
c r 2
t w

(3.23)

Production is rarely constant before shut in. The time t p is therefore calculated from the
cumulative production Np and from the last production rate:
Np
t p = ------ .
q

(3.24)

3.4. Reservoir Pressure


In an infinite acting reservoir Y ( t D p ) is 0, therefore the straight line extrapolated to
( t p + t ) t = 1 , according to Equation 3.6, gives the initial reservoir pressure pi . For a
bounded reservoir, this value is equal to
m Y(t , r ) .
p = p i + ---------------2,3026 D p D e

(3.25)

p is smaller than p i , (m is negative!), but larger than the average reservoir pressure p , as is
shown in Figure 3.2.
If the shut in time is long enough, a complete pressure equalization takes place in the reservoir:
lim p ws = p .

(3.26)

It would be very important to know the mean reservoir pressure. Usually, the shut in time is too
short to draw the last part of the curve. But the mean pressure can also be determined on the
basis of the value p* by means of the MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZENBROEK[10] method,
(MBH-plot).
The authors have compiled a series of diagrams, illustrated in Figure 3.3 - Figure 3.4 from which
for different shapes of drainage areas the dimensionless pressure value
2,3026 ( p p)
p DMBH ( t p D A ) = -----------------------------------m

(3.27)

can be determined as a function of


kt p
t pDA = --------------- .
c t A

(3.28)

www.petroman.ir

3-48

Pressure Build Up Curve

In field units:
kt p
t pDA = 0,60536 --------------.
c t A

(3.29)

If p is known, p can be estimated.

Bottom-hole pressure [MPa]

13.0

12.6

12.2
p
Slo

.2
=0
m
e

9*1

e
ycl
er c
p
6
a
0 P

11.8

11.4

11.0
5
10

7 54 3

10

7 54 3

10

7 5 4 3

10

7 54 3

10

7 54 3

(t+ t)/ t

Figure 3.2: Pressure buildup curve with a limited drainage area

Example 3.1
The permeability of the reservoir and the skin factor should be determined on the basis of Figure
3.1 which shows a pressure buildup curve.
Data:
Np
q
Boi
pi
o

= 21409 m3 [134648 bbl], cumulative production


= 38.3 m3/d [241 bbl/d], production rate before shut in
= 1.28 [ ]
= 20.7 MPa [3002.3 psi]
= 9.2x10-3 Pas [9.2 cp]

www.petroman.ir

Pressure Build Up Curve

Swi
ct
rw

3-49

= 21 m [68.9 ft]
= 0.17 [ ]
= 0.26 [ ]
= 1.2x10-9 Pa -1 [8.27x10 -6 1/psi]
= 0.1 m [0.328 ft]

Solution:
The production time according to Equation 3.24, is
Np
21409
7
t p = ------ = --------------- = 559 days 13400 hours 4.824 10 s .
q
38,3
The slope of the straight line in Figure 3.1 is
p
6
3
m = --------------- = ( 14,378 14,456 ) 10 = 78 10 Pa [ 11,31 psi ] .
Cycle
From Equation 2.15:
3

38,3 1,28 9,210 = 0,583 10 12 m 2 .


k = 0,183 qB
---------- = 0,183 ----------------------------------------------------------3
hm
86400 21 ( 78 10 )
The skin effect from Equation 3.21 is for
pws ( 1 hour ) = 14,272 MPa ,
pwf = 13,534 MPa ,
6

( 14,272 13,534 ) 10
s = 1,1513 ---------------------------------------------------------+ lg3600 + x
6
0,078 10
12

0,583
10
s + lg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ + 0,35137
0,17 9,2 10 3 1,210 9 0,12

s = 1,1513 [ 9,4615 + 3,5563 + 1,4924 + 0,35137] = 4,7 .

www.petroman.ir

3-50

Pressure Build Up Curve

In field units:
qB
241 1,28 9,2
k = 162,6 ---------- = 162,6 ------------------------------------------ = 593,3 md .
hm
68,9 ( 11,31 )
The skin effect form Equation 3.23 is for
pws ( 1 hour ) = 2070 psi ,
pwf = 1962 psi ,
( 2070 1962 )
592,2
3,2255
s = 1,1513 ---------------------------------- + lg ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11,31
4
2
0,17 9,2 1172 10 0,3281
s = 1,1513[ 9,54 + 8,6297 3,2275] = 4,77 .

Example 3.2
The straight line of the pressure buildup curve from Figure 3.1 extrapolated to
t p + t ( t ) = 1 , yields p = 14,594 MPa [ 2116,1 psi ] .
Data:
Np
q
Boi
pi
o
h

Swi
ct
rw

= 21409 m3 [134648 bbl], cumulative production


= 38.3 m3/d [241 bbl/d], production rate before shut in
= 1.28 [ ]
= 20.7 MPa [3002.3 psi]
= 9.2x10-3 Pas [9.2 cp]
= 21 m [68.9 ft]
= 0.17 [ ]
= 0.26 [ ]
= 1.7x10-8Pa-1 [1.172x10-4 1/psi]
= 0.1 m [0.328 ft]
6

The drainage area is a square with a surface A = 0,42 10 m [ 103,8 acre ] . The well is
placed in the center. The mean pressure of the drainage area is to be determined.

www.petroman.ir

Pressure Build Up Curve

3-51

Solution:
According to Equation 1.3,
12
7
kt p
0,583 10
4,824 10
t pDA = --------------- = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 2,518
3
8
6
c t A
0,17 9,2 10 1,710 0,4210

and for this value from Figure 3.4


pDMBH = 2,3026 ( p p ) m = 4,35 .
From Figure 3.1
p
m = --------------- = 0,078 MPa ,
Cycle
and therefore
6
m pDMBH
6 ( 0,078 10 ) 4,35
6
p = p + ----------------------------- = 14,594 10 + -------------------------------------------------- = 12,3 10 Pa .
2,3026
2,3026

In field units:
8

0,60536 10 kt
0,60536 10 592,2 13400
t pDA = --------------------------------------- = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------= 2,52 ,
4
c tA
0,17 9,2 1,17210 103,8
p
m = --------------- = 11,31 psi .
Cycle
Therefore,
m pDMBH
( 11,31 ) 4,35
p = p + ----------------------------- = 2116,1 + -------------------------------------- = 2094,7 psi .
2,3026
2,3036

3.5. Gas Producing Wells


Below the bubble point, the gas is dissolved in the reservoir. The evaluation of the pressure
buildup curve is carried out as before. However, the total two-phase compressibility and the
total mobility are applied.

www.petroman.ir

3-52

Pressure Build Up Curve

From the slope of the pressure buildup curve one can also determine hk g :
q g f g f Bg
hkg = 0,183 ---------------------,
m

(3.30)

where
qgf = q g qo Rs .
After shut in however, the pressure increases in the vincinity of the well, whereas the gas
saturation decreases. This fact is expressed by an apparent skin. If this effect is disregarded, one
could easily fail and order unnecessary formation treatments.
For gas wells, an apparent skin factor s' is determined and includes the influence of the
turbulent flow. According to Equation 1.64,
s' = s + D q .

(3.31)

In both cases, the actual skin factor can be determined from two pressure buildup curves with
different production rates. s' is drawn as a function of q, and the value extrapolated to q = 0
gives the correct skin factor.
6
Hexagon and circle
Square
5

pDMBH=2.303 (p*-p)/m

Equilateral triangle
4
Rhombus

Right triangle
2

*(t DA)pss
1

0
-2
10

5 6 78

-1

10

5 6 7 8

5 6 78

10

Dimensionless production time, t pDA


Figure 3.3: MBH dimensionless pressure for a well in the center of equilateral drainage areas
(after MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZENBROEK[10])

www.petroman.ir

Pressure Build Up Curve

3-53

pDMBH=2.303 (p*-p)/m

4
3
2
1

*(t DA)pss
0
Well 1/8 of height away from side
-1
10 -2

5 6 78

10-1

5 6 7 8

5 6 78

10

Dimensionless production time, t pDA

Figure 3.4: MBH dimensionless pressure for different well locations in a square drainage area
(after MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZENBROEK[10] )

www.petroman.ir

3-54

Pressure Build Up Curve

www.petroman.ir

Multiple Well Testing

4-55

4 Multiple Well Testing


Two or more wells are required for the test. One well is active, the others serve as observation
wells. In the active well, production (or injection) takes place in the given way. The observation
wells are closed. The pressure changes in these wells are recorded.
There exists a variety of multiple well testing methods, two of them are discussed here:
interference test (long time interference testing),
pulse test.
With an interference test, the rate of the active well is modified. For example, the well is closed
or put into operation and the effects on the observation wells are measured (Figure 1.6). From
this, information about the formation properties between the wells is derived. The same purpose
is achieved with pulse tests, but within a considerably shorter time (Figure 1.7). the pressure
changes are small, sometimes only to an extent of kPa, therefore sprecial differential pressure
gauges are needed.

4.1. Interference Test


The distance between the active well and the observation wells is r. The simplest, of course, is
to have the active well closed for an extended period of time and then put it into operation (at
time t = 0). Equation 1.37 gives the dimensionless pressure function. For this case, it is
presented graphically in Fig. 1.8. For a more complicated production history, the superposition
principle must be used for constructing a type curve.
The measurement is evaluated with the type curve matching method, similarly as in section 3.2.
In this case, the type curve is identical to Fig. 1.8.
Fig. 4.1 illustrates the procedure.

www.petroman.ir

4-56

Multiple Well Testing

Observed pressure change, p, psi

10

102

7
5
4
3
2

1
7

pD

5
4
3
2

10

-1

7
5
4
3

Data plotted on same


scale as Fig 1.8

Match Point
10

tM=100 hrs
2
(tD/r D)M=50
pM =10 PSI
(pD )M=0.80
1
1

102

10

103

Testing time, t, hrs

2
-2

10

-1

10

3 45 7

3 45 7

10

3 4 5 7

10

3 45 7

10

3 4 5 7

10

t D/rD

Figure 4.1: Illustration of type curve matching for an interference test (after
EARLOUGHER[4])
From the match point:
( p D )M
k = qB
---------- ---------------,
2h p M

(4.1)

tM
k -----------------------c t = -------.
2
2
r ( t D r D )M

(4.2)

In field units:
( p D)M
k = 141,2 qB
---------- ---------------,
h p M

(4.3)

tM
c t = 0,0002637k
---------------------------- -----------------------.
2
2
r
( tD r D) M

(4.4)

If the active well is shut in at time t 1 , a pressure buildup follows in the observation well. The
difference between the extrapolated pressure curve from the production period and the
measured values is now drawn as a function of t t 1 and evaluated as above. The same
procedure is followed if the interference is caused by the shut in of an active well.

www.petroman.ir

Multiple Well Testing

4-57

Example 4.1
During an interference test, water was injected in the active well for 22 days. The distance to
the observation well is 112.4 m [368.8 ft]. The measured pressure changes are given in the
following table:
Time t
hours
001.70
002.35
003.40
005.40
008.40
013.00
022.00
036.00
072.00
132.00
216.00
528.00

p
kPa
0560
0710
0930
1150
1400
1650
1920
2300
2750
3050
3400
3900

psi
08120
10295
13485
16675
20300
23925
27840
33350
39875
44225
49300
56550

q = 300 m3 /d [1887 bbl/d]


= 0.82x10-3 Pas [0.82 cp]
Bw = 1.0
h = 12 m [39.4 ft]
r = 112.4 m [368.8 ft]
The permeability and the product c t of the reservoir are to be determined.

Solution:
The measured p-values are drawn on a transparent sheet vs. t (hour), and matched by parallel
shifting in Figure 4.1 with the type curve in Figure 1.8. In the match point:
tM

= 100 hours,

( t D r D ) M = 50,

pM = 105 Pa [14.5 psi], (pD)M

= 0.80.

From Equation 4.1 and Equation 4.2,

www.petroman.ir

4-58

Multiple Well Testing

3
( p D )M
1,0 0,8210 -------0,8 = 0,302 10 12 m 2 ,
k = qB
---------- ---------------= 300
-----------------------------------------------------2h p M
86400 2 12 105
12
tM
9
1
k
0,302
10
100 3600
c t = -------- ------------------------ = -------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 0,21 10 Pa .
2
2
3
2
50
r ( t D r D )M
0,82 10 112,4

In field units:
1,0 0,82 ---------0,8 = 306 mD ,
k = 141,2 1887
-----------------------------------------39,4
14,5
6
1
306 100
c t = 0,0002637
------------------------------------------------ = 0,15 10 psi .
2
0,82 368,8 50

4.2. Pulse Test


In this process the active well produces at short intervals (Figure 4.2). The production and shut
in periods are different, but the cycles must be the same. The ratio of pulse time t p and cycle
time t c is
t p
F' = -------- .
t c

(4.5)

www.petroman.ir

4-59

Rate at pulsing well, q

Multiple Well Testing

Pulses

tp
tp

t1

Time

Pressure at
responding well, pw

Pulse 4

3
Pulse

Pu lse 2

Pulse

Pulse responses

Established trend
t1

Time

Figure 4.2: Schematic illustration of rate (pulse) history and pressure response for a pulse test
The pressure change in the observation well is the result of a general trend and the pulsation. A
tangent is drawn to the maximum and the minimum of the pressure waves, as shown in Figure
4.3, and the time lags t L1, t L2, t L 3 and the pressure differences p 1, p 2, p 3 are measured.
If the cycle time t c is short, the evaluation will be very unreliable. If it is long, however,
unnecessary costs are incurred. Therefore, the pulse test must be carefully planned.
Since the pulse times are short, the formation can be considered as infinite. The dimensionless
pressure function is calculated by the superposition of the elementary solution according to
Equation 1.37.

www.petroman.ir

4-60

Multiple Well Testing

7
3

Pressure

tL1

1
p1

p4
4

tL4

Rate

Pulse number

q>0

q>0
tp

Start of
pulse test

4
q>0

6
q>0

8
q>0

Time
tc

Figure 4.3: Schematic pulse-test rate and pressure history showing definition of time
and pulse response amplitude.
KAMAL and BRIGHAM[7] have carried out this task, the results are comprised in the diagrams
Figure 4.4 to Figure 4.11. There are special diagrams for the first and second pulses and for all
following odd pulses (3., 5., ...) and even pulses (4., 6., ...).
2

The evaluation is very simple. On the basis of t L t c and F' , the value p D t L t c can be
read from Figure 4.4 to Figure 4.7 and from Equation 4.1
2

qB ( p D [ t L t c] )Fig
k = ----------------------------------------------------------.
2
2hp [t L t c]

(4.6)

From Figure 4.8 to Figure 4.11, [ ( t L ) D rD ] F i g can be read, and from Equation 4.2 to Equation
4.4 follows:
kt L
c t = --------------------------------------------,
2
2
r [ ( t L ) D r D ] Fig

(4.7)

qB ( p D [ t L t c] )Fig
k = 141,2 ----------------------------------------------------------2
hp [ tL t c ]

(4.8)

0,0002637kt L
c t = --------------------------------------------2
2
r [ ( t L ) r D ]

(4.9)

Fig

www.petroman.ir

4-61

Pulse response amplitude, pD[tL/tC]

Multiple Well Testing

0.0035

First odd pulse

0.0030

F'=0.7

0.6

0.8

0.0025

0.5
0.4

0.0020

0.9

0.0015
0.3

0.0010

0.2
0.0005
0.1
0.0000

5 6 7 8

10 -1

5 6 7 8 91

(time lag)/(cycle length), tL/ tC

Figure 4.4: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for first
odd pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM[7])
The evaluation is performed for all cycles and the mean value of the results is calculated.

Example 4.2
A pulse test is to be carried out in an undersaturated oil reservoir. Distances of wells are r = 175
m [574 ft].
The reservoir data:
h = 20 m [65.6 ft]
Bo = 1.10
o = 2x10-3 Pas [2 cp]
rw = 0.1 m [0.328 ft]
The following values are estimated:
ct = 10-9Pa-1 [0.6896x10-5 1/psi]
= 0.2
k = 0.1x10-12 m2 [100 mD]

www.petroman.ir

Multiple Well Testing

Pulse response amplitude, pD[tL/tC]

4-62

0.0045

First even pulse

0.4
F'=0.3

0.0040

0.2
0.0035
0.5

0.0030
0.6

0.0025
0.0020

0.7

0.0015
0.0010

0.1
3

5 6 7 8

10 -1

5 6 7 8 91

(time lag)/(cycle length), tL/ tC

Figure 4.5: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for first even pulse
(after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7] )
Solution:
a.) Planning of the test: the cycle time and the production rate are to be determined. Based on
experience, it is favourable if the time lag is 1/3 of the cycle time:
tL tc = 1 3 .
We select
t p
F' = -------- = 0,5 ,
t c
and from Fig. 4.8
2

[ ( t L ) D rD ] F i g = 0,09 .
From Eq. 4.7
2

c tr [ ( t L ) D rD ] F i g
t c = 3t L = 3 ----------------------------------------------------k
9

0,2 10 210 175 0,09 33075 s 9 hours


t c = 3----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
0,1 10

www.petroman.ir

4-63

Pulse response amplitude, pD[tL/tC]

Multiple Well Testing

0.0035
0.0030

All odd pulses


except the first

0.8
F'=0.7
0.6

0.0025

0.5

0.0020

0.4

0.0015

0.9
0.3

0.0010

0.2
0.0005
0.1
0.0000

5 6 7 8

10

-1

5 6 7 8 91

(time lag)/(cycle length), tL/ tC

Figure 4.6: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for all odd pulses
except the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7])
In field units:
5

3 0,2 0,6896 10 2 574 0,09


t c = 3t L = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 9,3 hours .
0,0002637 100
The occurancy of the used differential pressure gauge is 20 Pa [0.003 psi], therefore the pressure
differences have to be at least 2000 Pa [0.3 psi] in order to be sure that the error is less than 1%.
From Figure 4.4
2

p D [ t L t c ] = 0,00238
and from Equation 4.6
2

2hkp [ tL t c ]
q = -------------------------------------------------------= x
2
B ( p D [ t L t c] )Fig
12

2 20 0,1 10
2000 ( 1 3 )
4 3 1
3
q = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 5,33 10 m s = 46 m d .
3
1,1 2 10 0,00238
In field units:

www.petroman.ir

4-64

Multiple Well Testing

hkp [ t L t c ]
q = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= x
2
141,2 B ( p D [ t L t c ] )F i g
2

Pulse response amplitude, pD[tL/tC]

65,6 100 0,3 ( 1 3)


q = --------------------------------------------------------------- = 295,8 bbl d .
141,2 1,1 2 0,00238

0.0045
0.0040

All even pulses


except the first

0.2
F'=0.3
0.4

0.0035
0.5
0.0030
0.0025
0.6
0.0020
0.7

0.0015

0.8
0.0010

5 6 7 8

10 -1

5 6 7 8 91

(time lag)/(cycle length), tL/ tC


Figure 4.7: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and response amplitude for all even pulses
except the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM[7])

b.) The test was performed in the following way:


Cycle time:

8 hours

Rate:

48 m3/d [302 bbl/d]

First pressure change p1:

1700 Pa [0.246 psi]

First time log tL1 :

12860 s = 3.572 hours

t L1
12860
-------= --------------------- = 0,446 .
t c
8 3600
From Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.8,
2

p [t L t c ] = 0,002175 ,

www.petroman.ir

Multiple Well Testing

4-65

( t L ) r D = 0,086 ,
D
and from Equation 4.6 and Equation 4.7,
3

48 1,1 2 10 0,002175
12
2
k = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 = 0,062 10
m ,
86400 2 20 1700 0,446
12

0,062 10
12860
9
1
c t = ------------------------------------------------------= 0,153 10 Pa .
3
2
2 10 175 0,086
In field units:
302 1,1 2 0,002175
k = 141,2 ------------------------------------------------------------ = 63,6 mD ,
2
65,6 0,246 0,446
0,0002637 63,6 3,572
5
1
c t = -------------------------------------------------------------= 0,105 10 psi .
2
2 574 0,086
The following pulses are evaluated in the same way. The mean values of k and c t can be used
as the best estimates.

Dimensionless time lag, (t L)D/rD

0.200

First odd pulse

0.175

F'=0.9

0.150
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.125
0.100
0.075
0.050
0.025

0.1
3

5 6 7 8

10-1

5 6 7 8 91

(time lag)/(cycle length), t L/ tC

Figure 4.8: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for the first odd pulse
(after KAMAL and BRIGHAM[7] )

www.petroman.ir

4-66

Multiple Well Testing

Dimensionless time lag, (t L)D/rD

0.200

First even pulse


F'=0.1

0.175
0.150

0.2

0.125

0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

0.100
0.075
0.050

0.9
0.025

5 6 7 8

10 -1

5 6 7 8 91

(time lag)/(cycle length), tL/ tC

Figure 4.9: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for the first even pulse
(after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7] )

Dimensionless time lag, (t L)D/rD

0.200

All odd pulses


except the first

0.175

F'=0.9

0.150

0.8

0.125
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0.100
0.075
0.050
0.025

5 6 7 8

10 -1

5 6 7 8 91

(time lag)/(cycle length), tL/ tC

Figure 4.10: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for all odd pulses except
the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM[7])

www.petroman.ir

Multiple Well Testing

4-67

Dimensionless time lag, (t L)D/rD

0.200
0.175

All even pulses


except the first

F'=0.1

0.150

0.2

0.125
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

0.100
0.075
0.050

0.9
0.025

5 6 7 8

10-1

5 6 7 8 91

(time lag)/(cycle length), t L/ tC

Figure 4.11: Pulse testing: relation between time lag and cycle length for all even pulses
except the first pulse (after KAMAL and BRIGHAM [7])

www.petroman.ir

4-68

Multiple Well Testing

www.petroman.ir

Nomenclature

5-69

5 Nomenclature
A
B
Bg
Bo
C
CA
CD
c
ct
D
DF
-Ei(-z)
FE
G
g
h
J
k
kg
ko
krg
kro
krw
kw
L
m
m(p)
Np
pi
pw f
pw s
q
qD
qo
qw
Rs
r
re
rw
Sw i
s
t
t
c

area
formation volume factor
formation volume factor, gas
formation volume factor, oil
wellbore storage constant
shape factor (Eq. 1.46)
dimensionless wellbore storage constant
compressibility

L2

total compressibility
turbulence factor
damage factor
exponential integral, x positive
flow efficiency
fluid mass
acceleration of gravity
bad thickness, individual
productivity index

Lt2/m
t/L3

permeability, absolute (fluid flow)

L2
L2

effective permeability to gas


effective permeability to oil
relative permeability to gas
relative permeability to oil
relative permeability to water
effective permeability to water
distance, length, or length of path
slope
real gas pseudo pressure
cumulative oil production
pressure, initial
pressure, bottomhole flowing
pressure, bottomhole, at any time after
shut-in
production rate or flow rate
production rate, dimensionless
production rate, oil
production rate, water
solution gas / oil ratio
radius
outer radius
well radius
initial water sautration
skin effect
time
shut in time
cycle time

www.petroman.ir

L4 t/m

Lt2/m

m
L/t2
L
L4 t/m

L2

L2
L
m/Lt2 or m/Lt3
L3
m/Lt2
m/Lt2
m/Lt2
L3 /t
L3 /t
L3 /t
L
L
L

t
t
t

5-70

Nomenclature

tD
tD
tDA

dimensionless time (Eq. 1.2)


time, dimensionless
dimensionless time (Eq. 1.3)
time well was on production prior
to shut-in, equivalent (pseudotime)
log time
volume

gas compressibility factor

L3

g
o
w

viscosity, dynamic
viscosity, gas
viscosity, oil
viscosity, water

m/Lt
m/Lt
m/Lt
m/Lt

density
porosity

m/L3

tp
tL

t
t
L3

Greek letters

Subscripts
D
g
gf
i
o
r
s
sc
sf
w
w
wf
ws

dimensionless
gas
free gas
initial
oil phase
relative
skin
standard condition
sand face
water
well
well under flowing condition
well under shut-in conditions

www.petroman.ir

References

6-71

6 References

2
3
4
5
6
7

8
9

10

11
12

13
14

15

Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. JR. and Crawford, P.B. (1966): "The Flow of
Real Gases Through Porous Media," J.Pet.Tech. (May 1966) 624-626, Trans.,
AIME (1966) 237.
Bourdet, D. et al. (1983): "A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test
Analysis," World Oil (May 1983), 95-106.
Bourdet, D. et al. (1984): "New Type Curves Aid Analysis of Fissured Zone
Well Tests," World Oil (April 1984).
Earlougher, R. C., Jr. (1977): "Advances in Well Test Analysis," Monographs
Series, Soc. Pet. Eng. (1977), Trans., AIME, 5, Dallas.
Earlougher, R.C., Jr., and Ramey, H.J., Jr. (1973): "Interference Analysis in
Bounded Systems," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Oct.-Dec. 1973) 33-45.
Heinemann, Z.E.: "Fluid Flow in Porous Media" Texbook, Montanuniversitt
Leoben, (2003) p.190.
Kamal, M. and Brigham, W.E. (1975): "Pulse-Testing Response for Unequal
Pulse and Shut-In Periods," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1975) 399-410, Trans.,
AIME, 259.
Lee, John: "Well Testing," SPE Texbook Series, Vol.1. Dallas (1982), p. 159.
Martin, J.C. (1959): "Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reservoirs
and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analyses,"
Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 309-311.
Matthews, C.S., Brons; F., and Hazenbrock, P. (1954): "A Method for
Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir, "Trans., AIME
(1954) 201, 182-189.
Matthews, C.S. and Russel, D.G. (1967): "Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in
Wells," Monograph Series, Soc. of Pet. Eng. of AIME, 1, Dallas.
Miller, C.C., Dyes, A.B., and Hutchinson, C.A., Jr. (1950): "The Estimation of
Permeability and Reservoir Pressure From Bottom Hole Pressure Build-Up
Characteristics," Trans., AIME (1950) 189, 91-104.
Perrine, R.L. (1956): "Analysis of Pressure Buidup Curves," Drill. and Prod.
Prac., API (1956), 482-509.
Ramey, H.J., Jr. (1965): "Non Darcy Flow and Wellbore Storage Effects in
Pressure Build-up and Drawdown of Gas Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1965)
223-233, Trans., AIME, 234.
Rammey, H.J., Jr. and Cobb, W., M. (1971): "A General Buildup Theory for a
Well in a Closed Drainage Area," J.Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1971), 1493-1505.

www.petroman.ir

6-72

References

www.petroman.ir

Appendix

7-73

7 Appendix

www.petroman.ir

7-74

Appendix

www.petroman.ir