Well Test

Well Testing Analysis
Basis for Grade:

Homework 20%
Examinations (3) 45%
Final Examination 25%
Class Participation/Pop Quizzes 10%
total = 100%
Grade Cutoffs: (Percentages)
A: < 90
B: 89.99 to 80
C: 79.99 to 70
D: 69.99 to 60
F: < 59.99
Introduction
to Well Testing
Objectives
• List the more common objectives of well testing.
• Describe the diffusivity equation by explaining
– its purpose and applications
– assumptions made in its derivation and how it is
derived
– its form for one-dimensional radial flow.
• List, define, give the units for, and specify typical sources
for each of the variables that influence responses in a well
test.
• Compute the total compressibility for different reservoir
systems (undersaturated oil, saturated oil, gas).
What Is A Well Test?
• A tool for reservoir evaluation and characterization
– Investigates a much larger volume of the reservoir
than cores or logs
– Provides estimates of
– permeability under in-situ conditions
– near-wellbore conditions
– distances to boundaries
– average pressure
How Is A Well Test Conducted?
q
Well is
allowed to q
produce Production
normally remainst
constant
Sensor is p Pressure
lowered stabilizes
into well
t
How Is A Well Test Conducted?
q=0
Production drops to 0
Well is
shut in q
Sensor is p
lowered Pressure
into well rises
t
Fundamental Concepts
• Applications and objectives of well testing
• Development of the diffusivity equation
• Definitions and sources for data used in

well testing
Types and Purposes of Well
Tests
• Pressure transient tests
– We generate and measure pressure changes with time
• Deliverability tests
– Well controlled production
• (Production Analysis)
– Use of production data for goals usually achieved by
well testing
Production data analysis
• Reservoir properties (permeability, skin
factor, fracture half-length, etc).
• Reservoir pore volume (estimated using
long-term production performance).
• Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)—
movable fluid volumes.
Well Test Applications
Well Test Objectives
• Define reservoir limits
• Estimate average drainage area pressure
• Characterize reservoir
• Diagnose productivity problems

• Evaluate stimulation treatment effectiveness
Single-, Multiwell Tests
q
Well is
allowed to
produce
normally
Sensor is
lowered
into well
Well is shut in,

pressure is
measured
Well is
shut in . . . pressure is
measured at
Sensor is offset well(s)
lowered
into
offset
well
Kinds of Well Tests
q
Produce well Plot
at constant pressure
rate response
Lower Pwf
sensor
into well
t
Kinds of Well Tests
Shut in well
Plot
Produce
pressure
well at
response
constant
rate
Lower Pws
sensor
into well
t
Kinds of Well Tests
Plot
pressure
Inject fluid response
into well at
constant rate p
t
Kinds of Well Tests
q=0
Shut in well
Measure
Inject fluid pressure
into well at response
constant rate
p
t
Multiwell Tests
. . . measure pressure
response at offset
well(s)
Produce
one well at
constant
rate . . .
p
t
Multiwell Tests
q
. . . measure
pressure
response at
offset well(s)
Alternately
produce and
shut in one
well . . . p
t
PTA: Single-Well Tests
– one well in which the pressure response is measured
following a rate change.
• pressure buildup test
– shut in after controlled production
• drawdown or flow test
– (specific drawdown tests: are called reservoir limits tests
• pressure falloff test
– similar to a pressure buildup test, except it is, conducted on
an injection well
• injectivity test
– Inject into the well at measured rate and measure pressure
as it increases with time
– analogous to pressure drawdown testing.
PTA: Multiwell Tests
• Flow rate is changed in one well
• Pressure response is measured in one or more other
wells
• Directional variations of reservoir properties
(orientation of natural fractures)
• Presence or lack of communication between two
points in the reservoir
• Ratio of the porosity-compressibility products of the
matrix and fracture systems
Multiwell tests:
• Interference tests
– The active well is produced at a measured, constant rate
throughout the test
– (Other wells in the field must be shut in so that any
observed pressure response can be attributed to the active
well only.)
• Pulse tests
– The active well produces and then, is shut in, returned to
production and shut in again
– Repeated but with production or shut-in periods rarely
exceeding more than a few hours
– Produces a pressure response in the observation wells
which usually can be interpreted unambiguously (even
when other wells in the field continue to produce)
Deliverability tests (DT)
• production capabilities of a well under
specific reservoir conditions
• primarily for gas wells
• absolute openflow (AOF) potential
• inflow performance relationship (IPR) or gas
backpressure curve
DT: Flow-After-Flow Tests
(referred to as gas backpressure or four-point tests)
• producing the well at a series of different stabilized
flow rates
• measuring the stabilized bottomhole flowing
pressure at the sandface
• typically, with a sequence of increasing flow rates
DT: Single-Point Tests
• low-permeability formations
• flowing the well at a single rate until the bottomhole
flowing pressure is stabilized

– required by many regulatory agencies
– requires prior knowledge of the well's deliverability
behavior
– (from previous testing or from correlations with other wells
producing in the same field under similar conditions)

DT: Isochronal Tests
• Specifically, the isochronal test is a series of single-
point tests developed to estimate stabilized
deliverability characteristics without actually flowing
the well for the time required to achieve stabilized
conditions
• The isochronal test is conducted by alternately
producing the well, then shutting in the well and
allowing it to build up to the average reservoir pressure
prior to the beginning of the next production period.
Issues
• Development Wells vs. Exploration Wells
• Producing Wells vs. Injection Wells
• Shallow Wells vs. Deep Wells
• Stimulated Wells vs. Unstimulated Wells
• Effects of Reservoir Properties
• Low Permeability vs. High Permeability
Formations
• Single Zones vs. Multiple Zones
• Safety and Environmental Considerations
• Sweet Gas vs. Sour and Corrosive Gases
• Other environmental Concerns
Production data analysis
• Reservoir properties (permeability, skin

factor, fracture half-length, etc).
• Reservoir pore volume (estimated using
long-term production performance).
• Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)—
movable fluid volumes.
End of Class
The Diffusivity Equation
• Describes the flow of
– a slightly compressible fluid
– having constant viscosity
– in a porous medium
– at constant temperature
• Derived from basic relationships of
– continuity
– flow equation (Darcy’s law)
– equation-of-state
The Continuity Equation
(Av)1 (Av)2
  Av 1  Av 2
m
Flow Equation (Darcy’s Law)
kAp
q
L
or, in differential form,
k x p
ux  
 x
Equation of State for a Slightly
Compressible Liquid
c  p  po 
   oe
The Diffusivity Equation
One-dimensional, radial form:
1   p   ct p
r  
r r  r  k t
Formation Volume Factor
Vres
B
Vsurf
For oil: For gas: For water:
Vres Vres Vres
Bo  Bg  Bw 
Vsurf Vsurf Vsurf
Viscosity
• A fluid’s resistance to flow
– Gasoline—low viscosity
– Vaseline—high viscosity
Fluid Compressibility
1 V ln V 
c 
V p p
Porosity
Permeability
qL
k
Ap
Pore Compressibility
1   ln 
cf  
 p p
Net Pay Thickness
h1
h2
h = h1 + h2 + h3
Shale
h3 Sand (No perforations
in this sand)
h4
Net Pay Thickness
Vertical well, Vertical well,

horizontal formation slanted formation
Deviated well, Deviated well,

horizontal formation slanted formation
Saturations
Wellbore Radius
rw
Total Compressibility
ct  c f  So co  Sw c w  S g c g
Modeling Radial Flow
Instructional Objectives
• State the Ei-function solution to the diffusivity equation, and
list all the assumptions on which it is based. State practical
rules for determining the numerical values of the Ei-function.
• Given formation and fluid properties, be able to calculate the
radius of investigation at a given time and the time necessary
to reach a given radius of investigation.
• Describe the effects of reservoir properties on the radius of
investigation.
Radial Flow Reservoir Model
Bulk
formation
rw
h
r
Ei-Function Solution
to the Diffusivity Equation
 2
qB  948 ct r 
p  pi  70.6 Ei 
kh  kt 
 
e  u
 Ei  x    du
x u
Ei-Function Graph
6 Log approximation
4
-Ei(-x)
Ei-function
drops to zero
2
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
-x
Short-Time Approximation for Ei-
Function Solution
p  pi
2
948  ct r
Applies when  10
kt
(large radius or small time)
Long-Time Approximation
to Ei-Function Solution
 2
qB 1688   c r
p  pi  162.6 log10  t 
kh  kt 
 
948  ct r 2
Applies when  0.01
kt
(small radius or large time)
Pressure Profile
During Drawdown
2000
t=0 ri ri ri ri
t = 0.01 hrs
t = 1 hr
Pressure,
psi
t = 100 hrs
t = 10000 hrs
1000
1 10 100 1000 10000
Distance from center of wellbore, ft
Pressure Profile
During Buildup
2,000
t = 10,000 hrs
ri
1,800
ri
1,600 t = 100 hrs
Pressure,
psi
1,400
ri
t = 1 hr
1,200 ri
t = 0.01 hrs
t=0
1,000
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Radius of Investigation Equations
• Radius of investigation for a
given time t:
kt
ri 
948ct
• Time required to reach a given

radius of investigation ri:
948 ct ri2

t
k
Characterizing Damage and
Stimulation
• List factors that cause skin damage or geometric skin factor.
• Calculate skin factor for a given additional pressure drop due to
damage; conversely, calculate additional pressure drop for a given
skin factor.
• Calculate flow efficiency given the skin factor, wellbore pressure,
and average drainage area pressure.
• Express skin factor as an apparent wellbore radius; conversely,
express apparent wellbore radius as a skin factor.
• Express a given skin factor as an equivalent fracture halflength (for
an infinite-conductivity fracture); conversely, express fracture half-
length as an equivalent skin factor.
Drilling Fluid Damage
Fines may clog pore
throats, reducing
effective permeability
Mud filtrate
invasion
Filtrate may cause

clays to swell,
causing damage
Production Damage
p > pd P< pd p < pb p > pb
Gas Condensate Oil Reservoir

Reservoir Free gas reduces
Immobile condensate
ring reduces
Injection Damage
‘dirty’ incompatible
water water
Reservoir Model
Skin Effect
Bulk
formation
Altered
zone
ka h k
rw
ra
Reservoir Pressure Profile
2,000
Pressure, psi
1,500
1,000
ps
500
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Skin and Pressure Drop
0.00708 k h
s ps
qB
Skin and Pressure Drop
141.2qB
 ps  s
kh
Skin Factor and Properties
of the Altered Zone
 k   ra 
s    1  ln  
 ka   rw 
rw rds
h
r
Skin Factor and Properties
of the Altered Zone
k
ka 
s
1
ln ra rw 
Effective Wellbore Radius
s
rwa
wa  rw e
 rwa 
s   ln  
 rw 
Minimum Skin Factor
 re 
smin   ln  
r
 w
Minimum Skin Factor
Example
 re 
smin   ln  
 rw 
 745 
  ln    7.3
 0.5 
Converging Flow to Perforations
Geometric Skin
Partial Penetration
hp
Geometric Skin
Incompletely Perforated
Interval
h1
ht
hp
ht
s sd  s p
hp
Geometric Skin
Partial Penetration
Apparent Skin Factor
1
h1 D  h1 ht Geometric Skin A
h1 D  hpD 4
hpD  hp ht
 1 
 1   1 hpD  A  1  2
sp    1  ln  ln    
 hpD  2rD hpD  2  hpD  B  1  
   
1
rw  kv  2 1
rD    B
ht  kh  h1 D  3hpD 4
Deviated Wellbore
 h sec 
h s  sd  s
Geometric Skin
Deviated Wellbore
1 
kv 
 w'  tan   tan w 
 kh 
2.06 1.865
  w'    w'   hD 
s       log 
 41   56   100 
   
h kh
hD 
rw kv
Well With Hydraulic Fracture
L f  2rwa
Lf
rwe
Lf
rwa 
Geometric Skin
2
Completion Skin
rw
s  s p  sd  sdp
kdp rdp
rp
kR
Lp  h  rdp  kR kR 
sdp   ln   
 Lp n  rp  kdp kd 
kd    
rd
Gravel Pack Skin
Cement
kR hLg
sgp  2
2nk gp rp
Lg
Productivity Index
q
J
p  pwf
Flow Efficiency
J actual p  pwf  ps

Ef  
J ideal p  pwf
Flow Efficiency and Rate
E fnew
qnew  qold
E fold
Semilog Analysis
For Oil Wells
• Analyze a constant-rate drawdown test using semilog analysis.
• Analyze a buildup test following a constant-rate flow period
using the Horner method.
qB  948c t r 2

p  pi  70.6 Ei  
kh  kt 
6
4
-Ei(-x)
2
0.001 -x 100
Reservoir Pressure Profile
2,000
Negative skin
(s = -2)
Pressure,
psi Unsteady-state pressure
(s=0)
Positive (damage) skin (s = +5)
500
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Incorporating Skin into the
• For r = rw
qB   948   c t rw 
2

p  pi  70.6  Ei     2 s 
kh   kt  
• For r > ra
q B  948   ct r 2 
p  pi  70.6 Ei   
kh  kt 
Log Approximation to the
Ei-Function
y = mx + b
qB Use |m| in computations
pwf  pi  162.6 from this point forward
kh
  k  
 log10 t   log10  2
  3.23  0.869 s
  ct rw  
Estimating Permeability and
Skin
162.6qB
k
mh
 pi  p1hr  k  
s  1.151  log10    3.23
m  c r 2 
  t w 
Drawdown Test Graph
1,200
Usually several cycles apart
(t2, pwf2) p1hr is p at

1 hr on best-
Pressure,
fit line
psi
Plot pressure vs. time (t1, pwf1)
Powers of 10
700
0.1 1 10 100 1,000
Elapsed Test Time, hrs
Example
• q = 250 STB/D pi = 4,412 psia
• h = 46 ft  = 12%
• rw = 0.365 ft B = 1.136 RB/STB
• ct = 17 x 10-6 psi-1  = 0.8 cp
p  p  k  
s  1.151 i 1hr  log10    3.23
m  c r 2 
  t w 
Example
• q = 250 STB/D pi = 4,412 psia
• h = 46 ft  = 12%
• rw = 0.365 ft B = 1.136 RB/STB
• ct = 17 x 10-6 psi-1  = 0.8 cp 162.6qB
k
mh
p  p  k  
s  1.151 i 1hr  log10    3.23
m  c r 2 
  t w 
Example
3,600
Extrapolate to get p1 hr
slope = p10 hr-p1 hr
p1hr  3,540 psi
 -100
m  100
Pressure,
psi p10hr  3,440 psi
One log cycle
Plot data points
from field data
3,300
1 10 100
Time, hrs
Example
• q = 250 STB/D pi = 4,412 psia
• h = 46 ft  = 12%
• rw = 0.365 ft B = 1.136 RB/STB
• ct = 17 x 10-6 psi-1  = 0.8 cp 162.6qB
k
p1hr  3,540 psi mh
p  p  k  
s  1.151 i 1hr  log10    3.23
m  c r 2 
 m  100  t w 
Problems with Drawdown
Tests
• It is difficult to produce a well at a strictly constant
rate
• Even small variations in rate distort the pressure
response
Alternative to Drawdown
Tests
• There is one rate that is easy to maintain – a flow
rate of zero.
• A buildup test is conducted by shutting in a
producing well and measuring the resulting
pressure response.
Buildup Test - Rate History
q
Rate during production of
0 +q.
t + t
p
0 t
Rate after shut-in of -q

-q
q
Sum after shut-in
of 0.
0
tp t
Buildup Pressure Response
0
Pressure normally declines
during production...
tp + t
…but rises during the

0
‘injection’ (buildup)
period... t
…yielding a pressure curve that is the
sum of the two rate curves:
0
tp t
Buildup Test - Superposition
qB   k  
pws  pi  162.6
kh 
 
 log10 t p  t  log10  2
  3.23  0.869 s

  c r
t w 
qB   k  
 162.6  log10 t   log10  2
  3.23  0.869 s

kh    ct rw  
qB  t p  t 
pws  pi  162.6 log10  
kh  t 
y = mx + b
Buildup Straight-Line
Analogy
162.6qB
k
mh
Horner time ratio
t p  t
pi  b @ 1
t
Buildup Test Graph
2,000
pi
Pressure,
psi
1,400
10,000 1,000 100 10 1
Horner time ratio

Estimating Skin Factor
From a Buildup Test
 p1hr  pwf  k  
s  1.151  log 10    3.23
2 
 m  c t rw  
Horner Pseudoproducing
Time
24 N p
tp 
qlast
qlast B  t p  t 
pws  pi  162.6 log10  
kh  t 
Semilog Analysis
For Gas Wells
1. Identify range of validity of pressure,

pressure-squared, and adjusted pressure
analysis methods
2. Estimate pressure drop due to nonDarcy
flow
3. Analyze flow and buildup tests using
semilog analysis
Outline
• Flow Equations For Gas Wells
– Pseudopressure
– Pressure-Squared
– Pressure
– Adjusted Pressure
• Non-Darcy Flow
• Example
Diffusivity Equation - Liquids
1   p  c t p
r  
r r   r  k t
• Continuity Equation
• Equation of State For Slightly Compressible
Liquids
• Darcy’s Law
Real Gas Law
absolute pressure,realideal
gas deviation
gas constant,
factor,
10.72 (ft3)
psi dimensionless
(lb)/(mole)(in2)(R)
pV=znRT
pV znRT number of moles
volume, ft 3
temperature, R
Real Gas Pseudopressure
absolute pressure, psi

p pdp
p p  p   2
p0 z
Gas Flow Equation
1   p p  c t p p
 r  
r r  r  k t
• Real Gas Law Equation of State
• Darcy’s Law
Gas Flow Equation
Pressure-Squared
1   p 2
 c t p 2
 r  
r r  r  k t
• Darcy’s Law
• The term z Is Constant
Pressure-Squared Ranges
0.16
SG=1.2
Fairly constant at
rates <2,000 psi
SG=1.0
mu*z, Tf = 200 °F
psi/cp SG=0.8
SG=0.6
0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Pressure, psia
Gas Flow Equation: Pressure
• If p/z is constant,
1   p  ct p
r  
r r  r  k t
• Darcy’s Law
Pressure: Range Of
Application
250
Tf = 200°F SG=0.6
p/*z, SG=0.8
psi/cp
SG=1.0
(x103)
SG=1.2
Fairly constant at rates >3,000 psi

0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Pressure, psia
Gas - Dependent Variables
• Pressure-Squared - Valid Only For Low
Pressures (< 2000 psi)
• Pressure - Valid Only For High Pressures (>
3000 psi)
• Real Gas Pseudopressure - Valid For All
Pressure Ranges
Gas Flow Equation:
1   p p  ct p p
 r  
r r  r  k t
Strong Variation
• Continuity Equation With Pressure

• Darcy’s Law
Real Gas Pseudotime
t dt
t ap  
0   p ct  p 
Adjusted Variables
 z  p pdp  z 
pa  p         p p  p 
 p i p0 z  2 p  i
t dt
t a  ct i   ct i t ap
0   p ct  p 
Using Horner Time Ratio
With Adjusted Time
t p  t a
HTR 
t a
Non-Darcy Flow
• Flow equations developed so far assume
Darcy flow
• For gas wells, velocity near wellbore is
high enough that Darcy’s law fails
• Non-Darcy behavior can often be
modeled as rate-dependent skin
s '  s  Dq g
Estimating Non-Darcy
Coefficient
From Multiple Tests
10
8
D = 5.1x104D/Mscf
6
Apparent
skin factor
4
s = 3.4
2
0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Flow rate, Mscf/D
Estimating Non-Darcy Coefficient
From Turbulence Parameter
• Often, only one test is available
• If so, we can estimate D from
15
2.715  10 k g Mpsc
D
hrwTsc  g ,wf
Estimating Turbulence
Parameter
• If  is not known, it can be estimated from
10 1.47 0.53
  1.88 10 k 
Wellbore Storage
Objectives
• Define wellbore unloading
• Define afterflow
• Calculate wellbore storage (WBS)
coefficient for wellbore filled with a
singlephase fluid
• Calculate WBS coefficient for rising
liquid level
Fluid-Filled Wellbore -
Unloading
Ei-function solution
assumes constant
Rate
Surface Rate reservoir rate
Bottomhole
Rate Mass balance
0 Time
equation resolves
problems
dpw


q  qsf B 
dt 24Vwbcwb
Fluid-Filled Wellbore -
Afterflow
Bottomhole flow
Rate
Surface Rate continues after
shut-in
Bottomhole
Rate
Time
dpw


q  qsf B 
dt 24Vwbcwb
Rising Liquid Level
Rate Surface Rate
Bottomhole
Rate
Time
Liquid rises until

hydrostatic head in
wellbore matches
pressure in formation
dpw

 
q  qsf B  5.615  wb  g 
  
dt 24  144 Awb  gc 
Wellbore Storage
Fluid-filled wellbore
dpw


q  qsf B 
dt 24Vwbcwb
Rising liquid level
dpw

 
q  qsf B  5.615  wb  g 
  
dt 24  144 Awb  gc 
General dpw

 
q  qsf B
dt 24C
Wellbore Storage Definition
C
q  qsf B
Rising
dpw
24 liquid level
dt
144 Awb gc
C
5.615  wb g
Fluid-filled
wellbore Awb
 25.65
 wb
C  Vwbcwb
Type Curve Analysis
Objectives
1. Identify wellbore storage and middle time regions

on type curve.
2. Identify pressure response for a well with high,
zero, or negative skin.
3. Calculate equivalent time.
4. Calculate wellbore storage coefficient,
permeability, and skin factor from type curve
match.
Dimensionless Variables
qB  948ct r 2 
p  pi  70.6 Ei 
kh  kt 
 
r
rD 
  r 
2  rw
   
kh pi  p  1  r  
  Ei   w

141.2qB 2   0.0002637kt  
 4 2


  ct rw 

kh pi  p  0.0002637 kt
pD  t 
141.2qB 1  rD2  D  ct rw2
pD   Ei  
2  4t D 
Radial Flow With WBS And
Skin
kh pi  p  0.0002637kt
pD  tD 
141.2qB ct rw2
r
rD 
rw
khps 0.8936C
s CD 
141.2qB ct hrw2
Gringarten Type Curve
• Constant rate production
• Vertical well
• Infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir
• Single-phase, slightly compressible liquid
• Infinitesimal skin factor
• Constant wellbore storage coefficient
100
Wellbore storage coefficient

Skin factor CDe2s CDe2s=1060 Type curve
PD CDe2s=100
CDe2s=0.01
Stem
Time group
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
PD
Similarities of curves make
matching difficult
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Pressure Derivative
162.6qB   kt  
p  log   3.23  0.869s 
  ct rw 
2
kh 
p p pD pD

t  tD 
t  ln t  t D  ln t D 
p 70.6qB pD

t  tD  0. 5
t kh t D
Derivative Type Curve
100
Differences in curve
shapes make
matching easier CDe2s=1060
tD/PD
CDe2s=100
CDe2s=0.01
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Pressure + Derivative Type
Curves
100
Combining curves
gives each stem
value two distinctive
shapes
PD
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Pressure/Derivative Type
Curve
100
WBS Transition Radial Flow
PD
Unit
Horizontal Derivative
Slope
Line
Early Time Region Middle Time Region
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Pressure + Derivative Type
Curve
100
High skin
PD No skin
Low skin
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Equivalent Time For PBU
Tests
qB   k  
pi  pwf  162.6
kh
 
log10 t p  log   3.23  0.869s 
2 
  ct rw  
qB   k  
pi  pws  162.6
kh
 
log10 t p  t  log   3.23  0.869s 
2 
  ct rw  
qB   k  
 162.6 log10 t   log   3.23  0.869s 
2 
kh   c t rw  
Tests
qB   k  
pws  pwf  162.6
kh
 
log10 t p  log   3.23  0.869s 
2 
  ct rw  
qB   k  
 162.6
kh
 
log10 t p  t  log   3.23  0.869s 
2 
  ct rw  
qB   k  
 162.6 log10 t   log   3.23  0.869s 
2 
kh   ct rw  
qB   t p t   k  
pws  pwf  162.6 log10    log   3.23  0.869s 
kh   t p  t   c r 2  
    t w 
Tests
qB   k  
pi  pwf  162.6
kh
 
log10 t p  log   3.23  0.869s 
2 
  ct rw  
qB   t p t   k 
  log

  3.23  0.869s 
pws  pwf  162.6 log10 
kh   t p  t   c r 2  
    t w
qB   k  
pws  pwf  162.6 log10 te   log   3.23  0.869s 
kh   c r 2  
  t w
Tests
Drawdown
p  pi  pwf vs t
Buildup
p  pws  pwf vs t e
Properties Of Equivalent
Time
t p t
te 
t p  t
tp
 t  t , t  t p
t p  t
t
 tp  t p , t  t p
t p  t
tp

HTR
Adjusted Variables For Gas
Wells
 z  p p' dp '
pa   
 p  ref

p '  0   p 'z  p '
t dt '
t a  ct ref 
t ' 0   p ct  p 
Ca  Vwb cg ref
Field Data Plot
1,000
P
1
teq 1,000
Overlay Field Data on Type
Curve
100
1,000
PD
P
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Move Field Data Toward
Horizontal
100
1,000
PD
P
Align data with

1 horizontal part of
teq type curves 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Match
100
1,000
Stop when data align
with horizontal stems
P
PD
Begin to move toward unit slope line
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Stems
100
1,000
P
PD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Stems
100
Assume Assume Let’s say s=7x10
Calculate s from 9
pD =1,000
10 p = 262 matching stem value
p/pD k
Extrapolate curve
p as necessary
pD
Assume
teq = 0.0546
1
teq 1,000
Teq/tD  CD
0.01 100,000
Assume
tD/CD = 1 tD/CD
Use Reservoir, Well
Properties
q = 50  = 0.183
B = 1.325 ct = 1.76 x 10-5
 = 0.609 rw2 = 0.25
h = 15 CD = 1703
Calculate k From Pressure
Match
141.2qB  pD 
k  
h  p  M .P .
k
141.2501.3250.609  10 
 
15  262 
 14.5 md
Calculate CD From Time
Match
0.0002637 k  teq 
CD  2

 

t C
ct rw  D D  M .P .
CD 
0.000263714.5  0.0546 
0.1830.6091.76  10 0.25  1 
5  
 1703
Calculate s From CDe2s
 2s 
1  C De 
s  ln
2  C D 
 9
1  7  10 
s  ln
2  1703 
 7.6
Manual Log-Log
Analysis
• To be able to manually estimate permeability and
skin factor from the log-log diagnostic plot
without using type curves
Estimating Permeability and
Skin Factor from the
Diagnostic Plot
1000
pr
Pressure change, psi
100
(tp’)r
10
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 tr 100 1000
Equivalent time, hrs

Estimating Permeability
and Skin Factor
70.6qB
k
htp r
1   pr  ktr 
s   ln 
2 
2  tp r  1688 c t rw  
Example
q = 50 STB/D pwf = 2095 psia
h = 15 ft  = 18.3%
B = 1.36 RB/STB ct = 17.9 x 106 psi1
 = 0.563 cp rw = 0.25 ft
Estimate (tp’)r, tr, and pr
1000
400
Pressure change, psi
100
14
10
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
20
Equivalent time, hrs
Estimate Permeability
70.6qB
k
htp r
 70.6 501.360.563 
  
 1514 
 12.9 md
Estimate Skin Factor
1  pr  ktr 
s   ln 
2 
2  tp r  1688 c t rw  
1  400
 

 ln
12.9 20 

2 
2  14  16880.1830.56317.9  10 0.25  
6
 7.23
Flow
Regimes and
the
Diagnostic
Plot
Objectives
1. Identify early, middle, and late time
regions on a diagnostic plot.
2. Identify characteristic shapes of flow
regimes on a diagnostic plot.
3. List factors that affect pressure response in
early time.
4. List boundaries that affect pressure
response in late time.
The Diagnostic Plot
Pressure change (p)

Pressure
change (p )
and derivative Pressure derivative (p )
(p ), psi
Elapsed time (t ), hrs

The Diagnostic Plot
Unit-slope
Pressure line
change (p )
and derivative Near-wellbore effects
(p ), psi (wellbore storage)
Early-time Middle- Late-time
region time region
region

The Diagnostic Plot
Homogenous reservoir
Pressure
 horizontal derivative
change (p )
and derivative
(p ), psi (best estimate of k )
PartialEarly-time
penetration, Middle- Late-time
region
phase redistribution, time region
region
fracture conductivity

The Diagnostic Plot
Infinite-acting
Pressure
behavior
change (p )
and derivative Boundary
(p ), psi effects
PartialEarly-time
penetration, Middle- Late-time
region
phase redistribution, time region
region
fracture conductivity

Flow Regimes
• Common characteristic shapes of derivative
– Volumetric
– Radial
– Linear
– Bilinear
– Spherical
• Different flow patterns may appear at
different times in a single test
• Flow regimes follow sequence within model
Volumetric Behavior
Fluids from outside ‘recharge’ tank

Volumetric Behavior
qBt
Wellbore Storage p 
24C
Pseudosteady-State Flow
0.0744qBt 141.2qB   re  3 
pi  pwf  2
 ln    s 
ct hre kh   rw  4 
General Form p  mV t  bV
Volumetric Behavior
General Form p  mV t  bV
p  mV t  bV 
Derivative t t
t t
 mV t
Volumetric Behavior
Pressure change during recharge

or pseudosteadystate flow
Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
(p ), psi Pressure derivative

Volumetric Behavior
Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
(p ), psi
Wellbore
storage

Radial Flow
Wellbore
Radial Flow
Wellbore
Fracture
Radial Flow
Late radial flow
Wellbore
Early radial flow
Radial Flow
Vertical Well
162.6qB   kt  
p  log 
2 
 3.23  0.869s 
kh   ct rw  
General Form p  m logt   b

Radial Flow
General Form p  m logt   b
p  m logt   b 
Derivative t t
t t
m

2.303
Radial Flow
Pressure
change (p ) Pressure
and derivative
(p ), psi
Pressure derivative

Radial Flow
Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
(p ), psi
Radial
flow

Spherical Flow
z
Spherical Flow
Vertical wellbore
Few perforations
open
Spherical flow
Spherical Flow
Small part of
Vertical wellbore zone perforated
Spherical flow
Spherical Flow
Certain wireline
Vertical wellbore testing tools
Spherical flow
Spherical Flow
Spherical Probe (RFT)
q   2
ct rp 
pi  pwf  1 
4krp  kt 
 
1 2
General Form p  bS  mS t
Spherical Flow
1 2
General Form p  bS  mS t
Derivative t
p
t

 bS  mS t 1 2

t t
1 1 2
 mS t
2
Spherical Flow
Pressure
Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
(p ), psi
Pressure derivative
1
2

Spherical Flow
Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
(p ), psi
Spherical flow

Linear Flow
Vertical wellbore Fracture
Linear flow
Linear Flow
Vertical
Linear
wellbore
flow
Channel (ancient
stream) reservoir
Linear Flow
Wellbore
Early linear flow
Linear Flow
Late linear flow
Wellbore
Linear Flow
12
16.26qB  kt 
Channel p   
khw  ct 
Hydraulic 12
Fracture 4.064qB  kt 
p   
khL f  ct 
General p  mL t 12
 bL
Form
Linear Flow
General p  m L t 12
 bL
Form
Derivative t
p
t

 mL t  bL 12

t t
1 12
 mL t
2
Linear Flow
Pressure change in fractured/damaged
or horizontal well
Pressure
change (p ) Pressure change in
and derivative undamaged
(p ), psi fractured well Pressure 1
derivative
2

Bilinear Flow
Bilinear Flow
Hydraulic Fracture
12 14
44.1qB  1 

 t 
p   
 wk 
h  f   ct k 
14
General Form p  m B t  bB
Bilinear Flow
14
General Form p  m B t  bB
Derivative t
p
t

 mB t  bB 14

t t
1 14
 mB t
4
Bilinear Flow
Pressure in fractured,
damaged well
Pressure Pressure in fractured,
change (p ) undamaged well
and derivative
(p ), psi
1
Pressure derivative
4

Diagnostic Plot
Pressure
change (p )
and derivative
(p ), psi
Radial
Wellbore flow
storage Spherical flow Recharge?

Estimating
Average Reservoir
Pressure
Estimating Reservoir
Pressure
• Middle Time Region Methods
– Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek Method
– Ramey-Cobb Method
• Late Time Region Methods
– Modified Muskat Method
– Arps-Smith Method
Middle-Time Region Methods
• Based on extrapolation and correction of MTR
pressure trend
• Advantage
– Use only pressure data in the middle-time region
• Disadvantages
– Need accurate fluid property estimates
– Need to know drainage area shape, size, well
location within drainage area
– May be somewhat computationally involved
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
Producing time prior to shut-in, tp = 482 hr
Porosity, = 0.15
Viscosity, m = 0.25 cp
Total compressibility, ct = 1.615 x 10-5
Drainage area, A = 1500 x 3000 ft (a 2x1 reservoir)
2
1
Curves for Square Drainage
6
Area
5
3
pMBHD
-1
0.01 0.1 1 10
tpAD
6
Curves for 2x1 Rectangle
5
3
pMBHD
-1
0.01 0.1 1 10
tpAD
5
Curves for 4x1 Rectangle
4
2
pMBHD
-1
-2
0.01 0.1 1 10
tpAD
2750
p*=2689.4
2650
m=26.7
Shut-in well
pressure, psia
2550
2450
Step
Step 1:
2: Plot
Extrapolate
pressureslope
vs. Horner
m to find
timep*ratio
2400
106 105 104 103 102 10 1
Horner time ratio
Step 3: Calculate dimensionless producing time
0.0002637kt ktpp
t pAD
pAD 
ctt A

0.0002637 7.5482 
0.150.251.615 10 15003000
5
 0.35
Step 4: On appropriate MBH curve, find pMBHD
6
5
2x1 rectangle
4
3
2.05
pMBHD 2
0
tpAD = 0.35
-1
0.01 0.1 1 10
tpAD
Step 5: Calculate average reservoir pressure, p
m
p  p* pMBHD t pAD 
2.303
26.7
 2689.4  2.05
2.303
 2665.6
• Plot pws vs (tp+t)/t on semilog coordinates
• Extrapolate to (tp+t)/t=1 to find p*
• Calculate the dimensionless producing time tpAD
• Using the appropriate MBH chart for the drainage
area shape and well location, find pMBHD
• Calculate p
• If tp >> tpss, more accurate results may be obtained
by using tpss in place of tp in calculating the Horner
time ratio and tpAD
• Advantages
– Applies to wide variety of drainage area shapes, well
locations
– Uses only data in the middle-time region
– Can be used with both short and long producing
times
• Disadvantages
– Requires drainage area size, shape, well location
– Requires accurate fluid property data
Reservoir Shapes
1
Dietz shape factor CA = 4.5132

30.8828
Reservoir Shapes
2

Reservoir Shapes
4

Reservoir Shapes
Dietz shape factor Dietz shape factor CA Dietz shape factor CA
CA = 31.62 = 19.17 = 27.1
Dietz shape factor CA

= 21.9
Dietz shape factor CA Dietz shape factor CA

= 31.6 = 0.098
Ramey-Cobb
Step 1: Plot pressure vs. Horner time ratio
Step 2: Calculate dimensionless producing time
0.0002637 kt p
t pAD 
ct A

0.0002637 7.5482 
0.150.251.615 10 15003000
5
 0.35
Ramey-Cobb
Step 3: Find the Dietz shape factor CA for the drainage area
shape and well location
 t p  t 
   C At pAD
 t  p
 21.80.35
Shape factor C A = 21.8369
 7.63
Ramey-Cobb
2750
2650
Shut-in wellbore p  2665.8

pressure, psia
2550
2450 HTR = 7.63

2400
106 105 104 103 102 10 1
Horner time ratio
Ramey-Cobb
• Plot pws vs (tp+t)/t on semilog coordinates
• Calculate the dimensionless producing time tpAD
• Find the Dietz shape factor CA for the drainage area shape
and well location
• Calculate HTRavg
• Extrapolate middle-time region on Horner plot to HTRavg
• Read p at HTRavg
Ramey-Cobb
• Advantages
– Applies to wide variety of drainage area shapes, well
locations
– Uses only data in the middle time region
• Disadvantages
– Requires drainage area size, shape, well location
– Requires accurate fluid property data
– Requires producing time long enough to reach
pseudosteady state
Late-Time Region Methods
• Based on extrapolation of post-middle-time region

pressure trend to infinite shut-in time
• Advantages
– No need for accurate fluid property estimates
– No need to know drainage area shape, size, well location
within drainage area
– Tend to be very simple
• Disadvantage
– Require post-middle-time-region pressure transient data
Late-Time Region Data
2 2
250 ct re 750 ct re
 t 
k k
Late-Time Region Data
100
10
Dimensionless
pressure
1
0.1
0.01
103 104 105 106 107 108 109
Dimensionless shut-in time
Modified Muskat Method
Exponential decline
Average reservoir pressure
Shut-in pressure
 bt
p  pws  Ae
ln p  pws   lnA  bt
ln p  pws   C  bt
Step 1: Assume a value for average
pressure
ln p  pws   C  bt
1000
Assumed pressure too low

p  pws , psi
100
p
5600
5575
Assumed pressure fits 5560
Assumed pressure too high

10
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Time, minutes
• Advantages
– Very simple to apply
• Disadvantages
– Somewhat subjective: Which data points
should I try to ‘straighten’?
– More sensitive to estimates that are too low
than to estimates that are too high
– Not easily automated
• Recommendations
– Don’t try to straighten data until there has
been a clear deviation from the middle-time
region
– Once middle-time region has ended, try to
straighten all data
– Expect best reliability for wells reasonably
centered in drainage areas
Arps-Smith Method
 bt
p  pws  Ae
dpws  bt
 Abe
dt
dpws
 b p  pws 
dt
Arps-Smith Method
Step 1: Assume a value for average
pressure, accepting theory based on
empirical observation
dpws
 b p  pws 
dt
Arps-Smith Method
Step 2: Plot dpws/dt vs pws on Cartesian scale
10
9
8
7 Step 3: Fit a straight line
dpws/dt, 6
psi/hr 5
through the data points
4
3 Pavg = 5575 psi
Step 24: Read p from
the1 x-intercept
0
5300 5350 5400 5450 5500 5550 5600
Pws, psi
Arps-Smith Method
Optional: Estimate the productivity index
in STB/D/psi from the slope b and the
wellbore storage coefficient C
dpws
 b  p  pws 
dt 24Cb
q  J  p  pwf  J 
Bo
dpw
q  qsf 
B  24C
dt
Arps-Smith Method
• Advantages
– Simple to apply
– Easily automated
• Disadvantages
– Requires data in late-time region, after all
boundaries have been felt
– Assumes pws approaches p exponentially
– Requires numerical differentiation of pressure
with respect to time
Hydraulically
Fractured
Wells
Hydraulically Fractured
Wells
• Flow Regimes
• Depth of Investigation
• Fracture Damage
• Straight Line Analysis
– Bilinear Flow Analysis
– Linear Flow Analysis
– Semilog Analysis
• Type Curve Analysis
Ideal Hydraulic Fracture
Reservoir sand
(permeability=kr ) Wellbore
Fracture width, wf
Hydraulic fracture Fracture

(permeability =kf ) halflength, Lf
Dimensionless Variables for
Fractured Wells
0.00708kh 0.0002637 k
pD  pi  pwf  tL f D  2
ct L f
t
qB
kf ct 0.8936C
 fD  CL f D 
 f ct f k ct hL2f
wf k f wf k f
Cr  FcD   Cr
kL f kL f
Flow Regimes in Fractures
• Fracture flow
– Linear
– Bilinear
• Formation flow
– Linear
– Elliptical
– Pseudoradial
Fracture Linear Flow
Transient moves down fracture length
Transient has not Transient has not

moved into reservoir reached end of fracture
(Log-log plot)
Pressure
2
pD   fD t L f D
FcD
Time
(Too early for practical application)
End of linear flow
(Log-log plot)
Pressure
2
Dimensionless 0.01FcD
tL f D  2
time  fD
Time
Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cf < 100
Pressure transient moves down

fracture, into formation
Bilinear Flow
Pressure transient has not reached end of fracture

Bilinear Flow
(Log-log plot)
Pressure
 1 2.45 14
Pressure pD  tL f D 
4
tL f D
drop: 1.25 2 FcD FcD
Time
Bilinear Flow
(Log-log plot)
Pressure
(Time depends on dimensionless

flow, fracture conductivity)
Time
Bilinear Flow
4
 4.55 
If FcD < 1.6 tL f D   2.5
 FcD 
t L f D  0.0205FcD  1.5
1.53
If 1.6 < FcD < 3
0 .1
If FcD  3 tL f D  2
FcD
(Time depends on dimensionless
flow, fracture conductivity)
Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cr < 100
Data can yield fracture conductivity wkf if kf is known.

Bilinear Flow
Data cannot yield Lf, but may identify lower bound .

Formation Linear Flow
Negligible pressure drop down fracture
Transient
Flowmoves
from beyond
linearlyends
into of
wellbore
fracture not yet significant
Formation Linear Flow
pD  t L f D
100
2
 t L D  0 .016
FcD f
Elliptical Flow
Pseudoradial Flow
Pseudoradial Flow
162.6qB   kt  
p   log  2
  3.23  0.869 s
kh   ct rw  
tL f D  3
Depth Of Investigation
a
2 2
x y Lf
2
 2
1 2 2 2
a b Lf a b
Depth Of Investigation
0.0002637kt
tbD  2
  ct b
For linear flow, pseudosteady- Depth of investigation for

state flow exists out to a a linear system at time t
distance b at a dimensionless
time given by 12
1  kt 
tbD  b  0.02878 
    ct 
Depth of Investigation
12
Depth of investigation  kt 
along minor axis b  0.02878 
   ct 
Depth of investigation
along major axis
a  L2f  b 2
Area of investigation A   ab
Hydraulic Fracture
With Choked Fracture
Damage
k
kfs kf
wf
Ls
Lf
Choked Fracture Skin Factor
qBL qBLs
p  ps 
0.001127 kA 
0.001127 k fs 2h f w f 
0.00708kh  0.00708kh  qBLs 

sf  ps   
qB 
 qB  0.001127 k fs 2h f w f  

kLs
sf 
k fs w f
Hydraulic Fracture
With Fracture Face Damage
kf
ws ks
wf
Lf
Fracture Face Skin Factor
qBL qBws  1 1
p  ps    
0.001127 kA 
0.001127 4h f L f  k 
 s k
0.00708kh  0.00708kh  qBws  1 1 

sf  
p s     
qB  
 qB  0.001127 4h f L f  k
 s k 

ws k 
sf    1 
2L f  ks 
Bilinear Flow Analysis
Procedure
• Identify the bilinear flow regime using the diagnostic
plot
• Graph pwf vs. t1/4 or pws vs tBe1/4
• Find the slope mB and the intercept p0 of the best
straight line
• Calculate the fracture conductivity wkf from the slope
and the fracture skin factor sf from the intercept
Bilinear Equivalent Time
t Be  14
tp  t 14

 t p  t 
14 4

t Be  t , t  t p
t Be  t p , t  t p
Equations
2 0.5
 44.1q B   1 
wk f     
hm    c k 
 B   t 
0.00708kh
Drawdown sf   pi  p0 
qB
Buildup sf 
0.00708kh
qB
p0  pwf  
2800
2750
m=63.8 psi/hr1/4
pws, psi
2700
2650
ps p0=2642.4 psi
pwf=2628.6 psi
2600
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
teqB1/4, hrs1/4
Limitations of
• Applicable only to wells with low-conductivity fractures (C r
< 100)
• Bilinear flow may be hidden by wellbore storage
• Requires independent estimate of k
• Gives estimate of wkf and sf
• Cannot be used to estimate Lf
Linear Flow Analysis
Procedure
• Identify the linear flow regime using the diagnostic plot
• Graph pwf vs. t1/2 or pws vs tLe1/2
• Find the slope mL and the intercept p0 of the best straight
line
• Calculate the fracture half-length Lf from the slope and the
fracture skin factor sf from the intercept
Linear Equivalent Time
t Le  12
tp  t 12

 t p  t 
12 2

t Le  t , t  t p
t Le  t p , t  t p
Equations
12
4.064q B   
Lf   
mL h  k ct 

0.00708kh
Drawdown sf   pi  p0 
qB
Buildup sf 
0.00708kh
qB

p0  pwf 
6000
5000
m=211 psi/hr1/2
4000
paws, psi
3000
ps 2000
pa0=2266.0 psi
pawf=1656.2 psi
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
taLeq1/2, hrs1/2
Limitations of
• Applicable only to wells with high-conductivity
fractures (Cr > 100)
• Wellbore storage may hide linear flow period
• Long transition period between end of linear flow (tLfD
< 0.016) and beginning of pseudoradial flow (tLfD > 3)
• Requires independent estimate of k
• Gives estimate of Lf and sf
• Cannot be used to estimate wkf
Pseudoradial Flow Analysis
Procedure
• Identify the pseudoradial flow regime using the diagnostic
plot
• Graph pwf vs. log(t) or pws vs log(te)
• Find the slope m and the intercept p1hr of the best straight line
• Calculate the formation permeability k from the slope and the
total skin factor s from the intercept
• Estimate fracture half-length from total skin factor
Equations
162.6qB
k
mh
p p  k  
Drawdown s  1.151 i 1hr
 log10    3.23
 m  c r 
2

 t w 
 p1hr  pwf  k  
Buildup s  1.151  log10    3.23
 m  c r 
2

 t w 
2500
2400
2300
2200
m=120 psi/cycle
p1hr=2121 psi
2100
pws, psi
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
te, hrs

Apparent Wellbore Radius
100
Lf/rwa
10
1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
FcD
Estimating Lf From Skin
Factor
1. Calculate rwa from rwa = rwe-s
2. Estimate Lf from Lf = 2rwa
3. Estimate fracture conductivity wkf
4. Calculate FcD from FcD = wkf/kLf
5. Find Lf/rwa from graph or equation
6. Estimate Lf from Lf = (Lf/rwa)*rwa
7. Repeat steps 4 through 6 until convergence
(Warning: may not converge)
Limitations of
• Boundaries of reservoir may be encountered before
pseudoradial flow develops
• Long transition period between linear flow and
pseudoradial flow
• Pseudoradial flow cannot be achieved for practical test
times in low permeability reservoirs with long fractures
• Gives estimate of k and st
• Does not give direct estimate of Lf, wkf, or sf
Dimensionless Variables For
Fractured Wells
0.00708kh 0.0002637 k
pD 
qB

pi  pwf  tL f D 
 ct L2f
t
wf kf wf kf
Cr  FcD   C r
kL f kL f
0.00708kh 0.8936C
sf  ps CL f D 
qB ct hL2f
Type-Curve Analysis:
Fractured Wells, Unknown k
1. Graph field data pressure change and pressure derivatives
2. Match field data to type curve
3. Find match point and matching stem
4. Calculate Lf from time match point
5. Calculate k from pressure match point
6. Interpret matching stem value (wkf, sf, or C)
Interpreting Match Points,
Unknown Permeability
141.2qB  pD 
k  
h  p  MP

0.0002637k  t  
Lf 
ct  tL D 
 f  MP
Type Curve Analysis:
Fractured Wells, Known k
1. Graph field data pressure change and pressure derivatives
2. Calculate pressure match point from k
3. Match field data to type curve, using calculated pressure
match point
4. Find match point and matching stem
5. Calculate Lf from time match point
6. Interpret matching stem value (wkf, sf, or C)
Interpreting Match Points
Known Permeability
141.2qB
p MP   pD MP
kh
0.0002637k  t 

Lf 
ct  tL D 
 f  MP
Cinco Type Curve
10
Cr = 0.2
0.5
1
3
1 10
50
1000
0.1
pD, tDp'D
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tLfD
Cinco Type Curve:
Interpreting Cr Stem
w f k f  kL f C r
Choked Fracture Type Curve
10
0.1
pD, tDp'D
0.01
sf = 1
0.3
0.1
0.001 0.03
0.01
0.003
0
0.0001
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tLfD
Choked Fracture Type Curve:
Interpreting sf Stem
qB
 ps  sf
0.00708kh
Barker-Ramey Type Curve
10
CLfD = 0
5x10-5
1 3x10-4
2x10-3
1.2x10-2
8x10-2
-1
0.1 5x10
pD, tDp'D
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tLfD
Barker-Ramey Type Curve
Interpreting CLfD Stem
2
ct hL f
C CL f D
0.8936
Limitations of
Type Curve Analysis
• Type curves are usually based on solutions for drawdown -
what about buildup tests?
– Shut-in time
– Equivalent time (radial, linear, bilinear)
– Superposition type curves
• Type curves may ignore important behavior
– Variable WBS
– Boundaries
– Non-Darcy flow
• Need independent estimate of permeability for best results
Pressure Transient
Analysis
for Horizontal Wells
Horizontal Well Analysis
• Describes unconventional and complex
reservoirs
• Defines effectiveness of completion technique
options
• Distinguishes between poor reservoir and
damaged wellbore
• Differentiates between completion success and
in-situ reservoir quality
Complications in Analysis
• Three-dimensional flow geometry, no radial
symmetry
• Several flow regimes contribute data
• Significant wellbore storage effects, difficult
interpretation
• Both vertical and horizontal dimensions affect
flow geometry
Steps to Evaluating Data
• Identify specific flow regimes in test data
• Apply proper analytical and graphical
procedures
• Evaluate uniqueness and sensitivity of results
to assumed properties
Step 1: Identify Flow Regimes
• Five major and distinct regimes possible
– may or may not even occur
– may or may not be obscured by wellbore storage
effects, end effects, or transition effects
Step 2: Apply Procedures
• Estimate important reservoir properties
– Determine parameter groups from equations
– Expect complex iterative processes requiring use of
a computer
Step 3: Evaluate Results
• Expect nonunique results
– Simulate test to confirm that the analysis is
consistent with test data
– Use simulator to determine whether other sets of
formation properties will also lead to a fit of the
data
Horizontal Well Flow Regimes
• Five possible flow regimes
(1) early radial
(2) hemiradial
Calculate different
(3) early linear formation properties
(4) late pseudoradial from each period
(5) late linear
Any flow regime may be absent from a plot

of test data because of geometry, wellbore
storage or other factors.
Well and Reservoir Geometry
Horizontal wellbore
Lw
b
z y
h
0
0 x
a
Well and Reservoir Geometry
Dy
y
Tip of well
Dx dx
x dy b
dz z
z y
Dz
h
0
0 x
a
Flow Regimes
• Radial
Flow not affected by
reservoir boundaries
Flow Regimes
• Hemiradial
Flow affected by one
vertical boundary
Flow Regimes
• Early Linear
Flow affected by
vertical boundaries
Flow Regimes
• Early Linear
Flow effects not seen
at ends of wellbore
Flow Regimes
• Late Pseudoradial
Flow Regimes
• Late Linear
Flow Regimes/Drawdown
2
1
p 1
2 2
1
Log (p)
1
or 2 p'
Log (p) 1
1
Wellbore Early Early Pseudoradial Late

storage Radial Linear Flow Linear
Flow Flow Flow
Log (time)
Required Permeabilities
R e s u lt P e r m e a b ilitie s P e r m e a b ilitie s
F lo w of R e q u ir e d fo r L im it R e q u ir e d to
R e g im e A n a ly s is C a lc u la tio n s C a lc u la te S k in
E a r ly R a d ia l k xk z End - kz and ky k x k z a n d k x/k z
H e m ir a d ia l k xk z End - kz and ky k x k z a n d k x/k z
kx S ta rt - k z
E a r ly L in e a r kx and kz
End - ky
L a te kh  k xk y S ta rt - k y
k x, k y a n d k z
P s e u d o r a d ia l End - ky and kx
kx S ta rt - k y a n d k z
L a te L in e a r kx and kz
End - kx
N o te : W e c a n u s e k h  k x k y in o u r a n a ly s is . In s o m e c a s e s , f o r s im p lic ity ,
w e a s s u m e k x = k y = k h . T h is a s s u m p tio n m a y r e d u c e a n a ly s is a c c u r a c y .
Pretesting a Vertical Section
• Determines kh and kz
• Determines properties useful in horizontal
test design (using an analytical or finite-
difference simulator)
– Identifies likely flow regimes
– Estimates required test duration
– Identifies probable ambiguities
Required Distances
Result Distances Distances
Flow of Required for Limit Required to
Regime Calculation Calculations Calculate
Skin
Early Radial Lw End - dz and Lw
Hemiradial Lw End - dz and Lw
Early Linear Lw and h Start - Dz Lw and h
End - Lw
Late h Start - Lw Lw, h and dz
Pseudoradial End - dy, Lw, and dx
Late Linear b and h Start - Dy, Lw, and b, h and dz
Dz
End - dx
Early Radial Flow Regime
Similar to radial May be masked by
flow near vertical wellbore storage
effects
wells
End of Early Radial Flow
1800dz2  ct
Vertical
boundary
effects
: t Erf 
kz
Wellbore
end
effects
: t Erf 
125L2w  ct
ky
Early Radial Flow Pressure
 k x kz t 
 
l o g  3 .2275  0 .8686sa
 2
ct rw

pi  pwf  162.6qB 



k x kz Lw   
1  4 k x  4 kz  
  2l o g
 2  kz k x  
 
Early Radial Flow/Drawdown
47
Semilog plot
p
m 162.6qB 
Lw k x kz
33
0.1 100
Time
Early Radial Flow/Drawdown
47
Semilog plot
p kx kz  162.6qB
m Lw
33
0.1 100
Time
Skin in Early Radial Flow
   
 pi  p1hr  k x kz  
sa  1.1513  log    3.2275
 m 2
   c rw 
  t  
   
 
 1   k x   k z  
2.3023 log   4  4  
 2`  kz   k x  
     
Early Radial Flow Buildup Plot
47
Semilog plot
p
Correct only if (tp+t) and
t appear simultaneously
or if tp >> t.
33
1,000 10
Horner Time Ratio
Early Radial Flow Buildup
47 Plot
Semilog plot
p
m 162.6qB 
Lw k x kz
(Equation same as in
33 drawdown tests)
0.1 100
Time
Early Radial Flow Buildup
47 Plot
Semilog plot
p kx kz  162.6qB
m Lw
(Equation same as in
33 drawdown tests)
0.1 100
Time
Early Radial Flow/Buildup
p  p  k k  
 1hr w f  x z 
sa  1.1513  l o g   3 .2275
 m 2
 φ μc r  
  t w 
  1  k   k  
2 .3023 log    4 x  4 z  
 2   k   k 
  z   x  
Start of Hemiradial Flow
• Begins after closest vertical boundary (at
distance dz from wellbore) affects data
and before farthest boundary (at Dz from
wellbore) affects the data.
dz
Dz
Start of Hemiradial Flow
• Begins after closest vertical boundary (at distance
dz from wellbore) affects data and before furthest
boundary (at Dz from wellbore) affects the data.
2
1800 d z   ct
tShrf 
kz
End of Hemiradial Flow
• Ends when furthest boundary (at distance
Dz from wellbore) affects the data . . .
2
1800 Dz   ct
t Ehrf 
dz
k z
Dz
End of Hemiradial Flow
• . . . or when effects are felt at ends of wellbore,
whichever comes first.
2
125 Lw   ct
t Ehrf 
ky
zd
Dz
Hemiradial Flow/Drawdown
47
Semilog plot
p

m  325.2qB 
Lw k x kz
33
0.1 100
Time
47
Semilog plot
Radial flow
p m 162 .6 qB 
HemiradialL w
flow k x kz

m  325.2qB 
Lw k x kz
33
0.1 100
Time
p  p  k k  
 i 1hr  x z  
sa  2.3026  log   3 .2275
 m 2
  c r  
  t w 
 k  d 
 2.3026 log  1 x  z 
 k r
 z  w
Early Linear Flow Regime
• Start
1800d z2  ct
tSlf 
kz
Early Linear Flow Regime
• End
160L2w   ct
t Elf 
ky
Early Linear Flow/Drawdown
11
Cartesian plot
p
8.128qB 
kx 
m Lw h  ct
4
1 8
Time1/2
k x kz ( pi  p1hr )Lw
sa   sc
141.2qB
Convergence skin
 kz  d
 rw    z 

sc   1  sin 
h  kx   h 
 
Flow converges from
total cross-section of
reservoir radially into small
area of wellbore
Convergence skin
Early Linear Flow/Buildup
1800
8.128qB 
kx 
1400
p,
m Lw h  ct
psia
1000
600
18 22 26 30 34 38
tp  t  t , hr 1/2
Early Linear Flow/Buildup
k x kz ( p1hr  pw f )Lw
sa   sc
141.2qB
 rw  kz    d z 
sc   1 sin 
h  kx   h 
 
Late Pseudoradial Flow
• Start
Lw
b
Lw
 0.45
b
• Start
1480L2w  ct
tSprf 
ky
Wellbore
end effects
2
 L 
2000ct  D y  w 4 
t Eprf   
ky
Ends when
flow from beyond
the ends of the
wellbore hits a
boundary ...
1650  ct d x2
t Eprf 
kx
…or reach
end boundaries
of reservoir
(whichever is reached first)
Pseudoradial Flow/Drawdown
59
Semilog plot
p
kx k y  162.6qB 
m h
53
100 200 300 400 500
Time
Pseudoradial Flow/ Drawdown
p p ky 
i 1hr
 kz Lw  lo g 
sa   1.1513
 ky h 

m    ct L2w   sc
  
  1.83 
 rw  kz    d z 
sc   1 sin
h  k x   h 
 
Pseudoradial Flow/Buildup
 p  t p 1  
 1hr  pw f
 lo g 
 kz Lw  m  t 
sa   1.1513  p   sc
 ky h  k 
  y 
 lo g  1.83 
   c L2 
 t w 
 rw  kz    d z 
sc   1 sin
h  k x   h 
 
Late Linear Flow
Effects of pressure
• Late Linear reach boundaries in
y, z directions
Late Linear Flow
• Late Linear Pseudosteady-state
flow in these directions
Late Linear Flow
4800  ct ( D y  Lw / 4 )2
tSllf 
ky
Starts with
effects of end
boundaries . . .
Late Linear Flow
1800  ct Dz2
tSllf 
kz
. . . or
effects of
vertical
boundaries . . .
(whichever is reached last)
Late Linear Flow
• End
1650  ct d x2
t Ellf 
kx
Late Linear/Drawdown
60
Estimate kx
8.128qB 
kx 
m iv bh  ct
p
8.128qB 
b
Cartesian plot m iv h  ct kx
30
5 Time1/2 17
Late Linear Flow
• Calculate total skin, st, including partial
penetration skin, sp
(a complex function
from literature)
Late Linear Flow
k x kz ( pi  p1hr )b
st 
141.2qB
sa  st  s p

sa  sa b
Lw
Late Linear Flow
k x kz ( pi  p1hr )b
st 
141.2qB
Lw  k x kz (  p1hr )b 

sa   s  s
p c 
b  141.2qB
 
Late Linear Flow/Buildup
• Pressure is plotted vs. ( t p  t  t )
• From the slope, miv we can calculate kx:
8.128qB 
kx 
m iv bh  ct
or
8.128qB 
b
iv
m h  ct k x
4,000
8.128qB 
kx 
m iv bh  ct
Extrapolate semilog
straight line to infinite
p shut-in time to calculate p*
Semilog plot
3,400
1 Horner Time 10,000
• Calculate total skin, st, from
k x kz ( p1hr  pw f )b
st 
141.2qB
and skin due to altered permeability,

sa, from
 k x kz ( p1hr  pw f )b 
Lw  
sa    s p sc 
b  141.2qB 
 
Summary of Analysis Procedures
• Calculate kx
– Early linear flow regime data: from effective
wellbore length, Lw
– Late linear flow regime: from reservoir length, b,
parallel to wellbore
Effective wellbore length, Lw, can be

calculated from data in the early linear
flow regime if kx has been calculated.
• Calculate kx
– Early linear flow regime data: from effective
wellbore length, Lw
– Late linear flow regime: from reservoir length, b,
parallel to wellbore.
Length of the boundary, b, parallel to

wellbore can be calculated from data in
late linear flow regime if kx is known.
• Calculate kx
• Calculate kz from data in early radial or
hemiradial flow regimes
• Calculate ky from pseudoradial flow regime
If data such as Lw or b are unknown or if

flow regimes are missing, analysis is
iterative at best and will result in
nonunique results.
• Calculate kx
• Calculate kz from data in early radial or hemiradial flow regimes
We can assume kx = ky = kh and often

simplify analysis, but validity is
questionable.
Summary
• Calculate k
of Analysis Procedures
x
• Calculate kz from data in early radial or hemiradial flow regimes

• Check on expected durations of flow regimes using tentative results from the analysis to
minimize ambiguity in results
Pressure Transient
Analysis
for Horizontal Wells
Using the Techniques
Drawdown Diagnostic Plot
Wellbore storage
unit-slope line p
Log (p)
or p'
Log (p)
Linear flow halfslope
Radial flowline
horizontal derivative
Log (time)
Build-Up
Drawdown Diagnostic Plot
Shapes may not
appear in build
up tests
Log (p)
or
Log (p)
(better chance
if tp>>tmax)
Wellbore Early Early Pseudoradial Late
storage Radial Linear Flow Linear
flow Flow Flow
Log (time)
Field Example: Well A
Ld, ft 2,470 • Horizontal
Lw, ft - exploration well
rw, ft 0.25
, % 5 • Vertical tectonic
h, ft 150 fracture
q, STB/D 104 • Permeability
Bo, RB/STB 1.40
, cp 0.45 probably results
tp, hours 238 from fracture
Well A: Diagnostic Plot
10,000
p
Wellbore
1000 Radial flow?
Log (p
storage
or p) p'
100
10
1 10 100
t, hr
Well A: Horner Plot
4,500
Test time too 24.69 Time 2.4
short to
4,000 detect lower
m  -392.63
boundary,
3,500
linear flow,
p
or anisotropy
k = 0.011
2,500
s = 2.9
2,000 Semilog plot
1,500 10
1 Horner Time 100
Well A: Buildup History Match
10,000
p
Wellbore
1000 Radial flow
Log (p
storage
or p) p'
100
k = 0.027 k = 0.011
s = 11.5 s = 2.9
10
(from Horner plot)
1 10 100
t, hr
Field Example: Well B
Ld, ft 2,000 • Well in west Texas
Lw, ft - carbonate
rw, ft 0.30
, % 17 • Expected isotropic
h, ft 75 k caused by
q, STB/D 200 fracturing,
Bo, RB/STB 1.60
, cp 1.80
dissolution
tp, hours 1,320
Well B: Diagnostic Plot
1000
p, psia
or p
100
Radial flow Linear
flow
10
Wellbore storage
1 10 100 1000
t, hr
Well B: Horner Plot
146.67 t, hr 13.33
4000
3900
tErf = 165 hr
3800
k = 0.15
k = 0.14
p, psia
3600 m = 336.4
3500
k = 0.14
3400
10 100
Horner time
Well B: Buildup History Match
1000
p, psia
or p
100
k = 0.15 Good
10
k = 0.14 agreement
1 10 100 1000
t, hr
Well B: Tandem-Root Plot
1800
1600
h = 75 ft
1400
Nearest boundary = 29 ft
p, psia
1000
m = 39.6
800
600
10 100
tp  t  t , hr1/2
Field Example C
Ld, ft 1,400 • Horizontal well
Lw, ft 484 • High-k sandstone
rw, ft 0.41
, % 17 • Extensive
h, ft 54 underlying aquifer
q, STB/D 2,760
Bo, RB/STB 1.10
, cp 4.88
tp, hours 36
Well C: Diagnostic Plot
1000
Radial, hemiradial,
100 or elliptical flow
p, psia No apparent

or p wellbore storage
1
Decline caused by
underlying aquifer
0.1
0.01 0.1
t, hr 1 10 100
Well C: Type-Curve Match
1000
p
100 p
p, psia
or p
0.1
0.01 0.1
t, hr 1 10 100
Well C: Horner Plot
5.44 0.4949 t, hr 0.0490 4.90E-03
4000
3800
k = 53
p, psia
k ~ 48
3600
(confirms validity of
earlier findings of
no wellbore storage)
3400
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Horner time
Well C: Regression Match
1000
p
100 p
p, psia
or p Geometric average
of horizontal,
1
vertical k ~ 48
0.1
0.01 0.1
t, hr 1 10 100
Horizontal Well Test Configuration
Measurements usually made
above horizontal wellbore
Conventional tools can be
used in horizontal well tests
Tools may be too rigid to pass through curve

Horizontal Well Test
Configuration
Wellbore storage inherent
in horizontal well testing
Horizontal Well Test
Configuration
Wellbore crossflow may
dominate test results
Factors That Affect
Transient Response
• Horizontal permeability (normal and
parallel to well trajectory)
• Vertical permeability
• Drilling damage
• Completion damage
• Producing interval that may be effectively
much less than drilled length
• Variations in standoff along length of well
Obstacles to Interpretation
• Multiple parameters frequently yield
inconclusive test analysis results
• Wellbore storage obscures effects of transient
behavior
• Middle- and late-time response behavior may
require several hours, days, or months to
appear in transient data
Ensuring Interpretable Data
• Estimate horizontal and vertical k from tests in pilot
hole before kicking off to horizontal borehole
segment
• Estimate standoff from directional drilling survey
• Determine producing part of wellbore from
production log flow survey
• Flow wells in developed reservoirs long enough to
equilibrate pressures along the wellbore and
minimize crossflow
Effects of Errors
in Input Data
Presentation Outline
• Introduction
• Sources of Error in Input Data
• Effects of Error on Results of Welltest
Interpretation
• Examples
• Summary
Problem 1
• Well “A” estimates from PBU test
– Permeability, 10 md
– Skin factor, 0
– Distance to boundary, 250 ft
• Analysis assumed net pay 25 feet
If the net pay were actually 50 feet, how
would that affect our estimates of
permeability, skin factor, and distance to
the boundary?
Problem 2
• Seismic interpretation indicates
boundary 300 ft from Well “B”
• PBU test interpretation indicates
nearest boundary 900 ft away
Can these inconsistencies

possibly be resolved?
What could have caused this much
error in the distance estimate?
Sources of Input Data
• Log interpretation
• Fluid properties
• Reservoir and well properties
Data From Log Interpretation
• Porosity
• Water saturation
• Net pay thickness
Causes of Error in Log
Interpretation
• Failure to calibrate the logging tool
• Failure to make necessary environmental corrections
• Failure to calibrate the log-derived properties against
core measurements
• Failure to select appropriate cutoffs for net pay
estimation
Error in Log Interpretation Data
Parameter Deviation
Without With
correction correction
Porosity 15 % 5%

Water saturation  40 %  10 %
Net pay 50 %  15 %
Fluid Properties Data
• Formation volume factor
• Compressibility
• Viscosity
Error in Fluid Properties Data
From Gas Properties Correlations
Parameter Deviation
Bg from composition  1.1% to  5.8%
Bg from composition  1.3 % to  7.3%
(as much as 27% if
impurities are ignored)
cg Negligible at low pressure
g  2% to  4%, g < 1
up to 20% low, g > 1.5
Error in Fluid Properties Data
From Oil Properties Correlations
Parameter Deviation
Bo, p > pb  10%
Bo, p  pb  5%
co, p > pb Up to 50% low at high pressure
Best near pb
co, p  pb  10%, p > 500 psi  20%, p < 500 psi
o Order of magnitude only

Other Input Data
• Flow rate
• Wellbore radius
• Formation compressibility
• Total compressibility
Error in Well and Reservoir Data
From Measurement or Calculations
Parameter Error
Flow rate Failure to record rate before BU test

Inaccuracy in estimates, averages
Wellbore radius Poor choice of measurement
Formation compressibility Estimation errors
Total compressibility Variations in fluid saturations
Abnormally pressured reservoir
Oil compressibility
Total Compressibility
ct  c f  S o co  S w cw  S g c g
Formation Each phase of fluid
compressibility times its compressibility
Effects of Errors
• Vertical well
• Single-phase flow
• Homogeneous reservoir
• Boundary
– No-flow, linear constant pressure, closed
• Test
– Drawdown, buildup, injection, or fall-off
– Duration long enough to identify boundary
Errors in Viscosity
• If input = 2 true
• Then:
– kcalc = 2 ktrue
– Nothing else will be affected
Errors in Porosity
• If input = 2 true,
• Then:
– scalc = strue+ 0.5ln(2)
– Lx calc = Lx true/sqrt(2)
– A calc = Atrue/2
Errors in Water Saturation
• Cause errors in calculating total
compressibility
Errors in Compressibility
• If ct input = 2 ct true
• Then:
Errors in Net Pay
• If hinput = 2 htrue
• Then:
– kcalc = ktrue/2
Errors in Flow Rate
• If qinput = 2 qtrue
• Then:
– kcalc = 2 ktrue
– scalc = strue- 0.5ln(2)
– Lx calc = sqrt(2) Lx true
– A calc = 2 Atrue
Errors in Formation Volume
• If B = 2 B
Factor
input true
• Then:
– kcalc = 2 ktrue
– scalc = strue- 0.5ln(2)
– Lx calc = sqrt(2) Lx true
– A calc = 2 Atrue
Errors in Wellbore Radius
• If rw input = 2 rw true
• Then:
– scalc = strue+ ln(2)
Solution to Problem 1
• Well “A” estimates • Net pay50 ft
– Permeability, 10 md – Permeability, 5 md
– Skin factor, 0 – Skin factor, 0.35
– Boundary, 250 ft – Boundary, 177 ft
• Assumed net pay 25 ft
Solution To Problem 2
• Seismic interpretation indicates
boundary 300 ft from Well “B”
• PBU test interpretation indicates
nearest boundary 900 ft away
Total compressibility
could be off by a factor
of 10
Boundary could be a
factor of 3 too far away
Summary
• Permeability is most affected by errors
in viscosity, net pay, and flow rate
• Distances to boundaries and drainage
area are most affected by errors in
compressibility
• Skin factor is not affected to a large
degree by any input variable
Bounded Reservoir
Behavior
Cautions
• Recognizing may be as important as analyzing
• Many reservoir models may produce similar
pressure responses
• Interpretation model must be consistent with
geological and geophysical interpretations
Characteristics
• Boundaries control pressure response
following middle-time region
• Equivalent time functions apply rigorously
only to situations where either
– Producing and shut-in times both lie within
middle-time region
– Shut-in time is much less than producing time
• Boundaries affect pressure responses of
drawdown and buildup tests differently
Shapes of curves
• Durations of flow regimes explain shape of
drawdown pressure responses
• Shape of buildup derivative type curve depends on
how the derivative is calculated and plotted
– Shut-in time
– Equivalent time
– Superposition time
Superposition in space
Producing wells
Radial flow pattern

Apparent no-flow boundary between wells
Producing well
Image well
Equal distances from

no-flow boundary
Real no-flow boundary

No-flow boundary
Image well Image well
Producing well
No-flow boundary
Producing well
Infinite-acting reservoir
100
Drawdown Type Curve
10
Dimensionless pressure
No boundaries encountered
1
0.1
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut-in
time
10
Shape depends on duration of

1 production time prior to shut-in
Drawdown
0.1
tpD=105 tpD=106 tpD=107 tpD=108
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin
Dimensionless shut-intime
time
100 Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent
time
10
Not affected by producing time

1
tpD=105 tpD=106 tpD=107 tpD=108
0.1
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless equivalent time
Derivative taken with respect to
equivalent time, plotted against
10
shut-in time
5 6 7 8
tpD=10 ,10 ,10 ,10 Drawdown
0.1
Largest time on plot is not limited
to producing or shut-in time
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
Linear no-flow boundary
(If so, far away….)
No-flow boundary
Producing well
100
Drawdown Type Curve

10
Hemiradial flow
1
0.1
Change in derivative from 0.5 to 1
Change occurs over about 12/3 log cycles
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut-in time
10
Drawdown
1
tpD=108
The longer the equivalent time before shut-in, the

0.1
longer the coincidence between buildup and drawdown

tpD=105 tpD=106 tpD=107
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin
time
100
Buildup Response
time
10
tpD=105 tpD=106 tpD=107 tpD=108 Drawdown

1
0.1
Derivative doubles over only a tiny fraction of a log
cycle for very short producing times prior to shut-in
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time, plotted
10
against shut-in time
tpD=108
tpD=107 Drawdown
1
tpD=106
tpD=105
0.1
Similar to drawdown response
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Linear constant-p boundary
Constant-pressure boundary
Possible injection,
waterflood, or gas/oil
Producing well contact causing
constant-pressure
boundary
100
Drawdown Type Curve
10
1 Slope can (and in this

case, does) reach -1
0.1
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut-
in time
10
Slope steeper than drawdown slope for

1 very short producing times before shut-in
tpD=106
0.1 Drawdown curve
tpD=105 Drawdown
tpD=108
tpD=107
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin time
100
Buildup Response
time
10
Derivative falls sharply over tiny fraction of log cycle

1 for very short producing times prior to shutin
0.1
Drawdown
tpD=105 tpD=106
tpD=107
tpD=108
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent time
shut-in time
10
tpD=105,106
1
tpD=107
0.1
Derivative curves resemble
Drawdown
drawdown curve tpD=108
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Channel reservoir
No-flow boundaries
(Effects
of ends
not felt )
Producing well
Channel reservoir
100
Drawdown Type Curve Slope  1/2
10
Slope = 1/2
0.1
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
Channel reservoir
100
Buildup Response
in time
10
Drawdown tpD=108
1
Derivative reaches a
slope of -1/2 if shut-in
tpD=107
time is much larger
0.1 than producing time
tpD=106
tpD=105
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shut-in
time
Channel reservoir
10
dimensionless time
Drawdown
7
tpD=10
tpD=105 tpD=106 tpD=108
0.1 Radial equivalent

time not appropriate
in linear flow regime
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Channel reservoir
equivalent time, plotted
10
against shut-in time
tpD=108
Drawdown
tpD=107
1
tpD=106
tpD=105
0.1 Derivative curve shape resembles

drawdown curve shape
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Intersecting sealing faults
“Wedge” reservoir
No-flow boundaries
Producing well
100
Drawdown Type Curve
10
The narrower the angle, the

longer to reach new horizontal
1
Derivative levels off at

0.1
(360/) x (derivative of infinite-acting response)
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
100
Buildup Response
time
10
Dramatic difference in curves

when shut-in is greater than
Drawdown
tpD=108
producing time prior to shut-in
1
tpD=107
0.1
tpD=106
tpD=105
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
100
Buildup Response
equivalent time
10
tpD=108
tpD=107 Drawdown
5 6
tpD=10 tpD=10
Derivative shape same as drawdown

0.1
response only when producing period
reaches fractional flow regime
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Derivative with respedt to
10
shut-in time
Drawdown
tpD=108
tpD=107
1
tpD=106
tpD=105
0.1
Derivative, drawdown curves similar
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Closed circular boundary
No-flow boundary
Producing well
100
Drawdown Type Curve
10
Unit slope may be seen
earlier if two zones with

different permeability
Both slopes approach unit
are present
1 slope at late times
(pseudosteady-state flow)
0.1
Reservoir limits test yields
pore volume of interval
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
100
Buildup Response
in time
10
Drawdown
6 6, 7 7 8 8
5 tpD
tpD=10
=10,10 10,10
,10
tpD=10
0.1
Derivative falls rapidly
for all combinations of
plotting functions
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
100
Buildup Response
10 equivalent time
Drawdown
Slope drops sharply

0.1
for very small values
tpD=105 ttpD =107,10
7 88
pD=10 ,10 of producing time
tpD=106
before shut-in
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
100
Buildup Response
time, plotted against shut-in time
10
Drawdown
tpD=105
0.1
Derivative, drawdown
tpD= t10
pD=10
6 6
, 10,10
7 7
,10
, 10 8 8 type curves differ
fundamentally
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Circular constant-p boundary
Possibly strong aquifer
supporting pressure Constant-pressure
equally from all directions boundary
Producing well
100
Drawdown Type Curve
10
 Pressure approaches
1
constant value at late times
 Derivative falls exponentially
0.1
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
100
Buildup Response
time
10
Drawdown
1
tpD=106,107,108
tpD=105
Curve can be identical to
0.1
drawdown plot just seen
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
100
Buildup Response
equivalent time
10
Derivative falls off rapidly
0.1
Drawdown
tpD=105 tpD=106 tpD=107,108
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
100
Buildup Response
10 time, plotted against shut-in time
Results in somewhat-changed
1 curve on the plot
0.1
Drawdown tpD=105
tpD=107,108
tpD=106
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Radially composite reservoir
Significant difference in permeability
near, farther from well
k1 k2
Producing well
100
Drawdown Type Curve
Varying M1/M2 M1/M2 = 100
10
k M1/M2 = 10
m (mobility) 
1
 Responses resemble other tests
M1/M2 = 1
M1/M2 = 0.2
0.1
M1/M2 = 0.05
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
100 Drawdown Type Curve
Varying S1/S2
10
10
1
S1/S2 = 100
0.05
1
S (storativity) = cth
S1/S2 = 0.01
0.1 If
If sS11/s
/S2> 1, plot looks like closed circular drainage area
2<<1, plot looks like closed linear flow
If M1/M2<<1, plot looks like constant-p circular

boundary during transition
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
Final comments
• Assuming a well is in an arbitrary point in a

closed, rectangular reservoir can lead to
apparent fit of test for many different
reservoirs
Arbitrary well position
dy
dx
Cautions
• Make sure the model is consistent with known

geology before using the model
• Two most dangerous models (because they
can fit so many tests inappropriately)
– Composite reservoir
– Well at arbitrary point in closed reservoir
Final comments
• Assuming a well is in an arbitrary point in a

closed, rectangular reservoir can lead to a poor
fit of test for many different reservoirs
Buildup Testing
and the
Diagnostic Plot
Objectives
• Become familiar with time plotting
functions used with diagnostic plots for
buildup tests
• Become aware of the very different
shapes in the diagnostic plots of buildup
and drawdown tests as buildup tests
approach stabilization
Time-Plotting Functions
• Shut-in Time
• Horner Pseudoproducing Time
• Multirate Equivalent Time
• Superposition Time Function
Variable Rate History
q
q2
q1 qn-1
qn
0 t1 t2 tn-2 tn-1 t t
t
Horner Pseudoproducing Time
Cumulative
24 N p produced oil
tp  Final rate
Expressed qn1 before
another way... shut-in
n 1
 
24  q j t j  t j 1 
j 1
tp 
qn1
Horner Pseudoproducing Time
Cumulative
24 N p produced oil
tp  Final rate
qn1 before
shut-in
• Good results as long as last

producing time is at least 10x
maximum shut-in time.
Multirate Equivalent Time
  q j  q j 1  
 
 n1  tn1  t j 1   qn1  qn  
 te       t

 j 1   t  t n 1  t 
j 1  
 
(Agarwal equation for radial flow)

Superposition Time Function
1  n 1 
STF   
  q j  q j 1 ln t  tn 1  t j 1
qn  qn 1   j 1



 ln t 
Some literature recommends . . .

Pressure derivative for buildup calculated as
pressure derivative with respect to superposition
time function; plotted vs. shut-in time
 n  1  q j  q j  1  
STF     
 ln t  tn 1  t j 1 

 j 1  qn  qn1  
 lnt 
(previous equation, rearranged)

  q j  q j 1   
  n 1 


  
  1  q 
 n 1 n  q
STF  ln     t 
   t  t n 1  t j 1   
j 1  
  
  
(previous equation, rearranged again

using properties of natural logarithm)
  q j  q j 1   
  n 1 


  
  1  q 
 n 1 n  q
STF  ln      te 
   t n 1  t j 1   
j 1  
  
  
STF  lnC   lnte 

• Superposition time function is simply the
log of a constant plus the log of the
equivalent time.
Derivitive with respect to multirate equivalent time

= derivitive with respect to superposition time

pressure derivative with respect to superposition
time function; plotted vs. shut-in time
pressure derivative with respect to equivalent time
function

Since the derivatives with respect to
multirate equivalent time and
superposition time are equal,

Conclusions
• Horner pseudoproducing time is adequate
when producing time is 10 times greater
than the maximum shut-in time
Conclusions
• Derivatives with respect to time for the
superposition time function and radial
equivalent time are identical. They can be
plotted vs. shut-in time, superposition time, or
equivalent time
Conclusions
• Some literature or software documentation
may specify the method of taking or
plotting the derivative, but any of these will
work for these situation.
Radial Flow
Approaching Stabilization
• Stabilization is the stage where pressure has
built up completely and is no longer
changing.
Stabilization In Radial System
100
Drawdown
10
Buildup
pD
Drawdown
0.1
Producing times must
Buildup, tpD=105
be at least 10x
maximum shut-in time
0.01
1E+02 1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08
tD
Linear Flow
Stabilization in Linear System
1000
Drawdown
100
(spherical flow may also

pD
10
produce slope = -1/2)
tpD=103
1
Derivative
response
slope = -1/2
0.1
1E+00 1E+01 1E+02 1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06
tD
Volumetric Behavior
Stabilization in Volumetric System
100
All boundaries have been felt

10
Drawdown
Drawdown response
feels boundary later than
6
tpD=10
0.1
build-up response
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Conclusions
• Shapes of the buildup and drawdown
diagnostic plots are fundamentally different as
the reservoir approaches stabilization.
• Don’t expect to see the same shape on a
diagnostic plot for a build up test as for a
drawdown test.
Integrated Well Test
Interpretation
Integrating Test Interpretation
Geology Model
Selection
Parameter
Geophysics
Estimation
Flow Regime
Identification
Model
Petrophysics
Validation
Engineering Well Test

Data Interpretation
Interpreting Integrated Data
• Importance of Model Selection
• Integrating Other Data
– Geological Data
– Geophysical Data
– Petrophysical Data
– Engineering Data
• Validating the Reservoir Model
• Common Errors and Misconceptions
Similar Model Responses
Well in a Wedge Composite Reservoir
Multiple ‘Knobs’ Confuse
Composite Reservoir Well in a Box
W
R
M1,S1 L
D2
M2,S2 D1
• Mobility ratio M1/M2 • Distance to wall D1

• Storativity ratio S1/S2 • Distance to wall D2
• Distance to boundary R • Reservoir length L
• Reservoir width W
Models ‘Simplify’ Geology
-79
Well A 00
-85 -83 -81

-8 -87 00
-9 9 00 00 00 00
10
0
• Interpretation model must be consistent with

(not identical to) geological model
• Have we oversimplified the geology?
Responses Differ With Test Type
Slight divergence;
Closed Reservoir - DD Const Pres Boundary - DD TC

TC
Close match
Closed Reservoir - BU Const Pres Boundary - BU TC

TC
Importance Of Model Selection
• Most major errors caused by use of wrong
model instead of wrong method
– Meaningless estimates
– Misleading estimates
• Two aspects of model selection
– Selecting reservoir geometry
– Identifying features of pressure response
Geology Offers Insights
• Depositional • Diagenesis
environment
• Types of boundaries
– Reservoir size
– Shape
– Faults
• Sealing
– Orientation
• Partially sealing
• Reservoir
heterogeneity – Fluid contacts
– Layering • Gas/oil
– Natural fractures • Oil/water
Geophysics and Petrophysics
• Structure • Net pay thickness
• Faults • Porosity
– Location • Fluid saturations
– Size • Fluid contacts
• Reservoir • Lithology
compartments • Layering
– Shape • Evidence of natural
– Orientation fractures
Engineering Data
• Drilling data—daily reports
• Production and flow test data
• Stimulation treatment results
– Fracture design half-length, conductivity
– Fracture treating pressure analysis results
– Problems during treatment—daily reports
• Data from offset wells
– Possible interference—production records
– Well test results
‘Reality Checks’ Validate Model
• Wellbore storage coefficient
• Skin factor
• Core permeability
• Pressure response during flow period
• Productivity index
• Average reservoir pressure
• Radius of investigation
• Distances to boundaries
• Independent estimates of model parameters
Wellbore Storage Coefficient
Fluid-filled wellbore Rising liquid level
C  Vwb cwb C
144 Awb g c
5.615  wb g
• WBS coefficient from test should be within order of
magnitude of estimate
• Phase segregation can cause smaller WBS
• WBS coefficient >100x estimated value may indicate
reservoir storage instead of WBS
Skin Factor
• Likely estimates by completion type
– Natural completion 0
– Acid treatment -1 to -3
– Fracture treatment -3 to -6
– Gravel pack +5 to +10
– Frac pack -2 to +2
• Local field experience may suggest more
appropriate values
• Skin factor < -6 very unlikely
Core Permeability
• In-situ permeability from well test
• Core permeability to air
– High—overburden and saturation
– Low—natural fractures
• Total kh from core adjusted to in-situ value
less than kh from well test
– Fractures
– Missing core
• Most useful when entire interval cored
Production Period Pressure
• Must be consistent with shut-in pressure
response
• Must ensure consistency
– Interpret flow periods independently
– Predict flow period pressures from results of
buildup
– Match flow and buildup periods simultaneously
Productivity Index
Field Data q
J
p  pwf
Model Parameters
kh
J
 1  10.06 A  3 
141.2 B  ln     s
2 
 2  C Arw  4 
Correct model should give consistent values

Average Reservoir Pressure
• Compare average reservoir pressure from
test interpretation
– Material balance
– Analytical simulation
– Numerical simulation
• Results should be similar if same reservoir
model is used
Radius of Investigation
kt kte
ri  ri 
948ct 948ct
• Estimate radius of investigation
– Beginning of middle-time region
– End of middle-time region
• Unrealistically large ri may indicate selected
MTR is incorrect
• Very small ri may indicate wrong MTR or test
not measuring reservoir characteristics
Distance to Boundaries
• Reservoir size
– Production data
– Geological data
– Geophysical data
• Distances to boundaries
– Geological data
– Geophysical data
• Geoscience professionals should develop
common interpretation model
Independent Parameters
• Dual porosity from fracture width, spacing
– Storativity ratio 
– Interporosity flow coefficient 
• Composite reservoir parameters for

waterflood-injection well
– Radius of waterflooded zone
– Mobility ratio (k/)1/(k/)2
– Storativity ratio (ct)1/ (ct)2
• Composite reservoir parameters for

waterflood-injection well
• Fracture properties from treatment design
– Fracture half-length lf
– Fracture conductivity wkf
Common Errors/Misconceptions
• Most-often-misused models
– Well between two sealing faults
– Well in a radially composite reservoir
– Well in a rectangular reservoir
• Common misconceptions
– Unit-slope line indicates wellbore storage
– Peak in derivative indicates radial flow
– Strong aquifer acts as constant-pressure boundary
Well Between Two Sealing
Faults
Well in a Wedge
 Angle between faults

 Distance from well to 1st fault
 Distance from well to 2nd fault
Radially Composite Reservoir
Composite Reservoir
• Mobility ratio M1/M2

• Storativity ratio S1/S2
• Distance to boundary R
Rectangular Reservoir
Well in a Box
L
D2
D1
• Distance to wall D1
• Distance to wall D2
• Reservoir length L
• Reservoir width W
Unit-slope line always
indicates wellbore storage
• Unit-slope line may be caused by

– Pseudosteady-state flow
(drawdown test only)
– Recharge of high-permeability zone (either
drawdown or buildup test)
Peak in derivative implies radial flow
Linear
Bilinear
Radial
Spherical
• Peak in derivative may be caused by a flow

restriction for any flow regime
Strong aquifer acts as constant
pressure boundary
• Mobility of water must be much higher than

that of reservoir fluid to act as constant
pressure boundary
– Maybe, maybe not for oil
– Never for gas

Well Test

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Test

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Testing Analysis

Basis for Grade:

• Applications and objectives of well testing

• Development of the diffusivity equation

• Definitions and sources for data used in

• Diagnose productivity problems

Well is shut in,

• flowing the well at a single rate until the bottomhole

flowing pressure is stabilized

– requires prior knowledge of the well's deliverability

– (from previous testing or from correlations with other wells

producing in the same field under similar conditions)

• Reservoir properties (permeability, skin

Vertical well, Vertical well,

Deviated well, Deviated well,

• Time required to reach a given

948 ct ri2

Filtrate may cause

p > pd P< pd p < pb p > pb

Gas Condensate Oil Reservoir

J actual p  pwf  ps

Positive (damage) skin (s = +5)

Usually several cycles apart

(t2, pwf2) p1hr is p at

Rate after shut-in of -q

…but rises during the

Horner time ratio

1. Identify range of validity of pressure,

absolute pressure, psi

Fairly constant at rates >3,000 psi

• Real Gas Law Equation of State

Liquid rises until

1. Identify wellbore storage and middle time regions

Wellbore storage coefficient

p p pD pD

p 70.6qB pD

WBS Transition Radial Flow

Early Time Region Middle Time Region

Align data with

Begin to move toward unit slope line

Equivalent time, hrs

Pressure change (p)

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Fluids from outside ‘recharge’ tank

Pressure change during recharge

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

General Form p  m logt   b

General Form p  m logt   b

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Dietz shape factor CA = 4.5132

Dietz shape factor CA = 10.8374

Dietz shape factor CA = 5.379

Dietz shape factor CA