13.

9 Naturally Fractured Reservoir Models 497

Applying Eq. (13.35),

rwa = rwe -s
rwa = (0.25)e -( - 5.19) = 44.7 ft.

Further by applying Eq. (13.36),

Lf = 2rwa
Lf = 2 * 44.7 = 89.4 ft.

There are reasonable agreements between well and reservoir parameters calculated from
type-curve matching and straightline methods. For instance, the formation permeabilities cal-
culated from the two methods are reasonably close. This indicates that the results obtained from
analyzing the well test data with the two methods are reasonably consistent.

13.8 Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

Many reservoirs in different petroleum producing formations across the world are naturally frac-
tured. In a majority of these cases, the productivity of these reservoirs depends on the presence
of these fractures. The fractures act as conduits that convey fluids from the matrix to the well-
bore. Production rates of wells in naturally fractured reservoirs are relatively high, although
these wells may have short lives due to channeling of gas and/or water through the fracture sys-
tem to the wellbore. The pressure response of naturally fractured reservoirs during a well test is
different from that of unfractured reservoirs. In this section, well test analysis is presented as a
tool that can be applied in the diagnosis of naturally fractured reservoirs.

13.9 Naturally Fractured Reservoir Models

Naturally fractured reservoirs (NFRs) are composed of random distributions of fractures,
vugs, and matrices, as shown in Figure 13.16. The distribution of fractures in the reservoir
can be massive, localized, oriented, or clustered along a fault. The nature of the fractures and
their distribution has considerable influence on the pressure response of a well in a test. In
well test analysis, naturally fractured reservoirs can be represented with different models
based on the type and distribution of the fractures within the system. These representative
models are:8

1. Homogeneous reservoir
2. Multiple region or composite reservoir
3. Anisotropic reservoir
4. Single fracture reservoir
5. Double-porosity reservoir
498 Chapter 13 Well Test Analysis

Matrix

Fracture

Vug

Figure 13.16 Naturally fractured rock (from Cinco-Ley8 1996 SPE, Reproduced with permission).

13.9.1 Homogeneous Reservoir Model

Homogeneous reservoir model can be used to represent massively fractured formations with
small matrix blocks (Figure 13.17a) or fractured formations in which most of the fluids are
stored within the fractures (Figure 13.17b). In these types of NFRs, the fractures and the rock
matrix behave as a single indistinguishable system. Such NFRs exhibit homogeneous type of behav-
ior in flow tests. Their pressure responses in well tests are similar to those of other homogeneous-
acting reservoirs previously described in Chapters 11 and 12. Consequently, all well test analysis
techniques composed of straightline methods and type-curve matching developed earlier in
Chapters 11 and 12 are equally applicable to these types of NFRs. For instance, a plot of

Well

Fracture Matrix

Figure 13.17a Massively fractured reservoir (from Cinco-Ley8 1996 SPE, Reproduced
with permission).
13.9 Naturally Fractured Reservoir Models 499

Well

Fracture Matrix

Figure 13.17b Naturally fractured reservoir with low porosity/permeability matrix (from Cinco-Ley8
1996 SPE, Reproduced with permission).

pwf vs. log t for a drawdown test or a Horner plot, pws vs. log{(tp + t)>t}, for a buildup test
yields a straightline with slope, m, from which the flow capacity, kh, of the entire system (frac-
ture plus matrix) can be calculated.

13.9.2 Multiple Region or Composite Reservoir Model

In Figure 13.18, a fractured reservoir composed of two regions is shown. The rock formation in
one region is fractured, while the rest of the reservoir is not fractured. The fractured region will
most likely exhibit higher transmissibility than the unfractured region. This NFR type can be rep-
resented with a composite radial model. Wells completed in the fractured region of the reservoir
will tend to exhibit higher production rates than wells completed in the unfractured region.
The flow capacity of the composite system depends on the flow capacity of the fractured and unfrac-
tured regions. If a test is conducted on a well located in the fractured region, the pressure

Matrix

Well
Fracture

Figure 13.18 Regionally fractured reservoir (from Cinco-Ley8 1996 SPE, Reproduced
with permission).
500 Chapter 13 Well Test Analysis

Radial Flow in
Composite Reservoir
Log p

Radial Flow
in Fractures

Log t

Figure 13.19a Derivative plot for a composite reservoir model (from Cinco-Ley8 1996 SPE,
Reproduced with permission).

response will be influenced initially by nearby fractures, and later by the unfractured region if
the duration of the test is sufficiently long. Figure 13.19a is schematic log-log plot of the pres-
sure derivative. The first horizontal line in Figure 13.19a represents radial flow from the fracture
system after wellbore storage effects have ended. After a transition period, the second horizon-
tal line represents radial flow from the fractured and unfractured regions (composite system) of
the reservoir. Figure 13.19b is a schematic semilog plot of the pressure response. The first
straight line in Figure 13.19b represents the fracture system and the second straight line repre-
sents the composite reservoir. The flow capacities of the fractured region and the composite
reservoir can be calculated from the slopes of these straight lines (m1 and m2), respectively.

Composite
Reservoir

m2

Fractures

P
m1

Log t

Figure 13.19b Semilog plot for a composite reservoir model (from Cinco-Ley8 1996 SPE,
Reproduced with permission).
13.9 Naturally Fractured Reservoir Models 501

Well

Matrix
Fracture

Figure 13.20 Naturally fractured reservoir with directional fractures (from Cinco-Ley8 1996
SPE, Reproduced with permission).

13.9.3 Anisotropic Reservoir Model

The fractures in some NFRs are aligned in a particular direction as shown in Figure 13.20. In these
reservoirs, the composite permeability in the direction of the fractures is higher than the composite
permeability in the directional normal to the fractures. Consequently, these reservoirs exhibit
anisotropic behavior. The reservoir exhibits a maximum permeability, k max, and a minimum per-
meability, kmin, as shown in Figure 13.21. In NFR exhibiting anisotropic behavior, interference
tests are the best method for determining k max and kmin plus the orientation of the principal axis
of permeability.8 The application of interference testing in wells is not covered in this book.

13.9.4 Single Fracture Model

In Figure 13.22, a well located near a high conductivity fracture system is shown. This fracture
system may consist of a permeable fault through which fluids can flow to the well from other
parts of the reservoir. Wells located in this region of the reservoir are capable of producing at
kmax
kmin 1
2

1, 2, 3 Observation Wells
A Active Well

Figure 13.21 Orientation of fracture permeability for anisotropic NFR (from Cinco-Ley8 1996
SPE, Reproduced with permission).
502 Chapter 13 Well Test Analysis

Fault
Matrix

Well

Fracture

Figure 13.22 Naturally fractured reservoir with highly conductive fault (from Cinco-Ley8 1996
SPE, Reproduced with permission).

very high, sustained rates. They are also subject to premature water breakthrough if the perme-
able fault traverses the aquifer. Several reservoir and well parameters can be calculated from
analysis of a well test in this reservoir. Figure 13.23 is a log-log pressure derivative plot of a well
test for such reservoir. As shown in Figure 13.23, there is a radial flow regime representing the
entire system. After a transition period, the response to the permeable fault appears to indicate a
constant pressure boundary. This is then followed by bilinear flow representing the flow through
the fracture system. Several specialized plots (Figure 13.24) are useful for analysis of flow tests
on the well. These include a semilog plot to calculate the flow capacity, kh, of the total system
and a plot of p vs. 2t
4
for the bilinear flow regime to calculate fracture conductivity, wfkf.

13.9.5 Double Porosity Model

NFRs have traditionally been described as consisting of a matrix system and a fracture system
as shown in Figure 13.25. Reservoirs fluids flow from the matrix system to the fracture system
and the fracture system delivers the fluids to the wellbore. The capacity of the matrix system to
t

Radial
Flow
Log p

Log t

Figure 13.23 Derivative plot for NFR with highly conductive fault (from Cinco-Ley8 1996 SPE,
Reproduced with permission).
13.9 Naturally Fractured Reservoir Models 503

m bf

4
t

Figure 13.24 Specialized plot for a well near a highly conductive fault (from Cinco-Ley8 1996
SPE, Reproduced with permission).

store and transport fluids is measured by its porosity, fma, and permeability, kma, respectively.
Similarly, the storage and transport capacity of the fracture system is measured by its porosity,
ff, and permeability, kf, respectively.
Since reservoir fluids are stored in both the matrix and fractures, the double porosity model
is used to represent the total system. Two flow conditions are used to describe the flow of fluids
from the matrix to the fractures. These are pseudosteady-state flow9,10 and transient flow1113
conditions. It is not readily apparent which flow condition is prevalent in a flow test. Some tests
appear to indicate pseudosteady-state interporosity flow behavior while others indicate transient
interporosity flow behavior.14 In the analysis of a flow test, pseudosteady-state flow should be
assumed on a trial basis. If analysis of the test data does not conform to this model, then tran-
sient flow behavior can be assumed as an alternative model.
The term interporosity flow describes the exchange of fluids between the fracture and the
matrix systems. A measure of fluid transfer between the matrix and the fracture systems is called
the interporosity flow coefficient. Interporosity flow coefficient, l, is defined as:14

Matrix

Well

Fracture

Figure 13.25 NFR with fracture and matrix permeability (from Cinco-Ley8 1996 SPE,
Reproduced with permission).
504 Chapter 13 Well Test Analysis

kma
l = ar2w (13.42)
kf
In Eq. (13.42), kma = matrix permeability; kf = fracture permeability; and a = a param-
eter characteristic of the geometry of the system. The parameter, a, is defined as:

4n(n + 2)
a = (13.43)
l2
In Eq. (13.43), n = the number of normal sets of planes limiting the least permeable medi-
um; and l = characteristic dimension of the matrix block.14 Figure 13.26 shows an idealized
matrix block model of a fractured reservoir. For this representative model, n = 3. Figure 13.27
shows a slab model of a fractured reservoir. For this model, n = 1. The range of values for l is
from 109 to 104. A high value for l indicates fast interaction between the fracture system and
the matrix system.8
The term storativity represents the storage and expansion capacity of the fluid in the par-
ticular system. The storativity of the fractures relative to the storativity of the total system is
called the storativity ratio. It is a measure of the relative storage and expansion capacity of the
fractures in the entire system. Storativity ratio, v, is defined as:
(fVct)f
v = (13.44)
(fVct)f + (fVct)ma
In Eq. (13.44), V = ratio of the total volume of medium to the bulk volume of the total
system. The subscripts, f and ma, denote fracture and matrix, respectively. The range of typical
values for v is from 0.001 to 0.5.8

Matrix Fractures

Figure 13.26 Idealized matrix block model for NFRs (from Warren and Root10 1963 SPE,
Reproduced with permission).
13.10 Well Test Analysis in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs 505

hf Fracture

Matrix

Repetitive
Element

hm

Figure 13.27 Slab model for NFRs (from Serra et al.13 1983 SPE, Reproduced with permission).

13.10 Well Test Analysis in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

Based on Double Porosity Model
Many NFRs exhibit pseudosteady-state flow from the matrix to the fractures.14 Pseudosteady-
state flow implies that the rate of pressure change in the matrix is constant. Initially, fluid flow
to the wellbore is from the fracture system. This followed by a transition period during which
fluids begin to flow from the matrix. Finally, an equilibrium condition is reached at which fluids
flow from the matrix to the fractures, and then from the fractures to the wellbore. A semilog plot
of p vs. t representing this behavior is shown in Figure 13.28. In Figure 13.28, Line 1 repre-
sents flow in the fracture system exhibiting radial, homogeneous behavior, and Line 2 represents
radial, homogeneous flow in the total system (fracture plus matrix). Line 1 is parallel to Line 2.
For this reason, both lines have the same slope. From the slope, the flow capacity, (kh)f + ma, of
the total system can be calculated. The flow capacity, (kh)f + ma, is essentially equal to the flow
capacity of the fracture, (kh)f, since the permeability of the fracture is much greater than the per-
meability of the matrix (i.e., kf W km).
Some naturally fractured reservoirs exhibit transient flow from the matrix to the frac-
tures.13 Transient flow conditions imply the rate of pressure change varies with time and loca-
tion in the matrix. As previously described for pseudosteady-state flow, flow originates in the
fractures under transient conditions. This followed by transition period before stabilized flow
goes from the matrix to the fractures, and finally from the fractures to the wellbore. A semilog
plot of p vs. t representing this transient behavior is shown in Figure 13.29. In Figure 13.29,
Line 1 represents flow in the fracture system exhibiting radial, homogeneous behavior, and Line
3 represents radial, homogeneous flow in the total system (fracture plus matrix). A third straight
506 Chapter 13 Well Test Analysis

1
Fracture +

e
Lin
Matrix flow

p Fracture flow

Transition Region

2
e
Lin

Log t

Figure 13.28 Semilog pressure response of a NFR assuming pseudosteady-state flow.

line, Line 2, represents transitional flow regime from the matrix to the fractures. Lines 1 and 3
have the same slope. The slope of Line 2 is equal to half the slope of either Lines 1 or 3.

13.11 Well Test Analysis in NFRs: Straightline Methods

Fluid flow in the matrix of NFRs is described under the double porosity model either by assum-
ing pseudosteady-state conditions or transient state conditions. Most flow tests in NFRs appear
to exhibit pseudosteady-state behavior.14 Consequently, the application of straightline methods
in the analysis of well tests in NFRs is based primarily on the assumption of pseudosteady-state
e1
Lin

Line 2
p

Transition Region
e3
Lin

Log t

Figure 13.29 Semilog pressure response of a NFR assuming transient flow.

13.11 Well Test Analysis in NFRs: Straightline Methods 507

dP Slope = m

e1

e2
Lin

Lin
t1 t2
Log t

Figure 13.30 Semilog plot of p vs. t for a NFR flow test.

flow conditions. However, the equations presented here are applicable if transient flow condi-
tions are assumed.
A semilog plot of pressure change versus time (p vs. log t) is shown in Figure 13.30,
assuming pseudosteady-state flow. Lines 1 and 2 are two parallel lines representing homoge-
neous flow in the fractures and the total system (fractures plus matrix), respectively. The slope,
m, of either straight line can be used to calculate the permeability-thickness product, kh, of the
fracture or the total system, thus:
(kh)f M (kh)total
(13.45)
162.6qBm
=
m
In Eq. (13.45), (kh)total = [(kh)f + (kh)m]. Since fracture permeability, kf, is much greater
than matrix permeability, km, (i.e., kf W km), then (kh)f M (kh)total as indicated in Eq. (13.45).
The storativity ratio, v, can be calculated from the vertical pressure displacement, dp,
between Lines 1 and 2 as shown in Figure 13.30. Thus,

v = 10- A m B
dp
(13.46)

As shown in Figure 13.30, a straight line drawn through the middle of the transition curve
will intersect Line 1 at t1 and Line 2 at t2. The interporosity flow coefficient, l, can be calculated
using either t1 or t2 from the following equations:14
(fVct)fmr2w (fVct)f + mmr2w
l = = , for drawdown tests (13.47)
gkft1 gkft2
508 Chapter 13 Well Test Analysis

Log tD pD

(tD pD)min

tD min

Log tD

Figure 13.31 NFR derivative plot.

(fVct)fmr2w(tp + t1) (fVct)f + mmr2w(tp + t2)

l = = , for buildup tests (13.48)
gkftp t1 gkftp t2
In Eqs. (13.47) and (13.48), g is the exponential of Eulers constant, which is approxi-
mately 1.781.
It is clearly evident from Figure 13.30 that these methods used earlier to calculate the stora-
tivity ratio, v, and the interporosity flow coefficient, l, depend on the presence of the two semi-
log straight lines, Line 1 and Line 2. Line 1, which is based on early flow in the fractures, is
usually distorted by wellbore storage and may not be observed. Consequently, parameters needed
for Eqs. (13.46) to (13.48) may not be obtainable from a semilog plot similar to Figure 13.30.
An alternative method for calculating the storativity ratio and interporosity flow coefficient
is based on the characteristic minimum point that is typically present on the pressure derivative
plots of flow tests from NFRs, as shown in Figure 13.31. The dimensionless time value, tD min ,
at which this minimum point occurs is given as:15

c ln a b d
v 1
tD min = (13.49)
l v
This minimum point also corresponds to the dimensionless pressure derivative value
derived as:16

0pD
ctD d = 0.5c1 + v{1>(1 - v)} - v{v>(1 - v)} d (13.50)
0tD min
13.12 Well Test Analysis in NFRs: Type Curves 509

Equation (13.50) can be solved for v by using either successive substitution methods or
Newton-Raphson numerical analysis techniques. An initial estimate for v can be obtained from
the expression:16
0p
c0.01765 + log atD b d
0tD min
log v = (13.51)
0.94903
The interporosity flow coefficient is calculated from Eq. (13.49) by substituting the value
of the storativity ratio calculated from Eq. (13.50).
The skin factor, s, is calculated by extrapolating the second semilog straight line (Line 2,
Figure 13.30) to p1hr. The skin factor is calculated from the conventional expression:
p1hr
- log a b + 3.23 d
k
s = 1.151c (13.52)
m fmctr2w
Note that in Eq. (13.52), p1hr = (pi - p1hr) for a drawdown test or p1hr =
(p1hr - pwf@t = 0) for a buildup test.

13.12 Well Test Analysis in NFRs: Type Curves

Type curves, in conjunction with straightline methods, are useful in well test analysis of NFRs, espe-
cially in cases where early time flows in the fractures are distorted by wellbore storage. A typical
analysis using type curves is illustrated in Figure 13.32, which shows the pressure behavior of a well

103
cDe2s
e2s
102

D
C
B
10 Fractures
s ition
Tran
pD

1 s
ture
r ac
+F
ix
atr
101 M

102
101 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
tD /cD

Figure 13.32 Typical type curve analysis of flow test in a NFR (from Gringarten14 1984 SPE,
Reproduced with permission).
510 Chapter 13 Well Test Analysis

102
cDe2s 1030
Start of Semi-log 1030
Straight Line 1015
1015
e2s Damaged Well 106
10 103
106
5 104
amage
d Well
iz e d Well 5101
Non-D d
pD

Aci
1022
10
0.1
1 ell 103
dW
ure 0.3
Fr act

0.7

101
101 1 10 102 103 104
tD /cD

Figure 13.33 Type curve for NFRs under pseudosteady-state flow (from Gringarten14 1984
SPE, Reproduced with permission).

test in a double-porosity reservoir. During early time flow from the fractures, the pressure response
follows one of the homogeneous curves with CDe2s = A CDe2s B f. This is shown as the heavy dark
line between points A and B in Figure 13.32. When interporosity flow begins from the matrix to the
fractures (termed the transition period), the pressure response curve departs from the CDe2s curve and
follow the transition curve characterized by the parameter le - 2s. This is represented by the segment
between points B and C in Figure 13.32. At later times, when both the fractures and matrix are con-
tributing to production, the pressure curve leaves the transition curve and follows a new CDe2s that
represents the entire system. This is shown as the segment between points C and D in Figure 13.32.
The process of determining reservoir and fracture parameters by type-curve matching is the
same as discussed previously in Chapter 12. The process begins by making a log-log plot of pressure
change versus time on the same scale as the type curve. By examining the plotted data, it is possi-
ble to identify different flow periods such as fracture flow, transition flow, and total system flow. This
plot is then superimposed on a set of type curves such as shown in Figure 13.33 for pseudosteady-
state flow, and Figure 13.34 for transient flow. By shifting the two plots in the manner described
in Chapter 12 for type-curve matching, a match point is obtained. From the pressure match point
(PMP), the permeability-thickness product for the total system (fracture + matrix), (kh)f + ma, is
calculated as:

d
pD
(kh)f + ma = 141.2qBmc (13.53)
p PMP
The permeability of the fracture system is much higher than the permeability of the matrix
(i.e., kf W kma). For this reason, (kh)f + ma is essentially equal to (kh)f.
13.12 Well Test Analysis in NFRs: Type Curves 511

102
cDe2s
On Transition Curves Aproximate Start of
Semi-Log Straight Line
On Homogeneous Curves 1030
(cDe2s)f+m 1030

e2s 1015 3
10 10
1065
0.5
pD

102
0.5
3
10
1 10
3

101
101 1 10 102 103 104
tD /cD

Figure 13.34 Type curve for NFRs under transient flow (from Gringarten14 1984 SPE,
Reproduced with permission).

From the time match point (TMP), the wellbore storage coefficient, CD, can be calculated as:

t
a b
0.0002637k
CD =
tD>CD TMP
(13.54)
fmctr2w

From the fit of the early data that characterize the fracture system, determine the value of
A CDe B f from the match. Also, determine the value of le -2s that characterizes the transition
2s

region. Finally, determine the value of A CDe2s B f + m that characterizes flow of the total system in
the later flow period. The storativity ratio, v, is calculated from these matched values as:

A CDe2s B f + m
v =
A CDe2s B f
(13.55)

The skin factor, s, is calculated as:

A CDe2s B f + m
s = 0.5 ln c d (13.56)
CD

The interporosity flow coefficient, l, is calculated from:

l = A le -2s B e2s (13.57)

512 Chapter 13 Well Test Analysis

13.13 Procedure for Analysis of Well Test

from NFRs Assuming Double Porosity Behavior
The procedure for analysis of well test data from NFRs can be classified as consisting of three
main processes:

1. Identification of flow periods

2. Calculation of fracture and reservoir parameters from type curves
3. Validation of results with straightline methods

13.13.1 Identification of Flow Periods

As discussed earlier, there are potentially three flow periods in the test data from NFRs. These
are fracture flow at early times, transition flow period marking the onset of fluid flow from the
matrix, and stabilized flow from both fracture and matrix at later times. In many cases, fracture
flow and transition flow periods may be distorted or masked by wellbore storage. The presence
of these flow regimes can be identified on a plot of pressure change and pressure-derivative versus
time. The pressure-derivative plot yields the characteristic dip below the homogeneous behavior
level which is indicative of double porosity behavior.

1. Plot logp vs. log t for flow test or log p vs. log te for a buildup test. Plot
tp(or te p) versus t (or te) on the same graph. Use the same scale size as the
type curves graph to be used later for type-curve matching.
2. Identify any flow periods that may be present. Note if double porosity behavior is present.

13.13.2 Calculation of Fracture and Reservoir Parameters

from Type Curves
Fracture and reservoir parameters can be calculated by matching the plot from Step 1 to the type
curves in Figure 13.33 or Figure 13.34. Since most test data from NFRs appear to indicate
pseudosteady-state flow conditions, use Figure 13.33 for the first trial.

1. Match the flow test data plot of logp vs. log t for flow test or log p vs. log te for a
buildup test against type curves of Figure 13.33.
2. Determine pressure and time match points (PMP and TMP, respectively). Also deter-
mine A CDe2s B f for the fracture flow period, le -2s for the transition flow period, and
A CDe2s B f + m for the stabilized flow from the combined system (fracture plus matrix).
3. Calculate fracture and reservoir parameters using Eqs. (13.53) to (13.57).

13.13.3 Validation of Results with Straightline Methods

The validation step involves using straightline methods to calculate fracture and reservoir param-
eters, and comparing them to the results obtained with type-curve matching. If the results are rea-
sonably close, then it can be presumed that the type curves selected from type-curve matching
13.13 Procedure for Analysis of Well Test from NFRs 513

are representative of the test data and that the results are inherently consistent. If the results are
widely divergent, then the analysis should begin again from type-curve matching by choosing
another set of type curves and repeating the entire process. This process is highly iterative and
should be continued until reasonable agreement is achieved with the results from type-curve
matching and straightline methods.

1. Plot pwf vs. t for a drawdow test or pws vs. (tp + t)>t for a buildup test on a semilog
scale.
2. Identify flow periods present in plot using the knowledge gained from type-curve
matching.
3. If the flow periods illustrated in Figure 13.30 are present, use Eqs. (13.45) to (13.48) to
calculate fracture and reservoir parameters.
4. Use the derivative plot to obtain tD min. Calculate v and l from Eqs. (13.49) and (13.50).
5. Calculate skin factor from Eq. (13.52).
6. Compare the results obtained from straightline methods to the results obtained from
type-curve analysis.
7. If the results are in reasonable agreement, then the analysis is internally consistent. If
not, repeat process by using another interpretation model.

The discussions on analysis of test data from NFRs have been conducted on the basis of
slightly compressible fluids such as oil reservoirs. For gas reservoirs, it is necessary to use appro-
priate pressure transformation functions such as real gas pseudo-pressure, as demonstrated in
Chapter 11.

Example 13.2 Calculation of Fracture and Reservoir Parameters from the Test Data of a
Well in a Naturally Fractured Reservoir (NFR)

Problem
A drawdown test was conducted on a well in a naturally fractured reservoir. The test data are
shown in Table 13.2. Calculate fracture and reservoir parameters from the test data. Well and
other reservoir properties are given as follows:

Formation thickness, h 30 ft
Formation porosity, fm 0.12
Total compressibility, ct 14 * 106 psi1
Oil viscosity, mo 1.2 cp
Oil FVF, Bo 1.3 RB/STB
Wellbore radius, rw 0.5 ft
Production rate, qo 2950 STB/D
Initial average pressure, p 4480 psia
514 Chapter 13 Well Test Analysis

Table 13.2 Test and Plot Data for Example 13.2

Time, t (hrs.) pwf (psia) p (psia) tp

0.00 4480.00 0.00

0.05 4462.00 18.00 128.87
0.06 4440.00 40.00 136.28
0.08 4403.00 77.00 147.34
0.09 4379.20 100.80 141.03
0.12 4338.50 141.50 135.82
0.17 4296.50 183.50 137.56
0.20 4270.00 210.00 138.68
0.25 4240.00 240.00 145.16
0.33 4196.00 284.00 144.70
0.40 4170.00 310.00 141.94
0.51 4135.00 345.00 149.17
0.57 4117.00 363.00 139.44
0.65 4100.00 380.00 146.64
0.74 4080.00 400.00 120.92
0.92 4070.00 410.00 99.51
1.00 4060.00 420.00 101.18
1.10 4052.40 427.60 76.42
1.40 4036.00 444.00 67.38
1.65 4025.00 455.00 67.00
1.93 4014.49 465.51 69.02
2.30 4002.00 478.00 72.41
2.93 3984.07 495.93 78.05
3.93 3959.73 520.27 85.48
4.93 3939.90 540.10 89.70
5.93 3923.00 557.00 95.16
6.93 3907.69 572.31 115.62
7.93 3890.08 589.92 134.18
8.50 3880.64 599.36 137.50
10.50 3850.62 629.38 138.42
13.13 Procedure for Analysis of Well Test from NFRs 515

Time, t (hrs.) pwf (psia) p (psia) tp

11.60 3837.00 643.00 144.72

13.40 3814.45 665.55 140.49
15.00 3800.00 680.00 144.40
16.30 3787.00 693.00 146.00
17.40 3778.00 702.00 144.80
18.35 3770.00 710.00 146.74
19.20 3763.50 716.50 144.14
20.50 3754.00 726.00 143.71
21.50 3747.20 732.80 144.00
22.50 3740.60 739.40 143.85
23.50 3734.40 745.60 143.76
25.00 3725.40 754.60 148.33

Solution
Step 1: Plot logp vs. log t.
Using the data in Table 13.2 and plotted in Figure 13.35, make a log-log plot of p vs. t
as shown in Figure 13.36. Also, plot the derivative curve of tp vs. t on the same graph
using the data in Table 13.2. The derivative curve clearly shows evidence of double
porosity behavior which is indicated by the characteristic dip below the homogeneous

4600

4500
Flowing Bottomhole Pressure (psia)

4400

4300

4200

4100

4000

3900

3800

3700

3600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hours)

Figure 13.35 Plot of flow test data for Example 13.2.

516 Chapter 13 Well Test Analysis

1000

Pressure Change & Pressure Derivative

100

10

Pressure Change
Pressure Derivative
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time, hrs.

Figure 13.36 Log-Log plot of p & tp vs. t for Example 13.2.

behavior level. Also, the derivative curve in Figure 13.36 shows pseudosteady-state flow
from the combined system of fracture and matrix which is represented by the stabilized
leveling of the derivative curve after the dip.
Step 2: Type-curve matching.
The type curve for NFRs under pseudosteady-state flow shown as Figure 13.33 was
used in the type-curve matching procedure. Figure 13.36 was matched against Figure
13.33. The matched plot of Figures 13.33 and 13.36 together is shown as Figure 13.37.
The matched data points are as follows:
Pressure match point (PMP), (pD>p)PMP = (0.35>100)

t
a b = a b
1
tD>CD TMP
Time match point (TMP),
10

For the pressure match point, applying Eq. (13.53),

d
pD
(kh)f + m = 141.2qBmc
p PMP

(kh)f + m = 141.2 * 2950 * 1.3 * 1.2 * a b

0.35
100
(kh)f + m = 2274.31 md-ft.

Since the matrix permeability is relatively small in comparison to fracture permeability,

(kh)f + ma is essentially equal to (kh)f.
13.13 Procedure for Analysis of Well Test from NFRs 517

102
cDe2s
Start of Semi-log 1030
1030
Straight Line
1015
e2s Damaged Well
1015
106
10 103
106
5 104
1000 Well 5101
maged d Well
Non-Da Acidize
pD

102
102
Pressure Change & Pressure Derivative

0.1
1 ell 103
redW
actu
0.3
Fr
100
0.7

101
101 1 10 102 103 104
10 tD /cD

Pressure Change
Pressure Derivative
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time, hrs.

Figure 13.37 Type-curve match for Example 13.2.

For the time match point, applying Eq. (13.54),

t
a b
0.0002637k
CD =
fmctrw2 tD>CD TMP
0.0002637 * 75.81
a b
1
CD = -6
0.12 * 1.2 * 14 * 10 * (0.5)2 10

CD = 3966.49
From Figure 13.37, type-curve match parameters were estimated as follows:

A CDe2s B f + ma = 0.4 ; A CDe2s B f = 2.0 and A le -2s B = 0.06

Applying Eq. (13.55), the storativity ratio, v, is calculated to be:
A CDe2s B f + m
v =
A CDe2s B f
0.4
v = = 0.2
2
518 Chapter 13 Well Test Analysis

The skin factor, s, is calculated from Eq. (13.56) as:

A CDe2s B f + m
s = 0.5 ln c d
CD

s = 0.5 ln a b
0.4
3966.49
s = - 4.601
The interporosity flow coefficient, l, is calculated from Eq. (13.57) to be:

l = (le -2s)e2s
l = (0.06)e2( - 4.601)
l = 6.05 * 10-6
Step 3: Plot pwf vs.log t.
Prepare a semilog plot of pwf vs. t from the data in Table 13.2. The semilog plot is
shown as Figure 13.38. From Figure 13.38, it is obvious that fracture flow lasted for
about one hour. This is followed by a transition period to matrix flow of duration of one
to nine hours. Pseudosteady-state flow from both matrix and fractures started approxi-
mately after ten hours of flow. These flow periods conform to the flow periods identifi-
able on the derivative curve of Figure 13.36.

4500
dp = 155.6 psia
4400
Flowing Bottomhole Pressure (psia)

Slope of line m = 311 psi/cycle

4300

4200

4100

4000

3900

3800

3700

3600
0.01 0.1 1 t1 t2 10 100
Time (hours)

Figure 13.38 Semilog plot of pwf vs. t for Example 13.2.

13.13 Procedure for Analysis of Well Test from NFRs 519

The slope of the semilog straightline in Figure 13.38 is m = 311 psi/cycle.

Applying Eq. (13.45), the total flow capacity of the formation is:

162.6qBm
(kh)total =
m
162.6 * 2950 * 1.3 * 1.2
(kh)total =
311
(kh)total = 2406.06 md-ft

From Figure 13.38, the vertical pressure displacement, dp, is 155.56 psia. Applying Eq.
(13.46), the storativity ratio, v, is calculated to be:

v = 10- A m B
dp

v = 10- A 311 B = 0.32

155.6

A straight line through the middle of the transition curve intersects the two parallel
straight lines as shown in Figure 13.38 at t1 = 1.7 hrs and t2 = 3.7 hrs, respectively.
From Eq. (13.47), the interporosity flow coefficient, l, at t2 is calculated as:

(fVct)f + m mr2w
l =
gkft2
0.12 * 14 * 10-6 * 1.2 * (0.5)2
l =
1.78 * 80.2 * 3.7
l = 9.54 * 10-10
Note that Vf + m is essentially equal to 1.0. Also, kf = (kh)f>h = 2406.1>30 = 80.2 md.
Re-arranging Eq. (13.44) yields:

v
(fVct)f = (fVct)ma
1 - v

A 0.12 * 14 * 10-6 B
0.32
(fVct)f =
1 - 0.32
(fVct)f = 7.9059 * 10-7 psi-1

Applying Eq. (13.47), the interporosity flow coefficient, l, at t1 is calculated to be:

(fVct)fmr2w
l =
gkft1
7.9059 * 10-7 * 1.2 * (0.5)2
l =
1.78 * 80.2 * 1.7
l = 9.77 * 10-10
520 Chapter 13 Well Test Analysis

From Figure 13.38, p1hr = 4190 psia. The skin factor, s, is given by Eq. (13.52) as:

p1hr
- log a b + 3.23 d
k
s = 1.151c
m fmctr2w
4480 - 4190
+ 3.23 d
80.2
s = 1.151c - log
311 0.12 * 1.2 * 14 * 10-6 * (0.5)2
s = - 4.65
For this example, the flow capacities calculated from type-curve matching and straightline
methods are reasonably in close agreement. The same close agreement was achieved for the skin
factors calculated from both methods. However, there are poor agreement between the storativ-
ity ratios and interporosity flow coefficients calculated from type-curve matching and straight-
line methods. The storativity ratio and interporosity flow coefficient calculated from type-curve
matching should at best be considered as gross estimates because of the difficulties associated
with estimating the correct values for the type-curve parameters A CDe2s B f + ma, A CDe2s B f, and
le -2s. Under these circumstances, the storativity ratio and interporosity flow coefficient calculat-
ed from straightline methods should be considered to be more representative of the actual values.

Nomenclature
B formation volume factor, RB/STB
cft total compressibility of fluid in fracture, psi1
ct total compressibility, psi1
CD dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient
CDf dimensionless fracture storage coefficient, CDf = 0.894C> A fcthL2f B
CfD dimensionless fracture conductivity
h reservoir or formation thickness, feet
k permeability, md
kf fracture permeability, md
kma matrix permeability, md
Lf fracture half-length, feet
m slope of straight line during pseudo-radial flow
mbf slope of straight line during bilinear flow
mLf slope of straight line during formation linear flow
p pressure change, psia
ps pressure drop due to skin, psia
p pressure change derivative
p D dimensionless pressure derivative
p pressure, psia
pD dimensionless pressure
pp real gas pseudo-pressure, psia2/cp