Well Test Course Notes

Well Testing Analysis
Fall 2005
Mazher Ibrahim
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
t
q
t
p
Well is
allowed to
produce
normally
Sensor is
lowered
into well
Production
remains
constant
Pressure
stabilizes
How Is A Well Test Conducted?
q = 0
t
q
t
p
Sensor is
lowered
into well
Well is
shut in
Production drops to 0
Pressure
rises
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
Define reservoir limits
Estimate average drainage area pressure
Diagnose productivity problems
Characterize reservoir
Evaluate stimulation treatment effectiveness
Well Test Objectives
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
Sensor is
lowered
into
offset
well
. . . pressure is
measured at
offset well(s)
Kinds of Well Tests
q
t
P
wf

Produce well
at constant
rate
Plot
pressure
response
Lower
sensor
into well
Produce
well at
constant
rate
Shut in well
Lower
sensor
into well
t
P
ws

Plot
pressure
response
Kinds of Well Tests
t
p
Inject fluid
into well at
constant rate
Plot
pressure
response
Kinds of Well Tests
t
p
Inject fluid
into well at
constant rate
Measure
pressure
response
q=0
Shut in well
Kinds of Well Tests
Multiwell Tests
. . . measure pressure
response at offset
well(s)
Produce
one well at
constant
rate . . .
t
p
. . . measure
pressure
response at
offset well(s)
Alternately
produce and
shut in one
well . . .
t
p
q
Multiwell Tests
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 (Darcys law)
equation-of-state

The Continuity Equation
2 1
v A v A m
(Av)
1
(Av)
2

Flow Equation (Darcys Law)
or, in differential form,
L
p kA
q
x
p k
u
x
x
Equation of State for a Slightly
Compressible Liquid

o
p p c
o
e
The Diffusivity Equation
t
p
k
c
r
p
r
r r
t
1
One-dimensional, radial form:
Formation Volume Factor
surf
res
V
V
B
surf
res
o
V
V
B
For oil:
surf
res
w
V
V
B
For water:
surf
res
g
V
V
B
For gas:
Viscosity
A fluids resistance to flow
Gasolinelow viscosity
Vaselinehigh viscosity
Fluid Compressibility
p
V
p
V
V
c
ln 1
Porosity
Permeability
p A
L q
k
Pore Compressibility
p
ln
p
c
f
1
Shale
Sand
Net Pay Thickness
h
3

h
2

h
1

h
4

(No perforations
in this sand)
h = h
1
+ h
2
+ h
3

Net Pay Thickness
Vertical well,
horizontal formation
Deviated well,
horizontal formation
Deviated well,
slanted formation
Vertical well,
slanted formation
Saturations
Wellbore Radius
r
w

Total Compressibility
g g w w o o f t
c S c S c S c c
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
h
r
r
w

Bulk
formation
Ei-Function Solution
to the Diffusivity Equation
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
kt
r c
Ei
kh
qB
. p p
t
i
2
948
6 70
|

x
u
du
u
e
x Ei
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
-x
0
2
4
6
Ei-Function Graph
Log approximation
Ei-function
drops to zero
Short-Time Approximation for Ei-
Function Solution
i
p p
10
948
2
>
kt
r c
t
|
Applies when
(large radius or small time)
Long-Time Approximation
to Ei-Function Solution
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ ~
kt
r c
log
kh
B q
. p p
t
i
2
10
1688
6 162
|
Applies when 01 0
948
2
.
kt
r c
t
<
|
(small radius or large time)
Pressure Profile
During Drawdown
t = 0
Distance from center of wellbore, ft
Pressure,
psi
2000
1000
1 10 1000 100 10000
t = 0.01 hrs
t = 1 hr
t = 100 hrs
t = 10000 hrs
r
i
r
i
r
i
r
i

Pressure Profile
During Buildup
2,000
1,000
1,200
1,600
1,800
1,400
1 10 1,000 100 10,000
t = 100 hrs
t = 1 hr
t = 0.01 hrs
t = 0
t = 10,000 hrs
r
i

r
i

r
i

r
i

Radius of Investigation Equations
Radius of investigation for a
given time t:
t
i
c
kt
r
| 948
=
k
r c
t
i t
2
948|
=
Time required to reach a given
radius of investigation r
i
:
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
Mud filtrate
invasion
Fines may clog pore
throats, reducing
effective permeability
Filtrate may cause
clays to swell,
causing damage
Production Damage
p < p
b
p > p
b
p > p
d
P< p
d

Oil Reservoir
Free gas reduces
Gas Condensate
Reservoir
Immobile condensate
ring reduces
Injection Damage
dirty
water
incompatible
water
Reservoir Model
Bulk
formation
h
Skin Effect
r
w

r
a

k
k
a

Altered
zone
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i

Reservoir Pressure Profile
Ap
s

Skin and Pressure Drop
s
p
qB
h k .
s
00708 0
Skin and Pressure Drop
s
kh
qB .
p
s
2 141
r
h
Skin Factor and Properties
of the Altered Zone
w
a
a
r
r
k
k
s ln 1
r
w

r
ds

Skin Factor and Properties
of the Altered Zone
w a
a
r r
s
k
k
ln
1
Effective Wellbore Radius
w
wa
r
r
s ln
wa
s
w wa
e r r
wa
Minimum Skin Factor
w
e
min
r
r
s ln
Minimum Skin Factor
3 7
5 0
745
ln
ln
.
.
r
r
s
w
e
min
Example
Converging Flow to Perforations
Geometric Skin
Partial Penetration
h
h
p

Geometric Skin
Incompletely Perforated
Interval
h
t

h
p

h
1

p d
p
t
s s
h
h
s
Geometric Skin
Partial Penetration
Apparent Skin Factor
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
1
1
1
2
ln
1
2
ln 1
1
B
A
h
h
h r h
s
pD
pD
pD D pD
p
t
t p pD
h h h =
t D
h h h
1 1
=
4
1
1 pD D
h h
A
+
=
4 3
1
1 pD D
h h
B
+
=
2
1
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
h
v
t
w
D
k
k
h
r
r
Geometric Skin
Deviated Wellbore
u sec h u
h
u
s s s
d
Geometric Skin
Deviated Wellbore
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
100
log
56 41
865 1 06 2
D
.
'
w
.
'
w
h
s
u u
u
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

w
h
v
'
w
tan
k
k
tan u u
1
v
h
w
D
k
k
r
h
h =
Well With Hydraulic Fracture
Geometric Skin
L
f

wa f
r L 2
2
f
wa
L
r
r
we

r
dp

L
p

k
R

k
d

k
dp

r
p

r
w

r
d

Completion Skin
dp d p
s s s s
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
d
R
dp
R
p
dp
p
dp
k
k
k
k
r
r
n L
h
s ln
Gravel Pack Skin
L
g

Cement
2
2
p gp
g R
gp
r nk
hL k
s
Productivity Index
wf
p p
q
J
Flow Efficiency
wf
s wf
f
p p
p p p
J
J
E
ideal
actual
Flow Efficiency and Rate
old
new
old new
f
f
E
E
q q
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.

0.001 100
-x
2
4
6
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
kt
r c
kh
qB
p p
t
i
2
948
Ei 6 . 70
|
500
2,000
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Reservoir Pressure Profile
Positive (damage) skin (s = +5)
Negative skin
(s = -2)
Pressure,
psi
Unsteady-state pressure
(s=0)
For r = r
w

Incorporating Skin into the
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ = s
kt
r c
Ei
kh
qB
p p
w t
i
2
948
6 . 70
2
|
For r > r
a

|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
kt
r c
Ei
kh
B q
p p
t
i
2
948
6 . 70
|
Log Approximation to the
Ei-Function
( )
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
s . .
r c
k
log t log
kh
qB
. p p
w t
i wf
869 0 23 3
6 162
2
10 10
|
y = mx + b
Use |m| in computations
from this point forward
Estimating Permeability and
Skin
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
= 23 3 151 1
2
10
1
.
r c
k
log
m
p p
. s
w t
hr i
|
mh
qB
k
6 . 162
=
700
1,200
0.1 1 10 100 1,000
Elapsed Test Time, hrs
Pressure,
psi
Drawdown Test Graph
(t
2
, p
wf2
)
(t
1
, p
wf1
)
Powers of 10
Usually several cycles apart
p
1hr
is p at
1 hr on best-
fit line
Plot pressure vs. time
Example
q = 250 STB/D p
i
= 4,412 psia
h = 46 ft | = 12%
r
w
= 0.365 ft B = 1.136 RB/STB
c
t
= 17 x 10
-6
psi
-1
= 0.8 cp

(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
= 23 3 151 1
2
10
1
.
r c
k
log
m
p p
. s
w t
hr i
|
Example
q = 250 STB/D p
i
= 4,412 psia
h = 46 ft | = 12%
r
w
= 0.365 ft B = 1.136 RB/STB
c
t
= 17 x 10
-6
psi
-1
= 0.8 cp

(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
= 23 3 151 1
2
10
1
.
r c
k
log
m
p p
. s
w t
hr i
|
mh
qB
k
6 . 162
=
Example
3,300
3,600
1 10 100
Time, hrs
Extrapolate to get p
1 hr

p
1hr
~ 3,540 psi
m

~ 100
Plot data points
from field data
One log cycle
p
10hr
~ 3,440 psi
slope

= p
10 hr
-p
1 hr
~ -100
Example
q = 250 STB/D p
i
= 4,412 psia
h = 46 ft | = 12%
r
w
= 0.365 ft B = 1.136 RB/STB
c
t
= 17 x 10
-6
psi
-1
= 0.8 cp

(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
= 23 3 151 1
2
10
1
.
r c
k
log
m
p p
. s
w t
hr i
|
mh
qB
k
6 . 162
=
p
1hr
~ 3,540 psi
m

~ 100
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
At
0
- q
0
t
p
+ At
q
t
p
At
0
q
Sum after shut-in
of 0.
Rate after shut-in of -q
Rate during production of +q.
Buildup Pressure Response
At t
p

At
0
t
p
+ At
0
Pressure normally declines
during production...
but rises during the
injection (buildup) period...
yielding a pressure curve that is the
sum of the two rate curves:
0
Buildup Test - Superposition
( )
( )
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ A +
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ A + =
s . .
r c
k
log t log
kh
qB
.
s . .
r c
k
log t t log
kh
qB
. p p
w t
w t
p i ws
869 0 23 3 6 162
869 0 23 3 6 162
2
10 10
2
10 10
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
A +
=
t
t t
kh
qB
p p
p
i ws 10
log 6 . 162

y = mx + b
Buildup Straight-Line
Analogy
h m
qB
k
6 . 162
1 @
t
t t
b p
p
i
Horner time ratio
Buildup Test Graph
p
i

1,400
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Horner time ratio
2,000
Estimating Skin Factor
From a Buildup Test
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
= 23 . 3 log 151 . 1
2
10
1
w t
wf hr
r c
k
m
p p
s
|
Horner Pseudoproducing
Time
last
24
q
N
t
p
p
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
A +
=
t
t t
log
kh
B q
. p p
p
i ws 10
last
6 162

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
Continuity Equation
Equation of State For Slightly
Compressible Liquids
Darcys Law
t
p
k
c
r
p
r
r r
t
1
Real Gas Law
pV=znRT
absolute pressure, psi
p
ideal gas constant, 10.72
(ft
3
)(lb)/(mole)(in
2
)(R)

R
temperature, R
T
number of moles
n
volume, ft
3

V
real gas deviation factor,
dimensionless
z
Real Gas Pseudopressure
p
p
p
z
pdp
p p
0
2 p
absolute pressure, psi
Gas Flow Equation
Continuity Equation
Real Gas Law Equation of State
Darcys Law
t
p
k
c
r
p
r
r r
p
t
p
c
c
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c | 1
Gas Flow Equation
Pressure-Squared
Continuity Equation
Darcys Law
The term z Is Constant
t
p
k
c
r
p
r
r r
t
c
c
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c
2 2
1 |
Pressure-Squared Ranges
0
0.16
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Pressure, psia
mu*z,
psi/cp
T
f
= 200 F
SG=1.2
SG=1.0
SG=0.8
SG=0.6
Fairly constant at
rates <2,000 psi
Gas Flow Equation: Pressure
Continuity Equation
Darcys Law
t
p
k
c
r
p
r
r r
t
c
c
=
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c | 1
If p/z is constant,
Pressure: Range Of
Application
T
f
= 200F
SG=0.6
SG=0.8
SG=1.0
SG=1.2
0
250
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Pressure, psia
Fairly constant at rates >3,000 psi
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:
Continuity Equation
Darcys Law
t
p
k
c
r
p
r
r r
p
t
p
c
c
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c | 1
Strong Variation
With Pressure
Real Gas Pseudotime
( ) ( )
}
A
A
t
t
ap
p c p
dt
t
0

Adjusted Variables
( ) ( ) p p
p
z
z
pdp
p
z
p p
p
i
p
p
i
a
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
}
2
0
( )
( ) ( )
( )
ap
i
t
t
t
i
t a
t c
p c p
dt
c t A = A
}
A
0
Using Horner Time Ratio
With Adjusted Time
a
a p
t
t t
HTR
A
A +
Non-Darcy Flow
Flow equations developed so far assume
Darcy flow
For gas wells, velocity near wellbore is
high enough that Darcys law fails
Non-Darcy behavior can often be
modeled as rate-dependent skin
g
Dq s s + = '
Estimating Non-Darcy
Coefficient
From Multiple Tests
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Flow rate, Mscf/D
Apparent
skin factor
s = 3.4
D = 5.1x10
4
D/Mscf
Estimating Non-Darcy Coefficient
From Turbulence Parameter
Often, only one test is available
If so, we can estimate D from
wf g sc w
sc g
T hr
Mp k
D
,
15
10 715 . 2
=
Estimating Turbulence
Parameter
If | is not known, it can be estimated from
53 . 0 47 . 1 10
10 88 . 1

~ | | 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
Bottomhole
Rate
Surface Rate
Rate
Time
wb wb
sf
w
c V
B q q
dt
dp
24
=
0
Ei-function solution
assumes constant
reservoir rate
Mass balance
equation resolves
problems
Fluid-Filled Wellbore -
Afterflow
Bottomhole
Rate
Rate
Time
wb wb
sf
w
c V
B q q
dt
dp
24
=
Surface Rate
Bottomhole flow
continues after
shut-in
Rising Liquid Level
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
c wb
wb
sf
w
g
g
A
.
B q q
dt
dp
144
615 5
24
Rate
Time
Bottomhole
Rate
Surface Rate
Liquid rises until
hydrostatic head in
wellbore matches
pressure in formation
Wellbore Storage
wb wb
sf
w
c V
B q q
dt
dp
24
= Fluid-filled wellbore
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
c wb
wb
sf
w
g
g
A
.
B q q
dt
dp
144
615 5
24
Rising liquid level

C
B q q
dt
dp
sf
w
24
=
General
Wellbore Storage Definition
dt
dp
B q q
C
w
sf
24
wb wb
c V C
Fluid-filled
wellbore
wb
wb
c
wb
wb
A
.
g
g
.
A
C
65 25
615 5
144
=
=
Rising
liquid level
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.
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
kt
r c
Ei
kh
qB
p p
t
i
2
948
6 . 70
|
( )
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
2
0002637 . 0
4
2
1
2 . 141
w t
w
i
r c
kt
r
r
Ei
qB
p p kh
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
D
D
D
t
r
Ei p
4 2
1
2
( )
qB
p p kh
p
i
D
2 . 141
w
D
r
r
r
2
0002637 . 0
w t
D
r c
kt
t
|
Dimensionless Variables
Radial Flow With WBS And
Skin
( )
qB
p p kh
p
i
D
2 . 141
2
0002637 . 0
w t
D
r c
kt
t
|
w
D
r
r
r
A
qB
p kh
s
s
2 . 141
2
8936 . 0
w t
D
hr c
C
C
|
Gringarten Type Curve

Constant rate production
Vertical well
Infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir
Single-phase, slightly compressible liquid
Infinitesimal skin factor
Constant wellbore storage coefficient
t
D
/C
D

0.01
100
100,000
P
D

Time group
C
D
e
2s
=0.01
C
D
e
2s
=10
60

C
D
e
2s
=100
Wellbore storage coefficient
Skin factor
C
D
e
2s

Type curve
Stem
t
D
/C
D

0.01
100
100,000
P
D

Similarities of curves make
matching difficult
Pressure Derivative
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
= s
r c
kt
kh
qB
p
w t
869 . 0 23 . 3 log
6 . 162
2
|
A
( ) t
p
t
p
t
ln c
c
=
c
c A A
kh
qB
t
p
t
A 6 . 70
=
c
c
( )
D
D
D
D
D
t
p
t
p
t
ln c
c
=
c
c
5 . 0 =
c
c
D
D
D
t
p
t
Derivative Type Curve
t
D
/C
D

0.01
100
100,000
t
D
/P
D
'

C
D
e
2s
=0.01
C
D
e
2s
=10
60

C
D
e
2s
=100
Differences in curve
shapes make
matching easier
Pressure + Derivative Type
Curves
t
D
/C
D

0.01
100
100,000
P
D

Combining curves
gives each stem
value two distinctive
shapes
Pressure/Derivative Type
Curve
t
D
/C
D

0.01
100
100,000
P
D

WBS Transition Radial Flow
Early Time Region Middle Time Region
Unit
Slope
Line
Horizontal Derivative
Pressure + Derivative Type
Curve
t
D
/C
D

0.01
100
100,000
P
D

Low skin
High skin
No skin
Equivalent Time For PBU
Tests
( )
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ = s
r c
k
t
kh
qB
p p
w t
p wf i
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
10
|
( )
( )
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =
s
r c
k
t
kh
qB
s
r c
k
t t
kh
qB
p p
w t
w t
p ws i
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
10
2
10
|
A
|
A

Tests
( )
( )
( )
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =
s
r c
k
t
kh
qB
s
r c
k
t t
kh
qB
s
r c
k
t
kh
qB
p p
w t
w t
p
w t
p wf ws
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
10
2
10
2
10
|
A
|
A
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
= s
r c
k
t t
t t
kh
qB
p p
w t
p
p
wf ws
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
10
|
A
A

Tests
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
A +
A
= s
r c
k
t t
t t
kh
qB
p p
w t
p
p
wf ws
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
10
( )
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ = s
r c
k
t
kh
qB
p p
w t
p wf i
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
10
|
( )
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
+ A
= s
r c
k
t
kh
qB
p p
w t
e wf ws
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
10
Tests
Drawdown
t p p p
wf i
vs
Buildup
e wf ws
t p p p vs
Properties Of Equivalent
Time
t t
t t
t
p
p
e
A
A
A
+
t
t t
t
p
p
A
A +
=
p
p
t
t t
t
A
A
+
=
HTR
t
p
=
p
t t t << ~ A A ,
p p
t t t >> ~ A ,
Adjusted Variables For Gas
Wells
( ) ( )
}
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
p
p
ref
a
p z p
dp p
p
z
p
0 '
' '
' '
( )
( ) ( )
}
=
t
t
t
ref
t a
p c p
dt
c t
A
A
0 '
'
ref g wb a
c V C
Field Data Plot
t
eq

1
1,000
1,000
AP
t
D
/C
D

0.01
100
100,000
P
D

Overlay Field Data on Type
Curve
t
eq

1
1,000
1,000
AP
t
D
/C
D

0.01
100
100,000
P
D

Move Field Data Toward
Horizontal
t
eq

1
1,000
1,000
AP
Align data with
horizontal part of
type curves
t
D
/C
D

0.01
100
100,000
P
D

Match
t
eq

1
1,000
1,000
AP
Stop when data align
with horizontal stems
Begin to move toward unit slope line
t
D
/C
D

0.01
100
100,000
P
D

Stems
t
eq

1
1,000
1,000
AP
t
D
/C
D

0.01
100
100,000
p
D

Stems
t
eq

1
1,000
1,000
Ap
Extrapolate curve
as necessary
Ap/p
D
k
T
eq
/t
D
C
D

Calculate s from
matching stem value
Lets say s=7x10
9

Assume
Ap = 262
Assume
p
D
= 10
Assume
t
eq
= 0.0546
Assume
t
D
/C
D
= 1
Use Reservoir, Well
Properties
q = 50
B = 1.325
= 0.609
h = 15
| = 0.183
c
t
= 1.76 x 10
-5

r
w
2
= 0.25
C
D
= 1703
Calculate k From Pressure
Match
. P . M
D
p
p
h
qB .
k
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
=
2 141
md .
. . .
k
5 14
262
10
15
609 0 325 1 50 2 141
=
|
.
|
\
|
=
Calculate C
D
From Time
Match
. P . M
D D
eq
w t
D
C t
t
r c
k .
C
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
0002637 0
|
1703
1
0546 0
25 0 10 76 1 609 0 183 0
5 14 0002637 0
5
=
|
.
|
\
|
=

.
. . . .
. .
C
D
Calculate s From C
D
e
2s

|
|
.
|
\
|
=
D
s
D
C
e C
ln s
2
2
1
6 7
1703
10 7
2
1
9
.
ln s
=
|
|
.
|
\
|

=
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
1
10
100
1000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Equivalent time, hrs
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,

p
s
i
Ap
r

(tAp)
r

t
r

Estimating Permeability
and Skin Factor
r
p t h
qB
k
'
A
=
6 . 70
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
'
A
A
=
2
1688
ln
2
1
w t
r
r
r
r c
kt
p t
p
s
|
Example
q = 50 STB/D p
wf
= 2095 psia
h = 15 ft | = 18.3%
B = 1.36 RB/STB c
t
= 17.9 x 10
6
psi
1
= 0.563 cp r
w
= 0.25 ft

Estimate (t p)
r
, t
r
, and p
r

1
10
100
1000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Equivalent time, hrs
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,

p
s
i
400
14
20
Estimate Permeability
md
p t h
qB
k
r
9 . 12
14 15
563 . 0 36 . 1 50 6 . 70
6 . 70
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
'
A
=

Estimate Skin Factor
( )
( )( )
( )( )( )( )( )
23 . 7
25 . 0 10 9 . 17 563 . 0 183 . 0 1688
20 9 . 12
ln
14
400
2
1
1688
ln
2
1
2
6
2
=
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
'
A
A
=
w t
r
r
r
r c
kt
p t
p
s
|
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
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
Pressure change (Ap)
Pressure derivative (Ap' )
The Diagnostic Plot
Middle-
time
region
Late-time
region
Early-time
region
Unit-slope
line
(wellbore storage)
Near-wellbore effects
The Diagnostic Plot
Middle-
time
region
Late-time
region
Early-time
region
Partial penetration,
phase redistribution,
fracture conductivity
Homogenous reservoir
horizontal derivative
(best estimate of k )
The Diagnostic Plot
Middle-
time
region
Late-time
region
Early-time
region
Partial penetration,
phase redistribution,
fracture conductivity
Infinite-acting
behavior
Boundary
effects
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
V V
b t m p + = A
General Form
Pseudosteady-State Flow
Wellbore Storage
C
qBt
p
24
= A
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ = s
r
r
kh
qB
hr c
qBt
p p
w
e
e t
wf i
4
3
ln
2 . 141 0744 . 0
2
|
V V
b t m p + = A
General Form
Derivative
( )
t m
t
b t m
t
t
p
t
V
V V
=
c
+ c
=
c
A c
Volumetric Behavior
Volumetric Behavior
Pressure derivative
Pressure change during recharge
or pseudosteadystate flow
Volumetric Behavior
Wellbore
storage
Radial Flow
Wellbore
Radial Flow
Wellbore
Fracture
Radial Flow
Early radial flow
Late radial flow
Wellbore
Radial Flow
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
= A s
r c
kt
kh
qB
p
w t
869 . 0 23 . 3 log
6 . 162
2
|
Vertical Well
( ) b t m p + = A log
General Form
Radial Flow
( ) b t m p + = A log
General Form
( ) ( )
303 . 2
log
m
t
b t m
t
t
p
t
=
c
+ c
=
c
A c
Derivative
Radial Flow
Pressure derivative
Pressure
Radial
flow
Radial Flow
Spherical Flow
x
z
y
Spherical Flow
Few perforations
open
Spherical flow
Vertical wellbore
Spherical Flow
Vertical wellbore
Small part of
zone perforated
Spherical flow
Spherical Flow
Vertical wellbore
Certain wireline
testing tools
Spherical flow
Spherical Flow
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
kt
r c
kr
q
p p
p t
p
wf i
2
1
4
|
t
Spherical Probe (RFT)

General Form
2 1
= A t m b p
S S
Spherical Flow
2 1
= A t m b p
S S
General Form
Derivative
( )
2 1
2 1
2
1

=
c
c
=
c
A c
t m
t
t m b
t
t
p
t
S
S S
Spherical Flow
1
2
Pressure
Pressure derivative
Spherical flow
Spherical Flow
Linear Flow
Vertical wellbore
Fracture
Linear flow
Linear Flow
Channel (ancient
stream) reservoir
Vertical
wellbore
Linear
flow
Linear Flow
Wellbore
Early linear flow
Linear Flow
Late linear flow
Wellbore
Linear Flow
2 1
26 . 16
|
|
.
|
\
|
= A
t
c
kt
khw
qB
p
|
Channel
2 1
064 . 4
|
|
.
|
\
|
= A
t f
c
kt
khL
qB
p
|
Hydraulic
Fracture
L L
b t m p + = A
2 1
General
Form
Linear Flow
L L
b t m p + = A
2 1
General
Form
Derivative
( )
2 1
2 1
2
1
t m
t
b t m
t
t
p
t
L
L L
=
c
+ c
=
c
A c
Linear Flow
1
2
Pressure change in
undamaged
fractured well
Pressure change in fractured/damaged
or horizontal well
Pressure
derivative
Bilinear Flow
Bilinear Flow
4 1
2 1
1 1 . 44
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
= A
k c
t
wk h
qB
p
t f
|
Hydraulic Fracture
General Form
B B
b t m p + = A
4 1
Bilinear Flow
General Form
B B
b t m p + = A
4 1
Derivative
( )
4 1
4 1
4
1
t m
t
b t m
t
t
p
t
B
B B
=
c
+ c
=
c
A c
Bilinear Flow
Pressure in fractured,
undamaged well
Pressure in fractured,
damaged well
Pressure derivative
1
4
Diagnostic Plot
Wellbore
storage
Spherical flow
Radial
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, t
p
= 482 hr
Porosity, | = 0.15
Viscosity, m = 0.25 cp
Total compressibility, c
t
= 1.615 x 10
-5
Drainage area, A = 1500 x 3000 ft (a 2x1 reservoir)

1
2
Curves for Square Drainage
Area
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.01 0.1 1 10
t
pAD
p
M
B
H
D
Curves for 2x1 Rectangle
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.01 0.1 1 10
t
pAD
p
M
B
H
D
Curves for 4x1 Rectangle
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.01 0.1 1 10
t
pAD
p
M
B
H
D
2400
2450
2550
2650
2750
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6

Horner time ratio
Shut-in well
pressure, psia
p*=2689.4
m=26.7
Step 1: Plot pressure vs. Horner time ratio Step 2: Extrapolate slope m to find p*
( )( )( )
( )( )( )( )( )
35 . 0
3000 1500 10 615 . 1 25 . 0 15 . 0
482 5 . 7 0002637 . 0
0002637 . 0
5
=

=
=
A c
kt
t
t
p
pAD
| A c
kt
t
t
p
pAD
|
0002637 . 0
=
Step 3: Calculate dimensionless producing time
Step 4: On appropriate MBH curve, find p
MBHD

-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.01 0.1 1 10
p
MBHD

t
pAD

t
pAD
= 0.35
2x1 rectangle
2.05
( )
( )
6 . 2665
05 . 2
303 . 2
7 . 26
4 . 2689
303 . 2
*
=
=
=
pAD MBHD
t p
m
p p ( )
pAD MBHD
t p
m
p p
303 . 2
* =
Step 5: Calculate average reservoir pressure, p
Plot p
ws
vs (t
p
+At)/At on semilog coordinates
Extrapolate to (t
p
+At)/At=1 to find p*
Calculate the dimensionless producing time t
pAD
Using the appropriate MBH chart for the drainage
area shape and well location, find p
MBHD

If t
p
>> t
pss
, more accurate results may be obtained
by using t
pss
in place of t
p
in calculating the Horner
time ratio and t
pAD

Calculate p
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
1
Dietz shape factor C
A
= 30.8828 Dietz shape factor C
A
= 12.9851
A
= 4.5132
1
A
= 10.8374
2
Reservoir Shapes
4
1
A
= 5.379
Reservoir Shapes
Dietz shape factor
C
A
= 31.62
Dietz shape factor
C
A
= 31.6
Dietz shape factor
C
A
= 19.17
Dietz shape factor
C
A
= 21.9
Dietz shape factor
C
A
= 0.098
Dietz shape factor
C
A
= 27.1
Reservoir Shapes
Step 1: Plot pressure vs. Horner time ratio
Step 2: Calculate dimensionless producing time

( )( )( )
( )( )( )( )( )
35 . 0
3000 1500 10 615 . 1 25 . 0 15 . 0
482 5 . 7 0002637 . 0
0002637 . 0
5
=

=
=
A c
kt
t
t
p
pAD
|
Ramey-Cobb
Step 3: Find the Dietz shape factor C
A
for the
drainage area shape and well location
Shape factor C
A
= 21.8369
( )( )
63 . 7
35 . 0 8 . 21
=
=
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
A +
pAD A
p
p
t C
t
t t
Ramey-Cobb
2400
2450
2550
2650
2750
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6

Horner time ratio
Shut-in wellbore
pressure, psia
Ramey-Cobb
8 . 2665 = p
HTR = 7.63
Ramey-Cobb
Plot p
ws
vs (t
p
+At)/At on semilog coordinates
Calculate the dimensionless producing time t
pAD
Find the Dietz shape factor C
A
for the drainage
area shape and well location
Calculate HTR
avg

Extrapolate middle-time region on Horner plot to
HTR
avg

Read p at HTR
avg

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
Ramey-Cobb
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
k
r c
t
k
r c
e t e t
2 2
750 250
Late-Time Region Data
Dimensionless
pressure
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9

Dimensionless shut-in time
bt
ws
Ae p p

bt A ln p p ln
ws
Average reservoir pressure
Shut-in pressure
Exponential decline
bt C p p ln
ws
Step 1: Assume a value for average
pressure
bt C p p ln
ws
p
Time, minutes
5575
5560
5600
10
100
1000
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
psi
, ws
p p
Assumed pressure too low
Assumed pressure too high
Assumed pressure fits
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
Dont 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
ws
Ae p p

bt
ws
Abe
dt
dp

ws
ws
p p b
dt
dp
Arps-Smith Method
Step 1: Assume a value for average
pressure, accepting theory based on
empirical observation
ws
ws
p p b
dt
dp
Arps-Smith Method
Step 2: Plot dp
ws
/dt vs p
ws
on Cartesian scale
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
5300 5350 5400 5450 5500 5550 5600
P
ws,
psi
dp
ws
/dt,
psi/hr
P
avg
= 5575 psi
Step 3: Fit a straight line
through the data points
Step 4: Read p from
the x-intercept
Arps-Smith Method
Optional: Estimate the productivity index
in STB/D/psi from the slope b and the
wellbore storage coefficient C

ws
ws
p p b
dt
dp
=
wf
p p J q =
dt
dp
C B q q
w
sf
24 =
o
B
Cb
J
24
Advantages
Simple to apply
Easily automated
Disadvantages
Requires data in late-time region, after all
boundaries have been felt
Arps-Smith Method
Requires numerical differentiation of pressure
with respect to time
Assumes p
ws
approaches p exponentially
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=k
r
)
Fracture
halflength, L
f

Hydraulic fracture
(permeability =k
f
)
Wellbore
Fracture width, w
f

Dimensionless Variables for
Fractured Wells
( )
wf i D
p p
qB
kh
p =
00708 . 0
t
L c
k
t
f t
D L
f
2
0002637 . 0
|
=
k
c
c
k
t
f
t f
f
fD
|
|
q =
2
8936 . 0
f t
D L
hL c
C
C
f
|
=
r
f
f f
cD
C
kL
k w
F t = =
f
f f
r
kL
k w
C
t
=
Fracture flow
Linear
Bilinear
Formation flow
Linear
Elliptical
Pseudoradial
Flow Regimes in Fractures
Fracture Linear Flow
Transient moves down fracture length
Transient has not
moved into reservoir
Transient has not
reached end of fracture
Time
(Log-log plot)
(Too early for practical application)
D L fD
cD
D
f
t
F
p tq
2
=
Time
(Log-log plot)
2
2
01 . 0
fD
cD
D L
F
t
f
q
s
Dimensionless
time
End of linear flow
Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, C
f
< 100
Pressure transient moves down
fracture, into formation
Bilinear Flow
f
< 100
Pressure transient has not reached end of fracture
Bilinear Flow
Time
(Log-log plot)
( )
4
1
4
1 45 . 2
2 25 . 1
D L
cD
D L
cD
D
f f
t
F
t
F
p ~
I
=
t
Pressure
drop:
Bilinear Flow
(Time depends on dimensionless
flow, fracture conductivity)
Time
(Log-log plot)
Bilinear Flow
4
5 . 2
55 . 4

(
(
s
cD
D L
F
t
f
If F
cD
< 1.6
| |
53 . 1
5 . 1 0205 . 0

s
cD D L
F t
f
If 1.6 < F
cD
< 3
2
1 . 0
cD
D L
F
t
f
s
If F
cD
> 3
(Time depends on dimensionless
flow, fracture conductivity)
Bilinear Flow
r
< 100
Data can yield fracture conductivity wk
f
if k
f
is known.
Bilinear Flow
f
< 100
Data cannot yield L
f
, but may identify lower bound .
Formation Linear Flow
Transient moves linearly into wellbore
Negligible pressure drop down fracture
Flow from beyond ends of
fracture not yet significant
Formation Linear Flow
D L D
f
t p t =
016 . 0
100
2
s s
D L
cD
f
t
F
Elliptical Flow
Pseudoradial Flow
Pseudoradial Flow
3 >
D
f
L
t
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
= A s . .
r c
kt
log
kh
qB .
p
w t
869 0 23 3
6 162
2
|
Depth Of Investigation
b
a
1
2
2
2
2
= +
b
y
a
x
2 2 2
b a L
f
=
L
f

For linear flow, pseudosteady-
state flow exists out to a
distance b at a dimensionless
time given by
Depth Of Investigation
2
0002637 . 0
b c
kt
t
t
bD
|
=
t
1
=
bD
t
2 1
02878 . 0
(
=
t
c
kt
b
|
Depth of investigation for
a linear system at time t
Depth of Investigation
2 1
02878 . 0
(
=
t
c
kt
b
|
2 2
b L a
f
+ =
b a A t =
Depth of investigation
along minor axis
Depth of investigation
along major axis
Area of investigation
Hydraulic Fracture
With Choked Fracture
Damage
k
w
f
L
f

k
f

k
fs

L
s

Choked Fracture Skin Factor
kA
L qB
p
001127 . 0
A =
( )
f f fs
s
s
w h k
L qB
p
2 001127 . 0
A =
s f
p
qB
kh
s A
00708 . 0
=
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
f f fs
s
w h k
L qB
qB
kh
2 001127 . 0
00708 . 0
f fs
s
f
w k
kL
s
t
=
Hydraulic Fracture
With Fracture Face Damage
k
w
f
k
f

k
s
w
s
L
f

Fracture Face Skin Factor
kA
L qB
p
001127 . 0
A =
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
k k L h
w qB
p
s f f
s
s
1 1
4 001127 . 0
A
s f
p
qB
kh
s A
00708 . 0
=
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
k k L h
w qB
qB
kh
s f f
s
1 1
4 001127 . 0
00708 . 0
|
|
.
|
\
|
= 1
2
s f
s
f
k
k
L
w
s
t
Procedure
Identify the bilinear flow regime using the
diagnostic plot
Graph p
wf
vs. t
1/4
or p
ws
vs At
Be
1/4

Find the slope m
B
and the intercept p
0
of the best
straight line
Calculate the fracture conductivity wk
f
from the
slope and the fracture skin factor s
f
from the
intercept

Bilinear Equivalent Time
4
4 1
4 1 4 1
t t t t t
p p Be
A + A + = A
p Be
t t , t t << A A ~ A
p p Be
t t , t t >> A ~ A
Equations
5 . 0 2
1 1 . 44
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
k c m h
B q
wk
t B
f
|
( )
0
00708 . 0
p p
qB
kh
s
i f
=
( )
wf f
p p
qB
kh
s =
0
00708 . 0
Buildup
Drawdown
p
0
=2642.4 psi
m=63.8 psi/hr
1/4

p
wf
=2628.6 psi
Ap
s

2600
2650
2700
2750
2800
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
t
eqB
1/4
, hrs
1/4
p
w
s
,

p
s
i
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 wk
f
and s
f

Cannot be used to estimate L
f

Procedure
Identify the linear flow regime using the
diagnostic plot
Graph p
wf
vs. t
1/2
or p
ws
vs At
Le
1/2

Find the slope m
L
and the intercept p
0
of the best
straight line
Calculate the fracture half-length L
f
from the slope
and the fracture skin factor s
f
from the intercept

Linear Equivalent Time
2
2 1
2 1 2 1
t t t t t
p p Le
A + A + = A
p Le
t t , t t << A A ~ A
p p Le
t t , t t >> A ~ A
Equations
( )
0
00708 . 0
p p
qB
kh
s
i f
=
( )
wf f
p p
qB
kh
s =
0
00708 . 0
Buildup
Drawdown
2 1
064 . 4
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
t L
f
c k h m
B q
L
|

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
t
aLeq
1/2
, hrs
1/2
p
a
w
s
,

p
s
i
p
a0
=2266.0 psi
m=211 psi/hr
1/2

p
awf
=1656.2 psi
Ap
s

Limitations of
Applicable only to wells with high-conductivity
fractures (C
r
> 100)
Wellbore storage may hide linear flow period
Long transition period between end of linear flow
(t
LfD
< 0.016) and beginning of pseudoradial flow
(t
LfD
> 3)
Requires independent estimate of k
Gives estimate of L
f
and s
f

Cannot be used to estimate wk
f

Pseudoradial Flow Analysis
Procedure
Identify the pseudoradial flow regime using the
diagnostic plot
Graph p
wf
vs. log(t) or p
ws
vs log(At
e
)
Find the slope m and the intercept p
1hr
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
Buildup
Drawdown
mh
qB
k
6 . 162
=
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
= 23 . 3 log 151 . 1
2
10
1
w t
hr i
r c
k
m
p p
s
|
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
= 23 . 3 log 151 . 1
2
10
1
w t
wf hr
r c
k
m
p p
s
|
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
t
e
, hrs
p
w
s
,

p
s
i
p
1hr
=2121 psi
m=120 psi/cycle
A
Apparent Wellbore Radius
1
10
100
0.1 1 10 100 1000
F
cD
L
f
/
r
w
a
Estimating L
f
From Skin
Factor
1. Calculate r
wa
from r
wa
= r
w
e
-s

2. Estimate L
f
from L
f
= 2r
wa

3. Estimate fracture conductivity wk
f
4. Calculate F
cD
from F
cD
= wk
f
/kL
f
5. Find L
f
/r
wa
from graph or equation
6. Estimate L
f
from L
f
= (L
f
/r
wa
)*r
wa

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 s
t
Does not give direct estimate of L
f
, wk
f
, or s
f

Dimensionless Variables For
Fractured Wells
wf i D
p p
qB
kh .
p =
00708 0
t
L c
k .
t
f t
D
f
L
2
0002637 0
|
=
2
8936 0
f t
D
f
L
hL c
C .
C
|
=
r
f
f f
cD
C
kL
k w
F t = =
f
f f
r
kL
k w
C
t
=
s f
p
qB
kh .
s A =
00708 0
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 L
f
from time match point

5. Calculate k from pressure match point
6. Interpret matching stem value (wk
f
, s
f
, or C)
Interpreting Match Points,
Unknown Permeability
MP
D
p
p
h
qB .
k
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
=
2 141
MP
D
f
L t
f
t
t
c
k .
L
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
=
|
0002637 0
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 L
f
from time match point

6. Interpret matching stem value (wk
f
, s
f
, or C)
Interpreting Match Points
Known Permeability
( ) ( )
MP
D
MP
p
kh
qB
p
2 . 141
= A
MP
D L t
f
f
t
t
c
k
L
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
=
|
0002637 . 0
Cinco Type Curve
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
t
LfD
p
D
,

t
D
p
'
D
C
r
= 0.2
0.5
1
3
10
50
1000
Cinco Type Curve:
Interpreting C
r
Stem
r f f f
C kL k w
Choked Fracture Type Curve
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
t
LfD
p
D
,

t
D
p
'
D
s
f
= 1
0.3
0.1
0.03
0.01
0.003
0
Choked Fracture Type Curve:
Interpreting s
f
Stem
f s
s
kh .
qB
p
00708 0
Barker-Ramey Type Curve
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
t
LfD
p
D
,

t
D
p
'
D
C
LfD
= 0
5x10
-5
3x10
-4
2x10
-3
1.2x10
-2
8x10
-2
5x10
-1
Barker-Ramey Type Curve
Interpreting C
LfD
Stem
D
f
L
f t
C
.
hL c
C
8936 0
2
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
Estimate important reservoir properties
Determine parameter groups from equations
Expect complex iterative processes requiring use of
a computer
Step 2: Apply Procedures
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
Step 3: Evaluate Results
Horizontal Well Flow Regimes
Five possible flow regimes
(1) early radial
(2) hemiradial
(3) early linear
(4) late pseudoradial
(5) late linear
Calculate different
formation properties
from each period
Any flow regime may be absent from a plot
of test data because of geometry, wellbore
storage or other factors.
Well and Reservoir Geometry
y
a
h
z
0
0
x
b
L
w

h
Horizontal wellbore
Well and Reservoir Geometry
y
h
a
z
0
0
x
b
D
x
d
x

D
z

d
z

Tip of well
x
y
z
d
y

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
A p
p '
1
1
2
1
2
1
Log (Ap)
or
Log (p')
Wellbore
storage
Early
Radial
Flow
Early
Linear
Flow
Pseudoradial
Flow
Late
Linear
Flow
Log (time)
2
1
2
1
Required Permeabilities
Flow
Regime
Result
of
Analysis
Permeabilities
Required for Limit
Calculations
Permeabilities
Required to
Calculate Skin
Early Radial
k
x
k
z End - k
z
and k
y
k
x
k
z and k
x
/k
z
Hemiradial
k
x
k
z End - k
z
and k
y
k
x
k
z and k
x
/k
z
Early Linear
k
x
Start - k
z
End - k
y
k
x
and k
z
Late
Pseudoradial
k
h
k
x
k
y
=
Start - k
y
End - k
y
and k
x
k
x
, k
y
and k
z
Late Linear
k
x
Start - k
y
and k
z
End - k
x
k
x
and k
z
Note: We can use
k
h
k
x
k
y
=
in our analysis. In some cases, for simplicity,
we assume k
x
= k
y
= k
h
. This assumption may reduce analysis accuracy.
Determines k
h
and k
z

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
Pretesting a Vertical Section
Required Distances
Flow
Regime
Result
of
Calculation
Distances
Required for Limit
Calculations
Distances
Required to
Calculate
Skin
Early Radial L
w
End - d
z
and L
w
Hemiradial L
w
End - d
z
and L
w
Early Linear L
w
and h Start - D
z
End - L
w
L
w
and h
Late
Pseudoradial
h Start - L
w
End - d
y
, L
w
, and d
x
L
w
, h and d
z
Late Linear b and h Start - D
y
, L
w
, and
D
z
End - d
x
b, h and d
z
Early Radial Flow Regime
May be masked by
wellbore storage
effects
Similar to radial
flow near vertical
wells
End of Early Radial Flow
z
k
t
c
z
d
Erf
t
|
2
1800
=
Vertical
boundary
effects
:
y
k
t
c
w
L
Erf
t
|
2
125
=
Wellbore
end
effects
:
Early Radial Flow Pressure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
=
4
4
2
1
2
8686 0 2275 3
2
6 162
x
k
z
k
z
k
x
k
g o l
a
s . .
w
r
t
c
t
z
k
x
k
g o l
w
L
z
k
x
k
qB .
wf
p
i
p
|
Early Radial Flow/Drawdown

Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
z
k
x
k
w
L
qB .
m
6 162
=
Early Radial Flow/Drawdown
Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
w
L m
qB .
z
k
x
k
6 162
=
Skin in Early Radial Flow
(
(
(
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
=
4
4
2
1
log 2.3023
2275 3
2
1
1513 1
x
k
z
k
z
k
x
k
`
.
w
r
t
c
z
k
x
k
log
m
hr
p
i
p
.
a
s
|
Early Radial Flow Buildup Plot
Correct only if (t
p
+At)
and At appear
simultaneously
or if t
p
>> At.
Semilog plot
Horner Time Ratio
Ap
10 1,000
47
33
Early Radial Flow Buildup
Plot
Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
(Equation same as in
drawdown tests)
z
k
x
k
w
L
qB .
m
6 162
=
Early Radial Flow Buildup
Plot
Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
(Equation same as in
drawdown tests)
w
L m
qB .
z
k
x
k
6 162
=
Early Radial Flow/Buildup
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
(
(
(
+
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
4 4
2
1
log 3023 2
2275 3
2
1
1513 1
x
z
z
x
k
k
k
k
.
.
w
r
t
c
z
k
x
k
g o l
m
f w
p
hr
p
.
a
s
Start of Hemiradial Flow
Begins after closest vertical boundary (at
distance d
z
from wellbore) affects data
d
z

D
z

and before farthest boundary (at D
z
from
wellbore) affects the data.
Start of Hemiradial Flow
Begins after closest vertical boundary (at
distance d
z
from wellbore) affects data

and before
furthest boundary (at D
z
from wellbore) affects
the data.
z
t z
Shrf
k
c d
t
2
1800
End of Hemiradial Flow
Ends when furthest boundary (at distance
D
z
from wellbore) affects the data . . .
z
t z
Ehrf
k
c D
t
2
1800
d
z

D
z

End of Hemiradial Flow
. . . or when effects are felt at ends of wellbore,
whichever comes first.
d
z

D
z

y
t w
Ehrf
k
c L
t
2
125
Hemiradial Flow/Drawdown
z
k
x
k
w
L
qB .
m
2 325
=
'
Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
z
k
x
k
w
L
qB .
m
6 162
=
Radial flow
z
k
x
k
w
L
qB .
m
2 325
=
'
Hemiradial flow
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
(
(
(
+
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
'
=
w
z
z
x
r
d
k
k
.
.
w
r
t
c
z
k
x
k
m
p
i
p
.
a
s
1 log 3026 2
2275 3
2
g o l
hr 1
3026 2
|
Early Linear Flow Regime
Start
z
k
t
c
z
d
Slf
t
|
2
1800
=
Early Linear Flow Regime
End
y
k
t
c L
Elf
t
w
|
2
160
=
Ap
Time
1/2

11
4
1 8
Cartesian plot
t
c h
w
L m
qB .
x
k
|
' '
=
128 8
Early Linear Flow/Drawdown
c
s
qB .
w
L )
hr
p
i
p (
z
k
x
k
a
s
=
2 141
1
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
h
z
d
sin
x
k
z
k
h
w
r
c
s
t
t
1
Convergence skin
Convergence skin
Flow converges from
total cross-section of
reservoir radially into small
area of wellbore
p,
psia
t t tp A A +
, hr
1/2

1400
600
1000
1800
18 22 34 30 26 38
Early Linear Flow/Buildup
t
c h
w
L m
qB .
x
k
|
' '
=
128 8
c
s
qB .
w
L )
f w
p
hr
p (
z
k
x
k
a
s
2 141
1
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
h
z
d
sin
x
k
z
k
h
w
r
c
s
t
t
1
Early Linear Flow/Buildup
Late Pseudoradial Flow
45 0.
b
w
L
Start

L
w

b
y
k
t
c
w
L
Sprf
t
|
2
1480
=
Start

Wellbore
end effects
y
k
w
L
y
D
t
c
Eprf
t
2
4
2000
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
|
Ends when
flow from beyond
the ends of the
wellbore hits a
boundary ...
x
k
x
d
t
c
Eprf
t
2
1650 |
=
(whichever is reached first)
or reach
end boundaries
of reservoir
Pseudoradial Flow/Drawdown
h m
qB .
y
k
x
k
' ' '
=
6 162
Ap
Time
59
53
100 500
Semilog plot
400 300 200
Pseudoradial Flow/ Drawdown
c
s
.
w
L
t
c
y
k
g o l
m
hr
p
i
p
h
w
L
y
k
z
k
.
a
s
+
' ' '
=
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
83 1
2
1
1513 1
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
h
z
d
sin
x
k
z
k
h
w
r
c
s
t
t
1
Pseudoradial Flow/Buildup
c
s
.
w
L
t
c
y
k
g o l
p
t
p
t
g o l
m
f w
p
hr
p
h
w
L
y
k
z
k
.
a
s
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
' ' '
=
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
83 1
2
1
1
1513 1
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
h
z
d
sin
x
k
z
k
h
w
r
c
s
t
t
1
Late Linear Flow
Late Linear
Effects of pressure
reach boundaries in
y, z directions
Late Linear Flow
Late Linear
Pseudosteady-state
flow in these directions
Late Linear Flow
y
k
) /
w
L
y
D (
t
c
Sllf
t
2
4 4800 +
=
|
Starts with
effects of end
boundaries . . .
Late Linear Flow
z
k
z
D
t
c
llf S
t
2
1800 |
=
. . . or
effects of
vertical
boundaries . . .
(whichever is reached last)
Late Linear Flow
End
x
k
x
d
t
c
Ellf
t
2
1650 |
=
Late Linear/Drawdown
x
k
t
c h
iv
m
qB .
b
|
128 8
=
t
c bh
iv
m
qB .
x
k
|
128 8
=
Estimate k
x

Ap
Time
1/2

60
30
17
Cartesian plot
5
Late Linear Flow
Calculate total skin, s
t
, including partial
penetration skin, s
p

(a complex function
from literature)
Late Linear Flow
t
, including partial
penetration skin, s
p

qB .
b )
hr
p
i
p (
z
k
x
k
t
s
2 141
1
=
p
s
t
s
a
s =
'
w
L
b
a
s
a
s =
'
Late Linear Flow
t
, including partial
penetration skin, s
p

qB .
b )
hr
p
i
p (
z
k
x
k
t
s
2 141
1
=
|
|
|
.
|
\
|

A
=
c
s
p
s
qB .
b ) p (
z
k
x
k
b
w
L
a
s
hr
2 141
1
Late Linear Flow/Buildup
Pressure is plotted vs. ) t t
p
t ( A A +
t
iv
x
c bh m
B q .
k
|
128 8
=
x t
iv
k c h m
B q .
b
|
128 8
=
or
From the slope, m
iv
we can calculate k
x
:
p
Horner Time
4,000
3,400
10,000
Semilog plot
1
Extrapolate semilog
straight line to infinite
shut-in time to calculate p*
t
c bh
iv
m
qB .
x
k
|
128 8
=
t
, from

qB .
b )
f w
p
hr
p (
z
k
x
k
t
s
2 141
1

=
|
|
|
.
|
\
|

=
c
s
p
s
qB .
b )
f w
p
hr
p (
z
k
x
k
b
w
L
a
s
2 141
1
and skin due to altered permeability,
s
a
, from
Summary of Analysis Procedures
Calculate k
x
Early linear flow regime data: from effective
wellbore length, L
w

Late linear flow regime: from reservoir length, b,
parallel to wellbore
Effective wellbore length, L
w
, can be
calculated from data in the early linear
flow regime if k
x
has been calculated.
Calculate k
x
Early linear flow regime data: from effective
wellbore length, L
w

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 k
x
is known.
Calculate k
x

If data such as L
w
or b are unknown or if
flow regimes are missing, analysis is
iterative at best and will result in
nonunique results.
Calculate k
z
from data in early radial or
hemiradial flow regimes
Calculate k
y
from pseudoradial flow regime

Calculate k
x
Calculate k
z
Calculate k
y

We can assume k
x
= k
y
= k
h
and often
simplify analysis, but validity is
questionable.
Calculate k
x
Calculate k
z
Calculate k
y
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
A p
p '
Log (Ap)
or
Log (p')
Log (time)
Drawdown Diagnostic Plot
Wellbore storage
unit-slope line
Radial flow
horizontal derivative
Linear flow halfslope
line
Log (Ap)
or
Log (p')
Wellbore
storage
Early
Radial
flow
Early
Linear
Flow
Pseudoradial
Flow
Late
Linear
Flow
Log (time)
Drawdown Diagnostic Plot
Shapes may not
appear in build-
up tests
(better chance
if t
p
>>At
max
)
Build-Up
Field Example: Well A
L
d
, ft 2,470
L
w
, ft -
r
w
, ft 0.25
|
, %
5
h, ft 150
q, STB/D 104
B
o
, RB/STB 1.40
, cp
0.45
t
p
, hours 238
Horizontal
exploration well
Vertical tectonic
fracture
Permeability
probably results
from fracture
Well A: Diagnostic Plot
1 100 10
t, hr
p
Log (Ap
or p' )
10,000
1000
100
10
Wellbore
storage
Radial flow?
p '
Horner Time
Semilog plot
24.69
100 1
2.4
Time
p
4,500
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,500
4,000
10
Well A: Horner Plot
m ~ -392.63
Test time too
short to
detect lower
boundary,
linear flow,
or anisotropy
k = 0.011
s = 2.9
Well A: Buildup History Match
1 100 10
t, hr
p
Log (Ap
or p' )
10,000
1000
100
10
Wellbore
storage
Radial flow
p '
k = 0.027
s = 11.5
k = 0.011
s = 2.9
(from Horner plot)
Field Example: Well B
L
d
, ft 2,000
L
w
, ft -
r
w
, ft 0.30
|
, %
17
h, ft 75
q, STB/D 200
B
o
, RB/STB 1.60
, cp
1.80
t
p
, hours 1,320
Well in west Texas
carbonate
Expected isotropic
k caused by
fracturing,
dissolution
1 10 1000 100
1000
100
10
Ap, psia
or p'
t, hr
Well B: Diagnostic Plot
Wellbore storage
Radial flow
Linear
flow
Well B: Horner Plot
p, psia
Horner time
10 100
3500
3400
3600
3800
3900
4000
13.33 146.67
t, hr
m = 336.4
k = 0.14
t
Erf
= 165 hr
k = 0.15
k = 0.14
1 10 1000 100
1000
100
10
Ap, psia
or p'
t, hr
Well B: Buildup History Match
k = 0.15 Good
agreement
k = 0.14
k = 0.15
Well B: Tandem-Root Plot
p, psia
10 100
800
600
1000
1400
1600
1800
m = 39.6
h = 75 ft
Nearest boundary = 29 ft
t t tp A A +
, hr
1/2

Field Example C
L
d
, ft 1,400
L
w
, ft 484
r
w
, ft 0.41
|
, %
17
h, ft 54
q, STB/D 2,760
B
o
, RB/STB 1.10
, cp
4.88
t
p
, hours 36
Horizontal well
High-k sandstone
Extensive
underlying aquifer
Well C: Diagnostic Plot
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
1000
100
1
0.1
Ap, psia
or p'
t, hr
No apparent
wellbore storage
Radial, hemiradial,
or elliptical flow
Decline caused by
underlying aquifer
Well C: Type-Curve Match
p
p'
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
1000
100
1
0.1
Ap, psia
or p'
t, hr
p, psia
Horner time
t, hr
4000
3400
3800
3600
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
5.44 0.4949 0.0490 4.90E-03
Well C: Horner Plot
k = 53
k ~ 48
(confirms validity of
earlier findings of
no wellbore storage)
Well C: Regression Match
p
p'
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
1000
100
1
0.1
Ap, psia
or p'
t, hr
Geometric average
of horizontal,
vertical k ~ 48
Horizontal Well Test Configuration
Measurements usually made
above horizontal wellbore
Tools may be too rigid to pass through curve
Conventional tools can be
used in horizontal well tests
Horizontal Well Test
Configuration
Wellbore storage inherent
in horizontal well testing
Horizontal Well Test
Configuration
Wellbore crossflow may
dominate test results
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
Factors That Affect
Transient Response
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
Obstacles to Interpretation
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

Ensuring Interpretable Data
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
Parameter Deviation
B
g
from composition 1.1% to 5.8%
B
g
from composition 1.3 % to 7.3%
(as much as 27% if
impurities are ignored)
c
g
Negligible at low pressure
g
2% to 4%,
g
< 1
up to 20% low,
g
> 1.5
From Gas Properties Correlations
Error in Fluid Properties Data
Parameter Deviation
B
o
,

p > p
b
10%
B
o
,

p s p
b
5%
c
o
, p > p
b
Up to 50% low at high pressure
Best near p
b

c
o
, p s p
b
10%, p > 500 psi

20%, p < 500 psi

o
Order of magnitude only
From Oil Properties Correlations
Other Input Data
Flow rate
Wellbore radius
Formation compressibility
Total compressibility
Error in Well and Reservoir Data
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
From Measurement or Calculations
Total Compressibility
g g w w o o f t
c S c S c S c c + + +
Each phase of fluid
times its compressibility
Formation
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:
k
calc
= 2 k
true

Nothing else will be affected
Errors in Porosity
If |
input
= 2 |
true
,
Then:
s
calc
= s
true
+ 0.5ln(2)
L
x calc
= L
x true
/sqrt(2)
A
calc
= A
true
/2
Errors in Water Saturation
Cause errors in calculating total
compressibility
Errors in Compressibility
If c
t input
= 2 c
t true

Then:
s
calc
= s
true
+ 0.5ln(2)
L
x calc
= L
x true
/sqrt(2)
A
calc
= A
true
/2
Errors in Net Pay
If h
input
= 2 h
true

Then:
k
calc
= k
true
/2
s
calc
= s
true
+ 0.5ln(2)
L
x calc
= L
x true
/sqrt(2)
A
calc
= A
true
/2
Errors in Flow Rate
If q
input
= 2 q
true

Then:
k
calc
= 2 k
true

s
calc
= s
true
- 0.5ln(2)
L
x calc
= sqrt(2) L
x true

A
calc
= 2 A
true

Errors in Formation Volume
Factor
If B
input
= 2 B
true

Then:
k
calc
= 2 k
true

s
calc
= s
true
- 0.5ln(2)
L
x calc
= sqrt(2) L
x true

A
calc
= 2 A
true

Errors in Wellbore Radius
If r
w input
= 2 r
w true
Then:
s
calc
= s
true
+ ln(2)
Solution to Problem 1
Well A estimates
Permeability, 10 md
Skin factor, 0
Boundary, 250 ft
Assumed net pay 25 ft
Net pay50 ft
Permeability, 5 md
Skin factor, 0.35
Boundary, 177 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
Real no-flow boundary
Image well
Equal distances from
no-flow boundary
Producing well
Image well Image well
No-flow boundary
Producing well
No-flow boundary
Infinite-acting reservoir
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Drawdown Type Curve
No boundaries encountered
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
8
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut-in
time
Shape depends on duration of
production time prior to shut-in
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent
time
Not affected by producing time
100
10
1E+03
0.01
0.1
1
1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

Dimensionless equivalent time
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7

t
pD
=10
8

0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

t
pD
=10
5
,10
6
,10
7
,10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative taken with respect to
equivalent time, plotted against
shut-in time
Largest time on plot is not limited
to producing or shut-in time
Linear no-flow boundary
No-flow boundary
Producing well
(If so, far away.)
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Drawdown Type Curve
Hemiradial flow
Change in derivative from 0.5 to 1
Change occurs over about 1
2
/3 log cycles
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
8
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut-in time
The longer the equivalent time before shut-in, the
longer the coincidence between buildup and drawdown
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent time
Derivative doubles over only a tiny fraction of a log
cycle for very short producing times prior to shut-in
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time, plotted
against shut-in time
Similar to drawdown response
Linear constant-p boundary
Constant-pressure boundary
Producing well
Possible injection,
waterflood, or gas/oil
contact causing
constant-pressure
boundary
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Drawdown Type Curve
Slope can (and in this
case, does) reach -1
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
8
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut-
in time
Slope steeper than drawdown slope for
very short producing times before shut-in
Drawdown curve
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
time
Derivative falls sharply over tiny fraction of log cycle
for very short producing times prior to shutin
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
,10
6
t
pD
=10
7
Drawdown
t
pD
=10
8
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent time
shut-in time
Derivative curves resemble
drawdown curve
Channel reservoir
Producing well
No-flow boundaries
(Effects
of ends
not felt )
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Drawdown Type Curve
Channel reservoir
Slope =
1
/2
Slope
1
/2
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
8
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
Buildup Response
in time
Channel reservoir
Derivative reaches a
slope of -
1
/2 if shut-in
time is much larger
than producing time
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
dimensionless time
Channel reservoir
Radial equivalent
time not appropriate
in linear flow regime
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
equivalent time, plotted
against shut-in time
Channel reservoir
Derivative curve shape resembles
drawdown curve shape
Intersecting sealing faults
Wedge reservoir
Producing well
No-flow boundaries
u
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Drawdown Type Curve
Derivative levels off at
(360/u) x (derivative of infinite-acting response)
The narrower the angle, the
longer to reach new horizontal
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
8
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
Buildup Response
time
Dramatic difference in curves
when shut-in is greater than
producing time prior to shut-in
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
equivalent time
Derivative shape same as drawdown
response only when producing period
reaches fractional flow regime
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respedt to
shut-in time
Derivative, drawdown curves similar
Closed circular boundary
Producing well
No-flow boundary
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Drawdown Type Curve
Both slopes approach unit
slope at late times
(pseudosteady-state flow)
Reservoir limits test yields
pore volume of interval
Unit slope may be seen
earlier if two zones with
different permeability
are present
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
6
,10
7
,10
8
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
Buildup Response
in time
t
pD
=10
6,
10
7
,10
8

Derivative falls rapidly
for all combinations of
plotting functions
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
,10
8
Drawdown
t
pD
=10
7
,10
8

Slope drops sharply
for very small values
of producing time
before shut-in
Buildup Response
equivalent time
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
t
pD
=10
6
,10
7
,10
8
Buildup Response
time, plotted against shut-in time
t
pD
= 10
6
, 10
7
, 10
8
Derivative, drawdown
type curves differ
fundamentally
Circular constant-p boundary
Producing well
Constant-pressure
boundary
Possibly strong aquifer
supporting pressure
equally from all directions
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Drawdown Type Curve
Pressure approaches
constant value at late times
Derivative falls exponentially
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
6
,10
7
,10
8
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
Buildup Response
time
Curve can be identical to
drawdown plot just seen
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
,10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
equivalent time
Derivative falls off rapidly
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
,10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
time, plotted against shut-in time
Results in somewhat-changed
curve on the plot
Radially composite reservoir
Producing well
Significant difference in permeability
near, farther from well
k
1
k
2

0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
M
1
/M
2
= 0.05
M
1
/M
2
= 0.2
M
1
/M
2
= 1
M
1
/M
2
= 10
M
1
/M
2
= 100

Drawdown Type Curve
Varying M
1
/M
2

Responses resemble other tests
k
m = (mobility)

0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
S
1
/S
2
= 0.01
S
1
/S
2
= 100
0.05
1
10

Drawdown Type Curve
Varying S
1
/S
2
If s
1
/s
2
> 1, plot looks like closed circular drainage area
If S
1
/S
2
<<1, plot looks like closed linear flow
If M
1
/M
2
<<1, plot looks like constant-p circular
boundary during transition
S (storativity) = |c
t
h
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
L
W
d
y

d
x

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

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
t
q
q
1

q
2

q
n-1

q
n

t
1
t
2
t
n-2
t t
n-1

At
0
1
24
=
n
p
p
q
N
t
1
1
1
1
24
=

=
n
n
j
j j j
p
q
t t q
t
Cumulative
produced oil
Final rate
before
shut-in
Expressed
another way...
1
24
=
n
p
p
q
N
t
Cumulative
produced oil
Final rate
before
shut-in
Good results as long as last
producing time is at least 10x
maximum shut-in time.
Multirate Equivalent Time
t
t t t
t t
t
n
j
n
q
n
q
j
q
j
q
j n
j n
e
A
(
(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ A

A
=
|
|
.
|
\
|

1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
(Agarwal equation for radial flow)
( )
( ) ( ) { }
( ) t
t t t q q
q q
n
j
j n j j
n n
A +
(
(
+ A
ln
ln
1
STF
1
1
1 1 1
1
Pressure derivative for buildup calculated as
pressure derivative with respect to superposition
time function; plotted vs. shut-in time
Some literature recommends . . .
t ln
t t t
q q
q q
n
j
j n
n n
j j
A +
(
(
)
`
+ A
|
|
.
|
\
|
1
1
1 1
1
1
ln STF
(previous equation, rearranged)
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
(
(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ A
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

t
t t t
n
q
n
q
j
q
j
q
n
j
j n
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
ln STF
(previous equation, rearranged again
using properties of natural logarithm)
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
(
(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

e
n
q
n
q
j
q
j
q
n
j
j n
t
t t
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
ln STF
e
t C A + = ln ln STF
e
t C A + = ln ln STF
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
e
t C A + = ln ln STF
pressure derivative with respect to superposition
time function; plotted vs. shut-in time
pressure derivative with respect to equivalent time
function
e
t C A + = ln ln STF
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.
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+02 1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08
t
D
p
D
Drawdown
Buildup, t
pD
=10
5
Buildup
Drawdown
Stabilization In Radial System
Producing times must
be at least 10x
maximum shut-in time
Linear Flow
0.1
1
10
100
1000
1E+00 1E+01 1E+02 1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06
t
D
p
D
Drawdown
t
pD
=10
3
Stabilization in Linear System
Derivative
response
slope = -1/2
(spherical flow may also
produce slope = -1/2)
Volumetric Behavior
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
6
Drawdown
Stabilization in Volumetric System
All boundaries have been felt
Drawdown response
feels boundary later than
build-up response
Conclusions
Shapes of the buildup and drawdown
diagnostic plots are fundamentally different
as the reservoir approaches stabilization.
Dont 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
Geophysic
s
Petrophysic
s
Engineering
Data
Flow Regime
Identification
Model
Selection
Parameter
Estimation
Model
Validation
Well Test
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
Mobility ratio M
1
/M
2

Storativity ratio S
1
/S
2

Distance to boundary R
Distance to wall D
1
Well in a Box
W
D
2

L
D
1

Composite Reservoir
M
2
,S
2

M
1
,S
1

Distance to wall D
2
Reservoir length L
Reservoir width W

R
Models Simplify Geology
Well A
Interpretation model must be consistent
with (not identical to) geological model
Have we oversimplified the geology?
Responses Differ With Test Type
Closed Reservoir - DD TC Const Pres Boundary - DD TC
Closed Reservoir - BU TC Const Pres Boundary - BU TC
Slight divergence;
Close match
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
environment
Reservoir size
Shape
Orientation
Reservoir
heterogeneity
Layering
Natural fractures
Diagenesis
Types of boundaries
Faults
Sealing
Partially sealing
Fluid contacts
Gas/oil
Oil/water
Geophysics and Petrophysics
Structure
Faults
Location
Size
Reservoir
compartments
Shape
Orientation
Net pay thickness
Porosity
Fluid saturations
Fluid contacts
Lithology
Layering
Evidence of natural
fractures
Engineering Data
Drilling datadaily reports
Production and flow test data
Stimulation treatment results
Fracture design half-length, conductivity
Fracture treating pressure analysis results
Problems during treatmentdaily reports
Data from offset wells
Possible interferenceproduction records
Well test results
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
Reality Checks Validate Model
Wellbore Storage Coefficient
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
wb wb
c V C =
Fluid-filled wellbore Rising liquid level
g
g A
C
c
wb
wb
615 . 5
144
=
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
Highoverburden and saturation
Lownatural 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
wf
p p
q
J
=
Field Data
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
s
r C
A
B
kh
J
w A
4
3 06 . 10
ln
2
1
2 . 141
2
Model Parameters
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
Estimate radius of investigation
Beginning of middle-time region
End of middle-time region
Unrealistically large r
i
may indicate selected
MTR is incorrect
Very small r
i
may indicate wrong MTR or test
not measuring reservoir characteristics
t
i
c
kt
r
| 948
=
t
e
i
c
t k
r
| 948
A
=
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 e
Interporosity flow coefficient
Composite reservoir parameters for
waterflood-injection well
Radius of waterflooded zone
Mobility ratio (k/)
1
/(k/)
2

Storativity ratio (|c
t
)
1
/ (|c
t
)
2

Composite reservoir parameters for
waterflood-injection well
Fracture properties from treatment design
Fracture half-length l
f

Fracture conductivity wk
f

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
Angle between faults
Distance from well to 1
st
fault
Distance from well to 2
nd
fault
Well in a Wedge
Radially Composite Reservoir
Composite Reservoir
Mobility ratio M
1
/M
2

Storativity ratio S
1
/S
2

Distance to boundary R
Rectangular Reservoir
Distance to wall D
1
Well in a Box
W
D
2

L
D
1

Distance to wall D
2
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
Peak in derivative may be caused by a flow
restriction for any flow regime
Bilinear
Spherical
Radial
Linear
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 Course Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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 Course Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Testing Analysis

Rising liquid level

Gringarten Type Curve

Equivalent Time For PBU

Equivalent Time For PBU

Spherical Probe (RFT)

Linear Flow Analysis

Early Radial Flow/Drawdown

' ' '

You might also like