Pressure Buildup Analysis

With Wellbore Phase Redistribution

Walter B. Fair Jr., SPE, Shell Oil Co.
Abstract
This paper presents an analysis of the effects of
well bore phase redistribution on pressure buildup
tests. Wellbore phase redistribution is shown to be a
well bore storage effect and is incorporated
mathematically into a new solution of the diffusivity
equation. Dimensionless pressure solutions based on
an infinite radial reservoir are presented for type-
curve matching to analyze pressure buildup tests
influenced by well bore phase redistribution, and
example analyses of actual field data are included.
The parameters that affect phase redistribution and
gas humping are documented also. This information
permits analysis of many anomalous pressure
buildup tests which previously could not be analyzed
quantitatively.
Introduction
Pressure buildup tests and other types of transient
pressure tests have been used for many years to
evaluate reservoir fluid flow characteristics and well
completion efficiency. The basic theory and
equations for the analysis of these tests are well
documented.! M ~ n y factors that influence the
pressure response in transient flow conditions have
been investigated - i.e., the effects of reservoir
boundaries, heterogeneities, and fractures, wellbore
storage of fluids, and various types of well im-
pairments, skin effects, and completion practices.
However, little information concerning the effects of
the redistribution of gas and liquid phases in the
well bore has been presented.
The phenomenon of well bore phase redistribution
occurs in a well which is shut in with gas and liquid
flowing simultaneously in the tubing. As shown by
Stegemier and Matthews,
2
when such a well is shut in
at the surface, gravity effects cause the liquid to fall
0197-7520/81/0004-8206$00.25
Copyright 1981 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
APRIL 1981
and the gas to rise to the surface. Because of the
relative incompressibility of the liquid and the
inability of the gas to expand in a closed system, this
redistribution of phases causes a net increase in the
well bore pressure. When this phenomenon occurs in
a pressure buildup test, the increased pressure in the
well bore is relieved through the formation, and
equilibrium between the well bore and the adjacent
formation will be attained eventually. However, at
early times the pressure may increase above the
formation pressure, causing an anomalous hump in
the buildup pressure which cannot be analyzed with
conventional techniques. In less severe cases, the
well bore pressure may not rise sufficiently to attain a
maximum buildup pressure.
General analyses of well bore phase redistribution
have been presented by Stegemeier and Matthews
2
and by Pitzer et al.
3
Both of these investigations
documented the association of the pressure buildup
hump with phase redistribution and indicated that
the size of the hump was correlated with the amount
of gas flowing in the tubing. Stege meier and Mat-
thews also noted an apparent correlation between
estimated gas rise velocity and the time at which the
hump occurred.
Earlougher! also noted (on the basis of the shape
of the log t:..p vs. log t:..t plot of buildup test data) that
phase redistribution seems to be related to the
problem of well bore storage. Other authors have
recognized the significance of well bore phase
redistribution; however, no complete analysis of the
phenomenon has been presented and general
methods for analyzing buildup data influenced by
phase redistribution in the wellbore have not been
available.
Mathematical Analysis
of Phase Redistribution
If we consider a well where well bore phase
259
redistribution occurs, it is apparent that well bore
storage also must occur. If the well bore could not
store fluids of finite compressibility, the phase
redistribution process could either (1) physically not
occur or (2) be associated with a zero pressure in-
crease. It is also interesting to note that the
techniques presented by Stegemeier and Matthews
2
and Pitzer et al.
3
for minimizing wellbore phase
redistribution also minimize well bore storage effects.
For a well where well bore storage occurs the
effects of the storage can be described by Eq. 1.4 The
effect of the changing sand-face flow rate on the
wellbore pressure also can be obtained from Eq. 2.
!bi.. = 1- CD dPwD ..................... (1)
q dt
D
dPwD _ 1 !bi..
--- - (1 - ).. ................ (2)
dt
D
CD q
To describe the effect of wellbore phase
redistribution, note that not all of the pressure
change in the wellbore can be attributed to well bore
storage flow rate effects, since some of the pressure
change is caused by phase redistribution.
Thus, Eq. 2 can be modified by adding a term
describing the pressure change caused by phase
redistribution, as in Eq. 3, which also can be
rearranged to show the sand-face flow rate depen-
dency in Eq. 4.
dPwD 1 !bi.. dp<f;D
-- = - (1- ) + --. . ......... (3)
dt
D
CD q dt
D
!bi.. = 1- CD ( dPwD _ dp<f;D ) ............ (4)
q dt
D
dt
D
Eq. 4 also can be written in the form of Eq. 1 by
defining a pseudowellbore-storage coefficient given
in Eq. 5.
CD = C
D
(1- dp<f;D / dPwD ) ............. (5)
e dt
D
dt
D
In this form, it is apparent that wellbore phase
redistribution is a form of well bore storage, since
when
dp<f;D
--~ O , C
eD
$,C
D
,
dt
D
which implies that the effect of phase redistribution
always will cause an apparent lowering of the
wellbore storage coefficient given by Eq. 5. In ad-
dition, when
dp<f;D dPwD
-->--,
dt
D
dt
D
the pseudostorage coefficient becomes negative,
indicating a reversal in the direction of flow. When
this occurs, a pressure buildup test becomes more like
a pressure falloff test, and the gas hump results.
By considering the physical process of phase
redistribution, certain properties of the phase
redistribution pressure function P <f;D can be inferred,
even though few published data are available to
determine the functional form. If the gas and liquid
phases in the well bore before shut-in behave as a
260
homogeneous fluid (i.e., the well is not "heading"),
the required pressure function must have a value of
zero at shut-in (time zero). Also, at long times, the
phase redistribution must stop so that its derivative
with respect to time must approach zero. If it is
specified further that no gas enters solution in the
liquid phase, then it can be shown that the pressure
function must increase monotonically to its maxi-
mum value. These conditions are described by Eq. 6.
limp<f; =0. . ......................... (6a)
t-O
lim P<f; = C<f;' a constant. ................ (6b)
t-oo
lim dp<f; =0.
t-oo dt
........................ (6c)
Furthermore, in considering the effect of gas
bubbles or slugs rising through a column of liquid,
note that when the first gas bubble or slug reaches the
surface after shut-in, the pressure in the well bore
must increase by some amount. This pressure in-
crease causes a decrease in the volume and an in-
crease in the density of all other gas bubbles or slugs.
Both of these effects cause a decrease in the rise
velocity of all the remaining gas, so that the rate of
pressure change therefore must decrease. The same
argument can be made for gas bubbles or slugs
reaching the surface at later times. In addition, since
gas bubbles and slugs in an actual well bore may be of
widely varying initial sizes, their rise velocities will be
distributed over a considerable range.
Therefore, it is expected that the phase-
redistribution pressure initially would rise quickly
and then slowly approach its maximum value C</>.
This observation leads to the exponential function III
Eq. 7, which satisfies the constraints of Eq. 6. Also,
the one available set of unpublished laboratory data
on the phase-redistribution pressure seems to con-
firm the following functional representation. *
P<f; =C<f;(1-e-
t10i
) ................ (7)
In Eq. 7, the parameter C<f; represents the
maximum phase redistribution pressure change and a
represents the time at which about 63070 of the total
change has occurred. An estimate of C</> can be
obtained by noting that the gas in the well bore will
rise to the surface with the total gas volume
remaining constant; this is caused by the assumed
incompressibility of the liquid in the wellbore. C<f;
can be estimated by Eq. 8 when (1) the gas/oil ratio
in the well bore is assumed constant, (2) temperature
effects are neglected, (3) the liquid is assumed in-
compressible and the gas ideal and weightless, and (4)
a linear increase in well bore pressure with depth
applies. A more general method for estimating C<f;
can be derived from Appendix 1 in Ref. 2.
C<f; = Pgej-Pwhj. . .................... (8)
In(!!EL )
Pwhj
'Personal communication from G.L. Stegemeier, Shell Oil Co., March 1979.
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
While a is not determined as easily, it is known
that it will depend mainly on those factors which
control the gas bubble or slug rise time in a well.
Finally, to keep the dimensionless quantities
consistent, the dimensionless phase-redistribution
pressure function is defined in Eq. 9.
where
khp
PD = 141.2
C _ kh C
D - 141.2
0.000264 kl
ID= 2 '
w
and
0.000264 ka
aD= 2
w
In SPE preferred SI units, replace 11141.2 with
7.271- x 10 -6 and 0.000264 with 3.6 x 10 -6.
Determination of Dimensionless
Wellbore Pressures
To obtain dimensionless pressure solutions for use in
the analysis of pressure buildup tests, it is necessary
to incorporate the effects of well bore phase
redistribution into the diffusivity equation. For
radial flow in an infinite, homogeneous, isotropic
reservoir of a fluid of small compressibility, this
problem is stated in dimensionless variables as
follows. The diffusivity equation is
a
2
pD 1 apD apD
--2 + - --=-.............. (10)
arD rD arD aID
The boundary conditions are
PD (rD'O) =0 ......................... (11)
lim PD(rD,I
D
) =0 ................... (12)
rD- ex>
_ ( a
PD
) =1_cD(dPWD _ dPD).
arD rD=1 dID dID
......................... (13)
P D = [PD _s(a
PD
)] _ ............. (14)
warD rD-I
Several authors
5
have shown that this problem
also can be written as a convolution integral to ac-
count for well bore storage. This approach leads to
Eq.15.
APRIL I'lXI
. [dPwD(tD) _ dPD(tD) ]1 .... (15)
dID dID j
Eq. 15 can be solved for (PwD)' the Laplace
transform of the desired pressure function. This
results in Eq. 16. (s denotes the Laplace transform
variable.)
[s (PD) +S][1 + C
D
S
2
(PD)]
(p D) = .
w s[1 +CDS(S(PD) +S)]
................................ (16)
Note that the solution still is entirely general, since
no constraints have been placed on either P D or P D'
except that these functions exist and are Laplace
transformable. Thus, if P D represents any type of
reservoir condition, the required pressure solutions
for those conditions can be determined in principle.
This statement also applies to the phase
redistribution pressure.
In this work, Eq. 9 is used for the phase
redistribution effect. Its Laplace transform is:
CD CD
(PD) = - - ............. (17)
S S+ 1IaD
The required expression for (p D) has been
presented by Van Everdingen and Hurst
4
as Eq. 18,
where Ko and Klare modified Bessel functions.
Ko(Ys)
(PD) = s312 KI (Ys)' ................. (18)
It also has been shown that at long times this
simplifies to the line source solution in Eq. 19, since
YsK
I
(Ys)-1 whens-Oor/D-oo.
1
(PD) = -Ko(Ys) .................. (19)
s
A further long-time approximation for (PD)
can be obtained by noting that as ID -oo,s-O, and
Ys
Ko(Ys) - - [In( 2 +1'],
where 1'=0.577 215 664901 52 ... denotes Euler's
constant. This gives Eq. 20.
(PD) = - +1'] ............. (20)
Combining the definition of (PD) in Eq. 17
with the various forms of (PD) from Eqs. 18, 19,
and 20 yields required expressions for (PwD) as
follows.
Cylindrical Source Well.
[
Ko(Ys) ] [ 2 ( 1 1)]
sKI (Ys) +S 1 + CDCDs - s+ 1Ia
D
{ [
K (Ys) ]J
1 + CDs 0 Ys +S
sKI ( s)
...................... (21)
261
C
00
- 100
Fig. 1 - Type curves with phase redistribution (CaD = 20,
CD = 100).
"wo

]()
Co 1000
----"-':-'--,-, ---",,'----'-,"'-----',,'
Fig. 2 - Type curves with phase redistribution (CaD = 20,
CD = 1,000).
OliO", --':,,'-----","'-----',,'
Fig. 3 - Type curves with phase redistribution (CaD = 20,
CD = 10,000).
"wa
'00,----___ ---, ___ ,----__ --, ___ -,---------,

Fig. 4 - Type curves with phase redistribution (CaD = 100,
CD = 1,000).
262
Line Source Well.
\(s[1 + CDs[KO (Vs) +SlJ) ............. (22)
Line Source Well Long-Time Approximation.
[
Vs 2 1 1 J
[S-ln( -) -1'][1 + CDC<I>Ds (- - )]
2 s s+ lIaD
\ (s[1 + CDs[S-ln( -I'll). . ........ (23)
The long-time approximating form of the PwD
function can be derived from Eqs. 21,22, or 23 by
noting that
1 )-0 as s-O(t
D
- oo).
s s+ lIaD
Thus, these equations reduce to the well bore storage
equation given by Agarwal et al.
5
which further
approaches Eq. 24.
PwD """PD +S . ........................ (24)
The short-time approximation also can be ob-
tained from Eq. 21 by noting that the well bore
storage factor obtained by letting C<I>D = 0 reduces to
1
. (PwD ) = -2-' ................ (25)
storage s CD
Also, sinces
2
[lIs- [lI(s+ 1)/(aD)J]-I/aD at large
s, . (PwD) must approach
1 C<I>D
. (PwD) """ --2 + --2' .............. (26)
CDs aDs
and P wD approaches
tD
PWD=-C '
aD
where
1 1 C<I>D
-=-+-.................... (27)
CaD CD aD
Note that Eq. 27 indicates that a representation very
similar to well bore storage will exist at short times.
This is consistent with Earlougher's 1 earlier com-
ments.
To obtain dimensionless pressures for use in
analyzing pressure buildup tests with wellbore phase
redistribution, Eqs. 21, 22, or 23 must be inverted.
Since these expressions are too complicated for
analytical inversion, the inverse Laplace transforms
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
were calculated numerically using an inversion
technique presented by Stedhfest
6
adapted for use on
the TI-59 programmable calculator. The type curves
shown in Figs. 1 through 6 indicate that the pressure
functions may show a tendency toward a damped
oscillation. According to Stehfest,
6
such an
oscillation may render the numerical technique
useless unless certain conditions on wavelength of
oscillation are met. However, it can be shown that
the functions obtained in this work do not oscillate,
since the Laplace transform can be written as the sum
of three terms. Two of the terms represent
monotonic functions, while the inverse transform of
the remaining term has a single maximum. Thus,
Stehfest's criteria of functional "smoothness" is met
on each term and, by virtue of the linearity property
of the Laplace transform and of the numerical
technique, it is valid to use the numerical method
with these functions.
Eq. 21 was programmed and inverted for several
values of the well bore-storage coefficient CD and
skin factor S. Results and a comparison with data
previously reported by Agarwal et al.
5
are shown in
Table 1. The excellent agreement indicates that the
numerical technique is well suited to the calculator
precision. Eq. 22 also was programmed and inverted
for several values of CD and S, again with close
agreement to the Agarwal et al.
5
results for the line
TABLE 1 - COMPARISON OF CALCULATED Pwo
WITH REF. 5 (CYLINDRICAL SOURCE WELL, C<t>o = 0)
<\PRIL 1981
to Pwo
C
o
=100,S=0
100 0.7975
1,000 3.2680
10,000 4.9566
100,000 6.1548
1,000,000 7.3116
10,000,000 8.4635
Pwo,
Ref. 5
0.7975
3.2681
4.9567
6.1548
7.3116
8.4635
Co = 10,000, S = 0
100 0.00998 0.00998
1,000 0.0984 0.0984
10,000 0.8925 0.8925
100,000 4.6772 4.6773
1,000,000 7.2308 7.2309
10,000,000 8.4550 8.4550
CD = 100, S=O
100 0.9777
1,000 8.1220
10,000 24.242
100,000 26.134
1,000,000 27.310
10,000,000 28.463
0.9777
8.1220
24.241
26.134
27.310
28.463
CD = 10,000, S = 20
100 0.01000 0.01000
1,000 0.0998 0.0998
10,000 0.9797 0.9797
100,000 8.2698 8.2698
1,000,000 26.286 26.286
10,000,000 28.434 28.434
C. O 100
C
O
-l0.000
Fig. 5 - Type curves with phase redistribution (CaD = 100,
Co = 10,000).
C. O 1000
Co 10.000
Fig. 6 - Type curves with phase redistribution (CaD = 1,000,
Co = 10,000).
Fig. 7 - Comparision of dimensionless pressures with and
without phase redistribution.
263
264
TABLE 2 - COMPARISON OF CALCULATED PwD
WITH REF. 5 (LINE SOURCE WELL, C",D = 0)
to PwO
CD = 100, S=O
100 0.7938
1,000 3.2639
10,000 4.9563
100,000 6.1548
1,000,000 7.3116
10,000,000 8.4635
Pwo,
Ref. 5
0.7938
3.2640
4.9564
6.1548
7.3116
8.4635
Co = 10,000, S=O
100 0.00998 0.00998
1,000 0.0984 0.0984
10,000 0.8925 0.8925
100,000 4.6771 4.6772
1,000,000 7.2307 7.2309
10,000,000 8.4550 8.4550
CD = 100, S=O
100 0.9776
1,000 8.1212
10,000 24.242
100,000 26.134
1,000,000 27.310
10,000,000 28.463
0.9776
8.1212
24.241
26.134
27.310
28.463
CD = 10,000, S = 20
100 0.01000 0.01000
1,000 0.0998 0.0998
10,000 0.9797 0.9797
100,000 8.2698 8.2698
1,000,000 26.286 26.286
10,000,000 28.434 28.434
TABLE 3- COMPARISON OF PwD CALCULATIONS
(C"'D =0)
Pwo, Pwo,
Cylinder Line
Pwo,
to Source Source Approx.
C
o
=100,S=0
100 0.7975 0.7938 0.7929
1,000 3.2680 3.2639 3.2634
10,000 4.9566 4.9563 4.9563
100,000 6.1548 6.1548 6.1548
1,000,000 7.3116 7.3116 7.3116
10,000,000 8.4635 8.4635 8.4635
C
o
=10,000,S=0
100 0.00998 0.00998 0.00998
1,000 0.0984 0.0984 0.0984
10,000 0.8925 0.8925 0.8925
100,000 4.6771 4.6771 4.6771
1,000,000 7.2308 7.2307 7.2307
10,000,000 8.4550 8.4550 8.4550
CD =100,S=0
100 0.9777 0.9776 0.9776
1,000 8.1220 8.1212 8.1211
10,000 24.242 24.242 24.242
100,000 26.134 26.134 26.134
1,000,000 27.310 27.310 27.310
10,000,000 28.463 28.463 28.463
CD = 10,000, S = 20
100 0.01000 0.01000 0.01000
1,000 0.0998 0.0998 0.0998
10,000 0.9797 0.9797 0.9797
100,000 8.2698 8.2698 8.2698
1,000,000 26.286 26.286 26.286
10,000,000 28.434 28.434 28.434
TABLE 4 - COMPARISON OF PwD CALCULATIONS (5 = 0)
Pwo, Pwo,
Cylinder Line Pwo,
to Source Source Approx.
CD = 100, C",o = 10, aD = 1 ,000
1 00 1.5541 1.5468 1.5450
1,000 5.0013 4.9962 4.9957
10,000 5.0199 5.0196 5.0196
100,000 6.1600 6.1599 6.1599
1,000,000 7.3121 7.3120 7.3121
10,000,000 8.4635 8.4635 8.4635
CD = 100, C",o = 10, aD = 100
1 00 5.6832 5.6575
1,000 4.5588 4.5581
10,000 5.0123 5.0121
100,000 6.1599 6.1599
1,000,000 7.3121 7.3120
10,000,000 8.4635 8.4635
5.6519
4.5583
5.0120
6.1598
7.3121
8.4635
CD = 10,000, C",o =100, aD = 1,000
100 9.5031 9.5025 9.5023
1,000 62.1794 62.1759 62.1753
10,000 82.9727 82.9691 82.9689
100,000 25.4042 25.4045 25.4044
1,000,000 7.8197 7.8195 7.8196
10,000,000 8.5059 8.5058 8.5059
CD = 10,000, C",o =100, aD = 100
100 63.0504 63.0466 63.0456
1,000 97.4584 97.4528 97.4520
10,000 81.5483 81.5449 81.5449
100,000 25.1634 25.1638 25.1636
1,000,000 7.8191 7.8188 7.8190
10,000,000 8.5059 8.5059 8.5059
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
source well solution, as shown in Table 2. Finally,
Eq. 23 was inverted and, again, the results shown in
Tables 3 and 4 are in close agreement with previous
results. Eq. 23 therefore was used in the remainder of
this study.
Fig. 7. Note that at long times the new curves
coincide with the storage curves, while at early times
the apparent wellbore storage effect is obvious. At
intermediate times, the phase redistribution effect
causes the curves to trend away from the apparent
storage behavior to the true storage behavior. At
large values of CcpD' the "gas hump" is apparent,
while at small values of C cpD the phase redistribution
effect is much diminished. A potential problem in
pressure data interpretation also is shown at in-
termediate values of CcpD' since the curve for
CcpD = JO resembles the storage curve with CD = 100
while the true CD is 1,000. An attempt to type-curve
match phase-redistribution data to a storage curve
To facilitate use of the dimensionless pressures in
buildup analysis, CaD from Eq. 27 was used as a
variable rather than CiD' which is more difficult to
determine. Results of the inversion are shown in
Tables 5 and 6, and log PwD vs. log tD type curves
are presented in Figs. 1 through 6. Accuracy is
O.1070.
A comparison of the phase-redistribution type
curves with well bore-storage type curves is shown in
TABLE 5 - DIMENSIONLESS WELLBORE PRESSURES WITH PHASE REDISTRIBUTION
APRIL 1981
to
100
200
500
1,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
50,000
100,000
200,000
500,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
5,000,000
10,000,000
100
200
500
1,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
50,000
100,000
200,000
500,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
5,000,000
10,000,000
100
200
500
1,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
50,000
100,000
200,000
500,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
5,000,000
10,000,000
CaD = 20, Co = 100
S=O S=10 S=20
C",o = 1
1.496
1.900
2.693
3.378
3.967
4.570
4.962
5.331
5.804
6.155
6.505
6.964
7.312
7.659
8.117
8.463
3.374
4.968
5.828
4.991
4.447
4.688
5.013
5.355
5.813
6.160
6.507
6.965
7.312
7.659
8.117
8.464
1.881
2.716
4.836
7.500
10.74
13.90
14.81
15.27
15.78
16.15
16.50
16.96
17.31
17.66
18.12
18.46
C",o = 10
4.114
6.877
10.88
12.62
13.41
14.35
14.89
15.30
15.79
16.15
16.50
16.96
17.31
17.66
18.12
18.46
C",o = 100
3.898 4.720
6.594 8.936
11.05 19.05
13.30 29.58
12.77 36.81
8.531 28.39
6.104 18.03
5.646 15.66
5.912 15.90
6.206 16.20
6.530 16.52
6.974 16.97
7.317 17.32
7.661 17.66
8.118 18.12
8.464 18.46
1.926
2.838
5.303
8.781
13.92
21.24
24.27
25.19
25.76
26.13
26.49
26.96
27.31
27.66
28.12
28.46
4.196
7.150
11.99
15.21
18.31
22.59
24.51
25.23
25.77
26.14
26.50
26.96
27.31
27.66
28.12
28.46
4.810
9.263
20.71
34.52
48.60
47.47
31.98
25.82
25.89
26.19
26.52
26.97
27.31
27.66
28.12
28.46
CaD = 20, Co = 1,000
S=O S=10 S=20
1.055
1.125
1.315
1.613
2.131
3.220
4.187
4.987
5.689
6.100
6.476
6.953
7.305
7.655
8.115
8.463
3.871
6.148
8.597
8.698
7.804
6.371
5.622
5.467
5.808
6.151
6.500
6.962
7.310
7.658
8.116
8.463
Cpo = 1
1.086
1.184
1.454
1.892
2.724
4.908
7.709
11.23
14.86
15.93
16.41
16.93
17.30
17.65
18.11
18.46
C",o = 10
3.956
6.387
9.387
10.31
10.63
11.35
12.34
13.70
15.33
16.01
16.44
16.94
17.30
17.65
18.11
18.46
C",o = 100
4.762 4.861
9.137 9.457
20.31 21.78
33.73 38.15
47.43 59.24
45.83 76.10
25.87 64.91
11.41 41.91
7.067 20.58
6.678 16.87
6.742 16.73
7.055 17.04
7.356 17.35
7.680 17.68
8.125 18.12
8.468 18.47
1.089
1.191
1.474
1.938
2.837
5.327
8.865
14.16
21.93
25.30
26.33
26.91
27.28
27.65
28.11
28.46
3.964
6.414
9.495
10.57
11.19
12.72
14.92
18.25
23.26
25.55
26.37
26.92
27.29
27.65
28.11
28.46
4.871
9.492
21.98
38.82
61.40
83.84
79.94
62.65
37.63
28.23
26.73
27.02
27.34
27.67
28.12
28.47
CaD = 20, Co = 10,000
S=O S=10 S=20
0.9997
1.013
1.034
1.070
1.143
1.359
1.698
2.298
3.623
4.882
5.956
6.804
7.237
7.621
8.101
8.456
3.928
6.303
9.116
9.794
9.721
9.394
8.974
8.359
7.341
6.728
6.580
6.932
7.290
7.645
8.111
8.460
Cpo = 1
1.003
1.018
1.046
1.092
1.184
1.457
1.899
2.744
4.980
7.900
11.68
15.80
17.04
17.56
18.08
18.45
C",o = 10
3.937
6.328
9.199
9.973
10.07
10.16
10.31
10.62
11.50
12.70
14.34
16.35
17.13
17.59
18.09
18.45
C",o = 100
4.865 4.876
9.477 9.510
21.93 22.09
38.72 39.22
61.30 62.80
84.81 90.01
84.01 94.91
71.18 90.45
45.70 77.47
25.68 61.24
12.93 41.30
8.225 21.89
7.820 18.05
7.888 17.87
8.204 18.19
8.506 18.50
1.003
1.019
1.048
1.096
1.191
1.474
1.940
2.844
5.355
8.948
14.39
22.60
26.32
27.47
28.06
28.43
3.938
6.331
9.210
9.999
10.12
10.30
10.59
11.16
12.75
15.06
18.59
24.03
26.60
27.50
28.07
28.44
4.876
9.514
22.11
39.29
63.03
90.93
97.09
94.92
87.29
76.63
60.94
38.42
29.44
27.88
28.17
28.49
265
could give a reasonable type-curve match, but any
If the producing time is large compared to the shut-in
estimates of reservoir parameters might be greatly in
time M
D
, then tD+MD=::t
D
, so that Eq. 28 sim-
error. Fortunately, this problem can be resolved by
plifies to
comparing the estimates of the true and apparent
kh
storage constants as in the following examples.
Ww(tD+tJ.t
D
) -Pwj1= (tJ.t
D
)
Analysis of Pressure Buildup Tests
141.2 qBp.
Generally, to analyze pressure buildup test data, the
................................ (29)
superposition principle is applied to any dimen-
sionless pressure functions yielding
Thus, a log (pw -Pwj) vs. log (tJ.t) plot of the
kh
buildup data can be type-curve matched according to
W (t +tJ.t ) -P 11 =
standard procedures, providing that P wD (t D + tJ.t D)
141.2 qBp. w D D w
=:: PwD (t D)' If this assumption is not valid, the more
PwD (tD) -PwD (tD + tJ.t
D
) +PwD (tJ.t
D
)
.. (28)
general superposition in Eq. 28 must be used;
TABLE 6 - DIMENSIONLESS WELLBORE PRESSURES WITH PHASE REDISTRIBUTION
CaD =100, CD =1,000 CaD = 100, CD = 10,000 CaD = 1,000, CD = 10,000
tD S=O S=10 S=20 S=O S=10 S=20 S=O S=10 S=20
Cq,D =1 Cq,D =1 Cpo =1
100 0.6748 0.6902 0.6917 0.6366 0.6381 0.6383 0.09583 0.09603 0.09605
200 0.9841 1.024 1.029 0.8772 0.8809 0.8814 0.1839 0.1846 0.1846
500 1.326 1.450 1.467 1.029 1.040 1.041 0.4085 0.4115 0.4119
1,000 1.630 1.898 1.941 1.072 1.093 1.096 0.6813 0.6905 0.6918
2,000 2.143 2.730 2.841 1.145 1.185 1.191 0.9997 1.025 1.029
5,000 3.225 4.912 5.330 1.360 1.457 1.475 1.369 1.453 1.468
10,000 4.189 7.712 8.868 1.699 1.900 1.940 1.715 1.906 1.944
20,000 4.988 11.23 14.16 2.299 2.744 2.844 2.312 2.750 2.848
50,000 5.689 14.86 21.93 3.623 4.980 5.355 3.630 4.985 5.358
100,000 6.100 15.93 25.30 4.882 7.900 8.949 4.885 7.904 8.951
200,000 6.476 16.41 26.33 5.956 11.68 14.39 5.957 11.68 14.39
500,000 6.953 16.93 26.91 6.804 15.80 22.60 6.804 15.80 22.60
1,000,000 7.305 17.30 27.28 7.237 17.04 26.32 7.237 17.04 26.32
2,000,000 7.655 17.65 27.64 7.621 17.56 27.47 7.621 17.56 27.47
5,000,000 8.115 18.11 28.11 8.102 18.08 28.06 8.102 18.08 28.06
10,000,000 8.463 18.46 28.46 8.456 18.45 28.43 8.456 18.45 28.43
C",D =10 C"'D =10 C"'D = 10
100 0.9370 0.9566 0.9585 0.9502 0.9522 0.9524 0.09935 0.09955 0.09957
200 1.769 1.832 1.839 1.808 1.815 1.815 0.1976 0.1982 0.1983
500 3.760 4.039 4.076 3.917 3.946 3.950 0.4857 0.4891 0.4895
1,000 5.847 6.646 6.768 6.270 6.356 6.368 0.9454 0.9570 0.9586
2,000 7.474 9.457 9.823 8.505 8.734 8.770 1.794 1.833 1.839
5,000 7.018 11.70 12.92 9.482 10.14 10.26 3.859 4.046 4.078
10,000 5.876 12.66 15.17 9.102 10.36 10.62 6.107 6.668 6.776
20,000 5.514 13.86 18.42 8.457 10.67 11.19 8.049 9.523 9.846
50,000 5.811 15.36 23.31 7.393 11.53 12.78 8.097 11.91 13.00
100,000 6.152 16.01 25.56 6.750 12.72 15.08 7.081 13.07 15.35
200,000 6.500 16.44 26.37 6.585 14.36 18.61 6.659 14.54 18.79
500,000 6.962 16.94 26.92 6.933 16.35 24.03 6.938 16.38 24.09
1,000,000 7.310 17.30 27.29 7.290 17.13 26.60 7.290 17.14 26.61
2,000,000 7.658 17.65 27.65 7.646 17.59 27.50 7.646 17.59 27.50
5,000,000 8.116 18.11 28.11 8.111 18.09 28.07 8.111 18.09 28.07
10,000,000 8.463 18.46 28.46 8.460 18.45 28.44 8.460 18.45 28.44
Cq,D = 100 Cq,D =100 C<p.
D
=100
100 0.9716 0.9918 0.9937 0.9927 0.9948 0.9950 0.09973 0.09994 0.09996
200 1.902 1.968 1.975 1.972 1.979 1.980 0.1989 0.1996 0.1997
500 4.488 4.805 4.846 4.836 4.870 4.874 0.4946 0.4981 0.4985
1,000 8.227 9.245 9.399 9.374 9.489 9.505 0.9802 0.9922 0.9938
2,000 14.03 17.13 17.69 17.64 18.02 18.08 1.928 1.969 1.976
5,000 22.96 34.27 36.96 36.97 38.79 39.10 4.601 4.813 4.849
10,000 24.93 47.84 55.41 56.03 61.32 62.34 8.562 9.274 9.409
20,000 18.37 48.72 64.66 67.61 80.77 83.68 14.95 17.24 17.72
50,000 8.313 25.81 45.04 51.54 80.74 89.27 25.74 34.74 37.15
100,000 6.765 17.26 29.57 28.32 64.05 78.81 29.39 49.09 55.95
200,000 6.763 16.76 26.77 13.52 42.78 62.40 22.55 51.13 65.94
500,000 7.056 17.04 27.03 8.263 22.14 38.89 9.931 28.12 47.05
1,000,000 7.356 17.35 27.34 7.826 18.07 29.52 7.928 18.57 31.09
2,000,000 7.680 17.68 27.67 7.889 17.87 27.88 7.914 17.91 27.94
5,000,000 8.125 18.12 28.12 8.204 18.19 28.17 8.205 18.19 28.18
10,000,000 8.468 18.47 28.47 8.506 18.50 28.49 8.506 18.50 28.49
266 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
",
(PSI)

'-MATCHPOINT
>,10.'0 6900
oil lOO.''wO'lOl
. t TYPE CURVE
CaD 400 S- 0
Co 750 Cl2lo- 10
Fig. 8 - Pressure buildup data, Example 1.
however, since there is apparently no drawdown
equivalent to wellbore phase redistribution in a
buildup test, the appropriate PwD functions must be
used for PwD (t D) and PwD (t D + t:.t D). An example
of such superposition would be the case of a short
drawdown with storage followed by a buildup with
phase redistribution. The superposition of this rate
history would be as in Eq. 30, where phase
redistribution effects are in the third term only.
kh
141.2 qBp. [Pw (tD +t:.tD ) -Pwjl =
PwD (tD'CD,S) -PwD (tD + t:.tD,CD,S)
+ PwD (t:.tD,CD,S,P<J>D)' ............... (30)
In SPE preferred SI units, 1/141.2 is replaced by
7.27r x 10 - 6 in Eqs. 28 through 30.
The examples provided in the following section
illustrate the analysis of bottomhole pressure-buildup
surveys which are influenced by well bore phase
redistribution; however, note that not all surveys are
analyzed as easily. The tests documented here are
taken in gas-lifted oil wells in southern Louisiana,
and one factor which makes these tests amenable to
analysis is that little free gas enters the wellbore after
shut-in. Most of the gas in the tubing string which
contributes to the phase redistribution process
originates from the annulus through the gas-lift
valves. Thus, the true wellbore storage coefficient
CD is controlled by the rising liquid level of the
inflowing fluid which remains essentially constant.
In other cases, it is not obvious that the density of
the inflowing fluid remains constant, since the
flowing gas 1 oil ratio may change as the well is shut
in; this would cause a changing storage coefficient.
In addition, the compression of the gas near the
surface may not be accounted for correctly, which
also will cause a variable wellbore storage. Although
APRIL 1981
TABLE 7 - PRESSURE BUILDUP DATA FOR FIELD EXAMPLE 1
q = 212 BID (33.71 m
3
/d)
J1. = 4cp(4x10-
3
Pas)
B = 1.1 RB/STB(1.1 res m
3
/stocktank m
3
)
h = 10 ft (3.05 m)
Aw = 0.00387 bbl/ft (0.002 02 m
2
)
<J> = 0.28
c
t
= 60x10-
6
psi-
1
(8.70x10-
6
kPa-
1
)
r w 2 = 0.083 sq ft (0.007 71 m
2
)
PI = 0.330 psi/ft (7.46 kPa/m), measured
t,.t
(hours)
o
0.25
0.30
0.75
1
2
4
6
7
8
9
10
/Jw
psi (kPa)
296 (2041)
449 (3096)
520 (3585)
574 (3958)
597 (4116)
588 (4054)
576 (3971)
576 (3971)
576 (3971)
578 (3985)
578 (3985)
at long times these affects will be negligible, at short
times they will cause the pressure buildup to deviate
from the unit slope log P wD vs. log t:.t D line. In wells
which flow significant quantities of free gas, this
effect may be pronounced. 1-3
In addition, the problems of buildup analysis
without phase redistribution also exist in the analysis
of data with phase redistribution. Multiple stringers,
mechanical problems, and other effects may make
analysis difficult, if not impossible.
Another observation of interest in the analysis of
buildup surveys is a discrepancy between storage
constants calculated from pressure data and from
well completion data. I have found that these
estimates of the storage constant rarely agree. The
type curves presented in this work offer one possible
explanation for this common discrepancy, since at
small times it is apparent that the phase
redistribution effect greatly controls the apparent
storage constant CaD calculated from the pressure
data. Several types of storage behavior are observed
in practice.
1. When Cad ::= CD' the well exhibits a true storage
behavior.
2. When CaD < CD' the buildup usually is con-
trolled by phase redistribution.
3. When CaD >C
D
, mechanical problems,
multiple or an enlarged wellbore usually can
explain the discrepancy.
Note that these observations are based on ex-
perience and apply only to pressure tests in un-
fractured reservoirs where the storage is caused by a
rising fluid level. Note also that the correct value for
the fluid density or gradient must be used in
calculating the true storage constant, since an error in
the gradient will cause directly a corresponding error
in the calculated storage constant. For this reason, it
is recommended that the fluid gradient under flowing
and static conditions be measured in conjunction
267
.... "
IPSI)
"00'.,-----,---------,-----,-------,-------,

fOR
ldt) lOCI) 1()()
OOOOOQ(3)
_____ L---"-"-i'-Cjl!O 10
"wo l8"" t."W lOOPS'
'I) 1]0"" .... ' 1HR
Fig. 9 - Pressure buildup data, Example 2.
with the buildup data. In gas-lifted oil wells, this
gradient must be measured below the point of gas-lift
gas entry. Any differences in the flowing and static
gradients which cannot be attributed to frictional
effects generally will give an indication of the flow of
free gas from the reservoir. The gradients used in the
following examples were measured in conjunction
with the pressure surveys.
Note also that the type curves presented are not
meant to replace semilog analysis methods or the use
of previously published type curves. If it is possible
to analyze well test data using semilog methods,
greater accuracy will be obtained in nearly all cases,
mainly due to the similarity of the shape of the type
curves which makes type-curve matching difficult.
When such simple analyses are not possible,
however, the type curves presented in this work may
permit approximate analysis which would not be
possible otherwise.
Example Analyses
Example 1 is an actual set of pressure buildup data
measured in a gas-lifted oil well in southeast
Louisiana. The basic data are shown in Table 7 and a
log-log plot of the pressure data is shown in Fig. 8.
From the data plot in Fig. 8, a point on the unit
slope straight line is estimated to be !::t.p = 153 psi
(lOSS kPa) at !::t.t = 0.1 hour. The wellbore storage
coefficient is calculated as in Eq. 30 and the apparent
storage coefficient as in Eq. 31. The gradient used in
Eq. 30 is calculated from flowing- and static-pressure
surveys measured in conjunction with the buildup
test.
Aw
C= - = 0.01173 bbllpsi
PI
(0.000 270 5 m
3
IkPa). . ............... (30)
268
TABLE 8 - PRESSURE BUILDUP DATA FOR FIELD EXAMPLE 2
q = 14BID(2.23m
3
/d)
Ii = 4 cp (5 x 10- 4 Pa s)
B = 1.05 RB/STB (1.05 res m
3
/stocktank m
3
)
h = 20 ft (6.10 m)
Aw = 0.00387 bbl/ft (0.002 02 m
2
)
<I> = 0.28
Ct = 150x10-
6
psi-
1
(2.176x10-
5
kPa-
1
)
r w 2 = 0.085 ft2 (0.007 90 m
2
)
PI = 0.420 psi/ft (9.50 kPa/m), measured
M
(hours)
o
0.25
0.50
0.75
1
2
3
4
6
8
10
12
14
16.5
C4Jw
psi (kPa)
102 (703)
190 (1310)
254 (1751)
278 (1917)
306 (2110)
292 (2013)
284 (1958)
273 (1882)
276 (1903)
276 (1903)
276 (1903)
278 (1917)
281 (1937)
qB!::t.t
C
a
= 2-- =0.00635 bbllpsi
4!::t.p
(0.000 1464 m
3
IkPa). . .............. (31)
Since C
a
< C, we can conclude that phase
redistribution effects are significant. These values
yield CD =752 and CaD =407.
The data then are matched to the type curves for
CaD =400 and CD =750 as indicated, with a match
point chosen as C<I>D = 10, S = 0, t D = 6,800 at !::t.t = 1
hour, and PwD = 1.02 at !::t.pw = 100 psi (689 kPa).
From the standard definitions of tD and PwD' the
permeability is calculated as follows.
FrompwD match: k= 134 md.
From tD match: k= 144 md.
Example 2 consists of data taken in a well in
southeast Louisiana producing at low rates and high
water cuts from a shaly sand. Pressure buildup data
is given in Table 8 and the log !::t.pw vs. log !::t.t plot is
shown in Fig. 9. From the static and flowing surveys
taken in conjunction with the pressure buildup, C is
calculated as shown and C
a
also is estimated from an
extrapolation of the short-time data.
Aw 3
C= - =0.00921 bbllpsi (0.000 212 m IkPa).
PI
qB!::t.t
C
a
= -- = 0.00130 bbllpsi
24!::t.p
(0.000 030 m
3
IkPa).
Since C
a
< C, phase redistribution effects are
believed to be significant, so CD and CaD are
calculated to be
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
CD = 115 and CaD = 16.
The data are matched on. the type curves for
CD = 100, CaD = 20 and the best match is estimated
as shown in Fig. 9 to be Cq,D = 10, S = 5, PwD = 2.80
at Llp
w
= 100 psi (689 kPa), and tD = 320 at Llt= 1
hour. From the standard definitions of P wD and t D'
the permeability is calculated as follows.
FromPwD match: k= 1.45 md.
From tD match: k=2.16 md.
Fig. 9 also seems to indicate that the last two data
points may be close to the semi log straight line. Using
semilog analysis techniques, the permeability and
skin are estimated to be 1.46 md and 3.4, respec-
tively. Since the true straight line may not have been
reached and only two points are used to determine
the semi log straight line, these estimates are in
adequate agreement with the estimates obtained from
type-curve matching.
Summary and Conclusions
It has been recognized for some time that wellbore
phase redistribution can cause anomalous pressure
buildup behavior in oil and gas wells. General aspects
of the phenomenon have been presented
previously2,3; however, no technique for the analysis
of such tests has been available.
The work presented in this paper provides an
analysis of the well bore phase redistribution problem
and, with an assumed behavior based upon physical
arguments, provides a general method for the
analysis and description of such anomalous pressure
buildup tests. It has been shown that the well bore
phase redistribution problem is a complex well bore
storage phenomenon, and mathematical methods
previously applied to well bore storage problems have
been extended to solve this more general problem.
In the analysis of buildup surveys, I have found
that the observed storage constant often does not
agree with that calculated from the well completion
properties. One possible explanation for this ob-
servation lies in the apparent storage observed to be
associated with phase redistribution. Even though a
hump may not be observed, phase redistribution
effects may cause an inobvious distortion in the data
plot. Analysis of such data by other type curve
techniques may yield totally meaningless results. In
view of this, it is recommended that the true and
apparent storage coefficients always be calculated
and checked for consistency before proceeding with
detailed analysis of a buildup survey.
The main assumption of this work is the ex-
ponential form used in representing the phase
redistribution pressure function. I have found that
this form apparently represents phase redistribution
in a gas-lifted oil well very well; however, no
meaningful experimental data are available to
substantiate this completely. Such data would be
useful either in verifying this function or in
proposing a new function for the phase redistribution
pressure. This data could be collected by measuring
the pressure in a well shut in simultaneously at the
surface and at the bottom of the tubing string using
APRIL 1981
equipment described in Ref. 3. Laboratory ex-
periments also could measure this pressure. This data
and further analytical work is definitely needed to
determine the range of well conditions over which the
assumed form is applicable and to extend the basic
technique to other conditions.
In this work, only positive values of the skin effect
factor have been considered. It would pose no major
problem to calculate dimensionless well bore
pressures for negative skin factors by the technique
described by Agarwal, et at.
5
Note, however, that
such an approach places a great emphasis on the
accuracy of the various functions used at small times
and these functions are inherently more difficult to
evaluate with great preCISIOn. In the phase
redistribution problem, such an approach would
require the evaluation of the dimensionless pressures
at extremely small dimensionless times, dimen-
sionless storage coefficients, and dimensionless phase
redistribution time parameters.
Although the numerical work presented here is
based upon an infinite, homogeneous, radial
reservoir model, the basic concepts are much more
general. In particular, it is possible to apply the
techniques used in this study to other reservoir
models and thereby to obtain techniques for the
analysis of data in fractured systems as well as other
practical situations.
N omencJature
A =
w
B=
C=
cross-sectional area of the well bore,
bbl/ft (m
2
)
formation volume factors, RSB/STB
(res m
3
Istock-tank m
3
)
well bore storage coefficient, bbl/psi
(m
3
/kPa)
apparent storage coefficient, bbl/psi
(m
3
/kPa)
apparent dimensionless storage coef-
ficient,
5.6146C
a
C D= 2
a 27r(j>c thr w
= ( C q,D + _1 ) _ 1
aD CD
(CaD = p ( j > ~ ~ r w 2)
C
eD
= effective dimensionless storage coef-
ficient defined in Eq. 5
c ( compressibility, psi - 1 (kPa - 1 )
CD dimensionless well bore storage coef-
ficient,
(
CD = C )
2p(j>c(hr w 2
phase redistribution pressure parameter,
psi (kPa)
269
dimensionless phase redistribution
pressure parameter,
khC<I>
C<I>D = 141.2 qBJl
(
_ 7.27rx 1O-6khC<I
C<I>D - ---q-B-Jl--:r:...
reservoir thickness, ft (m)
reservoir permeability, md
modified Bessel function of second kind
of order n
(PD)
(PwD)
(P<I>D)
P
Pgej
Laplace transform of P D
Laplace transform of P wD
Laplace transform of P<I>D
pressure, psi (kPa)
flowing pressure at point of gas entry,
psi (kPa)
270
Pw
Pwhj
PwD
PD
P<I>
P<I>D
well bore pressure, psi (kPa)
flowing wellhead pressure, psi (kPa)
dimensionless well bore pressure
dimensionless pressure
phase redistribution pressure, psi (kPa)
dimensionless phase redistribution
pressure,
_ khP<I>
P<I>D - 141.2 qBJl
(
_ 7.27rx 1O-6khP<I
P<I>D-
qBJl
q = flow rate, BID (m
3
Id)
qsj = sand-face flow rate, BID (m
3
Id)
r = radius, ft (m)
r w well bore radius, ft (m)
r D = dimensionless radius, r D = r / r w
s = Laplace transform variable
S = skin factor
t time, hours
t D = dimensionless time,
0.OO0264kt
t
D
= 2
Jlctr w
(
_ 3.6x 1O-6kt)
tD - 2
Jlctr w
phase redistribution time parameter,
hours
dimensionless phase-redistribution time
parameter,
Jl
Pj
7 =
0.OO0264ka
aD= 2
Jlctr w
(
_ 3.6x 1O-6ka)
fXD- 2
Jlctr w
Eulers constant,
,,(=0.577 215 664901 53
fluid viscosity, cp (Pas)
fluid density, psilft (kPa/m)
dummy variable of integration
porosity (fraction)
pressure difference, psi (kPa)
shut-in time, hours
dimensionless shut-in time
Acknowledgment
The author thanks the management of Shell Oil Co.
for permission to publish this paper.
References
I. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.,: Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE
Monograph Series, Dallas (1977) 5.
2. Stegemeier, G.L. and Matthews, C.S.: "A Study of
Anomalous Pressure Build-Up Behavior," Trans., AI ME
(1958) 213, 44-50.
3. Pitzer, S.C., Rice, J.D., and Thomas, C.E. : "A Comparison
of Theoretical Pressure Build-Up Curves with Field Curves
Obtained from Bottom-Hole Shut-In Tests," Trans., AIME,
216,416-419.
4. Van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs,"
Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 305-324.
5. Agarwal, R.G., Rafi AI-Hussainy, and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "An
Investigation of Well Bore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady
Liquid Flow: l. Analytical Treatment," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept.
1970) 279-290; Trans., AIME, 249.
6. Stehfest, H.: "Algorithm 368 - Numerical Inversion of Laplace
Transforms," Communications oj the A eM (1970) 13, 47.
7. Handbook oj Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs
and Mathematical Tables, Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, l.A.
(eds)., Nat!. Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series
55, U.S. Dept. of Commerce (1972).
SI Metric Conversion Factor
psi x 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
SPEJ
Original manuscript received in the Society of Petroleum Engineers office
July 16,1979. Paper accepted for publication Feb. 21,1980. Revised manuscript
received Nov. 10, 1980. Paper (SPE 8206) first presented at the SPE 54th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, held in Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26, 1979.
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL