@

Reservoir Limit Tests in a Naturally Fractured

~ eservoir A Field Case Study Using
T
Type Curves
C. J. Strobel,* SPE-AIME, SouthernCatifomia Gas Co.
M. S. Gulati, SPE-AIME, Union Oil Co. of Catifomia
J-I, J. Ramey, Jr., SPE-AIME, !Wtnford U.

Introduction
The case studied is a dry gas reservoir in whict. three
wells are completed. The wells are spaced 2 and 8 miles
span in a 10-mile line along the crest of an anticlil.~
with about 100 sq miles of closure (Fig, 1), The dashed
contour in Fig. 1 is the drainage boundary that was initially estimated from geologic and production test data
assuming a uniform gas-water contact, This drainage
area is about 18 miles long and 3 miles wide, Only ~ne
productive stratigraphic unit is common to all three
wells. This is a naturally fractured zone of thinly bedded, clean orthoquartzites that accounts for 90 percent
of deliverability at Well 1, 95 percent at Well 2, and
100 percent at Well 3, Type of completion, fractured
zone thickness, and other reservoir data are presented in
Table 1. No cores were taken directly from the naturally
fractured orthoquartzite zone, but cores from other orthoquartziles had 2.5-percent average porosity and less
than 0.1 -md permeability to air.
Test data studied in this field case history have two
chronological groupings: (1) data recorded when Well 2
was completed, consisting of one pressure drawdown
and four pressure buildup tests at Well 2; and (2) data
obtained 4 years later, consisting of pressure interference at Wells 3 and 1 caused by flowing Well 2 for 450
hours, pressure buildup at Well 2 immediately following the interference test, and pulse response at Well 3
caused by pulsing Weli 2. The field was never. on proNOW with Umon Oil Co. of California.

duction except to cmduct pressure transient and deIiverabilit y tests,

Analysis ,of the field test data is organized into four
sections: ( 1) general discussion of the pressure drawdown and buildup beh~vior in light of recently published well-test theory; (2) computation of porosity and
estimation of drainage area by matching the buildup
data to type curves; (3) computation of porosity, permeabilityy, and drainage area by matching the interference data to type curves; and (4) analysis of pulse
behavior in the presence of reservoir limits.

General Pressure-Buildup Behavior

Buildup Tests 1 through 4, recorded at completion of
Well 2, are presented in Tables 2 through 5. The pressure drawdown corresponding to Buildup Test 4 is also
shown in Table 5. Fig. 2 is a graph of pressure as a
function of tl,e logarithm of time for the drawdown test.
All four buildup tests are plotted in Fig, 3, using the
technique of Horner,
Pressure buildup during Test 1 becomes a linear function of the logarithm of the Homer time ratio, and extrapolates to initial pressure at infinite shut-in time,
Each of the other tests plotted in Fig. 3 has an early
period in which pressure is a linear function of the
logarithm of the Homer time ratio and a late period in
which pressure bends upward. The bend upward at long
shut-in times is similar to results in the well-test literature for several types of reservoir heterogeneity: (1)

Pressure buildup, interference, and iwlse tests in a naturally fractured dry gas reservoir are
influenced by reservoir limits. Type curves are matched to test data to estimate drainage area
and to compute porosity and permeability. Calculated porosip and permeability values
compare well with published data for natural fracture systems.
SEPTEMBER, 1976

1097

TABLE 1 -

closed boundaries, (2) commingling of zones, or (3) a

dual-porosity system. Each of these possibilities is dMcussed below in light of recent well-test thenry.
Ramey and Cobbz investigated both pressure buildup
and drawdown theory for a well in a closed drainage
area. They found that, during the pressure drawdown in
a closed system, flowing pressure is a linear function of
the logarithm of time to some limiting time. The limiting time depended on the drainage shape and the location of the well within the shape. For the drawdown in
Fig. 2 the limiting time is 4 hours, beyond which pressure departs rapidly from the semilog straight line.
A second finding in Ref. 2 is that during pressure
buildup, the shut-in time to the upper limit of the
semilog straight line is not the same as that to the end of
semilog straight line for drawdown. Drawdown straight
lines lzst much longer than buildup straight lines. This
is consi ~!ent with the drawdown in Fig. 2, and the corresponding buildup, Test 4, in Fig. 3. Producing time to
the end of the semilog straight line is 4 hours, but the
upper limit of semilog straight line on buildup is 3
hours.
A third point in Ref. 2 is that buildups for different
producing times will not have the same limiting times to
the end of the semilog straight line. This point is shown
in Fig. 3, The end of the semilog straight line is not
reached during Buildup Test 1 or 2, but it is reached at
a shut-in time of 0.68 hour for Buildup Test 3 and 3
hours for Buildup Test 4.
A fourth point in Ref. 2 is that pressure behavior
beyond the semilog straight line is dependent on drainage shape, well location, and flow time before shut-in.
Each buildup in Fig. 3 apparently has different long
shut-in time behavior, even though all the buildups are
for the same well. Fig. 4, a type-curve match of Buildup Tests 1, 3, and 4, verifies that the entire buildup
behavior is consistent with dimensionless pressure behavior for a particular drainage shape and well location.
Derivation of this type curve and its use for computing
porosity is discussed in the section on matching buildup
data.
Despite the apparent good match between field data
and computed model behavior, Well 2 is a complex
completion.
Well 2 is commingled with at least 95 percent of the
deliverability coming from the bottom few feet of the
welIbore, and 5 percent of deliverability coming from a

%-

Well

Preseure (psig)

;
3

2,897.34
2,854.0
2,893.61

t 098

Datum (ft KB)

5,600(3,662 ft below sea level)
6,100(3,070 ft below sea level)
6,700(3,660 ft below sea level)

Fracture-Zone Thickness:
Well
;

Gross Feet

85
Unknown

65

Perforated Feet
32
Estimated 2-ft partial
penetration

Type Completion:
Completion

Well

Cased hole, three commingled zones over a 540-ft groes interval

Open hole, two commingled zones over
a 500-ft gro== interval
Cased hole, one zone

2
3

270

260

%!I

N.

-*

2!5C

J
IIIDO

10.0

1.0
TIME, HOURS

Fig. 2 Drawdown test, Well 2,

I
I

-=IWAL

Fig. 1 Structure map, contours on top of resewoir.

152
0.62
0.066
0.0052
0.0186
unknown
unknown
0.000274
0.25

Initial Pressure at Start of Interference Test:

2600

r+-r%+-#

REBEFtVOiR DkTA

Formation temperature, F
Gas gravity
Gas gradlent, psilft
B,,, CUftkcf
lb, CP
&
A
c,, psi-*
rw,ft

10

IOi)o
#L

Fig. 3 Buildup tests, Well 2.

JOURNALOF PETROLEUM
technology

zone of undefined thickness more than 400 ft above,

Thelower zone isthenaturally fractured reservoir. Ina
recent study of commingled-zones well tests,3 the approximate end of the semilog straight-line period was
fow ! ,0 bc influenced slightly by the permeability ratio
betv .en the zones. On this basis, the times to the end
of the semilog straight lines observed in Figs. 2 and 3
should be independent of commingling effects and only
a function of drainage shape and well location. However, Ref. 3 shows that the time from the end of the
semi log straight line to the start of pseudosteady state
is influenced by the permeability ratio between the commingled zones. On this basis, the long shut-in time behavior observed in Figs. 2 and 3 is probably influenced
by commingling. An analysis of this effect is outside the
scope of this paper.
Earlougher et al, 4 concluded that, for commingledzone buildup, the semilog straight line ends at about the
same i;rne h would if the layer with smallest value of
(qJI-Lc,/k) acted alone. Our findings appear to be consistent with the Ref. 4 conclusion, Matrix porosity (2.5
percent) and permeability (k < 0. I md) for the unfractured orthoquartzites were cited in the introduction
of this report. Fracture-zone porosity (0.22 percent) and
permeability (48 md) calculated from pressure interference through the fractured zone are presented in a
later section on matching interference data. From these
data, the ratio O/k in the naturally fractured zone is
about 5,700 times lower than the cP/k ratio for the unfractured rocks. The pressure transients create~ by Well
2 (Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 6) like] y represent boundary effects
on]y in the fractursd zone, the zone of lowest ratio

(0 p et/k), because the naturally fractured zone i: the

only zone common to all three wells tind is the only
zone completed at Well 3.
Warren and Root5 described unsteady-state pressure
behavior I an idealized naturally fractured system.
Their model system contained porous matrix blocks
producing into a fracture porosity system. This is sometimes referred to as a two-porosity system. Their
findings were supported by the finite-difference simulation studies of Kazemi.* The fractured-reservoir characterizations of Warren and Root arc similar to those seen
for Buildup Test 3 (Fig, 3), a period of pressure stabilizable

4 BUILDUP TEST 3, WELL 2

Element depth = 6,100 ft KB

f = 31.25 hOIJrS
q = 28.0 MMcf/D
At (hours)

o.
0.017
0.033
0.05
0.067
0.084
:;5
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.68
1.18
1.43
1.68

p, = 2,865 psig

p,.. (psig)
2,571
2,591
2,662
2,697
2,721
2,733
2,740
2,750
2,756
2,760
2,763
2,766
2,768
2,776
2,782
2,784
2,785

At (hours)
1.93
2.93
3.93
4.93
5.93
6.93
7.93
8.93
10.93
14.93
17,93
20.93
29.93
38.93
56.93
62.66

P,.$ (P@l
2,787
2,795
2,800
2,803
2,807
2,809
2,813
2,815
2,818
2,824
2,827
2,831
2,835
2,840
2,845
2,850

TABLE 5 BUILDUP TEST 4 AND DRAWDOWN, WELL 2

Element depth = 6,100 ft KB
p, = 2,665 ps,g

t= 154 hours
TABLE 2 BUILDUP TEST 1, WELL 2

t= 2.0 hours

q = 13.55 MMcf/D
At (hours)
::017
0.033
0.05
0.067
0.083
0.100
0.117
0.133
0.183
0.233

p,., (psig)
2,772
2,777
2,797
2,825
2,837
2,844
2,847
2,850
2,853
2,664
2,868

Element depth = 6,500 tt KB

p, = p = 2,890 psig
At (hours)
0.283
0.333.
0.383
0.433
0.483
0.733
1.000
1.25
1.5
1.75
2.0

Plr. (Psi9)
2,.970
2,872
2,873
2,874
2,875
2,878
2,879
2,881
2,882
2,883
2,883

TABLE 3 BUILDUP TEST 2, WELL 2

Element depth = 6,500 ft KB
t = 6.0 hours
p, = 2,890 psig
q = 21.3 MMcf/D
At (hours)
At (hours)
p,,. (wig)
p,., (psig)

2,849
0.733
0.
2,647
1.0
2,855
2,736
0.033
1.25
2,656
2,763
0.05
1.5
2,784
2,660
0.067
1.75
2,862
2,796
0.083
2,883
2.0
0.100
2,806
2.25
2,865
0.117
2,812
2.5
2,886
2,816
0.133
2,867
2.75
2,824
0.183
2,866
3.0
0.233
2,830
3.5
2,869
0.263
2,835
4.0
2,870
4.5
2,872
2,874
2,875
;:;
SEHEMBER, 1976

q = 28.0 MMcf/D
t (hours)
;:;
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.75
1.
1.25
HI
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0

At (hours)
o.
0.25
0.50
0.75
1,0
1.5
2.0
3.0
%
9.0

Drawdown
t (hours)
(psig)
_Pt~(psi9)

.
2,615
2,739
9.0
10.0
2,612
2,707
11.0
2,607
2,691
2,680
12.0
2,606
14.0
2,600
2,675
16.0
2,598
2,670
18.0
2,594
2,688
2,588
2,666
20.0
24.0
2,582
2,664
2,657
28.0
2,580
2,651
32.0
2,571
2,564
2,645
36.0
40,0
2,640
2,559
44.0
2,552
2,633
48.0
2,629
2,550
2,547
2,625
52.0
Well began heading slugs of
2,619
water of condensation

P,rf

Buildup
At (hours)
Plr. (psi9)
11.0
2,310
15.0
2,869
19.0
2,682
23.0
2,688
27.0
2,693
31.0
2,699
35.0
2,705
41.0
2,713
45.0
2,725
51.0
2,733
57.0
2,742
1,026.0

p,,. (psig)

2747
2,756
2,763
2,770
2,776
2,780
2,788
2,790
2,793
2,797
2.802
2,865
1099

zation between parallel semilog straight lines. Ideally,

for given values of matrix porosity and flow rate, the
pressure level of the stabilization period will depend on
three factors fracture block dimensions, fracture permeability, and matrix permeability all of which may
be considered constant for practical purposes in a given
system, Buildup tests corresponding to unsteady-state
flow periods of different duration but of the same rate
should show stabilization at the same pressure level.
Applying this interpretation to Buildup Tests 3 and 4
(Fig, 3), both should have negative departure at the
same pressure level, both should have two parallel
semilog straight lines, and, in both cases, the second
straight line should extrapolate to the initial pressure.
These characteristics of ideal two-porosity systems are
not observed.
Most of the buildups in Fig. 3 have only one distinct
semilog straight-line period. KazemiG concluded that if
the ratio of matrix permeabilityy-thickness to fracture
permeabilityy-thickness is small, only one straight line is
noticeable. In practice, this could happen if the stabilization period were masked by afterflow, or if matrix
porosity were negligible. In this field case study, porosity was calculated from buildup, interference, and pulse
test data. These porosity values were less than 10 percent of the core-derived porosity values from orthoquartzites, indicating that the matrix does not contribute
significantly to the unsteady-state pressure drawdown
behavior of these tests.

water-drive build~p behavior published by Ramey er

al, 7 for certain well locations in rectangular drainage
shapes with one constant-pressure boundary. Their type
curves, which reflect the influence of closed and
constant-pressure boundaries, were generated using infinite arrays of line sources, This method may be used
to produce type pressure behavior at producing and observation wells for any combination of well location and
outer boundary condition (completely closed systems or
systems with combinations of closed and constantpressure boundaries). Useful computer programs may
be found in Ref. 7.
Ref. 7 lists the entire computer program for generating pressure behavior at any combination of well locations in a water-drive system. Subroutine PRESS may
be modified to a closed system by changing the sign of
the operation in Steps 353 and 359. Subroutine RECPR,
must be rewritteri to make a system with only one or
two constant-pressure boundaries. Total run time to
generate the theoretical pressure behavior in Figs. 4, 7,
and 8 was less than 2 minutes,
Ramey8 found that the porosity-compressibility-area
-moduct can be found from a type-curve match of a
Horner graph of field data for pressure buildup in field
units with a Homer graph of theoretical data in dimensionless units. This is possible because ~he skin-effect

Matching Buildup Data

Fig. 3 is a graph of buildup behavior at Well 2. Tests 3

-?f.-\i&,j

and 4 are at 6, 00 ft KB,* and Tests 1 and 2 are at 6,500

f! KB. Data .,orn Tests 3 and 4 can be shifted ~p 26 psi
to correct to a common datum with Tests I and 2. This
does not affect interpretation, however. All the buildups
have only one distinct semilog straight line; and the
pressure level of the straight line ii proportionate] y
lower as flowing time before shut-in is increased. Pressure always appears to return toward the initial pressure. This set of circumstances is the sarne as for the
KBrepresents

depth

below

4.

l*

kelly base during dnllmg.

00
2907.96

DAY 2
DAY 3
TM 2CALE, HOURS
Fig. 5 Pressure interference at Well 3, located 2 miles
from Well 2.

I -

2.
<
-.3 a
t
E4 -
E
:5 .
&e
6.
I

71

Zsll.sco
i

MCEL WITHStf#lT
~
AT 00M3WJT

I
y91.5 1
Y.$*.12
I

tM+AtM

~s

t+A
-r

1/)0

Fig. 4 Type-curve match of Weli 2 buildup t@s.

Test 1: t= 2.0 hours, p, = 2,890 sig, m = 22 PWcycie.
Test 3: t = 31.25 hours, p, = 2,88 t pslg, m = 40 psdcycle.
Test 4: t= 154 hours, p, = 2,835 psig, m = 40 psi/cycle.
1100

-m, ,
...

. .
,,-...

..- .. .
I
. - -..

s
!

.,.-

~~~-.

,?S,-,..W

Qw
f ~

y=3t

10

.1

..

~ !/#.

.,

t!!ii%

%:&

%$$

W8
Tlk% WALE,

Ik

Fig. 6 Pressure interference at Well 1, located 8 miles

from Weii 2,
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

parameter is eliminated by superposition for pressure

buildup. Unsteady-state pressure at a well may be represented in field units by the following relationship, for
gas flowing at high pressure:
W @i-pU,f) 5.615=
141.2qB#

TABLE 6 p,, VS tf)A

AT A WELL LOCATION X = 3.0, y =
1.5 IN A RECTANGLE OF DIMENSIONS X = tzy = 3.0 WITH
SHORT ENDS AT CONSTANT PRESSURE*

tl,A
0.00010
0.00020
0.00030
0.00040
0.00050
0.00060
0.00070
0.00080
0.00090
0.00100
0.00200
0.C0300
0.00400
0.00500
0.00600
0.00700
0.00800
0.00900
0.01000
0.02000
0.03000
0.04000
0.05000

Pf) (10,4?A/r2,!2)+ .$, . . . . .(1)

and at an obsetwation well,

kh (p,pr,t) 5.615 = p,, [rl,~, weli pattern) ,
141,2qB#

. . .(2)

where
~,,A= 0.000264

ld? t
.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(3)

pc,4h.4

Superposing Eq. 1 to compute static pressure at buildup

times, A t),A,
/)l,s = kh (p,p,rs) 5,615
141.2qBp
=/),, (t,)~ + Ar,,~)
During

pressure

p,, (At,)~)

buildup,

raphs

..........
of

.(4)

JW, vs log

or of,),,,, vs log t (I,,, +At,,,4 h/At,,A are

independent of the van Everdingen-Hurst skin effect,s.
In principle, two unknown parameters, (&lhA ) and
(k/?) may be found. In the present study, kh was calculated from the semilog straight line of Buildup Test 4
(Fig. 3 and Table 5):
[(r+ At)/At]

162.6 qBp
klr = -5.615m
= ( 162.6) (28,000,000) (0,0052) (0.01 86)
(5.615)(40)
=1.960

md-ft.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(5)

Porosity was calculated from the definition of dimenwas obtained

sionless time (Eq. 3), where the ratio t/f/)A
from a Horner type-curve match and all other parameters were known.
obtained from the Horner match
The ratio t/r,),4
md that matches
should be unique if a model can be

tllA

pi]

0.06000
0.07000
0.08000
0.09000
0.15000
0.20000
0.30000
0.40000
0.50009
0.60000
0.70000
0.80000
0.90000
1.00000
2.00000
3.00000
4,00000
5.00000
6.00000
7.00000
8.00000
9.00000
10.00000

8.92431
9.06049
9.16538
9.30060
9.84399
10.16777
10.62166
10.92897
11.15196
11.31985
11.44863
11.54831
11.62577
11.68606
11.86075
11.89644
11.89769
11.89778
11,89779
11.89779
11.69779
11.89779
11.89779

PD
5.52054
5.86712
8.06985
6.21369
6.32526
6.41642
6,49350
6.56026
6.61916
6.67164
7.01841
7.22114
7.36498
7.47655
7.56772
7.64460
7.71160
7.77057
7.82340
8.18084
8.41604
8.80755
. 8.77456

Ah,, = 36 x 1LW(O.25)?

reservoir performance in the following ways: ( 1)

semilog straight-line periods for all buildups match
model behavior at equivalent ratios of r/tl,,t; (2) time to
the end of the semilog straight line is matched; and (3)
the entire buildup behavior of all tests match the type
curves. The model found to satisfy these criteria best
was a 4:1 rectangle with short ends at constant pressure.
and the well at x,, = 2.25, yl, = 0.5. This model and
the type-curve matches are shown in Fig. 4, and the
theoretical drawdown data for the model are given in
Table 6.
From Buildup Test 4 (Fig. 4), the ratio t/f,,A is 154
hours. Permeability-thickness was previously calculated
to be 1,960 md-ft. All other reservoir properties except
area are as given in Table 1. Width of the model was

true

100

10.0

!1

&

no

s
~

y =0

X80
=+X.7X89

al?
10

al

-1
II 3
,D

X8
t, HRs

t, HRS

1
moo

Lo

1000

t DA

Fig. 7 Type-cuwe match of Well 3 interference.

SEPTEMBER, 1976

10

sol

Im

0.1

1,
low

I
m

la

t DA
Fig, 8 Type-curve match of Well 1 interference.

la
>

set at 3 miles. and a length of 12 miles was chosen to

include all three wells in the same drainage system, requiring We!i 1 to occupy the position xl, = 11/12 and
Well 3 to occupy the position xl, = 1/12 (compare the
map in Fig. 1 with the model schematic in Fig. 4),
Porosity was computed by reamanging Eq. 3:
0.000264 kh r
p c, it A t[,~

d=

(0.000264)(1 ,960)(154)
= @.0186)(0 .00074)(75)(3x 12x 5,280x 5,280)
= 0.00021 fraction oi bulk volume , ., . . . . . .(6)
This value of 0.021 percent is unusually small. However, the agreement bet ween the model and field data
shown in Fig, 4 is convincing. Nevertheless, it was decided to run detailed interference tests to verify the
porosity determination. An estimation of the initial gas
in place was the prime objective.
TABLE 7 INTERFERENCE AND PULSE DATA AT
WELL$ 1 AND 3, WELL 2 FLOWING
q = 12.4 MMcf/D
Element depth: Well 1 5,600 ft KB (3,662 ft below sea
level)
Well 3 6,700 ft KB (3,660 f! below sea
level)
Type gauge: quartz crystal
Well spacing: Well 2 to 3 2 miles
Well 2 to 1 8 miles
Interference at Wells 1 and 3
t(hours)

Pulee Data at Well 3

..
PI - P(PW
20.27
19.55
18.91

t(hours]

646
672
696
Opened
Well 2
700
704
708
Shut in
Well 2
712
716
720
724
728
Opened
Well 2
732
736
740
Shut in
Well 2
744
746
752

-24
0
24
48

p1(@9)
2,897.345
2,897.345
2,897.335
2,897.332

p3(wi9)
2,893.80
2,893.81
2,892.96
2,891.10

72
96
120
144

2,897.315
2,697.297
2,897.269
2,897.218

2,889.09
2,887.15
2,885.2
2,883.55

169
216
240
264
288
312

2,897.164
2,897.055
2,896.965
2,896.912
2,896.833
2,896.756

2,881.88
2,879.01
2,877.66
2,876.36
2,675.09
2,673.84

336
360
384
408

2,896.662
2,896.582
2,896.476
2,896.406

2,872.63
2,871.46
2,870.31
2,869.15

432

2,867.99
2,896.330
2,867.41
2,896.299
Shut in
Well 2
756
2,866,75
2,896.133
760
2,867.69
2,896.014
764
2,868.82
2,695.916
768
2,869.94
2,895.82
776
2,870.97
2,895.718
780
2,871.91
2,895.616
2,872.76
2,895.529
;2
2,873.54
2,895.446
2,895.376
792
2,87A.26
2,895.312
2,874.90
ODen Well 2 for rwlsina
2;895.239
2,074.752,895.170
2,874.61
Pulled element at Well 1

450
480
504
528
552
576
600
624
648
672
696
720
744
1102

1878
18.76
18.79

18.87
16.98
19.06
19.09
19.09
19.08
19.06
19.11

19.20
19.33
19.42
19.48
19,48
19.46
19.41
19.29
19.2?
19.12
19.02
18.93

Matching Interference Data

The interference test was conducted to test communication of the zone of fractured orthequartzites between
wells and to test the porosity value calculated by typecurve matching of buildup data. The test was performed
by flowing Well 2 at a constant rate and monitoring
bottom-hole pressure at Wells 3 and 1 with quartzcrystal gauges sensitive to &0.005 psi. The wells were
all shut in during the 13-month period before the interference test. Interference records from Wells 1 and 3
are in Table 7. Table 7 includes a 450-hour interference
test. followed by a 246-hour buildup period, followed
in turn by a pulse test.
Figs. 5 and 6, Cartesian-coordinate graphs of pressure vs time at Wells 3 and 1, respective y, show the
static pressure record in each well before starting flow
at Well 2, and a portion of the transient pressures after
Wel! 2 was opened. The sinusoidal pressure behavior at
both wells before beginning flow at Well 2 is a res[lt of
lunar gravitational forces on the stress within the earth.
This effect is usually referred to as an earth tidal
effect, *7 Pressure at Well 3 (2 miles from Well 2)
dropped below the static trend 4 hours after Well 2
was opened, The trend at Well 1 (8 miles from Well
2) showed a definite decline within 24 hours after Well
2 was produced.
To analyze the interference data, log-log graphs of.
field data (log Ap vs log t)were compared with log-log
graphs of type data (log IJ,) vs log t,)A ). This type-CUrVe
method as applied to analysis of interference data in
pumping water wells is presented in detail by Witherspoon et al.9 Ref. 7 presents a practical application to
gas-well tests. Type-curve data for models with various
combinations of weIl location, drainage shape, and
boundary conditions were generated by superposition of
infinite arrays of line sources, Matthews et al. 10 (see
also Earlougher e( al. 1) demonstrated the use of the
principle of superposition to generate pressure behavior
in closed rectangular shapes, both at the well and at
points distant from the well. Earlougher and Ramey12
have published tables of dimensionless pressures as a
function of dimensionless time in several closed rectangular shapes; they also present the use of type-curve
matching techniques to compute porosity, permeability,
and drainage area from interference data.
The drainage area and boundary conditions were set
in this case study by matching the shape of interference
data at Wells 3 and 1. A unique solution to behavior at
each well taken alone was difficult, or impossible, The
pressure trend at Well 1 was gradual and difficult to
detect. The behavior at Well 3 showed a definite influence from parallel closed boundaries, but a good match
could be obtained with several well locations and drainage shapes. For these reasons, an assumption was made
that one model consistent with interference behavior at
both wells should reflect average reservoir conditions
throughout the drainage area. This required that one
model be found that would match the field data from
and AP/Plj.
both wells at the same ratios of t/tD.4
A model that matched interference behavior at both
wells reasonably well was a 6:1 rectangle with short
ends at constant pressure. This model and the typecurve matches for Wells 3 and 1 are shown in Figs. 7
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

and 8, respective y, The model was based on rectangular dimensions of 18 x 3 miles. These dimensions are
the same as for the dashed contour in Fig. 1. These are
the drainage limits that were estimated from geologic
and production test data assuming a uniform gas-water
contact,
Match points in Figs. 7 and 8 are
~~~=7.5x

10-4 r, hours,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(7)

and
)JD=o.12A]~,

pSi

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(8)

In Fig. 7, type curves for an observation point at

coordinates x = 7, y = 1.5 are presented for two cases:
(1) both short ends of the model at constant pressure,
and (2) all boundaries closed. Dimensionless pressures
M a function of dimensionless time for bot~j these cases
are also given in Table 8. Within the 450-hour time
frame of the interference test, the field data matched
both cases equally well. At 450 hours and a dimensionless time of r~~ = 0.3375, the difference between the
two pressure curves is only pf, = 0.0347, which is
equivalent to 0.2895 psi using the match points for conversion between field and dimensionless units. Beyond
this time, the two type curves diverge. During the pulse
test (Table 7), field data matched the constant-pressure
type curve within 0.15 psi, but the closed model would
have predicted a pressure drop 3 psi greater than was
actually recorded. This appears to demonstrate the conformance of field data at Well 3 to the constant-pressure
model.
In Fig. 8, type curves for observation points x = 17.0
and x = 17.5 are presented for the constant-pressure
model. Field data matched be type behavia for the observation point x = 17.5 late in the test, but did not
approach the other type-curve shape at any time during
the test. To be consistent with actual well spacing between Wells 2 and 1, the field data should match type
d~ta for the location x = 17.0. This inconsistency is not
critical considering the 8-mile spacing. Table 8 presents
type behavior for the observation point x = 17.5 for
both the constant-pressure case and the closed model.
This comparison demonstrates that the clcsed model
would have had pressure drops much greater than the
constant-pressure model throughout the test, The closed
model., therefore, would not match field data as well as
the constant-pressure case.
Permeability was computed by rearranging Eq. 2 and
substituting the match point (Eq. 8), and the field data
from Table 1:
~ = 141.2 qB~ Pl)
5,615 h Ap
= (141 .2)( 12.4x 106)(0.0052)(0.0186)(0. 12)
(5.615)(75)
=48,3md.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(9)

Porosity was calculated by rearranging Eq. 3 and

substituting the match point (Eq. 7), the reservoir data
from Table 1, and reservoir dimensions from the interference model:
~ = gooo264 M?f =
@ C~ h A t&r
SEPl%MBER, 1976

(0.000264)(75)(48.3)
0.018600.000274*75*3x
18x5280x5280*7.5x
= 0.0022 fraction bulk volume

10-+

. . . . . . . . . . . . .(10)

The permeability value computed from the type-curve

match of interference data is the same as the value calculated from the buildup data recorded at Well 2 immediately after the interference test. Buildup Test 5
(Fig. 9 and Table 9) has a semilog slope of 9.5 psi/
cycle, from which the permeability was computed using
Eq. 5:
k=

(162.6)(] 2.4x 10)(0.0052){0.0186)

(5.615)(9.5)(75)

=48.7

mcl.

... ,., ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(11)

Buildup Test 5 was modeled in the same manner as

Buildup Tests 1 through 4, Fig. 10 is the type-curve
match for Buildup Test 5. The field data have a stairTABLE 8 P,, VS t,,. AT Observation
poiNTS IN A
RECTANGLE OF DIMENSIONS X =18, y =3.0, WITH THE
PRODUCING WELL AT X = 9, y =1 ,5
constant

t),a

0.00010
0.00020
0,00030
0.00040
0.00050
0.00060
0.00070
0.00080
0.00090
0.00100
0.00200
0.00300
0.00400
0.00500
0.00600
0.00700
0.00800
0.00800
0.01000
0.02000
0.03000
0.04000
0.05000
0.06000
0.07000
0.08000
0.09000
0.10000
0.20000
0.30000
0.40000
0!50000
0.60000
0.70000
0.80000
0.90000
1.00000
2.00000
3.00000
4.00000
5.00000
6.00000
7.00ooo
8.00000
9.m
10.00000

Pressure Ends

Closed Ends

x= 7.0,
y= 1.5

x= 17.5,
y=l.5

x= 7.0,
y= 1.5

x=1 7.5,
y= 1.5

0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.000oo
0.00000
O.CQOOO
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00015
0.00089
000271
0.00585
0.01031
0.01600
0.02275
0.03042
0.13730
0.26824
0.40479
0.54032
0.67250
0.80057
0.92443
1.04420
1.16012
2.15752
2.95806
3.62657
4.19097
4.66855
5.07256
5.41402
5.70230
5.94545
7.00735
7,19425
7,22722
7.23309
7.23415
7.23434
7.23437
7,23438
7.23438

0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.000co
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00002
0.00013
0.00046
0.00119
0.00242
0.00424
0.00667
0.05576
0.11967
0.17929
0.23108
0.27524
0.31267
0.34432
0.37104
0.39358
0.49203
0.50936
0.51242
0.51296
0.51306
0.51308
0.51308
0.51308
0.51308

0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00015
0.00089
0.00271
0.00585
0.01031
0.01600
0.02275
0.03042
0.13730
0.26824
0.40479
0.54032
0.67250
0.80057
0,92443
1.04420
1.16012
2.15695
2.97888
3.70320
4.38226
5.03685
5.67877
6.31414
6.94610
7.57630
13.85958
20.11841
26.31373
32.40935
38.38307
44.22417
49.92942
55.50004
60.93974

0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00002
0.00017
0.00071
0.00199
0.00444
0.00846
0.01437
0.20257
0.58986
1.09240
1.65552
2.25008
2.86092
3.46019
4.10383
4.72973
11.00844
17.28727
23.48259
29.55822
35.53194
41.37304
47.07829
52.64691
58.08861
1103

step appearance caused by the low sensitivity of the

bourdon tube gauge. The computed permeability was
the same as that found from interference data, and the
type-curve match v.as consistent with findings from
the previous buildups, In Fig. 10 the match point is
approximate y

TABLE 9 BUILDUP TEST 5, WELL 2

Element depth = 6,100 ft KB
p, = 2,665 psig

t= 450 hours
q = 12.4 MMcf/D
At(hours)

At(hours)

p,.,(psig)
2,747
2,769
2,774
2,787
2,792
2,794
2,794
2,797
2,797
2,: dd
2,802
2,802

0.
0.05
0.1
0.2
3.3
0.4
0.5
0.75
;:
3.
4.

P.S(PS19)
.
2,802
2,804
2,607
2,809
2,812
2,914
2,814
2,817
2,817
2,819
2,629
2,835

6.
8.
10.
12.
16.
20.
24.
28.
36.
44.
150.5
246.

titt)A
= 450hours/1.5

Porosity was computed from Buildup Test 5 using

Eq. 6, the match point (Eq. 11), and the field data from
TabI~ 1:
~=

(0.000264)(48,7)(75)(300)
(0.01 86)(0.000274)(75)(3x 12x 5,280x 5,280)

=0.00075
2840

Matching Puke Data

eo~

:~j~cycle

27s0 -

e
0

2760 .

274~5

-w

Fig. 9 Buildup Test 5, Well 2.

.2

The rate schedule and pressure responses during the

pulse test are given in Table 7. Well 1, 8 miles from
Well 2, responded only to the first flow period of 450
hours, and pressure at that well continued a monotonic
decline throughout the five subsequent rate changes.
Well 3, 2 miles from Well 2, responded to all the rate
changes. Pressure behavior at Well 3 during the 450hour interference test showed convincing evidence of
closed-boundary effects, Boundary effects were apparenl at Well 3 from the start of measured pressure resDonse. 4 hours after Well 2 was uut on Production.
~herefore, it was necessary to consider boundary effects
to analyze the pulse-test data proper] y. To the authors
knowledge, there is no published application of pulsetest analysis in the presence of reservoir boundaries.
A satisfactory analysis of pulse behavior in the presence of boundary effects can be accomplished by
graphically matching field pulse data with- theoretical
pulse data generated for specified combinations of
drainage shape, boundary conditions, well locations,
porosity, and permeability. Fig. 11 is one such match
using the same model and porosity and permeability
tialues that had been found previously from interference
data. Where one or more parameters are unknown, a
tnal-and-euor approach can be applied using assumed
values. This method was applied in this case study to
solve the interference data, but the same results should
have bqen obtained working only with short-time pulse
data. The following discussion explains Fig. 11.
Table 10 is a tabulation of pressure at Well 3 vs time
for each of the six pressure transients. Time is in hours
and pressure is in dimensionless units, These pressures
were obtained from Table 8 for z well at coordinates
x = 7.0, y = 1.5. This was accomplished by converting
real times in Table 10 to dimensionless units using .he
match point (Eq. 7). The dimensionless pressure corresponding to this dimensionless time was interpolated
from Table 8. The six dimensionless pressures in each
row in Table 10 were summed to obtain the forecast
pressure drop. The forecast pressure drop was converted
to field units using the match point (Eq. 8).
Fig. 11 is a graph of forecast (computed) pressure
drop and actual measured pressure drop vs time for
Well 3, Actual and computed lag time in Fig, 11 are
identical, but the computed pulse amplitude is 0.2 psi
compared with an actual puise amplitude of 0.15 psi.

m?&
% W17Hm
CON8TAN7

I
~

. . ..(13)

% eeee

5
n
U- 2800
e

..,..,,.,.............,..

2820 -

= 300 hours . . . . . . . . . ..(12)

, ~*j,2

6 .
I

M!?!JA.EQL
AtM

Fig. 10 Type-curve match of Buildup Test 5, Well 2.

WRATION OF PULSETEST, HR8.

Fig. 11 Type-cuwe match of pulee8 at Well 3.

JOURNAL OF PETROLELIM TECHNOLOGY

1104
i

TABLE 10 COMPUTATION OF THE PULSE TVPE CURVE FOR POINT X =7.0, y =1 ,5, USING THE
CONSTANT-PRESSURE MODEL, TABLE 8, AT MATCH POINTS PO= 0.12AP, tl)~ = 7.5 x lo-4t

~1

+P/J,

iii8
672
696
700
704

4.1175
4.2116
4.3030
4.3176
4.3383

708
712
716
720
724
728
732
736
740
744
748
752
756
760
764

4.3473
4.3621
4.3766
4.3916
4.4060
4.4203
4.4346
4.4490
4.4633
4.4776
4.4915
4.5054
4.5194
4.5333
4.5472

At.z
~6
z:
250
254
258
262
266
270
274
278
282
286
290
%
302
306
310
314

t? is the time coordinate

-P02

L?*

1.6750
1,8501
2.0178
2.0450
2.0721
2.0992
2.1263
2.1529
2.1790
2.2050
2.2311
2.2572
2.2833
2.3089
2.3340
2.3592
2.3843
2.4095
2.4346
2.4593

+P03

At,

_-PO.

t,

+P/15

At.

Pile

2.4425
2.3615
2.2851
2.2729
2.2664

First Pulse
4
8

0.0002
0.0058

12

0.0226
0.0480
0.0787
0.1130
0.1498
0.1882
0.2279
0.2682
0.3090
0.3501
0.3911
0.4321
0.4729
0,5134
0.5537

;;
24
28
32
36
40
:
52
56
60
64
68

Shut-in
4
8
l?
1(j
20
24
26
32
36
40
44
48
52
56

0.0002
0.0056
0.0228
0.0480
0.0787
0.1130
0.1498
0.1683
0.2279
0.2682
0.3091
0.3501
0.3911
0.4321

: p,,,**
/=1

Secrmd
4
8
12
X
24
28
32
36

Pulse
0.0002
0.0058
0.0228
0.0480
0,0787
0.1130
C.1498
0.1882
0.2279

. Shut-in
4
0.0002
8
0.0058
12
0.0228
16
0.0480
20
0.078?
24
0.1130

2.2708
2.2837
2.2988
2.3029
2.3028
2.2987
2.2924
2.2900
2.2979
2.3136
2.3261
2.3344
2.3344
2.3305
2.3240

in Fig, 11.

c
;
j=

p,,,/O.12 is the pressure coordinate m F!g. 11

1

used to match entire pressure buildup, interference, and

pulse-test histories for determination of porosity, permeability, and drainage area. Although this method has
been presented in well-test analysis literature for aralyzing interference data, its practical application for
Summary and Conclusicms
analyzing buildup and pulse data in the presence of resIn the preceding paragraphs, reservoir porosity and ervoir limits has not been illustrated previously to our
permeability were calculated from pressure-buildup and knowledge.
pressure-interference tests. Permeabilities from BuildIt generally has been believed that it was not possible
up Test 5 and the interference test were 48.7 and 48.3
to estimate porosity from a pressure buildup test. The
md, respective] y. Fractional porosity from the interferreason for this belief is the skin effect, However, the
ence tests was 0.0022, which is considered to be represkin effect cancels out of pressure-buildup interpretative
sentative of average effective porosity within the drainequatiom because of superposition. The skin effect does
age area of 54 sq miles established by the interference
not cancel from pressure drawdown data in a well. It is
model. Porosity from Buildup Test 4 following a 154- necessary to know either skin effect or porosity to find
hour flow is 0.00021, but porosity from Buildup Test 5 the other for a drawdown test. In any event, it is necesfollowing a 450-hour flow is 0.00075. This suggests
sary to know the initial pressure before production to be
able to compute the dimensionless field buildup presthat porosity from buildup tests may be more representative of average drainage-area porosity the longer the sures. Demonstration of determination of porosity from
well is flowed before shut-in.
a pressure buildup test is one of the important findings
Porosity of 0.0022 and permeability of 48 md are of th, study.
The field pressure behavior was shown to be conconsistent with published values of fracture porosity and
sistent with transient pressure behavior in a rectangupermeability in naturally fractured reservoirs, Stearns
lar drainage shape with a combination of closed and
and Friedman] 3 summarized the work of several authors
on this subject. They quote the work of Elkinsl 4 on constant-pressure boundaries. Thc physical reason for
porosity and permeability relationships in the Spraberry
the constant-pressure effeet is open to question. There is
sandstone reservoir. Elk ins determined that 16-red perno direct evidence proving that there is active water
meabilityy would be provided by fractures 0.0011 in. movement on the e,lds of the anticline. Possibly the
wide spaced 4 in. apart. This equates to a fracture
pressure support during transient testing is provided by
porosity of 0.001 in a cubic matrix system, or 0.0005 in the low-permeability commingled zones at Wells 1 and
a two-dimensional fracture lattice. Snow15 has pre2. This hypothesis maybe consistent with the fact that a
sented porosity and permeability data on shallow borefalse, low initial pressure was required to match Buildholes. He reports fracture widths typically from 0.002 to up Tests 4 and 5 at Well 2. The low-permeability zone
0.004 in. Average fracture porosity found for all the core
was at a lower initial pressure than the f~acture zone,
data tabulated by Snow was 0.00011, and permeability
therefore, during pressure buildup, crossflow to the
corresponding to that porosity was 108 md.
low-permeability zone should occur when wellbore
Reservoir limits were simulated by infinite arrays of pressure rises above the pressure level of the lowline sources. Type curves generated in this manner were permeability zone. It is not known how this might affeet

Throughout
in 0.1-5 psi
permeability
interference

the tests, computed pressure drop is withof actual pre&ure drop, using the same
and porosity obtained from the previous
test.

SEPTEMBER, 1976

1105

late transient behavior and the accuracy of porosity and

drainage-area values that were calculated from typecurve matches of buildup data.
Finally, the remarkable data obtained with the highprecision quartz-crystal pressure gauge are also an important result of this study. The earth-tide effect and the
rapid interference response between two wells, 2 to 8
miles apart in a gas reservoir, are vividly shown in the
unique data in Figs, 5 and 6. Admittedly, the rapid response in a gas reservoir was a result of the extraordinarily low apparent porosity of the subject fractured reservoir. The ability to detect such low porosity with
in-place pressure transient testing is an important finding of this study. A necessary ingredient was highprecision pressure measurement.
The ability to measure pressures with such high accuracy constitutes a major breakthrough in pressure transient testing. Many new and remarkable methods are
certain to follow rapidly.

Nomenclature
A= drainage area, sq ft
B=
c-r=
h=
k=
m=
p=
q=
r =

s=
t=
A r=

x=
y=
C6=
P =

formation volume factor, cu fthcf

total compressibility, psi-1
reservoir thickness, ft
permeability, md
slope of straight-line portion of the semi log
pressure plot, psi/cycle
pressure, psi
flow rate, cu ft/D
radius, ft
skin effect
flowing time, hours
shut-in time, hours
coordinate point in length, miles
coordinate point in width, miles
porosity
viscosity

Subscripts
D=
DA =
~=
g=

dimensionless units
dimensionless area-based twits
flowing
gas
i = initial conditions

Original manuscript recewd

[n Suc!aty of Petro164m Engineers ofhce July 28.
1975. Paper accepted for publ,catlon Jan. 7.1976.
Rewaed manuscript
received
July 1.1976. Paper (SPE 5596) wae fwst presented at the SPE-AIME
50th Annual
Fall Technical Conference
and Exhtbmon.
held In Dallaa. Sept. 28-Ott.
1.1975.
8 Copyright
1976 Amancan Inatnute of Mining, Metallurgical.
and Petroleum
E ngmeers. Inc.
Thm paper w ill tre included

1106

tin the 1976

Transactions vnlume.

j = summation index for time steps

L = lag
r = radial distance fr~m producer
s = shut-in
r = time
w = wellbore
References
1. Homer, D. R.: PressureBuild-Upin Wells, Proc., Third
World Pet. Corrg.. The Hague, E. J. Brill, Leiden ( 1951) 11.503.
2. Remey, H. J., Jr., andCobb, W. M.: A General Pressure BuiIdup Theory for a Well in a Closed Drainage Area, J. Per. Tech.
(Dee. 1971) 1493-1505; Trans., AtME, 251.
3. Cobb, W. M., Remey, H. J., .rr., and Miller, F. G.: Well.Test
Analysis for Wells Producitlg Commingled Zones, J. Pet.
Tech. (Jan. 1972) 27-37; Trans., AIME, 253.
4. Earlougher, R. C., Jr., Kersch, K. M., end Kunzman, W. J.:
Some Characteristics of Pressure Buildup Behavior in Bounded
Multiple-Layered Reservoirs Without Crossflow, J. Pet. Tech.
(Oct. 1974) 1178-1186 Trans., AIME, 257.
5. Warren, J. E. end Root, P. J.: The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. SOc. Per, Eng. J. (Sept. 1963) 245-255;
Trans., AIME, 228.
6. Kezemi, H.: Pressure Transient Analysis of Naturall y Fractured
Reservoirs With Uniform Fracture Distribution. Sot. Pet. Eng.
J. (Dec. 1969)451-462: Trans., AIME, 246.
7. kamey, H. :., Jr., Kumar, A., end Gulati, M.: Gas We// Tes[
Analysis Under Water-DriveConditions. AGA, Arlington, Va.
(1973) Chap. 4.
of ReservoirPore volume by
8. Remey, H. J., Jr.: Determination
Pressure Buildup Analysis, lecture notes, Stanford U., SIerrford, Calif. (1973). See also Ref. 16.
9. Witherspoon, P. A., Javandel, 1., Neuman, S. P., and Freeze, R.
A.: Interpretation of Aquifer Gas Srorage Conditions From
WaferPumping Tests, Monograph on Project NS-3?, AGA. Arlington, Va. ( 1967).
10. Matthews, C. S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: A Method for
Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir.
Trans., AIME (1954) 201.182-191.
II. Eerlougher, R. C., Jr., Remey, H. J., Jr., Miller, F. G,. end
MuelIer, T. D.: Pressure Distributions in Rectangular Reservoirs, J. Per. Tech. (Feb. 1968) 199-208; Trans., AIME, 243.
12. Earlougher, R. C., Jr., and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: hrterference
Analysis in Bounded Systems, J. Cdn. Pet Tech. (Ott .-Dec.
1973) 12, No. 4, 33.
13. Stearns, D. W. attd Friedman, M.: Reservoirs in Fractured
Rock, AAPG Memoir 16 (1972) 82.106.
14. Elkins, L. F.: Reservoir Performance and Well Spacing,
Sprabemy Trend Area Field of West Texas. Trans., AIME
(1953) 198, 177-196.
15. Snow, D. T.: Rock Fracture Spacings, Openings, and
Porosities, Proc, Jour., Soil Mechanics and Found. Div.,
ASCE (Jan. 1968) 73-91.
16. Andrade, P. J. V.: .General Pressure fhi[dup Graphs for Wells
Closed Shapes, MS thesis, Starrford U.. Stanford, Cclif. (Aug.
1974).
17. Sterling, A. and Smets, E.: Study of Earth Tides, Earthquakes,
and Terrestrial Spectroscopy by Analysis of the Level Fluctuations in a Borehole at Heibaart (Belgium), Geoph.vs. J.. Royal
Astronomicrd Sot. (197 I) 23, 225-242.
~T

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY