(Blasingame) SPE 103204

SPE 103204
The Pressure Derivative Revisited Improved Formulations and Applications

N. Hosseinpour-Zonoozi, D. Ilk, and T. A. Blasingame, SPE, Texas A&M University
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 2427 September 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The proposed work provides a new definition of the pressurederivative function [i.e., the -derivative function, pd(t)],
which is defined as:
d ln(p)
1 dp pd (t )
=
t
=
d ln(t )
p dt
p
(pd(t) is the "Bourdet" well testing derivative)
This formulation is based on the "power-law" concept (i.e., the
derivative of the logarithm of pressure drop with respect to the
logarithm of time) this is not a trivial definition, but rather
a definition that provides a unique characterization of "powerlaw" flow regimes.
pd (t ) =
The "power-law" flow regimes uniquely defined by the pd(t)

function are: [i.e., a constant pd(t) behavior]
Case
z Wellbore storage domination:
z Reservoir boundaries:
Closed reservoir (circle, rectangle, etc.).
2-Parallel faults (large time).
3-Perpendicular faults (large time).
z Fractured wells:
Infinite conductivity vertical fracture.
Finite conductivity vertical fracture.
z Horizontal wells:
Formation linear flow.
pd(t)
1
1
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/4
1/2
In addition, the pd(t) function provides unique characteristic

responses for cases of dual porosity (naturally-fractured) reservoirs.
The pd(t) function represents a new application of the traditional pressure derivative function, the "power-law"
differentiation method (i.e., computing the dln(p)/dln(t) derivative) provides an accurate and consistent mechanism for
computing the primary pressure derivative (i.e., the Cartesian
derivative, dp/dt) as well as the "Bourdet" well testing

derivative [i.e., the "semilog" derivative, pd(t)=dp/dln(t)].
The Cartesian and semilog derivatives can be extracted directly from the power-law derivative (and vice-versa) using the
definition given above.
Objectives
The following objectives are proposed for this work:
z To develop the analytical solutions in dimensionless form as
well as graphical presentations (type curves) of the -derivative
functions for the following cases:
Wellbore storage domination.
Reservoir boundaries (homogeneous reservoirs).
Unfractured wells (homogeneous and dual porosity reservoirs).
Fractured wells (homogeneous and dual porosity reservoirs).
Horizontal wells (homogeneous reservoirs).
z To demonstrate the new -derivative functions using type
curves applied to field data cases using pressure drawdown/buildup and injection/falloff test data.
Introduction
The well testing pressure derivative function,1 pd(t), is known
to be a powerful mechanism for interpreting well test behavior
it is, in fact, perhaps the most significant single development in the history of well test analysis. The pd(t) function as defined by Bourdet et al. [i.e., pd(t)=dp/dln(t)] provides a constant value for the case of a well producing at a
constant rate in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir.
That is, pd(t) = constant during infinite-acting radial flow behavior.
This single observation has made the Bourdet derivative,
pd(t), the most used diagnostic in pressure transient analysis
but what about cases where the reservoir model is not infinite-acting radial flow? Of what value then is the pd(t)
function?
The answer is somewhat complicated in light of the fact that
the Bourdet derivative function has almost certainly been
generated for every reservoir model in existence. Reservoir
engineers have come to use the characteristic shapes in the
Bourdet derivative for the diagnosis and analysis of wellbore
storage, boundary effects, fractured wells, horizontal wells,
and heterogeneous reservoirs. For this work we prepare the derivative for all of those cases but for heterogeneous reservoirs, we only consider the case of a dual porosity reservoir
with pseudosteady-state interporosity flow.
The challenge is to actually define a flow regime with a
N. Hosseinpour-Zonoozi, D. Ilk, and T. A. Blasingame
particular plotting function. For example, a derivative-based

plotting function that could classify a fractured well by a
unique signature would be of significant value as would be
such functions which could be used for wellbore storage,
boundary effects, horizontal wells, and heterogeneous reservoir systems.
The purpose of this work is to demonstrate that the "powerlaw" -derivative formulation does just that it provides a
single plotting function which can be used (in isolation) as a
mechanism to interpret pressure performance behavior for systems with wellbore storage, boundary effects, fractured wells,
horizontal wells.
The power-law derivative formulation is given by:
d ln(p)
1 dp pd (t )
.................... (1)
pd (t ) =
=
t
=
d ln(t )
p dt
p
where pd(t) is the "Bourdet" well testing derivative.
In Appendix A we provide the definitions of the power-law derivative function for various reservoir models as shown
below. The graphical solution (or "type curve") for each case
of interest is shown in Appendix B, and categorized as shown
below.
Specific pd(t) Case:
Wellbore storage domination:
Reservoir boundaries:
z Closed reservoir
z Infinite-acting (incl. WBS)
z 2-Parallel faults
z 3-Perpendicular faults
Fractured wells:
z Infinite cond. vert. fracture
z Finite cond. vert. fracture
Dual porosity reservoirs:
z Unfractured well
z Fractured well
Horizontal wells:
z Formation linear flow
pd(t)
App. A
Table
App. B
Figs.
A-1
4,11-20
1
--1/2
1/2
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-4
1,2,25
4
3
3
1/2
1/4
A-5
A-6
10,11
10,12-14
-----
A-7
A-8
5-9
15-20
1/2
A-9
21-24
The origin of the -derivative formulation pd(t) was an

effort by Sowers2 to demonstrate that this formulation would
provide a consistently better estimate of the Bourdet derivative
function, pd(t), than the either the "Cartesian" or the "semilog" formulations. For orientation, we present the definition
of each derivative formulation below:
The "Cartesian" pressure derivative is defined as:
dp
.............................................................. (2)
dt
where pPd(t) is also known as the "primary pressure derivative" [ref. 3 (Mattar)].
The "semilog" or "Bourdet" pressure derivative is defined as:
pPd (t ) =
dp
............................................................... (3)
pd (t ) = t
dt
Recalling that the " " pressure derivative is defined as:
1 dp pd (t )
d ln(p)
.................... (1)
pd (t ) =
=
t
=
d ln(t )
p dt
p
SPE 103204
solving for the "Cartesian" or "primary pressure derivative,"

dp p
=
pd (t ) ........................................................ (4)
dt
t
solving for the "semilog" or "Bourdet" pressure derivative,
pd (t ) = p pd (t ) .................................................... (5)
Now the discussion turns to the calculation of these derivatives what approach is best? Our options are:
1. A simple finite-difference estimate of the "Cartesian" (or "primary") pressure derivative [pPd(t)=dp/dt].
2. A simple finite-difference estimate of the "semilog" (or "Bourdet") pressure derivative [pd(t)=dp/dln(t)].
3. Some type of weighted finite-difference or central difference estimate of either the "Cartesian" or "semilog" pressure derivative
functions. This is the approach of Bourdet et al.1 and Clark and
van Golf-Racht4 this formulation is by far the most popular
technique used to compute pressure derivative functions for the
purpose of well test analysis, and will be presented in detail in
the next section.
4. Other more elegant and more statistical sophisticated algorithms
have been proposed for use in pressure transient (or well test)
analysis, but the Bourdet et al. algorithm (and its variations)
continue to be the most popular approach, most likely due to the
simplicity and consistency of this algorithm. To be certain, the
Bourdet et al. algorithm does not provide the most accurate estimates of the derivative functions, but the predictability of the
algorithm is very good, and the purpose of the derivative is as a
diagnostic function, not a function used to provide an exact estimate.
Some of the other algorithms proposed for estimating the various pressure derivative functions are summarized below:
Moving polynomial or another type of moving regression
function. This is generally referred to as a "window" approach (or "windowing").
Spline approximation by Lane et al.5 is a powerful approach,
but as pointed out in a general assessment of the computation
of the pressure derivative (Escobar et al.6), the spline approximation requires considerable user input to obtain the "best
fit" of the data, and for that reason, the method is less desirable than the traditional (i.e., Bourdet et al.1) formulation.
Gonzalez et al.7 applied a combination of power-law and
logarithmic functions to represent the characteristic signal and
regression was used to find the "best-fit" to the data over a
specified window.
Cheng et al.8 utilized the fast Fourier transform and frequency-domain constraints to improve Bourdet algorithm by
optimizing the size of search window and they also used a
Gaussian filter to denoise the pressure derivative data. This
resulted in an adaptive smoothing procedure that uses recursive differentiation and integration.
Calculation of the -Derivative Function
To minimize the effect of truncation error, Bourdet et al.1 introduced a weighted central-difference derivative formula:
t R
p L
t L
p R
dp
=
+
.......(6a)
d [ ln( t )] t L + t R t L t L + t R t R
where:
tL = ln(tcalc) ln(tleft)........................................... (6b)
tR = ln(tright) ln(tcalc) ..........................................(6c)
pL = pcalc pleft .................................................... (6d)
pR = pright pcalc ....................................................(6e)
The left- and right-hand subscripts represent the "left" and

"right" neighbor points located a specified distance (L) from
the objective point. The calc subscript represents the point of
interest at which the derivative is to be computed. As for the
SPE 103204
L-value, Bourdet gives only general guidance as to its selection, but we have long used a formulation where L is the fractional proportion of a log-cycle (log10 base). Therefore, L=0.2
would translate into a "search window" of 20 percent of a logcycle from the point in question.
This search window approach (i.e., L) helps to reduce the influence of data noise on the derivative calculation. However,
choosing a "small" L-value will cause Eq. 6a to revert to a
simple central-difference between a point and its nearest
neighbors, and data noise will be amplified. On the contrary,
choosing a "large" L-value will cause Eq. 6a to provide a central-difference derivative over a very great distance which
will yield a poor estimate for the derivative, and this will tend
to "smooth" the derivative response (perhaps over-smoothing
the derivative). The common range for the search window is
between 10 and 50 percent of a log-cycle (0.10 < L < 0.5)
where we prefer a starting L-value of 0.2 [20 percent of a logcycle (recall that log is the log10 function)].
Sowers2 proposed the "power-law" formulation of the weighted central difference as a method that he believed would provide a better representation of the pressure derivative than the
original Bourdet formulation. In particular, Sowers provides
the following definition of the power-law (or "") derivative
formulation:
t R
p L
t L
p R
d [ln( p ) ]
=
+
..... (7a)
d [ ln( t )] t L + t R t L t L + t R t R
where:
tL = ln(tcalc) ln(tleft) ........................................... (6b)
better interpretation device for certain flow regimes in particular, those flow regimes which are represented by powerlaw functions (e.g., wellbore storage domination, closed boundary effects, fractured wells, horizontal wells, etc.).
In the development of the models and type curves for the derivative function, we reviewed numerous literature articles
which proposed plotting functions based on the Bourdet pressure derivative or related functions (e.g., the primary pressure
derivative (ref. 3)). In the late 1980's the "pressure derivative
ratio" was proposed (refs. 9 and 10), where this function was
defined as the pressure derivative divided by the pressure drop
(or 2p in radial flow applications)) this ratio was (obviously) a dimensionless quantity. In particular, the pressure
derivative ratio was applied as an interpretation device as it
is a dimensionless quantity, the type curve match consisted of
a vertical axis overlay (which is fixed) and a floating horizontal axis (which is typically used to find the end of wellbore
storage distortion effects). The pressure derivative ratio has
found most utility in such interpretations.
In the present work, we have formulated a series of "type
curves" which are presented in Appendix B, developed from
the -derivative solutions given in Appendix A.
The primary utility of the -derivative is the resolution that
this function provides for cases where the pressure drop can be
represented by a power law function again, fractured wells,
horizontal wells, and boundary-influenced (faults) and boundary-dominated (closed boundaries) are good candidates for
the -derivative.
Schematic of Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Functions
Various Reservoir Models and Well Configurations (as noted)
DIAGNOSTIC plot for Well Test Data (pDd and pDd)
tR = ln(tright) ln(tcalc) ......................................... (6c)

3
pL = ln(pcalc) ln(pleft) ......................................... (7d)
Multiplying the right-handside of Eq. 7a by pcalc (recall that

pcalc is the pressure drop at the point of interest), will yield
the "well-testing pressure derivative" function (i.e., the typical
"Bourdet" derivative definition). Sowers2 provides an exhaustive evaluation of the "power-law" derivative formulation
using various levels of noise in the p function and found that
the power-law (or ) derivative formulation always showed
improved accuracy of the well testing pressure derivative [i.e.,
the Bourdet derivative function, pd(t)].
In addition, Sowers found that the -derivative formulation
was less sensitive to the L-value than the original Bourdet formulation which is a product of how well the power-law
relation represents the pressure drop over a specific period.
Sowers did not pursue the specific application of the -derivative function [pd(t)=d ln(p)/dln(t)] as a diagnostic plotting function, as we have this work.
Type Curves Using the -Derivative Function
Background: Without question, the Bourdet definition of the

pressure derivative function is the standard for all well test
analysis applications from hand methods to sophisticated
interpretation/analysis/modeling software. The advent of the
-derivative function as proposed in this paper is not expected
to replace the Bourdet derivative (nor should this happen).
The -derivative function is proposed simply to serve as a
10
) (pD d
Legend: (pDd
Bourdet "Well Test" Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Function, pDd

"Power Law " Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Function, pDd
pR = ln(pright) ln(pcalc) ....................................... (7e)
NO Wellbore Storage
or Skin Effects
Unfractured Well (Radial Flow)

Fractured Well (Infinite Fracture Conductivity)
Fractured Well (Finite Fracture Conductivity)
Horizontal Well (Full Penetration, Thin Reservoir)
2
10
BoundaryDominated
Flow Region
Transient Flow
Region
10
(
(
)
)
(
(
Fractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
(Finite Conductivity
Vertical Fracture)
)
)
Horizontal Well in a
Bounded Square
Reservoir:
(Full Penetration,
Thin Reservoir)
pD d = 1
(boundary
dominated flow)
pDd = 0.5
(linear flow)
10
2
4
pDd = 0.25
(bilinear flow)
-1
10
Unfractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
1
2
(
(
-2
10
-5
10
-4
10
)
)
Fractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
(Infinite Conductivity
Vertical Fracture)
-3
10
(
(
-2
10
-1
10
)
)
10
10
10
Dimensionless Time, tD (model-dependent)
Figure 1
Schematic of pDd and pDd vs. tD Various reservoir models and well configurations (no wellbore storage or skin effects).
Infinite-acting radial flow the "utility" case for the Bourdet

(semilog) derivative function is not a good candidate for interpretation using the -derivative as the radial flow regime is represented by a logarithmic approximation which can not be
further approximated by a power-law model.
Schematic Case: In Fig. 1 we present a schematic plot created
for illustrative purposes to represent the character of the derivative for several distinctly different cases. Presented are
the -derivative profiles (in schematic form) for an unfractured
well (infinite-acting radial flow), 2 fractured well cases, and a
Infinite-Acting Radial Flow: The -derivative function for a

single well producing at a constant flowrate in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir was computed using the cylindrical source solution given in ref. 11. For emphasis, we have
generated the -derivative solution (Fig. 2) with wellbore storage and skin effects, as this is the typical configuration used
for well test analysis. As mentioned earlier, the -derivative
function does not demonstrate a constant behavior for the radial flow case, but as noted in Appendix A, the -derivative
function for the wellbore storage domination flow regime
yields pDd = 1.
Type Curve for an Unfractured Well in an Infinite-Acting Homogeneous Reservoir
with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects.
10
10
100
10
80
10
60
50 10
10
40
10
30
pD, pDd and pDbd
10
20
10
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
10
2s
-3
CDe =110
10
15
10
10
8 10
104 106
3
10
1 10210
10
3
-2
310 110-2
100
10
Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Type Curves for Sealing Faults

(Inifinite-Acting Homogeneous Reservoir)
Legend: "Bourdet" Well Test Pressure Derivative
10
Single Fault Case

2 Perpendicular Faults (2 at 90 Degrees)
2 Parallel Faults (2 at 180 Degrees)
3 Perpendicular
Faults
2 Parallel
Faults
10
pDd = tD dpD/dtD
10
10
2 Perpendicular
Faults
Undistorted
Radial Flow Behavior
Single
Fault
3 Perpendicular
Faults
10
2 Parallel
Faults
-1
2 Perpendicular
Faults
Single
Fault
pDd = (tD/pD) dpD/dtD

10
10
Legend: -Pressure Derivative Function
-2
Single Fault Case

-3
10
-3
10
Figure 3
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
2
tD/LD (LD = Lfault/rw)
10
10
10
10
pDd and pDd vs. tD/LD various sealing faults

configurations (no wellbore storage or skin
effects).
Unfractured Well in a Dual Porosity System: We used the

pseudosteady-state interporosity model13 to produce the derivative type curves for a single well in an infinite-acting,
dual porosity reservoir with or without wellbore storage and
skin effects. For these cases, we chose to present our cases
(which include wellbore storage) using the type curve format
of ref. 14 (the family parameters for the type curves are the
and -parameters, where = CD).
In Fig. 4 we present a general set of cases ( = 1x10-1, 1x10-2,
and 1x10-3 and = 5x10-9, 5x10-6, and 5x10-3) with no wellbore storage or skin effects. Fig. 4 shows the unique signature
of the pDd functions for this case, but we can also argue that,
since this model is tied to infinite-acting radial flow, the pDd
functions can, at best, be used as a diagnostic to view idealized behavior.
Legend: Radial Flow Type Curves

pD Solution
pDd Solution
pD d Solution
10
SPE 103204
"Bourdet" Well Test Pressure Derivative, pDd = tD dpD/dtD
horizontal well case. We note immediately the strong character of the fractured well responses (pDd = 1/2 for the infinite
conductivity fracture case and 1/4 for the finite conductivity
fracture case). Interestingly, the horizontal well case shows a
pDd slope of approximately 1/2, but the pDd function never
achieves the expected 1/2 value, perhaps due to the "thin"
reservoir configuration that was specified for this particular
horizontal well case. We also note that, for all cases of boundary-dominated flow, the pDd function yields a constant value
of unity, as expected. This observation suggests that the pDd
function (or an auxiliary function based on the pDd form) may
be of value for the analysis of production data. For reference,
Fig. 1 is presented in a larger format in Appendix B (Fig. B1).
-Pressure Derivative Function, pDd = (tD/pD) d/dtD(pD )
Radial Flow Region

2s
-3
CDe =110
2s
Type Curve for an Unfractured Well in an Infinite-Acting Dual Porosity Reservoir

(Pseudosteady-State Interporosity Flow) No Wellbore Storage or Skin Effects.
-3
CDe =110
-3
-1
10
-1
10
310-2 310-2
110
3 2 101
3
104
10
10 106 8
10
10
1015
10
30
10
50
10
60
10
80
10
20
-2
10
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
10
40
10
100
10
Legend:
pD Solution
pDd Solution
1
10
110
110
10
10
-3
-2
= 110
-1
10
-2
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
tD/CD
pD and pDd
-3
10
10
-1
-1
= 110
= 110
-2
Figure 2
pD, pDd, and pDd vs. tD/CD solutions for an

unfractured well in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir wellbore storage and skin
effects included (various CD values).
Sealing Faults: Ref. 12 provides pDd-format (Bourdet) type

curves for cases of a single well producing at a constant flowrate in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir with single,
double, and triple-sealing faults oriented some distance from
the well. This case provides an opportunity to illustrate the derivative function where the pDd functions show interesting
characteristics, as well as the 2-parallel sealing faults and 3perpendicular fault cases, which prove that pDd = 1/2 at very
long times (see Fig. 3).
-1
-1
= 110
= 110
10
-2
= 110
-2
= 110
10
-3
-3
= 110
-3
= 110
-2
-3
= 110
-3
pD d ( = 5 10 )
-6
pDd ( = 5 10 )
10
-9
pDd ( = 5 10 )
-4
-1
10
Figure 4
10
10
10
10
10
tD
10
10
10
10
10
pD and pDd vs. tD solutions for an unfractured

well in an infinite-acting dual porosity system
no wellbore storage or skin effects (various
and values).
SPE 103204
wellbore storage domination behavior (pDd = 1), as well as the

effect of bilinear (fracture and formation) flow (pDd = 1/4).
We believe that the pDd function (i.e., the -derivative) will
substantially improve the diagnosis of flow regimes in
hydraulically fractured wells.
In Fig. 5 we present cases where = 110-1 and = CD =

110-4 for 110-4 < CD < 110100. As with the results for the
pDd functions shown in ref. 14, these pDd functions do provide
some insight into the form and character of the behavior for
the case of a well producing at infinite-acting flow conditions
in a dual porosity/naturally fractured reservoir system.
-4
Legend: = CD = 110 , = 110

pD Solution
pD d Solution
10
10
10
40
50
30
10
20
pD and pDd
10
10
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
10
6
2
10
10
10
10
110
10
-1
10
100
15
10
10
-2
310
-3
310
-2
2s
-3
CDe =110
2s
2s
-5
110
-4
-3
110
-6
-1
110
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
LD= 0.1
10
pD, pDd and pDd
CfD=110
3
10
10
10
0.125
0.25
1
0.5
LD= 0.1
pD, pDd and pDd
0.125
10
100
10
10
10
Infinite Conductivity
Vertical Fracture
0.25
0.5
50
-1
25
25
0.5
50
0.25
100
10
-2
0.125
25
L=0.1
Vertical Fracture
50
10
0
-3
10
0.5
10
Type Curve for a Infinite Conductivity Horizontal Well in an Infinite-Acting

Homogeneous Reservoir (LD= 0.1, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100).
10
Type Curve for a Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical

Fractured in an Infinite-Acting Homogeneous Reservoir
(CfD = (wkf)/(kxf) = 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 10000)
CfD=0.25
Horizontal Wells: Ozkan16 created a line-source solution for

modeling horizontal well performance we used this solution to generate -derivative type-curves for the case of a horizontal well, where the well is vertically-centered within an infinite-acting, homogeneous (and isotropic) reservoir.
-1
Hydraulically Fractured Vertical Wells: In this section we

consider the case of a well with a finite conductivity vertical
fracture where the -derivative type curves were generated
using the Cinco and Meng15 solution. In addition, we used the
Ozkan solution (ref. 16) to model the case of a well with an
infinite conductivity vertical fracture. The pD, pDd, and pDd
functions for the case of no wellbore storage are shown in Fig.
6. We note clear evidence of the bilinear and linear flow regimes where these regimes appear as horizontal lines on
the -derivative plot (bilinear flow: pDd = 1/4, linear flow:
pDd = 1/2).
-6
10
-5
10
-4
-3
10
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
Legend:
pD
Solution
pDd Solution
pD d Solution
2
10
10
Radial Flow Region
500
CfD=0.25
1
2
tDL
Figure 8
0.5
pD, pDd, and pDd vs. tDL solutions for an infinite

conductivity horizontal well in an infinite-acting
homogeneous reservoir no wellbore storage
or skin effects (various LD values).
-2
Legend:
pD Solution
pDd Solution
pDd Solution
10
-6
pD and pDd vs. tDxf/CDfCfD = 10 (fractured well

case includes wellbore storage effects).
pD and pDd vs. tD/CD = 110 , = CD =

-4
110 (dual porosity case includes wellbore
storage and skin effects).
Figure 5
10
-4
Figure 7
10
-1
110
tDxf/CDf
tD/CD
10
-2
110
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-3
10
-2
110
Radial Flow Region
10
-3
10
110
-2
100
10
110
-4
110
CDf=110
10
-2
310 110-2 310
-1
10
1
1
2 10
3
4 10
10
6
10
8
10
10
10
15
10
10
20
10
30
10
40
10
50
60
10
80
10
10
-1
10
110
-5
10
-2
-3
CDf=110
110
-1
110
-3
-3
10
110
Radial Flow Region

CDe =110
10
110
-3
CDe =110
10
10
110
110
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
80
10
60
110
100
10
Legend: CfD = (wkf)/(kxf)= 10

pD Solution
pDd Solution
10
10
10
10
-1
10
10
Type Curve for a Well with Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture in an Infinite-Acting
Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore Storage Effects CfD = (wkf)/(kxf)= 10

(Pseudosteady-State InterporosityFlow) with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects.
-4
-1
( = CD = 110 , = 110 )
pD and pDd
10
CfD=110
-3
-6
10
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
-1
10
10
10
Figure 6
10
tDxf
pD, pDd, and pDd vs. tDxf solutions for an

fractured well in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir no wellbore storage or skin effects (various CfD values).
In Fig. 7 we present the case of a single well with a finite conductivity vertical fracture (CfD = 10) producing at a constant
rate in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir, with wellbore storage effects included. We observe the characteristic
In Fig. 8 we present the pD, pDd, and pDd solutions for the case
of a horizontal well with no wellbore storage or skin effects,
only the influence of the LD parameter (i.e., LD = L/2h) included in order to illustrate the performance of horizontal wells
with respect to reservoir thickness [thick reservoir (low LD);
thin reservoir (high LD)]. While we do not observe any features where the pDd function is constant, we do observe unique characteristic behavior in the pDd function, which should
be of value in the diagnostic interpretation of pressure transient test data obtained from horizontal wells.
The pDd and pDd solutions for the case of a horizontal well
with wellbore storage effects are shown in Fig. 9 (LD=100,
i.e., a thin reservoir). As expected, we do observe the strong

signature of the pDd function for the wellbore storage domination regime (i.e., pDd = 1). We also note an apparent formation linear flow regime for low values of the wellbore storage coefficient (i.e., CDL < 1x10-2). We believe that this is a
transition from the wellbore storage influence to linear flow
(which is brief for this case), then on through the transition
regime towards pseudo-radial flow.
Type Curve for an Infinite Conductivity Horizontal Well in an Infinite-Acting
Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore Storage Effects (LD = 100).
10
10
Radial Flow Region
1
2
110
110
pD and pDd
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
10
110
1
110
-2
110
-1
-3
-4
110
-6
CDL=110
-5
110
-6
CDL=110
-5
110
10
-4
110
-3
110
-1
-1
110
110
110
-2
110
10
-2
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
tDL/CDL
Figure 9
pD and pDd vs. tDL/CDL LD=100 (horizontal well

Wellbore Storage and Boundary Effects: In Fig. 10 we present

the unique case of wellbore storage combined with closed
circular boundary effects (see ref. 17) as a means to demonstrate that these two influences have the same effect (i.e., pDd
= 1).
Type Curve for an Unfractured Well in a Bounded Homogeneous Reservoir
with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects (reD= 100)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-1
10
-2
310
-2
pD, pDdand pDd
10
110
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
-3
310
10
10
10
2s
-3
CDe =110
10
10
-2
310
-2
110
-3
310
2s
-3
CDe =110
CDe =110
10
-1
-1
2s
10
-3
-2
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-3
10
-2
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
tD/CD
Figure 10
The procedures for type curve matching the -derivative data

and models are essentially identical the process given for the
pressure derivative ratio functions in refs. 9 and 10. As with
the "pressure derivative ratio" function (refs. 9 and 10), the
pd(t) pDd is fixed, which then fixes the p(t) and the
pd(t) functions, and only the x-axis needs to be resolved
exactly like any other type curve for that particular case. If
type curves are not used, and some sort of software-driven,
model-based matching procedure is used (i.e., event/history
matching), then the pd(t) and pDd functions are matched simultaneously, in the same manner that the dimensionless pressure/derivative functions would be matched.
To demonstrate/validate the -derivative function we present
the results of 12 field examples obtained from the literature
(refs. 1, 18-22). The table below provides orientation for our
examples.
Boundary Dominated
Flow
The -derivative is a ratio function the dimensionless formulation of the -derivative (pDd) is the exactly the same
function as the "data" formulation of the -derivative [pd(t)].
Therefore, when we plot the pd(t) (data) function onto the
grid of the pDd function (i.e., the type curve match) the y-axis
functions are identical. As such, the vertical "match" is not a
match at all but rather, the model and the data functions are
defined to be the same so the vertical "match" is fixed.
Examples Using the -Derivative Function
Legend: Bounded Resevoir reD= 100

pD Solution
pDd Solution
pDd Solution
Application Procedure for -Derivative Type Curves
At this point, the time axis match is the only remaining task,
so the pd(t) data function is shifted on top of the pDd function, only in the horizontal direction. The time (or horizontal)
match is then used to diagnose the flow regimes and provide
an auxiliary match of the time axis. When the pd(t) function
is plotted with the p(t) and the pd(t) functions, we achieve a
"harmony" in that the 3 functions are matched simultaneously,
and one portion of the match (i.e., pd(t) pDd) is fixed.
Legend: LD = 100
pD Solution
pD d Solution
SPE 103204
pD and pDd vs. tD/CD reD =100, bounded

circular reservoir case includes wellbore storage and skin effects. Illustrates combined influence of wellbore storage and boundary effects.
Another aspect of this particular case is that we show the

plausibility of using the -derivative for the analysis of the
boundary-dominated flow regime i.e., the -derivative (or
another auxiliary form) may be a good diagnostic for the analysis of production data. In particular, the -derivative may be
less influenced by data errors that lead to artifacts in the conventional pressure derivative function (i.e., the Bourdet (or
"semilog") form of the pressure derivative).
Case
[oil] Unfractured well (buildup)
[oil] Unfractured well (buildup)
[oil] Dual porosity (drawdown)
[oil] Dual porosity (buildup)
[gas] Fractured well (buildup)
[water]Fractured well (falloff)
Field
Example
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Fig.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ref.
18
1
19
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
In all of the example cases we were able to successfully interpret and analyze the well test data objectively by using the derivative function [pd(t)] in conjunction with the p(t) and
pd(t) functions. As a comment, for all of the example cases
we considered, the -derivative function [pd(t)] provided a
direct analysis (i.e., the "match" was obvious using the pd(t)
function the vertical axis match was fixed, and only horizontal shifting was required). These examples and the modelbased type curves validate the theory and application of the -
SPE 103204
derivative function.
As noted in ref. 18, in this case wellbore storage effects are

evident, and for the purpose of demonstrating a variable-rate
procedure, downhole rates were measured. In Fig. 11 we note
a strong wellbore storage signature, and we find that the pDd
data function (squares) does yield the required value of unity.
The pDd data function does not yield a quantitative interpretation other than the wellbore storage domination region
(pDd = 1), but this function does also provide some resolution
for the data in the transition region from wellbore storage and
infinite-acting radial flow.
pD, pDd and pDd
10
10
Legend: Radial Flow Type Curve

pD Solution
pDd Solution
pD d Solution
Legend:
pD Data
pDd Data
pD d Data
pD d = 1
pDd = 1/2
10
10
10
-1
-2
Match Results and Parameter Estimates:
Reservoir and Fluid Properties:

rw = 0.3 ft, h = 100 ft,
-5
-1
ct = 1.110 psi , = 0.27 (fraction)

-1
6
2s
o = 1.24 cp, Bo= 1.002 RB/STB
-1
[(tD/CD)/t]match= 38 hours , k = 399.481 md
Production Parameters:
Cs = 0.25 bbl/psi, s = 1.91 (dim-less)
qref = 9200 STB/D, pwf(t= 0)= 1844.65 psia
[pD/p]match = 0.02 psi , CDe = 10 (dim-less)
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
Legend: Radial Flow Type Curve

pD Solution
pDd Solution
pD d Solution
10
Legend:
pD Data
pDd Data
pDd Data
pDd = 1
10
pDd = 1/2
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3

rw = 0.29 ft, h = 107 ft,
-6
-1
-1
10
2s
ct = 4.210 psi , = 0.25 (fraction) [p /p]
(dim-less)
D
match = 0.018 psi , CDe = 10
o = 2.5 cp, Bo= 1.06 RB/STB
-1
[(tD/CD)/t]match= 15 hours , k = 10.95 md
Cs = 0.0092 bbl/psi, s = 8.13 (dim-less)
qref = 174 STB/D
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
tD/CD
Figure 12 Field example 2 type curve match SPE 12777

(ref. 1 Bourdet) (pressure buildup case).
The next example case shown in Fig. 13 is taken from a well

in a known dual porosity/naturally fractured reservoir. As we
note in Fig. 13, the "late" portion of the data is not matched
exactly with the specified reservoir model (infinite-acting radial flow with dual porosity effects). We contend that part of
the less-than-perfect late time data match may be due to rate
history effects (only a single production was reported it is
unlikely that the rate remained constant during the entire test
sequence).
Type Curve Analysis Results SPE 11463 (Buildup Case)

(Well in an Infinite-Acting Homogeneous Reservoir)
10
Type Curve Analysis SPE 12777 (Buildup Case)

(Well in an Infinite-Acting Homogeneous Reservoir)
2
pD, pDd and pDd
Example 1 is presented in Fig. 11 (from ref. 18) and shows the

field data and model matches for the p(t), pd(t), and pd(t)
functions in dimensionless format (i.e., the pD, pDd, and pDd
"data" functions are given as symbols), along with the corresponding dimensionless solution functions (i.e., pD, pDd, and
pDd "model" functions given by the solid lines). This is the
common format used to view the example cases in this work.
10
tD/CD
However, we believe that this example illustrates the challenges typical of what an analyst faces in practice, and as
such, we believe the -derivative function to be of significant
practical value. We note that the -derivative provides a clear
match of the wellbore storage domination/distortion period,
and the function also works well in the transition to system radial flow.
Type Curve Analysis SPE 13054 Well MACH X3 (Drawdown Case)
-2
-1
(Well in a Dual Porosity System (pss) = 110 , = 110 )

(ref. 18 Meunier) (pressure buildup case).
Particular to this case is the fact that the pressure buildup portion of the data was almost twice as long as the reported pressure drawdown portion of the data. We note this issue because we believe that in order to validate the use of the -derivative function (pDd), we must ensure that the analyst recognizes that this function will be affected by all of the same phenomena which affect the "Bourdet" derivative function in
particular, the rate history must be accounted for, most likely
using the effective time concept where a radial flow superposition function is used for the time axis.
-2
Legend: =110 , = 110

pD Solution
pDd Solution
pDd Solution
10
pD, pDd and pDd
In Fig. 12 we consider the initial literature case regarding well

test analysis using the Bourdet pressure derivative function
(pd) as shown in ref. 1. This is a pressure buildup test where
the appropriate rate history superposition is used for the time
function axis. This result is an excellent match of all functions, but in particular, the -derivative function (pDd) is an
excellent diagnostic function for the wellbore storage and transition flow regimes.
10
10
-1
-1

rw = 0.2917 ft, h = 65 ft,
-6
10
-1
ct = 24.510 psi , = 0.048 (fraction)

o = 0.362 cp, Bo= 1.8235 RB/STB
qref = 3224 STB/D, pwf(t= 0)= 9670 psia
-2

-1
2s
10
-3
10
-4
-1
[(tD/CD)/t]match= 0.17 hours , k = 0.361 md

Cs = 0.1124 bbl/psi, s = -4.82 (dim-less)
= 0.01 (dim-less), = CD = 0.01(dim-less)
Legend:
pD Data
pDd Data
pDd Data
-2
10
-1
10
-6
= 6.4510 (dim-less)
10
10
10
10
10
10
tD/CD

(ref. 19 DaPrat) (pressure drawdown case).
Our next case (Example 4) also considers well performance in

a dual porosity/naturally fractured reservoir (see Fig. 14).
From these data we again note a very strong performance of
the -derivative function particularly in the region defined
by transition from wellbore storage to transient interporosity
flow. Cases such as these validate the application of the derivative for the interpretation of well test data obtained from
dual porosity/naturally fractured reservoirs.
of a hydraulic fracture treatment from any of the dimensionless plotting functions, in particular, the -derivative function
shows no evidence of a hydraulic fracture. The well is either
poorly fracture-stimulated, or a "skin effect" has obscured any
evidence of a fracture treatment in either case, the performance of the well is significantly impaired.
Type Curve Analysis SPE 9975 Well 10 (Buildup Case)
(Well with Finite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture CfD= 2 )
10
Type Curve Analysis SPE 18160 (Buildup Case)

-3
(Well in an Infinite-Acting Dual-Porosity Reservoir (trn) = 0.237, = 110 )
pD, pDd and pDd
10
[(tDxf/CDf)/t]match= 7.5 hours , k = 0.137 md

CfD = 2 (dim-less), xf = 0.732 ft
10
pDd = 1
10
10
-1
Legend:
pD Data
pDd Data
pDd Data
-3
pD, pDd and pDd
Legend: = 0.237, = 110

pD Solution
pDd Solution
pDd Solution
Legend:
pD Data
pDd Data
pDd Data

-1
[pD/p]match = 0.0012 psi , CDf= 100 (dim-less)
10
SPE 103204
pDd = 1/2
p D d = 1
10
pDd = 1/2
Legend: CfD= 2
pD Solution
pDd Solution
pD d Solution
-1
10
-1

rw = 0.33 ft, h = 27 ft,
-2
10
10
10

-1
2s
rw = 0.29 ft, h = 7 ft,
-1
-5
-1
[(tD/CD)/t]match= 150 hours , k = 678 md
ct = 210 psi , = 0.05 (fraction)
Cs = 0.0311 bbl/psi, s = -1.93 (dim-less)
o = 0.3 cp, Bo= 1.5 RB/STB
= 0.237 (dim-less), = CD = 0.001(dim-less)
-8
qref = 830 Mscf/D
= 2.1310 (dim-less)
-2
-3
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
-5
-3
10
10
-3
-2
10
10
-1
10
10
10
tD/CD

(ref. 20 Allain) (pressure buildup case).
In Fig. 15 we investigate the use of the -derivative function

for the case of a well in a low permeability gas reservoir with
an apparent infinite conductivity vertical fracture (Well 5
from ref. 21). This is the type of case where the -derivative
function provides a unique interpretation for a difficult case.
Most importantly, the -derivative function supports the existence (and influence) of the hydraulic fracture.
(Well with Infinite Conductivity Hydraulic Fractured )
-1
ct = 5.1010 psi , = 0.057 (fraction)

gi = 0.0317 cp, Bgi= 0.5282 RB/Mscf
qref = 1300 Mscf/D
0
10
tDxf/CDf
10
10
10

Well 10 (ref. 21 Lee) (pressure buildup case).
Fig. 17 is also taken from ref. 21 "Well 12" is also designnated as a hydraulically fractured well in a gas reservoir, and
although there is no absolute signature given by the -derivative function (i.e., we do not observe pDd = 1/2 (infinite
fracture conductivity) nor pDd = 1/4 (finite fracture conductivity)). We do note that pDd = 1 at early times, which
confirms the wellbore storage domination regime. The pDd
and pDd signatures during mid-to-late times confirm the well
is highly stimulated and the infinite fracture conductivity
vertical fracture model is used for analysis and interpretation
in this case.
10

(Well with Infinite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture )
10
-4
pDd = 1/2
10
-1
10

rw = 0.33 ft, h = 30 ft,
-5
10
-3
10
10

-1
[pD/p]match = 0.000021 psi , CDf= 0.01 (dim-less)
Legend:
pD Data
pDd Data
pDd Data
-4
10
-1
ct = 6.3710 psi , = 0.05 (fraction)

gi = 0.0297 cp, Bgi= 0.5755 RB/Mscf
qref = 1500 Mscf/D
-2
Legend: Infinite Conductivity Fracture

pD Solution
pDd Solution
pDd Solution

rw = 0.33 ft, h = 45 ft,
pDd = 1/2
pD, pDd and pDd
pD, pDd and pDd
10

pD Solution
pDd Solution
pDd Solution
-1

CfD = 1000 (dim-less), xf = 279.96 ft
-1
ct = 4.6410 psi , = 0.057 (fraction)

gi = 0.0174 cp, Bgi= 1.2601 RB/Mscf
qref = 325 Mscf/D
10
pDd = 1/2
pDd = 1
-1
10
-2
10
-1

-1
-3
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
tDxf/CDxf
10
10
10
[(tDxf/CDf)/t]match= 37 hours , k = 0.076 md

CfD = 1000 (dim-less), xf = 3.681 ft

Another application of the -derivative function is also to

prove when a flow regime does not (or at least probably does
not) exist the example shown in Fig. 16 is just such a case.
In ref. 21 "Well 10" is designated as a hydraulically fractured
well in a gas reservoir and in Fig. 16 we observe no evidence
-3
10
10
-3
10
-2
-1
10
10
10
tDxf/CDf
10
Legend:
pD Data
pDd Data
pDd Data
3
10

10
SPE 103204
than 1/2 slope). The analysis of these data yields a fairly low
estimate for the fracture conductivity (i.e., CfD = 2), where this
result could suggest that the injection process is not continuing
to propagate the fracture.
In Fig. 18 we present Well 207 from ref. 22, another hydraulically fractured well case this time the well is a water
injection well in an oil field, and a "falloff test" is conducted.
In this case there are no data at very early times so we cannot
confirm the wellbore storage domination flow regime. However; we can use the -derivative function to confirm the existence of an infinite conductivity vertical fracture for this case,
which is an important diagnostic.
Type Curve Analysis Well 203 (Pressure Falloff Case)

(Well with Finite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture CfD= 2)
10
Legend:
pD Data
pDd Data
pDd Data
10
pD, pDd and pDd

(Well with Infinite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture)
1
10

pD Solution
pDd Solution
pD d Solution
pD d = 1
10
pDd = 1/2
pD, pDd and pDd

-1
10
-1
10
-2
-1
10
Legend: CfD= 2
pD Solution
pDd Solution
pDd Solution
-2
10

rw = 0.198 ft, h = 235 ft,
-6
-1
-1
[pD/p]match = 0.0036 psi , CDf= 0.01 (dim-less) ct = 6.5310 psi , = 0.18 (fraction)
=
0.87 cp, Bw= 1.002 RB/STB
-1
w
CfD = 2 (dim-less), xf = 42.479 ft
-1

CfD = 1000 (dim-less), xf = 164.22 ft
-3
10
-4
10
10
-4
-6
10
-3
-2
10
-1
10
10
tDxf/CDf
Legend:
pD Data
pDd Data
pDd Data
10
10
10
10
In Fig. 19 we present Well 3294 from ref. 22, where the data
for this case are somewhat erratic due to acquisition at the surface (i.e., only surface pressures are used). Using the -derivative function we can identify the wellbore storage domination regime (i.e., pDd = 1) and we can also reasonably confirm
the existence of an infinite fracture conductivity vertical fracture (pDd = 1/2). The quality of these data impairs our ability
to define the reservoir model uniquely, but we can presume
that our assessment of the flow regimes is reasonable, based
on the character of the -derivative function.
Legend:
pD Data
pDd Data
pDd Data
pDd = 1/2
pDd = 1
10
tDxf/CDf
10
10
10
10
10
10

pD Solution
pDd Solution
pDd Solution
pDd = 1/2
pD d = 1
-1
10
-2
10
-3
Legend:
pD Data
pDd Data
pDd Data

rw = 0.198 ft, h = 196 ft,
-6
-1
ct = 6.5310 psi , = 0.18 (fraction)

w = 0.9344 cp, Bw= 1.002 RB/STB
-1
10

-1
-1

-1

CfD = 1000 (dim-less), xf = 29.13 ft
-1

CfD = 1000 (dim-less), xf = 198.90 ft
-2
10
10
-4
10
rw = 0.3 ft, h = 200 ft,
-6
-3
10

pD Solution
pDd Solution
pDd Solution
-4
10
10
In Fig. 21 we present the data for Well 5408, a pressure falloff

test obtained from ref. 22. This case also exhibits no unique
character in the pD, pDd, and pDd functions, other than wellbore storage domination (pDd = 1) and infinite-acting radial
flow (pDd =1/2). Based on the given data, we know that this
well was hydraulically fractured and again, based on the injection history, we can conclude that this well exhibits the behavior of a well with an infinite conductivity vertical fracture
where wellbore storage domination and radial flow exists.
These observations are relevant and valuable.
pD, pDd and pDd
-1
10


10
-2
10
Figure 20 Field example 10 type curve match Well 203

(ref. 22 Samad) (pressure falloff case).

10
-3
10
-1
ct = 7.710 psi , = 0.11 (fraction)

w = 0.92 cp, Bw= 1 RB/STB
-4
-4
10

rw = 0.3 ft, h = 103 ft,
10
pD, pDd and pDd
pDd = 1/2
pD d = 1
10
-3
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
tDxf/CDf
-1
ct = 7.2610 psi , = 0.06 (fraction)

w = 0.87 cp, Bw= 1.002 RB/STB
10
10
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
-1
10
10
tDxf/CDf
10
10
10
10

10

The data for Well 203, taken from ref. 22 are presented in Fig.
20. The signature given by the pD, pDd, and pDd functions
does not appear to be that of a high conductivity vertical fracture. In this case the pD and pDd functions suggest a finite conductivity vertical fracture (note that these functions are less
Our last field example is a pressure falloff test performed on

Well 2403, also taken from ref. 22. These data are presented
in Fig. 22 and we observe the flow regimes for wellbore storage domination (pDd = 1), and the infinite-acting radial (pDd
=1/2).
10
As for characterization of the well efficiency, we can only

conclude that the signature appears to be that of a well with a
high conductivity vertical fracture, hence our match using the
model for a well with an infinite conductivity vertical fracture.
pD, pDd and pDd
10
10
10
Legend: Data
pD Data
pDd Data
pDd Data
pDd = 1/2
pDd = 1
-1

-1
[pD/p]match = 0.18 psi , CDf= 1 (dim-less)
-1
10

CfD = 1000 (dim-less), xf = 50.136 ft
-2

rw = 0.3 ft, h = 102 ft,
-6
10
-3
10
-4
10
Case
-1
ct = 7.2110 psi , = 0.11 (fraction)

w = 0.85 cp, Bw= 1.002 RB/STB
pD Solution
pDd Solution
pDd Solution
-4
10
-3
10
-2
-1
10
10
tDxf/CDf
10
10
10
computation module is being developed from nothing, Eq. 8

should be used. Otherwise, the "Bourdet" derivative function
[pd(t)] should be adequate to "extract" the -derivative function [pd(t)] via Eq. 7.
Our goal in this work is the presentation of the -derivative
formulation. We have prepared the -derivative solutions for
some of the most popular well test analysis cases (see
Appendix A), as well as graphical representations of these
solutions in the form of "type curves" (see Appendix B). The
-derivative has been shown to provide much improved
resolution for certain well test analysis cases in particular,
the -derivative yields a constant value (i.e., pd(t) = constant) for the following cases:

1
SPE 103204
10
z Wellbore storage domination:

In closing this section on the example application of the derivative function, we conclude that the -derivative can provide unique insight, particularly for pressure transient data
from fractured wells, pressure transient data which is influenced by wellbore storage, and pressure transient data (and
likely production data) which are influenced by closed boundary effects. In addition, the -derivative function exhibits
some diagnostic character for the pressure transient behavior
of dual porosity/naturally fractured reservoir systems, although these diagnostics are less quantitative in such cases
[i.e., the pd(t) and pDd functions do not exhibit "constant"
behavior as with other cases (e.g., wellbore storage, fracture
flow regimes, and boundary-dominated flow)].
We believe that these examples confirm the utility and relevance of the -derivative function and we expect the derivative to find considerable practical application in the
analysis/interpretation of pressure transient test data and
(eventually) production data.
Summary
The primary purpose of this paper is the presentation of the

new power-law or -derivative formulation which is given
by:
1 dp pd (t )
d ln(p)
.................... (1)
pd (t ) =
=
t
=
d ln(t )
p dt
p
This function can be computed directly from data using:
pd(t) = dln(p)/dln(t) (-derivative definition) ........... (8)
pd(t) = pd(t)/p
(Bourdet derivative definition) .. (9)
The work of Sowers (ref. 2) shows that using the -derivative
definition (Eq. 8) does provide a slightly more accurate
derivative function than extracting the pd(t) function from
the pd(t) function as defined in Eq. 9. However, the benefit
derived from using Eq. 8 is likely to be outweighed by the
popularity (and availability) of the Bourdet (or semilog)
pressure derivative function [pd(t)]. In short, if a derivative
z Reservoir boundaries:
Closed reservoir (circle, rectangle, etc.).
2-Parallel faults (large time).
3-Perpendicular faults (large time).
z Fractured wells:
Infinite conductivity vertical fracture.
Finite conductivity vertical fracture.
z Horizontal wells:
Formation linear flow.
pd(t)
1
1
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/4
1/2
In addition, the -derivative also provides a unique characterization of well test behavior in dual porosity reservoirs (although the -derivative is never constant for these cases,
except for the possibility of a rare fractured or horizontal well
case).
Finally, we have provided a schematic "diagnosis worksheet"
for the interpretation of the -derivative function (see
Appendix C).
Recommendations for Future Work
The future work on this topic should focus on the application
of the -derivative concept for production data analysis.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the work of Mr. Steven F.
Sowers (ExxonMobil) for access to his computation
routines, and for his efforts to lay the groundwork for this
study via his investigations of the -derivative function as a
statistically enhanced formulation for computing the Bourdet
derivative.
SPE 103204
Nomenclature
Variables
bpss
B
ct
CA
Cs
=
=
=
=
=
CD
CDf
CDL
CfD
h
hma
k
kf
kfb
kma
L
LD
LDf
n
p
pD
pDd
pDd
pi
pwf
pwfd
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
pwfd
pws
pwsd
pwsd
q
re
reD
rw
rwD
rwzD
t
tD
tDA
tDL
tDxf
x
xD
xf
z
zD
zw
zwD
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Pseudosteady-state constant, dimensionless

FVF, RB/STB
total system compressibility, psi-1
shape factor, dimensionless
wellbore storage coefficient, bbl/psi
dim-less wellbore storage coef. unfractured
well
dim-less wellbore storage coef. horizontal
well
dim-less wellbore storage coef. fractured well
fracture conductivity, dimensionless
pay thickness, ft
matrix height, ft
permeability, md
fracture permeability, md
dual porosity fracture permeability, md
matrix permeability, md
horizontal well length, ft
dimensionless horizontal well length
dimensionless distance from fault
positive integer
pressure, psi
dimensionless pressure
dimensionless pressure derivative
dimensionless -pressure derivative
initial reservoir pressure, psi
well flowing pressure, psi
well flowing pressure derivative, psi
well flowing pressure derivative,
dimensionless
well shut-in pressure, psi
well shut-in pressure derivative, psi
well shut-in pressure derivative, dimensionless
flow rate, STB/Day
reservoir outer boundary radius, ft
outer reservoir boundary radius, dimensionless
wellbore radius, ft
dimensionless wellbore radius
dimensionless wellbore radius
time, hr
dimensionless time
dimensionless time with respect to drainage area
dimensionless time in horizontal well case
dimensionless time in fractured well case
distance from wellbore along fracture, ft
dimensionless distance along fracture, ft
fracture length, ft
distance in z direction, ft
dimensionless distance in z direction
well location, ft
dimensionless well location
Greek Symbols
ma
=
=
=
porosity, fraction
fracture porosity, fraction
matrix porosity, fraction
fD
=
=
=
=
=
11
Euler's constant, 0.577216

hydraulic diffusivity, dimensionless
viscosity, cp
interporosity flow parameter
storativity parameter
Subscript
g
o
w
wbs
pss
=
=
=
=
gas
oil
water
wellbore storage
pseudosteady-state
References
1. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A., and Pirad, Y.M.: "Use of Pressure
Derivative in Well-Test Interpretation," SPEFE (June 1989) 293302 (SPE 12777).
2. Sowers, S.: The Bourdet Derivative Algorithm Revisited Introduction and Validation of the Power-Law Derivative Algorithm
for Applications in Well-Test Analysis, (internal) B.S. Report,
Texas A&M U., College Station, Texas (2005).
3. Mattar, L. and Zaoral, K.: "The Primary Pressure Derivative
(PPD) A New Diagnostic Tool in Well Test Interpretation,"
JCPT, (April 1992), 63-70.
4. Clark, D.G and van Golf-Racht, T.D.: "Pressure-Derivative Approach to Transient Test Analysis: A High-Permeability North
Sea Reservoir Example," JPT (Nov. 1985) 2023-2039.
5. Lane, H.S., Lee, J.W., and Watson, A.T.: "An Algorithm for
Determining Smooth, Continuous Pressure Derivatives from Well
Test Data," SPEFE (December 1991) 493-499.
6. Escobar, F.H., Navarrete, J.M., and Losada, H.D.: "Evaluation of
Pressure Derivative Algorithms for Well-Test Analysis," paper
SPE 86936 presented at the 2004 SPE International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and Western Regional
Meeting, Bakersfield, California, 16-18 March 2004.
7. Gonzales-Tamez, F., Camacho-Velazquez, R. and EscalanteRamirez, B.: "Truncation Denoising in Transient Pressure Tests,"
SPE 56422 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and .Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1999.
8. Cheng, Y., Lee, J.W., and McVay, D.A.: "Determination of
Optimal Window Size in Pressure-Derivative Computation Using
Frequency-Domain Constraints," SPE 96026 presented at the
2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and .Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, 9-12 October 2005.
9. Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "A New Approach for
Constructing Derivative Type Curves for Well Test Analysis,"
SPEFE (March 1988) 197-206; Trans., AIME, 285.
10. Doung, A.N.: "A New Set of Type Curves for Well Test Interpretation with the Pressure/Pressure-Derivative Ratio," SPEFE
(June 1989) 264-72.
11. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans.,
AIME (1949) 186, 305-324.
12. Stewart, G., Gupta, A., and Westaway, P.: "The Interpretation of
Interference Tests in a Reservoir with Sealing and Partially Communicating Faults," paper SPE 12967 presented at the 1984 European Petroleum Conf. held in London, England, 25-28 Oct. 1984.
13. Warren, J.E. and Root, P.J.: "The Behavior of Naturally Fractures
reservoirs," SPEJ (September 1963) 245-55; Trans., AIME, 228.
14. Angel, J.A.: Type Curve Analysis for Naturally Fractures
Reservoir (Infinite-Acting Reservoir Case) A New Approach,
M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M U., College Station, Texas (2000).
15. Cinco-Ley, H. and Meng, H.-Z.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of
Wells with Finite Conductivity Vertical Fractures in Dual
Porosity Reservoirs," SPE 18172 presented at the 1989 SPE
12
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 25 October 1989.

16. Ozkan, E.: Performance of Horizontal Wells, Ph.D. Dissertation,
U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1988)
17. Blasingame, T.A.: "Semi-Analytical Solutions for a Bounded Circular Reservoir-No Flow and Constant Pressure Outer Boundary
Conditions: Unfractured Well Case," SPE 25479 presented at the
1993 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
OK, 21-23 March 1993.
18. Meunier, D., Wittmann, M.J., and Stewart, G.: "Interpretation of
Pressure Buildup Test Using In-Situ Measurement of Afterflow,"
JPT (January 1985) 143 (SPE 11463).
19. DaPrat, G.D. et al.: "Use of Pressure Transient Testing to
Evaluate Fractured Reservoirs in Western Venezuela," SPE
13054 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 16-19 September 1984.
20. Allain, O.F. and Horne R.N.: "Use of Artificial Intelligence in
Well-Test Interpretation," JPT (March 1990) 342.
21. Lee, W.J. and Holditch, S.A.: "Fracture Evaluation with Pressure
Transient Testing in Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs," JPT
(September 1981) 1776.
22. Samad, Z.: Application of Pressure and Pressure Integral
Functions for the Analysis of Well Test Data, M.S. Thesis, Texas
A&M U., College Station, Texas (1994).
23. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J., Jr., and Raghavan, R.: "UnsteadyState Pressure Distributions Created by a Well with a Single
Infinite-Conductivity Vertical Fracture," SPEJ. (August 1974)
347-360.
24. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F.: "Transient Pressure
Analysis for Fractured Wells," JPT (September 1981) 1749.
25. van Golf-Racht, T.D.: Fundamentals of Fractured Reservoir
Engineering, Elsevier, New York, NY (1982)
26. Blasingame, T.A., Johnston, J.L., and Lee, W.J.: "Advances in
the Use of Convolution Methods in Well Test Analysis," paper
SPE 21826 presented at the 1991 Joint Rocky Mountain
Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO,
15-17 April 1991.
SPE 103204
SPE 103204
Appendix A Table of solutions for pD, pDd, and pDd (conditions/flow regimes as specified).
Table A-1
Solutions for the wellbore storage domination flow regime.
Variable
Solution Relation
p wbs
p wbs = mwbs t ................................................................................................................................................(A.1.1)
p d , wbs
p d , wbs = mwbs t .............................................................................................................................................(A.1.2)
p d , wbs
p d , wbs = 1 ...................................................................................................................................................(A.1.3)
Definitions: (field units)

mwbs =
1 qB ................................................................................................................................................................................................... (A.1.4)
24 Cs
Table A-2
Solutions for a well in a finite-acting, homogeneous reservoir (closed system, any

well/reservoir configuration).
Description
Relation
1 4 A 1
ln
2 e r 2 C A
w
+ s = 2t DA + b pss
..............................................................................(A.2.1)
pD
pD ( t DA ) = 2t DA +
pDd
pDd ( t DA ) = 2t DA ........................................................................................................................................(A.2.2)
pDd ( t DA ) =
pDd ( = pDd /pD )
1
1
1 + ( b pss / 2t DA )
(large-time) ..................................................................................................................................(A.2.3)
t DA = 2.637 10 4
pD =
ct A
................................................................................................................................................................................... (A.2.4)
1
kh
................................................................................................................................................................................. (A.2.5)
( pi p wf )
141.2 qB
b pss =
................................................................................................................................................................................... (A.2.6)
1 4 A 1
+s
ln
2 e rw2 C A
Table A-3
Solutions for an unfractured well in an infinite-acting, homogeneous reservoir (radial flow).
Description
Relation
p D (t D ) =
pD
1
1
E1
2
4t D
(t D
> 10 ) .........................................................................................................................................(A.3.1)
pDd
1
1
p Dd ( t D ) = exp
2
4t D
pD d (= pDd /pD )
1
p Dd ( t D ) = exp
4t D
(t D
(t D
> 10 ) .........................................................................................................................................(A.3.2)
1
E1
4t D
> 10 ) .........................................................................................................................................(A.3.3)

t D = 2.637 10 4
pD =
CD =
kt
................................................................................................................................................................................... (A.3.4)
c t rw2
1
kh
................................................................................................................................................................................. (A.3.5)
( pi p wf )
141.2 qB
0.8936Cs .................................................................................................................................................................................................. (A.3.6)
hct rw2
13
14
Table A-4
SPE 103204
Solutions for a single well in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir system with a single or
multiple sealing faults.
Description
Relation
p D (t D ) =
1 1
E1
2 4t D
L2
Df
+ E1
tD
(single fault)...................................................................................................................................(A.4.1)
L2
1 1
Df
E1
+ 2E1
t
2 4t D
D
p D (t D ) =
2 L2
Df
+ E1 t
D
(two perpendicular faults)..............................................................................................................(A.4.2)
pD
p D (t D ) =
1 1
E1
2 4t D
iL2
Df
E1
+2
tD
i =1
(two parallel faults)........................................................................................................................(A.4.3)
1 1
p D ( t D ) = E1
2
4t
D
( i 2 + 1) L2
Df
E1
+2
tD
i =1
iL2
Df
+2
E1
tD
i =1
L2
+ E Df
1
tD
(three perpendicular faults)............................................................................................................(A.4.4)

2
1
1 L / t D
p Dd ( t D ) = e 1/ 4 t D + e Df
1
2
2
(single fault, complete solution and large-time approximation) ...................................................(A.4.5)

p Dd ( t D ) =
L2 / t D 1 2 L2Df / t D
1 1 / 4 t D
e
+ e Df
+ e
2
2
2
(two perpendicular faults, complete solution and large-time approximation)..............................(A.4.6)

pDd
p Dd ( t D ) =
1 1 / 4 t D
e
+
2
iL2Df / t D
i =1
(two parallel faults, complete solution and large-time approximation)........................................(A.4.7)

p Dd ( t D ) =
1 1 / 4 t D
e
+
2
( i 2 +1) L2Df / t D
iL2Df / t D
i =1
i =1
2
1 L Df / t D
e
2
(three perpendicular faults)............................................................................................................(A.4.8)

p D d ( t D ) =
e 1 / 4 t D + e
L2Df / t D
L2
1
Df
E1
+ E1
t
4t D
D
2
L2
1
Df
E1
+ E1
t
4t D
D
(single fault, complete solution and large-time approximation) ...................................................(A.4.9)

p Dd ( t D ) =
e 1 / 4 t D + 2 e
L2Df / t D
2 L2 / t D
Df
+e
L2
2 L2
1
Df + E Df
E1
+ 2 E1
1
t
tD
4t D
D
1
E1
4t D
4
L2
Df
+ 2 E1
tD
2 L2
+ E Df
1
tD
(two perpendicular faults, complete solution and large-time approximation)............................(A.4.10)

pD d (= pDd /pD )
e 1 / 4 t D + 2
p Dd ( t D ) =
iL2Df / t D
i =1
iL2
1
Df
E1
E1
+2
tD
4t D
i =1
1
2
(two parallel faults, complete solution and large-time approximation)......................................(A.4.11)

e 1 / 4 t D + 2
p Dd ( t D ) =
( i 2 +1) L2Df / t D
i =1
( i 2 + 1) L2
1
Df
E1
E1
+2
tD
4t D
i =1
+2
iL2Df / t D
+e
L2Df / t D
i =1
iL2
+2
Df
E
1
D
i =1
L2
+ E Df
1
1
2
(three perpendicular faults, complete solution and large-time approximation)..........................(A.4.12)

t D = 2.637 10 4
pD =
kt
.................................................................................................................................................................................... (A.4.13)
ct rw2
................................................................................................................................................................................. (A.4.14)
1
kh
( pi p wf )
141.2 qB
L Df =
L fault .................................................................................................................................................................................................. .(A.4.15)

rw
SPE 103204
Table A-5
15
Solutions for a hydraulically fractured well with an infinite conductivity fracture in an infiniteacting reservoir.
Description
Relation
t Dxf
p D ( t Dxf ) =
erf 1 x D
2 t
Dxf

+ erf 1 + x D
2 t Dxf
(1 x )
2
D E (1 x D )
+
1
4
4 t Dxf

(1 + x ) (1 + x )2
D E
D
+
1
4
4 t Dxf
(Uniform-flux (xD=0) or infinite conductivity(xD=0.732))............................................................(A.5.1)

p D ( t Dxf ) = t Dxf
(early time, linear flow) .................................................................................................................(A.5.2)
pD
p D ( t Dxf ) =
1
[ln( t Dxf ) + 2.80907 ]
2
(late time, uniform flux fracture)...................................................................................................(A.5.3)

p D ( t Dxf ) =
1
[ln( t Dxf ) + 2.20000 ]
2
(late time, infinite conductivity fracture) ......................................................................................(A.5.4)

pDd (t Dxf ) =
t Dxf
4
erf 1 x D
2 t
Dxf

+ erf 1 + x D
2 t Dxf

pDd
pDd ( t Dxf ) =
t Dxf
4

pDd ( t Dxf ) = 0.5
(late time).......................................................................................................................................(A.5.7)
t

Dxf
1 xD
pDd ( t Dxf ) =
erf
2 t
4
Dxf

+ erf 1 + x D
2 t Dxf
t
Dxf
+ erf 1 + x D
2 t Dxf
(1 x )
2
D E (1 x D )
+
1
4
4 t Dxf

erf 1 x D
2 t
Dxf

2
(1 + x )
D E (1 + x D )
+
1
4
4 t Dxf
pD d (= pDd /pD )
pDd (t Dxf ) = 0.5

pD d ( t Dxf ) =
1
ln( t Dxf ) + 2.80907
(late time, uniform flux fracture).................................................................................................(A.5.10)

pDd ( t Dxf ) =
1
ln( t Dxf ) + 2.20000
(late time, infinite conductivity fracture) ....................................................................................(A.5.11)

t Dxf = 2.637 10 4
pD =
kt
.............................................................................................................................................................................. (A.5.12)
c t x 2f
1
kh
............................................................................................................................................................................... (A.5.13)
( pi p wf )
141.2 qB
x D = x/x f ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... .(A.5.14)

C Df =
0.8936 C s ............................................................................................................................................................................................. .(A.5.15)
hc t x 2f
16
Table A-6
SPE 103204
Early time solutions for a hydraulically fractured well with a finite conductivity fracture
infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir (includes wellbore storage effects).
Description
Relation
fD
p D ( t Dxf ) =
C fD
t Dxf
fD z
erfc
C
0.5
t
(
fD Dfx z )
z
dz
(General solution) ..........................................................................................................................(A.6.1)

p D ( t Dxf ) =
2
C fD
fD t Dxf
(Short-time approximation),
pD
p D ( t Dxf ) =
t Dxf
0.01C 2fD ................................................................................(A.6.2)
2fD
(1.25 ) 2 C fD
t Dxf 4
t Dxf 0.1
C 2fD
(Large-time approximation),
t Dxf 0.0205 ( C fD 1.5 )
t
4.55 2.5
Dxf
C fD
C fD 3
1.53
...........................(A.6.3)
1.6 C fD 3
C fD 1.6
fD t Dxf
p Dd ( t Dxf ) =
C fD
(Short-time approximation) ...........................................................................................................(A.6.4)
pDd
p Dd ( t Dxf ) =
0.612708
C fD
t Dxf 4
(Large-time approximation) ..........................................................................................................(A.6.5)

p Dd ( t Dxf ) =
1
2
(Short-time approximation) ...........................................................................................................(A.6.6)
pD d (= pDd /pD )
p Dd ( t Dxf ) =
1
4
(Large-time approximation) ..........................................................................................................(A.6.7)

t Dxf = 2.637 10 4
pD =
kt
................................................................................................................................................................................ (A.6.8)
c t x 2f
1
kh
................................................................................................................................................................................. (A.6.9)
( pi p wf )
141.2 qB
fD =
C fD =
C Df =
k f ct .................................................................................................................................................................................................. (A.6.10)
k f c ft
k f w ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... (A.6.11)
kx f
0.8936 C s .............................................................................................................................................................................................. (A.6.12)
hc t x 2f
SPE 103204
Table A-7
Solutions for an unfractured well in an infinite-acting, dual porosity (naturally fractured)

reservoir system (pseudosteady-state interporosity flow model).
Description
Relation
p D (t D ) =
pD
1
1
1 4
ln tD E1
t D + E1
tD
2 e
2 (1 ) 2 (1 )
(logarithmic approximation)..........................................................................................................(A.7.1)
pDd
p Dd (t D ) =

1

........................................................................................(A.7.2)
1 1
t D exp
tD
+ exp
2 2
(1 ) 2
(1 )
p Dd (t D )
1
2
(large-time) ....................................................................................................................................(A.7.3)

p D d ( t D ) = 1 + exp
t D exp
tD

(1 )
(1 )
4
t
ln
D
e
t D + E1
tD
E1

(1 )
(1 )
........................................................................................................................................................(A.7.4)
pD d (= pDd /pD )
p Dd (t D )
1
4
t D + E1
tD
ln tD E1
(1 )
(1 )
(large-time) ....................................................................................................................................(A.7.5)
t D = 2.637 10 4
pD =
kt
......................................................................................................................................................... (A.7.6)
( fb ctfb + ma ctma ) rw2
1
kh
................................................................................................................................................................................. (A.7.7)
( pi p wf )
141.2 qB
fb c tfb
...................................................................................................................................................................................... .(A.7.8)
fb c tfb + ma ctma
r2 k
................................................................................................................................................................................................ .(A.7.9)
= 12 w ma
2 k fb
hma
CD =
0.8936 C s .............................................................................................................................................................................................. .(A.7.10)
hct rw2
17
18
Table A-8
SPE 103204
Solutions for a hydraulically fractured well in an infinite-acting, dual porosity (naturally

fractured) reservoir system (pseudosteady-state interporosity flow model).
Description
Relation
p D ( t Dxf ) =
t Dxf
2 C fD
(1.25 )
1 4
(fracture storage dominated flow period, early time)....................................................................(A.8.1)

t Dxf
p D ( t Dxf ) =
3C fD
(fracture storage dominated flow period, intermediate time) .......................................................(A.8.2)
pD
p D ( t Dxf ) =
( 5 4 ) 2 C fD
t Dxf 1 4
(total system compressibility dominated flow period, early time) ...............................................(A.8.3)

p D ( t Dxf ) = t Dxf +
3C fD
(total system compressibility dominated flow period, intermediate time) ...................................(A.8.4)

p Dd ( t Dxf ) =
0.612708 t Dxf
C fD
1 4

t Dxf
p Dd ( t Dxf ) =
3C fD
(fracture storage dominated flow period, intermediate time) .......................................................(A.8.6)
pDd
p Dd ( t Dxf ) =
( 5 4 ) 2 C fD
t Dxf 1 4
(total system compressibility dominated flow period, early time) ...............................................(A.8.7)

p Dd ( t Dxf ) = t Dxf +
3C fD
(total system compressibility dominated flow period, intermediate time) ...................................(A.8.8)

p Dd ( t Dxf ) =
1
4

p D d ( t Dxf ) =
3C fD t Dxf
6 C fD t Dxf + 2 t Dxf
(fracture storage dominated flow period, intermediate time) .....................................................(A.8.10)

pDd (= pDd /pD )
p Dd ( t Dxf ) =
1
4
(total system compressibility dominated flow period, early time) .............................................(A.8.11)

p Dd ( t Dxf ) =
t Dxf
2 t Dxf +
3C fD
(total system compressibility dominated flow period, intermediate time) .................................(A.8.12)

t Dxf = 2.637 10 4
pD =
kt
.............................................................................................................................................................................. (A.8.13)
c t x 2f
1
kh
............................................................................................................................................................................... (A.8.14)
( pi p wf )
141.2 qB
fb c tfb
.................................................................................................................................................................................... .(A.8.15)
fb c tfb + ma ctma
r2 k
.............................................................................................................................................................................................. .(A.8.16)
= 12 w ma
2 k fb
hma
C fD =
C Df =
k f w ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... .(A.8.17)
kx f
0.8936 C s ............................................................................................................................................................................................. .(A.8.18)
hc t x 2f
SPE 103204
Table A-9
19
Solutions for an infinite conductivity horizontal well in an infinite-acting, homogeneous (and isotropic)
reservoir system.
Description
Relation
p D ( t DL ) =
0.866
0.134
exp( n 2 2 L 2D ) cos nz D cos nz wD
erf
+ erf
1 + 2

n =1
t DL
........................................................................................................................................................ (A.9.1)
2
2
(z z
D
wD ) / L D
1
E1
4LD
4t D
p D ( t DL ) =
pD
(early time approximation) ............................................................................................................ (A.9.2)

p D ( t DL ) =
1
(ln t DL + 2.509843 ) + F
2

t DL
p Dd ( t DL ) =
erf 0.866
t
DL
0.134
+ erf
t DL

1 + 2
exp( n 2 2 L 2D t DL ) cos nz D cos nz wD

n =1
........................................................................................................................................................ (A.9.4)
pDd
p Dd ( t DL ) =
2 2
(z z
1
D
wD ) / L D
exp
4 LD
4 t DL

p D ( t DL ) =
1
2

0.866
p Dd ( t DL ) = t DL erf
t
DL
t
DL
0

erf 0.866
t
DL
0.134
+ erf
t DL
0.134
+ erf
t DL

1 + 2
exp( n 2 2 L 2D t DL ) cos nz D cos nz wD

n =1

1 + 2
exp( n 2 2 L 2D ) cos nz D cos nz wD

n =1
........................................................................................................................................ (A.9.7)
pDd (= pDd /pD )
2
2
(z z
D
wD ) / L D
p Dd ( t DL ) = exp
4 t DL
2
2
(z z
D
wD ) / L D
E1
4 t DL
(early time)..................................................................................................................................... (A.9.8)

p Dd ( t DL ) =
1
(ln t DL + 2.509843 ) + F
(late time) ....................................................................................................................................... (A.9.9)

F=
+1
cos nz D cos nz wD 1 K 0 [ LD n ( 0.732 ) 2 ] d
................................................................................................................................ (A.9.10)
n =1
t DL = 2.637 10 4
kt
......................................................................................................................................................................... (A.9.11)
c t ( L 2 )2
1
kh
......................................................................................................................................................................... (A.9.12)
( pi pwf )
141.2 qB
z
z D = ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ .(A.9.13)
pD =
z wD = z D rwzD ............................................................................................................................................................................................ .(A.9.14)

2r
rwD = w ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... .(A.9.15)
L
rwzD = rwD L D ................................................................................................................................................................................................ .(A.9.16)
C DL =
LD =
0.8936 C s
......................................................................................................................................................................................... .(A.9.17)
hc t ( L / 2 ) 2
L ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... .(A.9.18)
2h
SPE 103204
Appendix B
20
Dimensionless "type curve" representations of the -pressure derivative and

various other pressure functions, selected reservoir/well configurations
DIAGNOSTIC plot for Well Test Data (pDd and pDd)
3
10
) (pDd
Bourdet "Well Test" Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Function, pDd

"Power Law " Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Function, pDd
Legend: (pDd
NO Wellbore Storage
or Skin Effects

2
10
Transient Flow
Region
BoundaryDominated
Flow Region
10
(
(
)
)
(
(
Fractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
Vertical Fracture)
)
)
Bounded Square
Reservoir:
(Full Penetration,
Thin Reservoir)
pDd = 1
(boundary
dominated flow)
pD d = 0.5
(linear flow)
10
2
4
pD d = 0.25
(bilinear flow)
-1
10
Unfractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
1
2
(
(
-2
10
10
-5
)
)
Fractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
Vertical Fracture)
-4
10
10
-3
(
(
-2
10
10
)
)
-1
10
10
10
Figure B.1 Schematic of pDd and pDd vs. tD Various reservoir models and well configurations (no wellbore storage or skin effects).
DIAGNOSTIC plot for Well Test Data (pDd)
3
10
Legend: (pDd

NO Wellbore Storage
or Skin Effects
"Power Law " Dimensionless Pressure

Derivative Function, pDd
10
BoundaryDominated
Flow Region
Transient Flow
Region
1
10
Fractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
Vertical Fracture)
pDd = 1
(boundary
dominated flow)
Bounded Square
Reservoir:
(Full Penetration,
Thin Reservoir)
10
pD d = 0.5
(linear flow)
pD d = 0.25
(bilinear flow)
-1
10
Unfractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
Fractured Well in
a Bounded Circular
Reservoir
Vertical Fracture)
-2
10
10
-5
-4
10
10
-3
-2
10
10
-1
10
10
10
Figure B.2 Schematic of pDd vs. tD Various reservoir models and well configurations (no wellbore storage or skin effects).
SPE 103204
10
21
Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Type Curves for Sealing Faults

(Inifinite-Acting Homogeneous Reservoir)
Legend: "Bourdet" Well Test Pressure Derivative
3 Perpendicular
Faults
"Bourdet" Well Test Pressure Derivative, pDd = tD dpD/dtD
-Pressure Derivative Function, pDd = (tD/pD) d/dtD(pD )
10
Single Fault Case

2 Parallel
Faults
10
pDd = tD dpD/dtD
10
10
2 Perpendicular
Faults
Undistorted
Radial Flow Behavior
Single
Fault
3 Perpendicular
Faults
10
2 Parallel
Faults
-1
2 Perpendicular
Faults
Single
Fault
pD d = (tD/pD) dpD/dtD
10
10
-2
Legend: -Pressure Derivative Function

Single Fault Case
-3
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
2
tD/LD (LD = Lfault/rw)
10
10
10
10
Figure B.3 pDd and pDd vs. tD/LD various sealing faults configurations (wellbore storage and skin effects are NOT included).
Type Curve for an Unfractured Well in an Infinite-Acting Homogeneous Reservoir
with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects.
10
10
Legend: Radial Flow Type Curves

pD Solution
pDd Solution
pD d Solution
100
10
80
10
60
50 10
10
40
10
30
10
20
10
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
10
15
10
10
8 10
104 106
3
10
1 10210
3 10
pD, pDd and pDbd
-2
310 110-2
2s
100
10
-3
CDe =110
10
Radial Flow Region

2s
-3
CDe =110
2s
-3
CDe =110
-3
-1
10
10
-1
310-2 310-2
110
3 2 101
3
104
10
10 106 8
10
10
1015
10
30
10
50
10
60
10
80
10
20
10
-2
10
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
40
10
100
10
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
tD/CD
Figure B.4 pD, pDd, and pDd vs. tD/CD solutions for an unfractured well in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir wellbore storage
and skin effects included (various CD values).
22
SPE 103204

(Pseudosteady-State Interporosity Flow) No Wellbore Storage or Skin Effects.
10
Legend:
pD Solution
pDd Solution
10
110
110
pD and pDd
10
10
-3
-2
= 110
-1
-1
= 110
-1
= 110
= 110
10
= 110
-2
= 110
-2
= 110
10
-1
-2
-3
-3
-1
-2
= 110
-3
= 110
= 110
-3
-3
pDd ( = 5 10 )
-6
pDd ( = 5 10 )
10
-9
pDd ( = 5 10 )
-4
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
tD
10
10
10
10
10
Figure B.5 pD and pDd vs. tD solutions for an unfractured well in an infinite-acting dual porosity system no wellbore storage or
skin effects (various and values).

-1
10
-1
Legend: = CD = 110 , = 110

pD Solution
pDd Solution
10
10
10
10
60
10
1
10
pD and pDd
10
10
10
10
10
-1
10
-3
310
-2
Radial Flow Region
-3
CDe =110
2s
CDe =110
-3
-2310
-2
110
-1
10
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
10
10
10
10
6
15
10
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
-4
10
10
10
10
1
10
2
3
10 10
-2
10
10
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
10
10
-1
2s
2s
CDe =110
CDe =110
10
-2
-3
-3
Radial Flow Region
10
10
10
50
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
110
100
2s
80
40
20
10
10
10
-1
100
60
30
10
10
-2
10
10
310
310
10
-2
-3
-3
CDe =110
2s
CDe =110
Radial Flow Region
-3
-3
-2
10
-1
-1
310
10
10
3 10
1
4
10
10
10
10
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
110
10
10
10
15
10
-2
310
-2
-3
30
10
10
10
20
50
80
10
40
10
60
10
10
100
100
10
10
10
CDe =110
-2
310 110-2 310
-1
10
1
1
2 10
3
4 10
10
6
10
8
10
10
10
15
10
10
20
10
30
10
40
10
50
60
10
80
10
10
10
-3
-3
-3
0
10
10
50
60
10
80
10
10
2s
-1
15
30
-3
-3
2s
10
10
( = CD = 110 , = 110 )
-4
10
-2
10
15
15
-1
-2
10
30
10
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
10
10
-3
10
10
-4
CDe =110
10
310
110
100
10
10
310
-2
10
10
10
10

pD and pDd
pD and pDd
10
10
10
50
20
10
10
10
10
-3
10
10
-1
80
40
20
40
Legend: = CD = 110 , = 110

pD Solution
pDd Solution
10
10
10
Figure B.8 pD and pDd vs. tD/CD = 110 , = CD =

-1
10
10
60
-3
tD/CD
100
10
10
2s
CDe =110
-3
-2310
-2
310
110
1
-3
-1
10
Radial Flow Region
-3
-2
10
-1
10
-3
310
-2
2s
-3
-1
( = CD = 110 , = 110 )
-4
Legend: = CD = 110 , = 110

pD Solution
pDd Solution
10
-2
310
110
CDe =110

10
-1
100
-1
10

-1
10
30
CDe =110
2s
10
30
tD/CD
10
10
10
10
-3
10
10
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
10
40
10
50
60
10
80
10
10
100
-2
10
10
10
100
50
15
-1
10
-2
10
10
10
10
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
10
20
10
10
-3
310
10
1 1
10
2
3
10 10
-1
10
10
10
-3
2s
80
40
20
10
15
2s
CDe =110
10
10
10
-2
110
100
10
60
10
10
310
100
10
30
10
10
50
20
10
10
10
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
-3
80
40
10
10
-1
Legend: = CD = 110 , = 110

pD Solution
pDd Solution
100
10
-3
( = CD = 110 , = 110 )
-1
10
10
-1
( = CD = 110 , = 110 )
pD and pDd
10
-1
10
10
10
tD/CD
-1

-4
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
tD/CD
-3

-4
SPE 103204
23
Type Curve for a Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical

Fractured in an Infinite-Acting Homogeneous Reservoir
(CfD = (wkf)/(kxf) = 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 10000)
10
CfD=0.25
pD, pDd and pDd
10
0
4
CfD=110
110
10
10
10
0.5
Radial Flow Region
500
0.5
CfD=0.25
1
2
-1
-2
CfD=110
-3
10
-6
10
Legend:
pD Solution
pDd Solution
pDd Solution
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
tDxf
Figure B.10 pD, pDd, and pDd vs. tDxf solutions for a fractured well in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir no wellbore storage or
skin effects (various CfD values).
Type Curve for a Well with Infinite Conductivity Vertical Fracture in an Infinite-Acting
Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore Storage Effects
1
Legend: Infinite Conductivity

pD Solution
pDd Solution
10
110
0
110
110
-1
110
110
-6
pD and pDd
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
110
-5
110
110
-1
110
-2
-3
-3
110
-4
-6
CDf=110
-2
110
110
0
2
-3
110
110
110
110
110
110
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
-4
110
110
-4
-5
-2
110
-2
110
110
10
10
CDf=110
-5
-3
110
-1
110

pD Solution
pDd Solution
-6
-1
-2
110
CDf=110
10
10
pD and pDd
10
110
10
-1
110
-4
110
110
110
110
-5
110
-6
CDf=110
10
-2
Radial Flow Region
Radial Flow Region

-6
CDf=110
10
-3
10
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-3
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-4
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
-1
10
10
tDxf/CDf
Figure B.11 pD and pDd vs. tDxf/CDf CfD = (fractured well

10

pD Solution
pDd Solution
110
110
110
-2
110
-1
110
-3
110
110

pD Solution
pDd Solution
-5
-4
110
-6
CDf=110
CDf=110
10
-1
110
2
110
10
Radial Flow Region
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-2
10
10
10
110
-1
110
-2
-3
110
110
110
-4
-3
110
110
-1
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
110
-1
0
110
110
-4
110
-5
-2
110
Radial Flow Region
CDf=110
-3
10
10
110
0
-6
10
10
-2
110
-6
CDf=110
-3
110
110
110
-5
110
110
110
110
-1
pD and pDd
pD and pDd
10
110
-2
10
10
-4
110
-5
-6 110
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
10
Figure B.13 pD and pDd vs. tDxf/CDf CfD = 10 (fractured

well case includes wellbore storage
effects).
10
tDxf/CDf
-3
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-4
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
tDxf/CDf
Figure B.12 pD and pDd vs. tDxf/CDf CfD = 1 (fractured well

10
-4
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
tDxf/CDf
Figure B.14 pD and pDd vs. tDxf/CDf CfD = 100 (fractured

effects).
24

Type Curve for a Well with Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture in an Infinite-Acting Dual Porosity
-1
-1
Reservoir with Wellbore Storage Effects (CfD = (wkf)/(kxf) = 1, = CDf = 110 , = 110 ).
10
10
-1
-1
1
-1
-1
Legend: CfD = 1, = 110 , = 110

pD Solution
pDd Solution
0
CDf=110
10
110
110
110
110
-3
110
110
-1
Legend: CfD = 100, = 110 , = 110

pD Solution
pD d Solution
-2
110
-6
-1
10
-6
-4
CDf=110
-5
110
SPE 103204
10
-1
110
110
110
-2
-1
110
CDf=110
-5
110
-3
110
-1
-2
110
10
110
Wellbore Storage CDf=110

Domination Region
-1
110
-4
-6
Radial Flow Region
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-2
110
110
CDf=110
-4
110
pD and pDd
pD and pDd
10
110
110
-6
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
-1
110
1
-3
110
-2
110
-1
110
110
110
-4
110
-6
-5
-3
-5
110
10
-2
-6
CDf=110
Radial Flow Region

10
10
-3
10
-4
10
-4
-3
10
-2
10
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-3
-4
10
-4
-3
-2
10
10
10
-1
10
10
tDxf/CDf
-1
-5
-1
-1
110
110
110
110
110
pD and pDd
-3
110
-4
10
-6
CDf=110
10
-5
-1
110
110
-1
110
-2
110
-6
-2
110
110
CDf=110
-6
110
1
110
Wellbore Storage CDf=110

Domination Region
-3
110
110
-4
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
10
-1
-3
110 110
-3
110
110
10
-2
110
-4
110
110
-4
10
-4
-4
-3
10
-2
10
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
-6
CDf=110
10
10
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-3
-4
10
-4
-3
-2
10
10
10
-1
10
10
tDxf/CDf
-1
10
110
-2
10
10
10
10
-5
-2
110
10
110
-5
Legend: CfD = 100, = 110 , = 110

pD Solution
pD d Solution
-2
-3
110
110
-1
-4
110
110
110
-5
-6
CDf=110
10
110
-2
110
110
-1
110
-2
110
-3
110
-6
CDf=110
10
-6
-1
-6
CDf=110
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
-5
110
-4
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-2
-3
110
110
-2
110 1101
1
2
110
pD and pDd
pD and pDd
CDf=110
10
10
-1
CDf=110
110
110
-4
110
110
-5
-1
-4
110
-2
110
1
10
-4
-3
10
-2
10
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
tDxf/CDf
10
CDf=110
-2
10
10
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-3
-4
10
-4
-3
10
-2
10
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
tDxf/CDf
-2
Figure B.17 pD and pDd vs. tDxf/CDf CfD =1, = 110 , =

CDf = 110-5 (fractured well in dual porosity
system case includes wellbore storage
effects).
110
-6
10
-4
-6
-5
-3
Radial Flow Region
-3
10
110
110
Radial Flow Region

10
-1
-5
-2
-5
10
Figure B.19 pD and pDd vs. tDxf/CDf CfD =100, = 110 ,

-5
= CD = 110 (fractured well in dual porosity
effects).
Legend: CfD = 1, = 110 , = 110

pD Solution
pDd Solution
tDxf/CDf

effects).
10
110
2
110
-1
Radial Flow Region
-3
10
-5
-2
110
-5
Radial Flow Region
10
-6
-5
-2
10
110
CDf=110
-1
110
10
110
-6
10
-5
Legend: CfD = 100, = 110 , = 110

pD Solution
pD d Solution
-2
110
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
-1
10
-1
CDf=110
10
10
-5
-1
10
pD and pDd
10
-5

-1
= CDf = 110 (fractured well in dual porosity
effects).
Legend: CfD = 1, = 110 , = 110

pD Solution
pDd Solution
10
-1

effects).
10
tDxf/CDf
-2

-5
= CD = 110 (fractured well in dual porosity
effects).
10
SPE 103204
25
Type Curve for a Infinite Conductivity Horizontal Well in an Infinite-Acting

Homogeneous Reservoir (LD= 0.1, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100).
10
LD= 0.1
10
0.125
0.25
1
0.5
LD= 0.1
pD, pDd and pDd
0.125
10
0.5
100
5
10
10
Vertical Fracture
0.25
-1
10
25
50
5
1
25
0.5
50
0.25
100
10
-2
0.125
25
L=0.1
Vertical Fracture
50
10
-3
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
-3
10
-2
10
10
-1
10
10
Legend:
pD
Solution
pDd Solution
pD d Solution
10
10
tDL
Figure B.21 pD, pDd, and pDd vs. tDL solutions for an infinite conductivity horizontal well in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir
no wellbore storage or skin effects (various LD values).
10
Legend: LD = 1
pD Solution
pDd Solution
10
pD and pDd
10
Legend: LD = 100
pD Solution
pD d Solution
110
110
110
-1
110
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
10

-2
110
1
-3
110
-4
110
10
110
Radial Flow Region
CDL=110
110
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
-6
CDL=110
-1
Radial Flow Region
-5
pD and pDd
10
-6
10
1
110
-2
-1
110
110
-3
110
-4
-6
CDL=110
-5
110
110
10
110
-1
110
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
10
110
-3
CDL=110
-5
110
10
-2
110
-1
110
-2
-6
-4
110
-2
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
tDL/CDL

2
Legend: LD = 10
pD Solution
pDd Solution
10
Radial Flow Region
1
2
110
110
pD and pDd
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
10
1
110
-2
-1
110
110
-3
110
110
-4
-6
CDL=110
-5
-6
CDL=110
-5
110
10
110
-1
-3
110
1 110
110
-4
110
-1
110
10
-2
-2
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
tDL/CDL
Figure B.22 pD and pDd vs. tDL/CDL LD=1 (horizontal well

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
tDL/CDL
Figure B.23 pD and pDd vs. tDL/CDL LD=10 (horizontal well

Figure B.24 pD and pDd vs. tDL/CDL LD=100 (horizontal

effects).
26
SPE 103204
Type Curve for an Unfractured Well in a Bounded Homogeneous Reservoir

with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects (reD= 100)
3
10
Legend: Bounded Resevoir reD= 100

pD Solution
pDd Solution
pD d Solution
10
Boundary Dominated
Flow
10
10
10
10
10
10
-1
-2
310
-2
110
pD, pDdand pDd
10
Wellbore Storage
Domination Region
10
-3
310
10
10
2s
-3
CDe =110
10
10
-2
110
-3
310
2s
-3
CDe =110
2s
10
-2
310
-1
CDe =110
10
-1
-3
-2
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-3
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
tD/CD
Figure B.25 pD and pDd vs. tD/CD reD =100, bounded circular reservoir case includes wellbore storage and skin effects to illustrate
both wellbore storage and boundary effects.
SPE 103204
Appendix C
Diagnostic worksheet A Summary of schematic well test responses for

the -derivative formulation.
Figure C.1 Summary of schematic well test responses for the -derivative formulation.
27

(Blasingame) SPE 103204

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

(Blasingame) SPE 103204

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SPE 103204

The Pressure Derivative Revisited Improved Formulations and Applications

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

The "power-law" flow regimes uniquely defined by the pd(t)

In addition, the pd(t) function provides unique characteristic

derivative, dp/dt) as well as the "Bourdet" well testing

N. Hosseinpour-Zonoozi, D. Ilk, and T. A. Blasingame

particular plotting function. For example, a derivative-based

The origin of the -derivative formulation pd(t) was an

solving for the "Cartesian" or "primary pressure derivative,"

Calculation of the -Derivative Function

The left- and right-hand subscripts represent the "left" and

The Pressure Derivative Revisited Improved Formulations and Applications

tR = ln(tright) ln(tcalc) ......................................... (6c)

pL = ln(pcalc) ln(pleft) ......................................... (7d)

Multiplying the right-handside of Eq. 7a by pcalc (recall that

Background: Without question, the Bourdet definition of the

Bourdet "Well Test" Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Function, pDd

pR = ln(pright) ln(pcalc) ....................................... (7e)

Unfractured Well (Radial Flow)

Dimensionless Time, tD (model-dependent)

Infinite-acting radial flow the "utility" case for the Bourdet

N. Hosseinpour-Zonoozi, D. Ilk, and T. A. Blasingame

Infinite-Acting Radial Flow: The -derivative function for a

pD, pDd and pDbd

Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Type Curves for Sealing Faults

Legend: "Bourdet" Well Test Pressure Derivative

Single Fault Case

pDd = (tD/pD) dpD/dtD

Legend: -Pressure Derivative Function

Single Fault Case

pDd and pDd vs. tD/LD various sealing faults

Unfractured Well in a Dual Porosity System: We used the

Legend: Radial Flow Type Curves

"Bourdet" Well Test Pressure Derivative, pDd = tD dpD/dtD

-Pressure Derivative Function, pDd = (tD/pD) d/dtD(pD )

Radial Flow Region

Type Curve for an Unfractured Well in an Infinite-Acting Dual Porosity Reservoir

pD, pDd, and pDd vs. tD/CD solutions for an

Sealing Faults: Ref. 12 provides pDd-format (Bourdet) type

pD and pDd vs. tD solutions for an unfractured

The Pressure Derivative Revisited Improved Formulations and Applications

wellbore storage domination behavior (pDd = 1), as well as the

In Fig. 5 we present cases where = 110-1 and = CD =

Legend: = CD = 110 , = 110

pD, pDd and pDd

pD, pDd and pDd

Type Curve for a Infinite Conductivity Horizontal Well in an Infinite-Acting

Type Curve for a Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical

Horizontal Wells: Ozkan16 created a line-source solution for

Hydraulically Fractured Vertical Wells: In this section we

Radial Flow Region

pD, pDd, and pDd vs. tDL solutions for an infinite

pD and pDd vs. tDxf/CDfCfD = 10 (fractured well

pD and pDd vs. tD/CD = 110 , = CD =

Radial Flow Region

Radial Flow Region

Legend: CfD = (wkf)/(kxf)= 10

Type Curve for an Unfractured Well in an Infinite-Acting Dual Porosity Reservoir

pD, pDd, and pDd vs. tDxf solutions for an

N. Hosseinpour-Zonoozi, D. Ilk, and T. A. Blasingame

i.e., a thin reservoir). As expected, we do observe the strong

Radial Flow Region