POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY
.,;
Advances in
Estimating Gas wen Deliverability
By A. G. WINESTOCK and G. P. COLPITTS"
(16th A.nnllal Technical Alee-ting, The Pel1"oleum Society of C./.ll!., Calgary, 11fay? 1965)
ABSTRACT
In the past, drawdown tests to estimate well delh"er-
ability and diagnose wellbore damage, although simple in
themselves, have been of limited "alue, often because it is
inconvenient or costly to obtain the constant f10'\' rate re-
quired to analyze them reliably. This paper presents a
new drawdown analysis technique developed with the aid
of a digital gas-well simulator_ The new method does not
require a constant rate, is as simple to analyze as the
conventional method and is considerabl:r more accurate.
It can thus he used in gas wells to analyze the early time
data from a back-pressure test when the rate has not yet
"stabilized" to a constant \'alue. The new technique takes
into account turbulent flow in gas-well systems - a pre~
requisite to calculating a gas well's current and potential
delive:rability_ These calculations are easier if at least two
'; drawdown tests, and preferabl}', more, can be conducted
on the gas ,,,-elL Fortunately, the practice of running a
multiplicity of drawdown tests is already embodied in the
four-point isochronal AOF test, where each flow test is
separated from the_ others by a sufficiently long period
of shut-in. This type of test lends itself to reliable draw-
down analysis. However, in the four-point flow-after-
flow test, where the flows at each rate are consecutive,
the deliverabilit}· estimates often are not reliable_
The new drawdown technique is not limited to use in
gas wells. It can also be used to estimate well produc-
ti"it:y and diagnose wellbore damage in oil or water
systems.
INTRODUCTION
AS flow in a porous medium is differen~
from
G oil or water flow in that it does not obey the
Dai'cy Law. In the gas-reservoIr-engineering litera-
-, ture (I), this difference is now commonly called "tur-
bl:llence_" Turbulence occurs because the low viscosity
of gas (compared to that of oil or water) results in
correspondingly higher gas velocities under a given
pressure gradient. At these higher velocities, the gas
suffers inertial energ,Y losses as well as the usual
viscous euergy (Darcy) loss_ This energy loss changes
th,~ relationship between gas veIocit}r and pressure
gradient from linear, as in Darcy flow, to non-linear.
Turbulence is greatest in the vicinity of the wellbore,
where velocities are large_ Thus, it gives rise to an
extra pl-eSSUl'e drop around the well - an effect simi-
lar to that of wellbore damage.
The dependence of gas viscosity and density on
pressure introduces a second non-linearity into gas-
flow theor}r_ At anyone time, these parameters will
vary throughout a reservoir across which pressure
gradients have been impressed. In addition, the pres-
sure at any point will change with progressive de-
pletion.
Technology, July ~ S~ptember, 1965, Montreal
.J C-PTbS-03-o{
..!
,.
These non-linearities are important because they
result in a differential equation of gas flow which
is corresponding!}r non-linear and which has no kno,,\-Tn ,
general anal}rtical solution. "
~; .
The objective of this paper is to examine approxi- f' -
mate solutions to this differential equation and, us-
ing these, to evaluate methods for testing gas wells in
order to determine reservoir characteristics_ Each of
the next two sections deals with one of these solu-
tions. The first describes a digital model which ac-
curately simulates flow in a gas-well system by solv-
iug the non-linear difference equation numerically.
The secop.d describes the Houpeurt equation, an ap-
proximate pressure-flow-rate relation for unsteady-
state radial gas flow_ This equation provides a basis
for calculating re,servoir characteristics from well
tests_
The accuracy of reservoir characteristics calculated > -:,
from the Houpeul"t equation can be checked by means
of simulated field data generated with the gas-well
simulator, whose reservoir properties are knmirn_ The
ensuing two sections of the paper then use this pro-
cedure to explore the accuracy of the conventional
method of drawdown test analysis and present an im-
proved drawdown analysis technique, referred to as
the normalized method. Follo,ving this, a recommended
field testing procedure is outlined, in terms of which
the current testing practices, such as isochronal and
flow-after-flow tests, are evaluated_ Finally, appli-
cation of the normalized drawdown method to oil and
,"vater wells is discussed brief!}r.
THE DIGITAL GAS-WELL SmULAToR
The gas-well simulator is a digital computer pro- ,,. ..
gl-am which simulates the flow of gas through the
reservoir and into a well. The program solves the non-
linear difference equation for one-dimensional un-
steady-state gas flow in a porous medium. It also
solves the pressure-rate relationships which describe
flow in the production string. Its main features are
listed below:
(a) _ Flow in the reservoir is single-phase, unsteady-
state, radial and horizontal.
(b). Permeability and pOl'osity can vary radially
throughout the system.
(c). Flow includes turbulence, and the turbulence fac-
tor can vary radially throughout the system, .'
(d), Gas viscosity and density are continuous func-
tions of pressure.
"Impe>';al Oil Ltd., Calgary, Alta.
111
 POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY
(e). 'Veil radius and external radius of drainage can
be specified.
(f) . Tubing and casing dimensions and production-
string lengths can be specified.
( g). A large variety of well-boundary conditions can
be imposed in succession, as follows:
(i) Constant or variable bottom-hole rate
(ii I Constant or variable bottom-hole pressure
(iii) Constant or variable wellhead rate, including zero
mte (wellhead shut-in with after-flow)
(i \' ) Constant or variablE! wellhead pressure
(\') Flow through a wellhead critical-flow prover of spe-
cified size.
(h 1. BOllndal"}' conditions at the external radius of
drainage can also be imposed in succession, as
follows:
(i) Constant or variable reservoir I"ate
(ii) Constant or variable. reservoir pressure.
Simulator cases were nm on both the IBM 7090
at the University of TOl'onto and the IBI\'l 7044 at the
Calgary Data Centre.
The gas-well simulator accurately approximates one-
dimensional radial gas f1m\', but it provides no simpli-
fied algebraic expression of pressure-flow-rate rela-
tionships. One such simplified expression is described
in the following sectioll.
THE HOUPEURT UNSTEADY-STATE EQUATION
In 1959, Houpeurt (2) presented an equation that
pl"Ovides an empirical basis for calculating reservoir
characteristics from well tests. The Houpeurt equation
incorporates turbulence in an approximate solution
to the unsteady-state radial flow of gas into a well
producing at a constant rate. As originally presented,
the equation describe.:; gas density at the ,'vellbore.
Expressed in terms of pressure J the relation is
(See Nomenclature for definition of SJrmbols).
This equation assumes that the system is homo-
geneous, horizontal and of uniform thickness. It also
assume~ that several pl'essure-dependent properties of
the gas (i.e., viscosity. compl'essibility, average pres-
sUL'e) can be l"epresented by some suitably averaged
constant values.
The time-independent nature of the turbulence
term, Bq",~, in Equation (1) deserves special comment.
The term may be included in this form when the rate
throughout the region of turbulence has reached the
\Vellbore rate. As Houpeul't (3) points out, this gen-
erally happ~ns quickly, because most of the turbulence
occurs within a very small region around the well, so
that a pressure disturbance can usually mo",,'e through
it in very little time.
It ~hould be pointed out that the turbulence term al-
Wl:l..ys adds to the pressure drop. Equation (1) assumes
that qs is defined a~ positive. If q", is defined as nega-
tive, the sign of the turbulence term would also have
to be negative.
In the following section, we will discuss how the
Houpeurt equation is used in calculating reservoir
characteristics from well tests. \Ve will consider its
use fir::.t with the conventional method of drawdown
test analysis, and then with a more reliable tech-
nique - the normalized dl'awdown method.
112
CONVENTIONAL DRAWDOWN METHOD
The conventional drawdown method yields a per-
meability-thickness product. It is based on the fact
that, by Equation (1), which assumes a constant rate,
a plot of P,:: - p",/ versus log t results in a straight
line. From the slope per logarithmic cycle of this plot,
the permeability-thickness product can be calculated:
md·ft (21
where In = slope per lo~aritillnic c~'c1c from fl plot of (n~ p..,2 \
vc;, In,C;loL
The kh product is an important reservoir para-
meter. Its role in determining deliverability and the
degree of wellbore damage or improvement is dis-
cussed later.
Equation (1) has been written for a well producing
at a constant rate. In practice, it is often diffic.ult to
establish a constant rate during a flow test. As shown
later with the conventional drawLlown method, a vari-
ation in rate of only a fraction of a per cent through-
out a test can result in highl)r erroneous kh values,
because the variation being considered in Pl~ - p.j
can be of the same order of magnitude. The next sec-
tion describes a new drawdown analysis method which
a voids this difficult~·.
NOR::IoIALIZED DRAWDOWN iVIETHOD
To account for variations in rate, we developed il
new analysis which we call the normalized drawdown
method.O\< It is as simple as the conventional method,
has been ~uccessfully field-tested, has be~n verified
on the ga~-well .simulator and (:~ln be justified theo~
retically.
The normalized drawdO\vn method i~ ba::;ed on Equa-
tion ({]) J which describes the drawdown in a gas
' ..' ell flowing at a varying rate. (See App{mdi:r for
theoretical discllssion).
Pi-• - p"r-.J.ltJ =
1-l.24[.l...,zTql'
kh (l) [II?- lin lo;- O.f[~.1 _)- SI
+ Bq:!.: (tl + additional terms I';')
[n Equation (3), the flow rate, q~(t), is the in-
stantaneous flow rate rather than some average COIl-
stant value for the test. The additional terms are usu-
ally negligible, provided that the changes in rate are
not excessively rapid_ For example. when flowing II
well through a critical-flow prover, the additionl\l
terms are generally .small. \Vhen these term~ are
neglected, Eqlw-tion (3) is eqUivalent to treating qo:
in the Houpeurt equation as the instantaneous flow
rate rather than the average rate. Treating the rate
as a variable makes it nece~sary to "normalize" Equa-
tion (3) to obtain a meaningful straight-line plot ver-
sus the logarithm of time; i.e., Equation (1,.):
p,2 _ p",! ttl - Bq2~ (U
q.(t)
1-l24(L",zT 11/2 (In to
kh
+ 0.809) + 51 til
"\Ve should note that H. J. Ramey, Jr., in solving the.
wellbore unloading problem, has independently derived nn
approach similar to that discussed here (4). He pre~ents
a theol·etieal corroboration for one particuim' funetl0nnl
form for changes in rate. In the Appendix to this pnpcy,
we present a theoretical discussion for rate chun~es In
general.
The Journal of Canadian Petroleum
 POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY

1 --
II
·1 TABLE I
,'.
"
COMPARA:IVE ERRORS BY THE TWO DR.~WDOWN lvlETEODS
~
i
Per "enl Err;r in kll !J)'
-_._-------------
B f(Fi~ -;)2"rh - (-;~ --:;2u.r)d (q, -q,) N ;TIn'Jlized Jlfethod
!J.!,:zT psia:! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Actual ------ Bqlt2
Run -l,h
- (~j2 -02"r12 q, kl, Cotweu 1iJf1ul With Wi(ll!JlIl
Number (M,d/D)' J:er celt :e~ cent mj-ft J\lel!l:;d T!trb'/lence Turbulence p;.2_ p 2I<"f
----
, 1.. .... .0381 0.723 0.51 0.18 400 60 - 2 11 0.85
J 2 ...... .0194 0.246 0.30 0.20 400 81 -10 20 0.89
5."
, 3 ......
4 ......
5 ......
.108
.0763
.285
0.0683
0.0321
0.0225
3.3
5.8
3.9
2.1
0.72.
2.0
120
120
40
88
19
67
6
6
8
16
7
10
0.23
0.10
0.045
6 ..... .404 0.00766 5.~ 1.8 40 3-1 9 9 0.008 .' .
7 .....
8 .....
.00808
.0158
0.00213
0.00100
5.1
5.5
0.07
0.24
1.200
1,200
4
9
3
6
3
6
0.051
0.023
"
9 ...... .0381 0.0226 4.0 0.36 400 18 9 9 0.099
10 ...... .0194 0.00768 4.9 044 400 15 5 6 0.19
11 ..... .108 0.00213 -1.4 1.2 120 38 8 7 0.018
12 ...... .0763 0.00100 7.3 0.36 120 12 9 8 0.008
13 .. .285 1.13 0.72 2.3 40 '165 5 34 0.36
14...... .404 0.3B3 4.6 3.2 40 90 6 16 0.20
15 ...... 00808 0.106 0.85 0.04 1,200 1 - 6 - 2 0.81
16 ...... .0158 0.0500 2.0 0.[4 1.200 -2 -9 - 5 0.73

,." .'

Thus, a plot of [p,' - p.,'(t) - Bq,'(t)] I q,(t) versus COMPARIsON OF METHODS

loglOt )rields a straight line with a slope per log cycle,
Figw-es lea) and (b), respectively, shm..' a schema-
m'. The kh product can then be calculated from Equa-
tion (5): tic comparison of the drawdown plots for the conven-

~
tional and the normalized method.
1;:1 1637 tLJ;z'T' ."t To assess the relative accuracy of the two meth-
1, 1= m' m .. -l (5)
cds, sixteen drawdowns were run on the gas-well sim- "

ulator. The parameters of the system were varied by \~ .-

:~ If the turbulence group. B, is not known, then one using a two~level design-of-experiments approach (5), ,
,
:~
.,
can plot [p,' - p.,'(t)]/q,,(t) versus log"t. The slope
per logarithmic cycle, m", is related to the kh product
and the kh product for each dra\vdown was calculated
bj' the two methods. The calculated kh product was
'J by Equation (6); then compared to the actual value which had been
specified for each simulator run. Table I shows the
kh = 1637 lJ.~zT In· .ft
(6) errors incurred bJ.r the two methods and the values of
m"
some of the more pertinent parameters in each run.
Another way of expressing the effect a changing
rate has on PI: - p.. . r:!' is by assuming that the system
behaves as if the instantaneous rate had been in ef-
fect from the start of the test. Theoretically, of
course, PI:!' ~ P,y/ depends on the entire preceding his-
tory. The effect of the slightly different rates that N~
~

/
precede the instantaneous rate is incorporated into ,
CD

the additional terms. At any given moment, the effect N'i ""
of the difference between the current rate and all pre-
~
, 0-

N ._
ceding rates will have been attenuated! provided that ~

the rate change is gradual and slight. Actually, how-

ever, because the slope rather than the absolute value log r log t
is used to calculate kh, the procedure requires only CONVENTIONAL METHOO NORMALIZED METHOD
that the change be gradual, and is not restricted to (Norma Iized for rate changes)
(Rote assumed constant)
. slight changes. 'Vhen the drawdown is used to calcu-
late damage, as will be discussed later, the absolute 1637,l1gZT
value does become important; in this case, the kh" in l
changes must be slight as well as graduaL
Use of the normalized dl-a,vdown method as part
of a recommended field testing procedure. is dis-
FignTe 1 (a) Figm·e 1 (b) r-
I.

cussed later_ Figure l_-Drawdown Analysis Jllethods_ ,i

Technology, July - September, 1965. Montreal 113
 POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY

Fig/l}'es 3 4, and 5 present an actual field druw-

down test analysis in which the normalized method
100· 1 J 0 CONVENTIONAL METHOD would avoid a misinterpretation resulting from the
_1-"
eo ~'----I-
w
.
01. NORMALIZED METHOD
NORMALIZED METHOD, WITHOUT
TUR8ULENCE
I 1 conventional method,
shown in Table II.
The corresponding data are

Figure :1 is a drawdo\','n plot b3' the conventional

~ ::,------- j---tJ-l--c---
1 +-1-I---------ll-----j method. Depending on the choice of slope, the cal-
eulaled kh product is either 39 or ll8 rod-ft. If

~ '0 1 J-~_I-"-LLIf---j-----t---t-j
this were interpreted in the usual mannet·. the lat-
er time Rlope, corresponding to 118 md-ft, would be
chosen as indicating the undamaged productivity. As
:.'i" '. 1.1 the well's actual productivity is not as high as the

'I Ii
,
i .
1
, ., 10
I1H md-ft. would suggest. ami because the annly~ig
inclicate.s damage, the conv~ntional method says that
this well is a prime candidate for stimulation.
TURBULENT 6 ( F")
TOTAL ll,IP") Figure 4- is a plot of the same data, using the
normalized method. In this case. there is only one
Figure. 2.-}:..'r/"(Jr.o; in Calculating k1l from Dra.wdowfls. slope, corresponding to a kh product of 11 md-ft. If
the normalized method without turbulence is used, a~
In Figure 2, the errors of the conventional method shown in Figure 5, the resulting kh product is 13 md-
are cumpared to the errors of the normalized method. it. Thus, the ,veil's low productivity really result~
As explained earlier, the turbulence group, B, may from a low formation kh and not from damage.
not be knuwll. F'igll1'e 2 also shows the errol'S of the
normalized method, but with turbulence neglected. An independent check on these results is pl'ovided
The elTor~ are plotted as a function of the degree of by data from a pressure build-up test. The build-up
turbulence in the s~!stem. The degree of turbulence is yields a kh product of about 12 md-ft., which is in
the Quotient of BQI'~ and p,:! - P"I~. line with the values calculated by the normalized
method.
Figure 2 demonstrates that the normalized method
is a distind improvement over the cunventional meth- A SOUND FIELD TESTlNG PnoceDUllE
od_ As can be seen, the c.onventional method can be
very iIHlccunLte throughout the entire range of turbu- Historically, the AOF of a gas well has been an
acc.epteu index of its Quality. However, a~ a meum;
lence. Both theory and simulator runs show that when
for estimating performance, the AOF plot hali limited
the flow raiL declines throughoul a test, and this is
utility and can be misleading. It is limited in thnt
commonly the case, the kh values calculated by the
it does not indicate damage, only the well's produc-
conventional methoL.l tend to be optimistic. The norm-
tivity in its current state. Furthermore, the indica-
alized method is generally much more reliable and, as
tion of current productivity that it does give call
the line shows, there is some correlation between
be misleading in two respects. First, the true line is a
per cent error and degree of turbulence_ 'Vhen the
curve rather than a straight line, so that the extra-
sixteen runs were analyzed bJ.' the normalized method.
polation i.s in error; second. the position of the line
but with turbulence neglected, the enol'S in kh. al-
on the plot changes with the degree of stabilization.
though still significantly smaller than those of the
conventional method, are generally larger than ,,-hen A more general approach to estimating delivera1>i1-
turbulence is considered. ity is to determine formation kh, skin (wellbore dam-

, , I /4
kh =118 mdfl.'- m

•
.. I ~
12 0

~ 0
~
a
m
, 0

N
IO~
a
. 163?PqzT S-
N
a ";:;: I 0
~
kh = m, ~ ~ U m
0.
, , 1 g ~ o.U)

, 8~
l(
'" 0

~ , ~

kh =39 md. fl. ~

0
I NO' kh=llmdfl
'.- c-
o. '" I
i Q.Illl. lI ll. . . . . 6",
~ al
N>
' .
'"
~ c-
'"
'" Q Illl ll r:.!JNJ.
o.
0
N._
4 0.
, . ,
kh (conventIonal) 39 a //8 md. II.
2

10~-----'---;;:20;:;------"'5';:0:-------;;;'0:::0:----=--!20g
10 20 50 100 200
TIME (hours) TIME (hours)

FigtlJ"e 3.-Con1Jenfional Method of A.7lalyzi'ltg Figure ,~.-~Y(Jl"lI/alized l11ethod of .4l1alyzlllg

Dl"awdow}l Data. Dralcdowll Data_

114 The Journal ot Canadian Petroleum

 POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY

TABLE II -.
..
EXAIvIPLE CALCULATIONS FOR ACTUAL FIELD DRAWDOWN TEST t·
~-- .
Pi = 3,962 psia B - 0.0637 psia'/(Msef/D)'

Pi:!: - p2"1 Pi::!' - pZm: - Bq:!g

Time P,,-I Pi~- P:!.wl Q,
hours psia psia:!. Mscl/D q" Q,

10.0 1990 11,741,000 8,570 1,370 820

11.0 1947 11,911,000 8,300 1,435 910
16.0 1855 12,258,000 7,900 1,552 1050
22.0 1752 12,633,000 7,350 1,719 1250
28.0 1675 12,893,000 6,900 1,869 1430
34.0 1621 13,073.000 6,540 1,999 1580
40.0 1577 13,213,000 6,460 2,045 1630
41.0 1558 13.274.000 6,400 2,074 1670
44.0 1544 13.316.000 6,220 2.141 1750
47.0 1522 13,385.000 6,180 2.166 1770
48.0 1513 13,411,000 6,100 2.199 1810
52.0 1496 13,462,000 6.100 2.207 1820
56.0 1482 13.503,000 5.930 2,277 1900
60 1481 13,507,000 5.530 2.442 2090
62 1485 13,496,000 5.520 2,445 2090
64 1488 13,485,000 5,875 2,295 1920
66.2 1490 13,480,000 5,875 2,294 1920
68 1468 13,544.000 5,804 2.334 1960
69 1456 13.580,000 5,620 2.416 2060
71 1446 13,608,000 5,567 2,444 2090
, 77 1446 13,608,000 5,567 2,444 2090
:\ B3 1445 13,613,000 5,412 2,515 2170
89 1443 13,618,000 5,342 2,549 2210 r.
.,
j
95 1433 13,647,000 5,210 2,619 2290
.'
j 101 1423 13.676,000 5,142 2,660 2330
105 1423 13.676,000 5,142 2.660 2330
111 1423 13.676.000 5,1-12 2,660 2330

age) and turbulence from ''l.. ell tests, as will be out-
lined shortly_ These parameters can then be used to
calculate deliverability for varying degrees of wellbore
damage or improvement. In addition, deliverability
can be calculated as a function of time and can thus
provide estimates of both short-term and long-range
performance. These deliverability calculations can be
made with Equation (1) for infinite-acting systems.
For finite-acting systems! expressions analogous to !.
Equation (1), but suitably modified, can be developed.
To calculate formation kh, skin and turbulence, at
least two drawdown tests should be run, each begin-
ning from essentially static initial conditions. The
basic procedure for determining these parameters is
described by Carter, Miller and Riley (6), but has
been expanded here to include the normalized draw-
down method:

01I I.-The well is flowed at a rate qgl, and pressure

and rate data are recorded throughout the
test_ The rate, provided it is a smooth func-
tion of time and does not vary rapidly, need
I.t not be strictly constant. For example, flow
leI.<
through a critical-flow prover generally satis-
- IJ fies this condition.
II '" 2_-The well is shut-in to restore the system to
static conditions. Pressure data recorded dur-
Ii kh = 13 mel fl. ing this period will provide a build-Up test
from which the initial pressure, PI, can be ob-
I
tained. The slope of the build-up can be used
1/ to calculate the kh product (7).
! 3 & 4.-Steps 1 and 2 are repeated for a second rate,
ql::l, and again the pressure and rate data are

I
l'<n ~';onvenlionol) 39 8 1/8 mel fr.
recorded throughout.
5.-The turbulence group, B, is calculated from
Equation (7):

10
0/ 20 50 100 200
B ~ (n.' - p",,'j / Q,l -
ql':l
(Pi' - p~,,'j / c"
qg:!
(7) ;-,

TI ME (hours) \vhere the flowing bottom-hole pressures, p""n

and pwr2, and the corresponding instan-
Figure 5.-Normalized Dru'wdown 11Iethod Without taneous rates, girl and (Jg2, are chosen after the
TU1·bulenc~. same elapsed time in each test (i.e., isochro-

Technology, July - September, 1965, Montreal 115

 POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY
nally~. '"''Ie should point out that in Equahon
(7) both the numerator and denominator in-
I ' ....eIl's AOF curve reverses. as did the actual well
volve a difference in t\VQ terms. If the terms
entering either of these differences are of
approximately the same size, the accuracy
of the calculated turbulence group maJo' be lim-
ited. Rates can generally be chosen to minimize
this problem.
G.-Using the value of B determined in step 5,
the well'g kh product is calculated by the
normalized method for both drawdown tests
from Equation (5).
7.-Finally, a value of skin is calculated from
Equatio'n (1).
8.-l\'Iore than two drawdowns can be run, as de-
sired. However, each dra'...· down must start
from essentially static conditions.
9.-Frequentl.v. at least one flow test is run to
stabilized conditions (i.e.. long enough to al-
low the pressure disturbance to reach the
external radius of drainage).
The above testing procedure is a form of isochronal
AOF test, so that it is already embodied in current
testing practices. In fact, the four-point isochronal
test. with shut-ins between each flow, can provide four
drawdowns and three build-upg; results, therefore,
can be replicated and thus confirmed. However, pres-
sure and rate data have to be recorded throughout
the tests. rather than just at the end of each flow
pedod,
THE FLOW-AFTER-FLD\'V TEST
One current practice in gas-well testing is to flow
the well at four consecuti"e rates, with no shut-in
time between flows. This procedure, usually called
the flow-after-flow test. can give misleading results.
This is illustrated in Figm'e 6. Curve A shows ~'"
AOF curve from a flow-after-flo,...· test on an actuClI
well which \\'as producing dry gas and no water. "Vith
the first change to a larger flow prover, the rate in-
creased as expected. Hmo;rever, with successive changes
to still larger flow proYers, the rates decreased. To
,'erify that this reversal effect could result from con-
secutive flows, a flow-after-flow test was run on the
'0 '"
q g (MMSCF/doy)
Figure 6.-CompuTison of Flow-Alter-Flow and
Isoc!l1'onal Tests.
116
gas-,,,,'ell simulator. Curve B shows that the simulated
curve. As a further check, an isochronal test wa~
run on the simulated 'well, with each flow period be-
ginning from static initial conditions. Curve C rep-
l'C:ll:;ents this case and shows no reversal. In less ex-
treme cases, the flow-after-flow curve may look reUH-
onable. exhibiting no rever:->al, but may yield an in-
correct slope and a misleading AOF.
To analyze flow-after-flow data for kh product,
damage and turbulence would mean using the prin-
ciple of superposition, In this case, the results would
be less dependable. Furthermore, as some matching
technique ,...· ould probably be required, results would
be less directly obtainable than when calculated from
an isochronal test.
DRA\...·DOWN TESTING IN OIL AND '~lATE[1. 'VELLS
In this section, we ,·... ill show how the normalized
method can also be applied to oil or water wells to
achieve more reliable results than yielded by conven-
tional methods. The deYelopment will parallel the
earlier discussion of gas-well {.!t·awdown tests - i.e.,
it will deal first with the equations and method COIl-
ventionally used, then with the modification required
when the rate is changing and, finally, with the re-
sulting normalized method, including an example in-
,"olving minor rate changes.
Equation (8) describes the pressure drop as a
function of time at a well producing oil or water at a
cO'ilstant rate from a homogeneous hurizontal sy~tem
of uniform thickness. The fluwing fluid is slightly
compressible, has a constant viscosit~l and, becau::le
tllL'bulence is negligible under virtually all opeL'ating
conditions, obeys the Darcy Law.
p. - [l"i = 1..J-1.2 l~~ [112 (In to + O.809l + Sj (8\
Here. q liquid [Jaw r:Ite, res 13/D
to dimenc;ionle~s time = r,t/r,,:!
0.00li33k
dj[[usi\'it~r =
((liLC
~ liquid visco<;itr. CD
c efrcctivc compressihility. HJ1/vol/psi
and all other terms are as defined previously. A plot
of Pi - p.. . r versus 10glUt yield::; a straight line, and,
from its slope, the permeabilit)·-thiclmess pl'oduet CUll
be calculated:
kh = 162.6 ~- md-fL
Ill"
where m o is the slope per logarithmic cycle. This i.:'l
the conventional method of drawdown teHt analYHis,
and is subject to large errol'S fol' verr ~light varia-
tions in rate.
If the rate is varying, and the rate variations are
not excessively rapid, we can write, as a good ap-
proximation,
n, - ~,(~)(t~ = 1.n.2 l~l [1.'2 (1n tv + 0.809) + SI (/0\
where q(t) is the instantaneolls flow rate. A plot of
(p, - p"r(tJ]/q(t) vel'SllS logp,t yields a ::;traight line.
and. from its slope, the permeability-thickness pruduct
can be calculated:
kh = 162.6 -"-
[n,:
( III
where m; is the slope per logarithmic cycle. This is
the normalized method.
The JournClI of CClnadian Petroleum
 POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY

'" '~_~..!._ ,I II q' '--";" , ! ; I: ;i: ~ ,ill

.~looO~ IlIii!
.---:-.----:
:
IiI 0 0 -----:----- , '
I

'-Iii':
-- -ljL
~" =I-~
" --.---- :I,'i,!I1 0
III i'I I III
• , ,
~._--~~ .
I~ 1'1,1: ,Ill
,

"I I , -j
, , I' : ,
IiI ' III
" •

I_--f'-i-!-I-+1-,-+'+H!~t!-H
I

I 0
'I I ,i I, ': ilill --5
,- I I :: IIl+Jjj!f---J--+H+++H++H+++tI
,; I I
~I<T '4~1--+I-1--i-I-:'-\-I++i'-l\!11,;+ft\+H--pf-iCALcuLATEO,IrI1=90md fI
.~

"
''---r: -''-~-;-;--' i"1~,~====:;-~:'-:' +:1i'im
lll - III! II 1,611111
;r·
II .'
-;:; 100,
~
I I ! I·
BlI'---t----~--t_'~-':'P---
I I II
1./
I

1,1
II -:
----- - -1-':
I:I
. ,",II I
I
1Wl<>I---'~'~/~2.LU+++++H+!+Jjj
~::.'- .:
,
....
I-+--i- I -+1+++:+1+1+
1

I I I '

ii 1

~!i;f'~
60
I I I ' Ii '-----'-- I' " :'1 1-+-+-,l-++++++++Wr+Hf---,AC Vrf"f'rf,'{ ruA
:
•

,
1

I I : I
1

:'I_--:-1--+1.--.--.;--_..J'--,-1c-'-+'-j1I'i---
I I' I i 1:1'
.'---,.
I

.,-'1h--',,,,II,,I'j
I , , I I I' :!:,
,,'
,,,I---+--i-I+I-+++++lf
" I I
1 I I I III l lL",~L-L-'-'
I
II lLlw".
1I--,I-l1.Lll111.!!.l.! (::
TIME (rninule~J TIME (minulul

Figw"e 7.-Conventional Drawdown Plot JOT a. Figw'e 8.-Nol'11"zalized DTawd01.0n J.llethod for (],
Simulated Oilwell Drawdown. Si1nulated Oilwell Dra1vdown.
ACUNOWLEDGMENT
Figures 7 and 8 are plots of a digitally-simulated
oil-well drawdown test analyzed by the conventional The authol'S wish to express their appreciation to the
and normalized methods, respectively. Although the management of Imperial Oil Limited for permIssion to
. rate varies only slightly, its effect is so severe that present this paper, and also to Mr. D. P. Bossler for his
many valuable suggestions. They are also indebted to
the conventional plot is not amenable to analysis. The Mr. R. V. M. Zahar for his contributions to the theoretical
normalized method, on the other hand, yields a kh development_
product of 90 md-ft, whereas the actual value used
REFERENCES
in the simulator is 100 md-ft,
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
(1) Ka.t~~
F.,
I!. L.,
VU?UJ J_,
Conwll, D., Kobayash.i R., Poe~!,ma.nn.
Elenbaas, J., and Wemaug, C., Hand-
J

book of Natul·al Gas Engineering," New York, Mc-

One of the major practical problems of drawdown Graw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1959 p_ 436_ J
testing to determine formation parameters has been (2) Houpeurt, A., "Sur l'Ecoulement des Gas dans les
the cost and/or inconvenience involved in maintain- 'Milleux Poreux/' ReVill'> de L'lnstitut Francais du
ing a constant rate. The distortion in pressure caused PetTole, December 1959, p. 1659.
J
(3) Ib;d, pp. 1658-95.
by even slight variations in rate can result in wrong (4) Rameu, H. J., J?-., IINon-Darcy Flow and Wellbore
estimates of deliverability when the conventional Storage Effects in Pressure Build-up and Drawdown
method of dra,\;down analysis is used. The normalized of Gas 'Wells," Jozwn_ of Pet?·oleum. Technology, Feb-
method) which accounts for pressure distortion due l'uary, 1965, PP_ 223-233.
(5) Davies, O. L., "The Design and Analysis of Indus-
to rate variations) provides an approach that is just trial Experiments," 2nd Ed. London, Oliver and J
as practical and much more accurate. Boyd, 1956.
(6) Ca1·te?·J R. D., Mille?', S.C., .h.J and Riley, H. G. J
The improved accuracy of the normalized method "Determination of Stabilized Gas \Vell Performance
has been demonstrated ,,,ith field data for gas wells from Short Flow Tests," Jou..?'1~. of PetToleum Tech-
and fol' both gas and oil-well testing with a digital nology, June) 1963, pp. 651-658.
(7) Katz, D. L" et al., op cit_, p. 444.
simulator. The method has also been substantiated on ~:.
a theoretical basis_ NOMENCLATURP.
'.
CONCLUSIONS 3.16IxI0-(:!(~zTG .
B - turbulence group pSIa:!/(lvIscfjD):!
h"·
., 1.-The conventional method of drawdown analysis i5,
=
-r.
:, in general, unreliable. c - effective compressibility. vol/vol/psi
'~ G - specific gravity of gas (~ir = 1.0)
"" 2.-The normalized method of drawdown analysis is h - [ormation thickness. ft
c,
considerably more reliable than the conventional k - formation permeability, md
method, and has been verified by field tests on m - slope per logarithmic c~rcle of gas-well drawdown plot,
gas wells, by digital gas-well simulator runs and psia:!jcycle
mo - slope per logarithmic cycle of oil-well drawdown plot,
",
by theory. psi/cycle
3.-Reservoir parameters form a better basis than - initial pressure of system, pSIa
the AOF plot for determining current and poten- - bottom-hole flowin~ pressure, psia
" tial gas-well deliverability_ The required para- - average pressure in system, psia
- gas flow rate, Ivlscf/D
meters, kh, skin and turbulence group, can be - liquid flow rate. res B(D
determined from drawdo\vn test.s. At least two r.. - well bore radius, ft
and preferabl}T more such tests should be run_ 5 - dimensionless skin
4.-The practice of running a multiplicity of draw- T - reservoir temperature. "R
t - time.davs
down tests, separated by shut-in periods, is a form to - ljt(r,v:! ~ dimensionless time
of isochronal AOF test. Pressure and rate data z - gas compresc:;ibility factor
should be l'ecol'ded throughout the test rathel' than e - turbulence factor, ft- I
just at the end of each flow. -
dlf "t
1 USIVI Y =
0.00633
II'fl.,; ki'> ,ft"/d
- ay .... Ior gas
5.-The foul'-point flow-aftel'-flow test, in which the
flows at each rate are consecutive, cannot be re- 0.00633k ,ft2jda~r .... for oil
lied on for accurate deliver ability estimates. 1(:l~C
6.-The normalized method of drawdown analysis can ~g - gas \'iscosity, cp ~ - liquid viscosity, cp
be applied to oil or water wells_ II' - porosity, fraction

TechnologYI July _ Septemberl 1965, Montreal 117

 POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY

APPENDIX
HE conditions under which the normalized dra'w- Before integrating (A-G) term by term, we prove
T do·".-n method is valid can be determined using
slightly compressible flo,\, theory_ These results can
the following b.y induction:

e-" e-" m:;-l

then be extended to the case of compressible flow by
the nm" familiar method of linearizing the differen- f --dx =
x',,·
---
(m -l)! j::.... 1 (_lll(m_j_lll
x"'-J
tial equation of gas flow. To account for turbulence,
we assume. after Houpeurt, that it stabilizes quickly + (-U',,-I_J
(m-l)!
e-:<_ dx
x·
(..1-7)
following rate changes, and can be included <is an ad-
ditional pressure-squared drop term (see EqwLNon
For m=2. u.sing the product rule
11) in the text).

Consider a single \'....ell producing, at a varying rate.

q(t) barrels per cia)! from a homogeneous isotropic in-
finite system. The flm\'ing fluid has a constant \'is-
cosity and compre~sibilitJf. and is slightly compre~· Suppose the formula i.s true for m. Then. u~ing
sible. The variiition in pressure drop, p, - p"r, with the product rule with
time is
II = e-~ and dv = x -I III rl) dx

Pi-p"l(tl A It q(-:)e (A-II

f
CO,
- - ell'
x'"

A = 70.6 fl
where
kh
\Ve assume that the flow rate, , q (.), can be de-
scribed 01' at least closel.r approximated by a poly-
nomial of the fOl'm
n e-~ In
... ~ a,-:i '" (_II''''J-I-I U-ll~
1=0 m! j = t

J
Before evaluating the integral on the right side of c-'
--ch
Equation (1), it is convenient to write q(.) in the x
form
n and the prouf of (A-7) is complete.
q(-:) = ,~ .;r,(t - -:t i
i=o Thus. the integral in equation (A-61 becomes
By expanding equation (A-3) in powers of T and
eqlwting coefficients in expressions (A-2) and tA-3),
we obtain the system of (n+1) equations for the
(n+ll unknowns, a.,:
'Z" = (-Il"a n
= (_1)"-1 (a,,_l + nta ll )
~J ;.'L
]

:7
11 _1

:':,,-:!' I-l)"·' 1""., +

(I'll) la"., +
[( I'1 )(1'--1)
I -
(I'2 )] I-a"
_, If
= - i:I" Ei (-~/l) + c-=I
- '[ ,-
l\

7" = a" + all + a~t:! -;-- + a.. _1 t II-L + alit" (,1-11

L

In more general form [ "

~j = (-1)1
. :. :;-i (j+i
n..~ . ) ta,,,
, I.--t-s)
L=O I + Ei (- ;ItJ (.'l-Sl

Substituting (A-3) into (A-l). \ve can write

'Ve note first that, from equations (A-2) and (A-·t) ,
'l I'
!J,-p,,,tt)= A
j o
."
...J

1=0
-
.:I,(t- -:I'e

::;0 that (A-G) becomes

where ~ = r".:!/4" .

This can be expressed as -Ei( - ~/t, ]

Pi - P"r(O A ~:l' {o l (l_-:/i.-l C t--: c!-:

i=() Jo
If we let
I' I' (-11" 1

A ~ :z,~i (fl-6) + Ei( - ;/0 " i! ;I,~'

~ 1
i=11
The Journal of Canadien Petroleum
118
 POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY

or, and ~/t:;" 0.01, so that

p, - p",(t)
-,It n T, ~ Ei(-</t)T,' (A-20)
A {[ -Ei(-,/t) ] , + _ e :E
q(t) lZu i ~ 1 where

[ a,," ,~ (_I)I+;(j_I)! (t/'l;] T2' < < 1 (A-2I)

I- J = 1 Hence, T .. is also small with respect to the first
. n
+ -1 El(-~/t):E (_1)'+0
- r a:i~
i} (A-9)
term on the-right-hand side of (A-9).
:to i=l I. , For small rate variations, we can then write, from
Equation (A-9) has the same form as the solution (A-9), that
for a co"nstant rate except for the additional terms on
the right-hand side. \Ve will now examine these ad- Pi - p",(t)
q(t) =A [ -Ei(-Ut)] (A-22l
ditional terms and compare them to the first term.
The first additional term is

T
"
1=
-</t
_e__
CZa i=1
n
~
[
;'1'"
L
"
j=l
i
~ (-l)i+j(j-l)! (t/~)j
1 ~
(A-10)
Or. using the log approximation to the Ei function
and employing standard nomenclature,

:'
'Ve can rewrite this as a pO\ver series in
lows:
~/t as fol- Pi -p"r(t)
q(t) ~ 14~,;" [iOn tD + 0.809) ] (A-23)
:;;: .

T1 = e-~/t ~ (_l)iH (~/t)'-I £ (j~i)! lZjti (A-ll) which is the normalized drawdown equation for
lZo i=l j=i J.
.' \Ve want to know under what conditions T. will be
slightly compressible Darcy flow.
It is noteworthy that the preceding general argu-
small with respect to the first term of equation (A- ment is considerably strengthened' for the special
9). case of an exponential-like decay in rate, such as often ~ ..
The coefficients of the power series are Occurs in practice (e_g., producing a gas well through
" .-,/t n a critical-flow prover). Another special case of in-
Ci = (_1);+1 e_ ~ (j-i)! -t' (A-12)
•r
J.
IZJ terest is that of a well producing at a constant pres-
lZD 1=i
sure drawdown in an infinite system (constant ter-
As ~/t ~ 0.01, a sufficient condition for the con- minal pressure case). The flow rate decreases slowly
-i, vergence of the series in (A-ll) is
C, ::; 1
but continualJy and, over a sufficiently long period,
the percentage change in rate is large. However,
,
"
(_4-13)
despite the large total change in rate. the normalized
Vie can write e-~/t.=:::::: 1, agam because ~/t :::; 0.01. drawdown method yields an accurate slope on the
\ T. will then be small if the term drawdown plot. This agrees with the theoretical dis-
~ cussion which indicates that restrictions on the ap-
n plicability of the normalized method depend on the
(j-i)! . ti
:E .r lZJ (A-I'I) functional form of the varying ra te and not simply on
=i J.
the total rate variation.
is small.
For i = I, Tt' is less than the fractional variation
in rate throughout the test, 'which is less than unity.
For i ~ 2, a sufficient condition on T { is
(A-IS)
where
(A-I6) ; ,. "
Condition (A-15) will be met in practice for a large
variety of functional forms for q (t). In such cases, ~ .
the first additional term on the right-hand side of '"
(A-9) will be small with respect to unity, and hence
with respect to -Ei ( - I;/t).
Now we examine the second additional term: WINESTOCK COLPITTS
n ( _l)i+l
T. ~ Ei(-,/t) ~ (A-l7)
Alvin G_ Winestock received his B.A.Se. degree in enginee.-
- a" i! ing physics from the University of British Columbia in 1958.
i = 1 He joined Imperial Oil Limited upon graduation and worked
We can rewrite (A-17) as as a research engineer in their Production Research Labora- ';

tory, Calgary, until mid-1965. He was recently assigned to

n their Co/gary Regional Engineering Department.
T. _ Ei( - ,It) ( _l)i+.
- q(t) i
I;
= 1
.,
..
u:,t i (~/t)i (A-I8) Gordon P. Colpitts received his B,E. degree in chemical en-
gineering fram N.S. Tech. in 1954 and his M.5. and Ph.D.
But degrees in chemical engineering from the University of Michi-
gan in 1955 and 1959. Since then, he has worked for Imperial
Oil Limited as a research engineer in waterfloading and nat-
1 n q (t ~ 0) - q(t) ural gas reservoir engineering.
--
q(t) i
)"
~ 1
!Ziti
q(t) < < 1 (A-19)

: ...••.
;: •..-! •
r- :
!".- -:
Technology, July - September, 1965, Montreal 119