Pressure Transient Analysis

SPE 103204
The Pressure Derivative Revisited—Improved Formulations and Applications

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

Cartesian derivative, dΔp/dt) as well as the "Bourdet" well
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 24–27 September 2006. testing derivative [i.e., the "semilog" derivative,
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of Δpd(t)=dΔp/dln(t)]. The Cartesian and semilog derivatives can
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
be extracted directly from the power-law derivative (and vice-
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any versa) using the definition given above.
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 Objectives
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 The following objectives are proposed for this work:
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. z To develop the analytical solutions in dimensionless form as
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. well as graphical presentations (type curves) of the β-derivative
func-tions for the following cases:
Abstract — Wellbore storage domination.
The proposed work provides a new definition of the pressure- — Reservoir boundaries (homogeneous reservoirs).
— Unfractured wells (homogeneous and dual porosity
derivative function [i.e., the β-derivative function, Δpβd(t)], reservoirs).
which is defined as: — Fractured wells (homogeneous and dual porosity reservoirs).
d ln(Δp) 1 dΔp Δpd (t ) — Horizontal wells (homogeneous reservoirs).
Δpβd (t ) = = t = z To demonstrate the new β-derivative functions using type curves
d ln(t ) Δp dt Δp applied to field data cases using pressure drawdown/buildup and
(Δpd(t) is the "Bourdet" well testing derivative) injection/falloff test data.
This formulation is based on the "power-law" concept (i.e., the Introduction
derivative of the logarithm of pressure drop with respect to the
logarithm of time) — this is not a trivial definition, but rather The well testing pressure derivative function,1 Δpd(t), is known
a definition that provides a unique characterization of "power- to be a powerful mechanism for interpreting well test behavior
law" flow regimes. — it is, in fact, perhaps the most significant single
development in the history of well test analysis. The Δpd(t)
The "power-law" flow regimes uniquely defined by the Δpβd(t) function as de-fined by Bourdet et al. [i.e., Δpd(t)=dΔp/dln(t)]
function are: [i.e., a constant Δpβd(t) behavior] provides a con-stant value for the case of a well producing at a
Case Δpβd(t) constant rate in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir.
That is, Δpd(t) = con-stant during infinite-acting radial flow
z Wellbore storage domination: 1
behavior.
z Reservoir boundaries:
This single observation has made the Bourdet derivative,
— Closed reservoir (circle, rectangle, etc.). 1
— 2-Parallel faults (large time). 1/2 Δpd(t), the most used diagnostic in pressure transient analysis
— 3-Perpendicular faults (large time). 1/2 — but what about cases where the reservoir model is not
z Fractured wells: infinite-acting radial flow? Of what value then is the Δpd(t)
— Infinite conductivity vertical fracture. 1/2 function?
— Finite conductivity vertical fracture. 1/4
The answer is somewhat complicated in light of the fact that
z Horizontal wells:
— Formation linear flow. 1/2 the Bourdet derivative function has almost certainly been
generated for every reservoir model in existence. Reservoir
In addition, the Δpβd(t) function provides unique characteristic engineers have come to use the characteristic shapes in the
responses for cases of dual porosity (naturally-fractured) reser- Bourdet derivative for the diagnosis and analysis of wellbore
voirs. storage, boundary effects, fractured wells, horizontal wells,
The Δpβd(t) function represents a new application of the tradi- and heterogeneous reservoirs. For this work we prepare the β-
tional pressure derivative function, the "power-law" derivative for all of those cases — but for heterogeneous
differentia-tion method (i.e., computing the dln(Δp)/dln(t) reservoirs, we only consi-der the case of a dual porosity
reservoir with pseudosteady-state interporosity flow.
derivative) pro-vides an accurate and consistent mechanism
for computing the primary pressure derivative (i.e., the
2 SPE 103204
The challenge is to actually define a flow regime with a d ln(Δp ) 1 dΔp Δpd (t )
particu-lar plotting function. For example, a derivative-based Δpβd (t ) = = t = .................... (1)
d ln(t ) Δp dt Δp
plotting function that could classify a fractured well by a
unique signa-ture would be of significant value — as would be solving for the "Cartesian" or "primary pressure derivative,"
such functions which could be used for wellbore storage, dΔp Δp
boundary effects, horizontal wells, and heterogeneous = Δpβd (t ) ......................................................... (4)
dt t
reservoir systems.
solving for the "semilog" or "Bourdet" pressure derivative,
The purpose of this work is to demonstrate that the "power-
Δpd (t ) = Δp Δpβd (t ) ..................................................... (5)
law" β-derivative formulation does just that — it provides a
single plotting function which can be used (in isolation) as a Now the discussion turns to the calculation of these
mechan-ism to interpret pressure performance behavior for derivatives — what approach is best? Our options are:
systems with wellbore storage, boundary effects, fractured 1. A simple finite-difference estimate of the "Cartesian" (or "pri-
wells, horizontal wells. mary") pressure derivative [ΔpPd(t)=dΔp/dt].
The power-law derivative formulation is given by: 2. A simple finite-difference estimate of the "semilog" (or
d ln(Δp) 1 dΔp Δpd (t ) "Bourdet") pressure derivative [Δpd(t)=dΔp/dln(t)].
Δpβd (t ) = = t = ....................(1) 3. Some type of weighted finite-difference or central difference
d ln(t ) Δp dt Δp
esti-mate of either the "Cartesian" or "semilog" pressure
where Δpd(t) is the "Bourdet" well testing derivative. derivative functions. This is the approach of Bourdet et al.1 and
In Appendix A we provide the definitions of the power-law β- Clark and van Golf-Racht4 — this formulation is by far the most
derivative function for various reservoir models as shown popular technique used to compute pressure derivative functions
below. The graphical solution (or "type curve") for each case for the purpose of well test analysis, and will be presented in
of interest is shown in Appendix B, and categorized as shown detail in the next section.
below. 4. Other more elegant and more statistical sophisticated algorithms
have been proposed for use in pressure transient (or well test)
App. A App. B analysis, but the Bourdet et al. algorithm (and its variations)
Specific Δpβd(t) Case: Δpβd(t) Table Figs. conti-nue to be the most popular approach, most likely due to
the simplicity and consistency of this algorithm. To be certain,
Wellbore storage domination: 1 A-1 4,11-20 the Bourdet et al. algorithm does not provide the most accurate
Reservoir boundaries: esti-mates of the derivative functions, but the predictability of
z Closed reservoir the algo-rithm is very good, and the purpose of the derivative is
1 A-2 1,2,25
z Infinite-acting (incl. WBS) as a diag-nostic function, not a function used to provide an exact
--- A-3 4
z 2-Parallel faults estimate.
1/2 A-4 3
z 3-Perpendicular faults 1/2 A-4 3 Some of the other algorithms proposed for estimating the
Fractured wells: various pressure derivative functions are summarized below:
z Infinite cond. vert. fracture 1/2 A-5 10,11 ● Moving polynomial or another type of moving regression
z Finite cond. vert. fracture 1/4 A-6 10,12-14 func-tion. This is generally referred to as a "window"
Dual porosity reservoirs: approach (or "windowing").
z Unfractured well ● Spline approximation by Lane et al.5 is a powerful approach,
--- A-7 5-9
z Fractured well but as pointed out in a general assessment of the computation
--- A-8 15-20
of the pressure derivative (Escobar et al.6), the spline
Horizontal wells:
approximation requires considerable user input to obtain the
z Formation linear flow 1/2 A-9 21-24
"best fit" of the data, and for that reason, the method is less
The origin of the β-derivative formulation Δpβd(t) was an desirable than the traditional (i.e., Bourdet et al.1)
effort by Sowers2 to demonstrate that this formulation would formulation.
provide a consistently better estimate of the Bourdet derivative ● Gonzalez et al.7 applied a combination of power-law and
function, Δpd(t), than the either the "Cartesian" or the loga-rithmic functions to represent the characteristic signal
"semilog" formula-tions. For orientation, we present the and regression was used to find the "best-fit" to the data over
a specified window.
definition of each deri-vative formulation below:
● Cheng et al.8 utilized the fast Fourier transform and
The "Cartesian" pressure derivative is defined as: frequency-domain constraints to improve Bourdet algorithm
dΔp by optimizing the size of search window and they also used a
ΔpPd (t ) = ..............................................................(2) Gaussian filter to denoise the pressure derivative data. This
dt resulted in an adapt-ive smoothing procedure that uses
where ΔpPd(t) is also known as the "primary pressure recursive differentiation and integration.
deriva-tive" [ref. 3 (Mattar)].
Calculation of the β-Derivative Function
The "semilog" or "Bourdet" pressure derivative is defined as:
To minimize the effect of truncation error, Bourdet et al.1
dΔp
Δpd (t ) = t ...............................................................(3) intro-duced a weighted central-difference derivative formula:
dt
dΔp Δt R Δp L Δt L Δp R
Recalling that the " β" pressure derivative is defined as: = + ...... (6a)
d [ ln( Δt )] Δt L + Δt R Δt L Δt L + Δt R Δt R
SPE 103204 3
where: In addition, Sowers found that the β-derivative formulation

ΔtL = ln(Δtcalc) – ln(Δtleft) ...........................................(6b) was less sensitive to the L-value than the original Bourdet
ΔtR = ln(Δtright) – ln(Δtcalc).......................................... (6c) formula-tion — which is a product of how well the power-law
relation represents the pressure drop over a specific period.
ΔpL = Δpcalc – Δpleft .....................................................(6d)
Sowers did not pursue the specific application of the β-
ΔpR = Δpright – Δpcalc ................................................... (6e) derivative function [Δpβd(t)=d ln(Δp)/dln(t)] as a diagnostic
The left- and right-hand subscripts represent the "left" and plotting function, as we have this work.
"right" neighbor points located a specified distance (L) from
the objective point. The calc subscript represents the point of Type Curves Using the β-Derivative Function
interest at which the derivative is to be computed. As for the Background: Without question, the Bourdet definition of the
L-value, Bourdet gives only general guidance as to its pressure derivative function is the standard for all well test
selection, but we have long used a formulation where L is the analysis applications — from hand methods to sophisticated
fractional proportion of a log-cycle (log10 base). Therefore, interpretation/analysis/modeling software. The advent of the
L=0.2 would translate into a "search window" of 20 percent of β-derivative function as proposed in this paper is not expected
a log-cycle from the point in question. to replace the Bourdet derivative (nor should this happen).
This search window approach (i.e., L) helps to reduce the The β-derivative function is proposed simply to serve as a
influence of data noise on the derivative calculation. better inter-pretation device for certain flow regimes — in
However, choosing a "small" L-value will cause Eq. 6a to particular, those flow regimes which are represented by
revert to a simple central-difference between a point and its power-law functions (e.g., wellbore storage domination,
nearest neighbors, and data noise will be amplified. On the closed boundary effects, fractured wells, horizontal wells,
contrary, choosing a "large" L-value will cause Eq. 6a to etc.).
provide a central-difference derivative over a very great In the development of the models and type curves for the β-
distance — which will yield a poor estimate for the derivative, derivative function, we reviewed numerous literature articles
and this will tend to "smooth" the derivative response (perhaps which proposed plotting functions based on the Bourdet
over-smoothing the derivative). The common range for the pressure derivative or related functions (e.g., the primary
search window is between 10 and 50 percent of a log-cycle pressure deriva-tive (ref. 3)). In the late 1980's the "pressure
(0.10 < L < 0.5) — where we prefer a starting L-value of 0.2 derivative ratio" was proposed (refs. 9 and 10), where this
[20 percent of a log-cycle (recall that log is the log10 function was defined as the pressure derivative divided by the
function)]. pressure drop (or 2Δp in radial flow applications)) — this ratio
Sowers2 proposed the "power-law" formulation of the was (obviously) a dimen-sionless quantity. In particular, the
weighted central difference as a method that he believed pressure derivative ratio was applied as an interpretation
would provide a better representation of the pressure device — as it is a dimensionless quantity, the type curve
derivative than the original Bourdet formulation. In particular, match consisted of a vertical axis over-lay (which is fixed) and
Sowers provides the fol-lowing definition of the power-law (or a floating horizontal axis (which is typically used to find the
"β") derivative formula-tion: end of wellbore storage distortion ef-fects). The pressure
d [ln( Δp ) ] Δt R Δp L Δt L Δp R derivative ratio has found most utility in such interpretations.
= + ...... (7a) In the present work, we have formulated a series of "type
d [ ln( Δt )] Δt L + Δt R Δt L Δt L + Δt R Δt R
curves" which are presented in Appendix B, developed from
where: the β-derivative solutions given in Appendix A.
ΔtL = ln(Δtcalc) – ln(Δtleft) ...........................................(6b)
The primary utility of the β-derivative is the resolution that
ΔtR = ln(Δtright) – ln(Δtcalc).......................................... (6c) this function provides for cases where the pressure drop can be
ΔpL = ln(Δpcalc) – ln(Δpleft) .........................................(7d) re-presented by a power law function — again, fractured
ΔpR = ln(Δpright) – ln(Δpcalc) ........................................ (7e) wells, horizontal wells, and boundary-influenced (faults) and
boun-dary-dominated (closed boundaries) are good candidates
Multiplying the right-hand-side of Eq. 7a by Δpcalc (recall that
for the β-derivative.
Δpcalc 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
exhaust-ive evaluation of the "power-law" derivative
formulation using various levels of noise in the Δp function
and found that the power-law (or β) derivative formulation
always showed im-proved accuracy of the well testing
pressure derivative [i.e., the Bourdet derivative function,
Δpd(t)].
4 SPE 103204
Schematic of Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Functions

Various Reservoir Models and Well Configurations (as noted) Type Curve for an Unfractured Well in an Infinite-Acting Homogeneous Reservoir
DIAGNOSTIC plot for Well Test Data (pDd and pDβd) with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects.
3
10 3
10
Legend: Radial Flow Type Curves
Legend: (pDd ) (pDβ d ) NO Wellbore Storage pD Solution
Bourdet "Well Test" Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Function, pDd
Unfractured Well (Radial Flow) or Skin Effects

"Power Law — β" Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Function, pDβd
Fractured Well (Infinite Fracture Conductivity) pDd Solution

100
Fractured Well (Finite Fracture Conductivity) 10
Horizontal Well (Full Penetration, Thin Reservoir) 2
pDβ d Solution 80
10 10 60
2 50 10
10 10 40
30 10
20 10
10 15
Boundary- Wellbore Storage 10 10
8 10
1 Dominated Domination Region 104 106
1 10 3
Transient Flow Flow Region 10 1 10210
Region 3 10 -2
1
1
3×10 1×10-2
pD, pDd and pDId

10 Horizontal Well in a
( ) Bounded Square 100 2s -3
Reservoir: 10 CDe =1×10
( ) ( ) 0
( ) Fractured Well in (Full Penetration, pDβ d = 1 10
a Bounded Circular Thin Reservoir)
(boundary Radial Flow Region
Reservoir 2s -3
(Finite Conductivity dominated flow) CDe =1×10 2s -3
CDe =1×10
Vertical Fracture)
0 1 pDβd = 0.5 -3
10 -1
10 3×10-2 3×10 -2
2 (linear flow) -1 1 1×10

10
3 2 101
4 104 10
3
1 10 106 8
10 10
1015
20 10
10 30
pDβd = 0.25 -2
10
-1 Unfractured Well in 10 Wellbore Storage 10
40
10
50
10 (bilinear flow) a Bounded Circular
60
Distortion Region 80 10
1 Reservoir 10
100
Fractured Well in 10
2
a Bounded Circular ( )
Reservoir ( )
(Infinite Conductivity -3
( ) Vertical Fracture) 10
( ) -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Dimensionless Time, tD (model-dependent) tD/CD
Figure 1 — Schematic of pDd and pDβd vs. tD — Various reser- Figure 2 — pD, pDd, and pDβd vs. tD/CD — solutions for an
voir models and well configurations (no unfractured well in an infinite-acting homo-
wellbore storage or skin effects). geneous reservoir — wellbore storage and skin
effects included (various CD values).
Infinite-acting radial flow — the "utility" case for the Bourdet
(semilog) derivative function is not a good candidate for inter- Sealing Faults: Ref. 12 provides pDd-format (Bourdet) type
pretation using the β-derivative as the radial flow regime is curves for cases of a single well producing at a constant
represented by a logarithmic approximation which can not be flowrate in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir with
further approximated by a power-law model. single, double, and triple-sealing faults oriented some distance
from the well. This case provides an opportunity to illustrate
Schematic Case: In Fig. 1 we present a schematic plot created
the β-derivative function where the pDβd functions show
for illustrative purposes to represent the character of the β-
interesting character-istics, as well as the 2-parallel sealing
derivative for several distinctly different cases. Presented are
faults and 3-perpendicular fault cases, which prove that pDβd =
the β-derivative profiles (in schematic form) for an unfractured
1/2 at very long times (see Fig. 3).
well (infinite-acting radial flow), 2 fractured well cases, and a
horizontal well case. We note immediately the strong 4
Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Type Curves for Sealing Faults
(Inifinite-Acting Homogeneous Reservoir)
10
character of the fractured well responses (pDβd = 1/2 for the Legend: "Bourdet" Well Test Pressure Derivative
Single Fault Case
3 Perpendicular
infinite con-ductivity fracture case and 1/4 for the finite 10
3
2 Perpendicular Faults (2 at 90 Degrees)
2 Parallel Faults (2 at 180 Degrees)
Faults
conductivity fracture case). Interestingly, the horizontal well

β-Pressure Derivative Function, pDβd = (tD/pD) d/dtD(pD )
"Bourdet" Well Test Pressure Derivative, pDd = tD dpD/dtD

2 Parallel
Faults
case shows a pDd slope of approximately 1/2, but the pDβd 10

2
function never achieves the expected 1/2 value, perhaps due to

pDd = tD dpD/dtD
the "thin" reservoir confi-guration that was specified for this 10

1
2 Perpendicular
Faults
particular horizontal well case. We also note that, for all cases Undistorted
Radial Flow Behavior
Single
Fault
of boundary-dominated flow, the pDβd function yields a
0
10
constant value of unity, as expected. This observation -1

3 Perpendicular
Faults
2 Parallel
Faults
2 Perpendicular
Faults
10
suggests that the pDβd function (or an auxiliary function based pDβd = (tD/pD) dpD/dtD Single
Fault
on the pDβd form) may be of value for the analysis of 10

-2 Legend: β -Pressure Derivative Function
production data. For reference, Fig. 1 is pre-sented in a larger

Single Fault Case
format in Appendix B (Fig. B-1). 10

-3
-3
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Infinite-Acting Radial Flow: The β-derivative function for a

2
tD/LD (LD = Lfault/rw)
single well producing at a constant flowrate in an infinite- Figure 3 — pDd and pDβd vs. tD/LD — various sealing faults
2
acting homogeneous reservoir was computed using the con-figurations (no wellbore storage or skin
effects).
cylindrical source solution given in ref. 11. For emphasis, we
have gen-erated the β-derivative solution (Fig. 2) with Unfractured Well in a Dual Porosity System: We used the
wellbore storage and skin effects, as this is the typical pseudosteady-state interporosity model13 to produce the β-
configuration used for well test analysis. As mentioned deri-vative type curves for a single well in an infinite-acting,
earlier, the β-derivative function does not demonstrate a dual porosity reservoir with or without wellbore storage and
constant behavior for the radial flow case, but as noted in skin effects. For these cases, we chose to present our cases
Appendix A, the β-derivative function for the wellbore (which include wellbore storage) using the type curve format
storage domination flow regime yields pDβd = 1. of ref. 14 (the family parameters for the type curves are the
ω and α-parameters, where α = λCD).
SPE 103204 5
In Fig. 4 we present a general set of cases (ω = 1x10-1, 1x10-2, 6. We note clear evidence of the bilinear and linear flow
and 1x10-3 and λ = 5x10-9, 5x10-6, and 5x10-3) with no regimes — where these regimes appear as horizontal lines on
wellbore storage or skin effects. Fig. 4 shows the unique the β-derivative plot (bilinear flow: pDβd = 1/4, linear flow:
signature of the pDβd functions for this case, but we can also pDβd = 1/2).
argue that, since this model is tied to infinite-acting radial Type Curve for a Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical
flow, the pDβd functions can, at best, be used as a diagnostic to 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)
view idealized behavior. 10
1
Type Curve for an Unfractured Well in an Infinite-Acting Dual Porosity Reservoir CfD=0.25
(Pseudosteady-State Interporosity Flow) — No Wellbore Storage or Skin Effects. 0.5 1
0
10
2 10 4
CfD=1×10 5 Radial Flow Region
Legend:
pD, pDd and pDβd

3
pD Solution 1×10 500
pDβd Solution 2
1
10
1 0.5
-1 1 CfD=0.25
1×10
-3 10 2
-2
1×10 -1
0 ω = 1×10
10
-2
10
Legend:
pD and pDβd
-1
pD Solution
10
-1 pDd Solution
ω = 1×10 4
ω = 1×10
-1
-1
CfD=1×10 pDβd Solution
-2 ω = 1×10 -3
ω = 1×10 10
-2 ω = 1×10
-2 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 ω = 1×10
-2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
-3
ω = 1×10 -3
ω = 1×10 ω = 1×10
-3 tDxf
10
-3
pDβ d (λ = 5 ×10 )
-3 Figure 6 — pD, pDd, and pDβd vs. tDxf — solutions for an
pDβd (λ = 5 ×10 )
-6
pDβd (λ = 5 ×10 )
-9 fracture-ed well in an infinite-acting
-4
homogeneous reser-voir — no wellbore storage
10
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
or skin effects (var-ious CfD values).
tD
In Fig. 7 we present the case of a single well with a finite con-

Figure 4 — pD and pDβd vs. tD — solutions for an unfractured
well in an infinite-acting dual porosity system — ductivity vertical fracture (CfD = 10) producing at a constant
no wellbore storage or skin effects (various λ rate in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir, with
and ω values). wellbore stor-age effects included. We observe the
characteristic wellbore storage domination behavior (pDβd = 1),
In Fig. 5 we present cases where ω = 1×10-1 and α = λCD = as well as the effect of bilinear (fracture and formation) flow
1×10-4 for 1×10-4 < CD < 1×10100. As with the results for the (pDβd = 1/4). We believe that the pDβd function (i.e., the β-
pDd functions shown in ref. 14, these pDβd functions do provide derivative) will substantially improve the diagnosis of flow
some insight into the form and character of the behavior for regimes in hydraulically fractured wells.
the case of a well producing at infinite-acting flow conditions
in a dual porosity/naturally fractured reservoir system. Type Curve for a Well with Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture in an Infinite-Acting
Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore Storage Effects CfD = (wkf)/(kxf)= 10
1
Type Curve for an Unfractured Well in an Infinite-Acting Dual Porosity Reservoir 10
2 0
(Pseudosteady-State InterporosityFlow) with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects. Legend: CfD = (wkf)/(kxf)= 10 1×10 1×10
1 1×10
-4 -1 pD Solution
( α = λCD = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 ) 1×10
-1 1×10
-2
10
3 pDβd Solution -3
-4 -1 2 1×10
Legend: α = λCD = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 0 1×10
10
pD Solution -5 -4 1×10
-3
Wellbore Storage 1×10 1×10

pDβ d Solution -6
2 10
100
80
Domination Region CDf=1×10
10 60 10 -2
10 50 1×10
40 10 -1 -4 0
10 30 10 1×10 1 1×10
10 1×10
pD and pDβd
20
10 15 2
10 10 -5 1×10
8
10 1×10
6 10
1 10 4
10 3 10 -6
2 10 1 CDf=1×10
10 10
Wellbore Storage -1
1 -2
Domination Region 10 3×10
-2 10
-3 Radial Flow Region
pD and pDßd
-2 3×10
100
1×10
0 10 CDe =1×10
2s -3
10 Radial Flow Region
2s -3
CDe =1×10
-3 Wellbore Storage
CDe =1×10
2s -3
10
-3
Distortion Region
3×10 1×10-2 3×10
-2
-1 -1
10 1 1 10
2 10
4 10 3
10 6 10
10 8
Wellbore Storage 10 10 -4
Distortion Region
10
20 10
15
10
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-2 40 10
30 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 50
60 10 tDxf/CDf
10 80
10
100
10
Figure 7 — pD and pDβd vs. tDxf/CDf—CfD = 10 (fractured well
-3
10
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7 case — includes wellbore storage effects).
Horizontal Wells: Ozkan16 created a line-source solution for
tD/CD
-1
Figure 5 — pD and pDβd vs. tD/CD — ω = 1×10 , α = λCD = modeling horizontal well performance — we used this
-4
1×10 (dual porosity case — includes wellbore
storage and skin effects).
solution to generate β-derivative type-curves for the case of a
horizontal well, where the well is vertically-centered within an
Hydraulically Fractured Vertical Wells: In this section we infinite-acting, homogeneous (and isotropic) reservoir.
consi-der the case of a well with a finite conductivity vertical
fracture where the β-derivative type curves were generated
using the Cinco and Meng15 solution. In addition, we used the
Ozkan solution (ref. 16) to mode1 the case of a well with an
infinite conductivity vertical fracture. The pD, pDd, and pDβd
functions for the case of no wellbore storage are shown in Fig.
6 SPE 103204
Type Curve for a Infinite Conductivity Horizontal Well in an Infinite-Acting

Wellbore Storage and Boundary Effects: In Fig. 10 we present
2
Homogeneous Reservoir (LD= 0.1, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100).
the unique case of wellbore storage combined with closed
10
circu-lar boundary effects (see ref. 17) as a means to
LD= 0.1
0.125
demonstrate that these two influences have the same effect
1
10
0.25 (i.e., pDβd = 1).
0.5 1
LD= 0.1
0.125
Infinite Conductivity
0
pD, pDd and pDβd
10 0.25 Vertical Fracture Type Curve for an Unfractured Well in a Bounded Homogeneous Reservoir
0.5
with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects (reD= 100)
5 100 3
10 5 10
10 25 Legend: Bounded Resevoir reD= 100
50
-1 pD Solution Boundary Dominated
10 1 6
25 pDd Solution 10 Flow
0.5 pDβd Solution
50 2
10 2
0.25 10
4
10
3
10 1
100 10 1 10
-1
-2
0.125 3×10
-2
10 25 L=0.1
Infinite Conductivity Legend: -2
50 1×10
Vertical Fracture pD Solution 1
10
pDd Solution
Wellbore Storage
pDβ d Solution
pD, pDdand pDβd

-3 Domination Region
10 3×10
-3
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0
10
10 1
10 1
2s -3
CDe =1×10 -1 -2 -2 -3
tDL 10 3×10 1×10 3×10
-1
Figure 8 — pD, pDd, and pDβd vs. tDL — solutions for an infinite 10 2s
CDe =1×10
-3
conductivity horizontal well in an infinite-acting 2s

CDe =1×10
-3
homogeneous reservoir — no wellbore storage 10

-2
or skin effects (various LD values). Wellbore Storage

Distortion Region
In Fig. 8 we present the pD, pDd, and pDβd solutions for the case 10
-3
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
of a horizontal well with no wellbore storage or skin effects, tD/CD
only the influence of the LD parameter (i.e., LD = L/2h) Figure 10 — pD and pDβd vs. tD/CD — reD =100, bounded
included in order to illustrate the performance of horizontal circular reservoir case — includes wellbore
wells with respect to reservoir thickness [thick reservoir (low storage and skin effects. Illustrates combined
LD); thin re-servoir (high LD)]. While we do not observe any influence of wellbore storage and boundary
effects.
features where the pDβd function is constant, we do observe
unique characteristic behavior in the pDβd function, which Another aspect of this particular case is that we show the
should be of value in the diagnostic interpretation of pressure plausibility of using the β-derivative for the analysis of the
transient test data obtained from horizontal wells. boundary-dominated flow regime — i.e., the β-derivative (or
another auxiliary form) may be a good diagnostic for the
The pDd and pDβd solutions for the case of a horizontal well analysis of production data. In particular, the β-derivative
with wellbore storage effects are shown in Fig. 9 (LD=100, i.e., may be less influenced by data errors that lead to artifacts in
a thin reservoir). As expected, we do observe the strong the conventional pressure derivative function (i.e., the Bourdet
signature of the pDβd function for the wellbore storage (or "semilog") form of the pressure derivative).
domination regime (i.e., pDβd = 1). We also note an apparent
formation linear flow regime for low values of the wellbore Application Procedure for β-Derivative Type Curves
storage coefficient (i.e., CDL < 1x10-2). We believe that this is
a transition from the wellbore storage influence to linear flow The β-derivative is a ratio function — the dimensionless for-
(which is brief for this case), then on through the transition mulation of the β-derivative (pDβd) is the exactly the same
regime towards pseudo-radial flow. func-tion as the "data" formulation of the β-derivative
[Δpβd(t)]. Therefore, when we plot the Δpβd(t) (data) function
Type Curve for an Infinite Conductivity Horizontal Well in an Infinite-Acting
Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore Storage Effects (LD = 100).
onto the grid of the pDβd function (i.e., the type curve match)
10
2
the y-axis func-tions are identical. As such, the vertical
Legend: LD = 100
pD Solution
Radial Flow Region
"match" is not a match at all — but rather, the model and the
data functions are defined to be the same — so the vertical
pDβ d Solution
1
10 2
1×10
"match" is fixed.
1 -1
1×10 1 1×10
Wellbore Storage
-2
Domination Region 1×10 1×10
-3
-4
1×10
At this point, the time axis match is the only remaining task,
-6
0 -5 CDL=1×10
10 1×10
pD and pDβd
so the Δpβd(t) data function is shifted on top of the pDβd

-6
-5
CDL=1×10
1×10
-4
1×10
function, only in the horizontal direction. The time (or

-3
-1 1×10
10 -1 1×10
-2
1 1 1×10
1×10
1×10
2
horizontal) match is then used to diagnose the flow regimes

10
-2
and provide an auxi-liary match of the time axis. When the
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
Δpβd(t) function is plotted with the Δp(t) and the Δpd(t)
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7 functions, we achieve a "harmony" in that the 3 functions are
tDL/CDL matched simultaneously, and one portion of the match (i.e.,
Figure 9 — pD and pDβd vs. tDL/CDL — LD=100 (horizontal well Δpβd(t) — pDβd) is fixed.
case — includes wellbore storage effects).
The procedures for type curve matching the β-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
SPE 103204 7
Δpβd(t) — pDβd is fixed, which then fixes the Δp(t) and the
Type Curve Analysis Results — SPE 11463 (Buildup Case)
Δpd(t) func-tions, and only the x-axis needs to be resolved — (Well in an Infinite-Acting Homogeneous Reservoir)
exactly like any other type curve for that particular case. If 10
2
Legend: Radial Flow Type Curve

type curves are not used, and some sort of software-driven, pD Solution
pDd Solution
model-based match-ing procedure is used (i.e., event/history 10
1 pDβ d Solution
Legend:
matching), then the Δpβd(t) and pDβd functions are matched pD Data
simultaneously, in the same manner that the dimensionless pDd Data
pD, pDd and pDβd

pDβ d = 1 pDβ d Data
0
pressure/derivative func-tions would be matched. 10
pDd = 1/2
Examples Using the β-Derivative Function -1

10
To demonstrate/validate the β-derivative function we present
the results of 12 field examples obtained from the literature Reservoir and Fluid Properties:
rw = 0.3 ft, h = 100 ft,
-2 Match Results and Parameter Estimates:
(refs. 1, 18-22). The table below provides orientation for our
-5 -1
10 -1 2s 6 ct = 1.1×10 psi , φ = 0.27 (fraction)
[pD/Δp]match = 0.02 psi , CDe = 10 (dim-less)
μo = 1.24 cp, Bo= 1.002 RB/STB
examples. -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(Δt= 0)= 1844.65 psia
Field 10
-3
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Case Example Fig. ref. 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tD/CD
[oil] Unfractured well (buildup) 1 11 18
[oil] Unfractured well (buildup) 2 12 1 Figure 11 — Field example 1 type curve match — SPE 11463
[oil] Dual porosity (drawdown) 3 13 19 (ref. 18 — Meunier) (pressure buildup case).
[oil] Dual porosity (buildup) 4 14 20
In Fig. 12 we consider the initial literature case regarding well
[gas] Fractured well (buildup) 5 15 21
test analysis using the Bourdet pressure derivative function
(Δpd) as shown in ref. 1. This is a pressure buildup test where
the ap-propriate rate history superposition is used for the time
[water] Fractured well (falloff) 8 18 22
function axis. This result is an excellent match of all
functions, but in particular, the β-derivative function (pDβd) is
an excellent diag-nostic function for the wellbore storage and
transition flow re-gimes.
In all of the example cases we were able to successfully Particular to this case is the fact that the pressure buildup
portion of the data was almost twice as long as the reported
interpret and analyze the well test data objectively by using the
pressure drawdown portion of the data. We note this issue
β-deriva-tive function [Δpβd(t)] in conjunction with the Δp(t)
because we believe that in order to validate the use of the β-
and Δpd(t) functions. As a comment, for all of the example
derivative func-tion (pDβd), we must ensure that the analyst
cases we considered, the β-derivative function [Δpβd(t)]
recognizes that this function will be affected by all of the same
provided a direct analysis (i.e., the "match" was obvious using
phenomena which affect the "Bourdet" derivative function —
the Δpβd(t) function — the vertical axis match was fixed, and in particular, the rate history must be accounted for, most
only horizontal shifting was required). These examples and likely using the effective time concept where a radial flow
the model-based type curves validate the theory and superposition function is used for the time axis.
application of the β-derivative function.
Example 1 is presented in Fig. 11 (from ref. 18) and shows the Type Curve Analysis — SPE 12777 (Buildup Case)
(Well in an Infinite-Acting Homogeneous Reservoir)
field data and model matches for the Δp(t), Δpd(t), and Δpβd(t) 10
2
Legend: Radial Flow Type Curve
functions in dimensionless format (i.e., the pD, pDd, and pDβd pD Solution
pDd Solution
"data" functions are given as symbols), along with the cor- 1
pDβ d Solution
10
responding dimensionless solution functions (i.e., pD, pDd, and Legend:
pD Data
pDβd "model" functions given by the solid lines). This is the pDd Data
pD, pDd and pDβd
pDβd = 1 pDβd Data

common format used to view the example cases in this work. 10
0
pDd = 1/2
As noted in ref. 18, in this case wellbore storage effects are

evi-dent, and for the purpose of demonstrating a variable-rate 10
-1
proce-dure, downhole rates were measured. In Fig. 11 we Reservoir and Fluid Properties:
note a strong wellbore storage signature, and we find that the 10
-2
rw = 0.29 ft, h = 107 ft,
-6 -1
Match Results and Parameter Estimates:
ct = 4.2×10 psi , φ = 0.25 (fraction) [p /Δp] -1 2s 10
pDβd data function (squares) does yield the required value of μo = 2.5 cp, Bo= 1.06 RB/STB
D match = 0.018 psi , CDe = 10
-1
(dim-less)
[(tD/CD)/t]match= 15 hours , k = 10.95 md
unity. The pDβd data function does not yield a quantitative Production Parameters:
qref = 174 STB/D Cs = 0.0092 bbl/psi, s = 8.13 (dim-less)
-3
interpretation — other than the wellbore storage domination 10
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
region (pDβd = 1), but this function does also provide some tD/CD
resolution for the data in the transition region from wellbore
storage and infinite-acting radial flow. Figure 12 — Field example 2 type curve match — SPE 12777
(ref. 1 — Bourdet) (pressure buildup case).
8 SPE 103204
The next example case shown in Fig. 13 is taken from a well Type Curve Analysis — SPE 18160 (Buildup Case)
in a known dual porosity/naturally fractured reservoir. As we -3
(Well in an Infinite-Acting Dual-Porosity Reservoir (trn)— ω = 0.237, α = 1×10 )
note in Fig. 13, the "late" portion of the data is not matched 10
2
-3 Legend:
Legend: ω = 0.237, α = 1×10
exactly with the specified reservoir model (infinite-acting pD Solution pD Data
pDd Data
pDd Solution
radial flow with dual porosity effects). We contend that part 1 pDβd Solution pDβd Data
10
of the less-than-perfect late time data match may be due to rate
history effects (only a single production was reported — it is
pD, pDd and pDβd

pDβd = 1
unlikely that the rate remained constant during the entire test 10
0
pDd = 1/2
sequence).
However, we believe that this example illustrates the 10
-1
challenges typical of what an analyst faces in practice, and as Match Results and Parameter Estimates:
such, we believe the β-derivative function to be of significant
-1 2s Reservoir and Fluid Properties:
[pD/Δp]match = 0.09 psi , CDe = 1 (dim-less)
rw = 0.29 ft, h = 7 ft,
-2 -1
10 [(tD/CD)/t]match= 150 hours , k = 678 md
practical value. We note that the β-derivative provides a clear
-5 -1
ct = 2×10 psi , φ = 0.05 (fraction)
Cs = 0.0311 bbl/psi, s = -1.93 (dim-less)
μo = 0.3 cp, Bo= 1.5 RB/STB
match of the wellbore storage domination/distortion period, ω = 0.237 (dim-less), α = CD×λ = 0.001(dim-less)
-8
Production Parameters:
λ = 2.13×10 (dim-less) qref = 830 Mscf/D
and the func-tion also works well in the transition to system 10
-3
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
radial flow. 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tD/CD
Type Curve Analysis — SPE 13054 Well MACH X3 (Drawdown Case)
-2 -1
(Well in a Dual Porosity System (pss)— ω = 1×10 , α = 1×10 ) Figure 14 — Field example 4 type curve match — SPE 18160
10
1 (ref. 20 — Allain) (pressure buildup case).
-2 -1
Legend: ω =1×10 , α = 1×10
pD Solution
pDd Solution
In Fig. 15 we investigate the use of the β-derivative function
10
0 pDβd Solution 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 β-derivative
pD, pDd and pDβd
-1
10 Reservoir and Fluid Properties:
rw = 0.2917 ft, h = 65 ft, function provides a unique interpretation for a difficult case.
Most im-portantly, the β-derivative function supports the
-6 -1
ct = 24.5×10 psi , φ = 0.048 (fraction)
μo = 0.362 cp, Bo= 1.8235 RB/STB
10
-2 Production Parameters:
qref = 3224 STB/D, pwf(Δt= 0)= 9670 psia
existence (and influence) of the hydraulic fracture.
-1 2s
[pD/Δp]match = 0.000078 psi , CDe = 1 (dim-less) Type Curve Analysis — SPE 9975 Well 5 (Buildup Case)
-3 -1
[(tD/CD)/t]match= 0.17 hours , k = 0.361 md (Well with Infinite Conductivity Hydraulic Fractured )
10 Legend: 1
pD Data
Cs = 0.1124 bbl/psi, s = -4.82 (dim-less) 10 Legend: Infinite Conductivity Fracture
pDd Data
ω = 0.01 (dim-less), α = CD×λ = 0.01(dim-less) pD Solution
-6
pDβd Data λ = 6.45×10 (dim-less) pDd Solution
-4 pDβd Solution
10 0
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 pDd = 1/2
pDβd = 1/2
tD/CD
pD, pDd and pDβd
-1
10
Figure 13 — Field example 3 type curve match — SPE 13054 Reservoir and Fluid Properties:
rw = 0.33 ft, h = 30 ft,
(ref. 19 — DaPrat) (pressure drawdown case). -5 -1
ct = 6.37×10 psi , φ = 0.05 (fraction)
-2 μgi = 0.0297 cp, Bgi= 0.5755 RB/Mscf
Our next case (Example 4) also considers well performance in 10 Production Parameters:
qref = 1500 Mscf/D
a dual porosity/naturally fractured reservoir (see Fig. 14). Match Results and Parameter Estimates:
From these data we again note a very strong performance of

-1
-3 [pD/Δp]match = 0.000021 psi , CDf= 0.01 (dim-less)
10 Legend: -1
[(tDxf/CDf)/t]match= 0.15 hours , k = 0.0253 md
the β-derivative function — particularly in the region defined pD Data
pDd Data
CfD = 1000 (dim-less), xf = 279.96 ft
by tran-sition from wellbore storage to transient interporosity -4

pDβd Data
10
flow. Cases such as these validate the application of the β- 10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
derivative for the interpretation of well test data obtained from tDxf/CDxf
dual poro-sity/naturally fractured reservoirs. Figure 15 — Field example 5 type curve match — SPE 9975
Well 5 (ref. 21 — Lee) (pressure buildup case).
Another application of the β-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
of a hydraulic fracture treatment from any of the
dimensionless plotting func-tions, in particular, the β-
derivative function shows no evidence of a hydraulic fracture.
The well is either poorly fracture-stimu-lated, or a "skin
effect" has obscured any evidence of a fracture treatment — in
either case, the performance of the well is sig-nificantly
impaired.
SPE 103204 9
Type Curve Analysis — Well 207 (Pressure Falloff Case)

Type Curve Analysis — SPE 9975 Well 10 (Buildup Case) (Well with Infinite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture)
(Well with Finite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture — CfD= 2 ) 1
2
10
Legend: Infinite Conductivity Fracture
10 pD Solution
Legend:
Match Results and Parameter Estimates: pDd Solution
-1 pD Data
[pD/Δp]match = 0.0012 psi , CDf= 100 (dim-less) pDβ d = 1 pDβ d Solution
pDd Data 0
-1
[(tDxf/CDf)/t]match= 7.5 hours , k = 0.137 md pDβd Data 10 pDβd = 1/2
1
10 CfD = 2 (dim-less), xf = 0.732 ft
-1
pD, pDd and pDβd

[pD/Δp]match = 0.009 psi , CDf= 0.001 (dim-less)
-1 -1
pD, pDd and pDβd
p Dβ d = 1 10 [(tDxf/CDf)/t]match= 150 hours , k = 11.95 md

0 CfD = 1000 (dim-less), xf = 164.22 ft
10 Legend: CfD= 2 pDd = 1/2
pD Solution
-2
pDd Solution 10
-1 pDβ d Solution
10 Reservoir and Fluid Properties:
rw = 0.3 ft, h = 103 ft,
-3 -6 -1
Reservoir and Fluid Properties: 10 ct = 7.7×10 psi , φ = 0.11 (fraction)
Legend:
rw = 0.33 ft, h = 27 ft, μw = 0.92 cp, Bw= 1 RB/STB
-2 pD Data
10 -5 -1
ct = 5.10×10 psi , φ = 0.057 (fraction) Production Parameters: pDd Data
qref = 1053 STB/D, pwf(Δt= 0)= 3119.41 psia
μgi = 0.0317 cp, Bgi= 0.5282 RB/Mscf pDβd Data
-4
Production Parameters: 10
qref = 1300 Mscf/D -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-3
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 tDxf/CDf
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tDxf/CDf Figure 18 — Field example 8 type curve match — Well 207
(ref. 22 — Samad) (pressure falloff case).
Figure 16 — Field example 6 type curve match — SPE 9975
Well 10 (ref. 21 — Lee) (pressure buildup case). In Fig. 19 we present Well 3294 from ref. 22, where the data
Fig. 17 is also taken from ref. 21 — "Well 12" is also design- for this case are somewhat erratic due to acquisition at the
nated as a hydraulically fractured well in a gas reservoir, and surface (i.e., only surface pressures are used). Using the β-
although there is no absolute signature given by the β- derivative function we can identify the wellbore storage
derivative function (i.e., we do not observe pDβd = 1/2 (infinite domination regime (i.e., pDβd = 1) and we can also reasonably
fracture conductivity) nor pDβd = 1/4 (finite fracture confirm the existence of an infinite fracture conductivity
conductivity)). We do note that pDβd = 1 at early times, which vertical fracture (pDβd = 1/2). The quality of these data impairs
confirms the wellbore storage domination regime. The pDd our ability to define the reser-voir model uniquely, but we can
and pDβd signatures during mid-to-late times confirm the well presume that our assessment of the flow regimes is reasonable,
is highly stimulated — and the infinite fracture conductivity based on the character of the β-derivative function.
vertical fracture model is used for analysis and interpretation Type Curve Analysis — Well 3294 (Pressure Falloff Case)
(Well with Infinite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture)
in this case. 10
1
Legend:
pD Data
Type Curve Analysis — SPE 9975 Well 12 (Buildup Case) pDd Data
(Well with Infinite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture ) 0
pDβd Data
2 10
10 pDβd = 1
pDd = 1/2
Reservoir and Fluid Properties: Legend: Infinite Conductivity Fracture
rw = 0.33 ft, h = 45 ft, pD Solution
pD, pDd and pDβd
-4 -1
ct = 4.64×10 psi , φ = 0.057 (fraction) pDd Solution
-1
1 μgi = 0.0174 cp, Bgi= 1.2601 RB/Mscf pDβd Solution 10
10 Match Results and Parameter Estimates:
Production Parameters: -1
[pD/Δp]match = 0.008 psi , CDf= 0.1 (dim-less)
qref = 325 Mscf/D -1
[(tDxf/CDf)/t]match= 0.013 hours , k = 0.0739 md
pD, pDd and pDβd
-2 CfD = 1000 (dim-less), xf = 198.90 ft

0
10
10 pDβd = 1 pDd = 1/2
Reservoir and Fluid Properties:
rw = 0.3 ft, h = 200 ft,
-3 -6 -1
10 ct = 7.26×10 psi , φ = 0.06 (fraction)
-1 μw = 0.87 cp, Bw= 1.002 RB/STB
10 pD Solution
pDd Solution
pDβd Solution
-4
10
Match Results and Parameter Estimates: -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-2
10 -1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
[pD/Δp]match = 0.0034 psi , CDf= 0.1 (dim-less) Legend:
-1 pD Data
tDxf/CDf
[(tDxf/CDf)/t]match= 37 hours , k = 0.076 md
CfD = 1000 (dim-less), xf = 3.681 ft pDd Data
pDβd Data Figure 19 — Field example 9 type curve match — Well 3294
-3
10 (ref. 22 — Samad) (pressure falloff case).
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tDxf/CDf The data for Well 203, taken from ref. 22 are presented in Fig.
20. The signature given by the pD, pDd, and pDβd functions
Figure 17 — Field example 7 type curve match — SPE 9975 does not appear to be that of a high conductivity vertical
Well 12 (ref. 21 — Lee) (pressure buildup case).
fracture. In this case the pD and pDd functions suggest a finite
In Fig. 18 we present Well 207 from ref. 22, another hy- conductivity vertical fracture (note that these functions are less
draulically fractured well case — this time the well is a water than 1/2 slope). The analysis of these data yields a fairly low
injection well in an oil field, and a "falloff test" is conducted. estimate for the fracture conductivity (i.e., CfD = 2), where this
In this case there are no data at very early times so we cannot result could suggest that the injection process is not continuing
con-firm the wellbore storage domination flow regime. to propagate the fracture.
However; we can use the β-derivative function to confirm the
existence of an infinite conductivity vertical fracture for this
case, which is an important diagnostic.
10 SPE 103204
Type Curve Analysis — Well 203 (Pressure Falloff Case) Type Curve Analysis — Well 2403 (Pressure Falloff Case)
(Well with Finite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture — CfD= 2) (Well with Infinite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture)
1 1
10 10 Legend: Data
Legend:
pD Data pD Data
pDd Data pDd Data
pDβd Data pDβd Data
0 0
10 10 pDd = 1/2
pDβ d = 1 pDd = 1/2 pDβd = 1
pD, pDd and pDβd

pD, pDd and pDβd
-1 -1
10 10
Legend: CfD= 2 Match Results and Parameter Estimates:
-1
pD Solution [pD/Δp]match = 0.18 psi , CDf= 1 (dim-less)
pDd Solution -1
pDβd Solution -2
10
-2 10 CfD = 1000 (dim-less), xf = 50.136 ft
Reservoir and Fluid Properties:
rw = 0.3 ft, h = 102 ft,
Reservoir and Fluid Properties: -6 -1
ct = 7.21×10 psi , φ = 0.11 (fraction)
rw = 0.198 ft, h = 235 ft, -3
-3 Match Results and Parameter Estimates: -6 -1 10 μw = 0.85 cp, Bw= 1.002 RB/STB
10 [pD/Δp]match = 0.0036 psi , CDf= 0.01 (dim-less) ct = 6.53×10 psi , φ = 0.18 (fraction)
-1
pD Solution
-1 μw = 0.87 cp, Bw= 1.002 RB/STB qref = 73 STB/D, pwf(Δt= 0)= 2630.89 psia
[(tDxf/CDf)/t]match= 9 hours , k = 0.676 md pDd Solution
CfD = 2 (dim-less), xf = 42.479 ft qref = 334 STB/D, pwf(Δt= 0)= 2334.1 psia pDβd Solution
-4
-4 10
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 tDxf/CDf
tDxf/CDf
Figure 22 — Field example 12 type curve match ─ Well 2403
Figure 20 — Field example 10 type curve match — Well 203
In Fig. 21 we present the data for Well 5408, a pressure falloff In closing this section on the example application of the β-
test obtained from ref. 22. This case also exhibits no unique deri-vative function, we conclude that the β-derivative can
character in the pD, pDd, and pDβd functions, other than provide unique insight, particularly for pressure transient data
wellbore storage domination (pDβd = 1) and infinite-acting from fractured wells, pressure transient data which is
radial flow (pDd =1/2). Based on the given data, we know that influenced by wellbore storage, and pressure transient data
this well was hydraulically fractured — and again, based on (and likely production data) which are influenced by closed
the injection history, we can conclude that this well exhibits boundary ef-fects. In addition, the β-derivative function
the behavior of a well with an infinite conductivity vertical exhibits some diagnostic character for the pressure transient
fracture where wellbore storage domination and radial flow behavior of dual porosity/naturally fractured reservoir
exists. These ob-servations are relevant and valuable. systems, although these diagnostics are less quantitative in
such cases [i.e., the Δpβd(t) and pDβd functions do not exhibit
Type Curve Analysis — Well 5408 (Pressure Falloff Case)
(Well with Infinite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture)
"constant" behavior as with other cases (e.g., wellbore storage,
10
1
fracture flow regimes, and boundary-dominated flow)].
pD Solution
pDd Solution
pDβd Solution
We believe that these examples confirm the utility and
relevance of the β-derivative function — and we expect the β-
0
10 pDβ d = 1 pDd = 1/2
derivative to find considerable practical application in the

pD, pDd and pDβd
10
-1
Legend: Reservoir and Fluid Properties:
analysis/interpreta-tion of pressure transient test data and
pD Data
pDd Data
rw = 0.198 ft, h = 196 ft,
-6 -1
ct = 6.53×10 psi , φ = 0.18 (fraction)
(eventually) production data.
pDβd Data μw = 0.9344 cp, Bw= 1.002 RB/STB
10
-2
Production Parameters: Summary

The primary purpose of this paper is the presentation of the
new power-law or β-derivative formulation — which is given
-3 -1
10 [pD/Δp]match = 0.0045 psi , CDf= 0.1 (dim-less)
-1
CfD = 1000 (dim-less), xf = 29.13 ft by:
10
-4
d ln(Δp ) 1 dΔp Δpd (t )
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
Δpβd (t ) = = t = .................... (1)
tDxf/CDf d ln(t ) Δp dt Δp
Figure 21 — Field example 11 type curve match — Well 5408 This function can be computed directly from data using:
● Δpβd(t) = dln(Δp)/dln(t) (β-derivative definition) ........... (8)
Our last field example is a pressure falloff test performed on
● Δpβd(t) = Δpd(t)/Δp (Bourdet derivative definition) .. (9)
Well 2403, also taken from ref. 22. These data are presented
in Fig. 22 and we observe the flow regimes for wellbore The work of Sowers (ref. 2) shows that using the β-derivative
storage domination (pDβd = 1), and the infinite-acting radial definition (Eq. 8) does provide a slightly more accurate
(pDd =1/2). deriva-tive function than extracting the Δpβd(t) function from
the Δpd(t) function as defined in Eq. 9. However, the benefit
As for characterization of the well efficiency, we can only derived from using Eq. 8 is likely to be outweighed by the
conclude that the signature appears to be that of a well with a popularity (and availability) of the Bourdet (or semilog)
high conductivity vertical fracture, hence our match using the pressure derivative function [Δpd(t)]. In short, if a derivative
model for a well with an infinite conductivity vertical fracture. computation module is being developed from nothing, Eq. 8
should be used. Otherwise, the "Bourdet" derivative function
[Δpd(t)] should be adequate to "extract" the β-derivative
function [Δpβd(t)] via Eq. 7.
SPE 103204 11
Our goal in this work is the presentation of the β-derivative kma = matrix permeability, md
formulation. We have prepared the β-derivative solutions for L = horizontal well length, ft
some of the most popular well test analysis cases (see LD = dimensionless horizontal well length
Appendix A), as well as graphical representations of these LDf = dimensionless distance from fault
solutions in the form of "type curves" (see Appendix B). The n = positive integer
β-derivative has been shown to provide much improved p = pressure, psi
resolution for certain well test analysis cases — in particular, pD = dimensionless pressure
the β-derivative yields a constant value (i.e., Δpβd(t) = pDd = dimensionless pressure derivative
constant) for the following cases: pDβd = dimensionless β-pressure derivative
Case Δpβd(t) pi = initial reservoir pressure, psi
pwf = well flowing pressure, psi
z Wellbore storage domination: 1
pwfd = well flowing pressure derivative, psi
z Reservoir boundaries: well flowing β−pressure derivative,
— Closed reservoir (circle, rectangle, etc.). 1 pwfβd =
dimensionless
— 2-Parallel faults (large time). 1/2 pws = well shut-in pressure, psi
— 3-Perpendicular faults (large time). 1/2
z Fractured wells:
pwsd = well shut-in pressure derivative, psi
— Infinite conductivity vertical fracture. 1/2 pwsβd = well shut-in β−pressure derivative, dimensionless
— Finite conductivity vertical fracture. 1/4 q = flow rate, STB/Day
z Horizontal wells: re = reservoir outer boundary radius, ft
— Formation linear flow. 1/2 reD = outer reservoir boundary radius, dimensionless
In addition, the β-derivative also provides a unique characteri- rw = wellbore radius, ft
zation of well test behavior in dual porosity reservoirs rwD = dimensionless wellbore radius
(although the β-derivative is never constant for these cases, rwzD = dimensionless wellbore radius
except for the possibility of a rare fractured or horizontal well t = time, hr
case). tD = dimensionless time
tDA = dimensionless time with respect to drainage area
Finally, we have provided a schematic "diagnosis worksheet" tDL = dimensionless time in horizontal well case
for the interpretation of the β-derivative function (see tDxf = dimensionless time in fractured well case
Appendix C).
x = distance from wellbore along fracture, ft
Recommendations for Future Work xD = dimensionless distance along fracture, ft
The future work on this topic should focus on the application xf = fracture length, ft
of the β-derivative concept for production data analysis. z = distance in z direction, ft
Acknowledgements zD = dimensionless distance in z direction
zw = well location, ft
The authors wish to acknowledge the work of Mr. Steven F.
zwD = dimensionless well location
Sowers (ExxonMobil) — for access to his computation
routines, and for his efforts to lay the groundwork for this Greek Symbols
study via his investigations of the β-derivative function as a φ = porosity, fraction
statistically en-hanced formulation for computing the Bourdet
φf = fracture porosity, fraction
derivative.
φma = matrix porosity, fraction
Nomenclature γ = Euler's constant, 0.577216…
ηfD = hydraulic diffusivity, dimensionless
Variables
μ = viscosity, cp
bpss = Pseudosteady-state constant, dimensionless λ = interporosity flow parameter
B = FVF, RB/STB ω = storativity parameter
ct = total system compressibility, psi-1
Subscript
CA = shape factor, dimensionless
Cs = wellbore storage coefficient, bbl/psi g = gas
dim-less wellbore storage coef. — unfractured o = oil
CD =
well w water
CDf = dim-less wellbore storage coef. — horizontal wbs = wellbore storage
well pss = pseudosteady-state
CDL = dim-less wellbore storage coef. — fractured well
References
CfD = fracture conductivity, dimensionless
h = pay thickness, ft 1. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A., and Pirad, Y.M.: "Use of Pressure
hma = matrix height, ft Deriva-tive in Well-Test Interpretation," SPEFE (June 1989) 293-
302 (SPE 12777).
k = permeability, md
2. Sowers, S.: The Bourdet Derivative Algorithm Revisited — Intro-
kf = fracture permeability, md duction and Validation of the Power-Law Derivative Algorithm
kfb = dual porosity fracture permeability, md
12 SPE 103204
for Applications in Well-Test Analysis, (internal) B.S. Report, 15. Cinco-Ley, H. and Meng, H.-Z.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of
Texas A&M U., College Station, Texas (2005). Wells with Finite Conductivity Vertical Fractures in Dual
3. Mattar, L. and Zaoral, K.: "The Primary Pressure Derivative Porosity Reservoirs," SPE 18172 presented at the 1989 SPE
(PPD) A New Diagnostic Tool in Well Test Interpretation," Annual Tech-nical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas,
JCPT, (April 1992), 63-70. 2-5 October 1989.
4. Clark, D.G and van Golf-Racht, T.D.: "Pressure-Derivative Ap- 16. Ozkan, E.: Performance of Horizontal Wells, Ph.D. Dissertation,
proach to Transient Test Analysis: A High-Permeability North U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1988)
Sea Reservoir Example," JPT (Nov. 1985) 2023-2039. 17. Blasingame, T.A.: "Semi-Analytical Solutions for a Bounded Cir-
5. Lane, H.S., Lee, J.W., and Watson, A.T.: "An Algorithm for cular Reservoir-No Flow and Constant Pressure Outer Boundary
Determining Smooth, Continuous Pressure Derivatives from Well Conditions: Unfractured Well Case," SPE 25479 presented at the
Test Data," SPEFE (December 1991) 493-499. 1993 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
6. Escobar, F.H., Navarrete, J.M., and Losada, H.D.: "Evaluation of OK, 21-23 March 1993.
Pressure Derivative Algorithms for Well-Test Analysis," paper 18. Meunier, D., Wittmann, M.J., and Stewart, G.: "Interpretation of
SPE 86936 presented at the 2004 SPE International Thermal Pressure Buildup Test Using In-Situ Measurement of Afterflow,"
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and Western Regional JPT (January 1985) 143 (SPE 11463).
Meeting, Bakers-field, California, 16-18 March 2004. 19. DaPrat, G.D. et al.: "Use of Pressure Transient Testing to
7. Gonzales-Tamez, F., Camacho-Velazquez, R. and Escalante- Evaluate Fractured Reservoirs in Western Venezuela," SPE
Ramirez, B.: "Truncation Denoising in Transient Pressure Tests," 13054 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference
SPE 56422 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Con- and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 16-19 September 1984.
ference and .Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1999. 20. Allain, O.F. and Horne R.N.: "Use of Artificial Intelligence in
8. Cheng, Y., Lee, J.W., and McVay, D.A.: "Determination of Well-Test Interpretation," JPT (March 1990) 342.
Optimal Window Size in Pressure-Derivative Computation Using 21. Lee, W.J. and Holditch, S.A.: "Fracture Evaluation with Pressure
Frequen-cy-Domain Constraints," SPE 96026 presented at the Transient Testing in Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs," JPT
2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and .Exhibition, Dallas, (September 1981) 1776.
Texas, 9-12 October 2005. 22. Samad, Z.: Application of Pressure and Pressure Integral
9. Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "A New Approach for Functions for the Analysis of Well Test Data, M.S. Thesis, Texas
Constructing Derivative Type Curves for Well Test Analysis," A&M U., College Station, Texas (1994).
SPEFE (March 1988) 197-206; Trans., AIME, 285. 23. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J., Jr., and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady-
10. Doung, A.N.: "A New Set of Type Curves for Well Test State Pressure Distributions Created by a Well with a Single
Interpreta-tion with the Pressure/Pressure-Derivative Ratio," Infinite-Conductivity Vertical Fracture," SPEJ. (August 1974)
SPEFE (June 1989) 264-72. 347-360.
11. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the 24. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F.: "Transient Pressure
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans., Analysis for Fractured Wells," JPT (September 1981) 1749.
AIME (1949) 186, 305-324. 25. van Golf-Racht, T.D.: Fundamentals of Fractured Reservoir
12. Stewart, G., Gupta, A., and Westaway, P.: "The Interpretation of Engineering, Elsevier, New York, NY (1982)
Interference Tests in a Reservoir with Sealing and Partially Com- 26. Blasingame, T.A., Johnston, J.L., and Lee, W.J.: "Advances in the
municating Faults," paper SPE 12967 presented at the 1984 Euro- Use of Convolution Methods in Well Test Analysis," paper SPE
pean Petroleum Conf. held in London, England, 25-28 Oct. 1984. 21826 presented at the 1991 Joint Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
13. Warren, J.E. and Root, P.J.: "The Behavior of Naturally Fractures Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, 15-17 April
reservoirs," SPEJ (September 1963) 245-55; Trans., AIME, 228. 1991.
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).
SPE 103204 13
Appendix A — Table of solutions for pD, pDd, and pDβd (conditions/flow regimes as specified).
Table A-1 — Solutions for the wellbore storage domination flow regime.
Variable Solution Relation

Δp wbs Δp wbs = mwbs t ............................................................................................................................................... (A.1.1)
Δp d , wbs Δp d , wbs = mwbs t ............................................................................................................................................ (A.1.2)
Δpβ d , wbs Δpβ d ,wbs = 1 .................................................................................................................................................. (A.1.3)
Definitions: (field units)

1 qB ................................................................................................................................................................................................... (A.1.4)
mwbs =
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 ⎤ ............................................................................. (A.2.1)
pD pD ( t DA ) = 2πt DA + ln ⎢ ⎥ + s = 2πt DA + b pss
2 ⎢ eγ r 2 C A ⎥⎦
⎣ w
pDd pDd ( t DA ) = 2πt DA ....................................................................................................................................... (A.2.2)
1
pDβd ( t DA ) = ≈1
pDβd ( = pDd /pD ) 1 + ( b pss / 2πt DA )
(large-time) ................................................................................................................................. (A.2.3)
t DA = 2.637 × 10 − 4
k
t
................................................................................................................................................................................... (A.2.4)
φμct A
pD =
1 kh
( pi − p wf )
................................................................................................................................................................................. (A.2.5)
141.2 qBμ
1 ⎡4 A 1 ⎤ ................................................................................................................................................................................... (A.2.6)
b pss = ln ⎢ ⎥+s
2 ⎢ eγ rw2 C A ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Table A-3 — Solutions for an unfractured well in an infinite-acting, homogeneous reservoir (radial flow).
1 ⎡ 1 ⎤
p D (t D ) = E1 ⎢ ⎥
pD 2 ⎣ 4t D ⎦
(t D > 10 ) ........................................................................................................................................ (A.3.1)

1 ⎡ −1 ⎤
p Dd ( t D ) = exp ⎢ ⎥
pDd 2 ⎣ 4t D ⎦
(t D > 10 ) ........................................................................................................................................ (A.3.2)
⎡ 1 ⎤ ⎡ 1 ⎤
p Dβd ( t D ) = exp ⎢ ⎥ E1 ⎢ ⎥
pDβ d (= pDd /pD ) ⎣ 4t D ⎦ ⎣ 4t D ⎦
(t D > 10 ) ........................................................................................................................................ (A.3.3)

kt ................................................................................................................................................................................... (A.3.4)
t D = 2.637 × 10 − 4
φc t μrw2
pD =
1 kh
( pi − p wf )
................................................................................................................................................................................. (A.3.5)
141.2 qBμ
0.8936Cs .................................................................................................................................................................................................. (A.3.6)
CD =
φhct rw2
14 SPE 103204
Table A-4 — Solutions for a single well in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir system with a single or
multiple sealing faults.
⎡ ⎡ L2 ⎤⎤
1⎢ ⎡ 1 ⎤ ⎢ Df ⎥⎥
p D (t D ) = E1 ⎢ ⎥ + E1 ⎢
2 ⎢ ⎣ 4t D ⎦ t ⎥⎥
⎢
⎣ ⎢⎣ D ⎥⎦ ⎥⎦
(single fault) .................................................................................................................................. (A.4.1)
⎡ ⎡ L2 ⎤ ⎡ 2 L2 ⎤⎤
1⎢ ⎡ 1 ⎤ ⎢ Df ⎥ ⎢ Df ⎥⎥
p D (t D ) = ⎢ E1 ⎢ ⎥ + 2E1 ⎢ ⎥ + E1 ⎢ t ⎥⎥
2 ⎢ ⎣ 4t D ⎦ t
⎢⎣ D ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ D ⎥⎦ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
pD (two perpendicular faults)............................................................................................................. (A.4.2)
⎡ ∞ ⎡ iL2 ⎤⎤
1⎢ ⎡ 1 ⎤
p D (t D ) = E 1 ⎢ ⎥
2 ⎢ ⎣ 4t D ⎦
+ 2 E ∑
1
⎢ Df
⎢ t
⎥⎥
⎥⎥
⎢
⎣ i =1 ⎢⎣ D ⎥⎦ ⎥⎦
(two parallel faults)....................................................................................................................... (A.4.3)
⎡ ∞ ⎡ ( i 2 + 1) L2 ⎤ ∞ ⎡ iL2 ⎤ ⎡ L2 ⎤⎤
1⎢ ⎡ 1 ⎤
∑E1 ⎢⎢ ⎥+2
∑
E1 ⎢⎢ ⎥ + E ⎢ Df ⎥⎥
Df Df
p D (t D ) = E1 ⎢ ⎥+2
2 ⎢ ⎣ 4t D ⎥⎥
⎥ ⎥ 1⎢
⎦ tD tD tD
⎢ i =1 ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ i =1 ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎥⎦
⎣
(three perpendicular faults)........................................................................................................... (A.4.4)
2
1 −1/ 4 t D 1 − L Df / t D
p Dd ( t D ) = e + e ≈1
2 2
(single fault, complete solution and large-time approximation) .................................................. (A.4.5)
1 −1 / 4 t D − L2 / t D 1 − 2 L2Df / t D
p Dd ( t D ) = e + e Df + e ≈2
2 2
(two perpendicular faults, complete solution and large-time approximation) ............................. (A.4.6)
pDd ∞
−iL2Df / t D
∑e
1 −1 / 4 t D
p Dd ( t D ) = e +
2
i =1
(two parallel faults, complete solution and large-time approximation) ....................................... (A.4.7)
∞ ∞
−( i 2 +1) L2Df / t D −iL2Df / t D 2
1 − L Df / t D
∑e ∑e
1 −1 / 4 t D
p Dd ( t D ) = e + + + e
2 2
i =1 i =1
(three perpendicular faults)........................................................................................................... (A.4.8)
− L2Df / t D
e −1 / 4 t D + e 2
p Dβd ( t D ) = ≈
⎡ L2 ⎤ ⎡ L2 ⎤
⎡ 1 ⎤ ⎢ Df ⎥ ⎡ 1 ⎤ ⎢ Df ⎥
E1 ⎢ ⎥ + E1 ⎢ ⎥
E1 ⎢ ⎥ + E1 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 4t D ⎦ tD ⎣ 4t D ⎦ tD
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
(single fault, complete solution and large-time approximation) .................................................. (A.4.9)
− L2Df / t D −2 L2Df / t D
e −1/ 4 t D + 2 e +e 4
p Dβd ( t D ) = ≈
⎡ L2 ⎤ ⎡ 2 L2 ⎤ ⎡ L2 ⎤ ⎡ 2 L2 ⎤
⎡ 1 ⎤ ⎢ Df ⎥ + E ⎢ Df ⎥ ⎡ 1 ⎤ ⎢ Df ⎥ + E ⎢ Df ⎥
E1 ⎢ ⎥ + 2 E1 ⎢ ⎥ 1⎢ ⎥
E1 ⎢ ⎥ + 2 E1 ⎢ ⎥ 1⎢ ⎥
4
⎣ D⎦t tD tD 4
⎣ D⎦t tD tD
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
(two perpendicular faults, complete solution and large-time approximation) ........................... (A.4.10)
∞
−iL2Df / t D
pDβ d (= pDd /pD ) e −1 / 4 t D + 2 ∑e 1
i =1
p Dβd ( t D ) = ≈
∞ ⎡ iL2 ⎤ 2
⎡ 1 ⎤
∑
E1 ⎢⎢ ⎥
Df
E1 ⎢ ⎥+2 ⎥
⎣ 4t D ⎦ tD
i =1 ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
(two parallel faults, complete solution and large-time approximation) ..................................... (A.4.11)
∞ ∞
−( i 2 +1) L2Df / t D −iL2Df / t D − L2Df / t D
e −1 / 4 t D + 2 ∑e +2 ∑e +e
1
i =1 i =1
p Dβd ( t D ) = ≈
∞ ⎡ ( i 2 + 1) L2 ⎤ ∞ ⎡ iL2 ⎤ ⎡ L2 ⎤ 2
⎡ 1 ⎤
∑
E1 ⎢⎢ ⎥+2
∑
E1 ⎢⎢ ⎥ + E ⎢ Df ⎥
Df Df
E1 ⎢ ⎥+2 ⎥ ⎥ 1⎢ ⎥
⎣ 4t D ⎦ tD tD tD
i =1 ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ i =1 ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
(three perpendicular faults, complete solution and large-time approximation)......................... (A.4.12)

kt .................................................................................................................................................................................... (A.4.13)
t D = 2.637 × 10 − 4
φct μrw2
1 kh .................................................................................................................................................................................(A.4.14)
pD = ( pi − p wf )
141.2 qBμ
L fault ................................................................................................................................................................................................... .(A.4.15)
L Df =
rw
SPE 103204 15
Table A-5 — Solutions for a hydraulically fractured well with an infinite conductivity fracture in an infinite-
acting reservoir.
πt Dxf ⎡ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎤ (1 − x )
D E ⎢ (1 − x D )
⎡ 2 ⎤ (1 + x ) ⎡ (1 + x )2 ⎤
p D ( t Dxf ) = ⎢ erf ⎢ 1 − x D ⎥ + erf ⎢ 1 + x D ⎥⎥ + ⎥+ D E ⎢ D ⎥
⎢ ⎢2 t 1 1
2 Dxf
⎥ ⎢ 2 t Dxf ⎥⎥ 4 ⎢⎣ 4 t Dxf ⎥⎦ 4 ⎢⎣ 4 t Dxf ⎥⎦
⎣⎢ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ ⎦⎥
(Uniform-flux (xD=0) or infinite conductivity(xD=0.732))........................................................... (A.5.1)
p D ( t Dxf ) = πt Dxf
pD (early time, linear flow) ................................................................................................................ (A.5.2)
1
p D ( t Dxf ) = [ln( t Dxf ) + 2.80907 ]
2
(late time, uniform flux fracture) .................................................................................................. (A.5.3)
1
p D ( t Dxf ) = [ln( t Dxf ) + 2.20000 ]
2
(late time, infinite conductivity fracture)...................................................................................... (A.5.4)
πt Dxf ⎡ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎤
pDd (t Dxf ) = ⎢erf ⎢ 1 − x D ⎥ + erf ⎢ 1 + x D ⎥⎥
4 ⎢ ⎢2 t ⎥ ⎢ 2 t Dxf ⎥⎥
⎣ ⎣ Dxf ⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎦
pDd πt Dxf
pDd ( t Dxf ) =
4
(early time, linear flow) ................................................................................................................ (A.5.6)
pDd ( t Dxf ) = 0.5
(late time) ...................................................................................................................................... (A.5.7)
⎡ πt ⎡ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎤⎤
pDβd ( t Dxf ) = ⎢
Dxf ⎢ erf ⎢ 1 − x D ⎥ + erf ⎢ 1 + x D ⎥⎥⎥
⎢ 4 ⎢ ⎢2 t ⎥ ⎢ 2 t Dxf ⎥⎥⎥
⎣⎢ ⎣ Dxf ⎦ ⎦⎥ ⎦⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦ ⎣
⎡ πt ⎡ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎤ (1 − x ) ⎡ 2 ⎤ (1 + x ) ⎡ 2 ⎤⎤
⎢ Dxf ⎢ erf ⎢ 1 − x D ⎥ + erf ⎢ 1 + x D ⎥⎥ + D E ⎢ (1 − x D ) ⎥+ D E ⎢ (1 + x D ) ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎢2 t 1 1
2 Dxf
⎥ ⎢ 2 t Dxf ⎥⎥ 4 ⎢⎣ 4 t Dxf ⎥⎦ 4 ⎢⎣ 4 t Dxf ⎥⎦ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎣⎢ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ ⎦⎥ ⎦
pDβ d (= pDd /pD ) pDβd (t Dxf ) = 0.5
(early time, linear flow) ................................................................................................................ (A.5.9)
1
pDβ d ( t Dxf ) =
ln( t Dxf ) + 2.80907
(late time, uniform flux fracture) ................................................................................................ (A.5.10)
1
pDβd ( t Dxf ) =
ln( t Dxf ) + 2.20000
(late time, infinite conductivity fracture).................................................................................... (A.5.11)

kt .............................................................................................................................................................................. (A.5.12)
t Dxf = 2.637 × 10 −4
φc t μx 2f
pD =
1 kh
( pi − p wf )
............................................................................................................................................................................... (A.5.13)
141.2 qBμ
x D = x/x f ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... .(A.5.14)
0.8936 C s ............................................................................................................................................................................................. .(A.5.15)
C Df =
φhc t x 2f
16 SPE 103204
Table A-6 — Early time solutions for a hydraulically fractured well with a finite conductivity fracture —
infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir (includes wellbore storage effects).
⎡ η fD z ⎤
erfc ⎢ ⎥
πη fD ⎢C 0.5 ⎥
t Dxf ⎣⎢ fD ( t Dfx − z ) ⎦⎥
p D ( t Dxf ) =
C fD ∫0 z
dz
(General solution) ......................................................................................................................... (A.6.1)

2
p D ( t Dxf ) = πη fD t Dxf
C fD
(Short-time approximation), 0.01C 2fD ............................................................................... (A.6.2)

t Dxf ≤
η 2fD
pD
π 1
p D ( t Dxf ) = t Dxf 4
Γ (1.25 ) 2 C fD
⎧
⎪ t Dxf ≤ 0.1 C fD ≥ 3
⎪ C 2fD
(Large-time approximation), ⎪ ........................... (A.6.3)
⎪⎪ −1.53
⎨ t Dxf ≤ 0.0205 ( C fD − 1.5 ) 1.6 ≤ C fD ≤ 3
⎪
⎪ 4
⎡ ⎤
⎪t ≤ ⎢ 4.55 − 2.5 ⎥ C fD ≤ 1.6
⎪ Dxf ⎢ C ⎥
⎪⎩ ⎢⎣ fD ⎥⎦
πη fD t Dxf
p Dd ( t Dxf ) =
C fD
pDd
(Short-time approximation) .......................................................................................................... (A.6.4)
0.612708 1
p Dd ( t Dxf ) = t Dxf 4
C fD
(Large-time approximation) ......................................................................................................... (A.6.5)
1
p Dβd ( t Dxf ) =
2
pDβ d (= pDd /pD ) (Short-time approximation) .......................................................................................................... (A.6.6)
1
p Dβd ( t Dxf ) =
4
(Large-time approximation) ......................................................................................................... (A.6.7)

kt ................................................................................................................................................................................ (A.6.8)
t Dxf = 2.637 × 10 −4
φc t μx 2f
pD =
1 kh
( pi − p wf )
................................................................................................................................................................................. (A.6.9)
141.2 qBμ
k f φct .................................................................................................................................................................................................. (A.6.10)
η fD =
kφ f c ft
k f w ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... (A.6.11)
C fD =
kx f
0.8936 C s .............................................................................................................................................................................................. (A.6.12)
C Df =
φhc t x 2f
SPE 103204 17
Table A-7 — Solutions for an unfractured well in an infinite-acting, dual porosity (naturally fractured)
reservoir system (pseudosteady-state interporosity flow model).
1 ⎡ 4 ⎤ 1 ⎡ λ ⎤ 1 ⎡ λ ⎤
p D (t D ) = ln ⎢ tD ⎥ − E1 ⎢ t D ⎥ + E1 ⎢ tD ⎥
pD 2 ⎣ eγ ⎦ 2 ⎣ ω (1 − ω ) ⎦ 2 ⎣ (1 − ω ) ⎦
(logarithmic approximation)......................................................................................................... (A.7.1)
1 1 ⎡ −λ ⎤ 1 ⎡ −λ ⎤ ....................................................................................... (A.7.2)
p Dd (t D ) = + exp ⎢ t D ⎥ − exp ⎢ tD ⎥
2 2 ⎣ ω (1 − ω ) ⎦ 2 ⎣ (1 − ω ) ⎦
pDd 1
p Dd (t D ) ≈
2
(large-time) ................................................................................................................................... (A.7.3)
⎡ ⎡ −λ ⎤ ⎡ −λ ⎤⎤ ⎡ ⎡ 4 ⎤ ⎡ λ ⎤ ⎡ λ ⎤⎤
p Dβ d ( t D ) = ⎢1 + exp ⎢ t D ⎥ − exp ⎢ tD ⎥⎥ ⎢ ln ⎢ tD ⎥ − E1 ⎢ t D ⎥ + E1 ⎢ tD ⎥⎥
⎢⎣ ⎣ ω (1 − ω ) ⎦ ⎣ (1 − ω ) ⎦ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎣ e γ ⎦ ⎣ ω (1 − ω ) ⎦ ⎣ (1 − ω ) ⎦ ⎥⎦
....................................................................................................................................................... (A.7.4)
pDβ d (= pDd /pD ) 1
p Dβd (t D ) ≈
⎡ ⎡ 4 ⎤ ⎡ λ ⎤ ⎡ λ ⎤⎤
⎢ln ⎢ γ tD ⎥ − E1 ⎢ t D ⎥ + E1 ⎢ tD ⎥⎥
⎣⎢ ⎣ e ⎦ ⎣ ω (1 − ω ) ⎦ ⎣ (1 − ω ) ⎦ ⎦⎥
(large-time) ................................................................................................................................... (A.7.5)

kt ......................................................................................................................................................... (A.7.6)
t D = 2.637 × 10 − 4
(φ fb ctfb + φ ma ctma ) μrw2
pD =
1 kh
( pi − p wf )
................................................................................................................................................................................. (A.7.7)
141.2 qBμ
φ fb c tfb ....................................................................................................................................................................................... .(A.7.8)
ω=
φ fb c tfb + φ ma ctma
r2 k ................................................................................................................................................................................................ .(A.7.9)
λ = 12 w ma
2 k fb
hma
0.8936 C s .............................................................................................................................................................................................. .(A.7.10)
CD =
φhct rw2
18 SPE 103204
Table A-8—Solutions for a hydraulically fractured well in an infinite-acting, dual porosity (naturally
fractured) reservoir system (pseudosteady-state interporosity flow model).
1 4
π ⎡ t Dxf ⎤
p D ( t Dxf ) = ⎢ ⎥
Γ (1.25 ) 2 C fD ⎣⎢ ω ⎦⎥
(fracture storage dominated flow period, early time)................................................................... (A.8.1)
πt Dxf π
p D ( t Dxf ) = +
ω 3C fD
pD (fracture storage dominated flow period, intermediate time)....................................................... (A.8.2)
π
p D ( t Dxf ) = t Dxf 1 4
Γ ( 5 4 ) 2 C fD
(total system compressibility dominated flow period, early time)............................................... (A.8.3)
π
p D ( t Dxf ) = πt Dxf +
3C fD
(total system compressibility dominated flow period, intermediate time) .................................. (A.8.4)
1 4
0.612708 ⎡ t Dxf ⎤
p Dd ( t Dxf ) = ⎢ ⎥
C fD ⎣⎢ ω ⎦⎥
πt Dxf π
p Dd ( t Dxf ) = +
ω 3C fD
pDd (fracture storage dominated flow period, intermediate time)....................................................... (A.8.6)
π
p Dd ( t Dxf ) = t Dxf 1 4
Γ ( 5 4 ) 2 C fD
(total system compressibility dominated flow period, early time)............................................... (A.8.7)
π
p Dd ( t Dxf ) = πt Dxf +
3 C fD
(total system compressibility dominated flow period, intermediate time) .................................. (A.8.8)
1
p Dβd ( t Dxf ) =
4
3C fD t Dxf
p Dβ d ( t Dxf ) =
6 C fD t Dxf + 2 πt Dxf ω
(fracture storage dominated flow period, intermediate time)..................................................... (A.8.10)
pDβd (= pDd /pD ) 1
p Dβd ( t Dxf ) =
4
(total system compressibility dominated flow period, early time)............................................. (A.8.11)
πt Dxf
p Dβd ( t Dxf ) =
⎡ π ⎤
2 ⎢ πt Dxf + ⎥
⎢⎣ 3C fD ⎥⎦
(total system compressibility dominated flow period, intermediate time) ................................ (A.8.12)

kt .............................................................................................................................................................................. (A.8.13)
t Dxf = 2.637 × 10 −4
φc t μx 2f
pD =
1 kh
( pi − p wf )
............................................................................................................................................................................... (A.8.14)
141.2 qBμ
φ fb c tfb ..................................................................................................................................................................................... .(A.8.15)
ω=
φ fb c tfb + φ ma ctma
r2 k .............................................................................................................................................................................................. .(A.8.16)
λ = 12 w ma
2 k fb
hma
k f w ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... .(A.8.17)
C fD =
kx f
0.8936 C s ............................................................................................................................................................................................. .(A.8.18)
C Df =
φhc t x 2f
SPE 103204 19
Table A-9 — Solutions for an infinite conductivity horizontal well in an infinite-acting, homogeneous (and isotropic)
reservoir system.
∞
π t DL ⎡ ⎡ 0.866 ⎤ ⎡ 0.134 ⎤ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
⎥ dτ
p D ( t DL ) =
4 ∫0 ⎢ erf ⎢
⎣⎢ ⎣⎢ τ ⎦⎥
⎥ + erf ⎢ ⎥ ⎥ × ⎢1 + 2
⎣⎢ τ ⎦⎥ ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣
∑
exp( − n 2 π 2 L 2D τ ) cos nπz D cos nπz wD
⎥ τ
n =1 ⎦
........................................................................................................................................................ (A.9.1)
⎡(z − z 2 2 ⎤
1 D wD ) / L D ⎥
pD p D ( t DL ) = E1 ⎢
4LD ⎢ 4t D ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
(early time approximation) ............................................................................................................ (A.9.2)
1
p D ( t DL ) = (ln t DL + 2.509843 ) + F
2
πt DL ⎡ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ 0.134 ⎤⎤ ⎡ ∞ ⎤
p Dd ( t DL ) =
4
⎢ erf ⎢ 0.866
⎢ ⎢ t
⎥ + erf ⎢
⎥ ⎢ t DL
⎥ ⎥ × ⎢1 + 2
⎥⎥ ⎢ ∑ exp( − n 2 π 2 L 2D t DL ) cos nπz D cos nπz wD ⎥
⎥
⎣ ⎣ DL ⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎦ ⎣ n =1 ⎦
........................................................................................................................................................ (A.9.4)
⎡ (z − z 2 2 ⎤
1 D wD ) / L D ⎥
pDd p Dd ( t DL ) = exp ⎢ −
4 LD ⎢ 4 t DL ⎥
⎣ ⎦
1
p D ( t DL ) =
2
⎡ ⎡ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ 0.134 ⎤⎤ ⎡ ∞ ⎤⎤
p Dβd ( t DL ) = ⎢ t DL
⎢
⎢ erf ⎢ 0.866
⎢ ⎢ t
⎥ + erf ⎢
⎥ ⎢ t DL
⎥ ⎥ × ⎢1 + 2
⎥⎥ ⎢ ∑ exp( − n 2 π 2 L 2D t DL ) cos nπz D cos nπz wD ⎥⎥
⎥⎥
⎢⎣ ⎣ ⎣ DL ⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎦ ⎣ n =1 ⎦ ⎥⎦
⎡ t ⎡ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ 0.134 ⎤⎤ ⎡ ∞ ⎤ ⎤
dτ ⎥
∫
⎢ DL
⎢ 0
⎢ erf ⎢ 0.866
⎢ ⎢ t
⎥ + erf ⎢
⎥ ⎢ t DL
⎥ ⎥ × ⎢1 + 2
⎥⎥ ⎢ ∑ exp( − n 2 π 2 L 2D τ ) cos nπz D cos nπz wD ⎥
⎥ τ ⎥⎥
⎣⎢ ⎣ ⎣ DL ⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎦ ⎣ n =1 ⎦ ⎦
pDβd (= pDd /pD ) ........................................................................................................................................ (A.9.7)
⎡ (z − z 2 2 ⎤ ⎡(z − z 2 2 ⎤
D wD ) / L D ⎥ D wD ) / L D ⎥
p Dβd ( t DL ) = exp ⎢ − E1 ⎢
⎢ 4 t DL ⎥ ⎢ 4 t DL ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ ⎥⎦
(early time)..................................................................................................................................... (A.9.8)
1
p Dβd ( t DL ) =
(ln t DL + 2.509843 ) + F
(late time) ....................................................................................................................................... (A.9.9)

∞ +1 ................................................................................................................................(A.9.10)
F= ∑ cos nπz D cos nπz wD ∫−1 K 0 [ LD nπ ( 0.732 − α ) 2 ] dα
n =1
kt .........................................................................................................................................................................(A.9.11)
t DL = 2.637 × 10 − 4
φc t μ ( L 2 )2
1 kh .........................................................................................................................................................................(A.9.12)
pD = ( pi − pwf )
141.2 qBμ
z
z D = .............................................................................................................................................................................................................(A.9.13)
h
z wD = z D − rwzD .............................................................................................................................................................................................(A.9.14)
2r
rwD = w ........................................................................................................................................................................................................(A.9.15)
L
rwzD = rwD L D .................................................................................................................................................................................................(A.9.16)
0.8936 C s ..........................................................................................................................................................................................(A.9.17)
C DL =
φhct ( L / 2 ) 2
L ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................(A.9.18)
LD =
2h
SPE 103204 20
Appendix B — Dimensionless "type curve" representations of the β-pressure derivative and

various other pressure functions, selected reservoir/well configurations

Various Reservoir Models and Well Configurations (as noted)
DIAGNOSTIC plot for Well Test Data (pDd and pDβd)
3
10
Legend: (pDd ) (pDβ d ) NO Wellbore Storage

Bourdet "Well Test" Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Function, pDd
Unfractured Well (Radial Flow) or Skin Effects

"Power Law — β" Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Function, pDβd
Fractured Well (Infinite Fracture Conductivity)

Fractured Well (Finite Fracture Conductivity)
Horizontal Well (Full Penetration, Thin Reservoir)
2
10
Boundary-
1 Dominated
Transient Flow Flow Region
Region 1
1
10 Horizontal Well in a
( ) Bounded Square
( ) Reservoir:
( ) pDβd = 1
Fractured Well in (Full Penetration,
( )
a Bounded Circular Thin Reservoir)
(boundary
Reservoir
(Finite Conductivity dominated flow)
Vertical Fracture)
0 1 pDβd = 0.5
10
2 (linear flow)
4
1
pDβd = 0.25
-1 Unfractured Well in
1 Reservoir
Fractured Well in
2
Reservoir ( )
(Infinite Conductivity
( ) Vertical Fracture)
( )
-2
10
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Dimensionless Time, tD (model-dependent)
Figure B.1 — Schematic of pDd and pDβd vs. tD — Various reservoir models and well configurations (no wellbore storage or skin effects).

Various Reservoir Models and Well Configurations (as noted)
DIAGNOSTIC plot for Well Test Data (pDβ d)
3
10
Legend: (pDβd )
Unfractured Well (Radial Flow) NO Wellbore Storage
Fractured Well (Infinite Fracture Conductivity)
Fractured Well (Finite Fracture Conductivity)
or Skin Effects
Horizontal Well (Full Penetration, Thin Reservoir)
2
10
"Power Law — β" Dimensionless Pressure
Boundary-
Dominated
Derivative Function, pDβd
Transient Flow
Flow Region
Region
1
10
( )
Fractured Well in Horizontal Well in a
pDβd = 1
( ) a Bounded Circular Bounded Square (boundary
Reservoir Reservoir:
(Finite Conductivity dominated flow)
(Full Penetration,
Vertical Fracture) Thin Reservoir)
0 pDβd = 0.5
10
(linear flow)
pDβd = 0.25
-1 Unfractured Well in
Reservoir
Fractured Well in
Reservoir
(Infinite Conductivity
Vertical Fracture)
( )
-2
10
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Dimensionless Time, tD (model-dependent)
Figure B.2 — Schematic of pDβd vs. tD — Various reservoir models and well configurations (no wellbore storage or skin effects).
SPE 103204 21
Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Type Curves for Sealing Faults

(Inifinite-Acting Homogeneous Reservoir)
4
10
Legend: "Bourdet" Well Test Pressure Derivative
Single Fault Case
2 Perpendicular Faults (2 at 90 Degrees) 3 Perpendicular
2 Parallel Faults (2 at 180 Degrees) Faults
3
10 3 Perpendicular Faults (3 at 90 Degrees)
β-Pressure Derivative Function, pDβd = (tD/pD) d/dtD(pD )
"Bourdet" Well Test Pressure Derivative, pDd = tD dpD/dtD

2 Parallel
Faults
2
10
pDd = tD dpD/dtD
1
10 2 Perpendicular
Faults
Undistorted
Single
Radial Flow Behavior
0 Fault
10
3 Perpendicular 2 Parallel 2 Perpendicular

Faults Faults Faults
-1
10
pDβ d = (tD/pD) dpD/dtD Single

Fault
-2 Legend: β -Pressure Derivative Function

10
Single Fault Case
-3
10
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2
tD/LD (LD = Lfault/rw)
2
Figure B.3 — pDd and pDβd 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.
3
10
Legend: Radial Flow Type Curves
pD Solution
pDd Solution
100
pDβ d Solution 10
2 80
10 10 60
50 10
10 40
30 10
20 10
10 15
Wellbore Storage 10 10
8 10
Domination Region 104 106
1 10 3
10 1 10210
3 10 -2
3×10 1×10-2
pD, pDd and pDId
100 2s -3
10 CDe =1×10
0
10
Radial Flow Region
2s -3
CDe =1×10 CDe =1×10
2s -3
-1 -3
10 3×10-2 3×10-2
-1 1 1×10
10
3 2 101
104 10
3
10 106 8
10 10
1015
20 10
10 30
-2
10
10 Wellbore Storage 10
40
10
50
60
Distortion Region 80 10
10
100
10
-3
10
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tD/CD
Figure B.4 — pD, pDd, and pDβd 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
Type Curve for an Unfractured Well in an Infinite-Acting Dual Porosity Reservoir

(Pseudosteady-State Interporosity Flow) — No Wellbore Storage or Skin Effects.
2
10
Legend:
pD Solution
pDβd Solution
1
10
-3
1×10
-2
1×10 -1
0 ω = 1×10
10
pD and pDβd
-1
10
-1
ω = 1×10
-1
ω = 1×10 -1
-2 ω = 1×10
ω = 1×10
-2
-2 ω = 1×10 -2
10 ω = 1×10
-3
ω = 1×10 -3
ω = 1×10 -3
ω = 1×10
-3
10 -3
pDβd (λ = 5 ×10 )
-6
pDβ d (λ = 5 ×10 ) -9
pDβd (λ = 5 ×10 )
-4
10
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tD
Figure B.5 — pD and pDβd vs. tD — solutions for an unfractured well in an infinite-acting dual porosity system — no wellbore storage or skin
effects (various λ and ω values).
Type Curve for an Unfractured Well in an Infinite-Acting Dual Porosity Reservoir (Pseudosteady-State InterporosityFlow) with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects.
(Pseudosteady-State InterporosityFlow) with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects. -1 -3
( α = λCD = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 )
-1 -1
( α = λCD = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 ) 10
3
3 -1 -3
10 Legend: α = λCD = 1×10 , ω = 1×10
-1 -1
Legend: α = λCD = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 pD Solution
pD Solution pDβd Solution
100
pDβd Solution 2 10
80
100 10 60 10
2 10 10 50
10 80 40 10
10
60 10 50 10 30
40 10 20 10
10 30 10 15
20 10 10 10
10 15 8
10
10 10 1 6 10
8
10 10 10 3 10
4
1 6 10 2 10
10 10 3 10
4
Wellbore Storage 10 1
2 10 10 1
Wellbore Storage 10 1 Domination Region -1 3×10
-2
10 10 -3
pD and pDβd
1 3×10
Domination Region -1 3×10
-2
1×10
-2
10 -3 100
pD and pDßd
-2 3×10 0 10
100 1×10 10 CDe =1×10
2s -3 Radial Flow Region
0 10
10 CDe =1×10
2s -3 Radial Flow Region 2s -3
CDe =1×10 2s -3
2s -3 CDe =1×10
CDe =1×10 2s -3 -3
CDe =1×10 -1 -23×10 -2
-3 10 3×10 1×10
-23×10 -2 -1 1 1
10
-1
3×10 1×10 10 10 2
1 1 3
10
-1
10 10 10 4
3 2 10 6
10 10 4 Wellbore Storage 10
10
10
8
10 6 10 15
Wellbore Storage 10 8 Distortion Region 20 10
10 10 10
10 15
Distortion Region 20 10 -2 40 10
30
10 30 10 10 50
-2 40 10 60 10
10 10 10 80
60 10
50
100 10
10 80 10
100 10
10
-3
10
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 tD/CD
tD/CD
-3
-1 Figure B.8 — pD and pDβd vs. tD/CD — ω = 1×10 , α = λCD =
Figure B.6 — pD and pDβd vs. tD/CD — ω = 1×10 , α = λCD = -1
-1 1×10 (dual porosity case — includes wellbore
Type Curve for an Unfractured Well in an Infinite-Acting Dual Porosity Reservoir (Pseudosteady-State InterporosityFlow) with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects.
(Pseudosteady-State InterporosityFlow) with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects. -4 -3
( α = λCD = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 )
-4 -1
( α = λCD = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 ) 10
3
3 -4 -3
10 Legend: α = λCD = 1×10 , ω = 1×10
-4 -1
Legend: α = λCD = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 pD Solution
pD Solution pDβd Solution 100
10
pDβd Solution 2 80
100 10 60 10
2 10 80 50 10 40
10 60 10 10 10
10 50 30
40 10 10 20
10 30 15 10
20 10 10 10
10 15 8 10
10 10 6
10
10
10
1 Wellbore Storage 10
4
3 10
8 2 10
1 10
6 10 4
Domination Region 1 10
10 10 10
3 -1 1
2 10 10
1
10 -2
10 3×10
Wellbore Storage 1 1×10
-2
pD and pDβd
-1 -2 100 -3
Domination Region 10 3×10 10 3×10
-3
pD and pDßd
-2 3×10 0 2s -3
1×10 10 CDe =1×10
0 10
100
2s -3 Radial Flow Region
CDe =1×10 Radial Flow Region 2s -3
10 CDe =1×10
2s -3 2s -3
CDe =1×10 CDe =1×10
2s -3 -2
CDe =1×10 3×10
-3 -1 -1 -3
3×10 1×10-2 3×10
-2 10 10 1 1 1×10
-2 3×10
-1 -1 3 10 2
10 1 1 10 10 4 10
2 10 10 10
6
4 10 3 8
10 6 10 Wellbore Storage 10 10
10 8 15 10
Wellbore Storage 10 10 Distortion Region 10 20
10 15 30 10
Distortion Region 20 10 -2 10 40
10 30 10 10
50 10
-2 40 10 60
10 10 50 80 10
60 10 10
10 80
10
100
10
100
10
-3
10
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 tD/CD
tD/CD
-3
-1 Figure B.9 — pD and pDβd vs. tD/CD — ω = 1×10 , α = λCD =
Figure B.7 — pD and pDβd vs. tD/CD — ω = 1×10 , α = λCD = -4
-4 1×10 (dual porosity case — includes wellbore
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)
1
10
CfD=0.25
0.5 1
0
10 4
CfD=1×10 5 Radial Flow Region
pD, pDd and pDβd
3
1×10 500
2
1
0.5
-1 1 CfD=0.25
10 2
-2
10
Legend:
pD Solution
pDd Solution
4
CfD=1×10 pDβd Solution
-3
10
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tDxf
Figure B.10 — pD, pDd, and pDβd 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 Type Curve for a Well with Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture in an Infinite-Acting
Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore Storage Effects Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore Storage Effects CfD = (wkf)/(kxf)= 10
1 1
10 2
10
Legend: Infinite Conductivity 1×10 1×10
1
2 0
Legend: CfD = (wkf)/(kxf)= 10 1×10 1
1×10
1×10
pD Solution
0 -1 -2 pD Solution -1 1×10
-2
pDβd Solution 1×10 1×10 1×10 1×10
2 pDβd Solution -3
1×10 2 1×10
0 0 1×10
10 10
-6 -3
CDf=1×10 -5 -4 1×10
1×10
-5
Wellbore Storage 1×10 1×10
-6 -3
CDf=1×10 1×10 -4 -6
1×10 Domination Region CDf=1×10
-1 -2
1×10 1×10 -2
1×10
-1 Wellbore Storage 1 -1 -4
1×10
0
10 1×10 1×10
0
10 1×10 1×10
1
Domination Region
pD and pDβd
pD and pDβd
2
-3 2 -5 1×10
1×10 1×10 1×10
-4
1×10
-6
CDf=1×10
-2 -5 -2
10 1×10 10
Radial Flow Region Radial Flow Region
-6
CDf=1×10
10
-3
10
-3 Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-4 -4
10 10
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tDxf/CDf tDxf/CDf
Figure B.11 — pD and pDβd vs. tDxf/CDf — CfD = ∞ (fractured well Figure B.13 — pD and pDβd vs. tDxf/CDf — CfD = 10 (fractured
case — includes wellbore storage effects). well case — includes wellbore storage
effects).
Type Curve for a Well with Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture in an Infinite-Acting
Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore Storage Effects CfD = (wkf)/(kxf)= 1
1
Type Curve for a Well with Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture in an Infinite-Acting
10 Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore Storage Effects CfD = (wkf)/(kxf)= 100
Legend: CfD = (wkf)/(kxf)= 1 1×10
2
1×10
1
1×10
0
-2 1
pD Solution 1×10
-1
1×10 10
2
pDβd Solution -3 -4 Legend: CfD = (wkf)/(kxf)= 100 1×10 1×10
1
1×10 1×10
0 1×10
2 pD Solution 0 -2
10 1×10 -1 1×10
-4 -5 pDβd Solution 1×10
1×10 1×10 -6 -3
CDf=1×10 2
Wellbore Storage -5 0 1×10 1×10
CDf=1×10 1×10
-6
10
-2
Domination Region -5 1×10
-3 1×10 -4 -3
1×10
-2
1×10 -6 1×10 1×10
-1 1 -1 CDf=1×10
10 1×10 1×10
0 1×10 -1
pD and pDβd
1×10
2 1 0
1×10 -1 1×10 1×10
10
pD and pDβd
Wellbore Storage Radial Flow Region

Wellbore Storage 1×10
2
-2
Distortion Region Domination Region 1×10
-4
10
-5
-2 1×10
10
-6
CDf=1×10 Radial Flow Region
-3
10
-3
10 Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-4
10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 -4
10
tDxf/CDf -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tDxf/CDf
Figure B.12 — pD and pDβd vs. tDxf/CDf — CfD = 1 (fractured well
case — includes wellbore storage effects). Figure B.14 — pD and pDβd vs. tDxf/CDf — CfD = 100 (fractured
well case — includes wellbore storage
effects).
24 SPE 103204
Type Curve for a Well with Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture in an Infinite-Acting Dual Porosity Type Curve for a Well with Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture in an Infinite-Acting Dual Porosity
-1 -1 -1 -1
Reservoir with Wellbore Storage Effects (CfD = (wkf)/(kxf) = 1, α = λCDf = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 ). Reservoir with Wellbore Storage Effects (CfD = (wkf)/(kxf) = 100, α = λCDf = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 ).
1 1
10 10
-1 -1 2 -1 -1
Legend: CfD = 1, α = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 1×10 1×10
1 Legend: CfD = 100, α = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 1×10
2
1×10
1
1 1
pD Solution -1 pD Solution
1×10 -2 -1
pDβd Solution 1×10 -3 pDβ d Solution 1×10 -2
2 1×10 2 1×10
0 1×10 0 1×10
10 -4 CDf=1×10
-6 10
1×10 -5
-6 1×10 -6
CDf=1×10 CDf=1×10
-6 -5
CDf=1×10 -6 -4 1×10
Wellbore Storage -4 -5 Wellbore Storage CDf=1×10 1×10
1×10 1×10 -2 -3
-1 Domination Region 1 -1 -2 -3
-1 Domination Region 1×10 1×10
10 1×10 1×10 1×10 1×10 10 -1
2 1 -3 1 1 1×10
pD and pDβd
pD and pDβd
1×10 1×10 1×10
2
-4
1×10
Radial Flow Region 1×10
-5
-2
Distortion Region -2
10 10 CDf=1×10
-6
Radial Flow Region

-3 -3 Wellbore Storage
10 10 Distortion Region
-4 -4
10 10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tDxf/CDf tDxf/CDf
-1 -1
Figure B.15 — pD and pDβd vs. tDxf/CDf — CfD =1, ω = 1×10 , α = Figure B.18 — pD and pDβd vs. tDxf/CDf — CfD =100, ω = 1×10 , α
λCDf = 1×10-1 (fractured well in dual porosity -1
= λCDf = 1×10 (fractured well in dual porosity
system case — includes wellbore storage system case — includes wellbore storage
effects). effects).
-5 -1 -5 -1
1 1
10 10
-5 -1 2 -5 -1 1
Legend: CfD = 1, α = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 1×10 1×10
1 Legend: CfD = 100, α = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 1×10
2
1×10
1
1
pD Solution -1 pD Solution -1
1×10 -2 1×10 1×10
-2
pDβd Solution 1×10 -3 pDβ d Solution
2 1×10 2
0 1×10 CDf=1×10
-6
0 1×10
10 -4 10
1×10 -5
-6 1×10 -6
CDf=1×10 CDf=1×10
-6 -5
CDf=1×10 -6 1×10
Wellbore Storage -5 Wellbore Storage CDf=1×10 -3 -4
1×10 1×10 1×10
-1 Domination Region 1×10
-1
-2 -3 -4 -1 Domination Region -3
10 1×10 1×10 1×10 10 1×10 -2
1 1×10
pD and pDβd
pD and pDβd
2 1×10 1 1
1×10 -1 1×10
-4 1×10 1×10
2
1×10 -5
1×10 1
Wellbore Storage
-2
Distortion Region -2 -6
10 10 CDf=1×10

-4 -4
10 10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tDxf/CDf tDxf/CDf
-1 -1
= λCD = 1×10 (fractured well in dual porosity
effects). effects).
-5 -2 -5 -2
1 1
10 2 1 10 2
-5 -2 1×10 1×10 1 -5 -2 1×10 1
Legend: CfD = 1, α = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 -1 1×10
-2
Legend: CfD = 100, α = 1×10 , ω = 1×10 1×10 1
1×10 -3 -1 -2
pD Solution 1×10 -4 pD Solution 1×10 1×10 -3
1×10 1×10
pDβd Solution 1×10
-5
pDβ d Solution
2 -6 2
0 1×10 CDf=1×10 0 1×10
10 10
-6 -6
CDf=1×10 CDf=1×10
-6 -6 -5
CDf=1×10 CDf=1×10 1×10
-5 Wellbore Storage -4
Domination Region Domination Region 1×10
-4 -1 -2 1×10 -3
-1 -4 -3 -1 1×10 1×10 1×10
10 1×10 1×10 10 1×10
-5
pD and pDβd
pD and pDβd
-2 1 1
1×10 1×101 1×10 2
1 2 1×10
1×10
Wellbore Storage -6
CDf=1×10
-2
Distortion Region -2
10 10

-4 -4
10 10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tDxf/CDf tDxf/CDf
-2 -2
= λCD = 1×10 (fractured well in dual porosity
effects). effects).
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).
2
10
LD= 0.1
0.125
1
10
0.25
0.5 1
LD= 0.1
0.125
Infinite Conductivity
0
pD, pDd and pDβd
10 0.25 Vertical Fracture

0.5
5 100
10 5
10 25
50
-1
10 1
25
0.5
50
0.25
100
-2
0.125
10 25 L=0.1
Infinite Conductivity Legend:
50 pD Solution
Vertical Fracture
pDd Solution
pDβ d Solution
-3
10
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tDL
Figure B.21 — pD, pDd, and pDβd vs. tDL — solutions for an infinite conductivity horizontal well in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir—
no wellbore storage or skin effects (various LD values).
Type Curve for an Infinite Conductivity Horizontal Well in an Infinite-Acting Type Curve for an Infinite Conductivity Horizontal Well in an Infinite-Acting
Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore Storage Effects (LD = 1). Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore Storage Effects (LD = 100).
2 2
10 10
Legend: LD = 1 Legend: LD = 100
Radial Flow Region
pD Solution pD Solution
pDβd Solution 1×10
2 pDβ d Solution
1 1 1
10 1×10
1
-1 -2
10 2
1×10 1×10 -3 -4 1×10 1 -1
1×10 1×10 1×10
-5 1×10 1 1×10
Wellbore Storage CDL=1×10
-6 Wellbore Storage
-2
Domination Region Domination Region 1×10 1×10
-3
-4
1×10
-6
0 0 CDL=1×10
10 Radial Flow Region 10 -5
1×10
pD and pDβd
pD and pDβd
-6
-5
CDL=1×10
1×10
-6 -4
CDL=1×10 -3 1×10
-1 -1 1×10
10 10 -1
-2
1×10
1 1 1×10
1×10
2
Wellbore Storage 2 1×10
Distortion Region 1×10
-2 -2
10 10
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-3 -3
10 10
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tDL/CDL tDL/CDL
Figure B.22 — pD and pDβd vs. tDL/CDL — LD=1 (horizontal well Figure B.24 — pD and pDβd vs. tDL/CDL — LD=100 (horizontal
case — includes wellbore storage effects). well case — includes wellbore storage
effects).
Type Curve for an Infinite Conductivity Horizontal Well in an Infinite-Acting
Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore Storage Effects (LD = 10).
2
10
Legend: LD = 10
Radial Flow Region
pD Solution
pDβd Solution
1
10 2
1×10 1 -1
1×10 1 1×10
Wellbore Storage -2 -3
1×10 1×10 -4
Domination Region 1×10
-6
0 -5 CDL=1×10
10 1×10
pD and pDβd
-6
-5 CDL=1×10
1×10
-4
-3 1×10
-1 1×10
10 -1 1×10
-2
1
1×10 1 1×10
2
1×10
-2
10
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-3
10
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tDL/CDL
Figure B.23 — pD and pDβd vs. tDL/CDL — LD=10 (horizontal well

case — includes wellbore storage 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 Boundary Dominated
6
pDd Solution 10 Flow
2
pDβ d Solution
10 4 3 2
10 10 10 1
10 1 10
-1
-2
3×10
-2
1×10
1
10
Wellbore Storage
pD, pDdand pDβd
Domination Region
-3
3×10
6
10
0
10 1
10 1
2s -3
CDe =1×10 -1 -2 -2 -3
10 3×10 1×10 3×10
-1
10 2s
CDe =1×10
-3
2s -3
CDe =1×10
-2
10
Wellbore Storage
Distortion Region
-3
10
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
tD/CD
Figure B.25 — pD and pDβd 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 27
Appendix C — Diagnostic worksheet — A Summary of schematic well test responses for

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

Pressure Transient Analysis

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

Pressure Transient Analysis

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SPE 103204

The Pressure Derivative Revisited—Improved Formulations and Applications

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

where: In addition, Sowers found that the β-derivative formulation

Schematic of Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Functions

Unfractured Well (Radial Flow) or Skin Effects

Fractured Well (Infinite Fracture Conductivity) pDd Solution

pD, pDd and pDId

2 (linear flow) -1 1 1×10

conductivity fracture case). Interestingly, the horizontal well

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

case shows a pDd slope of approximately 1/2, but the pDβd 10

function never achieves the expected 1/2 value, perhaps due to

the "thin" reservoir confi-guration that was specified for this 10

constant value of unity, as expected. This observation -1

on the pDβd form) may be of value for the analysis of 10

production data. For reference, Fig. 1 is pre-sented in a larger

format in Appendix B (Fig. B-1). 10

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

pD, pDd and pDβd

In Fig. 7 we present the case of a single well with a finite con-

Wellbore Storage 1×10 1×10

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

pD, pDdand pDβd

conductivity horizontal well in an infinite-acting 2s

homogeneous reservoir — no wellbore storage 10

or skin effects (various LD values). Wellbore Storage

so the Δpβd(t) data function is shifted on top of the pDβd

function, only in the horizontal direction. The time (or

horizontal) match is then used to diagnose the flow regimes

Legend: Radial Flow Type Curve

simultaneously, in the same manner that the dimensionless pDd Data

pD, pDd and pDβd

Examples Using the β-Derivative Function -1

pDβd = 1 pDβd Data

As noted in ref. 18, in this case wellbore storage effects are

pD, pDd and pDβd

From these data we again note a very strong performance of

by tran-sition from wellbore storage to transient interporosity -4

Another application of the β-derivative function is also to

Type Curve Analysis — Well 207 (Pressure Falloff Case)

pD, pDd and pDβd

p Dβ d = 1 10 [(tDxf/CDf)/t]match= 150 hours , k = 11.95 md

-2 CfD = 1000 (dim-less), xf = 198.90 ft

pD, pDd and pDβd

derivative to find considerable practical application in the

Match Results and Parameter Estimates:

Variable Solution Relation

Definitions: (field units)

(t D > 10 ) ........................................................................................................................................ (A.3.1)

Definitions: (field units)

Definitions: (field units)

Definitions: (field units)

(General solution) ......................................................................................................................... (A.6.1)

(Short-time approximation), 0.01C 2fD ............................................................................... (A.6.2)

Definitions: (field units)

Definitions: (field units)

Definitions: (field units)

Definitions: (field units)

Appendix B — Dimensionless "type curve" representations of the β-pressure derivative and

Schematic of Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Functions

Legend: (pDd ) (pDβ d ) NO Wellbore Storage

Unfractured Well (Radial Flow) or Skin Effects