An Investigation of Pressure-Buildup Tests in

Bounded Reservoirs
W. M. Cobb, SPE·AIME, Mississippi State U.
J. T. Smith, SPE·AIME, Mississippi State U.

Introduction
One of the most important aspects of formation evalua-
tion is the design, implementation, and interpretation of a
pressure-buildup test. Basically, this test requires that a
producing well be shut in and that the associated change
in bottom-hole pressure be measured as a function of
shut~in time. Muskat1 introduced the first interpretation
method for these pressure data in 1937, but its signifi-
cance was largely overlooked until the late 1940's. At
that time, van Everdingen and Hurst 2 revived interest in
transient pressure analysis with their paper on the be-
havior of unsteady-state fluid flow in a porous media.
Miller-Dyes- Hutchinson 3 (MDH) and Horner 4
(HOR) in 1950 and 1951, respectively, published funda-
mental papers on interpretating wellbore pressure build-
up for the purpose of estimating formation permeability.
Both these analysis procedures were similar in that they
required a semilogarithmic plot of the test data. Miller et
al. 3 suggested that the buildup pressure, Pws, be plotted
against the logarithm of the time,l:::.t, since the well was
shut in. On the other hand, Horner4 suggested that the
buildup pressure be plotted as a function of a time ratio,
(t+ 1:::.t)/lJ.t, where t is the length of producing time before
shut in. In both cases, the plotted data should res ult in a
straight line with a slope inversely proportional to the
mean formation permeability. Significantly, ~he Horner
technique was developed for the buildup case of a con-
stant production-rate well located in an infinitely large
reservoir. The MDH method was developed for the case
of a well located in the center of a closed (no-flow outer
boundary) circular reservoir and produced to pseudo-
steady state before shut in. Accordingly, it is commonly
believed that the Horner method is more applicable in
new wells and that the MDH method is best suited for old
wells.
In his original work, Horner showed that an extrapola-
tion of the semilog straight line to a time ratio of unity
would yield the initial reservoir pressure, Pi, provided the
production period was short. Moreover, he showed that,
for long production periods in a bounded reservoir, the
straight line would extrapolate to a pressure p*. It is
important to note thatp* is not the initial pressure,pi, or
the volumetric average pressure, p. However, if produc-
tion time is short, then Pi ::::=. Ii ~ p*. In 1954,
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek5 (MBH) presented correla-
tions that relate p* to p fora variety of bounded reservoir
shapes with wells located in a number of positions. To
use these correlations to evaluate p accurately, it is neces-
sary that the Horner semilog straight line be identified
correctly.
The concept of formation damage, or skin factor, was
introduced to transient pressure analysis by van
Everdingen 6 and Hurst. 7 They discussed its effect on well
behavior and presented methods for evaluating its pres-
ence. Probably the most reliable estimate of the skin
factor is obtained from a pressure-buildup test. Specifi-
cally, the evaluation method makes use of the slope of the
Horner or MDH semilog straight line.
Thus, it should be clear that proper identification of the

Two methods ofpressure-buildup analysis for bounded reservoirs are analyzed.

Pressure-buildup datafor a variety ofwell locations within various rectangular drainage
shapes are generated; the results are plotted according to both methods investigated; and
the resulting curves are studied for diagnostic features and rules.

AUGUST, 1975 991

semilog straight line is essential for estimating permeabil- PD = kh (Pi -PWf) (2)
ity, skin factor, and average pressure from Horner- or 141.2qB fL
MDH-type buildup plots.
and
Objectives 0.000264kt
tD •••••••••••..•.....•••. (3)
The objectives of this investigation were to generate epfLcrwz
pressure-buildup data for a v~riety of well locations Matthews et al. 5 introduced a dimensionless pressure
within variolls rectangular drainage shapes, to plot the function,PDMBH, where .
results according to the procedure of Horner and MDH,
and to study the resulting curves for diagnostic features _ kh(p*-p)
PDMBH - (4)
and rules. . 70. 65qBfL
. One particular relationship th[\t we set forth to obtain Significantly, MBH also presented an equation relating
was a correlation of the shut-in time required to reach the PD andPDMBH' In 1967, Ramey 13 used this relationship in
end of the Horner and MDH semilog straight lines as.a a review paper on transierit flow. More recently, Ramey
function of the time the well produced before shut in. and Cobb l l amplified and extended the work presented in
Correlations of this type can be significant in the design Ref. 13. In particular, they presented the relationship
or interpretation of it buildup test. For example, they betweenpD andpDMBH as' .
allow prediction of the maximum shut-in time over which
a Hqrner or MDH graph can be interpreted' so that PD = 27TtDA + .~ [In(tDA)
parameters such as reservQir permeability, formation
damage, and average pressure may be evaluated. With
regard to data interpretation, the correlations also may be + In A
~. z
+ 0.80907J - 1
2
PDMBH ..... (5)
.
4sed to determine the time at which boundary effects
begin to seriously influence the data. Significantly, it is The importance of this equation has been further em-
becoming recognized that the' 'type curve' ~8,9 is particu~ phasized by Cobb and Dowdle. 14
larly llseflll for locating the shllt-in time at which a Earlougher et at. 15 have conveniently tabulated PDMBH
semilog straight line begins. Provided c01TlCllations estab- for 16 closed, rectangular systems. Thus, givenpDM~H
lishing the time to the Cind of the straight line are avail- andA/rw 2 for a particular system,PD can be easily calcu-
able, it then will be possible to bound the correct semilog lated as a function oftbA (or tD)' Ref. 15 only presents the
straight line. Tllis will
pennit a high degree of confidence PDMBH function for a time range of 0.0010 ~ tDA ~ 10.0.
FortDA <0.001, Ref. 14 shows that .'
in the pressure data selected for analysis and in the reSer-
+ In (~)
voir inJormation calculiltedfrom that data.
Only a limited am04nt ofinformation regarding the PD =l [In (tDA )
z
+ o. 80907J, ... (6)
. 2 . . rw .'
time required to reach the end of the correct semilog
straight line has been presented. MDH showed that, for a and for t DA > 10.0,
well located in the center of a closed circular reservoir
and produced to' pseuposteady-state before shut in, the PD = ~ In (yJ;w 2
) + 27TtDA , ......... (7)
semilog straight line ended at a !::..tDA of 0.024, where
!::..tDA = 0.000264k!::..t (1) where y is the exponential of Euler's constant, about
pflCA 1.781, and CA is the reservoir shapefactor .16
Matthews and RusselPo suggested that the straight line To use Eqs. 5 through 7, it must be assumed that an
exists for a !::..tDA value of 0.032. Ramt{yand Cobb l l made a
ideal well fully penetrates homogeneous and isotropic
a cursory analysis Qf the time required to reach the end of porous medium in which the permeability, porosity, and
tht{ semilog straight Ul}e for both the Horner and MDfI thickness are constant. Further, it isassuined that the
graphs. Their study suggested that, at leastfor the case of formation is filled with a liquid of coristantcompressibil-
a well located in the center of a closed square, the shut-in ity and that prodJiction rates before shut in are constant.
dme Was a function of the producing time. Although it Finally, pressUl:~ gradients are assumed to be ~~all
had been suspected that this finding might exist, it had not throughout the reservoir. Within the framework of these
been mentioned previously in the literature. Because of assumptions, Ramey and Cobb l l have' outlined general
their importance in reservpir analYs'is, we have made a methods for studying pressure b4ildup by either the MDB
systelllatic detennination of the functional relationships or the Horner method for a well located within any type of
between time at the end of the semilog straight line and geometry and produced for any length oftime before shut
the producing time befOre shut in. This analysis was in. They showed th?t the dimensionless Horner pressure;
made for all the 16 MBH reservoir systems,' although PDHOR, is defined as . ." . . .
only findings for the case ofa well in the center of a
PDHOR
= kh(pc-Pws)
square are presented. Correlations for other drainage 141.2qB fL
shapes and well locations are presented in Ref. 12.
= PD(t+!::..t)D - PD(I~.tD), (8)
Theory wherepws is the actual measured buildup pressure, andpD
This investigation uses the van Everdingen and Hurst Z (t+!::..t)D and PD(!::..tb) are dimensionless pressures ob-
dimensionless pressure-dimensionless time, PD (tD), data tained from Eqs. 5'through 7 fot dimensionless times of
for the particular reservoir systems studied. Dimension- (t+ !::..t)p and !::..tD , respectively. Simil~rly, the dimension-
less pressure and time are conventionally defined as less MDHpressure,PDMDH, is given by
992 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

--- -- - - - - - - - - -
 kh(p-pws) equations, IlPDHOR, is
PDMDH
141.2qB,:.t IlPDHOR = PDHOR - PDHSL
=PD(t+llt)D - PD(lltD) - 27ftDA (9) =
kh(PHSL-PWS) , (12)
The applicability of Eqs. 8 and 9 to buildup analysis was 141.2qB,:.t
demonstrated for the case of a well in a closed square. 11 As the buildup time increases, the actual buildUp data
deviate from the initial straight line and IlPDHOR becomes
Analysis of Horner Method nonzero.
Fig. 2 presents a Horner buildup graph for tDA = 0.40.
Fig. 1 presents several Homer buildup graphs for the case This time is much greater than the time to reach pseudo-
of a weillocated in the center of a closed-square drainage steady state. Several values of IlPDHOR are illustrated in
area. The pressure-buildup behavior was obtained using this figure, along with the time ratios at whiCh they were
Eq. 8. The right side ofEq. 8 was evaluated with the aid measured. For example, at a time ratio of 52, ti.PDHOR =
of either Eqs. 5, 6, or 7, depending on the value of tDA' 0.05. SuppoSe that the well clescribed ln Fig. 2 has been
Note that Eqs. 5, 6, and 7 contain the term 1n(Alrw 2 ). The producing oil at a rate of 250 STB/D. The oil viscosity is
dimensionless Homer pressure is found by the difference 1. 6 cp, and theformation volume factoris 1. 73 RB/STB.
between the two PD equations, which results in cancella- Moreov.er, assume that the flow capacity, kh, is 832
tion of the logarithmic terms. Thus,PDHoR is independent md-ft. The actual pressure difference atpDHOR = 0.05 is
cif Airw 2 and depends only on t DA and the well location
within the particular reservoir geometry. Accordingly, kh (PHSL :'-Pws)
Fig. Us applicable for wells located inthe ceriterof any PDHOR
141.2qB,:.t
closed square. These synthetic buildups are similar to
those presented in Ref. 11. ,We present them here to add -Pws
PHSL

clarity and to maintain continuity. As can be seen, all the
plots show an initial dimensionless slope of 1.151. Note
that, for small producing times (tDA < 0;05), the straight
lines appear to extend to PDHOR == 0 at ~ time. ratio of
unity. This physically means that for small values of tDA
the Homer graph can be used to determine the average
reservoir pressure at the start of the production period,pi'
Actually, the plots deviate from the straight line at time
ratios near unity. This deviation must physically occur
because a net volume of fluid has been removed from the
reservoir. But for practical purposes, the pressure at a
time ratio of unity closely approximates Pi. This is the
basis for estimating the initial reservoir pressure from
short flow tests such as drillstern tests.
For long producing times before shut in, it is clear that
the buildup pressures deviate from the initial semilog
straight line and eventually eqlial the average pressure,
p, in the drainage area. It is well known that after the
pressure data deviate from the straight line, they serve no
useful purpose on the Homer graph for estimating per-
meability and formation damage. Although it is not evi-
dent in Fig. 1, the shut-in time over which a Horner graph
will give a straight line depends on the length of the
producing time,
The equation of the dimensionless Homer straight line
can be expressed as 11
PDHSL = PD (t D) + 1 fIn
2 L
Hilt]
D.t
(0.050) (141.2) (250STB/D) (2.73 RB/STB) (1.6 cp)
832 md-ft
= 5.9 psia ....,.........,....: (13)
In other words, the difference between an extrapolation
of the Homer straight line and the actual buildup is 5.9
psi. For time ratios greater than 52 in this example,
pressure differences would be less. Whether this pressure
difference can be recognized should be considered by the
reservoir analyst in advance of the actual test. It will
depend on several factors, such as the slope of the
semilog straight line and the level of pressure.
With reference to Fig, 2, tangents to the actual buildup
curve at the points denoted by PPHOR of 0.01, 0.025,
0.05,0,075,0.10, and 0.20 possess slopes that are less
than the correct Horner slope of 1. 151 by about 2, 5, 10,
15, 20, and 40 percent, respectively. An analysis of the
ternis in Eq. 13 indicates that, for a low value of q and a
high value of kh, small pressure differences occur. This
observation should not be taken iightly. For example,
many high kh formations in the Gulf Coast are produced
at relatively low rates because of government regula-
0
I
I

2
-

IDA
ElI
l
50:05
1 [In (tD) + 0.80907] ....... (10) ~~
§~ 3 02
2 ~~

!E'" - OAO
where 4
d" 0,50

PDHSL kh (Pi-PHSL), , ..... , ..... (11)

l41.2qB,:.t 0.70
6 -
and PHSL is the actual well pressure obtained from the 0.80

Horner straight line or an extrapolation of the line. It

should be noted that the first and third terms of Eq. 10 are 10 10' 10' 10'
constant for a specific tD or tDA . For early shut-in times 1 +t.t
-11-'-
when the Horner plot yields a straight line, Eqs. 8 and 10 Fig. 1- Theoretical Horner-type buildup graphs for a well located
are essentially equal. The difference between these two in a closed square.

AUGUST, 1975 993

tions. Accordingly, the slope of the Homer (or MDH)
straight line will be low, arid even approaching zero iri
some cases. Thus, if pressure data obtained beyond a
atDA of about 0.05 are allowed to influence strongly the
construction of a straight line, a sizableerror could result
in estimating permeability, formation damage, and static
pressure. We suggest that, for mostcases, the end of the
Homer straight line be approximated by a atDA that
corresponds to apDHOR of 0.050. As noted above, it
represents the shut-in time at which the slope of the
Homer straight line deviates from 1.151 by no more than
10 percent.
Fig. 3 presents a correlation of the shut-in time re-
quired to reach a particular dimensionless- pressure devia-
tion from the Homer straight line as a function of the
producing time. Two features are evident. For small
values oftDA' the end of the straight line must not exceed a
atDA value of 0.10. Ramey and Cobb l1 have shown
previously that this represents the maximum time re-
quired to achieve full buildup for the case of a well in the
center of a closed square. For other drainage shapes, the
time to full buildup is equal to or greater than 0.10. A
second feature of these correlations is that at long produc-
ing time, tDA, the values of shut-in time, atDA , corre-
sponding to a specific apDHOR become constant.
To estimate the length of time a buildup test should be
run to be evaluated by a Homer graph, enter t DA on Fig. 3
and read the corresponding MDA. It may be necessary in
using these correlations to estimate such parameters as k,
ep, C, and A from experience, adjacent wells, or other
available reservoir data. Consider the oil well discussed
previously. Assume that the well has produced at a con-
stant rate for 30 days andthat the well spacing is 80 acres.
Permeability and porosity in an adjacent wen-are 15 md
and 21 percent, respectively. The total system compres-
sibility is 14.7 X 1O-6/psi. The corresponding t DA is
t DA =
(0.000264) (16 md) (30 days) (24 hr/day)

(0.21) (1.6 cp) (14.7X 1O- 6 /psi) (80A) (43,560 ft 2/A)

, (15)
or at = 57 hours.
Thus, ·after about 57 hours, pressure-buildup data will
deviate from the Homer straight line by 5.9 psi. For
longer shut-in times, the deviation will be greater.
Correlations similar to those in Fig. 3 are presented in
0.10 Ref. 12 for other geometric drainage shapes. When com-
0.075 paring the correlation in Fig. 3 with correlations for
I
0.050 other drainage shapes, it was found that a well in the cen-
f--t--] I 0.025 ter of a square drainage area requires the longest shut-in
time to reach the end of the semilog straight line. This is
0.010 because a well in the center of a square is located the
farthest distance from the closest boundary fora fixed
10-' A/rw 2 ratio. As a result, the well in the square reservoir
~' ~~ ~
O.000264kf
will tend to behave as if it were in an infinitely large
fl'cA reservoir for longer values of atDA .
Fig. 2- Horner-type graph with various indicated val ues of ApDHOR'
Analysis of Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson Method
With the aid of the PD(tD) data and Eq. 9, MDH graphs
were generated for the same drainage shapes that were
considered using the Homer method. It has been shown
previouslyl1 that an MDH-type plot will always yield a
10-
1
I----=--=--=--=:-~------------I semilog straight line provided the producing time is long
enough that (Hat) can be approximated by t. We have
generated MDH graphs for a variety of drainage systems,
but because of their fundamental similarity (all possess a
0.10
straight line with an initial slope of 1.151) to those in Ref.
0.075
I
0.050
11 they are not presented here. Like the Homer graphs,
the entire buildup behavior is a function of the well
f--t--j I 0.025 geometry. The equation of the dimensionless MDH
straight line can be written as
0.010
PDMSL = PD(tD) - 1 [lnMD + 0.80907]
10·' 2
10·' 10. 2 10·'
0.000264kl - 27TtDA , .................•.• (16)
fl'cA
Fig. 3 - Correlation of shut-in time, AiDA' req uiredto reach
pressure deviation, ApDHOR' as a function of producing time, IDA' where
994 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 kh - graph in Fig. 4 result in a AtDA of 0.0078 (ApDMDH =
PDMSL = (p - PMSL), • . • • • . . • • • ,
141.2qBfL
and PMSL is the reservoir well pressure obtained from the
correct MDH straight line. It is clear that for small values
of At, Eqs. 9 and 16 are identical. However, as At
increases, (HAt) can no longer be replaced by At. Ac-
cordingly, the difference between Eqs. 9 and 16 becomes
a nonzero quantity. When the difference between these
two equations becomes sufficiently large, the MDH
straight line ends. Buildup data obtained after this time
can no longer be used for evaluating formation charac-
teristics. We define the dimensionless pressure differ-
ence between Eqs. 9 and 16 as
APDMDH =PDMDH ~ PDMSL
kh
(PMSL. - Pws) . , ,
141.2qBfL
This dimensionless pressure for the MDH graph is
analogous to APDHOR for the Horner graphs.
Fig. 4 is a logarithmic plot of AtDA vs tDA for the case of
a well located in the center of a closed square. The
parameter is ApDMDH' It is noted that for a particular value
of ApDMDH, AtDA is initially a linear function of t DA .
However, at a t DA of about 0.05, the AtDA VStDA function
deviates from the straight line. For values of tDA greater
than 0, 1, AtDA is constant for each value of ApDMDH'
For a specific MDH graph, a tangent to the actual
buildup at values of AtDA corresponding to APDMDH val-
ues of 0.01, 0.025, 0.05, 0.075, and 0.10 result in a slope
different from the correct value of 1.151 by about 2, 5,
10, 15, and 20 percent, respectively. Again for practical
cOlljsiderations, we suggest that the end of the MDH
straight line be taken at a AtDA corresponding to 0.05.
In a previous example, it was shown that a well pro-
duced for a tDA = 0.18, and then shut in, resulted in a
Horner straight line for a At of 57 hours (ApDHOR = 0.05,
AtDA = 0.014). These same data entered on an MDH
10- 1 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
0,10
1
0.075
0.050
\--+--\1 0,025
0010
0,000264kt
<pi<cA
Fig. 4- Correlation of shut-in time,MoA I required to reach
pressure deviation, D..pDMOH, as a function of producing time, tOI!'
AUGUST, 1975
(17)
0.05). Thus, the MDH straight line would exist for
(0.0078/0.014) (57 hours) = 32 hours. Therefore, for
this example, the Horner graph yields a straight line for a
buildup time almost twice as long as the MDH graph,
To amplify this point further, consider Fig. 5, which
presents a log-log plot of AtDA vs t DA for a APDI-IOR and
APDMDH of 0.05. The fact that the Horner correlation lies
on top of the MDH correlation suggests that the Horner
graph will always yield a straight line for a longer buildup
time. It can be observed that for values of tDA < 0.5 the
Horner method is far superior to the MDH method, For
longer producing times, however, there is only a slight
difference between the two methods. Accordingly, if
severe wellbore storage and skin effects are suspected,
the Horner method provides a better chance of identifying
(18) a semilog straight line if one exists. We have compared
the Horner graph with the MDH graph for other rectangu-
lar drainage systems. Our results show the Horner graph
to be preferable in all cases.
Summary
We have investigated the Horner and MDH methods of
buildup analysis for a wide variety of rectangular reser-
voirs for a number of producing times. The results sug-
gest that the length of time over which a Horner or MDH
graph will give a straight line is a function of the produc-
ing time. Moreover, the Horner method will yield a
straight line from which formation characteristics can be
estimated for a longer shut-in time than will the MDH
method, Perhaps the most important result is that correla-
tions relating the end of the semilog straight line as a
function of producing time and well geometry have been
developed for both methods of analysis. The significance
of these correlations lies in the fact that it is possible to
estimate the maximum length of time a well must be shut
in before the effects of reservoir boundaries be-
come pronounced. Furthermore, these correlations pro-
HORNER
10- 2
MDH
10- 3 '-----'-_-'--L---'--J_-L_---L.---L.--L...l_-'-_--l---l-.L.J
10- 2 10
0,000264kl
<p/,-cA
Fig. 5-Comparison of times required to reach a pressure deviation
of 0, 05 using Horner and MiIler-Dyes-H utchinson bui Idup graphs,
995
vide a means for checking actual field data to insure
that boundary-influenced data are not used in the
interpretation.
Nomenclature
A = drainage area, sq ft
B = formation volume factor, RB!STB
c = total system compressibility, psi- 1
CA = reservoir shape factor
h = formation thickness, ft
HOR=Homer
HSL = Homer straight line
k = formation permeability, md
MBH = Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
MDH = Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson
MSL = Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson straight line
P = volumetric average pressure in
drainage area, psi
Pv = dimensionless wellbore pressure
Pi = initial stabilized pressure at
start of production period, psi
Pws = bottom-hole shut-in pressure, psi
p* = pressure obtained from extrapolation
of the Homer straight line to a
time ratio of unity, psi
PVHOR = dimensionless Homer buildup
pressure (see Eq. 8)
PVMBH = dimensionless MBH pressure
function (seeEq. 4)
PVMDH = dimen~lonless MDH buildup
pressure (see Eq. 9)
PHSL = pressure obtained from Horner
straight line, psi
PMSL = pressure obtained from MDH
straight line, psi
q = volumetric flow rate, STB!D
r w = wellbore radius, ft
t = flowing time, hours
tv = dimensionless time based on r w
tVA = dimensionless time based onA
~PVHOR = dimensionless pressure difference
between Horner straight line and the
actual buildup pressure (see Eq. 12)
~PVMDH = dimensionless pressure difference be-
tween the MDH straight line and the
actual buildup pressure (see Eq. 18)
~t = shut-in time, hours
996
1> = porosity, fraction
fL = viscosity, cp
References
I. Muskat, M.: "Use of Data on the Build-Up of Bottomhole Pres-
sures, ,, Trans. , AIME (1937) 123, 44-48.
2. van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans. ,
AIME (1949) 186, 305-324. .
3. Miller, C.C., Dyes, A. F., and Hutchinson, C. A.: "Estimation of
Permeability and Reservoir Pressure From Bottom-Hole Pressure
Buildup Characteristics ," Trans., AIME (1950) 189, 91-104.
4. Horner, D. R.: "Pressure Buildup in Wells," Proc., Third World
Pet.Cong., E. J. Brill, Leiden (1951) 11,.503.
5. Matthews, C. S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: "A Method for
Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir,"
J. Pet. Tech . .(Aug. 1954) 35-40; Trans., AIME, 201.
6. van Everdingen, A. F.: "The Skin Effect and Its Influence on the
Productive Capacity of a Well," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1953)
171-176; Trans., AIME, 198.
7. Hurst, W.: "Establishment of the Skin Effect and Its Impediment
to Fluid Flow Into a Wellbore," Pet. Eng. (Oct. 1953) 25, B-6.
8. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Short-Time Well-Test Data Interpretation in
the Presence of Skin Effect and Wellbore Storage," J. Pet. Tech.
(Jan. 1970)'97-104; Trans., AIME, 249.
9. Agarwal, R. G., AI-Hussainy, R., and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "An
Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady
Liquid Flow: I. Analytical Treatment," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept.
1970) 279-290; Trans., AIME, 249.
10. Matthews, C. S. and Russell, D. G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow
Tests in Wells, Monograph Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers
of AIME , Dallas (1967) 1, 48.
II. Ramey, H. J., Jr., and Cobb, W. M.: "A General Pressure
Buildup Theory for a Well in a Closed Drainage Area," J. Pet.
Tech. (Dec. 1971) 1493-1505;Trans.,AIME,251.
12. Cobb, W. M. and Smith, J. T.: "An Investigation of Pressure-
Buildup Tests in Bounded Reservoirs," paper (preprint) SPE
5133, presented at the SPE-AIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting,
Houston, Oct. 6-9, 1974.
13. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Application of the Line Source Solution
to Flow in Porous Media-A Review," Prod. Monthly (May
1967) 4.
14. Cobb, W. M. and Dowdle, W. L.: "A Simple Method for
Detet'mining Well Pressure in Closed Rectangular Reservoirs,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1973) 1305-1306.
15. Earlougher, R. C., Jr., Ramey, H. J., Jr., Miller, F. G., and
Mueller, T. D.: "Pressure Distributions in Rectangular Reser-
voirs," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1968) 199-208; Trans., AIME, 243.
16. Brons, F. and Miller, W. C.: "A Simple Method for Correcting
Spot Pressure Readings," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1961) 803-805;
Trans., AIME, 222. JPT
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office July 17, 1974.
Revised manuscript received May 4, 1975. Paper (SPE 5133) was first presented at the
SPE-AIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting, held in Houston, Oct. 6-9, 1974. ©Copyrlght
1975 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper will be included in the 1975 Transactions volume.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY