Bourdet, D. - Well Testing and Interpretation

WELL TESTING
AND
INTERPRETATION

D. Bourdet

CONTENTS
Pages
1 - PRINCIPLES OF TRANSIENT TESTING..................................................................................... 1
1-1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1
1-2 DEFINITIONS & TYPICAL REGIMES................................................................................................ 7

2 - THE ANALYSIS METHODS......................................................................................................... 27
2-1 LOG-LOG SCALE........................................................................................................................ 27
2-2 PRESSURE CURVES ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 28
2-3 PRESSURE DERIVATIVE ............................................................................................................. 37
2-4 THE ANALYSIS SCALES............................................................................................................... 44

3 - WELLBORE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................... 47
3-1 WELL WITH WELLBORE STORAGE AND SKIN, HOMOGENEOUS RESERVOIR................................. 47
3-2 INFINITE CONDUCTIVITY OR UNIFORM FLUX VERTICAL FRACTURE ............................................ 48
3-3 FINITE CONDUCTIVITY VERTICAL FRACTURE............................................................................. 50
3-4 WELL IN PARTIAL PENETRATION ............................................................................................... 53
3-5 HORIZONTAL WELL................................................................................................................... 57
3-6 SKIN FACTORS............................................................................................................................ 71

4 - FISSURED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE POROSITY MODELS.................................................. 75
4-1 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................. 75
4-2 DOUBLE POROSITY BEHAVIOR, RESTRICTED INTERPOROSITY FLOW (PSEUDO-STEADY STATE
INTERPOROSITY FLOW).......................................................................................................................... 77
4-3 DOUBLE POROSITY BEHAVIOR, UNRESTRICTED INTERPOROSITY FLOW (TRANSIENT INTERPOROSITY
FLOW) ................................................................................................................................................. 85
4-4 COMPLEX FISSURED RESERVOIRS............................................................................................... 90

5 - BOUNDARY MODELS................................................................................................................... 95
5-1 ONE SEALING FAULT ................................................................................................................. 95
5-2 TWO PARALLEL SEALING FAULTS .............................................................................................. 97
5-3 TWO INTERSECTING SEALING FAULTS...................................................................................... 101

5-4 CLOSED SYSTEM..................................................................................................................... 104
5-5 CONSTANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY........................................................................................... 111
5-6 COMMUNICATING FAULT......................................................................................................... 113
5-7 PREDICTING DERIVATIVE SHAPES............................................................................................. 117

6 - COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS....................................................................................... 119
6-1 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 119
6-2 RADIAL COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR ............................................................................................... 120
6-3 LINEAR COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR................................................................................................ 123
6-4 MULTICOMPOSITE SYSTEMS..................................................................................................... 125

7 - LAYERED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE PERMEABILITY MODEL........................................ 127
7-1 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 127
7-2 DOUBLE PERMEABILITY BEHAVIOR WHEN THE TWO LAYERS ARE PRODUCING INTO THE WELL 129
7-3 DOUBLE PERMEABILITY BEHAVIOR WHEN ONLY ONE OF THE TWO LAYERS IS PRODUCING INTO THE
WELL ............................................................................................................................................... 131
7-4 COMMINGLED SYSTEMS: LAYERED RESERVOIRS WITHOUT CROSSFLOW................................... 133

8 - INTERFERENCE TESTS............................................................................................................. 135
8-1 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN RESERVOIRS WITH HOMOGENEOUS BEHAVIOR.................................. 135
8-2 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN DOUBLE POROSITY RESERVOIRS ....................................................... 139
8-3 INFLUENCE OF RESERVOIR BOUNDARIES ................................................................................. 143
8-4 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIR........................................................ 143
8-5 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN A TWO LAYERS RESERVOIR WITH CROSS FLOW.................................. 146

9 - GAS WELLS................................................................................................................................... 149
9-1 GAS PROPERTIES..................................................................................................................... 149
9-2 TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF GAS WELL TESTS.............................................................................. 150
9-3 DELIVERABILITY TESTS............................................................................................................ 154

10 - BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS........................................................ 159
10-1 BOUNDARIES IN FISSURED RESERVOIRS............................................................................... 159
10-2 BOUNDARIES IN LAYERED RESERVOIRS............................................................................... 160
10-3 COMPOSITE CHANNEL RESERVOIRS...................................................................................... 162

11 - COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES ................................................................. 165
11-1 FISSURED-LAYERED RESERVOIRS........................................................................................ 165
11-2 FISSURED RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIRS......................................................................... 166
11-3 LAYERED RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIRS.......................................................................... 167

12 - OTHER TESTING METHODS.................................................................................................. 169
12-1 DRILLSTEM TEST................................................................................................................. 169
12-2 IMPULSE TEST..................................................................................................................... 172
12-3 RATE DECONVOLUTION....................................................................................................... 173
12-4 CONSTANT PRESSURE TEST (RATE DECLINE ANALYSIS) ....................................................... 174
12-5 VERTICAL INTERFERENCE TEST............................................................................................ 175

13 - MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS .................................................................................................. 179
13-1 PERRINE METHOD ............................................................................................................... 179
13-2 OTHER METHODS................................................................................................................. 180

14 - TEST DESIGN ............................................................................................................................. 183
14-1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 183
14-2 TEST SIMULATION............................................................................................................... 183
14-3 TEST DESIGN REPORTING AND TEST SUPERVISION ................................................................ 184

15 - FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST ANALYSIS....................................................... 185
15-1 RATE HISTORY DEFINITION.................................................................................................. 185
15-2 ERROR OF START OF THE PERIOD......................................................................................... 186
15-3 PRESSURE GAUGE DRIFT ..................................................................................................... 188
15-4 PRESSURE GAUGE NOISE ..................................................................................................... 188
15-5 CHANGING WELLBORE STORAGE......................................................................................... 189
15-6 TWO PHASES LIQUID LEVEL................................................................................................. 190
15-7 INPUT PARAMETERS, AND CALCULATED RESULTS OF INTERPRETATION................................ 191

16 - CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 193
16-1 INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE ............................................................................................ 193
16-2 REPORTING AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS....................................................................... 203

APPENDIX - ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS..................................................................................... 205
A-1 DARCY'S LAW......................................................................................................................... 205
A-2 STEADY STATE RADIAL FLOW OF AN INCOMPRESSIBLE FLUID.................................................. 205
A-3 DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION........................................................................................................... 206
A-4 THE "LINE SOURCE" SOLUTION ................................................................................................ 208

NOMENCLATURE............................................................................................................................. 209
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 212

Most figures presented in this set of course notes are extracted from "Well Test Analysis: The Use of
Advanced Interpretation Models", D. Bourdet, Handbook of Petroleum Exploration and Production 3,
ELSEVIER SCIENCE, 2002. http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/628241

- 1 -

1 - PRINCIPLES OF TRANSIENT TESTING

1-1 Introduction
1-1.1 Purpose of well testing

Description of a well test

During a well test, a transient pressure response is created by a temporary change
in production rate. The well response is usually monitored during a relatively short
period of time compared to the life of the reservoir, depending upon the test
objectives. For well evaluation, tests are frequently achieved in less than two days.
In the case of reservoir limit testing, several months of pressure data may be
needed.

In most cases, the flow rate is measured at surface while the pressure is recorded
down-hole. Before opening, the initial pressure p
i
is constant and uniform in the
reservoir. During flow time, the drawdown pressure response p is expressed :

) (t p p p
i
= (psi, Bars) ( 1-1)

When the well is shut-in, the build-up pressure change p is estimated from the
last flowing pressure p(t=0) :

) 0 ( ) ( = = t p t p p (psi, Bars) ( 1-2)

Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
t
BU
t
Dd
p
Dd
p
BU
p
i
p(t=0)
drawdown build-up
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
t
BU
t
Dd
p
Dd
p
BU
p
i
p(t=0)
drawdown build-up

Figure 1-1 Drawdown and build-up test sequence.

The pressure response is analyzed versus the elapsed time t since the start of the
period (time of opening or shut-in).

Well test objectives

Well test analysis provides information on the reservoir and on the well.
Associated to geology and geophysics, well test results are used to build a
reservoir model for prediction of the field behavior and fluid recovery to different

Chapter 1 - Principles of transient testing

- 2 -
operating scenarios. The quality of the communication between the well and the
reservoir indicates the possibility to improve the well productivity.

Exploration well : On initial wells, well testing is used to confirm the exploration
hypothesis and to establish a first production forecast: nature and rate of produced
fluids, initial pressure (RFT, MDT), reservoir properties.

Appraisal well : The previous well and reservoir description can be refined (well
productivity, bottom hole sampling, drainage mechanism, heterogeneities,
reservoir boundaries etc.)

Development well : On producing wells, periodic tests are made to adjust the
reservoir description and to evaluate the need of a well treatment, such as work-
over, perforation strategy etc. Communication between wells (interference testing),
monitoring of the average reservoir pressure are some usual objectives of
development well testing.

Information obtained from well testing

Well test responses characterize the ability of the fluid to flow through the
reservoir and to the well. Tests provide a description of the reservoir in dynamic
conditions, as opposed to geological and log data. As the investigated reservoir
volume is relatively large, the estimated parameters are average values.

Reservoir description :
Permeability (horizontal k and vertical k
v
)
Reservoir heterogeneities (natural fractures, layering, change of characteristics)
Boundaries (distance and shape)
Pressure (initial p
i
and average p )

Well description :
Production potential (productivity index PI, skin factor S)
Well geometry

By comparing the result of routine tests, changes of productivity and rate of
decrease of the average reservoir pressure can be established.

1-1.2 Methodology

The inverse problem

The objective of well test analysis is to describe an unknown system S (well +
reservoir) by indirect measurements (O the pressure response to I a change of
rate). This is a typical inverse problem (S=O/I).


- 3 -

I S O
input system output

As opposed to the direct problem (O=IxS), the solution of the inverse problem is
usually not unique. It implies an identification process, and the interpretation
provides the model(s) whose behavior is identical to the behavior of the actual
reservoir.

Interpretation models

The models used in well test interpretation can be described as a transfer function;
they only define the behavior (homogeneous or heterogeneous, bounded or
infinite). Well test interpretation models are often different from the geological or
log models, due to the averaging of the reservoir properties. Layered reservoirs for
example frequently show a homogeneous behavior during tests.

Analytical solutions are used to generate pressure responses to a specific
production rate history I, until the model behavior O is identical to the behavior of
S.

Input data required for well test analysis

Test data : flow rate (complete sequence of events, including any operational
problem) and bottom hole pressure as a function of time.

Well data : wellbore radius r
w
, well geometry (inclined, horizontal etc.), depths
(formation, gauges).

Reservoir and fluid parameters : formation thickness h (net), porosity ,
compressibility of oil c
o
, water c
w
and formation c
f
, water saturation S
w
, oil
viscosity and formation volume factor B. The different compressibility's are
used to define the total system compressibility c
t
:

( )
f w w w o t
c S c S c c + + = 1 (psi
-1
, Bars
-1
) ( 1-3)

The reservoir and fluid parameters are used for calculation of the results. After the
interpretation model has been selected, they may always be changed or adjusted if
needed.

Additional data can be useful in some cases : production log, gradient surveys,
bubble point pressure etc. General information obtained from geologist and
geophysicists are required to validate the well test interpretation results.


- 4 -

1-1.3 Types of tests

Test procedure

Drawdown test : the flowing bottom hole pressure is used for analysis. Ideally,
the well should be producing at constant rate but in practice, drawdown data is
erratic, and the analysis is frequently inaccurate.

Build-up test : the increase of bottom hole pressure after shut-in is used for
analysis. Before the build-up test, the well must have been flowing long enough
to reach stabilized rate. During shut-in periods, the flow rate is accurately
controlled (zero).

Injection test / fall-off test : when fluid is injected into the reservoir, the
bottom hole pressure increases and, after shut-in, it drops during the fall-off
period. The properties of the injected fluid are in general different from that of
the reservoir fluid.

Interference test and pulse test : the bottom hole pressure is monitored in a
shut-in observation well some distance away from the producer. Interference
tests are designed to evaluate communication between wells. With pulse tests,
the active well is produced with a series of short flow / shut-in periods, the
resulting pressure oscillations in the observation well are analyzed.

Gas well test : specific testing methods are used to evaluate the deliverability
of gas wells (Absolute Open Flow Potential, AOFP) and the possibility of non-
Darcy flow condition (rate dependent skin factor S'). The usual procedures are
Back Pressure test (Flow after Flow), Isochronal and Modified Isochronal tests.

Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
Clean
up
Initial
shut-in
Variable
rate
Stabilized
rate
Build-up
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
Clean
up
Initial
shut-in
Variable
rate
Stabilized
rate
Build-up
Clean
up
Initial
shut-in
Variable
rate
Stabilized
rate
Build-up

Figure 1.2 Typical test sequence. Oil well.

Well completion

Production test : the well is completed as a production well (cased hole and
permanent completion).

Drill stem test (DST) : the well is completed temporarily with a down-hole
shut-in valve. Frequently the well is cased but DST can be made also in open


- 5 -
hole. The drill stem testing procedure is used only for relatively short tests. The
drill string is not used any more, and production tubing is employed.

Flowhead
BOP Stack
Casing
Tubing
Test tool
Packer
Flowhead
BOP Stack
Casing
Tubing
Test tool
Packer

Figure 1.3 Onshore DST test string.

1-1.4 Well testing equipment

Surface equipment

Flow head : is equipped with several valves to allow flowing, pumping in the
well, wire line operation etc. The wellhead working pressure should be greater
than the well shut-in pressure. The Emergency Shut Down is a fail-safe system
to close the wing valve remotely.

Choke manifold : is used to control the rate by flowing the well through a
calibrated orifice. A system of twin valves allows to change the choke (positive
and adjustable chokes) without shutting in the well. The downstream pressure
must be less than half the upstream pressure.

Heater : Heating the effluent may be necessary to prevent hydrate formation in
high-pressure gas wells (the temperature is reduced after the gas expansion
through the choke). Heaters are also used in case of high viscosity oil.

Test separator : In a three phases test separator, the effluent hits several plates
in order to separate the gas from the liquid phase. A mist extractor is located
before the gas outlet. The oil and water phases are separated by gravity. The oil
and water lines are equipped with positive displacement metering devices, the
gas line with an orifice meter. Surface samples are taken at the separator oil and
gas lines for further recombination in laboratory.


- 6 -
Burner
Burner
Heater
Separator
Surge
tank
Air
compressor
Water
pump
Rig HP
pump
Gas
Oil
Water
Choke
maniflod
Flowhead
Transfer pump
Oil
manifold
Gas
manifold
Burner
Burner
Heater
Separator
Surge
tank
Air
compressor
Water
pump
Rig HP
pump
Gas
Oil
Water
Choke
maniflod
Flowhead
Transfer pump
Oil
manifold
Gas
manifold

Figure 1.4 Surface set up.

Oil and gas disposal : The oil rate can be measured with a gauge tank (or a
surge tank in case of H
2
S). Oil and gas are frequently burned. Onshore, a flare
pit is installed at a safe distance from the well. Offshore, two burners are
available on the rig for wind constraint. Compressed air and water are injected
together with the hydrocarbon fluids to prevent black smoke production and oil
drop out.

Downhole equipment

Pressure gauges : Electronic gauges are used to measure the bottom hole
pressure versus time. The gauge can be suspended down hole on a wireline, or
hung off on a seating nipple. When they are not connected to the surface with a
cable, the gauges are battery powered and the pressure data is stored in the
gauge memory. No bottom hole pressure is available until the gauge is pulled to
surface. With a cable, a surface read out system allows to monitor the test in
real time, and to adjust the duration of the shut-in periods.

Down hole valve : By closing the well down hole, the pressure response is
representative of the reservoir behavior earlier than in case of surface shut-in
(see wellbore storage effect in Section 1-2.1). DST are generally short tests.
Several types of down hole valve are available, operated by translation, rotation
or annular pressure. A sample of reservoir fluid can be taken when the tester
valve is closed.

Bottom hole sampler : Fluid samples can also be taken with a wire line bottom
hole sampler. During sampling, the well is produced at low rate.


- 7 -
RFT, MDT :The Repeat Formation Tester and the Modular Formation
Dynamics Tester are open hole wire line tools. They are primary used to
measure the vertical changes of reservoir pressure (pressure gradient), and to
take bottom hole samples. From the pressure versus depth data, fluid contacts
(oilwater OWC and gasoil GOC) are located, communication or presence of
sealing boundaries between layers can be established. RFT and MDT can also
provide a first estimate of the horizontal and vertical permeability near the well
by analysis of the pressure versus time response.

1-2 Definitions & typical regimes

1-2.1 Wellbore storage

When a well is opened, the production at surface is first due to the expansion of
the fluid in the wellbore, and the reservoir contribution is negligible. After any
change of surface rate, there is a time lag between the surface production and the
sand face rate. For a shut-in period, the wellbore storage effect is called afterflow.

Pressure profile

r
rw
pi
pw

Figure 1-5 Wellbore storage effect. Pressure distribution.


- 8 -
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
q
surface
q
sand face
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
q
surface
q
sand face

Figure 1-6 Wellbore storage effect. Sand face and surface rates.

Wellbore storage coefficient

For a well full of a single phase fluid,

w o
V c
p
V
C =
= (Bbl/psi, m
3
/Bars) ( 1-4)

where :
c
o
: liquid compressibility (psi
-1
, Bars
-1
)
V
w
: wellbore volume (Bbl, m
3
)

When there is a liquid level, with p g h = , V V h
u
= and
: liquid density (lb/cu ft, kg/m
3
)
g/g
c
: gravitational acceleration (lb
f
/ lb
m
, kg
f
/ kg
m
)
V
u
: wellbore volume per unit length (Bbl/ft, m
3
/m)

) (
144
c
u
g g
V
C
= (Bbl/psi)
) (
10197
c
u
g g
V
C
= (m
3
/Bars) ( 1-5)

Elapsed time, t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m
W
B
S
Elapsed time, t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m
W
B
S

Figure 1-7 Wellbore storage effect.
Specialized analysis on a linear scale.

Specialized analysis

Plot of the pressure change p versus the elapsed time t time on a linear scale. At
early time, the response follows a straight line of slope m
WBS
, intercepting the
origin.


- 9 -
t
C
B q
p =
24
(psi, Bars) ( 1-6)

Result : wellbore storage coefficient C.

WBS
m
qB
C
24
= (Bbl/psi, m
3
/Bars) ( 1-7)

1-2.2 Radial flow regime, skin (homogeneous behavior)

When the reservoir production is established, the flow-lines converge radially
towards the well. In the reservoir, the pressure is a function of the time and the
distance to the well.

Pressure profile

p
wf
r
w r
r
i
p
p
i
S = 0
p
wf
r
w r
r
i
p
p
i
S = 0

Figure 1-8 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution. Zero skin.

r
w
r
p
wf
(S=0)
p
wf
(S>0)
r
i
p skin
p
p
i
S > 0
r
w
r
p
wf
(S=0)
p
wf
(S>0)
r
i
p skin
p
p
i
r
w
r
p
wf
(S=0)
p
wf
(S>0)
r
i
p skin
p
p
i
S > 0

Figure 1-9 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution.
Damaged well, positive skin factor.


- 10 -
r
w
r
p
wf
(S=0)
p
wf
(S<0)
r
i
p skin
p
p
i
S < 0
r
w
r
p
wf
(S=0)
p
wf
(S<0)
r
i
p skin
p
p
i
r
w
r
p
wf
(S=0)
p
wf
(S<0)
r
i
p skin
p
p
i
S < 0

Figure 1-10 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution.
Stimulated well, negative skin factor.

Skin

The skin is a dimensionless parameter. It characterizes the well condition : for a
damaged well S > 0, and for a stimulated well S < 0.

Skin
p
qB
kh
S =
2 . 141
(field units)
Skin
66 . 18
p
qB
kh
S =
(metric units) ( 1-8)

Damaged well (S > 0) : poor contact between the well and the reservoir (mud-
cake, insufficient perforation density, partial penetration) or invaded zone

Stimulated well (S < 0) : surface of contact between the well and the reservoir
increased (fracture, horizontal well) or acid stimulated zone

Steady state flow in the circular zone :

r
w
r
s
k
s
k
r
w
r
s
k
s
k

w
S
w
S
S
S w S w
r
r
kh
qB
r
r
h k
qB
p p ln
2 . 141
ln
2 . 141
0 , ,

=
=
(psi, field units)
w
S
w
S
S
S w S w
r
r
kh
qB
r
r
h k
qB
p p ln
66 . 18
ln
66 . 18
0 , ,

=
=
(Bars, metric units) ( 1-9)

The skin is expressed :

S
k
k
r
r
S
S
w
=
|
\
|
.
| 1 ln ( 1-10)

Equivalent wellbore radius :

S
e r r
w we
= (ft, m) ( 1-11)


- 11 -


For homogeneous reservoirs, a pressure versus time semi-log straight line
describes the radial flow regime. The analysis gives access to the reservoir
permeability thickness product kh, and to the skin coefficient S.

Log t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m
p
(1hr)
Log t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m
p
(1hr)

Figure 1-11 Radial flow regime.
Specialized analysis on semi-log scale.

Semi-log straight line of slope m :

p
qB
kh
t
k
c r
S
t w
= + +
(
162 6 323 087
2
. log log . .
(psi, field units)

(
(
+ + = S
r c
k
t
kh
qB
p
w t
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 5 . 21
2

(Bars, metric units)( 1-12)

Results:

kh
qB
m
= 162 6 .

(mD.ft, field units)
m
qB
kh

5 . 21 = (mD.m, metric units) ( 1-13)

S
p
m
k
c r
t w
= +
|
\
|
.
| 1151 323
2
. log .
1 hr
(field units)
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
= 10 . 3 log 151 . 1
2
hr 1
w t
r c
k
m
p
S

1-2.3 Examples of infinite acting radial flow behaviors

In the following examples, two wells A and B are tested twice with the same rate
sequence, and the four test responses are compared on linear and semi-log scales.


- 12 -
The two wells have very different characteristics. Well A is in a low permeability
reservoir. During one test the skin is moderate with S=6, and during the other test
the well has no skin damage (S=0). Well B is in a higher permeability reservoir
(four times larger than for well A) but the skin factors are large, respectively S=25
and S=60 (this large value is relatively exceptional. It suggests a completion
problem such as limited entry).

0
2000
4000
6000
0 10 20 30 40
time, hours
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
no skin
moderate skin

Figure 1.12 Test history plot well A (low permeability).

On the test history plots Figure 1.12 and Figure 1.13, the two wells show
apparently a similar behavior. For each well, the flowing pressure is low during
one test (the last flowing pressure is 3200 psi before shut-in), and higher during the
other test (last flowing pressure of 5500psi before shut-in).

0
2000
4000
6000
0 10 20 30 40
time, hours
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
high skin
very high skin

Figure 1.13 Test history plot well B (higher permeability).

On semi-log scale, the pressure response is more characteristic of the well and
reservoir condition than on the previous linear scale plots. In the case of well A
with low permeability and low skin, the pressure drop during drawdown is mainly
produced in the reservoir, and the slope of the semi-log straight line is high.


- 13 -
0
1000
2000
3000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
time, hours
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,

p
s
i
no skin
moderate skin
p skin

Figure 1.14 Semi-log responses for well A.

0
1000
2000
3000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
time, hours
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,

p
s
i
high skin
very high skin
p skin

Figure 1.15 Semi-log responses for well B.

Conversely, with the higher permeability example of well B, most of the pressure
drop is due to skin damage, and the response tends to be flat with a low semi-log
straight-line slope.

1-2.4 Fractured well (infinite conductivity fracture) : linear flow regime

xf

Figure 1-16 Fractured well. Fracture geometry.


- 14 -

Linear flow regime

At early time, before the radial flow regime is established, the flow-lines are
perpendicular to the fracture plane. This is called linear flow.

Figure 1-17 Infinite conductivity fracture. Geometry of the flow lines.
Linear and radial flow regimes.


Plot of the pressure change p versus the square root of elapsed time t : the
response follows a straight line of slope m
LF
, intercepting the origin.

p
qB
hx c k
t
f t
= 4 06 .

(psi, field units)

t
k c hx
qB
p
t f
=
623 . 0 (Bars, metric units) ( 1-15)

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m
L
F
t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m
L
F
t

Figure 1-18 Infinite conductivity fracture.
Specialized analysis with the pressure versus the square root of time.

Result : the half fracture length x
f

x
c k
q B
hm
f
t LF
= 4 06 .

(ft, field units)

LF t
f
hm
qB
k c
x
623 . 0 = (m, metric units) ( 1-16)


- 15 -

1-2.5 Fractured well (finite conductivity fracture) : bi-linear flow regime

Bilinear flow regime

w k
f
w k
f
f
w k
f
w k
f
f

Figure 1-19 Finite conductivity fracture. Geometry of the flow lines during the
bi-linear flow regime.

When the pressure drop in the fracture plane is not negligible, a second linear flow
regime is established along the fracture extension. This configuration is called bi-
linear flow regime.


Plot of the pressure change p versus the fourth root of elapsed time t
4
:
straight line of slope m
BLF
, intercepting the origin.

4
4
11 . 44 t
k c w k h
qB
p
t f
=

(psi, field units)

4
4
28 . 6 t
k c w k h
qB
p
t f f
=

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
mBLF
4
t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
mBLF
4
t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
mBLF
4
t

Figure 1-20 Finite conductivity fracture. Specialized analysis with the
pressure versus the fourth root of time.

Result : the fracture conductivity k
f
w
f

2
1
8 . 1944
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
BLF t
f f
hm
qB
k c
w k


2
1
46 . 39
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
BLF t
f f
hm
qB
k c
w k

(mD.m, metric units) ( 1-18)


- 16 -

1-2.6 Well in partial penetration : spherical flow regime

Spherical flow regime

Spherical flow can be observed in wells in partial penetration, before the top and
bottom boundaries are reached. Later, the flow becomes radial.
k
V
k
H
k
H
h
w
h
k
V
k
H
k
H
k
V
k
H
k
H
h
w
h

Figure 1-21 Well in partial penetration. Geometry of the flow lines. Radial,
spherical and radial flow regimes.


Plot of the pressure versus the reciprocal of the square root of time 1 t . The
response follows a straight line of slope m
SPH
:

p
qB
k r
qB c
k t
S S
t
S
= 706 2452 9
3 2
. .

(psi, field units)
t k
c qB
r k
qB
p
S
t
S S

=
2 3
3 . 279 33 . 9


P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m
S
P
H
t 1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m
S
P
H
t 1

Figure 1-22 Well in partial penetration. Specialized analysis with the pressure
versus 1/ the square root of time.

Result : the spherical permeability k
s

3 2
SPH
9 . 2452
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
m
c
qB k
t
S
(mD, field units)


- 17 -
3 2
SPH
3 . 279
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
m
c
qB k
t
S
(mD, metric units) ( 1-20)

The permeability anisotropy is expressed with :

k
k
k
k
H
V
H
s
=
|
\
|
.
|
3
( 1-21)

1-2.7 Fissured reservoir (double porosity behavior)

In fissured reservoirs, the fissure network and the matrix blocks react at a different
time, and the pressure response deviates from the standard homogeneous behavior.

Pressure profile

r
r
i
r
r
i
p
f
r
r
i
p
p
m
p
wf
p
i
r
w r
r
i
r
r
i
p
f
r
r
i
p
p
m
p
wf
p
i
r
w

Figure 1-23 Double porosity behavior. Pressure distribution.
Fissure system homogeneous regime.

First, the matrix blocks production is negligible. The fissure system homogeneous
behavior is seen.


- 18 -

rr
p
m
> p
f
r
r
i
r
i i
p
p
wf
p
i
r
w rr
p
m
> p
f
r
r
i
r
i i
r
i
r
i i
p
p
wf
p
i
r
w

Transition regime.

When the matrix blocks start to produce into the fissures, the pressure deviates
from the homogeneous behavior to follow a transition regime.

r
i
r
i i
rr
p
m
= p
f
r
p
p
wf
p
i
r
w
r
i
r
i i
r
i
r
i i
r
i
r
i i
rr
p
m
= p
f
r
p
p
wf
p
i
r
w

Total system homogeneous regime (fissures + matrix).

When the pressure equalizes between fissures and matrix blocks, the homogeneous
behavior of the total system (fissure and matrix) is reached.


- 19 -

1-2.8 Limited reservoir (one sealing fault)

When one sealing fault is present near the producing well, the pressure response
deviates from the usual infinite acting behavior after some production time.

Pressure profile

r
i
p
wf
r
w
r
p
p
i
L r
i
p
wf
r
w
r
p
p
i
L

Figure 1-26 One sealing fault. Pressure profile at time t
1
.
The fault is not reached, infinite reservoir behavior.

r
i
p
wf
r
w
r
p
p
i
L r
i
p
wf
r
w
r
p
p
i
L

2
.
The fault is reached, but it is not seen at the well. Infinite reservoir behavior.

r
i
p
wf
r
w
r
p
p
i
L
r
i
p
wf
r
w
r
p
p
i
L

3
.
The fault is reached, and it is seen at the well. Start of boundary effect.


- 20 -
r
i
p
wf
r
w
r L
p
p
i
r
i
p
wf
r
w
r L
r
i
p
wf
r
w
r L
p
p
i

4
.
The fault is reached, and it is seen at the well. Hemi-radial flow.

t
1
: the fault is not reached, radial flow

t
2
: the fault is reached

t
3
: the fault is seen at the well, transition

t
4
: hemi-radial flow

Figure 1-30 One sealing fault. Drainage radius.


A second semi-log straight line with a slope double (2m). Result : the fault
distance L.

Log t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
2
m
m
Log t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
2
m
m

Figure 1-31 One sealing fault.
Specialized analysis on semi-log scale.

The time intersect t
x
between the two lines is used to estimate the fault distance
L :


- 21 -
t
x
c
t k
L
= 01217 . 0 (ft, field units)

t
x
c
t k
L
= 0141 . 0 (m, metric units) ( 1-22)

1-2.9 Closed reservoir

In closed reservoir, when all boundaries have been reached, the flow changes to
Pseudo Steady State : the pressure decline is proportional to time.

Pressure profile

As long as the reservoir is infinite acting, the pressure profile expands around the
well during the production (and the well bottom hole pressure drops).

R
e
r
i
(t
1
)
R
e
r
i
(t
1
)

p
wf
r
w
r
r
i
(t
2
) = R
e
p
p
i
t
4
t
1
t
2
t
3
Infinite acting
Pseudo Steady State
r
i
(t
1
)
p
wf
r
w
r
r
i
(t
2
) = R
e
p
p
i
t
4
t
4
t
1
t
1
t
2
t
2
t
3
t
3
Infinite acting
Pseudo Steady State
r
i
(t
1
)

Figure 1-32 Circular closed reservoir. Pressure profiles.
Time t
1
: the boundaries are not reached, infinite reservoir behavior: the
pressure profile expands.
Time t
2
: boundaries reached, end of infinite reservoir behavior.
Times t
3
and t
4
: pseudo steady state regime, the pressure profile drops.

During the pseudo steady state regime, all boundaries have been reached and the
pressure profile drops (but its shape remains constant with time).


- 22 -


During drawdown, plot of the pressure versus elapsed time t on a linear scale. At
late time, a straight line of slope m* characterizes the Pseudo Steady State regime:

( ) p
qB
c hA
t
qB
kh
A
r
C S
t w
A
= + + +
(
0234 162 6 0 351 087
2
. . log log . .
(psi, field units)

( )
(
(
+ + + = S C
r
A
kh
qB
t
hA c
qB
p
A
w
t
87 . 0 351 . 0 log log 5 . 21 0417 . 0
2
(Bars, metric
units) ( 1-23)

Time, t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
p
i
p
-
slope m*
pseudo steady state
Time, t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
p
i
p
-
slope m*
pseudo steady state

Figure 1.33 Drawdown and build-up pressure response.
Linear scale. Closed system.

Result : the reservoir pore volume hA.

hA
qB
c m
t
= 0 234 .
*
(cu ft, field units)
*
0417 . 0
m c
qB
hA
t
= (m
3
, metric units) ( 1-24)

During shut-in, the pressure stabilizes to the average reservoir pressure p p
i
( ) < .

1-2.10 Interference test

Pressure profile

With interference tests, the pressure is monitored in an observation well at distance
r from the producer. The pressure signal is observed with a delay, the amplitude of
the response is small.


- 23 -
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 100 200 300 400 500
p
i
Observation well
Producing well
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
3500
4000
4500
5000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 100 200 300 400 500
p
i
Observation well
Producing well

Figure 1-34 Interference test. Response of a producing and an observation
well. Linear scale.

Producing well
Observation well
Producing well
Observation well

r
p
p
wf
r
w
r r
i
p
p
i
r
p
p
wf
r
w
r r
i
p
p
i

Figure 1-35 Interference test. Pressure distribution.

1-2.11 Well responses

A limited number of flow line geometries produce a characteristic pressure
behavior: radial, linear, spherical etc. For each flow regime, the pressure follows a
well-defined time function: log , , t t t 1 etc. A straight line can be
drawn on a specialized pressure versus time plot, to access the corresponding well
or reservoir parameter.

A complete well response is defined as a sequence of regimes. By identification of
the characteristic pressure behaviors present on the response, the chronology and
time limits of the different flow regime are established, defining the interpretation
model.


- 24 -
For a fractured well for example, the sequence of regimes is :

(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)

1. Linear

2. Radial

Figure 1.36 Fractured well example.

In the case of a well in a channel reservoir :

(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)

1. Radial

2. Linear

Figure 1.37 Example of a well in a channel reservoir.

1-2.12 Productivity Index

The Productivity Index is the ratio of the flow rate by the drawdown pressure drop,
expressed from the average reservoir pressure p .

( )
PI =
q
p p
wf
(Bbl/D/psi, m3/D/Bars) ( 1-25)

The Ideal Productivity Index defines the productivity if the skin of the well is zero.

( )
( )
PI
S=0
=

q
p p p
wf skin
(Bbl/D/psi, m3/D/Bars) ( 1-26)

During the infinite acting period p p
i
, the Transient Productivity Index is
decreasing with time.

PI =
+ +
|
\
|
.
|
|
kh
B t
k
c r
S
t w
162 6 323 087
2
. log log . .
(Bbl/D/psi, field units)

|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
=
S
r c
k
t B
kh
w t
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 5 . 21
PI
2
(m3/D/Bars, metric units) ( 1-27)


- 25 -

The Pseudo Steady State Productivity Index is a constant

( )
PI =
+ +
|
\
|
.
|
|
kh
B
A
r
C S
w
A
162 6 0 351 087
2
. log log . .
(Bbl/D/psi, field units)
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
=
S C
r
A
B
kh
A
w
87 . 0 351 . 0 log log 5 . 21
PI
2
(m3/D/Bars, metric units) ( 1-28)

1-2.13 Pressure profile and Radius of Investigation

The Exponential Integral of Equation A-16 defines the pressure as a function of
time and distance :

( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
t k
r c
kh
qB
r t p
t
001056 . 0
Ei
2 . 141
5 . 0 ,
2

(psi, field units)
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
t k
r c
kh
qB
r t p
t
0001423 . 0
Ei
66 . 18
5 . 0 ,
2


For small x, ( ) ( ) x x ln Ei = : the Exponential Integral can be approximated by
a log (with = 1.78, Euler's constant).

( )
( )
[ ]

p t r
qB
kh
k t c r
t
,
.
log . . = +
162 6
0 000264 0809
2
(psi, field units)

( ) ( ) [ ] 809 . 0 000356 . 0 log
5 . 21
,
2
+ = r c t k
kh
qB
r t p
t

(The semi-log straight line Eq. 1-12 corresponds to Eq. 1-30 for r=r
w
).

p
wf
Log r
p
p
i
t
4
t
1
t
2
t
3
p
wf
Log r
p
p
i
t
4
t
4
t
1
t
1
t
2
t
2
t
3
t
3

Figure 1-38 Pressure profile versus the log of the distance to the well.

When presented versus log(r), the pressure profile at a given time is a straight line
until the distance becomes too large for the logarithm approximation of the


- 26 -
Exponential Integral. Beyond this limit, the profile flattens, and tends
asymptotically towards the initial pressure.

The radius of investigation r
i
tentatively describes the distance that the pressure
transient has moved into the formation. Several definitions have been proposed, in
general r
i
is defined with one of the two relationships :

( )
0 000264
1
4
2
. k t c r
t i
= or =
1
2
(field units)
( )
4
1
000356 . 0
2
=
i t
r c t k or =
1
2

(in dimensionless terms of Equation 2.4 or 8-2, t r
D iD
2
1
4
= or t r
D iD
2
2
1
=
).

This gives respectively,

r k t c
i t
= 0 032 . (ft, field units)
t i
c t k r = 037 . 0 (m, metric units) ( 1-32)

and

r k t c
i t
= 0 029 . (ft, field units)
t i
c t k r = 034 . 0 (m, metric units) ( 1-33)

(the radius of investigation is independent of the rate).

The radius of investigation r
i
is sometimes viewed as the minimum distance of any
event, such as a reservoir limit, that cannot be observed during the test period.
With the sealing fault example of Figure 1-30, the pressure transient reaches the
fault 4 times earlier the boundary can be observed on the producing well pressure
behavior.

In practice, for an initial flow period, the radius of investigation of Equation 1-32
or 1-33 is relatively consistent with the distance estimated by a simulation, when a
boundary effect is introduced at the end of the test period. For a shut-in periods,
Equations 1-32 and 1-33 are not always accurate.

- 27 -

2 - THE ANALYSIS METHODS

2-1 Log-log scale

For a given period of the test, the change in pressure p is plotted on log-log scale
versus the elapsed time t. This data plot is then compared to a set of
dimensionless theoretical curves.

10
2

10
1

P,
psi

10
0

10
-1

10
-3
(3.6 sec)
10
-2
(36 sec)
10
-1
(6 mn)
t, hr
10
0

10
1
10
2

Figure 2-1 Log-log scale.

( ) { }
( ) { }
p A p A f kh
t B t B g k C S
D
D
= =
= =
, ,...
, , , ...
( 2-1)

The shape of the response curve is characteristic : the product of one of the
variables by a constant term is changed into a displacement on the logarithmic
axes. If the flow rate is doubled for example, the amplitude of the response p is
doubled also, but the graph of log(p) is only be shifted by log(2) along the
pressure axis. With the log-log scale, the shape of the data plot is used for the
diagnosis of the interpretation model(s).

log log log
log log log
p A p
t B t
D
D
= +
= +
( 2-2)

The log-log analysis is global : it considers the full period, from very early time to
the latest recorded pressure point. The scale expands the response at early time.

Chapter 2 - The analysis methods

- 28 -

2-2 Pressure curves analysis

2-2.1 Example of pressure type-curve : "Well with wellbore storage and
skin, homogeneous reservoir"

Dimensionless terms

Dimensionless terms are used because they illustrate pressure responses
independently of the physical parameters magnitude (such as flowrate, fluid or
rock properties). For example, describing the well damage with the dimensionless
skin factor S is much more meaningful than using the actual pressure drop near the
wellbore.

Dimensionless pressure

p
kh
qB
p
D
=
1412 .
(field units)
p
qB
kh
p
D
=
66 . 18

Dimensionless time

t
k
c r
t
D
t w
=
0 000264
2
.
(field units)
t
r c
k
t
w t
D
=
2
000356 . 0

Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient

C
C
c hr
D
t w
=
08936
2
.
(field units)
2
1592 . 0
w t
D
hr c
C
C
= (metric units) ( 2-5)

Dimensionless time group

t
C
kh t
C
D
D
= 0 000295 .
(field units)
C
t kh
C
t
D
D

=
00223 . 0 (metric units) ( 2-6)


- 29 -

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Dimensionless time, t
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
Approximate start of
semi-log straight line
C
D
e
2S
10
60
10
50
10
40
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
3 1
0.3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
Approximate start of
semi-log straight line
C
D
e
2S
10
60
10
50
10
40
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
3 1
0.3

Figure 2-2 Pressure type-curve: Well with wellbore storage and skin,
homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
C
D
e
(2S)
= 10
60
to 0.3.

Dimensionless curve group

C e
S
C
c hr
e
S
D
t w
2
08936
2
2
=
.
(field units)
S
e
hr c
C
S
e C
w t
D
2
1592 . 0
2
2

The curve label C
D
e
2S
defines the well condition. It ranges from C
D
e
2S
=0.3 for
stimulated wells, up to 10
60
for very damaged wells.

Log-log matching procedure

Elapsed time, t (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2

Figure 2-3 Build-up example. Log-log plot


- 30 -
The log-log data plot p, t is superimposed on a set of dimensionless type-curves
p
D
, t
D
/C
D
. The early time unit slope straight line is matched on the "wellbore
storage" asymptote but the final choice of the C
D
e
2S
curve is frequently not unique
(Figure 2-12).

Results of log-log analysis

Pressure match p p
D
= PM : the permeability thickness product

( ) PM 2 . 141 qB kh = (mD.ft, field units)
( ) PM 66 . 18 qB kh = (mD.m, metric units) ( 2-8)

Time match ( ) t C t
D D
= TM : the wellbore storage coefficient

|
.
|
\
|
=
TM
1
000295 . 0
kh
C (Bbl/psi, field units)
|
.
|
\
|
=
TM
1
00223 . 0
kh
C (m
3
/Bars, metric units) ( 2-9)

Curve match : the skin

D
Match
S
D
C
e C
S
2
ln 5 . 0 = ( 2-10)

2-2.2 Shut-in periods

Drawdown periods are in general not suitable for analysis because it is difficult to
ascertain a constant flowrate. The response is distorted, especially with the log-log
scale that expands the response at early time. Build-up periods are preferably
used : the flowrate is nil, therefore well controlled.

Example of a shut-in after a single rate drawdown

Build-up responses do not show the same behavior as a first drawdown in a
reservoir at initial pressure. After a drawdown of t
p
, the well shows a pressure
drop of p(t
p
). It takes an infinite time to reach the initial pressure during build-up,
and to produce a pressure change p
BU
of amplitude p(t
p
). Build-up responses
depend upon the previous rate history.


- 31 -

R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
Time, t
p
i
0 t
p
t
p
+t
q
0
t
BU
p
BU
(t)
p (t
p
)
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
Time, t
p
i
0 t
p
t
p
+t
q
0
t
BU
p
BU
(t)
p (t
p
)

Figure 2-4 History drawdown - shut-in.

The diffusivity equation used to generate the well test analysis solutions is linear.
It is possible to add several pressure responses in order to describe the well
behavior after any rate change. This is the superposition principle.

For a build-up after a single drawdown at rate q, an injection period at -q is
superposed to the extended flow period.

R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
Time, t
q
0
-q
p
i
0 t
p
t
p
(t)
p
(tp+t)
p
(tp)
(p
(tp+t)
- p
(t)
)
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
Time, t
q
0
-q
p
i
0 t
p
t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
Time, t
q
0
-q
p
i
0 t
p
t
p
(t)
p
(tp+t)
p
(tp)
(p
(tp+t)
- p
(t)
)

Figure 2-5 History extended drawdown + injection.

Log-log analysis : build-up type curve

( )
[ ]
( )
( ) ( )
p t p t p t t p t
D
D
BU
D
D
D p
D
D p
D
= + + ( 2-11)

The pressure build-up curve is compressed on the p axis when t>>t
p
.


- 32 -
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
build-up type curve
t
pD
p
D
(t
pD
)
C
D
e
2S
drawdown
type curve
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
build-up type curve
t
pD
p
D
(t
pD
)
C
D
e
2S
drawdown
type curve

Figure 2-6 Drawdown and build-up type curves (t
pD
= 2).

Semi-log analysis : superposition time

( ) [ ]
(
(
+ +
+
= S
r c
k
t t
t t
kh
qB
t p
w t p
p
BU
87 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2

(psi, field units)

( ) [ ]
(
(
+ +
+
= S
r c
k
t t
t t
kh
qB
t p
w t
p
p
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 5 . 21
2
BU
(Bars, metric units)

( 2-12)

With the superposition time, the correction compresses the t scale.

Dimensionless times, t
D
/ C
D
and [ t
pD
t
D
/ (t
pD
+ t
D
) C
D
]
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
5
0
build-up type curve
t
pD
p
D
(t
pD
)
C
D
e
2S
drawdown
type curve
Dimensionless times, t
D
/ C
D
and [ t
pD
t
D
/ (t
pD
+ t
D
) C
D
]
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
5
0
build-up type curve
t
pD
p
D
(t
pD
)
C
D
e
2S
drawdown
type curve

Figure 2-7 Drawdown and build-up type curves of Figure 2-6
on semi-log scale.

Horner method

p p
qB
kh
t t
t
ws i
p
=
+
162 6 . log
(psi, field units)

t
t t
kh
qB
p p
p
i ws
+
= log 5 . 21



- 33 -

Horner time, [(t
pD
+ t
D
) / t
D
]
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
5
0
m
P*
Horner time, [(t
pD
+ t
D
) / t
D
]
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
5
0
m
P*

Figure 2-8 Horner plot of build-up type curve of Figure 2-6.

Horner analysis :

The slope m,
The pressure at t =1 hour on the straight line
The extrapolated pressure to infinite shut-in time (t =
): p*.

Results :

kh
qB
m
= 162 6 .

m
qB
kh

5 . 21 = (mD.m, metric units) ( 1-13)

S
p
m
k
c r
t
t
t w
p
p
= +
+
+
|
\
|
.
|
|
1151
1
323
2
. log log .
1 hr
(field units)
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
+
= 10 . 3
1
log log 151 . 1
2
hr 1
p
p
w t
t
t
r c
k
m
p
S

In an infinite system, the straight line extrapolates to the initial pressure and p*=p
i
.

Multi- rate superposition

At time t of flow period # n, the multi-rate type curve is :

( )
[ ]
( ) ( )
[ ]
( ) p t
q q
q q
p t t p t t t p t
D
D
MR
i i
n n
i
n
D n i
D
D n i
D
D
D
=

+ +
1
1
1
1
( 2-15)


- 34 -
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
t
Period #
1,2,, 5, 6,.....10, 11
q
1
,. q
5
=0, q
6
,..q
10
, q
11
=0
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
t
Period #
1,2,, 5, 6,.....10, 11
q
1
,. q
5
=0, q
6
,..q
10
, q
11
=0

Figure 2-9 Multi- rate history. Example with 10 periods before shut-in.

The multirate superposition time is expressed :

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) t q q t t t q q
kh
B
p t p
n n
n
i
i n i i i ws
+ + =

=

log log 6 . 162 ) (
1
1
1
1
(psi, field units)

( ) ( ) ( ) ) ( log log 5 . 21 ) (
1
1
1
1
t q q t t t q q
kh
B
p t p
n n
n
i
i n i i i ws
+ + =

(Bars, metric
units) ( 2-16)

Limitations if the time superposition: the sealing fault example

In the following example, the well is produced 50 hours and shut-in for a pressure
build-up. A sealing fault is present near the well and, at 100 hours, the flow
geometry changes from infinite acting radial flow to hemi-radial flow.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
Time, hours
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
5000
4500
4000
3500
Radial Hemi-radial
Radial Hemi-radial
Infinite reservoir
Sealing fault
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
Time, hours
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
5000
4500
4000
3500
Radial Hemi-radial
Radial Hemi-radial
Infinite reservoir
Sealing fault

Figure 2-10 History drawdown build-up. Well near a sealing fault.

During the 50 initial hours of the shut-in period (cumulative time 50 to 100 hours),
both the extended drawdown and the injection periods are in radial flow regime.


- 35 -
The superposition time of Equations 2-12 or 2-13 is applicable, and the Horner
method is accurate.

At intermediate shut-in times, from 50 to 100 hours (cumulative time 100 to 150
hours), the extended drawdown follows a semi-log straight line of slope 2m when
the injection is still in radial flow (slope m). Theoretically, the semi-log
approximation of Equation 2-11 with Equation 2-12 is not correct.

Ultimately, the fault influence is felt during the injection and the 2 periods follow
the same semi-log straight line of slope 2m (shut-in time >> 100 hours, cumulative
time >> 150 hours). The semi-log superposition time is again applicable.

In practice, when the flow regime deviates from radial flow in the course of the
response, the error introduced by the Horner or multirate time superposition
method is negligible on pressure curve analysis results. It is more sensitive when
the derivative of the pressure is considered.

Time superposition with other flow regimes

The time superposition is sometimes used with other flow regimes for straight-line
analysis. When all test periods follow the same flow behavior, the Horner time can
be expressed with the corresponding time function. For fractured wells, Horner
time corresponding to linear (Equation 1-15) and bi-linear flow (Equation 1-17) is
expressed respectively :

( )
( ) t t t
p
+
1 2
1 2
(hr
1/2
) ( 2-17)

( ) ( )
4 1 4 1
t t t
p
+ (hr
1/4
) ( 2-18)

The Horner time corresponding to spherical flow of Equation 1-19 has been used
for the analysis of RFT pressure data.

( )
( )
t t t
p

+
1 2
1 2
(hr
-1/2
) ( 2-19)


- 36 -

2-2.3 Pressure analysis method

The analysis is made on log-log and specialized plots. The purpose of the
specialized analysis is to concentrate on a portion of the data that corresponds to a
particular flow behavior. The analysis is carried out by the identification of a
straight line on a plot whose scale is specific to the flow regime considered. The
time limits of the specialized straight lines are defined by the log-log diagnosis.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
s
i
a
(t
p
+t )/ t
s
lo
p
e
m
1 10
1
10
2
10
3 10
4
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
slope m
p(1hr) p*
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
s
i
a
(t
p
+t )/ t
s
lo
p
e
m
1 10
1
10
2
10
3 10
4
1 10
1
10
2
10
3 10
4
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
slope m
p(1hr) p*

Figure 2-11 Build-up example of Figure 2-3. Semi-log Horner analysis.

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
10
60
10
50
10
40
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
3 1
0.3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
10
60
10
50
10
40
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
3 1
0.3

Figure 2-12 Build-up example of Figure 2-3. Log-log match.

For the radial flow analysis of a build-up period, the semi-log superposition time is
used. The slope m of the Horner / superposition straight line defines the final
pressure match of the log-log analysis.

m p
p
D
151 . 1
PM =
= (psi
-1
, Bars
-1
) ( 2-20)

Once the pressure match is defined, the C
D
e
2S
curve is known accurately. Results
from log-log and specialized analyses must be consistent.


- 37 -
2-3 Pressure derivative

2-3.1 Definition

The natural logarithm is used.

dt
dp
t
t d
dp
p =
=
ln
' (psi, Bars) ( 2-21)

The derivative is plotted on log-log coordinates versus the elapsed time t since
the beginning of the period.

2-3.2 Derivative type-curve : "Well with wellbore storage and skin,
homogeneous reservoir"

Radial flow

Log t
Log p
Log p'
p' = constant
Log t
Log p
Log p'
Log t
Log p
Log p'
p' = constant

Figure 2-13 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale.
Radial flow.

p
qB
kh
t
k
c r
S
t w
= + +
(
162 6 323 087
2
. log log . .
(psi, field units)

(
(
+ + = S
r c
k
t
kh
qB
p
w t
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 5 . 21
2


The radial flow regime does not produce a characteristic log-log shape on the
pressure curve but it is characteristic with the derivative presentation : it is
constant.

p
qB
kh
' . = 70 6

(psi, field units)
kh
qB
p

33 . 9 ' = (Bars, metric units) ( 2-22)

In dimensionless terms,


- 38 -
( )
dp
d t C
D
D D
ln
. =05 ( 2-23)

Wellbore storage

p
qB
C
t =
24
(psi, Bars)
( 1-6)
p
qB
C
t ' =
24
(psi, Bars) ( 2-24)

During wellbore storage, the pressure change p and the pressure derivative p'
are identical. On log-log scale, the pressure and the derivative curves follow a
single straight line of slope equal to unity.

Log t
Log p
Log p' Slope 1
Log t
Log p
Log p'
Log t
Log p
Log p' Slope 1

Wellbore storage

Derivative of Section 2-2 example

During the transition between the wellbore storage and the infinite acting radial
flow regime, the derivative shows a hump, function of the C
D
e
2S
group.

1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
(
p
s
i
)
s
l
o
p
e
1
0.5 line
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
p
'
(
p
s
i
)
s
l
o
p
e
1
0.5 line

Figure 2-15 Derivative of build-up example Figure 2-3. Log-log scale.


- 39 -

Derivative type-curve

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
10
60
10
40
10
50
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
C
D
e
2S
10
3
10
2
10
3
1
0.3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
10
60
10
40
10
50
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
C
D
e
2S
10
3
10
2
10
3
1
0.3

Figure 2-16 "Well with wellbore storage and skin, homogeneous reservoir"
Derivative of type-curve Figure 2-2. Log-log scale.
C
D
e
(2S)
= 10
60
to 0.3.

Derivative match

The match point is defined with the unit slope pressure and derivative straight line,
and the 0.5 derivative stabilization.

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1

Figure 2-17 Derivative match of example Figure 2-3. Log-log scale.

2-3.3 Other characteristic flow regimes

During other characteristic flow regimes, the pressure changes with the elapsed
time power 1/n :


- 40 -

( ) B t A p
n
+ =
1
(psi, Bars) ( 2-25)

With:
1/n =1 during the pure wellbore storage and the pseudo steady state regimes,
1/n =1/2 in the case of linear flow,
1/n =1/4 for bi-linear flow,
1/n =-1/2 when spherical flow is established.

The logarithm derivative is:

( )
n
t
n
A
t d
dp
p
1
ln
' =
= (psi, Bars) ( 2-26)

The log-log pressure derivative curve (p', t) follows a straight-line slope of 1/n.

Infinite conductivity fracture (linear flow)

On log-log scale, the pressure and derivative follow two straight lines of slope 1/2.
The level of the derivative half-unit slope line is half that of the pressure.

p
qB
hx c k
t
f t
= 4 06 .

(psi, field units)

t
k c hx
qB
p
t f
=
623 . 0 (Bars, metric units) ( 1-15)

t
k c hx
qB
p
t f
=
03 . 2 ' (psi, field units)

t
k c hx
qB
p
t f
=
311 . 0 ' (Bars, metric units) ( 2-27)

Log t
Log p
Log p'
Slope 1/2
Log t
Log p
Log p'
Log t
Log p
Log p'
Slope 1/2

Infinite conductivity fracture.


- 41 -
Finite conductivity fracture (bi-linear flow)

A log-log straight line of slope 1/4 can be observed on pressure and derivative
curves, but the derivative line is four times lower.

p
qB
h k w c k
t
f t
= 4411
4
4
.

(psi, field units)
4
4
28 . 6 t
k c w k h
qB
p
t f f
=

p
qB
h k w c k
t
f t
' . = 1103
4
4
(psi, field units)

4
4
571 . 1 ' t
k c w k h
qB
p
t f f
=

Log t
Log p
Log p'
Slope 1/4
Log t
Log p
Log p'
Log t
Log p
Log p'
Slope 1/4

Finite conductivity fracture.

Well in partial penetration (spherical flow)

p
qB
k r
qB c
k t
S S
t
S
= 706 2452 9
3 2
. .

(psi, field units)
t k
c qB
r k
qB
p
S
t
S S

=
2 3
3 . 279 33 . 9


t k
c qB
p
S
t
=
2 3
4 . 1226 '

(psi, field units)
t k
c qB
p
S
t
=
2 3
6 . 139 '


The shape of the log-log pressure curve is not characteristic but the derivative
follows a straight line with a negative half-unit slope.


- 42 -
Log t
Log p
Log p'
Slope 1/2
Log t
Log p
Log p'
Log t
Log p
Log p'
Slope 1/2

Well in partial penetration.

Closed system (pseudo steady state)

The late part of the log-log pressure and derivative drawdown curves tends to a
unit-slope straight line. The derivative exhibits the characteristic straight line
before it is seen on the pressure response.

Log t
Log p
Log p'
Slope 1
Log t
Log p
Log p'
Log t
Log p
Log p'
Slope 1

Closed system (drawdown).

( )
(
(
+ + + = S C
r
A
kh
qB
t
hA c
qB
p
A
w t
87 . 0 351 . 0 log log 6 . 162 234 . 0
2
(psi, field units)

( )
(
(
+ + + = S C
r
A
kh
qB
t
hA c
qB
p
A
w
t
87 . 0 351 . 0 log log 5 . 21 0417 . 0
2
(Bars, metric
units) ( 1-22)

t
hA c
qB
p
t
=
234 . 0 ' (psi, field units)

t
hA c
qB
p
t
=
0417 . 0 ' (Bars, metric units) ( 2-30)


- 43 -

2-3.4 Data differentiation

The algorithm uses three points, one point before (left = 1) and one after
(right = 2) the point i of interest. It estimates the left and right slopes, and
attributes their weighted mean to the point i. On a p vs. x semi-log plot,

dp
dx
p
x
x
p
x
x
x x
=
|
\
|
.
| +
|
\
|
.
|
+

1
2
2
1
1 2
( 2-31)

It is recommended to start by using consecutive points. If the resulting derivative
curve is too noisy, smoothing is applied by increasing the distance x between the
point i and points 1 and 2. The smoothing is defined as a distance L, expressed on
the time axis scale. The points 1 and 2 are the first at distance x
1,2
>L.

The smoothing coefficient L is increased until the derivative response is smooth
enough but no more, over smoothing the data introduces distortions. With this
smoothing method, L is usually no more than 0.2 or 0.3.

Log (superposition)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
1
2
i
L
p
2
x
1
x
2
p
1
Log (superposition)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
1
2
i
L
Log (superposition)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
1
2
i
L
p
2
x
1
x
2
p
1

Figure 2-22 Differentiation of a set of pressure data.

At the end of the period, point i becomes closer to last recorded point than the
distance L. Smoothing is not possible any more to the right side, the end effect is
reached. This effect can introduce distortions at the end of the derivative response.

2-3.5 Build-up analysis

For a shut-in after a single drawdown period (the Horner method is applicable), the
derivative is generated with respect to the modified Horner time given in the
superposition Equation 2-12 :


- 44 -
p
dp
d
t t
t t
t t
t
t
dp
dt p
p
p
p
'
ln
=
+
=
+
(psi, Bars) ( 2-32)

For a complex rate history, the multirate superposition time is used.

In all cases, the derivative is plotted versus the usual elapsed time t : the log-log
derivative curve is not a raw data plot but is dependent upon the rate history
introduced in the time superposition calculations.

Limitations if the time superposition: the sealing fault example

When the response deviates from the infinite acting radial flow regime, the
derivative with respect to the time superposition can introduce a distortion on the
response, as illustrated on the log-log derivative of the build-up example of Figure
2-10 for a well near a sealing fault.

Elapsed time t, hours
10
-2
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
a
n
d
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
s
i
1 0
4
1 0
3
1 0
2
10
1
drawdown
build-up
Elapsed time t, hours
10
-2
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
a
n
d
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
s
i
1 0
4
1 0
3
1 0
2
10
1
drawdown
build-up
drawdown
build-up

Figure 2-23 Log-log plot of the build-up example of Figure 2-10. Well near a
sealing fault.

2-4 The analysis scales

The log-log analysis is made with a simultaneous plot of the pressure and
derivative curves of the interpretation period. Time and pressure match are defined
with the derivative response. The C
D
e
2S
group is identified by adjusting the curve
match on pressure and derivative data.


- 45 -
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
10
60
10
50
10
40
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
3 1
0.3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
10
60
10
50
10
40
10
30
10
20
10
15
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
3 1
0.3

Figure 2-24 Pressure and derivative type-curve for a well with wellbore
storage and skin, homogeneous reservoir.

The double log-log match is confirmed with a match of the pressure type-curve on
semi-log scale to adjust accurately the skin factor and the initial pressure. A
simulation of the complete test history is presented on linear scale in order to
control the rates, any changes in the well behavior, the average pressure etc.

- 46 -

- 47 -

3 - WELLBORE CONDITIONS

3-1 Well with wellbore storage and skin, homogeneous
reservoir

3-1.1 Characteristic flow regimes

1. Wellbore storage effect. Result: wellbore storage coefficient C.
2. Radial flow. Results: permeability-thickness product kh and skin S.

3-1.2 Log-log analysis

C
D
e
2S
=10
30
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
0.5 line
s
l
o
p
e
1
C
D
e
2S
=0.5
high skin
low skin
C
D
e
2S
=10
30
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
0.5 line
s
l
o
p
e
1
C
D
e
2S
=0.5
high skin
C
D
e
2S
=10
30
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1 0
2
10
1
10
-1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
0.5 line
s
l
o
p
e
1
C
D
e
2S
=0.5
high skin
low skin

Figure 3-1 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in an infinite
homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
C
D
e
(2S)
= 10
30
and 0.5.

3-1.3 Semi-log analysis

C
D
e
2S
=10
30
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
50
40
30
20
10
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Slope m
C
D
e
2S
=0.5
skin
Slope m
C
D
e
2S
=10
30
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
50
40
30
20
10
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Slope m
C
D
e
2S
=0.5
skin
Slope m

Figure 3-2 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-1.

Chapter 3 - Wellbore conditions

- 48 -
3-2 Infinite conductivity or uniform flux vertical fracture

Two models are available: one considers a uniform flux distribution along the
fracture length and, with the other, the fracture conductivity is infinite.


1. Wellbore storage
2. Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. Results: fracture half-length x
f
.
3. Pseudo radial flow: derivative stabilization at 0.5. Results: permeability-
thickness product kh and the geometrical skin S.


Dimensionless terms

t
k
c x
t
Df
t f
=
0 000264
2
.
(field units)
t
x c
k
t
f t
Df
=
2
000356 . 0

On Figure 3-3, C
D
= 0. The two models are slightly different during the transition
between linear flow and radial flow. With the uniform flux model, the transition is
shorter and the pressure curve is higher.

10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
Df
Uniform flux
Infinite condutivity
S
lo
p
e
1
/
2
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
Df
Uniform flux
S
lo
p
e
1
/
2
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D

Figure 3-3 Responses for a well intercepting a high conductivity fracture.
Log-log scale.
No wellbore storage effect C
D
= 0. Infinite conductivity and uniform flux.

Match results

The kh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. 2-8) and the fracture
half-length x
f
from the time match :


- 49 -
TM
1 000264 . 0
t
f
c
k
x
= (ft, field units)

TM
1 000264 . 0
t
f
c
k
x
= (m, metric units) ( 3-2)

The fracture stimulation is seen as a negative skin during the radial flow regime.
With infinite conductivity fracture, this geometrical skin effect is defined from the
fracture half-length x
f
as :

x r e
f w
S
=

2 (ft, m) ( 3-3)

And, for the uniform flux solution,

x r e
f w
S
=

2 7 . (ft, m) ( 3-4)

Figure 3-4 Flow line geometry near a fractured well.

3-2.3 Linear flow analysis

The half fracture length x
f
is also estimated from Equation 1-16.

m
L
F
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Square root of dimensionless time, t
Df
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Uniform flux
m
L
F
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Df
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
m
L
F
m
L
F
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Df
Df
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Uniform flux

Figure 3-5 Square root of time plot of Figure 3-3.
Early time analysis.


- 50 -
3-2.4 Fractured well with wellbore storage

10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
Df
C
D
=0
10
3
, 10
4
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
Df
C
D
=0
10
3
, 10
4
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D

Figure 3-6 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storage. Infinite
conductivity fracture. Log-log scale.
C
D
= 0, 10
3
, 10
4
.

3-2.5 Damaged fracture with wellbore storage

D
/C
D
10
-2
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
1 0
1
10
-1
10
-2
S=1
S=0.3
S=0
D
/C
D
10
-2
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
1 0
1
10
-1
10
-2
S=1
S=0.3
S=0

Figure 3-7 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storageand skin.
Infinite conductivity fracture. Log-log scale.
S = 0, 0.3, 1.

3-3 Finite conductivity vertical fracture

With the finite conductivity fracture model, there is a pressure gradient along the
fracture length. This happens when the permeability of the fracture is not very high
compared to the permeability of the formation, especially when the fracture is
long.


1. Wellbore storage
2. Bi-linear flow : 1/4 slope straight line. Results : fracture conductivity k
f
w
f
.
3. Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. Results : fracture half-length x
f
.
4. Pseudo radial flow : derivative stabilization at 0.5. Results : permeability-
thickness product kh and the geometrical skin S.


- 51 -

The dimensionless fracture conductivity k
fD
w
fD
is defined as :

f
f f
fD fD
kx
w k
w k = ( 3-5)

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
Slope
1/4
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
0.5 line
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
Slope
1/4
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
0.5 line

Figure 3-8 Response for a well intercepting a finite conductivity fracture. Log-
log scale.
D
= 0, k
fD
w
fD
= 100.

For large fracture conductivity k
fD
w
fD
, the bilinear flow regime is short lived and
the 1/4-slope pressure and derivative straight lines are moved downwards. The
behavior tends to a high conductivity fracture response (when k
fD
w
fD
is greater
than 300, see Figure 3-10).

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
Slope
1/4
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
0.5 line
1
10
100
k
fD
w
fD
=
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
Slope
1/4
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
0.5 line
1
10
100
k
fD
w
fD
=

Figure 3-9 Response for a well intercepting a finite conductivity fracture. Log-
log scale.
D
= 0, no fracture skin, k
fD
w
fD
= 1, 10 and 100.

Match results

The kh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. 2-8) and the fracture
half-length x
f
from the time match (Eq. 3-2). The fracture conductivity k
f
w
f
is
estimated from the match on the bi-linear flow 1/4 slope.


- 52 -

The fracture negative skin is defined by two terms: the geometrical skin of an
infinite conductivity fracture (Eq. 3-3), and a correction parameter G to account
for the pressure losses in the fracture.

f
w
f
f f
x
r
x k
w k
G S
2
ln
LKF
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
= ( 3-6)

10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
1
10
-1
10
-2
Dimensionless fracture conductivity, k
fD
w
fD
r
w
e
/
x
f
0.5
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
1
10
-1
10
-2
Dimensionless fracture conductivity, k
fD
w
fD
r
w
e
/
x
f
0.5 0.5

Figure 3-10 Effective wellbore radius for a well with a finite conductivity
fracture. Log-log scale.

3-3.3 Bi-linear and linear flow analyses

The fracture conductivity k
f
w
f
is estimated with Equation 1-18, the fracture half-
length form Equation 1-16.

3-3.4 Flux distribution along the fracture

0.5
5
k
fD
w
fD
>300
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
Dimensionless distance, x /x
f
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
f
l
u
x
,
q
f
D
3
2
1
0
Uniform flux
Infinite conductivity
Finite conductivity
0.5
5
k
fD
w
fD
>300
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
Dimensionless distance, x /x
f
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
f
l
u
x
,
q
f
D
3
2
1
0
Uniform flux
Finite conductivity
Uniform flux
Finite conductivity

Figure 3-11 Stabilized flux distribution.
Uniform flux, Infinite conductivity (k
fD
w
fD
> 300) and Finite conductivity
fracture (k
fD
w
fD
= 0.5 and 5) models.


- 53 -

3-4 Well in partial penetration
3-4.1 Definition

h
h
w
z
w
S
w
k
V
k
H h
h
w
z
w
S
w
k
V
k
H

Figure 3-12 Geometry of a partially penetrating well.

h
w
: open interval thickness
z
w
: distance of the center of the open interval to the lower reservoir boundary
k
H
: horizontal permeability
k
V
: vertical permeability


1. Wellbore storage.

2. Radial flow over the open interval : a first derivative plateau at 0.5 h/h
w
.
Results : permeability-thickness product for the open interval k
H
h
w
, and the
skin of the well, S
w
.

3. Spherical flow : -1/2 slope derivative straight line. Results : permeability
anisotropy k
H
/k
V
and location of the open interval in the reservoir thickness.

4. Radial flow over the entire reservoir thickness : second derivative stabilization
at 0.5. Results : permeability-thickness product for the total reservoir k
H
h, and
the total skin S
T.

The total skin combines the wellbore skin S
w
and an additional geometrical skin
S
pp
due to distortion of the flow lines, as depicted on Figure 1-21:

S
pp
is large when the penetration ratio h
w
/h or the vertical permeability k
V
is low
(high anisotropy k
H
/k
V
).
For damaged wells, the product (h/h
w
)S
w
can be larger than 100.

S
h
h
S S
T
w
w pp
= + ( 3-7)

A skin above 30 or 50 is indicative of a partial penetration effect.


- 54 -

Influence of k
V
/ k
H

10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
D
/C
D
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
k
V
/k
H
= 10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
first stabilization
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
D
/C
D
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
k
V
/k
H
= 10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
first stabilization
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1

Figure 3-13 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage
and skin. Log-log scale.
h
w
/h = 1/5 in center of the interval, C
D
= 33, S
w
=0, k
V
/ k
H
= 0.10, 0.01 and
0.001.

When the vertical permeability k
V
is low (low k
V
/k
H
), the start of the spherical
flow regime is delayed (-1/2 derivative slope moved to the right).

Influence of z
w
/h

10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
2
10
1
10
-1
D
/C
D
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
h
e
m
i-
s
p
h
e
r
ic
a
l s
p
h
e
r
ic
a
l
10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
2
10
1
10
-1
D
/C
D
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
h
e
m
i-
s
p
h
e
r
ic
a
l s
p
h
e
r
ic
a
l
10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
2
10
1
10
-1
D
/C
D
0.5 line
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
h
e
m
i-
s
p
h
e
r
ic
a
l s
p
h
e
r
ic
a
l

and skin. Log-log scale.
h
w
/h = 1/10, C
D
= 6, S
w
=0, k
V
/k
H
= 0.005, z
w
/h = 0.5 and 0.2.

Match results

The k
H
h product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. 2-8). The wellbore skin
S
w
and the penetration ratio h
w
/h are estimated from the first radial flow when
present (derivative plateau at 0.5 h/h
w
) :

h
h
p
p
m
m
w
= =
2nd stab.
1st stab.
2nd line
1st line
( 3-8)

The permeability anisotropy k
V
/k
H
and location of the open interval are estimated
from the spherical flow -1/2 slope match.


- 55 -


10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
40
30
20
10
0
D
/C
D
Slope m
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
D
k
V
/k
H
=
S
pp
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
40
30
20
10
0
D
/C
D
Slope m
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
D
k
V
/k
H
=
S
pp
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1

Influence of k
V
/ k
H
on S
pp
(S
w
=0).

The final semi-log straight line defines k
H
h and S
T
. When a first semi-log straight
line is seen (radial flow over the open interval), it defines the permeability-
thickness k
H
h
w
(penetration ratio h
w
/h with Eq. 3-8), and the wellbore skin S
w
.

3-4.5 Geometrical skin S
pp

When the penetration ratio h h
w
and the dimensionless reservoir thickness-
anisotropy group ( ) h r k k
w H V
are not very small, S
pp
can be expressed :

( )( )
( )( )
S
h
h
h
r
k
k
h
h
h
h
h
h
z h h z h
z h h z h
pp
w w w
w
w
w w
w w
=
|
\
|
.
|
|
\
|
.
| +
+
+ +

(
(
(
(
1
2
2
4 4
4 4
ln ln
H
V
( 3-9)

With h h
w
= 0.1 and k
H
/k
V
= 1000, S
pp
= 68 whereas with h h
w
= 0.5 and
k
H
/k
V
= 10, S
pp
= 6 only.

3-4.6 Spherical flow analysis

Plot of p versus 1 t . The straight line is frequently not well defined and the
analysis is difficult : on example k
V
/k
H
=10
-3
of Figure 3-13, the spherical flow
regime is established between t
D
/C
D
=10
4
and 10
6
. The straight line is very
compressed, it ends before
D D
C t 1 =0.01.


- 56 -

When the open interval is in the middle of the formation, the slope m
SPH
of the
spherical flow straight line gives the permeability anisotropy from Equations 1-20
and 1-21. If the open interval is close to the top or bottom sealing boundary, flow
is semi-spherical and the slope m
SPH
must be divided by two in Equation 1-20.

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
40
35
30
15
20
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
D
k
V
/k
H
=
slopes m
SPH
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
Dimensionless time function,
D D
C t 1
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
40
35
30
15
20
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
D
k
V
/k
H
=
slopes m
SPH
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
Dimensionless time function,
D D
C t 1 Dimensionless time function,
D D
C t 1
D D
C t 1

Figure 3-16 Spherical flow analysis of responses Figure 3-13. One over
square root of time plot.

3-4.7 Influence of the number of open segments

When the open interval is distributed in several segments, the ability of
vertical flow is improved compared to the single segment partially
penetrating well of same h
w
. On the examples Figure 3-17 with 1, 2 and 4
segments, the 1/2 slope is displaced towards early time when the number of
segments is increased (the global skin is respectively 17.9, 15.9 and 13.9).

D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
10
2
1 0
1
10
-1
segments
1
2
4
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
10
2
1 0
1
10
-1
segments
1
2
4
segments
1
2
4
segments
1
2
4

and skin. Log-log scale. One, two or four segments.
h
w
/h = 1/4, C
D
= 100, S
w
=0, k
V
/k
H
= 0.10, one segment centered, two or four
segments uniformly distributed in the interval.


- 57 -
3-4.8 Constant pressure upper or lower limit

In the case of a bottom water / oil contact or a gas cap on top of the producing
interval, no final radial flow regime develops after the spherical flow regime: the
pressure stabilizes and the derivative drops.

D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
10
2
1 0
1
10
-1
oil
water
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,

p
'
D
10
2
1 0
1
10
-1
oil
water
oil
water

Figure 3-18 Responses for a well in partial penetration with a bottom
constant pressure boundary. Log-log scale.
h
w
/h = 1/5, C
D
= 1000, S
w
=0, k
V
/k
H
= 0.005, one segment on top.
The dotted derivative curve describes the response with sealing upper and
lower boundaries.

3-5 Horizontal well

3-5.1 Definition

h
z
w
L L
k
H
k
H
k
V
h
z
w
L L
k
H
k
H
k
V

Figure 3-19 Horizontal well geometry.

L : effective half length of the horizontal well
z
w
: distance between the drain hole and the bottom-sealing boundary
k
H
: horizontal permeability
k
V
: vertical permeability


- 58 -

Vertical radial flow
Linear flow
Horizontal radial flow
Vertical radial flow
Linear flow
Horizontal radial flow

Figure 3-20 Horizontal well flow regimes.

1. Wellbore storage.
2. Vertical radial flow : a first derivative plateau at ( )
V H
k k L h 2 5 . 0 . Results :
the permeability anisotropy k
H
/k
V
and the wellbore skin S
w
(or the vertical
radial flow total skin S
TV
of Equation 3-15).
3. Linear flow between the upper and lower boundaries : 1/2 slope derivative
straight line. Results : effective half-length L and well location z
w
of the
horizontal drain.
4. Radial flow over the entire reservoir thickness : second derivative stabilization
at 0.5. Results : reservoir permeability-thickness product k
H
h, and the total skin
S
TH.


D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
0.5
First
stabilization
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
L k k
H V
2 C
k L
H
2
k h
H
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
0.5
First
stabilization
S
lo
p
e
1
/2
L k k
H V
2 C
k L
H
2
k h
H

Figure 3-21 Response for a horizontal well with wellbore storage and skin in a
reservoir with sealing upper and lower boundaries. Log-log scale.

With long drain holes, the 1/2 derivative slope is moved to the right and the first
derivative stabilization is moved down. When the vertical permeability is
increased, the first derivative stabilization is also moved down.


- 59 -

Match results

The k
H
h product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. 2-8). The effective
half-length L and well location z
w
are estimated from the intermediate time 1/2
slope match. The vertical radial flow total skin S
TV
and the permeability anisotropy
k
H
/k
V
are estimated from the first radial flow in the vertical plane (permeability
thickness 2 k k L
V H
and derivative plateau at ( ) 025 . h L k k
H V
).

Influence of L

The examples presented Figures 3-22 to 3-41 are generated with h = 100 ft and
r
w
= 0.25 ft.

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
L/h = 30
15
5
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
L/h = 30
15
5
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
L/h = 30
15
5

Figure 3-22 Influence of L on pressure and derivative log-log curves.
C
D
=1000, S
w
=5, k
V
/k
H
=0.004, r
w
=0.25ft, z
w
/h =0.5, L =3000, 1500 and
500ft.

When the effective well length is increased, the first derivative stabilization during
the vertical radial flow is lowered and the linear flow regime is delayed.

During the linear flow, the location of the half-unit slope straight line is a function
of L
2
.

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
L/h = 2.5, 5, 10
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
L/h = 2.5, 5, 10

SQRT (k
V
k
H
)*L constant, (p
1st stab
)
D
= 0.223. C
D
=100, S
w
=0, k
V
/k
H
=0.2,
L =250ft; k
V
/k
H
=0.05, L =500ft; k
V
/k
H
=0.0125, L =1000ft; h =100ft, r
w

=0.25ft, z
w
/h =0.5.


- 60 -

When the effective well length is short, the behavior becomes similar to that of a
well in partial penetration.

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
L/h = 2.5, 5, 10
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
L/h = 2.5, 5, 10

SQRT (k
V
k
H
)*L constant, (p
1st stab
)
D
=1. C
D
=100, S
w
=0, k
V
/k
H
=0.01,
L =250ft; k
V
/k
H
=0.0025, L =500ft; k
V
/k
H
=0.000625, L=1000ft; h =100ft,
r
w
=0.25ft, z
w
/h =0.5.

Influence of z
w

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
z
w
/h = 0.125, 0.25, 0.5
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
z
w
/h = 0.125, 0.25, 0.5

Figure 3-25 Influence of z
w
on pressure and derivative log-log curves.
C
D
=1000, S
w
=2, L =1500ft, k
V
/k
H
=0.02, h =100ft, r
w
=0.25ft, z
w
/h =0.5,
0.25, 0.125.

3-5.4 Dimensionless variables

In the derivation of the model, the lengths are transformed in order to introduce the
permeability anisotropy between vertical and horizontal directions. The apparent
open interval thickness h
a
, the position of the horizontal drain hole with respect to
the lower boundary of the zone z
wa
, and the apparent wellbore radius are defined
as:


- 61 -
V
H
a
k
k
h h = (ft, m) ( 3-10)

V
H
w wa
k
k
z z = (ft, m) ( 3-11)

[ ]
4 4
2
1
V H H V w wa
k k k k r r + = (ft, m) ( 3-12)

Several authors use the ratio h
D
of the apparent thickness h
a
of Equation 3-10, by
the well half-length L, as a leading parameter of horizontal well behavior.

V
H a
D
k
k
L
h
L
h
h = = ( 3-13)

3-5.5 Vertical radial flow semi-log analysis

(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
=
4 4
2
2
1
log 2 87 . 0
23 . 3 log
2
6 . 162
V
H
H
V
w
w t
H V
H V
k
k
k
k
S
r c
t k k
L k k
qB
p

(psi, field units)

(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
=
4 4
2
2
1
log 2 87 . 0
10 . 3 log
2
5 . 21
V
H
H
V
w
w t
H V
H V
k
k
k
k
S
r c
t k k
L k k
qB
p


The skin S
TV
measured during the vertical radial flow is expressed with the
wellbore skin S
w
and the anisotropy skin S
ani
of Equation 3-34 :

S S S S
k k k k
TV w ani w
V H H V
= + =
+
ln
4 4
2
( 3-15)

Sometimes, the vertical radial flow skin is expressed as S
'
TV
, defined with
reference to the equivalent fully penetrating vertical well :

TV D TV
V
H
TV
S h S
k
k
L
h
S 5 . 0
2
'
= = ( 3-16)


- 62 -


p
qB
Lh
t
c k
qB
k k L
S
qB
k h
S
t H V H
w
H
z
= + +
8128
2
1412
2
1412 . . .

(psi, field units)
z
H
w
H V
H t
S
h k
qB
S
L k k
qB
k c
t
h L
qB
p

66 . 18
2
66 . 18
2
246 . 1
+ +
= (Bars, metric units)( 3-17)

During the linear flow regime, the flow lines are distorted vertically before
reaching the horizontal well, producing a partial penetration skin S
z
.

S
k
k
h
L
r
h
k
k
z
h
z
H
V
w V
H
w
= +
|
\
|
.
|
|
\
|
.
|
(
(
1151 1 . log sin

( 3-18)

3-5.7 Horizontal pseudo-radial flow semi-log analysis

p
qB
k h
k t
c r
S
H
H
t w
TH
= +
(
162 6 323 087
2
. log . .
(psi, field units)

(
(
=
TH
w t
H
H
S
r c
t k
h k
qB
p 87 . 0 10 . 3 log 5 . 21
2

S
TH
measured during the horizontal radial flow combines S
'
TV
of Equation 3.16
and the geometrical skin S
G
of the horizontal well (function of the logarithm of
the well effective length and a partial penetration skin S
zT
, close to the linear flow
skin S
z
of Equation 3.18) :

S
h
L
k
k
S S
TH
H
V
w G
= +
2
( 3-20)

S
L
r
S
G
w
zT
= + 081 . ln ( 3-21)

|
|
.
|
\
|
+
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
2
2
2
2
3
1
5 . 0
sin 1 log 151 . 1
h
z
h
z
L
h
k
k
h
z
k
k
h
r
L
h
k
k
S
w w
V
H
w
H
V w
V
H
zT

( 3-22)


- 63 -

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
D
z
w
/h = 0 .125
0.25
0.5
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
4
3
2
1
0
S
l
o
p
e
s

m
H
R
F
Slope m
VRF
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
D
z
w
/h = 0 .125
0.25
0.5
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
4
3
2
1
0
S
l
o
p
e
s

m
H
R
F
Slope m
VRF


Dimensionless half length, L/r
w
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
s
k
i
n
,

S
G

10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
2
0
- 2
- 4
- 6
- 8
- 10
k
V
/k
H
= 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001
k
V
/k
H
=
z
w
/h =0.5
z
w
/h =0.1
w
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
s
k
i
n
,

S
G

10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
2
0
- 2
- 4
- 6
- 8
- 10
k
V
/k
H
= 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001
k
V
/k
H
=
z
w
/h =0.5
z
w
/h =0.1

Figure 3-27 Semi-log plot of the geometrical skin S
G
versus L/r
w
.
Influence of k
V
/k
H
. h/r
w
=1000, z
w
/h=0.5, 0.1.

w
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
s
k
i
n
,

S
G

10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
2
0
- 2
- 4
- 6
- 8
- 10
1000 2000 4000
k
V
/k
H
=
z
w
/h =0.5
z
w
/h =0.1
h/r
w
= 500
w
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
s
k
i
n
,

S
G

10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
2
0
- 2
- 4
- 6
- 8
- 10
1000 2000 4000
k
V
/k
H
=
z
w
/h =0.5
z
w
/h =0.1
h/r
w
= 500

Figure 3-28 Semi-log plot of the geometrical skin S
G
versus L/r
w
.
Influence of h/r
w
. k
V
/k
H
=0.1, z
w
/h=0.5, 0.1.


- 64 -

3-5.8 Discussion of the horizontal well model

Several well conditions can produce a pressure gradient in the reservoir, parallel to
the wellbore. The vertical radial flow regime is then distorted, and the derivative
response deviates from the usual stabilization at ( ) 025 . h L k k
H V
). During
horizontal radial flow, the geometrical skin can be larger or smaller than S
G
of
Equation 3-21 and 3-22.

Non-uniform mechanical skin

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
Skin S
wi
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
Skin S
wi
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
Skin S
wi

Figure 3-29 Influence of non-uniform skin on pressure and derivative curves.
C
D
= 100, L =1000 ft, h =100 ft, r
w
=0.25 ft, z
w
/h =0.5, k
V
/k
H
=0.1. The well is
divided in 4 segments of 500 ft with skins of S
wi
=4, 4, 4, 4 (uniform damage),
S
wi
=8, 5.33, 2.66, 0 (skin decreasing along the well length), S
wi
=0, 8, 8, 0
(damage in the central section), S
wi
=8, 0, 0, 8 (damage at the two ends).

The two ends of the well are more sensitive to skin damage (the total skin S
TH
is
more negative on the curve S
wi
=0, 8, 8, 0).

Finite conductivity horizontal well

When the pressure gradients in the wellbore are comparable to pressure gradients
in the reservoir, the flow is three-dimensional (pseudo-spherical), and the
derivative is displaced upwards during the early time response. During horizontal
radial flow, the total skin S
TH
is less negative.

Partially open horizontal well

When only some sections of the well are open to flow, the response first
corresponds to a horizontal well with the total length of the producing segments.
Later, each segment acts like a horizontal well, and several horizontal radial flow
regimes are established until interference effects between the producing sections
are felt. Then, the final horizontal radial flow regime is reached for the complete


- 65 -
drain hole. The more distributed the producing sections, the more negative the
total skin S
TH
.

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
0.5
0.25
0.125
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
0.5
0.25
0.125

Figure 3-30 Influence of number of open segments on pressure and
derivative log-log curves. Total half-length 2000 ft, effective half-length 500 ft.
C
D
=100, 1, 2, 4 segments with S
wi
=0, L
eff
= L /4, L =2000ft, h =100ft,
r
w
=0.25ft, z
w
/ h =0.5, k
V
/k
H
=0.1.

When the producing segments are uniformly distributed along the drain hole, the
total skin S
TH
can be very negative even with a low penetration ratio. On the
examples Figure 3-31, with penetration ratios of 100, 50, 25 and 12.5%, S
TH
is
respectively 7.9, -7.4, -6.6 and 5.1.

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
100%
50%
25%
12.5%
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
100%
50%
25%
12.5%

Figure 3-31 Influence of the penetration ratio on pressure and derivative log-
log curves. Four segments equally spaced.
C
D
=100, 4 segments with S
wi
=0, L
eff
= L /8, L /4, L /2 and L, L =2000ft,
h =100ft, r
w
=0.25ft, z
w
/h =0.5, k
V
/k
H
=0.1.

Non-rectilinear horizontal well

During the vertical radial flow, the upper and lower sealing boundaries can be
reached at different times when the well is not strictly horizontal. The transition
between vertical radial flow and linear flow is then distorted.


- 66 -
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2

Figure 3-32 Non-rectilinear horizontal wells. Pressure and derivative curves.
C
D
=100, L =2000ft (500+1000+500), S
wi
=0, h =100ft, r
w
=0.25ft, k
V
/ k
H
=0.1,
(z
w
/ h)
i
=0.5 or 0.95 (average 0.725).

Anisotropic horizontal permeability

In anisotropic reservoirs, horizontal well responses are also sensitive to the well
orientation.

k
y
k
x
k
z
k k L
z y
2 k L
y
2
k k h
x y
k
y
k
x
k
z
k
y
k
x
k
z
k k L
z y
2 k L
y
2
k k h
x y

Figure 3-33 Horizontal permeability anisotropy.
Effective permeability during the three characteristic flow regimes towards a
horizontal well.

The final horizontal radial flow regime defines the average horizontal permeability
k k k H
x y
= . During the linear flow regime, only the permeability k
y
normal the
well orientation is acting. At early time, the average permeability during the
vertical radial flow is k k
z y
.

1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
p
D

&

p
D
'
k k L
z y
2
k k h
x y
k L
y
2

Figure 3-34 Influence of the permeability anisotropy during the three
characteristic flow regimes.


- 67 -

When the isotropic horizontal permeability model is used for analysis, the apparent
effective half-length is :

L k k L
a y x
=
4
(ft, m) ( 3-23)

(the vertical permeability k
z
is unchanged).

k
x
k
y
k
x
k
y
k
x
k
y
k
x
k
y

Figure 3-35 Horizontal well normal to the maximum permeability direction :
apparent effective length increased.

k
x
k
y
k
x
k
y
k
x
k
y
k
x
k
y

Figure 3-36 Horizontal well in the direction of maximum permeability :
apparent effective length decreased.

Horizontal wells should be drilled preferably in the minimum permeability
direction.

Changes in vertical permeability

In a layered reservoir with crossflow, the horizontal radial flow regime gives the
average horizontal permeability :

k k h h H
Hi i
n
i
n
=

1 1
(mD) ( 3-24)

During the vertical radial flow, the changes of permeability are acting in series.
When the contrast in vertical permeability is not too large, the resulting average
vertical permeability is defined (assuming the well is centered in layer j) :

k
h h
h k h k
h h
h k h k
V
i j
j
i Vi j Vj
j
i j
j
n
i Vi j Vj
j
n
=
+
+
+
+
+
|
\
|
.
|
|
|
|
+
+
05
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
. (mD) ( 3-25)


- 68 -
In the example Figure 3-37 with n=3 and j=2, the match with a homogeneous layer
is defined with k k H
H
= 107
2
. and ( ) k k k V
H H
= + = 05 0 082 0 028 0 0514
2
. . . . .

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
One equivalent layer
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
One equivalent layer

Figure 3-37 Horizontal well in a reservoir 3 layers with crossflow. Pressure
and derivative log-log curves.
C
D
=100, L =1000ft, S
w
=0, h =100ft (30+30+40), r
w
=0.25ft, z
w
/h =0.55 (well
centered in h
2
), k
H1
/k
H2
=1.5, k
H3
/k
H2
=0.8, (k
V
/k
H
)
1
=0.08, (k
V
/k
H
)
2
=0.05, (k
V
/
k
H
)
3
=0.03. One layer: k
H
= (k
1
h
1
+ k
2
h
2
+ k
3
h
3
) / (h
1
+h
2
+h
3
), k
V
/k
H
=0.0514.

On Figure 3-38, a thin reduced permeability interval is introduced in the main
layer. When a homogeneous layer of total thickness is used for analysis, the
effective well length is too small and the vertical permeability over-estimated.

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
One layer =
h
1
+h
2
+h
3
h
3
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
One layer =
h
1
+h
2
+h
3
h
3

Figure 3-38 Horizontal well in a reservoir 3 layers with crossflow. Pressure
and derivative log-log curves.
C
D
= 100, L = 1000 ft, S
w
=0, h =100 ft (h
1
=45ft, h
2
=5ft, h
3
=50ft), k
1
=k
3
=100k
2
,
r
w
=0.25 ft, (k
V
/k
H
)
i
=0.1, z
w
/h = 0.25 (well centered in h
3
).
One layer (h
1
+h
2
+h
3
) : k= (k
1
h
1
+ k
2
h
2
+ k
3
h
3
) / (h
1
+h
2
+h
3
), L = 550 ft,
S
w
=-0.2, k
V
/k
H
=0.4, z
w
/h = 0. 5 (well centered in h
1
+h
2
+h
3
).
One layer (h
3
) : k= k
3
, L = 1000 ft, S
w
=0, k
V
/k
H
=0.1, z
w
/h = 0. 5 (well
centered in h
3
).

Presence of a gas cap or bottom water drive

When the constant pressure boundary is reached at the end of the vertical radial
flow regime (or hemi radial in the examples Figure 3-39), the pressure stabilizes
and the derivative drops. It the thickness of the gas zone is not large enough, the
derivative stabilizes at late time to describe the total oil + gas mobility thickness.


- 69 -

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
No gas cap
h
gas
h
oil
h
gas
= 20 ft
100 ft
500 ft
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
No gas cap
h
gas
h
oil
h
gas
= 20 ft
100 ft
500 ft

Figure 3-39 Horizontal well in a reservoir with gas cap and sealing bottom
boundary. Pressure and derivative log-log curves.
C
D
= 100, L = 1000 ft, S
w
=2, h =100 ft, r
w
=0.25 ft, (k
V
/k
H
)=0.1, z
w
/h = 0.2
(well close to the bottom boundary). Gas cap : h
gas
= 0.20, 1.0, 5.0 h,
gas
=0.01
oil
, c
t gas
=10 c
t oil
.

3-5.9 Other horizontal well models

Multilateral horizontal well

As for partially penetrating horizontal wells, the different branches of multilateral
wells start to produce independently until interference effects between the
branches distort the response. At later time, pseudo radial flow towards the
multilateral horizontal well develops.

In the case of intersecting multilateral horizontal wells in reservoir with isotropic
horizontal permeability, increasing the number of branches does not improve the
productivity. With the examples of Figure 3-40, the total skin S
TH
of the horizontal
well is S
TH
=-6.8 (one branch) and respectively 6.6 and 6.2 with two and four
branches.

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2

Figure 3-40 Multilateral horizontal wells. Pressure and derivative curves.
C
D
= 100, L = 1000 ft (500+500 or 250+250+250+250), S
wi
=0, h =100 ft,
r
w
=0.25 ft, k
V
/k
H
=0.1, z
w
/h = 0.5.


- 70 -
When the distance between the two producing segments is large enough, the
response becomes independent of the orientation of the branches. The responses
Figure 3-41 tend to be equivalent to the example with two segments of Figure 3-
30. The total skin S
TH
is more negative when the distance between the branches is
increased. For the two multilateral horizontal wells of Figure 3-41, S
TH
=-7.1 (and
S
TH
=-6.8 with one branch).

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2

Figure 3-41 Multilateral horizontal wells. Pressure and derivative curves.
C
D
= 100, L = 1000 ft (500+500), S
wi
=0, h =100 ft, r
w
=0.25 ft, k
V
/k
H
=0.1, z
w
/h
= 0.5. The distance between the 2 parallel branches is 2000ft, on the second
example the intersection point is at 1000ft from the start of the 2 segments.

Fractured horizontal well

Two configurations are considered : longitudinal and transverse fractures. At early
time, the different fractures produce independently until interference effects are
felt. With longitudinal fractures, bi-linear and linear flow regimes can be observed,
possibly followed by horizontal radial flow around the different fractures. For a
single fracture of half-length x
f
, the slope m
BLF
and m
LF
are expressed :

4
11 . 44
H t f f
BLF
k c w k x
qB
m

= (psi.hr
-1/4
, field units)
4
28 . 6
H t f f f
BLF
k c w k x
qB
m
= (Bars.hr
-1/4

t H f
LF
c k x h
qB
m
06 . 4 = (psi.hr
-1/2
, field units)
H t f
LF
k c x h
qB
m
623 . 0 = (Bars.hr
-1/2

With transverse fractures, the flow is first linear in the formation and radial in the
fracture, it changes into linear flow, and later into the horizontal radial flow regime
around the fracture segments. The radial linear flow regime yields a semi-log
straight line whose slope is function of the fracture conductivity. For a single
transverse fracture of radius r
f
, the slope m
RLF
and m
LF
are:


- 71 -
w k
qB
m
f
RLF
3 . 81 = (psi, field units)

f f
RLF
w k
qB
m

75 . 10 = (Bars, metric units) ( 3-28)

H t f
LF
k c r h
qB
m
17 . 5 = (psi.hr
-1/2
, field units)
H t f
LF
k c r h
qB
m
793 . 0 = (Bars.hr
-1/2

Once the interference effect between the different fractures is fully developed, the
final pseudo radial flow regime towards the fractured horizontal well establishes.
As for partially open horizontal wells, the time of start of the final regime is a
function of the distance between the outermost fractures.

3-6 Skin factors

3-6.1 Anisotropy pseudo-skin

An equivalent transformed isotropic reservoir model of average radial permeability
is used, by a transformation of variables in the two main directions of permeability
k
max
and k
min
. With

k k k =
max min
(mD) ( 3-30)

x x
k
k
x
k
k
'
max
min
max
= = 4 (ft, m) ( 3-31)

y y
k
k
y
k
k
'
min
max
min
= = 4 (ft, m) ( 3-32)

The wellbore is changed into an ellipse whose area is the same as in the original
system, but the perimeter is increased. The elliptical well behaves like a cylindrical
hole whose apparent radius is the average of the major and minor axes, and
produces an apparent negative skin :

[ ]
r r k k k k
wa w
= +
1
2
4 4
min max max min
(ft, m) ( 3-33)


- 72 -
S
k k k k
k k
k
ani
=
+
=
+
ln
ln
min max max min
min max
4 4
2
2
( 3-34)

S
ani
is in general low but, for horizontal wells, when k
V
/k
H
<<1, S
ani
=-1 may be
observed.

3-6.2 Geometrical skin

A B C A B C

Figure 3-42 Configuration of wells A, B and C.
A = fully penetrating vertical well, B = well in partial penetration,
C = horizontal well.

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
S
G
>0
S
G
<0
A : vertical well
B : partial penetration
C : horizontal well
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
S
G
>0
S
G
<0
A : vertical well
C : horizontal well

Figure 3-43 Pressure and derivative response of wells A, B and C. Log-log
scale.


- 73 -

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

10
-2
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
30
20
10
0
S
G
>0
S
G
<0
A : vertical well
C : horizontal well
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

10
-2
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
30
20
10
0
S
G
>0
S
G
<0
S
G
>0
S
G
<0
A : vertical well
C : horizontal well

Figure 3-44 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-43 examples.

3-6.3 The different skin factors

Name Description Type
S
w

Infinitesimal skin at the wellbore. Positive or negative
S
G

Geometrical skin due to the streamline curvature
(fractured, partial penetration, slanted or horizontal
wells).
Positive or negative
S
ani

Skin factor due to the anisotropy of the reservoir
permeability.
Negative
S
RC

Skin factor due to a change of reservoir mobility
near the wellbore (permeability or fluid property,
radial composite behavior).
Positive or negative
S
2

Skin factor due to the fissures in a double porosity
reservoir.
Negative
D.q
Turbulent or inertial effects on gas wells. Positive

- 74 -

- 75 -

4 - FISSURED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE
POROSITY MODELS

4-1 Definitions

4-1.1 Permeability

The fluid flows to the well through the fissure system only and the radial
permeability of the matrix system does not contribute to the mobility (k
m
= 0).

The permeability thickness product kh estimated by the interpretation is used to
define an equivalent bulk permeability of the fissure network, over the complete
thickness h:

kh k h
f f
= (mD.ft, mD.m) ( 4-1)

Fissure
Matrix
Vug
Fissure
Matrix
Vug
Fissure
Matrix
Vug

Figure 4-1 Example of double porosity reservoir, fissured and multiple-layer
formations.

4-1.2 Porosity

f
and
m
: ratio of pore volume in the fissures (or in the matrix), to the total
volume of the fissures (of the matrix).

V
f
and V
m
: ratio of the total volume of the fissures (or matrix) to the reservoir
volume (V
f
+ V
m
= 1).

= +
f f m m
V V ( 4-2)

In practice,
f
and V
m
are close to 1. The average porosity of Equation 4.2 can be
simplified as :

= + V
f m
( 4-3)

4-1.3 Storativity ratio

( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )
=
+
=
+
Vc
Vc Vc
Vc
Vc
t
f
t
f
t
m
t
f
t
f m
( 4-4)

Chapter 4 - Fissured reservoirs

- 76 -

4-1.4 Interporosity flow parameter

= r
k
k
w
m
f
2
( 4-5)

is related to the geometry of the fissure network, defined with the number n of
families of fissure planes. For n = 3, the matrix blocks are cubes (or spheres) and,
for n = 1, they are slab.

=
+ n n
r
m
( ) 2
2
(ft
-2
, m
-2
) ( 4-6)

r
m
is the characteristic size of the matrix blocks. It is defined as the ratio of the
volume V of the matrix blocks, to the surface area A of the blocks :

r nV A
m
= (ft, m) ( 4-7)

When a skin effect (S
m
in dimensionless term) is present at the surface of the
matrix blocks, the matrix to fissure flow is called restricted interporosity flow.

S
k
r
h
k
m
m
m
d
d
= ( 4-8)

n=3, cubes
h
d
k
m
r
m
k
d
n=1, slabs

Figure 4-2 Matrix skin. Slab and sphere matrix blocks.

The analysis with the restricted interporosity flow model (pseudo-steady state
interporosity flow) provides the effective interporosity flow parameter
eff
:

eff
= n
r
r h
k
k
w
m d
d
f
2
( 4-9)

eff
is independent of the matrix block permeability k
m
.


- 77 -

p
kh
qB
p
D
=
1412 .
(field units)
p
qB
kh
p
D
=
66 . 18

t
C
kh t
C
D
D
= 0 000295 .
(field units)
C
t kh
C
t
D
D

=
00223 . 0 (metric units) ( 4-11)

( )
C
C
Vc hr
Df
t
f
w
=
08936
2
.
(field units)
( )
2
1592 . 0
w f t
Df
hr Vc
C
C

( )
C
C
Vc hr
Df m
t
f m
w
+
+
=
08936
2
.
(field units)
( )
2
1592 . 0
w m f t
m Df
hr Vc
C
C
+
+
=

The storativity ratio correlates the two definitions of dimensionless wellbore
storage :

C C
Df m Df +
= ( 4-14)

4-2 Double porosity behavior, restricted interporosity flow
(pseudo-steady state interporosity flow)


Pressure type curves

Three component curves :

1. - (C
D
e
2S
)
f
at early time, during fissure flow.

2. -
eff
e
-2S
during transition regime, between the two homogeneous behaviors.

3. - (C
D
e
2S
)
f+m
at late time, when total system behavior is reached.


- 78 -
A double porosity response goes from a high value (C
D
e
2S
)
f
when the storativity
corresponds to fissures, to a lower value (C
D
e
2S
)
f+m
when total system is acting.

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
=
Start of semi-log radial flow
10
30
10
3
10
10
5
5x10
-3
0.1
e
-2S
= 10
-30
10
-10
10
-6
10
-2
0.5
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
3
10
10
5
5x10
-3
0.1
e
-2S
= 10
-30
10
-10
10
-6
10
-2
0.5
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
3
10
10
5
5x10
-3
0.1
10
30
10
3
10
10
5
5x10
-3
0.1
e
-2S
= 10
-30
10
-10
10
-6
10
-2
0.5

Figure 4-3 Pressure type-curve for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity flow.

Typical responses

The limit "approximate start of the semi-log straight line" shows that the wellbore
storage stops during the fissure regime with example A. With example B, wellbore
storage lasts until the transition regime and, during the fissure regime, the fissure
(C
D
e
2S
)
f
curve does not reach the semi-log straight-line approximation.

D
/C
D
5x10
-3
10
30
10
4
10
10
10
5
1
0.1
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
=
e
-2S
= 10
-30
10
-2
3x10
-4
10
-7
A
B
D
/C
D
5x10
-3
10
30
10
4
10
10
10
5
1
0.1
5x10
-3
10
30
10
4
10
10
10
5
1
0.1
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
=
e
-2S
= 10
-30
10
-2
3x10
-4
10
-7
A
B
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
=
e
-2S
= 10
-30
10
-2
3x10
-4
10
-7
e
-2S
= 10
-30
10
-2
3x10
-4
10
-7
A
B

Figure 4-4 Pressure examples for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity flow.
o = A : (C
D
e
2S
)
f
= 1, (C
D
e
2S
)
f+m
= 0.1, = 0.1,
eff
e
-2S
= 3.10
-4
.
= B : (C
D
e
2S
)
f
= 10
5
, (C
D
e
2S
)
f+m
= 10
4
, = 0.1,
eff
e
-2S
= 10
-7
.

On semi-log scale, two parallel straight lines are present with example A. With
example B, only the total system straight line is seen.


- 79 -
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
B
A
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
B
A
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m


D
/C
D
5x10
-3
10
30
10
10
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
=
10
4
1
0.1
e
-2S
= 10
-30
10
-2
10
5
3x10
-4
10
-7
C
D
/(1-) = 10
-2
3x10
-4
3x10
-5
C
D
/(1-) 10
-3
10
30
10
10
10
5
1
B
B
A
A
0.1
D
/C
D
5x10
-3
10
30
10
10
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
=
10
4
1
0.1
e
-2S
= 10
-30
10
-2
10
5
3x10
-4
10
-7
C
D
/(1-) = 10
-2
3x10
-4
3x10
-5
C
D
/(1-) 10
-3
10
30
10
10
10
5
1
B
B
A
A
0.1
5x10
-3
10
30
10
10
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
=
10
4
1
0.1
e
-2S
= 10
-30
10
-2
10
5
3x10
-4
10
-7
C
D
/(1-) = 10
-2
3x10
-4
3x10
-5
C
D
/(1-) 10
-3
10
30
10
10
10
5
1
B
B
A
A
0.1

Figure 4-6 Pressure and derivative examples of Figure 4-4 for a well with
wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state
interporosity flow.
eff
C
Df+m
/(1-) =10
-2
, 3x10
-4
.
eff
C
Df+m
/(1-) = 10
-3
, 3x10
-5
.

With the derivative, example A shows two stabilizations on 0.5. The derivative of
example B stabilizes on 0.5 only during the total system homogeneous regime.

On the derivative type-curve, the transition is described with two curves, labeled
( )
( )
[ ]

eff
C
D f m +
1 (decreasing derivative) and
( )
( )
eff
C
D f m +
1 .

Match results

( ) PM 2 . 141 qB kh = (mD.ft, field units)
( ) PM 66 . 18 qB kh = (mD.m, metric units) ( 2-8)

|
.
|
\
|
=
TM
1
000295 . 0
kh


- 80 -
|
.
|
\
|
=
TM
1
00223 . 0
kh
C (m
3

( )
S
C e
C
D
S
f m
Df m
=
+
+
05
2
. ln ( 4-15)

( )
( )
=
+
C e
C e
D
S
f m
D
S
f
2
2
( 4-16)

( )

eff eff
=

e e
S S 2 2
( 4-17)

Pressure and derivative response

When the three characteristic regimes of the restricted interporosity flow model
are developed, the derivative exhibits a valley shaped transition between the two
stabilizations on 0.5.

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
1
10
-1
0.5 line
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
1
10
-1
0.5 line

Figure 4-7 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage
in double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.
C
Df+m
= 10
3
, S = 0, = 0.1,
eff
= 6.10
-8

(C
D
e
2S
f
=10
4
,
eff
e
-2S
= 6.10
-8
and C
D
e
2S
f+m
= 10
3
)

4-2.2 Influence of the heterogeneous parameters and
eff

Influence of

With small values, the transition regime from C
D
e
2S
f
to C
D
e
2S
f+m
is long. On
the derivative responses, the transition valley drops when is reduced. On semi-
log scale, the first straight line is displaced upwards and the horizontal transition
between the two parallel lines is longer.


- 81 -
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-1
= 10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
= 10
-3
0.5
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-1
= 10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
= 10
-3
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-1
= 10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
= 10
-3
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-1
= 10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
= 10
-3
0.5

Figure 4-8 Double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.
Influence of . Log-log scale.
C
Df+m
=1, S =0,
eff
=10
-7
and =10
-1
, 10
-2
and 10
-3

D
/C
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
-1
s
lo
p
e
m
10
-2
= 10
-3
s
lo
p
e
m
D
/C
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
-1
s
lo
p
e
m
10
-2
= 10
-3
s
lo
p
e
m
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
-1
s
lo
p
e
m
10
-2
= 10
-3
s
lo
p
e
m


Influence of
eff

The interporosity flow parameter defines the time of end of the transition regime.
The smaller is
eff
, the later the start of total system flow. On the pressure curves,
the transition regime occurs at a higher amplitude and, on the derivative responses,
the transition valley is displaced towards late times.

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
= 10
-6
, 10
-7
, 10
-8
10
-6
= 10
-8
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
= 10
-6
, 10
-7
, 10
-8
10
-6
= 10
-8
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
= 10
-6
, 10
-7
, 10
-8
10
-6
= 10
-8

Figure 4-10 Double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.
Influence of
eff
. Log-log scale.
C
Df+m
=100, S =0, =0.02 and
eff
=10
-6
, 10
-7
and 10
-8


- 82 -
D
/C
D
12
8
4
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
-6
10
-7
= 10
-8
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
D
/C
D
12
8
4
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
-6
10
-7
= 10
-8
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
10
-6
10
-7
= 10
-8
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m


4-2.3 Analysis of the semi-log straight lines

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
s
lo
p
e
m
Double porosity
Homogeneous
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
s
lo
p
e
m
Double porosity
Homogeneous
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
s
lo
p
e
m
Double porosity
Homogeneous

Figure 4-12 Semi-log plot of homogeneous and double porosity responses.
C
D
= C
Df+m
= 100, S = 0, = 0.01 and
eff
= 10
-6

During fissure flow, when the first semi-log line is present,

( ) (
(
+ + = S
r Vc
k
t
kh
qB
p
w f t
87 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2

(psi, field units)

( ) (
(
+ + = S
r c V
k
t
kh
qB
p
w f t
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 5 . 21
2

(Bars, metric units)(4-18)

The second line, for the total system regime is :

( ) (
(
+ + =
+
S
r Vc
k
t
kh
qB
p
w m f t
87 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2

(psi, field units)


- 83 -
( ) (
(
+ + =
+
S
r c V
k
t
kh
qB
p
w m f t
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 5 . 21
2


The vertical distance p between the two lines gives :

=

10
p m
( 4-20)

When only the first semi-log straight line for fissure regime is present, if the total
storativity is used instead of that of the fissure system, the calculation of the skin
gives an over estimated value S
f
:

S S
f
= + 05
1
. ln
( 4-21)


Log-log pressure build-up analysis

When the production time t
p
is small, the three characteristic regimes of a double
porosity response are not always fully developed on build-up pressure curves.
Whatever long are the three build-up examples of Figure 4-13, only example A
3

exhibits a clear double porosity response. The build-up curve A
1
does not show a
double porosity behavior, but only the build-up response of the fissures. For
example A
2
, the build-up curve flattens at the same p level as the
eff
e
-2S

transition, there is no evidence of total system flow regime.

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Homogeneous behaviour,
( fissures C
D
e
2S
f
= 1 and total system C
D
e
2S
f+m
= 0.1)
Double porosity,
( drawdown and build-up)
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
t
p1
= 10
2
t
p2
= 9x10
3
t
p3
= 3x10
5
A
3
A
2
A
1
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
Homogeneous behaviour,
( fissures C
D
e
2S
f
= 1 and total system C
D
e
2S
f+m
= 0.1)
Double porosity,
( drawdown and build-up)
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
t
p1
= 10
2
t
p2
= 9x10
3
t
p3
= 3x10
5
A
3
A
2
A
1

Figure 4-13 Drawdown and build-up pressure responses for a well with
wellbore storage and skin in double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state
interporosity flow. Log-log scale.
C
Df+m
= 0.1, S = 0, = 0.1,
eff
= 3.10
-4
(C
D
e
2S
f
=1,
eff
e
-2S
= 3.10
-4
and
C
D
e
2S
f+m
= 0.1). t
pD
/C
D
= 100 (A
1
), 9.10
3
(A
2
), 3.10
5
(A
3
).


- 84 -
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
8
6
4
2
0
drawdown
build-up
A
3
A
2
A
1
t
p3
= 3x10
5
t
p1
= 10
2
t
p2
= 9x10
3
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
8
6
4
2
0
drawdown
build-up
A
3
A
2
A
1
t
p3
= 3x10
5
t
p1
= 10
2
t
p2
= 9x10
3
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
8
6
4
2
0
drawdown
build-up
A
3
A
2
A
1
t
p3
= 3x10
5
t
p1
= 10
2
t
p2
= 9x10
3
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m

Figure 4-14 Semi-log plot of drawdown and build-up pressure responses of
Figure 4-13.

Horner & superposition analysis

In example A
3
, the initial pressure p
i
is obtained by extrapolation of the second
straight line, the first one extrapolates to p
i
+ m ln (1/). If the drawdown stops
during the transition (example A
2
), only the first semi-log straight is seen and its
extrapolated pressure p* is between p
i
and p
i
+ m ln (1/), depending upon t
p
.

Horner time, (t
pD
+ t
D
)/ t
D
1 10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
-6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,

(
p

-
p
i
)
D
0
-2
-4
-6
p* > p
i
s
lo
p
e
m
A
1
s
lo
p
e
m
p* = p
i
A
2
A
3
Horner time, (t
pD
+ t
D
)/ t
D
1 10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
-6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,

(
p

-
p
i
)
D
0
-2
-4
-6
p* > p
i
s
lo
p
e
m
A
1
s
lo
p
e
m
p* = p
i
A
2
A
3

Figure 4-15 Horner plot of the three Build-ups of Figure 4-13.
A
1
(t
pD
/C
D
= 100), A
2
(t
pD
/C
D
= 9.10
3
) and A
3
(t
pD
/C
D
= 3.10
5
).

Derivative build-up analysis

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Build-up
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
1
10
-1
10
-2
A
3
A
1
A
2
0.5
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Build-up
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
1
10
-1
10
-2
A
3
A
1
A
2
A
1
A
2
0.5

Figure 4-16 Drawdown and build-up derivative responses of Figure 4-13.


- 85 -

4-3 Double porosity behavior, unrestricted interporosity flow
(transient interporosity flow)


Pressure type-curve

Two pressure curves :

1. - ' at early time, during transition regime before the homogeneous behavior of
the total system

2. - (C
D
e
2S
)
f+m
later, when the homogeneous total system flow is reached

The two families of curves have the same shape: the ' transition curves are
equivalent to C
D
e
2S
curves whose pressure and time are divided by a factor of two.

' is defined as :

( )

' ' =
+
C e
e
D
S
f m
S
2
2
( 4-22)

The constant ' is related to the geometry of the matrix system. For slab matrix
blocks '=1.89, and for sphere matrix blocks ' = 1.05.

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
3
10
10
5
5x10
-3
0.1
' = 10
30
10
10
10
3
5
0.1
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
3
10
10
5
5x10
-3
0.1
10
30
10
3
10
10
5
5x10
-3
0.1
' = 10
30
10
10
10
3
5
0.1
' = 10
30
10
10
10
3
5
0.1

Figure 4-17 Pressure type-curve for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow.


- 86 -

Typical responses

A long transition on a ' curve is seen on example A. With example B, the
wellbore storage is large, and the transition is shorter on the t
D
/C
D
time scale.

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
10
10
0.1
6x10
3
' = 10
30
5
10
6
10
10
A
B
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
10
10
0.1
6x10
3
' = 10
30
5
10
6
10
10
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
10
10
0.1
6x10
3
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
10
10
0.1
6x10
3
' = 10
30
5
10
6
10
10
A
B

Figure 4-18 Pressure examples for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, and slab matrix
blocks.
o = A : (C
D
e
2S
)
f+m
= 10, = 0.001, ' = 10
6
, e
-2S
= 1.8914*10
-5
.
= B : (C
D
e
2S
)
f+m
= 6.10
3
, = 0.001, ' = 10
10
, e
-2S
= 1.1348*10
-6
.

On semi-log scale, example A shows a first straight line of slope m/2 during
transition, before the total system straight line of slope m. With example B, only
the total system straight line is present.

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
B
A
slope
m
/2
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
B
A
slope
m
/2
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m



- 87 -

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
5
10
30
6x10
6
10
4
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
10
10
0.1
6x10
3
' = 10
30
5
10
6
10
10
3x10
-3
3x10
-4
C
D
/(1-)
2
= 3x10
-2
3x10
-5
B
B
A
A
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
5
10
30
6x10
6
10
4
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
10
10
0.1
6x10
3
C
D
e
2S
=
10
30
10
10
10
0.1
6x10
3
' = 10
30
5
10
6
10
10
' = 10
30
5
10
6
10
10
3x10
-3
3x10
-4
C
D
/(1-)
2
= 3x10
-2
3x10
-5
3x10
-3
3x10
-4
C
D
/(1-)
2
= 3x10
-2
3x10
-5
B
B
A
A

Figure 4-20 Pressure and derivative examples of Figure 4-18.
C
D
f+m
(1-)
2
= 3.10
-2
, 3.10
-3
, 3.10
-4
, 3.10
-5
.

With the derivative, example A shows a first stabilization on 0.25 before the final
stabilization on 0.5 for the total system homogeneous regime. The derivative of
example B exhibits only a small valley before the stabilization on 0.5.

The end of transition, and the start of the total system homogeneous regime, is
described by a ( ) ( ) C
D
1
2
derivative curve.

Match results

On a double porosity response with unrestricted interporosity flow, after the
wellbore storage hump the derivative exhibits a first stabilization on 0.25 before
the final stabilization on 0.5.

( )

=
+
'
'
C e
e
D
S
f m
S
2
2
( 4-23)

is difficult to access with the transient interporosity flow model.

Slab and sphere matrix blocks

With the two types matrix geometry, the pressure curves look identical but the
derivatives are slightly different. At late transition time, the change from 0.25 to
the 0.5 level is steeper on the curve generated for slab matrix blocks.


- 88 -

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
-1
sphere
slab
0.5
0.25
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
1
10
-1
sphere
slab
0.5
0.25

Figure 4-21 Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, slab and
sphere matrix blocks. Log-log scale.
C
D
e
2S
f+m
=1, '=10
4
and =10
-2
.
Slab: e
-2S
= 1.89 10
-4
, Sphere: e
-2S
= 1.05 10
-4
.


Influence of

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
= 10
-3
= 10
-3
0.5
= 10
-1
= 10
-1
0.25
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
= 10
-3
= 10
-3
0.5
= 10
-1
= 10
-1
0.25
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
= 10
-3
= 10
-3
0.5
= 10
-1
= 10
-1
0.25
= 10
-3
= 10
-3
0.5
= 10
-1
= 10
-1
0.25

Figure 4-22 Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, slab
matrix blocks. Influence of on pressure and derivative curves.
C
Df+m
=1, S =0, =10
-7
and =10
-1
, 10
-2
and 10
-3

D
/C
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
slo
p
e
m
/2
10
-1
10
-2
= 10
-3
s
lo
p
e
m
D
/C
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
slo
p
e
m
/2
10
-1
10
-2
= 10
-3
s
lo
p
e
m
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
slo
p
e
m
/2
10
-1
10
-2
= 10
-3
10
-1
10
-2
= 10
-3
s
lo
p
e
m



- 89 -

Influence of

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
= 10
-6
, 10
-7
, 10
-8
= 10
-8
0.5
0.25
= 10
-6
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
= 10
-6
, 10
-7
, 10
-8
= 10
-8
0.5
0.25
= 10
-6
= 10
-6
, 10
-7
, 10
-8
= 10
-8
0.5
0.25
= 10
-6

matrix blocks. Influence of on pressure and derivative curves.
C
Df+m
=100, S =0, =0.02 and =10
-6
, 10
-7
and 10
-8

D
/C
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
slop
e
m
/2
10
-6
10
-7
= 10
-8
s
lo
p
e
m
D
/C
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
slop
e
m
/2
10
-6
10
-7
= 10
-8
s
lo
p
e
m
slop
e
m
/2
10
-6
10
-7
= 10
-8
s
lo
p
e
m



D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Build-up
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
1
10
-1
10
-2
A
3
A
2
0.5
A
1
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Build-up
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
1
10
-1
10
-2
A
3
A
2
0.5
A
1

Figure 4-26 Drawdown and build-up derivative responses, double porosity
reservoir, unrestricted interporosity flow, slab matrix blocks.
C
Df+m
= 0.1, S = 0, = 0.1, = 3.10
-4
. t
pD
/C
D
= 100 (A
1
), 9.10
3
(A
2
), 3.10
5
(A
3
).


- 90 -

4-4 Complex fissured reservoirs

4-4.1 Matrix skin

D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
S
m
= 0
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.25
0.1
10 100
1
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
S
m
= 0
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.25
0.1
10 100
1

matrix blocks with interporosity skin.
C
Df+m
= 1, S = 0, = 0.01, = 10
-5
. S
m
= 0, 0.1, 1, 10, 100.

D
/C
D
10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
1
10
-1
10
-2
S
m
= 1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10 100
D
/C
D
10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
1
10
-1
10
-2
S
m
= 1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10 100

Figure 4-28 Comparison of Figure 4-27 derivative responses with the
restricted interporosity flow model.

eff
= 2.500x10
-6
(S
m
= 1),
eff
= 3.323x10
-7
(S
m
= 10),
eff
= 3.333x10
-8

(S
m
= 100).

D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
S
m
= 0
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.25
0.1
10 100
1
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
S
m
= 0
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.25
0.1
10 100
1

Figure 4-29 Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, sphere
matrix blocks with interporosity skin.
C
Df+m
= 1, S = 0, = 0.01, = 10
-5
. S
m
= 0, 0.1, 1, 10, 100.


- 91 -
D
/C
D
10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
1
10
-1
10
-2
S
m
= 1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10 100
D
/C
D
10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
1
10
-1
10
-2
S
m
= 1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10 100

Figure 4-30 Comparison of Figure 4-29 derivative responses with the
restricted interporosity flow model.
eff
= 1.66x10
-6
(S
m
= 1),
eff
= 1.96x10
-7
(S
m
= 10),
eff
= 2.00x10
-8
(S
m
=
100).

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
unrestricted slab
unrestricted sphere
restricted
0.5
0.25
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
unrestricted slab
unrestricted sphere
restricted
0.5
0.25

Figure 4-31 Log-log plot of pressure and derivative responses for a well with
wellbore storage and skin in double porosity reservoir, restricted and
unrestricted interporosity flow, slab and sphere matrix blocks.
C
Df+m

= 1, S = 3, = 0.02, = 10
-4
. C
D
e
2S
f+m
=403, e
-2S
= 2.48*10
-7
.
Slab: ' = 3.07*10
9
, Sphere: ' = 1.71*10
9

4-4.2 Triple porosity solution

The model considers two sizes of matrix blocks. The blocks are uniformly
distributed in the reservoir. Alternatively, the matrix blocks can be fissured.

Two block sizes Fissured matrix blocks
fissure, block 1, block 2 fissure, microfissure, block
Two block sizes Fissured matrix blocks Two block sizes Fissured matrix blocks
fissure, block 1, block 2 fissure, microfissure, block fissure, block 1, block 2 fissure, microfissure, block

Figure 4-32 Multiple matrix blocks.


- 92 -
When the blocks are uniformly distributed,
i
defines the contribution of the group
i to the total matrix storage (
1
+
2
=1):

( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )
i
t
mi
t
m
t
m
t
mi
t
m
Vc
Vc Vc
Vc
Vc
=
+
=
=
1 2
( 4-24)

fissure fissure + group 1 total system
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
0.5
fissure fissure + group 1 total system
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
0.5
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
0.5
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
0.5

Figure 4-33 Triple porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity flow,
two sizes of matrix blocks uniformly distributed, different
eff
.
C
Df+m
= 1, S = 0, = 0.01,
eff1
=10
-5
,
1
=0.1,
eff2
=5x10
-7
,
2
=0.9.

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
to
ta
l s
y
s
te
m
fis
s
u
r
e
fis
s
u
r
e

+
g
r
o
u
p
1
(
s
lo
p
e
m
)
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
to
ta
l s
y
s
te
m
fis
s
u
r
e
fis
s
u
r
e

+
g
r
o
u
p
1
(
s
lo
p
e
m
)
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
to
ta
l s
y
s
te
m
fis
s
u
r
e
fis
s
u
r
e

+
g
r
o
u
p
1
(
s
lo
p
e
m
)

Figure 4-34 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-33 example.

D
/C
D
total system
group 1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.5
fissure
group 2
D
/C
D
total system
group 1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.5 0.5
fissure
group 2

Figure 4-35 Triple porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity flow,
two sizes of matrix blocks uniformly distributed, same
eff
.
C
Df+m
= 1, S = 0, = 0.01,
eff1
=
eff2
=10
-6
,
1
=0.1,
2
=0.9.
The dashed curves describe the double porosity responses for only blocks 1
(small valley) and only blocks 2.


- 93 -

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
y
s
t
e
m

(
s
lo
p
e
m
)
fis
s
u
r
e
(
s
lo
p
e
m
)
group 1
group 2
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
8
6
4
2
0
t
o
t
a
l
s
y
s
t
e
m

(
s
lo
p
e
m
)
fis
s
u
r
e
(
s
lo
p
e
m
)
group 1
group 2

Figure 4-36 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-35 example.
The thin curves describe the double porosity responses for only blocks 1
(final semi-log straight line for fissures + blocks 1) and only blocks 2 (final
semi-log straight line for fissures + blocks 2).

- 94 -

- 95 -

5 - BOUNDARY MODELS

5-1 One sealing fault

5-1.1 Definition
L L
Well Image
(q) (q)

L
L
r
D
w
= ( 5-1)


1. Radial flow

2. Hemi-radial flow


D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
1
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
1
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4

and skin near one sealing fault in a homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
C
D
= 10
4
, S = 0, L
D
= 5000.

Chapter 5 - Boundary models

- 96 -
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
L
D
=100
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
300 1000 3000
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
L
D
=100
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
300 1000 3000

Figure 5-2 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
homogeneous reservoir limited by one sealing fault.
Several distances. C
D
= 100, S = 5, L
D
= 100, 300, 1000, 3000.


The time of intercept t
x
between the two semi-log straight lines can be used to
estimate the distance between the well and the sealing fault :

L
k t
c
x
t
= 0 01217 .
(ft, field units)

t
x
c
t k
L
= 0141 . 0 (m, metric units) ( 1-22)

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
L
D
=100
300
1000
3000
slope m
s
lo
p
e
2
m
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
L
D
=100
300
1000
3000
slope m
s
lo
p
e
2
m



- 97 -

5-2 Two parallel sealing faults

5-2.1 Definition
L2
Well
L1


1. Radial flow

2. Linear flow


D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
A
B
A
B
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
A
B
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
A
B
A
B
A
B

Figure 5-4 Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous
reservoir limited by two parallel sealing faults. Log-log scale.
One channel width, two well locations. C
D
= 3000, S = 0, L
1D
= L
2D
= 3000
(curve A) and L
1D
= 1000, L
2D
= 5000 (curve B).


- 98 -

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
L
1D
=
L
2D
=
500
1000
2500
5000
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
L
1D
=
L
2D
=
500
1000
2500
5000
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
/C
D
10
-1
L
1D
=
L
2D
=
500
1000
2500
5000
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4

Figure 5-5 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near two
parallel sealing faults. Homogeneous reservoir.
The well is located midway between the two boundaries, several distances
between the two faults are considered. C
D
= 300, S = 0
L
1D
= L
2D
= 500, 1000, 2500 and 5000.


On semi-log scale, only one straight line is present. During the late time linear
flow, the responses deviate in a curve above the radial flow line. The time of end
of the semi-log straight line is function of the channel width and the well location.

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0
10
20
30
40
slope m
10
-1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
1
L
1D
= L
2D
= 500
1000
2500
5000
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0
10
20
30
40
slope m
10
-1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
1
L
1D
= L
2D
= 500
1000
2500
5000
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0
10
20
30
40
slope m
10
-1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
1 10
-1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
1
L
1D
= L
2D
= 500
1000
2500
5000



- 99 -
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
A
slope
m
10
3
1
B
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
A
slope
m
10
3
1
B



0
10
20
30
40
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D L
1D
= L
2D
= 500
1000
2500
5000
(t
D
/C
D
)
1/2
0 350 100 200 300 250 50 150
slope m
ch
0
10
20
30
40
0
10
20
30
40
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D L
1D
= L
2D
= 500
1000
2500
5000
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D L
1D
= L
2D
= 500
1000
2500
5000
(t
D
/C
D
)
1/2
0 350 100 200 300 250 50 150
(t
D
/C
D
)
1/2
0 350 100 200 300 250 50 150
slope m
ch


The pressure change p is plotted versus the square root of the elapsed time t .
The slope m
ch
and the intercept p
chint
of the linear flow straight line are used to
estimate the channel width and the well location.

( )
t
ch
c k L L h
qB
m
2 1
133 . 8
+
= (psi.hr
-1/2
, field units)
( )
t
ch
c k L L h
qB
m
2 1
246 . 1
+
= (Bars.hr
-1/2

t ch
c k hm
qB
L L
133 . 8
2 1
= + (ft, field units)
t ch
c k hm
qB
L L
246 . 1
2 1
= + (m, metric units) ( 5-3)


- 100 -
S p
qB
kh
S
ch
=
chint
2 . 141
(field units)
S p
qB
kh
S
ch
=
int ch
66 . 18

|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
+
ch
2 1
2 1
1
2
arcsin
1
S
e
r
L L
L L
L
w

( 5-5)


D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
10
4
C
D
10
6
C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
10
4
C
D
10
6
C
D

Figure 5-9 Build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage in a
homogeneous reservoir limited by two parallel sealing faults.
One channel width, two well locations. The dotted curves describe the
drawdown responses. C
D
= 3000, S = 0, L
1D
= L
2D
= 5000 (curve C) and
L
1D
= 2000, L
2D
= 8000 (curve D). Production time: t
pD
/C
D
= 2000.

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
pD
+t
D
)/ t
D
1 10
1
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
lo
p
e
m
10
3
D
C
9
8
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
pD
+t
D
)/ t
D
1 10
1
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
lo
p
e
m
10
3
D
C
9
8

Figure 5-10 Horner plot of Figure 5-9.

The extrapolation p* of the Horner straight line does not correspond to the infinite
shut-in time pressure.


- 101 -

[(t
pD
+t
D
)/C
D
]
1/2
- [t
D
/C
D
]
1/2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0 20 30
3
4
5
6
7
slope m
ch
50
D
C
9
8
10 40
[(t
pD
+t
D
)/C
D
]
1/2
- [t
D
/C
D
]
1/2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0 20 30
3
4
5
6
7
slope m
ch
50
D
C
9
8
10 40
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0 20 30
3
4
5
6
7
slope m
ch
50
D
C
9
8
10 40

p
D
versus [(t
pD
+t
D
)/C
D
]
1/2
- [t
D
/C
D
]
1/2
.

For an infinite channel, when both the drawdown and the shut-in periods are in
linear flow regime, the superposition function is expressed as t t t
p
+ .
The extrapolation of the linear flow straight line to infinite shut-in time, at
t t t
p
+ = 0 , is used to estimate the initial reservoir pressure.

5-3 Two intersecting sealing faults

5-3.1 Definition
L2
Well
L1
w

The angle of intersection between the faults is smaller than 180, the wedge is
otherwise of infinite extension.

L
D
is the dimensionless distance between the well and the faults intercept. The
well location in the wedge is defined with
w
. The distances L
1
and L
2
between the
well and the sealing faults are expressed as :

L L r
D w w 1
= sin (ft, m) ( 5-6)


- 102 -

( ) L L r
D w w 2
= sin (ft, m) ( 5-7)


1. Radial flow

2. Linear flow

3. Fraction of radial flow


If for example the angle between the faults is 60 (/3), the wedge is 1/6 of the
infinite plane (2), and the derivative stabilizes at 3.

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
10
4
A
B
180/ = 3
A
B
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
10
4
A
B
180/ = 3
A
B
A
B

reservoir limited by two intersecting sealing faults. Log-log scale.
C
D
= 3000, S = 0, L
D
= 5000, = 60,
w
= 30(curve A) and
w
= 10
(curve B).

= 360
p
p
1st stab.
2nd stab.
( 5-8)

Between the two stabilizations, the derivative follows a half unit slope straight
line.


- 103 -
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
=
10
20
45
90
135
1
10
1
10
2
180
180
10
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
=
10
20
45
90
135
1
10
1
10
2
180
180
10
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
=
10
20
45
90
135
1
10
1
10
2
180
180
10

reservoir limited by two intersecting sealing faults. Log-log scale.
Several angles of intersection , the well is on the bisector
w
= 0.5 , the
distance to the two faults is constant L
1D
= L
2D
= 1000, the distance L
D
to the
fault intercept changes.
C
D
= 1000, S = 0, = 10, L
D
= 11473; = 20, L
D
= 5759; = 45, L
D
=
2613; = 90, L
D
= 1414; = 135, L
D
= 1082; = 180, L
D
= 1000.


On a complete response, two semi-log straight lines can be identified. The first, of
slope m, describes the infinite acting regime. The second, with a slope of
(360/)m, defines the fraction of radial flow limited by the wedge.

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
6
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
20
40
slope m
10
3
1
= 10
20
45
90
135
60
10
5
slope (360/) m
180
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
6
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
20
40
slope m
10
3
1
= 10
20
45
90
135
60
10
5
slope (360/) m
180


= 360
m
m
1st line
2nd line
( 5-9)

The end of the first semi-log straight line, and the level of the second straight line,
is a function of the well location in the wedge.


- 104 -
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
A
slope
m
10
3
1
B
s
l
o
p
e
6
m
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
5
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
A
slope
m
10
3
1
B
s
l
o
p
e
6
m


5-4 Closed system

5-4.1 Definition

A rectangular reservoir shape is considered. The well is at dimensionless distances
L
1D
, L
2D
, L
3D
, and L
4D
from the four sealing boundaries, the dimensionless area
of the closed reservoir is expressed as:

( )( )
A
r
L L L L
w
D D D D
2
1 3 2 4
= + + ( 5-10)

5-4.2 The pseudo steady state regime

Time, t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
p
i
p
-
slope m*
pseudo steady state
Time, t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
p
i
p
-
slope m*
pseudo steady state

Figure 5-16 Drawdown and build-up pressure response. Linear scale.
Closed system.

The well, at initial reservoir pressure p
i
, is produced at constant rate until all
reservoir boundaries are reached. At the end of the drawdown, the pseudo steady
state regime is shown by a linear pressure trend. The well is then closed for a shut-
in period, the pressure builds up until the average reservoir pressure p is reached,


- 105 -
and the curve flattens. The difference p p
i
, between the initial pressure and the
final stabilized pressure defines the depletion.

5-4.3 Log-log behavior

On log-log scale, a straight line of slope unity on the late time drawdown pressure
and derivative curves characterizes the pseudo steady state flow regime. During
build-up, the pressure curves flattens to p and the derivative drops.

10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
A
B
slope 1
A & B
0.5
A
B
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
A
B
slope 1
A & B
0.5
A
B
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
A
B
slope 1
A & B
0.5
A
B
A
B

Figure 5-17 Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore
storage in a closed square homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
The dotted curves describe the drawdown responses. C
D
= 25000, S = 0.
Curve A: L
1D
= L
2D
= L
3D
= L
4D
= 30000. Curve B: L
1D
= L
2D
= 6000, L
3D
=
L
4D
= 54000. (t
p
/C)
D
= 1000. (t
p
/C)
D
= 1000.

5-4.4 Drawdown analysis

Log-log analysis

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
A/r
w
2
= 10
6
0.5
10
8
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
A/r
w
2
= 10
6
0.5
10
8
10
7

Figure 5-18 Drawdown responses for a well with wellbore storage in a closed
square homogeneous reservoir.
Three reservoir sizes, the well is centered or near one of the boundaries.
C
D
= 100, S = 0, A/r
w
2
= 10
6
, 10
7
, 10
8
(L
1D
= 200).


- 106 -

10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
0.5
D C
s
l
o
p
e
1
/
2
slope 1
C D
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
0.5
D C
s
l
o
p
e
1
/
2
slope 1
C D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
0.5
D C
s
l
o
p
e
1
/
2
slope 1
C D C D

Figure 5-19 Pressure and derivative drawdown responses for a well with
wellbore storage in a closed channel homogeneous reservoir.
C
D
= 1000, S = 0. Curve C: L
1D
= L
3D
= 20000, L
2D
= L
4D
= 2000.
Curve D: L
1D
= L
2D
= L
3D
= 2000, L
4D
= 38000.

Analysis of semi-log straight lines

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
10
-1
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
slope
m
10
3
1 10
5
s
lo
p
e
2
m
A/r
w
2
= 10
6
10
7
10
8
10
6
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
10
-1
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
slope
m
10
3
1 10
5
s
lo
p
e
2
m
A/r
w
2
= 10
6
10
7
10
8
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
10
-1
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
slope
m
10
3
1 10
5
s
lo
p
e
2
m
A/r
w
2
= 10
6
10
7
10
8
10
6


D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
10
20
slope m
10
3
1
30
10
5
s
lo
p
e
4
m
A
B
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
1
10
2
10
4
0
10
20
slope m
10
3
1
30
10
5
s
lo
p
e
4
m
A
B

Figure 5-21 Semi-log plot of Figure 5.17 drawdown examples.


- 107 -
Linear and semi-linear flow analysis

0 40 80 20 60
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
D
/C
D
)
1/2
0
10
20
30
40
s
lo
p
e
2
m
c
h
50
slope mch
D
C
0 40 80 20 60 0 40 80 20 60
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
D
/C
D
)
1/2
0
10
20
30
40
s
lo
p
e
2
m
c
h
50
slope mch
D
C
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
D
/C
D
)
1/2
0
10
20
30
40
s
lo
p
e
2
m
c
h
50
slope mch
D
C
(t
D
/C
D
)
1/2
0
10
20
30
40
s
lo
p
e
2
m
c
h
50
slope mch
D
C

Figure 5-22 Linear flow analysis plot of Figure 5-19.

The slope for the infinite channel behavior (curve C of Figure 5-19) is expressed
in Equation 5.2. For the limited channel (curve D) the slope of the linear flow
straight line is double :

( )
t
c k L L h
qB
m
4 2
hch
27 . 16
+
= (psi.hr
-1/2
, field units)
( )
t
c k L L h
qB
m
2 1
hch
494 . 2
+
= (Bars.hr
-1/2

Pseudo-steady state analysis

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D
/C
D
0
0
10
20
30
40
200 000
A/r
w
2
= 10
6
10
7
10
8
400 000 600 000 800 000
50
slope m*
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D
/C
D
0
0
10
20
30
40
200 000
A/r
w
2
= 10
6
10
7
10
8
400 000 600 000 800 000
50
slope m*

Figure 5-23 Pseudo steady state flow analysis plot of Figure 5-18.

During pseudo-steady state regime, the drawdown dimensionless pressure is
expressed as :

p t
A
r C
S
D DA
w A
= + + + 2 05 05
2 2458
2
. ln . ln
.
( 5-12)

The dimensionless time t
DA
is defined with respect to the drainage area :


- 108 -

t
k
c A
t
DA
t
=
0 000264 .
(field units)
t
A c
k
t
t
DA
=
000356 . 0

The "shape factor" C
A
characterizes the geometry of the reservoir and the well
location.

With real data, the pressure during pseudo steady state flow regime is expressed :

( ) p
qB
c hA
t
qB
kh
A
r
C S
t w
A
= + + +
(
0 234 162 6 0 351 087
2
. . log log . .
(psi, field units)

( )
(
(
+ + + = S C
r
A
kh
qB
t
hA c
qB
p
A
w
t
87 . 0 351 . 0 log log 5 . 21 0417 . 0
2
(Bars, metric
units) (1-22)

the slope m* of the pseudo-steady state straight line provides the reservoir
connected pore volume :

hA
qB
c m
t
= 0 234 .
*
(cu ft, field units)
*
0417 . 0
m c
qB
hA
t
= (m
3

When kh and S are known from semi-log analysis, the shape factor C
A
is estimated
from the intercept p
int
of the pseudo-steady state straight line :

(
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|

=
S . r A m
*
p p
w
i
.
e . C
A
87 0 log
2
int
303 2
2458 2 ( 5-14)

or
( )
[ ] m
*
p . p
e
m
m
C
i
A
int
303 2
*
456 . 5

= ( 5-15)


- 109 -


Log-log analysis of build-up

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
1
10
6
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
10
4
t
pDA
=10, 2
10
5
t
pDA
=0.6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
1
10
6
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
10
4
t
pDA
=10, 2
10
5
t
pDA
=0.6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
1
10
6
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
10
4
t
pDA
=10, 2
10
5
t
pDA
=0.6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
1
10
6
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
0.5
10
4
t
pDA
=10, 2
10
5
t
pDA
=0.6

Figure 5-24 Build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
closed rectangle homogeneous reservoir.
The well is close to one boundary. Three production times are considered.
C
D
= 292, S = 0, L
1D
= 500, L
2D
= 1000, L
3D
= 3500, L
4D
= 1000
t
pD
/C
D
(t
pDA
) = 16400 (0.6), 54600 (2), 273000 (10).

The rectangular reservoir configuration used for the build-up examples of Figure
5-24 is described in the Shape Factors Tables with C
A
= 0.5813 and the start of
pseudo steady state is defined at t
DA
= 2 (Eq. 5-13 or, with Eq. 2-6, t
D
/C
D
=
54600). The well is closed for build-up before (t
pDA
= 0.6) or during the pure
pseudo steady state flow regime (t
pDA
= 2 and 10).

When all reservoir boundaries have been reached during drawdown, the shape of
the subsequent build-up is independent of t
p
on log-log scale. At late times, the
stabilized dimensionless pressure p
D
is expressed as :

p
A r
C
S
D
w
A
= +
|
\
|
.
| + 1151 0 35
2
. log . ( 5-16)

Semi-log analysis of build-up

When t
p
>>t, the Horner time can be simplified with t
p
+t t
p
:

log log log
t t
t
t t
p
p
+
=
( 5-17)

For different production time t
p
in a depleted reservoir, the Horner straight lines of
slope m are parallel.


- 110 -

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
pD
+t
D
)/ t
D
1 10
1
10
2
0
2
4
6
s
lo
p
e
m
10
3
10
8
10
4
10
5
10
6
t
pDA
= 0.6, 2, 10
p
-
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
pD
+t
D
)/ t
D
1 10
1
10
2
0
2
4
6
s
lo
p
e
m
10
3
10
8
10
4
10
5
10
6
t
pDA
= 0.6, 2, 10
p
-
D

Figure 5-25 Horner plot of Figure 5-24.

The Horner plot Figure 5-25 is presented in dimensionless terms. The straight line
extrapolated pressure p
D
*
changes with t
p
and, later, the curves flatten to reach
p
D
= 8 62 . of Equation 5.16. For examples t
pDA
= 2 and 10, p p
D D
*
> , but not for
the example with t
pDA
= 0.6. With real pressure, the average pressure p decreases
when t
p
increases.

When the same production time is used for Horner analysis of the three build-up
periods (t
pDA
= 2 on Figure 5-26), the difference between the straight line
extrapolated pressure
*
p and the average shut-in pressure p becomes a constant.

3
5
9
7
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
pD
+t
D
)/ t
D
s
lo
p
e
m
t
pDA
=0.6
p
-
D
t
pDA
=2, 10
p*
D
= 8.1
3
5
9
7
3
5
9
7
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
pD
+t
D
)/ t
D
s
lo
p
e
m
t
pDA
=0.6
p
-
D
t
pDA
=2, 10
p*
D
= 8.1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
(t
pD
+t
D
)/ t
D
s
lo
p
e
m
t
pDA
=0.6
p
-
D
t
pDA
=2, 10
p*
D
= 8.1

Figure 5-26 Horner plot of Figure 5-24 with same t
p
.
For the three examples, the Horner time is t
pD
/C
D
= 16400 (t
pDA
=0.6).


- 111 -

5-5 Constant pressure boundary

5-5.1 Definition

water
gas
water
gas

L L
Well Image
(q) (-q)


The dimensionless stabilized pressure is defined as :

( ) p L S
D D
= + ln 2 ( 5-18)

The derivative follows a negative unit slope straight line.

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
L
D
=100
10
4
300 1000 3000
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
2
L
D
=100
10
4
300 1000 3000

Figure 5-27 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near one
constant pressure linear boundary in a homogeneous reservoir.
Several distances. C
D
= 100, S = 5, L
D
= 100, 300, 1000, 3000.


- 112 -
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-1
sealing fault : 1
constant pressure
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
1
10
1
10
2
0.5
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-1
sealing fault : 1
constant pressure

Figure 5-28 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore
storage near two perpendicular boundaries in a homogeneous reservoir.
The closest boundary is sealing, the second at constant pressure.
C
D
= 100, S = 0, = 90,
w
= 20, L
D
= 1000.


10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0
5
10
15
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D
/C
D
L
D
=
3000
1000
300
100
slope m
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D
/C
D
L
D
=
3000
1000
300
100
slope m
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D
/C
D
L
D
=
3000
1000
300
100
slope m


The time of intercept t
x
between the semi-log straight line and the constant
pressure is used, as for a sealing fault, to estimate the distance of the boundary :

L
k t
c
x
t
= 0 01217 .
(ft, field units)

t
x
c
t k
L
= 0141 . 0 (m, metric units) ( 1-22)

The difference of pressure between the start of the period and the final stabilized
pressure, [
( )
p p
t
= 0
], can also be used to estimate L :

( ) [ ] S m t p p
e r L
w
=
=
) 0 ( 151 . 1
5 . 0 (ft, m) ( 5-19)


- 113 -
5-6 Communicating fault

In the case of communicating fault, two different configurations are considered.
With the semi-permeable boundary model, also called leaky fault, the vertical
plane fault is not sealing but acting as a flow restriction. Conversely, a finite
conductivity fault improves the drainage because the fault permeability is larger
than the surrounding permeability of the reservoir.

5-6.1 Semi permeable boundary

Definition

The partially communicating fault, at distance L from the well, has a thickness w
f

and a permeability k
f
. The dimensionless fault transmissibility ratio is expressed
as :

L k
w k
f f
= ( 5-20)

Characteristic flow regimes

1. Radial flow

2. Hemi-radial flow

3. Leak

4. Radial flow

w
f
k
f
w
f
k
f

Log-log analysis

10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5 0.5
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5 0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5 0.5

near a semi-permeable linear boundary. Homogeneous reservoir. Log-log
scale.
C
D
= 10
4
, S = 0, L
D
= 5000, = 0.05.


- 114 -
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
= 0.001
1
= 1 , 0.1, 0.01
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
= 0.001
1
= 1 , 0.1, 0.01
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
= 0.001
1
= 1 , 0.1, 0.01

Figure 5-31 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a semi-
permeable linear boundary.
Several transmissibility ratios. C
D
= 100, S = 5, L
D
= 300, = 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001.

Semi-log analysis

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0
5
10
15
20
slope
m
s
lo
p
e
2
m
10
-1
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
1 10
5
10
6
= 1
0.1
0.01
0.001
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
slope
m
s
lo
p
e
2
m
10
-1
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
1 10
5
10
6
10
-1
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
1 10
5
10
6
= 1
0.1
0.01
0.001


5-6.2 Finite conductivity fault

Definition

With the finite conductivity fault model, flow is possible along the fault plane,
depending upon the fault dimensionless conductivity F
cD
(a zero fault conductivity
F
cD
corresponds to the semi-permeable fault solution).

kL
w k
F
f f
cD
= ( 5-21)

The resistance to flow across the fault plane is described with the skin factor S
f
.
The definition of the dimensionless skin S
f
includes the possibility of a region of
altered permeability k
a
with an extension w
a
around the fault:


- 115 -

|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
f
f
a
a
f
k
w
k
w
L
k
S
2
2
( 5-22)

The skin factor S
f
is related to the transmissibility ratio a of Eq. 5-20:

f
S
= ( 5-23)

Characteristic flow regimes

1. Radial flow

2. Constant pressure
boundary effect

3. Bi-linear flow

4. Radial flow
L
w
f
k
f
L
w
f
k
f

Log-log analysis

10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
0.5
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
0.5

storage near a finite conductivity fault. No fault skin. Log-log scale.
C
D
= 10
3
, S = 0, L
D
= 1000, F
cD
= 100, S
f
= 0.


- 116 -
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
10
-2
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
F
cD
= 1 10 100 1000 10000
10
7
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
9
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
10
-2
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
10
-2
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
F
cD
= 1 10 100 1000 10000
10
7
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
9
10
7
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
9

Figure 5-34 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a finite
conductivity fault. No fault skin and several conductivity. Log-log scale.
C
D
= 100, S = 5, L
D
= 300, S
f
= 0, F
cD
= 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000.

10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
1
0.5
10
7
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
9
S
f
=10 S
f
=100
S
f
=1000
0.5
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
1
0.5
10
7
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
9
10
7
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
9
S
f
=10 S
f
=100
S
f
=1000
0.5

Figure 5-35 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a finite
conductivity fault. Several fault skin and conductivity. Log-log scale.
C
D
= 100, S = 5, L
D
= 300, F
cD
= 10, 1000, S
f
= 10, 100, 1000.

Semi-log analysis

10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0
5
10
15
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
2
m
S
f
= 0
S
f
= 100
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
m
s
lo
p
e
2
m
S
f
= 0
S
f
= 100

Figure 5-36 Semi-log plot for a well with wellbore storage near a finite
conductivity fault.
C
D
= 10
3
, S = 0, L
D
= 1000, F
cD
= 100, S
f
= 0 or 100.


- 117 -

5-7 Predicting derivative shapes

Figure 5-37 Closed reservoir example.

Example of a drawdown in a closed system, the shape of the reservoir is a
trapezoid. After wellbore storage, the response shows :

1 - the infinite radial flow regime (derivative on 0.5),

2 - one sealing fault (derivative on 1),

3 - the wedge response (derivative on /),

4 - linear flow (derivative straight line of slope 1/2),

5 - pseudo steady state (straight line of slope 1).

0.5
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
180/
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
s
l
o
p
e
1
0.5
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
7
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
8
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
180/
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
s
l
o
p
e
1

Figure 5-38 Derivative response for a well in a closed trapezoid.

- 118 -

- 119 -

6 - COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS

6-1 Definitions

With the radial composite model, the well is at the center of a circular zone of
radius r. With the linear composite model, the interface is at a distance L. The well
is located in the region "1". The parameters of the second region are defined with a
subscript "2".

Radial composite Linear composite
(k/)
1
, (c
t
)
1
(k/)
2
, (c
t
)
2
(k/)
1
, (c
t
)
1
(k/)
2
, (c
t
)
2
R L
Radial composite Linear composite
(k/)
1
, (c
t
)
1
(k/)
2
, (c
t
)
2
(k/)
1
, (c
t
)
1
(k/)
2
, (c
t
)
2
Radial composite Linear composite Radial composite Linear composite
(k/)
1
, (c
t
)
1
(k/)
2
, (c
t
)
2
(k/)
1
, (c
t
)
1
(k/)
2
, (c
t
)
2
(k/)
1
, (c
t
)
1
(k/)
2
, (c
t
)
2
(k/)
1
, (c
t
)
1
(k/)
2
, (c
t
)
2
(k/)
1
, (c
t
)
1
(k/)
2
, (c
t
)
2
(k/)
1
, (c
t
)
1
(k/)
2
, (c
t
)
2
R L

Figure 6-1 Models for composite reservoirs.

6-1.1 Mobility & storativity ratios

( )
( )
M
k
k
=
1
2
( 6-1)

( )
( )
F
c
c
t
t
=
1
2
( 6-2)


The dimensionless variables (including the wellbore skin S
w
) are expressed with
reference to the region "1" parameters.

p
k h
qB
p
D
=
1
1
1412 .
(field units)
p
qB
h k
p
D
=
1
1
66 . 18

t
C
k h t
C
D
D
= 0 000295
1
1
.
(field units)

Chapter 6 - Composite reservoir models

- 120 -
C
t h k
C
t
D
D
=
1
1
00223 . 0

( )
C
C
c hr
D
t w
=
08936
1
2
.
(field units)
( )
2
1
1592 . 0
w t
D
hr c
C
C

skin
1
1
2 . 141
p
qB
h k
S
w
=
(field units)
skin
1
1
66 . 15
p
qB
h k
S
w
=

r
r
r
D
w
= ( 6-7)

L
L
r
D
w
= ( 6-8)

6-2 Radial composite behavior

6-2.1 Influence of heterogeneous parameters M and F
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
M = 10
0.5
M = 2
M = 0.5
M = 0.1
0.5 M D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
M = 10
0.5
M = 2
M = 0.5
M = 0.1
M = 2
M = 0.5
M = 0.1
0.5 M D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D

Figure 6-2 Radial composite responses, well with wellbore storage and skin,
changing mobility and constant storativity. Log-log scale.
The two dotted curves correspond to the closed and the constant pressure
circle solutions. C
D
= 100, S
w
= 3, r
D
= 700, M = 10, 2, 0.5, 0.1, F =1.


- 121 -
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
25
20
15
10
5
0
slope
m
slopes m M
M=10
M=2
M=0.5
M=0.1
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
25
20
15
10
5
0
slope
m
slopes m M
M=10
M=2
M=0.5
M=0.1
M=10
M=2
M=0.5
M=0.1


D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
F = 10
0.5
F = 0.1
F = 10
F = 0.1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
F = 10
0.5
F = 0.1
F = 10
F = 0.1
F = 10
F = 0.1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D

Figure 6-4 Radial composite responses, well with wellbore storage and skin,
constant mobility and changing storativity. Log-log scale.
C
D
= 100, S
w
= 3, r
D
= 700, M = 1, and F =10, 2, 0.5, 0.1.

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
15
10
5
0
s
lo
p
e
m
F=10
F=0.1
slo
p
e
s
m
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
15
10
5
0
s
lo
p
e
m
F=10
F=0.1
slo
p
e
s
m
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
15
10
5
0
s
lo
p
e
m
F=10
F=0.1
slo
p
e
s
m



The permeability thickness product k
1
h of the inner region is estimated from the
pressure match, and C from the time match :

( ) PM 2 . 141
1 1
qB h k = (mD.ft, field units)
( ) PM 66 . 18
1 1
qB h k = (mD.m, metric units) ( 6-9)


- 122 -

|
.
|
\
|
=
TM
1
000295 . 0
1
1
h k
|
.
|
\
|
=
TM
1
00223 . 0
1
1
h k
C (m
3

At early time, the homogeneous (C
D
e
2S
)
1
curve defines the wellbore skin factor
S
w
. The mobility ratio M is estimated from the two derivative stabilizations.

M
p
p
=
2nd stab.
1st stab.
( 6-11)


The first semi-log straight line defines the mobility of the inner zone, and the
wellbore skin factor S
w
.

( )
p
qB
k h
t
k
c r
S
t w
w
= + +
|
\
|
.
|
|
162 6 323 087
1
1
1
1
2
. log log . .
(psi, field units)

( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =
w
w t
S
r c
k
t
h k
qB
p 87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 54 . 21
2
1
1
1
1

The second line, for the outer zone, defines M and the total skin S
T
.

( )
p
qB
k h
t
k
c r
S
t w
T
= + +
|
\
|
.
|
|
162 6 323 087
2
2
2
2
2
. log log . .
(psi, field units)

( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =
T
w t
S
r c
k
t
h k
qB
p 87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 5 . 21
2
2
2
2
2

The total skin S
T
includes two components : the wellbore skin factor S
w
and a
radial composite geometrical skin effect S
RC
of Equation 1-10, function of the
mobility ratio M and the radius r
D
of the circular interface :

D w T
r
M
S
M
S ln 1
1 1
|
.
|
\
|
+ = ( 6-14)

When the mobility near the wellbore is higher than in the outer zone (M>1), the
geometrical skin is negative.


- 123 -

D
/C
D
0.5
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
2
10
1
10
-1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Build-up
1.5
D
/C
D
0.5
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
2
10
1
10
-1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Build-up
1.5

Figure 6-6 Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage
and skin in a radial composite reservoir, changing mobility and constant
storativity. Log-log scale.
The dotted curves describe the drawdown response. C
D
= 11500, S
w
= 5,
r
D
= 2000, M = 3, F=1.

With a strong reduction of mobility (M>>10), drawdown and build-up responses
can show the behavior of a closed depleted system, before the influence of the
outer region is seen.

D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
-2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Build-up
t
p
0.5
50
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
-2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Build-up
t
p
0.5
50
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
-2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Drawdown
Build-up
t
p
0.5
50

Figure 6-7 Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage
and skin in a radial composite reservoir.
The dotted pressure and derivative curves correspond to the drawdown
solution. C
D
= 1000, S
w
= 0, r
D
= 10000, M =100, F =1 and t
p
/C
D
=3200.

6-3 Linear composite behavior

6-3.1 Influence of heterogeneous parameters M and F

The second homogeneous behavior is defined with the average properties of the
two regions :
k
M
k

|
\
|
.
| = +
|
\
|
.
|
|
\
|
.
|
APPARENT
05 1
1
1
. (mD/cp) ( 6-15)


- 124 -
M = 10
M = 0.5
M = 0.1
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
M = 10
M = 0.5
M = 0.1
M = 10
M = 0.5
M = 0.1
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D

Figure 6-8 Linear composite responses, well with wellbore storage and skin,
changing mobility and constant storativity. Log-log scale.
The two dotted curves correspond to the sealing fault and the constant pressure
boundary solutions. C
D
= 100, S
w
= 3, L
D
= 700, M = 10, 2, 0.5, 0.1, F=1.

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
15
10
5
0
s
lo
p
e
m
M=10
M=0.1
M=2
M=0.5
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
15
10
5
0
s
lo
p
e
m
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
15
10
5
0
s
lo
p
e
m
M=10
M=0.1
M=2
M=0.5
M=10
M=0.1
M=2
M=0.5



D
/C
D
0.5
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Radial
Radial
Linear
Linear
D
/C
D
0.5
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Radial
Radial
Linear
Linear

Figure 6-10 Comparison of radial and linear interfaces. Well with wellbore
storage and skin in composite reservoirs. Log-log scale.
C
D
= 200, S
w
= 0, F=1, r
D
= L
D
= 300. Linear composite : M = 5.
Radial composite : M =1.667.

The two derivative stabilizations are used to estimate the mobility ratio M :


- 125 -
M
p
p p
=

2nd stab.
1st stab. 2nd stab.
2
( 6-16)

6-4 Multicomposite systems

6-4.1 Three inner regions with abrupt change of mobility

D
/C
D
0.05
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
10
-2 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
R
D
=1000, M=0.1
R
D
=2500, M=0.15
R
D
=50000, M=0.5
0.5
0.33
0.1
D
/C
D
0.05
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
10
-2 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
R
D
=1000, M=0.1
R
D
=2500, M=0.15
R
D
=50000, M=0.5
0.5
0.33
0.1
D
/C
D
0.05
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
10
-2 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
R
D
=1000, M=0.1
R
D
=2500, M=0.15
R
D
=50000, M=0.5
0.5
0.33
0.1

storage and skin in a 4 regions radial composite reservoir.
C
D
= 5440, S
w
= 0, F =1. r
1D
= 1000, k/
2
= 1.5 k/
1
, r
2D
= 2500, k/
3
= 5 k/
1
,
r
3D
= 50,000, k/
4
= 10 k/
1
.
The dashed curves correspond to radial composite responses with only one
zone (R
D
= 1000, M = 0.1, R
D
= 2500, M = 0.15, R
D
= 50,000, M = 0.5).

6-4.2 Two inner regions with a linear change of mobility

D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
0.5
R
D
=1000
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.05
R
D
=10000
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
0.5
R
D
=1000
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.05
R
D
=10000

storage and skin in a radial composite reservoir, linear change of
transmissivity.
C
D
= 1000, S
w
= 0, F =1. From R
1D
= 1000 to R
2D
= 10,000, M decreases
linearly from 1 to 0.1. The dashed curves correspond to radial composite
responses (M=0.1, R
D
= 1000, R
D
= 10,000).

- 126 -

- 127 -

7 - LAYERED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE
PERMEABILITY MODEL

7-1 Definitions

The layer "1" is assumed to be the high permeability layer.

The two-layers model can be used for multi-layers systems. Layer "1" describes
the sum of the high permeability zones, and layer "2" the lower permeability
intervals.

h', k'
Z
h
1
, k
1
, k
Z1
h
2
, k
2
, k
Z2
S
1
S
2
h', k'
Z
h
1
, k
1
, k
Z1
h
2
, k
2
, k
Z2
h', k'
Z
h
1
, k
1
, k
Z1
h
2
, k
2
, k
Z2
S
1
S
2
S
1
S
2

Figure 7-1 Model for double permeability reservoir.

7-1.1 Permeability and porosity

kh k h k h
TOTAL
= +
1 1 2 2
(mD.ft, mD.m) ( 7-1)

( ) ( ) ( ) c h c h c h
t
TOTAL
t t
= +
1 2
(ft/psi, m/Bars) ( 7-2)

7-1.2 Mobility ratio

=
+
=
k h
k h k h
k h
kh
TOTAL
1 1
1 1 2 2
1 1
( 7-3)

When =1, the response is double porosity.

7-1.3 Storativity ratio

( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )
=
+
=
c h
c h c h
c h
c h
t
t t
t
t
TOTAL
1
1 2
1
( 7-4)

Chapter 7 - Layered reservoirs

- 128 -

7-1.4 Interlayer cross flow coefficient

=
+
+ +
r
k h k h
h
k
h
k
h
k
w
Z Z Z
2
1 1 2 2
1
1
2
2
2
2
'
'
( 7-5)

is a function of the vertical permeability k
z
' in the low permeability "wall" of
thickness h' between the layers, and of vertical permeabilities in the two layers k
z1

and k
z2
.

If the vertical resistance is mostly due to the "wall", a simplified can be used to
characterize this interlayer skin :

=
+
r
k h k h
k
h
w Z
2
1 1 2 2
'
'
( 7-6)

When there is no skin at the interface and the vertical pressure gradients are
negligible in the high permeability layer 1, is expressed:

=
+
r
k h k h
k
h
w Z
2
1 1 2 2
2
2
2
( 7-7)

When =0, there is no reservoir crossflow.


p
k h k h
qB
p
D
=
+
1 1 2 2
1
1412 .
(field units)
p
qB
h k h k
p
D
+
=
66 . 18
2 2 1 1

t
C
k h k h t
C
D
D
=
+
0 000295
1 1 2 2
.
(field units)
C
t h k h k
C
t
D
D
+
=
2 2 1 1
00223 . 0 (metric units) ( 7-9)

( ) ( )
[ ]
C
C
c h c h r
D
t t w
=
+
08936
1 2
2
.

(field units)
( ) ( ) [ ]
2
2 1
1592 . 0
w t t
D
r h c h c
C
C
+


- 129 -

7-2 Double permeability behavior when the two layers are
producing into the well

7-2.1 Log-log pressure and derivative responses

Three characteristic flow regimes :
1. First, the behavior corresponds to two layers without cross flow.
2. At intermediate times, when the fluid transfer between the layers starts, the
response follows a transition regime.
3. Later, the pressure equalizes in the two layers and the behavior describes the
equivalent homogeneous total system. The derivative stabilizes at 0.5.

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
0.5
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
0.5
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
2
10
1
10
-1
0.5

Figure 7-2 Response of a well with wellbore storage and skins in a double
permeability reservoir. The two layers are producing into the well.
C
D
= 1000, S
1
=S
2
= 0, = 0.02, = 0.8, = 6.10
-8

( ) PM 2 . 141
2 2 1 1
qB h k h k = + (mD.ft, field units)
( ) PM 66 . 18
2 2 1 1
qB h k h k = + (mD.m, metric units) ( 7-11)

|
.
|
\
| +
=
TM
1
000295 . 0
2 2 1 1
h k h k
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
TM
1
00223 . 0
2 2 1 1
h k h k
C (m
3

The heterogeneous parameters , and are adjusted preferably with the
derivative curve. When the two skins S
1
and S
2
are different, the well condition
influences the shape of the derivative transition, and it is difficult to conclude the
match uniquely.

provides an estimate of the vertical permeabilities. From Equations 7-6 and 7-7 :

( ) k k h k h
r
h
Z
w
' ' = +
1 1 2 2
2
(mD) ( 7-13)


- 130 -

( ) k k h k h
r
h
Z
w
2 1 1 2 2
2
2
2
= +
(mD) ( 7-14)


It is assumed in that the two skin coefficients are equal: S
1
= S
2
( = 0).

10
1
10
-1
10
-2
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
= 1
0.99
0.999
0.9
0.6
= 0.999
0.6
0.5
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
= 1
0.99
0.999
0.9
0.6
= 0.999
0.6
0.5
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
= 1
0.99
0.999
0.9
0.6
= 0.999
0.6
0.5

Figure 7-3 Double permeability responses when the two layers are producing
into the well. Well with wellbore storage and skins, high storativity contrast.
The two dotted curves describe the homogeneous reservoir response
(C
D
e
2S
= 1) and the double porosity response ( = 1). C
D
= 1, S
1
= S
2
= 0,
= 10
-3
, = 4.10
-4
. Four mobility ratios : = 0.6, 0.9, 0.99 and 0.999.

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
6
4
2
0
= 1, 0.999
0.6
0.9
0.99
= 0.99
= 0.6
Two layers no crossflow
Double permeability
s
lo
p
e
m
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
6
4
2
0
= 1, 0.999
0.6
0.9
0.99
= 0.99
= 0.6
Double permeability
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
6
4
2
0
= 1, 0.999
0.6
0.9
0.99
= 0.99
= 0.6
Double permeability
s
lo
p
e
m

The thick dotted curves correspond to the homogeneous reservoir response
(C
D
e
2S
= 1) and the double porosity response ( = 1).The thin dotted curves
correspond to the two layers responses with no reservoir crossflow (for =
0.6 and 0.99, = 0).


- 131 -
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
-1
= 1
0.99
0.999
0.9
0.6
= 0.999
0.6
0.5
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
-1
= 1
0.99
0.999
0.9
0.6
= 0.999
0.6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
-1
= 1
0.99
0.999
0.9
0.6
= 0.999
0.6
0.5

Figure 7-5 Double permeability responses when the two layers are producing
into the well. Well with wellbore storage and skins, low storativity contrast.
Log-log scale.
The two dotted curves describe the homogeneous reservoir response
(C
D
e
2S
= 1) and the double porosity response ( = 1). C
D
= 1, S
1
= S
2
= 0,
= 10
-1
, = 4.10
-4
. Four mobility ratios : = 0.6, 0.9, 0.99 and 0.999.

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
6
4
2
0
= 1
0.999
0.99
0.9
0.6
= 0.99
= 0.6
Double permeability
s
lo
p
e
m
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
6
4
2
0
= 1
0.999
0.99
0.9
0.6
= 0.99
= 0.6
= 0.99
= 0.6
Double permeability
s
lo
p
e
m

The thick dotted curves correspond to the homogeneous reservoir response
(C
D
e
2S
= 1) and the double porosity response ( = 1).The thin dotted curves
correspond to the two layers responses with no reservoir crossflow (for =
0.6 and 0.99, = 0).

7-3 Double permeability behavior when only one of the two
layers is producing into the well

7-3.1 Log-log pressure and derivative responses

Three characteristic flow regimes :

1. First, the perforated layer response is seen alone, and the behavior is
homogeneous.
2. When the second layer starts to produce by reservoir cross flow, the response
deviates in a transition regime. The derivative drops.
3. Later, the pressure equalizes in the two layers, and the equivalent homogeneous
behavior of the total system is seen. The derivative stabilizes at 0.5.


- 132 -
D
/C
D
0.5
layer 2 produces
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.5/(1-)
D
/C
D
0.5
layer 2 produces
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.5/(1-)
0.5
layer 2 produces
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
0.5/(1-)

Figure 7-7 Response for a well with wellbore storage and skin in double
permeability reservoir, only layer 2 produces into the well. Log-log scale.
C
D
=1000, S
1
= 100, S
2
= 0, = 0.1, = 0.9, = 6.10
-8
.

7-3.2 Discussion of double permeability parameters

When only the low permeability layer is producing, the derivative tends to
stabilize at 0.5/(1-) during the first homogeneous regime. The response is then
similar to the behavior of a well in partial penetration.

D
/C
D
0.5
layer 2 produces
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
2
10
1
10
-1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
layer 1 produces
layer 1
layer 2
the two layers produce
D
/C
D
0.5
layer 2 produces
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
2
10
1
10
-1 D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
layer 1 produces
layer 1
layer 2
the two layers produce

Figure 7-8 Response for a well with wellbore storage and skin in double
permeability reservoir, only one layer is producing into the well.
The dotted curve describes the double permeability response when the two
layers are producing into the well (no skin). C
D
= 1, = 0.2, = 0.9, = 10
-4
,
S
1
= 100, S
2
= 0 and S
1
= 0, S
2
= 100.

When only the high permeability layer produces into the well, the two derivative
stabilizations are almost at the same level: 0.5/ for the first (0.55 in the example
of Figure 7-8) and 0.5 for the second. The response tends to be equivalent to the
double porosity solution with restricted interporosity flow.

7-3.3 Analysis of semi-log straight lines

The response can follow two semi-log straight lines. When one of the two layers
(called layer i) starts to produce alone, the first line is expressed :


- 133 -
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
30
20
10
0
slope m
slope m the two layers produce
layer 2 produces
layer 1 produces
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
30
20
10
0
slope m
slope m the two layers produce
layer 2 produces
layer 1 produces
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
D
30
20
10
0
slope m
slope m the two layers produce the two layers produce
layer 2 produces
layer 1 produces

The dotted curve corresponds to the homogeneous reservoir response, no
skin (C
D
e
2S
= 1).

( )
(
(
+ + =
i
w i t
i
i i
S
r c
k
t
h k
qB
p 87 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2

(psi, field units)

( )
(
(
+ + =
i
w i t
i
i i
S
r c
k
t
h k
qB
p 87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 54 . 21
2


The second line, for the total system regime, gives the total mobility :

( )
(
(
+ + = S
r c
k
t
kh
qB
p
w TOTAL t
TOTAL
TOTAL
87 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2

(psi, field units)

( )
(
(
+ + = S
r h c
kh
t
kh
qB
p
w t
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log 54 . 21
2
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL

(Bars, metric
units) ( 7-16)

The global skin S measured on the total system semi-log straight line is not only a
function of the two layers skins S
1
and S
2
, but also of , and .

7-4 Commingled systems: layered reservoirs without crossflow

7-4.1 Same initial pressure

When there is no reservoir crossflow, the amplitude of the response is larger than
that of the equivalent homogenous system (thin dashed curves on Figure 7-4 and
Figure 7-6). The semi-log slope decreases slowly with time, to reach the equivalent
total system slope of Equation 7-16.

In a n layers system, the pseudo-skin factor S
L
due to layering is defined as :


- 134 -

( )
( )
S
k h
kh
kh c h
kh c h
L
j j
j
n
t
j
t
=
=
1
2
1 TOTAL
TOTAL
ln

( 7-17)

On the example =0.999 and =0.001 of Figure 7-4, the pseudo-skin is estimated
at S
L
=3.5. For the curve =0.9 and =0.1 of Figure 7-6, S
L
is only 0.9.

When the layers have different mechanical skin factors S
i
, the response is also a
function of the skin contrast between the different layers. The global skin can be
defined with two components : S
L
of Equation 7-17, and an average mechanical
skin S . The average mechanical skin S is approximated with :

S
k h
kh
S S
j j
j
n
j j
i
n
j
= =
= =

TOTAL 1 1
( 7-18)

7-4.2 Different initial pressure

When the layers have a different initial pressure, the bottom hole pressure tends
asymptotically towards the average initial pressure if the well is not opened to
surface production. For an infinite system, p
i
is defined as :

p
k h
kh
p
i
j j
j
n
i j
=
=
TOTAL 1
(psi, Bars) ( 7-19)

If the non-producing commingled reservoir is closed, the final average reservoir
pressure is p :

p
V c
Vc
p
j t j
t j
n
i j
=
=
TOTAL 1
(psi, Bars) ( 7-20)

where V
j
is the pore volume of layer j. The final average reservoir pressure p can
be greater or smaller than the "infinite" average initial pressure p
i
of Equation 7-
19.

- 135 -

8 - INTERFERENCE TESTS

8-1 Interference tests in reservoirs with homogeneous
behavior

8-1.1 Responses of producing and observation wells

Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 100 200 300 400 500
p
i
Observation well
Producing well
Time (hours)
4910
4920
4930
180 200 220
p
wf
Observation well
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 100 200 300 400 500
p
i
Observation well
Producing well
Time (hours)
4910
4920
4930
180 200 220
p
wf
Observation well
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 100 200 300 400 500
p
i
Observation well
Producing well
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
3500
4000
4500
5000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 100 200 300 400 500
p
i
Observation well
Producing well
Time (hours)
4910
4920
4930
180 200 220
p
wf
Observation well
Time (hours)
4910
4920
4930
180 200 220
p
wf
Time (hours)
4910
4920
4930
180 200 220
p
wf
Observation well

Figure 8-1 Response of a producing and an observation well. Linear scale.
On the second graph, the observation well pressure is presented on enlarged
scale at time of shut-in.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
Producing well
Observation
well
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
Producing well
Observation
well

Figure 8-2 Build-up response of the producing and observation wells. Log-
log scale.

8-1.2 Log-log analysis with line-source solution

Dimensionless parameters

The line source solution, also called the exponential integral (Ei), or Theis
solution, is expressed as :

Chapter 8 - Interference tests

- 136 -
( )
D D D
t r p 4 Ei
2
2
1
= ( 8-1)

p
D
is defined in Equation 2-3 and the time group t
D
/r
D
2
is :

t
r c
k
r
t
t D
D
=
2 2
000263 0
.
(field units)
t
r c
k
r
t
t D
D
=
2 2
000356 . 0


10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
PRESSURE
DERIVATIVE
Intersection
Approximate start
of radial flow
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
PRESSURE
DERIVATIVE
Intersection
Approximate start
of radial flow
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
PRESSURE
DERIVATIVE
Intersection
Approximate start
of radial flow
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
PRESSURE
DERIVATIVE
Intersection
Approximate start
of radial flow

Figure 8-3 The Theis solution (exponential integral). Log-log scale, pressure
and derivative responses.

With the line source response, the pressure and derivative curves intersect at
t
D
/r
D
2
= 0.57 and p
D
= p'
D
= 0.32. The 0.5 derivative stabilization starts 10 times
later, approximately at t
D
/r
D
2
= 5.

Match results

The permeability thickness product kh is estimated from the pressure match with
Equation 2-8. The time match
( ) D D t r
t
2
gives the effective porosity
compressibility product c
t
:

|
.
|
\
|
=
TM
1 000263 0
2
r
k
c
t
.
(psi
-1
, field units)
|
.
|
\
|
=
TM
1 000356 . 0
2
r
k
c
t
(Bars
-1


- 137 -

8-1.3 Influence of wellbore storage and skin effects at both wells

D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
10
-2
10
-1
10
1 1 10
2
10
3
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
-4
C : r
D
= 300, C
D
= 3000, S = 30
B : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 10000, S = 10
A : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 3000, S = 0
Line source well
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
10
-2
10
-1
10
1 1 10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
10
1 1 10
2
10
3
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
-4
C : r
D
= 300, C
D
= 3000, S = 30
B : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 10000, S = 10
A : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 3000, S = 0
Line source well

Figure 8-4 Influence of wellbore storage and skin effects on interference
pressure responses. Log-log scale.
The dotted curve corresponds to the Theis solution. Two distances:
r
D
= 1000 : C
D
= 3000, S = 0 (curve A) and C
D
= 10000, S = 10 (curve B).
r
D
= 300 : C
D
= 3000, S = 30 (curve C).

D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
10
1 1
10
2
10
3
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
-4
C : r
D
= 300, C
D
= 3000, S = 30
B : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 10000, S = 10
A : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 3000, S = 0
Line source well
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
10
1 1
10
2
10
3
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
-4
C : r
D
= 300, C
D
= 3000, S = 30
B : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 10000, S = 10
A : r
D
= 1000, C
D
= 3000, S = 0
Line source well

Figure 8-5 Derivative curves of Figure 8-4. Log-log scale.
The dotted derivative curve corresponds to the Theis solution.


- 138 -
10
-2
10
-1
10
1
1
10
-1
10
-2
1
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
B
Line source well
Intersections
A
10
-2
10
-1
10
1
1 10
-2
10
-1
10
1
1
10
-1
10
-2
1
10
-1
10
-2
1
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
B
Line source well
Intersections
A
D
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
B
Line source well
Intersections
A

Figure 8-6 Pressure an derivative curves of Figure 8-4 and Figure 8-5,
examples A and B. Log-log scale.
The dotted derivative curve corresponds to the Theis solution.

8-1.4 Semi-log analysis of interference responses

When t
D
/r
D
2
> 5, the infinite acting radial flow regime is reached.

p p
qB
kh
t
k
c r
i wf
t
= +
|
\
|
.
|
162 6
32275
2
.

log log . (psi, field units)
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ = 10 . 3 log log
5 21
2
r c
k
t
kh
qB .
p p
t
wf i


8-1.5 Anisotropic reservoirs

Active
well
k
max
x
y
Observation
well at (x, y)
k
min
Active
well
k
max
x
y
Observation
well at (x, y)
k
min

Figure 8-7 Interference test in an anisotropic reservoir. Location of the active
well and the observation well.

With a coordinate system centered on the active well, the observation well location
is defined as (x,y) and k
x
, k
y
, k
xy
are the components of the permeability tensor.


- 139 -
When several observation well responses are matched against the exponential
integral type curve of Figure 8-3, the pressure match is the same for all responses
and only the time match changes. The apparent permeability is :

k k k k k k
x y xy
= =
max min
2
(mD) ( 8-4)

The apparent distance r
D,x,y
of the observation well is function of the well location
with respect to the main permeability directions. The dimensionless time
corresponding to well (x,y) is defined as :

t
r
t
c
k k
k y k x k xy
D
D
x y
t
x y xy
2 2 2
0000263
2
|
\
|
.
| =
+
|
\
|
.
|
|
,
max min
.
(field units)
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
xy k x k y k
k k
c
t
r
t
xy y x
t
y x
D
D
2
000356 0
2 2
min max
,
2

.

With three observation well responses, k
x
, k
y
and k
xy
can be estimated. The major
and minor reservoir permeability k
max
and k
min
are be defined with

( )
k k k k k k
x y x y xy max
/
. = + + +

`
)
05 4
2
2
1 2
(mD) ( 8-6)

( )
k k k k k k
x y x y xy min
/
. = + +

`
)
05 4
2
2
1 2
(mD) ( 8-7)

The angle between the major permeability axis and the x-axis of the coordinate
system is expressed with :

=

|
\
|
.
|
|
arctan
max
k k
k
x
xy
( 8-8)

When only one observation well response is available for interpretation, the
reservoir anisotropy is not accessible. The pressure match gives the average
permeability k k
max min
but the porosity compressibility product c
t
estimated
from the time match with Equation 8-3 can be wrong.

8-2 Interference tests in double porosity reservoirs

The responses are expressed with the dimensionless pressure p
D
versus the
dimensionless time group t
fD
/r
D
2
defined with reference to the fissure system
storativity ( V c
t
)
f
:


- 140 -

r c
V
t k
r
t
f t D
Df
2 2
) (
000263 0

=
.
(field units)
( )
t
r Vc
k
r
t
f t D
Df
=
2 2
000356 . 0


8-2.1 Double porosity reservoirs with restricted interporosity flow

Pressure type curves

Three curves are needed to define to a double porosity interference response :

1. During the fissure flow regime, the interference response follows the
exponential integral solution.
2. When the transition starts, the response deviates from the fissure curve and
follows a r
D
2
transition curve.
3. Later, the total system equivalent homogeneous regime is reached and a second
exponential integral curve is seen at late time.

The distance between the two homogeneous regime curves is a function of the
storativity ratio . The level of the pressure change p during the transition is
defined by r
D
2
.

When the distance r
D
between the active and the observation wells is large, the
r
D
2
transition stabilizes at a low p value and, beyond a certain distance r
iD
, p
becomes less than the pressure gauge resolution. This distance r
iD
represents the
radius of influence of the fissures around the active well.

D f
/r
D
2
10
-1
10
1
10
4 1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
=0.1 =0.01 =0.001
r
D
2
= 5
1
0.1
0.01
D f
/r
D
2
10
-1
10
1
10
4 1
10
2
10
3 10
-1
10
1
10
4 1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
=0.1 =0.01 =0.001
r
D
2
= 5
1
0.1
0.01
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
=0.1 =0.01 =0.001
r
D
2
= 5
1
0.1
0.01

Figure 8-8 Interference pressure type-curve for a double porosity reservoir,
restricted (pseudo-steady state) interporosity flow.
r
D
2
= 5, 1, 0.1, 0.01.


- 141 -


When the observation well is located inside the radius of influence r
iD
, the fissure
flow regime is seen first. The interference response is observed faster than for the
equivalent homogeneous reservoir.

The t
Df
time scale of Figure 8-9 shows that the transition is observed at the same
time in the active well and in the observation wells. With the t
Df
/r
D
2
time scale of
Figure 8-10, the time of transition is a function of the r
D
2
group.

10
-1
10
-2
1
10
1
D f
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
4
10
5
10
9
10
6
10
7
10
8
A
B
Active well
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
10
-1
10
-2
1
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
1
10
1
D f
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
4
10
5
10
9
10
6
10
7
10
8
A
B
Active well
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
D f
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
4
10
5
10
9
10
6
10
7
10
8
A
B
Active well
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000

Figure 8-9 Interference responses in double porosity reservoirs with
restricted interporosity flow (t
Df
time scale).
= 0.1, = 5 X 10
-8
, two distances : r
D
= 1000 (curve A) and r
D
= 5000 (B).
The dotted curve describes the derivative response at the active well.

10
-1
10
-2
1
10
1
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
10
3
1 10
1
10
2
A
B
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
A
B
10
-1
10
-2
1
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
1
10
1
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
10
3
1 10
1
10
2
A
B
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
A
B
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
10
3
1 10
1
10
2
A
B
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
A
B

Figure 8-10 Interference responses of Figure 8-9, t
Df
/r
D
2
time scale.


- 142 -

8-2.2 Double porosity reservoirs with unrestricted interporosity flow

Pressure type-curve

Two pressure curves :
1. - The interference response starts on a r
D
2
transition curve.
2. - When the total system equivalent homogeneous regime is reached, the
response follows the exponential integral curve.

10
-1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
=0.1 =0.01 =0.001
r
D
2
= 6000
600
60
6
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
10
-1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
10
-1
10
1
10
4
1 10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
1
=0.1 =0.01 =0.001
r
D
2
= 6000
600
60
6
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
=0.1 =0.01 =0.001
r
D
2
= 6000
600
60
6
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D

Figure 8-11 Interference pressure type-curve for a double porosity reservoir,
unrestricted (transient) interporosity flow
r
D
2
= 6*10
3
, 6*10
2
, 60 and 6.

For slab matrix blocks, = 3 5 and, for sphere matrix blocks = 3 .


10
-1
10
-2
1
10
1
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
A
B
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
A
B
10
-2 10
-1
10
3
1 10
1
10
2
10
4
10
-1
10
-2
1
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
1
10
1
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
A
B
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
A
B
D f
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
A
B
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
A
B
A
B
r
D
=1000
r
D
=5000
A
B
10
-2 10
-1
10
3
1 10
1
10
2
10
4
10
-2 10
-1
10
3
1 10
1
10
2
10
4

Figure 8-12 Interference responses in double porosity reservoirs with
unrestricted interporosity flow. Log-log scale.
Two wells, with same parameters as on Figure 8-10


- 143 -
8-3 Influence of reservoir boundaries

Active
well
Linear
sealing
fault
Period
#2
Period
#3
Period
#3
A O
1
O
2
Active
well
Linear
sealing
fault
Period
#2
Period
#3
Period
#3
Active
well
Linear
sealing
fault
Period
#2
Period
#3
Period
#3
A O
1
O
2
A O
1
O
2

Figure 8-13 Interference in a reservoir with a sealing fault.
Location of the active well A and the two observation wells O
1
and O
2
.

In case of one sealing fault, the derivative stabilizes at p'
D
=1 at late time. The time
of transition from 0.5 to 1 can be earlier, or later, than in the active well.

10
1
10
2
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
-1 1 10
1
10
3
10
2
O
1
O
2
Active well 10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
-1 1 10
1
10
3
10
2
O
1
O
2
Active well
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
-1 1 10
1
10
3
10
2
O
1
O
2
Active well

Figure 8-14 Interference in a reservoir with a sealing fault. Pressure and
derivative curves of the two observation wells. Log-log scale.

8-4 Interference tests in radial composite reservoir

When the mobility around the active well is higher than the mobility of the
reservoir (Figure 8-16), the interference signal travels faster. When the active well
is located in a low mobility region (Figure 8-17), the interference signal is delayed.


- 144 -

Active
well
A
O
1
O
2
R/2 2R
R
(k/)
1
(k/)
2
Active
well
A
O
1
O
2
R/2 2R
R
(k/)
1
(k/)
2

Figure 8-15 Interference in a radial composite reservoir. Location of the active
well A and the observation wells O
1
and O
1
.

10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2

Figure 8-16 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. The
mobility of the inner zone is 4 times larger (M=4, F=1).
The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to the Theis
solution for region 2 parameters.

10
1
10
2
1
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,

p
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,

p
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,

p
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,

p
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
O
1
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2

Figure 8-17 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. The
mobility of the inner zone is 4 times smaller (M=1/4, F=1).
The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to theTheis


- 145 -
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
O
2
Line source
region 2
M=4
M=1/4
M=4
M=1/4
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
O
2
Line source
region 2
M=4
M=1/4
M=4
M=1/4
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
O
2
Line source
region 2
M=4
M=1/4
M=4
M=1/4

Figure 8-18 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. Pressure
curves of examples Figure 8-16 and Figure 8-17.
The mobility of the inner zone is 4 times smaller or 4 times larger.
The dotted pressure curve corresponds to the Theis solution for region 2
parameters.

When there is a reduction of storativity c
t
around the active well, the interference
signal reaches the observation well faster (Figure 8-19).

10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2

Figure 8-19 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. Well O
2
.
The storativity of the inner zone is 4 times smaller (M=1, F=1/4).


- 146 -
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
10
1
10
2
1
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
2
Active well
Line source
region 2

2
.
The storativity of the inner zone is 4 times larger (M=1, F=4).

When both the active well and the observation well are located in the inner
reservoir region, the interference response can show the 2 usual derivative
stabilizations of the radial composite model (Figure 8-21).

10
1
10
2
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
Active well
Line source region 2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
-2
10
4
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
Active well
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
O
1
Active well
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
-2
10
4
10
-1
1 10
1
10
3
10
2
10
-2
10
4

1
.
The mobility and the storativity of the inner zone are 10 times larger
(M=F=10).

8-5 Interference tests in a two layers reservoir with cross flow

The dimensionless pressure p
1+2D
and the dimensionless time group t
1+2D
/r
D
2
are
defined with the parameters of the total system.

For the example used in the following, the contrast between the layers is not high
( =0.4 and =0.7), and the active well is expected to show the equivalent
homogeneous behavior.


- 147 -

On Figure 8-22, only one layer is perforated at the observation well. When only
the high permeability layer 1 is communicating with the observation well, the
response is seen before the equivalent homogeneous solution for the total system.
When the interference is monitored through the low permeability layer 2, the early
time response is delayed compared to the Theis solution for the total system. After
the double permeability transition, the two responses merge on the equivalent
homogeneous total system curve.

10
-1
10
-2
1
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
D 1+2
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Layer 1
Layer 2
Line source
total system
10
-1
10
-2
1
10
-1
10
-2
1
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1 10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
D 1+2
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Layer 1
Layer 2
Line source
total system
D 1+2
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
Layer 1
Layer 2
Line source
total system

Figure 8-22 Interference responses in a double permeability reservoir, one
layer is perforated in the observation well. Log-log scale.
The dotted pressure and derivative curves correspond to the Theis solution
for the total system equivalent homogeneous reservoir.
=0.4, =0.7 and =10
-6
.

When two layers are perforated, a cross flow is present in the well at the start of
the interference response, and the observation well becomes active (even though it
is not producing at surface). The resulting response (Figure 8-23) is close to the
response of layer 1 alone : when several layers are perforated, the high
permeability layer dominates the observation well behavior.

10
-1
10
-2
1
D 1+2
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
Line source
total system
10
-1
10
-2
1
10
-1
10
-2
1
D 1+2
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
Line source
total system
D 1+2
/r
D
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
Line source
total system

Figure 8-23 Interference responses in a double permeability reservoir, the two
layers are perforated in the observation well.
Same parameters as on Figure 8-22, the dotted curves correspond to the
total system equivalent homogeneous Theis solution.

- 148 -

- 149 -

9 - GAS WELLS

Two different types of test are used with gas wells. Transient analysis provides a
description of the producing system, as for oil wells. With deliverability testing,
the theoretical rate at which the well would flow if the sandface was at
atmospheric pressure, "the Absolute Open Flow Potential" AOFP, is estimated.

9-1 Gas properties

9-1.1 Gas compressibility and viscosity

The viscosity and the compressibility of gas c
g
change with the pressure.

c
p Z
Z
p
g
=
1 1
(psi
-1
, Bars
-1
) ( 9-1)

Z is the real gas deviation factor. For an ideal gas Z=1, and the compressibility is
c
g
=1/p.

9-1.2 Pseudo-pressure

The pseudo-pressure m(p), also called "real gas potential", is defined :

( )
( ) ( )
m p
p
p Z p
dp
p
p
=

2
0
(psia
2
/cp, Bars
2
/cp) ( 9-2)

The pressure p is expressed in absolute unit, m(p) has the unit of (pressure)
2
/
viscosity , (psia
2
/ cp with the usual system of units). The reference pressure p
0
is
an arbitrary constant, smaller than the lower test pressure.

The complete pressure data is converted into pseudo-pressure m(p) before analysis.
The change of pseudo-pressure, expressed as m(p)-m(p[t=0]), is independent of
the reference pressure p
0
.

9-1.3 Pseudo-time

The pseudo-time t
ps
is sometimes used as a complement of m(p).

( ) ( )
t
p c p
dt
ps
t
t
=

1
0

(hr.psi/cp, hr.Bars/cp) ( 9-3)

In order to estimate and c
t
before calculation of the superposition with the
pseudo time t
ps
, the pressure must be known during the complete flow rate
sequence

Chapter 9 - Gas wells

- 150 -

9-2 Transient analysis of gas well tests

9-2.1 Simplified pseudo-pressure for manual analysis

On Figure 9-1, Z is plotted versus p for a typical natural gas at constant
temperature :

- When the pressure is less than 2000 psia, the product Z is almost constant and
m(p) simplifies into :

( ) m p
Z
pdp
p p
Z
p
p
i i
= =

2
0
2
0
2

(psia
2
/cp, Bars
2
/cp) ( 9-4)

On low-pressure gas wells, it is possible to analyze the test in terms of pressure-
squared p
2
.

- When the pressure is higher than 3000 psia, the product Z tends to be
proportional to p and p/Z can be considered as a constant. The pseudo-pressure
m(p) becomes :

( ) ( ) m p
p
Z
dp p p
p
Z
p
p
i
i i
= =
2 2
0
0

(psia
2
/cp, Bars
2
/cp) ( 9-5)

On high-pressure wells, the gas behaves like a slightly compressible fluid, and the
pressure data can be used directly for analysis.

- Between 2000 psia and 3000 psia, no simplification is available and m(p) must
be used.

Z constant
Z
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
io
n
a
l
t
o

p
Pressure (psia)

Z

(
c
p
)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Z constant
Z
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
io
n
a
l
t
o

p
Pressure (psia)

Z

(
c
p
)
Pressure (psia)

Z

(
c
p
)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Figure 9-1 Isothermal variation of Z with pressure.


- 151 -
9-2.2 Dimensionless parameters

Nomenclature

In field units, the standard pressure is p
sc
=14.7psia and the temperature is
T
sc
= 520R (60F, all temperatures are expressed in absolute units). The gas rate
is expressed in standard condition as q
sc
in Mscf/D (10
3
scft/D ). With the metric
system, p
sc
=1 Bar, T
sc
= 288.15K (15C) and cubic meters are used for gas rates
(m
3
/D.).

When the pseudo-pressure is used, the dimensionless terms are defined with
respect to the gas properties at initial condition (subscript i). With the pressure and
pressure-squared approaches, the properties are defined at the arithmetic average
pressure of the test (symbol ).

Dimensionless pressure

m(p):
( ) ( ) [ ]
( ) ( ) [ ] p m p m
Tq
kh
p m p m
p
T
Tq
kh
p
i
sc
i
sc
sc
sc
D
=
=
4
5
10 03 . 7
10 987 . 1
(field units)
[ ]
[ ] ) ( ) (
1296 . 0
) ( ) (
33 . 37
p m p m
q T
kh
p m p m
p
T
q T
kh
p
i
sc
i
sc
sc
sc
D
=
=

p
2
:
( )
( )
p
kh
ZTq
T
p
p p
kh
ZTq
p p
D
sc
sc
sc
i
sc
i
=
=
1987 10
7 03 10
5 2 2
4 2 2
.
.
(field units)
( )
( )
2 2
2 2
1296 . 0
33 . 37
p p
Tq z
kh
p p
p
T
Tq Z
kh
p
i
sc
i
sc
sc
sc
D
=
=

p:
( )
( )
p
khp
ZTq
T
p
p p
khp
ZTq
p p
D
sc
sc
sc
i
sc
i
=
=
3976 10
1406 10
5
3
.
.
(field units)


- 152 -
( )
( ) p p
Tq Z
p kh
p p
p
T
Tq Z
p kh
p
i
sc
i
sc
sc
sc
D
=
=
0648 . 0
66 . 18

Dimensionless time

m(p):
D
i ti w
t
k
c
r
t =
0 000263
2
.
(field units)
t
r
c
k
t
w ti i
D
=
2
000356 0

.

p
2
and p:
D
t w
t
k
c r
t =
0 000263
2
.
(field units)
t
r c
k
t
w t
D
=
2
000356 0

.

Dimensionless wellbore storage

As for oil wells, the wellbore storage coefficient is expressed in Bbl/psi (or
m
3
/Bars).

m(p):
C
C
c hr
D
ti w
=
08936
2
.
(field units)
2
1592 . 0
w ti
D
hr c
C
C

p
2
and p:
C
C
c hr
D
t w
=
08936
2
.
(field units)
2
1592 . 0
w t
D
hr c
C
C

Dimensionless time group t
D
/C
D

m(p):
t
C
kh t
C
D
D i
= 0 000295 .
(field units)


- 153 -
C
t kh
C
t
i D
D

=
00223 . 0 (metric units) ( 9-13)

p
2
and p:
t
C
kh t
C
D
D
= 0 000295 .
(field units)
C
t kh
C
t
D
D

=
00223 . 0 (metric units) ( 9-14)

Skin

On gas wells, the skin coefficient S' is expressed with a rate dependent term, also
called turbulent effect or non-Darcy skin.

S S Dq
sc
' = + ( 9-15)

In a multirate sequence, the analysis is made with respect to the rate change (q
n
-
q
n-1
), and the skin is estimated from the change of p
skin
between the flow periods n
and n-1. S' is expressed :

( ) ( )
( ) S
q S Dq q S Dq
q q
S D q q
n n n n
n n
n n
' =
+ +
= + +

1 1
1
1
( 9-16)

During shut-in periods (q
n
=0) and during a period immediately after shut-in (q
n-1
=
0), the actual flow rate is used in Equation 9-16.

S = intercept
D
=
s
lo
p
e
q
n
+q
n-1
(Mscf/D)
S
'
=
S
+
D
(
q
n
+
q
n
-
1
)
6
8
10
12
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
S = intercept
D
=
s
lo
p
e
q
n
+q
n-1
(Mscf/D)
S
'
=
S
+
D
(
q
n
+
q
n
-
1
)
S = intercept
D
=
s
lo
p
e
q
n
+q
n-1
(Mscf/D)
S
'
=
S
+
D
(
q
n
+
q
n
-
1
)
q
n
+q
n-1
(Mscf/D)
S
'
=
S
+
D
(
q
n
+
q
n
-
1
)
6
8
10
12
6
8
10
12
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Figure 9-2 Variation of the pseudo-skin with the rate q
n
+ q
n-1
.


- 154 -

9-3 Deliverability tests

9-3.1 Deliverability equations

Empirical approach (Fetkovich, or "C & n")

( )
q C p p
sc i wf
n
=
2 2
(Mscf/D, m
3
/D) ( 9-17)

The initial pressure p
i
and the stabilized flowing pressures p
wf
are expressed in
absolute units. The coefficients C and n are two constant terms. n can vary from 1
in the case of laminar flow, to 0.5 when the flow is fully turbulent.

Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
p
i
2
-
p
w
f
2
(
p
s
i
a
2
)

AOF=9000 Mscft/D
p
wf
=14.7 psia
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
10
3
10
4
10
5
1
/
n
=
s
l
o
p
e
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
p
i
2
-
p
w
f
2
(
p
s
i
a
2
)

AOF=9000 Mscft/D
p
wf
=14.7 psia
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
3
10
4
10
5
1
/
n
=
s
l
o
p
e

Figure 9-3 Deliverability plot for a backpressure test.
Log-log scale, pressure-squared method.

The Absolute Open Flow Potential (AOF) is the theoretical rate for a bottom hole
flowing pressure p
wf
= 14.7 psia (p
wf
=1 Bar).

Theoretical approach (LIT, or Houpeurt's, or Jone's, or "a & b")

In a closed system, the difference between the pseudo-steady state flowing pressure
p
wf
and the following shut-in average pressure p is expressed from Equation 5-16 as :

( ) ( )
m p m p
T
kh
A r
C
S q
T
kh
Dq
wf
w
A
sc sc
= + +
|
\
|
.
| + 1637 0 35 087 1422
2
2
log . . (psia
2
/cp,
field units)


- 155 -
( ) ( )
2
2
1296 . 0 87 . 0 351 . 0 log 1491 . 0
sc sc
A
w
wf
q D
kh
T
q S
C
r A
kh
T
p m p m +
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =
(Bars
2
/cp, metric units) ( 9-18)

With a circular reservoir of radius r
e
, C
A
= 31.62 and m(p) is simplified :

( ) ( )
m p m p
T
kh
r
r
S q
T
kh
Dq
wf
e
w
sc sc
= +
|
\
|
.
| + 1637 2
0 472
087 1422
2
log
.
. (psia
2
/cp, field units)
( ) ( )
2
1296 . 0 87 . 0
472 . 0
log 2 1491 . 0
sc sc
w
e
wf
q D
kh
T
q S
r
r
kh
T
p m p m +
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ = (Bars
2
/cp,
metric units) ( 9-19)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000
m
(
p
)
/
q

(
p
s
i
a
2
D
/
c
p
M
s
c
f
)
a = intercept
tra
n
s
ie
n
t, b
=
s
lo
p
e
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
s
ta
b
iliz
e
d
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
m
(
p
)
/
q

(
p
s
i
a
2
D
/
c
p
M
s
c
f
)
a = intercept
tra
n
s
ie
n
t, b
=
s
lo
p
e
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
s
ta
b
iliz
e
d
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
m
(
p
)
/
q

(
p
s
i
a
2
D
/
c
p
M
s
c
f
)
a = intercept
tra
n
s
ie
n
t, b
=
s
lo
p
e
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
s
ta
b
iliz
e
d
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)

Figure 9-4 Deliverability plot for an isochronal or a modified isochronal test.
Linear scale, pseudo-pressure method.

Before the pseudo-steady state regime, the response follows the semi-log
approximation and m(p) is :

( ) ( )
m p m p
T
kh
k t
c r
S q
T
kh
Dq
wf
i ti w
sc sc
= + +
|
\
|
.
| + 1637 323 087 1422
2
2
log . .

(psia
2
/cp, field units)
( ) ( )
2
2
1296 . 0 87 . 0 10 . 3 log 1491 . 0
sc sc
w ti i
wf
q D
kh
T
q S
r c
t k
kh
T
p m p m +
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
=

(Bars
2
/cp, metric units) ( 9-20)

The two m(p) deliverability relationships can be expressed as a(t) q
sc
+ b q
2
sc
.
During the infinite acting regime, a(t) is an increasing function of the time whereas
"a" is constant when pseudo-steady state is reached. The coefficient "b" is the
same in the two equations.

The Absolute Open Flow Potential is :


- 156 -
( )
q
a a b m p m p
b
sc AOF
sc
,
( ) ( )
=
+ +
2
4
2
(Mscf/D, m
3
/D) ( 9-21)

9-3.2 Back pressure test (Flow after flow test)

The well is produced to stabilized pressure at three or four increasing rates and the
different flow periods have the same duration.

Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6800
6900
7000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6800
6900
7000
6800
6900
7000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
00
10,000
20,000
30,000
10,000
20,000
30,000

Figure 9-5 Pressure and rate history for a backpressure test.

0 2000 4000 6000 8000
m
(
p
)
/
q

(
p
s
i
a
2
D
/
c
p
M
s
c
f
)
2000
2500
3000
3500
a = intercept
b
=
s
lo
p
e
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
m
(
p
)
/
q

(
p
s
i
a
2
D
/
c
p
M
s
c
f
)
2000
2500
3000
3500
a = intercept
b
=
s
lo
p
e
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
m
(
p
)
/
q

(
p
s
i
a
2
D
/
c
p
M
s
c
f
)
2000
2500
3000
3500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2000
2500
3000
3500
a = intercept
b
=
s
lo
p
e
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)

Figure 9-6 Deliverability plot for a backpressure test.
Linear scale, pseudo-pressure method.

9-3.3 Isochronal test

The well is produced at three or four increasing rates and a shut-in period is
introduced between each flow. The drawdown periods, of same duration t
p
, are
stopped during the infinite acting regime. The intermediate build-ups last until the
initial pressure p
i
is reached. A final flow period is extended to reach stabilized
flowing pressure.


- 157 -
0 200 400 600 800
Time, hours
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6800
6900
7000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
p
wf, stab
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
Time, hours
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6800
6900
7000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
p
wf, stab
Time, hours
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6800
6900
7000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
6800
6900
7000
6800
6900
7000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
p
wf, stab

Figure 9-7 Pressure and rate history for an isochronal test.

p
i
2

(
o
r

p
w
s
2
)
-
p
w
f
2

(
p
s
i
a
2
)

AOF=8000 Mscft/D
p
wf
=14.7 psia
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
3
10
4
10
5
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
,
1
/
n
=
s
l
o
p
e
p
i
2

(
o
r

p
w
s
2
)
-
p
w
f
2

(
p
s
i
a
2
)

AOF=8000 Mscft/D
p
wf
=14.7 psia
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
3
10
4
10
5
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
p
i
2

(
o
r

p
w
s
2
)
-
p
w
f
2

(
p
s
i
a
2
)

AOF=8000 Mscft/D
p
wf
=14.7 psia
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
3
10
4
10
5
Rate, q
sc
(Mscf/D)
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
,
1
/
n
=
s
l
o
p
e
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
,
1
/
n
=
s
l
o
p
e

Figure 9-8 Deliverability plot for an isochronal or a modified isochronal test.
Log-log scale, pressure-squared method.

9-3.4 Modified isochronal test

The intermediate shut-in periods have the same duration t
p
as the drawdown
periods, and the last flow is extended until the stabilized pressure is reached.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6300
6500
6700
6900
7100
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
p
wf, stab
p
ws4
p
ws3
p
ws2
p
ws1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6300
6500
6700
6900
7100
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
p
wf, stab
p
ws4
p
ws3
p
ws2
p
ws1
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e
,
q
s
c
(
M
s
c
f
/
D
)
p
wf1
p
wf4
p
wf2
p
wf3
p
i
6300
6500
6700
6900
7100
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
6300
6500
6700
6900
7100
6300
6500
6700
6900
7100
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
p
wf, stab
p
ws4
p
ws3
p
ws2
p
ws1

Figure 9-9 Pressure and rate history for a modified isochronal test.

- 158 -

- 159 -

10 - BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS
RESERVOIRS

10-1 Boundaries in fissured reservoirs

A sealing fault can be reached during the fissure flow regime (Figure 10-1). The
double porosity transition is observed during the semi-radial flow regime, after a
first derivative stabilization at 1.

10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
0.5
start of the sealing fault
fissure regime transition total system
1 1
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
0.5
1 1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
0.5
1 1 1 1

Figure 10-1 Well with wellbore storage near a sealing fault, double porosity
reservoir, pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.
C
D
= 10
4
, S = 0, L
D
= 5000, = 0.2,
eff
= 10
-9
.

In a channel double porosity reservoir with unrestricted interporosity flow, a 1/4
slope derivative straight line can be observed at transition time (Figure 10-2).

10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.25
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
s
lo
p
e
1
/4
0.5
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.25
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
s
lo
p
e
1
/4
0.5
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
7
10
8
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.25
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
s
lo
p
e
1
/4
0.5
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
7
10
8

Figure 10-2 Well with wellbore storage in a double porosity channel reservoir,
unrestricted interporosity flow, slab matrix blocks.
The thin curves correspond to the infinite double porosity reservoir response.
C
D
= 10, S = 0, L
1D
= L
2D
= 300, = 10
-3
, = 10
-6
.

When the four sealing boundaries of a closed system are reached during the fissure
flow, the double porosity transition is superimposed to the start of the pseudo-
steady state regime (Figure 10-3). With mixed boundaries, derivative responses
can exhibit several consecutive humps (Figure 10-4).

Chapter 10 - Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs

- 160 -

10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5 0.5

Figure 10-3 Drawdown response for a well with wellbore storage at the center
of closed square double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity
flow.
The thin dotted curves correspond to the equivalent homogeneous closed square
reservoir. The infinite reservoir double porosity derivative response is presented
by the thick dotted curve. C
D
= 100, S = 0, L
iD
= 1000, = 0.1,
eff
= 10
-6
.

10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
2
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
2

Figure 10-4 Well with wellbore storage in a square double porosity reservoir
with composite boundaries, pseudo steady state interporosity flow.
The dotted curve corresponds to the equivalent infinite double porosity
reservoir. C
D
= 100, S = 0, = 0.1,
eff
= 10
-6
, L
1D
= L
2D
= 500 (sealing),
L
3D
= 1500 (constant pressure) and L
4D
= 1500 (sealing).

10-2 Boundaries in layered reservoirs

On Figure 10-5, the reservoir cross flow is not established when the fault is seen.
The boundary is reached first in Layer 1, and the derivative deviates earlier than on
the equivalent homogeneous response. In layered channel reservoirs, the channel
width can appear smaller (Figure 10-6).


- 161 -

10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
1
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
1
0.5
1

Figure 10-5 Well with wellbore storage in a double permeability reservoir with
a sealing fault.
The dotted curves describe the sealing fault response in the equivalent
homogeneous reservoir. C
D
= 100, S
1
= S
2
= 0, L
D
= 500, = 0.15, = 0.7,
= 10
-10
.

10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2

Figure 10-6 Well with wellbore storage in a double permeability reservoir with
two parallel sealing faults.
The dotted curves describe to the channel response of the equivalent
homogeneous reservoir. C
D
= 100, S
1
= S
2
= 0, L
1D
= L
2D
= 1000,
= 0.15, = 0.7, = 10
-10
.

In a closed double permeability reservoir, a derivative hump can be observed at
intermediate time, as on the composite example of Figure 10-4. On Figure 10-7,
the closed circular boundary is reached during the early time commingled
response. After the wellbore storage effect and the early time infinite behavior, a
second unit slope straight line, followed by a hump is seen. Later, the derivative
stabilizes at 0.5 / (1 - ) until the final unit slope line for the pseudo steady state
regime becomes evident.

The first unit slope straight line describes the wellbore storage, the second is a
function of layer 1 storage A/r
w
2
and the final corresponds to the reservoir
storage (A/r
w
2
in dimensionless terms).


- 162 -

10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
s
l
o
p
e
1
s
l
o
p
e
1
0.5/(1-)
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
7
10
-1
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
s
l
o
p
e
1
s
l
o
p
e
1
0.5/(1-)
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
0.5
s
l
o
p
e
1
s
l
o
p
e
1
0.5/(1-)

Figure 10-7 Drawdown response for a well with wellbore storage in a closed
circle double permeability reservoir.
The dotted curves correspond to the closed equivalent homogeneous
reservoir. C
D
= 100, S
1
= S
2
= 0, r
D
= 5000, = 0.002, = 0.7, = 10
-10
.

10-3 Composite channel reservoirs

In channel reservoirs, when the mobility changes near the edges of the channel
banks (Figure 10-8), or along the channel length (Figure 10-9), the responses tend
to be equivalent to that of a homogeneous channel with a different width.

When the mobility contrast is large, drawdown responses can show at intermediate
time a closed system behavior, or channel with constant pressure boundary
response (Figure 10-10). Build-up responses can be severely distorted (Figure 10-
11).

10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
M=0.2, 1, 5
M= 5
0.2
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
M=0.2, 1, 5
M= 5
0.2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
M=0.2, 1, 5
M= 5
0.2

Figure 10-8 Well with wellbore storage in a composite channel. The interfaces
are parallel to the boundaries.
C
D
= 100, S = 0, L
1D
= L
2D
=1000, d
1D
= d
2D
=500, M
1
= M
2
= 0.2, 1 and 5.


- 163 -
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
M=0.2, 1, 5
M =0.2
5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
10
1
10
5
1 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
6
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/
2
M=0.2, 1, 5
M =0.2
5

Figure 10-9 Well with wellbore storage in a composite channel. The interfaces
are perpendicular to the boundaries.
C
D
= 100, S = 0, L
1D
= L
2D
=1000, d
1D
= d
2D
=2000, M
1
= M
2
= 0.2, 1 and 5.

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
2
10
6
10
1
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
7
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
M=0.02
M= 50
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
s
l
o
p
e
1
closed
channel
channel with
constant pressure
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
2
10
6
10
1
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
7
10
2
10
6
10
1
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
7
0.5
s
lo
p
e
1
/2
M=0.02
M= 50
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
s
l
o
p
e
1
closed
channel
channel with
constant pressure

Figure 10-10 Drawdown responses for a well with wellbore storage in
composite channel. The interfaces are perpendicular to the boundaries.
On the dotted curves, the interfaces are changed into sealing and constant
pressure boundaries. C
D
= 100, S = 0, L
1D
= L
2D
=500, d
1D
= d
2D
=1500,
M
1
= M
2
= 0.02, 1 and 50.

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
M=5, 1, 0.2
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
5
10
2
10
3
10
4
0.5
M=5, 1, 0.2
M = 50
M = 50

Figure 10-11 Pressure and derivative drawdown and build-up responses of
curve M=50 of Figure 10-10.
The two dotted derivative curves are drawdown, the build-up response (thick
line) is generated for (t
p
/C)
D
= 650.

- 164 -

- 165 -

11 - COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES

11-1 Fissured-layered reservoirs

On Figure 11-1, a double permeability response where the two layers are fissured
is presented. For each layer, restricted interporosity flow is assumed. The
parameters correspond to the triple porosity example of Figure 4.33. When the
vertical communication is good in a fissured layered reservoir, grouping of matrix
size by layers has no effect on the response.

When reservoir cross flow between layers is not allowed ( =0), the response is
different.

D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
0.5
no crossflow
crossflow
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
o o o o triple porosity
double permeability
D
/C
D
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
0.5
no crossflow
crossflow
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
o o o o triple porosity
double permeability

Figure 11-1 Fissured layered reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity
flow, different in each layer.
C
Df+m
= 1, S
1
= S
2
= 0, = 0.1, = 0.7, =10
-3
or =0.
1
=0.01,
eff1
=10
-5
,
2
=0.01,
eff2
=5x10
-7
. The (o) dotted curve
corresponds to the triple porosity response of Figure 4.33.

Fissured layered responses depend upon which transition, the double porosity or
the double permeability transition, is seen first.

On Figure 11-2, the high permeability layer 1 is fissured and not layer 2. When the
interporosity flow parameter is small (
eff1
=10
-8
), layer 1 is in fissure regime when
the double permeability transition starts. The reservoir cross flow is established
between the layer 2 and the fissure network of layer 1 and the response becomes
equivalent to the double permeability response = 0.99 of Figure 7-3 (for a
storativity ratio =10
-3
).

If layer 1 is in total system flow (
eff1
=10
-3
) at start of the double permeability
transition, the double porosity transition in layer 1 is first seen during the two
layers no cross flow regime. The double permeability transition tends to be similar
to that of the double permeability response = 0.99 of Figure 7-5 ( =10
-1
).

Chapter 11 - Combined heterogeneities

- 166 -
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1
= 10
-8
0.5
1
= 10
-3
double permeability =10
-3
-1
10
1
10
-1
10
-2
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1
= 10
-8
0.5
1
= 10
-3
-3
-1
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
1
= 10
-8
0.5
1
= 10
-3
-3
-1

Figure 11-2 Fissured layered reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity
flow, only layer 1 is fissured.
C
Df+m
= 1, S
1
= S
2
= 0, = 0.1, = 0.99, =4.10
-4
,
1
=0.01,
eff1
=10
-3
or
eff1
=10
-8
.
The (o) dotted curve corresponds to the double permeability response of
Figure 7-3 with = 10
-3
, = 0.99 and =4.10
-4
and the ( ) to the double
permeability response of Figure 7-5 with = 10
-1
, = 0.99 and =4.10
-4
.

11-2 Fissured radial composite reservoirs

On Figure 11-3, the inner region of a radial composite reservoir is fissured. The
radial composite model corresponds to the curve M=10 of Figure 6-2.

When
eff1
=10
-4
, the response shows first a characteristic double porosity valley
transition. After, it is equivalent to the radial composite with a homogeneous inner
region. When
eff1
=10
-6
, the radial composite interface is seen during the fissure
regime. The two transitions are combined at the same time.

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1
=10
-4
1
=10
-6
radial composite
double porosity
1
=10
-6
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
1
=10
-4
1
=10
-6
radial composite
double porosity
1
=10
-6

Figure 11-3 Radial composite reservoir, the inner region is fissured, pseudo
steady state interporosity flow.
C
D
= 100, S = 3, M=10, F =1 r
D
= 700.
1
=0.01,
eff1
=10
-4
or
eff1
=10
-6
.
The (o) dotted curve corresponds to the radial composite response of Figure
6-2 with M=10, the dashed curve describes the double porosity response
with
1
=0.01 and
eff1
=10
-6
.


- 167 -

11-3 Layered radial composite reservoirs

On Figure 11-4, the reservoir is two-layer without cross flow, but layer 2 is radial
composite with a strong reduction of mobility at r
2D
= 100. The derivative tends to
follow a unit slope straight line at intermediate time (examples M
2
=100 or 1000).
After the derivative hump, the two layers commingled infinite reservoir response is
seen, and the derivative tends to stabilize.

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
M
2
=1000
100
10
M
2
=1000
M
2
=10
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
1
10
-1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
M
2
=1000
100
10
M
2
=1000
M
2
=10

Figure 11-4 Layered reservoir, no cross flow, layer 1 homogeneous, layer 2
radial composite.
C
D
= 30, S
1
= S
2
=0, =0.1, =0.5, =0. r
2D
= 100, M
2
= 10, 100, 1000, F
2
= 1.

The radial composite double permeability model can be used to describe the
presence of a flow barrier between the layers. When no cross flow is allowed in
the inner region of radius r
D
, the valley shaped derivative transition is delayed, and
it tends to be steeper than the double permeability infinite reservoir response
(Figure 11-5). When the reservoir cross flow is only possible in the inner region,
the responses change to the two layers without cross flow at late time (Figure 11-
6). Before, the derivative deviates above the 0.5 stabilization and produces a
smooth hump.

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
r
D
=30
r
D
=100 300
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
r
D
=30
r
D
=100 300

Figure 11-5 Layered reservoir, no cross flow in the inner region.
C
D
= 1, S
1
= S
2
=0, =0.1, =0.9, M=F =1.
1
=0,
2
=4 10
-4
, r
D
=30, 100, 300.
The dotted curves correspond to the double permeability response of Figure
7-5 with =0.9.


- 168 -

D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
r
D
=30
r
D
=100 300
D
/C
D
10
-1
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
1
10
-1
0.5
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

,
p
D

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
r
D
=30
r
D
=100 300

Figure 11-6 Layered reservoir, no cross flow in the outer region.
C
D
= 1, S
1
= S
2
=0, =0.1, =0.9, M=F =1.
1
=4 10
-4
,
2
=0, r
D
=30, 100, 300.
The dotted curves correspond to the double permeability response of Figure
7-5 with =0.9 and the dashed curves to the commingled reservoir (=0).

- 169 -

12 - OTHER TESTING METHODS

12-1 Drillstem test

12-1.1 Test description

During a drillstem test, a down hole shut-in valve controls the well. Before
opening, the well is partially filled with a liquid cushion designed to apply a
pressure p
0
above the valve, smaller than the formation pressure p
i
. When the tester
valve is opened, an instantaneous drop of pressure (p
i
- p
o
) is applied to the
sandface. The formation starts to produce into the well, the level rises in the drill
string and the bottom hole flowing pressure increases.

If the liquid level reaches the surface, the rate tends to stabilize and the DST
procedure becomes similar to that of a standard production test. When no flow to
surface is desired, the down hole valve is closed before the liquid has reached the
surface (Figure 12-1). This flow period is called a "slug test".

4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
p
i
p
0
shut-in
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
p
i
p
0
shut-in
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
p
i
p
0
shut-in

Figure 12-1 Example of DST pressure response. The rate is less than critical.
Linear scale.
The sequence is initial flow, initial shut-in, flow period and final shut-in.

12-1.2 Slug test analysis

During a slug test period, the pressure increases and the flow rate declines. In some
cases, the rate is not controlled by the downstream pressure but by the well
condition. It becomes constant and the pressure increases linearly with time. With
this flow condition, called critical flow, the flowing pressure is not suitable for
interpretation.

When rate is less than critical, slug test analysis methods use a dimensionless
pressure ratio p
rD
, defined as the drop of pressure (p
i
-p
wf
) normalized by (p
i
- p
o
).

Chapter 12 - Other testing methods

- 170 -

0
p p
t p p
p
i
wf i
rD
=
) (
( 12-1)

The ratio p
rD
is very sensitive to the accuracy of the initial pressure p
i
, especially
after some production time, when (p
i
- p
wf
) becomes small.

Slug test pressure type curve

On the type curve Figure 12-2, the dimensionless pressure ratio p
rD
is presented
versus the dimensionless time t
D
/C
D
. The C
D
e
2S
curves describe the well
condition.

D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

r
a
t
i
o
,
p
r
D
=
[
p
i
-
p
w
f
(
t
)
]
/
[
p
i
-
p
0
]
C
D
e
2S
=10
-1
-
1
s
l
o
p
e
C
D
e
2S
=10
60
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
3
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

r
a
t
i
o
,
p
r
D
=
[
p
i
-
p
w
f
(
t
)
]
/
[
p
i
-
p
0
]
C
D
e
2S
=10
-1
-
1
s
l
o
p
e
C
D
e
2S
=10
60
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
D
/C
D
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

r
a
t
i
o
,
p
r
D
=
[
p
i
-
p
w
f
(
t
)
]
/
[
p
i
-
p
0
]
C
D
e
2S
=10
-1
-
1
s
l
o
p
e
C
D
e
2S
=10
60
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
3
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2

Figure 12-2 Slug test type curves on log-log scale.

When the well is opened, p
rD
= 1 and, when the liquid level rises in the well, the
ratio drops. The same pressure ratio is used for the data and the dimensionless
curves, the pressure match is PM =1.

Knowing the wellbore storage coefficient from the changing liquid level
relationship of Equation 1-5, the time match gives the permeability thickness
product:

MATCH
000295 . 0
|
.
|
\
|
=
t
C t C
kh
D D

MATCH
00223 . 0
|
.
|
\
|
=
t
C t C
kh
D D

the skin is estimated from the C
D
e
2S
curve match with Equation 2-10.


- 171 -
Analysis of slug test with the derivative type curve

The product of the slug test pressure change (p
i
-p
wf
) by the elapsed time t can be
matched directly against a derivative type-curve, without having to differentiate
the data.

( ) ) (t p p t
p p C
kh
t d
dp
wf i
i D
D

=
) (
000295 . 0
ln
0
(field units)
( ) ) (t p p t
p p C
kh
t d
dp
wf i
i D
D

=
) (
00223 . 0
ln
0

The permeability thickness product is estimated either from the time match
(Equation 12.2) or from the pressure match :

( )
MATCH
0
ln
000295 . 0
) (
|
|
.
|
\
|

=
) (t p p t
t d dp p p C
kh
wf i
D D i

( )
( )
MATCH
0
ln
00223 . 0
|
|
.
|
\
|

=
) (t p p t
t d dp p p C
kh
wf i
D D i


When the well is closed down hole before the liquid level has reached the surface,
the decreasing rate has to be estimated as a function of time in order to analyze the
subsequent build-up.

4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
0
100
200
300
400
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e

(
B
O
P
D
)
p
0
p
6
q
5
p
1
p
2
p
1
q
6
p
6
q
1
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
0
100
200
300
400
0
100
200
300
400
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e

(
B
O
P
D
)
p
0
p
6
q
5
p
1
p
2
p
1
q
6
p
6
q
1
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
R
a
t
e

(
B
O
P
D
)
p
0
p
6
q
5
p
1
p
1
p
2
p
2
p
1
q
6
p
6
p
6
q
1

Figure 12-3 Example of rate estimation during a DST flow period.

The increasing pressure curve of the flow period is discretized into constant
pressure steps (Figure 12-3). Knowing the liquid gravity, the pressure difference is
converted into the corresponding height of fluid. From the capacity of the drill
pipe, the height is converted into volume.


- 172 -
12-2 Impulse test

12-2.1 Test description

With impulse tests, the well is produced only a few minutes and then closed.

Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
p
i
t
p
t
4500
4700
4900
5100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
p
i
t
p
t
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
a
)
p
i
t
p
t
4500
4700
4900
5100
4500
4700
4900
5100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Figure 4 Example of impulse pressure response. Linear scale.

12-2.2 Impulse test analysis

The complete well pressure response is analyzed on a single analysis plot. During
the short flow, the impulse response is expressed as
( )
p p t
i wf p
and, during the
shut-in, as ( )( )
p p t t
i ws p
+ . The pressure and derivative type curves are used
to analyze the pressure response: during the flowing time, the impulse response is
matched against a pressure type curve and, during the shut-in period, the response
deviates from the usual pressure response to reach the derivative curve with same
C
D
e
2S
.

The pressure match is defined, as in Equation 12-3 :

( )
( )
dp
d t
kh
Q
t t p p
D
D t
p i ws
ln
.
= +
0 000295
(field units)
( )( )
ws i p
t D
D
p p t t
Q
kh
t d
dp
+ =
00223 . 0
ln

where Q
t
is the amount of fluid produced during the short flow t
p
.


- 173 -
1
10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
=

(
p
i
-
p
w
f
)
t
p
o
r

(
p
i
-
p
)
(
t
p
+
t
)

(
p
s
i
)
well shut-in
well flowing
1
10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
=

(
p
i
-
p
w
f
)
t
p
o
r

(
p
i
-
p
)
(
t
p
+
t
)

(
p
s
i
)
well shut-in
well flowing
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
=

(
p
i
-
p
w
f
)
t
p
o
r

(
p
i
-
p
)
(
t
p
+
t
)

(
p
s
i
)
well shut-in
well flowing

Figure 12-5 Impulse match.

As for slug test analysis, the result of impulse test interpretation is very sensitive to
the accuracy of the initial pressure p
i
used for the data plot.

The results can be controlled with a conventional analysis of the shut-in period
after the few minutes flow period (Figure 12-6). The derivative analysis is not
affected by a possible error in initial pressure, and the pressure curve can be used
to estimate the skin accurately.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1

Figure 12-6 Pressure and derivative analysis of the impulse shut-in period.
Log-log scale, p and p' versus t.

12-3 Rate deconvolution

In the multi rate superposition method presented in Section 2-2.2 (Eq. 2-15), the
rate history is described by several step-rate changes occurring at different flow
times t
i
. In the case of a variable production, the rate increments are infinitesimal
and the multi rate superposition is changed into the convolution integral.

The pressure response due to a variable rate q(t) can be expressed with the time
derivative of the rate history:


- 174 -

=
=
t
d t p q
kh
B
t p
D
0
) ( ) ( '
2 . 141
) (

(psi, field units)
=
=
t
d t p q
kh
B
t p
D
0
) ( ) ( '
66 . 18
) (

(bars, metric units) ( 12-6)

The objective of the deconvolution is to transform the measured pressure response
p(t), after any variable rate sequence q(t), into an equivalent constant flow rate
test that can be analyzed with the usual methods.

Several algorithms have been proposed for deconvolution of well test
measurements, using real data of Laplace transformed data. Results are very
dependent upon the quality of the rate curve. The technique has also been
envisaged for interpretation of build-up tests affected by wellbore storage effect.
With accurate sandface flow rate measurement at early shut-in time, the effect of
afterflow can theoretically be eliminated from the pressure build-up response.

12-4 Constant pressure test (rate decline analysis)

When a well is producing at constant wellbore pressure, the declining rate can be
analyzed versus time.

10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
Effective dimensionless time, t
De
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
r
a
t
e
,
q
D
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
Infinite reservoir
r
e
/r
we
= 1000
5000
2500
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
De
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
r
a
t
e
,
q
D
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
Infinite reservoir
r
e
/r
we
= 1000
5000
2500
De
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
r
a
t
e
,
q
D
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1
Infinite reservoir
r
e
/r
we
= 1000
5000
2500

Figure 12-7 Decline curves on log-log scale. Closed reservoir. q
D
versus t
De
.

With log-log rate type curves, the dimensionless flow rate q
D
is expressed as :

( )
q
B
kh p p
q t
D
i wf
=
1412 .
( )
(field units)


- 175 -
( )
) (
66 . 18
t q
p p kh
B
q
wf i
D
=


For semi-log analysis, the reciprocal of the rate 1/q is graphed vs. log t.

( )
(
(
+ +
= S
r c
k
t
p p kh
B
q
w t wf i
87 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
1
2

(D/Bbl, field units)

(
+ +
= S
r c
k
t
p p kh
B
q
w t wf i
87 . 0 10 . 3 log log
) (
5 . 21
1
2

(D/m
3
, metric units)( 12-8)

Results: the permeability is estimated from the slope m
q
of the 1/q straight line and
the skin from the intercept at 1 hour.

) (
6 . 162
wf i q
p p m
B
kh
=

) (
5 . 21
wf i q
p p m
B
kh
=


( )
(
(
+ = 23 . 3 log
hr 1 1
151 . 1
2
w t q
r c
k
m
q
S

( )
(
(
+ = 10 . 3 log
hr 1 1
151 . 1
2
w t
q
r c
k
m
q
S

( 12-10)

12-5 Vertical interference test

Vertical interference tests are used to estimate vertical permeability in a single
layer, or quantify the presence of a sealing interval. An example of usual
application is the characterization of low permeability in feasibility studies related
to underground storage projects.

Different types of equipment can be used in order to isolate several intervals in the
same well.


- 176 -
h
w
z
w-obs
h
w-obs
z
w
k
H1
, k
V1
k
H3
, k
V3
k
H2
, k
V2
k
V
k
H
Homogeneous reservoir Three layers reservoir
h
w
z
w-obs
h
w-obs
z
w
k
H1
, k
V1
k
H3
, k
V3
k
H2
, k
V2
k
V
k
H
h
w
z
w-obs
h
w-obs
z
w
h
w
z
w-obs
h
w-obs
z
w
k
H1
, k
V1
k
H3
, k
V3
k
H2
, k
V2
k
V
k
H
k
H1
, k
V1
k
H3
, k
V3
k
H2
, k
V2
k
V
k
H
Homogeneous reservoir Three layers reservoir

Figure 12-8 Well and reservoir configurations.

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5 line
Z
w-obs
/h = 0.6
10 10
3
10
7
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
0.8
0.7
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5 line
Z
w-obs
/h = 0.6
10 10
3
10
7
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10 10
3
10
7
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
0.8
0.7

Figure 12-9 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration
with wellbore storage. Log-log scale. Several distances.
C
D
= 6, S
w
=0, k
V
/k
H
= 0.005. Producing segment: h
w
/h = 1/10, z
w
/h = 0.5;
observation segment: h
w-obs
/h = 1/100, z
w-obs
/h = 0.6, 0.7, 0.8.

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5 line
10 10
3
10
7
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
k
V
/k
H
= 0.5
0.05
0.005
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5 line
10 10
3
10
7
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10 10
3
10
7
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
k
V
/k
H
= 0.5
0.05
0.005

Figure 12-10 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration
with wellbore storage. Log-log scale. Several vertical permeability.
C
D
= 6, S
w
=0. Producing segment: h
w
/h = 1/10, z
w
/h = 0.5; observation
segment: h
w-obs
/h = 1/100, z
w-obs
/h = 0.6.
Vertical permeability: k
V
/k
H
= 0.5, 0.05, 0.005.


- 177 -
With the double-stage testing method, two tests are performed on the same layer:
the first, on a thick interval, is used to define the horizontal permeability. By
inflating internal packer in the thick interval, three discrete intervals are isolated to
provide vertical interference responses.

Test 1 : radial flow Test 2 : spherical flow
Observation interval
Flowing interval
Test 1 : radial flow Test 2 : spherical flow Test 1 : radial flow Test 2 : spherical flow Test 1 : radial flow Test 2 : spherical flow
Flowing interval

Figure 12-11 Double-stage test.

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5 line
10 10
3
1 10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
Test 1
Partial penetration
Observation
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
D
a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
'
D
D
/C
D
10
-1
1
10
1
10
2
0.5 line
10 10
3
1 10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10 10
3
1 10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
Test 1
Partial penetration
Observation

Figure 12-12 Double-stage test log-log responses.
C
D
= 7, S
w
=0. Producing segment: h
w
/h = 1/10, z
w
/h = 0.5; observation
segment: h.
w-obs
/h = 1/20, z
w-obs
/h = 0.35. Vertical permeability: k
V
/k
H
= 0.3.

- 178 -

- 179 -

13 - MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS

13-1 Perrine method

13-1.1 Hypothesis and definitions

An equivalent monophasic liquid of constant properties is defined as the sum of
the three phases: oil, water and gas. The three phases are assumed to be uniformly
distributed in the reservoir, and the saturations are constant during the test period.
The equivalent rate is expressed:

( )
( )
qB q B q B q B
q B q B q q R B
t
o o w w g g
o o w w sg o s g
= + +
= + +
(Bbl/D, m
3
/D) ( 13-1)

where q
sg
is the gas rate measured at surface, and q
o
R
s
the dissolved gas at bottom
hole conditions.

It is assumed that the total mobility (k/)
t
of the equivalent monophasic fluid can
be expressed as the sum of the effective phase mobilities :

( ) k k k k
t
o o w w g g
= + + (mD/cp) ( 13-2)

The effective total compressibility c
t
includes the effect of free gas liberated (or
dissolved) in the oil and the water phases :

( ) ( )
c c S c S c S c S B B
R
p
S B B
R
p
t f o o w w g g o g o
s
w g w
sw
= + + + + +

(psi
-1
, Bars
1
) ( 13-3)

13-1.2 Analysis

In the usual equations for oil reservoirs, the mobility k/ and the rate q are changed
into the total mobility (k/)
t
and the equivalent rate (qB)
t
. For log-log analysis,
dimensionless pressure and time are respectively :

( )
( )
p
k h
qB
p
D
t
t
=

1412 .
(field units)
( )
( )
p
qB
h k
p
t
t
D
=
66 . 18


Chapter 13 - Multiphase reservoirs

- 180 -
( ) t
C
k h
C
t
D
D
t
= 0 000295 .

(field units)
( )
t
C
h k
C
t
t
D
D
=

000223 . 0 (metric units) ( 13-5)

The slope m of the semi-log straight line is expressed

( )
( ) h k
qB
m
t
t
6 . 162 = (psi, field units)

( )
( ) h k
qB
m
t
t
5 . 21 = (Bars, metric units) ( 13-6)

The analysis yields the effective mobility of this equivalent fluid. When the
relative permeabilities k
r"o,w,g"
of the different phases are known, the absolute
permeability can be estimated :

( )
( )
k k k k k
t
ro o rw w rg g
= + + (mD/cp) ( 13-7)

13-2 Other methods

13-2.1 Multiphase pseudo-pressure

For solution gas drive reservoir, the pseudo pressure is expressed :

m p
k S
B
dp
ro o
o o
p
( )
( )
=

0
(psi/cp, Bars/cp) ( 13-8)

For gas condensate reservoir, the molar density of the oil and gas phases
o,g
are
used:

m p
k
k
dp
o
ro
o
g
rg
g
p
p
( ) = +
|
\
|
.
|
|

0
(psi/cp, Bars/cp) ( 13-9)

The relative permeability curves are needed to calculate the multiphase pseudo-
pressure functions. As the saturation profile depends upon the rate history, m(p)
depends upon the test sequence.

Chapter 13 - Multiphase reservoirs

- 181 -

13-2.2 Pressure squared method

For log-log analysis, dimensionless pressure is expressed with respect to the oil
rate:

( )
p
ah
q
p
D
o
=
282 4
2
.
(field units)
( )
2
33 . 37
p
q
h a
p
o
D

where a is assumed to be a constant, defined as :

k
B
a p
o
o o
= ( 13-11)

- 182 -

- 183 -

14- TEST DESIGN

14-1 Introduction

Once the objectives of the test have been defined, the program is established taking
into account the different operational constraints. Test simulations are generated to
ensure the objectives can be achieved, and to define the optimum testing sequence.

Test programming and conduct, as well as the definition of the responsibilities
during testing, are presented in a different section. In the following, only test
simulation is discussed.

14-2 Test simulation

14-2.1 Simulation procedure

Before generating the simulations, all parameters must have been defined: static
parameters, reservoir parameters and the anticipated flow rate.

In order to evaluate the expected reservoir model, a first simulation can be
generated for a long constant rate drawdown.

By examination of this ideal response, the minimum duration of the flow and
shut-in periods can be estimated.

A multirate simulation is generated for prediction of the actual test response.
Taking into account possible pressure gauge noise or drift, the test program is
adjusted to ensure a complete and significant pressure response for the lowest
test duration.

The simulation can be converted into data in order to control the quality of the
future analysis.

14-2.2 Test design tips

Test design is a compromise between cost and reliability. The final test program is
defined from not only technical considerations, but also taking into account the
desired degree of confidence in the results. Test sequences are sometimes designed
with two or several buildup periods after different flow rates, some relatively
short, since wellbore problems frequently distort early time data. For gas wells for
example, the Modified Isochronal test sequence, possibly followed by a long build-
up period, is well adapted to transient analysis purpose.

Chapter 14 - Test design

- 184 -
In multirate testing, an increasing flowrate sequence is preferred to a decreasing
rate history. With decreasing rates, the multirate correction with the time
superposition function can be very sensitive to inaccurate rate data.

14-3 Test design reporting and test supervision

Test design is not limited to the definition of the different flow periods. From
examination of the pressure change observed on the test simulation, the
requirements for the pressure gauge characteristics are defined. Guidelines for
clean up (gas wells) and initial shut-in can be established. If the reservoir pressure
is decreasing, it may be necessary to evaluate the pressure trend accurately before
the test (interference test design). In such a case, the duration of the reservoir
pressure survey before the start of the operation is part of the design program.

Experience of tests in neighboring wells can be used to establish specifications
such as gauge depths, use of a down hole shut-in tool, etc.

In the ideal case, the same person is in charge of the design and of the test
supervision. The experience gained from the design study can be used to adjust in
real time the program to any unexpected event (well shut-in for operational or
safety reason), or to a different pressure behavior.

During the test supervision, any action that can affect the pressure data must be
recorded (such as leak, operation on the well or change of annular pressure during
shut-in, etc.)

- 185 -

15 - FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST
ANALYSIS

15-1 Rate history definition

Two approaches can be used in order to simplify the rate history:

1. An equivalent production time is defined as the ratio of the cumulative
production divided by the last rate (called equivalent Horner time). On the test
example of Figure 15-1, t
p
=120.

2. When there is a shut-in period in the rate history, if the bottom hole pressure
has almost reached the initial pressure p
i
, it is assumed that the rate history
prior this shut-in is negligible. On the test example, t
p
=20.

t
p
=120
t
p
=20
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
0 50 500 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
3500
3700
3900
4000
3800
3600
t
p
=120
t
p
=20
t
p
=120
t
p
=20
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
0 50 500 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
3500
3700
3900
4000
3800
3600
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
0 50 500 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0 50 500 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
3500
3700
3900
4000
3800
3600
3500
3700
3900
4000
3800
3600

Figure 15-1 Example of a two drawdowns test sequence.
Linear scale.

t
p
=20
t
p
=120
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p

a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
t
p
=20
t
p
=120
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
t
p
=20
t
p
=120
t
p
=20
t
p
=120
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p

a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)

Figure 15-2 Log-log plot of the final build-up.
The derivative is generated with three different rate histories.

In practice, if the duration of the analyzed period is t, it is possible to simplify the
rate history for any rate changes that occurred at more than 2t before the start of
the period. All rate variations immediately before the analyzed test period must be
introduced in the superposition time.

Chapter 15 - Factors complicating well test analysis

- 186 -

15-2 Error of start of the period

a
Time, t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
169.7 169.8 169.9 170.0 170.1 170.2 170.3
3750
3790
3830
3810
3770
b
e
c
d
a
Time, t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
169.7 169.8 169.9 170.0 170.1 170.2 170.3 169.7 169.8 169.9 170.0 170.1 170.2 170.3
3750
3790
3830
3810
3770
3750
3790
3830
3810
3770
b
e
c
d

Figure 15-3 Example of Figure 15-1 at time of shut-in. Time and pressure
errors.
- Shut-in time error: curve a = 0.1 hr before and curve b = 0.1 hr after the
actual shut-in time.
- Shut-in pressure error: curve c = 10 psi below and curve d = 10 psi above
the last flowing pressure.
- Error in time and pressure: curve e.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
a
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
a

Figure 15-4 Case a: shut-in time too early.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
b
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
b

Figure 15-5 Case b: shut-in time too late.


- 187 -

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
c
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
c

Figure 15-6 Case c: last flowing pressure too low.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
d
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
d

Figure 15-7 Case d: last flowing pressure too high.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
e
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
e

Figure 15-8 Case e: shut-in time too late, last flowing pressure is taken in the
build-up data, during the wellbore storage regime.

A good log-log match can be obtained in case e but the resulting skin is under
estimated. Pressure errors are clearly shown on the linear scale test simulation plot.


- 188 -
15-3 Pressure gauge drift

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
(
p
s
i
)
0
100
200
300
0 100 200 300
Drift +
Drift -
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
(
p
s
i
)
0
100
200
300
0
100
200
300
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Drift +
Drift -

Figure 15-9 Final build-up of Figure 15-1. Drift of 0.05 psi/hr.
Linear scale.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
Drift +
Drift -
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
Drift +
Drift -

Figure 15-10 Log-log plot of the build-up example. Drift of 0.05 psi/hr.

The effect of a constant drift is inverse during flow and shut-in periods.

15-4 Pressure gauge noise

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
(
p
s
i
)
0 100 200 300
0
100
200
250
150
50
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
(
p
s
i
)
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
0
100
200
250
150
50
0
100
200
250
150
50

Figure 15-11 Final build-up of Figure 15-1. Noise of +1 psi every 2 points.
Linear scale.


- 189 -
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2

Figure 15-12 Log-log plot of the build-up example. Noise of +1 psi every 2
points.
Three points derivative algorithm. No smoothing.

15-5 Changing wellbore storage

Changing wellbore storage happens when the compressibility of the fluid in the
wellbore is not constant. It is observed for example when, in a damaged oil well,
free gas is liberated in the production string.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
C gas
C oil
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
C gas C gas
C oil

Figure 15-13 Log-log plot of a drawdown example of changing wellbore
storage.

During drawdown, the response describes first the compressibility of the oil but,
when the pressure drops below bubble point, the gas compressibility dominates.
The wellbore storage coefficient of Equation 1-4 is then increased.


- 190 -
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
C gas
C oil
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
C gas
C oil

Figure 15-14 Log-log plot of a build-up example of changing wellbore storage

During build-up periods, the response corresponds to the gas wellbore storage
coefficient immediately after shut-in, and changes to the lower oil wellbore storage
later. This produces a steep increase of derivative and, in some cases; the
derivative follows a slope greater than unity at the end of the gas dominated early
time response.

Due to the variable compressibility of gas, changing wellbore storage is also
frequently evident on gas wells with a large drawdown.

15-6 Two phases liquid level

In diphasic wells (oil + water, or gas + condensate), a phase redistribution in the
wellbore can produce a characteristic humping effect.

diphasic flow changing liquid level end of phase
segregation effect
segregation effect
segregation effect

Figure 15-15 Changing liquid level after phase segregation.

When, after shut-in, water falls at the bottom of the well for example, the weight of
the column between the pressure gauge and the formation is not constant as long as
the water level rises and the gauge pressure is not parallel to the formation
pressure. In some cases, the build-up pressure can show a temporary decreasing
trend after some shut-in time. During this time interval, the derivative becomes
negative.


- 191 -
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
2000
3000
4000
3500
2500
18 28
Pressure difference before
phase segregation
Pressure difference after
phase segregation
humping
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
2000
3000
4000
3500
2500
18 28
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
2000
3000
4000
3500
2500
2000
3000
4000
3500
2500
18 28
Pressure difference before
phase segregation
Pressure difference after
phase segregation
humping

Figure 15-16 Example of build-up response distorted by phase segregation.
Humping effect.

If the interface between the two phases stabilizes, or reaches the depth of the
pressure gauge, the pressure difference between gauge and formation returns to a
constant, and the remaining build-up data can be properly analyzed.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p

a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p

a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
2
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1

Figure 15-17 Log-log plot of the build-up example of phase segregation.

When phase redistribution is expected, the pressure gauge should be as close as
possible to the perforated interval (or even below).

15-7 Input parameters, and calculated results of interpretation

Errors in the static parameters influence the calculated interpretation results, but
the choice of the interpretation model is in general not affected. Frequently, the
analysis is initialized with approximate values, and refined with adjusted
parameters later, without significantly changing the interpretation model.

The net thickness h and the oil viscosity are for example frequently not
accurately defined during exploration testing. Well test interpretation provides the
kh/ group from the log-log pressure match or the semi-log slope m. Any error on
h or directly influences the permeability estimate k. The skin Equation 1-14


- 192 -
shows that, for a given kh/ group, S is hardly dependent upon h (with a logarithm
relationship), and not upon the viscosity . (present in the k/ group).

From the equations used to calculate the different interpretation results, the
influence of any error in the static parameters can be evaluated. The radius of
investigation for example, and the distance to a possible boundary, are dependent
upon h (with the square root relationship of Equation 1-32 or 1-22), but
independent of .

Before comparing results of interpretation to geological or geophysical data, the
significance of the model parameters must be clearly understood. This can be
illustrated with the different averaging methods used for the permeability:
The apparent vertical permeability k
V
is a harmonic average as shown in Eq. 3-
25
The horizontal permeability k
H
, is the arithmetic average of each layer
permeability (Eq. 3-24 for example).
In the case of permeability anisotropy, the horizontal permeability is defined as
the geometric average of Eq. 8-4.

Boundary distances are frequently estimated by assuming strictly radial flow in a
single homogeneous layer. In the case of a permeability anisotropy or
heterogeneous reservoir properties such as layering (see Section 10-2) the distance
to a reservoir boundary can be different from that indicated by the simple
interpretation model used for analysis.

- 193 -
16 - CONCLUSION

16-1 Interpretation procedure

16-1.1 Methodology

Well test analysis is a three steps process:

1. Identification of the interpretation model. The derivative plot is the primary
identification tool.
2. Calculation of the interpretation model. The log-log pressure and derivative
plot is used to make the first estimates.
3. Verification of the interpretation model. The simulation is adjusted on the three
usual plots: log-log, test history and superposition.

The consistency of the interpretation model is finally checked against non-testing
information.

Model selection (derivative)
Estimate parameters : kh, C,
heterogeneities , boundaries
(derivative) and S (pressure)
Simul #1 . . . . . . #n
Log-log
analysis
Adjust initial pressure p
i
Check the data (variable skin,
consistent rate history)
Check the model response on a
larger time interval
Test
history
simulation
Adjust parameters (p
i
, S, C...)
Superposition
simulation
Next model
End
Simul #1 . . . . . . #n
Log-log
analysis
i
Test
history
simulation
i
, S, C...)
Superposition
simulation
Next model
End
1
2
3
Simul #1 . . . . . . #n
Log-log
analysis
i
Test
history
simulation
i
, S, C...)
Superposition
simulation
Next model
End
Simul #1 . . . . . . #n
Log-log
analysis
i
Test
history
simulation
i
, S, C...)
Superposition
simulation
Next model
End
1
2
3
1
2
3

Chapter 16 - Conclusion

- 194 -

16-1.2 The diagnosis: typical pressure and derivative shapes

Flow regime identification

GEOMETRY LOG-LOG TIME RANGE
shape slope Early Intermediate Late

Radial

0
No

Double
porosity
restricted

Homogeneous
behavior

Semi infinite
reservoir

Linear

1/2
1/2

Infinite
conductivity
fracture

Horizontal
well

Two sealing
boundaries

Bi-linear

1/4
1/4

Finite
conductivity
fracture

Finite
conductivity
fault
Double
porosity
unrestricted
with linear
flow

Spherical

-1/2
No

Well in
partial
penetration

Pseudo
Steady State

1
1

Wellbore
storage

Layered no
crossflow
with
boundaries

Closed
reservoir
(drawdown)

Steady State

-1
0
() () () ()

Conductive
fault

Constant
pressure
boundary

Pressure curve
Derivative curve


- 195 -

Changes of properties during radial flow

Mobility decreases : Sealing boundaries, composite reservoirs, horizontal well
with a long drain hole.

Elapsed time, log (t)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g

(
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m1
m
2

>

m
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g

(
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g

(
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m1
m
2

>

m
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m1
m
2

>

m
1

Figure 16-1 The mobility decreases (kh ).
Log-log and semi-log scales.

Mobility increases : Composite reservoirs, constant pressure boundaries, layered
systems, wells in partial penetration.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g

(
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m
1
m2
<
m1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g

(
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g

(
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g

(
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m
1
m2
<
m1

Figure 16-2 The mobility increases (kh ).

Storativity increases : Double porosity reservoirs, layered and composite
reservoirs.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g

(
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m1
m
2

=

m
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g

(
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g

(
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g

(
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m1
m
2

=

m
1

Figure 16-3 The storativity increases ( c
t
h ).

Storativity decreases : Composite systems.


- 196 -
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g

(
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m1
m2

=
m1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g

(
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g

(
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
,
l
o
g

(
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
m1
m2

=
m1

Figure 16-4 The storativity decreases ( c
t
h ).

16-1.3 Summary of usual log-log responses

Well models

Wellbore storage and Skin (3.1)

1 Wellbore storage, C
2 Radial, kh and S

t
p
'

&

p
kh
C
1
S
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
kh
C
1
S

Infinite conductivity fracture (3.2)

1 Linear, x
f

2 Radial, kh and S
T

t
p
'

&

p
kh, S
1/2
x
f
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
kh, S
1/2
x
f

Finite conductivity fracture (3.3)

1 Bi-linear, k
f
w
f

2 Linear, x
f

3 Radial, kh and S
T

t
p
'

&

p
1/2
k
f
w
f
kh, S
T
x
f
1/4
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
1/2
k
f
w
f
kh, S
T
x
f
1/4

Partial penetration (3.4)

1 Radial, h
w
and S
w

2 Spherical (mobility ), k
V

3 Radial, kh and S
T

t
p
'

&

p
-1/2
h
w
, S
w
kh, S
T
k
V
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
-1/2
h
w
, S
w
kh, S
T
k
V


- 197 -

Horizontal well (3.5)

1 Radial vertical, k
V
and S
w

2 Linear (mobility ), L
3 Radial, kh and S
T

t
p
'

&

p
1/2
L
k
V
, S
w
kh, S
T
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
1/2
L
k
V
, S
w
kh, S
T

Reservoir models

Double porosity, restricted
interporosity flow (4.2)

1 Radial fissures, k
2 Transition (storativity ),
and
3 Radial fissures + matrix, kh
and S

t
p
'

&

p
kh, S

t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
kh, S

Double porosity, unrestricted
interporosity flow (4.3)

1 Transition,
2 Radial fissures + matrix, kh
and S

t
p
'

&

p

kh, S
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p

kh, S

Radial composite (6.2)

1 Radial inner, k
1
h and S
w

2 Transition (mobility or ), r
3 Radial outer, k
2
h and S
T

k
1
h > k
2
h; or k
1
h < k
2
h

t
p
'

&

p
r
k
2
h, S
T
k
1
h, S
w
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
r
k
2
h, S
T
k
1
h, S
w

Linear composite (6.3)

1 Radial inner, k
1
h and S
w

2 Transition (mobility or ), L
3 Radial total, (k
1
h+k
2
h)/2 and
S
T

k
1
h > k
2
h; or k
1
h < k
2
h

t
p
'

&

p
(k
1
+k
2
)h/2,
S
T
k
1
h, S
w
L
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
(k
1
+k
2
)h/2,
S
T
k
1
h, S
w
L


- 198 -

Double permeability, same skin
S
1
=S
2
(7.2)

1 No crossflow
2 Transition (storativity ), ,
and (k
V
)
3 Radial, kh
1
+kh
2
and S
T

t
p
'

&

p
,
kh, S
T

t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
,
kh, S
T

Double permeability, partial
penetration S
1
= (7.3)

1 Radial, k
2
h
2
and S
2

2 Transition (mobility ), (k
V
)
3 Radial, kh
1
+kh
2
and S
T

t
p
'

&

p

k
2
h
2
, S
w
kh, S
T
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p

k
2
h
2
, S
w
kh, S
T

Boundary models

Sealing fault (5.1)

1 Radial, kh and S
2 Transition (mobility ), L
3 Hemi-radial

t
p
'

&

p
L
kh, S
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
L
kh, S

Channel (5.2)
Centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L
1
+L
2

Off-centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Hemi-radial, L
1

3 Linear, L
1
+L
2

t
p
'

&

p
1/2
kh, S
L
1
L
1
+L
2
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
1/2
kh, S
L
1
L
1
+L
2

Channel closed at one end (5.4)
Centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L
1
+L
2

3

4 Hemi-linear

t
p
'

&

p
1/2
kh, S
1/2
L
1
+L
2
L
3
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
1/2
kh, S
1/2
L
1
+L
2
L
3


- 199 -
Intersecting faults (5.3)
Centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L
1
+L
2

3 Fraction of radial,
Off-centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Hemi-radial, L
1

3 Linear, L
1
+L
2


t
p
'

&

p
L
1
+L
2
1/2
kh, S
L
1

t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
L
1
+L
2
1/2
kh, S
L
1

Closed system centered (5.4)
Drawdown :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Pseudo steady state, A
Build-up :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Average pressure, p and A

t
p
'

&

p
1
kh, S
A
P
-
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
1
kh, S
A
P
-

Closed channel (5.4)
Drawdown :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L
1
+L
2

Build-up :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L
1
+L
2


t
p
'

&

p
1/2
kh, S
L
1
+L
2
1
P
-
A
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
1/2
kh, S
L
1
+L
2
1
P
-
A

Closed with intersecting faults (5.4)
Drawdown :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L
1
+L
2

Build-up :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L
1
+L
2


t
p
'

&

p
1/2
kh, S
L
1
+L
2
A
P
-
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
1/2
kh, S
L
1
+L
2
A
P
-

Constant pressure boundaries (5.5)

1 Radial, kh and S
One boundary
Multiple boundaries

t
p
'

&

p
-1
kh, S
L
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
t
p
'

&

p
-1
kh, S
L


- 200 -

16-1.4 Consistency check with the test history simulation

In the following examples, the initial pressure is 5000 psi. The interpretation
model, defined from log-log analysis of the short shut-in period, may be
inconsistent when applied to the complete rate history.

Increase of derivative response after the last build-up point (second sealing
boundary)

The log-log derivative plot suggests the presence of a sealing fault.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p

a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p

a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
3
10
4
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
3

Homogeneous reservoir with a sealing fault.

The sealing fault model is not applicable on the extended production history.

p
i
=4914 psia
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
4400
4800
5000
4600
0 200 400 800 1000 1200 600
p
i
=4914 psia
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
4400
4800
5000
4600
4400
4800
5000
4600
0 200 400 800 1000 1200 600 0 200 400 800 1000 1200 600

Figure 16-6 Test history simulation. Linear scale.
Homogeneous reservoir with a sealing fault.

When a second sealing fault, parallel to the first, is introduced farther away in the
reservoir, the extended production history match is correct.


- 201 -
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p

a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p

a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
3
10
4
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
3

Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.

Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
4400
4800
5000
4600
0 200 400 800 1000 1200 600
p
i
=5000 psia
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
4400
4800
5000
4600
0 200 400 800 1000 1200 600
p
i
=5000 psia


Decrease of derivative response after the last build-up point (Layered semi
infinite reservoir)

The log-log derivative plot suggests the presence of two parallel sealing faults.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p

a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p

a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
3


With the parallel sealing faults model, the initial pressure before the production
history is too high.


- 202 -
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
0 200 400 800 1000 600
3000
4000
5000
3500
4500
p
i
=5443 psia
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
0 200 400 800 1000 600 0 200 400 800 1000 600
3000
4000
5000
3500
4500
3000
4000
5000
3500
4500
p
i
=5443 psia


The reservoir is a two layer no crossflow, one layer is closed. At late time, the
derivative stabilizes to describe the radial flow regime in the infinite layer. The
hump at intermediate time corresponds to the storage of the limited zone.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p

a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p

a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

p

a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
(
p
s
i
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
3
10
4
10
-2
10
-1
1 10
1
10
2
10
-3
10
3

Two layers reservoir, one infinite and one closed layer.

Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
0 200 400 800 1000 600
3000
4000
5000
3500
4500
p
i
=5000 psia
Time, t
R
a
t
e
,

q

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
0 200 400 800 1000 600 0 200 400 800 1000 600
3000
4000
5000
3500
4500
3000
4000
5000
3500
4500
p
i
=5000 psia

Two layers reservoir, one infinite and one closed layer.


- 203 -

16-2 Reporting and presentation of results

16-2.1 Objectives

A well test interpretation report should present not only the different matches, but
also all information necessary to re-do the analysis. The analysis work may be
checked several years after completion. When all rates and parameters used to
generate the interpretation solution are not clearly defined, it is may be impossible
to re-evaluate the test.

16-2.2 Example of interpretation report contents

Summary conclusion

Main results,
Hypothesis used (if any),
Problems and inconsistencies not solved (if any).

Test data

Rate history (sequence of events for the test),
Static parameters,
Comparison of the gauge responses and choice of the pressure gauge used for
analysis (when several gauges have been used).

Analysis procedure

Diagnosis (comparison of different periods, discussion of the pressure
response).
Choice of the interpretation model(s) and justification.
Discussion of the results, sensitivity to the hypothesis etc.

Match with the different models

Log-log,
Semi-log,
Test simulation.

- 204 -

- 205 -

Appendix - ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS

A-1 Darcy's law

Darcy's law expresses the rate through a sample of porous medium as a function of
the pressure drop between the two ends of the sample.

Figure A-1 Rate through a sample.

A
q
dp / dl

dl
dp k
V
A
q
= = (A-1)

With: q : volumetric rate
A : cross sectional area of the sample
V : flow velocity
k : permeability of the porous medium
: viscosity of the fluid

The flow velocity V is proportional to the conductivity k/ and to the pressure
gradient dp/dl.

A-2 Steady state radial flow of an incompressible fluid

q
rw
re
q

Figure A-2 Radial flow.

In case of radial flow, the Darcy's law is expressed, in the SI system of units:

dr
dp k
V
rh
q

= =
2
(A-2)

For steady state flow condition, the pressure difference between the external and
the internal cylinders is:

w
e
w e
r
r
kh
q
p p ln
2
= (A-3)

This relationship is used in the definition of the dimensionless pressure
Equation 2-3.

Appendix - Analytical solutions

- 206 -

A-3 Diffusivity equation

A-3.1 Hypotheses

Constant properties: k, , and the system compressibility.
Pressure gradients are low.
The formation is not compressible and saturated with fluid.

A-3.2 Darcy's law

p grad
k
V

=
(A-4)

A-3.3 Principle of conservation of mass (continuity equation)

The difference between the mass flow rate in, and the mass flow rate out the
element, defines the amount of mass change in the element during the time dt.

t
V div
(A-5)
The density
v
m
= is used.

A-3.4 Equation of state of a constant compressibility fluid

The compressibility, defined as the relative change of fluid volume, is expressed
with the density :

p p
v
v
c

1 1
= = (A-6)

With a constant compressibility, the fluid equation of state is:

( )
0
0
p p c
e
t

= (A-7)

For a liquid flow in a porous medium, the total system compressibility c
t
is
attributed to an equivalent fluid:

f w w o o t
c S c S c c + + = (1-3)


- 207 -

A-3.5 Diffusivity equation

Combining Equations 4 and 5, then 7:

t
p
c
t
p grad
k
div
t
= =
|
|
.
|
\
|

(A-8)

With radial coordinates,

t
p
k
c
r r
p
r
r
p
r
p
r
r r
r
p
r
r
t

=
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =
|
|
.
|
\
|
2
2
1 1
(A-9)

And with Equation 7,

r
p
c
r
t

= (A-10)

( )
t
p
k
c
r
p
c r
r
p
r
p
r
r
t
t
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
2
2
2
1
(A-11)

With the condition of low-pressure gradients, the approximation ( ) 0
2
r
p
is
used to linearize.

t
p
k
c
p
r
r
p
r
r
p grad div
t
= =
|
|
.
|
\
|
= |
.
|
\
|

2
1
(A-12)

The ratio
t
c
k
is called hydraulic diffusivity.

A-3.6 Diffusivity equation in dimensionless terms

(customary oil field system of units and metric system of units)

p
qB
kh
p
D
=
2 . 141
(field units)
p
qB
kh
p
D
=
66 . 18
(metric units) (2-3)


- 208 -

t
r c
k
t
w t
D
=
2
000264 . 0
(field units)
t
r c
k
t
w t
D
=
2
000356 . 0
(metric units) (2-4)

w
D
r
r
r = (6-7)

The diffusivity equation is :

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
t
p
p
r
r
p
r
r
= =
|
|
.
|
\
|
2
1
(A-13)

A-4 The "line source" solution

Initial condition : the reservoir is at initial pressure.

p
D
= 0 at t
D
< 0

Well condition : the rate is constant, the well is a "line source".

1
0
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
D
D
D
r
p
r
Lim
r

(A-14)

Outer condition : the reservoir is infinite.

0 =

D
p
Lim
r
(A-15)

The solution is called Exponential Integral.

( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
D
D
D D D
t
r
r t p
4
Ei
2
1
,
2
(8-1)

( )

=
x
u
du
u
e
x Ei (A-16)

- 209 -

NOMENCLATURE
Customary Units and Metric System of Units

Quantity and customary unit (Conversion to Metric unit)
A = Surface, sq ft (
*
9.290 304
*
10
-2
= m
2
)
B = Formation volume factor, RB/STB (m
3
/m
3
)
c
g
= Gas compressibility, psi
-1
(
*
1.450 377
*
10
1
= Bars
-1
)
c
o
= Oil compressibility, psi
-1
(
*
1.450 377
*
10
1
= Bars
-1
)
c
t
= Total compressibility, psi
-1
(
*
1.450 377
*
10
1
= Bars
-1
)
c
t
= Total compressibility at the average pressure of the test, psi

-1

(
*
1.450 377
*
10
1
= Bars
-1
)
C = Wellbore storage coefficient, Bbl/psi (
*
2.305 916 = m
3
/Bars)
C
A
= Shape factor
D = Turbulent flow coefficient
e = Exponential (2.7182 . . .)
E
i
= Exponential integral
F = Storativity ratio (inner zone / outer zone)
k = Permeability, mD (mD)
k
d
= Matrix skin permeability, mD (mD)
k
f
= Fracture or fissures permeability, mD (mD)
k
H
= Horizontal permeability, mD (mD)
k
m
= Matrix blocks permeability, mD (mD)
k
s
= Spherical permeability, mD (mD)
k
V
= Vertical permeability, mD (mD)
h = Thickness, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
-1
= m)
h
d
= Matrix skin thickness, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
-1
= m)
h
w
= Perforated thickness, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
-1
= m)
L = Distance, or half length of an horizontal well, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
-1
= m)
m = Straight line slope (semi-log or other)
m(p) = Pseudo pressure or gas potential, psia
2
/cp (
*
4.753767
*
10
-3
= Bars
2
/cp)
m* = Slope of the pseudo steady state straight line, psi/hr (
*
6.894757
*
10
-2
= Bars/hr)
M = Mobility ratio (inner zone / outer zone)
n = Number of fissure plane directions, or turbulent flow coefficient
p = Pressure, psi (
*
6.894757
*
10
-2
= Bars)
p
f
= Fissure pressure, psi (
*
6.894757
*
10
-2
= Bars)
PI = Productivity index, Bbl/D/psi (
*
2.305 916 = m
3
/D/Bars)
p
i
= Initial pressure, psi (
*
6.894757
*
10
-2
= Bars)
PM = Pressure match, psi
-1
(
*
1.450 377
*
10
1
= Bars
-1
)
p
m
= Matrix blocks pressure, psi (
*
6.894757
*
10
-2
= Bars)
p
sc
= Standard absolute pressure, 14.7 psia (1 Bara)
p
w
= Well pressure, psi (
*
6.894757
*
10
-2
= Bars)
p* = Extrapolated pressure, psi (
*
6.894757
*
10
-2
= Bars)
p
= Reservoir average pressure, or during the test, psi (

*
6.894757
*
10
-2
= Bars)
q = Flow rate, bbl/D (
*
1.589 873
*
10
-1
= m
3
/D)
or Mscf/D (= 10
3
scft/D) (
*
2.831 685
*
10
1
= m
3
/D)

Nomenclature - Systems of units

- 210 -

r = Radius, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
-1
= m)
r
f
= Fracture radius in a horizontal well, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
-1
= m)
r
i
= Radius of investigation or influence of the fissures, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
-1
= m)
r
m
= Matrix blocks size, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
-1
= m)
R
s
= Dissolved Gas Oil ratio, cf/bbl (
*
1.7810
*
10
-1
= m
3
/m
3
)
r
w
= Wellbore radius, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
-1
= m)
S = Skin coefficient, or saturation
S
m
= Matrix skin
S
pp
= Geometrical skin of partial penetration
S
T
= Total skin
S
w
= Skin over the perforated thickness
t = Time, hr (hr)
t
p
= Horner production time, hr (hr)
T = Temperature absolute, R (
*
5/9 = K)
TM = Time match, hr
-1
(hr
-1
)
T
sc
= Standard absolute temperature, 520R (15C = 288.15K)
v = Volume, cu ft (
*
2.831 685
*
10
-2
= m
3
)
V = Volume ratio (fissures or matrix), or flow velocity
x
f
= Half fracture length, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
-1
= m)
w
a
= Width of altered permeability region near a conductive fault, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
-1
= m)
w
f
= Fracture width, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
-1
= m)
z
w
= Distance to the lower reservoir limit, ft (
*
3.048
*
10
-1
= m)
Z = Real gas deviation factor
Z
= Real gas deviation factor at the average pressure of the test

= Geometric coefficient in , or transmissibility ratio of a semi-permeable fault
= Transition curve of a double porosity transient interporosity flow
= Constant of a curve
= Difference
= Euler's constant (1.78 . . . )
= Porosity, fraction
f
= Fissures porosity, fraction
m
= Matrix blocks porosity, fraction
= Mobility ratio
= Interporosity (or layer) flow coefficient
eff
= Effective interporosity flow coefficient
= Viscosity, cp (cp)
= Viscosity at the average pressure of the test, cp (cp)

= Angle between two intersecting faults
w
= Well location between two intersecting faults
= Geometrical coefficient of the location of a well in a channel
= Storativity ratio
= Density, lb/cu ft (
*
1.601 646
*
10
1
= kg/m
3
)

Nomenclature - Systems of units

- 211 -

Subscripts

a = Apparent or altered permeability region near a conductive fault
AOF = Absolute Open Flow Potential
BLF = Bi-linear flow (slope m)
BU = Build-up
ch = Channel (slope m)
cp = Constant pressure (slope m)
d = Damage (matrix skin)
D = Dimensionless
e = Equivalent, External
eff = Effective
f = Fracture, fissures, fault or formation
G = Geometrical
H = Horizontal
hch = Channel closed at one end (slope m)
i = Initial or investigation
int = Intersection of straight line
L = Layer
LF = Linear flow (slope m)
m = Matrix
max = Maximum permeability direction
min = Minimum permeability direction
o = Oil
p = Production (time)
pp = Partial penetration
ps = Pseudo (time)
PSS = Pseudo steady state
q = Rate decline (slope m)
r = Ratio, or relative
RC = Radial-Composite
RF = Radial flow (slope m)
RLF = Radial-linear flow (slope m)
S = Skin, or spherical
sc = Standard conditions
SLF = Semi linear flow (slope m)
SPH = Spherical flow (slope m)
t, T = Total
V = Vertical
w = Well, or water
wf = Flowing well
ws = Shut-in well
WBS = Wellbore storage regime (slope m)
z = Partial penetration
1 = Inner zone, or high permeability layer(s)
2 = Outer zone, or low permeability layer(s)

- 212 -

REFERENCES

Chapter 1

1-1. Matthews, C. S. and Russell, D.G.: "Pressure Build-up and Flow Tests in
Wells", Monograph Series no 1, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME,
Dallas (1967).

1-2. Earlougher, R. C., Jr.: "Advances in Well Test Analysis", Monograph Series
no 5, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1977).

1-3. Lee, J.: "Well Testing", Textbook Series, Vol. 1, Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1982).

1-4. Bourdarot, G.: " Well Testing : Interpretation Methods," Editions Technip,
Institut Franais du Ptrole.

1-5. van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans., AIME ( 1949) 186,
305-324.

1-6. van Everdingen, A. F.: "The Skin Effect and its Influence on the Productive
Capacity of a Well." Trans., AIME ( 1953) 198, 171-176.

1-7. Miller, C. C., Dyes, A. B., and Hutchinson, C. A.: "Estimation of
Permeability and Reservoir Pressure from Bottom-Hole Pressure Build-up
Characteristics," Trans., AIME ( 1950) 189, 91-104.

1-8. Russell, D. G. and Truitt, N. E.:"Transient Pressure Behavior in Vertically
Fractured Reservoirs,"J. Pet. Tech. ( Oct., 1964) 1159-1170.

1-9. Clark, K. K.:"Transient Pressure Testing of Fractured Water Injection
Wells," J. Pet. Tech. ( June, 1968) 1639-643; Trans., AIME ( 1968) 243.

1-10. Gringarten, A. C., Ramey, H. J., Jr. and Raghavan, R.: "Applied Pressure
Analysis for Fractured Wells,"J. Pet. Tech. ( July, 1975) 887-892.

1-11. Gringarten, A. C., Ramey, H. J., Jr. and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady-State
Pressure Distribution Created by a Well with a Single Infinite Conductivity
Fracture," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. ( Aug., 1974) 347-360.

1-12. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego-V, F. and Dominguez, N.: "Transient Pressure
Behavior for a Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture," Soc. Pet.
Eng. J. ( Aug., 1978) 253-264.

1-13. Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R. D. and Pollock, C. B.: "Evaluation and
Performance Prediction of Low-Permeability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive
Hydraulic Fracturing,"J. Pet. Tech. ( March, 1979) 362-372.

References

- 213 -
1-14. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V, F:"Transient Pressure Analysis for
Fractured Wells,"J. Pet. Tech.( Sept., 1981) 1749-1766.

1-15. Brons, F. and Marting, V. E.: "The Effect of Restricted FluidEntry on Well
Productivity,"J. Pet. Tech. ( Feb., 1961) 172-174; Trans., AIME ( 1961) 222.

1-16. Moran, J. H. and Finklea, E. E.:"Theoretical Analysis of Pressure
Phenomena Associated with the Wireline Formation Tester," J. Pet. Tech.(
Aug., 1962) 899-908. Trans., AIME ( 1962), 225.

1-17. Culham, W. E.:"Pressure Build-up Equations for Spherical-Flow Problems,"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. ( Dec., 1974) 545-555.

1-18. Warren , J. E. and Root, P. J.:"Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept., 1963) 245; Trans., AIME ( 1963) 228.

1-19. Brons, F. and Miller, W. C.:"A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure
Readings," J. Pet. Tech.( Aug., 1961) 803-805.

1-20. Jones, P.: "Reservoir Limit Tests," Oil and Gas J. ( June 18, 1956) 54, n
o
59,
184.

Chapter 2

2-1. 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.

2-2. Agarwal, R.G., Al-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.

2-3. McKinley, R. M.: "Wellbore Transmissibility from Afterflow Dominated
Pressure Build-up Data," J. Pet. Tech. ( July, 1971) 863.

2-4. Earlougher, R. C., Jr., Kersh, K. M. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.:"Wellbore Effects
in Injection well Testing," J. Pet. Tech.( Nov., 1973) 1244-1250.

2-5. Gringarten, A. C., Bourdet D. P., Landel, P. A. and Kniazeff, V. J.: "A
Comparison between Different Skin and Wellbore Storage Type-Curves for
Early-Time Transient Analysis," paper SPE 8205, presented at the 54th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 23-26,
1979.

2-6. Ramey, H.J., Jr. and Cobb, W.M.:"A General Pressure Build-up Theory for
a Well in a Closed Drainage Area," J. Pet. Tech.( Dec., 1971) 1493-1505;
Trans., AIME ( 1971), 252.

2-7. Horner, D. R.: "Pressure Build-ups in Wells", Proc., Third World Pet.
Cong., E. J. Brill, Leiden (1951) II, 503-521. Also, Reprint Series, No. 9

References

- 214 -
Pressure Analysis Methods, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (
1967) 25-43.

2-8. Agarwal, R. G.:"A New Method to Account for Production Time Effects
When Drawdown Type Curves Are Used to Analyze Buildup and Other Test
Data," paper SPE 9289, presented at the 55th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of SPE, Dallas, Tx., Sept. 21-24, 1980.

2-9. Raghavan, R.:"The Effect of Producing Time on Type Curve Analysis," J.
Pet. Tech.( June, 1980) 1053-1064.

2-10. Bourdet, D. Ayoub, J. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "Use of Pressure Derivative in
Well-Test Interpretation", SPEFE (June 1989) 293-302

2-11. Balsingame, T.A., Johnston, J.L. and Lee, W.;J.: "Type-Curves Analysis
Using the Pressure Integral Method," paper SPE 18799 presented at the 1989
SPE California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, April 5-7.

2-12. Balsingame, T.A., Johnston, J.L. Rushing, J.A., Thrasher, T.S. Lee, W.;J.
and Raghavan, R. : " Pressure Integral Type-Curves Analysis-II: Applications
and Field Cases," paper SPE 20535 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.

2-13. Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "A New Approach for Constructing
Derivative Type Curves for Well Test Analysis," SPEFE (March 1988) 197-
206.

2-14. Duong, A.N.: "A New Set of Type Curves for Well Test Interpretation
Using the Pressure Derivative Ratio," paper SPE 16812 presented at the 1987
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.

Chapter 3

3-1. Bourdet, D. P., Whittle, T. M., Douglas, A. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "A New
Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test Analysis," World Oil ( May, 1983) 95-
106.

3-2. Tiab, D. and Puthigai, S. K.:Pressure-Derivative Type Curves for
Vertically Fractured Wells, SPEFE ( March, 1988) 156-158.

3-3. Alagoa, A., Bourdet, D. and Ayoub, J.A.:How to Simplify The Analysis of
Fractured Well Tests, World Oil ( Oct. 1985)

3-4. Wong, D.W., Harrington, A.G. and Cinco-Ley, H.:Application of the
Pressure-Derivative Function in the Pressure-Transient Testing of Fractured
Wells,"SPEFE.( Oct., 1985) 470-480.

3-5. Gringarten, A. C.and Ramey, H. J. Jr.: "An Approximate Infinite
Conductivity Solution for a Partially Penetrating Line-Source Well",
Soc.Pet.Eng. J. (Apr.1975) 347-360.

References

- 215 -

3-6. Kuchuk, F.J. and Kirwan, P.A.: "New Skin and Wellbore Storage Type
Curves for Partially Penetrated Wells". SPEFE, Dec. 1987, 546-554.

3-7. Papatzacos, P. : "Approximate Partial-Penetration Pseudoskin for Infinite-
Conductivity Wells", SPE-R.E. (May 1987) 227-234.

3-8. Daviau, F., Mouronval, G., Bourdarot, G and Curutchet P.: "Pressure
Analysis for Horizontal Wells",. paper S.P.E. 14251, presented at the SPE 60th
Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 22-25, 1985.

3-9. Clonts, M. D. and Ramey, H. J. Jr.: "Pressure Transient Analysis for Wells
with Horizontal Drainholes",. paper S.P.E. 15116, presented at the 56th
California Regional Meeting, Oakland, CA., April 2-4, 1986.

3-10. Goode, P. A. and Thambynayagam, R. K. M.: "Pressure Drawdown and
Buildup Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Media", SPEFE (Dec.
1987) 683-697.

3-11. Kuchuk, F. J., Goode, P.A., Wilkinson, D.J. and Thambynayagam, R. K. M.:
"Pressure-Transient Behavior of Horizontal Wells With and Without Gas Cap
or Aquifer", SPEFE (March 1991) 86-94.

3-12. Kuchuk, F.: "Well Testing and Interpretation for Horizontal Wells", JPT
(Jan. 1995) 36-41.

3-13. Ozkan, E., Sarica, C., Haciislamoglu, M. and Raghavan, R.: "Effect of
Conductivity on Horizontal Well Pressure Behavior", SPE Advanced
Technology Series, Vol. 3, March 1995, 85-94.

3-14. Ozkan , E. and Raghavan, R.: "Estimation of Formation Damage in
Horizontal Wells", paper S.P.E. 37511, presented at the 1997 Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 9-11 March 1997.

3-15. Yildiz, T. and Ozkan, E.: "Transient Pressure Behavior of Selectively
Completed Horizontal Wells", paper S.P.E. 28388, presented at the SPE 69th
Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 25-28, 1994.

3-16. Larsen, L. and Hegre, T.M.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Multifractured
Horizontal Wells", paper S.P.E. 28389, presented at the SPE 69th Annual Fall
Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 25-28, 1994.

3-17. Larsen, L.: "Productivity Computations for Multilateral, Branched and
Other Generalized and Extended Well Concepts", paper S.P.E. 36754,
presented at the SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Denvers, Colorado, Oct. 6-9, 1996.

3-18. Kuchuk, F.J. and Habashy, T.: "Pressure Bahavior of Horizontal Wells in
Multilayer Reservoirs With Crossflow", SPEFE (March 1996) 55-64.

3-19. Brigham, W. E. :"Discussion of Productivity of a Horizontal Well", SPERE
(May. 1990) 254-255.

References

- 216 -

Chapter 4

4-1. Barenblatt , G. E., Zheltov, I.P. and Kochina, I.N.: "Basic Concepts in the
Theory of Homogeneous Liquids in Fissured Rocks" J. Appl.. Math.
Mech..(USSR) 24 (5) (1960)1286-1303).

4-2. Warren , J. E. and Root, P. J.:"Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept., 1963) 245-255; Trans., AIME, 228.

4-3. Odeh, A.S.: "Unsteady-State Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Mar., 1965) 60-64; Trans., AIME, 234.

4-4. Kazemi, H.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
with Uniform Fracture Distribution" Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec., 1969) 451-462;
Trans., AIME, 246.

4-5. de Swaan, O. A.: "Analytic Solutions for Determining Naturally Fractured
Reservoir Properties by Well Testing", Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June, 1976) 117-122;
Trans., AIME, 261.

4-6. Najurieta, H.L.: "A Theory for Pressure Transient Analysis in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs" J. Pet. Tech. (July 1980), 1241.

4-7. Streltsova, T.D.: "Well Pressure Behavior of a Naturally Fractured
Reservoir", Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct., 1983) 769.

4-8. Moench, A. F.: "Double-Porosity Models for a Fissured Groundwater
Reservoir With Fracture Skin", Water Resources Res., Vol. 20, NO. 7 (July
1984) 831-846.

4-9. Mavor, M. J. and Cinco, H.: "Transient Pressure Behavior of Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 7977, presented at the 1979 California
Regional Meeting of the SPE of AIME, Ventura, California, April 18-20, 1979.

4-10. Bourdet, D. and Gringarten, A. C.: "Determination of Fissure Volume and
Block Size in Fractured Reservoirs by Type-Curve Analysis", paper S.P.E.
9293, presented at the SPE-AIME 55th Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX..,
Sept. 21-24, 1980.

4-11. Bourdet, D. Ayoub, J. A, Whittle, T. M., Pirard, Y. M. and Kniazeff V.:
"Interpreting Well Test in Fractured Reservoirs", World Oil (Oct., 1983) 77-87.

4-12. Gringarten, A. C.: "Interpretation of Tests in Fissured and Multilayered
Reservoirs with Double-Porosity Behavior: Theory and Practice", J. Pet. Tech.
(April 1984), 549-564.

4-13. Bourdet, D. Ayoub, J. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "Use of Pressure Derivative in
Well-Test Interpretation", SPEFE (June 1989) 293-302.

4-14. Bourdet, D., Alagoa A., Ayoub J. A. and, Pirard, Y. M. : "New Type Curves
Aid Analysis of Fissured Zone Well Tests", World Oil (April, 1984) 111-124.

References

- 217 -

4-15. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego, F. and Kuchuk, F.: "The Pressure Transient
Behavior for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Multiple Block Size", paper
SPE 14168, presented at the 60th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept.
22-25, 1985.

4-16. Abdassah, D. and Ershaghi, I.: "Triple-Porosity Systems for Representing
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs", SPEFE, April 1986, 113-127.

4-17. Belani, A.K. and Yazdi, Y.J.: "Estimation of Matrix Block Size Distribution
in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 18171, presented at the 63rd
Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct.; 2-5, 1988.

4-18. Stewart, G. and Ascharsobbi, F.: "Well Test Interpretation for Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 18173, presented at the 63rd Annual Fall
Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct.; 2-5, 1988.

Chapter 5

5-1. Clark, D. G. and Van Golf-Racht, T. D.: "Pressure Derivative Approach to
Transient Test Analysis: A High-Permeability North Sea Reservoir Example,"
J. Pet. Tech. ( Nov., 1985) 2023-2039.

5-2. Wong, D.W., Mothersele, C.D., Harrington, A.G. and Cinco-Ley, H.:
"Pressure Transient Analysis in Finite Linear Reservoirs Using Derivative and
Conventional Techniques: Field Examples", paper S.P.E. 15421, presented at
the 61st Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, La., Oct. 5-8, 1986.

5-3. Larsen, L., and Hovdan, M.: "Analysis of Well Test Data from Linear
Reservoirs by Conventional Methods", paper SPE 16777, presented at the 62d
Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Tex., Sept. 27-30, 1987.

5-4. Tiab, D. and Kumar, A.:Detection and Location of Two Parallel Sealing
Faults around a Well, J. Pet. Tech. (Oct., 1980), 1701-1708.

5-5. van Poollen, H. K.:"Drawdown Curves give Angle between Intersecting
Faults", The Oil and Gas J. (Dec.20, 1965), 71-75.

5-6. Prasad, Raj K.: "Pressure Transient Analysis in the Presence of Two
Intersecting Boundaries" J. Pet. Tech. ( Jan., 1975) 89-96.

5-7. Tiab, D. and Crichlow, H.B..:Pressure Analysis of Multiple-Sealing-Fault
Systems and Bounded Reservoirs by Type Curve Matching, SPEJ ( Dec.,
1979) 378-392.

5-8. Brons F. and Miller, W.C.: "A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure
Readings", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1961), 803-805; Trans. AIME, 222.

5-9. Dietz D.N.: "Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure From Build-Up
Surveys", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1965), 955-959

References

- 218 -

5-10. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.:"Estimating Drainage Shapes From Reservoir Limit
Tests", J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1971), 1266-1268; Trans. AIME, 251

5-11. Matthews, C.S., Brons, F. and Hazebroek, P.: "A Method for Determination
of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir", Trans., AIME (1954) 201, 182-
191.

5-12. Yaxley, L.M.: "The Effect of a Partially Communicating Fault on Transient
Pressure Behavior," paper S.P.E. 14311, presented at the 60th Annual Fall
Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 22-25, 1985.

5-13. Cinco, L.H., Samaniego, V.F. and Dominguez, A.N.: "Unsteady-State Flow
Behavior for a Well Near a Natural Fracture", paper S.P.E. 6019, presented at
the 51st Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA., Oct. 3-6, 1976.

5-14. Abbaszadeh, M.D. and Cinco-Ley, H. :"Pressure Transient Behavior in a
Reservoir With a Finite-Conductivity Fault", SPEFE, (March 1995) 26-32.

Chapter 6

6-1. Carter R.D.: "Pressure Behavior of a Limited Circular Composite
Reservoir," Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Dec. 1966, 328-334; Trans., AIME, 237.

6-2. Satman, A.: "An Analytical Study of Transient Flow in Systems With Radial
Discontinuities," paper S.P.E. 9399, presented at the 55th Annual Fall Meeting,
Dallas, Tex., Sept. 21-24, 1980

6-3. Olarewaju, J.S. and Lee, W.J.: "A Comprehensive Application of a
Composite Reservoir Model to Pressure-Transient Analysis", SPE-RE, Aug.
1989, 325-231.

6-4. Abbaszadeh, M. and Kamal, M.M. :"Pressure-Transient Testing of Water-
Injection Wells", SPE-RE, Feb. 1989, 115-124.

6-5. Ambastha, A.K., McLeroy, P.G. and Sageev, A.: " Effects of a Partially
Communicating Fault in a Composite Reservoir on Transient Pressure Testing,"
paper S.P.E. 16764, presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Tex.,
Sept. 27-30, 1987.

6-6. Kuchuk, F.J. and Habashy, T.M. :"Pressure Behavior of Laterally
Composite Reservoir", SPEFE, (March 1997) 47-564.

6-7. Levitan, M.M. and Crawford, G.E. : "General Heterogeneous Radial and
Linear Models for Well Test Analysis," paper S.P.E. 30554, presented at the
70th Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX, Oct. 22-25, 1995.

6-8. Oliver, D.S.: "The Averaging Process in Permeability Estimation From
Well-Test Data," SPEFE, (Sept. 1990) 319-324.

References

- 219 -

Chapter 7

7-1. Tariq, S. M. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Drawdown Behavior of a Well with
Storage and Skin Effect Communicating with Layers of Different Radii and
Other Characteristics," paper S.P.E. 7453, presented at the 53rd Annual Fall
Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct. 1-3, 1978.

7-2. Gao, C-T.: "Single-Phase Fluid Flow in a Stratified Porous Medium With
Crossflow, SPEJ, Feb. 1984, 97-106.

7-3. Wijesinghe, A.M. and Culham, W.E.: "Single-Well Pressure Testing
Solutions for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Arbitrary Fracture
Connectivity", paper S.P.E. 13055, presented at the 59th Annual Fall Meeting,
Houston, Tex., Sept. 16-19, 1984.

7-4. Bourdet, D.: "Pressure Behavior of Layered Reservoirs with Crossflow",
paper S.P.E. 13628, presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, CA, March. 27-29, 1985.

7-5. Prijambodo, R., Raghavan, R. and Reynolds, A.C.: "Well Test Analysis for
Wells Producing Layered Reservoirs With Crossflow", SPEJ, June 1985, 380-
396.

7-6. Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Joseph, J.A. : "A New Test for Determination
of Individual Layer Properties in a Multilayered Reservoir", paper S.P.E.
14167, presented at the 60th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 22-25,
1985.

7-7. Larsen, L.: "Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to
Analyze Pressure-Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs", paper S.P.E.
18122, presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX, Oct. 2-5,
1988.

7-8. Larsen, L. : "Boundary Effects in Pressure-Transient Data From Layered
Reservoirs", paper S.P.E. 19797, presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting,
San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11, 1989.

7-9. Park, H. and Horne, R.N.: "Well Test Analysis of a Multilayered Reservoir
With Crossflow", paper S.P.E. 19800, presented at the 64th Annual Fall
Meeting, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11, 1989.

7-10. Chen, H-Y, Poston, S.W. and Raghavan, R. : "The Well Response in a
Naturally Fractured Reservoir: Arbitrary Fracture Connectivity and Unsteady
Fluid Transfer", paper S.P.E. 20566, presented at the 65th Annual Fall Meeting,
New Orleans, LA, Sept. 23-26, 1990.

7-11. Liu, C-q. and Wang, X-D.: "Transient 2D Flow in Layered Reservoirs With
Crossflow", SPE-FE, Dec. 1993, 287-291.

References

- 220 -
7-12. Larsen, L.: "Experiences With Combined Analyses of PLT and Pressure-
Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs", paper SPE 27973 presented at
University of Tulsa Centennial Symposium, Tulsa, OK, Aug. 29-31, 1994.

7-13. Boutaud de la Combe, J.-L., Deboaisne, R.M. and Thibeau, S.:
"Heterogeneous Formation: Assessment of Vertical Permeability Through
Pressure Transient Analysis - Field Example", paper SPE 36530, presented at
the 1996 Annual Fall Meeting, Denvers, CO, Oct. 6-9, 1996.

7-14. Larsen L.: "Wells Producing Commingled Zones with Unequal Initial
Pressures and Reservoir Properties", paper SPE 10325, presented at the 56th
Annual Fall Meeting, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 5-7, 1981.

7-15. Agarwal, B., Chen, H-Y. and Raghavan, R.: "Buildup Behaviors in
Commingled Reservoirs Systems With Unequal Initial Pressure Distributions:
Interpretation", paper SPE 24680, presented at the 67th Annual Fall Meeting,
Washington, DC, Oct. 4-7, 1992.

7-16. Aly, A., Chen, H.Y. and Lee, W.J.: "A New Technique for Analysis of
Wellbore Pressure From Multi-Layered Reservoirs With Unequal Initial
Pressures To Determine Individual Layer Properties", paper SPE 29176,
presented at the Eastern Regional Conference, Charleston, WV, Nov. 8-10,
1994.

7-17. Gao, C., Jones, J.R., Raghavan, R. and Lee, W.J.: "Responses of
Commingled Systems With Mixed Inner and Outer Boundary Conditions Using
Derivatives," SPEFE (Dec. 94) 264-271.

7-18. Chen, H-Y., Raghavan, R. and Poston, S.W.: "Average Reservoir Pressure
Estimation of a Layered Commingled Reservoir," paper SPE 26460 presented
at the 68th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct. 3-6, 1993.

Chapter 8

8-1. Theis, C.V.: "The Relation Between the Lowering of the Piezometric
Surface and the Rate and Duration of Discharge of a Well Using Ground-Water
Storage," Trans., AGU (1935), 519-524.

8-2. Tiab, D. and Kumar, A.:Application of the p
D
Function to Interference
Analysis, J. Pet. Tech. (Aug., 1980), 1465-1470.

8-3. Jargon, J.R.:" Effect of Wellbore storage and Wellbore Damage at the
Active Well on Interference Test Analysis," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1976) 851-858.

8-4. Ogbe, D.O. and Brigham, W.E.:" A Model for Interference Testing with
Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects at Both Wells," paper S.P.E. 13253,
presented at the 59th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX, Sept. 16-19, 1984.

8-5. Papadopulos, I.S.: "Nonsteady Flow to a Well in an Infinite Anisotropic
Aquifer," Proc. 1965 Dubrovnik Symposium on Hydrology of Fractured Rocks

References

- 221 -

8-6. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Interference Analysis for Anisotropic Formations-A Case
History," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1975) 1290-98; Trans., AIME, 259.

8-7. Deruyck, B.G., Bourdet, D.P., DaPrat G. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Interpretation
of Interference Tests in Reservoirs with Double Porosity Behavior - Theory and
Field Examples", paper S.P.E. 11025, presented at the 57th Annual Fall
Meeting, New Orleans, La., Sept. 22-25, 1982.

8-8. Ma, Q. and Tiab, D: "Interference Test Analysis in Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs," paper SPE 29514, presented at the SPE Production Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, April 2-4, 1995.

8-9. Satman, A. et Al.: "An Analytical Study of Interference in Composite
Reservoirs," Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Apr. 1985, 281-290.

8-10. Chu, L. and Grader, A.S.: "Transient Pressure Analysis of Three Wells in a
Three-Composite Reservoir," paper SPE 22716, presented at the 66th Annual
Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX., Oct. 6-9, 1991.

8-11. Chu, W.C. and Raghavan, R.: "The Effect of Noncommunicating Layers on
Interference Test Data," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1981) 370-382.

8-12. Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "Interference Testing of a Two-Layers
Commingled Reservoir," SPEFE. (Dec. 1989) 595-603.

8-13. Brigham, W.E.: "Planning and Analysis of Pulse-Tests," J. Pet. Tech. (May
1970) 618-624; Trans., AIME, 249

8-14. Kamal, M. and Brigham, W.E.: "Pulse-Testing Response for Unequal Pulse
and Shut-In Periods," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1975) 399-410; Trans., AIME, 259

8-15. Kamal, M.: "Interference and Pulse Testing - A Review," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec.
1983) 2257-70

Chapter 9

9-1. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr. and Crawford. P. B.:"The Flow of Real
Gases Through Porous Media", J. Pet. Tech. (May 1966), 624-636; Trans.
AIME, 237

9-2. Al-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.:"Application of Real Gas Flow Theory
to Well Testing and Deliverability Forecasting", J. Pet. Tech. (May 1966), 637-
642; Trans. AIME, 237

9-3. Agarwal, R.G.:"Real Gas Pseudo-Time - A New Function for Pressure
Build-up Analysis of MHF Gas Wells", paper S.P.E. 8279, presented at the
54th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 23-26, 1979.

References

- 222 -
9-4. Houpeurt A.:"On the Flow of Gas in Porous Medias", Revue de l'Institut
Franais du Ptrole, 1959, XIV (11), 1468-1684.

9-5. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.:"Gas Well Testing with Turbulence,
Damage and Wellbore Storage", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1968), 877-887.

9-6. "Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells", Energy Resources
Conservation Board, Calgary, Alta., Canada (1975).

9-7. Bourdarot, G.: " Well Testing : Interpretation Methods," Editions Technip,
Institut Franais du Ptrole, p. 258.

9-8. Rawlins, E.L. and Schellardt, M.A.:"Back-Pressure Data on Natural-Gas
Wells and Their Application to Production Practices," Monograph 7, USBM
(1936).

9-9. Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F.H., Vary, J.A.,
Elenbaas, J.R. and Weinaug, C.F.:"Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering,"
McGraw-Hill Book Co.,Inc., New York (1959).

9-10. Bourgeois, M.J. and Wilson, M.R. :"Additional Use of Well Test Analytical
Solutions for Production Prediction," paper S.P.E. 36820, presented at the 1996
SPE EUROPEC, Milan, Italy, Oct. 22-24, 1996.

Chapter 10

10-1. Stewart, G.: "Future Developments In Well Test Analysis: Introduction of
Geology", Hart's Petroleum Engineer International (Sept. 1997), 73-76.

10-2. Larsen, L.: "Boundary Effects in Pressure-Transient Data From Layered
Reservoirs,". paper S.P.E. 19797, presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting,
San Antonio, Tex., Oct. 8-11, 1989.

10-3. Joseph, J., Bocock, A., Nai-Fu, F. and Gui, L.T.: "A Study of Pressure
Transient Behavior in Bounded Two-Layered Reservoirs: Shengli Field,
China", paper SPE 15418, presented at the 61st Annual Fall Meeting, New
Orleans, LA, Oct. 5-8, 1986.

10-4. Bourgeois, M.J., Daviau, F.H. and Boutaud de la Combe, J-L. : "Pressure
Behavior in Finite Channel-Levee Complexes", SPEFE, (Sept. 1996) 177-183.

Chapter 11

11-1. Al-Ghamdi, A. and Ershaghi, I.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Dually
Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 26959, presented at the III Latin American
Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentine, April 27-29, 1994.

References

- 223 -
11-2. Larsen, L.: "Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to
Analyze Pressure-Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs", paper S.P.E.
18122, presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX, Oct. 2-5,
1988.

11-3. Poon, D.C.C. :"Pressure Transient Analysis of a Composite Reservoir With
Uniform Fracture Distribution," paper SPE 13384 available at SPE,
Richardson, TX.

11-4. Satman, A.: "Pressure-Transient Analysis of a Composite Naturally
Fractured Reservoir," SPE-FE, June 1991, 169-175.

11-5. Kikani, J. and Walkup, G.W.: "Analysis of Pressure-Transient Tests for
Composite Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," SPE-FE, June 1991, 176-182.

11-6. Hatzignatiou, D.G., Ogbe, D.O., Dehghani, K. and Economides, M.J.:
"Interference Pressure Behavior in Multilayered Composite Reservoirs," paper
S.P.E. 16766, presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Tex., Sept.
27-30, 1987.

Chapter 12

12-1. Ramey, H.J. Jr., Agarwal, R.G. and Martin, I.: "Analysis of 'Slug Test' or
DST Flow Period Data," J. Cdn. Pet; Tech. (July-Sept.. 1975) 14, 37.

12-2. de Franca Correa A.C. and Ramey, H.J. Jr. "A Method for Pressure Buildup
Analysis of Drillstem Tests," paper S.P.E. 16808, presented at the 62nd Annual
Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX, Sept. 27-30, 1987.

12-3. Peres, A.M.M., Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "A New General Pressure-
Analysis Procedure for Slug Tests," SPEFE. (Dec. 1993) 292-98.

12-4. Ayoub, J.A., Bourdet, D.P. and Chauvel, Y.L.: "Impulse Testing," SPEFE.
(Sept. 1988) 534-46; Trans., AIME, 285

12-5. Cinco-Ley, H. et al.: "Analysis of Pressure Tests Through the Use of
Instantaneous Source Response Concepts," paper S.P.E. 15476, presented at the
61st Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Oct. 5-8, 1986.

12-6. Kucuk, F, and Ayestaran, L,: "Analysis of Simultaneously Measured
Pressure and Sandface Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing," paper S.P.E.
112177, presented at the 58th Annual Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Oct. 5-
8, 1983.

12-7. Bourdet D. and Alagoa A.: "New Method Enhances Well Test
Interpretation," World Oil ( Sept, 1984).

12-8. Jacob, C.E. and Lohman, S.W.: "Nonsteady Flow to a Well of Constant
Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer," Trans., AGU (Aug. 1952) 559-569.

References

- 224 -
12-9. Uraiet, A.A. and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady Flow to a Well Producing at a
Constant Pressure". J. Pet. Tech., Oct. 1980, 1803-1812.

12-10. Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Pressure Buildup for Wells
Produced at Constant Pressure". SPEJ, Feb. 1981, 105-114.

Chapter 13

13-1. Perrine, R.L.:"Analysis of Pressure Build-up Curves", Drill. and Prod. Prac.,
API (1956), 482-509.

13-2. Martin, J.C.:"Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reservoirs and the
Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analyses," Trans.,
AIME (1959) 216, 309-311.

13-3. Fetkovich, M.J.:"The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells," paper S.P.E. 4529,
presented at the 48th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 30- Oct.3,
1973.

13-4. Raghavan, R.: "Well Test Analysis: Wells Producing by Solution Gas Drive
Wells," SPEJ, (Aug. 1976) 196-208; trans., AIME, 261.

13-5. Al-Khalifah, A.A., Aziz, K. and Horne, R.N.:"A New Approach to
Multiphase Well Test Analysis", paper S.P.E. 16473 presented at the 62nd
Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX, Sept. 27-30, 1987.

13-6. Weller, W.T.:"Reservoir Performance During Two-Phase Flow," J. Pet.
tech. (Feb. 1966) 240-246; Trans., AIME, Vol 240.

13-7. Raghavan, R.: "Well Test Analysis for Multiphase Flow" SPEFE,
(Dec.1989) 585-594

13-8. Jones, J.R. and Raghavan, R.: "Interpretation of Flowing Well Responses in
Gas-Condensate Wells" SPEFE, (Sep.1988) 578-594.

13-9. Jones, J.R., Vo, D.T. and Raghavan, R.: "Interpretation of Pressure Build-up
Responses in Gas-Condensate Wells" SPEFE, (March 1989) 93-104.

Bourdet, D. - Well Testing and Interpretation

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione 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

Bourdet, D. - Well Testing and Interpretation

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

WELL TESTING

(metric units) ( 1-8)

(psi, field units)

(Bars, metric units)( 1-12)

(metric units) ( 1-14)

(psi, field units)

623 . 0 (Bars, metric units) ( 1-15)

(ft, field units)

623 . 0 = (m, metric units) ( 1-16)

(psi, field units)

(Bars, metric units) ( 1-17)

(mD.ft, field units)

(mD.m, metric units) ( 1-18)

(Bars, metric units) ( 1-19)

(mD, field units)

(mD, metric units) ( 1-20)

= 01217 . 0 (ft, field units)

= 0141 . 0 (m, metric units) ( 1-22)

(psi, field units)

(Bbl/D/psi, m3/D/Bars) ( 1-26)

(Bbl/D/psi, field units)

(m3/D/Bars, metric units) ( 1-27)

(m3/D/Bars, metric units) ( 1-28)

(psi, field units)

(Bars, metric units) ( 1-30)

(metric units) ( 1-31)

(metric units) ( 2-4)

= (metric units) ( 2-5)

00223 . 0 (metric units) ( 2-6)

= (metric units) ( 2-7)

(psi, field units)

(Bars, metric units)

(psi, field units)

(metric units) ( 2-14)

(psi, field units)

(psi, field units)

(Bars, metric units)( 1-12)

= (psi, Bars) ( 2-26)

(psi, field units)

623 . 0 (Bars, metric units) ( 1-15)

03 . 2 ' (psi, field units)

311 . 0 ' (Bars, metric units) ( 2-27)

(Bars, metric units) ( 1-17)

(psi, field units)

(Bars, metric units) ( 2-28)

(Bars, metric units) ( 1-19)

(psi, field units)

234 . 0 ' (psi, field units)

0417 . 0 ' (Bars, metric units) ( 2-30)

(metric units) ( 3-1)

= (ft, field units)

= (m, metric units) ( 3-2)

(psi, field units)

(Bars, metric units) ( 3-14)

= (Bars, metric units)( 3-17)

(psi, field units)

(Bars, metric units) ( 3-19)

3 . 81 = (psi, field units)

00223 . 0 (metric units) ( 4-11)

= (metric units) ( 4-12)

(metric units) ( 4-13)

(psi, field units)

(Bars, metric units)(4-18)