SPE 136942

Field Application of Composite Reservoir Model on Non-Unit Mobility Flow

Abdallah Al Gahtani, SPE, and Anes Usman Yahaya, SPE, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals,
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 SPE/DGS Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 0407 April 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committee of Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box
833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.


Abstract

The fluid flow in porous media has been addressed in literature for obvious reasons. A large portion of petroleum engineering
literature was focused on developing solutions for different flow/well models. Composite reservoir model has drawn attention
of well testing researchers. The complexity of oil reservoirs in the field make the use of developed models limited. A
composite reservoir is made up of two or more regions. Each region has its own rock and fluid properties. A composite system
can occur naturally or may be artificially created. Aquifers with two different permeabilities forming two regions, oil and
water regions or gas and oil regions with different properties in a reservoir are examples of naturally occurring two-region
composite systems. For a well in a radial composite reservoir, the reservoir model usually considered is the radial composite
model, in which the well is centered in a circular region of mobility M1 and storativity S1. Beyond this inner zone, the
reservoir has mobility M2 and storativity S2. The outer zone mobility may be either higher or lower than that of the inner
zone. Field engineers are inclined to use oil flow models for interpreting well tests as long as these wells produce dry. The
fluid fractional flow in formation, however, changes as more water encroaches toward the producing well.
This paper presents a study focusing on an important application of the use of analytical solutions of composite reservoir
model to evaluate the impact of non-unit mobility flow. This is of paramount importance in fields with big differential of
mobilities of oil and water as in this study. This research work is to highlight the significance of consideration of water flow
impact in formation before wells start cutting water. The solutions were validated with other semi analytical solution and
supported by field data.

Introduction
A composite reservoir is made up of two or more regions. Each region has its own rock and fluid properties. A composite
system can occur naturally or may be artificially created. Aquifers with two different permeabilities forming two regions, oil
and water regions or gas and oil regions with different properties in a reservoir are examples of naturally occurring two-region
composite systems. For a well in a radial composite reservoir, the reservoir model usually considered is the radial composite
model, in which the well is centered in a circular region of mobility M1 and storativity S1. Beyond this inner zone, the
reservoir has mobility M2 and storativity S2. The outer zone mobility may be either higher or lower than that of the inner
zone. This model is likely to occur because a well's presence affects the formation in a particular way. For example, the radial
composite model can occur in water flood injection wells; in oil reservoirs in which a gas saturation exists only near the well;
or in retrograde gas reservoirs in which a ring of condensate forms during production. If the radius of the inner zone is small
enough, the pressure response from this model cannot be distinguished from that of a well with positive or negative skin.
Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of a two-region, radial composite reservoir. The inner and outer regions of a composite
reservoir have different, but uniform rock and fluid properties, and are separated by a discontinuity. The distance R is the front
(or discontinuity) radius, which is an important parameter, sought from well tests in composite reservoirs. Strictly speaking,
fronts in many composite reservoir configurations, such as thermal recovery and C0
2
flooding, are usually not cylindrical due
to gravity and viscous fingering effects. Thus, the front (or discontinuity) radius exists only in some average sense.
Wattenburger and Ramey (1970) treated a finite thickness skin region as a composite system. In a gas condensate or a
geothermal reservoir, pressure reduction near the well causes changes in relative permeabilities as the fluid changes phase, and
in the case of water, significant changes in compressibility. Horne et al. (1980) stated that the appearance of a flashing front in
2 SPE 136942
a water region or the start of condensation in a steam region may result in a sharp discontinuity in reservoir properties.
Vaporization and condensation at a sharp discontinuity may also resemble an apparent skin effect at the discontinuity.
Mangold et al. (1981) studied the effects of a thermal discontinuity on well test analysis in geothermal reservoirs. They stated
that the presence of different temperature regions in non-isothermal reservoirs may resemble permeability boundaries during
well testing. Benron and Bodvarsson (1986) state that falloff data from geothermal reservoirs can be analyzed with a
composite reservoir model. Thus, many well-test scenarios in geothermal and hydrocarbon reservoirs may be modeled by a
composite reservoir.
The issue of composite reservoir modeling has been addressed by many authors. In 1958, Hazebroek et al. analyzed pressure
falloff data from water injection wells assuming water and oil bank properties to be different. Hurst (1960) and Mortada
(1960) considered interference between oil fields sharing a common aquifer by two regions of different properties. Hopkinson
et al. (1960) presented a late time approximation for the pressure drop in the inner region. Adams et al. (1968) analyzed
pressure buildup tests in a fractured dolomite reservoir using the Hurst (1960) solution. Loucks and Guerrero (196l), and
Jones (1962) published solutions for radial composite reservoirs using Laplace transformation. Rowan and Clegg (1962)
presented approximate solutions for radial composite reservoirs. Bixel et al. (1963), and Bixel and van Poollen (1967)
considered the effects of linear and radial discontinuities in composite reservoirs on pressure buildup and drawdown behaviors.
Bixel and van Poollen (1967) recommended a semi-log type-curve matching method to determine the distance to the
discontinuity. Barw and Horne (1987) used automated type-curve matching with success to analyze thermal recovery well test
data. Larkin (1963) presented solutions to the diffusion equation for a line source located anywhere in a region bounded by a
circular discontinuity using a Greens function presented by Jaeger (1944). Kazemi' et ul. (1972) discuss the problems in the
interpretation of pressure falloff tests in reservoirs with and without fluid banks.
Curter (1966) presented the pressure transient behavior of a closed, radial composite reservoir with the well producing at a
constant rate. He noted that a pseudo steady state period, yielding a straight line on a Cartesian graph of pressure vs. time,
developed after the end of the semi-log line corresponding to the inner region mobility. Clusmunn and Rurliff (1967)
presented a solution for a well producing at a constant pressure from a closed, radial composite reservoir. Wartenburger and
Ramey (1970) modeled a finite-thickness skin region as a composite reservoir. They obtained pressure transient behavior for
such systems using finite-difference techniques.
Odeh (1969) observed that pressure data measured at a shut-in well in a composite reservoir may exhibit a semi-log straight
line corresponding to the inner region mobility and then a transition followed by a second semi-log straight line corresponding
to the outer region mobility. Merrill et al. (1974) presented a graphical correlation for the dimensionless intersection time
using a numerical simulator. Horne et al. (1980) analyzed geothermal well test data using the pseudo steady state method.
Susa et al. (1981) studied the effects of relative permeability and mobility ratio on simulated pressure falloff behavior in water
injection wells. Eggenschwiler et al. (1979) developed a pseudo steady state method to estimate inner swept volume for
composite reservoirs with large storativity and mobility contrasts between the two regions, such as in in-situ combustion and
steam injection projects. They presented an analytical solution in Laplace space for the transient pressure behavior of a well
producing at a constant rate from a two-region, radial infinite composite reservoir.
Wulsh et al (1981), Messner and Williams (1982), Onyekonwu et al. (1984 and 1986). Farsihi (1988), Da Prut et al. (1985),
Ziegler (1988), and Onyekonwu (1985) have applied the pseudo steady state method to well tests in in-situ combustion and
steam injection projects. Brown (1985) investigated drawdown pressure derivative behavior of two region, radial, and
infinitely-large composite reservoirs. Abbaszudeh-Dehghani and Kamal (1987) studied pressure transient testing of water
injection wells using two-region and multi-region composite reservoir models. They found that the assumption of a stationary
front during falloff is generally acceptable and that a water flooding system is better represented by a multi-region reservoir.
Abbaszudeh-Dehghuni and Kamal used a type-me matching of pressure and pressure derivative data simultaneously to
analyze pressure transient tests in water injection wells. Olarewaju and Lee (1987b) presented an analytical solution in
Laplace space for two-region, radial composite reservoirs produced at either a constant bottomhole pressure or a constant rate.
They included a wellbore phase redistribution model. They assumed that the swept volume in the presence of an infinite-
conductivity vertical fracture at the injection well can be idealized as an elliptical region. Sranisluv et al. (1987) reported a
similar study. Satman (1985) presented an analytical study of interference in single-layer, radial, and infinitely large
composite reservoirs. Hutzignutiou et al. (1987) presented an analytical study of interference in multi-layered radial and
infinitely large composite reservoirs with cross flow between layers. Onyekonwu (1985) and Baruu and Horne (1985)
presented analytical solutions for three region, radially infinite, composite reservoirs. Thus, the transient pressure behavior of
composite reservoirs has been considered extensively. Larsen (1983) stated that it is not appropriate to test the accuracy of
design equations based on pressure derivatives with those based on pressure responses. However, such a comparison may
show the need for improvements in well test design and interpretation.
Vongvurhipornchui and Raghavan (1988) discuss several design relations for the end of the storage-dominated period, and
for the start of infinite-acting radial flow for a well in an infinite reservoir. They concluded that for analysis techniques based
on semilog methods, a criterion based on the pressure derivative response is the appropriate criterion for determining the time
at which the semi-log straight line begins. Design relations based on the pressure derivative responses also ensure that the
slope is correct within a specified tolerance.
SPE 136942 3
Theoretical formulation
The mathematical formulation considered for composite reservoir is based on the following assumptions:
(1) Flow of a single-phase fluid in either zone of the composite porous medium; (2) negligible gravitational forces and small
pressure gradients; (3) uniform initial reservoir pressure throughout the reservoir; (4) horizontal formation with constant
thickness; (5) well producing at either constant pressure and constant rate from the center of the reservoir; and (6) reservoir
closed at the top, bottom, and at the external drainage radius by impermeable no-flow boundaries.


The mathematical model describing the composite system is specified by the following system of equations. For zone 1,

1
1
1
1 1 1 1
,
k
c

1
r r r
t
p
r
p
r
r r
w

And for zone 2,

e
r r r
t
p
r
p
r
r r
,
k
c

1
1
2
2
2 2 2 2

The solution for the dimensionless wellbore pressure in Laplace space, without wellbore storage and skin is:
) ( ) ( ) (
0 2 0 1
l K C l I C l p
wD
+ = (3)
Where:
) (
] 1 . ) ( [
1
2 3
2 1
2 3
1
l I l
C l K l
C

=
] . ) ( . ) ( [
2 1 1 1
1
2
S l I l S l K l l
S
C
+
=
) ( ). ( . ) ( ). ( .
0 1 1 0 1
l R K l R I l M lF R K l R I lF S
D D D D
+ =
) ( ). ( . ) ( ). ( .
0 1 1 0 2
l R K l R K l M lF R K l R K lF S
D D D D
=
2
1
) (
) (
t
t
c k
c k
F

=
,
2
1
) (
) (

k
k
M =
, R
D
= dimensionless distance to the discontinuity.
Accounting for wellbore storage and skin effects, the dimensionless wellbore pressure is:

(4)
Where:
D
p is the dimensionless wellbore pressure without wellbore storage and skin (Eq. 3)
Parameters to consider as variable are: C
D
, S, R
D,
M, F .
The following four parameters are generally used to characterize a two-region composite reservoir model:
[ ]
[ ] { } S p l l C l
S p l
l p
D D
D
wD
+ +
+
=
1
) (
4 SPE 136942
1- Mobility ration (M)

2
1
) (
) (

k
k
M =

2- Storativity ratio (F
s
)

2
1
) (
) (
t
t
c k
c k
F

=


3- Discontinuity radius for a two-region reservoir (R)

4- Skin effect at the discontinuity (S
f
)







Figure 1: shows a schematic diagram of a two-region, radial composite reservoir


Application in Oil Wells
Horne et al. (1980) extended the Eggenschwiler et al. solution to finite composite reservoirs. Eggenschwiler et al. observed
that for large mobility and storativity contrasts between the two regions: the initial wellbore storage effect dies quickly, and a
semi-log straight line corresponding to the inner region mobility develops almost immediately on shut-in; the first semi-log
straight line corresponding to the inner region mobility is followed by a pseudo steady Cartesian straight line characteristic of
the inner swept volume. The slope, m of the Cartesian line may be used to calculate the inner swept volume and finally, a
second semi-log straight line corresponding to the outer region mobility may appear. The pseudo steady state method is
independent of the geometry of the inner swept region, and has been applied by several investigators to field and simulated
cases with apparent success. This study was conducted to apply the concept of composite reservoir in wells producing
formation water. The non-unit mobility effect was assumed due to the encroachment of water front. This impact was very
evident in area with higher degree of difference in mobility ratio. The impact of the change of mobility in formation is usually
supported by transient pressure test analysis. The drawdown pressure responses for three different mobility ratios (M
1
/M
2
) are
shown in Fig. 2. After wellbore storage distortion has ended, the pressure derivative falls on a horizontal line corresponding to
infinite-acting radial flow within the inner zone. As the pressure transient crosses into the outer zone, the derivative passes
through a transition, eventually becoming horizontal again once radial flow has been achieved in the outer zone. The
derivative for the second radial flow period will be M
1
/M
2
, times the derivative for the first radial flow period. If the inner zone
has a much lower mobility than the outer zone, the radial composite model acts much like a well in a reservoir with a constant
SPE 136942 5
pressure boundary during the transition from the first radial flow period to the second radial flow period. However, if the inner
zone has a much higher mobility than the outer zone, the shape of the pressure response depends on the storativity ratio. If the
ratio of the storativities (S
1
/S
2
) is greater than one, the model acts like a well in a closed circular drainage area during the
transition from the first radial flow period to the second radial flow period. On the other hand, if S
1
/S
2
is much less than one,
the model will exhibit linear flow, and the pressure derivative will fall on a half-slope line during the transition. By varying the
mobility and storativity ratios, this model can also match a wide variety of pressure responses. Whenever possible, hand
calculations should be used to check whether the parameters estimated with this model make sense. The correct reservoir
model to use when interpreting a pressure transient test must be consistent with the geological and geophysical understanding
of the reservoir.

Unit Mobility-Ratio Reservoir Conditions
Mobility ratio during an injection process is defined as the ratio of the mobility of the injected fluid to the fluid being displaced
Mobility ratio for water injection into an oil reservoir is
( )
( )
o
w
k
k
M

=
Mobility ratio often is used as an indicator of the displacement efficiency. Mobility ratio less than one suggests an efficient,
piston-like oil displacement process, while mobility ratios greater than one may result in inefficient displacement. When the
mobility ratio between the injected and in-situ fluids is near unity, the analysis techniques for injection tests are similar to
those developed for production tests. Unit-mobility ratio approximation applies for both mature water floods that initially had
mobility ratios significantly different from unity, and early in the life of tertiary recovery projects when so little fluid has been
injected that the injected fluid bank appears only as a skin effect When the unit-mobility-ratio condition is satisfied, injection
well testing is analogous to drawdown testing while shutting in an injection well results in a pressure falloff that is analogous
to a pressure buildup test. Equations for production well testing apply to injection well testing as long as proper sign
conventions are observed (injection rates are treated as negative, and pressures increase during injection). Analysis methods
presented in literature assume the mobility ratio of the injected and in-situ fluids is near unity. If the mobility ratio is not unity
but radius of investigation has not exceeded the radius of the injected-fluid bank, then the effective permeability and skin
factor in the inner zone can still be determined



Figure 2: The drawdown pressure responses for three different mobility ratios (M
1
/M
2
) of a two-region, radial composite
reservoir








6 SPE 136942
Non-unit Mobility-Ratio Reservoir Conditions
In formations with big difference in mobilities, this makes mobility ratio very high, the total mobility of the system,
t
become
high as more water displace oil in formation. Hence, this will increase the productivity of the well. The total mobility of the
system is defined as:
( ) ( )
o w t
k k + =
In oil wells, wells are produced dry from some time until water encroach and break through. The impact of this change should
be seen from transient pressure test before the onset of water production. Field data indicated that for a field of big differential
in mobility, a big increase in productivity indices of wells were seen.
Method of Study & Results
For the same field of data in table-1, the theoretical P
wd
was calculated for different R
d
as function of T
D
. A FORTRAN
program was used to calculate these values. The program listing is shown in the appendix. The calculated values were checked
against the line source solution for a unit mobility ratio as shown in figure 3.The composite-reservoir model showed a good
correlation with the line-source solution for unit-mobility flow. Calculated P
wd
are presented in figure 4 show how P
wd
changes
as function of T
D
for different mobility ratio and different R
d
values. As shown in the plots, as mobility ratio increase, the P
wd

increases indicating that the high mobility contrast, for the field in study, is making a big deference in P
wd
values. As R
d
value
is reduced, simulating the water front approaching the producing well, the difference in P
wd
become greater indicating the
impact of mobility value change. Similarly, in pressure derivative curves for the same cases, a big difference was observed for
high mobility ratio values. The derivative plots are also shown in figure 4 to 9. Incorporating wellbore storage (C
D
) and skin
(S), the dimensionless wellbore pressure in Laplace space becomes:


Similar plots were produced for cases with skin damage and wellbore storage. As shown in the figures 10 to 15,
evident impact on both pressure and derivative curves is seen. The radius of investigation is shown in fig. 16. The
radius of investigation is calculated by the following formula:


0325 . 0
t
inv
c
t k
r

=
A pressure transient test from the field with the same mobility ratio values was analyzed for a dry well. A better
match with offset wells was obtained by assuming a composite model as shown in the results in the appendix. The
well was tested later and showed water production and transient tests indicated higher productivity index value.
This was attributed to the increase of total mobility due to the increase of waster fractional flow in the formation.

Conclusions & Recommendations
The big contrast in mobility between oil and waster can make a big difference in formation pressure and hence well
productivity. This is more pronounced as more water being produced or approaches the wellbore. As a recommendation,
further studies could be made on dry wells to infer the change of fractional flow of waster in formation and hence predict the
onset of water production. Accurate modeling of composite reservoirs should help establish the applicability of the
interpretation methods to determine front radius or swept volume. A detailed study of drawdown and buildup pressure
derivative behavior for two-region radial composite reservoirs has not appeared in the literature. The effects of a thin skin at
the discontinuity on the transient response of a well in a two-region, composite reservoir also does not appear to have been
fully addressed in the literature.




[ ]
[ ] { } S p l l C l
S p l
l p
D D
D
wD
+ +
+
=
1
) (
SPE 136942 7
REFERENCES

1. Agarwal. R.G.: 'A New Method lo Account for Producing Time Effects When Drawdown Type Cunes Ars Used to
Analyze Prsrrure Buildup and Other Test Data.' SPE paper No. 9289 presented at the 1980 5PE Annual Technical
Canvarence and Exhibition. Dollar. (Sept. 21-24],
2. Horner, D.R.: 'Pressure Buildup in Wells: Third World Petroleum Congress, The Hague, Proceedings, Sec. 11. pp.
503-532. (19511: Pressure Analysis Methods. SPE Reprint Sarier, Vol. 9. Oallar, Taxas, pp. 25-43. (1967).
3. Bear, J. 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. Elsevier, New York.
4. Aarstad, K: "Criteria for Determining Times for End of Transient Flaw and Start of Pseudo steady StateFlow,"
Engineer Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Aug. 1987) PP 162.
5. Abbaszadeh-Dehghani, M. and Kamal, M.M.: "Pressure Transient Testing of Water Injection Wells," paper SPE
16744 presented at the Annual Mtg. of SPE of AIME in Dallas, TX (Sept. 27-30, 1987).
6. Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I.A. (ed.): "Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs and
Mathematical Tables," National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series-55 (June 1964) 227-53.
7. Adams, A.R., Ramey, H.J., Jr., and Burgess, R.J.: "Gas Well Testing in a Fractured Carbonate Reservoir," J. Pet.
Tech. (Oct. 1968) 1187-94.
8. Agawal, R.G., Al-Hussainy, R., and Ramey, H.J., Jr.: "An Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in
Unsteady Liquid Flow: 1. Analytical Treatment," SOC. Per. Eng. J. (Sept. 1970) 279-90.
9. Ambastha, A.K. and Ramey, H.J., Jr.: "Well-Test Analysis for a Well in a Finite, Circular Reservoir," Roc.,
Geothermal Reselvoir Engineering Workshop at Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Jan. 1988a).
10. Ambastha, A.K. and Ramey, H.J., Jr.: "Injection Time Effects on Falloff Responses from Composite Reservoirs,"
paper SPE 18804 to be presented at the California Reg. Mtg. of SPE of AIME in Bakersfield, CA (April 5-7, 1989).
11. Bixel, H.C., Larkin, B.K., and van Poollen, H.K.: "Effect of Linear Discontinuities on Pressure Buildup and
Drawdown Behavior," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1963) 885.
12. Bixel, H.C., and van Poollen, H.K.: "Pressure Drawdown and Buildup in the Presence of Radial Discontinuities,"
SOC. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept. 1967) 301-09.
13. Brown, L.P.: "Pressure Transient Behavior of the Composite Reservoir," paper SPE 14316 presented at the 60th
Annual Mtg. of SPE of AIME, Las Vegas, NV (Sept. 22-25, 1985).
14. Carter, R.D.: "Pressure Behavior of a Limited Circular Composite Reservoir," SOC. Pet. Eng. J.(Dec. 1966) 328-34.
15. Closmann, P.J. and Ratliff, N.W.: "Calculation of Transient Oil Production in a Radial Composite Reservoir," SOC.
Pet. Eng. J. @ec. 1967) 355-58.
16. Cobb, W.M. and Smith, J.T.: "An Investigation of Pressure Buildup Tests in Bounded Reservoirs," J. Pet. Tech.
(Aug. 1975) 991-996; Trans., AIME, 259.
17. Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.H.: Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering, Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.
J. (1959) p. 295.
18. Earlougher, R.C., Jr.: "Advances in Well Test Analysis," Monograph Volume 5, Society of Pemleum Engineers of A
I M E , Dallas (1977) Ch.2.
19. Eggenschwiler, M., Ramey, H.J., Jr., Satman, A., and Cinco-Ley, H.: "Interpretation of Injection Well Pressure
Transient Data in Thermal Oil Recovery," paper presented at Journadas Tecnicas de Pevoleo Meeting, Maracaibo,
Venezuela, Oct. 30- Nov. 3, 1979
20. Gringarten, A.C., Bourdet, D., Landel, P-A., and Kniazeff, V.: "A Comparison Between Different Skin and Wellbore
Storage Type Curves for Early-Time Transient Analysis," paper SPE 8205 presented at the 54th Annual Mtg. of SPE
of AlME, Las Vegas (Sept. 23-26, 1979).
21. Hatzignatiou, D.G., Ogbe, D.O., Dehgani, K., and Economides, M.J.: "Interference Pressure Behavior in Multi-
Layered Composite Reservoirs," paper SPE 16766 presented at the Annual Mtg. of SPE of A Min Dallas, TX (Sept.
27-30, 1987).
22. Hazebroek, P., Rainbow, H., and Matthews, C.S.: "Pressure Fall-off in Water Injection Wells," Trans., A M(1 951)
213, 250-60.
23. Kazemi, H., Memll, L.S., and Jargon, J.R.: "Problems in Interpretation of Pressure Falloff Tests in Reservoirs With
and Without Fluid Banks," J. Per. Tech. (Sept. 1972) 1147-56.
24. Kumar, A. and Rarney, H.J., Jr.: "Well-Test Analysis for a Well in a Constant-Pressure Square," SOC. Per. Eng. J.
(April 1974) 107-1 16.
25. L O U C ~ T, L. and Guemro, E.T.: "Pressure Drop in a Composite Reservoir," Soc. Pet. Eng. J.(Sept. 1961) 170-76.
26. 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.
27. Miller, C.C., Dyes, A.B., and Hutchinson, C.A., Jr.: 'The Estimation of Permeability and Reservoir Pressure From
Bottom-Hole Pressure Build-Up Characteristics," Trans., AIME(1950) 189, 91-104.
28. Mishra, S. and Ramey, H.J., Jr.: "A New Derivative Type-Curve for Pressure Buildup Analysis

8 SPE 136942
Appendix
Table-1: Oil & water properties
Type Permeability, md Viscosity, cp
Oil 2500 5.8
watre 1800 0.5

Figure 3: P
wd
from line source solution & composite model solution for the field of study.
















0
5
10
15
20
25
1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
Td
P
w
d
Composite, M Ratio=8, Rd=200'
Line Sourec Solution
Composite, M Ratio=1, Rd=200'
SPE 136942 9
Rd=100', Cd=0, S=0
0
5
10
15
2 0
2 5
3 0
1. 0 E+0 1 1. 0 E+0 2 1. 0 E+0 3 1. 0 E+0 4 1. 0 E+0 5 1. 0 E+0 6 1. 0 E+0 7
Td
M R=8
M R=4
M R=2
M R=1
Rd=10 ' , Cd=0 , S=0
0
5
10
15
2 0
2 5
1. 0 E+0 1 1. 0 E+0 2 1. 0 E+0 3 1. 0 E+0 4 1. 0 E+0 5 1. 0 E+0 6 1. 0 E+0 7
Td
M R=8
M R=4
M R=2
M R=1
Rd=2 00' , Cd=0, S=0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
Td
D
P
W
D
L
MR=8
MR=4
MR=2
MR=1












































Rd=200', Cd=0 ,S=0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
Td
P
d
MR=8
MR=4
MR=2
MR=1
10 SPE 136942
Rd=10 0 ' , Cd=0 , S=0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. 0 E+0 3 1. 0 E+0 4 1. 0 E+05 1. 0 E+0 6
Td
MR=8
MR=4
MR=2
MR=1
Rd=10 ' , Cd=0 , S=0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. 0 E+0 2 1. 0 E+0 3 1. 0 E+0 4 1. 0 E+0 5 1. 0 E+0 6
Td
M R=8
M R=4
M R=2
M R=1
Rd=100, Cd=5, S=30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06
Td
P
d
MR=8
MR=4
MR=2
MR=1
Rd=200, Cd=5, S=30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06
Td
P
d
MR=8
MR=4
MR=2
MR=1
Rd=10, Cd=5, S=30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Td
P
d
MR=8
MR=4
MR=2
MR=1
Rd=200, Cd=5, S=30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Td
D
P
D
MR=8
MR=4
MR=2
MR=1
Rd=100, Cd=5, S=30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Td
D
P
D
MR=8
MR=4
MR=2
MR=1
Rd=10, Cd=5, S=30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Td
D
P
D
MR=8
MR=4
MR=2
MR=1

























































Fig4-15. P
wd &
Pwd for skin=0 & skin =30.


SPE 136942 11
Radius of investigation
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
Td






















Figure16: shows the calculated radius of investigation for the cases studies.





Fig17. Pressure derivative curve for a dry well using composite model.
Log-Log plot: p-p@dt=0 and derivative [psi] vs dt [hr]