SPE 77619
Why We Should Stop Using Pseudopressures and Other Good Old Well Test
Interpretation Tools After So Many Years of Good Service
Olivier P. Houz, SPE, KAPPA
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September2 October 2002.
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, as
presented, 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
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Some well test interpretation techniques still in use today were
developed more than 30 years ago, to help the engineer at a
time he/she (generally he) only had graph paper, a hand
calculator and a set of printed type-curves. Unlike human
beings, age is not a reason by itself to retire a technique. But,
originally invented by paradigm breakers, thanks to our inertia
some techniques have become paradigms themselves. They no
longer bring anything, they confuse the learning of young
engineers and worse, sometimes turn out to be incorrect and
stand in the way of more rigorous and promising
developments. It may be time to retire them from our industry,
acknowledging what they brought us in the past. The author
respectfully suggests to get rid of type-curves,
pseudopressures1 and pseudotimes2. In each case, the author
will try to explain why these tools were developed, why they
were originally useful, but no longer. If the author survives
this one, the following publication will deal with the Horner 3
plot, equivalent time functions4 and deconvolution 5. Otherwise
there is absolutely nothing new in this paper.
A foreword on software
Most pressure transient analyses today are performed using a
computer running dedicated commercial software. The first
PC based programs appeared in the 1980s, initially merely
reproducing the manual methods, on a computer. Then a
second generation was developed, with a core methodology
based on the use of the pressure derivative6, model generation
and parameter optimization using nonlinear regression 7. All
commercial software products today have such capability, but
the old manual techniques were not removed.
Initially, anybody (operating company, service company,
university, engineer with some spare time) would write their
own well test interpretation program. A typical in-house
software would be technically good, user hostile and
dreadfully expensive. Cost considerations and downsizing
triggered the final move to commercial software. This makes
sense, but there are serious consequences in this move that
should not be overlooked.
Software vendors may be reasonably decent and competent
people (?), but they are in a commercial process where they
have to face any and each request. It is difficult to say No
when facing a request conditioning a Purchase Order. And
after all vendors are not and should not be the ones to define
what the right methodology is. So with time features have
accumulated, and todays commercial software has, at the
same time, state-of-the-art technology, Star Trek features,
and a living museum integrating whatever was published in
the last 50 years, the great, and the less great. This paper is
also a plea to officially allow, or even require software
vendors to do some cleaning.
From type-curves to computer generated models
At last the argument seems to be over: the log-log plot is the
primary diagnostic plot, where the pressure change and its
derivative with respect to superposition time are plotted
together, on a log-log scale. The derivative was originally
designed as a magnifying glass of the semilog plot to
identify Infinite Acting Radial Flow on the log-log plot. But
luckily enough it also carries the signature of numerous well,
reservoir and boundary behaviors.
After diagnosing what the model can be, the engineer
estimates the model parameters, and the program generates the
solution with the same production history as the data. Data and
models are compared, the user then invalidates the model or
improves the parameter calculations, either by trial-and-error
or using nonlinear regression. This methodology is the
successor of manual type-curve matching, and is still
sometimes improperly called type-curve matching.
2 O. P. HOUZE
The original type-curves consisted of a set of printed or
stored dimensionless pressure responses, on a log-log scale.
Real data would be transformed, plotted and slidden in order
to select and fit one of the type-curves. Physical results would
be calculated from the match point and the choice of the curve.
But type-curves were far too limited to compete durably
against computer generated models: (1) They only provided a
limited number of combinations of parameters, while software
built-in models could generate the exact solution for any
combination. (2) They would typically be drawdown
responses, when software built-in models would generate the
exact multirate solution. The integration of the derivative in
the type-curves extended their use, but only to a point, as
derivative type-curves would apply poorly to shut-ins after
short/complex productions and to closed systems. (3) For the
initial estimation of each parameter, a software would offer
interactive capabilities that far exceed in accuracy the visual
selection within a family of curves: You locate exactly the
double-porosity transition, or the time the derivative takes off
due to boundary effects, and the computer just calculates the
parameter(s). (4) After the initial simulation, computer
generated model parameters can be modified, interactively or
by nonlinear regression.
Old-style type-curves can still be found here and there,
usage is seldom but not completely gone. In a quick survey
(2002) run by the author on are type-curves history?, answer
ranged from yes of course to no of course not. If the true
answer is no, then they should be retired, as they are
outperformed on all accounts and should be replaced by
computer generated models. This replacement is not just an
evolution, as each method follows a different logic.
With computer generated models, one will try to keep the
original data as much as can be, with the minimum
assumptions, and adapt the model to honor the observed
response. Models are no longer restricted to the superposition
of dimensionless analytical solutions inherited from type-
curves, and they can reach the details of a complete
multiphase simulator run.
With type-curve matching, the objective was just the
opposite. With such limited flexibility, one would do anything
to correct the data and get closer to the fixed dimensionless
responses. So new tools and techniques were developed:
Agarwal equivalent time would be used to project a build-up
response on a drawdown type-curve; deconvolution would be
attempted (and would generally fail) to convert a multirate
into a drawdown response, or to reduce wellbore storage
effects; pseudopressures would be used to match real gas
responses on type-curves generated for slightly compressible
fluids; for tight gas reservoirs, pseudotimes would be used to
correct the early time shut-in response; another pseudotime
function based on the average reservoir pressure would be
developed for limit tests or the use of production data; etc.
SPE 77619
Type-curves may be history and methodology has
changed, but the tools above are still there. In the following,
the author will address todays relevance of pseudopressures
and pseudotimes.
Gas pseudopressures why they exist
In order to benefit for gas of all the good things that were
developed for slightly compressible fluids, the real gas
diffusivity equation was repackaged into something that
looked like the slightly compressible fluid diffusion 1. This was
done by gathering anything other than the diffusivity into a
pseudopressure m(p):
p p
m( p) = 2 dp .(1)
( p )Z ( p )
0
A typical pseudopressure versus pressure response is shown in
Figure 1. Then the real gas diffusion equation becomes:
m( p ) k
=A 2 m( p ) ..(2)
t c
where A is a unit dependent constant. So this looked a lot
like the slightly compressible diffusivity equation, but the big
leap of faith was to consider the diffusivity to be constant. As
shown in Figure 2, the diffusivity is actually anything but
constant, and it even tends to zero with the pressure.
Once the assumption of constant diffusivity was accepted
(and sometimes too quickly forgotten), the inner boundary
conditions were adapted and it was possible to match the gas
pseudopressure response on the type-curves generated for
slightly compressible fluids. In the calculation, the value of c
left outside the m(p) definition would be calculated from a
carefully chosen reference pressure. The engineer would
transform pressures into pseudopressures, plot and match the
response on a type-curve, using specific equations to calculate
the results from the match point. This was a very reasonable
methodology at the time, as (1) on a typical gas test the
assumption of fairly constant diffusivity would not be too bad,
(2) there was no alternative for type-curve matching.
Should the flowing pressure be too low (e.g. for tight gas
reservoirs), the variable part of the diffusivity would be
integrated in a time function called pseudotime2 (to be retired
later in this paper).
Because we are nice people and the numerical range of
pseudotimes and pseudopressures were ridiculous, it was also
decided to normalize them in order to look like time
and pressure.
 WHY WE SHOULD STOP USING PSEUDOPRESSURES AND OTHER GOOD OLD WELL TEST
SPE 77619 INTERPRETATION TOOLS AFTER SO MANY YEARS OF GOOD SERVICE
What we do today with pseudopressures
When well test interpretation was transferred to computers, the
procedure for gas tests was kept. So here we are today, in
terms of agreed methodology:
PVT first. The pseudopressure (and pseudotime) functions are
defined at the beginning of the interpretation process, from
PVT correlations or tables.
Extracting a period. When a period (typically a build-up) is
extracted for analysis, pressures are converted to
pseudopressures, and the log-log plot shows the change of
pseudopressure (normalized or not) and the derivative as a
function of the time or the pseudotime (normalized or not).
The semilog plot will also show pseudopressure vs.
superposition time.
Model generation. From the initial pressure pi, the program
calculates an initial pseudopressure mi=m(pi). The model also
requires a value of diffusivity, i.e. a reference value of c, that
will be used in the superposition. The reference pressure may
be calculated by the software (it could be for instance pi or
p*) or controlled by the engineer. The simulation is then
performed in terms of pseudopressures.
Matching the data. Simulated pseudopressures are extracted
and compared (with derivative) to data pseudopressures.
Simulated pseudopressures are converted back to pressures to
compare the model and the data on the pressure history plot.
A typical diagram of the calculation is given in Figure 3.
The term analytical engine integrates the dimensionless
solutions (Laplace or real), the conversion to physical values,
the superposition in time due to the well(s) production history
(ies), and the superposition in space of the influence of
multiple wells.
A lot of things are wrong in this process, or at least not
optimized. We will see what later, but first we will consider
the most significant problem: the assumption of constant
diffusivity in Equation 2.
Gas material balance and pseudopressures
Not so long ago we received the first angry call complaining
that a well test software would not honor material balance
(material what?). The engineer had entered several years of
gas production, matched them with a closed rectangle using
two different well test packages and a simulator, and got three
different reservoir sizes.
3
The origin of the error was again the diffusivity term left in
Equation 2. Figure 4 shows the comparison, for a long gas
production and a short build-up, between a simulation and
analytical model using pseudopressures. The average pressure
calculation from material balance clearly indicates that the
simulator is right. This is not surprising, as a simulator will
systematically adjust its results at every time step to honor
material balance.
In Figure 5 we see the same comparison on a log-log plot
of pseudopressures vs. time. When time goes on, average
pressure goes down and therefore compressibility goes up,
requiring less pressure drop to produce the same fluid. So the
real pressure drop is less than the one simulated
with pseudopressures.
Our answer to the angry call was that, well, the well test
packages were wrong but had not really been designed for
this. But our engineer did not care less: "I have rates, I have
pressures, I want to make an analysis, so I use a well test
package". Sure...
First we thought we had just met what we politely call an
outlier, but indeed the issue of material balance has become
more and more frequent. With the development of downhole
permanent gauges, it is legitimate to try to get more
information from this data, in a process between a simple tank
calculation and a full simulation model. With this in mind,
using the analytical and numerical tools that were developed
in transient testing makes sense, as long as the assumptions
that were the base of our methods are carefully reviewed.
Material balance with type-curves and pseudotime
This problem and the principle of its solution were known for
a long time8, but recent papers9 have explicitly addressed
them. The initial reading of these papers would be pretty
depressing for a software vendor, as it would mean writing an
umpteenth specialized plot, man-months of additional
development, complex interface, etc. In essence, the method
suggested by these papers is the following:
- Store the model as a type-curve
- Calculate Gi from the estimated size of the reservoir and
the initial reservoir pressure
- At any time step, calculate the cumulative production Q(t)
- From p/Z calculation, calculate the average pressure
- In the superposition of the model, use the diffusivity
corresponding to the calculated average pressure
- At the considered time, stretch the data response with the
normalized pseudotime corresponding to the c at
average pressure
- Reiteratively correct Gi and the model until a suitable
match is found
4 O. P. HOUZE
The method above effectively solves the problem of material
balance, but with two important shortcomings:
Model vs. material balance. In these publications, the
calculations and corrections for material balance are done
independently of the model content, that is considered as a
mere type-curve (hence not able to integrate the specific
elements of material balance, i.e. size, PVT and production).
This is inevitable when dealing with type-curves, but
absolutely wrong for a computer generated model. In the
interpretation process, we do not know in advance the size of
the reservoir, but each closed system model knows its size,
and can make a material balance correction coherent with
itself. In the optimization process, the non linear regression
can then change the reservoir size (hence Gi) with no risk of
inconsistency, as every intermediate model will be coherent
with its own Gi, hence honor material balance.
Over-complexity. All this methodology amounts to
considering that, at a given time, we should use the average
pressure as the reference pressure for the model calculation.
This statement is the kernel of the solution, and it indeed
solves the problem. But there was no need to implement this
complex and user hostile type-curve technique, while it could
just be integrated as a simple correction in the computer
generated model, at a fraction of the computation and
development cost, and with no need for specific
post-processing.
Material balance correction within a model
In the following, a model is not just a dimensionless (tD,pD)
type-curve, but the physical model that solves (analytically
here, numerically in other cases) the problem as defined by the
user (e.g. a rectangle of this size, a reservoir of this
permeability, fluid with this PVT, etc). So the model is what
the analytical engine defined above can produce. As for the
type-curve technique, the core idea is to re-evaluate the
average pressure, at every time step.
In 1996 Bourgeois et al10 suggested to add to a closed system
solution (using pi as the reference pressure) an additional
pseudopressure change for material balance correction. This
correction would compensate the gap between the analytical
and the numerical models in Figure 4. This is indeed correct,
but could be even simplified, by using at any time step the
average pressure (calculated from material balance) as the new
reference pressure.
The new calculation diagram is shown in Figure 6:
- At the beginning of the simulation, the model considers its
size, the initial pressure and the PVT, and calculates Gi
- At every time step, the model calculates the cumulative
production Q(t), and gets the average pressure from p/Z
- For the calculation of the simulated pressure at this time,
the corresponding average viscosity and compressibility
are used
SPE 77619
And that is all. The comparison between the pressure
coming from the numerical simulation and the use of material
balance correction will not even be shown here, because there
is just no detectable difference. Problem solved in literally
four lines of additional source code.
Post-mortem on this material balance problem
Before we get into the final plea to retire pseudopressures, we
can use the case of gas material balance to highlight a
few points.
A positive way to present the contribution of
pseudopressures would be that the pseudotime correction for
material balance is improving the accuracy of the solution
when average pressure declines. Actually, it is wrong. The
pseudotimes (or the material balance correction of the model)
are in fact correcting an error created by the pseudopressures.
This can be seen in Figures 4 and 7.
In Figure 4, we see that the pressures generated by the
simulator are fairly linear at late time, similar to the pseudo-
steady state of a slightly compressible fluid. It is the analytical
model created from pseudopressures that is bending
downwards. Why? The answer is in Figure 1. The
pseudopressures behave like p at low pressure. When the
pseudopressures simulated by the model reach Pseudo-Steady
State, they become linear with time, and then the
corresponding pressures will inherit the bending of Figure 1
and will not follow a straight line.
It would be OK if there were a physical explanation for
this. There is none, this behavior is a pure artifact coming
from the pseudopressures. In the real diffusion equation solved
by the simulator, the non linearity of the terms grouped in the
pseudopressures are mostly compensated by the non linearity
of the c left outside, and globally the pressure behavior is
close to a linear response.
In Figure 7, we see the same log-log responses for a
simulation and an analytical model without material balance
correction, but this time we are displaying pressures, not m(p).
The (true) simulated pressures follow a unit slope, while the
analytical model without material balance correction
bends upwards.
In conclusion, what we did was not to improve the
approximation of pseudopressures, but really to correct an
error that was created when we split the real gas diffusion
equation into two groups, the pseudopressure and the
diffusivity, solved for one while keeping the other one
constant. Then all the bright things we have done were to
correct this initial error.
 WHY WE SHOULD STOP USING PSEUDOPRESSURES AND OTHER GOOD OLD WELL TEST
SPE 77619 INTERPRETATION TOOLS AFTER SO MANY YEARS OF GOOD SERVICE
Why we should retire pseudopressures
The author sees four main reasons for this:
Non linearity. First let us dare challenge a statement
everybody accepts: the pseudopressures have not been
designed to linearize the real gas diffusion, and they are not
doing that. Equation 2 is anything but a linear equation, as the
factor left outside is anything but a constant. The equation
becomes linear when you assume that the diffusivity is
constant, and the above shows how wrong this assumption can
be. Another way to illustrate this is by considering Figure 1,
i.e. the relation between p and m(p). At high pressures, it is a
linear relation, and therefore Equation 2 does not add any
linearity to the problem. The only case where m(p) would
eventually linearize the diffusion would be in the curvy part of
Figure 1, i.e. at low pressure. Bad news, it is exactly where the
pseudopressures turn out to be completely incorrect.
No, as stated before pseudopressures were designed to
formulate the diffusion equation in a way that would look
like the slightly compressible fluid equation, hence establish
the connection with the type-curves developed for these
slightly compressible fluids. Later, the same process was used
to allow analytical models to be used on gas tests. It did, and
still does, the job relatively well. But this is done in the
calculation process, the analytical engine not accessible to
the user.
No specific relevant behavior. Using m(p) instead of p in the
diagnostic plots brings absolutely nothing. Scales apart, at
high and medium pressure the responses look strictly identical,
and at low pressures, when the relation is not linear, the
pressure is right and the pseudopressure is wrong. In other
words, if we were showing pressures and not pseudopressures,
this would not change anything in our diagnosis process.
We do not match de data. When you transform pressures
into pseudopressures, you are actually modifying the data
assuming a PVT. There is a philosophical issue here. When
you transform data, whatever error you are doing in the
process will be irreversible and will add to the uncertainty of
the final interpretation. Of course, we need at a point to do
some assumptions on the PVT, but doing it upfront means that
you are stuck with it for the rest of the interpretation. If later
you change your PVT assumption, then you will change the
pseudopressures, hence your target data. In a typical gas well
test, the first interpretation will be done with a very rough
PVT knowledge (separator gravity and a choice of
correlation). If, a few weeks later, a refined PVT analysis has
been done, then the only alternative will be to change the
pseudopressures and to do the analysis again. There is a much
better solution (see later).
5
Incoherence with numerical models. With the development
of numerical well test models, we end up with a ridiculous
process. The simulator will solve the real gas diffusion
equation, with of course no need for pseudopressures. The
PVT used may be much more refined than what is input in the
m(p) calculation. If we use the pseudopressure as the default
diagnostic scale, then, to compare the data and the numerically
simulated pressures, we will have to transform the simulated
pressures into pseudopressures, potentially unrelated to the
PVT used in the simulator! A bit like scratching your left ear
with your right toe.
Suggested new methodology
The essence of the suggested methodology is:
- Replace m(p) by p in the diagnostic plots
- Transfer the PVT information to the model
- Use m(p) in the analytical engine, nowhere else
The suggested workflow for the generation of an analytical
model is provided in Figure 8. The physical description of the
model, the parameters and the PVT used are integrated in the
model description. An analytical model becomes, as in a
numerical model, a black box that gives pressure vs. time.
Because the PVT is now part of the analysis (and not part
of the pre-processing), the user may actually try and compare
several PVT options, exactly as he/she would compare
different models or model parameters. In a given analysis, the
user might change the PVT as he changes the other
parameters, or duplicate the analysis, then change the PVT,
and with nonlinear regression checks how the refinement of
the PVT affects the results, or ultimately the whole diagnosis.
The problem of receiving a new PVT description months after
the initial analysis then becomes easy to handle.
A multiple analysis of the same data would then look like
Figure 9. Under this new logic, and with the absence of the
constraints coming from pseudopressures, the well test
package can receive, with no specific processing, the solutions
generated by its own built-in analytical and/or numerical tools,
or import the result of a third party simulation or home made
models, via files or D-COM type connection.
Pseudopressures subsist within the number crunching part of
the built-in analytical models, but they have disappeared from
the user interface.
Partial retirement, then
So, actually, the author lied in his abstract. In the suggested
methodology, the pseudopressures are not completely retired,
as they stay in the internal calculations of the analytical model.
But this is transparent to the user, a little like image wells are
internally used for boundary models without being
explicitly displayed.
6 O. P. HOUZE
Nothing prevents us displaying the pseudopressures as a
side facility, but they would be kept out of the core
methodology, as complementary information.
We could even question keeping pseudopressures inside
the analytical model calculations. After all, the constraint to
map the slightly compressible fluid equation is gone with the
type-curves, and we have seen that the grouping of
pseudopressures is not really ideal to linearize the equations.
So we might re-consider the overall algorithms used in the
analytical engine and completely remove pseudopressures. But
this may not be worth the research effort.
For any practical purpose, when we compare numerical
and analytical models, both match pretty well except at late
time for this material balance issue. After material balance
correction there is no detectable difference. Of course there are
some differences. Even after correction the analytical model
does not rigorously solve the nonlinear diffusion. But,
considering the signature of the data we interpret with these
models, the approximation is pretty reasonable. So the
pseudopressures may as well stay in the analytical model.
It is also the authors conviction that, for real gas tests,
analytical models will be quickly phased out and replaced by
numerical models, where no assumption is made, and non
linearities overlooked for years are at last taken into account.
The gridding technology is ready, and these models are fast
and reliable enough. Problems remain with multiphase flow,
but no more for single-phase. So, why should we stay
analytical when solving a nonlinear problem?
Why we should retire pseudotime
First, if we retire pseudopressures, it would look pretty silly
keeping pseudotimes Beyond this, it could be interesting to
review why pseudotimes were introduced, and how the
problems they addressed could be handled under the
suggested methodology.
First, we have noticed confusion between the traditional
pseudotime and the pseudotime introduced to handle material
balance problems. These methods have a completely different
range of application, but both were developed to handle the c
left outside the pseudopressure equation when the changes
cannot be ignored.
Average pressure correction. For long-term production, the
goal was to permanently adjust the same c, from a p/Z
calculation, in order to honor material balance.
SPE 77619
Wellbore pressure correction. Typically for tight gas
reservoir, the assumption of constant wellbore storage turns
out to be incorrect. As the gas compressibility would
dramatically change in the wellbore, it was decided to
integrate the c in the time function in order (mainly) to
account for changing storage, and therefore stretch the real
pressure response, on the time scale, to give it back the shape
of a constant wellbore storage type-curve. The pressure used
in the pseudotime calculation was the wellbore pressure.
So both have the same goal of reducing the inaccuracy of
the analytical model, but the first one is a high frequency
correction to handle wellbore effects, the other one is a low
frequency correction, for limit tests or the analysis of
production data. And both are incorrect, because
There is a qualitative difference between the
pseudopressures, that are only a function of pressure
(applicable at any point of the reservoir), and pseudotimes,
that are not a function of time only, but of both time and
pressure. The correction, that uses a single pressure at a given
time, is not valid at any point in the reservoir, because
pressure is not uniform. So the pseudotime is a local
correction, an approximation that may have side effects. You
cannot be right everywhere, and there is no magic way to
transform our analytical model into a rigorous solution.
The alternative to material balance pseudotime has already
been developed at length in this paper. For wellbore storage
pseudotime, we see two alternatives: (1) seamlessly integrate
the pseudotime correction in the analytical model, but keep the
time in the model output, (2) when the use of pseudotime is
aimed at turning changing wellbore storage into constant
wellbore storage, just use a pressure related wellbore storage
model, strictly linked to the gas compressibility.
Figure 10 shows a typical tight gas response, the transform
of this response using pseudotime, and the match with a
changing storage solution with no pseudotime correction.
Other changing wellbore storage models simulate a time
related transition between early and late storage. They are fast
and can match anything, but they have no physical basis,
and they are time related. In Figure 11, we consider the
pressure related wellbore storage of a gas well. We call C1 the
wellbore storage calculated for the last flowing pressure, and
C2 the wellbore storage calculated at final shut-in pressure.
The build-up response will show C1 at early time and C2 at
late time. If you take the sequence of a drawdown and a build-
up, the build-up may be perfectly matched with C1 then C2,
but the drawdown simulation will also show C1 then C2,
while, physically, it is the opposite. This does not rule out time
related storage models, but they must be used with caution.
 WHY WE SHOULD STOP USING PSEUDOPRESSURES AND OTHER GOOD OLD WELL TEST
SPE 77619 INTERPRETATION TOOLS AFTER SO MANY YEARS OF GOOD SERVICE
An objection to the removal of pseudotime is that we are
loosing any chance to restore a nice looking constant wellbore
storage response. Actually, from experience, pseudotimes do
not compensate fully the strange shape of the early time
response. And, after all, it is the REAL response, and we
might as well use the model to simulate this strange but
real shape.
Multiphase pseudopressures
The origin of multiphase pseudopressures11 is the same as for
single-phase: an attempt to get closer to the slightly
compressible fluid equation. In the process, there is a
factorization with respect to the reference phase (gas for dew
point fluids, oil for bubble point fluids). The reservoir
permeability is also factorized, while the phases relative
permeabilities are integrated in the pseudopressure. For a
given pressure, the program will calculate the different
saturations, hence the relative permeabilities of each phase and
their physical properties. This leads to the calculation of a
pseudopressure function that will integrate all phase
components. Again, only the total diffusion is left in the
equation, the rest is packaged in the definition of the
pseudopressure. Assuming again that the diffusion is a
constant, we can now solve the problem as for a slightly
compressible fluid.
A typical pseudopressure response is shown in Figure 12,
in the case of a gas condensate. Above dew point and at low
pressure, the behavior is the same as the single-phase m(p).
When flow gets below dew point condensate drop-out occurs
evidenced by a bending of the pseudopressure curve.
The principle of these multiphase pseudopressures has
been published in the litterature, but never really accepted by
the industry as a standard. Their implementation in
commercial software is more an initiative from a couple of
software vendors than the result of a consensus in the industry.
The reason why these pseudopressures were developed
makes sense: until we have an automatic, reliable and fast
numerical solution for multiphase well tests (and we are not
there yet), all we have so far is Perrines method12, that carries
numerous approximations. The purpose of the multiphase
pseudopressures is to reduce the number of these
approximations. These pseudopressures will for sure be as bad
or less bad than Perrines. The question is: is it enough, and, if
it is not enough, is the whole process relevant?
Of course, the same limitations as for single-phase gas
pseudopressures will apply. We will not develop them again
here. We see two additional major problems:
Sensitivity. They are very sensitive to the relative
permeability tables. But this after all is not a specific issue, as
any numerical models will have the same problem.
7
Constant composition assumption. This is certainly the most
serious question. As there is a unique relation between p and
m(p), this implies that we have the same fluid composition at
any time and any point of the reservoir. For a given pressure,
there may be several phases present, but it will always be the
same relation. The different relative perms integrated in the
pseudopressures have an effect on the total mobility, but an
analytical model with pseudopressures will not be able to
simulate the cumulative effect of these different mobilities,
i.e. the segregation of the components within the reservoir. For
example, a gas condensate pseudopressure will not simulate a
condensate banking. It will just show a change in the
mobility at every point where the pressure is below dew point.
So we have to be very careful with these pseudopressures.
They may work great (especially to combine a multiphase
surface production into a single-phase downhole rate), but
they carry too many approximations to just use and forget.
An additional user-related problem is that they require very
detailed PVT and relative permeability information, and one
worrying risk is that the user takes the default of whatever
he/she does not know
The authors position is that software vendors should
remove them from their default installations, unless and until
they are eventually formally accepted and required by the
industry. There is no general agreement on them, and software
vendors are not there to take the risks of spreading a
potentially improper methodology. The trouble is that there is
no reliable alternative at present, and for example the
interpretation of gas condensate tests remains an
open question.
Conclusions
Type-curve matching is technically history, and was
replaced by matching computer generated models on data, a
method still improperly called type-curve matching. With
type-curves, we would modify the data to fit the shape of the
curve. Now we refine the model to match the observed data.
Methods that change the data upfront, such as the use of
pseudofunctions, should now be questioned.
Gas pseudopressures do not linearize the real diffusion
equation but merely package it in a way that looks like a
slightly compressible fluid problem. Assumptions are wrong,
but they are partly compensated by using pseudotime.
But these pseudofunctions uselessly constrain the analysis
to one PVT model, they do not bring any significant signature
that pressure would overlook, and they are wrong at low
pressure. When numerical simulations are run in parallel,
converting simulated pressures to pseudopressures is an
irrelevant process. So pseudofunctions should be removed
from the diagnostic plots.
8 O. P. HOUZE
In the analytical model generation, pseudopressures may
be internally kept. Pseudotimes may go for good: when used
to address material balance issues they are advantageously
replaced by a material balance correction within the model,
and a pressure related changing wellbore storage model could
replace the traditional pseudotime.
Multiphase pseudopressures were developed with the same
idea to get a slightly compressible fluid equation. They have
the same limitations as the gas pseudopressures, and much
more (sensitivity, constant composition). Only specialists
should use them, and with caution. Unfortunately there is no
real alternative.
The original relevance of these good old tools is
absolutely not questioned. But we are, collectively, very slow
to assess when a new method should replace an older one and
not just needlessly accumulate tools for the sake of it or
through inertia.
Todays interpretation engineers are multi-disciplinary,
and they use computers. There is apparently no risk of massive
power failure that will shut down all computers and will force
them to go back to millimeter paper and printed type-curves.
So we must turn the page, and focus on what is important: (1)
an optimized methodology, adapted to todays tools and needs,
cleaned from obsolete techniques, (2) proper training and (3)
common sense.
Acknowledgement
The author wishes to acknowledge Chih Chen, Kevin Siggery
and Olivier Allain for helping in the review of this paper. He
also wants to acknowledge A, B and C, who also helped but
would not want to ruin their reputation.
Nomenclature
A = conversion ct, unit dpendent
c = total compressibility, Lt2/m, kPa -1 [psi-1]
m(p) = gas pseudopressure, m/Lt3, kPa2/cp [psi2/cp]
p = pressure, m/Lt2, kPa [psi]
t = time, t, hr
Z = gas compressibility factor
Greek
= Gradient operator
= Differential
= Viscosity, m/Lt, cp
= porosity, fraction
SPE 77619
References
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, pp 624-636
2. Agarwal, R.G. : Real Gas Pseudo-Time A New Function for
Pressure Buildup Analysis of MHF Gas Wells, SPE 8279, paper
presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Las Vigas, NV., September 23-25, 1979.
3. Horner, D.R. : Pressure Buildups in Wells, Proc. Third World
Pet. Cong., E.J. Brill, Leiden 2 , 1951, pp 503-521.
4. Agarwal, R.G., : A New Method to Account for Producing Time
Effects when Drawdown Type Curves are Used to Analyze
Pressure Buildup and Other Test Data, SPE 9289, paper
presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, TX, September 21-24, 1980.
5. Bostic, J.N., Agarwal, R.G., and Carter, R.D.: Combined
Analysis of Postfracturing Performance and Pressure Buildup
Data for Evaluating an MHF Gas Well, Jour. Pet. Tech., Oct.
1980, pp 1711-1719.
6. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A., and Pirard, Y.M. : Use of Pressure
Derivative in Well-Test Interpretation, SPE 12777, paper
presented at 1998 California Regional Meeting held in Long
Beach, April 11 14, 1984.
7. Rosa, A.J and Horne, R.N. : Automated Type-Curve Matching
in Well Test Analysis Using Laplace Space Determination of
Parameter Gradients, SPE 12131, paper presented at 1983 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San
Francisco, CA, Oct. 5-8, 1983.
8. Blasingame, T.A. and Lee, W.J. : The Variable-Rate Reservoir
Limits Testing of Gas Wells, SPE 17708, paper presented at
1988 SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in Dallas, TX., Jun.
13-15, 1988.
9. Gardner, D.C., Hager, C.J., Brown, T., and Agarwal, R.G.:
Incorporating Rate-Time Superposition into Decline Type Curve
Analysis, SPE 62475, presented at the 2000 SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium,
Denver, CO., March 12-15, 2000.
10. Bourgeois, M.J. and Wilson, M.R. : Additional Use of Well Test
Analytical Solutions for Production Prediction, SPE 36820,
paper presented at 1996 SPE European Petroleum Conference
held in Milan, Italy, Oct. 22-24, 1996.
11. Jones, J.R. and Raghavan, R. : Interpretation of Flowing Well
Response in Gas-Condensate Wells,, SPE 14204, paper
presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 22-25, 1985.
12. Perrine, R.L. : Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves, Drilling
and Production Practice, American Petroleum Insitute, 1956, pp
482-509.
 WHY WE SHOULD STOP USING PSEUDOPRESSURES AND OTHER GOOD OLD WELL TEST
SPE 77619 INTERPRETATION TOOLS AFTER SO MANY YEARS OF GOOD SERVICE 9

pi
p from p/Z
analytical
simulation

wrong
0

Figure 1 Typical Pseudopressure vs. Pressure Figure 4 Material balance correction (linear plot)
pressure vs. time

analytical
simulation

Figure 2 Typical Diffusivity vs. Pressure Figure 5 Simulation vs. analytical with no M.B. correction
log-log plot pseudopressure vs. time

pi pref linear
linear
p(t)model PVT match
match m(pi)
PVT PVT pi table
table table Gi
p(t)model
PVT p(t) c(t)
table Q(t)
m(pi) (c)ref m(t)model
t analytical
analytical log-log engine
t m(t)model
engine match log-log
match

Figure 3 analytical model generation, using pseudopressures Figure 6 analytical model generation, using pseudopressures
without Material Balance correction with Material Balance correction
10 O. P. HOUZE SPE 77619

analytical original data (pressure & derivative)

simulation data after pseudo-time correction
changing wellbore storage model

Figure 7 Simulation vs. analytical with no M.B. correction Figure 10 Tight gas reservoir response with and without
log-log plot pressure vs. time pseudotime, and changing wellbore storage model

Gas PVT tables, initial pressure C2

C1
well(s) production(s) C2
wrong
well(s)+reservoir+boundary(ies) model

log-log
init m(pi) + (closed system) Gi match
+
semi-log
match
material balance +
correction linear
match
closed
system analytical wrong
t m(t)model p(t)model
engine C2
C1
C1

Figure 8 Suggested analytical model workflow

Figure 11 Pressure related wellbore storage

Errors with time related wellbore storage models

Analysis 1 m 1 (p)
analytical - PVT1 - model1 - parameters1
p1(t)

m 2 (p)
Analysis 2
analytical - PVT2 - model2 - parameters2 p2(t) log-log
dew
match
+ liquid
Analysis 3 m 3 (p)
semi-log
t analytical - PVT3 - model3 - parameters3 p3(t) match
drop-out

+
Analysis 4 linear
numerical - PVT4 - description4 p4(t) match

Analysis 5
numerical - PVT5 - description5 p5(t)

Figure 9 Multiple analytical / numerical analyses

Figure 12 Gas condensate pseudopressure vs. pressure