See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250092931

Pressure Transient Analysis for Wells With

Variable Sandface Flow Rate

Article in Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology July 2003

DOI: 10.2118/03-07-04

CITATION READS

1 90

1 author:

Ibrahim Sami Nashawi

Kuwait University
46 PUBLICATIONS 256 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

IPR for fractured reservoirs, EOR of heavy oil, reservoir characterization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ibrahim Sami Nashawi on 06 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue
are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Pressure Transient Analysis for Wells
With Variable Sandface Flow Rate
I.S. NASHAWI
Kuwait University
Abstract
In the last two decades, with the availability of new state-of-
the-art production logging devices that are capable of providing
accurate downhole rate and pressure measurements, variable-
rate testing has been given special concern. This is mainly
because it is sometimes impractical and often impossible to hold
a constant flow rate long enough to perform a drawdown test.
Furthermore, the use of sandface flow rate and pressure data in
well test analysis has a few major advantages over conventional
methods. Variable-rate tests minimize the wellbore storage
effects, reduce the test duration, and provide better description
of the area in the vicinity of the wellbore.
This paper presents a new technique that does not require a
constant flow rate for the entire duration of the test. The tech-
nique consists of two flowing periods: a short constant flow rate
period followed by a variable flow rate period. In deriving the
final working equation, the variable flow rate period is approxi-
mated by a polynomial.
The new method can be also used to analyze pressure draw-
down data dominated by wellbore storage and pressure buildup
data pertaining to early time afterflow. Two simulated cases and
two field examples are presented to illustrate the applicability of
the new technique.
Introduction
The pressure drawdown test has long been recognized in the oil
industry to be an excellent technique to determine reservoir char-
acteristics. However, one of the major drawbacks in analyzing
pressure drawdowns is the theoretical requirement of these tech-
niques that requires the flow rate to be held strictly constant dur-
ing the entire test duration. Moreover, in most wells, the wellbore
storage effects dominate the early test data and force the operator
to run the test for a long period of time. This is especially true in
low-productivity pumping wells and low-permeability tight reser-
voirs. Furthermore, in the case of small reservoirs, the boundary
effects may disturb the test data even before the appearance of the
semilog straight line on the test plot. Sometimes, even when the
plot displays a straight line, the data analysis may not reflect the
near wellbore conditions. In all of these cases, the well test fails to
achieve its goals. In addition, for both oil and gas wells, the long
constant-rate production condition is hard to fulfill in the field,
especially during the early life of the reservoir. For all of these
reasons, well test researchers tried to come up with new testing
techniques that do not require a constant rate, minimize the well-
bore storage effects, reflect the actual conditions in the vicinity of
the wellbore, and reduce the test duration. Variable-rate tests are
designed to solve most of these problems.
PEER REVIEWED PAPER (REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEB SITE)
44
The idea of using afterflow data to analyze well tests is not
new. As early as 1955, Gladfelter et al. (1) presented the first
attempt to use approximated afterflow rate and pressure data to
estimate the reservoir parameters. Since that time, several
authors(2-4) presented effective analysis techniques based on vari-
able surface flow rate data; others(5-14) used sandface flow rate and
pressure measurements to minimize the wellbore storage effects
and to enhance the test results. In 1987, Piers et al.(15) introduced
new logging and testing devices that can accurately monitor the
sandface flow rate and pressure response. Since that time, the oil
industry has entered a new era of transient pressure testing using
both downhole flow rate and pressure measurements. This era is
characterized by an abundance of publications that emphasize the
buildup aspects of pressure testing; unfortunately, however, draw-
down tests were given little attention.
Russell(16) introduced the two-rate pressure drawdown test.
This method has two major shortcomings. First, it assumes an
instantaneous rate change from the first to the second stabilized
rate, which is not the case in field practice where a certain time
lag exists from the moment the rate changes until it restabilizes at
the second rate. Second, it did not solve the wellbore storage
problem. In fact, wellbore storage occupies just about the same
amount of time in a two-rate test as in a normal buildup, draw-
down, falloff, or any other conventional test(17). The two-rate test
was further modified by Pinson(18) to make the calculation easier
and the plotting process more convenient. Earlougher(19) discussed
the various aspects of the two-rate test, illustrating the source of
errors resulting from the analysis technique that was originally
proposed by Russell (16) and its modifications (18) . Odeh and
Jones(20) adapted a different interpretation of the two-rate test
when the second rate changes significantly. For this case, they
suggested an analysis method that is similar to a multiple-rate
analysis technique. In an earlier paper, Odeh and Jones(2) present-
ed a variable-rate pressure drawdown test in which they approxi-
mated the rate variation by a finite number of average constant
rates. This theory was further developed to be applicable to an
unlimited number of constant rates in what is known nowadays as
multirate or multiple-rate test(17, 21). Even though the analysis pro-
cedure of this technique is direct, it did not receive much attention
by well test analysts due to the complexity of the computations
required to prepare the data for the test plot. Moreover, it is
important to remember before applying this method that the reser-
voir is assumed to be infinite-acting during the total elapsed time
for all flow rates combined. Furthermore, the technique ignores
any wellbore storage distortion created by any discrete rate
changes(21). Winestock and Colpitts(3) introduced a simple draw-
down test that can be used to analyze a continuously changing
flow rate. Lee et al. (4) extensively discussed Winestock and
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
Colpitts(3) method and concluded that the technique yields good
results if the producing rate varies slowly and smoothly during the
test. Furthermore, Lee(21) conducted a non-exhaustive numerical
simulation study to prove that the method also produces essential- q=q sf =a0
ly correct permeability and skin factor values in cases of severe
wellbore effects. Ramey(22) successfully applied the same tech- n
nique to analyze wellbore-storage-dominated data. q sf = ai t i
Log-log type curve matching techniques have been used exten- i =0

sively in the oil industry as diagnostic and interpretation tools for

system identification(23-28). Bourdet et al.(29) have shown that the
tp t
application of the pressure derivative of Tiab and Kumar(30) to the
constant-rate type curve matching provides a better model diagno-
sis than a log-log pressure plot alone. In a different paper, Bourdet Time
et al.(31) included the superposition effects for calculating the pres-
sure derivatives from past production history. More recently, FIGURE 1: Schematic illustration of the sandface flow rate and
Ayestaran et al.(32) presented a new type curve based on sandface pressure response.
flow rate and pressure measurements. This type curve, called CTR
(convolution type curve), provides better model identification and
enhances the well test data interpretation. With the availability of and the hydraulic diffusivity is defined as:
all these conventional and new type curves, the type curve match-
ing technique is still considered by many field engineers as a diag-
0.0002637k
nostic tool for model identification only. Even when type curves =
are used to estimate the reservoir parameters, the results are treat- ct
.....................................................................................(5)
ed with skepticism due to the non-uniqueness problem of the
obtained values.
The proposed technique divides the total testing time t into two
The purpose of this work is to present a new pressure transient time periods as schematically illustrated in Figure 1. The first
technique for the analysis of simultaneously measured sandface period is from t = 0 to t = tp where the production rate is held con-
flow rate and pressure data. The new technique does not require a stant at q. In this period, the normalized sandface rate qD is equal
strictly constant flow rate during the entire test duration. to 1. The second time period is from t = tp to the end of the test. In
However, it requires a short constant-rate production period fol- this time period, the production rate is approximated by a polyno-
lowed by a variable-rate production period. The selection of this mial of the form:
test schedule is well planned to resemble a variable-rate pressure
buildup test. Two simulated cases and two field examples are pre-
n
sented to illustrate the applicability of the technique.
q sf = ai t i
i=0 ............................................................................................(6)

Theoretical Development The approximation of the variable flow rate by a polynomial of

For radial flow problems in single layer reservoir, the dimen- the form given in Equation (6) may seem restrictive from the
sionless downhole pressure drop for a continuously changing flow petroleum engineering standpoint. However, from a mathematical
rate is given by the convolution integral as(33-35): point of view, polynomials, especially unlimited forms, are very
flexible chains that can accurately fit many types of data.
tD Furthermore, the selection of this particular polynomial was not
pwD (t D ) = q'D ( ) pD (t D )d + sq D (t D ) accidental. Considerable amounts of mathematical effort and com-
0 puter simulation study have been conducted to ensure that
Equation (6) is the appropriate form that accurately describes the
tD
test data. Two major objectives were considered in this regard.
= q D ( ) p'D (t D )d + sq D (t D ) First, the final working equation should be easy to use and second,
0 ..........................................(1) the results of the well test analysis should be accurate. The first
objective is shown in the Appendix, whereas the second objective
provided that pD(0) = 0. is illustrated in the simulated cases and field examples. Winestock
The normalized sandface flow rate is defined by: and Colpitts(3) also used a polynomial to approximate the variable
flow rate during pressure drawdown. As it has been previously
q sf mentioned, Lee et al. (4) thoroughly discussed Winestock and
qD = Colpitts(3) technique and concluded that this kind of rate approxi-
q
.................................................................................................(2) mation yields good test results, provided that the rate variation is
smooth. One should also remember that smooth rate variation is
where, throughout this work, qsf represents the variable sandface also a prerequisite in most convolution techniques. Any abrupt
flow rate and q represents the constant flow rate before rate disturbance in the measured sandface flow rate may render the
variation. data analysis extremely difficult to interpret, and the accuracy of
For pressure drawdown problems, substituting Equation (2) the obtained results questionable.
into Equation (1), one obtains the following equation in real time: Substituting Equation (6) into Equation (3) yields:

t q sf 1 rw2 tp
pi pwf = M exp d + 2 Msq D 1 rw2 t n

q t 4 (t ) pi pwf = M exp d + M 1 ai t i 1
0
..........................(3) 0 t
4 (t )
t
q i=0 t
p

r 2
where: exp w d + 2 Msq D
4 (t )
.....................................................................(7)
70.6qB
M=
kh .........................................................................................(4) Integration of Equation (7) results in the following equation:

July 2003, Volume 42, No. 7 45

 t = t p + t = t
162.6qB t ......................................................................................(14)
pi pwf = log + q D log(t ) +
kh t

substituting Equation (14) into Equation (9) yields:
k
+ log 3.23 + 0.869s pi pwf
2 162.6qB 1
ct rw
qD
=
kh
[log(t ) + (q D 1)log(t )] +
...............................................................(8) q D

A detailed derivation of Equation (8) is presented in the k

Appendix. log 2
3.23 + 0.869s
ct rw ..............................................................(15)
Dividing both sides of Equation (8) by the normalized rate qD
yields the final working equation as:
Dividing both sides of Equation (15) by the constant flow rate
q before rate variation and rearranging terms, one obtains:
pi pwf
162.6qB 1
qD
=
kh
[log(t ) + (q D 1)log(t )] +
q D k
pi pwf 162.6 B
= log(t ) + log 3.23 + 0.869s
q sf kh 2
k ct rw ................(16)
+ log 2
3.23 + 0.869s
ct rw
...............................................................(9) Equation (16) is none other than the Winestock and Colpitts(3)
equation, and the equation used by Ramey(22) to analyze wellbore-
Equation (9) shows that all the coefficients of the polynomial storage-dominated data.
used to approximate the variable flow rate [Equation (6)] drop 2. If the test is conducted at constant flow rate only, in this case
out, leaving the normalized rate expressed as a ratio of the actual the normalized rate qD is equal to 1 and t can be replaced
measured sandface rate to the constant rate before rate variation. by t. Therefore, Equation (9) becomes:
This meets the first objective regarding the simplicity of the final
test equation and proves that the selection of Equation (6) to k
162.6qB 3.23 + 0.869s
describe the variable rate is quite justified from a well test analy- pi pwf = log(t ) + log 2
kh ct rw
sis point of view. Yet, the second objective concerning the accura- ...............(17)
cy of the analysis results has to be also proven. This will be
demonstrated in the analysis section of this paper. Equation (17) is none other than the conventional constant-rate
A Cartesian plot of (pi pwf)/qD vs. (1/qD)[log(t) + (qD 1)log(t)] pressure drawdown equation.
should yield a straight line with slope m and intercept b, where m From the previous discussion, one can observe that Winestock
and b are respectively defined as: and Colpitts(3) method, Rameys(22) method, and the classical
constant-rate semilog method are special cases of the technique
162.6qB presented in this paper.
m= It is important to mention that all of the equations presented
kh ......................................................................................(10) thus far are expressed in the customary field units. The simulated
and field examples presented in the subsequent sections are ana-
lyzed using SI units. The results obtained when the field units are
applied are written in brackets. Converting the final working
k
b = mlog 3.23 + 0.869s equations, Equations (9), (12), and (13), to SI units yields:
c r
2
t w
...................................................(11)
pi pwf
2149 qB 1
The formation permeability and the skin factor are calculated qD
=
kh
[log(t ) + (q D 1)log(t )] +
q D
from Equations (10) and (11) respectively as:
k
162.6qB log 2
5.10 + 0.869s
k= ct rw
mh .......................................................................................(12) ...............................................................(18)

2149qB
k=
b k mh
s = 1.151 log + 3.23
2
........................................................................................(19)
m ct rw

....................................................(13)

b k
s = 1.151 log + 5.10
2
m ct rw

Discussion of the Working Equation .....................................................(20)

The following discussion is intended to prove that the final
working equation [Equation (9)] accurately fits the proposed test.
If any of the two flowing periods is deleted from the test schedule,
Equation (9) reverts to describe a well-known pressure drawdown
technique as shown below.
1. If the test is performed at variable flow rate only, i.e., the
stabilized flow rate period is omitted from the test schedule
(tp = 0), one can write:
In SI units, the flow rate is expressed in m3/d, the pressure in
kPa, the viscosity in mPas, and the length in m. SI unit conver-
sion factors are given at the end of the paper.
Analysis of Variable-Rate Drawdown Test
Two simulated cases are presented to illustrate the applicability
of the proposed technique. The sandface pressure and flow rate

46 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 180 25500 40000
m = 1181.6
b = 8100.3
Sandface flow rate sm /d 150 24000 R2 = 0.9998
3

(pi pwf )/qD , kPa

30000

120 22500

20000
90 21000

60 19500 10000

30 18000
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0
Time, hours 0 5 10 15 20 25
(1/qD)[log(t)+(q D - 1)log(t)]
FIGURE 2: Sandface flow rate and pressure response, simulated
case No. 1. FIGURE 3: Variable rate analysis plot, simulated case No. 1.

200 27000 40000

m = 692.87
b = 9798.5
Sandface flow rate, sm /d

150 24000 30000

3

R2 = 0.9998

(pi pwf )/qD , kPa

100 21000 20000

50 18000 10000

0 15000 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time, hours (1/qD)[log(t)+(qD - 1)log(t)]

FIGURE 4: Sandface flow rate and pressure response, simulated

case No. 2. FIGURE 5: Variable rate analysis plot, simulated case No. 2.

data are obtained using an integrated reservoir/wellbore simulator
developed by Almehaideb et al.(36) The model simulates transient
fluid flow around a single well that may be opened or closed.
Wellbore storage and damage or stimulation are rigorously includ-
ed in the model. The flow in the reservoir in the vicinity of the
wellbore is radial and the well is assumed to penetrate the entire
pay zone thickness.
Simulated Case No. 1
This case simulates a high-pressure reservoir. The well was
flowing at a constant rate of 159 sm3/d (1,000 stb/d) before rate
variation. The sandface flow rate and pressure response data are
shown in Figure 2. Table 1 presents pertinent fluid and rock prop-
erties for this case. The simulator input formation permeability
and skin factor are 100 md and 2, respectively.
Figure 3 displays the plot of the new technique. This figure
demonstrates that all the data points fall on a straight line (R2 =
0.9998), as suggested by Equation (9). A linear regression analy-
sis performed on the data shows that the straight line has a slope
m of 1,181.6 (171.38) and intercept b of 8,100.3 (1,174.86). Using
these values of the slope and the intercept, the formation perme-
ability and the skin factor are calculated from Equations (19) and
(20) to be 100.2 md and 1.74, respectively. Table 2 compares the
TABLE 1: Fluid and rock properties for the simulated
case No. 1.
Porosity, fraction
Oil FVF, m3/sm3
Oil viscosity, mPas
Net reservoir thickness, m
Total system compressibility, kPa-1
Well radius, m
Initial reservoir pressure, kPa
results obtained from this case with the input data. The calculated
formation permeability falls within 0.2% of the actual permeabili-
ty used in the simulator, whereas the absolute error of the skin
factor is 0.26. This case shows that the proposed method provides
an excellent match of the actual data.
Simulated Case No. 2
The well reported in this case produced at a constant rate of
180.5 sm3/d (1,135 stb/d) before rate variation. The simulated
sandface rate and pressure data are displayed in Figure 4. The
input formation permeability and mechanical skin factor are 48
md and 11, respectively. Other fluid and reservoir properties used
in the simulator are manifested in Table 3.
Figure 5 illustrates the graph of the new technique. As was the
case with the first example, all the data points fall on a straight
line having R2 = 0.9998. The linear regression analysis conducted
on the plotted data suggests that the line has a slope of 692.87
(100.49) and intercept of 9,798.5 (1,421.2). The formation perme-
ability and skin factor are calculated to be 47.78 md and 10.77,
respectively. The results obtained from the proposed technique are
compared with the actual input values in Table 4. Once again, the
comparison demonstrates that the new technique is capable of
delivering accurate test results.
It is important to mention that both simulated cases do not
show any sign of wellbore storage effects, as depicted in Figures 3
and 5. This is one of the major advantages of the proposed tech-
= 25% nique, as opposed to conventional analysis techniques where the
wellbore storage effects disturb the early test data.
= 1.056
=2 TABLE 2: Results of the simulated case No. 1.
= 6.096
= 27.93 10-7 Analysis Technique Permeability, mD Mechanical Skin
= 0.0508 Simulator input data 100 2
= 31,005.7 This study 100.2 1.74

July 2003, Volume 42, No. 7 47

TABLE 3: Fluid and rock properties for the simulated TABLE 4: Results of the simulated case No. 2.
case No. 2.
Analysis Technique Permeability, mD Mechanical Skin
Porosity, fraction = 17% Simulator input data 48 11
Oil FVF, m3/sm3 = 1.214 This study 47.78 10.77
Oil viscosity, mPas = 0.6
Net reservoir thickness, m = 8.5344
Total system compressibility, kPa-1 = 26.11 10-7 100000
m = 398.56
Well radius, m = 0.1524 b = 3018.6
80000
Initial reservoir pressure, kPa = 27,854.82 R2 = 0.9998

(pi pws )/q D, kPa

60000

1600 16000 40000

Sandface flow rate, sm /d
3

1200 15000
20000

0
800 14000 0 50 100 150 200 250

(1/qD)[log(t)+(qD - 1)log(t)]
400 13000

FIGURE 7: Variable rate analysis plot, field example No. 1.

0 12000
0 0.2 0.4
Shut-in time, hours
FIGURE 6: Sandface flow rate and pressure response, field
example No. 1.
Analysis of Buildup Data Using
Drawdown Equations
One of the main reasons for the selection of the test schedule as
a constant rate followed by a variable rate is that it resembles a
variable-rate pressure buildup test. This type of buildup test
requires that the well produces at a constant rate before the sur-
face shut-in of the well. Once the well is closed at the wellhead,
fluid continues to flow into the wellbore at the sandface until the
wellbore storage or afterflow effects diminish. Therefore, the
resemblance between the proposed technique and the variable-rate
buildup test permits the use of the equation derived in this study to
analyze buildup tests, provided that simultaneously measured
transient sandface flow rate and pressure data are available.
However, the bottomhole flowing pressure pwf must be substituted
by the sandface shut-in pressure pws and the sandface flow rate by
the afterflow rate. Furthermore, the initial reservoir pressure must
be known.
Field Examples
Two field examples taken from the literature(5, 7) are used to
illustrate the applicability of the proposed technique to analyze
pressure buildup tests.
0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Field Example No. 1
This field example is taken from Meunier et al.(7) The well pro-
duced for 158 hours at a stabilized sandface rate of 1,462.8 sm3/d
(9,200 stb/d) before it was shut-in at the surface for a pressure
buildup test. A detailed description of the measured shut-in
pressure and afterflow data as well as the fluid and the reservoir
properties is presented by Meunier et al.(7) In this example, the
afterflow rate declined from an initial value of 1,462.8 sm3/d
(9,200 stb/d) to 1.4 sm3/d (9 stb/d) in about eight hours. One of
the major drawbacks of using downhole rate data in a buildup test
is that the accuracy of rate measurements below 15.9 sm3/d (100
stb/d) becomes questionable. Therefore, only the early buildup
data pertaining to 1.086 hour of shut-in and corresponding to a
sandface rate of 15.7 sm3/d (99 stb/d) was analyzed. This data is
illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 7 illustrates the graph of the new technique as applied to
this field example. This figure shows that all the analyzed data
points (from t = 0 up to t = 1.086 hour) fall on a straight line hav-
ing a slope of 398.56 (57.81), an intercept of 3,018.6 (437.81),
and R2 of 0.9998. The formation permeability and skin factor are
calculated as 397.9 md and 1.58, respectively.
To illustrate the advantages of the new technique over the con-
ventional pressure buildup methods, the entire data set as reported
by Meunier et al. (7) was analyzed using the Horner (37) and
Agarwal(38) methods. Figure 8 displays a Horner plot. As shown in
the figure, the majority of the well test data is dominated by well-
bore storage effects. Only the last four points fall on the semilog
straight line. The formation permeability and the skin factor
obtained from this method were calculated to be 401.78 md and
1.55, respectively.

17000 4000
m = 394.69 kPa/cycle m = 394.69 kPa/cycle
16000
3000
(p ws p wf), kPa

15000
2000
14000

1000
13000

0
12000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
10 100 1000 10000 100000

(tp+t) / t te, hours

FIGURE 8: Horner plot, field example No. 1. FIGURE 9: Agarwals method, field example No. 1.

48 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 Figure 9 demonstrates the applicability of the Agarwal (38)
method to this field example. As was the case with the Horner
technique, the early test data points were masked by wellbore
storage, and did not provide any useful information for the con-
ventional analyses. The semilog straight line shown in the figure
is drawn through the last four data points. The results obtained
from this technique are basically the same as those calculated
from the Horner method (k = 401.78 md, s = 1.55).
A comparison of the results of this example with those obtained
from the Sandface Rate Convolution (SFRC) technique of
Meunier et al.(7) and other new and conventional pressure buildup
methods is given in Table 5. The comparison proves that the pro-
posed method yields results that are as accurate as those obtained
from other well-established techniques.
Field Example No. 2
This field example is Fetkovich and Vienot(5) oil well No. 1.
This is a low-productivity well producing from a low-pressure
reservoir. A complete data listing can be found in Fetkovich and
Vienots(5) paper. This case involves a multiphase flow problem.
Although many authors(39-47) proposed different techniques to ana-
lyze multiphase flow data, the approach presented by Perrine(37) is
The pressure buildup test conducted on this well lasted for 67
hours during which the sandface rate declined from an initial
value of 52.15 m3/d (328 bbl/d) to 0.64 m3/d (4 bbl/d) at the end
of the test. Figure 10 displays all the data points recorded during
the well test. As shown in this figure, after two hours of surface
shut-in of the well, the sandface rate dropped below 15.9 m3/d
(100 bbl/d). Specifically, 33 points have a rate below 15.9 m3/d
(100 bbl/d). These points were excluded from the analysis. Figure
11 shows the data recorded during the first two hours of the test.
Figure 12 is the new analysis plot for this example. A linear
regression analysis performed on the data indicates that the
straight line has a slope of 4,107.2, an intercept of -1,477, and R2
of 0.9996. The total fluid mobility (k/)t and skin factor were cal-
culated to be 1.9 md/mPas and -4.58, respectively.
Figure 13 demonstrates the applicability of the Horner method
to the entire data set plotted in Figure 10. Figure 13 clearly shows
that the wellbore storage effects dominate the data measured dur-
ing the first 20 hours of the well test. Only the last 23 data points
60 7000

/d
50 6000
adopted in this work.
5000
40
TABLE 5: Comparison of the new technique and other 4000
30
pressure analysis techniques, field example No. 1. 3000
20
Analysis Technique Permeability, mD Mechanical Skin 2000

This study 397.90 1.58 10 1000

Horners method 401.78 1.55 0 0
Agarwals method 401.78 1.55 0 15 30 45 60 75
STAT analysis 404.52 1.57 Shut-in time, hours
SFRC technique 403.20 1.55 FIGURE 10: Sandface flow rate and pressure response, field
Type curve matching 419.00 1.25 example No. 2 (entire data set).

60000
60 1700
m = 4107.2
/d

1500
50000 b = -1477
50
R2 = 0.9996
(p i pws )/q D , kPa

1300 40000
40
1100 30000
30
900
20000
20
700
10000
10 500
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0
Shut-in time, hours 0 3 6 9 12 15
(1/qD)[log(t)+(qD - 1)log(t)]
FIGURE 11: Sandface flow rate and pressure response, field
example No. 2. FIGURE 12: Variable rate analysis plot, field example No. 2.

7500 7500

m = 4483.8 kPa/cycle m = 4483.8 kPa/cycle

6000 6000

4500 4500

3000 3000

1500 1500

0 0
100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
(tp+t)/t te, hours

FIGURE 13: Horner plot, field example No. 2. FIGURE 14: Agarwal method, field example No. 2.

July 2003, Volume 42, No. 7 49

fall on the semilog straight line. The total fluid mobility and 5. The method can be used to analyze pressure buildup data,
skin factor were calculated to be 1.74 md/mPas and -4.74, provided that the sandface rate and pressure response are
respectively. simultaneously measured from the moment of surface shut-
Figure 14 displays the Agarwal graph as applied to all of the in of the well, and that the initial reservoir pressure is
recorded data points. This figure is quite similar to the Horner plot known.
(Figure 13) in the sense that the majority of the measured data is
influenced by the afterflow effects. The results obtained from the NOMENCLATURE
last 23 points that fall on the semilog straight line are 1.74 b = intercept of the flow test plot
md/mPas for the total fluid mobility, and -4.74 for the skin
B = formation volume factor, m3/sm3 (bbl/stb)
factor.
ct = total system compressibility, kPa-1 (psi-1)
The results obtained from the new technique, as well as those h = net pay zone thickness, m (ft.)
obtained from different pressure buildup analysis techniques, are k = formation permeability, mD
reported in Table 6. Comparing the results obtained from the new m = slope of the flow test plot
technique with other results shows that the proposed method is pi = initial reservoir pressure, kPa (psi)
capable of providing accurate and competitive test results. pwf = flowing wellbore pressure, kPa (psi)
As was the case with the simulated examples, wellbore storage pws = shut-in pressure, kPa (psi)
effects did not disturb the analysis plot of the proposed method. q = flow rate prior to rate variation, sm3/d (stb/d)
All of the data plotted in Figures 7 and 12 fall on straight lines, qD = dimensionless bottomhole rate
whereas the conventional plots (Figures 8, 9, 13, and 14) are dom- qsf = sandface flow rate, sm3/d (stb/d)
inated by wellbore storage effects. Field example No. 1 demon- rw = well radius, m (ft.)
strates that the well test could have been terminated seven hours s = skin factor
earlier if the proposed method were applied, whereas the buildup t = total production time, hours
test of field example No. 2 could have been stopped after two tD = dimensionless time
hours of well test, as opposed to the 67 hours required for the con- tp = production time prior to rate variation, hours
ventional analysis techniques. Thus, when the new technique is t = production time after rate variation, hours
applied, the time duration of the test is substantially reduced and a
better interpretation of the area in the vicinity of the wellbore is Greek Symbols
obtained.
= hydraulic diffusivity, m2/hour (ft.2/hour)
= fluid viscosity, mPas (cp)
= dummy integration variable
Conclusions = formation porosity, fraction
Several important conclusions can be drawn from this study: Subscripts
1. A new method has been developed to analyze variable-rate
pressure tests. Two simulated cases and two field examples D = dimensionless
have been presented to illustrate the applicability of the i = initial
method. sf = sandface
wf = well flowing
2. The analyzed cases have shown that the proposed method ws = well shut-in
provides accurate and competitive results.
3. All of the analyzed cases did not show any sign of wellbore SI Metric Conversion Factors
storage effects, implying that the proposed method mini- ft. 3.048 E01 = m
mizes these effects. This conclusion also leads to the advan-
tage that the new method can be applied to short-time tests. ft.3 2.831 685 E02 = m3
stb 159 E03 = sm3
4. The new method has several advantages over conventional
cp 1.0 E+00 = mPas
techniques. Two of the most important advantages are: (i) it
requires less testing time; and, (ii) it provides a better psi 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
description of the area around the wellbore. psi 1.450 377
-1 E01 = kPa-1

TABLE 6: Comparison of the new technique and other pressure analysis techniques, field example No. 2.

kh k

t t
Analysis Technique mD-m/mPas mD/mPas Skin
This study 27.3 1.90 -4.58
Horners method 25.0 1.74 -4.74
Modified MDH analysis 28.1 1.80 -4.70
Agarwals method 25.0 1.74 -4.74
STAT analysis 28.2 1.83 -4.69
Superposition based on log of time 27.9 1.80 -4.60
approximation to pD tD
Uniform-flux vertical fracture constant 28.7 1.86 -4.70
rate solution
Superposition based on pD tD, uniform-flux 28.9 1.87 -4.70
vertical fracture constant rate solution

Wellbore storage type curve: no match obtained on published type curves.

50 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

Appendix M n i
i
ai t i j j
q i=0 j=0 j
Equation (7) in the main text is:

tp j1 k
1 rw2 j 1 1 1
pi pwf = M exp d + exp
t ( / t ) jk
j l j! Ei t
0
t 4 (t ) k =0 l=0 ...................................(A-9)

t
1 n 1 r 2 For i = 0, a0 = q, then one obtains from Equation (A-9):
M ait i t exp 4 (t w ) d + 2 Msq D
q i=0
tp ..................................(A-1)
i i j1 j
1 n 1 k
1
Let: M exp ai t i t j k j 1
q t i=1 j
j=0 k =0 ( / t ) l=0

rw2 1 n i i 1 j
= Ei Ei ai t i j j! t ]
4 ..............................................................................................(A-2) t q t i=1 j=0
..................................(A-10)
and
Due to the complexity of Equation (A-10), each of its terms
will be studied separately. The first term is:

X = exp
t i j1 j
...................................................................................(A-3) 1 n i 1 k
1
exp ai t i j l
q t i=1 j=0 j k =0 t ( / t ) j k l=0
By substituting Equations (A-2) and (A-3) into Equation (A-1), ......................(A-11)
simplifying, and rearranging terms, one obtains:
Recalling that:

exp
t
1 rw2 t
pi pwf = M dX + = = << 1
ln X 4 4t D
exp ..........................................................................(A-12)
t

then:
i
M n 0 1
ai
q i= o
t + ln X ln X dX + 2 Msq D

exp exp 1
t
t
.....................................(A-4) .....................................................................................(A-13)

The first term of Equation (A-4) can be evaluated as(48): Using Equations (A-12) and (A-13), Equation (A-11) can be
written as:

exp
t
1 1 n i i j1 1 k t jk k 1
dX = Ei Ei
t ai t i (1) jk
ln X t q i=1 j 4t D t l=0 j l
exp j=1 k =0
t ...........................(A-14)
...................................................(A-5)
Using the conventional assumption that 1/4tD<<1, replacing t
The second term of Equation (A-4) is: by t tp, and expanding Equation (A-14), one obtains:

i
M n 0 1 1 3 1 11 1 1
ai
q i= o
t +
ln

X ln X
dX a1 (t t p ) + a2 t 2 tt p t 2p + a3 t 3 t 2 t p tt 2p t 3p + ...
q 2 2 6 2 3
exp
t
.....................................................(A-6)
1 n
+an n(t n t n1t p ) (t n 2 t n1t p + t n2 t 2p )
Equation (A-6) can be written as(48): 2 2

M n i
i 0 1 n 1
ai t i j j
1 + (t n 3t n1t p + 3t n2 t 2p t n3t 3p ) ... + (1) n (t t p ) n

q i=o j=0 j
j+1
dX 3 3 n
(ln X ) ...(A-15)
exp
t
...........................................(A-7)
Using Equations (2) and (6) of the main text, Equation (A-15)
The integral in Equation (A-7) can be evaluated as: can be written as:

j1 k 1 1 1 5 1 1
1 X 1 1 1 q D + a0 + a1t p + a2 t 2 + tt p + t 2p + a3 t 3 + t 2 t p + tt 2p + t 3p + ...
dX = j k j l
+ dX q 2 2 6 2 3
(ln X ) j+1 k =0 (ln X ) l=0
j! ln X
......................(A-8)
1 n
Using the result of Equation (A-5) and substituting Equation +an (n 1)t n + nt n1t p + (t n 2 t n1t p + t n2 t 2p )
2 2
(A-8) into Equation (A-7) yields:

July 2003, Volume 42, No. 7 51

 Technology, pp. 111-119, July September 1965.
1 n 1
(t n 3t n1t p + 3t n2 t 2p t n3t 3p ) + ... + (1) n (t t p ) n 4. LEE, W.J., HARRELL, R.R., and MCCAIN, W.D., Analysis
3 3 n Procedure for Variable-Rate Pressure Drawdown Data; Journal of
...(A-16) Petroleum Technology, Vol. 27, pp. 115-116, January 1975.
5. FETKOVICH, M.J. and VIENOT, M.E., Rate Normalization of
For t = tp, the whole term in Equation (A-16) is equal to zero. Buildup Pressure by Using Afterflow Data; Journal of Petroleum
For t > tp, the term on the right side of qD is slightly greater than Technology, Vol. 36, No. 13, pp. 2211-2224, December 1984.
qD; therefore, the whole term in Equation (A-16) is very small 6. STEWART, G., MEUNIER, D., and WITTMANN, M.J., Afterflow
compared to the other terms in Equation (A-10); hence, it can be Measurement and Deconvolution in Well Analysis; paper SPE
neglected. 12174, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
The last term of Equation (A-10) can be written as: Francisco, CA, October 5 8, 1983.
7. MEUNIER, D., WITTMANN, M.J., and STEWART, G.,
i Interpretation of Pressure Buildup Test Using In Situ Measurement
1 n i 1
Ei ai t i of After-Flow; Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.
q t i=1 j=0 j j!(4 tD ) j 143-152, January 1985.
....................................................(A-17)
8. KUCHUK, F.J. and AYESTARAN, L., Analysis of Simultaneously
Measured Pressure and Sandface Flow Rate in Transient Well
Expanding Equation (A-17) and neglecting all the terms con- Testing; Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 323-
taining 1/4tD results in: 334, February 1985.
9. GUILLOT, A.Y. and HORNE, R.N., Using Simultaneous Downhole
Flow Rate and Pressure Measurements to Improve Analysis of Well
1
Ei (a0 + a1t + a2 t 2 + a3t 3 + ... + an t n a0 ) Tests; SPE Formation Evaluation, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 217-226, June
q t 1986.
..............................(A-18)
10. THOMPSON, L.G. and REYNOLDS, A.C., Analysis of Variable-
Equation (A-18) can be written as: Rate Well-Test Pressure Data Using Duhamels Principle; SPE
Formation Evaluation, Vol. 1, No. 5, pp. 453-469, October 1986.
11. KUCHUK, F.J., New Methods for Estimating Parameters of Low
Permeability Reservoirs; SPE 16394, SPE/DOE Symposium on Low-
(1 q D ) Ei t Permeability Reservoirs, Denver, CO, May 18 19, 1987.
................................................................................(A-19) 12. AHMED, U., KUCHUK, F.J., and AYESTARAN, L., Short-Term
Transient Rate and Pressure-Buildup Analysis of Low-Permeability
Substituting Equation (A-19) into Equation (A-10) yields: Reservoirs; SPE Formation Evaluation, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 611-617,
December 1987.
13. KUCHUK, F.J., Gladfelter Deconvolution; SPE Formation
M Ei + (1 q D ) Ei Evaluation, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 285-292, September 1990.
t t 14. NASHAWI, I.S., Short-Term Analysis Technique for Pressure
........................................................(A-20)
Buildup Test Using Simultaneously Measured Transient Sandface
Flow Rate and Pressure; ADSPE 14, 6th Abu Dhabi International
Rearranging terms of Equation (A-20) gives: Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, October 16
19, 1994.
15. PIERS, G.E., PERKINS, J., and ESCOTT, D., A New Flowmeter for
Mq D Ei Production Logging and Well Testing; paper SPE 16819, SPE
t Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, September
...............................................................................(A-21)
27 30, 1987.
Substituting Equations (A-5) and (A-21) into Equation (A-4), 16. RUSSELL, D.G., Determination of Formation Characteristics From
Two-Rate Flow Tests; Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 1347-
one can write: 1355, December 1963.
17. EARLOUGHER, R.C., Jr., Advances in Well Test Analysis; SPE
Monograph, Vol. 5, Dallas, TX, 1977.
pi pwf = M Ei Ei q D Ei + 2 sq D 18. PINSON, A.E., Jr., Conveniences in Analyzing Two-Rate Flow
t t t
.....................(A-22) Tests; Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 1139-1141, September
1972.
Using the logarithmic approximation of the Ei function, 19. EARLOUGHER, R.C., Jr., Estimating Errors When Analyzing Two-
Equation (A-22) reduces to: Rate Flow Tests; Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 545-547,
May 1973.
20. ODEH, A.S. and JONES, L.G., Two-Rate Flow Test, Variable-Rate
162.6qB t CaseApplication to Gas Lift and Pumping Wells; Journal of
pi pwf = log + q D log(t ) +
kh t Petroleum Technology, pp. 93-99, January 1974.

21. LEE, J., Well Testing; SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 1, Dallas, TX,
1982.
k 22. RAMEY, H.J., Jr., Non-Darcy Flow and Wellbore Storage Effects in
+ log 3.23 + 0.869s Pressure Build-Up and Drawdown of Gas Wells; Journal of
2
ct rw Petroleum Technology, Vol. 17, pp. 223-233, February 1965.
.......................................................(A-23)
23. RAMEY, H.J., Jr., Short-Time Well Test Data Interpretation in the
Equation (A-23) is the same as Equation (8) in the main text. Presence of Skin Effect and Wellbore Storage; Journal of Petroleum
Technology, pp. 97-104, January 1970.
24. AGARWAL, G.R., AL-HUSSAINY, R., and RAMEY, H.J., Jr., An
REFERENCES Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady
1. GLADFELTER, R.E., TRACY, G.W., and WILSEY, L.E., Selecting Liquid Flow: I. Analytical Treatment; Society of Petroleum
Wells Which Will Respond to Production-Stimulation Treatment; Engineers Journal, pp. 279-290, September 1970.
Drill. and Prod. Prac., API, pp. 1117-1129, 1955. 25. MCKINLEY, R.M., Wellbore Transmissibility From Afterflow-
2. ODEH, A.S. and JONES, L.G., Pressure Drawdown Analysis, Dominated Pressure Buildup Data; Journal of Petroleum
Variable-Rate Case; Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 17, pp. Technology, pp. 863-872, July 1971.
960-964, August 1965. 26. EARLOUGHER, R.C., Jr. and KERSCH, K.M., Analysis of Short-
3. WINESTOCK, A.G. and COLPITTS, G.P., Advances in Estimating Time Transient Test Data by Type-Curve Matching; Journal of
Gas Well Deliverability; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Petroleum Technology, pp. 793-800, July 1974.

52 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 27. GRINGARTEN, A.C., BOURDET, D.P., LANDEL, P.A., and
KNIAZEFF, V.J., A Comparison Between Different Skin and Authors Biography
Wellbore Storage Type-Curves for Early-Time Transient Analysis;
paper SPE 8205, SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Ibrahim Sami Nashawi is an associate
September 23 26, 1979.
28. DUONG, A.N., A New Set of Type Curves for Well-Test
professor of petroleum engineering at
Interpretation With the Pressure/Pressure-Derivative Ratio; SPE Kuwait University. He holds a B.Sc.
Formation Evaluation, pp. 264-272, June 1989. (1981), an M.Sc. (1983), and a doctorate of
29. BOURDET, D., WHITTLE, T.M., DOUGLAS, A.A., and PIRARD, engineering, D.E. (1989) degrees in petro-
Y.M., A New Set of Type Curve Simplifies Well Test Analysis; leum engineering, and an M.Sc. (1987)
World Oil, pp. 95-106, May 1983.
30. TIAB, D. and KUMAR, A., Application of the pD Function to
degree in applied mathematics, all from
Interference Analysis; Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 1465- Louisiana Tech. University, U.S.A. His
1470, August 1980. research interests include well test analy-
31. BOURDET, D., AYOUB, J.A., and PIRARD, Y.M., Use of Pressure ses, fluid flow in the wellbore, EOR, neural
Derivative in Well-Test Interpretation; SPE Formation Evaluation, network applications, and expert systems. Dr. Nashawi is a mem-
pp. 293-302, June 1989.
ber of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), the Petroleum
32. AYESTARAN, L., MINHAS, H.N., and KUCHUK, F.J., The Use of
Convolution Type Curves for the Analysis of Drawdown and Society, and the International WHOS WHO of Professionals.
Buildup Tests; paper SPE 18535, SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Charleston, WV, November 1 4, 1988.
33. VAN EVERDINGEN, A.F. and HURST, W., The Application of the
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs; Journal of
Petroleum Technology, pp. 305-324, 1949.
34. VAN EVERDINGEN, A.F., The Skin Effect and its Influence on the
Productive Capacity of a Well; Journal of Petroleum Technology,
pp. 171-176, 1953.
35. HURST, W., Establishment of the Skin Effect and its Impediment to
Fluid Flow Into a Well Bore; Petroleum Engineer, B6-B16, 1953.
36. ALMEHAIDEB, R.A., AZIZ, K.A., and PEDROSA, O.J., Jr., A
Reservoir/Wellbore Model for Multiphase Injection and Pressure
Transient Analysis; paper SPE 17941, SPE 6th Middle East Oil
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, March 11
14, 1989.
37. HORNER, D.R., Pressure Buildup in Wells; Proceeding, Third
World Petroleum Congress, The Hague, The Netherlands, Sec. II,
pp. 503-523, 1951.
38. 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; paper SPE 9289, SPE 55th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, September 21
24, 1980.
39. PERRINE, R.L., Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves; Drill. and
Prod. Prac., API, pp. 482-509, 1956.
40. MARTIN, J.C., Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive
Reservoirs and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure
Buildup Analysis; Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 309-311,
1959.
41. WELLER, W.T., Reservoir Performance During Two-Phase Flow;
Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp.240-246, February 1966.
42. CHU, W., REYNOLDS, A.C., and RAGHAVAN, R., Pressure
Transient Analysis of Two-Phase Flow Problems; SPE Formation
Evaluation, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 151-164, April 1986.
43. AL-KHALIFAH, A.A., AZIZ, K., and HORNE, R.N., A New
Approach to Multiphase Well Test Analysis; SPE 16473, SPE 62nd
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, September
27 30, 1987.
44. AYAN, C. and LEE, W.J., Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analysis:
Field Examples; paper SPE 17412, SPE California Regional
Meeting, Long Beach, CA, March 23 25, 1988.
45. AYAN, C. and LEE, W.J., The Effects of Multiphase Flow on the
Interpretation of Pressure-Buildup Tests; SPE Formation Evaluation,
Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 459-466, June 1988.
46. WINTERFELD, P.H., Simulation of Pressure Buildup in a
Multiphase Wellbore/Reservoir System; SPE Formation Evaluation,
Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 247-252, June 1989.
47. RAGHAVAN, R., Well Test Analysis for Multiphase Flow; SPE
Formation Evaluation, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 585-594, December 1989.
48. GRADSHTEYN, I.S. and RYZHIK, I.M., Table of Integrals, Series,
and Products; Academic Press, New York, 1965.

ProvenanceOriginal Petroleum Society manuscript, Pressure

Transient Analysis for Wells With Variable Sandface Flow Rate
(2001-226) first presented at the 9th Saskatchewan Petroleum Conference
of the South Saskatchewan Section, April 29 May 1, 2001, in Regina,
Saskatchewan. Abstract submitted for review April 29, 2001; editorial
comments sent to the author(s) August 7, 2002; revised manuscript
received September 17, 2002; paper approved for pre-press May 9, 2003,
final approval June 16, 2003.

July 2003, Volume 42, No. 7 53