Well-Test Analysis for Multiphase Flow
Rajagopa. Raghavan, * SPE, U. of Tulsa
Summary. This paper is a review of well-test analysis under multiphase-flow conditions. The contributions of Perrine and Martin
are noted, and the consequences of using their results are documented. The advantages of incorporating the heterogeneous nature of
the porous medium for solution-gas-drive systems with -the pseudopressure function are discussed. Methods to predict well-inflow per-
formance are discussed with regard to the works of Vogel and Fetkovich. The long-time-performance prediction of wells with decline
curves that incorporate the heterogeneous nature of the porous medium is addressed. The final part of this paper considers pressure-falloff
data. Theoretical developments are reviewed, and problems associated with the identification of fluid banks are listed.
Introduction
Although several hundred publications have examined the analysis
of well-test data, no more than 20 papers deal directly with well-
test analysis for multiphase flow. Perhaps most striking is that both
monographs 1,2 devote a total of four pages to this subject. In well-
test analysis, the study of single-phase flow in porous media is the
norm. The lack of papers pertaining to multiphase flow may be
attributed to Perrine 3 and Martin. 4
The Perrine-Martin hypothesis permits wide latitude in analyzing
data subject to multiphase flow. For all intents and purposes, these
works enable us to extend any technique valid for single-phase flow
to muItiphase flow. Obviously, there is a limit to which this theory
can be extended; thus, these limitations are explored. The past 10
years have seen advances in analysis techniques that use concepts
originally used to examine the flow of real gases through porous
media. The application of pseudopressure functions 5 to analyze
pressure data in solution-gas-drive and gas-condensate systems is
discussed. 6,7
Because the objective of every well test ultimately is to predict
well deliverability (or injectivity), the seminal works of Vogel 8 and
Fetkovich, 9 which discuss the productivity of wells producing by
solution-gas drive, are examined. The results of these works are
compared to resolve the apparent differences.
Finally, this paper considers the application of the Perrine-Martin
theory to the analysis of injection well data. In particular, the utility
of methods given in the literature to identify fluid banks and to de-
termine the location of fluidlfluid interfaces 10, II is examined.
Discussion
Basic Equations. The basic equations governing the multiphase
flow of fluids were discussed first by Muskat and Meres 12 and
Wycoff and Botset \3 in 1936. We consider the flow of oil, water,
and gas in a uniform porous medium where the influences of gravity ,
capillary pressure gradients, and rock compressibility are negligible.
Assuming that the {3-formulation is valid and neglecting capillary
effects, the differential equations that govern the flow of oil, gas,
and water are given, respectively, by
Y"[(~ )Y'p]=~~(</> Sm), ................... (I)
J.LmBm k at Bm
where subscript m represents oil or water, and
=~~[</>(RsSo + RswSw + Sg )] ................... (2)
kat Bo Bw Bg
Eqs. 1 and 2 may be solved subject to the appropriate constraints
given by the initial and boundary conditions to obtain specific so-
lutions of interest. If we restrict our attention to single-phase flow
(constant viscosity and slightly compressible liquid), then the partial
differential equation that governs the pressure distribution is given by
Y'2p =(</>ctJ.Llk)(aplat). . ............................ (3)
'Now at Texas A&M U.
Copyright 1989 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1989
;SYF-.. IL\ cA J(
Perrine-Martin Theory. As mentioned, virtually all analyses of
pressure responses subject to multiphase flow are based on the em-
pirical observations of Perrine. 3 He suggested that we can analyze
data for multiphase flow conditions if the mobility term in the diffu-
sivity equation for single-phase flow is replaced by the sum of the
mobilities of the individual phases and if the single-phase compress-
ibility term is replaced by an effective or pseudocompressibility
that is a function of fluid properties and saturations. Martin 4 (also
see Miller et at. 14) showed that Perrine's suggestions are valid if
saturation gradients are negligible. This point is readily seen if we
consider flow in an oil/water system. We can expand Eq. 1 to
krm 1 dkrm d
--Y'2p +----Y'pY'Sm+krm-[1I(J.LmBm)](Y'p)2
J.LmBm J.LmBm dS m dp
= k;m (SmCm : + a;;). ......................... (4)
If we ignore all second-degree terms, i.e., terms containing
(Y'p)2 and Y'pY'Sm, and add the resulting equations for each phase,
we obtain
Y'2p = (</>crlAt)(ap lat), .............................. (5)
where At=(klJ.L)t=k(krolJ.Lo+krwlJ.Lw) and Ct = So Co +Swcw' A
similar equation may be derived if we examine the simultaneous
flow of oil, gas, and water. The similarity between Eqs. 3 and 4
is readily apparent. The critical assumption made thus far is that
second-degree terms are negligible to obtain the left side ofEq. 5.
On the basis of the works of Perrine and Martin, we can do the
following.
l. We can calculate the total system mobility, (klJ.L)t (assuming
three-phase flow), by
At == (klJ.L)t =(162.6/Im!h){ qoBo + 1,000[qg
-0.001 (qoRs +qwRsw)]Bg +qwBw}' .................. (6)
Here, (klJ.L)t=(kolJ.Lo+kglJ.Lg+kwlJ.Lw), where k m (m=o, g, or w)
is the effective permeability of each phase. Although never explicitly
stated, Eq. 6 also implicitly forms the basis for obtaining individual
phase mobilities, (klJ.L)m, from the appropriate rates.
2. The skin factor is given by
s=1.l511 l.lp IIhr -IOg[(~) _1-2 ]+3.231.......... (7)
C Iml J.L t </>CrTw J
Here I~ IIhr is the change in pressure during the test after one
hour of test time, and ct is defined by
Ct=So(B g aRs __1_ aBo)+Sg( __I_ aB g )
Bo ap Bo ap Bg ap
+Sw( Bg aRsw __1_ aBw)+Cf' .................... (8)
Bw ap Bw ap
Eq. 8 usually is written as
Ct=Soco+SgCg+Swcw+cf . ......................... (9)
Here, we assume that cf is non-negligible. Although C t is known
as the "effective system compressibility," note that the right side
585
 W 24.----.---r-r-r.,-n,-----r-~-.-.-rrT~
C)
Z
J!,..., 22
00

W
~~20
0::
::10
(/) ......
::1310- 1
~ ...... "" '" "" f!3 ~ 18
WID
0::0::
o DRAWDOWN g:,
Q.~ o FIRST BUILDUP, 0';;; 16
O~ 1= 62.1 hrs WO-
W" 6 SECOND BUILDUP, ~OOrO' N -
!:::! ~lci2" :::i .;
rF~
1=869.75 hrs 14
...J- <1: ......
<I:~ 1=5DOhrs'
6 ::Eo.
::Eo. 6 0
0::<1 060 ~ <I 12
Oa.:-
Zo 6 0 6 0
60
Z
3 ",I ,,,I w
W15 10
!:t
0::
10'2 10" "" I 10 10
2 10
3 ~
0::
10

102
FLOW TIME,t,OR SHUT-IN TIME, at, hours 10
FLOW TIME, t, OR SHUT-IN TIME, at,hours
Fig. 1-Example application-drawdown and buildup
responses. Fig. 2-Expanded view of drawdown response from Fig. 1.

of Eq. 8 cannot be derived from the basic definition of compressi-
bility: c=[lIp(oplop)]t, where p is the appropriate density; i.e.,
the right side of Eq. 8 follows from the expansion and combination
of terms on the right side of Eqs. 1 and 2 and not from ther-
modynamic considerations alone. One such derivation starting with
the zero-dimensional material-balance equation is given in Ref. 15.
A physical explanation of the various components in Eq. 8 [partic-
ularly (BgIBo)oRslop] is given by Ramey. 16 Note that the devel-
opment of Eq. 8 does not require that second-degree terms be
negligible; all that is required is that saturation be expressed as a
function of pressure.
3 . We can use the Matthews et al. 17 functions to determine
average reservoir pressure (see Earlougher et al. 18).
4. Although not confirmed, the deliverability equation for mul-
tiphase flow, following the analogy for single-phase pseudosteady-
state flow, is given byl9
qt=i(p-Pws)/p., ................................ (10)
_ kh
where J = ................. (11)
141.2[1/2In(4AleT'CA r; )+s]
Here, we assume kh/p.=(kh/p.)t; CA is the shape factor 20 and qt
is the total rate (the terms within the braces in Eq. 6).
Example Application. Here, we consider four tests-three buildup
and one flow. The flow test was conducted for about 36 days. The
first buildup test was conducted before the flow test, and the second
buildup test was conducted for 72 hours at the end of the 36-day
flow period. The objective was to determine reservoir PV. The well
was then produced for 56 days, and a buildup test was conducted
at the end of this period.
Fig. 1 shows the data obtained for the first three test periods.
Results are normalized by the appropriate test rates. The circular
data points represent the drawdown pressure response normalized
by the instantaneous total rate (i.e., by the rate normalization
procedure 21 for single-phase gas flow); no smoothing procedure
was used. There is no theoretical basis to assume that rate normali-
zation will be valid for two-phase gas/oil flow.
The square data points in Fig. 1 are the results of the first buildup
test, which show a plot of I1Pbu1qt (I1t=O) vs. I1t to account for
the differences in flow rate, where I1Pbu =Pws -Pwj,s' Ref. 22
justifies the use of qt (I1t=O) to normalize the pressure change
during the buildup period. The triangular data points represent the
buildup response during the second buildup test, again normalized
by the rate at I1t=O.
The basic premise of all pressure-buildup analyses is that if
producing times are much greater than shut-in times (t~l1t), then
a plot of (l1p )bu vs. I1t will follow the plot of (l1p)dd vs. t, where
(l1p)dd=Pi-Pwj' If I1t</i,t, and the well is located in a closed or
an infinite-acting system, then (I1P)bu < (l1p)dd for identical values
of I1t and t (see Ref. 23). (If rates are different, then the pressure
changes must be normalized by the flow rate.) It appears that these
586
observations are applicable to the system under study. Note that
the results of both buildup tests are in agreement with each other
and with the drawdown response for I1t4.t. For larger values of
I1t, the buildup responses for the first test fall below the drawdown
response. The buildup responses for the second buildup test follow
the drawdown response for virtually all times considered here be-
cause of the large value of flowing time before shut-in.
This example represents direct field verification, possibly the first
for multiphase flow through porous media, that the pressure changes
during the drawdown period, Pi -Pwj' are identical to the pressure
changes during the buildup period, Pws -Pwj,s' This suggests that
the Winestock-Colpitts 21 procedure for rate normalization
(drawdown) and the Uraiet-Raghavan 22 method for normalizing
buildup data can be used if pressure changes are normalized in terms
of qt. (It is possible that these results were obtained because a sig-
nificant amount of free gas was being produced.)
The upward bend in the drawdown response after 500 hours may
suggest that the system is being depleted, which was entirely un-
expected. I qualify this remark because a rapid decline in wellbore
pressure (for multiphase flow) does not necessarily imply that the
system is being depleted. 24 Saturation changes at the sandface can
produce a significant decline in the wellbore response. Fig. 2 is
an expansion of the drawdown response (circles) shown in Fig. 1,
and the deviations are clearly evident. The unbroken line shows
the trend of the data and does not denote the semilog straight line.
The square data points are the results of the third buildup test, con-
ducted after the well was produced for 56 days (total producing
time",,2,216 hours).
For the moment, let us assume that the deviation at t "" 500 hours
denotes the influence of the boundary. As mentioned, the well was
put back on production after the 72-hour buildup test. On the basis
of single-phase flow theory, we know that if this is indeed a
boundary effect and the well is shut in, then the well pressure should
equal p at I1t"" 500 hours. I With the analogy between buildup and
drawdown tests and the observation 1 that the buildup response (in
terms of the pressure change during the test) will follow the
drawdown response until the well pressure reaches the static
reservoir pressure provided that the well produced to pseudo steady
state before shut-in, the buildup pressure was estimated at I1t = 500
hours (the time to reach "pseudosteady state" during drawdown)
as approximately 1,784 psi [12.3 MPa] after 2,216 hours of pro-
duction. (If the system is undergoing depletion and the Perrine-
Martin hypothesis is valid, then the difference between this value
and the initial reservoir pressure is useful in material-balance cal-
culations. Average reservoir pressure could not be calculated by
conventional techniques because the reservoir volume was not
known.)
The prediction of the expected average reservoir pressure and
the time at which it was evident, subject to the above restrictions,
was to ensure that the test not be terminated prematurely and that
the pressure change, evident in the drawdown test for t > 500 hours,
was a result of depletion. An extended buildup test was conducted
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1989
 35
10 105 lOS
DIMENSIONLESS

~1
IAJ 30 FLOW RATE. qoD

~..J .!fw =428.8

._ 499 4910 60.054
..
8.
t!
~
. ~ 0.65
ZONE 0
I ~g 125 00.027
00.011

iii
~
(I) 0.45
40
~~
(llIf)
20
- LIQUID FLOW
cr 4960 ..J 60,100
4870 CI)CI)
::)
CI)
(5 t.days IAJIAJ _ 141.2~ojqo
0.25
If) 10' 10 10 2 ..Jcr 15 qOD -
kh Pj
IAJ
cr
DlSTANCE.r, f.et
~~
0..
z
eng
ZIAJ 10
SET I
4930 4830 5 =0
~
::)
IAJIf)
:!o..
:I:
CI)
0 5

4900 ?03 108

I 10 102 103 104
HORNER TIME RATIO, (Ht.t)/t.t

Fig. 3-lnfluence of saturation gradients on buildup data. Fig. 4-Drawdown response for solutlon-gas-drlve reservoirs.

after about three months of production. This test was terminated
after 361 hours; the buildup pressure at the end of the test was 1,779
psi [12.3 MPa], and it was evident that depletion had occurred
(p i "" 1,900 psi [13. 1 MPa]). The square data points shown in Fig.
2 are the responses of this extended buildup test. Again, note the
excellent alignment between the buildup and drawdown responses.
Influence of Saturation Gradients. The following limitations of
the Perrine-Martin theory are important: (1) I have made no mention
of individual phase mobilities; (2) determination of skin factor re-
quires knowledge of the total mobility and "effective or pseudocom-
pressibility"; and (3) the estimate of total mobility, (k/ p)t, need
not be constant with time. Perrine suggests that individual phase
mobilities can be determined if appropriate flow rates are used; e.g.,
individual phase mobilities for two-phase, oil/water flow may be
estimated by
Aj=(klp)j = 162.6qj Bj l[m[h, ........................ (12)
where j =0 or w. This view, although restated in Ref. 2, generally
is incorrect. As shown earli~r. the Perrine-Martin approach assumes
that gradients are small. Chu et at. 24 examined the influence of
saturation gradients on pressure data. They show that if saturation
gradients exist, then individual phase mobilities may be calculated
only for a restrictive set of circumstances. Before documenting their
conclusions, let us consider an example taken from Ref. 24.
Let us assume that the initial saturation profile of a two-phase
oil/water flow system is a step function as shown in the Fig. 3 inset.
Initially, water is immobile up to r=36 ft [11 m]. The other curves
shown in the inset represent the saturation distribution as a function
of time. Fig. 3 presents the buildup responses for two values of
producing time-1O and 100 days.
Two well-defined straight lines are evident for the buildup
response at the end of 10 days. If the assumptions regarding well
performance in a composite reservoir are valid, then the first straight
line should reflect the properties of Zone 1 and the second, the prop-
erties of Zone 2. Using the oil rate (no water was produced) and
the slopes of the straight lines, Chu et af. estimated Afor both zones
(with Eq. 6) as 47.2 md/cp [47.2 md/mPa's] for Line 1 and 15.44
md/cp [15.44 md/mPa' s] for Line 2. But do these values represent
Ao or At? For this system, the values of Ao in Zones 1 and 2 are
47.5 and 3.62 md/cp [47.5 and 3.62 md/mPa 's], respectively, and
the values of At in the two regions are 47.5 and 15.65 md/cp [47.5
about the same as the slope of the second straight line for the case
when t=1O days. The values are Ao=3.66 md/cp [3.66
md/mPa 's], Aw= 12.06 md/cp [12.06 md/mPa's], and At= 15.72
md/cp [15.72 md/mPas]. These estimates are in excellent
agreement with the saturation profile in the reservoir and the re-
sults are in accordance with the recommendations of Perrine and
Martin.
The above example permits us to answer the following questions.
Consider the situation where oil and free gas are produced at the
sandface and where, at distances far from the well, flow is above
the bubblepoint. For this situation, (1) how does one determine Ao
in the reservoir on the basis of the Perrine-Martin observation, and
(2) does an estimate of the gas-phase mobility have any significance?
I believe the above results suggest that the total rate (oil plus free
gas) should be used to determine Ao in the reservoir, and the es-
timate of Ag has no significance.
The examples in Ref. 24 indicate that to determine individual
phase mobility, production of a given phase is a necessary but not
a sufficient condition to determine the mobility of that phase, and
reliable estimates of the mobility of a given phase can be obtained
only if one of the following conditions is valid: (1) only one phase
is mobile in the reservoir, (2) saturation distribution is fairly
uniform, and (3) producing fluid ratios (e.g., the WOR for oil/water
flow) reflect the flow rates of the appropriate phases in the zone
of interest. Both saturation profiles and pressure gradients govern
the mobility of fluids in the reservoir and the Perrine-Martin ap-
proximation can only determine At. (This discussion also addresses
the philosophy25 of determining total mobility.) The reader,
however, carmot blindly extrapolate these results to other situations;
e.g., solution-gas drive.
Application of the Pseudopressure Concept-Solution-Gas-Drive
Reservoirs. Although this idea has been used in petroleum engi-
neering for about 40 years,26 the impetus for using this concept
in recent times stems from the work of AI-Hussainy et aT. 5
If we restrict our attention to the steady flow of oil and gas, then
following Evinger and Muskat,27 the oil flow rate is given by
qo(r)= kh re
~dp"
141.2 In(re 1r ) p(r) PoBo
................. (13)

and 15.65 md/mPa' s], respectively. (The values of Ao and At in If we now define a pseudopressure function by the relation
Zone 1 are identical because Aw=O.) Thus, it is clear that the first
semilog straight line for this test reflects the value of Ao in Zone [p kro
pp(p)=J --dp', .............................. (14)
1 and the second semilog straight line reflects At of Zone 2. This
is an important result because even though we produce oil, it is
o PoBo
not possible to determine Ao in Zone 2. then we may rewrite Eq. 14 as
At 100 days, the oil (and water) saturation is uniform throughout
the reservoir, and the Perrine-Martin theory should yield excellent
results. Let us consider the buildup response after 100 days of pro-
duction. Unlike the response following 10 days of production, only
one straight line is evident because saturation gradients are Because k ro is a function of saturation, the integral can be evaluated
negligible. Note that the slope of the straight line for this case is only if the relationship between oil saturation and pressure is known.
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1989 587
 --LIQUID FLOW
11 Q
8 ............ RAGHAVAN
-'-BOE~~
1= 1011 hours
Fig .-Computatlon oom.._n. of dimensionless .... '
dopressure rise during buildup (after Aanonsen 33 ).
Evinger and Muskat showed that the producing GOR, R, may be
used to relate pressure and saturation.
Note that the steady flow of hydrocarbon fluids has been examined
only recently. 7 ,28 These works establish the following points re-
garding steady flow of hydrocarbon fluids in porous media.
1. The overall composition at any point r is equal to the overall
composition at the external boundary of the reservoir.
2. The mole fractions of components in the liquid phase, Xi, and
the gas phase, Yi, satisfy the flash or constant-composition ex-
pansion (CCE) equations.
3. The pressure distribution in the reservoir satisfies the single-
phase liquid-flow equation in terms of the pseudopressure.
4. Under steady flow, liquid and vapor do not flow at equal ve-
locities.
5. When two phases are in equilibrium, both phases are mobile;
thus, if two phases exist in portions of the reservoir, there would
be a discontinuity in the saturation profile at the point where P = Pb
(solution-gas drive) or P=Pdew (gas-condensate system).
6. The ratio of relative permeabilities as a function of pressure
is given by
krolkrg=(Pglpo)(L/lo/V/lg), ........................ (16)
where Pm is the molar density of phase m (m=o,g) and L and V
are the mole fractions of liquid and vapor that are in equilibrium
for a CCE (flash) process. Thus, Eq. 16 provides an alternative
method to obtain kg Iko for steady flow and does not require
knowledge of the producing GOR. Note that Eq. 16 implies that
for steady flow, krolkrg or kolkg is a single-valued function of
pressure. Here, steady flow means all variables are independent
of time.
In 1961, Levine and Prats 29 examined the performance of
solution-gas-drive reservoirs for the boundary-dominated flow
period. They suggested that the pressure distribution in the reservoir
during pseudosteady-state flow can be estimated by
kh [Pp(Pe)-Pp(P)]
qo=--' ..................... (17)
141.2 (r -r1 re)
2
---+In-
. parameters on the right side of Eq. 18 are functions of time.
2rl r between two solutions is negligible during the transient flow period.
Eq. 17 is analogous to the result for the flow of a slightly compres-
sible liquid during pseudosteady-state flow. Jones and Raghavan 7
have shown that an expression similar to Eq. 17 may be written
for gas-condensate systems in terms of the total rate (liquid and
vapor); i. e., the right side of Eq. 17 would be modified appropri-
ately. Again, the main problem at this stage is finding an expression
that allows the integral on the right of Eq. 17 to be evaluated. Levine
and Prats suggest that the conventional material-balance equation 30
may be used to obtain the pressure, saturation, and GOR at the ex-
ternal boundary. Furthermore, they suggest that at any given in-
stant in time, the GOR may be assumed to be constant throughout
the reservoir. By numerical simulation, they show that the GOR
588
SET I
SHUT-IN TIME,L1t, DAYS s= 0
co
VI
0.2
o
~
II:: 0.04 0 .09
=>
!c(
~ 0.1
<t
<.?
01 10 10 2
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, ro
Fig. 6-Gas saturation profiles during buildup.
as a function of distance varies by about 10% during the boundary-
dominated flow period. This exceedingly important observation is
the precursor to virtually all developments in this area of pressure
analysis. From my perspective, its only limitation is that Levine
and Prats did not consider the influence of the skin region on the
variation of GOR with distance. Note that the Levine-Prats obser-
vation says nothing about the variation in producing GOR with time.
All they suggest is that at any instant in time the variation in GOR
with distance may be considered negligible. Our ability to analyze
data in solution-gas-drive systems by the Perrine-Martin theory and
the deliverability equations given by Fetkovich 9 follow directly
from the Levine-Prats observation.
A study of transient flow in solution-gas-drive reservoirs was con-
ducted by Raghavan 6 in 1976. He considered constant-rate pro-
duction in a reservoir with P;=Pb' The well was located at the
center of a cylindrical reservoir and the outer boundary was assumed
to be closed.
Fig. 4 shows, the drawdown response at a well producing a
reservoir by solution-gas drive. The unbroken lines are the liquid
solutions, and the data points are the gas-drive solutions expressed
in terms of dimensionless pseudopressure. By analogy with liquid
flow, the dimensionless pseudopressure, PpwD, is given by
In Fig. 4, dimensionless time, tD, is based on initial system
properties:
0.0002637kt
tD= ................................ (19)
~Cti /lit;'
The basic data used to generate these results are given in Fig. 1
of Ref. 6. To compute pseudopressures, it was suggested 6 that the
instantaneous producing GOR be used to express sandface satu-
rations as a function oftime (pressure). Note that, in this case, the
Comparing PpwD with PwD values indicates that the difference
Note that the slopes of the straight line of the solution-gas-drive
and liquid solutions are identical; i.e.,
dppwD Id In tD "" 0.5 ............................... (20)
This result forms the basis for computing the pseudopressure with
the instantaneous producing GOR because it suggests that it is pos-
sible to compute formation permeability if we plot Pp (p) vs. ton
semilog paper. Similar results are obtained if s ~ 0, provided that
steady flow conditions prevail in the skin zone. 6 Also, the fact that
there is good agreement between the solution-gas-drive and liquid
solutions during the transient-flow period indicates that the skin
factor can be computed by the pseudopressure approach. The es-
timate of skin factor represents the mechanical or actual (damage,
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1989
 Pi =3175 psia
Pwf =2000 psia
0.95 , Cl R ji
o
01.180472.1 1946 3174
o 1009275.9 2046 2963
A 2043 187.6 2511 2815
0.80 - - SIMULATIONS
- . - FROM STEADY STATE THEORY
0, 0, A FROM PRODUCING GOR
0.75L-_---I_ _---1_ _--..l._ _--l.._ _---L.._ _...J
2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200
PRESSURE,p, psia
Fig. 7-Computatlon of saturation profiles, GOR, and steady-
state methods.
stimulation) skin factor and not the existence of free gas. Jones and
Raghavan 7 obtained a result similar to Eq. 20 for condensate
systems except that pseudopressures are defined in terms of both
phases. They show that total mobility At(rw ) can be computed as
a function of flowing pressure, Pwj, by the relation
1.151qt
At(rw)= ....................... (21)
27rCh IdPwj/d log t I
Here qt is the total molar rate, and At is given by
+pg~).
At=(P}.::'" ............................. (22)
/Lo /Lg
where C=0.OO6328 ft3fD [0.7466 x 10- 5 m 3/d]. On the basis of
Eq. 20, the effective mobility to the oil phase (as a function of
pressure) for solution-gas-drive systems can be computed along the
. of the test. Based on these observations, Raghavan 6 noted that the
same lines and kg(r w) (as a function of pressure) can be obtained
from the producing GOR. These computations are valid only after
the onset of steady flow conditions in the skin zone.
At late times, agreement between the solution-gas-drive solutions
and the liquid solutions is not good. Unfortunately, the slope of
the P wD-vs.-tD curve on Cartesian coordinates is different from
27rrt; r}, the conventional result (see Fig. 4 of Ref. 6). This ob-
servation also applies to gas-condensate systems, 7 which suggests
that it is not possible to determine reservoir size by reservoir-limit
tests in solution-gas-drive systems if the heterogeneous character-
istics of the reservoir dominate the well response. (Chu et al. 24
discuss conditions under which it is possible to compute reservoir
PV for two-phase flow in oil/water systems.) Although Raghavan 6
was unsuccessful in correlating the solution-gas-drive responses with
the liquid-flow solutions during boundary-dominated flow, it is ex-
pected, in view of the Levine-Prats results, that the deliverability
equation 9 is valid:
qo =i[pp (ji)-pp(Pwj)]' .......................... (23)
Theoretical confirmation of this result is needed.
In 1981, B~e et al. 31 presented a theoretical analysis of solution-
gas-drive reservoirs. This is an important study for two reasons.
First, they present an analytical expression to compute the change
in saturation at the sandface with pressure. Thus, they suggest that
the need to use the producing GOR can be eliminated and the errors
associated with its measurement can be avoided. The expressions
they derive may be used to relate saturation changes at the sandface
for both drawdown and buildup'tests, provided that boundary effects
are negligible during the test. The second important conclusion is
that during the infinite-acting period, the change in the producing
GOR with pressure (time) is zero; i.e., dR/dp=O.
By simulations, B~e et al. showed that the pressure/saturation
relationships they had derived are valid for both drawdown and
buildup and that the producing GOR stabilizes during the drawdown
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1989
I 10
DECLINE CURVE DIMENSIONLESS TIME, 'dO
Fig. 8-The Fetkovich type curve for decline-curve analysis.
phase of the test as long as boundary effects are negligible. It is
not clear whether the results of B~e et al. are applicable if S;C O.
B~e et al. 's observations that the producing GOR is independent
oftime during the infinite-acting period and that the producing GOR
during steady state is constant do not imply that the producing GOR
is constant during boundary-dominated flow as suggested by
Whitson. 32 Any success Whitson claims for analyzing data during
boundary-dominated flow should be attributed to the results of
Levine and Prats. 29
Although the pseudopressure concept appears to work well during
the transient flow period, application of the pseudopressure concept
to analyze buildup data requires that we resolve the question of how
one should compute pseudopressures during the buildup period.
Simulations suggest that the changes in saturation (at the sandface)
that occur after the well is shut in are not germane to the problem
under consideration. Also, pseudopressures computed during the
flowing period are not expected to be valid during the buildup phase
pressure and saturation distribution at shut-in must be incorporated
into the computation of pseudopressures. He showed that the
producing GOR at shut-in can be used to incorporate these con-
ditions. On the basis of Levine and Prats' results, we expect
Raghavan's method to work well during the boundary-dominated
flow period.
In essence, Raghavan's6 procedure indicates that what is im-
portant is the saturation and pressure distributions at time .:It=O;
e.g., the saturations at the sandface for .:It>O have no bearing on
our ability to determine formation properties from pressure-buildup
data. Thus, even though the expression derived by B~e et al. pre-
dicts the sandface saturations accurately, it is not useful in com-
puting pseudopressures for the buildup period.
The response shown in Fig. 5 is extracted from Ref. 33. Here,
PpsD represents the dimensionless pseudopressure rise and .:ltsD
represents the dimensionless shut-in time. They are defined by
kh
PpsD= [pp(Pws)-pp(Pwj.s)] ................ (24)
141.2qo
0.OOO2637k.:lt
and .:ltsD = ..................... (25)
ct (Pwj.s )/L(Pwj.s )r;'
The unbroken line in Fig. 5 represents the single-phase-liquid
solution. The chain-dotted lines represent responses where Pp (Pws)
is calculated with B~e et al. ' s relation. The dotted lines represent
the solution obtained where Pp (Pws) is calculated with the
producing GOR at .:It=O. It is clear that Raghavan's method ap-
proximates the single-phase solution better than B~e et al.'s method.
Thus, the advantage of using the producing GOR at the instant the
well is shut in is clearly evident. (Fig. 5 represents the case where
the B~e et al. method works best for the five examples considered
by Aanonsen. 33 )
589

1 10
FLOW TIME, t, years
Fig. 9-Type-curve match of rate data-locke-Sawyer type
curve.
Aanonsen agrees that Raghavan's procedure for computing the
pseudopressure predicts the theoretical response well because it ac-
counts for the correct initial condition (saturation profile at .:It=O)
needed to obtain a solution to the problem at hand. Aanonsen also
showed that the difference between the solution-gas-drive responses
(dotted lines) and the liquid responses plotted in Ref. 6 is negligible
if the responses are plotted in terms of pseudotime. 34
Fig. 6 shows the gas-saturation profile in the reservoir after the
well has been shut in, and demonstrates that, contrary to
Whitson's32 claim, the GOR during the buildup period changes as
a function of both distance and time. From this plot, it is clear that
Whitson's contention regarding the GOR during the buildup period
is false and that many of his strong assertions are incorrect.
Computing buildup pseudopressures by the producing GOR
method yields the correct pseudopressure to analyze buildup data.
As expected, this method works best during the boundary-dominated
flow period and works well if SgCr) > Sgc, where ris the distance
at which P (r) = p. On the basis of our knowledge of solution-gas-
drive reservoirs, we do not expect this method to yield useful re-
sults at early times. It must be recognized that the only thing that
is common to this method and the steady-state theory is the ex-
pression of the producing GOR, which is a defining relation. The
steady-state theory yields a single curve for the saturation/pressure
relationship. The producing GOR method yields saturation/pressure
relationships that are functions oftime. We see this in Fig. 7, which
shows the results for a system produced at constant pressure. The
unbroken lines represent the saturation profiles in the reservoir at
the instant the well is shut in. The data points (circles, squares,
and triangles) represent the saturation/pressure relationship obtained
by Raghavan's method. For p<p, agreement is quite good. The
chain-dotted line represents the saturation/pressure relationship pre-
dicted by the steady-state theory. It is clear that the steady-state
theory is inadequate for the simulations considered here; however,
from the simulations of Ref. 7, the steady-state theory does work
adequately for the transient-flow period if Pi> Ps, where Ps is the
saturation pressure (Pb or Pdew), and the well is produced at con-
stant pressure (Pwf<Ps)'
Inflow Perfonnance of Solution-Gas-Drive Reservoirs. Probably
no study of solution-gas-drive reservoirs would be complete without
reference to the Vogel 8 correlation. Vogel's objective was to
obtain an expression to determine the deliverability of a well in
reservoirs produced by solution-gas drive. His deliverability
equation is given by
2 Details on the influence of non-Darcy flow are discussed in Ref. 41.
~=1_0.2Pwf _0.8 Pwf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (26)
qo,max P p2
590
He proposed that this equation be used to predict deliverability in-
stead of the equation developed on the basis of the single-phase-
flow theory [Eq. 10 with (kh/JL)t=constant].
On the basis of field experiments, Fetkovich 9 suggested that the
inflow-performance relationship (IPR) may be written as
qo=J'(p2_py,j)n, ............................... (27)
where n is a constant in the range 0.5:s n:S I and J' is the stabi-
lized productivity index. For n = I, J 1 is given by
J 1 =J [1I(2p)](kro/ JLoBo)j5' ......................... (28)
To compare the results given by Eqs. 26 and 27, we rewrite Eq.
27 as follows for n= I (the two equations can be compared only
for this case):
qo/qo,max = I-(P;"f/ p2) . .......................... (29)
Responses given by Eqs. 26 and 29 are compared in Ref. 35.
For P<Pb, the variation in kro/(JLoBo) with pressure may be ap-
proximated by a straight line with the intercept equal to zero,9 then
the absolute OFP, qo,max, is given by
qO,max =J(kro/JLoBo)j5 (p/2) . ....................... (30)
If we assume that the variation in kro /(JLoBo) is negligible, then
the absolute OFP, assuming that the conventional definition of J
is valid, is given by
qo,max,c=2qo,max' ................................ (31)
That is, if we assume that the variation in kro /(JLoBo) with pressure
is negligible, then we overpredict the absolute OFP by a factor of
two.3 6 This result emphasizes the importance of considering the
heterogeneous character of solution-gas-drive systems.
Unfortunately, the Vogel correlation assumes that s=O. To extend
the correlation for s>O, Standing 37 suggests that one should first
calculate the well pressure that would have been measured if s=O
and then calculate the productivity of the well with the Vogel
equation. His procedure assumes that the "infinitesimally thin skin"
concept of van Everdingen 38 and Hurst 39 is valid. Unfortunately,
Standing assumes that the pressure drop across the skin region obeys
single-phase flow theory and not the quadratic equation given by
Eq. 26. Thus, his results are erroneous because none of his solutions
show that qot qEf=1 =Ef at PWj=O, and the problems with his
o,max
method are starkly evident if s<O, then in some cases, the equivalent
value of well pressure, Pwf, becomes negative. The procedures to
overcome the problem of negative pressures involve reverting to
Fetkovich's log-log procedure. 9 (In this case, the correct form of
the equation is used.)
A serious impediment to Vogel's method is that additional as-
sumptions must be made to determine the future inflow-performance
curve because the well's performance curve changes in a complex
manner with saturation and pressure. Standing 40 suggested that
future performance can be calculated by assuming that the produc-
tivity index at zero drawdown, J*, is a linear function of
[kro/(JLoBo)]p. J*= 1.8qo,max/ P (Vogel correlation) and 2qo,max/ P
(Fetkovich correlation, n = I), respectively. Fetkovich 9 suggests
that the permeability to oil changes linearly with p.
Other techniques to predict future deliverability have also been
proposed. All techniques assume that there is a linear relationship
between kro/(JLoBo) andp (or p). They differ only in the value of
the intercept used to define the linear relationship; e.g., Fetkovich
suggests that the intercept be zero. Whitson 41 and Uhri and
Blount 42 assume that the intercept equals [k ro /(JLoBo)]j5/9; Ref. 43
assumes that it is an undetermined function of time. When com-
pared with results predicted from simulations, these methods yield
inconclusive results. Additional fundamental work is required to
predict future performance. .
The influence of non-Darcy flow is also ignored in Vogel's work.
Field examples presented by Fetkovich clearly indicate that non-
Darcy flow can be significant. Depending on test conditions, it can
be shown that Eqs. 26 and 29 will overpredict flow rates by 50%.
Whitson also presents methods to incorporate non-Darcy flow effects
in the inflow performance equations of Vogel and Fetkovich.
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1989
 ~ 10 ~.-~"nn--.-nrrnrrr-'rT~TITrr--.-nrnmm
lQ.
W
1 I
C)
Z I I
<t
:I: I I I ooooEPi
(.)
I I1 oo~~
p .,. AI
~ I 0
::) ~o.~AA ~ A
(/)
I ~
In
a:: I1
0
1
Q. o~ 1
(/) 0<9 I TEST I TEST 3
(/)
W I RESPONSE - -GRID --GRID
...J
Z I PRESSURE o o
Q
(/) I DERIVATIVE A

z I I
'0 'OL_"'"2-'---'--LU-'-,L.l.'"'_I:--'---L...L...L..LLL.IJ.,_...L-.L.J..L..LJUJ,u--"'--'-'-..............
,02 w
0 0 ~ 162~~~~~~-'-~~llL__LJ~~ll-~~~~
SHUT-IN TIME, At, hours ~ 10- 2 '0- 1 I I 10 10 10 2
SHUT-IN TIME, t.t, hours
Fig. 10-Type-curve match of falloff response (pressure and
derivative) of Test 1. Fig. 11-0verlay of Test 1 response on Test 3 response.

Production Forecasting. The prime objective of a well test is to
produce a production forecast. For single-phase flow, the response
during boundary-dominated flow for a well that is produced at a
constant pressure (for long-term forecasting this is the appropriate
boundary condition) and is located at the center of a closed cir-
cular reservoir is given by44
exp[ -2tD I(r;D In 0.472r eD)]
.. (32)
In(0.472r eD)
Here, reD=re1rw and tD is given by Eq. 19.
For solution-gas-drive reservoirs, single-well production forecasts
are usually conducted as Arps45 suggested. The characteristics of
the late-time responses-exponential, hyperbolic, and harmonic-are
well known and will not be discussed here. In 1980, Fetkovich 44
suggested that Arps' results may be combined and expressed in the
following form:
q(t)=qi/[1 +bDitd] lib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (33)
for 0<b::51, and by q(t)=q; exp(-D;td)' ............. (34)
for b=O. Here, b is the reciprocal of the decline-curve exponent
(first-difference-of-the-loss ratio). The generally accepted values
of bare b=O (exponential decline), 0< b< I (hyperbolic decline),
and b= I (harmonic decline); this point will be discussed in more
detail later.
Note that the Arps equations were derived empirically. Fet-
kovich,44 however, recognized that exponential decline was
common to both the empirical relations of Arps and the theoretical
expression for single-phase liquid flow during the boundary-
dominated period (Eq. 32). Thus, he was able to combine the em-
pirical relations of Arps with the expression for dimensionless rate
during boundary-dominated flow. Fig. 8 is a log-log plot of the
Arps relations (Eqs. 33 and 34) for several values of b. Here qdD
and tdD are defined as
re 1)
( In--- qD .......... (35)
rw 2
tD
and tdD =Ditd = 2 .............
0.5(reD -l)(ln r eD-0.5)
Note that for tdD <0.3, all curves in Fig. 8 coincide and are in-
distinguishable. Thus, it is impossible to determine b with data
before tdD =0.3. A statistical analysis of data for tdD::5 0.3 will fit
any value of b in the range 0::5b::51 (see Ref. 44).
As already mentioned, the b=O curve is common to the empirical
relations of Arps and the theoretical expression for flow rate for
single-phase flow; i.e., if the reservoir is highly undersaturated,
then b=O. This observation also lets us compare transient rate
decline for single-phase flow with boundary-dominated decline for
a wide variety of conditions (see Fig. 4 of Ref. 44 for a composite
plot). Fetkovich also provides the following guidelines for the ex-
pected range of values of b for various producing mechanisms: b=O
if the reservoir is highly undersaturated or for gravity drainage with
no free surface; b=0.5 for gravity drainage with a free surface;
b=0.667 for a solution-gas-drive reservoir if p is a linear function
of cumulative oil produced, N p ; and b=0.333 if p2 vs. Np is a
linear relationship. Of course, reservoir heterogeneities and
producing conditions can also influence the value of b. Under no
circumstances is b> 1. If data suggest that b> 1, \ben Fetkovich 44
rather explicitly states that the analyst is using transient data to
predict boundary-dominated responses. Unfortunately, this point
is often ignored in many predictions presented in the literature. If
one ignores this and uses transient decline rates (indicated by b> 1)
to predict boundary-dominated flow, then prediction of production
rates and cumulative production will be unduly optimistic (see Fig.
12 of Ref. 46). In essence, the Arps equations or Fig. 8 should
not be used unless boundary-dominated rate data are available.
Decline-curve analysis cannot be conducted unless the well is on
decline.
Example Application. Fig. 9 is a type-curve match of rate data
measured at a fractured well. (This example is discussed in Ref.
46.) Data are matched with the Locke-Sawyer 47 type curve, which
was developed for a single well intercepted by an infinite-
conductivity vertical fracture and located at the center of a square
drainage region of length 2Lx . Here, tXfD is based on LXf. The
Lx ILxf=oo line is the respon~e of a fractured well in an infinite
sy~tem, and the responses corresponding to finite values of Lx IL xf
represent the influence of boundaries. Note that this type curve was
developed for single-phase liquid flow. The type-curve match
suggests that this well is located in a system where Lx ILxf= 1.5
and that boundary-dominated flow begins at about 1 yea~. One can
readily predict future performance by extrapolating along the
Lx IL xf = 1.5 curve. For example, this match indicates that the
flo~ rate at the end of II years would be 52 bbllmonth [0.28 m 3 /d]
oil and that at 21 years qo=10 bbl/month [0.053 m 3 /d] oil.
Because the Locke-Sawyer type curve is for single-phase flow
and the data shown in Fig. 9 follow the Lx ILxf= 1.5 stem, we
would expect the boundary-dominated flow data to follow the b=O
(36) solution of the Fetkovich type curve. Fig. 28 of Ref. 46 shows that
late-time data follow the b=O stem of Fig. 8.
Once a match with the Fetkovich type curve (Fig. 8) is obtained,
then the match points can be used to calculate formation properties,
decline parameters, and original oil in place (OOIP); however, it
is beyond the scope of this paper to explore these aspects (see Refs.
44 and 46 for details). Ref. 46 also presents details on how to ac-
count for changes in backpressure.
Injection-Well Analysis. The principal objectives of injection-well
testing are similar to those of production tests. Because our purpose
is to ensure that injectivity is unimpaired, accurate determination

SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1989 591

of the skin factor is of paramount importance. Also, in mjscible
flooding projects, the detennination of average reservoir pressure
is of interest. Very little information is available in the literature
on the determination of average reservoir pressure when the mo-
bility ratio, M, is different from unity. In most cases, especially
in EOR projects, engineers want to defermine the location of fluid
banks. Although theoretical calculations and intuition suggest that
it is possible to do so by pressure analysis, in actual practice it is
difficult to locate fluid banks by falloff testing. In the following
we restrict our attention to the analysis of falloff data.
The composite reservoir model with a moving interface is the
most commonly recommended model for analyzing injection-well
data. Most of the recent work in this area stems from the paper
by Ramey. 10 Using the ideas proposed by Ramey, Merrill et al. 11
examined falloff responses in a system similar to a composite
reservoir. Their work indicates that if we neglect the unaffected
region and run the test long enough, then two semilog straight lines
are evident. The slope of the first straight line reflects the flow ca-
pacity of the injected fluid bank, and the slope of the second straight
line is a function of the mobility-thickness and the porosity-
compressibility contrasts between the two zones. Intuitively, one
does not expect the porosity-compressibility product to influence
the slope of the second straight line because the existence of a second
semilog straight line implies that "steady conditions" prevail in
the inner zone. Barkve 48 shows that the ratio of the slopes of the
two straight lines should be a function of the mobility-thickness con-
trasts and not the porosity-compressibility contrasts. He suggests
that the results of Merrill et at. are affected by boundary effects.
Thus, their results should not be used.
Sosa et at.49 examined the influence of saturation gradients on
pressure-falloff data. They concluded that the Buckley-Leverett50
frontal-advance equation may provide a better estimate of the radius
of the flood front than the correlations presented by Merrill et al. II
Much work needs to be done in this area of pressure analysis, par-
ticularly in the determination of the flood-front location. One
analysis method for determining fluid banks that has been completely
overlooked is Peaceman's probe-radius formula (Eq. 21 of Ref.
51). If radial flow or pseudoradial-flow conditions prevail, then
the equation lets us compute the flow capacity to phase m, (kh)m'
vs. the distance from the wellbore, r, by the derivative method.
First, we obtain instantaneous values of At as a function of pressure
by an expression similar to Eq. 7, where m represents the instan-
taneous slope. Then we use Peaceman's probe-radius formula to
compute (kh)m as a function of the probe radius, r m'
From a practical viewpoint, several factors inhibit our applying
the techniques discussed in the literature, particularly in the location
of flood fronts. These include (1) wellbore storage effects (the
difficulty in analyzing data dominated by storage is exacerbated if
the storage constant changes during the test, and the storage con-
stant, if it does change, usually increases during falloff tests), (2)
the existence of vertical fractures intercepting the wellbore (in the
U.S.A. the fractured injection well is the norm), (3) inadequate
test time, and (4) well spacing. Most of the theories discussed in
the literature appear to be suitable only for mature waterfloods;
this situation, however, involves only the flow of a single fluid.
Example Application. We consider two falloff tests following
water injection in a tertiary miscible project. Data pertaining to this
dolomite reservoir are as follows: depth=4,9oo ft [1494 m], net
pay = 100 ft [30 m], k=2.1 md, T=105F [41C], Pi=I,690 psi
[11.6 mPa], crude viscosity = 1.93 cp [1.93 x 10-3 Pa' s], oil
gravity=30oAPI [0.88 g/cm 3], B o =1.16, and miscibility pressure
::: 1,100 psi [7.6 mPa]. Test 1 was conducted before the start of
the miscible flood and after the injection of about 123,600 STB [19
651 stock-tank m 3 ] of water. The well had been acid fractured
without a propping agent. Fig. 10 is a type-curve match of the falloff
response with the uniform-flux type curve (Test 1).52 The inverted
triangular data points are the derivatives of the pressure/time
response. The derivative response is plotted as 2flp't:.t vs. t:.t, where
t:.p'=d(flp)/t:.t. For data plotted in this manner, the pressure-
response curve and the derivative-response curve are identical at
early times. Thus, plotting data this way helps to match pressure
and its derivative simultaneously. The bottom line in Fig. 10 is a
plot of 2p;"DtxfD vs. txfD, where P;"D =dpwD /dtxfD' The purpose
in computing the derivative response is to compare the derivative
592
responses for Tests 1 and 3, and not to improve the type-curve match
shown here. Estimates of (kh/ p.)t from the type-curve match agree
with the semilog-straight-line analysis.
Test 3 was conducted after one cycle of gas injection (127,290
Mcf [3604 x 103 m 3 ] of gas) and one cycle of water injection
(17,259 STB [2744 stock-tank m 3 ]). The well was restimulated
during the water-injection cycle to improve injectivity. (A loss in
injectivity following the injection of a compressible fluid is not un-
expected.) Fig. 11 is an overlay of the responses from Tests 1 and
3. Here, the change in pressure during the test is expressed in dimen-
sionless form. The agreement between the two tests in terms of
the pressure response and the derivative response is remarkable.
The implications of this observation are obvious. The displacement
in the time scales (dashed line represents grid for Test 1) reflects
the influence of increased compressibility and the change in fracture
length. From the displacement in the time scales, we may estimate
(ctL} h/(ctLth to be 3.83. This information can be used to
predi~t future Injection rates and to revise earlier estimates, if nec-
essary. (In this particular case, the flood was designed so that 0.9
res bbl [0.14 res m 3 ] of rich gas would be injected per barrel of
water. Because of the unanticipated reduction in water injectivity,
this ratio was revised to 4: 1 gas/water. The economic consequences
are clearly evident.) Most interesting from my viewpoint is that
there is nothing in the trace corresponding to Test 3 to suggest that
more than one fluid was injected. Similar results were obtained for
other wells. Experience indicates that this behavior is the norm even
if fluids with small contrasts in compressibility (e.g., graded polymer
slugs) are injected. Because much of what is in the literature does
not appear to be directly useful for the type of tests considered here,
I usually use the well response before the injection of slugs as the
baseline solution from which mobility changes and injectivity losses
are evaluated. In essence, I use the field curve corresponding to
the initial test (water) as the type curve.
Concluding Remarks
From a research viewpoint, one must be careful in deriving con-
clusions of a general nature from a limited set of observations. For
example, based on the works in Refs. 6 and 7, it is readily obvious
that observations that apply for Pi "'" Pb (or Pdew) may not be ap-
plicable if Pi > Pb (or Pdew)' As stated in Ref. 7, for the devel-
opment of a theory for multiphase flow, three concerns must be
addressed: (1) the existence of a single-phase region must be in-
corporated; (2) conclusions must be derived from simulations that
incorporate the existence of the skin region (preferably a thick-skin
region); and (3) conclusions must be based on solutions that incor-
porate situations where critical saturations are greater than zero.
In this area of reservoir engineering, we expect to derive conclusions
of general import or rules based on a limited number of numerical
experiments. It is imperative that the validity of such conclusions
be demonstrated by considering exceptions that probe (not prove)
such rules. Even though I say so myself, Ref. 7, in hindsight, seren-
dipitously fulfills these requirements.
Nomenclature
A = drainage area, ft2 [m 2]
b = reciprocal of the decline-curve exponent
Bm = FVF of Phase m, RB/STB or RB/scf
[res m 3/stock-tank m3 or res m 3 /std m 3]
c = compressibility, psi - I [kPa - I]
cf = PV compressibility, psi -I [kPa -I]
C m = compressibility of Phase m, psi-I [kPa- l ]
C t = effective or pseudocompressibility, psi -I [kPa -I]
C = concentration of free gas (0.006328), ft 3 1D [m 3/d]
CA = geometric shape factor
Di = initial decline rate, day-lor month-I
Ef = flow efficiency
h = formation thickness, ft [m]
I = productivity index, defined by Eq. 11, (RBID)/psi
[(res m 3/d)/kPa]
j = defined by Eq. II
I' = stabilized productivity index, (STBID)/(psi2)n
[(stock-tank m3/d)/(kPa 2)n]
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1989
 J* = productivity index at zero drawdown, (STBID)/psi
[(stock-tank m3 /d)/kPa]
k = absolute permeability, md
k m = effective permeability of Phase m, md
krm = relative permeability of Phase m
L = moles of liquid phase
Lx = distance from well center to external boundary
e (square drainage region), ft [m]
L Xj = fracture half-length, ft [m]
m = slope of semilog straight line, psi [kPa]
M = mobility ratio
n = exponent of inflow-performance curve
Np = cumulative oil produced, STB [stock-tank m3 ]
P = pressure, psi [kPa]
p = average reservoir pressure, psi [kPa]
Pb = bubblepoint pressure, psi [kPa]
Pdew = dewpoint pressure, psi [kPa]
Pe = external boundary pressure, psi [kPa]
Pi = initial pressure, psi [kPa]
pp(p) = pseudopressure function (Eq. 14), (psi/cp)/(RB/STB)
[(kPa/Pa's)/(res m3 /stock-tank m3 )]
PpsD = dimensionless pseudopressure rise
PpwD = dimensionless pseudopressure
Ps = saturation pressure, psi [kPa]
PsD = dimensionless pressure rise
PwD = dimensionless wellbore pressure
P;"D = derivative of PwD with respect to tXlD
Pwj = wellbore flowing pressure, psi [kPaJ
Pwj,s = wellbore flowing pressure at shut-in, psi [kPa]
Pws = shut-in pressure, psi [kPa]
ilp' = derivative of t.p with respect to t.t
q = flow rate, STBID and MscflD [stock-tank m3 /d and
std m3 /d]
qdD = decline curve dimensionless rate
qD = dimensionless rate (Eq. 32)
qi = flow rate at time decline begins (reference rate)
qo,max = maximum flow rate
r = radial distance, ft [m]
rD = dimensionless distance
re = external drainage radius, ft [m]
reD = dimensionless reservoir radius
r w = wellbore radius, ft [m]
R = producing GOR, scf/STB [std m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]
Rs = solution GOR, scf/STB [std m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]
Rsw = solution gas/water ratio, scf/STB
[std m 3/stock-tank m 3 ]
s = skin factor
Sm = saturation of Phase m
Sor = critical oil saturation
Sw = average saturation behind the front predicted by the
Buckley-Leverett theory
t = time, hours, days, or months
td = decline-curve time, hours, days, or months
tdD = decline-curve dimensionless time
tD = dimensionless time based on r w
tXjD = dimensionless time based on L Xj
t.t = shut-in time, hours
t.tD = dimensionless shut-in time based on r w
t.tsD = dimensionless shut-in time defined by Eq. 25
T = temperature, of [0C]
V = moles of vapor phase
Vp = PV, bbl [m 3 ]
xi = components in the liquid phase
Yi = components in the gas phase
'Y = Euler's constant, 0.57721 ...
A = mobility (k/JL), md/cp [md/Pa's]
JL = viscosity, cp [Pa' s]
JLm = viscosity of Phase m
p = molar density, Ibm mollft 3 [kmollm 3 ]
</> = porosity
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1989
Subscripts
bu = buildup
c = critical
dd = drawdown
f = flood front; future conditions
g = gas
i = initial
j,m = index for phase of fluid (0, w, or g)
0 = oil
P = present conditions
r = relative, ratio
t = total
w = water
1,2 = zone
Superscript
= average
Acknowledgments
The financial support of the Dept. of Petroleum Engineering at the
U. of Tulsa is appreciated. The assistance of colleagues Tai Tu Cao,
Somporn Vongvuthipornchai, and Nai-Shyong Yeh is gratefully ac-
knowledged. I take this opportunity to express my thanks to M.J.
Fetkovich for many fruitful discussions on multiphase flow through
porous media over the past 10 years.
References
1. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests
in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1967) 1; 22-24.
2. EarJougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph
Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1977) 5, 74-89.
3. Perrine, R.L.: "Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves," Drill. & Prod.
Prac., API, Dallas (1956) 482-509.
4. Martin, J.C.: "Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reservoirs
and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup
Analyses," Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 309-11.
5. AI-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: "The Flow
of Real Gases Through Porous Media," 1PT (May 1966) 624-36;
Trans., AIME, 237.
6. Raghavan, R.: "Well Test Analysis: Wells Producing by Solution Gas
Drive," SPEl (Aug. 1976) 196-208; Trans., AIME, 261.
7. Jones, R. and Raghavan, R.: "Interpretation of Flowing Well Responses
in Gas Condensate Wells," SPEFE (Sept. 1988) 578-94; Trans., AIME,
285.
8. Vogel, J.V.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive
Wells," 1PT (Jan. 1968) 83-92; Trans., AIME, 243.
9. Fetkovich, M.J.: "The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells," paper SPE
4529 presented at the 1973 SPE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Sept. 30-
Oct. 3.
10. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Approximate Solutions for Unsteady State Liquid
Flow in Composite Reservoirs," 1. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Jan.-March 1970)
32-37.
11. Merrill, L.S., Kazemi, H., and Gogarty, W.B.: "Pressure Falloff
Analysis in Reservoirs With Fluid Banks," 1PT(July 1974) 809-18;
Trans., AIME, 257.
12. Muskat, M. and Meres, M.W.: "The Flow of Heterogeneous Fluids
Through Porous Media," Physics (Sept. 1936) 7, 346-63.
13. Wycoff, R.D. and Botset, H.G.: "The Flow of Gas-Liquid Mixtures
Through Unconsolidated Sands," Physics (Sept. 1936) 7, 325-45.
14. Miller, C.C., Dyes, A.B., and Hutchinson, C.A. Jr.: "Estimation of
Permeability and Reservoir Pressure from Bottom-Hole Pressure Build-
up Characteristics," Trans., AIME (1950) 189,91-104.
15. Macias, C.L.: "Multiphase Multicomponent Compressibility in Pe-
troleum Reservoir Engineering," PhD dissertation, Stanford U.,
Stanford, CA (1985) 134-36.
16. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Rapid Methods for Estimating Reservoir Compres-
sibilities," 1PT (April 1964) 447-54; Trans., AIME, 231.
17. Matthews, C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: "A Method for De-
termination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir," Trans.,
AIME (1954) 201, 182-91.
18. Earlougher, R.C. Jr., Miller, F.G., and Mueller, T.D.: "Pressure
Buildup Behavior in a Two-Well Gas-Oil System," SPEl (June 1967)
195-204; Trans., AIME, 240.
19. Odeh, A.S. and Jones, L.G.: "Two-Rate Flow Test, Variable-Rate
Case-Application to Gas-Lift and Pumping Wells," 1PT (Jan. 1974)
93-99.
20. Dietz, D.N.: "Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure From
Buildup Surveys," 1PT (Aug. 1965) 955-59; Trans., AIME, 234.
593
21. Winestock, A.G. and Colpitts, G.P.: "Advances in Estimating Gas Well
Deliverability," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1965) 111-19.
22. Uraiet, A.A. and Raghavan, R.: "Pressure Buildup Analysis for a Well
Produced at Constant Bottomhole Pressure," JPT(Oct. 1980) 1813-24.
23. Raghavan, R.: "The Effect of Producing Time on Type Curve
Analysis," JPT (June 1980) 1053-64:
24. Chu, W.C., Reynolds, A.C., and Raghavan, R.: "Pressure Transient
Analysis of Two-Phase Flow Problems," SPEFE (April 1986) 151-64.
25. Hazeltine: "Discussion," Drill. & Prod. Prac., API, Dallas (1956) 509.
26. Muskat, M.: "The Theory of Potentiometric Models," Trans., AIME
(1949) 179, 216.
27. Evinger, H.H. and Muskat, M.: "Calculation of Theoretical Produc-
tivity Factor," Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 126-39.
28. Chopra, A.K. and Carter, R.D.: "Proof of the Two-Phase Steady-State
Theory for Flow Through Porous Media," SPEFE (Dec. 1986) 603-08.
29. Levine, J.S. and Prats, M.: "The Calculated Performance of Solution-
Gas-Drive Reservoirs," SPEI (Sept. 1961) 142-52; Trans., AlME, 222.
30. Muskat, M.: "The Production Histories of Oil Producing Gas-Drive
Reservoirs," J. Appl. Phys. (March 1945) 147-59.
31. Bl'e, A., Skjaeveland, S.M., aDd Whitson, C.S.: "Two-Phase Pressure
Test Analysis," SPEFE (Dec. 1989) 604-10.
32. Whitson, C.S.: "Topics on Phase Behavior and Flow of Petroleum
Reservoir Fluids, " PhD dissertation, U. of Trondheim, Norway (Aug.
1983).
33. Aanonsen, S.I.: "Nonlinear Effects During Transient Fluid Flow in
Reservoirs as Encountered in Well Test Analysis," PhD dissertation,
U. of Bergen, Norway (1985).
34. Agarwal, R.G.: '''Real Gas Pseudo-Time'-A New Function for
Pressure Buildup Analysis of MHF Gas Wells," paper SPE 8279
presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
35. Fetkovich, M.J. et al.: "Case Study of a Low-Permeability Volatile
Oil Field Using Individual-Well Advanced Decline Curve Analysis,"
paper SPE 14237 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
36. Bertuzzi, A.F. et aI.: "Wellbore Hydraulics," Petroleum Engineering
Handbook. H.B. Bradley (ed.), SPE, Richardson, TX (1987)
30-34-34-35.
37. Standing, M.B.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Damaged Wells
Producing by Solution-Gas Drive," JPT(Nov. 1970) 1399-1400.
38. van Everdingen, A.F.: "The Skin Effect and Its Influence on the
Productive Capacity of a Well," Trans., AIME (1953) 198,171-76.
39. Hurst, W.: "Establishment of the Skin Effect and Its Impediment to
Fluid Flow Into a Wellbore," Pet. Eng. (Oct. 1953) 25, B-6.
594
40. Standing, M.B.: "Concerning the Calculation ofInflow Performance
of Wells Producing Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs," JPT(Sept. 1971)
1141-42.
41. Whitson, C.S.: "Reservoir Well Performance and Predicting Deliver-
ability," paper SPE 12518 available at SPE, Richardson, TX.
42. Uhri, D.C. and Blount, E.M.: "Pivot Point Method Quickly Predicts
Well Performance," World Oil (May 1982) 153-64.
43. Kelkar, B.G. and Cox, R.: "Unified Relationship to Predict Future
IPR Curves for Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs," paperSPE 14239
presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
44. Fetkovich, M.J.: "Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves," JPT
(June 1980) 1065-77.
45. Arps, J.J.: "Analysis of Decline Curves," Trans., AIME (1945) 160,
228-47.
46. Fetkovich, M.J. et al.: "Decline-Curve Analysis Using Type Curves-
Case Histories," SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 637-56; Trans., AIME, 283.
47. Locke, C.D. and Sawyer, W.K.: "Constant Pressure Injection Test
in a Fractured Reservoir-History Match Using Numerical Simulation
and Type Curve Analysis," paper SPE 5594 presented at the 1975 SPE
Annual Meeting, Dallas, Sept. 28-0ct. 1.
48. Barkve, T.: "A Study of the Verigin Problem with Application to
Analysis of Water Injection Tests," Report No. 78, Dept. of Applied
Mathematics, U. of Bergen, Norway (March 1985).
49. Sosa, A., Raghavan, R., and Limon, T.J.: "Effect of Relative Perme-
ability and Mobility Ratio on Pressure Falloff Tests," JPT(June 1981)
1125-35.
50. Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M.C.: "Mechanism of Fluid Displacement
in Sands," Trans., AIME (1942) 146,107-16.
51. Peaceman, D.: "Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical
Reservoir Simulation," SPEI (June 1978) 183-94; Trans., AIME, 265.
52. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady-
State Pressure Distributions Created by a Well with a Single Infinite-
Conductivity Vertical Fracture," SPEI (Aug. 1974) 347-60.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl x 1.589 873 E-Ol m3
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
psi x 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
'Conversion factor is exact. SPEFE
Original SPE manuscript received for review March 14. 1986. Paper accepted for publi-
cation July 11. 1989. Revised manuscript received Nov. 29. 1988. Paper (SPE 14098) first
presented at the 1986 SPE Inti. Meeting on Petroleum Engineering held in Beijing. March
17-20.
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1989