Practical Application of Pressure/Rate
Deconvolution to Analysis of Real
Well Tests
Michael M. Levitan, SPE, BP America
Summary
Pressure/rate deconvolution is a long-standing problem of well-test
analysis that has been the subject of research by a number of
authors. A variety of different deconvolution algorithms have been
proposed in the literature. However, none of them is robust enough
to be implemented in the commercial well-test-analysis software
used most widely in the industry. Recently, von Schroeter et al.1,2
published a deconvolution algorithm that has been shown to work
even when a reasonable level of noise is present in the test pressure
and rate data. In our independent evaluation of the algorithm, we
have found that it works well on consistent sets of pressure and
rate data. It fails, however, when used with inconsistent data. Some
degree of inconsistency is normally present in real test data.
In this paper, we describe the enhancements of the deconvolu-
tion algorithm that allow it to be used reliably with real test data.
We demonstrate the application of pressure/rate deconvolution
analysis to several real test examples.
Introduction
The well bottomhole-pressure behavior in response to a constant-
rate flow test is a characteristic response function of the reservoir/
well system. The constant-rate pressure-transient response depends
on such reservoir and well properties as permeability, large-scale
reservoir heterogeneities, and well damage (skin factor). It also
depends on the reservoir flow geometry defined by the geometry
of well completion and by reservoir boundaries. Hence, these res-
ervoir and well characteristics are reflected in the system’s con-
stant-rate drawdown pressure-transient response, and some of
these reservoir and well characteristics may potentially be recov-
ered from the response function by conventional methods of well-
test analysis.
Direct measurement of constant-rate transient-pressure re-
sponse does not normally yield good-quality data because of our
inability to accurately control rates and because the well pressure
is very sensitive to rate variations. For this reason, typical well
tests are not single-rate, but variable-rate, tests. A well-test se-
quence normally includes several flow periods. During one or
more of these flow periods, the well is shut in. Often, only the
pressure data acquired during shut-in periods have the quality re-
quired for pressure-transient analysis. The pressure behavior dur-
ing the individual flow period of a multirate test sequence depends
on the flow history before this flow period. Hence, it is not the
same as a constant-rate system-response function. The well-test-
analysis theory that evolved over the past 50 years has been built
around the idea of applying a special time transform to the test
pressure data so that the pressure behavior during individual flow
periods would be similar in some way to constant-rate drawdown-
pressure behavior. The superposition-time transform commonly
used for this purpose does not completely remove all effects of
previous rate variation. There are sometimes residual superposition
effects left, and this often complicates test analysis.
An alternative approach is to convert the pressure data acquired
during a variable-rate test to equivalent pressure data that would
Copyright © 2005 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 84290) was first presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, 5–8 October, and revised for publication. Original manuscript re-
ceived for review 29 March 2004. Revised manuscript received 21 December 2004. Paper
peer approved 25 January 2005.
April 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
have been obtained if the well flowed at constant rate for the
duration of the whole test. This is the pressure/rate deconvolution
problem. Pressure/rate deconvolution has been a subject of re-
search by a number of authors over the past 40 years. Pressure/rate
deconvolution reduces to the solution of an integral equation. The
kernel and the right side of the equation are given by the rate and
the pressure data acquired during a test. This problem is ill con-
ditioned, meaning that small changes in input (test pressure and
rates) lead to large changes in output result—a deconvolved con-
stant-rate pressure response. The ill-conditioned nature of the pres-
sure/rate deconvolution problem, combined with errors always
present in the test rate and pressure data, makes the problem highly
unstable. A variety of different deconvolution algorithms have
been proposed in the literature.3–8 However, none of them is robust
enough to be implemented in the commercial well-test-analysis
software used most widely in the industry.
Recently, von Schroeter et al.1,2 published a deconvolution
algorithm that has been shown to work when a reasonable level of
noise is present in test pressure and rate data. In our independent
implementation and evaluation of the algorithm, we have found
that it works well on consistent sets of pressure and rate data. It
fails, however, when used with inconsistent data. Examples of
such inconsistencies include wellbore storage or skin factor chang-
ing during a well-test sequence. Some degree of inconsistency is
almost always present in real test data. Therefore, the deconvolu-
tion algorithm in the form described in the references cited cannot
work reliably with real test data.
In this paper, we describe the enhancements of the deconvolu-
tion algorithm that allow it to be used reliably with real test data.
We demonstrate application of the pressure/rate deconvolution
analysis to several real test examples.
Pressure/Rate Deconvolution
In a linear system, the well pressure during a variable-rate test is
given by the convolution integral
t
dpu共t − ␶兲
p共t兲 = p0 − 兰q共␶兲
0
dt
d␶. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
Here, q(t) is the well rate, p(t) is the well bottomhole pressure, and p0
is the initial reservoir pressure. The pu(t) in Eq. 1 is the rate-
normalized pressure response to constant-rate production, assuming
that, at the beginning of production, the reservoir is in equilibrium and
the pressure is uniform throughout the reservoir. Eq. 1 is known as
Duhamel’s integral and is an expression of the principle of superpo-
sition resulting from the linear character of the system.
Pressure/rate deconvolution aims at reconstruction of the con-
stant-rate drawdown-pressure response pu(t) along with the initial
reservoir pressure p0 from the pressure and rate data, p(t) and q(t),
acquired during a variable-rate well test. This problem is equiva-
lent to solving Eq. 1 for pu(t) and p0 given p(t) and q(t) measured
during the well test. Several methods for solution of this integral
equation have been proposed in the literature.3–8 However, these
solution algorithms proved to be unstable and could not tolerate
errors normally present in well-test data.3 A review of several
solution algorithms described in the literature is given in Ref. 1.
von Schroeter Deconvolution Algorithm. Recently, von Schroe-
ter et al.1,2 presented a new deconvolution algorithm that dem-
113
onstrates significant advancement compared to earlier efforts. We
will call this algorithm the von Schroeter algorithm. The von
Schroeter algorithm is based on several novel ideas:
• Appropriate Encoding of the Solution. Eq. 1 is solved not
for the constant-rate system response pu(t), but for the function
冋 册 冋 册
dpu共t兲 dpu共␴兲
z共␴兲 = ln = ln , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
d ln t d␴
where ␴⳱ln(t). In terms of the function z(␴), the convolution Eq. 1
reduces to
ln t
p共t兲 = p0 − 兰q共t − e 兲 e
−⬁
␴ z共␴兲
d␴. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
Selection of z(␴) as a new solution variable ensures that dpu(t)/d lnt is
positive—the necessary condition that a constant-rate system re-
sponse must satisfy. However, an unwelcome consequence of this
variable selection is that the resulting Eq. 3 becomes nonlinear.
• Regularization by Curvature. Even with the above selection
of solution variable, the problem is still ill conditioned and is very
sensitive to noise in pressure and rate data. Imposing additional
constraint in the form of a penalty on the curvature of z(␴) enforces
some degree of smoothness of the solution and improves condi-
tioning of the problem.
• Total Least-Squares Formulation. The problem is formu-
lated as unconstrained nonlinear minimization with the objective
function defined to include residuals of Eq. 3, possible errors in
rate data, and regularization curvature constraints.
There are several other details regarding specific implementa-
tion of the algorithm.1,2 The implementation is geared toward the
test sequences that are structured similar to conventional well tests,
with stepwise constant-rate functions q(t). The solution z(␴) is
approximated as a piecewise-linear function on a grid of points ␴i
with constant grid increment ⌬␴. The values zi of the solution z(␴)
at the grid nodes ␴i are determined in the minimization process.
The authors use the variable projection algorithm9 for nonlinear
least-squares minimization.
von Schroeter Deconvolution and Real Test Data. Single-phase
flow of slightly compressible fluid in porous media is a linear
problem. In many cases, solution of this problem can be presented
in the form of Eq. 1. The p(t) and q(t) given in Eq. 1 are sandface
characteristics; they are the pressure and the rate on the reservoir
side of the wellbore/reservoir interface. The pressure and rate data
usually acquired during well tests are not sandface characteristics;
they are measured somewhere in the wellbore. Moreover, stepwise
constant-rate test sequences are produced by operating chokes and
valves normally located at the surface or in the wellbore some-
where above the reservoir interval. Therefore, the pressure and rate
data acquired during well tests have to be corrected for wellbore-
storage and well-damage (skin) effects before they can be used in
Eq. 1. With these corrections, Eq. 1 reduces to
t
dpu共t − ␶兲
兰q 共 ␶ 兲
p共t兲 = p0 − sf d␶ − qsf共t兲 ⌬ps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
dt
0
Here, ⌬ps is the pressure drop per unit rate at the wellbore/reservoir
interface (skin effect). The qsf (t) in Eq. 4 is the sandface well rate. The
sandface rate is related to the test-measured rate q(t) as
24 dp共t兲
qsf 共t兲 = q共t兲 + Cw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
B dt
Here, Cw is the wellbore storage coefficient, and B is the fluid
formation volume factor. In principle, the wellbore storage coef-
ficient and the pressure drop caused by skin may change with time,
Cw(t), ⌬ps(t).
There is one special case when Eq. 4 reduces to Eq. 1. This is
the case when the wellbore-storage coefficient, Cw, and the pres-
sure drop caused by skin, ⌬ps, are constant and do not change
during the entire well-test sequence. The constant-rate drawdown-
114
response function pu(t) in this case incorporates wellbore-storage
and skin effects.
The von Schroeter deconvolution algorithm is developed for
Eq. 1. Hence, there may be a problem when using this algorithm
with real test data. If the wellbore-storage coefficient and/or the
skin pressure drop change during the test sequence, then the test
data are inconsistent with Eq. 1. It means that Eq. 1 is not the
correct superposition model for the test data in this case. Process-
ing these test data through a deconvolution algorithm based on Eq.
1 will not produce a physically meaningful response function pu(t).
As we discuss later, testing of our variant of the deconvolution
algorithm confirms this potential problem. Deconvolution fails
when used on simulated test data that have different wellbore-
storage coefficients during different flow periods. Moreover, this
testing shows that an inconsistency localized at early-time flow-
period data (like that caused by changing wellbore storage) does
not produce a local early-time effect on pu(t). In fact, it severely
affects the response pu(t) at late time.
This is a fundamental problem of the deconvolution algorithm
based on Eq. 1. It precludes us from using it with most real test
data. Real test data often show the early-time pressure behavior
that changes from one flow period to the next. There are two
possible approaches for resolving this problem. The first approach
is to extend the deconvolution algorithm to a more general data
model. The model has to be so flexible that it can accommodate
any variation of wellbore storage and skin that may take place in
real well tests. This would be very difficult to do. The second
approach is to apply the current deconvolution algorithm based on
Eq. 1—not to all the pressure data at once, but to the pressure data
from individual flow periods. When used in this mode, the data
and the data model are always consistent, and deconvolution
should work well. Our testing confirms that this is the case.
Information Content of Data and Deconvolution Problem.
Pressure/rate deconvolution is not just a smart data-processing
algorithm that could be applied routinely to any well-test data to
recover the system-response function. Deconvolution has to be
tailored to the data that are being deconvolved.
Deconvolution is a form of inverse problem. There are two
components to inverse problems: (1) test data and (2) a model for
representing the data. An inverse problem can be solved success-
fully only if the data model is consistent with test data. For ex-
ample, a model is inconsistent if it does not account for a physical
phenomenon affecting the data (i.e., changing wellbore storage
and/or skin). It is also possible that inconsistency is caused by the
data itself, specifically by data errors. For example, having the
wrong rate on the right side of Eq. 1 may overconstrain the prob-
lem so that it does not have a physically meaningful solution. In
this case, it is necessary to add additional degrees of freedom by
allowing the rate function on the right side of Eq. 1 to become a
model parameter so that it can be adjusted to restore consistency
between the data and the model.1,2 However, one has to be careful
with this approach as well. Too many additional model parameters
may result in the problem that is underconstrained when it does not
have a unique solution.
Implementation of the Deconvolution Algorithm
The main objective of this work is to evaluate performance and
identify possible limitations of the von Schroeter deconvolution
algorithm. So, in our implementation of the algorithm, we incor-
porated all the novel ideas1,2 ascribed to the improved algorithm’s
performance. We should note, however, that our implementation is
not identical to the original von Schroeter algorithm. Hence,
strictly speaking, the algorithm performance discussed in this pa-
per is that of our variant of the algorithm and not of the original
von Schroeter algorithm.
Our implementation is different on a number of points. Instead of
the variable projection algorithm suggested by the authors,1 we use
the algorithm for unconstrained minimization by Dennis and Schna-
bel.10 There also are differences in the definition of objective function
for least-squares minimization and in the minimization parameters.
We can look at deconvolution as a process of fitting the pressure and
April 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
rate measurements obtained during a well test to a data model with
adjustable parameters.11 Rate measurements here are the rates during
individual flow periods. In our case, the model is defined by the right
side of Eq. 3 and by curvature constraints imposed to produce a
physically meaningful function z(␴). Model parameters are the terms
on the right side of Eq. 3: the function z(␴), the rate q(t), and the initial
pressure p0. Note that rate plays a dual role. It belongs to the model
parameters; it is also part of the test data that must be fitted to the
model. As a model parameter, a rate value during the flow period may
be different from the corresponding rate measurement for the same
flow period.
Model Parameters. Our algorithm implementation has built-in
flexibility to process through deconvolution the pressure data for
any subset of flow periods of a well-test sequence. We also can
select the rates during specific flow periods to be included in the
list of model parameters. These are the rates that are adjusted
during least-squares minimization. We denote the vector of these
rate components as xq⳱{xq1,xq2,…,xqL}.
The pressure data selected for processing define the time in-
terval on which the result of deconvolution, the function z(␴), is
determined. The upper limit of this time interval, T, is equal to the
elapsed time from the start of well rate history through the last
point of pressure data selected for deconvolution. This then allows
us to define the uniform grid {␴1,␴2,…,␴N} that is used for re-
construction of function z(␴). Here, ␴N⳱ln T. The grid is com-
pletely defined by two parameters: the first grid node ␴1 and the
total number of grid nodes N. Normally, we choose Nⱖ70.
We parameterize the function z(␴) by introducing a set of
parameters xzi defined as the values of z(␴) at the gridpoints ␴i,
xzi⳱z(␴i). For any other ␴, the function z(␴) is then approximated
by linear interpolation of grid-node values xzi. We can reconstruct
the constant-rate drawdown-response function pu(t) from the func-
tion z(␴) by integrating Eq. 2. To do this integration, we need one
more parameter: the value of pu(t) at the point t1⳱exp(␴1), where
␴1 is the first node of the grid. We denote the pu(t1) as xz0. The
vector of parameters xz⳱{xz0,xz1,…,xzN} completely defines the
functions z(␴) and pu(t) on the grid {␴1,␴2,…,␴N}.
The complete list of model parameters is the vector
x⳱{xz0,xz1,…,xzN, xq1,xq2,…,xqL, xp0}, which includes the re-
sponse-function parameters, the rate parameters, and the initial-
pressure parameter xp0⳱p0.
Model Constraints and Objective Function. Each data point
that has to be fitted to the model defines one constraint. There are
three types of constraints: pressure constraints, rate constraints,
and curvature constraints. We use the vector notation ␻p⳱{␻p1,
␻p2,…,␻pK} for the pressure constraints. Here, ␻pi are the values
of individual pressure points (measurements) selected for decon-
volution, ␻pi⳱p(ti). Similarly, rate constraints form the vector
␻q⳱{␻q1, ␻q2,…,␻qL}. The vector ␻q has the same rate com-
ponents as the vector xq. Finally, the vector ␻c⳱{␻c1,␻c2,…,
␻cN−1} represents curvature constraints. The number of curvature
constraints is N–1, where N is the number of nodes of the grid ␴i.
All the components ␻ci in the vector ␻c are set to zero to produce
a smooth solution z(␴). The three vectors form a complete con-
straints list ␻ ⳱{ ␻ 1 , ␻ 2 ,…, ␻ M }⳱{ ␻ p , ␻ c , ␻ q }. The total
number of constraints is M⳱K+L+N–1.
We use the notation ⍀i(x) for the model prediction to the con-
straint ␻i. The model prediction ⍀i(x) of ␻i depends on model
parameters defined by vector x. Also, let ␵ ⳱ {␵1, ␵2,…, ␵M} be the
vector of error estimates for the corresponding data points repre-
sented by the constraints vector ␻. Using these notations, we de-
fine the objective function for least-squares minimization as
兺冋 册
␻i − ⍀i共x兲 2
M
1
⌽共x兲 = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
2 i=1 ␵i
Model Predictions. At any time during a test, the model-
predicted pressure is given by the right side of Eq. 3. In our
notations, ⍀pi(x) is the model pressure prediction at the time ti,
p(ti). One can show that if the time corresponding to the first grid
April 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
node, t1⳱exp(␴1), is sufficiently small, the model prediction can
be presented as
ln ti
⍀pi共x兲 = p0 − q共ti兲 pu共t1兲 − 兰 q共t − e 兲 e
i
␴ z共␴兲
d␴. . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
␴1
The integral in Eq. 7 can be computed analytically if q(t) is a
stepwise constant function of time and if z(␴) is approximated as
a linear function on each interval of grid ␴j.1
The model prediction of a rate constraint is
⍀qi共x兲 = xqi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
The model prediction of a curvature constraint is2
1
⍀ci共x兲 = 共x − 2xzi + xzi+1兲. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
⌬␴ zi−1
Constraint Error Estimates. The objective function, Eq. 6, is a
measure of closeness of the model prediction computed for a set of
model parameters defined by vector x to the data that are fitted to
the model. Eq. 6 combines terms of different physical natures:
pressure, rate, and curvature constraints. These terms are expressed
in different units and may have numerical values differing by
orders of magnitude. The parameters ␵i in Eq. 6 are the scale
parameters that normalize individual terms in the sum so that they
would make comparable contributions to the objective function.
Test data acquired during a well test are always measured with
some errors. There is no point in fitting the data to a model exactly
if the data are known with some degree of uncertainty. Each of the
parameters ␵i in Eq. 6 characterizes the uncertainty (error band) of
the corresponding constraint ␻i. In this sense, ␵i are not free pa-
rameters that one could manipulate at will to control least-squares
minimization. These parameters must be defined based on prior
knowledge of data quality.
In our implementation of the deconvolution algorithm, we set
␵pi for all pressure constraints equal to the resolution of the pres-
sure gauge used in the test. For example, for quartz pressure
gauges, a good value for ␵pi is 0.01 psi. The situation is not so
straightforward with rate constraints. The rate during flow periods
when the well is shut in is equal to zero. Therefore, the rates for
these flow periods are never included in the list of model param-
eters and model constraints. For all other flow periods included in
the list of constraints, we set ␵qi based on our estimate of possible
rate errors for corresponding flow periods. For example, larger ␵qi
may be assigned to flow periods during well cleanup, when the
well production stream is not sent through the separator and the
rate is not measured. For all curvature constraints, we set ␵ci equal
to one constant value. We have found that the value ␵ci⳱0.05
works well for all data sets that we have used during the validation
and testing of the deconvolution algorithm. This value has been
chosen to provide a small degree of regularization while not over-
constraining the problem and creating significant bias.
Initial Condition for Nonlinear Minimization. The objective
function defined by Eq. 6 is nonlinear with respect to model pa-
rameters x. In our implementation of the deconvolution algorithm,
this is a function of at least 70 variables. This function may have
many local minima, and the minimization process may converge to
any one of them. Only convergence to the global minimum pro-
duces the best data fit and successful pressure/rate deconvolution.
The starting point for nonlinear minimization, the initial vector of
model parameters x, affects whether the minimization process con-
verges to the global minimum. Selection of initial vector x is thus
critically important for successful deconvolution.
In our implementation of the deconvolution algorithm, we be-
gin minimization with the vector of model parameters defined as
follows: (1) the parameter xz0 is initialized to unity; (2) the re-
maining response function parameters xzi for i=1,2,…,N are set
to the same constant value, xzi⳱c1 (the expression for the con-
stant c1 is given in Ref. 1); (3) the rate parameters xqi are initialized
to the corresponding values of rate constraints; and (4) the initial
pressure parameter xp0 is estimated based on the record of test
115
Fig. 1—Example 1: Simulated test data used for validation of the
deconvolution algorithm.
pressure data. As an estimate, the xp0 can be set to the maximum
pressure during a test sequence.
Algorithm Validation. We illustrate here the performance of the
deconvolution algorithm on two sets of simulated test data. Using
simulated test data for code validation is particularly useful be-
cause we know exactly the result that the deconvolution must
produce. The first example is designed to validate the code and
evaluate its performance on the data that are consistent with the
convolution model defined by Eq. 1. The second example verifies
the performance of the algorithm on the data that are inconsistent
with Eq. 1.
Example 1. We convolved the type-curve solution for a ver-
tical well in a homogeneous reservoir with a rate sequence that
consists of two production and two pressure-buildup periods. The
reservoir is constrained by two parallel no-flow boundaries. The
simulated test data are shown in Fig. 1. The well is located at the
midpoint between boundaries. The type-curve model incorporates
wellbore storage and skin. The wellbore storage and skin are the
same for all flow periods of the test sequence.
The flow sequence in Fig. 1 mimics a typical well test on a new
well that may include a cleanup flow followed by a short pressure
buildup (PBU), a main flow, and a final PBU. The total test du-
ration is 250 hours. The durations of PBU periods in this example
are intentionally chosen to be only 50 hours so that there is not
enough time to develop the characteristic trend normally associ-
ated with parallel boundary geometry. This is illustrated in Fig. 2,
which shows the diagnostic derivative plot of the second set of
PBU pressure data.
Fig. 3 presents the result of pressure/rate deconvolution of the
simulated pressure and rate data from Fig. 1. The response func-
tion is reconstructed on the time interval equal to the total test
duration of 250 hours. The deconvolved response clearly shows a
Fig. 3—Example 1: Deconvolved response obtained from simu-
lated test data in Fig. 1 (markers) vs. original type-curve model
(continuous lines) used for computation of simulated test data.
116
Fig. 2—Example 1: Derivative plot of second PBU data from Fig.
1. The PBU is not long enough for the derivative to develop a
half-slope trend characteristic of parallel boundaries.
half-slope late-time derivative trend characteristic of channel-type
reservoir geometry. Fig. 3 compares the deconvolved response
with the original type-curve model used to compute the simulated
test data. Fig. 3 shows that the deconvolution algorithm completely
and accurately recovers the response function.
In this test of deconvolution algorithm performance, the pressure
data for all four flow periods of the test sequence are included in the
list of model constraints. The list of model parameters includes the
response-function parameters, the initial reservoir pressure, and the
rate for the first flow period. The value of the objective function is
reduced by 10 orders of magnitude during minimization.
We tried to determine the limitations of the deconvolution al-
gorithm and identify the situations when it fails, so we tested its
performance on inconsistent pressure and rate data. We used the
same pressure data but intentionally altered the rate for the first
flow period. We set the value of the corresponding parameter ␵q to
the introduced rate error to account for the large uncertainty asso-
ciated with this rate constraint. In addition, we started minimiza-
tion with an initial reservoir pressure that is significantly off of its
true value. The deconvolution algorithm did not have any prob-
lems in this case. It easily converged to the same solution and
correctly recovered the rate for the first flow period and the initial
reservoir pressure. We experimented with the degree of rate alter-
ation and found that the rate could be off by an order of magnitude
and the initial pressure could be off by hundreds of psi, and the
deconvolution still would converge to the correct result. However,
performance of the deconvolution algorithm is completely differ-
ent if the rates for both production periods are included in the list
of model parameters. This additional degree of freedom in the data
model often leads to the wrong solution unless the rates and the
initial pressure are initialized very close to their true values. This
experiment shows that algorithm performance is sensitive to the
number of model parameters and that the model parameters must
be tailored to the test data being deconvolved.
Example 2. This example is designed to test the performance
of the deconvolution algorithm for the case when test data are
inconsistent with the data model. We used the same rate sequence
and the same type-curve model as before. However, when con-
volving the type-curve solution and the rate data, we used different
values of the wellbore-storage coefficient during different flow
periods. The wellbore-storage coefficient is equal to 0.05 RB/psi
during the first three periods and 0.001 RB/psi during the last
PBU. Fig. 4 illustrates different wellbore-storage behavior by
comparing the derivative plots of two PBUs.
Fig. 5 presents the result of deconvolution for this case. The
pressure data for the whole test sequence are processed in one
sweep. In this example, the initial reservoir pressure and the well
rates are set to the values used in forward computation of simu-
April 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 4—Example 2: Comparison of the derivative plots of two
PBUs of simulated test data.
lated test data. Even with these simplifications, mimimization re-
duced the value of the objective function by only four orders of
magnitude, and the deconvolution algorithm was not able to re-
cover a physically meaningful response function in this case. One
should not be surprised by this result. This experiment simply
confirms that the deconvolution algorithm cannot produce the so-
lution in the case when such a solution simply does not exist. Fig.
5 illustrates an interesting consequence of what is essentially local
inconsistency between test data and the data model. An inconsis-
tency confined to a small portion of early flow-period data, caused
by changing wellbore storage, has a global effect on the result of
deconvolution. Deconvolution fails mostly at late time.
Having failed with processing the pressure data for the whole
test sequence in one sweep, the same deconvolution algorithm
easily deconvolves the pressure data for individual flow periods.
Fig. 6 presents the results of deconvolution obtained from the first
and second PBU pressure data sets by processing them separately,
one period at a time. Processing single-flow-period pressure data
produces a response function defined on the time interval from the
start of well rate history through the end of the flow period. In the
case of the first PBU in Fig. 6, the response function is recon-
structed on the time interval of 100 hours. Similarly, the time
interval for the response function derived from the second PBU
data set is equal to 250 hours. The response functions recovered
from individual PBUs in Fig. 6 correctly reflect the values of the
wellbore-storage coefficient and have correct late-time behavior
associated with parallel no-flow boundaries.
The pressure data from a single flow period do not contain
enough information to identify the initial reservoir pressure or to
Fig. 6—Example 2: Responses obtained by deconvolution of
the first PBU and second PBU data.
April 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 5—Example 2: Deconvolution of simulated test data with
changing wellbore-storage coefficient.
correct the rates. Therefore, data fitting is performed only on the
response-function parameters for a given value of initial reservoir
pressure and for given rate data. The only way to make a judgment
regarding the validity of these parameters is through comparison of
the deconvolved responses obtained by separate deconvolutions of
pressure data from several pressure-buildup periods.
Deconvolution of Real Test Data. Testing the deconvolution
algorithm on simulated data helped us to identify its limitations
and suggested the way for its reliable use with real test data. The
algorithm works well when applied to the pressure data from in-
dividual flow periods. Normally, only the pressure data during
pressure-buildup periods have the quality required for deconvolu-
tion. Subsequent comparison of deconvolution results derived
from individual PBUs allows one to identify correct initial reser-
voir pressure and assess the consistency of rate data.
We successfully applied our version of the deconvolution al-
gorithm in this mode to a large number of real tests. The data sets
considered include conventional well tests as well as data from
permanent downhole pressure gauges. We used this technique suc-
cessfully for both oil and gas wells. However, one can foresee
possible problems with low-pressure gas tests. Here, we demon-
strate performance of the algorithm on several real test examples.
Test Example 1. This is a well test performed on an oil well.
Fig. 7 presents the pressure and rate data. The total test duration is
128 hours. The test sequence includes four pressure-buildup peri-
ods. The PBU 1 follows well cleanup and is performed with the
Fig. 7—Test Example 1: Pressure (markers) and rate data. Con-
tinuous line is the test-sequence simulation using the model
developed for matching the system response in Fig. 10.
117
Fig. 8—Test Example 1: Comparison of deconvolved responses
derived from PBU 1 pressure data and PBU 3 pressure data. The
responses reflect different wellbore storage during these pres-
sure buildups.
well shut in at the surface. The two short PBUs, PBU 2 and PBU
4, follow downhole fluid sampling and were performed with sur-
face shut-in. The longest PBU, PBU 3, lasted for 48 hours and is
performed with downhole shut-in.
Fig. 8 compares the responses derived from the deconvolution
of PBU 1 data and from a separate deconvolution of PBU 3 data.
Fig. 9 presents a similar comparison of the response functions
derived from separate deconvolutions of PBU 3 and PBU 4 pres-
sure data. The two plots show essentially identical late-time be-
havior of the reconstructed response functions. The differences at
early time are wellbore-storage-related. Note that deconvolution of
the 7-hour-long PBU 4 data produces a response function defined
on the time interval equal to the total test duration of 128 hours.
This test example illustrates that, at least for late times, there
exists an equivalent constant-rate drawdown-system response be-
hind the variable-rate test data from Fig. 7. The deconvolution
algorithm can reconstruct this characteristic system behavior.
One can proceed with conventional analysis of the drawdown-
system response by matching it with a type-curve-model solution.
Fig. 10 presents the model match of the drawdown response recon-
structed from the PBU 3 data. Fig. 7 illustrates that the same model
reproduces the pressure behavior for the whole test sequence.
Test Example 2. This is a well test performed on a gas well.
Fig. 11 presents the pressure and rate data. The test sequence
includes cleanup flow followed by a short PBU. This is then fol-
lowed by a flow-after-flow multirate sequence and by main PBU.
The total test duration is 57 hours. The duration of the main PBU
is 29 hours.
Fig. 12 demonstrates comparison of the derivative plots for two
PBUs of the test sequence. The derivative curves in Fig. 12 are
very consistent. The only minor inconsistency indicated by Fig. 12
is slightly higher skin factor during cleanup PBU. This indicates
that the well did not clean sufficiently during the short cleanup
flow before the first PBU. The increasing derivative trend with the
slope close to one-half that develops 20 minutes after the start of
PBUs is a sign of channel-type reservoir geometry with a well
Fig. 10—Test Example 1: Model match of the response derived
from PBU 3 data.
118
Fig. 9—Test Example 1: Comparison of deconvolved responses
derived from PBU 3 and PBU 4 pressure data.
located between two parallel no-flow boundaries. The half-slope
derivative trend continues through the end of cleanup PBU. The
main PBU lasted significantly longer, and it shows that the de-
rivative stabilizes during the later part of PBU.
The data in Fig. 12 do not provide clear signs of a possible
future derivative trend following the end of main PBU. Depending
on how the derivative would evolve if the PBU lasted longer
(whether it would stabilize, decrease rapidly, or resume the in-
creasing trend again), the resulting well-test interpretation would
be very different. With a conventional derivative analysis ap-
proach, there is simply no information in Fig. 12 to lead the test
interpretation one way or another.
Pressure/rate deconvolution in this case allows us to extract
additional information from the same test data and conclude that
the well is completed in a closed reservoir compartment in which
the above-mentioned channel is truncated by no-flow boundaries.
Indeed, Fig. 13 presents a comparison of the drawdown response
derived from the deconvolution of main PBU pressure data with
the derivative plot of main PBU data. The drawdown-system re-
sponse here is reconstructed on the time interval equal to the total
test duration of 57 hours. This is significantly longer than the
29-hour duration of main PBU. One can see that the constant-rate
drawdown-response function in Fig. 13 develops a unit-slope de-
rivative trend at late time. Such derivative behavior during con-
stant-rate production is characteristic of pressure-transient behav-
ior in a closed reservoir compartment. The same closed reservoir
behavior shows as a rapidly decreasing derivative at late time on
the PBU derivative plot. Hence, we conclude that if the main PBU
would last longer, the corresponding PBU derivative curve in Figs.
12 and 13 would develop a rapidly decreasing trend at late time.
Fig. 14 illustrates the match of the response function derived
from deconvolution of the main PBU data. The model here is a
homogeneous reservoir model with a well completed in a narrow
channel truncated from two ends. Fig. 15 illustrates that the same
model reproduces the pressure behavior during main PBU. Fig. 11
presents a comparison of this model solution with the test pressure
data during a whole test sequence. Note that the solution is based
on constant skin factor during the entire test sequence. This is the
reason for the discrepancy between the test data and the simulation
during the cleanup period in Fig. 11.
Test Example 3. This example illustrates the application of
deconvolution analysis to permanent gauge pressure data. Fig. 16
presents the pressure and rate data. These are the data from a new
oil well during the first 4 weeks of its operation. There are a
number of PBUs recorded by the pressure gauge. Most of them are
very short. There are two reasonably long PBUs. The longest PBU,
the last PBU in the sequence, is 32 hours. The two PBUs show
relatively consistent behavior. The total duration of the pressure
record is 590 hours.
The pressure data in Fig. 16 have signs that well performance is
significantly affected by reservoir boundaries. This is also supported
by the diagnostic derivative plot of the last PBU in Fig. 17, in which
the derivative curve develops a half-slope trend at late time, indicating
channel-type reservoir geometry. However, the duration of this PBU
(32 hours) is too short to provide sufficient information on boundary
April 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 11—Test Example 2: Pressure (markers) and rate data. Continuous line is the test-sequence simulation using the model
developed for matching the system response in Fig. 14.
configuration to accurately predict the pressure behavior over 590
hours of data sequence. This is illustrated in Fig. 18, in which a model
that reproduces the PBU pressure in Fig. 17 does not honor the
pressure over the entire data sequence.
Deconvolution analysis in this case offers a way to determine
characteristic system behavior over a much longer time interval.
Fig. 19 presents the constant-rate drawdown response derived by
deconvolution of the last PBU pressure data. The response func-
tion is defined on the time interval of 557 hours. The half-slope
derivative trend in Fig. 17 that develops between 5 and 30 hours
levels off to a lesser slope at later time, indicating that the channel
widens further away from the well. Fig. 19 presents a model match
of the deconvolved constant-rate drawdown-response function.
The same model reproduces the pressure for the entire sequence;
this is shown in Fig. 20.
Conclusions
1. The von Schroeter deconvolution algorithm works well on test
pressure and rate data that are consistent with the convolution
model defined by Eq. 1. It fails, however, when used with in-
consistent data. Changes of wellbore storage or skin during a
well-test sequence are examples of possible inconsistencies.
These inconsistencies are often present in real test data. There-
fore, the von Schroeter deconvolution algorithm (in the original
form described by its authors) cannot be used reliably for analy-
sis of real well tests.
2. This problem is resolved if a deconvolution algorithm based on Eq.
1 is used with the pressure data from an individual flow period. Our
testing showed that when used in this mode, the algorithm per-
forms reliably with real test data. Deconvolution of test pressure
data one flow period at a time requires comparison and evaluation
Fig. 12—Test Example 2: Comparison of derivative plots of
cleanup PBU (diagonal) and main PBU (triangle) data.
April 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
of the results from several deconvolutions. The process is more
akin to test analysis than to automatic data processing.
3. We demonstrated performance and application of the deconvo-
lution algorithm to several real test examples. The new analysis
technique allows us to develop additional insights into pressure-
transient behavior and to extract more information from well-
test data than is possible by using conventional well-test-
analysis techniques.
4. Deconvolution unmasks the effects of rate variation and pre-
sents characteristic system pressure behavior on a longer time
interval compared to conventional analysis techniques. In some
cases, this longer time span of characteristic pressure behavior
allows interpretation of the same test data in terms of a larger
radius of investigation. Conversely, one can obtain the same
information as before with shorter test duration, less flaring, and
rig-time savings.
5. We have found deconvolution analysis to be extremely useful
for early detection of closed reservoir behavior. Pressure/rate
deconvolution also opens new opportunities for analysis of per-
manent gauge pressure data. It is a valuable addition to the suite
of techniques used in well-test analysis.
Nomenclature
B ⳱ formation volume factor, RB/STB, RB/Mscf
Cw ⳱ wellbore-storage coefficient, RB/psi
K ⳱ number of pressure constraints
L ⳱ number of data-model rate parameters
M ⳱ total number of data-model constraints
Fig. 13—Test Example 2: Comparison of the drawdown re-
sponse derived from the deconvolution of main PBU data
(cross) with the derivative plot of main PBU data (triangle).
119
 Fig. 15—Test Example 2: Model match of main PBU data using
the same model as in Fig. 14.
Fig. 14—Test Example 2: Model match of the response derived
from the deconvolution of main PBU data.
⍀, ⍀i ⳱ vector of data-model predictions
⍀ci ⳱ vector of data-model predictions for curvature
N ⳱ number of nodes ␴i constraints
p ⳱ pressure, psi ⍀qi ⳱ vector of data-model predictions for rates
p0 ⳱ initial reservoir pressure, psi
pu ⳱ unit rate drawdown-pressure response, psi/(STB/D)
q ⳱ flow rate, STB/D, Mscf/D
qsf ⳱ sandface flow rate, STB/D, Mscf/D Acknowledgments
t ⳱ time, hours The author would like to thank the management of BP for the
T ⳱ test duration, hours support and permission to publish this paper.
x, xi ⳱ vector of data-model parameters
xq, xqi ⳱ vector of data-model rate parameters
xz, xzi ⳱ vector of data-model response-function parameters,
References
xzi⳱z(␴i)
z⳱ function defined by Eq. 2 1. von Schroeter, T., Hollaender, F., and Gringarten, A.C.: “Deconvolu-
⌬ps ⳱ pressure drop across skin zone per unit rate, tion of Well Test Data as a Nonlinear Total Least Squares Problem,”
paper SPE 71574 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Con-
psi/(STB/D)
ference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September–3 October.
⌬␴ ⳱ grid increment
␵, ␵i ⳱ vector of error bounds for constraints 2. von Schroeter, T., Hollaender, F., and Gringarten, A.C.: “Deconvolu-
tion of Well-Test Data as a Nonlinear Total Least-Squares Problem,”
␵ci ⳱ error bounds for curvature constraints
SPEJ (December 2004) 375.
␵pi ⳱ error bounds for pressure constraints, psi
3. Kuchuk, F.J., Carter, R.G., and Ayestaran, L.: “Deconvolution of Well-
␵qi ⳱ error bounds for rate constraints, STB/D
bore Pressure and Flow Rate,” SPEFE (March 1990) 53.
␴ ⳱ logarithm of time, ln(t)
4. Baygün, B., Kuchuk, F.J., and Arikan, O.: “Deconvolution Under Nor-
␴i ⳱ nodes of response-function grid
malized Autocorrelation Constraints,” SPEJ (September 1997) 246.
␶ ⳱ time, hours (integration variable)
⌽ ⳱ objective function for least-squares minimization 5. Roumboutsos, A. and Stewart, G.: “A Direct Deconvolution or Con-
volution Algorithm for Well Test Analysis,” paper SPE 18157 pre-
␻, ␻i ⳱ vector of constraints
sented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
␻c, ␻ci ⳱ vector of curvature constraints Houston, 2–5 October.
␻p, ␻pi ⳱ vector of pressure constraints
␻q, ␻qi ⳱ vector of rate constraints

Fig. 17—Test Example 3: Conventional analysis approach. The

model solution matches the last PBU transient-pressure behav-
ior but fails to honor the pressure over the whole data span in
Fig. 16—Test Example 3: Permanent gauge pressure and rate data. Fig. 18.

120 April 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering


Fig. 18—Test Example 3: Conventional analysis approach. The
model derived from analysis of the last PBU data in Fig. 17 fails
to honor the pressure data over the entire data sequence.
6. Fair, P.S. and Simmons, J.F.: “Novel Well Testing Applications of
Laplace Transform Deconvolution,” paper SPE 24716 presented at the
1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington,
DC, 4–7 October.
7. Thompson, L.G., Jones, J.R., and Reynolds, A.C.: “Analysis of Pres-
sure Buildup Data Influenced by Wellbore Phase Redistribution,”
SPEFE (October 1986) 435.
Fig. 20—Test Example 3: Match of the entire pressure sequence us-
ing the model developed for reproducing the response in Fig. 19.
April 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 19—Test Example 3: Model match of the response derived
from the last PBU data.
8. Thompson, L.G. and Reynolds, A.C.: “Analysis of Variable-Rate Well-
Test Pressure Data Using Duhamel’s Principle,” SPEFE (October
1986) 453.
9. Bjorck, A.: Numerical Methods for Least Square Problems, Soc. for
Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, Pennsylva-
nia (1996).
10. Dennis, J.E. and Schnabel, R.B.: Numerical Methods for Uncon-
strained Optimization and Nonlinear Equations, Prentice-Hall Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1983).
11. Press, W.H. et al.: Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing,
Cambridge University Press, New York City (1992).
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl × 1.589 873 E–01 ⳱ m3
ft3 × 2.831 685 E–02 ⳱ m3
psi × 6.894 757 E+00 ⳱ kPa
Michael M. Levitan is a consulting reservoir engineer with the
Base Management Excellence Team in the BP America E&P
Technology Group in Houston, e-mail: levitamm@bp.com. Pre-
viously, he worked at the Heat and Mass Transfer Research Inst.
of the Byelorussian Academy of Sciences in Minsk, Belarus.
Levitan joined BP in 1982 at the Warrensville Technology Cen-
ter. His interests include pressure-transient analysis, formation
evaluation, well productivity, nonconventional well productiv-
ity, numerical reservoir simulation, and modeling. He holds an
MS degree in thermal physics from Byelorussian State U. and a
PhD degree in mechanical engineering from the USSR Acad-
emy of Sciences. Levitan is a member of the SPE Reservoir
Monitoring and Testing Technical Committee.
121