Pressure Transient Analysis

University of Houston
Pressure Transient Analysis

Petroleum Engineering Spring 2001
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Description of a well test: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Types of tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Why we do transient testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Flow States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Development of Flow Equations for Flow in Porous Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Solutions to the Diffusivity Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Skin Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Wellbore Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Wellbore Storage (WBS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Radius of Investigation (ROI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Pseudo Steady-State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Shape Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Principle of Superposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Horner’s Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Buildup Test Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Derivative Analysis (Drawdown case) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Ideal vs. Actual PBU/DD Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Flow Regimes & Model Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Gas Well Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Gas Tests - Pseudo (Ψ(P)) Equation Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Pseudopressure or Real Gas Potential (Ψ(P)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Determination of Skin and D for Gas Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Multiple Rate Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Odeh-Jones Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Flow Regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Horizontal wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Pressure level in surrounding reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Drill Stem Tests (DST) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Conducting Well Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Wellbore Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
© 2000-2001 M. Peter Ferrero, IX

Introduction
Instructors:
Jeff App
email: app@wt.net
B.S.: Civil Engineering, Rice University

M.S.: Chemical Engineering, University
o f H ou sto n
Currently completing Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering,
University of Houston
Dr. Christine Ehlig-Economides

email: cee@slb.com
M.S.: Chemical Engineering, University of Kansas
Ph.D.: Petroleum Engineering, Stanford University
Grading:
• 20% homework
• 40% midterm
• 40% final
Textbook:
• Well Testing by John Lee
Introduction Page 2
Description of a well test:
Schematic:
Gas
Choke
Separator Oil
Water
Packer
Pressure gauge
Perforations
Fig. 1. Schematic of well test set-up
Process:
• flow well at single or multiple rates for time, tp.
• shut well in for pressure buildup (PBU), ∆t.
• measure P, T, and q’s (pressure, temperature, and flow rates, respectively).
Information gained:
• reservoir fluids [BHS (bottom hole sample), separator samples for PVT analysis]
• reservoir temperature and pressure (from gauge)
• permeability and skin (completion efficiency)
• reservoir description, qualitative (faults, changes in permeability, oil/water contact)
Description of a well test: Page 3

Types of tests
Drawdown test (DD)

• difficult to maintain constant rate
• this introduces scatter in mea-
sured FBHP (flowing bottom hole
pressure) q
T im e
Fig. 2. Drawdown test
Pressure buildup test (PBU)

• advantage: rate is known, i.e. q=0
• disadvantage: lost production
T im e
Fig. 3. Pressure buildup test
Injection test
• advantage: injection rates are
easily controlled
• disadvantage: analysis is compli-
cated by multiphase effects and q
possible fracturing P
T im e
Fig. 4. Injection test
Types of tests Page 4

Falloff test
T im e
Fig. 5. Falloff test
Interference/pulse test
• Tests connectivity of wells using a producers and observation wells
kh
- , and storativity φ hc t
• Used to estimate transmissibility -----
µ
Drillstem test (DST)

• Way to go for exploration
• Utilize downhole shut-in which greatly reduces wellbore storage (WBS)
• Accurate production rate measurement
• on site production facilities
Why we do transient testing

When we make a rate change, the system goes through a transition state during which the
steady-state solutions are not valid – this is known as transient flow. This is the period that
is the basis for well testing or pressure transient analysis.
• Steady-state equations do not yield “unique” values for k, h, & s:

141.2 q µβ r
∆ P = --------------------------  ln ----e- + S
kh  r 
w
• Log derived/core kh values are not always representative of system/reservoir kh.

• Well testing yields macroscopic, average system kh.
Why we do transient testing Page 5

Flow States
• Steady-state, ∂------
P
- = 0 , pressures
∂t
in reservoir/wellbore do not vary
with time.
For all time

P
rw re
Fig. 6. Steady-state flow regime

• Pseudo steady state,
∂P
------- = constan t , pressures in reservoir/wellbore are changing in a constant (linear) man-
∂t
ner
t1
t2
t3 P Linear
P
rw re Time
Fig. 7. Pseudo steady-state flow regime
Flow States Page 6

• Transient, ∂------
P
- = f ( x, y, z, t ) , pres-
∂t
sure in reservoir/wellbore are
t1
changing as a function of both
t2
time and location.
t3
P
rw re
Fig. 8. Transient flow regime
Development of Flow
Equations for Flow in Porous Media
Note: there is a good writeup in Appendix A of Lee.
What’s needed to derive the diffusivity equation is:

• A. Conservation of Mass (Continuity equation)
• B. Darcy’s Law
• C. Equation of State (EOS)
A. Continuity equation, cylindrical coordinates (r, z, θ)

∂
∂ ρv r r dθ dz + ( ρrv r ) dθ dr dz
ρv z r dr dθ + ( ρv z ) dz r dr dθ ∂r
∂z
∂
ρv z r dr dθ + ( ρv z ) dz r dr dθ
∂z
ρv r dθ dz
r
ρv θ dr dz
dz rd θ
dθ
ρv z r dr dθ
dr
Fig. 9. Cylindrical coordinate system
Development of Flow Equations for Flow in Porous Media Page 7

lbm ft lbm
mass flux, ρ v = ---------
3
- × --- = -------------
-
ft s 2
ft ⋅ s
[Rate of mass accumulation] + [Rate of mass outflow] - [Rate of mass inflow] = 0
∂ ∂
( ρθr dθ dr dz ) = r dθ dr dz ( ρθ )
∂t ∂t
∂
ρv r r dθ dz + ( ρrv r ) dθ dr dz – [ ρv r r dθ dz ] ....r direction
∂r
∂
ρv θ dr dz + ( ρv θ ) dθ dr dz – [ ρv θ dr dz ] ....θ direction
∂θ
∂
ρv z r dr dθ + ( ρv z ) dz r dr dθ – [ ρv z r dr dθ ] ....z direction
∂z
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
r dθ dr dz ( ρθ ) + ( ρ rv r ) dθ dr dz + ( ρ v θ ) dθ dr dz + ( ρ v z ) r dθ dr dz = 0
∂t ∂r ∂θ ∂z
.... divide by r dθ dr dz
∂ 1∂ 1∂ ∂
( ρθ ) + --- ( ρ rv r ) + --- ( ρ v θ ) + ( ρ v z ) = 0
∂t r ∂r r ∂θ ∂z
.... note that since there is no z or θ, the last two terms are 0
.... therefore, for a fully perforated interval, the RADIAL DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION is
∂ 1∂
( ρθ ) + --- ( ρ rv r ) = 0
∂t r ∂r
B. Darcy’s Law
k dP
ν r = – ----r
µ dr
k
ν = – --- ∆ P k dP
ν θ = – ----θ-
µ µ dθ
k dP
ν z = – ----z-
µ dz
Isotropic: k=kr=kθ=kz
∂ 1∂ k dP
∴ ( ρφ ) + ---  – ρ r ----r  = 0
∂t r ∂r µ dr 
or
1 ∂  k r dP ∂
--- ρ r ---- = ( ρφ )
r ∂r µ dr  ∂t
Assume single slightly compressible fluid - compressibility, c= constant
c ≡  – --------- d Vol → 1
1 dρ 1
--- ; Vol = ---
 Vol d P ρdP ρ
By integration:

P ρ
c ( P – P0 ) ∂ρ
ρ = ρ0e = ∫P 0
c dP = ∫ρ 0
------ ; ρ 0 ≡ base ρ
ρ
∂ρ c ( P – P0 ) ∂P ∂P
= c ρ0 e = cρ
∂r ∂r ∂r
∂ρ c ( P – P 0 ) ∂P ∂P
= c ρ0 e = cρ
∂r ∂r ∂r
1 ∂  k ∂P ∂
--- ρ r --- = ( ρφ )
r ∂r µ ∂r  ∂t
2
1  ∂θ
---  ∂P r --k- ∂P + ρ --k- ∂P + ρ r --k- ∂ P = φ ∂ρ + ρ  
r ∂r µ∂r µ∂r µ ∂ r2  ∂t ∂t 
2
k 1 ∂P 2 ∂P ∂ P ∂P
--- ---  cr ρ   + + ρr  = c φρ
µr  ∂r  ∂r ∂r  ∂t
Note:
1. Since φ doesn’t change wrt time, ρ ∂φ → 0

∂t
2 2
2. Also, since the pressure gradient is small,  ∂P « 1 ; ∴cr ρ  ∂P → 0
∂r ∂r
2
ρ k  ∂P ∂ P ∂P
--- ---  + ρ r  = c φρ
r µ∂r ∂r  ∂t
Canceling ρ’s, and dividing through by --k-

µ
2
1  ∂P ∂ P c φµ ∂P
---  + ρ r  = ----------
r ∂r ∂r  k ∂t
.... therefore, for a fully perforated interval, the RADIAL DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION
including Darcy’s law is
1 ∂  ∂P 1 ∂P k
---  r  = --- where η = ----------
r ∂r ∂r η∂t φµ c
To solve this you need two boundary conditions and one initial condition. For a closed
system:
Initial condition: P = Pi @ t=0
Boundary condition 1: No flow - ∂P = 0

∂r re

Boundary condition 2: ∂P qµ
= ----------------
∂r rw
2π hr w
For an infinite reservoir, BC1 becomes P → P i as r → ∞ .

Darcy’s law came from Darcy’s investigation of the sewers in Paris. He conducted his
experiments on flow through gravel.
Steady-state linear flow:
P1
q
k dP
velocity, u = – 0.001127 ⋅ ------- ⋅ P2
µβ d l
P e rm e a b i l i ty , k
W a te r v i sc o si ty , µ w
kA dP
q
q = – 0.001127 ⋅ ------- ⋅
µβ d l l
Fig. 10. Steady-state linear flow
Darcy velocity in Cylindrical coordinates
k dP
velocity, u = – 0.001127 ⋅ --- ⋅
µ dr rw
2π r w k dP
q = – 0.001127 ⋅ ---------------- ⋅ h
µ dr
r2
dr 2π r w k P2
q ----- = – 0.00708 ⋅ ---------------- ⋅ dP
r µ Pw
rw
kh ( P 2 – P w ) A re a , A = 2 π r w h (a re a o f c y lin d e r)
q = – 0.00708 ⋅ ------- ⋅ -------------------------
µβ r2
ln  -----
 r w Fig. 11. Darcy velocity in cylindrical coordinates
Examples of tests:
• In transient flow, pressure will decrease wrt time at constant flow rate.
• Separation of log-log and derivative plot indicates skin (larger separation=larger skin)
1. Derived diffusivity equation based on:

• Continuity equation
• Darcy’s law
• EOS
2. Assumptions:
a. Radial flow over entire net thickness
b. Homogeneous and isotropic porous media (kr=kθ=kz)
c. Uniform net thickness
d. q and k are constant (independant of pressure)
e. Fluid is of small and constant compressibility
f. Constant µ
2
g. Small pressure gradients (  ∂P « 1 )
∂r
h. Negligible gravity forces
Solutions to the Diffusivity Equation

3. Develop solutions to diffusivity equation.
• “Exact solution” - Van Everdingen & Hurst terminal rate solution (center, bounded, cir-
cular system!). (We won’t use this!)
∞ 2
–α tD 2
141.2 q µβ 2 tD 3 e J 1 ( α η r eD )
P wf = Pi – -------------------------- ⋅ --------
kh 2
r eD
+ ln r eD – --- + 2
4 ∑ ---------------------------------------------------
2
-
η=1 2 J 1
αη
2
( α η r eD – J 1 α η )
• Infinite reservoir, line source well

- constant rate, q
- unbounded (infinite acting) reservoir
1 ∂  ∂P 1 ∂P
--- r = ---
r ∂r ∂r  η∂t
a. Initial condition: P=Pi at t=o for all radius, r
b. Boundary condition (BC) #1:   r ∂P = -------------

qµ  f
- for t>0...constant rate condition
∂ r r w 2π kh
c. BC #2: P → P i as r → ∞ for all t
Replace BC#1 to obtain “line source” approximation
∂P qµ
lim r = -------------- for t>0
r→0 ∂r rw
2π kh
 ∞ –µ
2 
µβ  --------
–r 
Line source solution: P (r,t) = P i + 70.6 q---------
- Ei

- ; where  – Ei ( – x ) = ∫ e

-------- dµ
kh 4η t  x µ 
Solutions to the Diffusivity Equation Page 11

• DRAWDOWN ONLY
• Constant rate
• Unbounded reservoir
Limitations of the line source solution (Ei)

2 2
100 r r
a. Check to insure that Ei solution is valid ---------------w ≤ t ≤ ------e-
η 4η
2
100 r
- for t < ---------------w , the assumption of zero wellbore radius limits the accuracy of the
η
solution
2
re
- for - , effects of boundaries are felt, E i solution no longer
t > ------
4η
2
µβ  --------
–r 
valid. P (r,t) = P i + 70.6 q---------- Ei

-

kh 4η t
b. If Ei solution is valid, check applicability of ln approximation.
E i ( x ) = ln ( 1.781 x ) , x ≤ 0.02
2 2 2
E i  --------- = ln  -------------------- , --------- ≤ 0.02
–r 0.445 r r
 4η t  η t  4η t
For wellbore, Pw (if Ei is valid, then it’s always valid at the wellbore)
2 2
rw r w 0.01
ln approximation - ≤ 0.02
-------- but for Ei - ≤ -----------
--------
4η t 4η t 4
- If Ei function is valid at the wellbore, then ln approximation will always be valid at
the wellbore!
- Even if though the Ei function may be valid at radius, r (rw < r < re), the ln approxi-
mation won’t always be valid.
Skin Development
Skin, S, refers to a region near the wellbore of improved or reduced permeability
compared to the bulk formation permeability.
Impairment (+S):
• Overbalanced drilling (filtrate loss)
• Perforating damage
• Unfiltered completion fluid
• Fines migration after long term production
• Non-darcy flow (predominantly gas well)
• Condensate banking- acts like turbulence
Stimulation (-S)
• Frac pack (0 to -0.5)
• Acidizing
Skin Development Page 12

• Hydraulic fracturing
Generally S>5 is considered bad; S= -3.5 to -4 is excellent.
Flow efficiency, FE, is the ratio of flow without skin to the flow with skin,
Darcy w/o S 8
-------------------------------- , or FE ≈ -------------
Darcy /w S S+8
∆ P s = ∆ P ks – ∆ Pk
q µβ rs q µβ rs
∆ P s = 141.2 ---------- ln  ----- – 141.2 ---------- ln  -----
ks h  r w
 kh  r w

Pressure
q µβ k rs
∆ P s = 141.2 ----------  ----- – 1 ln  -----
kh  k s
  r w
rs
We define  ----- – 1 ln  ----- = S
k
∆ Pk k   r w
s
∆Pks
q µβ
∴∆ Ps = 141.2 ---------- S
∆ Ps kh
k including skin k of formation

rw rs
Radius
Fig. 12. Skin pressure drop
Combine with Darcy’s law:

∆ P total = ∆ PS = 0 + ∆ P S
q µβ re q µβ q µβ re
∆ P total = 141.2 ---------- ln  ----- + 141.2 ---------- S = 141.2 ---------- ln  ----- + S
kh  rw  kh kh  r w
S > 0 → Damaged ∴k s < k
S < 0 → Stimulated ∴k s > k
S = 0 → Undamaged ∴k s = k

SEM examples of various clays which can cause formation damage
Fig. 13. Smectite (left) and kaolinite (right) coat grains and fill a Fig. 14. Delicate wisps of "hairy" illite project into a pore. Note
pore. Note distinct differences in morphology of each that the fibers not only form a highly rugose surface
clay ("honeycomb" smectite; vermicular booklets of within the pore, but the fibers could break and migrate
kaolinite (x2000) under extreme fluid pressures (x2500)
(image courtesey of Westport Technology Center) (image courtesey of Westport Technology Center)
Fig. 15. Well-formed chlorite platelets form partial rosettes Fig. 16. Well-formed, but rather randomly oriented kaolinite
adjacent to, and coating quartz overgrowths (x2500) booklets post-date quartz overgrowths (x700)
(image courtesey of Westport Technology Center) (image courtesey of Westport Technology Center)

SEM examples of formation damage and stimulation
Fig. 17. SEM image of perforation damage with percussion fines Fig. 18. SEM image of completion damage with polymer
(x305) filament (x105)
Fig. 19. SEM image of pre-acid treatment (x3100) Fig. 20. SEM image of post-acid treatment (x3100)

Wellbore Solutions
1. Ideal reservoir (no skin)
2
q µβ  0.445 r w
–4
×10 k
P w (r,t) = Pi + 70.6 ---------- ln  -------------------- ; where η = 2.637
---------------------------------
kh  η t  φµ c t
2
q µβ  1688φµ c t r w
P w ( t ) = P i + 70.6 ---------- ln  ------------------------------- ; from Lee
kh  ktp 
2. Solution at sandface (including skin)

2
q µβ  0.445 r w q µβ
∆ P wf = P i – Pwf = ∆ P k + ∆ P skin = – 70.6 ---------- ln  -------------------- + 141.2 ---------- S
kh  η t  kh
2
q µβ  0.445 r w 
∆ P wf = – 70.6 ---------- ln  -------------------- – 2 S
kh  η t 
2
q µβ  0.445 r w
–4
2.637 ×10 k
P wf = P i + 70.6 ---------- ln  -------------------- – 2 S ; η = ---------------------------------
kh  ηt  φµ c t
Wellbore Storage (WBS)

• Unit slope on log-log plot of ∆P vs. time
• Straight line on cartesian, b ≠ 0
Storage between the sandface and shut-in valve allow the formation to continue to flow
when we affect a shut-in. This is due to fluid compressibility.
We will consider two cases:

1. A well with a gas-liquid interface
2. A liquid filled well
Wellbore Solutions Page 16

General definitions
Pt
Vwb = volume of liquid in well (ft3) β (RB/D)

qβ
Awb = cross-sectional area of well (ft2)

ρl = density of wellbore fluid (lbm/ft3)
Vwb
h = height of liquid column in
wellbore (ft)
dh
Awb
Gas-liquid interface hliquid
• pumping wells, gas lift wells

• injection wells (on vacuum) qSFβ (RB/D) Pw + Pt + ρlgh
144
• an approximation for most natu-
rally flowing oil wells (except Fig. 21. Wellbore storage definitions
highly undersaturated oils, P
>Pb)
Wellbore mass balance
[Mass inflow] - [Mass outflow] = Accumulation of Mass

24 d
( q SF β – q β )ρ = --------------- ( ρ v WB )
5.615 d t
3
 bbl
-------- ---------- --------
lbm ft
---------------  ----------
24 lbm 3
 D • 3  bbl = 5.615  3 • ft 
ft ft
Assume constant density, ρl
24 dv dv dh
∴( q SF – q )β = --------------- WB ; where v WB = A WB h ; WB = A WB
5.615 d t dt dt
24 dh
( q SF – q )β = --------------- A WB
5.615 dt
Note:
144 ( Pw – P t )
h = ---------------------------------
-
ρg
dh 144 dP w dP
= ---------- ; assume→ t =
dt ρg dt dt
24 144 A WB dP w
∴( q SF – q ) )β = --------------- ---------------------
-
5.615 ρ g d t
Wellbore Storage (WBS) Page 17

Definition: Wellbore storage coefficient for a gas-liquid interface

144 ABW 25.65 A BW bbl
c s = ---------------------
- = --------------------------
- --------
5.615ρ l ρl psi
Example:
3.5” tubing, A WB = 0.041 ft 2
ρ o = 50 lbm/ft 3
vwb = 100 bbl
depth = 17,000 ft
A
- = 25.65  --------------- = 0.02 --------
WB 0.041 bbl
Solution cs = 25.65 -----------  50 
ρl psi
(note that for a gas-liquid interface the cs is independent of well depth!)
Governing Equation (WBS)
c dP qsf = sandface flowrate, STB/D

( q SF – q ) = 24 ----s- w
β dt
q = surface flowrate, STB/D
cs = WBS coefficient, bbl/psi
β = formation volume factor, RB/STB
dP w = change in BHP wrt time
dt
BIG NOTE: Using downhole shut-in eliminates most WBS

Pure Wellbore Storage
B - Unit slope on log-log plot
A - straight line on cartesian plot
Why?
A - 100% WBS, q=0 (PBU)
c dP w
• qSF = 24 ----s-
β dt
• Therefore, cs can be calcu-

lated from the slope of a straight ∆P β q SF
line (intercept must be zero!) ------------- = m
24 c s
∆t
B - Log-log plot, 100% WBS, Fig. 22. cs from cartesian plot
q=0 @surface (PBU)

c ∆P
qSF = 24 ----s- --------
β ∆t
β q SF
- ∆t
∆ P w = ------------
24 c s
β q SF
log ( ∆ P w ) = log ------------
- ∆t
24 c s
log ∆Pw
β q SF m=1
log ( ∆ P w ) = m log ( ∆ t ) + log  -------------
 24 c s 
β q SF
-------------
24 c s
Estimate c s from any ( ∆ Pw ,∆ t )
pair on unit slope line
log ∆t
∆Pw, ∆t) pair on unit slope

Fig. 23. cs from log-log plot. Estimate cs from any (∆
line
d
(x)
d ln t
d d d d
( x ) = ln ( t ) ⋅ ( x) = t ( x)
dt dt d ln ( t ) d ln ( t )
d (x) = t d (x)
dt d ln ( t )
d β q SF
∴∆ P W = ( ∆ P W ) = t ⋅ -------------
dt 24 c S
[ Take log of both sides ]
β q SF
log ( ∆ P W ) = log ( t ) + log  -------------
d
dt  24 c S
β q SF
∴m = 1 intercept = ------------- for ∆P
24 c S
Completely liquid filled wellbore

Wellbore mass balance
[Mass inflow] - [Mass outflow] = Accumulation of Mass

24 d
( q SF β – q β )ρ = --------------- ( ρ v WB )
5.615 d t
[ Note → v WB = A WB h ]
( q SF – q )βρ = --------------- v WB  
24 dρ
5.615 dt 
1 ∂ρ dP  dρ   dP w dP
by chain rule c ≡ --- → = = cρ w
ρ∂P dt d P w  d t  dt
24 dP
( q SF – q )βρ = --------------- v WB c ρ w
5.615 dt
24 dP
( q SF – q )β = --------------- v WB c w
5.615 dt
v WB c bbl
c s ≡ --------------- -------- where c = average fluid compressibility
5.615 psi
Example:
vWB = 100 bbl
c = 1X10 -5 psi -1
–5
v WB c 100 ( 1 ×10 ) bbl
Solution cs = --------------
- = --------------------------------- = 0.0002 --------
5.615 5.615 psi
Note: for cs < 0.003 there is basically no WBS
Determining the end of WBS

c dP
qSF – q = 24 ----s- w
β dt
Drawdown case (100% WBS)

q SF = 0 initially as open to rate q
c dP
q = 24 ----s- w
β dt
Buildup case (100% WBS)

q = 0 initially as the well is shut in
qSF = fixed
c dP
qSF = 24 ----s- w
β dt
c dP
WBS is over when 24 ----s- w ≤ 0.01 q
β dt
q = rate prior to a PBU

= production rate for a drawdown test
PWF
q3
q2
q1
Radius of Investigation (ROI)

This is one of the basic concepts to well test analysis.
From the error function:
Ri = 4η t
2.637 ×10 k
–4
; η = --------------------------------- R feet
φµ c t
t hou P i
t1
k mD t2
P
f frac t3
m cp
c psi-r w r1 r2 r3 re
Fig. 24. Illustration of ROI
Radius of investigation is INDEPENDENT of q
Radius of Investigation (ROI) Page 21

Pseudo Steady-State
Depletion of a closed system
Pseudo steady-state occurs when the pressure transient has reached all boundaries in a
closed system.
The solution, based on the Van Everdingen & Hurst terminal exact solution of a bounded,
cylindrical reservoir is
2
q µβ 2η t re re
-------------------------- --------- + ln  ----- – 0.75 for t ≥ -------
PWF = P i – 141.2
kh 2  r w 4η
re
∂P WF 141.2 q µβ 2η- 2.637 ×10 k

–4
∴ = – -------------------------- ------ ; η = ---------------------------------
∂t kh re
2 φµ c t
∂P WF 141.2 q µβ 2 ( 2.637 ×10 ) k-

–4
– 0.0744 q β 2
= – -------------------------- ---------------------------------------- = ---------------------------- Note: V p = π r e φ h reservoir volume
∂t kh 2
re φµ c t φ c t hr e
2
∂P WF 0.234 q β ∆P
= – ---------------------- = --------
∂t ct Vp ∆t
This is very difficult to apply!
Shape Factors
p. 9-10 of Lee text
Principle of Superposition
The diffusivity equation is a linear homogeneous equation (with homogeneous BC’s).
1 ∂  ∂P 1 ∂P
--- r = ---
r ∂r ∂r  η ∂t
Therefore, linear combinations of solutions are also solutions. The combined linear
solution eliminates the following restrictions:
• Single well
• Reservoir boundaries
• Constant rate
Pseudo Steady-State Page 22

Multi-well solution
A
qC
rAB q
qB
rAC
B
qA
C
t
Determine ∆ P A
∆ P TOTAL = ∆ PA + ∆ PB + ∆ PC
A
2
qµβ 0.445r
∆P (r,t) = P i + 70.6 ---------- ln -------------------- – 2S
kh ηt
2
∆P = P i – P (r,t) = – 70.6 ---------- ln  -------------------- – 2S
qµβ 0.445r
kh ηt
2 2
q A µβ  0.445r 2 q B µβ  – r AB q C µβ  – r AC
∴∆ P TOTAL - E i  ------------ – 70.6 -------------
- ln -------------------- – 2S A – 70.6 -------------
= – 70.6 ------------- - E i  ------------
A kh  ηt  kh  4η t  kh  4η t 
2
r
Check for ln ( 1.781 x ) if --------
- < 0.02
4η t
Principle of Superposition Page 23

Boundaries
Single fault
Geologic model Mathematical Model
L L
L
q q
q actual image
no flow boundary
use image well)

Fig. 25. Single fault geologic model Fig. 26. Single fault geologic model
∆ Ptotal = ∆ P actual + ∆ P imag e

2
qµβ  0.445rw
2
q µβ –( 2 L )
= P i – PWF = – 70.6 ---------- ln  -------------------- – 2S – 70.6 ---------- E i  -----------------
kh  ηt  kh  4η t 
2 2
0.445 ( 2 L )
For long time, E i  4---------
L 
≈ ln  ------------------------------
4η t  ηt
For not totally sealing faults use FOG FACTORS (for q of image well):
• 1 = sealing
• 0 = no fault
• -1 = water drive (constant P)

Intersecting faults (90 degree)

Need three image wells

q
image
q
L 2 image
L
L 2
L L
q L L
q q
actual image
no flow boundary
(use e well)
Fig. 27. 90 degree intersecting fault geologic model Fig. 28. 90 degree intersecting fault mathematical model

Intersecting faults (45 degree)

Need seven image wells
q q
image image
q q
image image
q q
image image
q q q
actual image
(use image well)

Fig. 29. 45 degree intersecting fault geologic model Fig. 30. 45 degree intersecting fault mathematical model

Variable rate
Single well producing at variable rates (ideal, infinite reservoir)
q2
q1
∆P = f(q,t) q3
t0 t1 t2
=
q1
-q1
q2
-q2
+
q3
OR
q1
q2 -q 1
q3-q 2

General Solution
m 2
µβ  0.445 r w 
∆ P = P i – P WF = – 70.6 -------
kh ∑ ( q i – q i – 1 ) ln  -------------------------- – 2 S
 η ( t – ti – 1 )
i=1
Can incorporate dozens of rates
Horner’s Approximation
• Avoids the use of superposition to model variable rates
• Can replace the need for multiple E i ( ln x ) function evaluation each representing a rate
change, with a single function ( E i ) that contain a single rate and producing time.
Procedure
• Single rate used is most recent non-zero rate, qlast
• Producing time is cumulative production (Np) divided by qlast
∑ Production from well NP

t P = 24 ------------------------------------------------------------- = ----------
Most recent rate q last qlast
2
q last µβ  0.445 r w qnext PBU
∆ P = Pi – P WF = – 70.6 -----------------
- ln  -------------------- – 2 S
kh  η tP  q=0
Note: t last > 2 ⋅ tnext to last
Buildup Test Solutions

(Chapter 2 - Lee)
Ideal pressure buildup test
• Infinite acting reservoir (no boundaries have been felt by transient)
• Formation and fluid properties are uniform (Ei and ln function apply)
Horner’s Approximation Page 28

• Use superposition to model variable rates
q
∆t
tP
-q
∆ P = ∆ Pq – ∆ Pq = DD – PBU = ( P i – P WF ) – ( P WS – P WF ) = P i – P WS
t + ∆t ∆t
p
2 2
qµβ  0.445rw  ( – q )µβ  0.445r w
∆ P = P i – P WS = – 70.6 ---------- ln  ------------------------- – 2S – 70.6 ------------------ ln  -------------------- – 2S
kh η
 p ( t + ∆ t ) kh  η( ∆t ) 
2 2
qµβ  0.445r w   0.445rw
P i – P WS = – 70.6 ---------- ln  ------------------------- – 2S – ln  -------------------- + 2S
kh η
 p ( t + ∆ t )   η( ∆t ) 
2 2
qµβ  ------------------------
0.445r w   0.445r w
P WS = Pi + 70.6 ---------- ln  - – ln  -------------------- 
kh η
 p ( t + ∆ t )   η(∆t) 
∆t
= Pi + 70.6 ---------- ln  ---------------------
qµβ
kh  ( t p + ∆ t )
Note: ln x = 2.302 log x
( tp + ∆ t )
∴P WS = Pi – 162.6 ---------- log  ---------------------
qµβ
kh  ∆t 
q is the rate prior to PBU. Use Horner’s approximation with multiple rates
∆y P2 – P1
m = ------- = -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Pi = P* (infinite shut-in) ∆x  tP + ∆ t2  t P + ∆ t 1
162.6 q µβ log -------------------- – log --------------------
m = --------------------------
kh  ∆ t2   ∆ t1 
PWS
P2 – P 1 P2 – P1
= ------------------------------------------------- = ------------------- = P 1 – P 2
log ( 10 ) – log ( 100 ) 1–2
1000 100 10 1
tP + ∆ t
P + ∆t
Note: lim t----------------
------------------ - = 1
∆t ∆t → ∞ ∆t
P* is always taken as the extrapolation from the MTR irregardless of whether boundaries
or late time effects are seen. If late time effects are observed, P* may not correspond to Pi
or P
Buildup Test Solutions Page 29

Derivative Analysis (Drawdown case)

Bourdet derivative
d 1 d
= --------------- ⋅
d ln t 2.302 d log t
By chain rule
d( ) d d( ) 1 d( )
---------- = ln t ⋅ ---------- = --- ⋅ ----------
dt dt d ln t t d ln t
d( ) d( )
---------- = t ⋅ ----------
d ln t dt
Drawdown solution
2
q µβ  0.445 r w
P WF = P i + 70.6
---------------------- ln  -------------------- – 2 S
kh  ηt 
2 2
70.6 q µβ  0.445 r w 70.6 q µβ  0.445 r w
P i – PWF = – ---------------------- ln  -------------------- – 2 S = – ---------------------- – ln t + ln  -------------------- – 2 S
kh  ηt  kh  η 
Take Bourdet Derivative
70.6 q µβ 70.6 q µβ
– WF = t  – ----------------------  – --- = ----------------------
d (P P ) 1 d t 1
; ln = – ---
d ln t i  kh   t  kh dt t
d d 70.6 q µβ
( P – P WF ) = ( ∆ P ) = m = ----------------------
d ln t i d ln t kh
PWF
162.6 q µβ
m = --------------------------
kh
1 1000
log t P
70.6 q µβ
m = ------------------------
kh
70.6 q µβ
∴kh = -----------------------------------------------------------
d(∆P)
----------------
d ln t @ stabilization
d(∆P)
log ----------------
d ln t MTR
1 1000
log t
Derivative Analysis (Drawdown case) Page 30

Skin
a. DD
2 2
70.6 q µβ  0.445 r w 162.6 q µβ  0.445 r w
Pi – P WF = – ---------------------- ln  -------------------- – 2 S = – -------------------------- log  -------------------- – 0.87 S
kh  η t  kh  ηt 
 ηt   η 
Pi – P WF = m log  --------------------
2
 + 0.87 S = m log t + log  --------------------  + 0.87 S
 0.445 r w  0.445 r 2w
P i – P WF  η 
----------------------- = log t + log  -------------------- + 0.87 S
m  0.445 r 2 w
P i – P WF 2.25η
∴S = 1.151 ----------------------
- – log --------------- – log t
m 2
r w
Take t = 1 hour
P i – P WF 2.25η
∴S DD = 1.151 ---------------------------
1hr
- – log ---------------
m r
2
w
Semi-log MTR!
PWF
1hr
162.6 q µβ
m = --------------------------
kh
tp =1
log t P
∆ P = P i – P WF
∆P′ 70.6 q µβ
kh = – -------------------------
d(∆P)
----------------
d ln t
t ps
tP

b. PBU
The instant a well is shut-in, PWF :
2
q µβ  0.445 rw
P WF = P i + 162.6
-------------------------- log  -------------------- – 0.87 S
kh  η tP 
 η tP 
P WF = P i + m – log  --------------------  – 0.87 S
 0.445 r2w
P WF = P i – m log tP + log 2.25η

--------------- + 0.87 S ………………1, from Drawdown
2
rw
Shut-in pressure (during PBU),
tP + ∆ t
- ………………………………… 2
P WS = P i – m log ----------------
∆t
Subtract 1 from 2
tP + ∆ t  2.25η
P WS – P WF = – m log  ----------------- + m log t P + m log  --------------
- + 0.87 S
 ∆t   r2  w
P WS – P WF tP + ∆ t  k 
----------------------------- = – log  ----------------- + log  ----------------2- – 3.23 + 0.87 S
m tP ∆ t  φµ c r 
t w
P WS – P WF  k  tP + ∆ t
∴S PBU ∆t = 0
= 1.151 ------------------------------------------------- – log  ----------------2- + 3.23 + log  ----------------- – log ∆ t
m Horner semi-log MTR  φµ c t r w  tP ∆ t 
162.6 q µβ
m = --------------------------
kh
PWS
tP + ∆ t
log ----------------
-
∆t
∆ P = P WS – P WF
PWSskin ∆t = 0
∆P
q µβ
m ′ = 70.6
------------------------
d(∆P) kh
--------------------------------
tP + ∆ t
d ln  -----------------
 ∆t 
∆t s
log ∆ t

Ideal vs. Actual PBU/DD Tests

a. Drawdown case
PWF
162.6 q µβ
m = --------------------------
kh
Ideal (no WBS or LTR)
log t P
ETR LTR
Transient reaches boundaries
Actual PWF WBS
Reservoir heterogeneity
MTR
kh, S
Infinite acting
R adial flow
log t P
b. Drawdown: log-log plot
∆P
∆P
∆P’
Ideal
∆P’
log t P
∆P
∆P
∆P’ ∆P’
Actual
ETR MTR LTR

log t P
Ideal vs. Actual PBU/DD Tests Page 33

Flow Regimes & Model Recognition
Radial flow
homogeneous, infinite acting system
q µβ
Pi – P WF = 162.6 ---------- log t + constant
kh
∆P
∆P’ d( ∆P) q µβ
---------------- = 70.6 ----------
d ln t kh
ETR 70.6 q µβ
WBS dominates kh = -----------------------------
∆ P ′ stabilized
MTR
∆t
single fault
Using superposition and image wells
∆ P total = ∆ P well + ∆ P imag e
2
qµβ  0.445r w
2
q µβ 0.445 ( 2 L )
= Pi – P WF = – 70.6 ---------- ln  -------------------- – 2S – 70.6 ----------  ln ------------------------------ 
kh  ηt  kh ηt
= – 70.6 ---------- 2 ln  --------------- + ln r w + ln ( 2 L ) – 2 S

qµβ 0.445 2 2
kh  ηt 
PWF = P i + 162.6 ---------- 2 log  --------------- + log r w + log ( 2 L ) – 2 S

qµβ 0.445 2 2
kh  ηt 
d 1
Note: ( ln t ) = – ---
dt t
d( ∆P) d( ) d(∆P ) qµβ 1
---------------- = t ---------- → ---------------- = t 70.6 ---------- – 2 ---
d ln t dt d ln t kh t
∴slope doubles
2 faults, slope x4
3 faults, slope x8, etc.
LTR MTR ETR

ETR MTR LTR
∆P
P WS
2m
∆P’ ∆P
m
2m
∆P’
m
1 tP + ∆ t 1000
log t P log ----------------
-
∆t
Flow Regimes & Model Recognition Page 34

increase/decrease in kh or decrease in kh
Concentric model:
ETR MTR LTR

∆P
∆P
∆P’
inner
(kh)inner
(kh)outer outer
∆P’
log tP
Radius for kinner:
–4
2.637 ×10 k
ROI = 4η t ; η = ----------------------------------i
increase φµ c t
decrease t is where slope becomes negative
[For ROI’s in outer zone, use k of outer zone! No matter if the k is

higher or lower]
contacts
Same kh!
ETR MTR LTR  -----

kh 70.6 q µβ
- ----------------------
∆P  µ o ( ∆ P o )′
∆P - → same kh!
---------------- = ----------------------
 kh 70.6 q µβ
∆P’ ------ ----------------------
 µ w ( ∆ P w )′
∆Po’ ∆Pw’
µw
( ∆ P w )′ = ------
- ( ∆ P o )′
µo
log t P
variable kh!
µw < µo  -----
kh
-
 µ o
µw > µo ( ∆ P w )′ = ---------------- ( ∆ P o )′
 -----
kh
-
 µ w
constant pressure boundary

aquifer (strong)
gas cap (high compressibility)
water/gas support (pressure support)

2
µβ  0.445r w 0.445 ( 2 L )
2
∆ P = = – 70.6 ------- q ln  -------------------- – q ln  ------------------------------
kh  ηt   ηt 
2
µβ rw
= – 70.6 ------- q ln  --------------- – q ln  --------------- + q ln -------------
0.445 0.445
-
kh  ηt   ηt  2
(2L)
q µβ rw 2
∆ P = – 70.6 ---------- ln  -------
kh  2 L
Spherical (Partial Penetration Completions)
m=0
P WS
g o e s to z e ro (in th e o ry )
re a lity
1 tP + ∆ t 1000
log ----------------
∆t
- ∆t
early radial late radial
hp hT
transition region between early radial and late radial

early radial: khp, mechanical skin
(usually masked by WBS) - can estimate kv/kh ratio
spherical - t-0.5
m=0.5 late radial: khT, Sglobal=Smech+Spartial penetration

Sglobal can be very large (maybe 400-500)
∆t

Linear flow (Infinite conductivity fractures)
Linear Radial
∆P
flow flow
m=0.5
log tP
• linear flow region (0.5 slope) represents stimulated well

• fracture conductivity > 10,000 mD-ft
• time transition between linear and radial flow corresponds to the frac. length (half length
• kh and skin are calculated from the radial flow region (need kh to estimate frac length).
Therefore, to estimate the frac. length, for a large frac. into a “low” permeability zone,
you may need a pre-frac. test.
Bi-linear flow (finite conductivity fractures)
Bi-linear Linear Radial

flow flow flow
∆P
m=0.25
m=0.5
log tP
The bi-linear flow is very fast, need a very long

fracture to distinguish!
• fracture conductivity < 10,000 mD•ft

• pressure drop in fracture is not negligible
• almost never happens

- if you can see the bi-linear region, it can be used to estimate frac-conductivity (if the
matrix permeability is known)
- linear region is used to estimate frac. half length
- radial flow region is used to estimate kh, S
Gas Well Testing

Same analysis procedure as for oil well testing with the following exceptions:
• Gas properties (transport), µ, z, cg vary as a function of pressure. Gas is considered a
highly compressible fluid whereas oil is considered a slightly compressible fluid.
• Non-darcy flow, or turbulence, can exist in gas wells which shows up as a skin due to
extra pressure drop. Therefore, differentiation between true mechanical skin and skin
due to non-darcy flow is important
- non-darcy flow signifies that Darcy’s law does not properly predict the ∆P due to flow
of gas in porous media
ρν d
- in porous media, non-darcy flow develops when Re > 50 ( R e = ---------
-)
µ
- low µ and high velocities (close to the wellbore) are the contributing factors to non-
darcy flow
Gas tests - Diffusivity Equation Development
a. EOS for gas: =  ----------

MW  P R
- ---- → P = ρ z ----------
-T
RT   z  MW
For gases: µ and z may vary considerably as a function of pressure. Therefore, to account
for this, the pseudo-pressure function was developed.
P
P
ψ(P) = 2∫ ------ dP
PB µ z
Gas Tests - Pseudo (Ψ(P)) Equation Development

a. Continuity equation
∂ ∂ ∂
( ρ u x ) + ( ρ u y ) + ( ρ u z ) = – ∂ ( ρφ )
∂x ∂y ∂z ∂t
b. Darcy’s law
k k ∂P k ∂P k ∂P
u = --- ∇P ; u x = ----x- ; u y = ----y- ; u z = ----z-
µ µ ∂x µ ∂y µ ∂z
c. EOS
Gas Well Testing Page 38

- oil and water: slightly compressible fluids

c (ρ – ρo )
ρ = ρo e
- For gases
ρ = -----------  ----
MW P
RT z
(b) + (c) into (a)

isotropic → k x = k y = k z
2 2 2
∂P 2 ∂P 2 ∂P 2 ∂ P ∂ P ∂ P φµ c t ∂P
c   +   +   + + + = --------------------------------
-
∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x
2
∂y
2
∂z
2
2.637 ×10 k
–4 ∂ t
P
P
ψ( P) = 2∫ ------ dP
PB µ z
Differentiating Ψ(P) wrt x, y, z, and t

∂ψ 2 P ∂P ∂P µ z ∂ψ
= ------- ; = -------
∂x µz ∂x ∂x 2P∂x
∂ψ 2 P ∂P ∂P µ z ∂ψ
= ------- ; = -------
∂y µz ∂y ∂y 2P∂y
∂ψ 2 P ∂P ∂P µ z ∂ψ
= ------- ; = -------
∂z µz ∂z ∂z 2P∂z
∂ψ 2 P ∂P ∂P µ z ∂ψ
= ------- ; = -------
∂t µz ∂t ∂t 2P∂t
Input Darcy’s law into Continuity equation:

∂  k x ∂P ∂  k y ∂P ∂  k z ∂P ∂
ρ ----- + ρ ----- + ρ ----- = ( φρ )
∂x µ ∂x ∂y µ ∂y ∂z µ ∂z ∂t
ρ = -----------  ----
MW P
Input EOS: RT  z 
MW ∂  k x P ∂P MW ∂  k y P ∂P MW ∂  k z P ∂P MW ∂ P

-----------  ----- ----  + -----------  ----- ----  + -----------  ----- ----  = ----------- φ  ----
RT ∂ x µ z ∂ x RT ∂ y µ z ∂ y RT ∂ z µ z ∂ z RT ∂ t z
assume isotropic conditions k = k x = k y = k z
Ψ(P)) Equation Development

Gas Tests - Pseudo (Ψ Page 39
∂ P---- = ∂  ---- Þ ∂P ρ = -----------  ----

P MW P
∂t z  ∂P z  ∂t RT  z 
1 ∂ρ 1 MW ∂ P RT z MW ∂ P
c g = --- = --- -----------  ---- = -----------  ---- -----------  ----
ρ ∂P ρ RT ∂ P z MW P RT ∂ P z
c g =  ---- ∂  ---- ⇒ ∂  ---- =  ---- c g

z P P P
 P ∂ P  z  ∂ P z   z
∂ P ---- =  ---- c g ∂P
P
c g ≈ c t for gas reservoir
∂ t z   z  ∂t
∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂  P
Substituting ; ; ; ----
∂x ∂ y ∂ z ∂ t z 
φ c g  ----
P
∂   -----
P  µ z ∂Ψ ∂   P  µ z ∂Ψ ∂   P  µ z ∂Ψ  z  ∂P
- ------- + ------ ------- + ------ ------- = -------------------
∂ x   µ z 2 P ∂ x  ∂ y   µ z 2 P ∂ y  ∂ z   µ z 2 P ∂ z  k ∂t
φ c g  ----
P
2 2 2
1 d Ψ d Ψ d Ψ  z  µ z ∂Ψ
--- + + = ------------------- -------
2 d x2 d y2 d z 2 k 2P ∂t
2 2 2
d Ψ d Ψ d Ψ 1 ∂Ψ
+ + = ------
dx
2
dy
2
dz
2 ηg ∂ t
In radial coordinates:
–4
1 ∂ ∂Ψ 1 ∂Ψ 2.637 ×10 k
---  r  = ------ where η g = ---------------------------------
r ∂r ∂r ηg ∂ t φµ g c g
Ψ(P)) Equation Development

Gas Tests - Pseudo (Ψ Page 40
Pseudopressure or Real Gas Potential (Ψ(P))
Gas Liquid
r
ea
n
Li
Liquid: slightly compressible system
µz µz
Constant
c ( P – Po )
P
2
Ψ(P) P ρ = ρo e
2 0 00 3 0 00
P P
Approximation to Ψ(P)
0 ≤ P ≤ 2000 P
2
2000 ≤ P ≤ 3000 Ψ(P) Note: is good for all pressures

3000 < P P
a. Ψ(P) (good for all pressures)
Transient development
Drawdown equation
2
P sc q g T  1688φµ c t r w
Ψ ( P wf ) = Ψ ( P i ) + 50300 ------------------
- 1.151 log  ------------------------------- – S + D q g
T sc kh  ktp 
where Psc = atmospheric pressure (usually 14.7 psia)

Tsc = 520 ° R
T = ° R, reservoir temperature
S = mechanical skin
D = turbulence factor (non-Darcy flow)
OR,
2
1637 q g T  0.445 rw 2.637 ×10 k
–4
Ψ ( P wf ) = Ψ ( P i ) + ----------------------- log  -------------------- – η ( S + D qg ) where η = ---------------------------------
kh  ηtp  φµ g c t
P
Note: no µ g ,β g because Ψ ( P ) = 2 ∫ ------ dP
µz
Buildup equation
Ψ(P))
Pseudopressure or Real Gas Potential (Ψ Page 41
tp ∆t
time
1637 q g T tp + ∆ t
Ψ ( P ws ) = Ψ ( P i ) + ----------------------- log  ----------------
kh  ∆t 
Pseudo-steady state equation (PSS): when transient reaches all boundaries of reservoir -
must be a closed system.
P sc q g T  r e 
- ln  ----- – 0.75 + ( S + D qg )
Ψ ( P wf ) = Ψ ( P i ) + 50300 ------------------
T sc kh rw
OR
qg T  r e 
- ln ----- – 0.75 + ( S + D q g )
Ψ ( P wf ) = Ψ ( P i ) + 1422 ---------
kh  r w
b. P2- valid for low pressures (P<2000psi) where µz is constant. Gas properties µ, z, Bg,
etc. are evaluated at static pressure or initial pressure
Ψ(P))
P
P
Ψ(P ) = 2∫ ------ dP
PB µ z
- µz is a constant
P 2
2 P
Ψ ( P ) = ------ ∫ P dP = ------
µ z PB µz
2
P
- Drawdown transient equation: replaceΨ ( P ) with ------
µz
2 2 2
P wf Pi 1637 q g T  0.445 r w
------------ = -------
- + ----------------------- log  -------------------- – 0.87 ( S + D qg )
µz µz kh  η tp 
2000
for P 0
→ µz is constant
2
2 2 1637 q g µ zT  0.445 rw
- log  -------------------- – 0.87 ( S + D q g )
P wf = Pi + ------------------------------
kh  ηtp 
- Buildup transient equation:

2 1637 q g µ zT tp + ∆ t
- log  ----------------
2
P ws = Pwi + ------------------------------
kh  ∆t 
PSS equation:
2 2 q g µ zT  r e 
- ln  ----- – 0.75 + ( S + D q g )
P wf = P i + 1422 ----------------
kh rw
c. P- valid for high pressures (P>3000psi) where uz/P is constant. Gas properties evalu-
ated a initial/static pressure. Can use P for tests where Pi and lowest Pware greater than
3000 psi.
Ψ(P))
P Pi
Assume ------ = constant = --------- → at initial reservoir pressure
µz µi zi
P
P P P 2 ( Pi ) P
Ψ(P ) = 2∫ ------ dP = 2 --------i- ∫ dP = -----------------
-
PB µ z µi zi PB µi zi
Drawdown transient equation:

2
2 ( P i ) P wf 2 ( P ) P 1637 q g T  0.445 r w
------------- --------- = ------------i - ------i + ----------------------- log  -------------------- – 0.87 ( S + D q g )
µi zi µ z µi zi µ z kh  ηg tp 
2
1637 q g µ i z i T  0.445 rw
P wf - log  -------------------- – 0.87 ( S + D q g )
= P i + --------------------------------
kh 2 P i  ηg tp 
Consider real gas law:
 PV
--------  PV
--------
 zT  sc =  zT  res
1000  ----------
Scf
Vr P sc z i T r  Mcf 14.7 z i Tr z i T r  RB 
βg - in ----------
= --------- = --------- ---------- = ------------------------------ ----------- ---------- = 5.035 ---------
V sc T sc P i 520 P Pi  Mcf
 
i
Scf i
5.615 ---------
 bbl 
2
162.6 q g µβ g  0.445 r w
P wf = P i + --------------------------------i log  -------------------- – 0.87 ( S + D qg ) where µ is at end of drawdown
kh  ηg tp 
Buildup equation in terms of P:

162.6 q g µβ g tp + ∆ t
P ws = P i + --------------------------------i log  ----------------
kh ∆t
∆P  k 
S G = 1.151 -------- – log  ----------------- + 3.23
m  φµ c r 2  t w
PSS equation:
qg µi βg re
P wf = P i + 141.2 ------------------i ln  ----- – 0.75 + ( S + D q g )
kh  r w
Summary
1. Buildup and drawdown analysis are conducted on gas wells in the same manner as for
oil wells.
2. Choose Ψ(P), P2, or P depending upon the pressure range during test period
• Ψ(P) - valid for all pressures ranges. Gas properties for diffusivity, η , are evaluated at
the static or initial pressure.
• P2 - valid for low pressures (below 2000 psi) where µz is constant. Gas properties µ, z,
βg, etc. are evaluated at static or initial pressure.
P
• P - valid for high pressures (above 3000 psi) where ------ is constant. Gas properties are
µz
Ψ(P))
evaluated at static or initial pressure. Can use P for tests where Pi and lowest Pwf are
greater than 3000 psi.
3. For critical systems or systems where large variation in gas properties occur across the
range of test pressures, use Ψ(P).
Determination of Skin and D for Gas Wells

Global skin, Sg, calculated from gas well tests:
S g = Sm + D q
where Sm is mechanical skin and D is a turbulence factor.
Well deliverability or potential is not linear with P, but is dependent upon rate if D ≠ 0 . For
D ≠ 0 , Sg increases as a function of rate.
P D = 0
D≠0
PSS Equation:
q µβ re
-------------------------- ln  ----- – 0.75 + [ S + D q ]
P wf = P i – 141.2
kh  r w
Example of the effect of turbulence

S =5
m S =5
m
D=1x10-5(MCF/D) D=1x10-4(MCF/D)
q=40,000MCF/D q=40,000MCF/D
Sg= Sm + D|q| = 5 + (40000)(1x10-5) = 5.4 Sg= Sm + D|q| = 5 + (40000)(1x10-4) = 9
Multiple Rate Testing

• Method for discriminating between Sm and non-Darcy skin.
Determination of Skin and D for Gas Wells Page 45

• kh and Sg are evaluated in standard fashion through PBU’s.

a. Theoretical method
b. Empirical method
Multi-rate test types:

• Flow after flow tests - usually with increasing flow rate
• Isochronal
• Modified isochronal - most popular
• Multi-flows followed by one PBU
a. Theoretical method
The flow equation can be written in the form (Deliverability equations):
2
ψ ( P i ) – ψ ( P wf ) = aq + bq
2 2 2
P i – P wf = aq + bq
2
P i – P wf = aq + bq
Consider P>3000 psi, ψ ( P ) → P

1. Transient flow equation (DD)
q µβ  ηg tP 
P i – PWF = 162.6 ---------- log  --------------------  + 0.87 ( S m + D q )
kh  0.445 r 2w
q µβ  ηg tP  µβ 2
P i – PWF = 162.6 ---------- log  --------------------
2
 + 0.87 Sm + 141.2 ------- Dq
kh  0.445 r w kh
P i – P WF µβ  ηg tP  µβ
----------------------- = 162.6 ------- log  --------------------
2
 + 0.87 Sm + 141.2 ------- Dq
q kh  0.445 r w kh
P i – P WF
----------------------- = a ( t ) + bq
q
Multi-rate test (say 4 points) - flow times must be equal
Multiple Rate Testing Page 46

b (turbulence)
Pi – P wf
--------------------
q
a(t)
From intercept, mechanical skin, Sm:

µβ  ηg tP 
a ( t ) = 162.6 ------- log  -------------------- + 0.87 S m
kh  0.445 r2w
 µβ  ηg tP  
 a ( t ) – 162.6 ------- log  --------------------  
 kh  0.445 r2w 
Sm = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
µβ
141.2 -------
kh
a ( t ) kh  ηg tP 
S m = ---------------------- – 1.151 log  --------------------
141.2µβ  0.445 r 2  w
From slope, turbulence coefficient, D:

µβ
b = 141.2 ------- D
kh
–1
bkh
D = ----------------------  MSCF
------------------
141.2µβ  D 
2
r
2. Pseudo-steady state flow attained ( t P > ------e- for well centered in circular drainage area)
4η
q µβ re
P i – P WF = 141.2 ---------- ln  ----- – 0.75 + ( S m + D q )
kh  r w
P i – PWF µβ re µβ
----------------------- = 141.2 ------- ln  ----- – 0.75 + Sm + 141.2 ------- Dq
q kh  r w
 kh
µβ re
∴a = 141.2 ------- ln  ----- – 0.75 + Sm
kh  r w
µβ
b = 141.2 ------- D
kh

b
P i – P wf
--------------------
q
a
from intercept, a, calculate Sm

from slope b, calculate turbulence coefficient D
This yields the stabilized flow equation: P i – P WF = aq + bq2 . Use this to estimate flow rates
as a function of ∆P . Therefore, given “a” and “b”, you can estimate a drawdown for a
specified rate, or a rate for a specified drawdown.
NOTE: This development is possible only if PSS is reached during all rates in the multi-
rate test.
Same methodology is used for P2 and Ψ(P) analysis:

P2 :
• Transient flow
zT  η tP  1422µ zT 2
P i – P WF = 1637µ
2 2
------------------------ q log  --------------------  + 0.87 S m + ------------------------ Dq
kh  0.445 r2w kh
2 2
P i – P WF
------------------------ = a ( t ) + bq
q
zT  η tP 
a ( t ) = 1637µ
------------------------ q log  --------------------  + 0.87 S m
kh  0.445 r2w
zT
b = 1422µ
------------------------ D
kh

(Flow times must be equal)
a ( t )kh  η tP 
b S m = 1.151 ------------------------ – log  --------------------
2
Pi –
2
P wf 1637µ zT  0.445 r 2  w
---------------------
q bkh
a(t) D = ------------------------
1422µ zT
• PSS (all rates need to reach PSS)

re
------------------------ q ln  ----- – 0.75 + Sm + ------------------------ Dq
zT 1422µ zT 2
P i – P WF = 1422µ
2 2
kh  r w kh
2 2
P i – P WF
------------------------ = a ( t ) + bq
q
re
------------------------ q ln  ----- – 0.75 + Sm
zT
a ( t ) = 1422µ
kh  r w
zT
b = 1422µ
------------------------ D
kh
Deliverability equations:
Now, say we want a deliverability equation of the form Pi – P WF = aq + bq2 , but cannot flow
each rate to PSS. Alternative - flow 3 rates at transient conditions and final rate to PSS.
PSS
b Transient
P i – P wf
--------------------
q
a
b
a(t)

Note that the slope, b ≈ µβ D

----------- , is the same irregardless of whether flow is transient or
kh
pseudo steady state. However, the intercept, “a”, is different as shown on preceding
graph. The intercept from the stabilized or PSS flow is required for the deliverability
equation P i – PWF = aq + bq2 (“a” in this equation IS NOT a function of time).
c. Empirical method
• AOF - absolute open (hole) flow - ( PWS ≈ 14.7 psia )
• based on historical observation that a log-log plot of P 2i – P 2WF vs. q is approximately a

straight line.
Empirical equation:
2 2 n
q = c ( P i – P WF )
2 2 n q
( Pi – PWF ) = ---
c
1 1
--- ---
2 2 n  1 n
( Pi – P WF ) = q ---
 c
2 2 1 1 1 1 1
log ( P i – P WF ) = --- log q + --- log --- where --- log --- is constant
n n c n c
2 2 n = 1: Darcy flow
( P i – ( 14.7 ) )
n = 0.5: non-Darcy flow
Therefore,
2 2
slope = 1/n slope = 1: Darcy flow
log ( P i – P wf )
slope = 2: non-Darcy flow
AOF
log (q)
q
Once slope is determined, 1--- , estimate c from measured data: c = -------------------------------
- . Then the
n
n 2 2
( Pi – PWF )
n
deliverability equation becomes: q = c ( P 2i – P 2WF )
• Flow after flow

• Isochronal
• Modified isochronal

• Multi-flows followed by one PBU
a. Flow after flow (discussed)

Theoretical (equal flow times)
2
P i – P wf = a ( t ) q + bq - all rates in transient flow
2
P i – P wf = a ( t ) q + bq - stabilized deliverability equation (1 rate in PSS)
Lee’s book refers to stabilization or PSS for each rate, i.e. each rate must reach PSS.
Generally this is never feasible and not necessary. Usually never possible to have even
one rate reach stabilization.
b. Isochronal testing
• Applicable for any permeability - required for lower permeabilities

• Well is produced at four rates of equal time length
• Well is shut-in for PBU between each flow period until pressure builds back up to initial
or static pressure before proceeding to next rate
• Flow time of last rate may be extended until stabilization (PSS). This is done only if fea-
sible (need high permeability, small reservoir)
• Isochronal tests performed on wells where time to reach PSS too long
• Data recorded in isochronal tests is transient (except for last rate possibly)
• kh is estimated from PBU’s

q4
q3
q q2
q1
Flow equation (transient period)

P i – PWF µβ  ηtP  µβ g
----------------------- = 162.6 ---------g log  --------------------
2
 + 0.87 S m + 141.2 --------- D q
q kh  0.445 rw kh
µβ  ηtP 
a ( t ) = 162.6 ---------g log  -------------------- + 0.87 S m
kh  0.445 r2w
µβ
b = 141.2 ---------g D
kh
STANDARD: all 4 rates in transient flow
RARE: 3 rates transient flow, last rate in PSS
Comments:
• Estimation of D is independent of flow regime (transient/PSS)
• Calculation of intercept, “a”, is dependent upon flow regime which will impact deliver-
ability equation.
- If final rate reaches stabilization, deliverability equation will be more accurate
- If all rates are in transient regime, extrapolated rates based on deliverability equation
will be high (optimistic)
c. Modified isochronal
• Applicable to any permeability system

• Reduced time required to conduct

• Well produced at 4 rates, PBU following each rate. Flowing periods/PBU’s all same
time duration.
• Last pressure in each PBU is Pi for analysis of following flowing period (derivative,
Odeh-Jones)
• As with isochronal testing, last rate can be extended to stabilization (if practical) to pro-
vide more accurate deliverability equation.
• Same analysis procedure as for isochronal testing
• kh is estimated from PBU’s
q4
q3
q q2
q1
Pi 1 Pi 2 Pi 3 Pi 4
Analysis procedure:
1. Analyze each PBU for
• kh, S
• kh should be roughly the same from each PBU. If not, most likely error is in rate mea-
surement
2. Estimate Sm and D
• Plot Sg vs. q ( Sg = Sm + Dq )
- if Sg is constant then there is no turbulence
- if Sg is linear with q then there no turbulence

D
SG SG = Sm + Dq
Sm
3. Develop deliverability equation: Pi – P WF = aq + bq2

• transient
µβ  η tP  µβg
P i – PWF = 162.6 ------- log  --------------------
2
 + 0.87 S m + 141.2 --------- Dq
kh  0.445 r w kh
- kh is calculated from PBU’s

- Sm and D are calculated intercept and slope, respectively, from a plot of Sg vs. q
- µ and Bg are from static (phase behavior - PVT) data
- t is from test data
• PSS
q µβ re µβ 2
P i – P WF = 141.2 ------------g- ln  ----- – 0.75 + S m + 141.2 ------- Dq
kh rw kh
- can be developed if accurate estimates for kh, Sm and D are made from multi-rate/
PBU testing.
- need estimate of reservoir size, re. However, this is normally not very sensitive to the
r
answer ( ln  ----e- ≈ 7.5 )
rw
d. Multi-flows followed by one PBU

• Measure BHP vs. time

• Analyze PBU based on multiple rates - superposition
- Guess values for kh, Sg, Pi, Sm, and D until match all flowing pressures.
- Perform non-linear regression on flowing data to estimate Sm and D.
- Use Odeh-Jones analysis to estimate turbulence (pertains only to flowing pressures)
The advantage of flow after flow followed by a PBU is that it saves time. It does not require
multiple PBU’s. The disadvantage is that if a reliable kh value cannot be estimated from
the final PBU, then the entire analysis can be in error.
NOTE: SG = Sm + Dq IS NOT VALID

FOR FLOW AFTER FLOW! SG = Sm + Dq only works
for flow-PBU-flow-PBU...
D
SG SG = Sm + Dq
Sm

Odeh-Jones Analysis
Skin analysis (Sm) for gas wells based on flowing pressures. Extension of theoretical
development presented earlier.
Multi-rate Drawdown Test Analysis

2
µβ  0.445 r w
PWF = P i + 162.6 ------- log  -------------------- + 0.87 S G
kh  ηt 
Assume 2 rate test (both rates are non-zero) and apply superposition.
q2
q1
t0 t1
t
( P i – P WF ) = ∆ P
2 2 2
µβ  0.445 rw  0.445 r w  0.445 r w
= – 162.6 ------- q 1 log  -------------------- – 0.87 Sq 1 – q 1 log  -------------------- + 0.87 Sq 1 + q 2 log  -------------------- – 0.87 Sq 2
kh  η t   η ( t – t 1 )  η ( t – t 1 )
µβ
let m ′ = 162.6 ------
-
kh
∴( P i – P WF )
2 2 2
 0.445 rw  0.445 r w  0.445 r w
= – m ′ – q 1 log t + q 1 log ( t – t1 ) – q 2 log ( t – t 1 ) + q 1 log  -------------------- – q 1 log  -------------------- – m ′ q 2 log  -------------------- – 0.87 S
 ηt   ηt   ηt 
divide through by q2
( P i – P WF ) m′  η 
--------------------------- = ------ [ q 1 log t + ( q 2 – q 1 ) log ( t – t1 ) ] + m ′ log  -------------------- + 0.87 S
q2 q2  0.445 r 2w
where q 1 log t + ( q 2 – q1 ) log ( t – t 1 ) is the superposition time function, STF

( P i – P WF ) STF
Plot --------------------------- vs. ------------
q2 q2
Odeh-Jones Analysis Page 56

slope = m' =162.6 µβ µβ

------- ; kh = 162.6 -------
kh m'
P i – Pwf
--------------------
q2
intercept = b'
STF/q2
 η 
b ′ = m ′ log  -------------------- + 0.87 S
 0.445 r 2w
b′  η 
S G = 1.151 ------ – log  -------------------- 
m′  0.445 r 2  w
Now, if non-Darcy flow effects are present, skin increases with increasing rate. Therefore,
intercept values, b ′ , increases as skin increases.
b2′  η 
q2 - – log  --------------------
S 2 = 1.151 ------- 
m′  0.445 r 2  w
P i – P wf
-------------------- b1′  η 
q2 b2' q1 - – log  --------------------
S 1 = 1.151 ------- 
m′  0.445 r 2  w
b1'
S2 > S1
STF/q2
Odeh-Jones Analysis Page 57

Based on relation SG = Sm + Dq (if flow tests are performed followed by PBU’s)
D
SG
Sm
Flow Regimes
1. Radial flow - increase in separation of ∆P and ∆P' indicates increasing skin
∆P
cs kh, S, Pi
∆P′
2. Spherical flow (partial penetration completions)

Flow regime sequence:
- early radial (khp, Sm) - hp is the thickness of the perforated zone
- spherical (kv/kh)
- late radial (kht, SG, Pi) - ht is the total zone thickness
early radial: khp, Sm

(usually masked by WBS)
hp hT
kv/kh khT , Sg, Pi
m=0.5
3. Linear flow (hydraulically fractured wells)

- Infinite conductivity (no ∆P in the fracture)
Flow Regimes Page 58


- linear (fracture half-length)
- late radial (kh, S)
∆P Pi Same rate q
log ∆P, ∆P'
∆P' kh, S fractured
m = 0.5 (linear region)

- characteristic of stimulated wells
unfractured
∆t t
4. Bi-linear flow
- Finite conductivity fracture (∆P in fracture accounted for)
- bilinear - flow through fractures (usually masked- rarely seen)
- linear - flow from matrix to fractures
- late radial - radial flow in matrix (basically pure radial)
∆P
late radial: kh, S

log ∆P, ∆P'
∆P '
m = 0.5 (linear, fracture length)
m = 0.25 (fracture conductivity, R AR ELY seen)
∆t
Flow Regimes Page 59

Horizontal wells
h
kv, k h
kh h
L kvkh L
late radial
early radial transition
Early radial:
h L
Transition:
L
Late radial:
L

k
• Early radial - L -----v , perforation skin (Sm, if have khh)
kh
k
kv and kh play role in early radial response. Estimate L -----v and, if khh is known, then you
kh
can estimate the perforation skin, Sm.
• Transition region - estimate L (drainhole length) from beginning of transition. You need
khh to estimate L.
Horizontal wells Page 60

• Late radial - khh, SG

Need late radial to estimate the well’s productivity index (PI), Sm and drainhole length.
k
For long drainholes with low ----v- , it can take long times to reach late radial.
kh
When do horizontal wells outperform vertical wells:
k k h
L -----v » k h h or ----v- » ---
kh kh L
k
Physically this means thin reservoir sections with long drainholes with decent ----v- (0.05-0.1)
kh
Horizontal well outperforms vertical well Vertical well outperforms horizontal well
when: when:
k k
L -----v » k h h L -----v « k h h
kh kh
(Seen a number of times in Prudhoe Bay)
k h h, S g L kv kh , Sm
L kv kh , S m
k h h, S g
Note: If the deviation <65 degrees, then treat as a vertical well.
Pressure level in surrounding reservoir

1. Infinite reservoir
• extrapolation of MTR for Pi
• semi-infinite LTR for Pi (faults, kh changes, etc.)
P*=Pi
P*=Pi MTR LTR
PWS PWS MTR

ETR ETR
1 tP + ∆ t 1000 1 tP + ∆ t 1000
log ----------------
- log ----------------
-
∆t ∆t
Pressure level in surrounding reservoir Page 61

2. Depleted reservoir - average static drainage area pressure ( P ≠ P∗ )

P = stabilized pressure if well was SI in depleted field.
A B C
P
P
P
L or distance
P* method: Mathews-Brohs-Hazeroch (MBH)

(pp. 35-38 of Lee)
p t + ∆t
1. From Horner plot, extrapolate the MTR to P*, ∆ t → ∞ , ---------------
-=1
∆t
P*=Pi
LTR
P MTR
ETR
P WS
1 tP + ∆ t 1000
log ----------------
-
∆t
2. Estimate drainage area shape and size (A) in ft2

ηt
3. Calculate -------p- - use same tp used to construct Horner plot
A
4. Choose appropriate curve from figure 2.17 A-G (Lee)
ηt
5. Enter plot on abscissa at -------p- , go up to appropriate curve, read value of
A

2.302 ( P∗ – P )
------------------------------------- = P D , calculate P .
m MBH
P∗ – P 2.302 ( P∗ – P ) µβ q µβ
Note: ----------------------- = ------------------------------------- where m = horner MTR slope ( 162.6 q---------
- ). Also, 70.6 ---------- =
q µβ m kh kh
70.6 ----------
kh
the derivative m.
Advantages
• does not require data beyond MTR. However, MTR MUST be present
• applicable to wide variety of drainage shapes (well need not be centered)
Disadvantages
• requires knowledge of drainage area size and shape
• not good for layered reservoirs
• requires knowledge of fluid properties and porosity and ct
Example 2.6 P* method
Use data from examples 2.2-2.4
Well centered in square drainage area
–4 2
( 2.637 ×10 ) ( 7.65 ) ft
tp = 13630 hours η = ------------------------------------------------------------- = 3800 ------
( 0.039 ) ( 0.8 ) ( 1.7 ×10 )
–5 hr
P* = 4577 psia
m = 70
k = 7.65 mD
A = (2640)2 = 6.97x106 ft2 (160 acres)
ηtP ( 3800 ) ( 13630 )
-------- = ---------------------------------------- = 7.45
A 6.97 ×10
6
From figure 2.17A, p. 36

2.302 ( P∗ – P )
PD = 5.45 = -------------------------------------
MBH m
( 5.45 ) ( 70 )
∴P = 4577 – ---------------------------- = 4411 psia
2.302
Modified Muskat Method

(pp. 40-41, Lee)

Using superposition and PSS solution, the late time PBU can be approximated by:
q µβ  – 0.00388 k ∆ t
P – P WS = 118.6 ---------- exp  ---------------------------------
2
-
kh  φµ c t r e 
q µβ  k∆t 
log ( P – P WS ) = log  118.6 ---------- – 0.00168  ----------------2-
 kh   φµ c t r e
log ( P – P WS ) = A + B ∆ t
Therefore, plot log ( P – PWS ) vs.∆t. If correct, P will plot as a straight line. Data must be in
following time range:
2 2
250φµ c t r e 750φµ c t re
--------------------------- ≤ ∆ t ≤ --------------------------
-
k k
or
2 2
( 0.51 re ) ( 0.89 r e )
- ≤ ∆ t ≤ -----------------------
----------------------- -
4η 4η
Modified Muskat Method Procedure

1. Assume a value of P
2. Plot log ( P – P WS ) vs.∆t
3. If line is straight - correct P
If line curves upward - P too large
If line curves downward - P too small
Too large
log ( P – PWS )
Too small
∆t
4. Try another P using above guidelines until line is straight

Restrictions
• method fails if well not centered in drainage area
• requires long shut-in (needs to reach PSS)
• difficult to pick correct straight line

Advantages
• requires no knowledge of reservoir properties (A, φ, ct, etc.)
• works for hydraulically fractured wells (assuming radial flow is established)
Drill Stem Tests (DST)

• performed through dedicated test string (3.5-4.5)
• valves are annulus or tubing operated (perform poorly in mud due to solids)
• downhole shut-in a plus to minimize wellbore storage
• must kill well to recover string and gauges
• normally only done on exploration or appraisal wells
• requires rig to trip test string
• can perforate tubing conveyed perforators or wire line
• need cushion to bring well on (seawater, diesel, nitrogen)
Flow/PBU periods
• oil: 24 hour stable flow after cleanup (defined as basic sediment and water < 5%)
36 hour PBU
• gas: 3-4 rate test after cleanup, 8 hours per test (single rate, same as oil test, if D not
required)
36 hour PBU
Pressure measurement
• memory gauges
• surface readout
Conducting Well Tests

Completed Wells (development scenario)
• wells completed with final tubing string
1. Run memory gauges (2) on SL or use surface readout gauges (PLT) on EL

• quartz gauges with lithium battery (temperatures to 350F)
• Run gauges with well flowing or prior to opening up well. Must record flowing pressures
prior to PBU for skin calculation
• Obtain accurate rate measurement (history)
• Do not move gauge or wireline, or perform any well operation during PBU!
• Place gauge as close to perforations as possible to minimize phase segregation effects
• Make static gradient mm while pulling out of hole at conclusion of PBU to verify wellbore
fluid composition
• Memory gauges must be programmed on surface prior to running in hole on SL
Drill Stem Tests (DST) Page 65

• Rate of pressure measurement can be modified with surface readout gauges (EL)
2. Softset gauges - not good with sand production!

• Run tandem gauges on SL and set on bottom
• Retrieve days, weeks, months later and download/analyze data
• Need accurate rate measurement to take full advantage of pressure measurement
• Many short PBU’s will occur over weeks, months
• Use gap capacitance/quartz gauges
3. Permanent gauge installation

• Install 2 gauges (quartz) in mandrels
• Need electrical cable run to surface (similar to ESP), as well as, data transmission
cable (pressure, time temperature)
• Excellent for remote locations where wire line intervention is difficult. Negates the need
to run wire line gauges
• Payout over life of well (cost ≅ U$150,000)
4. Gauge/flowmeter installation
• Exal/Expro permanent gauge/flowmeter
• Quartz gauge
• Flowmeter, venturi effect, estimate flow rate based on ∆P (Bernoulli’s principle)
• Remote locations, subsea applications where a dedicated flowline per well is not feasi-
ble
• Only good for single phase flow
• An example of such an installation is the BP-Amoco/Shell/Marathon Troika project
Wellbore Effects
Phase segregation
• Need two or more phases
• If gradient changes between gauge and perforations during PBU due to phase segrega-
tion (water falling/oil rising, water falling/gas rising), the pressure data will be corrupted
until phase segregation is complete
• If gauge is above the interval and phase segregation occurs during PBU, the pressure
is greater than pure reservoir response
• Gas humping: Water falling back/imbibing into formation during PBU. Can be especially
severe in low permeability gas reservoirs. Remedy: Place gauges as close as possible
to top of perforations or within perforated interval or below interval (within 50 feet should
be OK)
Wellbore Effects Page 66

Index
ù
Buildup Test Solutions 28
÷
Continuity equation (cylindrical coordinates) 7
õ
Darcy’s Law 8
Derivative Analysis (Drawdown case) 30
Drawdown test 4
Drill Stem Tests 65
Drillstem test (DST) 5
ñ
Falloff test 5
Flow efficiency 13
Flow Regimes & Model Recognition 34
í
Horizontal wells 60
Horner’s Approximation 28
ë
Injection test 4
Interference/pulse test 5
Isotropic 8
ã
Mathews-Brohs-Hazeroch 62
Modified Muskat Method 63
Multiple Rate Testing 45
Multi-rate Drawdown Test Analysis 56
!
Odeh-Jones Analysis 56
#
Pressure buildup test 4
Pseudo (Y(P)) Equation Development 38
'
Radius of Investigation 21
)
Skin (drawdown) 31
Index Page 67
Skin and D for Gas Wells 45

Skin Development 12
Solutions to the Diffusivity Equation 11
Exact solution 11
Infinite reservoir, line source 11
Line source solution 11
Van Everdingen & Hurst terminal rate solution 11
Superposition 22
1
Wellbore Effects 66
Wellbore Solutions 16
Ideal reservoir (no skin) 16
Solution at sandface (including skin) 16
Wellbore Storage 16
Competely liquid filled wellbore 19
Determining the end of WBS 20
Gas-liquid interface 17
Index Page 68

Pressure Transient Analysis - Houston University

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Pressure Transient Analysis - Houston University

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

University of Houston

Gas Tests - Pseudo (Ψ(P)) Equation Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Pseudopressure or Real Gas Potential (Ψ(P)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Determination of Skin and D for Gas Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

© 2000-2001 M. Peter Ferrero, IX

B.S.: Civil Engineering, Rice University

Dr. Christine Ehlig-Economides

Description of a well test:

Fig. 1. Schematic of well test set-up

Description of a well test: Page 3

Drawdown test (DD)

Fig. 2. Drawdown test

Pressure buildup test (PBU)

Fig. 3. Pressure buildup test

Fig. 4. Injection test

Types of tests Page 4

Fig. 5. Falloff test

Drillstem test (DST)

Why we do transient testing

• Steady-state equations do not yield “unique” values for k, h, & s:

• Log derived/core kh values are not always representative of system/reservoir kh.

Why we do transient testing Page 5

For all time

Fig. 6. Steady-state flow regime

Fig. 7. Pseudo steady-state flow regime

Flow States Page 6

Fig. 8. Transient flow regime

What’s needed to derive the diffusivity equation is:

A. Continuity equation, cylindrical coordinates (r, z, θ)

Fig. 9. Cylindrical coordinate system

Development of Flow Equations for Flow in Porous Media Page 7

Assume single slightly compressible fluid - compressibility, c= constant

Development of Flow Equations for Flow in Porous Media Page 8

1. Since φ doesn’t change wrt time, ρ ∂φ → 0

Canceling ρ’s, and dividing through by --k-

Boundary condition 1: No flow - ∂P = 0

Development of Flow Equations for Flow in Porous Media Page 9

For an infinite reservoir, BC1 becomes P → P i as r → ∞ .

Steady-state linear flow:

Fig. 10. Steady-state linear flow

Darcy velocity in Cylindrical coordinates

1. Derived diffusivity equation based on:

Development of Flow Equations for Flow in Porous Media Page 10

Solutions to the Diffusivity Equation

• Infinite reservoir, line source well

b. Boundary condition (BC) #1:   r ∂P = -------------

Solutions to the Diffusivity Equation Page 11

Limitations of the line source solution (Ei)

Skin Development Page 12

Generally S>5 is considered bad; S= -3.5 to -4 is excellent.

k including skin k of formation

Fig. 12. Skin pressure drop

Combine with Darcy’s law:

Skin Development Page 13

SEM examples of various clays which can cause formation damage

Skin Development Page 14

SEM examples of formation damage and stimulation

Skin Development Page 15

2. Solution at sandface (including skin)

Wellbore Storage (WBS)

We will consider two cases:

Wellbore Solutions Page 16

Vwb = volume of liquid in well (ft3) β (RB/D)