..
J c-PT b3 -03 -OS
Understanding the Muska! Method of
Analysing Pressure Build-up Curves
U4th Annual Technical Meeting, P. ((; N.G. Division, and
65th Annual General Meeting, a.I.M.) Edmonton, April. 1963)
ABSTRACT
The somewhat neglected Muskat
method is an excellent way to ob-
tain static pressure from build-up
curves. A re-examination of the
technique, accounting more rigor-
ously for fluid compressibility,
shows why the early part of the
Muskat pressure plot actually
curves upward, so that it sometimes
seems to give unsatisfactory re-
sults. A straight line, indicating a
correct static - pressure guess,
should be expected only for later
data; however, the time at which
the line stops curving can be esti-
mated simply. The study also re-
vealed that reservoir transmissibil-
ity and expansibility can be ob-
tained from the plot. Three other
methods of estimating static pres-
sure from build-up curves are com-
pared to the Muskat method. They
are less precise because they either
do not account adequately for com-
pressibility or they need more ac-
curate reservoir information than
is usually available.
INTRODUCTION
HE Muskat method of analys-
T ing bUild-Up curves seems to
have been neglected in favour of
other methods. This paper should
renew confidence in the Muskat
method in that it provides a new
theoretical basis for its use, adds
to its scope, shows why and when
it will sometimes fail and com-
pares it with some other techniques.
Applied to wells in a uniform.
bounded system, the Muskat meth-
od is shown to give static pressure
with very good resolution and
without the need for prior knowl-
edge of any reservoir parameters;
however. the plot behaves as a
straight line only for the later
build-up data. A modification to
the method permits determining
drainage-area transmissibility and
expansibility from the plot.
THE BASIC MUSKAT METHOD
In 1937 Muskat (1) published a
method for finding static pressure
from a build-up curve. It employed
a graphical plot in which one
guessed the static pressure (PWB)
and, for each pressure-time (Pw. t)
* Imperial. Oil l..rhnited, Calga'ry,
AlbeTta.
136
By V. G. LARSON*
observation. plotted (Pws-p,) on straight line with a slope of
the log axis versus time (t) on the -O.4343a1B and an intercept, when
t = 0, of (Alb,).
linear axis (see Figu,Te 1),
When t is small, the terms in
In this plot. if the static pres-
sure is estimated too high, the Equation (i) of higher order than
data will curve upwards; if too one become increasingly important
low, they will curve downwards. and the linearity is destroyed as
shown in Fiow'e 2. This is a
With the correct choice of static
pressure. the later- portion of the dimensionless** plot of Equation
plot forms a straight line. (D, the exact description of a build-
up curve, and Equation (ij). the
The words in italics are the key approximation. The two curves de-
to understanding the Muskat me- part from each other for dimen-
thod. Regardless of the static- sionless time less than 0.08. This
pressure guess, the early part of means that field data, which would
the Muskat plot always curves up- fall along the exact curve, should
wards. To apply the Muskat me- not be expected to plot on a straight
thod successfully, it is important line for early time. In other words,
to recognize that only later data a Muskat plot of field data wlll
should plot on a straight line. show curvature if data are not ob-
tained late enough in time. Thus
the Muskat method will not be
THEORETICAL VERIFICATION OF
EARLY TIME CURVATURE OF THE
applicable unless:
MUSKAT PLOT tD =
Bt>0.08
Substituting for B shows that data
H. J. Welge derived* the follow-
must be gathered for:
ing equation for the build-up curve
of a bounded well producing from t>300 q,p.or,z/ko hours
a uniform formation containing oil if the Muskat method is to be used.
of constant compressibility at a 300r--------,-----,----,
constant rate until stabilized:
pw = Pw, - A ~
e -a
"
Bt
'00 I-
I
n
I
At any given time B is constant
(see Nomenclature) but an and
.
<i
'0 ~-~P~~!t p.~~. _Hr~--
b n increase as the order n of the
o!'
,
term increases; hence successive
tenus of Equation (n decrease and, .J '0
!t I
when t is large enough. the second I'
l~PSlh
I'
and following terms can be neg- II
lected. For later time, the build-
up equation can therefore be ap-
, -- LI
proximated by: [I ' ~ I
I l1 t ----;-*'"i
I
A -",Bt I
0 20 40 60 60
Pw = Pw, - - e (ii)
TIME t (hoursl
bl
FiguTe 1.
Rearranging Equation (ij) and tak-
ing the common logarithm of each RESERVOIR 'TRANSMISSIBILITY
side yields the Muskat plot equa- FROM THE MUSKAT PLOT
tion: Reservoir transmissibility (kohl
poo) can be computed from the in-
log (Pw,-Pw) = log (Alb,)
tercept, at t=O, of the straight-line
- 0.4343 a,Bt (iii)
portion of the Muskat plot. In
Thus, when t is large, a plot of
log (Pws-p,) versus t will be a **Dimenslonless presslt/"e is de
fined by PD = pi A while dimen-
*See Appendix. sionless time is tD Bt. =
Journal of Canadian Petroleum
 '1'

,.;:

Equation (iii), when t=O the inter- 10 es are made. This means _it de-
cept is Albl; rearranging: pends on the size of the plot. Fig-
ure 3, which is a dimensionless
A = b, (Pw,-Pw) = b1I (iv) Muskat plot of a build-Up curve,
t=o
where: also shows plots resulting from
dimensionless errors in the static-
I = Intercept of straight-line pressure guess PwsD of ~ PwsD =
portion of 'plot when t = 0, psi. I ~ EXACT (Equation [) -1-0.01, -1-0.025 and -1-0.05. These
i 1.0
dimensionless erro.rs may be inter-
From Equation (iv) and the def- -"
o
uotLon preted in terms of a physical sys-
inition of A, the reservoir trans- .~ tem from the relationship between
missibilitjr is: w
E dimensionless pressure and physi-
;:; cal pressure: .,.
k"hI 1'0 = 141.2 qoBo/bl
o?
,
and, since bl = 1.191,
kohl!,o = 118.6 qoBolI (vl o!o. I "" p = A PD= (141.2!,oq oB./kohl Po
(vii)
....
,,
~,

, If Figure 3 was as large as a

DRAINAGE-AREA EXPANSIBILITY graph one might make in practice,
I
FROM THE MUSKAT PLOT one could see that curvature would
1
be obvious when a straight edge is
The constant B, which can be
laid along either of the APwaD
found from the slope of the Mus-
= 0.025 curves in the time range
kat plot, contains the parameters
0.08<tD <0.16, while on either of
k/c!,r." from which expansibility I
.10 .20 .30 the lines for L:>PwoD = 0.01 it is
can be computed. Except for the TIME to (Dimensionless) difficult to discern. Hence an error
absence of formation thiclrness h
Figure 2. in Pw,D of 0.025 could be recognized
and the presence of k/J1.' B is in- while one of 0.01 could not. The
versely proportional to drainage-
1.0
area expansibility.
From the slope of Equation (iii):
.9
.8
~\=-~=:~~- ---~-=l=-~= -f- .
4
.7 ~
= 110.4343 ",-e.t
,i
B
.,
= .0002638 k/c!,or." (vil
.6
.5
.. +-
~
TL ..
! I
I I
~-l-U_I I I
where:
A

.~ ~
~t is the change in t which re-
sults in Pw,-Pw changing by a fac-
tor of 10; i.e. moving through one .3 --+!I I
~-

I
cycle on the log axis.
Well-dralnage-area expansibility
is therefore given by: .2 ~- - ~. "
~l
'I
1
i r-,
!

i
~ I
: --1I
,
I
I

E = .".r."h.pcl5.615
= 0.0002638.".kohl5.615B!'o
c"'o
"'
Q)

I I
i\~~
~~~11 PW~D "i ,
I
. I\~~~l ~
'(i; 1
c
I
~_. I-+-J- I\~' ::;1 ~
bbl/psi.

\
Q)

. O. I
Substituting for kohl!,o from o .09
Equation (v) and B from Equation 1 '\J"~ I"
(vil, and since a, = 14.682: ,.
o .08
"
E = 0.112 qoBoL:> t/I bbl/psi.
0-
J
o
.07 ~ ---- --j--' \ 1\ \\1\0 "'-.1
1\'\ I"". i"-.- r---
.06
\- __ ~_ :.=-: __ T-+--1 'C\ 1'\'\ ~

tlti~~\'\ ~
~

""
EFFECTS OF WELL-BORE DAM-
o!' .05
AGE AND AFTER-PRODUCTION
Miller, Dyes and Hutchinson (2)
.04
- i I
showed that damage and after-
production effects should die out by
tD = 0.02. As the Muskat method
cannot be used until tD = 0.08,
.0 3 \ - +--
I------i r : i
I I
1\
\
1\
'\ \
I"\. I
I

these factors should not effect its .0 2

application.
1 I I I .
FACTORS IN RESOLUTION OF THE "-,'

MODIFIED MusKAT METHOD

Resolution of the Muskat method
depends basically on the degree to
I
.0 0
I
.02
I I I
,04 .06 .08 0.1
I
.12 .14
I
.16 .18 .20 .22 .24
1\ .26 .28
which one can recognize changes TIME t D (Dimensionless)
in curvature as different Pws guess- Figure 3.
Technology, Fall, 1963, Calgary 137
resolution is actually better than MUSKAT METHOD COMPARED DIMENSIONLESS ARPS & SMITH PLOT
this, since one would choose a final WITH OTHERS
static pressure falling between the
lines showing upward and down- The Muskat method is a simple
ward curvature. trial-and-error technique, has good
resolution and can yield the para-
The dimensionless resolution is meters conventionally expected of a
probably about 0.005, which is 1/5 build-up method. Furthermore, it
of the smallest recognizable error requires a minimum of field data.
in PwsD. This is translated into a
physical pressure resolution in
How, then, does it compare with o "1
l-
0
.
other techniques?
Table I with the aid of Equation
(vii). For example, the resolution a) Arps and Sm,ith
should be 1.4 psi in finding static
pressure for a well with 50 md-ft. The Arps and Smith (3) method
consists of plotting the rate of
which produced at 100 res. bbVD.
pressure build-up (dPIJdt) versus
Resolution depends also on the pressure (Pw) and extrapolating
data time-range. The values shown the plot obtained to the zero pres-
in the Table are for 0.08<tD sure build-up rate axis. The pres-
Figure 4.
<0.16. Resolution will be poorer sure at this intercept is termed the
for a shorter time-range and better static pressure.
for a longer one. A theoretical Arps and Smith For late time the Arps and Smith
plot can be constructed with the plot is a straight line, as differen-
Finally. the best resolution will
aid of Equation (i) and its time tiation of Equation (ii), the ap-
be obtained when a large number
derivative: proximate build-up equation, will
of precise pressure points are avail-
show. This probably occurs, as in
able.
the case of the Muskat method,
(viii) when tD<0.08. Although the Arps
TABLE I.
and Smith method could be used
Estimated ResoluNon of Muskat when data are available in this
Method jar Data in the Time Range At a given time the slope of the
bUild-Up curve is computed from time range, the Muskat method is
0.08 < tD < 0.16 Equation (viii), while at the same more direct and yields more infor-
kh, md-ft Resolution, psi time the pressure, which is conve- mation.
niently plotted as (Pws-Pw), is cal-
50 100 200 culated from Equation (0.
bbVD bbVD bbVD b) Mulde>'
10 3.5 7 14 Figure 4 shows a dimensionless Since the Mulder (4) method
50 .7 1.4 2.8 Arps and Smith plot. It is a curve
100 .35 0.7 1.4 contains elements of the Arps and
500 .07 0.14 .28 rather than the straight line orig- Smith method, it is appropriate to
1000 .035 0.D7 .14 inally postulated by its authors; discuss it at this point.
Calculated for J1-oBo = 1.0, as- accordingly, this technique should
suming a dimensionless resolution be used with caution, especially The method uses two curves, rate
of 0.005. since data obtained over a short of pressure build-up (dPw/dt)
period of time may appear to plot versus log t. and observed pres-
as a straight line. sure (Pw) versus log t (see Figure
A DIFFERENT WAY OF
EXPRESSING RESOLUTION DIMENSIONLESS MULDER PLOT
We have been discussing resolu-
tion for a time range 0.08<tD ,
< 0.16. Figure 3 shows that at tn , l-- /--" ,
0.16, the dimensionless static
. l
OlMEN1SIONLESS leulL6_up RiTE cURvi~/ V-
pressure will be 0.08 higher than the i--- - ---
1/
well-bore pressure measured at I-- 1-- -
that time. As discussed above, the ,.. / / -- ,
static pressure can be resolved to 1/ / :- .....OIMENSIONLESS PRESSURE BUILD-UP URVE

0.005. The percentage resolution is "

therefore 0.005 x 100/0.08 or 6%
17 1/ ,
1-- --
of the pressure increase remaining " if,
,
at the end of the test. This is in- " i/
dependent of the well's kh product
" ~ /
or production rate. ---. ,
The pressure increase remaining
", 1/ /
.

,
to final static pressure at a given
time can be easily detennined from
/ 1"- 1-- J-"
Figure 3 and Equation (vii). Thus ,.. ,
when to = 0.12, the remaining di- , I f-'
mensionless pressure increase is
0.145. For a 50 md-ft. wei! produc-
, ,
,m
ing at 100 res. bbVD, this is 40 "'" tn
psi. Figu,re 5.
138 Journal of Canadian Petroleum
 5), plotted on the same graph
.,i -sheet. It is stated that extrapolat-
fng the build-up-rate curve to
dp,,/dt = 0 giyes the fune at which
build-up ceases; the pressure read
from the build-up curve plot at this
time is regarded as the static pres-
sure.
Figure 5 is it dimensionless Mul~
,, der plot, calculated from Equations
(i) and (wi). It shows that the
build-up-rate curve is not a straight
line and that extrapolation should
be done with caution. Note that
if data were available to to = 0.15,
the rate curve extrapolates to
dPw/dt = 0 at to = 0.2. At this
time the build-up curve is 0.045
dimensionless pressure units from
static pressure; in other words, the
result is a dimensionless error in
static pressure of 0.045. This is 9
times larger than the esfunated
resolution of the Muskat plot for
data in the same time range.
c) Miller.. Dyes and Hutchinson
'Finding static pressure by the
'Miller, 'Dyes and Hutchinson (2)
method (MDH) requires the use of
a dimensionless pressure build-up
curve for the boundary conditions
existing in the field case.
The curve labelled uPressure
Build-up Curve" in Figure 5 is a
dimensionless build-Up curve for
bounded wells _to which the MDH
method can be applied; Perrille (5)
also gives this curve as well as one
for constant pressure at the drain-
age radius, while Reference (2)
gives data and curves in a different
fonn for the Same bmmdary con-
ditions.
Static pressure is fOWld in the
MDH method by first selecting a
pressure-time observation (Pw' t),
then converting the observed time
to dimensionless time (to = Bt),
entering the dimensionless build-up
curve at to to find the dimen-
1 sionless pressure increase (PwsD
j
PwD) remaining Wltil static pres-
:~ sure is attained and finally con-
j 4. The Muskat method is not
verting the remaining pressure in-
crease from dimensionless to phys-
ical pressure units: [(Pws-Pw) = A
(PwsD-PwD)]' The remaining pres-
sure increase is added to the initial-
ly chosen observed pressure to get
static pressure: [Pws = Pw + A
(Pw,o - p"o)]
In practice, a significant source
of error in applying the MDH me-
thod lies in the uncertainty of the
factors entering the constant B
= 0.0002638 ko/",c!,or,', which is
Technology, Fall, 1963, Calgary
needed to convert from physical to of the analytical method, such as
dimensionless time. Any error in stabilization before the' test, boun- :" ~ .'.
this conversion directly affects the dary 'Conditions, and formation
accuracy of the static-pressure re~ geometry and' homogeneity, must
suIt. always be considered. This is just
Consider the slope of the dimen- as true for the Muskat method as
sionless log-fune bUild-up plot at, for any other. The qualitative
say, tD = 0.1. This can be found and quantitative interpretation
from Figure 5 by seUing a straight techniques discussed in this paper
apply only to build-up curves from
edge tangent to the curve at the
a uniform, cylindrical, bounded
appropriate point. Thus:
well-drainage area.
d (PwsD - Pw0) Data from other systems may
= 0.7 form a straight line when displayed --' .'
d (log to)
on a Muskat plot;, such a plot must
Expressing the slope in terms of be analysed by the technique appro-
dimensionless time: priate to that system. For ex-
ample, Lefkovits, Hazebroek, Allen
d (Pw,o-p wo) = 0.7 (og e) dto/to and Matthews (6) apply the Mus-
= 0.3 dto/to kat-type plot to multilayer build-
Thus the dimensionless error in up curves. In addition, they point
static pressure is 0.3 times the frac- out some other types of reservoirs
tional error in dimensionless time. which exhibit exponential build-up
behaviour. Pollard (7) discusses
As an example of the significance another application for this type of
of this error, suppose the time-con- plot while Hazebroek, Rainbow and
version constant is known to with- Matthews (8) use it to analyse in-
in 20%, which would be good ac- jection-weI! fall-off behaviour.
curacy in practice. This means
that dto/to = 0.2 and the dimen- In general, when t4ere is doubt
about the validitY of a particular
sionless static pressure error would
be 0.06. This is 12 funes poorer Muskat plot, results of the analysis
should be checked against data
than the resolution estimated for
the Muskat method for data in a from other sources, such as alter-
nate methods. of build-up curve
comparable time range. Expressed
another way, the error would be 16 analysis, productivity index and
psi for a 5O-md-ft well producing drill-stem tests, etc.
100 res. bbVD.
CONCLUSIONS
Even though the MDH method
may have a lower resolution than 1. The Muskat method is a sen-
sitive technique for finding static
the Muskat method, it should be
noted that an MDH analysis can pressure using build-up curve data
be made much earlier in time than from bounded, uniform systems. In
is suitable for the Muskat method. addition, drainage-area transmissi-
Miller, Dyes and Hutchinson show bility and expansibility can be
that after-production dies out by found from the Muskat plot.
to = 0.02, while Perrine suggests 2. The early part of the Muskat
that a dimensionless shut-in time plot always curves upwardS, there-
of to = 0.05 is long enough for the fore data later than a certain time
MDH method. Thus, the MDH me- are needed for its successful appli-
thod can be used in the dimension- cation.
less fune range of 0.02 to 0.05 whlle
the Muskat technique is applicable 3. The fune at which the Mus-
only to later data, that is, Wltil to kat plot becomes valid can be esti-
is at least 0.08. This fact can be mated simply. .
"' :, . --
turned to advantage if, for some
. ,'-,
reason, early pressure data should only more direct than e1ther the
be missed. In such a case the Arps and Smith or the Mulder me-
Muskat method would handle the .thod, it is less critical in that it
later data while the MDH method does not rely on the extrapolation
would not, since curvature of the of a curve.
MDH plot at later time would pre-
vent obtaining a readily 4tterpret- 5. Unlike the Mlller, Dyes and
able slope. Hutchinson method, the Muskat
method does not require any reser-
voir parameters to find static pres-
A WORD OF CAUTION
sure. It cannot, however, be used
No build-up analysis technique on data obtained as early in time
shouid be applied indiscrimiuately. as can be handled by the Mlller,
The requirements and restrictions Dyes and Hutchinson method.
139
"','
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (5) Perrine) R. L., "Analysis of E = Well-drainage-al'ea ex-
Pressure Build-up Curves," pansibility, bbl/psi.
The writer would like to express Drill. ,;; Prod. Prac., API, 482
his appreciation to the Manage- (1956). e 2.718 . . .
ment of Imperial Oil Limited for (6) Letkovits, H. C., Hazebroek, P., h = Formation thickness, ft.
permission to publish this paper, Allen, E. E. ,;; Matthews, C. 8.,
and to the Jersey Production Re- "A Study of the Behaviour of I Intercept of straight-line
sem"eh CmThZJany, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Bounded Reservoirs Composed portion of plot on P WR
for permission to include the work
of Stratified Layers," SPE -Pw axis when t = 0,
Jogr., 43 (March, 1961). psi.
of Dr. H. J. Welge presented in the
Appendix. Special thanks are due (7) Pollard, P., "Evaluation of Acid
Treatments from Pressure = Effective formation per-
to Mr. A. G. Winestock, Imperial Build-up Analysis," Trans., meability to oil, md.
Production Research, Calgary, for AIME, 216:38 (1959). Oil production rate,
his assistance.
(8) Hazebroek, P., Rainbow) H.~ &; STB/D.
Matthews) G. S.) "Pressure Fall-
off in Water-Injection Wells," Oil viscosity, cpo
Trans., AIME, 213-250 (1958l. Formation porosity.
REFERENCES (9) BTitish Association for the Ad-
vancmnent of Science, Mathe-
'P" Pressure, psi.
(1) Muskat, M.: "Use of Data on matical Tables, Volume IV, Pressure, dimensionless.
Build-up of Bottom-hole Pres- PD
Part I, Bessel Functions, Uni-
sures," Petro Trans., AIME, versity Press, Cambridge Pw Observed bottom - hole
123:44 (1937J. (1958), p. 171. pressure at time t, psi.
(2) Miller, C. C., Dyes, A. B., ,;; NOMENCLATURE PwD ::= Observed bottom - hole
Hutchinson, D. A., Jr., "The pressure, dimension-
Estimation of Permeability and
Reservoir Pressure from Bot- less.
bn X n 2J o 2(X n ) /2
tom-Hole Pressure Build-up Static bottom-hole pres-
Characteristics," Pet'}"', TTans.,
AIME, 201, 182 (1954). Xu nth root of J1 (X n) =0 sure, psi.
(Reference 9),
(3) Arps, J. J. & Smith, A. E., Static bottom-hole pres-
"Practical Use of Bottom-Hole n 1,2,3, . . . . . sure, dimensionless
Pressure Build-up Curves," = radius of drainage, it.
DTill. &; Prod. Prac.~ API) 155
(1949l.
A = 141.2!"qoBJkoh r,
t Time after shut-in,
B 0.0002638 k / ",c!"re ' hours.
(4) Mulder, F. R. E.) "An Engineer-
ing Study of the Turner Valley
Oil and Gas Reservoir," Ex-
B.., Oil formation volume = Time, dimensionless.
cerpt published by T. G. East- factor, Res. bbl/STB.
Change in t for PI\'R
land TesteTs and Well Services c Effective fluid compress- pI\' to change by a fac-
Limited, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada. ibility, psi-I. tor of 10.

ApPENDlX"
The basic differential equation for flow of a slightly Separating the variables r and t in Equation (1), we
compressible liquid through a uniform porous medium obtain the zero order Bessel equation in the spatial
is variable. A solution to the equation in t is the expon-
ential function.
o2p lOP) oP, A combined solution which satisfies equation (1) is:
D ( ~-t -;:a; =~
n2Dt
2.": A,,'
- C(;
expressed here in cylindrical coordinates.
P V o (cc n r ) e (6)
A solution is required which satisfies the following n=l
initial, asymptotic and boundary conditions:
where
(a) At zero time (the moment of shutting in the
well) the quasi-steady-state flow condition must hold: U o (ocnr) = J o (cx nr) Y t (0: tiT",)
- J 1 (ocn1\) Yo (CCnr) (7)
!'q
P = Pwc + - - - [In (r/r w ) - r 2/2re2)] (2) Boundary conditions requiring no flow at l'w and 1'0
2"kh can be satisfied only if aU a/or = 0 for these radii:

(b) At infinite time, the bottom-hole pressure is -oU o

equal to the static pressure:
lim (Pws - pw) = 0 (3)
t->-oo - J1 (ocn1'w) Y1 (ccllr) (8)

(c) At all times there must be no flow at either Note that U 1 (OC [IT) = 0 if r ::::: r w ' By appropriate
boundary: choice of OC n values, U I (oo,1re) can be made equal
to zero, as follows:

::L=
140
0
(4) o (5) U 1 (ocnre ) = J 1 (ocnr,) Y1 (ocnrw)
- J1 (cxnrw) Yl (cctlre)

Journal of Canadian Potroloum

(9)
 If we restrict ourselves to moderate values of oonre pUB
then, since rw is very1much smaller than r e, J 1 (oc n
r w ) will be small. Also, Yl (0: nre) will be finite at IrJ, (ocr) dr =1 r J, (",T) (16)
moderate or large values of its argument. Thus, the
second term on the right-hand side of (9) may be

,
\
neglected. The above condition for finding the per-
missible roots therefore reduces to
(10)
Equating the expressions for right and left-hand
sides and solving for Am'
J 1 (ocnre) = 0
where oc 'nre is moderate. Am -- (17)
Equation (7) now reduces to
Do (ocnr) = Jo (oc nr ) Yl (ocnrw) (7' ) Inserting the expression for the Am into (12), the
solution becomes
Inserting this expression for Do into (6) and defining
new constants
(18)
(11)
p
we obtain
00
Evaluating the pressure at the wellbore,
(12) - CG m2Dt
I'q .:E__
00
e _ (19)
This solution must also satisfy the quasi-steady-state "kh (ex mre)2Jo2 (oc mre)
flow condition (2) at zero time. This can be accom- m =1
plished by inserting (2) into (12) and setting t 0 as = where, again,
follows:
The remaining condition to be satisfied is that the
Pwr + I'q [In (r/rw) - r'12.')] pressure approach the static pressure' in the limit as
time becomes very large. Any constant can be added
2"kh to the solntion and it wili still satisfy the orlginal dif-
00
ferential equation. Therefore.
=.:E An J, (oc nr) (13)
00 - oc m2Dt
n=l
e
The An may now be evaluated by making use of the
orthogonality properties of the Bessel function J ,. Both
Pw =P w,- I'q.2: (20)
"kh ~ '.-
sides of (13) are mUltiplied by rJ, (oc mr) and integ- m =1
rated between limits rw and reo The integrals on the
rlght-hand side of (13) will vanish unless m = n, in is a solution to (1) which satisfies all the above condi-
which case the infinite series reduces to tions. Equation (20) can be expressed in conventional
oil field units as: ..
;'.- ;.
' '

(~/2) [re2J o2 (,:X)mre) - r w2Jo2 (O::/mrw )]

co
Since rw2 < < r e2. the expression becomes
(Am/2) r e2 Jo2 (C( Imre)
Similarly, the left-hand side after integration becomes m= 1

w where:
I'q (rr .' J, (oc mrw) -J, (ccmrw) )
2rrkh ocm2 e
A = 141.2 l'oq,B o/k,h
- p.q Jo (oc mrw) D = 0.0002638 kol</>cl',
~--- X m= oc mre = m th root of Jl (Xm) = O.
2"kh
and

------~
*The buildup equation described
within was derived by Dr. R. J.
oc m' Welge of the Jersey ProeZ,wtion Re-
since the argwnent oc m rw will be small. In evaluat- search aompany~ Tulsa, Oklahoma;
however, the present author is
ing the left-hand side. the following identities were responsible for the exact form in
employed: which the derivation appears ~e.
IrSJ, (", r) dr =~3 J, (ccr)+~(r'J, (",r)-2r J, (ccr)
oc to( 2 ex:
), ~ (14)
(rlnrJ. (ccr) dr= : . ( J o (",r) + ",rlnrJl (ocr) ) (15)-

Technology, Fall, 1963, Calgary 141 -:-.'