A Straight-Line Approach To
Determine the Distance· to Barriers
Anh N. Duong, SPE, Gulf Canada Resources Ltd.
Summary. The pressure response for a well located near a linear impermeable barrier is differentiated and rearranged so that a linear
relation between the two variables of the pressure-derivative group and lit is obtained. A plot of log12.303p 'tim-II vs. lit yields
a straight line with a fixed intercept and a slope proportional to the square of the distance to the barrier (or boundary). The straight-line
approach is also extended to apply to two perpendicular no-flow barriers and to buildup test data. The advantage of the approach presented
here is that pressure data can be analyzed to determine the distance to barriers even if the late-time semilog straight line whose slope
is twice or four times the slope of the first semilog straight line is not reached. A field example Is included for illustration.
Introduction
A significant proportion of pressure-transient tests are conducted
on wells located near one or two impermeable barriers, and es-
timating the distance(s) to these barriers is desirable. Semilog
plotting techniques are usually used, 1-6 but they are inadequate if
the test is not long enough to reach the second or third semilog
straight line. Gray 7 provided a graphical technique that consists
of calculating the pressure difference between the extrapolation of
the first straight line and the actual pressure response to obtain the
distance to the barrier if the second semilog straight line is not
present. Martinez-Romero and Cinco-Ley 8 extended Gray's
method in the form of type curves to estimate the distance between
the well and the barrier for both drawdown and buildup tests. Both
techniques are valid only for determining the distance to a single
impermeable barrier. Tiab and Crichlow 9 used the pressure
derivative to construct type curves for interpreting the pressure-
transient behavior of a well located in various multiple-sealing-fault
systems and inside closed rectangular reservoirs.
In this paper, a straight-line approach that yields a straight-line
plot is introduced. The proposed approach is used to detect one
or two barriers encountered during the test and to estimate the dis-
tance from the well to these barriers for both drawdown and buildup
tests.
Approach
The pressure response for a well producing at a constant rate in
an infinite-acting reservoir is given by Eq. 1:
PWf=Pi+m{log t+log[k/(</>JLctr;)]-3.2275+0.869s}, ... (1)
where m = slope of the first semilog straight line representing the
radial flow regime,
m= -I62.6qBoJL/(kh).
If the reservoir has a linear impermeable barrier, as shown in
Fig. 1, the pressure response is given by Eq. 2:
PWf=Pi+m{log t+log[kl(</>JLc tr;)]-3.2275+0.869s}
-0.434m Ei(-L;Alt), ......................... (2)
where La = distance from the well to the barrier and A is a constant,
A = 3793.6</>JLct Ik . ................................. (3)
The derivative of the pressure response with respect to time is
P~f=0.434m[I +exp( -L;Alt)]lt. .................... (4)
Multiplying Eq. 4 by 2.303tlm, rearranging, and taking
logarithms of both sides, we obtain
logI2.303p~ftlm-II = -0.434L;Alt, for 2.303p~ftlm> 1.
...................................... (5)
The expression 2.303pivftlm-I is actually the derivative term of
the pressure difference between the pressure response for a well
near a barrier and the first semilog straight line, as depicted in Fig.
2. This technique has been referred to as desuperposition or negative
Copyright 1990 SOCiety of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Production Engineering, February 1990
superposition. 10,1l Therefore, Eq. 5 is applicable for the portion
of the data where the actual pressure behavior deviates from the
first semilog straight line.
It is clear from Eq. 5 that a plot of 12.303p~ft 1m-II vs. lit on
a semilog graph will give a straight line with an intercept of 1 and
slope, rna, related to the distance to the barrier, La. Thus,
rna = -0.434L;A ................................. (6a)
or La =0.0246[lm a lkl(</>Jlc t )]'h. . ..................... (6b)
For a linear barrier, the intercept at lIt=O will be 1. When the
intercept is greater than 1, the possibility exists that more than one
barrier has been encountered during the test.
Extension to Two Perpendicular No-Flow Barriers
A semi-infinite reservoir with two perpendicular no-flow barriers
was modeled analytically by the imaging method shown in Fig. 3.
The well positions with respect to the boundaries were simulated.
A semilog plot of pressure drawdown for a well located near two
no-flow barriers as depicted in Fig. 4 was created. This plot is
presented as an ideal case and divided into three regions: Region
1, where wellbore and near-wellbore effects dominate; Region 2,
where infinite-acting reservoir effects dominate; and Region 3,
where heterogeneous reservoir effects dominate. Fig. 4 has three
semilog straight lines, but only the slope of the first straight line
(middle region) represents the true transmissibility of the reservoir.
The data from the late-time region will be used with the value of
the first slope for calculating the distance to the barriers.
The pressure response from a real well may not exhibit all the
regions in Fig. 4. The middle-time region shown as the first semilog
straight line may be distorted because of wellbore-storage and skin
effects, or even partial-penetration effects. 12 If the test is not long
enough, the last part of the late-time region may be missing. In
the case of a well at equal distances from two barriers, the semilog
plot does not exhibit the doubling-slope feature.
For two perpendicular barriers, the pressure response will be
PwrPi+m{log t+log[kl(</>Jlc tr;)]-3.2275+0.869s}
-0.434m{Ei( -L;Alt) +Ei( -LlAlt) + Ei[ -(L; +Ll)Alt]).
..................................... (7)
The derivative of this pressure response with respect to time is
given by
p~r0.434m{l +exp( -L;Alt)+exp( -LlAlt)
+exp[ -(L; +Ll)Alt]}lt ......................... (8)
or P,'"f=0.434m[1 +exp( -L;Alt)][I +exp( -LlAlt)]lt. ..... (9)
Case 1: La =Lb' If the distances from the well to the barriers are
approximately equal, Eq. 9 can be written as
P,'"ft =0.434m[I +exp( -L;Alt)]2 ............ '.' ..... (10)
or (2.303p;""tlm) V2 -1 =exp( -L;Alt) . ................. (11)
Taking logarithms of both sides, we have
logl(2.303p~ft 1m) 'h -11 = -0.434L;Alt. . ............ (12)
65
 BARRIER
./"

La La
0
illlage well
•
real well
Early
Time
Region

Fig. 1-Llnear Impermeable barrier. Log t

Fig. 4-Semilog·plot time regions.

..E
....
~

~ 0
.::
fti
>
.;:
~

..=
CI
cD
en
log t
..
en
~

A.
Fig. 2-Semllog plot.
Ci
....=
CI

-1
0 lIt

Fig. 5-Specialized plot for two impermeable barriers.

Image Well Real Well
O--L a - -La-- e
of O-Le., log 1 at lit =0 and a slope ma related to the distance
-"
Barriers I to the closest barrier. Because the intercept of this straight line is
known, we need only a few valid data points to draw the straight
L.

n.
\ I line. Note, however, that the first data points usually produce er-
roneous values because the ratio 2.303p~ftlm is very close to 1.
The later portion of the data will deviate upward, as Fig. 5 shows.
I This behavior is a result of the second barrier. The later portion
of the data will be used to determine the distance to the second
L.
barrier. If the distance to the nearest barrier, La' is known, Eq.
I 9 can be written in another form:
0 na 0
Image Well Image Well 2.303p~ftlm[1+exp( -LJAlt)]-l =exp( -LlAlt) . .... (13a)

Fig. 3-Two perpendicular barriers. Replacing Imal =0.434LJA into Eq. 13a and taking logarithms
of both sides, we have

logI2.303p~ftlm[1 +exp( -2.303Ima llt)]-11 = -0.434LlAlt.

Eq. 12 is similar to Eq. 5 and yields a straight line with an in-
................................... (13b)
tercept of 1 and a slope ma if 1(2.303p~ftlmfh -11 is plotted vs.
lit on a semilog plot.
Eq. 13b has the same form as Eq. 5; therefore, the value of Lb
Case 2: Lb>La' BecauseLb>La' the effect of the closest barrier (distance to the second barrier) can be obtained:
is observed first. Thus, the pressure deviation from the first semilog
straight line is caused initially by the closest barrier alone and then, Lb =O.0246[lmb Ikl(t/>~Ct)] \-2 •••••••••••••••••••••••• (14)
at later time, by both barriers. Therefore, exp( -LlAlt) in Eq. 9
is negligible at early time when the pressure behavior is affected or Lb =La(mb Ima) ';", ............................... (15)
only by the closest barrier. In this case, Eq. 4 can be used as an
approximation for Eq. 9. Thus, a plot of logI2.303p'tlm-11 vs. where mb = slope of the straight line on a plot oflogI2.303p,'"ftl
lIt for early-time data will give a straight line with an intercept m[1+exp(-2.303Im a llt)]-11 vs. lit.

66 SPE Production Engineering, February 1990

 TABLE 1-PRESSURE-DERIVATIVE TERMS FOR DETECTING NO-FLOW BARRIERS

Number of Pressure-Derivative Calculated

Type of Test Barriers Term Distance
Drawdown 1 2.303p'wftlm-1 La
Drawdown 2 (2.303P'wf t1m) '12 -1 La
(La =L b )
Drawdown 2 2.303p'wf tim -1 La
(Lb >La) 2.303p'wft1m[1 +exp( - 2.3031m a I/t)1-1 Lb
Buildup 2.303P'w. to tim + 2t H -1 La
Buildup 2 2.303p'w.totlm + 4t H -1 La
(La=Lb)
Buildup 2 2.303P'w totlm + 2t H - 1 La
(Lb >La) (2.303P'w. to tim +4t H ifrexp( -2.303Im a l/tot) + 11-1 Lb

TABLE 2-RESERVOIR AND FLUID DATA
FOR FIELD EXAMPLE
rW' ft 0.22
cPo % 11
h.ft 26.2
qg. MMscflD 14.27
Jlg. cp 0.0215
Ct. psi- 1 231.7x10- 6
B g. res vol/stock-tank vol 0.056
T. of 145
t. hours 165
Extension to Buildup Tests
The pressure response for a buildup test encountering two perpen-
dicular no-flow barriers, as shown in Fig. 4, is given by
Pws =pi- 0 .434Iml {In[(tp +..it)/..it] + Ei( -LJAI..it)
-Ei[ -LJAI(tp +..it)] +Ei( -LlAI..it)-Ei[ -LlAI(tp+..it)]
+Ei[ -(L,i+Ll)Al..it]-Ei[ -(L,i+Ll)Al(tp +..it)]) . .. (16)
Differentiating Eq. 16 and rearranging, we have
12.303p;"s..itlml =[1 +exp( -LJAI..it)][1 +exp( -LlAI..it)]
-tH{1 +exp[ -L~AI(tp +..it)]}{1 +exp[ -LlAI(tp+..it)]} ,
.................................... (17)
where tH=Horner time, ..itl(tp+..it).
Case 1: Lb=oo (Single Barrier). For a single barrier, Eq. 17
becomes
12.303p;"s..itlml =[1 +exp( -LJAI..it)]
-tH{1 +exp[ -L~AI(tp+..it)]} . ................... (18)
If the producing period is long enough, the last term on the right
side of Eq. 18 can be approximated as -2tH' This assumption is
reasonable because the producing time is long enough to detect the
barrier from the buildup data. As Earlougher and Kazemi 13
pointed out, the radius of investigation during the flow period is
at least three times the distance to the barrier. They demonstrated
that for short producing times, the pressure behavior does not ex-
hibit the doubling-slope feature. In other words, exp[ -LJAI(tp +
..it)] can be approximated as 1 for a long producing time, tp' Thus,
logI2.303p;"s..itlm+2tH-11 = -0.434LJAI..it . ......... (19)
The approximation {exp[ -La 2A Itp +..it)] "'<I} should be
checked after the distance is calculated. If the assumption is not
valid, a trial-and-error procedure based on the calculated distance
should be used.
Case 2: La =Lb . The above approximation also yields a linear re-
lation between the variables for two perpendicular barriers located
at approximately the same distance from a well:
log I(Z. 303p;"s..it 1m + 4tH) y, -II = -0.434LJAI..it . ...... (20)
Case 3: Lb > La. If the pressure response has not been affected by
the second barrier, Eq. 19 can be used. The late-time portion of
the data will be affected by both barriers and will deviate from the
straight line as shown in Fig. 5; Eq. 21 should be used for this
portion of the data:
log I(Z. 303p;"s..it 1m +4tH)/[exp( -Z.303Im a l/..it)+ I] -11
= -0.434LJA l..it . ......................... _ .... (21)
Thus, Eqs. 19 through 21 have the same format as Eq. 5. A log
plot of the pressure derivative term vs. I/..it will give a straight
line with a fixed intercept and a slope proportional to the square
of the distance to the barrier. Table 1 summarizes the pressure-
derivative terms used for plotting the data for both drawdown- and
buildup-pressure data for a well located near one or two im-
permeable barriers.
Field Example
The proposed straight-line approach is applied to the buildup test
data from a gas well. The well is located in central Alberta, Canada,
and produces slightly sour gas.
After perforation, acidized fracturing was performed. The well
was shut in for buildup after producing for 165 hours at a rate of
14.27 MMscflD [404 x 103 m 3 /d]. Table 2 lists the reservoir and
fluid properties, and Table 3 gives pressure data and the calculations
used in this example. The wellbore-storage effects are negligible
because of the downhole shut-in tools. This can be demonstrated by
the use of a log-log graph, although such a graph is not shown here.
Fig. 6 is a Horner plot for 74 hours of buildUp. A straight-line
portion exists at the beginning of the test; the slope of this straight
line is 131.5 psi/cycle [907 kPa/cycle], yielding a permeability of
Z2.0 md. Note that the wellbore pressure starts deviating from the
semilog straight line at tH=0.OZ5, or 4 hours after shut-in, and
that the late-time slope has approached a value more than twice
the slope of the first semilog straight line. This deviation indicates
that the well is located near two impermeable barriers (or bound-
aries), an indication that agrees with the geological model, which
shows that the well is located in the corner of the pool.
To estimate the distance from the well to the nearest barrier, Eq.
19 should be used for the portion of the data where wellbore pressure
starts deviating from the semilog straight line. Table 3 also includes
the calculated values for P;"s..it and loglz.303p,'.,s..itlm+ZtH-11
(Cols. 4 and 7, respectively). The termp,'.,s..it is approximated by
dpld In ..it at the geometric average time, M2 =(..it 1..it2) y,. Fig .
7 is a plot of(2.303p;"s..itlm+ZtH-l) vs. lI..iton a semilog graph.
Note that in Fig. 7 a straight line that intercepts at 0 (log I =0)
gives a slope of -2.86 hours. Use of Eq. 6 gives the distance to
the nearest boundary:
La =0.OZ46[lm a Ik/(l/>p,c t )] y,
=O.0246{[(Z.86)(Z2)]/[(0. I 1)(0.0215)(231.7 X 1O- 6)],h}
=Z63 ft [80 m].
For validation of the approximation for buildup tests, the value
of 1 +exp[ -2.303Im a l/(t+..it)] should be close to Z. The calcu-

SPE Production Engineering, February 1990 67

 TABLE 3-PRESSURE DATA AND CALCULATIONS FOR FIELD EXAMPLE

Log of
Pressure-Derivative
Terms
I1t PW$ p'wsl1f I1f 1/11f First Second
(hours) (psi) ~ (psi) (hours) (hours -1) Boundary Boundary
0.00 1,796.37
0.08 2,582.16 0.0005
0.17 2,613.05 0.0010 41.0 0.12 8.575
0.25 2,634.95 0.0015 56.8 0.21 4.851
0.50 2,663.52 0.0030 41.2 0.35 2.828
0.75 2,686.00 0.0045 55.4 0.61 1.633
1.00 2,703.41 0.0060 60.5 0.87 1.155
1.25 2,717.91 0.0075 65.0 1.12 0.894
1.50 2,729.51 0.0090 63.6 1.37 0.730
1.75 2,739.23 0.0105 63.0 1.62 0.617
2.00 2,747.93 0.0120 65.2 1.87 0.535
2.50 2,761.42 0.0149 60.4 2.24 0.447
3.00 2,772.44 0.0178 60.5 2.74 0.365 -1.025
3.50 2,782.02 0.0207 62.1 3.24 0.309 -0.889
4.00 2,790.57 0.0236 64.1 3.74 0.267 -0.771
5.00 2,805.51 0.0294 66.9 4.47 0.224 -0.636
6.00 2,818.42 0.0350 70.8 5.48 0.183 -0.509
7.00 2,829.73 0.0406 73.4 6.48 0.154 -0.436
8.00 2,839.88 0.0462 76.0 7.48 0.134 -0.373
10.00 2,857.43 0.0571 78.6 8.94 0.112 -0.309
12.00 2,872.08 0.0677 80.3 10.95 0.091 -0.266
14.00 2,884.84 0.0781 82.8 12.96 0.077 -0.217
16.00 2,895.72 0.0883 81.5 14.97 0.067 -0.220
18.00 2,905.58 0.0982 83.7 16.97 0.059 -0.179
20.00 2,914.58 0.1079 85.3 18.97 0.053 -0.148
22.00 2,922.55 0.1175 83.7 20.98 0.048 -0.154
24.00 2,929.51 0.1268 80.0 22.98 0.044 -0.184
26.00 2,936.48 0.1359 87.0 24.98 0.040 -0.100 -0.773
30.00 2,950.25 0.1536 96.3 27.93 0.036 -0.003 -0.545
34.00 2,962.15 0.1706 95.0 31.94 0.031 0.002 -0.533
38.00 2,973.17 0.1869 99.1 35.94 0.028 0.045 -0.450
42.00 2,982.02 0.2026 88.4 39.95 0.025 -0.021 -0.559
46.00 2,991.01 0.2177 98.8 43.95 0.023 0.067 -0.400
50.00 2,998.98 0.2323 95.7 47.96 0.021 0.057 -0.408
54.00 3,006.82 0.2463 101.8 51.96 0.019 0.105 -0.327
58.00 3,013.78 0.2598 97.4 55.96 0.018 0.088 -0.344
62.00 3,020.74 0.2728 104.4 59.97 0.017 0.138 -0.268
66.00 3,026.69 0.2854 95.1 63.97 0.016 0.092 -0.323
70.00 3,031.76 0.2975 86.3 67.97 0.015 0.044 -0.381
74.00 3,036.69 0.3093 88.7 71.97 0.014 0.069 -0.338

lated value is 1.96 based on a distance of263 ft [80 m]. Therefore,
the approximation is valid.
Col. 8 of Table 3 shows the values oflog\(2.303p~s..:ltlm+4tH)1
[exp(-2.303 \m a \/..:lt) + 1]-1\ based on the previous plot. A
semilog plot of these values vs. 1/..:lfis also illustrated in Fig. 7.
The slope of this semilog straight line, mb, is -16.67 hours. Thus,
Lb =La(mblma) y, =263(16.67/2.86) y, =635 ft [194 m].
Therefore, the distances from the well to these boundaries are esti-
mated to be 263 and 635 ft [80 and 194 m].
The conventional technique is used for comparison. A second
semilog straight line with a slope of263 psi/cycle [1.8 MPa/cycle]
is drawn in Fig. 6. This slope is twice the slope of the first semilog
straight line because the doubling of the slope is a theoretical re-
quirement. On the basis of the intersection point of the two straight
lines, the distance to the nearest boundary can be estimated. 3 The
distance, La' is calculated as 251 ft [77 m] for this example. This
value agrees with the calculation of the proposed straight-line ap-
proach.
Advantages and Limitations of
the Stralght.Llne Approach
The straight-line approach has three major advantages over the type-
curve approach. 9
1. The straight-line approach is easier to use because an auto-
matic curve fitting can be performed.
2. The new approach gives a unique solution.
68
3. The new approach is already extended to apply for buildup
test data.
This approach presents some limitations that the type-curve
approach 9 does not.
1. The new approach cannot be used on data that indicate
depletion.
2. Porosity and extent of the drainage area cannot be determined.
3. The approach is limited to a maximum of two impermeable
barriers; therefore, it cannot be used to interpret the pressure-
transient behavior of a well located in systems that have more than
two sealing faults and that are inside closed rectangular reservoirs.
Conclusions
A new straight-line approach for well-test analysis for a well near
a no-flow barrier or a sealing fault is introduced. A semilog plot
of \2.303p't 1m -1\ vs. lit gives a straight line with a fixed intercept
at 1/t=O and a slope related to the distance to the barrier. The
straight-line approach is extended to apply to two perpendicular
barriers and buildup tests.
Nomenclature
A = constant defmed in Eq. 3
B = FVF, RBISTB [res m 3 /stock-tank m 3]
Ct = total compressibility, psi - 1 [kPa -1 ]
h = formation thickness, ft [m]
k = permeability, md
SPE Production Engineering, February 1990
 3500
1
0.9
3-400
08
0.7
3300
0.6 o first bartle'
05
3200 0.4 + Secand barrIe'
0.3
3100 0.2

....
-=Q, 0.1

/
~
3000 o
-0.1
2900 -02
-03
2800 -0.4
-05
2700 -06

2600
~'3'.5 ps'/cycl.
-0.7
-08

.
-09

2500 , , , ---,------ I , , , , -1

-3 -26 -22 -1.8 -, -, -0 • -02

01 03 0.4

lC·:'(H)

Fig. 6-Horner plot for field example. Fig. 7-Speclallzed plot for field example.

La = distance to nearest barrier, ft [m] 3. Earlougher, R.C. Ir.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph
Lb = distance to second barrier, ft [m] Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1977) 5, 124-26.
m = slope of fIrst semilog straight line of radial flow 4. Bixel, H.C., Larkin, B.K., and van Poollen, H.K.: "Effect of Linear
Discontinuities on Pressure Buildup and Drawdown Behavior," JPT
regime (Aug. 1963) 885-95.
ma,mb = slopes of straight lines defIned in Eqs. 6 and 14, hours 5. Davis, E.G. and Hawkins, M.F.: "Linear Fluid-Barrier Detection by
P = pressure, psi [kPa] Well Pressure Measurements," JPT (Oct. 1963) t077 -79.
Pi = initial pressure, psi [kPa] 6. Standing, M.B.: "Discussion of Linear Fluid-Barrier Detection by Well
Pwf = bottomhole flowing pressure, psi [kPa] Pressure Measurements," JPT (March 1964) 259-60.
Pws = bottomhole shut-in pressure, psi [kPa] 7. Gray, K.E.: "Approximating Well-ta-Fault Distance From Pressure
Buildup Tests," JPT (July 1965) 761-67.
q = flow rate, STBID [stock-tank m 3 /d] 8. Martinez-Romero, S. and Cinco-Ley, H.: "Detection of Linear Im-
r w = well radius, ft [m] permeable Barriers by Transient Pressure Analysis," paper SPE 11833
s = van Everdingen-Hurst skin factor presented at the 1983 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Salt Lake
t = time, hours City, May 23-25.
tH = Homer time, At/(tp+At) 9. Tiab, D. and Crichlow, H.B.: "Pressure Analysis of Multiple-Sealing
tp = producing time, hours Fault Systems and Bounded Reservoirs by Type-Curve Matching," SPEJ
(Dec. 1979) 378-92.
At = shut-in time, hours to. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Interference Analysis for Anisotropic Formations-A
T = temperature, OF [0C] Case History," JPT (Oct. 1975) 1290-98; Trans., AIME, 259.
P. = viscosity, cp [mPa's] 11. Slider, H.C.: "A Simplified Method of Pressure Buildup Analysis for
cp = porosity, fraction a Stabilized Well," JPT (Sept. 1971) 1155-60; Trans., AIME, 251.
12. Kuchuk, F.J. and Kirwan, P.A.: "New Skin and Wellbore Storage Type
Subscripts Curves for Partially Penetrated Wells," SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 546-54;
Trans., AIME, 290.
g = gas 13. Earlougher, R.C. and Kazemi, H.: "Practicalities of Detecting Faults
0= oil from Buildup Testing," JPT (Jan. 1980) 18-20.
1 = fIrst boundary
2 = secondary boundary 51 Metric Conver.lon Factor.
cp x 1.0* E-03 Pa's
Superscripts ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
= average ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 m3
, = time derivative OF (OF-32)/1.8 °C
psi x 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
Reference. psi -I x 1.450 377 E-Ol kPa- 1
I. Homer,D.R.: "Pressure Buildup in Wells," Proc., Third World Pet. ·Conversion factor is exact. SPEPE
Cong., The Hague (1951) Sec. II, 503-23.
2. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests Original SPE manuscript received for review March 28, 1988. Paper (SPE 17917) accepted
in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1967) 1. for publication Aug. 26, 1988. Revised manuscript received June 16, 1989.

SPE Production Engineering, February 1990 69