SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineer'S

SPE 11715

Interference Analysis for Wells Produced at Constant

Pressure
by C.A. Ehlig-Economides and J.A. Ansari, U. of Alaska
Members SPE-AIME

Copyright 1983 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME

This paper was presented at the 1983 California Regional Meeting held in Ventura, California, March 23-25,1983. The material is subject to correction
by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway, Drawer 64706,
Dallas, TX 75206.

ABSTRACT worked explaining and emphasizing the

practical applications of the new techniques.
Although there are numerous techniques
for analyzing pressure interference effects INTRODUCTION
for constant rate wells, the analogous rate
transients due to interference among constant Conventional well test analysis methods
pressure producers have never been have been developed for wells operated at a
investigated in detail. The transient constant rate. Because of the oil and gas
pressure behavior resulting from interference production allowables, in some instances a
effects among wells produced at constant well would be produced at an essentially
rates can be determined in a straightforward constant rate throughout its life. However,
manner using the principle of superposition as tighter reservoirs are being developed and
in space. For constant pressure producers, as more wells are produced at capacity rates,
the flow rates are continuously changing. reservoir fluids are discharged into a
Hence, the pressure interference among constant pressure separator or pipeline
constant pressure wells cannot be determined gathering system. In off-shore operations,
in the conventional way. constant pressure production is becoming more
common than constant rate. In addition,
In this study, the rate interference geothermal steam wells are operated at
among constant pressure production wells is constant pressure because the produced fluids
modeled using the diffusivity equation. are used to drive a back pressured turbine.
Pressure distributions in the reservoir for Finally, free flowing wells, including many
both constant pressure and constant rate water wells, operate at constant
couplets were obtained. The two are (atmospheric) pressure.
qualitatively similar and exhibit a similar
zone of zero pressure gradient, which Ehlig-Economides 2 ,3,4 showed that rate
confirms the existence of an apparent no-flow transient information obtained from wells
boundary between any two constant pressure operated at constant pressure can be analyzed
producers analogous to the one that is known directly using methods analogous to
to exist between wells flowing at constant conventional well tests. Ref. 2, 3 and 4
rate. Results also show that a nearby fault present a comprehensive description of the
boundary can be detected in a drawdown well available methods for transient rate decline
test as the d9ubling of the slope of the and pressure buildup analysis for wells
semi-log straight line produced when the produced at constant pressure. Constant
reciprocal of the flow rate is graphed versus pressure drawdown data is analyzed by
the log of time. constructing a semi-log graph of the
reciprocal of the flow rate (l/q) versus the
Another principal function of modern log of time. The reservoir permeability and
well testing is to evaluate the formftion the wellbore damage can be calculated in a
anisotropies. The method given by Ramey for fashion similar to the constant rate case by
the constant rate environment does not fully using the slope of the semi log straight line
hold for the constant pressure setting. and the value of (l/q)lhr' Analysis of
Therefore, a new method for evaluating pressure buildup data after constant pressure
directional permeabilities has been production is accomplished by following the
developed. conventional methods for pressure buildup
analysis using the last measured flow rate in
To demonstrate the theory in calculations requiring the flow rate.
application, example problems have been
453
2 INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS FOR WELLS PRODUCED AT CONSTANT PRESSURE SPE 11715

Very little work has been done to devise To model constant pressure production
methods for evaluating interference data when from a circular reservoir requires additiona
the active well(s) produces at a constant equations which represent the approximate
pressure instead of c3o~stant rate. Although initial and boundary conditions. For a
Ehlig-Economides 2" provided tabular reservoir initially at a constant pressure,
solutions for use in interference analysis, Pi' the initial condition is given by:
no practical method was presented. In this
study, a new set of interference type-curves
provide a simple method for analyzing the p(r,O) (2)
observed pressure at an observation well at
an arbitrary distance from the constant
pressure producer. The skin effect on the The inner boundary condition is
constant pressure producer is incorporated specified as a constant flowing pressure
into the type-curves. In addition, a method which includes the skin effect:
for determining directional permeabilities
from the pressure response in observation
wells near a constant pressure producer will (3)
be presented in the form of an example.

In the typical interference test, only The outer boundary condition for a wel
one well is active. However, the operating from the center of a circular
interference effects among multiple producing reservoir of infinite extent is:
wells provide information about the behavior
of a well near a boundary or in a fully
developed well pattern. For constant rate p(r, t) =Pi (4)
wells, the combined pressure behavior for
several producers is determined using
superposition in space of the pressure In order to provide general solutions,
distribution for each individual well. To dimensionless variables are defined as
model interference among constant pressure follows:
wells, the continuously changing rates must
be taken into account. Hence, superposition
r
in both space and time must be applied. (5)
r
w
In Ref. 4, Ehlig-Economides outlined a
kt (6)
procedure for determining the theoretical
2
rate response for interfering constant <I>~ctrw
pressure producers but no results were Pi - p(r, t)
provided. In this study, the procedure is (7)
used to determine the rate response and the Pi - Pwf
pressure distribution for a pair of constant
pressure producers. The results lead to a (8)
method for determining the location of a
vertical fault near a constant pressure
producer from the rate transients during The resulting diffusivity equation ir
production. dimensionless variables is:

THEORY
(9)
The assumptions required to determine
the transient rate response of a well
produced at constant pressure are the same as The initial condition is:
the ones made to evaluate the transient
pressure behavior of the wells operated at
constant rate. The reservoir is assumed to (10)
be homogeneous and isothermal with constant
thickness. If the formation is anisotropic,
the permeability may vary in magnitude with The inner boundary condition is:
direction but is constant in space and
time. The reservoir fluid is only slightly
compressible and has a constant viscosity. (11 )
The flow in the reservoir is radial with
negligible gravity effects and the pressure
gradients are small everywhere in the The outer boundary condition is:
reservoir. These assumptions establish the
validity of the radial diffusivity
equation: o (12)

(1) Eqs. 9 to 12 completely describe the

454
SPE 11715 EHLIG-ECONOMIDES & ANSARI 3

pro b 1 e m 0 f a we 11 producing at a constant These type-curves are presented in Figs. 1

wellbore pressure from the center of a and 2 and the same information is presented
ircular reservoir under the assumptions in tabular form in Tables 2, 3 and 4. These
isted above. type-curves can be used to evaluate formation
properties from an interference test. An
example problem which illustrates the use of
~nterference AnalYSis the in"terference type-curves for a constant
pressure producer is presented later in this
Tabular solutions for the pressure study. A method for determining directional
distribution around a constant pressure permeability effects is introduced in the
producer for several values of the wellbore same example.
skin factor were presented in Ref. 4. These
were obtained by first solving, analytically,
he diffusivity equation, with appropriate Interference Effects Among Flowing Wells
boundary and initial conditions in Laplace
space. The results were then numerically The interference effects among wells
nverted from Lap~ace space into real space operated at constant rate are evaluated in a
~sing the Stehfest algorithm. straightforward manner using the principle of
superposition in space. However,
The transient rate data, as has been interference effects among wells operated at
mentioned by previous authors (Ref. 2) , can constant pressure cannot be determined in the
be plotted ve rsus dimensionless time to conventional way because the rates are
generate a type-curve for transient rate continuously changing. Hence, Ehlig-
analysis. Economides developed a method for
determining the interference effects among
To account for the skin effect, a wells operated at constant pressure. The
dimensionless time, tD', is defined in terms derivation for an arbitrary number of wells,
of the effective wellbore radius, r w ': which uses superposition in both space and
time, is lengthy and will not be reproduced
, here. However, the derivation foc two
rw = rwe- s (13) constant pressure wells is given in Appendix
A.

nd: PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

, Determination of No-Flow/Fault Boundary

= kt (14)
tD 2 -2s
~~ctrw e To compare the pressure distribution
between two constant pressure flowing wells
When the dimensionless rate is graphed to the pressure distribution between two
against t D' , a type curve results which constant rate producers, the pressure
ncludes the skin effect. For interference profiles for both constant pressure and
analysis, the tabulated solutions for the constant rate couplets were calculated using
dimensionless pressure PD' at a distance rD the method described in the appendix.
rom tre producing well, are plotted versus
D' /rD on log-log coordinates. The curves The pressure contour maps (Figs. 3 & 4)
are indistinguishable for skin values ranging for both constant rate and constant pressure
from -20 to +20. The solutions, however, are production are qualitatively similar. The
different for different values of the zone of zero pressure gradient bisecting the
dimensionless radius, rD' the distance two wells confirms the existence of an
between the operating well and the apparent no-flow boundary for constant
observation point. This difference in pressure operations analogous to that present
solutions, depending on the value of rD' is for the constant rate couplet.
also evident for constant rate wells when
dimen~ionless pressure PD is plotted versus To examine the rate transients resultant
D/rD on log-log caonodrdwiniathteess' pooans6 aWnads from the presence of a nearby constant
eported by Mueller 7 pressure producer, the rates were calculated
ater on reproduced by Earlougher. However, for the set of constant pressure Wells A and
or the constant rate case, graphical B operating at a specified distance from each
solution~ are indistinguishable for any value other as in Fig. 5. The rate transient data
of tD/rD grea te r than 20. Because this is thus obtained for Well A, were plotted as
so, the infinite solution applies for any reciprocal of rate (l/q) versus log of time
value of rD greater than 20 for constant rate (log t). When plotted this way, the data lie
pperations. For constant pressure on a semi-log straight line, which doubles in
operations, the infinite solution does 4not slope when the effect of production at Well B
hold for any value of rD less than 8 X 10 • is sensed at Well A (Fig. 6). The time tx at
which the slope doubles, depends on the
Based on the aforementioned solut~on, a spacing between the two wells:
set of type-curves of PD versus tD' /rD have
been developed for several values of rD'

455
4 INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS FOR WE11S PRODUCED ~T CONSTANT RATE SPE 11715

(15)
s = +2.2

Fig. 7 shows the increase in the time at The slope of the semi-log straight line
Iwhich the s lope doubles as the spacing doubles after 0.034 hours (Fig. 8), which
~etween the wells flowing in interference indicates the presence of a nearby fault
increases. boundary. The distance at which this fault
occurs from Well C, can be calculated using
The doubling of the slope of the semi- Eq. 16:
log straight line may be due either to the
IProduction at a neighboring well or to an ( (70.) (3.) ) 0.5
!actual no-flow boundary caused by a nearby 1 0.01217
6
fault. If the doubling of the slope is due (0.2) (3.1) (10 x 10- )
to a fault boundary, then the distance '1'
from the producing well to the fault is given 1 = 71. ft
Iby a rearrangement of eq. 15:
Determination of Directional Permeabilities
kt 0.5
1 = 0.01217 (~\
~j.lCt )
(16) Evaluation of formation
using the pressure transient data from one
anisotropy,

constant rate flowing well and two

Eq. 16 i~ identical to the relationship observation wells given by Ramey1, can be
~iven by Gray for constant rate wells. To qualitatively adapted to the constant
illustrate the interpretation, the following pressure environment. The differences
example is presented. between the two arise because of the
definition of the dimensionless variables PD
~xample 1: Detection of a nearby fault from and tD':
transient rate data.
The dimensionless variables for constan~
The rate transient data for Well C, rate operations as presented by Earlougher
~long with known reservoir rock and fluid and used by Ramey1 are:
parameters are given in Table 5.
kh
As indicated by Earlougher 7 , the 141.2qBj.l
[Pi - p(r, t)] (19)
formation permeability (k) is evaluated using
the slope of the semi-log straight line
~efore the interference effects are apparent:
and:

162.6Bj.l (20)
k (17)

m 1.61 x 10- 4 - from Fig. 8 The dimensionless variables for a

constant pressure environment as developed in
this study are:
(162.6) (1.315) (3.1)
k
4
(1.61 x 10- ) (36.) (3000-1400)
(7)
and;
k 70. md
0.000264kt
t
D
' (14)
2 -25
The wellbore ski~ factor is determined ~j.lctrw e
from the value of ( - ) 1 hr obtained from
lFig. 8: q The dimensionless pressure PD for
constant pressure flowing wells is a pressure
(1.) ratio and does not include reservoir rock and
s = 1.1513 [q 1 hr (18) fluid properties. The reason for this is the
m continuously changing rates under constant
wellbore pressure instead of the continuously
changing pressure that results from constant
4 rate operations. Due to this difference, the
(1.)
q 1 hr
= 10.0 x 10- - from Fig. 8
pressure match obtained from type-curve
(10.0 x 10-4 ) matching of constant pressure interference
s = 1.1513 [
4 data does not provide a means to calculate
(1.61 x 10- )
reservoir permeability k.

log( 70. ) + 3.2275] The difference in the definition of the

6 dimensionless time t
D' for constant pressure
(0.2) (3.1) (10 x 10- ) (0.5) 2

456
SPE 11715 EHLIG-ECONOMIDES & ANSARI 5

setting is that it includes the well bore respectively), using the log-log scale that
skin effect, s, at the active well, where as matches the scale on the type-curve (Fig. 1).
the dimensionless time tD for constant rate A time and pressure match was obtained for
flowing wells does not. The wellbore skin both observation wells.
effect must be included because the response
time at the observation well is dependent on The time match for Well B was:
the skin effect at the constant pressure ,
producer. In constant rate wells, the effect tD
of skin on the response at an observation --2 17 @ t 10 hrs.
well is negligible. Since the pressure match r
D
cannot be used to determine the permeability,
the time match is used. As a result, the and for Well C:
analysis cannot be done without knowledge of
the porosity and total compressibility of the tn'
formation. The value of the wellbore skin --2 38 @ t 10 hrs.
factor is also required. rn
In a constant pressure interference well These values, along with the values of
test designed to evaluate reservoir other constants, were then plugged into Eq.
anisotropies, the rate transient data at the 21 :
active must also be analyzed. This
2
compensates for the lost information due to k k k
0.0002637t xx yy - xy
the different definitions of the (21)
-2s k y2 + k x2 -2k Xy
dimensionless pressure PD and obtains the ~~cte
xx yy xy
well bore skin effect which is required to
calculate permeability from the time match.
From Eq. 21, Eq. 22 and Eq. 23 were obtained
Example 2: Determination of directional for Well B and Well C respectively:
permeabilities. 2
k
xy
Computer simulated rate and pressure k ( 22)
yy (13.18 - k )
data were ge ne ra te d for a constant pressure xx
producer Well A and two observation We lIs B
and C. The location of the three wells is and
shown in Fig. 9 and the formation and fluid
properties in Tables 6, 7 & 8. 11.44 k - k 2 - 5.72k
k
xy xy Ii..
(23)
xx 5.72 - k
As a first step, the rate transient data yy
for Well A was plotted as l/q versus log of
time (Fig. 10), which resulted in a semi-log The third equation comes from the
straight line. Using eq. 16, the slope (m) permeability calculated from the rate data at
of the semi-log straight line ~ives the the producing well.
geometric mean permeability (k) at the
producer: By definition:
k = (162.6) (1.315) (3.1) k k k 2
4 xx yy - xy
(2.6 x 10- ) (25) (2000) k (24)
k y2 + k x2 - 2k Xy
xx yy xy
k 49.3 md
Where k is the geometric mean
permeability which we have already calculated
Once the slope (m) '1nd permeability (k) from the rate transient analysis of Well A.
fare known, the value of (-) 1 hr. is obtained Thus, solving for k xy ' the third equation is:
from the plot of l/q versas log of time (Fig.
10) and the value of skin is obtained using [(36)2 - (4) (18k + 18k - k k )]0.5
k 18 _ xx yy xx yy
eq. 18: xy 2
-3 ( 25)
s = 1.1513 [ (1.69 x 10 )
(2.6 x 10- 4 )
Now there are the three equations
required to solve for the three unknowns kxx'
- log ( 49.3 ) + 3.2275] kyy and k xy • The three equations we have are
6
(0.25) (3.) (13 x 10- ) (.6)2 non-linear. Therefore, a small computer
program based on the Newton Raphson iteration
s = +3 for nonlinear equations was developed; and
the values of the three permeability tensors
Next, the pressure transient data from were calculated:
~e11s Band C were graphed as lip versus time
(t) on tracing paper (Figs. 11 and 12

457
6 INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS FOR WELLS PRODUCED AT CONSTANT RATE SPE 11715

kxx = 19.8 md. REFERENCES

kyy = 30.0 md.
k xy = 13.3 md. 1. Ramey, H.J., Jr.: "Interference
Analysis for Anisotropic Formations
- A Case History", J. Pet. Tech.,
Once the values for all three October, 1975, 1290-1298.
permeability tensors have been determined,
the maximum principal permeability kXX and 2. Ehlig-Economides, C.A., and Ramey,
the minimum principal permeability kyy can be H.J., Jr.: "Transient Rate Decline
calculatjd using eq. 43 and 44, as were given Analysis for Wells Produced at
by Ramey for constant rate operations. Constant Pressure", Soc. Pet.
Eng.J., February, 1981, 98-104.

2 3. Ehlig-Economides, C .A., and Ramey,

H.J., Jr.: "Pressure Buildup for
(26) Wells Produced at a Constant
Pressure", Soc. Pet. Eng.J.,
February, 1981, 105-114.
kXX = 39.14 md.
4. Ehlig-Economides, C. A. , "Well Test
1 Analysis for We lIs Produced at a
kyy = "2 (27)
Constant Pressure" , Ph.D.
Dissertation, Stanford
University,June, 1979, 67-72.
kyy = lO. 71 md.
5. Stehfest, H. : "Numerical Inve rs ion of
Laplace Transforms", Communications
Finally, the angle between the maximum of the ACM z Januarlz 1970, 13, No.
principal permeability axis 'X' and our 1, 47-49.
orientation axis 'x' can be calculate1 using
the following equation given, by Ramey • 6. Mueller, T.D., and Witherspoon, P.A.:
"Pressure Interference Effects
k k Within Reservoirs and Aquifers", ..:!...=..
e = arctan ( XXk - xx) (28) Pet. Tech., April, 1965, 471-474.
xy
0 7. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well
e= 55.45 Test Anallsis, Monograph Series, SPE
of AIME, Dallas, 1977, 193.
CONCLUSIONS 8. Gray, K.E.: "Approximating Well-to-
Fault Distance from Pressure Buildup
The inte rfe rence effects among wells Tests" J. Pet. Tech., July, 1965,
operated at constant pressure can be 761-767.
determined using superposition both in time
and space. The solutions provided in this NOMENCLATURE
study confirm the existence of a no-flow
boundary between wells operated at constant A = area, L2
pressure similar to the ones that are known
to exist between wells operated at constant ct = total compressibility, Lt 2 /m
rate. The presence of a no-flow or a nearby
fault boundary can be determined in a simple d = distance between flowing wells, L
constant pressure drawdown well test,
analogous to the constant rate case, as D = wellbore diameter, L
doubling of the slope of the semi-log
straight line, when inverse of rate (l/q) is = units conversion factor
gc
graphed versus log of time (log t). The
distance to the nearby fault or a no-flow h = reservoir thickness, L
boundary can be calculated using eq. 16, in a
manner similar to the constant rate 10 , = Modified Bessel functions
II
operations.
k = r servoir absolute
2 permeability,
The reservoir anisotropies in a constant L
pressure environment can be evaluated using
interference type-curves in a fashion k = reservoir geometric mean
somewhat similar to conventional methods for permeability, L2
determining directional permeabilities in a
constant rate setting. = m~ximum principal permeability,
kXX
L

kyy = minimum principal permeability,L 2

458
SPE 11715 EHLIG-ECONOMIDE & ANSARI 7

k xx ' k yy , k xy = com p onents 0f permeability time at whi~h the slope of the

tensors, L 2 semi-log
straight line doubles, t
Modified Bessel functions
x,y coordinates in well system, L
L distance to the fault, L
x maximum principal permeability
m slope of l/q vs. log t graph for axis, L

;r~~:~~:n~:st, t/L3 y minimum principal permeability

axis,
p pressure, m/Lt 2 oriented at 90 0 to X axis, L

p* extrapolated pressure on Horner porosity

buil~up graph,
mILt o angle between x and X axis,
positive in
PD dimensionless pressure ratio, counterclockwise direction from
Pi-Pr,t x-axis
Pi -Pwf fluid viscosity, mILt

PwD dimensionless wellbore pressure, p ave§age wellbore fluid density,

21tkh(Pi-Pwf)/q~ MIL

variable of integration
initial reservoir pressure, m/Lt 2
APPENDIX A
Pwf flowing bottom-hole pressure,
m/Lt 2 Derivation of Transient Rate and Pressure
Distribution for Two Wells Operating at
Pws bottom-h~le pressure after shut- Constant Pressure
in, mILt
Consider the case of two wells at a
production rate, L 3 /t distance rD from each other, both producing
dimens~~nless production rate, at constant pressure P w Then the pressure
distribution can be f presented by the
21tkh(Pi- Pwf) following expression:
(l/q)l hr ordinate value at 1 hour on
straight-line
gragh of l/q vs. log t,
tIL Pi - Pwf
dimensionless radius, r/rw

reservoir radius, L
(Al)
dimensionless reservoir radius,
re/rw
Rearranging, and substituting dimensionless
wellbore radius, L variables:

effective wellbore radius,

L

Laplace space variable

s skin factor
t
t time ~qD(~)pD'(rD' tD - ~)d~ (A2)

dimensionless time in terms of

ef fe c t i ve we 11 Applying Laplace transforms to Eq. A2, and
base radius, r w ' kt making use of the convolution properties:

i = lqD(l)pwD(l) + lqD(l)PD(rD,l) (A3)

production time, t

459
8 INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS FOR WELL PRODUCED AT CONSTANT RATE SPF. 1171')

Eq. A3 is solved for qD(~)' to obtain the solution for qD(t D ) can be obtained by
rate function: numerically inverting the Laplace space
equivalent obtained from Eq. AS.

(A4) Once the ra te fu nc t ions a re known, the

pressure distribution can be determined in
terms of the dimensionless pressure, PD:
Subs£ituting_ known Laplace space solutions
for PwD and PD : (A6)

Kl (/I) where the dimensionless pressure is defined

~D(~ ) = (AS) as in Eq. 7.
/I[K (IT) + s/IKI (If) + Ko(riI )]
o
The pressure distribution in real space
Using the Stehfest S algorithm, a rea I space was also obtained by nume rical inversion.

Table 1

UNIT CONVERSIONS

Variable Darcy, SI Metric Units Oilfield Units

.000264 kt
------2-
(jl~c trw

m
162.2 qB!!
kh

c atm- 1 , Pa- 1 psi- 1

h cm,m ft

k darcy, m2 md

p at m, Pa psi

q barrels/day

r cm, m ft

t sec, sec hr

cp, Pa-sec cp

460
 Table 2 Table 3

TABULATED SOLUTIONS FOR PD VERSUS tD'/rD2 FOR A TABULATED SOLUTIONS FOR PD VERSUS tD'/rD2 FOR A
SINGLE CONSTANT PRESSURE WELL IN AN INFINITE SYSTEM INCLUDING SINGLE CONSTANT PRESSURE WELL IN AN INFINITE SYSTEM INCLUDING
WELLBORE SKIN EFFECT, FROM -20 to +20 (rD = 100) WELLBORE SKIN EFFECT, FROM -20 to +20 (rD = 1000)
2 2
t D' IrD2 t D 'lr D
t D ' IrD2 t D'/ r D PD PD

0.1 0.00433 400 0.42876 0.1 0.00241 400 0.33265

0.2 0.00129 600 0.42267 0.2 0.01282 600 0.34540
0.4 0.05442 1000 0.45926 0.4 0.03456 1000 0.36081
0.6 0.07931 2000 0.48027 0.6 0.05161 2000 0.38059
1.0 0.11356 4000 0.49972 1.0 0.07585 4000 0.39919
2.0 0.16123 6000 0.51044 2.0 0.11089 6000 0.40957
4.0 0.20710 10000 0.52332 4.0 0.14589 10000 0.42214
6.0 0.23244 20000 0.53975 6.0 0.16575 20000 0.43837
10.0 0.26261 40000 0.55509 10.0 0.18989 40000 0.45372
20.0 0.30041 60000 0.56360 20.0 0.22087 60000 0.46231
40.0 0.33480 100000 0.57387 40.0 0.24980 100000 0.47277
60.0 0.35346 200000 0.58706 60.0 0.26580 200000 0.48632
100.0 0.37558 400000 0.59946 100.0 0.28505 400000 0.49919
200.00 0.40333 600000 0.60638 200.0 0.30965 600000 0.50643

Table 4 Table 5

TABLULATED SOLUTIONS FOR PD VERSUS tD'/rD2 FOR A RESERVOIR ROCK AND FLUID DATA FOR EXAMPLE 1
SINGLE CONSTANT PRESSURE WELL IN AN INFINITE SYSTEM INCLUDING
WELLBORE SKIN EFFECT, FROM -20 to +20 (rD = 10000) Pi = 3000 psi
Pw = 1400 psi
2 2 rJ= 0.5 ft
t D'/ r D PD tD'/rD PD
h = 36 ft
0.1 0.00167 400 0.27164 Bo = 1.315 reg. bbl{STB
0.00916 600 0.28310 c = 10 x 10- psi-
0.2 t
0.4 0.02529 1000 0.29703 >' 3.1 cp
0.03821 2000 0.31510 ~ = 0.2
0.6
1.0 0.05689 4000 0.33226
2.0 0.08443 6000 0.34191
4.0 0.11252 10000 0.35368 t (hrs) q (STB) 1/g (STB- 1 )
6.0 0.12870 20000 0.36899
0.01 980 1.02 x 10- 3
10.0 0.14860 40000 0.38360
0.39183 0.02 952 1.05 x 10- 3
20.0 0.17453 60000
100000 0.40190 0.05 893 1.12 x 10- 3
40.0 0.19911
0.41504 0.10 800 1.25 x 10- 3
60.0 0.21288 200000
400000 0.42762 0.50 694 1.44 x 10- 3
100.0 0.22959
0.43472 0.80 649 1.54 x 10- 3
200.00 0.25119 600000
1.00 625 1.60 x 10- 3
2.00 588 1. 70 x 10- 3
5.00 546 1.83 x 10- 3
10.00 526 1.90 x 10- 3
20.00 490 2.04 x 10- 3
50.00 461 2.17 x 10- 3
90.00 446 2.24 x 10- 3
100.00 439 2.28 x 10- 3
 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8

RESERVOIR ROCK AND FLUID DATA FOR EXAMPLE 2 PRESSURE INTERFERENCE DATA FOR OBSERVATION PRESSURE INTERFERENCE DATA FOR OBSERVATION
WELL B IN EXAMPLE 2 WELL C IN EXAMPLE 2.
WELL A - Constant Pressure Producer
LOCATION: x = 0.6, Y = 0.6 WELL B - Obse rva t ion We 11, 300 f t f rom the produce r. WELL C - Observation Well, 180 ft from the producer.
LOCATION: x = 300, Y = 0 LOCATION: x = -125 Y = 125
h = 25 ft Pi = 3000 psi Pi = 3000 psi
$ = 0.25
B = 1.313 res bbl/STB
~ = 3 cp t (hrs) p(r , t )psi ~p(psi) t(hrs) p(r,t)psi ~p(psi)
Ct = 13 x 10-6 pse 1
r w =0.6ft
Pi = 30 0 psi 0.017 0.017
PWf = 1000 psi 0.167 2944 56 0.167 2848 152
0.333 2882 118 0.333 2776 224
t (hrs) (STH/DAY) 1/9 (DAY/STB) 1.000 2764 236 1.000 2640 360
5.000 2576 424 5.000 2438 562
0.017 823 1.216 x 10- 3 10.000 2504 496 10.000 2380 620
0.167 679 1.473 x 10- 3 20 000 2440 560 20.000 2310 690
0.333. 643 1.556 x 10- 3 50.000 2350 650 50.000 2244 756
1.000 593 1.685 x 10-3 90.000 2310 690 90.000 2200 800
5.000 544 1.839 x 10- 3 100.000 2290 710 100.000 2190 810
10.000 512 1.952 x 10- 3 120.000 2280 720 120.000 2180 820
20.000 494 2.022 x 10-3 150.000 2270 730 150.000 2160 840
50.000 468 2.139 x 10- 3
90.000 450 2.225 x 10- 3
100.000 445 2.247 x 10- 3
120.000 441 2.270 x 10- 3
150.000 436 2.294 x 10- 3

lOO 100~-------~1-------~1------,-~1-------r-1------~

rD=\OO:::~~'g~o~o~~~~~================~
~================~rD~=~I~~rD=\O,OOO
000
I::- \ Start Of Semi log
ro"\ 0 , Straight Line Behavior

Cl
(L Cl
(L

103~------_~1------_~1--_____~1_______~1______~

10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6
I 2
to Ir 0

Fig. 1-Dimensionless pressure for a single constant"pressure producing well in an infinite system including the Fig. 2-Dimensionless pressure for a single constant-pressure producing well in an infinite system including the
wellbore skin effect. (Early time behavior). wellbore skin effect. (Late time behavior).
 20..------ --------r-------.-.... -.

m
I-
(j)
"-
>-
0
0
<:t 15
'0
X , -4
Fig. 3-Pressure profile in the reservoir around a constant-pressure producer flowing in interference with another m 2 =3.45 X lO (Day/Cycle-STB)
constant-pressure producer.
-10-
~ Ix = S(hrs)

~ -4 -1
ml = 1.73 X 10 (Cycle-STB)

10~------------~--------------~------------~
1 10 100 1000
, (hrsl

Fig. 6-Semi-log graph of the rate transients tor a constant-pressure producer showing the slope-doubling effect of
the interference from a nearby constant-pressure producer. (8 0 =1.02, llo=3.0 cp, Ct=10- 5 psi- 1 ,
rw =0.5 ft, P; -Pwf = 1,600 psi, <J> =0.25)

Fig. 4-Pressure profile in the reservoir around a constanHate producer flowing in interference with another constant-
rate producer.

+
h
JLJL
-,-::
:.c
I
i
I

A
d
11
.: :
::.t
B
4
h

TWO CONSTANT PRESSURE PRODUCERS

h=36 f1.
d = ISO ft.
'0
Pi = 3000 psi Fig. 7-Semi-log graph of the rate transients for one of two Interfering constant-pressure producers as a
function of the distance between the two wells.
P w = i400 psi
f

Fig. 5-Two constant-pressure producers operating at a distance, d,

from each other.
 24r------------,------------,------------,------------,

C
.
m
f-
19 o
m2" 3.23x1O- 4
~ 1e
if)
O'

~7f-------300'-----_1~
"-
>- ( Day/STB-Cycle)
«
0
¢
'0
0
x 14 Location
_10- Well# Sia Ius
X y

A Producer * 0.6 0.6

B Observation 300.0 0.0
9~1------------~!0~------------IO~0-------------IO~0-0------------1-"0000 C Observation -125.0 125.0
t (hrs) * Constant Pressure

Fig. 8-Seml-log graph of the rate tranSient data for Example 1. Fig. 9-Welllocatlons and status for the Interference well lest In Example 2.

3r-----------,------------,-----------,-----------,

,Q)
f-
if)
o
'"'0 (L

X -2
-10- 10

10'
I (hrs

°0~.I-------------L------------~10~-----------t~0-0-----------1~000
t (hrs)

Fig. 10-Seml-log graph 01 the rate tranSients for the producing well In Example 2 Fig. 11-Type-curve malchlng for the pressure vs. time data observed al Well B

3
10
.1 _100 0 - 0 1-3"---=--....:=..-
- 0
_____ o{o~ _ - - . . - : - - - - -
dlOO

I ~
....
/15-:.t."o~ ~
o~-:::::.--
~ o '(Q""""
n. 2 / ,/,7
10 ,/

,~/
8 .•StlO' 2
'I 10·' '0° '0' 10 10
,0
I {hrsl

10- 3 _1
2 10' 10'
10

Fig. 12-Type-curve matchmg for the pressure vs. time data observed at Well C