5 Testing of Gas Wells

5.1 Non-Darcy Flow Effects

For gas reservoirs the flow velocity in the near-well region is often so large that
Darcy’s law does not apply without some modification. Considering only radial flow
models we can express Darcy’s law in the form

∂p µ
= u (5.1.1)
∂r k

with u denoting the flow velocity. From high-rate measurements of gas flow in linear
cores it is known that the linear relationship between the pressure gradient and the
velocity expressed by Eq. 5.1.1 is not adequate. In such cases one should instead
replace Eq. 5.1.1 by the equation

∂p µ
= u + βρ u 2 (5.1.2)
∂r k

suggested by Forchheimer, where β is a property of the porous medium and ρ

denotes density of the gas. In this classical form Eq. 5.1.2 is based on the following
units: p [atm], r [cm], µ [cp], k [darcy], u [cm/s], β [atm·s2/g], and ρ [g/cm3].

Although Eq. 5.1.2 is normally used to include high rate flow effects in theoretical
derivations of solutions for gas flow, the β factor introduced in applications based on
practical units is given the unit 1 over length, [1/L], and not the unit implicit in Eq.
5.1.2. It is therefore necessary to include the conversion factor

atm·s 2 1
*1.01325E + 6 = (5.1.3)
g cm

to make the switch to practical units.

Several correlations based on measurements on cores can be found in the literature

for the β factor. There are two main categories. Those based on permeability in the
form

b
β= , (5.1.4)
ka

and those based on permeability and porosity in the form

b
β= , (5.1.5)
k φc
a

175
where a, b and c are constants. One correlation of the first type is shown in Fig. 5.1.
This correlation was presented by Firoozabadi and Katz (1979) with b = 2.73 × 1010 ,
a = 1.1045 , and β given the unit [1/ft], but has been reproduced in practical SI units
in Fig. 5.1 with β given the unit [1/cm].

Fig. 5.1 – Correlation between β factors and absolute permeability determined

from laboratory measurements.

In order to derive identities for use in analyses and models, consider first Eq. 5.1.2
for steady state radial flow models. With q denoting rate we can replace u by the
expression

q
u= (5.1.6)
2πrh

and rewrite Eq. 5.1.2 in the form

dp µq βρq 2
= + , (5.1.7)
dr 2πkhr 4π 2 h 2 r 2

where the new quantities have the units q [cm3/s] and h [cm]

Now, proceeding with Eq. 5.1.7, note that with steady-state conditions assumed we
can treat q as a constant and integrate Eq. 5.1.7 to derive the solution

176
 µq r βρq 2
pi − p wf = ln e + (5.1.8)
2πkh rw 4π 2 h 2 rw

for the total pressure drop through the model, where re denotes the outer radius, with
the pressure at this radius kept equal to the initial pressure pi . It has also been
assumed that the wellbore radius is much smaller than the outer radius, and that there
is no damage at the well (ideal conditions with skin zero). We have also used q to
denote gas rate at reservoir conditions, with gas rate at standard conditions denoted
qsc . Note that standard conditions for gas volumes and rates are not universal, and
therefore must be stated explicitly. However, for any choice of standard conditions
we will assume that

ρ sc ZTp sc
q = B g q sc = q sc = q sc , (5.1.9)
ρ pTsc

where Z is the deviation factor relative to an ideal gas, T denotes absolute

temperature, and quantities with subscript “sc” are given at standard conditions. In
the cgs system the temperature T is expressed in Kelvin [K].

If we combine Eqs. 5.1.8 and 5.1.9, then we get the new solution

p sc ZTµq sc re p sc βρ sc ZTq sc2

pi − p wf = ln + , (5.1.10)
2πpTsc kh rw 4π 2 pTsc h 2 rw

still expressed in consistent units, e.g., in the cgs system with β [atm·s2/g]. Since
pressure dependence has been ignored in key parameters, Eq. 5.1.10 has to be used
with caution. A more robust approach based on the pseudopressure

p p
m( p ) = 2 ∫ dp (5.1.11)
p0 µZ

is therefore normally adopted. Since

dm( p ) 2 p dp
= , (5.1.12)
dr µZ dr

Eq. 5.1.7 can be replaced by

dm( p ) pq βρpq 2
= + , (5.1.13)
dr πZkhr 2π 2 µZh 2 r 2

and Eq. 5.1.8 by

pq r βρpq 2
m( p i ) − m( p wf ) = ln e + . (5.1.14)
πZkh rw 2π 2 µZh 2 rw

177
 Finally, by combining Eqs. 5.1.9 and 5.1.14 the standard basic solution

p sc Tq sc re p βρ Tq 2
m( pi ) − m( p wf ) = ln + sc2 sc 2sc (5.1.15)
πTsc kh rw 2π µ wTsc h p rw

is obtained, where we have used the notation µw to denote viscosity at wellbore

pressure and hp to denote the length of the open (e.g., perforated) interval. The two
modifications are included since near-well conditions will dominate the last term,
and gas velocity in the near-well region depends on hp.

The second term on the right-hand side of Eq. 5.1.15 represents the additional
pressure drop due to non-Darcy flow. This term can be expressed in the form

∆m( p ) nD = Fq sc2 , (5.1.16)

with

p sc βρ sc T
F= (5.1.17)
2π 2 µ wTsc h p2 rw

in consistent units (e.g., the cgs system).

Eq. 5.1.15 can also be expressed in the form

p sc Tq sc  re 
m( pi ) − m( p wf ) =  ln + Dq sc  , (5.1.18)
πTsc kh  rw 

where

βρ sc kh
D= (5.1.19)
2πµ w hp2 rw

and the term Dqsc is referred to as the non-Darcy skin. In the cgs system D gets the
unit [1/(cm3/s)]. To switch directly between F and D, note that the two parameters
are related by the identity

p sc T
F= D. (5.1.20)
πTsc kh

5.1.1 Practical SI Units

If practical SI units are used with the following choices: p [bar], β [1/cm], ρ [kg/m3],
T [K], µ [cp], h [m], r [m], and qsc [std.m3/d], then F will get the unit
[bar2/cp/(std.m3/d)2], and Eq. 5.1.17 can be rewritten in the form

178
 6.78645188 × 10 −15 p sc βρ scT
F= . (5.1.21)
µ wTsc h p2 rw

Furthermore, with psc = 1.01325 bar, Tsc = 15 oC = 288.15 K and density 1.225577
kg/m3 of air at these standard conditions (Norwegian) and the gas gravity

ρ sc ( gas)
γg = , (5.1.22)
ρ sc (air )

it follows that Eq. 5.1.21 can be replaced by the identity

2.9247003 × 10 −17 βγ g T
F= (5.1.23)
µ w h p2 rw

for Norwegian applications, with the non-Darcy part of the total pressure drop from
Eq. 5.1.15 hence given by the expression

2.9247003 × 10 −17 βγ g Tq sc2

∆m( p ) nD = Fq = 2
. (5.1.24)
µ w h p2 rw
sc

The full form of Eq. 5.1.15 in these units, with k [mD], is

0.13126562Tq sc re 2.9247003 × 10 βγ g Tq sc
−17 2

m( p i ) − m( p wf ) = ln + . (5.1.25)
kh rw µ w h p2 rw

Eq. 5.1.25 can also be written in the form

0.13126562Tq sc  re 
m( pi ) − m( p wf ) =  ln + Dq sc  (5.1.26)
kh  rw 

with D given by the identity

2.228078 × 10 −16 βγ g kh
D= . (5.1.27)
µ w h p2 rw

Note also that the identity

0.13126562T
F= D (5.1.28)
kh

can be used to switch directly between F and D.

179
5.1.2 Field Units

The derivations above can also be repeated in field units. With the choices: p [psia],
β [1/ft], ρ [lbm/ft3], T [oR], µ [cp], h [ft], r [ft], and qsc [Mscf/d], F will get the unit
[psia2/cp/(Mscf/d)2], and Eq. 5.1.17 can be rewritten in the form

1.46480216 × 10 −9 p sc βρ sc T
F= . (5.1.29)
µ wTsc h p2 rw

Furthermore, with standard conditions psc = 14.6959 psia, Tsc = 60 oF = 519.67 oR

and density 0.076362 lbm/ft3 of air at these conditions, Eq. 5.1.29 can be replaced by
the identity

3.1631866 × 10 −12 βγ g T
F= (5.1.30)
µ w h p2 rw

with the non-Darcy part of the total pressure drop from Eq. 5.1.15 hence given by the
expression

3.1631866 × 10 −12 βγ g Tq sc2

∆m( p ) nD = Fq = 2
(5.1.31)
µ w h p2 rw
sc

The full form of Eq. 5.1.15 in these units, with k [mD], is

1422.4498Tq sc re 3.1631866 × 10 βγ g Tq sc
−12 2

m( p i ) − m( p wf ) = ln + . (5.1.32)
kh rw µ w h p2 rw

Eq. 5.1.32 can also be written in the form

1422.4498Tq sc  re 
m( pi ) − m( p wf ) =  ln + Dq sc  (5.1.33)
kh  rw 

with D given by the identity

2.2237597 × 10 −15 βγ g kh
D= . (5.1.34)
µ w h p2 rw

The identity

1422.4498T
F= D (5.1.35)
kh

can also be used to switch directly between F and D.

180
5.2 Transient Solutions

The derivations above were restricted to steady state or incompressible flow models,
but can also be applied to general models with some qualifications. An important
objective of the derivations above was to derive expressions for the D factor used to
determine the non-Darcy skin, or rate dependent skin.

The next step is to claim that general transient solutions can be extended to high rate
flow cases by just adding the non-Darcy skin term to solutions obtained for ordinary
Darcy flow. In terms of pseudopressures we then get

1422.4498Tqsc
m( pi ) − m( pwf ) = [ pwD (t D ) + S + Dqsc ] (5.2.1)
kh

in field units, with 1422.4498 replaced by 0.13126562 in the SI units.

The validity of Eq. 5.2.1 can be demonstrated with numerical methods. Such
methods show that Eq. 5.2.1 does not necessarily apply to short flow tests, but can be
assumed valid under normal test conditions. In particular, for multirate tests designed
to determine the deliverability of a gas well, the flow periods will be of sufficient
length to ensure stabilized non-Darcy flow effects.

For cases with low pressures (e.g., ≤ 150 bar [≈ 2000 psia]) we can follow the
familiar approach and use a simple p 2 formulation and replace Eq. 5.2.1 by

1422.4498µ% ZTq
%
pi2 − pwf
2
= sc
[ pwD (tD ) + S + Dqsc ] , (5.2.2)
kh

with D still given by Eq. 5.1.34 and the same change necessary to switch to SI units .

Similarly, for cases with high pressure (e.g., ≥ 210 bar [≈ 3000 psia]) we can use a
direct pressure formulation and replace Eq. 5.2.1 by

711.2249µ% ZTq
%
pi − pwf =
%
sc
[ pwD (tD ) + S + Dqsc ] , (5.2.3)
pkh

with D still given by Eq. 5.1.34, and the numerical constant replaced by 0.06563281
in SI units.

5.3 LIT Analysis

LIT (laminar, inertial, and turbulent) analysis is based on special tests designed to
determine constants a and b such that

m( p ) − m( pwf ) = aqsc + bqsc2 (5.3.1)

181
under stabilized flow conditions. Eq. 5.3.1 represents the deliverability of the well.
This equation serves the same purpose as the productivity index for an oil well, and
is used to determine the pressure drop from the average pressure to the wellbore for a
given rate.

Eq. 5.3.1 is based on the assumption that Eq. 5.2.1 can be used under stabilized flow
conditions in the form

m( pi ) − m( pwf ) = m( pi ) − m( p ) + m( p ) − m( pwf )

1422.45Tqsc  1 4A 
=  2π t DA + ln γ + S + Dqsc  (5.3.2)
kh  2 e C A rw2 

with

1422.45Tqsc
m( pi ) − m( p ) = 2π t DA (5.3.3)
kh

and

1422.45Tqsc 1 4A 
m( p ) − m( pwf ) =  ln γ 2
+ S + Dqsc  . (5.3.4)
kh  2 e C A rw 

The derivations above have some limitation from the fact that the compressibility
and viscosity are not constants, but functions of pressure. Still, since these
parameters appear as a product in the critical variable t DA it turns out that the error is
not a problem under normal applications. The reason is that the product µ ct does not
vary much with pressure although µ and ct individually can vary significantly with
pressure.

From the derivations above it follows that a and b from Eq. 5.3.1 must be given by
the identities

1422.45T 1 4A 
a=  ln γ 2
+ S (5.3.5)
kh  2 e C A rw 

and

1422.45T
b=F = D, (5.3.6)
kh

where the last equality in Eq. 5.3.6 corresponds to Eq. 5.1.35. For a circular reservoir
we can also use the identity

182
 1422.45T  re 3 
a=  ln − + S  (5.3.7)
kh  rw 4 

for the parameter a.

We can also use the formulation

p 2 − pwf
2
= a ′qsc + b′qsc2 (5.3.8)

for reservoirs with low pressure ( ≤ 150 bar [ ≈ 2000 psi]), and the formulation

p − pwf = a ′′qsc + b′′qsc2 (5.3.9)

for reservoirs with high pressure ( ≥ 210 bar [ ≈ 3000 psi]). Based on results from
Sec. 1.2 it follows that these sets of parameters must be related by the identities

a ′ = µ% Za
% and b ′ = µ% Zb
% , (5.3.10)

and

µ% Z% µ% Z%
a ′′ = a and b′′ = b. (5.3.11)
2 p% 2 p%

Since the methods used to determine the parameters of the three equations presented
for the deliverability of gas wells are the same, i.e., for the three “pressure”
formulations, it is enough to consider the details for Eq. 5.3.1.

From Eq. 5.3.1 it should be clear that if we can determine pseudopressure differences

∆m( p ) = m( p ) − m( pwf ) (5.3.12)

for 3 or 4 distinctly different rates, then we can determine a and b from a linear plot
of

∆m( p )
vs. qsc . (5.3.13)
qsc

A straight line through the data will intersect the vertical axis at a (for qsc = 0 ) and
have slope b. Analyses based on Eq. 5.3.13 in all three formulations are called LIT
analyses.

Note that p will actually decrease during a test sequence, but this reduction is
considered to be negligible in analyses of the data.

183
5.3.1 Absolute Open Flow Potential

Although determining the deliverability equation, defined by the parameters a and b,

is the main objective of the analysis, one additional parameter is always reported.
The added parameter is the absolute open flow potential, AOF (or AOFP), which is
the rate obtained by setting pwf = 0 in the deliverability equation.

The AOF obtained from Eq. 5.3.1 is therefore given by the identity

AOF =
1
2b
{
− a + a 2 + 4b [ m( p ) − m(0)] .} (5.3.14)

This is of course just a reference value and not a rate that can be achieved by the
well. Note also that the deliverability and AOF of the well can be determined and
reported without direct knowledge of the drainage area and formation properties
appearing in Eqs. 5.3.5 and 5.3.6. Since the AOF is determined at pwf = 0 , there is
an intrinsic problem with analyses based on a pressure formulation (high pressures).

5.3.2 Flow-After-Flow Tests

Flow-after-flow (FAF) tests are normally conducted by flowing a well at 3 or 4

different rates in an increasing sequence, with each kept until stabilization. The last
flow period might be followed by a buildup period for added analyses, but that step
is not part of a standard FAF test. Although an increasing sequence should improve
the accuracy of the analysis, especially if proper stabilization is not reached, other
considerations might cause a decreasing sequence to be chosen.

Fig. 5.2 shows an example of a flow-after-flow test followed by an extended buildup.

An example of an LIT analysis of data from an FAF test is shown in Fig. 5.3 in terms
of SI units with the AOF included as part of the graphical presentation.

Fig. 5.2 – Pressure response during a flow-after-flow test.

184
 9

[m(p) - m(pwf )]/qsc , bar /cp/(Sm /d) 8.5

3

8
AOF = 687223 Sm3/d
7.5 a = 4.4373
2

b = 0.00000591
7

6.5

qsc = AOF
5.5

4.5

4
0 200000 400000 600000 800000
3
Gas rate, qsc, Sm /d

Fig. 5.3 – LIT analysis of data from a flow-after-flow test with the AOF added.

Exercise 5.1
Data from a flow-after-flow test are listed in Table 5.1 with gas properties needed to
generate pseudopressures listed in Table 5.2.

1. Generate a pseudopressure table based on the trapezoidal method and data

from Table 5.2 with p0 = 0 and p / µ Z = 0 at p = 0 .
2. Based on the pseudopressure table, use LIT analysis to determine the
parameters a and b from Eq. 5.3.1 together with the AOF.
3. Repeat the analysis above with the p 2 formulation, and determine the
parameters a ′ and b ′ from Eq. 5.3.8 together with the AOF.

Table 5.1 – Data for Exercise 5.1.

Rate, qsc , Mscf/d Pressure, pwf , psia

0 408.2 (= p)
4288 403.1
9265 394.0
15552 378.5
20177 362.6

185
 Table 5.2 – Gas properties needed for Exercise 5.1.

p, psia µ g , cp Z p / µ Z , psia/cp
150 0.01238 0.9856 12290
300 0.01254 0.9717 24620
450 0.01274 0.9582 36860
600 0.01303 0.9453 48710
750 0.01329 0.9332 60470
900 0.01360 0.9218 71790
1050 0.01387 0.9112 83080
1200 0.01428 0.9016 93205
1350 0.01451 0.8931 104200
1500 0.01485 0.8857 114000
1650 0.01520 0.8795 123400
1800 0.01554 0.8745 132500
1950 0.01589 0.8708 140900
2100 0.01630 0.8684 148400
2250 0.01676 0.8671 154800
2400 0.01721 0.8671 160800
2550 0.0767 0.8683 166200

5.3.3 Isochronal Tests

There is one problem with FAF tests that might cause difficulties, and that is disposal
of the gas produced during the long flow periods. Isochronal tests are designed to
reduce this problem by running 3 or 4 short flow periods with full pressure recovery
between these, followed by a stabilized flow period at the end. A substantial
reduction in gas production is thus achieved, but the overall test time can actually
increase.

We now use the transient data points from the short flow periods to determine the
slope, and the stabilized flow period at the end to determine the last parameter of the
gas deliverability equation. This approach is based on the following transient version
of Eq. 5.3.1,

m( p ) − m( pwf ) = at qsc + bqsc2 , (5.3.15)

where the first parameter on the right-hand side of the equation has been replaced by
at to emphasize the fact that this parameter is in a transient flow period. Based on
Eqs. 5.2.1 and 5.3.3 it follows that this new parameter should be given by the identity

186
 1422.45T
at = [ pwD (t D ) − 2π t DA + S ] , (5.3.16)
kh

with at approaching a if the length of the flow periods is increased.

From Eq. 5.3.15 it follows that if we set up a plot of

∆m( p )
vs. qsc (5.3.17)
qsc

for the transient points and carry out the first part of the analysis outlined for FAF
tests, then we get at and b. The corresponding line can be referred to as the transient
line. To complete the analysis we add the single stabilized point and draw a parallel
line through this point (same slope b), and use this stabilized line to determine a and
the rest of the analysis.

Note that the normal choice is to pick transient flow periods of the same length and
use the end points. If the periods are not of the same length, then we must pick a
point the same length of time into each transient period to determine the transient
line.

Fig. 5.4 shows an example of an isochronal test, and Fig. 5.5 an example of an LIT
analysis of data from such a test based on SI units. In the example shown in Fig. 5.4
the standard choice of an increasing rate sequence with a reduced stabilized rate has
been used, but decreasing sequences can also be be used. It is also possible to just
extend the last transient period directly to a stabilized period, with both a transient
and a stabilized point picked from the same flow period.

Note that a buildup has been added at the end of the test sequence since any one of
shut-in periods during the test can be used for buildup analyses.

Fig. 5.4 – Pressure response during an isochronal test.

187
 0.0006

(p - pwf )/qsc , bar/cp/(Sm /d)

3
0.0005

Stabilized
0.0004

0.0003 Transient

qsc = AOF
0.0002
AOF = 606000 Sm3/d
at = 0.00025
0.0001 a = 0.00032
b = 4.1x10-10

0
0 200000 400000 600000 800000
3
Gas rate, qsc, Sm /d

Fig. 5.5 – LIT analysis of data from an isochronal test.

Exercise 5.2
Data from an isochronal test are listed in Table 5.3.

1. Carry out an LIT analysis by first converting the pressures to pseudopressures

with results from Exercise 5.1. Determine the parameters a, b and the AOF.
2. Repeat the analysis above with the p 2 formulation, and determine the
parameters a ′ and b ′ together with the AOF.

Table 5.3 – Data for Exercise 5.2.

Rate, qsc , Mscf/d Pressure, pwf , psia

0 1962 (static = p )
2600 1791
0 1962
3300 1694
0 1962
5000 1510
0 1962
6300 1320
6000 1151 (stabilized)

188
5.3.4 Modified Isochronal Tests

There is one problem with the isochronal tests that might be difficult to accept, and
that is the length of time needed for pressure recovery between the transient flow
periods, and hence the overall test time. One way around this problem is to run a
modified isochronal test with also the buildup periods between the short flow periods
are allowed to be short, i.e., with transient flow periods and transient shut-in periods
before the final stabilized flow period at the end.

We now only use p as reference for the stabilized flow period at the end, with the
preceding end shut-in pressure used as reference for the transient flow periods, i.e.,
with the differences

∆m( p ) = m( pws ) − m( pwf ) (5.3.18)

used to determine the transient line. The assumption is that these differences also
follow a solution in the form

m( pws ) − m( pwf ) = at qsc + bqsc2 . (5.3.19)

If this is indeed the case, then the analysis outlined for isochronal tests can be
repeated for modified isochronal tests, but now with differences from Eq. 5.3.18.

In order to examine the accuracy of Eq. 5.3.19 it is necessary to work with general
multirate expressions since stabilization is not reached between flow or shut-in
periods. We are therefore faced with two problems. The validity of assuming non-
Darcy flow effects to play the simple role covered by the single parameter b, and the
validity of using just a single term in Eq. 5.3.19 to represent the Darcy part of the
general multirate expression we can write down from results in Chapter 4.

Considering errors from superposition effects, it can be shown that an increasing rate
schedule is a better choice than a decreasing one. The reason being that “lingering”
effects of earlier rate changes will be masked by the last changes if the rates increase.
A decreasing rate sequence can still be preferred because of other considerations than
the uncertainties that might affect analyses.

Fig. 5.6 shows an example of a modified isochronal test, and Fig. 5.7 an example of
an LIT analysis of data from such a test based on SI units. Note that the test plot
shows clearly for this case that we do not have pressure recovery between the
transient flow periods, but the LIT plot looks the same as plots of data from
isochronal tests.

189
 Fig. 5.6 – Pressure response during a modified isochronal test.

12
m(p)/q , bar /cp/(Sm /d)

11.5
/d)3

AOF = 507000 Sm3/d

3

at = 7.9
∆ m(p)/qsc, bar2/cp/(Sm

11
a = 9.3
10.5 b = 4.67x10-6
2

10
sc

9.5 Stabilized
9
qsc = AOF

8.5

8 Transient

7.5

7
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
3
Gas rate, qsc, Sm /d

Fig. 5.7 – LIT analysis of data from a modified isochronal test.

190
 Exercise 5.3
Data from a modified isochronal test are listed in Table 5.4.

1. Carry out an LIT analysis of the data by using the p 2 formulation, and
determine the parameters a ′ and b ′ together with the AOF.

Table 5.4 – Data for Exercise 5.3.

Rate, qsc , Mscf/d Pressure, pwf , psia

0 1948 (static = p )
4500 1784
0 1927
5600 1680
0 1911
6850 1546
0 1887
8250 1355
8000 1233 (stabilized)

5.4 Simplified Back-Pressure Analysis

The traditional method of analyzing gas tests is based on the so-called back-pressure
equation

qsc = C ( p 2 − pwf
2 n
) , (5.4.1)

where C and n are characteristic parameters for the well with

1
≤ n ≤ 1. (5.4.2)
2

Eq. 5.4.1 is an empirical correlation that is found to match the same type of data that
can be analyzed with the theoretically correct LIT analysis. Similar to the LIT gas
deliverability equations, the back-pressure equation can be used in forecast and to
monitor performance over time.

If we compare Eq. 5.4.1 with the correct expression from Eq. 5.3.8, then we see that
the two are identical if

1
a′ = and b ′ = 0 (5.4.3)
C

191
for cases with n = 1 , and if

1
a ′ = 0 and b ′ = (5.4.4)
C2

for cases with n = 1/ 2 . The two approaches are in other words similar for cases with
only laminar flow ( b ′ = 0 ) and for cases with “fully turbulent flow” ( a ′ = 0 ), but
otherwise there are no direct relationship between the key parameters.

Since Eq. 5.4.1 is just a correlation, except for the special cases pointed out above,
one can choose to use it only in a p 2 formulation, or one can generalize the equation
to both a simple pressure formulation for high pressures, and to a general
pseudopressure formulation for arbitrary cases.

Simple back-pressure analysis can be applied to all three of the test types discussed
above. The method is based on a loglog plot of

∆p 2 = p 2 − pwf
2
vs. qsc . (5.4.5)

If Eq. 5.4.1 is satisfied, then we will get a straight line with slope 1/ n through all the
data of a FAF test or through the transient data from an isochronal or modified
isochronal test. The reason is that we get the identity

1 1
log( p 2 − pwf
2
)= log qsc − log C (5.4.6)
n n

from Eq. 5.4.1, and hence can start by determining n from the slope 1/ n of the
straight line through the data points. If we get a value of n outside the range from Eq.
5.4.2, then the nearest bound should be chosen, i.e., n = 1/ 2 if n < 1/ 2 and n = 1 if
n > 1 . For a flow-after-flow test we complete the analysis by determining C from any
point on the line. For an isochronal or a modified isochronal test we complete the
analysis by determining C by substituting the values from the stabilized point into
Eq. 5.4.1 with the exponent n. As a final step we can compute the AOF by setting
pwf = 0 in Eq. 5.4.1, i.e, from the equation

AOF = C ( p 2 ) n . (5.4.7)

Fig. 5.8 shows the plot from a back-pressure analysis of data from an isochronal test
based on SI units.

Exercise 5.4
Analyze the data from the modified isochronal test listed in Table 5.4 by using a p 2
formulation and simplified back-pressure analysis. Determine the parameters C, n,
and AOF.

192
 105
100000
AOF = 549277 Sm3/d
C = 172.3

2
n = 0.79

∆ p , bar
2

104
10000

S
T

qsc = AOF

103
1000
105
1.E+05 106
1.E+06 107
1.E+07
3
Gas rate, qsc, Sm /d

Fig. 5.8 – Backpressure analysis of data from an isochronal test.

5.5 Analyses of Pressure Transient Data

Analyses of pressure transient data from a gas well are based on Eqs. 5.2.1-5.2.3, or
similar expressions in SI units. In particular, if we have simple single-rate drawdown
data from the semilog period, i.e., with tssl ≤ t ≤ teia , then we get the identity

1422.45Tqsc 1 
m( pi ) − m( pwf ) =  2 (ln t D + 0.80907) + S + Dqsc  . (5.5.1)
kh

If we now use the product of viscosity and total compressibility at initial conditions,
denoted ( µ ct )i , in the definition of t D , then we get

 k S 
m( pi ) − m( pwf ) = m log t + log − 3.2275 + t  , (5.5.2)
 φ ( µ ct )i rw
2
1.151 

where the m in front of the brackets denotes the semilog slope

1637.66Tqsc
m= , (5.5.3)
kh

and

193
St = S + Dqsc (5.5.4)

denotes the total skin value with the non-Darcy term included. Using m to denote
both the pseudopressure and the semilog slope is based on tradition, and should not
cause any misunderstanding. If SI units are used, then the constant 1637.66 from Eq.
5.5.3 must be replaced by the constant 0.151125.

The total skin value St can be determined from Eq. 5.5.2 in the form

 m( pi ) − m( p )1hr k 
St = 1.151  − log + 3.2275 , (5.5.5)
 m φ ( µ ct )i rw
2


where m( p )1hr denotes the value read from the semilog straight line at t = 1 hr. If SI
units are used, then the constant 3.2275 from Eq. 5.5.5 must be replaced by the
constant 3.098.

If we use a p 2 formulation for low pressures, or a simple pressure formulation for

high pressures, then we need to modify the equations above for the semilog slope and
the total skin value accordingly.

The flow capacity and permeability can now be determined from the semilog slope if
the absolute temperature is known if we use pseudopressures. If we use pressures
squared, then we also need representative values for µ and Z. Moreover, if we just
use a pressure formulation, then we in addition need the formation pressure at which
the values µ and Z were determined.

Since we get the total skin value St from a semilog analysis of data from a gas well,
we need to run the test at two or more rates if we want to determine both S and D
from Eq. 5.5.4. It is not necessary to run repeated buildups to determine these
additional total skin values. Matching drawdown periods at different rates will be
enough.

If we have a set of total skin values St corresponding to different rates, then we can
set up a plot of

St vs. qsc (5.5.6)

and determine D as the slope and S as the intercept with the vertical axis (at qsc = 0 ).
The skin value S at qsc = 0 is often referred to as the mechanical skin for a gas well.
An analysis of this type is illustrated in Fig. 5.9 for a data set based on SI units. Note
that the total skin value at the highest rate in this data set is roughly 9 times as high
as the value S at qsc = 0 .

194
 6

St = S + Dqsc 5 S = 0.6
D = 1.05x10-5 1/(Sm3/d)

0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
3
Gas rate, qsc, Sm /d

Fig. 5.9 – Analysis of rate-dependent skin values.

Loglog analyses to determine wellbore storage, fracture properties for fractured

wells, and other specialized analyses also follow exactly the same procedures as for
oil wells, but skin factors involved in the models can always have a non-Darcy
component.

Analyses of buildup data follow the approach above, with the basic equation

m
m( pws ) = m( pi ) − [ pwD (tD + ∆tD ) − pwD (∆tD )] (5.5.7)
1.151

used for simple buildup data, i.e., for buildup tests following production at just a
single rate. Modifications to analyses of data with multiple rates prior to shut-in
follow the same steps as used for tests of oil wells.

It is also possible to generalize MBH analyses to gas wells, with the identity

2.303
m ( p ) * − m( p ) = pDMBH (t DA ) (5.5.8)
m

used to determine the average pressure in a pseudopressure formulation. Note,

however, that there is the problem of pressure dependent parameters in the definition
of t DA such that the results must be used with some caution for buildups after long
producing periods. There are ways around this problem based on iterations, but the
details will not be discussed here. For a buildup after a short flow test used to

195
determine the initial pressure we do not have this problem, since the analysis is based
based on just a simple extrapolation without computations.

The last two equations must of course be modified if we use pressures squared or just
pressures in the analyses. In particular, note that if we use a simple pressure
formulation to analyze long-term data sets from a high-pressure gas field, we must
make sure that all of the data are in the proper pressure range.

196