Well Testing Course

Transparencies
Fig. 1.1 – The basis of the pseudopressure concept.

ρ
µ

area = m(p1)

p0 p1 p
Fig. 1.2 – One-to-one correspondence between
pressures and pseudopressures.

m(p)

m(p1)

p0 p1 p
 OVERVIEW/SUMMARY OF DERIVATIONS

Start with

∂  k x ρ ∂p  ∂  k y ρ ∂p  ∂  k z ρ ∂p  ∂
 +  +   = (φρ )
∂x  µ ∂x  ∂y  µ ∂y  ∂z  µ ∂z  ∂t

and derive

∂  ρ ∂p  ∂  ρ ∂p  ∂  ρ ∂p  1 ∂
 +  +  = (φρ )
∂x  µ ∂x  ∂y  µ ∂y  ∂z  µ ∂z  k ∂t

by assuming constant permeabilities and use substitution

Derive
∂ 2 p ∂ 2 p ∂ 2 p φµ ct ∂p
+ + =
∂x 2 ∂y 2 ∂z 2 k ∂t

for oil or water by assuming constant porosity, viscosity, compressibility

and small pressure gradients.

Derive

∂ 2 m( p ) ∂ 2 m( p ) ∂ 2 m( p ) φµ ct ∂m( p )
+ + =
∂x 2 ∂y 2 ∂z 2 k ∂t

for gas by only assuming constant porosity and using pseudopressures.

Note: The last two equations have the same form and hence must have the
same general solutions.
Fig. 1.3 – Modified Bessel functions of order 0 and 1
for small arguments.
4

3.5
I0(x)
3
K1(x)
2.5

2
I1(x)
1.5
K0(x)
1

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
x
Fig. 1.4 – Dimensionless pressures at and near a finite
wellbore in an infinite reservoir.
10
rD = 1 (top), 1.2, 1.4, 2, 5, 10, 20
pD

0.1

0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
2
tD/r D
Fig. 1.5 – Dimensionless wellbore pressures from the
three main solutions.

10
pwD

pD

0.1
Ei

ln

0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

tD
Fig. 2.1 – The line-source solution.

10
pD

0.1

0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
2
tD/r D
Fig. 2.2 – Interference data with excellent match to the
line-source solution.

10
pD

0.1

0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
tD/r D2
Fig. 2.3 – Semilog analysis of pressures or pressure
changes.

pwf ∆p

slope = − m

slope = m

log t log t
Fig. 2.4 – Skin effect in semilog data.

p
Computed from Eq. 2.4.1
∆ ps

Measured data

log t
Fig. 2.5 – Skin zone with reduced permeability.

Well axis Skin zone

Pressure profile

p (rw ) ∆ ps = p (r w ) − p wf > 0
pwf

0 rw rs r
Fig. 2.6 – Skin zone with increased permeability.

Well axis Skin zone

Pressure profile

pwf

p (rw ) ∆ ps = p (r w ) − p wf < 0

0 rw rs r
Fig. 2.7 – Well with limited flow entry.

h1

hp
h
Table 2.3 – Accuracy of Eq. 2.6.14 (top of formation
perforated).

rD 0.01 0.001

hp/h 0.5 0.1 0.2

Sd 5 20 -3 5 20 -3 -1 5 20 -3

Sp 3.28 3.28 3.28 22.46 22.46 22.46 22.46 20.74 20.74 20.74

Spe 8.24 23.22 0.84 66.45 201.1 4.39 14.85 40.70 100.6 9.21

St 13.28 43.28 -2.72 72.45 222.5 -7.54 12.46 45.74 120.7 5.74

Ste 13.24 43.22 -2.16 71.45 221.1 1.39 13.85 45.70 120.6 6.21
Fig. 2.8 – Wellbore pressures with storage-dominated
unit-slope data.

10
Pressure drop, ∆p, bar

0.1
Unit-slope line

0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Flow time, t, hrs
Fig. 2.9 – A set of type curves for wells with storage
and skin.

100
pD

S = 10
10 5

CD = 0
0
1

CD = 10 CD = 100 CD = 1000
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
tD
Fig. 2.10 – Flow regimes for wells with storage and
skin.
100
Unit-slope line
pD

S=5
10 CD = 0

1
tDeus

tDssl
CD = 100

0.1
10 100 1000 10000 100000
tD
Fig. 2.11 – Gringarten type curves for wells with
storage and skin.
100 2S
e CD = 32
10
pD

16
10
8
10 4
10 102
10
1 -1
10 -2
10-3
10
1

0.1

0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
tD/CD
Fig. 2.12 – Gringarten type curves with derivatives for
wells with storage and skin.
100
2S
e CD = 20
pD

10
8
10
10 20 2
10 10
8
10 1
-1
10
2
10
1
0.5
1
-1
10

0.1

0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
tD/CD
Fig. 2.13 – Vertical fracture with well at center.

x = −x f 0 x = xf
Fig. 2.14 – Dimensionless wellbore pressures and
derivatives for a fracture with uniform flux.
10
pwD & dpwD /dlntDxf

0.1

0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tDxf
Fig. 2.15 – Dimensionless wellbore pressures and
derivatives for a fracture with infinite conductivity.
10
pwD & dpwD /dlntDxf

0.1

0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tDxf
Fig. 2.16 – Dimensionless wellbore pressures and derivatives
for fractures with uniform flux and infinite conductivity.

10
pwD & dpwD /dlntDxf

1
Uniform flux

Infinite conductivity

0.1

0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tDxf
Fig. 2.17 – Dimensionless wellbore pressures and derivatives
for fractures with uniform flux and infinite conductivity.

4
pwD & dpwD /dlntDxf

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tDxf
Fig. 2.18 – Traditional type curves for centered uniform
flux fractures in square drainage areas.

100
xe/xf = 1 1.5 2 3
5
pwD

10
10
20

inf

0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
tDxf
Fig. 2.19 – Traditional type curves for centered inifinite
conductivity fractures in square drainage areas.

100
xe/xf = 1 1.5 2 3
5
pwD

10
10
20

inf

0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
tDxf
Fig. 2.20 – Dimensionless pressure and derivatives for
fractures with uniform flux and storage.

10
pwD

0.1
0

0.1 1 CDf = 10

0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tDxf
Fig. 2.21 – Dimensionless wellbore pressures for
fractures with finite conductivity.

10
FcD = 0.1 (top), 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 500
pwD

0.1

0.01
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tDxf
Fig. 2.22 – Dimensionless pressure for fractures with
uniform flux and infinite and finite conductivity.
10

FcD = 5, 10, 25, 500 (black)

pwD

Uniform flux and Infinite

conductivity (grey)

0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10
tDxf
Fig. 2.23 – Dimensionless pressures and derivatives
for fractures with finite conductivity.
10
pwD & dpwD/dlntDxf

0.1

FcD = 0.1, 1, 10, 50, 500

0.01 Black curves: pwD
Grey curves: dpwD/dlntDxf

0.001
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tDxf
Fig. 2.24 – Flow regimes that can be present in
solutions for fractures with finite conductivity (a & b).

a) Linear flow in the fracture: ∆p = at1/2 + b

b) Linear flow in both the fracture and the formation: ∆p = at1/4 + b

Fig. 2.24 – Flow regimes that can be present in
solutions for fractures with finite conductivity (c).

c) Linear flow in the formation: ∆p = at1/2 + b

Fig. 2.24 – Flow regimes that can be present in
solutions for fractures with finite conductivity (d).

d) Pseudoradial flow: ∆p = alogt + b

Fig. 2.25 – Dimensionless effective wellbore radius as
a function of fracture conductivity.

1
rwe /xf

0.1

0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000
FcD
Fig. 3.1 – Identification of flow regimes on linear and
semi-logarithmic plots.

15 15
SLOPE = 2π
pwD

pwD
10 10

5 5
SLOPE = 1.151

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
tDA tDA
Fig. 3.2 – The main elements of reservoir limit analysis.

294
Bottomhole pressure, pwf , bar

292
teia (from a semilog plot)

290 p0

Slope = -m’
288

286
tpss

284

282
0 50 100 150 200 250
Flow time, t, hrs
Fig. 3.3 – Flow periods for circular reservoirs with no-
flow, constant pressure and no outer boundary.
10
No-flow outer
pwD

boundary Unbounded
9

Constant pressure
8 outer boundary
tDAeia

tDAss
6 Circular reservoir
with reD = 5000

5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
tDA
Table 3.2 – Steady state shape factors.
CA CA′ tDAss CA CA′ tDAss

30.8828 19.4859 0.25 43.6760 23.9485 0.21

0.6598 18.3577 2.25 37.3525 20.4812 0.22

0.3322 9.2428 2.25 19.1345 10.4918 0.23

0.02602 2.3514 2.46 0.002461 7.6203 5.05

0.003688 0.4474 2.51 0.001231 3.8117 5.05

15.4406 18.5677 0.49 1.3250 7.6640 1.12

9.0449 10.8767 0.49 0.6675 3.8609 1.12

2.9890 3.5944 0.49 21.8318 17.7278 0.42

7.7215 4.5481 0.98 18.6088 15.1107 0.44

4.5123 2.6578 0.98 3.7063 4.0401 0.48

1.0263 4.8781 1.09 88.6503 32.8228 0.10

Fig. 3.4 – Dimensionless productivity indices as
functions of skin value.

0.80
Dimensionless PI, PID(S)

0.60 PIidD ranging from 0.08 (bottom) to 0.16 in steps of 0.02

0.40

0.20

0.00
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Skin values, S
Fig. 3.5 – Productivity ratios from changing skin values.

20
Productivity ratio, PI(Snew )/PI(Sold)

PIidD = 0.12
Old skin values ranging from 0 (bottom) to 50 in steps of 10
15

10

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
New skin value, Snew
Fig. 3.6 – Detail of the data from Fig. 3.5 with grid lines
included.
Productivity ratio, PI(Snew )/PI(Sold) 10

PIidD = 0.12
Old skin values ranging from 0 to 50 in steps of 10

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
New skin value, Snew
Fig. 4.1 – Notation and numbering used for piecewise
constant rate histories.

qN-1
qN
q2

q1

q0 = 0

t0 t1 t2 tN-2 tN-1 tN t
Fig. 4.2 – Key elements of simple buildup tests.

300
pi
280
Bottomhole pressures, bar

∆t)
pws(∆
260

240

220

200

pwf,s = pwf(t)
180
pwf
∆t)
pwf(t+∆
160

140
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time, hrs
Fig. 4.3 – Key elements of MDH analysis.

300
Wellbore pressure, pws , bar

280 p

260 Slope = m

240 p1hr

∆tDA = 1/CA

∆t = tpss
220

200

Storage data
180

160
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Buildup time, ∆t, hrs
Table 4.1 – Upper limit of semilog straight lines on
MDH plots for closed squares with centered well.

Flow time tDA prior to Shut-in time ∆tDA at top of

shut-in semilog straight line

0.04 0.0019

0.08 0.0024

> 0.1 = tDApss 0.0025

Fig. 4.4 – MBH functions for central well locations in
some simple drainage shapes.
6

Circle, hexagon and square (upper group)

pDMBH

5 Equilateral triangle and rhombus (middle group)

Right triangle (lower curve)

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
tDA
Fig. 4.5 – MBH functions for four well locations in a
square.
6

5 Well at center
pDMBH

Well at center
4 of upper half

Well at center
3 of a quadrant

Well at center of
2
upper one fourth

-1
0.01 0.1 1 10
tDA
Fig. 4.6 – MBH functions for six well locations in a 2:1
rectangle.

6
Well at center
5 Well at center
pDMBH

of upper half
4 Well at center
of right half
Well at center
3 of upper fourth
Well at center
of a quadrant
2
Well at center
of right fourth
1

-1
0.01 0.1 1 10
tDA
Fig. 4.7 – MBH functions for four well locations in a 4:1
rectangle.
4

Well at center
pDMBH

3 Well at center
of upper half

2 Well at center
of right half
Well at center
1 of a quadrant

-1

-2
0.01 0.1 1 10
tDA
Fig. 4.8 – Key elements of Horner and MBH analysis.

300
Producing time t = 100 hrs
p p*
Wellbore pressure, pws , bar

280

260 Slope = m

240 p1hr

220

200 ∆teDA = 1/CA

∆t = tpss
180 Storage data

160
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
∆t/(t + ∆t)
Table 4.2 – Upper limit of semilog straight lines on
MDH plots for closed squares with centered well.

Flow time tDA prior Shut-in time ∆tDA at top of Shut-in time ∆tDA at top of
to shut-in Horner straight line MDH semilog straight line

0.04 0.0500 0.0019

0.08 0.0258 0.0024

> 0.1 = tDApss 0.0178 0.0025

0.2 0.0125 “

0.4 0.0087 “

1.0 0.0067 “
Fig. 4.9 – Slug test data showing apparent storage, derivative
response of a long uniform-flux fracture and radial flow.

10
Pressure expression, bar·hrs

1
Reference model
0.1
Slug test data
0.01

0.001

0.0001
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Shut-in time, hrs
Fig. 5.1 – Correlation between b factors and absolute
permeability determined laboratory measurements.
Fig. 5.2 – Pressure response during a flow-after-flow
(FAF) test.
Fig. 5.3 – LIT analysis of data from a flow-after-flow
test with the AOF added.
[m(p) - m(pwf )]/qsc , bar /cp/(Sm /d) 9

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. 5.4 – Pressure response during an isochronal test.
Fig. 5.5 – LIT analysis of data from an isochronal test.
3
(p - pwf )/qsc , bar/cp/(Sm /d) 0.0006

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. 5.6 – Pressure response during a modified
isochronal test.
Fig. 5.7 – LIT analysis of data from a modified
isochronal test.
12
/d)3/d)

11.5
AOF = 507000 Sm3/d
m(p)/q , bar /cp/(Sm
3

at = 7.9
sc, bar /cp/(Sm

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

10
sc

9.5 Stabilized
∆m(p)/q

qsc = AOF
8.5

8 Transient

7.5

7
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
3
Gas rate, qsc, Sm /d
Fig. 5.8 – Backpressure loglog analysis of data from an
isochronal test.
105
100000
AOF = 549277 Sm3/d
2
C = 172.3
n = 0.79
∆ p , bar
2

104
10000

S
T
qsc = AOF

103
1000
7
105
1.E+05 106
1.E+06 10
1.E+07
3
Gas rate, qsc, Sm /d
Fig. 5.9 – Analysis of rate-dependent skin values.

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. 6.1 – No-flow boundary generated by two wells.

GENERATED NO-FLOW
BOUNDARY

d d

WELL 1 WELL 2
Fig. 6.2 – Semilog analysis to determine the distance
to a fault for a well with storage and skin.

300
Pressure, pwf , bar

280
Storage effects
260

240
Slope = -m
220
Slope = -2m
200

180

160 tx

140
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Flow time, t, hrs
Fig. 6.3 – Diagnostic (loglog) plot of the data from Fig.
6.2.

1000
Pressure differences & derivatives, bar

100

Doubling of
derivatives

10

1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Flow time, t, hrs
Fig. 6.4 – Effects of a no-flow boundary on buildup data
following different producing times.

350
Buildup pressure, pws, bar

340
tD/dD2 = 0.1 (top), 1, 2, 5, 10
330

320

310

300
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Horner time, ∆t/(t + ∆t)
Fig. 6.5 – Intersecting no-flow boundaries generated by
three evenly spaced wells.
GENERATED NO-FLOW
BOUNDARY

WELL 2

d d

WELL 1

d d

d
WELL 3
Fig. 6.6 – Intersecting no-flow boundaries generated by four
wells.
GENERATED NO-FLOW
BOUNDARY

WELL 1 d2 d2 WELL 2

d1 d1

d1 d1

WELL 4 d2 d2 WELL 3
Fig. 6.7 – Parallel no-flow boundaries generated by a two-way
infinite pattern of wells.
GENERATED NO-FLOW
BOUNDARIES

d1 d2 d2 d1 d1 d2 d2 d1 d1 d2 d2 d1 d1 d2

WELL
Fig. 6.8 – Semilog plot of drawdown data from a well
between parallel no-flow boundaries.
300
Pressure, p wf , bar

Wellbore storage
250

200

Slope = − m
150

100

50
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Flow time, t, hrs
Fig. 6.9 – Square root of time plot of the data from Fig.
6.8.
Pressure, p wf , bar 300

250

200

150

100

50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Square root of flow time, sqrt(t), sqrt(hrs)
Fig. 6.10 – Diagnostic (loglog) plot of the data from Fig.
6.8.
1000
Pressure differences & derivatives, bar

100

10

1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Flow time, t, hrs
Fig. 7.1 – Notation used for a simple horizontal well
model.

z=h

Lw = total well length

z = zw

z=0
x = −Lw /2 0 x = Lw /2 x
Fig. 7.2 – Horizontal well exhibiting four flow regimes
without external boundaries.

1000
Pressure differences & derivatives, bar

100
Pseudoradial flow

Linear flow
10 Storage

Early radial flow

1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Flow time, t, hrs
Fig. 8.1 – Notation used for deviated well models.

ha

θ Lw = perforated length
h hw

dw
Fig. 8.2 – Skin values determined from Eq. 8.3.1 for
isotropic formations.
Fig. 8.3 – The first few of an infinite vertical sequence
of image wells.

Add computed pressure drops at the

active segment from itself a distance rw
Active segment
from its axis and from all the images
(infinite number)
Fig. 8.4 – Effect of well angle on the pressure response
of a short deviated well in an isotropic formation.
Fig. 8.5 – Effect of well angle on the pressure response
of a short deviated well in an anisotropic formation.
Fig. 8.6 – Skin values of a centered deviated well of
length Lw = h in an isotropic formation with hD = 200.
Fig. 8.7 – Skin values for short and long centered
deviated wells in an isotropic formation with hD = 200.
Fig. 9.1 – Pressure transient characteristics of a well near a
boundary with a change in thickness but no added flow
restriction.
Fig. 9.2 – Pressure transient characteristics of a well near a
boundary with flow restriction but no change in thickness.
Fig. 9.3 – Derivative data presented in the format used in the
paper SPE 14311 for wells near partially sealing faults.
Fig. 9.4 – Schematic of a linear boundary with limited
flow entry.

h2
hc
h1
h b2
h b1
Fig. 9.5 – Schematic of a linear boundary with finite
thickness and limited flow entry.

h2
hc
h1
hb2
h b1

df
Fig. 10.1 – Side view of a pinchout model based on a
circle well in an unbounded 3D formation.

on top
ati
Form

θ Wellbore
R

For
m atio
n b ot
tom
Fig. 10.2 – Side view of a pinchout model with a
straight well trajectory.

Wellbore
n t op
m atio
F or

h/2
θ/2 d
θ/2
h/2

For
mat
ion
bo t
tom
Fig. 10.3 – The pressure transient response of a well
near a pinchout boundary.
Fig. 10.4 – Top view of a model with a pinchout
boundary and a sealing crossing fault.

Sealing fault
Wellbore

L L
Pinchout

Circle well
Circle well
Fig. 10.5 – The pressure transient response of a well
near both a pinchout and a crossing fault.
Fig. 10.6 – The pressure transient response of a well
near both a pinchout and two crossing faults.
Fig. 11.1 – Pressure transient characteristics of two-
layer unbounded models with and without crossflow.
Fig. 11.2 – The data from Fig. 11.1 shown in semilog
coordinates.
Fig. 11.3 – Pressure transient characteristics of 2-layer models
with a common no-flow boundary with and without crossflow.
Fig. 11.4 – The data from Fig. 11.3 shown in semilog
coordinates.
Fig. 12.1 – The effect of identical skin values on the pressure
response from a double-permeability reservoir.
Fig. 12.2 – The effect of adding skin a value to only the layer
with highest flow capacity in a double-permeability reservoir.
Fig. 12.3 – The effect of adding a skin value to only the layer
with lowest flow capacity in a double-permeability reservoir.
Fig. 13.1 – Pressure transient characteristics of PSS
and transient double porosity models.
Fig. 13.2 – Semilog plot of the data from Fig. 13.1.
Fig. 13.3 – Effects of ω on the pressure transient
characteristics of PSS models.
Fig. 13.4 – Semilog plot of the data from Fig. 13.3.
Fig. 13.5 – Effects of ω on the pressure transient
characteristics of transient models.
Fig. 13.6 – Semilog plot of the data from Fig. 13.5.