Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Well Test Course Notes
Well Test Course Notes
Well Test Course Notes
Fall 2005
Mazher Ibrahim
Basis for Grade:
Homework 20%
Examinations (3) 45%
Final Examination 25%
Class Participation/Pop Quizzes 10%
total = 100%
Grade Cutoffs: (Percentages)
A: < 90
B: 89.99 to 80
C: 79.99 to 70
D: 69.99 to 60
F: < 59.99
Introduction
to Well Testing
Objectives
• List the more common objectives of well testing.
• Describe the diffusivity equation by explaining
– its purpose and applications
– assumptions made in its derivation and how it is
derived
– its form for one-dimensional radial flow.
• List, define, give the units for, and specify typical sources
for each of the variables that influence responses in a well
test.
• Compute the total compressibility for different reservoir
systems (undersaturated oil, saturated oil, gas).
What Is A Well Test?
• A tool for reservoir evaluation and characterization
– Investigates a much larger volume of the reservoir
than cores or logs
– Provides estimates of
– permeability under in-situ conditions
– near-wellbore conditions
– distances to boundaries
– average pressure
How Is A Well Test Conducted?
q
Well is
allowed to q
produce Production
normally remainst
constant
Sensor is p Pressure
lowered stabilizes
into well
t
How Is A Well Test Conducted?
q=0
Production drops to 0
Well is
shut in q
Sensor is p
lowered Pressure
into well rises
t
Fundamental Concepts
• Deliverability tests
– Well controlled production
• (Production Analysis)
– Use of production data for goals usually achieved by
well testing
Production data analysis
• Reservoir properties (permeability, skin
factor, fracture half-length, etc).
• Reservoir pore volume (estimated using
long-term production performance).
• Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)—
movable fluid volumes.
Well Test Applications
Well Test Objectives
• Define reservoir limits
• Estimate average drainage area pressure
• Characterize reservoir
Sensor is
lowered
into well
Single-, Multiwell Tests
Well is
shut in . . . pressure is
measured at
Sensor is offset well(s)
lowered
into
offset
well
Kinds of Well Tests
q
Produce well Plot
at constant pressure
rate response
Lower Pwf
sensor
into well
t
Kinds of Well Tests
Shut in well
Plot
Produce
pressure
well at
response
constant
rate
Lower Pws
sensor
into well
t
Kinds of Well Tests
Plot
pressure
Inject fluid response
into well at
constant rate p
t
Kinds of Well Tests
q=0
Shut in well
Measure
Inject fluid pressure
into well at response
constant rate
p
t
Multiwell Tests
. . . measure pressure
response at offset
well(s)
Produce
one well at
constant
rate . . .
p
t
Multiwell Tests
q
. . . measure
pressure
response at
offset well(s)
Alternately
produce and
shut in one
well . . . p
t
PTA: Single-Well Tests
– one well in which the pressure response is measured
following a rate change.
• pressure buildup test
– shut in after controlled production
• drawdown or flow test
– (specific drawdown tests: are called reservoir limits tests
• pressure falloff test
– similar to a pressure buildup test, except it is, conducted
on an injection well
• injectivity test
– Inject into the well at measured rate and measure pressure
as it increases with time
– analogous to pressure drawdown testing.
PTA: Multiwell Tests
• Flow rate is changed in one well
• Pressure response is measured in one or more other
wells
• Directional variations of reservoir properties
(orientation of natural fractures)
• Presence or lack of communication between two
points in the reservoir
• Ratio of the porosity-compressibility products of the
matrix and fracture systems
Multiwell tests:
• Interference tests
– The active well is produced at a measured, constant
rate throughout the test
– (Other wells in the field must be shut in so that any
observed pressure response can be attributed to the
active well only.)
• Pulse tests
– The active well produces and then, is shut in, returned
to production and shut in again
– Repeated but with production or shut-in periods
rarely exceeding more than a few hours
– Produces a pressure response in the observation wells
which usually can be interpreted unambiguously (even
when other wells in the field continue to produce)
Deliverability tests (DT)
• production capabilities of a well under
specific reservoir conditions
• primarily for gas wells
• absolute openflow (AOF) potential
• inflow performance relationship (IPR) or gas
backpressure curve
DT: Flow-After-Flow Tests
(referred to as gas backpressure or four-point tests)
behavior
(Av)1 (Av)2
Av 1 Av 2
m
Flow Equation (Darcy’s Law)
kAp
q
L
or, in differential form,
k x p
ux
x
Equation of State for a Slightly
Compressible Liquid
c p po
oe
The Diffusivity Equation
One-dimensional, radial form:
1 p ct p
r
r r r k t
Formation Volume Factor
Vres
B
Vsurf
For oil: For gas: For water:
Vres Vres Vres
Bo Bg Bw
Vsurf Vsurf Vsurf
Viscosity
• A fluid’s resistance to flow
– Gasoline—low viscosity
– Vaseline—high viscosity
Fluid Compressibility
1 V ln V
c
V p p
Porosity
Permeability
qL
k
Ap
Pore Compressibility
1 ln
cf
p p
Net Pay Thickness
h1
h2
h = h1 + h2 + h3
Shale
h3 Sand (No perforations
in this sand)
h4
Net Pay Thickness
rw
Total Compressibility
ct c f Soco Swcw S g c g
Modeling Radial Flow
Instructional Objectives
• State the Ei-function solution to the diffusivity
equation, and list all the assumptions on which it
is based. State practical rules for determining the
numerical values of the Ei-function.
• Given formation and fluid properties, be able to
calculate the radius of investigation at a given
time and the time necessary to reach a given
radius of investigation.
• Describe the effects of reservoir properties on the
radius of investigation.
Radial Flow Reservoir Model
Bulk
formation
rw
h
r
Ei-Function Solution
to the Diffusivity Equation
2
qB 948ct r
p pi 70.6 Ei
kh kt
e u
Ei x du
x u
Ei-Function Graph
6 Log approximation
Ei-function
drops to zero
2
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
-x
Short-Time Approximation for Ei-
Function Solution
p pi
948 ct r 2
Applies when 10
kt
(large radius or small time)
Long-Time Approximation
to Ei-Function Solution
qB 1688 c r 2
p pi 162.6 log10 t
kh kt
948 ct r 2
Applies when 0.01
kt
(small radius or large time)
Pressure Profile
During Drawdown
2000
t=0 ri ri ri ri
t = 0.01 hrs
t = 1 hr
Pressure,
psi
t = 100 hrs
t = 10000 hrs
1000
1 10 100 1000 10000
Distance from center of wellbore, ft
Pressure Profile
During Buildup
2,000
t = 10,000 hrs
ri
1,800
ri
1,600 t = 100 hrs
1,400
ri
t = 1 hr
1,200 ri
t = 0.01 hrs
t=0
1,000
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Distance from center of wellbore, ft
Radius of Investigation Equations
• Radius of investigation for a
given time t:
kt
ri
948ct
948ct ri2
t
k
Characterizing Damage and
Stimulation
Instructional Objectives
• List factors that cause skin damage or geometric skin factor.
• Calculate skin factor for a given additional pressure drop due to
damage; conversely, calculate additional pressure drop for a given
skin factor.
• Calculate flow efficiency given the skin factor, wellbore pressure,
and average drainage area pressure.
• Express skin factor as an apparent wellbore radius; conversely,
express apparent wellbore radius as a skin factor.
• Express a given skin factor as an equivalent fracture halflength (for
an infinite-conductivity fracture); conversely, express fracture half-
length as an equivalent skin factor.
Drilling Fluid Damage
Fines may clog pore
throats, reducing
effective permeability
Mud filtrate
invasion
‘dirty’ incompatible
water water
Reservoir Model
Skin Effect
Bulk
formation
Altered
zone
ka h k
rw
ra
Reservoir Pressure Profile
2,000
Pressure, psi
1,500
1,000
ps
500
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Distance from center of wellbore, ft
Skin and Pressure Drop
0.00708 k h
s ps
qB
Skin and Pressure Drop
141.2qB
ps s
kh
Skin Factor and Properties
of the Altered Zone
k ra
s 1 ln
ka rw
rw rds
h
r
Skin Factor and Properties
of the Altered Zone
k
ka
s
1
ln ra rw
Effective Wellbore Radius
s
rwa
wa rw e
rwa
s ln
rw
Minimum Skin Factor
re
smin ln
w
r
Minimum Skin Factor
Example
re
smin ln
rw
745
ln 7.3
0.5
Converging Flow to Perforations
Geometric Skin
Partial Penetration
hp
Geometric Skin
Incompletely Perforated
Interval
h1
ht
hp
ht
s sd s p
hp
Geometric Skin
Partial Penetration
Apparent Skin Factor
h1 D h1 ht 1
Geometric Skin A
h1 D hpD 4
hpD hp ht
1 hpD A 1 2
1
1
sp 1 ln ln
hpD 2rD hpD 2 hpD B 1
1
rw kv 2
B
1
rD h1 D 3hpD 4
ht kh
Deviated Wellbore
h sec
h s sd s
Geometric Skin
Deviated Wellbore
Apparent Skin Factor
1
kv
w' tan tan w
kh
2.06 1.865
w
' w
'
hD
s log
41 56 100
h kh
hD
rw kv
Well With Hydraulic Fracture
L f 2rwa
Lf
rwe
Lf
rwa
Geometric Skin
2
Completion Skin
rw
s s p sd sdp
kdp rdp
rp
kR
Lp h rdp kR kR
sdp ln
L p n rp kdp kd
kd
rd
Gravel Pack Skin
Cement
kR hLg
sgp 2
2nkgp rp
Lg
Productivity Index
q
J
p pwf
Flow Efficiency
E fnew
qnew qold
E fold
Semilog Analysis
For Oil Wells
Instructional Objectives
• Analyze a constant-rate drawdown test using semilog
analysis.
• Analyze a buildup test following a constant-rate flow
period using the Horner method.
Ei-Function Solution
qB 948 c t r 2
p pi 70.6 Ei
kh kt
6
0.001 -x 100
Reservoir Pressure Profile
2,000
Negative skin
(s = -2)
Pressure,
psi Unsteady-state pressure
(s=0)
500
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Distance from center of wellbore, ft
Incorporating Skin into the
Ei-Function Solution
• For r = rw
qB 948 ct rw
2
p pi 70.6 Ei 2 s
kh kt
• For r > ra
q B 948 ct r 2
p pi 70.6 Ei
kh kt
Log Approximation to the
Ei-Function
y = mx + b
qB Use |m| in computations
pwf pi 162.6 from this point forward
kh
k
log10 t log10 3.23 0.869s
2
c t w
r
Estimating Permeability and
Skin
162.6qB
k
mh
p p k
s 1.151 i 1hr
log10 3.23
c r 2
m t w
Drawdown Test Graph
1,200
Powers of 10
700
0.1 1 10 100 1,000
Elapsed Test Time, hrs
Example
• q = 250 STB/D pi = 4,412 psia
• h = 46 ft = 12%
• rw = 0.365 ft B = 1.136 RB/STB
• ct = 17 x 10-6 psi-1 = 0.8 cp
p p k
s 1.151 i 1hr log10 3.23
c r 2
m t w
Example
• q = 250 STB/D pi = 4,412 psia
• h = 46 ft = 12%
• rw = 0.365 ft B = 1.136 RB/STB
• ct = 17 x 10-6 psi-1 = 0.8 cp
162.6qB
k
mh
p p k
s 1.151 i 1hr log10 3.23
c r 2
m t w
Example
3,600
Extrapolate to get p1 hr
slope = p10 hr-p1 hr
p1hr 3,540 psi
-100
m 100
p10hr 3,440 psi
One log cycle
Plot data points
from field data
3,300
1 10 100
Time, hrs
Example
• q = 250 STB/D pi = 4,412 psia
• h = 46 ft = 12%
• rw = 0.365 ft B = 1.136 RB/STB
• ct = 17 x 10-6 psi-1 = 0.8 cp
162.6qB
k
p1hr 3,540 psi mh
p p k
s 1.151 i 1hr log10 3.23
2
m 100 ct rw
m
Problems with Drawdown
Tests
• It is difficult to produce a well at a strictly constant
rate
• Even small variations in rate distort the pressure
response
Alternative to Drawdown
Tests
• There is one rate that is easy to maintain – a flow
rate of zero.
• A buildup test is conducted by shutting in a
producing well and measuring the resulting
pressure response.
Buildup Test - Rate History
q
Rate during production of +q.
0 tp + t
0 t
Rate after shut-in of -q
-q
q
Sum after shut-in
of 0.
0
tp t
Buildup Pressure Response
0
Pressure normally declines
during production...
tp + t
tp t
Buildup Test - Superposition
qB k
pws pi 162.6
log10 t p t log10 3.23 0.869 s
kh c 2
t w
r
qB k
162.6 log10 t log10 3.23 0.869 s
ct rw
kh 2
qB t p t
pws pi 162 .6 log10
kh t
y = mx + b
Buildup Straight-Line
Analogy
162.6qB
k
mh
Horner time ratio
t p t
pi b @ 1
t
Buildup Test Graph
2,000
pi
1,400
10,000 1,000 100 10 1
1 p ct p
r
r r r k t
• Continuity Equation
• Equation of State For Slightly
Compressible Liquids
• Darcy’s Law
Real Gas Law
pV=znRT
pV znRT number of moles
volume, ft3 temperature, R
Real Gas Pseudopressure
p p p 2
p pdp
p0 z
Gas Flow Equation
Real Gas Pseudopressure
1 p p c t p p
r
r r r k t
• Continuity Equation
• Real Gas Law Equation of State
• Darcy’s Law
Gas Flow Equation
Pressure-Squared
1 p 2
c t p
2
r
r r r k t
• Continuity Equation
• Real Gas Law Equation of State
• Darcy’s Law
• The term z Is Constant
Pressure-Squared Ranges
0.16
SG=1.2
Fairly constant at
rates <2,000 psi
SG=1.0
mu*z, Tf = 200 °F
psi/cp SG=0.8
SG=0.6
0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Pressure, psia
Gas Flow Equation: Pressure
• If p/z is constant,
1 p ct p
r
r r r k t
• Continuity Equation
• Real Gas Law Equation of State
• Darcy’s Law
Pressure: Range Of
Application
250
Tf = 200°F SG=0.6
SG=0.8
SG=1.0
SG=1.2
1 p p ct p p
r
r r r k t
Strong Variation
• Continuity Equation With Pressure
t
dt
t ap
0 p ct p
Adjusted Variables
z p pdp z
pa p p p p
p i p0 z 2 p i
t
t a ct i ct i t ap
dt
0 p ct p
Using Horner Time Ratio
With Adjusted Time
t p ta
HTR
ta
Non-Darcy Flow
• Flow equations developed so far assume
Darcy flow
• For gas wells, velocity near wellbore is
high enough that Darcy’s law fails
• Non-Darcy behavior can often be
modeled as rate-dependent skin
Apparent Skin Factor
s ' s Dq g
Estimating Non-Darcy
Coefficient
From Multiple Tests
10
8
D = 5.1x104D/Mscf
6
Apparent
skin factor
4
s = 3.4
2
0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Flow rate, Mscf/D
Estimating Non-Darcy Coefficient
From Turbulence Parameter
• Often, only one test is available
• If so, we can estimate D from
15
2.715 10 k g Mp sc
D
hrwTsc g ,wf
Estimating Turbulence
Parameter
• If is not known, it can be estimated from
10 1.47 0.53
1.88 10 k
Wellbore Storage
Objectives
• Define wellbore unloading
• Define afterflow
• Calculate wellbore storage (WBS)
coefficient for wellbore filled with a
singlephase fluid
• Calculate WBS coefficient for rising
liquid level
Fluid-Filled Wellbore -
Unloading
Ei-function solution
assumes constant
Rate
Surface Rate reservoir rate
Bottomhole
Rate Mass balance
0 equation resolves
Time
problems
dpw
q qsf B
dt 24Vwbcwb
Fluid-Filled Wellbore -
Afterflow
Bottomhole flow
Rate
Surface Rate continues after
shut-in
Bottomhole
Rate
Time
dpw
q qsf B
dt 24Vwbcwb
Rising Liquid Level
Rate Surface Rate
Bottomhole
Rate
Time
dpw
q qsf B 5.615 wb g
dt 24 144 Awb gc
Wellbore Storage
Fluid-filled wellbore
dpw
q qsf B
dt 24Vwbcwb
Rising liquid level
dpw
q qsf B 5.615 wb g
dt 24 144 Awb gc
General dpw
q qsf B
dt 24C
Wellbore Storage Definition
C
q qsf B
Rising
dpw
24 liquid level
dt
144 Awb gc
C
5.615 wb g
Fluid-filled
wellbore Awb
25.65
wb
C Vwbcwb
Type Curve Analysis
Objectives
kh ps 0.8936C
s CD
141.2qB ct hrw2
Gringarten Type Curve
• Constant rate production
• Vertical well
• Infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir
• Single-phase, slightly compressible liquid
• Infinitesimal skin factor
• Constant wellbore storage coefficient
Gringarten Type Curve
100
PD CDe2s=100
CDe2s=0.01
Stem
Time group
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Gringarten Type Curve
100
PD
Similarities of curves make
matching difficult
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Pressure Derivative
162.6qB kt
p log 3.23 0.869 s
2
kh ct rw
p p p D p D
t
lnt
tD
t t D ln t D
tD/PD
CDe2s=100
CDe2s=0.01
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Pressure + Derivative Type
Curves
100
Combining curves
gives each stem
value two distinctive
shapes
PD
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Pressure/Derivative Type
Curve
100
PD
Unit
Horizontal Derivative
Slope
Line
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Pressure + Derivative Type
Curve
100
High skin
PD No skin
Low skin
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Equivalent Time For PBU
Tests
qB k
pi pwf 162.6
log10 t p log 3.23 0.869 s
2
kh ct rw
qB k
pi pws 162.6
log10 t p t log 2
3.23 0.869 s
kh ct rw
qB k
162.6 log10 t log 3.23 0.869 s
2
kh ct w
r
Equivalent Time For PBU
Tests
qB k
pws pwf 162.6
log10 t p log 3.23 0.869 s
2
kh ct rw
qB k
162.6
log10 t p t log 3.23 0.869 s
2
kh ct rw
qB k
162.6 log10 t log 3.23 0.869 s
2
kh ct rw
qB t p t k
pws pwf 162.6 log10 log 3.23 0.869 s
kh t p t c r
2
t w
Equivalent Time For PBU
Tests
qB k
pi pwf 162.6
log10 t p log 3.23 0.869 s
2
kh ct rw
qB t p t k
log
3.23 0.869s
pws pwf 162.6 log10
kh t p t c r 2
t w
qB k
pws pwf 162.6 log10 te log 3.23 0.869s
kh c r 2
t w
Equivalent Time For PBU
Tests
Drawdown
p pi pwf vs t
Buildup
p pws pwf vs t e
Properties Of Equivalent
Time
t p t
te
t p t
tp
t t , t t p
t p t
t
tp t p , t t p
t p t
tp
HTR
Adjusted Variables For Gas
Wells
z p
p' dp '
pa
p ref p ' 0 p 'z p '
t
t a ct ref
dt '
t ' 0 p ct p
Ca Vwbcg ref
Field Data Plot
1,000
P
1
teq 1,000
Overlay Field Data on Type
Curve
100
1,000
PD
P
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Move Field Data Toward
Horizontal
100
1,000
PD
P
1,000
Stop when data align
with horizontal stems
P
PD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Move Field Data Toward
Stems
100
1,000
P
PD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Move Field Data Toward
Stems
100
Assume Assume Let’s say s=7x10
Calculate s from9
pD =1,000
10 p = 262 matching stem value
p/pD k
Extrapolate curve
p as necessary
pD
Assume
teq = 0.0546
1
teq 1,000
Teq/tD CD
0.01 100,000
Assume
tD/CD = 1 tD/CD
Use Reservoir, Well
Properties
q = 50 = 0.183
B = 1.325 ct = 1.76 x 10-5
= 0.609 rw2 = 0.25
h = 15 CD = 1703
Calculate k From Pressure
Match
141.2qB pD
k
h p M .P .
k
141.2501.3250.609 10
15 262
14.5 md
Calculate CD From Time
Match
0.0002637k teq
CD
ct rw D D M .P .
2 t C
0.000263714.5 0.0546
0.1830.6091.76 10 0.25 1
CD 5
1703
Calculate s From CDe2s
2s
1 C De
s ln
2 C D
9
1 7 10
s ln
2 1703
7.6
Manual Log-Log
Analysis
Instructional Objectives
• To be able to manually estimate permeability and
skin factor from the log-log diagnostic plot
without using type curves
Estimating Permeability and
Skin Factor from the
Diagnostic Plot
1000
pr
Pressure change, psi
100
(tp’)r
10
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 tr 100 1000
70.6qB
k
htp r
1 pr ktr
s ln
2
2 tp r 1688 ct rw
Example
q = 50 STB/D pwf = 2095 psia
h = 15 ft = 18.3%
B = 1.36 RB/STB ct = 17.9 x 106 psi1
= 0.563 cp rw = 0.25 ft
Estimate (tp’)r, tr, and pr
1000
400
Pressure change, psi
100
14
10
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
20
Equivalent time, hrs
Estimate Permeability
70.6qB
k
htp r
70.6 501.360.563
1514
12.9 md
Estimate Skin Factor
1 pr ktr
s ln
2
2 tp r 1688 ct rw
1 400
ln
12.9 20
2
16880.1830.56317.9 10 0.25
6
2 14
7.23
Flow
Regimes and
the
Diagnostic
Plot
Objectives
1. Identify early, middle, and late time
regions on a diagnostic plot.
2. Identify characteristic shapes of flow
regimes on a diagnostic plot.
3. List factors that affect pressure response
in early time.
4. List boundaries that affect pressure
response in late time.
The Diagnostic Plot
Unit-slope
line
Near-wellbore effects
(wellbore storage)
Early-time Middle- Late-time
region time region
region
Homogenous reservoir
horizontal derivative
(best estimate of k )
Partial penetration,
Early-time Middle- Late-time
region
phase redistribution, time region
region
fracture conductivity
Infinite-acting
behavior
Boundary
effects
Partial penetration,
Early-time Middle- Late-time
region
phase redistribution, time region
region
fracture conductivity
General Form p mV t bV
Volumetric Behavior
General Form p mV t bV
p mV t bV
Derivative t t
t t
mV t
Volumetric Behavior
Pressure derivative
Wellbore
storage
Wellbore
Radial Flow
Wellbore
Fracture
Radial Flow
Late radial flow
Wellbore
Early radial flow
Radial Flow
Vertical Well
162.6qB kt
p log
2
3.23 0.869s
kh ct rw
p m log t b
Derivative t t
t t
m
2.303
Radial Flow
Pressure
Pressure derivative
Radial
flow
z
Spherical Flow
Vertical wellbore
Few perforations
open
Spherical flow
Spherical Flow
Small part of
Vertical wellbore zone perforated
Spherical flow
Spherical Flow
Certain wireline
Vertical wellbore testing tools
Spherical flow
Spherical Flow
Spherical Probe (RFT)
q ct rp
2
pi pwf 1
4krp kt
1 2
General Form p bS mS t
Spherical Flow
1 2
General Form p bS mS t
Derivative t
p
t
bS mS t 1 2
t t
1 1 2
mS t
2
Spherical Flow
Pressure
Pressure derivative
1
2
Spherical flow
Linear flow
Linear Flow
Vertical
Linear
wellbore
flow
Channel (ancient
stream) reservoir
Linear Flow
Wellbore
Early linear flow
Linear Flow
Late linear flow
Wellbore
Linear Flow
12
16.26qB kt
Channel p
khw ct
Hydraulic 12
4.064qB kt
Fracture p
khLf ct
General p mL t 12
bL
Form
Linear Flow
General p mL t 12
bL
Form
p m t 12
bL
Derivative t t L
t t
1
mL t 12
2
Linear Flow
Pressure change in fractured/damaged
or horizontal well
Pressure change in
undamaged
fractured well Pressure 1
derivative
2
General Form p mB t 14
bB
Bilinear Flow
General Form p mB t 14
bB
Derivative t
p
t
mB t bB14
t t
1
mB t 14
4
Bilinear Flow
Pressure in fractured,
damaged well
Pressure in fractured,
undamaged well
1
Pressure derivative
4
Radial
Wellbore flow
storage Spherical flow Recharge?
1
Curves for Square Drainage
6
Area
5
3
pMBHD
-1
0.01 0.1 1 10
tpAD
6
Curves for 2x1 Rectangle
5
3
pMBHD
-1
0.01 0.1 1 10
tpAD
5
Curves for 4x1 Rectangle
4
2
pMBHD
-1
-2
0.01 0.1 1 10
tpAD
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
2750
p*=2689.4
2650
m=26.7
Shut-in well
pressure, psia
2550
2450
Step
Step1:2:Plot
Extrapolate
pressureslope
vs. Horner
m to find
timep*ratio
2400
106 105 104 103 102 10 1
Horner time ratio
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
Step 3: Calculate dimensionless producing time
0.0002637kt ktpp
pAD
t pAD
ctt A
0.0002637 7.5482
0.150.251.615 10 15003000
5
0.35
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
Step 4: On appropriate MBH curve, find pMBHD
6
5
2x1 rectangle
4
3
2.05
pMBHD 2
0
tpAD = 0.35
-1
0.01 0.1 1 10
tpAD
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
Step 5: Calculate average reservoir pressure, p
pMBHD t pAD
m
p p*
2.303
2689.4
26.7
2.05
2.303
2665.6
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
• Plot pws vs (tp+t)/t on semilog coordinates
• Extrapolate to (tp+t)/t=1 to find p*
• Calculate the dimensionless producing time tpAD
• Using the appropriate MBH chart for the drainage
area shape and well location, find pMBHD
• Calculate p
• If tp >> tpss, more accurate results may be obtained
by using tpss in place of tp in calculating the Horner
time ratio and tpAD
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
• Advantages
– Applies to wide variety of drainage area shapes, well
locations
– Uses only data in the middle-time region
– Can be used with both short and long producing
times
• Disadvantages
– Requires drainage area size, shape, well location
– Requires accurate fluid property data
Reservoir Shapes
1
0.0002637 7.5482
0.150.251.615 10 15003000
5
0.35
Ramey-Cobb
Step 3: Find the Dietz shape factor CA for the
drainage area shape and well location
t p t
C At pAD
t p
21.80.35
Shape factor CA = 21.8369
7.63
Ramey-Cobb
2750
2650
250ct re2
750ct re2
t
k k
Late-Time Region Data
100
10
Dimensionless
pressure
1
0.1
0.01
103 104 105 106 107 108 109
Dimensionless shut-in time
Modified Muskat Method
Exponential decline
Average reservoir pressure
Shut-in pressure
bt
p pws Ae
ln p pws ln A bt
ln p pws C bt
Modified Muskat Method
Step 1: Assume a value for average
pressure
ln p pws C bt
Modified Muskat Method
1000
5575
bt
p pws Ae
dpws bt
Abe
dt
b p pws
dpws
dt
Arps-Smith Method
Step 1: Assume a value for average
pressure, accepting theory based on
empirical observation
b p pws
dpws
dt
Arps-Smith Method
Step 2: Plot dpws/dt vs pws on Cartesian scale
10
9
8
7 Step 3: Fit a straight line
dpws/dt, 6
psi/hr 5
through the data points
4
3 Pavg = 5575 psi
Step 24: Read p from
the1 x-intercept
0
5300 5350 5400 5450 5500 5550 5600
Pws, psi
Arps-Smith Method
Optional: Estimate the productivity index
in STB/D/psi from the slope b and the
wellbore storage coefficient C
b p pws
dpws
dt 24Cb
q J p pwf J
Bo
q qsf
B 24C
dpw
dt
Arps-Smith Method
• Advantages
– Simple to apply
– Easily automated
• Disadvantages
– Requires data in late-time region, after all
boundaries have been felt
– Assumes pws approaches p exponentially
– Requires numerical differentiation of pressure
with respect to time
Hydraulically
Fractured
Wells
Hydraulically Fractured
Wells
• Flow Regimes
• Depth of Investigation
• Fracture Damage
• Straight Line Analysis
– Bilinear Flow Analysis
– Linear Flow Analysis
– Semilog Analysis
• Type Curve Analysis
Ideal Hydraulic Fracture
Reservoir sand
(permeability=kr ) Wellbore
Fracture width, wf
kf ct
0.8936 C
fD CL f D
f ct f k ct hL2f
wf k f wf k f
Cr FcD Cr
kLf kLf
Flow Regimes in Fractures
• Fracture flow
– Linear
– Bilinear
• Formation flow
– Linear
– Elliptical
– Pseudoradial
Fracture Linear Flow
(Log-log plot)
2
pD fD t L f D
FcD
Time
(Too early for practical application)
Fracture Linear Flow
End of linear flow
(Log-log plot)
2
0.01FcD
Dimensionless
tL f D
time fD
2
Time
Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cf < 100
(Log-log plot)
2.45 14
pD
1
Pressure tL f D
4
tL f D
drop: 1.25 2 FcD FcD
Time
Bilinear Flow
(Log-log plot)
t L f D 0.0205FcD 1.5
1.53
If 1.6 < FcD < 3
0 .1
If FcD 3 tL f D 2
FcD
(Time depends on dimensionless
flow, fracture conductivity)
Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cr < 100
Transient
Flowmoves
from beyond
linearlyends
into of
wellbore
fracture not yet significant
Formation Linear Flow
pD t L f D
100
2
t L D 0 . 016
FcD f
Elliptical Flow
Pseudoradial Flow
Pseudoradial Flow
162.6qB kt
p log 2
3.23 0.869s
kh ct rw
tL f D 3
Depth Of Investigation
a
2 2
x y
1
Lf
a 2
b 2 2
Lf a b
2 2
Depth Of Investigation
0.0002637kt
tbD
ct b2
For linear flow, pseudosteady- Depth of investigation for
state flow exists out to a a linear system at time t
distance b at a dimensionless
time given by 12
kt
tbD
1 b 0.02878
ct
Depth of Investigation
12
kt
b 0.02878
Depth of investigation
ct
along minor axis
Depth of investigation
along major axis a L2f b2
Area of investigation A ab
Hydraulic Fracture
With Choked Fracture
Damage
k
kfs k
f
wf
Ls
Lf
Choked Fracture Skin Factor
qBL qBLs
p ps
0.001127 kA
0.001127 k fs 2h f w f
0.00708 kh 0.00708 kh qBLs
sf
p s
qB qB
0.001127 k 2h w
fs f f
kLs
sf
k fs w f
Hydraulic Fracture
With Fracture Face Damage
k
ws ks f
wf
Lf
Fracture Face Skin Factor
qBL qBws 1 1
p ps
0.001127 kA
0.001127 4h f L f k
s k
ws k
sf 1
2 L f ks
Bilinear Flow Analysis
Procedure
• Identify the bilinear flow regime using the
diagnostic plot
• Graph pwf vs. t1/4 or pws vs tBe1/4
• Find the slope mB and the intercept p0 of the best
straight line
• Calculate the fracture conductivity wkf from the
slope and the fracture skin factor sf from the
intercept
Bilinear Equivalent Time
t Be 14
tp t 14
t p t
14 4
t Be t , t t p
t Be t p , t t p
Bilinear Flow Analysis
Equations
2 0.5
44.1q B 1
wk f
c k
hm B t
Drawdown sf
0.00708 kh
pi p0
qB
Buildup sf
0.00708 kh
qB
p0 pwf
Bilinear Flow Analysis
2800
2750
m=63.8 psi/hr1/4
pws, psi
2700
2650
ps p0=2642.4 psi
pwf=2628.6 psi
2600
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
teqB1/4, hrs1/4
Limitations of
Bilinear Flow Analysis
• Applicable only to wells with low-conductivity
fractures (Cr < 100)
• Bilinear flow may be hidden by wellbore storage
• Requires independent estimate of k
• Gives estimate of wkf and sf
• Cannot be used to estimate Lf
Linear Flow Analysis
Procedure
• Identify the linear flow regime using the
diagnostic plot
• Graph pwf vs. t1/2 or pws vs tLe1/2
• Find the slope mL and the intercept p0 of the best
straight line
• Calculate the fracture half-length Lf from the slope
and the fracture skin factor sf from the intercept
Linear Equivalent Time
t Le 12
tp t 12
t p t
12 2
t Le t , t t p
t Le t p , t t p
Linear Flow Analysis
Equations
12
4.064q B
Lf
mL h k ct
Drawdown sf
0.00708 kh
pi p0
qB
Buildup sf
0.00708 kh
qB
p0 pwf
Linear Flow Analysis
6000
5000
m=211 psi/hr1/2
4000
paws, psi
3000
ps 2000
pa0=2266.0 psi
pawf=1656.2 psi
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
taLeq1/2, hrs1/2
Limitations of
Linear Flow Analysis
• Applicable only to wells with high-conductivity
fractures (Cr > 100)
• Wellbore storage may hide linear flow period
• Long transition period between end of linear flow
(tLfD < 0.016) and beginning of pseudoradial flow
(tLfD > 3)
• Requires independent estimate of k
• Gives estimate of Lf and sf
• Cannot be used to estimate wkf
Pseudoradial Flow Analysis
Procedure
• Identify the pseudoradial flow regime using the
diagnostic plot
• Graph pwf vs. log(t) or pws vs log(te)
• Find the slope m and the intercept p1hr of the best
straight line
• Calculate the formation permeability k from the
slope and the total skin factor s from the intercept
• Estimate fracture half-length from total skin factor
Pseudoradial Flow Analysis
Equations
162.6qB
k
mh
p p k
Drawdown s 1.151 i 1hr
log10 3.23
m c r
2
t w
p1hr pwf k
Buildup s 1.151 log10 3.23
m c r
2
t w
Pseudoradial Flow Analysis
2500
2400
2300
2200
m=120 psi/cycle
p1hr=2121 psi
2100
pws, psi
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
te, hrs
Apparent Wellbore Radius
100
Lf/rwa
10
1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
FcD
Estimating Lf From Skin
Factor
1. Calculate rwa from rwa = rwe-s
2. Estimate Lf from Lf = 2rwa
3. Estimate fracture conductivity wkf
4. Calculate FcD from FcD = wkf/kLf
5. Find Lf/rwa from graph or equation
6. Estimate Lf from Lf = (Lf/rwa)*rwa
7. Repeat steps 4 through 6 until convergence
(Warning: may not converge)
Limitations of
Pseudoradial Flow Analysis
• Boundaries of reservoir may be encountered
before pseudoradial flow develops
• Long transition period between linear flow and
pseudoradial flow
• Pseudoradial flow cannot be achieved for practical
test times in low permeability reservoirs with long
fractures
• Gives estimate of k and st
• Does not give direct estimate of Lf, wkf, or sf
Dimensionless Variables For
Fractured Wells
pD
0.00708kh
qB
pi pwf tL f D
0.0002637k
ct L2f
t
wf kf wf kf
Cr FcD C r
kL f kL f
0.00708kh 0.8936C
sf ps CL f D
qB ct hL2f
Type-Curve Analysis:
Fractured Wells, Unknown k
1. Graph field data pressure change and pressure derivatives
2. Match field data to type curve
3. Find match point and matching stem
4. Calculate Lf from time match point
5. Calculate k from pressure match point
6. Interpret matching stem value (wkf, sf, or C)
Interpreting Match Points,
Unknown Permeability
141.2qB pD
k
h p MP
0.0002637k t
Lf
ct tL D
f MP
Type Curve Analysis:
Fractured Wells, Known k
1. Graph field data pressure change and pressure
derivatives
2. Calculate pressure match point from k
3. Match field data to type curve, using calculated
pressure match point
4. Find match point and matching stem
5. Calculate Lf from time match point
6. Interpret matching stem value (wkf, sf, or C)
Interpreting Match Points
Known Permeability
141.2qB
p MP pD MP
kh
0.0002637 k t
Lf
ct tL D
f MP
Cinco Type Curve
10
Cr = 0.2
0.5
1
3
1 10
50
1000
0.1
pD, tDp'D
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tLfD
Cinco Type Curve:
Interpreting Cr Stem
w f k f kL f C r
Choked Fracture Type Curve
10
0.1
pD, tDp'D
0.01
sf = 1
0.3
0.1
0.001 0.03
0.01
0.003
0
0.0001
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tLfD
Choked Fracture Type Curve:
Interpreting sf Stem
qB
ps sf
0.00708kh
Barker-Ramey Type Curve
10
CLfD = 0
-5
5x10
-4
1 3x10
-3
2x10
1.2x10-2
-2
8x10
0.1 5x10-1
pD, tDp'D
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tLfD
Barker-Ramey Type Curve
Interpreting CLfD Stem
ct hLf
2
C CL f D
0.8936
Limitations of
Type Curve Analysis
• Type curves are usually based on solutions for drawdown -
what about buildup tests?
– Shut-in time
– Equivalent time (radial, linear, bilinear)
– Superposition type curves
• Type curves may ignore important behavior
– Variable WBS
– Boundaries
– Non-Darcy flow
• Need independent estimate of permeability for best results
Pressure Transient
Analysis
for Horizontal Wells
Horizontal Well Analysis
• Describes unconventional and complex
reservoirs
• Defines effectiveness of completion technique
options
• Distinguishes between poor reservoir and
damaged wellbore
• Differentiates between completion success and
in-situ reservoir quality
Complications in Analysis
• Three-dimensional flow geometry, no radial
symmetry
• Several flow regimes contribute data
• Significant wellbore storage effects, difficult
interpretation
• Both vertical and horizontal dimensions affect
flow geometry
Steps to Evaluating Data
• Identify specific flow regimes in test data
• Apply proper analytical and graphical
procedures
• Evaluate uniqueness and sensitivity of results
to assumed properties
Step 1: Identify Flow Regimes
• Five major and distinct regimes possible
– may or may not even occur
– may or may not be obscured by wellbore storage
effects, end effects, or transition effects
Step 2: Apply Procedures
• Estimate important reservoir properties
– Determine parameter groups from equations
– Expect complex iterative processes requiring use of
a computer
Step 3: Evaluate Results
• Expect nonunique results
– Simulate test to confirm that the analysis is
consistent with test data
– Use simulator to determine whether other sets of
formation properties will also lead to a fit of the
data
Horizontal Well Flow Regimes
• Five possible flow regimes
(1) early radial
(2) hemiradial
Calculate different
(3) early linear
formation properties
(4) late pseudoradial from each period
(5) late linear
Lw
b
z y
h
0
0 x
a
Well and Reservoir Geometry
y
Tip of well
Dx dx
x dy b
dz z
z y
Dz
h
0
0 x
a
Flow Regimes
• Radial
Flow not affected by
reservoir boundaries
Flow Regimes
• Hemiradial
Flow affected by one
vertical boundary
Flow Regimes
• Early Linear
Flow affected by
vertical boundaries
Flow Regimes
• Early Linear
Flow effects not seen
at ends of wellbore
Flow Regimes
• Late Pseudoradial
Flow Regimes
• Late Linear
Flow Regimes/Drawdown
2
1
p 1
2 2
1
Log (p)
1
or 2 p'
Log (p) 1
1
Log (time)
Required Permeabilities
Result Permeabilities Permeabilities
Flow of Required for Limit Required to
Regime Analysis Calculations Calculate Skin
Early Radial k xk z End - kz and ky k xk z and kx/kz
Hemiradial k xk z End - kz and ky k xk z and kx/kz
kx Start - kz
Early Linear kx and kz
End - ky
Late kh k xk y Start - ky
kx, ky and kz
Pseudoradial End - ky and kx
kx Start - ky and kz
Late Linear kx and kz
End - kx
Note: We can use kh k xk y in our analysis. In some cases, for simplicity,
we assume kx = ky = kh. This assumption may reduce analysis accuracy.
Pretesting a Vertical Section
• Determines kh and kz
• Determines properties useful in horizontal
test design (using an analytical or finite-
difference simulator)
– Identifies likely flow regimes
– Estimates required test duration
– Identifies probable ambiguities
Required Distances
Result Distances Distances
Flow of Required for Limit Required to
Regime Calculation Calculations Calculate
Skin
Early Radial Lw End - dz and Lw
Hemiradial Lw End - dz and Lw
Early Linear Lw and h Start - Dz Lw and h
End - Lw
Late h Start - Lw Lw, h and dz
Pseudoradial End - dy, Lw, and dx
Late Linear b and h Start - Dy, Lw, and b, h and dz
Dz
End - dx
Early Radial Flow Regime
Similar to radial May be masked by
flow near vertical wellbore storage
wells effects
End of Early Radial Flow
1800dz2 ct
Vertical
boundary
effects
: tErf
kz
125L2w ct
Wellbore
end
effects
: tErf
ky
Early Radial Flow Pressure
k x kz t
l o g 3 .2275 0.8686 sa
162.6qB ct rw
2
pi pwf
k x kz Lw
1 4 k x 4 kz
2l o g
2 kz k x
Early Radial Flow/Drawdown
47
Semilog plot
p
m 162.6qB
Lw kx kz
33
0.1 100
Time
Early Radial Flow/Drawdown
47
Semilog plot
p kx kz 162.6qB
m Lw
33
0.1 100
Time
Skin in Early Radial Flow
pi p1hr k x kz
sa 1.1513 log 3.2275
m c rw
2
t
1 kx k
2.3023 log 4 4 z
2` kz k
x
Early Radial Flow Buildup Plot
47
Semilog plot
p
Correct only if (tp+t)
and t appear
simultaneously
or if tp >> t.
33
1,000 10
Horner Time Ratio
Early Radial Flow Buildup
47 Plot
Semilog plot
p
m 162.6qB
Lw kx kz
(Equation same as in
33 drawdown tests)
0.1 100
Time
Early Radial Flow Buildup
47 Plot
Semilog plot
p kx kz 162.6qB
m Lw
(Equation same as in
33 drawdown tests)
0.1 100
Time
Early Radial Flow/Buildup
p p k k
1hr w f x z
sa 1.1513 lo g 3 .2275
m φ μc r 2
t w
1 k k
2 .3023 log 4 x 4 z
k k
2 z x
Start of Hemiradial Flow
• Begins after closest vertical boundary (at
distance dz from wellbore) affects data
and before farthest boundary (at Dz from
wellbore) affects the data.
dz
Dz
Start of Hemiradial Flow
• Begins after closest vertical boundary (at
distance dz from wellbore) affects data and before
furthest boundary (at Dz from wellbore) affects
the data.
1800 d z
2
ct
tShrf
kz
End of Hemiradial Flow
• Ends when furthest boundary (at distance
Dz from wellbore) affects the data . . .
1800 Dz ct
2
t Ehrf
dz
k z
Dz
End of Hemiradial Flow
• . . . or when effects are felt at ends of wellbore,
whichever comes first.
125 Lw ct
2
t Ehrf
ky
zd
Dz
Hemiradial Flow/Drawdown
47
Semilog plot
p
m 325.2qB
Lw kx kz
33
0.1 100
Time
Hemiradial Flow/Drawdown
47
Semilog plot
Radial flow
p m 162 .6 qB
HemiradialL w
flow k x kz
m 325.2qB
Lw kx kz
33
0.1 100
Time
Hemiradial Flow/Drawdown
p p k k
i 1hr x z
sa 2.3026 log 3.2275
m c r
2
t w
k d
2.3026 log 1 x z
r
k z w
Early Linear Flow Regime
• Start
1800dz2 ct
tSlf
kz
Early Linear Flow Regime
• End
160L2w ct
tElf
ky
Early Linear Flow/Drawdown
11
Cartesian plot
p
8.128qB
kx
m Lw h ct
4
1 8
Time1/2
Early Linear Flow/Drawdown
kx kz ( pi p1hr )Lw
sa sc
141.2qB
Convergence skin
d
rw kz z
sc 1 sin
h kx h
Early Linear Flow/Drawdown
Flow converges from
total cross-section of
reservoir radially into small
area of wellbore
Convergence skin
Early Linear Flow/Buildup
1800
8.128qB
kx
1400
p,
m Lw h ct
psia
1000
600
18 22 26 30 34 38
tp t t , hr1/2
Early Linear Flow/Buildup
kx kz ( p1hr pw f )Lw
sa sc
141.2qB
rw kz
d
sc z
1 sin
h kx h
Late Pseudoradial Flow
• Start
Lw
b
Lw
0.45
b
Late Pseudoradial Flow
• Start
1480L2w ct
tSprf
ky
Wellbore
end effects
Late Pseudoradial Flow
2
L
2000ct D y w 4
tEprf
ky
Ends when
flow from beyond
the ends of the
wellbore hits a
boundary ...
Late Pseudoradial Flow
1650 ct d x2
tEprf
kx
…or reach
end boundaries
of reservoir
(whichever is reached first)
Pseudoradial Flow/Drawdown
59
Semilog plot
p
kx k y 162.6qB
m h
53
100 200 300 400 500
Time
Pseudoradial Flow/ Drawdown
p p ky
i 1hr
kz Lw lo g
sa 1.1513
m ct L2w sc
ky h
1.83
rw kz
d
z
sc 1 sin
h kx h
Pseudoradial Flow/Buildup
p t p 1
1hr pw f
lo g
Lw m t
sa 1.1513
kz p sc
ky h k
y
lo g 1.83
c L2
t w
rw kz
d
sc z
1 sin
h kx h
Late Linear Flow
Effects of pressure
• Late Linear reach boundaries in
y, z directions
Late Linear Flow
• Late Linear Pseudosteady-state
flow in these directions
Late Linear Flow
4800 ct ( D y Lw / 4 )2
tSllf
ky
Starts with
effects of end
boundaries . . .
Late Linear Flow
1800 ct Dz2
tSllf
kz
. . . or
effects of
vertical
boundaries . . .
(whichever is reached last)
Late Linear Flow
• End
1650 ct d x2
tEllf
kx
Late Linear/Drawdown
60
Estimate kx
8.128qB
kx
miv bh ct
p
8.128qB
b
Cartesian plot miv h ct kx
30
5 Time1/2 17
Late Linear Flow
• Calculate total skin, st, including partial
penetration skin, sp
(a complex function
from literature)
Late Linear Flow
• Calculate total skin, st, including partial
penetration skin, sp
k x kz ( pi p1hr )b
st
141.2qB
sa st s p
sa sa b
Lw
Late Linear Flow
• Calculate total skin, st, including partial
penetration skin, sp
k x kz ( pi p1hr )b
st
141.2qB
Lw kx kz ( p1hr )b
sa s s
b 141.2qB p c
Late Linear Flow/Buildup
• Pressure is plotted vs. ( t p t t )
Late Linear Flow/Buildup
• From the slope, miv we can calculate kx:
8.128qB
kx
m iv bh ct
or
8.128qB
b
m h ct k x
iv
Late Linear Flow/Buildup
4,000
8.128qB
kx
miv bh ct
Extrapolate semilog
straight line to infinite
p shut-in time to calculate p*
Semilog plot
3,400
1 Horner Time 10,000
Late Linear Flow/Buildup
• Calculate total skin, st, from
kx kz ( p1hr pw f )b
st
141.2qB
Log (time)
Build-Up
Drawdown Diagnostic Plot
Shapes may not
appear in build-
up tests
Log (p)
or
Log (p)
(better chance
if tp>>tmax)
Wellbore Early Early Pseudoradial Late
storage Radial Linear Flow Linear
flow Flow Flow
Log (time)
Field Example: Well A
Ld, ft 2,470 • Horizontal
Lw, ft - exploration well
rw, ft 0.25
, % 5 • Vertical tectonic
h, ft 150 fracture
q, STB/D 104 • Permeability
Bo, RB/STB 1.40
, cp 0.45 probably results
tp, hours 238 from fracture
Well A: Diagnostic Plot
10,000
p
Wellbore
1000 Radial flow?
Log (p
storage
or p ) p'
100
10
1 10 100
t, hr
Well A: Horner Plot
4,500
Test time too 24.69 Time 2.4
short to
4,000 detect lower
m -392.63
boundary,
3,500
linear flow,
p
or anisotropy
k = 0.011
2,500
s = 2.9
2,000 Semilog plot
1,500
1 10 100
Horner Time
Well A: Buildup History Match
10,000
p
Wellbore
1000 Radial flow
Log (p
storage
or p ) p'
100
k = 0.027 k = 0.011
s = 11.5 s = 2.9
10
(from Horner plot)
1 10 100
t, hr
Field Example: Well B
Ld, ft 2,000 • Well in west Texas
Lw, ft - carbonate
rw, ft 0.30
, % 17 • Expected isotropic
h, ft 75 k caused by
q, STB/D 200 fracturing,
Bo, RB/STB 1.60
, cp dissolution
1.80
tp, hours 1,320
Well B: Diagnostic Plot
1000
p, psia
or p
100
Radial flow Linear
flow
10
Wellbore storage
1 10 100 1000
t, hr
Well B: Horner Plot
146.67 t, hr 13.33
4000
3900
tErf = 165 hr
3800
k = 0.15
k = 0.14
p, psia
3600 m = 336.4
3500
k = 0.14
3400
10 100
Horner time
Well B: Buildup History Match
1000
p, psia
or p
100
k = 0.15 Good
10
k = 0.14 agreement
1 10 100 1000
t, hr
Well B: Tandem-Root Plot
1800
1600
h = 75 ft
1400
Nearest boundary = 29 ft
p, psia
1000
m = 39.6
800
600
10 100
tp t t, hr1/2
Field Example C
Ld, ft 1,400 • Horizontal well
Lw, ft 484 • High-k sandstone
rw, ft 0.41
, % 17 • Extensive
h, ft 54 underlying aquifer
q, STB/D 2,760
Bo, RB/STB 1.10
, cp 4.88
tp, hours 36
Well C: Diagnostic Plot
1000
Radial, hemiradial,
100 or elliptical flow
100 p
p, psia
or p
0.1
0.01 0.1 t, hr 1 10 100
Well C: Horner Plot
5.44 0.4949 t, hr 0.0490 4.90E-03
4000
3800
k = 53
p, psia
k ~ 48
3600
(confirms validity of
earlier findings of
no wellbore storage)
3400
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Horner time
Well C: Regression Match
1000
p
100 p
p, psia
or p Geometric average
of horizontal,
1
vertical k ~ 48
0.1
0.01 0.1 t, hr 1 10 100
Horizontal Well Test Configuration
Measurements usually made
above horizontal wellbore
Conventional tools can be
used in horizontal well tests
ct c f So co S wcw S g cg
Formation Each phase of fluid
compressibility times its compressibility
Effects of Errors
• Vertical well
• Single-phase flow
• Homogeneous reservoir
• Boundary
– No-flow, linear constant pressure, closed
• Test
– Drawdown, buildup, injection, or fall-off
– Duration long enough to identify boundary
Errors in Viscosity
• If input = 2 true
• Then:
– kcalc = 2 ktrue
– Nothing else will be affected
Errors in Porosity
• If input = 2 true,
• Then:
– scalc = strue+ 0.5ln(2)
– Lx calc = Lx true/sqrt(2)
– A calc = Atrue/2
Errors in Water Saturation
• Cause errors in calculating total
compressibility
Errors in Compressibility
• If ct input = 2 ct true
• Then:
– scalc = strue+ 0.5ln(2)
– Lx calc = Lx true/sqrt(2)
– A calc = Atrue/2
Errors in Net Pay
• If hinput = 2 htrue
• Then:
– kcalc = ktrue/2
– scalc = strue+ 0.5ln(2)
– Lx calc = Lx true/sqrt(2)
– A calc = Atrue/2
Errors in Flow Rate
• If qinput = 2 qtrue
• Then:
– kcalc = 2 ktrue
– scalc = strue- 0.5ln(2)
– Lx calc = sqrt(2) Lx true
– A calc = 2 Atrue
Errors in Formation Volume
Factor
• If Binput = 2 Btrue
• Then:
– kcalc = 2 ktrue
– scalc = strue- 0.5ln(2)
– Lx calc = sqrt(2) Lx true
– A calc = 2 Atrue
Errors in Wellbore Radius
• If rw input = 2 rw true
• Then:
– scalc = strue+ ln(2)
Solution to Problem 1
• Well ―A‖ estimates • Net pay50 ft
– Permeability, 10 md – Permeability, 5 md
– Skin factor, 0 – Skin factor, 0.35
– Boundary, 250 ft – Boundary, 177 ft
• Assumed net pay 25 ft
Solution To Problem 2
• Seismic interpretation indicates
boundary 300 ft from Well ―B‖
• PBU test interpretation indicates
nearest boundary 900 ft away
Total compressibility
could be off by a factor
of 10
Boundary could be a
factor of 3 too far away
Summary
• Permeability is most affected by errors
in viscosity, net pay, and flow rate
• Distances to boundaries and drainage
area are most affected by errors in
compressibility
• Skin factor is not affected to a large
degree by any input variable
Bounded Reservoir
Behavior
Cautions
• Recognizing may be as important as analyzing
• Many reservoir models may produce similar
pressure responses
• Interpretation model must be consistent with
geological and geophysical interpretations
Characteristics
• Boundaries control pressure response
following middle-time region
• Equivalent time functions apply rigorously
only to situations where either
– Producing and shut-in times both lie within
middle-time region
– Shut-in time is much less than producing time
• Boundaries affect pressure responses of
drawdown and buildup tests differently
Shapes of curves
• Durations of flow regimes explain shape of
drawdown pressure responses
• Shape of buildup derivative type curve depends on
how the derivative is calculated and plotted
– Shut-in time
– Equivalent time
– Superposition time
Superposition in space
Producing wells
Producing well
Image well
Producing well
Superposition in space
No-flow boundary
Producing well
Superposition in space
Infinite-acting reservoir
Infinite-acting reservoir
100
Drawdown Type Curve
Dimensionless pressure
10
No boundaries encountered
1
0.1
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
Infinite-acting reservoir
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut-in
time
Dimensionless pressure
10
0.1
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin
Dimensionless shut-intime
time
Infinite-acting reservoir
100 Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent
time
Dimensionless pressure
10
0.1
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless equivalent time
Infinite-acting reservoir
100 Buildup Response
Derivative taken with respect to
equivalent time, plotted against
Dimensionless pressure
10
shut-in time
5 6 7 8
tpD=10 ,10 ,10 ,10 Drawdown
0.1
Largest time on plot is not limited
to producing or shut-in time
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
Linear no-flow boundary
No-flow boundary
Producing well
Linear no-flow boundary
100
10
Hemiradial flow
1
0.1
Change in derivative from 0.5 to 1
Change occurs over about 12/3 log cycles
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
Linear no-flow boundary
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut-in time
Dimensionless pressure
10
Drawdown
1
tpD=108
10
0.1
Derivative doubles over only a tiny fraction of a log
cycle for very short producing times prior to shut-in
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless equivalent time
Linear no-flow boundary
100 Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time, plotted
Dimensionless pressure
10
against shut-in time
tpD=108
tpD=107 Drawdown
1
tpD=106
tpD=105
0.1
Similar to drawdown response
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
Linear constant-p boundary
Constant-pressure boundary
Possible injection,
waterflood, or gas/oil
Producing well contact causing
constant-pressure
boundary
Linear constant-p boundary
100
Drawdown Type Curve
Dimensionless pressure
10
1
Slope can (and in this
case, does) reach -1
0.1
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
Linear constant-p boundary
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut-
in time
Dimensionless pressure
10
tpD=106
0.1 Drawdown curve
tpD=105 Drawdown
tpD=108
tpD=107
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shut-intime
Dimensionless shutin time
Linear constant-p boundary
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent
time
Dimensionless pressure
10
0.1
Drawdown
tpD=105 tpD=106
tpD=107
tpD=108
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless equivalent time
Linear constant-p boundary
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent time
shut-in time
Dimensionless pressure
10
tpD=105,106
1
tpD=107
0.1
Derivative curves resemble
Drawdown
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
Channel reservoir
No-flow boundaries
(Effects
of ends
not felt )
Producing well
Channel reservoir
100
Drawdown Type Curve Slope 1/2
Dimensionless pressure
10
Slope = 1/2
0.1
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
Channel reservoir
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut-
in time
Dimensionless pressure
10
Drawdown tpD=108
1
Derivative reaches a
slope of -1/2 if shut-in
tpD=107
time is much larger
0.1 than producing time
tpD=106
tpD=105
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shut-in
Dimensionless shutin time
time
Channel reservoir
100 Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time, plotted against
Dimensionless pressure
10
dimensionless time Drawdown
7
tpD=10
tpD=105 tpD=106 tpD=108
10
against shut-in time
tpD=108
Drawdown
tpD=107
1
tpD=106
tpD=105
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
Intersecting sealing faults
“Wedge” reservoir
No-flow boundaries
Producing well
Intersecting sealing faults
100
Drawdown Type Curve
Dimensionless pressure
10
The narrower the angle, the
longer to reach new horizontal
1
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
Intersecting sealing faults
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut-in
time
Dimensionless pressure
10
Dramatic difference in curves
when shut-in is greater than
Drawdown
tpD=108
producing time prior to shut-in
1
tpD=107
0.1
tpD=106
tpD=105
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin time
Dimensionless shut-in time
Intersecting sealing faults
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time
Dimensionless pressure
10
tpD=108
5 6 tpD=107 Drawdown
tpD=10 tpD=10
10
shut-in time
Drawdown
tpD=108
tpD=107
1
tpD=106
tpD=105
0.1
Derivative, drawdown curves similar
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
Closed circular boundary
No-flow boundary
Producing well
Closed circular boundary
100
Drawdown Type Curve
Unit slope may be seen
Dimensionless pressure
10
earlier if two zones with
different permeability
Both slopes approach unit
are present
1 slope at late times
(pseudosteady-state flow)
0.1
Reservoir limits test yields
pore volume of interval
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
Closed circular boundary
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut-
in time
Dimensionless pressure
10
Drawdown
5 ttpD=106,10
6, 7,10
7 8 8
pD=10 10 ,10
tpD=10
0.1
Derivative falls rapidly
for all combinations of
plotting functions
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin time
Dimensionless shut-in time
Closed circular boundary
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time
Dimensionless pressure
10
Drawdown
10
Drawdown
tpD=105
Producing well
Circular constant-p boundary
100
Drawdown Type Curve
Dimensionless pressure
10
Pressure approaches
1
constant value at late times
Derivative falls exponentially
0.1
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
Circular constant-p boundary
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut-in
time
Dimensionless pressure
10
Drawdown
1
tpD=106,107,108
tpD=105
Curve can be identical to
0.1
drawdown plot just seen
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin time
Dimensionless shut-in time
Circular constant-p boundary
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time
Dimensionless pressure
10
1
Derivative falls off rapidly
0.1
Drawdown
tpD=105 tpD=106 tpD=107,108
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless equivalent time
Circular constant-p boundary
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent
time, plotted against shut-in time
Dimensionless pressure
10
Results in somewhat-changed
1 curve on the plot
0.1
Drawdown tpD=105
tpD=107,108
tpD=106
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
Radially composite reservoir
Significant difference in permeability
near, farther from well
k1 k2
Producing well
Radially composite reservoir
100
Drawdown Type Curve
M1/M2 = 100
Varying M1/M2
Dimensionless pressure
10
k M1/M2 = 10
m (mobility)
1
Responses resemble other tests
M1/M2 = 1
M1/M2 = 0.2
0.1
M1/M2 = 0.05
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
Radially composite reservoir
100 Drawdown Type Curve
Varying S1/S2
Dimensionless pressure
10
10
1
S1/S2 = 100
0.05
1
S (storativity) = cth
S1/S2 = 0.01
0.1 If
If s
S11/s
/S22><<1,
1, plot
plotlooks
lookslike
likeclosed
closedcircular drainage area
linear flow
If M1/M2<<1, plot looks like constant-p circular
boundary during transition
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
Final comments
dy
dx
Cautions
q2
q1 qn-1
qn
0 t1 t2 tn-2 tn-1 t t
t
Horner Pseudoproducing Time
Cumulative
24N p produced oil
tp Final rate
Expressed qn1 before
another way... shut-in
n 1
24 q j t j t j 1
j 1
tp
qn1
Horner Pseudoproducing Time
Cumulative
24N p produced oil
tp Final rate
qn1 before
shut-in
q j q j 1
n1 tn1 t j 1 qn1 qn
te t
j 1 t t n 1 t
j 1
n 1
STF
1
q j q j 1 ln t tn 1 t j 1
qn qn 1 j 1
ln t
n 1 q j q j 1
STF
ln t tn1 t j 1
j 1 qn qn1
lnt
q j q j 1
n 1
n 1 n
q q
t
1
STF ln
t t n 1 t j 1
j 1
q j q j 1
n 1
n 1 n
q q
te
1
STF ln
t n 1 t j 1
j 1
Drawdown
10
Buildup
pD
Drawdown
0.1
Producing times must
Buildup, tpD=105
be at least 10x
maximum shut-in time
0.01
1E+02 1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08
tD
Linear Flow
Stabilization in Linear System
1000
Drawdown
100
10
produce slope = -1/2)
tpD=103
1
Derivative
response
slope = -1/2
0.1
1E+00 1E+01 1E+02 1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06
tD
Volumetric Behavior
Stabilization in Volumetric System
100
10
Drawdown
Drawdown response
tpD=106 feels boundary later than
0.1
build-up response
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin time
Conclusions
• Shapes of the buildup and drawdown
diagnostic plots are fundamentally different
as the reservoir approaches stabilization.
• Don’t expect to see the same shape on a
diagnostic plot for a build up test as for a
drawdown test.
Integrated Well Test
Interpretation
Integrating Test Interpretation
Geology Model
Selection
Parameter
Geophysic
Estimation
s Flow Regime
Identification
Model
Petrophysic
Validation
s
W
R
L
M1,S1 D2
M2,S2 D1
Well A
Slight divergence;
Close match
C Vwb cwb C
144 Awb g c
5.615 wb g
• WBS coefficient from test should be within
order of magnitude of estimate
• Phase segregation can cause smaller WBS
• WBS coefficient >100x estimated value
may indicate reservoir storage instead of
WBS
Skin Factor
• Likely estimates by completion type
– Natural completion 0
– Acid treatment -1 to -3
– Fracture treatment -3 to -6
– Gravel pack +5 to +10
– Frac pack -2 to +2
• Local field experience may suggest more
appropriate values
• Skin factor < -6 very unlikely
Core Permeability
• In-situ permeability from well test
• Core permeability to air
– High—overburden and saturation
– Low—natural fractures
• Total kh from core adjusted to in-situ value
less than kh from well test
– Fractures
– Missing core
• Most useful when entire interval cored
Production Period Pressure
• Must be consistent with shut-in pressure
response
• Must ensure consistency
– Interpret flow periods independently
– Predict flow period pressures from results of
buildup
– Match flow and buildup periods simultaneously
Productivity Index
Field Data q
J
p pwf
Model Parameters
kh
J
1 10.06 A 3
141.2 B ln s
2
2 C Arw 4
L
D2
D1
• Distance to wall D1
• Distance to wall D2
• Reservoir length L
• Reservoir width W
Unit-slope line always
indicates wellbore storage
Linear
Bilinear
Radial
Spherical