Ch. 7 - Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Carbonates: Advanced Well Test Analysis

ADVANCED WELL TEST
ANALYSIS
Ch. 7 – Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs, Carbonates
Prof. D. TIAB
Tel. 405 801 3657 --- 405 532 0119 (Cell)
dtiab@ou.edu --- uptecsh@aol.com
3709 Windover Drive
Norman, Oklahoma, 73072, USA
Copyright © 2014, Djebbar TIAB. All rights reserved.
No part of this manual maybe reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system, or transmitted in any or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the
prior written permission of the author.
3
CONTENT
PRESSURE ANALYSIS OF NATURALLY FRACTURED
RESERVOIRS (NFR), CARBONATES
1. VIDEO
2. Types of NFR
3. Indicators of Natural Fractures
4. Conventional Technique
5. Pressure Derivative and type-curve matching
6. Application of the TDS Technique in NFR
7. Pseudo-Steady State and Unsteady state Matrix Flow
8. Average Reservoir Pressure in NFR
9. Fracture Porosity Determination from Well Tests
10.Composite NFR
11.Analysis of Post Stimulation Pressure Tests in NFR
12.Numerical Examples
INTRODUCTION
5
Most geological formations in the upper part of the earth's

crust are naturally fractured to some extent.
Natural fractures can be an important feature of

hydrocarbon reservoirs because their presence increases the
productive capacity.
Many low-matrix-permeability reservoirs would not be

commercially attractive without a natural or induced
fracture system.
While fractures are unquestionably important with respect

to formation permeability, the importance of the
contribution that fractures make to the reservoir storage
capacity or, more specifically, the porosity is still unclear.
6
In the last decade, many engineers recognized the need for a
comprehensive overview of the subject of fracture porosity.
An increasing number of hydrocarbon accumulations were

being found in fractured reservoirs every time bringing up the
question of fracture porosity.
Also for fields which had produced for many years, the
effective fracture porosity often remained in doubt.
The assignments of porosity in a dual-porosity system (e.g.,

matrix and fractures) may be critical in estimating both in-place
reserves and ultimate production of hydrocarbons.
An assignment of too much porosity to the fracture system

could lead to grossly optimistic production and economic
prediction.
7
Fracture porosity and matrix porosity have a different

effect on permeability.
While fracture porosity is usually low, it is highly inter-

connected and does, therefore, have a much more
dramatic effect on permeability than does matrix
porosity.
Relatively small increases in fracture porosity cause

significant changes in permeability parallel to the
fracture.
Fracture porosity and matrix porosity thus should not

be given equal significance in reservoir flow predictions.
CARBONATE RESERVOIRS
Carbonate reservoirs produce a major portion of the

world’s oil and gas.
They hold more than half of the world’s largest crude
oil and natural gas reserves.
The best known Jurassic dual-porosity carbonate
reservoirs are the Arab-D and -C systems, Hanifa and
Hadriya.
These reservoirs are responsible for large quantities
of crude oil production, up to 60% in Saudi Arabia.
The Permo-Triassic Khuff formation holds the world’s
largest known natural gas reserves in five Arabian Gulf
countries.
9
The multiple Lower Cretaceous carbonate reservoirs
(Thamama Group) found throughout UAE display pronounced
lateral heterogeneities in porosity, permeability, fractures and
reservoir thickness, mainly due to high stylolite density.
10
Some of the world’s best quality crude oil is
located in two Cretaceous carbonate reservoirs:
the Shuaiba and Tharmama reservoirs.
YET, accurately predicting amounts and types

of porosity (and therefore OOIP and RESERVES)
is still a major challenge in carbonate reservoirs.
Main reason: Many of these carbonate

reservoirs are naturally fractured and/or have an
extensive and complex secondary porosity
system (solution channels, vugs ...)
They are extremely heterogeneous and/or

anisotropic.
11
The natural fractures range from microscale fractures

(less than 1 m) to macroscale faults (> 100 m (330 ft).
At the intermediate, mesoscale (10 to 100 m) fracture

swarms, or “corridors”, may be dominant.
A typical fracture corridor can consist of 1000s parallel

fractures of variable dimensions, densily packed
together (high FII, Fracture Intensity Index) forming a
volume that is typically a few meters wide, a few tens of
meters high and several hundred meters long.
Permeability in these corridors can range well above

10 darcies.
12
These corridors often

act as major conduits for
flow, and maybe
responsible for early
water breakthrough from
natural water drive or
water injection.
Therefore to maximize
recovery, it is crucial that
the location of fracture
corridors are accurately
known.
Applying DES (Discontinuity Extraction Software) with filters to

Seismic data allows detection of fracture clusters or corridors.
12
NONPOROUS MATRIX
Some rocks exhibit dual porosity and have significant storage

capacity (in fractures), but the matrix contains little or no HC
accumulation.
Fractured reservoirs with a nonporous matrix occur in:
– Fractured igneous and/or metamorphic rocks
– Fractured shales
– Fractured cherts
Such reservoirs frequently are associated with basement

rocks. Examples include:
– Bach Ho field (offshore Vietnam)
– Augila field, Amal field (Libya)
– Edison field (California, US)
– Big Sandy gas field (Kentucky, US)
– Santa Maria basin fields (California, US)
14
PART I – TYPES OF
NFR &
CHARACTERISTICS
15
TYPES OF NFR
Nelson identifies four main types of naturally fractured
reservoirs; based on the extent the fractures have altered the
reservoir matrix porosity and permeability.
1. TYPE-1 NFR:
… fractures provide the essential reservoir storage capacity and
permeability.
Typical Type-1 NFR are the Amal and Augila fields in Libya, the
LaPaz and Mara fields in Venezuela, Ellenburger Fields in
Texas, and pre-Cambrian basement reservoirs in Eastern
China.
-- All these fields contain high fracture density.

-- They may exhibit sharp production decline, and
-- Can develop early water or gas coning
16
2. Type 2 NFR
… matrix provides the essential porosity

and the fractures provide the essential permeability.
Typical Type-2 NFR are: the Monterey fields of California, the

Spraberry reservoirs of West Texas, Rangeley Field in
Colorado and Agha Jari and Haft Kel oil fields of Iran.
For these reservoirs, the nature of interporosity flow must be

identified for:
-- infill drilling or
-- implementation of improved recovery processes
16
17
3. Type 3 NFR:
The matrix has an already good primary permeability. The
fractures add to the reservoir permeability and can result in
considerable high flow rates (more than 100,000 STB/D in one
well!).
Typical Type-3 NFR are: Kirkuk field of Iraq, Gachsaran field of

Iran, and Dukhan field of Qatar.
Nelson includes Hassi Messaoud (Algeria) in this list. While

indeed there are several low-permeability zones in HMD that
are fissured; in most zones however the evidence of fissures is
not clear or unproven.
Most times, the evidence of fractures is not clear in the early

life of the field.
Unusual responses during pressure support by gas or water

injections can be observed because of permeability trends.
18
4. Type 4 NFR:
The fractures are filled with minerals and provide
no additional porosity or permeability.
These types of fractures create significant
reservoir anisotropy, and tend to form barriers to
fluid flow and partition formations into relatively
small blocks.
18
19
Fig. 6.1.1 -Types of NFR and Fracture Porosity
Type 1 Type 2
high φ f , k f high φm , k f
negligible φm , k m (a)
φf = ? (d)
negligible φ f , km
Type 4
Low φ m , k m
negligible φf, k f
(b)
φ f = ? (e)
Type 3
high φ m , k m , k f
(c) (f)
Low φ f
Matrix Fractures Low Permeability Matrix Well
20
HORIZONTAL WELL IN NFR

21
Engineering Classification of Naturally

Fractured Reservoirs
Fractures may have either a positive or a negative
impact on fluid flow depending on whether they are
open or sealed due to mineralization.
However, in most fracture modeling studies fractures

are considered as open and they have a positive
impact on the fluid flow.
A sealed small natural fracture may even not be

detectable. They make the reservoir an anisotropic
system.
22
In Type 1 NFR, an early calculation of fracture

porosity or fracture volume attainable per well is of
paramount importance.
An accurate knowledge of this volume must be

gained as early as possible to evaluate total reserves
obtainable per well and to predict if initially high flow
rates will be maintained or drop rapidly with time.
In these estimations, fracture width and fracture

spacing values are critical.
23
Accurate fracture porosity calculations in Types 2 and 3

are much less important because the fracture system
provides only permeability. The matrix supplies any
significant porosity or storage volume.
In those types, the matrix pore volume (usually several

orders of magnitude greater than the fracture volume)
overshadows the fracture volume so much that to
make an accurate, early calculation of fracture porosity
is unimportant.
In these reservoirs, however, an early knowledge of

fracture/matrix interaction is extremely important to
determine whether the matrix porosity can be drained
by the fracture system.
24
Table 6-1 Examples of Fields in Which
Fractures Provide the Essential Porosity and
Permeability to the Reservoir (Type 1)
**TCF=trillion cubic feet
Field Reserves
1. Amal Libya 1700 mmbbl*
2. Ellenburger Fields Texas 107.8 (1957)
3. Edison California 42
4. Wolf Springs Montana 5.4
5. PC Fields Kansas 3.8
6. Big Kentucky/West 3 TCF**
Table 6-1 shows that the reserves in type 1 NFR are rather low.
Amal is by far the largest field of this type. This field has substantial reserves
due to its large thickness and very large aerial extent (100,000 acres, 800 ft.
thick).
The fracture porosity in this field appears to average about 1.7 percent
assuming no matrix porosity in the Cambrian quartzite host rock.
25
Table 6-2 Examples of Fields in Which Fractures Provide the

Essential Permeability to the Reservoir (Type 2)
Field Reserves
1. Agha Jari Iran 9,500 mmbbl
2. Haft Kel Iran 2,660
3. Rangely Colorado 600
4. Spraberry Texas 447
5. Altamont-Bluebell Utah 250
6. Sooner Trend Oklahoma 70
7. La Paz/Mara Venezuela 800
26
Table 6-3 Examples of Fields in Which Fractures Provide a

Permeability Assist to the Reservoir (Type 3).
Field Reserves
1. Kirkuk Iraq 15,000 mmbbl
2. Gachsaran Iran 8,000
3. Hassi Messaoud Algeria 6,000
4. Dukhan Qatar 4,570
5. Cottonwood Creek Wyoming 182
6. Lacq France 8.8 TCF
27
Importance of early detection of NFR
The difference in history of development of the two fields (Kirkuk and

Cottonwood Creek ) is instructive.
1 - In Kirkuk, gigantic flow rates were observed from the Asmari

Limestone in the first wells drilled (100,000 STB/D with 1 to 2 psi pressure
differential).
The field was, therefore, recognized as a fractured reservoir immediately

and was developed as such from day one.
2 - At Cottonwood Creek, however, the importance of the natural fracture

system was not determined until failure of the secondary recovery project
in the Phosphoria Reservoir.
At that point, the field was shut in and a new secondary recovery study
was made based on re-evaluation of cores and logs with natural fractures
in mind.
A successful secondary recovery project was then initiated, but there was
a loss in ultimate recovery due to the shut-in and the failure to initially
recognize the fracture contribution.
28
POSITIVE RESERVOIR ATTRIBUTES
TYPE 1 - Fractures Provide Essential Porosity and Permeability

1. Drainage areas per well are large
2. Few wells needed in development (in-fill for rate acceleration only)
3. Good correlation between well rates and pressures
4. Best wells are often early
5. Generally high Initial Potentials
6. Can produce from nonstandard and non-reservoir quality rocks
TYPE 2 - Fractures Provide Essential Permeability

1. Can develop low permeability rocks
2. Often higher than anticipated well rates
3. Hydrocarbon charge often facilitated by fractures
TYPE 3 - Fractures Provide a Permeability Assist

1. Reserves dominated by matrix properties
2. Reserve distribution fairly homogeneous
3. High sustained well rates
4. Great reservoir continuity
29
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
In general, problems with reservoir Type 1 revolve around delineation of the
fracture system intensity and extent, as well as ultimate reservoir volume.
Problems with Type 2 involve documentation of matrix and fracture

interaction and optimum development patterns.
TYPE 1- Fractures Provide Essential Porosity and Permeability

1. Often a rapid decline curve
2. Possible early water encroachment
3. Size and shape of drainage area is difficult to determine
4. Reserve calculations difficult to constrain
5. Many development wells add rate but not additional reserves
TYPE 2 - Fractures Provide Essential Permeability

1. Poor fracture and matrix porosity communication leads to poor matrix
recovery and disastrous secondary recovery
2. Possible early water encroachment (production rates may need to be
controlled)
3. Fracture intensity and dip critical
4. Development pattern must be tailored to the reservoir
5. Recovery factor difficult to determine and quite variable
6. Fracture closure in overpressured reservoirs may occur
30
In Type 3 NFR, virtually all potential problems relate to nonrecognition of the
fracture system, especially during secondary development planning.
TYPE 3 - Fractures Provide a Permeability Assist

1. Highly anisotropic permeability
2. Often unusual response in secondary recovery
3. Drainage areas often highly elliptical
4. Often interconnected reservoirs
5. Correlation between log/core analysis and well test/performance
often poor
TYPE 4 - Fractures Create Flow Barriers

1. Reservoir compartmentalization
2. Wells underperform compared to matrix capabilities
3. Recovery factor highly variable across the field
4. Permeability anisotropy opposite to other adjacent fractured
reservoirs of other fracture types
The key to this understanding is the process of defining the fractured reservoir
type and, therefore, what is to be expected from the fracture system.
We should be able to classify the type of fractured reservoir early in our

evaluation and plan for the potential challenges from day one.
31
PART II –
INDICATORS OF
NATURAL
FRACTURES
31
32
1. Loss of circulating fluids and an increase in penetration

rate during drilling are positive indications that a
fractured, cavernous formation has been penetrated
(Figure 8.6).
Figure 8.6 - Mud loss indication and pit level behavior in pores,
natural fracture, and induced fractures:
(a) Gradual buildup in loss ratio with pressure ,
(b) sudden start and exponential decline, and
(c) Mud loss can occur as pumps are turned off/on
33
2. Fractures and solution channels in cores provide direct

information on the nature of a reservoir.
A detailed systematic study of the cores must be made

by geologist in order to distinguish natural fractures
from those induced by core handling process.
Careful examination of fracture faces and determination

of density, length, width, and orientation, of fractures
may lead to distinguishing fractures induced during
coring from natural fractures.
Preferably, naturally fractured formation should be

analyzed with full diameter cores.
34
Plug data, which do not reflect the permeability of
fractures, often indicate a nonproductive formation,
whereas full diameter core data indicate hydrocarbon
production.
The actual production rates are several-fold higher

than those calculated from permeability determined by
core analysis, natural fractures not observed in the
core are suspected [15].
Low core recovery efficiency (less than 50%) suggests

a highly fractured carbonate formation.
35
3. Logging tools are designed to respond differently to

various wellbore characteristics, such as lithology,
porosity, and fluid saturations but not to natural
fractures.
The presence of large number of open fractures, however,

will affect the response of some logging tools.
Well logging measurements based on sonic wave

propagation, which are negligibly affected by the
borehole conditions, are used as fracture indicators.
Measurements by the caliper log, density log, or resistivity

log, under proper conditions, can be very effective in
locating fractured zones.
36
Identification of
fractured intervals is
straightforward using
resistivity images.
The fractures fill with

conductive drilling
fluids and represent a
strong resistivity
contrast to the
surrounding rock
matrix.
36
37
Dipmeter data on FIL

(Fracture Identification
Log) and FMI (Fracture
Micro Imager) provide
most effective methods
for fracture detection.
FMI images have allowed

quantitative fracture
evaluation and well
comparison, providing
data for completion
design and reserve
calculation.
Combination of FMI and dual packer MDT

(Modular Dynamics Tester) adds a new
dimension to fracture evaluation with the
ability to straddle fracture intervals.
38
The openhole image logs such as Formation Micro Scanner

(FMS), Formation Micro Imaging (FMI) and Acoustic Tele-
Viewer (ATV) are widely used for detecting fractures in many
oilfields.
Borehole image logs in comparison to fullset openhole logs

are costly, but they reveal important subseismic images.
Image logs have not been extensively used in the Iranian

oilfields.
The FMS was more commonly used in Iranian oilfield.
It was used to define fracture spacing and length for

explaining of block size for reservoir modeling.
39
4 - Natural vertical fractures in a non-deviated borehole can be
identified as a high amplitude feature (Fig B) , which crosses other
bedding planes.
The fractures show up on the color images as black traces (Figs. A and
B) that can be quantified, oriented, and accumulated for a
calculation of fracture porosity.
Fig A Fig B
39
40
RECENT ADVANCES IN BOREHOLE IMAGING –
Conventional electrical borehole-image logs commonly cover only 40
to 60% of the circumference of the well. Gaps between pads
appear as blank areas on the logs.
Schlumberger (SPEREE, April 2011) introduced the “FILTERSIM”
algorithm of MPS (Multi-Point-Statistics) to build fullbore images
that fill in the gaps between the pads.
Fig A Fig B
40
41
5. The subject of pressure buildup and flow tests in naturally
fractured reservoirs has received considerable attention in the
petroleum literature.
Warren and Root assumed that the formation fluid flows from the
matrix to fractures under pseudosteady state and showed that a
semilog pressure buildup curve similar to that shown in Figure 8.7
is typical of fractured formation.
If the existing fractures dominantly trend in single direction, the

reservoir may appear to have anisotropic permeability.
If enough observation wells are used, pressure interference and pulse

tests provide the best results
6,500 10
(P D ) r2
6,400 (P D) r1
6,300
Shut-in Pressure, psig
P D and t*P D'

1 (t D ) u s i
6,200 ( t* P D ') r1 ( t* P D ') r2
6,100
t D ,e 1 t D ,b 2
6,000
0 .1
5,900
(t* P D ') m in @ t D m in
5,800 t D m in
0 .0 1
5,700
1 .E + 0 0 1 .E + 0 1 1 .E + 0 2 1 .E + 0 3 1 .E + 0 4 1 .E + 0 5 1 .E + 0 6 1 .E + 0 7 1 .E + 0 8
100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1
(tp + ∆t)/∆
∆t tD
42
6. Downhole direct and indirect viewing systems, including

downhole photographic and television cameras are also used
to detect fractures and solution channels on the borehole face.
Borehole televiewer is an excellent tool providing useful pictures

of the reservoir rock, especially with the recent developments
in signal processing.
Another useful televiewer tool for detecting natural fractures is

the Formation MicroScanner (FMS) device.
This tool can detect fractures that range from few millimeters to
several centimeters long, distinguishes two fractures as close
as 1 cm apart (see Figure 8.8), and distinguishes between open
and close fractures. Only fractures that are at least partially
open contribute to production.
43
7. Very high productivity index. A productivity index of 500

STB/D/psi or higher is typical of naturally fractured wells
produced under laminar flow.
- Some wells in Iranian oilfields reported a productivity index
of 100,000 STB/D/psi. In these wells 95% of flow is through
fractures.
8. A considerable increase in productivity of the well flowing after

an artificial stimulation by acidizing is a strong indication of a
naturally fractured formation.
- Acidizing is done essentially to increase the width of
fractures and channels.
9. Because of the high permeability of the fractures, the

horizontal pressure gradient is typically small near the
wellbore as well as throughout the reservoir .
- This is primarily true in Type-1 and to a lesser degree in
Type-2 fractured reservoirs.
44
Other indicators of the existence of the natural fractures in

the reservoir are:
1. local history of naturally occurring fractures

2. lack of precision in seismic recordings
3. extrapolation observations on outcrops, and
4. pressure test results that is incompatible with porosity and
permeability values obtained from core analysis and/or
well logging.
45
IN SUMMARY:
As can be deduced from the preceding discussion, no method used

alone provides a definite proof of the presence of the fractures.
FMS, FMI logs and borehole televiewers often give a reliable

indication of the presence of major features; however, they do not
resolve the full complexity of many of the smaller-scale fracture
systems.
Fracture detection is most certain when several independent

methods confirm their presence.
Different naturally fractured reservoirs require different

combinations of methods of analysis.
A combination of core analysis, pressure transient

test analysis, and various fracture-finding logs is
strongly recommended for detecting and locating
fractures.
46
PART III –
PROPERTIES OF NATURALLY
FRACTURED RESERVOIRS FROM
CORES & LOGS
Video
46
47
VIDEO:
“EVALUATION OF NFR”
48
UPDATE to video (MIDALE):
dolom k=0.1-150, avg=10 md Asmari
0.29 Midale dolomite
0.29 dolomite
F1
0.30
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.30 F2
0.30
Lim.
0.13
0.13 F3
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.13
k=1-500, avg=50 md
0.13
Average ϕ and k in Marly dolomite and Vuggy limestone zones

Zella/Aswad field = Midale
The Zella/Aswad fields are located in Libya on the western

flank of the Northwest-Southeast trending Sirte Basin
(Fig.).
Oil production in the Zella/Aswad field is from the Facha

member of the Gir Formation of Lower Eocone age.
Based on petrography, the Facha member is divided into

nine units.
Unit 2 is composed mainly of dolomite and limestone.
50
MIDALE
51
(CO2) UPDATE to video:
A comprehensive interwell pressure-transient

test program was conducted for reservoir-
characterization purposes before CO2 pilot
operations began.
The combination of conventional, pulse, and

interference tests resulted in a detailed local
description of this naturally fractured reservoir.
The data dramatically illustrate the pressure-

transient characteristics of an anisotropic,
naturally fractured reservoir.
52
In 2000, EnCana Corporation commenced Phase 1A of a

CO2 EOR project using supercritical CO2 to increase oil
recovery by an additional 5-10% or 130 MMBbls
- while potentially sequestering 20 million tonnes of CO2
over the next 25 years.
CO2 gas (approximately 96% pure) is a purchased

byproduct from the Great Plains Synfuel coal gasification
plant located in Beulah, North Dakota.
The CO2 gas is transported 320 km by pipeline to the

Weyburn Oilfield where it is injected into the producing
zone at approximately 5000 tonnes/day (Wilson and
Monea, 2004).
Injection of CO2 in Asmari (for instance)

formation could potentially have similar
performance as in Midale formation.
53
When examining improved recovery option (e.g.

miscible CO2 injection) of naturally fractured
carbonates think of RATE LIMITING factors and two
resistors in series:
1. Fracture - matrix transfer, and
2. Fracture connectivity
Therefore need to evaluate:

1. Fracture spacing
2. Fracture distribution
3. Matrix porosity and permeability, and
4. Fracture permeability & connectivity.
54
An examination of the core and log analysis of

carbonate reservoirs has confirmed that identified
shortcomings are rooted in heterogeneous pore
character.
Many of the interpretation methods were developed

for clastic rocks, which typically show an
intergranular porosity, sometimes augmented by
fracture porosity.
In carbonate reservoirs, the primary pore system

comprises interparticle porosity that coexists with a
highly variable secondary system of dissolution voids
and/or fractures.
55
As a consequence, carbonate reservoirs are markedly

heterogeneous from pore to reservoir scales, and this
variability poses significant challenges to data
acquisition, petrophysical evaluation, and reservoir
description.
For example, the ranges of carbonate facies and their

pore character often control the distributions of net pay,
porosity, and hydrocarbon saturation.
Putting these matters together, conventional

petrophysical practices that exclusively use reservoir
zonation based on lithology/mineralogy have limited
application in carbonates.
56
Instead, recourse is made to a zonal discrimination that

draws upon the distribution of microporosity and its
connectivity with macroporosity and fractures.
The discrimination scheme uses downhole technologies

such as high-resolution imaging and magnetic
resonance logs, supported by advanced core analysis.
On this basis, a value-adding workflow is proposed to

increase confidence in those petrophysical deliverables
that are used in static volumetric estimates of
petroleum Resources.
56
57
The range of fracture porosity is 0.1 to 5 percent,

depending on the degree of solution channeling, as shown
in Figure , and on fracture width and spacing as shown in
Tables 1 and 2.
In some fields, like the La-Paz and Mara fields in

Venezuela, fracture porosity may be as high as 7 percent.
Accurate measurement of fracture porosity is essential

for the efficient development and economical exploitation
of naturally fractured reservoirs.
58
TABLE 1 - POROSITY OF VARIOUS NATURALLY

FRACTURED RESERVOIRS [21]
Field Øf (%)
Beaver Gas Field 0.05 - 5
Austin Chalk 0.2
General Statement 1
South African Karst Zone 1–2
CT Scan Examples 1.53-2.57
Epoxy Injection Examples 1.81-9.64
Monterey 0.01-1.1
59
TABLE 2 - FRACTURE WIDTH AND SPACINGS OF VARIOUS

NATURALLY FRACTURED FORMATIONS [21]
Field Width Range Average Spacing/
mm Frequency
Spraberry 0.33 max. 0.051 Few inches to
few feet
Selected Dam Sites 0.051 to 0.10 4 to 14 ft
La Paz-Mara Field 6.53 max.
Small Joints 0.01 to 0.10
Extension Fractures 0.1 to 1.0 0.2
Major Extension Fractures 0.2 to 2
0.01 3 to 36 ft
60
PART IV –
Well Test Analysis of
NFR:
Conventional Techniques
61
THEORETICAL MODELS
Two types of models exist: Pseudosteady and Transient state.
1 - The pseudosteady state model (Sugar-Cube Model)

assumes that:
At a given time, the pressure in the matrix is decreasing at
the same rate at all points,
Therefore the flow from matrix to the fracture is
proportional to the difference between matrix pressure and
pressure in the adjacent fracture.
2 - The transient or unsteady state model assumes that:

any increase in the pressure drawdown generates a flow
which starts at the matrix fracture interface and moves
farther into the matrix with increasing time.
62
SUGAR CUBE MODEL (PSS model)
Warren and Root developed a comprehensive and practical
solution to pressure drawdown or buildup tests in a dual
porosity system.
The model is known as the “sugar cube model”
Fig. 6.3.1
Fracture Matrix Blocks Fracture Network

Vugs Matrix
Dual Porosity, NFR Sugar cube model (Warren & Root)

63
I - CONVENTIONAL WELL TEST ANALYSIS FOR NFR
Several flow regimes could be identified from the semilog plot of

pressure versus time:
(a) an early time straight line

representing fracture depletion 6,500
only, 6,400
Flow Regime
δP
6,300
(b) a transition period when the
Pressure, psia
1 2 3 4
6,200
matrix contribution to flow is Inflection point
dominant, and 6,100 m
6,000
(c) a late time, straight line (parallel 5,900
to the first straight line) which
Shut-in Pressure, psia

5,800
corresponds to the time when the ∆tH-inf Fig. 6.3.1
entire system produces as an 5,700
100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10
equivalent homogeneous Horner time, ∆tH= (tp + ∆t)/∆
∆t
reservoir.
64
Two key parameters were intrduced by Warren and Root to
characterize NFR:
1. the dimensionless storage coefficient (ω) and
2. the interporosity flow parameter (λ).
1 - Storage capacity ratio (ω)= Porosity Partitioning Coeff.
The ω provides an estimate of the magnitude and distribution

of matrix and fracture storage. It is used to calculate
fracture porosity.
φ f cf h f
ω=
φ f cf h f + φ m c m h m (6.3.1)
0<ω<1
ω = 0, no fractures
ω = 0, porosity due mostly to fractures, Type 1 NFR
65
MATCH STICKS
2 - Interporosity flow parameter (λ)
λ = α r 2w k m (6.3.2)
kf
CUBES
SLAB or STRATUM
4n(n + 2) k m r 2
or λ= w
k f hm2
The λ is a measure of the mass transfer rate from the matrix to

the fracture network and therefore describes the matrix flow
capacity available to the fractures.
10-3 (good connectivity)>λ >10-9 (poor connectivity)
Values of lambda are usually very small (10-3 to 10-9).

If lambda is much larger than 10-3, the effect of dual porosity is
negligible and the reservoir acts as a single porosity system.
66
The parameter α reflects the geometry of the matrix elements.
1 - If the matrix blocks are cubes, where 4 n ( n + 2) 60

hm=length of a the side of the cubic α= =
h 2m h 2m
matrix, and n=3, α is:
2 - If the matrix blocks are matchsticks, 4 n ( n + 2) 32

where hm=length of the side of the α= =
matchstick matrix, n=2, α is: h 2m h 2m
3 - If the matrix blocks are layered, as in 4n( n + 2) 12

a multi-layered formation or dual- α= = 2
permeability system, where hf=
h f2 hf
thickness of the high permeability layer,
n=1 and α is:
MATCH STICKS
Slab or Strata, n = 1
Matchstick or Cylinder, n = 2
Cube, n = 3
n = number of fracture planes. CUBES
STRATUM
67
FLOW REGIMES IN NFR
Several flow regimes could be identified from the semilog plot of

pressure versus time:
(a) an early time straight line

representing fracture depletion 6,500
only, 6,400
Flow Regime
δP
6,300
(b) a transition period when the
Pressure, psia
1 2 3 4
6,200
matrix contribution to flow is Inflection point
dominant, and 6,100 m
6,000
(c) a late time, straight line (parallel 5,900
to the first straight line) which

5,800
corresponds to the time when the ∆tH-inf Fig. 6.3.1
entire system produces as an 5,700
100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10
equivalent homogeneous Horner time, ∆tH= (tp + ∆t)/∆
∆t
reservoir.
68
In Type 1 NFR (… fractures provide the 6 ,5 0 0
F lo w R e g im e
essential reservoir ɸ and Permeability). 6 ,4 0 0
6 ,3 0 0
δP
Pressure, psia
Assuming the sugar cube model is valid, 1 2 3 4

6 ,2 0 0
In flec tion p oin t
the product kh in Eq. 6.3.3 is essentially 6 ,1 0 0
6 ,0 0 0
m
equal to (kh)f, so the slope of either 5 ,9 0 0
straight lines can be used to determine

5 ,8 0 0
∆ t H-in f
5 ,7 0 0
kh. 1 0 0,0 0 0 10 ,00 0
H o rn e r tim e ,
1 ,0 0 0 1 00
∆ t H = (t p + ∆ t)/ ∆ t
10
In Type 2 NFR (… matrix provides the essential Porosity

and the fractures provide the essential permeability.)
1. The first straight line is mostly related to fracture flow,
and therefore the kh in Eq. 6.3.3 is essentially (kh)f.
2. The second straight line is however related to both
fracture flow and matrix flow, thus the kh product
reflects both (kh)m and (kh)f.
In this case it is unlikely that the two straight lines will
be perfectly parallel.
3. If however (kh)m << (kh)f then kh is essentially (kh)f,
and the straight lines will be essentially parallel.
69
In Type 3 NFR (The matrix has an already good

primary permeability. The fractures add to the
reservoir permeability)
Both straight lines are related to fracture flow and

matrix flow, the product kh in Eq. 6.3.3 is
therefore equivalent to (kh)t.
6 ,5 0 0
6 ,4 0 0
F lo w R e g im e
δP
6 ,3 0 0
Pressure, psia
1 2 3 4
6 ,2 0 0
I n fle c t io n p o in t
6 ,1 0 0 m
6 ,0 0 0
5 ,9 0 0
5 ,8 0 0
∆ t H -in f
5 ,7 0 0
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 0 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 100 10
H o r n e r tim e , ∆ tH = (tp + ∆ t )/ ∆ t
70
The slope m of the straight lines may be used to calculate the
average effective permeability of the fractured system:
162.6qB oµ o (6.3.3)
oil
k=
mh 6 ,5 0 0
6 ,4 0 0
F lo w R e g im e
δP
162 .6q sc B giµ gi

6 ,3 0 0
Pressure, psia
1 2 3 4
6 ,2 0 0
gas k=
In fle c tio n p o in t
6 ,1 0 0 m
mh 6 ,0 0 0
5 ,9 0 0
5 ,8 0 0
∆ t H-in f
ZT 5 ,7 0 0
Bg = 5.04 i ( bbl / Mscf ) 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 0 ,0 0 0
H o rn e r tim e ,
1 ,0 0 0 100
∆ t H = (t p + ∆ t)/ ∆ t
10
Pi
T = reservoir Temperature, oR
Note that the product qscBgi is in bbl/D (where qsc=Mscf/D and
Bgi=bbl/Mscf), similarly to the product qBo
71
The skin factor is obtained using conventional technique, i.e.:
 (∆P)  k  
S = 1.1513 1hr
− log  + 3.23 (6.3.4) 6,500
 m  (φct ) µrw2   Flow Regime

 f +m  6,400
δP
6,300
Pressure, psia
1 2 3 4
(∆P)1hr is taken from the second straight line. 6,200

Inflection point
6,100 m
6,000
∆P1hr = Pws1hr - Pwf (∆
∆t = 0) 5,900

5,800
∆ t H-inf
5,700
For drawdown tests: ∆P = Pi - Pwf 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10
Horner time, ∆ tH= (tp + ∆t)/∆

∆t
For buildup tests: ∆P = Pws - Pwf (∆
∆t = 0)
The vertical distance between the two semilog straight lines, δP, may
be used to estimate the storage capacity ratio, ω:
 ∂P
ω = exp − 2.303

 (6.3.5)
m  ω = 10 −δP / m (6.3.6)
72
INTERPOROSITY FROM SEMILOG PLOT:
A characteristic minimum point, or trough, is typically

observed on the pressure derivative plot for naturally
fractured reservoirs, as shown in Figure 6.3.3.
11
6,500
6,400
Flow Regime
00
ω =0.5 δP
6,300
Pressure, psia
1 2 3 4
ω =0.2
ω=
log P D'
-1
ω =0.1 6,200
0.
-1
ω =0.
01
ω =0.05 Inflection point

ω =0.
6,100 m
001
ω =0.0
-2
-2 ω =0.005
000
6,000
5
001
5,900
-3
-3
5,800
Fig. 6.3.3 5,700

∆ tH-inf
-4
-4
-6
-6 -5
-5 -4
-4 -3
-3 -2
-2 -1
-1 00 11 22 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10
log t Db Horner time, ∆ tH= (tp + ∆t)/∆

∆t
This minimum takes place at the point where the second

pressure derivative equals zero (tD××PD’)’ = 0.
73
The dimensionless time at which this minimum point occurs
is given by the following expression:
ω  1 
t D min = ω ln  
λ 
(6.3.7)
 ω 
On the semilog plot of well pressure versus test time, this

minimum point corresponds to the inflection point during the
transition portion of the curve.
Therefore, Equation 6.1.7 can be rewritten as:
ω  1 
t D inf = ω ln    (6.3.8)
λ  ω 
The dimensionless time is defined as:

0.0002637 k tinf
t D inf = (6.3.9)
(φct ) f + m µrw
2
74
Where tinf = tmin.
Combining Eqs. 6.3.8 and 6.3.9 and solving for λ, yields a new
relationship for the interporosity flow parameter (Tiab):
3792(φct ) f +m µrw 
2
 1 
λ= ω ln  (6.3.10)
k tinf   ω 
tinf can be directly read at the inflection point of the pressure

curve from a semilog plot of the flowing well pressure versus
test time.
For a Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson (MDH) semilog plot, i.e. shut-in

well pressure (Pws) versus shut-in time (∆t), tinf = ∆tinf.
When using a Horner plot, the corresponding inflection

(Horner) time, (HT)inf, is read and converted to inflection time
using the following equation:
75
6,5 0 0
6,4 0 0
F lo w R e g im e
δP
tp 6,3 0 0
tinf =
Pressure, psia
1 2 3 4
(6.3.11) 6,2 0 0
( H T ) inf − 1 6,1 0 0
Inflection p oin t
m
6,0 0 0
5,9 0 0

5,8 0 0
The fracture storativity is: ∆ t H-in f
5,7 0 0
1 0 0,0 0 0 1 0 ,000 1,0 0 0 100 10
 ω 
H o rn er tim e , ∆ t H = (t p + ∆ t)/ ∆ t
(φct ) f = (φct ) m   (6.3.12)

1− ω 
The total storativity of the system is used to calculate S and λ:
 ω 
(φct ) f + m = (φct ) m 1 +  (6.3.13)
 1− ω 
76
STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURE
77
Determine properties of a naturally fractured
reservoir.
STEP 1 - 2 - Same as before
STEP 3 - Plot ∆P versus time on a semilog

graph, as shown in Figure.
78
Fracture
Matrix
Fracture
Matrix
Vugs
Matrix Fracture
ACTUAL RESERVOIR IDEALIZED SYSTEMs
79
STEP 4 - Obtain the curve-fit equation of both
the early-time and late-time straight lines as
shown in Figure.
These equations can be generalized as follows:
∆Pet = a1 ln(t ) + b1
∆Plt = a2 ln(t ) + b2
For a Naturally Fractured Reservoir (NFR), the two

straight lines are parallel and, therefore, a1 = a2,
approximately.
80
STEP 7 - Assuming the two straight lines are
approximately parallel, determine the value of ∂P
between the straight lines.
STEP 8 - Calculate the storage

capacity ratio omega from
(Warren & Root, 1967):
 ∂P 
ω = exp − 2.303 
 m
OR
ω = 10 −∂P / m
The value of omega represents the fraction of the total
pore volume due to secondary pore space (i.e. fracture
pore volume)
81
STEP 9 - Knowing matrix porosity and total matrix
compressibility, calculate the total system storability
from:
 ω 
(φct ) f + m = (φct ) m 1 + 
 1 − ω 
STEP 10 - The inflection time on the transition period
occurs at t = 0.1 hour.
82
STEP 11 - Calculate the interporosity flow parameter from
the following equation (Tiab, 1997):
3792(φct ) f + m µrw 
2
 1 
λ= ω ln  
The value of lambda quantifies

the interflow between the matrix
and the natural fractures.
The range of lambda is 10-2 to

10-9
A high value of lambda means

there is good communication
between the two porosities.
83
Let t1 and t2 be the times of intersection of a horizontal
straight line drawn through the inflection point with,
respectively, the 1st and 2nd parallel straight lines, then:
Drawdown test:
t (φc t )f +m µrw2
ω= 1 λ=
t2 1.781kt 2
Buildup test:
∆t1
ω=
∆t 2
(φc t )f +m µrw2
λ= t1 t2
1.781k∆t 2
84
STEP 12 - Obtain ∆P at time t = 1
hour (∆P1hr) from the total system
semilog straight line (extrapolated if
necessary), or preferably by
substituting t = 1 in the curve-fit
function corresponding to it, which
was obtained in step 4.
∆Plt1hr = a2 ln(t ) + b2 = a2 ln(1) + b2 = b2
STEP 13 - Calculate the skin factor from:
 ∆P  k  
S = 1.1513 lt 1hr
− log   + 3.23
 (φct ) f + m µrw 
 m  2 

85
STEP 14 - Wellbore storage coefficient is obtained from
the loglog plot of ∆P versus time.
If the early date points yield a straight line of slope unity,

select any point N on this straight line and read the
corresponding coordinates (∆PN and tN).
The wellbore storage coefficient is:
 qB  t
C =  N
 24  ∆p N
86
EXERCISE 1
87
Table 6.1 shows pressure drawdown data obtained

in a naturally fractured or dual-porosity oil well.
Reservoir, well and fluid parameters are as follows:
Pi = 4000 psia
h = 36 ft
φm = 7 %
µ = 1.0 cp
q = 960 STB/D
B = 1.28 bbl/STB
rw= 0.29 ft
ctm = 1.0x10-5 psi-1
Analyze this test according to the above procedure.
88
t Pwf ∆P
Table 6.1
0 4000.00 0.00
0.6035 3949.46 50.54
0.01 3980.07 19.93
0.015 3976.30 23.70 0.6646 3948.70 51.31
0.02 3973.63 26.37 0.7146 3948.06 51.94
0.025 3971.56 28.44 0.7702 3947.41 52.59
0.03 3969.86 30.14 0.8257 3946.79 53.21
0.035 3968.59 31.41
0.8813 3946.20 53.80
0.04 3967.50 32.50
0.9368 3945.60 54.40
0.045 3966.61 33.39
0.05 3965.90 34.10 0.9924 3945.13 54.87
0.06 3964.71 35.29 1.0479 3944.55 55.45
0.07 3963.79 36.21 1.1035 3944.13 55.88
0.08 3963.02 36.99 1.2146 3943.16 56.85
0.09 3962.28 37.72
1.3257 3942.31 57.69
0.1035 3961.67 38.33
1.4368 3941.66 58.34
0.1257 3960.59 39.42
0.1479 3959.62 40.39 1.5479 3940.95 59.05
0.1702 3958.79 41.21 1.659 3940.27 59.73
0.1924 3958.03 41.98 1.7702 3939.66 60.35
0.2146 3957.36 42.64 1.8813 3939.05 60.95
0.2368 3956.72 43.28
1.9924 3938.52 61.48
0.259 3956.03 43.97
2.1035 3938.01 62.00
0.2813 3955.46 44.54
0.3035 3954.92 45.09 2.2146 3937.52 62.48
0.3257 3954.34 45.66 2.4368 3936.64 63.36
0.3813 3953.20 46.80 2.6924 3935.70 64.30
0.4368 3952.16 47.84 2.9146 3935.00 65.00
0.4924 3951.21 48.79
3.1368 3934.31 65.69
0.5479 3950.30 49.70
3.359 3933.67 66.33
89
SOLUTION
STEP 1 - 2 – The table shows the pressure and pressure drop
data of a short flow test.
STEP 3 - The plot of ΔP versus time on a semilog graph yields

two parallel straight lines..
90
STEP 4 - The curve-fit equation of the two straight lines
are:
∆Pet = a1 ln(t ) + b1 = 9.3 ln(t ) + 62.7
∆Plt = a2 ln(t ) + b2 = 9.37 ln(t ) + 55

The two straight lines are
approximately parallel,
since the values of a1 and
a2 are approximately equal.
STEP 5 - Calculate the slope m of the late-time semilog

straight line, which corresponds to the infinite-acting
radial flow line for the entire system:
m = 2.303a2 = 2.303 × 9.37 = 21.58

91
STEP 6 - Calculate the total system permeability k (in mD):
162.6qBµ 162.6 × 960 ×1.28 ×1.0

k= = = 257.2 md
mh 21.58 × 36
STEP 7 - The value of ∂P between

the two parallel straight lines is
obtained at any time t, either
from the graph or the curve-fit
equations.
At t=1, the curve-fit equations
become:
∆Pet1 = a1 ln(1) + b1 = 9.3 ln(1) + 62.7 = 62.7

∆Plt1 = a2 ln(1) + b2 = 9.37 ln(1) + 55 = 55
∂P = ∆Pet1 − ∆Plt1 = 62.7 − 55 = 7.7
92
STEP 8 - Calculate the storage capacity ratio omega from:
ω = 10 −∂P / m = 10 −7.7 / 21.58 = 0.44

This maybe interpreted that the fracture pore volume is approximately 44%
of the total pore volume, provided
ctm = ctf (which is not very likely).
STEP 9 - Knowing matrix porosity and total matrix compressibility,

calculate the total system storability from:
 ω 
(φct ) f + m = (φct ) m 1 + 
 1− ω 
 0.44 
= 0.07 ×10 −5 1 + −6
 = 1.25 ×10 psi
−1
 1 − 0.44 
93
STEP 10 - The inflection time on
the transition period occurs at t
= 0.1 hour.
STEP 11 - The interporosity flow

parameter is:
3792(φct ) f + m µrw 
2
 1 
λ= ω ln  
3792 × 1.25 × 10 −6 × 1.0 × 0.29 2   1  −6
=  0 . 44 ln   = 5.6 × 10
257.2 × 0.1   0.44 
This value of lambda indicates that the flow between the two
porosities or from matrix to fractures is moderate to good
and/or the matrix blocks are very large.
94
STEP 12 - Obtain ∆P at time t = ∆P1hr
1 hour (∆P1hr) from the total
system semilog straight line, or
preferably by substituting t = 1
in the curve-fit function
corresponding to it, which was
obtained in step 4.
∆Plt1hr = a2 ln(1) + b2 = 9.37 ln(1) + 55 = 55
STEP 13 - Calculate the skin factor from:

 ∆P  k  
S = 1.1513 lt1hr − log  + 3.23
 m  (φct ) µrw2  
 f +m 
 55  257.2  
= 1.1513 − log −6 2 
+ 3.23 = −4.45
 21.58  1.25 × 10 × 1.0 × 0.29  
The well is not hydraulically fractured, yet S<0, therefore it can

be concluded that the reservoir is indeed naturally fractured.
95
STEP 14 - Wellbore storage coefficient cannot be estimated
because the early date points on the loglog plot of ∆P versus
time does not yield a straight line of slope unity.
96
TRANSIENT MATRIX 6,500

Flow Regime
FLOW 6,400
6,300
(Modified Serra Method)
Pressure, psia
6,200 3 4
1 2
A plot of ∆P versus test time 6,100
m
on a semilog graph should m/2

6,000
yield two parallel straight m
line portions of slope m and a 5,900
transition line of slope m/2 5,800

as shown in Figure 6.3.5. ∆t∗
5,700
100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10
This transition line Horner time, ∆tH=(tp + ∆t)/∆t
corresponds to the transient
matrix flow Figure 6.3.5
97
Figure 6.3.5 shows the four 6,500
Flow Regime
characteristics flow regimes 6,400
that can be observed (same as 6,300
PSS model).
Pressure, psia
6,200 3 4
1 2
m
6,100
flow regime 1 reflects the 6,000

m/2
skin and wellbore storage 5,900

m
effects; Fig. 6.3.5

5,800
∆t∗
5,700
flow regime 2 shows fracture 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10
Horner time, ∆ tH= (tp + ∆ t)/∆

∆t
system flow,
flow regime 3 occurs when the production from the matrix into
fracture begins and continues until the matrix to fracture transfer
reaches the equilibrium, it flow regime reflects the unsteady state
flow in matrix to fracture.
flow regime 4 displays the behavior of the entire system.
98
Step 1 - The slope m of the straight line of radial flow
regimes may be used to calculate the average permeability of
the formation:
162.6qBµ
k= (6.3.14)
mh
Step 2 – Calculate storativity in matrix = (ØCt)m
Step 3 – Calculate the storativity of the fractures:
8.33 ×10 − 4 12(φct ) m k∆t stm

(φct ) f = (6.3.15)
h µ 6,500
Flow Regime
6,400
Δtstm = starting time of the transient 6,300
matrix flow regime.

Pressure, psia
6,200 1 2 3 4
m
6,100
m/2
Step 4 – Calculate the storage capacity 6,000

m
ratio: 5,900
(φc )
5,800
1 ∆t∗
ω' = t m ω= (6.3.16) 5,700 Δtstm
(φct ) f 1+ ω' 100,000 10,000 1,000 100
Horner time, ∆ tH= (tp + ∆t)/ ∆t

10
99
Step 5 – Calculate the total storativity of the system:
(ØCt)f+m = (ØCt)m + (ØCt)f
Step 6 - The skin factor is obtained using conventional the technique,

i.e.:
(6.3.17)
 (∆P )  k  
S = 1.1513 1hr
− log  + 3.23
 (φct ) µrw2 
6,500
 m  f +m   Flow Regime
6,400
6,300
(∆P)1hr is taken from the
Pressure, psia
6,200 1 2 3 4
straight line of slope m. 6,100
m
m/2
Step 7 - Calculate the interporosity 6,000
m
flow parameter: 5,900
5,800
 µrw2  (φct ) m ∆t∗
λ ' ≅ λ = 6387.6  (6.3.18) 5,700
∆
100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10
 k  t * Horner time, ∆ tH= (tp + ∆t)/∆t
Where ∆t* = time at which flow regime of slope m/2 and final flow
regime (of slope m) intersect.
100
EXERCISE 2
101
Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate formation
permeability, skin factor, λ and ω from the build up test data.
Bo = 1.161 RB/STB h = 12 ft
q = 425 STB/D µ = 0.89 cp φm= 21.7 %
rw = 0.39 ft ctm = 11.5×10-6 psi-1 tp = 2400 hr
Time Pressure Time Pressure Time Pressure

hr psia hr psia hr psia
0.0000 1,372.92 0.3200 1,800.25 12.9100 1,959.35
0.0025 1,389.41 0.4180 1,816.22 16.7900 1,973.70
0.0058 1,409.40 0.5460 1,829.89 21.8300 1,989.48
0.0100 1,433.40 0.7130 1,842.13 28.3800 2,006.42
0.0155 1,461.74 0.9290 1,853.49 36.8900 2,024.16
0.0226 1,494.48 1.2100 1,864.30 47.9600 2,042.33
0.0319 1,531.29 1.5750 1,874.75 62.3500 2,060.65
0.0440 1,571.26 2.0500 1,884.94 81.0600 2,078.93
0.0596 1,612.91 2.6700 1,894.93 105.3800 2,097.07
0.0800 1,654.24 3.4700 1,904.75 136.9900 2,115.00
0.1065 1,693.08 4.5200 1,914.51 178.0900 2,132.00
0.1410 1,727.64 5.8700 1,924.47 196.0000 2,139.00
0.1858 1,756.91 7.6400 1,934.99
0.2440 1,780.86 9.9300 1,946.50
102
Solution
From Figure 6.3.6 we can read next information:
p1hr = 1762 psia ∆t* = 16 hr ∆tstm = 0.713 hr
The slope of the two

2200
parallel lines is calculated
2100 m/2 = 84 psi/hr
as follows:
Shut in pressure, psia
2000
2098 − 1762 1900 m = 168 psi/hr

m= = 168 psi / cycle
log(100) − log(1)
1800
p1hr = 1762 psi
1700
The slope of the flow 1600
regime 2 (transition 1500

t* = 16 hr
tb2 = 0.713 hr
zone) is: 1400
2032 − 1780
1300
m2 = = 84 psi / cycle 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
log(100) − log(0.1) Time, hr Fig. 6.3.6
The slope of the transition line is half that of the radial Flow Regime.
The system is therefore identified as transient matrix case.
Permeability is calculated from Eq. 6.3.14.
103
Step 1 - The slope m of the straight line of radial flow regimes may
be used to calculate the average permeability of the formation:
qµB (425)(0.89)(1.161)
k = 162.6 = 162.6 = 35.42 md
mh (168)(12)
Step 2 – Calculate storativity in matrix = (ØCt)m
(φct ) m = 0.217 * 0.0000115 = 2.5 ×10 −6
Step 3 – Calculate the storativity of the fractures:
8.33 × 10 − 4 12(φct ) m k∆t stm

(φct ) f =
h µ
8.33 ×10 − 4 12 × 2.5 × 10 −6 × 35.42 × 0.713
= = 2.02 × 10 −6
12 0.89
Step 4 – Calculate (φct ) m 2 .5 1

the storage capacity ω' = = = 1.233 ω = = 0.45
ratio: (φct ) f 2.02 1 + 1.233
104
Step 5 – Calculate the total storativity of the system:
(φct ) f + m = (φct ) f + (φct ) m = (2.02 + 2.5) ×10 −6 = 4.52 ×10 −6
Step 6 - The skin factor is obtained from ∆P1hr = P1hr - Pwf = 1762 –
1372.92 = 389.08 hr (final straight line)
 ∆p  k  
S = 1.1513 1hr − log  + 3.25
 (φc ) µr 2 
 m  t f +m w  
 389.08  35.42  
= 1.1513 − log  + 3.25 = −2.4
 160  4.52 × 10 −6 × 0.89 × 0.39 2  
 
Step 7 - Calculate the interporosity flow parameter:
 µrw2  (φct ) m
λ ' ≅ λ = 6387.6 
 k  ∆t *
 0.89 × 0.39 2  2.5 × 10 −6
= 6387.6  = 3.4 × 10 −6
 35.42  18
105
PART V –
Modern Techniques:
PSEUDO-STEADY
STATE MODEL
106
APPLICATION OF DERIVATIVE TECHNIQUES
1 - PSEUDOSTEADY STATE FLOW MODEL

Fracture
Matrix
Fracture
Fracture
Vugs Matrix
Matrix
The Sugar-Cube Model is applicable, i.e.:
1. It is assumed the reservoir consists of discrete matrix block

elements separated by an orthogonal system of continuous,
uniform fractures.
2. These fractures are oriented parallel to the principal axes of

permeability.
107
Other Assumptions:
1.The flow between the matrix and the fractures is
governed by the pseudosteady state condition,
2. Only the fractures feed the wellbore at a constant
rate.
3. The fluid is assumed to be single phase and
slightly compressible.
The wellbore pressure solution in an infinite-acting reservoir, with
the above constraints is given by:
1  λt Dω   λt Dω 
PD =  Dω
ln t + 0.80908 + Ei  − 
 ω (1 − ω )  − Ei −  + S (6.4.1)
2    1 − ω 
The derivative with respect to tDw is:
1  λt Dω   λt Dω 
t Dω × P' D = 1 − exp−  + exp−  (6.4.2)
2  (1 − ω )   ω (1 − ω ) 
108
The dimensionless variables are defined by:
Dimensionless time:
Dimensionless
pressure: 0.0002637 k f t
tD =
(6.4.4)
k f h∆P (φ c) m + f µ r
2
w
PD = (6.4.3)
141.2qµ Bo
Interporosity flow
Dimensionless storage parameter:
coefficient:
φ f cf λ = α r 2w k m (6.4.6)
ω= (6.4.5) kf
φ m cm +φ f c f
where α reflects the geometry of the matrix elements.

109
CHARACTERISTIC POINTS AND LINES
10
(PD) r2 520
(PD) r1 Inflection point
Equivalent 500
δp = 80 psi t = 0.63 hr
S h u t i n p r e s s u r e , p s ia
Fracture homog. system 480
P D and t*P D'
1 depletion (tD)usi
(t*PD') r1 460
(t*PD') r2
440 m = 33.5 psi/hr
Transition
420
tD,e1 period tD,b2 t1 = 0.087 hr
t2 = 23 hr
0.1 400
p1hr = 412 psi
380
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
(t*PD')min @ tDmin
Time, hr
tDmin
0.01
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
tD
Fig. 6.4.1. Characteristic lines and points of a naturally fractured reservoir

with pseudosteady-state interporosity flow ω=0.01, λ=1x10-6
110
111
Characteristic 1 – Calculating Permeability
During the fracture depletion and 10
(PD) r2
the equivalent homogeneous (PD) r1
reservoir responses: Fracture Equivalent
depletion homogeneous
P D and t*P D'

1 (tD)usi
(t*PD') r1 system
(t*PD') r2
tD,e1 trough tD,b2

1 0.1
tD * PD '= (6.4.7)
2 (t*PD')min @ tDmin
tDmin
0.01
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04
tD
1.E+05
Fig. 6.4.1
1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Substituting for the

dimensionless variables and
rearranging, the bulk 70.6qµ Bo
fracture permeability is k= (6.4.8)
found as:
h(t * ∆P' ) r
∆P’) r is the pressure derivative at some convenient time, tr
Where (t*∆
112
Characteristic 2 – Calculating omega
The characteristic “trough” on the derivative curve is indicative of
the transition period for naturally fractured reservoirs.
The depth of this trough is dependent on the storativity ratio (ω),

but independent of the interporosity flow parameter (λ) (as
shown in the figures).
2.0
1
1.5
1.0
0
ω =0.5
log P'wD
0.5
ω =0.2
ω=
log P D'
-1
ω =0.1
0.
ω =0
0.0
ω =0.05
01
ω =0.
.00
ω =0.0
-0.5
-2 ω =0.005
1
000
5
001
-1.0 -7
-3
λ=10
-4
-1.5 λ=10
-5 -6
λ=10 λ=10
-4 -2.0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
log t Db log tD
Effect of storativity ratio. Effect of interporosity flow factor.

Fig. 6.4.2 Fig. 6.4.3
113
During the NFR response (trough), an analytic expression for the
minimum coordinates can be obtained by taking the second
derivative of Eq. 6.4.1. and setting the result equal to zero.
Subsequently, the minimum dimensionless coordinates are given by:
ω 1 1
1 ω

(t D ) min = ln (t D * PD ' ) min = 1 + ω
 1−ω
−ω 
1−ω 
λ ω 2 
(6.4.9) (6.4.10)
2.0
1
1.5
0
1.0
ω =0.5
log P'wD
ω =0.2
ω=
0.5
log P D'
-1
ω =0.1
0.
ω =0.
01
ω =0.05 0.0
ω =0.
001
ω =0.0
-2 ω =0.005 -0.5
000
5
001
-1.0 -7
-3
λ=10
-4
-1.5 λ=10
-5 -6
λ=10 λ=10
-4 -2.0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
log t Db log tD
10
114
A normalized form of Eq. 6.4.10 was (P D ) r1
(P D ) r2
developed by dividing the

minimum derivative point by the (t*∆P’)r
P D and t*P D'
1 (t D ) u s i
(t* P D ') r1 (t*P D ') r2
value of the infinite-acting, radial

flow derivative line. 0 .1
t D ,e 1 t D ,b 2
(t*∆P’)min
(t*P D ') m in @ t D m in
t D m in
ω
(t * ∆P ' )min  1

0 .0 1
1 .E + 0 0 1 .E + 0 1 1 .E + 0 2 1 .E + 0 3 1 .E + 0 4 1 .E + 0 5 1 .E + 0 6 1 .E + 0 7 1 .E + 0 8
= 1 + ω 1−ω
−ω 1−ω 
tD
(t * ∆P ' )r 
 
0.35
0.30
(6.4.11)
(t*dp')min/(t*dp')r
0.25
0.20
Figure 6.4.4 illustrates the smooth
0.15
relationship between the pressure
0.10
derivative ratio and ω. Analitic points
0.05 Correlation
Omega can be obtained from the 0.00

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
figure or from the following Dimensionless Storage Coeefficient ω
corresponding empirical correlation:
Figure 6.4.4
(6.4.12)
115
2
 (t * ∆P ' ) min   (t * ∆P ' ) min 
ω = 0.15866  + 0.54653  
 (t * ∆P ' ) r   (t * ∆P ' ) r 
Omega obtained from the above equation can be erroneous if

the minimum value of the trough is not well defined as shown
in figure.
116
10 1000
(PD) r2
∆PR2
(PD) r1 Pressure
100
∆ P a n d (tx ∆ P '), p s i
Pressure
P D and t*P D'
1 (tD)usi (t×∆P')R2
Derivative
(t*PD') r1 (t*PD') r2
10
tD,e1 tD,b2
(t×∆P')min
0.1 1
tR2
tmin
(t*PD')min @ tDmin
tDmin 0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
0.01
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Time, hr
tD
Figure 6.4.5 Figure 6.4.6
If WBS effects are extreme, then the early time horizontal line
(shown in Fig. 6.4.5) will not be observed (as shown in Fig.
6.4.6).
A technique for correcting for WBS effects on the value of
omega will be presented later.
117
Characteristic 3 – Calculating lambda
For a given ω the minimum PD coordinate in 2.0
Fig. 6.4.2 is independent of λ, while the 1.5 Fig. 6.4.2

minimum tD coordinate is a function of λ. 1.0
log P'wD
Subsequently, a plot of log (tD*P’D)min vs. log 0.5
λtDw)min results in a straight line with unit

(λ 0.0
slope, and the corresponding empirical -0.5
equation is: -1.0

λ=10
-7
-4
-1.5 λ=10
-5 -6
λ=10 λ=10
ln(t D * PD ' ) min = ln(λ ⋅ t D min ) + ln(0.63)

-2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
log tD
(6.4.16)
10
Expressing Eq. 6.2.16 in real units and (P D ) r2
(P D ) r1
rearranging, provides a method for
accurately determining λ,
P D and t*P D'

1 (t D ) usi
(t*P D ') r1 (t*P D ') r2
42.5h(φct ) f + m r 2w  t * ∆P' 
t D ,e 1 t D ,b 2
λ=
0.1
  (6.4.17) (t*∆P’)min
q Bo  t min
t D m in
0.01
ω 
1.E + 00 1.E + 01 1.E + 02 1.E + 03 1.E + 04 1.E + 05 1.E + 06 1.E + 07 1.E + 08
 tD
tmin
(φct ) f + m = (φct ) m 1 +  Fig. 6.4.7
 1−ω 
118
An alternative method of determining λ can be achieved by observing
a characteristic unit slope, straight line during the late transition
period.
Figure 6.4.7 is a magnified view of the pressure derivative curve
during the transition period for various ω values.
Notice the smaller the dimensionless storage coefficient (deeper the
trough) the more accurately the data fit the unit slope line.
For ω < 0.05, results in an

accurate estimate of λ.
For ω > 0.05, λ will be overestimated.
The analytic equation for this late

transition time behavior is:
 λ × (t Dω )US 
ln(t D × PD ' )US = ln 
 2  Figure 6.4.7. Expanded view
of the transition region
illustrating the unit slope
(6.4.18) derivative line. λ = 10-6, no
wellbore storage or skin.
119
The intersection of the transition period unit-slope line
(Pseudosteady state line) with the infinite-acting, radial flow
pressure derivative line (shown in Figure 6.4.8), develops a very
simple expression to determine λ,
1
λ= (6.4.19) tUS,i
(t Dω )US ,i
in real units,
 (φct ) m + f µ r 2w  1
λ =  
 0.0002637 k 2  tUS ,i
(6.4.20) Figure 6.4.8

where tUS,i is the time of intersection between the infinite acting
line and the unit slope line of the transition zone.
120
Characteristic 4 – Calculating Skin
The skin factor can be determined from the pressure and pressure
derivative values at a convenient time during either infinite-acting or
radial flow line segments.
From the early-time horizontal line, the skin factor is given by:
1  ∆P   k t r1 1  
(6.4.22)
S =   - ln + 7. 43
2  t * ∆P' r1  (φct ) f + m µ r 2w ω  

Where the subscript r1 denotes the early time straight line.
If the test is too short or the boundary is close to the well to observe
the second horizontal line calculate s from Eq. 6.4.22.
10
(∆P)r1 (P D ) r1
(P D ) r2
The first straight line is
however often not
P D and t*P D'
(t D ) u s i
observed because of near-
1
(t*P D ') r1 (t*P D ') r2
(t*∆P’)r1 wellbore conditions

t D ,e 1 t D ,b 2
0 .1
(wellbore storage, skin,
(t*P D ') m in @ t D m in …)
t D m in
0.01
1.E + 00 1.E + 01 1.E + 02 1.E + 0 3 1 .E + 0 4 1 .E + 05 1.E + 06 1.E + 07 1.E + 08
tr1 tD
121
The skin factor can be determined more accurately from the pressure
and pressure derivative values at a convenient time during the late-
time infinite-acting radial flow line segments, using the following
analytical equation:
1  ∆P  
 k tr 2 1  
S =   - ln + 7.43
2  t * ∆P' r 2  (φct ) f + m µ r 2w ω  
(6.4.23)

Where the subscript r2 denotes the late-time straight line.
10
(∆P)r2 (P D ) r1
(P D ) r2
The first straight line is

P D and t*P D'
1
(t*P D ') r1
(t D ) u s i
(t*P D ') r2
often not observed
(t*∆P’)r2 because of near-wellbore
t D ,e 1 t D ,b 2
0 .1 conditions (wellbore
storage, skin, …)
t D m in
0.01
1.E + 00 1.E + 01 1.E + 02 1.E + 0 3 1 .E + 0 4 1 .E + 05 1.E + 06 1.E + 07 1.E + 08
tD tr2
122
Characteristic 5 – Calculating WBS coefficient C
(1)As a direct consequence of 10
wellbore storage, the early

time, infinite-acting radial
CD=500
flow period is likely to be
hidden. 1
CD=0
t D*P D'
(2)Therefore, the late time,

infinite-acting radial flow Pseudo-minimum
0.1
line is essential for λ=10-5 λ=10-6
estimating the skin factor Real minimum
and fracture permeability
as discussed previously. 0.01
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
tD
Figure 6.4.9. Effect of wellbore

storage on the minimum pressure
derivative, ω=0.05, no skin
123
(2) Several direct methods are possible to determine the wellbore
storage constant from the pressure and pressure derivative curves.
The early time, unit-slope pressure and pressure derivative lines are
indicative of pure wellbore storage.
In real units, the pressure curve can be used to solve for the
wellbore storage constant,
1000
qB  t
C =   6.4.24 ∆PR2
 ∆P
Pressure
 24
100
∆P and (tx ∆ P'), psi

Pressure
Derivative
(t×∆P')R2
or 10
qB  t
∆
(t×∆P')min
C =   6.4.25
1
tR2
 24  t × ∆P' tmin
0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Fig. 6.4.10 Time, hr
124
EXERCISE 3
125
Given the following formation and fluid

properties estimate formation permeability,
skin factor, λ, and ω from the following buildup
test data (next page):
Bo = 1.054 RB/STB Pwf(dt=0) = 4211.2 psia

= 17 ft q = 125 STB/D
µ = 1.72 cp φm = 13.0%
rw = 0.30 ft ctm = 7.19×10-6 psi-1
tp = 1200 hr
126
∆t ∆P ∆t*∆P'
0 0
0.001 179.53
0.0023 193.12 15.9
0.004 201.8 15.5
0.0062 208.53 15.3
0.009 214.19 14.6
0.0128 219.16 14.0
0.0176 223.61 13.5
0.0239 227.62 12.7
0.032 231.23 11.8
0.0426 234.46 10.7
0.0564 237.28 9.4
0.0743 239.67 7.9
0.0976 241.64 6.4
0.1279 241.64 6.4
0.177 243.16 4.6
0.2225 244.26 3.3
0.285 245 3.2
0.372 245.8 3.5
0.484 247.8 3.6
0.655 248.8 4.6
0.915 250.8 5.7
1.2 252.3 6.4
1.5 253.88 9.2
1.806 255.9 10.1
2.35 258.29 9.8
3.05 261.04 11.1
3.97 264.12 12.2
5.16 267.46 13.1
6.71 270.97 13.5
8.73 274.56 13.6
11.35 278.12 13.4
14.76 281.59 12.9
19.18 284.91 12.3
24.94 288.05 11.5
32.42 290.96 9.8
42.15 293.17
127
DIAGNOSTIC PLOT
128
SEMILOG PLOT
129
Table 6.4.1 shows the values
of ∆P and t*∆P’ used to plot
Figures 6.4.11A (loglog plot).
The horizontal line corresponds
to: (t*∆P’)r = 13.6.
In order for the semilog

analysis (based on pressure
data) and the loglog plot
(based on the derivative data)
to yield similar value of k
equation 2.2.14a should be
checked:
m = 2.303(t × ∆P' ) R
= 2.303 × 13.6 = 31
The conventional semilog analysis yielded m=35, which means

values of k, skin, omega and lambda will be slightly different.
130
The conventional semilog analysis
and the TDS technique should
therefore yield the same value of k.
70.6qµB
k=
( t × ∆P ' ) r h
70.6 × (125)(1.72)(1.054)
= = 69 md
(13.6)(17)
ω is calculated from Eq. 6.4.12a

where the coordinates of the
minimum point are: (t*∆P’)min =
3.2 and tmin = tinf = 0.3 and Fig. 6.4.11A
(t*∆P’)r = 13.6:
2
 (t * ∆P ' ) min   (t * ∆P ' ) min 
ω = 0.15866   + 0.54653  
 ( t * ∆P ' ) r   ( t * ∆P ' ) r  (6.4.12a)
2
 3. 2   3.2 
= 0.15866   + 0.54653   = 0.067
13.6  13.6 
131
In order to calculate the skin
factor first calculate (øct)fm:
 ω 
(φct ) f + m = (φct ) m 1 + 
 1−ω 
 0.067 
(0.13)(7.19 × 10 −6 )1 + 
 1 − 0.067 
= 10 × 10 −7 psi −1
The skin factor is obtained from Eq. 6.4.23 using the late time
radial flow line of the derivative curve at Δtr = 8.7 and ∆Pr = 274:
1  ∆Pr  k tr 1   6.4.23
S =  - ln + 7.43
2  (t × ∆P ' )r  (φct ) µ r 2w ω 
  
 f + m
 274  69 × 8.7 1  
= 0.5 − ln −7  + 7.43 = 1.4
 10 × 10 × 1.72 × 0.3 0.067 
2
13.6 
132
The interconnectivity factor (λ)
can be determined from the
coordinates of the minimum point
of the trough in the derivative
curve, Δtmin = 0.3 and (Δt*ΔP’)min =
3.2:
 42.5h(φct ) f +m rw 2  (t × ∆P' )min

λ= 
 qBo  tmin
 42.5 × 17 × 10 × 10−7 × 0.302  3.2
=  = 5.2 × 10−6
 125 × 1.054  0.3
The value of lambda indicates moderate connectivity
between fractures. The semilog analysis and TDS technique
yield similar values of k, S, ω and λ.
The derivative curve clearly indicates wellbore storage
has not affected the trough.
133
EXERCISE 4
134
EXAMPLE 6.4.2
The measured pressure data (see Table 6.4.2) for the buildup
test was given by Bourdet et al.. Other known reservoir and
well data are:
q = 880 stbd φ=8% ct = 5×10-6 psi-1

B = 1.3 bbl/STB rw = 0.29 ft ∆t=0) = 7248 psi
Pwf (∆
µ = 1.3 cp h = 20 ft
Calculate formation permeability, skin factor, wellbore

storage coefficient, interporosity flow parameter, and storage
coefficient.
135
Time, Pressure, Time, Pressure, Time, Pressure, Time, Pressure, Time, Pressure,
hours psi hours psi hours psi hours psi hours psi
0.000743 7276.14 0.046372 7644.18 1.574 7721.88 6.737 7756.78 23.346 7797.38
0.001768 7322.16 0.047398 7646.49 1.661 7722.81 7.174 7756.65 23.532 7797.44
0.003819 7362.11 0.048423 7648.81 1.749 7723.72 8.049 7760.20 23.878 7797.88
0.005357 7398.18 0.050474 7650.88 1.837 7725.85 8.924 7763.47 24.225 7798.42
0.006382 7427.28 0.052012 7652.65 1.924 7726.63 9.799 7766.63 24.571 7798.81
0.008433 7452.14 0.069444 7668.94 2.012 7726.52 10.675 7769.58 24.916 7799.30
0.009458 7473.70 0.086875 7677.52 2.100 7726.98 11.549 7772.39 25.262 7799.72
0.010484 7490.58 0.1038 7682.51 2.187 7727.75 12.424 7774.80 25.608 7800.20
0.012535 7506.00 0.1212 7686.63 2.275 7728.50 13.300 7777.25 25.794 7800.50
0.014073 7519.93 0.1397 7689.76 2.362 7729.23 14.174 7779.55 25.954 7800.66
0.015098 7531.70 0.1571 7692.36 2.449 7729.91 15.049 7781.56 26.299 7801.12
0.017149 7542.65 0.1746 7694.48 2.537 7730.57 15.924 7783.74 26.646 7801.53
0.018117 7552.64 0.1920 7696.61 2.624 7731.23 16.800 7785.69 27.146 7802.16
0.019200 7561.42 0.2094 7698.10 2.712 7731.89 17.674 7787.48 27.510 7802.68
0.021250 7569.66 0.2268 7699.36 2.800 7732.53 17.693 7787.97 28.011 7803.16
0.022788 7577.22 0.2443 7700.83 2.887 7733.14 17.995 7788.14 28.375 7803.62
0.023814 7584.04 0.2617 7701.69 2.974 7733.74 18.342 7790.81 29.240 7804.56
0.025865 7590.39 0.3494 7705.50 3.062 7734.35 18.688 7789.44 30.105 7805.14
0.026890 7595.96 0.4371 7708.77 3.149 7734.98 19.034 7790.19 30.776 7805.92
0.027915 7601.53 0.5242 7710.94 3.324 7735.58 19.381 7790.86 31.641 7806.70
0.029966 7606.87 0.6119 7712.77 3.412 7736.17 19.727 7791.44 32.507 7807.49
0.031504 7611.32 0.6996 7715.72 3.499 7736.74 20.072 7792.07 33.371 7808.22
0.032530 7615.77 0.7867 7716.17 3.587 7737.28 20.418 7792.62 34.236 7808.36
0.034580 7620.09 0.8744 7716.67 3.674 7738.40 20.765 7793.20 35.101 7809.61
0.035606 7623.67 0.9615 7717.61 3.761 7739.48 21.111 7793.81 35.966 7810.29
0.036631 7627.26 1.049 7718.22 4.112 7741.07 21.357 7794.20 36.831 7810.89
0.038682 7630.78 1.137 7718.78 4.549 7743.59 21.630 7794.58 37.800 7811.57
0.039707 7633.71 1.224 7719.27 4.987 7745.97 21.976 7795.11 40.424 7813.28
0.041245 7636.64 1.312 7719.74 5.424 7748.33 22.322 7795.53
0.043296 7639.55 1.399 7720.18 5.861 7750.50 22.668 7796.10
0.044322 7641.86 1.487 7720.88 6.300 7752.71 23.014 7796.64
1000
136
1000
∆P
100 (t*∆P') x=128 psi

∆t*∆P'
∆P and t*∆P' (psi)
(∆t*∆P')R = 37 100
tusi=5.5 hrs
(t*∆P') r=37 psi t*∆P'

∆P
10 t i=0.013 hr
(∆t*∆P')min = 9
10
t x=0.0095 hr (t*∆P') min=8.865 psi t b2=30 hr

t min = 1.049 hr
(∆t)min = 0.9
1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
1
Fig. 6.4.12A time, hr 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
t, hrs
1 10 100
600 Fig. 6.4.12C
500
m = 85
400
∆t*∆P'
300 ∂P = 95 m = 2.303(t × ∆P' ) R

(∆t)INF = 0.9
∆P
200
100 (∆t*∆P')R = 37 ω =10−δP/ m

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Fig. 6.4.12B time, hr

137
Step 1 – From the infinite-acting radial flow regime line, read
the following parameter, then use Eq. 6.4.8 to calculate
∆P’)R =37
(t×∆
permeability:
1000
∆P
(t*∆P') x =128 psi

100
tusi=5.5 hrs
(t*∆P') r=37 psi t*∆P'

t i=0.013 hr
10
t x=0.0095 hr (t*∆P') min =8.865 psi t b2 =30 hr

t min = 1.049 hr
1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
t, hrs
70.6qµ B 70.6(880)(1.3)(1.3)
k2 = = = 141.89 md
h(t × ∆P) r (20)(37)
138
Step 2 - From the minimum point of 1000
∆P
the trough read the following

parameters, then use Eq. 6.4.12a to (t*∆P') x=128 psi
100
calculate the fracture storage capacity tusi=5.5 hrs
(t*∆P') r=37 psi t*∆P'
ratio (omega): t i=0.013 hr
10
∆P’)min = 9
(t×∆ t x=0.0095 hr (t*∆P') min=8.865 psi t b2=30 hr
t min = 1.049 hr
1
2
 (t * ∆P' ) min   (t * ∆P ' ) min 
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
ω = 0.15866 
t, hrs
 + 0.54653  
 ( t * ∆ P ' ) r   ( t * ∆P ' ) r 
2
9  9 
= 0.15866 ×   + 0.54653 ×   = 0.071
7  37 
OR (more accurate?)
( t ×∆P′ ) min −1
 (t × ∆P′) R 0.7912 
ω =  2.9114 + 4.5104 − 6.5452e ( t × ∆P ′ ) R 
 (t × ∆ P ′) min 
 
−1
 37 0.7912
9

=  2.9114 + 4.5104 − 6.5452e 37 
 = 0.0763
 9 
Therefore, 7.63% of the total storage volume is due to fractures.

139
Step 3 – The interconnectivity factor (lambda) is calculated
from the coordinates of the minimum point of the trough:
∆P’)min = 9
(t×∆
 ω 
(φct ) f = (φct ) m   tmin = 0.9 hr
1−ω 
 0.0763 
= 0.08 × 5 ×10 −6   = 3.3 ×10
−8
 1 − 0.0763 
(φct ) f + m = (φct ) f + (φct ) m

= 3.3 ×10−8 + 0.08 × 5 ×10−6 = 4.33 ×10−7
 42.5h(φct ) f + m rw 2  (t × ∆P')
λ=  min
 qBo  t min
 42.5 × 20 × 4.33 ×10 −7 × 0.29 2  9
=  = 2.70 ×10 −7
 880 ×1.3  0.9
Poor connectivity between fractures.
140
Step 4 - From the infinite-acting line (graph or table) read
the following parameters then use Eq. 6.4.23 to calculate the
tR = 35.101 hr
skin factor is:
∆PR =561.61
1  ∆P   k tR 1  
S =   - ln 
+ 7.43
2  t × ∆P' R  (φct ) f +m µ r w ω 
2

 561.61   141.89(35.101) 1  
= 0.5  - ln −6
 + 7.43 = −2
 5 × 10 (0.08)(1.3)(0.29 ) 0.073 
2
 37  
Step 5 - From the early-time unit slope line read (from Table) the
following parameters and calculate C:
tN = 0.0018 hr
∆PN =74.2 psia
 qB  t  880 × 1.3)  0.0018
C=  =  = 0.0011 bbl / psi
 24  ∆P  24  74.2
EXERCISE – k, S, λ and ω from the conventional semilog analysis.

141
2 – CLOSED NFR SYSTEM: PSS Model
Consider the reservoir as no longer infinite-acting, but instead closed
and bounded in all directions.
The drainage area could be created by geologic means; i.e.,

pinchouts, faults, or permeability barriers or by symmetry conditions
with adjacent producing wells.
No distinction is made in this analysis.
Warren and Root derived an expression for the dimensionless

pressure of a well in the center of a bounded, circular reservoir.
3 2(1 − ω ) 2   λπreD2 
PDf = 2πt DωA + ln reD − + 1 − exp − t DωA 
4 λreD2   ω (1 − ω )  (6.4.26)
The derivative is:
3 2(1 − ω ) 2   λπreD2 
PDf = 2πt DωA + ln reD − + 1 − exp − t DωA  (6.4.27)
4 λreD2   ω (1 − ω ) 
142
Figure 6.4.13 is a plot of the pressure derivative for different lambda
and omega values.
A late-time straight line of unit slope is indicative of pseudosteady

state flow in both the fracture and matrix.
Fig. 6.4.13
Omega, lambda, permeability, skin and WBS coefficient are calculated

exactly as discussed previously.
143
(∆P)pss
ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS Fig. 6.4.14
1 – Drainage Area (from Chapter 2):
(t*∆P’)pss
  t pss
A =  
qB (2.3.7)
 4.27φ ct h  (t × ∆P ' ) pss

2 – Average Reservoir Pressure:
 2π (1 − ω )2 rw2 
(
P = Pi − t × ∆Pw' ) pss
( )
− 2 t × ∆Pw' r 
λA

  tpss
70.6 qµB  (tx∆Pw ' ) pss   A 
P = Pi −    ln 2 − 2.645 + 2S  (2.5.16)
Or kh  (∆Pw ) pss − (tx∆Pw ' ) pss   rw 
3 – Pavg from Shape Factor – If CA is known:
 (tx∆Pw ' ) pss   

( )
P = Pi − t × ∆Pw' r 
 ∆ − ∆


 ln
A
2
+ 0.809 + 2S  (2.5.18b)
 ( P )
w pss (tx P ' )
w pss   C A rw 
Where:(∆Pw)pss , (tx∆
∆Pw’)pss at tpss, and (tx∆
∆Pw’)R are read from the
graph and/or table.
144
EXERCISE 5
145
EXAMPLE 6.4.3
The following table presents data for a drawdown test. Other
known reservoir and well data are:
q = 3000 STB/D φ = 0.10 µ = 1.0 cp
ct = 3.0 x 10-5 psi-1 B = 1.25 bbl/STB
h = 100 ft rw = 0.40 ft Pi= 4473 psia
Calculate all possible parameters.
t, hr Pwf t*∆P’ t Pwf t*∆P’ t Pwf t*∆P’ t Pwf t*∆P’
0.0933 4373.4 84.473 0.6766 4103.5 111.676 3.427 3971.3 90.502 14.43 3804.1 136.857
0.1766 4299.1 133.483 0.7600 4086.4 99.694 4.427 3948.3 87.168 20.43 3758.7 138.810
0.2600 4246.1 146.776 0.9266 4075.4 95.720 5.427 3931.6 95.595 26.43 3720.3 135.210
0.3433 4203.6 151.595 1.0930 4060.3 87.234 6.427 3917.1 108.303 32.43 3695.1 134.790
0.4266 4173.8 157.618 1.26 4043.1 84.384 7.427 3898.4 122.336 38.43 3674.6 134.116
0.5100 4139.7 150.295 1.427 4032.2 76.719 9.427 3865.3 142.426 44.43 3652.4 156.278
0.5933 4118.5 141.355 2.427 4002.8 75.401 12.43 3824.2 137.651 50.43 3636.9 183.611
53.43 3625.2 196.734
146
SOLUTION
1000 ∆PR= 714.3
∆PPSS = 836
(t*∆P')PSS = 183.6
(t*∆P')R = 138.5
t*∆P'
∆P N= 99.6
100
(t*∆P')min= 72
∆P
tPSS = 50.43
tmin = 2.4
tN = 0.093 tR = 20.4
10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
time, hr Fig. 6.4.15

147
Step 1. Calculate k from the late time infinite-acting radial flow period:
70.6qµ B 70.6(3000)(1.0)(1.25)
k2 = = = 19.1 md
h(t × ∆P' ) r 100(138.5)
Step 2. Calculate ω from the minimum point in the trough:
2
 (t * ∆P ' ) min   (t * ∆P ' ) min 
ω = 0.15866   + 0.54653  
 ( t * ∆P ' ) r   ( t * ∆P ' ) r 
2
 72.1   72.1 
= 0.15866   + 0.54653   = 0.23
138.5  138.5 
Step 3. Calculate total storativity from ω :
 ω  −5  0.23 
(φct ) f = (φct ) m   = 0.10 × 3 × 10   = 9 × 10
−7
 1 − ω   1 − 0 .23 
(φct ) f +m = (φct ) f + (φct ) m = 49 × 10 −7 + 0.10 × 3 × 10 −5 = 3.9 × 10 −6
148
Step 4. Calculate λ from the coordinates of the minimum point of the
trough:
 42.5h(φct ) f + m rw 2  (t × ∆P' )min

λ= 
 qBo  t min
 42.5 × 100 × 3.9 × 10 −6 × 0.4 2  72 −5
=  2.4 = 2.1 × 10
 3000
Average interconnectivity
× 1. 25
between fractures  and matrix.
Step 5. Calculate S from the late time infinite-acting radial flow period:
1  ∆P   k tr 1  
Sm =   - ln  
+ 7.43
2  t × ∆P ' r  (φct ) f + m µ r w ω 
2

 714.3  19.1 × 20.4 1  
= 0 .5  − ln  −6  + 7.43 = −4.57
 3.9 × 10 × 1.0 × 0.4 0.23 
2
 138.5 
149
Step 6. Calculate A from the late time pseudo-steady flow regime:
 
   
 qB  t pss  3000×1.25  50.43
A=   =   = 618521.9 ft 2

4.27φ ct 
 
h t ×∆P'  pss − 6 
 4.27×3.9×10 ×100  183.6
   

 f +m 

Step 7. Estimate the average pressure of the reservoir from the late time
pseudo-steady flow regime:
 2π (1 − 0.59 )2 0.4 2 
P = 4473 − 183.6 − 2 × 138.5 −5  = 4282.7 psia
 4 × 10 × 618521.9 
 (tx∆Pw ' ) pss   A 

P = Pi − ( t × ∆P' ) R    ln 2 − 2.645 + 2 S 
 ( ∆P ) − (tx∆P ' ) 
 w pss w pss   rw 
 183.6  618521.9 
= 4473 − 138.5  ln( ) − 2.645 + 2( −4.57)  = 4241 psia
 836 − 183.6 
2
0.4 
The difference in Pavg is due to the fact that the values of ω is obtained from a
statistical correlation, and the value of λ is obtained from the coordinates of the
minimum point , which is not well defined in this example.
Also, it is not definite that the last portion of the derivative curve corresponds to
PSS (not enough points to definitely observe the unit slope line)
150
1000 ∆P R= 714.3
EXERCISE ∆P PSS = 836
(t*∆P')PSS = 183.6
(t*∆P')R = 138.5
t*∆P'
Rework the ∆P N= 99.6

100
problem using (t*∆P')min= 72
∆P
the t PSS = 50.43
conventional t min = 2.4
t N = 0.093
technique. tR = 20.4
10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Fig. 6.4.16 time, hr
910
∆PPSS = 836
810
710 ∆PR = 714.3
610
t*∆P'
m = 319
510
410
(t*∆P')PSS = 183.6
∆P
310
tmin=t inf =2.4
(t*∆P')R = 138.5 tR = 20.4
210
110
(t*∆P')min= 72
10 tPSS = 50.43
0.01 0.1 1 10 100

151
PART VI –
TRANSIENT MATRIX
FLOW MODEL
152
3– MATRIX FLOW MODEL
Figure 6.4.18 is a typical plot of dimensionless pressure and pressure
derivative. 3 flow regimes can be observed:
Flow Regime 1, which is the Early 1000
Time Flow or Fracture Transient

∆PR1 ∆PR2
Flow, is characterized by a
horizontal line in the derivative (t*∆P')R
curve.
t*∆P'
100
Flow Regime 2, which is the

∆P
Intermediate Time Flow or Matrix (t*∆P')tm
Transient Flow, is characterized by a

horizontal line, (t*dP’)TM= tR1 tR2
0.5*(t*dP’)R in the derivative curve. 10

0.1 1 10 100

Flow Regime 3, which is the Total
System Flow or Late Time Flow, is
characterized by a 2nd horizontal
line in the derivative curve.
153
Pattern Recognition?
1000 1000
∆PR1= 299.2 ∆PR2= 714.3
(t*∆P')R = 134.5
t*∆P'
t*∆P'
100 100
∆P
t*∆P'=60
∆P
(t*∆P')tm= 67
(t*∆P')r=30
tR1 = 0.4266 tR2 = 20.43

10
10
1 10 100 1000
0.1 1 10 100
time, hr
time, hr
108
1000 1000
∆PR1= 299.2 ∆PR2= 714.3
(t*∆P')R = 134.5
t*∆P'
t*∆P'
100 100
∆P
∆P
t*∆P'=60
(t*∆P')tm= 67
(t*∆P')r=30
tR1 = 0.4266 tR2 = 20.43

10
10
1 10 100 1000
0.1 1 10 100
time, hr time, hr
NFR – Transient Matrix Flow Well Near a Sealing Fault

910 710
810 ∆PR2 = 714.3 m2 = 138

610
710
510 m1 = 69
610 m= 309.75
t*∆P'
t*∆P'
410
510
∆P R1 = 299.2
410 310
∆P
∆P
310
210
(t*∆P')R = 134.5
210
110 t*∆P'=60
(t*∆P')tm= 67
110
10
10 (t*∆P')r=30
t R1 = 0.4266 1 10 100 1000
0.1 1 10 t R2 = 20.43 100
time, hr time, hr
155
For every flow regime the drawdown pressure response can
be approximated by: 1000
∆PR1 ∆PR2
Flow Regime 1 or Early Time Flow

(t*∆P')R
t*∆P'
1
PwD = ln t D + 0.4045 + S
100
∆P
2 (t*∆P')tm
(6.4.28) tR1 tR2
10
Flow Regime 2 or Matrix Flow 0.1 1 10 100
1 1
PwD = ln t D − ln λ ' ω '+0.5353 + S
4 4
(6.4.29)
Flow Regime 3 or Late Time Flow
ln t D − ln (ω '+1) + 0.4045 + S
1 1
PwD = (6.4.30)
2 2
156
1 - Estimation of ω’ (and ω) and λ’≈λ
Combining equations 6.4.28 and 6.4.30, substituting for the
dimensionless pressure and solving for ω’ yields:
  t 2   ∆P2 − ∆P1  1
ω ' = exp ln  −   − 1 6.4.31 ω=
  t1   (t × ∆P ' ) r  1+ ω'
Combining equations 6.4.28 and 6.4.29, substituting for the
dimensionless pressure and solving for λ’ yields:
1  ∆P − 2∆P2 t  
λ'≅ λ = exp  1 + 1.332 − ln 1  + 2 S 
ω'  (t × ∆P' ) r  t2   1000
6.4.32 ∆P R1 ∆P R2
Where : (t*∆P')R
t*∆P'
100
∆P1 is read at time tr1 from the 1st

∆P
horizontal line (Flow Regime 1) (t*∆P')tm
tR1 tR2
∆P2 is read at time tr2 from Flow 10
Regimes 3. Fig. 6.4.18

0.1 1 10 100
time, hr
157
2 - Permeability, Skin Factor:
Both factors are determined as discussed above from the infinite-

acting line (Flow Regime 1 or 3):
70.6qµ B 1  ∆Pr  k tr 1  
k = S =  - ln + 7.43
2  (t × ∆P ' )r  (φct ) µ r 2w ω 
6.4.16
h(t × ∆P) r   f +m  
1000
6.4.18
∆PR1 ∆PR2
(t*∆P')R
t*∆P'
100
∆P
(t*∆P')tm
tR1 tR2
10
0.1 1 10 100
158
4– MATRIX FLOW MODEL: Bounded Reservoirs
Pressure and pressure derivative, psi
Transition
Transition
Flow Regime Flow Regime

1 3

2 4
Fig. 6.4.19 Time, hours
Omega, lambda, permeability, skin and WBS coefficient are

calculated exactly as discussed previously.
159
ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS (∆P)pss
Pressu re an d pressu re derivative, psi

1 – Drainage Area (see Chapter 2):
(t*∆P’)pss
  t pss
A =  
qB 2.3.7
 4.27φ ct h  (t × ∆P ' ) pss

Transition
Transition
1 3

2 4
Time, hours
2 – Average Reservoir Pressure from a tpss

pressure drawdown test:
 (tx∆Pw ' ) pss   re 3 

P = Pi − 2(tx∆Pw ' ) r    ln − + S  2.5.16a
 ∆ − ∆ 
 ( P )
w pss (tx P ' )
w pss   rw 4 
 (tx∆Pw ' ) pss   A 

P = Pi − (tx∆Pw ' ) r    ln 2 − 2.645 + 2 S  2.5.16b
 ∆ − ∆ 
 ( P )
w pss (tx P ' )
w pss   rw 
Where:
(∆Pw)pss , (tx∆
∆Pw’)pss at tpss, are read from the graph and/or table.
160
(∆P)pss
 2π (1 − ω )2 rw2 
(
P = Pi − t × ∆P ) (
− 2 t × ∆P )
Pressu re an d pressu re derivative, psi
' '
 
λA
w pss w r
(t*∆P’)pss
 
2.5.16c
∆Pw’)pss must be taken at
Transition
Transition
Where (tx∆
1 3
the last pressure point during the Flow Regime

2
Flow Regime
4
drawdown test or at the total time

Time, hours
for the flow period provided closed tpss
system is well defined by a late-time
unit slope.
3 – Average Reservoir Pressure from a pressure
buildup test:
  t p + ∆t r  
( )  + ln φµct A  + 8.2477 
 
P = Pws (∆t r ) + ∆tx∆Pws' r  ln  C k 
  t p x∆t r 
 A   2.5.16d
   
Assuming CA is known.
161
EXERCISE 6
162
EXAMPLE 6.4.4
Determine all possible parameters from the following graph of a
pressure test in a naturally fractured reservoir. The following rock,
fluid and well characteristics are known:
h = 133 ft B = 1.21 RB/STB µ = 1.45 cp q = 333 BPD

ctm = 4.52×10 psi-1
-5 rw = 0.33 ft φm = 0.095
1000
∆P R1= 299.2 ∆P R2= 714.3
(t*∆P')R = 134.5
t*∆P'
100
∆P
(t*∆P')tm= 67
t R1 = 0.4266 t R2 = 20.43
10
0.1 1 10 100

163
Step 1 - Calculate k from the infinite-acting radial flow period:
70.6qµ Bo 70.6 × 333 × 1.45 × 1.21
k = = = 2.31 md
h(t × ∆p′ )r 133 × 134.5
Step 2 - Calculate ω from the infinite-acting radial flow period:
  t r 2   ∆Pr 2 − ∆Pr1  
ω ' = exp ln   −    − 1
  t r 1   (t × ∆ P ' ) r  
  20 .43   714 .3 − 299 .2  
= exp ln  −   − 1 = 1.187
  0.4266   134 .5 
1 1
ω= = = 0.46
1 + ω ' 1 + 1.187
Step 3 – Calculate total storativity:
(φct ) m = 0.095 × 4.52 ×10 −5 = 4.294 ×10 −6

 ω  − 6  0.46 
(φct ) f = (φct ) m   = 4.294 ×10   = 3.62 ×10
−6
1−ω   1 − 0.46 
(φct ) f + m = (φct ) f + (φct ) m = 3.62 × 10 + 4.294 × 10 −6 = 7.91×10 −6
−6
164
Step 4 – Calculate the skin factor:
1  ∆ pr  k tr2 1  
S =  - ln  + 7.43
2  (t × ∆p )r
′ 
 (φct ) f + m µ r w ω 
2 

1  714.3  2.31 × 20.43 1  
= - ln   + 7.43 =
2  134.5  7.91 × 10 −6
× 1 .45 × 0 .332
0 .46  
Step 5 – Calculate λ the skin factor:

1  ∆P − 2∆Pr 2 t  
λ'≅ λ = exp  r1 + 1.332 − ln r1  + 2 S 
ω'  (t × ∆P ' ) r  tr 2  
1  299.2 − 2 × 714.3  0.4266   −3
= exp  + 1.332 − ln  − 2 × 2.35 = 1.3 × 10
1.187  134 .5  20 .43  
These values of λ, and ω are typical of type 2 NFR, i.e. fractures

provide the essential permeability, and the matrix provides the
essential porosity. However ω = 0.45 (i.e. fracture provide
approximately 45% of the total storage), the reservoir may have some
of the characteristics of type 1 NFR (i.e. a fraction of oil is stored in
fractures).
Also, λ = 0.0013 implies there is a very good interconnectivity between
the matrix and fractures, and very likely high fracture density.
165
PART VI –
FRACTURE POROSITY
in NFR
166
In the last decade, many engineers recognized the need for a
comprehensive overview of the subject of fracture porosity.
An increasing number of hydrocarbon accumulations were

being found in fractured reservoirs every time bringing up the
question of fracture porosity.
Also for fields which had produced for many years, the
effective fracture porosity often remained in doubt.
The assignments of porosity in a dual-porosity system (e.g.,

matrix and fractures) may be critical in estimating both in-place
reserves and ultimate production of hydrocarbons.
An assignment of too much porosity to the fracture system

could lead to grossly optimistic production and economic
prediction.
167
Fracture porosity and matrix porosity have a different

effect on permeability.
While fracture porosity is usually low, it is highly inter-

connected and does, therefore, have a much more
dramatic effect on permeability than does matrix
porosity.
Relatively small increases in fracture porosity cause

significant changes in permeability parallel to the
fracture.
Fracture porosity and matrix porosity thus should not

be given equal significance in reservoir flow predictions.
168
FRACTURE POROSITY
Fracture porosity is critical for accurately determining
OOIP and reserves in naturally fractured reservoirs.
Fracture porosity is a very difficult parameter to calculate.

Estimates can be made by:
1. Core analysis
2. Correlations
3. Logs
4. Outcrops & Cores
5. Pressure transient tests
These methods usually give different values of Øf because

they are based on different data and different scales.
It is, therefore, important to use as many different methods

to calculate Øf as possible with the data available in order to
determine the range of possible values in the reservoir.
169
1 – FRACTURE POROSITY FROM CORE ANALYSIS
Fracture porosity, like matrix porosity, is the percentage

of a particular void volume in a rock mass compared to
its total volume.
Fracture porosity accounts for only those voids occurring

between the walls of fractures.
Matrix porosity, on the other hand, accounts for all voids

within a rock other than those within fractures.
Thus, matrix porosity includes voids of various origin-

vuggy porosity, intergranular porosity, dissolution
porosity, etc.
170
The relationships used to calculate fracture porosity, matrix

and total porosity are:
V  VPf
φm =  pm  (4) φf = (5)
 Vbm  Vb
V pf V pm V pf V pm
φt = φ f + φ m = + = + (6)
Vbt Vbm Vbt (1 − φ f )Vbt
where
Øm= matrix porosity, %
Øf = fracture porosity, %
Vp = volume of pores (other than fractures), cc
Vb = total bulk volume, cc
171
In the absence of well test data, the following correlation is
recommended for estimating the porosity partitioning coefficient ν
(same as omega) in NFR:
C3 C5 k
ω ≅ ν = C1 + C2k + + C4 k 2 + + C6
φt φt 2 φt
Øt = total porosity, % (from whole-diameter core

analysis or Neutron log)
k = formation permeability, mD
C1 = -0.1254
C2 = 6.95x10-5
C3 = 4.204
C4 = -3.016x10-9
C5 = -9.675
C6 = -6.88x10-5
172
PLUG SAMPLES FROM NF CORES
To measure kH a core plug has to be cut parallel to the bedding
plane.
To measure kV, a core plug has to be cut perpendicular to the

bedding plane.
Wrong kV Correct kV
Wrong kH
Correct kH
173
Data From Carbonate Cores
174
2 - FRACTURE POROSITY FROM LOGS
(a) Neutron and Sonic tools

• Porosity computed from the neutron log represents the total porosity, i.e.
matrix porosity + fracture porosity.
• The sonic log only measures the matrix porosity.
• Therefore, the fracture porosity can be estimated from:
φ f = φ t − φ m = φ Neu − φ Son (7)
(b) Density and Sonic tools

Bateman showed that the density-sonic
overlay (see figure) is particularly useful for
detection of secondary porosity, i.e. vugs and
fractures.
The figure shows an overlay of the density

and sonic curves separate in fractured and/or
vuggy intervals.
175
Unlike the Density Log (which responds to the total porosity), the
Sonic Log responding as it does to the first compressional wave
arrival, will only respond to the matrix porosity.
Compressional waves traveling through a vertical, fluid-filled fracture,

for example, will travel more slowly than those traveling through the
matrix system.
Since the sonic tool triggers on the first (faster traveling) arrival, the
later arrivals passing through the fracture system will be ignored.
Thus:
φDen = φtotal = φsec ondary + φmatrix

φSon = φmatrix (8)
φsec ondary = φtotal − φmatrix = φDen − φSon
176
Triple-Porosity in Carbonates
Typical distribution of porosity in the carbonate O-BOR-2E

reservoir, Barbura Field, Venezuela. The rock matrix is very tight;
porosities range from 2 to lO%, and matrix permeability varies
between 0.01 and 100 md.
176
177
3 - FRACTURE POROSITY FROM PRESSURE

TRANSIENT DATA USING THE TDS TECHNIQUE
ω = storage capacity ratio ( from well test analysis)

 ω  ctm
φf =   φm ctm = matrix total compressibility, psi−1 ( from core)
 1 − ω  tf
c ct f = fracture total compressibility ( from ?)
Fracture compressibility may be considerably different from

matrix compressibility.
Kirkuk field (Iraq), Asmari field (Iran) and Grozni field

(Russia) have fracture compr. ranging from 10-4 to 10-5 psi-1
In all these reservoirs Ctf is 10 to 100 times > than Ctm.

Assuming Ctf = Ctm will lead to an overestimation of
fracture porosity and, therefore, oil in place.
178
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
(φVc t ) f km
ω= λ = αrw2
(φVc t ) f + m kf
Storage Capacity Ratio Interporosity Flow Factor
179
NFR Flow Periods
Characteristics of naturally fractured reservoirs
(infinite reservoir, no wellbore storage)
6,500 10
(PD) r2
6,400
(PD) r1 Equivalent
δP
homogeneous
6,300
Fracture response
P D and t*P D'

6,200 1
depletion (t*PD') r1 (tD)usi
(t*PD') r2
Inflection point
6,100 m
Trough
6,000 tD,e1 tD,b2
0.1
5,900
Slope=1
5,800 (t*PD')min @ tDmin
∆tH-inf tDmin
5,700
Minimum point
0.01
100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Horner time, ∆tH=(tp + ∆t)/∆

∆t tD
180
FRACTURE COMPRESSIBILITY
The rock compressibility that is used when dealing with
conventional reservoirs reflects the deformation of the pores
and not the reduction of volume of the matrix which is
negligible in comparison.
The matrix compressibility tends to be much lower in the case

of NFR: The rigidity of the rock has broken rather than
deformed elastically.
In the case of NFR, the presence of fractures introduces an

additional elasticity in the reservoir, which can be defined in
two ways:
∆Vf 1
C ef = − ( vol / vol / psi)
Vp ∆P
∆Vf 1
C pf = − Thus C ef = φf C pf
Vf ∆P
181
In order to calculate Øf from φ f = 

 ω  ctm
 φm we need Ctf
 1 − ω  tf
c
Effective stress increases as fluid is withdrawn from reservoir.

This causes fracture permeability to decrease.
Using this principle Saidi showed: 2/3
1 − ( k / ki )
ctf =
∆P
kf
km kf
σ effective = σ − αP
km
182
IMPACT OF FRACTURE COMPRESSIBILITY
In NFR, fracture porosity is usually very small, however the
large fracture compressibility ctf means that omega is
commonly less than 0.10, but higher omega values are
possible (Type 1 NFR).
φ f c tf h f 1
ω= = φ m c tm h m
φ f c tf h f + φ m c tm h m φ m c tm h m
1+ ≈ 10 or less
φ f c tf h f φ f c tf h f
Assuming hf=hm
φ m c tm h m 0.10 × 10 −6 10 −7 1
= = ≈ 10 ω≈ ≈ 0.1
φ f c tf h f 0.01 × 10 −6 10 −8 1 + 10
φ m c tm h m 0.10 × 10 −6 10 −7 1
= −6
= ≈5 ω≈ ≈ 0.16
φ f c tf h f 0.02 × 10 2 × 10 −8 1+ 5
183
φ m c tm h m 0.10 × 10 −6 10 −7 1
= = ≈ 10 ω≈ ≈ 0.1
φ f c tf h f 0.01 × 10 −6 10 −8 1 + 10
φ m c tm h m 0.10 × 10 −6 10 −7 ω≈
1
≈ 0.16
= = ≈5 1+ 5
φ f c tf h f 0.02 × 10 −6 2 × 10 −8
φ m c tm h m 0.10 × 10 −6 10 −7 1
= = ≈1 ω≈ ≈ 0.5
φ f c tf h f 0.01 × 10 −5 10 −7 1+1
φ m c tm h m 0.10 × 10 −6 10 −7 ω≈
1
≈ 0.66
= = ≈ 0.5
φ f c tf h f 0.02 × 10 −5 2 × 10 −7 1 + 0.5
φ m c tm h m 0.10 × 10 −6 10 −7 ω≈
1
≈ 0.90
= = ≈ 0.1 1 + 0.1
φ f c tf h f 0.01 × 10 −4 10 −6
φ m c tm h m 0.10 × 10 −6 10 −7 ω≈
1
≈ 0.95
= = ≈ 0.05 1 + 0.05
φ f c tf h f 0.02 × 10 −4 2 × 10 −6
184
FRACTURE PERMEABILITY
The effective permeability of a NFR may be estimated from the
geometric mean of kmax and kmin
k2
k = k max k min k = k f km kf =
km
kmax = maximum permeability measured in the direction

parallel to the fracture plane, thus kmax ≈ kfracture
kmin = minimum permeability measured in the direction
perpendicular to the fracture plane, thus kmin ≈ kmatrix
km = matrix permeability, which is measured from
representative cores or logs
k = effective permeability obtained from pressure tests.
185
FRACTURE POROSITY
COMBINING k f =
k2
AND c =
1 − ( k / k i ) 2/3
∆P
tf
km
YIELDS:
1 − (k f / k fi )
1/ 3
ctf =
∆P
FRACTURE POROSITY:
 ω  ∆P
φ f = φm ctm 
 1 − ω  (1 − ( k f / k fi ) )
 1/ 3
186
Step-by-step Procedure
Step 1 - Estimate k, ω and λ from conventional semilog plot (for
comparison purposes):
162.6qBo µ s = 1.1513
 (∆P)
 − log

 k 


+ 3.23
k=
1hr
 m  (φc ) µr
 t f +m w 
2 

mh 6,500
−δP / m
ω = 10
6,400
δP
6,300
6,200
ω 
Inflection point
 6,100 m
(φct ) f + m = (φct ) m 1 +  6,000
 1−ω  5,900
5,800
3792(φct ) f +m µrw 
2
 1 
∆ t H-inf
λ= ω
5,700
 ln   100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10
k tinf   ω  Horner time, ∆ tH= (tp + ∆t)/∆

∆t
187
Step 2 – Calculate permeability from pressure
derivative using TDS equation:
1000
From loglog plot of
∆P and tx∆P’ read (∆P)r=668.9
the derivative value ( t × ∆P ' ) R ∆tr=14.43
P r e s s u r e & D e r i v a ti v e
corresponding to (t*∆P')r=139
the radial flow line: 100
(tx∆P’)R (t*∆P')min=70.5
∆tmin=2.427
70.6q B µ 10
k = 0.1 1 10 100
h (t × ∆P' )R
time, hours
188
Step 3: Calculate ω
The best values of ω and λ are obtained from the trough, as
long as the minimum point is well defined and the infinite-
acting (radial flow) line is observed
1000
(1) If Wellbore storage does

not influence trough (i.e. (t × ∆P' ) R
(∆P)r=668.9
∆tr=14.43
early-time horiz. line is (t*∆P')r=139
observed), then the observed 100
coordinates of minimum point (t × ∆P' ) min O (t*∆P')min=70.5

∆tmin=2.427
of trough do not need to be

corrected, thus: 10
(t × ∆P' ) min = (t × ∆P' ) min O

0.1 1 10 100
time, hours
2
 (t * ∆P ' ) min   (t * ∆P ' ) min 
ω = 0.15866   + 0.54653  
 (t * ∆P ' ) r   (t * ∆P ' ) r 
189
Step 4 – Calculate λ
 42.5h(φct ) f +m rw2  (t × ∆P' )

λ =  min
 qB  t min
 
Where: 1000
t min and (t × ∆P ' ) min (∆P)r=668.9

∆tr=14.43
(t*∆P')r=139
are the coordinates of 100
the minimum point of

(t × ∆P ' ) min
(t*∆P')min=70.5
tmin ∆tmin=2.427
the trough, and
 ω 
(φct ) f + m = (φct ) m 1 +
10
 0.1 1 10 100
− ω
time, hours
 1 
190
Step 5 – Calculate skin
1000
∆PR
Select any time tR (∆P)r=668.9
during the radial ( t × ∆P ' ) r ∆tr=14.43

P ressu re & D erivative
t R
(t*∆P')r=139
flow regime and 100
read the (t*∆P')min=70.5

corresponding ∆tmin=2.427
value of ∆PR
10
0.1 1 10 100
time, hours
 ( ∆P )  ktR 1  
s = 0.5 R
− ln  + 7.43
 (t × ∆ P ' )R
 (φc ) µr 2 ω 
 t f +m w  
191
Step 6 – Calculate fracture compressibility
1 − ( k / k i ) 2 / 3 1 − (k f / k fi )
1/ 3
ctf = =
∆P ∆P
ki = average effective permeability obtained from a
transient test run at Pi
k = average effective permeability obtained from
a transient test at the current Pavg (step 1)
2
ki k2
∆P = Pi − P k fi = kf =
km km
192
The time between the two tests must be long enough for the
fractures to deform significantly in order to determine an
accurate value of ctf
The following table shows the results of two pressure transient

tests in Cupiaga field, a naturally fractured gas condensate
reservoir in Colombia.
Test Type Pavg BHFP K (md)

Date
1996 Pressure Test 6004 ∼3410 16.4
1997 Pressure Test 5660 ∼3200 14.2
The reduction in permeability for well 1 (h = 171 ft) is about

13% and the change in pressure is 344 psi in almost 2 years.
192
193
Step 7 – Calculate fracture porosity
 ω  ctm
φf =   φm
 1 − ω  ctf
Step 8 – Estimate fracture width or aperture
kf
wf =
33ωφt
Fracture width = microns (1 mm = 1000 microns)
Permeability = mD
Total porosity = fraction
Storage capacity ω = fraction
194
EXERCISE 8
195
GIVEN:
q = 3000 stb / d µo = 1.0 cp Bo = 1.25 rb / stb

h = 25 ft rw = 0.4 ft k i = 82.5 md
ctm = 1.35 × 10 −5 φm = 10% k m = 0.10 md
(φct ) f + m = 1.01 × 10 −5 ∆P = Pi − P = 300 psi
1000
4400
4300
(∆P)r=668.9
4200 δP = 130 psi
∆tr=14.43
P re s s u r e & D e riv a tiv e

m = 325 psi/cycle
4100 (t*∆P')r=139
P ressure, p si
Inflection point 100

4000 tinf = 2.5 hr
3900 (t*∆P')min=70.5
∆tmin=2.427
3800
3700
10
3600
0.1 1 10 100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
time, hours
Time, hr
196
From Figure:
∆tmin = 2.427 hr ×∆P’)min = 70.5 psi (t×
(t× ×∆P’)R = 139 psi
1 - Using the same procedure as in previous example, we
obtain (at current Pavg):
k = 76.2 md λ = 1.31x10^-5 ω = 0.4
2 - Fracture permeability at Pi:
k i2 82.5 2
k fi = = = 68,062 mD
km 0.10
3 - Fracture permeability at current Pavg:
k 2 76.22
kf = = = 58,064 mD
km 0.10
197
4 - Fracture compressibility at current Pavg:
1 − (k f / k fi )
1/ 3
1 − (58,064 / 68,062)1 / 3
ctf = = = 1.72 × 10 − 4
∆P 300
5 - Compressibility ratio:
ctf
ctm
=
1.72 × 10−4
1.35 × 10− 5
= 12.7 ctf = 12.7ctm
6 – Fracture porosity:
 ω  ctm
φf =   φm = 0.0052 = 0.52%
 1 − ω  ctf
If we assumed ctf ≈ ctm Øf = 6.6%!
198
PART VII
–
COMPOSITE NFR
199
The models used so far to interpret pressure transient

tests in naturally fractured reservoirs are based on the
assumption that the fractures are the only conduits for the
fluids from the reservoir into the well.
Thus, the well communicates with the matrix via the

fractures.
This is a reasonable assumption since the permeability of

the matrix is usually very low
Several authors verified this assumption with his

numerical model and found that it corresponds to the
reality of flow in naturally fractured reservoirs when the
well intersects the fractures.
200
For well testing purposes, however, we have established that
among the conditions that must be met to obtain the
characteristic buildup and drawdown curves discussed earlier,
the following two must be satisfied:
1. The reservoir is extensively fractured (Fig. a)
2. The storage of the matrix must be substantially higher

than that of the fractures (Type 2 NFR)
(a) (d)
(b)
(e)
(c) (f)
Matrix Fractures Low Permeability Matrix Wel l

201
If a reservoir is not extensively fractured, then there is a
greater likelihood that a well will miss the fractures and be
completed in the matrix (Fig. c).
Also it is quite possible that both matrix and fractures would

have equal or nearly equal storage (Type 3 NFR).
Under these conditions, none of the models discussed in the

previous sections would be useful in interpreting test data
obtained from these particular completions.
(a) (d)
(b)
(e)
(c) (f)
Adams et al. considered the well to be producing from

two circular, cylindrical, and concentric regions
(Composite System).
The inner region consists of the matrix. Its radius is rm

and its permeability is km.
The outer region consists of fractures and matrix, but

the dominant permeability, kf, is that of the fractures,
and km << kf.
The outer region extends

from rm to the drainage
boundary re
The porosity and storage

of both regions are equal.
The producing well of radius rw is located at the center of the
cylinder,
and
if the skin factor, s, is not equal to zero, there would be a

concentric zone of altered permeability and of infinitesimal
width in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore.
(a) (d)
(b)
(e)
(c) (f)
204
1 - CONVENTIONAL
TECHNIQUE
According to Hurst, the

pressure drop ∆P = Pi - Pwf
observed in a well producing in
the transient state at a constant
rate, q, from a composite
reservoir is given by:
(2.1)
205
By applying the logarithmic approximation to the Ei functions,
Equation 2.1 becomes:
(2.2)
or
(2.3)
206
Eq. 2.3 is valid after the transients have entered the outer zone.
The equation shows that a plot of ∆P (or just Pwf) versus t on semi-
log graph paper would be a straight line of slope (162.6 qµB/(kfh).
When the transients are still within the inner zone, the pressure
drop, ∆P, is given by Eq. 1-22 after replacing k by km, as follows:
(2.4)
These equations show that the semi-log plot of drawdown data

would consist of two straight lines joined by a transitional
curve.
The slope of the first straight line would be steeper than that of
the second straight line, since km< <kf.
207
To derive the buildup equation we use the principle of superposition:
(2.5)
The sum of the above two equations is ∆Pws = Pi – Pws, and is

given by:
(2.6)
208
Equation 2.6 shows that a plot of

∆Pws (or just Pws) versus (tp +
∆t)/∆t (Horner's plot) on semi-log
graph paper will be a straight line
only as long as tp + ∆t= tp.
From the slope of the straight line,

km can be determined.
As ∆t increases, however, the straight line changes into a curve.

When the transients move into the outer region, but before they
reach the outer boundary at re, the buildup equation would be the
usual Horner's equation in terms of kf.
Thus, the semi-log plot of the entire buildup data would exhibit
two straight lines:
- the first straight line would have a slope proportional to km; and
- the second straight line would have a slope proportional to kf
209
(2.7)
As stated before, Eq. 2.6 is the

equation of the first straight line
when Δt is small, and Eq. 2.7 is the
equation of the second straight
line.
When extended, these two

straight lines will intersect at [(tp
+ Δt)/ Δt]int.
By replacing the expression (tp+Δt) inside the brackets in Eq. 2.6

by tp (assuming tp>>Δt) and then solving simultaneously, we get:
(2.8)
210
A similar behavior is obtained if we use the MDH plot instead,
i.e. a semilog plot of ∆Pws versus Δt. Thus:
1
5.923 × 10 − 4 k m ∆tint  k f  1− (k f / km )
r =
2
  (2.9)
m
φµct  km 
211
To obtain the skin factor S use the first straight line:
 ∆P  k  
S = 1.151 1hr − log m 2  + 3.23 (2.10)
 mm  φµct rw  
162.6qµB
km = (2.11)
mm h
212
CONVENTIONAL
INTERPRETATION
PROCEDURE
Step 1 – Plot dP=Pws-Pwf(dt=0) versus dt on a semilog graph
Step 2 – Identify matrix and fractured layers:
(a) If the slope of the second straight line on MDH (or
Horner) plot is less than the slope of the first
straight (which should develop after WBS), then
the well is influenced by the matrix response first.
Thus mf<mm and the finger print will appear late.
(b) If the slope of the second straight

line on MDH (or Horner) plot is greater
than (but not double) the slope of the
first straight, then the well is
influenced by the fractured zone first,
i.e. mf<mm
The finger print will appear early.

215
Step 3 – Calculate km and kf from mm and mf:
1 – The average matrix

permeability is:
162.6qµB
km = (2.12)
mm h
2 – The average permeability

of the fractured zone is:
162.6qµB
kf = (2.13)
mf h
216
Step 4 – Calculate S from:
Inner zone is  ∆P  k  
S = 1.151 1hr − log m 2  + 3.23 (2.14)
 φµct rw 
matrix
 mm 
Inner zone is  ∆P  kf  
S = 1.151 1hr − log 
2 
+ 3. 23 (2.15)
fractured
 m f  φµc r
t w  
217
Step 5 - Storage capacity ratio is calculated from:
δp
−
ω = 10 m (2.16)
Step 6 – Interporosity flow factor is calculated

from the inflection point:
3792(φct ) f +m µrw 
2
 1  (2.17)
λ= ω ln 
Where (øct)f+m is obtained from:
 ω 
(φct ) f + m = (φct ) m 1 +  (2.18)
 1−ω 
218
Step 7 – Estimate fracture porosity from
 ω  ctm
φf =   φm (2.19)
 1 − ω  ctf
NOTE:
Fracture compressibility may be considerably different from
matrix compressibility.
Kirkuk field (Iraq), Asmari field (Iran) and Grozni field

(Russia) have fracture compressibilty ranging from 10-4 to 10-5
psi-1
In all these reservoirs Ctf is 10 to 100 times greater than

Ctm.

219
Step 8 – Calculate radius of inner zone:
(a) Inner zone is matrix

1
−4
5.923 × 10 k m ∆tint  kf  (
1− k f / k m )
rm2 =  
φµct  km 
(2.20)
(b) Inner zone is fractured
1
5.923 × 10 k f ∆tint  k m  (
−4 1− k m / k f )
r =
2
 
f
µ (φct ) f + m k 
 f 
(2.21)
220
Step 9 – The false pressure P* is obtained from Horner plot by
extrapolating the final straight line to Horner time = 1:
P*=ΔP*+Pwf(Δt=0)
221
EXERCISE 3
222
dt Pws dt Pws
The table shows pressure
1 946 66 1,219
buildup data in a naturally
1.5 958 71 1,223
fractured reservoirs. 2 973 77 1,226
2.5 990 84 1,228
Additional flow and reservoir 3 1,006 90 1,232
parameters are as follows: 4 1,032 100 1,234
5 1,059 109 1,233
6 1,080 119 1,235
rw = 0.3 ft h = 18 ft 7 1,097 134 1,237
-4
ctm = 8.2x10 /psi µ = 0.85 cp 8 1,112 143 1,237
q = 300 BPD tp = 1570 hr 10 1,125 153 1,239
φm = 24 % B = 1.31 13 1,141 171 1,241
16 1,153 197 1,241
Pwf(dt=0)=606 psia
19 1,163 214 1,243
25 1,174 236 1,246
Interpret this pressure test. 31 1,186 255 1,247
37 1,195 273 1,249
Use both conventional &
43 1,199 310 1,251
modern techniques. 333 1,252
49 1,204
55 1,211 369 1,255
62 1,215
223
SOLUTION
1 – Conventional Technique
A MDH plot of ∆Pws versus ∆t
yields two semilog straight lines
of slopes mm=115 and mf=46.
1 – The average matrix

permeability is:
162.6qµB 162.6 × 300 × 0.85 × 1.31

km = = = 26.2 md
mm h 115 × 18
2 – The average permeability of the fractured zone is:
162.6qµB 162.6 × 300 × 0.85 × 1.31

kf = = = 65.6 md
mf h 46 × 18
225
3 – From the MDH graph, dP1hr=415. The skin factor is:
 ∆P  k  
S = 1.151 1hr − log m 2  + 3.23
 mm  φµct rw  
 415  26.2  
= 1.151 − log −4 2 
+ 3.23 = 0.7
 115  0.24 × 0.85 × 8.2 × 10 × 0.3  
226
4 – The radius to the fractured zone is:
1
5.923 × 10 k m ∆tint  k f  1− (k f / km )
−4
rm2 =  
φµct  km 
1
5.923 × 10 − 4 × 26.2 × 87  65.6  1−65.6 / 26.2
rm =   = 108 ft
0.24 × 0.85 × 8.2 × 10 −4  26.2 
227
Steps 5 – 7: Omega and Lambda cannot be obtained since the
“NFR straight line” parallel to the second straight line is not
observed. The test is too short.
228
Step 8 – Calculate radius of inner zone.
1
−4
5.923 × 10 k m ∆tint  kf  (
1− k f / k m )
r =
2
 
m
φµct  km 
1
−4
5.923 × 10 × 26.2 × 87  65.6  1− 65.6 / 26.2
rm =   = 108 ft
0.24 × 0.85 × 8.2 × 10 − 4  26.2 
229
Step 9 – P* cannot be obtained since the “NFR straight line”
parallel to the second straight line is not observed. The test is too
short.
However if omega is approximately equal to 1, the NFR straight line”
will not appear, in which case P* can be estimated by extrapolating the
final straight line. Thus
P*=∆P*+Pwf(dt=0)=660+606=1266 psia
230
EXERCISE 4
231
The table (in next page) shows pressure buildup data in a

naturally fractured reservoirs.
Additional flow and reservoir parameters are as follows:
rw = 0.29 ft h = 36 ft
ctm = 1.0x10-5 /psi µ = 1.0 cp
q = 960 BPD tp = 50.75 hr
φm = 7 % B = 1.28
Pwf(dt=0)=1500 psia
Interpret this pressure test.
232
∆t ∆Pws ∆t ∆Pws ∆t ∆Pws
0.00 11.095 0.32571 45.658 2.1035 61.995
0.01 20.693 0.38127 46.804 2.2146 62.477
0.015 25.4 0.43682 47.836 2.4368 63.363
0.02 28.105 0.49238 48.791 2.6924 64.303
0.03 29.978 0.54793 49.7 2.9146 64.983
0.035 31.407 0.60349 50.541 3.1368 65.686
0.04 32.499 0.6646 51.305 3.359 66.229
0.045
0.05
EXERCISE 3
33.386
34.096
0.7146
0.77015
51.939
52.589
4
5
68
71
0.06 35.288 0.82571 53.208 6 73
0.07 36.213 0.88127 53.796 7 76
0.08 36.985 0.93682 54.4 8 79
0.09 37.718 0.99238 54.874 9 82
0.10349 38.33 1.0479 55.447 10.5 86
0.12571 39.415 1.1035 55.875 12.5 90
0.14793 40.385 1.2146 56.845 15 94
0.17016 41.211 1.3257 57.686 17 98
0.19238 41.975 1.4368 58.343 20 102
0.2146 42.64 1.5479 59.054 23 106
0.23682 43.281 1.659 59.726 27 110
0.25904 43.969 1.7702 60.345 33 114
0.28127 44.542 1.8813 60.949 38 118
0.30349 45.085 1.9924 61.476
233
SOLUTION
1 – Conventional Technique
Step 1 - A MDH plot of ∆Pws versus ∆t yields two early-time parallel

straight lines of slopes mf=22. This portion of the test indicates the
early pressure data are influenced by a fractured zone.
A late-time straight line of slope mm=60 corresponds to a non-

fractured zone or no-flow boundary.
234
Thus, the well is influenced by the fractured zone first, since

mf<mm .
kf
km
rf
235
Step 2 - Permeability
1 – The matrix permeability is:
162.6qµB 162.6 × 960 × 1.0 × 1.28

km = = = 86 md
mm h 60 × 36
2 – The permeability of the fractured zone is:
162.6qµB 162.6 × 960 × 1.0 × 1.28
kf = = = 268 md
mf h 22 × 36
236
Step 3 - Storage capacity ratio is calculated from:
δp
−
ω = 10 m
= 10 −12 / 22 = 0.285
Step 4 - The systems compressibility-porosity product is (øct)f+m
 ω 
(φct ) f + m = (φct ) m 1 + 
 1−ω 
 0.285 
= 0.07 × 10−5 1 + 
 1 − 0.285 
= 9.79 × 10−7
237
Step 5 – Interporosity
flow factor is calculated
from the inflection point
tinf = 0.07 hr:
3792(φct ) f + m µrw 
2
 1 
λ= ω ln  
k f tinf   ω 
3792 × 9.79 × 10 −7 × 1.0 × 0.29 2   1 
=  0 .285 ln  
268 × 0.07   0.285 
= 6.3 × 10 −6
238
Step 6 – From the MDH graph, dP1hr=32. The skin factor is:
 ∆P  kf  
S = 1.151 1hr
− log  + 3.23
 f
m 
 µ (φc ) r 2 
t f +m w  
 32  268  
= 1.151 − log −7  + 3 . 23 = −4.2
 1.0 × 9.79 × 10 × 0.29 
2
 22 
239
Step 7 – The radius to the fractured zone is:
1
5.923 × 10 k f ∆tint  k m  (
−4 1− k m / k f )
r =
2
 
f
µ (φct ) f + m k 
 f 
1
5.923 × 10 − 4 × 268 × 6  86  1−86 / 268
rm =   = 427 ft
1.0 × 9.79 × 10 −7  268 
240
P*=∆P*+Pwf(dt=0)=148+ Pwf(dt=0)
=148+1500=1648 psia
241
2 - MODERN TECHNIQUE
TDS Technique
and dP and dt*dP’ versus dt on a loglog graph.
Fig. 2.7
242
10
M =5
Spherical flow? kv
F=20
a D=500 Slope=-0.5
λ=1E-09
S= 0
CD=0
S F=0
ω=0.1
tDaP'D
ω=0.05
ω=0.01
0.1
1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04
t Da
Fig. 2.8 kf
Fig. 2.9
ω2 , λ2
ω1 , λ1
kf1 a a
kf2
re
1.E+01
1.E+00
kf
tDa ∆ P'
km
1.E-01
1.E-02
1.E-06 1.E-04 1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04
tDa
Fig. 2.10 Fig. 2.11
244
Fig. 2.12 Effect of Storativity Ratio F

1.E+02
ω 2 , λ2 F=1000
ω1 , λ1
F=100
a
a F=1000
F=50
re F=10 M=15
1.E+01
ω1 F=1
F=
ω2
tDa ∆ P'
F=1
k1 λ2
M= = M=15
1.E+00 k2 λ1
λ=0.01
0.5 ω=1
aD=500
Slope=2 SF=0
1.E-01
1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03
tDa
245
ESTIMATE DISTANCE TO FRONT

1.E+01
1.E+00
tend 1 tend 2 (t × ∆P' ) x 2
tDa ∆ P'
1.E-01
1.E-02
1.E-06 1.E-04 1.E-02
tDa
1.E+00 1.E+02
Fig. 2.13
1.E+04
k f 1 t end k f 1tend 2
a = 0 . 0363 1
a = 0.0409
(φ c t )t 1 µ 1 (φct )t1 µ1ω
(2.22) (2.23)
246
(a) If the slope of the second straight line on MDH (or
Horner) plot is less than the slope of the first
straight (which should develop after WBS), then
the well is influenced by the matrix response first.
Thus mf<mm
- On the derivative plot: mf’<mm’
247
(b) If the slope of the second straight line
on MDH (or Horner) plot is greater than
(but not double) the slope of the first
straight, then the well is influenced by the
fractured zone first. Thus mf<mm and on the
derivative plot: mf’<mm’
kf
km
rf
248
Step 3 – Calculate km and kf from mm’ and mf’:
70.6qµ Bo 70.6qµ Bo
km = (2.24)
kf =
h(mm ' ) h(m f ' )
(2.25)
249
Step 4 – Calculate omega from the trough
−1
 m ' 0.7912
( m f ') min


ω = 2.9114 + 4.5104 f
− 6.5452e
mf ' 
(2.28)
 ( m f ' ) min 
 
250
 ω  ctm
φf =   φm (2.29)
 1 − ω  ctf
NOTE:
Fracture compressibility may be considerably different from matrix
compressibility.
Kirkuk field (Iraq), Asmari field (Iran) and Grozni field (Russia)
have fracture compressibilty ranging from 10-4 to 10-5 psi-1
In all these reservoirs Ctf is 10 to 100 times greater than Ctm.

251
Step 6 – Calculate lambda from the trough
 42.5h(φct ) f + m rw 2  (m f ')min
λ=  (2.30)
 qB o  t f min
where
 ω 
(φct ) f + m = (φct ) m 1 + 
 1−ω 
(2.31)
252
 ∆P  k m tm 1  
If inner zone is S = 0.5 m − ln + 7 . 43 (2.26)
 mm '  (φct ) µrw2 ω  
matrix, use:  f +m 
If inner zone is  ∆P  kftf 1   (2.27)

S = 0.5 f − ln + 7. 43
fractured, use:
 m f '  (φct ) µrw2 ω  
 f + m 
253
Step 8 – Calculate radius of inner zone:
(a) Inner zone is matrix
1
−4
5.923 × 10 k m ∆tint  kf  (
1− k f / k m )
rm2 =  
φµct  km 
(2.32)
(b) Inner zone is fractured
1
5.923 × 10 k f ∆tint  k m  (
−4 1− k m / k f )
r =
2
 
f
µ (φct ) f + m k 
 f 
(2.33)
254
P*=ΔP*+Pwf(Δt=0)
255
EXERCISE 5
256
dt Pws dt Pws
The table shows pressure
1 946 66 1,219
buildup data in a naturally
1.5 958 71 1,223
fractured reservoirs. 2 973 77 1,226
2.5 990 84 1,228
Additional flow and reservoir 3 1,006 90 1,232
parameters are as follows: 4 1,032 100 1,234
5 1,059 109 1,233
6 1,080 119 1,235
rw = 0.3 ft h = 18 ft 7 1,097 134 1,237
-4
ctm = 8.2x10 /psi µ = 0.85 cp 8 1,112 143 1,237
q = 300 BPD tp = 1570 hr 10 1,125 153 1,239
φm = 24 % B = 1.31 13 1,141 171 1,241
16 1,153 197 1,241
Pwf(dt=0)=606 psia
19 1,163 214 1,243
25 1,174 236 1,246
Interpret this pressure test. 31 1,186 255 1,247
37 1,195 273 1,249
Use both conventional &
43 1,199 310 1,251
modern techniques. 333 1,252
49 1,204
55 1,211 369 1,255
62 1,215
257
SOLUTION
259
The slope of the second straight line on MDH plot is
less than the slope of the first straight (which appears after
WBS), then the well is influenced by the matrix response first.
Thus mf<mm
-Same observation on the derivative plot: mf’<mm’
-Note: The trough appears ss soon as the fracture zone starts
influencing the pressure response.
260
km = kf =
h( mm ' ) h(m f ' )
70.6 × 300 × 0.85 × 1.31 70.6 × 300 × 0.85 × 1.31
= = 26.2 md = = 65.5 md
18 × 50 18 × 20
261
−1
 mf ' 0.7912
( m f ') min


ω = 2.9114 + 4.5104 − 6.5452e
mf ' 
 ( m f ' ) min 
 
−1
 20 0.7912 
6
=  2.9114 + 4.5104 − 6.5452e
  = 0.1036
20 
 6 
This result may be interpreted

that the fracture pore volume
is 10.36 percent of the total
pore volume (of the fractured
zone), provided Ctm=Ctf.
262
 42.5h (φct ) f + m rw 2  (m f ')min

λ= 
 42.5 × 18 × 0.00022 × 0.32  6
=  = 1.72 × 10−6
 300 × 1.31  134
where
 ω 
(φct ) f + m = (φct ) m 1 + 
 1−ω 
 0.1036 
= 0.00082 × 0.241 + 
 1 − 0.1036 
= 0.00022
263
Inner zone is matrix
 ∆P  k m tm 1  
S = 0.5 m − ln + 7. 43
 (φc ) µr 2 ω 
 mm '  t f +m w  
 555  26.2 × 19 1  
= 0.5 − ln −4  + 7.43 = −0.5
 2.2 × 10 × 0.85 × 0.3 0.1036 
2
 50 
264
 ω  ctm
φf =   φm
 1 − ω  ctf
−5
 0.1036  0.00082 × 0.24 2.276 × 10
=  =
 1 − 0.1036  ctf ctf
Assuming Ctf = Ctm
2.276 × 10−5
φf = = 0.028 or φ f = 2.8%
0.00082
Note: Assuming Ctf = Ctm may lead to an overestimation of fracture

porosity, because Ctf > Ctm
265
Step 8 – Calculate radius of inner zone. The transition (from mm’ to mf’)
portion of the derivative curve is too noisy, therefore the inflection
point (which corresponds to ∆tint) is not available for calculating the
radius. In this case it is best to use the semilog plot.
1
5.923 × 10 k m ∆tint  k f  1− (k f / km )
−4
rm =
2
 
φµct  km 
1
−4
5.923 × 10 × 26.2 × 87  65.6  1− 65.6 / 26.2
rm =   = 108 ft
0.24 × 0.85 × 8.2 × 10 −4  26.2 
266
P*=ΔP*+Pwf(Δt=0)
P*=∆P*+Pwf(dt=0)=660+606=1266 psia
267
EXERCISE 6
268
The table (in next page) shows pressure buildup data in a

naturally fractured reservoirs.
Additional flow and reservoir parameters are as follows:
rw = 0.29 ft h = 36 ft
-5
ctm = 1.0x10 /psi µ = 1.0 cp
q = 960 BPD tp = 50.75 hr
φm = 7 % B = 1.28
Pwf(dt=0) = 1500 psia
Interpret this pressure test.

269
∆t ∆Pws ∆t ∆Pws ∆t ∆Pws
0.00 11.095 0.32571 45.658 2.1035 61.995
0.01 20.693 0.38127 46.804 2.2146 62.477
0.015 25.4 0.43682 47.836 2.4368 63.363
0.02 28.105 0.49238 48.791 2.6924 64.303
0.03 29.978 0.54793 49.7 2.9146 64.983
0.035 31.407 0.60349 50.541 3.1368 65.686
0.04 32.499 0.6646 51.305 3.359 66.229
0.045
0.05
EXERCISE 3
33.386
34.096
0.7146
0.77015
51.939
52.589
4
5
68
71
0.06 35.288 0.82571 53.208 6 73
0.07 36.213 0.88127 53.796 7 76
0.08 36.985 0.93682 54.4 8 79
0.09 37.718 0.99238 54.874 9 82
0.10349 38.33 1.0479 55.447 10.5 86
0.12571 39.415 1.1035 55.875 12.5 90
0.14793 40.385 1.2146 56.845 15 94
0.17016 41.211 1.3257 57.686 17 98
0.19238 41.975 1.4368 58.343 20 102
0.2146 42.64 1.5479 59.054 23 106
0.23682 43.281 1.659 59.726 27 110
0.25904 43.969 1.7702 60.345 33 114
0.28127 44.542 1.8813 60.949 38 118
0.30349 45.085 1.9924 61.476
270
SOLUTION
271
Step 2 – Identify matrix and fractured zones:
Note: MDH plot: mf<mm
Same observation on the derivative plot: mf’<mm’.
The early-time portion of the MDH plot (2 parallel straight

lines) and derivative plot (trough) clearly indicate the inner zone is
naturally fractured.
The slope of the late-time portion of MDH plots is much
greater than the early-time slopes.
The slope mm is not double mf, therefore the well is not near
a fault, and the well is influenced by the matrix response first.
272
km = kf =
h (mm ' ) h( m f ' )
70.6 × 960 × 1.0 × 1.28 70.6 × 960 × 1.0 × 1.28
= = 86 md = = 268 md
36 × 28 36 × 9
273
−1
 mf ' 0.7912
( m f ') min


ω = 2.9114 + 4.5104 − 6.5452e
mf ' 
 ( m f ' ) min 
 
−1
 9 0.7912 
5
=  2.9114 + 4.5104 − 6.5452e
 9
 = 0.291
 5 
This result may be interpreted

that the fracture pore volume
is 28.5 percent of the total
pore volume (of the fractured
zone), provided Ctm=Ctf.
This high value of omega

implies high fracture intensity.
This maybe a TYPE 3 NFR.
274
 ω  ctm
φf =   φm
 1 − ω  ctf
−7
 0.291  0.00001 × 0.07 2.9 × 10
=  =
 1 − 0.291  ctf ctf
Assuming Ctf = Ctm
2.9 × 10−7
φf = = 0.029 or φ f = 2.9%
0.00001
Note: Assuming Ctf = Ctm will always lead to an overestimation of

fracture porosity, because Ctf > Ctm
275
 42.5h (φct ) f + m rw 2  (m f ')min

λ= 
 42.5 × 36 × 9.79 × 10−7 × 0.292  4.1
=  = 6.06 × 10−6
 960 × 1.29  0.07
where
 ω 
(φct ) f + m = (φct ) m 1 + 
 1−ω 
 0.291 
= 0.00001 × 0.071 + 
 1 − 0.291 
= 9.79 × 10−7
276
Inner zone is fractured
 ∆P  kftf 1  
S = 0.5 f − ln + 7. 43
 µ (φct ) rw2 ω 
 f 
m '  f +m 
 55  268 × 1 1  
= 0.5 − ln −7  + 7.43 = −4.8
 1.0 × 9.79 × 10 × 0.29 0.291 
2
9 
277
Step 8 – Calculate radius of inner zone. The intersection of the last two
straight lines occurs at dtint=6 hr
1
5.923 × 10 k f ∆tint  k m  1−(k m / k f )
−4
rf2 =  
µ (φct ) f + m k 
 f 
1
−4
5.923 × 10 × 268 × 6  86  1−86 / 268
rf =   = 427 ft
1 × 9.79 × 10 −7  268 
278
P*=∆P*+Pwf(dt=0)=148+ 1500 = 1648 psia

279
PART VIII
–
HYDRAULICALLY
FRACTURED NFR
280
NFR Flow Periods
Characteristics of Pressure Derivative
(without hydraulic fracture)
10
(P D ) r2
(P D ) r1 ω=0.01, λ=1x10-6
Equivalent
homogeneous
P D and t*P D'
Fracture
1 (t D ) u si
depletion (t*P D ') r1 (t*P D ') response
r2
t D ,e1 Trough Slope=1 t D ,b 2

0.1
Minimum point
t D m in
0.01
1.E + 00 1.E + 01 1.E + 02 1.E + 03 1.E + 04 1.E + 05 1.E + 06 1.E + 07 1.E + 08
tD
281
NFR + Hydraulic Fracture
• The combination of NFR flow periods, i.e.:
(1) natural-fissures dominated flow period,

(2) transition period (trough), and
(3) total system dominated flow period.
• and flow regimes of Hydraulic Fracture, i.e.

(4) Bilinear Flow and
(5) Linear Flow
• Plus inner and outer boundaries,

extremely complicates the interpretation of the loglog plot
of pressure and pressure derivative.
282
NFR + Hydraulic Fracture
The trough may occur (depending on λ) either
• during the bilinear flow period (for finite-conductivity HF)
• or during the linear flow period (for infinite-conductivity HF)
• or during the pseudo radial flow period.
1.E+02 100
1.E+01 Fissure-storage dominated total system dominated 10

o period bilinear flow ( 1BL) bilinear flow period (2BL)
PwD and tDxf.P'wD
1.E+00 pseudo-radial flow period 1
1.E-01 0
λf = 1.0E+3, 1.0E+2 1.0E+1, 1.0, 1.0E-1, 1.0E-2, 1.0E-3, 1.0E-4

1.E-02 0
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04
tDxf
283
CASE 1 - Finite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture
If the trough occurs during bilinear flow, 2 parallel straight lines of slope 0.25 may be
observed
1.0E+01
ω = 10 , 10 , 10 , 1
-3 -2 -1
Radial
PwD PSS
1.0E+00
1/4
λf
ω=1
1/2
tdP'dmax
[PwD and tDxf.P'wD](Cfd)
ω = 10
-1
1.0E-01
ω = 10
-2
bilinear Slope=1
1.0E-02 unit slope line (US)
ω = 10
-3
(tmin, tdP'dmin)
1.0E-03
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01
λf*tDxf
284
Late-
Late-time radial flow
• The derivative of well pressure during this radial flow regime is:
1
t D × P' wD =
2
• Substituting the dimensionless pressure and the dimensionless time in
the above equation yields the following equation for kh:
70.6q B µ 1.0E+03
kh =
(t × ∆P' ) R
• The skin factor can be obtained using (∆PW1.0E+02) R
∆ P W a n d t * ∆ P 'W , p s i
∆PWpss = 37.14 psi

the following equation:
tBLUSi = 2.4
(t × ∆P' W ) R tBLUSi = 0.05 hrs
(t.∆P'W)R =12.05 psi
 (∆P )   
S = 0.5 W R 
− ln
kt R  + 7.43
1.0E+01
tRUSi = 0.9 radial
 (t × ∆P'W )R  (φc t ) µrw 2 ω  
  t   tmax = 0.0078 hrs
tmin = 0.102 hrs
(t.∆P'W)max = 5.253 psi
(t.∆P'W)min = 1.793 psi
Where tR is any convenient time during 1.0E+00
radial flow line and (∆PW ) R is the value of

1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
elapsed time, ∆t, hrs
tR
∆PW corresponding to tR.
285
TROUGH
• The best values of ω and λ are obtained from the trough, as long as the minimum
point is well defined and the infinite-acting (radial flow) line is observed:
2
 (t * ∆P ' ) min   (t * ∆P ' ) min 
ω = 0.15866   + 0.54653  
 (t * ∆ P ' ) r   (t * ∆ P ' ) r 
1.0E+03
 42.5h(φ ct ) f +m rw2  (t × ∆P' )

λ =  min
 qB  t
  min 1.0E+02
∆ P W a n d t* ∆ P ' W , p s i
tBLUSi = 2.4
These equations are applicable, tBLUSi = 0.05 hrs
(t.∆P'W)R =12.05 psi
regardless of the location of the 1.0E+01

tRUSi = 0.9
trough with respect to the tmax = 0.0078 hrs

tmin = 0.102 hrs
(t.∆P'W)max = 5.253 psi
bilinear or linear flow regimes. 1.0E+00
(t.∆P'W)min = 1.793 psi
1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03

286
bilinear flow
• During the bilinear flow regime, the well pressure behavior is

given by:
44.13  qBµ 
m BL =  
(ωµ(φc t )t k )  h k f w f
1/4 1/4 
2.451  t Dx f  
PwD =  
C fD  ω 
 1.0E+03
∆PW = m BL t1/4 1.0E+02

∆ P W a n d t* ∆ P ' W , p s i
tBLUSi = 2.4
tBLUSi = 0.05 hrs
(t.∆P'W)R =12.05 psi
1.0E+01
∆PW tRUSi = 0.9
log(∆Pw ) = log(t ) + log[m BL ]

1
tmax = 0.0078 hrs
tmin = 0.102 hrs
4 1.0E+00
(t.∆P'W)max = 5.253 psi
(t.∆P'W)min = 1.793 psi
1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03

287
bilinear flow
• Let (∆PW ) BL1be the value of ∆PW at time t = 1 hour on the bilinear flow straight
• line (extrapolated if necessary).
log(∆Pw ) = log(t ) + log[m BL ]

1
4
(∆PW )BL1 = m BL 1.0E+03
44.13  qBµ  (∆PW )BL1

(∆Pw ) BL1 = m BL =  
(ωµ(φc t )t k )1/4  h k f w f 

1.0E+02
∆ P W a n d t * ∆ P 'W , p s i
tBLUSi = 2.4
tBLUSi = 0.05 hrs
(t.∆P'W)R =12.05 psi
• Solving for the hydraulic fracture 1.0E+01
tRUSi = 0.9
conductivity, i.e. kfwf, yields
2 tmax = 0.0078 hrs
 
tmin = 0.102 hrs
(t.∆P'W)max = 5.253 psi
1947.46 qB µ (t.∆P'W)min = 1.793 psi
kfw f =  
ωµ (φ c t )t k  h (∆P )
1.0E+00
 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
 W BL1  elapsed time, ∆t, hrs
288
bilinear flow
• The derivative of well pressure during this regime is:
1 
m BL (t )1/4
1
log(t × ∆P' w ) = log(t ) + log m BL 
or 1
t × ∆P' w =
4 4 4 
• Let (t × ∆P W ) BL1 be the value of t × ∆P' W at time t = 1 hr on the

'
¼ slope line (extrapolated if necessary).
1 44.13  qBµ  1.0E+03
(t × ∆Pw' ) BL1 = m BL =  
4 (ωµ (φc t )t k )1/4 h k w
 f f


1.0E+02
∆ P W a n d t* ∆ P ' W , p s i
tBLUSi = 2.4
• Solving for fracture conductivity yields: tBLUSi = 0.05 hrs
(t.∆P'W)R =12.05 psi
1.0E+01
2
 
tRUSi = 0.9
121.74 qB µ
kf w f =  
ωµ (φ c t )t k  h (t × ∆P' ) 
tmax = 0.0078 hrs
tmin = 0.102 hrs
(t.∆P'W)max = 5.253 psi
 
(t.∆P'W)min = 1.793 psi
W BL1 1.0E+00
1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
289
CASE 2 - Infinite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture
If trough occurs during linear flow, 2 parallel straight lines of slope 0.5 may
be observed
1.E+00 1
1.E-01 ω = 5 E-4, 1E-3, 5 E-3, 1 E-2, 5 E-2, 1 E-1 0

PwD PSS
1/2
[PwD and tDxf.P'wD]λf
Radial
1.E-02 0
ω = 0.1
ω = 0.05
ω = 0.01
1.E-03 0
ω = 0.005
Slope=0.5 Slope=1
ω = 0.001
ω = 0.0005
1.E-04 0
1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01
λ*tDxf
290
If trough occurs after the linear (or bilinear) flow, the second parallel straight line of
slope 0.5 (or 0.25) will not be observed
1.E+01 10
Fissure flow
1.E+00 ω = 0.1, 0.05, 0.01, 0.005, 1
0.001
Pw D and tDxf.P'w D
1.E-01 total
Totalsystem pseudo-flow 0
system
Fissure-storage radial(radial
flow period
flow)
Linear or
dominated period
bilinear
bilinear flow
1.E-02 0
Pseudo-steady state
trough
transition period
1.E-03 0
1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05
tDxf
291
linear flow
If Formation Linear Flow is well defined:

• Equations of pressure during this regime are:
 qB 
∆PW = m L t1/2 m L = 4.064 
µ
 h ω

 (φc t )t kx f
1
Log(∆Pw ) = Log(t) + Log(m L ) 1.0E+03
2
Slope=0.5
1.0E+02
∆ P W a n d t* ∆ P ' W , p s i
• Equations for pressure derivative ∆PWpss = 37.14 psi
tBLUSi = 2.4
during the linear
1 flow regime:
m L ⋅ (t )
tBLUSi = 0.05 hrs
t × ∆P' w = 1/2 (t.∆P'W)R =12.05 psi

1.0E+01
2 tRUSi = 0.9
tmax = 0.0078 hrs

tmin = 0.102 hrs
1 
(t.∆P'W)max = 5.253 psi
log(t × ∆P' w ) = log(t ) + log  m L 

1 1.0E+00
(t.∆P'W)min = 1.793 psi
2 
1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
2 elapsed time, ∆t, hrs
292
linear flow
Let (∆PW ) L1 = value of ∆PW at time t = 1 hour, and
(t × ∆P' W ) BL1
= value of t × ∆P W at time t = 1 hour
'
(∆Pw ) L1 = m L
on the 0.5 slope line (extrapolated if necessary):
 qB  µ 1
m L = 4.064  (t × ∆P' w ) L1 =
h ω
 (φc t )t kx f 2
mL
1.0E+03
• Combining these Eq. and solving Slope=0.5

for Xf yields:
 
1.0E+02
- From pressure: qB µ
∆ P W a n d t* ∆ P ' W , p s i
x f = 4.064  ∆PWpss = 37.14 psi
 (∆P ) h ω 
 W L1  (φc t )t k tBLUSi = 0.05 hrs
tBLUSi = 2.4
(t.∆P'W)R =12.05 psi
1.0E+01
tRUSi = 0.9
- From pressure derivative:
tmax = 0.0078 hrs
tmin = 0.102 hrs
 
(t.∆P'W)max = 5.253 psi
(t.∆P'W)min = 1.793 psi
qB µ
x f = 2.032  1.0E+00
 (t × ∆P' ) h ω  (φc t )t k
1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
 W L1 
293
SPECIAL CASES
1.92173
1 - Formation Linear flow is xf = s
e 3.31739k
not observed (only bilinear and −
rw wf k f
radial flow are present)
2 - Bilinear flow is not 3.31739k

wf k f = s
e 1.92173
Observed (only linear and −
rw xf
radial flow are present)
3 - Radial flow is NOT

observed; short test (only   1.92173 3.31739k 
s = ln rw  − 
bilinear and linear flow  x w f k f 
are present, k from pre-   f
Frac test)
294
Summary of TDS Technique
 qB  µ wf k f =
3.31739k
1  ∆ Pr  k tr  
1 00 0 0 
x f = 2.032 e s 1.92173 s =  − ln   + 7 .43 
 (t × ∆P' ) h ω 
 W L1 
(φc t )t k rw
−
xf
2  (t * ∆ P ' ) r  µ (φ c )

2
t f + m rw

 
Pressure and pressure derivative, psi
1000 ∆ P r= 9 8 6 p s i
∆ P i = 1 4 4 .8 p s i
If slope=0.5
t = 0 .6 9 h r
i
( t* ∆ P ') r = 1 4 4 . 8 p s i
 qB  t
C =
100

 24  ∆P 70.6q µ B o radial
k=
h (t * ∆ p ' ) r
If slope=0.25
10
( t * ∆ P ') m in = 2 7 .9 p s i
Slope=1
2 1.92173 t m in = 4 8 6 . 6 7 h r
121.74  qBµ  xf = S
kf wf =   e 3.31739k t r= 4 1 0 0 h r
ωµ (φc t )t k  h (t × ∆P'W )BL1  −
rw wf kf
1
0 .0 1 0 .1 1 10 100 1000 10000
T im e , h r
 (t * ∆ P ' ) min   (t * ∆ P ' ) min 

2
4 2.5 h (φct ) f + m r 2w  t * ∆ P ' 
ω = 0.15866   + 0.54653   λ=  
 (t * ∆ P ' ) r   (t * ∆ P ' ) r  q Bo  t  min
295
EXERCISE 9
296
Q = 1000 STB/D, B=1.05, µ=0.65 cp, rw=0.25 ft, h=100

ft, (ØCt)f+m = 8*10^-7 1/psi
1.0E+03
1.0E+02
∆PW and t*∆P'W, psi
tBLUSi = 2.4
tBLUSi = 0.05 hrs
(t.∆P'W)R =12.05 psi
1.0E+01
tRUSi = 0.9 radial
Slope=0.25
tmax = 0.0078 hrs
tmin = 0.102 hrs
(t.∆P'W)max = 5.253 psi
(t.∆P'W)min = 1.793 psi
1.0E+00
1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
297
Solution
Step 1 - From pressure derivative curve, (tx∆P’w)r = 11
70.6q B µ (70.6)(1000)(1.05)(0.65)
k = = = 40 mD
h (t × ∆P'w )R (100)( 11)
Step 2 - Minimum point: tmin = 0.11, (t*∆P’)min=1.9

2
 (t * ∆P ' ) min   (t * ∆P ' ) min 
ω = 0.15866  + 0.54653  
 (t * ∆P ' ) r   (t * ∆P ' ) r 
1.0E+03
 42.5h(φct ) f + m rw2  (t × ∆P ' ) min

λ =  
 = 3.8 x10^ −6
 qB  tmin 1.0E+02
∆ P W a n d t * ∆ P 'W , p s i
tBLUSi = 2.4
tBLUSi = 0.05 hrs
Step 3 - At tr= 50.16 hr, ∆Pr = 88.12 psia 1.0E+01
(t.∆P'W)R =12.05 psi
tRUSi = 0.9
 (∆PW )  kt R   tmax = 0.0078 hrs
− ln 
tmin = 0.102 hrs
S = 0.5 +  = −5
(t.∆P'W)max = 5.253 psi
R (t.∆P'W)min = 1.793 psi
7.43
 (t × ∆P' W )R  (φc ) µr 2 ω 
1.0E+00

1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
 t t w  elapsed time, ∆t, hrs
298
Step 4 - From bilinear flow line at time t=1 hr, (tx∆P’w)BL1 = 26 psia
2
121.74  qBµ 
kf wf =  
ωµ (φc t )t k  h (t × ∆P' ) 
 W BL1 
2
121.74  (1000) (1.05) (0.65) 
kf wf =  
(0.65) (0.05) (8 × 10 - 7 )  (100)(26) 
k f w f = 8227 mD - ft
Step 5 – Since the linear flow is not observed, 1.0E+03
the half fracture length is estimated from:

1.0E+02
∆ P W a n d t* ∆ P ' W , p s i
1.92173 tBLUSi = 2.4
xf = s = 203 ft
tBLUSi = 0.05 hrs
(t.∆P'W)R =12.05 psi
1.0E+01
tRUSi = 0.9
e 3.31739k
− tmax = 0.0078 hrs
(t.∆P'W)max = 5.253 psi
tmin = 0.102 hrs
(t.∆P'W)min = 1.793 psi
rw wf k f 1.0E+00
1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00
1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
299
End of Chapter 7

Ch. 7 - Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Carbonates: Advanced Well Test Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ch. 7 - Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Carbonates: Advanced Well Test Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ch. 7 - Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Carbonates: Advanced Well Test Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADVANCED WELL TEST

Copyright © 2014, Djebbar TIAB. All rights reserved.

No part of this manual maybe reproduced, stored in a retrieval

Most geological formations in the upper part of the earth's

Natural fractures can be an important feature of

Many low-matrix-permeability reservoirs would not be

While fractures are unquestionably important with respect

An increasing number of hydrocarbon accumulations were

The assignments of porosity in a dual-porosity system (e.g.,

An assignment of too much porosity to the fracture system

Fracture porosity and matrix porosity have a different

While fracture porosity is usually low, it is highly inter-

Relatively small increases in fracture porosity cause

Fracture porosity and matrix porosity thus should not

Carbonate reservoirs produce a major portion of the

YET, accurately predicting amounts and types

Main reason: Many of these carbonate

They are extremely heterogeneous and/or

The natural fractures range from microscale fractures

At the intermediate, mesoscale (10 to 100 m) fracture

A typical fracture corridor can consist of 1000s parallel

Permeability in these corridors can range well above

These corridors often

Applying DES (Discontinuity Extraction Software) with filters to

Some rocks exhibit dual porosity and have significant storage

Such reservoirs frequently are associated with basement

-- All these fields contain high fracture density.

… matrix provides the essential porosity

Typical Type-2 NFR are: the Monterey fields of California, the

For these reservoirs, the nature of interporosity flow must be

Typical Type-3 NFR are: Kirkuk field of Iraq, Gachsaran field of

Nelson includes Hassi Messaoud (Algeria) in this list. While

Most times, the evidence of fractures is not clear in the early

Unusual responses during pressure support by gas or water

Matrix Fractures Low Permeability Matrix Well

HORIZONTAL WELL IN NFR

Engineering Classification of Naturally

However, in most fracture modeling studies fractures

A sealed small natural fracture may even not be

In Type 1 NFR, an early calculation of fracture

An accurate knowledge of this volume must be

In these estimations, fracture width and fracture

Accurate fracture porosity calculations in Types 2 and 3

In those types, the matrix pore volume (usually several

In these reservoirs, however, an early knowledge of

Table 6-2 Examples of Fields in Which Fractures Provide the

Table 6-3 Examples of Fields in Which Fractures Provide a

The difference in history of development of the two fields (Kirkuk and

1 - In Kirkuk, gigantic flow rates were observed from the Asmari

The field was, therefore, recognized as a fractured reservoir immediately

2 - At Cottonwood Creek, however, the importance of the natural fracture

POSITIVE RESERVOIR ATTRIBUTES

TYPE 1 - Fractures Provide Essential Porosity and Permeability

TYPE 2 - Fractures Provide Essential Permeability

TYPE 3 - Fractures Provide a Permeability Assist

Problems with Type 2 involve documentation of matrix and fracture

TYPE 1- Fractures Provide Essential Porosity and Permeability

TYPE 2 - Fractures Provide Essential Permeability