SPE 100576
Well Testing of Tight Gas Reservoirs
J.P. Garcia, SPE, M. Pooladi-Darvish, SPE, F. Brunner, M. Santo, and L. Mattar, SPE, Fekete Assocs. Inc.
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Gas Technology Symposium held
in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 15–17 May 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Advances in technology, strong energy prices and declining
reserves in conventional gas reservoirs are encouraging oil and
gas companies to consider the feasibility of exploiting large
reserves trapped in tight (low permeability) gas reservoirs.
Conventional well tests conducted on these low
permeability gas formations, generally result in poor estimates
of key reservoir parameters such as: initial reservoir pressure,
permeability, effective fracture length, fracture conductivity,
and deliverability potential.
The objective of this paper is to review the different types of
tests that are particularly applicable to tight gas formations,
discuss why the traditional methods of testing and analysis
rarely succeed, and identify appropriate test and analysis
procedures for tight gas reservoirs.
We will consider short-term tests where the primary
objective is to obtain the initial reservoir pressure, with a
secondary objective of determining permeability and skin.
Perforation Inflow Tests, Fracture-Calibration Tests, and
Formation Flow Tests will be considered. The applicability of
these tests will be shown using synthetic and actual field
cases.
Introduction
One of the primary goals of well testing is to obtain the
initial reservoir pressure. For most reservoir engineering
studies, this is a critical parameter to know accurately.
Traditionally, the initial pressure is determined from a flow
and buildup test, by extrapolating the shut-in data.
Today, economics and environmental considerations
encourage tests of short duration. Moreover, many of the
reserves that are being exploited are contained within low
permeability or tight gas reservoirs. The combination of these
two factors can lead to tests that result in the wrong initial
reservoir pressure, with drastic consequences for proper
reservoir description such as defining reservoir continuity or
calculating original-gas-in-place.
This presentation is focused on initial well tests in “Tight
Gas” reservoirs. Many segments of the industry define “Tight
Gas” reservoirs as having permeability less than 0.1 mD.
While this is a useful definition, it does not provide a clear
distinction for well testing purposes, because what makes a
test analyzable depends on many factors other than
permeability; for example:
i) Flow Capability is a function not only of permeability, but
of k*h, the permeability-thickness product.
ii) Many tight gas wells are stimulated (hydraulically
fractured) prior to testing. Therefore, a test can be
influenced by:
iii) The size of the fracture
iv) The extent of frac cleanup (i.e. load fluid left to recover)
v) The duration of the flow period.
vi) The duration of the build-up period.
We will explore some of these effects and discuss ways of
obtaining a reliable initial reservoir pressure.
Industry Practice in Alberta, Canada
For tight gas reservoirs, a common industry practice in
Alberta is to hydraulically fracture the well, clean-up for 2 - 4
days, shut-in for 3 - 72 hours and then test. The test consists of
flowing for 4 - 48 hours, and shut-in for 16+ hours. The
examples below are typical tests, and illustrate the potential
ambiguity of the results.
Example 1:
This reservoir has a permeability of 0.1 mD. Figures
1a,b,c, show that conventional analysis (Superposition,
Derivative) and modeling work, and give consistent answers,
in spite of a complex pre-flow sequence. This well was used
to confirm that the reservoir pressure in that pool was 31,500
kPa. Note that the shut-in duration was 140 hours; however
the same answers would have resulted even from a shorter
shut-in of 24 hours because, as can be seen on the derivative,
radial flow had been achieved within a few (5) hours. This
well has been frac’d, but the derivative shows no evidence of
linear flow. Note also, that there was a long shut-in after the
frac clean-up, which means that, in effect, the flow period of
the test started from near-static reservoir pressure. The final
flow period was only 7.5 hours long.
Example 2:
Figures 2a,b,c show an example of a shorter build-up test
(18 hours) for a well in the same pool as Example 1.
2 SPE 100576
A reasonable analysis gives a permeability of 0.07 mD and a
corresponding reservoir pressure of 29,000 kPa. As can be
noted from the results of Example 1, the estimated reservoir
pressure is too low by 2500 kPa. This is disturbing, as one of
the primary purposes of the test was to establish the initial
reservoir pressure. An error of this magnitude translates
directly into a corresponding error in Gas-in-place
calculations.
Example 2-reanalyzed:
This is the same data set as Example 2, but analyzed
differently. In this analysis, Figures 2d,e, the reservoir
parameters were altered deliberately to give the true reservoir
pressure (31,500 kPa). The corresponding permeability was
0.048 mD. The history match was as acceptable as that
obtained in Example 2.
Example 3:
This well was also completed in the same tight formation as
that of Examples 1 and 2. The test procedure was similar,
Figure 3a, but the duration of the build-up was short (18
hours) as in Example 2. Extrapolation of the Horner plot,
Figure 3b, gives a reservoir pressure of 28,700 kPa –
significantly lower than the true pressure of 31,500 kPa. The
derivative, Figure 3c, shows that radial flow was not achieved
during the buildup, and the last log cycle of data is in linear
flow (this well, like all the others, has been hydraulically
fractured). Figure 3d is a “linear superposition” plot
(equivalent to a Horner plot but for linear flow instead of
radial flow). Extrapolation of the straight line gives a
reservoir pressure of 37,900 kPa - significantly higher than
31,500 kPa. History matching of the build-up gives a
reasonable match of the data using several different reservoir
models (with permeabilities in the order of 0.1 mD).
Example 4:
This well is in a different pool from the previous examples.
It is presented to illustrate the error in analysis that can result
from having too short of a build-up. Figure 4a shows that the
reservoir pressure is clearly 19,000 kPa. The build-up was
actually 382 hours. This is an unusually long shut in. As can
be seen from the above 3 examples, a typical shut-in duration
is less than 24 hours. Figures 4b,c,d illustrate that if the data
had stopped at 24 hours, a reasonable analysis/model could
have resulted in an estimated reservoir pressure ranging from
17,200 to 20,000 kPa instead of 19,000 kPa.
Discussion (Real Data Examples):
After examining 100’s of tests in tight gas reservoirs, we
recognized that:
a) It is not just the low permeability (0.1 mD) of these
formations that renders the traditional test and analysis
methods insufficient.
b) The effective frac length affects the flow regimes
observed during a test. However, the effective frac length
depends not only on the size of the frac, but also on the degree
of clean-up achieved at the time of testing.
c) When radial flow is observed (a result of insufficient
clean-up), the analysis and modeling will give a reasonable
value for the initial reservoir pressure.
d) When radial flow is not reached, the estimated reservoir
pressure (either from a Horner plot or from modeling) can be
significantly underestimated.
e) If the build-up is terminated while still in linear flow,
extrapolation of the “linear superposition” straight line, or
modeling using a hydraulic fracture model, sometimes gives
reasonable estimates of the reservoir pressure, but can also
over-predict the pressure significantly (see Figure 4b). We
observed that if the flow period was short, p* obtained from
the linear superposition plot was very close to the initial
reservoir pressure, pi, but if the flow period was long, then p*
(linear) could be too high or too low.
f) In a tight gas reservoir, if the reservoir pressure is not
known a priory (either from other wells in the same pool or
from a stable initial pressure measured prior to flow or clean-
up) and the build-up is short, then the buildup test
interpretation is non-unique, and the reservoir pressure can be
significantly wrong.
g) When the reservoir pressure is wrong, the reservoir
parameters obtained from the analysis and modeling are also
wrong. More importantly, ANY reserves estimates will be
wrong.
h) Conversely, if the reservoir pressure is known (either
from other wells in the same pool or from a stable initial
pressure measured prior to flow or clean-up), then a correct
interpretation of reservoir parameters is possible, even if the
build-up is short. In this situation any error in estimating
reserves can not be attributed to a poor estimate of pi.
i) For build-ups of the same duration, those preceded by a
short flow gave a more reliable reservoir pressure. Those with
long flow (either during test or clean-up) resulted in answers
which might have appeared to be reasonable, but were known
to be wrong (from other data sources).
Effect of Flow Duration:
It was evident from the above, that the duration of the flow
period had a significant effect on the interpreted results when
the build-up was short. Using an analytical model of a
hydraulically fractured well in an infinite, homogeneous
reservoir, we generated synthetic data for a 16-hour build-up
test. We modeled several flow durations, to reflect the
different amounts of frac clean-up time and test flow time that
we had observed in practice.
Example 5 – Synthetic, Long Flow, Large Wellbore:
Clean-up duration 5 days, 2-hr shut-in (to place downhole
recorders), 4-hour flow, 16-hr buildup to determine reservoir
pressure, permeability and skin.
Dimensionless Wellbore Storage Constant = 5000
Initial reservoir pressure = 30,000 kPa
Permeability = 0.03 mD
Frac half-length = 50 m
Frac choke skin = 1
Figure 5a is the derivative plot of the build-up data. It
shows that towards the end, the derivative is flattening,
SPE 100576
indicating transition to radial flow. Figure 5b is a radial
superposition (Horner) plot. The late-time extrapolation gives
a reservoir pressure of 26,000 kPa and permeability of 0.15
mD, both of which are significantly in error. Figure 5c shows
a history match of the build-up data. This is an excellent
match, but with the wrong permeability and initial pressure! If
the reservoir pressure is forced to be 30,000 kPa, the estimates
of permeability and frac length improve, but can still be in
significant error (Figure 5d).
Example 6 – Synthetic, Long Flow, Small Wellbore:
The reservoir model is identical to that of Example 5, with
the exception of the Wellbore Storage Constant. For this
example it was reduced, to represent downhole shut-in, so that
fracture flow would be more evident. Dimensionless
Wellbore Storage Constant = 200.
Figure 6a is the derivative plot of the build-up data. It
displays linear flow behaviour. Figure 6b is a linear
superposition plot which gives a reservoir pressure of 34,000
kPa which is significantly in error. Even though radial flow
was not reached during the shut-in, a Horner plot extrapolation
was attempted as seen in Figure 6c. It significantly under-
predicts the reservoir pressure – 25000 kPa as compared to the
true reservoir pressure of 30,000 kPa. As before, modeling
results in non-unique answers. It is interesting to note that the
true reservoir pressure is approximately equal to the average
of the linear and radial extrapolations. This is coincidental.
Example 7 – Synthetic, Short Flow, Small Wellbore:
The reservoir model is identical to that of Example 6.
However, the flow period preceding the shut-in is much
shorter. The clean-up has been reduced from 5 days to just 2
hours.
Inspection of Figures 7a, b and c shows that in this case,
extrapolation of the linear flow plot (Figure 7b) gives 30,100
kPa, which is a very good estimate of the true reservoir
pressure (30,000 kPa). In fact, extrapolation of the radial
(Horner) plot also yields a pressure of 29,700 kPa, which is
not too far from the true value of 30,000 kPa.
Discussion (Synthetic Examples):
Experimentation with the flow duration indicates that, for a
hydraulically fractured well:
a) The shorter the flow duration, the more correct is the
extrapolation of the “Linear superposition” plot.
b) The shorter the flow duration, the more correct is the
extrapolation of the “Radial superposition” (Horner) plot.
c) For long flow durations, the extrapolation of the linear
superposition plot can be (but is not always) too high.
d) For long flow durations, the extrapolation of the radial
superposition (Horner) plot is always too low.
e) If the build-up is not sufficiently long, modeling (history
matching) does NOT help define the reservoir pressure.
Several non-unique matches can be obtained, each having
significantly different combinations of permeabilities, frac
lengths and reservoir pressures.
The above findings, and our experience from real data sets,
indicate that, in frac’d tight gas wells, a short producing period
3
is better for estimating the initial pressure (by extrapolating
the “linear superposition” plot), provided the linear flow
period is not masked by wellbore storage. This is not
surprising, because there will have been very little production
from the reservoir, thus a very short distance of investigation,
and the frac’d well will behave like an infinitely large linear
flow system. The problem arises from the fact that to properly
clean-up the frac, a long flow period is usually required. It
seems that these two criteria – long flow for clean-up but short
flow for initial pressure – are in conflict. One obvious
solution is to frac the well, clean it up for as long as required,
shut it in until the reservoir pressure is nearly stabilized (see
Example 1), and then do a short flow and build-up test to
estimate reservoir characteristics. This is not a popular
procedure in the industry, as it delays production and cash
flow.
Alternative Tests for Tight Gas:
For economic and environmental reasons (green tests), any
recommended test procedure must necessarily be of short
duration to be practical value. For these reasons, the obvious
candidates are pre-frac, short time, small volume, low
emission, closed chamber tests with real-time read-out. There
are many variations on these types of test. They fall under
several categories: a) Open hole, b) Cased hole, c) Drill string
conveyed, d) Wireline conveyed
Open hole DST (Drill Stem Test): short flow and build-up
test conducted while the well is drilling, typically on land
wells (usually 1/2 hour flow, 1 hour build-up).
Wireline Formation Test: same as Open hole DST but
conducted on wireline instead of drill string, and test duration
is much shorter (typically minutes).
Cased hole DST: flow and build-up test conducted after the
well has been completed, typically in off-shore wells (several
hours flow and build-up).
Cased hole Formation Tests: same as wireline formation
test but conducted in cased hole setting (multiple flow and
shut-ins, with mechanically controlled drawdowns).
The DSTs can be “Closed Chamber”1 (same as conventional
DST, but the flow is contained within the drill string volume).
The analyses for all the above tests are the same as for
conventional radial or spherical flow/build-up tests.
More recently, two types of tests are being evaluated for
tight gas wells. They are Perforation Inflow Tests and Mini-
frac After-Closure-Analysis.
In Perforation Inflow Tests2,3, the zone is perforated (with
little or no cushion) and the continuous influx is contained
within the well’s volume. The data looks like a build-up test,
but the analysis – PITA2,3 - is that of a continuously
diminishing inflow, and can yield the permeability and initial
pressure.
Mini Frac After-Closure-Analysis - ACA : Many tight gas
wells will not flow unless stimulated. A mini-frac test is a
small-volume hydraulic frac (un-propped). Often a mini-frac
is performed prior to the main frac to determine reservoir
characteristics and optimize the main frac. Specialized
analyses4,5 of the mini-frac pressure fall-off (G-function,
After-Closure-Analysis) allow the determination of initial
reservoir pressure and permeability.
4 SPE 100576
While these last two tests are gaining in popularity, they
have not been rigorously evaluated by comparing their
interpretation with that obtained from traditional tests. They
have their limitations, in that they produce (inject) such a little
amount of fluid from (into) the reservoir, and consequently do
not adequately “sample” the reservoir. For both the PITA and
the ACA, specific flow regimes (radial flow, linear flow) must
be observed in the measured pressure data, otherwise the
analysis can be significantly in error. It is also possible that
the measured pressures could be significantly affected by
factors that have been completely ignored when developing
the analysis equations (e.g. supercharge,clean-up,
multiphase…).
Supercharge:
Test operations often dictate that these short tests be
conducted while the well is drilling, or soon thereafter. Under
these conditions, the near-wellbore formation is supercharged.
This problem is known to occur in shaly formations, but can
also occur in tight gas zones. The filtrate invasion during
over-balanced drilling behaves like an injection/fall-off, but
the permeability is so low that the overpressure takes a very
long time to dissipate. This supercharge effect can yield
erroneously high reservoir pressures.
Figure 8 shows a test that clearly displays supercharge (this
is not depletion, as this well is known to be part of a large
pool). The test consisted of a series of short flows and build-
ups, immediately after perforating. Extrapolation of the 5
build-ups resulted in:
1st BU: pi = 12726 kPa
2nd BU: pi = 12089 kPa
3rd BU: pi = 11656 kPa
4th BU: pi = 11893 kPa (build-up looks anomalous)
5th BU: pi = 11674 kPa
It is evident from the above results that the first two build-
ups would have yielded the wrong reservoir pressure, and that
the true reservoir pressure (11656-11674) was reached only
after a series of three short flow and build-up tests.
Conclusions:
For an initial test in a tight gas reservoir:
1. If the build-up is short, the test interpretation is often non-
unique, and the reservoir pressure can be significantly wrong.
When the reservoir pressure is wrong, the reservoir parameters
obtained from the analysis and modeling are also wrong, but
more importantly, the calculated reserves will be wrong.
2. If the buildup has clearly reached radial flow, analysis
and extrapolation of the buildup data gives a reservoir pressure
that is reliable. When radial flow has not been reached, the
reservoir pressure estimated using radial flow analysis can be
significantly low.
3. If the build-up is still in linear flow, extrapolation of the
“linear superposition” straight line, sometimes gives
reasonable estimates of the reservoir pressure, but sometimes
over-predicts the pressure significantly.
4. If the build-up is not sufficiently long, modeling does
NOT help define the reservoir pressure. Several non-unique
matches can be obtained with significantly different
combinations of permeabilities, frac lengths and reservoir
pressures.
5. For build-ups of the same duration, those preceded by a
short flow give a more reliable reservoir pressure.
6. Perforation Inflow Tests, and Mini-frac fall-offs (with
short flow periods) have the potential to give reliable estimates
of initial pressure and permeability, but they too have their
limitations and have not yet been thoroughly evaluated by
comparing their results with other test information.
7. When large flow times are required to overcome
supercharge (or to clean-up), it is not sufficient to design the
shut-in time based on the last flow period, but the total flow
period (e.g. clean-up period) need to be considered as part of
the flow period.
Nomenclature:
Frac = Fracture
h = Net pay, m
k = Permeability, mD
pi = Initial reservoir pressure, kPa
p* = Extrapolated pressure, kPa
References:
1. Alexander, L.G.: “Theory and Practice of the Closed-
Chamber Drillstem Test Method”, JPT (Dec. 1977)
1539-1544.
2. Rahman, N.M.A., Pooladi-Darvish, M., and Mattar, L.:
“Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA)”, paper CIPC
2005-031 presented at the 2005 6th Canadian
International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, June 7-9.
3. Rahman, N.M.A., Pooladi-Darvish, M., and Mattar, L.:
“Development of Equations and Procedure for
Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA)”, paper SPE
95500 presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 9-12.
4. Soliman, M.Y. et al.: “After-Closure Analysis to
Determine Formation Permeability, Reservoir Pressure
and Residual Fracture Properties”, paper SPE 93419
presented at the 2005 SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show
and Conference, Bahrain, March 12-15.
5. Talley, G.R., Swindell, T.M., Waters, G.A. and Nolte,
K.G.: “Fiel;d Application of After-Closure Analysis of
Fracture Calibration Tests,” SPE 52220 presented at the
1999 Mid-Continent Operations Symposium, Oklahama
City, OK, Marcy 28 – 31.
SPE 100576 5

Figure 1 a - Example 1 Test Overview

32000
90

28000 80
Measured Sandface Pressure , kPa

70
24000

Gas Rate , 103m3/d

60
20000
50

16000 40

30
12000

20
8000
10

4000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460
Cum Time , h

Figure 1 b - Derivative
102
7
5

3
2

101
Δψ , 106kPa2/μPa.s

7
5

3
Start Radial Flow
2
Δt 4.91 h
1.0
7
5

3
2
Δψ data
Derivative data
10-1
2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 2 3 4 5 6 789 2 3 4 5 6 789 2 3 4 5 6 78
10-2 10-1 1.0 101 102 103
Real Time , h

Figure 1 c - Model and Horner Analysis

Initial Pressure 31,500

60
Analysis 1
k 0.118 mD
30000
50
ψ, 10 6kPa2/μPa.s

40 25000
p , kPa

30
20000

20
15000

10
ψ data 10000
ψ model
pavg
0 0
87 6 5 4 3 2 87 6 5 4 3 2 87 6 5 4 3 2 87 6 5 4 3 2
104 103 102 101 1.0
Superposition Radial Pseudo-Time (Σ ΔtRa) , h
6 SPE 100576

Figure 2 a - Example 2 Test Overview

26000
90
24000
80
22000
Measured Sandface Pressure , kPa

20000 70

18000

Gas Rate , 103m3/d

60

16000
50
14000
40
12000
30
10000

8000 20

6000 10

4000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Cum Time , h

Figure 2 b Fracture Model Match

2 k 0.070 mD pi (syn) 29015 kPa

102 Xf 6.420 m
7
4
2
101
7
Δψ, 10 6kPa 2/μPa.s

4
2
1.0
7
4
2
10-1
7
4
2
Δψ data
10-2 Δψ model
6 Deriv ativ edata
Deriv ativ emodel
3
2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 567 9 2 3 4 56 8 2 3
10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1.0 101 102
Pseudo-Time , h

Figure 2 c Infinite Conductivity Fracture Model

Infinite Shut-in 30000

50 pavg 28974 kPa
k 0.070 mD
45 Xf 6.420 m

40 25000

35
ψ, 10 6kPa2/μPa.s

30
p , kPa

20000
25

20

15000
15

10
10000
5
ψ data
ψ model
pavg 5000
0 0
8 65 4 3 2 8 65 4 3 2 8 65 4 3 2 8 65 4 3 2 8 65 4 3 2 8 65 4 3 2
106 105 104 103 102 101 1.0
Superposition Radial Pseudo-Time (ΣΔtRa) , h
SPE 100576 7

Figure 2 d Match based on Initial Pressure = 31,500

2
pavg 31493 kPa
102
7 k 0.048 mD
Xf 10.354 m
4
2
101
7
Δψ, 106kPa2/μPa.s

4
2
1.0
7
4
2
10-1
7
4
2
Δψ data
10-2 Δψ model
6 Deriv ativ e data
Deriv ativ e model
3
2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 567 9 2 3 4 56 8 2 3
10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1.0 101 102
Pseudo-Time , h

Figure 2 e Match anchored on initial pressure = 31,500

pavg 31493 kPa

60
k 0.048 mD
Xf 10.354 m
30000
50
ψ, 106kPa2/μPa.s

40 25000

p , kPa
30
20000

20
15000

10
ψ data 10000
ψ model
pavg
0 0
8 65 4 3 2 8 65 4 3 2 8 65 4 3 2 8 65 4 3 2 8 65 4 3 2 8 65 4 3 2
106 105 104 103 102 101 1.0
Superposition Radial Pseudo-Time (Σ ΔtRa) , h
8 SPE 100576

Figure 3 a - Example 3 Test Overview

26000
90
24000
80
22000
Measured Sandface Pressure , kPa

20000 70

18000

Gas Rate , 103m3/d

60

16000
50
14000
40
12000
30
10000

8000 20

6000 10

4000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Cum Tim e , h

Figure 3 b Radial Extrapolation

30000
Analysis 1
50
p* 28730 kPa
28000
45
26000
40
24000
ψ, 106 kPa2 /μ Pa.s

35
22000

p , kPa
30
20000
25
18000
20
16000
15 14000

10 12000
10000
5 ψ data 8000
876 5 4 3 2 876 5 4 3 2 76 5 4 3 2 76 5 4 3 2 765 4 3 2
105 104 103 102 101 1.0
Superposition Radial Pseudo-Time (Σ ΔtRa) , h

Figure 3 c Derivative Shows Linear Flow

5

3
2
Linear Fracture 1/2
101
7
Δψ , 106kPa2/μPa.s

3
2

1.0
8
6
4
3
2
Δψ data
Derivative data
10-1
2 3 4 5 6 7 89 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 2 3 4 5 6 78
10-2 10-1 1.0 101 102
Pseudo-Time , h

Figure 3 d Linear Flow Extrapolation

Analysis 1
p* 37897 kPa
70
35000

60
ψ, 106 kPa2/μ Pa.s

30000
50
p , kPa

40 25000

30
20000

20
15000

10
ψ data 10000
6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
Superposition Linear Pseudo-Time (Σ ΔtLa) , h
SPE 100576 9

Figure 4 a - Example 4 Test Overview

20000 70

18000
60
Measured Sandface Pressure , kPa

16000
50

Gas Rate , 103m3/d

14000
40
Initial Pressure
12000
19,000 kPa 30

10000
20

8000
10

6000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220
Cum Tim e , h

Figure 4 b Linear Superposition Extrapolation

28 Analysis 1 20000
p* 20010 kPa

24
18000

20
ψ, 106kPa2/μPa.s

16000

p , kPa
16
14000

12
12000

8 10000

8000
4
ψ data 6000
8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
Superposition Linear Pseudo-Time (ΣΔ tLa) , h

Figure 4 c Bilinear Superposition Extrapolation

Analysis 1
24
p* = 18,000 kPa
18000
22

20
16000
18
ψ, 106kPa2 /μ Pa.s

16
p , kPa

14 14000

12
12000
10

8
10000
6
8000
4
ψ data 6000
2
2.60 2.40 2.20 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
Superposition Bilinear Pseudo-Time (ΣΔtBa) , h

Figure 4 d Radial Superposition Extrapolation

22
Analysis 1

20 p* 17190 kPa

16000
18

16
ψ, 106 kPa2 /μ Pa.s

14000
14
p , kPa

12
12000
10

8
10000

6
8000
4
ψ data 6000
2
9 76 5 4 3 2 76 5 4 3 2 765 4 3 2 765 4 3 2 87 6 5 4 3 2
104 103 102 101 1.0
Superposition Radial Pseudo-Time (Σ Δ tRa) , h
10 SPE 100576

Figure 5 a Example 5 Derivative

101
8
6

4 Radial 0
3
Δψ , 106kPa2/μPa.s

1.0
8
6

4
3

2
Δψ data
Derivative data
10-1
2 3 4 5 6 7 89 2 3 4 5 6 789 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 7 89
10-2 10-1 1.0 101
Real Time , h

Figure 5 b Horner Plot

Analysis 1 26000
45
k 0.153 mD
p* 25989 kPa
24000
40
ψ, 106kPa2 /μ Pa.s

22000
35

p , kPa
20000
30

18000
25

16000
20

ψ data 14000
15
8 65 4 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 8 65 4 3 2
107 106 105 104 103 102 101 1.0
Superposition Radial Pseudo-Time (ΣΔ tRa) , h

Figure 5c Model Match Gives Wrong Initial Pressure

50
k 0.157 mD
Xf 11.844 m

pav g 25715 kPa 26000

45

24000
40
ψ, 106kPa 2/μPa.s

22000
35
p , kPa

30 20000

18000
25

16000
20
ψ data
ψ model
pavg 14000
15
7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2
107 106 105 104 103 102 101 1.0
Superposition Radial Pseudo-Time (Σ ΔtRa) , h

Figure 5 d Match by Anchoring on Initial Pressure

Forced initial pressure

pavg 30000 kPa30000

55
k 0.080 mD
Xf 17.039 m 28000
50

26000
45
ψ, 10 6kPa 2/μPa.s

24000
40
p , kPa

35 22000

30 20000

25 18000

16000
20 ψ data
ψ model
pavg 14000
15
7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2
107 106 105 104 103 102 101 1.0
Superposition Radial Pseudo-Time (Σ ΔtRa) , h
SPE 100576 11

Figure 6 a Example 6 Derivative Shows Linear Flow

102
7
4

101
7
Δψ , 106kPa2/μPa.s

1.0
7
4

2
Linear Fracture 1/2
10-1
7
4

2 Δψ data
Derivative data
10-2
2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 678 2 3 4 5 6 78 2 3 4 5 6 78
10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1.0 101
Pseudo-Time , h

Figure 6 b Linear Superposition

71

Analysis 1 34000
p* 33007 kPa
32000
60

30000
ψ, 106kPa2/μ Pa.s

28000
50
p , kPa

26000

24000
40

22000

20000
30

18000
ψ data
ψ model 16000
19
14 12 11 9 7 5 4 2 0
Superposition Linear Pseudo-Time (Σ ΔtLa) , h

Figure 6 c Horner Extrapolation

46 26000

25000
43
Analysis 1
24000
p* 25119 kPa
39
23000
ψ, 106 kPa2 /μ Pa.s

36
22000
p , kPa

33 21000

20000
30
19000
26
18000

23 17000
ψ data
pavg 16000
20
8 65 4 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 7 54 3 2 8 65 4 3 2
107 106 105 104 103 102 101 1.0
Superposition Radial Pseudo-Time (Σ ΔtRa) , h
12 SPE 100576

Figure 7 a Example 7 Derivative

101
7
5
Radial 0
3
2

1.0
Δψ , 106kPa2/μPa.s

7
5

3
Linear Fracture 1/2
2

10-1
7
5

3
2
Δψ data
De rivative data
10-2
2 3 4 5 67 2 3 4 5 67 2 3 4 56 8 2 3 4 5 67 2 3 4 5 67 2 3 456 8
10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1.0 101 102
Pseudo-Time , h

Figure 7 b Linear Superposition Extrapolation

58
30500

Analysis 1
30000
56 p* 30091 kPa

29500
ψ, 106 kPa2 /μ Pa.s

54
29000
p , kPa

28500
52

28000

50 27500

ψ data
27000
ψ model
48
3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
Superposition Linear Pseudo-Time (Σ ΔtLa) , h

Figure 7 c Radial Superposition Extrapolation (Horner)

56 30000

29500
55
Analysis 1
p* 29681 kPa 29000
ψ, 106kPa2 /μ Pa.s

53
p , kPa

28500

51
28000

27500
50

ψ data 27000
pavg
48
876 5 4 3 2 876 5 4 3 2 76 5 4 3 2 76 5 4 3 2 765 4 3 2
105 104 103 102 101 1.0
Superposition Radial Pseudo-Time (Σ ΔtRa) , h
SPE 100576 13

Figure 8 Example of Supercharge

16000
pdata 12266 kPa pdata 10992 kPa 2.40
pdata 11586 kPa
14000 pdata 10961 kPa
pdata 11239 kPa
2.00

12000 2nd BU

Liquid Rate , m3/d

3rd BU
Pressure , kPa

1.60
1st BU
10000
4th BU 5th BU
1.20
8000

0.80
6000

0.40
4000 pdata

0.00
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Tim e , h