Well Test Analysis

Chapter 2: Pressure Transient Analysis in Drawdown & Buidup

Professor M. Jamiolahmady (Jami)

Tel: 0131 451 3122
Fax: 0131 451 3127
Email: M.Jamiolahmady@hw.ac.uk
1 1
 Reservoir performance prediction, is entirely dependent on the
quality of reservoir description.
 Difficult due to large scale and heterogeneous nature of the reservoir and the
very limited number of points, i.e. wells, at which observations can be made.
 There are various sources of information.
• Seismic and associated geological studies, well drilling programme, analysis of cuttings and
cores & interpretation of various logs, Wireline formation testing, History matching the reservoir
performance by a simulator. & Pressure transient testing (including production logging).

 Ch2 Content: Classical WT Theory.

 Constant rate drawdown and shut-in.
 Determination of permeability and skin.
• Radial flow based middle time region analysis.

2
 PTA, as one way of obtaining information about reservoir, is simply a
parameter estimation technique in which one or more of the
parameters of an equation are computed from a measured solution.
 The analytical solution is based on a one-dimensional, one phase, one force
scenario instead of solving for the real complex (three dimensional, multiphase,
multi force) scenario existing for a heterogeneous reservoir.

 Although the topic is referred to as pressure testing of wells, it is

important to appreciate that it is information about the reservoir (not
restricted to near wellbore), which is obtained from such tests.

3
 Major technological breakthrough.
 Development of sub-surface non-mechanical measuring instruments for
recording bottom-hole pressures.
• Indeep high temperature wells, the only viable pressure recording instrument may be the
purely mechanical Amerada system
 Accurate measurement of downhole flow-rate.
• Rate accuracy has always been an issue.
 Initially focused only on static pressure measurement.
 Well was shut and P was measured after 72 hrs.
 Soon realised measured P is a function of time and primarily
depends on formation k leading to PTA, which also gives skin.
 Next step was detection of faults and fractures within reservoir &
investigation of degree of continuity between wells.

4
 Pressure behavior.
 Average reservoir pressure.
 Reservoir properties (e.g. Permeability).
 Reservoir characterisation (i.e. Faults, layering, areal continuity).
 Well completion efficiency (i.e. skin).
 Well productivity.
 PI=q/DP, which stays constant at least for a period of time.
 Well drainage area and shape factor.
 Nature of formation fluid & Reservoir temperature.
 Also samples for lab analysis.

5
Drillstem Casing

Testing Tubing

Assembly
Testing Valve
(operated by
annulus pressure)

Packer
(set by weight on
string)

Pressure
Transducer

Downhole Surface
Memory Recording

Tailpipe Fig
Figure1.1.1
2.1.1
 Q
Surface Choke provides Gas
Rate Control

Choke

Test
Separator qo
Oil
Test Rate Limited by
Separator Capacity
Orifice Plate
Flow Measurement

Well Test Surface Hardware

Fig
Fig1.1.1b
2.1.1b
 Dual Flow - Dual Shutin Test
Initial
Flow
I n i t i al
S hu tin
Prod.
Rate Afterflow
Final Flow
Final
Shutin

Time

Initial Res. Pressure

BHP Drawdown Buildup

Time Fig 1.1.2

Figure 2.1.2
 Mud Filtrate Invasion

pm
Spurt Dynamic Static
Loss Filtration Filtration

Dpmc ql

psf
Time
pf
pm . . . Mud Hydrostatic Pressure psf - pf . . . Excess Formation Pressure
"Supercharging"
pm - pf . . . Mud Overbalance psf . . . Sandface Pressure
pf . . . Formation Pressure
Fig 1.7.2
 Dual Flow - Dual Shutin Test

Initial flow and shutin designed to establish

communication with the reservoir

Initial flow as short as possible

Major flow period long enough to give

sufficient depth of investigation

Often 6 - 12 hours is adequate

At least six hours of stable operation to

ensure reasonable estimate of productivity
and good samples

Multirate necessary in gas wells

Major shutin 11 /2 - 2 times the duration of From
EPR
the flow period Manual
 Nomenclature
Transient Well Testing
due to
Buildup Analysis - Horner (Theis) Plot D. Pozzi (EPR)

ETR MTR LTR

Buildup
Affected
p*
pws by
Wellbore
Storage Intercept
Affected
by
gives
qsB m Boundaries skin
slope = - factor
4p k h
S

tp + Dt Fig
ln
Semilog Analysis Dt Fig1.1.3
2.1.3
Cartesian Plot
Flow Regimes Fig 1.1.6
Figure 2.1.6
SCHEMATIC PLOT OF PRESSURE DECLINE AT
PRODUCING WELL

pi
TRANSIENT
I.A. FLOW TRANSITION
SEMI-STEADY-STATE
FLOW
LATE
TRANSIENT
=-
dp qsB
p wf dt f c t p re2 h
WELL PRESSURE
STARTS TO BE
AFFECTED BY
BOUNDARIES

MTR LTR

0 TIME
CONSTANT RATE WELL BOUNDED RESERVOIR
 Detection of Depletion
pi depletion

drawdown buildup
0 Time, t q
MTR LTR
p**
p*
pws
Horner
Plot Closed "tank" of
pore volume, V
tp + Dt
ln Fig 1.1.7
Figure 2.1.7
Dt
 Some Well Test Models Fig 1.1.8
Figure 2.1.8

m2
re Skin r1 m1

k1
k
k2
Homogeneous Finite
Reservoir Composite Infinite
Reservoir

d d
d2
Well Image
q d1
No Flow
Boundary
Single Linear Fault Multiple Faults
 q Model Reservoir
W e ll in the
Centre of a
Circular rw
Res er vo ir

h
re

Radial
Flow

Fig 1.2.1
Fig 2.2.1
 Nomenclature

k Pe rmea bil ity of p or ous med iu m

f Po rosi ty of po ro us me di um

m Fl uid vi sco sity r Flu id d en si ty

c Fl uid co m pre ssi bi lity h Fo rmati on thi ckness

p Pressure t Time

r w Wellbore radius

q s Oil flow-rate (stock tank conditions)

B Formation volume factor r e External radius

r Radial coordinate p Initial pressure

i

a Hydraulic diffusivity
 Total Compressibility, ct

Allows for the presence of connate water

and the effect of formation compressibility

c t = (1 - Swc ) c o + Swc c w + c f

1 ¶f
cf = f
Formation

f ¶p
entered at
Compressibility initial pressure

In so me c as es it is n ec es sa ry to re co g n ise th a t k
an d /o r m m a y b e pr es sure d e p e nd ent

a=
k
fm c t
 Assumptions

Well completed over entire thickness of formation

Homogeneous and isotropic porous medium

Uniform formation thickness

Bounded above and below by impermeable barriers

Porosity and permeability constant

Lead to Radial 1-D Flow

Formation contains a single phase liquid with constant viscosity

and small and constant compressibility

Leads to Diffusivity Equation

 Basic Flow Equations

1 ¶ (r r u r )
Continuity Equation

¶r
=-f
r ¶r ¶t
Darcy's Law
¶p
ur = - k
m ¶r
Equation of state

1 ¶r
c=
r ¶p
 Diffusivity Equation

æ ¶ pö
¶ çr ÷
¶p k 1 è ¶rø
=
¶t fmc r ¶r
Second order , Linear Parabolic PDE

a=
k Hydraulic
fmc
Initial Condition
Diffusivity
e j
p r,0 - = p i all r > rw
Inner Boundary Condition - Constant Rate Well
- Constant Rate Well

¶p
ur = =
q k
2p rw h m ¶ r
¶p qm 1
=
¶r 2p kh rw
i.e.

r = rw
Finite Wellbore Radius Inner B.C.

L in e Sou rce Lim æç r ¶ pö÷ = q m

Appro ximatio n r ® 0 è ¶ r ø 2p kh
 Dimensionless Variables

p i - p(r, t)
pD =
Dimensionless

qm
Pressure

2p kh
drop

tD =
kt
f m c t rw
Dimensionless
2 Time

rD = r Dimensio nless
Radius
rw (position)
 Dimensionless Form of the Diffusivity Equation

æ ¶ pD ö
¶ ç rD ÷
¶ p D 1 è ¶ rD ø
=
¶ t D rD ¶ rD
I.C. pD = 0 , all rD tD < 0

¶ pD
B.C. 1 = -1 at rD = 1 tD > 0
¶ rD

B.C. 2 pD = 0 as rD ¥
 Fig 1.2.2
pi Fig 2.2.2

p(r ,t)
Well-
Bore t

T r a n s i e n t D e v e lo p m e n t o f
the Formation Pressur e
D i s t r ib u t i o n

ln r
 Linear Flow Face Thermocouples in thermowells
Temp.

Constant
heat
flux
x Heated Bar

Dynamic Temperature Distribution

Inner B.C.
¶T ¶T k ¶2 T
=
q
= -k
A ¶x x=0
t ¶x r C p ¶x 2
i.e. T Transient Heat
¶T q Conduction Equation
=-
¶x kA
x= 0
Initial Temp.
. . . specified T(t=0) Penetration Depth
gradient
nd
(2 kind BC) x Fig
Fig1.1.9
2.1.9
 Line-Source, Infinite-Acting Solution

b g 1 FG
pD rD , t = - Ei -
rD2 IJ
2 H 4 tD K
z
¥
e -u
Exponential Integral: Ei( - x) = - du
x
u

For x < 0.01 Ei(-x) = - ln(gx) g = 1.781

. . . Logarithmic approximation to the Ei function

b g
pD rD , tD
1
= ln
4 tDFG IJ
2 grD2 H K
Wellbore Response i. e. r D = 1

1 æç 1 ö÷
p D (1 , t D ) = - Ei -
2 è 4 tDø
Logarithmic Approximation to the Ei Function

For small arguments viz. x < 0.001

0.01

-Ei(-x) = - ln(g x)
where g = 1.78107 . . . exponential of Eulers constant

p D (1 , t D ) = p wD (t D ) = ln
1 4 tD valid for

2 g tD =
kt
2 > 25
f m c t rw
 Exponential Integral Function

z
¥
e -u
ej
Ei x = -
-x u

E1(x) 3

-Ei(-x) 2

0
0.4 1.0 1.6

HENC E E 1 (x) IS DENO TED -Ei(- x) x Fig

Fig1.2.7
2.2.7
0£x£1

Ei(x) = - ln x + a0 + a1x + a2x2 + a3x3 + a4x4 + a5x5 + e(x)

where a0 = - 0.57721566 a3 = 0.05519968

a1 = 0.99999193 a4 = - 0.00976004
a2 = - 0.24991055 a5 = 0.00107857
e(x) < 2´10-7
1£x£¥

4 3 2
1 . x + a1x + a2x + a3x + a4
Ei(x) = xex 4 + e(x)
x + b1x3 + b2x2 + b 3x + b4

where a1 = 8.5733287401 b1 = 9.5733223454

a2 = 18.059016973 b2 = 25.6329561486
a3 = 8.6347608925 b3 = 21.0996530827
a4 = 0.2677737343 b4 = 3.9584969228
e(x) < 2´10-8
Single Well in an Infinite Reservoir Figure
Fig2.2.3
1.2.3
(No Skin)
4 5 6 7 8 9

10 10 10 10 10 10 10

pD
10-1

Exponential Integral Solution

-2
10
-1 2 3 4
10 1 10 10 10 10
2
t D/r D
 Wellbore Response

= ln
1 4 tD p i - p wf (t ) 1
p wD
g = ln 4 kt
qm 2 g f m c t rw2
i.e.
2
2 p kh
which may be written as:
qm éln k t + 0.80908ù
p wf (t) = p i -
4 p kh êë f m c t rw2 úû

Line source Infinite-acting

Logarithmic approximation Wellbore response without skin

Consistent units

pwf varies with the log of time

 Dimensionless
t
PR ESSU RE P ROFIL E
Skin
IN THE FOR MATION
pw Positive Skin
Dp s Factor
Dps S=
"SKIN" q s Bm
pwf 2p kh i.e. Damage

rw

NEGATIVE SKIN
t PRESSURE PROFILE
pwf
FACTOR IN FORMATION
i.e. STIMULATION
-Dp s RIGOROUS SKIN
pw CONCEPT PROFILE

STIMULATED ZONE
ka > k
Fig 1.2.4
Figure 2.2.4
 Wellbore Damage and Improvement Effects

Dp s
S=
qsB m
2p kh
p D (1-, t D ) = p D (1, t D ) + S

Transient Flow: Formation Skin

p D (1-, t D ) = [ln t D + 0.80908 + 2S]

1
2
q sB m éln kt + 0.80908 + 2Sù
p wf (t ) = p i -
In actual
variables 4p kh êë f m c t rw2 úû
 Addition of Quasi-Steady-State Skin Effect

= ln +S
1 4 tD
g
p wD
2
Dynamic Formation Quasi-Steady-State
Dimen sionl ess Dimensionless Skin
Pressure Dro p Pressure Drop

qm é ù
p wf (t) = p i - + +
kt
i.e.
4 p kh êë f m c t rw2 úû
ln 0.80908 2S
qm
Additional (constant) pressure drop is given by: D p s =
2 p kh
S
Both S and q are presumed constant
Skin factor is a measure of completion efficiency
Different meaning in fractured systems
 CRD Semilog Analysis

Solution of the Inverse Problem of Parameter Estimation

p wf (t) = m ln t + b
Slope Intercept
qm
m=-
4 p kh
é
b = p i + m ln
k
+ + ù
êë f m c t rw2 úû
0.80908 2S
Assumes q and S are constant
Permeability is obtained as an average value
over a large volume of rock
 pi CRD

q Ideal (CSFR) Drawdown

pw f
CAR TESIAN PLOT Rate Schedule

0 TIME, t

INT ERCEPT SEMILOG PLOT

pwf(t=1)

pw f
SLOPE, m
qm
=-
4pkh
Fig
0
ln t Figure1.2.5
2.2.5
 Dimensionless Pressure Distributions in Radial Flow
0
104 105 5x10 5 3
1 r De=10
6
10
2

3
pD 4
2 x10 6 Well in a
Closed
Reservoir
5
6
tD= 3x 1 0
6

7 IA

8 SSS

9
1 200 400 600 800 1000 Fig
Figure
rD 1.2.6
2.2.6
 Radius of Influence

pD = Eiæç D ö÷ rD2
1 r 2
= 1 i. e. rDi = 4 t D
2 è 4 tD ø
For
4 tD

Dp
= p D = Ei(1) = = 011
1 0.2194
qm
.
2 2
2 p kh
Arbitrarily chosen as defining the appreciable depth
of penetration of the pressure disturbance

ri = 4 a t =
4kt
f m ct
Classical depth of penetration formula in diffusional processes

Synonomous with depth of investigation

 Radius of Influence

ri = 4 a t = i.e. rDi = = 2 =
4k t ri 4kt
f m ct f m c t rw
4 tD
rw

t Di = 2 = 2 = 0.25
tD kt
rDi f m c t ri
or

In Field Units

0.0002636 ´ 4 k t 0.00105 ´ k t
ri = = = 0.03
kt
f m ct f m ct f m ct
k : md m : cp t : hr c t : psi -1
 Radius of Influence

pD = 0.1

3 3 4
102 10 5x10 tD=10

1 100 200
PRESSURE rD
DISTURBANCE Fig
FRONT Fig1.2.8
2.2.8
 Radius of Drainage, rd

Radius of drainage is defined through the equivalent annulus

having the same steady-state pressure drop

p D (1, t D ) = ln = ln rDd
1 4 tD
2 g
rDd =
rd Transient I.-A. Steady-state
rw pressure drop dimensionless
at sandface pressure drop
i.e. rD = 1

4a t
ln 2 = ln
1 rd
Thus: rd =
1 4 a t = 0.7493 4 a t = 0.75 r
2 g rw
i.e.
rw g i

Very useful concept in two-phase flow situations

Fig 1.2.10
Fig 2.2.10
rD d rD i

Steady-State
1 Pressure Profile
for Same pD (1,t D )
2
pD I.-A. Transient
Pressure Profile
3 5
at t D = 10

Radius 5
of rD i = classical depth
of investigation
Drainage 6

rD 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ln rD
 Finite Wellbore Radius Solution

¶p qm
=-
In n e r B . C .
¶ r r =r
w
2 p rw kh

1 æç 1 ö÷
p D = Ei +S
2 è 4 tD ø
Do es no t w ork at early time fo r neg ative skin
Use FWBR so lu tion with e ffective wellbo re ra dius , r w ,eff

rw, eff = rw e -2S

FWBR solution predicts linear flow at early times

Useful for stimulated wells
 Finite Wellbore Radius
10

Finite Wellbore Radius Solution

pD
r D = 1.0
-1
10
EXPONENTIAL INTEGRAL
2

SOLUTION
1.

2.0

20

-2
10 -2 -1 2 3
10 10 1 10 10 10
2
t /rD D Fig
Fig 2.2.12
1.2.12
 tDe<0.3, infinite acting solution for rw.
 x<0.01, rD2/(4tD)<0.01, if r=rw rD=1, TD>25,
PD=0.5 ln(4tD/g).
 10<tD<25, PD=0.5Ei(1/4tD).
 tD<10, finite wellbore radius solution.

 tDe>0.3, semi-steady state.

 PD=2tD/rDe2+lnrDe-3/4.

 The difference of predicted PD(1, tD)

by closed boundary or infinite acting
minimal (<1%) when 0.1<tDe<0.3

25
 Pressure Drawdown Testing

RATE
q PRODUCING

SH U T- I N
0

0 TIME, t

pws = pi

Bottom
Hole
Pressure
pwf
Fig
Fig
0 TI M E, t 1.3.1
2.3.1
For an infinite-acting reservoir with an altered Zone

= [ln t D + 0.80908 + 2S]

1
p wD
2
qsB m éln t + ln k ù
p wf = p i - + +
4p kh êë f m c t rw2 úû
i.e. 0.80908 2S

Hence plot pwf versus l n t

Giving p wf = m ln t + p t =1

s lo pe intercept
 Drawdown Semilog Plot

Deviation from straight line

caused by damage and
pt=1 wellbore storage effects

qsBm
Bottom slope, m = -
Hole 4pkh
Pressure
pwf

0
ln t
NOTE : ln t = 0 corresponds to t = 1
Fig
Fig1.3.2
2.3.2
 Drawdown Interpretation

Slope of Semilog Straight Line

q sB m
m=
4p kh
kh k

Intercept of Semilog Straight Line

é
= p i + m ln k + + ù
êë f m c t rw2 úû
p t =1 0.80908 2S

S= é p t = 1 - p i - ln k ù
2 - 0.80908
i.e. 1
2 êë m f m c t rw úû
 SPE Field Units

q s : STB/D r : ft m : cp

h : ft t : hr f : fraction
k : md c t : psi -1 p : psi

0.000263679 ´ k t
tD =
f m c t rw2

Dp Dp
pD = =
887.217 ´ q s B m 1412
. ´ qs B m
2 p kh kh
Field Units - Log10 or semilog graph paper

= ln +S
1 4 tD
g
p wD
2
= 2.3026 élog 4 t D + 086859 ù
2 êë g úû
i.e. wD
p 10 . S

887.2 ´ q s B m 23026 élog 00002637 ´4k t

\ p wf = pi - + 086859Sùú
. .
2pk h ê g f m c t rw
.
2 ë 10 2
û

or
162.6 q s B m élog t + log k ù
p wf = pi - êë - + úû
f m c t rw
32275
. 086859
. S
kh 2

Slope

162.6 q s B m
m=- ® kh ® k
kh
Intercept
é ù
p t =1 = p i + m êlog - +
k
ë fm ct rw
2
32275
. 086859
. Súû

é p t =1 - p i ù
i.e. S = 11513 - log k 2 + 32275
êë fm c t rw úû
. .
m
Principle of Superposition • Observation Well
o Active Well

Well 1
r1 q1

Well 3

r2
Well 2
q2

Three Well System Fig 1.4.1

Figure 2.4.1
 Two-Rate Flow Schedule

Production well
rate q 1

q q2 - q1
q2

T1
t

Injection well
rate q 2 - q 1 Fig
Superposition of Rates Fig1.4.2
2.4.2
 Principle of Superposition

For t > T1
m
Dp =
2 p kh {q1[p D (t D ) + S] + (q 2 - q1 )[p D (t D - T1D ) + S]}

Pressure change Pressure drop

due to base due to rate

rate q1 change at T1

Valid for a ny mo del (i. e. p D f unction)

Applica tion o f Du hamel Theorem

 Theory of Pressure Buildup Analysis

q pw s
R
A pw f
T
E
pw f ( Dt=0)

tp Dt
TIME

q1 = q tD = tpD + DtD q2 - q1 = - q t D - T1D = Dt D

Dp = p i - p ws =
qm
{p D (t pD + Dt D ) - p D (Dt D )}
2pkh

i.e. p ws (Dt ) = p i -
qm
{p D (t pD + Dt D ) - p D (Dt D )}
2pkh
 Infinite-Acting Radial Flow

p D = ln t D + 0.80908
1
2
qm t p + Dt
p ws (Dt) = p i -
4 p kh Dt
Hence ln

Basis of Horner or Theis Plot

Strictly limited to I.-A. Radial Flow

t p + Dt
Dt
. . . Horner Time
Function
 Inverse Problem of Parameter Estimation

Horner Graph
t p + Dt
Dt
Plot p ws versus ln

t p + Dt
= m ln + p*
Dt
giving p ws

slope intercept

qm
m=- ® kh ® k
4 p kh
Independent Permeability Estimation from Slope
 SPE Field Units

887.2 ´ q s B m 70.6 ´ q s B m
m=- =-
4 p kh
Natural Log (ln)
kh

2.303 ´ 887.2 ´ q s B m 162.6 ´ q s B m

Log Base 10 m=- =-
4 p kh kh

q s : bbl/day m : cp

k : md h : ft

p : psi t : hr
m : psi/cycle
 Semilog (Horner) Plot for a Buildup

slope, m = -
q sB m p*
4pk h
p ws

Deviation from Straight

Line caused by
Afterflow and Skin

ln t p + Dt 0
Dt
Fig
Fig 1.5.1b
2.5.1b
Schematic Flow-Rate and Pressure Behaviour for an Ideal Buildup

FLOWING

R
A
T
E SHUT-IN
tp Dt

B pws
H
P

pwf (Dt=0) tp Fig

Figure
Dt 2.5.1
1.5.1a
 1 rD 200
0
D t D = 10
4

3
2 10 4

200
t p D = 10

50
q
10
t pD
0
D tD
Pressure Build-Up in a Reservoir
5
Figure
Fig 2.5.2
1.5.2
 Determination of the Skin Factor

Bas ed on the pw s
Las t Flowing pw f
Pressure
pw f ( Dt=0)
p wf( D t = 0 )
tp Dt
At the end of the flow period i.e. t = tp
qm é ù
p wf (Dt = 0 ) = p i -
kt p
êln + 0.80908 + 2Sú
4pkh ë fmc t rw
2
û
- Only the pressure prior to shut-in is influenced by the skin effect
For an infinite-acting system replace pi by p*,
the MTR straight line extrapolated pressure
qm
Also make the substitution - =m slope of Horner plot
4pkh
 Skin Factor from a Buildup

é
pwf (Dt = 0) = p + m ln ù
\ 2 + 0.80908 + 2S
*
k tp
êë f m c t rw úû

æ p wf (Dt = 0) - p* ö÷
i.e. S= ç - ln -
1 k tp
2è f m c t rw2 ø
0.80908
m

where m = slope of Horner plot (MTR)

p* = straight line intercept (MTR extrapolated pressure)

pwf (Dt=0) = flowing bottom-hole pressure just prior to shut-in

Note "m" is intrinsically negative

 SPE Field Units

é p wf (Dt = 0) - p* ù
S= - ln +
Natural Log (ln) 1 k tp
2 êë f m ct rw2 úû
7.43173
m

ép wf (t p ) - p* ù
S = 11513 - log10 fm c r 2 + 3.2275ú
k tp
Log Base 10 . ê
ë m t w
û

Note m is a negative quantity

 Determination of p1 hr on the Horner Plot

Dt = 1 hr
p*
p1 hr
x x MTR
x x
x Straight
x
x Line
x slope m
x
x
S = 11513
.
L
MMp wf - p1hr
+ log
tp + 1
- log
k O
+ 3.2275P
x
N m tp fmc trw2 PQ
t p + Dt 0
Log
Dt Fig 1.5.7
Fig 2.5.7
 Dimensionless Build-up Semilog (Horner) Plot
Dt D
2
Dt D < 10
Ei Function not
Represented by
pD Log Approximation

4
t pD = 10
6
5
t p + Dt 13

Dt Fig
Fig 1.5.4
2.5.4
 Effect of Afterflow on a Horner Plot

ETR MTR

Dat a Affe ct ed
p*
pw s by We llb o re
St orag e

Correct Semilog
Straight Line
slope m

t p + Dt 0
Dt Fig
Fig1.5.5
2.5.5
 Test Precautions

D etermine pwf ( D t=0 ) and t( D t=0) Stabilise flow-rate before shutin

very accurately

End of
Drawdown Shutin
DpBU = p ws - pwf( D t=0) q
Dt = t - t(D t=0) Flow- Q Afterflow
tp =
Rate q
pw f (Dt=0)
+

t(D t=0) Q = cumulative

Buildup volume
Dt Dt
Fig 1.5.8
Pressure profile from Amerda gauge during rising liquid level

Scribed Tin Chart from Amerada Gauge

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e Flow period Shut-in period
Reservoir Reservoir
Disturbance Recovery

Time
 Impact of reservoir parameters on the MTR slope.

Small Reservoir Same

Disturbance p
r
Low flow-rate
Small viscosity
High permeability Small
p m
ws
Large
Large Reservoir m
Disturbance

High flow-rate Horner Plot

Viscous fluid
Low permeability
t p + ∆t
Log
∆t
 Horner Plot

pw s Early Piper Well

slope
(HP Gauge)
m = -0.7465 psi
(psia)
3424
qs = 11750 bbl/d
B = 1.28 m = 0.75 cp
3423 rw = 0.362 ft f = 0.237
-5 -1
ct = 1.234*10 psi
kh = 1.067* 106 md.ft
S = 3.08
3422
8 7 6 t p + Dt 5 4
ln
Fig 1.5.10
Fig 2.5.10 Dt
 rw r
Dt5 pr (tp,rp5)
Dt4 pr (tp,rp4)
Peaceman Probe
Radius Concept
Dt3
pr
p r(tp,rp3)
p w = pr
r = rw
Dt2 pr(tp,rp2)

Dt1 pr(tp,rp1) tp
0
Dt
Reservoir pressure distribution
at moment of shut-in, p r(t p)

Pressure Build-Up in a Reservoir

Fig
Fig1.5.11
2.5.11
 Peaceman Probe Radius

Flowing pressure at radius, rD

c h = Ei
1 LM
rD2 OP Exponential Integral
p wf ,D rD , t pD
2 MN
4 t pD PQ Solution

Shut-in pressure at time, DtD

1 t p + Dt
b g
p ws ,D Dt D = ln
2 Dt
Horner Superposition
Result

Suppose exponential integral can be replaced by log approximation:

i.e. c
p wf , D rD , t pD h = ln 2
1 4t pD
2 g rD
Peaceman, D.W."Interpretation of Well Block Pressures in Numerical
Simulation", JPT (June 1976) 183-194
Equating the expressions for pressure then gives:

4 t pD t p + Dt
= Defines probe
gr 2
d ,D Dt radius, rd

i.e. 4 kDt e t p Dt
rd = where Dt e =
gfmc t t p + Dt
Agarwal
Equivalvent
Peaceman Probe Time
Radius, rd

. . . allows pressure distribution existing at tp to be reconstructed

from buildup data
 Transient Productivity Index, Jt

pi
pwf tp2 tp1 tp3 tp4
or
pws
qs
pwf(tp3) Jt =
d i
p i - p wf t p

pwf

tp3 Time, t
Jt is strongly time dependent Fig 1.5.12