2

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

CONTENTS
2.1. BACKGROUND TO TRANSIENT
PRESSURE ANALYSIS
2.1.1. Introduction
2.1.2. Development of Pressure Testing
2.1.3. Exploration Well Testing
2.2. RADIAL FLOW THEORY
2.2.1. The Basic Flow Equations
2.2.2. Fluid of Constant Compressibilit
2.2.3. Further Development of the
Accumulation Term
2.2.4. Linearisation of the Radial Flow
Equation
2.2.5. Initial and Boundary Conditions
2.2.6. Dimensionless Form of the Diffusivity
Equation
2.2.7. The Line Source Analytical Solution in
an Infinite Reservoir
2.2.8. Well-bore Damage and Improvement
Effects
2.2.9. Analytical Solution for the Case of a
Bounded Circular Reservoir
2.2.10. Analytical Solution for a Constant
Pressure Outer Boundary
2.2.11. SPE Field Units
2.2.12. The Depth of Investigation and Radius
of Drainage
2.2.13.The Dynamics of Reservoir Pressure
Response
2.3. PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TESTING
2.3.1. Introduction
2.3.2. Pressure Drawdown Analysis in InfiniteActing Reservoirs
2.4. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUPERPOSITION
2.4.1. Introduction
2.4.2. Multiple-Well Situations
2.4.3. Variable Rate Situations
2.5. PRESSURE BUILD-UP TESTING
2.5.1. Introduction
2.5.2. Pressure Build-Up Test Analysis during
the Infinite-Acting Period
2.5.3. After Production
2.5.4. Determination of Reservoir Parameters

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
Having worked through this chapter the student will be able to:
List the objectives of exploration well testing
Construct basic radial inflow equations from D'Arcy's law
Develop the role of compressibility in the transient pressure response
Construct dimensionless versions of the linear P.D.E. developed in 3
Solve the linearised radial flow equation for the line source boundary condition
State the logarithmic approximation to the exponential integral solution of the
line source solution
Construct solutions in SPE field units
Explain the basis of drawdown testing and why it departs from ideal behaviour,
i.e. wellbore storage and skin
Describe the principal of superposition and its application to the specific case of
build up testing i.e. The Horner time function
Construct semi-log plots for basic ideal data sets and solve for basic reservoir
parameters. kh, skin (by hand and not PanSystem!). Distinguish between
the solution methods using natural logs or base 10

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

2.1.1 INTRODUCTION
One of the greatest problems facing the petroleum engineer is that of characterising
the physical nature of the subterranean reservoir from which the crude oil or gas
is produced. The significance which can be put on the results of sophisticated
numerical simulations of reservoir performance is entirely dependent on the quality
of reservoir description inherent in the model. The difficulty in obtaining a reliable
description stems from the large scale and heterogeneous nature of the reservoir and
the very limited number of points, i.e. wells, at which observations can be made. In
the case of an offshore reservoir this difficulty is compounded by the fact that
the well spacing is much larger than that typical of onshore operation. There
are several ways by which it is possible to gain information about the reservoir
characteristics; the most important are:
(a) Seismic and associated geological studies
(b) Information obtained during the well drilling programme; this comprises:
(i) the analysis of cuttings and cores
(ii) the interpretation of various logs
(c)

Wireline formation testing

(i) virgin reservoir (exploration and appraisal wells)
(ii) produced reservoir (new development wells)

(d) Transient pressure testing of wells (including production logging)

(e) Analysis of reservoir performance, e.g. through history matching a simulator
A consistent description of the reservoir can only be generated by collating and
assessing all the available information from these different sources and synthesising
a coherent physical model of the system which minimises inconsistencies in the
data. Note that in the reservoir development stage only items (a), (b) and (c) are
applicable and important engineering decisions will be made on the basis of rather
sparse and sometimes conflicting evidence. It is the subject of transient pressure
testing of wells which will be dealt with here.
The pressure behaviour of an oil or gas well is both a readily measurable and a very
useful entity. In the context of pressure testing it is the pressure at the bottom of the
well adjacent to the producing formation, referred to as the bottom-hole pressure
(BHP), which is of significance. The pressure analysis of wells essentially concerns
the dynamic relation between the producing rate, the BHP and the reservoir pressure
in the vicinity of the well under consideration. Knowledge of this relation from field
tests, combined with a realistic model for fluid flow in the reservoir rock surrounding
the well, allows parameters of the flow system such as permeability to be established
by inference. In fact pressure transient analysis is simply a parameter estimation
technique in which one or more of the parameters of a differential equation are
computed from a measured solution. Parameter estimation is the inverse of
simulation and is a well known procedure in systems engineering. The relation
between producing rate, the BHP and the pressure at the well head, referred to as
the top-hole pressure (THP), is known as the vertical lift characteristic of the well
and is an entirely separate issue which is not treated here.
3

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

appreciate that it is information about the reservoir which is obtained from such
tests. Moreover the information gained is not restricted in scope to the immediate
vicinity of the well-bore as is the case for data from logs. One of the advantages of
transient pressure testing is that it yields average values of permeability taken over
substantial volumes of rock. Since the theory of pressure testing is basically that of
unsteady-state, radial flow in the vicinity of the well bore the reservoir engineering
aspects of radial flow will also be covered.

2.1.2 Development of Pressure Testing

The technological progress of transient pressure testing is very much linked to

the development of sub-surface measuring instruments for recording bottom-hole
pressures. Instruments for measuring maximum pressures in wells were developed
and applied in the United States in the 1920s. However the utility of early
bottom-hole pressure instruments was greatly increased by the development of
continuously recording instruments such as the Amerada gauge; this of course
allowed transient pressure changes to be monitored and laid the foundation for
the modern techniques. In the Amerada and similar systems the whole assembly
comprising the pressure element (Bourdon tube), mechanical recording system
(based on scribing with a needle on a tin chart), clock and thermometer are lowered
down-hole in a bomb for the period of the test. Although the Amerada type gauges
are still used such mechanical systems have inherent limitations with regard to
accuracy and reproducibility. There is nothing more annoying than to run an
expensive pressure test (in terms of lost oil production or rig time) and then
discover, on retrieving the bomb by wireline, that the internal clock had stopped
during the test. However in deep wells, where exceptionally high temperatures
are encountered, the only viable pressure recording instrument may be the
purely mechanical Amerada system and one or two service companies specialise
in calibrating gauges and reading Amerada charts with high precision. The
weak link of electronic systems is the batteries used to power the circuitry
and memory devices.
There is no doubt that the introduction of the bottom-hole recording system was the
spur to the development of modern, transient well testing as a practical and useful
engineering technique. The measurement of wellhead pressure alone requires that
the downhole pressure be deduced using some form of vertical flow model and there
is simply far too much uncertainty in this process. Some success in the testing of
gas wells has been achieved using wellhead pressure measurement only, since in
single phase conditions it is possible to make a much more reliable prediction of
the vertical flow characteristics and a commercial device called the Spider, which
simultaneously measures surface flow-rate and pressure and uses a computer program
to deduce bottomhole pressure, is available. The development of technology which
would allow the accurate measurement of downhole flow-rate, of comparable quality
to the extremely accurate detection of pressure now routinely available, would
constitute a further major advance in the subject. At least two service companies
are developing bottom-hole venturi meters, which have the advantage of no moving
parts, and may help to facilitate a good in-situ rate measurement especially in single
phase flow. At the present time downhole flow measurement is limited to the use of
conventional production logging tools based on spinner devices and the accuracy in
multiphase conditions is problematic to say the least.
4

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

The last two decades have seen a further technological breakthrough with the
introduction of very precise surface recording pressure tools. These were first
introduced by the Hewlett-Packard company and are based on a quartz crystal
pressure transducer with accurate temperature compensation; the signal can be
transmitted to the surface where it is displayed and recorded on a digital data logging
system. These instruments have been pioneered in the North Sea and, despite
their high cost, have become something of an offshore industry standard. In deep
wells with highly permeable formations it is necessary to accurately measure fairly
small changes in the down-hole pressure at a high pressure level; this demands
instrumentation of correspondingly high sensitivity.
In the early days the usual type of measurement was the determination of the
so-called static pressure; this was done by lowering a pressure-measuring device
to the bottom of a well which had been closed-in for a period of time, say 72
hours. These static measurements sufficed to indicate the pressure in permeable,
high-productivity reservoirs. However petroleum engineers soon recognised that
in most formations the static pressure measurements were very much a function
of closed-in time. The lower the permeability, the longer the time required for
the pressure in a well to equalise at the prevailing reservoir pressure. Thus it was
realised very early that the rapidity with which pressure build-up occurred when
a well was closed in was a reflection of the permeability of the reservoir rock
around that well. This qualitative observation was an important step in developing
an understanding of well pressure behaviour and led to the other basic type of
measurement called transient pressure testing. In this technique, which is the
basis of modern well testing, the pressure variation with time is recorded after the
oil flow-rate of the well is changed.
A stimulus for developing a quantitative interpretation of pressure data came with the
introduction of the material balance method of calculating the original oil in place
(OOIP) in a reservoir. This procedure requires knowledge of the static reservoir
pressure and, rather than closing in the wells for long periods of time, the question
naturally arose as to whether flowing transient pressure measurements could be
extrapolated in some way to give a reliable estimate of the pressure that would exist
in the reservoir if all fluid motion ceased.
The first attempt to present an extrapolation theory and to relate the change in
pressure with time to the parameters of the reservoir was presented in 1937 by
Muskat(1). He deduced mathematically a method for extrapolating the measured well
pressure to a true static pressure. At the time Muskat stated that his theory only had
a qualitative application and, in a sense, this was true since the analysis did not take
into account the important aspect of fluid compressibility. However it should be
pointed out that in 1935 a French hydrologist, Charles Theis(2), had presented the
theory of pressure buildup analysis now associated with the name of Horner in
the petroleum literature. The first comprehensive treatment of pressure behaviour
in oil wells to include the effects of compressibility was that of Miller, Dyes and
Hutchinson(3) in 1950. The following year Horner(4) presented a somewhat different
treatment. These two papers still furnish the fundamental basis for the modern
theory and analysis of oil well pressure behaviour. Subsequent works have brought
a multitude of refinements and a deeper understanding of the subject. The procedure
for extrapolation to static reservoir pressure was perfected by Matthews, Brons and
5

Hazebroek(5) while Ramey(6) has extended the theory of pressure behaviour to cover
gas reservoirs. Recent developments have been concerned with the detection of
faults and fractures within the reservoir and with the investigation of the degree of
continuity between wells. This latter aspect is known as interference testing and the
state-of-the-art in this area has been radically improved by the introduction of the
new, highly sensitive pressure transducers.
The excellent monograph by Matthews and Russell of Shell Oil entitled Pressure
Build-up and Flow Tests in Wells and published by the SPE in 1967 gives a thorough
review of the subject as it stood at that time.

2.1.3 Exploration Well Testing

In broad terms the subject of well testing may be divided into two broad categories,
namely, the testing of exploration or appraisal wells and the testing of development
wells. For offshore reservoirs the exploration and appraisal wells are tested from a
semi-submersible rig and the methodology involves down-hole shut-in with some
form of annulus pressure operated testing string as illustrated in Figure 1. The three
principal elements of the test string are:
the packer which is usually set by weight on the tail pipe
the testing valve which
is operated
by Assembly
annulus pressure
Drillstem
Testing
the bottom-hole pressure transducer which records the response
Casing
Tubing

Testing Valve
(operated by
annulus pressure)
Packer
(set by weight on
string)

Pressure
Transducer
Downhole
Memory

Surface
Recording
Tailpipe

A well test conducted with such a system is commonlyFigure

referred2.1.1
to as a drill stem test
(DST) although this nomenclature is somewhat out of date since in modern practice
the test string is not set on drill pipe but on special tubing. Historically drill stem
tests were carried out in open-hole conditions but again in modern practice the well
will have been cased, cemented and perforated before the DST is performed. The
6

Figure 1
Drillstem Testing Assembly

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

important point about a DST is that the testing valve is downhole and that it is the
first test on a new well and hence the pressure will normally already have been
determined by a wireline formation tester (WFT) survey prior to casing. In the
exploration - appraisal well situation the reservoir is unproduced and all layers of the
tested interval are likely to be at the same potential i.e. pressure corrected to datum
level. In a typical test the well is flowed and then shut in by opening and closing
the testing valve and the downhole pressure response recorded by the transducer.
The flowrate is normally measured at the surface where the produced fluids
are passed through a separator and the flow-rates of oil, water and gas are
individually registered. Very recently service companies have introduced a downhole
venturi flowmeter which complements the downhole pressure measurement with
downhole flow measurement.
The first quartz pressure transducer introduced by Hewlett-Packard was a surface
read-out device and this was welcomed because the pressure data could be analysed
in real time as the test proceeded. However in most DSTs currently being carried
out the pressure data is recorded downhole using electronic memory devices
which are retrieved at the end of the test; this is cheaper and intrinsically
more safe than the surface read-out option which requires a cable connection
to bypass the testing valve.
The well flow-rate is controlled by a surface choke which has the objective of
keeping the rate essentially constant and within the capacity of the surface separator.
One of the major problems associated with well test interpretation is the fact that the
rate measurement has very poor accuracy compared to the pressure measurement.
The determination of reservoir parameters depends on both quantities being
accurately measured. As the testing string is introduced into the well the mud or
completion fluid is displaced and on setting the packer the pressure in the sealed
volume beneath attains reservoir pressure. When the valve is opened the pressure
immediately changes to the pressure in the tubing above. In order to limit the
pressure differential on the formation a cushion or liquid column is placed in the
tubing as it is being run in. This cushion may be diesel oil or a heavy aqueous
solution. In some cases the whole tubing may be filled with liquid which means that
the well rate is under choke control from the start of the first flow period. When a
partial cushion is used this is displaced by the formation fluid as the well starts to
flow once the testing valve is opened. Hence there is a period of rising liquid level
until liquid reaches the surface. During this period the rate of gas issuing from the
well used to be assessed by placing a hose in a bucket of water and observing the
strength of the blow. However modern safety regulations usually prohibit such
ad hoc procedures. In some tests the reservoir pressure is not sufficient for fluids
to reach the surface and the DST data is confined to a period of rising liquid level
followed by a shut-in; this is known as a slug test and special methods, which account
for the rapidly decreasing rate as the back pressure due to the rising liquid column
increases, are required for interpretation. In shallow reservoirs with competent
formations the well may be tested dry i.e. with no cushion. Some operators require
that the duration of the initial, short flow period be such that, say, four times the
tubing volume of reservoir fluid be produced at the surface; this is to ensure complete
displacement of the cushion from the well. However if a heavy cushion has been
employed even this precaution may not guarantee displacement.

The objectives of testing exploration or appraisal wells can be summarised as:

1. Determine the nature of the formation fluids
2. Measure well productivity
3. Measure reservoir temperature and pressure
4. Obtain samples for laboratory PVT analysis
5. Obtain information on reservoir description (permeability, heterogeneity )
6. Estimate completion efficiency i.e. skin factor
However it must Dual
be stressed
all these
objectives
Flow that
- Dual
Shut-in
Test must be subordinate to
the issue of safety.
Initial
Flow
Prod.
Rate

Initial
Shutin
Afterflow
Final Flow

Final
Shutin

Time
Initial Res. Pressure

BHP

Drawdown

Buildup

Time

A schematic of a typical drillstem test is shown in Figure 2 in which a dual flow

period and dual shutin are present. The purpose of the initial short flow period
Figure 2.1.2
- typically only five minutes - is to relieve any supercharging
(excess pressure
due to mud filtrate invasion in low permeability formations) present and establish
communication with the reservoir. The very short flow period ensures that
negligible depletion of the reservoir will occur even if a small compartment is being
investigated. The well is then shutin for the first buildup to determine the initial
reservoir pressure, denoted pi , and the duration of this first buildup is long enough
for the pressure to essentially stabilise so that no, or very little, extrapolation is
required to fix pi . The well is then flowed for a long period - the second drawdown
- and shut-in for the second or final buildup. As shown in Figure 2 the rate may
be brought up in steps; this may be to investigate any sanding tendency of the

Figure 2
Dual flow - Dual Shut In Test

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

formation and an acoustic sand monitor can be installed to register the concentration
of sand particles in the flowing stream. The main objective of the second flow period
is to achieve a sustained period of constant rate production prior to the final buildup
and the last flowing pressure before shutin, denoted pwf(tp), must be accurately known
to allow proper interpretation of the ensuing buildup. If the data obtained in the
(second) drawdown period is analysed the initial pressure, pi , is known. The design
of a well test principally revolves round the decision as to how long the major
flow period should last and the question of depth of investigation of the pressure
disturbance is usually the main issue from a reservoir engineering point of view.
However in the context of offshore operations, where the expense of rig time is an
important issue, there is an obvious incentive to curtail the duration of the test. The
final decision must reflect a compromise between cost and the value of additional
information gained from prolonging the test time. The issue of depth of investigation
will be treated at length later in this chapter. The duration of the final buildup should
be approximately 11/2 times that of the preceding flow period.
In an exploration or appraisal well test the choice of flow-rate is governed by several
factors. For an oil well, in a prolific reservoir, the limiting consideration is often
the capacity of the separator which will be rated, say, at 5000 or 10,000 bbl/day. In
a gas well test on a semisubmersible rig the capacity of the flare system may
well decide the maximum rate. The highest recorded gas well test rate offshore
probably occurred in the testing of a Troll field well in Norwegian waters where 160
million SCFD was achieved generating a drawdown of about 2 psi in the extremely
permeable and thick formation. The buildup took place over a period of about two
minutes. In the testing of very high pressure and temperature gas condensate wells
in the central area of the North Sea basin, the limiting rate is controlled by the
wellhead temperature which cannot be allowed to exceed the rating of elastomers
used in the BOP stack. The well must be flowed at a low enough rate that heat
loss to the surrounding rock, at geothermal temperature, sufficiently reduces the
temperature of the flowing stream as it progresses up the tubing. The surface choke
is, of course, used to limit the well rate to an acceptable value. In tight formations
the rate is controlled by the reservoir deliverability and in extreme cases no transient
test is possible because a constant stable rate cannot be sustained; this is a problem
with prefracture tests in very low permeability reservoirs. An important part of
the design of a well test is to use a production engineering nodal analysis
software package to simulate the flow behaviour of the proposed system viz.
tubing, choke and formation based on estimates of the likely permeabilities
which may be encountered; this exercise also requires estimates of the PVT
properties of the produced fluid.
The final buildup is usually analysed using the Horner plot illustrated diagrammatically
in Figure 3; here the bottomhole shut-in pressure, pws, recorded by the transducer is
plotted against a logarithmic time function i.e.:

ln

t p + t
t

(1)

Transient Well Testing

Buildup Analysis - Horner (Theis) Plot
ETR

pws

MTR

LTR

Buildup
affected
by
Wellbore
Storage

p*

slope =

ln

Semilog Analysis

q sB

Intercept
gives
skin
factor
S

affected
by
boundaries

4 k h

t p + t

Figure 3

Transient Well Testing

where tp is the production time and t is time measured from the Fig
moment
2.1.3 where the
well was shut in. The theory of this interpretation method will be given later.
The slope and intercept of the middle time region of the semilog graph yield,
respectively, the average permeability of the formation, k , and the skin factor, S. The
physical meaning of the skin factor has been discussed at length in Chapter 1 and is
a combination of formation damage and perforation effects as illustrated in Figure 4.
Near Wellbore Altered Zone
altered
zone

Unaltered
Permeability

pw

ks

ps

pw f

rw

wellbore
radius
p

rs
altered zone
radius

re
external
radius

= Incremental Skin Pressure Drop

Fig 2.1.4a

10

Figure 4a
Near Wellbore Altered Zone

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

Perforated Completion

S = f(Np , l p , rs , k s , ,k)
Np = Number of perforations per foot
l p = Length of penetration
= Phase angle

lp

Figure 4b
Perforated completion

ks
rw

rs

When an exploration or appraisal well is drilled the mud system will not be optimised
with respect to formation damage; for example water based muds are often employed
for the appraisal wells whereas the eventual development wells will be drilled with
oil based mud which minimises alteration in water sensitive formations. In addition
exploration and appraisal wells are often drilled with a substantial overbalance
which again will result in significant mud filtrate loss promoting damage. The
most important feature of transient well testing is that the interpretation allows
the independent assessment of formation average permeability, k, and the skin
factor, S. Thus even if the skin effect in the exploration/appraisal well is high
the productivity index of the future development wells can be predicted using
a formula of the form:

J SSS =

2 kh
r

3
B ln e + S
rw 4

(2)

where the permeability is taken from the appraisal well test and the skin factor is
an estimate of what can be achieved with optimised drilling and perforation in the
future development wells. For example, in the case of tubing conveyed perforation
(TCP) in an underbalanced condition, it is possible to obtain a negative skin of the
order of -1.5. The drainage area radius, re , used in this formula is related to the well
spacing but it should be noted that Jsss is quite insensitive to the value of re since it
enters a logarithmic term. The important point is that the dynamics of
the 2.1.4b
transient
Fig
pressure response allows a discrimination between near wellbore effects - the
skin - and the formation permeability. A simple determination of steady-state or
semi-steady-state productivity index using the defining equation:

q s = J sss ( p p wf )

(3)

only requires measurement of the well flow rate, qs , and the corresponding flowing
bottomhole pressure, pwf , assuming the reservoir pressure, p , is known. However
the contributions to the resultant Jsss due to permeability and skin cannot be resolved
without transient information i.e. a pressure buildup. The development of
pressure transient testing and, in particular, buildup analysis has been primarily
motivated by this feature of dynamic discrimination between the effects of
intrinsic formation permeability and near wellbore alteration and perforation
on well productivity.
11

In the routine testing of development wells which have been flowing for a
considerable time the main objectives of the buildup is to determine the current
well skin factor and reservoir pressure; this is referred to as reservoir monitoring.
Again the analysis will usually be carried out on a Horner plot as shown on Figure
5 but using a synthetic flowing time denoted tsia and the slope may be forced to
the known permeability since this will have been determined in the first test on the
well when it was drilled. Forcing the permeability to a known value means that the
skin factor is evaluated on a common basis and it is possible to make a comparison
between the original and present skin factor i.e. monitor any deterioration in well
performance due to scale deposition, fines migration, asphaltene precipitation or any
other such mechanism. The adjustment of the extrapolation of the straight line, p*,
to the reservoir pressure is known as the MBH correction and requires knowledge
of any no-flow boundaries present in the vicinity of the well. Again the theory of
this approach will be given in subsequent chapters. The Horner (semilog) buildup
plot is the vehicle for such an interpretation. In the case of development wells the
valve used to shut-in the system for a buildup is located at the wellhead and the
possibility of wellbore storage effects, due to the capacity of the compressible
fluid mixture in the well at the moment it is closed, must be expected. The
mechanism of wellbore storage and methods of modelling the phenomenon will
be treated in Chapter 3.

Determination of Average Pressure

ETR

MTR

LT R
p
pMBH
p*

pws

slope
q
m=
4 kh

Assuming drainage area is at SSS at moment

of shut-in

Determine slope and intercept of MTR straight line

Option to force slope to known permeability

- provides rational basis for monitoring S
pMBH. . . Miller, Brons and Hazebroek

ln

t sia + t
t

correction to average pressure

If a well is located in a closed drainage area, such as a fault block with perfectly
sealing boundaries, and it is flowed at constant rate three principle flow regimes are
Fig
encountered in an extended drawdown test; these are illustrated in
Figure 6 which
shows a Cartesian plot of flowing bottom-hole pressure versus time.
The period in
2.1.5
which the propagating pressure disturbance has not yet encountered any boundaries
is known as the infinite-acting or transient flow regime. It is this data which yields a
straight line on the semilog plot, i.e. the pressure is varying with the log of time, and
it is also referred to as the middle time region (MTR). Once the pressure behaviour
of the well is influenced by boundaries the late time region (LTR) is entered and in a
closed system produced at constant rate a state of semi-steady-state (SSS) depletion
as described in Chapter 1 is eventually attained. In this flow regime the bottom-hole
flowing pressure, pwf , varies linearly with time as shown in Figure 6. A well test
in which the flowing period is sufficiently long for this flow regime to be attained
is termed a reservoir limit test since the size i.e. pore volume of the closed drainage

12

Figure 5
Determination of Average
Pressure

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

area may be found from the slope of the Cartesian plot in the SSS regime. The
interval of transition between the end of infinite-acting flow and the beginning of
semi-steady-state depletion is known as the late transient period. This transition
is very short when the well is at the centre of an approximately square or circular
drainage area but becomes significant when the well is asymmetrically located or the
reservoir compartment is rectangular or triangular. Well test interpretation
becomes very difficult when the infinite-acting regime is masked, say, by wellbore
storage effects. These flow regimes refer to constant rate drawdown (CRD);
when a buildup follows a period of constant rate production it is referred to as
a constant rate buildup (CRB).
Flow Regimes

pi
TRANSIENT
I.A. FLOW

p wf

TRANSITION

SEMI-STEADY-STATE
FLOW

LATE
TRANSIENT

dp
qsB
= c t re2 h
dt

WELL PRESSURE
STARTS TO BE
AFFECTED BY
BOUNDARIES
MTR
0

Figure 6
Flow Regimes - Cartesian
Plot

LTR

TIME
Schematic Plot of Pressure Decline at Producing Well

Constant Rate Well

Bounded Reservoir

Fig 2.1.6

13

DEPLETION

pi

depletion

buildup

drawdown

Time, t
ETR

MTR

LTR

p**
p*

pws
Horner
Plot

ln

t p + t
t

closed "tank" of
pore volume V

One of the main objectives of a drillstem test is the identification of any depletion
as illustrated in Figure 7. Here the pressure attained in the final buildup is less than
the initial pressure, pi , indicating a closed system of finite
volume.2.1.7
The detection of
Figure
depletion depends on the correct extrapolation of the buildup to the final stabilised
pressure. The prescription that the shut-in time, tmax , should be 11/2 times the
flowing time, tp , has the objective of reducing the uncertainty in the extrapolation
process so that it is feasible to detect any significant depletion.
In recent times the objectives of well testing have developed from the straightforward
determination of an average permeability and skin factor, to be used in the expression
for productivity index, to sophisticated approaches aimed at defining the parameters
of more complex reservoir models. The progression from the basic methodology
to fuller reservoir description has been possible because of the improvements in
pressure gauge resolution allowing the use of derivative techniques and the use
of interactive software packages based on type curve matching and non-linear
regression. For what might be termed category I well test interpretation a simple
model of a homogeneous reservoir containing a vertical well with skin is sufficient;
this canonical model is illustrated in Figure 8. Interpretation using a homogeneous
model implies that an average permeability will be obtained when data from a
heterogeneous system is processed. The form of average e.g. arithmetic or geometric
depends on the nature of the heterogeneity in the system. The integration of core
analysis data with well test interpretation results essentially revolves around the
definition of such averages and the modern approach to geostatistics is giving new
insights into this activity. In a layered system for example the arithmetic average is
the appropriate method of treating core data.
14

Figure 7
Depletion

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

In what might be classified as category II well test interpretation the methodology

is extended to include the determination of reservoir description parameters
related to:

heterogeneity
boundaries
layering
anisotropy

and more complex models

are required
some
of which are also illustrated in
Some
Well Test
Models
Figure 8.

2
re

Skin

r1

k1

k2

Homogeneous Finite
Reservoir

Composite Infinite
Reservoir

d
Image

Well
No Flow
Boundary

Figure 8
Some Well Test Models

Single Linear Fault

d2

d1

Multiple Faults

2.2 RADIAL FLOW THEORY

2.2.1 The Basic Flow Equations

Figure 2.1.8

The mathematical foundation of transient pressure analysis is the theory of

unsteady-state, single-phase, one-dimensional radial flow in a porous medium.
This is based on the following assumptions concerning flow in the vicinity
of the well-bore.
(i)

The formation is homogeneous and isotropic with respect to both the

porosity and permeability which are also considered to be constants and
thus independent of pressure.

(ii) The producing well is completed across the entire formation thickness thus
ensuring fully radial flow.
(iii) The formation is completely saturated with a single fluid and is uniformly
thick.

15

Model Reservoir

Well in the
Centre of a
Circular
Reservoir

q
rw

h
re

Radial
Flow

Formation Thickness

re

Radius of exterior boundary

rw

Wellbore Radius

Oil Flow-Rate

Figure 9
Model reservoir

In certain circumstances it is necessary to partly relax these assumptions and allow

for the effects of such phenomena as non-uniform or two-phase flow or the porosity
being a function of pressure. When these effects are significant, allowance will
be made by applying appropriate correction factors to the basic theory. The
basic homogeneous, radial system is illustrated in Figure 9 where the following
nomenclature applies:
h
k
r
re
rw
p
q
t
ur

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Fig 2.2.1

formation thickness
average permeability
general radius
external radius of drainage area
wellbore radius
pressure
in-situ volumetric flow-rate
time
superficial velocity
porosity
viscosity
fluid density

The equations of motion governing the flow follow from the principles of the
conservation of mass and momentum; the assumption is also made that the flow
is isothermal. For the present purpose the momentum equation takes the form of
DArcys law and the effect of turbulent or non-DArcy flow, which is usually only of
importance in gas reservoirs, will be taken up later. Thus the basic flow equations, in
radial co-ordinates, expressing the symmetry of the flow system, are:
Continuity equation: 1 ( ru r ) =

16

ur =

k
r

(4)

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

1 ( ru r )

=
t
r r
Darcys Law: u = k
r

(5)

DArcys law is employed as a quasi-steady approximation to the general momentum

equation, i.e. a form
rinkwhich
p the momentum accumulation term has been discarded.

This is perfectly valid provided

information is not sought concerning pressure
1 r

disturbances moving at the velocity

of sound in the fluid. All pressure variations
=
r model
r are associated
t with local pressure gradients due to laminar
predicted by the
fluid flow.
( ru r ) the fluid
compressibility will be introduced into the model
1 Although

sonic effects are still neglected.

r
1 tV
c=
V flow
p is Tassumed
In pressure analysis the
to be horizontal and hence the pressure,
,m
p, appears in DArcys
k law rather than the flow potential; thus gravity forces
u r = The superficial radial velocity, u , may be eliminated between
are neglected.
r
r
(4) and (5) giving: m
m
=
or V =

V
rk p

(6)

1 r

=
r
r
t
r

(PDE)
This is the basic partial differential equation
the unsteady-state
describing

v in a porous
provided
1 1Vfluid
medium,
1 is
laminar.
.

flow of ac =single-phase
the
=
-c =
= flow

V vpa general
Tp, m form for
m the combination
p
Equation (6) represents
ofthe continuity
2 pequation
and DArcys law or the momentum equation. The PDE is non-linear because the
density, , and the viscosity, , are pressure dependent. As it stands the equation
involves 1two
pressure and density, and another equation is
u r )1 variables,
( rmdependent

c = aor
= m system; this of course is the equation of state relating
= V
necessaryto= yield
determinate
r p t
r V
these two1quantities,
, in an isothermal system.
( ru r ) = (p)

=
t
r r
2.2.2 Fluid of kConstant
pi )
c(p Compressibility
i e
= pressure
ur =
of
The occurrence
transients
only takes place because the reservoir fluid
r

is compressible to some extent and local

or depletion of fluid in the

maccumulation
ur =

reservoir occurs.
Although
liquid
compressibility
effects
can
1prv

1 safely
be neglected
. oil
= this isnot true
= cflow

=
in most cfluid
situations,
in
an
reservoir
where very

rkvt ppt
2 p
m
p

large volumes
of liquid
at high pressure are involved. In the case of single
r
1 the thermodynamic

phase liquids
equation of state is adequately represented
rk p =
by the model
r ofr a fluid oft constant compressibility. The definition of the
1 1 rkr p
compressibility,
is:
c = 1 c,ofa =fluid

r t
p
r pr
=

c
1 V
(7)
t
r
c = -r

V p T, m
1c(p Vpi )

e
c == -i(
volume of the fluid per unit change in pressure; it has
i.e. the relative change
V ) pinthe
T, m
the dimensions of
pressure. Equation (7) may be put in terms of fluid
t reciprocal
m
m
density as follows;
for
a
constant
mass of fluid, m:
p

c= V = or V =
m
t()t
p
m
. p
=
or = V = + = c l +
t
t t
p t
V t
kr p

p
1 1r
m
= c
c =
17

f
1r vp
t
r

1
.

=
c=
m =

c1 =(r-rukr )=
p
r
rV

r pTt,m
=
11r
r r == t
r
r
1r V t
c1r =( r-urr ) = t
p Tt, m
r kkV
ur r =m

mm
m
u r== 1ororrVV=V =

V
1
V
cc =
-- r
= V
kV p , m
u r =m V p T
T,m
m
pr V =
= rk or
hence:
V

rk p
1 r

hence: 1 m r = m
m
= = m
t
r = rkr orp V
r V r1 v

t m

= . 1
c1 = r = =

1
1 V p m
2 p

.p 2
cr = - 1rv =
t = m
V

p
c = -V 11p vV m p
p =T, m
= . 1
cc == - V
V

v p T, m m m
pm
2 p

1 V
1

i.e.
(8)

c == - 11 v

1
.
i.e.
c
=
V

c = p p =T, m

== 2
m m
m
pp
2 pp

= 1mv orp V = m m

or compressibility
V=
Not surprisingly
is also the relative change in density per unit
c = V the
Vp c(p
p i ) if the volume decreases the density increases. For a fluid
change in pressure;
naturally
= mi e
m
of constant
=compressibility
1 or V =equation (8) may be integrated to yield:
c= V

p c(p p i )
(9)
=pi e
m
c =
m
t liquid
t density
pressure,
where i is the
at some
reference
1cc(p
v

(p
p
)

. pi . 11
v p ii=)
1

c ==

=
e
=

c =pii ev p = m
p = 22 p
m

=
c
v
p

p time
Differentiating
(8) with m
respect
to
p
gives:
t kequation
1rt pv

1
.

c =p =

p
1 p =vr p
p
2 p (10)

cc
1t = t = c m
1t k
t
rrt p
cr =
= p
which oncsubstitution
in
(6) results in:

p
p
1 r
= c
1

k
r
p
t
cr (=
)kprr p
p
)

cc(p

1 t
(p
r p=ii )c pp
1 =

i e

=
e
= c t

i
(11)
rr () rr
t
c(p p i )

(achieved
=t p
which has
pof the density

. p from (6). The assumption of

) i eapartialelimination

p
= + = valid
c l for+liquids,

() =
constant cccompressibility
of course no gas comes

(
t
t
t
ttt) = tt t is always
p provided

t and is sometimes approximately valid

.
out of solution,
for
gases
at high pressures. The

p
(
p
t p)

= of
+ will be considered later.
creal
theory ofcthe
l gases
unsteady-state
== + flow
t
t t1 tt
t
p . t
)kk
rr pp

f(

p
p
c
=
) Development
2.2.3 Further
=pr + =ofthe
c lAccumulation
p + . p Term

p
11(
+=ct =
=ofthe
c l t +the accumulation
rtcontinuity
p t
pequation
In the derivation
term represents the time
tt 1
=

p t
t
t
t

k
r
p
r mass of fluidper
tt unit superficial
crr f = of the
rate of change
volume. When the porosity is not
p r
p pressure this term must be written:
constant 1
and
1) with
=formation
(varies

c)p
c
c
=

+
(
l
f
cr f =t 1) r
t t

) p
cf((
=
(
tt ) =p(c + c ) p
l
f
t=expanded

) S c as+ follows:
which can
cl((be
Soctpo
) wc w
t = (c l + cf ) p
((
p
.. p

t )) =
t

c
c
+
(
)
c l++ fS c= c l +
c l t= =Swc
t c f
(12)
c t t= c l +wt c f =to Sotwc c wl +t So co p +
.

(
)
c l = =Swc
+ c . On defining the compressibility
c w ++ So c=ohas
cbeen
l
where thecliquid
denoted

t= ccompressibility
t
t
t
c
+
=
S
c
+
S
S
c
+
S
c
tl =
l
f
wc
w
o c op+ 1tc f
wc w
o o

1 kas:
k
=
(S
)
of the formation
o
wc
cf =
c t = clp + c f = Swc c w + So c o + c f
ckt = 1 kclo(S
+ wcc)f = Swc c w + So c o + c f
cf =
(13)
p
k(
= ) k o (Swc )
p
= (c l + c f )
k =
t k o (Swc )
t
()
p
= (c l + c f )
18
c t= S c + S ct
l

wc w

o o

()
pi )
p c(p

c=t =
i e
t t

p In Drawdown
(
. p
Pressure
And Buildup
Transient
p) = + Analysis
= c +

c k=r p
l
t
t
t t tt
p t
r

1
= c p

t
r
r
1
c f = kr p

p
1 p r
= c

(
)
this may be written:
t
r
r
t
()
p
(14)
= (c l + c f )
t )
t
(

()
. p
t =
+
= c l +
Although intreality the
(14) is still a function
t side
t onthe
t
t right-hand
pofequation
c l =as Sawcfirst
c w approximation
+ So c o
of pressure,
it can be treated as a constant evaluated

at some representative
formation
p pressure.
average
. p In this form equation (14)
()
+
+
=
=

1 the small effect

adequately
compressibility in all but the most
c tf allows
+t c f =t Swc c wl +
of
t Srock
t c l for
==
o c op + tc f
exceptional
circumstances.
p
A furtherkrefinement
of)equation (14) is warranted; in an undersaturated reservoir
= 1 k(Swc
cf(
=are) ino fact
two liquids
presentp- oil and immobile connate water - both of which
=p(c l + c f )
are compressible.
Hence the liquid
compressibility, cl , is given by the sum
t
t
of two contributions:

()
p
c l = =Swc
c(wc l + c fS)o c o
t
t

(15)

where cw and co are the compressibilities of water and oil and Swc and So are the
= c l + cThus
Swccompressibility,
c w + So c o +c c, fin the basic equation (11) is
f = the
respectivecc t saturations.
l = Swc c w + So c o
identified with the total system compressibility, ct ,defined as:

k = k (S )
c t = c lo + wcc f = Swc c w + So c o + c f

(16)

Note that the permeability, k , in equation (11) is not the absolute permeability of the
k = kbut
)
porous medium
the
to oil at the connate water saturation, i.e.
o (S
wc permeability
k = ko (Swc)

the end-point permeability

Since the flow model assumes horizontal flow the permeability also refers to
this direction, i.e. it is the radial permeability. When the total compressibility,
ct , is employed the density, , refers to the mass per unit pore volume of oil
and connate water.

2.2.4 Linearisation of the Radial Flow Equation

The partial differential equation describing the unsteady-state, radial flow of a fluid
of constant compressibility has just been derived as:

kr p

p
1 r
= c t

r
t
r

(17)

This form still involves two dependent variables, p and , and remains non-linear.
p
In order to {
transform
into a linear PDE in a single dependent variable, i.e.
r } (17)
c t p

r
pressure,1further
simplifying
assumptions
are necessary. Such a transformation is

r linear PDEs
t
k derived
desirabler because
from (17) have analytical solutions which
are easily manipulated and circumvent the necessity of employing cumbersome
numerical methods.
The latter are especially time-consuming when the inverse
p The additional assumptions
c t involved.
2 p parameter
p
p is
problem 1of non-linear
+ + r estimation

ct =

r 2

r r

19

necessary for the linearisation of (17) are certainly no more severe than those already
krformation
p
made concerning
homogeneity etc.

p
1 r
kr p = c t
For a liquid
permeability, k , tand the viscosity, , are independent of pressure
r the
krr p
and equation
(17)

r be written:
p
1 may
1 kkrr prp = c t p
r r = c t t
ptp
1r1 {rrp}rr
ct cc
=
p
1
(18)
t

r
t
tt
rr =
rr

rp
t
k
r
{r p} c
p
1 {r r }
c tt
= the
p side of (18) may be expanded using the
rrprppon
1 kk
The derivative
term
left-hand

r {
rr2rpp}} =pc kthus:
differentiation;
p pptt c t p
1
chain rule
{
1r1 for
rr+rr= c+tkt

r
r

= cct pp =
t
rr rr2rr ==
r k t r ttr
k
2rr
k tt
r
p
p c t p
1 p
(19)
1 r 2 p2 + p + r p = c t p
+ pr + r pr r = c k pt
r1 r12rp2

p
t
c1r1t=r{
rr2 2pp+} rpc+t
r rp pr = ckt tp

}
{
r
r r pr = k t
r1 rr p2r+ =rc+t
r k as:
r tr
t
k
The compressibility
rr 1rrr is =defined

r
k
t
r
c = 1
ctt=

pp
(20)
1
c1t==1c2tpp

c
p
p
p
c1tr=r22pp+r p + r p = ctt p
and differentiating
this
equation
with
respect
to
r
results
in:
r
r r
t
r rp
k
r r r 2+p r + r r r = k t
= c t p
2

1rr =
pprr p
cc t2
p c t p
=

r1 t +p + rc t =
r
crtr==1crt2r r
t
k
(21)
tr = 2 p r
2
c
Substitution
in
(19)
gives:

1 of(21)
p
p
p
p

t
2
1 r 22p2p + p + rc t p 2 = c t p

=
r

+
r

c
+
2
1r p 1rp2p prc pt pr
t
tk p
r t+ rc t r 2 = ck t
r1 r+r2 2p+p=

p
p

rr2r= crtrr+ rk + rct r = k tp

(22)

p
t
r
t
k
r 2r = crt 2 r r
rp 1 pr c p
22 p2 + 1 p = c tt p
2
rp2 +1r2pisprnow
p
= ckt that
The assumption
gradient
c t
p p/r is small and hence
1
p pressure
+r p r = pmade
tt the
22rr
r
k
=

+
r

c
2 r p

1
p

p
2
t
r22be
r neglected.
1r1 safely
c k ptUnder this
assumption, and cancelling r throughout,
(p/r) can
2 +rr p == rpt t rp ckt tp

+
r

c
equation r
(22)

r rbecomes:
r
r
k
t
r
k t t =
t
r
r
k
r pr 2
r pp

1 r r c t p
cc pp
1 2p r 1rr p=
1
=cktt t ppt
r 22 +rr p =
=
kr t tp
r
r r
(23a)
t rtp
rr1p p +rr1rk p =1ckkct
2=
=

rtr
rr ctr r kk rpt t

or, alternatively:

p
r pp

p rk 1c rr rp
1
pp =
kkp = 11 t rrp

t=
ct qr s B
r

r
k =
r
rrkt p
u rw r=
(23b)
1pt r r =
kctt 2=r1rwcht rrp r r = r
=

w
r c r k rt
r t
t
q s B kp p
. r= kassumptions
p
u rofr =liquids
For the flow
the
are quite reasonable and have frequently
s Babove
rw = q

1
p
k
r r r = r
u r r = rw =q2s B

r
h1= simple

been applied.= However

this
linearisation
by deletion must be treated with
w
= 2 rw h ,pt 0r r = r
w
q
B
k
p

t
c
r
r

r
kh
r

2
s
t
r = rw only
caution and
the following condition is satisfied:
uprcan
w= r when

1 applied
k= be
=r = rw 2 rw. h r r = r
w
pt cqt s Br . 1 r
q ss B
p

1
t
=

,
0
q sqBBr , kt 0p
urr rr =r r=wr =p=22

kh sh. rwww= ,t >r0

=kh
lim
rrrww w 2
rr =
=
r
p0 r q s Br
w 1
r=r
= q2s Bkh , kt 0p w
20

ru rr =rr=wrw =2 kh rw=
h r r = r w
p 2qrws.B

p
p c t p
1 p

r 2 + + r =
r
r r
t
r r
k

Pressure Transient
Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup
1
ct =

= c t
r
r
c t p << 1

(24)
2

c t p of (22) and (23) differ by

1 when
p
p
p the
For example
= solutions

r 2 +the
ctp+product
rc t is 0.1

about 5%.
tokmodify
t the assumption concerning
r makes itnecessary
r
r Thisrcondition
compressibility such that it is not just constant but both small and constant. When
dealing with reservoir systems which have a high compressibility, so that (24) is
not valid, 2itp is 1necessary
to linearise
(24) or its equivalent using some form of
p c t
p
+
=

mathematical
r 2 transformation.
t an approach will be required when dealing with
r r
k Such
a gas reservoir, since in this case the compressibility of the gas alone, assuming it
to be ideal, is the reciprocal of the pressure; hence to a first approximation the ctp
product is unity
pand
condition (24) is certainly not satisfied.
2

r
1 r c t p
=

2.2.5. Initial
r Boundary
k t Conditions
r and
The linearised radial flow equation :

p
r
p
k 1 r
=

t c t r
r
is a second-order, linear, parabolic PDE having pressure as the dependent variable and
qB
k p
radial position
timesas the
u r r =and
= independent variables. Similar second-order parabolic
rw =
h frequently
2 rware
r r = r wencountered in the theory of diffusional
equations of this form
transport processes, e.g. unsteady-state heat conduction, and all equations of this
type are referred to as the
diffusivity equation. Hence the quantity k/(ct) is
.
2
-1
p hydraulic
q s Bdiffusivity,
1
known asthe
=
, t 0, and has dimensions L T . However it should
be emphasised
r r = rwthat 2there
kh isrwno diffusional aspect to DArcys law and its similarity to
Fouriers law of heat conduction, for example, is purely mathematical. Fortunately,
because of its importance in transport phenomena, almost every conceivable analytical
solution to the
equation
is available in the literature.
p q s B

diffusivity

lim r =
, t>0
r 0 r
2 kh

In order to determine the solution of a second-order PDE of the parabolic type an

initial condition and two boundary conditions must be specified. The fundamental
solutionsof
p interest in the development of pressure analysis methods are those
= 0, t > 0
for the case
r r =ofre flow into a centrally located well at a constant volumetric rate of
production, q. Later on it will be demonstrated how the principle of superposition
may be used to yield solutions for arbitrary rate histories. The geometry of the
system is again shown in Figure 10; the reservoir is assumed to be cylindrical
in shape with thickness, h , and external radius, re . The well is of radius rw and
in all cases of interest rw << re.

21

Model Reservoir

kr p
kr p
inrthe

11 Well
q p
Centre
ofra== cct p
t t
rr
rr
Circular
t
Reservoir

rw
pp
{r }
p
11 {rr } cct

r == t p
rr
tt
kk
rr

re
pp pp cct
p
11 22pp
rr 2 ++ ++rr == t p
rr
rr rr
tt
rr rr 2
kk
Radial11
ccFlow
t =
t = p

Formation Thickness

re

Radius of exterior boundary

rw

Wellbore Radius

Oil Flow-Rate

Figure 10
Model Reservoir

== cct p
t r
rr
r

(a) Initial Condition

2
Before any
takes
cylindrical
element is assumed
cct
p
11flow
pp thepwell
pp 2thewhole
22into
place
p
t p

=
r

+
r

c
+

t
to be at the
pi . Using the notation p(r,t) to
=
c t r pressure,
tt
rr22 + initial
r + rreservoir
r runiform
r of kradial
k
pressure
represent rthe
asra general function
position, r , and time, t , the
initial condition may be written succinctly as:

22pp 11pp cct pp

p(r2 , +o -) = =p i ,t rW r re
rr 2 + rr rr = kk tt

Fig 2.2.1

(25)

Here o- signifies any time prior to t = 0.

(b) Boundary
at the Well Bore - Constant Rate Inner Boundary
rr pCondition

11 r cct pp
Condition
r =
t
rr

rr

= k t
k t

At time t = 0 the well is set in production at a constant volumetric flow-rate, qs , and

maintained at this level from then on. This oil flow-rate, qs , is measured at stock
p
tank conditions and hencethe
r inpsitu reservoir flow rate is given by q = qsB where B

r
1 r Although this latter quantity is a weak function of
is the oil
formation
pp = kk volume
r
1 factor.
=
pressure ittis treated
asra constant,
evaluated at the initial reservoir pressure. Applying
c
r

t
t c t r
r
DArcys law just inside
the formation at the sand face gives:

qB
k
uur r = rw == qss B == k
r r = rw
22rrw hh
w

pp
rr r = r w

or, on re-arranging:

q B . . 1
pp
== qss B 1 ,, tt 00
rr r = rw 22kh
kh rrww
r = rw

r=rw

(26)

This imposes a constraint on the formation pressure gradient at the well-bore

pp qqs BB
lim
r = s , t > 0
rlim
0 r r = 2 kh , t > 0
r 0 r
2 kh

22

pp

t>

 p
r
p
k 1 r
= p
r c t }r c
t {
r
p
1
t

r
= Analysis

Pressure Transient
In Drawdown And Buildup
r
t
k
r
qB
k p
u r r = rw = s =
1 2 p 2 rwph p rr =r w c t p
+ +r =

r
r
r r
t
r r 2
k
q B . 1
p
and is known
as
of the second kind. For all ordinary
= a s boundary
0
, t condition
r r = r1wfinite
kh
r

2
purposesthe
wellbore
radius
boundary
condition (26) may be replaced
w

=
c
t
by the alternative form:
p

(27)
p q B
lim r = s , t > 0
r
0 r p 2 kh

= c t

r
r line source approximation to the original condition. This
which is known as the
has beenp
shown to yield identical results (from a practical standpoint) to those
= 0, t >of0 the problem 2with the exact, less-tractable version. The
obtained from
solution
c t p
1r r = re 2 p
p
p well-bore
line source approximation
radius
to be vanishingly small

r 2 + +assumes
rc t the
=
r of thekwell-bore
t is very small compared
r the dimension
r r because
and is acceptable
to the radius of the volume drained by the well. When fractured wells are
treated as cylindrical
wells of large effective radius the full finite wellbore radius
2 p be1 employed;
p c t this
p
solution must
+
=
is really the only occasion when the line source
2
approximation
r isr not
r valid.k t
(c) External Boundary Condition

p
r
1 forms
c p boundary condition arise, each one pertaining to a
Three distinct
r ofexternal
= t
different physical
each specific boundary condition yields its own
t
k Naturally
r r situation.
unique solution to the PDE. The three basic cases of interest are:
(1)

p
Infinite Reservoir

r
p
k 1 r
=

In this case
to be situated in a porous medium of infinite
t thewell
c t ris assumed
r
radial extent. This condition is also valid for a reservoir of finite size provided
any pressure disturbance generated at the well never reaches the outer boundary
of the reservoir whichqremains
kat the
p initial pressure, pi , throughout the period of
sB
u r rcondition
interest. This
may=be written:
= rw =

2 rw h

p(r, t) = pi

as

r=rw

r , t > 0

(28)

q B 1
p
= s
, t0
r
kh
r

2
r
r
=
w
(2)
w Bounded Reservoir
In this case the well is assumed to be located in the centre of a cylindrical reservoir
pno
q B
of radiuslim
re with
, t >the
0 exterior boundary. The no-flow condition
r =flows across
r
0

r 2velocity
kh at the outer boundary and hence the local pressure
implies zero superficial
gradient must also be zero, i.e.

p
= 0, t > 0
r r = re
(3)

(29)

Constant Pressure Outer Boundary

Here the well is situated in the centre of a cylindrical area with a constant
pressure, equal to the initial pressure, pi, maintained along the outer boundary.
This condition takes the form:

23

p(re, t)

pi, t > 0

(30)

The specific application of each of these cases will become apparent later.

2.2.6 Dimensionless Form of the Diffusivity Equation

The linearised partial differential equation of compressible fluid flow in a
porous medium, embodying the principle of mass conservation and DArcys
law, takes the form:

p
r
p
1 r
=
r
t
r
where

k
= hydraulic diffusivity.
c t

(31)

A typical set of initial and boundary conditions (infinite reservoir case) are:

p q s B 1
=

r 2 kh rw
I.C.
at t < 0 : p = p i

p
q B 1
= s

B.C.1 at r = rw :
(
,
)

p
r
t
}
k {
r
2 kh rw
u r ( r, t ) =
B.C.2 at r =
r : p = pi

for all r
for all t 0
for all t 0

(32)
(33)
(34)

The solution to the problem is a mapping p(r,t) representing the pressure as a

function of
and
naturally the solution p(r,t) must satisfy both the
( r,position
t ) = i exp
[ctime;
t ( p( r, t ) p i )]
differential equation andpthe
prescribed
initial and boundary conditions which in

combination
prto as the differential system. The constants appearing
p are 1referred
2 r
the quantity qsB /(2kh) are known as the system
= e.g.
in this system,
,
r

1r pri rand
.1these
trpt=and
=0

parameters
must
be
specified before a particular solution can be obtained.

r
t
r
However, it is much preferable first to obtain a general analytical solution which
is quite independent of any
k specific values given to the parameters. Once this
where
= corresponding
hydraulic diffusivity.
= solution,
is available
anyrw2particular
to a certain set of parameter values,
kc t

=
t
where
=
=
hydraulic
diffusivity.

w
is readily obtainable.
The general solution is achieved by transforming the differential

c
system into dimensionless tform. This is a standard procedure in engineering
mathematics
should
p and
1 always be carried out where possible.
q sB

=
2
<
0.1r1wre
pr 0.12qt
kh
sB
=
t
= e interms of pressure, p(r,t) , has been established the remaining
When the solution
r 2 kh rw
variables, if required, follow from DArcys law and the equation of state, i.e.
{p( r, t )}
t D k kt
tuDer ( r=, t ) 2=
=
k {p(2rr, <t )}0.1
= c t re
u r ( r, t )rDe
r

(35)

( r, t )r= i exp[c t ( p( r, t ) p i )]
(36)
rD( r=, t ) = i exp[c t ( p( r, t ) p i )]

rw
In order to understand
the philosophy behind the procedure for rendering the system
2

dimensionless it isr helpful to consider briefly the nature of solutions to the diffusivity
24

t r = 0.1 2
t r t
tt Dr == 0.1
=
t w rw2
r2
t = w2

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

equation. Some typical pressure profiles in a cylindrical reservoir at various times

following the well being set in production are shown in Figure 11; initially the
reservoir was everywhere at pressure pi .
q

Figure 11
Transient Development of
the Formation Pressure
Distribution

pi

p
p(r,t)
r p

1
p

WellBorep = 1 rt
t = r rpp
t
r rr
pp
11 r r
r
=
tt = rr rr k Tr a n s i e n t D e v e l o p m e n t o f
where = k
= hydraulic
Fo r m a tdiffusivity.
i diffusivity.
on Pressure
where = c t =t h ehydraulic
c t
Distribution
kk
where
=
=
hydraulic

where = c = hydraulic diffusivity.

diffusivity.
r 1c tt
pp qq sln

B
= s B 1
=
Fig 2.2.2

r
kh rrw
r 22kh
w
At early time
the
pressure
disturbance,
due
to
fluid
expansion
and motion, is localised
pp qq s B
1
=
s B 1
in a region
= 2 khthe
central well but this progressively propagates itself further
rr around
w
2 kh rrThe
out into the
reservoir.
in pressure between the initial value, pi , and
k w{{pp((difference
rr,,tt))}}
k
u rr well
that in the
= rw) is known as the drawdown and increases with the depth of
((rr,, tt))(r
==
u
rr

penetration of the k
pressure
into the formation. Note that, at the
{pp(( rr,, tt ))disturbance
k { of the}} pressure profile is identical at all times, which
=

uu r ((the
rr,, tt ))gradient
well-bore,
=
r
rr flow-rate boundary condition. The time taken for
is indicative of theconstant
exp

c
(
,
)
exp
((pp((rr,,tt))disturbance

r
t
c
ppi i))]]
[[ ttpressure
i
the leading edge iof
the
to reach a radial position, r, is
given approximately by :

exp[[cc tt (( pp(( rr,, tt ))

(( rr,, tt )) =
=
22ii exp
pp ii ))]]
r
t rr = 0.1

(37)
rr22
and the quantity:
.
0
1
tt r =
r = 0.1
rrw22
w
tt w =
w =
(38)
2
2
rr
w
tt w =
w
w =
can be regarded
time constant of the system. For a reservoir of finite
as a characteristic
2
r
2
e
size, the tinfinite
< 0.1t reservoir
= 0.1 r solution will be valid for all times t such that:
t < 0.1tee = 0.1 2e
2
rre
t
.
=
.
0
1
0
1
tt <
e
e
< 0.1t e = 0.1

t
kt
i.e.
(39)
t De = t2DD = kt 2 < 0.1
t De = rDe2 = c t re 2 < 0.1
ttrDe
ktc r 0.1
D
tt De =
= kt t 2e <
2D =
=
< 0.1
De
2
rrDe

cc tt rree2
De
r
D =condition
r
which is rthe
that the pressure disturbance has not yet reached the external
r = rrw
boundaryDto any
significant
extent.
rrw
rrD =
=
D
rw
Thus choosingrwtrw as acharacteristic
dimension of the system and tw as a characteristic
t
t D = t = 2t
t D = ttw = rwt2
ttw = r2wt
tt D =
25
=
D = t
t ww rrww2
kt

( r, t )rrw2= i exp[c t ( p( r, t ) p i )]
w
tt ww ==

r2
t r = 0.1
r22
t < 0.11ttee== 00..11ree

rw2
tw =
tt
kt
kt
t De = 2D2D ==
< 0.1
22 < 0.1
rrDe
c
r

c
r

time it is possible
to
define
the dimensionless independent variables rD and
t
e
De
t e
tD as follows:

re2
t < 0.1t e = 0.1
r

rrD == r
D
rrw
w
t
kt
t De = 2D =
< 0.1
2
rtDe
t c t re
t D = t = 2 t
t D = t w = rw2
(40)
t w rw
r
rD =
or
rw kt
t D = kt 2
(41)
t D = c t rw2
c t rw
t
t
tD =
= 2
t(wp i the
rpw) dependent variable, i.e. pressure, p , it is convenient to form
When considering
(
p
p) 2 kh by the quantity q B/(2kh) suggested by the

dimensionless
p D = ratios
q si B by= dividing
p)
s
kh( p i order
q2Also,
inner boundary
to ensure that the dimensionless boundary
s B in
p
p
p D = 2condition.
qkt
B
(
)
=

i
s kh
q s Ba form as possible, it is preferable to formulate the
conditions
as2 compact
t D assume
=
kh
2cpressure

system in terms
of
deviation from the initial value. Hence the dimensionless
t rw
pressure (difference) is defined as:

q B
sq Bp D
t D(rpw2 i p)
t=
r =2 kh
rD rw p = p i
2 kh
2
pD
s
(42)
p D =t Drqws B =
( p i p)
t=
r q=s BrD rw p = p i
2 kh
2pkh
p
2 kh
pD = i
=
( p i p)

q
B

q s Bpressure
This is equivalent sto measuring
relative to a datum of pi. Note that qs is
2 kh and a positive pD represents drawdown.
positive for production
q B
pD
s
t D rw2
t = substitutions:
r = rD rw p = p i
Making the
2 kh

t r2
q B
r = rD rw
p = pi s
pD
t = Dw

2 kh
into equations (31), (32), (33) and (34) the dimensionless differential system
becomes:

p
rD D
p D 1 rD
=
t D rD
rD
I.C.
at
p D
= 1
.rC
BB.C
.1.1 atat
D
B.C.2

at

p
rD D
p D 1 rD
=
t D rD
rD

(43)

tD < 0

pD = 0

for all rD

(44)

rDrD==1,1,

fpfppDDD
===111
frfrDrDD

forall
allttDD >> 00
for

(45)

pD = 0

for all t D > 0

(46)

rD = ,

x
x
{z }
{zfundamental
}
x 1 system
The differential
has now beenx
put into
form amenable to
z

1
z
=
>
1
z

z
=
>
1
solution by
the
standard
mathematical
methods
for
linear
parabolic
PDEs of the
t z z
t z z
26

= 1

= 1

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

p
p D
rD D

rD

diffusivity
The
prDanalytical
1 solution
ptype.
1 general
D
rD to the system can be obtained without
=
D
any reference to the physical =
it represents. In this systems engineering
t D rD
rD t situation
r
r
approach the mathematical Danalysis,
i.e. Dthe mechanics of deriving the solution,
D
whether by analytical or numerical methods, is completely divorced from the
engineering
p aspects concerned with setting up equations which adequately describe
p Dinterpreting the solution once it is available. Indeed
the physicalD situation
and
= 1
= 1
D
it may berpreferable
to rewrite
rD the system using the conventional nomenclature
of the mathematical literature, e.g.

x 1
=
t z

x
}
x
z
{z }
z
>
1
x 1
z
z p =
D
rD t z z

{z

(47)

z >1

1 x=rD0
all z
xt D rD
= 1 rDpxD
rD

z=z 0,
all t > 0
p D 1 prD = 1
= r zD
p
D

z=pt DDD,= r1D1 rxD=

all t > 0
rD0
=
rD

q
B
r
t

p(trD, t ) =rDp i srD p d , 2

r t
q s B
2 kh
p
p( rvariable
, t ) = prwi and
rw t
are, the
independent time and
where x is Dthe
andp dz
1
= dependent
kh
rw rw2 is

2
problem
x

r
space variables
respectively.
In
this
way
the
posed as a purely
D
px D 1 {z }

1
=
z

mathematical= one.
z >1
trD z z r p D
D

rD dimensionless
the
pdifferential

1{z xof
p D solution
The analytical
system is denoted pD(rD, tD),

}
D
=
r

1
x

D
z

or equivalently
z > 1 1 the
r t),xand
rprepresents
rD solution to the basic system for all
general
xt D= x(z,
tx =parameters
1z1D{zz } DandD dimensions.
values ofthe
A particular solution is easily obtained
=
z t z > 1 r
z = solution
rD i.e.
(42),
from the general
using
equation
D
D
t z z
x p D
lim=rD1
q s=B1 r t
r
0
Dz
r

p
r
t
p
p d p,
(
,
)
=

D
x
i
= 1
kh rD rw Drw2 = 1
2 lim
(48)
rD 0
z
rD
r t
q B
2.2.7 The
in an Infinite Reservoir
p d rD2 , Solution
p( rLine
p i 1s Analytical
, t ) = Source
p D ( rD , t D ) =2 kh
Ei
rw rw2
p

D
q B 4 t r t
2
p(pr, tthe
p i rD2s r p ddifferential
) =1dimensionless
For this case
rDtakes
the form:
D , 2 1 system
D
D
kh
r
r

p D ( rD , t D )w = w Ei
=

t D rD
r
2 4t D
uDp D
reD

pi(D x) =1 prdu
= r u DD
u
pt D r r1Dp Dx D=rDr 1
e rD > 0
lim
D

D D
rD 0 =
du
rD i( x) =
t D rD
rD
u
x
tD < 0, pD =0 u
all rD
e

D
lim
i( x) r=D =du
1
rD 0
r2
u
1
r

x
p D ( rD, t D)p=DD Ei D e u
lim rD
2= 1 4 t
du
rD 0
rD i( x) = D
all tD > 0
(49)
u
x
22
11 rrDD
p DD ( rDD , t DD ) = uEi

e22 ln 4 t2D

x)p= = 0 1 du r D
rD i=( ,
all tD > 0
2
p D ( rD , t DD) =x u Ei D
1
2 p (r ,4tt D)= ln rD
t<p0,
D

eu
ri( <
x)0=.01
u du
e u
4it( x) = x eu du

2
D

2 4t D

27

rD

x
xtt
t

x
{z x }
1
= 1 {z xzz} z > 1
= 1z {zz } z > 1
z >1
= z zz
z z

x = 1
1
xzz =
= 1
z
The analytical solutionq B
ofthis problem
tt is given in(7)many textbooks concerned
Carslaw
q ssB
rr ,
pp(( rr,, tt)) ==phenomena,
p
p

with transport
e.g.

p ii
pd
, 22 and Jaeger . In 1949 Hurst and van
kh
r t
kh
q2
d rrrww
(8)
2
saB
Everdingen
presented
comprehensive
p( r, t ) = p i
p d , rw2w description of the solution of the radial
rw rw engineering problems. Their solutions
2 kh to reservoir
diffusivity equation applicable
were obtained by applying the Laplace transformation to the diffusivity equation
pthe
primarily in order tosolve
D problem of water influx into a radial reservoir from
D
rDD of

a similarly
shaped
aquifer
p D 1 r prDDD both finite and infinite extent. The flow of reservoir
=
D hasprecisely the same nature as the flow of water into
fluids into the well-bore
pt DDD r1DD rDDrD
a radial reservoir
= but on a different scale. A more concise analytical solution of
rD not
t Dproblem,
rD involving Laplace transformations has been quoted by
the present
Matthews and Russell. Only the result of these analyses will be given here and the

ppD
references
can rbe consulted
for further details if required.
D = 1
lim

D
1
rD prrDD =
= 1
rD D of
rD 0 solution
The analytical
rD the differential system (49) is:

lim
lim

rD 0

rD 0

1 r 22
p D ( rD , t D ) = 1 Ei rDD2
(50)
p D ( rD , t D ) = 21 Ei 4rt
p D ( rD , t D ) = 2 Ei 4DtDD
2 mathematical
4t D
where -Ei(-x) is a standard
function called the exponential integral
which is defined by:

eu
i( x) = euu du
i( x) = eu du
i( x) = xx u du
u
x

(51a)

eu
i( x) = e u du
u u du
x e

i
x
(
)
=

i( x) = u du
x u
x

(51b)

and hence Ei(- x) = - Ei(x).

1 The
r 2 Ei function is tabulated in mathematical data
ln on Da2 log-log scale, in Figure 12; Ei(x) is large for
p D (isrDshown,
, t D ) = plotted
books and

211 4rtrD2 Fortunately

small values
of x and vice-versa.
when x is small, i.e. x < 0.01, the
ln D
pp DD ((rrDD ,, tt DD )) == 2 ln

exponential integral is very

by a simple logarithmic function
2 closely
44ttDD approximated
Infinite
Single
Well
in< an
Reservoir (No Skin)
given below;
thus
for
x
0.01
2

rD
< 0.01
4rtD22D10 10
D
< 0.01
4t D
4

105

106

107

108

109

q B
r t
s
pD , 2
rwt
rrwr

q2 Bkh
t
pp
( rD
, t) = pi s
p DD ,, 22
2 kh
rrww rrww
p( r1, t ) = p i

10-1

EXPONENTIAL INTEGRAL SOLUTION

10-2

10

-Ei(-x)

28

-1

Ei(x)

10

t D/r D2

-ln ( x)

10

10

Figure 12
Single well in an Infinite
Reservoir (no skin)

10

Figure 2.2.3

(52)

1 rD2
p D ( rD , t D ) = Ei

p D 2p D 4 t D
lim rD rD = 1
r
D 0
1rD rD
Pressurep DTransient
Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup
=
t D rD eruD
i( x) =
du
u r2
x 1
p D ( rD , t D ) = Ei D
p 2 4 t D
lim rD D = 1
rD 0
rDe u
i( x) =
du
0.5772
where is Eulers constant
. Hence the general
u u and has a value of 1.781 or e
x
e
analyticalisolution
may
be
written
in
the
simpler
form:
du
( x) =
2
u1 rD
x
p D ( rD , t D ) = Ei

21 4rtD2D
p D ( rD , t D ) = ln

u2
4t D
(53)
e
i( x) = du
u
ue du
i2( x) = xand
or, on re-arranging
entering the numerical value of :

u
rD
x
< 0.01
4t D
1
p D ( rD , t D ) = 1 ln( t D /rD2rD2) + 0.80907
(54)
p D ( rD , t D )=e u2 ln

2
4
t

D
i( x) =
du
The latter equation xis,uofq course,
B only
r valid

twhen:
p( r , t ) = p i s
pD , 2
2 kh
rw rw
rD2
< 0.01
2
1 r
p4Dt D( rD , t D ) = ln D
2 4t D

Fortunately this is nearly always the case in connection with pressure testing
when the wellbore pressure at rD = 1 is required and hence (54) is the most useful
q B
r , t
s
form of the
pr(2ranalytical
, t ) = p solution.
p
D

i
< 0.01

2 kh

rw

rw2

4 t D in terms of the actual variables and system parameters follows

The solution
from the equation:
p( r , t ) = p i

q B
r , t
s
pD

2 kh
rw rw2

(55)

Noting that:
2
2
cc t rr 222
rrrDD22 = rrr 22 =
c tt r
D =
kt
tt =
= kt
ttt DD =
kt
t

(56)

the exact solution becomes:

B
qqq sB
pp(( rr,, tt )) =
= pp i

s
p( r, t ) = p ii 2skh
22
kh
kh

and the approximate version:

cct rr222
11 Ei
1 Ei c tt r

kt

222 Ei kt
kt

B
1
kt

qq B
kt
pp(( rr,, tt )) =
= pp i
ln
qsssB .. 11 ln
+
0.80907
kt
0.80907
. 2 ln c r 22 +

p( r, t ) = pi 22
+
0.80907
kh

kh
2
c
r

2 kh 2 c tt r
t

(57)

(58)

The condition that the latter is valid may be written:

kt
kt
kt 2
cc t rr 22

c t r

> 25
>
25
> 25

Indeed when kt/(ctr2) is equal to 5 the error in using the log approximation is still
1
only about
2%.tt DNote
80907of]] tD/rD2 less than 5 the line-source solution
= 11 [[that
ln tt Dfor
+ 00values
(1,
)=
ln
+
...80907
ppp DD (1,
)
D
D
0
80907
=
ln
t
+
(1,
t
)
[
] from the solution to the radial diffusivity
2
D Ei function
D
D
based on the
to deviate
22 starts
corresponding to the proper boundary condition (27).

B
1
kt

qqq sB

1
kt

p
(
t
)
p
ln
0.80907
=

+
1
kt
s
pp www (( tt )) =
ln c rw222 +
0.80907
= pp iii
2skh 2 ln
+ 0.80907
22

kh 22
kh
cc tt rrww
t

29

rDD r
c t r
=
=
kt
t D t
q B 1 c t r 2
p( r, t ) = p i s

Ei
2

12 kt
q2 Bkh

c
r
t
p( r, t ) = p i s

Ei
kt
2 kh 2

q B 1
kt
.
p( r , t ) = p s
ln
+
0.80907

i
c r2

q2 Bkh
12 kt
t
s
. ln
p( r , t ) = p
+ 0.80907 of both time
i
The preceding equations
asr 2a general function
2 give
kh the2 pressure
c

important item
t applications the
and position in the reservoir. However in most
of interest kt
is the> 25
pressure at the well-bore; this is the observable quantity in
c tThe
r 2 dimensionless well-bore pressure, i.e. that corresponding to
kt
well tests.
> 25
rD = 1 is given 2by:
c t r
1
(59)
p D (1, t D ) = [ln t D + 0.80907]
12
It is convenient
pressure
p D (1, t Dto) =represent
[ln t D +the0.80907
] just inside the homogeneous formation
2 by the symbol p and hence from equation (58):
adjacent to the well-bore
w

q B 1
kt

p w ( t ) = p i s ln
0.80907
+
c rw2

q2 Bkh
12 kt
t + 0.80907
p w ( t ) = p i s ln
(60)
2 kh 2 c rw2

ps
S=
q
B
2.2.8 Well-bore
s ps Damage and Improvement Effects
S = 2 kh treatment only the dynamic pressure behaviour within the
In the preceding
q B
s

homogeneous formation has been analysed. It is now necessary to relate the

2 kh
pressure in the well-bore itself, i.e. the bottom-hole fluid pressure as measured by a
p D (1-, t D ) = p D (1, t D ) + S
transducer, to that in the adjacent formation, pw . The bottom-hole fluid pressure at
the mid-point
of tthe
producing
well is denoted pwf . In general
p D (1-,
= p D interval
(1, t D ) in+a flowing
S
D)
the two quantities pw and pwf are not identical
because
of the method of completing
1
p
(1-,
t
)
=
p
=
[ln
t
+
0.80908
+ improvement
2S]
D
D
the well. DThe phenomenon
ofwfDskin effect and well-bore
damage or
2
1
has already
Chapter
discussed
length in +the2S]
treatment of
p D been
(1-, tintroduced
) = in
p wfD
= 1 and[ln
t D + at0.80908
steady-state
flow. DOne way of quantifying
such
damage
to
operating
wells
represents
2
the well-bore conditionqby
a
steady-state
pressure
drop
at
the
well-face
in
addition

B 1
kt
s
to the normal
this is+ 2S
illustrated
in Figure 13.
lnthe formation:

p w f ( t )pressure
= p i profile
in
+ 0.80908
2
r
c
the

q2 Bkh
12called

The incremental pressure

drop
skin
effect
is
presumed
to
occur
over an
w
kt

lnwhicht the

p w f ( t ) thin
= p i skin
s zone
in
+
0.80908
+
2S
infinitesimally
permeability
impairment
is
confined.
2 kh 2 c rw2
t

Accordingly, the bottom-hole flowing

pressure
is given by:
pwf(t)

pw(t) + ps

(61)

where the skin pressure drop, ps, is a function of the instantaneous well flow-rate,
qsB , the fluid viscosity, , and the characteristics of the altered zone, i.e. its average
radial thickness and permeability. The important assumption is made that, since the
skin is so thin there is insignificant accumulation or depletion of fluid in this region
and hence quasi-steady-state conditions exist. For all practical purposes the skin
pressure drop reacts immediately to any changes in production rate, e.g. if the
flow stops ps disappears without delay. Of course even at constant flow-rate
long term changes in ps can occur due to progressive plugging of the well-face,
hence the term quasi-steady-state.

30

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

rD2 r 2 c t r 2
=
=
kt Dimensionless
t D t

Skin Factor S

q B 1
c t r 2 PROFILE
PRESSURE
p( r, t ) = p i s
Ei

IN THE FORMATION

2 kt
2 2 kh
2
2
p
rD r
c t r
= 2 =
2
p
trD
r t pkt
ct r 2
S=
"SKIN"
=
=
q

kt q spB 1
t D t
2 k h
kt
.
p( r , t ) = p
ln
+
0.80907

2
i r 2 kh 2
c 2 r

q B POSITIVE
1 SKIN
cFACTOR
tr
p( r, t ) = p i s
Ei

kt
q B 21 ie DAMAGE
c t r 2
p( r, t ) = p i 2skh Ei

kt
2 kh 2t kt
25
>
PRESSURE PROFILE
c t r 2

qp B 1
ktIN FORMATION
.
p( r , t ) = p s
ln
+
0.80907

i
q2 Bkh RIGOROUS
21 SKIN
ckt r 2

s
t
.

p
1
p( r , t ) = p
ln] PROFILE2 + 0.80907
.80907
p D (1, t D ) i= [ln2p tDkh+ 0CONCEPT
2 c r

2
t
STIMULATED ZONE
k >k
kt
> 25
ct r 2
kt
q B NEGATIVE
1
ktSKIN FACTOR
p
( t )r 2 => 25
p i s ln
+ 0.80907
wc
t
2 kh 2 c rw2

The dimensionless skin

by S2.2.4
and is defined by the
1 pressure drop ist denotedFigure
equation:p D (1, t D ) = 2 [ln t D + 0.80907]
1
p D (1,tpDs) = [ln t D + 0.80907]
2
S=
q s B
(62)

kh p q sB 1 ln kt + 0.80907
p w ( t2) =
i

21 damaged
2over
kh the
B
ckt rw2 zone, assuming
Since the pressure dropq
s
t + 0.80907 steady-state laminar

pw (t ) = pi
ln
DArcy flow,
should
to
product qsB
kh
p D (1-,
t D ) be=2proportional
p D 2(1,
) cthe
+ rw2S
t D
the dimensionless skin
t
w

wf

wf

Figure 13
Dimensionless Skin
Factor S

factor, S , only depends on the nature of the impairment. The dimensionless form
ps now be written:
of equation
S =(61) may

q s B
1
pts D ) = p wfD =
p
(1-,
[ln t D + 0.80908 + 2S]
D
S
=
pD (1-,
) = pD (1, tD) + S
(63)
2qtB
kh
2
D
s
2 kh r = 1- implies pressure in the well-bore. Hence the
where the notation
p D (1-,working
t D ) qD=equations
t D )transient
+ S flow with a well-bore
dimensionless
skin effect
for

Bp D1 (1,
kt
s

p
(
t
)
p
=

ln

+
0.80908
+
2S
take the form:
w
i
p D f (1-, t D ) 2=khp D2 (1, t
) +2S
D c t rw

1
p D (1-, t D ) = p wfD =
[ln t D + 0.80908 + 2S]
21
(64)
p D (1-, t D ) = p wfD =
[ln t D + 0.80908 + 2S]
2
and the corresponding equation in actual variables and parameters becomes:

q B 1
kt

p w f ( t ) = p i s ln
+
0.80908
+
2S
2
q2 Bkh 21 cktt rw

(65)

p w f ( t ) = p i s ln
+
0.80908
+
2S
2 kh 2 c rw2

This formulation is the basis for constant rate drawdown analysis on a semilog graph
illustrated in Figure 14 in which the permeability is obtained from the slope and
the skin factor from the intercept.

31

Ideal (CSFR) Drawdown

CRD

q
0

pi

CARTESIAN PLOT

pw f

TIME, t
SEMILOG PLOT

INTERCEPT

pwf (t = 1)

pw f

SLOPE, m

=0

q
4 k h

Figure 14
Ideal (CSFR) Drawdown

ln t
Figure 2.2.5

2.2.9 Analytical Solution for the Case of a Bounded Circular Reservoir

Of course no real reservoir is infinite in extent and the solution of the preceding
section is only valid while the pressure transient is confined within the limits of a
particular cylindrical volume. As soon as the pressure at the outer boundary starts
to deviate from the initial value one of the external boundary conditions becomes
operative. Usually the alternative form most consistent with physical reality is the no
flow constraint (29). Occasionally the mathematical boundary may coincide with a
physical barrier, i.e. the extremity of the reservoir. However, a much more common
situation arises when several producing wells, placed more or less symmetrically,
are distributed over the reservoir. In this case no flow boundaries arise because
of the reservoir drainage patterns which develop; deviation from the transient,
infinite reservoir solution occurs when the expanding, radially symmetric pressure
disturbances from adjacent wells first come in contact. The concept of drainage
volumes will be taken up in detail later.
In the meantime an individual well will be assumed to be located in the centre
of a cylindrically shaped drainage area of uniform thickness, h, and external
radius, re, with no flow across the external boundary. The dimensionless differential
system now takes the form:

p
rD D
p D 1 rD
=
t D rD
rD
tD < 0,1

p D
rD

32

p D
rD

pD = 0

1 rD rDe
all rD

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

p
rD D
p D 1 rD
=
t D rD
r
Dp D
rD

p D 1 rD
p D
p =
rD
rD ptDDD rDrD
rD p= 1,
all tD > 0
1 pD =r1rD = -1 rD
D
D
=
rD
t D rD t D rDrD
p D
rD = rDe,
all tD > 0
(66)
pr D = 0
D
p D
p D
rD
rD r rD
where rDe = e
p D
rw
2
2
pDr pprDD( r , t ) = 2 rD + t rDeln rD
p D
e
2
2
D D D D
4Laplace
transform
rDe
1 technique, to this
D rD solution,rusing
pr D of 1theanalytical
De 1the
The derivation
r
D =
differential
rD is also
t Dsystem
rDgiven by Matthews and2 Russell and2 the result is:
r ln r
2 r
p D (4rD , t D4 ) = 2 2 2 D +2t e De2 D
2
2ln
r1Der 41)rDeln rD rDe 1
r 2rDe2lnrDerDerDrDe
2(3rDe 4
t eD
+

2
pDp( rD , t D )p=D ( r2D , t D )= D 2+
t
+2
e1 4
2
D
1r)De
rDe 1 4rDe4(rDe
1 rDe 1
rD
4
4
2
2 rDe
1)
4 (3p4rDDe 4 rDelnrDe
+
2
2 2
2
4
4 (
2
rD4 r2Der lnrDeexp(
3rrDeDe
rDe
(2r
1
(3prDe 4 rDe
ln
)
4
)
m1t1
D) ) J1 ( m rDe ) A
De
De
+
r
+ 2
D 2
p DD = 1 2
4
r
1

(
)

[
J
(

r
) J12 ( m )]
4
r
1

(
)
De
m
1
=
m
m
De
1
trD rD De rD
D

exp( 2m t D )J12 ( m rDe ) A

2
2 2 t )2J 2 ( r ) A 2

exp(
exp( 2m t D )J12 ( m rDe )
21)t(A
3( m )]

exp(

t
)
J
(
1 r
m r[
DJ
m De

)
J
D
1
m
D
m
De

2
2
m
1
=
m
m
De
1

p
=
+

+
p
(
,
t
)
r
1
ln
2
D
2D [Jr2DD(2 r 2) rDeJ 2ln(rDeD )]

2
r m ) 1 J+1 m(teDe
rmDe)] 21 m 4 m =1 m 2[ J12 ( m(67)
rDe ) J12 ( m )]
pDmr (=r1D ,
t Dm)[=Jm1=(1
2 m De
D
rDe 1
rDe 1 4

exp( 2m t D )J12 ( m rDe )

2)Jt D( r ) 3
where A = J1(m)Y0(mprD)(1-,2ttY1)(
2 2exp(2 2 t ) J 2 ( r )
m 0 +mln
Dr
=
+
3
D
De
4 m t D
exp(
)J1 ( mm2rDe
D )2 1
tDDD 3+ ln 2r kt +
p2D t(1D, t+tDln
) =2r=De
20
[ J1 ( m2mrDeDe) J12 ( m )]
p(3Dpr(D41,4t Dr 4) =ln
m =1 2 m
>
3
.
21) =+r2
DeDe

r
2
r

2
2
2
De
2
2
De
De
De
De rDe 4
rDem ))] J1 ( m )]
2[)J1 (J1 m(
rof:
rDe +
c1t re4 m 2[mJ=11(mmrDe
and m are
roots
m=
De
rthe
D
4( r 2 1)
De

t D1(mrDe)kt =
J1(mrDe)Y1(m) - J1(m)Y

(68)

> 0.33
t D t =ktt De
D = 2 kt=2 t
2
=>2 r0r2.3 2
>D c0r 2.r3ln
=De 2 2p
t De= exp(
2 2 (1
rD
=
+
t
r
ln
,
)
De
t
e
2
D
(

) A De De
Dthe
m
D
m
crttDe
rDe)J1 at
e 2
For the dimensionless
pressure
rD =
p D
t D ) =
trwell-bore,
( rD ,rDe
+crtDe
41 , and for the case where re >> rw
erDe

2
2 r2 1 4 2
considerably
r
1

m [ J1 (De
(67)
r
)
J
(

)]
De
, i.e. rDe >>m1=1, equation
simplifies
and can be written:
m De
m
1
2t
3r 3
ln
(1,2ttDD)3+=lnr2D +
D
De

p2D t(1D, t+pDln

)=
t
p(3Dr(41,4t Dr 4) =ln
2rDe
rDeDe 4D exp(
2 t2 r
rrDe
> 5 4 2m t D )J12 ( m rDe )
r2<1) 0.1
tDe
De
De 2
2
D DeDe De 43+
p D (1, t D ) = 2 2 + ln rDe + 2 rD
4( rDe
rDe 1)
4 m =1 m 2[ J12 ( m rDe ) J12 ( m )] (69)
tD
tD
t
>5 2 >5
5< 0.1
t De < t De
0.1 2 t<DeD2 >20.1
21
rtDD on
The m values texp(
in
equations
=rD(69)
prDD)(1,
+ monotonically
0.80907] increasing values
)rDe
kt
J(67)
t Dmor
) A[lntake
D
1 (0
mtD
=
=
t
>
3
.

2
De
2
2
rDe i.e.[J 2
as m increases,
1 <r 2 . . . 2. . . < m . . . . Thus for a given value of tD the
c
m =1
m 1 ( mt reDe ) J1 ( m )]
exponentials
decrease
monotonically. Also the Bessel function portion of the terms
1
1 Hence as t becomes large, the terms for
1
in the series becomes
less
as m
= +tincreases.
[Dln
+ t0.80907]
D
+ 0.80907]
) =t D [ln
3
p D (1, t D )p=D (1,
[lnpt DDt D)(1,
0.80907]
D2 t D
2
2r
2is rapidly convergent.
large m become progressively
smaller
and the summation
+
p
(1,
t
)
=
ln
2
2
3
t
2
D
D3
Dte
D
2

t
exp(

)
J
2
m D 14( m rDe )
= 2D large
+ ln
lnrrDet
+
pp DD ((sufficiently
11,, tt DD )) =
2
Indeed for
termsrDeof the
series are2 negligibly small;
DeD all
2
2
44 +the
rrDe
rDe ) about
J1 ( m0.3,
)] i.e. if the
2[ J1 ( mthan
De this occurs form t=1/r 2m greater
for practical purposes
D De
t
2
3
D 3 2t
3
followingp condition
satisfied:
p is (1,
t 2) t D t=+ ln
r 2 + lnr2DDe + lnrDe
D (1, t D ) D = p DD (1,
D )c rD2re=
2.3
4
0
r
De 4 r
4
De
t
ktt t<D >De5 t e
De = <D =0.1
2 > 0.3
(70)
tt De
k
2
rDe
c t rreD2 2

20.3c r
0.3tc<
0t.3e c t re2
t re
t<
t
<
k

kt
q B 1
k 1
33
+ 0.80907
s ln
p D (1, t D ) =2 t D[lnp wt D( t )+= p3k0.80907]
i
2
p D (1, t D ) = 22 + lnrDe
2kh 2 c t rw

4
r

rDe 1 4

rD

rDe 1

4
4
2
4 rDe
1)
(3rDe
lnrDe 2 rDe
2
rD2 + rDe
2
ln r
2
p D ( rD , t D4)( r= 2 1) + t e 2 D
De r
rDe 1
De 1 4
2
2

4 exp(
4
2J1 ( m rDe ) A
rDe
4 rDe
1)
lnr2De mt2Dr)De
(3
1m)rDe ) J12 +
( m )]
m =1 4
m([rJ21 (
De

the dimensionless pressure is given by equation (67) without the series summation

2pD 2
m 2[ J12 (mt DrDe ) J12 ( m )]

m t D )isJ1a(constant,
exp(
m rDe ) irrespective
2 tD2 t function
and hence
of
. In this
case
m3rDe
D
+ )2tA
p becomes
(1, t exp(
) = alinear
ln)Jr1 (
m+ D

m =1

De

2
m [ Jr12De( m rDe ) J124( m m)]=1

of position, which implies that the dimensionless pressure is changing at the same
rate everywhere in the system and that the pressure profiles are therefore not altering
t proceeds.
kt This situation
is described2 as the
in shape as time
semi-steady-state
or
exp( m t D )J12 (
tpDe (1=, t 2D) ==2 t D + ln2 r> 0.33 + 2
m rDe )
pseudo-steady-state
flow
period
and
the
dimensionless
pressure
at
the
well-bore
D
rDDe
2 c t re De
4 m =1 m 2[ J12 ( m rDe ) J12 ( m )]
De
during this period is rgiven
by:

2 t Dkt
3
t
.3
De 0
tpDeD (1=, t D2D) == r 2 + ln2 r>
4
De c r
rDe
t e

(71)

The concept of semi-steady-state is an important one and is treated at length

subsequently. It has already
t D been3indicated that for values of the parameter tD/rDe2
2
t
> 5 has not yet reached the outer boundary at r and
0.1D disturbance
De (1
less thantp0.1
the<pressure
ln2 rDe
e
D , tD ) = 2 + r
D
4 are indistinguishable provided the line-source
r
De (49) and (66)
the solutions to systems
approximation is valid. Thus when the dual condition

1 t
[ln tDD + 0.80907]
tpDeD (1, <t D ) =0.1
2 r2 > 5
D

(72)

is satisfied the bounded reservoir solution (67) may be replaced by the mathematically
much simpler line-source, infinite-reservoir
2t D
3 solution (50). Naturally when tD/rD2
1
rDethe
+ lnto
exponential integral, i.e. equation (54),
plogarithmic
=
D (1, t D ) approximation
> 25 thep
2
D (1, t D ) = [ln t D r + 0.80907]
4
De
2
is preferable. The pressure
behaviour in this period is not affected by the external
boundary and is essentially the same as in an infinite reservoir; this is described as
transient flow or the infinite
acting period.
2

0.3c t re
2t D
3
+ lnrDe
=
tp <
D (1, t D )
2
rDe neither the 4infinite acting nor the semi-steady-state
The interim timekduring which
asymptotes are applicable to the pressure behaviour of the bounded reservoir is
known as the late transient
period and occurs when:
2

kt
0.3c t rqe s B 1
+ 0.80907
ln
tp <
w (t ) = pi
2
k 0.32kh 2 c t rw
0.1 < tDe <

(73)

Thus the pressure behaviour domain is divided into three distinct regimes viz.

1semi-steady-state
kt
0t ).3=transient

ct rqe2s Band
transient,p late
each corresponding to a specific
+ 0.80907
p
(
ln
>
t
w
i

2
physical state of the
2kh 2 c t rw
k reservoir.

Condition (39), upon which conditions (72) and (73) are partially founded, was
arrived at by 0considering
.3c t rqe2s Bthe
2 ktin the predicted
3 pressure at the external boundary.
r
error
>
t
(
)
= ppressure
+ ln e which
is of concern the infinite acting
p
t
w the
i

2
If it is only
at
the
well-bore
k 2kh c t re
rw 4
solution is acceptable for a bounded,
circular
reservoir over a longer period of time.
Indeed up to values of tDe of 0.3 the deviation between the values of well-bore
pressure predicted byq s B
equations
3 is less than 1%. Hence, in a
2 kt(59) andre ((70))
ln
(
)
=

p
t
p
w
i

2
circular drainage area
a central
well,
4 all practical purposes regarding
2with
kh
c t re
rw for
the well-bore pressure there are only two flow regimes - the infinite acting
and semi-steady-state periods - with the demarcation occurring at tDe equal to
0.3. Thus in summary:
Circular, Bounded Reservoir, Well-bore Pressure

34

rtDe kt
c t re
D
= 2 2 >2 0.3
t De= exp(
2
mctt rDe )J1 ( m rDe ) A
rDe
2
2
m =1 m [ J
21t(D m rDe ) J31 ( m )]
p D (1Transient
rDe
, t D ) = 2 + lnAnalysis
Pressure
In Drawdown And Buildup
4
rDe
2
t
2
2
2
rpDD (1, trD ) = Dc+t rlnrDe 3

=
= 2r 2t
exp( 2m t D )J12 ( m rDe )
43
pt DD (1, tDt) = De2Dkt+ ln rDe + 2
rDe t D
4 m =1 m 2[ J12 ( m rDe ) J12 ( m )]
>
5
t De < 0.1
2
trDD
t De < 0.1 q B2 > 5 1 c r 2
t
t Transient
ktsrD flow Ei
(a) tpDe( r<, t0.3:

t De =) =2D p=i
>
0
3
.
2
2 kt
kh
rDe 12c
r
p D (1, t D ) = [lnt teD + 0.80907]
(74)
12
p D (1, t D ) = [ln t D + 0.80907]

22t D q B 31
kt
+ slnrDe . - state
,)t D=)p=Semi
pDe(Dr<(,1t0.3:
ln

+
0.80907
2 - steady
(b) tp
flow

2
2t
3
i
p D (1, t D ) rDe= 2 kh2D +42lnrDe c t r

tD
2rDe
34
(71)
+ lnrDe
p D (1, t D ) =
2
4
t D rDe
>
5
t Dekt < 0.1
> c25r 2 r 2
0.32
D
t e
This is very
since
the complicated late transient solution involving
t
< c t rconvenient
2 not be employed. Alternatively in terms of actual variables
Bessel functions
need
k
0.3c t re
t<
and parameters
these become:
k 1
pp D (1,
(1, tt D )) == 1 [ln
ln tt D + 0+.80907
0.80907]
[
2q
D
D
D 1
2

kt ] flow
B
0
2

.
c
r
Transient
t e2 s:
+ 0.80907
ln
(a ) ptcw ( t ) = p i
2
c t rw

k 2qBkh
12 kt
+ 0.80907
p w ( t ) = p i s 2 t ln
2 3
2 D +

p D (1, t D ) 2=kh
lnrcDterwkt
q B
2 1
s
r
42 + 0.80907
p w (0t ).3
= cpri 2
ln
De
(60)
t e 2 kh 2
c rw

t>
t

k c r2
0.3
t > 0.3ct re2
k te
(b) t <
Semi - steady - state flow
pks
S=
3
q B 2 kt
r
+ ln e
p w ( tq) =s Bpi s

2
rrw 34
2cktt re
2 kh 2qBkh
(75)
p w ( t ) = p i qs B 1 2 +ktln e

s kh c r
2
4

r
w+ 0.80907

pw (t ) = pi
lnt e

c
r
2
2
kh
t
w

p D (1-, t D ) = p D (1, t D ) + S
2.2.10 Analytical Solution for a Constant Pressure Outer Boundary

.3
c t re at the external limit
In this event 0the
condition
1 takes the form:
tp >
D (1-, t D )
k

rD =

rDe ,

pD =

p wfD

[ln t D + 0.80908 + 2S]

all tD

(76)

and inflow through the

takes
by the local

2kt kt
3 at a rate determined
qqsouter
BB
boundary
r place
s 1 law,
+ ln e + 0.80908
w ((tt))==pp
i DArcys

pgradient
ln
+
2S
2
pressure p
and
i.e.
wf
i 2 kh
c r
r2 4

2 kh 2 t ec rww

p
q e B
=
r
khr

r
=
r
p e 2qe B
e
=
2qkhr
= re inflow
pr rthe
Be
where qeis
= e from a sink surrounding the cylindrical volume.
definitions
r ofr = rdimensionless
p2 khre quantities equation (77) may be written:
q e = qe D
prD r = r
q e = q D D De
prD r = r
q e = q D D De
2

rDe )dimensionless
exp(solution
2m t D )Jfor
rDonly
0 ( m
For the pmoment
the
analytical
the
r
r
=
D
De
D (1, t D ) = ln rDe 2
2
2
2
2mt) )JJ20(( mrrDe))
pressure will be given, i.e. m=1 exp(
m J1(
p D (1, t D ) = ln rDe 2 2 2 m D 02 m De
m
=1 exp(
m J1 (
m2)t )JJ02((m rrDe ))
p D (1, t D ) = ln rDe 2 2 2 m D 02 m De
m =1 m J1 ( m ) J 0 ( m rDe )
q B
r
s
pw = pi
ln e

q2 Bkh
rrw
pw = pi s
ln e
rw
2qB
kh
2 skhp re
0.0002637kt

[
[
[

]
]
]

(77)
Using the

(78)
well-bore

(79)
35

p
q B
= e
r r = re 2 khre
where the m are the roots of:

q =q

p D

J1 e(m) Y0 r(m rDe) - Y1 (m) J0 (m rDe)

D rD = rDe

=0

(80)

Again for sufficiently long times the summation is negligible and equation
(79) reduces to:
2
2

p D (1, t D ) = ln rDe 2

pD (1, tD) = ln rDe

m =1

exp( m t D )J 0 ( m rDe )
2m J12 ( m ) J 20 ( m rDe )

(81)

or, in terms of actual variables

q B
r
pw = pi s
ln e
rw
2 kh

(82)

In this circumstance the inflow at the external boundary and the production
kt within the cylindrical
0.0002637
rate are pequal,
i.e.2 qekh=qps and a true
exists
t D steady-state
=
D =
2
volume. Note that
in .equation
thecpressure
at the outer boundary
887
2q s B (82) pi represents
t rw
and is synonymous with pe .

p Field
qe Bln
x + a 0 + a1x + a 2 x 2 + a 3x 3 + a 4 x 4 + a x 5 + (x)
Ei(x)
=
2.2.11 SPE
5
= Units
In the preceding
2 khre the equations have been presented in fundamental
r r = re treatment
form applicable in any system of consistent units e.g. strict metric S.I. where
4
3
2
.
the basic units are: 1 x + a1x + a 2 x + a 3x + a 4

+ ( x )
Ei(x) =
p D xe x3 x 4 + b1x 3 + b 2 x 2 + b 3x + b 4
q e =rate,
q qs : m /s
Production
Formation thickness, h : m
Permeability, k : m2
r

2
D
=r
Viscosity, :
:r Ns/m
Pressure,
p : Pa
Radius,
r:m
D

Time

De

t:s

Compressibility,

dT

ct : Pa-1

Table 1
S.I. Metric Units

k
= engineers
mat Dmore
exp( in
)J 0 (practical
HoweverpAmost
system of units, for
m rDe )
dr prefer to work
D (1, t D ) = ln rDe 2
2
2
2
example SPE field units whichmare
defined
as:

r
(
)

(
)
=1
m 1
m
m De
0
qs

:
:
:

STbbl/day
cp
k dp
q
hr =
qdrB

h : ft
p : psia
crt : psia-1

k : md
r : ft

pAw = p i s
ln e
r
2 kh
In terms of SPE field
units thew definitions of dimensionless pressure and time
take the form:
1 rD2
khp
0.0002637kt
p d = 2Ei
tD =
p D = 2 4 t D
887.2q s B
c t rw2

Table 2
SPE Field Units

and any equation

can be converted into field units using the appropriate definitions
2
of pD andEi(x)
trDD.
= ln x + a 0 + a1x + a 2 x 2 + a 3x 3 + a 4 x 4 + a 5 x 5 + (x)

4t D
2.2.12 The Depth of Investigation and Radius of Drainage
These analytical solutions
the dynamic response
x 3 + a 2 x 2 equation
+ a1diffusivity
+ a 3x + apredict
1 . xto4 the
4
+ ( x) at a constant rate,
Ei(x)
=
1
2194it2 is put
of the pressure in a model
reservoir
on production
4
30.after
x
p D (rDi ) = xeEi(1)
x +=b1x + b 2 x =+0b.11
3x + b 4
q. The pressure
response
to a variable
production rate will be
2
2 (time-dependent)
considered subsequently. The distributed pressure behaviour of the reservoir is
conveniently represented on a plot of pressure drop versus radial distance from the
ri times, all on a dimensionless
4 kt
well-boreqat particular
basis; such a diagram is shown

rDi == k dT=
rw dr
A

4t D =

36

4 kt

c t rw2

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

in Figure 15. In order to compute this information it is necessary to evaluate the full
exponential integral solution using an algorithm of the form:
0x1
Ei(x) = - ln x + a0 + a1x + a2x2 + a3x3 + a4x4 + a5x5 + (x)

khp
where ap0 == - 2
0.57721566
D
a1 = 887
0.99999193
.2q s B
a2 = - 0.24991055

0.0002637kt
yaD3 == 0.05519968
2
a4 = -
0.00976004
ct r w
a5 =

(x) < 2x10-7

0.00107857

1x

Ei(x) =
where a1
a2
a3
a4

=
=
=
=

1 x 4 + a 1x 3 + a 2 x 2 + a 3 x + a 4
.
+ (x)
xe x x 4 + b1x 3 + b 2 x 2 + b 3x + b 4

8.5733287401
18.05901(70)73
8.6347608925
0.2677737343

b1
b2
b3
b4

=
=
=
=

9.5733223454
25.6329561486
21.0996530827
3.95849(70)22

(x) < 2x10-8

EXPONENTIAL INTEGRAL FUNCTION

The Ei function has the form shown in Figure 15; as the argument, x, becomes large
the function asymptotically approaches zero. Note that
region in which
e- u the
Eivery
x small
= - values
duthe argument viz.
the log approximation is valid occurs at
of
u for the interpretation
x < 0.01. The exponential function is mainly required
-x
of well to well interference tests where the radius, r, is the distance between
HENCE E1 (x) IS DENOTED -Ei(-x)
observation and active well.

( )

E1(x)
-Ei(-x)
EXPONENTIAL INTEGRAL FUNCTION

Figure 15
Dimensionless Pressure
distributions in Radial Flow

E1(x)
-Ei(-x)

-u
Ei(x) = - e du
u
-x
HENCE E1 (x) IS DENOTED -Ei(-x)

3
2
1
0

0.4

1.0

1.6

2.2.7
When the well is put on flow at time t = 0 the oil production rate, q , isFig
initially
sustained by the expansion of fluid immediately around the well-bore. However this
3
expansion is, of course, accompanied by a reduction in pressure and a local pressure
2
gradient
is established in the reservoir. Thus fluid from the next adjacent annular
zone
flows
toward the well-bore at a rate governed by DArcys law and the process
1
of fluid expansion-pressure decline is extended further into the reservoir. In this
0
0.4
1.0
way a progressively
increasing 1.6
zone of pressure drawdown propagates out from
x it reaches the external boundary. The propagation of this
the active well until
pressure disturbance is analogous to the temperature transient in a cylindrical block
Fig 2.2.7
of material subjected to a constant heat flux at the face of a central cavity. Since the
37

well is produced at a constant rate the pressure gradient at the well-bore, r = rw , is

the same at all times. The shape of the instantaneous pressure profile at any time
during the transient period is still much influenced by the radial nature of the flow,
i.e. rapidly increasing gradient as the well-bore is approached, and this results in
the well-bore pressure exhibiting the strongest dynamic response to a well flow-rate
change. In most transient well tests this is precisely the quantity which is observable
by measurement using down-hole pressure recording instruments.
In Figure 16 the dimensionless pressure profiles at tD = 103, 104 and 105 have
been constructed using the exponential integral solution i.e. equation (50); the
dimensionless pressure, pD , is plotted as a function of dimensionless radius, rD , for
various values of dimensionless time, tD . It is not until tD/r2De = 0.1, equivalent to
tD = 105 in this reservoir, that the external boundary pressure starts to decline and
the exponential integral solution is invalid. The profiles for tD = 5x105 and greater
have been computed from the semi-steady-state solution and it is apparent how
the pressure decline takes place uniformly without change in the shape of the
distribution. For dimensionless times between tD = 105 and 5x105 strictly speaking
the bounded reservoir (late transient) solution should be employed but, as previously
stated, there is very little error in omitting this regime; the graphical presentation of
the pressure behaviour shows no signs of discontinuity between infinite-acting and
semi-steady-state behaviour.
Remember,
however,
that this is only true for a well
Dimensionless
Pressure
Distributions
in the centre of a circular drainage area.
in Radial Flow

103

104

5x105

105

10 6

r De=10 3

pD 3

2x10

4
5
t D= 3 x 1 0

7
8
9

200

400

rD

600

800

1000

During the infinite-acting period a region of pressure disturbance propagates out

Fig 2.2.6
from the well at which a flow-rate change has occurred. This penetration aspect is
quite characteristic of systems whose behaviour is described by the second-order,
parabolic diffusivity equation and is well-known in heat conduction and mass
transfer. The analogy between diffusional transport processes and compressible
fluid flow in a porous medium derives from the similar mathematical nature of
underlying phenomenological description.
For example, the basis of unsteady-state heat conduction is:

38

Figure 16
Exponential Integral
Function

Ei(x) = 2 khlnxp + a 0 + a1x 0+.0002

a2x
tD =
pD =
887.2q s B
c

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And

Buildup
4
3
.

1 x + a 1x + a 2 x 2 + a 3 x + a
Ei(x) =
4
3
2
x
Ei(x) = xe lnxx ++b1xa 0 ++b 2 xa1x+ b+3x a+2
1 . x 4 + a 1x 3 + a 2 x 2 + a 3 x +
Ei(x)
= dT x 4
q
= k xe x + b1x 3 + b 2 x 2 + b 3x +
dr
A

(a) local flux equation (Fouriers law)

(b) relation between energy density
and temperature (state equation)

de = Cp dT

(c) law of energy conservation

q e B

=
whereas compressible
fluid flow is described by:
2 khr
r
r = re

(a) local flux equation (DArcys law)

p
qe = q D
(b) relation between
density and
rD r = mass
r
De
pressure (state Dequation)

q
dT
q = kk dp
dr
A=
dr
A

p
q B
= e
r r = re 2 khre

p D
2
q
q
=

r
1
e
k
dp
rD
pqd == Ei D
t
2
4

dr D
A

rD = rDe

d2 = c dp

r
1 rD2 p D (1, t D ) = ln rDe 2
p dD =
Ei

m
42 t D
2
2
4t D
(c) law of mass conservation
exp( m t D )J 0 ( m rDe )
p D (1, t D ) = ln rDe 2 2 2
J 20 (ism rnot
[J1 (m )media
m =1
De )]diffusional in nature the
Although compressible fluid flow
inm porous
2
1 of the importance
0.2194
rD(r )Because
governing equations have the same mathematical pform.
Ei(1) =
q =B0.11
D Di =
2or numerical
p wsolutions
= p2i s
of the diffusivity equation in transport phenomena,4analytical
ln
tD
2 kh
exist for almost every conceivable geometry and boundary condition.
q B
r
pw = pi s
ln e
r
rw
Radius
of Influence
2 kh
24kt
khp
rpDi (r= ) = i 1 =Ei(1)4 t D= =0.2194
p D = c=t r0w2 .11
D Di
rw 2
2887.2q s B
2 khp
0.0002637kt
tD =
pD =
887.2q s B
c t rw2
r
4 kt x +
4 kt
riDi= =4t i = = 4 t DEi(x)
= = ln
c t rw2
c t
10
10
5x10 t =10rw
Ei(x) = ln x + a 0 + a1x + a 2 x 2 + a 3x 3 + a 4 x 4 + a 5 x 5 + (x
1 . x4 +
4 kt Ei(x) = xe x x 4 +
4
3
2
.
r
t

=
=
4
1 x + a1x + a 2 x + a 3x +i a 4
+ ( x) c t
Ei(x) =
xe x x 4 + b1x 3 + b 2 x 2 + b 3x + b 4
2

Pressure
Disturbance
Front

Figure 17

q
dT
= k
dr
A

100

rD

200

pD = 01
.

q
dT
= k
dr
A

The velocity with which the pressure disturbance moves out through the reservoir
is determined by the system hydraulic diffusivity, = k/(ct). The leading
edge
k dp
q
= is say
of the pressure front, defined loosely as the location where the pressure
dr
A
k the
dp initial value, is shown in Figure
q from
Fig 2.2.8
1% different
17. The dimensionless
=
pressure A
drop at a distance,
rD , from the wellbore and at time, tD , is given by
dr
the exponential integral solution:

pd

1 rD2
=
Ei

2 4t D

If the argument
of the Ei function is arbitrarily set to unity, i.e.
2

rD
4t D

pd

1 rD2
=
Ei

2 4t D

rD2
= 1,
4t D
39

p D (rDi ) =

Ei(1)

q
A
q
q
A
A
pd

k dp
dr

k dp
k dp
dr
dr 2
1 rD
Ei

12 4rtD22D
1 Ei rD
2 Ei 4 t D
2 4t D

=
=
=
=

pd =
pd =

rD2
4rtD2D
the value of
rD2 pD is given by:
4t D
4t D
1
0.2194
p D (rDi ) =
Ei(1) =
= 0.11
21
2
0.2194
p D (rDi ) = 1 Ei(1) = 0.2194 = 0.11
p D (rthat
2 Ei(1)
2 = 0.11 pressure drop is less than 0.1 at
This implies
at any
time, tD=, the dimensionless
Di ) =
2
2
a distance rDi fromrthe wellbore where: 4 kt
rDi = i = 4 t D =
rrwi
4cktt rw2
(83)
rDi = ri = 4 t D =
4 kt
rDi = rw = 4 t D =
c t rw22
rw
c t rw
kt
4
Thus the rdepth
in radial geometry is given by:
=
4oftpenetration
i =

4 ktc t
ri = 4t = 4 kt
ri = 4t = c t
(84)
c t
Although this definition of depth of investigation or radius of influence is borrowed
from transient heat conduction, where it is termed depth of penetration, the concept
is extremely useful in well test analysis and is a measure of the extent of the reservoir
which has been influenced by the pressure disturbance. Equation (84) may also be
written in the alternative dimensionless form:

t Di =

tD
kt
=
= 0.25
2
rDi c t ri2

(85)

The definition of the radius of investigation is somewhat arbitrary since the pressure
.00105
4 asymptotic
0.0002637toktpi and0no
profile is in fact
sharpktfront exists. kt
Hence the value of
=
= 0.032
ri =
the constant in (85), for
example,
depends
on
the
level
of
deviation
c t
c t
c t from pi which
is chosen to be significant. The value of 0.25 has been accepted as defining the
reservoir volume which has contributed to the dynamic pressure response measured
at the well-bore.
Taking
constant
as 0.1,ras suggested previously, would seriously
( p( r, tt)
))2
p wf (kt
tthe
kh
.25=anylnreal influence on pressure at the well-bore.
t Di =theD2 region
=
= 0had
overestimate
which
2
c t ri
rw
rDi q s B
In SPE field units
equation
(84) becomes:

1 kt 4 t D
p i p wf ( t ))
r
4 0.(0002637
kt2 kh 0.00105
=
ln = 0.032
= ln kt
rDd = ln d
=
rpi D=(1, t D ) =

rw
c t q s B
c2t
c t
(86)
In practical terms,
since the porosity,
, and the compressibility, ct , do not vary
)dynamic
))pressure
4pwft ( t =
2 lnkhrd response
r1, tln
r is largely determined by the reservoir
i(.pe(.the
very much
2
= ln
2 qrwB
r
w
oil viscosity,
permeability, k , and
. rwThe implication of this statement is that,
s the
if the response to a flow-rate change is measured and the oil viscosity is known, it
should be possible to1infer the value of the reservoir permeability. This is one of
2=khtesting.
1 44tt D
r
rd t =) = of( ptransient
4(tt))well
0.7493
i p wf
the main
pobjectives
(1,
=
ln
= ln r = ln d
D

q s B

Dd

rw

The concept of depth of investigation is particularly useful in estimating how far

from a well information is being obtained at a particular time in a transient well test.

( t ))r2 khin 1estimating

4 ktthe duration
1 is of
4(pti pimportance
In addition,
) = 2vital
= ln
+ 2S of a proposed well
= wf ln d
ip.eD.(itt Dln
2
2 a well.
c t rw
qdrainage
2 therentire

test to evaluate
s B rw area of
w

40

1 2 kh
2kh

4t = 0.7493
= 4t
J t =rd =
1 4 kt

+ S
B ln d + S
B ln
2
2 c r

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

Depth of Investigation
CLASSICAL FORMULA DOES NOT TAKE ACCOUNT
OF GAUGE RESOLUTION
q

OBSERVATION

ACTIVE
WELL

WELL

MINIMUM OBSERVABLE Dp
DEPENDS ON GAUGE RESOLUTION
1 r2
p D = Ei Dt
2 4D

rD

pi
p wo

pD =

OBS
WELL
PRESSURE

Ei

"ARBITRARY"
CRITERION

SOLUTION

Figure 18
Depth of investigation

p 2 kh
= 01
.
q

INTERFERENCE TEST

Fig 2.2.9
The nature of the transient pressure response is further illuminated by considering
the behaviour of a well to well interference test illustrated in Figure 18a where
the pressure is measured in an inactive observation well some distance, r, from
the flowing well. The pressure at the observation well, again modelled by the
exponential integral solution, is plotted as a function of time in Figure 18b. Since
sonic phenomena are disregarded in the diffusivity equation the analytical solution
predicts that the pressure at the observation well starts to change immediately the
active well is set in flow. In reality, of course, pressure disturbances cannot exceed
the speed of sound in the porous medium. However the pressure propagation process
essentially follows a diffusional model and after some time the dimensionless
pressure change at the observation well, pD , exceeds the arbitrary value of 0.1;
at this point the depth of investigation is deemed to have reached the observation
well. It is readily apparent from this physical situation that the actual moment at
which a pressure change at the observation well becomes detectable is related
to the resolution of the pressure transducer; once the pressure deviation from
pi becomes larger than the gauge resolution, p, it is resolvable. In Chapter 4
an alternative definition of depth of investigation, based on pressure transducer
resolution, will be given.

A related concept to depth of investigation is that of radius of drainage which is

illustrated in Figure 19 where the dimensionless pressure profile at some time, tD, is
plotted versus ln rD . Over a large range of rD the pressure profile exhibits a straight
line on this plot indicating that quasi-steady-state conditions exist in the vicinity of the
wellbore i.e. the pressure distribution follows the steady-state model:

41

rD d

rD i

0
1

pD

Steady-State
Pressure Profile
for Same pD(1,t D)

I.-A. Transient
Pressure Profile
5
at t D = 10

4
5
Radius
tD
kt
t Di =of 2 =
= 0.25
rDi 6c t ri2
Drainage

rD i = classical depth
of investigation

tD
kt
=
= 0.25 2
2
5
7
6
4
3
DrDi
c0t ri2 1
lnktrD
4 0.0002637kt
0.00105
kt
=
= 0.032
ri =
c t
c t
c t
4 0.0002637kt
0.00105kt
kt
Fig 2.2.10
=
= 0.032
ri =
c t
c t
c t
( p( r, t ) p wf ( t ))2 kh
r
= ln
(87)
q s B
rw
( p( r, t ) p wf ( t ))2 kh
r
= ln
The radius of drainage
q s B is defined throughrwthe equivalent annulus having the same
( p i p wf (drop
1 case;
4t
t ))2
r
overall steady-state
askh
the dynamic
p D (1, t D ) =pressure
=
ln D thus:
= ln rDd = ln d
2

q s B
rw
( p i p wf ( t ))2 kh
1 4t D
rd
p D (1, t D ) =
=
ln
= ln rDd = ln
2

q s B
rw
1 4t
rd
i.e. ln 2 = ln
2 rw
rw
1 4t
r
i.e. ln 2 = ln d
2 rw
rw
1
rd =
4t = 0.7493 4t

1
(88)
rd =
4t = 0.7493 4t

( p i p wf ( t ))2 kh 1
4 kt
= ln
+ 2drainage,
p D ( t D ) = to
S
which corresponds
rd = 0.75ri . Thus
the radius2 of
rd, is somewhat
2 c t rw
q s B

smaller than the classical

depth
investigation,
.

i
( p p wf
( t ))2ofkh
1
4rkt
= ln
+ 2S
pD (t D ) = i
2
2 c tto

q s Bdrainage
rw finding
the intercept, r , of
This definition of radius2of
corresponds
Dd
2 kh
kh
=
J t =line portion of the dynamic pressure
the straight
profile shown in Figure 19. The
1 that the

vicinity
the wellbore conform
4 kt
rd
important fact emerges
inthe
+conditions
S
B
B ln
2 kh flow
2lnkh + Sof

2
c t rwthat the
2 implying
=local flow-rate,
rw qr , is indistinguishable
Jt =
to quasi-steady-state
1

rd of radii;

4 kt
from the fixed Bsand-face
this implies that
S quiteBarange
ln rate, 2q,+over
ln + S
2 cof
rw nearwellbore region. This
there is negligible expansion
the
t rwfluidoccurring in
1in the understanding of multiphase flow, for example, and the
observation
is
crucial
p wD =
[ ln t D + 0.80908]
2
behaviour of radial composite
systems.
1
p wD =
[ ln t D + 0.80908]
2
2t
3
42
p wD = 2D + ln rDe
rDe
4
2t
3
t Di =
r

Figure 19

( p( r, t ) p wf ( t ))2 kh
( p( r, t ) p wf ( t ))2 kh = ln
q s B
= ln
q s B
Pressure Transient
Analysis

r
r
rw
rIn
w

Drawdown And Buildup

( p p wf ( t ))2 kh
1 4t D
rd
p D (1, t D ) = ( p ii p wf
( t ))2 kh = 1 ln 4 t D = ln rDd = ln rd
p D (1, t D ) =
= 2 ln
= ln rDd = ln rw
q B
2

q ss B
rw
t
kt
t Di =1 D2 4=t
= 0r .25
2
d
rDi 4of2drainage
.e.radius
1 ln
tc=t ri lnis rclosely
The idea iof
related to the concept of transient productivity
i.e. 2 ln rw2 = ln rwd
index denoted
2 Jt and
rw defined byrwthe equation:

0002637
kt
qs = Jt4(pi -0p.wf
(t))

0.00105kt
kt
(89)
=
= 0.032
r =
1
1 c t 4t = 0.7493

i rd =
4
t
c t t
c t
t =the0.7493
rthis
4with
d =definition
Comparing
transient4flow
expression including a skin

effect:

( p( r, t ) p wf ( t ))2 kh
r
ln1

(( pp i
))22
4 kt
=
pp wf (( tt ))
kh
kh = 1 rwln 4 kt 2 + 2S
=q s Bi wf
p D (( tt D )) =
2
=
+
ln
p
S

D D
2
cc t rrw2
q sB
B
2
q

s
t w

(90)

Jt is given by:

( p p ( t ))2 kh
1 4t D
r
p D (1, t D ) = i 2 wfkh
=
ln 2 kh= ln rDd = ln d
2kh
2 qkh
rw
= 2
=
s B
=
JJ tt =
11

4
r
kt
(91)
ln rdd + S
B
ln
ln
B
ln 4 kt + S
B
B
2 c t rw22 + S
rw + S
t2 c t rrw

rw

1 4
i.e. ln 2 = ln d
2 rwproductivityrw index is just another way of expressing the p
Thus the transient
1demonstrate that the transient PI, as defined above, decreasesD
function pand serves
to1
=
[ ln
ln tt D +
+ 0.80908]
0.80908]
p wD =
D
2 [ disturbance
with time wD
as the pressure
propagates out into the reservoir. Note that
2
1
the concept
transient
PI
is
very
useful
when4the

rof
=
4
t
=
0.7493
t pressure drop or drawdown is
d

held approximately constant

and the rate declines as a consequence of the sandface
2 t DD
3
pressure pgradient
ln rrDe
= 2 t2decreasing
+ ln
as 3the disturbance moves deeper into the system. Note
p wD
+
wD =
De
2
that Jt is definedrrDe
in terms of the
4 initial pressure, pi , since the notion of average
4
De
1
4 kt system.
p wf ( t ))2inan
khinfinite-acting
pressure really has( p
noi meaning
= ln
+ 2S
pD (t D ) =
2 c t rw2
q s B

2.2.13 The Dynamics of Reservoir Pressure Response

2 t D response for
3 the same reservoir (rDe = 1000) is
The theoretical well-bore pressure
ln
=
+
p D (1, t D ) = p wfD
r

+2Skh
De
2
kh r 20 where the
shown in more detail in2 Figure
dimensionless
pressure drop, pwD
De
= 4
Jt =
, is plotted against
dimensionless
time,
t
,
on
both
logarithmic
and linear
1

rd

4 kt
D
ln
+
+
S
B
S

ln
scales. DuringB
the
infinite-acting
period
when
the
logarithmic
approximation

2
2 cthe
rw

pressure
drop (for the case of
t rw dimensionless
to the Ei function qisBvalid

re 3
2 kt
s
p wfis(given
t ) = p iby:
+ ln
+S
zero skin)
2 kh c t re2
rw 4
1
(59)
p wD =
[ ln t D + 0.80908]
2
and this is clearly shown as a straight
p _ p line on the semi-log plot (Figure 20a) Equation
(1, t Dt ) >= 25i andwft < 0.3 as indicated. For t between 10 and
p wfD = p Dwhen
(59) is applicable
D
De
D
q3ss Bsolution
2t D
25 the proper
integral
should be used and for tD < 10 the line
ln
p wD =exponential
+
r

De
2
rDe
24kh 20a) must be replaced by one based on a finite
source solution (dotted
line on Figure
well-bore radius shown in Figure 21. Note that it is not valid to extrapolate the
1 semi-log plot back to early times.
linear portion
p =of the
[lnt + 0.80908 + 2S]

p wfD
wfD =

[
2
2

lnt DD + 0.80908 + 2S]

p D (1, t D ) = p wfD =

p wf ( t ) = p i

2t D
3
+ ln rDe
+S
2
rDe
4

q s B 2 kt
r
3
+ ln e + S

2
2 kh c t re
rw 4

p wfD = p D (1, t D ) =

p i _ p wf

43

t Di =

tD
kt
=
= 0.25
2
rDi c t ri2

ri =

4 0.0002637kt
=
c t

0.00105kt
kt
= 0.032
c t
c t

Pressure Drawdown at Wellbore

( p( r, t ) p wf (0t ))2 kh
q s B

r
rw

= ln

p wD(p4

p D (1, t D ) =

tD = 10

25
p wf ( t ))2t =kh
q s B

i.e.

1 4t
ln
2 rw2

8
10

1 4t D
ln
2

0.3 = ln
= tDe
ln=rDd

ln tD

10

1
410
t = 0.7493
2
3 4 t
4
10
10
10
1
tD

rd =

rd
rw

rd
rw

= ln
0

rDe = 1000

12

14

10

10

pD (t D ) =

( p i 1 p wf ( t ))2 kh 1 q 4 kt PRODUCTION
= ln
+ 2S
2
2 c t rw
q s B

p wD

2 kh
Jt =
1

4 kt
+ S
B ln
4
2
2 c t rw

p wD

2 x 10

SHUT-IN
0

tD

2 kh
r

B ln d + S
rw

4 x 10

1
[ ln t D + 0.80908]tD
2

6 x 10

8 x 10

Figure 20
Pressure Drawdown at wellbore

10 x 10

For values of tDe greater than 0.3 the semi-steady-state solution:

Figure 2.2.11

p wD =

2t D
3
+ ln rDe
2
rDe
4

(71)

is applicable and the well-bore pressure declines more rapidly than the prediction
of the infinite-acting model. Hence the theoretical pressure response falls
below the extrapolation of the linear portion of the semi-log plot as indicated
2t
3
on p
Figure
(1, 20.
t ) = p = D + ln r
+S
D

p wf ( t ) = p i

wfD

44

De

q s B 2 kt
r
3
+ ln e + S

2
2 kh c t re
rw 4

p wfD = p D (1, t D ) =

p wfD =

2
rDe

p i _ p wf
q s B
2 kh

1
[lnt D + 0.80908 + 2S]
2

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

10

1
pD

r D= 1 . 0

Exponential Integral
Solution

10 -2
10 -2

Figure 21

20

2.0

1.

10 -1

10 -1

10

10 2

10 3

t D /r D2

Figure 20 shows a direct plot of well-bore drawdown versus time on a dimensionless

basis and demonstrates the very rapid initial rate of change of pressure when
the well is put on production.
Figure 6 delineates the three flow regimes and illustrates that in the SSS regimethe plot
of well-bore pressure versus time is linear.

45

( p p s( t ))2 kh
1 4t D
rwd
=
ln
p D (1, t D ) = ( p ii p wf
=
ln
=
ln
r
(
))
2

1
4
t
kh
t
r
Dd
qwfs B
p D (1, t D ) =
= 2 ln D = ln rDd = ln rwd
2

q s Br
rw
1 4t
i.e. ln 2 = ln d
rwt
rrw
12 4
i.e. 1 ln 42t = ln rdd
i.e. 2 ln rw2 = ln rw
2 rw
r
1 SSS wDepletion
rd =
4t = 0.7493 4t
1
rd = 1
4t = 0.7493 4t
4t = 0.7493 4t
rd =
qs

( p i p wf ( t ))2 kh Well
1 in Centre
4 kt of a
= ln
+ 2S
pD (t D ) =
2
Closed Circular Reservoir
2

q
B
c
r

s
t
w
( p p ( t ))2 kh 1
4 kt
= 1 ln 4 kt 2 + 2S
p D ( t D ) = ( p ii p wf
pe
wf ( t ))2 kh
= 2 ln c t rw2 + 2S
pD (t D ) =
q s B
p2 c t rw
q B

2 kh
2 s kh
=
Jt =
1 2 kh

2 rkh

4 kt
d
J t = B ln2 kh 2 + S = B 2lnkh+ S
c t rw
Jt =
12
=
rrw

4 kt
B ln rdd + S
B 1 ln 4 kt 2 + S
B ln rw + S
B 2 ln c t rw2 + S
Stabilised
2 c t rw

rw

Pressure
1
Distribution
p wD =
[ ln t D + 0.80908]
pw f
12
p wD = 1 [ ln t D + 0.80908]
p wD = 2 [ ln t D r+ 0.80908]
re
w
2
2t
3
p = 2D= +ln
rDe
Po r e VowDl u m e
h
A
43
t
2rDe
p wD = 2 t2DD + ln rDe 3
p wD = rDe
+ ln rDe 4
2
Fig 2.2.13
rDe
4 the semi-steady-state flow equation
The addition of the
skin effect to
results in:

2t
3
p D (1, t D ) = p wfD = 2D + ln rDe
+S
(92)
43
tD
2rDe
p D (1, t D ) = p wfD = 2 t2D + ln rDe 3 + S
+ ln rDe 4 + S
p D (1, t D ) = p wfD = rDe
2
and the corresponding
equation
in actual 4variables and parameters becomes
rDe
for semi-steady-stateqflow:
B 2 kt
r
3
p wf ( t ) = p i s
+ ln e + S

2
43
2qBkh
r
2cktr
p wf ( t ) = p i q ss B 2 ktt e2 + ln rwee 3 + S
p wf ( t ) = p i 2 kh c t re2 + ln rw 4 + S
(93)
2 kh c t re
rw 4
where

p _p
p wfD = p D (1, t D ) = i wf
p _p
p wfD = p D (1, t D ) = pqii _s Bpwf
wf
p wfD = p D (1, t D ) = 2qBkh
s
q s B
2 kh
2 kh
1
lnt D + 0.in80908
+ 2S] during the SSS period is illustrated
p wfD =distribution
[
The pressure
the
reservoir
12
1 lnt the+ 0stabilised
.80908 +shape
2S of the pressure profiles at successive
in Figurep wfD
22 =where
p wfD = 2 [[lnt DD + 0.80908 + 2S]]
times is apparent.
2
2.3 PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TESTING
2.3.1 Introduction

The analytical solution to the diffusivity equation for a uniform pressure initial
condition and a constant flow-rate inner boundary condition has led to an expression
for the dynamic well-bore pressure behaviour of a model reservoir having
homogeneous formation permeability and instantaneous skin effect. The objective
of a well test is to measure the dynamic response of an actual reservoir under these
same conditions and determine unknown reservoir parameters by inference. The
two most important such parameters are the permeability thickness product, kh , and
the skin factor, S. The productivity of a well can only be predicted if these quantities
46

Figure 22
SSS Depletion

( p i p wf ( t ))2 kh
1 4t D
r
=
ln
= ln rDd = ln d
2

rw
s B
TransientqAnalysis
In Drawdown
And Buildup

p D (1, t D ) =

Pressure

i.e.

1 4t
ln
2 rw2

rd
rw

= ln

are known. The problem

1 of well testing is essentially one of parameter estimation

r
=
4t =are0.7493
4t the theoretical solution or ideal
in which the dunknown properties
adjusted until

model matches the measured system behaviour. In linear systems this can often be
achieved directly without a search process.

( p i ptransient
kh 1at an oil4well
kt is the initial production period
wf ( t ))2 event
Often thepfirst
significant
= ln
+ 2S
D (t D ) =
2 formation
c t rw2face. Provided

that results in a pressure qdrawdown

at the
the production
s B
rate can be controlled at a constant value, the physical situation corresponds to the
model conditions and thus it seems logical to investigate what can be learned about
2 khIn this section constant-rate
2 kh
the well and
data.
=
J t =the reservoir from pressure drawdown
1the infinite-acting
and semi-steady-state
r
flow regimes will be
4 kt
drawdown testing in
+ S
B ln d + S
B ln
2
considered. Although
productive period
c t rwtesting
2drawdown
is not limited
rtow the initial

of a well, that may be the ideal time to obtain drawdown data.

Figure 23 schematically
1 illustrates the production and pressure history during a
p
=
[ ln t D + 0.80908]
wD
drawdown test. Ideally
2 the well is shut-in until it reaches static reservoir pressure
before the test. This requirement is met in new reservoirs; it is less often met
in old reservoirs. The drawdown test is run by producing the well at a constant
flow-rate while 2continuously
recording
bottom-hole pressure. While most reservoir
t
3
ln rDe
p wD obtained
= 2D + from
information
a
drawdown
test can also be obtained from a pressure
rDe
4
build-up test, there is an economic advantage to drawdown testing since the well is
produced during the test. The main technical advantage of drawdown testing is the
possibility of estimating reservoir volume. The major disadvantage is the difficulty
Pressure
Drawdown
Testing
of maintaining a constant
production
rate and3 the
fact that the skin factor, S, may
2t D
, t Dwell
) = pcleaning
ln
=
+
p D (to
r
1the

+
S
change due
up.
wfD
De
2

rDe

RATE
q

p wf ( t ) = p i
Figure 23
Pressure Drawdown
Testing

q s B 2 kt
rePRODUCING
3
ln
+
+ S

2
2 kh c t re
rw 4

S H U T- I N

TIME, t
p _ p0
p wfD = p D (1, t D ) = i wf
2.3.2 Pressure Drawdown Analysis
in Infinite-Acting Reservoirs
q s B

The bottom-hole
at an active well producing at a constant rate in an
p ws pressure
=pi
2 kh
infinite-acting reservoir is given by equation (94):
BOTTOM
1
lnt D
pHOLE
wfD =
PRESSURE
2

+ 0.80908 + 2S]

(94)

Pw factual variables:
or in terms of

i.e.

0
TIME, t

q B
1
kt
p
=p s

(95)

+
0.80908
+
2S
ln
wf
i 2 kh
2
c rww22
Deviation
from
straight
line

caused by damage and

p t=1

wellbore storage effects

BOTTOM

q B

1
k slope, m= - qs B
ss
ppHOLE
pp
=

ln
ln
t
+
+
0.80908
+
2S
k
h
4

ln
ln
t
+
+
0.80908
+
2S

2
wf
i
wf
i 22

22
PRESSURE
kh
cctt rrww2
kh

(96)

Pwf

qq B
ssB0

=
m

m = 4 kh
4 kh

ln t

47

Fig
2.3.1

Pressure Drawdown Testing

Fig
if the reservoir is at pi initially; here t is the time from the start of production.
2.3.1
Theoretically a plot of measured flowing bottom-hole pressure versus the natural
logarithm of flowing time (commonly called the semilog plot) should be a straight line
RATE
of slope m and intercept
pt=1 - when lnt = PRODUCING
0, t = 1. Hence the analysis of drawdown
q
data consists of making a plot of pwf against lnt giving:

pwf = m lnt + pSt=1H U T- I N

(97)

TIME, t (97) the slope is given by:

Such a graph is shown in Figure 24;0from equation
p ws = p

BOTTOM
HOLE
PRESSURE
Pw f
0

p t=1

TIME, t

Deviation from straight line

caused by damage and
wellbore storage effects

BOTTOM

q B

B
slope, m= - s

qq sB
1
kt
1
kt
k2S
h
4
pp =
= pp
s
0.80908 ++ 2S
ln
ln

++ 0.80908
PRESSURE
wf
22
wf
ii 22
kh

kh
2
c
r
2 c trww

Pwf
HOLE

0
q B
k

1 lnt + ln
p =p s
ln t k 22 ++ 0.80908
0.80908 ++ 2S
2S

ln
ln
t
+

wf
i 2 kh
ccttrrww

q CBORRESPONDS
1
kt
NOTE
:
ln
t
=
0
TO
t
=
1
p
=p s
Figure 24
wf
i 2 kh 2 ln c r 2 + 0.80908 + 2S
Fig 2.3.2

tw
q B
m = s
4 kh
(98)
q B

1
k
s
p
= pcorresponding
and the intercept
equal
0 by:
t +to ln
+ 0.80908 + 2S
2
wf
i 2 kh to2lntln
c t rw

p t =1 = pi + m ln
+ 0.80908
80908 ++ 22SS
2
(99)
c ttrww2

q B
m = s the straight line portion of the semilog plot, m , has been
Once the slope 4of
kh
determined the permeability thickness product, kh , can be calculated from equation
k the oil production rate, q , has been measured
1 p t =1 ofp icourse, that
(98). This
S =presumes,
0.80908

ln
s
2 0.80908
c rww2volume
m oil formation

the

in the test and2 that

factor,
B,
and
viscosity,
, are known
t

k
from laboratory
studies.
If
the
formation
thickness
(net
pay),
h
,
is
known from
+
p t =1 = pPVT
m
+
0
.
80908
+
2
S
ln
i
c r 2

t w

log evaluation the formation

permeability,
k , can beobtained. Equation (99) may be
rearranged as an explicit
expression
factor, i.e.
skin

887.217q
Bfor the
0.0002637kt
0.0002637kt
s
p =p

ln
+
0.80908
+
2S
ln
+
0.80908
+
2S
22
wf i
2
kh.2
c
r

c
r

w
w
k
1 p pi
tt

0.80908
S = t =1
ln

(100)
c rw2
2 m

70.6q B
kk
s
pwf = p i
lnt ++ ln

7.43173
+
2S

ln
7.43173
+
2S

kh

cct rrw2w2
887.217q
B 0.0002637kt

t
s
p
=p

ln
+
0.80908
+
2S
48
wf
i
2 kh.2
c rw2

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

Hence if the initial reservoir pressure, pi , the porosity, , the total compressibility,
ct, and the well-bore radius, rw , are known the skin factor can be calculated
from the slope and intercept of the plot using equation (100). Note that both
the numerator and the denominator in the first term in the brackets in equation
(100) are intrinsically negative.
It is apparent from Figure 24 that the data points corresponding to early times do not
coincide with the fitted linear portion of the semilog plot. Indeed theory suggests
early points should lie below the straight line whereas the initial measured data
falls considerably above it. This deviation from ideal behaviour is due to well-bore
storage and damage effects. The theoretical model envisages a step change in the
oil flow-rate at the well-face at time t=0. However in practice it is impossible to
achieve such an instantaneous change and the well-face flow changes from zero to
the final value over a finite time interval. Even if the surface oil rate could be rapidly
set at the desired constant value the compressibility of the large amount of fluid in
the well-bore will sustain the initial production and the actual well-face flow will
lag significantly behind the surface flow. This phenomenon is known as well-bore
storage and will be treated in detail in the next chapter.

q B

kt

p
= p qssBstorage
ln kt 2 +by0.80908
1 is
+ of
2S
The influence
the presence
p wf =ofpwell-bore
i
2 lncompounded
0.80908
+ 2Sa skin effect.
kh pressure
c decline
rw2 + by
wfthe bottom-hole
i 2
In principle
should
an
amount
p
2 kh
2 ct rw
s
immediately
t

the well is put on production. However, because of the lag in the build-up of
well-face flow the skin pressure drop does not reach its full value instantaneously.
q capacity
B

In fact there is also some

associated
with thekskin zone itself and this further
p
= p qssB 11 lnt + ln
k 2 + 0.80908 + 2S
p
p
=
wf
i
contributes to a delay
inthe
ps
. Thus
early
2 lnt +of ln
+ deviation
0.80908of+the2S
kh establishment
c t rw2 the
wf
i 2

2 kh model
2 is a result
t rw combination of well-bore

data points from the idealised

of cthe
storage and skin effects. Before determining the slope and the intercept of the fitted
straight line it isq essential
to exclude all points affected by these phenomena. A
B

q
B
s
m = s doing this based on a log-log plot will be given in Chapter 3 on
rational method
m = 4for
kh that the intercept, p =1 , must be determined by extrapolation
well-bore storage.
4 Note
kh
t
of the linear trend on the semilog graph. Once the data points influenced by well-bore
storage and damage have been eliminated from consideration, the most convenient
bestkslope and intercept is to use a least-squares linear
way of determining the
p t =1 = p i + m ln k 2 + 0.80908 + 2S
p t =routine.
m ln citt rwis
+ 0.80908 + 2S
regression
1 = p i + However
c r 2 essential that the plotted data be first examined
t
w

visually for anomalous points.

The preceding equations can be used with either of the sets of consistent units.
k
1 p =1 p i
However,S within
is still apreference for using field units
p i industry,
= 1 p ttthe
ln k there
0.80908
=1 oil
2 0.80908

ln
S
=

c rw2 transformedto accommodate this. The field

2
m
and the working
are
easily
ct rw

2 equations
m

units version of equation (96) is: t

887.217q B
p
= p 887.217qssB
p wf = p i
2 kh.2
wf
i
2 kh.2
or on rearranging:

70.6q B
p
= p 70.6qssB
p wf = p i
kh
wf
i
kh

70.6 q B
m = 70.6 qssB
m =
kh
kh

0.0002637kt

ln 0.0002637kt

+
0.80908
+
2S
ln
+ 0.80908 + 2S
c rw22
ct rw

(101)

k
k 2 7.43173 + 2S
lnt + ln
c r 7.43173 + 2S
lnt + ln
ct rww2

(102)
49

1 qpstt ==B11 p ii ln k 0.80908

S
pst =1 p i
m==
k 22
12
=
m
m
S = qB 44
ln c t rww2 k 0.80908
kh

kh

1
c rw
m
p = p 2s

+ 0.80908
+ 2S
2
wf
i 2 kh 2 lnt + lnt
cr

887.217q

kk sB

t w

0.0002637kt
+ 0.80908 + 2S
+ 0.80908 + 2S

w
t

++ 22SS 2
1 ==ppi + m ln
q pBwf
ln 0.0002637kt
t=
+00..80908
80908
ln c r 22sB+
t =1 = p i i+ m887.217q
kh.2
c rww2
ctt rwws

m = sp
= p 2

ln
t

wf
i
4 kh
2 kh.2
c r 2

1 p ppi
B kk 0.80908k
1 p tt =k=11 70.6q
i ln
S
=
s
ln +c2ln
=
p t =1 = p i S
m 2ln
+ 0.80908
S22t +0.80908
ln 2
p+wf
= punits,
2 70.6q B
i m
2
Hence,
in
field
a plot
versus lnt
k (t:hr)
pcwft rrw(psi)
khs of
t rw
p 2=
p cm
tlnwt + ln c t rww2
i
slope, m , wf
and intercept,
pt=1
where:
kh
c rw

k B
1 p p i 70.6 q887.217q
B
ssB ln 0.0002637kt
S = tp=1 =
pln 887.217q
0.80908
0.0002637kt
s
2
p
p
=
m
=
2
rw2
2 wf
m
ii qc tB
ln

kh.2

wf 70.6

khs 2 kh.2
cct rrww2

m =
t
kh

7.43173 + 2S
gives a straight line
of
7.43173 + 2S

++ 0.80908
+
2S
0.80908 + 2S
(103)

and

887.217q B 0.0002637kt
s70.6qlnB
p =p

+
0.80908
+
2S

k
c r2
kk
70.6qs B
wf
i
2ppi kh.2
p tt ==11 ==
s 2

m
+
7
43173
ln
.

w+ ln+ 2S
ln
t

7.43173
+
2S

p
=
t

2
ln
ln
t
+

7.43173
+
2S

ii
wf
2
kh
rw2
k
c

r
c

wf
i

t
w
(104)
p = p + m ln kh t w 7.43173 +
2Sct rw
t =1

c r 2
t w

70.6qfor
B
which on solving
factor, S,
k becomes:
s thelnskin
p =p

ln
t
+
7.43173
+
2S

70.6
q B
wf
i
k c rw2
70.6

p tt ==11 qsspB
1 kh
ii

m
=
t
+

ln
7.43173
S
m==
2

kh
p
1 p m
ck rww2
t 2 + 7.43173
S = 2 t =1 kh i ln
c rw

70.6 q 2B m
(105)
t
s
m =
kh 1 4 t

kk
DDln+is Sbased
The preceding
treatment
on7.the
usage
ln
p
m
SSthe natural logarithm, lnt , and

43173
++ 22of
=
p
wfD
t =1 =
i +

2
p wfD
p
m
=
+

7
43173
ln
.
=1
12i p 4tagainst
cctlnt
r2
advocatesp t plotting
graph paper; this approach is
S t rww on ordinary linear
ln wf D +
wfD =
more amenable
using least-squares
regression procedures. The natural
2 kanalysis

to

p t =1is= fundamental
p i + m ln
7.43173 + 2S
2the basic theory and the working equations are simpler if it is
log
cto
t rw

possible
2
.
3026
4 t DD k to plot p versus
t directly on semilog graph
retained. However,
itispalso

p
1
+k 0.86859
Swf
log
t
=
1
i

p
p
1
=
p
wfD

t =1
i ln
+

=
S
7.43173
wfD
2 +
approach
2m has
lnbeen
S=
paper and
this
much
used
in
7.43173
the past. Hence it is necessary to
2.3026
4t
D c r2
2

w
=
+
p
S
log
0
.
86859
m
2

c
r

wfD
w to the base
basis
ten
derive
of ttlog
on which logarithmic graph
p i 2 onkthe
p t =1equations
1 the

S
ln
7.43173
paper
is founded. The
dimensionless drawdown equation is:
2 m
c rw2

887.217q
B

2.3026
0.0002637 4kt
11 44tt D
s

log
+
0.86859
S
D
=
+
S
ln
p
p
wfD =
+S
p wf

wfD
2 khsB
2
c rww22 4kt(106)
22 iln 887.217q
2.3026
0.0002637
t
1 4 t D= p
log

+ 0.86859 S
2
p wfD = onp
lnconverting
wf + Si to log 2becomes:
which
kh
2
c
r

10
t w
22..3026
3026 log 44tt DD + 0.86859S
p wfD =
log + 0.86859S
=
p
wfD
2.3026
42t
(107)

S
p =
log 2 D + 0.86859

Changing to actual variables in field units this becomes:

wfD

887.217q
2.3026
887.217qsB
B

2.3026 log 0.0002637

0.0002637 4kt
4kt
p
p
=
s

887.217q
B

p wf = pi s
2

2.3026
0.0002637
4kt

log
2
22
kh
2
c
r

wf
i
p =p

log
+
0.86859
2c r 2
kh2
ct rww S
wf
i
2 kh
t

w
t

and the working equations in field units and log10 become:

162.6 q B
m = 162.6 qs B psi / log cycle
kh s
psi / log cycle
m=
kh
pt
pt

50

=p +m
i
= 1 = pi + m

= 1

S = 1.1513
S = 1.1513

k
log k 2 3.2275 + 0.86859 S
log c t rw2 3.2275 + 0.86859 S
c t rw

p t =1 p i

k
p m p log kc r 2 + 3.2275
i
t w + 3.2275
t =1
log

2
m
c

t rw

++ 0.86859
S
0.86859 S

(108)

(109)

(110)

m=

162.6 q B
s
psi / log cycle
kh

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

pt

=
+
p
m
log

+
3
2275
0
86859
S
.
.
= 1
2
i
c t rw

p pi

k
S = 1.1513 t =1
log
+ 3.2275
2
c t rw
m

(111)

Again in equation (111) pt=1 must be from the semilog straight line. If pressure
data measured at 1phour doq not
fall on that line, the line must be extrapolated
s B
rw ,the extrapolated
=
to 1 hourr =
and
value of pt=1 must be used in equation (111). This
r
2 khrw
procedure is necessary to avoid calculating
an incorrect skin by using a well-bore
storage influenced pressure.

q s ( t )B

= enough, the bottom-hole flowing pressure will eventually

r = rw , test is long
If the drawdown
2 khrwline and make the transition from infinite-acting
r

deviate from the semilog straight

to semi-steady-state behaviour.
q B

i j
Althoughap iproperly
run drawdown
p D ( t D , rDj )test yields considerable information about the
,j =
khbe hard to control since it is a flowing test. If a constant rate
reservoir the test 2may
cannot be maintained within a reasonable tolerance the analysis technique presented
in this section cannot
be used. Variable rate procedures are considered in Chapter 6.
p3 = problem
(q1B1isp Dthat
( t D ,ofrDmeasuring
Another
practical
D ( t D , rD 2 )) the small pressure drops
1 ) + q 2 B2 paccurately
kh
encountered, at 2the
fairly
high
absolute
pressures
involved.
162.6 q B

m=

kh n

psi / log cycle

( t, r ) =
q jBjpD (t D , rDj )
2.4 THEpPRINCIPLE
2 kh OF SUPERPOSITION
j =1

2.4.1 Introduction
k

=
+
p
p
m
log
+ 0.86859
3.2275
S in section 2 were all
t = 1 solutions
2
The analytical
for
the
diffusivity
equation
i n developed
c
r

162.6

B
p = case
q jB j well
qt jw1 operating
B j 1 )( p wDat( taconstant
t j 1 )D + rate
S)} from time zero
for the idealised
of q{(
assingle
psi usually
/ log cycle
= 2real
khreservoir
j =1
onward. m
Since
systems
have
several
wells
operating
at varying
kh
rates, a more general approach is needed to study problems associated with transient
p t =1because
is linear, variable-rate,
k
p i the diffusivity
well testing.
equation
S = 1Fortunately,
.1513
log
+ 3.2275
B

2
r
multiple well
be handled
byc applying
the principle of superposition.
p = problems
{q1 can
( pm
wD ( t D ) + S) + ( qt 2w q 1 )( p wD (t D t1D ) + S)}

2 kh
k
The constant
log condition takes the form:
= pinner
+ mboundary
p rate
2 3.2275 + 0.86859 S
i
c t rw

q s B
p
r = rw ,
=
r
2 khrw
p t =1 p i

k
in whichSthe
qs , remains
throughout the whole
1513production
.2275
= 1.well
log
+ 3unchanged
m rate,
2
rw conditions this will not normally be
ctest
production history.pExcept
special
t
qunder
t
B

(
)

s
= rates
= rflowing
w,
the case rand
well
may change because of demand variation or altered
2 khr
r
w
t = 1

reservoir conditions. Some well tests, by their very nature, involve variable rate and
q sB
pe.g. short
stem tests or offshore exploratory well tests. In
production
drill
r =histories,
rw ,
=
the general case qthe
rwell production
2 khrw rate is time dependent and should be written
i B j
p
p

=
) takes the form:
q(t). The inner
i , j boundary condition
D ( t D , rDjnow

2 kh
q ( t )B
p
= s
r = rw ,
r
2 khr
p3 =
(q1B1p D ( t D ,wrD1 ) + q 2 B2 p D ( t D , rD 2 ))
2 kh

(112)

and the dynamic pressure behaviour of the reservoir under such a time dependent
boundary condition
q i Bis
j obviously much more complex than in the simple constant
rate case.p i , j = 2 kh pn D ( t D , rDj )

p( t, r ) =
p3 =

2 kh

j =1

q jB j p D ( t D , rDj )

(q1B1p D ( t D , rD1 ) + q 2 B2 p D ( t D , rD 2 ))
2kh n

51

The superposition principle states that adding solutions to a linear differential

equation results in a new solution to that differential equation, but for different
boundary conditions. Superposition can be applied to include more than one well,
to change rates and to impose physical boundaries. Superposition is easily applied
to infinite systems but for bounded systems it must be used with more care - not
because the principle is different but because the basic solutions frequently do
not give the necessary information
for correct superposition.

2.4.2 Multiple-Well Situations

The simplest illustration of superposition is that of determining the pressure drop at

some point in a field in which two sinks are located. Consider the three well infinite
system shown in Figure 25. At time t = 0 well 1 starts producing at rate q1 and well
2 starts producing at rate q2. It is desired to determine the pressure at the shut-in
observation point, well 3. To do this the pressure change at well 3 caused by well 1 is
added to the pressure change at well 3 caused by well 2, i.e.

162.6 q B
s
psi / log cycle
kh
Well 1
q
162.6 q B r1
s
psi / log cycle
m=
Well
kh 3

p t = 1 = p + m log
2 3.2275 + 0.86859 S
i
c trr2w

k
Well 2

p t = 1 = p + m log

+
3
2275
0
86859
S
.
.
q
i
c rw2

t
p t =1 p i

k
S = 1.1513
log
+ 3.2275
c t rw2
m

p t =1 p i

k
S = 1.1513
log
+ 3.2275
2
m
c r

q s B Well t w
p Observation
r = rw ,
=
r Active
2 khr
Well
w
q s B
p
r = rw ,
= Three Well System
r
2 khrw
p3 = p3,1p+ p3,2
(113)
q ( t )B
= s
r = rw ,
Figure 2.4.1
2 khrw
r
In order to utilise equation
q s(113)
( t )B expressions for the individual pressure drops
p
=
r = rw ,
of the form:
2 khrw
r
q i B j
(114)
p D ( t D , rDj )
p i , j =
2 kh
q B j
p i , j = i with
p D (appropriate
t D , rDj )
must be employed
the
well flow-rate, qjBj , and dimensionless
kh
2

distance, rDj , tothe observation point, i , for each sink, j. Thus equation
pbe
(113) may
written: (q1B1p D ( t D , rD1 ) + q 2 B2 p D ( t D , rD 2 ))
3 =
2 kh

p3 =
(q1B1p D ( t D , rD1 ) + q 2 B2 p D ( t D , rD 2 ))
(115)
2 kh
n

r) =
q jB j p D (number
t D , rDj ) of wells:
pbe
( t,extended
which can
to
an arbitrary
2 kh j =n1
p( t, r ) =
q jBjpD (t D , rDj )
2 kh j =1
52
n
p =
{(q jBj q j1 Bj1 )(pwD (t t j1 )D + S)}
2 kh n
m=

Figure 25
Three Well System

q i B j
p D ( t D , rDj )
2 kh
Transient
Analysis

p i , j =

Pressure

p3 =

In Drawdown And Buildup

(q1B1p D ( t D , rD1 ) + q 2 B2 p D ( t D , rD 2 ))
2 kh
n
q jBjpD (t D , rDj )
2 kh j =1

p( t, r ) =

(116)

Note that equation (116) adds pressure changes (or dimensionless pressures). If
the point of interest
nis an operating well the skin factor must be added to the
p

=
{(qthat
q j only.
)( pthe
t t j do
+ Sall
)} start producing
for
j B j well
wD (wells
1 B j 1 If
1 ) Dnot
dimensionless pressure
2 kh j =1
at the same time tD in equation (116) should be replaced by tDj , the dimensionless
production time for
eachq individual
well. There is no restriction on the number
162.6
B
s
or location
of
sinks
(or
sources)
and
is perfectly valid to consider two or
psi / logit cycle
m = B
p =
{qkh
( t Dat) +the
S)same
+ (q 2 point
q1 )(inp wD
( t D int1Dorder
) + S)}
1 ( p wD
more sinks
as coincident,
i.e.
space
to generate a
2 kh
variable rate history at this point.

162.6 q B
s
psi / log cycle
m = Rate Situations
2.4.3 Variable

kh
k
varying flow-rates,
p t = the
p + m log
To illustrate
of the principle
of
superposition
to

+
3
2275
0
86859
S
.
.
1 = application
2
i
c rthe

shown in Figure
w
consider a single well system
with
production
rate
schedule
t
26. The oil flow-rate is q1 from t = 0 to t = t1, and q2 thereafter. To perform the

k
superposition
may be
visualised
as two wells located
= p + m the
p t = 1 calculation
log single 2well

+
3
2275
0
86859
S
.
.
c
r

at the same point,i with

producing
at
rate
q
,
from
t
=
0
p t one

p
k

to t and the second

=1
i
tw
S = 1well
.1513
log
+ 31 .2275
m at rate
2), starting at t and continuing for a
(imaginary)
producing
(q
q
2 c r1
w
t1 would be q + (q time period (t - t ). The net superposed t rate
after time
1

q1) = q2 as desired. pAs in

the previous
are added for these

k example delta-ps
t =1 p i
3
2275
S = 1The
.1513
log
.

+
conditions.
general
form
of
the
equation
for
N
rates,
with changes at tj

q s B
p
c t rw2
=m
rwis:
,
Two-Rate Flow
Schedule
, j = 1, 2 r. .=N,

r = rw ,
r = rw ,

2 khrw

q s B
p
=
q
t )Bw
qpr
2
s (khr
1 =
2 khrw
r

q ( t )B
p
= s
r = rw ,
q
qB
2 khr
r2
p D ( t D , rwDj )
p i , j = i j
2 kh

Production well
rate q 1

q2 - q1

q B
T1
p D (tt D , rDj )
p i , j = i j

p3 = 2 kh(q1B1p D ( t D , rD1 ) + q 2 B2 p D ( t D , rD 2 ))
2 kh
Figure 26
Two Flow Rate Schedule

Injection well

p3 =
(q1Bn1p D ( t D , rD1 ) + q 2 B2 p Drate
( t D , rqD 22 ))
- q1
2 kh
p( t, r ) =
q jBjpD (t D , rDj )
2 kh j =1 of Rates
Superposition
n
p( t, r ) =
q jBjpD (t D , rDj )
2

nkh j =1

2.4.2
p =
(117)
{(q jBj q j1 Bj1 )(pwD (t tFig
j 1 ) D + S)}
2 kh j =1
n
dimensionless
where (t-t
calculated at time (t-tj). For the rate
pj)D= is the
{(q jB j q jtime
1 B j 1 )( p wD ( t t j 1 ) D + S)}
2 kh 26,
schedule of Figure
N=2,
only
two
terms
of the summation are needed and
B j =1

p
=
{
q
(
p
(
t
)
+
S
)
+
(
q

q
equation (117) becomes:
wD D
1
2
1 )( p wD ( t D t 1D ) + S)}
2 kh
B
p =
{q1 ( p wD ( t D ) + S) + (q 2 q1 )( p wD ( t D t1D ) + S)} (118)
2 kh
53

Figure 27 illustrates the calculation i.e. superposition. The lower dashed curve
(including the first portion of the solid curve) is the pressure change caused by rate
q1, alone. The topmost curve is the pressure change caused by the rate q2 - q1, after t1;
that p is negative because (q2 - q1) < 0. The sum of the dashed curve and topmost
curve is the pressure response
for theoftwo-rate
schedule.
Principle
Superposition

Injection Well
at Rate q2 - q1

pi - pw
Total Response

Extrapolated
Pressure
Well at
Rate q1

T1

2.5 PRESSURE BUILD-UP TESTING

Figure 27
Principle of Superposition

Figure 2.4.3

2.5.1 Introduction

The most widely used form of transient well testing technique is pressure build-up
analysis. This type of testing was first introduced by groundwater hydrologists but
it has been extensively used in the petroleum industry. Pressure build-up testing
entails shutting in a producing well and recording the closed-in bottom-hole pressure
as a function of time. The most common and simplest analysis techniques require
that the well produce at a constant rate, either from start-up or long enough to
establish a stabilised pressure distribution before shut-in. If possible the flowing
bottom-hole pressure prior to shut-in should also be recorded; indeed it is essential
if an estimate of skin is required.
Figure 28 schematically shows flow-rate and bottom-hole pressure behaviour for an
ideal pressure build-up test. Here tp is the production time and t is the running
shut-in time. The pressure is measured immediately before shut-in and is recorded as
a function of time during the shut-in period. The resulting pressure build-up curve is
analysed for reservoir properties and well-bore condition.

54

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

FLOWING

RATE

SHUT-IN

tp

BHP

pws

p ws

pwf ( t=0)

tp

slope, m = -

q sB
4k h

p*

Deviation from Straight

Line caused by
Afterflow and Skin

Figure 28

ln t p + t
t

Figure 2.5.1

As in all transient well tests, knowledge of surface and subsurface mechanical

conditions is important in build-up test data interpretation. Therefore it is
recommended that tubing and casing sizes, choke size, well depth, packer locations
etc be determined before data interpretation starts. Short-time pressure observations
are usually necessary for complete delineation of well-bore storage effects. Data
may be needed at intervals as short as 15 seconds for the first few minutes of some
build-up tests. As the test progresses, the data collection interval can be extended.
Stabilising the well at a constant rate before testing is an important part of a pressure
build-up test. If stabilisation is overlooked or is impossible, conventional analysis
techniques may provide erroneous information about the formation. Thus it is
important to determine the degree and adequacy of the stabilisation; one way is to
check the length of the pre-shut-in constant rate period against the time required
to reach semi-steady state flow, i.e. qDe = 0.3 for a central well. For wells with
significantly varying rates before shut-in, build-up test analysis is still possible using
the variable-rate methods discussed later.
If the well produces at a constant rate, q, for a time, tp , and pressures are
subsequently recorded for closed-in times, t, then the bottom-hole pressure
at any time after the well has been shut-in can be obtained from a superposed
solution based on:

55

q acting for time (tp + t) + (o - q) acting for time t

The build-up test rate schedule is the simplest form of two-rate test (q2 = 0) and
the two-rate superposition formula:

B
p = B
q p ( t D ) + S + (q 2 q1 ) p wD ( t D t1D ) + S
p = 2 kh
{q1[ p1 wd (wD
t D ) + S] + (q 2 q1 )[ p wD ( t D t1D ) + S]}
(119)
2 kh

{ [

]}

will predict the pressure behaviour during the second zero rate period; on
will predict the pressure behaviour during the second zero rate period; on putting:
putting:
q B

p = s {p wD ( t pD + t D ) p wD ( t D )}

2B
kh
)[tp wD
+ S]t}
;
; ( tt D tt1D ) =
qp== q2sB
q{q1[qp wd=( tDq) +; St] + =(qt2 q+1
p = kh {2 q1[ p1wd ( t D )s+ S]D+ (q 2pD q1 )[ pDwD ( t DD t1D1D) + S]}D
2 kh
this becomes:
q B
p ws (
tq) B
= p i s {p wD ( t pD + t D ) p wD ( t D )}
this
becomes:
p = q sB {p wD2 (tkh
pD + t D ) p wD ( t D )}
s kh
{p wD ( t pD + t D ) p wD ( t D )}
p = 2
2 kh
q s B1
=

p (t D ) =
pD + t D p wD ( t D )
p wD
(lnpqtwD
+t0.80908)
i.e
DB

2
kh
s
2
p ws ( t ) = p i q B {p wD ( t pD + t D ) p wD ( t D )}
(120)
s kh
{p wD ( t pD + t D ) p wD ( t D )}
p ws ( t ) = p i 2
2 kh
where pwD is the applicable
pressure function; note that the shut-in
q s Bdimensionless
1
ln
ln
(
t
)
p
(
(
t

- lntbuild-up
=

+
pressure,ppws
,
is
not
affected
by
the
skin
factor
int an
test. Equation (99)
1i
ws
pD
D ) ideal
D)
B
kh

2
2
pthe
) =
ln
t
0.80908)
(
+

{
(
)
+
+
(
)
(
)
+
p =(t
q
p
t
S
q
q
p
t
t
Stests.
wD
DB
D
[
]
[
]}
1
provides
theoretical
basis
for
the
analysis
of
pressure
build-up
2
1
wD D
1D
2 1 wd D

pwD
)=kh
tppDwd+((0.80908)

=(t D2B
{{(qqln
+S
+ ((qq 2 qq1))[[pp wD ((tt D tt1D )) ++ SS]]}}
pp =
tt D )) +
S]] +
[
1[
2
1
wD D
1D
kh
kh2 1 wd D
22
2.5.2 Pressure
Build-Up
Test
Analysis
during
the
Infinite-Acting
Period
q s B t p + t
q
B
1

p
(
t
)
p
ln

q
B
There arep ws
several
fors analysing
the results
of -aln
build-up
t )s B
p{ii pwD
(ln
t D ) test the most popular
=ways
ws
p (=q
tkh
tD(t)t pD
p+wDln(ttDD))}
2q(s B
+ 12
pD

being the
Horner
method
which
is
based
on
the
supposition
s
kh

q
B
khp{i pwD ( t pD +
ln((
p ws
(ln
- lnt D ) that the reservoir is

s=
)}
pp (=
=2t )

t D())t pD
pp+wD
tttDD))}
{
(
p
t
+
t

wD
pD
D
wD
D
kh

2
2
infinite inextent
and
a
negligible
amount
of
fluid
is
removed from the system during
kh
kh
22
the production periodt prior
to closure. In practice this case corresponds to an initial
p + t
q svirgin
B+ p *treservoir.
p + t
m
ln
=
well testp
conducted
in
a
During an infinite-acting period both
ws
(+t pD
p ws ( t ) = p i qt B {lnp wD
t
t+ t D ) p wD ( t D )}
p
sB

q
2

kh
t

dimensionless
pressure
terms
in
equation
(120)
replaced
pp ws ((
t ) = p i s {lnp wD (tt pD +
)} by the logarithmic
+
tt D )) are
tt D )}
wD ((
ppwD
ws t ) = p i 2 kh {p wD (
pD
D
D
t

approximation
to the exponential
integral,
i.e.
2 kh
q
B

m
= ) = 1ts(pln+t t+ +0.80908)
p wD
(t
+ Dt p *
ws = Dm ln1
4tkh
(t
lntttD +
=ln21 ((pln
++0.80908)
0.80908)
pp ws
p*
= Dm)) =
wD (t
wD D
D
22 t
and equation (120) becomes:
qB
Bq s B 1 (ln( t + lnt ) - lnt )
k ws =
p
(=t ) = pqiss
pD
D
D
m
Bkh
2qqsB
Bkh
21
4qs mh
(121)
s 1 (ln( t
m
pp ws ((=
ln
t
ln
t
tt )) =
= pp4i

pD
D
D)
ws
4i kh22
kh 22 (ln( t pD + lnt D ) - lnt D )
kh
or
t p + tpt + t
qB
.6q s B
q B70
pk ws =
s ln
( t ) = pqisB
t p ln
q
B

kh
2

+tt
s mh
t
kh
s
4

q
B

kpp ws =
(
ln p + tt
tt )) =
= pp i
s ln
(
ws
4 i mh22
kh
kh
tt

t p +162
+t
t
twhich
70.t6.equation
qqspB
6+
p t+p
sB
This is the
Horner
predicts
a linear relationship between
p
*lnlog
ws (=
) =lnpbuild-up
p ws
tm
t
+
t

it
qthat
+70
.tt6kh
p t is independent of the units of the time
t
s B the ratio
p ;+
t

pws and ln((t

+
t)/t)
note
kh
t

p
pp ws
(p=
) =ln
m
lnp i
=tm
+ pp ** ln
ws
+
ws This
kh
t that, for an infinite-acting system, the
quantities.
equation
indicates
tt also

bottom-hole shut-in qpressure

will
eventually
build up to the initial reservoir pressure,
s B
t
+
t
162
.
6
q
B

p
m
=

s
pi . Equation
(121)
apstraight
line
of the form:
p ws (
t ) = describes
p4qi
log

p
(
r
,
t
)

t
+

162.kh
6qis B s
kh
B

p t t
qDi ,ssB

=
p
(
r
t
)
=

(
)
p
t
=
p

log
m

sD
sD
D
ws
m = 4 kh kh q B t
s
4 kh
56
q B
2 kh
k = s
p i p s ( r , t )
mh
4qB

{ (

2 kh
q B 1
p ws (1t ) = p i s
(ln( t pD + lnt D ) - lnt D )
p wD (t D ) = (lnt D + 0.80908)
2 kh 2
Pressure Transient
Analysis In Drawdown And
2

Buildup

q B t + t
p ws ( t ) =q spBi 1s ln p
ln( t pD +lnt t D ) - lnt D )
p ws ( t ) = p i
2 (kh
2 kh 2
t p + t
t p ++ pt*
p ws = m qln
s B
p ws ( t ) = p i
ln
t
2 kh
t
with slope

p ws

(122)

q B
m =t p +t s
p*
= m ln
4 +kh
t

and intercept, p* = pi

(123)
(124)

q s B

=q B
p*, corresponds to ln((tp + t)/t) equal to zero or
In this case thek intercept,
m = s
4 mh
(tp + t)/t = 1 which
4 khimplies t >> tp - a shut-in time very long compared
to the production time. From such a plot the reservoir average permeability
can be obtained as:
70.6q B t p + t
p (qB
t )= p i
k = ws s
q B 4 mh
k = - s
4mh

kh

ln

(125)

t + t

.6q B t side
162right-hand
p of (125) are known. In oilfield
provided all thepquantities
70.on
6q the
B t sp + log
ws ( t ) = p i s
p

p
(
t
)

=
ln
kh
t
i
ws
units equation
(121) becomes:
kh

or

70.6q B t + t
p ws ( t ) = p i 162.6qs Blnp pt pp+(r,tt )
kh s logi t s
p ws ( t )p=
p
sD =i p sD ( rD , t D ) =
kh
q sBt

(126)

t2 +kht
162.6q s B
log p
kh
(127)
p ps ( r, t )t
1 1
psD = psD ( rD , t D ) = i
p wsD = p D ( t pD + qt DB) + 0.80908) + Ei

The most important feature of thes semilog plot is 2thatthe

kh product
4 treservoir
D

2
kh
can be determined from the slope
of
the
build-up.
This
is
a
much
better
value
p i p s ( r , t )
psD ( rD , by
t D )trying
=
than canpsD
be =obtained
to average core measured permeabilities over
q s B
the entire producing interval.
1 1
p wsD = p D ( t pD + t D ) + 02.80908
kh ) + Ei

2 4 t D
p ws ( t ) = p i

The determination of the permeability is the most significant result to be obtained

+ t these circumstances, the
from an initial test on a reservoir simply because,
1 t p under
=
(
+

)
_
ln
p
p
t
t
p
t
wsD
D
pD
D
D
D
initial pressure could be obtained from a spot
prior to opening the
2 measurement
t
well in the first place. Once the well has been producing for a significant period of
time this statement is no longer true because the well will now have produced an
amount of fluid 1which may not be insignificant1in comparison
1 to the initial oil in
p wsD = (ln
(can
t pD +notlonger
) + that
i the pressure
80908

D ) + 0.be
place. Therefore
it
assumed
will build up
2
2 4 t D
t
+

t
to its initial value even 70
for.6an
infinite
closed-in
time,
but
rather
to
some lower
q s B
p
ln
p
(

t
)
=
p

ws
i
value p which will be representative
of the
kh
t average pressure within the drainage
volume of the well.
This
corresponds
to
pressure
build-up in a bounded reservoir
q B
s
which will
be
considered
later.
kh =

4 m 162.6q s B
t + t
log p
p ws ( t ) = p i
It is instructive to examine the
build-up within the reservoir
kh process ofpressure
t

itself as well as at the well-bore. Defining the dimensionless reservoir pressure

70.6q s B
after shut-in
kh =as:

kh =

m
p i p s ( r , t )
psD = psD ( rD , t D ) =
q s B
162.6q s B
2 kh
kh =
m

1 t + t
p wsD = p D ( t pD + t D ) p D ( t D ) _ ln p
kt p 2

t
q B
p ( t = 0 ) = p s
ln
+ 0.80908 + 2S

(128)

57

the superposition theorem states that:

psD =

pD(rD, tpD + tD) - pD(rD, tD)

(129)

However at locations far removed from the well-bore the logarithmic approximation
is not valid and the dimensionless pressure functions on the right-hand side of (129)
must be represented by the proper exponential integral solution for an infinite-acting
system. The dimensionless shut-in pressure distribution for an infinite reservoir
which has produced for a dimensionless production time of tpD = 104 is shown in
Figure 29; this diagram was drawn in accordance with equation (129) using Ei
functions for the pD terms. When the well is shut-in the inner boundary condition
becomes one of no flow, i.e. zero pressure gradient at the well-bore. This is clearly
seen in Figure 29 from the pressure profiles at various values of the dimensionless
shut-in time, tD all these have zero slope at rD = 1. This is in marked contrast to
the pressure profiles during flowing periods which have very steep slopes. Fluid
continues flowing toward the well after shut-in but since it cannot emerge from
the reservoir this fluid accumulates which it can only do by compressing and the
reservoir pressure rises. This process continues until the pressure is everywhere
equalised. However it is apparent from Figure 29 that the final stages of pressure
recovery are slow because reservoir pressure gradients are small and fluid flow is
difficult. The behaviour of the closed-in well-bore dimensionless pressure is shown
in more detail in Figures 30 and 31.
0

rD

t D = 10
2 10

200

t p D = 10

200

ps D

50

q
10
0

t pD
tD

Pressure Build-Up in a Reservoir

5

Figure 2.5.2

58

Figure 29
Pressure biuld-up in a
reservoir

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

Pressure Build-Up at Wellbore

0

psD

ln

tpD + tpD
tpD

tpD = 104

+
tt
70..66qq s B
B tt p +
ps D
70
s ln p
p
(

t
)
=
p

ws
i
ln t
p ws ( t ) = p i
kh
kh
t
Figure 30
Pressure biuld-up at
Wellbore

+
tt
162..66qq s B
B
tt p +
162
s log p
(

)
=

p
t
p
ws
i
log t
p ws ( t5) = p i
kh
kh
t
10
5 x 10
3

tpD

10 x 10

Figure 30 demonstrates theoretically

the Horner plot for dimensionless
pps (( rr,,
the
Figure of
2.5.3
pp ii
tt )) linearity
s
p
=
p
(
r
,

t
)
=
shut-in
times,
than 10. However for values of tD less 10 it is no longer
sD =
sD ( rt
D , greater
D
psD
psD
D ,Dt D ) =
q sB
B
valid to use the logarithmicq approximation
to the exponential integral solution.
s
2

kh
Thus for very early shut-in times:
2 kh

t + t
11 ln t pp + t
=
(
+

)
_
p
p
t
t
p
t
wsD
D
pD
D
D
D
p wsD = p D ( t pD + t D ) p D ( t D ) _ 2 ln t
2
t
In fact:

1
11 (ln( t pD + t D ) + 0.80908) + 11 i
1
p
=
wsD
p wsD = 2 (ln( t pD + t D ) + 0.80908) + 2 i 4 t
2
2 4 t DD

Dimensionless Build-up Semilog (Horner) Plot

qq sB
kh
=
2 s
kh = 4 m
4 m

tpD

t D < 10
Ei Function not
Represented by
Log Approximation

70.6q B
pkh
kh = 70.6q ss B
D =
m
m

Figure 31
Dimensionless build-up
semilog (Horner) plot

(130)

162.6q B
kh = 162.6q ss B
kh =
4
m
t pD =m10
6

+ ptpD
kt

q B tpD kt
p wf ( t = 0) = p i q ss B ln
ln
ppD2 + 0.80908 + 2S
t

p wf ( t = 0) = p i 4 kh ln c t rw2 + 0.80908 + 2S
4 kh c t rw

kt

p wf ( t = 0) = p * + m ln kt pp

+ 0.80908 + 2S

13

Fig 2.5.4

59

Figure 31 shows the behaviour of pwsD at very early shut-in times evaluation using
(130) and it can be seen that the exact solution deviates from the extrapolation
of the linear portion; clearly such an extrapolation is not valid. In theory then
one would expect early build-up points to lie above the straight line. In practice
they often fall below the line and the reason for this is again the effect of
well-bore storage and skin.
Effect of Afterflow on a Horner Plot

pw s

Data Affected
by Wellbore
Storage

p*
Correct Semilog
Straight Line
slope m

log
2.5.3 After Production

tpD + tpD
tpD

Fig 2.5.5

The preceding theory of pressure build-up analysis is based on the supposition that
the oil flow-rate at the well-face can be instantaneously reduced from the constant
rate, q, to zero. Often the well is shut-in at the surface and pressure increases in
the well-bore after shut-in require the influx of sufficient fluid from the formation
to compress the contents of the whole well-bore. Note however that, in drill stem
tests or offshore exploration well tests on semi-submersible rigs or drill ships, the
closing-in valve is at bottom-hole. The duration and magnitude of this effect, called
afterflow in pressure build-up testing, depends on the flow-rate before shut-in, the
capacity of the well-bore and the fluid compressibility. The effect is minimised
when the well production rate is high and hence in highly productive wells
afterflow is not a serious problem. In general it is advisable always to avoid
analysis of pressure build-up data for times when bottom-hole pressures are
affected by after production.
Thus even though the well is shut-in during pressure build-up testing, the afterflow
caused by well-bore storage has a significant influence on pressure build-up data.
Figure 32 shows that the pressure points fall below the semilog straight line while
well-bore storage is important. Two effects cause this less than ideal rate of
pressure build-up. Firstly pressure build-up in the formation itself is less rapid
because of the continuing production from the well-face. Secondly the skin
pressure drop, which should disappear instantaneously at the moment of closure,
declines in response to the afterflow.

60

Figure 32
Effect of afterflow on a
Horner plot

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

Log - Log Diagnostic Plot for Afterflow

1000

p
(psi)

Data of Correct
Semilog Slope

Unit
Slope
Figure 33
Log-Log diagnostic plot for
Afterflow

1
0.001

t (hr)

100

The duration of these effects may be estimated by making the log-log data plot
described in Chapter 3 on well-bore storage. For pressure build-up
Figtesting,
2.5.6 plot log
[pws - pwf(t = 0)] versus log t. When well-bore storage dominates that plot will
have a unit slope straight line; as the semilog straight line is approached the log-log
plot bends over to a gently curving line with a low slope as shown in Figure 33.
In all pressure build-up analyses where afterflow may be of importance the log-log
data plot should be made before the straight line is chosen on the semilog data
plot, since it is often possible to draw a semi-log straight line through well-bore
storage dominated data. This phenomenon occurs because well-head shut-in does
not correspond to sand-face shut-in. As the sand-face flow does drop off to zero, the
pressure increases rapidly to approach the theoretically predicted level. The semilog
data plot is steep and nearly linear during this period, and may be analysed incorrectly
seriously underestimating the formation permeability.

2.5.4 Determination of Reservoir Parameters

The basic method analysing pressure build-up data in an infinite-acting reservoir is

the Horner plot of pws versus ln((tp + t)/t). It is important to remember that in
this context infinite-acting refers to both the production period before shut-in and
to the ensuing closed-in period; thus it is a dual condition requiring that neither
the pressure disturbance from the initial production nor that from the rate change
at shut-in reaches the external boundary. It is recommended that the data points
be plotted on ordinary graph paper as a plot of pws versus ln( (tp + t)/t) with
bottom-hole shut-in pressure as ordinate and the natural log term as abscissa. The
data points influenced by well-bore storage are eliminated from consideration and
a straight line is fitted to those remaining by a linear least-squares regression. This
process yields the slope, m , and the intercept, p*, of equation (122).
Although it is not valid to extrapolate the straight line portion of the plot to very long
shut-in times since the term pD(tD) in the superposition is then no longer represented
by the logarithmic approximation, nevertheless, in an essentially infinite-acting
reservoir, i.e. one with a short initial flow period, tp , it is often assumed that the
extrapolated pressure (intercept), p*, is synonymous with the initial pressure, pi , and
the mean drainage area pressure,p. This is permissible provided the amount of fluid
withdrawn from the reservoir during the flow period is very small compared to the oil
in place, i.e. negligible depletion has occurred. In this situation then
61

tt pp +
tt
162
.6q B
162
tp +
+
t
162..66qqsss B
log
B
(
tt )) =
ppii

log
ppp ws
ws (
log
kh

t
ws ( t ) = p i
kh

kh
tt

ppi
pps ((rr,,
tt))
i
pB
pss (trp,

=
ppsD ((rrD ,,
tt70
=
+ t) t
i

.
6
q
D)
pppsD
=

)
=
s
sD (=
psD=(prDDi ,t DD ) =
qqln
sD
sB
ws t )sD

B
kh q ss B t
22
kh
2
kh
kh
70.6q s B t p + t
p ws ( t ) = p i 162.6q s Bln t p +1t t p + t
ppws
t =)p=p*(pt + t kh) p (log
t )t_ 1 ln tt p +
=(
p=
(131)
+
tt
wsD
p
i p D ( t ipD + t D ) pD ( t D ) _ 1 ln p
=
D ( t pD + t D
D ( t D ) _
2

t
kh

t
=
)

ln
p wsD
p
p
wsD
D pD
D
D
D
22

t
t
and the average drainage70
area
pressure
can
be
determined simply by extrapolating
t
+

.
6
q
B
162.6qs s Bln p t p + t
pportion
build-up.
the linearp
ws (
(
tt ))1=
=ofppthe
log t
ws
ii
1 1
kh
kh

p
p
r, t ))t + 11 i
p wsD = 1
(
ln
(
t
+

t
)
+
0
i
s.(80908
pD
D
11t
1
ppsD
=
(
ln
(
t
+

t
)
+
.
)
+

ii 4
0
80908
=
p
r
,

t
)
=
2
2
usual way from the
wsD
pD
D
=
(
ln
(
t
+

t
)
+
.
)
+

0
80908
sD
D
D
The permeability-thickness
product,
kh , is calculated
intDthe
wsD
pD
D q B
22
22 44
D
s

t
D
162
t fitted
measured
straight
line
70.6slope,
q s B m t, pof+the
t p + using
t the formula:
6

.
q
B
s
2

kh
p ws ( t ) = p i p ws ( t )ln= p i
log )

t t ) =khp i ps ( r, t
q ( rB
t
pkh
=
p
,

s D D
khsD = sDq
q sB
B
q s B
1 t + t
(132)
4sm
kh

kh
=
= p4D
( tm
+ t D ) p2D(kh
t D ) _ ln p
p wsD=
pD
4

m
t
+

t
162.6q s B
2
t
p
log
p ws ( t ) = or,
p i if field units
p i p s ( r , t )
are
being
used:
t
pkh
sD = p sD ( rD , t D ) =
70.6q s B
1 t + t
q B
kh
+
t D ) p Ds( t D ) _ ln1 p 1
p wsD= = p170
qq s B
..66t pD
D(
B
70

kh
p wsD=
( tspD + t D ) +20.kh
80908)2+ it
kh
= =
(lnm

m
(natural log) 2 4 t D
(133)
p i p2s ( r,mt )
psD = psD ( rD , t D ) =
t
t.6q s+Bt ) p ( t ) _ 1 ln1t p +
q162
1
p1s B
kh
==
wsD
D((
pD
D t ) +D0.80908
D
q
B
.

6
pp wsD
= 162
ln
(
t
+

)
+

i
s B
q
.
162
6

pD
D
2

t
m
kh
B s
(log base 10) 2 4 t D
(134)
kh =
=
22qkh
s
m
kh =
m
4 m
1 qtspB+ t kt p
1q( B
1 1
( t pD + ifpt Dwf
) (=net
_phi +
p wsD = p DAgain
pt D=
.80908
ln
=t)pD
+
0
+ 2S k , of the area
the
, ln
isqt DB
known
the
average
(s0pay,
ln)t D(

)
+
.
)
+
ipermeability,
0
80908

kt
wsD

pr
2

t
kt
sB

kh
c

4
q

t
2
2
4

2S
kh
=
p
t
w
s
t =
pp wf ((can
pp i
)=
0calculated.
+ 0.80908 +
investigated
ln
2 + 0.80908 D
ln
=be
+
2S
q=s B
.6)m

40
wf t 70
i 4 kh
2
cc tt rrww
4 kh

kh =
m
The
superposition
process
showed
that
the
ideal
pressure
behaviour
(no well bore
1
1 kt
1
Bis not

p
p wsD = (storage)
ln( t pD +pafter
t D(
) shut-in
+t =0q.s080908
)
+

i
by
Hence build-up data

the skin effect,

p * +influenced
+ 2SS.
khwf = 70.6) q=s B

formation
tcDpr2 + 0.80908
2 alone cannot
2m ln 4
kt
kt
be
used
to
determine
damage;
only
the
flowing pressure

kh
=

m
tp w + 0.80908 + 2S
6=
pp wf ((
t 162
= 00)).m
+
ln
2 + 0.80908 + 2S
ln
=q sppB**by
+m
mthe
khwf =t is= affected

2
prior to shut-in
skin.
For
an
infinite-acting
reservoir
the flowing

c
r
c t rw

m
t w
pressure just prior to shut-in is given by:
q B
s
1 70
p wf.6(
q tB=0) p * ln kt p 0.80908
kh =
S
kh== 162.6qs s B

2
4 m
11 pp wf ((m

tt =
pp**
ktkt
2
m0
ktcp tpprw 0.80908

0))q
=
s B
m
wf
ln
S
=

p
(
t
)
p
.
ln
=
0
=
+
0
80908
+
Swf= 2
ln c r2 22 0.80908 2S
i
m
cct rttwrww
2
m 4 kh

(135)
70.6q B
ktktpp

1 162
0) qs B
p wf (.6qt s=B
p
*
kh
=
kh = and,s again
for
an0)infinite-acting
system,
the
initial
reservoir
ln
7
43173
S
=

+
.

p
(
t
p
ln
.
=
=

+
0
80908
+

2S pressure, pi ,

wf
i
2
m
2
m
kt
2

mextrapolated
11 pp wf
00)) 4
((
tt =
equation
kh*
cct rtppwrw p*; hence
p
kt

can be replaced
by
the
pressure,
(135) may
kt
p

p
*
S
+ 7.43173
p wf=
+ 0.80908
+ 2S
ln
S
=(2t = wf0) = pm* + m ln
ln
2 c r 22 + 7.43173
be written:

rw c tt rww
c t
2
m
162.6q s B
kt

q
B

p
kh =
p wf=( t 70
= .06)q=s Bpi s ln
+ 0.80908 +2S
kt p
2
m
m
ln c+t rw0.80908 + 2S
p wf ( t 70
= .06kh
) = p* +4mkh
(136)
B= 0) p * c t rw2kt p
.6(qqsstB
70

1
p
m
=

wf
m
=

S = kh
ln
0.80908
2 khkt m
ct rw2

q s B
p
kt

kt

the build-up Horner

0
(
)
*
p

t
=

p
p
p wf ( t = 0where
) = p i S
.
S
ln
+
0
80908
+
2
p
been
by the
measured
010.80908slope
2275
2kt
log
+ 3.of
0)(
ln
p4wf=(1kh
t =phas
=tcwfp=r*20replaced
+) m
+
1.1513

p
*
2+ 2S

wf
t w
m0)
c.80908
rw
0kt
c
r
ln
S=

t
p

t
=
p
*
t
w
p
2
kt
p wf ( t) =
*
cpt rfactor,
1112..1513
33..2275
=

log
+
kt
p equation
p0)for
* pthe
plot, m . S
Solving
skin
Sp ,22 results
in:
w
10
twf=m0(136)
1513
2275
S
=

log
+
wf (
10
m
S=
tr
w

m ln c r 2 +
7cc.43173
t rw
2
m

t
w
kt.6p q s B
162
kt

1 p wf ( 2t += 00.)80908
p * + 2S p
mm
p wf ( t = 0) = p * +
S
==1ln
ln kt p 2 0.80908
(137)

0
p wfc.(kh
t
=
)

p
*
162

r
t q
w B
m
S
== 2162.6
ln c t rw2 + 7.43173
sB
6
q

s
m

q s Bm
c t rw

m
= 2
70.6kh
m=
kh
t p + t
where the slope, m ,kh
is an intrinsically
negative
kt quantity.
log
1 p wf ( t = 0p) ws
p=1*p p* +(mkt
p
0
t
=
)

p
*
p
ln
S=
wf
r 2t p+0t.80908
.6q
= 70
+ 7.43173
t ln
sB
2
2
mS
cm
m
t wt p + t
2

c
r
pp ws==
p
m
*
+
log

t
w
kt p

p
m
=
*
+
log
0
(
)
*
p

t
=

p
kh
t

62
3
Sws= 1.1513 wf

log
+
.2275
t
10
2

t c+t r1w
p ( t m
k
= 0) = p1hr
S = 1.1513 wf
+ log p
log
+ 3.2275

q B.6q s B
162
s .6q B
kh
=
162

1 t + t
kh
=
=

m
(
+

) s p D ( t D ) _ ln p
p wsD = pkh
t
4 t Dm
D pD
m

q B 2 kt pt
p wf ( t = 0) = p i s
+ 0.80908 + 2S
ln
2
c t rwDrawdown And

Pressure Transient
Analysis
In
Buildup
q4sBkh
kt
p
q
B
.
70
6

kt

S
p
t
p
(
)
.
ln
=
0
=

+
0
80908
+
2

s
q
B

p
i

1pkhwf =
1
1
2
s
)m=
+ 2S
c tirw2 + 0.80908
kh )ln+
p wsD = (wfln((ttpD=+0
t D p) i+04.80908

4 kh

2
2 c t rw4 t D
kt p

p wf ( t = 0) = p * + m ln
+ 0.80908 + 2S
2
162.6q s B ktcpt rw

kh
=

t = 0) = p * + m ln kt p 2 + 0.80908 + 2S
pqwfB(
s ( t = 0) m
= p * + m ln c t rw2 + 0.80908 + 2S
kh = p wf
c t rw

4 m
1 formulae
0)the
p wf ( t =for
pskin
* factorktwhen
The equivalent
using field units are:
p
S=
ln
0.80908
ktcp t rw2
2
m q s B

pbasis
p wf (1log
t=
0)( =t p=i 0) p * ln kt p 2 + 0.80908 + 2S
wf
(a) natural
S =.61q Bpwf ( t = 0)4pkh* lnkt
0.80908
70
ln cct rtpwrw22 0.80908
m
kh = S = 2 s
c t rw
2
m

m
kt p

1 p wf ( t = 0) p *
S=
ln
+ 7.43173
(138)
kt pc t rw2

2
m

kt
p wf
pln
*
p (1t =
=t p=*0+) m
+ 0.80908 + 2S
0)((
162
Swf=.61qs B
lnc t rw2ktpp 2 + 7.43173
t = 0) p *
p wf
kh = S
=m
ln c t rw2 + 7.43173
2
m
where
2
c t rw
m

70.6q s B
m=
kt p

1 p wf.6kh
(qtB= 0) pkt
*

qssB
B

S
== 70
0.80908
p ln
m
70
6
q
.
2
p wf ( t =m0=) 2=p i s m ln
+
0.80908
c t rw + 2S
4 kh c t rw2
and
(b) log basekh
10

kh
kt p
p wf ( t = 0) p *

S = 1.1513
log10
+ 3.2275
2
m
ktc t rw

= 0p)* p * kt p
1 p wf (ptwf=( 0t) kt
p

S = 1.1513
p wf ( t = p0) pln* log102 + 7kt.43173
p 2 + 3.2275

2Sc t rw2 + 3.2275

p wf ( t =S 0=)12=.1513
log

m m 2 + 0.80908
c t rw10+
p * +m ln

c
r
m

c t rw

(139)
162.6q s B t w
m
=

where
kh
162
B
70.6.6qqs B
.)6qsps B*
m =( t 162
kt p

1 pm
0
=
kh
kh
S = wf=
ln
0.80908
2
kh
t +
t c t rw

2
m

p ws = p * + m log p
t
t p with
+ 0)t a plimited
When semilog graph
number
kt p of cycles is being employed
paper
*
wf ( tt =
p ws=inconvenient
p * +mplog
=.1513
p + t
1
S
log

+ 3.2275 of the Horner

10
it may
be
to
extrapolate
the
straight
ws(=
tp=*0+)m
1 ppwf
log
p*
mtt kt p
c t rw2line portion

S = sufficiently
plot
far to
However
possible to

t p + 1 it is always
p wfobtain
0p*
p2 1hr+ 7.43173
k
( tln=
) c=directly.
2
m
r

t w line
S =the
1.1513
+ log
log
+ 3is.2275
determine
pressure
1 hour after
shut-in; 2this
denoted

on the straight
m
t pp
c tt rww

pws(t = 1) or more
simply
p
.

tp + 1
k
162.6qp B(t1hr= 0) = p1hr

t
1
+
t
0
p
k
(

=
)
=
S
3
2275
log
log
.
+

+
m==1.1513 pswf
p

wf
1hr
2 + 3.2275
S .=6q1.B
1513
log
log
+

m
t
c
r

kh
70

p , is given
s
The
pressure,
m by:
tpp
ctt rww2
m =shut-in

ws
kh
t + t
p ws = p * + m log p
(140)
kt p
p wf ( t = 0) p*t

S = 1.1513
log10
+ 3.2275
and hence:
m
c t rw2

p wf ( t = 0) = p1hr
t +1
pSws=(t
= 1) =
(tp + p1) log k + 3.2275
(141)
1.1513
p1hr = p* + m log+ log
m
tp
c t rw2

162.6q s B
m=
i.e.
kh

p* = p1hr ( m log (tp + 1)

p ws = p * + m log

t p + t
t

(142)

Substituting this expression for p* into equation (139) gives:

p ( t = 0) = p1hr
t +1
k
S = 1.1513 wf
+ log p
log
+ 3.2275 (143)
2
m
tp
c t rw

63

in which the term log ((tp + 1)/tp) is frequently quite negligible. This formula
for the skin factor often appears in the literature and the procedure for finding
p1hr is shown in Figure
34.
Determination
of p on the Horner Plot
1 hr

t = 1 hr

p*

p 1 hr

pw s
x

slope m

MTR
Straight
Line

x
t +1
pwf - p1hr
x S = 11513
.
+ log p
- log k 2 + 3.2275
ct rw
m
tp

log

tpD + tpD
tpD

2.5.5 Peaceman Probe Radius

Figure 34
Determination of p1hr on the
Horner Plot

Fig 2.5.7

In Figure 29 the pressure redistribution in the reservoir during a buildup process

has been generated using the exponential integral solution and superposition; this
diagram clearly illustrates how the buildup is a relaxation of the pressure profile
existing at the moment of shut-in back to equilibrium i.e. uniform pressure. The
buildup test measures the wellbore pressure,pws,as a function of shut-in time, t
, and it is of interest to show how the buildup record can be used to infer the
spatial pressure distribution present in the reservoir at the moment of shut-in.
Thus a transformation which takes pws (t) and generates pr(tp,r), as shown in
Test Precautions
Figure 36, is required.
Determine p wf ( t=0) and t( t=0)
very accurately

End of
Drawdown
pBU = pws pwf ( t = 0)

t = t t(t = 0)

pw f( t=0)

t(t=0)

Buildup

t
The basis of the method can be examined for the case of a homogeneous
system where theStabilise
flowing pressure
radius, rshutin
, is predicted by the exponential
d
flow-rateat before
integral expression:

Shutin

64

FlowRate

tp =

Q
q

Q = cumulative

Afterflow

Figure 35a
Test precautions

 pBU = pws pwf ( t = 0)

t = t t(t = 0)

Pressure Transient
pwf( t=0) Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup
t(t=0)

Buildup

t
Stabilise flow-rate before shutin

Shutin
FlowRate

tp =

Q
q

Afterflow

Q = cumulative
volume

Figure 35b
Test precautions

t
rw

Fig 2.5.8

t5

pr(tp,rp5)

t4

Peaceman Probe
Radius Concept

pr(tp,rp4)

t3

pr(tp,rp3)

pw = pr r=rw

pr
t2
t1

pr(tp,rp2)

pr(tp,rp1)
0

tp
t

Reservoir pressure distribution

at moment of shut-in, pr(tp)
Pressure Build-Up in a Reservoir

Figure 36

p wf , D rD , t pD =

1 rD2
Ei
2 4 t pD

(144)

The shut-in pressure at time is given by:

p ws, D ( t D ) =

1 t p + t
ln
t
2

(145)

If the exponential integral can be replaced by the log approximation viz.:

p wf , D rD , t pD =

1 4 t pD
ln
2 r 2D

(146)

then equating the pressures in (146) and (145) gives the correspondence result:

4 t pD t p + t

r 2D
t

i.e.

rD

4k t e
c t

(147)
65

This calculation was first performed by Peaceman(9) who termed the equation for
given above the probe radius formula.
The ability to generate the pressure distribution at fixed time, tp , allows the average
pressure in the near wellbore region to be computed. For example suppose a
simulator block contains a well and it is desired to relate the simulator block
, then the
pressure to buildup surveys.
If the simulator block has an area, A

A
equivalent radius, r , =is defined as:

r =
r =

2p r dr

(148)

The average pressure

p = in
rw this region can be obtained by integration of the
r
reconstituted pressure
profile A
i.e.

p =
p =

2p r dr
2Ap r dr
r

r
rw

rw

1 Muskat, M.:Use of Data on the Build-Up of Bottom-Hole Pressures,Trans

66

Pressure Transient Analysis In Drawdown And Buildup

AIME(1937), 123, 44-48

2 Theis, C.V.:The Relation between the Lowering of the Piezometric Surface and
the Rate and Duration of Discharge of a Well Using Ground Water Storage,
Trans AGU (1935), 519-524
3 Miller, C.C, Dyes, A.B. and Hutchinson, C.A.:The Estimation of Permeability
and Reservoir Pressure from Bottom-Hole Pressure Build-Up Characteristics,
Trans AIME (1950), 189, 91-104
4 Horner, D.R.:Pressure Build-Up in Wells, Third World Petroleum Congress,
The Hague (1951), Sec II, 503-523
5 Matthews, C.S., Brons, F. and Hazebroek,P.:A Method for Determination of
Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir, Trans AIME (1954), 201, 182-191
6 Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. and Crawford, P.B.:The Flow of Real Gases
through Porous Media, JPT (May 1966), 624-636
7 Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C.:The Conduction of Heat in Solids, 1959,
Clarendon Press, Oxford (2nd Edition)
8 van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.:The Application of the Laplace Transformation
to Flow Problems in Reservoirs, Trans AIME (1949), 186, 305-324
9 Peaceman, D.W.:Interpretation of Well-Block Pressure in Numerical Simulation,
JPT (June 1976), 183-194

67