Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

Applications of Convolution and

Deconvolution to Transient Well Tests

F.J. Kuchuk, SPE, Schiumberger-Doll Research
Summary. This paper presents the application of convolution and deconvolution interpretation methods. Two well-test field examples, interpreted with these methods, suggest that the downhole flow rate is crucial for system identification and parameter estimation
and that the wellbore volume below the pressure gauge and flowmeter must be taken into account. A new generalized rate-convolution
method is presented to obtain the reservoir pressure. This new method gives better results than both the Homer and modified Homer
methods. A new formula also is presented to determine the vertical permeability for partially penetrated wells.

qSj(t)-qm(t) = C(dPw1dt) , .......................... (4)

Transient well testing is a measurement of the output (observation)

of the system response to a given input. Control of the input, which
has traditionally been a constant flow rate or pressure at the wellhead, is as important as the output measurement to obtain system
parameters. Control of the input has been a difficult problem for
well testing, with the exception of buildup tests at late times.
It has been recognized in the last decade that the measurement
of the input signal (usually flow rate) at the sandface, along with
the output (usually pressure), is needed to r~uce wellbore-storage
effects and to account for rate variations. Furthermore, downhole
flow measurements are necessary to determine producing zones to
estimate permeability and skin from well-test data.
Well-test interpretation is the process of obtaining information
(reservoir parameters) from measurements (output) by use of the
input signal, all other pertinent data available for the system, such
as geological and well-log data, and the past production history.
For most well-test-interpretation problems, system identification
(diagnosis) and estimation of its parameters are done sequentially.
Since the early 1930's,1 many interpretation techniques have
been developed to estimate reservoir parameters from measured
pressure and flow-rate data. The objective of this paper is to analyze measured downhole pressure and flow-rate data from two
different wells with conventional and recently developed interpretation techniques.

Mathematical Preliminaries
The relationship between flow-rate and pressure signals across the
sandface (in the wellbore) can be described as a convolution
operation 1-4 :
Apw(t) = tqSjD(T)Ap ~j(t-T)dT, ..................... (I)

where .lpw=wellbore pressure drop and qsjD=normalized sandface flow rate, qsjlq" where qsj =sandface flow rate and q,=a
reference flow rate. For Eq. I, the initial pressure of the formation is assumed to be constant, uniform, and the same as the initial
pressure of the wellbore . .lp ~j(t) in Eq. I is defined as 5

......................... (2)

where o(t) is the Dirac delta function. Apj(t) and Aps are the pressure drops across the formation and the skin region, respectively,
for a constant flow rate q,. The Laplace transform of Eq. I can
be written as
.lP w(s) =sij sfD (s).lP sf (s). . ........................ (3)

For most well tests, the tool (including pressure gauge and flowmeter) is located just above the perforations. However, they could
also be located at any point in the wellbore, including the wellhead. Like the distinction between the surface and downhole flow
rates, a difference also exists between the sandface flow rate, qSj'
and the flow rate at the tool location (measured flow rate, qm) because of storage. This difference can be expressed as 4- 7
Copyright 1990 Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1990

where C is the wellbore-storage coefficient caused by the wellbore

volume below the tool. In the first formulation of the wellborestorage effect on the sandface flow rate by van Everdingen and
Hurst,4 qm is assumed to be constant. The substitution of Eq. 4
into Eq. I gives the wellbore pressure in terms of the measured
flow rate and the wellbore storage for a given formation response:

rt [ qmD(T)+-C dpw] Ap~j(t-T)dT,

.lPw(t) = J

.......... (5)

q dT

and its Laplace transform is

.lPw(s) =sijmD


], .............. (6)
1+ (CI q)s2 flji sf (s)

where qmD=measured normalized flow rate, qm1q,. Note that if

there is no additional volume between the sandface and the tool,
Eqs. 5 and 6 reduce to Eqs. I and 3, respectively. Note also that
the term given within brackets in Eq. 6 is the well-known constantrate solution, Apwj' with the wellbore-storage and skin effects. 4-7
If Apw is the wellbore pressure (measured or computed), .lPwj
must be the response of the system, which includes the storage
volume below the measurement point. Thus Eq. 6 can also be written
in terms of .lPwf in the time domain:
.lPw(t) =

JtqmD (T).lp 'wj(t-T)dT .

..................... (7)

For some well-test conditions, the relationship between the sandface and measured flow rates can be expressed as 89
qsj(t)=qm(t)[l-exp(-at), ........................ (8)

where a*O and is constant. Substituting Eq. 8 into Eq. I yields

.lPw(t) = tqmD (T)[I-exp( -at)Ap ~j(t-T)dT . ......... (9)

The Laplace transform of Eq. 9 can be written
.lP w(s)=s[ij mD(s) -ij mD (s+a)).lpsj(s). . ........... (10)

As Eq. 8 shows, if qm(t) is constant, Eq. 9 will become the solution for the exponential-wellbore-flow-rate case presented by van
Everdingen 8 and Hurst. 9 The Laplace transform of Eq. 9 for the
same case, qmD = I, can be written 10
.lp w(s)=a.lpsf (s)/(a+s) . ......................... (11)

Eq. II will be used later to analyze one of the field examples.

The above equations for the wellbore pressure (output) provide
a general framework for the solution of time-dependent internal
boundary conditions (input). They also permit the constant-wellborestorage or exponential-wellbore-flow-rate solutions to be used as
a kernel (influence or unit response). Thus, in this formulation,
the wellbore volume between the measurement point and the sandface can be included as an additional wellbore storage. The additional wellbore-storage volume below the tool is usually more
significant for horizontal wells and wells with fractures and rat holes.





production rate profile. BID



10500 14000




drawdown (solid)




buildup (SYDlbols)



-L--""F'=-_ _




Fig. 1-Pressure and flow rate for Well A drawdown and buildup tests.

Interpretation Methods
In this section, we briefly discuss the convolution, nonlinear-leastsquares-estimation, and deconvolution methods, which will be used
to analyze the well-test examples.
Convolution. Here, logarithmic and generalized rate convolutions,
as well as modified Homer methods, are discussed.
The conventional multirate ll - 14 (Ref. 14 gives more literature
on the subject) and logarithmic (sandface-rate) convolution 10,15,16
methods are the same if the Riemann sum is used for the integration of the convolution integral given by Eq. 1. For both methods,
one also can use other numerical integration techniques. For the
multirate case, however, it does not make any difference which
integration technique is used because the number of the measured
rate data is small for a large time span, making the integration
timestep large. On the other hand, for the sandface-rate convolution, the flow rate can be measured every second. Thus, a variety
of numerical methods lO ,14-20 can be used to integrate Eq. 1.
In terms of testing procedure, flow rates for a multirate test are
measured at the surface, while pressure is measured at the sandface. In other words, a multirate test basically consists of sequential constant-rate drawdowns during which only transient downhole
pressure is continuously measured and flow rates usually are measured intermediately. During each drawdown, the flow rate has to
become constant rapidly; otherwise, the wellbore storage will
strongly affect pressure measurements. Thus, if the flow rates fluctuate rapidly, the test cannot be analyzed with the multirate procedure. For this situation, one has to use a nonlinear least-squares
estimation (automated type curve) with the model given by Eq. 5
if the wellbore storage is constant. Pressure and flow-rate measurements in the same time span and at the same wellbore location
close to the sandface will minimize problems associated with multirate testing.
Ideally, we would like to know the sandface flow rate to interpret the measured wellbore pressure. If wellbore flow rate is not
measured, other indirect met"ods exist to determine the sandface
flow rate. The first method is to measure the movement of the
gas/liquid interface with an acoustic device. 21-23 The second approach is to apply the mass-balance principle to the wellbore
volume. 24 ,25 The third method is to determine the sandface flow
rate from the measured wellbore pressure 26- 28 with Eq. 4, provided that qm is constant or zero and that the wellbore storage remains
constant for the duration of the test.
The logarithmic convolution can be obtained from Eq. 1 by use
of the logarithmic approximation for t:.Pj as ll ,12 (oilfield units)
Jw(t)=!:.pw(t)/qmD(t)=m[jlct(t,qmD)+b], ............ (12)

where J w is the "reciprocal PI"29-31 or "rate-normalized pressure," 10,15,16 ftct(t,qmD)=[I/qmD (t)llM~(r) log (t-r)dr=log376



Fig, 2-Productlon profile for Well A,

arithmic convolution time, m= 162.6qpJkh, and b=log(k/</>p.ctrJ)

For radial flow, a linear plot of J w vs. hct should yield a straight
line with a slope m and an intercept mb from which permeability
and skin can be estimated.
The logarithmic convolution method is simple and easy to use
and is similar to semilog methods in many respects. It performs
reasonably well for a fully penetrated well in a homogeneous reservoir with negligible wellbore storage between the tool and sandface. Thus a diagnostic logarithmic convolution derivative 27 ,32
may help determine whether the use of a radial model is valid for
the convolution interpretation.
Other convolution techniques can be developed for different flow
geometries as a diagnostic tool. Next, we consider use of the generalized rate-convolution method to estimate the reservoir pressure
and to verify the model.
For convenience, let us assume that a well is produced at a normalized rate of qmD until shut-in (or another drawdown). At any
time after shut-in, Eq. 7 can be partitioned as

Pw(t)=Pi- tp qmD(r)!:.p'wj(t-r)dr- tqmD (r)!:.p'wj (t-r)dr,

................................... (13)
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1990




.:f.I ... - __---7Li~--::==~====-7




-Log convolution
Nonlinear estimation







.2.L. -S
11.5 3.0









Fig. 3-Pressure and derivatives for Well A drawdown test.

where Pi = initial pressure of the system and tp=producing time.

Eq. 13 can be rearranged as

J1t[l_qmD (T)~P'wf(~t-T)dT, ............... (14)

where t=tp +~t and ~t=test time. For buildup tests, the afterflow
rate, qmD' becomes too small to be measured after some time. It
is important, therefore, to write the integral in Eq. 14 in terms of
l-qmD' Like the logarithmic convolution, Eq. 14 can be rewritten

........................ (15)

where P w = wellbore pressure and fret = the generalized-rateconvolution time function, which depends strictly on the system
and its parameters:

fret(~t,qmD)=~) Itp qmD(T)~P'wf(t-T)dT+~Pwf(~t)

m( 0

-IJ1t[I_qmD(T)~ 'wf(~t-T)dTJ

.................. (16)

If qmD is constant (this may be typical for buildup tests) for the
time interval [O,tp )' Eq. 16 can then be rewritten

frct(~t,qmD)= ~ [ ~wf(~t+tp)


.................. (17)

A linear plot of Pw vs. fret yields a straight line with a slope m

and an intercept Pi (the initial or extrapolated pressure). Note that
m is a normalization factor that makes fret a time unit. The model
and its parameters have to be known to apply this method for the
determination of the extrapolated pressure.
The modified Horner time function 10, 15,25 can be obtained from
Eq. 17 as
fmHt (~t,qmD) =Iog(tp + ~t) +qmD (~t)[flct (~t,qmD) +b],

................................... (18)

where ~wf is replaced by its logarithmic approximation.

A linear plot of Pw vs. fmHt yields a straight line for a radial flow
with a slope m and an intercept Pi' Note that f mHt is also a function of the skin, S, and diffusivity constant, 1/. Thus, an iterative
SPE FOmIation Evaluation, December 1990

procedure has to be used to estimate the initial pressure, permeability, and skin from a modified Horner plot. The extrapolated pressure obtained from the modified Horner method may be more
accurate than what is obtained from the Horner method.IO,IS However, one has to be cautious when the modified Horner method is
applied to a system with a behavior that cannot be depicted by the
simple logarithmic approximation.
For any interpretation method, graphical or nonlinear least
squares, ensuring the validity of the assumed model is crucial because we cannot guarantee a priori that the selected model will be
valid for the interpretation of the system output. Use of diagnostic
tools, such as semilog and log-log derivative plots, may be required
to recognize the model by its subtle features. Semilog and log-log
plotting and the start of the semilog straight line have been used
as diagnostic tools for the last 30 years. In the early 1980's, loglog derivative plotting,33,34 including derivatives with respect to
superposition time 33 ,34 and logarithmic convolution time, 27 ,32
have become an important diagnostic tool. The derivatives with
respect to the Horner superposition {Iog[(tp +At)/~t]} and modified Horner times 10 UmHt) to determine the start of the semilogstraight-line period as a function of shut-in time, producing time,
skin, and wellbore storage have also been presented. 10 Unlike the
log-log derivative methods, these are postdiagnostic (after-nonlinearestimation) techniques.
Nonlinear Least-Squares Estimation. Since the early 1930's,
reservoir parameters have been estimated from transient well-test
data with graphical type-curve procedures that consist of matching
the measured pressure or flow-rate data with type curves derived
from analytical solutions. I,6,7,3S-40 Besides the inherent subjectivity present in the graphical methods, it is practically impossible to
extend the method to cases with more than three parameters. Thus,
it is desirable to use nonlinear least-squares estimation (also called
automated type-curve or history matching), which is normally distributed and unbiased, to estimate parameters from well-test data.
In solving the estimation problem, one seeks a model that fits a
given set of output data and knowledge of what features in that model
are acquired by the data. Evaluation of model features can be done
iteratively in the process of estimation and by the diagnostic tools.
If the uncertainties about the model are resolved by the diagnostic
tools, however, the estimation can be carried out with greater confidence at a minimal cost.
Application of nonlinear least-squares estimation to analyze welltest data has gained growing importance since the early
1970's. 14,40-43 More recently, there has been considerable new interest in the nonlinear least-squares estimation 20,44-49 with constant-wellbore-storage, variable-rate-superposition, or convolution
solutions for the response of the system.
For the nonlinear least-squares estimation, an objective function
(the residual sum of squares), J, is minimized to obtain estimates
by ensuring the best fit between the measured pressure (output) and
the model behavior, which includes the flow rate (input). Thus,
the nonlinear estimation refers to minimizing

I Nm

Wi[~$(x,ti)-~$'(ti)]2, ............ (19)


where the model behavior (computed pressure), ~$(x,ti)' is

given by Eq. I, x=unknown parameter vector (k, S, etc.),
~$'(ti)=measured pressure, Nm:=number of measured data
points, and Wi=positive weight factor.
















penetration ratio. b






dp/dt, psilhr

Fig. 4-Dlmenslonless time of the start of the pseudoradlal

flow period for the estimation of vertical permeability.

Fig. 5-Flow rate as a function of the derivative of pressure

with respect to time.

In general, the measured pressure (as in Eq. 19), measured flow

rate,49 and/or any processed form of the measured pressure, such
as a derivative, can be used to match the response of the system.
In the nonlinear least-squares estimation with rate, the response of
a selected model is convolved with the measured downhole flow
rate, as in Eq. 1, to obtain reservoir parameters.

tained from the measured downhole rate if the wellbore flow rate
varies exponentially.

Deconvolution. The deconvolution method lO ,17-19,29-31,50-53 is

the determination of the constant-rate/pressure behavior of the system (unit response of influence function) from measured pressure
(output) and flow rate (input). In other words, deconvolution computes the pressure behavior of a well/reservoir system as if the well
was producing at a constant rate with or without constant-wellborestorage or exponential-flow-rate effects. As discussed above, if the
sandface flow rate differs from the measured flow rate, flp d will
include the effect of the wellbore volume below the ratemeasurement point. Once flpd is computed, conventional interpretation methods, including type-curve matching, can be used to identify the well/reservoir system and to estimate its parameters. The
idea of deconvolution is simple if it is considered as a solution of
the integral equation given by Eq. 1. In other words, for a given
set of pressure, flpw, and flow-rate, qsjD' measurements, deconvolution is the process of computing t:..Psj(flpd if the measured
flow rate is used) from Eq. 1. Using the Riemann sum for the integration of Eq. 1, one can write a simple deconvolution formula:
(flp d)n =


-E;:/ (qmD)n-i(flpd)i ,

............. (20)


where n=I,2,3 ... N m.

Note that the above deconvolution formula is recursive. In other
words, (flpdh, (t:..Pdh (t:..Pd)n-1 (all previously computed
values) are needed to compute (flpd)n' Small perturbations in the
flow-rate measurements (errors) result in large perturbations in the
solutions (flpd) computed from Eq. 20 because the solution of the
integral equation given by Eq. I is ill-posed. 19 It is well known
that measurements in general, no matter how carefully acquired,
have errors. Thus, the constrained deconvolution method, 19 which
minimizes the instability problem caused by measurement errors,
will be used to analyze the examples.
/i-Deconvolution. For the exponential-wellbore-flow-rate case
(the sandface rate is approximated by Eq. 8), the deconvolved pressure, flpd, from Eq. 11 can be written lO

1 dilPw(t)


+t:..Pw(t) . ...................... (21)


This technique makes it quite simple to compute flp d from the

measured downhole pressure, its derivative, and ex, which is ob378

Gas Wells. One of the well-test examples to be analyzed is from

a gas well. A brief discussion of pseudovariables, which will be
used for the interpretation of the gas well-test data, is given here
for convenience. The real gas potential (pseudopressure) given by
AI-Hussainy et al. 54 is modified by Meunier et at. 55 as



dp ....................... (22)

Pi Ph J.l.(p)z(p)

Although 1/;N is called "normalized pseudopressure," we call it

pseudopressure, 1/;. Unlike the unit (psi2/cp) of the real gas potential, it has the unit of pressure. The pseudovariables given in Eq.
22 partially linearize the diffusivity equation. 56 They are, however, sufficient for the pressure and permeability range of our welltest problems.

Field Example.
The objective of the interpretation of the following tests is not to
produce numbers from each analysis. Instead, we demonstrate certain salient features of each technique and compare them with converttional techniques. The well-test examples given are well-run field
experiments compared with well tests we usually encounter. In many
instances, the infinite-acting radial flow does not occur during a
well test. Cost or operational restrictions can make it impractical
to carry out a test of sufficient duration to attain radial flow. In
these circumstances, convolution and deconvolution techniques may
be the only approach available for the interpretation of short tests.
For example, well-test interpretation for saturated reservoirs is often
confounded by the presence of a gas cap, which often creates at
least two well-known interpretation problems: the allowance of a
large standoff to inhibit gas coning can lead to very low penetration ratios, and if a well is in direct communication with a gas cap,
the infinite-acting radial-flow period will never occur.

Well A: A Partially Penetrated Well. This is a deep well in a

thick reservoir and has an "" 1,OOO-ft rathole below the producing,
zones. The geological, log, and core data suggest that the forma-'
tion is mildly layered; i.e., the properties of each zone are not expected to be very different. After a 2-day shut-in period, the tool
was lowered and stationed at thy top of the formation, and the downhole pressure was recorded for about 30 minutes. The well was
then put on production with the expectation that the production rate
would stabilize at a constant rate of 15,000 BID. Within a 20-minute
period, a significant drop in the downhole pressure was noticed.
In fact, the pressure fell below the bubblepoint pressure. To avoid
two-phase flow in the wellbore and formation, the production rate
was decreased (Fig. 1). After 7 hours of recording the downhole
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1990



1...,- 7.




i i













......... \'"








1000 <l

.. '~~


measured pressure

computed pressure (b=O.49)




-computed pressure (b=1.0)



time, hr

Fig, 6-Pressure and derivatives for Well A buildup test.

pressure and flow rate, the data acquisition was halted for 10 hours
because of operational problems.
After 10 hours, the recording of pressure and rate resumed again
and the production rate was found to be stable at 13,256 BID. After '" 1 hour of production, a flow profile survey was conducted,
which is shown in Fig. 2 (this profile is slightly different from the
earlier profile 57 because of reinterpretation of the data). As Fig.
2 shows, a few of the bottom perforations were not contributing
to flow. This was not surprising because this formation, in particuiar the bottom zone, has had scaling problems throughout the fi~ld.
After the survey, the well was shut in for a buildup test.
Drawdown Test. As pointed out by Gringarten et al. ,39 the system identification is the first step of the interpretation. It is already
known from the geophysical information (openho1e logs, cores,
well-to-well correlations, etc.) that the formation is mildly layered
with discontinuous shale streaks embedded throughout. From the
production profile survey (Fig. 2) we know that Well A is a partially penetrated well with the penetration ratio, b=hw/h, of 0.49.
Moreover, the initial production profile survey, which was taken
after well completion, indicated that the lower perforations were
contributing to flow. With the exception of the proftle survey, which
clearly provides the zones that are in direct communication with
the wellbore (open intervals), most of the information mentioned
above will be treated as a priori input for the determination of the
well/reservoir model. The fluid and formation properties for this
well are: <1>=0.21, !L=0.86 cp, ct =0.OOOO21 psi -1, rw=0.355 ft,
h=187.5 ft, producing perforations, hw=91.5 ft, production time,
tp=19.0 hours, initial pressure, pi=4,495.0 psi, pressure, Pw at
tp =3, 160.0 psi, and production rate, q at tp = 13,256 BID.
Without any further assumptions for the system, let us evaluate
the features of the model with diagnostic tools. As Fig. 1 shows,
the pressure data do not exhibit any recognizable features of the
system because of the flow rate variations in the drawdown period. Fig. 3 presents the wellbore pressure change, t:.Pw, deconvolved pressure, !:.pd, and its derivatives with respect to In(t) and
fspt (spherical time,jspt = 1/.Jt), and the derivative of ratenormalized pressure, J w (from the logarithmic convolution), with
respect to flet on a log-log plot. The spherical derivative is also included for this case because of a possible hemispherical flow caused
by partial penetration. Of course, this is not a unique set of diagnostic plots. Depending on a priori information about the system,
many different sets of pressure and/or derivative plots can be used.
Note that the derivative of the measured pressure is excluded in
Fig. 3 because it was very noisy (including negative values) after
0.1 hours because of fluctuations in the flow rate.
The log-log plots of t:.Pd and t:.Pw in Fig. 3 do not show any interesting features, with the exception that a unit slope period is apparent on the t:.Pw curve at early times. On the other hand, the
deconvolution and logarithmic convolution derivatives exhibit a possible hemispherical flow period between 0.08 and 0.3 hours, possibly two radial (the second one is the pseudoradial) flow periods
(as shown in the logarithmic convolution derivative plot) between
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1990





Fig. 7-Comparlson of measured and computed pressures for

Well A drawdown test.

0.002 and 0.08 (this one is not definite) and 2.4 and 7 hours, and
a long transition period between 0.9 and 7 hours during which the
spherical derivative also indicates that at least the system is changing from a hemispherically dominated flow to a radially dominated flow. The second radial (pseudoradial) flow period from the
logarithmic convolution is not verified by the deconvolution derivative. Nevertheless, these features coincide with the certain characteristics of a partially penetrated well in a homogeneous radial
reservoir, except for the disagreement between the late-time deconvolution and logarithmic convolution derivatives.
The a priori information from other sources and the profile survey have influenced our decision to select certain types of plots
and to observe certain features of the system. We continue to perform the interpretation steps with the assumption that we will modify
our model as analysis dictates. A priori information assists us in
making the system identification decisions and saves time, but it
also deters us from examining all possible diagnostic and plotting
tools (although they could be inexhaustible).
As Fig. 3 shows, the derivative of the logarithmic convolution
looks like a derivative of wellbore pressure with the wellbore-storage
effect. This is expected because of the large wellbore volume (a
rathole with a volume of '" 70 bbl) below the tool. Permeability
and skin estimates from the derivative plot of the logarithmic convolution, with the assumption that the flattening is caused by the
second radial-flow period, are given in Table 1. Note that the estimated skin should be the total skin (St =S/b+Sp ) of the system,
where S=damage skin and Sp=skin from partial penetration.
kH.../k; is estimated from the hemispherical flow period (Fig.
3) as 259 md, where kH and kv are the horizontal and vertical permeabilities, respectively. 58 kH is estimated from both radial-flow
regimes (the first caused by the open interval and the second by
the whole formation) of the derivative of the logarithmic convolution as 39 and 82.3 md. The formation thickness of 187.5 ft (see
Fig. 2) obtained from logs is used to estimate permeability. kv
would be 9.8 md from kH.../k; =259 md and k H=82.3 md.
kv also can be estimated with tDsI/h;'D from Fig. 4 and the expression (see Appendix A of Ref. 57 for the derivation):

kv=(tDSI)(<I>!LCthJ )~, ....................... (23)

0.000264 tsl
wheretsl is the start of the infinite-acting radial (pseudoradial) flow
period that may be obtained from the derivatives of pressure, normalized pressure (J w), or deconvolved pressure. Thus, kv is estimated as 74.3 md from Eq. 23 with 2.7 hours for the start of the
second radial-flow period observed on the derivative plot (Fig. 3)
of the logarithmic convolution, 1.669 for tDsI/h;'D from Fig. 4 for
b=0.49, and other parameters given above.
Note that various methods yield quite different kH and kv estimates. If we did not have the buildup test for Well A, the next interpretation step would be to apply the nonlinear least-squares
estimation to resolve the differences in estimates.










'" 4100








modified Horner
generalized rate convolution












Fig. 8-Comparlson of derivatives.

Fig. 9-Horner, modified Horner, and generallzed-rateconvolution plots for Well A.

Buildup Test. Fig. 1 also presents the buildup pressure and aftertlow rate during the buildup test, which was started after about
19 hours of production. As Fig. 1 shows, the measurable afterflow rate period is short ( "" 40 minutes). The missing sandface rate
data could be computed with Eq. 3 as discussed above. As shown
in Fig. 5, however, the wellbore-storage coefficient, C, which is
from the whole wellbore-storage volume and represents the slope
of the linear plot of the sandface rate vs. dp/dt (see Eq. 4), is not
constant. For buildup tests, when the wellbore-storage coefficient
becomes constant, a plot of qm(t) vs. dp/dt should yield a straight
line passing through the origin. Fig. 5 shows that the common
method of obtaining C for the sandface-flow-rate estimation from
the wellbore volume and the compressibility of the wellbore fluid
would not be reliable for this test because of changing wellbore
The log-log plots of the derivatives of the wellbore pressure with
respect to the Homer superposition time, dpw/d In(tH), and the
multirate superposition time, dpw/dtsup' (with the flow rate measured during the drawdown test) shown in Fig. 6, indicate that after
the wellbore-storage effect, the system slowly approaches a possible radial-flow period. The plot at the upper right shows that the
Homer semilog straight line is not fully developed. This could be
a result of the effect of the short producing time because the multirate superposition indicates a radial-flow period. As explained
above, the time for the start of the radial-flow period from the
derivative of the superposition plot and Eq. 23 can be used to estimate kv= 11.4 md. This value compares favorably with the kv obtained from the spherical derivative plot of the drawdown
deconvolved pressure. The horizontal permeability and skin computed from the same plot are given in Table 1.
The convolution, dJ w/d!lcp and deconvolution, dpd1d In(tH),
derivatives do not show any diagnostic features (Fig. 6). On the
other hand, as in the drawdown case, the derivative of the deconvolution pressure with respect to the spherical time function,
dpd1d!spt, indicates a short hemispherical flow period. The system,
at least, is changing from a hemispherically dominated flow to a
radially dominated flow. Thus the buildup behavior of the system
is similar to the drawdown behavior.
Final Interpretotion and Discussion. So far, we have been concerned mainly with the system-identification problem. At this point,
we have observed from both tests (1) changing wellbore storage,
(2) partial penetration effects, (3) no apparent outer-boundary effects, and (4) a fully developed radial-flow period owing to the entire formation. Moreover, the buildup test without the drawdown
flow-rate measurements (for the superposition) could have given
a misleading interpretation. For this buildup test, the parameters
obtained from the superposition derivative (Fig. 6) are assumed to
be more accurate than those from other techniques because the
radial-flow period is well-defined and the vertical permeability compares well with that from the drawdown deconvolved pressure.

These parameters will be used as initial guesses for the nonlinear

estimation, which will be carried out next.
The nonlinear estimation method (type-curve matching with rate)
is applied to the drawdown test to improve the results obtained previously. In this estimation, the effect of wellbore storage on wellbore pressure is included. In other words, the mathematical model
will be Eq. 1 where qsj is given by Eq. 4 as a function of both
the measured wellbore flow rate and an unknown wellbore-storage
coefficient (caused by the wellbore volume below the flow-ratemeasurement point). It is assumed that the wellbore-storage coefficient from this additional wellbore volume is constant. This assumption is reasonable because the wellbore pressure was kept above
the bubblepoint pressure, with the exception of a short time during
the drawdown. In general, the variation of the wellbore storage is
a result of two-phase flow in the tubing from the wellbore to the
wellhead. The reservoir model, I1p ~j (the impulse response of the
system) in Eq. 1 is the derivative of PD in dimensionless form
given by Eq. A-I57 plus the damage skin S. The horizontal and
vertical permeabilities, skin, and wellbore-storage coefficient will
be estimated by the nonlinear estimation procedure with the known
formation thickness and penetration ratio. The thickness of the open
interval is directly determined from the production profiles. The
formation thickness is detemtined from the geological and openholelog data. Although possible in principle, the estimation of b is more
difficult than the estimation of other parameters. Thus, we will attempt to estimate b only if we do not obtain a satisfactory match
with its present value of 0.49.
Fig. 7 shows a good match between the measured and computed
pressures as log-log and semilog plots. As stated above, the derivatives are not included because they were noisy as a result of the
flow-rate variations. Table 1 gives the final estimates obtained
from this match. C=0.OO56 bbl/psi, which yields CD (5.6146
C/27rf/>ct hrJ)=48, compares well with the additional wellbore
volume below the tool. hwD [the dimensionless wellbore length,
hWD =(hw1rwh/kH1kv] is calculated as 830 from the estimated
kH= 110.0 md and kv= 10.6 md.
Now that we know the model and its parameters, let us compute
the derivatives of the wellborepressure for this partially penetrated well (b=0.49 and h wD =830) with (CD =48 and S=4.8) and
without wellbore-storage and skin effects. These derivatives are
compared with the derivative of the deconvolved pressure computed
from the drawdown data. This comparison is important because
both the convolution (nonlinear estimation or logarithmic) and
deconvolution, and their derivatives, may be affected to a certain
degree by the different smoothing processes. This comparison is
shown in Fig. 8 [see dpsjld!spt for CD =0], which indicates that
we do not have a hemispherical flow regime. The derivative of the
sandface pressure without the wellbore-storage effect, dpsjld!spt,
indicates a long transition period, which results from the partial
penetration effect before the flow becomes pseudoradial. Of course,


SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1990






~ 3100


measured rate
-computed rate





1000 ~






oI!I 100





time, br

Fig. 10-Pseudopressure and afterflow rate for Well B.

Fig. 11-Pseudopressure and derivatives for Well B.

there is a single point in this curve that would have the correct
hemispherical slope. In other words, the length of the open interval is too large compared with the distance to the lower no-flow
boundary to have a well-defined hemispherical flow period. The
curve of I(dp4s /dfspt ) I in Fig. 8 (the spherical derivative of the
wellbore pressure including the effects of CD =48 and S=4.8) has
a minimum; this is also true for the curves of I(dp25 /dfspt) I (with
CD =25 and S=4.8) and I(dp lOo/dfspt) I (with CD = 100 and S=4.8)
at different times. The spherical derivative of the deconvolved pressure probably becomes flat for a short time period because of
wellbore-storage effect. It must then be by coincidence that the
derivative at this flattening period becomes approximately equal
to the hemispherical slope. A low or high value of the wellbore
storage would yield an inaccurate hemispherical slope. In general,
the hemispherical slope obtained from this flattening period will
be inaccurate. Nevertheless, the spherical derivative of the deconvolved pressure exhibits the true characteristics of a partially
penetrated well.
Fig. 9 presents the Homer, modified Homer, and generalizedrate-convolution plots where time functions are defined as
(t p +l1t)/l1t for the Homer, 10/mHt (Eq. 18) for the modified
Homer, and 10Irct (Eq. 16) for the generalized rate convolution.
As can be seen from Eq. 18,fmHt is a function of the skin, St, and
diffusivity constant, .". We therefore use the final estimates with
a total skin of 15.9 (St=Slb+Sp )' where Sp=6.0 (from Ref. 14
for b=0.49 and h wD =830). Strictly speaking, the application of
the modified Homer method is not valid because the well is partially penetrated. The generalized-rate-convolution time,frct, is obtained from PD given by Eq. A-I of Ref. 57 and the final estimates
of C, S, kH' and kv. The plots given in Fig. 9 are a convenient
way to display and compare the Homer, modified Homer, and generalized rate convolution together. The generalized-rate-convolution
plot, which is a semilog plot of Pw vs. frct yields a straight line
with a slope m (although it was known) and an intercept p* (the
initial or extrapolated pressure). The slope slightly increases after
fret = 100 ( < 1 hour) possibly because the partially penetrated well
model may not be not exact because all perforated zones are combined as a single-zone model and the afterflow rate could not be
measured at late times during the buildup.
Fig. 9 exaggerates the early-time data; in fact, the time interval
between 0 and 1 hour is about 14 log cycles, and it is onl)' two
log cycles for the time interval between 1 and 24 hours. Like other
semilog plots, it is unfortunate that this type of display relies on
the plotting scale. Of course, we could have looked at the derivatives of these plots, as we did for the Homer plot. They may not
be useful for the determination of the initial pressure, however,
which is the main objective of this type of plotting. Fig. 9 also
presents the late-time enlargement. The extrapolated pressure, p*,
obtained from the generalized rate-convolution curve, is 4,496 psi,
which is 1 psi higher than the initial pressure before the drawdown
test. Note that both the Homer and modified Homer methods depend on the existence of a storage-free, infinite-acting radial flow

period. On the other hand, the generalized rate-convolution method

can give the extrapolated pressure at any test time. If we were to
use the first straight line betweenfrct = 100 and 10 15 (I1t=0.6 and
0.01 hours), the extrapolated pressure would be "" 30 psi smaller
than its final value.
Finally, in addition to the initial pressure determination, the generalized rate convolution in conjunction with the nonlinear estimation, logarithmic convolution, and deconvolution, allows us to verify
the model and its parameters with the well-test and past production
data. For this test, the drawdown data provided better diagnostic
features and estimates than the buildup data. To estimate the reservoir pressure, however, the buildup data are invaluable.
We also applied nonlinear estimation with a fully penetrated well
model. The match between the measured and computed pressures
is shown in Fig. 7. This match is as good as the one obtained with
the partially penetrated well model, with estimates of k=69.0 md
and S=7.7. When it is compared with the spherical derivative of
the deconvolved pressure, however, the fully penetrated case does
not show similar behavior. The good match obtained with a fully
penetrated well suggests that the nonlinear estimation (type-curve
matching) without an effective system identification (diagnostic)
step may lead to a nonunique model. For this test, the flow profile
and diagnostic tools have provided an invaluable input for the selection of the model.
Parameters obtained from both the drawdown and buildup tests
are presented in Table 1. Note that S values estimated from different methods, with the exception of the nonlinear estimation, are
almost the same, regardless of the estimated vertical and horizontal permeabilities. The estimates from the nonlinear estimation are
the final values that satisfy the well-test data and other information
available for the system.

SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1990

Well B: A Gas Well. This well is located in a low-permeability

gas reservoir and was on production for"" 567 hours before shutin. The fluid and formation properties are: 1/>=0.11, 1-'=0.017 cp,
ct =0.OOO31'psi -I, rw=0.365 ft, h= 120 ft, tp =567 hours, pseudopressure, 1/Iw at tp = 1,221.0 psi, and production rate, q=2,450.0
BID. To have better flowmeter response, the continuous production logging tool, which was located just above the tubing shoes
during the test, was used. This well-test example was selected because of its interesting features.
For this gas well, the measured pressure data are converted into
pseudopressure, defined by Eq. 22. The computed pseudopressure
is treated as a pressure data set of an equivalent liquid case (see
Ref. 55).
Fig. 10 presents the measured pseudopressure and flow rate. In
Fig. 10, the afterflow rate is measurable for a few hours, after which
the rate becomes too small to be measured. We notice that the downhole flow rate can be approximated by an exponential function as
qC(t)=2,450e- 5.3t , ............................... (24)
























measured (symbols)
computed (solid)









modified Homer
generalized rate convolution







time, hr


Fig. 12-Comparlson of measured and computed pseudopressures and derivatives.

Fig. 13-Horner, modified Horner, and generalized-rateconvolution plots for Well B.

where the exponential constant a=5.3 is determined from the measured flow rate. The constant 2,450 BID is the flow rate before shutin. Fig. 10 also presents the computed (from Eq. 24) flow rates.
Fig. 10 shows that the exponential decline given in Eq. 24 approximates the measured flow rate well up to 1 hour. The flow rate
computed from Eq. 24 is much smaller than the actual values because the flow rate declines very slowly after 1 hour (Fig. 10).
Fig. 11 presents the derivatives of the pseudopressure and normalized pseudopressure with respect to different time functions.
These derivatives indicate that the wellbore pseudopressure is heavily dominated by the wellbore storage and that the system is possibly becoming an infinite-acting radial flow after 10 hours (first
diagnostic observation). The convolution and deconvolution derivatives may not be accurate after 1 hour because the flow rate measurem!!nts or their extrapolation is unreliable. In general, when the
flow rate is undermeasured (less than its true value) or underestimated, its effect will appear as a wellbore storage provided that
the surface flow rate does not fluctuate rapidly. This is apparent
in convolution and deconvolution plots in Fig. 11. Thus, these
derivatives do not indicate any feature of the system earlier than
the Homer derivative. The semilog slope of an infinite-acting radial
flow period from Fig. 11 is 228 psi/cycle, which gives k=0.25 md
and S=ll.l.
The derivative of the deconvolution pseudopressure, with respect
to the spherical time function, dl/ld1dfspt, is also included in Fig.
11 to show whether the pseudopressure might be affected by lost
or plugged perforations. It is known that this well is fully perforated. The spherical derivative also indicates the pronounced effect
of the wellbore storage and possibly the beginning of an infiniteacting radial flow period.
As Fig. 11 shows, with the exception of very few data points
at the beginning, the deconvolved pseudopressures from the constrained deconvolution 19 and {3-deconvolution (Eq. 21) methods
give identical results. The advantage of the {3-deconvolution method
is that it is easy to compute. It can be continued even after the flowmeter data become unreliable below the flowmeter threshold value,
with the assumption that the downhole flow rate declines exponentially during the test. As stated above, this assumption did not work
for this test.
Fig. 12 shows the match of the derivative of the deconvolved
pseudopressure (the constant-rate behavior of the system including the effect of the additional volume) with the constant-welibOrestorage type curves for a fully penetrated well in an infinite reservoir. The parameters obtained from derivatives are used as initial
guesses for this matching. The estimates obtained from this typecurve matching are k=0.26 md, S=11.8, and C=O.OI bbl/psi
( CD = 16). This computed C value is slightly higher than that obtained from the 180-ft wellbore volume below the tool. These parameters compare well with those from derivatives.
Another nonlinear estimation is performed with a fully penetrated well in an infinite radial reservoir for the verification and im-

provement of the above estimates. The mathematical model, ilp."

used in Eq. 19 is given by Eq. 7, where qmD is the normalized
measured flow rate. Unlike the above deconvolved pseudopressure
matching, at each iteration during this nonlinear estimation, the
constant-rate solution with the wellbore-storage and skin effects for
the fully penetrated well model is convolved with the flow rate,
as in Eq. 7. Thus, the nonlinear estimation with rate data requires
more computation time than does the deconvolved pseudopressure,
from which the effect of the flow rate variations are eliminated.
It is therefore desirable for the nonlinear estimation with rate to
have the initial guesses as close as possible to the final solution.
Thus, deconvolution not only indicates diagnostic features of the
system, but also provides satisfactory estimates. Both nonlinear estimations should be carried out, however, because of the smoothing properties of convolution and the ill-posed nature of
Fig. 12 shows an excellent match between measured and computed pseudopressures and their derivatives. The estimates obtained
from this match are k=0.26 md, S= 12.0, and C=O.OI bbl/psi.
The above analysis, including the diagnostic and estimation step,
has produced a model with parameters except the reservoir pseudopressure. The model fits the observed behavior of the system
very well. To complete the interpretation of this buildup test, we
not only have to estimate the reservoir pseudopressure (extrapolated or initial), but also have to know its effect on other estimates
because, for the convolution, deconvolution, and nonlinear estimation procedure, we have used measured t...jIw=l/Iw(fJ.t)-l/Iw(fJ.t
=0), where l/Iw(fJ.t=;O) is the flowing pseudopressure before shutin and not the initial pseudopressure. In other words, the drawdown solutions are used. This aspect of the problem can be solved
accurately if we use Eq. 16. Unfortunately, it may become a formidable task computationally. Thus the generalized rate-convolution
technique is used to estimate the reservoir pseudopressure.
Fig. 13 presents the Homer, modified Homer, and generalizedrate-convolution plots where time functions are defined as (tp +
fJ.t)/fJ.t for the Homer, 10ImHJ for the modified Homer, and 10lrct
for the generalized rate convolution. It is convenient to display and
compare all of them together. Note that both the Homer and modified Homer methods depend on the existence of a storage-free,
infinite-acting radial flow period. On the other hand, the generalized rate-convolution method can give the extrapolated pseudopressure at any test time. Fig. 13 also presents the late-time enlargement.
As Fig. 13 shows, each curve extrapolates to a different pseudopressure, l/I*, as 4,765.4,4,772.2, and 4,778 psi for generalized rate
convolution, modified Homer, and Homer, respectively. The extrapolated pseudopressure obtained from the generalized rate convolution should be the most accurate one.


In this paper we applied convolution and deconvolution interpretation methods to two well tests. It is clear from the interpretation
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1990

of these well-test examples that the downhole flow rate is crucial

for system identification and parameter estimation. Both measured
downhole pressure and flow rate, however, also can be affected
by the wellbore volume below the pressure gauge and flowmeter.
Thus, this must be taken into account for the interpretation.
It is shown that the deconvolved pressure and its derivative are
an effective system identification tool and also can provide initial
estimates for nonlinear estimation. Without diagnostic steps, relying solely on nonlinear estimation may lead to an erroneous model
and estimates.
A new interpretation method, called generalized rate convolution, is introduced to obtain ~he reseI'voir pressure and the final
verification of the model and its estimated parameters. It is shown
that this new method works better than the Horner and modified
Horner methods.
fj-deconvolution provides a simple technique for obtaining deconvolved pressure that can be used for system identification and
parameter estimation, if the flow rate varies exponentially.
A new method is presented to determine the vertical permeability for partially penetrated wells. The method uses the onset of the
radial flow period, if it evolves during the test.
It is shown that an integrated interpretation approach reduces a
possible inaccurate interpretation and harmonizes features of the
system with the well-test data.

sup = superposition time

V = vertical
w = well, wellbore, or perforated
wellbore flowing

wi =

e = model or computed
m = measured

- = Laplace transform of
I = derivative
* = interpreted

I thank Schlumberger-Doll Research for permission to publish this
paper and Christine Ehlig-Econornides of Schlumberger Well Services for providing helpful discussions.


d = deconvolved
D = dimensionless
f = formation
H = horizontal
H = Horner time
i = initial
let = logarithmic convolution time
mHt = modified Horner time
N = normalized
p = perforated
r = reference
ret = rate convolution time
s = skin
sf = sandface
sl = sernilog
spt = spherical time

1. Schilthuis, R.J. and Hurst, W.: "Variations in Reservoir Pressure in

the East Texas Field," Trans., AIME (1935) 114, 164-76.
2. Muskat, M.: "The Flow of Compressible Fluids Through Porous Media and Some Problems in Heat Conduction," Physics (March 1934).
3. Muskat, M.: The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous Media, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York City (1937).
4. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans., AlME (1949)
186, 305-24.
5. Kuchuk, FJ. and Wilkinson, D.: "Transient Pressure Behavior of Commingled Reservoirs," paper SPE 18125 presented at the 1988 SPEAnnual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 2-5.
6. Agarwal, G.R., AI-Hussainy, R., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "An Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow:
I. Analytical Treatment," SPEJ (Sept. 1970) 279-90; Trans., AIME,
7. McKinley, R.M.: "Wellbore Transmissibility from AfterflowDominated Pressure Buildup Data," JPT(July 1971) 863-72; Trans.,
8. van Everdingen, A.F.: "The Skin Effect and Its Influence on the Productive Capacity of a Well," Trans., AIME (1953) 198, 171-76.
9. Hurst, William: "Establishment of the Skin Effect and Its Impediment
to Fluid Flow into a Well Bore," Pet. Eng. (Oct. 1953) A-6-A-16.
10. Kueuk, F. and Ayestaran, L.: "Analysis of Simultaneously Measured
Pressure and Sandface Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing, " JPT (Feb.
1985) 323-34.
II. Russell, D.G.: "Determination of Formation Characteristics From TwoRate Flow Tests," JPT (Dec. 1963) 1347-55; Trans., AIME, 228.
12. Odeh, A.S. and Jones, L.G.: "Pressure Drawdown Analysis, VariableRate Case," JPT (Aug. 1965) 960-64; Trans., AIME, 234.
13. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests
in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1967) 1.
14. Earlougher, R. C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1975) 5.
15. Meunier, D., Wittmann, MJ., and Stewart, G.: "Interpretation of Pressure Buildup Test Using In-Situ Measurement of Afterflow," JPT (Jan.
1985) 143-52.
16. Fetkovich, M.J. and Vienot, M.E.: "Rate Normalization of Buildup
Pressure By Using Afterflow Data," JPT (Dec. 1984) 2211-24.
17. Thompson, L.G., Jones, J.R., and Reynolds, A.C.: "Analysis of Pressure Buildup Data Influenced by Wellbore Phase Redistribution,"
SPEFE (Oct. 1986) 435-52.
18. Thompson, L.G. and Reynolds, A.C.: "Analysis of Variable-Rate WellTest Pressure Data Using Duhamel's Principle," SPEFE (Oct. 1986)
19. Kuchuk, FJ., Carter, R.G., and Ayestaran, L.: "Deconvolution of
Wellbore Pressure and Flow Rate," SPEFE (March 1990) 53-59.
20. McEdwards, D.G.: "Multiwell Variable-Rate Well Test Analysis,"
SPEI (Aug. 1981) 444-46.
21. Godbey, 1.K. and Dimon, C.A.: "The Automatic Liquid Level Monitor for Pumping Wells," JPT(Aug. 1977) 1019-24.
22. Podio, A.L., Tarrillion, M.J., and Roberts, E.T.: "Laboratory Work
Improves Calculations," Oil & Gas J. (Aug. 25, 1980) 137-46.
23. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S.: "Determining Bottomhole Pressures in
Pumping Wells," SPEI (Dec. 1985) 823-38.
24. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S.: "Application of Mass Balance in Pumping
Well Analysis," JPT (May 1982) 1002-10.

SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1990


b =
e =
C =
f =
h =
J =
Jw =
k =
m =

N =
p =
r =
s =
S =
t =
W =


[, =


1/ =
J.I. =
T =
c/> =
1/; =

penetration ratio or intercept

total system compressibility, psi - 1
wellbore-storage constant, bbllpsi
time function
formation thickness, ft
positive scalar objective function for minimization
reciprocal PI or rate-normalized pressure
permeability, rod
number of measured data points
pressure, psi
flow rate, BID
radius, ft
Laplace image space variable
damage skin
time, hours
positive weight factor
parameter vector
positive constant
Dirac delta function
pressure diffusivity, ft 2 /hr
oil viscosity, cp
dummy integration variable
system porosity
pseudopressure, psi


FIIot .I. Kuchuk is a senior scientist and
program leader at Schiumberger-Doll Research Center In Ridgefield, CT. He
researches fluid dynamics in porous me
dla and performs reservoir testing.
Kuchuk holds an MS degree from the
Technical U. of Istanbul and MS and PhD
degrees from Stanford U., all In petroleum engineering.

25. Simmons, J.F.: "Convolution Analysis of Surge Pressure Data," JPT

(Jan. 1990) 74-83.
26. Ramey, H.J. Jr. and Agarwal, R.G.: "Annulus Unloading Rates as
Influenced by Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect," SPEJ (Oct. 1972)
453-62; Trans., AIME, 253.
27. Bourdet, D. and Alagoa, A.: "New Method Enhances Well Test Interpretation," World Oil (Sept. 1984).
28. Westaway, P.J., EI Shafei, 1., and Wittmann, M.J.: "A Combined Perforating and Well-Testing System," paper SPE 14686 presented at the
1985 SPE Production Technology Symposium, Lubbock, Nov. 11-12.
29. Gladfelter, R.E., Tracy, G.W., and Wilsey, L.E.: "Selecting Wells
Which Will Respond to Production-Stimulation Treatment," Drill. &
Prod. Prac., API, Dallas (1955) 117-29.
30. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Verification of the Gladfelter, Tracey, and Wilsey
Concept for Wellbore Storage Dominated Transient Pressures During
Production," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (April-June 1976) 84-85.
31. Winestock, A.G. and Colpitts, G.P.: "Advances in Estimating Gas Well
Deliverability," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1965) 111-19.
32. Ehlig-Economides, C. et al.: "Evaluation of Single-Layer Transients
in a Multilayered System," paper SPE 15860 presented at the 1986
European Offshore Petroleum Conference, London, Oct. 20-22.
33. Bourdet, D. et af.: "A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test
Analysis," World Oil (May 1983).
34. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A., and Pirard, Y.M.: "Use of Pressure Derivative in Well-Test Interpretation," SPEFE (June 1989) 293-302; Trans.,
35. Theis, C. V.: "The Relation Between the Lowering of the Piezometric
Surface and the Rate and Duration of Discharge of Well Using GroundWater Storage," Trans., AGU (1937) 519-24.
36. Papadopulos, I.S. and Cooper, H.H. Jr.: "Drawdown in a Well of Large
Diameter," Water Resources Res. (1967) 3, No.1, 241-44.
37. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Short-Time Well Test Data Interpretation in the Presence of Skin Effect and Wellbore Storage," JPT (Jan. 1970) 97-104;
Trans., AIME, 249.
38. Earlougher, R.C. Jr. and Kersch, K.M.: "Analysis of Short-Time Transient Test Data by Type-Curve Matching," JPT (July 1974) 793-800;
Trans., AIME, 257.
39. Gringarten, A.C. et af.: "A Comparison Between Different Skin and
Wellbore Storage Type-Curves for Early-Time Transient Analysis,"
paper SPE 8205 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
40. Earlougher, R.C. Jr. and Kersch, K.M.: "Field Examples of Automatic Transient Test Analysis," JPT(Oct. 1972) 1271-77.
41. Dixon, T.N. et aI.: "Reliability of Reservoir Parameters From HistoryMatched Drill Stem Tests, " paper SPE 4282 presented at the 1973 SPE
Symposium on Numerical Simulation of Reservoir Performance,
Houston, Jan. 11-12.
42. Panmanabhan, L. and Woo, P.T.: "A New Approach to Parameter
Estimation in Well Testing," paper SPE 5741 presented at the 1976
SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Los Angeles, Feb. 1-2.


43. Welty, D.H. and Miller, W.C.: "Automated History Matching of Well
Tests," paper SPE 7695 presented at the 1979 SPE Symposium on
Reservoir Simulation, Denver, Jan. 31-Feb. 2.
44. Rosa, A.J. and Home, R.N.: "Automated Type-Curve Matching in
Well Test Analysis by Using Laplace Space Determination ofParameter Gradients," paper SPE 12131 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Sept. 5-8.
45. Barua, J., Kucuk, F., and Gomez-Angulo, J.: "Application of Computers in the Analysis of Well Tests From Fractured Reservoirs, " paper
SPE 13662 presented at the 1985 SPE California Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, March 27-29.
46. Barua, J. et al.: "Improved Estimation Algorithms for Automated TypeCurve Analysis of Well Tests," SPEFE (March 1988) 186-96; Trans.,
47. Guillot, A.Y. and Home, R.N.: "Using Simultaneous Downhole FlowRate and Pressure Measurements To Improve Analysis of Well Tests,"
SPEFE (June 1986) 217-26.
48. Kucuk,F., Karakas, M., and Ayestaran, L.: "Well Testing and Analysis Techniques for Layered Reservoirs," SPEFE (Aug. 1986) 342-54.
49. Shah, P.C. et al.: "Estimation of the Permeabilities and Skin Factors
in Layered Reservoirs With Downhole Rate and Pressure Data," SPEFE
(Sept. 1988) 555-66.
50. Coats, K.H. et af.: "Determination of Aquifer Influence Functions From
Field Data," JPT (Dec. 1964) 1417-24; Trans., AIME, 231.
51. Jargon, J.R. and van Poollen, H.K.: "Unit Response Function From
Varying-Rate Data," JPT (Aug. 1965) 965-69; Trans., AIME, 234.
52. Bostic, J.N., Agarwal, R.G., and Carter, R.D.: "Combined Analysis
of Postfracturing Performance and Pressure Buildup Data for Evaluating an MHF Gas Well," JPT(Oct. 1980) 1711-19.
53. Pascal, H.: "Advances in Evaluating Gas Well Deliverability Using
Variable Rate Tests Under Non-Darcy Flow, " paper SPE 9841 presented
at the 1981 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas Recovery Symposium,
Denver, May 27-29.
54. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: "The Flow
of Real Gases Through Porous Media," JPT (May 1966) 624-36;
Trans., AIME, 237.
55. Meunier, D.F., Kabir, C.S., and Wittmann, M.J.: "Gas Well Test Analysis: Use of Normalized Pseudovariables," SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 629-36.
56. Lee, W.J. and Holditch, S.A.: "Application of Pseudotime to Buildup
Test Analysis of Low-Permeability Gas Wells With Long-Duration Wellbore Storage Distortion," JPT(Dec. 1982) 2877-87.
57. Kuchuk, F.J.: "New Methods for Estimating Parameters of Low Permeability Reservoirs," paper SPE 16394 presented at the 1987
SPEIDOE Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, May
58. Raghavan, R. and Clark, K.K.: "Vertical Permeability From Limited
Entry Flow Tests in Thick Formations," SPEJ (Feb. 1975) 65-73;
Trans., AIME, 259.

51 Metric Conversion Factors

bbl x 1.589873
cp x 1.0*
ft x 3.048*
md x 9.869233
psi x 6.894757
psi -I x 1.450377
Conversion factor is exact.


p.m 2

kPa- 1

Original SPE manuscript received for review May 18, 1987. Paper accepted for publica
tion March 28, 1990. Revised manuscript received Jan. 19, 1990. Paper (SPE 16394) first
presented at the 1987 SPEIDOE Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver,
May 18-19.

SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1990