Well Test Interpretation ENSPM 5a

Chapter 12 - Other testing methods
141.2 B
p(t ) =
kh
p(t ) =
18.66 B
kh
q' () p
D (t
)d (psi, field units)
q' () p
D (t
)d (bars, metric units)
=0
t
( 12-6)
=0
The objective of the deconvolution is to transform the measured pressure response

p(t), after any variable rate sequence q(t), into an equivalent constant flow rate
test that can be analyzed with the usual methods.
Several algorithms have been proposed for deconvolution of well test
measurements, using real data of Laplace transformed data. Results are very
dependent upon the quality of the rate curve. The technique has also been
envisaged for interpretation of build-up tests affected by wellbore storage effect.
With accurate sandface flow rate measurement at early shut-in time, the effect of
afterflow can theoretically be eliminated from the pressure build-up response.
12-4 Constant pressure test (rate decline analysis)

When a well is producing at constant wellbore pressure, the declining rate can be
analyzed versus time.
Dimensionless rate, qD
1
Infinite reservoir
10-1
5000
10-2
2500
re/rwe
10-3
103
104
105
106
107
= 1000
108
Effective dimensionless time, tDe
Figure 12-7 Decline curves on log-log scale. Closed reservoir. qD versus tDe.
With log-log rate type curves, the dimensionless flow rate qD is expressed as :
qD =
1412
. B
kh pi pwf
q (t ) (field units)
- 174 -
qD =
18.66 B
q (t ) (metric units)
kh p i p wf
( 12-7)
For semi-log analysis, the reciprocal of the rate 1/q is graphed vs. log t.
1
B
k
= 162.6
3.23 + 0.87 S (D/Bbl, field units)
log t + log
2
q
kh pi p wf
ct rw
B
k
1
= 21.5
3.10 + 0.87 S (D/m3, metric units)( 12-8)
log t + log
2
q
kh ( pi pwf )
ct rw
Results: the permeability is estimated from the slope mq of the 1/q straight line and
the skin from the intercept at 1 hour.
kh = 162.6
kh = 21.5
B
(mD.ft, field units)
m q ( p i p wf )
B
(mD.m, metric units)
m q ( p i p wf )
( 12-9)
1 q (1hr )
k
S = 1.151
log
+
3
.
23
ct rw2
mq
1 q (1hr )
k
S = 1.151
log
+
3
.
10
c t rw2
m q
( 12-10)
12-5 Vertical interference test

Vertical interference tests are used to estimate vertical permeability in a single
layer, or quantify the presence of a sealing interval. An example of usual
application is the characterization of low permeability in feasibility studies related
to underground storage projects.
Different types of equipment can be used in order to isolate several intervals in the
same well.
- 175 -
kH1, kV1
hw-obs
kH2, kV2
hw
zw
kV
kH3, kV3
zw-obs
kH
Homogeneous reservoir
Three layers reservoir
Dimensionless Pressure pD and

Derivative p'D
Figure 12-8 Well and reservoir configurations.
102
101
0.5 line
Zw-obs/h = 0.6
0.7
0.8
10-1
10
102
103
104
105
106
107
Dimensionless time, tD /CD

Derivative p'D
Figure 12-9 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration

with wellbore storage. Log-log scale. Several distances.
CD = 6, Sw=0, kV/kH = 0.005. Producing segment: hw/h = 1/10, zw/h = 0.5;
observation segment: hw-obs/h = 1/100, zw-obs /h = 0.6, 0.7, 0.8.
102
101
kV/kH =
0.5
0.05
10-1
10
102
103
0.5 line
0.005
104
105
106
107
Figure 12-10 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration

with wellbore storage. Log-log scale. Several vertical permeability.
CD = 6, Sw=0. Producing segment: hw/h = 1/10, zw/h = 0.5; observation
segment: hw-obs/h = 1/100, zw-obs /h = 0.6.
Vertical permeability: kV/kH = 0.5, 0.05, 0.005.
- 176 -
With the double-stage testing method, two tests are performed on the same layer:
the first, on a thick interval, is used to define the horizontal permeability. By
inflating internal packer in the thick interval, three discrete intervals are isolated to
provide vertical interference responses.
Observation interval
Flowing interval
Observation interval
Test 1 : radial flow
Test 2 : spherical flow

Derivative p'D
Figure 12-11 Double-stage test.
102
Partial penetration
101
Observation
Test 1
1
0.5 line
10-1
10
102
103
104
105
106
Figure 12-12 Double-stage test log-log responses.

CD = 7, Sw=0. Producing segment: hw/h = 1/10, zw/h = 0.5; observation
segment: h.w-obs/h = 1/20, zw-obs /h = 0.35. Vertical permeability: kV/kH = 0.3.
- 177 -
- 178 -
13 - MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS
13-1 Perrine method

13-1.1 Hypothesis and definitions
An equivalent monophasic liquid of constant properties is defined as the sum of
the three phases: oil, water and gas. The three phases are assumed to be uniformly
distributed in the reservoir, and the saturations are constant during the test period.
The equivalent rate is expressed:
(q B ) t
= q o Bo + q w Bw + q g B g
= q o Bo + q w Bw + q sg q o Rs B g
(Bbl/D, m3/D)
( 13-1)
where qsg is the gas rate measured at surface, and qo Rs the dissolved gas at bottom
hole conditions.
It is assumed that the total mobility (k/)t of the equivalent monophasic fluid can
be expressed as the sum of the effective phase mobilities :
(k )t
= k o o + k w w + k g g (mD/cp)
( 13-2)
The effective total compressibility ct includes the effect of free gas liberated (or
dissolved) in the oil and the water phases :
ct = c f + S o co + S w cw + S g c g + S o B g Bo
(psi-1, Bars1)
) Rp
+ S w B g Bw
) Rp
sw
( 13-3)
13-1.2 Analysis
In the usual equations for oil reservoirs, the mobility k/ and the rate q are changed
into the total mobility (k/)t and the equivalent rate (qB)t. For log-log analysis,
dimensionless pressure and time are respectively :
(k )t h
p (field units)
1412
. (qB) t
(k )t h
pD =
p (metric units)
18.66 (qB )t
pD =
- 179 -
( 13-4)
Chapter 13 - Multiphase reservoirs
(k
tD
= 0.000295
CD
(k
tD
= 0.000223
CD
)t h
C
)t h
t (field units)
t (metric units)
( 13-5)
The slope m of the semi-log straight line is expressed
(qB )t
(k )t h
(qB )t
m = 21.5
(k )t h
m = 162.6
(psi, field units)
( 13-6)
(Bars, metric units)
The analysis yields the effective mobility of this equivalent fluid. When the
relative permeabilities kr"o,w,g" of the different phases are known, the absolute
permeability can be estimated :
(k )t
= k k ro o + k rw w + k rg g (mD/cp)
( 13-7)
13-2 Other methods

13-2.1 Multiphase pseudo-pressure
For solution gas drive reservoir, the pseudo pressure is expressed :
p
k ro ( S o )
dp (psi/cp, Bars/cp)
o Bo
0
m( p) =
( 13-8)
For gas condensate reservoir, the molar density of the oil and gas phases o,g are
used:
k ro
k rg
o o g g dp (psi/cp, Bars/cp)
p0
p
m( p) =
( 13-9)
The relative permeability curves are needed to calculate the multiphase pseudopressure functions. As the saturation profile depends upon the rate history, m(p)
depends upon the test sequence.
- 180 -
Chapter 13 - Multiphase reservoirs
13-2.2 Pressure squared method

For log-log analysis, dimensionless pressure is expressed with respect to the oil
rate:
( )
ah
p 2 (field units)
282.4 q o
ah
pD =
p 2 (metric units)
37.33 q o
pD =
( )
( 13-10)
where a is assumed to be a constant, defined as :
ko
= ap
o Bo
( 13-11)
- 181 -
- 182 -
14- TEST DESIGN
14-1 Introduction
Once the objectives of the test have been defined, the program is established taking
into account the different operational constraints. Test simulations are generated to
ensure the objectives can be achieved, and to define the optimum testing sequence.
Test programming and conduct, as well as the definition of the responsibilities
during testing, are presented in a different section. In the following, only test
simulation is discussed.
14-2 Test simulation

14-2.1 Simulation procedure
Before generating the simulations, all parameters must have been defined: static
parameters, reservoir parameters and the anticipated flow rate.
In order to evaluate the expected reservoir model, a first simulation can be
generated for a long constant rate drawdown.
By examination of this ideal response, the minimum duration of the flow and
shut-in periods can be estimated.
A multirate simulation is generated for prediction of the actual test response.
Taking into account possible pressure gauge noise or drift, the test program is
adjusted to ensure a complete and significant pressure response for the lowest
test duration.
The simulation can be converted into data in order to control the quality of the
future analysis.
14-2.2 Test design tips

Test design is a compromise between cost and reliability. The final test program is
defined from not only technical considerations, but also taking into account the
desired degree of confidence in the results. Test sequences are sometimes designed
with two or several buildup periods after different flow rates, some relatively
short, since wellbore problems frequently distort early time data. For gas wells for
example, the Modified Isochronal test sequence, possibly followed by a long buildup period, is well adapted to transient analysis purpose.
- 183 -
Chapter 14 - Test design
In multirate testing, an increasing flowrate sequence is preferred to a decreasing

rate history. With decreasing rates, the multirate correction with the time
superposition function can be very sensitive to inaccurate rate data.
14-3 Test design reporting and test supervision

Test design is not limited to the definition of the different flow periods. From
examination of the pressure change observed on the test simulation, the
requirements for the pressure gauge characteristics are defined. Guidelines for
clean up (gas wells) and initial shut-in can be established. If the reservoir pressure
is decreasing, it may be necessary to evaluate the pressure trend accurately before
the test (interference test design). In such a case, the duration of the reservoir
pressure survey before the start of the operation is part of the design program.
Experience of tests in neighboring wells can be used to establish specifications
such as gauge depths, use of a down hole shut-in tool, etc.
In the ideal case, the same person is in charge of the design and of the test
supervision. The experience gained from the design study can be used to adjust in
real time the program to any unexpected event (well shut-in for operational or
safety reason), or to a different pressure behavior.
During the test supervision, any action that can affect the pressure data must be
recorded (such as leak, operation on the well or change of annular pressure during
shut-in, etc.)
- 184 -
15 - FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST

ANALYSIS
15-1 Rate history definition

Two approaches can be used in order to simplify the rate history:
1. An equivalent production time is defined as the ratio of the cumulative
production divided by the last rate (called equivalent Horner time). On the test
example of Figure 15-1, tp=120.
2. When there is a shut-in period in the rate history, if the bottom hole pressure
has almost reached the initial pressure pi, it is assumed that the rate history
prior this shut-in is negligible. On the test example, tp=20.
Pressure, p
4000
3900
3800
Rate, q
3700
3600
tp=120
tp=20
3500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Time, t
Figure 15-1 Example of a two drawdowns test sequence.

Linear scale.
Pressure change p and

pressure derivative p (psi)
103
102
tp=20
101
tp=120
1
10-2
10-1
1
101
Elapsed time, t (hours)
102
103
Figure 15-2 Log-log plot of the final build-up.

The derivative is generated with three different rate histories.
In practice, if the duration of the analyzed period is t, it is possible to simplify the

rate history for any rate changes that occurred at more than 2t before the start of
the period. All rate variations immediately before the analyzed test period must be
introduced in the superposition time.
- 185 -
Chapter 15 - Factors complicating well test analysis
15-2 Error of start of the period

3830
Pressure, p
3810
d
a
3790
b
3770
c
3750
169.7
169.8
169.9
170.0
Time, t
170.1
170.2
170.3
Figure 15-3 Example of Figure 15-1 at time of shut-in. Time and pressure
errors.
- Shut-in time error: curve a = 0.1 hr before and curve b = 0.1 hr after the
actual shut-in time.
- Shut-in pressure error: curve c = 10 psi below and curve d = 10 psi above
the last flowing pressure.
- Error in time and pressure: curve e.

103
102
101
1
10-2
10-1
101
102
103
Figure 15-4 Case a: shut-in time too early.

103
102
101
10-2
10-1
101
102
Figure 15-5 Case b: shut-in time too late.
- 186 -
103

103
102
101
1
10-2
10-1
101
102
103
Figure 15-6 Case c: last flowing pressure too low.

103
102
101
1
10-2
10-1
101
102
103
Figure 15-7 Case d: last flowing pressure too high.

103
102
101
1
10-2
10-1
101
102
103
Figure 15-8 Case e: shut-in time too late, last flowing pressure is taken in the
build-up data, during the wellbore storage regime.
A good log-log match can be obtained in case e but the resulting skin is under
estimated. Pressure errors are clearly shown on the linear scale test simulation plot.
- 187 -
15-3 Pressure gauge drift

Pressure change p (psi)
300
Drift +
200
Drift 100
0
0
100
200
300
Figure 15-9 Final build-up of Figure 15-1. Drift of 0.05 psi/hr.

Linear scale.

103
102
Drift +
101
Drift 1
10-2
10-1
101
102
103
Figure 15-10 Log-log plot of the build-up example. Drift of 0.05 psi/hr.
The effect of a constant drift is inverse during flow and shut-in periods.
15-4 Pressure gauge noise

Pressure change p (psi)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
100
200
300
Figure 15-11 Final build-up of Figure 15-1. Noise of +1 psi every 2 points.
Linear scale.
- 188 -

103
102
101
1
10-2
10-1
101
102
103
Figure 15-12 Log-log plot of the build-up example. Noise of +1 psi every 2
points.
Three points derivative algorithm. No smoothing.
15-5 Changing wellbore storage

Changing wellbore storage happens when the compressibility of the fluid in the
wellbore is not constant. It is observed for example when, in a damaged oil well,
free gas is liberated in the production string.

103
102
101
C oil
C gas
1
10-2
10-1
101
102
103
Figure 15-13 Log-log plot of a drawdown example of changing wellbore

storage.
During drawdown, the response describes first the compressibility of the oil but,
when the pressure drops below bubble point, the gas compressibility dominates.
The wellbore storage coefficient of Equation 1-4 is then increased.
- 189 -

103
102
101
C oil
C gas
1
10-2
10-1
101
102
103
Figure 15-14 Log-log plot of a build-up example of changing wellbore storage
During build-up periods, the response corresponds to the gas wellbore storage
coefficient immediately after shut-in, and changes to the lower oil wellbore storage
later. This produces a steep increase of derivative and, in some cases; the
derivative follows a slope greater than unity at the end of the gas dominated early
time response.
Due to the variable compressibility of gas, changing wellbore storage is also
frequently evident on gas wells with a large drawdown.
15-6 Two phases liquid level

In diphasic wells (oil + water, or gas + condensate), a phase redistribution in the
wellbore can produce a characteristic humping effect.
diphasic flow
changing liquid level
end of phase
segregation effect
Figure 15-15 Changing liquid level after phase segregation.
When, after shut-in, water falls at the bottom of the well for example, the weight of
the column between the pressure gauge and the formation is not constant as long as
the water level rises and the gauge pressure is not parallel to the formation
pressure. In some cases, the build-up pressure can show a temporary decreasing
trend after some shut-in time. During this time interval, the derivative becomes
negative.
- 190 -
Rate, q
Pressure, p
4000
3500
humping
Pressure difference after

phase segregation
3000
Pressure difference before
phase segregation
2500
2000
18
28
Time, t
Figure 15-16 Example of build-up response distorted by phase segregation.

Humping effect.
If the interface between the two phases stabilizes, or reaches the depth of the
pressure gauge, the pressure difference between gauge and formation returns to a
constant, and the remaining build-up data can be properly analyzed.

104
103
102
101
10-3
10-2
10-1
101
102
Figure 15-17 Log-log plot of the build-up example of phase segregation.
When phase redistribution is expected, the pressure gauge should be as close as

possible to the perforated interval (or even below).
15-7 Input parameters, and calculated results of interpretation

Errors in the static parameters influence the calculated interpretation results, but
the choice of the interpretation model is in general not affected. Frequently, the
analysis is initialized with approximate values, and refined with adjusted
parameters later, without significantly changing the interpretation model.
The net thickness h and the oil viscosity are for example frequently not
accurately defined during exploration testing. Well test interpretation provides the
kh/ group from the log-log pressure match or the semi-log slope m. Any error on
h or directly influences the permeability estimate k. The skin Equation 1-14
- 191 -
shows that, for a given kh/ group, S is hardly dependent upon h (with a logarithm
relationship), and not upon the viscosity . (present in the k/ group).
From the equations used to calculate the different interpretation results, the
influence of any error in the static parameters can be evaluated. The radius of
investigation for example, and the distance to a possible boundary, are dependent
upon h (with the square root relationship of Equation 1-32 or 1-22), but
independent of .
Before comparing results of interpretation to geological or geophysical data, the
significance of the model parameters must be clearly understood. This can be
illustrated with the different averaging methods used for the permeability:
The apparent vertical permeability kV is a harmonic average as shown in Eq. 325
The horizontal permeability kH, is the arithmetic average of each layer
permeability (Eq. 3-24 for example).
In the case of permeability anisotropy, the horizontal permeability is defined as
the geometric average of Eq. 8-4.
Boundary distances are frequently estimated by assuming strictly radial flow in a
single homogeneous layer. In the case of a permeability anisotropy or
heterogeneous reservoir properties such as layering (see Section 10-2) the distance
to a reservoir boundary can be different from that indicated by the simple
interpretation model used for analysis.
- 192 -
16 - CONCLUSION
16-1 Interpretation procedure
16-1.1 Methodology
Well test analysis is a three steps process:
1. Identification of the interpretation model. The derivative plot is the primary
identification tool.
2. Calculation of the interpretation model. The log-log pressure and derivative
plot is used to make the first estimates.
3. Verification of the interpretation model. The simulation is adjusted on the three
usual plots: log-log, test history and superposition.
Log-log
analysis
Model selection (derivative)
Estimate parameters : kh, C,

heterogeneities , boundaries
(derivative) and S (pressure)
Simul
Test
history
simulation
#1 . . . . . . #n
Adjust initial pressure pi

Check the data (variable skin,
consistent rate history)
Check the model response on a
larger time interval
Superposition
simulation
Adjust parameters (pi, S, C...)
Next model
End
The consistency of the interpretation model is finally checked against non-testing
information.
- 193 -
Chapter 16 - Conclusion
16-1.2 The diagnosis: typical pressure and derivative shapes

Flow regime identification
GEOMETRY
LOG-LOG
shape
TIME RANGE
slope
Early
Intermediate
Late
Radial
No
0
Double
porosity
restricted
Homogeneous Semi infinite

behavior
reservoir
Linear
1/2
1/2
Infinite
conductivity
fracture
Horizontal
well
Two sealing
boundaries
Bi-linear
1/4
1/4
Finite
conductivity
fracture
Finite
conductivity
fault
Double
porosity
unrestricted
with linear
flow
Spherical
No
-1/2
Well in
partial
penetration
Wellbore
storage
Pseudo
Steady State
1
1
Steady State
0
-1 ()
Pressure curve
Derivative curve
- 194 -
Layered no
crossflow
with
boundaries
Closed
reservoir
(drawdown)
Conductive
fault
Constant
pressure
boundary
Changes of properties during radial flow
Pressure change, p
Pressure derivative,
log (p)
Mobility decreases : Sealing boundaries, composite reservoirs, horizontal well

with a long drain hole.
>
m1
m2
m1
Elapsed time, log (t)
Figure 16-1 The mobility decreases (kh ).

Log-log and semi-log scales.
Pressure change, p
log (p)
Mobility increases : Composite reservoirs, constant pressure boundaries, layered

systems, wells in partial penetration.
m2 < m1
m1
Figure 16-2 The mobility increases (kh ).

Pressure change, p
log (p)
Storativity increases : Double porosity reservoirs, layered and composite

reservoirs.
m2
m1
Figure 16-3 The storativity increases (

ct h ).
Storativity decreases : Composite systems.
- 195 -
=m
Pressure change, p
log (p)
m2
= m1
m1
Figure 16-4 The storativity decreases (

ct h ).
16-1.3 Summary of usual log-log responses

Well models
1
1
2
Wellbore storage, C
Radial, kh and S
p' & p
Wellbore storage and Skin (3.1)

C
S
kh
t
1
2
Linear, xf
Radial, kh and ST
p' & p
Infinite conductivity fracture (3.2)

1/2
kh, S
xf
t
Finite conductivity fracture (3.3)

Bi-linear, kf wf
Linear, xf
Radial, kh and ST
p' & p
1
2
3
xf
kh, ST
1/2
kfwf
1/4
t
1
2
3
Radial, hw and Sw
Spherical (mobility ), kV
Radial, kh and ST
p' & p
Partial penetration (3.4)

-1/2
kV
hw , Sw
t
- 196 -
kh, ST
1
2
3
Radial vertical, kV and Sw

Linear (mobility ), L
Radial, kh and ST
p' & p
Horizontal well (3.5)

1/2
kh, ST
kV, Sw
t
1
2
3
Radial fissures, k
Transition (storativity ),
and
Radial fissures + matrix, kh
and S
Double porosity, unrestricted

interporosity flow (4.3)
1
2
Transition,
Radial fissures + matrix, kh
and S
kh, S
p' & p
Double porosity, restricted

interporosity flow (4.2)
p' & p
Reservoir models
kh, S
1
2
3
Radial inner, k1h and Sw

Transition (mobility or ), r
Radial outer, k2h and ST
p' & p
Radial composite (6.2)
k2h, ST
k1h, Sw
r
k1h > k2h; or
k1h < k2h
1
2
3
Radial inner, k1h and Sw

Transition (mobility or ), L
Radial total, (k1h+k2h)/2 and
ST
k1h > k2h; or k1h < k2h
p' & p
Linear composite (6.3)

(k1+k2)h/2,
ST
k1h, Sw
L
t
- 197 -
1
2
3
No crossflow
Transition (storativity ), ,
and (kV)
Radial, kh1+kh2 and ST
Double permeability, partial

penetration S1= (7.3)
1
2
3
Radial, k2h2 and S2

Transition (mobility ), (kV)
Radial, kh1+kh2 and ST
kh, ST
p' & p
Double permeability, same skin

S1=S2 (7.2)
p' & p
k2h2, Sw
kh, ST
Sealing fault (5.1)

1
2
3
Radial, kh and S
Transition (mobility ), L
Hemi-radial
p' & p
Boundary models
kh, S
L
Channel closed at one end (5.4)

Centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L1+L2
3 Transition (mobility ), L3
4 Hemi-linear
1/2
L1
L1+L2
kh, S
t
1/2
p' & p
Channel (5.2)
Centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L1+L2
Off-centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Hemi-radial, L1
3 Linear, L1+L2
p' & p
1/2
L3
L1+L2
kh, S
t
- 198 -
Closed system centered (5.4)

Drawdown :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Pseudo steady state, A
Build-up :
1 Radial, kh and S
2
L1
1/2
L1+L2
kh, S
t
p' & p
Intersecting faults (5.3)

Centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L1+L2
3 Fraction of radial,
Off-centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Hemi-radial, L1
3 Linear, L1+L2
p' & p
1
A
kh, S
Average pressure, p and A
Closed with intersecting faults (5.4)

Drawdown :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L1+L2
Build-up :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L1+L2
p' & p
A P
P
A
1/2
kh, S
L1+L2
t
Average pressure, p and A
Constant pressure boundaries (5.5)

1
2
L1+L2
1/2
kh, S
Radial, kh and S
Transition (mobility ), L
One boundary
Multiple boundaries
p' & p
p' & p
Closed channel (5.4)

Drawdown :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L1+L2
Build-up :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L1+L2
3 Average pressure, p and A
kh, S
-1
t
- 199 -
16-1.4 Consistency check with the test history simulation

In the following examples, the initial pressure is 5000 psi. The interpretation
model, defined from log-log analysis of the short shut-in period, may be
inconsistent when applied to the complete rate history.
Increase of derivative response after the last build-up point (second sealing
boundary)

The log-log derivative plot suggests the presence of a sealing fault.

103
102
101
1
10-3
10-2
10-1
101
102
103
104

Homogeneous reservoir with a sealing fault.
Rate, q
Pressure, p
The sealing fault model is not applicable on the extended production history.
5000
pi=4914 psia
4800
4600
4400
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Time, t
Figure 16-6 Test history simulation. Linear scale.

Homogeneous reservoir with a sealing fault.
When a second sealing fault, parallel to the first, is introduced farther away in the
reservoir, the extended production history match is correct.
- 200 -

103
102
101
1
10-3
10-2
10-1
101
102
103
104
Rate, q
Pressure, p

Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.
5000
pi=5000 psia
4800
4600
4400
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Time, t

Decrease of derivative response after the last build-up point (Layered semi
infinite reservoir)

The log-log derivative plot suggests the presence of two parallel sealing faults.
103
102
101
10-3
10-2
10-1
101
102
103

With the parallel sealing faults model, the initial pressure before the production
history is too high.
- 201 -
Pressure, p
5000
pi=5443 psia
4500
Rate, q
4000
3500
3000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Time, t


The reservoir is a two layer no crossflow, one layer is closed. At late time, the
derivative stabilizes to describe the radial flow regime in the infinite layer. The
hump at intermediate time corresponds to the storage of the limited zone.
103
102
101
10-3
10-2
10-1
101
102
103
104

Two layers reservoir, one infinite and one closed layer.
Rate, q
Pressure, p
5000
pi=5000 psia
4500
4000
3500
3000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Time, t

Two layers reservoir, one infinite and one closed layer.
- 202 -
16-2 Reporting and presentation of results

16-2.1 Objectives
A well test interpretation report should present not only the different matches, but
also all information necessary to re-do the analysis. The analysis work may be
checked several years after completion. When all rates and parameters used to
generate the interpretation solution are not clearly defined, it is may be impossible
to re-evaluate the test.
16-2.2 Example of interpretation report contents

Summary conclusion
Main results,
Hypothesis used (if any),
Problems and inconsistencies not solved (if any).
Test data
Rate history (sequence of events for the test),

Static parameters,
Comparison of the gauge responses and choice of the pressure gauge used for
analysis (when several gauges have been used).
Analysis procedure
Diagnosis (comparison of different periods, discussion of the pressure

response).
Choice of the interpretation model(s) and justification.
Discussion of the results, sensitivity to the hypothesis etc.
Match with the different models
Log-log,
Semi-log,
Test simulation.
- 203 -
- 204 -
Appendix - ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS

A-1 Darcy's law
Darcy's law expresses the rate through a sample of porous medium as a function of
the pressure drop between the two ends of the sample.
q
Figure A-1 Rate through a sample.
A
dp / dl
q
k dp
=V =
A
dl
With:
q
A
V
k
(A-1)
: volumetric rate
: cross sectional area of the sample
: flow velocity
: permeability of the porous medium
: viscosity of the fluid
The flow velocity V is proportional to the conductivity k/ and to the pressure

gradient dp/dl.
A-2 Steady state radial flow of an incompressible fluid
re
q
rw
Figure A-2 Radial flow.
In case of radial flow, the Darcy's law is expressed, in the SI system of units:
q
k dp
=V =
2rh
dr
(A-2)
For steady state flow condition, the pressure difference between the external and
the internal cylinders is:
pe p w =
r
q
ln e
2 kh rw
(A-3)
This relationship is used in the definition of the dimensionless pressure

Equation 2-3.
- 205 -
Appendix - Analytical solutions
A-3 Diffusivity equation

A-3.1 Hypotheses
Constant properties: k, , and the system compressibility.
Pressure gradients are low.
The formation is not compressible and saturated with fluid.
A-3.2 Darcy's law
V=
grad p
(A-4)
A-3.3 Principle of conservation of mass (continuity equation)

The difference between the mass flow rate in, and the mass flow rate out the
element, defines the amount of mass change in the element during the time dt.
div V =
The density =
(A-5)
m
is used.
v
A-3.4 Equation of state of a constant compressibility fluid

The compressibility, defined as the relative change of fluid volume, is expressed
with the density :
c=
1 v 1
=
vp p
(A-6)
With a constant compressibility, the fluid equation of state is:
= 0 e
ct ( p p 0 )
(A-7)
For a liquid flow in a porous medium, the total system compressibility ct is

attributed to an equivalent fluid:
ct = c o S o + c w S w + c f
(1-3)
- 206 -
A-3.5 Diffusivity equation

Combining Equations 4 and 5, then 7:
p
= ct
div grad p =
t
t

(A-8)
With radial coordinates,
1
r
r
p
p ct p
1 2 p
= r
+
+r
=
2
r r
r
r r
k t
(A-9)
And with Equation 7,
p
= ct
r
r
(A-10)
( )
p
p
1 2 p
r
+
+ r ct
2
r
r r
r
= ct p
k t
With the condition of low-pressure gradients, the approximation
(A-11)
( )
p
r
0 is
used to linearize.
ct p
1 r
div grad p =
= 2 p =
k t
r r
The ratio
(A-12)
k
is called hydraulic diffusivity.
ct
A-3.6 Diffusivity equation in dimensionless terms

(customary oil field system of units and metric system of units)
kh
p (field units)
141.2qB
kh
pD =
p (metric units)
18.66qB
pD =
- 207 -
(2-3)
0.000264k
t (field units)
ct rw2
0.000356k
=
t (metric units)
c t rw2
tD =
tD
rD =
r
rw
(2-4)
(6-7)
The diffusivity equation is :
1
rD
rD
pD
rD
rD
= 2 pD =
pD
tD
(A-13)
A-4 The "line source" solution

Initial condition : the reservoir is at initial pressure.
pD = 0 at tD < 0
Well condition : the rate is constant, the well is a "line source".
pD
Lim rD
r 0 rD
= 1
(A-14)
Outer condition : the reservoir is infinite.
Lim p D = 0
r
(A-15)
The solution is called Exponential Integral.
p D (t D ,rD ) =
1 rD2
Ei
2 4t D
(8-1)
e u
du
u
x
Ei( x ) =
(A-16)
- 208 -
NOMENCLATURE
Customary Units and Metric System of Units
A
B
cg
co
ct
ct
=
=
=
=
=
=
C
CA
D
e
Ei
F
k
kd
kf
kH
km
ks
kV
h
hd
hw
L
m
m(p)
m*
M
n
p
pf
PI
pi
PM
pm
psc
pw
p*
p
q
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Quantity and customary unit

(Conversion to Metric unit)
Surface, sq ft
(*9.290 304*10-2 = m2)
Formation volume factor, RB/STB
(m3/m3)
-1
1
Gas compressibility, psi
(*1.450 377*10 = Bars-1)
Oil compressibility, psi-1
(*1.450 377*101 = Bars-1)
-1
Total compressibility, psi
(*1.450 377*101 = Bars-1)
Total compressibility at the average pressure of the test, psi-1
(*1.450 377*101 = Bars-1)
Wellbore storage coefficient, Bbl/psi
(*2.305 916 = m3/Bars)
Shape factor
Turbulent flow coefficient
Exponential (2.7182 . . .)
Exponential integral
Storativity ratio (inner zone / outer zone)
Permeability, mD
(mD)
Matrix skin permeability, mD
(mD)
Fracture or fissures permeability, mD
(mD)
Horizontal permeability, mD
(mD)
Matrix blocks permeability, mD
(mD)
Spherical permeability, mD
(mD)
Vertical permeability, mD
(mD)
Thickness, ft
(*3.048*10-1 = m)
Matrix skin thickness, ft
(*3.048*10-1 = m)
Perforated thickness, ft
(*3.048*10-1 = m)
Distance, or half length of an horizontal well, ft
(*3.048*10-1 = m)
Straight line slope (semi-log or other)
Pseudo pressure or gas potential, psia2/cp
(*4.753767*10-3 = Bars2/cp)
Slope of the pseudo steady state straight line, psi/hr (*6.894757*10-2 = Bars/hr)
Mobility ratio (inner zone / outer zone)
Number of fissure plane directions, or turbulent flow coefficient
Pressure, psi
(*6.894757*10-2 = Bars)
Fissure pressure, psi
(*6.894757*10-2 = Bars)
Productivity index, Bbl/D/psi
(*2.305 916 = m3/D/Bars)
Initial pressure, psi
(*6.894757*10-2 = Bars)
-1
Pressure match, psi
(*1.450 377*101 = Bars-1)
Matrix blocks pressure, psi
(*6.894757*10-2 = Bars)
Standard absolute pressure, 14.7 psia
(1 Bara)
Well pressure, psi
(*6.894757*10-2 = Bars)
Extrapolated pressure, psi
(*6.894757*10-2 = Bars)
Reservoir average pressure, or during the test, psi
(*6.894757*10-2 = Bars)
Flow rate, bbl/D
(*1.589 873*10-1 = m3/D)
3
or Mscf/D (= 10 scft/D)
(*2.831 685*101 = m3/D)
- 209 -
Nomenclature - Systems of units
r
rf
ri
rm
Rs
rw
S
Sm
Spp
ST
Sw
t
tp
T
TM
Tsc
v
V
xf
wa
wf
zw
Z
Z
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Radius, ft
(*3.048*10-1 = m)
Fracture radius in a horizontal well, ft
(*3.048*10-1 = m)
Radius of investigation or influence of the fissures, ft
(*3.048*10-1 = m)
Matrix blocks size, ft
(*3.048*10-1 = m)
Dissolved Gas Oil ratio, cf/bbl
(*1.7810*10-1 = m3/m3)
Wellbore radius, ft
(*3.048*10-1 = m)
Skin coefficient, or saturation
Matrix skin
Geometrical skin of partial penetration
Total skin
Skin over the perforated thickness
Time, hr
(hr)
Horner production time, hr
(hr)
Temperature absolute, R
(*5/9 = K)
Time match, hr-1
(hr-1)
Standard absolute temperature, 520R
(15C = 288.15K)
Volume, cu ft
(*2.831 685*10-2 = m3)
Volume ratio (fissures or matrix), or flow velocity
Half fracture length, ft
(*3.048*10-1 = m)
Width of altered permeability region near a conductive fault, ft (*3.048*10-1 = m)
Fracture width, ft
(*3.048*10-1 = m)
Distance to the lower reservoir limit, ft
(*3.048*10-1 = m)
Real gas deviation factor
Real gas deviation factor at the average pressure of the test
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Geometric coefficient in , or transmissibility ratio of a semi-permeable fault

Transition curve of a double porosity transient interporosity flow
Constant of a curve
Difference
Euler's constant (1.78 . . . )
Porosity, fraction
Fissures porosity, fraction
Matrix blocks porosity, fraction
Mobility ratio
Interporosity (or layer) flow coefficient
Effective interporosity flow coefficient
Viscosity, cp
(cp)
Viscosity at the average pressure of the test, cp
(cp)
Angle between two intersecting faults
Well location between two intersecting faults
Geometrical coefficient of the location of a well in a channel
Storativity ratio
Density, lb/cu ft
(*1.601 646*101 = kg/m3)
f
m
eff
- 210 -
Nomenclature - Systems of units
Subscripts
a
AOF
BLF
BU
ch
cp
d
D
e
eff
f
G
H
hch
i
int
L
LF
m
max
min
o
p
pp
ps
PSS
q
r
RC
RF
RLF
S
sc
SLF
SPH
t, T
V
w
wf
ws
WBS
z
1
2
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Apparent or altered permeability region near a conductive fault

Absolute Open Flow Potential
Bi-linear flow (slope m)
Build-up
Channel (slope m)
Constant pressure (slope m)
Damage (matrix skin)
Dimensionless
Equivalent, External
Effective
Fracture, fissures, fault or formation
Geometrical
Horizontal
Channel closed at one end (slope m)
Initial or investigation
Intersection of straight line
Layer
Linear flow (slope m)
Matrix
Maximum permeability direction
Minimum permeability direction
Oil
Production (time)
Partial penetration
Pseudo (time)
Pseudo steady state
Rate decline (slope m)
Ratio, or relative
Radial-Composite
Radial flow (slope m)
Radial-linear flow (slope m)
Skin, or spherical
Standard conditions
Semi linear flow (slope m)
Spherical flow (slope m)
Total
Vertical
Well, or water
Flowing well
Shut-in well
Wellbore storage regime (slope m)
Partial penetration
Inner zone, or high permeability layer(s)
Outer zone, or low permeability layer(s)
- 211 -
REFERENCES
Chapter 1
1-1. Matthews, C. S. and Russell, D.G.: "Pressure Build-up and Flow Tests in
Wells", Monograph Series no 1, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME,
Dallas (1967).
1-2. Earlougher, R. C., Jr.: "Advances in Well Test Analysis", Monograph Series
no 5, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1977).
1-3. Lee, J.: "Well Testing", Textbook Series, Vol. 1, Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1982).
1-4. Bourdarot, G.: " Well Testing : Interpretation Methods," Editions Technip,
Institut Franais du Ptrole.
1-5. van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans., AIME ( 1949) 186,
305-324.
1-6. van Everdingen, A. F.: "The Skin Effect and its Influence on the Productive
Capacity of a Well." Trans., AIME ( 1953) 198, 171-176.
1-7. Miller, C. C., Dyes, A. B., and Hutchinson, C. A.: "Estimation of
Permeability and Reservoir Pressure from Bottom-Hole Pressure Build-up
Characteristics," Trans., AIME ( 1950) 189, 91-104.
1-8. Russell, D. G. and Truitt, N. E.:"Transient Pressure Behavior in Vertically
Fractured Reservoirs,"J. Pet. Tech. ( Oct., 1964) 1159-1170.
1-9. Clark, K. K.:"Transient Pressure Testing of Fractured Water Injection
Wells," J. Pet. Tech. ( June, 1968) 1639-643; Trans., AIME ( 1968) 243.
1-10. Gringarten, A. C., Ramey, H. J., Jr. and Raghavan, R.: "Applied Pressure
Analysis for Fractured Wells,"J. Pet. Tech. ( July, 1975) 887-892.
1-11. Gringarten, A. C., Ramey, H. J., Jr. and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady-State
Pressure Distribution Created by a Well with a Single Infinite Conductivity
Fracture," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. ( Aug., 1974) 347-360.
1-12. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego-V, F. and Dominguez, N.: "Transient Pressure
Behavior for a Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture," Soc. Pet.
Eng. J. ( Aug., 1978) 253-264.
1-13. Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R. D. and Pollock, C. B.: "Evaluation and
Performance Prediction of Low-Permeability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive
Hydraulic Fracturing,"J. Pet. Tech. ( March, 1979) 362-372.
- 212 -
References
1-14. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V, F:"Transient Pressure Analysis for

Fractured Wells,"J. Pet. Tech.( Sept., 1981) 1749-1766.
1-15. Brons, F. and Marting, V. E.: "The Effect of Restricted FluidEntry on Well
Productivity,"J. Pet. Tech. ( Feb., 1961) 172-174; Trans., AIME ( 1961) 222.
1-16. Moran, J. H. and Finklea, E. E.:"Theoretical Analysis of Pressure
Phenomena Associated with the Wireline Formation Tester," J. Pet. Tech.(
Aug., 1962) 899-908. Trans., AIME ( 1962), 225.
1-17. Culham, W. E.:"Pressure Build-up Equations for Spherical-Flow Problems,"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. ( Dec., 1974) 545-555.
1-18. Warren , J. E. and Root, P. J.:"Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept., 1963) 245; Trans., AIME ( 1963) 228.
1-19. Brons, F. and Miller, W. C.:"A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure
Readings," J. Pet. Tech.( Aug., 1961) 803-805.
1-20. Jones, P.: "Reservoir Limit Tests," Oil and Gas J. ( June 18, 1956) 54, no 59,
184.
Chapter 2
2-1. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Short-Time Well Test Data Interpretation in The
Presence of Skin Effect and Wellbore Storage," J. Pet. Tech. ( Jan., 1970) 97.
2-2. Agarwal, R.G., Al-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "An Investigation of
Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow. I: Analytical
Treatment," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. ( Sept., 1970) 279.
2-3. McKinley, R. M.: "Wellbore Transmissibility from Afterflow Dominated
Pressure Build-up Data," J. Pet. Tech. ( July, 1971) 863.
2-4. Earlougher, R. C., Jr., Kersh, K. M. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.:"Wellbore Effects
in Injection well Testing," J. Pet. Tech.( Nov., 1973) 1244-1250.
2-5. Gringarten, A. C., Bourdet D. P., Landel, P. A. and Kniazeff, V. J.: "A
Comparison between Different Skin and Wellbore Storage Type-Curves for
Early-Time Transient Analysis," paper SPE 8205, presented at the 54th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 23-26,
1979.
2-6. Ramey, H.J., Jr. and Cobb, W.M.:"A General Pressure Build-up Theory for
a Well in a Closed Drainage Area," J. Pet. Tech.( Dec., 1971) 1493-1505;
Trans., AIME ( 1971), 252.
2-7. Horner, D. R.: "Pressure Build-ups in Wells", Proc., Third World Pet.
Cong., E. J. Brill, Leiden (1951) II, 503-521. Also, Reprint Series, No. 9
- 213 -
References
Pressure Analysis Methods, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (

1967) 25-43.
2-8. Agarwal, R. G.:"A New Method to Account for Production Time Effects
When Drawdown Type Curves Are Used to Analyze Buildup and Other Test
Data," paper SPE 9289, presented at the 55th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of SPE, Dallas, Tx., Sept. 21-24, 1980.
2-9. Raghavan, R.:"The Effect of Producing Time on Type Curve Analysis," J.
Pet. Tech.( June, 1980) 1053-1064.
2-10. Bourdet, D. Ayoub, J. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "Use of Pressure Derivative in
Well-Test Interpretation", SPEFE (June 1989) 293-302
2-11. Balsingame, T.A., Johnston, J.L. and Lee, W.;J.: "Type-Curves Analysis
Using the Pressure Integral Method," paper SPE 18799 presented at the 1989
SPE California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, April 5-7.
2-12. Balsingame, T.A., Johnston, J.L. Rushing, J.A., Thrasher, T.S. Lee, W.;J.
and Raghavan, R. : " Pressure Integral Type-Curves Analysis-II: Applications
and Field Cases," paper SPE 20535 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.
2-13. Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "A New Approach for Constructing
Derivative Type Curves for Well Test Analysis," SPEFE (March 1988) 197206.
2-14. Duong, A.N.: "A New Set of Type Curves for Well Test Interpretation
Using the Pressure Derivative Ratio," paper SPE 16812 presented at the 1987
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
Chapter 3
3-1. Bourdet, D. P., Whittle, T. M., Douglas, A. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "A New
Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test Analysis," World Oil ( May, 1983) 95106.
3-2. Tiab, D. and Puthigai, S. K.:Pressure-Derivative Type Curves for
Vertically Fractured Wells, SPEFE ( March, 1988) 156-158.
3-3. Alagoa, A., Bourdet, D. and Ayoub, J.A.:How to Simplify The Analysis of
Fractured Well Tests, World Oil ( Oct. 1985)
3-4. Wong, D.W., Harrington, A.G. and Cinco-Ley, H.:Application of the
Pressure-Derivative Function in the Pressure-Transient Testing of Fractured
Wells,"SPEFE.( Oct., 1985) 470-480.
3-5. Gringarten, A. C.and Ramey, H. J. Jr.: "An Approximate Infinite
Conductivity Solution for a Partially Penetrating Line-Source Well",
Soc.Pet.Eng. J. (Apr.1975) 347-360.
- 214 -
References
3-6. Kuchuk, F.J. and Kirwan, P.A.: "New Skin and Wellbore Storage Type
Curves for Partially Penetrated Wells". SPEFE, Dec. 1987, 546-554.
3-7. Papatzacos, P. : "Approximate Partial-Penetration Pseudoskin for InfiniteConductivity Wells", SPE-R.E. (May 1987) 227-234.
3-8. Daviau, F., Mouronval, G., Bourdarot, G and Curutchet P.: "Pressure
Analysis for Horizontal Wells",. paper S.P.E. 14251, presented at the SPE 60th
Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 22-25, 1985.
3-9. Clonts, M. D. and Ramey, H. J. Jr.: "Pressure Transient Analysis for Wells
with Horizontal Drainholes",. paper S.P.E. 15116, presented at the 56th
California Regional Meeting, Oakland, CA., April 2-4, 1986.
3-10. Goode, P. A. and Thambynayagam, R. K. M.: "Pressure Drawdown and
Buildup Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Media", SPEFE (Dec.
1987) 683-697.
3-11. Kuchuk, F. J., Goode, P.A., Wilkinson, D.J. and Thambynayagam, R. K. M.:
"Pressure-Transient Behavior of Horizontal Wells With and Without Gas Cap
or Aquifer", SPEFE (March 1991) 86-94.
3-12. Kuchuk, F.: "Well Testing and Interpretation for Horizontal Wells", JPT
(Jan. 1995) 36-41.
3-13. Ozkan, E., Sarica, C., Haciislamoglu, M. and Raghavan, R.: "Effect of
Conductivity on Horizontal Well Pressure Behavior", SPE Advanced
Technology Series, Vol. 3, March 1995, 85-94.
3-14. Ozkan , E. and Raghavan, R.: "Estimation of Formation Damage in
Horizontal Wells", paper S.P.E. 37511, presented at the 1997 Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 9-11 March 1997.
3-15. Yildiz, T. and Ozkan, E.: "Transient Pressure Behavior of Selectively
Completed Horizontal Wells", paper S.P.E. 28388, presented at the SPE 69th
Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 25-28, 1994.
3-16. Larsen, L. and Hegre, T.M.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Multifractured
Horizontal Wells", paper S.P.E. 28389, presented at the SPE 69th Annual Fall
Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 25-28, 1994.
3-17. Larsen, L.: "Productivity Computations for Multilateral, Branched and
Other Generalized and Extended Well Concepts", paper S.P.E. 36754,
presented at the SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Denvers, Colorado, Oct. 6-9, 1996.
3-18. Kuchuk, F.J. and Habashy, T.: "Pressure Bahavior of Horizontal Wells in
Multilayer Reservoirs With Crossflow", SPEFE (March 1996) 55-64.
3-19. Brigham, W. E. :"Discussion of Productivity of a Horizontal Well", SPERE
(May. 1990) 254-255.
- 215 -
References
Chapter 4
4-1. Barenblatt , G. E., Zheltov, I.P. and Kochina, I.N.: "Basic Concepts in the
Theory of Homogeneous Liquids in Fissured Rocks" J. Appl.. Math.
Mech..(USSR) 24 (5) (1960)1286-1303).
4-2. Warren , J. E. and Root, P. J.:"Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept., 1963) 245-255; Trans., AIME, 228.
4-3. Odeh, A.S.: "Unsteady-State Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Mar., 1965) 60-64; Trans., AIME, 234.
4-4. Kazemi, H.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
with Uniform Fracture Distribution" Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec., 1969) 451-462;
Trans., AIME, 246.
4-5. de Swaan, O. A.: "Analytic Solutions for Determining Naturally Fractured
Reservoir Properties by Well Testing", Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June, 1976) 117-122;
Trans., AIME, 261.
4-6. Najurieta, H.L.: "A Theory for Pressure Transient Analysis in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs" J. Pet. Tech. (July 1980), 1241.
4-7. Streltsova, T.D.: "Well Pressure Behavior of a Naturally Fractured
Reservoir", Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct., 1983) 769.
4-8. Moench, A. F.: "Double-Porosity Models for a Fissured Groundwater
Reservoir With Fracture Skin", Water Resources Res., Vol. 20, NO. 7 (July
1984) 831-846.
4-9. Mavor, M. J. and Cinco, H.: "Transient Pressure Behavior of Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 7977, presented at the 1979 California
Regional Meeting of the SPE of AIME, Ventura, California, April 18-20, 1979.
4-10. Bourdet, D. and Gringarten, A. C.: "Determination of Fissure Volume and
Block Size in Fractured Reservoirs by Type-Curve Analysis", paper S.P.E.
9293, presented at the SPE-AIME 55th Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX..,
Sept. 21-24, 1980.
4-11. Bourdet, D. Ayoub, J. A, Whittle, T. M., Pirard, Y. M. and Kniazeff V.:
"Interpreting Well Test in Fractured Reservoirs", World Oil (Oct., 1983) 77-87.
4-12. Gringarten, A. C.: "Interpretation of Tests in Fissured and Multilayered
Reservoirs with Double-Porosity Behavior: Theory and Practice", J. Pet. Tech.
(April 1984), 549-564.
4-13. Bourdet, D. Ayoub, J. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "Use of Pressure Derivative in
Well-Test Interpretation", SPEFE (June 1989) 293-302.
4-14. Bourdet, D., Alagoa A., Ayoub J. A. and, Pirard, Y. M. : "New Type Curves
Aid Analysis of Fissured Zone Well Tests", World Oil (April, 1984) 111-124.
- 216 -
References
4-15. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego, F. and Kuchuk, F.: "The Pressure Transient
Behavior for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Multiple Block Size", paper
SPE 14168, presented at the 60th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept.
22-25, 1985.
4-16. Abdassah, D. and Ershaghi, I.: "Triple-Porosity Systems for Representing
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs", SPEFE, April 1986, 113-127.
4-17. Belani, A.K. and Yazdi, Y.J.: "Estimation of Matrix Block Size Distribution
in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 18171, presented at the 63rd
Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct.; 2-5, 1988.
4-18. Stewart, G. and Ascharsobbi, F.: "Well Test Interpretation for Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 18173, presented at the 63rd Annual Fall
Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct.; 2-5, 1988.
Chapter 5
5-1. Clark, D. G. and Van Golf-Racht, T. D.: "Pressure Derivative Approach to
Transient Test Analysis: A High-Permeability North Sea Reservoir Example,"
J. Pet. Tech. ( Nov., 1985) 2023-2039.
5-2. Wong, D.W., Mothersele, C.D., Harrington, A.G. and Cinco-Ley, H.:
"Pressure Transient Analysis in Finite Linear Reservoirs Using Derivative and
Conventional Techniques: Field Examples", paper S.P.E. 15421, presented at
the 61st Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, La., Oct. 5-8, 1986.
5-3. Larsen, L., and Hovdan, M.: "Analysis of Well Test Data from Linear
Reservoirs by Conventional Methods", paper SPE 16777, presented at the 62d
Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Tex., Sept. 27-30, 1987.
5-4. Tiab, D. and Kumar, A.:Detection and Location of Two Parallel Sealing
Faults around a Well, J. Pet. Tech. (Oct., 1980), 1701-1708.
5-5. van Poollen, H. K.:"Drawdown Curves give Angle between Intersecting
Faults", The Oil and Gas J. (Dec.20, 1965), 71-75.
5-6. Prasad, Raj K.: "Pressure Transient Analysis in the Presence of Two
Intersecting Boundaries" J. Pet. Tech. ( Jan., 1975) 89-96.
5-7. Tiab, D. and Crichlow, H.B..:Pressure Analysis of Multiple-Sealing-Fault
Systems and Bounded Reservoirs by Type Curve Matching, SPEJ ( Dec.,
1979) 378-392.
5-8. Brons F. and Miller, W.C.: "A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure
Readings", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1961), 803-805; Trans. AIME, 222.
5-9. Dietz D.N.: "Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure From Build-Up
Surveys", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1965), 955-959
- 217 -
References
5-10. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.:"Estimating Drainage Shapes From Reservoir Limit

Tests", J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1971), 1266-1268; Trans. AIME, 251
5-11. Matthews, C.S., Brons, F. and Hazebroek, P.: "A Method for Determination
of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir", Trans., AIME (1954) 201, 182191.
5-12. Yaxley, L.M.: "The Effect of a Partially Communicating Fault on Transient
Pressure Behavior," paper S.P.E. 14311, presented at the 60th Annual Fall
Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 22-25, 1985.
5-13. Cinco, L.H., Samaniego, V.F. and Dominguez, A.N.: "Unsteady-State Flow
Behavior for a Well Near a Natural Fracture", paper S.P.E. 6019, presented at
the 51st Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA., Oct. 3-6, 1976.
5-14. Abbaszadeh, M.D. and Cinco-Ley, H. :"Pressure Transient Behavior in a
Reservoir With a Finite-Conductivity Fault", SPEFE, (March 1995) 26-32.
Chapter 6
6-1. Carter R.D.: "Pressure Behavior of a Limited Circular Composite
Reservoir," Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Dec. 1966, 328-334; Trans., AIME, 237.
6-2. Satman, A.: "An Analytical Study of Transient Flow in Systems With Radial
Discontinuities," paper S.P.E. 9399, presented at the 55th Annual Fall Meeting,
Dallas, Tex., Sept. 21-24, 1980
6-3. Olarewaju, J.S. and Lee, W.J.: "A Comprehensive Application of a
Composite Reservoir Model to Pressure-Transient Analysis", SPE-RE, Aug.
1989, 325-231.
6-4. Abbaszadeh, M. and Kamal, M.M. :"Pressure-Transient Testing of WaterInjection Wells", SPE-RE, Feb. 1989, 115-124.
6-5. Ambastha, A.K., McLeroy, P.G. and Sageev, A.: " Effects of a Partially
Communicating Fault in a Composite Reservoir on Transient Pressure Testing,"
paper S.P.E. 16764, presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Tex.,
Sept. 27-30, 1987.
6-6. Kuchuk, F.J. and Habashy, T.M. :"Pressure Behavior of Laterally
Composite Reservoir", SPEFE, (March 1997) 47-564.
6-7. Levitan, M.M. and Crawford, G.E. : "General Heterogeneous Radial and
Linear Models for Well Test Analysis," paper S.P.E. 30554, presented at the
70th Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX, Oct. 22-25, 1995.
6-8. Oliver, D.S.: "The Averaging Process in Permeability Estimation From
Well-Test Data," SPEFE, (Sept. 1990) 319-324.
- 218 -
References
Chapter 7
7-1. Tariq, S. M. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Drawdown Behavior of a Well with
Storage and Skin Effect Communicating with Layers of Different Radii and
Other Characteristics," paper S.P.E. 7453, presented at the 53rd Annual Fall
Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct. 1-3, 1978.
7-2. Gao, C-T.: "Single-Phase Fluid Flow in a Stratified Porous Medium With
Crossflow, SPEJ, Feb. 1984, 97-106.
7-3. Wijesinghe, A.M. and Culham, W.E.: "Single-Well Pressure Testing
Solutions for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Arbitrary Fracture
Connectivity", paper S.P.E. 13055, presented at the 59th Annual Fall Meeting,
Houston, Tex., Sept. 16-19, 1984.
7-4. Bourdet, D.: "Pressure Behavior of Layered Reservoirs with Crossflow",
paper S.P.E. 13628, presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, CA, March. 27-29, 1985.
7-5. Prijambodo, R., Raghavan, R. and Reynolds, A.C.: "Well Test Analysis for
Wells Producing Layered Reservoirs With Crossflow", SPEJ, June 1985, 380396.
7-6. Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Joseph, J.A. : "A New Test for Determination
of Individual Layer Properties in a Multilayered Reservoir", paper S.P.E.
14167, presented at the 60th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 22-25,
1985.
7-7. Larsen, L.: "Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to
Analyze Pressure-Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs", paper S.P.E.
18122, presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX, Oct. 2-5,
1988.
7-8. Larsen, L. : "Boundary Effects in Pressure-Transient Data From Layered
Reservoirs", paper S.P.E. 19797, presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting,
San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11, 1989.
7-9. Park, H. and Horne, R.N.: "Well Test Analysis of a Multilayered Reservoir
With Crossflow", paper S.P.E. 19800, presented at the 64th Annual Fall
Meeting, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11, 1989.
7-10. Chen, H-Y, Poston, S.W. and Raghavan, R. : "The Well Response in a
Naturally Fractured Reservoir: Arbitrary Fracture Connectivity and Unsteady
Fluid Transfer", paper S.P.E. 20566, presented at the 65th Annual Fall Meeting,
New Orleans, LA, Sept. 23-26, 1990.
7-11. Liu, C-q. and Wang, X-D.: "Transient 2D Flow in Layered Reservoirs With
Crossflow", SPE-FE, Dec. 1993, 287-291.
- 219 -
References
7-12. Larsen, L.: "Experiences With Combined Analyses of PLT and PressureTransient Data From Layered Reservoirs", paper SPE 27973 presented at
University of Tulsa Centennial Symposium, Tulsa, OK, Aug. 29-31, 1994.
7-13. Boutaud de la Combe, J.-L., Deboaisne, R.M. and Thibeau, S.:
"Heterogeneous Formation: Assessment of Vertical Permeability Through
Pressure Transient Analysis - Field Example", paper SPE 36530, presented at
the 1996 Annual Fall Meeting, Denvers, CO, Oct. 6-9, 1996.
7-14. Larsen L.: "Wells Producing Commingled Zones with Unequal Initial
Pressures and Reservoir Properties", paper SPE 10325, presented at the 56th
Annual Fall Meeting, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 5-7, 1981.
7-15. Agarwal, B., Chen, H-Y. and Raghavan, R.: "Buildup Behaviors in
Commingled Reservoirs Systems With Unequal Initial Pressure Distributions:
Interpretation", paper SPE 24680, presented at the 67th Annual Fall Meeting,
Washington, DC, Oct. 4-7, 1992.
7-16. Aly, A., Chen, H.Y. and Lee, W.J.: "A New Technique for Analysis of
Wellbore Pressure From Multi-Layered Reservoirs With Unequal Initial
Pressures To Determine Individual Layer Properties", paper SPE 29176,
presented at the Eastern Regional Conference, Charleston, WV, Nov. 8-10,
1994.
7-17. Gao, C., Jones, J.R., Raghavan, R. and Lee, W.J.: "Responses of
Commingled Systems With Mixed Inner and Outer Boundary Conditions Using
Derivatives," SPEFE (Dec. 94) 264-271.
7-18. Chen, H-Y., Raghavan, R. and Poston, S.W.: "Average Reservoir Pressure
Estimation of a Layered Commingled Reservoir," paper SPE 26460 presented
at the 68th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct. 3-6, 1993.
Chapter 8
8-1. 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.
8-2. Tiab, D. and Kumar, A.:Application of the pD Function to Interference
Analysis, J. Pet. Tech. (Aug., 1980), 1465-1470.
8-3. Jargon, J.R.:" Effect of Wellbore storage and Wellbore Damage at the
Active Well on Interference Test Analysis," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1976) 851-858.
8-4. Ogbe, D.O. and Brigham, W.E.:" A Model for Interference Testing with
Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects at Both Wells," paper S.P.E. 13253,
presented at the 59th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX, Sept. 16-19, 1984.
8-5. Papadopulos, I.S.: "Nonsteady Flow to a Well in an Infinite Anisotropic
Aquifer," Proc. 1965 Dubrovnik Symposium on Hydrology of Fractured Rocks
- 220 -
References
8-6. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Interference Analysis for Anisotropic Formations-A Case
History," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1975) 1290-98; Trans., AIME, 259.
8-7. Deruyck, B.G., Bourdet, D.P., DaPrat G. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Interpretation
of Interference Tests in Reservoirs with Double Porosity Behavior - Theory and
Field Examples", paper S.P.E. 11025, presented at the 57th Annual Fall
Meeting, New Orleans, La., Sept. 22-25, 1982.
8-8. Ma, Q. and Tiab, D: "Interference Test Analysis in Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs," paper SPE 29514, presented at the SPE Production Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, April 2-4, 1995.
8-9. Satman, A. et Al.: "An Analytical Study of Interference in Composite
Reservoirs," Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Apr. 1985, 281-290.
8-10. Chu, L. and Grader, A.S.: "Transient Pressure Analysis of Three Wells in a
Three-Composite Reservoir," paper SPE 22716, presented at the 66th Annual
Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX., Oct. 6-9, 1991.
8-11. Chu, W.C. and Raghavan, R.: "The Effect of Noncommunicating Layers on
Interference Test Data," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1981) 370-382.
8-12. Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "Interference Testing of a Two-Layers
Commingled Reservoir," SPEFE. (Dec. 1989) 595-603.
8-13. Brigham, W.E.: "Planning and Analysis of Pulse-Tests," J. Pet. Tech. (May
1970) 618-624; Trans., AIME, 249
8-14. Kamal, M. and Brigham, W.E.: "Pulse-Testing Response for Unequal Pulse
and Shut-In Periods," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1975) 399-410; Trans., AIME, 259
8-15. Kamal, M.: "Interference and Pulse Testing - A Review," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec.
1983) 2257-70
Chapter 9
9-1. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr. and Crawford. P. B.:"The Flow of Real
Gases Through Porous Media", J. Pet. Tech. (May 1966), 624-636; Trans.
AIME, 237
9-2. Al-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.:"Application of Real Gas Flow Theory
to Well Testing and Deliverability Forecasting", J. Pet. Tech. (May 1966), 637642; Trans. AIME, 237
9-3. Agarwal, R.G.:"Real Gas Pseudo-Time - A New Function for Pressure
Build-up Analysis of MHF Gas Wells", paper S.P.E. 8279, presented at the
54th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 23-26, 1979.
- 221 -
References
9-4. Houpeurt A.:"On the Flow of Gas in Porous Medias", Revue de l'Institut
Franais du Ptrole, 1959, XIV (11), 1468-1684.
9-5. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.:"Gas Well Testing with Turbulence,
Damage and Wellbore Storage", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1968), 877-887.
9-6. "Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells", Energy Resources
Conservation Board, Calgary, Alta., Canada (1975).
9-7. Bourdarot, G.: " Well Testing : Interpretation Methods," Editions Technip,
Institut Franais du Ptrole, p. 258.
9-8. Rawlins, E.L. and Schellardt, M.A.:"Back-Pressure Data on Natural-Gas
Wells and Their Application to Production Practices," Monograph 7, USBM
(1936).
9-9. Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F.H., Vary, J.A.,
Elenbaas, J.R. and Weinaug, C.F.:"Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering,"
McGraw-Hill Book Co.,Inc., New York (1959).
9-10. Bourgeois, M.J. and Wilson, M.R. :"Additional Use of Well Test Analytical
Solutions for Production Prediction," paper S.P.E. 36820, presented at the 1996
SPE EUROPEC, Milan, Italy, Oct. 22-24, 1996.
Chapter 10
10-1. Stewart, G.: "Future Developments In Well Test Analysis: Introduction of
Geology", Hart's Petroleum Engineer International (Sept. 1997), 73-76.
10-2. Larsen, L.: "Boundary Effects in Pressure-Transient Data From Layered
Reservoirs,". paper S.P.E. 19797, presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting,
San Antonio, Tex., Oct. 8-11, 1989.
10-3. Joseph, J., Bocock, A., Nai-Fu, F. and Gui, L.T.: "A Study of Pressure
Transient Behavior in Bounded Two-Layered Reservoirs: Shengli Field,
China", paper SPE 15418, presented at the 61st Annual Fall Meeting, New
Orleans, LA, Oct. 5-8, 1986.
10-4. Bourgeois, M.J., Daviau, F.H. and Boutaud de la Combe, J-L. : "Pressure
Behavior in Finite Channel-Levee Complexes", SPEFE, (Sept. 1996) 177-183.
Chapter 11
11-1. Al-Ghamdi, A. and Ershaghi, I.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Dually
Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 26959, presented at the III Latin American
Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentine, April 27-29, 1994.
- 222 -
References
11-2. Larsen, L.: "Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to

Analyze Pressure-Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs", paper S.P.E.
18122, presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX, Oct. 2-5,
1988.
11-3. Poon, D.C.C. :"Pressure Transient Analysis of a Composite Reservoir With
Uniform Fracture Distribution," paper SPE 13384 available at SPE,
Richardson, TX.
11-4. Satman, A.: "Pressure-Transient Analysis of a Composite Naturally
Fractured Reservoir," SPE-FE, June 1991, 169-175.
11-5. Kikani, J. and Walkup, G.W.: "Analysis of Pressure-Transient Tests for
Composite Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," SPE-FE, June 1991, 176-182.
11-6. Hatzignatiou, D.G., Ogbe, D.O., Dehghani, K. and Economides, M.J.:
"Interference Pressure Behavior in Multilayered Composite Reservoirs," paper
S.P.E. 16766, presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Tex., Sept.
27-30, 1987.
Chapter 12
12-1. Ramey, H.J. Jr., Agarwal, R.G. and Martin, I.: "Analysis of 'Slug Test' or
DST Flow Period Data," J. Cdn. Pet; Tech. (July-Sept.. 1975) 14, 37.
12-2. de Franca Correa A.C. and Ramey, H.J. Jr. "A Method for Pressure Buildup
Analysis of Drillstem Tests," paper S.P.E. 16808, presented at the 62nd Annual
Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX, Sept. 27-30, 1987.
12-3. Peres, A.M.M., Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "A New General PressureAnalysis Procedure for Slug Tests," SPEFE. (Dec. 1993) 292-98.
12-4. Ayoub, J.A., Bourdet, D.P. and Chauvel, Y.L.: "Impulse Testing," SPEFE.
(Sept. 1988) 534-46; Trans., AIME, 285
12-5. Cinco-Ley, H. et al.: "Analysis of Pressure Tests Through the Use of
Instantaneous Source Response Concepts," paper S.P.E. 15476, presented at the
61st Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Oct. 5-8, 1986.
12-6. Kucuk, F, and Ayestaran, L,: "Analysis of Simultaneously Measured
Pressure and Sandface Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing," paper S.P.E.
112177, presented at the 58th Annual Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Oct. 58, 1983.
12-7. Bourdet D. and Alagoa A.: "New Method Enhances Well Test
Interpretation," World Oil ( Sept, 1984).
12-8. Jacob, C.E. and Lohman, S.W.: "Nonsteady Flow to a Well of Constant
Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer," Trans., AGU (Aug. 1952) 559-569.
- 223 -
References
12-9. Uraiet, A.A. and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady Flow to a Well Producing at a
Constant Pressure". J. Pet. Tech., Oct. 1980, 1803-1812.
12-10.Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Pressure Buildup for Wells
Produced at Constant Pressure". SPEJ, Feb. 1981, 105-114.
Chapter 13
13-1. Perrine, R.L.:"Analysis of Pressure Build-up Curves", Drill. and Prod. Prac.,
API (1956), 482-509.
13-2. Martin, J.C.:"Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reservoirs and the
Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analyses," Trans.,
AIME (1959) 216, 309-311.
13-3. Fetkovich, M.J.:"The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells," paper S.P.E. 4529,
presented at the 48th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 30- Oct.3,
1973.
13-4. Raghavan, R.: "Well Test Analysis: Wells Producing by Solution Gas Drive
Wells," SPEJ, (Aug. 1976) 196-208; trans., AIME, 261.
13-5. Al-Khalifah, A.A., Aziz, K. and Horne, R.N.:"A New Approach to
Multiphase Well Test Analysis", paper S.P.E. 16473 presented at the 62nd
Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX, Sept. 27-30, 1987.
13-6. Weller, W.T.:"Reservoir Performance During Two-Phase Flow," J. Pet.
tech. (Feb. 1966) 240-246; Trans., AIME, Vol 240.
13-7. Raghavan, R.: "Well Test Analysis for Multiphase Flow" SPEFE,
(Dec.1989) 585-594
13-8. Jones, J.R. and Raghavan, R.: "Interpretation of Flowing Well Responses in
Gas-Condensate Wells" SPEFE, (Sep.1988) 578-594.
13-9. Jones, J.R., Vo, D.T. and Raghavan, R.: "Interpretation of Pressure Build-up
Responses in Gas-Condensate Wells" SPEFE, (March 1989) 93-104.
- 224 -

Well Test Interpretation ENSPM 5a

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Well Test Interpretation ENSPM 5a

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Chapter 12 - Other testing methods

)d (psi, field units)

)d (bars, metric units)

The objective of the deconvolution is to transform the measured pressure response

12-4 Constant pressure test (rate decline analysis)

Effective dimensionless time, tDe

Chapter 12 - Other testing methods

12-5 Vertical interference test

Chapter 12 - Other testing methods

Three layers reservoir

Dimensionless Pressure pD and

Figure 12-8 Well and reservoir configurations.

Dimensionless time, tD /CD

Dimensionless Pressure pD and

Figure 12-9 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration

Dimensionless time, tD /CD

Figure 12-10 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration

Chapter 12 - Other testing methods

Test 2 : spherical flow

Dimensionless Pressure pD and

Figure 12-11 Double-stage test.

Dimensionless time, tD /CD

Figure 12-12 Double-stage test log-log responses.

13-1 Perrine method

Chapter 13 - Multiphase reservoirs

The slope m of the semi-log straight line is expressed

(psi, field units)

(Bars, metric units)

13-2 Other methods

Chapter 13 - Multiphase reservoirs

13-2.2 Pressure squared method

where a is assumed to be a constant, defined as :

14- TEST DESIGN

14-2 Test simulation

14-2.2 Test design tips

Chapter 14 - Test design

In multirate testing, an increasing flowrate sequence is preferred to a decreasing

14-3 Test design reporting and test supervision

15 - FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST

15-1 Rate history definition

Figure 15-1 Example of a two drawdowns test sequence.

Pressure change p and

Figure 15-2 Log-log plot of the final build-up.

In practice, if the duration of the analyzed period is t, it is possible to simplify the

Chapter 15 - Factors complicating well test analysis

15-2 Error of start of the period

Pressure change p and

Elapsed time, t (hours)

Figure 15-4 Case a: shut-in time too early.

Pressure change p and

Elapsed time, t (hours)

Figure 15-5 Case b: shut-in time too late.

Chapter 15 - Factors complicating well test analysis

Pressure change p and

Elapsed time, t (hours)

Figure 15-6 Case c: last flowing pressure too low.

Pressure change p and

Elapsed time, t (hours)

Figure 15-7 Case d: last flowing pressure too high.

Pressure change p and

Elapsed time, t (hours)

Chapter 15 - Factors complicating well test analysis

15-3 Pressure gauge drift

Elapsed time, t (hours)