Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17

Analysis of Variable-Rate

Well-Test Pressure Data


Using Duhamel's Principle
L.G. Thompson,* U. of Tulsa
A.C. Reynolds, SPE, U. of Tulsa

Summary. This work considers the use of Duhamel's principle to analyze pressure drawdown and buildup
data when both bottomhole pressures (BHP's) and sandface flow rates are available. This analysis procedure
uses Duhamel's principle to convert pressure data obtained when the sandface rate is variable to the equivalent
pressure data that would be obtained for a constant sandface rate of production. The equivalent constant-rate
pressure data then can be analyzed with standard procedures (semilog analysis or type-curve matching).

Introduction
Duhamel's principle was introduced to the petroleum en- For example, Method 3 is preferable to other methods
gineering literature in the classic paper of van Everdin- when reservoir limit testing is conducted under variable-
gen and Hurst. 1 They used Duhamel's principle to obtain flow-rate conditions.
the dimensionless wellbore pressure-drop solution for a McEdwards 9 has also presented an analysis procedure
continuously varying flow rate. Their solution is presented based on theoretical concepts similar to those used in Refs.
in terms of a convolution integral. The well-known Odeh- 1 through 8 and in this work. However, his procedure
Jones method 2 and the more recent methods of Soliman 3 is radically different because he used the convolution
and Stewart et al. 4 can be derived directly from the van integral 1 to calculate the theoretical pressure drops that
Everdingen and Hurst solution by appropriate numerical should occur according to the observed flow rate histo-
integration procedures. The methods of Refs. 2, 3, and ry. This calculation requires an initial estimate of reser-
4 are restricted because their theoretical basis rests on the voir properties. The estimates of reservoir properties are
assumption that the dimensionless pressure drop term that then refined by an iterative procedure that minimizes the
appears in the convolution integral is given by the semi- sum of the squares of the relative differences between the
log equation 2 3 or the exponential integral 4 -i.e., the observed and calculated pressure changes. As in Refs. 2
methods assume that if production were at a constant sand- through 4, McEdwards states that the pressure-drop term
face rate, the dimensionless wellbore pressure drop would that appears in the convolution integral is given by the
be given by the sum of the line source solution and the line-source solution.
skin factor. Thus, at least theoretically, their methods do The derivations of Methods 1 and 2 and some numeri-
not apply to fractured-well problems or to heterogene- cal analysis considerations pertinent to their application
ous problems such as naturally fractured reservoirs. The have been presented previously. 10 Brief details on
methods we consider are general and are not restricted Method 3 are given in Appendix B. Further theoretical
to plane radial flow problems. details on all three methods can be found in Ref. 11.
The methods of Refs. 2, 3, and 4 rely on redefining This paper (1) illustrates the applicability of our tech-
the time scale. The methods used in this work rely on Du- niques to a wide variety of problems, (2) presents a de-
hamel's principle to convert variable-sandface-rate pres- tailed and careful comparison between our analysis
sure data to the equivalent pressure data that would have techniques and the rate-normalized procedure, 12 - 14 (3)
been obtained ifproduction had been at a constant sand- presents a new procedure (Method 3) and illustrates its
face rate. Our methods are more general than those applicability to reservoir limit testing, and (4) discusses-
presented by others but the basic idea is not novel and how to apply our method to actual data (Appendices A
has been considered previously in Refs. 5 through 8. In and B) and considers the analysis of a field test.
fact, our Method 1 (discussed in Appendix A) includes In this work, we generally use well-known analytical
as a special case the method of Kucuk and Ayestaran, 8 solutions for the theoretical problem considered when
and our _Method 2 (also discussed in Appendix A) includes these analytical solutions are available. The analytical so-
as a special case the method of Bostic et al. 6 To the best lutions are available in L~lace space and are inverted with
of our knowledge, Method 3 (discussed in Appendix B) the Stehfest algorithm. 1 For unfractured wells produc-
has not been considered previously in any form. Method ing layered reservoirs, we generate the necessary solu-
3 has advantages over the other two methods when the tions using a finite-difference model that has been
late-time pressure data are influenced by boundary effects. discussed elsewhere. 16 17 For fractured wells producing
commingled layered reservoirs, we generate the pertinent
*Now with Rogaland Research lnst. solutions using a finite-difference model that is discussed
Copyright 1986 Society of Petroleum Engineers in Refs. 18 and 19.
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986 453
Definitions For the naturally fractured reservoir problem consid-
Many different problems are considered in this paper, and ered later, kh in Eq. 1 should be replaced by k1hft, where
kfhft denotes the flow capacity of the fracture system.
the specific definitions of dimensionless pressure and
dimensionless time vary from problem to problem. All Moreover, in Eqs. 3 through 5, , cr, and k should be
definitions given here are in oilfield units, and all defini- replaced respectively by 1 , ctf, and k1 , where the sub-
tions assume single-phase flow of a slightly compressi- script f denotes the fracture system. For example, k1
ble liquid of constant viscosity. The analogous definitions denotes the permeability (actual, not bulk) of the fracture
syst~m; see Ref. 23.
for gas wells are well known. 20-22 In this paper, PwD al-
ways denotes the dimensionless wellbore pressure-drop For the two-layer, commingled reservoir (unfractured-
solution of the variable-rate problem under consideration well) problem considered, k and cpc t should be replaced
and p weD denotes the dimensionless wellbore pressure- by k~nd cpc t, respectively, in Eqs. 1, 3, and 4. Here k
drop solution that would be obtained for the same prob- and cpc t denote thickness-averaged values defined respec-
lem under constant-producing-rate conditions. All rates tively by ,
used in the equations are sandface rates. In terms of
dimensionless variables, the objective of the methods - k1h1+k2h2
k=----- .......................... (8)
presented is to compute p weD given p wD and the dimen- h
sionless sandface rates.
and
Pressure Drawdown Problems. For radial-flow prob-
lems in single-layer reservoirs, the dimensionless well-
bore pressure drop and dimensionless sandface rate are
defined respectively by

kh(pi -pwj) where throughout, the subscript 1 refers to Layer 1 and


PwD = ... .................... (1) the subscript 2 refers to Layer 2.
141.2q rJL The definitions given by Eqs. 10 through 15 pertain to
and only the two-layer fractured-well problem considered in
this paper. For this problem, the concept of reservoir con-
qD =q(t)/qn .............................. (2)
ductivity is important. 18 19 24 The layer reservoir conduc-
tivities are defined by
where qr is any reference rate, in reservoir barrels per
day. [In this paper, q(t) always represents the sandface
rate in reservoir barrels per day.] The dimensionless time R 'D
C)
= hj
~
I k j cp j ctj
- " ................... (10)
based on wellbore radius and the dimensionless time based h kcf>cr
on drainage area are defined respectively by
for j = 1,2, where j is the layer index and k and cpc t are
given by Eqs. 8 and 9, respectively. The dimensionless
2.637x1o- 4 kt time based on effective fracture half-length is defined by
....................... (3)
cpc rJLr J;
2.637 X 10- 4 kt
and .................... (11)
tvxf
2.637x1o- 4 kt c/>CrJLL~f
tvA=------ ..................... (4)
cpc rffA Lx is the effective fracture half-length, given by the fol-
1
lowing equation: -
The dimensionless wellbore storage constant is defined by
Lx =Rcv1Lxfl +Rcv2Lxf2, ........... ; ..... (12)
1
5.615C
Cv=---- ......................... (5) where Lx , }= 1,2, is the fracture half-length in Layer
27rc/>c rhr }~ j. Similarfy, we define the dimensionless times and dimen-
sionless fracture conductivities based on individual layer
For a vertically fractured well producing a single-layer properties by
reservoir, the dimensionless time based on fracture half-
length and the dimensionless storage constant are defined
respectively by

2.637 X 10- 4 kt and


tvxf ...................... (6)
c/>CrJLL~f
kjjb.
and cJDJ = - -1- ............................ (14)
k}Lxjj
5.615C
Cvx f - 21rcpC L 2 h.
. ..................... . (7) for}= 1,2, wh~re kjjbJ denotes the conductivity of Frac-
t Xf ture Layer j. Here Fracture Layer j denotes the part of

454 SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986


s 10
r80 4000

104 105 106


DIMENSIONLESS TIME, t 0

Fig. 1-Rate response for constant-pressure production. Fig. 2-Constant-rate solution from Methods 1, 2, arid 3.

the vertical fracture that is adjacent to Reservoir Layer and


j. For this problem, there is no crossflow between frac-
ture layers or between reservoir layers. In a practical _ kh(Pws -pwfs)
sense, this means that the two layers of the reservoir are PDs = , ... (18)
separated by an impermeable zone and have been stimu- 141.2q rJ.t
lated individually. Finally, we define the equivalent
dimensionless fracture conductivity by respectively, where Pws denotes shut-in pressure and PwJs
denotes the flowing wellbore pressure at the instant of
shut-in. For layered reservoir problems, kh is replaced
by kh in Eqs. 17 and 18. The dimensionless change in
sandface rate during shut-in is denoted by t:..q D and is de-
............. (15)
fined by

The motivations for the definitions given by Eqs. 10 q(t:..t=O) -q(t:..t)


t:..qD= .................... (19)
through 15 are discussed in detail in Ref. 24. qr
For all drawdown problems considered, the rate-
normalized dimensionless pressure drop is denoted by
The rate-normalized dimensionless buildup pressure is
PwDiqD and is given by
given by fiDslt:..qD. From Eqs. 18 and 19, it follows that

PwD kh(p; -pwf)


..................... (16)
qD 141.2q(t)p. .......... (20)
141.2[q(t:..t=O) --"q(t:..t)]p.
(See Eqs. 1 and~.) For layered reservoir problems, k must
be replaced by k in Eq. 16. Note that Eq. 16 represents (For layered reservoir problems, replace k by k in
the dimensionless form of the actual pressure drop Eq. 20.)
(p; -pwf) divided by the sandface flow rate, q(t). The dimensionless pressures defined in this section
(Eqs. 1, 17, and 18) represent the dimensionless solution
Buildup Problems. For buildup problems, tP denotes the to the variable sandface-rate problem under consideration,
producing time before shut-in and t:..t denotes the shut-in and p weD represents the dimensionless constant-sandface-
time. The various dimensionless producing times are then rate solution for the corresponding problem. Given
given by Eqs. 3, 4, 6 (or 11), and 13 with t replaced by PwD(fiDs for buildup) and qD(t:..qD for buildup), PweD
t P and are denoted by t pD, t pDA, t pDx , and t pDx . Simi- is obtained by the procedures discussed in Appendices A
larly, the various dimensionless shut~in times ale given and B. Regardless of whether p weD is generated from
by Eqs. 3, 4, 6 (or 11), and 13 with t replaced by t:..t and buildup data or drawdown data, PweD always represents
are denoted by t:..t D, t:..t DA, t:..t Dxf. , and t:..t Dx . The per- an equivalent constant-rate drawdown solution.
meability and porosity/compressibility prodtct used in
these definitions must be adjusted according to the prob- Results
lem under consideration as in the drawdown case. Here, we show that given the dimensionless drawdown
For bui~dup, we define the dimensionless shut-in pres- pressure response PwD(fi Ds for buildup) resulting from
sures, p Ds and fi Ds , by the known variable sand face rate q D, we can use the
methods of Appendices A and B to compute p weD, where
kh(p; -Pws) p weD represents the equivalent dimensionless pressure
PDs = (17) response that would have been obtained for a constant
141.2q rJ.t sandface rate of production. Throughout this section,
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986 455
Q Q
u ~
cf 'i33 METHOD o PRESSURE DROP
a: Q. 0 1, 8" 1

~ a::
0
~ 0 2, 8 = 1
6 3
o SANDFACE RATE

IJJ
a::
0 29
IJJ
RATE NORMALIZED
PRESSURE DROP
~ a::
U) ::>
UJO::U)

f0~ 25
U) a::
U) Q..
5
IJJ 0 DRAWOOWN Co = 10
..J IJJ
2
~ !:::! 21 BUILDUP c0 10
en ~ s. 10
z ::::E
IJJ a::
::::E 0
0 z
2 4 6 10
DIMENSIONLESS TIME, t 0 x 10-7

Fig. 3-Rate-normalized solution and solution from Fig. 4-Pressure and rate responses for a DST, log-log
Methods 1, 2, and 3. plot.

Method 1 refers to the dimensionless version of Eq. A-4 and at late times (tD ~ 5 X 10 6 in Fig. 1), the rate
when drawdown data are considered, and to the dimen- response (q Dlp wD) is governed by exponential decline.
sionless version of Eq. A-9 when buildup data are con- Throughout this work, 'Y denotes Euler's constant,
sidered. Method 2 is given by the dimensionless 'Y=0.57722. Fig. 2 presents a semilog plot of PweD vs.
equivalents of Eqs. A-12 and A-15 for drawdown and t D where p weD has been computed in three different ways
buildup, respectively. Method 3 is given by the dimen- (Methods 1, 2, and 3). The solid curve represents the
sionless version of Eq. B-1. The buildup version of equivalent constant-sandface-rate solution and we note that
Method 3 can be found in Ref. 11. See Appendices A and p weD matches this solution at all times regardless of the
B for a discussion of when and how to apply the various method used to generate p weD. For transient flow, we
methods. For all problems considered, the applicability should obtain
of the rate-normalized analysis procedure is con-
sidered. 12 - 14 PweD = 1.151 log[(4tv)le'Y] +s . ............. (23)

Unfractured Wells. All problems considered in this sec- Fig. 2 indicates that all methods work well. By using
tion assume a well located in the center of a cylindrical regression analysis to fit a semilog straight line to the
reservoir. PweD vs. tv data for 10 2 <tv< 10 6 , we determined the
It is now popular to consider well-testing problems following values. For Methods 1 and 2, slope= 1.148 and
where production is at a constant BHP-e.g., see Refs. s= 10.06; and for Method 3, slope= 1.149 and s= 10.09.
25 through 27. The first problem considered assumes Thus all three procedures yield excellent approximations
constant-pressure production at a well located in a bound- to the correct values, slope= 1.151 and s= 10.0.
ed cylindrical reservoir-i.e., the same problem consid- Fig. 3 depicts a Cartesian plot of PweD vs. tv and
ered in Refs. 25 through 27. It is important to note that p wD Iq D vs. t D . This is a dimensionless version of the
the right side of the rate-normalized equation (Eq. 16) is type of plot used to estimate reservoir PV in reservoir
referred to as 11q D in Refs. 25 through 27. limit testing. 28 29 During pseudosteady-state flow, the
Fig. 1 represents a semilog plot of qviPwD vs. tv for constant.~sandface-production solution is, given by
the constant-pressure production problem where s= 10 and
reD =4,000. Here, s represents the skin factor and reD Pwev=27rtDA +ln(rev)-0.75+s
denotes the dimensionless drainage radius and is defined
by 2tv
= - 2- + ln(r eD) -0.75 +s. . ............ (24)
reD
reD =reI r w. . ............................ (21)
[Here the drainage area is given by A= 1rr 2eD and thus
As is well known, 25 -27 the transient portion of the data tvA =tvl(7rr 2e); see Eqs. 3 and 4.] As is well known, 29
approximately satisfies the semilog equation-i.e., pseudosteady -state flow (Eq. 24) begins at t DA = 0.1 ,
which corresponds to t D = 5 X 10 6 for the problem con-
Pwvlqv=l.151 log[(4tv)le'Y]+s, ........... (22) sidered.
456 SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
C Q.JQ I I .o----~ -u- 0.0
METHOD
~ / 0 1I 8 1
~ 0.08f- { -0.2W 0 2, 8 1
~ I @5 ~
W O.OGto-----o----..Al
U
~ ---11
--o--PRESSURE
DROP
~c..
04 dO: RATE NORMALIZED
PRESSURE DROP
C --a--- SANDFACE 3:~
~ 0.04 '- RATE 0.6~~
~g;
(/)(/) z(/)
~ 0.02 ( 0.8 ~13 DRAWDOWN Co 10
5
z 1 z~ 2

ffi~ ----~~"--~-o-------af-----;1.0 Ci~~ BUILDUP Co 10


0.0 --o----o--
s 10
:!
Ci
-002.___ ______.'----7----'----;;,..--------1~-----'1.2
0.0 5.0XJ04 I.OXJ05 1.5XI0 5 2.0XJ0 5
DIMENSIONLESS TIME, t 0

Fig. 5-Pressure and rate responses for a DST, Cartesian Fig. 6-Methods 1 and 2 rate-normalized solutions; DST
plot. data.

When regression analysis is used to fit a straight line of the flowing period and t D = 10 6 at the end of the build-
of the form given by Eq. 24 through the p weD or p wD I q D up test. In Eq. 25, p wf represents the well bore
late-time data of Fig. 3, and reD is calculated from the pressure-i.e., the flowing wellbore pressure for draw-
slope of the line (slope=2/r 2ev), the following results are down and the shut-in wellbore pressure for buildup. Simi-
obtained. Using data from tvA =0.1 to tvA =0.5 yields larly, q(t) in Eq. 26 represents the sandface flow rate in
reD = 3985 for Method 1 or Method 2 p weD data, reservoir barrels per day both during drawdown and build-
reD =3993 for Method 3 PweD data, and up. For the results shown in Fig. 4, s= 10 and the dimen-
reD =3813 for rate-normalized data. sionless wellbore storage constant is CD = 10 5 for
Using all data for t DA ~ 0.1 yields drawdown and Cv = 10 2 for buildup. During the draw-
reD =3975 from Method 1 or Method 2 PweD data, down period, PwD decreases (PwJ increases) as a result
reD = 3997 for Method 3 p weD data, and of the increase in the fluid head, but this behavior is not
reD =3354 for rate-normalized data. clearly identifiable on Fig. 4 because of the nature of log-
From these results and additional results given in Ref. log plots. The decrease in p wD during drawdown can be
11, we conclude that Method 3 provides the best analysis seen more clearly in Fig. 5, which represents a Cartesi-
procedure when pressure data are influenced by reservoir an plot of p wD and q D vs. t D for 0 :5 t D :52 X 10 5 . The
boundaries. Moreover, rate normalization is not an ef- sandface rate q D decreases throughout the total test.
fective procedure for the analysis of data strongly influ- Fig. 6 is a semilog plot of PweD vs. tv, where PweD
enced by reservoir boundaries. is generated from the pressure/rate data of Fig. 4 with
We now consider a drillstem test (DST) problem. 30-32 the dimensionless equivalents of Method 1 (Eq. A-4) and
We consider only one flow period followed by one shut- Method 2 (Eq. A-12). Note that, in using these methods,
in period. The flowing period represents the slug test prob- we have used both the drawdown and buildup data of Fig.
lem considered in Refs. 31 and 32. To conform to stan- 6 to obtain the equivalent constant-sandface-rate dimen-
dard notation, we have defined the dimensionless pressure sionless pressure drop for a total flowing time of
6
change by tv= 10 ; see Appendix A. The solid line in Fig. 6 rep-
resents the constant-rate solution we should obtain from
our methods and is given by Eq. 23. As shown in Fig.
Pi-PwJ
PwD = ' (25) 6, Methods 1 and 2 generate the correct PweD solution
Pi-PO very accurately. Using regression analysis to fit a semi-
log straight line to the generated p weD vs. t D data of Fig.
where pi denotes the initial reservoir pressure and p 0 6 yields the following results.
denotes the wellbore pressure at time zero-i.e., Po is For Method 1, slope=1.165 and s=10.01, and for
the pressure in the DST tool just before the beginning of Method 2, slope= 1.158 and s= 10.03. These values are
the flow period. Similarly, we define the dimensionless in good agreement with the correct values, slope= 1.151
sandface rate by and s= 10.0. Note that we have not applied Method 3 be-
cause Method 3 will encounter difficulties when sharp
141.2q(t)p. changes in rate or pressure occur (see Ref. 11), and for
qv= ........................ (26) this problem, the rate and pressure change abruptly at
kh(pi -po) 5
tv =tpD = 10 (see Fig. 4). Fig. 6 also shows the dimen-
sionless rate-normalized pressure drop Pwvlqv for
In this paper, the definitions given by Eqs. 25 and 26 are t D :5 tpD . The rate normalization cannot be continued into
used only for the DST problem. the buildup-i.e., we cannot view the buildup as a con-
Fig. 4 presents a log-log plot ofPwD (Eq. 25) and qD tinuation of a variable-rate drawdown test when using rate
(Eq. 26) vs. t D . The results of Fig. 4 represent a flow- normalization. In fact, values of p wD (t D )I q D (t D) are off
ing period (producing time, t pD = 10 5 ) followed by a the scale (greater than 18) of Fig. 6 for tv> 1 X 10 5 .
buildup period of duration !ltD = 9 x 10 5 . Hete t D rep- (This is not surprising in view of the pressure/rate data
resents the total time of the. test so t D = 10 5 at the end shown in Fig. 4.) The rate-normalized drawdown data dis-
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986 457
f/) cD=105
0
a. hwo=I03
w
0::
s=5
b=0.4
~
C/)
C/)
LLJ
0::
a..
z
t!:
~
z
C/)
C/)
C/)
LLJ
..J
z
0
ii)
z
LLJ
~
0

Fig. 8-Pressure and rate; partially penetrating well with


Fig. 7-Horner analysis for a DST. wellbore storage.

play a semilog straight line with slope= 1.157 and yield and
s = 10.06. As in previous cases, these slopes and skin-

hwo=~~
fact?r values were obtained with regression analysis.
Ftg. 7 presents the standard dimensionless Horner plot . .......................... (28)
of the buildup data of Fig. 4. In a normal DST the dura- rw kz
tion of the buildup period will be no greater ~han twice
the duration of the preceding flowing period. Thus, in our Here,
analysis of the data of Fig. 7, we use only data corre- h w = length of the open interval (perforated
sponding to shut-in times such that lit D ~ 2t D = 2 x 10 5 . interval) of the wellbore,
This means that the minimum value of the 'Horner time k = horizontal permeability, and
ratio u~ed in the ~nalysis is (t P +lit)/ lit= 1. 5. By using k z = vertical permeability.
regression analysts, we found that the data of Fig. 7 that
c~rrespond. to the i~terv~ 1. 5 < (t P +lit)/ lit< 5 can be fit
Fig. 8 presents log-log graphs of the dimensionless
With a semtlog straight lme. However, the slope of this
drawdown-pressure drop and dimensionless rate obtained
semilog straight line is 1. 303 and the skin factor estimat-
for a partial penetration problem. The open interval of
ed from this semilog line is 8. 97. These values differ by
the wellbore is adjacent to the top h feet of the forma-
more than 10% from the correct values, slope= 1.151 and
tion, and CD=10 5 , hwD=10 3 , s=S, and b=0.4. Note
s= 10.0. This indicates that the conventional analysis of
that all pressure data shown are influenced by wellbore
DST buildup data can yield erroneous estimates of the
storage effects.
~ow capacity and skin factor if buildup data are ~trongly
Fig. 9 presents a semilog plot of the dimensionless rate-
mfluenced by well bore storage effects. The results ob-
normalized pressure data, and p weD generated by Method
tained would be even less accurate if the duration of the
1. The solid curve in Fig. 9 is the constant-sandface-rate
shut-in were decreased.
(CD = 0) dimensionless pressure solution for the same
Difficulties in Horner analysis are of course not re-
pa.rtial penetration problem. For the case where CD =0,
stricted to DST data and can occur in conventional tests
It Is well known 34 that at early times the following semi-
if the buildup test is not of, sufficient duration to obtain
log equation holds:
buildup data that are not influenced by wellbore storage
effects.
We next consider a partially penetrating well located
in the center of a cylindrical reservoir. l?,Jf-Js This is the PwcD = ( 1. :Sl ) log ( ~~ ) +sib, .......... (29)
only problem considered in this paper where the open in-
terval of the wellbore is not equal to the reservoir thick-
ness. The penetration ratio, b, and the dimensionless and at late times (pseudoradial flow period), p weD is
wellbore length are defined respectively by given by

PwcD = 1.151 log ( ~~) +slb+sb, ......... (30)


b.=hwlh ................................ (27)

458 SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986


9
>..' 10- , w' 200, s = 0
ANALYTICAL SOLUTION, C0
o 108
-0

0
0

105 108 1011


DIMENSIONLESS TIME, t 0

Fig. 9-Rate-normalized and Method 1 solutions; partial- Fig. 10-Pressure response; naturally fractured reservoir
ly penetrating well. with wellbore storage.

where s b is the pseudoskin factor resulting from partial In recent years, an intense research effort has been
penetration. 17 33 -35 The p weD values (open, circular data devoted to the study of naturally fractured reservoirs. It
points in Fig. 9) constructed with Method 1 correlate well has been shown that in an infinite naturally fractured reser-
with the constant-sandface-rate solution (solid curve). If voir; a semilog plot of the wellbore pressure resfonse vs.
we fit these p weD data with a semilog straight line for time may exhibit three semilog straight lines. 23 7 38 Ref.
10 2 $. t D $. 2 X 10 3 by regression analysis, the semilog 39 examines the conditions under which all these semi-
straight line obtained has slope= 2. 847 and yields s = 5. 06. log straight lines will exist when the reservoir is bound-
The correct values are slope=2.878 (see Eq. 29) and ed. Refs. 38 and 40 consider the effect ofwellbore storage
s=5.0. Fitting the late-time (3 X 10 6 $. tD $.10 7 ) PweD and skin on the pressure response but do not consider the
values with a semilog straight line using regression anal- effect of the outer reservoir boundary. By using the ana-
ysis yields slope= 1.151 and (s/b)+sb =22.09. Using the lytical techniques of these studies, or by combining the
value s=5.06 obtained above and b=0.4 then gives sb = known solutions in an appropriate way, we found that it
9.44. The correct values are slope=1.151, (slb)+sb is easy to construct the dimensionless wellbore pressure
=22.04, and sb =9.54; see Eq. 30 and Refs. 17, 34, response in a bounded, naturally fractured reservoir when
and 35. early-time data are influenced by wellbore storage effects.
Note that we have not applied Method 2 or 3 to the data The solution to this problem can also be obtained with
of Fig. 8. Method 2 has stability problems when qD is a finite-difference model. 41
an increasing function of t D (see Appendix A and Ref. Fig. 10 presents a semilog plot of the dimensionless
10): Method 3 can be applied and does yield accurate re- wellbore pressure drop (drawdown) vs. flowing time, t D.
sults but offers no advantages over Method 1 for tran- The solid curve represents the solution for CD = 0 and the
sient data (see Appendix B). circular data points represent the solution for CD = 10 8 .
From the results of Fig. 9, we see that 'the rate- Here, the naturally fractured reservoir model of Ref. 23
normalized dimensionless pressure drop falls below the is used. As discussed in the definition section, p wD , t D ,
correct constant-rate solution and cannot be used to ob- and CD are given in terms of fracture properties; for
tain highly accurate results. This behavior is typical for example,
well bore-storage-dominated problems. lO, 11 , 36
The results of Fig. 9 offer an interesting possibility from 5.615C
CD= , ...................... (31)
the viewpoint of analyzing field data. If wellbore storage 27rJc tfhftr w
2
effects are present, but sandface rate data are obtained,
our results indicate that Methods 1 and 3 will yield equiva- where jC tf denotes the porosity I compressibility product
lent constant-sandface data that can be analyzed by semi- for the fracture system and hft is the total thickness of
log methods. In particular, two semilog straight lines may the fracture system. Because CD is based on fracture
be obtained. The flow capacity adjacent to the open in- properties, CD= 10 8 is a reasonable value for the dimen-
terval (khw for the problem considered here), k, and the sionless wellbore storage constant. For this problem, the
true skin factor can be estimated from the early-time semi- dimensionless fracture transfer coefficient, A. and the 1
,

log data. Using the late-time semilog data, the total flow dimensionless matrix storativity, w are defined respec- 1
,

capacity (kh for the problem considered here) and the to- tively by
tal skin factor sr [sr =sb +(sib)] can be estimated. The
value of s b can then be estimated from the equation
sb =sr -(sib). The penetration ratio b can be obtained by ..................... (32)
dividing khw by kh. Because s b is a unique function of
h wD and b, h wD can then be estimated from Brons- and
Marting charts, 35 and then klkz and kz can be estimated
with the obvious rearrangement of Eq. 28. This type of
analysis procedure can be extended to layered-reservoir
problems. 17
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986 459
o METHOD 1
s 1 -2 s 2 10
RATE NORMALIZED PRESSURE DROP
Pj 1 6~00 , Pj 2 = 3000 psi

reo 4000

)..' 10-9
w' 200
s 0

Fig. 11---Rate-normalized and Method 1 solutions, natur- Fig. 12-Pressure response; two-layer, commingled
ally fractured reservoir. reservoir.

where the subscript/refers to the fracture system and the late-time semilog straight lines by the procedure discussed
subscript m refers to the matrix system. See Ref. 23 for in Ref. 23, we obtain w' = 71 with the rate-normalized
a more detailed discussion of these parameters and their data, whereas the same procedure applied to the PwcD
physical interpretation. data of Fig. 11 yields w' = 196. Note that the correct value
For the solution shown in Fig. 10, reD is sufficiently is w' = 200. Method 3 can also be applied to the CD = 10 8
large that the outer reservoir boundary does not affect the solution and yields reliable results, but Method 2 is not
wellbore response during the time interval shown. Note appropriate for well bore storage problems.
that A.' =10- 9 , w' =200, and s=O for the results shown The last problem considered here is a two-layer com-
in Fig. 10. Also note that the Cv =0 solution exhibits all mingled reservoir system (no crossflow between
three semilog straight lines identified in Refs. 23, 37, and layers 42 ,43 ). Fig .. 12 presents a semilog plot of the dimen-
38. In both Figs. 10 and 11, a cross is used to denote the sionless drawdown pressure-drop solution for a two-layer
beginning and end of the various semilog straight lines. commingled reservoir problem. Here p wD and t D are
Note that the Cv = 10 8 solution does not exhibit the based on average properties. Individual layer properties
early-time semilog straight line with slope= 1.15 and the or their ratios are given in Fig. 12, where the subscript
intermediate-time semilog straight line with slo~e = 0. 59 1 refers to Layer 1 and the subscript 2 refers to Layer
is obscured. (If Cv were increased to Cv = 10 for this 2. The initial pressure in Layer 1 is 6,000psi [41.4 MPa]
problem, the intermediate-time semilog straight line would and the initial pressure in Layer 2 is 3,000 psi [20.7 MPa],
be totally obscured). and the individual layer skin factors are s 1 = -2 and
Fig. 11 presents the PwcD function generated with our s 2 = 10; thus, this problem is an extreme case and the
Method 1 using the Cv = 10 8 solution of Fig. 10 and the analogous field data would be extremely difficult to ana-
corresponding dimensionless sandface rate, qv (not lyze by conventional methods. 43 The initial pressure used
shown). Fig. 11 also presents the rate-normalized pres- in the definition of p wD is
sure drop for the same problem. The solid curve of Fig.
11 represents the Cv =0 solution of Fig. 10, which is the
dimensionless pressure drop solution obtained when the k1h1Pi1 +k2h2Pi2
sandface rate is constant. Note that the PwcD solution Pi= , ................... (34)
generated with Method 1 is in excellent agreement with kh
this constant-sandface-rate solution. By using regression
analysis as in our previous examples, we found that the
PwcD function of Fig. 11 displays an early-time semilog as suggested by Larsen, 43 but the definition of pi has no
straight line with slope= 1.14, an intermediate-time semi- bearing on the semilog slope. For the data considered
log straight line with slope=0.59, and a late-time semi- here, Eq. 34 yields Pi =3,273 psi [22.6 MPa].
log straight line with slope= 1.15. The last two slopes are From the results of Fig. 12, we see that no semilog
the desired correct values but the early-:time slope (1.14) straight line with slope= 1.151 exists. In fact, the mini-
is slightly lower than the correct value of 1.15. mum semilog slope that can be obtained is approximate-
The normalized pressure drop shown in Fig. 11 falls ly 2.8 (approximately 2.5 times the desired, correct slope.
below the constant-rate solution for t D s; 5 X 10 10 . Any of 1.151), which is not surprising in view of Larsen's 43
reasonably chosen intermediate-time semilog straight line results. The results of Fig. 12 are for a constant total sand-
will have a slope significantly greater than 0.59. By using face rate of production, and reservoir boundaries influ-
regression analysis on the rate-normalized data for ence the wellbore response at t D = 5 X 10 7 . For this
10 2 s;tv s; 10 5 , we determined an early-time semilog problem, fluid is actually injected into Layer 2 during vir-
straight line with slope= 1. 11. Although this slope is close tually the entire duration of the drawdown test. This is
to the correct value (1.15), the line falls below the cor- a result of the low initial pressure of Layer 2.
rect early-time semilog straight line, as shown in Fig. 10. Fig. 13 presents a semilog plot of the dimensionless
Estimating w' from the difference between the early- and pressure drop p wv 1 vs. dimensionless time t v 1 The rate
4;60 SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
METHOD
. o I, 8 1
0 2,8 1
t:> 3
RATE NORMALIZED
PRESSURE DROP

Fig. 13-Pressure and rate responses based on Layer 1 Fig. 14-Methods 1, 2, and 3 and rate-normalized Layer
properties. 1 solutions; two-layer system.

qD1 is also shown. Here PwD 1 , tD 1 and qD 1 are based transient flow. (The p weD solutions also correlate well
on Layer 1 properties are defined respectively by with the sinfle-layer solution during pseudosteady flow,
tD > 5 X 10 .) In particular, the PweD and PwDl lqDl vs.
t D 1 plots all display a semilog straight line with
.................. (35) slope= 1.151, an~ analysis of data yields an excellent ap-
proximation for the skin factor of Layer 1, s 1 = -2.
(Data obtained for Layer 2 can also be analyzed by simi-
2.637X10~ 4 k1t lar procedures. 11 )
t D1 = - - - - - - - ................... (36) The results for the two-layer problem indicate that, if
~ 1 ctl p,r; individual layer sandface rate data can be obtained, then
individual layer properties can be obtained with a con-
and ventional semilog analysis by Method 1, 2, or 3 or the
rate-normalized analysis procedure. FetkoviGh 44 clear-
q1 (t) ly indicates that it should be possible to estimate individual
qD1 = - - , .. .............. (37) layer properties by the rate-normalized analysis proce-
q, dure when individual layer sandface rate data are availa-
ble. Thus, the preceding results on rate-normalization may
where q 1 (t) is the sandface rate of production from Layer b~ viewed as a theoretical confirmation of his hypothesis.
1 in reservoir barrels per day. Fig. 14 presents a semilog
plot of the p weD solutions vs. t D 1 , where the p weD solu- Fractured Wells. We consider the application of our
tions are generated by Methods 1, 2, and 3 using the pres- methods and the rate-normalized procedure to vertically
sure/rate data of Fig. 13. The rate-normalized fractured well problems. We discuss uniform-flux and
dimensionless pressure drop, p wD 1 I q D 1 , is also shown infinite-conductivity fractures 45 as well as finite-
in Fig. 14. The solid curve is the Layer 1 pressure-drop conductivity fractures. 18 19 46 47 For planar fractured
solution that is obtained when Layer 1 is produced at a wells (uniform flux or infinite conductivity) where well-
constant sandface rate. Note that the PweD solutions bore storage effects exist, the dimensionless wellbore
generated and the rate-normalized pressure-drop solution pressure-drop solution can be generated with well-known
all correlate well with this single-layer solution during superposition procedures-e.g., see Ref. 48. The finite-

10

o PRESSURE, Pwo
oRATE, q 0

Coxf =0.1

10
Fig. 16-Rate-normalized and Method 1 solutions; infinite-
conductivity fracture.
Fig. 15-Pressure and rate; infinite-conductivity fracture
with wellbore storage.

SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986 461


- CONSTANT RATE SOLUTION, UNIFORM FLUX
NORMALIZED PRESSURE, C oxf 0.1 k/k2=0.01, h1/h2=2,
('oxf)u=0.072,(Pwo)u 1.10 Cto1/Cto2" 50 Lxt/Lxf 2 " 4
1 RcD1/Rco2" 2 ,Cto21.6
('oxf). 10- , (Pwo). 1.0
I I

MATCH PO~x

10 10

Fig. 17-Rate-normalized infinite-conductivity solution Fig. 18-Buildup pressure response; finite-conductivity


matched with uniform-flux solution. fracture; two-layer system.

conductivity fractured well with wellbore storage and skin infinite-conductivity scales, respectively; that is, the type-
problem has recently been solved analytically by Lee and curve match aligns the point t Dx = 0. 077!, p wD = 1. 1 on
Brockenbrough. 49 Technically, their solution is an ap- the uniform-flux scale with the point t Dx = 10 - 1 ,
1
proximate solution but correlates extremely well (for p wD = 1. 00 on the infinite-conductivity scale.
t DxJ < 0. 5) with the rigorous solution obtainable by We now consider a vertically fractured well draining
fimte-difference methods. The results of Refs. 45 through a commingled two~layer reservoir. The fracture is of finite
49 assume a single-layer reservoir. Refs. 18, 19, and 24 conductivity and there is no crossflow between the frac-
considered the performance of finite-conductivity verti- ture layers: no wellbore storage exists, fracture storage
cally fractured wells draining multilayered reservoirs. effects are negligible, and the initial pressure is uniform
Fig. 15 presents a log-log plot of the dimensionless well- throughout the system. We discuss only the buildup
bore pressure drop and dimensionless sandface rate vs. response subsequent to a long producing period
dimensionless time, t Dx , for an infinite-conductivity (t pDxJ =2.5 X 10 - 4 ) at a constant total sand face rate.
fractured well producinla single-layer reservoir. Well- Fig. 18 presents a log-log plot of the dimensionless build-
bore storage effects are present with C Dx = 0.1 and the
1
up response, p Ds, vs. dimensionless shut-in time, !l.tDxr
surface rate is constant. (See the definition section for the Here p Ds and !l.t Dx are based on average properties and
definitions of the variables used here.) As shown in Fig. !l.t Dx is based ori the effective fracture half-length,
15, qD = 1 for tDx1 ;::: 1. Here qD = 1 implies that the i x1 . 1Values of the pertinent variables are given in Figs.
surface and sandface rates are equal. 18 and 19. As shown in Fig. 18, the dimensionless
Fig. 16 presents a log-log plot of the rate-normalized buildup-pressure response (circular data points) correlates
dimensionless pressure drop and p weD data obtained from extremely well with the dimensionless drawdown-pressure
Method 1 with the pressure and rate data of Fig. 15. response (solid curve). This drawdown response is for
(Method 3 can also be used to obtain p weD but Method an equivalent single-layer problem that is discussed in de-
2 is not appropriate.) The solid curve in Fig. 16 is tQe tail in Ref. 24. This aspect is not pertinent to our main
constant-sandface-rate infinite-conductivity solution 45 theme that individual layer properties can be determined
(CDx =0). The results of Fig. 16 indicate that the PweD if individual layer sandface rates are known.
1
solutiOn generated by Method 1 correlates extremely well In Fig. 20, PDs 1 and !l.qD 1 are plotted vs. dimension-
with the constant-sandface-rate solution (solid curve), less shut-in time, !l.t Dx11 ; p Ds 1 , !l.q D1 and !l.t Dx1, are
whereas the rate-normalized dimensionless pressure falls based on Layer 1 properties. In particular, !l.q D 1 is de-
below the constant-sandface-rate solution for t Dx < 1. fined as
We were surprised to find that the rate-nornfalized
dimensionless pressure of Fig. 16 can be type-curve q1 (!l.t=O)-q 1 (!l.t)
matched reasonably well with the uniform-flux fracture f:l.q D1 = , ............... (38)
solution during the time range 10 -:- 2 :$ t Dx :$ 4. This is qr
illustrated in Fig. 17, where the solid curve i the constant-
sandface-rate wellbore pressure drop for a uniform-flux where q 1 (in reservoir barrels per day) represents the
fracture. The solid, circular data points are the rate- sandface flow rate from Fracture Layer 1 during the build-
normalized pressure drop solution of Fig. 16 type-curve up period.
matched with the uniform-flux solution. Note that these Fig. 19 presents the rate-normalized dimensionless pres-
data points represent the rate-normalized pressure drop sure, PDs11!l.qD1, and the dimensionless pressure PweD
obtained from the infinite-conductivity fracture solution generated from the data of Fig. 20. Here Method 1 (Eq.
with wellbore storage effects, CDx =0.1. The scales in A-9) was used to generate PwcDl and the subscript 1
Figs. 16 and 17 are the same-i.d:, both represent the denotes Layer 1 properties. The solid curve represents
scales used in the infinite-conductivity .solution. The point the dimensionless drawdown wellbore pressure drop for
labeled with a cross represents the match point, with the the corresponding single-layer problem. BothPwcD1 and
subscripts u and i representing the uniform-flux and pDs1 I !l.q Dl correlate well with this drawdown solution for
462 SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
LAYER I PROPERTIES _ _
5 1
Cml" 50, k 1=0.002 md, 1c 11 3xl0 psi
h1 40ft, k 11 b1 40md-fl,
Lx 400 fl
11

lo-3 lo-1 10
10- 4 103 1o2 1o1 1 10
DIMENSIONLESS SHUT-IN TIME, llt0xfl
DIMENSIONLESS SHUT-IN TIME, Moxfl

Fig. 19-Correlation of rate-normalized and Method 1 so- Fig. 20-Shut-in pressure and rate based on Layer 1 prop-
lutions with Layer 1 solution. erties.

t:..t Dx1 < 1, although Method 1 yields slightly better re- Here, ~p(tj) represents the pressure drop in pounds per
sults. Buildup data for t:..tDx 1 > 1 fall below the draw- square inch that would be obtained if production were at
down solution as a result ofproducing-time effects. 50 a constant sand face rate q r. Eq. A -9 is used to generate
Results similar to those shown in Fig. 19 can also be P FCN as a function of shut-in time so actual knowledge
generated from Layer 2 data. The results of Fig. 19 il- of t:..p(tj) and q r is not necessary. As discusseft in Ap-
lustrate that individual layer properties (k, Lx1 , and C1) pendix A (also see Refs. 6, 10, and 11), PFcN(tj) repre-
can be obtained for similar field cases provided individual- sents the equivalent (constant-sandface-rate) normalized
layer sandface flow rate data are measured. This conclu- drawdown pressure change; thus, standard drawdown
sion applies both to drawdown and buildup data. 11 analysis procedures (type curves or semilog analysis) can
In general, we have found that when these methods are be used to analyze the P FCN vs. t:..t data.
used to convert (variable-sandface-rate) pressure build- For the buildup test we consider, the rate-normalized
up data to equivalent constant-sandface-rate drawdown- buildup pressure is denoted by t:..p/ t:..q and is given by
pressure data, the equivalent drawdown data generated
will match the desired constant-sandface-rate drawdown t:..p Pws -pwfs
-----=----, .................... (40)
solution provided that t:..t~0.1tP, where tp is the produc- t:..q q(t:..t=O) -q(t:..t)
ing time. This condition is only a rule of thumb. A more
detailed discussion of producing-time effects is given in where Pws is the shut-in pressure and Pwfs represents the
Ref. 11. final flowing wellbore pressure-i.e., the pressure at the
instant of shut-in.
Field Example
Brownscombe Case 5. The buildup test considered is
Here, Method 1 is applied to analyze an actual buildup
Brownscombe's Case 5. 51 This is a multiphase-flow
test where the buildup data are influenced by afterflow
problem and hence the total sandface rate (q t) must be
(wellbore storage effects). We also discuss the rate nor-
used in the analysis. 14 52 -54 Fig. 21 presents the conven-
malization procedure for this problem.
tional log-log plot of t:..p vs. t:..t and the log-log plot of
For buildup data analysis, the real variable version of
the change in sandface rate, t:..qt, vs. shut-in time, t:..t.
Method 1 is given by Eq. A-9. Given actual buildup pres-
Here
sure and sandface rate data, Eq. A-9 can be used to gener-
ate the equivalent normalized draw down response, p FCN, f:..p=pws -pwfs ... ..... (41)
where
and
A t:..p(0)
p FCN(tj) = - - . . . .................. (39)
q,

o q(Llt=O)-q(Lll)

Fig. 22-Match of rate-normalized response with uniform-


flux type curve.

Fig. 21-Shut-in pressure and rate; field example.

SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986 463


..
L&J
(!)
z
<t 0.6
::I:
u
~~
=>c
en'
cnm
l.&Ja:: 0.4
a::,
a_,_
c~
L&J ..
N-
- CT
_J<l Fig. 24-Match of Method 1 solution with infinite-
<t,
~c. conductivity type curve.
O::<l 0.2
0
z By using Eq. A-9, we constructed the PFcN function
L&J
from the pressure/rate data of Fig. 21. We were unable
~ to obtain a good match of the P FCN vs. fl.t data using the
a::
0 uniform-flux type curve; however, we found that these
o 10 20 30 data could be reasonably matched with the infinite-
SQUARE ROOT OF SHUT-IN TIME, conductivity type curve for fractured wells. Our match
.rt;;t, v'MINUTES is shown in Fig. 24. From the match-point values recorded
on . Fig. 24, we obtained (kh/ ~-t), = 142.6 md-ft/cp
Fig. 23-Square root of time plot of rate-normalized [43.5X10 3 mdm/Pas] and Lxt=87.4 ft [26.6 m].
response. These estimates are roughly 10% less than the correspond-
ing estimates obtained by matching the rate-normalized
data with the uniform-flux type curve. From these results,
where qt represents the total sandface flow rate (oil, gas, we found r~ =Lx /2=43.7 ft [13.3 m] and s= -ln(r~/
and water) in reservoir barrels per day. Because after- r w) = - 5. 3; thus {he values of the r: and s obtained are
flow (wellbore storage) is present, the log-log plot of fl.p close to the values obtained using the rate-normalized
vs. fl.t displays a unit-slope line at early times that is the procedure.
characteristic behavior of wellbore-storage-dominated It seems possible that the difference between the rate-
data. (The well-known 1.5-log-cycle rule indicates that normalized analysis results and the results obtained from
none of the data lie on the conventional semilog straight the P FCN analysis cpuld be the result of the behavior il-
line.) lustrated in Figs. 16 and 17, which showed that the dimen-
The log-log plot of the rate-normalized data display a sionless rate-normalized wellbore pressure-drop solution
half-slope line at early times that is characteristic of a frac- for an infinite-conductivity vertical fracture with wellbore
tured well. This can be seen in Fig. 22, which shows the storage effects will correlate well with the uniform-flux
type-curve match of the rate-normalized data obtained solution for 10 - 2 !5 t Dx !54. On the basis of field expe-
1
with the uniform-flux type curve for vertically fractured rience, however, most people believe that the infinite-
wells. Using the match points recorded in Fig. 22, we conductivity type curve should be applied only when a
obtain (kh/~-t),=163.8 md-ft/cp [49.9x10 3 mdm/Pas] propped hydraulic fracture exists, and Ref. 51 gives no
{(kl~-t)r=455 md/cp [455x10 3 md/Pas]} and Lxt= indication that this is the case.
96.8 ft [29.5 m]. (These values are within 2% of the
values obtained by Fetkovich and Vienot, 14 who consid- Conclusions
ered the same problem.) From these results, we find that We have demonstrated the applicability of analysis
the effective well bore radius r ~ and skin factor are methods that are based on Duhamel's principle. These
r~=Lx le=35.6 ft [10.9 m] and s=-ln(r~lrw)= methods can be used to convert pressure data obtained
- 5 .1. In our results, (kl ll) t represents the total mobility when the sandface rate is variable to the equivalent pres-
because the total sandface rate was used in the analysis. sure data that would have been obtained for a constant
(Both the type-curve match and the double-fl.p rule indi- sandface rate of production. The methods can be applied
cate that semilog analysis is not applicable.) to both drawdown and buildup data. For the drawdown
The early-time data of Fig. 22 are flat and approach case, the methods can of course also be applied with sur-
the half-slope line from above. This behavior could be face rates provided that the surface rate is an accurate
a result of the existence of damage on the fracture face; reflection of the sandface rate. It has been shown that
however, the Cartesian plot of fl.p/ fl.q t vs. J"it shown Methods 1, 2, and 3 can be applied to a wide variety of
in Fig. 23 exhibits a straight line during the linear flow problems and are particularly advantageous for analyz-
period (half-slope line on the log-log plot) that extrapo- ing well test data obtained from commingled layered reser-
lates to zero at fl.t=O. If damage were present, this straight voirs. We have introduced a new procedure, Method 3
line should extrapolate to a positive value of (fl.pl fl.q t). of Appendix B, which is particularly useful for analyz- .
Thus we conjecture that the flat portion of the data may ing well test data influenced by reservoir boundary ef-
be caused by small errors in the measurements of pres- fects. The three methods based on Duhamel's principle
sures or rates. The small oscillations in Ap/fl.q, (see Figs. have been compared to the rate-normalized analysis proce-
22 and 23) seem to indicate this possibility. dure. It has been shown that when data are strongly in-
464 SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
fluenced by wellbore storage effects, the rate-normalized CJD = dimensionless fracture conductivity
pressure solution will be displaced below the correct h = total formation thickness, ft [m]
constant-sand-face-rate solution. We do not view the lat- hft = total fracture thickness (naturally fractured
ter statement as a castigation of the rate-normalization reservoir), ft [m]
procedure because for many problems this displacement hm = matrix thickness (naturally fractured
will not be large. Moreover, rate-normalized analysis is reservoir), ft [m]
simpler to use than Methods 1, 2, and 3, and does give
a good indication of which data points may be erroneous.
hw = thickness of perforated interval, ft [m]
Of the three methods based on Duhamel's principle, h wD = dimensionless wellbore length defined by
Method 1 is always applicable. We recommend the use Eq. 28
of Method 2 only when the sandface rate (change in sand- ~ = permeability, md
face rate for buildup) decreases throughout the test. Be"" k = thjckness-averaged permeability, md
cause of its computational complexity, we recommend the kt = fracture permeability, md
use of Method 3 only when it is important to generate kz = vertical permeability, md
accurate equivalent constant-sandface-rate data durirtg the f.x 1 = fracture half-length, ft [m]
time period influenced by boundary effects-e.g., in reser- Lx = effective fracture half-length defined by
1
voir limit testing under variable-flow-rate conditions. The Eq. 12, ft [m]
obvious limitation of Methods 1, 2, and 3 and the rate- n = index
normalization analysis is that sandface flow rates must be
available. llowever, because of the important analysis ad-
p = pressure, psi [kPa]
vantage these methods offer, particularly for heteroge- llp = pressure drop, psi [kPa]
neous formations, we expect that intense efforts will be p Ds = dimensionless shut-in pressure defined by
made to improve our ability to measure sandface flow Eq. 17
rates accurately. Currently, sandface flow rates are meas- p Ds = dimensionless shut-in pressure defined by
ured by production logging, and this requires that we con- Eq. 18
vert spinner rates in revolutions per second to sandface pi = initial reservoir pressure, psi [kPa]
flow rates in reservoir barrels per day. 55 For buildup data llp(ij) = pressure drop if production is a constant-
obtained from pumping wells, the sandface rate during sandface-rate of q r
buildup can be obtained by measuring the rising liquid PwcD = equivalent constant-sandface-rilte
level using acoustic devices. 51 dimensionless wellbore pressure drop
On the basis of this study, the following conclusions
p wD = dimensionless well bore pressure drop ob-
are warranted.
1. Methods based on Duhamel's principle can be used tained under variable-sandface-rate pro-
to analyze well test data when sandface flow rates are duction
available. PwJ = flowing bottomhole pressure, psi [kPa]
2. If individual layer sandface flow rates are available, Pwfs = flowing wellbore pressure at shut-in, psi
then the methods can be used to estimate individual layer [kPa]
properties. Pws = shut-in wellbore pressure psi [kPa]
3. The three methods can be used to estimate reservoir p0 = bottomhole opening pressure (DST), psi
PV when reservoir limit testing is conducted under [kPa]
variable-flow-rate conditions (the rate-normalized proce- P FCN = normalized pressure drop for constant-
dure should not be used under these circumstances). sandface-rate production, psi/RB-D
4. Although the rate-normalized analysis procedure may
[kPa/m 3 d]
yield sufficiently accurate results for practical purposes,
the rate-normalized pressure drop is displaced below the q = sandface flow rate, RB/D [res m 3 /d]
equivalent constant-sandface-rate solution during the time q' = derivative of the sandface flow rate
period dominated by wellbore storage effects. (tn+l -tj)
q D = dimensionless sandface rate defined by
Nomenclature Eq. 2
A = drainage area, ft 2 [m 2 ] qr = reference sandface rate, RB/D [res m 3 /d]
b = penetration ratio defined by Eq. 27 r e = reservoir drainage radius, ft [m]
cj = coefficient defined by Eq. B-2 reD = dimensionless drainage radius
cn = coefficient defined by Eq. B-2 r w = well bore radius, ft [m]
c1 = system compressibility, psi - l [kPa - l ] r ~ = effective. wellbore radius
c tf = total fracture compressibility, psi - 1 R cjD = dimensionless reservoir conductivity of
[kPa -l] Layer j, defined by Eq. 10
C = wellbore storage constant, RB/psi s = skin factor
[res m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ] s b = pseudoskin factor resulting from partial
CD = dimensionless wellbore storage constant for penetration
radial flow problems s 1 = total skin factor
C Dx = dimensionless well bore storage constant for t = time, hours
1
vertically fractured wells t D = dimensionless time based on well bore
Ct = fracture conductivity radius
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986 465
dimensionless time based on Layer 1 prop- 6. Bostic, J.N., Agarwal, R.G. and Carter, R.D.: "Combined Anal-
erty defined by Eq. 35 ysis of Postfracturing Performance and Buildup Data for Evaluating
an MHF Gas Well," JPT (Oct. 1980) 1711-19.
tvA dimensionless time based on drainage area 7. Pascal, H. and Quillian, R.G.: "New Method for Predicting
tvxt dimensionless time based on fracture half- Deliverability From Variable Rate Drawdown Data," paper SPE
length 7932 presented at the 1979 SPE Symposium on Low-Permeability
Gas Reservoirs, Denver, May 20-22.
tJ point in the subinterval [t1 ,t1+ d defined in 8. Kucuk, F. and Ayestaran, L.: ''Analysis of Simultaneously Meas-
Eq. A-7 ured Pressure and Sahdface Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing,"
producing time before shut-in, hours JPT (Feb. 1985) 323-34.
9. McEdwards, D.G.: "Multiwell Variable-Rate Well Test Analy~is,"
dimensionless produ~ing time before SPEJ (Aug. 1981) 444-53. .
shut-in 10. Thompson, L.G., Jones, J.R., and Reynolds, A.: "Analysis of
At shut-in time, hours Pressure Buildup Data Influenced by Wellbore Phase Redistribu-
tion," SPEFE (Oct. 1986) 435-52.
Atv dimensionless shut-in time based on well-
11. Thompson, L.G.: "Analysis of Variable Rate Pressure Data Using
. bore radius Duhamel's Principle," PhD dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK
dimensionless shut-in time based on (1985).
fracture half-length 12. Gladfelter, R.E., Tracy, G.W., and Wilsey, L.E.: "Selecting Wells
Which Will Respond to Production Stimulation Treatment," Drill.
X match point and Prod. Prac., API (1955) 117-28.
'Y Euler's constant (0.57722) 13. Winestock, A.G. and Colpitts, G.P.: "Advances in Estimating Gas
() weighting factor for a uniform weighting Well Deliverability," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1965) 111-19.
14. Fetkovich, M.J. and Vienot, M.E.: "Rate Normalization of Buildup
for all i1 Pressure Using Afterflow Data," JPT (Dec. 1984) 2211-24.
)...' dimensionless fracture transfer coefficient 15. Stehfest, H.: "Numerical Inversion of Laplace Transforms,"
defined by Eq. 32 Communications of the ACM (Jan. 1970) 13, No. 1, 47-49.
16. Prijambodo, R., Raghavan, R., and Reynolds, A.C.: "Well Test
viscosity Analysis for Wells Producing Layered Reservoirs with Cross flow,''
porosity, fraction SPEJ (June 1985) 380-96.
thickness-averaged porosity I compressibility 17. Reynolds, A.C., Chen, J.C., and Raghavan, R.: "Pseudo-Skin
Factor Caused by Partial Penetration," JPT(Dec. 1984) 2197-2210.
product defined by Eq. 9, psi - 1 18. Bennett, C.O., Reynolds, A.C., and Raghavan, R.: "Analysis of
[kPa - 1 ] Finite-Conductivity Fractures Intercepting Multilayer Reservoirs,''
fracture porosity, fraction SPEFE (June 1986) 259-74.
19. Bennett, C.O.: "Analysis of Fractured Wells," PhD dissertation,
dimensionless matrix storativity defined by U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK (1982).
Eq. 33 20. 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.
Subscripts 21. Agarwal, R.G.: "Real Gas Pseudo-Time-A New Function for
f = fracture system Pressure Buildup Analysis of MHF Gas Wells,'' paper SPE 8279
infinite-conductivity scale presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 21-24.
j layer index 22. Lee, W.J. and Holditch, S.A.: "Application ofPseudotime to Build-
m matrix system up Test Analysis of Low-Permeability Gas Wells with Long-
u = uniform-flux scale Duration Wellbore Storage Distortion," JPT(Dec. 1982) 2877-87.
23. Serra, K., Reynolds, A.C., and Raghavan, R.: "New Pressure
1 Layer 1 Transient Analysis Methods for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,"
2 Layer 2 JPT (Dec. 1983) 2271-83.
24. Camacho-V., R.G., Raghavan, R., and Reynolds, A.C.: "Response
of Fractured Wells Producing Layered Reservoirs, Unequal Fracture
Length," paper SPE 12844 presented at the 1984 SPE/DOE/GRI
Acknowledgments Unconventional Gas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh, May 13-15.
Portions of this study were completed by L. G. Thomp- 25. Fetkovich, M.J. and Thrasher, T.S.: "Constant Well Pressure
Testing and Analysis in Low Permeability Reservoirs,'' paper SPE
son with a grant from Flopetrol Johnston/Schlumberger 7928 presented at the 1979 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting,
as well as a U. of Tulsa research assistantship. We thank Denver, May 20-22.
these sources and the Dept. of Petroleum Engineering, 26. Uraiet, A.A. and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady Flow to a Well
U. of Tulsa, for financial support. Producing at Constant Pressure," JPT (Oct. 1980) 1803-12.
27. Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Transient Rate
Decline Analysis for Wells Produced at Constant Pressure," SPEJ
(Feb. 1981) 98-104.
References 28. Jones, P.: "Reservoir Limit Test," Oil & Gas]. (June 18, 1956)
1. van Everdingen, A.S. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the 184-96.
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans. , 29. Earlougher, R. C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph
AIME (1949) 186, 305-24. Series, SPE, R,ichardson, TX (1977) 5, 29-30.
2. Odeh, A.S. and Jones, L.G.: "Pressure Drawdown Analysis, 30. van Poollen, H.K.: "Status of Drill-Stem Testing Techniques and
Variable Rate Case," JPT(Aug. 1965) 960-64; Trans., AIME, 234. Analysis," JPT (April 1961) 333-39.
3. Soliman, M.Y.: "New Technique for Analysis of Variable Rate 31. Kohlhaas, C.A.: "A Method for Analyzing Pressures Measured
or Slug Test,'' paper SP~ 10083 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual During Drillstem-Test Flow Periods," JPT (Oct. 1972) 1278-82;
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-7. Trans., AIME, 253.
4. Stewart, G., Wittmann, M.J., and Meunier, D.: "AfterflowMeas- 32. Ramey, H.J. Jr., Agarwal, R.G., and Martin, 1.: "Analysis of Slug-
urement and Deconvolution in Well Test Analysis," paper SPE Test or DST Flow Period Data," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept.
12174 presented at the SPE 1983 Annual Technical Conference and 1965) 37-42. I

Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. 5-8. 33. Gringarten, A.C. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "An Approximate Infinite
5. Jargon, J.R. and van Poollen, H.K.: "Unit Response Function From Conductivity Solution for a Partially Penetrating Line Source Well,''
Varying Rate Data," JPT(Aug. 1965) 965-69; Trans., AIME, 234. SPEJ (April 1975) 140-48.

466 SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986


34. Bilhartz, H.L. Jr. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "The Combined Effects To apply the schemes to variable-sandface-rate draw-
of Storage, Skin and Partial Penetration on Well Test Analysis," down data, partitions of the time interval [0, t] must be
paper SPE 6753 presented at the 1977 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12. used, and for buildup, partitions of the time interval [0,
35. Brons, F. and Marting, V.W.: "The Effect of Restricted Fluid Entry Llt] must be used. For both drawdown and buildup, these
on Well Productivity," JPT(Feb. 1961) 172-74; Trans., AIME, partitions are denoted by {t1}/!,;t I , where for draw down
222.
36. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Verification of the Gladfelter-Tracy-Wilsey
Concept for Wellbore Storage Dominated Transient Pressures O=to <t1 < .. .. <tn <tn+l =t, ........... (A-1)
During Production," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (April-June 1976) 84-85.
37. Streltsova, T.D.: "Well Pressure Behavior of a Naturally Fractured
Reservoir," SPEJ (Oct. 1983) 769-80. and for buildup,
38. Cineo-L., H. and Samaniego-V., F.: "Pressure Transient Analy-
sis Methods for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," paper SPE 11026
presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and O=to < t1 < ... < tn < tn+l =Llt. . .......... (A-2)
Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 26-29.
39. Chen, C. et al.: "Pressure Transient Analysis Methods for Bounded
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," SPEJ (June 1985) 451-64. Here, P FCN denotes the equivalent normalized drawdown
40. Bourdet, D. and Gringarten, A.C.: "Determination of Fissured
Volume and Block Size in Fractured Reservoirs by Type-Curve pressure drop we wish to generate-i.e., P FCN represents
Analysis," paper SPE 9293 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual the normalized pressure drop we would obtain for a con-
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24. stant sandface rate of production. Notationally,
41. Reynolds, A.C. et al.: "The Wellbore Pressure Response in
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," JPT (May 1985) 908-20.
PFcN=Llp!q, .......................... (A-3)
42. Tariq, S.M.: ''A Study of the Behavior of Layered Reservoirs with
Well bore Storage and Skin Effect,'' PhD dissertation, Stanford U.
(1977). where Llp is the pressure drop in pounds per square inch
43. Larsen, L.: "Wells Producing Commingled Zones with Unequal that would occur if the well were produced at a constant
Initial Pressures and Reservoir Properties," paper SPE 10325 sandface rate equal to q r. The methods considered here
presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-7. are used to generate P FCN and knowledge of Llp and q r
44. Fetkovich, M.J.: "Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves," is not necessary or desired.
JPT (June 1980) 1065-77. The drawdown analysis scheme referred to as Method
45. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady- 1 for n~ 1 is given by
State Pressure-Distributions Created by a Well with a Single Infinite-
Conductivity Vertical Fracture," SPEJ (Aug. 1974) 347-60; Trans.,
AIME, 257.
46. Cineo-L., H., Samaniego, F., and Dominguez, N.: "Transient
Pressu.re Behavior for a Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical
Fracture," SPEJ (Aug. 1978) 253-64.
47. Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D., and Pollock, C.B.: "Evaluation and
Performance of Low-Permeability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive where
Hydraulic Fracturing," JPT (March 1979) 362-72.
48. Cineo-L., H. andSamaniego-V., F.: "EffectofWellboreStorage n-I
and Damage in the Transient Pressure Behavior of Vertically
Fractured Wells," paper SPE 6752 presented at the 1977 SPE
sum= 2::: PFcN(ij)[q(tn+l -tj)-q(tn+l -ti+I)].
}=0
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12.
49. Lee, S. and Brockenbrough, J.: "A New Analytical Solution for
Finite Conductivity Fractures with Real Time and Laplace Space ........................... (A-5)
Parameter Estimation," paper "SPE 12013 presented at the 1983
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, When n = 0, Eq. A -4 is replaced by
Oct. 5-8.
50. Raghavan, R.: "The Effect of Producing Time on Type Curve Anal-
ysis," JPT (June 1980) 1053-64. ")-[Pi -pwf(tt)]
51. Brownscombe, E.R.: "Afterflows and Buildup Interpretations on P FCN ( to - ................ (A-6)
Pumping Wells," JPT (Feb. 1982) 397-405. q(ti)
52. Perrine, R.L.: "Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves," Drill. and
Prod. Prac., API (1956), 482-509.
53. Martin, J.C.: "Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive 0
Here denotes a point in the subinterval [t1 , t1+ I] of the
Reservoirs and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Flow partition of Eq. A-1 and is given by
Buildup Analysis," JPT (Oct. 1959) 321-23; Trans., AIME, 216.
54. Chu, W.C., Reynolds, A.C., and Raghavan, R.: "Pressure 0=8itJ+l +(1-()J)tJ, .................... (A-7)
Transient Analysis of Two-Phase Flow Problems," SPEFE (June
1986) 151-64.
55. Awad, M.A. and Tergiman, J.: "Importance of~ottom-Hole Flow where
Monitoring During Transient Pressure Testing,'' Proc., SPWLA,
New Orleans (June 1984). 0 !5 () F:::; 1. .............................. (A-8)
Appendix A-Dimensional Version of
Methods 1 and 2 Selection of the ()1 values will be discussed later. (If we
In Ref. 10, using dimensionless variables, we derived choose 81 = Vz for all}, then the method of Eq. A-4 rep-
methods for the generation of constant-sandface-pressure resents the dimensional version of a method presented in
data given pressure and variable-sandface data measured Ref. 8.) For buildup data, Method 1 is given by
as a function of time during drawdown or buildup. Here,
the dimensional versions of the methods of Ref. 10 are
recorded, and guidelines for the practical application of
these methods are presented.
SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986 467
where to generate P FCN as a function of time. Given buildup
pressure and sandface rate data, the schemes of Eqs. A-9
n-1 and A-15 can be used recursively to generate P FCN as
sum= 2::: PFcN(iJ)[q(tp +tn+1 -tJ) a function of shut-in time. If both drawdown and buildup
J=O pressure and rate data are available, Eqs. A-4 and A-12
can be used to obtain P FCN as a function of total test time.
-q(tp+tn+1-tJ+1)] . ................ (A-10) In all cases, P FCN represents the normalized draw down
pressure response that would be obtained if production
When n=O, Eq. A-9 is replaced by were at a constant sandface rate.
When necessary, linear interpolation is used to obtain
P FCN and q values appearing on the right sides of Eqs.
........... (A-ll) A-5, A-10, A-13, and A-16. If we choose OJ= 1, for all
j, then except for this linear interpolation procedure, Eq.
A-12 is equivalent to Bostic et al. 's method.
Here, the partition of Eq. A-2 is used; Pws represents the As discussed in Refs. 10 and 11, it is necessary to use
measured shut-in pressure, Pwfs represents the flowing an iterative procedure when applying Method 2. For build-
wellbore pressure at the instant of shut-in, and t P repre- up data, if the change in sandface rate, q(L1t=O) -q(L1t),
sents the producing time. The q's represent the sandface is increasing as in wellbore-storage-dominated data, then
rates recorded during shut-in. Because t P corresponds to Method 2 (Eq. A-15) will be unstable unless the partition
L1t=O and L1t=tn+l (Eq. A-2), we can use the notation of Eq. A-2 is selected so that
q(L1t=O) for q(tp) and q(L1t-tJ) for q(tp +tn+1 -tJ),
which indicates that knowledge of t P is unnecessary.
tJ+ 1 -tJ ~ tJ -tJ-1 ...................... (A-18)
For drawdown analysis, Method 2 for n;;::: 1 is given by

for allj. Because we normally wish to use partitions such


that tJ+ 1 -tJ > tJ -tJ_ 1 , this restriction is inconvenient.
For drawdown cases where q(t) is increasing, it is also
necessary to require that the inequality of Eq. A-18 holds
where when Method 2 is applied (Eq. A-12). On the other hand,
if q(t) [q(L1t=O) -q(L1t) for buildup] is an increasing func-
n-1 tion of time, it is necessary to choose the partitions of
sum= 2::: PFcNCtn+l -tJ+1) the time intervals such that
J=O
tJ+1 -tJ >tJ -tJ-1 ...................... (A-19)
X[q(tJ+I)-q(tJ)] . .................. (A-13)
for all j to achieve stability if Method 1 is used. When
When n=O, Eq. A-12 is replaced by q(t) [ q( L1t = 0)- q( L1t) for buildup] is a decreasing func-
tion of time; no restrictions on the partitions ofEqs. A-1
and A-2 are necessary to achieve stability. A detailed sta-
................. (A-14) bility analysis is given in Refs. 10 and 11.
It is convenient to choose points of the partitions ofEqs.
A-1 and A-2 to correspond to times at which pressure and
The corresponding scheme to be used in the analysis of rate data are measured. However, it may be necessary
buildup data is to add or to delete points from partitions selected in this
way to achieve stability and/or accuracy. At times where
[PwsCtn+1) -pwfs] +sum they have not been measured, pressure and rate data are
P FCNCtn+1 )= " ..... (A-15) generated from the measured data by linear interpolation.
q(tp) -q(t P +t 0 )
We recommend the following guidelines for use of
Methods 1 and 2 in the analysis of field well test data.
for n2:: 1, where Plot, on log-log coordinates, q(t) vs. t for drawdown data,
n-1
or q(L1t=O) -q(L1t) vs. L1t for buildup data.
sum= 2::: PFcNCtn+l -tj+l)[q(tp +iJ+1) Case 1. If the slope of this log-log plot is always zero
J=O
or negative, then both Methods 1 and 2 are stable regard-
less of how the partition of Eq. A-1 (Eq. A-2 for build-
-q(tp +tJ)]. . ...................... (A-16)
up) is selected. In this case, either Method 1 or 2 can be
used successfully. Method 2 generally will give slightly
When n=O, Eq. A-15 must be replaced by more accurate results but Method 1 always is more com-
putationally convenient. In using either method, one
should use OJ= 1 for allj. For either method, sufficient-
ly accurate results will generally be obtained with 10
points per log cycle in the partition of Eq. A-1 (Eq. A-2
Given drawdown pressure and sandface rate data, the for buildup) but adding more points will increase the ac-
schemes of Eqs. A-4 and A-12 can be used recursively curacy obtained.
468 SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986
' . '

Case 2. If the slope of the log-log plot mentioned above and


is positive, Method 2 will be unstable unless the inequal- n-1
ity of Eq. A-18 is satisfied. In this case we recommend sum= ~ PFcN(t1+ 1)(c1 -c1+ 1 ). ....... (B-3)
using Method 1 with 01 = V2 for all j and with a partition j=O
selected such that the inequality of Eq. A-19 is satisfied.
More specifically, as shown in Refs. 10 and 11, we should In Eq. B-2, the term q' (t n + 1 - ti) denotes the derivative
choose the partitions such that of the rate function evaluated at time tn+ 1 -tj.
The following procedure is recommended for the prac-
Iq(tn+1 -tj)-q(tn+1 -tj+1) I :S 1, ........ (A-20) tical application of Method 3.
1. Let {t m} ~~b denote the set of points at which pres-
q(t n + 1 - t n)
sure and rate data are measured. On each associated subin-
when analyzing drawdown data, and such that terval, t m, which is strictly < t and :S t m+ 1 , compute the
derivative of the rate function with

I q(J1.t=O) -q(J1.t- t n) I
q(J1.t- t.)-
1
q(J1.t- t.1 + 1)
:S 1' ........... (A-21) - q(tm+d-q(tm)
q 1(t m+1)= , .............. (B-4)
tm+1 -tm
when analyzing buildup data. Sufficient accuracy can be
obtained by choosing partitions that contain 10 or more for m = 0, 1 ... s. Here the "superscript" - is used to
points per log cycle, but it may be necessary to use fewer denote that Eq. B-4 gives the value assigned to q'(t) at
than 10 points for some log cycles to maintain stability. all times that lie in the subinterval t m , which is strictly
For either Case 1 or 2, accuracy will be enhanced by <t and :Stm+ 1 At this point, we have a table composed
using more than 10 points per log cycle in regions where of values tm, Pwf(tm), q(tm), and q'(t m+d for
the absolute values of the slope on the log-log plot of rate m=0,1 .. . s.
q(t) [q(J1.t=O) -q(J1.t) for buildup] vs. time is large. 11 2. Define the sequence of times {t1 }/!,11 at which
The dimensionless version ofEq. A-4 is given in Refs. PFcN data are desired.
10 and 11 and can be obtained by multiplying Eq. A-4 3. Compute PFcN(t 1) from the following equation:
by kh/141.2~-t and letting
Pi-Pwf(tt)
PFcN(t1)= , ........... (B-5)
khPFcN khJ1.p q(t t) -0.5t 1 q, (t t)
PweD= ............. (A-22)
141.2~-t 141.2q rJ.t where pi is the initial pressure at the beginning of the
drawdown test.
The dimensionless versions ofEqs. A-9, A-12, and A-15 4. Compute subsequent values of P FCN by applying Eq.
can be obtained by the same procedure and are also given B-1 recursively. At each step of the procedure, both q
in Refs. 10 and 11. .,. and q' must be evaluated to compute c1 ; see Eq. B-2.
For the analysis of transient data~ either Method 1 or Terms of the form q(tn+ 1 -t1) are evaluated by linear in-
2 should be applied following the guidelines delineated terpolation between measured rate vs. time data. Terms
above. When pressure and rate data are controlled by out- of the form q' (t n + 1 - t j) are evaluated by searching the
er boundary effects, Method 3 of Appendix B will yield table constructed in Step 1 to find the subinterval such
the most accurate pseudosteady-state P FCN data. that t m < t n+ 1 - t j :S t m+ 1 , and then set

Appendix &-Dimensional Version of q'(tn+1 -tj)=q'(t m+d ................. (B-6)


Method 3
The derivations of Methods 1 and 2 of Appendix A are As shown in Ref. 11, Method 3 is stable if q(t) is a
given in Refs. 10 and 11. The derivation of Method 3 is smoothly decreasing function of time. If q(t) is an increas-
similar and is given in Ref. 11. Here, we present only ing function of time, then the points {t1} 1!t 1 at which
the dimensional version of Method 3. The analysis of P FCN is computed must satisfy the inequality
reservoir limit tests conducted under variable-rate condi-
tions appears to be the most important practical applica-
tj + 1 - tj > tj - tj _ 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-7)
tion of Method 3. Thus, for brevity, we include only the for allj to guarantee stability. Generally, if 10 points per
draw down version of Method 3. The buildup analog is log cycle are used in the partition {t1 } 1!t 1 , then suffi-
given in Ref. 11. cient accuracy will be obtained when Method 3 is applied.
By using the notation of Appendix A, Method 3 for the Further details are given in Ref. 11.
analysis of drawdown data is given by
Sl Metric Conversion Factors
bbl X 1.589 873 E-01 = m 3
ft X 3.048* E-01 = m
psi X 6.894 757 E-00 = kpa
where
conversion factor is exact. SPEFE
Cj=q(tn+1 -tj)-0.5[(tn+1 -tj)q'(tn+1 -tj)] Original manuscript received in the Society of Petroleum Engineers office Sept. 16,
1984. Paper accepted for publication April19, 1985. Revised manuscript received Feb.
26, 1986. Paper (SPE 13080) first presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Con-
............................. (B-2) ference and Exhibition held in Houston, Sept. 16-19.

SPE Formation Evaluation, October 1986 469

Похожие интересы