superposition

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 11

superposition

© All Rights Reserved

- Chapter 5
- Edgar Valenzuela-RM.pdf
- Kelly Criterion
- Sage for Undergraduates Color
- Data Analysis Vade Me Cum
- MTC TEST
- George Chrystal- Algebra : an elementary text-book Volume 2
- Pump Maintenance
- Lecture 3.8 Derivation of Exp & Log Functions
- calculus Worksheets
- Logarithm Test
- Nota AddMaths A+
- Gate
- MATHBLOG.docx
- sol1.pdf
- 15L08.pdf
- 334
- PhaseI Phy L1 MathAbility Ppt
- Alg Complete Practice
- Ext - Raw Performance Measures

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17

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

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

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

s 10

r80 4000

DIMENSIONLESS TIME, t 0

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

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

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

..................... (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

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. 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

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

9

>..' 10- , w' 200, s = 0

ANALYTICAL SOLUTION, C0

o 108

-0

0

0

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.

- 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

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)

flux type curve.

..

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.

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

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

' . '

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

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.

- Chapter 5Загружено:Shafiqah Samsuri
- Edgar Valenzuela-RM.pdfЗагружено:Diego Herrera
- Kelly CriterionЗагружено:Ho Sai San
- Sage for Undergraduates ColorЗагружено:Hari Krishnan
- Data Analysis Vade Me CumЗагружено:richardfisica
- MTC TESTЗагружено:Taremwa King Ezra
- George Chrystal- Algebra : an elementary text-book Volume 2Загружено:FrySVD
- Pump MaintenanceЗагружено:agarwalashwin32
- Lecture 3.8 Derivation of Exp & Log FunctionsЗагружено:Mohd Haffiszul Bin Mohd Said
- calculus WorksheetsЗагружено:mariansmooth
- Logarithm TestЗагружено:Yash Mahajan
- Nota AddMaths A+Загружено:Anonymous PxC2VAYiXW
- GateЗагружено:Surya
- MATHBLOG.docxЗагружено:olivierkdc
- sol1.pdfЗагружено:indoexchange
- 15L08.pdfЗагружено:singha2002
- 334Загружено:Agung Wicaksono
- PhaseI Phy L1 MathAbility PptЗагружено:PremMehta
- Alg Complete PracticeЗагружено:Zhangtao
- Ext - Raw Performance MeasuresЗагружено:Aya Omar Squared
- effectofpin solonovЗагружено:halimsha
- 6.- Montiel and Ruiz Ee&Sd 2007Загружено:Tania Esmeralda González Robles
- IndianPointTranscript of Oct 17 2012Загружено:MkKelly
- 02-asympЗагружено:sonuu255
- BooksЗагружено:Anonymous LeG5Sd
- LogsЗагружено:Lin Li
- syllabiЗагружено:sudheer1440
- HW2 SolutionsЗагружено:Aravind Vinas
- lesson plan 22 aprilЗагружено:api-252743879
- 08._MappingByElementaryFunctionsЗагружено:Edwin Wilfredo

- Capillary Pressure and Rock Wettability Effects on Wireline Formation Tester Measurements.pdfЗагружено:reborn2
- 1 Tim 3Загружено:Anand Selveindran
- FiniteDifference (1)Загружено:Anand Selveindran
- Team15_how to Run From IMEXЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- Gulf Coast YpЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- Elsticty ThryЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- Res Sim NotesЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- EOR HalliburtonЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- October 2010Загружено:Anand Selveindran
- Model 1250 Dual Stage Brass RegulatorЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- bible at a glance_print.pdfЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- mmp(1)Загружено:Anand Selveindran
- CO2solubility.docЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- Logging Mid Term PaperЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- Thesis Stress Dependant PermЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- SPE-1503-GЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- Eor Shale Co2Загружено:Anand Selveindran
- Coreflooding Foam GasЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- 18-34-1-SMЗагружено:Fauziah Mrd
- cationic surfactants co2Загружено:Anand Selveindran
- Production Test SheetЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- PcmЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- Formation Eval Overview - Students(1)Загружено:Anand Selveindran
- Surface Tension and TemperatureЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- CO2 Distribution Malay BasinЗагружено:Anand Selveindran
- JPSE Singh Fevang Whitson DepletionЗагружено:Anand Selveindran

- The DEADLY SINSЗагружено:Sams Tabriz
- Lecture 11_Biological TreatmentЗагружено:王嵐
- Explaining RegulationЗагружено:Laura Delgado
- IyCnet Speed Command M340Загружено:Kukuh Widodo
- 1 HEPATOCELULAR CARSINOMAЗагружено:Debby Astasya Annisa
- Nerve_AL_29_M30-15_BOM_ts.pdfЗагружено:Roberto Emme
- Grupos Electronicos Diesel Cat n3306 225ekw PrimeЗагружено:jalexivan
- 3-MS-Access-Quiz.pdfЗагружено:Mildred Walters
- Voice Analysis 2012Minimodule_lecture1Загружено:Kellen
- Ethics Construction ManagementЗагружено:Engr Ihsanullah Khan
- othello (Autosaved)Загружено:Joey Welsh
- inquiry essayЗагружено:api-296981077
- Reflexology ChartsЗагружено:Rama Prajapati
- Graduation Project - Cost AllocationЗагружено:malikaliraza
- Jane Lead - The Revelation of Revelations 1701 EditionЗагружено:Jane Lead, Christian Mystic
- lesson plan british councilЗагружено:Anonymous hVV6Zk0
- Notes on Nuts and BoltsЗагружено:Alluri girish
- APA style format daftar pustaka.pdfЗагружено:filantropi
- Measuring Time Teachers NotesЗагружено:Mada Tuica
- Examination Intensive Care Medicine PDFЗагружено:Joshua
- deloitte-uk-deloitte-atr-2016.pdfЗагружено:Aditya Krishna
- 303-PROGRAMM Onlinear Dynamics PR ON144002Загружено:Časovi Matematike Fizike
- ABC Organic Gardener Magazine - October 2016Загружено:Anita Csík
- matricial_yaskawa_wind2Загружено:Bilbaino El Grande
- Mathematical Analysis II - Claudio Canuto & Anita Tabacco-Springer (2015).pdfЗагружено:Alvaro
- Litigation NotesЗагружено:Enrique Sanchez
- Benchmarking StudyЗагружено:Subrat Rath
- Denplan Leaving FormЗагружено:Adriana Mihalachi
- Rr410202 Power Semi Conductor DrivesЗагружено:Srinivasa Rao G
- Divine Right of KingsЗагружено:Gabriel Jesús Morales Morales