SPE21829
Well-Test Analysis With Changing
Wellbore Storage
Peter S. Hegeman, SPE, Debora L. Hallford, SPE, and Jeffrey A. Joseph, SPE, Schlumberger
Summary. This paper presents a model for analysis of changing wellbore storage during well testing. Our model is based on a modifi-
cation and extension of a model for wellbore phase redistribution. The result is a general solution in Laplace space that can be used
to add changing storage to a variety of weill reservoir models. Increasing and decreasing storage cases can be accounted for analytically.
We present several field examples to show the application to well tests with changing wellbore storage.
Introduction
Changing wellbore storage during well testing has been reported
in the technical literature for more than 30 years. This class of prob-
lems includes wellbore phase redistribution 1.2 and increasing or
decreasing storage in connection with injection well testing. 3
Decreasing storage, usually caused by decreasing wellbore fluid
compressibility, frequently is encountered during pressure-buildup
testing. Low-permeability gas wells that build up over a large pres-
sure range often show this effect. Although simultaneous measure-
ment of downhole rate and pressure can reduce the severity of
changing storage, it does not eliminate the problem when wellbore
volume is appreciable below the production logging tool.
Changing storage makes application of analysis techniques based
on a constant-storage assumption, such as type-curve matching,
difficult. Use of these techniques usually results in a systematic mis-
match of the model to the measured data at early times. When a
well test is run long enough to develop infinite-acting radial flow
in the reservoir, the most serious side effects of the early-time mis-
match will be a visual impact on the observer and reduced confi-
dence in the interpretation. Furthermore, numerous situations arise
where well-test data are considered uninterpretable because of the
combined effects of changing well bore storage and insufficient tran-
sient data (tests stopped too soon. equipment failures, etc.).
In 1972, Ramey and Agarwal 4 presented an analytical solution
for a step change in wellbore storage. In 1981, Fair 1 presented a
solution for an exponential increase in storage, which he used to
model wellbore phase redistribution. Fair said that phase redistri-
bution caused an apparent lowering of the wellbore storage coeffi-
cient. The storage coefficient could become negative, indicating
a reversal in flow direction.
In this paper, we present a model for analyzing increasing or
decreasing wellbore storage. The model is based on a modifica-
tion and extension of Fair's approach. The result is a general solu-
tion in Laplace space that can be used to add changing storage to
a variety of reservoir models (PD functions). Field examples show
the applicability of the model to well tests with changing wellbore
storage.
Mathematical Development
As van Everdingen and Hurst 5 showed. the effects of constant
well bore storage can be described by
qsJ dPwD
- = I - CD - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
q dtD
In his study of wellbore phase redistribution. Fair modified Eq.
1 by adding a term to account for the pressure change caused by
phase redistribution:
q; = I-CD ( d: t
: - d:t
: ) . ....................... (2)
Thus, phase redistribution was modeled as a changing-wellbore-
storage phenomenon. The changing-storage pressure function,
PD' has the following properties:
Copyright 1993 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Fonnation Evaluation. September 1993
lim Pq,D=O, ..................................... (3a)
' .... 0
lim Pq,D = Cq,D' ................................. (3b)
' .... 00
and lim (dpq,DldtD) =0, ............................ (3c)
' .... 00
where Cq,D is a constant. Further, if (PD) is the Laplace trans-
form of a desired reservoir model (with s=O and CD=O-i.e., no
skin or storage), then
Z(PD)+S
(PD's,CD )= ............... (4)
z{ 1+ CDZ[Z(PD)+s]}
[z(PD)+s][1 +Z2CD (Pq,D)]
and (PD,S,CD,Pq,D)= ... (5)
z{1 +CDZ[Z(PD)+S]}
Therefore, (PwD), the Laplace transform of the dimensionless
wellbore pressure drop, can be obtained directly from Eqs. 4 (con-
stant storage) or 5 (changing storage). Provided that the changing-
storage pressure function. Pq,D' is Laplace transformable, then
changing storage can be added in Laplace space to any reservoir
model whose solution also is a Laplace transform. 1
Fair used an exponential form for the changing-storage pressure
function,
Pq,D = Cq,D(1-e -tDiOlD), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
with the Laplace transform
Cq,D Cq,D
(Pq,D)=-- .......................... (7)
Z z+llaD
At early time (tD-O, z-oo), Eq. 5 (with Eq. 7) reduces to
1 Cq,D
(PD,S.CD,Pq,D)=--+--' ................... (8)
z2CD Z2 aD
and inverting yields
PwD = tD I CaD ..................................... (9)
. 1 1 Cq,D
With - - = - + - - ............................. (10)
CaD CD aD
Eq. 9 indicates that, at early time. a well with changing storage
will act like a well with constant storage but with a storage coeffi-
cient of CaD' A transition period dominated by the changing
storage will follow; then, at late times, the well again will exhibit
constant storage, controlled by CD alone.
As mentioned previously, Fair's model (with CD>CaD and
Cq,D > 0) generates an exponential increase in wellbore storage.
Fig. 1 shows sample type curves for increasing storage. In the course
of this study, we found that setting CD < CaD and Cq,D < 0 gener-
ated an exponential decrease in wellbore storage. Fig. 2 shows a
set of curves for decreasing well bore storage.
Application of the increasing/decreasing-wellbore-storage model
to field data led to the conclusion that, in some cases, a sharper
(than exponential) changing-storage pressure function was required.
201
 100 10,---------------------,

Po
I Po

I
1.0-

"I i
!
10 0.1-

1!
i
01 i
I!
001 I
01 10 10 100 1000 10000 01 10 10 100 1000 10000

Fig. 1-Homogeneous system with exponential storage In Fig. 3-Homogeneous system with errorfunctlon storage
crease: initial C ao =20; final C o =100; $=2; and C.o =0.1, = = =
decrease: initial CaD 100; final Co 20; $ 2; and C. o =
1, and 10. -0.1, -1, and -10.

1 0 , . . - - - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - - ,
TABLE 1-WELL AND TEST DATA FOR FIELD EXAMPLE 1

Well Data
Test type Drillstem Porosity, % 10
Depth, ft 10,350 Hole size, in. 8 3A
Net thickness, ft 12 Temperature, of 223
Flow rate, BID 115 Test sequence 1.04-hour
Oil density, API 42 flow followed
I CONSTANT Cn-20 , \ , '
Water (mud) cut, % 17 by 1.97-hour
0]1 GOR, scf/bbl 510 shutin

Pressure Data
Shut-In Time Pressure Shutln Time Pressure
001-
(hours) (psi) (hours) (psi)
0.00000 494.80 0.62400 4,670.0
0.00767 678.08 0.65200 4,687.4
0.01567 873.21 0.68933 4,706.5
0001-"--_ _ _ _- - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - "
0.03183 1,416.6 0.71483 4,717.9
0] ] 0 10 100 1000 10000
0.03967 1,667.9 0.74900 4,730.7
0.05050 2,059.0 0.78150 4,744.3
0.05783 2,279.2 0.81950 4,758.0
Fig. 2-Homogeneous system with exponential storage 0.06617 2,537.7 0.86167 4,769.4
decrease: initial CaD = 100; final Co = 20; $ = 2; and C. o = 0.07217
0.08083
2,721.9
2,949.0
0.89683
0.93983
4,782.2
4,793.6
-0.1, -1, and -10.
0.08767 3,111.3 1.0122 4,810.9
0.09567 3,251.2 1.0462 4,819.1
Among the class of functions that obey properties in Eqs. 3a through 0.10983 3,470.5 1.0832 4,827.8
3c. the following exhibited characteristics representative of the field 0.11550 3,538.0 1.1243 4,835.5
0.12300 3,622.8 1.1595 4,841.9
data: 0.13117 3,694.8 1.1990 4,848.7
Pq,D=Cq,D erf(tD1aD)' ............................ (11) 0.14217 3.789.7 1.2317 4,853.8
0.15450 3,869.0 1.2668 4,859.7
The Laplace transform of this' 'error function" changing-storage 0.16150 3,908.7 1.3045 4,865.6
pressure function is 0.18033 4,010.3 1.3452 4,872.5
0.19933 4,091.5 1.3725 4,876.6
Cq,D " 0.21500 4,143.9 1.4193 4,882.9
(Pq,D)=--e Oi j):-/4 erfc (aDzI2) . ................. (12) 0.23633 4,210.9 1.4568 4,888.0
z 0.25633 4,261.1 1.5418 4,897.5
0.27450 4,303.0 1.5837 4,904.8
At early time (tD ->0, z-+ 00), Eq. 5 (with Eq. 12) reduces to 0.29267 4,340.4 1.6227 4,908.9
0.31650 4,383.7 1.6588 4,913.0
1 Cq,D 2 0.33717 4,414.7 1.6928 4,916.7
(PD,S,CD,Pq,D)=--+-- I ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
2 0.36667 4,455.8 1.7362 4,920.3
Z CD Z 2 Ci.D '\I7r
0.38967 4,485.8 1.7677 4,923.1
and inverting again yields PwD=tD1CaD but with 0.41350 4,511.8 1.8027 4,927.6
0.44050 4,540.6 1.8428 4,930.4
1 1 Cq,D 2 0.47267 4,568.8 1.8798 4,934.0
CaD = CD + aD .J;' .......................... (14) 0.49867 4,591.2 1.9102 4,937.2
0.53017 4,613.0 1.9413 4,939.0
0.55750 4,632.6 1.9745 4,939.5
Fig. 3 shows a set of curves for decreasing well bore storage with 0.58900 4.650.9
the error-function transition. Figs. 4 and 5 show pressure deriva-

202 SPE Fonnation Evaluation, September 1993

 1r----------------------------=======4 10r--------------------------========1

Po " Po "
DERIVATIVE -Po DERIVATIVE -Po
-_.. Pt!
..:/''''' ........................................
&0. PD
:/../ ..............................
1.0 1.0~

. / ../ .:
.../
... . ...
...
0.1 .../' 01
...../ ..

001

O.OOI.j.....<~ ______- - - -__________------~----~ O.OOt.j.....<~_ _ _ _ _- - - -_ _------~------------<

0.1 1.0 10 100 1000 1000C 0.1 1.0 to 100 1000 10000

Fig. 4-Homogeneou5 system with exponential storage Fig. 5-Homogeneou5 system with error-function storage
decrease: Initial CaD = 140; final Co =20; 5=3; and C.;o = -3. decrease: Initial CaD = 140; final Co = 20; s = 3; and C.;o = - 3.

tive responses for exponential- and error-function decreasing

storage. Observe the sharper, more abrupt transition of the error
function. Figs. 4 and 5 also confirm a long-used diagnostic for 10

decreasing wellbore storage-namely, that at early time the deriva- Po "

-Po
tive curve usually will exceed the Ap curve [or Am(p) curve for DERIVATIVE

gas].
Complex variable-storage models can be generated by use of mul-
tiple changing-storage pressure functions, P<l>Dl' P<l>D2 .... For ex-
1.0
... ~ ... po

//
...
ample, Fig. 6 shows decreasing wellbore storage at early time
followed by increasing storage. Gas wells that produce some liq- 01
uid can exhibit this type of storage behavior during a buildup test. Skin = 3
At early time, decreasing gas compressibility causes decreasing well- (Final) C n = 20

bore storage; later, as liquid falls back and the phases redistribute, Error Function

wellbore storage can increase. 0.01 "-<:..--._____- -___------------------l

1.0 10 100 1000 10COO

Field Examples
Example 1. The first example is a drillstem test (DST) from cen-
Fig. 6-Decreaslng wellbore storage (C./C=7 and C<po = -3)
tral California. The DST valve was open for 1 hour, during which
followed by increasing wellbore storage (C./C=0.5 and
the zone produced 5 bbl of oil and gas-cut mud. The flow was fol- =
C<po 10).
lowed by a 2-hour buildup. Fig. 7a shows log-log and Homer plots

10,------------------------,
000 ~p
000 Ap
Po" 10 II
Po" .lax Ap
J:ZJ: 6p
DERrvAnvE DERIVATIVE

10 1.0

01~---~~-------- _____________ ~

01
01 10 100 1000 01 1.0 100 1000

5300,--------------------------'""] 5300,---------------------,

PRESSURE
PRESSURE
(PSIA)
(PS1A)

3700 3700

o
o
o

2100 2100

500+1__~_ _ _ _ _- - - - - -__- - - - - _ - - - - - 500~==~:=-__- - - - -__- - - - -__ -----J

2< 18 1.2 0.6 00 24 1.6 12 0.6 00
LOG [(tp + At) / .:1t] LOG [(lp + At) / At]

a b
Fig. 7-(a) Example 1, match with constant-storage model, C o e 2 =570. (b) Example 1, match with decreasing-storage model:
C o e 2 =265; CeO/CO =3.33; and C<po = -2.84.

SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1993 203

 TABLE 2-WELL AND TEST DATA FOR FIELD EXAMPLE 2

Well Data
Test type Buildup Porosity, % 7
Depth, ft 13,420 Hole size, in. 6112
Net thickness, it 58 Temperature, of 214
Flow rate, MscflD 710 Test sequence 76-hour flow
Gas specific gravity 0.60 followed by
Gas impurities, % H 2 S 0.4 66-hour shut-in

Pressure Data
Shut-In Time Pressure Shut-In Time Pressure Shut-In Time Pressure
(hours) (psi) (hours) (psi) (hours) (psi)
0.00000 1,867.3 3.1433 3,905.2 8.8455 7,572.2
0.01767 1,885.0 3,2495 3,991.8 9.1110 7,620.0
0.03550 1,904.5 3.3647 4,083.8 9.3678 7,666.0
0.06200 1,923.9 3.4887 4,181.1 9.6247 7,708.4
0.08850 1,948.7 3.6125 4,267.8 9.9345 7,758.0
0.11517 1,971.7 3.7542 4,368.6 10.236 7,802.2
0.15050 1,998.2 3.8338 4,446.5 10.537 7,841.1
0.18600 2,023.0 3.9313 4,524.3 10.900 7,887.1
0.21250 2,051.3 4.0465 4,612.7 11.289 7,926.0
0.25683 2,081.4 4.1703 4,703.0 11.794 7,963.2
0.30100 2,113.2 4.2855 4,787.9 12.343 7,995.0
0.34533 2,150.3 4.4095 4,871.0 12.998 8,030.4
0.39850 2,192.8 4.6485 5,042.6 13.662 8,065.8
0.46050 2,240.6 4.7813 5,143.4 14.291 8,101.1
0.51350 2,281.2 4.9142 5,233.6 15.043 8,133.0
0.56667 2,329.0 5.0558 5,323.9 15.902 8,161.3
0.63750 2,380.3 5.1887 5,428.2 16.743 8,186.1
0.70833 2,424.5 5.3303 5,522.0 17.470 8,210.8
0.77917 2,472.3 5.4720 5,628.1 18.346 8,237.4
0.86767 2,523.6 5.6048 5,729.0 19.550 8,262.1
0.95633 2,574.9 5.7287 5,819.2 20.604 8,281.6
1.0360 2,624.4 5.8527 5,905.9 21.737 8,306.3
1.1068 2,666.9 5.9767 5,992.5 23.570 8,332.9
1.1953 2,716.4 6.1007 6,089.8 25.279 8,359.4
1.2573 2,757.1 6.2423 6,181.8 27.076 8,382.4
1.3370 2,806.6 6.3573 6,286.2 28.538 8,400.1
1.4343 2,859.7 6.4990 6,385.3 30.521 8,419.6
1.5495 2,921.6 6.6053 6,477.2 32.460 8,439.0
1.6647 2,981.8 6.7027 6,569.2 35.054 8,462.0
1.7885 3,043.7 6.8178 6,659.4 37.480 8,479.7
1.9037 3,121.5 6.9507 6,763.8 39.915 8,499.2
2.0365 3,195.8 7.1012 6,878.8 42.527 8,513.3
2.1693 3,266.6 7.2960 6,984.9 45.706 8,538.1
2.2933 3,335.6 7.4553 7,082.2 48.513 8,555.8
2.4172 3,413.4 7.6502 7,184.8 51.550 8,568.1
2.5500 3,496.5 7.8272 7,268.0 54.675 8,585.8
2.6740 3,585.0 7.9955 7,333.4 58.137 8,603.5
2.8068 3,673.4 8.1813 7,393.6 61.785 8,621.2
2.9220 3,745.9 8.3850 7,453.7 66.000 8,631.8
3.0370 3,822.0 8.6595 7,524.5

for the buildup. Table 1 lists well/reservoir and test data. The data
were matched with a constant-wellbore-storage model with
homogeneous reservoir behavior. The early-time buildup data show
evidence of decreasing wellbore storage; the log-log plot exceeds
unit-slope in some places and the derivative curve exceeds the t:.p
curve. The match with the constant-storage model is poor during
this period.
The buildup was rematched with the decreasing-wellbore-storage
model by use of the error-function transition CEq. 11). Fig. 7b shows
this match. With the addition of decreasing storage, the entire build-
up could be matched, improving overall confidence in the interpre-
tation. Note that with the decreasing-storage model compensating
for the higher storage at early time (CaD> CD), a lower value for
CD e 2s has been determined for the buildup. Thus, the computed
damage (skin factor) is lower.
Example 2. The second example is an Oklahoma gas well that
flowed at 710 MscflD for 76 hours, then was shut in at surface
for a 66-hour buildup (Table 2). Fig. 8a shows log-log and Hor-
ner plots for the buildup. The data were matched with a constant-
wellbore-storage model with homogeneous reservoir behavior.
Early-time buildup data again show evidence of decreasing well-
bore storage. with the log-log plot exceeding unit-slope in some
places and the derivative exceeding t:.m(p). The match with the
constant-storage model is so poor that it would be difficult to place
a high degree of confidence in the results.
The data set was rematched with the decreasing-well bore-storage
model by use of the error-function storage transition. Fig. 8b shows
this match. The addition of decreasing storage has allowed the en-
tire buildup to be matched. Although computed results are similar
for the two interpretations, a much higher degree of confidence can
be placed in the final results because decreasing storage has been
accounted for in the early-time buildup data.
Example 3. This example is a DST from the Rocky Mountains.
After a 2-hour flow, during which the well produced 3 bbl of oil,
a 2-hour buildup was conducted (Table 3). Fig. 9a shows log-log
and Horner plots for the buildup, along with the match using a
constant-wellbore-storage model (homogeneous reservoir behavior).
The early-time buildup data are severely distorted by decreasing
storage, again making it difficult to place any confidence in the type-
curve match.

204 SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1993

 10 10~
I
0006rn(p) ooo.6m(p)
Po " Po "
us dm(p)' U t ~rn(p)'
DERIVATIVE DERIVATIVE
I
10 1.0~

01 olj

001
0.01 01 1.0 10 100 1000
...I 0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100 1000
to/CD to/CD

3.3x10 8 3.3x10"

m(p) m(p)
(PSI 2 jCP) (PSI 2;CP)

/
22xlO" 2.2xl0"

~I
1.1XI0" 1.1xl0"

cDOooOo
o 0 ooooooQ!"1O'OO
0
4.0 3.2 2.' I.e D." 0.0 4.0 32 2' 16 0.8 0.0

a LOC [(tp -+ 6t) / 6tJ

b LOG [(tp -+ 6t) / 6tJ

Fig. 8-(a) Example 2, match with constant-storage model, C o e 2 =42,000. (b) Example 2, match with decreasing-storage
model: C o e 2 = 19,700; C.oIC o =7.67; and C.o = - 30.2.

100r---------------------------------------, 10r---------------------------------------,

Po " I 000ltop
Po "
OOO.6p
DERIVATIVE , sn.6p :IS':&: .6p'
DERIVATIVE
I
I

10- 10

10-

Ol~------~ __--------__--------~--------~
01 10 10 100 1000
to/CD

5050 ,----------------------------------------:::J 'O'O,-------------------------------------~-

PRESSURE I PRESSURE
(PSIA.) I i (PSIA)

3450
1 I I 3450

I 0
i
0

i 0
I
i ~
0
0
1850 ",0 18500
~
,0
250 ____ _____________________ _

.4
~

~-
1.8 12 06 00 18 1.2 0.6 00

a LOG [(lp -+ 61) / Al]

b LOe [(tp .... tr.t) / tr.t]

Fig. 9-(a) Example 3, match with constant-storage model, C o e 2S = 4.1 x 10 8 (b) Example 3, match with decreaSing storage
(error function): C o e 2S = 1,220; C.oIC o =20.3; and C.o = -17.

The buildup was rematched with the decreasing-wellbore-storage
model by use of the error-function storage transition. Fig. 9b shows
this match. As in the previous examples, addition of the decreas-
ing storage allowed the entire buildup to be matched. The
decreasing-storage match resulted in a significantly lower value for
CD e 2s and a corresponding significantly lower value for skin
damage (s=2.9 vs. s=8.7 for the constant-storage match).
Fig. 10 shows the match with the exponential-function storage
transition. Although this match is an improvement over the constant-
storage match of Fig. 9a, the buildup data exhibit a sharper, more
abrupt transition than the exponential model. The error-function
storage transition (Fig. 9b) provides a superior match of the test
data.
Conclusions
1. A model for analyzing changing wellbore storage during well
testing has been presented. Increasing- and decreasing-storage cases
can be accounted for analytically.
2. The Laplace space solution allows the addition of changing
wellbore storage to a variety of well/reservoir models (homogene-
ous, two porosity, hydraulic fracture, multilayer, etc.) whose so-
lutions also are in Laplace space.

SPE Formation Evaluation. September 1993 205

 TABLE 3-WELL AND TEST DATA FOR FIELD EXAMPLE 3 l0r-----------------~-=~~======~
0006p
SZI: bop
DERIVATIVE
Well Data
Test type Drillstem Porosity, % 14
1.0
Depth, ft 10,617 Hole size, in. 83t4
Net thickness, ft 43 Temperature, of 207
Flow rate, BID 34 Test sequence 2. 14-hour
Oil density, API 39 flow followed
0.1
Water (mud) cut, % 9 by 1.96-hour
GOR, scflbbl 670 shut-in

Pressure Data 0.01

Shut-In Time Pressure Shut-In Time Pressure 0.1 1.0 100 1000

(hours) (psi) . (hours) (psi)

0.00000 375.11 0.64800 4,153.5 ~O50

0.01650 422.03 0.67033 4,191.3 PRESSURE

0.04650 530.00 0.70267 4,240.0 (PSIA)

0.07383 621.11 0.72883 4,271.0 3450

0.10200 728.16 0.77500 4,321.5
0.12350 797.40 0.81283 4,358.0
0.15567 990.10 0.85050 4,385.3
0.18083 1,150.0 0,88383 4,412.2
..
1850

0.20650 1,325.8 0.91717 4,434.5

0.23500 1,589.6 0.95400 4,455.0
0.24717 1,646.6 0.98933 4,475.5 250
0.26300 1,796.4 1.0352 4,497.9 2.4 1.8 1.2 0.8 0.0
LOG [(l. + Al) I Al]
0.27583 1,930.4 1.0765 4,518.8
0.29017 2,086.2 1.1193 4,534.3
0.31133 2,308.0 1.1563 4,550.2 Fig. 10-Example 3, match with decreasing storage (exponen-
0.32667 2,467.0 1.2068 4,563.9 tial): C D e b =75,200j C.oIC D =29.9j and C.,,= -7.4.
0.34033 2,607.3 1.2507 4,580.8
0.35917 2,793.6 1.2928 4,593.5
0.37517 1.3328 4,605.8
PD = kh(Pi-P)/(141.2qBp.)
2,935.8
0.38850 3,046.5 1.3795 4,619.0 Pi = initial pressure, mlLt2, psi
0.40933 3,215.9 1.4237 4,629.0 Pw = wellbore pressure, mlLt2, psi
0.42617 3,341.2 1.4773 4,639.1 PwD = kh(Pi-Pw)/(l41.2qBp.)
0.44200 3,439.6 1.5293 4,652.3 P", = changing-storage pressure, m/Lt 2 , psi
0.46133 3,550.3 1.5647 4,661.4 P",D = khp",/(l41.2qBp.)
0.47900 3,647.8 1.6138 4,669.1
0.49250 3,707.0 1.6705 4,679.6
t:.p = pressure change, mlLt2, psi
0.51917 3,821.4 1.7203 4,689.2 q = flow rate, L3 It, BID
0.53850 3,885.1 1.7777 4,699.2 qsj = sandface flow rate, L3 It, BID
0.55600 3,941.2 1.8252 4,706.5 rw = wellbore radius, L, ft
0.57717 4,002.7 1.8750 4,714.7 s = skin factor
0.60083 4,059.6 1.9235 4,722.0 t = time, t, hours
0.62417 4,107.9 1.9572 4,730.6
tD = O.OOO2637krl(q,p.c rra)
tp = producing time, t, hours
3. Two fonns of the changing-storage transition, exponential and t:.t = test time, t, hours
error function, have been investigated. The error function has a z = Laplace space variable
sharper, more abrupt transition period. a = changing-storage time parameter, t, hours
4. Field data affected by changing wellbore storage can be in- aD = O.OOO2637kal(q,p.erra)
terpreted; a higher degree of confidence can be placed on the in- p. = viscosity, miLt, cp
terpretation compared with constant-storage analysis. q, = porosity
5. Using a constant-storage model to analyze buildup data ex-
hibiting decreasing storage may lead to significant overestimation Subscripts
of the skin damage. D = dimensionless
i = initial
Nomenclature sf = sandface
B = FVF, res bbllSTB w = wellbore
C t = total compressibility, Lt 2 /m, psi- 1
C = wellbore-storage coefficient, bbllpsi Superscript
Ca = apparent (early time) wellbore-storage coefficient, , = derivative
bbl/psi
CaD = O.8937Ca l(q,c t hra)
Acknowledgment.
CD = O.8937C/(q,c rhra) We thank Schlumberger management for permission to publish this
C'" = changing-storage pressure parameter, psi paper, and we gratefully acknowledge the support of C.S. Kabir,
C"'D = khC",/(141.2qBp.)
Chevron Petroleum Technology Co.; Wei-Chun Chu, Marathon
Oil Co.; and K.O. Temeng, Mobil E&P Technology Center.
h = fonnation thickness, L, ft
k = fonnation penneability, L2, md Reference
.c
= Laplace transfonn operator
1. Fair, W.B. Jr.: "Pressure Buildup Analysis With Wellbore Phase Redis-
m(p) = gas pseudopressure, m/Lt 3 , psi 2/cp tribution," SPEJ (April 1981) 259; Trans., AIME, 271.
t:.m(p) = gas pseudopressure change, miLt 3 , psi 2 /cp 2. Stegemeier, G.L. and Matthews, C.S.: "Study of Anomalous Pressure
p = pressure, miLt 2, psi Build-Up Behavior," Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 44.

206 SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1993

3. E8rlougher, R.C. Jr., Kersh, K.M., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Wellbore
Effects in Injection Well Testing," JPT (Nov. 1973) 1244. Authors
4. Ramey, H.1. Jr. and Agarwal, R.G.: "Annulus Unloading Rates as In-
fluenced by Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect," SPEl (Oct. 1972) 453;
Trans., AlME, 253.
5. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "Application of the Laplace Trans-
formation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans., AIME (1949) 186,
305.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl x 1.589873 E-Ol m3
cp x 1.0* E-03 Pa's
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 m3 Hegeman Hallford Joseph
OF (OF-32)/1.8 C
psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa Peter S. Hegeman Is a senior project engineer In the In-
terpretation Engineering Dept. of the Houston Product Center
psiZ x 4.7538 E+Ol kPa 2 at Schlumberger. He previously worked as an Interpretation
Conversion factor is exact. SPEFE engineer at Schlumberger Data Services In Venture, CA, and
at Flopetrol Johnston In Sugarland, TX. Debora L Hallford
OrIginal SPE manuscript received for review April 15. 1991. Revised manuscript received
Oct. 26. 1992. Paper accepted for pubiication Nov. 2.1992. Paper (SPE 21829) first present Is an aasoclate log analyst at Schlumberger-Geoqueat In Den-
ed at the 1991 SPE ROCky Mountain RegionaVLow Permeability Reservoirs Symposium ver. Since 1980, she has provided well-test Interpretation serv-
in Denver. April 15-17. Ices for Schlumberger U.S. west coast, Rocky Mountain, and
midcontinent clients. She previously worked for the Johnston-
Macco Dlv. of Schlumberger In Lafayette, LA. Jeffrey A.
Joseph Is a senior reservoir engineer at Schlumberger Africa-
Medlterrenean Involved with marketing new tools, products,
and services for reservoir engineering technology. He has
held R&D pOSitions In France and Houston and has had field
aaaignmentsin the U.K. and Italy. Joseph holds BS, MS, and
PhD degrees In petroleum engineering from the U. of
Mlasourl, Rolla.

SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1993 207