IPTC 11164
Fracture Porosity From Pressure Transient Data
Djebbar Tiab, Alpheus Igbokoyi, and Dora Restrepo, The University of Oklahoma
Copyright 2007, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Dubai, U.A.E., 46 December 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor
Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum
Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an
abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The storage capacity ratio () measures the flow
capacitance of the secondary porosity and the interporosity
flow parameter () is related to the heterogeneity scale of the
system. Currently, both parameters and are obtained from
well test data by using the conventional semilog analysis,
type-curve matching or the TDS Technique. Warren and Root
showed how the parameter can be obtained from semilog
plots. However, no accurate equation is proposed in the
literature for calculating fracture porosity.
This paper presents an equation for the estimation of the
parameter using semilog plots. A new equation for calculating
the interporosity flow parameter, the storage capacity ratio and
fracture porosity from the coordinates of the minimum point
of the trough on the pressure derivative is presented. The
influence of the wellbore storage on the trough was
investigated and a new equation was derived to correct the
coordinates of the minimum point. The equations are
applicable to both pressure buildup and pressure drawdown
tests. The interpretation of these pressure tests follows closely,
the classification of naturally fractured reservoirs into four
types, as suggested by Nelson.
The paper also discusses new procedures for interpreting
pressure transient tests for three common cases: (a) the
pressure test is too short to observe the early-time radial flow
straight line and only the first straight line is observed, (b) the
pressure test is long enough to observe the late-time radial
flow straight line, but the first straight line is not observed due
to inner boundary effects, such as wellbore storage and
formation damage, and (c) Neither straight line is observed for
the same reasons, but the trough on the pressure derivative is
well defined. Analytical equations are derived in all three
cases for calculating permeability, skin, storage capacity ratio
and interporosity flow coefficient, without using type curve
matching.
In naturally fractured reservoirs, the matrix pore volume,
therefore the matrix porosity, is reduced as a result of large
reservoir pressure drop due to oil production. This large
pressure drop causes the fracture pore volume, therefore
fracture porosity, to increase. This behavior is observed
particularly in reservoir where matrix porosity is much greater
than fracture porosity. Fractures in reservoirs are more
vertically than horizontally oriented, and the stress axis on the
formation is also essentially vertical. Using these principles, a
new method is introduced for calculating fracture porosity
from the storage capacity ratio, without assuming the total
matrix compressibility is equal to the total fracture
compressibility.
Several numerical examples are presented for illustration
purposes.
Introduction
Nelson1 identifies four types of naturally fractured
reservoirs; based on the extent the fractures have altered the
reservoir matrix porosity and permeability.
In Type 1 reservoirs, fractures provide the essential
reservoir storage capacity and permeability. Typical Type-1
naturally fractured reservoirs are the Amal field in Libya, the
LaPaz and Mara fields in Venezuela, and pre-Cambrian
basement reservoirs in Eastern China. All these fields contain
high fracture density.
In Type 2 naturally fractured reservoirs, fractures provide
the essential permeability, and the matrix provides the
essential porosity, such as in the Monterey fields of California,
the Spraberry reservoirs of West Texas, and Agha Jari and
Haft Kel oil fields of Iran.
In Type 3 naturally fractured reservoirs, the matrix has an
already good primary permeability. The fractures add to the
reservoir permeability and can result in considerable high flow
rates, such as in Kirkuk field of Iraq, Gachsaran field of Iran,
and Dukhan field of Qatar. Nelson includes Hassi Messaoud
(HMD) in this list. While indeed there are several low-
permeability zones in HMD that are fissured; in most zones
however the evidence of fissures is not clear or unproven.
In Type 4 naturally fractured reservoirs, the fractures are
filled with minerals and provide no additional porosity or
permeability. These types of fractures create significant
reservoir anisotropy, and tend to form barriers to fluid flow
and partition formations into relatively small blocks.
Nelson discusses three main factors that can create
reservoir anisotropy with respect to fluid flow: fractures,
crossbedding and stylolite. The anisotropy in Hassi Messaoud
field, for instance, appears to be the result of a non-uniform
combination of all three factors with varying magnitude from
zone to zone. Stylolites, just like fractures, are a secondary
feature. They are defined as irregular planes of discontinuity
2 IPTC 11164

between two rock units. Stylolites, which often have fractures
1 t D t D (5)
associated with them, occur most frequently in limestone, tD PD ' = 1- exp
(1- ) + exp
dolomite, and sandstone formations. Mineral-filled fractures 2 (1- )
and stylolites can create strong permeability anisotropy within
a reservoir. The magnitude of such permeability is extremely
dependent on the measurement direction, thereby requiring The second pressure derivative of the dimensionless pressure
multiple-well testing. Interference testing is ideal for equation is:
quantifying reservoir anisotropy and heterogeneity, because (6)
1 t D t D
they are more sensitive to directional variations of reservoir (tD PD ')' = exp
(1- ) exp
properties, such as permeability, which is the case of type 4 2(1 ) (1- )
naturally fractured reservoirs.
It is important to take this classification into consideration (A) SEMILOG ANALYSIS
when interpreting a pressure transient analysis for the purpose A plot of the well pressure or pressure change (P) versus test
of identifying the type of fractured reservoir and its time on a semilog graph should yield two parallel straight line
characteristics. Each type of naturally fractured reservoir may portions as shown in Figure 1. The pressure change P during
require a different development strategy. Ershaghi2 reports a drawdown test is (Pi - Pwf). During a buildup test P = (Pws
that: (a) Type 1 fractured reservoirs, for instance, may exhibit Pwf(t=0)).
sharp production decline and can develop early water and gas
coning; (b) Recognizing that the reservoir is a type 2 will 1. Fracture Permeability
impact any infill drilling or the selection of improved recovery Figure 1 shows two well defined parallel straight lines of slope
process; (c) In Type 3 reservoirs, unusual behavior during m. The slope m of the straight lines may be used to calculate
pressure maintenance by water or gas injection can be the average permeability of the fractured system or the kfh
observed because of unique permeability trends. product:

PROPERTIES OF MATRIX BLOCKS AND 162.6qBo

kh = (7)
FRACTURES m
A naturally fractured reservoir is composed of a
Assuming the sugar cube model is valid and Types 1
heterogeneous system of vugs, fractures, and matrix which are
naturally fractured reservoirs, the product kh is essentially
randomly distributed. Such type of system is modeled by
equal to (kh)f, so the slope of either straight line can be used to
assuming that the reservoir is formed by discrete matrix block
determine kh.
elements separated by an orthogonal system of continuous and
In Type 2 naturally fractured reservoirs the first straight
uniform fractures which are oriented parallel to the principal
line is mostly related to fracture flow, and therefore the kh
axes of permeability. Two key parameters, and , were product in Eq 7 is essentially (kh)f. The second straight line is
introduced by Warren and Root3 to characterize naturally however related to both fracture flow and matrix flow, thus the
fractured reservoirs. These dimensionless parameters and kh product in Eq 7 reflects both (kh)m and (kh)f. In this case it
are mathematically expressed as3: is unlikely that the two straight lines will be perfectly parallel.
( ct ) f ( ct ) f If however (kh)m << (kh)f then kh can be approximated by
= = (1) (kh)f.
( ct )t ( ct ) f + ( ct ) m
In Type 3 reservoirs, both straight lines are related to
fracture flow and matrix flow, the product kh in Eq 7. is
k m rw2 therefore equivalent to (kh)t.
= (2)
k f xm2
2. Skin Factor
The geometry parameter, , is defined as: The skin factor is obtained using conventional technique,
i.e.:
= 4 n ( n + 2) (3)
(P ) k
where n is 1, 2 or 3 for the slab, matchstick and cube s = 1.1513 1hr
log + 3.23 (8)
(ct ) f + m rw
models, respectively. m 2

Assuming (a) the flow between the matrix and the
fractures is governed by the pseudo-steady state condition, but (P)1hr is taken from the second straight line.
only the fractures feed the well at a constant rate, and (b) the
fluid is single phase and slightly compressible, the wellbore 3. Fracture Storage Capacity Ratio
pressure solution and the pressure derivative in an infinite- The vertical distance between the two semilog straight lines,
acting reservoir are given by4,5: P, may be used to estimate3 the storage capacity ratio, :
1 t D t D
p D = ln t D + 0.80908 + Ei - - Ei - + s
2 (1 - ) 1 - P
(4) = exp 2.303 (9)
m
11164
or
P / m
= 10 (10)
In Type 4 naturally fractured reservoirs the value of is
close to unity. The sugar cube model is not realistic in Type 4
fractured reservoirs, since the fractures do not provide
additional porosity or permeability. These reservoirs are best
treated as anisotropic and analyzed accordingly.
4. Interporosity Flow coefficient
A characteristic minimum point, or trough, is typically
observed on the pressure derivative plot for naturally fractured
reservoirs, as shown in Figure 2. This minimum takes place at
the point where the second pressure derivative equals zero
(tDPD) = 0. The dimensionless time at which this minimum
point occurs is given by the following expression4, 5, 6
1
t D min = ln
(11)
On the semilog plot of well pressure versus test time, this
minimum point corresponds to the inflection point during the
transition portion of the curve. Therefore, Eq. 11 can be
rewritten as:
1 wellbore effects. In this system, it is also possible for an
t D inf = ln
(12)
The dimensionless time is defined as:
0.0002637k t inf
t D inf = (13)
(ct ) f + m rw
2
Where tinf = tmin. Combining Eqs. 12 and 13 and solving
for , yields a new relationship for the interporosity flow
parameter:
3792(ct ) f +m rw
2
1 Pws = Pi m log
= ln (14)
k tinf
tinf can be directly read at the inflection point of the
pressure curve from a semilog plot of the flowing well
pressure versus test time. For a Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson
(MDH) semilog plot, i.e. shut-in well pressure (Pws) versus
shut-in time (t), tinf = tinf. When using a Horner plot, the
corresponding inflection (Horner) time, (HT)inf, is read and
converted to inflection time using the following equation:
tp
tinf = (15)
( H T )inf 1
Where (HT) is the Horner time (tp+t)/t or the effective
Horner time tpt/(tp+t).
The idea of estimating the interporosity flow parameter
from semilog plots is not new. Uldrich and Ershaghi7,
formulated a complex and cumbersome procedure for that
purpose. They introduced one equation for pressure drawdown
tests which uses the coordinates of the inflection point time,
the storage capacity ratio, the skin factor and a parameter read
from a plot which is a function of . They also introduced
3
another equation for pressure buildup tests which utilizes the
inflection point time, the storage capacity ratio, the
dimensionless Horner production time, tD, and two parameters
read from two different plots. These two graphically-obtained
parameters are also function of the value. These equations
have received limited applications. Bourdet and Gringarten8
suggest plotting a horizontal line through the approximate
middle of the transition portion of the curve, and then use the
time at which this horizontal line intersects the parallel straight
lines to calculate the storativity ratio, , and the interporosity
flow coefficient, . Eq. 14 offers a much simpler and
analytically sound procedure for calculating from the
conventional semilog analysis.
5. Short buildup Test Second Straight is not
observed
The interpretation of a buildup test is similar to that of a
drawdown. Generally, the second straight line is more likely to
be observed than the first one, which often is masked by near
wellbore effects, such as wellbore storage. In Type 3 naturally
fractured system, where the matrix has a high enough
permeability for the fluid to enter the wellbore both from the
fracture (mostly) and the matrix, then the first straight line
should last a long time, and will not be masked by inner
unsteady state flow regime to develop in the matrix. This flow
regime will appear during the transition period, i.e. after the
first semilog straight line.
However pressure buildup tests often give more reliable
value of the storage capacity ratio, , especially when the
second parallel straight line is not observed, such as when the
pressure test is too short, or the well is near a boundary. In
these cases, it impossible to determine p, and consequently
Eq. 10 can not be used. The equation of the early time straight
line can be represented by9:
t p + t
+ log (16)
t 1 +
Extrapolating the first straight line to a Horner time of
unity, i.e. (tp+t)/t = 1, where Pws = PFF1, then the storage
capacity ratio can be calculated from:
10 ( Pi PFF 1 ) / m 10 P / m
= = (17)
1 10 ( Pi PFF 1 ) / m 1 10 P / m
PFF1 stands for Fracture Flow pressure. Near the
wellbore, fluid flows into the well exclusively through the
fractures, particularly in Types 1 and 2 naturally fractured
reservoirs. PFF1 will always be greater than (by a value equal
to p) the average pressure, Pi and P*, since normally the
second parallel line is used to estimate these three pressure
values. If the initial reservoir pressure Pi is not available, use
the average reservoir pressure instead, or the false pressure P*
(if it is known from another source).
The vertical distance between the two parallel semilog
straight lines and passing through the inflection point is of
course identified as p. For uniformly distributed matrix
blocks, the inflection point is at equal distance between the
two parallel lines. Therefore
4 IPTC 11164

2 P1 inf :

= 10 m
(18)
From Equation 18 the storage capacity ratio is:
2 ( 37 )
where P1inf (= 0.5P) is the pressure drop between the 1st
semilog straight line and the inflection point along a vertical = 10 38
= 0.0113
line parallel to the pressure axis. Using Equation 17:
Equation 18 is analogous to Eq. 10 for calculating the 10 ( 526 600) / 38
= = 0.0114
storage capacity ratio, and therefore should yield the same 1 10 ( 526 600) / 38
results as long as the first straight line is well defined and the
Using equation 1, we can calculate (c)f :
pressure test is run long enough to observe the trough on the

pressure derivative, and therefore the inflection point on the (ct ) f = (ct ) m
semilog plot. The interporosity flow coefficient is then 1
calculated from Eq. 14.
If the inflection point is difficult to determine, then read 0.0113
= (0.17)(7.6 10 6 ) = 1.475 10
8
the end-time of the first or early time straight line, tEL1, and use
1 0 . 0113
the following equation to estimate :
Therefore the total formation (ct)f+m is:
(c t ) f + m rw 2
= (1 ) (19)
0.013185kt EL1 (ct ) f + m = 1.292 10 6 + 1.475 10 8 = 1.3067 10 6 psi 1

If the buildup test is however too short to even observe the From equation 21 the skin factor is:
trough (which provides the best evidence of a naturally 500 2 37
fractured system), then results obtained from the interpretation 38
of the test should at best be considered as an approximation. S = 1.1513 = 6.7
log 77.37
The skin factor is then obtained from the following
6
+ 3.23
1.3067 10 1.37 0.33
2
equation:
( P ) ( P P ) k
s = 1.1513 1hr i FF 1
log + 3.23 (20)
m (ct ) rw
2
From Equation 14, the interporosity flow parameter is:
f +m
or 3792(1.3067 106 )(1.32)(0.33) 2
=
( P ) 2 P k (77.37)(0.65)
s = 1.1513 1hr 1 inf
log + 3.23 (21)
m (ct ) rw
2
1
f +m 7
0.0113 ln 0.0113 = 7.4 10

where (P)1hr is taken from the first straight line.
From Equation 19:
EXAMPLE 1
(1.3067 10 6 )(1.37)(0.33) 2
Given the build up test data in Figure 3 and the following = (1 0.0113)0.0113 = 4.26 10 7
formation and fluid properties, estimate formation (0.013185)(77.37)(0.005)
permeability, skin factor, , and .
q = 238 STB/D h = 22 ft 6. Long buildup test First straight is not
= 1.37 cp m = 17 % observed
B=1.22 RB/STB Pi = 526 psia Generally, the second straight line is more likely to be
ctm =7.610-6 psi-1 rw = 0.33 ft observed than the first one, which often is masked by near
wellbore effects, such as wellbore storage. In Type 1 and Type
Solution 2 naturally fractured systems, where the matrix permeability is
Figures 3 and 4 indicates only the first semilog straight negligible, the fluid flows into the wellbore exclusively
line corresponding to fissure flow and the transition period are through the fractures. The first straight line will probably be
observed. The test was too short to observe the second parallel too short and easily masked by inner wellbore effects.
semilog straight line. The following data are read from this The permeability and skin factor are calculated from
figures: Equations 7 and 8 respectively. The following equation
tinf = 0.65 hr P1inf = 37 psi provides a direct and accurate method for calculating , as
P1 hr = 500 psi m=38 psi/cycle long as the inflection point and the second straight line are
tEL1 = 0.005 hr PFF1 = 600 psia observed and the matrix blocks are uniformly distributed:
2 P2 inf

From Equation 7: = 10 m
(22)
P2inf (= 0.5p) is the pressure drop between the 2nd
162.6(238)(1.37)(1.22)
k= = 77.37 md semilog straight line and the inflection point along a vertical
(38)(22) line parallel to the pressure axis.
11164 5

The interporosity flow parameters is then calculated from (9.59 10 7 )(1.72)(0.3) 2

Eq. 14. = 5
(1 0.0161)
(5.27 10 )(59.3)(52.41)
If the inflection point is difficult to determine, then read
the starting-time of the second semilog straight line, tSL2, and = 8.9 10 7
use the following equation to estimate :
(ct ) f + m rw 2 (B) TDS TECHNIQUE
= (1 ) (23) In 1993 Tiab introduced a technique10 for interpreting log-
5.27 10 5 kt SL 2 log plots of the pressure and pressure derivative curves
without using type curve matching. This technique utilizes the
EXAMPLE 2 characteristic intersection points, slopes, and beginning and
Given the build up test data in Figure 5 and the following ending times of various straight lines corresponding to flow
formation and fluid properties, estimate formation regimes strictly from log-log plots of pressure and pressure
permeability, skin factor, , and . derivative data. Values of these points and slopes are then
q = 125 STB/D h = 17 ft inserted directly in exact, analytical solutions to obtain
Pwf (dt=0) = 211.20 psia m = 13.0% reservoir and well parameters. This procedure for interpreting
= 1.72 cp rw = 0.30 ft pressure tests, which is referred to as the Tiabs Direct
ctm =7.1910-6 psi-1 B=1.054 RB/STB Synthesis (TDS) technique offers several advantages over the
conventional semilog analysis and type curve matching. It has
Solution been applied to over fifty different reservoir systems11-18, and
This is long pressure build test. The early time semilog hundreds of field cases.
straight line is totally masked by well bore storage effect.
Only the late time semilog straight line is observed. The 1. Fracture Permeability
following data can be read from Figure 5: The pressure derivative portion corresponding to the
tinf = 3.0423 hr P2inf = 32.762 psi infinite acting radial flow line is a horizontal straight line. This
P1 hr = 407.4 psi m=36.565 psi/cycle flow regime is given by10
tSL2 =52.41 hr
70.6qB
(t P ' ) R = (24)
From Equation 7: kh
162.6(125)(1.054)(1.72)
k= = 59.3 md The subscript R or r stands for radial flow. The
(17)(36.565) formation permeability is therefore:
From Equation 22:
70.6qB

2(32.762) k= (25)
= 10 36.565 = 0.0161 h(t P' ) R
The porosity-compressibility product in the matrix is: where (tP')R is obtained by extrapolating the horizontal
(c t ) m = 0.13 7.19 10 6 = 9.35 10 7 psi 1 line to the vertical axis. In order for the conventional semilog
It is possible to calculate (c)f by: analysis and the TDS technique to yield the same value of k,
the following equation must be true:
0.0161
(ct ) f = (9.35 10 7 ) 8
= 1.534 10 psi
1
m = 2.303(t P' ) R (26)
1 0.0161
Thus the total compressibility of the formation is:
2. Skin Factor
(ct ) f + m = 9.35 10 7 + 2.41 10 8 = 9.59 10 7 psi 1 The second radial flow line can also be used to calculate
Using Eq. 8 the skin factor is: the skin factor from10
407.4 211.2 59.34 ( P )
log kt R 2
S = 1.1513 7
9.59 10 1.72 0.3
2
= 0 s = 0.5 R2
ln + 7.43 (27)
36.565 (t P')R (c ) r 2
t f +m w
+ 3.23
From Equation 14: Where tR2 is any convenient time during the systems
radial flow regime (as indicated by the horizontal line on the
3792(9.59 107 )(1.72)(0.3) 2 1 pressure derivative curve, Figure 2) and (P)R2 is the value of
= 0.0161ln
(59.3)(3.05) 0.0161 P on the pressure curve corresponding to tR2. If the test is too
= 2.07 107 short or the boundary is too close to the well to observe a well
defined second straight line, then the skin factor can be
From Equation 23: estimated from the early-time horizontal straight line:

(P) R1 kt R1 1
s = 0 .5 ln
+ 7 . 43 (28)
(t P')R ct rw
2

6 IPTC 11164

Where tR1 is any convenient time during the early-time
radial flow regime (as indicated by the horizontal line on the
pressure derivative curve, Figure 2) and (P)R1 is the value of
P on the pressure curve corresponding to tR1.
3. Interporosity Flow Coefficient
The interporosity flow parameter can also be obtained
from the log-log plot of the derivative function (txP) versus
test time4,5 by substituting the coordinates of the minimum
point of the trough, tmin and (txP)min (Figure 2), in Eq. 29:
42.5h(ct ) f + m rw 2 (t P')min
= (29)
actual value. However, if the semi-log straight line of the
fractures flow regime is observed, the storativity ratio
estimated with the TDS technique is accurate. In order to
correct for the effect of wellbore storage and skin, a new
analytical formula for pressure derivative that account for
wellbore storage and skin was derived. This formula was
derived from the rigorous Laplace inversion of the solution for
the diffusivity equation in naturally fractured reservoir. The
final expression is:
(t P' ) min = (t P')r +
(t P')min O (t P')r [1 + 2 D1D2 ]
C
1 + D2 ln + 2S 0.8801
(ct h ) f + m rw
2

qBo tmin (35)

qBt min
The advantage of Eq. 29 over Eq. 14 is that it is
D1 = ln + 2S 4.17 (36)
independent of permeability and storage capacity ratio, and the
(t P')r (ct h ) f + m rw
2
coordinates of the minimum points are easier to determine
than the inflection point on the semilog plot.
48.02C (t P ' ) r
D2 =
qB t min
(37)
4. Storage Capacity Ratio
Using the time coordinate of the minimum point, an
accurate value of the storage capacity ratio can be obtained
(t P' ) min O = observed value of the coordinate of the
from the following equation: minimum point of the trough on the pressure derivative curve.
(t P' ) min = value of the coordinate corrected for
= e t D min (30) wellbore storage and skin effect. This value is then used in the
Where the dimensionless time at the minimum point is TDS formula, i.e. Equation 34. The wellbore storage
calculated from: coefficient can be determined from the early time unit slope
line using:
0.0002637k
t D min = t min (31) qB t
(ct ) f +m rw 2 C=
24 Pw N
(38)

Solving explicitly for Eq. 31 yields19:
Where tN and PwN correspond to coordinates of any point N
1
3.5688 6.5452 on the unit slope line. If the unit slope line is not observed, and
= 2.9114 (32)
N S
the maximum point of the hump on the pressure derivative is
ln( N S )
well defined, the wellbore storage coefficient can be estimated
Where the parameter NS is given by: from:
tx
N S = e t D min C = 0.014879qB
( ) ( )
(33) (39)
t P
w x + t Pw
' '
Eq. 32 is obtained by assuming values of , from 0 to 0.5, r
then values of = NS were plotted against . The resulting Equation 35 assumes that the wellbore storage is sufficiently
curve was curve-fitted. large enough to influence the coordinates of the minimum
Combining Equations 30, 31, 32 and 33 and solving point of the trough. The following table shows the value of
explicitly for omega yields: dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient CD, as a function ,
( t P ) min 1 when the value of the minimum derivative is affected by
(t P) R 0.7912
= 2.9114 + 4.5104 6.5452e ( t P ) R (34) wellbore storage and skin.
(t P ) min

It is important to emphasize that Equation 34 assumes CD
-4
wellbore storage and boundary effects do not influence the 10 CD > 10
-5
trough and the infinite acting radial flow line is well defined. 10 CD > 100
-6
10 CD > 1,000
-7
5. Influence of wellbore storage on trough 10 CD > 10,000
-8
It has been observed that the time coordinate of the 10 CD > 100,000
minimum pressure derivative shifts to the right in the presence
of wellbore storage and skin. At the same time, the minimum Equation 35 should be used to correct the observed value of
pressure derivative is higher in magnitude. The effect is that (txPw)min only when CD, for a given value of , is greater
the storativity ratio estimated with the TDS technique, in the than the values shown in this table. If for instance =10-6 and
presence of wellbore storage and skin will be higher than the
11164 7

CD>103, Eq. 35 must be used to calculated the corrected value The parameter NS is calculated from Eq. 33:
of (t P ' ) min . 7
N S = e 2.0210 320679
= 0.94
The dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient is:
0.894C
CD = (40) From Equation 32 the storage capacity ratio is:
( )
ct f + m hrw2 3.5688 6.5452
1
= 2.9114 = 0.0186
The influence of wellbore storage on the time coordinate of ln(0.94) 0.94
the minimum point of the trough (tinf) is small to negligible, Using Equation 34 gives:
and therefore, the value of the interporosity coefficient 1
1.3
obtained from Equation 14 does not need to be corrected. The .86
15.86 0.7912
use of Agarwal equivalent time for buildup gives more = 2.9114 + 4.5104 6.5452e 15
= 0.0196
1 .3
accurate result.
Since = 2x10 and CD = 3866 (i.e. less than 10,000) it is not
-7

EXAMPLE 3 necessary to correct the pressure derivative coordinate of the

Figure 6 is a loglog plot of pressure and pressure derivative minimum point on the trough. Thus = 1.96 % is correct.
data of the buildup test in Example 2. From figure 6 the
following data can be read: The following example illustrates how to correct for the
effect of wellbore storage and skin on the pressure derivative
PR = 290.95 psi tR = 391.47 hr coordinate of the minimum point of the trough.
temin = 3.0423 hours (tP)minO = 1.3 psi
(tP)R = 15.86 psi tN = 0.0023 hr EXAMPLE 4.
PN = 1.99 psi Reservoir and production data are:
q = 960 stb/day B=1.28 rb/stb
Using the coordinates of any point N on the early-time unit =1 cp h=36 ft
slope line (Fig. 6), the wellbore storage coefficient is =0.07 ct=0.00001 psi-1
calculated from Eq. 38: rw=0.29 ft
qB t (125)(1.054) 0.0023
C= = = 0.00635 rb / psi
24 P N 24 1.99 Figure 7 shows the log-log plot of the pressure and pressure
Using the coordinates of the maximum point on the hump, i.e. derivative.
tx=0.34 and (tP)x = 90 psi, gives (Eq. 39): (t P' ) min O =5.32 psi (t P' ) r =10.13 psi
0.35 Pr=61.5 psi tr =1.8335 hr
C = 0.014879 125 1.054 = 0.0063 rb / psi
90 + 15.86 tmin=0.07 hr PN=11.095 psi
The dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient is: tN=0.003489 hr
0.894 0.00635
CD = 7
= 3866 The wellbore storage coefficient is obtained from the observed
9.59 10 17 0.3 2 unit slope line:
From Equation 25: qB t (960)(1.28) 0.003489
C= = = 0.0161 rb / psi
k=
70.6(125)(1.72)(1.054)
= 59.34 md 24 P N 24 11.095
(17)(15.86) The dimensionless wellbore storage is:
From Equation 27: 0.894 0.0161
290.95 CD = = 6792
S = 0 .5 ln
(59.34)(391 .47 ) + 7.43 = 0 0.07 1 10 5 36 0.29 2
(9.59 10 )(1.72)(0.3)
7 2
15.86 From Eq. 29, the interporosity flow parameter is:
From Equation 29: 42.5(36)(0.07 105 )(0.29) 2 5.32
7
= = 5.57 10 6
42.5(17)(9.59 10 )(0.3) 1.3 2
(960)(1.28) 0.07
= = 2.02 10 7
(125)(1.054) 3 . 0423
k=
(70.6)(960)(1)(1.28)
= 238md
Equations 29 and 14 yield the same value of lambda. Eq. 23 (10.13)(36)
gives a too high value of lambda because the starting time of The skin factor is calculated using Eq. 27:
the late semilog straight line actually occurs at approximately 61.5
ln
(238)(1.8335) + 7.43 = 4.6
200 hours as shown in Figure 6, instead of 52.41 hours as S = 0 .5
shown in Figure 5. 10.13 (7 10 7 )(1)(0.29 2 )

The dimensionless time corresponding to the minimum point
Equations 35, 36 and 37 will now be used to correct for the
is:
effect of wellbore storage on the minimum derivative.
0.0002637 59.34 3.0423
t D min = = 320679
9.59 10 7 1.72 0.3 2
8 IPTC 11164

960 1.28 0.07 P

ln f = m ctm
D1 = 10.13 0.07 10 36 0.29 =
5 2 (
1 1 (k f / k fi )
1/ 3
) (43)

2 4.6 4.17 In deep naturally fractured reservoirs, fractures and the

stress axis on the formation generally are vertically oriented.
1.8334 Thus when the pressure drops due to reservoir depletion, the
48.02 0.0161 10.13 fracture permeability reduces at a lower rate than one would
D2 = = 0.09105
960 1.28 0.07 expect. In Type-2 naturally fractured reservoirs, where matrix
porosity is much greater than fracture porosity, as the reservoir
(t P' ) min = 10.13 +
pressure drops the matrix porosity decreases in favor of
5.32 10.13[1 + 2 1.8334 0.09105] fracture porosity9. This is not the case in Type-1 naturally
0.0161 fractured reservoirs, particularly if the matrix porosity is very
1 + 0.09105ln 5 2
2 4.6 0.8801
0 . 07 10 36 0 . 29 low or negligible.
= 0.9849 psi For fractured reservoirs and, indeed, all highly anisotropic
reservoirs, the geometric mean is currently considered the
Therefore,
= most appropriate of the three most common averaging
techniques (arithmetic, harmonic and geometric). Therefore, a
1 representative average value of the effective permeability of a
10.13 0.9849 naturally fractured reservoir may be obtained from the
2.9114 + 4.5105 6.5452 exp 0.7912 geometric mean of kmax and kmin as illustrated in Figure 8.
0.9849 10.13
= 0.024 k = k max k min
(44)
The value of obtained from the reference24 using type curve where
is 0.018. Thus the storativity factor is approximately 2.4 kmax = maximum permeability measured in the direction
percent. parallel to the fracture plane (Figure 8), thus
If the pressure derivative is not corrected for wellbore storage kmax kfracture
and skin, the same TDS formula will give: kmin = minimum permeability measured in the direction
1 perpendicular to the fracture plane (Figure 8), thus
=
10.13 5.32 kmin kmatrix
2.9114 + 4.5105 6.5452 exp 0.7912 Substituting kf and km for, respectively, kmax and kmin, Equation
5.32 10 .13
44 becomes:
= 0.63
k = k f km
FRACTURE POROSITY AND COMPRESSIBILTY (45)
The fracture permeability can therefore be estimated from:
Once is estimated, the fracture porosity can be estimated
if matrix porosity, m, total matrix compressibility, ctm, and k2
total fracture compressibility, ctf, are known, as follows:
kf =
km (46)
ctm Where km is the matrix permeability, which is measured
f = m (41)
1 ctf from representative cores and k is the mean permeability
obtained from pressure transient tests. Combining equations
Fracture compressibility may be different from matrix 42 and 46 yields:
compressibility by an order of magnitude9. Naturally fractured 1 (k / ki )
2/3

reservoirs in Kirkuk field (Iraq) and Asmari field (Iran) have ctf = (47)
fracture compressibility ranging from 4x10-4 to 4x10-5 psi-1. In P
Grozni field (Russia) ctf ranges from 7x10-4 to 7x10-5. In all Where
these reservoirs ctf is 10 to 100 folds higher than ctm. Therefore ki = average permeability obtained from a transient test
the practice of assuming ctf = ctm is erroneous. run when the reservoir pressure was at or near initial
The fracture compressibility can be estimated from the conditions Pi and
following expression9: k = average permeability obtained from a transient test at
the current average reservoir pressure.
1 (k f / k fi ) 1 (k f / k fi )
1/ 3
P = Pi P
ctf = (42)
P 3P Combining Equations 41 and 47 yields19:
k fi = Fracture permeability at the initial reservoir pressure pi P
f = m ctm
k f = Fracture permeability at the current average reservoir (
1 1 (k / k i )
2/3
) (48)

pressure. Matrix permeability is assumed to remain constant

Combining Equations 41 and 42 yields19: between the two tests. Note that equations 43 and 48 are also
valid for calculating fracture porosity change between two
11164 9

consecutive pressure transient tests, and therefore test. Only the porosity, permeability and compressibility of the
P = P1 P2 . The time between the two tests must be long matrix could be determined from the recovered cores.
The pressure drop from the initial reservoir pressure to the
enough for the fractures to deform significantly in order to current average reservoir pressure is 300 psi. The
determine an accurate value of ctf. Table 1 shows the results of characteristics of the rock, fluid and well are given below:
several pressure transient tests in Cupiaga field, a naturally
fractured reservoir in Colombia22. The reduction in q = 3000 STB/D h = 25 ft
permeability for well 1 is about 13% and the change in m = 10% rw = 0.4 ft
pressure is 344 psi from 1996 to 1997. This type of data is = 1 cp B =1.25 RB/STB.
necessary in order to estimate fracture porosity (f) from Eq. ctm = 1.3510-5 psi-1 km= 0.10 mD
48. Eq. 43 should yield a more accurate value of fracture
porosity than Eq. 48, as the latter assumes Eq. 45 is always 1 - Using conventional semilog analysis and TDS
applicable. technique, calculate the current formation permeability,
The fracture width or aperture may be estimated20 from storage capacity ratio (), and the interporosity flow
kf parameter ()
wf = (49)
33t 2 Estimate the three fracture properties: permeability,
where: fracture width = microns, permeability = mD, porosity and width.
porosity = fraction, and storage capacity = fraction.
Solution
In a naturally fractured reservoir with changing stress
conditions, fracture porosity can also be estimated from a 1(a) Conventional method
stress test. Starting from the definition of fracture pore From Figure 9: P = 130 psi, m =325 psi/cycle and tinf
compressibility in terms of fracture porosity, i.e. fracture =2.5 hrs
porosity is the ratio of the fracture volume with respect to the
total volume: The average permeability of the formation is estimated
from the slope of the semilog straight line. Using Equation 7
1 d f
(50) yields:
( ct ) f =
f dPp 162.6(3000)(1.25)(1)
Pc k= = 75 mD
(325)(25)
Chacon and Tiab23 showed that fracture porosity can also be
estimated from: Fluid storage coefficient is estimated using Equation 10:
f = f ie
( ct ) f ( Pp i Pp )
= f ie
( ct ) f ( Pi P )
(51) = 10 ( 130 / 325) = 0.40
Where: The storage coefficient of 0.40 indicates that the fractures
(ct ) f = total compressibility of the fracture due to a variation occupy approximately 40% of the total reservoir pore volume.
This is not uncommon in Type-1 naturally fractured
of the pore pressure at constant confining pressure, psi-1
reservoirs, such the Amal Field in Libya.
Pi = Ppi = initial pore pressure = initial reservoir pressure.
The inter-porosity fluid transfer coefficient is given by
P = Pp = current (average reservoir) pore pressure Equation 14:
Equation 48 provides a method to compute the reduction in
=
( )
3792 1 10 5 (1)(0.4 2 ) 1
0.40 ln 5
fracture porosity due to changes in pore pressure. = 1.19 10
(75)(2.5) 0.40
It is a good practice to compare the value of fracture
porosity obtained from Equations 41, 48 and 51 with the value 1(b) TDS technique
obtained from well logs. Porosity computed from the neutron Figure 10 shows that the trough and the horizontal lines
log represents the combination of both, matrix and fracture corresponding to fissure flow (early horizontal line) and the
porosity, Neu=t. However, the sonic log only measures the late radial equivalent flow are well defined. Wellbore storage
matrix porosity, Son=m. Therefore, the fracture porosity can does not seem to have influenced the trough. The early-time
also be estimated from: unit slope corresponding to wellbore storage is not observed.
From Figure 10, the following characteristic points are read:
f = t m = Neu Son (52)
tmin = 2.427 hrs (tP)R = 139 psi
(tP)min = 70.5 psi
EXAMPLE 6
Pressure tests in the first few wells located in a naturally Using the TDS technique, the value of k is obtained from
fractured reservoir yielded a similar average permeability of Equation 25:
70.6(3000)(1)(1.25)
the system of 82.5 mD. An interference test also yielded the k= = 76.2 mD
same average reservoir permeability, which implies that (25)(139)
fractures are uniformly distributed. The total storativity, The inter-porosity fluid transfer coefficient is given by
(ct)m+f = 1.0x10-5 psi-1 was obtained from this interference Equation 29:
10 IPTC 11164

(42.5)( 25)(1 10 5 )(0.4) 2 (70.5) the trough of the pressure derivative curve are unique
= = 1.31 10 5 points that can be used to characterize accurately a
(3000)(1.25) 2.427
naturally fractured reservoir.
The storage coefficient is calculated from Equation 34:
2. The interporosity flow parameter can be accurately
1
139 0.7912
70.5
139
obtained from the conventional semilog analysis if the
= 2.9114 + 4.5104 6.5452e = 0.49 inflection point is well defined and the new proposed
70.5 equation is utilized. The equation is valid for both
The conventional semilog analysis yields approximately pressure drawdown and pressure buildup tests.
similar values of k, and as the TDS technique. The main 3. Two new equations are introduced for accurately
reason for this match is that both parallel straight lines are well calculating the storage capacity ratio from the coordinates
defined, suggesting the trough is not influenced by wellbore of the minimum point of the trough on the pressure
storage, and therefore it is not necessary to apply Equation 35 derivative curve.
and 0.40<<0.49. 4. For a short test, in which the late-time straight line is not
observed, the storage capacity ratio and the interporosity
2(a) Fracture Permeability flow coefficient can both be calculated from the inflection
The current fracture permeability is calculated from point.
Equation. 46: 5. For a long test, in which the early-time straight line is not
k 2 76.22 observed, due to near-wellbore effects, the storage
kf = = = 58,064 mD
km 0.10 capacity ratio can also be calculated from the inflection
The fracture permeability at initial reservoir pressure is: point.
6. A new analytical equation that takes into account the
k 2 82.5 2
k fi = i = = 68,062 mD influence of wellbore storage and skin on the coordinates
km 0.10 of the trough is introduced. This equation leads to more
accurate values of the storativity-ratio and, therefore,
2(b) Fracture porosity fracture-porosity.
In fractured reservoirs with deformable fractures, the 7. The influence of wellbore storage on the value of the
fracture compressibility changes with declining pressure. The interporosity flow parameters obtained from TDS is
fracture compressibility can be estimated from Equation 42 negligible.
1 (58,064 / 68,062)
1/ 3 8. A new equation is proposed for calculating fracture
ctf = = 1.72 10 4 psi 1 porosity, as a function of reservoir compressibility.
300 9. The practice of assuming the total compressibility of the
The compressibility ratio is: matrix (ctm) is equal to the total compressibility of the
ctf 1.72 104 fracture (ctf) should be avoided. From field observations,
= = 12.7
ctm 1.35 10 5 ctf is several folds higher than ctm.
Thus, the fracture compressibility is more than 10 folds
Nomenclature
higher than the matrix compressibility, or ctf = 12.7ctm . The
B oil volumetric factor, rb/STB
fracture porosity from Equation 41 is: C wellbore storage coefficient in rb/psi
0.40 0.1 c system compressibility, psi-1
f = = 0.0052 h formation thickness, ft
1 0.40 12.7
HT Horner time, dimensionless
k permeability, md
2(c) Fracture Width
The total porosity of this naturally fractured reservoir is: m semilog slope, psi/log cycle
Pws well shut in pressure, psi
t = m + f = 0.10 + 0.0052 = 0.1052 Pwf well flowing pressure, psi
The current fracture width or aperture may be estimated q oil flow rate, BPD
from Equation 46: rw wellbore radius, ft
wf =
58,064
= 205 microns = 0.205 mm
S skin factor
33 0.40 0.1052 tp producing time before shut-in, hrs
The fracture width is a useful parameter for identifying the
nature of fracturing in the reservoir. It can also provide an Greek
early understanding on how fractures can affect reservoir P vertical distance between the two semilog straight
performance, as fracture width may change at depth or during lines, psi
reservoir depletion. Also, large width fractures can dominate geometry parameter, 1/L2
the fracture system permeability due to the fact that fracture porosity, dimensionless
width is a cubed term in fracture permeability equation1. t shut-in time, hrs
interporosity flow parameter, dimensionless
Conclusions viscosity, cp
1. The inflection point on the semilog plot of well pressure storage capacity ratio, dimensionless
versus test time and the corresponding minimum point on
11164
Subscripts
D dimensionless
f fracture, fissure
i initial, intersection
inf inflection point
m matrix
min minimum
r radial flow
e equivalent, end
N coordinate on early time unilt slope
Neu Neutron
o oil
Son Sonic
1 1st semilog straight line
2 2nd semilog straight line
1hr 1 hour
References
1. Nelson, R.: Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs, 2nd Edition, Gulf Professional Publishing,
2001, p. 101.
2. Ershaghi, I.: Evaluation of Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs, IHRDC, PE 509, 1995.
3. Warren, J.E. and Root, P.J. The Behavior of
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Soc. Pet. Eng. J.
(Sept. 1963): 245-255. Trans. AIME, 228.
4. Engler, T. and Tiab, D.: Analysis of Pressure and
Pressure Derivative without Type Curve Matching, 2.
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Journal of Petr. Sci.
and Eng. 15 (1996):127-138.
5. Engler, T. and Tiab, D.: Analysis of Pressure and
Pressure Derivative without Type Curve Matching, 5.
Horizontal Well Tests in Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs, Journal of Petr. Sci. and Eng. 15
(1996); 139-151.
6. Engler, T. and Tiab, D.: Analysis of Pressure and
Pressure Derivative Without Type Curve Matching - 6.
Horizontal Well Tests in Anisotropic Media, Journal
of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Vol. 15 (Aug.
1996) N0. 2-4, 153-168.
7. Uldrich, D.O. and Ershaghi, I.: A Method for
Estimating the Interporosity Flow Parameter in
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, SPE 7142,
Proceedings, 48th SPE-AIME Annual California
Regional Meeting held in San Francisco, CA, Apr.
12-14, 1978.
8. Bourdet, D. and Gringarten. A.C.: Determination of
fissured volume and block size in fractured reservoirs
by type-curve analysis. SPE 9293, Proceedings,
SPE ATCE, Dallas, TX, Sept. 21-24, 1980,
9. Saidi, M. A.: Reservoir Engineering of Fractured
Reservoirs, Total Edition Press, 1987, p. 289.
10. Tiab, D.: "Analysis of Pressure and Pressure
Derivative without Type-Curve Matching - 1. Skin
and Wellbore Storage", Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engr., Vol. 12, No. 3 (January, 1995)
171-181.
11. Jongkittinarukorn, K. and Tiab, D.: Analysis of
Pressure and Pressure Derivative without Type Curve
Matching - 6. Vertical Well in Multi-boundary
11
Systems, Proceedings, CIM 96-52, 47th Annual Tech.
Meeting, Calgary, Canada, June 10-12, 1996.
12. Jongkittinarukorn, K. and Tiab, D.: Analysis of
Pressure and Pressure Derivatives Without Type
Curve Matching - 7. Horizontal Well in a Closed
Boundary Systems, Proceedings, CIM 96-53, 47th
Annual Tech. Meeting, Calgary, Canada, June 10-12,
1996.
13. Tiab, D.: Analysis of Pressure Derivative Data of
Hydraulically Fractured Wells by the Tiabs Direct
Synthesis Technique, Journal of Petr. Science and
Engr. 49 (2005) 1-21.
14. Mongi, A. and Tiab, D.: Application of Tiabs
Direct Synthesis Technique to Multi-rate Tests,
SPE/AAPG 62607, Proceedings, Western Regional
Meeting, Bartlesville, California, 19-23 June 2000.
15. Benaouda, A. and Tiab, D.: Application of Tiabs
Direct Synthesis Technique to Gas Condensate Wells,
Proceedings, SPE Permian Basin Conference, ,
Texas, May 2001
16. Jokhio, S.A., Hadjaz, A. and Tiab, D.: Pressure falloff
Analysis in Water Injection Wells Using the Tiabs
Direct Synthesis Technique, SPE 70035,
Proceedings, SPE Permian Basin Conference,
Midland, Texas, May 15-16, 2001.
17. Bensadok A. and Tiab, D.: Interpretation of Pressure
Behavior of a Well between Two Intersecting Leaky
Faults Using Tiabs Direct Synthesis (TDS)
Technique, CIP2004-123, Proceedings, Canadian
International Petroleum Conference, 7 10 June
2004
18. Chacon, A., Djebrouni, A. and Tiab, D.:
Determining the Average Reservoir Pressure from
Vertical and Horizontal Well Test Analysis Using
Tiabs Direct Synthesis Technique, SPE 88619,
Proceedings, Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, Oct. 18-20, 2004.
19. Tiab, D. and E.C. Donaldson: Petrophysics, 2nd
Edition, Elsevier, 2004, 889 pages.
20. Bona, N., Radaelli, F., Ortenzi, A., De Poli, A.,
Pedduzi, C. and Giorgioni, M: Integrated Core
Analysis for Fractured Reservoirs: Quantification of
the Storage and Flow Capacity of Matrix, Vugs, and
Fractures, SPERE, Aug. 2003, Vol.6, pp.226-233.
21. Stewart G. Ascharsobbi F. Well test interpretation
for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. SPE 18173.
22. Giraldo, L. A., Chen, Her-Yuan, Teufel, L. W.:
Field Case Study of Geomechanical Impact of
Pressure Depletion in the Low-Permeability Cupiaga
Gas-Condensate Reservoir. SPE 60297.
23. Chacon, A. and Tiab, D.: Effects of Stress on
Fracture Properties of Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs, SPE 107418, Proceedings, SPE Latin
American and Caribbean Petr. Engr. Conf., Buenos
Aires, Argentina, 15-18 April 2007.
24. Bourdet, D., Alagoa, A., Ayoub, J. A. and Pirard, Y.
M.: New type curves aid analysis of fissured zone
well tests, World Oil 1984.
12 IPTC 11164

6,500
650
6,400
Pi-P FF1 = 526-600=-74 psi
P 600
Shut-in Pressure, psia

6,300

6,200 550

Pressure, psia
Inflection point
6,100 m 500
0.5p=37
6,000
450

5,900
400
5,800
t H-inf 350
5,700 1 100 10000 1000000
100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10
Horner tim e
Horner time, tH= (tp + t)/t
Figure 4 Horner Plot for Example 1
Figure 1- Semilog pressure behavior of a naturally fractured
reservoir

600
Inflection point P ws=36.56log te + 407.37

500 tinf = 3.0423 hr

1000
P wR1 P1hr = 407.4 psia
S h u t in p ress u re p s ia
400
(P w)r P2inf=32.762 psi
P w & tx P ' w , p s ia

100
300
(txP'w)r

10 200

100
tR1 tSL2 = 52.41 hr
1
0
(txP'w)min
Minimum Point 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
tmin tR2
0.1 Shut in equivalent time te, hr
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Shut inor flowing time t, hr Figure 5 -Conventional MDH plot for Example 2

Figure 2 P and pressure derivative plot for a naturally

fractured reservoir

550
1000
530
P1hr=500 psi
510

490 P wsi =1.99 psi Pwsr =290.95 psi

P w s & ( t e x P w s '), p si

m=38 dP1inf=37 psi 100

@ tei =0.0023 hr
Pressure, psia

470 @
450 ter =391.47 hr
tinf=0.65 hr
430
10
teL1=0.005 hr
410
(texP ws')r =15.86 psi
390

370
1
350
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 (texP ws')min =1.3 psi
time, hours temin =3.0423 hr
0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Equivalent time te
Figure 3 Conventional MDH plot for Example 1
Figure 6- Pressure and pressure derivative plot for Example 3
11164 13

100
Pw N=11.095psi
@ tN=0.003489hr 4400
P & t e x P ' w s , p s ia

(P ')r =61.5psi
(te xPw ')min=5.32psi @ t er =1.83hr 4300

P = 130 psi
@ temin=0.07hr 4200
10 m = 325 psi/cycle
4100

Pressure, psi
(te xPw ')r =10.13psi Inflection point
4000 tinf = 2.5 hr

3900

3800
1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 3700

Shut in time te , hr 3600

0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Figure 7- Pressure and pressure Derivative plot for Example 4 Time, hr

Figure 9- Conventional MDH plot for Example 5

1000
W

(P)r=668.9
L tr=14.43
P r e s s u r e & D e r i v a ti v e

(t*P')r=139

100

kmax
h = hf (t*P')min=70.5
tmin=2.427
kmin

Wf 10
0.1 1 10 100
Figure 8- Maximum and Minimum Permeability time, hours

Figure 10- Pressure Derivative plot for Example 5

14 IPTC 11164

Table 1 - Pressure Transient Analysis of Selected Cupiaga wells in Colombia22

Test Type P* BHFP Global Particular K (md) Comments/Remarks

Date (psi) Skin Types h(ft)
of Skin
Well 1 6004 3000 91.3 Mechanical 16.4 Homogenous reservoir model. The turbulence factor is quite
Pre-Frac Test 48 171 large due to non-darcy flow (high rates) combined with the
1996 condensate banking

Well 1 6004 3200 38 Mechanical 16.4 Homogeneous reservoir model. Rate dependent Skin was
Post-Frac Test 18 171 observed. The effects of the condensate banking are observed in
1996 the GOR response, at higher drawdowns the GOR increased.

Well 1 5660 3410 20 14.2 Homogeneous reservoir model. Some drainage area is still above
Post-Frac Test 171 the dew point.
1997
Well 1 5150 3000 5 4.3 Homogeneous reservoir model. Derivative curve indicates radial
Drainage area 171 flow with a low value of gas effective permeability out to a
Below dew-point radius of 800 ft followed by an increase in effective
1998 permeability further out. This is interpreted as being due to
liquid condensate drop-out.
Well 1 5050 5380 3 Zero skin for 11.4 Homogeneous reservoir model. A small negative mechanical
Injector PFO other 171 skin is suggested possibly due to activation of fractures by
1998 than non -Darcy injecting pressure/temperature. The well is in an under-injecting
situation.
Well 2 6267 3100 Total Total Mechanical 8.35 Three layer model.
1995 19 0 429
Well 2 4600 2772 1 Includes 0.6 Homogeneous reservoir model. Entire drainage area is below
1998 Turbulent and 993 dew point pressure. The explanation for the reduced skin is that
Condensate due to rate dependent relative permeability and pressure
effects dependent saturation, the condensate impact on relative
permeability is less close to the wellbore than deeper in the
reservoir.
Well 2 5500? 6947 1(@100 2.9 Homogeneous reservoir model. P*is difficult to estimate because
Injector PFO ft) 993 of the variation of Kh with radius. Given that the pressure at 100
1999 (@100 ft) ft radius is well above dew point, it is of some concern that Kh
has not been fully restored. At a radius of 350 ft the Kh reduces
below 2000 md-ft.