A New Method for Estimating Average
Reservoir Pressure: The Muskat
Plot Revisited
J.G. Crump, SPE, Shell E&P Company and R.H. Hite, SPE, Shell International E&P
Summary
This paper describes a new method for estimating average reser-
voir pressure from long-pressure-buildup data on the basis of the
classical Muskat plot. Current methods for estimating average res-
ervoir pressure require a priori information about the reservoir and
assume homogeneous reservoir properties or use empirical ex-
trapolation techniques.
The new method applies to heterogeneous reservoirs and re-
quires no information about reservoir or fluid properties. The idea
of the method is to estimate from the pressure derivative the first
few eigenvalues of the pressure-transient decay modes. These val-
ues are characteristic of the reservoir and fluid properties, but not
of the pressure history or well location in the reservoir. The small-
est eigenvalue is used to extrapolate the long-time behavior of the
transient to estimate the final reservoir pressure. The second eigen-
value can be used to estimate the quality of the estimate.
Numerical tests of the method show that it estimates average
reservoir pressure accurately, even when the reservoir is hetero-
geneous or when partial-flow barriers are present. Examples
with real data show that the behavior predicted by the theory is
actually observed.
We expect the method to have value in reservoir limits testing,
in making consistent estimates of average reservoir pressure
from permanent downhole gauges, and in characterizing com-
plex reservoirs.
Introduction
Several different methods of interpreting pressure-buildup data to
obtain average reservoir pressure have been proposed (Muskat
1937; Horner 1967; Miller et al. 1950; Matthews et al. 1954; Dietz
1965) in the past, and in recent years some new techniques have
appeared in the literature (Mead 1981; Hasan and Kabir 1983;
Kabir and Hasan 1996; Kuchuk 1999; Chacon et al. 2004). Larson
(1963) revisited the Muskat method and put it on a firm theoretical
ground for a homogeneous cylindrical reservoir. Some of the ex-
isting techniques depend on knowledge of the reservoir size and
shape and assume homogeneous properties (Horner 1967; Miller
et al. 1950; Matthews et al. 1954; Dietz 1965). Such methods may
result in uncertain predictions when reservoir data are unavailable
or reservoir heterogeneity exists. The inverse time plot by Kuchuk
(1999) is essentially a modification of Horner’s method (1967) and
works well in reservoirs that can be treated as infinite during the
time of the test. The hyperbola method proposed by Mead (1981)
and further developed by Hasan and Kabir (1983) is an empirical
technique, not based on fundamental fluid flow principles for
bounded reservoirs (Kabir and Hasan 1996). Chacon et al. (2004)
develop the direct synthesis technique, in which conventional
theory is used to derive an average pressure directly from standard
log-log plots. Homogeneous properties and radial symmetry are
assumed. Muskat’s original derivation was a wellbore storage
model. Larson reinterpreted Muskat’s method and derived rela-
tionships showing how Muskat’s plot could be used to estimate
Copyright © 2008 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE102730) was accepted for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 24–27 September, and revised for publi-
cation. Original manuscript received for review 13 June 2006. Revised manuscript received
for review 22 August 2007. Paper peer approved 22 September 2007.
298
average reservoir pressure in a cylindrical, homogeneous reservoir.
This paper revisits the ideas underlying Larson’s paper. Similar
ideas are shown to hold for heterogeneous reservoirs of any shape.
A new analysis technique replacing the Muskat plot by a plot of
the pressure derivative simplifies the determination of average
reservoir pressure. It is shown that parameters from analysis of a
long buildup on a reservoir can be used in subsequent buildup tests
to shorten the required time of the subsequent buildups. Finally,
estimates for time required for a buildup in homogeneous reser-
voirs of any shape are given.
Theory
Under assumptions of small fluid compressibility and small pres-
sure gradients, the datum pressure distribution in a reservoir may
be described by the diffusion equation (Kuchuk et al. 1996):
冉 冊 冉 冊
⭸⌽ 1 K
= ⵜ⭈ ⭈ ⵜ⌽ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
⭸t ␸ct ␮
which is assumed to hold in a domain ⍀. A no-flow Neumann
boundary condition given by:
K
⭈ ⵜ⌽ ⭈ n = 0, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
␮
which is assumed to hold at the boundary ⭸⍀. In these equations,
it is assumed that neither the permeability tensor K nor the other
properties are homogeneous. The general solution to Eq. 1 with
boundary condition Eq. 2 under the assumption that the perme-
ability tensor is symmetric positive definite is given by the expres-
sion (Showalter 1994):
⬁
⌽共t, x, y, z兲 = ⌽0 + 兺 c ␺ 共x, y, z兲e
i=1
0
i i
−␭it
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
The functions ␺i are the eigenfunctions of the differential op-
erator on the right side of Eq. 1 with the Neumann boundary
condition of Eq. 2 in the domain ⍀, and the numbers ␭i are the
corresponding eigenvalues. It is known that the eigenvalues are all
positive, except for the first, ␭0, which is zero, and that they in-
crease without bound (Showalter 1994). Both Vega and Watten-
barger (2000) and Coats et al. (1964) derived similar expressions
for the general transient behavior of aquifers with heterogeneous
permeability distributions. Gavalas and Seinfeld (1973) derived a
similar expression for transient pressure behavior in heterogeneous
reservoirs of arbitrary shape. The coefficients c0i depend on the
pressure distribution at the start of the buildup, but the eigenvalues
do not. Hence, the eigenvalues are independent of the past pro-
duction history of the reservoir.
If we consider the transient behavior of the pressure at a single
point, then we may combine the eigenfunction values with the
coefficient values to write Eq. 3 as:
⬁
⌽共t兲 = ⌽0 − 兺 ce
i=1
i
−␭it
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
In Eq. 4 ci⳱−c0i ␺i(x, y, z). Eq. 4 shows that the transient-pressure
behavior during a buildup can be represented as the sum of a
constant value (the final static datum pressure) and a sum of de-
caying exponential terms. The characteristic exponents ␭i increase
April 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

in magnitude, so that for large values of time t, the series in Eq. 4
can be approximated by
⌽共t兲 ≈ ⌽0 − c1e−␭1t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
The Muskat plot is a plot of ln(⌽0−⌽) vs. t (Muskat 1937). Eq. 5
shows that this will be a straight line, the slope of which is –␭1 for
large values of t. Unfortunately ⌽0 is unknown, being the desired
average reservoir pressure. Muskat proposed that an iterative
scheme be used to find the value of ⌽0 that resulted in the
“straightest” line for large values of time. However, this method
was difficult to apply in practice. It can be simplified by computing
the derivative of Eq. 4:
⬁ Table 1 lists properties for a rectangular homogeneous reser-
⭸⌽
⭸t
= 兺 ␭ce
i=1
i i
−␭it
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
Eq. 6 shows that a plot of the pressure derivative vs. ln(t) will be
a straight line for large t with slope of –␭1. The intercept of that
line will be ln(␭1c1), so the first term in the expansion of Eq. 4 can
be determined from the data. The residual R1(t) is defined by:
⭸⌽
R1共t兲 = − ␭1c1e−␭1t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
⭸t
Eq. 7 along with Eq. 6 show that for large values of t, a plot of
R1(t) vs. ln(t) is a straight line of slope –␭2 with intercept ln(␭2c2).
In a similar fashion, higher residuals can be defined recursively by
Rn = Rn−1 − ␭ncne−␭nt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
In this fashion, the exponents and coefficients can be successively
extracted from the pressure derivative. These values may then be
used to extrapolate the pressure. The final pressure ⌽0 is obtained
by computing the extrapolated pressure ⌽ext from the formula:
Fig. 2—Logarithm of first residual against time.
April 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 1—Logarithm of pressure derivative for homogeneous model.
⌽ext = ⌽共t兲 + c1e−␭1t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
Substitution of the expression in Eq. 4 for the datum pressure in
Eq. 9 yields the following expression for the extrapolated pressure:
⬁
⌽ext = ⌽0 − 兺 ce
i=2
i
−␭it
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
Since ␭2>␭1, the transient part of the extrapolated pressure decays
more rapidly than the pressure transient itself. Hence, it can be
used to estimate the final pressure. Examples of this will be given
in the next section.
Numerical Examples
This section presents some simple numerical examples of long
pressure buildups in which the actual average reservoir pressures
are known to illustrate the use of the techniques previously de-
scribed and to compare the results with some other techniques.
voir with a well in the center.
The well is produced at 20,000 BOPD for 5 days and then shut
in for 30 days for a buildup. Figs. 1 through 4 show plots of the
natural logarithm of the pressure derivative and first three residuals
against buildup time.
The derivatives were computed from a central difference of a
running 3-point average of the pressure. This smoothing was suf-
ficient in the numerical cases, since the noise level in the computed
pressures is low.
In each case, the late-time data form a straight line, enabling the
extraction of the characteristic decay exponents from the buildup.
Note that extraction of slopes from the residual data is often more
difficult because of noise in the data. Part of the reason for the
noise is that these components of the pressure transient decay
much more rapidly than the principal, so rounding and numerical
errors are relatively larger. Hence, error in the higher exponents is
likely to be greater than that of the lowest. Because of this, there
is a limit to the number of higher exponents that can be reliably
extracted from the data. Fig. 5 shows a plot of the buildup pressure
Fig. 3—Logarithm of second residual against time.
299
 Fig. 4—Logarithm of third residual against time.
and the extrapolated pressure defined by Eq. 9. The figure shows
that the extrapolated pressure rises to a constant value more
quickly than pressure.
Table 2 lists exponents and coefficients extracted from the
buildup data. By use of the data from this table, the individual
exponential terms in the pressure-derivative expansion may be
computed to show that over the time interval for which the linear
fit was done, only the first term is significant.
Figs. 6 through 9 show various plots of the pressure data along
with extrapolations of the data sometimes used to estimate average
reservoir pressure.
Figs. 6 and 7 show Horner plots (Horner 1967) of the data
extrapolated from either early-time or late-time data. Fig. 8 shows
a plot of pressure against 1/t with an extrapolation of the late-
time data. This is loosely based on Kuchuk’s method (Kuchuk
1999). Fig. 9 is a plot of the pressure along with a hyperbolic fit of
the form:
c buildup. Note that in this case, the first exponent is considerably
P=a+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
b+t
This form is based on the method of Hasan and Kabir (1983; Kabir
and Hasan 1996). The value of the parameter a gives the pressure
at infinite buildup time and is equal to the average reservoir pres-
sure as estimated by the method.
Nonlinear regression was used to fit the data. The regression
was done in two ways: fitting data over a time interval from 10 to
30 days of buildup and more than 25 to 30 days of buildup. Both
gave similar results. Note in Fig. 9 that the model fits the data very
well in the interval for which buildup data are available, but the
model curve continues to increase above the simulated final res-
ervoir pressure.
Table 3 lists the results of the various extrapolations along with
the actual final average reservoir pressure. The latter was deter-
mined by computing the pore-volume-weighted average pressure
in the simulation model. As expected in this simple model, the
average reservoir pressure is nearly constant. The third column
lists the error in the final-pressure estimate relative to the total
pressure depletion of the reservoir following the production. This
would be a relevant measure for material-balance calculations.
Note that the P* from the Horner plot gives the worst results, not
surprisingly, since it is an appropriate estimate only for an infinite
reservoir. Surprisingly, the next-best estimate is the final buildup
pressure. That is, the use of no extrapolation at all seems to work
300
Fig. 5—Buildup pressure and extrapolated pressure.
better in this case than inappropriate extrapolation. The exponen-
tial extrapolation proposed here gives very good results, and the
other methods are less accurate.
The next example is a similar model in which the reservoir has
several partially communicating compartments. Fig. 10 shows the
reservoir with the locations of the partial barriers. These barriers
were modeled by multiplying the grid transmissibilities along the
barriers by 0.001.
The properties of this reservoir are similar to those of the ho-
mogeneous model. In this case, the buildup lasts 95 days. Fig. 11
shows a plot of the logarithm of the shut-in pressure derivative
against buildup time. As before, the latter part of the curve is a
straight line.
Fig. 12 shows the buildup pressure along with the extrapolated
pressure from Eq. 9. Note that the extrapolated pressure in this
case is considerably higher than the well pressure even at the end
of the buildup period. Table 4 lists the decay parameters for this
smaller in magnitude than the second. This seems to be a charac-
teristic of compartmentalized reservoirs. Table 5 lists the extrap-
olated average pressure estimates as before. In this case, all of the
methods underpredict the average reservoir pressure, and with the
exception of the method of this paper, the errors are large. The
hyperbolic method is unable to adequately extrapolate the data,
even though it achieves a reasonable fit of the data, as can be seen
in Fig. 13. Tests of nonlinear regression using a weighted sum of
deviations between measured and model pressures and pressure
derivative values as the objective function failed to improve the
performance of the hyperbolic model in this case.
The final numerical model example is a simulation that is char-
acteristic of heterogeneous channelized deepwater reservoirs. In
this simulation, the well pressure is still changing 1 year after
shut-in. Although this is extreme, recent examples after Hurricane
Katrina validate that long, slow buildups of pressure are common.
In this synthetic example, the well flowed for 10 days, was shut in
for a year, and then flowed for a year followed by a second year-
Fig. 6—Horner plot of pressure buildup with early-time extrapo-
lation to P*.
April 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Fig. 7—Horner plot with late-time extrapolation of data.
Fig. 8—Pressure vs. 1/t with late-time extrapolation.

Fig. 9—Hyperbolic fit of pressure data. Upper curve is fit.

Fig. 10—Heterogeneous reservoir model.

Fig. 11—Logarithm of pressure derivative for heterogeneous model.

Fig. 12—Pressure and extrapolated pressure for heterogene-

ous model.

April 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 301


long shut-in. In most cases, the analysis emphasized the sec-
ond buildup.
Fig. 14a is the log-log diagnostic plot of the second buildup for
a realistic heterogeneous reservoir model. Because this example is
synthetic, we know the correct average pressure and can compare
this new technique with older established techniques. Fig. 14b
shows derivative data for both buildups of the same model, but it
is plotted as the natural logarithm of the derivative against time.
Note that both buildups show the same slope at late time. This
confirms that the principal exponent has not changed over the
course of a year in the model. The coefficients in the pressure-
transient expansion may indeed change, but the exponents are
characteristics of the rock/fluid system.
Figs. 15a and 15b make the comparisons at different shut-in
times for the model. The bottom curve in Fig. 15a is the actual
buildup pressure, and the uppermost horizontal curve is the aver-
age pressure for this case. We compared five different techniques
of estimating average pressure. The five techniques are
1) Use the last pressure of the buildup.
2) Plot the pressure vs. reciprocal time and extrapolate the last
few values to infinite time.
3) Plot the pressure vs. logarithm of Horner time and extrapo-
late the last few values to infinite time.
4) Use this new exponential technique by fitting the derivative
to determine both the coefficients and the exponents.
Fig. 14—Log-log diagnostic plots second buildup for realistic
numerical example (a); plot of natural logarithm of pressure
derivative of two buildups for realistic numerical example (b).
302
Fig. 13—Fit of hyperbolic model to heterogeneous-reservoir-
buildup data.
5) Use a modified version of the new technique, but rely on
knowing the exponents from an earlier long buildup and fit only
the coefficients.
The motivation for using the last technique comes from the rec-
ognition that the decay exponents are functions of the reservoir
domain, fluid properties, and the permeability distribution. In
many cases, these change only slightly with time, so that the ex-
ponents would not be expected to change significantly over time.
Hence, if prior long buildup data are available, subsequent shorter
buildup tests may be analyzed by making use of the exponents
from the long buildup. This greatly simplifies the regression and
improves the stability of the results.
Although the final buildup was 365 days long, we examined
successively shorter buildups down to 11.25 days of shut-in to
understand the accuracy of these extrapolation techniques. Note
that even after 11.25 days of shut-in, the last pressure is more than
1,500 psi less than the average pressure indicative of the complex
Fig. 15—Comparison of average pressure extrapolation tech-
niques for Model D (a); material balance errors for average pres-
sure extrapolation techniques for Model D (b).
April 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Fig. 16—Pressure derivative for longest buildup for three real-
data examples.
reservoir architecture. The y-axis of the bar chart in Fig. 15b con-
trasts the estimated depletion pressure to the actual depletion and
represents the material-balance error that one would expect with
such an extrapolation technique given that much buildup time. The
new exponential technique is better than use of the last pressure or
extrapolating the reciprocal time, but not as good as extrapolating
the late Horner time. Because the exponents are nearly constant
over time for a given reservoir model but the coefficients depend
on the rate history, we can improve the technique by using the first
long buildup to determine the exponents and allowing only the
coefficients to vary as we fit the pressure derivative. This im-
proved version of the exponential technique gives a material-
balance error of less than 10% for all buildup times greater than
11.25 days, and none of the other techniques are as good.
Examples Using Real Data
Fig. 16 is the basic analytic plot for the exponential technique for
Fig. 17—Exponential technique for Real Case A showing con-
vergence of extrapolated pressure to average reservoir pres-
sure (a); and comparison of other extrapolation techniques for
Real Case A (b).
April 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
three real field cases. The slope of the plot of ln(dP/dt) vs. buildup
time in the late time gives the smallest exponent and the intercept
its coefficient. The buildups in Fig. 16 are the longest ones for the
well; from the longest buildup, we extract up to six terms. Our
method is to use the parameters extracted from the residuals of Eq.
8 for each successive term as a starting point and then use regres-
sion to create the best match of the derivative. The criterion for the
number of terms in the exponential expansion is that the smallest
reciprocal exponent must be similar to the shortest buildup we
wish to consider. A commercial pressure-analysis software pack-
age was used to estimate the pressure derivatives in this case.
Table 6 shows the reciprocal of the exponents from the longest
buildups of the three real field examples and the synthetic case
discussed above. Because for most real field cases we rely on
buildups as short as one hour, we have found that we need four to
six exponential terms.
Fig. 17a shows the effect of adding each term as well as how
the derivatives match those from the longest buildup of Real Case
A. The lowest curve is the actual buildup pressure, and the first
solid curve labeled “1 term” shows the approximation obtained by
using only the first term with the smallest exponent. Each succes-
sive curve in the plot adds one more term with the upper set of data
points representing the full five-term approximation. Because the
smallest reciprocal exponent in this case is 0.138 hours, we are
able to fit the derivative down to 0.1 hour. Fig. 17b compares the
reciprocal time and late time Horner extrapolations with the new
exponential technique.
Unlike the synthetic examples, we cannot know the correct
average pressure for real data, but we can compare this technique
with the other methods of estimating average pressure. Fig. 18
plots the average pressure over the life of the well determined from
the four techniques we described earlier. The synthetic data analy-
ses showed that using the exponential technique works best when
we use the longest buildup to fix the exponents and then fit on the
coefficients only in the shorter buildups.
For Real Case A, the longest buildup occurred at 0.81 fraction
withdrawn and is the basis for the other exponential estimates of
average pressure over the life of the well. Note that the average
pressure trend from the exponential technique is 600 to 900 psi
above the trend for the other estimation methods and seems vali-
dated by the long buildup.
Fig. 18—Average pressure estimates for Real Case A.
303
Discussion tive reservoir properties do not change significantly. In a pure
depletion reservoir in which only fluid properties change, the
The results shown in Tables 3 and 5 are startling in the clarity of
eigenvalues will all change by a scale factor dependent on the
the conclusion to be drawn from them. In these cases the method change in fluid and rock properties with pressure. In a reservoir
proposed here is not only better than any of the others tested, but with an aquifer that encroaches significantly or with a gas cap that
better by very large margins. This is largely because of the avail- forms between pressure buildups, the eigenvalues may change
ability of sufficiently long buildup data for the technique to accu- significantly, because in such cases, the effective distribution of
rately estimate the smallest system eigenvalue. It is also true in reservoir properties has changed.
these examples that the longest decay mode is present in the pres-
sure transient with sufficient amplitude to allow it to be extracted
from the data. In more complex and realistic cases, illustrated by Conclusions
the data shown in Fig. 15b, the advantages of the proposed tech- A new technique to extrapolate long-pressure-buildup data to yield
nique are less clear. Note, however, that for the two longest estimates of average reservoir pressure has been described and
buildup times shown, the exponential extrapolation technique is as shown by use of numerical simulation to give better results than
good as or better than the others. For shorter buildups, however, other techniques in simple homogeneous and heterogeneous res-
the method is no better than the others. This is not essentially a ervoirs. This technique is based on sound physical and mathemati-
fault with the method, but rather it is because of the lack of infor- cal principles and applies to homogeneous and heterogeneous res-
mation in the data regarding the slowest transients in the pressure ervoirs of unknown size, shape, and properties. An extension of
response. Any extrapolation method that relies on no additional this method for short buildups, based on the use of decay expo-
information about the reservoir cannot be expected to perform nents from prior long buildups, has been shown to give better
consistently better. Note from the examples shown that the expo- results than other techniques for short pressure buildups in com-
nential extrapolation always underpredicts the pressure. For simple plex realistic reservoir models. These techniques are expected to
cases, such as a constant rate production from a virgin reservoir be useful when information on reservoir extent is unavailable or
followed by a buildup, it can be proved that this will always be the highly uncertain. Application of the extended method to real data
case, since the plot of ln(dP/dt) vs. time has positive second de- appears to give more-consistent average pressure estimates than
rivative in this case. For short buildup tests, missing information other techniques. Finally, the results illustrate that the relationship
must be supplied to estimate the average reservoir pressure. Clas- between the two smallest decay constants is affected by the pres-
sical techniques, such as that of Matthews et al. (1954) and more ence of partially isolated compartments around the well. This sug-
modern methods based on matching of bounded reservoir models gests that the decay exponent values and their relationship may
by use of numerical simulation are based on this idea. The addi- have some value in reservoir characterization.
tional information supplied is in the form of reservoir parameters
that include the size of the reservoir. In the absence of such infor- Nomenclature
mation, however, other information must be supplied. The tech-
cb ⳱ bulk volume compressibility, psi−1
nique proposed here to use time constants extracted from a long
buildup on subsequent shorter buildups is quite effective, as shown cf ⳱ reservoir fluid compressibility, psi−1
in Fig. 15b. It might be thought that nonlinear regression on the ci ⳱ coefficient in expansion of pressure, psi
pressure transient making use of a finite series of the form of Eq. c0i ⳱ coefficient of eigenfunction, psi
4 would be adequate for matching a transient response. However, cp ⳱ pore volume compressibility, psi−1
the regression problem in this case is very ill-posed, and multiple ct ⳱ total compressibility⳱cf+c␸+cb, psi−1
solutions are possible, making the determined pressure highly vari- c␸ ⳱ porosity compressibility, psi−1
able and uncertain. If the exponents are known in advance, how- d⍀ ⳱ diameter of reservoir, ft
ever, the regression problem for the coefficients is a linear regres- g ⳱ gravitational acceleration, ft/s2
sion problem and much better conditioned. Hence, the use of an g ⳱ gravitational acceleration vector, ft/s2
earlier long buildup to obtain the exponents appears to be a fea-
h ⳱ reservoir net thickness, ft
sible means to interpret subsequent shorter buildup tests.
Estimates for the smallest decay constant are required to design j0,1 ⳱ first eigenvalue of Bessel function J0
a buildup test of sufficient length. Usually, reservoir simulation k ⳱ permeability, md
models would be used for this purpose. However, simple analytical K ⳱ permeability tensor, md
estimates can be obtained from reservoir size and property data, as n ⳱ unit outward normal vector
shown in Appendix A. P ⳱ pressure, psi
A comparison of the values of the first two exponents in Tables R ⳱ arbitrary region in space
2 and 4 illustrates an interesting idea. Note that in Table 4, the ratio Rn ⳱ nth residual, psi/day
of the second exponent to the first exponent is 37, and the same t ⳱ elapsed time, hour
ratio from the values in Table 2 is approximately 5. From these u ⳱ superficial velocity, ft/s
results and others like it, it appears that for reservoirs in which the
vm ⳱ rock matrix deformation velocity, ft/s
test well is in a partially isolated compartment, this ratio of decay
constants is large. This idea suggests that these values may be of x ⳱ horizontal spacial coordinate (abscissa), ft
diagnostic value in characterizing the reservoir. At this time, how- y ⳱ horizontal spatial coordinate (ordinate), ft
ever, insufficient work has been done in this area to make any z ⳱ depth of pressure, ft
definitive statements about the relationship between the decay con- z0 ⳱ reference depth of pressure, ft
stants and reservoir parameters. ␭i ⳱ ith characteristic time in pressure series, day−1
The theory we have given applies strictly to single-phase fluid ␮ ⳱ reservoir fluid viscosity, cp
flow in a reservoir. However, if there is a fluid contact, and this ␷1 ⳱ first nonzero eigenvalue of Laplacian, ft−2
contact does not move appreciably during the buildup, then the ␸ ⳱ porosity
theory should still apply, since the change in properties across the ␳ ⳱ reservoir fluid density, lb/ft3
contact may be treated as a spatial property variation. In such a
␺i ⳱ eigenfunction in pressure expansion
case, the average reservoir pressure will represent the average of
the entire reservoir including fluid across contacts. ⌽ ⳱ datum pressure, psi
In the realistic numerical example with pressure buildups ⌽0 ⳱ final datum reservoir pressure, psi
shown in Figs. 14a and 14b, we noted that the principal eigenvalue ⌽ext ⳱ extrapolated datum reservoir pressure, psi
had not changed in the reservoir between the initial buildup and the ⍀ ⳱ reservoir domain
second buildup. This will be true in general only when the effec- ⭸⍀ ⳱ reservoir domain boundary

304 April 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Alton
Ahrens, Jamie Bakhtiary, Vince Nguyen, and Christopher Werner,
who did some of the analysis of the data, and Royal Dutch Shell
management for permission to publish this paper.
References
Chacon, A., Djebrouni, A., and Tiab, D. 2004. Determining the Average
Reservoir Pressure From Vertical and Horizontal Well Test Analysis
Using the Tiab’s Direct Synthesis Technique. Paper SPE 88619 pre-
sented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Perth, Australia, 18–20 October. DOI: 10.2118/88619-MS.
Cheng, S.-Y. 1975. Eigenvalue Comparison Theorems and Its Geometric
Applications. Mathematische Zietschrift 143 (3): 289–297. DOI:
10.1007/BF01214381.
Coats, K.H., Rapoport, L.A., McCord, J.R., and Drews, W.P. 1964. De-
termination of Aquifer Influence Function From Field Data. JPT 16
(12): 1417–1424; Trans., AIME, 231. SPE-897-PA. DOI: 10.2118/897-
PA.
Dietz, D.N. 1965. Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure From
Build-Up Surveys. JPT 17 (8): 955–959; Trans., AIME, 234.
Gavalas, G.R. and Seinfeld, J.H. 1973. Reservoirs With Spatially Varying
Properties: Estimation of Volume From Late Transient Pressure Data.
SPEJ 13 (6): 335–342. SPE-4169-PA. DOI: 10.2118/4169-PA.
Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S. 1983. Pressure Buildup Analysis: A Simpli-
fied Approach. JPT 35 (1): 178–188. SPE-10542-PA. DOI: 10.2118/
10542-PA.
Horner, D.R. 1967. Pressure Build-Up in Wells. In Pressure Analysis
Methods. Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas 9: 25–43.
Kabir, C.S. and Hasan, A.R. 1996. Estimating Average Reservoir Pressure
Using the Hyperbola Approach: New Algorithm and Field Examples.
Paper SPE 36255 presented at the SPE Abu Dhabi International Petro-
leum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 13–16 October.
DOI: 10.2118/36255-MS.
Kuchuk, F.J. 1999. A New Method for Determination of Reservoir Pres-
sure. Paper SPE 56418 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October. DOI: 10.2118/56418-
MS.
Kuchuk, F.J., Habashy, T.M., and Torres-Verdin, C. 1996. A Non-
linear Approximation for the Pressure Behavior of Heterogeneous Res-
ervoirs. SPEJ 1 (3): 229–242. SPE-26456-PA. DOI: 10.2118/26456-
PA.
Larson, V.C. 1963. Understanding the Muskat Method of Analyzing Pres-
sure Build-Up Curves. J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. 2 (3): 136.
Matthews, C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P. 1954. A Method for Deter-
mination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir. Trans., AIME
201: 182–191. SPE-296-G.
Mead, H.N. 1981. A Practical Approach to Transient Pressure Be-
havior. Paper SPE 9901 presented at the SPE California Regional
Meeting, Bakersfield, California, 25–27 March. DOI: 10.2118/9901-
MS.
Miller, C.C., Dyes, A.B., and Hutchinson, C.A. Jr. 1950. The Estimation
of Permeability and Reservoir Pressure From Bottom Hole Pres-
sure Build-Up Characteristics. Trans., AIME 189: 91–104. SPE-
950091-G.
Muskat, M. 1937. Use of Data on the Build-Up of Bottom-Hole Pressures.
Trans., AIME 123: 44–48. SPE-937044-G.
Payne, L.E. and Weinberger, H.F. 1960. An Optimal Poincaré Inequality
for Convex Domains. Archive for Rational Mechanistics and Analysis
5 (1): 286–292. DOI: 10.1007/BF00252910.
Showalter, R.E. 1994. Hilbert Space Methods for Partial Differential Equa-
tions. Electronic J. of Differential Equations Monograph 01, Chap. 3,
59–93.
Vega, L. and Wattenbarger, R.A. 2000. New Approach for Simultaneous
Determination of the OGIP and Aquifer Performance With No Prior
Knowledge of Aquifer Properties and Geometry. Paper SPE 59781
April 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
presented at the SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, 3–5
April. DOI: 10.2118/59781-MS.
Appendix A—Characteristic Exponent Estimates
For homogeneous 2D reservoirs, there exist theoretical estimates
of the characteristic decay exponents on the basis of knowledge of
the eigenvalues of the Laplacian operator for the Neumann prob-
lem on bounded domains. These can be used to make quick esti-
mates of the time required for a buildup to estimate the smallest
characteristic time. Payne et al. (1960) have given the following
estimate of the smallest nonzero Neumann eigenvalue, ␷1, of the
Laplacian for a convex planar domain ⍀:
␷1 ⱖ ␲2 Ⲑ d 2⍀. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1)
In this inequality, d⍀ is the diameter of the domain, defined as
the length of the longest line segment that can be contained in
the domain.
Cheng (1975) gave the lower-bound estimate under similar
conditions as:
␷1 ⱕ 4j20,1 Ⲑ d 2⍀. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)
The value j0,1 is the first zero of the Bessel function J0 and has the
approximate value 2.4048. Combining these two inequalities leads
to the bound:
␲2 Ⲑ d 2⍀ ⱕ ␷1 ⱕ 4j20,1 Ⲑ d 2⍀. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)
Inserting the approximate values of the constants in Eq. A-3 yields
the approximate estimate:
9.870 Ⲑ d 2⍀ ⱕ ␷1 ⱕ 23.132 Ⲑ d 2⍀. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)
The characteristic exponent, ␭1, is related to the first eigenvalue,
␷1, by the relation:
␷1k
␭1 = 0.00633 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-5)
␸␮ct
Substitution of Eq. A-5 into Eq. A-4 yields:
0.0625k 0.146k
ⱕ ␭1 ⱕ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6)
␾␮ctd 2⍀ ␾␮ctd 2⍀
This estimate may be used to estimate the time required for a
buildup by the requirement that
␭1t ⱖ O共1兲. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-7)
It should be noted that the use of the first eigenvalue to estimate
transient buildup times assumes that the coefficient for the corre-
sponding term in the pressure-series expansion is nonzero. If Eq.
A-6 is applied with the numerical example in the main text making
use of data from Table 1, the decay constant is estimated to be
between 0.0168 day−1 and 0.0391 day−1. Note that the actual value
found from the analysis from Table 2 is 0.0688 day−1. It can
happen that the first eigenvalue is unexpressed in the pressure-
transient response, because the coefficient on the corresponding
exponential term vanishes. This is, in fact, the case with the first
numerical example presented above. The actual smallest eigen-
value for the reservoir is 0.0170 day−1, but the coefficient of that
term vanishes. The next eigenvalue is 0.0681 day−1, which com-
pares well with the value found by data fitting. The symmetry of
the model with the well in the exact center of the reservoir causes
the coefficient of the first term to be zero. If the well is moved off
center, however, the characteristic time decreases as the coefficient
on the first term is no longer zero. In real reservoirs, where such
artificial symmetries are unlikely to exist, the first eigenvalue
should be a reasonable estimate of the transient buildup time. It
should be noted, however, that reservoir heterogeneity has a sig-
nificant influence on these values as the second numerical example
showed. Consequently, the estimates made from homogeneous
models may have large errors.
305
 New Orleans. He holds a B.S. degree from the Massachusetts
SI Metric Conversion Factors Institute of Technology and a PhD from the California Institute
bbl × 1.589 873 E−01 ⳱ m3 of Technology, both in chemical engineering. During the past
25 years, Crump has worked in upstream research and devel-
cp × 1.0* E−03 ⳱ Pa⭈s opment, waterflooding, miscible gas flooding, and deep
ft × 3.048* E−01 ⳱ m water development in the Gulf of Mexico. He has also served
ft2 × 9.290 304* E−02 ⳱ m2 as a technical editor and review chairman for the SPE Reser-
voir Engineering Journal. Robert H. Hite is Shell’s principal tech-
ft3 × 2.831 685 E−02 ⳱ m3
nical expert on well testing and is a reservoir engineering ad-
lbm × 4.535 924 E−01 ⳱ kg viser. He consults on pressure transient analysis for Shell’s world-
psi × 6.894 757 E+00 ⳱ kPa wide operations and is the primary reservoir engineering
instructor for Shell’s well-testing classes. Hite holds a Bachelor of
*Conversion factor is exact.
chemical engineering degree from Georgia Tech and a PhD
degree in chemical engineering from Rice University. Over a
Appendix 32-year Shell career, he has worked on a wide variety of res-
ervoir engineering problems—from reservoir simulation, CO2
James G. Crump is a regional discipline advisor in reservoir and steam flooding to appraising and developing deepwater
engineering for Shell Exploration and Production Company in Gulf of Mexico reservoirs.

306 April 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering