RESERVOIR

ENGINEERING

Reservoir Limit Test on Gas Wells

PARK JONES U. OF HOUSTON
MEMBER A/ME HOUSTON, TEX.

Abstract water. Fig. ID is for a well near a nonsealing fault. The

During a reservoir limit test, the rate of production is
held constant and the bottom-hole flowing pressure is
measured. Field examples for a closed reservoir, a sealing
fault, a gas-water contact and a nonsealing fault are in-
cluded. The interpretation of field data is made with the
aid of the observed rate of pressure decrease per unit rate
of production. Graphs and equations are presented for the
pressure interferences commonly found in gas reservoirs.
The thousand cubic feet of gas in place proved and pos-
sibly explored during a reservoir limit test, the distance
to a fault, the angle between two intersecting faults, the
interference from a gas-water contact, the evaluation of
the formation constants and the effect of anisotropic per-
meability are considered.
Introduction
test was stopped at the end of the first day of production
because the rate of gas flow across the nonsealing fault
was equal to the rate of production from the well. Addi-
tional reserves cannot be detected after the rate of leakage
becomes equal to the rate of production.
Interpretation of the field data obtained during a reser-
voir limit test is made with the aid of certain equations
developed by Jones!
Coefficient of Expansion for Reservoir Gas
When a well is placed on production, a pressure draw-
down is propagated into the reservoir, and the drainage
radius for the well increases with time. The drawdown
within the drainage radius causes the in-place gas to
expand. The coefficient of expansion E. for a gas is de-
fined by

The reservoir limit test is a transient-flow method of E =~ oZ ( 1)

v p - z:ap
evaluating in-place gas, productive limits and deliverability.
Solutions of Eq. 1 are plotted in Fig. 2 for 150°F reser-
Background for the test is threefold: the constant (psi!
voirs, gas gravities from 0.6 to 1.05, and pressures from
bbl) pressure decline for steady flow in a closed reser-
1,000 to 15,000 psia. Similar data are available for 250°
voir; the pressure interferences between wells under a
and 350°F gas reservoirs. The Eg values were calculated
transient flow condition as, for example, those in the
from the compressibility factors of Brown, et al.'
paper by Elkins'; and the Laplace transformation paper
The effective coefficient of expansion E for high-
by van Everdingen and Hurse
pressure gas reservoirs includes the expansion of inter-
Under a transient-flow condition, the constant pressure
stitial water and rock compressibility as listed in the
decline mentioned before is replaced by a constant draw-
Appendix.
down increase. The drainage radius can be evaluated in
the field by noting the time of arrival, at shut-in observa-
Proved and Possibly Explored Gas
tion wells, of a perceptible drawdown from a producing
well. The pressure interferences at a producing well caused The Y function for transient (nonsteady) flow is the
by external boundaries can be duplicated by the method daily rate of drawdown increase divided by the daily rate
of images which was first applied to oil and gas production
by Muskat.'

Examples of Interpreted Field Data

Interpretations of field data on four wells are pre-
sented. Fig. 1A is for a well in a closed reservoir. All
productive limits were reached during a one-day test. 8
Fig. 1B is for a well near a sealing fault. The 10-day test
on this well shows no productive limit other than the
"a..
f/I

fault. Fig 1C is for a well near a gas-water contact. The .

test was stopped at 1.5 days due to the interference from
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office
March 6. 1961. Revised manuscript received July 17. 1961. Paper pre- DAYS
sented at SPE Gas Technology Symposium. April 20-21. 1961. in Tyler.
Tex.
lReferences given at end of paper. SPE 24 Fig. lA-Well in a closed reservoir.

JUNE, 1962 613

of production in reservoir barrels. Eqs. A-S and A-9 in well. The drawdown at the producing well (see Eqs. A-3,
the Appendix show that the possibly explored pore vol- A-6 and A-7) is defined by
ume V p during a reservoir limit test is given by . _ 2.246 '1)1
4 ]'" - 1.15 BDQ log , . (6)
r.,
V" = EY (2)
The drawdown at the shut-in well, Eq. A-6, is expressed by
The 45° line in Fig. 3 is a solution of Eq. 2. The possibly
explored V p when corrected for gas saturation and the BDQ w[~]
2
j
4'1)t
= (7) .
initial formation volume factor (see the Appendix) gives
the in-place thousand cubic feet of gas possibly explored The slope m in pounds per square inch per log cycle for
by the test; the producing well is defined by
'OJ,,,
G =~
B,EY
(3) m =
3 (log t)
1.15 BDQ . (S)

This is the thousand cubic feet of gas within the radius For the shut-in well, the upper curve in Fig. 4,
,-2
r. aside from a productive limit. The gas is said to be 'OJ (9)
possibly explored because a well cannot "see" a produc- -,-,--~_= me .'!t •
3 (log t)
tive limit beyond r,/2. The explored area includes the
After a sufficient number of producing days, Eq. 9 re-
proved area.
duces to Eq. S. The Y function for the producing well is
The Y, function for steady flow in a closed reservoir m/2.3BQt. See Eq. A-S.
is the daily rate of pressure decline divided by the daily
rate of production in reservoir barrels. Hence, the pore
volume of any closed gas reservoir is simply Two Producing Wells
1 Fig. 5 shows the drawdown for either one of two wells
V =- (4)
" EY, produced at the same rate since zero time. Let jw be the
The horizontal line in Fig. 3 is a solution of Eq. 4. The self-drawdown for one of the wells and j be the inter-
proved in-place thousand cubic feet of gas is given by ference from the other. Then,
G=~ (5) ,.,. + J. = m
[2.246 '1)1
log rw'
1
+ 2.3 W
( r' )]
4'1)1 . (10)
B,EY,
For transient flow, Y, = Y /4 and Eq. 5 defines the proved
where r is the distance between the wells. After a suffi-
thousand cubic feet of gas in place. By comparison with
cient number of producing days, Eq. 10 reduces to
Eq. 3, the explored gas volume may be as much as four
times the proved in-place thousand cubic feet of gas. . . 2 I 2.246 '1)1
Jw + ] = m og ----'-- (11 )
A reservoir limit test can be followed by a build-up for rrw
the purpose of proving more in-place gas than is defined This shows that the slope of the drawdown curve in-
by Eq. 5. creases from m to 2m as indicated in Fig. 5. The Y
function for either producing well is given by
One Producing Well
Fig. 4 shows the pressure drawdown for a producing
well and for a shut-in well at r ft from the producing
2190

2180

217Q

DAYS
88
0 0.01 0.1 1.0

0 Fig. IC--Well near a gas-water contact .

87 ........
(/)
Cl.
8'
,
85
"

.. "
o0
::::::
51 ~
83

82
DAYS DAYS-
0.01 0.1 l.0 10 0.1

Fig. IB-Well near a sealing fault. Fig. ID-Well near a nonsealing fault.

614 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY


Y D (
= 2t 1 + e_-C )
47ft , of the drawdown curve intersect (Fig. 5). The two lines
The value of the exponential terms increases from zero
to unity. The value of Y changes from the initial D 12t to
the ultimate Dlt.
One WeD and a Sealing Fault
Consider a producing well located at d ft from a seal-
ing fault (see Fig. 5, upper right corner). The drawdown
for this flow system is like that for two producing wells
provided the distance r is equal to 2d. The two wells are
the image system for the faulted system. The first appli-
cation of the image method to oil and gas production was
made by Muskat:
Measurements in the field indicate that the number of
days t during which a perceptible drawdown is propa-
gated from one well to another is defined for practical
purposes by
r2
t=--
16'1)
where r is the distance between the wells and
where to is the time at which the two straight-line portions
intersect at the time the interference drawdown is equal
to 0.2137 m, Eq. A-B.
The Angle Between Two Intersecting Faults
The reservoir limit test can "see" the angle between
two intersecting faults. As an example, consider a dis-
covery well in an areally extensive quadrant formed by
two sealing faults that intersect at 90° (Fig. 6). The well
is d ft north of Fault D and g ft east of Fault G. If the
faults were not present and the reservoir extended in all
directions, gas would flow across the position of the faults.
To prevent flow across the position of the faults, three
image wells are assumed to be at the following locations
from the discovery well: south 2d ft; west 2g £1; and
south 2d, then west 2g. At zero time, each well is placed
on production at the rate of BQ reservoir BID. The draw-
down at the discovery well after t days of production is
given by
(12)
'I) is the _-----,------r----...,...-----,0.4 0.1

diffusivity. In field units,

6.328 K
(13 ) Y
'I) =
fLE</>
As r = 2d, it follows that the distance to the fault is 1.0 4.0 1.0
given by
d = 2('I)t)1 y
>- , ~'" ~
(14) "- ,, ::::: "-
"Y v
However, the value of t in Eq. 14 is not known accurately s tt
>Q. ~
II
Ys
from the conventional, present-day bottom-hole pressure lJJ lJJ
bomb. A better procedure, derived in the Appendix, is to 0.1 40 10

use
d = 0.749 ('I)to)l (15)

DAYS
ol..ol-----'O.I----~,":-.O----o;;l0.::-O---~lOO 400 100

Fig. 3-Y. proved and Y, possibly explored pore volume.

jw j
o--r---o
PRODUCING SHUTIN
DAYS-
.0.01

Fig. 4--Drawdown in a producing well and a shut-in well.

o---r--o
TWO PRODUCING WELLS
DAYS--
b 7 B , 10 20
FHESSURE 1000 PSJA -
Fig. 5-Two producing wells or one well and sealing
Fig. 2-Coefficient of expansion for reservoir gas. fault, r = 2d.

JUNE. 1962 615

 . BDQ [
lw = - 2 - w
(r,,,')
4:;;1 + W
(d')
:;;I + W
(g'']t) The drawdown in Fig. 7 has a constant slope. During
a reservoir limit test, a uniform slope is obtained when

+ W(d'; g')]. (16) the capacity h(K.,Ky) I does not vary with size of the
proved area. The directional effective permeability in a
homogeneous anisotropic reservoir is defined by
Fig. 6 shows that the slope of the drawdown curve in-
1 cos'{} sin'{}
creases progressively. After a sufficient number of pro- -=---j---
ducing days, the slope would be four times the initial K. K. K.
value because, ultimately, the flow to the well is through where {} is the angle between the direction of interest and
only 90° whereas the initial flow is through 360°. the x-axis. The effective permeability in a homogeneous
The Y function for a 90° fault block is as follows. anisotropic reservoir is a function of direction, but not
d
2
g"!. d 2 +g 2 of well location. The effective permeability that would be
Y = ~[ 1 + ; -;;; + e- -;;; + ; ---:;;-;-] (17) calculated from the field data on such reservoirs is the
geometric mean between the K. and K. values.
In Fig. 3, each point on a Y line has the value D. In the
present example, the Y line shifts to the right from the A Gas-Water Contact
initial D 12t position to the ultimate position of 2D 11.
The interference from the faults decreases the conductivity Fig. 8 shows the drawdown for a well in the center of
from liD to V<lD reservoir BIDlpsi drawdown. The de- a circular gas reservoir surrounded by an are ally extensive
liverability to a gas well with interferences from external aquifer. The distance from the well to the gas-water con-
boundaries and producing wells may be as low as 10 per tact is a ft. The corresponding drawdown, derived by the
cent from the deliverability to the well aside from the Laplace transform method, is as follows.
interferences.
. BD gQ [
Jw=--W -
2
(r w2 )
4']g1
-W ( - a') +-w--
4']yi
(a')]
JLw
fl." 4']wt
Anisotropic Reservoirs (20)
Fig. 7 shows the proved and possibly explored area for The Y function for the gas-water contact of Fig. 8 is
a reservoir in which the effective permeability K. parallel as follows.
to the x-axis is 16 times the K. value parallel to the y-axis.
Pertinent theory on fluid flow in anisotropic reservoirs has D [ 1 - e-~
Y =-" 4~.t +~e 4~",t
I/. -~] (21)
been given by Muskat: A determination of the orienta- 21 fl..
tion of an anisotropic permeability from pressure inter- Fig. 9 shows a solution of Eq. 21. For a given rock, the
ference was reported by Elkins and Skov.' Orientation of gas conductivity liD. is much higher than the water con-
permeability is of considerable importance in cycling ductivity liD",. In the example of Fig. 8, a reservoir
rich-gas reservoirs. In Fig. 7, the orientation was assumed. limit test would be stopped during the second day because
Let distance be measured from the center of a pro- the drainage radius is in water.
ducing well. The drawdown at the point (x, y) at the time
1 is given by Equations for Interpretation of Field Data

-+-
fl.EcjJ ( X2 Y')] The simplest type of drawdown curve for transient flow,
j(x, y, t) = JLBQ
1.l27(47r)hY'KxK•
W[. K. K.
4(6.328)1
.
Jw == P, - P", = m
( 2.246']1
log--;:::- +
S)
1.15 '
(18)
is a straight line (on semilog paper) having the slope
The iso-drawdowns are ellipses rather than circles except
ojw
of the face of the well bore where m = 1.15 BDQ,
3(log 1)
. .=, 1. 15 BDQ
J Iog 2.246']t
, , the skin effect
r U'

and in which D.P. kin = mS/1.15,

D = 0.1412fl. and the resistivity to fluid flow
hYK.K. D = m/1.15 BQ = 0.1412JLlhk.
6.328~
'7 = E-I.. (19)
,fl. 't'

i.

- - __ In
--
DISCOVERY
WELL
g---,
d
FAULT DDAYS
1.0 10 100
0.1 1.0 100
Fig. 7-Proved and possibly explored area in a homogene-
Fig. 6-A well completed in a 90° fault block. ous anisotropic reservoir.

616 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 GAS m

",
"- ,,
0.1 ,, "- ,
a ,, ,,
,, ~

y
"-

DAYS 0,01
~
~-?
(l.Ol 100

Fig. 8-Drawdown for a gas-water contact.

The foregoing equations are applicable to any producing DAYS-

well whether it be oil, gas, or water, provided BQ is a 0.1 l.0 10 100
0,01
constant producing rate in reservoir barrels per day. The
formation volume factor B for a gas-producing well is Fig, 9-Y function for the gas-water contact in Fig. 8.
expressed in terms of the pressure at the face of the
wellbore. F= 2.~~ 10 = 2;:~t = 1.119 Ehcf> (28)

Eq. 7, when divided by Eq. 9, gives

The drawdown j(r, t), for a decreasing producing rate,
jim = e"W(u)j2.3.
BQ = (BQ).(1 - Cn (22) For u < 0.01,
where (BQ), is the producing rate when the well is first W(u) = -0.5772 - In u.
placed on production; n is a positive integer; C = constant The two preceeding equations give
and with the boundary conditions j(r, 0) = 0 and j(oo, t)
In u = -0.5772 - 2.3 jim,
= 0, is defined by
so that
j(r, I) = D(~Q).r)[l
u
-C(I - :;vr]e~VdV . (23)
Then,
u = exp (-0.5772 - 2.3 jim) = DFrj41.

The integration is obtained with the aid of the follow- F = ~~ exp (-0.5772 - 2.3 jim) (29)
ing expression.
OCl e-v = -1- - - - fOCl e- v ]
n-dvn - 1 un - 1
[e-"
vn - 1
--dv.
(24)
When two or more shut-in wells are located at distances
r r" • . . ft from a producing well, the drawdown j" j"
f v U u . ". . as well as the corrected drawdown for the producing
For a decreasing producing rate proportional to time, well are plotted against log r'll. If the drawdown for each
n = 1 and the drawdown is given by shut-in well
j(r, t) = D(~Q)' {W(u) - Ct[( 1 + u) W(u) - eon] }.
r'
(1.15 BDQ) [ log! - log DF
j = -
2.2461
(30)
(25) falls on the corrected curve for the producing well, (jw -
For a decreasing producing rate proportional to the square mS/1.15) vs log rw'jl; the reservoir capacity (hk) is uni-
of time, n = 2 and the drawdown is given by form within the region between the wells. For an aniso-
tropic or a variable-pay-thickness reservoir, each well has
j(r, I) = D(~Q)' {[ 1- (1 +
CI' 2u + ~')1 W(u) its own distinctive curve. The spread between the curves
is a measure of the variation in D and F.
Ct' (3 + u)e- n }
+T • (26) The volume of gas in a closed reservoir having several
producing wells is estimated with the aid of Eq. 5. The
Interpretation of field data for a variable producing rate daily rate of pressure decline in one shut-in well is ob-
requires all the computations indicated by either one of served while each of the other wells is produced at some
the two foregoing equations. However, if a constant pro- constant rate. The daily rate of pressure decline divided
ducing rate is maintained, C = 0 and Eq. 7 prevails. In by the sum of the daily producing rates in reservoir
the case of a very rich gas-condensate well, the rate of barrels gives the value of Y. to be used.
separator liquid production is maintained constant rather The Y curve for a closed reservoir becomes horizontal,
than the separator gas rate. Fig. 3. If d, is the distance to the nearest productive
The formation constant F is obtained from the draw- limit, a pressure change travels d, ft from a producing
down in a shut-in well. For large enough values of time, well to the productive limit, and then an additional d, ft
Eq. 7 may be written in the slope-intercept form. back to the well. The time Ii when the first interference
reaches the well is obtained upon substituting 2d, for r in
j = 1.15 BDQ [lOg t - log ~~~] (27) Eq. 12. This gives the interference time
The straight-line portion of the curve j vs log I is ex- I, = d,'j4'YJ' . (31)
trapolated to zero drawdown for which the time intercept Let d be the distance from the well to the fartherest
is 1 Then
0 , productive limit and t. the time when steady flow becomes

JUNE, 1962 617

effective. Field experience indicates that t, is equal to The drawdown defined by Eq. 20 or Eq. 36 or Eq. 37
twice the interference time for the fartherest boundary; cannot become a constant. Therefore, Fig. ID is for a gas
that is, well near a nonsealing fault rather than for a large in-
t, = d' j2'fj. (32) crease in capacity (hK) near the well. The produced gas
During the time interval (t, - t i ) Fhich is represented is replaced by gas from another fault block. This is steady
by the dashed curve in Fig. 3, the drawdown gradients flow by displacement for which the Y function is equal to
in the reservoir change from those for transient flow to zero.
those for steady flow by expansion.
When the distance d from a producing well to a sealing Conclusions
fault is very small, Eq. 11 may become
. 2.246'fjt Field data and the computations by the method of
Jw = 2m log 2dr", (33) images for the various conditions found in reservoirs lead
to several conclusions. The reservoir limit test on one well
during the first 15 minutes of production. For such cases, may be used to determine the following.
when it is impossible to obtain the data for a 1m slope,
1. All of the in-place gas within a small closed reser-
the ideal drawdown ji is calculated to be
voir or only the proved portion of the in-place gas within
. 2.246'fjt a large reservoir.
Ii = 2m log " (34)
r",· 2. The conductivity IjD in reservoir barrels per day
Obviously, the calculated drawdown is greater than the per psi drawdown.
observed value in the amount 3. The distance to an impermeable productive limit or
j, - jw =
2m log 2d (35) to a gas-water contact.
rw 4. The angle between two intersecting sealing faults.
The well-completion efficiency CE is given by the ratio 5. The presence of a nonsealing fault.
j,jjw of calculated to observed drawdown. In the case of 6; The deliverability to a gas well when subject to
two intersected sealing faults having the angle () between interferences from other producing wells.
them, the per cent CE increases up to 36,000j().
7. The magnitude of the skin effect.
For an effective permeability of K, between the face
8. Whether an operator should consider selling a dis-
of a well bore and a radius r = a and an effective K2 in
covered small reservoir rather than drill dry holes around it.
the are ally extensive region r > a, the equation of Hurst"
expressed in field units for the drawdown at the well The reservoir limit test on two or more wells completed
becomes in a given gas reservoir may be used to determine the
following:
. = -BD,Q
Iw 2 - [W(u,) - W(u,) + K']
K W (u
a) (36) 9. The Mcf of gas available, F, per I-psi dropjI sq ft
2
of productive area.
where
10. The diffusivity, 'fj = IjDF, in square feet per day.
D = 0.1412,u
, hK,' 11. The orientation of the highest and lowest perme-
ability in a homogeneous anisotropic reservoir.
rw
u,=-- 12. The direction of the increasing or decreasing hK
4'fj,t'
capacity in a reservoir of variable pay thickness.
a'
uo=-- 13. The position and the strike of a fault.
. 4'fj,t'
14. The position and the trend of a gas-water contact.
a2
Us ==--
4'fj,t'
Nomenclature
and 'fjI and 'fj, refer to K, and K 2 , respectively.
The slope of the drawdown curve ultimately changes B = formation volume factor, bbl spacejMcf
from m to mK,jK,. The interference time is given by
Eq. 13 as a'j4'fjI days only if the well is in the center of
BQ = producing rate, reservoir BjD
D = reciprocal conductivity, psi drawdownjreser-
the K, - K2 circular boundary.
voir BjD
The derivation of Eq. 20 for a well in the center of a
E = effective coefficient of expansion, Ijpsi
circular gas-water contact follows the procedure used by
Hurst, except that ,,u and E are changed rather than K. F = fluid available by expansion, bbljpsi
The drawdown at a gas well in the center of a circular (sq ft of productive area)
gas-oil contact of r = a and a circular oil-water contact G = proved or possibly explored gas, Mcf
at r = b ft from the well is given by h = net pay thickness, ft
=
j
w
= BDgQ{
2
W(~) - W(~) +
4'fjgt 4'fjot
j pressure drawdown at r feet at time t, psi
jw = pressure drawdown at well at time t, psi
K = effective permeability obtained from field data,
::[W(4~:t) - W(4~2ot)] + :: W(4~~t)} (37) darcies
The interference from the oil-water contact reaches the m = slope, psi drawdownjlog cycle
well after producing P = pressure, psia
a' (b - a)2 P, = bottom-hole flowing pressure aside from skin,
-+--,---'- psia
4'fjg 4'fjo
days provided the location of the well is in the center Q = producing r~te at 14.7 psi a and 60°F, McfjD
of both boundaries. T = absolute temperature, OR

618 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 t = time, days The two principal formation constants are the reciprocal
u = dimensionless parameter, r'/4?)t conductivity
VI> = pore volume, bbl D = ---~~-~. -~~?~ (A-3)
W(u) = well function is the expon~ntial integral - Ei 1.127(27T)hK - hK '
( -u) and the fluid available by expansion
Y = function for transient flow, psi drawdown/res- F = 27TEh<j> = 1 119 Eh
ervoir bbl (A-4)
5.615 . <j> .
y, = function for steady flow, psi decline/reservoir Two or more wells are required to evaluate F in the field.
bbl The reciprocal of DF gives the diffusivity (see Eq. 13).
YJ = diffusivity, sq ft/day The basic equation for radial flow in rocks IS
yg = gas gravity, air = 1 o'j 1 oj 1 oj
(A-5)
Acknowledgments
r
or' + or =--;;3i
The solution, adopted from Carslaw and Jaeger,'O is as
The author wishes to thank J. E. Cornett, C. L. Holder follows.
and M. G. Hubbard, who made the computations for
some of the graphs and offered suggestions for the prepa- . BDQj'lJ e- v BDQ
J(r, t) = -2- u. -V dv = -2- W(u) (A-6)
ration of this paper.
where
References
r
1. Elkins, L. F.: "Reservoir Performance and Well Spacing- u =
4 ' ; j(r, 0) = O;j(oo, f) = 0,
Silica Arbuckle Pool, Kansas", Oil and Gas Jour. (Nov. 16, YJt
1946). and the well function W(u) is the exponential integral;
2. van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the that is,
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs",
Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 305.
W(u) =-
Ei( -u) = - In u - 0.5772
3. Muskat, M.: The Flow of Homogeneolls Fluids through Por. 00 un
ous Media, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., N. Y. (1937) 175.
+~ (-I)n+'~_,.
n = 1 n' n.
4. Jones, Park: "Drawdown Exploration, Reservoir Limit, Well When u is less than 0.01, the series approach zero and
and Formation Evaluation", Paper 824:G presented at SPE
Permian Basin Oil Recovery Conference, Midland, Tex. _ 4YJf _ 2.246YJl
(April, 1957). W(u) - In-o - 0.5772 - 2.3 log (A-7)
0
r- r
5. Brown, G. G_, Katz, D. L., Oberfell, G. G. and Allen, R. C:
"Natural Gasoline and the Volatile Hydrocarbons", Paper Aside from a productive limit within the drainage radius
presented at meeting of NGAA in Tulsa, Okla. (1948). defined by Eq. 12, the following expressions are readily
6. Elkins, L. F. and Skov, M.: "Determination of Fracture Orien- derived.
tation from Pressure Interference", Trans., AIME (1960)
219, 301. Y=~=~=~- (A-H)
7. Dodson, C. R. and Standing, M. B.: "Pressure-Volume-Tem- BQof 2t 2.3BQI
perature and Solubility Relations for Natural Gas-Water Mix- and
tures", Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1944). 7Thcf>r,' 7Th<j>06YJ/) 81 4
R Hall, H. N.: "Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks," Trans., (A-9)
Vp = 5.615 = 5.615 = DE = EY ,
AIME (1953) 198,309.
9. Geertsma, J.: "The Effect of Fluid Pressure Decline on Volu- in which
metric Changes of Porous Rocks", Trans., AIME (1957) 210, 5.615
331. YJ = 27TDEh<j>'
10_ Carslaw, H. S. and Jaeger, J. c.: Conduction of Heat in
Solids, Oxford at the Clarendon Press (1959) 261. The average drawdown within r, is given by
11. Hurst, William: "Interference Between Oil Fields", Trans., . BQt BDQ m
AIME (1960) 219,175. J=--=--=~ (A-lO)
EV p 8 9.2
APPENDIX The intercept time fo in Fig. 5 is obtained as follows.
After a sufficient number of producing days, the inter-
Transient Flow ference drawdown would be
The effective coefficient of expansion E for a gas reser-
voir is taken at j = 1.15 BDQ( log f - log 2.;;6YJ). (A-ll)
4S", C, For no interference drawdown, j = 0, f = to and
E = EgSg + 10" + IOG<j> . (A-I)
r' 4d'
where Eo is defined by Eq. 1. The constant 4 is based 10 = - - = - - . (A-12)
2.246YJ 2.246YJ
on the data of Dodson and Standing' for water saturated
with gas. When two or more wells are available, the rock which gives Eq. 15. Eqs. 8,12 and A-12 give
compressibility C, can be estimated from field data. Other- . m W (2.246)
wise, 1.5/10° is used for Ct. This is based on the work of
Jto = 2.3 - 4 - = 0.2137117 . (A-13)
HaW and Geertsma: Eq. A-13 defines the interference drawdown at the time
The formation volume factor is taken at to. Conversely, for an interference drawdown of 0.2137m,
B = 5.04 TZ the time is fo. These values are independent of a skin
P,
(A-2)
effect. ***
A metered rate of Q Mcf/D corrected to 14.7 psia and
60°F is equal to BQ reservoir B/D when p. is the flowing EDITOR'S NOTE: A PICTURE AND BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
psia. OF PARK JONES APPEAR ON PAGE 643.

JUNE. 1962 619