Pressure Buildup Analysis: Techniques For Oil Wells

Chapter 5
Pressure Buildup
Analysis
T e c h n i q u e s for
Oil W e l l s
5.1 Introduction
Pressure buildup testing is the most familiar transient well-testing tech-
nique, which has been used extensively in the petroleum industry. Basically,
the test is conducted by producing a well at constant rate for some time,
shutting the well in (usually at the surface), allowing the pressure to build up
in the wellbore, and recording the down-hole pressure in the wellbore as a
function of time. From these data, it is possible to estimate the formation
permeability and current drainage area pressure, and to characterize damage
or stimulation and reservoir heterogeneity or boundaries frequently.
Knowledge of surface and subsurface mechanical conditions is important
in buildup test data interpretation. Therefore it is recommended that testing
and casing sizes, well depth, packer condition, etc., be determined before
data interpretation starts. Usually, short-time pressure observations are
necessary for the complete delineation of wellbore storage effects. Data
may be needed at intervals as short as 15 seconds for the first few minutes
of some buildup tests. As the test progresses, the data collection interval can
be expended.
In this chapter we will discuss ideal, actual buildup tests, buildup tests in
infinite-acting reservoirs and in developed (finite) reservoirs; we will also
discuss multiphase buildup tests and the variable-flow-rate test analysis.
5.2 Ideal Pressure Buildup Test

In an ideal situation, we assume that the test is conducted in an infinite-
acting reservoir in which no boundary effects are felt during the entire flow
and later shut-in period. The reservoir is homogeneous and containing in a
153
154 Oil Well Testing Handbook
slightly compressible, single-phase fluid with uniform properties so that the

Ei function and its logarithmic approximation apply. Horner's approxima-
tion is applicable. Wellbore damage and stimulation is concentrated in a skin
of zero thickness at the wellbore. Flow into the wellbore ceases immediately
at shut-in. If a well is shut-in after it has produced at rate q for time tp and
the bottom-hole pressure pws is recorded at time At, then a plot ofpws versus
log (tp + At)At will give a straight line, which is represented by the following
equation:
162.6 qo #o/30 log I tp + At]

Pws-pi- kh At J (5-1)
where the slope m is 162.6 qo #o/3o/kh and pi (initial reservoir pressure) is the
intercept at (tp + At)/At = 1.0. The absolute value of the slope m is used in
analyzing the test result. The formation permeability k can be calculated
from the slope and given by
k - 162.6 qo #o/30 (5-2)

mh
and the skin factor is
r_
- 1 151 f l hr Pws(At=O)
--
(5-3)
S
9 L m
- l o g ( ~ # k c t r 2 ) + 3"231
Example 5--1 Analyzing Ideal Pressure Buildup Test

A new oil well produced 400 stb/day for 2 89days; then it was shut-in for a
pressure buildup test, during which the data in Table 5-1 were recorded.
The other data were: /30 = 1.25 rb/stb, h = 20 ft, 4~ = 0.20, rw = 0.29 ft,
Table 5-1
Ideal Pressure Buildup Data
Shut-in time, At (hr) (tp+At)

At Pws (psig) Pws (psia)
0 - 1150 1165
2 37.0 1795 1801
4 19.0 1823 1838
8 10.0 1850 1865
16 5.5 1876 1891
24 4.0 1890 1905
48 2.5 1910 1925
Pressure Buildup Analysis Techniques for Oil Wells 155
ct - 19.5 x 10 -6, a n d #o - 1.1 cP. F r o m these d a t a , e s t i m a t e the f o r m a t i o n

p e r m e a b i l i t y , k, pi, a n d skin f a c t o r s.
Solution T o e s t i m a t e k, pi, a n d s, follow these steps"
1. Plot shut-in BHP, Pws versus log (tp + At)/At, as shown in Figure 5-1.
2. Measure the slope m that is equal to 100 psi/cycle.
3. Calculate the formation permeability using Eq. 5-2.
k- ~ = 162.6 400 x 1.25 x 1.1 = 44.72 m D

162.6 q~176176
mh 100 x 20
4. Read original reservoir pressure Pi at (tp + A t ) / A t - 1.0 =~Pi- 1960 psi.

5. Calculate the skin factor s from Eq. 5-3.
F.,.
S
- 1 151 f l hr -- Pws(At=O)
9 L m - l o g (~b#kctr2w)+ 3"231
=11,1[17791165 ( 100 -log

44.72
0 . 2 0 x 1.1 x 1 9 . 5 x 10-6(0.29) 2
) ]
+3.23
= 1 . 1 5 1 1 6 . 1 4 - 8.093 + 3.23] -- 1.37
6. R e a d original reservoir p r e s s u r e pi - 1960 psia.
2000
Pi=1960psia~]
p, = 1960 psia c~ ~176176176
/
1900 ['-" Plhr = 1779 psia ..................................... ~ .........
.,.., | Pws(At=O) - 1165 psia Plhr = 1779 psia ~ 1~
1800 [._. k=44.72 mD ................... ~_. _,~~._._......... _.~............
=a /
1700 .... le [-
r~
o
..= 1600 ..... ~ ............................. || . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,l=
1500 .................................................... 7- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
I
1400 I
100 1
tp +At
At
Figure 5-1. Ideal pressure buildup graph.

5.3 Actual Buildup T e s t s - Infinite Reservoir
Instead of a single straight line for all times, we obtain a curve with a
complicated shape, which indicates the effect of afterflow, we can logically
divide a buildup curve into three regions (see Figure 5-2):
Early-time region (ETR). In this region, a pressure transient is moving
through the formation nearest the wellbore.
Middle-time region (MTR). In this region, the pressure transient has
moved away from the wellbore into the bulk formation.
Late-time region (LTR). In this region, the pressure transient has reached
the drainage boundaries well.
MTR is a straight line. This is the portion of the buildup curve that we must
identify and analyze. Analysis of this portion only will provide reliable
reservoir properties of the tested well. The reasons for the distortion of the
straight line in the ETR and LTR are as follow: In the ETR, the curve is
affected by:
9 Altered permeability near the wellbore;
9 Wellbore storage.
Using a packer in the hole and shutting-in the well at the packer can
minimize this effect. In the LTP, the pressure behavior is influenced by
boundary configuration, interferences from nearby wells, reservoir hetero-
geneities, and fluid/fluid contacts.
Analyzing a pressure buildup in an infinite-acting reservoir using
Horner's technique involves the following steps:
m m m m m m m m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m m m m m
ETR I
M id d1e tim e ~ j f p ~ ' s n n n n n i l n J " l "
.,~
j~/- ~ i Latetime
F~
i/ L v
At
Figure 5-2. Behavior of the static pressure on shut-in oil well.

9 Find tp, the cumulative production since completion divided by the rate,
immediately before shut-in (when rate varies). As a matter of general
practice to approximate, tp using cumulative production since last
pressure equalization:
24 Vp (5-4)
tp= qo
9 Plot Pws versus log (tp + A t ) / A t on semilog graph paper.

9 Plot APws = (Pws-pwf(/xt=o)) versus At on log-log graph paper to
identify wellbore effects, i.e., identify ETR and beginning of MTR which
can be found using type curves. The MTR ends when the radius of
investigation begins to detect the drainage boundaries of the tested well;
at this time the buildup curve starts to deviate from the straight line.
9 Find slope m of the straight-line portion of the Horner plot (MTR)
and extrapolate the line to infinite time at log((tp + A t ) / A t ) = 1 to
find p*. Once the MTR is identified, determine the slope and intercept.
9 On straight-line portion of the curve or the extrapolated portion read
Pw~ at At = 1 hour, referred to as Pl hr.
9 Calculate the reservoir properties by using the equation in the following
section.
5.4 Pressure Buildup Test Analysis

in Infinite-Acting Reservoir
For any pressure buildup testing situation, the bottom-hole shut-in pres-
sure, Pws, in the test well may be expressed using the principle of super-
position for a well producing at rate qo until time tp, and at zero rate
thereafter. At any time after shut-in
141.2qo#o/3o [pD(tp + At) D --pD(AtD)] (5--5)

Pws -- Pi -- kh
where PD is the dimensionless pressure function and tD the dimensionless

time and is defined by the following equation:
0.000264kt
tD= O#oCtr 2 (5-6)
During the infinite-acting time period, after wellbore storage effects have
diminished and assuming there are no major indeed fractures, PD in Eq. 5-5
may be replaced by the logarithmic approximation to the exponential inte-

gral:
PD = 0.5(ln tD + 0.80907) (5-7)
Eq. 5-7 applies when tD > 100, which occurs after a few minutes for most
unfractured systems. Eqs. 5-5 through 5-7 may be rewritten as
Pws -- Pi -- 70.6 qo#o/3Okh In (tp ~+i At'~j
or
pws = pi - 162.6 qo#o/3o log (tp +/',tAt'~] (5-8)

kh
Eq. 5-8 gives the pressure response during shut-in BHP, pws. This equation
indicates that plotting pws versus (tp + At)/At on semilog coordinates will
exhibit a semilog straight line of slope m, where
162.6qo#o~o (5-9)
m= kh
Effects and Duration of Afterflow
To recognize the MTR is essential for the successful buildup curve

analysis based on the Horner plotting method, because the line must be
identified to estimate the reservoir properties. The following methods can
be used to determine when (if ever) afterflow ceased.
log-log Curve Matching Procedures
The following steps should be used to estimate the beginning of MTR:

9 Plot pws versus log (tp + At)/At on semilog graph paper.
9 Plot (pws- Pwf) versus Ate on log-log graph paper, where
/',t (5-1o)
Ate -- 1 + At/tp
9 From the graph, find approximately at what shut-in time (At) does
aflerflow cease and boundary effects appear.
9 Find a uniform slope region (45 ~ line at earliest time), choose any point
on the unit slope line and calculate the wellbore storage constant, Cs:
qo/3o(At)
(5-11)
Cs -- ~ --~ unit-slopeline
where At and Ap are the values read from a point on the unit-slope line.
Using actual mechanical properties of the well, we can also establish
Awb
Cs - 25.65 pw----# (5-12)
for a well with a rising liquid/gas interface, where Awb = wellbore area
(ft 2) and Pwb -- density. Also Cs - Cwb Vwb for a wellbore containing only
single-phase fluid (liquid only), where Cwb is the compressibility of the
liquid in wellbore (psi -1) and Vwb the wellbore volume (bbl).
9 Establish dimensionless wellbore storage constant CsD that character-
istic the actual test from curve match or using the following equation:
0.894Cs
CsD = ()c,hr 2 (5-13)
9 Determine k and the skin factor s.

9 Find the end of wellbore storage effects, twbs (h), after selecting the
proper Ramey's curve.
9 Verify the time, twbs, marking the end of wellbore storage distortion
using empirical relationships:
tD ~ 50Cs exp(0.14s) (5-14)
or
170,000Cs exp(0.14s) (5-15)

twbs ~ kh/s
Calculation of Flow Capacity and Formation Permeability

The formation permeability k can be obtained as
162.6qo#o/3o
k - mh (5-16)
and kh is the flow capacity (mD ft). Both Theis and Horner proposed the
estimating permeability in this manner. The Pws versus log [(tp + At)/At] plot
is commonly called the Horner plot (graph method) in the petroleum
industry. Extrapolation of the straight-line section to an infinite shut-in time
[(tp + At)/At] = 1 gives a pressure and we will denote this as p* throughout
this book. In this case p* = pi, the initial pressure. However, the extrapolated
pressure value is useful for estimating the average reservoir pressure, as
indicated in Chapter 6.
Estimation of Skin Factor

The skin factor does affect the shape of the pressure buildup data. In fact,
an early-time deviation from the straight line can be caused by skin factor as
well as by wellbore storage. Positive skin factor indicates a flow restriction,
i.e., wellbore damage. A negative skin factor indicates stimulation. To calcu-
late skin factor, s from the data available in the idealized pressure buildup
test. At the instant a well is shut-in, the flowing BHP, Pwf, is
16.88Cb#oCtr2 - 0.869s (5-17)

Pwf = Pi -F m log ktp
At shut-in time At in the buildup test
Pwf -- Pi + m [log( tp +--AtAt'~]j (5-18)
Combining Eqs. 5-17 and 5-18 and solving for the skin factor s, we have
s 1 151(pws -Pwf) (1688(9#oCtr2~ (tp+ At)

- 9 m + 1.151 log k~" ) + 1.151 log Ai J
(5-19)
It is a convenient practice in the petroleum industry to choose a fixed shut-

in time At of 1 hour and the corresponding shut-in pressure, pl hr, to use in this
equation. The pressure, Pl hr, must be on the straight line on its extrapolation.
Assuming further that log(tp + At)/At is negligible. Pwf is the pressure mea-
sured before shut-in at At = 0. With these simplifications, the skin factor is
s- 1.151Eplhr -- Pw(fA=
t O)m - l o g ( ~ # o k t r 2 ) + 3.23] (5-20)
Pressure Drop Due to Skin

Pressure drop due to skin is also called an additional pressure drop
(Ap)s~i~ across the altered zone near the wellbore. Calculation of this
pressure drop due to skin is meaningful in describing the effect of skin on
actual production. In terms of the skin factor s and the slope m of the
middle-time line
(Ap)s~i, , -- 0.869 m s (5-21)
For example, a well may be producing 200 stb/day oil with a drawdown of
1200 psi. Analysis of a buildup test might show that (Ap)s~in is 1000 psi and
thus that 1000 psi of the total drawdown occurs across the altered zone. This
implies that if the damage was removed, the well could produce much more
fluid with the same drawdown or, alternatively, could produce the same
200 stb/day with a much smaller drawdown.
Determination of Effective WeUbore Radius

The effective wellbore radius rwa is defined as
rwa = rwe -s (5-22)
If s is positive, the effective wellbore radius rwa is smaller than rw, then fluid
must theoretically travel through additional formation to give the required
pressure drop. If s is negative, the effective wellbore radius is larger than rw.
For example, s values o f - 4 and - 6 correspond to the effective well radii of
14 and 101 ft, respectively, for rw = 0.25 ft. This effective wellbore radius
concept is especially useful in hydraulic fracturing.
Flow Efficiency and Damage Ratio

The flow efficiency is defined as the ratio of the actual productivity index
of a well to its productivity index if there were no skin (s = 0):
Jactual
Flow efficiency = F E =
Jideal
Since
qo
Jactual -- --
p -pwf
and
qo
Jideal --- - -
P -- Pwf -- (Ap)skin
therefore
F E - ~ - Pwf - ( m e ) s k i n (5-23)
P -Pwf
The quantity (AP)ski, is obtained from Eq. 5-21. The flow efficiency is
also known as productivity ratio, condition ratio, and/or completion factor. 1
When subtracted from unity it gives the damage factor 2 which is also a
relative indicator of the wellbore condition and is the inverse of the flow
efficiency. The following example will clarify the use of these equations.
Example 5-2 Analyzing Single-Phase and Single-Rate Pressure Buildup

Test
A single-phase and single-rate pressure buildup test was conducted on an
oil well. The data in the first two columns of Table 5-2 were recorded. The
following well/reservoir parameters are given:/3o = 1.224 rb/stb, h = 55 ft,
~b = 0.06, rw = 0.21 ft, Co = 1.5 • 10 -6, and #o = 0.65 cP, psc = 14.65 psia,
T = 200~ re = 1520ft, and po = 53.51bm/ft 3-
Assume the well is draining from the center of a square. Well depth = 4500 ft,
qf = final production rate at shut-in time = 250stb/day, and cumulative
production at shut-in time = 141,979 stb. Determine the following:
1. At what shut-in time At does afterflow cease and boundary effect appear?
2. Formation permeability, k
3. Skin factor, s
4. Additional pressure drop near the wellbore, (Ap)sgi,
5. Effective wellbore radius, rwa
6. Flow efficiency FE using p*
7. Damage ratio D R using p*
8. Productivity index, P I
9. Radius of investigation by the shut-in transient at the start and end of
the M T R
10. End of wellbore storage distortion.
Table 5-2
Pressure Buildup Test D a t a - Single-Phase Test (t, - 13,629.99h)
At
Time, At (t, + At) (l+At/tr) Pws Pws - P w f Pws Pws - P w f ri
(hr) At single-phase (psig) (psig) (psia) (psia) fit)
0.00 - - 3519 0 3534 0 0
0.15 90,867.56 0.15 3680 161 3695 161 48
0.20 68,150.93 0.20 3723 204 3738 204 55
0.30 45,434.28 0.30 3800 281 3815 281 68
0.40 34,075.96 0.40 3866 347 3881 347 78
0.50 27,260.97 0.50 3920 401 3935 401 87
1.00 13,630.99 1.00 4103 584 4118 584 123
2.00 6815.99 2.00 4250 731 4265 731 174
4.00 3408.50 4.00 4320 801 4335 801 247
6.00 2272.66 6.00 4340 821 4355 821 302
7.00 1948.14 7.00 4344 825 4359 825 326
8.00 1704.75 8.00 4350 831 4365 831 349
12.00 1136.83 11.99 4364 845 4379 845 427
16.00 852.87 15.98 4373 854 4388 854 493
20.00 682.5 19.97 4379 860 4394 860 552
24.00 568.92 23.96 4384 865 4399 865 604
30.00 455.33 29.93 4393 874 4408 874 676
40.00 341.75 39.88 4398 879 4413 879 780
50.00 273.60 49.82 4402 883 4417 883 872
60.00 228.17 59.74 4405 886 4420 886 955
72.00 190.31 71.62 4407 888 4422 888 1047
Solution First estimate the pseudo-producing time, tp,
24 x 141,979
tp = 250 = 13,630 hours
Horner time ratio (tp + A t ) / A t and equivalent time Ate are calculated and
listed in Table 5-2. A semilog graph pws versus log (tp + A t ) / A t of these data is
shown in Figure 5-4, and log-log graph (pwf - Pws) versus Ate in Figure 5-3.
F r o m these graphs answer the following questions:
1. At what shut-in time At does afterflow cease distortion the pressure

buildup test data?
2. At what shut-in time At do b o u n d a r y effects appear?
F r o m the semilog graph (Figure 5-4), it seems that afterflow distortion

disappears at (tp + A t ) / A t -- 2280 or At -- 6.25 hours, because of the end
Figure 5-3. log-log single-rate buildup data plot.
of the characteristic S-shaped curve. Confirm the result with the log-log
graph. After plotting Ap = (Pws -Pwf) versus Ate = At~(1 + At/tp) on log-
log paper, we find that the actual data fit well for curves for s -- 5 for several
values of CsD (e.g., CsD = 103, 104, and 10s). In each case, the curve fitting
the earliest data coincides with CsD = 0, curve for s = 5 at Ate = 4-6 hours.
This, then, is the end of wellbore effects: twbs = 6 hours. The data begin to
deviate from the semilog straight line at ( t p + A t ) / A t = 2 2 5 or
At = 50 hours. On the log-log graph, data begin falling below the fitting
curve at At -- Ate = 40 hours, consistent with the semilog graph.
Also determine the beginning and end of the M T R by matching Ramey's
curve; the solution is a critically important part of the analysis. The
log-log curve-matching analysis was performed without the knowledge of
CsD. Note that CsD can be established in this case, at least approximately:
from the curve match, we note that the data are near the unit-slope line on
the graph of Ramey's solution; the points Ap = 100 and A t - - 0 . 1 are
essentially on this line. Thus, from Eq. 5-11:
Cs - ---2-4- --~ unit-stopeline
250 • 1.224 0.1

24 x 1--0--0- 0.0128
i ~ , |
5000 ; i ,
I ' i
4800
! i
........ ~ .............. i-t ~.-4577psia t

.~ 4600 -i .............. i.............. ....
_~.,~ _ .,~_. _ ~ .........
~; 4400
d 4200 ---
............ ! ..... " ~ ........... !............... i .... \- ..... f .............
4000 --- ........... ~ ....... i ............. "-'t slope, m=7Opsi/c;cle [ .......
o 3800 --- ...... ~ 4

i '~ ~" ,
..... ! ....... -~.............. i-: ........... ~ ............. ! .............
, "
, I k= 8.4mD ' '

o 3600 --- .......... ~..... 5........ s = 5.87 , ,
o I ~ :~ i APski n = 357.9 psia ~ ............
3400 ~ ; rwa = 5.93X 10-4
3000 f i
3200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;
106 105
I
.........
i
10 4
'
FE = 66.26 %
103
;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 2
.~
10
;
tp +At
At
Figure 5--4. Semilog single-rate buildup data plot.
T h e n , f r o m Eq. 5-13"
0.894Cs 0 . 8 9 4 x 0.0218
= -- 7653
CS D --" Octhr2w 0.06 x 55 x 17.5 x 10 -6 x (0.21) 2
T h u s m a t c h i n g s h o u l d be a t t e m p t e d in t h e r a n g e 103 < CSD < 10 4 . F r o m

F i g u r e 5 - 4 , t h e r e a p p e a r s to be a w e l l - d e f i n e d s e m i l o g s t r a i g h t line. F i n d t h e
following parameters:
S l o p e o f H o r n e r ' s p l o t - m - 70 p s i a / c y c l e
F r o m l o g - l o g p l o t ~ t i m e at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f M T R - 6.00 h o u r s
From semilog plot ~ t i m e at t h e e n d o f M T R - 50 h o u r s
Pl hr - - 4295 p s i a a n d p* at (tp + A t ) / A t -- 4577 p s i a

2. F r o m Eq. 5 - 1 6 , t h e f o r m a t i o n p e r m e a b i l i t y is
162.6 x 250 x 1.224 x 0.65

k- = 8.4mD
70x 55
3. From Eq. 5-20, the skin factor is
s =1.151 I4295~03519 log( 84

0.06 • 0.65 • 17.5 • 10 - 6 • (0.21
+ 3.23] - 5.87
This means that the well is damaged and needs stimulation treatment.
4. Calculate the additional pressure drop near the wellbore using Eq. 5-21"
(Ap)ski, , --0.869 • 70 • 5 . 8 7 - 357.9psia
5. Estimate the effective wellbore radius from Eq. 5-22:
rwa -- 0.21 e -5"87 -- 5.93 • 10 -4
6. Determine the flow efficiency using Eq. 5-23"
p* - P w f - (Ap)skin 4 5 7 7 - 3 5 1 9 - 357
FE-- =
P* - Pwf 4577 - 3519
= 0.6626 • 100 = 66.26%
This means that the well is producing at approximately 66% of the rate it
would have been producing if the well was not damaged.
7. Damage ratio is estimated as
1 1
DR . . . . . 1.51
FE 0.6626
The damage ratio also shows the production rate would have been
approximately twice the present rate if the well was not damaged.
8. Productivity index is
qo 250
PI P* _ p w f - (Ap)skin 4 5 7 7 - 3 5 1 9 - 357 0.3566bbl/psi
9. Determine the radius of investigation using the following equation:
kt 0.5
ri- (948-~-iZoCt)
Thus at At -- 6 hours
8.4 • 6 ,~ 0.5
ri- (948 • 0.06 • 0.65 • 17.5 • 10 -6. )
- 279 ft
and at A t - 50 hours
8.4 x 50 ) 0.5
= 806 ft
ri- 948 x 0.06 x 0.65 x 17.5 x 10 - 6
Thus, a significant fraction of the well's drainage area has been sampled;
its permeability is 8.4 mD.
10. End of the wellbore storage distortion can be found using Eq. 5-15
such as
170,000Cs e 0"145 170,000 x 0.0218 e 0"145

= = 6.1 hours
twb~- kh/#o 8.4 x 55/0.65
This agrees closely.
Estimation of Skin Effects of Incompletely

Perforated Interval
The damage is caused by drilling or completion operation and stimulation
by attempting to improve the well productivity using acidizing or fracturing
treatments. In addition, nonradial flow near the wellbore will also cause
apparent skin factor. The reasons are:
9 The well does not completely penetrate the production interval;
9 The well is perforated only in a portion of production interval as in the
case of gas cap.
In such cases Saidikowski 3 found that the total skin factor, s, determined
from the pressure transient test is related to the true skin factor, sa, caused by
the formation damage and the apparent skin factor, Sp, caused by an
incomplete perforated interval. The relationship between these skin factors
is given:
ht
s - ~ sa + Sp (5-24)
where ht is the total interval height (ft) and hp the perforated interval (ft).
Saidikowski 3 also verified that Sp can be estimated from the equation such as
sp-- ( ~ - ~ - l ) [ l n ( h @ w ( ~ v ) ~ (5-25)
where kh is the horizontal permeability (mD) and kv the vertical permea-

bility (mD).
Papatzacos 4 presented the following equation to calculate the pseudo-
skin factor for a well with restricted flow entry where infinite conductivity is
taken into account:
Sp - ( h-~
1 ) 1 In ( 1.5714'~ 1 [ hpo -- 1 ] (5-26)
- rD , ] + h ~ l n 2+hp0~/AB 1
where
h,,D =
h,,
rw
ED m -~t
A
(hid + hpD/4)
B ~
(hiD + 3hpD/4)
hi
hiD = -~t
where hi is the height from top of the reservoir to top of the producing
interval (ft).
Odeh 5 presented an equation for calculating the skin factor due to
restricted entry, and the skin factor is a function of sand thickness, location
of open interval, and the wellbore radius:
Sr=l.35 ~p In ht +7
- [0.49+O.11n(ht~)]lnrwc-l.9}] (5-27)
where
Sr = skin due to restricted entry
rwc - corrected wellbore radius (ft) and is equal to
rwc - rw e,0"2126(zm/ht+2"753) (5-28)
Zm = distance between the top of the sand and middle of the open interval
(ft) and = Y + hp/2
Y = d i s t a n c e between the top of the sand and top of the open
interval (ft).
If Y > 0, then rwc = rw. Use of these equations is best illustrated with an
example.
Example 5-3 Analyzing Incomplete Perforated Interval

An oil well is perforated in the bottom 12 ft of the total formation thickness
of 33 ft. Assuming ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability, kh/kv = 1.0.
A pressure buildup test was run on this well; results and basic properties
are: pwf = 1450 psi, pl hr = 2000 psi, k = 4.5 mD, m = 48 psi/cycle,
rw = 0.30 ft, ct = 1.6 x 10 -5 psi -1, ~b = O. 18, #o = 0.45 cP.
Calculate the following:
1. Total true skin factor, s
2. Skin due to formation damage, sa
3. Skin due to incompletely perforated interval, Sp
4. Determine whether the productivity problem results from formation
damage or from other causes.
Solution
1. Find the skin factor using Eq. 5-20:
s- 1.151 [plhr m--Pwf

-log(~izkctr2)+ 3.23]
9 [
!"
1 151 ~ 2 0 0 0 - 1450 - log

48
(
0.18 x 0.45 x
4511 )]
x lO-S(0.3) 2
= 1.151111.4583 - 7.5864 + 3.23] -- 8.17
Using Eq. 5-25, estimate Sp:
1) 1 00,4700
Using Eq. 5-24, estimate the skin factor due to formation damage, sD"
hp ( s _ sp) _ 12 -- 1.25
sD -h-~t 33(8.17 - 4 . 7 3 )
If Sp is greater than s, SD will be negative but this will not mean that the
formation is stimulated. In this case the well is neither damaged nor stimu-
lated. The observed productivity problem is caused entirely by the effects of
an incomplete perforated interval.
Determination of Skin Effects in a Partially

Completed Damaged Well
When a well is partially completed, Hawkins' equation 6 may be applied.
The results should be of value to all who are concerned with well testing and
estimating well productivity. Using Hawkins' approach, for an undamaged
well completed over the entire length of producing interval the pressure drop
from outer radius of the damage zone rs to well radius rw is
Ap 1 _ 141.2qo#o~o In r[?-2] (5-29)

kh UWl
If the permeability is altered in region from rw to rs, this pressure drop
becomes
14112qo#o/3o In r[?--ww
1
zXp, = kh (5-30)
The pressure drop due to skin is
Ap2-Apl-Aps l41"2q~176176
kh ks Tw (5-31)
where st is the skin as defined by Hawkins' equation 6
rs
st ks In (r-dw) (5-32)
The pressure drop due to damage then becomes
Aps 141.2 h ( k - k s ) ln(rs)

- kh hp ks -r-ww (5-33)
Therefore the true skin due to formation damage is
rs
St---~p ks ln(G ) (5-34)
If hp is small compared with h and when the partially perforated interval is

in the center of the productive zone, then Eq. 5-34 can be corrected to
Eq. 5-35"
h l _ 0 . 2 ( r e h p- r W ) l ( k - kk,
s ) In (?--dw)
rs
St I -~P (5-35)
The pseudo-steady-state equation relating flow rate to pressure drop is
qo - 0.00708kh (ff -pwf) (5-36)

#o/3o [ln 0.472rerw+ s]
Example 5--4 Analyzing Partially Completed Damage Well

Sand control measure is required to allow production from a highly perme-
able formation. The pressure buildup test was run in the well; results and basic
properties are: pi - pwf - 150 psi, k = 950 mD, rw --- 0.38 ft, re -- 1450 ft,
ks/k - 0 . 2 5 , hp = 10 ft, rs - 1.4 ft, ks = 0.25 • 950 = 237.5 mD, ct = 2.0 •
10 -5 psi -i, ~b -- 0.20, #o = 0.754cP,/3 -- 1.07 rb/stb, m -- 35 psi/cycle, and
(pl h -- Pwf) = 810 psi.
Calculate the following:
1. Total true skin factor, st
2. Apparent skin factor, Sa
3. Flow rate if entire zone is perforated
4. Flow rate if middle 10 ft is perforated
5. Theoretical skin factor, s.
Solution Find oil flow rate using pseudo-steady-state flow rate equation 5-36:
0.00708kh (p - pwf)
qo-
#o/3o [ln 0.472rerw+ s]
0.00708 x 950 x 35 x 150 43,768.44
7.50+ s
0"754(107) [ln (0"472 .38
x 1450) + s ]
where s - Sa + st and Sa is the apparent skin due to partial completion. Since

hp is small compared to h, therefore using Eq. 5-35, we get
35[ (1.4 - 0.38) 1 (950 - 237.5) in ( 0 ~ 8 ) _ 13.42

st - ]--0 1 - 0.2 10 237.5
If the middle 19 ft are perforated we calculate, Sa from Eq. 5-27

sr-1.35 ~ In {( ht +7 )
-[0.49+0.1In(he k~)]lnrwc_l.9}]
= 1.35 ]--0 ln(35x/0-~.2+ 7)
-0.49 + 0.1 In 35x/-0.2 ln(0.38)- 1 . 9 5 } ] - 7.25
If the entire productive zone is perforated and no permeability reduction

is present, s - 0 and from Eq. 5-36:
43,768.44
qo - 7.50 = 5836.0 stb/day
If the middle 10ft are perforated when no permeability reduction

(damage) is present,
43,768.44
= 2967 stb/day
qo - 7.50 + 7.25
When permeability reduction is present to the extent that ks/k - 0.2, then
43,768.44
= 1554 stb/day
qo - 7.50 § 7.25 § 13.42
Using Eq. 5-32,
St ~-
9,0
237.5 In
(&) - 3.91
If we use Hawkins' equation 5-32 without correction, st would be 3.91

and flow rate would have been estimated as
43,768.44
= 2346 stb/day
qo - 7.50 + 7.25 + 3.91
Using Eq. 5-20, theoretical skin factor s is
s - 1.151 [747_ log (0. 2

95o )]
x 0.754 x 2.0 x 10-5(0.38) 2 - 17.54
After backing out 7.25 for the skin due to partial completion, the true skin
would be 13.42. If it is known that the sand has been consolidated to a radius
of 1.4 ft, the ratio of skin permeability to formation permeability calculated
using Eq. 5-33 would be k s / k - 0.097 instead of the actual value of 0.25.
Estimation of Reservoir Size from Two Pressure

Buildup Tests
The results of pressure buildup tests can sometimes be used to estimate
the reservoir size. The basic idea is to compare the average static reservoir
pressure before and after production of a known quantity of fluid from a
closed, volumetric reservoir, with compressibility, ct. If VRes is the reservoir
volume (barrels), A N p is the stock - tank barrels of oil produced between
times 1 and 2, and pAvl and pAv2 are the average reservoir pressures before
and after oil production, respectively, then a material balance on the reser-
voir shows that
_ _ /XNp~o
PAv2 -- PAvl -- (5-37)
or
ANp~o 43,560 (acres)h (5-38)

VRes = (ff Avl -- ff Av2)Ct( 9 = 5.615
VRes )< 5.615 (acres) (5-39)

ARes = h x 43,560
Example 5-5 E s t i m a t i n g Reservoir Size f r o m T w o Pressure Buildup Tests

The following data were recorded from two pressure buildup tests"
PAvl -- 3900 psi, PAv2 -- 3000 psi, oil produced between two tests in 6 months
= q A v - 250stb/day; average formation volume factor, 3 0 - 1.292rb/stb,
total compressibility, ct - 9.52 x 10 -6 psi-l; 4~ - 21.5%, average sand thick-
ness, h - 12.5 ft. Estimate the reservoir size in acres.
Solution
From Eq. 5-39,
/"U,,9o
VRes = (PAvl - P A v 2 ) e ~
= (250 stb/day) (6 • 31.5days)(1.292rb/stb) = 33.14 • 106bbl

( 3 9 0 0 - 3000)(9.5 • 10-6)(0.215)
Thus, from Eq. 5-39,
(3314 • 106)(5.615 fta/bbl)

~Res --- = 342 acres
125 x 43,560ft2/acre
The reservoir size is
re--
Acres x 43,560
rc
=
~ 342 • 43,560
527~
= 2177 ft
Typical Shapes of Buildup Curves

Downtrending Horner plots are shown in Figures 5-5a through 5-5d.
These curves tend to bend downward because of:
Figure 5-5a Figure 5-5b
,,~..--'" %
r~
l Boundary I Interference '1
[t+At] log[t+At]
[~j
log[ At J
Figure 5-5c Figure 5-5d
mmllll!
phase separation
L-~TJ
Figure 5-5. Homer plots showing downtrending, v
1. Reservoirs bounded;
2. Well interference is present;
3. Phase separation occurs;
4. Fluid mobility increases;
5. Porosity or permeability decreases;
6. As time increases.
Uptrending Horner plots are shown in Figures 5-6a through 5-6d. These
curves tend to bend upward because of:
1. Faults, partial boundaries, stratified layers without crossflow;
2. Lateral decrease in mobility;
3. Increases in q5 and k;
4. Lenses, irregular well locations or drainage areas;
Figure 5--6a Figure 5-6b
i!
m s
s
ra0
&
s
Fault or nearby Stratified layers of fracture

boundary with tight matrix
log ['[ A+ tA,] log rt + At]

J Lat]
Figure 5-6d
Figure 5-6c
I
j..
m
I
I .,
~m
Lateral decrease
in mobility
--,/S !
- I Multipleboundaries I
log r t + Atl
L At J logr t +Atl
LAtJ
Figure 5-6. Horner plots showing downtrending. 7

5. Unconnected zones with widely differing pressure;

6. Use of improved flow times.
5.5 Pressure Buildup Testing Methods for Finite

(Bounded) Reservoir
In this section, we consider pressure buildup testing of a single well in an
finite (bounded) and of a well in a developed (old) reservoir using methods
commonly referred to as Horner, 8 M D H , 9 Muskat, 1~ and Slider. 11
Horner and MBH Methods

The Horner and MBH methods are used to analyze the buildup data only
for infinite-acting reservoirs. This is not true; Horner's method can be used
to estimate the reservoir parameters in finite reservoirs just as in infinite-
acting reservoirs. The difference occurs only in late-time data when bound-
ary effects influence the data as shown in Figure 5-7.
log + ,",tl
L At J
For an infinite-acting reservoir, an estimate of Pi is obtained by
extrapolating the straight-line section of the Homer plot to infinite shut-in time.
For finite and developed reservoirs, the extrapolated pressure is not a good
estimate of pi and generally has been called the false pressure, p*. As shown
r~
9 I Fa, se
Slope - psi/cycle ] pressure~,... ~ __
r~
7 - Probable
.~- average
|
reservoir
S pressure
.O
.a
O
,Jl
log rtp+At]
LAt j
Figure 5-7. Horner plot of pressure buildup data from a well in a finite reservoir.
in Figure 5-7, the extrapolated false pressure, p*, is higher than the average
reservoir pressure at the instant of shut-in unless the drainage region is
highly skewed. Using the concept of the false pressure, we may rewrite
Eq. 5-18 as
Pws--p*-m l~ tp+At)At (5-40)
Ramey and Cobb 12 show that p* is related to p / b y
P* - P i - 142.2qo#o~o
kh [pD(tpDA) -- 0.5(lntpD + 0.8907] (5-41)
where
O.O002637ktp (5-42)
tpDA = 4~oCtr2w
Although it is commonly believed that the Horner plot should be used

only for new wells or when tp is relatively small, Ramey and Cobb 12 and
Cobb and Smith 13 indicate that Horner plot may always be used for pressure
buildup analysis. However, since it requires more work than the MDH
method, the Horner plot is generally not used unless tp < tpss, where,
tpss is the pseudo-steady-state time and is given by Eq. 5-43:
O#octA (tDA)pss (s-43)

tps~ = 0.0002637k
and (tDA)pss is given in the "for tDA >" column of Table B-2. Both CA and
(tOA)pss depend on reservoir shape and well location. If tp > > tpss, then tp
should be replaced by tpss to improve the accuracy.
Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson (MDH) Method

The M D H method is best for older wells in bounded depleting reservoirs;
when the producing time is not known, or can be estimated only roughly,
MDH plotting can be used. This or it can tend to yield estimates that are too
high for short producing periods. The method is applicable for the initial
transient period of buildup. The MDH buildup requires a plot of buildup
pressures versus the logarithm of buildup time. The Horner plot may be
simplified if At < < tp. In that case, tp + At ~ tp and
log(tp+At) (5-44)
At -----log tp - log At
If we use Eq. 5-44 in Eq. 5-40, then we have
Pws = Pl hr -~- m log At (5-45)
Eq. 5-45 indicates that a plot of pws versus log At should be a straight line
with slope, +m, where Eq. 5-9 gives m. Permeability k may be estimated
from Eq. 5-16 and the skin factor may be estimated from Eq. 5-20. The pws
versus log At plot is commonly called the M D H plot. 9 The false pressure
may be estimated from the M D H plot using
P* = Pl hr -~- m log(tp + 1) ~ Pl hr + m log(tp) (5-46)
The beginning of the M D H semilog straight line may be estimated by

making the log-log data plot and observing when the data points reach
slowly curving low-slope line, about 1-1.5 cycles in time after the end of unit-
slope straight line. Alternatively, the time to the beginning of the semilog
straight line for either the Horner or the M D H plot can be estimated in
exactly the same way as mentioned earliest.
Example 5--6 Analyzing Pressure Buildup Test Using Horner, M B H and

MDH Methods
Analyze pressure buildup and well/reservoir data given in Table 5-3 using
the M D H method.
Table 5 - 3
Extended Muskat Analysis of Late Pressure Buildup Data
P i - Pws (psi) for
Shut-in time, At (hr) Shut-in pressure, Pws (psi) Pi = 4510 Pi = 4518 Pi = 4535
0 3576 934 942 959

10 4402 108 116 133
20 4447 63 71 88
30 4472 38 46 63
40 4488 22 30 47
50 4501 9 17 34
60 4503 7 15 32
70 4506 4 14 29
80 4508 1 10 27
Solution Figure 5-8 shows the Horner plot for the data. The slope of the
straight line is in psi/cycle and Pl hr is in psi. The permeability k is calculated
using Eq. 5-16:
162.6qo#o~o
k-
mh
162.6 • 350 x 0.8 • 1.136
- = 6.94 mD
152 x 49
Skin effect from Eq. 5-20"
s-- 12151?lhr--Pwf--]og(~
)m " #-~ctr
k -ff3.23]
=1.151
I4235157 561_log
( 6.94
0 . 2 3 x 0 . 8 0 x 1 7 x 10 - 6 •
)
+3.23
]
= 0.28
From Eq. 5-21, we obtain
(mp)skin --0.869 • 0.28 x 1 5 2 - 37 psi

Find dimensionless well producing time before shut-in from Eq. 5-42:
6.94 x 4320
IDA -- 0.000264 X = 7.53
0.23 X 0.80 X 17 X 10 -6 • 7.723 X 43,560
5000 : i
.
i
4800 ~ ~ Pi = 4 5 1 0 i
4600 ................... ~-~-o -; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i- Plhr =4230 . . . .
r~
I ooooeeo I [
4400 i , i
i ] P =4452 !
4200 ...................... i. . . . Z~ ..........
r~
fD
i i i O 0
4000 I I
r~
i Slope, m = 152 ps~cycle O

. .
2 3800 ..................... ~......................

I
!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
. . .
I I I
3600 ~ ] =3561 l
3400 ........................
[ P~(a/=0)
~.....................
I
~........................
i
i.......................
I ! I
! I !
3200 i i i
1 10 102 103 10 4
tp + A t
Dimensionless well producing time,
At
Figure 5-8. Horner plot.

Find false pressure p* at unit time ratio by extrapolating, which is 4785

psia and calculate the average pressure, p, from Figure 5-9. F o r tDA -- 7.53:
kh
70.65qo#o~o (p* - p) - 5.00
kh
70.65qo#o/3o (p* - Pi) - 4.08
(me)skin - 0.869ms - 0.869 x 0.28 x 150 - 42 psi
Using Figure 5-9, the average and initial pressures are
70.65 • 350 • 0.8 • 1.136

- 4785 - 5.0 x = 4455 psia
340.3
and
70.65 • 350 • 0.8 • 1.136

Pi - 4785 - 4.08 • -- 4515 psia
340.3
The values of average and initial pressures can also be determined by using
Figure 5-10. Reading the dimensionless buildup pressure at a value of the time
ratio at which p w s is known, for a line selected for the proper dimensionless
7 i i
i i
6 ......................... ; .......................
i
'~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
; i
i i
5 ......................... i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i i ........... . ..................
~'~
~" 3 .......................... L.......................... ~....................
"~ 2 i
......................................................... 7 ..... ;7 .... '
: ......................
! ...... ) .......
l -~
o
10 . 3 10 -2 10 -1 1 10
0.0002637kt
tDA = (91Zoct A
14
Figure 5-9. MBH graph for a well producing in the center of a constant pressure.
i i
i ' i
. . . . P i
1 --'-
I I ,
i
I
"q ................. 7 .................. i .....................

' i i
a i i
i i i
i i i
i 2 -i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i i i
i ;
5 i i i
i ' i
i a '
i tDA = 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0

I
! i i
I I I
4 i i i
1 10 10 2 10 3 10 4
t + At
At
Figure 5--10. Horner plot for a well producing in the center of a constant pressure. 9
producing time, tDA, Pi may be determined. The value of (pi - fi) may then be
read from the dashed line and ~ is calculated. This cannot be done with the
existing Figure 5-10 for tDA -- 7.53 because the highest value of toA shown in
Figure 5-10 is unity. Hence it is easier to use the M D H type graph, Figure 5-11,
because only one line exists for the long producing times.
M D H Method
Figure 5-12 shows the M D H graph. The appearance of the graph is

similar to that of the Horner plot, and also the slope and pl hr values are
the same. It is clear that the Horner and M D H methods will yield the same
permeability and skin effect values. Figure 5-11 shows the M D H data plot.
To estimate the initial pressure by means of M D H method, Figure 5-12
can be used. The pressure of 4432 psi at a shut-in time of 20 hr will be
corrected to pi by means of Figure 5-12.
Dimensionless producing time,
0.0002637 kt
IDA = 7.53 for t of 4320 hours
C~#octA
5000
I. I. I,
i I I
4800 i i i
I I I
' i i
4600 - . . . . . . . . . . . . [ Plh~ = 4 2 3 5 [.............. i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I ....] i ~ i
,
~ 4400
i ;
i i
.................. ' .................... .~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~ 4200 -
...... i
4000 ! Slope, m = 150 psi/cycle

"7 O! : '.
3800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -~ l 1
r.~
0 ' ' i
3600 O ~,. Pwf(~t=o)=356'1 ,1 ii
3400 ..................... ti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t.i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i.i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
I i i
3200 i i i
0.1 1 10 102 103
Shut-in time, At (hours)
Figure 5-11. MDH data plot.
I~
itoA i ,-.,,~~/,.,~.r ~
o.oo~ ~ ~I
% 0.002 ~ . ' ~
0.005 ~ "7
_~/Z_ ~. ~ b y "-
y /:.,/'~-- /~ i I Muskatgraph
/ X.'Z / " ~o.o2
I
2--
. . . . . ~o-o 0.05 ........... !. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II
0.2 i
3 - :........ i ........... ---~--o 5 .......... ~................

Z i i i
10-5 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 1
Atoa
Figure 5-12. MDH graph for a well in the center of a constant-pressure square. 9
7.53 x 20
AtDA = 4370 =0.0349
From Figure 5-12,
kh(pi -pws)
PMDH -- = 0.66
141.3q#fl
141.3q#/3
= 0.869 (slope, m)
kh
Therefore
(pi - 4432)
= 0.66 or Pi - 4518psi
0.869 • 150
This is a close check of the value of 4516 psi obtained by the Horner plot.
Extended Muskat Method
In 1937, Muskat ~s proposed the plotting pressure buildup data as

log ( f i - pw~) versus At. Subsequent theoretical studies 16'17 indicate that this
graph should be used with caution and only as a late-time analysis method.
Because of the long shut-in times, usually required for pressure buildup data
to reach the Muskat straight line, the method has limited application for
pressure buildup test analysis. However, it appears to be more practical for
analyzing pressure buildup data in producing wells, water-drive reservoirs,
and filled-up waterfloods because of the longer duration of the Muskat
straight line in those systems. 18'~9
The Muskat method uses a trial-and-error plot with several p estimates; a
straight line is obtained for the correct p. Figure 5-13 is a schematic illustra-
tion of the extended Muskat plot. ~s If the assumed p is too high, the plot will
be concave upward; if~ is too low, the plot will be concave downward. The
following equations may be used to estimate the permeability, porosity-total
system effective compressibility.
141.3q#/7(1.34)
(5-47)
k-h(pi-pws)At=o
cbct - -0.0559 ~k (slope , logl0 cycle/day) (s-48)
Table 5-3 presents this additional buildup data. Use these data to estimate
the initial pressure pi using Muskat method. Figure 5-13 shows the Muskat
data plot.
Estimate the permeability using Eq. 5-47:
k = 141.3q#/3(1.34) _- 141.3 x 350 x 0.8 x 1.136 x 1.34__ 7.02mD

h(pi-Pws)At=0 175 x 49
103
i i i i ; ; i ;
i i I' i I. . 1. . I I
9 .,;-----4 i i i i
9" ~ _ i
I Intercept = 180 psi i i i i
V" ".! I i ; i i
-..., - 82 : . . '
- 9149149 ; ; ; ; i i Assumed
"~ 102_._ . . . . . . ~ - ' ~ . ,_7_~J., . . . . . i . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . .[ . . . . . . . . J. . . . . . . . J . . . . . . . . . L._ values of
o ,,, 9 9 . . . . '
i ~'~._'i" 9 , , , , initial
i i-~a,u "~.~__" ~ 9 _ ; ; i i
I pressure
i i ;-'~,'~*..~i 9149 i i
e~
4535
' ' l " ;
& 10 -- . . . . . . . I Slope = 1 (1/71 hours) t. . . . . . . . . -t-

I = - 1 / 2 . 9 5 8 days i i; ~ + t , ,~ i ;; 4518
i i i ~-_ i
i i ; i i i i " -tt~ i
i i i i i i i -r.h. i
i i i i i i i ~i 4510
i i i i i i i i
i ; i i i i i i
i i i i i i i i I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 100
Figure 5--13. Muskat data plot.
Oct = -0.0559~--kA (slope, log 10 cycle/day)

7.02 x 2.958
= -0.559 = 3.95 • 10 -6 psi -1
0.8 x 7.72 x 43560
Check: ~ r 0.23 • 17.0 • 10 -6 ~ 3.91 • 10 -6 psi.

The skin effect can be computed using Muskat method using the follow-
ing equation:
s- 1.151 [(Pi. --Plhr)_m - l o g (~#~tr2w)+ 3.23] (5-49)
-log
( 704
0.23 • 0.8 • 17 • 10-6(0.29) 2
) ] + 3.23
= 0.33
(me)skin - 0.869ms - 0.869 • 150 • 0.33 - 43 psi
Calculate p* using the following equation:
P* --Plhr -Jr-mlog(tp) -- 4235 + 1501og(4320) -- 4780 psi

The slope of the Muskat plot at straight line may be used to estimate the
drainage area. For a close square: 10
0.00472k
A - - ~#oCtm~ (5-50)
A- - 0.00472 x 5.24 = 513,014 ft 2

0.23 • 0.8 • 17 • 10 -6 • (--0.01538)
and for a square with constant pressure boundaries (water-drive system)
0.00233k
A - - ~#oCtmm (5-51)
where A is the area in ft 2 and is equal to 7rr2 and r e can be estimated. In Eqs.
5-50 and 5-51, m m is the slope of the Muskat plot and is negative number in
cycle/hr. The following equation may be used to estimate the physical time
range during which Muskat straight line will occur:
250~#oC,r 2 7500#oCtr 2
k _< At ___ k (5-52)

Test Using Horner Plot and M D H M e t h o d in Finite Reservoir
A buildup test was conducted on an oil well. The well was produced for an
effective time of 180 days at the final rate. The buildup and other per-
tinent reservoir data are: qo = 350 stb/day, #o = 0.8 cP,/30 = 1.136 rb/stb,
ct -- 17.0 • 10-6 psi -1, h = 49ft, rw = 0.29 ft, ~b = 0.23, A = 11.55 acres.
Table 5-4 shows the pressure buildup and calculated data. Assuming the
well is in the center of a closed square, determine:
1. k, s, pressure drop due to skin and p* using Horner plot.

2. k, s, pressure drop due to skin and p* using M D H method.
3. k, (gct and drainage area.
Solution
tp = 180 • 24 = 4320 hours
A Horner graph for this test is shown in Figure 5-14. It has the following
characteristics:
9 Slope of buildup straight line, m - 152 psi/log cycle;

9 P l h r - - 4510psi;
9 p* = 4978 psi.
Table 5-4
Pressure Buildup Test Data
(tv + At)
Shut-in time, At (hr) Shut-inpressure, Pw~ (psi) At
0 3561 D
0.333 3851 12,974

0.500 3960 8641
0.668 4045 6478
0.833 4104 4893
1.000 4155 4321
2.000 4271 2161
3.000 4306 1441
4.000 4324 1081
5.000 4340 860
6.000 4352 721
7 4363 618
8 4371 541
9 4380 481
10 4387 433
20 4432 217
40 4473 109
50 4486 87
6O 4495 73
70 4500 62
80 4506 55
Permeability-thickness product, using Eq. 5-14:
162.6qo#o/3o 162.6 x 350 x 1.136 x 0.8

kh= m 152
= 340.3 m D ft
340.3
k - - 6.94 m D
49
Skin effect from Eq. 5-17:
S
9 [
I "
1 151 1 4 5 1 0 - 3561
152
log( 694
0.23 x 0.8 x 17.0 x 10-6(0.29) 2
) ]
+ 3.23
= 5.07
F r o m Eq. 5-19"
(Ap)skin --0.869ms- 0.869 x 152 x 5 . 0 7 - 669.9psi

5000 :~ :
I
:
!
I
Slope, m= (4618 -4461)/(log 10-log 100)
-- = 152 p s i / c y c l e !
I
4 oo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
w~
< fi I' Plhr=4510pSl i

~D
"?
4000 ......................
i
-i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
'
' Plhr=4510 psi
F.....................
I
-i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i i '
I I
i i m = 152 p s i / c y c l e
~ m i, i k=6.94 mD
I ! s = 5.07
I I
i i (Ap)skin = 6 6 9 . 9 psi
i i
3500 i i I
104 103 102 10 1

tp + At
At
Figure 5--14. Horner's plot.
Figure 5-15 presents an M D H type buildup graph for data of Example

5-7. The appearance of the graph is similar to that of the Horner graph
(Figure 5-14).
The slope of the straight-line portion is 150 psi/cycle (from M D H graph).
The Pl hr is 4510 psi. Find the formation permeability from Eq. 5-14:
162.6 • 350 x 1.136 • 0.8

k- = 7.04 mD
150 x 49
The difference in permeability between the two methods is only 1%.

Calculate the skin factor using Eq. 5-17:
s -- 1.151
E 1 hr m-- Pwfo _ log 6#-~-ctr -I- 3.23
1
=115114510-3561( 7.04 ) ]
" 150 - log 0.23 • 0.8 • 17.0 • 10-6(0.29) 2 + 3.23
= 4.98
(me)skin - 0.869 ms - 0.869 • 150 • 4.98 - 657.8 psi
From Eq. 5-46:
P* --Plhr --F m l o g ( t p ) - 4510 + 1501og4320 - 5055 psi

5000 i !
Slope, m = (4360 - 4510)/(log 1 - log 10)

= 150 psi/cycle
I
;
i i
4500 - .......................... i ............................. i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I I
, .
I !
~
i . ~' . _ k = 7.04 mD
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4000 -
-O- . . . . i s = 4.98
,
i!
!
!
!
i
-
(l~3)skin = 657.8 psi
t
i, i
I I
,
! i
.
i !
,
3500 i I
0.1 1 10 100
Shut-in time, At (hour)
Figure 5-15. MDH data plot.

Test Using Muskat's Method in Finite Reservoir
Rework Example 5-7 using Muskat method.
Solution A Muskat plot of the pressure data of Table 5-5 is shown in

Figure 5-16. Only three points define the straight line in Figure 5-16. From
Figure 5-16, we find
Intercept- (P-Pw)int- b - 175 psi and slope, mM - -0.01538 cycle/day
0.000264 • 6.94 • 4320

= 7.54
tpDA = 0.23 • 0.8 • 17.0 • 10 -6 • 7.72 x 43,560
For closed square system using Eq. 5-47:
141.2 • 350 • 1.136 • 0.8

k- 49 • 175 [ 0 . 6 7 ] - 5.24 m D
From Eq. 5-48,
~Ct- --0.0559 •
5.24
0.8 (7.7T2-~3,560)
(
-
0.3~590
,) - 2.95 • 10 -6psi -1
This checks the values given:
@ct- 0.23(17.0 • 10 -6) - 3 . 9 1 • 10-6 psi -1

Table 5-5
Pressure Buildup Test Data Using Muskat Method
Pi -- pws(psi) for
Shut-in time At (hr) pws (psi) p = 4507 psi p = 4516psi p = 4525psi

0 3561 946 955 964
10 4387 120 129 128
20 4432 75 84 93
30 4455 52 61 70
40 4473 34 43 52
50 4486 21 30 39
60 4495 12 21 30
70 4501 6 15 24
80 4506 1 10 19
1000 I I I I
. . . .
I I I I
:~) . .
! ! I ;
I I
800 ~ ............. k = 5.24 mD ............ .t

! I
; ~ c t = 2 . 9 5 x 1 0 - 6 p s i -1 ;
9"~'-
r~
'i A=513,014 ft 2 i
i | | i
600 ................. t .............. , ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t ................
a, I I I ; ; i
O tercept, b = 175 psi
, . .
~-" 400 -1 . . . . . . "3 . . . . . . . . ;" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; ................. 4 ; ................
// I Slope, m M = --0.3960 cycle/hour

I
.... .......
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 5-16. Muskat plot.
T h e d r a i n a g e a r e a is c a l c u l a t e d using Eq. 5-50:
-0.00471k - 0 . 0 0 4 7 1 (5.24)
A - @ZoCtmM = (0.23)(0.8)(17.0 x 10-6)(--0.01538) = 513'014ft2
F o r d a t a p r o v i d e d in E x a m p l e 5-8, we find A - 7.72 x 43,560 - 336,283 ft 2.


Test Using Muskat's Method in Finite Reservoir Assuming Well in Center of
Constant Pressure Square (Water-Drive System)
Rework the buildup data in Example 5-8.
Solution For constant pressure square, permeability and porosity-total sys-

tem effective compressibility product are estimated using Eqs. 5-47 and 5-48.
For closed square system using Eq. 5-47,
141.2(350)(1.136)(0.8) [1 34] - 7.02mD

k ~_
49(175)
F r o m Eq. 5-48,
~ C t --- --0.0559 0.8(7.72)(43560)

(1)
0.3i590 - 3.95 x 10 -6psi -~
This checks the values given
Oct = 0.23(17.0 x 10 -6) - 3 . 9 1 x 10-6 psi -1
The drainage area is calculated using Eq. 5-5 l:
-0.00233 lk -0.00233(7.02)
A - = = 339,993 ft 2
dp#oCtmM (0.23)(0.8)(17.0 x 10-6)(--0.01538)
For data provided in Example 5-8, we find A = 7.72 x 43,560 - 336,283 ft 2.
Slider's Technique For Analyzing Buildup Test

Slider 11 presented in 1971 an entirely new approach to transient pressure
behavior termed as negative superposition. Slider's analysis was based on the
following assumptions:
9 If the well had been shut-in, no appreciable or measurable change
would have occurred during the shut-in time.
9 Based on the distance to the nearest boundary, the shut-in time, At,
must be less than the stabilization time, ts.
In the case of pseudo-steady-state, the change in pressure with time is

estimated using the following equations:
Ap) _ 0.0744qo~o
--~ pseudo-- ~hctr2 (psi/hr)
or
Ap) _ 0.234qo/3o
(psi/hr) (5-53)
pseudo r Vp
where
Vp -- 7rr2h~ ft 3
In case of a well that is infinite-acting at shut-in, the change in pressure

during the shut-in period, if the well had not been shut-in, is estimated from
the following equation:
(Ap)ma x -- m log tp -+- Atmax (5-54)

tp
If the unchanging pressure assumption is satisfied, then the following

equations are used to analyze a buildup test regardless of whether the well
is infinite-acting, in pseudo-steady state or steady state at time of shut-in:
(Ap)s~in = Pws -Pwf(~xt=o) - 0.869m(0.5){ln(AtD) + 0.809] (5-55)

where AtD is the dimensionless time and is given by
0.000264kAt
AtD = ~#oCtr 2 (5-56)
where
m = estimated slope from Horner plot
At = shut-in time on the straight line or its extrapolation at At = 10 min,
i.e., log = 1.0, and At is in hours from M D H plot.
The permeability and skin factor are estimated using the following equations:
162.6qo#o~o
k - mh (5-57)
(me)skin (5-58)
s- 0.869-----m
In cases where the unchanged pressure assumption is not valid, Horner's

method for analyzing buildup test should be used in an infinite-acting
reservoir. For the analysis for buildup test in a bounded (finite) reservoir,
when the unchanging pressure assumption is not valid, Slider introduced a
method in which Apq is plotted versus At on semilog graph paper. The use
of Apq plot for analyzing buildup is used for a well that is in pseudo-steady
state at shut-in. The approximate time when pseudo-steady-state flow began
is given by
rfi 2
ts - 948 "r#~ (5-59)
k
The Apq t e r m may also be calculated using the following equation:
Ap) (5-60)
Apq -- Pws -- Pwf(At=O) + A t --~ pseudo
where (Ap/At)pseud o is estimated using Eq. 5-53 or from field data. The
following example will clarify the mpq plot type of solution.

Test Using Ap Plot in Finite Reservoir
Rework the buildup data in Example 5-2 using Apq plotting technique,
assuming the well was in pseudo-steady state at time of shut-in and that the
flowing tubing head pressure decline was about 45 psi/day (1.66 psi/hr). The
well will drain a 45-acre drainage area. Determine the following:
1. Permeability, k
2. Pressure drop due to skin, (Ap)skin
3. Skin factor.
Solution First prepare a plot of mpq v e r s u s At on semilog graph paper and

find slope m of the straight-line portion of the plot. The Ap plot is shown in
Figure 5-17. The mpqvalues were calculated using Eq. 5-59; sample calcula-
tions are shown below and results are tabulated in Table 5-6.
At = lhr, Pws = 4103 psi
mpq ---- 4203 - 3519 + (1)(1.88) = 685.88 psi atl hr
At = 2 hours, Pws = 4250 psi
Apq = 4250 - 3519 + (2)(1.88) = 734.76psi at 2hours

i._. Slope, m = 195 ....

~176176
........................... _
1
800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~........................... i-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i i
i i
700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i .............................
/
'
.~ 6oo I .... - ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
!
t
500 ................... -~-'-I il Sl~ m = ( 8 3 2 - 9 9 8 " 3 2 ) i/(l~ 1 - l ~ 10) = 195 t-
/
l ._~__ . . . . . . ] k=4.222 mD [
<~ 400 -1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7- ........ I (AP)skin=-231 ['-
~oo t ........ f ........... I s=1~63 ~

200 .................................................... i, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
100 ..................... i
i i
0
0.1 1 10 100
Figure 5-17.
1. Calculate the permeability k using Eq. 5-57:
k- 162.6(350)(0.65)(1.224) = 4 . 2 2 2 m D
55(195)
2. Using Eq. 5-60 and
(me)skin - - P w s -- P w f ( A t = O ) -- O . 8 6 9 ( m ) ( O . 5 ) { l n ( A t D ) + 0.809]
where m is the slope of the straight line and
0.000264k At 0.000264(4.222)(1)
AtD = d~#oCtr2 -- 0.1(0.65)(17.7 x 10-6)(0.21) 2 = 21,968.32
Therefore, (me)skin - 4203 - 3519 - 0.869(195)(0.5)[ln (21968.32)

= -231
3. Calculate the skin factor using Eq. 5-58"
(An~ 1
S -- ,--r,skin __ - - - - 1.363
0.869m 0.869 x 195
Table 5 - 6
Pressure Buildup D a t a
Shut-in
Time Time pressure, Pws - - Pwf Apq = Pws - Pwf + At At pseudo
At (hr) At (min) Pws (psig) (psig) (psig)
0 0 3519 0 0.0
0.15 9 3680 161 161.3
0.20 12 3723 204 204.4
0.30 18 3800 281 281.6
0.40 24 3866 347 347.8
0.50 30 3920 601 601.9
1 60 4103 689 686.0*
2 100 4250 731 735.0*
4 240 4320 801 808.5
6 360 4340 821 832.3
7 420 4344 825 838.2
8 480 4350 821 836.0
12 720 4364 845 867.6
16 960 4373 854 884.1
20 1200 4379 860 897.6
24 1440 4384 865 910.0
30 1800 4393 869 925.4
40 2400 4398 879 954.2
5O 3000 4402 883 977.0
6O 3600 4405 886 998.8
72 4320 4407 888 1023.4
4. F o r the beginning of pseudo-steady state using Eq. 5-59:
0.1(0.65)(17.7 x 10-6)(1520) 2
2T#oCtre _ 948
ts - 948 cb = 619.52 hours
k 4.222
5.6 Multiphase Buildup Test Analysis

Basic buildup equations can be modified to model multiphase flow. F o r
an infinite-acting reservoir, the buildup equation becomes
162.6qt (tp + At'~

Pws -- Pi - )~t-------h--log At J (5-61)
where
q t - total flow rates of oil, gas, and water (bbl/day) and is given by
qoRs'~ (5-62)
qt -- qo~o + qg 1000J ~g + qw~w
qo = oil flow rate (stb/day)

/30 = oil formation volume factor (rb/stb)
qg = gas flow rate (mscf/day)
Rs = solution gas oil ratio (scf/stb)
/3g = gas formation volume factor (rb/mscf)
qw = water flow rate (stb/day)
/3w = water formation volume factor (rb/stb)
At = total mobility (mD/cP) and is given by
ko kg kw (5-63)
~'~- ~ + ~ + kw
Total system compressibility ct is estimated by using the equation:
Ct -- Sor + SwCw @ SgCg + Cf (5-64)
It can be determined from the slope m of a buildup test run on a well that
produces two or three phases simultaneously by the following equation:
162.6qm (5-65)
At = mh
Perrine 16 has shown that it is also possible to estimate the permeability to
each phase flowing from the same slope, m"
162.6qo#o (5-66)
ko = mh
kg = mh (5-67)
and
162.6qw#w
kw --'- (5-68)
mh
The skin factor s is estimated using the following equation:
s- 1.1511plhr m--Pwf -log(c~c~tr2)+ 3.23] (5-69)

where Co is given by
Co ~g dRs 1 d/3o (psi_ 1

=/30 dp /30 dp ) (5-70)
Values of (dRs/dp) and (d/3o/dp) are obtained as the slopes of laboratory

determined curves of Rs and/30 versus p; the slope is drawn at the estimated
average pressure:
At [k] 162.6
(5-71)
t
Applications of these equations are illustrated by the following example.

Average reservoir pressure, ~, is calculated just as for a single-phase reservoir.
Example 5-11 Analyz&g Multiphase Pressure Buildup Test

A buildup test is run in an oil well that is below saturation pressure and
producing oil, gas, and water simultaneously. Well, rock, and fluid properties
evaluated at average reservoir pressure during the test include the following.
The pressure buildup data were recorded in Table 5-7.
Table 5-7
Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analysis (Single-Rate Test; tp - 3232.65h)
(t~ + /xt) /xt pw, (t, ws - t, wfo) t, ws (pws - t, wfo) ri

Time, At(hr) At [(l+At)ltj,] (psig) (psig) (psia) (psia) fit)
0.00 - - 497 0 512 0 0
0.25 12,931.61 0.25 558 61 573 61 25
0.40 8082.63 0.40 637 140 652 140 32
0.60 5388.76 0.60 667 170 682 170 39
1.00 3233.65 1.00 696 199 711 199 51
2.00 1617.33 2.00 734 237 749 237 72
3.00 1078.55 3.00 759 262 774 262 88
4.00 809.16 4.00 779 282 794 282 102
5.00 647.53 4.99 793 296 808 296 114
6.00 539.78 5.99 806 309 821 309 125
7.00 462.81 6.98 818 321 833 321 135
8.00 405.08 7.98 827 330 842 330 144
9.00 360.18 8.98 837 340 852 340 153
10.00 324.27 9.97 845 348 860 348 161
11.00 294.88 10.96 854 357 869 357 169
12.00 270.39 11.96 861 364 876 364 176
qo - 245 stb/day, qg - 489 mscf/day, q w - 38 stb/day, Rs - 685 scf/stb,

/ 3 0 - 1.300 r b / s t b , / 3 g - 1.4801 rb/mscf, f l w - 1.02 rb/stb, C o - 8.64 x 10 -6
psi -], C g - 3.70 x 10 -4 psi -1, Cw = 3.60 x 10 -6 psi -1, c f - 3.50 • 10 -6
psi -1, So - 64%, Sg - 2%, Sw - 34%, h = 38 ft, q5 = 17%, rw - 0.30 ft, re -
1520 ft, #o - 1.5 cP, #g - 0.0299 cP, and #w - - 0 . 7 0 c P . Estimate the multi-
phase flow permeabilities, s, and flow efficiency based on the average
pressure.
Solution F r o m plots of/30, Rs versus pressure at average pressure in the

buildup test:
dRs d#o
--d-~-= 0.0776 s c f / ( s t b / p s i ) a n d dp = 2.48 x 10 -6 rb/(stb/psi)
The production rates prior to the buildup test were given. F r o m the plot
of p w s versus log((t e + A t ) / A t ) (Figure 5-18), the slope of the M T R , m, is
120 psi/cycle and that pl hr, at the instant of shut-in, was 497 psig. F r o m these
data, the following reservoir parameters can be estimated as follows:
105
iX i I Pl hr- 696 psi I i i ;; !

' \! I I , . . . !
104 - . . . . . . . + - - - -":-- -'-; O-~- ~- F . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . i ........ 4. . . . . . . . -4. . . . . . . . . ;- . . . . . . . -; . . . . . . . . .

; i "~J~.Jr i I E n d of w e l l b o r e Ii i i
ii i ~ !! I s t o r a g e effects ]i i i
103
i i ......... ,
L ........ i
!. ........ i- ....... L
z' ..... i
/
p. =949psi
~v
I.....
]
i
I i-
~
*
r .... ; ........ i ........ ; ..... 7-
I
<1 , , , l i i Slope, m == 120 p s i / c y c l e I
+ ? l , l . I
i i i
9 i "t~ i iI i i
102 -- -- ko= 17.04 m D ...... ',----T~ . . . . ! . . . . . . . ."-"q ~ ........
....... "i ........ T ........
kg = 0.508 m D ii ii \ ~ ii ;; i i
k w = 0.967 m D '.' i N~ i , I
s = -3.487 ! ! '.'N, ; ' I
(Ap)skin=-364 psi
i
---~ . . . . . . . . .
;
+............
i\ " \ - ' 7 " ;- ' - ' t I| I
I0 -"
F E = 161.5% i l l p*=l195psi [
i
( b a s e d on Pav)
l ,
l
1
,
,
i
,
i
',
I
i
i
/ i
I
I
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
S h u t - i n pressure, Pws (psi)
Figure 5-18. Multiphase pressure buildup data plot.

Permeability to each phase can be determined from the slope of the MTR
using Eqs. 5-66 through 5-68
ko 162.6qo#o/3o 162.6(245)(1.300)(1.5)
= mh = 120(38) = 17.04 mD
kw 162.6qw#w/3w 162.6(381(1.02)(0.70)
= mh = 120(38) = 0.967 mD
162.6 (qg - ~ ) # g / ~ g 162.6(489 245(68511

j (1.300/(1.5)
kg = mh = 120(38) = 0.508 mD
To calculate the total mobility, At, we first need the total flow rate qt using
Eq. 5-62:
qt- qo/3o +
( q_oRs
1000J/~g
qg -'1- qw/3w
=245xl.3+(489 _ ( 2 4 51000
x 6 8 5 1 1 x 1.480 + 38 • 1.02
= 793.84 rb/day
Then using Eq. 5-65,

162.6qt 162.6(793.841
At = mh = 120(38) = 28.31mD/cP
To calculate the skin factor s, we first need Co and cf"
Co - / 3 g d R s 1 d/3o_ 1.480 (0.0776)- 1 (2.48 x 10-61

-13o dp 1.3------0-
13o dp -
= 9.64 x 10-6 psi-1
Then from Eq. 5-64,

Ct I SoCo + SgCg + SwCw 2r Cf -- 0.64(8.64 • 10 -61 -+- 0.02(3.90 x 10 -4)
+ 0.34(3.60 x 10-6 + 3.5 x 10-6) - 6.78 x 10-5 psi -1
and from Eq. 5-69,
s " m d~ctr + 3.23 1

= 1.151 [69612497
.... log (0 28.31 ) ]
.17 x 6.78 x10 - s x ( 0 . 3 ) 2 +3.23 - - 3 . 4 9
5.7 Afterflow Analysis Using Russel's Technique

Russell 2 presented a theoretical method for analyzing the pressure
response during the afterflow period in order to determine kh and s. In
some cases, however, afterflow analysis provides a valuable means of
obtaining information about the reservoir. For instance, in several areas
in the Middle East, wells are capable of producing in excess of
50,000mbbl from limestone reservoirs. Because of very high kh values,
which lead to very rapid pressure buildups, and the fact that in many
cases the wells produce through casing, the afterflow period can com-
pletely dominate the pressure buildup and afterflow analysis is the only
method of determining the essential reservoir parameters. Figure 5-19
shows the pressure buildup dominated by afterflow which distorts the
early part of the Horner buildup plot.
McKinly, 18'21 Ramey and Cobb, 12 and Earlougher and Kersch 19 have also
presented afterflow analysis technique relying on the use of type curves.
Of all these methods, which is the most reliable is a question that is still
unanswered. Afterflow analysis by type curves matching techniques as
discussed in Chapter 7. The analysis method that will be described in this
section is of Russell. 2 He developed a theoretical equation describing how
the bottom-hole pressure should increase as fluid accumulates in the well-
bore during the buildup. As a result of this, he determined that the correct
way of plotting the pressure during the part of the buildup influenced by
the afterflow was
I Buildup dominated by afterflow I.,, ]

'" [
.=.
r~
104 103 102 10
t+At
At
Figure 5-19. Pressure buildup plot dominated by afterflow.

versus log At (5-72)

1 1
CFAt
in which Ap = Pws--Pwf(At=O), CF is a correction factor to allow for the

gradually decreasing flow into the wellbore. This correction factor, CF, must
be selected by trial and error so that the resulting plot is linear. The plot
should be made only for values of At measured after 1 hour of closed I time.
Having chosen the correct values of CF, the slope of the straight line is
measured (m = psi/log cycle) and the formation permeability can be deter-
mined using the following equation:
162.6qo#o~o
kh - m (5-73)
The skin factor s can be calculated using Eq. 5-74:
s - 1.151 [- i~-~~; - log ~#2tr2 + 3.23 (5-74)
The following example illustrates the use of this method.
Example 5--12 Analyzing Afterflow Pressure Buildup Test Using Russell's

Technique
The pressure-time data were recorded in a 12-hours pressure buildup test and
are listed in Table 5-8. The production data, reservoir, and fluid properties
are as follows: Np = 30,655 stb, qo = 225 stb/day,/30 = 1.295, #o = 0.58 cP,
~b = 0.19, ct = 18.5 • 10-6psi -1, h = 12ft, rw = 0.29 ft.
Horner plot versus log ((tp + At)/At) does not become linear, even for the
largest values of At, and therefore the afterflow analysis techniques must be
used to analyze this test. Estimate the formation permeability and skin
factor s using Russell's technique.
Solution This technique to analyze afterflow as suggested by Russell 2

(1966) can only be applied for pressures measured after At = 1 hour. In
Table 5-9, several values of the parameters or correlation factor c have been
selected in an attempt to liberalize the plot of Eq. 5-72.
As shown in Figure 5-20, the correct value of parameter c to
obtain a linear Russell's plot is c = 2.1. Since the slope of this line is
151psi/log cycle, then the formation permeability k can be evaluated
using Eq. 5-73 as
k - 162.6qo#o~o _- 162.6 x 225 x 0.58 x 1.295 -- 15.17 mD

mh 151 x 12
Table 5-8
Pressure Buildup Data for Aflerflow Analysis
Shut-in time, At (min) Shut-in pressure, Pws (psi)
0 1600
20 1920
40 2160
60 2350
90 2525
120 2650
150 2726
180 2779
210 2822
240 2852
270 2879
300 2910
360 2935
420 2960
48O 298O
540 2998
600 3011
660 3022
720 3035
The value of ( A p / ( 1 - 1 ~ c A t ) ) at A t - l hour can be read from the

linear plot as 1329psi. Therefore the skin factor can be calculated
using Eq. 5-74 as
s - 1.151 - ws(At_1hr)c
1, - Pwf _ log c~#~tr~ + 3.23
m
= 1.151 [1729 _ log ( 15.17 )]

o.19(o.58)(18.5 x 10-6)(0.29) 2. - 4.70
5.8 Pressure Buildup Tests Preceded by Two

Different Flow Rates
Pressure buildup behavior preceded by two different flow rates can be
described as
t tl
Pws - - Pi - kh /+log,,,
H
~ - - ~ ~ 1 ~ ' ~ 1 ~ - ~ i ~ I-
H
H
H
,= N
H
= I
H
.~
Figure 5-20. Russell afterflow analysis plot.
where
t - t2 -- At,
tl = tpl ,
t2 = tpl + tp2, and
t- t~ = tp2 -3w A t , then
Pws - P i - kh tp2 + ~ t ,] + log At
Eq. 5-76 can be used, when the producing rate is changed a short time before
the buildup test begins, so that there is not sufficient time for Horner's
approximation to be valid. All production before time tl is at rate ql for
time tpl and production just before the test to have been at rate q2 for time
tp2. Upon simplification, Eq. 5-76 becomes
pws - p i - kh tp2 + ~i J + log /~t J (5-77)
Hence a plot of
Pws versus log tp2 + At + log .tp2A+t A t

on Cartesian coordinates should give a straight line of slope, m, from which
162.6q1#o/3o
k - mh (5-78)
Extrapolation of this line to zero will give pws = pi to calculate the skin
factor, s; note that at the end of the flow period just before shut-in
Pi -- Pwf -- m ~ log tp2 (5-79)
The equation of the MTR line on the buildup test plot is
[ql( tpl+tp2+At~ ( ) ]
P i - Pws -- m -05 log tp2 + ~ [ J + log tp2At- A t (5-80)
Subtracting Eq. 5-80 from Eq. 5-79, we get
ql [(tpl -~- tp2)(tp2 -~-At)

P w s - P w f -- m ~51og [(tp 1 + tp2 + At)(tp2) + log tp2 -+-A t j +
(5-81)
Assuming tpl -~- tp2 -J- A t = tpl + tp2 and tp2 -[- A t = tp2 for small At
(e.g., At = 1 hr), then pws - p w f = m ( l o g At + s).
If we choose At = 1 hr, Pws = Pl hr (on the MTR line) and, for tp2 >> 1,
s-1.151
[( ql
ql-q2
)Plh--Pwf
m -log
(k)
(9#oCtr2 + 3.23 (5-82)
and
Pi -- Pws(At=O) -k- m log \(91ZoCtr2 j -- 3.23 + 0.869s (5-83)
The duration of wellbore storage distortion is calculated as in the pre-

vious analysis for buildup test.
Example 5-13 Analyzing T wo-R at e Pressure Buildup Test

A two-rate flow test was run on a well with properties given below. From
these properties and the data given in Table 5-10, determine k, s, and pi.
Cumulative oil production=32,000stb, first stabilization oil rate,
q l - 85stb/day, stabilized gas rate, qgl -- 590 m s c f /day, second stabilized
oil rate, q2 -- 50 stb/day, second gas rate, qg2 -- 390.2 mscf/day, pressure at
Table 5-10
Two-Rate Buildup Test Analyses
Shut-in time, Shut-in pressure, Shut-in pressure, (te +At) log(tp +At) ,/2
At, (hr) Pws (psig) pws, (psia) At At -~- ql l~
0.50 3245 3260 18,071.59 4.0792

1.00 3285 3300 9036.29 3.9553
1.50 3310 3325 6024.53 3.8828
2.00 3330 3345 4518.65 3.8314
3.00 3355 3370 3012.76 3.7589
4.00 3375 3390 2259.82 3.7076
5.00 3390 3405 1808.06 3.6677
6.00 3405 3420 1506.88 3.6352
7.00 3425 3440 1291.76 3.6076
8.00 3440 3455 1130.41 3.5838
10.00 3465 3480 904.53 3.5440
15.00 3515 3530 603.35 3.4718
20.00 3545 3560 452.76 3.4206
time of rate change, Pwf = 3200 psia, q5 = 0.14, h = 11 ft, #o = 0.43 cP,
flo - 1.450 rb/stb, c t - 5.72 x 10 -5 psi -1, r w - 0.33, r e - 550ft.
Solution Apparent producing time, tp, is tp = (32,000/85)x24 = 9035.29 h.

Well pressure at time rate changed from ql to q2 is 3200 psia. Figure 5-21 is a
plot of well pressure versus plotting function X of the data of Table 5-10.
F r o m Figure 5-21, the following information is obtained: m = 650 psi/cycle
and Plhr = 3212 psia. Substituting the given reservoir and fluid properties in
the expression for m, and by Eq. 5-78:
k- 1 6 2 . 6 q 1 # o ~ o __ 162.6(85)(1.450)(0.43)= 1.21 m D
mh 650(11)
Using Eq. 5-82, the skin factor is
s -1.515
[( ql
ql - q2
)Plhr--Pwsatratechanged
m
log((~ffCtr2).nt_3.231
=1.151 8 5 - 50
3 1 3 00 (
650
)
- log 0.14(0.43)(5.72 x 10-5)(0.21) 2
+3.231 - - 4 . 1 8
Using Eq. 5-83, calculate the initial pressure pi as

4000 : i i i
!
First appearance of
boundary effect
Slope, m = 650 psi
I I
3800 -
il ~ . _ . ' ; ] Early
i ' deviation
-i- from linearity
3600 --- - " during rate
i 0 ~0 i O ~ T,~ restabilization
! I
i
r~
r~ 3400 -- semi-
Return to
Ca. steady-state flow T
~ , i 0
i i
! I
~ ,
3200 - 1" !
Increasing flow time I Plhr=3212psi

I I I I
~ ,
3000 I
3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0
At + 1
log At
Figure 5-21. Plot of well pressure versus plotting function X.
[ ( 1.21(9035.29))
Pi - 3200 + 650 log 0.14(0.43)(5.72• 10-5)(0.21)2
-1
- 3.23 + 0.869(-4.18)]
/
= 3200 + 650110.86- 3 . 2 3 - 3.63] - 5800psia
5.9 Variable-Rate Pressure Buildup Analysis

The pressure buildup behavior is described by
kh
( ' )
~ l o g t-1 + ~ l o g t2 + ....
q2 (: 'l)
+~log(tt tn-3'~
qn-2
tn-2J + log(tt tn_l)]
tn-2 (5-84)
--
where t - tn-1 - A t , time after shut-in and qn-1 is the production rate just
before shut-in. Eq. 5-84 is based on the fact that for t - tpl q-tp2 q - ' ' '
+tpn-1 +(t--tn-1) the reservoir is infinite-acting. The following analysis
procedure can be used. Plot pws versus X on ordinary (Cartesian coordinate)

graph paper, where plotting function X is
qi ( t n - tj--1-'t- At'~
X -- ~ ~-~log k, }s -- Tj + ~ t J (5-85)
j-1
Determine the slope m of the plot and calculate the formation permea-
bility by the equation
162.6qn-1#o/~o
k - mh (5-86)
Calculate the skin factor s from the equation

V~
-- 1 151 ]b'l hr -- Pws(At=O)
S
9 L m - l o g (~b#ok r 2 ) + 3"231 (5-87)
The original reservoir pressure Pi is the value of pws on the MTR line
extrapolated to X - 0. Figure 5-22 shows the schematic representation of
rate variation preceding a pressure buildup test.
Example 5--14 Analyzing Variable-Rate Pressure Buildup Test

A variable-rate flow test was run on a well with the given properties.
From these properties and the data in Tables 5-11 and 5-12, determine k, s,
I ql
I q2
q3
qn-1
C)
Iqnl
I%1
t1 t2 t3 tn_ 1 tn At
Time, At
Figure 5-22. Schematic representation of rate variation preceding a pressure

buildup test.
Table 5-11
Variable-Rate Buildup Test Analysis
(Pressure and Rate Data for Plotting)
Time, ti (hr) Rate, qi (stb[day)

0.000 0.000
3.000 479.0
6.000 319.0
9.000 160.0
12.000 125.0
14.000 100.0
18.000 75.OO
Table 5-12
Variable-Rate Buildup Test and Computations
Time, At Shut-in pressure, Pws Pressure change, Pws -Pwfo Function X

(hr) (psig) (psia) qJq.• log [(tn-tj-l+At)]
[~ ~ j
0.150 2675 10.00 3.12822

0.250 2697 32.00 2.90002
0.300 2736 71.00 2.81772
0.350 2758 93.00 2.74769
0.400 2772 107.00 2.68666
0.500 2794 129.00 2.58376
0.750 2813 148.00 2.39333
1.000 2838 173.00 2.25486
1.500 2872 207.00 2.05392
2.000 2895 230.00 1.90673
3.000 2913 248.00 1.69252
5.000 2924 259.00 1.41352
7.000 2935 270.00 1.22770
9.000 2945 280.00 1.09051
11.000 2951 286.00 0.98348
13.000 2957 292.00 0.89696
15.000 2962 297.00 0.82523
17.000 2967 302.00 0.76462
19.000 2971 306.00 0.71263
21.000 2976 311.00 0.66747
23.000 2980 315.00 0.62785
25.000 2983 318.00 0.59278
27.000 3012 347.00 0.56150
29.000 3031 366.00 0.53341
31.000 3042 377.00 0.50804
(Ap)ski,, p*, and flow efficiency. Well and reservoir data: d e p t h - 5250 ft;
average p r e s s u r e - 3000 psi; # o - 0.80 cP; / 3 0 - 1.136 rb/stb; h - 11 ft;
q5 - 0.12; ct - 17.0 x 10-6 psi -1", rw - 0.198 ft.
Solution The plotting function X is tabulated in Table 5-12 and a plot of

pws versus X is shown in Figure 5-23. Figure 5-23 shows the end of wellbore
storage effects. The MTR line of the plot Pws versus X has the following
characteristics:
Slope in Figure 5-23 gives m = - 116.8 psi/cycle. Using Eq. 5-86 with the
last rate
k- 162.6q,_1#o#o__ 162.6(75)(1.136)(0.80)= 8.63mD

mh 116.8(11)
Pl h at A t - 1 hour, X - 2.2549 - 2823 psi. Using Eq. 5-87,
S-- 1 151 Iplhr--Pws(At=O) --log(

9 m
-k ,,
qS#oCtr2, + 3.23
]
=11511282~-2665 ( 8.63 ) ] +3.23
9 - 16.8 - log 0.12(0.8)(17.0 x 10-6)(0.198) 2
= -4.08
3400 ; ; ;
, , ,
3200 ........ p* or pi= 3042 psi ........ i....................... J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
t i
' ,
'
,'~ ! , !
. Slope, m = 116.8 ~.;'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3000 . . . . J ..................... ' ; ....
~ i j'
~" 2800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
; i
i i
I i
i ; i
. . . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
2600 I,
. . . . . . . .
I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i_
I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I I I
i , i
i i i
; i ;
, ! i
2400 i , i
0 1 2 3 4
6 qj ~tn_tj_l+At_~
Function, X = j =~ l ~ n 10g ~ ~n~ ~j ~.'-~7 )
Figure 5-23. Variable-rate pressure buildup analysis plot9

Original reservoir pressure Pi at X = 0 is 3042 psi. The pressure drop due

to skin is
(Ap)skin = 0.869ms = 0.869(116.8)(--4.08) -- --414.12
Flow efficiency based on pi is
FE -- P i - P w s - (AP)skin = 3 0 4 2 - 2665 -- (--414.12) • 1 0 0 - 210.0%

Pi -- Pws 3042 -- 26,655
5.10 Multi-phase, Multi-Rate Buildup Analysis

The basic equations used for multi-phase pressure buildup analysis are
quite similar to those used for single phase. The basic equation is
[tn -4-ts- tj-1]

Pws - P i -
162.6qn qJ log[ tn T ts -- Fj
h(k/#o)t j-1 qnn
(5-88)
where the flow rates ql through qn are re-expressed in total fluids qt (stb) as
qoRs'~
qt - qo/3o + q, - 1000J/3g + qw#w
Eq. 5-88 is that of a straight line of the form Y = b + m X where Y = pws

where
162.6qn
m -- - h ( k / # o ) t
qi (tn + t s - tj-1)
X
j__--c7 l~
b =p i
Figure 5-24 shows a hypothetical flow history of a well. Upon shut-in, a

plot of the bottom-hole shut-in pressure versus the dimensionless summation
Cartesian (Eq. 5-88) assumes a characteristic shape given in Figure 5-25.
After the wellbore effects have dissipated, the straight-line relationship holds
and the observed slope can be translated into values of total mobility:
(k) 162.6
t-- mh [qo3o + ( q g t - qoRs)3g + qwflw] (5-89)
I ql I
"~ ---- q4
q2
I qn
!
,
I
I I
q3 |
'
I
to tl t2 t3 t4 tn!
I
!
Time
Figure 5--24. Flow history of an oil well.
The gas and oil formation volume factors are pressure-dependent. It is

recommended that as a first approximation they may be selected at the
highest observed pressure. Later, for subsequent runs if desired they may
be selected at average pressures given below:
_ Pwf + P*
P - 2 (5-90)
/3g - 5 . 0 1 ~ (rb/mscf) (5-91)
To calculate the skin factor and its associated pressure drop, the following
equations are used:
s- 1.1511pl hrm--Pwf _ log((k/#~

~,r~w ) +3. 231 (5-92)
(me)skin - 0.869ms (5-93)
The factor, F, in Eq. 5-92 corrects for short flow times. In most other
cases, F will equal or approach to 1.
tn
F = tn + t--------~ 1.0 (5-94)
Lower time limit Upper time limit

i tDW=80'O00 tDe= 0"001--0"031 I
i ~ I AI I
i 8 i 81F-- I
i ! i i i/Portion subject to I
i " i :i
i : i : i l boundary effects I
9 -it ~
Portion subject to I ~1
-"
Proper straight-
. .
[ il "- ,
.4
r~ wellbore effects II :; II hne portion Il : !_'l ~
.. -" /I
i ! i "'
~2 i 9 i ~/" i i
r~
i : i ~ ii
r~
I ' _" I
i i i
i i i
i i i
i i i
6 4 2 0
~ tn + ts- tj-l~
Plotting function, X-~=1 qn log
- ~ qJ tn+~s_-~j ?
Figure 5-25. Typical pressure buildup.
In Eq. 5-92, the total compressibility, ct, is
Ct -- SoCo + SgCg + SwCw + Cf (5-95)
For multiphase flow, below the saturation or bubble point pressure:
Co_~g ORs 1 0/30 (5-96)

-~oOp ~oOp
The gas compressibility may be estimated from correlation charts such as
those given in Ref. 1. The flow efficiencies are computed on a reservoir barrel
per psi basis:
Jactual-- qn (5-97)
p -Pwf
Jideal -- - qn (5-98)
P -- Pwf -- (Ap)skin
The flow efficiency is the ratio of the two productivity indices:
FE - Jactuat • ] 00% (5-99)

Jideal
The maximum radius reached by the transient test is computed at a tDe of

0.25 using Van Poollen's equation: 2~
rinv-- O'O0105(k/#~
/0.5 (5-100)
q~ct
Dimensionless times calculated to select the proper straight-line limits are

computed from:
O.O00264(k/#o)tt~
Upper time limit" toe -- qSctr2 (5-101)
O.O00264(k/#o)tts
Lower time limit- tDe -- (gctr2 (5-102)
Example 5-15 Analyzing MultiPhase, Multi-Rate Pressure Buildup Test

Rate history and pressure buildup data are given in Tables 5-13 through 5-19.
Other reservoir and well data follow: ~b- 0.235, r w - 0.23 ft, h - 13 ft,
# o - 1 . 2 7 c P , # g - 0 . 0 1 6 c P , # w - 0 . 3 0 c P , drainage a r e a - 17.8 acres,
bottom-hole pressure= 1253 psi, total compressibility, c t - 3.2 x 10-6 psi -1,
last flowing bottom-hole p r e s s u r e - 1 2 5 7 p s i , cumulative oil production
= 997,567 stb at shut-in, cumulative water production - 50,000stb at shut-in,
cumulative gas production - 1,200,000mscf at shut-in.
Solution Lower and upper limits can be found by plotting log (pws-pwf)
versus log time. The beginning of the straight line can be estimated by one of
the two methods:
9 By the one and one-half log cycle rule or by the type curve overlay
method;
Table 5-13
Rate History
Flowing Oil Gas Water Solution Oil Gas Water

time rate rate rate GOR FVF FVF FVF
(days) (rb/day) (mscf/day) (stb/day) (mscf/stb) (rb/stb) (rb/mscf) (rb/stb)
27 126 369 154 250 1.181 1.617 1.02
61 109 938 162 250 1.156 1.970 1.02
31 68 734 115 250 1.156 1.970 1.02
31 63 625 94 250 1.156 1.970 1.02
10 77 468 95 250 1.156 1.970 1.02
Table 5-14
Pressure Buildup Data
Shut-in time, At (hr) Bottom-hole pressure, Pws (psig)

O.25 1391
0.50 1401
1.00 1415
2.00 1431
3.00 1446
4.00 1455
5.00 1467
6.00 1483
12.00 1510
18.00 1522
24.00 1531
30.00 1536
36.00 1538
48.00 1548
Table 5-15
Reservoir Voidage History Calculations
Observed
Length qo qg qw Total Cumulative flowing
(days) (rb]day) (rb]day) (rb/day) (rb]day) voidage (rb) time (hr)
27 148.8 545.7 157.1 851.6 4,290,679 120,917.7
61 128.0 1794.2 165.2 2085.4 4,417,890 122,381.7
31 78.6 1412.5 117.3 1608.4 4,467,750 123,125.7
31 72.8 1200.2 95.9 1368.9 4,510,187 123,869.7
10 89.0 884.0 96.9 1069.9 4,520,886 124,109.7
9 The area shape selected has an upper limit for the straight line of
tDe ~- 0.0240. Results with calculated tDe higher than this should be
disregarded or used with caution.
From Figure 5-26, lower and upper limits are 65,000 and 0.024. Figure
5-27 is a Cartesian plot showing calculated results.
5.11 Rate Normalization Techniques and Procedures

(Pressure Buildup Data)
Methods to analyze afterflow-dominated pressure buildup data are pre-
sented. Total afterflow fluid rate should be used in multiphase flow analysis.
Table 5-16
Bottom-Hole Pressure at Corresponding Shut-In Times
Pressure buildup test data Computed data
Shut-in Computed
Test Shut-in time, pressure, dimensionless summation Ap = (pw~ - 1253)
point No. At (hr) Pw~ (psi) function X (psi)
1 0.25 1391 5.92 138.2

2 0.50 1401 5.62 148.0
3 1.00 1405 5.32 162.0
4 2.00 1434 5.01 181.0
5 3.00 1446 4.84 193.0
6 4.00 1455 4.71 202.0
7 5.00 1467 4.61 214.0
8 6.00 1483 4.54 230.0
9 12.00 1510 4.23 252.0
10 18.00 1522 4.05 269.0
11 24.00 1538 3.92 278.0
12 30.00 1536 3.82 283.0
13 36.00 1538 3.74 285.0
14 42.00 1541 3.67 288.0
15 48.00 1543 3.61 290.0
Table 5-17
Pressure Buildup Test Data m Calculated Results by Computer
Total
Point Slope m mobility p* p PI FE Skin factor,
used (psi/cycle) (mD/cP) (psi) (psi) Actual Ideal (%) s
1-4 47.50 32.41 1669 1480 4.702 3.74 126 -1.41

2-5 57.90 26.59 1724 1490 4.350 3.09 142 -2.03
3-6 60.05 23.31 1765 1512 4.130 2.69 154 -2.41
4-7 80.14 19.21 1834 1533 3.810 2.23 192 -2.30
5-8 119.43 12.88 2021 1573 3.140 1.49 211 -3.65
6-9 112.90 13.64 1989 1580 3.250 1.57 207 -3.57
7-10 94.05 26.37 1925 1558 3.500 1.89 185 -3.19
8-11 78.59 19.59 1840 1540 3.600 2.26 162 -2.66
9-12 68.72 23.79 1784 1535 3.790 2.24 138 -1.91
10-13 52.48 29.24 1735 1579 3.870 3.30 114 -0.88
12-14 38.48 40.21 1680 1526 3.900 4.60 85 1.23
12-15 33.48 45.99 1663 1526 3.920 5.30 74 2.44
Table 5-18
Average Values
Slope, m (psi/cycle) 70.31

Total mobility, At (mD/cP) 26.10
False pressure, p* (psi) 1804.42
Average reservoir pressure, 1533.00
Productivity index (actual) 3.83
Productivity index (ideal) 2.87
Flow efficiency (%) 149.00
Skin factor, s -2.00
Table 5-19
Calculated Parameters
Pressure drop, Maximum radius

(Ap)skin (psi) tDe tDw ko (mD) kw (mD) kg (mD) reached (ft)
-58.3 0.00924 5433 3.42 0.88 0.43 95

-102.4 0.01137 8916 2.81 0.70 0.35 106
-138.6 0.01328 15,630 2.46 0.63 0.31 114
-201.9 0.01369 25,765 2.03 0.52 0.25 116
-379.2 0.01102 25,935 1.36 0.35 0.17 104
-350.9 0.02332 365,580 1.44 0.37 0.18 151
-260.8 0.04198 54,887 1.73 0.45 0.22 203
-181.7 0.06699 78,825 2.07 0.53 0.26 257
-107.7 0.10169 191,438 2.51 0.65 0.32 316
-40.1 0.15047 354,096 3.10 0.80 0.39 384
41.0 0.23943 643,948 4.23 1.08 0.53 485
71.0 0.31452 925,193 4.86 1.25 0.61 556
The logarithm of time approximation to PD for analysis of low-permeability

stimulated oil wells is often invalid. Normalized type curve analysis identifies
whether the semilog straight line exists and suggests the proper PD- tD model
for analytical purposes. Additional detailed discussions of the normalization
methods were given by Gladfelter etal., 22 Winestock and Colpitts, 23 and
Odeh and Jones. 24'25
Analysis Methods: Their Applications and Limitations

Figure 5-28 shows various methods of analysis, their applications, and
their limitations.
1000 ; i
I i
~
i i
i i
~ ' ~
i i
:~ cq 100- ~ ~ I
L
I
~7 I
,
I,
I
,
I
r~
I
i i
i
,
,
,
I !
i
,
i
,
I, I,
I I
. ,
I I
10 i i
0.1 1 10 100
Figure 5-26. log-log type plot.
1800 I I I I I
: i ; i i
1700 ............
I Slope, m-- ( 1 5 2 2 - 1 3 9 1 ) / ( 4 . 0 5 - 5 . 9 2 ) = 7 0 . 0 5
~ . . . . . . . . . . . . .i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I'
".,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
!
~-:Y~
.A- XI
. . . . . . . ~ ..... - 7 " . . . . . . I
.,..~
1600 -
i
R
.............. i ..............i ~i ...............
i ~ '. . . . . . . . . . . .F..........
...... ~i ~~ I-l
I
1500 --
.......... ~ ~ .... F ............... ~ ........ i- ..... ~ ...... i-- ..... ~ ..............
i [ Slope, m = 70.05
; ; (k / lZ)t-" 26.10 m D / c P
.,-~ 1400 ................ t; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t; . . . . . . . . . . . . False pressure, p* = 1804 psi l'iilflfll ]
i i Skin factor, s = - 2 . 0 0
I !
; ; Flow efficiency = 149.0%
1300 ................ ~.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~............
J ' ! ~ I
! i • , ,
! , i i i
i I I
1200 i ; ; ; ,i
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Plotting function, X= = --~n l~ tn+t~:~j j
Figure 5-27. Multiphase and multi-rate pressure buildup data plot.
Buildup Rate Normalization Equations and Solutions

The afterflow rate normalized pressure equations proposed by Gladfelter
et al. 22 to analyze pressure buildup data dominated by afterflow were given as
Normalization Analysis
Techniques
zSpversus log At Homer plot ] JWe,,orestoragetype curves

"[ igure, 9 l
I
Ap/Aq versus log At modified plot I

I -i ooa,ize, O. grap igure''01
Ap/Aq versus ~ m i n ~ [ v I Pressure square root time plot Figure 5-31
I
I
Superposition based on log time I ~] Straight line ~ Figure5-32 ]
approximation to PD [ through last points
I
Superposition based on po - to
model uniform-flux vertical J Constant-ratesolution [~ Figure5-33 [
fracture "1
Figure 5--28. Various analysis techniques, their applications, and their limitations.
[ Pws( At) - Pwf,s]qo 70.6qo#o[ {O.OOO264k(At)'~ ]

kh In \ ~ j + 0.809 + 2s (5-]03)
(qo - q ( A t ) )
Canceling qo and expressing in the familiar logarithm form, the rate

normalized MDH equation is
Pws(At) -- Pwf, s 162.6#o[

qo - q(At) =
( k(At) ~
k--------h- log k,,flpl,ZoCtr2j - 3.23 + 0.869s
1 (5-104)
Eq. 5-103 indicates that a plot of (Pws(At) - pwf, s)/(qo - q(At)) versus log At
should be linear with slope equal to
ml 162.6#o
- k---T- (5-105)
from which k can be calculated as
k - 162.6#o (5-106)
mt
The skin is determined from
Pws(At) -- Pwf ,s
s -- 1.151 [rr~(-~o- qat (At))
-log(, k(/xt) "~
\flPlZoCtr2 j + 3.
23] (5-107)
In 1974, Odeh and Jones 25 presented a method to analyze buildup after

rates following a constant rate semi-steady-state production period at rate,
qo. The general equation describing the pressure change at any shut-in
time, Atn, is
70.6#0
Pws( At) -- Pwf, s = ~ kh - ( q i - q i - 1 ) l n ( A t n - A t i _ l ) + (qo - qn)
s (0.000264k'~ }1
i--1 In \. ~oC--~w j + 0.809 + 2s + D(qo - qn) (5-108)
The linearized form of Eq. 5-108 is
Pw~(/xt,) - P w f s - D'(qo - qn)2 _-70"6#~ {- (qo - ln(Atn - A t i _ l )
(0.000264k'~ }
+ Ink, (9#oCtr2 j + 0.809 + 2s (5-109)
where
D / = 70.6#0
kh (2D) (5-110)
If non-Darcy flow is zero, a plot of
Pws(At.) -- Pwfs
qo ~ qtl
versus - qo - qn (qi - qi-1) ln(Atn - A t i - 1 )
i=1
will give a straight line with slope m t is
m / = 70.6#0
kh (5-111)
and the intercept b, from which the skin can be calculated and is given by
( b (0.000264k'~ )
s - 0.5 ~-7 - Ink, ~ j - 0.809 (5-112)
A more general form of Eq. 5-109, expressed in terms of dimensionless

pressure PD and dimensionless time tD is
Pws(Atn) --PwT,s -- D ' ( q o - qn) 2 141.2#o

qo - qn kh
-- qo - qn (qi -- q i - 1 ) P D ( A t n -- m t i _ l ) l ) -t-
i=1 (5-113)
When non-Darcy flow is zero, Eq. 5-113 should be linear when plotted as
n
Pws(At,,) -- P w f ,s
qo m qn
versus --1
qo - qn
Z(qi _ qi_l)PD(At n _ Ati-1)D
i=1
having slope such as
m' -- 141.2/~o (5-114)

kh
and intercept
b - m's (5-115)
Normalized Pressure-Modified MDH Plot Analysis

Figure 5-31 is a rate-normalized pressure-modified MDH plot and a
straight line drawn through the last group of points of the continuously
sweeping data curve. From known value of the slope, the permeability and
skin factor can be determined using the following equations:
k = 162.6#o (5-116)
m'h
{pw,(:,,)-pw:,,
s - 1.151 [~-7[--~o-- q - ~ - log + 3.23
] (5-117)
Figure 5-32 is a pressure versus shut-in time log-log graph. The curve does
not match to any of the published wellbore storage type curves. So this technique
proved unsuccessful. However, the total fluid afterflow rate-normalized pressure
versus shut-in time log-log graph was matched to the uniform-flux vertical
fracture solution. From match points, permeability, skin factor, and half fracture
length can be estimated by using the following equations:
(5-118)
MP
0.000264k ( A t , h ) ]0.5
xj - ~oC, \ tDxl J M~ (5-119)
Calculate the skin factor s as follows:
xf
rwa = 2 = rw exp(-s) (5-120)
Normalized Average Reservoir Pressure Equation

Odeh and Jones 25 have suggested estimating pR from an equation based
on total fluid withdrawal basis. The equation is
141.2qt [ln V~ CAr2

+ s 1
PR -- ~Z_~)/'kh\t + Pwf(~xt=o) (5-121)
Example 5-16 Normalizing Afterglow Rate and Analyzing Pressure

Buildup Test
A 67-hours buildup test was run and all the pressure and afterflow data are
appearing in Tables 5-20 and 5-21. The wellbore storage coefficient has been
calculated and added following the procedures appearing in Ref. 8. Cumulative
production is 75,800 bbl. Well/reservoir data are: T - 123~ A P I - 35 ~ #o
= 3.18 cP, #w - 0.56 cP, #g - 0.0155 cP, fw - 30%, casing ID, in - 4.953,
tubing ID, in - 2.375, ct - 20.0 • 10 -6 psi -1, well s p a c i n g - 40 acres, rw
= 0.31 ft, h - 47 ft, 0 - 14%, qT(~t=0) - 328 rbd.
Find the flow capacity and skin factor using the following techniques:
9 Conventional Horner buildup analysis.
9 A p / A q t versus log t modified M D H method.
9 / k p / A q t versus log-log graph uniform-flux vertical fracture constant-
rate solution.
9 Superposition based on logarithm of time approximation to P D - tD
(straight line through last point).
9 Average reservoir pressure.
Table 5--20
Pressure Buildup Data
Shut-in time, At (min) Shut-in pressure, Pws (psi) At

t~+At
0 90 -
3 103 0.0005
5 105 0.0009
10 111 0.0018
15 116 0.0027
20 122 0.0036
25 128 0.0045
30 133 0.0054
35 139 0.0063
40 145 0.0072
45 151 0.0080
50 156 0.0089
55 162 0.0098
60 168 0.0107
70 180 0.0125
80 192 0.0142
90 202 0.0160
100 212 0.0177
110 222 0.0194
120 231 0.0212
173 272 0.0303
236 315 0.0408
308 356 0.0528
390 395 0.0657
583 472 0.0951
694 505 0.1112
814 536 0.1280
945 564 0.0923
1034 591 0.0963
1234 621 0.1007
1393 648 0.1046
1562 674 0.1084
1741 700 0.1121
1929 726 0.1158
2127 752 0.1194
2334 777 0.]229
2552 830 0.1302
2778 828 0.1313
3015 853 0.1333
3180 867 0.1352
3240 873 0.1360
3300 878 0.1367
Table 5-20 (continued)
Shut-in time, At (min)Shut-in pressure, Pws (psi) t~+At

at
3360 883 0.1373

3420 888 0.1380
3480 899 0.1395
3540 904 0.1402
3600 908 0.1407
3660 913 0.1414
3720 917 0.1419
3780 922 0.1425
3840 926 0.1431
3900 930 0.1436
3960 935 0.1443
4020 939 0.1448
Solution Conventional Horner Buildup Analysis

Figure 5-29 is the conventional Horner plot, which shows no clear
straight-line sections. A straight line drawn through the last group of points
gives reasonable calculated results. The plot has the following characteris-
tics: tp = 5546 hours, m = 700 psi/cycle, and pl hr = 340 psi.
F r o m Eq. 5-2, k is
k - 162.6qo#o__ 162.6(328)(3.18)(1.0)__ 5 . 1 6 m D
mh 700(47)
1000 I [ [ ~, .Jde
I I
' i
I i I Pwflhr=-340 psi I/
"~2 800 -] .... l (kh] =76.2 mDft/cP I---~1 i I_/-. . . . . . . . . . .
/ I j' I '
/ I s=-4.82 I i ._,. ~ ~ , , , ,
~ 600 -I .... I l "-~I ...............
***:~i:~ ....... ? .......... ]
xf = 76.86 ft
~, / I I i _,.~ / '= / /
= 400 -1/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "!..................... ~i~176
....~ o*- ...../ / ........
,
~: ..... '/- ............ , t/
/ ' " ...... " / [ m'
m'=700 700 psisi/ccle y II
-= . . . . . . . +'" m ii ii ii
i
200 -1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~..................... r . . . . . 7" . . . . . . . . ', -3
/ ' ' / '. /
i i i / i /
0 / ' ' ' I
10-6 10-5 10 -4 10-3 10-2

At
tp + At
Figure 5-29. Conventional Horner buildup plot.

~J
fll
z~
m~ w~
J~
o~
m
L
fa
J~S
m~
J~
Table 5-21 (continued)
Time, Liquid
Time, level Pressure, Pressure, Gas rate Liquid rate Total rate Ap \/"qJr Wellbore storage
At (rain) (min) ~ (ft) Pwh (psi) pwf (psi) (rb/day) (rb/day) (rb/day) (psi) (psi/rb/day) coefficient(bbl/psi)
3180 56.392 5547 106.8 867 0 5 6 768 2.385 0.042
3240 56.921 5535 107.2 873 1 5 6 774 2.404 0.050
3300 57.446 5523 107.6 878 1 5 6 779 2.419 0.050
3360 57.966 5511 108.0 883 1 5 6 784 2.435 0.050
3420 58.481 5499 108.4 888 1 5 6 789 2.450 0.021
3480 58.992 5488 108.6 899 0 5 5 800 2.477 0.042
3540 59.498 5477 108.9 904 0 5 5 805 2.492 0.042
3600 60.000 5466 109.1 908 0 5 5 809 2.505 0.052
3660 60.498 5466 109.3 913 0 5 5 814 2.520 0.042
3720 60.992 5455 109.5 917 0 5 5 818 2.533 0.052
3780 61.482 5444 109.7 922 0 5 5 823 2.548 0.042
3840 61.968 5423 109.9 926 0 5 5 827 2.560 0.052
3900 62.450 5413 110.1 930 0 4 5 831 2.573 0.052
3960 62.929 5493 110.4 935 0 4 4 836 2.580 0.038
4020 63.404 5383 110.5 939 0 2 4 840 2.593 0.042
From Eq. 5-3, s is
s -- 1.151 Iplhr m-Pwf - l o g k

(q~/z~tr2) + 3
.23]
--1.151[ -340-99
-log
( ,1,
0.14(3.18)(20.0 x 10-6)(0.31) 2
) ] + 3.23
= 1.151 [-0.6271 - 6.7809 + 3.23] - -4.19
From Eq. 5-120,
xf - 2rwaeXp(-s) - 2 x 0.31 exp[-(-4.19)] - 40.93 ft
Normalized Pressure-Modified MDH Analysis

Figure 5-30 is a rate-normalized pressure-modified M D H plot and a
straight line drawn through the last group of points of the continuously
sweeping data curve. The plot has the following characteristics:
zXp
m' - 1.9 psi/(rb/stb) and A-~t' 1 hour - -0.90 psi(rb/stb)
Pws( At) -- P w f ( At=O)
qo - q(At)
103
000 O0
Unit ~0 0 (kh/lz)t = 75.6 mD ft/cP
_ Xf =93.45 ft
10 2 -
i
= min and z ~ = 68 psi

C = 0.201 bbl/psi
c0=152
10
10
I
102 103 104
At (min)
Figure 5-30. Conventional pressure-time log-log graph.

F r o m Eq. 5-105,
162.6#o 162.6(3.18)
k __ ~ = 5.79 m D
m'h 1.9(47)
F r o m Eq. 5-107,
[Pws(At)_--_Pwf,Sloglkl ]
s - 1.151 [m'[qo - q(At)] ~#~, r2 + 3.23
= 1.151
i_o.9o(0
1.9 log .14(3.18)(20.0 x 10-6)(0.31) 2
) ]
+ 3.23
= 1.151[-0.4737 - 6.8304 + 3.23] - - 4 . 6 9
F r o m Eq. 5-120,
xf - 2 • 0.31 e x p [ - ( - 4 . 6 9 ) ] - 67.49 ft
Figure 5-30 is a pressure versus shut-in time log-log graph. The curve
does not match to any of the published wellbore storage type curves. 19 So
this technique proved unsuccessful. The plot has the following
characteristics:
At--60min, Ap-68psi~C-0.201bbl/psi, and Co-152

However, the total fluid afterflow rate-normalized pressure versus shut-
in time log-log graph was matched to the uniform-flux vertical fracture
solution.
Match points are
~Xp
At - 1000 min, toxf - 0.335,
Aqt = 1.0psi/rb/stb, and PD -- 0.62
Calculate the permeability k from Eq. 8-39:
141"2#o/3o(PD)M 141 "2(3" 18) (1 "0) (01~02)

k ~
-~p = 47 - 5.92 m D
h ~ e
Estimate the fracture half-length xf from Eq. 8-40:
xf-
Eoooo 64 ,l r
(~oCt \ tDxf imp --
[0 0000 64 ,9 (1000,60]
.14~:igi~.0 • 10 -6) O.3~ J
0.5
= [175.53 x 7.0535] 0.5- 93.45 ft

Calculate the skin factor s as follows:
xf (-s)
rwa = 2 = rw exp
Therefore, s - - l n ( x f / 2 r w ) - - In [93.2/(2 • 0.31)] - -5.02
Odeh-Jones Logarithm of Time Superposition Plot (Straight Line

Through Last Points)
Figure 5-31 is an Odeh-Jones logarithm of time superposition plot. Nor-

mally, in looking for a linear flow period a pressure versus ~ graph is made.
In this case, a Ap versus v/At does not result in a straight line but a total fluid
afterflow rate-normalized pressure plot, Ap/AqT~ versus ~/A-t, does. This can
be seen in Figure 5-32. The plot has the following characteristics:
0.120 - 0.541
Slope m' = = 0.062
' 3 . 1 6 2 - 10
Figure 5-32 is an Odeh-Jones logarithm of time superposition plot.

Straight line is drawn through the last group of points on this plot, which
will give reasonable calculated results. The plot has the following
characteristics"
m' - 0.83 psi/(rb/stb)
4.0 ,'. !" !" 'i

,
",
,
i"
.
i I I I I I
i i i i i i.
i i i i : !
i i '
3.0 ....... m'= 0.062 psi/rbpd . . . . . ~-. . . . . . . . . . . ~- . . . . . . . . . a ...........
b=0.48 ,
' !
,
'
, , , [ i .o ~
" ' i i , . . o - i
i ! . . o'~" '
i , , ~ . , o.. i .
-- ---t . . . . . . . . . . .
2.0 '-.. . . . . . . . . . . *.. . . o. .- . o. .- . -. -,~..~
. . . . . --~q. . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
'I i .~r
' ~ i. i. ,,
u . . . . ,
............ 4 . ~ . & . ~ ........... ~_ . . . . . . . . . . . . ~_ . . . . . . . . . 9 ..........
1.o ~ i li ! ~ i
i i I Approximate end of linear flow I i
': i I , , , ~
o.o [ i i i ~ i
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
q ~ - (min)O.5
Figure 5 - 3 1 . Afterflow rate-normalized pressure - square root of time plot.

Figure 5-32. Superposition based on uniform-flux vertical fracture PD--tD (straight

line through last points).
Estimate the permeability k from Eq. 5-111"
70.6#0 70.6(3.18)
k __ ~ _~. = 5.76 mD
m~h (0.83)(47)
Determine the skin factor s from Eq. 5-112"
[~-7 (0.000264k'~
s=0.5 b _Ink, ~ J-0"809
= 0.5
070 (
0.83 - l n
0000 64, 6 ) -0.809
] - -4.99
[ ~ 0.14(3.18)(20.0 x 10-6)(0.31) 2
x f = 2 x rwa - 2 x 0.31 exp[-(-499)] = 91.1 ft
Superposition B a s e d on p o - to M o d e l ( U n i f o r m - F l u x Vertical Fracture

C o n s t a n t - R a t e Solution)
From Figure 5-33, find the following:
m' - 1.6 psi(rb/stb/cycle) ' TtD- 0 " 0 0 0 3 4
From Eq. 5-89,
--~-I - 141.2
I t 1.6
= 88.0mD (ft/cP)
4.0 i i i i i
,i i, i. i i
3.5 1 i i ~ ~'
' ' i i i
~3.o...~ -t-t m'=,6ps,,rbpa,. . I............
( " ............... :',.............. ,!..............
.~ 2.5 i i i
= 0.00034
~1~ ~~~'~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iI!. . ..J. .". '- ~ ~ I!

'
I!
f~
k, ,,it
I
[
. . . .
El "-"
1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
i~,"
-
i
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
t ....
.._oa
~f . . .
if t
. . . . .
/
0.5 ~ i i i s=-47
..,"7 i~ ~~ i~ . "
0 i i ; i i
i i i i i
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
n
-1 i~l(q-qi-1 ) PD (Atn-Ati-1)D
(qo-qn) --
Figure 5--33. Superposition based on uniform-flux vertical fracture PD--to model.
Average Reservoir Pressure
Find pR, using Eq. 5-121"
141.2qv [ln V~ CAr2

+s]
fir = § Pwf(At=O)
I /2.25 x40x43,560 ]
141.2 x 328 In V N.g8-~o.-~ - 4.7
+ 99.0 - 1235 + 99 - 1334 psi
88.0
Table 5-22 summarizes the results from all methods of analysis.
5.12 Summary
This chapter treats pressure buildup test analysis and presents methods
for estimating formation characteristics such as the reservoir permeability,
skin factor, wellbore damage, and improvement evaluation including average
pressure for well drainage areas and the entire reservoir. In addition, analysis
methods for afterflow-dominated pressure buildup data are presented to
identify linear flow, near-wellbore permeability changes or boundaries using
both accurate pressure and total afterflow fluid rate.
Table 5-22
Summary of Analysis Results
(~) r(mD ft/cP )

Methods of analysis Skin s xf (ft)
Conventional Horner buildup analysis 76.2 -4.80 76.86
(Figure 5-29)
Aqr versus log At, modified MDH
/xp 75.6 -5.02 93.45
analysis (Figure 5-30)
Approximation on po - to 85.6 -4.99 91.1
(straight line through last points) (Figure 5-32)
Superposition based on P D - to, uniform 88.0 -4.7 93.6
flux vertical fracture constant rate solution
(Figure 5-33)
References and Additional Reading

1. Matthews, C. S., "Analysis of Pressure Build-Up and Flow Test Data,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1961) 862-870. Also Reprint Series, No. 9 - Pressure
Analysis Methods, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, TX,
1967, pp. 111-119.
2. Russell, D. G., "Extensions of Pressure Buildup Analysis Methods,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1966) 1624-1636; Trans. A I M E , 237. Also Reprint
Series, No. 9 - Pressure Analysis Methods, Society of Petroleum Engin-
eers of AIME, Dallas, TX, 1967, pp. 175-187.
3. Saidikowski, R. M., "Numerical Simulations of the Combined Effects of
Wellbore Damage and Partial Penetration," paper SPE 8204 (Sept. 1979).
4. Papatzacos, P., "Approximation Partial-Penetration Pseudo-Skin for
Infinite-Conductivity Wells," SPE Reservoir Engineering, pp. 227-234,
May 1988; Trans. A I M E , Vol. 237, pp. 518, 1966.
5. Odeh, A. S., "An Equation for Calculating Skin Factor Due to
Restricted-Entry," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1980), 964-965.
6. Hawkins, M. F., Jr., "A Note on the Skin Effect," Trans. A I M E (1956)
267, 356-357.
7. Matthews, C. S., and Russell, D. G., Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in
Wells, Monograph Series, Vol. 1, Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME, Dallas, TX, 1967.
8. Horner, D. R., Pressure Build-Up in Wells, Proceedings, Third World
Pet. Congress - Sect. II, 1951, pp. 503-521.
9. Miller, C. C., Dyes, A. B., and Hutchinson, C. A., Jr., "The Estimation of
Permeability and Reservoir Pressure from Bottom-Hole Pressure Buildup
Characteristics," Trans. A I M E (1950) 189, 91-104.
10. Muskat, M., Physical Principles of Oil Production, McGraw-Hill, New

York, 1949, p. 378.
11. Slider, H. C., "A Simplified Method of Pressure Buildup Analysis for
a Stabilized Well," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1971) 1155-1160; Trans. AIME, 251.
12. Ramey, H. J., Jr., and Cobb, W. M., "A General Buildup Theory for
a Well in a Closed Drainage Area," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1971) 1493-1505;
Trans. AIME, 251.
13. Cobb, W. M., and Smith, J. T., "An Investigation of Pressure Buildup
Tests in Bounded Reservoirs," paper SPE 5133 presented at the SPE-
AIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Oct. 6-9, 1974 (an abridged
version appears in J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1975) 991-996; Trans. AIME,
259).
14. Kumar, A., and Ramey, H. J., Jr., "Well Test Analysis for a Well in a
Constant-Pressure Square," paper SPE 4054 presented at the SPE-
AIME 47th Annual Fall Meeting, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11, 1972
(an abridged version appears in Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (April 1974), 107-116).
15. Muskat, M., "Use of Data on the Build-Up of Bottom-Hole Pressures,"
Trans. A I M E (1937) 123, 44-48. Also Reprint Series No. 9 - Pressure
Analysis Methods, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas,
TX, 1967, pp. 5-9.
16. Perrine, R. L., "Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves," Drill. Prod. Prac.
A P I (1956) 482-509.
17. Ramey, H. J., Jr., Kumar, A., and Gulati, M. S., Gas Well Test Analysis
Under Water-Drive Conditions, AGA, Arlington, VA, 1973 (Chapters 4-7).
18. McKinley, R. M., "Wellbore Transmissibility from Afterflow-Dominated
Pressure Buildup Data," paper SPE 2416, 45th Fall Meeting of AIME,
Houston, TX.
19. Earlougher, R. C., Jr., and Kersch, K. M., "Field Examples of Auto-
matic Transient Test Analysis," J. Pet Tech. (Oct. 1972) 1271-1277.
20. Van Poollen, H. K., "Radius-of-Drainage and Stabilization-Time Equa-
tions," Oil Gas J. (1964) 62, 138-146.
21. McKinley, R. M., "Estimating Flow Efficiency from Afterflow-
Distorted Pressure Buildup Data," J. Pet. Tech, (1974) 26(6), 696-697.
22. Gladfelter, R. E., Tracy. G. W., and Wilsey, L. E., "Selecting Wells
which will Respond to Production-Stimulation Treatment," Drill. Prod.
Prac. A P I (1955) 117-128.
23. Winestock, A. G., and Colpitts, G. P., "Advances in Estimating Gas
Well Deliverability," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1965) 111-119.
24. Odeh, A. S., and Jones, L. G., "Pressure Drawdown Analysis- Variable-Rate
Case," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1965) 960-964; Trans. AIME, 234.
25. Odeh, A. S., and Jones, L. G., "Two-Rate Flow Test, Variable-Rate
Case- Application to Gas-Lift and Pumping Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan.
1974) 93-99; Trans. AIME, 257.

Pressure Buildup Analysis: Techniques For Oil Wells

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pressure Buildup Analysis: Techniques For Oil Wells

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pressure Buildup Analysis: Techniques For Oil Wells

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 5

5.2 Ideal Pressure Buildup Test

slightly compressible, single-phase fluid with uniform properties so that the

162.6 qo #o/30 log I tp + At]

k - 162.6 qo #o/30 (5-2)

Example 5--1 Analyzing Ideal Pressure Buildup Test

Shut-in time, At (hr) (tp+At)

ct - 19.5 x 10 -6, a n d #o - 1.1 cP. F r o m these d a t a , e s t i m a t e the f o r m a t i o n

Solution T o e s t i m a t e k, pi, a n d s, follow these steps"

k- ~ = 162.6 400 x 1.25 x 1.1 = 44.72 m D

4. Read original reservoir pressure Pi at (tp + A t ) / A t - 1.0 =~Pi- 1960 psi.

=11,1[17791165 ( 100 -log

= 1 . 1 5 1 1 6 . 1 4 - 8.093 + 3.23] -- 1.37

6. R e a d original reservoir p r e s s u r e pi - 1960 psia.

..= 1600 ..... ~ ............................. || . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 5-1. Ideal pressure buildup graph.

5.3 Actual Buildup T e s t s - Infinite Reservoir

Figure 5-2. Behavior of the static pressure on shut-in oil well.

9 Plot Pws versus log (tp + A t ) / A t on semilog graph paper.

5.4 Pressure Buildup Test Analysis

141.2qo#o/3o [pD(tp + At) D --pD(AtD)] (5--5)

where PD is the dimensionless pressure function and tD the dimensionless

may be replaced by the logarithmic approximation to the exponential inte-

PD = 0.5(ln tD + 0.80907) (5-7)

Pws -- Pi -- 70.6 qo#o/3Okh In (tp ~+i At'~j

pws = pi - 162.6 qo#o/3o log (tp +/',tAt'~] (5-8)

Effects and Duration of Afterflow

To recognize the MTR is essential for the successful buildup curve

log-log Curve Matching Procedures

The following steps should be used to estimate the beginning of MTR:

9 Determine k and the skin factor s.

tD ~ 50Cs exp(0.14s) (5-14)

170,000Cs exp(0.14s) (5-15)

Calculation of Flow Capacity and Formation Permeability

Estimation of Skin Factor

16.88Cb#oCtr2 - 0.869s (5-17)

At shut-in time At in the buildup test

Pwf -- Pi + m [log( tp +--AtAt'~]j (5-18)

s 1 151(pws -Pwf) (1688(9#oCtr2~ (tp+ At)

It is a convenient practice in the petroleum industry to choose a fixed shut-

Pressure Drop Due to Skin

(Ap)s~i, , -- 0.869 m s (5-21)

Determination of Effective WeUbore Radius

rwa = rwe -s (5-22)

Flow Efficiency and Damage Ratio

Example 5-2 Analyzing Single-Phase and Single-Rate Pressure Buildup

Solution First estimate the pseudo-producing time, tp,

1. At what shut-in time At does afterflow cease distortion the pressure

F r o m the semilog graph (Figure 5-4), it seems that afterflow distortion

Figure 5-3. log-log single-rate buildup data plot.

Cs - ---2-4- --~ unit-stopeline

250 • 1.224 0.1

........ ~ .............. i-t ~.-4577psia t

o 3800 --- ...... ~ 4

, I k= 8.4mD ' '

Figure 5--4. Semilog single-rate buildup data plot.

T h u s m a t c h i n g s h o u l d be a t t e m p t e d in t h e r a n g e 103 < CSD < 10 4 . F r o m

Pl hr - - 4295 p s i a a n d p* at (tp + A t ) / A t -- 4577 p s i a

162.6 x 250 x 1.224 x 0.65