Welltest Help PDF

Energy Upstream
WellTest 2019.1 Help – PDF

Last revised: November 09, 2021
Copyright
© 1997-2021, IHS Markit and its affiliated and subsidiary companies, all rights reserved. No portion
of this publication may be reproduced, reused, or otherwise distributed in any form without prior writ-
ten consent of IHS Markit.
Trademarks
IHS Markit and the IHS Markit logo are trademarks of IHS Markit. Other trademarks appearing in this
publication are the property of IHS Markit or their respective owners.
IHS Markit Global Headquarters
4th floor Ropemaker Place

25 Ropemaker Street
London EC2Y 9LY
WellTest 2019.1 Page: 2

Table of contents
WellTest™ 2019.1 37
About WellTest 39
Licensing 40
Activating / deactivating your license 41
Best practice 41
Activating / deactivating your standalone license 41
Licensing dialog box 43
Standalone licensing 43
Network licensing 43
License Information dialog box 45
Licensing Settings dialog box 46
IHS Markit Online Activation dialog box 48
Test Types 50
Drawdown / Buildup Test Type 51
Injection / Falloff Test Type 52
Minifrac Test Type 53
PITA and Closed Chamber Tests 54
Perforation Inflow Test Type 55
Perforation Injection Test Type 56
Closed Chamber Inflow Test Type 57
Closed Chamber Injection Test Type 58
Slug Test Type 59
Slug Injection Test Type 60
Workflows 61
Conventional Workflow 62
IPR Workflow 64

Minifrac Workflow 67
PITA Workflow 69
Step Down Test Workflow 71
Procedures 72
Adding an Annotation Arrow 73
Changing Global Unit Settings 74
Changing Default Units 74
Toggling Display Units 74
Exporting 75
Exporting to CMG 76
Opening Harmony Enterprise Files 77
Positioning the Start of Injection Line 79
Specifying the Reservoir Fluid Type 80
Multiphase Options 81
Starting a Project 82
Performing an Analysis 83
Creating a Deconvolution Analysis 84
Creating an Analysis 86
Displaying Radius of Investigation 88
Identifying Closure 90
Identifying ISIP 92
Performing a Conventional Test Analysis 93
Performing a Minifrac Analysis 96
Performing a Pre-Closure Analysis 96
Performing a Nolte After-Closure Analysis 96
Performing a Soliman / Craig After-Closure Analysis 98
History Matching Minifrac After-Closure Data 99
Performing a PITA Analysis 100
History Matching PITA Data 104

Filtering 105
Filtering in Data Management 106
Adjusting the Filter Frequency 108
Filtering in the Production Editor 110
Generating & Submitting PAS AER Files 111
Hiding the PAS Tab 113
Meeting AER Initial Deliverability Requirements 115
Meeting AER Initial Pressure Requirements 116
Importing Data 117
Importing Data from a Text File (.csv, .txt, .xlsx) 118
Importing Data from an FLD File 126
Importing Data from a PAS File 128
PRD PAS 128
PAS AER 129
Modeling 131
Choosing a Reservoir Model 132
History Matching 133
Advanced Models: Procedures 134
Anchoring in Advanced Analytical Models 135
Creating an Advanced Model 137
Forecasting in Advanced Models 138
Forecasting Injection 139
Forecasting Gas Condensate Systems Using Advanced Analytical Models 141
Modeling Saturated Oil Reservoirs Using Advanced Analytical Models 145
Performing APE in Advanced Analytical Models 148
Specify Data Points to be Used by APE 148
Deselecting Points 148
Weighting Points 148
Specify Parameters to Vary 149

Run APE 151
Using Numerical Models 152
Setting Up the Model 152
Using the Model 154
Running Numerical Models Created in WellTest 2013 v2 (v 7.7.0) and Earlier 157
Black Oil Numerical Models for Liquid-Rich Gas Wells 157
Using Hybrid models 159
Populating the Hybrid model 160
Calculating the Hybrid model 161
History Matching the Hybrid model 162
Using Automatic Parameter Estimation 163
Specify Data Points to be used by APE 163
Specify Parameters to Vary 163
Run Automatic Parameter Estimation 165
Using Sparse Data 166
How Sparse Datasets are Calculated 167
Legacy Models: Procedures 168
Analyzing an Observation Well 169
Anchoring in Legacy Models 174
Creating a Legacy Model 176
Forecasting in Legacy Models 177
Performing APE in Legacy Models 180
Advanced APE Options 182
Weighting Points 182
Excluding Points 184
Selecting the APE Method 184
Preparing Data for Analysis 185
Calculating Sandface Pressures 186
Deleting Data in the Production Editor 191

Deleting Data at the Start or End of the Production Editor 191
Deleting Data in the Middle of the Production Editor 191
Determining a Shut-in Point 194
Entering and Interpreting Rates 196
End of Period – Rate Data 196
Entering Calibration Properties for Oil / Condensate 197
Entering Custom Data for Dry Gas / Wet Gas 198
Entering Custom Data for Liquid-Rich Gas 201
Entering Custom Data for Oil / Condensate 204
Entering Detailed Production / Injection Data Manually 207
Specifying Time 208
Specifying Production / Injection 208
Entering Properties 209
Entering Custom Properties 212
Handling Large Datasets 215
Loading Data into the Production editor 216
Manipulating Data 218
Merging Data 219
Renaming Gauges 221
Smoothing Data 222
Specifying Shut-In Points 226
Synchronizing Data 228
Reporting 233
Collating a Report 234
Additional Options 235
Designing a Report 237
Modifying an Existing Template 239
Selecting a Template to Modify 239
Adding a Plot 240

Adding a Grid 243
Grid Sizing Options 245
Adding an Annotation 246
Adding a Line 248
Adding a Frame 248
Adding an Image 250
Adding Text 252
Adding a Schematic 253
Previewing a Report 256
Rearranging Pages 257
Analysis Types 259
AOF Analysis 260
Types of Deliverability Tests 260
Conventional Back Pressure Test 260
Isochronal Test 260
Modified Isochronal Test 261
Single Point Test 261
AOF Flow Conditions 261
Extended Flow 261
Stabilized Shut-in 261
Stabilized Flow 262
Types of Analyses 262
Pressure Method 262
Pressure Squared 262
Pseudo-Pressure 262
Simplified Analysis 263
LIT Analysis 265
References 266
Deconvolution Analysis 267

Tips to Achieve Better Results 267
Common Questions 268
References 268
IPR Analysis 269
Straight Line IPR 269
Vogel IPR 269
Reservoir Pressure Below the Bubble Point Pressure 270
Reservoir Pressure at the Bubble Point Pressure 270
Reference 271
Conventional Test Analyses 272
Afterflow (Wellbore Storage) Analysis 273
Basic Definitions (Field Units) 273
Constant Rate Solution (Field Units) 274
Summary of Equations for Afterflow Analysis (Field Units) 275
Derivative Analysis (Field Units) 275
Summary of Equations for Afterflow Derivative Analysis (Field Units) 276
Bilinear Fracture Flow Analysis 278
Constant Rate Solution 278
Summary of Equations for Bilinear Fracture Flow (Field Units) 279
Derivative Analysis 279
Summary of Equations for Bilinear Fracture Flow Derivative Analysis (Field Units) 281
Derivative Analyses 283
Introduction 283
Standard Derivative 283
Bourdet Derivative 284
References 284
Dietz-MBH Analysis 285
Elliptical Flow Analysis 286
References 287

Horizontal Radial Flow Analysis 288
Linear Channel Flow Analysis 290
Summary of Equations for Linear Channel Flow (Field Units) 291
Derivative 292
Summary of Equations for Linear Channel Flow Derivative Analysis (Field Units) 294
References 294
Linear Fracture Flow Analysis 295
Constant Rate Solution (Field Units) 295
Summary of Equations for Linear Fracture Flow (Field Units) 296
Other Required Equations (Field Units) 297
Derivative (Field Units) 297
Summary of Equations for Linear Fracture Flow Derivative Analysis (Field Units) 298
Linear Horizontal Flow Analysis 300
Summary of Equations for Linear Channel Flow (Field Units) 301
Derivative 302
Summary of Equations for Linear Channel Flow Derivative Analysis (Field Units) 304
Pseudo-Steady State Flow Analysis 305
Summary of Equations for PSS Flow (Field Units) 307
Derivative 307
Summary of Equations for Pseudo-steady State Flow Derivative Analysis (Field Units) 309
Radial Flow Analysis 310
Permeability 311
Skin 311
Drawdown Tests 311
Buildup Tests 312

Summary of Equations for Radial Flow (Field Units) 313
Other Required Equations (Gas Equations, Field Units) 313
Derivative 313
Permeability 314
Skin 315
Summary of Equations for Radial Flow Derivative Analysis (Field Units) 315
Spherical Flow Analysis 316
References 318
Vertical Radial Flow Analysis 319
Minifrac Test Analyses 321
Minifrac Pre-Closure Analysis 322
Introduction 322
G-Function Analysis 323
Algebraic Definition of the G-Function 324
Square Root Time Analysis 325
Fluid Leakoff Types 326
Normal Leakoff 326
Pressure-Dependent Leakoff 327
Transverse Storage / Fracture Height Recession 328
Fracture Tip Extension 329
Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure 330
Fracture Closure Pressure 332
Minifrac After-Closure Analysis 333
Nolte 333
Nolte ACA Derivative 333
Nolte ACA Linear Analysis 334
Nolte ACA Radial Analysis 336
Soliman / Craig 338
Soliman / Craig ACA Derivative 338

Soliman / Craig ACA Bilinear Analysis 339
Soliman / Craig ACA Linear Analysis 341
Soliman / Craig ACA Radial Analysis 343
Step Down Test Analysis 345
PITA and Closed Chamber Test Analyses 348
PITA Analysis 349
Introduction 349
Theory 350
PITA Test Data (Figure 1) 350
Flow Regimes 351
PITA Flow Regime Diagnostic (Figure 2) 352
Analysis 352
PITA Late Time Analysis (Figure 3) 354
Early Time Analysis (Figure 4) 355
References 355
Closed Chamber Test Analysis 357
Theory 357
Flow Regimes 358
Analysis 359
References 361
Slug Analysis 362
Impulse Radial Analysis 362
References 363
Models 364
Models: Overview 365
Model Assumptions 365
Advanced Models: Analytical & Numerical 367
Advanced Model: Hybrid 369
Prerequisites 369

Advanced Analytical Models 370
Advanced Composite Analytical Model 371
Advanced Fracture Analytical Model 372
Advanced Horizontal Analytical Model 373
Advanced Multilayer Analytical Model 375
Advanced Vertical Analytical Model 376
Advanced Water Drive Analytical Model 377
Horizontal Multifrac Composite Model 378
Parameters 379
Plots, Forecast &Test Design, and Tables Tabs 381
References 381
Horizontal Multifrac Enhanced Frac Region Model 382
Horizontal Multifrac – General Model 383
Parameters 384
Plots, Forecast &Test Design, and Tables Tabs 386
Horizontal Multifrac – Repeating Pattern Model 387
Horizontal Multifrac SRV (Uniform Fracs) Model 389
Advanced Numerical Models 391
Use of Numerical Models 391
Prerequisites 392
Properties for Numerical Modeling 392
Gas Properties for Numerical Modeling 392
Oil Properties for Numerical Modeling 393
Relative Permeability 394
Legacy Models 396
CCT Model 397
References 397
Composite Model 398
References 398

Finite Conductivity Fracture Model 399
References 401
Fracture with Boundaries Model 402
References 403
Fully Penetrating Anisotropic Model 405
Horizontal Model 406
References 407
Leaky Fault Model 408
References 409
Minifrac Models 410
Multilayer Cylindrical Model 413
References 414
Multilayer Cylindrical with Unequal Pi Model 416
References 417
Multilayer Rectangular Model 419
References 420
Partial Penetration Model 421
References 421
Partial Penetration Anisotropic Model 422
PITA Model 423
References 424
Slant Model 426
References 426
Slug Model 427
References 428
Vertical Interference Model 429
Wedge Model 430
References 430
User Interface 431

Data Tables 432
All Data Table 433
Removing Data at the Ends of a Dataset 435
Tabs 437
Data Management Tab 438
Data Sub-tab 438
Synchronize Sub-tab 440
Merge Sub-tab 440
Smooth Sub-tab 441
Filter Sub-tab 442
Production Editor Tab 444
Data Table / Grid 444
Data Chart 445
Zoomed Data Chart 445
Toolbar 446
Grid Options 446
Print / Print Preview 447
Export 448
Calc SFP / Undo SFP 448
Data Selection 448
Previous Production 448
Next Shut-in / Prev Shut-in 448
Undo / Redo 448
Filter 449
Determine Shut-in 450
Properties Tab 451
Property Type View 451
Reservoir Properties View 452
Inputs Pane 453

Toolbar Icons 454
Gas Properties 454
Additional Properties for Liquid-rich Gas 456
Oil / Condensate Properties 457
Water Properties 458
CBM Properties 459
Adsorption Properties 461
Geomechanical Properties 462
Capillary Pressure Properties 463
Relative Permeability Properties 463
Main View 464
AER PAS Tab 466
Reports Tab 467
Preview Report Tab 467
Toolbar Icons 468
Preview Pane 469
Collated Reports 470
Design Report Tab 472
Reports versus Templates 474
Toolbar Icons 474
Hotkeys 475
Default File Locations 475
Custom Templates 476
Comparison Plot Tab 479
Deconvolution Tab 482
Deconvolution Plots 482
Deconvolved Typecurve 482
Data Typecurve 482
Total Test 483

Task Bar 483
Control Panel 484
Toolbar 484
Anchor / Initial Pressure 485
Typecurve Options 485
Weighting Parameters 486
Deconvolution Results 486
Advanced Options 486
Filtering 487
Advanced Models Tab 488
Model Manager Tab 489
Advanced Analytical Models Tab 490
Toolbar 490
Analytical Model Inputs Pane 492
Plots Tab 493
Forecast and Test Design Tab 496
Results Plot 498
Forecasting 498
Forecast Parameters 498
Forecast Options 498
Forecast Constraints 501
Forecast Results 501
Tables Tab 502
Advanced Numerical Models Tab 503
Toolbar 503
Reservoir Tab 504
Options Tab 506
Plots Tab 507
Forecast and Test Design Tab 508

Results Plot 509
Forecasting 509
Forecast Parameters 509
Forecast Options 509
Forecast Constraints 512
Forecast Results 513
Tables Tab 513
Status Tab 514
Wizard Menu 516
WellTest Wizard: Adjust Gauge Pressure to Datum Depth 518
WellTest Wizard: Analysis Lines 519
WellTest Wizard: Analysis Method 520
WellTest Wizard: Specify wellbore type 520
WellTest Wizard: Analysis Parameters 522
Saturations 522
Formation Compressibility 522
Wellbore Radius 522
Datum depth (TVD) 523
WellTest Wizard: Calculate Sandface Pressures 524
WellTest Wizard: Data Management 525
WellTest Wizard: Effective Producing Time 526
WellTest Wizard: Filter 528
WellTest Wizard: Flow Period 530
WellTest Wizard: Headers 532
WellTest Wizard: History Match 534
WellTest Wizard: Import Data 535
WellTest Wizard: Model Selection 536
WellTest Wizard: Production / Injection before the test 537
WellTest Wizard: Properties 538

Reservoir Temperature and Pressure 538
Oil Properties 538
Gas Properties 538
WellTest Wizard: Remove Unnecessary Data 540
WellTest Wizard: Reservoir Fluid Type 541
Multiphase Options 541
WellTest Wizard: Select Data to Analyze 542
WellTest Wizard: Specify Shut-in Points 543
WellTest Wizard: Startup 545
WellTest Wizard: Test Type 546
Reference Materials 547
Analysis Theory 548
Changing Liquid Level 549
Deconvolution Theory 550
References 551
Flow Regimes 552
Afterflow / Wellbore Storage 554
Bilinear Fracture Flow 555
Bilinear Flow – MFHW 556
Compound Linear Flow – MFHW 557
Early Linear Flow – MFHW 557
Early Radial Flow – MFHW 558
Elliptical Flow 558
Horizontal Radial Flow 559
Late Radial Flow – MFHW 560
Late Time Region 561
Linear Channel Flow 561
Linear Flow within the Fractures – MFHW 562

Linear Fracture Flow 563
Linear Horizontal Flow 564
Pseudo-Steady State Flow 565
Radial Flow 566
Single No-Flow Boundary 567
Spherical Flow 568
Steady State Flow 568
Transition Region 569
Vertical Radial Flow 569
Vertical Radial Flow within the Fractures – MFHW 570
Handling Water Production 572
Gas Condensate 572
Solution Gas Drive 572
Interpretation of Buildup Data in Multi-Fractured Hz Wells 573
Primary Pressure Derivative 578
Pseudo-Pressure (y) 580
Radius of Investigation (rinv) 581
Estimating Drainage Area 582
Estimating Shut-in Duration 582
References 583
Single-Phase Pseudo-Pressure Calculation Steps 584
Skin 586
Choked Fracture Skin (sc) 586
References 586
Effective Wellbore Radius (reff) 587
Pressure Drop Due to Skin (Dpskin) 587
Skin Across the Fault (sfault) 588
Skin Due to Damage (sd) 588
Skin Due to Inclination (sinc) 588

References 590
Skin Due to Partial Penetration (spp) 590
References 592
Skin Due to Turbulence (sturb) 592
References 592
Skin Due to Xf (sXf) 592
Skin on Fracture Face (sf) 593
References 594
Total Skin (s') 595
Two-Phase Skin (s2p) 595
References 596
Two-Phase Pseudo-Pressure 597
Solution Gas Drive 597
Solution Gas Drive Theory 597
Solution Gas Drive Procedure 598
Gas Condensate 599
Gas Condensate Theory 599
Gas Condensate Procedure 601
Calculations & Correlations 603
Gas Correlations 604
Vaporized Oil Ratio (Rv) 604
Ovalle et al.'s Correlation for Rv 604
Gas Equations 606
Metric Units 606
Typecurves - Dimensionless Variables 606
Radial Analysis 606
Linear Analysis 607
Horizontal Well Analysis 607
Field Units 608

Typecurves - Dimensionless Variables 608
Radial Analysis 608
Linear Analysis 609
Bilinear Analysis 610
Oil Correlations 611
Al-Marhoun 1985 (Saudi Arabian Oil) 611
Bubble Point Pressure 611
Solution Gas Oil Ratio 611
Oil Formation Volume Factor 612
Gas Saturated 612
Undersaturated 612
Reference 612
De Ghetto et al (Heavy and Extra-Heavy Oils) 612
Heavy Oils 613
Extra-Heavy Oils 613
Heavy Oils 613
Gas Saturated 614
Undersaturated 614
Oil Compressibility 614
Gas Saturated 614
Undersaturated 615
Heavy Oils 615
Oil Viscosity 615

Dead Oil 615
Heavy-Oils 615
Gas Saturated 615
Heavy-Oils 615
Undersaturated 616
Heavy Oils 616
Reference 616
Glaso (North Sea Oil) 617
Bubble Point Correlation 617
Gas Saturated 618
Undersaturated 618
Reference 618
Hanafy et al (Egyptian Oil) 619
Gas Saturated 619
Undersaturated 619
Oil Density 619
Gas Saturated 620
Undersaturated 620
Undersaturated 620
Gas Saturated 620

Oil Viscosity 620
Reference 621
Khan et al (Saudi Arabian Oil) 621
Oil Viscosity at the Bubble Point 621
Oil Viscosity above the Bubble Point 621
Oil Viscosity below the Bubble Point 621
Reference 622
Ng and Egbogah 622
Dead Oils 622
Modified Beggs and Robinson Viscosity Correlation 622
Pour Point Visc 622
Live Oils 622
Gas-Saturated 622
Undersaturated 623
Reference 623
Petrosky and Farshad (Gulf of Mexico Oil) 623
Gas Saturated 624
Undersaturated 624
Gas Saturated 624
Undersaturated 624
Reference 625
Standing (California Oil) 625

Gas Saturated 625
Undersaturated 625
Reference 626
Vasquez and Beggs (Generally Applicable) 626
Gas Saturated 627
Undersaturated 627
Gas Saturated 627
Undersaturated 628
Reference 628
Velarde et al (Reduced Variable Approach) 628
Solution Gas Oil Ratio at the Bubble Point Pressure 628
Gas Saturated 630
Undersaturated 631
Correlation Limits 631
Reference 631
Oil Correlation Limits 631
Oil Equations 634
Metric Units 634
Type Curves – Dimensionless Variables 634
Radial Analysis 634
Linear Analysis 635

Field Units 636
Type Curves - Dimensionless Variables 636
Radial Analysis 637
Linear Analysis 637
Bilinear Analysis 638
Unit Conversions 639
Standard Conditions 639
Metric (SI) 639
Field 639
Common Conversions 639
Temperature Conversion 640
General Concepts 641
Alberta Energy Regulator 642
Anisotropic Permeability 643
Automatic Parameter Estimation (APE) 644
Marquardt-Levenberg 644
Mead (Simplex) 645
Average Reservoir Pressure (p or pR) 646
Material Balance Equation (MBE) 647
Gas 647
Oil and Water 647
References 648
Cumulative Production 649
Datum Depth (Ddatum) 650
Depth of Layer (Dlayer) 651
Drainage Area (A) 652
Dual Porosity 653
Interporosity Flow Coefficient (l) 657

Interporosity Skin (sdp) 657
Pseudo-Steady State Interporosity Flow 657
Storativity Ratio (w) 657
Transient Interporosity Flow 658
References 658
Extrapolated Pressure (p*) 659
Fault Properties 661
Dimensionless Fault Conductivity (FCD (fault)) 661
Distance to Fault (Lfault) 661
Final Average Reservoir Pressure (pavg) 663
Final Flowing Pressure (pwfo) 665
Gas Rate (qg) 666
Initial Cushion Pressure (pwo) 667
Initial Pressure (pi) 668
Interoperability with Harmony Enterprise 669
Liquid Gradient (Gliq) 670
Minifrac 671
Introduction 671
Typical Pressure Behaviour of Minifrac Tests 672
Types of Fracture Diagnostic Tests 674
Key Results from Minifrac Tests 675
Minifrac Analysis Techniques 675
Oil Rate (qo) 677
Partial Penetration 678
Height of Perforations (hp) 678
Top of Zone to Top of Perforations (htop) 679
Horizontal To Vertical Permeability Ratio (kh / kv) 680
PAS 682
Important Notes 682

Initial Pressure Requirements 682
Annual Pressure Requirements 683
Initial Deliverability Requirements 683
Initial Production Requirements 683
Permeability (k) 684
Pressure (p) 685
Productivity Index (PI) 686
Radial Extent of Zone (re) 687
Recombination 688
Relative Permeability 689
Relative Permeability Terms and Equations 689
Wettability 690
Water-Wet Relative Permeability Curves (Oil and Water) 690
Oil-Wet Relative Permeability Curves (Oil and Water) 691
Gas-Oil Relative Permeability Curves 692
Normalized Relative Permeability 693
Relative Permeability Correlations 694
Two-Phase Correlations 694
Corey 694
Water / Oil System 694
Gas / Oil System 695
Gas / Water System 695
Honarpour 695
Sandstone 695
Water Wet 695
Intermediate Wet 695
Any Wettability 696
Limestone 696
Water Wet 696

Intermediate Wet 696
Any Wettability 696
Generalized Corey 697
Gas / Oil System 697
Gas / Water System 697
Water / Oil System 697
Three-Phase Correlations 697
Stone I 698
Stone II 698
Baker 699
Specified Flow Time (tflow) 700
Specified Flowing Pressure (pflow) 701
Specified Shut-In Time (tshut-in) 702
Synthetic Initial Pressure (pi (syn)) 703
Time to Stabilization (tstab) 704
References 704
Transient Forecast 705
Forecast Parameters Dialog Box 707
Turbulence Factor (D) 710
Water Rate (qw) 711
Wedge Angle (q) 712
Well Locations & Boundaries 713
Constant Pressure Boundary 713
Distance to Boundary 713
Infinite Acting Reservoir 714
No-Flow Boundary 714
Observation Well 714
Reservoir Dimensions 715
Well Location 715

Properties 717
Fluid Properties 718
Formation Properties 719
Formation Compressibility (cf) 719
Gas Saturation (Sg) 719
Net Pay (h) 719
Oil Saturation (So) 720
Total Compressibility (ct) 720
Total Porosity (f) 721
Water Saturation (Sw) 722
Fracture Properties 723
Fracture Flow Capacity (kfwf) 723
Fracture Half-Length (Xf) 723
Gas Condensate Properties 725
Gas Properties Reference Material 727
Critical Pressure (pc) 727
Critical Temperature (Tc) 727
Gas Compressibility (cg) 727
Gas Compressibility Factor (z) 728
Gas Formation Volume Factor (Bg) 728
Gas Gravity (g or gg) 728
Gas Viscosity (mg) 729
Reservoir Temperature (T) 730
Water Properties Reference Material 731
Salinity 731
Water Compressiblity (cw) 731
Water Formation Volume Factor (Bw) 731
Water Specific Gravity (g or gw) 731
Water Viscosity (mw) 732

Wellbore Reference Materials 733
Acoustic Well Sounders 734
Quality 734
Planning & Preparation 734
Field Supervision 735
Wellbore Dynamics 736
1. Determination of sandface Pressure After Shut-In 736
2. Determination of Liquid Level 737
3. Foam Depression Test 737
4. Determination of Liquid Gradients 738
5. Determination of Oil/Water INFLUX 738
6. Determination of Measured or Potential Efflux 738
7. Determination of In-Situ Liquid Volume Fraction 738
Conclusions 739
Azimuth Angle (q) 740
Dimensionless Wellbore Storage Constant (CD) 741
Effective Wellbore Length (Le) 742
Inclination Angle (s) 743
Net Wellbore Inclination 744
Number of Segments (Nw) 745
Wellbore Compressibility (cwb) 746
Wellbore Radius (rw) 747
Wellbore Volume (Vw) 748
Wellbore Volumetric Capacity (Vu) 749
Modeling Theory 750
Basic Model Typecurves 751
Vertical Model 751
Composite Model 752
Partial Penetration 755

Multilayer Model 760
Fracture Model 761
Wedge Model 763
Changing Wellbore Storage 766
References 768
Geomechanical Reservoir Models 769
Pressure Dependent Permeability: Modified Pseudo-Pressure & Pseudo-Time 769
History Matching Overview 771
Hybrid Model Theory 772
Background 772
Analytical Models 772
Numerical Models 772
Hybrid Model 773
General Formulation for the Single-phase Model 773
Well Constraint Considerations 775
Considerations when Estimating Fluid Properties 776
Hybrid Model Pseudo-pressure Definition 776
Hybrid Model Pseudo-pressure Formulation 777
Advantages of Using the Pseudo-pressure Formulation 780
Numerical Model Theory 781
Differences between Black Oil, Gas Condensate, and Volatile Oil Models 781
Black Oil and Modified Black Oil Properties 782
Numerical Modeling Using Modified Black Oil Properties 784
Considerations When Using Numerical Simulation 785
Time Functions 787
Basic Time Functions 788
Bilinear Time 789

Corrected Pseudo-Time 790
Delta Time (Dt) 792
Equivalent Time (te) 793
Effective Producing Time (tc) 794
Horner Time 796
Linear Time 799
Minifrac Nolte ACA Linear Time 800
Minifrac Nolte ACA Radial Time 801
Minifrac Observations From Real Data 802
Minifrac Soliman / Craig ACA Bilinear Time 807
Minifrac Soliman / Craig ACA Linear Time 808
Minifrac Soliman / Craig ACA Radial Time 809
Producing Time (tp) 810
Pseudo-Time 811
Why Use Pseudo-Time? 811
Effect of Applying Pseudo-Time 812
Development of Pseudo-Time 812
Definition of Pseudo-Time 813
Buildup Pseudo-Time 814
Drawdown Pseudo-Time 814
References 815
Shut-In Time 816
Start of Injection Line 817
Superposition Time 818
Superposition Time Example Calculations 820
Radial Flow Regime 820
Linear Flow Regime 821
Nomenclature 823
References 835

Analysis References 835
Major References 835
Minifrac References 836
Modeling References 837
Property Correlation References 837
Gas Properties 837
Oil Properties 837
Al-Marhoun 1985 (Saudi Arabian Oil) 837
De Ghetto et al (Heavy and Extra-Heavy Oils) 838
Glaso (North Sea Oil) 838
Hanafy et al (Egyptian Oil) 838
Khan et al (Saudi Arabian Oil) 838
Ng and Egbogah 838
Petrosky and Farshad (Gulf of Mexico Oil) 838
Standing (California Oil) 838
Vasquez and Beggs (Generally Applicable) 838
Velarde et al (Reduced Variable Approach) 839
Rock Properties 839
Specific References 839
AOF 839
Average Reservoir Pressure 839
Changing Wellbore Storage 840
Choked Fracture Skin 840
Closed Chamber Test (CCT) Analysis 840
Closed Chamber Test (CCT) Model 840
Composite Model 841
Deconvolution 841
Derivative Analysis 841

Dual Porosity 841
Elliptical Flow Analysis 841
Finite Conductivity Fracture Model 842
Fracture with Boundaries Model 842
Horizontal Multifrac - Enhanced Frac Region Model 842
Impulse Radial Analysis 843
IPR 843
Linear Channel Flow Analysis 843
Multi-Layer Cylindrical Model 843
Multi-Layer Cylindrical with Unequal Pi Model 844
Multilayer Cylindrical Rectangular Model 844
Partial Penetration Model 844
PITA Analysis 844
PITA Model 845
Pseudo-Pressure 845
Pseudo-Time 845
Skin Due to Inclination 846
Skin Due to Partial Penetration 846
Skin Due to Turbulence 846
Skin on Fracture Face 846
Slant Model 847
Slug Model 847
Spherical Flow Analysis 847
Two-Phase Skin 847
Vertical Model 847
Wedge Model 848
Contact us 849

Training 850
Resources 850
Customized training 850

WellTest™ 2019.1
These topics highlight key content in WellTest™ to get you started:
WellTest Wizard
Starting a Project
WellTest Wizard: Startup
Test Types
Drawdown / Buildup
Injection / Falloff
Minifrac
PITA & Closed Chamber Tests
Workflows
Conventional
IPR
Minfrac
PITA
Step Down Test
Procedures
Performing an Analysis
Filtering
Generating & Submitting PAS AER Files
Importing Data
Modeling
Preparing Data for Analysis
Reporting
Models
Overview
Advanced Models: Analytical
Advanced Models: Numerical
Legacy Models
User Interface
Tabs

Advanced Models Tab
Wizard Menu
Reference Materials
Calculations & Correlations
General Concepts
Modeling Theory
Time Functions

About WellTest
WellTest with “real-time data capture” is one of the most technically advanced pressure transient
analysis (PTA) software packages. It has a large number of simple and complex reservoir models for
efficient analysis of pressure data yielding permeability, wellbore skin, drainage area, hydrocarbons-
in-place, and stimulation effectiveness.
Deliverability forecasts, at varying line pressures, can be generated for any model, and conversion
of wellhead pressures to sandface conditions is a standard feature. WellTest generates Pressure
ASCII Standard (PAS) files for electronic pressure data submission to the Alberta Energy Regulator
(AER).
Video Tutorials
See the Training Videos web page (opens in a new window) for addi-
tional information.

Licensing
There are two types of WellTest licenses.
A standalone license is installed on your local machine. For information on standalone licensing, see
activating / deactivating your license.
A network license is installed on a network server and WellTest must be configured to the network
server. If you want to work offline, a network license can be checked out as a commuter, and is
accounted for in the network license seat count. After you are finished working offline, you can check
your commuter in. For information on setting up network licensing, see the IHS Markit Installation
Guide and IHS Markit License Manager help (both links open in a new window / tab).

Activating / deactivating your license
For standalone licensing, you only need to install WellTest.
To set up a network licensing system, you need to install the License Service on your server and the
License Manager on one or more machines with connectivity to the server. For more information
(including activation / deactivation information), see the IHS Markit Installation Guide (opens in a
new window / tab).
Best practice
For network entitlements, activate / deactivate licenses through the License Manager. For stan-
dalone entitlements, activate / deactivate licenses through WellTest. Do not activate licenses using
the EMS Customer Portal unless instructed to do so by a customer care representative.
Activating / deactivating your standalone license

To activate or deactivate your standalone license:
1. Open your EMS - Entitlement Certificate email and copy your entitlement ID (EID).
2. Start WellTest.
3. Open the Licensing dialog box by clicking the Help menu and selecting Licensing.
4. Click the Activate / Deactivate button.
5. Paste your EID (from the email) in the Entitlement Id field and click Connect.
6. To activate your license, in the Activate tab, select the product you want to use and click the
Activate button.
Your license is now active.
Note: You can also queue up your renewed license as soon as you receive your new enti-
tlement email. There is no need to remove your current license, or to wait until your
current license expires.
7. To deactivate your license, click the Deactivate tab, select the product you want to deac-
tivate and click the Deactivate button.
The product is now displayed in the Activate tab and can be activated on a new machine.

When the deactivation process completes, a dialog box opens indicating whether the pro-
cess was successful or not. If the network experiences an interruption during the deac-
tivation, a “Complete Partial Deactivation” button may appear. When the network is
restored, clicking this button cleans up any artifacts caused by the interruption, and then the
button disappears.

Licensing dialog box
This dialog box enables you to configure standalone or network licensing.
Standalone licensing
Active License -- Standalone — indicates that your license is ready for use. Note that if
your license is not active, errors are displayed for troubleshooting purposes.
Information icon — opens the License Information dialog box.
Configure — opens the Licensing Settings dialog box where you can configure your licens-
ing (for example, you can install or uninstall a license that has already been activated).
Activate / Deactivate — opens the IHS Markit Online Activation dialog box where you can
activate and deactivate your licenses. For more information, see activating / deactivating
licenses.
Network licensing

Active License -- Network — indicates that your license is ready for use. Note that if your
license is not active, errors are displayed for troubleshooting purposes.
Check Out Commuter button — enables you to work offline by commuting a network seat.
(This button is only visible if you have not checked out a commuter.)
Days field — use this field to set the number of days your commuter can exist offline. By
default, you can check out the commuter for a maximum of 90 days. Note that this field is
only visible when the Check Out Commuter button is displayed.
Check In Commuter button — click this button when you are finished working offline to
check your commuter back in. (This button is only visible if you have checked out a com-
muter.)
Information icon — opens the License Information dialog box.
Current Users icon — opens the Current Users dialog box, which lists all current users,
machine names, start dates, and if users' licenses are commuters. (Commuter licenses
enable you to work offline.) This list of current users can be useful if you are trying to track
down a seat that could be made available. If the Commuter column lists "Yes", the user is
likely away from the office.
Note: This icon may be hidden by your administrator.
Configure — opens the Licensing Settings dialog box where you can configure your licens-
ing (for example, you can set the name of your network license server).
Activate / Deactivate — opens the IHS Markit Online Activation dialog box where you can
activate and deactivate your licenses.

License Information dialog box
This dialog box is accessible from the Licensing dialog box.
At the top, the name of your licensed module is displayed. Beneath this, the following information is
displayed:
Application Version — the build number for WellTest.
Feature Version — indicates whether or not a license is version locked. A version of ALL
indicates that a license is not version locked and can use any version of WellTest com-
patible with the Gemalto licensing system.
License Type — indicates a network, standalone, or commuted license.
License Start Date — the first day the license can be used.
License Expiry Date — the last day the license can be used.
License Library Version — the build number for the license library.
License Service Version — the build number for the license server (only visible for net-
work systems).

Licensing Settings dialog box
This dialog box is accessible from the Licensing dialog box.
Network Licensing
Use this section to specify the location of your network license server. If you are hosting all
of your IHS Markit network licenses (for applications using the Gemalto licensing system) on
the same server, use the Common License Server field. If you have separate servers for
WellTest and other IHS Markit applications, use the WellTest License Server field.
Note: If you fill in both fields, the WellTest License Server field takes precedence.

Standalone Licensing
Computer Code field — this is the hardware footprint for your computer. It is only required if
you need to activate a license using the customer portal. For computers with internet
access, see activating / deactivating licenses.
Installed Licenses — lists all of the standalone licenses currently activated. This section
shows active licenses, as well as inactive licenses (expired or future licenses that are
queued up).
Install button — click this button to install standalone licensing that you have activated using
the customer portal.
Uninstall button — if you want to uninstall standalone licensing on your local computer,
click this button. Note that standalone licenses that are uninstalled with this button are not
available for activation on other computers. If you want to move a standalone license to
another computer, it must first be deactivated, and then activated on the new computer. For
more information, see activating / deactivating licenses.
License Module Logging
In the unlikely event of licensing issues, Customer Care may ask you to select one or more
of these logging options. We recommend that these options remain deselected, unless you
are actively investigating an issue.

IHS Markit Online Activation dialog box
This dialog box is accessible from the Licensing dialog box and displays content after you connect to
the Entitlement Management System (EMS). Click the Activate tab to activate products from the list,
and click the Deactivate tab to deactivate products from the list. For more information, see activating
/ deactivating licenses.
Entitlement Id — enter the entitlement ID (sent to you via email) and click Connect. This
enables you to activate licenses or deactivate / move licenses from one machine to another.
Remember Me — if you click this checkbox, your entitlement ID is saved, so that you can
quickly reconnect to the EMS
Activate tab — lists the products you can activate
Deactivate tab — lists the products you can deactivate

Refresh icon — click this icon to refresh the product list in the table
Save Troubleshooting Data button — if you do not see the products you want in the list,
Customer Care may ask you to click this button to generate a text file for troubleshooting pur-
poses. If you need assistance, please contact us. Note that this button only applies to the
Activate tab.
Activate / Deactivate button — click this button to activate or deactivate products

Test Types
A well test is the measurement of a well’s response to a known and controlled change. Traditionally,
rate is controlled and the pressure response is measured, but there are alternative ways to test
wells. The most appropriate test depends on when the test is conducted, well location, well and form-
ation type, the cost of the test, and value of the information to be obtained from the test. Each type of
well test has its own set of equations and plots to facilitate analyzing the measured data.
Test types include the following:
Drawdown / Buildup
Injection / Falloff
Minifrac
PITA and Closed Chamber Tests

Drawdown / Buildup Test Type
Pressure drawdown tests are conducted by producing the well at a known rate, or sequence of
rates, while measuring changes in pressure with time. Data from drawdown tests can be very noisy.
These tests are considered when the economic environment requires a minimum loss of production
time.
Pressure buildup tests are conducted by producing the well, and then shutting it in while measuring
changes in pressure with time. Ideally, the flow preceding the shut-in would at least be long enough
for the rates to stabilize. The quality of data obtained from buildup tests is far superior to that of draw-
down tests because the rates are stable (zero). When analyzing data from buildup tests, it is valu-
able to analyze the drawdown and buildup data.

Injection / Falloff Test Type
Injection and falloff tests are analogous to drawdown and buildup tests for injection wells. In
WellTest, injection rates are denoted as negative rates.
When the test type is Injection / Falloff, imported rates are converted to negative values, and the
average reservoir pressure on the Properties tab defaults to the lowest measured pressure. Wells
with injection and production, such as gas storage wells, can be analyzed using either Drawdown /
Buildup or Injection / Falloff test types provided the rate history is properly specified.

Minifrac Test Type
Minifrac tests are injection/ falloff tests performed without proppant before a main fracture stim-
ulation treatment. The intent is to break down the formation to create a short fracture during the injec-
tion period, and then to observe closure of the fracture system during the ensuing falloff period.
Minifrac tests can be designed to provide results useful in designing the main fracture treatment, or
to yield initial pressure and reservoir flow characteristics, such as permeability.
It is extremely difficult and impractical to obtain estimates of initial pressure in horizontal multifrac
wells following the hydraulic fracture treatments. Minifrac tests are a convenient solution. In com-
parison to Perforation Inflow tests, Minifrac tests are also attractive because they can give estimates
of initial pressure and reservoir flow characteristics within a shorter time frame (provided injection
volume is small), and because the mini-fracture can cut through near wellbore damage and contact
the native reservoir.
The Minifrac test type supports pre-closure analysis, after-closure analysis, modeling, and step-
down test analysis. Minifrac after-closure data may also be analyzed in the same way as falloff data
by changing the test type to Injection / Falloff. However, changing the test type will delete any exist-
ing minifrac analyses. If you would like to have a combination of minifrac analyses and conventional
analyses, we recommend saving the file with a new name prior to changing the test type.

PITA and Closed Chamber Tests
Perforation inflow/injection test analysis (PITA) and closed chamber tests include the following:
Perforation Inflow
Perforation Injection
Closed Chamber Inflow
Closed Chamber Injection
Slug
Slug Injection

Perforation Inflow Test Type
Perforation Inflow tests are a type of closed chamber test that is conducted by allowing reservoir fluid
(gas, oil, or water) to flow into the closed wellbore after perforating and monitoring the ensuing pres-
sure buildup with time. This occurs when the well perforated in an under-balanced condition (initial
cushion pressure (pwo) < initial reservoir pressure (pi)).
Perforation Injection tests are analogous to this and occur when the well is perforated in an over-bal-
anced condition. These tests have been referenced as: Slug tests, Surge tests, Perforation Inflow
Diagnostics (PID), or Closed Chamber tests.
Perforation Inflow tests are attractive in unconventional (low-permeability) reservoirs because estim-
ates of initial reservoir pressure (pi), permeability (k), and skin (s') can be obtained in a shorter dur-
ation than buildup tests, and because they don’t require any venting / flaring into the atmosphere.
However, the radius of investigation achieved from these tests is less than that of a buildup test.

Perforation Injection Test Type
The same methodology used in Perforation Inflow tests applies to a perforation test done in an over-
balanced condition, where initial cushion pressure (pwo) > initial reservoir pressure (pi).
In this case, wellbore fluid is injected into the reservoir during the test. The objective is to extract key
reservoir parameters (initial reservoir pressure (pi), permeability (k), and skin (s')) from the pressure
data.

Closed Chamber Inflow Test Type
A closed chamber test is a Perforation Inflow Test with a step-reduction in the wellbore volume at
some point during the test. It is essentially equivalent to a drillstem test (DST) that is conducted with
the wellhead valve closed, so that all formation fluid is accumulated in the wellbore and is not pro-
duced at surface. The figure below illustrates a typical wellbore configuration used to conduct a
closed chamber test.
When applying this testing method to formations with moderate to high permeability (1 - 100 md),
estimates of key reservoir properties (initial reservoir pressure (pi), permeability (k), and skin (s'))
can be obtained without shutting in downhole, and resembles a perforation inflow test analysis
(PITA). However, to obtain estimates of key reservoir properties in low permeability formations (< 1
md), downhole shut-in is required to reduce the wellbore volume (Vw) and decrease the time
required to see reservoir-dominated (radial) flow. The downhole shut-in usually occurs after some
formation fluid has been produced into the wellbore. Hence, this type of closed chamber test is com-
prised of two periods: a flow period when the wellbore volume (Vw) is large (PITA), and a buildup
period when the wellbore volume (Vw) is small. To account for this reduction in wellbore storage, we
have developed a different analysis technique, which is referred to as Closed Chamber Test (CCT)
analysis.

Closed Chamber Injection Test Type
The methodology described in Closed Chamber Inflow Tests pertains to a perforation test done in an
under-balanced condition.
Closed Chamber Injection tests refer to the same test conducted when perforating over-balanced,
where the initial cushion pressure (pwo) is greater than the initial reservoir pressure (pi).

Slug Test Type
Slug tests are conducted by extracting a small volume of fluid from the reservoir within a short period
of time. Although the tests and solution methods were developed independently, the analytic solu-
tions for analyzing slug tests are identical to PITA analysis.
Note: In WellTest, the PITA analysis has been developed further than slug.
PITA facilitates the estimation of p*, reservoir permeability, and skin whereas Slug's Impulse Radial
Analysis only provides an estimation of p*. Therefore, PITA is recommended for analyzing data from
slug tests. Both PITA and Slug tests have identical modeling capabilities in WellTest.

Slug Injection Test Type
Slug Injection tests are analogous to Slug tests. A small volume of fluid is added to, instead of extrac-
ted from, the reservoir.
For the same reasons described in the Slug Test Type, we recommend using the Perforation Injec-
tion Test Type to analyze slug injection data.

Workflows
Workflows differ from procedures in that they summarize the various steps at a high-level, rather
than providing specific instructions in detail.
We recommend that you use the wizard. Beside many of the steps in the workflows, you'll see the
Wizard icon ( ), which you can click to jump to the appropriate step in the wizard.
Conventional
IPR
Minifrac
PITA
Step Down
Test Design

Conventional Workflow
This workflow is a guide for analyzing both drawdown / buildup and injection / falloff tests.
1. Depending on the type of data you have, start a Drawdown / Buildup, or Injection / Falloff pro-
ject. See Starting a Project for details.
2. Import your pressure data.
3. Import your rate data. If you have multiple files containing rate data, such as cleanup flow
and test production, import each file and then merge the rates together.
4. Synchronize the rates to the pressures.
5. Click the Production Editor tab. The Select Data to Analyze dialog box opens. Ensure that
the imported pressure dataset is displayed in the Active Pressure drop-down list, and that
the imported rate dataset is displayed in the Gas, Oil, or Water Rate drop-down lists; click
OK. See Loading Data into the Production Editor for additional information.
6. Remove unnecessary data points (see Deleting Data at the Start or End of the Production
Editor for details), such as pressure data before and after the test.
7. Specify shut-in points by entering a zero rate in the row of the data table with the first buildup
(or falloff) pressure. Check the data chart to ensure that the rates go to zero immediately
before the pressure buildup (or falloff) begins.
8. Specify the reservoir fluid type.
9. Filter the data in the Production Editor. We recommend filtering the data down to fewer than
5,000 points to speed up model calculations.
10. Click the Properties tab and enter the relevant fluid properties.
11. Convert pressures to sandface. If you have downhole gauge data, adjust the pressures
from run depth to sandface conditions. If you have wellhead pressures, calculate sandface
pressures.
12. Conduct an analysis.
13. Create a model. See Creating an Advanced Model or Creating a Legacy Model for addi-
tional information.
14. History match your data.

15. (Optional) Create a forecast. See Forecasting in Advanced Models or Forecasting in
Legacy Models for additional information.
16. (Optional) If desired, perform an absolute open flow (AOF) analysis.
17. Create a report. See Designing a Report for additional information.

IPR Workflow
Note: You are not required to have data in the Production Editor in order to perform an inflow per-
formance relationship (IPR) analysis.
To follow the IPR workflow:
1. Launch WellTest and start a new Drawdown / Buildup project.See Starting a Project for
details.
The WellTest Wizard: Startup dialog box opens.
2. Select Create Liquid IPR and click Next.

A new tab opens with the title Liquid IPR 1.
Note: You can also create an IPR by clicking the IPR menu and selecting Create Liquid IPR.
In the Liquid IPR 1 tab, on the left side, there is a section to input values for pressure and
rate parameters. On the right side, there is an empty plot that is generated based on your
inputs.
3. Enter values for the input parameters as shown below.

The section shown in red is automatically calculated from your input values.

4. View your plot.

5. Print the default IPR report. For additional information, see Previewing a Report.

Minifrac Workflow
This workflow is meant to be a high-level guide for analyzing minifrac tests, and covers the most com-
monly encountered data (e.g., wellhead data) and procedures. Note that the workflow you adopt
may deviate from this guideline depending on the details of your test.
1. Start a new Mini-Frac project. See Starting a Project for details.
Note: If you have detailed injection rates, you should import them and synchronize them to
the pressures.
3. Click the Production Editor tab and load the imported data into the Production Editor.
4. If you did not import rates in Step 2, enter the injection rates manually. Most operators report
rates in units of bbl/min. You can change units by right-clicking the units of the Water Rate
column.
5. Enter a zero rate in the row with the first falloff pressure. Check the data chart to ensure the
rates go to zero immediately before the pressure falloff begins.

6. Position the Start of Injection line.
8. Filter the data. We recommend filtering the data down to fewer than 5,000 points to speed up
model calculations.
9. Click the Properties tab.
a. If KCL water was used, specify the water gravity. This will be used to calculate sandface
pressures.
b. Enter the properties of the reservoir fluid.
10. Calculate sandface pressures.
11. Perform a pre-closure analysis.
12. Perform a Nolte after-closure analysis.
13. Perform a Soliman / Craig after-closure analysis.
14. History match the after-closure data.
15. Collate the pre-closure, Nolte after-closure, Soliman after-closure, and model reports.
Then, save the collated report as a pdf file.

PITA Workflow
These procedures are provided as a guide for analyzing a perforation inflow/injection test analysis
(PITA).
To follow the PITA workflow:
1. If the pressures build up (i.e., the pressure in the wellbore prior to perforating was less than
the reservoir pressure), start a new PITA inflow project. If the pressures fall off, start a new
PITA injection project. See Starting a Project for details.
Note: Rate data is not required for a PITA analysis.
3. Click the Production Editor tab. The Select Data to Analyze dialog box will open. Ensure that
the imported pressure dataset is displayed in the Active Pressure drop-down list and click
OK. See Loading data into the Production Editor for more information.
4. Remove all data prior to perforating and after the build up (or fall off). See Deleting Data at
the Start or End of the Production Editor for additional information.
6. Filter the data. We recommend filtering the data down to fewer than 5,000 points to speed up
model calculations.
7. Click the Properties tab. Depending on the type of reservoir fluid specified earlier, click
either the Gas Properties, Oil Properties, or Water Propertiessub-tabs. Change the
Reservoir Temperature value and enter the fluid properties.
8. Calculate sandface pressures.

9. Conduct a PITA analysis.
10. History match the PITA data.
11. (Optional) Create a forecast.
12. Collate the default Late Time, Early Time, and model reports. Then, save the collated
report as a pdf file.

Step Down Test Workflow
This workflow procedure is a guide for the step-down analysis.
Note: Wellhead pressures must be converted to sandface pressures before conducting an ana-
lysis.
1. Import rate and pressure data into WellTest.
2. Click the Production Editor tab and load the imported data into the Production Editor by
selecting OK on the Data Selection dialog box.
3. Convert wellhead pressures to sandface pressures by clicking the Calc SFP icon on the Pro-
duction Editor toolbar and specifying wellbore parameters.
4. Create a Step Down Analysis. In the main menu, select Step Down Test Analysis from the
Analysis menu.
5. Select one data point per step rate. Click the white arrow to the left of each row in the grid.
This puts the cursor in the point selection mode. Click a desired data point in the History or
Zoom plot. This places an annotation arrow on the History plot and populates the appro-
priate row on the grid with data. You can use the Zoom plot to fine-tune the point selection.
6. On the bottom-right section, click the Step Down Plot tab to see a pressure vs. rate plot of
the selected data points.
7. In the Model Parameters section (top-right), enter initial estimates of model parameters with
which to history match the analysis data. A model is generated and displayed in the Step
Down Plot when all input parameters have been entered.
8. Modify the model parameters, especially those with low confidence levels, to improve the
match between the selected data points and the model's calculated values. Alternatively,
select parameters for automatic estimation by checking the checkbox beside each para-
meter, and then click the Automatic Parameter Estimation ( ) icon.
9. Evaluate results for consistency and reasonableness.
10. To generate a report, click the Reports tab and Preview Report sub-tab. A step down test
report is generated.

Procedures
WellTest procedures include the following:
Adding an Annotation Arrow Filtering
Changing Global Unit Settings Generating & Submitting PAS AER Files
Exporting Importing Data
Exporting to CMG Modeling
Opening Harmony Enterprise Files Performing an Analysis
Positioning the Start of Injection Line Preparing Data for Analysis
Specifying the Reservoir Type Reporting
Starting a Project

Adding an Annotation Arrow
Annotation arrows can be added to plots within an analysis, or via a legacy model tab. To add an
annotation arrow:
1. Click the annotation arrow icon located on the toolbar on any of the plots ( ).
The following toolbar opens:
a. To add a single arrow annotation, click the single arrow ( ).
b. To add synchronized arrow annotations to the same point on each plot, select the syn-
chronized arrow ( ).
When a synchronized arrow is moved, the corresponding arrows on other curves and plots
will also move.
2. Click the plot near the data point you want the annotation arrow to point to.
3. Click-and-drag the arrow to a different data point, or click the arrow and use the arrow keys
to fine-tune your selection.

Changing Global Unit Settings
You can change the default units that are used at startup. You can also toggle the units of the current
display.
Note: By default, units in WellTest projects are displayed in metric.
Changing Default Units

To change the default units on startup:
1. Click the Edit menu; then click Defaults; then File Defaults… The New File Defaults dialog
box opens.
2. Click Metric or Field; then click OK.
Toggling Display Units

All units displayed and used by the software can be toggled between field and metric at any time by
clicking the Change units icon ( ) on the main toolbar:

Exporting
To export / move your data to a new location on your computer:
1. Click the Export icon ( ).
The Save As dialog box opens.
2. Navigate to your export location, and then click Save.

Exporting to CMG
After an advanced numerical model has been created, you can export it to CMG IMEX – the
industry-accepted black-oil simulator by Computer Modelling Group (CMG) Ltd.
Note: This feature is available for the black oil and modified black oil models, but it is not available
for coalbed methane (CBM) numerical models.
To export to CMG:
1. Click the Export to CMG ( ) icon on the numerical model's toolbar.
The Save As dialog box opens.
2. Save your .dat file with the default filename, or rename it if you want.
After this is done, you can run the .dat file in CMG IMEX. If you wish to modify the .dat file,
you can load it into the CMG Builder and edit it there. Or, you can use any text editor.
The .dat file contains the following information:
l Model dimensions and gridding
l Rock properties
l Fluid properties
l Completion information (e.g., well location, number, and size of fractures)
l Well control information (e.g., if the Use Oil Rate calculation method is selected for
the model, oil rates are written to the appropriate section of the .dat file)
Note: The current implementation of the Export to CMG feature does not support some of the
advanced model parameters. If you try to export a model that has such parameters, an error
message is displayed in the Status Window, and the CMG .dat file is not created. To open
the Status Window, click the View menu and select Toolbars and Docking Windows,
Status Window.

Opening Harmony Enterprise Files
You can bring wells from Harmony Enterprise 2019.1 and later into WellTest for analysis.
To open these files:
1. Open your Harmony Enterprise project (2019.1 and later).
2. In the Entity Viewer - Hierarchy pane, select one or more wells or a group for exporting; then
click the Export icon ( ) in the main toolbar and select To WellTest. Note that scenarios
in Harmony Enterprise are not supported in WellTest.
You can export several wells to the same file; however, you are only able to open one well at
a time in WellTest.
3. In the Save As dialog box, browse to your preferred location and enter a filename; then click
Save.
4. Open WellTest.
5. Click Open Existing File and select Open File. Navigate to your previously saved .hmexp
file.

Or, you can:
l click the File menu and select Open after opening a WellTest project.
l
click the Harmony Enterprise icon ( ) in the main toolbar after opening a WellTest
project.
6. If your .hmexp file contains more than one well, the Well Selection dialog box opens. Select
the well you want to open in WellTest, and then click Open.

Positioning the Start of Injection Line
To position the start of injection line:
1. Find the Start of Injection line. It is a red vertical line on the Data Chart on the Production
Editor tab. By default, it is placed at time zero. If you can't find it, verify that the test type is
set to Minifrac. .
2. Scale the time axis of the Data Chart, so that you can see the Start of Injection line and injec-
tion portion of the minifrac test data.
3. Click and drag the Start of Injection line to the breakdown point.

Specifying the Reservoir Fluid Type
The reservoir fluid type is used in the calculations for analyses and analytical modeling. In reservoirs
with significant gas saturation, the gas tends to dominate the pressure transient because of its high
compressibility.
For conventional tests, fluid types are only enabled if flow rates of that fluid are entered in the Pro-
duction Editor. For Minifrac or PITA / Closed Chamber Tests, Gas, Oil, and Water are always
enabled.
To specify the reservoir fluid type:
1. Click the Fluid Type menu.

The Select Reservoir Fluid Type dialog box opens.
2. Click your primary reservoir fluid type.
3. Click OK.
Note: For drawdown / buildup tests, fluid types will be grayed-out unless a rate for the fluid type
has been specified in the Production Editor.

Multiphase Options
Numerical models handle multiphase flow more rigorously than analytical models, and do not use
the reservoir fluid type specified in this wizard. The multiphase options in this dialog box, gas con-
densate (two-phase skin), gas condensate (two-phase pseudo-pressure: gas condensate), and oil &
gas (two-phase pseudo-pressure: solution gas drive), are advanced, but approximate methods of
handling multiphase flow analytically, and do not impact numerical models.
Note: Detailed rock and fluid properties are required to use the multiphase fluid types. These prop-
erties may be entered in the Properties / Multiphase Properties tab.

Starting a Project
After launching WellTest, a startup screen opens.
When you click New File, and select your type of test, the Startup Wizard opens.
The wizard guides you through common procedures, from entering data to completing an analysis.
Each wizard dialog box contains instructions, or requires your input to complete that step. If you
close a dialog box, you can continue with the wizard steps using the Wizard Menu.
When you click Open Existing File, you can open:
l these files types: .fkt, .fwt, .wtp, .hmexp
l a Harmony Enterprise project. For more information, see interoperability with Har-
mony Enterprise.
When you click Help, you can open this help system, or open the Licensing dialog box to configure
or activate / deactivate licenses. For more information, see licensing.

Performing an Analysis
These topics relate to performing an analysis:
Creating an Analysis
Creating a Deconvolution Analysis
Displaying Radius of Investigation
Identifying Closure
Identifying ISIP
"Performing a Conventional Test Analysis" on page 93
"Performing a Minifrac Analysis" on page 96
"Performing a PITA Analysis" on page 100

Creating a Deconvolution Analysis
To create a deconvolution analysis:
1. Click the Deconvolution tab.
2. Click the Create Deconvolution Case button located on the Deconvolution Manager sub-
tab.
Note: If you don't have an analysis set up, the Create Deconvolution Case button will be
grayed-out.
A new tab is created, using the current data from the Production Editor tab.

Creating an Analysis
An analysis is used to provide initial estimates for reservoir pressure, permeability, and skin in order
to feed your models. We recommend creating an analysis before you create a model.
To create an analysis:
1. Prepare your data for analysis.
2. Click the Analysis menu, and select your analysis type. Your analysis will open in a new tab
named "Diagnostic #".
3. Rename this tab by right-clicking it and selecting Rename. Use a name that you can easily
remember.
For your analysis, a Parameters dialog box is displayed in the window.
4. Enter values for all of the fields marked Required. After you have done this, the Lines dialog
box is displayed.
5. Use these dialog boxes to customize your analysis and determine your desired reservoir
parameters.

Selecting a line from the Lines dialog box will place a line on the Typecurve plot, which you
can manipulate.
6. After you are satisfied with your analysis, create a model by clicking the Create Model but-
ton in the Lines dialog box, or by clicking the Models menu.

Displaying Radius of Investigation
You can display the radius of investigation calculation on arrow annotations in the specialized ana-
lysis, or on derivative plots within an analysis, or on the model's tab.
To display the radius of investigation:
1. Add an annotation arrow to an analysis, or derivative plot within an analysis, or on the

model's tab.
2. Right-click inside the arrow's parameter display box, and select Radius of Investigation.
The Enter Value dialog box opens.
3. Enter a permeability value; then click OK.

The calculated radius of investigation is displayed in the parameter annotation attached to
the arrow.
Note: The calculated Radius of Investigation updates automatically when the arrow is
moved to another point on the plot.
4. If you want to modify the permeability value after you have already calculated the radius of
investigation, right-click inside the arrow's parameter display box and select Radius of
Investigation Options.

Identifying Closure
The closure point is identified on the G-Function and Square Root Time plots.
1. On the G-Function plot, rotate the Fracture Closure line through the straight-line portion of
the Semilog Derivative data by clicking the line and dragging it.
2. Click the closure arrow icon on the G-Function plot toolbar and select the synchronized
arrows.
3. Click the G-Function plot where the Semilog Derivative data starts to deviate downward from
the straight line to add the closure arrow annotation.
4. Click the closure arrow and use the left and right arrow keys to fine-tune your selection.

5. On the MiniFrac Square Root Time plot, the closure point should correspond to the peak of
the First Derivative. You may move the synchronized arrow to fine-tune your selection.

Identifying ISIP
Instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) is identified on the ISIP plot in a pre-closure analysis.
1. Position the ISIP line through the final injection point and the early falloff pressure data. The
line may be rotated around its center point by clicking and dragging the line, or by moving
the line by clicking and dragging the center point.
2. Click the ISIP arrow icon on the ISIP plot toolbar.
3. Click the ISIP plot to place the ISIP arrow.
4. Click the ISIP arrow to select it, and then use the left and right arrow keys to position the
arrow where the pressure data starts to deviate from the ISIP line.

Performing a Conventional Test Analysis
To perform a conventional test analysis:
1. Create a diagnostic analysis. If the test was performed on a vertical well, click the Analysis
menu and select Vertical Diagnostic. Or, if it was performed on a horizontal well, click the
Analysis menu and select Horizontal Diagnostic.
2. Enter pay (h), porosity (Φ), and saturations in the Parameters dialog box. Enter effective hori-
zontal well length (Le) for a Horizontal Diagnostic.
3. Select the flow or shut-in period to analyze.

To change the selected flow period, click the FP icon on the toolbar; then, click the history
plot in the region where you would like to analyze.
4. Identify flow regimes. On the Derivative plot (i.e., bottom-right plot), look at the slope of the
semi-log derivative data. A well-established zero slope (horizontal trend) indicates radial
flow has developed; a slope of 1/2 indicates linear flow; and a slope of 1/4 indicates bilinear
flow. See Flow Regimes for more information.
5. Add analysis lines.

a. If radial flow was identified, click the Radial button in the Lines dialog box.
If radial flow was not identified, you may want to place a radial flow line at the end of the data
to get estimates of permeability and p* to initialize the reservoir model.
b. Add lines for all other flow regimes you identified.
6. Position the lines through the appropriate data. Click and drag the center point of the line on
the Derivative plot. On the specialized plots (e.g., Radial plots), you may also click and drag
the center point of the line, or click the line to rotate it.
Note: The radial line yields estimates for flow capacity (kh), skin, and p*.

7. Some lines, such as the linear fracture line, calculate bulk parameters such as Xf* sqrt(k).
Click the line's annotation box to select the line. The Lines dialog box displays input para-
meters, and you can enter one or more parameters to back-calculate another. For the linear
fracture line, you can specify the number of fractures (e.g., for horizontal multifrac com-
pletions) and an estimate of k to back-calculate Xf.

Performing a Minifrac Analysis
Performing a Pre-Closure Analysis
To perform a pre-closure analysis (PCA):
1. Click the Analysis menu and select Pre-closure Diagnostic.
A new tab opens (e.g., PCA Diagnostic 1).
2. Enter Datum Depth (TVD) in the Parameters dialog box. This is used to calculate the ISIP
(Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure) gradient, which is displayed on the parameter annotations
on the pre-closure analysis plots after ISIP has been identified.
3. Identify ISIP.
4. Identify closure.
Performing a Nolte After-Closure Analysis

To perform a Nolte after-closure analysis (ACA):
1. Click the Analysis menu and select After-closure Diagnostic (Nolte).
A new tab opens (e.g., Nolte ACA 1).
2. Enter net pay (h) and porosity (phi) in the Parameters dialog box.

3. Identify flow regimes. On the Derivative plot (i.e., bottom-left plot), look at the slope of the
semi-log derivative data. A well established slope of -1 indicates radial flow has developed,
and a slope of -1/2 indicates linear flow.
a. If radial flow was identified, click the Impulse Radial button in the Lines dialog box.
b. If linear flow was identified, click the Impulse Linear button in the Lines dialog box.
5. Position the lines through the appropriate after-closure data. Click and drag the center point
of the line on the Derivative plot. On the specialized plots (Minifrac Radial or Minifrac Linear
plots), you may also click and drag the center point of the line, or click the line to rotate it.

Radial flow gives an estimate of p* and permeability. Linear flow yields leakoff coefficients.
Note: If radial flow was not identified, place a radial flow line at the end of the after-closure data to
get upper limits of permeability and p*.
Performing a Soliman / Craig After-Closure Analysis

To perform a Soliman / Craig ACA:
1. Click the Analysis menu and select After-closure Diagnostic (Soliman/Craig).
A new tab opens (e.g., Soliman / Craig ACA 1).
2. Ensure net pay (h) and porosity (phi) have been specified in the Parameters dialog box.
3. Identify flow regimes. On the Derivative plot (i.e., bottom-left plot), look at the slope of the
semi-log derivative data. A well established zero slope (horizontal trend) indicates radial
flow has developed, and a slope of +1/2 indicates linear flow.

a. If radial flow was identified, click the Radial button in the Lines dialog box.
b. If linear flow was identified, click the Linear button in the Lines dialog box.
5. Position the lines through the appropriate after-closure data. click and drag the center point
of the line on the Derivative plot. On the specialized plots (Minifrac Radial or Minifrac Linear
plots), you may also click and drag the center point of the line, or click the line to rotate it.
Radial flow gives an estimate of p* and permeability. Linear flow yields Xf*sqrt(k).
Note: If radial flow was not identified, place a radial flow line at the end of the after-closure data to
get upper limits of permeability and p*.
History Matching Minifrac After-Closure Data

To history match minifrac after-closure data:
1. Create a legacy model:
a. If radial flow was identified, select Vertical from the Model menu.
b. If linear flow was identified, select Fracture with Boundaries from the Model menu.
A new tab opens (e.g., Vertical 1).
2. Enter required parameters:

a. Vertical Model: enter a skin of -3 to initialize the model.
b. Fracture with Boundaries model: initialize Xf and k if estimates were not obtained from the
Soliman After-Closure Analysis.
3. History match the after-closure data.
Note: A good match is not possible based on pre-closure falloff data.

Performing a PITA Analysis
To perform a performance inflow test analysis (PITA) analysis:
1. If the PITA test was performed on a vertical well, click the Analysis menu and select Ver-
tical Diagnostic. Or, if it was performed on a horizontal well, click the Analysis menu and
select Horizontal Diagnostic.
2. Enter pay (h) and porosity (Φ) in the Parameters dialog box. Enter effective horizontal well
length (Le) for a Horizontal Diagnostic.
Note: The pay thickness (h) for a PITA test in a vertical well is usually entered as the height
of the perforated interval.
3. Decide whether there is a changing liquid level in the wellbore. If there is a changing liquid
level, it dominates the changes in pressure in the wellbore, and you should click the
Changing Liquid Level checkbox within the Parameters dialog box. If a single-phase
exists in the wellbore, changes to pressure in the wellbore are controlled by compressibility.
Note: The Changing Liquid Level option is not available for PITA inflow tests in gas reser-
voirs.
4. If the Changing Liquid Level checkbox is not selected (e.g., for a PITA inflow test in a gas
reservoir):
a. Click the button beside the Vw field.

The Select Default dialog box opens.
b. Select the casing size from the list of common casing IDs (inner diameters). Enter the meas-
ured depth of the well and click Select. A calculated value is displayed in the Vw field in the
Parameters dialog box.
5. If the Changing Liquid Level checkbox is selected:

a. Click the button beside the Vu field.

The Select Default dialog box opens.
b. Select the casing size from the list of common casing IDs and click Select. A calculated
value is displayed in the Vu field in the Parameters dialog box.
6. Identify flow regimes. On the Derivative plot (i.e., bottom-right plot), look at the slope of the
semi-log derivative data. A well established zero slope (horizontal trend) indicates radial
flow has developed, a slope of 1/2 indicates linear flow, and a slope of 1/4 indicates bilinear
flow.
a. If radial flow was identified, click the Late Time-Impulse Radial button in the Lines dialog
box.

If radial flow was not identified, you may wish to place a radial flow line at the end of the data
to get estimates of permeability and p* to initialize the reservoir model.
b. After an impulse radial line has been added, the Early Time +ve and -ve Skin buttons are
enabled. If you do not know if the skin is positive or negative, you can add both and see
which skin value makes the most sense.
8. Position the lines through the appropriate data. Click and drag the center point of the line on
the Derivative plot. On the specialized plots (e.g., Late Time), you may also click and drag
the center point of the line, or click the line to rotate it.
Note: The impulse radial line yields estimates of permeability and p*. The early time lines
yield estimates of skin.
9. Select the Early Time +ve Skin line from the Analysis Lines box.
This line is displayed on the Early Time plot, and you can use it to estimate skin.

Note: The bottom-left plot (history plot) contains a line representing the calculated inflow or injec-
tion rate. This is additional information, which is not required for any part of the analysis.
History Matching PITA Data

To history match PITA data:
1. Click the Model menu and select a model. In most PITA tests performed on vertical wells, a
vertical model is used for PITA tests.
A new tab opens (e.g., Vertical 1).
2. History match the PITA data. Focus on the late-time data to try to get estimates of per-
meability and pi.
You may decide to do a history match to get more accurate results. For additional inform-
ation, see History Matching Overview. For a PITA test, we recommend doing the history
match on the Late Time plot.

Filtering
There are two reasons to filter data in WellTest:
1. Memory management: After importing files with millions of data points, data reduction is
required to prevent slow, sluggish behaviour and "out of memory" related errors. Although,
Data Management is partly a placeholder of the raw data, there is no need to keep millions
of data points, and it is more important to free up computer memory for other modules within
WellTest. We recommend filtering gauges with millions of points down to 100,000 points
immediately after importing. Data reduction for memory management is primarily accom-
plished by Filtering in Data Management. Although this filter has advanced options, in most
cases, a simple arithmetic filter can be used for the entire dataset, and will keep enough res-
olution for analysis. For additional information, see Handling Large Datasets.
2. Calculation efficiency: When preparing data for analysis, another level of filtering is per-
formed to reduce calculation times. Filtering in the Production Editor drastically reduces con-
vergence times when performing automatic parameter estimation and running numerical
simulations. Although 20 points could capture the trend of any flow period, it is impossible to
know which 20 points to pick before scrutinizing the data. Therefore, we find a balance
between the amount of data we keep to analyze and computational time. For analytical ana-
lysis / modeling, it is highly recommended to filter the Production Editor data down to less
than 5,000 data points. For numerical modeling, 1,000 points is more than sufficient.

Filtering in Data Management
When dealing with large datasets (> 1,000,000 rows), or computers with small amounts of memory,
you may wish to reduce the amount of data allocated in memory and stored in the file. You can do
this in the Filter tab. Data contained within any gauge can be reduced using a combination of time
and resolution filters.
Note: Prior to using this function, you must import data.
To filter data:
1. Click the Data Management tab; then click the Filter sub-tab.
If you have two or more gauges, the Select Gauge / Dataset dialog box opens. Select a
gauge; then click OK.
The data is displayed in the Data plot.

Note: Gauges with rate and pressure data are automatically partitioned into flow and shut-
in periods.
The default filter settings use an Arithmetic filter for flow periods, and a Logarithmic filter for
shut-in periods. The default filter settings may be adjusted, or a unique filter may be applied
to each section of data.
2. To apply different levels of filtering to different sections of the data, create partitions by click-
ing in the partition area at the top of the plot. A partition marker is displayed at each point
where you click. Drag a partition marker to a new location if needed, or drag it off the slider to
remove it.
There is a table underneath the plot that displays different options for filtering your data.

Also, each time a new partition is added to the plot, a new row is added to the table to reflect
the new flow period that has been created
Adjusting the Filter Frequency

The default filter frequency for each flow period can be adjusted.
1. Identify the flow period (row) of interest and deselect the Use Default checkbox.
2. Select either Logarithmic or Arithmetic for the filter type.
3. If the filter type chosen is Arithmetic, you can specify the Time Unit and Arithmetic Mode.
Note that the Time Unit changes the units of the Arithmetic Time Step column.

If you change the arithmetic mode to Points Per Period, you can specify the total number of
points for the flow period, rather than the number of points per time step as shown pre-
viously.

Filtering in the Production Editor
To filter your data using the Production Editor:
1. Click the Filter icon ( ) on the Production Editor toolbar and select Primary Data Fil-
ter. The Filter Data dialog box opens.
2. Use the checkboxes to select the number of data points to be used for each flow / shut-in
period. We recommend that you use Logarithmic checkboxes for the Buildup data points,
and Arithmetic checkboxes for the Drawdown data points.
3. You can edit the numbers in the Logarithmic Points Per Cycle and Arithmetic Time Step
columns to control the amount of filtering.
4. Click OK to filter your data.

Generating & Submitting PAS AER Files
To generate and submit an AER PAS file (used to be a TRG PAS file) using data from a WellTest
analysis:
1. Populate the mandatory fields in each of the sub-tabs within the AER PAS tab.
2. Click the File menu and select Certify AER-PAS File.

This certification feature mimics the rules the AER uses when validating PAS files through
their digital data submission (DDS) system. To access these rules, see the Well Testing web
page and click the Excel or PDF link from this page.
Note: While the certification feature provides a sanity check, there are some known issues
where our Certify feature misses rules checked by the AER (false positives), or
detects problems the AER does not (false negatives). The most reliable way to
ensure a PAS file meets AER requirements is to validate through the AER DDS web-
site. Continue to the next step after resolving the obvious errors detected by this fea-
ture.
3. Within the AER PAS / Save PAS File tab:
l Specify a PAS file name. Click the drop-down arrow in the PAS file name field to
browse to the directory where you'd like to save your PAS file.
l Specify a sub-zip file name. Click the drop-down arrow in the Sub zip file name field
to lto browse to the directory where you'd like to save your zip file.
l Specify the location of the PDF copy of the report. Click the drop-down arrow in the
Image (pdf) file name field to navigate to the PDF report that you’ve already gen-
erated.
Note: The report is not generated from the PAS tab. If you have not yet created a PDF copy
of the report, you must generate a report and then create a PDF of this report1.
l Click the Save PAS and ZIP file(s) button. This will generate the PAS file and a .zip
file that contains the PAS file and the PDF report.
l Click the AER PAS Help link, and sign in to their system. Navigate to AER / Sub-
missions / Well Test Data in the left-side table of contents. Validate the .zip file to see
if there are errors, and submit the .zip file if it's error-free.
1 use the Print functionality, except select Adobe PDF as your printer

Hiding the PAS Tab
If you do not deal with wells in Alberta, Canada, you may want to hide this tab.
1. Click the Edit menu and select Defaults, File Defaults.
The New File Defaults dialog box opens.
2. Click the Enable Alberta AER PAS Options box to remove its checkmark. This will hide
the PAS tab.

Note: This option is enabled by default. AER stands for Alberta Energy Regulator.

Meeting AER Initial Deliverability Require-
ments
To meet Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) requirements:
1. Perform a deliverability test.

If the well’s absolute open flow (AOF) potential is greater than 300,103 m3/d, a multi-rate
test, such as a modified isochronal test is required*. Otherwise, a single-point test, such as a
flow and buildup test is acceptable. Since the well’s potential is unknown prior to the test, it is
important to use good judgement and review analog wells when designing the test.
2. Perform an AOF analysis.
3. Generate and submit a PAS TRG file paying special attention to the fields in the AER PAS /
AOF - IPR Results Summary tab.
*If a single-point deliverability test, such as a flow and buildup, is performed and the AOF of the well
is greater than 300,103 m3/d, an application for an exception to the rule can be made to the AER. If
the application is approved, and the exception granted, the AER provides a Single Point Author-
ization Number. This number is then entered in the Single-point Authorization field in the AOF / IPR
Results Summary tab, and the PAS file is accepted, and the initial deliverability requirement for that
well is met.
Note: If the well is producing inline, a minimum of 14 days (336 hrs) of initial production with meas-
ured wellhead pressures must be entered in the Production Editor tab. There must be at
least 28 lines of data spanning the (minimum of) 14 days of production. The resultant PAS
TRG file also fulfills the initial production requirement.

Meeting AER Initial Pressure Requirements
The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) initial pressure requirements are met by analyzing a well test.
To meet these requirements:
1. Conduct a well test, such as a buildup or falloff test, and analyze the data. Analysis line extra-
polations, or preferably, modeling can provide estimates of initial pressure. See Creating an
Analysis for additional information.
2. Generate a PDF report. See Creating a Report for additional information.
3. Generate and submit a PAS TRG file paying special attention to the following:
l Verify that the Test Purpose field on the Test Data tab is set to Initial Test.
l Verify that the Test Interpretation Present field on the Test Data tab is set to Yes.*
* – this field can be set to "No" in the rare case where the shut-in pressure changes
less than 2 kPa/hr over a 6 hour period.
These settings change which fields are mandatory in other tabs:
l In the Analysis Input Parameters tab, select the most appropriate analysis or model
from the drop down box. This action populates fields within the Analysis Input Para-
meters and Pressure Results Summary tabs.
l Ensure all gauge information is specified within the Gauges / Gauge Header tabs.
Note: Acoustic well sounder (AWS) data cannot be used to determine the initial pool pressure (for
the first well in a pool).

Importing Data
You can import data using the following file types:
CSV, TXT, .XLSX
FLD
PAS

Importing Data from a Text File (.csv, .txt,
.xlsx)
Data may be imported using the wizard, or by opening the Import data dialog box, which may be
accessed by clicking File, Import Data. The wizard takes you step-by-step through the import pro-
cess and this topic describes each step.
Note: For Excel files, WellTest only imports from the tab that was viewed when the file was saved.
If the last tab viewed and saved does not contain a data table, an error message is dis-
played.
To import data from a text file:
1. Click the Wizard Menu and select Import.

The Import data dialog box opens.

2. Select a file; then click Open. The data opens in a dialog box.
3. Click the first row of data; then click Next.

4. If the data is not separated into columns correctly, specify the delimiter (.csv files should
have a comma delimiter).

5. Identify columns for importing.

a. Click the top header of each column and select the type of data in that column.
If you have date, clock time, and cumulative time columns within the same file, either
import date and clock time, OR cumulative time. If "date" is selected for one column,
cumulative time is not available for selection in another column and vice versa.
If date and clock time are in the same column, specify "date" as the data type, and the
units of the date for the units. After selecting your columns and clicking Next, a dialog
box opens where you can specify the clock time units (e.g., hh:mm:ss).
If the date or clock time columns are in an unsupported unit format, use cumulative
time if it's available. Otherwise, the format may need to be changed in MS Excel.
b. In the second row of the header, select the units of the data in that column.
c. Repeat for each column of data you want to import.
d. Click Next.

6. Set the name of the gauge.

7. If cumulative time is being imported, specify the start date / time by clicking the Start Time
drop-down menu. If date and clock time is being imported, the start time is ignored.

8. Click Finish.
Rates are interpreted as end of period (see entering and interpreting rates). If a non-zero
value is in the first row of a rate column being imported, a dialog box will open prompting you
to enter the duration of that first rate.
The data is displayed in a new tab within the Data Management tab, Data sub-tab.

Importing Data from an FLD File
In order to import data from an FLD file, F.A.S.T. FieldNotes, or the FieldNotes Viewer, must be
installed.
Note: Only FLD files up to version 6.1.4.369 are supported in WellTest.
To import an FLD file:


2. Browse to your FLD file and then click Open.
The Fieldnotes Reading Selection dialog box opens.
3. Click the Skip Blank Data Line checkbox (if it is not checked).
4. Select the data that you'd like to bring in to WellTest, and click OK.
Your data will open in a new tab in the Data Management, Data sub-tab area.

Importing Data from a PAS File
There are two types of PAS files that you can import: PRD (production data) and TRG (gauge data).
PRD PAS
To import a PRD PAS file:

2. Browse to your PRD PAS file, and then click Open.

The Import PAS-PRD File dialog box opens.

3. Click the Skip Blank Data Line checkbox (if it is not checked).
4. Select the data you'd like to bring in to WellTest, and click OK.
Your data opens in a new tab in the Data Management, Data sub-tab area.
PAS AER
To import a PAS AER file:


2. Browse to your PAS AER file and then click Open.
Your gauge data opens in a new tab in the Data Management, Data sub-tab area.

Modeling
Modeling procedures include the following:
Choosing a Reservoir Model
History Matching
Advanced Models
Legacy Models

Choosing a Reservoir Model
Choosing a probable reservoir model type requires considering of a number of factors including seis-
mic data, geology, log data, and information provided from other wells drilled into the same form-
ation. As well, different models can be used to match a single set of data.
The choice of model can drastically change the outcome of a forecast. For example, pressure tran-
sient analysis of radial flow data can be used to find the reservoir flow capacity (kh). If heterogeneity
is observed in the data, one might use the composite model with different values for permeability in
each zone. Another analyst might decide that using a two-layered multilayer model, having different
net pays, is more probable. The forecast of the composite and multilayered models for this situation
can differ drastically, even though both models can match the test data. The analyst must decide
which model is better.
For assistance in selecting a model, refer to basic model typecurves to help identify which model
best represents your pressure response.

History Matching
The general procedure for history matching is:
1. Adjust the model input parameters until a close match is obtained between the simulated
and measured pressures.
2. Perform automatic parameter estimation (APE) to fine-tune the results. See Performing APE
in Advanced Models and Performing APE in Legacy Models.
3. If an acceptable match is not obtained, you should manually adjust the parameters and
repeat the APE process, or consider a different reservoir model.

Advanced Models: Procedures
Advanced model procedures include the following:
Anchoring in Advanced Analytical Models
Creating an Advanced Model
Forecasting in Advanced Models
Forecasting Gas Condensate Systems Using Advanced Analytical Models
Modeling Saturated Oil Reservoirs Using Advanced Analytical Models
Performing APE in Advanced Analytical Models
Using Numerical Models
Using Hybrid Models

Anchoring in Advanced Analytical Models
Anchoring is a technique for improving the efficiency of the history-matching process. You can spe-
cify a measured pressure and WellTest will calculate the initial synthetic pressure, which results in
the model line going through that specified pressure. This specified measured pressure is known as
the anchor point.
In the advanced suite of analytical models within WellTest, an anchor point is added by clicking the
Anchor icon on the History Plot toolbar.
Clicking the Anchor icon automatically places an anchor arrow on the measured pressure preceding
the first selected flow period. At the same time, the mouse pointer changes to an anchor, so that you
can relocate the anchor from the default position by clicking any measured pressure on the history
plot. The anchor point is annotated with an arrow, and if you change the position of the anchor arrow,
the model will automatically recalculate.

The advanced suite of models has an initial pressure input cell. When anchoring is on, the initial pres-
sure is back-calculated and the cell is read-only. When anchoring is off, the initial pressure cell is edit-
able.
Note: The anchor option is currently only available for analytical models in Calculate Pressure
mode.

Creating an Advanced Model
To create an advanced model:
1. Click the Advanced Models tab. The Model Manager sub-tab will be displayed by default.
2. Select the model type.
3. Customize the model by specifying the model name and fluid type(s).
4. Click the Create Model button.

Forecasting in Advanced Models
With forecasting, you can estimate reservoir gas, oil, or water production rates or pressures using an
analytical solution based on your specified reservoir properties and forecasting parameters. Fore-
casting in advanced models takes the production history into account, and does not commence
assuming static reservoir conditions.
The forecasting and test design module within advanced analytical models can also be used without
production history, to investigate the potential deliverability of a new reservoir given the uncertainties
of reservoir flow capacity and volumetric parameters. It can also be used to investigate which flow
regimes would be investigated during a test for a specified set of reservoir properties, flow, and shut-
in periods.
To create a forecast:
1. After creating an Advanced Model, click the Forecast and Test Design sub-tab.
2. Select your forecast time method in the Forecast Options section.
3. In the Duration column of the forecast table, enter a value for the length of the forecast.

After a duration is entered, the # of Steps column automatically equals the duration in
months; however, this value can be edited.
Note: The default minimum number of steps is 10.
Changing the number of steps may change the calculated expected ultimate recovery as
cumulative production is dependent on the length of each timestep. Flowing pressure for the
forecast is automatically populated to the last historical value; however, this value can also
be edited.
4. (Optional) After a value is entered in the forecast table, an additional row is displayed where
a second forecast period can be entered. This row does not have to be populated for a fore-
cast to run. Rows can also be added or deleted by right-clicking a row and selecting Insert /
Delete row.
Forecasted data is displayed on the Results plot. This data consists of a fluid rate, fore-
casted pressure, and the average reservoir pressure. If more than one forecast case is
present, the results of each are displayed on the Results plot.
5. View the results of your forecast, displayed as a plot, in the Forecast Results section.
Forecasting Injection
Running forecasts or test designs is similar for injection and production wells. However, for injection
wells:
l the Allow Injection checkbox must be selected:
l injection rates are denoted using negative values:

Note: Wellhead forecasting is not yet available for injection. Therefore, the Forecast Flowing Pres-
sure field is grayed-out if the Allow Injection checkbox is selected.

Forecasting Gas Condensate Systems
Using Advanced Analytical Models
Analytical models only analyze single-phase systems. For condensate systems, gas and con-
densate rates measured at the surface are recombined into a single-phase rich gas for analytical
modeling. When forecasting however, the recombined gas rate must be split back out into gas and
condensate rates for estimating production measured at the surface. The procedure to split the
recombined condensate-rich gas into separator gas and condensate is as follows:
l Calculate the recombined gas rate factor (RGRF), which is dependent on the instant-
aneous value of the condensate gas ratio (CGR)
l qsep gas = qrec / RGRF
l qcond = qsep gas x instantaneous CGR
Note: RGRF is calculated from separator conditions, condensate gravity, gas gravity, and CGR.
There are two options that control how CGR is calculated over the forecast period:
1. CGR changes with time:

in the Properties tab, Gas Properties Input pane, select Liquid-Rich Gas from the Gas
Type drop-down list, and Constant Rv from the Vaporized Oil Ration Correlation drop-down
list.

in the Forecast and Test Design tab (see the Advanced Analytical Models Tab or Advanced
Numerical Models Tab), under Forecast Options, select the Separate Recombined Gas
checkbox.

This results in additional columns (i.e., Initial CGR and Final CGR) being added to the
Ratios section of the forecast table.
l Fill in the required inputs in the forecast table.
l To enter a CGR that varies linearly over the forecasted period, select Ramp for the
Ratio Interpolation method; then enter a Final CGR value.
2. CGR changes with flowing pressure according to the Rv correlation:
l in the Properties tab / Gas Properties Input pane, select Gas Liquid Content from
the Gas Type drop-down list, and Ovalle et al from the Vaporized Oil Ration Cor-
relation drop-down list.

l In the Forecast and Test Design tab, select the Separate Recombined Gas check-
box to split the calculated rich-gas rate into separator gas and condensate using the
Rv functionality that controls the rate by bottom hole flowing pressure.
The resulting forecast graph and table show recombined gas, gas (dry), and condensate
rates.
In splitting the forecast of analytical models, the assumption is that these effects / properties in the
reservoir can be ignored:
l liquid drop-out on material balance
l liquid drop-out on skin
l liquid drop-out on gas composition (recombined gas-specific gravity)
l pressure volume temperature (PVT) properties – viscosity and compressibility

factors
Note: The effect of liquid blockage on well productivity can be modeled by increasing skin with
time.

Modeling Saturated Oil Reservoirs Using
Advanced Analytical Models
Fluid properties (such as compressibility, viscosity etc.) depend on pressure; therefore, while a reser-
voir is being depleted, fluid properties change.
For gas analytical models, pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time are used to account for the change in
gas properties.
For oil analytical models, fluid properties are assumed to be constant: properties are estimated at
the initial pressure using correlations or tables set in the Properties tab, and these properties are
used for calculations throughout the production history and the forecast.
This assumption is acceptable if the pressure in the reservoir remains above the bubble point, since
the variations for under-saturated oil properties with pressure are negligible. However, if the pres-
sure drops below the bubble point, oil properties (in particular – oil compressibility) change sig-
nificantly.

As a result, numerical models are recommended for forecasting in under-saturated oil reservoirs, or
for history matching in saturated oil reservoirs. However, analytical models can be used to history
match a brief portion of data, such as a buildup, in saturated oil reservoirs because the properties
aren’t changing significantly during the segment being analyzed. Although oil analytical models do
not honour varying oil properties, it is possible to use (constant) oil properties corresponding to the
depleted reservoir conditions.
Example: Consider an under-saturated oil reservoir with: pi= 5000 psi and pbp = 4500 psi.
The well was producing at a constant rate (drawdown) and then was shut in (buildup). During the
drawdown, reservoir pressure dropped to 4400 psi; therefore during the buildup, the reservoir was
filled with saturated oil. As a result, saturated oil properties should be used to history match the
buildup.
To do this in an analytical model:
1. Select the PVT Pressure option in the Analytical Model pane.
2. Expand the PVT Pressure group and set ppropto 4400 psi.

In this case, the properties used for calculations are evaluated at pprop.
Note that with this approach, the drawdown portion of the data will not be matched. However, match-
ing just the buildup portion of the data is useful, as it helps to estimate current reservoir and com-
pletion properties.

Performing APE in Advanced Analytical
Models
APE is used to assist with history matching (link to history matching). The steps to do this are:
1. Specify the data points to be used.
2. Specify the parameters to vary.
3. Run APE.
Note: Automatic parameter estimation (APE) is not available for numerical models.
Specify Data Points to be Used by APE

By default, all data points are selected for use by APE.
Deselecting Points
If your data has some outliers, or some periods of unreliable data, you can deselect these points. To
specify data points to be ignored by APE:
1. On the toolbar of any plot within the Plots sub-tab of an advanced analytical model, click the
Display a toolbar with options to select data points icon, and select the Select Points
option from the sub-toolbar.
2. Right-click and drag your mouse over the data on plot. (Clicking-and-dragging reselects any
deselected data.)
Weighting Points
You may want to weight some data points more heavily than others when performing APE. For
example, when analyzing buildup data to get an estimate of average reservoir pressure, it is more
important to match the data at the end of the buildup, than the start of the buildup. Similarly, if a well-
bore effect is observed, you may want to ignore those points when history matching.

APE tries to minimize the error between the synthetic (model) pressures and the measured pres-
sures. The error terms for weighted points are amplified in the convergence algorithm. In other
words, APE tries really hard to converge on weighted points, less hard on converging points without
weighting, and ignores deselected points.
To weight points:
1. Click the Weight Data Points icon on the history plot toolbar.
2. Move the mouse over the pressure data on the history plot. The cursor changes to a spray
can.
3. Click-and-drag the cursor to spray the points you would like to add weighting to. Right-click
and drag to remove weighting from weighted points.
Specify Parameters to Vary

To specify which parameters to vary:
1. In the Analytical Model pane, select the parameters you'd like to vary by clicking the Auto-
matically calculate variable checkbox to the right of the parameter's field.

2. To vary a certain parameter within given limits, click the View Defaults and Limits button to
the right of the field. Enter the appropriate values, and then click the Accept button.

Run APE
To run APE:
In the model's toolbar, click the APE icon to start the APE process.
WellTest adjusts the parameters in order to improve the history match between the sim-
ulated and measured pressures on the data plot. The process stops automatically, or if you
want to stop it manually, click the APE icon again.
After you have achieved your desired result in CalcP mode (calculates sandface flow-
ing pressure based on measured rate), we recommend that you switch to CalcR mode
(calculates the rate based on given sandface flowing pressures), and verify if the calculated
rate matches the actual rate. If these rates are not close, additional history matching should
be done.
Note: If an acceptable match is not obtained, you can manually adjust the parameters and repeat
the APE process, or consider a different analytical model.

Using Numerical Models
Setting Up the Model
After the model has been created, you need to populate all the required parameters. To set up the
model:
1. Some of the model parameters (i.e., initial pressure, fluid saturations, net pay etc.) are
already specified in the Properties tab. To copy parameters from the Properties tab to the
model, click the Defaults icon ( ) on the toolbar, and select Reservoir from the drop-
down list.
2. If you have an analytical model, copy parameters from the analytical to numerical model by
clicking the Defaults icon ( ) and select the analytical model from the drop-down list.
3. In the Numerical Model pane, select your calculation method . You can use the rates of any
of the fluids presented in the model to calculate rates for the remaining fluids, and the sand-
face flowing pressure. Alternatively, you can use the sandface flowing pressure to calculate
rates for all the fluids presented in the model.

After you set reservoir and completion dimensions, WellTest creates an appropriate grid for
the model to get accurate results with minimal calculation time. However, you can adjust
gridding options by clicking the Options tab in the Numerical Model pane.

Using the Model
After the model is set up, you can use the model:
Note: Before the model starts a simulation, it performs multiple consistency checks on the input
properties.
1. Run calculations by clicking the Synthesize icon ( ) on the toolbar.
While the model is calculating, a rotating gear is displayed on the header of the tab. To stop
the simulation, click the Stop Simulation ( ) icon.

While the model is calculating, you can see how the spatial distribution on pressure changes
with time. Both top and cross-section views are available. The position of the cross-section
is defined by the blue triangular sliders on the schematic plot.
2. You can replace one or more plots on the dashboard by clicking the Add an available view
icons.
3. After the calculation is finished, you can see how pressures or saturations change through
time by clicking the following icons on the toolbar of any Color Shading plot.

4. To display grid lines on the top view, click the Toggle Grid Lines icon ( ).
5. To display the legend, click the Toggle Color Legend icon ( ).
6. To history match the model, change the parameters manually. Most of the history matching
parameters are located on the History Model pane. However, you may also want to change
some parameters located in the Properties tab (e.g., relative permeability curves, Rs curve,
Rv curve, etc.).
After the model has been populated and calibrated to the production and pressure data, pro-
duction forecasts can be created and compared under a variety of different constraints. The
procedure for forecasting using a numerical model is similar to Forecasting Using Analytical
Models.
Note: Wellhead forecasting is not currently available for the numerical models.

Running Numerical Models Created in WellTest 2013
v2 (v 7.7.0) and Earlier
Black Oil Numerical Models for Liquid-Rich Gas Wells

Numerical calculations for liquid-rich gas wells are different between WellTest 2013 v2 (v 7.7.0) and
earlier versions.
In WellTest 2013 v2 (v 7.7.0) and earlier: it is possible to create a (black oil) numerical model for a
liquid-rich gas well. However, liquid drop-out is not modeled directly in such models. Instead, gas
and condensate rates measured at surface conditions are combined into a richer single-phase gas
using recombination; then rates and properties of the recombined gas are used in numerical mod-
eling.
This approach is appropriate if condensation takes place mostly at the separator and in the wellbore.
In cases where there is a significant liquid drop-out in the reservoir, the model may be inaccurate,
because the liquid drop-out in the reservoir and its influence on the flow hindrance are not taken into
account. Another disadvantage of numerical modeling for liquid-rich gas wells in previous versions
of WellTest, is that only the recombined gas rate is reported, rather than reporting a separate dry-
gas rate and condensate rate.
In WellTest 2014 v1 (v 7.8.0) and later: liquid-rich gas wells are modeled using Gas Condensate
numerical models. In Gas Condensate numerical models, liquid drop-out in the reservoir is modeled
directly. Both phases (i.e., gas and liquid) are taken into account in the model; therefore flow
hindrance due to interaction between phases is also honoured.
If you have a (black oil) numerical model created in WellTest 2013 v2 (v 7.7.0) or earlier for a liquid-
rich gas well, this model will not run in WellTest 2014 v1 (v 7.8.0) or later. This happens because
starting from WellTest 2014 v1 (v 7.8.0), liquid-rich gas wells are modeled using Gas Condensate
numerical models. You have two options for converting such older models:
Option 1: If you want to consider liquid drop-out in the reservoir, you have to create a new
Gas Condensate numerical model. After the model is created, copy all parameters from the
existing black oil numerical model, using the Defaults Manager. The gas condensate model
then runs in WellTest 2014 v1 (v 7.8.0).
The advantage of this option is that it takes into account liquid drop-out in the reservoir and
honours flow hindrance due to interaction between phases. However, because the nature of
calculation has changed compared to the earlier version, you have to re-match the model.

Option 2: If you believe that liquid drop-out in the reservoir is negligible, you can model the
well as a wet-gas well:
1. On the Production Editor tab, copy the Recombined Gas Rate column to the
Gas Rate column.
2. In Properties tab, navigate to the Gas Properties group and copy the value for
Recombined Gas Gravity (Gr).
3. In the Properties tab, change the Gas Type to Wet Gas.
4. In the Properties tab, paste the copied value for Gr into the Gas Gravity (G)
field.
Now the conventional numerical model created in the earlier version of

WellTest runs.
The advantage of Option 2 is that the calculation essentially follows the one performed in
earlier versions of WellTest: instead of modeling liquid drop-out directly, we use recom-
bination, and then use recombined gas rates and properties in numerical modeling. Thus,
the calculation results do not change, so you do not have to re-match the model. However, it
is important to remember that this model is only applicable if liquid drop-out in the reservoir
is negligible.

Using Hybrid models
To begin using a hybrid model, you must have one in place, or you need to create the model. See
Creating an Advanced Model for details.
Then, follow these topics in this order:
l "Populating the Hybrid model" on the next page
l "Calculating the Hybrid model" on page 161
l "History Matching the Hybrid model" on page 162
l "Using Automatic Parameter Estimation" on page 163
l Forecasting
l Using Sparse Data

Populating the Hybrid model
After the model is created, you need to populate all required parameters.
Note: Some of the model parameters (i.e., initial pressure, fluid saturations, net pay, etc.) are
already specified in the Properties tab.
To populate the hybrid model:
1. Copy parameters from the Properties tab to the model by clicking the Defaults icon ( )
on the toolbar; then select Properties Tab from the drop-down list.
2. Copy all available parameters from other models by clicking the Defaults icon ( ) again.
If you have an analytical gas horizontal multifrac model, we recommend that you use it to
populate the hybrid model's parameters.

Calculating the Hybrid model
After all the parameters are populated, the model can be calculated.
1. To calculate the sandface flowing pressure based on measured rate, click the CalcP icon (
).
2. To calculate the rate based on a given sandface flowing pressure, click the CalcR icon ( ).
3. To have the model calculate automatically, and recalculate automatically every time you
change model parameters, click the AutoCalc icon ( ).
If the AutoCalc icon is deselected, you will need to click the Synthesize icon ( ) every
time you want to recalculate the model.

History Matching the Hybrid model
After the model is populated, you can history-match it.
Note: If the CaIcP icon ( ) is selected, WellTest uses rates to calculate pressures.
The purpose of history matching is to get the calculated pressures to reproduce actual pressures as
closely as possible by changing the model's parameters. You can vary model parameters manually,
or you can use automatic parameter estimation.
To history match using the hybrid model:

Click the Plots tab to compare calculated pressures (brown line) with actual pressures (blue
dots) on the history plot.

Using Automatic Parameter Estimation
Automatic parameter estimation (APE) is used to perform history matching. The steps to do this are:
specify the data points to be used, specify the parameters to vary, and run APE.
Specify Data Points to be used by APE

By default, all data points are selected to be used by APE. If your data has some outliers, or some
periods of unreliable data, you can deselect these points.
1. Click the Display a toolbar with options to select data points icon on the Plots tab, and
select the appropriate sub-option to remove unwanted data.
2. If it is important to match some specific portion of the data (e.g., the last part of the pro-
duction), you can weight data points by clicking the Weight Data Points icon ( ).
Weighted data points are displayed in a brighter color.
Specify Parameters to Vary

To specify which parameters to vary:
1. To select which parameters to vary, click the Automatically calculate variable checkbox to
the right of the parameter's field.

2. To vary a certain parameter within given limits, click the View Defaults and Limits button to
the right of the field.
3. Enter the appropriate values, and then click the Accept button.

Run Automatic Parameter Estimation
To run automatic parameter estimation (APE), click the APE icon ( ).
While APE is running, selected parameters are automatically varied to minimize the error between
the simulated pressure and the actual pressure. The updated simulated pressure is shown on the
plots while the calculation is running.
While APE is running, you can wait until it finishes, or if the history match looks good, you can stop
the process by clicking the APE icon ( ).
After you have achieved your desired result in CalcP mode, we recommend that you switch to CalcR
mode and verify if the calculated rate matches the actual rate. If these rates are not close, additional
history matching should be done.

Using Sparse Data
Since the hybrid model is essentially a numerical simulator, you may want to speed up your cal-
culation times. While a single calculation normally takes a few seconds, when running automatic
parameter estimation (APE), WellTest performs a large number of simulation runs, so the overall cal-
culation time may become lengthy.
To speed up your calculation times, you can enable the sparse data option, which is available for the
hybrid model. By doing this, you will run simulations with a smaller number of timesteps.
To use sparse data:
1. Create, populate, and use the hybrid model.
2. Click the Use Sparse Data icon ( ) on the hybrid model toolbar.
The Use Sparse Production Data dialog box opens. When using sparse data, the hybrid
model uses coarse timesteps for calculations, and each coarse timestep contains n points.
3. Enter a value for n and click Apply.

The history plot displays a new sparse set of production data to be used for calculations:
l If you select CalcP mode, the sparse gas rate used for calculations is displayed as a
thin red line
l If you select CalcR mode, the sparse flowing pressure used for calculations is dis-
played as a thin brown line
4. To ensure that the sparse dataset represents the actual production history, adjust the value
for n, as required.

5. Click the Synthesize icon ( ) to run the model. Note that the calculated results correspond
to coarse timesteps.
If you run APE, each calculation runs using coarse timesteps based on your n value.
Note: Your weighting and point selection are honored when running APE using sparse data.
While calculation results are slightly less accurate, the calculations run faster. (After APE
finds a match using sparse data, you can run one calculation using the entire production
dataset (n = 1) to ensure that the match is still good.)
How Sparse Datasets are Calculated

For CalcP mode: Drawdowns are divided in coarse timesteps. Coarse timesteps contain n points,
and the rate for each timestep is calculated as "total volume produced over the timestep" / "duration
of the timestep". For buildups, all of the production data is used.
For CalcR mode: Drawdowns are divided in coarse timesteps. Coarse timesteps contain n points,
and the pressure for each timestep is calculated as "last measured pressure of the timestep". For
buildups, all of the production data is used.

Legacy Models: Procedures
Legacy model procedures include the following:
Analyzing an Observation Well
Anchoring in Legacy Models
Creating a Legacy Model
Forecasting in Legacy Models
Performing APE in Legacy Models
Setting Boundary Type

Analyzing an Observation Well
To analyze the interference pressure response observed between two wells:
1. Enter the pressure data obtained at a shut-in well (observation well) in the Production Editor
tab.
2. Enter the production / injection rates measured at the producer / injector (active well) in the
Production Editor tab.
Note: Any combination / number of production rates and injection rates can be accom-
modated, but injection rates should be entered as production rates with a negative
value.

Usually an analysis is completed through modeling, and without a diagnostic analysis of the
observation well data.
3. Select the appropriate model type from the Models menu.
4. Enter model parameters based on your available information. For example, initial estimates
of permeability are usually obtained from pressure buildup (PBU) tests and/or from pressure
falloff (PFO) tests performed with active well data.
5. Select the Observation Well checkbox, and set the location of the observation well relative
to the active well.

6. Compare measured and calculated pressures at the observation well by clicking the Plots
tab. If required, adjust your model parameters to improve the match.
For example, a simple interference test sequence including one flow and one shut-in period
is shown below. Given the defined pore volume, the fluid produced during the flow period is
indicated to cause a pressure loss of 6.1 psi.

Anchoring in Legacy Models
Anchoring is a technique for improving the efficiency of the history-matching process. You can spe-
cify a measured pressure and WellTest will calculate the initial synthetic pressure, which results in
the model line going through that specified pressure. This specified measured pressure is known as
the anchor point.
The legacy suite of models within WellTest, which are accessible via the Models menu, provide
three possible anchor options: initial pressure, final flowing pressure, or any other specified pres-
sure.
1. Initial Pressure Anchor: This selection is used when analyzing drawdown data with a
known (measured) initial pressure. The synthetic initial pressure is set to the reservoir pres-
sure specified in pressure, volume, temperature (PVT) properties.
2. Final Flowing Pressure Anchor: This anchor point is convenient when analyzing buildup
or falloff data. The initial pressure is usually not measured, and with anchoring to the final
flowing pressure, you can focus on history matching the good quality, shut-in data, and then
checking to ensure the synthetic initial pressure is reasonable.
3. Specified Pressure Anchor: In situations where neither the initial pressure nor the final
flowing pressure is known, it is possible to specify any other measured pressure.
An anchor point is selected by clicking one of three icons on the model’s toolbar.

An anchor point is set automatically if the pi or pf option is selected. If the general anchor option is
chosen, you select an anchor point by clicking the desired pressure on the History plot.

Creating a Legacy Model
To create a legacy model:
1. Click the Models menu.
2. Select the model type.
Note: Legacy models may also be created by clicking the Wizard menu and selecting Model
selection. This opens the WellTest Wizard: Model Selection dialog box. Click the radio but-
ton beside the type of model you wish to create and click Next.

Forecasting in Legacy Models
Forecasting is used to predict the future production of your well. You can estimate reservoir gas, oil,
or water production rates or pressures using an analytical solution based on your specified reservoir
properties and forecasting parameters. Before creating a forecast, ensure that you have already cre-
ated a legacy model and performed a history match.
To create a forecast:
1. Click the Forecast sub-tab under your model's tab.
The Forecast Parameters dialog box opens.

2. Enter your forecast parameters. For a detailed description of each parameter, see Forecast
Parameters Dialog Box.
The default values for pR and s1,2,3 are populated from the model you had previously cre-
ated.

3. Click the Calculate button to create your forecast.
The results of your forecast will be displayed on the plot labeled Transient Forecast.

Performing APE in Legacy Models
To perform automatic parameter estimation (APE) in legacy models:
1. Select the model input parameters you want to vary by clicking the Auto checkbox beside
each parameter in the Parameters dialog box.
2. Click the start Auto button on the model toolbar to start the auto match. WellTest adjusts the
parameters to improve the history match between the simulated and measured pressures.

The APE Status dialog box opens. You can wait for APE to stop after it has met its con-
vergence criteria, or click the Stop button on the APE Status dialog box.

If an acceptable match is not obtained, you should manually adjust the parameters and
repeat the APE process, or consider a different reservoir model.
Advanced APE Options
Weighting Points
You may want to weight some data points more heavily than others when performing APE. For
example, when analyzing buildup data to get an estimate of average reservoir pressure, it is more
important to match the data at the end of the buildup, than the start of the buildup. Similarly, if a well-
bore effect is observed, you may want to ignore those points when history matching.
APE tries to minimize the error between the synthetic (model) pressures and the measured pres-
sures. The error terms for weighted points are amplified in the convergence algorithm. In other
words, APE tries really hard to converge on weighted points, less hard converging on points without
weighting, and ignores deselected points.
The model toolbar contains a number of buttons above the Auto button that are used for weighting
points.

l
The blue icon ( ) is for selecting points
l
The yellow icon ( ) is for weighting points
l
The white icon ( ) is for excluding points
To weight points:
1. Click the yellow icon ( ).
2. Move the mouse over any plot with measured data, such as the History plot, the Derivative
plot, or the Typecurve plot.
The cursor changes to a spray can.
3. Spray the data points you would like to add weighting to by clicking over the measured pres-
sures. Right-clicking changes the weighting of data points back to a normal weight.

Excluding Points
A similar procedure is used to exclude points:
l
This icon ( ) selects all points.
l
This icon ( ) excludes all points outside the selected flow period, and selects all
points within the selected flow period.
l
This icon ( ) icon selects 10 equally spaced points within the selected flow
period, and excludes all other points.
l
This icon ( ) weights or unweights the point immediately preceding the selected
flow point (e.g., the final flow pressure).
Selecting the APE Method

The APE algorithm may be selected by right-clicking any model plot and selecting APE method from
the right-click menu. For details on APE methods, see automatic parameter estimation (APE).

Preparing Data for Analysis
Before you analyze a well, you need to prepare or fine-tune your data for analysis.
Calculating Sandface Pressures Entering Properties
Deleting Data in the Production Editor Handling Large Datasets
Loading Data into the Production

Determining a Shut-in Point
Editor
Entering and Interpreting Rates Manipulating Data
Entering Calibration Properties for Oil /

Merging Data
Condensate
Entering Custom Data for Dry Gas / Wet Gas Renaming Gauges
Entering Custom Data for Liquid-Rich Gas Smoothing Data
Entering Custom Data for Oil / Condensate Specifying Shut-in Points
Entering Detailed Production / Injection Data

Synchronizing Data
Manually

Calculating Sandface Pressures
All of the equations used in the analysis are developed assuming that pressures are referenced at
sandface conditions. As a result, if your data includes wellhead pressures, they must be converted
to sandface pressures.
Use this procedure to convert wellhead pressures to sandface pressures:
1. Click the Production Editor tab.
2. Ensure that you have values in either the Tubing Pressure or Casing Pressure columns of
the table.
3. If appropriate, specify liquid levels in the Liquid Level column of the table. Static oil and water
gradients may be entered in the Oil and Water Gradient columns. Alternatively, you can opt
to calculate these gradients by clicking the Calc checkbox in the header of the Oil and Water
Gradient columns.
If you do not see these columns on the table, see Grid Options.
4. Click the Calc SFP icon ( ). A dialog box opens.

5. In the Wellbore Data tab within the Wellbore Calculations dialog box, modify the inputs to the
wellbore calculations. You must fill out the following sections:
l mid-point of perforations (MPP)
l tubing specifications (if your pressure source is tubing pressure)
l casing specifications
6. If you are dealing with more than one phase, click the Pressure Loss Correlation tab and
select the most appropriate correlation.
7. If the well is deviated, click the Deviation Survey tab. This table can be populated manually,
or by copying and pasting from the deviation survey.

8. After you have entered all the necessary information, click Calculate.

The calculated values are displayed in the Calculated Sandface Pressure column of the
table. These are the pressures used for analysis.

Deleting Data in the Production Editor
Unnecessary data can be removed at any point in the Production Editor tab.
Deleting Data at the Start or End of the Production

Editor
To delete data at the start or end of the Production Editor tab:
1. Find the first or last data point you want to keep by clicking that point in the Data Chart.
You may fine-tune your selection by clicking the annotation arrow on the Zoomed Data
Chart, and then use the right and left arrow keys to select neighboring points. This highlights
the corresponding row on the data table.
2. Right-click the number of the highlighted row in the data table and select Delete All Rows
Before or Delete All Rows After.
Deleting Data in the Middle of the Production Editor

To delete data in the middle of the Production Editor tab:

1. Select the spray can from the Select Points toolbar icon in the Production Editor Data Chart.
2. Spray the data you would like to remove by holding down the left-mouse button and drag-
ging your mouse over the points.
3. Click the Delete selected points toolbar icon in the Production Editor Data Chart.

Determining a Shut-in Point
There is a module within the Production Editor tab where you can insert a shut-in point into your data-
set. This is useful when a shut-in point is missing or isn't well defined. Determining a shut-in point
can improve the look of the early time trend on derivative plots, and can improve the estimation of
skin. Prior to inserting a shut-in point, ensure there is a zero rate close to the shut-in point entered in
the Production Editor tab. The initial scale for the plots in the Determine Shut-in module depend on
that shut-in point.
To determine a shut-in point:
1. Click the Det. Shut-in icon ( ) on the Production Editor toolbar.
A new window opens with four plots.
2. On the top left plot, position the line through the general trend of the drawdown (or injection)
pressure data.
3. On the top right plot, position the line through the first few shut-in points.
4. Fine-tune the line positions on the Data Chart plot on the bottom left.

5. Check the shut-in point to be added on the Shut-in Point plot on the bottom right.
6. After you are satisfied with the shut-in point, click the Click here to select shut-in point
box in the Shut-in Point plot, or click the Select Shut-in Point button in the top left of the
module window. Then click Yes in the popup that opens.
The shut-in point will be inserted into the Production Editor tab.
7. Check the shut-in point on the Production Editor tab. Sometimes zero rates that were in the
Production Editor tab prior to inserting the shut-in point need to be deleted manually.

Entering and Interpreting Rates
A key part of entering and interpreting rates involves understanding the notation that WellTest uses.
End of Period – Rate Data

The notation WellTest uses for rate data is “end of period”. If you opened the well on January 1st,
you would measure the volume, calculate, and report the rate on January 2nd. For this reason, the
rate in row 1 is always zero. In the screenshot below, the rate of 100 bbl/d starts on January 1, 2013
at 00:13:59, and continues until January 2, 00:13:59. Also, the rates are carried forward through
empty rows. The rate of 400 bbl/d, which is entered in row 3, starts at 1 day (row 2) and continues to
3 days (row 4). This makes it easier to edit and move sparse rate readings because you only have to
edit it in one place.
Note: When manually entering rates, make sure the rates displayed in the Data Chart match your
expectations.

Entering Calibration Properties for Oil /
Condensate
To enter calibration properties for oil / condensate:
2. Click Oil / Condensate in the Properties pane.
3. Select correlations from the PVT Correlation and Viscosity Correlation drop-down lists.
4. Specify the oil / condensate properties, such as gravity.
5. Enter data for pcal and Tcal in the Calibration Properties section.
6. Enter Rs cal, Bo cal, co cal, and μo cal in the Calibration Properties section.
7. Check the plots to ensure that the calibration is reasonable. If the calculated oil com-
pressibility goes negative, check the gas and oil properties, as well as the calibration to
ensure that everything has been entered correctly.

Entering Custom Data for Dry Gas / Wet
Gas
Note that custom properties are not used in wellbore calculations.
To enter custom data for dry gas / wet gas:
2. Click Gas in the Properties pane.
3. Enter your Gas Properties, Gas Composition, and Critical Properties.
4. Click the PVT Correlation drop-down list and select Custom Table.
5. Enter data in the p column; then enter data into either the Z or Bg columns of the Custom
Table. The other data will be calculated.

6. Click the Viscosity Correlation drop-down list and select Custom Table.
7. Enter data into the p and μg columns.

8. Click the View Plot icon to verify that the custom-input data is reasonable.

Entering Custom Data for Liquid-Rich Gas
To enter custom data for liquid-rich gas:
2. Click Gas in the Properties pane.
3. Click the Change Plot Options icon.
The Plot Options dialog box opens.
4. Select the properties you want to display (i.e., numerical or non-numerical) and click OK.
6. Enter data into the p column; then enter data into either the Z or Bg columns of the Custom
Table. The other data will be calculated.

8. Enter data into the p and μg columns.
9. Click the Gas Type drop-down list and select Liquid-Rich Gas.
10. Click the Vaporized Oil Ratio Correlation drop-down list and select Custom Table: Liq.
Drop-Out.
11. Enter the required data in the Gas Properties section.
12. Enter data into the p and VL / Vsat columns.


Entering Custom Data for Oil / Condensate
To enter custom data for oil / condensate:
2. Click Oil / Condensate in the Properties pane.
3. Enter your Oil / Condensate properties. If applicable, enter your Calibration properties.
5. Enter data into the p, Rso, and Bo columns of the Saturated Oil Custom Table.
6. Enter the Original pbp.

8. Enter data into the p and μo columns.


Entering Detailed Production / Injection
Data Manually
If you choose to enter data manually from the WellTest Wizard: Production / Injection dialog box, you
are prompted to specify a start of production (or injection) date that gets inserted at the top of the Pro-
duction Editor tab.
1. Select your start date from the following dialog box.
2. Insert rows into the Production Editor tab and enter the time and rate for each new row.

Specifying Time
l Time can be specified by editing the cell in either the Date / Clock Time, or Time
columns in the Production Editor tab.
l When Date/Clock time is specified, cumulative time is automatically calculated.

When Time is specified, Date / Clock Time is calculated.
l Double-clicking the Date / Clock Time column launches a Calendar dialog box. Altern-
atively, you can enter the date and time manually provided the format is consistent
with the units of the column.
l In many cases, the Time column is the same as the Cumulative Time column.
However, delta times may be entered as negative times. To enter daily production
data, enter -24 hrs in the Time column, and the Cumulative Time and Date / Clock
Time columns automatically update.
Specifying Production / Injection

For background information, see End of Period - Rate Data.
l Injection rates are specified as negative rates.
l When calculating sandface pressures, all fluid rates must be entered to establish the
most representative sandface flowing pressures.
l When using measured sandface pressures, or when there are no pressures available
for the previous production period, the following rates are used:
l Dry gas reservoirs
-gas rate only
l Gas-condensate reservoirs:
-gas rate only if condensate gas ratio (CGR) is constant
-gas and condensate rates if CGR is changing
l Oil reservoirs
-oil and water rates if above bubble point
-gas, oil, and water rates if below bubble point

Entering Properties
To enter properties:
2. In the Properties Pane, enter your reservoir properties.

3. Click the type of properties you would like to specify. For example, to specify gas properties,
click Gas.

4. In the Inputs Pane, select your desired correlations from the drop-down menus. Note that
the input fields may change depending on which correlation you select.
5. (Optional) Enter property values in any fields that are white.

Note: The grayed-out fields cannot be modified directly. They are updated automatically based on
the data entered in the fields with a white background.
Entering Custom Properties

To enter custom properties:
1. Select Custom Table from the Correlation drop-down menu.

The following dialog box opens.
Click OK. Blank tables are displayed in place of the data plots.
2. Manually enter values in the table. Or, click the Import Data icon ( ) in the Inputs pane
toolbar to populate the table.

Any grayed-out areas in the Inputs pane will be automatically calculated as data is entered
into the custom table.

Handling Large Datasets
Working with large amounts of data can cause out-of-memory errors, re-drawing issues, and slug-
gish behaviour. Long-term collection from permanent downhole gauges and high-frequency read-
ings are becoming increasingly common in the field, and can lead to volumes of data much greater
than is required for pressure transient analysis.
The maximum amount of data that can be imported into WellTest depends on the amount of random
access memory (RAM) the computer has, as well as how many other programs are using up the
RAM.
These steps help reduce memory-related issues in WellTest:
1. Reduce the amount of data to be imported into WellTest.
l When extracting data from a database, use appropriate queries to extract enough
data to obtain a good interpretation, but not so much that it affects performance.
Extracting hundreds of thousands of points from millions of points yields a large
enough dataset to perform further interactive filtering in WellTest, without losing sig-
natures in the data.
l When dealing with flat files, such as ASCII files, most wireline companies can provide
lower frequency data than the gauge sampling frequency.
l Use IHS ValiData™, a separate program, to reduce data before bringing it into
WellTest. ValiData can handle approximately five times more data than WellTest.
2. Reduce the amount of data in WellTest.
l Filter gauges. The filter in WellTest's Data Management tab is meant to be used for
data reduction and should be used when dealing with super large datasets. See Fil-
tering in Data Management for additional information.
l In extreme cases, where re-drawing issues or sluggish behaviour prevents the inter-
pretation of data, deleting data management gauges reduces the memory footprint of
the file. This can be done by right-clicking the gauge tab above the grid and selecting
"Delete Gauge".

Loading Data into the Production editor
To load data from the Data Management tab into the Production Editor:
1. Click the Data Selection icon ( ). The Select data to analyze dialog box opens.

Each dataset from the Data Management tab is placed in a specific drop-down menu within
this dialog box.
2. Use the drop-down menus to select the datasets that you wish to use for analysis and mod-
eling.
3. Click OK to add the selected datasets to the Production Editor.

Manipulating Data
To manipulate data:
1. Right-click a heading in the data table and select Manipulate. The Manipulate dialog box
opens.
Specify how you would like to change the data under the Manipulate Options section, and to
which row(s) these changes will apply under the Rows section.
2. Click OK to apply the changes.

Merging Data
Data imported from different files can be merged into one continuous file in the Merge tab located
above the gauge tables.
On the left-side pane, one gauge is set as the 'Primary' gauge. If merging two gauges with like data-
sets, the value from the primary gauge will be kept when dates from the two gauges are identical.
Note: Prior to using this function, you must import data into at least two gauges.
To merge gauges:
1. Open the Data Management tab; then click the Merge tab. The Select Gauges to Merge dia-
log box opens.
2. Select the primary gauge and secondary gauge(s); then click OK.
Note: Multiple gauges may be selected in the Secondary Gauge section of the dialog box
by holding down the Ctrl or Shift key while clicking the gauges to be merged.

After the gauges have been selected, a preview of the resultant dataset is displayed.
3. Click Apply.
A new gauge, called Merged 1, is created inside the Data tab.

Renaming Gauges
From the Data Management tab, Data sub-tab, right-click the gauge name and select Rename
Gauge. By default, each imported file is named Gauge, followed by an increasing numeric value
(i.e., 1, 2, 3, etc.).

Smoothing Data
The goal of smoothing is to make the data smooth enough for us to analyze (e.g., identify flow
regimes on a derivative plot) without distorting the general trend of the data. Datasets contained
within any gauge can be smoothed in the Smooth tab located above the gauge tables.
Note: Prior to using this function, you must import data.
To smooth data:
1. Click the Data Management tab; then click the Smooth sub-tab.
2. If you have two or more gauges, the Select Gauge / Dataset dialog box opens. Select a
gauge; then click OK.
The data is displayed on the Smoothing Plot.
Gauges with rate and pressure data are automatically partitioned into flow and shut-in peri-
ods. You can merge pressures and rates prior to smoothing. Alternatively, you can manually
partition your data by clicking in the partition area at the top of the Smoothing Plot. Drag a
partition marker to move it, or drag it off the plot to remove it.

3. On the Smoothing Plot, click the dataset and region you would like to smooth. This activates
the smoothing sliders, located above the Smoothing Plot.
4. Click-and-drag the middle slider to the right to smooth more, or to the left to smooth less. The
slider bars on the top and bottom control the degree to which smoothing is tapered off on the
left and right ends of the selected region.

You can zoom into the region (e.g., flow or shut-in period) you are smoothing.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 for all datasets and regions you would like to smooth.
6. Click Apply.

A new gauge, called Smoothed 1, is created inside the Data sub-tab.

Specifying Shut-In Points
The following examples show correct and incorrect placement of the shut-in point.
Correct | Zero rate is identified on the first significant buildup pressure:
Incorrect | Zero rate is identified before the first buildup pressure:

Synchronizing Data
Data usually comes from multiple sources, and it is often necessary to synchronize clocks from dif-
ferent gauges, or different datasets within the same gauge. Synchronizing shifts the time track of the
secondary dataset, in order to line up the selected primary and secondary sync points.
To synchronize data:
1. Click the Data Management tab; then click the Synchronize sub-tab.
2. Select the primary and secondary datasets from the drop-down menus.

3. Move the primary and secondary sync point annotation arrows to the two points on the
respective datasets that you want to line up. A preview of the resultant synchronized dataset
is located in the bottom right plot.
4. Click Apply.

The time stamp of the secondary dataset is updated to reflect the synchronization.
If you want to add multiple sync points, click the Options button in the top toolbar. The data
between two sync points can be compressed / expanded, or the first / last point from the sec-
ondary data point can be shifted.

Multiple datasets (such as gas, oil, and water rates) can be contained within a gauge. By
clicking the Options button in the top toolbar, you can switch which dataset is being used to
synchronize. If for example, the gas rates have continuous data and the water rate is slug-
gish, it will be easier to select the gas rate to use for synchronization.

Reporting
WellTest reporting functionality includes the following:
collating a report
designing a report
previewing a report

Collating a Report
With a collated report, you can group several report templates together, so that they can all be prin-
ted at the same time.
To collate a report:
1. Click the Reports tab. By default, the Preview Report sub-tab is selected.
2. Click the Collate Reports icon ( ) on the toolbar.
A pane opens to the right of the Reports pane with an folder named Collated Reports.
3. From the Reports tree, click the name of a Report Template and drag it to the Collated
Reports pane. To select multiple templates, drag a selection box around the template
names.

The selected report(s) will be placed under Report 1.
4. To print your collated report, click the Print icon ( ) on the toolbar.
Additional Options
Additional options include the following:
1. To create a new report category, right-click the empty space within the Collated Reports
pane and select Create New Report.

2. To remove a collated report category, or to remove a report template from a collated report
category, right-click the item and select Remove.

Designing a Report
Reports are created by arranging various elements (e.g., images, plots, tables, text) on-screen. A
particular arrangement of elements can then be saved as a template. When selecting a report or tem-
plate from the Existing Reports and Templates list, be aware of the following:
l Reports – apply to specific files and cannot be re-used between files
l Templates – can be applied to all reports
To create a report:
1. Click the Reports tab; then click the Design Report sub-tab.

2. In the Existing Reports and Templates list, select the type of report or template you wish to
use. You can select reports, which are specific to the file you are using, or you can select a
template, which can be used for similar files. For more information see Custom Templates.
3. In the Template Name field, type in your template's name, or use the default name of Tem-
plate1.
4. In the Orientation section, select your page orientation.
5. In the Design Tools section, add different components to the report. Additional information is
provided in the next section of this topic.
6. To save the template for later use, click the Save Report icon ( ).

Modifying an Existing Template
To modify an existing template:
1. Select a template to modify.
2. Add or remove plots, grids, annotations, lines, frames, images, text, or schematics.
3. To save the template for later use, click the Save Report icon ( ).
Selecting a Template to Modify

The first and most important step is to select the appropriate template to modify.
Note: You can modify reports or templates. If you modify and save a report, a new file-specific
report is generated. If you modify and save a template, a new custom template is generated.
The custom template is used to generate custom reports for other files, which contain the
same model and fluid type.
1. From the Existing Reports and Templates section, select Default Templates.
2. From the drop-down list, select the type of report template you would like to modify.

Adding a Plot
To add a plot to your report template:
1. Click the Add plot to current report page icon ( ) in the Design Tools section of the
Design Report sub-tab.

This places a rectangle on the current page of the report.
2. Double-click the plot rectangle to open the Select Plot dialog box.
Or, right-click the rectangle and select Select Plot….

3. Click the plot you want to add in the Select Plot dialog box and click OK.
Note: Clicking the Show Plot Headers checkbox adds header information to the plot. For
additional information, see WellTest Wizard: Headers.
After a plot has been added, right-clicking the plot displays additional options:
l Change Plot… — changes the selected object to another type.
l Copy to Clipboard — you can paste the plot into another application.
l Scale Text — changes the size of the text on the plot relative to the curves that
have been drawn.
l Draw Regular Plot / Draw As a Metafile — toggles if the plot is drawn as a

metafile (type of picture), or a regular plot.
l Cut, Copy, Delete
l Send to Back / Front — with multiple plots you can layer them with some over-
laying portions of each other with the most important one being on top.
l Specify Size... — specify the height and width of your plot in inches.
l Fit to Page — scales the plot to automatically fit your page size.

l Use Relative Sizing — fits the plot to your page size relative to the curves that
have been drawn.
l Repeat on Every Page — places the plot of every page of your report.
Adding a Grid
A grid often contains parameter information or key results, which are displayed in a table format. To
add a grid:
1. Click the Add data grid to current report page icon ( ) in the Design Tools section of
the Design Report sub-tab.
2. Double-click the plot rectangle to open the Select Grid dialog box.
Or, right-click the rectangle and select Change Grid….

3. Select the appropriate grid and click OK. Or, you can click the Previous and Next icons (
) to scroll through different plots. When you decide upon the appropriate plot, select
it and click OK.
l
Single Page — you can view the report one page at a time. This option is
meant for cases where there are multiple page reports, such as a collated report.
This option is grayed-out if the report template being viewed is a single-page
report.
l
Multiple Pages — you can view the thumbnail view of a multi-page report.
This option is grayed-out if the report template being viewed is a single-page
report.
After a grid has been added, right-clicking the grid displays additional options:

l Change Grid… — changes the selected object to another type.
l Copy to Clipboard — you can paste the plot into another application.
l Cut, Copy, Delete
l Send to Back / Front — with multiple grids you can layer them with some over-
l Specify Size... — specify the height and width of your grid in inches.
l Fit to Page — scales the grid to automatically fit your page size.
l Use Relative Sizing
Grid Sizing Options

In the Sizing Options section of the Select Grid dialog box, you have the following options:

l Default Fit — takes into account the width of your columns and the height of your
rows.
l Specific Fit — you can select columns, rows, or both to be fitted in the grid's rect-
angle.
l Dynamic Row Sizing — you can have your grid / table dynamically grow if the num-
ber of rows changes. When this option is selected, columns are always fitted in the
rectangle provided.
l Make Grid Same Size On All Pages — applies to a grid that spreads across sev-
eral pages and uses the same rectangle as the first- page rectangle to do the sizing
of the grid.
Adding an Annotation
To add an annotation:
1. Click the Add annotation to current report page icon ( ) in the Design Tools section of
the Design Report sub-tab.
2. Double-click the plot rectangle to open the Annotation Editor.

3. Select your parameter in the left-side tree, type in a title, and select a border from the drop-
down list. When done, click OK. (The Preview pane will update when you type in a title, or
select a border.)
Note: To change the default font settings, click the Options button.
Annotation options are as follows:
l Edit Annotation… — you can edit your parameters and style.
l Clip Text — hides all annotations outside of the annotation rectangle.
l Grow Dynamically — changes the object to a dynamic object, which can

expand and shrink depending on the parameters it contains.
l Save As a block — opens the Provide Block Information dialog box where you
can enter your block name, and associate the block with your application data.
l Scale Annotation — sets the size of the annotation, which can be enlarged or
reduced.
l Copy To Clipboard — you can paste the annotation into another application.
l Cut, Copy, Delete
l Send to Back / Front — with multiple annotations you can layer them with some
overlaying portions of each other with the most important one being on top.
l Specify Size — specify the height and width of your annotation in inches.
l Fit to Page — scales the annotation to automatically fit your page size.
l Repeat on every page — places the annotation on every page of your report.

Adding a Line
To add a line:
1. Click the Add line to current report page icon ( ) in the Design Tools section of the
Design Report sub-tab.
2. Draw your line on the canvas.

After a line has been added, right-clicking the line displays additional options:
l Format… — opens a dialog box where you can set the thickness, style, and
color of the line to be selected.
l Make Vertical / Make Horizontal — toggles the line from horizontal to vertical,
and vertical to horizontal.
l Send to Back / Front — with multiple lines you can layer them with some over-
l Specify Size — specify the height and width of your line in inches.
l Fit to Page — scales the line to automatically fit your page size.
l Repeat on every page — places the line on every page of your report.
Adding a Frame
This option creates a blank frame that can be re-sized, placed around objects, and moved, so that
you can decide which portions of a report / template to group together.
To add a frame:
1. Click the Add frame to current report page icon ( ).

2. Double-click the rectangle to open the Format Frame dialog box.

Or, right-click the rectangle and select Format.
3. Specify the frame's thickness and style from the drop-down lists; then click OK.
You can click-and-drag a plot or image into the frame you just created.

After a frame has been added, right-clicking the frame displays additional options:
l Format… — opens a dialog box where you can set the thickness and style of the
frame to be selected.
l Cut, Copy, Delete
l Send to Back / Front — with multiple lines you can layer them with some overlaying
portions of each other with the most important one being on top.
l Fit to Page — scales the line to automatically fit on the available space on your
page.
l Repeat on every page — places the line on every page of your report.
Adding an Image
To add an image:
1. Click the Add image to current report page icon ( ).

This creates an image rectangle on the canvas.
2. Double-click the rectangle to select a particular image.

Or, right-click the rectangle and select Select File Name.
The Open dialog box opens, where you can select files with extensions EMF, WMF, BMP,
GIF, TIFF, TIF, JPG, JPEG, JFIF, PNG, and ICO. This dialog box also shows a preview of
the currently selected image.
3. Select your file and then click the Open button.

After an image has been added, right-clicking the image displays additional options:
l Change File Name… — changes the selected object to another one.
l Set Dynamic Image Flag — certain images can be switched at run-time.
l Restore Original Aspect Ratio... — restores the object's original aspect ratio.
l Scale Image
l Copy to Clipboard — you can paste the image into another application.
l Cut, Copy, Delete
l Send to Back / Front — with multiple lines you can layer them with some overlaying
portions of each other with the most important one being on top.
l Fit to Page — scales the line to automatically fit your page size.
l Repeat on every page — places the image on every page of your report.
Adding Text
With this option you can create labels or static text in the report template.
To add text:
1. Click the Add text to current report page icon ( ).
2. Double-click the rectangle to open the Edit Text dialog box.

Or, right-click the rectangle and select Edit / Format Text.

3. Enter and format your text.
4. Click the OK button.

After text has been added, right-clicking the text displays additional options:
l Edit / Format Text... — used to change the text in the selected object.
l Copy to Clipboard — you can paste the image into another application.
l Select text from annotation — copies the text from an existing annotation.
l Vertical Justification — select top, center, or bottom for your text's vertical jus-
tification.
l Border Width / Border Style / Border Color — sets the width, style, and color of
the border.
l Background Color — displays a selection of colors for you to change the color of
the text box.
l Transparent — enables the text box to be transparent.
l Cut, Copy, Delete
l Send to Back / Front — with multiple text boxes, you can layer them with some over-
l Specify Size — specify the height and width of your text box in inches.
l Fit to Page — scales the text box to automatically fit your page size.
l Repeat on every page — places the text box on every page of your report.
Adding a Schematic
To add a schematic:

1. Click the Add schematic to current report page icon ( ).
2. Double-click the rectangle to open the Schematic Selection dialog box.

Or, right-click the rectangle and select Select / Edit Schematic.

3. Select your schematic from the drop-down list and click OK.
After a schematic has been added, right-clicking the schematic displays additional options:
l Cut, Copy, Delete
l Send to Back / Front — with multiple text boxes, you can layer them with some over-
l Specify Size — specify the height and width of your schematic in inches.
l Fit to Page — scales the schematic to automatically fit your page size.
l Use Relative Spacing
l Repeat on every page — places the schematic on every page of your report.

Previewing a Report
In the Preview pane, you can view the report(s) associated with your current file.
To preview a report:
1. Click the Reports tab. By default, the Preview Report sub-tab will be selected.
2. Click a report template in the Reports pane. The first page of your report is displayed in the
middle of the screen.
3. If your report has more than one page, click the Multiple Pages icon ( ) to view a thumb-
nail view of the report.

Note: While you are in the multiple page view, the Multiple Pages icon becomes grayed-
out.
4. If you are in the single page view of a multi-page report, click the Next Page ( ) and Pre-
vious page ( ) icons, to switch between the different pages.
Rearranging Pages
To rearrange the pages of your report:
1. Click the Multiple Pages icon in the toolbar.
Your report is displayed as a thumbnail for each page of your report.
2. Click the Rearrange Pages icon ( ) on the toolbar.
3. Click any page of your report and drag it to a different spot.

The new page order is automatically saved.

Analysis Types
Analysis types include the following:
Absolute Open Flow
Deconvolution
Inflow Performance Relationship
Conventional Test Analyses
Minifrac Test Analyses
PITA & Closed Chamber Test Analyses

AOF Analysis
The absolute open flow (AOF) potential of a well is the rate at which the well would produce against
zero sandface back pressure. It is used as a measure of gas well performance because it quantifies
the ability of a reservoir to deliver gas to the wellbore. Deliverability tests make it possible to predict
flow rates against any particular back pressure, including AOF when the back pressure is zero. This
result is shown below in an inflow performance relationship (IPR) plot.
Note: The AOF and deliverability plots can be generated at both the wellhead and sandface.
Types of Deliverability Tests

There are a number of tests that can be performed in order to calculate the deliverability of a well as
described below.
Conventional Back Pressure Test

The conventional back pressure test is performed by flowing a well at different rates. Each rate is
sustained until the radius of investigation has reached the outer edge of the drainage area, and pres-
sure stabilization has been reached. This type of test is not practical for low permeability reservoirs
because the time to reach pressure stabilization for each rate is excessive.
Isochronal Test
A fundamental reason that the conventional test is theoretically sound is that the radius of invest-
igation is constant for each flow period. In order to uphold this principle, the isochronal test takes

advantage of the fact that the radius of investigation is a function of time and not flow rate.
An isochronal test is performed by flowing a well at several different flow rates for periods of equal
duration, normally much less than the time required for stabilization. A shut-in, long enough for the
pressure to reach essentially static conditions, is performed between each flow period. In addition,
an extended flow rate, long enough to reach pressure stabilization, is required.
Note: In tight reservoirs, the length of time required to reach pressure stabilization between flow
periods could make the isochronal test impractical.
Modified Isochronal Test

The modified isochronal test is an isochronal test, which requires that each shut-in between flow peri-
ods, rather than being long enough to attain essentially static conditions, should be of the same dur-
ation as each flow period. It also requires an extended flow period.
Single Point Test

A single point test consists only of an extended flow period, with an estimate of the degree of tur-
bulent flow in the formation. This estimate is often based on information provided by other wells in
the same formation, or it can be calculated from reservoir and fluid properties.
AOF Flow Conditions
Extended Flow
Normally an isochronal test includes one flow rate that is extended to stabilization, and a stabilized
pressure and flow rate point is determined. This point is the extended flow pressure and flow rate for
the test. Single point tests do not include the multi-rate portion of a test and consist of only an exten-
ded rate and pressure.
Stabilized Shut-in
Stabilized generally refers to a test in which the pressure no longer changes significantly with time.
For AOF tests, the stabilized shut-in pressure is a pressure that reflects the average reservoir pres-
sure at the time. It is either measured during the test, or it is determined from the interpretation of the
data.

Stabilized Flow
In high-permeability reservoirs, or wells with small drainage areas, it may be possible to flow the well
until stabilization during the extended flow period of a deliverability test. In these cases, the sta-
bilized pressure and flow rate point is the extended flow point.
Many tests however, are not flowed to stabilization because of time constraints (especially in tight
reservoirs). An extended flow and stabilized shut-in are still performed at the end of these deliv-
erability tests, so that the buildup data can be analyzed, and from that the stabilized rate calculated.
Stabilized flow can be determined by calculation, or by creating a model of the reservoir, doing a fore-
cast at a specified pressure, and finding the point when the rate has stabilized (usually at 3 months,
6 months, or 1 year).
Types of Analyses
Two types of analysis are available: the simplified analysis and the Laminar-Inertial-Turbulent (LIT)
analysis.
LIT analysis is more rigorous than the simplified analysis, and is usually only used in tests where tur-
bulence is dominant, and the extrapolation to the AOF is large. However, in most cases the sim-
plified analysis is sufficient to determine the AOF and deliverability.
Pressure Method
For both the simplified and LIT analysis, two pressure options are available, the pressure squared or
the pseudo-pressure approach.
Pressure Squared
The pressure-squared approach is the more traditional method, and is often used because it is
easier to understand and calculate. However, it is only valid for medium-to-low pressure ranges, but
is just as accurate as the pseudo-pressure approach in this range.
Pseudo-Pressure
Using pseudo-pressure is more accurate than the pressure-squared approach, especially when deal-
ing with a high-pressure system, where gas viscosity (µg) and compressibility (cg) cannot be
assumed to be constant. Thus, pseudo-pressure works for all pressure ranges, although it is more
difficult to calculate and requires more computational time.

Simplified Analysis
The simplified analysis is based on the following equation:
Pressure squared or Pseudo-pressure
The analysis of a modified isochronal test using the simplified method is shown below. For the mod-
ified isochronal test, pws must be used instead of pR because the duration of each shut-in period is
too short to reach static conditions.
The data is plotted on a log-log plot of ∆p2 versus qst where ∆p2 is defined as:
The flow and shut-in periods of equal duration provide the information required to plot four points. A
straight line, called the transient deliverability line, is drawn through these four points.
The duration of the last flow rate is extended until the pressure response has stabilized. This inform-
ation is used to plot another point called the stabilized point. A line parallel to the transient deliv-
erability line is drawn through the stabilized point. This is called the stabilized deliverability line.
If the extended flow period does not reach pressure stabilization, a stabilized point can be found by
calculation from a buildup test.

The parameter n can be determined from the slope of the line as follows:
Thus, slope is equal to 1 / n, and n is called the inverse slope.
The other parameter, C, can be determined using n and the coordinates (qst and pR) of any point on
the stabilized deliverability line (e.g., the stabilized point) as follows:
Note that C and n are considered to be constant for a limited range of flow rates. In theory, it is expec-
ted that this form of the deliverability relationship is used only for the range of flow rates used during
the test. However, in practice it is used indiscriminately for a wide range of rates and pressures.

LIT Analysis
The Laminar-Inertial-Turbulent (LIT) analysis is used with dealing with high rate wells where tur-
bulence is a major factor. Only the pseudo-pressure approach can be used in this situation since
pressures are in a higher range due to the turbulence effects. LIT analysis is defined by the following
equation:
Note that the pseudo-pressure squared terms (a qst and b qst2) are equivalent to skin due to dam-
age (sd) and skin due to turbulence (sturb). The coefficients a and b are defined in the example
below.
The analysis of an isochronal test using the LIT method is shown below.
Data is plotted on a Cartesian plot of ∆ψ / q versus qst where ∆ψ / q is defined as:
As in the simplified analysis, the transient deliverability line is drawn through the four isochronal
points and a parallel stabilized deliverability line is drawn through the stabilized point.

The LIT coefficients, a and b, can be obtained by rearranging the deliverability equation into the form
below and plotting ∆ψ / q versus qst on Cartesian coordinates.
From this equation, the slope of the line is equal to b. The parameter a is determined by rearranging
the above equation to solve for a and then substituting b and the coordinates (qst and ψR) of any
point on the line.
References
"Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells", L. Mattar, G. Brar, and M. Mumby, Energy
Resources Conservation Board (1978) Third Edition, Chapter 3.
"Gas Reservoir Engineering", J. Lee and R. Wattenbarger, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
(1996) Volume 5, 73 - 74, 173 - 181.

Deconvolution Analysis
Deconvolution is a mathematical tool that extracts the drawdown typecurve from the rate and pres-
sure history. Essentially, the deconvolution process consists of the following steps:
l Generate a typecurve as an initial guess
l Superimpose this typecurve with historical rate data to calculate synthetic pres-
sures
l Calculate the error between the calculated pressures and the measured pres-
sures
l Generate a new typecurve and repeat the process until the error between cal-
culated and measured pressures is minimized
The deconvolved typecurve can then be analyzed using conventional diagnostic analysis tech-
niques to determine various reservoir characteristics such as permeability (k), skin (s'), reservoir
size, well location, and more. Deconvolution provides an alternative to conventional diagnostic ana-
lysis, and can show additional flow regime information that would not normally be seen within the
specified time-frame of the buildup test.
Note: Deconvolution is a purely mathematical process and should be used with caution.
The following guidelines show the ideal conditions for deconvolving data to obtain the best possible
results:
l Data should be free of a lot of noise and outliers in both rate and pressure
l Rate history needs to be reliable
l Buildup typecurves used for deconvolution need to be consistent with each other
l Wellbore and reservoir properties should be consistent / stable
l A good estimate of initial pressure (pi) is required
For more information on Deconvolution, see the following videos:
l VIDEO: Deconvolution in Well Testing, Part 1: Classical Methods
l VIDEO: Deconvolution in Well Testing, Part 2: Modern Methods
Tips to Achieve Better Results

If you are not satisfied with the results try the following:

l Filter your data to remove outliers and reduce the number of points.
l Use as few flow periods as possible and assess whether or not the typecurve
selected as the initial typecurve (Init TC) is a good initial guess.
l When selecting more flow periods it is important that they are as consistent as
possible. To determine this, select each flow period one at a time and compare
their Deconvolved Typecurves.
l If you have good quality measured point(s) in a deselected flow period, try select-
ing these points individually.
l Manually adjust the derivative on the Deconvolved Typecurve to achieve a better

initial guess.
l The overall results can be drastically affected by pi, especially with high rates. If
you have a more reliable value for pi we recommend using it instead of the
defaults provided.
l Avoid using "auto" on either pi or Pu1, especially at the same time, as this can sig-
nificantly reduce performance and produce poor results.
l Try turning the Adjust Rates option on.
l For noisy data, increase the curvature weighting (wcurv) to make it easier for the
algorithm to match the data.
Common Questions
Why doesn’t the typecurve for a certain flow period show up on the Data Typecurve plot?
l Check to see that the Show TC checkbox on the task bar has been selected for
the flow period.
l The range is too short, or has very few measured pressure points in it, and thus
the typecurve cannot be calculated.
How do I select a different flow period to be the initial guess for the Deconvolved Type-
curve?
Go to the task bar and select the appropriate flow period using the radio buttons in the Init
TC column, or go to the Total Test plot, right-click the desired flow period; then select Initial
Typecurve from the pop-up menu.
References
This deconvolution method is based on the work of Thomas Von Schroeter et al. and Michael M.
Levitan et al. For more information on the concepts of deconvolution, refer to the following papers:
SPE 71574, SPE 77688, SPE 84290, SPE 90680.

IPR Analysis
Liquid flow into a well depends on both the reservoir characteristics and the sandface flowing pres-
sure. The relationship of liquid inflow rate to sandface flowing pressure is called the inflow per-
formance relationship (IPR). By plotting this relationship, the well’s flow potential or rate can be
determined at various flowing sandface pressures. This process, called IPR analysis, can be used to
determine deliverability for a well producing oil or formation water.
Straight Line IPR

In calculating oil well production it is assumed that producing rates are proportional to the amount of
pressure drawdown. Using this assumption, a well’s behavior can be described by its productivity
index (PI) as follows:
Note: This relationship was developed from Darcy’s law for the steady state radial flow of a single,
incompressible liquid.
Vogel IPR
Vogel showed that as depletion proceeds in a solution-gas drive reservoir, the productivity of a typ-
ical well decreases, primarily because the reservoir pressure is reduced, and because the increas-
ing gas saturation causes greater resistance to oil flow.
The result is a progressive deterioration of the inflow performance relationship. This is shown in the
following diagram, which compares the straight line IPR with the Vogel IPR.

For water, the IPR is always a straight line since water does not contain dissolved hydrocarbon gas
like oil does. The slope of this line is equal to the inverse of the productivity index (PI) as defined
above. For oil, the IPR is a straight line above the bubble point pressure, and a curve below that. The
curve is generated using Vogel’s (1968) equation defined as follows:
Reservoir Pressure Below the Bubble Point Pressure
Reservoir Pressure at the Bubble Point Pressure

Reference
"Inflow Performance Relationship for Solution-Gas Drive Wells", Vogel, J. V., JPT, Jan.
1968.

Conventional Test Analyses
Conventional tests include the following:
Afterflow Linear Fracture Flow
Bilinear Fracture Flow Linear Horizontal Flow
Derivative PSS Flow
Dietz-MBH Radial Flow
Elliptical Flow Spherical Flow
Horizontal Radial Flow Vertical Radial Flow
Linear Channel Flow

Afterflow (Wellbore Storage) Analysis
Afterflow, or wellbore storage, occurs during the initial period of a shut-in. Prior to a shut-in, the rate
of fluid leaving the wellbore at the wellhead is equivalent to the rate of fluid entering the wellbore at
the sandface. When the well is shut in, fluid continues to enter the wellbore at the sandface, thus
compressing the fluid inside the wellbore. Pressure data is affected by afterflow, until the time comes
when the rate of fluid flow at the sandface is negligible.
The purpose of analyzing afterflow data is to determine the wellbore storage constant (C), and to
determine when afterflow ends and reservoir-dominated data begins. Thus, the wellbore storage
constant (C) is a measure of the storage capacity associated with the wellbore volume (Vw).
Basic Definitions (Field Units)

There are two types of afterflow (wellbore storage): fluid-filled and changing liquid level.
In the fluid-filled case, the wellbore is presumed to be full of either all liquid or gas, which gets com-
pressed as afterflow continues into the wellbore. The wellbore storage constant (C) is a function of
the wellbore volume (VW) and the wellbore fluid compressibility (cwb) as shown below:
For a fluid-filled wellbore:
When both gas and liquids co-exist in the wellbore and the liquid level changes, the wellbore storage
constant (C) becomes a function of the wellbore area (Awb) and liquid gradient (Gliq) as shown
below.
For a changing liquid level:
or
The wellbore storage constant (C) is often converted to a dimensionless wellbore storage constant
(CD) for use in analytical reservoir models.

Constant Rate Solution (Field Units)
For oil and water:
For gas:
These equations are linear with respect to time and, as a result, afterflow (wellbore storage) data will
form a straight line when plotted on a Cartesian plot of pressure versus delta time (p vs. ∆t) as shown
below.
Using the slope of this line (m), the wellbore storage constant (C) can be determined. The table
below summarizes the equations used to calculate C for different fluid types and flow periods.

Summary of Equations for Afterflow Analysis (Field
Units)
Flow Period Wellbore Storage Constant (bbl/psi)
Buildup
Oil
Buildup
Gas
Derivative Analysis (Field Units)

The signature of wellbore storage on a derivative plot is a straight line with a unit slope at early time.
The position of this line is used to calculate the wellbore storage constant (C). Note that wellbore stor-
age increases as the position of this line moves to the right.
Starting with the constant rate solution (see above), the derivative with respect to the logarithm of
time is:
For oil and water:
For gas:
Taking the logarithm of both sides:
For oil and water:
For gas:

This result is linear with time, and as a result, the derivative of afterflow (wellbore storage) data falls on a
straight line with a slope equal to one on a log ∆p versus log ∆t plot as shown below.
Using any derivative point on this line, the wellbore storage constant (C) can be determined. The
table below summarizes the equations used to calculate C for different fluid types and flow periods.
Summary of Equations for Afterflow Derivative Ana-

lysis (Field Units)
Flow Period Wellbore Storage Constant (bbl /psi)
Drawdown
Oil
Buildup
Gas Drawdown

Buildup

Bilinear Fracture Flow Analysis
Bilinear fracture flow is one of the flow regimes that can be identified when a reservoir has a finite
conductivity vertical fracture. The purpose of analyzing bilinear fracture flow data is to determine the
fracture flow capacity (kfwf).
Constant Rate Solution

For oil and water:
For gas:
Bilinear fracture flow data forms a straight line when placed on a semi-log plot of pressure versus a
quad root time function (p vs. (time function)0.25) for a buildup as shown below.
The slope (m) of this line is used to calculate root fracture flow capacity (sqrt(kfwf)) as follows:

For oil and water:
For gas:
The table below summarizes the equations used to calculate root fracture flow capacity (sqrt(kfwf))
for different fluid types and flow periods.
Summary of Equations for Bilinear Fracture Flow

(Field Units)
Flow Period Root Fracture Flow Capacity
Drawdown
Oil
Buildup
Drawdown
Ga-
s
Buildup
Derivative Analysis
The signature of Bilinear fracture flow data on a derivative plot is a straight line with a slope of 1/4.
The position of this line is used to calculate root fracture flow capacity (sqrt(kfwf)). Note that root frac-
ture flow capacity increases as the position of this line moves to the right.

quad-root time is:
For oil and water:
For gas:
For oil and water:
For gas:
This result is linear with time, and as a result, the derivative of bilinear fracture flow data falls on a straight
line with a slope equal to 1/4 on a log ∆p versus log ∆t plot as shown below.

Using any derivative point on this line, the root fracture flow capacity (sqrt(kfwf)) can be determined
as follows:
For oil and water:
For gas:
Summary of Equations for Bilinear Fracture Flow

Flow Period Root Fracture Flow Capacity ((md ft)0.5)
Drawdown
Oil

Buildup
Drawdown
Gas
Buildup

Derivative Analyses
Derivative analyses are used to identify all flow regimes present in pressure transient data and to
estimate values for parameters (e.g., k and s') that can be determined by the analysis of each of
these flow regimes. Diagnostic analysis lines are matched to various regions of the derivative
response, and various parameters are calculated based on the analysis type and line position.
Due to the fact that the derivative is often noisy and that information can be lost from over smooth-
ing, it is recommended that the standard analyses are also used to fine-tune the parameter values
obtained from the derivative analysis.
Introduction
By definition, the derivative is the slope (m) of the data when plotted on semi-log coordinates (see
radial flow analysis) as follows:
There are several numerical techniques available to calculate a derivative. Two methods, standard
and Bourdet, are available within the software and are described below. Both methods incorporate a
smoothing algorithm to reduce noise in the derivative. Be aware that smoothing should be used with
caution, since over smoothing the derivative can completely change the shape, and mask or show
flow regimes that may not exist. Therefore, it is recommended that a minimum amount of smoothing
be applied, so that results are in a recognizable shape of the derivative curve.
Standard Derivative
The standard definition of the semi-log derivative is as follows:
This definition assumes two points along the semi-log data curve are used. By applying a least
squares fitting technique, this definition can be expanded to allow for more than two points (up to the
total number of data points) to be used to calculate the derivative.

Bourdet Derivative
The Bourdet derivative is an alternative way to calculate and smooth the derivative based on a log-
cycle fraction. To calculate the Bourdet derivative at any given point, one point before and one point
after that point is used. Using these points, the Bourdet derivative is defined as follows:
Where the variables are defined in the following diagram:
Using this definition, ∆X represents the log-cycle fraction used to control the amount of smoothing.
Note this value is typically quite small (0.01 to 0.2) and a small increase represents a significant
increase in smoothing.
References
1. "Derivative Analysis Without Type Curves", Louis Mattar, JCPT Special Edition (1999) vol.
38.
2. "Use of Pressure Derivative in Well-Test Interpretation", D. Bourdet, J.A. Ayoub, and Y.M.
Pirard, SPE Formation Evaluation, (June 1989).

Dietz-MBH Analysis
This analysis is used to determine the final average reservoir pressure for a buildup / falloff test. It is
based on the Dietz-MBH shape factor method that requires permeability (k), skin (s'), reservoir
shape, and drainage area (A) as inputs.
The permeability (k) and skin (s') are obtained from a radial analysis and reservoir shape and drain-
age area are specified. Using this information, a vertical model is used along with a material balance
equation to rigorously solve for the final average reservoir pressure.

Elliptical Flow Analysis
In a horizontal well, the elliptical flow regime is often seen instead of, or immediately following, the lin-
ear horizontal flow regime.
The elliptical flow regime exhibits a slope of 1/3 on a log-log plot as shown below.
The position of this line is used to calculate the square root of the horizontal permeability ratio (sqrt
(ky / kx)) as follows:
The semi-log pressure derivative during the elliptical flow period in dimensionless form is:
In dimensional parameters, for an oil reservoir, the semi-log pressure derivative becomes:
Where:

The horizontal permeability (kxy) is obtained from the horizontal radial analysis. Alternatively, kxy
may be obtained using k from a previous radial flow analysis for a vertical well in the same reservoir.
Upon re-arranging the second equation shown above, the square root of the horizontal permeability
ratio can be expressed as follows:
For oil and water:
For gas:
Where:
To calculate the square root of the horizontal permeability ratio, the above equations are used along
with a ∆pw' or ∆ψw' value read from the 1/3 slope line on the log-log plot at a corresponding ∆t
value. kxy is obtained from the horizontal radial analysis line.
References
"Determination of Horizontal Permeability Anisotropy from Horizontal Well Tests", M.B. Issaka, K.
Zaoral, A.K. Ambastha, L. Mattar, Paper presented at the 2000 SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical
Symposium, Dahran, Saudi Arabia, October 21 - 23.

Horizontal Radial Flow Analysis
Horizontal radial flow is a flow regime that occurs only in a horizontal well after linear horizontal or
elliptical flow, and before the occurrence of boundary effects. The purpose of analyzing horizontal
radial flow data is to determine horizontal permeability (kxy).
The equations and theory for analyzing horizontal radial flow data are identical to that for radial flow.
The only difference is the permeability obtained and shown in the equations is replaced by horizontal
permeability (kxy).
It is important to note that in a horizontal well, two radial flow regimes occur. One at early time which
occurs in the vertical plane of the formation, and the second at late time in the horizontal plane.
Thus, it is important to analyze the proper region of data to obtain correct results. The plots below
show the distinction between vertical and horizontal radial flow on the semi-log and derivative plots,
as well as the correct placement of the analysis lines.

Linear Channel Flow Analysis
Linear channel flow is a flow regime that exists in long, narrow reservoirs. It occurs in the transition
between the middle time region and the late time region, when the radius of investigation (rinv) has
reached the two closest parallel boundaries. The purpose of analyzing linear channel flow data is to
determine the channel width (w).

For oil and water:
For gas:
Linear channel flow data will form a straight line when placed on a semi-log plot of pressure versus a
square root time function (p vs. sqrt (time function)) for a buildup as shown below.

The slope (m) of this line is used to calculate the product of the channel width and the square root of
permeability (w sqrt(k)) as follows:
For oil and water:
For gas:
The permeability can be obtained from the radial flow analysis, or estimated from core data, or other
tests. After permeability is determined, channel width is found using the following equation:
Summary of Equations for Linear Channel Flow (Field

Units)
Channel Width * Square Root of Permeability (ft
Flow Period
md0.5)
Drawdown
Oil
Buildup

Channel Width * Square Root of Permeability (ft
Flow Period
md0.5)
Drawdown
Gas
Buildup
Derivative
The signature of linear channel flow data on a derivative plot is a straight line with a slope of 1/2,
between the middle and late time flow regions. The position of this line is used to calculate channel
width and the square root of permeability (w sqrt(k)).
Note: The channel width and the square root of permeability increases as the position of this line
moves to the right.
Starting with the constant rate solution (see above) the derivative with respect to the logarithm of
square-root time is:
For oil and water:
For gas:
For oil and water:

For gas:
At long flow times, this result is linear with time, and as a result, the derivative of linear channel flow
data falls on a straight line with a slope equal to 1/2 on a log ∆p versus log ∆t plot as shown below.
Note that for shorter flow times linear equivalent time should be used to maintain a 1/2 slope.
Using any derivative point on this line, the product of channel width and root permeability (w sqrt(k)).
can be determined as follows:
For oil and water:
For gas:

Summary of Equations for Linear Channel Flow Deriv-
ative Analysis (Field Units)
Flow Period Channel Width * Root Permeability (ft md0.5)
Drawdown
Oil
Buildup
Drawdown
Gas
Buildup
References
"Pressure Transient Analysis of Wells in Very Long Narrow Reservoirs", R. Nutakki, L. Mattar; Soci-
ety of Petroleum Engineers Paper 11221, 1982.

Linear Fracture Flow Analysis
Linear fracture flow is one of the flow regimes that can exist when a well has been hydraulically frac-
tured. The purpose of analyzing linear fracture flow data is to determine the fracture half-length (Xf).
Constant Rate Solution (Field Units)

For oil and water:
For gas:
Linear fracture flow data will form a straight line when placed on a semi-log plot of pressure versus a

The slope (m) of this line is used to calculate the product of the fracture half-length and the square
root of permeability (Xf sqrt(k)) as follows:
For oil and water:
For gas:
The permeability can be obtained from the radial flow analysis, or estimated from core data, or other
tests. After permeability is determined, fracture half-length is found using the following equation:
Summary of Equations for Linear Fracture Flow (Field

Units)
Flow Period Fracture Half-Length * Square Root of Permeability (ft md0.5)
Drawdown
Oil
Buildup
Drawdown
Gas
Buildup

Other Required Equations (Field Units)
Skin For infinite conductivity fractures, when kf is large (FCD > 20)
Derivative (Field Units)

The signature of linear fracture flow data on a derivative plot is a straight line with a slope of 1/2. The
position of this line is used to calculate the product of fracture half-length and root permeability (Xf
sqrt(k)). Note that the product of fracture half-length and root permeability increases as the position
of this line moves to the right.
For oil and water:
For gas:
For oil and water:
For gas:

This result is linear with time and, as a result, the derivative of linear fracture flow data falls on a
straight line with a slope equal to 1/2 on a log ∆p versus log ∆t plot as shown below.
Using any derivative point on this line, the product of fracture half-length and root permeability
(Xfsqrt(k)). can be determined as follows:
For oil and water:
For gas:
Summary of Equations for Linear Fracture Flow Deriv-

Flow Period Fracture Half-Length * Root Permeability (ft md0.5)
Drawdown
Oil

Flow Period Fracture Half-Length * Root Permeability (ft md0.5)
Buildup
Drawdown
Gas
Buildup

Linear Horizontal Flow Analysis
Linear horizontal flow is a flow regime that exists only in horizontal wells. It occurs in the transition
between the vertical radial flow, and elliptical or horizontal radial flow regimes. The purpose of ana-
lyzing linear horizontal flow data is to determine the permeability in the y-direction (ky).

For the constant rate solution, the equations for linear channel flow apply with the channel width (w)
replaced by effective wellbore length (Le) and permeability (k) replaced by permeability in the y-dir-
ection (ky) as follows:
For oil and water:
For gas:
Linear horizontal flow data forms a straight line when placed on a semi-log plot of pressure versus a

The slope (m) of this line is used to calculate the square root of permeability in the y-direction (sqrt
(ky)) as follows:
For oil and water:
For gas:
Permeability in the y-direction (ky) can then be directly calculated by taking the square of the result
shown above.
Summary of Equations for Linear Channel Flow (Field

Units)
Flow Period Square Root of Permeability in the Y-Direction (md0.5)
Drawdown
Oil

Buildup
Drawdown
Gas
Buildup
Derivative
The signature of linear horizontal flow data on a derivative plot is a straight line with a slope of 1/2,
between the vertical radial and elliptical, or horizontal radial flow regions. The position of this line is
used to calculate the square root of permeability in the y-direction (sqrt(ky)).
Note: The square root of permeability in the y-direction increases as the position of this line moves
to the right.
For oil and water:
For gas:
For oil and water:

For gas:
This result is linear with time and, as a result, the derivative of linear horizontal flow data falls on a
straight line with a slope equal to 1/2 on a log ∆p versus log ∆t plot as shown below.
Using any derivative point on this line, the square root of permeability in the y-direction (sqrt(ky)) can
be determined as follows:
For oil and water:

For gas:
Summary of Equations for Linear Channel Flow Deriv-

Drawdown
Oil
Buildup
Drawdown
Gas
Buildup

Pseudo-Steady State Flow Analysis
Pseudo-steady state (PSS) flow is a flow regime that occurs in bounded (closed) reservoirs, after the
pressure transient has reached all the boundaries of the reservoir. This includes not only the case of
physically bounded reservoirs, but also the case of a well surrounded by other producing wells. In
these situations, reservoirs exhibit tank-like behavior. The purpose of analyzing pseudo-steady state
flow data is to determine the reservoir pore volume (Vp) and original hydrocarbons in place (OOIP or
OGIP). This analysis is only applicable for drawdown or injection data when the well is flowing. There
is no corresponding pseudo-steady state analysis for buildup or falloff tests.

For oil and water:
For gas:
These equations are linear with respect to time, and as a result, pseudo-steady state flow data forms
a straight line when plotted on a Cartesian plot of delta pressure over normalized rate versus delta
time (∆p / q vs. ∆t) as shown below.

The slope of this line (m) is used to calculate the reservoir pore volume (Vp in ft3) as follows:
For oil and water:
For gas:
The reservoir pore volume is then used to calculate the original hydrocarbons in place as follows:
For undersaturated oil reservoirs (stbbls):
For gas reservoirs (MMscf):

Summary of Equations for PSS Flow (Field Units)
Flow Original Hydrocarbons In Place
Reservoir Pore Volume (ft3)
Period (MMscf or stbbls)
Draw-
down
Oil
Draw-
down
Gas
Derivative
The signature of pseudo-steady state flow data on a derivative plot is a straight line with a unit slope
at late time. The position of this line is used to calculate reservoir pore volume (Vp) and the original
hydrocarbons in place (OOIP or OGIP). Note that reservoir pore volume (Vp) and thus original hydro-
carbons in place (OOIP or OGIP) increases as the position of this line moves to the right. The
pseudo-steady state flow analysis cannot be applied to buildup or falloff test data.
time is:
For oil and water:
For gas:
For oil and water:

For gas:
This result is linear with time, and as a result, the derivative of pseudo-steady state flow data on a
log-log plot is a straight line with unit slope on a log ∆p/q versus log ∆t plot as shown below.
Notice that both wellbore storage (early time) and pseudo-steady state (late time) exhibit tank beha-
vior and have a signature of a unit slope on the derivative plot.
Using any derivative point on this line, the pore volume (Vp in ft3) and original hydrocarbons in place
(OOIP (stbbls) or OGIP (MMscf)) can be determined as follows:
For undersaturated oil reservoirs:
For gas reservoirs:

Summary of Equations for Pseudo-steady State Flow
Original Hydrocarbons In Place
Flow Period Reservoir Pore Volume (ft3)
(MMscf or stbbls)
Drawdown
Oil
Drawdown
Ga-
s

Radial Flow Analysis
Radial flow is a flow regime that occurs in the middle time (infinite-acting) region, before the occur-
rence of boundary effects. The purpose of analyzing radial flow data is to determine permeability (k),
and apparent or total skin (s').

For oil and water:
For gas:
Radial flow data will form a straight line when placed on a semi-log plot of pressure versus a log time
function (p vs. log(time function)) for a buildup as shown below.

Permeability
The slope (m) of the p vs. log(time function) line is used to calculate permeability as follows:
For oil and water:
For gas:
Skin
Drawdown Tests
Permeability along with the slope (m) and position of the line is used to calculate apparent or total
skin (s'). The equation for total skin (s') is found by rearranging the radial flow equation as follows:
For oil and water:

For gas:
The values of pwf and t can be taken from any point on the semi-log straight line (not a measured
data point).
Buildup Tests
For a buildup test, total skin (s') cannot be determined from shut-in pressure alone. It can still be
found however, by making use of the information provided by any flowing pressure point. By con-
vention, the final flowing pressure (pwfo) is used.
Any pressure off the semi-log line (not the measured data) can be used, corresponding to any spe-
cified shut-in time. In most texts the pressure at 1 hour is used. In the software, the extrapolated
buildup pressure (p*) at infinite shut-in time (t = 1.0) is used in the total skin (s') calculation. Using this
convention, the equation used for calculating total skin (s') from a buildup test is as follows:
For oil and water:
For gas:

Summary of Equations for Radial Flow (Field Units)
Flow
Permeability (md) Apparent Skin
Period
Draw-
down
O-
il
Buildup
Draw-
down
G-
a-
s Buildup
Other Required Equations (Gas Equations, Field

Units)
Radius of Invest-
igation
Pressure Drop Due

to Skin
Derivative
The signature of radial flow data on a derivative plot is a horizontal straight line. The position of this
line is used to calculate permeability (k), and apparent or total skin (s'). Note that an increase in the
vertical position of the horizontal straight line corresponds to a decrease in permeability.
time is:
For oil and water:

For gas:
At long flow times, this result is linear with time, and as a result, the derivative of radial flow data falls
on a horizontal straight line with a slope equal to 0 on a log ∆p versus log ∆t plot as shown below.
Note that for shorter flow times, radial equivalent time should be used to maintain a horizontal slope.
Permeability
The value of the derivative of radial flow data corresponds to the vertical position of the horizontal
straight line and is used to calculate permeability (k) as follows:
For oil and water:
For gas:

Skin
An equation for calculating apparent or total skin (s') is found by substituting the above equation for
permeability (k) into the constant rate solution.
Summary of Equations for Radial Flow Derivative Ana-

lysis (Field Units)
Flow Period Permeability (md) Apparent Skin
Drawdown
O-
il
Buildup
Drawdown
G-
a-
s Buildup

Spherical Flow Analysis
When a well is partially penetrating, or partially completed into the formation, the well is connected to
the producing interval (pay thickness) on one fraction of the zone only. As the contact area between
the reservoir and the well is reduced, some fluid has to travel further through the formation to get pro-
duced through the wellbore (see the figure below). Thus, an extra pressure drop is created around
the wellbore for a given production rate, which can be characterized as a skin factor due to partial
penetration (spp).
Spherical flow analysis can be used prior to the start of the infinite-acting radial flow regime at very
early times. To apply the spherical flow model in the case of production through a cylindrical well-
bore, an equivalent spherical wellbore radius (rs) needs to be applied, which acts as the wellbore
radius (rw) for all calculations involving spherical flow. This is calculated as follows:
For hp / 2 <= rw:

For hp / 2 > rw:
During the spherical flow regime, the pressure drawdown occurring with time can be expressed as:
Spherical permeability is defined as:
The above equation can be manipulated to show the expression for spherical permeability as:
Where:
Spherical flow data forms a straight line when placed on a semi-log plot of pressure versus an
inverse square root time function (p vs. 1 / sqrt (time function)) for a buildup as shown below. m is
defined as the slope of this line. Note that to perform a spherical flow analysis, the value of hp must
be specified to calculate the values of ks and rs.

References
1. "Pressure Buildup Equations for Spherical Flow Regime Problems", W.E. Culham, SPEJ
(December 1974) 545 - 555.
2. "Theoretical Analysis of Pressure Phenomena Associated with the Wireline Formation

Tester", J.H. Moran and E.E. Finklea, JPT (August 1962) 899 - 908.

Vertical Radial Flow Analysis
Vertical radial flow is a flow regime that occurs only in a horizontal well before linear horizontal flow,
and before the occurrence of boundary effects. The purpose of analyzing vertical radial flow data is
to determine vertical permeability (kxy).
The equations and theory for analyzing vertical radial flow data are identical to that for radial flow.
The only difference is the permeability obtained and shown in the equations is replaced by vertical
permeability (kxy), and net pay (h) is replaced with effective wellbore length (Le).
It is important to note that in a horizontal well, two radial flow regimes occur. One at early time, which
occurs in the vertical plane of the formation, and the second at late time in the horizontal plane.
Thus, it is important to analyze the proper region of data to obtain correct results. The plots below
show the distinction between vertical and horizontal radial flow on the semi-log and derivative plots,
as well as the correct placement of the analysis lines.

Minifrac Test Analyses
Minifrac tests include the following:
Pre-closure
After-closure
Step down

Minifrac Pre-Closure Analysis
Introduction
The analysis of minifrac test data is performed in two parts: pre-closure analysis (PCA) and after-
closure analysis (ACA).
Pre-closure analysis consists of identifying closure and analyzing the early pressure falloff period
while the induced fracture is closing. One of the most critical parameters in fracture treatment design
is the closure pressure. One specialized analysis technique used to identify closure is, in pressure
transient parlance, the G-Function Analysis.
The following parameters are determined from the PCA:
l Fracture closure pressure (pc)
l Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure (ISIP) = Final injection pressure - Pressure drop due
to friction
l ISIP Gradient = ISIP / Formation Depth
l Closure Gradient = Closure Pressure / Formation Depth
l Net Fracture Pressure (Δpnet) – Net fracture pressure is the additional pressure
within the frac above the pressure required to keep the fracture open. It is an indic-
ation of the energy available to propagate the fracture.
l Δpnet = ISIP - Closure Pressure
l Fluid efficiency – Fluid efficiency is the ratio of the stored volume within the fracture to
the total fluid injected. A high fluid efficiency means low leakoff and indicates the
energy used to inject the fluid was efficiently utilized in creating and growing the frac-
ture. Unfortunately, low leakoff is also an indication of low permeability. For minifrac
after-closure analysis, high fluid efficiency is coupled with long closure durations and
even longer identifiable flow regime trends
l Gc is the G-function time at fracture closure
l Formation leakoff characteristics and fluid loss coefficients.

G-Function Analysis
Post-injection (pre-closure) pressure falloff analysis can be performed using the G-function and root
time methods. The G-function is a dimensionless time function designed to linearize the pressure
behaviour during normal fluid leakoff from a bi-wing fracture. Any deviations from this behaviour can
be used to characterize other leakoff mechanisms. The root time plot exhibits similar behavior and
can be used to support the G-function analysis.
A straight-line trend of the G-function derivative (Gdp/dG) is expected where the slope of the deriv-
ative is still increasing. Position the Fracture Closure Identification line, which is anchored to the ori-
gin by default, through the straight-line portion of the G-Function derivative. Fracture closure is
identified as the point where the G-Function derivative starts to deviate downward from the straight
line as shown in the following figure.
Note: The shape of the G-function derivative prior to closure qualitatively describes how fluid
moves from the fracture into the formation (see Fluid Leakoff Types).

Algebraic Definition of the G-Function
The G-function is a dimensionless time function relating shut-in time (t) to total pumping time (tp) at
an assumed constant rate.
The basic G-Function calculations are based on the following equations:
Two limiting cases for the G-function are shown here:
l The equation for α = 1.0 is for low leakoff, or high efficiency where the fracture area
open after shut-in varies approximately linearly with time.
l The equation for α = 0.5 is for high leakoff, or low efficiency fluids where the fracture
surface area varies with the square-root of time after shut-in.
l The value of g0 is the computed value of g at shut-in.
One of the key variables identified by Nolte is the difference between a high efficiency (upper limit)
and a low efficiency (lower limit) leak-off condition. These two conditions have no significant effect
on the overall shape of the curves.

Square Root Time Analysis
Fracture closure can be identified by the peak of the first derivative on the sqrt(t) plot, which cor-
responds to an inflection point on the pressure curve. The semi-log derivative behaves similar to the
G-Function Analysis. A user-defined (Sqrt(t)) analysis line may be added to the sqrt(t) plot to help
identify the point of inflection.

Fluid Leakoff Types
The G-Function plots for four common leakoff types, and the corresponding identification of fracture
closure pressure are described in the following section:
Normal Leakoff
Normal leakoff occurs when the fracture area is constant during shut-in and the leakoff occurs
through a homogeneous rock matrix.
Two characteristics are visible on the G function curve:
l A constant pressure derivative (dP/dG) during fracture closure.
l The G-Function derivative (G dP/dG) lies on a straight line that passes through
the origin.
The fracture closure point can be identified when the G-Function derivative (G dP/dG) starts to devi-
ate downward from the straight line. The time and pressure corresponding to this point are identified
from a marker set at this point.

Pressure-Dependent Leakoff
Pressure-dependent leakoff (PDL) indicates the existence of secondary fractures intersecting the
main fracture, and is identified by a characteristic “hump” in the G- Function derivative that lies
above the straight line fit through the normal leakoff data. This hump indicates fluid is leaking off
faster than expected for a normal bi-wing fracture. The interception of secondary fractures, which
could be natural or induced, facilitates this additional leakoff by providing a larger surface area
exposed to the matrix.
The characteristic signatures of PDL are:
l A characteristic large “hump” in the G-Function derivative; G dP/dG lies above

the straight line that passes through the origin.
l Subsequent to the hump, the pressure decline exhibits normal leakoff.
l The portion of the normal leakoff lies on a straight line passing through the origin.
l The end of the hump is identified as “fissure opening pressure”.
As shown below, the fracture closure point is identified from the G-Function derivative G dP/dG
when it starts to deviate downward from the straight line.

Transverse Storage / Fracture Height Recession
The G-Function derivative G dP/dG can also fall below a straight line that extrapolates through the
normal leakoff data, exhibiting a concave up-trend. This indicates fluid is leaking off slower than
expected for a normal bi-wing fracture and suggests that the fracture has some pressure support.
Two scenarios can explain this trend as discussed below.
1. Transverse storage occurs when the main fracture intercepts a secondary fracture network,
which could be natural or induced. This differs from PDL in that the dominant effect of the
secondary fractures is to provide pressure support to the main fracture, rather than addi-
tional surface area for leakoff. There can be cases where transverse storage (pressure sup-
port) dominates, followed by a period of PDL before closure of the main fracture occurs.
2. Fracture height recession occurs if the fracture propagates through adjoining impermeable
layers (above or below the pay zone) during injection. In the normal leakoff scenario, fluid
can leak off from the entire surface area of the fracture. For fracture height recession, leakoff
can only occur in the portion of the fracture which is in communication with the permeable
zone. As a result, the leakoff rate is slower than the normal case. Eventually, the fracture
area in the impermeable layer(s) starts closing (height recession), and during this period the
rate of pressure decline increases. After the fracture height recedes to the edge of the per-
meable zone, the entire area of the frac contributes to leak off, and a period of normal leakoff
ensues.
The three characteristic signatures for height recession during shut-in are:
l The G-Function derivative G dP/dG lies below a straight line extrapolated

through the normal leakoff data.
l The G-Function derivative G dP/dG exhibits a concave up trend.
l The First Derivative dP/dG also exhibits a concave up trend.

Fracture Tip Extension
Fracture tip extension occurs when a fracture continues to grow even after injection is stopped and
the well is shut-in. It is a phenomenon that occurs in very low permeability reservoirs, as the energy
which normally would be released through leakoff is transferred to the ends of the fracture resulting
in fracture tip extension.
The characteristic signatures for a fracture tip extension are:
l The G-Function derivative G dP/dG initially exhibits a large positive slope that
continues to decrease with shut-in time, yielding a concave-down curvature.
l Any straight line fit through the G-Function derivative G dP/dG intersects the y -
axis above the origin.
Until the main fracture closes, the G-Function derivative behaves similarly to PDL, and it is difficult to
distinguish between PDL and fracture tip extension. The following plot shows a typical response for
fracture tip extension after shut-in.

Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure
Instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) is defined as:
l ISIP = Final injection pressure - Pressure drop due to friction in the wellbore and per-
forations or slotted liner
ISIP can be a difficult value to quantify and, as a result, there are numerous ways to obtain an estim-
ate of ISIP in WellTest.
l If sandface pressures have been calculated, a default value for ISIP is calculated by
subtracting the friction component of the sandface calculation from the final injection
pressure. This tends to overestimate the value of ISIP because it doesn't account for
friction through the perforations or near the wellbore.
l It is also common practice to estimate ISIP by placing a straight line on the early fal-
loff portion of the history plot. After shut-in, the friction decreases rapidly and this can
appear to cause a step drop in pressure, or a brief linear trend in the data (prior to the
expected concave-up-trend of the falloff).
To do this, add an ISIP line to the ISIP plot.

By default it is positioned between the final injection pressure and the first falloff pressure. An ISIP
arrow may be added by selecting the ISIP button on the toolbar above the ISIP plot and clicking on
the appropriate point on the plot. It is also possible to estimate ISIP in a similar fashion using the G-
Function and Sqrt Time plots (ISIP arrows are not currently available on these plots but the standard
annotation arrow can be used).
After an ISIP arrow has been added to the plot, the pressure value from the arrow will be
added to the list of ISIP defaults.

Note: The ISIP defaults may be accessed via the button beside the ISIP field in the Parameters
dialog box.
If a closure arrow is placed on the G-function plot, ISIP can be calculated from the following
equation, which assumes normal leakoff.
Fracture Closure Pressure

Fracture closure pressure is the fluid pressure needed to initiate the opening of a fracture. This is not
the same as the breakdown pressure, which is the fluid pressure required to initiate a fracture in
intact rock.
Closure pressure is equal to the minimum in-situ stress because the pressure required to open a
fracture is the same as the pressure required to counteract the stress in the rock perpendicular to the
fracture. Closure pressure is determined from the G-Function or the Sqrt(t) plot.

Minifrac After-Closure Analysis
After-closure analysis is performed on the portion of the falloff data collected after the induced frac-
ture closes. Unlike traditional pressure transient analysis (PTA), which is founded on the “constant-
rate solution”, the main after-closure analysis (ACA) techniques are founded on the “impulse solu-
tion”. The fundamental difference is that the “constant-rate solution” hinges on the flow rate prior to
the analyzed shut-in period, whereas, the “impulse solution” hinges on a “defined volume”. Impulse
solutions are used because of the short injection period and assume that the entire injected volume
is injected instantaneously. In practice, the injection of fluid occurs over a period of time. Therefore,
the data does not follow the characteristic derivative response until the falloff duration is much larger
than the injection period. However, there are different implementations of the “impulse solution” that
can lead to different interpretations.
In WellTest, the after-closure analysis is divided into these categories:
l After-closure Diagnostic (Nolte) based on the work of K.G. Nolte.
l After-closure Diagnostic (Soliman / Craig) based on the work of M.Y. Soliman

and the work of D. Craig.
It is possible to obtain reasonable estimates of reservoir pressure and formation permeability from
diagnostic analyses if the pressure falloff is recorded long enough to achieve radial flow. Minifrac
analytical models provide the significant advantage of verifying and improving on results obtained
from diagnostic analyses, similar to the analysis workflow used for many years in traditional PTA.
With modeling, you can match transitions between flow regimes and you do not need to depend on
the identification of fully developed flow regimes.
Nolte
This after-closure analysis method is based on the work of K.G. Nolte, and expanded on by R.D. Bar-
ree. It is based on the solution of a constant pressure injection followed by a falloff. The impulse
equations are obtained by approximating the injection duration as very small. Nolte's techniques use
injected volume as the impulse volume and consider the closure point as the beginning of the falloff.
Nolte ACA Derivative

The Derivative plot is used to identify flow regimes. Impulse Linear and Radial flow have slopes of -
1/2 and -1, respectively, when their semi-log derivative is plotted on the log-log Derivative plot.

After net pay, porosity, and fluid saturations have been entered, analysis lines may be added. The ini-
tial reservoir pressure defaults to the p* (extrapolated pressure) of the first analysis line added. This
default may be overridden manually by typing a value into the initial pressure cell of the Parameters
dialog box, or a default value from another analysis line can be used by clicking the Default button
beside the initial pressure cell. If the initial pressure is linked to an analysis line, it updates as the line
is moved. The delta pressure curve on the Derivative plot is defined as the measured falloff pressure
minus the initial pressure.
If impulse radial flow is identified, the pressure data overlays the derivative data. This diagnostic may
be used to help fine-tune the estimate of initial pressure.
Nolte ACA Linear Analysis

If impulse linear flow is identified, the fluid loss coefficients, CR and CT, can be estimated.
The equation governing impulse linear flow is defined as:
There are two MiniFrac ACA (Nolte) Linear Time functions. FL1 is an approximation of FL2. The
above equation holds regardless of the linear time function used.
Impulse linear flow shows up as a straight line on a plot of pressure vs. FL (FL1 or FL2).

An impulse linear analysis line can be added from the Analysis Options dialog box. The impulse lin-
ear line should then be positioned through the linear flow portion of the falloff data (identified by a
straight line on the MiniFrac Linear plot, or a -1/2 slope on the Derivative plot). When the impulse lin-
ear line is selected, the Analysis Options dialog box displays cells for entering closure pressure and
permeability, as shown below. The closure pressure is obtained from the pre-closure analysis. If
radial flow developed, permeability could be estimated from the Impulse Radial analysis. Otherwise,
a best estimate of permeability must be entered in order to estimate the fluid loss coefficients.
After closure pressure and permeability have been specified, the position of the impulse linear line is
used to calculate p* and fluid loss coefficients, CR and CT. Both MiniFrac ACA (Nolte) Linear Time
functions are bounded by 1.0 (at early shut-in time) signifying the time of closure and 0.0 (at late
time) representing an infinite shut-in time. P* is the extrapolation of the linear line to FL= 0, which cor-
responds to an infinite shut-in time.

Fluid Loss Coefficients:
CT is the total fluid-loss coefficient.
CR is the reservoir fluid-loss coefficient.
p@tc is the extrapolation of the linear flow line at closure time, tc.
Note: FL = 1.0 at tc
pi is the estimated initial pressure.
Nolte ACA Radial Analysis

If impulse radial flow is identified, the extrapolated pressure, p*, and permeability can be estimated.
The MiniFrac Nolte ACA Radial Time function, FR1, has a minimum value of 0.0 (at late time) rep-
resenting an infinite shut-in time. p* is therefore obtained from the extrapolation of the linear line to
FR1= 0. As described in Reference 1 (Barree, 2007), the equation governing impulse radial flow is
defined as:
The radial flow portion of the after-closure falloff data has a straight-line trend on a plot of pressure
vs. FR1.

An impulse radial analysis line can be added from the Analysis Options dialog. The impulse radial
line should then be positioned through the radial flow portion of the falloff data (identified by a
straight line on the MiniFrac Radial plot or a -1 slope on the Derivative plot).
The slope of the line on the MiniFrac Radial plot is mR1 and permeability may be calculated as fol-
lows:
With the position of the impulse radial line on the Derivative plot, you can form a similar calculation:

Soliman / Craig
M.Y. Soliman's solutions for short-term tests are also useful in the analysis of Minifrac tests. These
TM
solutions have been implemented in WellTest . In his derivation, Soliman assumed a constant rate
injection and falloff sequence. He applied superposition in Laplace space to obtain a single equation
and then took the late-time approximation to obtain impulse equations (for bilinear, linear, and radial
flow). Because his late-time approximations are designed for short injection and long falloff periods,
Minifrac tests can be analyzed using his solutions.
D. Craig developed an analytical model that accounts for fracture growth, leakoff, closure, and after-
closure. The late-time approximation of his model produced impulse radial and bilinear flow equa-
tions that are the same as Soliman's solutions. However, the constant in Craig's impulse linear flow
equation differs from Soliman's. The linear flow equation implemented in the Soliman / Craig ana-
TM
lysis method in WellTest uses the constant obtained by D.Craig.
Note: Soliman / Craig's solutions facilitate the use of analytical models.
Soliman / Craig ACA Derivative

The Derivative plot is used to identify flow regimes. Impulse Bilinear, Linear, and Radial flow have
slopes of 1/4, 1/2, and 0, respectively, when their impulse derivative is plotted on the log-log Deriv-
ative plot. The impulse derivative is used, instead of the semi-log derivative, to produce diagnostic
plots in which the flow regimes have characteristic slopes identical to those noted in conventional
well test interpretation.

After net pay, porosity, and fluid saturations have been entered, typecurve lines may be added.
By default, the delta pressure curve is not displayed on this plot. It can be added by right-clicking the
legend and selecting to view the delta pressure curve from the customization menu. The delta pres-
sure curve on the Derivative plot is defined as the measured falloff pressure minus the initial pres-
sure. The initial reservoir pressure defaults to the p* (extrapolated pressure) of the first late-time
analysis line added. This default may be overridden manually by typing a value into the Initial Pres-
sure field of the Parameters dialog box, or by using the default value from another analysis line by
clicking the Default button beside the Initial Pressure field in the Parameters dialog box. If the initial
pressure is linked to an analysis line, and if delta pressure is displayed on the typecurve, the delta
pressure updates as the line is moved.
Soliman / Craig ACA Bilinear Analysis

If bilinear flow is identified, the fracture conductivity, kfw, can be estimated.
The equation governing bilinear flow is defined as:

Therefore, bilinear flow shows up as a straight line on a plot of pressure vs.
A bilinear analysis line can be added from the Analysis Options dialog box. The bilinear line should
then be positioned through the bilinear flow portion of the falloff data (identified by a straight line on
the MiniFrac bilinear plot, or a 1/4 slope on the Derivative plot). When the bilinear line is selected, the
Analysis Options dialog box displays a field for entering permeability, as shown below. If radial flow
developed, permeability could be estimated from the Radial analysis. Otherwise, a best estimate of
permeability must be entered. After permeability is entered, fracture conductivity is calculated.

As shown in the equations below, the slope of the bilinear line yields kfw * sqrt(k). Permeability must
be estimated in order to calculate fracture conductivity.
Soliman / Craig ACA Linear Analysis

If linear flow is identified, the fracture half length, Xf, can be estimated.
The equation governing linear flow is defined as:
Therefore, linear flow shows up as a straight line on a plot of pressure vs.
A linear analysis line can be added from the Analysis Options dialog box. The linear line should then
be positioned through the linear flow portion of the falloff data (identified by a straight line on the Min-
iFrac linear plot, or a 1/2 slope on the Derivative plot). When the linear line is selected, the Analysis
Options dialog box displays a field for entering permeability, as shown below. If radial flow
developed, permeability could be estimated from the Impulse Radial analysis. Otherwise, a best
estimate of permeability must be entered. After permeability is entered, fracture half-length is cal-
culated.

As shown in the equations below, the slope of the linear line yields Xf * sqrt(k). Permeability must be
estimated in order to calculate fracture half-length.

Soliman / Craig ACA Radial Analysis
If radial flow is identified, the extrapolated pressure, p*, and permeability, k, can be estimated.
The equation governing radial flow is defined as:
The MiniFrac Soliman / Craig ACA Radial Time function has a minimum value of 0.0 (at late time)
representing an infinite shut-in time. p* is the extrapolation of the radial line to the time of 0, which
corresponds to an infinite shut-in time.
The radial flow portion of the after-closure falloff data has a straight-line trend on a plot of
pressure vs.
A radial analysis line can be added from the Analysis Options dialog box. The radial line should then
be positioned through the radial flow portion of the falloff data (identified by a straight line on the Min-
iFrac radial plot, or a zero slope on the Derivative plot).

As shown in the equations below, permeability can be estimated from the slope of the line on the
radial plot.

Step Down Test Analysis
This type of analysis is performed prior to a main frac job. It is used to quantify perforation and near-
wellbore pressure losses (caused by tortuosity) of frac'd wells, and as a result, provides information
pertinent to the design and execution of the main frac treatments. Step-down tests can be performed
during the shut-down sequence of a fracture calibration test.
To perform this test, a fluid of known properties (for example, water) is injected into the formation at a
rate high enough to initiate a small frac. The injection rate is then reduced in a stair-step fashion,
each rate lasting an equal time interval, before the well is finally shut-in. The resulting pressure
response caused by the rate changes is influenced by perforation and near-wellbore friction. Tor-
tuosity and perforation friction pressure losses vary differently with rate. By analyzing the pressure
losses experienced at different rates, we can differentiate between pressure losses due to tortuosity
and due to perforation friction.
Pressure drops across perforations and due to tortuosity are given mathematically by the following
equations:
where
Δp perf Perforation pressure loss, psi

Δp tort Tortuosity pressure loss, psi
q Flow rate, stb / d
k perf Perforation pressure loss coefficient, psi / ( stb / d )2
k tort Tortuosity pressure loss coefficient, psi / ( stb / d )2
γ inj Specific gravity of injected fluid
Cd Discharge coefficient
n perf Number of perforations
d perf Diameter of perforation, in
α Tortuosity pressure loss exponent, usually 0.5
For step-down tests, it is essential to keep as many variables controlled as possible, so that the pres-
sure response during the rate changes is due largely to perforations and tortuosity, and not some

other factors. It is recommended to maintain relatively short periods for each injection rate, so that
the frac remains substantially the same for each injection period. Short injection periods also help
prevent the frac from closing prematurely before the test is complete. When the injection rate is
changed, the pressure does not change in a stair-step fashion; it takes some time for pressure to sta-
bilize after a change in rate. To make sure the effect of this pressure transition does not obscure the
relationship between the injection rate and pressure, injection periods of the same duration are
used.
Step-down test analysis is done by plotting the pressure / rate data points with the same time since
the last rate change on a pressure-rate plot, and matching the pressure loss model (given by the
equations above) to these points. On the basis of the model, the perforation and tortuosity com-
ponents of the pressure loss are calculated, and the defining parameters are also estimated.
The step-down test analysis module in WellTest is as shown in the figure below. The module com-
prises four sections. The bottom-left section houses the history plot. The top-left section contains the
data grid where the user inputs data points to use in the analysis. Data points can be entered either
manually in the grid, or by using the “Point Selection” arrow to pick desired points in the history plot.
The top-right section is where you enter initial estimates of the parameters used in the pressure loss
model. The pressure fracture (pfrac) parameter initial estimate should be set to the instantaneous
shut-in pressure (ISIP). The bottom-right section serves two purposes, depending on the active tab;
the Zoom tab is used to fine-tune point selection, while the Step Down Plot tab displays the analysis
results graphically.

PITA and Closed Chamber Test Analyses
Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA) and closed chamber tests include the following:
PITA
Closed Chamber Test Analysis
Slug Analysis

PITA Analysis
Subtopics:
Introduction
Theory
Analysis
Introduction
Conventional well testing has served the industry faithfully for decades as the primary and most reli-
able means of:
l Quantifying deliverability
l Characterizing a reservoir
l Evaluating the condition of a well
Conventional well tests are performed by producing reservoir fluid either into a gathering system, or
by venting / flaring to the atmosphere. The production period, which can be a few minutes to several
days or even years, is usually followed by a buildup period. Typically, the analysis is focused on the
pressure buildup data, which requires the input of the production history prior to the buildup test.
An alternative to the conventional test is one that simply allows the well to flow into the closed well-
bore after perforating (closed chamber test), which results in a pressure buildup. The pressure
buildup data is collected for a period of hours or days, depending on the reservoir’s flow
potential. These tests have been variously referenced to as: slug test, surge test, perforation inflow
diagnostic (PID), or closed chamber test (CCT). Following a critical review of the literature published
on these unconventional tests, we have developed a complete and systematic analysis that yields
an estimate of initial reservoir pressure (pi), permeability (k), and skin (s'). We have called this pro-
cedure perforation inflow test analysis (PITA).
The following subsections illustrate the basis and the process of how PITA works, for a gas well per-
forated in an under-balanced condition (initial cushion pressure (pwo) < initial reservoir pressure
(pi)). In this case, the formation fluid enters the wellbore (inflow). However, the same methodology
applies to a perforation test done in an over-balanced condition, where initial cushion pressure (pwo)
> initial reservoir pressure (pi). In such a case, wellbore fluid is actually injected into the reservoir dur-
ing the test. The objective of PITA is to extract key reservoir parameters (initial reservoir pressure
(pi), permeability (k), and skin (s')) from the pressure data.

Theory
The fundamental equations in Laplace space have been used to derive early time and late time solu-
tions of the transient pressure behavior. Early time data is used to estimate skin (s'), and late time
data is used to estimate initial pressure (pi) and permeability (k).
In gas wells, the pressure is usually measured at the wellhead and converted to sandface. This con-
version is primarily due to hydrostatic head because the influx rate into the wellbore diminishes rap-
idly (and friction is negligible). The influx flow rate is not measured but can be estimated using closed
chamber calculations, provided the assumption of single-phase flow can be justified. The figure
below shows the typical profiles of measured pressure and the calculated gas influx rate for a per-
foration test of a gas well. As shown here, the influx rate declines rapidly.
PITA Test Data (Figure 1)
If a reservoir is expected to produce liquid, the pressure must be measured downhole (near the per-
forations). For oil reservoirs, wet coals or aquifers that have little or no associated gas production at
the time of perforating, single-phase flow can be assumed, and the influx flow rate can be estimated
using closed chamber calculations.

Flow Regimes
It is obvious that the data for PITA is significantly influenced by wellbore storage. It is also evident
that the data is directly influenced by the flow capacity (kh) and skin (s'). The critical part of any ana-
lysis is distinguishing between the data that is dominated by wellbore storage, and the data that is
dominated by the reservoir response (radial flow). Just as in traditional well testing, the best way to
differentiate between these flow regimes is to plot the derivative. However, the derivative for PITA is
different from the traditional derivative of well testing. The PITA derivative, also known as the
impulse derivative, is defined as the product of time squared and the derivative of pressure with
respect to time (also known as the Primary Pressure Derivative (PPD)) as follows:
A typical derivative using the above equation is shown in Figure 2. It illustrates that the early time
data (wellbore storage) has a slope of 2 for a positive skin (well test derivative has a slope of 1), and
the late time data (reservoir flow) has a slope of 0 (flat line, same as the conventional well test deriv-
ative).
Note: For a zero or negative skin, the derivative will yield an initial slope of 1.75.
Using this convention for the derivative, it is easy to recognize if reservoir flow exists. If it does, initial
reservoir pressure (pi) and permeability (k) can be determined. At least some of the late time data
should fall on the flat part of the derivative, as shown in Figure 2, to obtain a reliable analysis. If this
data exists, then skin (s') can also be calculated from the early time data. If reservoir flow is not
apparent, then a unique interpretation for these reservoir characteristics is not possible.

PITA Flow Regime Diagnostic (Figure 2)
If a formation is partially penetrated, and has low permeability (k), only the pay thickness exposed to
the wellbore should be considered in the analysis. However, in some cases where perforation plug-
ging restricts communication with the formation, using the total pay thickness can yield a low estim-
ate of permeability (k).
Note: The fundamental equations were originally derived for liquid flow in terms of time and pres-
sure. To apply these equations to gas flow, time and pressure are replaced with pseudo-
time (ta) and pseudo-pressure (ψ) respectively.
Analysis
In traditional well test interpretation, we start analyzing the data from early time to late time. In PITA,
we start with the late time analysis first to obtain initial reservoir pressure (pi) and permeability (k).
Then the early time data (where the derivative slope is 2 or 1.75) is analyzed and skin (s') is cal-
culated using this analysis along with the permeability (k) obtained from the late time analysis.
A summary of the procedure for analyzing a perforation inflow test for a gas well is presented below:
1. Convert measured wellhead pressure to sandface pressure (if necessary).
2. Convert sandface pressure to pseudo-pressure.

3. Convert time to pseudo-time.
4. Calculate the impulse derivative and plot versus pseudo-time on a log-log scale (see Figure
2).
5. Determine the start of late time reservoir dominated flow (Figure 2).
6. Analyze the late time data by plotting pseudo-pressure (ψ) versus inverse pseudo-time (1 /
∆ta) on reverse Cartesian coordinates (see Figure 3). A straight line through the valid late
time data gives permeability (k) (from slope (m)) and initial reservoir pseudo-pressure (ψi)
(from intercept) using the following equation:
7. Convertψi to pi, to get the initial reservoir pressure (pi).
8. Analyze the early time data by plotting pseudo-pressure versus pseudo-time on Cartesian
coordinates (see Figure 4). Based on the early time slope on the derivative (Figure 2), use
the appropriate equation below along with a ψw and ∆ta read from a point on the early time
analysis line to calculate skin (s') (Figure 4).
For a derivative slope of 2 (positive skin (s' > 0)):
For a derivative slope of 1.75 (0 or negative skin (s <= 0)):
In terms of the slope, of the "early time negative skin" analysis line on the Early Time plot.
After rwa is calculated, the skin (s') is found from the following equation:

Note that when rwa = rw, s' = 0, and when rwa > rw, s' < 0.
PITA Late Time Analysis (Figure 3)

Early Time Analysis (Figure 4)
After the key reservoir parameters (initial reservoir pressure (pi), permeability (k), and skin (s')) are
estimated from PITA, a PITA model is used to confirm the estimated parameters. This is especially
critical when reservoir dominated (radial) flow is not achieved within a test period, or when data scat-
ter aggravates the analysis.
Experience shows that it can be difficult to differentiate between a small positive skin (s') and a zero
or negative skin (s'), based on the early time analysis alone. Under such circumstances, the PITA
model provides a more reliable indication of the skin (s') value, if reservoir dominated flow is
achieved, or at least, if a transition to reservoir dominated flow is developed.
References
1. "Use of PITA for Estimating Key Reservoir Parameters", N.M. Anisur Rahman, Mehran
Pooladi-Darvish, Martin S. Santo and Louis Mattar, Paper CIPC 2006 - 172 presented at
2006 Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 13 -
15.
2. "Development of Equations and Procedure for Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA)", N.M.
Anisur Rahman, Mehran Pooladi-Darvish and Louis Mattar, Paper SPE 95510 presented at
2005 ATCE, Dallas, TX, October 9 - 12.

3. "Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA)", N.M. Anisur Rahman, Mehran Pooladi-Darvish
and Louis Mattar, Paper CIPC 2005 - 031 presented at 2005 Canadian International Pet-
roleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 7 - 9.

Closed Chamber Test Analysis
A closed chamber test is a Perforation Inflow Test with a step-reduction in the wellbore volume at
some point during the test. It is essentially equivalent to a drillstem test (DST) that is conducted with
the wellhead valve closed, so that all formation fluid is accumulated in the wellbore and is not pro-
duced at surface. The figure below illustrates a typical wellbore configuration used to conduct a
closed chamber test.
Figure 1: CCT Wellbore Configuration
Note: For additional information, see Closed Chamber Inflow Test Type.
Theory
Just like in PITA, closed chamber test analysis is based on the principles of slug tests, and incor-
porates procedures for both liquid and gas flow, using the concept of a stepped change in wellbore
storage. Early time data (during the flow period) is used to estimate skin (s'), and late time data (dur-
ing the buildup period) is used to estimate initial reservoir pressure (pi) and permeability (k), similar
to PITA. Pressures are measured downhole, below the shut-in device (see Figure 1).

The influx flow rate is not measured, but can be estimated using closed chamber calculations,
provided the assumption of single-phase flow can be justified. Figure 2 shows the typical profiles of
measured pressure and the calculated gas influx rate for a closed chamber test performed on a gas
zone. As shown here, the pressure increases slowly during the flow period due to a large wellbore
volume (Vw). After the downhole valve is closed (or a plug is set), and the wellbore volume (Vw) is
reduced, the pressure increases much faster. At the same time, the calculated influx rate drops due
to the reduced wellbore volume (Vw).
Figure 2: CCT Pressure and Gas Influx Rate Profile
Flow Regimes
Just like in PITA, the critical part of the analysis is distinguishing between the data that is dominated
by wellbore storage (afterflow), and the data that is dominated by the reservoir response (radial
flow). This is accomplished by constructing a derivative plot similar to that used for PITA. If downhole
shut-in is achieved early in the test (during the wellbore storage period), the CCT derivative will
exhibit an immediate decrease in wellbore storage, and a quick transition to reservoir (radial) flow fol-
lows, as shown in below.
Figure 3: CCT Pressure Derivative

Analysis
The late and early time analyses are performed in the same manner as for PITA, but the late time
equation is modified to consider the stepped change in wellbore volume (Vw)
Figure 4 shows the late time analysis plot used to calculate initial reservoir pressure (pi) and per-
meability (k) for a gas zone. After estimates of initial reservoir pressure (pi) and permeability (k) are
obtained, an early time analysis is performed to calculate skin (s'), as depicted in Figure 5.
Figure 4: CCT Late Time Analysis

Figure 5: CCT Early Time Analysis
Note: The skin (s') calculations are performed using the same equations developed for PITA.
After the key reservoir parameters (initial reservoir pressure (pi), permeability (k), and skin (s')) are
estimated from the CCT analysis, a CCT model is performed to confirm the estimated
parameters. This is especially critical when reservoir-dominated (radial) flow is not achieved within a
test period, or when data-scatter aggravates the analysis.

References
"A New Approach for Interpreting Pressure Data to Estimate Key Reservoir Parameters from
Closed-Chamber Tests", N.M.A. Rahman, SPE, Schlumberger; M.S. Santo and L. Mattar, SPE,
Fekete Associates Inc., Paper SPE 109860 presented at the 2007 SPE ATCE held in Anaheim, Cali-
fornia, U.S.A., 11 - 14, November.

Slug Analysis
During a slug test, a small volume of fluid is extracted from the reservoir. During a slug injection, a
small volume of fluid is added to the reservoir. Although the tests and solution methods were
developed independently, the analytic solutions for analyzing slug tests are identical to PITA Ana-
lysis.
In WellTest, the PITA analysis has been developed further than slug. PITA facilitates the estimation
of p*, reservoir permeability and skin whereas Slug's Impulse Radial Analysi only provides an estim-
ation of p*. Therefore, PITA is recommended for analyzing data from slug tests. Both PITA and Slug
tests have (identical) modeling capabilities in WellTest.
Impulse Radial Analysis

Impulse radial analysis is used to analyze data from the transition period in between wellbore stor-
age dominated flow and radial flow. The purpose of analyzing this transition period data is to determ-
ine the initial pressure of the reservoir (pi).
Transition period flow data will form a straight line when placed on a Cartesian plot of pressure
versus reciprocal time (p vs. 1 / ∆t) as shown below.
The basis of this approach is illustrated with the following mathematical development.
The wellbore flowing pressure (pwf) (during fluid influx) can be derived as:

For large times, the above equation can be approximated as:
Thus, a plot of p versus 1 / ∆t will result in a straight line, and the intercept of which on the pressure
axis provides the initial pressure (pi).
In order to select or confirm the range of data that can be analyzed by the impulse radial analysis, a
log-log plot of the semi-log derivative versus delta time (∆t) can be used as shown below.
Note: Any data that falls within the range of the -1 slope line can be used for analysis.
References
"A New Method for Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure", F.J. Kuchuk, SPE Paper 56418
Presented at 1999 ATCE, Houston, TX (October 3 - 6).

Models
Models can be broken down into the following categories:
Overview
Advanced Models
Advanced Model: Hybrid
Advanced Models: Analytical
Advanced Models: Numerical
Legacy Models

Models: Overview
There two suites of models in WellTest, which we refer to as legacy models and advanced models.
Only the legacy models support minifrac and non-conventional (e.g,. PITA test types). The
advanced models include numerical models and horizontal multifrac analytical models, as well as
functionality not available in the legacy models.
Models are used to simulate your data using the process of history matching pressure transient data
based on mathematical principles. There are many different models available to match data, depend-
ing on the situation. Thus, it is important to analyze the pressure transient data before modeling
because it forces you to think about the probable reservoir configurations, and provide good estim-
ates of reservoir parameters. Models are not unique (different model types can match the same set
of data), and as a result, we recommend that the choice of model type occur after the analysis step.
The advantages of modeling pressure transient data are as follows:
l Modeling makes use of all the information within a dataset. While analyzing data,
the analyst might try and determine permeability and skin by analyzing the data
points which make up the zero slope on the derivative plot and the semi-log
straight line on the radial plot, but ignore the data points in the transition period
between wellbore storage and radial flow. Models make use of the information
contained in transition periods.
l Modeling takes all flow regimes into account. In multi-rate situations, analyses
depend on the superposition of the equation for a single-flow regime. For
example, the derivation of Horner time includes the assumption that all flow,
including the entire drawdown, is radial. Modeling doesn’t assume that only one
flow regime has occurred.
l With modeling, you can simultaneously analyze multiple flow periods, so that a
single set of parameters can be found.
Parameter values obtained during the analysis step provide a good starting point for an appro-
priately chosen model type. Parameters can then be optimized by automatic parameter estimation
(APE). Before using the APE method, corrupted data should be removed from the dataset to prevent
the attempted match of invalid points.
Model Assumptions
There are many assumptions that go into the model itself, which can lead or mislead the analyst.
Most models assume that a reservoir is homogeneous (dual porosity excluded). In nature, there isn’t
a single reservoir that is actually homogeneous, but many reservoirs behave as homogeneous reser-
voirs.

For example, the composite model assumes that reservoir properties change at a certain radius
from the reservoir. This phenomenon also doesn’t necessarily occur in nature, yet some reservoirs
behave as though they are composite reservoirs. An example of this is an injection well, where the
fluid properties (compressibility and viscosity) change at a certain distance from the wellbore. The
composite model can be used to match many datasets, so it is important that it is not overused; how-
ever, there are cases where it is the appropriate model to use.

Advanced Models: Analytical & Numerical
In addition to the analytical models accessed via the Wizard and Models menus, advanced ana-
lytical models, advanced numerical models, and the advanced hybrid model are available within the
Model Manager on the Advanced Models tab.
Analytical models assume single-phase flow. They support the simultaneous analysis of multiple
flow periods. Data from different flow periods may be viewed simultaneously on the derivative and
specialized plots. The analytical models support drawdown / buildup and injection falloff test types.
The numerical models have automatic grids, designed to provide an ease-of-use similar to the ana-
lytical models, while accounting for the complexities of multiphase flow. Currently, the numerical
models are only functional for drawdown / buildup test types.
The hybrid model is essentially a numerical model, but with certain modifications to significantly
reduce computation time, so that it is almost as fast as an analytical model.

Advanced Model: Hybrid
The hybrid model is similar to the analytical gas enhanced fracture region model. It also models
single-phase flow (gas + immobile water) and the well completion configuration, and the reservoir is
similar to the ones in the Enhanced Fracture Region Model.
Performing an analysis using a Hybrid Model is very similar to performing an analysis using an ana-
lytical model. However, the calculations used by the hybrid model are more rigorous, as they accur-
ately account for changes in gas properties. To view the calculations used in the hybrid model, see
Hybrid Model Theory.
Prerequisites
Before you start modeling reservoirs, ensure that you have all the required information in your
WellTest project:
l Well production data (rates and sandface pressures) must be populated in the Pro-
duction Editor tab
l Reservoir and fluid properties must be specified in the Properties tab

Advanced analytical models include the following:
Advanced Composite Analytical Horizontal Multifrac Composite
Advanced Fracture Analytical Horizontal Multifrac Enhanced Frac Region
Advanced Horizontal Analytical Horizontal Multifrac General
Advanced Multilayer Analytical Horizontal Multifrac Repeating Pattern
Advanced Vertical Analytical Horizontal Multifrac SRV (Uniform Fracs)
Advanced Water Drive Analytical

Advanced Composite Analytical Model
Composite models are used when reservoir (e.g., permeability, net pay, and total porosity) and fluid
(e.g., compressibility and viscosity) properties change at some distance from the wellbore. The fig-
ure below shows an example of a 3-zone (region) composite reservoir.
With the composite model, you can add any number of different cylindrical zones. With an unlimited
number of zones, virtually any pressure or rate transient response can be matched; therefore, it is
important to exercise good judgment to determine when this model is appropriate. No reservoir is
perfectly cylindrically concentric composite in nature; however, many reservoirs do behave the same
way as composite reservoirs do. Some common situations where the composite model is useful
include injection cases (which cause changes in viscosity and compressibility), reservoir het-
erogeneities (such as changes in flow capacity (kh)), and cases where the well was drilled into a nat-
urally fractured reservoir with varying fracture distribution.
Note that the following assumptions apply when using this model:
l Both the inner and outer regions can be assumed to be homogeneous or dual poros-
ity
l The wellbore has a finite volume and an infinitesimal skin
l There is no transition region between the inner and outer regions

Advanced Fracture Analytical Model
The fracture model simulates the pressure response in a vertical well intercepted by an infinite-con-
ductivity vertical fracture within a rectangular-shaped reservoir with homogeneous, or dual-porosity
characteristics (see image below). Note that the well may be at any location within the reservoir, and
that the reservoir for the fracture model has no-flow boundaries. During very early times, the cyl-
indrical source solution is used, which is followed by Green’s function solutions. The Green’s func-
tion solution, as developed by Thompson et al. (Thompson, 1991), is used with slight modifications
to simulate an infinite-conductivity vertical fracture. No-flow boundaries are modeled using the
method of images. The result is superposed in time based on the rate history provided.

Advanced Horizontal Analytical Model
This model simulates the pressure response in a horizontal well within a rectangular-shaped reser-
voir with anisotropic heterogeneities (i.e., differences in permeability in the x, y, and z directions), or
dual-porosity characteristics. The anisotropy is handled using a conformal mapping procedure that
adjusts the boundary sizes accordingly to mimic the effect of increased or decreased permeability in
each direction. The horizontal well is oriented in the x-direction, and may be at any location within
the reservoir (see figure below) and supports no-flow boundaries.
Note that the effective wellbore length (Le) defines the wellbore area open to fluid flow. The cyl-
indrical source solution is used at very early times, which is followed by Green’s function solutions
for horizontal wells, as developed by Thompson et al. (1991). No-flow boundaries are modeled using
the method of images. The result is superposed in time based on the rate history provided. The fol-
lowing flow regimes can be handled by this model:
l Wellbore storage
l Vertical radial flow
l Linear horizontal flow
l Elliptical flow
l Horizontal radial flow

l Boundary effects
l Pseudo-steady state flow

Advanced Multilayer Analytical Model
This model simulates the commingled flow from any number of independent layers as shown below.
Each layer can have its own model type (e.g., vertical, fracture, horizontal, etc.). All layers are con-
sidered to have an identical initial pressure (pi), but other parameters (i.e., skin, permeability, net
pay, etc.) can be set independently in each layer. No crossflow between the layers can occur, except
at the wellbore.

Advanced Vertical Analytical Model
This model simulates the pressure response in a vertical well within a rectangular-shaped reservoir
with homogeneous, or dual-porosity characteristics. Note that the well may be at any location within
the reservoir, and that the reservoir for the vertical model has no-flow boundaries. During very early
times, the cylindrical source solution is used, which is followed by Green’s function solutions (Grin-
darten and Ramey, 1973). No-flow boundaries are modeled using the method of images. The result
is superposed in time based on the rate history provided.

Advanced Water Drive Analytical Model
The water drive model is a cylindrical reservoir with a concentrically cylindrical aquifer. The outer
zone represents the aquifer and can have any radius (provided that it is larger than the reservoir
radius).
The water drive model is an analytical radial composite reservoir model. The reservoir is rep-
resented by the inner zone, and is given a radius of "re". The outer zone represents the aquifer, with
a radius of "raq". The aquifer radius may be set to any value greater than "re".
The model accounts for the mobility difference between the reservoir and aquifer by giving you the
option to enter a mobility ratio (M). This is defined as the ratio of the aquifer mobility to that of the
reservoir.

Horizontal Multifrac Composite Model
With this model, you can specify an enhanced permeability in the region between fractures, and
another permeability in the region beyond the tips of the fractures.
It is a rectangular model that contains an inactive horizontal well fed by multiple identical and
equally-spaced transverse fractures. The portion of the reservoir between the fracture tips and the
entire reservoir length is defined as the inner reservoir, and the rest is the outer reservoir, as illus-
trated in the figure below. The permeabilities of the inner and outer regions can differ, making this
model useful for modeling a stimulated reservoir volume (SRV), created by hydraulic fracturing,
which is fed by an unstimulated outer region.
This model calculates the reservoir's response from early-time storage and fracture flow, through the
transition into boundary-dominated flow. The fundamental building block of this model is the tri-linear
fracture model for a vertical well. The outer reservoir feeds the inner reservoir via linear flow, the
inner reservoir feeds the fractures via linear flow, and the fluid within the fractures travels linearly
towards the wellbore. However, for a horizontal well, the fluid within transverse vertical fractures

actually has a radial flow pattern, and a convergence skin has been implemented in order to account
for this. As a result, it is not possible to observe radial flow with this model.
Note: A detailed description of the model is given by Brown et al. (2009).
The reservoir dimensions, number of fractures, and fracture half-length may be specified by the
user, provided the entire wellbore and all fractures fit within the reservoir boundaries. The dimen-
sionless fracture conductivity must also be specified. Dual-porosity behavior can be modeled within
the inner-reservoir, but the outer-reservoir remains strictly homogeneous. A turbulence factor, D,
can also be specified.
Parameters
Pi = initial pressure

xfy = fracture half-length in the y-direction
FCD = dimensionless finite conductivity
#Fracs = the number of fractures that intersect the horizontal well.
k1 = permeability in the stimulated reservoir volume (between the fractures).
k2 = permeability beyond the fracture tips.
h = net pay
Φt = total porosity
Sg = gas saturation
So = oil saturation
Sw = water saturation
cf = formation compressibility
[Dual Porosity Parameters]
PSS = Transfer from secondary porosity to primary porosity is modeled as pseudo-steady state
(PSS).
Transient Slabs = Transfer from secondary porosity to primary porosity is modeled as transient,
using a slab shape factor.
Transient Cubes = Transfer from secondary porosity to primary porosity is modeled as transient,
using a cube shape factor.
Transient Sticks = Transfer from secondary porosity to primary porosity is modeled as transient,
using a stick shape factor.
ω = storativity ratio
λ = interporosity coefficient
sdΦ = interporosity skin (for transient dual-porosity only)
Xe = reservoir length
Ye = reservoir width
OGIP = original gas in place
Zw = z position of well within reservoir

Xw = x position of well within reservoir
Yw = y position of well within reservoir
rw = wellbore radius
CD1 = dimensionless wellbore storage (may be left blank)
CD2 = dimensionless wellbore storage 2
CpD = dimensionless storage pressure
D = turbulence factor (may be left blank)
AD = areal extent of reservoir
Eavg = average error
Itr = number of iterations
Plots, Forecast &Test Design, and Tables Tabs

Each model has three tabs: Plots, Forecast & Test Design, and Tables.
References
1. “Comparison of Fractured Horizontal-Well Performance in Conventional and Uncon-
ventional Reservoirs", E. Ozkan, SPE, Colorado School of Mines, M. Brown, SPE, Colorado
School of Mines, R. Raghavan, SPE, Phillips Petroleum Co. (Retd.), and H. Kazemi, SPE,
Colorado School of Mines. Paper SPE 121290, Presented at the 2009 SPE Western
Regional Meeting held in San Jose, California, USA, 24-26 March 2009.
2. “Practical Solutions for Pressure Transient Responses of Fractured Horizontal Wells in

Unconventional Reservoirs”, M. Brown, SPE, and E. Ozkan, SPE, Colorado School of
Mines; R. Raghavan, SPE, Phillips Petroleum Co. (Retd.); and H. Kazemi, SPE, Colorado
School of Mines. Paper SPE 125043, Presented at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4–7 October 2009.

Horizontal Multifrac Enhanced Frac Region
Model
With this model, you can specify an improved effective permeability (k1) in a region around the frac-
tures.
It is a rectangular model that contains an inactive horizontal well fed by multiple identical and
equally-spaced transverse fractures. X1 describes the extent of the improved permeability region.
The width of the reservoir is defined by the distance between the tips of the fractures, and the length
of the reservoir is defined by the horizontal well length.
The model simulates three linear flow regimes:
1. Flow within the fracture.
2. Flow within the enhanced permeability region toward the fractures.
3. Flow within the non-enhanced permeability region toward the fractures.
Note: A detailed description of the model is given by Stalgorova and Mattar (2012).

Horizontal Multifrac – General Model
This model is the most generalized model in Fekete's suite of analytical multifrac models. Individual
fracture properties can be specified, the wellbore can be activated, the reservoir dimensions are not
constrained by the dimensions of the completion, and it is not built upon the presumption of linear
flow. As a result, it calculates relatively slowly.
This model is a homogeneous, single-phase, rectangular reservoir model consisting of a horizontal

wellbore and transverse fractures. You may specify the reservoir dimensions and well position,
provided that the entire wellbore and all fractures fit within the reservoir boundaries. In addition, each
fracture can be situated anywhere along the horizontal wellbore and configured to have a unique
fracture half-length and conductivity. Thus, it is possible to model the combined effects of the hori-
zontal wellbore and multiple fractures, as well as the transition into middle-time flow regimes and
boundary-dominated flow for any number of different geometrical configurations. Depending on the
configuration, pseudo-radial flow can be observed with this model.
Damage skin is applied along the length of the horizontal wellbore and a turbulence factor may be
specified.

Parameters
Pi = initial pressure
sd = skin on horizontal well
Lex = effective horizontal well length in the x-direction

Activate Hz Well: When selected, direct flow from the reservoir to the horizontal well (not just from
the fractures) is assumed.
xfy = fracture half-length in the y-direction
FCD = dimensionless finite conductivity
#Fracs = the number of fractures that intersect the horizontal well.
kx = permeability in the x-direction
ky = permeability in the y-direction
kz = permeability in the z-direction
h = net pay
Φt = total porosity
Sg = gas saturation
So = oil saturation
Sw = water saturation
cf = formation compressibility
[Dual Porosity Parameters]
PSS = Transfer from secondary porosity to primary porosity is modeled as pseudo-steady state
(PSS).
Transient Slabs = Transfer from secondary porosity to primary porosity is modeled as transient,
using a slab shape factor.
Transient Cubes = Transfer from secondary porosity to primary porosity is modeled as transient,
using a cube shape factor.
Transient Sticks = Transfer from secondary porosity to primary porosity is modeled as transient,
using a stick shape factor.
ω = storativity ratio
λ = interporosity coefficient
sdΦ = interporosity skin (for transient dual-porosity only)
Xe = reservoir length

Ye = reservoir width
OGIP = original gas in place
Zw = z position of well within reservoir
Xw = x position of well within reservoir
Yw = y position of well within reservoir
rw = wellbore radius
CD1 = dimensionless wellbore storage (may be left blank)
CD2 = dimensionless wellbore storage 2
CpD = dimensionless storage pressure
D = turbulence factor (may be left blank)
AD = areal extent of reservoir
Eavg = average error
Itr = number of iterations
Plots, Forecast &Test Design, and Tables Tabs

Each model has three tabs: Plots, Forecast & Test Design, and Tables.

Horizontal Multifrac – Repeating Pattern
Model
This model is a homogeneous, single-phase, rectangular reservoir model consisting of a horizontal
wellbore and transverse fractures. The wellbore is located in the center of the reservoir. Fractures
are considered to be symmetrically distributed within each stage, and all stages are identical.
Because all fractures follow a repeating pattern, after you specify fracture locations, fracture half-
lengths, and fracture conductivities for one stage, the parameters of the rest of the stages are pop-
ulated automatically.
Prior to calculating the whole system’s solution, the model generates the solution for one single
stage through superposition of individual infinite conductivity fracture solutions in space. Then the
whole system’s solution is calculated by multiplying the single stage’s solution by the number of
stages. Consequently, the speed of calculation is improved and depends on the number of fractures
in each stage, rather than the total number of fractures.

This model is similar to the general horizontal multifrac model, and it can model the combined effects
of the horizontal wellbore and multiple transverse fractures, as well as the transition period between
flow regimes. Skin is applied along the length of the horizontal wellbore, and a turbulence factor may
be specified.

Horizontal Multifrac SRV (Uniform Fracs)
Model
This model is a simple one that calculates quickly. It is a rectangular model that contains an inactive
horizontal well fed by multiple identical and equally spaced transverse fractures. The width of the
reservoir is defined by the distance between the tips of the fractures, and the length of the reservoir
is defined by the horizontal well length.
Note: SRV stands for stimulated reservoir volume.
In this model, (xf)y is always half of Ye. Changing the value of one dynamically changes the value of
the other.

Advanced Numerical Models
With WellTest, you can access robust multiphase reservoir models with rectilinear gridding. The
model is not designed to perform as a complete full-field reservoir simulator, but rather as a history
matching and forecasting tool for single well performance. The model is deployed in practical con-
figurations as follows:
l Advanced Vertical Numerical Model
l Advanced Fracture Numerical Model
l Advanced Horizontal Numerical Model
l Advanced Horizontal Multifrac Numerical Model
l Advanced Extended Hz Multifrac Numerical Model
Each of these configurations can be launched for single-phase (gas or water), two-phase (gas-oil or
gas-water), or three-phase (gas-oil-water) systems. Additionally, you can model gas condensate
and volatile oil systems with or without accounting for water.
Use of Numerical Models

Most well performance analysis and modeling can be accomplished using analytical models, includ-
ing cases with complex geometry, such as multiple fractures, heterogeneities, and non-symmetrical
reservoir boundaries. However, there are cases where gridded numerical models are useful and/or
required.
Numerical models serve three important purposes:
1. Validation of Analytical models — Numerical models are used to ensure that complex
analytical models exhibit expected behaviours. It should be noted that analytical and numer-
ical solutions never yield exactly the same answer. However, for a successful validation
case, the difference ought to be less than 10% when comparing cumulative production over
a fixed period, or when comparing simulated pressure responses to a defined rate history.
(In some very complex cases, such as multi-frac’d shale gas completions with pressure-
dependent permeability and/or adsorbed gas, we have noted greater than a 10% difference
between the analytical and numerical solutions. Thus, the numerical models provide a valu-
able backup, in the event that the analytical models have been stretched beyond their cap-
abilities.) In general, it is a good idea to approach well performance analysis from several
independent perspectives. Agreement between analytical and numerical models usually
leads to the most robust interpretation possible.

2. History matching and forecasting multiphase systems — Numerical models are ideal
for modeling multiphase situations such as solution gas or gas condensate. In order to
adequately account for the complexities of multiphase flow, reservoir heterogeneity and the
mechanisms responsible for flow, the model must be able to account for capillary and grav-
ity effects, and handle spacial and temporal changes in fluid saturation, rock and fluid prop-
erties, and relative permeability. Analytical solutions are very difficult to obtain because
these phenomena are highly non-linear. Numerical solutions, on the other hand, require
fewer simplifying assumptions for reservoir properties. The nonlinear partial-differential
equations (PDEs) are solved by dividing the reservoir into smaller blocks, discretizing the
PDEs into algebraic equations, and performing rigorous material balance calculations on
each block. The solutions describe the pressure and phase saturation at discrete points in
the reservoir at discrete times.
3. Visualization of dynamic reservoir properties — Analytical models are limited in that

they only provide the pressure / rate solution at the sandface. In order to visualize how pres-
sures and saturations are changing throughout the reservoir, gridded numerical models are
required. With numerical models, you can view, dynamically through time, pressure or sat-
uration as a 2-dimensional color gradation map, or as a cross-section.
Prerequisites
Before you start modeling, ensure that all required information is added to the WellTest project. Well
production data (e.g., rates and sandface pressures) should be populated in the Production Editor
Tab.
We recommend that you create and match an analytical model prior to numerical modeling. This
gives you an idea as to which reservoir and completion parameters to use, and makes it easier to his-
tory match.
To create a numerical model that accurately captures the reservoir behaviour, it is essential that the
fluid properties are populated correctly. See the section below for details.
Properties for Numerical Modeling

Fluid and rock properties for the well are stored in the Properties Tab.
Gas Properties for Numerical Modeling

To set gas properties for numerical modeling, set the Gas Type to Dry Gas, Wet Gas, or Liquid-Rich
Gas.

To be able to run a Gas Condensate or Volatile Oil numerical model for the well, you must select
Liquid-Rich Gas as a gas type. For a additional information, see Differences between Black Oil, Gas
Condensate, and Volatile Oil Numerical Models.
Important: If the Gas Type is Liquid-Rich Gas, properties used for numerical modeling
are slightly different from the properties used for other types of modeling and analysis.
To be able to display and edit properties used for numerical modeling, click the Plot
Options icon ( ) on the toolbar and select the Display numerical analysis prop-
erties option in the Plot Options dialog box.
If you select Liquid-Rich Gas as the Gas Type, you have to set the Vaporized Oil Ratio (Rv).
If you have lab data available, you can set Rv as a table. Alternatively, you can use the cor-
relation suggested by Ovalle et al.
Oil Properties for Numerical Modeling

If you know the value for the oil bubble point, enter it to the pbp field.

If you do not have this information, and you believe that the well is operating above the bubble point
for at least the beginning of the production history, we recommend the following workflow:
1. Estimate the gas-oil ratio (GOR) at the beginning of the production history (when the GOR is
fairly flat).
2. Enter your estimate as the Solution GOR (Rsol). (Pbp is calculated based on Rsol.)
By following this workflow, you ensure that the modeled GOR matches the production GOR
(at least at the beginning of the production).
Relative Permeability
For accurate numerical modeling of the multiphase system, relative permeabilities should be set.
By default, relative permeabilities use the Generalized-Corey correlation with preset default para-
meters. If you have relative permeability data (from lab studies, or based on an analog well), we
recommend that you adjust correlation parameters, or set permeabilities as a custom table.

Legacy Models
Legacy models are as follows:
CCT Multilayer Rectangular
Composite Partial Penetration
Finite Conductivity Fracture Partial Penetration Anisotropic
Fracture with Boundaries PITA
Fully Penetrating Anisotropic Slant
Horizontal Slug
Leaky Fault Vertical
Minifrac Vertical Interference
Multilayer Cylindrical Wedge
Multilayer Cylindrical with Unequal Pi

CCT Model
The Closed Chamber Test (CCT) model follows all the same principles as a PITA model with the
additional capability of changing the wellbore volume (Vw) to see reservoir-dominated flow more
quickly. This is usually needed in low permeability (k) reservoirs, where a downhole shut-in is
required to minimize wellbore storage and reduce the time required to achieve reservoir-dominated
flow. In this case, a step-change in wellbore storage results when downhole shut-in occurs as shown
in the following plot.
References
Closed-Chamber Tests", N. M. Anisur Rahman, SPE, Schlumberger, M.S. Santo, and L. Mattar,
SPE, Fekete Assoc. Inc., Paper SPE 109860, presented at 82nd Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the SPE, Anaheim, CA, November 11 - 14, 2007.

Composite Model
Composite models are used when reservoir properties (e.g., permeability, net pay, and total poros-
ity) and fluid properties (e.g., compressibility and viscosity) change at some distance from the well-
bore. The figure below shows an example of a two-zone / region composite reservoir.
With the composite model, you can add any number of different cylindrical zones. With an unlimited
number of zones, virtually any pressure transient response could be matched; therefore, it is import-
ant to exercise good judgement to determine when this model is appropriate. No reservoir is per-
fectly cylindrically concentric composite in nature; however, many reservoirs do behave the same
way as composite reservoirs do. Some common situations where the composite model is useful
include injection cases (which cause changes in viscosity and compressibility), reservoir het-
erogeneities (such as changes in flow capacity (kh)), and cases where the well was drilled into a nat-
urally fractured reservoir with varying fracture distribution.
Note that the following assumptions apply when using this model:
l Both the inner and outer regions can be assumed to be homogeneous or dual
porosity
l The wellbore has a finite volume and an infinitesimal skin
l There is no transition region between the inner and outer regions
References
1. "An Analytical Model for Composite Reservoirs Produced at Either Constant Bottomhole
Pressure or Constant Rate", Olarewaju, J.S. and Lee, W.J., SPE 16763 (1987).
2. Issaka, B. (1996) Ph.D. thesis, University of Alberta, Canada.

Finite Conductivity Fracture Model
The finite conductivity fracture model simulates a vertical well that is intercepted by a finite-con-
ductivity vertical fracture within a cylindrical shaped reservoir as shown below. The boundaries can
be either infinite or no-flow boundaries. Due to the complexity of the solution method, changing well-
bore storage, dual porosity, and an observation well are not supported in this model.
At early times, this model uses the concept of Lee and Brockenbrough (1986) of tri-linear flow to rep-
resent a finite conductivity fracture (see figure below). Three linear-flow zones that dominate the
pressure behavior are:
1. Fracture flow in the x-direction
2. Formation flow in the y-direction

3. Formation flow in the x-direction
Fracture diffusivity has been assumed constant at 1.0X106, as suggested by Cinco-Ley et al. (1978).
The tri-linear fracture flow results merge into the solution for infinite-acting radial flow in the middle
times. Thus, the tri-linear flow solution is truncated as soon as the flow becomes pseudo-radial.
Occasionally, the merging of these two solutions is not smooth, and the derivative exhibits dis-
continuities (spikes). These are localized aberrations and can be ignored as they do not affect the
rest of the results. Ultimately at late times, the model uses the solution for pseudo-steady state for a
no-flow outer boundary, or continues to use the solution for infinite-acting radial flow.

References
1. "A New Analytic Solution For Finite Conductivity Vertical Fractures with Real Time and
Laplace Space Parameter Estimation", Lee, S.T. and Brockenbrough, J., SPEFE (Feb.
1986) p. 75, SPE 12013.
2. "Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well with a Finite-Conductivity Fracture", H. Cinco-Ley,

F. Samaniego-V., and N. Dominguez-A., SPEJ (August 1978) 253 - 264.

Fracture with Boundaries Model
This model simulates the pressure response in a vertical well intercepted by an infinite-conductivity
vertical fracture within a rectangular-shaped reservoir with homogeneous or dual porosity char-
acteristics (see figure below). This well may be at any location within the reservoir and the model sup-
ports infinite, no-flow, and constant pressure boundaries. Thus, classical configurations like a well
near a sealing fault, or a constant pressure boundary near intersecting faults can be easily modeled.
At very early times, the cylindrical source solution is used, which is followed by Green’s function solu-
tions. The Green’s function solution, as developed by Thompson et al. (1991) with slight modi-
fications, is used to simulate an infinite-conductivity vertical fracture. No-flow boundaries are
modeled using the method of images. The result is superposed in time based on the rate history
provided. Note that the dual porosity model provided is based on pseudo-steady state interporosity
flow.

References
1. "Efficient Algorithms for Computing the Bounded Reservoir Horizontal Well Pressure
Responses", L.G. Thompson, J.L. Manrique and T.A. Jelmert, Paper SPE 21827 presented
at 1991 Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting and Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium,
Denver, CO, April 15 - 1

2. "Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells", A.C. Gringarten, H.J. Ramey, Jr., and R.
Raghavan, Paper SPE 4051 presented at the 1972 AFM, San Antonio, TX, October 8 - 11.

Fully Penetrating Anisotropic Model
The fully penetrating anisotropic model simulates the pressure response in a fully penetrated vertical
well within a rectangular-shaped reservoir with anisotropic heterogenities (differences in per-
meability in the x and y directions), or dual porosity characteristics. The anisotropy is handled using
a conformal mapping procedure that adjusts the boundary sizes accordingly to mimic the effect of
increased or decreased permeability in each direction.
This well may be at any location within the reservoir and the model supports infinite, no-flow, and
constant pressure boundaries. Thus, classical configurations like a well near a sealing fault, or a con-
stant pressure boundary near intersecting faults can be easily modeled.
tions. No-flow boundaries are modeled using the method of images. The result is superposed in time
based on the rate history provided. Note that the dual porosity model provided is based on pseudo-
steady state interporosity flow.

Horizontal Model
This model simulates the pressure response in a horizontal well within a rectangular-shaped reser-
voir with anisotropic heterogenities (differences in permeability in the x, y, and z directions), or dual
porosity characteristics. The anisotropy is handled using a conformal mapping procedure that
adjusts the boundary sizes accordingly to mimic the effect of increased or decreased permeability in
each direction.
The horizontal well is oriented in the x-direction and may be at any location within the reservoir (see
figure below), and the model supports infinite, no-flow, and constant pressure boundaries. Note that
the effective wellbore length (Le) defines the wellbore area open to fluid flow. Thus, classical con-
figurations like a well near a sealing fault, or a constant pressure boundary near intersecting faults
can be easily modeled.
tions for horizontal wells, as developed by Thompson et al. (1991). No-flow boundaries are modeled
using the method of images. The result is superposed in time based on the rate history
provided. Note that the dual porosity model provided is based on pseudo-steady state interporosity
flow. The following flow regimes can be handled by this model:
l Wellbore storage
l Elliptical flow
l Boundary effects

References
Denver, CO, April 15 - 17.
2. "Determination of Horizontal Permeability Anisotropy from Horizontal Well Tests", M.B.

Issaka, K. Zaoral, A.K. Ambastha, L. Mattar, Paper presented at the 2000 SPE Saudi Arabia
Section Technical Symposium, Dahran, Saudi Arabia, October 21 - 23.

Leaky Fault Model
This model simulates the transient flow due to a well located near a leaky (finite-conductivity) fault in
an infinite-acting two-zone composite reservoir.
The model accounts for transient flow within the fault as well. The formulation considers a line sink
well located in a two-zone reservoir, separated by a finite-conductivity fault. The width of the fault is
neglected for simplicity when developing the solution, except in the definition of the fault
conductivity. The fault is characterized by two parameters:
1. dimensionless fault conductivity (FCD)
2. skin across the fault (sfault).

Note that these parameters are always positive. Dual porosity is not supported in this model.
Based on the definitions mentioned above, the pressure drop along the fault length is due to the fault
conductivity (FCD), and the pressure drop across the fault is due to skin (sfault). Thus, various fluid
flow behaviour between the reservoir zones can be modeled by adjusting these parameters accord-
ingly. For example, fluid flow from a reservoir region far away from the wellbore to the other reservoir
region can be modeled using a highly conductive fault (high FCD), or a no-flow boundary could be
modeled by setting FCD to zero and sfault to a high value.
Note: Due to the nature of the mathematics involved in this model, the computational time is sub-
stantially more than in other models.
References
"Analytical Solution to the Transient-Flow Problems for a Well Located near a Finite-Conductivity
Fault in Composite Reservoirs", N.M. Anisur Rahman, M.D. Miller and L. Mattar, SPE Paper 84295
for Presentation in SPE Annual Technical Meeting and Exhibition, Denver, CO (October 2003).

Minifrac Models
Appropriate analytical models are available when the test type has been specified as a minifrac test,
and can be used to history match the after-closure data. The model interface is almost identical to
conventional models and most of the features available in convention models, such as auto-history
matching, are also available for minifrac models.
Minifrac models yield results consistent with the Soliman / Craig after-closure analyses when clearly
defined flow regimes are developed. However, as with conventional pressure transient analysis, the
models provide more realistic estimates when clearly developed flow regimes have not developed,
which highlight misinterpretation of data in straight-line or derivative analysis.
Minifrac models should not be used to match the early-time data because the models do not account
for fracture closure, and are only designed for analyzing after-closure data. Changing wellbore stor-
age will be incorporated at a later date to assist in matching the early time data.
The injected volume in minifrac theory is intended to represent the total volume of fluid injected into
the reservoir. The value of Vinj, calculated in WellTest, is the volume injected from the Start of Injec-
tion line (located on the Data Chart on the Production Editor tab) to shut-in. In order for Vinj to equal
the total injected volume, the Start of Injection line would need to be placed at the point-in-time when
the wellbore had been pressured up to the initial reservoir pressure (see figure below). Any fluid
injected beyond this time would pressure up the wellbore, generate a fracture, and eventually leak-
off into the formation. If the Start of Injection line is placed at the point where the wellbore had been
pressured up to the initial reservoir pressure, a value for Vw is not required.

However, since the initial pressure is unknown prior to interpretation of the minifrac test, it is com-
mon practice to set the Start of Injection line at or near the breakdown point (as shown below).
When the Start of Injection line is placed at breakdown, Vinj does not represent the total injected
volume. To account for the added energy of pressuring up the wellbore, a fluid expansion term is
added to Vinj, which requires an estimate of Vw. (VT is the value used in the model calculations.)

Multilayer Cylindrical Model
This model simulates the transient flow in any number of independent layers commingled at the well-
bore as shown below. Each layer is considered to have a cylindrical geometry with an identical initial
pressure (pi) to other layers as well as its own skin factor, reservoir properties, and outer boundary
condition. No crossflow between the layers can occur except at the wellbore. The dual porosity flow
within each layer can be modeled either as pseudo-steady state or transient interporosity flow.
Note: This model does not support an observation well.

References
1. "The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs", A.F. van
Everdingen and W. Hurst, Trans. AIME (1949) vol. 186, 305 - 324.
2. "A Study of the Behaviour of Bounded Reservoir Composed of Stratified Layers", H.C.
Lefkovits, P. Hazebroek, E.E. Allen and C.S. Matthews, SPEJ (March 1961) 43 - 58.

3. "Transient Pressure Behaviour of Commingled Reservoirs", F.J. Kuchuk and D.J. Wilkinson,
SPEFE (1991).

Multilayer Cylindrical with Unequal Pi Model
bore as shown below.
Each layer is considered to have a cylindrical geometry with an unequal initial pressure (pi) to other
layers, as well as its own skin factor, reservoir properties, and outer boundary condition. No

crossflow between the layers can occur except at the wellbore. The dual porosity flow within each
layer can be modeled either as pseudo-steady state or transient interporosity flow.
When the layers have unequal initial pressures, crossflow in the wellbore can occur from one layer to
another upon perforating the layers, or after shut-in as the pressures equalize. The following figure
illustrates the crossflow in the wellbore when the well is shut-in (pre-production period).
This shows that fluid is entering Layer 2 and Layer 3 from Layer 1 (the top layer) during crossflow
through the wellbore. The model calculates the sandface rate from each layer with time, where a pos-
itive rate means fluid is leaving the layer, and a negative rate means fluid is entering the layer. The
amount of crossflow at a given time is a function of many factors including the initial pressure (pi),
skin damage (sd), flow capacity (kh), storativity, boundary condition, and pore volume (Vp) of the
individual layers, as well as wellbore storage.
Hydrostatic pressure differences between layers can also be accounted for in this model by entering
a datum depth (Ddatum) and individual layer depths (Dlayer). All depths are referenced from the sur-
face.
References
1. "The New Analytical Solution to Pressure Transient Problems in Commingled, Layered
Zones with Unequal Initial Pressures Subject to Stepped Changes in Production Rates",

N.M. Anisur Rahman and L. Mattar, Paper SPE 90087 for Presentation in SPE Annual Tech-
nical Meeting and Exhibition, Houston, TX, September 2004.
3. "Wells Producing Commingled Zones with Unequal Initial Pressures and Reservoir Prop-
erties", L. Larsen, Paper SPE 10325 for Presentation in AFTCE, San Antonio, TX, October 5
- 7, 1981.
4. "An Efficient Algorithm for Computation of Well Responses in Commingled Reservoirs", J.B.
Spath, E. Ozkan and R. Raghavan, SPEFE (June 1994) 115 - 121.

Multilayer Rectangular Model
bore as shown below.
Each layer is considered to have a rectangular geometry with an identical initial pressure (pi) to other
layers, as well as its own skin factor, reservoir properties, and outer boundary conditions. This well

may be at any location within each layer and the model supports infinite, no-flow, and constant pres-
sure boundaries. Thus, classical configurations like a well near a sealing fault, or a constant pres-
sure boundary near intersecting faults can be easily modeled.
based on the rate history provided. No crossflow between the layers can occur except at the well-
bore. The dual porosity flow within each layer can be modeled either as pseudo-steady state or tran-
sient interporosity flow.
References
2. "The Use of Source and Green’s Functions in Solving Unsteady-Flow Problems in Reser-
voirs", A.C. Gringarten and H.J. Ramey, Jr., SPEJ (October 1973) 285 - 296.
SPEFE (1991).

Partial Penetration Model
The partial penetration model simulates the pressure response in a partially penetrated vertical well
within a rectangular-shaped reservoir with homogeneous or dual porosity characteristics. This well
may be at any location within the reservoir and the model supports infinite, no-flow, and constant
pressure boundaries. Thus, classical configurations like a well near a sealing fault, or a constant
pressure boundary near intersecting faults can be easily modeled.
References
"The Use of Source and Green’s Functions in Solving Unsteady-Flow Problems in Reservoirs", A.C.
Gringarten and H.J. Ramey, Jr., SPEJ (October 1973) 285 - 296.

Partial Penetration Anisotropic Model
This model simulates the pressure response in a partially penetrated vertical well within a rect-
angular-shaped reservoir with anisotropic heterogenities (differences in permeability in the x, y, and
z directions), or dual porosity characteristics. The anisotropy is handled using a conformal mapping
procedure that adjusts the boundary sizes accordingly to mimic the effect of increased or decreased
permeability in each direction. This well may be at any location within the reservoir and the model
supports infinite, no-flow, and constant pressure boundaries. Thus, classical configurations like a
well near a sealing fault, or a constant pressure boundary near intersecting faults can be easily
modeled.

PITA Model
The perforation inflow test analysis (PITA) model simulates the wellbore pressure response in a ver-
tical well that is shut-in at the surface with fluid flow continuing at the sandface. The model assumes
an infinite-acting reservoir with homogeneous characteristics. Due to the specific nature of this
model, changing wellbore storage, dual porosity, and an observation well are not supported in this
model.
A perforation inflow test is performed by shutting in the well at the surface and perforating wellbore
casing in an under-balanced condition (i.e., the cushion pressure (pwo) is significantly less than the
formation pressure). This creates a continuous pressure increase in the wellbore as fluid flows into
the wellbore at the sandface. As the wellbore fills with fluid, this increase in pressure slows down and
stabilizes near the initial pressure (pi) as shown in the plot below. This increase in pressure is meas-
ured over time, and the data obtained can by modeled to determine permeability (k), skin (s'), and ini-
tial pressure (pi) of the reservoir.
If a formation is perforated over-balanced (i.e., the cushion pressure (pwo) is greater than the form-
ation pressure), the wellbore pressure decreases as the wellbore fluid flows into the formation.
When the cushion pressure (pwo) exceeds the formation fracture pressure (during a fracture

calibration test), the PITA model can provide meaningful results, if the falloff test is continued long
enough to see a transition to reservoir (radial) flow after the fracture closes.
Pressure data during the test can be obtained at the wellhead when inflow is expected to be single-
phase gas, and a fairly rapid pressure response is anticipated. The wellhead pressures can then be
converted to sandface conditions for analysis. When single-phase liquid inflow is expected, sand-
face pressures must be measured directly.
The late time analysis is used to estimate the initial pressure (pi), permeability (k), and skin (s') for
the model. These initial estimates can then be verified by the model. In cases where reservoir
(radial) flow behaviour is not fully developed within the test period, better estimates of these key
reservoir parameters are obtained directly from modeling.
The wellbore storage effect is accounted for by specifying the volume of the compressible fluid in the
wellbore (Vw for liquid or gas) or by specifying a changing fluid (liquid) level condition with a wellbore
volumetric capacity (Vu for liquid only). These values directly affect the results and must be estim-
ated as accurately as possible.
Note: Measured rates are not required for interpretation since the model calculates the fluid influx
rates using the pressure data only.
Because only the allowable fluid inflow into the wellbore is needed, the PITA test can be run over a
much shorter period of time than a conventional test. Thus, it is important to note that the reservoir
information obtained may only represent a small portion of the reservoir near the wellbore, espe-
cially when the permeability (k) is low, or the skin (s') is high. Under these conditions, if a transition
from wellbore storage to reservoir- dominated (radial) flow is sufficiently developed, meaningful
reservoir parameters can still be obtained. If reservoir-dominated (radial) flow is not sufficiently
developed, then a downhole shut-in is required to minimize wellbore storage and reduce the time
required to achieve reservoir-dominated flow. In this case, a step-change in wellbore storage results
when downhole shut-in occurs, and analysis / modeling is recommended to be undertaken using the
Closed Chamber Test (CCT) analysis or CCT model.
A test design PITA model can be used to determine the appropriate test duration, and the need for
down-hole shut-in. For a gas reservoir, down-hole shut-in can be simulated by simply reducing the
wellbore volume (Vw). Similarly, for a liquid-filled system, the wellbore volumetric capacity (Vu) can
be reduced to represent a small wellbore volume (Vw).
References
1. "Use of PITA for Estimating Key Reservoir Parameters", N. M. Anisur Rahman, Mehran
Pooladi-Darvish, Martin S. Santo and Louis Mattar, Paper CIPC 2006 - 172, presented at

7th Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, AB, June 13 - 15, 2006.
2. "Development of Equations and Procedure for Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA)", N.
M. Anisur Rahman, Mehran Pooladi-Darvish and Louis Mattar, Paper SPE 95510, presen-
ted at 80th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, Dallas, TX, October 9 -
12, 2005.
3. "Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA)", N. M. Anisur Rahman, Mehran Pooladi-Darvish

and Louis Mattar, Paper CIPC 2005 - 031, presented at 6th Canadian International Pet-
roleum Conference, Calgary, AB, June 7 - 9, 2005.

Slant Model
This model simulates the pressure response in a slanted well (wellbore enters the reservoir at an
angle) within a rectangular-shaped reservoir with anisotropic heterogenities (differences in per-
meability in the x, y, and z directions), or dual porosity characteristics. The anisotropy is handled
using a conformal mapping procedure that adjusts the boundary sizes accordingly to mimic the
effect of increased or decreased permeability in each direction. The slanted well is oriented based
on the inclination angle (σ) and azimuth angle (θ) and may be at any location within the reservoir.
This model supports infinite, no-flow, and constant pressure boundaries. Note that the effective well-
bore length (Le) defines the wellbore area open to fluid flow. Thus, classical configurations like a well
near a sealing fault, or a constant pressure boundary near intersecting faults can be easily modeled.
tions for horizontal wells as developed by Thompson et al. (1991). No-flow boundaries are modeled
using the method of images. The result is superposed in time based on the rate history provided.
Note that the dual porosity model provided is based on pseudo-steady state interporosity flow. The
following flow regimes can be handled by this model:
l Wellbore storage
l Elliptical flow
l Boundary effects
Due to the additional complexity of a slanted wellbore, the solution method requires that the wellbore
be split up into specified number of segments (Nw). Increasing the number of segments will result in
higher precision in the solution, but with slower computational performance. A value of 100 seg-
ments is recommended as it handles most situations adequately.
References
"Efficient Algorithms for Computing the Bounded Reservoir Horizontal Well Pressure Responses",
L.G. Thompson, J.L. Manrique and T.A. Jelmert, Paper SPE 21827 presented at 1991 Rocky Moun-
tain Regional Meeting and Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, April 15 - 17.

Slug Model
This model simulates the wellbore pressure response in a vertical well that is shut-in at the surface
with fluid flow continuing at the sandface. The model assumes an infinite-acting reservoir with homo-
geneous characteristics. Due to the specific nature of this model, changing wellbore storage, dual
porosity, and an observation well are not supported in this model.
The slug test is performed by shutting in the well at surface and introducing an instantaneous pres-
sure drop across the sandface either by perforating the wellbore casing, or opening a downhole
valve. This creates a continuous pressure increase in the wellbore as fluid flows into the wellbore at
sandface. As the wellbore fills with fluid, this increase in pressure slows down and stabilizes near the
initial pressure (pi) as shown in the figure below. This increase in pressure is measured over time,
and the data obtained can be modeled to determine permeability (k), skin (s'), and initial pressure
(pi) of the reservoir.
Because only the allowable fluid inflow into the wellbore is needed, the slug test can be run over a
much shorter period of time than a conventional test. Thus, it is important to note that the reservoir

information obtained may only represent a small portion of the reservoir near the wellbore, espe-
cially when the permeability (k) is low, or the skin (s') is high. Under these conditions, if a transition
from wellbore storage to reservoir-dominated (radial) flow is sufficiently developed, meaningful reser-
voir parameters can be obtained.
The impulse radial analysis is used to estimate the initial pressure (pi) for the model. Permeability (k)
and skin (s') cannot be determined uniquely from the impulse radial analysis; therefore an initial
guess for these values is required.
The wellbore storage effect is accounted for by specifying the volume of the compressible fluid in the
wellbore (Vw for liquid or gas), or by specifying a changing fluid (liquid) level condition with a well-
bore volumetric capacity (Vu for liquid only).
Note: Measured rates are not required for interpretation since the model calculates the fluid influx
rates using the pressure data only.
References
1. "Analysis of Slug Test or DST Flow Period Data", H.J. Ramey, Jr., R.G. Agarwal and I.
Martin, JCPT (July - September 1975) 37 - 47.
2. "Annulus Unloading Rates as Influenced by Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect", H.J. Ramey,
Jr. and R.G. Agarwal, SPEJ (October 1972) 453 - 462.
3. "Analysis of Slug and Drillstem Tests", A.M.M. Peres, Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Tulsa
(1989).

Vertical Interference Model
This model simulates the pressure response in a partially penetrated vertical well within a rect-
angular-shaped reservoir with anisotropic heterogenities (differences in permeability in the x, y, and
z directions), or dual porosity characteristics.
With this model, you can observe the pressure response at an observation point (Zo) along the well-
bore to determine the horizontal permeability (kh or kxy) and vertical permeability (kv or kyz).
The anisotropy is handled using a conformal mapping procedure that adjusts the boundary sizes
accordingly to mimic the effect of increased or decreased permeability in each direction. This well
may be at any location within the reservoir and the model supports infinite, no-flow, and constant
pressure boundaries. Thus, classical configurations like a well near a sealing fault, or a constant
pressure boundary near intersecting faults can be easily modeled.

Wedge Model
This model simulates the pressure response in a vertical well within a wedge-shaped reservoir with
homogeneous or dual porosity characteristics as shown below. This well may be at any location
within the reservoir and the model supports two no-flow boundaries. The reservoir is infinite-acting in
the radial extent.
At early times, the wedge boundaries are modeled using the method proposed by Chen and
Raghavan (1997), while late time is modeled using the infinite-acting radial solution. The result is
superposed in time based on the rate history provided. Note that the dual porosity model provided is
based on pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.
References
2. "Computing Pressure Distribution in Wedges," C.-C. Chen and R. Raghavan, SPEJ (March
1997) 24 - 32.

User Interface
WellTest is a pressure transient analysis software package with these important components:
Data Tables
Tabs
Advanced Models Tab
Wizard Menu

Data Tables
A right-click menu is available for each of the columns within each data table.
This menu includes standard grid options, such as copy-and-paste, as well as options where you
can set precision, find a value within the column, or manipulate data. Data manipulation is applied to
any selected cells, which gives you the flexibility to select the entire column, or a portion of the data.

All Data Table
The All Data table contains the data for all the individual gauges, as well as any calculated datasets,
such as the difference between pressures from tandem gauges. As a result, the toolbar to the left of
the All Data grid / table differs from the toolbars for the individual gauges.

l Grid Options — Contains options to hide and show columns within the grid, set
whether the cursor moves vertically or horizontally upon entering a value, and set
the mouse drag scroll speed.
l Print and Preview data table — You can print the table. There is currently no
print filter, and this print operation can easily print hundreds of pages for sand-
face pressure recorders.

l Gauge Information — Opens a dialog box where you can enter information
about the recorder, such as type, manufacturer, resolution, and run depth. The
gauge start date may also be modified here. Changing the gauge start date
updates all of the dates within the gauge. The dates are calculated from the
gauge start date and the cumulative times. In this dialog box you can correct mis-
takes when entering start dates during importing.
l Create / Delete Calculated Dataset — This option is only available in the tool-
bar for the All Data tab. Datasets can be calculated based on the difference or
average of similar data types from two different gauges. For example, a pressure
comparison dataset can be generated by calculating the difference between the
pressure values from tandem sandface gauges. The primary pressure derivative
of pressure datasets can also be calculated.
l Export gauge data — This option is not available for the All Data tab. Data can
be exported to a csv format.
l Find next / previous shut-in — This option is not available for the All Data tab
and is only active in the toolbar when gauges have rate information. It is often
necessary to navigate to shut-in points to ensure data is valid and has been syn-
chronized properly. With this option, you can efficiently navigate to the next shut-
in point.
l Zero gauge start time — This option is not available for the All Data tab and is
only active in the toolbar when the first row of a gauge has a non-zero cumulative
time. This operation changes the gauge start time to the date in the first row of
the data table for that gauge. All the cumulative times update to reflect the
change in gauge start time.
Removing Data at the Ends of a Dataset

If you right-click a row number within the gauge data tables, you can remove data at the ends of a
dataset (e.g., when a sandface recorder is turned on at the surface, and before it has been lowered
downhole, or when it is being pulled out of the hole). The easiest way to remove this data is to select
Delete All Rows Before, or Delete All Rows After from this right-click menu.

Tabs
By default, the tabs in WellTest's user interface are displayed from left-to-right as follows:
Data Management
Production Editor
Properties
AER PAS
Reports
Comparison Plot
Data Management
Deconvolution
Advanced Models

Data Management Tab
The Data Management tab houses raw data and contains tools to prepare your data for analysis.
There are five sub-tabs within the Data Management tab, which are described below.
Data Sub-tab
The Data sub-tab stores a copy of the imported gauges, as well as any datasets created from mer-
ging multiple gauges, or smoothing data within a gauge. All imported data is automatically displayed
in a table with a corresponding plot. The data tables and plots work together to display information
efficiently. When you click a point on a plot, the plot's data marker moves to the nearest data point,
and the corresponding row in the data table is highlighted in blue. Likewise, when you select a row in
the data table, the marker on the plot moves to the data point, which corresponds to that row. Both
the data tables and plots have tools to help navigate to specific points, or to manipulate data.
The plots within the Data sub-tab enable you view and manipulate data.

l Data Selection Tools — Spray Select, or Rope Select icons can be clicked to select
or deselect data points. Selected data can be deleted or manipulated graphically
using the appropriate icons near the end of the plot's toolbar.
l Switch Active Dataset — This option is active on plots displaying more than one
curve. It controls which dataset the zoomed plot displays and the plots marker it is
attached to.
l Select / Delete range — Range markers may also be used to select data. The
Delete option enables you to remove all points within or outside a selected range.
l Delete selected points — The Delete option has a sub-toolbar with options to
remove data selected on the active dataset, on all datasets within the gauge, or
inside / outside a selected range.
l Manipulate selected points — Selected data can manipulated by adding, sub-

tracting, multiplying, or dividing by a constant.
l Create calculated dataset — Datasets can be calculated based on the difference or

average of like data types from two different gauges. For example, a pressure com-
parison dataset can be generated by calculating the difference between the pressure
values from tandem sandface gauges. The primary pressure derivative of pressure
datasets can also be calculated.
The top left pane contains tabs of data tables for each imported gauge, and an all data table of all
imported data.
The bottom pane contains tabs of plots for each imported gauge and an all data plot.
l
To add new plots, click the New Plots icon ( ) on the toolbar.

l To add or remove data from any plot, select or deselect data points by clicking the
checkmark icon and selecting the appropriate .toolbar

option.
l
To calculate datasets, click the Create calculated dataset ( ) icon. Note that it is
common to create a gauge comparison plot if tandem recorders are run downhill.
The top right pane displays the active dataset in the Zoomed Data Chart.
Synchronize Sub-tab
In the Synchronize sub-tab, you can synchronize data from different gauges, or datasets contained
within a single gauge.
Note: To open this sub-tab, at least two valid gauges, or two datasets within one gauge must exist.
The synchronize view is divided into four plots.
The top left pane displays the primary plot, and the data in this plot stays where it is.
The bottom left pane displays the secondary dataset. The data in this plot will shift when the Apply
icon ( ) on the primary dataset toolbar is clicked.
The top right pane displays the zoomed plot.
The bottom right pane displays the results plot, which illustrates what the data would look like when
the Apply icon on the primary dataset is clicked.
Merge Sub-tab
Data from different gauges (i.e., imported from different files) can be merged into one continuous file
by clicking the Merge sub-tab.
Note: To open this sub-tab, at least two valid gauges must exist.
In the Merge tab, you can select the datasets to be merged and view the result of the merge on the
plot.

Smooth Sub-tab
Datasets contained within a gauge can be smoothed by clicking the Smooth sub-tab. This tab con-
tains a plot displaying the data points and a smoothed line for each curve. It also has three sliders:
the middle one smooths the active curve, and the left and right ones control the degree of smoothing
on the left and right edges of the selected period.

Filter Sub-tab
Datasets contained within a gauge can be reduced / smoothed using a combination of time and res-
olution filters by clicking the Filter sub-tab. This tab contains a plot, which displays the original
points, and the points that would be kept, under the current filtering conditions, if the Apply icon was
clicked. It also contains a table for defining the filtering conditions. In the top two rows, you can spe-
cify default filtering conditions for each flow and shut-in period. There are also rows for each flow and
shut-in, so you can customize the filtering condition for each flow and shut-in period.

Production Editor Tab
In contrast with the Data Management tab, which houses the raw data, the Production Editor tab con-
tains data for analysis and modeling. As a result, data may be manipulated to ensure there is data
consistency, and that pressure data is converted to sandface conditions. The main components of
this tab are the Data Table / Grid, the Data Chart, the Zoomed Data Chart, and the Toolbar.
The Data Table / Grid, Data Chart, and Zoomed Data Chart are all linked. If you click a row in the
table, the annotation arrow moves to the corresponding point on the data chart. Similarly, if you click
a point in the data chart, the corresponding row on the table is highlighted.
Note: The data table is also known as a grid, so the Grid Options icon corresponds to the data in
the table.
Data Table / Grid

The data table or grid, contains date / clock time, cumulative time, tubing pressure, casing pressure,
gas, oil, water and condensate rate, fluid level, oil and water gradient, and average liquid gradient
columns.

Another column is effectively the active pressure column, and the title of this column is either Well-
head Pressure, Measured Sandface Pressure, or Calculated Sandface Pressure depending on the
data type. After the data is prepared for analysis, it is the pressure data in this column that is used for
analysis.
Note: The notation WellTest uses for rate data is "end of period". For additional information, see
End of Period - Rate Data.
The Total Gas Rate column is not editable and is used for analysis of gas wells. This column is for
the recombined gas rate for condensate wells, and is equal to the gas rate for wells with no con-
densate. When the Use RGRF checkbox in the header of the Cond. Rate column is checked, the
rates in the Gas Rate column are multiplied by the recombined gas rate factor (RGRF) in the Recom-
bination section of the Properties / Gas Properties tab. This option should be used when the con-
densate rates aren’t available, or when the produced condensate gas ratio (CGR) is sporadic due to
challenges with measurement and reporting. When this option is unchecked, a different recombined
gas rate factor is calculated for each row. The inputs to this calculation are the gas and condensate
rates, used to obtain a CGR, the separator pressure and temperature, and condensate gravity in the
Recombination section of the Gas Properties tab.
The oil and water gradient columns are used for calculating sandface pressures for the hydrostatic
head of the fluid below a specified fluid level. These gradients may be calculated using the PVT prop-
erties when the Calc checkbox in the header of these columns is selected, or entered manually,
when the Calc checkbox is unchecked.
Data Chart
The pressure and rate data is plotted on the Data Chart. To focus on the test data, the Data Chart
autoscales to display all the pressures. However, you may wish to customize the scale to view the
previous production.
Note: To find a shut-in point quickly, right-click the Data Chart within the first few buildup points,
and then press the left arrow key to move the arrow annotation back a few points. This is
much more efficient than trying to click on the final flow point. This is because the data dens-
ity is much lower at the start of the buildup because the pressures are changing quickly with
time.
Zoomed Data Chart

The Zoomed Data Chart shows a zoomed view of the data point selected on the Data Chart. It auto-
scales to show 30 points to the left and right of the selected point.

Toolbar
The following icons are on the WellTest toolbar.
Grid Options
To hide or show different columns on the data table, click the Grid Options icon ( )
on the toolbar and select your desired options from the drop-down list:
l Hide Show Columns – can also be accessed by right-clicking anywhere on the table
and selecting Show Columns. When you select this option, the Hide/Show Columns
dialog box opens, where you can click the checkboxes for the columns you want to
show (or hide) on the table.

l Show Wellhead Pressure Columns – shows the time, rate, and wellhead pressure
columns, as well as the liquid level and gradient columns that are used to calculate
sandface pressures.
l Show Sandface Pressure Columns – shows the time, rate, and sandface pressure
columns, and hides the wellhead pressure, liquid level, and gradient columns.
l Set Drag Scroll Speed – sets the speed at which the mouse wheel scrolls through
the data table / grid.
l Show Errors / Warnings – shows Production Editor errors / warnings, such as time
out of sequence errors, if there are any.
Print / Print Preview

Print, or get a print preview of the Production Editor table.

Export
Export the Production Editor table to a .csv file. See Exporting for additional information.
Calc SFP / Undo SFP

Click this icon to calculate sandface pressures (SFP). Note that this icon is only active if there are
measured tubing or casing pressures in the Production Editor. If sandface pressures have already
been calculated, the name of this icon changes to "Undo SFP".
Data Selection
This icon launches a dialog box where you can select data from the Data Management tab, and
bring it into the Production Editor for analysis. Pressures and rates may be brought it from different
gauges, and are automatically merged into the Production Editor.
Previous Production
This icon launches the WellTest Wizard: Previous Production dialog box, which prompts you to
either enter previous production data manually, or specify an effective producing time. Note that this
icon is only available for test types that require rates.
Next Shut-in / Prev Shut-in

To view the shut-in points in your dataset, click the Next Shut-In and Prev. Shut-In icons (
) on the toolbar. Clicking these icons adjusts the locations in the

table where you have a change from production or injection to shut-ins (zero rates).
Undo / Redo
These are standard Undo / Redo operations for any changes made to the Production Editor dataset.

Filter
Clicking the Filter icon ( ) opens the Filter data dialog box, where you have the option of
conducting a primary data filter. The primary data filter is a standard step in preparing data for ana-
lysis. For additional information, see Filtering.
Click to show / hide a description of the dialog box
The data is segmented into flow and shut-in periods and different filtering parameters may be
applied to each period. It is very important that the flow and shut-in periods have been correctly spe-
cified before filtering. With the checkboxes you can select the filter mode (e.g., logarithmic, arith-
metic, or no filter) for each period. The values in the Logarithmic Points Per Cycle and Arithmetic
Time Step columns are editable. The Current and Remaining Data Points columns keep track of how
many points there originally were, and how many points remain after the filter is applied. The final
row shows the total number of points before and after filtering.
Logarithmic filtering keeps more data at the start of the flow period, when the pressure is changing a
lot with time, and less data at the end, when the change in pressure is more gradual. (This is the
default for all shut-in periods.) Arithmetic filtering takes evenly spaced points (e.g., 1 point per hour)
and is the default for all flowing (or injecting) periods.

The filtering defaults are very conservative and keep way more data than is necessary. For example,
a handful of derivative points could accurately describe the trend within any log cycle, including a
transition out of wellbore storage. By default, we keep 500 points per cycle of shut-in data. As a res-
ult, most users apply the filter without changing the default filtering parameters.
Determine Shut-in
Clicking this icon opens the Determine Shut-in window where you can insert a time, pressure, and
zero-rate point into the middle of your dataset. This is useful when the final flow point is not clearly
defined.

Properties Tab
Additional Properties for Liquid-rich Gas
In the Properties tab, you can enter and view reservoir and fluid parameters. Within the tab there is a
Property Type View, a Reservoir Properties View, an Inputs Pane, and a Main View.
Property Type View

In this view, you can select the property type. When you click to select a property type, the Inputs
pane updates to show the available inputs and calculated parameters specific to that property type,
and the Main View updates to show the appropriate correlations in plot or tabular format.
An exclamation mark beside a property type indicates that the properties have not been fully spe-
cified. In the screenshot below, Oil has an exclamation mark beside it. This is only a problem if your
reservoir has oil. If this is the case, click Oil and enter the required parameters.

The Property Type view also has a toolbar where you can change your plotting options, import cus-
tom data, and copy / paste data.
Reservoir Properties View

This view includes inputs for standard reservoir properties. Some of these parameters, such as
reservoir temperature, are required in order to display data on the plots or tables in the Main view.

Inputs Pane
The Inputs pane is to the right of the Properties pane. This pane shows the available correlations,
input parameters, and calculated values specific to the property type selected in the Property Type
view. The inputs can change when the correlation changes.

Toolbar Icons
The toolbar icons for this pane are as follows:
l
View Data — view your data in the Main view in a table format. This icon is only
displayed when the Main view is displaying plots.
l
View Plot — view your data in the Main view represented by plots. This icon is
only displayed when the Main view is displaying tables.
l
Import Data — bring in your custom property data.
l
Help for Correlations — after clicking this icon, select either PVT Correlation
Help, or Viscosity Correlation Help. A dialog box opens, which displays inform-
ation about each of the available correlations. This icon is disabled for property types
that don't have correlations.
l
Change Bottom Left Plot — while viewing your plots, there may be an addi-
tional plot that can be viewed by clicking this icon. This icon is only displayed when
more than four plots are available. For example, when liquid-rich gas is selected,
there is an additional plot to view the vaporized oil ratio.
Gas Properties
This view displays drop-down lists where you can select the PVT correlation (for Z, Bg, and cg) and
viscosity correlation.
Note: Unless otherwise noted, all percentages are in mole %.

From the Gas Type drop-down list, you can select one of the following gas types: dry gas, wet gas,
or liquid-rich gas. When liquid-rich gas is selected, an additional drop-down list and gas property
inputs is displayed. The Vaporized Oil Ratio (Rs) Correlation drop-down list is used to model liquid
drop-out in the Gas Condensate Numerical models. To calculate a recombined gas rate factor and a
recombined gas gravity (used in analytical modeling of gas condensate reservoirs), enter the initial
condensate gas ratio (CGR), condensate gravity, and separator temperature and pressure to be
used with gas gravity. For additional information, see Gas Condensate Properties.

After you select Gas in the selection tree, you can select a PVT correlation or custom table from the
PVT Correlation drop-down list. (If you select Custom Table, you can enter your own data.) In the
Viscosity Correlation drop-down list, you can select a viscosity correlation or a custom table. In the
Gas Type drop-down list, you can select dry gas, wet gas, or liquid-rich gas. These selections affect
how gas properties are calculated.
Gas Properties, Gas Composition, and Critical Properties can be entered as input parameters in
each of their sections. The calculated properties at pi and TR are also displayed.
Gas properties vs pressure are plotted, including Z, ψ, Bg or Bgd, ρg, cg, Rv, VL / Vsat, and μg.
Additional Properties for Liquid-rich Gas

If the Gas Type is set to Liquid-Rich Gas, additional properties are displayed:

l Vaporized Oil Ratio Correlation — defines the amount of liquid vaporized in gas as
a function of pressure.
l pdew — dew point pressure. It should be set to the same value as the bubble point
pressure defined under Oil / Condensate properties.
l CGRI — condensate gas ratio at the separator.
l γcond — condensate gravity. It should be set to the same value as the oil gravity
defined under Oil / Condensate properties.
l Tsep, psep — temperature and pressure at the separator.
l RGRF — recombined gas rate factor. We recommend keeping the default value.
l Gr — recombined gas gravity. All gas property functions are generated based on this
gas gravity (as well as critical temperature and pressure).
Oil / Condensate Properties

This view displays drop-down lists where you can select the PVT correlation (for Rso, Bo, and co)
and viscosity correlation.

If the available correlations do not describe your oil properties satisfactorily, you can select custom
correlations, and import or paste custom PVT data into tables for Rs, Bo, and mu. Alternatively, you
can calibrate a correlation to shift it through a known PVT point by populating the inputs in the Cal-
ibration Properties section of the Oil Inputs pane. When calibrating an oil correlation, check all the
plots to ensure that the resulting properties make sense. For example, if unrealistic values are
entered for Rso and Bo, the oil compressibility curve, which is calculated from the Rso and Bo curves,
may contain discontinuities. See Oil Calibration for more information.
After you select Oil / Condensate in the selection tree, you can select a PVT correlation, constant
properties, or custom table from the PVT Correlation drop-down list. In the Viscosity Correlation
drop-down list, you can select a correlation, constant properties, or custom table.
Oil properties can be entered as input parameters. The calculated properties at pi and TR are also
displayed. Calibration properties can be entered to calibrate your oil / condensate properties.
Oil properties vs pressure are plotted, including Rso, Bo, ρo, co, and μo.
Water Properties
This view displays a drop-down list and fields where you can enter your water properties.

.
After you select Water in the selection tree, you can select a correlation, constant properties, or cus-
tom table from the General Correlation drop-down list.
You can enter Water Composition as input parameters, and you can select the Gas Saturated check-
box to take into account gas saturation in water. The calculated properties at pi and TR are dis-
played.
Water properties vs pressure are plotted, including Rsw, Bw, ρw, cw, and μw.
CBM Properties
WellTest supports coalbed methane (CBM) analytical models (appropriate for dry CBM wells) and
numerical models (for wet or dry CBM wells). The pseudo-steady state (PSS) models, designed to

model wet CBM wells analytically, are available in IHS HarmonyTM, but not in WellTest. The Initial
Gas Composition section of the CBM Inputs pane only impacts the PSS models and has no impact
on WellTest.
Enter the Langmuir Isotherm and Coal properties to account for the gas adsorbed on the coal.

After you select CBM in the selection tree, Initial Gas Composition, Langmuir Isotherm, and Coal
Properties can be entered as input parameters. In the Matrix Shrinkage Correlation drop-down list,
you can select a correlation or custom table.
CBM properties vs pressure are plotted, including Gas Content, k / ki, and Φ / Φi.
Adsorption Properties
Adsorption properties should be entered to account for adsorbed gas in shales. For adsorption in
CBM reservoirs, the CBM properties should be populated.
After you select Adsorption in the selection tree, Langmuir Isotherm, and Shale Properties can be
entered as input parameters.
Gas content vs pressure is plotted.

Geomechanical Properties
With geomechanical properties, you can model pressure-dependent permeability and formation
compressibility, which are significant in over-pressured reservoirs such as the Haynesville shale.
After you select Geomechanical in the selection tree, you can select a correlation or custom table
from the Permeability Ratio Correlation drop-down list. In the Compressibility Ratio Correlation drop-
down list, you can select a correlation or custom table.
Geomechanical properties vs pressure are plotted, including k / ki and cf / cfi.

Capillary Pressure Properties
Capillary pressure properties are used by numerical models.
After you select Capillary Pressure in the selection tree, you can select a correlation or custom
table from the Capillary Pressure Correlation drop-down list.
Capillary pressures vs pressure are plotted, including pcgo, pcgw and pcow.
Relative Permeability Properties

Relative permeability properties are used by numerical models.

After you select Relative Permeability in the selection tree, you can select a correlation or custom
table in the 2-Phase Model Correlation drop-down list. You can enter input parameters for water-
gas, oil-gas, and water-oil. In the 3-Phase Model Correlation drop-down list, you can select a cor-
relation.
Relative permeabilities vs pressure are plotted for gas-water, gas-oil, and oil-water. The 3-phase rel-
ative permeability is also presented in a triangle graph.
Main View
This view consists of plots or tables displaying how properties vary with pressure or saturation, and
depends on the property type selected in the Property Type view. To switch between viewing plots
or tables, click the View Data or View Plot icons on the toolbar of the Inputs pane.
Note: The tables are read-only unless a Custom correlation is selected in the Inputs pane.

AER PAS Tab
The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) accepts submission of .PAS files to meet regulatory require-
ments for wells. WellTest can generate AER.PAS files used for electronic pressure data submission.
Note: If you do not deal with wells in Alberta, Canada you can hide the PAS tab.
This tab houses a number of sub-tabs that facilitate the entry of all well, test, and gauge data
required to generate the PAS file.

Reports Tab
Preview Report Tab
In the Preview Report tab, you can view, collate, rearrange, and print existing reports. The reports in
WellTest are dynamic in the sense that they are generated based on the number and types of ana-
lyses and models that have been created within a specific file. As a result, the reports available to be
previewed vary from file-to-file.
The Preview Report tab is divided into two sections.
1. The left section displays a tree structure of available reports generated for the current file.
2. The main section displays a preview of the currently selected report.
The reports displayed on the left are organized into Default, Custom and File Specific folders.
l Default — contains reports generated from default report templates. These

reports can be edited in the Design Report tab, but cannot be deleted.
l Custom — contains reports generated from templates that were created or cus-
tomized in the Design Report tab.
l File Specific — contains reports not generated from templates, but rather cre-
ated or modified from existing default or custom reports. These reports are saved
to the file, and are not available to other files.

Toolbar Icons
The Preview Report toolbar contains the following icons:
Ico-
Name Description
n
Open You can navigate to and open an existing report template (.PRT exten-
Exist- sion).
ing If the report template being opened already exists in the application, it is
Report automatically selected in the preview tree. If the report template being
opened is not associated with the current application, then the template is
displayed in the temporary folder.
Chang- Launches the Report Paths window, where you can change the location
e the where custom report templates are saved. By default, the report templates
report are located in:
paths
C:\ProgramData\Fast Fekete Associates Inc\WellTest32

<version>\Reports\Custom
In a network installation, this path may not be found on the C drive. In that
case, the IT department may be required to help locate this folder. After
the location of the report templates are determined, the path can be set by
clicking the Browse icon. When this setting has been changed, WellTest
must be restarted for the changes to take effect.
Note that the Reset button can be used to clear all saved paths, and reset
the save path to the default setting.
Chang- Opens the Report Settings window, where you can change whether or not
e the filename, file path, or date is displayed in the report footer.
Report
Set-
tings
Reload Refreshes the view of the tree to reflect changes to the preview tree that
report- may not have been displayed yet. In most cases, this is automatically
s from done.
hard-
drive
Restor- You can recover deleted reports from the current session of the application
e by opening the Retrieve Deleted Templates dialog box.
delete- Note: If a deleted report template is not recovered before the application is
d closed, it is permanently deleted. A warning is displayed when you exit the
report application to inform you if there are templates available to be recovered.
tem- Also, report templates in the default folder cannot be deleted.
plate
(s)
Collate You can create groups of templates, which gives you the option of printing
Report- multiple templates at once.
s Clicking this option displays another tree next to the preview window.

Preview Pane
The Preview pane contains a preview of the report that is currently selected.

The Preview pane contains the following icons:
Icon Name Description

Print Sends the currently selected report to your default printer.
Print the
Current Prints only the currently selected page to your default printer.
Page Only
Print Setup Enables you to change printer options.
Zoom Tool Enables you to zoom-in / zoom-out by clicking in the report.

Magnify
Enables you to zoom-in on a report.
Image
Reduce
Enables you to zoom-out from a report.
Image
Enables you to view the thumbnail view of a multi-page report, and
move the pages around. This option is meant for cases where
Rearrange
there are multiple pages, such as a collated report. This option is
Pages
grayed-out if the report template being viewed is a single-page
report.
Enables you to view the report one page at a time. This option is
Single meant for cases where there are multiple pages, such as a collated
Page report. This option is grayed-out if the report template being viewed
is a single-page report.
Enables you to view the thumbnail view of a multi-page report. This
Multiple option is meant for cases where there are multiple pages, such as
Pages a collated report. This option is grayed-out if the report template
being viewed is a single-page report.
Enables you to move to the previous page of the current report tem-
Previous
plate. This option is grayed-out if the report template being viewed
Page
Enables you to move to the next page of the current report tem-
Next Page plate. This option is grayed-out if the report template being viewed
Collated Reports
With a collated report, you can group several reports together, so you can print several reports at
once. There are several options available when working with collated reports.
To display the current list of collated reports, click the Collate Reports icon ( ).

Report templates from the preview tree can be added to the collated reports folder by clicking-and-
dragging a report template from the Report Templates folder in the left-side pane. Several reports
may be selected at once by clicking-and-dragging a selection rectangle over the reports, or by select-
ing reports while pressing the Ctrl or Shift keys.
To create a new report folder, right-click the empty space within the Collated Reports window, and
then select Create New Report.
You can add reports from the preview tree to the Collated Reports folder. To do this, click the report
name, then drag it to the Collated Reports folder. To select multiple templates, drag a selection box
around the template names.

The order of report templates within a collated report may be changed by clicking-and-dragging
them within the Collated Report tree view.
Design Report Tab

The Design Report tab has two sections.
1. The left section contains all of the tools required to modify and customize reports and tem-
plates.
2. The middle content pane is the canvas for design.

In the Design Report tab, you can design new reports and/or templates. With the reports, a tree struc-
ture is used to organize all the available data. When designing reports and/or templates, the tree is
only populated with data available within that file. Therefore, prior to creating a report template for a
model of a hydraulically fractured gas reservoir, a file with a fracture model and the reservoir fluid
type set to gas should be created or opened.

Reports versus Templates
It is very important to distinguish between reports and templates prior to starting the design.
l Reports are generated from templates, or by modifying existing reports in the Design
Report tab. For example, there is a pre-defined default template for a fracture model
for a gas reservoir. If a specific file has the reservoir fluid type set to gas, and has
three fracture models, three different reports are generated from that single report
template. The values in each report correspond to the values in the model associated
to it. Reports are file-specific. When reports are modified in the Design Report tab,
the saved report file (with a .prt extension) is only available for that specific WellTest
file.
l Templates refer to the report layout structure for a specific fluid type, and a specific
analysis or model. Templates are used to generate reports for any file with a match-
ing fluid type, and analysis or model type. In fact, if a file has multiple instances of the
same analysis or model, the corresponding template is used to generate multiple
reports. Templates are not file-specific. They are saved (with an .lof extension) to a
specified location on the hard drive, or network. Custom templates may be created
from scratch, or by modifying existing templates.
Note: You are likely to modify existing reports, and customize existing templates, rather than cre-
ating them from scratch.
In the left section of the Design Reports tab, is the Existing Reports and Templates list where you
may select the report or template to start from. After you have selected a report or template, a drop-
down list displays all the reports or templates available for modification. If you start from a report (a
file in the Default Reports, Custom Reports, File Specific Reports, or All Reports section), the mod-
ified file is saved as a report, and is displayed in the File-Specific section of the Preview Report tab,
and is not available to other project files. If you start from a template (a file in the Default Reports,
Custom Reports, or All Templates sections), the modified file is saved as a custom template and is
used to create custom reports for similar WellTest files.
Toolbar Icons
The Design Report toolbar contains the following icons:
Icon Name Description

Create a new Starts a new report template. If an unsaved report template is act-
report template ive in the design view, you are prompted to save the current report,
before a new report template is created.
Add a New Inserts a blank page to the end of the current report template.
Page to current
report template

Remove Cur- Deletes the active page from the current report template.
rent Page from
report template
Previous Page Moves the template preview back by one page.
Next Page Moves the template preview forward by one page.
Rearrange Displays all the pages in one view, so they can be rearranged by
Pages dragging- and-dropping pages.
Preview Tem- Switches the view from the Design Report tab to the Preview
plate Report tab.
Save Template Saves the currently active report template.
Add/Edit Tem- You can change the default location for saved files.
plate Locations
Hotkeys
When you are working in the report, the following hotkeys are available:
l Control A — Selects all objects on a report page.
l Control C — Copies the selected objects on a report page.
l Control D — Displays the order of objects on a report page. The order of reports
can be changed by clicking the objects in a specific order.
l Control R — Saves the relative paths for all image files. (By default, absolute
paths are used.)
l Control V — Pastes all copied objects on a report page.
l Control X — Cuts selected objects on a report page.
l Control Y — Redoes the last change on a report page.
l Control Z — Undoes the last change on a report page.
Default File Locations

By default, all newly created reports are saved to this location:
C:\ProgramData\Fast Fekete Associates Inc\WellTest32 <version>\Reports\Custom
In a network installation, this path may not be found on the C drive. In that case, the IT department
may be required to help locate this folder. After the location of the report templates are determined,

the path can be set by clicking the Browse icon. When this setting has been changed, WellTest
must be restarted for the changes to take effect.
If the software is installed on a location on a network with restricted user rights, the first time you cre-
ate a report and try to save it, you are notified that you do not have access to the default location,
and you are asked to provide an alternate location. However, you still have access to the original
default location.
To change the location where files are saved, click the Browse... button.
By default, Fekete reports are included with the software. These reports are displayed under the
Default folder in the preview tree. Dynamic reports (reports that are automatically created) reside in
a temporary folder, and are not affected by changing the default folder's location.
Custom Templates
The following section describes the Existing Reports and Templates section of the Design Report
tab.
l Default Reports — displays default reports applicable to the current WellTest

file. The default reports can be accessed by clicking Default Reports in the Exist-
ing Reports and Templates section. After modifying a default report, assign a
report name in the Template Name field. (If you do not assign a new name, the
existing name is used and the report is added to File Specific Reports.) Click the
Save report template button to save the report. The File Specific Reports are
displayed in the File Specific folder in the Preview Report tab.

l Custom Reports — displays custom reports created from Custom Templates
that are applicable to the current WellTest file. Custom reports can be accessed
by clicking Custom Reports in the Existing Reports and Templates section. In
the Preview Report tab, they are displayed in the Custom Templates folder. After
modifying a custom report, assign a new report name, or that custom report
name is used when the Save report template button is clicked. Modified custom
reports are created under Modified Reports in Existing Templates, and are dis-
played in the File Specific folder of the Preview Report tab.
l Modified Reports — displays reports that have been modified from Default
Reports, Custom Reports, and Modified Reports. The modified reports can be
accessed by clicking Modified Reports in the Existing Reports and Templates
section. It is displayed in the File Specific folder of the Preview Report tab. These
reports are saved as part of the current file and do not get displayed in any other
files.
l All Reports — displays the default, custom and modified reports available to the
current file. All reports can be accessed by clicking All Reports in the Existing
Reports and Templates section.
l Default Templates — displays all the default templates available in

WellTest. The default templates can be accessed by clicking Default Templates
in the Existing Reports and Templates section. The default templates can be
used to create custom templates accessible by other WellTest files. After cus-
tomizing a default template, assign a new report name or that default report
name is used when the Save report template button is clicked. Customized
default reports are created under Custom Templates in Existing Templates when
a new template is created after clicking the Create a new report template but-
ton. The correct Layout Type and Preview Node must be selected using the
drop-down menu in the Layout File Properties section. To display the drop-down
menu, click the value in the Value field. After modifying the template, assign a

new template name to create another template, or the template is updated with
changes made when the Save report template button is clicked.
l Custom Templates — displays the custom templates. The custom templates

can be accessed by clicking Custom Templates in the Existing Reports and
Templates section. Custom templates can be created from default templates or
custom templates. On the Preview Report tab, custom templates are displayed in
the Custom Templates folder.
l All Templates — displays the default and custom templates. They can be
accessed by clicking All Templates in the Existing Reports and Templates sec-
tion.

Comparison Plot Tab
Plots or datasets from anywhere within WellTest or another Fekete application can be displayed on
the Comparison Plot tab. One common use for this is to overlay typecurve responses from different
flow / shut-in periods within the same test, or from analog wells.
The easiest way to get data into the comparison plot is to copy-and- paste a plot into the comparison
plot.
1. Right-click the plot and select Copy Plot.
2. Click the Comparison Plot tab; right-click below the tab and select Paste Plot.

Note: The same procedure can be followed to overlay a different plot.
Now the datasets from both plots are displayed on the same comparison plot. If two data-
sets with the same color and symbol are pasted onto the same plot, the symbols for the
second dataset will automatically be changed, so that the curves may be easily dis-
tinguished from one another.
3. (Optional) Modifications to dataset names, symbols, and line types can be made by right-
clicking the comparison plot and selecting Customize.

4. (Optional) Individual datasets may also be sent to the comparison plot by right-clicking a
data point on any plot and selecting Send to Comparison Plot.

Deconvolution Tab
The screenshot below shows the standard deconvolution interface. Note that any of the plots can be
docked or undocked by double-clicking anywhere in the plot area.
Deconvolution Plots
Deconvolution plots are described below.
Deconvolved Typecurve
This plot displays the deconvolved typecurve (unit rate pressure response) for the reservoir. Note
that until the deconvolution is run, this plot only shows the initial typecurve specified in the task bar,
and does not show the final result.
Data Typecurve
This plot displays the match between the deconvolved and selected typecurve data. Additional flow
periods can be displayed (overlayed) on this plot in one of two ways:
1. By toggling the Show TC checkboxes on the task bar.

2. By right-clicking the Total Test plot over a flow period and selecting Show Typecurve from
the popup menu.
Total Test
This plot displays the pressure and rate history. Pressure points can be selected (light blue) or
deselected (white) for fitting on this plot.
Task Bar
The task bar provides an easy way of displaying flow periods, selecting points, and selecting the ini-
tial TypeCurve (TC). Each row corresponds to either a DrawDown (DD) or a BuildUp (BU) period.
The task bar can be docked, undocked, or hidden as needed.
l Show TC — Toggle these checkboxes to show / hide any flow period on the
Data Typecurve plot. (TC = Type Curve)
l Select Periods — Toggle these checkboxes to select / deselect any flow period
pressure data for fitting.
l Initial TC — Click a radio button to select which flow period typecurve to use as
the initial Deconvolved Typecurve. By default, the final buildup is selected. The
initial typecurve can also be manually adjusted by clicking-and-dragging any
derivative point (red) on the Deconvolved Typecurve plot. Alternatively, you can
use the Linear Point Alignment option from the toolbar on the Deconvolved Type-
curve plot by clicking a derivative point (red) and drawing a trend line that the
derivative points should follow. When the left mouse button is released the deriv-
ative points is aligned along this trend line.
Note: After any change to the derivative, the Pu curve is updated accordingly.

Control Panel
In the Control Panel, you can modify various deconvolution parameters / options and display the fit-
ting results. You can also start and stop the deconvolution fit.
Note: For more information on deconvolution parameters and how they affect the fit, see Decon-
volution Theory.
Toolbar
The toolbar icons are as follows (described from left-to-right):

l Filter The Data — Opens the Filter Well Data dialog box (Data Reduction Mod-
ule), which is used to filter out noisy / unreliable data.
l Initialize Typecurve — Resets the Deconvolved Typecurve to the selected ini-

tial typecurve (Init TC) on the task bar.
l Run Deconvolution — Starts the fitting (deconvolution / minimization) process

to determine the Deconvolved Typecurve that best fits the data.
l Stop Deconvolution — Stops the fitting (deconvolution / minimization) process

if it is running.
Anchor / Initial Pressure

Click a radio button to select which pressure to anchor to in order to determine the initial pressure
(pi) used for fitting. The three options are:
1. pi — Use the specified pi (no anchor); note that the specified pi can be entered in the field, or
set by clicking-and-dragging the calculated pressure curve on the Total Test plot up or
down. Selecting the checkbox for this parameter includes it during the fitting process. We
recommend that when pi is not known, that the other anchoring options be used to minimize
instability during the fitting process.
2. pwfo — Anchor to the final flowing pressure before the last buildup is selected; pi is back-cal-
culated so the calculated pressure curve on the Total Test plot matches this point.
3. Any Point — Anchor on any pressure point. After selecting this option, click the pressure
point on the Total Test plot to anchor to. The A # symbol is displayed over the pressure point
you are anchored to when this option is on. To change the anchor point at a later time, click
the anchor icon on the Total Test plot toolbar and click another pressure point.
Typecurve Options
These parameters directly affect the Deconvolved Typecurve, as well as the calculated pressure:
l NDer — Sets the number of points on the Deconvolved Typecurve

derivative. Increasing this value adds more resolution to the typecurve, but
reduces the calculation performance during fitting.
l Pu1 — Sets the value of the first point of the pu curve on the Deconvolved Type-
curve. Selecting the checkbox for this parameter includes it in the fitting process.
Note that the fitting process may take longer to run when this parameter is set to
auto. We do not recommend fitting on this parameter and pi at the same time, so
as to avoid instability in the fitting process.

Weighting Parameters
These parameters can be used to place more emphasis on various error terms to fine-tune the fit. By
default, all the weighting factors are set to 1.0 (no weighting).
l Wpres — Sets the weighting factor that the pressure error (Epres) is multiplied
by during the fit.
l Wcurv — Sets the weighting factor that the curvature error (Ecurv) is multiplied
by during the fit.
l Wrate — Sets the weighting factor that the rate error (Erate) is multiplied by dur-
ing the fit. Note that this option is only visible when the Adjust Rates option is
selected.
l Adjust Rates — Select this checkbox to include rate corrections in the fit. If this
checkbox is not selected, the Wrate and Erate parameters are hidden.
Deconvolution Results
These fields display the following calculated errors during the fit.
l Epres — The overall error between the measured and calculated pressures.
l Ecurv — The curvature error. Represents the amount of curvature on the deriv-
ative of the Deconvolved Typecurve. The more linear the derivative curve, the
smaller this value will be.
l Erate — The overall error between the measured and calculated rates.
l ETLS — The total least squares error, which is a summation of all the errors.
Advanced Options
Clicking the Advanced Options button displays the following options:
l Minimization Method — Sets the method to use for fitting (minimization). The
default recommended method is More-Hebdon. Other methods (Line Search and
Double Dog Leg) can be used in this order, if the current method fails to find a
solution.
l Initialization Method — Sets the method used to initialize the Deconvolved

Typecurve. The default method is Use Initial TC, which initializes the typecurve
to the flow period specified in the Initial TC column of the task bar. The Radial
method initializes the typecurve as pure radial flow (straight line) based on the
flow period specified in the Initial TC column of the task bar.

Filtering
Filtering is used to remove noisy and/or unreliable data (e.g., outliers) and reduce the number of
points to improve performance when fitting. For these reasons, we recommend filtering the data
prior to setting up or running the fit.
There are two ways to filter data:
1. Click the Filter The Data icon on the Control Panel toolbar to open the Filter Well Data dia-
log box (Data Reduction Module). Modify the filtering options as needed to filter the data
accordingly. Any filter settings that are changed are saved and used again in subsequent fil-
ter operations.
Note: Each time you use this filter option, all the flow periods (Select Periods column on the
task bar) are re-selected in order to include them in the filtering process.
2. Select the Filter Data menu option from the popup menu on the Total Test plot. The filter is
applied only to the flow period the mouse hovered over when right-clicking. Note that this fil-
ter option does not remove any points from the dataset, but rather deselects the pressure
points based on the filter, so they are not included when fitting.

Advanced Models Tab
These sub-tabs reside under the Advanced Models tab:
Model Manager
Advanced Numerical Models

Model Manager Tab
The Model Manager tab is a sub-tab under Advanced Models where you can create models. Click-
ing any of the models lets you view a schematic and a brief description of the selected model.
Note: For task-based instructions, see Creating a Model.

Advanced Analytical Models Tab
A new advanced analytical model tab is displayed within the Advanced Models tab after you create a
new analytical model. The analytical model tab contains a toolbar, tabs in the main content pane
(i.e., Plots, Forecast and Test Design, and Tables), as well as an Analytical Model Inputs pane on
the left side.
Toolbar
The left-side toolbar is located just below the analytical model tab and provides the following options
(described from left-to-right):

l Apply Defaults — Populates all parameters with available defaults. In WellTest,
default values are available from analyses, legacy models, and advanced models.
l Automatic Parameter Estimation — Starts automatic parameter estimation.
l AutoCalc — When selected, the model calculates immediately following a change to

the model's input parameters. When deselected, the model only recalculates when
you click the Synthesize icon.
l Synthesize — Calculates the model.
l CalcP — Calculates a synthetic pressure using measured rate as an input.
l CalcR — Calculates a synthetic rate using measured pressure as an input.
l CalcBoth — Calculates a synthetic pressure using measured rate as the input, and
calculates a synthetic rate using measured pressure as an input.
l Derivative Options — Launches a dialog box where you can specify derivative cal-
culation options.
l Copy to / Paste from Clipboard -- "Copy to Clipboard" copies the current values of
model parameters to the clipboard. "Paste from Clipboard" pastes the model para-
meters that have been copied to the clipboard. If model parameters have not been
copied to the clipboard, the Paste from Clipboard option is not available.
Another toolbar is located on the far right. With the first four icons, you can replace one of
the existing plots with a different plot, and with the fifth icon, you can add a new floating view.
When any of these icon are clicked, a menu with available plot types is displayed. There is
also a checkbox for Corrected Pseudo Time.

Analytical Model Inputs Pane
The Analytical Model Inputs pane is where all modeling parameters are entered. The available
model parameters depend on the model type and fluid type, which were selected in the Model Man-
ager when creating the advanced analytical model.

Plots Tab
This view is split into four sections, each displaying a schematic or a plot. The item displayed in each
section can be changed using the icons on the right-side toolbar.

l The Schematic is an overhead view of the reservoir with dimensions for size and
well location. Dimensions and well location can be adjusted by clicking-and-dragging
over any of the light blue arrows.
l The History plot is a Cartesian plot of the measured and synthetic data. It is used to
select the flow and shut-in periods that are displayed on the Specialized and Deriv-
ative plots. Click the bottom section of the plot to select or deselect a region. Multiple
flow and shut-in periods may be selected at the same time.

l Specialized plots are designed to display the data from both drawdown (or injection)
and buildup (or falloff) flow periods on the same plot. They linearize the data for a spe-
cific flow regime. Specialized plots for different flow regimes are available from the
Plot Selection icon on the right-side toolbar.
l The Derivative plot shows the data and the Der (semilog derivative) for all periods
selected on the History plot.
l The Buildup / Falloff plots are the traditional plots used to linearize the data for a
specific flow regime. They only display data from shut-in periods.

As shown above, time options my be changed by right-clicking the x-axis title of Specialized,
Buildup / Falloff, or Derivative plots.
Forecast and Test Design Tab

In the Forecast and Test Design tab, you can estimate reservoir gas, oil, or water production rates /
pressures using a model based on your specified reservoir properties and forecasting parameters.
This tab has two sections: a Results plot and a Forecast table.

Note: Production / pressure history is not required to generate test design scenarios. The para-
meters of the test design scenario are entered in the Forecast table.

Results Plot
The Results plot shows the production history, pressure data, and the model match, if they exist. In
addition, forecasted data is displayed, which consists of a fluid rate, forecasted pressure, and the
average reservoir pressure. If more than one forecast case is present, the results of each are dis-
played on the Results plot.
Forecasting
Forecasting in the Advanced Models takes the production history into account and does not com-
mence assuming static reservoir conditions. A forecast may be generated based on your reservoir
model parameters and specified forecasting parameters.
See Forecasting in Advanced Models for details.
Forecast Parameters
Several additional features exist in the Forecast pane that can be used to customize the forecast.
This pane consists of the following three sections:
1. Forecast Options
2. Forecast Constraints
3. Forecast Results
Note: Each of these sections can be expanded or collapsed by clicking the +/- box.
Forecast Options
The Forecast Options section is where forecast periods are defined according to either durations
(e.g., months), or dates.
l Setting the forecast time method to Duration begins a forecast at a specified start
date. Forecast periods are then defined in the forecast table according to a length of
time (the default is months). For each forecast period, different operating conditions
can be specified.
l Setting the forecast time method to Start Date creates a forecast of a specified length
of time (the default is months). Forecast periods are then defined in the forecast table
according to calendar dates.

If you select Duration from the Forecast Time Method drop-down menu, the Start Date is auto-
matically populated. (You can change this date later, if needed.)
If you select Start Date from the Forecast Time Method drop-down menu, enter a value for Duration
(i.e., the total length of the forecast).
The Forecast Flowing Pressure can also be set in the Forecast Options section. If a Gas Condens-
ate well is being analyzed, the Separate Recombined Gas option is available in Forecast Options.
Further details about each forecast period are entered in the forecast options table.

Each row of the table above represents a forecast period. An additional forecast period can be
added each time an operational change is encountered (e.g., the flowing pressure decreases when
a compressor is added). The forecast options table has the following sections:
l Time – defines the length of each forecast period and each timestep, and has the fol-
lowing columns:
n Step Type – sets the spacing of the timesteps, and can

be set to either Arithmetic or Logarithmic. The Arithmetic
step type spaces the number of timesteps equally over
the total duration of the period, whereas the Logarithmic
step type spaces the number of timesteps logarithmically
(i.e., increased density near the beginning of the fore-
cast).
n Forecast Time Method (Duration / Start Date) – sets the

length of the forecast period. If Forecast Time Method is
set to Duration, this column displays Duration. If Forecast
Time Method is set to Start Date, this column displays
Start Date.
n # of Steps – sets the number of timesteps in the forecast

period.
l Control – defines how the operating conditions change over the forecast period, and
has the following columns:
n Interpolation – can be set to either Step or Ramp. Step

keeps the control type constant over the forecast period.
Ramp varies the control type linearly from an initial value,
to a final value.
n Control Type – sets what is used to calculate the forecast.

The options for this column are dependent on the type of
analysis being performed. For analytical models and type-
curves, choices are pressure, and the primary fluid of the
analysis. For example, when creating a Gas Analytical
Model, the forecast can be run using either flowing pres-
sure, or gas rate. For numerical models, choices are pres-
sure, and any fluid that is present in the model.
l Sandface Pressure – If the Control Type is set to Pressure, this column is displayed,
and it is used to set the flowing pressure for the forecast period. If Interpolation is set
to Step, only the initial pressure cell is editable. If Interpolation is set to Ramp, initial
pressure and final pressure are selectable.
l Gas/Oil/Water Rate – If the Control Type is set to Gas, Oil, or Water, this column is
displayed, and it is used to set the rate for the forecast period. If Interpolation is set to

Step, only the initial rate's cell is editable. If Interpolation is set to Ramp, initial rate
and final rate are editable.
l Ratios – If a gas condensate system is being forecasted, this column is displayed,

and it is used to define how relevant ratios change over the forecast (e.g., CGR,
WGR, WOR, GOR). A separate interpolation method can be set for the ratios. This
interpolation method applies to all ratios, but it is independent of the interpolation
method set for the control.
Forecast Constraints
The Forecast Constraints section is where maximum rate conditions and abandonment rate con-
ditions for the forecast can be entered. Available constraints depend on the analysis type, and could
include the following:
l pmin – The minimum allowable sandface flowing pressure during the forecast. In
order to ensure flowing pressure does not go below this value, rates are adjusted.
l (qg)max – Sets a maximum gas rate during the forecast. In order to maintain the max-
imum gas rate constraint, flowing pressure is adjusted.
l (qw)max – Sets a maximum water rate during the forecast. In order to maintain the
maximum water rate constraint, flowing pressure is adjusted.
l (qo)max – Sets a maximum oil rate during the forecast. In order to maintain the max-
imum oil rate constraint, flowing pressure is adjusted.
l (qg)ab – Sets the abandonment gas rate for the forecast. When the abandonment
rate is reached, the forecast ends.
l (qw)ab – Sets the abandonment water rate for the forecast. When the abandonment
l (qo)ab – Sets the abandonment oil rate for the forecast. When the abandonment rate
is reached, the forecast ends.
For analytical models, the available constraints include a minimum flowing pressure, as well as max-
imum and abandonment rates corresponding to the fluid being analyzed. For example, a gas ana-
lytical model includes pmin, (qg)max, and (qg)ab. Numerical models include minimum flowing
pressure, as well as maximum and abandonment rates for all fluids in the model.
Forecast Results
The Forecast Results section is where the results of the forecast are summarized. Available results
depend on the analysis type, and could include the following:
l EUR – Expected Ultimate Recovery (EUR).

l RR – Remaining Recoverable (RR).
Note: For wells with historical data, EUR is defined as the cumulative of the historical data up to
the beginning of the forecast, after which time, the synthetic cumulative calculated from the
model is used until the end of the forecast.
For typecurve and analytical models, EUR and RR of the fluid being analyzed are available. When
analyzing a gas condensate system, EUR and RR of the condensate phase are also available. For
numerical models, EUR and RR of all the fluids in the model are available.
Tables Tab
The Tables tab is a tabular display of the data within each plot in the Plots tab.

Advanced Numerical Models Tab
A new advanced numerical model tab is displayed within the Advanced Models tab after you create
a new numerical model. The numerical model tab contains a toolbar, tabs in the main content pane
(i.e., Plots, Forecast and Test Design, Tables, and Status), as well as tabs in the left-side navigation
pane (i.e., Reservoir and Options).
Toolbar
The left-side toolbar is located just below the numerical model tab and provides the following options
(described from left-to-right):
l Apply Defaults — Populates all parameters with available defaults. In WellTest,

default values are available from analyses, legacy models, and advanced models.
l Synthesize — Starts the numerical modeling simulation.
l Stop Synthesize — Stops the numerical modeling simulation. This icon is only
enabled during a simulation.
l Copy to / Paste from Clipboard -— "Copy to Clipboard" copies the current values
of model parameters to the clipboard. "Paste from Clipboard" pastes the model para-
meters that have been copied to the clipboard. If model parameters have not been
copied to the clipboard, the Paste from Clipboard option is not available.

Another toolbar is located on the far right. With the first four icons, you can replace one of
the existing plots with a different plot, and with the fifth icon, you can add a new floating view.
When any of these icons are clicked, a menu with available plot types is displayed.
Reservoir Tab
The Reservoir tab is where all modeling parameters are entered. The available model parameters
depend on the model type and fluid type, which were selected in the Model Manager when creating
the numerical model. To update the history match and forecast results, update the parameters and
click the Synthesize icon on the toolbar.

Options Tab
The Options tab displays the numerical modeling options.
l Uniform Grid: Set this option to divide the grid blocks evenly, so that each grid block
is the same size. This results in faster performance, but may not accurately model
transient regions as well.
n #max — Sets the maximum number of divisions to divide the reservoir into.
The fewer the number of divisions, the faster the performance.
l Geometric Grid (Default): Set this option to divide the grid blocks geometrically, so
that there are more grid blocks near the well, and fewer away from the well. This res-
ults in slower performance, but models transient regions more accurately.
n rb — Sets the geometric block ratio, which controls the spacing of the blocks
from the wellbore to the outer portion of the reservoir.

n Min Block Size — Sets the minimum block size to start from.
n Max Block Size — Sets the maximum block size.
l Fine Wellbore Grid: Turns fine wellbore gridding on / off to further divide the blocks
near the wellbore. This option results in slower performance, but models wellbore
effects such as skin and wellbore storage (afterflow) more accurately.
l Show Visual Output: Enable / disable the gradient results during simulation. If gradi-
ent results are not important, disable this option to increase performance.
Plots Tab
This view is split into four sections, each displaying a schematic, history data, pressure profiles, or
plan views. The item displayed in each section can be changed using the icons on the right-side tool-
bar.
l The schematic is an overhead view of the reservoir with dimensions for size and well
location. Dimensions and well location can be adjusted by clicking-and-dragging over
any of the light blue arrows. Results of pi and OGIP, OOIP, and OWIP are also dis-
played in the upper-right-corner of the view for easy reference.
l The x-y plan views display the pressure or saturation gradients at each time step.
The results can be viewed during, or after the simulation run using the standard video
playback buttons on the toolbar within the view.

Forecast and Test Design Tab
In the Forecast and Test Design tab, you can estimate reservoir gas, oil, or water production rates /
pressures using a model based on your specified reservoir properties and forecasting parameters.
This tab has two sections: a Results plot and a Forecast table.

Note: Production / pressure history is not required to generate test design scenarios. The para-
meters of the test design scenario are entered in the Forecast table.
Results Plot
The Results plot shows the production history, pressure data, and the model match, if they exist. In
addition, forecasted data is displayed, which consists of a fluid rate, forecasted pressure, and the
average reservoir pressure. If more than one forecast case is present, the results of each are dis-
played on the Results plot.
Forecasting
Forecasting in the Advanced Models takes the production history into account and does not com-
mence assuming static reservoir conditions. A forecast may be generated based on your reservoir
model parameters and specified forecasting parameters.
See Forecasting in Advanced Models for details.
Forecast Parameters
Several additional features exist in the Forecast pane that can be used to customize the forecast.
This pane consists of the following three sections:
1. Forecast Options
2. Forecast Constraints
3. Forecast Results
Note: Each of these sections can be expanded or collapsed by clicking the +/- box.
Forecast Options
The Forecast Options section is where forecast periods are defined according to either durations
(e.g., months), or dates.
l Setting the forecast time method to Duration begins a forecast at a specified start
date. Forecast periods are then defined in the forecast table according to a length of
time (the default is months). For each forecast period, different operating conditions
can be specified.

l Setting the forecast time method to Start Date creates a forecast of a specified length
of time (the default is months). Forecast periods are then defined in the forecast table
according to calendar dates.
If you select Duration from the Forecast Time Method drop-down menu, the Start Date is auto-
matically populated. (You can change this date later, if needed.)
If you select Start Date from the Forecast Time Method drop-down menu, enter a value for Duration
(i.e., the total length of the forecast).
The Forecast Flowing Pressure can also be set in the Forecast Options section. If a Gas Condens-
ate well is being analyzed, the Separate Recombined Gas option is available in Forecast Options.
Further details about each forecast period are entered in the forecast options table.

Each row of the table above represents a forecast period. An additional forecast period can be
added each time an operational change is encountered (e.g., the flowing pressure decreases when
a compressor is added). The forecast options table has the following sections:
l Time – defines the length of each forecast period and each timestep, and has the fol-
lowing columns:
n Step Type – sets the spacing of the timesteps, and can

be set to either Arithmetic or Logarithmic. The Arithmetic
step type spaces the number of timesteps equally over
the total duration of the period, whereas the Logarithmic
step type spaces the number of timesteps logarithmically
(i.e., increased density near the beginning of the fore-
cast).
n Forecast Time Method (Duration / Start Date) – sets the

length of the forecast period. If Forecast Time Method is
set to Duration, this column displays Duration. If Forecast
Time Method is set to Start Date, this column displays
Start Date.
n # of Steps – sets the number of timesteps in the forecast

period.
l Control – defines how the operating conditions change over the forecast period, and
has the following columns:
n Interpolation – can be set to either Step or Ramp. Step

keeps the control type constant over the forecast period.
Ramp varies the control type linearly from an initial value,
to a final value.
n Control Type – sets what is used to calculate the forecast.

The options for this column are dependent on the type of
analysis being performed. For analytical models and type-
curves, choices are pressure, and the primary fluid of the
analysis. For example, when creating a Gas Analytical
Model, the forecast can be run using either flowing pres-
sure, or gas rate. For numerical models, choices are pres-
sure, and any fluid that is present in the model.

l Sandface Pressure – If the Control Type is set to Pressure, this column is displayed,
and it is used to set the flowing pressure for the forecast period. If Interpolation is set
to Step, only the initial pressure cell is editable. If Interpolation is set to Ramp, initial
pressure and final pressure are selectable.
l Gas/Oil/Water Rate – If the Control Type is set to Gas, Oil, or Water, this column is
displayed, and it is used to set the rate for the forecast period. If Interpolation is set to
Step, only the initial rate's cell is editable. If Interpolation is set to Ramp, initial rate
and final rate are editable.
l Ratios – If a gas condensate system is being forecasted, this column is displayed,

and it is used to define how relevant ratios change over the forecast (e.g., CGR,
WGR, WOR, GOR). A separate interpolation method can be set for the ratios. This
interpolation method applies to all ratios, but it is independent of the interpolation
method set for the control.
Forecast Constraints
The Forecast Constraints section is where maximum rate conditions and abandonment rate con-
ditions for the forecast can be entered. Available constraints depend on the analysis type, and could
include the following:
l pmin – The minimum allowable sandface flowing pressure during the forecast. In
order to ensure flowing pressure does not go below this value, rates are adjusted.
l (qg)max – Sets a maximum gas rate during the forecast. In order to maintain the max-
imum gas rate constraint, flowing pressure is adjusted.
l (qw)max – Sets a maximum water rate during the forecast. In order to maintain the
maximum water rate constraint, flowing pressure is adjusted.
l (qo)max – Sets a maximum oil rate during the forecast. In order to maintain the max-
imum oil rate constraint, flowing pressure is adjusted.
l (qg)ab – Sets the abandonment gas rate for the forecast. When the abandonment
l (qw)ab – Sets the abandonment water rate for the forecast. When the abandonment
l (qo)ab – Sets the abandonment oil rate for the forecast. When the abandonment rate
is reached, the forecast ends.
For analytical models, the available constraints include a minimum flowing pressure, as well as max-
imum and abandonment rates corresponding to the fluid being analyzed. For example, a gas ana-
lytical model includes pmin, (qg)max, and (qg)ab. Numerical models include minimum flowing
pressure, as well as maximum and abandonment rates for all fluids in the model.

Forecast Results
The Forecast Results section is where the results of the forecast are summarized. Available results
depend on the analysis type, and could include the following:
l EUR – Expected Ultimate Recovery (EUR).
l RR – Remaining Recoverable (RR).
Note: For wells with historical data, EUR is defined as the cumulative of the historical data up to
the beginning of the forecast, after which time, the synthetic cumulative calculated from the
model is used until the end of the forecast.
For typecurve and analytical models, EUR and RR of the fluid being analyzed are available. When
analyzing a gas condensate system, EUR and RR of the condensate phase are also available. For
numerical models, EUR and RR of all the fluids in the model are available.
Tables Tab
The Tables tab contains a sub-tab for the History Match and another for the Forecast. These sub-
tabs display the results of the simulation in tabular format.

Status Tab
The Status tab displays detailed information about the simulation run. Various statistics along with
warnings and errors can be viewed here.

Wizard Menu
The Wizard menu at the top of the screen is also accessible by clicking the Activate Wizard icon (
) on the main toolbar.
Note: A checkmark indicates the last wizard step that was active when the wizard was closed.
The Wizard is designed to guide you through the software from start to finish. As a result, we recom-
mend that you follow each step in the order presented. To move to the next step in the Wizard, click
the Next> button to continue. Wizard steps may be grayed-out if they don't apply to the current file,
or if information from preceding wizard steps is required.
Click the following links to learn more about specific Wizard steps:
Remove Unnecessary Analysis History

Test type Filter
Data Method Match
Startup Production / Injection Adjust Gauge Pressure to Analysis Para-

Before the Test Datum Depth meters
Import Data Effective Producing Time Properties Flow Period
Data Man- Calculate Sandface Pres- Analysis
Specify Shut-in Points
agement sures Lines
Select Data to Model Selec-
Reservoir Fluid Type Headers
Analyze tion

WellTest Wizard: Adjust Gauge Pressure to
Datum Depth
All of the equations and plots used in pressure transient analysis are developed for analyzing sand-
face pressures. As a result, when preparing wellhead pressures for analysis we calculate sandface
pressures. Similarly, when preparing downhole gauge data for analysis, we apply an adjustment to
convert the run depth pressures to sandface conditions, and this dialog box facilitates the adjust-
ment.
l The pressure adjustment can be entered manually.
l Or, the pressure adjustment can be calculated based on gauge depth, datum depth,
and fluid gradient.
The pressure adjustment accounts for the hydrostatic head between the gauge depth and datum
depth. As a result, true vertical depth (TVD) should be used for gauge and datum depths when cal-
culating the pressure adjustment. If the gauge depth is below the datum depth, the adjustment will
be negative.
Pressure adjustment = ( Datum Depth (TVD) – Gauge Depth (TVD) ) * Fluid Gradient

WellTest Wizard: Analysis Lines
This dialog box includes a series of buttons with different flow regimes and their corresponding
slopes on the derivative (typecurve) plot. Each flow regime has a corresponding analysis plot. Click-
ing one of these options will add an analysis line to the appropriate analysis plot, and a typecurve
line to the derivative plot.
Clicking the Show Example button opens the help topic corresponding to that flow regime.
Note: The Analysis Lines option is only enabled in the Wizard menu when the current view is an
analysis or model tab.

WellTest Wizard: Analysis Method
This dialog box is the starting point of an analysis. You will be prompted to select either a Diagnostic
Analysis or Model.
We recommend selecting Diagnostic Analysis in order to get initial estimates of reservoir
parameters, and to help choose the appropriate type of model.
If your test type is Minifrac, you will be prompted to select one of the following diagnostic analyses:
WellTest Wizard: Specify wellbore type

After you select Diagnostic Analysis, the WellTest Wizard: Specify wellbore type dialog
box opens. This dialog box prompts you to select the type of wellbore you would like to use
for your analysis.

WellTest Wizard: Analysis Parameters
This dialog box prompts you enter the parameters required to conduct an analysis.
In addition to the required inputs, it is often appropriate to modify parameters that have default val-
ues by editing them in the Parameters dialog box.
Saturations
Default values for saturations should be adjusted to reflect your reservoir conditions. These are used
to calculate total compressibility, which is used in all of the analysis line calculations. For the gas
fluid type, gas saturation defaults to 80%, oil saturation defaults to 0%, and water saturation defaults
to 20%. For the oil fluid type, gas saturation defaults to 0%, oil saturation defaults to 80%, and water
saturation defaults to 20%. For the water fluid type, gas saturation defaults to 0%, oil saturation
defaults to 0%, and water saturation defaults to 100%.
Formation Compressibility
The default value for formation compressibility, cf, is calculated using the entered porosity and Hall’s
correlation for consolidated sandstones, and is not suitable for all reservoirs. For example, naturally
fractured, geo-pressured and coalbed methane reservoirs have higher formation compressibility.
Formation compressibility affects the total compressibility, which is used in analysis line calculations.
Wellbore Radius
Wellbore radius (rw) defaults to 0.3 ft (0.0914 m) and should be changed to suit your wellbore dimen-
sions.

Datum depth (TVD)
For minifrac pre-closure analyses, datum depth (TVD) defaults to the value specified in the wellbore
schematic, if sandface pressures were calculated.

WellTest Wizard: Calculate Sandface Pres-
sures
This step is only available if you have wellhead pressures in the Production Editor. This dialog box
will help you convert wellhead pressures to sandface pressures.
By selecting Yes, the Wellbore Calculations dialog box opens. For additional information, see Cal-
culating Sandface Pressures.

WellTest Wizard: Data Management
All imported data is automatically assigned a gauge name (which can be renamed), and is displayed
in a table with a corresponding plot. Data can be removed, inserted, or manipulated in any gauge.
This can be performed graphically by using the tools in the plot toolbar (see , or manually within the
data table by using standard Microsoft editing functions.
l Data from different gauges or datasets contained within a single gauge can by syn-
chronized.
l Data from different gauges (i.e. imported from different files) can be merged .
l Datasets contained within a gauge can be smoothed.
l Datasets contained within a gauge can be reduced / smoothed using a combination

of time and resolution filters. Files containing more than 1,000,000 rows can
encounter hardware memory issues. Applying the arithmetic time filter will reduce the
number of rows and prevent this problem.
Any data required for analysis must be transferred to the Production Editor. Click Next to open the
WellTest Wizard: Select data to analyze dialog box.

WellTest Wizard: Effective Producing Time
In this dialog box, you can calculate and apply an effective producing time.
The effective producing time can be entered manually, when the radio button beside Eff. Prod.
Time is selected. Or, it can be calculated using cumulative production and the rate of the primary
fluid, when the radio button beside Cum. Prod. is selected.
To calculate the effective producing time using this dialog box, select the primary reservoir fluid type
from the Reservoir Fluid Type drop-down list, and enter cumulative production and rate.
After effective producing time has been entered or calculated, it can be applied by clicking Next or
Finish, with the following results:
l A row is inserted at the top of the Production Editor.
l The date of this row is back-calculated to honour the effective producing time. The
cumulative time in row 1 is zero, and the cumulative time in row 2 is the effective pro-
ducing time.
l The gas, oil and/or water rates that were entered in the Effective Producing Time dia-
log box will be displayed in row 2. Since WellTest displays end of period rates, pro-
duction at these rates starts at the date specified in row 1, and continues to the date
specified in row 2.
Review the data table to ensure that previous production rates have been applied over the correct
time interval by scaling to display a cumulative time of zero.

WellTest Wizard: Filter
The Filter dialog box allows you to set up filter parameters, and then apply the filter when preparing
data for analysis. For additional information, see Filtering.
The data is segmented into flow and shut-in periods and different filtering parameters may be
applied to each period. It is very important that the flow and shut-in periods have been correctly spe-
cified before filtering. With the checkboxes you can select the filter mode (e.g., logarithmic, arith-
metic, or no filter) for each period. The values in the Logarithmic Points Per Cycle and Arithmetic
Time Step columns are editable. The Current and Remaining Data Points columns keep track of how
many points there originally were, and how many points remain after the filter is applied. The final
row shows the total number of points before and after filtering.
Logarithmic filtering keeps more data at the start of the flow period, when the pressure is changing a
lot with time, and less data at the end, when the change in pressure is more gradual. (This is the
default for all shut-in periods.) Arithmetic filtering takes evenly spaced points (e.g., 1 point per hour)
and is the default for all flowing (or injecting) periods.
The filtering defaults are very conservative and keep way more data than is necessary. For example,
a handful of derivative points could accurately describe the trend within any log cycle, including a

transition out of wellbore storage. By default, we keep 500 points per cycle of shut-in data. As a res-
ult, most users apply the filter without changing the default filtering parameters.

WellTest Wizard: Flow Period
In this dialog box, you can specify your flow period.
For conventional tests, the data in the History plot is partitioned into flowing (and injecting) and shut-
in periods. Any period can be selected for analysis and the selected period is displayed with a gray
background. To select a period, click the FP button on the History plot’s toolbar.
Then, click the History plot in the region you would like to analyze.

WellTest Wizard: Headers
In this dialog box, you can type the headers you would like displayed in the top corners of all reports
and plots that are created within WellTest.

WellTest Wizard: History Match
History Matching is the process of manipulating reservoir model parameters until the synthetic data
generated by the model matches data measured in the field. For additional information, see the His-
tory Matching procedure.
It helps us assess the suitability of the model, characterize the reservoir, and calibrate the model
prior to forecasting.
This dialog box is only used in the Models / Plots tab, and it describes how history matching can be
done.

WellTest Wizard: Import Data
To import data, the wizard takes you through a series of dialog boxes, which vary based on the type
of file that is being imported. See Importing Data for more information.

WellTest Wizard: Model Selection
You must be on an Analysis or Model tab to be able to choose this option from the Wizard menu.
Also, models are disabled if there is insufficient data to run the model, or if the model is not sup-
ported by the selected test type.
Select any available model from the list, and click Next to create a new model tab in WellTest.

WellTest Wizard: Production / Injection
before the test
It is essential to capture production that occurred before the test because it affects the analysis. For
example, it significantly affects the superposition time functions used to calculate the Derivative,
which is used to identify flow regimes.
In many cases, prior production data may be imported and brought into the Production Editor. It is
common for prior production and test production data to come from different ASCII files. In this scen-
ario, you may import both files separately, merge them, and then bring the merged dataset into the
Production Editor. See Loading Data into the Production Editor for additional information.
When prior production data is not available in a format that is easy to import, you can enter it into the
Production Editor manually, or specify an effective producing time.
Using an effective production time will provide reliable analysis results, if production / injection peri-
ods are not interrupted by significant shut-in periods, or major rate fluctuations. Otherwise, the pro-
duction / injection should be entered in sufficient detail to provide a good representation of the rate
history.

WellTest Wizard: Properties
The Properties dialog box is a step in the Wizard and can be accessed via the Wizard menu. It
prompts you to enter the reservoir pressure, temperature, and gravity of the currently selected reser-
voir fluid type. It is also important to enter properties of other fluids for calculating sandface pres-
sures.
Gas gravity impacts the oil correlations and should be entered for oil wells. To enter properties of the
non-primary fluid types, navigate to the Gas Properties, Oil Properties, and Water Properties sub-
tabs within the Properties tab and manually enter the properties (outside of the wizard).
Reservoir Temperature and Pressure

The default reservoir temperature is 48.9 C (120 F), but this should be changed to reflect the actual
temperature of your reservoir. The default reservoir pressure is the highest measured pressure for
drawdown / buildup tests, or the lowest measured pressure for injection / falloff tests in the Pro-
duction Editor. This default setting is updated automatically after sandface pressures are calculated.
If the reservoir pressure is considerably different than the default, an estimate of the reservoir pres-
sure should be specified.
Oil Properties
The oil gravity defaults to 0.88 (30 API), and should be changed to reflect the actual relative density
of your reservoir oil. Saturated or undersaturated conditions must be specified to calculate the appro-
priate fluid properties for your reservoir conditions. The default is undersaturated oil.
Gas Properties
The gas gravity defaults to 0.65, and should be changed to reflect the actual relative density of your
reservoir gas. If there is associated condensate production, the gas equivalent of the condensate
can be estimated to establish the total gas rate and recombined gas gravity.

Water Properties
The relative density of water defaults to 1.0, and should be changed to reflect the actual relative
density of your reservoir water. You must specify the water salinity, and whether or not the water is
gas saturated.

WellTest Wizard: Remove Unnecessary
Data
This dialog box provides information on how to remove undesirable data. Pressure data recorded
before or after a test period (i.e., when running or pulling the gauge) should be removed to avoid
complicating the interpretation.
See Deleting Data in the Production Editor for a procedure on how to remove undesirable data.

WellTest Wizard: Reservoir Fluid Type
The reservoir fluid type represents the primary fluid, which is used in the calculations for analyses
and analytical modeling. In reservoirs with significant gas saturation, the gas tends to dominate the
pressure transient because of its high compressibility.
Note: For drawdown / buildup tests, fluid types will be grayed-out unless a rate for the fluid type
has been specified in the Production Editor.
Multiphase Options
Numerical models handle multiphase flow more rigorously than analytical models, and do not use
the reservoir fluid type specified in this wizard. The multiphase options in this dialog box, gas con-
densate (two-phase skin), gas condensate (two-phase pseudo-pressure: gas condensate), and oil &
gas (two-phase pseudo-pressure: solution gas drive), are advanced, but approximate methods of
handling multiphase flow analytically, and do not impact numerical models.
Note: Detailed rock and fluid properties are required to use the multiphase fluid types. These prop-
erties may be entered in the Properties / Multiphase Properties tab.

WellTest Wizard: Select Data to Analyze
In this dialog box, you can transfer data from the Data Management tab to the Production Editor.
Use the drop-down menus beside each data type to select the datasets that you want to use for your
analysis. The Production Editor table will update according to your selections.

WellTest Wizard: Specify Shut-in Points
This dialog box instructs you to ensure all flow and shut-in periods have been specified. Often, impor-
ted production data does not include the zero rate, which indicates the end of production. In these
cases, the zero rate must be entered manually.
Properly identifying the shut-in point in pressure / rate history data is critical to a proper analysis. If
the shut-in is not placed at the correct time, the analysis plots may not display as expected, and the
data will be more difficult to analyze.
Data is segmented into flow and shut-in periods for filtering, and diagnostic analyses based on the
location of the zero-rates in the production history. Also, the shut-in point is used to identify the final
flowing pressure (pwfo), which is used to calculate total skin (s').

WellTest Wizard: Startup
This is the beginning of your project with WellTest. Select the appropriate option in the dialog box
and click Next. For additional information, see the Wizard Menu .

WellTest Wizard: Test Type
The test type:
l Controls which analysis types are available for selection.
l Can modify imported data. When the test type is Injection / Falloff or Minifrac, impor-
ted rates are converted to negative values.
l Affects default settings. For example, the reservoir pressure defaults to the highest
measured pressure for Drawdown / Buildup tests, and the lowest measured pressure
for Injection / Falloff tests.
l Impacts error checking intended to prevent you from making mistakes. For example,
the cushion pressure (pwfo) must be less than the initial pressure (pi) for Perforation
Inflow tests, and greater than for Perforation Injection tests.

Reference Materials
Analysis Theory Radius of Investigation
Changing Liquid Level References
Single-Phase Pseudo-Pres-
Deconvolution Theory
sure
Flow Regimes Skin
Handling Water Production Calculations and Correlations
Interpretation of Buildup Data in Multi-frac Hz

General Concepts
Wells
Nomenclature Reporting
Primary Pressure Derivative Modeling Theory
Pseudo-Pressure Time Functions

Analysis Theory
Specialized and Derivative Analyses can be performed using common techniques found in the lit-
erature. The following table summarizes the key analyses that can be performed and the para-
meters that can be determined:
Analysis Key Results
Afterflow (Wellbore Storage) Analysis C, CD
Bilinear Fracture Flow Analysis kf wf
Closed Chamber Test Analysis k, s', p*
Elliptical Flow Analysis sqrt (ky / kx)
Horizontal Radial Flow Analysis kxy, s', p*
Impulse Radial Analysis p*
Linear Channel Flow Analysis w
Linear Fracture Flow Analysis Xf
Linear Horizontal Flow Analysis ky
PITA Analysis k, s', p*
Pseudo-Steady State Flow Analysis Vp, GIP, OIP
Radial Flow Analysis k, s', p*
Spherical Flow Analysis ks
Vertical Radial Flow Analysis kyz, s', p*

Changing Liquid Level
There are two types of wellbore storage or afterflow phenomenon. These are:
l changing liquid level
l wellbore filled with compressible fluid
In the changing liquid level case, when a producing well is shut-in, the wellbore is not full of liquids
and there exists a gas-liquid interface in the wellbore. As afterflow continues, this liquid level rises in
the case of a buildup test (falls during a fall-off test). The wellbore storage constant in a changing
liquid level case can be expressed as:
(field)
where
Vu = wellbore volumetric capacity, bbl/ft
p = liquid density, lbm/ft3
(metric units)
where
Vu = wellbore volumetric capacity, m3/m
p = liquid density, kg/m3
g = acceleration due to gravity, 9.806 m/s2.
Note: The wellbore volumetric capacity in the above equation is essentially the effective wellbore
area.

Deconvolution Theory
Assuming the reservoir and wellbore properties do not change over time, the governing equation
being linear with respect to pressure, and using the principle of superposition the following equation
can be derived:
Where Pu is the unit rate pressure response of the reservoir.
If we define:
The superposition equation can be re-written as:
Where z is the variable used in the least squares minimization process to calculate the derivative
and Pu such that the total least squares error ETLS is minimized.
The error terms used to determine the minimum error are defined as follows:
Where pm is the measured pressure and pc is the pressure calculated from the preceding super-
position equation.
Where qm is the measured rate and qc is calculated by the least squares minimizer. Erate is zero
unless the Adjust Rates option has been turned on.

The curvature error (Ecurv), is defined as the amount of curvature on the derivative curve. it is a
measure of how smooth the derivative is, so that the smoother the curve the smaller Ecurv. For more
detailed equations on this term please refer to SPE papers 71574 and 77688.
The total least squares error (ETLS) is defined as follows:
Where wx is the weighting parameter for each Ex error term. These values can be adjusted to
improve the fit when needed by placing more emphasis on specific error terms.
References
This deconvolution method is based on the work of Thomas Von Schroeter et al. and Michael M.
Levitan et al. for more information on the concepts of deconvolution please refer to the following
papers: SPE 71574, SPE 77688, SPE 84290, SPE 90680.

Flow Regimes
Flow of fluid in the reservoir flows in different ways at different times. This is often a function of the
shape and size of the reservoir. In this section, the basic flow regimes are categorized in terms of
which time region they occur, and what kind of wellbore (vertical or horizontal) was used to drill into
the formation.
The following are typical derivative and pressure-time plots with the different time categories
marked:
l Early Time (E.T.)
l Steady State (S.S.)
l Pseudo-steady State (P.S.S.)

Specific flow regimes that occur within each of the flow regime categories are listed below (for both
vertical and horizontal wells):
Wellbore Con-
Early Time Middle Time Transition Late Time
figuration
n Wellbore n Radial Flow n Single No n Pseudo-
Storage Flow Steady
Boundary State
n Linear Flow
Fracture n Linear
Vertical Flow Channel n Steady
Wells Flow State
n Bilinear Flow
Fracture
Flow
n Spherical
Flow
n Wellbore n Horizontal n Linear n Pseudo-
Storage Radial Flow Channel Steady
Flow State
n Vertical Flow
Radial
Horizontal Flow n Steady
Wells State
n Linear Flow
Horizontal
Flow
n Elliptical
Flow
n Wellbore n Early Linear n Pseudo-
Storage Flow Steady
(toward frac- State
n Vertical tures) Flow
Radial
Flow n Early Radial
within the Flow
fractures (around
Multi-frac-
each frac-
tured Hori- n Linear ture prior to
zontal Wells Flow interference
(MFHWs) within the between
fractures fracs)
n Bilinear n Compound
Flow Linear Flow
n Late Radial
Flow

Wellbore Con-
Early Time Middle Time Transition Late Time
figuration
(around
MFHW &
fracture net-
work)
Afterflow / Wellbore Storage

When a producing well is shut-in at the surface, flow into the wellbore at sandface continues after
shut-in. This type of flow regime is referred to as afterflow or wellbore storage, and can affect the ana-
lysis of the pressure data.
Note: Data affected by wellbore storage contains little or no information about the reservoir.
Wellbore storage is typically controlled by the compressibility of the fluid in the wellbore. For a gas-
filled wellbore, compressibility is high, and wellbore storage effects occur over a longer period of
time. For a liquid-filled wellbore, compressibility is much lower, and wellbore storage effects dis-
sipate more quickly. In some cases, typically in oil wells, both gas and liquid are present within the
wellbore and the liquid level changes after shut-in. In these cases, wellbore storage is also affected
by the changing liquid level, as well as compressibility.
Wellbore storage can be minimized by using a downhole shut-in. This operation reduces the well-
bore volume and consequently the wellbore fills more quickly so you can see reservoir-dominated
flow faster. This kind of operation is typically used to conduct a Closed Chamber Test (CCT) analysis
to reduce the amount of time needed to gather data to see reservoir effects.

Bilinear Fracture Flow
Bilinear fracture flow occurs in hydraulically fractured wells when the conductivity of the fracture is
finite. In this flow regime, two types of linear flow occur: one from the matrix to the fracture, and one
from the fracture to the wellbore. This is usually evident in long fractures (which are hard to prop
open effectively), or in natural fractures (which contain fracture-fill minerals).

Bilinear Flow – MFHW
In multi-fractured horizontal wells (MFHWs), when the conductivity of the fracture is finite, and the
fracture length is greater than its height, bilinear flow can be observed. It occurs when two linear
flows exist: one within the fracture (towards the well), and one within the formation (towards the frac-
ture). This is identical to bilinear flow in a fractured vertical well.

Compound Linear Flow – MFHW
After the fractures have interfered with each other, compound linear flow may be observed. It is
defined by flow from an outer zone towards the region stimulated by the fractures. This can be
observed in fields where well spacing is sparse. However, with close well spacing, it is not observed
before interference from adjacent producing wells occurs.
Early Linear Flow – MFHW

Identical to linear flow in a hydraulically fractured vertical well, this flow regime occurs when there is
linear flow towards the fractures of a multi-fractured horizontal well (MFHW) and the transients within
the fractures have stabilized.
This linear flow regime is expected to be the dominant flow regime, as demonstrated from production
analysis results (Nobakht, 2011).

Early Radial Flow – MFHW
This flow regime, depicted below, was initially proposed when hydraulic fracturing was first attemp-
ted on horizontal wells in the mid 1990s. It would be observed after the end of the Early Linear Flow,
but before the fractures start interfering with each other. It is only seen if the fractures are far apart or
very short (e.g., acid fracs), and is not likely to be observed with the close fracture spacing of today’s
unconventional wells (Liang et al 2012).
Elliptical Flow
Elliptical Flow occurs when fluid has started to flow from the reservoir at either end of the horizontal
wellbore. It is a transition between linear horizontal flow and horizontal radial flow.

Horizontal Radial Flow
Horizontal radial flow can be observed during the middle time region, after the radius of investigation
(rinv) has expanded well beyond the length of the wellbore.

Late Radial Flow – MFHW
This flow regime defines radial flow around the multi-fractured horizontal well (MFHW) after com-
pound linear flow. It is characterized as a zero slope on the log-log derivative plot. This flow regime is
only observed if the well exists all alone, in an undeveloped field, and would require an extremely
long time and area to develop in tight unconventional formations. As such, it is unlikely to be
observed in practice.

Late Time Region
The late time region begins when the radius of investigation (rinv) has reached all of the boundaries.
During this time period, stabilized flow has been reached, and the reservoir exhibits pseudo-steady
state or steady state flow.
Linear Channel Flow

Linear channel flow only occurs in long, narrow reservoirs. Initially the radius of investigation (rinv)
hasn’t reached the reservoir boundaries and radial flow is observed. After the two parallel bound-
aries have been reached, a period of linear channel flow can be observed.

Linear Flow within the Fractures – MFHW
For biwing planar fractures (where the fracture length is much greater than the fracture height), lin-
ear flow can develop after vertical radial flow within the fractures in multi-fractured horizontal wells
(MFHW).
Note: Linear flow within the fractures is not normally observed in data because it is masked by well-
bore storage.

Linear Fracture Flow
Linear fracture flow occurs in hydraulically fractured wells when the conductivity of the fracture is
infinite. In this situation, the permeability of the fracture is so high that the pressure throughout the
fracture is constant.

Linear Horizontal Flow
After the radius of investigation (rinv) has reached the top and bottom of the formation, fluid travels
from the formation perpendicular to the length of the wellbore. This is referred to as intermediate lin-
ear or horizontal flow.

Pseudo-Steady State Flow
Pseudo-steady state (PSS) flow occurs during the late time region when the outer boundaries of the
reservoir are all no-flow boundaries. This includes not only the case when the reservoir boundaries
are sealing faults, but also when nearby producing wells cause no-flow boundaries to arise. During
the PSS flow regime, the reservoir behaves as a tank. The pressure throughout the reservoir
decreases at the same, constant rate.

Note: PSS flow does not occur during buildup or falloff tests.
Radial Flow
In this flow regime, flow is in the horizontal radial direction. This type of flow exists in the time period
before the pressure transient has reached the boundaries of the reservoir (infinite-acting time
period).
Radial flow is often observed following other flow regimes. The emergence of radial flow in an infinite
conductivity hydraulically fractured well is shown below. When the radius of investigation (rinv) is
small, linear fracture flow is observed, and as it expands, the flow increasingly becomes radial.

Single No-Flow Boundary
Single no-flow boundary flow occurs during the transition region when a well is located near a single
no-flow boundary. A no-flow boundary can be a physical entity, such as a sealing fault, or can occur
when two producing (or two injecting) wells are adjacent to one another.
Mathematically, a situation in which a well is next to a sealing fault can be modeled by removing the
fault, and placing an image well with a flow rate equivalent to the producing well as shown in the dia-
gram below.
As shown on the plots below, the pressure response on a semi-log or derivative plot shows a doub-
ling of slope when a single no-flow boundary is present.

Spherical Flow
Spherical flow occurs when a vertical well is partially penetrated or during RFT/MDT/WFT tests.
Spherical flow is the occurrence of radial flow in both the horizontal and vertical directions.
Steady State Flow

Steady state flow occurs during the late time region when a constant pressure boundary exists. Con-
stant pressure boundaries arise when the reservoir has aquifer support, or gas cap expansion

support.
Transition Region
The transition region or period occurs between the time the radius of investigation (rinv) reaches the
closest boundary, and the time it reaches the furthest boundary.
Vertical Radial Flow

Vertical radial flow occurs only in horizontal wells. In represents the early time region before the
radius of investigation (rinv) has reached the top or bottom of the formation. Vertical radial flow into a
horizontal wellbore is similar to radial flow in a vertical wellbore, except that it is in the vertical dir-
ection.

Vertical Radial Flow within the Fractures – MFHW
In horizontal wells that have not been stimulated with hydraulic fractures, a radial flow period devel-
ops in the vertical plane, and is defined as vertical radial flow. When a horizontal wellbore intersects
one or more planar fractures, which is the conceptual model adopted for a multi-fractured horizontal
well (MFHW), fluid flows through the fractures into the wellbore. This flow pattern eliminates the pos-
sibility of observing vertical radial flow between the planar fractures, but introduces the possibility for
developing vertical radial flow within the fractures themselves, as shown below.
Note: This flow regime is not observed in data because it is masked by wellbore storage.

Handling Water Production
Handling water production varies based on whether you are dealing with gas condensate, or a solu-
tion gas drive.
Gas Condensate
If water is being produced during multiphase flow, there are two possible ways to deal with it:
1. If the water flow is caused by "coning" at the well, then that effect is already included as part
of the skin due to damage (sd). There is no way of quantifying the skin effect due to water
production independently.
2. If the water is flowing throughout the formation (and is not just a water cone at the well), then
the skin damage (sd), calculated is indeed reflective of the true damage at the wellbore. The
effects of the water flowing in the reservoir are reflected in the value of kg being a function of
both oil (condensate) and water saturation’s in the bulk formation.
Solution Gas Drive

If water is being produced during multiphase flow, there are two possible ways to deal with it:
1. If the water flow is caused by "coning" at the well, then that effect is already included as part
of the skin due to damage (sd). There is no way of quantifying skin effect due to water pro-
duction independently.
2. If the water is flowing throughout the formation (and is not just a water cone at the well), then
the skin damage (sd), reflects the true damage at the wellbore. The effects of the water flow-
ing in the reservoir are reflected in the value of ko and kw which are a function of both oil and
water saturation's in the bulk formation.

Interpretation of Buildup Data in Multi-Frac-
tured Hz Wells
Buildup data from multi-fractured horizontal wells (MFHW) in unconventional reservoirs often display
a derivative signature which looks like radial flow and is frequently misinterpreted as such without
due consideration of the expected flow regimes from these systems. Due to the large number of
hydraulically induced fractures and the geometry of a typical MFHW completion, radial flow is
unlikely to develop. This is confirmed through analysis of production data, which shows no evidence
of radial flow, but instead, reveals that linear flow regimes dominate for the majority of a well’s life-
time. This is consistent with the expected flow behavior, and leads to confusion on how to interpret
buildup data that often appear like radial flow.
Analytical and numerical models, with varied MFHW completion details and reservoir properties,
have been used to investigate which of the possible flow regimes can be practically identified in
buildup data (Lougheed, 2013). The following list pertains to both oil and gas reservoirs.
Likelihood of
Flow Regime
Observing
Wellbore storage Likely
Vertical radial flow within fractures Unlikely
Linear flow within fractures Unlikely
Bilinear flow Possible
Early linear flow Likely
Early radial flow (around each fracture, prior to interference
Unlikely
between fractures)
Late (Compound) linear flow Possible
Late radial flow (around MFHW and fracture network) Unlikely
Boundary-dominated flow (PSS flow) Unlikely
As shown below, the buildup derivative shows more character than the drawdown derivative
(Lougheed, 2013). This is caused by superposition. Flow time influences the buildup derivative beha-
vior (Streltsova, 1984).

Analysts are cautioned against misinterpreting the transition regions as radial flow. In the above plot,
the buildup derivative flattens during the late transition region. Although test schedule, completion
geometry, and reservoir and fluid properties can affect the transition regions, permeability has the
biggest impact on when the transition occurs and how long it lasts. The following plot illustrates that
the early transition region can also exhibit trends that look like radial flow in low permeability reser-
voirs (Lougheed, 2013). Linear flow has not developed after one week of shut-in from the 100 "nd"
reservoir (the curve with red triangles).
Early Transition Observations:

l The early transition may dominate the buildup derivative for lower permeability reser-
voirs. The early transition region lasts approximately one log cycle, but its duration
and the time in commences depends mostly on permeability.
l The early transition does not occur for high FCD values.
l Larger storage values and shorter flow times prolong this transition region.
l Shorter flow times and larger fracture half lengths make the transition appear flatter.
As learned from well test interpretation of conventional wells, the presence of heterogeneity can
greatly impact the signature of the buildup derivative. Many MFHWs drilled in unconventional reser-
voirs, such as the Eagle Ford, behave as if there is a region around the fractures with an enhanced
permeability. The enhanced permeability region simulates a complex fracture network (branch frac-
tures). The Enhanced Frac Region model (Stalgorova and Mattar (2012)) was used to investigate
buildup trends in the presence of an enhanced permeability region (Lougheed, 2013).
In their study, Dylan Lougheed and Marty Santo found that either an enhanced or a reduced per-
meability around the fractures could result in misleading derivative signatures. A reduction in per-
meability around the fracture is possible if a buildup test is conducted before the well has cleaned
up; because of relative permeability effects in the fluid invaded zone. The following figures are inten-
ded to illustrate examples of buildup derivative signatures that can occur in the presence of het-
erogeneity in MFHWs.

For more details on these plots, refer to Lougheed's paper (Lougheed, 2013).

Primary Pressure Derivative
In order to properly interpret pressure data for WellTest analysis, it is important to be able to dif-
ferentiate between reservoir and wellbore effects. The primary pressure derivative (PPD) was
developed to identify wellbore effects within a pressure response, so they can be separated from
reservoir effects.
Some examples of wellbore effects:
l Phase redistribution due to liquid influx
l Gauge malfunction
l Wellbore cleanup operations
l Geo-tidal or seismic effects
The primary pressure derivative is defined as:
Note that this differs from the typical definition of the derivative:
By definition, the PPD for any type of reservoir flow regime will always either be a constant or
decreasing. Thus, any non-reservoir or wellbore effects will appear as an increase in the PPD as
shown in the following plot.

Note: In this example, the increase in PPD was due to phase redistribution in the wellbore.

Pseudo-Pressure (ψ)
Pseudo-pressure is a mathematical pressure function that accounts for the variable compressibility
and viscosity of gas with respect to pressure. It is often confused with pseudo-time.
The equation for the flow of gas in the reservoir is very similar to that for liquid flow. In well testing,
analytical equations are solved after making certain assumptions. In particular, four assumptions are
very important:
1. Total system compressibility (ct) is constant
2. Gas viscosity (µg) is constant
3. Total porosity (φ) is constant
4. Fluid saturations (Sw and Sg) are constant, if Swi is not equal to 0
For liquids, these assumptions are reasonable, since liquid compressibility and viscosity do not vary
significantly with pressure, and the equations can be solved analytically. These analytical solutions
are referred to as the liquid flow solutions, and form the basis of all well test analysis. The result is an
analytical relationship between pressure and time, which, for an infinite-acting reservoir, can be writ-
ten as:
Pressure = Constant * log (time) + ...
For gas, the assumptions listed above are no longer valid, since gas compressibility (cg) and thus
the gas compressibility factor (z) can vary significantly with pressure. Gas viscosity (µg) also varies
with pressure, but not to the same degree. To deal with these changing gas properties, the concept
of pseudo-pressure (ψ) was developed by Al-Hussainy et al. (1966), which is defined as follows:
This transformation of pressure to pseudo-pressure is an exact transformation, and is completely rig-

orous. Thus, the liquid flow solution given above can still be applied for gas, provided that pseudo-
pressure is used instead of pressure. By substituting pseudo-pressure for pressure, the gas flow
equation becomes:
Pseudo-Pressure = Constant * log (time) + ...
Note: In some sources, pseudo-pressure is also referred to as the real gas potential (m(p)).

Radius of Investigation (rinv)
Radius of investigation represents the distance that transient effects have traveled into the reservoir.
A pressure transient is created when a disturbance such as a change in rate occurs at a well. As time
progresses, the pressure transient advances further and further into the reservoir. This concept is
not theoretically rigorous, but is adequate for practical purposes. Theoretically, when a pressure dis-
turbance is initiated at the well, it has an immediate effect, however minimal, at all points in the reser-
voir. At a certain distance from the well, however, the effect of the disturbance are so small as to be
unmeasurable. The furthest distance at which the effect is detectable is called the radius of invest-
igation, rinv.
The figure below illustrates the basic concept of radius of investigation using a plot of pressure
versus distance into the reservoir.
The radius of investigation is calculated using the following equation:
Note: The constant 948 is one of many that appear in the literature, and in general provides a good
approximation.
Notice that the radius of investigation is only a function of the reservoir properties, and does not
depend on flow rate. Increasing the flow rate results in a greater drawdown (p - pwf), but the radius
of investigation is the same.

In order for heterogeneity to be identified, the radius of investigation of a test must be greater than or
equal to the distance to that heterogeneity.
The examples below illustrate how radius of investigation can be used. For information on displaying
the radius of investigation in the software, see Displaying Radius of Investigation.
Estimating Drainage Area

When analyzing a pressure transient test, radius of investigation can be used to estimate drainage
area as follows:
This represents the minimum drainage area before boundary effects are observed. This same applic-
ation can be applied to estimate distances to reservoir heterogeneities.
Estimating Shut-in Duration

The radius of investigation concept can also be used to estimate the required duration of a shut-in
for a buildup test. For example, in the middle of a reservoir that has evenly spaced wells producing at
about the same rate, no-flow boundaries develop between producing wells as shown below:
In this situation, the drainage area of a well is defined by the no- flow boundaries. Using this area,
you could estimate the time it would take to reach the boundaries of the drainage area by rearran-
ging the radius of investigation equation as follows:

References
"Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells, Third Edition", Energy Resources Conservation
Board (ERCB), pp. 3-34 to 3-36, 1975.

Single-Phase Pseudo-Pressure Calculation
Steps
To calculate single-phase pseudo-pressure (gas condensate):
1. Tabulate gas viscosity (µg) and compressibility factor (z) at various pressures.
2. Calculate pseudo-pressure using numerical integration (trapezoidal rule):
3. Obtain the slope (m) of the semi-log plot of ψ versus log (time function), or from the deriv-
ative or regression analysis.
4. Calculate permeability, kg = k krg from:
5. Calculate total skin (s'):

Drawdown:
Buildup:
6. If rock relative permeability data and condensate PVT data are available, krg is calculated as
a function of pressure, as outlined below:
First, kro/ krg is calculated from one of the following equations shown below:

If ρg and ρo are molar densities:
If ρg and ρo are mass densities and Mo and Mg are the molecular weights (g / mol):
If relative permeability data (kro, krg, So) are available, a tabulation of kro/ krg as a function
of oil (condensate) saturation (So) is generated:
From these two tabulations, a relationship of krg as a function of pressure is generated.
7. The two-phase skin (s2p) is calculated by numerical integration from:

Drawdown:
Buildup:
8. The skin due to damage (sd) is calculated as shown below:

Skin
Choked Fracture Skin (sc)
When a hydraulic fracture is created, some portion of the fracture around the wellbore is damaged
due to crushing and embedding in the formation. This is modeled by assuming a choked zone in the
fracture as shown below.
This choked zone causes an additional pressure drop that tends to negate some of the benefits of
the fracture. Cinco-Ley and Samaniego (1977 and 1981) have defined this pressure drop as a
choked skin defined as:
References
1. "Effect of Wellbore Storage on the Transient Pressure Behavior of Vertically Fractured
Wells", H. Cinco-Ley and F. Samaniego-V., Paper SPE 6752 presented at 1977 AFTCE,
Denver, CO, October 9 - 12.
2. "Transient Pressure Analysis: Finite-Conductivity Fracture Case Versus Damaged Fracture

Case", H. Cinco-Ley and F. Samaniego-V., Paper SPE 10179 presented at 1981 AFTCE,
San Antonio, TX, October 5 - 7.

3. "Optimization of the Productivity Index and the Fracture Geometry of a Stimulated Well with
Fracture Face and Choke Skins", D.J. Romero, P.P. Valko and M.J. Economides, SPEPF
(February 2003) 57 - 64.
Effective Wellbore Radius (reff)

Effective wellbore radius is used when dealing with negative skins to account for the increase in
sandface area exposed to reservoir flow due to acidizing, or when a well is hydraulically fractured. It
cannot be measured directly, but can be calculated.
Pressure Drop Due to Skin (∆pskin)

Pressure drop due to skin represents the total pressure drop caused by apparent or total skin (s'). It
is an important value to know in order to determine if corrective action (stimulation) may be
warranted. Occasionally, a high skin value may translate into a low pressure drop, such as in a reser-
voir with a high- flow capacity (kh) in which case stimulation would not be necessary. The additional
pressure drop due to skin (∆pskin) is usually a function of the following factors:
l Total Skin (s')
l Rate (q)
l Permeability (k)
l Net Pay (h)
For liquids, this can be expressed as:
For gas, the above formula is used combined with pseudo-pressure as shown below:
Note that this equation is a little more complex since it involves converting the pseudo-pressure
term, shown in brackets, to pressure. This can be accomplished by using a pressure versus
pseudo-pressure table.

Skin Across the Fault (sfault)
The skin across the fault represents the additional pressure drop that occurs due to fluid flow restric-
tion between the fault and the surrounding reservoir zones. It is defined as:
Skin Due to Damage (sd)

Skin due to damage is a measure of the amount of damage, or improvement to the formation near
the wellbore. Damage can be caused by drilling fluids, migration of fines, invasion, etc. and results in
a reduced permeability near the wellbore and a positive skin. The magnitude of the positive skin
effect is generally 0 to 50, but can be as high as 200. Improvement can be accomplished by acid-
izing or fracturing, and results in an increased effective permeability near the wellbore and a neg-
ative skin. The magnitude of the negative skin effect is generally 0 to -5. In some cases, it can be as
low as -6 or -7, which generally implies the presence of reservoir heterogeneities such as natural
fractures, or formation permeability contrasts, rather than stimulation effects due to wellbore com-
pletion operations.
The skin effect is a dimensionless quantity and is defined as the difference between the actual and
the ideal dimensionless pressure drop in a reservoir, or pressure drop due to skin (∆pskin).
When skin is viewed as an actual pressure drop rather than a dimensionless value, it becomes
easier to determine whether skin is actually a problem, and if steps need to be taken to correct it.
An alternative concept to the skin effect is the effective wellbore radius (reff).
This states that a well with improvement (negative skin) is equivalent to a well with a larger wellbore
radius (rw), while a well with damage (positive skin) has a smaller effective wellbore radius (reff).
Skin Due to Inclination (sinc)

In many cases, wells do not penetrate a formation perpendicular to the bedding plane. When the
angle of inclination through the formation is significant (> 10°), a reduction in pressure drop can
occur due to the angle of inclination. This pressure drop is defined as skin due to
inclination. Examples of this situation can be:

l A vertical well that penetrates a dipping formation
l A directionally drilled well that penetrates a horizontal formation (see figure

below)
For example, in a well that does not penetrate a formation vertical to the bedding plane, the com-
munication (or contact) area with the formation is increased. This reduces the pressure drop
required to obtain a flow rate equal to that of a well that penetrates a formation vertical to the bedding
plane. Therefore, the flow efficiency is improved, which causes a reduction in the apparent or total
skin factor (s'). This reduction in skin factor is referred to as the skin (or pseudo-skin) due to inclin-
ation (sinc). Cinco et al. (1975) have provided the following correlation for calculating sinc:

Note that the above equation is valid for 0° >= θw <= 75° and when pseudo-radial flow has been
established. Also, the formation must be fully penetrated or completed.
For a vertical well, θw = 0°, and sinc = 0. Thus, the skin due to inclination is always equal to or less
than 0.
By rearranging the total skin equation, the skin due to damage (sd) can be determined when skin
due to inclination (sinc) and the other skin components are known.
References
"Unsteady-State Pressure Distribution Created by a Directionally Drilled Well", H. Cinco, F.G. Miller
and H.J. Ramey, Jr., JPT (November 1975).
Skin Due to Partial Penetration (spp)

When dealing with partially penetrated wells, flow restriction can occur due to the restricted per-
foration region accessible to fluid flow. As the flow streamlines converge to fit into the effectively per-
forated area, as shown in the following diagram, the flowing fluid experiences an additional pressure
drop. This pressure drop can be represented as a skin factor due to partial penetration (spp) (also
called pseudo-skin). By accounting for skin due to partial penetration, the system effectively
becomes equivalent to a pure radial system.

Skin due to partial penetration can be calculated using the Odeh correlation (1980) shown below:
Skin due to partial penetration is always greater than 0, and typically ranges from 0 to 30. Note that
partial penetration greatly magnifies the effect of any skin due to formation damage (sd).
This is more clearly seen in the definition of total skin (s'). By rearranging the total skin (s') equation,
the skin due to damage (sd) can be determined when skin due to partial penetration (spp) and the
other skin components are known.

References
1. "An Equation for Calculating Skin Factor Due to Restricted Flow Entry", A.S. Odeh, JPT
(June 1980).
2. "Numerical Simulations of the Combined Effects of Wellbore Damage and Partial Pen-
etration", R.M. Saidikowski, Paper SPE 8204 presented at 1979 AFTCE, Las Vegas, NV,
September 23 - 26.
Skin Due to Turbulence (sturb)

Skin due to turbulence is additional pressure drop caused by high-gas velocity near the wellbore,
and only applies to gas wells. For gas flow, Darcy’s law is valid for the majority of a reservoir, except
near the wellbore when gas velocity is high. This non-Darcy effect near the wellbore is known as iner-
tial-turbulent flow. Depending on the rate, this effect can be significant, and must be accounted for.
By definition, this additional pressure drop or skin is a function of gas flow rate (qg) and the tur-
bulence factor (D) of the system expressed as:
Note that skin due to turbulence is always positive and is one component of the total skin (s'). Thus,
a production test on a stimulated well can still yield a positive total skin (s') value, even if no skin dam-
age (sd) is present, due to the turbulence component (sturb).
By rearranging the total skin (s') equation, the skin due to damage (sd) can be determined when skin
due to turbulence (sturb) and the other skin components are known.
References
"Non-Darcy Flow and Wellbore Storage Effects in Pressure Build-Up and Drawdown of Gas Wells",
H.J. Ramey, Jr., JPT (February 1965) 223 - 233.
Skin Due to Xf (sXf)

Skin due to Xf (fracture half-length) is defined as the skin equivalent to the fracture half-length, or is
the equivalent skin due to the fracture itself. It is derived as follows:
Starting from the definition of apparent wellbore radius:

Alternately, the apparent wellbore radius can also be defined as:
By substitution, the effective fracture radius can be defined as an effective wellbore radius as fol-
lows:
Rearranging to solve for skin (s) gives:
Finally, this skin represents the skin due to Xf defined as:
As shown, it is always a negative skin since fracturing is a stimulation technique used to reduce total
skin (s') to improve fluid flow.
Skin on Fracture Face (sf)

When a hydraulic fracture is created, the interface between the fracture and the formation may
encounter some permeability reduction either intentionally (leak-off additives) or unintentionally
(e.g., relative permeability effects, non-breaking gel). This is modeled by assuming the presence of a
skin on the fracture face as shown below.

The skin on the fracture face causes an additional pressure drop that tends to negate some of the
benefits of the fracture. Sometimes this skin on the fracture face will improve with production or time
(clean up or temperature effects). Cinco-Ley and Samaniego (1987 and 1981) have defined sf as:
Even a small skin on the fracture face, sf < 1, can cause a substantial change in the shape of the
derivative curve. Typically, sf ranges from 0 to 1.
References
1. "Effect of Wellbore Storage on the Transient Pressure Behavior of Vertically Fractured
Wells’, H. Cinco-Ley and F. Samaniego-V., Paper SPE 6752 presented at 1977 AFTCE,

(February 2003) 57 - 64.

Total Skin (s')
Total skin also known as effective or apparent skin is a summation of the following skin components:
l Skin due to damage (sd)
l Skin due to partial penetration (spp) for a partially penetrated well only
l Skin due to inclination (sinc)
l Skin due to turbulence (sturb) or non-Darcy flow (for gas wells only)
l Two-phase skin (s2p) for gas-condensate wells only
Usually, radial analysis provides the total skin (s') of the system. The value of s' can be positive, neg-
ative, or zero. Sometimes it is important to know what skin components are contributing to the total
skin. To determine this, the relationship between s' and its various contributing components can be
expressed as:
Except for skin due to damage (sd), all other skin components mentioned above are always non-neg-
ative (i.e., are either zero or positive). Note that in the case of a partially-penetrated well, the skin
due to damage (sd) is magnified by a factor of h / hp in the total skin value. Also note that the skin
due to turbulence (sturb) in a gas well is rate sensitive.
Keep in mind that because total skin is a summation of various other skin components, a positive or
negative value may not indicate whether a well should or should not be stimulated. For example, for
an unstimulated well, a positive value of total skin does not necessarily mean that the well is
damaged. It could just be that the sum total of the skin components results in a positive value. Sim-
ilarly, for a stimulated well, a zero or positive value of total skin can result, even if the skin due to dam-
age (sd) is negative. Therefore, the effectiveness of the stimulation is really represented by the skin
due to damage (sd) rather than the total skin.
Two-Phase Skin (s2p)

This type of skin applies only to a gas condensate system. Although a gas phase exists in the major-
ity of a gas condensate reservoir, when the reservoir pressure is above the dew point pressure, a
condensate bank can develop around the wellbore when the well pressure is below the dew point
pressure. This results in two-phase flow of gas and condensate in the vicinity of the wellbore. Being

the dominant phase in the system, gas experiences an extra pressure drop while flowing through the
condensate bank. In other words, due to the presence of condensate around the wellbore, the gas
flowing towards the wellbore from the reservoir finds it harder to flow for a lower relative permeability.
The skin due to this extra pressure drop of the gas phase is referred to as the two-phase skin. The
method proposed by Raghavan et al. (1995) is used to calculate the s2p value, when pressure,
volume, temperature (PVT) properties and relative-permeability data of the gas condensate system
are available. This method allows you to separate the two-phase skin from the total or effective skin
(s'). The value of s2p can either be zero (when the well pressure is above the dew point pressure,
and no condensate bank exists), or a positive number (when the well pressure is below the dew
point pressure, and a condensate bank exists). If the PVT and relative permeability data are not avail-
able, it is not possible to calculate s2p exclusively. In this case, only the total or effective skin (s')
(which includes s2p) can be calculated. The details of the process of calculating s2p are outlined in
the single phase pseudo-pressure procedure for a gas condensate reservoir.
Typically, two-phase skin (s2p) ranges from 0 to 30. Note that by rearranging the total skin (s') equa-
tion, the skin due to damage (sd) can be determined when two-phase skin (s2p) and the other skin
components are known.
References
"Practical Consideration in the Analysis of Gas Condensate Well Tests", R. Raghavan, W., C. Chu,
and J.R. Jones, Paper SPE 30576 presented at 1995 ATCE, Dallas, TX, October 22 - 25.

Two-Phase Pseudo-Pressure
Solution Gas Drive
Solution Gas Drive Theory

The most theoretically correct solution for multiphase flow in the reservoir is to use a pseudo-pres-
sure variable called the Reservoir Integral (R.I.), defined as:
Although mathematically rigorous, this variable is totally impractical, as it requires knowledge of the
distribution of saturations in the reservoir, in space and in time. It only applies when a simulation of
the reservoir has been conducted.
A more practical alternative is to define a Sandface Integral (S.I.) which calculates pseudo-pressure
in terms of the saturation at a specified point in the reservoir, usually the sandface, as follows:
This too is impractical to evaluate, but it forms the basis for defining a two-phase pseudo-pressure
that can be evaluated, if appropriate rock and fluid properties are available. Although this definition is
only an approximation to the Reservoir Integral, and is not fully rigorous, it is adequate for analysis
and modeling of solution gas systems. The two-phase pseudo-pressure is defined as:
To calculate ψ2p, the variation of kro and krg with pressure must be known beforehand. In reality,
ψ2p can be defined in terms of kro alone, along with a pressure-saturation relationship. In other
words, the information contained in the krg(p) relationship is already contained in the combination of
kro(p) and pressure-saturation. This is a two-part procedure, the first part is obtaining the relative per-
meability data for the reservoir rock, and the second part is assuming an appropriate model for fluid
flow in the reservoir.

If this pressure-saturation relationship is used in conjunction with the two-phase pseudo-pressure
definition, an alternative definition of two-phase pseudo-pressure (m(p)) results:
This definition appears to be simpler than the preceding one, which contains both the kro and krg
terms. However, in actual fact, the information contained in this simpler formulation is complete, and
it accounts for, implicitly, both krg and kro, through the pressure-saturation formulation. Because the
relative permeability terms and multiphase effects are built into the definition of two-phase pseudo-
pressure, the analysis results in the determination of the absolute permeability (not the effective per-
meability to oil – k not ko) and the skin due to damage (sd) (independent of gas saturation effects
near the wellbore – gas block).
For analyzing buildup and drawdown tests, the two-phase pseudo-pressure procedure is recom-
mended, provided suitable relative permeability and PVT data are available. The results of the ana-
lysis will include the absolute permeability (k), and the skin due to damage (sd). For drawdown tests,
the producing GOR is used to relate the pressure and saturation terms that occur in the pseudo-pres-
sure function. In the case of buildup tests, the pseudo-pressure function is calculated based on the
producing GOR at the instant of shut-in.
Solution Gas Drive Procedure

1. From the well test data, tabulate: the shut-in time in hours, the shut-in pressure (psi), and the
producing GOR (Mscf / stbbl) at the instant of shut-in.
2. From the special core analysis data, tabulate: kro, krg, So, and calculate the relationship
between krg / kro and So.
3. From the laboratory PVT analysis, or from appropriate PVT correlations, tabulate PVT data
for p (psi), Rs (Mscf / stbbl), µo (cp), µg (cp), Bo (Rbbl / stbbl), and Bg (Rbbl / Mscf).
4. For the full range of test pressures, calculate the relationships of shut-in pressure (pws) vs.
Rs, µo, µg, Bo, and Bg.
5. From the producing GOR at the instant of shut-in and PVT data, calculate the relationship
between krg / kro and pws using the following equation:

For an oil-gas system, the above relationship assumes that the Gas-Oil-Ratio (GOR) is con-
stant throughout the two-phase region.
6. From the relationships of pws vs. krg / kro and krg / kro vs. So obtain pws vs. So.
7. From pws vs. So obtain pws vs. kro using relative permeability data.
8. Calculate two-phase pseudo-pressure m(p) vs. pws using the trapezoidal rule:
9. From the radial semilog plot of shut-in pseudo-pressure (m(p)) vs. shut-in time (t), choose a
straight line which stands for the radial flow, and determine the slope (m) of this line. Cal-
culate absolute permeability (k) and total skin (s') as follows:
Gas Condensate
Gas Condensate Theory

The most theoretically correct solution for multiphase flow in gas condensate reservoirs is to use a
pseudo-pressure variable called the Reservoir Integral (R.I.), defined as:
Though mathematically rigorous, this variable is impractical to evaluate, as it requires knowledge of

the distribution of saturation’s in the reservoir, in space and in time. It only applies when a simulation
of the reservoir has been conducted.
A more practical alternative is to define a Sandface Integral (S.I.), as shown below, which calculates
a pseudo-pressure in terms of the saturation at a specified point in the reservoir, usually the sand-
face as follows:

This too is impractical to evaluate, but it forms the basis for defining a two-phase pseudo-pressure
that can be evaluated, if appropriate rock and fluid properties are available. This definition is only an
approximation to the Reservoir Integral, and is not fully rigorous, it is adequate for analysis and mod-
eling of gas condensate systems. This two-phase pseudo-pressure is defined as:
To calculate ψ2p, the variation of kro and krg with pressure must be known beforehand. In reality,
ψ2p can be defined in terms of krg alone, along with a pressure-saturation relationship. In other
words, the information contained in the kro(p) relationship is already contained in the combination of
krg(p) and pressure-saturation. This is a two-part procedure, the first part is obtaining the relative per-
meability data for the reservoir rock, and the second part is assuming an appropriate model for fluid
flow in the reservoir.
For a gas condensate system, the above relationship assumes that steady-state flow exists in the
two-phase region. This is a good assumption near the wellbore, where the oil (condensate) sat-
uration is greater than the critical oil saturation and the condensate is mobile. However, it is not valid
in the bulk of the reservoir, where the oil (condensate) saturation is less than the critical oil saturation
and the condensate is not mobile.
Even when the data is available for calculating ψ2p, it is recommended that, for gas condensate sys-
tems, ψ be used as the variable of analysis for calculating s2p and sd, and ψ2p be used to calculate
kg and s'. This recommendation stems from the limitations in the assumptions underlying the ψ2p
definition.
The literature recommends that the two-phase pseudo-pressure, ψ2p, be used for drawdown ana-
lysis, and single phase pseudo-pressure, ψ, be used for buildup analysis. However, drawdown data
is usually very erratic, and in view of the discontinuity that would arise from changing from one
pseudo-pressure to the other, single phase pseudo-pressure, is recommended to model both draw-
down and buildup data. In this case, two-phase skin would be calculated using the single phase
pseudo-pressure procedure. If the two-phase pseudo-pressure procedure is used instead, the skin
calculated represents the total skin (s') at the wellbore, excluding the two-phase skin component
(which is taken into account through the two-phase pseudo-pressure formulation).
If either the rock relative permeability data or the gas condensate PVT data are not available, then
ψ2p cannot be calculated. In such cases, only s2p and sd, can be determined from the pressure

transient analysis, and not kg and s'. There are two types of PVT data that can be obtained from
laboratory analyses. These two types are Constant Volume Depletion (CVD) and Constant Com-
position Experiment (CCE) PVT data. The results from these experiments are different, and it is the
CCE data that should be used when calculating ψ2p. It is more difficult, however, to obtain all the
data from the CCE, and often the CVD data sets are more complete than the CCE. In such cases,
one of two choices is recommended: either (i) use the CVD data in place of the CCE data or (ii) com-
pute the required CCE data from equations of state.
Gas Condensate Procedure

If rock relative permeability data and condensate PVT data are available, krg is calculated as a func-
tion of pressure, as outlined below:
1. First, kro/ krg is calculated from one of the following equations shown below:
If ρg and ρo are molar densities:
If ρg and ρo are mass densities and Mo and Mg are the molecular weights (g / gmol):
If relative permeability data (kro, krg, So) are available, a tabulation of kro/ krg as a function
of oil (condensate) saturation (So) is generated:
From these two tabulations, a relationship of krg as a function of pressure is generated.
2. Calculate two-phase pseudo-pressure using numerical integration (trapezoidal rule):

3. Obtain the slope (m) of the semilog plot of ψ2p versus log (time function), or from the deriv-
ative or regression analysis.
4. Calculate permeability, kg = kkrg from:
5. Calculate total skin (s'):
6. Drawdown:
7. Buildup:

Calculations & Correlations
Calculations & correlations include the following:
Gas equations
Oil correlations
Oil equations
Unit conversions

Gas Correlations
Vaporized Oil Ratio (Rv)
In the "Black Oil" models, the gas component can exist either as free gas or as dissolved gas in the
oil phase. The transportation of gas component between oil and gas phases is controlled by pres-
sure and temperature. The functionality of this transportation is defined by solution gas ratio "Rs".
In the modified black oil (MBO) systems, in addition to the above behaviour, oil can condense out of
the gas phase. This process is dominated by pressure and temperature and its functionality is
defined by Vaporized Oil Ratio "Rv" (i.e., Hydrocarbon Liquid content of the gas). Strictly speaking,
Rv is the ratio of barrels of produced stock tank oil per one MMscf of produced separator gas. For
gas condensate and volatile oil system, we need to consider the liquid content in the gas phase.
Ovalle et al.'s Correlation for Rv

Ovalle et al.'s correlation is based solely on commonly available field data. Required field data is as
follows: initial producing gas / condensate ratio from the first separator, initial stock tank liquid gravity
in oAPI, specific gravity of initial reservoir gas, and reservoir temperature. This correlation does not
need require the Dew Point pressure to calculate the "Rv" curve vs. pressure.
n Varn COn C1n C2n C3n C4n
In P,
1 20.809 -6.7095 0.5136 0 0
psi
2.49E-
2 APId 11.175 -1.2965 0.042311 -0.0005438
06
3 -13.365 27.652 -18.598 4.3658 0
4 TR,°F -1.5309 0.0058453 1.40E-06 0 0

APId Gravity of stock-tank liquid, oAPI, determined when P ≥ Pd
P Pressure, psi
Reservoir gas specific gravity at P≥Pd (This value is the

recombined gas specific gravity
TR Reservoir temperature, °F
RV Vaporized oil ratio, Stb/MMscf

Gas Equations
Metric Units
Typecurves - Dimensionless Variables
Radial Analysis
Flow Capa-
city
Per-
meability

Total Skin
Pressure
Drop Due
to Skin
Flow Effi-
ciency
Damage
Ratio
Radius of
Invest-
igation
Linear Analysis
Fracture Half-Length
Channel Width
Skin Due to Xf
Horizontal Well Analysis
Vertical Permeability
Effective Wellbore Length * (Per-

meability in the y-direction)0.5
Horizontal Permeability

Note: Horizontal well length is in the x-direction.
Field Units
Typecurves - Dimensionless Variables
Radial Analysis
Flow Capa-
city

Per-
meab-
ility
Total
Skin
Pressure
Drop
due to
Skin
Flow Effi-
ciency
Damage
Ratio
Radius
of Invest-
igation
Linear Analysis
Fracture Half-Length
Channel Width
Skin Due to Xf

Bilinear Analysis
Fracture Conductivity

Note: Horizontal well length is in the x-direction

Oil Correlations
Al-Marhoun 1985 (Saudi Arabian Oil)
The Al-Marhoun correlation contains equations for estimating bubble point pressure, solution gas oil
ratio (Rs), and oil formation volume factor (Bo) for Saudi Arabian oils. Seventy-five bottom hole fluid
samples from 62 reservoirs in Saudi Arabia were used in the development of these correlations. The
author claims that the correlations should be valid for all types of gas-oil mixtures that share similar
properties as those used in the derivation. According to the author, the average errors and standard
deviations were lower with the Al-Marhoun correlation than with the Standing and Glaso correlations
for Saudi Arabian crude oils.
Bubble Point Pressure
Where:
Solution Gas Oil Ratio

The bubble point pressure equation is reversed to solve for the solution gas-oil ratio. The variable x
must be solved for using the quadratic equation.
Where:

Oil Formation Volume Factor
Gas Saturated
Where:
Undersaturated
The oil compressibility (co) used in this equation is obtained from the Vasquez and Beggs cor-
relation.
Reference
"Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Saudi Crude Oils", M.A. Al-Marhoun, SPE 13718,
1985.
De Ghetto et al (Heavy and Extra-Heavy Oils)

The De Ghetto et al correlation contains modified PVT correlations for estimating bubble point pres-
sure, solution gas oil ratio (Rs), oil formation volume factor (Bo), oil compressibility (co), and oil vis-
cosity (µo) for heavy (10 < °API < 22.3) and extra-heavy oils (°API < 10). The oils used for
developing the correlation came from AGIP’s reservoir fluid samples taken from the Mediterranean
Basin, Africa, and the Persian Gulf. When comparing published correlations, De Ghetto et al
decided that the Vasquez and Beggs correlation estimated the oil formation volume factor (Bo) with

minimal error, and therefore no further modification was needed. Note that in contrast with other cor-
relations, the De Ghetto et al correlation requires the pressure and temperature at the separator.
Heavy Oils
A modified Vasquez and Beggs solution gas oil ratio (Rs) correlation is reversed to solve for the
bubble point pressure as follows:
Where:
Extra-Heavy Oils
A modified Standing solution gas oil ratio (Rs) correlation is reversed to solve for the bubble point
pressure as follows:
Heavy Oils
A modified Vasquez and Beggs solution gas oil ratio (Rs) correlation was developed as follows:
Where γg(psp) is calculated the same as above for bubble point pressure.

Extra-Heavy Oils
A modified Standing solution gas oil ratio (Rs) correlation was developed as follows:
Gas Saturated
A modified Vasquez and Beggs oil formation volume factor (Bo) correlation was developed as fol-
lows:
Where:
Coef- γo<= γo >

ficient 30°API 30°API
C1 4.677x- 4.670x-
10-4 10-4
C2 1.751x- 1.100x-
10-5 10-5
-
C3 1.377x-
1.811x-
10-9
10-8
Undersaturated
Oil Compressibility
Gas Saturated

The derivatives dBo/ dRs and dRs / dp were taken from the Vasquez and Beggs correlation.
Undersaturated
Modified Vasquez and Beggs oil compressibility (co) correlations were developed as follows:
Heavy Oils
Extra-Heavy Oils
Where γg(psp) is calculated the same as above for bubble point pressure.
Oil Viscosity
Dead Oil
Modified Egbogah-Jack’s oil viscosity (µo) correlations were developed as follows:
Heavy-Oils
Extra-Heavy Oils
Gas Saturated
Modified Kartoatmodjo’s oil viscosity (µo) correlations were developed as follows:
Heavy-Oils

Where:
Extra-Heavy Oils
Where:
Undersaturated
Heavy Oils
A modified Kartoatmodjo’s oil viscosity (µo) correlation was developed as follows:
Extra-Heavy Oils
A modified Labedi’s oil viscosity (µo) correlation was developed as follows:
Reference
"Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Heavy and Extra Heavy Oils", Giambattista De
Ghetto, Francesco Paone, and Marco Villa, SPE 30316, 1995.

Glaso (North Sea Oil)
The Glaso correlation contains equations for estimating bubble point pressure, solution gas oil ratio
(Rs), and oil formation volume factor (Bo) for North Sea oils. The author claims that the correlation
should be valid for all types of oil & gas mixtures after correcting for non-hydrocarbons in the surface
gases, and the paraffinicity of the oil. According to the author, the correlation more accurately pre-
dicts the oil properties of North Sea oils than the Standing correlation.
Bubble Point Correlation
Where:

The bubble point pressure equation is reversed to solve for the solution gas oil ratio (Rs). The vari-
able x must be solved for using the qua
Where:

Gas Saturated
Where:
Undersaturated
relation.
Reference
"Generalized Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations", Oistein Glaso, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 1980.

Hanafy et al (Egyptian Oil)
The Hanafy et al correlation contains equations for estimating bubble point pressure, solution gas oil
ratio (Rs), oil formation volume factor (Bo), oil compressibility (co), oil viscosity (µo), and oil density
(ρo) for Egyptian oils. The compressibility correlation assumes constant compressibility after the
bubble point. This correlation is independent of oil gravity (γo) and reservoir temperature (T). The
PVT data used in the derivation of the correlations was gathered from the Gulf of Suez, Western
Desert, and Sinai regions. The authors claim that the correlations can be used to estimate oil prop-
erties for a wide range of crude oils ranging from heavy to volatile oils. However our observations are
that it appears to be closer to the properties of light oils.

To prevent the calculation of a negative solution gas oil ratio (Rs), 0 is returned for pressures less
than 157.28 psia.
Gas Saturated
Undersaturated
Oil Density
Note that the density is calculated in metric units (g / cm3).

Gas Saturated
Undersaturated
Oil Compressibility
Undersaturated
This correlation uses only the oil density (ρob) at the bubble point. Therefore the oil compressibility
(co) is constant for pressures greater than the bubble point.
Gas Saturated
The derivatives dBo/ dRs and dRs / dP were taken from the Vasquez and Beggs correlation.
Oil Viscosity
This correlation calculates the oil viscosity (µo) at any pressure using the corresponding oil density
(ρo).

Reference
"A New Approach for Predicting the Crude Oil Properties", H.H. Hanafy, S.M. Macary, Y.M. ElNady,
A.A. Bayomi and M.H. El Batanony, SPE 37439, 1997.
Khan et al (Saudi Arabian Oil)

The Khan et al correlation contains equations for estimating oil viscosity (µo) at, above, and below
the bubble point for Saudi Arabian oils. The study used data from 75 bottom hole samples, which
were taken from 65 Saudi Arabian reservoirs. The authors claim that this correlation gives the most
accurate predictions for Saudi Arabian crude oils, as compared to the Beggs and Robinson, Beal,
and Chew and Connally correlations.
Oil Viscosity at the Bubble Point

For this correlation oil gravity (γo) must be less than 1 (10°API).
Where:
Oil Viscosity above the Bubble Point
Oil Viscosity below the Bubble Point

Reference
"Viscosity Correlations for Saudi Arabian Crude Oils", S.A. Khan, M.A. Al-Marhoun, S.O. Duffuaa,
and S.A. Abu-Khamsin, SPE Paper No. 15720, 1987.
Ng and Egbogah
The Ng and Egbogah correlation contains two methods for calculating dead oil viscosity (µod) using
a modified Beggs and Robinson viscosity correlation and a correlation that uses the pour point
temperature. Pour point temperature is the lowest temperature at which the oil is observed to flow
when cooled and examined under conditions prescribed in ASTM D97. The purpose of introducing
the pour point temperature into the correlation is to reflect the chemical composition of crude oil into
the viscosity correlation. To obtain the viscosity for live oils, the dead oil correlations are used with
the Beggs and Robinson viscosity correlation. The data used to derive the correlations was taken
from the Reservoir Fluids Analysis Laboratory of AGAT Engineering Ltd., using a total of 394 oil sys-
tems.
Dead Oils
Modified Beggs and Robinson Viscosity Correlation
Pour Point Visc
Note the range for pour point temperature (Tpp) in this equation is from -50 to 15 °C.
Live Oils
Gas-Saturated
Where:

Undersaturated
Where:
Reference
"An Improved Temperature-Viscosity Correlation for Crude Oil Systems", J.T.H. Ng and E.O.
Egbogah, Petroleum Society of CIM 83-34-32, 1983.
Petrosky and Farshad (Gulf of Mexico Oil)

The Petrosky and Farshad correlation contains equations for estimating bubble point pressure, solu-
tion gas oil ratio (Rs), oil formation volume factor (Bo), and oil compressibility (co) for Gulf of Mexico
oils. The correlation was developed using fluid samples taken from offshore regions in Texas and
Louisiana (Galveston Island eastward through Main Pass). The authors claim that these correlations
provide improved results over other correlations for the Gulf of Mexico, including those published by
Standing, Vasquez and Beggs, Glaso, and Al-Marhoun.
Where:

Where:
Gas Saturated
Undersaturated
Oil Compressibility
Gas Saturated
Undersaturated
Note that this equation is valid for an oil compressibility (co) between 2.464x10-5 to 3.507x10-5.

Reference
"Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils", G.E. Petrosky Jr. and
F.F. Farshad, SPE 26644, 1993.
Standing (California Oil)

The Standing correlation contains equations for estimating bubble point pressure, solution gas oil
ratio (Rs), and oil formation volume factor (Bo) for California oils. 105 experimentally determined
data points on 22 different oil-gas mixtures from California were used in the development of the cor-
relations.
Gas Saturated
Undersaturated
relation.

Reference
"A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for Mixtures of California Oil and Gases", M.B. Stand-
ing, Drill. & Prod. Prac., API, 1947.
Vasquez and Beggs (Generally Applicable)

Vasquez and Beggs is a generally applicable correlation containing equations for solution gas oil
ratio (Rs), oil formation volume factor (Bo), and oil compressibility (co). The correlation was
developed from data obtained from over 600 laboratory PVT analyses gathered from fields all over
the world. The data used in the development of the correlation covers a wide range of pressures,
temperatures, and oil properties. The correlation divides the data into two groups, one for an oil grav-
ity (γo) over 30 API and one at and below 30 API.
Where:
γo<= γo >
Coef-
30 30
ficient
°API °API
C1 0.036- 0.017-
2 8
C2 1.093- 1.187-
7 0
C3 25.72- 23.93-
40 10

The coefficients C1, C2, and C3 are the same as for the bubble point pressure equation above.

Gas Saturated
Where:
γo<= γo >
Coef-
30 30
ficient
°API °API
C1 4.677- 4.670-
x10-4 x10-4
C2 1.751- 1.100-
x10-5 x10-5
-
C3 1.377-
1.811-
x10-9
x10-8
Undersaturated
Oil Compressibility
Gas Saturated

Undersaturated
Reference
"Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Prediction", M.E. Vasquez and H.D. Beggs, JPT 968 - 70,
June 1980.
Velarde et al (Reduced Variable Approach)

The Velarde et al correlation contains equations for estimating bubble point pressure, solution gas
oil ratio (Rs), and oil formation volume factor (Bo). The bubble point pressure correlation was based
on 728 data sets. The solution gas oil ratio (Rs) was based on 2097 data sets.
Where:
Solution Gas Oil Ratio at the Bubble Point Pressure

Starting from the bubble point pressure equation shown above, re-arrangement yields the following
solution for the solution gas oil ratio (Rs):

The correlation for the solution gas oil ratio (Rs) below the bubble point uses a reduced variable
approach, which yields the reduced solution gas oil ratio (Rsr) as follows:
Where:
A Coef- B Coef- C Coef-

ficients ficients ficients
A0 = B0 = C0 =
-
9.73x10 0.02233- 0.72516-
7 9 7
A1 = B1 = C1 =
1.67260- 1.00475- 1.48548-
8 0 0
A2 = B2 = C2 =
0.92987- 0.33771- 0.16474-
0 1 1
A3 = B3 = C3 =
0.24723- 0.13279- 0.09133-
5 5 0
A4 = B4 = C4 =
1.05605- 0.30206- 0.04709-
2 5 4
The reduced solution gas oil ratio (Rsr) is defined as the solution gas oil ratio (Rs) divided by the solu-
tion gas oil ratio at the bubble point (Rsb) as follows:

Similarly, the reduced pressure is defined as the pressure divided by the bubble point pressure.
Using the above relationship the reduced solution gas oil ratio (Rsr) and the solution gas oil ratio at
the bubble point (Rsb) are used to solve for the actual solution gas oil ratio (Rs) at any pressure
below the bubble point.
Gas Saturated
Where:
In the above equation an initial estimate of ρpo is calculated as follows:
After this initial value is known, ρpo is calculated through a 10 step iteration process using the fol-
lowing equations. The values from the ninth and tenth iterations are averaged to yield a final value
for ρpo.

Undersaturated
relation.
Correlation Limits
Rs Correlation Lim- Pbp Correlation
Variable
its Limits
T 70 to 307 °F 74 to 327 °F
pbp 106 to 5312 psia 70 to 6700 psia
1.040 to 2.082 Rbbl

Bob N/A
/ stbbl
102 to 1808 scf / 10 to 1870 scf /

Rs or Rsb
stbbl stbbl
γg 0.561 to 1.101 0.556 to 1.367
γo 11.6 to 53.4 °API 12 to 55 °API
Reference
"Correlation of Black Oil Properties at Pressures Below Bubble Point Pressure – A New Approach",
J. Velarde, T.A. Blasingame and W.D. McCain, Jr., The Petroleum Society 93 - 97, 1997.
Oil Correlation Limits

pbp (psia) Bo (Rbbl / Rs (scf /
Correlation T (°F) p (psia)
stbbl) stbbl)

Al-Marhoun 1985
75 – 240 107 – 4315 1.02 – 2.42 24 – 1901
(Saudi Arabian Oil)
De Ghetto et al
1038.49 – 208.86 – 1.057 – 17.21 –
(Heavy and Extra- 131.4 – 250.7
7411.54 4021.96 1.362 640.25
Heavy Oils)
Glaso 1.087 –
80 – 280 400 – 4000 150 – 7127 90 – 2637
(North Sea Oil) 2.588
Hanafy et al 1038.49 –
36 – 5003 1.032 – 1.35 7 – 4272
(Egyptian Oil) 7411.54
Khan et al
75 – 240 14.7 – 5015 107 – 4315 24 – 1901
(Saudi Arabian Oil)
Ng and Egbogah 70 – 295
Petrosky and Farshad 1.1178 –
114 – 288 1700 – 10692 1574 – 6523 217 – 1406
(Gulf of Mexico Oil) 1.6229
60 – 260
Standing (pbp)
200 – 6000 1.024 – 2.15 20 – 1425
(California Oil) 100 – 260
(Bo)
Vasquez and Beggs 140.7 –
(Generally Applicable) 9514.7
Velarde et al
See Velarde See Velarde See Velarde See Velarde
(Reduced Variable
et al et al et al et al
Approach)
Correlation γg γo (°API) Tsp (°F) Psp (psia) µo (cp)
Al-Marhoun 1985
0.752 – 1.367 14.3 – 44.6
(Saudi Arabian Oil)
De Ghetto et al
59 – 14.5 –
(Heavy and Extra-Heavy 0.623 – 1.517 6 – 22.3 2.4 – 354.6
177.8 752.2
Oils)
Glaso 0.119 –
0.65 – 1.276 22.3 – 48.1
(North Sea Oil) 106.6
Hanafy et al
0.752 – 1.367 14.3 – 44.6 0.13 – 71
(Egyptian Oil)
Khan et al
(Saudi Arabian Oil)

Ng and Egbogah 5 – 58
Petrosky and Farshad 0.5781 –
16.3 – 45
(Gulf of Mexico Oil) 0.8519
Standing
0.5 – 1.5 16.5 – 63.8
(California Oil)
Vasquez and Beggs
0.511 – 1.351 15.3 – 59.5
(Generally Applicable)
Velarde et al
See Velarde et See Velarde et
(Reduced Variable
al al
Approach)
ρo (g / cm3) ρob (g /
Correlation µod (cp) µos (cp) µob (cp)
cm3)
Al-Marhoun 1985
(Saudi Arabian Oil)
De Ghetto et al 7.7 –
2.1 – 295.9
(Heavy and Extra-Heavy Oils) 1386.9
Glaso
(North Sea Oil)
Hanafy et al 0.648 –
0.428 – 0.939
(Egyptian Oil) 1.071
Khan et al
0.13 – 77.4 0.13 – 17.9
(Saudi Arabian Oil)
Ng and Egbogah
Petrosky and Farshad
(Gulf of Mexico Oil)
Standing
(California Oil)
Vasquez and Beggs
(Generally Applicable)
Velarde et al
(Reduced Variable
Approach)

Oil Equations
Metric Units
Type Curves – Dimensionless Variables
Radial Analysis
Trans-
missivity
Per-
meability

Total Skin
Pressure
Drop Due
to Skin
Flow Effi-
ciency
Damage
Ratio
Radius of
Invest-
igation
Pro-
ductivity
Index
Linear Analysis
Fracture Half-
length
Channel Width
Skin Due to Xf

Field Units
Type Curves - Dimensionless Variables

Radial Analysis
Trans-
missivity
Per-
meability
Total Skin
Pressure
Drop Due to
Skin
Flow Effi-
ciency
Damage
Ratio
Radius of
Invest-
igation
Pro-
ductivity
Index
Linear Analysis
Fracture Half-length

Channel Width
Skin Due to Xf
Bilinear Analysis
Fracture Conductivity
Effective Wellbore Length * (Permeability

in the y-direction)0.5

Unit Conversions
Standard Conditions
Metric (SI)
T = 15 °C
p = 101.325 kPa
Field
T = 60 °F
p = 14.65 psia
Common Conversions
Metric (SI) To convert from metric to field unit
Field Unit
Unit divide by
103m3 / d MMcf / d 28.17399
kPa psia 6.894757
mD md 0.9869233
mD m md ft 0.3008142
m ft 0.3048
m3 bbl (35 gal (Imp) or 42 gal

0.1589873
(US))
Pa s cp 1000
K °R 0.5556
m2 Section (640 acres) 2.589988x106
ha Section (640 acres) 258.9988
m3 gal (Imp) 0.00454609

m3 gal (US) 0.003785412
Temperature Conversion
°C = (°F - 32) * 5 / 9
°F = °C * 9 / 5 + 32

General Concepts
Key topics include:
Automatic Parameter Estimation
Interoperability with Harmony Enterprise
Minifrac
PAS
Well Locations & Boundaries
Properties
Wellbore

Alberta Energy Regulator
(Canada only)
The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) is a regulatory body of the government. The purpose of the
AER is, in part, to provide appraisal of the reserves and productive capacity of energy resources in
Alberta, prevent waste of those resources, control pollution, ensure safe practices are followed, and
provide useful dissemination of information. The AER requires submission of .PAS files to meet reg-
ulatory requirements for wells.
Note: The AER was previously called the Energy Resources and Conservation Board (ERCB).

Anisotropic Permeability
In reality, most reservoirs are not homogeneous in terms of permeability (isotropic permeability).
Usually permeability varies significantly between the vertical and horizontal planes within a form-
ation. This variation in permeability in different planes or directions is known as anisotropic per-
meability.
Anisotropic permeability is especially important when dealing with horizontal or partially penetrated
wells since flow occurs in both the vertical and horizontal planes.
In general, it is not uncommon to assume that the permeability in the x-direction (kx) is close to that
in the y-direction (ky). However, the permeability in the z-direction (kz) is typically significantly dif-
ferent, usually less, than the horizontal permeabilities (kx and ky).
Thus, vertical radial flow is controlled by ky and kz (where x is the direction of the horizontal well-
bore) and horizontal radial flow is controlled by kx and ky.

Automatic Parameter Estimation (APE)
Automatic parameter estimation (APE) is a mathematical process, known as multi-variable optim-
ization, which automatically adjusts a specified set of function parameters to minimize error between
the function and measured data. The math function being minimized is called the objective function;
this function contains a calculated value based on a particular mathematical function. In the case of
pressure transient modeling, this function calculates the synthetic pressure of the model. This syn-
thetic pressure is then used in the objective function to determine the error between the model and
the measured data. Over an iterative process, the modeling parameters are adjusted accordingly,
based on the optimization method to minimize this error. The optimization method controls how the
parameters are adjusted to minimize the error. There are many different optimization methods avail-
able, each with certain advantages and disadvantages. These methods are available in the soft-
ware:
l Mead (Simplex)
l Marquardt-Levenberg (QR Factorization)
l Marquardt-Levenberg (Gauss-Jordan)
l Marquardt-Levenberg (Smooth Damping)
APE should not be used exclusively since it is possible to find several sets of parameters that yield
an acceptable model match. In other words, the solution can be non-unique. It is always recom-
mended to start with parameters obtained from diagnostic analyses and then fine-tune these para-
meters manually to obtain a close match. APE can then be used for unknown parameters, or
parameters that are not known with confidence. The more parameters that are selected for APE or fit-
ting, the longer the fitting process takes, and the more chance there is of finding non-unique solu-
tions. Also, including more data points in the fit reduces performance.
Marquardt-Levenberg
The Marquardt-Levenberg method is a non-linear regression algorithm used for APE of reservoir
and well parameters when modeling well test data. It is a modified version of LMDIF, a public-
domain non-linear regression algorithm from Argonne National Laboratory. The algorithm requires
partial derivatives of the objective function with respect to each of the parameters (Jacobians). The
derivatives are calculated numerically, using a forward difference approximation. The objective func-
tion is the sum of squares of the difference (residuals) between pressure derivative data and the cor-
responding calculated model data.

Modifications and additions to improve LMDIF include a restart scheme to jump-start the routine
whenever it is determined that the routine is slowing down without reaching convergence. A con-
straint mechanism is also included to keep estimates of the parameters within the physical realm of
the problem.
The Marquardt-Levenberg routine is generally faster than the Mead (Simplex) method. However, the
requirement of derivative calculations in the routine tends to make it less robust and more com-
putationally intensive when farther away from the solution.
Mead (Simplex)
This a variation of the downhill Simplex method. The Simplex routine is a non-linear regression
algorithm used for APE of reservoir and well parameters when modeling well test data. It requires
only function evaluations of the objective function, and not the derivatives. The objective function is
the sum of squares of the difference (residuals) between observed pressure, or pressure derivative
data and the corresponding calculated model data.
Modification of the downhill Simplex method to achieve greater convergence is accomplished by

imposing constraints on the parameters during the search. Estimates of the parameters are always
checked against preset maximum and minimum values for each parameter. After the routine has
converged on some parameters, it is restarted, with a slight perturbation away from the final values,
and allowed to converge again. This ensures that the parameter estimates found are not the result of
some local minimum in the residual, but rather a more global minimum.
Compared to other non-linear regression methods, this method is not always very efficient because
it can require a large number of function evaluations. This tends to make it extremely slow in some
cases. However, it is straightforward and not encumbered by the requirement of derivatives, and
hence tends to be more robust under any conditions.

Average Reservoir Pressure (p or pR)
The average reservoir pressure in a reservoir at a given time is an indication of how much fluid (gas,
oil, or water) is remaining in the reservoir. It represents the amount of driving force available to drive
the remaining fluid out of the reservoir during a production sequence. When dealing with oil, the aver-
age reservoir pressure is only calculated when it is undersaturated (flowing pressure above the
bubble point).
Average reservoir pressure can be estimated in two different ways:
1. By measuring the long-term buildup pressure in a bounded reservoir. The buildup pressure
eventually builds up to the average reservoir pressure over a long enough period of time as
shown below.
Note: This time depends on the reservoir size and permeability (k) (i.e., hydraulic diffusivity).
2. Calculating average reservoir pressure from the material balance equation (MBE) – as
described below.

Material Balance Equation (MBE)
Gas
For gas, the MBE is defined as the relationship between the original gas in place, initial pressure (pi),
cumulative gas production, and the current average reservoir pressure. The basis of the MBE for
gas flow is the volumetric balance of all the fluids at a given time. The following equation proposed
by Ramagost and Farshad (1981) is used to calculate the average reservoir pressure for gas sys-
tems. This equation considers that gas is the only mobile phase in the presence of residual fluid sat-
urations (oil and water) in a compressible formation.
Note that this equation is only valid when the term ce(pi– p) < 1.
Oil and Water

For oil and water, the MBE is defined as the relationship between the original fluid in place, initial
pressure (pi), cumulative fluid production, total system compressibility (ct), and current average
reservoir pressure. The following equation for liquid flow is based on the definition of total com-
pressibility (ct) at a given time. This equation considers the selected fluid (oil or water) as the only
mobile phase in the presence of residual fluid saturations, if present, in a compressible formation.
For oil:
For water:
where:

References
"p/Z Abnormally Pressured Gas Reservoirs", Ramagost, B.P. and Farshad, F.F., Paper SPE 10125
presented at the AFTCE, San Antonio, TX, October 5 - 7, 1981.

Cumulative Production
This is the total amount of gas, oil, and water produced from a reservoir over a specified period of
time. It is calculated by multiplying rate by the amount of production time as follows:
Note: Rate (q) is a calendar day rate and ∆t is in hours.

Datum Depth (Ddatum)
Datum depth is the depth measured from surface, where the wellbore flowing pressure is measured
or calculated at for a multilayered reservoir.

Depth of Layer (Dlayer)
Depth of layer is the depth of a layer in a multilayered reservoir measured from surface.

Drainage Area (A)
If a well is flowed until all the boundaries of the reservoir have been reached (boundary-dominated
flow), the area defined within these boundaries is called the drainage area. The boundaries of a
well’s drainage area could be physical boundaries, such as faults, or no-flow boundaries caused by
nearby producing wells, as shown in the figure below.
This figure shows the wells that are evenly spaced and producing at the same rate, and thus no-flow
boundaries develop (white lines) between the producing wells. In this situation, the drainage area of
each well is defined by the no-flow boundaries around it.
Note: Drainage area can be determined through PSS analysis, radius of investigation, or analysis
of geological data or well spacing.

Dual Porosity
Naturally fractured reservoirs have two distinct porosities, one in the matrix and one in the fractures.
Although naturally fractured reservoirs consist of irregular fractures, they can be represented by equi-
valent homogeneous dual porosity systems (Warren and Root (1963)).
Quite often, the volume of hydrocarbon stored within the natural fractures is much lower than is
stored in the matrix. In dual porosity systems, the natural fractures have much higher permeability
than the matrix. When the well begins to flow, fluid travels from the high permeability natural frac-
tures to the wellbore, and is rapidly produced. After the natural fractures have been drained, the
large volume of hydrocarbons contained within the bulk of the reservoir (matrix) begins to flow.
These hydrocarbons flow to nearby natural fractures, and virtually all of the fluid is transported to the
wellbore via these fractures.
The signature of dual porosity systems on a semi-log plot is two parallel lines as shown below.
The first semi-log straight line is observed at early time and represents radial flow as the fluid, initially
in the fractures, travels to the wellbore. The second semi-log straight line occurs when the fractures
deliver fluid from the matrix to the wellbore. The transition period between the two semi-log straight
lines occurs when fluid begins to flow from the matrix to the fractures, but has not yet reached a state
of equilibrium.

Note: Be aware that dual porosity, especially the first semi-log straight line, may not be noticeable
even if the reservoir is naturally fractured because wellbore storage effects could affect the
data.
Naturally fractured reservoirs are characterized by two parameters: the interporosity flow coefficient
(λ) and the storativity ratio (ω).
As shown in the plot below, as the interporosity flow coefficient decreases, the transition between
the two semi-log straight lines is delayed. That is, the larger the fracture permeability is in com-
parison to that of the matrix, the more time the fractures will have to drain before the contribution
from the matrix becomes significant.
Note that there are two types of interporosity flow that are used to model dual porosity systems:
l Pseudo-steady state interporosity flow
l Transient interporosity flow
The second parameter, storativity ratio (ω), essentially represents the time separation in log cycles
between the two semi-log straight lines as shown below:

A storativity ratio of 1 is a single porosity system with all of the reserves inside the fractures, and a
storativity ratio approaching 0 is a single porosity reservoir with all the reserves inside the matrix.
Therefore, as the storativity ratio is decreased, a greater portion of the reserves are contained in the
matrix, and the longer it takes for the matrix and fracture system to reach a state of equilibrium. This
is shown in the following plot:
The signature of dual porosity on a derivative plot shows up as two regions of radial flow with the
same conductivity, kh, separated by a transition period. This is often referred to as the dual porosity
dip.

As in the case for the semi-log plot, the shape and location of this transition period (or dual porosity
signature) is defined by the interporosity flow coefficient (λ) and the storativity ratio (ω) as shown in
the plots below.

It is important to note that when analyzing dual porosity data that the value of apparent or total skin
(s') should always be taken from the second semi-log straight line, or the second radial flow region
on the derivative plot.
Interporosity Flow Coefficient (λ)

In a dual porosity reservoir, the interporosity flow coefficient is defined as the ratio of the permeability
of the matrix (km) to that of the fractures (kf) defined as:
Note that the geometric coefficient (α) accounts for the shape of the matrix blocks. The interporosity
flow coefficient is usually in the range of 10-4 to 10-8 and is always used in conjunction with the stor-
ativity ratio in dual porosity reservoirs.
Interporosity Skin (sdp)

Interporosity skin is used in the transient interporosity flow dual porosity model. It is defined as the
skin or pressure drop at the interface between the two porosities (matrix and fractures). If this skin is
large, then this transient model becomes equivalent to the pseudo-steady state interporosity flow
model.
Pseudo-Steady State Interporosity Flow

This is the most common dual porosity model used. It is a lumped parameter model, and assumes
that the flow between the two porosities (matrix to fractures) is in pseudo-steady state.
Storativity Ratio (ω)

In a dual porosity reservoir, the storativity ratio is defined as the fraction of the total pore volume
associated with one of the porosities. Specifically, in a naturally fractured reservoir it refers to the
volume of reserves contained within the fractures and is defined as:

The storativity ratio has a significant effect on the short term deliverability of a reservoir. It is usually
in the range of 0.01 to 0.1, and is always used in conjunction with the interporosity flow coefficient in
dual porosity reservoirs.
Transient Interporosity Flow

Some dual porosity systems are considered to have transient interporosity flow with an interporosity
skin (sdp), rather than the more popular pseudo-steady state interporosity flow. This is a distributed
parameter model and assumes that the flow between the two porosities (matrix to fractures) is in a
transient mode, and that a positive skin exists at the interface between the two porosities. If this skin
is large, then this transient model becomes equivalent to the pseudo-steady state interporosity flow
model.
A dual porosity system gives rise to two parallel straight lines on a semi-log plot. However, often the
first line is obscured by early time effects such as wellbore storage. Moreover, if the interporosity
flow is of the transient mode rather than the pseudo-steady state type, then in the transition between
the two parallel semi-log lines, there exists a semi-log straight line of half of the slope of one of the
parallel lines. In practice, these straight lines are difficult to observe uniquely. When the interporosity
skin is large, then the transient interporosity flow model becomes equivalent to the pseudo-steady
interporosity flow model.
References
"Gas Reservoir Engineering", J. Lee and R. Wattenbarger, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
(1996) Volume 5, 73 - 74, 173 - 181.
"The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs", J.E. Warren and P.J. Root, Society of Petroleum
Engineers Inc. (1963) SPEJ 426.

Extrapolated Pressure (p*)
Extrapolated pressure is the predicted pressure that a buildup will stabilize back to at infinite shut-in
time. For a semi-log or radial analysis (shown in the plot below), it is obtained from the intersection of
the semi-log straight line at infinite shut-in time, which is the limit of 1 hr for Horner or superposition
radial time.
For a model, it is obtained from the continuation of the model line using the specified shut-in time
(tshut-in).

It is important to note that p* is not the actual final average reservoir pressure at infinite shut-in time.
To determine the final average reservoir pressure, an appropriate reservoir model needs to be
developed that applies proper material balance techniques.

Fault Properties
There are two fault properties covered in the topic: dimensionless fault conductivity and distance to
fault.
Dimensionless Fault Conductivity (FCD (fault))

The dimensionless fault conductivity represents the fluid transmissibility inside the fault that is along
the length of the fault defined as:
Distance to Fault (Lfault)

The "distance to fault" is the distance of the active well to the fault as shown below.

Final Average Reservoir Pressure (pavg)
Final average reservoir pressure is the average reservoir pressure at the end of a test. It is cal-
culated for gas and undersaturated oil wells using material balance. The final average reservoir pres-
sure represents the amount of energy left in the reservoir for future production. It is often confused
with extrapolated pressure (p*), which is an extrapolation from the semi-log analysis or model. In
wells showing depletion, the final average reservoir pressure is less than the initial pressure (pi) as
shown in the plot below.
For a well with no depletion, it is equal to initial pressure (pi) as shown in the plot below.

Final Flowing Pressure (pwfo)
Final flowing pressure is the flowing pressure at the end of a drawdown or injection period, or altern-
ately the pressure just before shut-in. When performing a radial analysis, it has a direct affect on the
calculation of total skin (s').
For modeling, it is used as a default anchor point pressure. Thus, it is important to ensure that shut-in
periods are placed correctly to ensure a valid analysis and model.

Gas Rate (qg)
Gas rate is the amount of gas produced over a given interval of time. It is typically noted in units of
MMscf/d or 103m3/d. When entering rates in the Production Editor tab, the following rules apply:
l A positive rate means production
l A negative rate means injection
l A zero rate means shut-in (buildup or falloff)
l An empty rate means use the previous rate

Initial Cushion Pressure (pwo)
The initial cushion pressure is the pressure before the wellbore casing is perforated or a downhole
valve is opened to allow fluid flow into the wellbore.
Note: This is only used in non-conventional analyses and models (i.e., Slug, PITA, CCT).

Initial Pressure (pi)
The initial pressure is the average reservoir pressure before the start of a test. For a new well (a well
which has not been put on production), the initial pressure equals the virgin or original reservoir pres-
sure, and corresponds to the drillstem test (DST) pressure. For a well that has been on production
for a long time, the initial pressure may or may not be equal to the original reservoir pressure. The fol-
lowing example illustrates this concept.
In the above diagram, if Test 1 is being analyzed, the initial pressure is 2000. If Test 2 is being ana-
lyzed, the initial pressure is 1500, because the reservoir pressure is fully built up before this test, and
the reservoir has forgotten its history prior to Test 2. Thus, it behaves like a new well with an initial
pressure 1500. If Test 3 is being analyzed (which is a combination of Test 2 and some production
prior to Test 2), then the initial pressure is 2000, because it must reflect the reservoir pressure before
the production that is being analyzed during the test.

Interoperability with Harmony Enterprise
WellTest 2019.1 works with Harmony Enterprise 2019.1 and later.
WellTest files can be imported into Harmony Enterprise, and Harmony Enterprise interchange files
(.hmexp files) can be opened in WellTest. However, scenarios are not imported from .hmexp files.
The following data can be transferred:
l Production Editor data — imported to both the Production Editor tab and Data Man-
agement's Prod Data sub-tab.
l Properties data — excluding advanced properties, such as relative permeability and

custom property tables.
l Wellbore Parameters — WellTest has one wellbore and uses the Physical Wellbore /
Initial configuration in Harmony Enterprise.
l Analytical and hybrid models — only these models are supported. (CBM and numer-
ical models are not supported.)
Note: We no longer support .harmony and .rta files.

Liquid Gradient (Gliq)
The liquid gradient is a measure of pressure per unit length (1 ft or 1 m) and is expressed in psi/ft or
kPa/m. It can be measured during a static gradient test, or calculated from liquid density.
l For water, the liquid gradient is typically 0.43 psi/ft or 10 kPa/m.
l For oil, the liquid gradient is typically between 0.15 - 0.35 psi/ft or 4 - 8 kPa/m.

Minifrac
Note: Minifrac Workflow describes how to use WellTest to analyze data collected from minifrac
tests.
Minifrac Observations from Real Data provides insight on what to expect from minifrac tests
and highlights the importance of key minifrac test design parameters.
Introduction
Well testing has been used for decades to determine essential formation properties and to assess
wellbore conditions. There are many different types of tests that can be used to collect this inform-
ation depending on when the test is performed, the well location, the well type, and the formation
type. For the most part, conventional tests (flow / buildup or injection / falloff) have satisfied the major-
ity of our needs. However, under certain conditions, traditional test methods are not feasible for vari-
ous reasons. This is especially true for very low permeability formations that require massive
stimulation to obtain economic production. For these formations, it is extremely important to estab-
lish the formation pressure and permeability prior to the main stimulation. One test that has proved to
be convenient for this purpose is commonly referred to as a “Minifrac” test.
A minifrac test is an injection-falloff diagnostic test performed without proppant before a main frac-
ture stimulation treatment. The intent is to break down the formation to create a short fracture during
the injection period, and then to observe closure of the fracture system during the ensuing falloff
period. Historically, these tests were performed immediately prior to the main fracture treatment to
obtain design parameters (i.e., fracture closure pressure, ISIP (Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure)
gradient, fluid leakoff coefficient, fluid efficiency, formation permeability, and reservoir pressure).
However, since personnel and frac equipment were all waiting on location to perform the main treat-
ment, the falloff period was usually stopped shortly after observing closure, before reliable estimates
of formation pressure and permeability could be obtained. Since these two parameters are critical to
the fracture design and for production / reservoir engineering, it seemed prudent to extend the falloff
period to obtain better estimates, especially since there is little hope of gathering this information
after the main stimulation. Many operators have accomplished this by simply scheduling the minifrac
test well ahead of the main fracture treatment. However, predicting the falloff time required to obtain
meaningful estimates of formation pressure and permeability is difficult, as it depends on having
prior knowledge of the permeability, in addition to knowing the geomechanical properties of the form-
ation. In many cases, the progress of a minifrac test can be assessed with pressure data measured
at the wellhead, eliminating the need for “guessing” when sufficient data has been obtained.

The created fracture can cut through near-wellbore damage, and provide better communication
between the wellbore and true formation, as illustrated below. For this reason, a minifrac test is cap-
able of providing better results than a closed chamber test performed on a formation where fluid
inflow is severely restricted by formation damage. The figure below shows an idealized view of an
induced fracture.
Typical Pressure Behaviour of Minifrac Tests

The figure below shows a total test overview plot:

The figure below shows typical flow regimes:

Types of Fracture Diagnostic Tests
It is important to acknowledge two operational methods of conducting fracture diagnostic tests.
1. Engineers responsible for designing and completing the main hydraulic fracture treatment
prefer to pump the planned fracturing fluid at a high rate / step rate in order to obtain more
representative estimates of ISIP, ISIP gradient, net fracture pressure, fluid efficiency and
fluid loss coefficients. This information is used to help optimize pad volume, select the best
fluid-loss additives for the main treatment, and design the pumping schedule that would cre-
ate the optimum fracture from a productivity point of view (SPE 140136). Step rate tests can
give additional information about matrix leakoff (at low rates) and frac extension (after break-
down at higher rates) (SPE 78173). The higher rates give a bigger minifrac representation
and distinct leakoff characteristics. Unfortunately, a bigger minifrac means it will take longer
to close. In general, these tests are designed to see closure. In tight / shale formations, such
as Eagle Ford and Bakkan, we are not likely to collect enough after-closure data to get good
estimates of permeability, or initial pressure based on this type of test. In unusual cir-
cumstances where we can monitor falloff data for a few weeks, we can see reservoir- dom-
inated flow (linear / radial flow) for these tests.

2. Reservoir engineers prefer to inject a less viscous fluid and minimize injected volume in
order to obtain enough after-closure data to estimate reservoir permeability and initial pres-
sure. Initial pressure is a key parameter for production data analysis and reserves work for
the rest of the life of the well, and it is very difficult to obtain following the main fracture
treatment. Leakoff types and coefficients may still be obtained though. However, the rel-
atively small size of the minifrac generated when minimizing injection volume can lead to
some uncertainty. For low microdarcy to hundred of nanodarcy permeabilities, we see suc-
cessful tests performed with rates between 1-2 bbl / min for 5 to 10 minutes, with a total injec-
tion volume less than about 25 bbl.
Theoretically, the key parameters can be obtained from either method, but in practice the test object-
ives must be weighed, and the test designed to meet those objectives. Alternatively, two tests can
be performed back-to-back. First, a test can be performed with the injected volume minimized to
obtain virgin-rock breakdown pressure, permeability, initial pressure, and initial estimates of leakoff
characteristics. Then another test can be performed with the fluid and rate more representative of
the main treatment.
Key Results from Minifrac Tests

Following a brief injection period, the wellhead valve is closed, and the pressure falloff is recorded
(at the wellhead or downhole) for a few hours to several days, depending on how permeable the
formation is. Then analysis of pressure falloff data occurs using specialized techniques to yield the
following information:
l Fracture closure pressure (pc)
l Instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP)
l ISIP gradient
l Net Fracture Pressure (Δpnet)
l Fluid efficiency
l Formation leakoff characteristics and fluid loss coefficients.
l Formation permeability (k)
l Reservoir pressure (pi)
Minifrac Analysis Techniques

There has been much research conducted by numerous experts to establish or advance techniques
for analyzing data obtained from minifrac tests. Due to the nature of a minifrac test, the analysis is

performed in two parts: Pre-Closure Analysis (PCA) and After-Closure Analysis (ACA). Similar to tra-
ditional Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA), specialized time and derivative functions are used to per-
form PCA and ACA. Variations of these analysis techniques are used in commercial fracture
simulation software, which is not convenient for every day use. Recently, the most common minifrac
analysis techniques used in the industry today have been implemented in WellTest. When combined
with the efficient data management, dynamic wizards, and graphical user interface within WellTest,
users now have the ability to easily analyze minifrac test data. An additional benefit gained with
WellTest is the ability to advance after-closure analysis beyond diagnostics and straight line analysis
to include modeling capability. This provides the advantage of verifying and improving results
obtained from diagnostic analyses (similar to the analysis workflow used for many years in traditional
PTA).

Oil Rate (qo)
Oil rate is the amount of oil produced over a given interval of time. It is typically noted in units of
bbls/d or m3/d measured at surface conditions. When entering rates in the Production Editor tab the
following rules apply:

Partial Penetration
When a well does not fully penetrate the formation, or the perforations do not open up the whole
formation, the reservoir fluid has to flow vertically with the flow lines converging near the penetrated
area at the wellbore. The diagram below shows the flow pattern differences between full and partial
penetration.
The convergence of the flow lines near the wellbore cause an additional pressure drop near the well-
bore, an effect similar to that caused by wellbore damage. In some cases, when the penetrated
region is very small compared to the formation thickness or net pay (h), spherical flow may be
observed. The effects of partial penetration are accounted for by treating it as a skin effect called
skin due to partial penetration (spp). This skin is always positive and typically varies from 0 to 30. It is
a function of the height of the perforated interval (hp), the distance from the top of the zone to the top
of the perforations (htop), and the horizontal to vertical permeability ratio (kh/kv).
Height of Perforations (hp)

The height of perforations or perforated interval is that portion of the net pay (h) that is open to flow
into the wellbore either through partial penetration of the wellbore, or incomplete perforation.

Normally, in order to maximize production, the entire net pay (h) is open to flow into the wellbore
(fully penetrated, hp = h). In some cases, it is necessary to perforate so only a portion of the net pay
(h) is open to the wellbore in order to minimize coning effects. This perforated interval is judiciously
placed a certain distance from the top of the zone to the top of the perforations (htop). If the wellbore
is inclined, the perforated interval is measured along the inclination as illustrated below.
The perforated interval has a maximum value dependent on the net pay (h) and the net wellbore
inclination (σ).
Top of Zone to Top of Perforations (htop)

In a partially penetrated well, this is the distance from the top of the zone to the top of perforations as
shown in the diagram below. For an inclined wellbore, it is the distance measured along or parallel to
the wellbore. The maximum value of this distance is related to the net pay (h), the net wellbore inclin-
ation (σ), and the height of perforations (hp).
When a formation is only partially penetrated, the location of the perforated interval has an effect on
the skin due to partial penetration (spp). Thus the diagrams below show the same net pay (h) and

the same perforated intervals, but because these perforated intervals are located at different loc-
ations they will have different skin effects due to partial penetration.
Horizontal To Vertical Permeability Ratio (kh / kv)

The horizontal-to-vertical permeability ratio represents the contrast in permeability between the hori-
zontal and vertical planes within a formation (anisotropic permeability). This ratio is applicable when
dealing with partially penetrated or horizontal wells and directly affects the skin due to partial pen-
etration (spp). It typically ranges in value from 0.1 to 1000.
For example, in a well with partial penetration the fluid has to travel vertically because the whole of
the net pay (h) is not open to the wellbore as shown below.

This vertical component of flow calls into play the vertical permeability, in addition to the horizontal
permeability.
A large horizontal-to-vertical permeability ratio implies a relatively low vertical permeability, which
creates a larger pressure drop near the wellbore due to the vertical component of flow. Thus, this
increase in pressure drop near the wellbore is represented as an increase in the skin due to partial
penetration (spp).

PAS
PAS stands for Pressure ASCII Standard and the .PAS files accepted by the AER follow a defined
structure. There are different types of PAS files: TRG (transient gauge), GRD (gradient), PRD (pro-
duction), OAN (oil analysis), GAN (gas analysis), and WAN (water analysis).
TRG, GRD and PRD PAS files can be read and generated by IHS applications to meet the AER’s
requirements for initial pressure, deliverability, and production. IHS applications do not read or gen-
erate fluid analysis PAS files (GAN, OAN, or WAN) For more information about these PAS files, try
contacting your fluid sampling provider (e.g., Core Labs, AGAT Laboratories, etc.).
If you do not deal with wells in Alberta, Canada, you can hide the PAS tab.
IHS Application used to generate these

AER Requirement Type of PAS file
PAS files
Initial / Annual pres- GRD.PAS or
IHS ValiData or WellTest
sure TRG.PAS
Initial deliverability TRG.PAS WellTest
PRD.PAS or
Initial production WellTest
TRG.PAS
Important Notes
There are exceptions to the requirements described below (e.g., non-control wells in a Development
Entity, or wells producing under Self-declared (SD) Commingling). Please refer to the AER website
re: Directive 40 and 65 to learn more about these exceptions.
Exemptions on Pressure Survey requirements can be requested. These have been granted for low
permeability, heavy oil, small reserve, declining productivity pools, etc. Please refer to the AER web-
site re: Directive 40, section 4.6.
Initial Pressure Requirements

Alberta’s regulatory board requires an initial pressure to be obtained for:
l gas wells: within the first three months of production (one well per pool per section)
l oil wells: prior to any sales production (one well per pool per quarter section)
This requirement can be met by one of the following techniques:

l Analyze a well test, such as a buildup test or falloff test, and generate and submit a
PAS AER file using WellTest.
l Analyze a static gradient and generate and submit a GRD.PAS file using IHS
ValiData.
To meet the initial pressure requirement with a static gradient, one of the following criteria
must be met:
l the pressure must not build more than 2 kPa/hr over a period greater than 2 hours
while the gauges are on bottom.
l OR, the gauge was on bottom (with well shut-in) for a minimum of 14 days.
For more information, see Meeting the AER Initial Pressure Requirements.
Annual Pressure Requirements

Annual pressure surveys must be conducted by year end (December 31) for oil & gas pools. Surveys
are required on 25% of the producing well count, based on ¼ section well spacing for oil wells, and 1
section spacing for gas wells.
Initial Deliverability Requirements

Alberta’s regulatory board requires initial deliverability to be obtained as follows:
l gas wells: within the first three months of production
l oil wells: not required, however, if an IPR is available, the test data and interpretation
should be submitted to the AER.
For more information, see Meeting the AER Initial Deliverability Requirements.
Initial Production Requirements

Alberta’s regulatory board requires the following initial production data to be submitted
l gas wells: any cleanup, or flow data.
l oil wells: not required, however, AER rules state that if you have cleanup or flow data
in PRD.PAS format it shall be submitted.
This requirement can be met by one of the following techniques:
l If the well is producing inline, the TRG-PAS file generated to meet the initial deliv-
erability requirements will also meet the initial production requirement.

Permeability (k)
The permeability of a reservoir is a measure of how much fluid can flow through a rock for a specified
pressure drop. Thus, permeability is a property of the rock, and is independent of the fluid (provided
the rock is 100% saturated with that fluid). This means that the absolute permeability of a rock is the
same, whether the fluid is gas, oil, or water. What does change between these three fluids is the flow
rate per unit pressure drop due to the different viscosities.
In a petroleum reservoir, the rock is usually not fully saturated with a single phase fluid. Generally,
saturations in the reservoir rock consist of different amounts of gas, oil, and water. These saturations
change the effective permeability of the rock.
Permeability can be measured in a laboratory from core analysis. While this is sometimes done with
the core in its native or restored state, the more common method is to clean and dry the core, and
measure its absolute permeability (usually to air or nitrogen, but the same value would be obtained if
water were used instead). Permeability can also be determined by Pressure Transient Analysis
(PTA). However, it must be remembered that the permeability determined from analysis is the in-situ
effective permeability of the primary reservoir fluid type, and not the absolute permeability.
The in-situ effective permeability is usually significantly less than the absolute core-derived per-
meability by a factor ranging from 2 to 200, depending on the reservoir. In addition, when a per-
meability is determined from a pressure transient test, it reflects the average permeability of the
reservoir within the radius of investigation of the test (often several hundred feet). This is in contrast
to a core measurement that represents only a few inches of the reservoir.
In PTA, effective permeability (in-situ) can be determined either by semi-log (radial) analysis, or mod-
eling (matching) pressure data. The results of these two techniques should be consistent; any incon-
sistencies should be accounted for by reviewing and modifying the information and data provided,
and/or modifying the analysis/model accordingly.
When gas, oil, and water are being produced during a test, the effective permeability for each phase
can be estimated by assuming that only that fluid phase was flowing.
Note: In most of the pressure transient equations, the permeability term occurs as a mobility (k / µ)
or a transmissivity (kh /µ) term.

Pressure (p)
Pressure is defined as force over a specific area. In PTA analysis, it is used to measure the diffusion
within the wellbore and reservoir that occurs when a well is open to flow. It is directly related to flow
rate such that a decrease in pressure causes an increase in rate and vice versa.

Productivity Index (PI)
The productivity index is defined as the flow rate per unit pressure drop, and serves as an indication
of the production potential of a well. It is defined as:
For example, if a well flows at a 1,000 stbbls/d with a flowing (sandface) pressure of 1500 psi and at
an average reservoir pressure of 2,000 psi, then the productivity index is:
PI = 1000 / (2000 - 1500) = 2 stbbls/d / psi
After the PI is known, the equation can be rearranged to determine the deliverability rate as follows:
This equation is only valid for a well in an undersaturated reservoir. For wells in saturated reservoirs,
or for gas wells, the relationship is not as straightforward, and the simple relationship described
above does not apply. In these situations, either an IPR (for oil) or AOF (for gas) analysis should be
performed.

Radial Extent of Zone (re)
The radial extent of a zone refers to the radial distance (from the center) into a cylindrical-shaped
reservoir where reservoir (e.g., permeability, net pay, and total porosity) and fluid properties (e.g.,
compressibility and viscosity) remain constant, or to where a no-flow or constant pressure boundary
exists. In the former case, after the reservoir and fluid parameters appear to change, the limits of that
zone have been reached.

Recombination
Many gas condensate systems exist as a single phase liquid in the reservoir. Condensation gen-
erally takes place at the separator, in the wellbore, or in the reservoir very near the wellbore. When
modeling gas condensate systems at reservoir conditions, gas and condensate rates measured at
surface conditions are combined into a single phase rich gas using recombination.
The recombination calculation takes the volume of condensate, vaporizes it, and adds it the gas
volume to obtain a single phase rich gas as it exists in the reservoir. A recombined gas gravity is also
calculated for use in the analytical models.
Given the specific gravity of measured separator gas, the CGR, and the specific gravity of the con-
densate, the recombined gas gravity can be calculated using the following equation:
where:
The recombined gas rate is calculated using the following equation:
The recombined gas rate factor (RGRF) is defined as recombined gas rate divided by the measured
gas rate:

Relative Permeability
Relative permeability is a concept used to convey the reduction in flow capability due to the pres-
ence of multiple mobile fluids. It is dependent upon pore geometry, wettability, fluid distribution, and
fluid saturation history. Relative permeability measurements are conducted on core samples in a
laboratory and are both time-consuming and expensive to produce. Consequently, relative per-
meability measurements are most often requested for projects where secondary and/or tertiary
recovery is being considered.
In a single-phase system such as a dry gas or an under-saturated oil reservoir, the effective per-
meability of flow of the mobile fluid through the reservoir varies little during production because the
fluid saturations do not change. However, when more than one phase is mobile, the effective per-
meability to each mobile phase changes as the saturations of the fluids change in the reservoir.
In a two-phase system, the fluids might consist of oil and water or oil and gas. In a three-phase sys-
tem, all three fluid phases occur. Each fluid, as it flows through the porous media, interferes with the
fluids because capillary forces exist that reduce the flow rate of each individual phase in a non-linear
fashion. Consequently, the sum of the relative permeability of each phase is always less than one.
Relative Permeability Terms and Equations

Typical phases seen in a reservoir are oil, water, and gas; and the effective permeability of each is
designated as ko, kw, and kg, respectively. The relative permeability for each phase is calculated by
dividing the effective permeability to flow by the absolute permeability. The absolute permeability is
the “Klinkenberg” or theoretical “air” permeability, which is measured by cleaning and completely dry-

ing a core sample and then measuring the effective permeability of flow to air. The units of relative
permeability are dimensionless.
Wettability
Wettability in a reservoir is a measurement of the ability of a fluid to coat the rock surface. Wettability
and heterogeneity have a significant impact on the shape of the relative permeability curves. The
wetting fluid relative permeability curve is concave upwards whereas the non-wetting fluid has an “s”
shape. In the case where there is no interfacial tension between the fluid phases, the relative per-
meability curves simplify to straight lines between the endpoints.
Water-Wet Relative Permeability Curves (Oil and

Water)
A schematic of oil-water relative permeability curves in a water-wet reservoir is shown below. In
water-wet rock, a water layer wets the rock surface and acts like a lubricant for the oil located in the
central parts of the pores.
l Swc is the connate or irreducible water saturation. This is the water saturation
below which water is not mobile because of capillary forces. The relative per-
meability of water at water saturations below Swc is zero.
l Sorw is the residual oil saturation or critical oil saturation. This is the oil saturation
below which the oil is immobile, that is, its relative permeability is zero.

Oil-Wet Relative Permeability Curves (Oil and Water)
The figure below displays a schematic of water-oil relative permeability curves in an oil-wet reservoir
rock. In oil-wet rock, oil wets the pore surfaces and water occupies the central regions of the pores.
Typically, the irreducible water saturation in oil-wet reservoir rock is lower than that in water-wet
rock.

Gas-Oil Relative Permeability Curves
The schematic below displays a set of gas-oil relative permeability curves. In this case, the wetting
phase, the oil phase, impedes the flow of gas. The water saturation in the reservoir rock is taken to
not exceed its irreducible value. This means that the water is not mobile, but exists in the pore space
and simply reduces the available pore space that the gas and oil can occupy.
l Sgc is the critical gas saturation. This is the minimum saturation for gas to
become mobile.
l Sorg is the residual oil saturation to gas. This is the immobile oil when gas is the
displacing fluid.
l krogc is the relative permeability of oil at the critical gas saturation.
l krgc is the relative permeability of the gas at the residual oil saturation.

Normalized Relative Permeability
When using water-oil relative permeability, there is a second term that is often encountered. This is
“normalized” relative permeability. Normalized relative permeability defines the oil relative per-
meability at the critical water saturation (water becomes mobile) as a value of one (1.0), and defines
the absolute permeability as the effective at the critical water saturation.

Relative Permeability Correlations
Two-Phase Correlations
In a two-phase system, the fluids consist of oil and water, oil and gas, or gas and water. An example
of an oil-water system is shown below:
Corey
This model assumes the wetting and non-wetting phase-relative permeabilities to be independent of
the saturations of the other phases and requires only a single suite of gas/oil-relative permeability
data.
Water / Oil System

Gas / Oil System
Gas / Water System
Honarpour
Developed using data from oil and gas fields in the continental US, Alaska, Canada, Libya, Iran,
Argentina and the United Arab Republic.
Sandstone
Water Wet
Intermediate Wet

Any Wettability
Limestone
Water Wet
Intermediate Wet
Any Wettability

Generalized Corey
Similar to the Corey correlation, but developed for a wider range of rock and wettability char-
acteristics. This correlation can be used to change the endpoints of water-oil and gas-liquid relative
permeability curves while still retaining the shape of the curves.
Gas / Oil System
Gas / Water System
Water / Oil System
Three-Phase Correlations
Three-phase relative permeability can be generated from the two-phase relative permeability curves
of the oil-water system and the relative permeability curves of the gas-oil system. The two-phase
curves represent the end curves when either the gas saturation or water saturation equals zero.

Stone I
This probability model estimates three-phase permeability data from laboratory measured two-
phase data. It uses the channel flow theory in porous media to obtain a simple result for determining
the relative permeability to oil in the presence of water and gas flow. The model implies that water-rel-
ative permeability and water-oil capillary pressure in three-phase systems are functions of water sat-
uration alone, irrespective of the relative saturations of oil and gas. Similarly, the gas-phase relative
permeability and gas-oil capillary pressure are the same functions for gas saturation in the three-
phase system as in the two-phase gas-oil system.
Stone I is widely used in the industry as the benchmark for oil simulation. It is a better predictor than
Stone 2 in low oil saturation regions, is more appropriate for water-wet systems, and is not suited for
intermediate wet systems.
Stone II
Stone's Model II is a modified version of Stone I. It is a better predictor than Stone 1 in high-oil sat-
uration regions. It is more appropriate for water-wet systems and is not suited for intermediate wet
systems.

Baker
Baker's three-phase model is based on saturation-weighted interpolation between the two-phase rel-
ative permeability values. It is well suited for intermediate wet or oil-wet systems.

Specified Flow Time (tflow)
The specified flow time is used to calculate the forecast rates in a model at current, 0, and -4 skin val-
ues. This time is added to the start time of the selected flow period, and the model forecast rates are
calculated at this extrapolated time.

Specified Flowing Pressure (pflow)
The specified flowing pressure is used to calculate the forecast rates in a model at 3 months, 6
months, specified flow time (tflow) as well as current, 0, and -4 skin values. It represents the flowing
back-pressure to use when calculating these forecast rates.

Specified Shut-In Time (tshut-in)
The specified shut-in time is only used to calculate the extrapolated model pressure (p*). This time is
added to the start time of the selected flow period, and the extrapolated model pressure (p*) is cal-
culated at this extrapolated time.

Synthetic Initial Pressure (pi (syn))
When using an analytical model, it is usually convenient to adjust all the synthetic (model) pressures,
so that they go through a selected point (for example, through the measured final flowing pressure
(pwfo)). This is achieved by back-calculating a synthetic initial pressure, such that all other cal-
culated synthetic pressures are adjusted. This may cause the synthetic initial pressure to be dif-
ferent from the measured initial pressure (pi). This difference between the synthetic and initial
pressures can be used as a diagnostic tool to help validate the reservoir model. For example, in the
diagrams below, two different reservoir models give similar matches of the buildup data. Yet one of
them gives a completely erroneous and unacceptable synthetic initial pressure when compared to
the measured initial pressure (pi).

Time to Stabilization (tstab)
Stabilization originated as a practical consideration and reflected time when the pressure no longer
changed significantly with time (i.e., it stabilized). With high-permeability reservoirs, this point was
not hard to observe. However, with tight formations, the pressure does not stabilize for a very long
time (e.g., months and sometimes years). Moreover, except where there is a pressure maintenance
mechanism acting on the pool, true steady-state is never achieved and the pressure never becomes
constant.
Time to Stabilization is defined as the time it takes for the radius of investigation to reach all of the
reservoir boundaries.
tstab = distance to furthest boundary2 * 948 * φ * µ * ct / k
References
"Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells, Third Edition", Energy Resources Conservation
Board (ERCB), pp. 3-34 to 3-36, 1975.

Transient Forecast
After the flow regimes have been identified and values for reservoir parameters have been obtained,
an appropriate model is selected to represent the reservoir. This model makes use of the rate history
to create a pressure response, which is then compared to the actual pressure data recorded during
the test. The model parameters are adjusted until a history match of the pressures has been
obtained. When the pressure response of the model is the same as the pressure response of the
reservoir, the modeling is complete and a forecast can be done.
The forecast gives the analyst an understanding of the reservoir and the economics of the well. For
gas or oil reservoirs, it can help illustrate and quantify the value of adding suction, improving skin, or
changing the design of the gathering system. Note that for oil reservoirs, the forecast assumes con-
stant compressibility, constant fluid saturations, and single-phase flow; therefore, it is only valid
above the bubble point pressure, and long-term forecasts may not be reliable.
The forecast below is a plot of rate and cumulative production versus time for a specified back pres-
sure. The calculations are done on a daily basis for the first month, and then on a monthly basis up to
the specified forecast time, and consist of sequential material balance and deliverability calculations.
Multiple forecast cases (up to three) can be performed as shown in the plot below.

The back-pressure and skin can be changed during the course of the forecast. The following plot
shows the effect on the rate forecast of an acid treatment three months after the test, as well as the
effect of adding a compressor six months after the test:
A contract rate can also be specified to determine how long that rate can be maintained at the spe-
cified back-pressure as shown in the plot below.

Note: If a contract rate is not specified, the maximum capacity of the well against the specified
back pressure is calculated.
Forecast Parameters Dialog Box

l Use Specified pR — starts the forecast at the specified reservoir pressure. This
is the default option and uses the final average reservoir pressure calculated
from the production data and the model.
l Start forecast at beginning of test — starts the forecast at the initial average
reservoir pressure calculated from the production data and model.
l Start forecast at end of test — starts the forecast at the final average reservoir
pressure calculated from the production data and model.
l Start forecast at t = — starts the forecast at the average reservoir pressure cal-
culated at the specified time in months from the beginning of the test using the
production data and model.
l qc — specifies the contract rate to use in the forecast. This rate is maintained as
long as possible at the specified flowing pressure. Rate decline occurs when this
rate can no longer be supported.
l Time — specifies the total time or duration of the forecast. The default is 12
months.
l S.L. — specifies the surface loss, which is the difference (expressed as a %)

between the raw gas and the sales gas. It represents the amount of gas that is
used in the production operation, such as powering a compressor on the gath-
ering system, heating, dehydration, removal of CO2, and H2S, dealing with
leaks, etc.
l Calculate — click this button to generate the forecast based on the current fore-
cast parameters.
l Wellbore — specifies that the flowing pressures used are at wellhead con-
ditions. When using this option, the wellbore parameters also need to be spe-
cified to convert the wellhead flowing pressure to sandface conditions. Note that
this option requires more computational time as an iterative process is required
to convert the wellhead pressure to sandface. This is due to the fact that the con-
version is dependent on the rate being forecast, and the rate being forecast is
dependent on the sandface pressure. Thus, an iterative process is required to
solve this scenario.
l Sandface — specifies that the flowing pressures used are at sandface con-
ditions.
l Edit Wellbore Parameters — click this button to open the Wellbore Properties
dialog box and modify the current wellbore configuration. This option is only avail-
able when the Wellhead option (see above) is active.
l Abandonment Rate — specifies the abandonment rate to determine the Estim-

ated Ultimate Recoverable (EUR) fluid.

l Abandonment Pressure — specifies the abandonment reservoir pressure to
determine the Estimated Ultimate Recoverable (EUR) fluid. The default value is
10 percent of the reservoir pressure (pR).
l Recovery Factor — specifies the recovery factor (expressed as a %) of

fluid. This represents the amount of fluid that is desired for recovery.
l pwf1 — specifies the case 1 flowing pressure to run the forecast at. This value
must be less than the reservoir pressure (pR).
l s1 — specifies the case 1 skin to run the forecast at. The default value is the skin
specified in the model.
l t2 — specifies the time in months to make either a flowing pressure (add com-
pression), or skin (stimulate well) change. This can be applied to all three cases.
l t3 — specifies the time in months to make either a flowing pressure (add com-
pression), or skin (stimulate well) change. This can be applied to all three cases.

Turbulence Factor (D)
The equations of flow in porous media assume laminar flow in the reservoir (this is inherent in
Darcy’s law). In many gas reservoirs, (and in a few oil reservoirs), turbulence exists in the formation
(close to the wellbore) and this turbulence causes an additional pressure drop.
Turbulence is accounted for by treating it as a rate-dependent skin, Dq or sturb, where D is known as

the turbulence factor and q is the flow rate. This skin due to turbulence (sturb) is a component of total
skin (s'), and thus makes total skin (s') a function of turbulence when turbulence is significant. For a
single-rate test, we cannot differentiate between skin due to damage (sd) and skin due to turbulence
(sturb or Dq).
For a multi-rate test (AOF LIT analysis), s' and D have different effects and can be determined inde-
pendently.
Note: The turbulence factor cannot be a negative value. If it is, it reflects errors in the data or ana-
lysis and it should be set to zero.

Water Rate (qw)
Water rate is the amount of water produced over a given interval of time. It is typically noted in units
of bbls/d or m3/d measured at surface conditions. When entering rates in the Production Editor tab
the following rules apply:

Wedge Angle (θ)
Wedge angle is the angle between the boundaries in the x and y directions in a wedge model as
shown below.

Well Locations & Boundaries
Constant Pressure Boundary
A constant pressure boundary is a boundary that provides pressure support. This kind of boundary
usually occurs in reservoirs with aquifer support. Steady state flow signifies that a constant pressure
boundary has been reached.
Distance to Boundary
The distance to boundary is the distance between the well and the boundary. The boundary may be
a no-flow or constant-pressure boundary, and may be circular or linear as shown below.
If a well is located near a single boundary, the reservoir is considered to be infinite acting in all the
other directions.

Infinite Acting Reservoir
An infinite acting reservoir is a reservoir without any boundaries; therefore boundary effects will not
appear on the analysis plots during the duration of the test.
No-Flow Boundary
A no-flow boundary is a boundary that does not allow flow through it. This kind of boundary usually
occurs in reservoirs with sealing faults, or is created between producing wells that are equally
spaced and producing at the same rate. Pseudo-steady state flow signifies that all no-flow bound-
aries have been reached.
Observation Well
In modeling, pressure can also be calculated at a different location or observation point away from
the active well. This point is known as an observation well. The location of the observation well is
measured with respect to the active well location (e.g. Xw and Yw) and has the coordinates ∆Xo, ∆Yo,
Zo for rectangular reservoirs or ro for cylindrical reservoirs. This coordinate system for rectangular
reservoirs is shown in the diagram below.

Reservoir Dimensions
Reservoir length (Xe) is the length of the exterior reservoir boundary in the x-direction and reservoir
width (Ye) is the width of the exterior reservoir boundary in the y-direction, as shown in the diagram
below. Reservoir height (Ze) is the thickness of the reservoir, defined as net pay and denoted by ‘h’.
(See Net Pay.)
Well Location
The location of the active (producing or injecting) well for rectangular- shaped reservoirs is specified
using an x, y, z coordinate system, as outlined below. The distance is represented from the origin in
the lower-left hand corner (Xw, Yw and Zw).
Note: The Zw distance is only applicable for a horizontal well and represents the distance or height
from the origin (base of the formation) to the center of the horizontal leg of the wellbore. For
cylindrical-shaped reservoirs, the well is always assumed to be in the center.

Properties
Reference material for properties includes the following:
n Fluid properties
n Formation properties
n Fracture properties
n Gas condensate properties
n Gas properties
n Oil properties
n Reservoir temperature
n Water properties

Fluid Properties
Fluid properties are used throughout various calculations and define various reservoir fluid char-
acteristics such as gravity, compressibility, viscosity, and formation volume factor. These properties
directly influence the fluid flow within a reservoir and wellbore, and therefore impact the deliverability
of a well.

Formation Properties
Formation Compressibility (cf)
Formation compressibility is the change in rock volume per unit volume per unit change in
pressure. The formation, even though it is a solid material, is compressible. The formation com-
pressibility is used in the calculation of total compressibility (ct).
It is of the same order of magnitude as the oil compressibility (co) or the water compressibility (cw),
approximately 10-6 1 / psi.
Thus, in the absence of gas saturation (Sg), the formation compressibility is relatively significant and
must not be ignored.
However, when there is gas present in the pores, the gas compressibility (cg) is one or two orders of
magnitude higher, and the formation compressibility is relatively small and may be ignored.
The formation compressibility may be measured in the laboratory, but it is usually derived from cor-
relations. It is obvious that the nature of the formation, its degree of consolidation, its stress field, etc.
all affect the formation compressibility, yet the correlations that exist do not take all of these factors
into account. They are very simplified and relate the formation compressibility to the total porosity
(φ). The correlation used in this software is applicable to sandstones and carbonates. It was derived,
from laboratory measurements, by Hall and published in the Transactions, AIME (1953) 198, p. 309.
Gas Saturation (Sg)

The gas saturation is the fraction of the pore space occupied by gas. Most gas reservoirs also con-
tain some connate (non-movable) water (see water saturation (Sw)).
If the gas reservoir is part of a gas cap in a saturated oil reservoir, the space may contain gas, oil,
and water. Thus the gas saturation is rarely 100% but varies from 30% to 90%. Gas saturation is
used directly in the calculation of the reserves and also in the calculation of total compressibility
(ct). Note that the gas saturation has a significant effect on the total compressibility (ct) since the gas
compressibility is much higher than the other fluid compressibilities (oil (co) and water (cw)).
Net Pay (h)

This is the thickness of the formation that contributes to the flow of fluids. It is determined from core
or log analysis, and can be different from the gross pay, or the perforated interval (hp). In the case of

an inclined or deviated wellbore in a declining formation, the net pay is measured perpendicular to
the angle of decline. Several examples of net pay are shown below.
Oil Saturation (So)

Oil saturation is the fraction of the pore space occupied by oil. Most oil reservoirs also contain some
connate water (non-movable) (see water saturation (Sw)). Thus, the oil saturation is rarely 100%
and usually ranges from 10% to 90% (in the oil / water transition zones). The oil saturation directly
affects the calculation of reserves and total compressibility (ct).
Total Compressibility (ct)

The compressibility of a substance is the change in volume per unit volume per unit change in pres-
sure. In a reservoir that consists of rock and pore space occupied by oil, water, and gas, the total

compressibility is defined as follows:
From this definition, the total compressibility takes into account the compressibility and saturation of
gas (Sg), oil (So), and water (Sw) as well as the (rock) formation compressibility (cf).
Note that the gas saturation (Sg) has a significant effect on the total compressibility (ct) since the gas
compressibility (cg) is much higher than the other fluid compressibilities (oil (co) and water (cw)).
Thus, if there is any gas present in the reservoir, the total compressibility is dominated by the gas
compressibility (cg) component.
The total compressibility has only a small effect during pressure transient flow analysis (it occurs
within the log term in the skin calculation equation for radial flow), but it has a significant effect during
pseudo-steady state (PSS) flow as it directly affects the total energy content of the reservoir.
In pressure transient analysis, the total compressibility is assumed constant, except for the case of
gas pseudo-time in which the total compressibility is allowed to vary with pressure. Note that when
forecasting production rates in a gas reservoir, if the forecast duration is much longer than the time
to pseudo-steady state, significant errors in the late-time forecast may result (the rate will be under-
predicted) when assuming a constant total compressibility.
Total Porosity (φ)

The total porosity is the percentage volume occupied by the pore space, regardless of the type of flu-
ids contained in the pore space. It is obtained from core or log analysis.
When using this parameter for pressure transient analysis, it is assumed that the pore space is filled
with a single-phase fluid (either gas, oil, or water), such that the total porosity equals the porosity of
that specific fluid. In reality, this is rarely the case, and the total porosity is usually filled with a mix-
ture of gas, oil, and water.
Total porosity is used to calculate formation compressibility (cf) and thus affects the total com-
pressibility (ct). The total porosity has only a small effect during pressure transient flow analysis (it
occurs within the log term in the skin calculation equation for radial flow), but it has a significant
effect during PSS flow as it directly affects the reserves contained in the reservoir.

Water Saturation (Sw)
The water saturation is the fraction of the pore space occupied by water. Most reservoirs are water
wet and contain connate water.
Water saturation may range from 10% to 50% for an oil or gas reservoir, and it will be 100% for an
aquifer. The water saturation obviously affects the oil and gas reserves, and is also used in the cal-
culation of total compressibility (ct).

Fracture Properties
Fracture Flow Capacity (kfwf)
Fracture flow capacity is a measure of how conductive, or how easily fluid moves through a fracture.
It is defined as the product of fracture permeability and fracture width (kfwf) as shown below.
A large value of fracture flow capacity (>10,000 md ft) represents an infinite conductivity fracture,
and yields a linear fracture flow response on the derivative. A small value of the fracture flow capa-
city (<10,000 md ft) represents a finite conductivity fracture and may yield a bilinear fracture flow
response on the derivative. When the value of fracture flow capacity is divided by the product of form-
ation permeability (k) and fracture half-length (Xf), the result is known as the dimensionless fracture
conductivity (FCD) defined as:
Note: This dimensionless form is a more common measure of fracture conductivity that is found in
the literature.
Fracture Half-Length (Xf)

A hydraulic fracture is typically modeled by assuming it extends in a straight line equally on each
side of the wellbore, as shown below:

As shown, the fracture half-length is the distance from the well to the tip of the fracture.
The fracture half-length depends on the size of the fracture treatment and varies from a few feet to a
few hundred feet. In pressure transient analysis, it is estimated from the linear fracture flow analysis.

Gas Condensate Properties
Assume reservoir gas enters the wellbore. On the way to surface and in the separator, the pressure
and temperature decrease. The heavier components drop out of the gas in the form of liquid con-
densate. At the surface, we measure the gas rate and monitor the condensate volumes. We are inter-
ested in using the sandface gas rates in the analysis, so we recombine the condensate monitored at
the surface into gas.
Based on the gas properties, Condensate Gas Ratio (CGR), Condensate Gravity (gcnd), Separator
Temperature (Tsep), and Separator Pressure (psep), a Recombined Gas Rate Factor (RGRF) and
Recombined Gas Gravity (gr) can be calculated. The measured gas rates are multiplied by the
RGRF to get the total sandface rate. The gas at sandface is richer than the gas at surface, so the
higher Recombined Gas Gravity is used for analysis. In WellTest, you can either use a constant
RGRF calculated in Gas Properties, or calculate a different RGRF for each rate based on the current
CGR on the Production Editor tab.
In general, if the CGR < 12 bbl/MMscf, using Recombination isn’t necessary.
Note: The condensate is separated from the gas in the separator and measured in the stock tank.
However, the fluid in the stock tank has been flashed and will no longer contain components
< C5.
V2 < V1, we want V1 (q1)
q1 = q2 / shrinkage factor (0.7 – 0.9)

Therefore, it is important to divide the condensate rates by a shrinkage factor (usually between 0.7 -
0.9) to get the correct condensate rate used to calculate the CGR. The shrinkage factor could be
determined from a flash calculation.

Gas Properties Reference Material
Critical Pressure (pc)
Critical pressure represents the pressure above which distinct liquid and gas phases do not exist. As
the critical pressure is approached, the properties of the gas and liquid phases become the same,
resulting in one phase known as supercritical fluid. Its value is used in the definition of reduced pres-
sure (pr = p / pc) which in turn is used directly in correlations or Equations Of State (EOS) to determ-
ine various Pressure, Volume, Temperature (PVT) properties of natural gases (e.g., viscosity,
compressibility, z-factor, etc.).
Critical Temperature (Tc)

Critical temperature represents the temperature above which distinct liquid and gas phases do not
exist. As the critical temperature is approached, the properties of the gas and liquid phases become
the same, resulting in one phase known as supercritical fluid. Its value is used in the definition of
reduced temperature (Tr = T / Tc) which in turn is used directly in correlations or equations of state
(EOS) to determine various PVT properties of natural gases (e.g., viscosity, compressibility, z-factor,
etc.).
Gas Compressibility (cg)

The compressibility of a substance is the change in volume per unit volume per unit change in pres-
sure. Gas compressibility should not be confused with the compressibility factor (z), which is the devi-
ation factor from ideal gas behavior. Gas compressibility is calculated from the BWR equation of
state as published in the ERCB manual "Gas Well Testing - Theory and Practice".
The gas compressibility is a very strong function of pressure, and increases as the pressure
decreases. Mathematically, it can be expressed as:
Where p is the specified pressure and z is the gas compressibility factor (z) at that pressure. Thus,
the magnitude of gas compressibility (cg) is of the order of 1 / p. Moreover, when the pressure draw-
down at the wellbore is large, the difference in compressibility values at the initial pressure (pi) and at

the flowing pressure is significant and must be accounted for by using the pseudo-time (ta) variable,
instead of regular time.
Gas Compressibility Factor (z)

The compressibility factor of a natural gas is a measure of its deviation from ideal gas behavior. Its
value is usually between 0.8 and 1.2, but it can be as low as 0.3, and as high as 2.0. It is used in the
calculation of gas pseudo-pressures (ψ), and in converting gas volumes and rates from standard
conditions to reservoir conditions (and vice versa). It is sometimes called the super-compressibility
factor, and is often confused with the term "compressibility" (which is the change in volume per unit
volume per unit change in pressure). The gas compressibility factor directly affects the gas com-
pressibility (cg).
Gas Formation Volume Factor (Bg)

The gas formation volume factor, defined below, is a function of the fluid composition and the pres-
sure / temperature ratio between reservoir (in-situ) and standard
Note: It is a very strong function of pressure, and a weak function of temperature and gas com-
position.
Gas Gravity (g or γg)

Gas gravity is the molar mass (molecular weight) of the natural gas divided by the molar mass of air
(28.94). It ranges from 0.55 for dry sweet gas to approximately 1.5 for wet, sour gas. The default
value is 0.65.
The gas gravity affects the calculations of gas viscosity (µg), compressibility (cg), compressibility
factor (z), and solution gas oil ratio (Rs). The effect of gas gravity on these properties is not sig-
nificant, so it is not detrimental if the gas gravity is not precisely known, using the default or an aver-
age value is sufficient in most cases.

Gas Viscosity (µg)
Gas viscosity is a measure of the amount of resistance to flow the gas has. Higher values indicate
more resistance to flow. For gas, the viscosity increases with increasing temperature and pressure.
Usually it is not measured, but is obtained from the Carr, Kobayashi, and Burrows correlations,
which include corrections for H2S, CO2, and N2.
For sour gases, this correlation is preferred to the Lee, Gonzalez, and Eakin formulation which does
not account for H2S, CO2, and N2. Gas viscosity is used in numerous equations, most notably in the
definitions of pseudo-pressure (ψ) and pseudo-time (ta). Typically, gas viscosity is in the range of
0.015 to 0.03 cp or 15 to 30 micro-Pa.s.

Reservoir Temperature (T)
The reservoir temperature represents the temperature of the formation. It increases with reservoir
depth and differs widely depending on the reservoir location's geothermal gradient.
In the analysis of gas wells, the reservoir temperature is used directly in the pressure transient ana-
lysis calculations, as well as calculating all the gas fluid properties such as gas formation volume
factor (Bg), gas viscosity (µg), and gas compressibility (cg). For gas wells, the reservoir temperature
has only a weak effect on the pressure transient analysis calculations.
In the analysis of oil wells, the reservoir temperature does not enter into the pressure transient ana-
lysis equations, directly, but rather It is used in calculating the oil fluid properties such as oil form-
ation volume factor (Bo), oil viscosity (µo), oil compressibility (co), and solution gas-oil ratio (Rs). It
also enters into the calculation of the total reservoir fluid rate (qtBt) through the gas formation
volume factor (Bg), and in the calculation of total compressibility (ct) through the calculation of gas
compressibility (cg).

Water Properties Reference Material
Salinity
Salinity represents the amount of salt (NaCl) dissolved in a fixed volume of water measured in parts
per million (ppm). Water within a reservoir is often salty, and this salt content (salinity) has a small
effect on the fluid flow properties of the water.
Water Compressiblity (cw)

The compressibility of any substance is the change in volume per unit volume per unit change in
pressure. Water compressibility is a source of energy for fluid flow in a reservoir. It has a significant
effect only when there is no free gas present in the reservoir. The water compressibility is a com-
ponent in the calculation of total compressibility (ct), which is the value used in the determination of
skin, dimensionless time, and all material balance considerations in the fluid flow calculations.
The value of water compressibility can be obtained from laboratory Pressure, Volume, Temperature
(PVT) measurements, or determined from correlations. The magnitude is approximately between
1.0 x 10-6 and 9.0 x 10-6. It is a weak function of pressure, temperature, and salinity.
Water Formation Volume Factor (Bw)

Water formation volume factor is defined as the ratio of the volume of water at reservoir (in-situ) con-
ditions to that at stock tank (surface) conditions. This factor, is used to convert the flow rate of water
(at stock tank conditions) to reservoir conditions.
Water formation volume factor can be measured in the laboratory, or determined from correlations.
Under most conditions it has a value of approximately 1.0. It is a very weak function of pressure, tem-
perature, and salinity.
Water Specific Gravity (g or γw)

Water specific gravity is defined as the density of the water divided by the density of water at stand-
ard conditions (62.3 lbm / ft3). Water contained in a reservoir is saline and usually has a specific

gravity greater than 1.0.
Water specific gravity has no effect on calculated properties such as water compressibility (cw), form-
ation volume factor (Bw), and viscosity (µw). It is used, however, in the wellbore pressure drop cal-
culations when converting pressures from wellhead to sandface.
Water Viscosity (µw)

Water viscosity is a measure of the amount of resistance to flow the water has. Higher values indic-
ate more resistance to flow. For water, the viscosity decreases with increasing temperature and
increases with increasing pressure. Water viscosity is a very weak function of pressure. Water at
room temperature is approximately equal to 1 cp. In a reservoir, it is typically between 0.5 to 1
cp. This is due to the higher temperature, salinity, and the solution gas content of the water (if it is
gas saturated).

Wellbore Reference Materials
Wellbore reference materials include the following:
n Acoustic Well Sounders n Wellbore Compressibility
n Azimuth Angle n Wellbore Radius
n Dimensionless Wellbore Storage Constant n Wellbore Volume
n Effective Wellbore Length n Wellbore Volumetric

Capacity
n Inclination Angle
n Net Wellbore Inclination
n Number of Segments

Acoustic Well Sounders
Acoustic well sounders (AWS), or echometers, can be a very effective way of obtaining subsurface
pressures. Their major advantages are:
l Simplicity
l Cost effectiveness – not having to pull pumps and rods in order to land sub-
surface recorders
l Less disturbance to the formation – not having to kill the well, or damage the form-
ation with kill fluid
Because of these significant advantages, AWS measurements are widely used throughout the oil
industry as a means of obtaining subsurface pressures.
Quality
The best way to obtain a subsurface pressure is to measure it directly at the sandface. Subsurface
pressure gauges usually yield acceptable results, except in the case of a total failure of the gauge.
By contrast, you can use AWS as an indirect way of determining the pressure at the subsurface, and
the quality of the results can be quite variable. In many cases, the results are quite acceptable
(within the objectives of the test). However, in many other cases, the results from AWS are grossly in
error for a number of reasons.
In other words, unless special precautions are taken, it is very easy to obtain the wrong answer with
AWS.
Fekete’s experience and expertise in AWS surveys is summarized in this abstract. It provides an out-
line of procedures to assist you in your AWS sandface pressure surveys and calculations, and con-
siders both practical and theoretical requirements for a successful survey.
Planning & Preparation

Thorough planning of the AWS pressure survey must be implemented prior to the survey to ensure
that there is success in production optimization and reservoir management.
One of the best ways of achieving this goal is to have a survey coordinator who is responsible for
planning, scheduling, and coordinating personnel and equipment needed to conduct the field work
and analysis of acquired data. The survey coordinator must have a thorough understanding of the
field procedures involved with conducting an AWS survey, as well as test interpretation skills to

ensure that sufficient quality data is acquired for the well to be returned to production at the earliest
possible time.
In wells where wax problems occur, a hot oil (or treated water) program should be performed long
enough in advance to allow the well to return to normal pumping conditions prior to the survey. Also
at this time, the wellhead should be inspected for any leaks, and casing valves serviced.
One day prior to conducting a foam depression test, flow rate measurements should be conducted
and compared to historical data. Experience suggests that two measurements, of 12 hours each, be
conducted to verify measurements. Reid measuring devices should be recently calibrated to ensure
accuracy.
The most recent and complete tubing tally and wellbore configuration should be obtained from the
well files. Remember, the collars of the tubing are what we are counting. The degree of error here is
reflected in the accuracy of the sandface pressure, even when employing the Acoustic Velocity
method, which must be calibrated using the count of the collars.
In order to determine proper parameters for the analysis of the data, the most recent Pressure,
Volume, Temperature (PVT), petrophysics, and geology data should be acquired for the pool.
Sampling and analysis of the oil, water, and gas should be conducted by qualified personnel only.
l Where possible, sampling should be conducted from a separator, noting the tem-
perature and pressure at which the sampling was conducted.
l Otherwise, stock tank oil samples, casing gas samples, and representative water
samples should be obtained and analyzed.
l All sampling should be done in duplicate and compared to ensure quality.
l All inconsistencies should be resolved prior to the pressure data being analyzed.
Required personnel should be notified well in advance of the survey. If a field survey is being con-
ducted, ensure enough personnel are available to conduct the survey to its completion. Don’t forget
support staff (i.e., field operators, chart readers, etc.). Remember, pressure surveys may require 24-
hour, 7 days a week monitoring to return survey wells to production as soon as possible.
Field Supervision
Supervision of the data gathering in the field is extremely important. As the saying goes "garbage in -
garbage out". Incorrect field-data-gathering techniques result in inaccuracies of the final pressure
calculations.

l Only experienced personnel (from within or contracted) should be responsible for
acquiring field data. Field measurements should be taken with properly cal-
ibrated instruments. Casing pressures are measured using either a deadweight
or a digital pressure transducer. Fluid levels are recorded using a dual-channel
recorder. If a single-channel recorder is used, two shots are required: 1) collars,
2) fluid level to verify liquid level.
l Strip-chart interpretation should be performed at least twice to verify results. Con-

secutive strip charts should be interpreted by juxtaposition. This is done by laying
each strip chart side-by-side in the order of shots. By doing this, you get a true pic-
ture of the fluid movement throughout the shut-in.
l In conducting either a one-well survey or a total field survey, a test coordinator is

required to ensure proper procedures are followed, quality data is acquired, and
proper analysis of the data is received (in order to achieve the test objective and
return the well to production at the earliest possible time). Remember, one of the
benefits of AWS surveys is that the progress of the test can be monitored daily
from field readings.
Wellbore Dynamics
To better understand and quantify the results of an AWS survey, experience has shown that well-
bore dynamics must be considered during a pressure buildup monitored by AWS.
1. Determination of sandface Pressure After Shut-In

Theoretically, the calculation of the shut-in sandface pressure (pws) is quite easy.
Where
pcs is the shut-in casing pressure measured by either a deadweight, or a digital pressure
transducer. A normal pressure gauge is not recommended due to normal "wear and tear" of
field operations.
Note: Prior to commencing and throughout the survey, ensure that there are no leaks at the well-
head by inspecting it visually and listening for small leaks.
∆pGAS is the pressure exerted by the gas column in the annulus. This is easily calculated
using the Cullender and Smith method with very acceptable accuracy.
∆pLIQUID is the pressure exerted by the liquid column in the annulus. This is where the dif-
ficulty comes and consideration of wellbore dynamics is essential.

2. Determination of Liquid Level
As previously discussed, there are a number of methods for determining liquid levels.
l Dual Channel – These machines produce a strip chart indicating tubing collars
on the bottom and liquid level on the top. This provides easy verification of the
liquid level at a glance.
l Single Channel – The single channel fluid level machine has the capability of
providing tubing collar, or fluid level strip charts individually. In order to compare
both charts, they must be placed side-by-side and verified.
l Acoustic Velocity – This method of determining fluid levels is based on the velo-
city of sound in the gas, and the time it takes for the sound wave to be reflected
off the gas-liquid interface. Acoustic velocities are sensitive to gas composition,
temperature and pressure, and thus, may vary during the test.
All of these methods may be affected by the presence of a "foam" column, as the acoustic reflection
indicates the top of the "foam" column rather than the top of the "liquid" column.
3. Foam Depression Test

The foam depression test is used to minimize the effects of the "foam" column. It is performed on a
pumping oil well to determine the fluid level in the annulus and the flowing pressure prior to shutting
the well in. It consists of first "shooting" the annulus during normal pumping conditions, with the cas-
ing valve open, then shutting the casing in and "shooting" the annulus at specified time intervals
while the well continues to pump. The adage of "move it to prove it" means that while the casing is
shut-in and the fluid level is being monitored, a "gradient" of the fluid can be detected. This pro-
cedure is carried out until the "foam" gradient is diminished and a "liquid" gradient is observed.
l After a "liquid" gradient is established, a reasonable estimate of pwf can be cal-

culated. In some procedures, correlations are sometimes used to estimate pwf.
l The lower the liquid level is, the smaller is the error in the calculated pwf.
However, care should be taken not to depress the fluid lower than one joint
above the pump, so as not to have gas bypass occur in the pump.
A foam depression test can vary in time to complete; therefore a review of past tests assists you in
planning your AWS survey. The foam depression test is usually performed immediately preceding
the buildup test.

4. Determination of Liquid Gradients
The liquids in the wellbore consist of oil, water, or a combination of both. The pressure exerted by
the liquids is the sum of the water and oil columns. Under normal conditions, the water gradient is
known and the oil gradient is determined from correlations (i.e.,AEUB Guide G-5). However, these
correlations have limitations. Once exceeded, other alternatives are required such as:
l PVT. Correlations
l Equation of State Calculations
l Static Gradients
5. Determination of Oil/Water INFLUX

It has traditionally been assumed that the ratio of oil to water coming into the wellbore, after shut-in,
is constant at the producing ratio. Theoretical considerations, suggest that the influx of liquid into the
wellbore after shut-in is not a constant ratio, but is related to the oil and water's inflow performance
relationship (IPR) and pressure. However, acoustic verification projects reveal that wellbore dynam-
ics are much more complex than lPR suggests. In fact, quite often a net efflux of oil and/or water is
observed rather than an influx.
6. Determination of Measured or Potential Efflux

Static gradients performed in the tubing of several verification projects have identified liquid (oil/wa-
ter) segregation and movement with time. In some instances, oil rose to the top of the liquid column
and the water migrated back into the formation. In other instances, water and oil were displaced
totally by gas in the wellbore. The extent of this phenomenon depends on such characteristics as the
gas inflow performance relationship, damage, and formation characteristics (relative permeabilities).
Quantification of the efflux can only be done through verification projects or experience in similar
wells.
7. Determination of In-Situ Liquid Volume Fraction

This fraction is what remains in the wellbore after the influx and efflux of the oil and water are taken
into account, in addition to the oil and water contents at the time of shut-in. If this in-situ oil / water
ratio cannot be quantified, a maximum possible error can be calculated by:
l assuming the fluid is all oil
l assuming the fluid is all water

The true reservoir pressure usually lies somewhere between these two extremes.
Note: In many properly supervised AWS tests, the margin of error calculated is within very accept-
able limits.
Conclusions
In order to have a successful survey, you need:
l Proper design
l Knowledgeable supervision
l Understanding of wellbore dynamics

Azimuth Angle (θ)
The azimuth angle is the angle of the horizontal wellbore with respect to the outer boundaries in the
x-y plane as shown below.
An azimuth angle of θ = 0° positions the wellbore in a plane parallel to the y-axis.

Dimensionless Wellbore Storage Constant
(CD)
The wellbore storage constant in dimensionless form is defined as:
A large value of dimensionless wellbore storage is associated with a large wellbore volume (Vw). In
practice, a range of values from 500 to 10,000 has been observed. Occasionally, a value much
greater than 10,000 is observed when matching actual test data against a type curve. In such cases,
it is considered that some part of the formation (high permeability or fracture) is in communication
with the wellbore, and is acting as an extension to it.
In a horizontal or slant well, the dimensionless wellbore storage constant (CD) is sometimes
expressed in terms of the effective wellbore half-length (Le/ 2). In such a case, the value for wellbore
radius (rw) in the above equation is replaced by the effective wellbore half-length, which makes CD a
very small number.
Wellbore storage is normally assumed to be constant during a test, and in practice, this assumption
is often reasonable. However, there are numerous situations where wellbore storage is not
constant. This changing wellbore storage may be caused by a changing wellbore fluid com-
pressibility, by phase redistribution, or by a change in the type of storage from a changing liquid level
to a liquid filled wellbore. Changing wellbore storage is accounted for using a modified form of the
dimensionless wellbore storage definition, which includes additional dimensionless parameters,
apparent dimensionless storage (CaD), and a storage pressure parameter (CpD).
The wellbore storage constant and dimensionless wellbore storage constant are calculated from the
early time data, by performing an afterflow or wellbore storage analysis.

Effective Wellbore Length (Le)
In horizontal well test analysis, the length of the wellbore that is contributing to flow is called the
effective wellbore length. It is almost always smaller than the actual horizontal wellbore length
(L). For example, a well may be drilled for 5,000 ft horizontally, but only 3,000 ft may be contributing
to flow, either because the rest of the wellbore is damaged, or it may even be outside the reservoir.
In this case, effective wellbore length would be 3,000 ft and horizontal wellbore length would be
5,000 ft.

Inclination Angle (σ)
Inclination angle is the angle between the section of wellbore that contributes to flow and the plane
parallel to the reservoir ceiling as shown in the following figure:
An angle of σ = 0° is equivalent to a horizontal wellbore and an angle of σ = 90° is equivalent to a ver-

tical wellbore.

Net Wellbore Inclination
Many wells are drilled inclined to the vertical plane, or drilled vertically into a formation that is dipping
as shown in the diagram below. The angle between the wellbore and the perpendicular line to the
formation is defined as the net wellbore inclination measured in degrees.

Number of Segments (Nw)
The number of segments controls how many segments the wellbore is broken into. It is only used in
the slant model to deal with the complexity of the slanted wellbore. Increasing the number of seg-
ments will result in higher precision in the solution, but with slower computational performance.
Note: A value of 100 segments is recommended and handles most situations adequately.

Wellbore Compressibility (cwb)
Wellbore fluid compressibility is used to calculate the wellbore storage constant (C) for an afterflow
(wellbore storage) analysis. It applies only in the case of a liquid-filled wellbore.
When the wellbore fluid is highly compressible (e.g., gas), the wellbore can store more fluid with
increasing pressure. Subsequently, wellbore storage is higher, and the effects are seen for a longer
period of time.
Theoretical development of the wellbore storage equations assumes a single-phase fluid in the well-
bore with a constant compressibility. The value of the compressibility used corresponds to that of the
primary, or dominant fluid type in the wellbore. In reality, this is not the case, since the wellbore often
contains a mixture of oil, gas, and water. Thus, the fluid compressibility is not constant, but is a func-
tion of pressure. As a consequence, any value used for wellbore fluid compressibility is only an estim-
ate.

Wellbore Radius (rw)
In pressure transient analysis, the wellbore is assumed to be cylindrical and has a specific radius
called the wellbore radius as shown below:
This radius is used to determine the sandface area (2rwh), which represents the area through which
all the produced reservoir fluids must flow. The sandface area has a significant effect on the flowing
wellbore pressure, and thus, the wellbore radius is found in many of the flow equations used in Pres-
sure Transient Analysis (PTA).
In real life, the area of contact between the wellbore and the formation is rarely cylindrical as seen
above in Figure II. It depends on the perforations (density, phasing, effectiveness, etc.), and is also
affected by the type of perforating gun, casing, cement, etc. Thus, a true wellbore radius does not
exist (except for open hole completions), and the wellbore radius used in the PTA equations is an
approximation at best. A reasonable value to use can be the drill bit radius, or the outside diameter
of the casing. The default value used in the software is 0.3 ft (0.091 m).

Wellbore Volume (Vw)
Wellbore volume represents the fluid filled volume, below the wellhead valve, that is in com-
munication with the perforations. It can include any combination of tubing, casing, and/or annular
volume based on the wellbore configuration (e.g., with no packer present). Wellbore volume is the
cause of afterflow or wellbore storage. The larger the volume, the longer the duration of wellbore stor-
age-dominated flow. Occasionally, part of the formation near the wellbore may act as an extension
of the wellbore volume. This explains why wellbore storage determined from analysis does not usu-
ally match that calculated from the physical dimensions of the wellbore.
For non-conventional analysis and modeling (Slug / PITA / CCT), wellbore volume is used in cal-
culating the influx rate, or the afterflow rate into the wellbore at the sandface.

Wellbore Volumetric Capacity (Vu)
The volumetric capacity of a wellbore is defined as the area that represents where the liquid level is
rising defined as follows:
l Area of the annulus when the tubing is closed off, either by a valve or hydrostatic
head in the tubing
l Area of the tubing when there is a packer isolating the annulus
l Area of the tubing and the annulus when the liquid level is rising in both
The value of the volumetric capacity typically varies from approximately 0.02 to 1 ft2 (0.002 to 0.1
m2), and is determined by the tubular configuration of the wellbore. It is used in non-conventional
analyses (e.g., Slug, PITA, CCT) when there is a changing liquid level in the wellbore.

Modeling Theory
Modeling theory includes the following:
Basic Model Typecurves
Changing Wellbore Storage
Geomechanical Reservoir Model
History Matching Overview
Hybrid Model Theory
Numerical Model Theory

Basic Model Typecurves
The typecurves shown below help identify key characteristics for different models based on wellbore
configuration, formation configuration, and the presence of a hydraulic fracture. They are rep-
resentative of drawdown flow periods only, and assume an infinite-acting reservoir (no boundary
effects). This is intended as a guide to help in identifying an appropriate model to match the pressure
response being analyzed. It is not intended to display an exact typecurve to match a specific pres-
sure response.
Vertical Model

Composite Model

Partial Penetration

Horizontal Model

Multilayer Model

Fracture Model

Wedge Model

Leaky Fault Model

Changing wellbore storage occurs when one of the following conditions exists within the wellbore:
l Changing wellbore fluid compressibility
l Phase redistribution
l Change in the type of storage from a changing liquid level to a liquid filled well-
bore
The phenomenon of phase redistribution occurs in a well that is shut in at the surface with gas and
liquid flowing simultaneously into the tubing. In these situations, the gravity effects cause the liquid
to fall and the gas to rise to the surface. Because of the very low compressibility of liquid and no
extra room for gas to expand in a closed chamber, the redistribution of phases causes a net increase
in the wellbore pressure. When the phenomenon is present in a buildup test, the extra pressure
surge in the wellbore is relieved through the formation. Eventually, equilibrium will be attained
between the wellbore pressure and the formation pressure adjacent to the wellbore. However, at
early times, the wellbore pressure may exceed the formation pressure causing an anomalous hump
in the buildup pressure, which cannot be analyzed in a conventional way with only the dimensionless
wellbore storage constant (CD). In order to deal with phase redistribution, two models have been pro-
posed by Fair (1981) and Hegeman et al. (1993), which introduces two additional dimensionless well-
bore constants, apparent storage (CaD) and the pressure parameter (CpD).
Fair considered the exponential expression for the dimensionless anomalous pressure (ppD) rise
as:
Later, Hegeman et al. showed that the negative CpD values in the Fair model can be used for
buildup data that has an anomalous pressure decrease. Therefore, for these wells, they argued that
using an error function to model the anomalous pressure may allow for better modeling of field data
with increasing or decreasing storage. Thus, Hegeman et al. proposed that:

However, it has been found in practice that the models of Fair and Hegeman et al. are not sub-
stantially different.
The following plots illustrate the effects of the three dimensionless storage parameters on the dimen-
sionless type curves.

References
"How Wellbore Dynamics Affect Pressure Transient Analysis", L. Mattar and M. Santo, JCPT (Febru-
ary 1992) Volume 31, No. 2, 32 - 40.
"The Primary Pressure Derivative (PPD) – A New Diagnostic Tool in Well Test Interpretation", L. Mat-
tar and K. Zaoral, JCPT (April 1992) Volume 31, No. 4, 63 - 70.
"Pressure Buildup Analysis with Wellbore Phase Redistribution", W.B. Fair Jr., SPEJ (April 1981)
259 - 270.
"Well-Test Analysis with Changing Wellbore Storage", P.S. Hegeman, D.L. Hallford, and J.A.
Joseph, SPEFE (September 1993) 201 - 207.

Geomechanical Reservoir Models
Geomechanical models simulate changes in rock properties with time and pressure. In per-
formance-based reservoir analysis, a geomechanical model may be coupled with the fluid flow
model (analytical or numerical). Geomechanical models are useful for (and may be necessary addi-
tions to) analyses of overpressured reservoirs. The primary properties of interest are porosity, form-
ation compressibility (pore compressibility), and permeability.
Pressure Dependent Permeability: Modified Pseudo-

Pressure & Pseudo-Time
In the standard pressure transient equations, permeability is usually considered to be constant.
There are several situations where this may not be a valid assumption:
l Compaction in overpressured reservoirs
l Very low permeability reservoirs in general
l Unconsolidated and/or fractured formations
One way to account for a variable permeability over time is to modify the definition of pseudo-pres-
sure and pseudo-time.
The Pseudo-Steady State (PSS) equation for gas is follows:
where
The modified PSS equation, which incorporates a variable permeability with pressure, is as follows:

where
Alternatively, the modified equation may be written in two parts as follows:
1. Depletion Part:
(1)
2. Inflow Part:
(2)
The equation, 1. Depletion Part, is a material-balance equation, and thus, has no dependence on
the mobility terms k and m. The mobility terms only enter into the inflow, 2nd part of the PSS equa-
tion. When the PSS equation is coupled, however, the k/m term must be included in pseudo-time.

History Matching Overview
History Matching is the process of manipulating reservoir model parameters until the synthetic data
generated by the model matches data measured in the field. For additional information, see the His-
tory Matching procedure.
It helps us assess the suitability of the model, characterize the reservoir, and calibrate the model
prior to forecasting.

Hybrid Model Theory
Background
There are two main types of models used to simulate the flow of fluid through porous media: ana-
lytical models and numerical models. Both types have their advantages and disadvantages.
Analytical Models
Analytical models have relatively short calculation times, so you can history match with these mod-
els quickly. More than that, you can even match the model automatically using APE.
The main disadvantage for these models is that they can only simulate single-phase flow – either
liquid or gas, but not gas and liquid flowing together. Additionally, analytical models do not fully
account for changing fluid properties with pressure. In case of liquid flow, fluid properties are
assumed to be constant, and in case of gas flow, the change of fluid properties with pressure is
accounted for by using pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time.
Unfortunately, pseudo-time is not an exact transformation. As a result, changing gas properties are
only accounted for to a certain extent. Therefore, in cases where pressure varies significantly across
the reservoir (e.g., pays with low permeability), long-term forecasts for gas analytical models may be
inaccurate. There is no known way to fully account for the change in fluid properties when using ana-
lytical models.
Numerical Models
With numerical models, you can model multiphase flow, and account for changing properties of each
phase, and the interaction between phases.
The main disadvantage for these models is their long computation time. With the numerical mod-
el,the reservoir is divided into a number of cells, and then the flow is modeled simultaneously in all
cells. To be able to assume constant pressure and constant fluid properties within each cell, the size
of each cell needs to be relatively small. Therefore, the number of cells required for an accurate solu-
tion becomes large, which results in a long computation time. Note that decreasing the number of
cells to reduce computation time may significantly affect calculation results.
Performing a manual history match for numerical models is time consuming. In addition, an auto-
matic history match for numerical models is complicated, and thus not widely available in com-
mercial software.

Hybrid Model
The hybrid model is essentially a numerical model, but with certain modifications to significantly
reduce computation time, so that it is almost as fast as an analytical model. These modifications
include:
l accounting for one phase only (gas)
l using the pseudo-pressure formulation
General Formulation for the Single-phase Model

To calculate pressure across the reservoir, we divide it into a number of grid cells. At each timestep
(n+1), we formulate a material balance for each cell.
To define components of mass balance for cell i at timestep n+1:

Mass in place (MIP) for cell i at timestep n+1 can be calculated as:
Equation 1
where:

Vbi = bulk volume for cell i
pin+1 = pressure for cell i at timestep n+1
φ = porosity
ρ = density
Mass flow from cell i to the adjacent cell j during timestep n+1 can be calculated as:
Equation 2
(We used Darcy’s Law to calculate flow rate.)
In equation 2:
= flow rate from cell i to cell j at timestep n+1
Ai,j = cross-section area between cells i and j
Li,j = distance between the centers of cells i and j
μ = viscosity
k = permeability at the initial pressure
km(p) = permeability multiplier (permeability at a certain pressure is calculated as

).
Mass produced at the well during timestep n+1 (if well penetrates cell i) can be cal-
culated as:
Equation 3

where:
WI = wellbore index (as per Peaceman 1978 or Babu and Oden, 1989)
= pressure at the wellbore at timestep n+1
Material balance for cell i at timestep n can be written as:
Equation 4
Using equations 1, 2, and 3, and bringing all the terms to the left, we can rewrite equation 4
as:
Equation 5
Assuming that the pressure distribution has been calculated for timesteps 1, 2, ... n, to calculate pres-
sure distribution at timestep n+1, we formulate material balance (equation 5) for each cell, and solve
all these equations simultaneously. Unknowns of the system are for each cell i; therefore, the
number of equations is the same as the number of unknowns, and the system can be solved.
Well Constraint Considerations

For a well producing at a specified sandface pressure, the described system of equations can be
used directly (because is known). However, for a well that produces at a specified surface q,
an extra equation is required.
Equation 6
where:

i = summation index for all cells penetrated by the well
ρsc = fluid density at standard conditions
Considerations when Estimating Fluid Properties

In the above formulation, we use rock and fluid properties estimated at certain pressures. The term
is used in (equation 2) and in (equation 3).
Some logical questions are:
l At what pressure should we estimate this term?
l Should we use pressure in one of the cells, or some kind of average?
If the modeled fluid is liquid, its properties do not change much with pressure; therefore, pressure in
any cell can be used.
In the case of gas flow, properties significantly vary with pressure; therefore, selecting the correct
way of estimating properties becomes important.
In classical numerical simulation (including numerical models in Harmony), properties are estimated
at the pressure of the upstream cell (i.e., the cell with the higher pressure). For such a simulation to
be accurate, you should ensure that properties in the adjacent cells are close. This could be
achieved by having small grid cells. Unfortunately, having smaller grid cells results in longer com-
putation times.
With the hybrid model, we use the pseudo-pressure formulation to estimate fluid properties.
Hybrid Model Pseudo-pressure Definition

Hybrid model pseudo-pressure is defined as:

Equation 7
Note: The definition of hybrid model pseudo-pressure is very similar to a traditional pseudo-pres-
sure. To see this, express density as (z = gas compressibility factor, T = tem-

perature, R = gas constant, M = molar mass). This results in the following equation:
Equation 8
Therefore, the hybrid model pseudo-pressure and traditional pseudo-pressure are different by a con-
stant factor.
Hybrid Model Pseudo-pressure Formulation

As was mentioned in Considerations when Estimating Fluid Properties, the calculation of mass flow
from one cell to another given in equation 2 has a deficiency: it does not account for a variation of
fluid properties with pressure. The hybrid model formulation modifies equation 2 to get a relationship
between the mass flow rate and pressure drop when properties are changing with pressure.

At each cross-section at any given distance (x), the pressure gradient across the cross-section can
be expressed using the differential form of Darcy’s Law:
Equation 9

where is the mass flow rate across the cross-section. This can be re-arranged as:
Equation 10
Integrating both parts from 0 to L with respect to x, and using the left-side of the equation is a con-
stant with respect to x, we get the following equation:
Equation 11
Note: We used the definition given in equation 7 for the last transformation.
To summarize, when fluid properties are changing with pressure, the mass flow rate through the
cross-section can be calculated as:
Equation 12
Therefore, equation 2 can be modified to account for changing properties. The mass flow from cell i
to cell j during timestep n+1 is calculated as:
Equation 13
Equation 3 can be modified in a similar fashion. Mass produced at the well during timestep n+1 is cal-
culated as:
As a result, the material balance equation for each cell (equation 5) is modified to:

Equation 14
Assuming that the pressure distribution has been calculated for timesteps 1, 2, ... n, to calculate pres-
sure distribution at timestep n+1, we formulate a modified material balance (equation 14) for each
cell, and solve all these equations simultaneously. Unknowns of the system are for each cell i;
therefore, the number of equations is the same as the number of unknowns, and the system can be
solved.
Note: Well constraints are treated in a similar way to general numerical model formulations.
Advantages of Using the Pseudo-pressure For-

mulation
Pseudo-pressure formulation makes simulation significantly faster than classical numerical sim-
ulation modeling for the following three reasons:
1. Smaller number of grid cells: In classical numerical simulation, grid cells have to be small
enough to consider constant fluid properties within each cell. Pseudo-pressure formulation
accounts for a variation of fluid properties between the centers of two adjacent cells; there-
fore, it is possible to have larger grid cells. By having a smaller number of grid cells, cal-
culation speed increases.
2. Faster solution for a non-linear system: While performing numerical modeling, equation
5 is solved at each timestep. This system of equations is non-linear; therefore, it is solved
iteratively, using the Newton-Raphson method. This method involves calculating derivatives
of each matrix element with respect to each unknown. Calculating these derivatives is faster
for pseudo-pressure formulation (equation 14), because we have to deal with one fluid prop-
erty function ( ) as opposed to a combination of three functions ( )
for traditional formulation. More than that, due to the integral nature of , its derivative
is calculated easily.
3. Symmetry: When it comes to solving systems of equations, there are faster algorithms avail-
able for the case when the matrix of the system is symmetrical. Therefore, another advant-
age of using the formulation given in equation 14 over equation 5, is that equation 14 forms
a symmetrical matrix, while estimating properties at the upstream cell for equation 5 results
in an asymmetrical matrix.

Numerical Model Theory
Numerical models offer a more detailed method of modeling pressure / rate data by dividing the
reservoir into smaller blocks. Rigorous material balance calculations are performed on each block to
account for diffusion based on permeability, saturation, porosity, and fluid properties. Variations in
these parameters can be rigorously accounted for which gives the numerical models a huge advant-
age over conventional analytical models, which assume a homogenous reservoir with constant
reservoir and fluid properties. Numerical models are ideal for modeling multiphase situations where
you may have solution gas in addition to changing saturations.
The underlying assumption of the analytical models for production data analysis is single phase flow
in the reservoir. In order to accommodate multiple flowing phases, the model must be able to handle
changing fluid saturations and relative permeabilities. Since these phenomena are highly non-linear,
analytical solutions are very difficult to obtain and use. Thus, numerical models are generally used to
provide solutions for the multiphase flow problem. (The numerical engine used in the software is
based on a general purpose black-oil simulator.) Numerical models can be created with less sim-
plifying assumptions for reservoir properties than analytical models. The reservoir heterogeneity,
mass transfer between phases, and the flow mechanisms can be incorporated rigorously.
Numerical models solve the nonlinear partial-differential equations (PDEs) describing fluid flow
through porous media with numerical methods. Numerical methods are the process of discretizing
the PDEs into algebraic equations, and solving those algebraic equations to obtain the
solutions. These solutions that represent the reservoir behaviour are the values of pressure and
phase saturation at discrete points in the reservoir and at discrete times.
The advantages of the numerical method approach are that the reservoir heterogeneity, mass trans-
fer between phases, and forces / mechanisms responsible for flow can be adequately taken into con-
sideration. For instance, multiphase flow, capillary and gravity forces, spatial variations of rock
properties, fluid properties, and relative permeability characteristics can be represented accurately
in a numerical model. In general, analytical methods provide exact solutions to simplified problems,
while numerical methods yield approximate solutions to the exact problems. One consequence of
this is that the level of detail and time required to define a numerical model is more than its equi-
valent analytical model.
Differences between Black Oil, Gas Condensate, and

Volatile Oil Models
To account for differences between black oil, gas condensate, and volatile oil models, we need to
introduce various properties.

Black Oil and Modified Black Oil Properties
With the modified black oil PVT model, reservoir engineers can account for complex PVT behaviour
that arises in gas condensate and volatile oil reservoirs.
Gas-condensate and volatile oil systems contain gas that may have non-negligible amounts of vapor-
ized liquid hydrocarbons, and this may have a significant impact on fluid behaviour.
Common black oil numerical formulations do not consider changes in the liquid hydrocarbon content
of the gas phase. In the modified black oil model, two new properties are added to account for the
liquid contained in gas:
1. vaporized oil ratio (Rv).
2. dry gas formation volume factor (Bgd).
To explain these new properties, consider the figure below, which illustrates the distribution between
the phases at given reservoir conditions. Excluding water, in both black oil and modified black oil
modeling, it is assumed that there are two components (separator gas (G) and stock tank oil (N)),
and two phases (gas phase (g) and oil phase (o)); and each of these components can exist in either
phase. The amount of the produced gas at the separator is the summation of gas components that
come from the gas phase (Gg), and the gas component that comes from the oil phase (dissolved
gas, Go). Likewise, the stock tank oil (N) comes from both the oil phase (No) and the gas phase
(vaporized oil, Ng):
Ng is neglected in the conventional black oil numerical formulation, but is honoured in the modified
black oil numerical formulation.

The Vaporized oil ratio (Rv) for the gas phase is defined an being analogous to the solution gas
ratio (Rs) for the oil phase. Physically, if a gas sample at reservoir conditions is brought to standard
conditions, Rv describes the volume of hydrocarbon that condensates into liquid, per volume of sep-
arator gas produced (typically expressed as bbl/MMscf). For a specific liquid-rich gas system, the
vaporized oil ratio (Rv) is a function of pressure, temperature, and separator conditions, and the
Ovalle correlation for Rvis available.
Dry gas formation volume factor (Bgd) is another distinct modified black oil property. The wet gas
formation volume factor (Bg) is defined as the ratio of the gas phase volume at a given pressure and
temperature (Vg) to the equivalent volume of the whole gas phase at standard conditions:
The dry gas formation volume factor (Bgd) is the ratio between the volume of the gas phase at given
conditions (Vg) to the volume of its gas component (Gg) at standard conditions:
In conventional black oil applications, Ng is zero, which causes Bgdand Bgto become the same.
However, for modified black oil applications, we need to differentiate between Bgand Bgd. Although

there is no correlation available for Bgd, it can be calculated by using the following relationship
between Bgand Bgd (Whitson and Brule, 2000):
where:
l α - conversion factor (1 bbl = 5.615 ft3)
l ρoST - oil density at standard conditions (stock tank)
l MoST - stock tank oil molecular weight
l R - universal gas constant
l TSC - standard condition temperature
l PSC - standard condition pressure
Numerical Modeling Using Modified Black Oil Properties

All the original (black oil) numerical models in WellTest 2013 v2 (v 7.7.0) and older, use black oil
properties. Therefore, the simulation results for gas condensates and volatile oil reservoirs may not
be fully accurate in some cases. Particularly for gas condensate reservoirs, the original numerical
models cannot predict the condensate drop-out in the reservoir, which affects both condensate sur-
face yield and well productivity.
The Gas Condensate and Volatile Oil Numerical models use modified black oil properties; therefore
the condensate drop-out is modeled correctly.
Gas Condensate Numerical models use the Gas Rate and Condensate Rate columns from the Pro-
duction Editor tab as an input for production data. Condensate properties are set in the Properties
tab’s Oil section. The Gas Condensate Numerical model reports dry gas rates and condensate
rates.
Volatile Oil Numerical models use the Gas Rate and Oil Rate columns from the Production Editor tab
as an input for production data. The Volatile Oil Numerical model reports dry gas rates and oil rates.
Before a Gas Condensate Numerical model or Volatile Oil Numerical model starts a simulation,
WellTest verifies that the properties entered into the simulators are physically meaningful. The
model performs multiple property consistency checks, and if these checks do not meet the estab-
lished criteria, an error or warning message is displayed. The checking criteria are as follows:

pbp = pdew
Other checking criteria:

At any pressure:
co > 0
cg > 0
At any pressure where p ≤ pbp or pdew:
ρo ≥ ρ g
1 / Rv ≥ Rs
Bgd / Rv ≥ Bo
Bo / Rs ≥ Bgd
μo ≥ μg
At p = pbp or pdew:
co (at p = pbp) ≥ co (at p > pbp)
cg (at p = pdew) ≥ cg ( at p > pdew)
Considerations When Using Numerical Simulation

Speed: Numerical models are more computationally intensive and slower than analytical models.
Simulation can stop: Although the numerical engine is robust, there are several cases that cause
the execution of the model to fail. (This is true of any gridded simulator.) This usually happens when
the model shortens its time steps too much, such as when there are rapid operational changes in
rate or pressure. These issues can usually be overcome by smoothing the data, and eliminating dra-
matic shifts in rate and/or pressure.
Numerical Errors: There are several types of errors associated with the numerical solution. The
first type is called truncation error, which is caused by a truncated Taylor series expansion replacing
the spatial derivative and time derivative. The order of truncation error is proportional to ∆x (grid size)

and ∆t (time-step size). This implies that as ∆x and ∆t decrease, the truncation error
decreases. However, both decreased grid size and time-step size result in an increased number of
computational operations, which introduces additional error called computational round-off
error. Therefore, the tradeoff between truncation error and round-off error should be examined care-
fully.
There is another kind of approximation that can result in one more type of error that is caused by the
well model incorporated in the numerical model. In order to obtain the accurate wellbore pressure or
flow rate, very fine grids around the wellbore are required. This is especially critical for compressible
fluids and low permeability reservoirs. The best gridding method around the well is cylindrical grids,
but they are only applicable for single-well modeling.
Gridding: Fine gridding is required to obtain the pressure or flow rate at the wellbore. This is espe-
cially true for compressible fluids and low permeability reservoirs. Although cylindrical grids provide
the best solution around the wellbore, they can't be used for multi-well modeling. Cartesian gridding
is the most common grid type used in the industry. The Peaceman Wellbore Index model for
Cartesian grids is used by most general numerical simulators, but can overestimate the wellbore
pressure, if rate is the constraint, and overestimate rate, if pressure is the constraint. It also produces
artificial wellbore storage (afterflow) effects during the early transient period. Our numerical models
use the Peaceman Wellbore Index model for vertical wells, and the Babu and Odeh Wellbore Index
model for horizontal wells.

Time Functions
Basic Time Functions Minifrac Observations from Real Data
Bilinear Time Minifrac Soliman/Craig ACA Bilinear Time
Corrected Pseudo-Time Minifrac Soliman/Craig ACA Linear Time
Delta Time Minifrac Soliman/Craig ACA Radial Time
Effective Producing Time Producing Time
Equivalent Time Pseudo-Time
Horner Time Shut-in Time
Linear Time Start of Injection Line
Minifrac Nolte ACA Linear Time Superposition Time
Minifrac Nolte ACA Radial Time

Basic Time Functions
t
tc
Flow Time
Shut-In Time
Horner Time
Superposition Time
Equivalent Time
Root Time
Tandem Root Time
Quad Root Time
Tandem Quad Root Time
Complex time functions like superposition linear equivalent time and many others are simply derived
from the above equations. Subscripts not shown above, but used for linear and bilinear functions are
L and B, respectively.

Bilinear Time
Bilinear time or quad root time, is used to analyze bilinear fracture flow data. Bilinear fracture flow
occurs in long fractures with finite conductivity.
The constant rate solution for bilinear fracture flow data is:
For oil and water:
For gas:
Based on these definitions, bilinear fracture flow data appears as a straight line on a plot of pressure
versus quad root time (p vs. ∆t0.25). For a complex sequence of flow rates, the superposition bilin-
ear time function is used instead.
For buildup data, bilinear equivalent time is used as defined below:

Corrected Pseudo-Time
Note: This definition of corrected pseudo-time has only been implemented in the advanced, ana-
lytical horizontal multi-stage fracture models.
In the conventional definition of pseudo-time, the com-pressibility and viscosity terms are evaluated
at average reservoir pressure conditions. Clearly, the average res-ervoir pressure is only a function
of original-gas-in-place (OGIP) and cu-mulative production. During the transient flow period, before
any boundary effects are observed, the flow behaviour of two different-sized reservoirs should be
similar, and independent of the OGIP – they are both infinite-acting reservoirs. However using the
conventional definition of pseudo-time, the result would be that the producing rates would be dif-
ferent because their average reservoir pressures are different due to the different OGIPs.
If a well is producing under boundary-dominated conditions, the average reservoir pressure is a very
reasonable datum at which to establish fluid properties such as cg. However, if the well production is
still in transient flow and no reservoir boundaries have been observed, the average reservoir pres-
sure based on total reservoir volume is not an appropriate datum to use. Consequently, pseudo-time
can cause anoma-lous model responses under certain conditions.
Anderson and Mattar (2007) proposed that the average reservoir pressure used in the pseudo-time
calculation during the transient flow period should be calculated based on the gas-in-place of the
investigated volume at that time (as determined by the radius of investigation). This way, during tran-
sient flow, pseudo-time is independent of OGIP. As soon as the reservoir enters boundary-dom-
inated flow, the conventional definition of pseudo-time is automatically resumed, because at that
time the region of investigation is the whole reservoir.
The volume of investigation is calculated based on the radius of investigation formula:
This volume is adjusted for the effect of the reservoir boundaries, and the coalescence of regions of
influence caused by interference between wells.

Delta Time (∆t)
Delta time represents the time from the beginning of a flow or shut-in period. In a buildup test, delta
time is also called the shut-in time. It is the simplest time function to deal with and is used when cal-
culating other time functions such as Horner or superposition time.
For analysis, it should only be used for constant rate drawdown tests, or for buildup tests which have
been preceded by a long duration flow (greater than time to stabilization).

Equivalent Time (te)
Equivalent time is essentially a time transformation that is used in order to apply drawdown analysis
techniques to buildup data. The transformation takes shut-in time, or delta time, and converts it into
an equivalent time using the following equation:
Note that this can also be defined as the flow time (tc) divided by the Horner time as follows:
This definition is derived for radial flow and thus works very well for analyzing wellbore storage and
radial flow regimes, but breaks down in heterogeneous reservoirs, or when boundaries come into
play. When analyzing bilinear or linear flow regimes, corresponding definitions of bilinear or linear
equivalent time are used. Equivalent time has little effect on early time data, but compresses late
time shut-in data significantly. The maximum value of equivalent time is flow time (tc) as shut-in time
(∆t) approaches infinity. Thus, no matter how long the well is shut-in, equivalent time cannot be
greater than tc. Thus, the behaviour of a buildup depends heavily on the flow time.
The preceding definition of equivalent time assumes a constant rate before shut-in. When the rate
has been variable, a complex superposition equivalent time function should be used.

Effective Producing Time (tc)
Effective producing time is based on the Horner time theory and is defined as the flow period prior to
shut-in at a constant rate. In reality, the flow prior to shut-in is not at a constant rate, but
varies. Essentially, effective producing time transforms the duration of the variable rate drawdown
period to the duration it would have been, if the flow rate had been constant. It uses material balance
principles and is defined as follows:
Effective producing time is only valid if the final flow rate before shut-in is constant. If this is not the
case, superposition time, which is more rigorous but also much more computationally intensive,
must be used.
Effective producing time has been called a number of different names (some of them misnomers) in
literature. Some common aliases for effective producing time include:
l Producing Time (tp)
l Corrected Time (tc)
l Corrected Producing Time

l Horner Time
l Flow Time
l Equivalent Producing Time
l Material Balance Time

Horner Time
Horner time is a time function used to specifically analyze buildup test data. Horner time is defined
as the special case of superposition (radial) time for a single, constant rate flow period followed by a
shut-in (i.e., a buildup).
Superposition in time of the radial flow equation for the case of a buildup test is as follows:

The constant rate solution (for oil or water) for analyzing radial flow data is:
Superposing this equation:
For the constant rate of q, starting at time zero:
For the constant rate of -q, starting at time tc:

Summing these, yields:
The time function in this equation is called Horner time defined as:
By plotting pws versus Horner time on a semi-log (radial) plot, radial flow buildup data appears as a
straight line and can thus be analyzed to determine permeability (k) and apparent or total skin
(s'). Note that based on the above definition, Horner time decreases as shut-in time (delta time)
increases, and as shut-in time approaches infinity, Horner time approaches the limit of one. Due to
this inverse relationship with shut-in time, the time axis on the semi-log (radial) plot is plotted in
reverse so that increasing shut-in time is still represented from left-to-right.
Since Horner time is based on the radial flow equation, it should only be used for analyzing radial
flow. For linear or bilinear flow, linear or bilinear time functions should be used instead for analysis.
Horner time is valid only when the reservoir is infinite-acting and the rate prior to shut-in was con-
stant. When the rate has not been constant, superposition radial time should be used instead.

Linear Time
Linear time or square root time, is used to analyze linear fracture or linear channel flow data. Linear
fracture flow can occur in infinite conductivity fractures, and linear channel flow can occur in long,
narrow reservoirs.
The constant rate solution for linear fracture flow data is:
For oil and water:
For gas:
The constant rate solution for linear channel flow data is:
For oil and water:
For gas:
Based on these definitions, linear flow data is displayed as a straight line on a plot of pressure
versus square root time (p vs. ∆t0.5). For a complex sequence of flow rates, the superposition linear
time function is used instead.
For buildup data, linear equivalent time is used as defined below:

Minifrac Nolte ACA Linear Time
There are two Minifrac Nolte After-Closure Analysis (ACA) linear time functions. FL1 is an approx-
imation of FL2 and the two time functions converge quickly.
Note: Both time functions are bounded by 1.0 (at early shut-in time) signifying the time of closure,
and 0.0 (at late time) representing an infinite shut-in time.

Minifrac Nolte ACA Radial Time
There is one Minifrac Nolte After-Closure Analysis (ACA) radial time function, FR1.
It has a minimum value of 0.0 (at late time) representing an infinite shut-in time. P* is the extra-
polation of the radial line to FR = 0, which corresponds to an infinite shut-in time.
FR1 is the time function described in Minifrac Reference 1 as:

Minifrac Observations From Real Data
Observations made from minifrac tests conducted in various shale / tight formations in North Amer-
ica have provided some insight on what to expect. Not surprisingly, the time required to achieve frac-
ture closure during the falloff period is greatly influenced by the injection rate and injection volume.
Minimizing both of these components greatly increases the chance of observing fracture closure in a
reasonable time frame, and possibly achieving radial flow to reduce the uncertainty in estimating
reservoir pressure and formation permeability.
In many cases, injection rates on the order of 1 to 2 bpm (1440 – 2880 bbl/d) have been observed to
quickly achieve formation breakdown. With average injection times of 3 – 5 minutes, fracture closure
was observed within 1-to-24 hours of falloff. In some cases, radial flow developed quickly after clos-
ure, while in others, bilinear and linear flow was observed. When radial flow developed soon after
closure, a falloff period on the order of 1 – 3 days was sufficient to obtain reliable estimates of reser-
voir pressure and formation permeability.
When bilinear or linear flow is observed after the main closure event, the development of radial flow
is delayed, and may not be observed in a reasonable time-frame. Although this introduces greater
error in estimating the reservoir pressure and formation permeability, extending the falloff period
helps reduce the error. For these situations, the required falloff duration is case sensitive, and
depends on the importance of the information. Even if radial flow is not achieved, “upper limits” of
reservoir pressure and formation permeability can usually be determined, which are very useful.
An example of a minifrac test analyzed using WellTest is shown in the figures below. The test was
conducted on a vertical well at a formation depth of 10,000 ft. Pressures were monitored at the well-
head, and converted to sandface values for analysis. The total test duration was about 24 hours. Fig-
ure 1 shows the pressure profile during the 18-minute injection period performed at 1 bpm (1440
bbl/d). The sudden drop in pressure shortly after injection commenced indicates that formation
breakdown occurred very quickly.
Figure 1

Figure 2 shows the pre-closure analysis using the semi-log and first derivative corresponding to G-
function time. From this plot, fracture closure is identified within the initial 3-hours of the falloff period.
Figure 2

Figure 3 represents the log-log diagnostic plot used mainly for identifying the flow regimes
developed “after-closure”. The semi-log derivative, calculated with respect to shut-in time, exhibits a
slope of -1 shortly after-closure, suggesting that radial flow has developed. The fluctuations in the
derivative slope can be attributed to gas-entry that is not accounted for with the sandface pressure
calculations.
Figure 3
Figure 4 represents the falloff data plotted with the radial time function for the Soliman / Craig solu-
tion.
Figure 4

Figure 5 represents the log-log plot of the derivative data and shows the match obtained with the Soli-
man / Craig model. The model suggests radial flow was not quite achieved during the test period,
and would likely develop after about 49 hours of falloff. However, in this case the transition to radial
flow is sufficiently developed to yield reliable estimates of formation pressure and permeability.
Figure 5

Minifrac Soliman / Craig ACA Bilinear Time
There is one Minifrac Soliman / Craig After-Closure Analysis (ACA) bilinear time function, which is
defined in Reference 7 as:
Note: It has a minimum value of 0.0 (at late time) representing an infinite shut-in time.

Minifrac Soliman / Craig ACA Linear Time
There is one Minifrac Soliman / Craig After-Closure Analysis (ACA) linear time function, which is
Note: It has a minimum value of 0.0 (at late time) representing an infinite shut-in time.

Minifrac Soliman / Craig ACA Radial Time
There is one Minifrac Soliman / Craig After-Closure Analysis (ACA) radial time function, which is
Note: It has a minimum value of 0.0 (at late time) representing an infinite shut-in time. P* is the
extrapolation of the radial line to FR = 0, which corresponds to an infinite shut-in time.

Producing Time (tp)
Producing time is the amount of time that a well flows. In the specific case of a closed chamber test
(CCT), it represents the amount of inflow or injection time before the change in wellbore volume.

Pseudo-Time
Pseudo-time is a mathematical time function that accounts for the variable compressibility(ct) and
viscosity (µg) of gas, as well as the variable total (formation) porosity (φ) with respect to time and
pressure.
Why Use Pseudo-Time?

The equation for flow of gas in the reservoir is very similar to that for liquid flow. In well testing, ana-
lytical equations are solved after making certain assumptions. In particular, four assumptions are
very important:
1. Total system compressibility (ct) is constant
2. Gas viscosity (µg) is constant
3. Total porosity (φ) is constant
4. Fluid saturations (Sg and Sw) are constant
For liquids, these assumptions are reasonable, since liquid compressibility and viscosity do not vary
significantly with pressure, and the equations can be solved analytically. These analytical solutions
are referred to as the liquid flow solutions, and form the basis of all well test analysis. The result is an
analytical relationship between pressure and time, which, for an infinite-acting reservoir, can be writ-
ten as
Pressure = Constant * log (time) + ...
For gas, most of the assumptions listed above are no longer valid. Gas compressibility (cg) varies
significantly with pressure. Gas viscosity (µg) and Gas Compressibility Factor also vary with pres-
sure but not to the same degree. Pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time (ta) are used to deal with these
changing properties and linearize the flow equations for gas. With the introduction of pseudo-pres-
sure and pseudo-time, the gas flow equation can be written in a manner similar to the liquid
equation. Therefore, the liquid flow solution can be used for gas well test analysis and forecasting
provided pressure is replaced by pseudo-pressure, and time is replaced by pseudo-time as follows:
Pseudo-Pressure = Constant * log (Pseudo-time) + …

Effect of Applying Pseudo-Time
The effects of applying pseudo-time are significant for the following two conditions as shown in the
subsequent plots:
l Low pressure at the wellbore
l Depleting reservoirs
The first plot shows that type curves can be inaccurate if pseudo-time is not used. The second plot
shows that the buildup pressure does not reach up to the average reservoir pressure, when pseudo-
time is not used. Thus, it is imperative that pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time be used for accurate
analysis, modeling, and forecasting of gas production.
Development of Pseudo-Time
It should be noted that the concept of pseudo-time is not amenable to a completely rigorous solution,
as is the case for pseudo-pressure, because the gas properties change with pressure, not time. The
form of the diffusivity equation dictates which properties are grouped with pressure and which are
grouped with time.

Pseudo-time was developed by Agarwal (1980) and he defined pseudo-time in terms of the viscosity
(µg) and compressibility (ct) at the wellbore. This definition accounted for the large change in gas
compressibility (cg) that occurs at low pressures (early time in a buildup). It had little effect on late
time data, and was generally used for buildups only.
In the 90s, when the gas flow equations were being used for analyzing or forecasting data affected
by reservoir depletion, it was realized that the Agarwal definition of pseudo-time for buildups, was
inappropriate for boundary-dominated flow (depleting systems). Moreover, the Agarwal pseudo-time
definition did not solve the problem, because it was using a simplified version of the total system
compressibility (ct).
Blasingame et al. introduced a new definition of pseudo-time to account for the depletion
effects. Instead of defining the pseudo-time transformation in terms of wellbore conditions like Agar-
wal did, they defined it in terms of the average reservoir pressure. This pseudo-time is best
described as material balance pseudo-time, which is appropriate for boundary-dominated flow.
Fekete's Rahman, Mattar, and Zaoral showed that a rigorous definition of compressibility, which
uses material balance principles, is required because fluid saturations can change over time.
Fekete's Anderson and Mattar found that, in a reservoir with significant transient flow, it was more
appropriate to define pseudo-time in terms of the average pressure within the region of investigation,
rather than the average reservoir pressure.
Two different pseudo-time formulations are needed: one for buildup and a different one for draw-
down. The equations look similar, but they are radically different from each other.
Definition of Pseudo-Time
Pseudo-time (ta) is defined as:
Note that the units for this definition of pseudo-time are hr/cp psi-1. In order to convert this unit to hr,
the integral is multiplied by µgi cti to obtain normalized pseudo-time as follows:

Thus, the subsequent definitions of buildup and drawdown pseudo-time presented below used this
normalized form.
Buildup Pseudo-Time
Pseudo-time for use in buildup analysis, is defined in terms of pressure at the wellbore:
If the wellbore has significant storage, a difference in the early time behaviour will be noted, since
pressure and thus compressibility and viscosity are changing most near the wellbore. Late time
behavior is not typically affected by buildup pseudo-time since the pressure, viscosity, and com-
pressibility become constant at the wellbore and in the reservoir.
Drawdown Pseudo-Time
Pseudo-time for use in drawdown analysis, is defined in terms of average reservoir pressure:
Note that the gas in place (GIP) must be known in order to perform the material balance calculations
necessary to determine the average reservoir pressure.
TM
The analytical models in the Advanced Models tab in WellTest have an option to use Corrected
pseudo-time. This option uses the definition of drawdown pseudo-time that is based on the average
pressure within the region of investigation, rather than the average reservoir pressure. This is the
default setting, which we recommend you keep as is.
Agarwal suggested that the total system compressibility (ct) be defined as:
Where the compressibilities and saturations of residual fluids (oil (So) and water (Sw)) are con-
sidered constant. As shown by Rahman, Mattar, and Zaoral, the above definition of total system
compressibility (ct) does not use the material balance equation principles in most scenarios of deple-
tion. Therefore, a rigorous definition of total system compressibility (ct) for the purpose of computing
drawdown pseudo-time has been proposed as:

Where:
By applying drawdown pseudo-time, the shape of the derivative curve in late time changes depend-
ing on the size of the reservoir. As the reservoir depletes the average reservoir pressure changes,
which in turn affects the compressibility and viscosity in the late time region. Conversely, as the GIP
is increased, the effect of pseudo-time becomes less noticeable (approaches real time), since aver-
age reservoir pressure approaches initial pressure and compressibility and viscosity become con-
stant throughout the late time region.
Geomechanical effects can be modeled using pressure-dependent permeability and formation com-
pressibility. Further adjustment to the definition of pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time are used to
model these effects.
References
1. "A New Method for Computing Pseudo-Time from the Material Balance Equation for Real
Gas Flow", N. M. Anisur Rahman, Louis Mattar, and Karel Zaoral, Paper CIPC 2004 - 182
presented at the CIPC, Calgary, June 8 - 10, 2004.
2. "Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells, Third Edition", Energy Resources Con-
servation Board (ERCB), pp. 2 -16 to 2 - 30, 1975.
3. "Real Gas Pseudo-Time - A New Function for Pressure Buildup Analysis of MHF Gas
Wells", R.G. Agarwal, Paper SPE 8279 presented at AFTCE, Las Vegas, NV, September 23
- 26, 1979.
4. "The Flow of Real Gases through Porous Media", R. Al - Hussainy, H.J. Ramey, Jr., and P.B.
Crawford, JPT, pp. 625 - 636, May 1966.
5. "An Improved Pseudo-Time for Gas Reservoirs with Significant Transient Flow", D. Ander-
son, L. Mattar, JCPT 07-07-05, July 2007.

Shut-In Time
Shut-in time represents a special case of delta time where a well was shut-in, or operating at a no
flow (zero rate) condition. During this time pressure either builds up, or falls off depending on
whether flow or injection was done prior to the shut-in.

Start of Injection Line
The Start of Injection line is located on the Data Chart on the Production Editor tab.
The Minifrac Models section contains a brief discussion about the placement of the start of the injec-
tion line. The Start of Injection line is usually placed at breakdown; however, some people prefer to
place it after the wellbore fill-up. The placement of the Start of Injection line impacts the time func-
tions for Pre-Closure and the Nolte After-Closure Analyses. In addition, the injected volume is cal-
culated as the cumulative injection from the Start of Injection line to shut-in. The injected volume is
used in the Nolte and Soliman / Craig After-Closure Analyses and the Soliman / Craig models.

Superposition Time
Superposition time is required in order to analyze variable rate tests. Superposition in time involves
breaking up a multi-rate sequence into a set of single rates. The rate used for each step is the dif-
ference between the current rate and the previous rate.
Superposition time is also required when multi-rate analyses are used to approximate situations in
which the rate is slowly varying.

Superposition time is a time function that creates a common straight line when data from different
rates are plotted on the same plot. The formulation of superposition time depends on the flow regime
being analyzed. For example, superposition radial time is found by performing the superposition in
time of the radial flow equation for each rate specified.
Note: The superposition time functions defined here and used in the software are different from
those published in the literature. Superposition radial time is defined as the anti-log of that
published in literature. Using this definition, data plotted on a semi-log plot of p vs. super-
position radial time can be compared to a semi-log plot of p vs. Horner time.
The following equations are the generalized forms of superposition time for each flow regime. They
can handle any number of step changes in rate.
Superposition Time Functions
Radial Time
Linear Time
Bilinear
Time
Spherical
Time
Pseudo-
Steady
State

Superposition Time Example Calculations
Note: If there is a rate listed for when p = pi and time is zero, that rate is ignored in the calculations,
and the rate corresponding to the first-time point is considered to be the rate at which the
well has been flowing at up to that point. This is shown in the following set of calculations.
For a variable rate drawdown test, the following values are provided:
t pwf q
(hrs) (psia) (stbbl / d)
0 5000 0
0.10 4925 200
0.13 4920 150
0.16 4900 100
0.20 4890 80
Radial Flow Regime

The following procedure is used to calculate the superposition radial time at t = 0.2 hrs:

1. For the first rate, a well is flowing at 200 stbbl / d from the start of the test to the time point t =
0.2 hrs.
2. For the second rate, a well is flowing at –50 stbbl / d from t = 0.1 hrs to the time point t = 0.2
hrs.
3. The same is done for the remaining steps.
4. To get the superposition radial time, we add up all of the above times and take the anti-log of
the result:
Linear Flow Regime

Using the same data set as above, calculate the superposition linear time at t = 0.2 hrs.
1. For the first rate, a well is flowing at 200 stbbl / d from the start of the test to the time point t =
0.2 hrs.
2. For the second rate, a well is flowing at –50 stbbl / d from t = 0.1 hrs to the time point t = 0.2
hours.

3. The same is done for the remaining steps.
4. To get the superposition linear time at t = 0.2 hrs, we add up all of the above times and take
the square of the result:

Nomenclature
Variable Description
a LIT flow equation coefficient

2
A Drainage area (ft )
2
Awb Effective wellbore area (ft )
AOF Absolute open flow potential (gas) (MMcf / d)
b LIT flow equation coefficient
B Liquid formation volume factor (Rbbl / stbbl)
Bg Gas formation volume factor (Rbbl / scf or Rbbl / MMscf)
Bgi Gas formation volume factor at initial pressure (Rbbl / scf or Rbbl / MMscf)
Bo Oil formation volume factor (Rbbl / stbbl)
Boi Oil formation volume factor at initial pressure (pi) (Rbbl / stbbl)
Bob Oil formation volume factor at the bubble point (Rbbl / stbbl)
Bw Water formation volume factor (Rbbl / stbbl)
Coefficient which describes the position of the stabilized deliverability line

C
Wellbore storage constant (bbl / psi)
CaD Dimensionless apparent storage constant
CD Dimensionless wellbore storage constant
CpD Dimensionless pressure parameter
ce Effective compressibility (1 / psia)
cf Formation compressibility (1 / psia)
cfrac Compressibility of the fractures (1 / psia)
cg Gas compressibility (1 / psia)

cgi Gas compressibility at initial pressure (pi) (1 / psia)
cm Compressibility of the matrix (1 / psia)
co Oil compressibility (1 / psia)
ct Total compressibility (1 / psia)
cti Total compressibility at initial pressure (pi) (1 / psia)
cw Water compressibility (1 / psia)
cwb Wellbore fluid compressibility (1 / psia)
D Turbulence factor
Der Derivative
Ddatum Datum depth (ft)
Dlayer Depth of layer (ft)
DR Damage ratio
Ecurv Curvature error
Epres Pressure error
Erate Rate error
ETLS Total least squares error
EMS Entitlement Management System
FCD Dimensionless fracture conductivity
FCD
Dimensionless fault conductivity
(fault)
FE Flow efficiency
G Separator gas specific gravity (for fluid properties)
GIP Gas-in-place (MMscf)
Gliq Liquid gradient (psi / ft)

Gp Cumulative gas production (MMscf)
h Net pay (ft)
hD Dimensionless pay thickness
hp Height of perforations (ft)
htop Top of zone to top of perforations (ft)
k Permeability (md)
k1 Permeability of reservoir zone containing the well (zone 1) (md)
kf Fracture permeability (md)
kfck Permeability of the choked portion of fracture (md)
k fw f Fracture flow capacity (md ft)
(kfwf)D Dimensionless fracture flow capacity
kfault Fault permeability (md)
kh Horizontal permeability (md)
kh / kv Horizontal to vertical permeability ratio
km Matrix permeability (md)
kro Relative permeability to oil (ko / K)
krg Relative permeability to gas (kg / K)
Spherical permeability (md)

ks
Permeability of the damaged zone (md)
kv Vertical permeability (md)
kx Permeability in x-direction (md)
kxy Horizontal permeability (md)
ky Permeability in y-direction (md)
kyz Vertical permeability (md)

kz Permeability in z-direction (md)
K Absolute permeability (K = kg / krg or K = ko / kro)
Liquid volume (ft3)

L
Horizontal wellbore length (ft)
Le Effective wellbore length (ft)
Lfault Distance between the well and fault (ft)
m Semi-log slope
m(p) Two-phase pseudo-pressure (psi2 / cp)
MFHW Multi-fractured horizontal well
Inverse slope of the stabilized deliverability line (varies between 1.0 for completely lam-
n
inar flow and 0.5 for fully turbulent flow)
Np Cumulative oil production (stbbls)
Nw Number of segments
OGIP Original gas-in-place (MMscf)
OIP Oil-in-place (bbls)
OOIP Original oil-in-place (bbls)
p Pressure (psia)
p* Extrapolated pressure (psia)
∆p Delta pressure (psia)
p Average reservoir pressure (psia)
p1 Pressure at fault boundary in zone 1 (psia)
p2 Pressure at fault boundary in zone 2 (psia)
pbp Bubble point pressure (psia)
Calculated pressure (psia)

pc
Critical pressure (psia)

pD Dimensionless pressure
∆pD Delta dimensionless pressure
pdew Dew point pressure (psia)
pfault Pressure at fault boundary within the fault (psia)
pflow Specified flowing pressure (psia)
pi Initial reservoir pressure (psia)
pi(syn) Synthetic initial reservoir pressure (psia)
pm Measured pressure (psia)
ppD Dimensionless anomalous pressure
pr Reduced pressure
Average reservoir pressure obtained by shut-in of the well to complete stabilization

pR
(psia)
pR Average reservoir pressure (psia)
psc Standard pressure (14.696 psia)
∆pskin Pressure drop due to skin (psia)
psp Separator pressure (psia)
pw Wellbore pressure (psia)
pwD Dimensionless wellbore pressure
pwf Flowing pressure (psia)
pwfo Final flowing pressure (psia)
pwo Initial cushion pressure (psia)
pws Shut-in pressure (psia)
pws* Extrapolated shut-in pressure (psia)

PI Productivity Index (bbls / d / psia)
PPD Primary pressure derivative
Pu Unit rate pressure response of the reservoir
q Fluid Rate (MMscf / d or bbls / d)
q* Extrapolated straight line oil rate (stbbl / d)
qc Calculated fluid rate (MMscf / d or bbls / d)
qg Gas rate (MMscf / d)
qm Measured fluid rate (MMscf / d or bbls / d)
qo Oil rate (stbbl / d)
qo(max) Maximum oil flow rate (stbbl / d)
qst Gas flow rate at standard conditions (MMscf / d)
qt Total gas flow rate (MMscf / d)
q tB t Total (in-situ) fluid rate (bbls / d)
qw Water rate (bbl / d)
re Radial extent of zone (ft)
reff Effective wellbore radius (ft)
rinv Radius of investigation (ft)
rs Equivalent spherical wellbore radius (ft)
rw Wellbore radius (ft)
rwa Apparent wellbore radius (ft)
rwc Corrected wellbore radius (ft) for htop > 0 (rwc = rw for htop = 0)
R Gas constant (10.73 ft3 psia / lbmol °R)
Rs Solution gas oil ratio (scf / stbbl or MMscf /stbbl)

Rsb Solution gas oil ratio at the bubble point (scf / stbbl or MMscf /stbbl)
Rsr Reduced solution gas oil ratio
R.I. Rate integral
s Skin
s' Total (effective) skin
s2p Two-phase skin
sc Choked fracture skin
sd Skin due to damage
sdp Interporosity skin
sf Skin on fracture face
sfault Skin across the fault
sinc Skin due to inclination
spp Skin due to partial penetration
sturb Skin due to turbulence
sXf Skin due to Xf
Sg Gas saturation (fraction)
Sgi Initial gas saturation (fraction)
S.I. Sandface integral
So Oil saturation (fraction)
Soi Initial oil saturation (fraction)
Sw Water saturation (fraction)
Swi Initial water saturation (fraction)
t Time (hr)

∆t Delta time (hr)
ta Pseudo-time (hr)
∆ta Delta pseudo-time (hr)
tc Effective producing time (hr)
tD Dimensionless time
tDA Dimensionless time based on drainage area
tDXf Dimensionless time based on Xf
te Equivalent time (hr)
tflow Specified flow time (hr)
tp Producing time (hr)
tshut-in Specified shut-in time (hr)
T Reservoir temperature (°F or °R)
Tc Critical temperature (°R)
Tpp Pour point temperature (°C)
Tsc Standard temperature (60 °F)
Tsp Separator temperature (°F)
uf1 Fluid flux at fault boundary from zone 1 to fault
uf2 Fluid flux at fault boundary from zone 2 to fault
V Vapor volume (ft3)
Vp Pore volume (ft3)
Vw Wellbore volume (bbls)
Vw1 Wellbore volume before downhole shut-in (bbls)
Vw2 Wellbore volume after downhole shut-in (bbls)

Vu Wellbore volumetric capacity (bbls / ft)
Vresv Fluid volume at reservoir conditions (Rbbls)
Vsur-
Fluid volume at surface conditions (scf or stbbls)
face
W Original water in place (stbbls)
WIP Water-in-place (bbls)
w Channel width (ft)
wck Width of the choked portion of fracture (ft)
wcurv Curvature error weighting
wf Fracture width (ft)
wfault Fault width (ft)
wpres Pressure error weighting
wrate Rate error weighting
ws Depth of fluid-loss damage into the formation and normal to the fracture face (ft)
Wp Cumulative water production (stbbls)
Xck Length of the choked portion of fracture (ft)
Xe Reservoir length (ft)
Xf Fracture half-length (ft)
Xw Well location in x-direction (ft)
Ye Reservoir width (ft)
Yw Well location in y-direction (ft)
z Gas compressibility factor
zi Gas compressibility factor at pi
zm Distance between the top of the productive zone and the middle of the open interval (ft)

Zw Well location in z-direction (ft)
∆Xo Distance of observation well from active well (x-direction) (ft)
∆Yo Distance of observation well from active well (y-direction) (ft)
Ζo Distance of observation well from top of zone (z-direction) (ft)
α Matrix block shape factor coefficient
αD Dimensionless phase re-distribution time parameter
δ∆t An impulse function that dissipates as ∆t increases
f Total porosity (fraction)
φf Porosity of the fractures (fraction)
φm Porosity of the matrix (fraction)
γg(psp) Gas specific gravity at a separator pressure of 114.7 psia
γo Oil gravity
γw Water specific gravity
λ Interporosity flow coefficient
µ Fluid viscosity (cp)
µ1 Fluid viscosity in zone 1 (cp)
µ2 Fluid viscosity in zone 2 (cp)
µg Gas viscosity (cp)
µgi Gas viscosity at initial pressure (pi) (cp)
µo Undersaturated oil viscosity (cp)
µob Oil viscosity at the bubble point (cp)
µod Dead-oil or gas-free oil viscosity (cp)
µos Gas-saturated oil viscosity (cp)
µw Water viscosity (cp)

Azimuth angle of wellbore (degrees)

θ
Wedge angle of wellbore (degrees)
θr Relative temperature
Angle of inclination of the well, measured in degrees from a normal to the formation bed-
θw
ding plane (angle of slant)(degrees)
3 3
ρ Liquid density (lbm / ft or kg / m )
Pseudo-liquid density at reservoir pressure and standard temperature (60 °F) (lbm /
ρbs
ft3 or kg / m3)
3 3
ρg Gas density (lbm / ft or kg / m )
ρo Undersaturated oil density (lbm / ft3 or kg / m3)
ρob Oil density at the bubble point (g / cm3)
ρpo Pseudo-liquid density at standard conditions (lbm / ft3 or kg / m3)
ρst Stock tank oil density (lbm / ft3 or kg / m3)
σ Inclination angle of wellbore (degrees)
ω Storativity ratio
ψ Pseudo-pressure (psi2 / cp)
ψ∗ Extrapolated pseudo-pressure (psi2 / cp)
∆ψ Delta pseudo-pressure (psi2 / cp)
ψ2p Two-phase pseudo-pressure (psi2 / cp)
ψi Initial pseudo-pressure (psi2 / cp)
ψR Average reservoir pseudo-pressure (psi2 / cp)
Average reservoir pseudo-pressure obtained by shut-in of the well to complete sta-

ψR
bilization (psi2 / cp)
ψw Wellbore pseudo-pressure (psi2 / cp)
ψwf Flowing pseudo-pressure (psi2 / cp)

ψwfo Final flowing pseudo-pressure (psi2 / cp)
ψwo Initial cushion pseudo-pressure (psi2 / cp)
ψw1 Cushion pseudo-pressure before downhole shut-in (psi2 / cp)
ψws Shut-in pseudo-pressure (psi2 / cp)
ψws∗ Extrapolated shut-in pseudo-pressure (psi2 / cp)

References
Analysis References
1. Liang, P., Thompson, J.M. and Mattar, L. 2012. Importance of the Transition Period to Com-
pound Linear Flow in Unconventional Reservoirs. SPE-162646 presented at the SPE Cana-
dian Unconventional Resources Conference in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
2. Lougheed, D., Santo, M. and Ewens S. “Is That Radial Flow? What Can Be Learned From
Buildup Analysis of Multiply-Fractured Horizontal Wells in Unconventional Reservoirs” SPE
Paper 164525 prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Conference-
USA, Woodlands, Texas, USA. April 2013.
3. Nobakht, M., Clarkson C., Kaviani, D. "New Type Curves for Analyzing Horizontal Well With
Multiple Fractures in Shale Gas Reservoirs" SPE 149397, Canadian Unconventional
Resources Conference, November 2011.
Major References
1. "Pressure Transient Testing", John Lee, John B. Rollins and John P. Spivey, SPE Textbook
Series, Vol. 9, Henry L. Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Richardson, Texas, 2003.
2. "Well Test Analysis: The Use of Advanced Interpretation Models", Handbook of Petroleum
Exploration and Production, Vol.3, Dominique Bourdet, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2002.
3. "Fundamental and Applied Pressure Analysis", T.S. Daltaban and C.G. Wall, Reservoir
Modeling Division, Imperial College Press, London, 1998.
4. "Gas Reservoir Engineering", John Lee and Robert A. Wattenberger, SPE Textbook Series,
Vol. 5, Henry L. Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richard-
son, Texas, 1996.
5. "Well Test Analysis", Rajagopal Raghavan, Prentice Hall Petroleum Engineering Series,
New Jersey, 1993.
6. Well Test Analysis, M.A. Sabet, Gulf Publishing Company, 1991.
7. Pressure Transient Analysis, J.F. Stanislav and C.S. Kabir, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1990.
8. Modern Well Test Analysis, A Computer-Aided Approach – R. Horne, Stanford University,

1990.

9. Well Testing in Heterogeneous Formations, T.D. Streltsova, John Wiley & Sons, 1988.
10. Gas Well Testing - Theory and Practice, E.R.C.B. Fourth Edition, 1979 – Guide G-3.
11. Advances in Well Test Analysis, R.C. Earlougher, Jr., SPE Monograph, Vol. V, 1977.
12. Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells, C.S. Matthews and D.G. Russell, SPE Mono-
graph, Vol. I, 1967.
Minifrac References
1. “Holistic Fracture Diagnostics”, R. D. Barree, SPE, and V. L. Barree, Barree & Associates,
and Craig, SPE, Halliburton, Paper SPE 107877, Presented at the Rocky Mountain Oil &
Gas Technology Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 16-18 April 2007.
2. “Application of a New Fracture-Injection/Falloff Model Accounting for Propagating, Dilating,

and Closing Hydraulic Fracture”, D. P. Craig, Halliburton, and T. A. Blasingame, Texas A &
M University, Paper SPE 100578, Presented at the SPE 2006 Gas Technology Symposium
held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 15-17 May 2006.
3. “After-Closure Analysis of Fracture Calibration Tests”, Nolte, K.G., Maniere, J.L., and
Owens, K.A., Paper SPE 38676, Presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October, 1997.
4. "Background for After-Closure Analysis of Fracture Calibration Tests", Nolte, K. G., Paper
SPE 39407, Unsolicited companion paper to SPE 38676 Jul, 1997.
5. “Modified Fracture Pressure Decline Analysis Including Pressure-Dependent Leakoff”,

Castillo, J. L., Paper SPE 16417, presented at the SPE/DOE Low Permeability Reservoirs
Joint Symposium, Denver, CO, May 18-19, 1987.
6. “Determination of Fracture Parameters from Fracturing Pressure Decline", Nolte, K. G.,

Paper SPE 8341, Presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las
Vegas, NV, Sept. 23-26, 1979.
7. "New Method for Determination of Formation Permeability, Reservoir Pressure, and Frac-
ture Properties from a Minifrac Test", Soliman, M.Y., Craig D., Barko, K., Rahim Z., Ansah
J., and Adams D., Paper ARMA/USRMS 05-658, 2005.
8. "Design and Appraisal of Hydraulic Fractures", Jones, J.R. and Britt, L.K., SPE book, 2009.

Modeling References
1. Brown, M., Ozkan, E., Raghavan, R. and Kazemi, H. “Practical Solutions for Pressure Tran-
sient Responses of Fractured Horizontal Wells in Unconventional Reservoirs.” SPE Paper
125043 prepared for Presentation at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhib-
ition, New Orleans, Louisiana. October 2009.
2. Gringarten, A. C. and Ramey, H. J. Jr. “The Use of Source and Green’s Functions in Solving
Unsteady-Flow Problems in Reservoirs.” SPE Paper 3818. SPE Journal 13(5): pp. 285-296,
October 1973.
3. Stalgorova, E. and Mattar, L. “Practical Analytical Model to Simulate Production of Hori-

zontal Wells with Branch Fractures.” SPE Paper 162515 prepared for Presentation at the
2012 SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta. October
2012.
4. Thompson, L.G., Manrique, J.L., U. and Jelmert, T.A. “Efficient Algorithms for Computing
the Bounded Reservoir Horizontal Well Pressure Response.” SPE Paper 21827 prepared
for Presentation at the Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado. April
1991.
Property Correlation References
Gas Properties
"Gas Well Testing - Theory and Practice Appendix A", ERCB GUIDE G-3, Fourth Edition, 1979.
Oil Properties
1. "Estimating the Viscosity of Crude Oil Systems", Beggs, H.D. and Robinson, J.R., JPT
Forum, September 1975, pp. 1140 - 1141.
2. "Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Prediction", Vazquez, M.E. and Beggs, H.D.,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, June 1980, pp. 968 - 970.
Al-Marhoun 1985 (Saudi Arabian Oil)

"Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Saudi Crude Oils", M.A. Al-Marhoun, SPE 13718,
1985.

De Ghetto et al (Heavy and Extra-Heavy Oils)
"Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Heavy and Extra Heavy Oils", Giambattista De
Ghetto, Francesco Paone, and Marco Villa, SPE 30316, 1995.
Glaso (North Sea Oil)

"Generalized Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations", Oistein Glaso, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 1980.
Hanafy et al (Egyptian Oil)

"A New Approach for Predicting the Crude Oil Properties", H.H. Hanafy, S.M. Macary, Y.M. ElNady,
A.A. Bayomi and M.H. El Batanony, SPE 37439, 1997.
Khan et al (Saudi Arabian Oil)

"Viscosity Correlations for Saudi Arabian Crude Oils", S.A. Khan, M.A. Al-Marhoun, S.O. Duffuaa,
and S.A. Abu-Khamsin, SPE Paper No. 15720, 1987.
Ng and Egbogah
"An Improved Temperature-Viscosity Correlation for Crude Oil Systems", J.T.H. Ng and E.O.
Egbogah, Petroleum Society of CIM 83-34-32, 1983.
Petrosky and Farshad (Gulf of Mexico Oil)

"Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils", G.E. Petrosky Jr. and
F.F. Farshad, SPE 26644, 1993.
Standing (California Oil)

"A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for Mixtures of California Oil and Gases", M.B. Stand-
ing, Drill. & Prod. Prac., API, 1947.
Vasquez and Beggs (Generally Applicable)

"Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Prediction", M.E. Vasquez and H.D. Beggs, JPT 968 - 70,
June 1980.

Velarde et al (Reduced Variable Approach)
"Correlation of Black Oil Properties at Pressures Below Bubble Point Pressure – A New Approach",
J. Velarde, T.A. Blasingame and W.D. McCain, Jr., The Petroleum Society 93 - 97, 1997.
Water Properties
1. "Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering", Craft, B.C. and M.F. Hawkins, Prentice-Hall,
1959, p. 131.
2. "A Correlation for Water Compressibility", Meehan, D.N., Petroleum Engineer, November
1980, pp. 125 - 126.
3. "Estimating Water Viscosity at Reservoir Conditions", Meehan, D.N., Petroleum Engineer,

July 1980, pp. 117 - 118.
4. "Correlations for Physical Properties of Petroleum Reservoir Brines", Numbere, D., W.E.
Brigham and M.B. Standing, Petroleum Research Institute, Stanford University, November
1977, pp. 8 - 16.
Rock Properties
"Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering", Craft, B.C. and M.F. Hawkins, Prentice-Hall, 1959, p.
132.
Specific References
AOF
1. "Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells", L. Mattar, G. Brar, and M. Mumby, Energy
Resources Conservation Board (1978) Third Edition, Chapter 3.
2. "Gas Reservoir Engineering", J. Lee and R. Wattenbarger, Society of Petroleum Engineers

Inc. (1996) Volume 5, 73 - 74, 173 - 181.
Average Reservoir Pressure

"p/Z Abnormally Pressured Gas Reservoirs", Ramagost, B.P. and Farshad, F.F., Paper SPE 10125
presented at the AFTCE, San Antonio, TX, October 5 - 7, 1981.

1. "How Wellbore Dynamics Affect Pressure Transient Analysis", L. Mattar and M. Santo,
JCPT (February 1992) Volume 31, No. 2, 32 - 40.
2. "The Primary Pressure Derivative (PPD) – A New Diagnostic Tool in Well Test Inter-
pretation", L. Mattar and K. Zaoral, JCPT (April 1992) Volume 31, No. 4, 63 - 70.
3. "Pressure Buildup Analysis with Wellbore Phase Redistribution Effects", Fair, W.B., Jr, Soc.
Pet. Eng. J. (April 1981) pp. 259 - 270.
4. "Well-Test Analysis with Changing Wellbore Storage", P.S. Hegeman, D.L. Hallford, and
J.A. Joseph, SPEFE (September 1993) 201 - 207.
Choked Fracture Skin

1. "Effect of Wellbore Storage on the Transient Pressure Behavor of Vertically Fractured
Wells", H. Cinco-Ley and F. Samaniego-V., Paper SPE 6752 presented at 1977 AFTCE,

(February 2003) 57 - 64.
Closed Chamber Test (CCT) Analysis

Closed-Chamber Tests", N.M.A. Rahman, SPE, Schlumberger; M.S. Santo and L. Mattar, SPE,
Fekete Associates Inc., Paper SPE 109860 presented at the 2007 SPE ATCE held in Anaheim, Cali-
fornia, U.S.A., 11 - 14, November.
Closed Chamber Test (CCT) Model

Closed-Chamber Tests", N. M. Anisur Rahman, SPE, Schlumberger, M.S. Santo, and L. Mattar,

SPE, Fekete Assoc. Inc., Paper SPE 109860, presented at 82nd Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the SPE, Anaheim, CA, November 11 - 14, 2007.
Composite Model
1. "An Analytical Model for Composite Reservoirs Produced at Either Constant Bottomhole
Pressure or Constant Rate", Olarewaju, J.S. and Lee, W.J., SPE 16763 (1987).
2. Issaka, B. (1996) Ph.D. thesis, University of Alberta, Canada.
Deconvolution
Thomas Von Schroeter et al. and Michael M. Levitan et al.: SPE 71574, SPE 77688, SPE 84290,
SPE 90680.
Derivative Analysis
1. "Derivative Analysis Without Type Curves", Louis Mattar, JCPT Special Edition (1999) vol.
38.
2. "Use of Pressure Derivative in Well-Test Interpretation", D. Bourdet, J.A. Ayoub, and Y.M.
Pirard, SPE Formation Evaluation, (June 1989).
Dual Porosity
1. "Gas Reservoir Engineering", J. Lee and R. Wattenbarger, Society of Petroleum Engineers
Inc. (1996) Volume 5, 73 - 74, 173 - 181.
2. "The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs", J.E. Warren and P.J. Root, Society of Pet-
roleum Engineers Inc. (1963) SPEJ 426.
Elliptical Flow Analysis

"Determination of Horizontal Permeability Anisotropy from Horizontal Well Tests", M.B. Issaka, K.
Zaoral, A.K. Ambastha, L. Mattar, Paper presented at the 2000 SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical
Symposium, Dahran, Saudi Arabia, October 21 - 23.

Finite Conductivity Fracture Model
1. "A New Analytic Solution For Finite Conductivity Vertical Fractures with Real Time and
Laplace Space Parameter Estimation", Lee, S.T. and Brockenbrough, J., SPEFE (Feb.
1986) p. 75, SPE 12013.
2. "Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well with a Finite-Conductivity Fracture", H. Cinco-Ley,

F. Samaniego-V., and N. Dominguez-A., SPEJ (August 1978) 253 - 264.
Fracture with Boundaries Model

2. "Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells", A.C. Gringarten, H.J. Ramey, Jr., and R.
Raghavan, Paper SPE 4051 presented at the 1972 AFM, San Antonio, TX, October 8 - 11.
Horizontal Model
2. "Determination of Horizontal Permeability Anisotropy from Horizontal Well Tests", M.B.

Issaka, K. Zaoral, A.K. Ambastha, L. Mattar, Paper presented at the 2000 SPE Saudi Arabia
Section Technical Symposium, Dahran, Saudi Arabia, October 21 - 23.
3. "New Solutions for Well-Test-Analysis Problems: Part 1 - Analytical Considerations", Ozkan,

E. and Raghavan, R., SPEFE (Sep. 1991) p. 359.
4. "New Solutions for Well-Test-Analysis Problems: Part 2 - Computational Considerations and

Applications", Ozkan, E. and Raghavan, R., SPEFE (Sep. 1991) p. 369.
Horizontal Multifrac - Enhanced Frac Region Model

"Stalgorova, E. and Mattar, L. “Practical Analytical Model to Simulate Production of Horizontal Wells
with Branch Fractures.” SPE Paper 162515 prepared for Presentation at the 2012 SPE Canadian

Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta. October 2012."
Impulse Radial Analysis

"A New Method for Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure", F.J. Kuchuk, SPE Paper 56418
Presented at 1999 ATCE, Houston, TX (October 3 - 6).
IPR
"Inflow Performance Relationship for Solution-Gas Drive Wells", Vogel, J. V., JPT, Jan. 1968.
Leaky Fault Model

"Analytical Solution to the Transient-Flow Problems for a Well Located near a Finite-Conductivity
Fault in Composite Reservoirs", N.M. Anisur Rahman, M.D. Miller and L. Mattar, SPE Paper 84295
for Presentation in SPE Annual Technical Meeting and Exhibition, Denver, CO (October 2003).
Linear Channel Flow Analysis

"Pressure Transient Analysis of Wells in Very Long Narrow Reservoirs", R. Nutakki, L. Mattar; Soci-
ety of Petroleum Engineers Paper 11221, 1982.
Multi-Layer Cylindrical Model

1. "Application of the Parallel Resistance Concept to Well Test Analysis of Multilayered Reser-
voirs", Mavor, M.J. and Walkup, G.W., SPE 15117 (1986).
SPEFE (1991).

Multi-Layer Cylindrical with Unequal Pi Model
1. "The New Analytical Solution to Pressure Transient Problems in Commingled, Layered
Zones with Unequal Initial Pressures Subject to Stepped Changes in Production Rates",
N.M. Anisur Rahman and L. Mattar, Paper SPE 90087 for Presentation in SPE Annual Tech-
nical Meeting and Exhibition, Houston, TX, September 2004.
3. "Wells Producing Commingled Zones with Unequal Initial Pressures and Reservoir Prop-
erties", L. Larsen, Paper SPE 10325 for Presentation in AFTCE, San Antonio, TX, October 5
- 7, 1981.
4. "An Efficient Algorithm for Computation of Well Responses in Commingled Reservoirs", J.B.
Spath, E. Ozkan and R. Raghavan, SPEFE (June 1994) 115 - 121.
Multilayer Cylindrical Rectangular Model

SPEFE (1991).
Partial Penetration Model

"The Use of Source and Green’s Functions in Solving Unsteady-Flow Problems in Reservoirs", A.C.
Gringarten and H.J. Ramey, Jr., SPEJ (October 1973) 285 - 296.
PITA Analysis
1. "Use of PITA for Estimating Key Reservoir Parameters", N.M. Anisur Rahman, Mehran
Pooladi-Darvish, Martin S. Santo and Louis Mattar, Paper CIPC 2006 - 172 presented at
2006 Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 13 -
15.

2. "Development of Equations and Procedure for Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA)", N.M.
Anisur Rahman, Mehran Pooladi-Darvish and Louis Mattar, Paper SPE 95510 presented at
2005 ATCE, Dallas, TX, October 9 - 12.
3. "Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA)", N.M. Anisur Rahman, Mehran Pooladi-Darvish
and Louis Mattar, Paper CIPC 2005 - 031 presented at 2005 Canadian International Pet-
roleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 7 - 9.
PITA Model
1. "Use of PITA for Estimating Key Reservoir Parameters", N. M. Anisur Rahman, Mehran
Pooladi-Darvish, Martin S. Santo and Louis Mattar, Paper CIPC 2006 - 172, presented at
7th Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, AB, June 13 - 15, 2006.
2. "Development of Equations and Procedure for Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA)", N.
M. Anisur Rahman, Mehran Pooladi-Darvish and Louis Mattar, Paper SPE 95510, presen-
ted at 80th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, Dallas, TX, October 9 -
12, 2005.
3. "Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA)", N. M. Anisur Rahman, Mehran Pooladi-Darvish

and Louis Mattar, Paper CIPC 2005 - 031, presented at 6th Canadian International Pet-
roleum Conference, Calgary, AB, June 7 - 9, 2005.
Pseudo-Pressure
Pseudo-Time
1. "A New Method for Computing Pseudo-Time from the Material Balance Equation for Real
Gas Flow", N. M. Anisur Rahman, Louis Mattar, and Karel Zaoral, Paper CIPC 2004 - 182
presented at the CIPC, Calgary, June 8 - 10, 2004.

3. "Real Gas Pseudo-Time - A New Function for Pressure Buildup Analysis of MHF Gas
Wells", R.G. Agarwal, Paper SPE 8279 presented at AFTCE, Las Vegas, NV, September 23
- 26, 1979.
Skin Due to Inclination

"Unsteady-State Pressure Distribution Created by a Directionally Drilled Well", H. Cinco, F.G. Miller
and H.J. Ramey, Jr., JPT (November 1975).
Skin Due to Partial Penetration

1. "An Equation for Calculating Skin Factor Due to Restricted Flow Entry", A.S. Odeh, JPT
(June 1980).
2. "Numerical Simulations of the Combined Effects of Wellbore Damage and Partial Pen-
etration", R.M. Saidikowski, Paper SPE 8204 presented at 1979 AFTCE, Las Vegas, NV,
September 23 - 26.
Skin Due to Turbulence

"Non-Darcy Flow and Wellbore Storage Effects in Pressure Build-Up and Drawdown of Gas Wells",
H.J. Ramey, Jr., JPT (February 1965) 223 - 233.
Skin on Fracture Face

1. "Effect of Wellbore Storage on the Transient Pressure Behavor of Vertically Fractured
Wells’, H. Cinco-Ley and F. Samaniego-V., Paper SPE 6752 presented at 1977 AFTCE,

(February 2003) 57 - 64.

Slant Model
"Efficient Algorithms for Computing the Bounded Reservoir Horizontal Well Pressure Responses",
L.G. Thompson, J.L. Manrique and T.A. Jelmert, Paper SPE 21827 presented at 1991 Rocky Moun-
tain Regional Meeting and Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, April 15 - 17.
Slug Model
1. "Analysis of Slug Test or DST Flow Period Data", H.J. Ramey, Jr., R.G. Agarwal and I.
Martin, JCPT (July - September 1975) 37 - 47.
2. "Annulus Unloading Rates as Influenced by Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect", H.J. Ramey,
Jr. and R.G. Agarwal, SPEJ (October 1972) 453 - 462.
3. "Analysis of Slug and Drillstem Tests", A.M.M. Peres, Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Tulsa
(1989).
Spherical Flow Analysis

1. "Pressure Buildup Equations for Spherical Flow Regime Problems", W.E. Culham, SPEJ
(December 1974) 545 - 555.
2. "Theoretical Analysis of Pressure Phenomena Associated with the Wireline Formation

Tester", J.H. Moran and E.E. Finklea, JPT (August 1962) 899 - 908.
Two-Phase Skin
"Practical Consideration in the Analysis of Gas Condensate Well Tests", R. Raghavan, W., C. Chu,
and J.R. Jones, Paper SPE 30576 presented at 1995 ATCE, Dallas, TX, October 22 - 25.
Vertical Model
1. "The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs" A.F. van

Wedge Model
2. "Computing Pressure Distribution in Wedges," C.-C. Chen and R. Raghavan, SPEJ (March
1997) 24 - 32.

Contact us
If you need help using WellTest, please use the Customer Care web form:
ihsmarkit.com/supportform (opens in a new window)
Support for our products is available Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. mountain time. Limited
support is available on North American holidays. We will respond to all inquiries within 24 hours, or
by the next business day.

Training
We offer various types of training including: getting-started tutorials, instructor-led courses, and cus-
tomized training. All of our classes are designed to show practical solutions to common engineering
problems, so you get the most out of our engineering software, and enhance your decision-making
process.
For WellTest-specific information, see WellTest Software Training. For general information on all of
our offerings, see Global Upstream Energy Education & Training.
Resources
We have technical videos, published papers, and unconventional energy maps for your use. To view
these resources, see our Engineering Technical Resources.
Customized training
In addition to our regularly scheduled courses, we offer private training for our software to groups.
Allow us to customize your training by using your data to create workflows to suit your specific
assets.
For more information, contact our training coordinator at energy.training@ihsmarkit.com.

Welltest Help PDF

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Welltest Help PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Welltest Help PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Upstream

WellTest 2019.1 Help – PDF

IHS Markit Global Headquarters

4th floor Ropemaker Place

WellTest 2019.1 Page: 2

Activating / deactivating your license 41

Activating / deactivating your standalone license 41

Licensing dialog box 43

License Information dialog box 45

Licensing Settings dialog box 46

IHS Markit Online Activation dialog box 48

Drawdown / Buildup Test Type 51

Injection / Falloff Test Type 52

Minifrac Test Type 53

PITA and Closed Chamber Tests 54

Perforation Inflow Test Type 55

Perforation Injection Test Type 56

Closed Chamber Inflow Test Type 57

Closed Chamber Injection Test Type 58

Slug Test Type 59

Slug Injection Test Type 60

WellTest 2019.1 Page: 3

Step Down Test Workflow 71

Adding an Annotation Arrow 73

Changing Global Unit Settings 74

Changing Default Units 74

Toggling Display Units 74

Opening Harmony Enterprise Files 77

Positioning the Start of Injection Line 79

Specifying the Reservoir Fluid Type 80

Creating a Deconvolution Analysis 84

Displaying Radius of Investigation 88

Performing a Conventional Test Analysis 93

Performing a Minifrac Analysis 96

Performing a Pre-Closure Analysis 96

Performing a Nolte After-Closure Analysis 96

Performing a Soliman / Craig After-Closure Analysis 98

History Matching Minifrac After-Closure Data 99

Performing a PITA Analysis 100

History Matching PITA Data 104

WellTest 2019.1 Page: 4

Filtering in Data Management 106

Adjusting the Filter Frequency 108

Filtering in the Production Editor 110

Generating & Submitting PAS AER Files 111

Hiding the PAS Tab 113

Meeting AER Initial Deliverability Requirements 115

Meeting AER Initial Pressure Requirements 116

Importing Data 117

Importing Data from a Text File (.csv, .txt, .xlsx) 118

Importing Data from an FLD File 126

Importing Data from a PAS File 128

PRD PAS 128

PAS AER 129

Choosing a Reservoir Model 132

History Matching 133

Advanced Models: Procedures 134

Anchoring in Advanced Analytical Models 135