.

SPE
SPE 19774
On the Determination of the Pressure-Dependent Characteristics
of a Reservoir Through Transient Pressure Testing
F. Samaniego and H, Cinco-Ley,Pemex/UNAM
SPE Members
z
Copyright lSSe, society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This pefwr was prepared for presentationat the 64th Annual TechnicaiConferenceand Exhibitionof the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in San Antonio,TX, October S-1 1, 1SSS,
This paper was eelacwd for presentationby an SPE Program Committee followingreview of infomrefii contained in an abstract aubmitfed by Ihe author(a).Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not Men reviewed by the SocleIy of Petroleum Engineers and we aubjeot 10correctionby the author(s).The material, aa presented, does not hecaeeerily retfect
any poail!anof the society of Petroleum Engineara, ita oftkara, IX members. Pepere presented at SPE meafingaare sub@c to publicdrrmreview by EdlforialCommltteeeof the Society
of Petrc4aumEngineers,P&missionfocapyis reetrictedtoan abafrectot nc4moretherr300worda. Itfustrationemsynof becopiad. The abarmcfehouidcontainconepkuouagck~
of where and by whom the paper la presented, Write Publkafiona Manager, SPE,P.O. Sox S3SSS6, Rlchardeorr,TX 750SS-3SSS.Tetax, 7S09S9 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT

not always rigid and nondeformable.

123 This probl~
is ussuallyhandled by means of properlychosen
averageHproperties.This method only reduces the
A practicalprocedureis presentedto determinethe
pressuredependentcharacteristicsof a reservoirfrom errors involvedand generally does nottotal1y ellmtransientpressureanal sis. These characteristicsare inate these errors.
expressedin terms of k! p)fil-~p)}or if porosity is
consideredconstant in terms of pertneabi
1ity. ExA review of the 1iteratureindicatesthat most of
pressionsare derived for flow in stress sensitive
the effort toward the solutionof this pressuredeformationsof pressuredependentliquid flow and of
pendent flow problemhas been focusedon the direct
real gas flow, that allow thraih the analys~s of
problem (i.e., predictingthe pressurebehaviorof.the
drawdownor buildup tests, for iquid flow and the
reservoirfrom the knowledgeof pertinentreservoir
parameters).Classicaltreatmentssolve the diffusiv~
analysisof these tests and multiple-ratetests for
equatioo,which assumes that the diffusivityis a cons
gas wells, the determinationof the stresssensitive
tant independentof pressure.When both pressureand
characteristicsof the producingformation,The best
way to obtain the stress sensitivechardcteristicaof
propertychanges are small, the constantproperty
assumptionis justified. If, instead,rock and fluid
the reservoiris to carry out a drawdown test at a
high rate, that results in an importantpressure
propertychanges are importantover the pressurerange
decrement,allcwing the estimationof the pressure
of interest,these changes cannot be neglectedand a
dependentformationparameterin a wide range of
variablepropertysolutionshould be obtained.
pressure.In an alternatemanner, the stress sensitive
characteristicscan be estimatedthrough the analysis
Raghavanetal,, derived a flow equationconsidering
ofa buildup test precededby a productionperiod at
that rock and fluid propertiesvary with pressure.Thi!
a high rate. Further improvementmay be attainedwhen
equationwhen expressedas a functionof a pseudopresa combinationof both tests, a drawdownand a bu!ldup
sure m(p), resemblesthe diffusivityequation,They
test is used. It is also demonstratedthat to circumstudiedpressuredrawdowntests in radial bounded
vent the problem of estimationof the pressuredereservoirsproducedat a constantmass rate. Subsequeti
pendentparameterat early times during the test, due
studies56further investigatedthe applicationof the
to the influenceof wellbore storageand wellbore
m(p) method to drawdown,buildup, injectionand falldamage, the convolutionmethods of analis sthat
off testing,Garg has also studied this problem.
make use of both the sandface flow rate an1 the bottom Ostensenhas also presentedsolutionsfor the pressutl
-hole pressurecan be used. The proposedmethod is
dependentflow problem in gas reservoirs.Pedrosaghas
tested through the analysis of simulatedtests, with
presentedan analyticalsolutionfor the pressure
errors in estimatedresults of k(p)fll-$(p)} or forma- dependentflow propertyproblem.
tion permeabilityof less than 5 percent.Also a discussion of an extensionof the Agarwals pseudo-time
Methods for solving the inverse problem (I.e.,
concept for pressuredependent.liquid flow ir a stress identifyinga pressuredependentreservoirfrom test
sensitiveformationis presented,
data, and evaluatingreservo~rparameters)are much
lessnumerous than solutionsto the direct problem.
INTRODUCTION
In order to properlypredict the reservoirbehavior
it is importantto identifythe pressured~pendent
It has been lcmg recognizedthat porous media are
characteristics
ofthe reservoirearly in its life.
This pressuredependentidetitification
has also been
found of interestin theanalysls of wall tests
Referencesand illust;ation
at end of paper
9

.
ON THE DETERMINATIONOF THE PRESSUREDEPENDENTCHARACTERISTICS
OF A RESERVOIRTHROUGH TRA [ENT PRESSURETESTING

followinga fracturestimultationio.The effect of the

pressuredependentcharacteristicson the behavior
~f as reservoirshas been discussedby Vairogs et
~1y, and Vairogs and Rhoades.2These studies
concludedthat the pressuredependenteffects become
more importantas the formationpermeabilitydecreases. In other words, permeabilityreductionis
proportionatelygreater in low-permeabilitythan in
high-permeability
formations.

SPE

1
1..

it has been found convenient* to express Eq. 1 if

termsof a normalizedDseudorwessuremi(D) definedbv~
Iq. 6:
{i-$(Pi)} P(Pi)
nl(p)=
k(pi)p(pi)

m(p)

(6)

Ihen,
Recently,methods have beep proposed for the estimation of relativepermeabilityat in-situconditions
191s. ~ssentiallythe same nl(pwf)=ml(pl
using well test analysis131
)- 1.1513U iu(pi)
proceduremay be followedto estimate the pressure
0 k(pi)h(pt)
dependentcharacteristicsofa reservoirthrough
transientpressureanalysis.
k(pi)t
)+log(~)+ 0,86859s} (7)
log(
The purpose of this paper is to presenta method to
4(Pi)
H(Pi)ct(Pi)rfi
Y
determinethe pressuredependentcharacteristicsof a
reservoirthrough transientpressureanalysis, in terr
of k(p)/(1-$(p))or if porosity is consideredconstant
in terms of permeability.Expressionsare derived for
Aerey is the exponentialof the Euler constant,
flow in stress sensitiveformationsof pressurede~qual to 1.781.
pendent liquid flow and of real gas flow, that allow
throughthe analysis of drawdownor buildup tests, or
The slope mofthe semilog straight line is defi~ed~
nultiple-ratetests for gas wells, the determination
as:
of the stress sensitivecharacteristicsof the producing formtion.
aml(pwf)
qj~(pi)

n..
slog t

BASIC METHOD

-l.1513ao

k(pi)h(pi)

(8)

PressureDependentLiwid Flow
This slope can be written as:
The basic case for drawdowntesting is that of constant sand-facemass flow rate in a radial system. It
has been demonstratedthat the transientwell behavior
am 1
wwf
qiP(Pi)
for flow in a pressuredependentsystem can be expres *
,_=
-1.1513ao~(pi)h
ed for all%practicalpurposesby5*:
.
apwf alogt
D(19tD)= *(lntD + 0.80907)
(1)

(9)

Derivingthe definitionofml(p) given by Eq. 6 we

where t and m are the definitionsfor the dimension- obtain:
lesspsedopres
ure, given by Eqs. 2 and 3:
RQ
aml(pwf) -{l-$

Bk(pi)t
D=

(2)
$(Pi)H(Pi)ct(Pi)r;
I

h(pi)(l+i(pi)l
D(rD?tD)=
a~qi~Pi)

.,

{m(pi)-m(p,r)}
(3)

~Pwf
;.

(pi)l~(pi), k(pwf)p(pwf)

k(pi)p(pi)

SubstitutingEq. 10 into Eq. 9 we obtain:

~,,
k(pwf)

and r and m(p) are the dimensionlessdistanceand

pseud8pressuredefined by Eqs. 4 and 5:

(10)

{ l-4(Pwf)}P(Pwf)

=-1.1513a
: i-4( pwf) }

qiF(Pi)

h(pi)[l-+(pi)l

Ll(Pwf)
**

P(pwf)

1
(4)

p
I

k(p)i(d

m(p)=

Jwf )
(

(11)

alOg t

dp

(5)

Eq, 11 is the expressionthat allows an,estimatlon

the pressuredependentparameterk(p )fil-$(p.-)}at~
any flowing time, It is assumed in tflfsequati~
the thicknessh(p ) and porosit $(P ) may beestlimt=~
In Eqs. 2 and 3 a. and B are unit conversionconstant! ed from other sou~ces, like welf log~ing. It has b~
defined in Table 1.
demonstratedthat currentlyavailabletechniquespro1
Pm {1-$(P)}B (P)

10
-..

,,-.

<.,

...-....--

.. . .

. .

vide accurate estimatesof these parameters.

In this
expressionand in all slmllarexpressionsin this
paper, the derivativeap ~alogt is an instantaneous
derivative(slope)at th!!time (or pressure)at which
the pressuredependentparameteris going to be
evaluated.

qiL(Pi)

P(Pwf)

dpwf)

wwf

. .

-.

..-

t
I

.
ta(t)=

--,

k(t)

dp
P(t)ct(t)
to

(16)

If t (t)

is redefinedin terms of pressure,a new

func!ionis obtainedas

Data on the pressuredependencyof porositywith

respect to pressure indicatesthat, in most cases,
its variation is small when comparedto the correspendingchanges of permeability,Then, neglecting
the dependencyof porositywith respect to pressure,
Eq. 11 can be written as:

k(pwf)=-lJ513mo

k(p)$
dp
ta(p) =
1p B(P)ct(P)
o

(12)

(17)

To evaluate the pseudo-timeusing Eq. 17, the procedure describedby Agarwal may be followed.A particula
case of Eq. 17 resultswhen the pressuredependencyof
permeabilitywith respect to pressure is neglected:

%&

p dt
Similarlyto Eq. 11, Eq. 12 is the expressionthat
allows an estimationof the pressuredependent
permeabilityk(pwf) at any flowing time.
For a pressurebuildup test in a pressuredependent
system, the necessaryequation for analysis is56:

PressureDependentReal Gas Flow

t+At

qill(Pi)

ml(pws)=ml(pi)-1.1513a

log(At
0 k(pi)h(pi)

It has been concluded that there is a greater degree

of permeabilityreduction in low-permeabilitycores
iS
than in high-permeabilitycoresLISIZ*lg.mis
speciallytrue as initial permeabilityis less than
lmd; in these cases peimeabllityis significantly
reducedat high net confiningpressure.This situation
seems to apply to many low permeabilitygas reservoirs

(13)

Followingthe same procedurealready outlined for

the drawdown case, the expressionthat allows an estimation of the pressuredependentparameter
k(pws)fll-$(pws)}at any time can be written as:

k(pws)
= -1.1513a.
: i-0(pw5)l

qidpi)

A1-Hussainy,Ramey and Crawfordzohave defineda

pseudopressurem(p) that considersthe pr%sure dependencyof permeability:

. ll(Pw5)

k(p)p
dp
m(p)=2
Ipmil(p)z(p)

dpw5)

h(pi)[l-$(pi)l

(14)
)

Again, if the pressuredependencyof porositywith

respect to pressureis neglected,Eq, 14 can be written
as:

qidpi)

k(pws)=-1.1513a
h

IJ(PW5)
dPw*)

1

apws
(
2109(*)

(15)
An importantpoint to note is that a similarexpression to Eq. 13 maybe written if the pseudo-time
concept of Agarwa117 is used for this pressuredependent liquid flow problem.Consideringthat porosity
is not a functionof pressure,we define the pseudotime as follows:

(19)

A modificationof this definitionfor the case of

pressuredependentporosity is as follows:

apws
(
alog(J+&)

(18)

ta(p)= T
dp
1p ll(P)ct(P)
o

p k(p)p
m(p)=2
,Pf
i-+(p)}
I
m

dp

(20)

P~p)Z(P)

Based on our previousdiscussionon the flowof

liquids in pressuredependentsystems,and that relate
to the variationof permeabilityIn low permeability
formationspresentedat the beginningof this section,
our presentationof the problem of real gas flow in a
pressuredependentsystem willneglect the dependency
of porositywith respect to pressure.
In a similarway, thetransientbehavior for flow
of real gases in a pressuredependentreservoircan
be expressedfor all practicalpurposesas:122iaa2s
mD(l,tD)=i(lntD+0.80907)+s+Dqsc

11

(21)

ON THE DETERMINATIONOF THE PRESSUREDEpENDENTCHARACTERISTICS

OF A RESERVOIRTHROUGH TRANSIENTPRESSURETESTING

mere t and m are the definitionsfor the dimensionless tifleanddimensionlesspseudopressuregiven by

;qs. 22 and 23:

SPE :

.Finally,
At is the shuti~n time expressedas a
functiono~pseudo-time.
Often gas wells produceunder variablerate conditions.ConsideringDarcy flow, Eq. 24 may be wrl
for this case as:

Bk(pi)t
D=

-.

(22)
$P(Pi)ct(Pi)r~

m(Pi)-m(Pwf)
Q
: (@%))lo9(t-tJ-1
=1.1513aghTscj=l
qN
qN

Tsch {m(pi)-m(r,t)}
nD(rDStD)=
agpscTqsc

(23)

+1.1513a g :(C+S)
Sc

Substitutingthe dimensionlessgroups given by Eqs.

?2 and 23 into Eq. 21, we get:

where

k(pi)t

p~cT qsc

{ 109(

n(Pwf)=m(Pi)-1.1513a g hT5c

k(pi)

OIJ(Pi)ct(Pi)r~

~log($)+0.86859(s+Dqsc)}

(28)

C=log

46
+ log()
4P (Pi)ct(Pi)r~
Y

(24)

In general,the responseof a specificrate step

N, ofa transientwltiple rate test is a straight
line on a graph of
This drawdownequation is similar to the pressure
dependentliquid flow equation already discussed (Eq.7)
m(pwf)versus:
qj-qj-~)109(t-tj-~)
Followingthe same procedurepreviouslyoutlined for
the liquidcase, the expressionthat allows an estimationof the pressuredependentpermeabilityat any
time can be written as:
Once again, followingthe same procedurepreviou
discussed,the expressionthat allows an estimatio
Tq Sc lJ(Pwf)z(Pwf)
of the pressuredependentpermeabilityk(pwf) at a
k(pwf)=-0.5?25ag _
(25)
time can be written:

~=1

apwf
()
alogt

Sc

The evaluationin this equation of group U(P )z(p )

nd of the slope ap /alogt can be made follow~fgth!!f
ame method discuss~&for the pressuredependentliquid
low problem.
Followingthe same procedurealready outlined for the
rawdowncase, and the discussionregardingpressure
uildup test for the pressuredependent liquid flow
roblem, the expressionthat allows an estimationof
he pressuredependentpermeabilityk(pws) at any time
an be written:
pscTqsc , P(PW5)Z(PW5)
(pws)= -0.5725a

g hTsc

(26)

apws
(

ta +Ata)
a109(-&)

where t
is the producingtime for real gas flow
(or forpressuredependent 1i uid flow as discussed in last section),expresse! in terms of pseudotime, as defined by Agarwall:
=
ap

pscT , lJ(Pwf)z(Pwf)
k(pwf)=-0.5725a
g hTsc
apwf
(~)

.-

a[~_l(qj-qj-l)lOg(

t-tj-~)l
(29)

EXAMPLEOF APPLICATION
Several simulatedcases were run to test the val
ity of the proposedmethod. The pressuredependent
data used in the model was that of Raghavanet al,
becauseof several data sets6, it shows the bigges
pressuredependencyof the formationpropertieswi
respect to pressure.Figs, 1 presents the fluid
densityand viscosityas a functionof pressure.F
2and 3 show the variationof permeabilityand por
ity with respect to pressure,respectively.
Table 2shows data of interestregardingthe fou
differentruns used to test the method, Eventough
variationof porositywith respect to pressureis
very importantit was consideredin the simulation
these cases.

(27)

Bat

Fig. 4 shows a semilogarithmicgraph of the pres

drawdowndata, Through conventionalanalysis tech.
12

..

Dc

*ci77A

ean,,

*F*A

,,

...

,,

f-n.-..

niques,242sit can be demonstratedthat the approximate start of the semilog straight line is at about
12 hours. Fig. 5 shows an enlargementof the pressure
data after 10 hours which is needed to better define
the instantaneousslope ap #alogt. Table3 shows the
calculationsthat are invo~vedin the estimationof
the pressuredependentparameterusing the data of
run 3. The continuouscurveof Fig. 6 shows the input
data to the model ofk(p)/{1-$(p)}, and individual
symbols representthe estimationof the pressure
sensitiveparameterthrough the use of Eqs. 11 and 14
for pressuredrawdownand pressurebuildup tests,
respectively(Table 2). It can be seen from results
of this figure that the maximum error in the estimation
of the pressuredependentparameteris less than 5
percent, It is expected that the accuracyof the estimates of the pressuredependentparametershown in
Table 3 will increaseas the continuityof the data
used also increases.

-.

.,--

. . ..

Aml(Pwf)
=

B(Pi)

1.1513a

q(t)

0 k(pi)h(pi)

2.246 f3k(pi)
+1Og(
$(Pi)V(Pi)ct(Pi)r~

fed(t)

)+0,86859s}

(30)

where
fcd(t)=log(t-tn-l)-J-(
l-:%)
2.3026

N-1 qi(t)
+z

i=l

t-ti ~
log (-)
q(t)
t-ti

(31)

PRACTICALASPECTS
We have seen in the previousexample of application
that problemsare present for the applicationof the
proposedmethod at short times due to influenceof
effects such as wellbore storage and wellbore damage.
in this respect it is of importanceto keep in mind,
as pointed out by Serra et al.ls, that drawdown and
buildup resultsare complementary.The drawdownanalysis yields good estimatesof the pressure dependent
parameter(k($)~ l-$(p)}or k(p)) at low values of
pressureand the buildup analysisyields good estimate
of the parameterat high values of pressure.Consequently, by combiningdrawdownand buildup test result
we can obtain a good definitionof the pressure
dependentparameter.The best way to obtain the stress
sensitivecharacteristicsof the reservoiris to carry
out a drawdown test at a high rate, that results in
an importantpressuredecrement,allowing the estimation of the pressuredependentformationparameter in
a wide range of pressure.Gi?cethis test is concluded,
it is recommendedto carry outs buildup test to
complementthe drawdownresults.

q(t)=qi-l+~ti-~)! i-l
<t<ti

(32)

i
Aqi = qi-qj-l
ti = i-ti-l
Equation30 indicatesthat a graph of A#(p f)/q(t)
versus f t) should result in a straight lin~ of slope
m givend the followingexpression:
ma

a(f@(pwf)/q(t)) = ~.1513a

afcd(t)

u(Pi)

(33)

k(pi)h(pi)

Followingthe same procedurealready outlined for the

constantmass rate liquid productioncase, the
expressionthat allows an estimationof the pressure
Another way to circumventthis problem of estimation dependentparameterk(pwf)/{l-$(pwf)}at any time can
be written as:
of the pressuredependentparameterat early times
during the test, due to the influenceof wellbore
k(Pwf)
FfPi)
ll(Pwf)
1
storageand wellbore damage, is to apply the methods
= l*1513ao
of convolutionanalysis that make use of the sandh(pil l-$(pi)] ~)
{ l-$(Pwf)}
face rate measurements2627280
apwf
()
afcd
These methods require that both the sandface flow
-rate q(t) and the downho~e pressurep (t) be measured. The main advantage is that the e~timationof
(34)
the pressuredependentparametercan be carried out
in a wider pressurerange, that includesthe highA similar expressionmaybe written, as previously
pressuresthat prevailsat short time after the well
presentedfor
the cases of the basjc method section,
is opened to production,and that are under the
for conditionswhere the pressuredependencyof porosinfluenceof wellbore storage effects, It seems that
ity can be neglected.
the solutionpresentedby Stewart,Wittmann and
Meunier26,furtherdiscussedby Streltsova2gcould
It should be kept in mind that similarlyto the cases
be used for pressuredrawdown test analysis.The rate
discussedin
the basic method section, the derivative
q(t) is approximatedby a series of linear segments
ap f/afd is an instantaneousderivative(slope)at
connectingthe nodes of the intervalsas illustrated
thk!tim~ (or pressure)at which the pressuredependent
in Fig. 7, Based on the findingsof these authors and
parameteris being evaluated.
on the results of Samaniegoand Cinco~O with regard
to the variablerate pressuredependentliquid flow
For pressurebuildup pressure sensitiveparameter
problem the followingexpressioncan be written:
determination,similar expressionsto Eq, 30ma be
written followingthe resultsof Stewart et al.~, and
Meunier9iet al. These authors present analysismethod

ON THE DETERMINATIONOF THE PRESSUREDEPENDENTCHARACTERISTICS

OF A RESERVOIRTHROUGH TRANSIENTPRESSURETESTING

for two cases. The first considersa short drawdown

test with whole sandfaceflow history prior to cessatiol
of sandface flow. This my be the case for a test
speciallydesignedto investigatethe pressuredependency of a producingf6rmationor for a drillstemtest.
Stewartet al.2s also consider the case of a well that
las been producingfor considerabletime and complete
informationon the flow history prior to shut-in is not
~vailable.They assume that the well has been producing
steadilybefore it is shut-inat the surface for a
w.iildup
test. In this test the productionloggingdevic[
is set in positionduring the constant rate period and
measurementsstart with the steady rate flow and the
flowingbottom-holepressure.

s=
t

SPE

19774

van Everdingenand Hurst skin factor.

= time

t;(P) = pseudo-timefor pressuredependentliquid

flow, Eq. 17, or pseudo-timefor real gas
flow, also given by Eq.,17.
producingtime expressed in terms of pseudotime, Eq. 27.

t
ap

Ata

= shut-in time expressed in terms of pseudotime

.
~

T=

From the results of this study, it can be concluded

that a practicalprocedurehas been presentedto deternine the pressuredependentcharacteristicsof reservoil
in terms of k(p)fll-+(p)}or if porosity is considered
:onstantin terms of permeability.This procedureis
essentiallybased on the methods recently proposedby
11-Khalifahet al\3and Serra et allqfor the estimation
jf relativepermeabilityat in-situconditionsusing
tielltest analysis.Expressionsare derived for flow
in stress sensitiveformationsof pressure dependent
Iiquidand,of real gas flow, that allow through the
analysisof drawdownand buildup tests for liquid flow
End the analysisof these tests and multiple-ratetests
For gas wells, the determinationof the stress sensitiw
characteristicsof the reservoir.The proposedmethod
is tested through the analysisofsimqlated tests, with
wrors in estimatedresults of k(p)fll-$(p)} less than
5 percent.An extensionof Agarwals pseudo-timeconcep
for pressure-dependentliquid flow in a stress sensitiw
formationhas been presented.It is also demonstrated
that early time pressure dependentparameterestimation
can be carried out through the convolutionmethod of
analysis.

temperature
= real gas deviationfactor

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
.

dimensionlesstime, Eq. 2 for pressure

dependentliquid flow and Eq, 22 for real
gas flow.

P.=

viscosity

$=

porosity

0=

density

Subscripts
c.

= convolution

= drawdown

= dimensionless

= flowing

= gas

= initial

= index

= last rate interval in a multiple-rateflow

test

= liquid (oil)

Sc

= standardconditions

= wellbore

REFERENCES
The authors thank M.J. Economies for encouragingthel
to continue their researchaimed to find a solutionto
and Elasticityof
1. Mei.nzer,O.E.:Compressibility
the estimationof the pressuredependentcharacteristic
Artesian Aquifers,Econ. Geol., 23(1928)263-271
of a reservoir.
2. Jacob, C.E.:On the Flow of Water in an Elastic
Artesian Aquifer,Trans. Amer. Geophys, Union
NOMENCLATURE
(1940)574-586.
3. Jacob, C.E.:Engineering
Hydraulics,(H. Rouse,
system total compressibility
Ed.), John Wiley and Sons Co., Inc., New York
Ct
=
(1950)321-386.
= turbulentterm coefficient
D
4. Raghavan,R., Scorer, D.T., and Miller, F,G,:An
= permeability
k
Investigationby NumericalMethods of the Effect
of
PressureDependentRock and Fluid Properties
m(p) = pseudopressurefor press~redependent liquid
on Well Flow Tests, Sot. Pet. Eng. J. (June,
flow, Eq, 5, or real gas potentialor pseudo1972)267-276.
pressure for real gas flow, Eq. 19,
5. SamaniegoV.F.: An Investigationof Transient
Flow of ReservoirFluids ConsideringPressure
~D
. dimensionlesspseudopressurefor pressure
DependentRock and Fluid Properties,PhD
dependentliquid flow, Eq. 3, or dimensionless
dissertation,StanfordUniversity,StanfordCa.
pseudopressurefor real gas flow, Eq. 23,
(1974)
6. SamaniegoV.F., Brighain,
W,E., and Miller, F.G.:
pressure
P=
An Investigationof TransientFlowof Reservoir
Fluids ConsideringPressure DependentRock and
Pwf = flowingbottom-holepressure
Fluid Properties,Sot. Pet. Eng. J.(April, 1977)
shut-inbottcm-holepressure
PWs =
140-150;Trans.,AIME,163.
flow rate
7, Garq, S.K.:OnFormationCompactionad Ener9y
q=
Bal;nce Law for Liquid SaturatedPorous Med~a
radius
r=
~s;gvoirs, Adv. Water Resources (March,1985)
-*
wellbord radius
w
=

8.

Ostensen,R.W.:The
Effect of Stress-Dependent
Permeabilityon Gas ProductIonand W!ll Testing,
SPE FormationEvaluationJ.(June, 1986)227-235.
9. Pedrosa,O.A.:Pressure
TransientResponse in
Stress-SensitiveFormations,paper SPE 15115,
presentedat the 56th CaliforniaRegionalMeeting
of SPE, Oakland,CA., April 2-4, 1986.
10. Economies, M.J., personalcommunication,DowellSchlumberger,Houston, Tex.(1985)
11. Vairogs,J. , HearnTC.L., Dareing,D.W., and
Rhoades,V.W.:Effectof Rock Stress on Gas
ProductionFrom Low-PermeabilityReservoirs,
J.Pet.Tech(Sept.1971)1161-1167.
12. Vairogs,J. and Rohades,V-W.: PressureTransient
Tests in FormationsHaving Stress-Sensitive
Permeability,J,Pet.Tech.(Aug.1973)965-970.
13. A1-Khalifah,A.A., Home, R.N., and Aziz,K.:lnPlace Determinationof ReservoirRelativePermeability Using Well Test Analysis,paper SPE 16774,
presentedat 62nd Annual TechnicalConferenceand
Exhibitionof SPE, Dallas, Tex., September27-30,
1987.
14. Serra, K.V.,Peres,
A.A.M. and Reynolds,A.C.: Well
Test Analysis for Solution-Gas-DriveReservoirs;
Part I: Determinationof Relativeand Absolute
Permeabilities,paper SPE 17020 (May, 1987)
Richardson,Texas.
15. Serra, K.V., Peres, A.A.M., and Reynolds,A.C.:
Well Test Analysis for Solution-Gas-Drive
Reservoirs:Part 11-BuildupAnalysis,paper S?E
17048, presentedat SPE Eastern RegionalMeeting
of SPE, PittsburghPennsylvania,October 21-23,
1987.
16. Marten, 8., personalcomnunication,Pemex,
ii~xico,
D.F., (19BB)
17. Agarwal, R.G.:Real Gas Pseudo-Time-ANew Function
for PressureBuildup Analysisof MiiFGas Wells,
paper SPE 8279, presentedat 54th Annual Fall
TechnicalConferenceand Exhibitionof SPE, Las
Vegas, Nevada, September23-26, 1979.
18. Thomas, R.D. and Ward, D.C.:Effect
of Overburden
Pressureand Water Saturationon Gas Permeability
of Tight SandstoneCores, J.Pet.Tech.(Feb.1972Y
120-124.
19. Jones, F.O. and Owens, W.A.:A LaboratoryStudy
of Low -PermeabilityGas Sands, J. Pet.Tech.
(Sept.1980)1631-1640.
20. A1-Hussainy,R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford,P.
B The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media:
Jl;et.Tech.(May1966)624-636;Trans., AIME, 237.
21. Wattenbarger,R.A. and Ramey, H.J.,Jr.: IGasWell
Testing With Turbulence,Damage and Wellbore
Storage,J.Pet.Tech.(Aug.196B)105-118.
22. Fligelman,H,: Drawdown and InterferenceTest
Analysis for Gas Wells With Wellbore Storage,
Damage, and NonlaminarFlow Effects, PhD dissertation, StanfordUniversity,Stanford,Ca, (1980).
23. Lee, R.L., Logan, R.W., and Tek, M.R.:Effectof
Turbulenceon Transient Flow of Real Gas Through
Porous Media, SPE FormationEvaluation(March
1987)108-120.
24. Ramey, H.J,,Jr.:Short-Time
Well Test Interpretation in the Presenceof Skin Effect and Wellbore
Storage,J,Pet.Tech.(Jan.1970)97-104;Trans.,
AIME, 249.
25. Bourdet,D., Whittle, T.M., Douglas,A.A., and
Pirard, Y.M.:A New Set of Type-CurvesSimplifies
Wel1 test Analysis,World Oil (May 1983)95-106.
26. Stewart,G., Wittinann,
M.J. and Meunier, D.:Afte~
flow Measurementand Deconvolutionin Well Test
Analysis,paper SPE 12174 presentedat 58th

Annual TechnicalConferenceand Exhibltfon,San

Francisco,October 5-8, 1983.
27. Kabir, C.S. and Kucuk, F.:WellTesting in LnwTransmissivityOil Reservoirs,paper SPE 13666
presentedat SPE 1985 CaliforniaRegionalMeeting
Bakersfield,Ca.,March 27-29.
28. Roumboutsos,A. and Stewart,G.:A Direct
Deconvolutionor ConvolutionAlgorithmfor Well
Test Analysis, paper SPE 18157 presentedat63rd
Annual TechnicalConferenceand ExhibitionofSPE
Houston,October 2-5, 1988.
29. Streltsova,T.D.: Well Testing in Heterogeneous
Formations,John Wiley & Sons, New York (1988).
30. SamaniegoV.F., ind Cinco-Ley,H.: A Study of
Variable Flow Rate in PressureSensitiveReservoirs,
,unpublishedreport (1976)
31. Meunier, D., Witt.mann,
M.J. and Stewart,G.:
Interprets$onof PressureBuildup Test Using
In-SituMeasurementof Afterflow,J,Pet,Tech.
(January 1985)143-152.

TABLE 1. S1 PREFERREDUNITS, CUSTOMRY UNITS, AND UNIT CONVERSION

CONSTANTSUSED IN THESE SYSTEMS.
Parameter
or variable

S1 PreferredUnits

W*

ins/D

Pas

CustomaryUnits
md
ft
STB/D orMscf/D
Cp
RB/STB

m3/m

fraction

fraction
Ct
P
t
;9

TABLE 2.

Run

Pa-l

psi-l

KPa

psi

hours

hours

4.5751X1O4

5.03332x10q
2.637x10-4

3.6x10-9

PARAMETERSOF INTERESTREGARDINGTHE SIMULATIONSOF EXANPLE 1

re/rw

Type of
Test

Skin
Factor,s

Uellbore
Storage,CD

Dimensionless
Rate, q.

103

Drawdown

10

0.011

~~3

Buildup

0.011

5X103

Drawdown

10

0.047

5X103

Drawdown

0.100

TABLE 3. ESTIMATIONOF THE PRESSUREPE?ENDENTPARAMETER k(p)/{ 1-O(p)]

FOR PRESSURE DATA OF RUN 3.

apwf
(ho~rs)

Pwf
(psia)

47.67

1082.92

/1.50

1058.32

119.17

1027.50

143 00

1016.52

715.02

920.01

953,36

902.22

(Pw)m

k(p)

(Pwf)m
(psia)

hJJm
(Cp)

(lb/ft3)

(psia/cycle)

m
(red)

1070.62

5.433

50.267

138.76

97,2

1022.01

5.402

50.256

138.69

97.1

911.12

5.360

50.230

142.39

93.8

16

S?E 19774
*

51.00

160

;40

50.50

120

100 L

80

500

lax)

154M
p,

2mo

60

2X

500

low

2000

pslo
P,

PWCJ

0
i=
u
is
L
0.290

.
?

-9-

o.zo~

.
p ,

psia

2ml

25

s?E S5774

200(

o
0
on

o
0
0

0e
o
0
0

1Scn

0
o
o
0

10CM

Fig,4-Semllog

grsph of preecura dr~wdown data, Run 3 (Tablo 3).

18

Pwf , psia
.

Ei

0
0

Q
o
0
0

r.

x
0
c

0
4

o
0

t?

RUN TYf% TEST

2(

DRAWDOWN

z
.

1-

p , Psio

qi.]
!

----ACTUAL FLW RATE

LINEARFLOW RATE APPROXlhlATION

---------j;--w

=
i
q----------+
----------------qi ----;i
--. ------ ----.------+2..-%

ql
q(t)

~<

b
/

------

$/., ---/? -~

~-

--_-l

/1

----

qN -/ -----j---..
----.--;-------..-.-----...;-....--_.--~--.-.---_-.--_.>
II

qf)
o

t]

tl.1

t[

tN.]

tN