Critical Evaluation and Processing of Data

Before PressureTransient Analysis

Louis Mattar, SPE, Fekete Assocs. Inc.

Summary
With the common use of highly sensitive electronic pressure recorders and the widespread use of reservoir characterization by type-curve
pressure-derivative techniques, preprocessing data has now become
an important prerequisite to pressure-transient analysis. In almost all
cases during a well test, the electronic pressure recorders measure a
multitude of effects other than the intended reservoir pressure transients. For example, multiphase, geotidal, microseismic, changing
liquid levels, recorder drift, recorder plugging, etc. can mask the reservoir transient. If not properly identified, these effects could easily
be misinterpreted as reservoir characteristics, such as pressure depletion, boundaries, or dual porosity. The preprocessing of the digital
data, starting with the comparison of pressures from multiple recorders and ending with data filtration to remove the noise associated with
the signal, is a significant component of well-test interpretation and
is a prerequisite to pressure-transient analysis.
From experience with thousands of well tests, we have chosen
several examples to illustrate the need for preprocessing the data.
The observed pressures must be corrected to remove the nonreservoir effects before pressure-transient analysis is attempted. Often,
diagnosis of the observed data can only be done with the help of information other than the pressure trace.
Introduction
During the 1980s, two major developments took place in the field
of pressure-transient analysis. These were the (1) common use of
very sensitive electronic pressure recorders and (2) sophisticated
analytical solutions available at the analysts fingertips.
1. Some electronic recorder manufacturers claim a pressure resolution of 1 part per million. This is equivalent to saying that pressure
changes of less than one hundredth of a psi are readily detectable with
many of the high-end recorders. The reliability of these electronic
recorders has improved to the point where the chances of failure are
no greater than by using mechanical gauges. Some electronic gauges
have a surface read-out of the data, which makes the number of data
points available virtually limitless (a reading every second if desired).
Most memory gauges can record 20,000 and many 40,000 or more
time/pressure/temperature data points. Compare this to the approximately 100 data points obtainable from mechanical gauges. Electronic recorders present a plethora of tens of thousands of pressure data
with unprecedented resolution and at affordable costs.
2. Many sophisticated analytical and semianalytical solutions have
been developed for analyzing complex reservoir situations, such as
multilayers, finite-conductivity hydraulic fracture with skin on the
fracture face, dual-porosity systems, horizontal wells, etc.
The dramatic increase in computer power has kept pace with, and
often promoted, the development of these complex reservoir models.
With the proliferation of personal computers, every well-test analyst
can have ready access to these sophisticated methods of analysis.
These two phenomena have synergized each other to the point
where many people think that the use of very accurate electronic
gauges, coupled with complex modeling, can identify hitherto undefinable reservoir characteristics. This drive towards complex
analysis has also been fueled by the trend in advanced reservoir
engineering towards reservoir characterization.
Copyright 1996 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review Nov. 4, 1992. Revised manuscript received April
9, 1996. Paper peer approved April 10, 1996. Paper (SPE 24729) first presented at the 1992
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Washington, DC.

120

Theory vs. Practice

The theory of pressure-transient analysis has become so sophisticated that, In fact, practising engineers are reading about many
techniques and models for which there may never be examples of
actual data to fit.1 Most of the analytical solutions available are
based on highly idealized assumptions of which the analyst is either
unaware (because they are embedded deeply into some mathematical procedure, for example, ignoring second order derivatives) or
has forgotten about (for example, constant compressibility). Moreover, many of the analysis procedures yield ambiguous answers and
unless one is aware of all the possible answers, one easily arrives at
the wrong interpretation. Some of the pitfalls in interpretation have
been addressed by Ershaghi.1 Notwithstanding these comments, it
is the domain of the researcher to tackle increasingly complex problems, while the responsibility of the practising engineer is to keep
up with these developments and apply them as appropriate.
The more than 1,000 papers written on pressure-transient analysis deal primarily with reservoir complexities. There are very few
papers that treat the multitude of wellbore effects that are being observed with the use of the new generation of pressure recorders. The
only two classical wellbore topics that have been addressed in any
detail are those of wellbore storage2 and phase redistribution,3 and
even these are treated mostly from a theoretical perspective.
It is not the intent of this presentation to discredit the theoretical
process. To the contrary, the intent is to emphasize that the proper
application of the theory must be based on reliable and relevant data.
It is not sufficient to combine abundant and extremely accurate pressure data with sophisticated and complex reservoir models and expect the correct interpretation to emerge. This is because a significant amount of these very accurate pressure data that are being
measured and recorded do not reflect reservoir phenomena at all,
but are dominated by many effects which will be discussed in the
Wellbore Dynamics section.
Wellbore Dynamics
The existing theory of pressure-transient analysis implicitly assumes that the reservoir pressure can be measured directly. In real
life, this is practically impossible to do because, in general, the recorder is located somewhere in a wellbore, not in the reservoir (as
is demanded by theory). The recorder is linked to the reservoir by
means of the wellbore and therefore, the pressures that are measured
by the recorder are a combination of wellbore and reservoir effects.
Often the resulting response is dominated by the reservoir effects,
and pressure-transient analysis can proceed along the lines dictated
by the existing body of literature. In a large number of cases, however, the response observed on the recorders is dominated by wellbore
effects. In such instances, pressure-transient analysis of this portion
of the data is not valid and will lead to erroneous answers in both the
identification of the reservoir model and the calculations of parameter values.
The phenomena that occur at or near the wellbore have been
termed wellbore dynamics.4 These include liquid influx/efflux;
phase redistribution; wellbore and near wellbore cleanup; plugging;
recorder effects such as drift, hysteresis, malfunction, temperature
sensitivity, and fluid PVT changes; gas/oil solution/liberation; retrograde condensation; leaks; geotidal/microseismic; and effects
with no obvious explanation.
This list of wellbore dynamics has been compiled from the authors experience in practical well-test interpretation following
many years of specialization (more than 25,000 tests have been analyzed and supervised by the author and his colleagues).
SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996

Fig. 1Schematicliquid moving past recorders.

The detection of many of these wellbore dynamics has been made

possible by the advent of electronic recorders. These sometimes
minute effects that would have gone unnoticed in the past can now
be observed very clearly and are often misinterpreted as reservoir
events, rather than wellbore events. Some of these events can be
minimized by the use of downhole shut-in tests.
Because of these numerous wellbore dynamics that sensitive
electronic recorders have now made observable, it has become
imperative that the measured data be critically evaluated and processed before pressure-transient analysis. This preprocessing is
necessary to validate the data before analysis. Once nonreservoir effects have been identified, they can either be filtered out, corrected,
or ignored, but they should never be interpreted as reservoir effects.
The cause of these wellbore dynamics is often not found easily, but
may be obtained from other sources, such as field notes during the
test, previous tests, discussions with the operator, comparison with
tubing or casing pressures, unreported gas or liquids production, etc.
A lot of this information is often not supplied at the same time, or
from the same source as the pressure data, and must be sought out,
usually with a lot of effort.
The following sections will illustrate some of the many wellbore
dynamics that are observed regularly during well testing. An explanation for the observed effect will be given whenever possible.
Liquid Influx/Efflux
A simple schematic can be used to show that the recorders do not
necessarily reflect the reservoir pressure. In Fig. 1, the reservoir
pressure is shown by the line labeled mid-point of perforations
(MPP). It is a straight line. On the same figure, the line labeled recorder run depth (RRD) shows the pressure recorded at a point 100
m above the MPP. Obviously, these two pressure traces look very
different, and the RRD pressure signature does not reflect the true
reservoir pressure (MPP). The reason for this significant difference
is very simply a change in liquid level in the wellbore. Before time
t1 , the liquid level was higher than the recorder. Between t1 and t2 ,

Fig. 3Liquid level past recorder.

SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996

Fig. 2Falling liquid levelEFFLUX.

the liquid level moves down from RRD to MPP. After t2 , the liquid
level is below MPP.
In a situation like this, the RRD pressure must be corrected to
MPP before it can be used for pressure-transient analysis. Before
time t1 , the correction is 100 m the liquid gradient (100 10
+1000 kPa). After time t2 , the correction is 100 m gas gradient
(100 1+100 kPa). If these corrections are applied, the RRD pressures become equal to the MPP pressures, and what was a crooked
pressure trace becomes a straight line and validly analyzable by
pressure-transient analysis.
Does this really happen, or is this an intellectual exercise? Experience with thousands of well tests has shown that approximately
three quarters of the wells flowing a mixture of gas and liquid exhibit this phenomenon. For example, many oil wells that flow oil (and

Fig. 4Liquid level past tandem recorders.

121

Fig. 6Phase redistribution.

Fig. 5Dual porosity or something else?

gas) to surface show no trace of oil in the wellbore after a 2-week

shut-in. Similarly, many gas wells producing large quantities of water during flow will show a total absence of water in the wellbore after a lengthy shut-in.
Fig. 2 shows direct evidence of a falling liquid level measured every 3 days in a shut-in oil well. Not only does this cause a changing
wellbore storage effect, but it can also distort the recorded pressure
trace if the gas-liquid interface moves between the recorder run
depth and the MPP.
There are many documented instances in which the reverse happens. A liquid that is not normally produced during a flow test influxes into the wellbore during a shut-in. Indeed, a combination of
influx and efflux most certainly takes place during a shut-in, and the
wellbore is very dynamic. For example, if an oil well that produces
at 50% watercut is shut-in, theory predicts that afterflow will continue at approximately the same watercut. However, because gravity
segregation of the oil and water will take place, and we know that
efflux also takes place, the liquid content of the wellbore changes
from 50% oil towards 100% oil.
Figs. 3 and 4 show the effect of liquid moving past a recorder in
a gas well and an oil well, respectively. Fig. 4 shows the trace of tandem recorders, 2-m apart vertically. The top recorder (the lower
curve on Fig. 4) sees the gas liquid interface at the 238 hour point
whereas the bottom recorder sees it at 265 hours (some 27 hours later). From these observations, one can calculate the rate of liquid efflux. In Fig. 3, the change in pressure (approximately 300 kPa) corresponds to the difference between MPP and RRD times the
difference between water and gas gradient. Similarly, in Fig. 4 the
difference between the two traces reflects initially a liquid gradient
and then, ultimately, a gas gradient.

Fig. 7Phase redistributionlarge hump.

122

If this effect is not recognized as a wellbore phenomenon, it could

very easily be misinterpreted as a reservoir characteristic. Fig. 5
shows the type curve and derivative plot for a well with liquid efflux.
This plot is very reminiscent of a dual porosity reservoir! Very often
this phenomenon results in parallel semilog straight lines because
the shift between the first and second line equals a constant (RRD
MPP) times the change in fluid gradient.
Phase Redistribution
Phase redistribution is one of the few well-documented wellbore phenomena.36 Slider5 gives a very clear explanation of the phenomenon. It consists of gas and liquid movement inside the wellbore,
which causes the pressure to rise quickly and significantly. If the pressure rises above the surrounding reservoir pressure, it can cause the
well-known humping effect. This excess pressure is relieved by
discharging fluid from the wellbore into the reservoir. This phenomenon is very different from that of liquid movement past recorders
described in the preceding section. Two examples of phase redistribution are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Notice that, in Fig. 7, the pressure at
the top of the hump is much higher than the reservoir pressure.
Percolation of gas through a liquid column is also a form of phase
redistribution. Fig. 8 shows two electronic recorders in which the
first 6 hours of shut-in are dominated by what we believe was gas
bubbling/slugging/coalescing in an oil column.
Depletion? Or Wellbore Phenomena?
This section illustrates how a simple piece of information from a
source other than the well test being analyzed can have a dramatic
effect on the results. Fig. 9 shows a test in which depletion is observed clearly during the test. Usually, this would indicate relatively small and uneconomic reserves, leading to abandonment of
the zone. Typically, the recorder is left at the bottomhole for 24
hours to record the initial pressure before the flow is begun. It is obvious from Fig. 9 that no matter how long this well is shut-in, it will

Fig. 8Phase redistributiongas bubbling through oil?

SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996

Fig. 9Depletion or something else?

never return to the initially measured pressure. While the obvious

conclusion is that depletion has occurred, there are other explanations for this apparent depletion that have nothing to do with the
size of the reserves, but rather simple wellbore phenomena that will
be described later.
The tubing and the recorder were landed below the perforations,
and there were some completion fluids in the wellbore at the beginning of the test. The true initial reservoir pressure is the pressure recorded during the first 24 hours less the hydrostatic head of the
completion fluids (10 kPa/m). The well was then flowed and the gas
blew out all the completion fluids. At the end of test, the wellbore
gradient showed dry gas all the way to the recorder. This means that
the recorded pressure should be decreased by the gas gradient (1
kPa/m) to give the reservoir pressure, whereas the initial pressure
had to be decreased by the liquid gradient of 10 kPa/m. Recognizing
that the recorded pressures are not necessarily the reservoir pressures saved this pool from being abandoned.
NearWellbore Effects
Fig. 10 shows a well flowing at a constant rate. During the drawdown, the flowing pressure is increasing rather than decreasing. The
explanation for this behavior is that during the flow period, the well
was cleaning up. When a well is drilled and completed, there can be
significant invasion of fluids and particulates (planned or otherwise) into the reservoir. During flow, these invaders can be produced, usually resulting in an improved near-wellbore permeability.
Even though this is not truly a wellbore phenomenon, it is included
in this presentation because it happens so frequently and affects
pressure-transient analysis in the same way as wellbore effects. More-

Fig. 11Response shown on Recorder 1.

SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996

Fig. 10Near-wellbore clean-up.

over, it is a near-wellbore effect. In theoretical terms, it is the problem

of changing skin. In this example, the skin is becoming less positive.
The reverse of this effectthe pressure falling much faster than
expected from pressure-transient analysisalso is often observed.
This effect can be caused by an increasing near-wellbore skin owing
to fines movement, coning, loss of proppant, etc.
Plugging
Figs. 11 and 12 show the pressure from two electronic recorders located at exactly the same depth in the well. Note that the pressures
track very well except for the last flow immediately before the last
shut-in. On one recorder, the pressure is decreasing, on the other, it
is increasing! This misbehavior was traced to hydrate plugging at
the pressure sensing port of one of the recorders; one was an inside
recorder and the other one was an outside recorder, and hydrate
was occurring at the perforations of the recorder carrier. A similar
problem has also been observed in oil wells where the culprit was
a wax plug.
Recorder Effects
Electronic pressure recorders are sophisticated electronic instruments. They are very sensitive and can be affected sometimes by
very unexpected events. For example, in both strain and quartz
gauges, we have observed that sometimes something as simple as
a change in sampling frequency can cause the pressure to change.
Fig. 13 is such an example.
Usually in electronic recorders, both the pressure and the temperature are measured. In some recorders, however, these two are not
measured simultaneously and we have observed (Fig. 14) a slope
change in the pressures every time a temperature is sampled! These

Fig. 12Response shown on Recorder 2.

123

Fig. 13Change in sampling frequency.

errors arise out of the internal voltage change and component temperatures, as well as interpolation routines used with external calibration table.
There are many causes for inconsistencies between recorders.
Some are related to wellbore hydraulics or known recorder characteristics, such as resolution and drift. However, many others remain
unexplained. An example is Fig. 15, which is Problem #4 from the
SPE Petroleum Showcase at the 1992 Petroleum Computer Conference in Houston. Whereas the two recorders track each other within
of a psi throughout most of the test, there is an alarming difference
in the trend during the last 4 hours of shut-in. The bottom recorder
pressure is increasing at a rate of 10 times that of the top recorder.
The cause of this rather sudden change at 168 hours is undetermined.
Veneruso et al.8 have studied the performance of electronic
gauges using transfer functions. Some of the effects they discussed
were short term drift; long term drift; errors owing to temperature
gradient; noise; calibration and aging of tranducer; hysteresis owing
to temperature and pressure cycling; signal processing errors; and
adiabatic sensitivity. They also give some examples of comparative
gauge performance and discuss pressure gauge overshoot caused by
a step change in pressure.
External Factors
Other than transients imposed at the well during a test, there are
many external factors that affect the recorded pressure. The most
documented one is that of geotidal effects in which the rise and set
of the moon is observed in these very sensitive gauges. An example
is shown in Fig. 16. This is part of the buildup test in a high permeability oil well. We have observed other cases in which the peak to
trough magnitude of the geotidal effect was 1 psi (7 Kpa).
There are numerous cases, however, for which there is no known
explanation. Such an example is shown in Fig. 17, which shows two

Fig. 15Different recorder trends.

124

Fig. 14Effect of temperature sampling on the pressure data.

recorders in an observation well as part of a pulse test. Several observations are in order.
1. One is a strain gauge and the other a quartz gauge, yet the responses are identical in every detail. This is a glowing tribute to the
accuracies and resolutions of these two gauges.
2. The general declining trend does not correlate with the pulse
test procedure and has to be attributed to external factors (such as
a declining regional aquifer pressure?).
3. The observed spikes correspond in every detail between the
two gauges. Therefore, these effects actually took place and are not
gauge malfunctions.
4. Some of the spikes are of the order of 60 kPa (10 psi) and are
orders of magnitude larger than the resolution of the two gauges.

Fig. 16Geotidal effects.

Fig. 17Mysterious pressure effects.

SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996

Fig. 18ADual porosity.

Fig. 18BType curve/derivative.

5. At the 400 hour point, there is a major spike downwards. This

is not an instantaneous spike. There are over 100 data points monitoring the downward then upward pressure change that took place
over a period of 17 hours.
6. The causes of these external effects are unknown. It can only
be speculated at this time that these are micro-seismic or tectonic effects. However they could just as well be the effect of some farmer
operating his tractor near the wellhead.
7. This example is only one out of many cases in which mysterious effects are observed. Often the only thing that can be said about
them is these effects are not caused by my test procedure.
Detection of Anomalies
The easiest way for engineers to detect anomalous pressures is
graphical inspection. Electronic pressure recorders are one case
where you definitely need a graphical tool. A computer program
with a graphical user interface capable of comparing pressures, temperatures, zooming-in on portions of the data (most of the anomalies
are not evident on the scale of plots supplied by the service companies) is absolutely necessary. Often all that is needed is a detailed
graphical scrutiny of the data and the anomalies become obvious.
Many times, the pressure irregularities are directly associated with
temperature inconsistencies and so temperatures should also be
graphically inspected. Quick-zooms, multicurve displays, easy-touse software, etc. are a must in this visual analysis, otherwise the
task becomes onerous and impractical.
There are a few simple procedures that help detect anomalies.
1. The difference between two recorders (after they have been
synchronized) should be constant.
2. The primary pressure derivative (PPD)7 should be monotonically decreasing. This in effect says that in a pressure buildup, the
strip chart (graph of pressure vs. time on arithmetic coordinates) is
concave downwards at all times. Any upward concavity cannot be

caused by a reservoirs well-test transient. This follows from the engineering gut feeling that the largest effect will be observed first, and
the strength of the transient decreases with time. Figs. 18 and 19
show synthetic data for two modelsa dual porosity reservoir, and
a homogeneous reservoir with wellbore phase redistribution. Figs.
18A and 19A show the strip chart. A simple visual inspection of Fig.
19A shows the wellbore dynamics in action at 10 to 15 hours. Figs.
18B and 19B, which portray the derivative (semilog derivative), do
not demonstrate any shape difference in the derivative between the
two effects. However, the PPD7 (dp/dt) shown in Figs. 18C and 19C
clearly identifies the wellbore dynamics by the increasing PPD.
3. By its very nature, the reservoir acts as a filter for a signal. This
is confirmed by the behavior of the diffusivity equation. This means

Fig. 19APhase redistribution.

Fig. 19BType curve/derivative.

SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996

Fig. 18CPPD

125

Fig. 19CPPD.

that if any abrupt effect is noticed at the recorders, it is likely to be

a result of wellbore dynamics and not a reservoir transient (which
will be diffuse and smooth).
Effect on PressureTransient Analysis
Wellbore dynamics, if not recognized, can easily be misdiagnosed as
a reservoir effect, thus resulting in an incorrect interpretation. An example of this can be clearly seen from Fig. 19b, which shows the classic signature for a dual porosity reservoir. In reality, this is a homogeneous reservoir with wellbore dynamics (phase redistribution).
Very often the analysis of a drawdown test differs significantly
from the subsequent buildup analysis. This is not surprising when
one takes into consideration such wellbore dynamics as changing
skin, different wellbore storage during drawdown and buildup, gas
going in or out of solution in the wellbore, etc.
Fig. 20 shows a zoom of a portion of the SPE Problem 4 referred
to earlier. This erratic behavior is clearly a nonreservoir effect. Such
irregularities result in anomalous behavior on the derivative plot
seen in Fig. 21. Often parallel lines of unit slope on the derivative
plots are evident. These should in no way be interpreted as reservoir
heterogeneities.
When do these wellbore dynamics effects take place? One expects
them to occur very early in the test, and many of them do. When this
happens, the early time data may not be analyzable, but the reservoir
characteristics can still be obtained from the late time data. However,
in many instances, the wellbore dynamics can last tens or hundreds
of hours. It is very natural to misinterpret these effects as reservoir
characteristics, rather than the wellbore dynamics that they are. We
have documented cases similar to Fig. 4, where the liquid level movement past recorders is observed 400 hours into the buildup!
Once some of these nonreservoir effects have been identified,
what does one do about them? They can be smoothed or filtered, but

Fig. 21Type curve/derivative of Fig. 15.

126

Fig. 20Expanded view of Fig. 15.

sometimes this remedy can be worse than the disease. In the vicinity
of abrupt changes, some of the smoothing algorithms can get out of
hand. Fig. 22 shows the raw data and the smoothed data supplied to
us by a service company. Their algorithm did a fine job of smoothing
the data everywhere except in the vicinity of the shut-in time. Many
smoothing algorithms work very well for most well-behaved data
but none work automatically for all the data. Smoothing of data involves a lot of judgement and indeed forms part of the well-test interpretation process. It is only another step in a series of judgement
calls. It is not sufficient to use purely statistical procedures for interpreting practical well-test data. The use of the well-known least
squares method for minimizing errors can sometimes lead to incorrect analysis. For example, Fig. 23 shows how a few erroneous, outlying, data points can skew the least squares fit away from the true
observed trend.
Some effects that have a periodicity can be filtered using Fourier
transform or similar procedures. In other instances, some people
have developed equations or tables to calculate the geotidal effects
and thus correct the pressure data accordingly. Often a simple logarithmically spaced sampling of the data results in sufficiently
smoothed pressures for pressure-transient analysis. Many computer
programs also have procedures for smoothing the derivatives. In the
end, it should be the analysts judgement that determines whether a
particular procedure has achieved the desired smoothing.
Some oil companies are now aware of the inconsistencies between gauges and the limitations of electronic recorders. They have
issued Recorder Performance Requirements in which they detail the
quality of acceptable pressure data and some criteria that the recorders must meet. For example, they are requesting plots showing the
difference between recorders, overlay plots of all recorders, exploded plots to show the resolution of each gauge, comparison of apparent to specified resolution, calibration details, etc.

Fig. 22Erroneous smoothing.

SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996

6. Use the PPD or its visual equivalent (change in concavity on

the strip chart trace) to diagnose wellbore dynamics.
7. Insist on using a minimum of two recorders on every test, and
examine all the recorders used.
References

Fig. 23Statistical vs. engineering interpretation.

A minimum of two gauges must be used during a test. Some companies will use three gauges on a routine basis. In some tests we have
even had ten gauges in the wellbore! There are many companies that
run two gauges but only look at one. The author has known this to
happen even for some very high-profile wells.
Conclusions
Data processing has become a significant component of well-test interpretation and must be viewed as an integral part of the process.
This processing must incorporate all relevant external information
and involves its own level of judgement and interpretations. Data
filtration and reduction is an interpretive process and can affect the
results of the subsequent pressure-transient analysis.
1. Well-test interpretation is more than just pressure-transient
analysis.
2. Wellbore dynamics are constantly at work in conjunction with
reservoir transients.
3. The wellbore configuration can affect the shape of the response
curve recorded on pressure recorders.
4. Insist on being supplied with the raw, not smoothed, data. If the
data needs to be smoothed, do it yourself, using your own judgement
and knowledge of pressure transient behavior, as well as wellbore
dynamics.
5. If it happens abruptly, it is not a reservoir effect.

SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996

1. Ershaghi, I. and Woodbury, J.J., Example of Pitfalls in Well Test Analysis;

J. Pet. Tech., pp. 335341, February 1985.
2. Agarwal, R.G., Al-Hussainy R., and Ramey, H.J., Jr., 1970, An Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: 1. Analytical Treatment; Soc. Pet. Eng. Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 279-290.
3. Fair, W.B., Jr., Pressure Buildup Analysis with Wellbore Phase Redistribution Effects; Soc. Pet. Eng. Journal, pp. 259-270, April 1981.
4. Mattar, L. and Santo, M., How Wellbore Dynamics Affect Pressure Transient Analsyis; J. Can. Pet. Tech., pp. 32-40, February 1992.
5. Slider, H.C., Worldwide Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering
Methods; PennWell Books, pp. 209-211, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
6. Stegemeier, G.L. and Matthews, C.S., 1958, A Study of Anomalous Pressure Build-up Behaviour; Trans., AIME, 213, pp. 43-50.
7. Mattar, L. and Zaoral, K., The Primary Pressure Derivative (PPD)A
New Diagnostic Tool in Well-Test Interpretation; J. Can. Pet. Tech., pp.
63-70, April 1992.
8. Veneruso, A.F., Ehlig-Economides, C. and Petitjean, L., Pressure Gauge
Specification Considerations in Practical Well Testing; SPE 22752 presented at the 66th Annual Technical Conference of the SPE, Dallas, Texas,
October 1991.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

ft 3.048*
E*01 +m
psi 6.894 757
E)00 +kPa
*Conversion factor is exact.

SPEFE

Louis Mattar is President of Fekete Assocs. Inc. He specializes in

welltest analysis. He has been exposed to some 25,000 well
tests and has written 30 publlications, many of them relating
and contrasting the practice of well testing to the published
theory.

127