I@tinguished Author Series SPE

Pressure Transieqt Test~ng

by Henry J, Ramey Jr.

Henry J. Ramey Jr. is Keleen and Cadion Beal Professor of petroleum engineering and chairman of
the depadment at Stanford U. He has been at Stanford since 1965. Before that he taught at Texas

A&M u. and worked with Mobil Oif Corp. and Chinese Petrofeum Corp. He is tfie. author of a Eook

and mors than 200 publications and patents. Ramey sewed as chairman of the Editnrial Review

and Monograph cimmiilees and of the Golden Gate Section. He was a Distinguished Lecturer@

ing 1967-68 anti has received the Cedric K. Ferguson Medal and the Lester C. Uren and John

Franklin Carl{ awards. He holds: BS and PhD degrees in chemical engineering from Purdue U.

Introduction. Pressure transient testing involves quantity. Instmments for measuring maximum
P@ubing cme or more wells and observing the result pressures in oil wells were developed and used in the
(either pressure or flow rates) at the perturbed well U. S. during the early 1920s. 1 These devices included
andfor adjacent wells. The result of a field test is boirdon tqbe gauges that recorded by stylus mark on, a
matched with mathematical models of increasing blackened metal sheet and floats or sonic echoes to

complexity until a reasonable agreement results. The measure liquid levels in wells. By 1931 continuously
objectives are mathematical model dimensions and iecordhg inst~ments such as the Ametada,. Humble,

characteristics. These are assumed typical of average and MacDonafd gauges were available: 2
characteristics of the real system. One oftbe early applications for bottomhole
This field of study began in the early 1930s in pmsures (BHPs) in wells was a measurement of the
several parallel technologies both within and peripheral static formation pressure. After a well had been shut in
to petroleum engineering: Examples include formation for a period of time, such as 24 to 72 hours, a BHP
evaluation through drillstem testing, pump testing of measurement was made as an indicatimi of the $Patic
water wells, and performance testing of oil wells. A formation pressure. This proc@ue worked for
mature body of literature exists today. The purpose of permwable, high-productivity reservoifi. Engineers
this paper is to rqview significant findings in this field soon recognized that static pressure measurements
and to identify some remaining prbblems. depended on the shut-in time. The lower the
permeability, the longer the time required for the
Classic Studies. The purposes of pressure transient pressure to equalize. This led to theimportant realiza-
analysis include (1) determination of the cnndhion of :on that when a well was shut ii; the duratiori of the
the well- i.e,, whether the sandface at the wellbore is pressure buildup was a reflection of rock permeability
damaged or bzts been stimulated, (2) the quantitative around that well. It appeaa that one of the first deter-
value of the pefieability in the drainage volume of the minationsof formation p&meability frnm pressure
well, (3) the mean formation drainage volume transient data was published by Moore et al. 3 in 1933.
pressure, and (4) quantitative infbnnatimt concerning An interest in transient phenomena and the
the shape and size of the drainage volume and its mathematical description of transient phcnomemt ap-
porosity. pears in many fields and literatures in the early
Obviously, there me other objectives. Quantitative 190~s. This paper focuses rnairdy on the western
in fnnnatioi nn the preceding four items would answer petroleum engineering MeMure. The literature is cited
such questions as whether the low productivity of a to show development of ideas rather than to pksent a
given well is caused by plugging of the well, by low scholarly listing of references.
formatinn permeability, or by a low driving force A classic study of pressure transient analysis involv-
andlnr formation conductivity available fn.r moving ing pump testing of water wells wa: published by
fluid into the well. This information would provide a Theis4 in 1935. This paper was reprinted in 1980.5
sound basis for decisions invnlving costly stimulation Among other things, Theis d@cussed an~ysis of
of a well or other operating procedures. pressure recovery data, referred to as pressure buildup
In the petroleum literature alone, more than 400 ilata in petroleum engineering. These data consist nf
technical papers have been published on thes.ubjcct of information obtained after a well is produced at a con-
pressure transient analysis in the past 50 years. A stmt rate for a period of time and then is shut in and
similar number of publications exist on pump test pressures are allowed to equalize. Theis suggested a
analysis in the field of groundwater hydrology. This form of graphing and analysis that remains one.of the
literature has developed because the pressm~ behavior basic techniques employed iti petroleum cngiheering to
of a well can be measured easily and is a useful this day. The method was publishe~ later by Homer. 6
The Theis pr+me recovery graph of groundwater
hydrology is known in petroleum engineering as the
0 149.2? 3W8210071 .004, $00,25
C?Pyright 1982 Society of Petroleum Engineer, of AIME Homer pressure buildup grapti. Homer introduced the

JULY 1982 1407

important concept of estimating the mean foimation tions by van Everdingen 16 and Hurst 17 concerning the
pressure obtained in an enclosed k?servoir system at an concept of the skin effect and the quantitative effect of
infinitely long shut-in time. In 1937, Muskat7 in- welIbore damage on the petionnance of a well; the
troduced a graphical method for determining the classic study by Matthews, Bmns, and Hazebroek 1s
ultimate static formation pressure from BHP transient concerning determination of mean pressure for closed

data. This method becnme impommt because it worked resemoir systems; Perrines 15 review Of p~ssu~

for a variety of systems. buildup analysis, which presented a methnd for

There were many classic studies during the 1940s. pmkiphase-flow pressure transient aualysi~ and
~atiin,~ 19 theOreti~nJ foudatioo for Penines mefbOd
Many impomant papers appeared as USGS water sup-
ply notes. Publications by Wenze18 in 1942 and by for multiphase flow.

Cooper and Jacoby in 1946 are nbtable. Jacob0 also

prepared a classic chapter in Hunter Rouses book, The Past 15 Years. The preceding summary does not
Engineering Hydrcudic$, in 1949. Also notable were a do justice to the wealth of the literature through 1965.
1946 publication by Elkins 1J that presented graphs for It is cited to establish certain key ideas and to establish
interference annlysis similw to those used today; a the framework for some persistent misconceptions. In
1949 publication by Arps and Smith 12 denling with defense of the studies published through 1965, the
pressure buildup; and a classic study by van Ever- digital computer was evolving slowly. Computing was
dingen and Hurst 13 in 1949, The van Evedlngen and slow and expensive. For thk reason, many ideas were
Hurst study presented applicwions of the Laplace advanced on a completely Iogical basis but were pot
transformation for solving transient ffo.x problems in tested thoroughly.
rescmoim. The main application IVaS estimation of By tbe mid-1960s several forces were acting to
transient water influx (water recharge) into oil reser- clarify interpretation of pressure transient data. One
voirs. However, the authors also dkcussed applications was the introduction of log-log type-curve matching
to pressure transient analysis for individual wrens dur- for interpretation of earIy-time data for new-wellbore
ing presentation of the material. Many researchers effects. 20 The other was practical application of the
were investigating quantitative analysis of pressure Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek superposition equations to
transient data in the late 1940s. study outer-boundary or dvinage-shape effects. 2,22
ItI 1950, two sepamte publications appcwcd and pro- Other impottant factors included development of high-
vided the fundamental basis for modem well test precision pressure instruments capable of eight-digit
analysis. These included the Homer paper and a study measurement and development of compute~ and soft-
by Miller, Dyes, and Hutchinson. 14 The latter study waic particul@y suited to well-test problems.
ind]cated that pressures during pressure buildup should The problem of identifying the correct semilog
be graphed vs. the logarithm of the shut-in time. The str~lght line in a bufldup test began to unravel in
Homer study indicated that buildup pressure should be 1965.23 This study was based on a log-log type curve
graphed vs. the logarithm of a time ratio involving the in a much older study. 13 More complete log-Iog vp$
sum of the producing time plus the shut-in time, cumes for the wellbore-storagelskin-e ffect p~blem
divided by the shut-in time, Both g~phs were reported 20,24.25.41 Log.logtype curves for
+owed pi%.?
to produce straight lines, the slopes of which were in- fractured wells ,8 followed from the realization of
versely proponional to the formation pennwbility by the diagnostic powers of the log-log graph. Log-1og
precisely the same relation. .Confasion cnnceming the type curves often permitted matching data from the
validity of the results of these two methods remains to first data point after shut-in (perhaps 5 minutes) to
this date. htmdrcds of hours test duration. Type curves often
Pernne 15 discussed the two types of buildup graph penqitted identification and correction of errors in test
in an early review. He observed that because of the data. A summa~ of the use of type curves is given in
mathematical assumptions involved in the two studks, Ref. 29.
the MilIer-Dyes-Hutchinson method should apply to Anntber new and important application of Iog-iog
old wells in fully developed reservoirs, and the Homer tYPe cu~es in the petroleum indust~ was in in-
method should work best for new wells in large, terference testing. This testing involves interpretation
undeveloped reservoirs. This was a perfectly logical of pressurdtime data measured in a shut-in observation
conclusion but largely incorrect, as later studies well. The pressure data arc generated by an adjacent
proved. The mathematical assumptions were of the producing well. In the simplest case, a well is pro-
sufficient rather than the necessa~ type. duced continuously at a constant rate, and a pressure
Another set of assumptions that bothered practi- drop is measured at the nearby shut-in well. The line-
tioners concerned the usual simplifying assumptions of source type cume,11 may be used t? determine both
constant fluid and rock properties. These assumptions flow conductivity (transmissivity) and the pomsity-
also were found to have little effect on applications. compressibility-thickness product (storativity). A re-
In the 15-year period from 1950 to 1965, many im- cent study 30 has presented a new fine-source type
podant basic papers in pressure transient analysis ap- curve for a period of production, then shut: in. A
peared in the petroleum engineering Iiternture: publica- single matching may be made for boti drawdown and

1408 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

buildup. This type curve, shown in Fig. 1, also is short straight line of slope 2.30 shown on Fig. 2 must
vahd for the first pulse in a pulse test. 31 represent the appearance of the nearby closed side of
An important general conclusion may be reached the rectangle, us shown on the inset tigore. This ap-
from experience with matching real field data and type pears to verify Homers obscwation of the effect of a
curves representing analytical soIutions of ideal nearby fault. However, Fig. 2 applies for production.
systems of constant properties, Real nonideaJ systems Now let us consider the effect of the side on
often do behave like ideal-system solutions, as in- pressure buildup. Fig. 3 presents a Homer pressure
dicated by a line of pressure/time data points on a buildup graph for the same shape. Fig. 3 was con-
graph. Apparently prsssurcltime data often do not con- smzcted through use of the superposition technique
tain readily discernible information on reservoir described in Ref. 32. Inspection of the pressure
heterogeneities. buildup line shown on Fig. 3 for any producing time,
Lit us consider new information on outer boundary from very short to very long times, in~kcates only a
effects. Homers 6 pioneering study showed that a very long sttaight line, with a mere suggestion of a
nearby linear flow barrier, such as a sealing fault, slight bend upward. Fig. 4 presents a Miller-Dyes-
might appear in a pressure buildup test as a second Hutchinson gmph for the s$ame case. It shows the same
stmight line of double slops. sort of behavior as the Homei graph. There is simply
Ref. 22 presents Eibles of dimensionless one reasonably long straight line with an eventual bend
pressureltime data for production of a well in a variety down to static pressure. The case shown in Figs. 3
of closed-rectangular shapes, as originally defined by and 4 is not unusual. Andrude 33 has investigated all
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek, 18 Table 5 in Ref. 22 the Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek shapes and has found
ppsents data for a well near one side in a Z-tO-l EC- similar results for most shapes with a well near a long
tangk. Fig. 2 presents a graph of this information as side. It is necessary to place a well almost on the side
dimensionless pressure vs. the logarithm of Clmen- to see a distinct bend upward, and then frequently the
sirmless time. There is an early sttaight line of correct slope of the new line is not in even multiples of the
slope (1. 15), and at a dimensionless time of about slope of the initial straight Iine.
0.06, there appears to be a bend, and a shoti line of Several impomnt conclusions are evident. First,
double slope appears, A Cartesian graph of the same pressure drawdown and buildup graphs for wells in
data indicates that pseudosteady-state flow begins at a closed shapes do not necessarily y look the same. As
dimensionless time of 0.3. Thus it is cenain that the ointed out in Ref. 32 for a well in a closed square
DRAWDOWN AND BUILDUP INTERFERENC~ TEST FOR A LINE SOURCE WELL

10

PD

Id

Idz

Fig. 1Drawdown and buildup interference test for a fine-source well.

JULY I 982 1409

 the pressure buildup graph becomes static at the time
when pseudosteady flow begins for a production test.
Bends in pressure buildup and pressure drawdown
gm.phs do not occur at the same time. Finally, the ef-
fect of all drainage boundaries around a well appears
12L
to interfere such tht a clearly defined line of double
slope rarely appears ii a pressure buildup test.,
10
However, clearly defined lines of double slope do

D occur in interference testing on occasion.

8 Another important observation may be made by
comparing Figs. 3 and 4. As described previously, an
SLOPE =1.15
earl y conclusion was that the Miller-Dyes-Hutcbi?son
6 -
graph was best for old wells in fully developed reser-
voirs, while the Homer graph was best for new wells
4 - in very large reservoirs. A comparison of F@. 3 and
4 indicates that this is a logical, but not necessarily
,~ cotiect, conclusion: The same observation was made

[0-4 10 10 10- I previously for a well in a closed square. 52 As Fig.3

shows, the Homer gmph straightens the pressure
t DA
buildup.data for periods of producing time much
Fig. 2pD vs. tD for a well off center in a 2-to-1 closed rec-
greater than a producing time equal to the time t?
tangle (Afr& -4x 109.
pseudosteady state. The MiUer-Dyes-Hutchinson gtaph
shown on Fig. 4 also seems to straighten pressure
buildup data for almost any producing time. However,
tbe merits of this graph are more appa~nt thin real.
Careful inspection shows that the graph bends down
after the top of the initial straight line rather than
bending up with the doubling in slope, and then shows
a slight ttpw~rd bend before reaching static pressure.
The Homer graph appears superior for tinding ihe cor-
rect spaight-tke slope for a host of drainage types.
It also is evident from inspections of Figs: 2, 3, and
4 that pressure drawdown ind pressure buildup tests

III+! n@ provide the same kinds of infofiatiom A

fault migfit be seen in the drawdown tests in Fig. 2

I , (
but not in either of the buildup graphs in Figs. 3 and
7

, ,0 ,0 ,$ 4. Ref. 29 concluded that there were other distinct dif-

~ femtces between pressme buildup and pressure
.
A,
dmwdown, notably timtthe skkteffect is notevident
Fig. 3Homer pressure buildup graph for a z-to-j closed
in a pressure buildup t&t, so,that it may be possible to
rectangle with an off-center well (Andrade%ind Cobb
and Smi!h4~. detect the drainage pore volume with a pressure
buildup test butnota preisure dmwdown test. Thus,
o
buildup and drawdown tests may have distinct advan-
~1 tages, depending on the test objective.
,TRA,GH, ENED An imponant observation in Ref, 32 is that it is not
BY ?4s...
obvious that either the Hogterortbe Miller-Dyes-
-.
J Hutchinson graph is superior from a purely analytical

a-
point of view. However, tbeuseof a digital computer
togenerate pressure buildup curves under all con-
ccivable conditions, from very sbortto~,ery long pro-
CORREC, *LOPE
BE,... LINE ducingtimes before shut-in, permits inspectiofi of the
CA .10.8 important characteristics of each graph without
,.., .2.3s assumptions regarding thedurationo ftheproduction.
b. .03 This empirical approach depended on the development

v A 1 1
ofcheap, high-speed computers and computing
m. ,0- m- ,0-2 m- graphics. It is no longer necessary to attempt to reach
logical conclusions with irisufficieit data.
Atm

Fig. 5 presents a Muskat graph for the same

Fig. 4Miller.Dyes-Hutchinson pressure buildup graph for a
2-to-i closed rectangle with an off-center well. drainage shape considered in Figs. 3 and 4. Ref. 32

1410 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 coicludcd that the Muskat pressure buildup graph was 10

technically correct but practically useless for a well in

a closed square, because it was necessa~ for the well
essentially to reac,h static pressure before the graph
became appropriate. P&ious recommendations for the
use of this gmph for a well in a closed circle appeared I

tohavebeen tested insufficiently. Ontheotber hand,

Fig. 5 indicates that the Muskatgraph would bea
reasonable technique for obtaining static pressure fora
well in the 2-to-l rectangle. It appears necessary to in- -. -,

vestigate all shdpes w well as,(lffercnt producing c.= [o

times before reaching hard and fast conclusions on the .
.
application of pressure buildup graphs.
a
So far, I have discussed the separate effects of
. .
inner-boundary conditions, such as wellbore storage
: 10-2
and fractures, and outer-boundary condhions, such as
thedminage shape. Unimportant investigation of the
combination of these effects has been presented by
Chen and Brigham. 34 Fig. 6 presents one of their
figures. This figure represents a Homer pressure
10-3
buildup graph for a well in the center of a closed
square with wellbore storage. Chenand Brigham
found. that inner- and outer-boundary effects could in- =0,3
1P,,
terf& with each odierf orreasonably sized drainage,
systems and form asonable values of the wellbore 10-4. 1 1 I
0.04 0.08 0.12
storage coefficient. The net result was that no comcct
straight Iineof the proper slope existed for some tDA

cases. Athomugh inspection of the sensitivity of

pressure buildup graphs to these factors, and to other Fig. 5Muskat pressure buildup graph for a 2-!0-1 closed rec-
tangle with an off-center well.
impommt factors such as flow rate variation, has not
yctappeared intheliteraturcto the best of my
knowledge.
Space limitations do not permit a review, of all in-
teresting recent pressure trzmsient analysis
developments, Examples ofsigniticant omissions in-
cludethe Aganva135 procedure for matching buildup
data with. slog-log production type curve, investiga-
tionsof inefiid effects caused by Ii uidmovement in a
wellbore by Shinohara and others,3 : ,37 a remarkable

series of stuck of finite-conductivity vertical

hydmulic fractures by Ci,nco-Ley and Samaniego, 3s.
and. measurement of eanh tide effects in deep shut-in
WeIIS.39 ,4n explosion of findinss has occurred in the
last 5 years.
This renaissance inpressuretmnsient analysis results
from a fortuitous combhation of factors stimulated bv
advances in electronics. Advances in development of
large-capacity, small, inexpensive computers, high-
[t+ At)/At

precision preswre sensors, and applied mathematics Fig. 6Horner pressure buildup graph for a v&J in a dosed
came at a time when the wellbore began to yield its square with wellbore storage (Chen and Brigham3a).
secrets. At this stage, it is safe to speculate that the

future holds gteat promise for continued research

findings in this field.
Research inpressure transient analysis appears to
have followed two main courses: (1) intellectual
conception and solution of potential transient flow
problems and (2) identification of pertinent new flow
problems from inspection of anomalous field data. The
first course often has provided solutions to problems

JULY [982 141 I

that have not appeared in practice to this time. mathematical solutions for ideaJ homogeneous systems
However, the combination of the modem power to of constant properties often do match red field data..
solve problems with the sccofid course is leadhtg This indkates that certain reservoir heterogeneities do
operations-oriented researchers to outstrip identified not have a large impact on pressurdtime ddta.
field problems. Nevertheless, it appems that most 4. A shldy of pressurs buildup and drawdown in
major findings have been inspirsd by. ,identification of rectmgular bounded shapes shows that the two tests
a pertinent problem fmm field data. Pressure transient wilI not necesbaril y look the same for the same well.
analysis is a field of research that requires full-scale Ftmhemzorc, a doubling of slope indicating a nk?atby
physical experiments. Operations and research sealing fault may appear in a drawdown test, yet may
personnel must work together for maximum success. not be apparent in i buildup test.
A major research need is to be able to measure flow 5. The Homer-type pressure buildup gtaph appeati
rate (both at the surface and downhole) as accurately superior to Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson plotting for a wide
as pressure can he measured presently. Another need range of dmimage shapes.
is better undemanding of rock effective pore space
compressibility, especially for compacting or subsiding Acknowledgments. This study was supported by DOE
systems. The total system compressibility also appears DE-AT0380-SF1 1459, U.S. DOE Grunt Geothem%d,
a candidate for significant findings. It is likely that DE-AC0376-ET12056, and by Stanford U.
isolated gas caps and other distributions of liquids and Stimulating discussions with many associates have
gases may affect total system compressibility in ways contributed to thk study. Notable arc M.B. Stsrtding,

not yet understood. F.G. MWer, W.E. Brigham, H. Cinco-Ley, AC,

One obvious direction for this field of study is Gringaften, R. A1-Hussainy, and R. Agarwal.
toward fully automatic interpretation. In this regafd,
advances incomputing maypose a hazard. A
References
completely genetzd, inexpensive, three-ph~ se, 3-D
rese.rvoir simulator capable of matching any set of 1. Cater, D. V.: Hisrov of Pcrrolewfn Engineering, API, Dallas
(1961).
pressure/time data from one or more wells
2. Millikan, C,V. and 8idweR, C. V.: Bottomhole Pressures in Oil
undoubtedly will become available in the future. It is Wells,,, Tram, , AIME ( 1931) 92, 194-205.
impottant that the underlying philosophy of 3. Moore. T. V., SCtikbius. R. J., and Hurst, W,: Detenninarion of
interpretation not be lost in the admiration of, and Permeability From field Data,,, Bull., API 21 I (1933).
4. Theis, C, V.: The Relationship Between the Lowering of
temptation generated by, such amamel. Theamdyst
Picz. mettic Surface end Rate md Duration of Dkharge of Wells
hastheresponsibiityto tindthe simplest mathematical
Using Ground Water Storag e,. Tram., AGU (1935) 2, 519.
model that wiO explain the physical model data. A 5. Press.,, Trmslmu Tesrinz .l@hods. Remim SCricS. SPE, ~dlaS
proper algorithm should begin with a homogeneous (1980) 14,27-32.

system to test the data; if unsuccessful, proceed to a 6. Homer, DR.: .+ Pressure Buildup in Wells, Pror., Third Wodd
Pet, Cog., Leidm (1951) 2, 503.
system homogeneous but tmismropic; test the data;
7. Mmkar, M.: The Usc of Data on the Buildup of Bottomhole
then proceed to a two-porosity system, and so on. ~o
Pressures,., 17ww AIME (1937) 123,44-48.
Because of the importance of this field of study mtd 8. Wenzel, L. K.: Methods of Determining Pmmeztbility.of Water
the obvious promise of present and future conditions, Bearing Materials With Special Refemme m Discharging Well
Me[hods, ,. USGS Warm Supply Ptxwr 887 ( 1942).
pressure transientanzdysis will be a vigorous, exciting
9. Cooper, H.H. Jr. and, Jacob, C. E.: ,A Gemralized Graphical
field ofsfudy for some time to come.
Method for Evalmti8 Fmmatio Constants and Summarizing
Well Field Histmy,,, Tmm., AGU (1946) 27, 526.

Conclusions. The following conchtsionsdcsetve 10. En@zewin# Hydnxdks, Hunter Rouse (M.), John Wiley and
Sons Inc., .New York CiCy (1949).
emphasis.
11. Elkins, L. F.: .. Reservoir Pm fonmmce and Well SpacingSilica
1. Many early studies contained logical conclusions
Arbuckk Pool, Kansas,,, Drill, and Pmvl. Pro.., API ( 1946) 109.
reached from considerations or assumptions made in 12. A$s, J.J. and Smith, A. E.: .. Practical Use of Bottomhole
mathematical solution of particular transitmt flow prob- Pressure Buildup Cuves,>, Reprint Series, API, Tulsa (1949).

lems. Although logical, many early conclusions have 13. van Everd@en, A.F. and Hurst, W,; The Application of the
Laplace Tmmfonmation to Flow problems in Reservoirs,
been found incorrect. Complete studies now possible
Trans. , AIME ( 1949) 186.305-324.
with modem digital computers reveal that nmthe-
14. Miller, CC,, Dyes, A. B., and Hutchins.., C.A, Jr.: . Estimation
matical assumptions made in early studies often were of Permeability and Reservoir Pcmsure From Bouomhol. Pressure
of the sufficient rather than the necessa~ type. Buildup Chmactmistics,,, Tmns., AIME (1950) 189, 91.
15. Perrinc, R. L.: ., Amlysis of Pressure Buildup C.rves,,, Dri71. and
2. Log-1og type cutves were found to permit
P,od. Pm.,, API ( 1956) 483.
diagnosis of early pressure transient data to select flow
16. van Everdinsm, A. F.: <The SK, Effect and Its Influence O the
tYPe, (fracture or wellbore stordge) and the start of the Productive Cavacitk, of a Well, Tram., AJME (1953) 198,
semdog straight line. 171-176.

3. Interference testing was found to reveal important 17. Hurst, W,: .< EslabLshment of [he Skin Effect md 11s Impediment
to Fluid Flow Into a Wellbore,,. Pm. EW (Oct. 1953) B-6.
information on both flow conductivity and fluid
18. Matthews, C. S., Bmm, F., !md Hazebrmk, P.: .A Meth&d for
content of a reservoir. Perhaps the most impmtant Dctwmi.aticm of Average Pressure in a Bounded Resewoir,
conclusion resulting from interference testing is that Trtim., AIME (1954) 201, 182-191.

1412 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

19. Mwd., J. C.: Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reserv- 33. Andmde, P.: %.meral Pressure Buildup Graphs for Wells in
oirs and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphw Pressure Closed Shapes,,, MS thesis, Smford U,. Staoford, CA (1974).
Buildup Analyses,,, Trans., AJME (1959) 216, 309-311. 34. Chen. H.K. and Brigham, W. E.: . Pressux Bmild.p for a Well
20, Ramey, H.J. Jr.: ..Short-Time Well Test Data Inteperation in the With .stmam and Ski i a Closed Smart,. J. Per. Tech, (Jan.
Presence of S!4. Effect and Wellt.me Storage,<, J, Pec Tech. 1978) 141--146.

(Jan. 1970) 97-104. 35. Ammval. R, G,: .*A New Method 10 Account for Prcducins Time
21. Eadmgher, R.C. Jr., Ramey, H,J, Jr., Miller. F. G., and Mueller, E&ts Whm Type Cm-m Are Used w Am[ym Pressure ~.ildup
T. D.: . .Press.re Distributions in Rectangular Reservoirs,,, J. Per. Data.,. pap SPE 9289 presented at the SPE 55th Am.d
Tech. (Feb. 1968) 199-208. Technical Ccmfercnce and Exhibition. Dallas. Sept. 22-24, 1980.
22. FAdougher, R,C. Jr. md Ramey, H.J. Jr. : Wmference Analysis 36. Cooper. H.H. Jr., Bredehoe ft. J. D.. Papadop.los. S. S., and Ben-
in Botmded Systems,,, J. Cd.. Per. Tech. (Oct.-Dee. 1973) 113. net. R. R.: .. The Response of Well-Aquifer systems to Seismic
23. Rwney, H.J. Jr.: .-NomDarcy Flow and Wellbore Storage Effm.s Waves,,, J. Geophys. R,,. (Aug. 15, 1965) 3915.3926.
iII Pressure Buildup and Drawdown of Gas Wells,.. J. Pet, Tech. 37. Shinoham. K. and Rammy, H.J. Jr.: ..Slug Test Data Analysis ln-
(Feb. 1965) 223-233. clding the Jmnia Effecr of the Fluid i the Wellbore,,, paper SPE
24. McKirdey, R. M.: ,W.41bom Tm..smissibility Fmm AfterRow 8208 presemed at the SPE 54th Ammd Technical Conference ami
Dominated Pressure Buildup Data,,, J. Per. Tech. (July 197 I ) Exhibition Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26. 1979.
863-872. 3S. Cincc-Ley, H. and Smna.iego-V., F.: .. Pressure Tnmsiem
25. Eario.gber, R.C. Jr. and Kersch, K. M,: . Analysis of Shori-Tirne Analysis Finite Cond.ctivicy Fracture Cwe vs. Damaged Frac-
Transient Test Data by Type-Cuwe Matching.,, J, Pel, Tech. ture Case.., paper SPE 10179 presmted w the SPE 56th Annual
(July 1974) 793-800. Technical Ccmfercnce md Exhibition. S. Ammi., 0.1. 5-7,
26. Gringmten. ,A.C. and Rmmy, H .J Jr.: Yhweady State Pressure 19s[.
Distrib.tiom Created by a Well With a Single Horimmal Fmc- 39. Acditty, P. C., N,, A. M.. ,nd Rm,y. H.]. J,., .. Respose of a
t.re. Partial Penetration. or Restricted Enlrv,,. S... Pd. Em, J. Closed WeU-Rcsewoir Sys[ern to Sttess Idced by Sanh ride s..
(Aug. 1974) 413-126, Paper SFE 7484 presen!ed al the SPE 53rd Ammml Technical c...
27,. Gringanen, AC., Ramey, H,J, Jr., and Raghavan, R,: ference and EAibhion, Houston. Oct. 1<.1978.

W-fnst.ady Sfate Pressuce Distributions Created by a Well With a 40. Grigmen. A. C.. B.~gm, T. M., md Vit.rat. D.: ,, Evaluating

Sln8k Infinite Conductivity Vertical Fraccure,. Sot. Per. Eng, J, Fissured Fonmdon Gmmwy From Well TCSC D.tz A Field Ex-
(Au& 1974) 347-360, ampk PP., spE Jo18~ p=se.[~ x The spE j6[h An..,]
2S. Griwmn, A. C,, Ramey, H,J, Jr,, and P.agbwm, R,: .. Pres,ure Technical Cmfemm and Exhbhi.m, San Amohio, Oct. 5-7.
Analysis for Fractured Wells ... J, Per. Tech. (July 1975) [981
887-892. 41. AE.rwaI, R. G.. A1-H.ssaiy. R., and Ranmy. H.1. J,.: ..A. I.-
29. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: Practical Use of Modem Well Test Analysis.., vmigxi.n of Wellbore Sto.qe md Sktn Effect i Umlady Liq-

paper SpE 5878 p~senred at the 46th California ReEional uid Flout 1. Andytic.1 Twamm t... .%.. .%. Eng. J. (Sep.

Meeting, Lmg Beach, April 8-9, 197(h reprinted in Ref. 5. 1970) 279-290.
4647. 42. Cobb, W.M. md Smith. J.T.: ..A. Investigmim of Pmssnre
30. R@y, H.J. Jr,: ..A Dtawdown and Buildup Type Cuwe for in- Buildtm Tests in Bounded Reservoirs .,. J. Per. Tmh. [AIM 1975)
terference Testing.., .%x., Third Invit?.tiona[ Well-Testing Symp-
osium, Berkeley, CA ([980) 130-34, .JPl-
31, Johnson, C. R., Gremkom, R. A., and Wcads, E. G.: ..Pdse
Dl,Un@sh.ad Author S.6,% anides we wmml, descriptive Presentation% that
TestinE, a New MeChad for Describing Rescrvoi~ Flow Pmpmtics s.mmafue !he s,.,. of the a In an ,,,. of !echnology by de,c,ibhlg ,ecent
Between Wells,,. 3. Pet. Tech, (Dec. 1966) 1599-1604 dwe!qxnmts for readers who me not specialists in !he topics aisc.ssed. Wrltte. by
32, Rarney, H.J. Jr. and Cobb, W, M.: A Gmend Pressure Buildup ?ndlvld,a!s recc@zad as qxtts in !he .,.,,, these a.;,le Provide key referent?,
t. more de fini6ve work and present specific details only 1. tl[ustrate the tmhnolow
Theory for s. Well in a Closed Drainage Am.,,, J. Pa. Tech.
P.qosw To ;nfom the general ,eadeMiP of recent advances : various areas d
(be,. 197 I) 1493-1505. petroleum engi.eerhg. Tha sen.s is a project of the Technics Coverage Cmuniltee,

IULY 1982 1413

 \
\
CA= I0.8
\
\
\

AfDA=o 3

TOP OF STRAIGHT I
LINE ~

0.000264 kt
DA= ~pc+A

I 10 10= I 0 I 04
t+At
At

Fig, 3Horner pressure buildup graph for a 2:1 closed rectangle with an
off center well (Andrade33)

REGION
STRAIGHTENED
BY MUSKAT
PLOT

/
.-
n

CORRECT SLOPE
0 &

W
~. BELOW LINE

CA =10.8

o> lnCA = 2.38

3 =0!3
tpss

r~!~
-5 -4
10 10 10 10 10 I

DA

Fig. 4Miller-DyesHutchinson pressure buildup graph for a 2:1 closed

rectangle with an off center well
.

10

I CORRECT
STRAIGHT LINE

1
.-
a

*
m
u
-2
? 10
*

-3
10 CA =10.8

10
-4
L
o 0.04

fo
0.08

Fig. 5Muskat pressure buildup graph for a 2:1 closed

rectangle with an off center well

I 10 I 02 103
(t+ At)/At

Fig. 6Horner pressure buildup gra$h for a well in a closed square with
wellbore storage (Chen and Brigham 4)

837