PBM5153

Well test analysis

Pressure buildup testing and Semilog analysis

May 2021 Semester

Dr Berihun Mamo Negash
Petroleum Engineering Department

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 1

 Course Learning Outcomes (CLO)

• CLO1 Perform drawdown and build-up analyses using

fundamental reservoir engineering
concepts/equations and analytical solutions.

• CLO2 Fault/ discontinuity detection and interpretation

using well test analysis.

• CLO3 Estimate the reservoir parameters using type

curves.

• CLO4 Apply well test analysis for gas wells.

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 2

 Outline
• Principle of superposition
• Analysis of pressure build-up tests
• Complications in actual tests
• Analysis of late-time data in flow and build-up test
• Analysing well tests with multiphase flow

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 3

 Overview
Application of all analysis techniques presented in this chapter is limited
to single-layer formations.

Near wellbore
effects
Deviations
from ideal
Analysis pressure
techniques for behaviour
Analysis build-up tests
techniques for
Line source flow
solution (drawdown)
test

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 4

 Analysis of pressure build-up test
Pressure-buildup tests are conducted by first stabilizing a producing well at some fixed
rate, placing a BHP measuring device in the well, and shutting in the well.

Following shut-in, the BHP builds up as a function of time, and the rate of pressure
buildup is used to estimate well and formation properties, such as average drainage
area, pressure, permeability in the drainage area of the well, and skin factor in the
region immediately adjacent to the wellbore.

The basis of flow test analysis techniques is the line source solution.

qB   1688 ct rw 2 
Pwf = Pi + 70.6 ln  − 2s  
kh   kt 
Changing the natural logarithm to base-10 logarithms and simplifying gives

 qB    k  
Pwf = Pi − 162.6  * log ( t ) + log  2 
− 3.23 + 0.869 s 
 kh     ct w 
r 
6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 5
 Analysis of pressure build-up test
Rate and pressure behavior
for an ideal pressure buildup
test.

tp = production time
Δt = running shut-in time.

The pressure is measured

immediately before shut-in
and is recorded as a function
of time during the shut-in
period. The resulting pressure
buildup curve is analyzed for
reservoir properties and
wellbore conditions.
6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 6
 Analysis of pressure build-up test
An equation modeling a pressure buildup test can be developed by use of superposition in time.

Rate Rate Rate

q

“well 1” “well 2”

q = q + 0 Time
Δt

0 0 -q
Time Time
tp Δt tp + Δt
(Producing (Duration of
time) buildup)

This can be modeled with two constant-rate terms, one of rate q beginning at time t = 0,
the second of rate -q beginning at time tp.
6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 7
 Analysis of pressure build-up test
BUILDUP TESTS WITH CONSTANT-RATE PRODUCTION BEFORE SHUT-IN
The contribution to the pressure change at time tp +Δt owing to production at rate q
beginning at time t=0 is given by

 qB    ( t p + t )  
(5)
P1 = 162.6  * log  k  − 3.23 + 0.869 s 
 kh  

 ct rw 
2


The contribution to the pressure change at time tp +Δt owing to production at rate -q
beginning at time t=tp is given by

P2 = 162.6
( −q ) B  * log  k t  − 3.23 + 0.869s  (6)
   2  
 kh     ct w 
r 

 qB    ( t p + t )  
pi − pws = 162.6  * log  k  − 3.23 + 0.869s  (7)
 kh    ct rw 
2

Thus   where Pws =

+ 162.6
( −q ) B  * log  k t  − 3.23 + 0.869s  bottomhole shut-in
   2  
 kh     ct w 
r  pressure,
6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 8
 Analysis of pressure build-up test
Equation (7) can be simplified and rearranged to

 qB    ( t p + t )   (8)
pws =pi - 162.6  * log  
 kh   t  
  
Comparing equation (8) to a straight-line y = mx + b

where y pws t p = duration of the constant rate production preiod before suht-in
b pi t = duration of the shut-in period
pws = bottomhole shut-in pressure
 qB 
m 162.6   t + t 
 kh  log  p  = horner time ratio
 t 
 ( t p + t ) 
x log  
 t 
 
6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 9
 Analysis of pressure build-up test

The slop m can be obtained by

differencing Pws1 and Pws2, one
log cycle.

slope, m = − (162.6qB ) / kh
(9)
Taking the absolute value of m we get effective permeability.

so, k = (162.6qB ) / mh (10)

From the semi-log graph, the original reservoir pressure pi is estimated

by extrapolating the straight line to infinite shut-in time where (tp + Δt) /
Δt=1 and log (tp + Δt) / Δt=0.
6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 10
 Horner Plot

𝑝∗ ≈ 𝑝𝑖 for infinite acting reservoir at time of shut-in

MTR
ETR

Infinite shut-
in
 Analysis of pressure build-up test
➢If the reservoir is not ‘infinite acting’ at
the time of shut-in, the Horner line will
extrapolate to a “false” pressure 𝑝∗ .

From the semi-log graph,

the original reservoir
pressure pi is estimated
by extrapolating the
straight line to infinite
shut-in time where (tp +
Δt) / Δt=1 and log (tp +
Δt) / Δt=0.

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 12

 Analysis of pressure build-up test
For skin factor, when the well is shut-in the flowing BHP is 𝑝𝑤𝑓 𝑡𝑝 = 𝑝𝑤𝑠 ∆𝑡 = 0 .

 qw B  
 * log(kt p /  ct rw ) − 3.23 + 0.869 s  (11)
 2
pwf =pi - 162.6
 kh 
Combining equation (8) & (11) an expression for skin can be derived.
s =1.151*{[( pws − pwf ) / m] − log(k t /  ct rw2 ) + 3.23 + log[(t p + t ) / t p ]}
(12)

Setting shut-in time, Δt = 1hr, and neglecting the term log [(tp + Δt)/ tp], equation (12)
becomes

p1hr − pwf k t
s =1.151*[( ) − log( ) + 3.23] (13)
m  ct rw
2

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 13

 Example 3: Buildup test data analysis
A new oil well produced 500 STB/D for 3 days, then was shut-in for a pressure
buildup test, during which the data in the Table below were recorded. Estimate
formation permeability, initial pressure, and skin.
Table 1: Ideal buildup test Table 2: Rock and Fluid properties

Δt, hr pws, psi

0 1150
𝑟𝑤 = 0.3 𝑓𝑡 𝜙 = 0.2
2 1794
4 1823 h=22 ft 𝑐𝑡 = 20 × 10−6 𝑝𝑠𝑖 −1
8 1850
𝜇 = 1 cp B=1.3 RB/STB
16 1876
24 1890
48 1910
 Example 3 Solution
2000
Horner time
Δt, hr ((tp+Δt)/Δt) pws, psi 𝑝𝑖 = 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟔 𝒑𝒔𝒊
1950
0 1150
2 37 1794
4 19 1823 1900

pws, psi
8 10 1850
16 5.5 1876 1850
24 4 1890
48 2.5 1910
1800

(1850 − 1946)
𝑚= 1750
log 10 − log(1) 1 10 100
= 96 𝑝𝑠𝑖/𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 (tp+Δt)/Δt
 Example 3 Solution cont’d

162.6𝜇𝐵𝑞 162.6 ∗ 1 ∗ 1.3 ∗ 500

𝑘= = = 𝟓𝟎. 𝟎𝟒 𝒎𝒅
𝑚ℎ 96 ∗ 22

𝑝1ℎ𝑟 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓 (𝑡𝑝 ) 𝑘

𝑆 = 1.151 − 𝑙𝑜𝑔 2
+ 3.23
𝑚 𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑤

1765 − 1150 50, . 04

= 1.151 − 𝑙𝑜𝑔 −6 2
+ 3.23
96 0.2 ∗ 1 ∗ 20 × 10 ∗ 0.3

= 1.151 6.331 − 8.117 + 3.23 = 𝟏. 𝟔𝟔𝟐

 Analysis of pressure build-up test
BUILDUP TESTS PRECEDED BY TWO DIFFERENT FLOW RATES
Logarithmic approximation to the Ei-function solution derived for multi-rate flow tests

Pi − Pwf  n ( q j − q j −1 )    k  
= m '  log(t − t j −1 )  + m ' log  2 
− 3.23 + 0.869s  (14)
qn  j =1 qn     ct rw  

where
we can derive an analysis technique for pressure-buildup tests preceded by
B two different flow rates.
m ' = 162.6
kh

For the special case qn = 0, equation (14) can be rewritten as

 n  (15)
Pi − Pws = m '   ( q j − q j −1 ) log(t − t j −1 ) 
 j =1 
6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 17
 Analysis of pressure build-up test
Let , t − t2 = t , time elapsed since shut-in
t1 = t p1 ,
t2 = t p1 + t p 2
and t − t1 = t p 2 + t

In terms of the rate history shown in above figure, equation (15) becomes
𝑃𝑖 − 𝑃𝑤𝑠 = 𝑚′ 𝑞1 log 𝑡 + 𝑞2 − 𝑞1 log 𝑡 − 𝑡1 − 𝑞2 log(𝑡 − 𝑡2 )

162.6𝑞2 𝐵𝜇 𝑞1 𝑡 𝑡 − 𝑡1
𝑃𝑖 − 𝑃𝑤𝑠 = log + log
𝑘ℎ 𝑞2 𝑡 − 𝑡1 𝑡 − 𝑡2

162.6𝑞2 𝐵𝜇 𝑞1 𝑡𝑝1 + 𝑡𝑝2 + Δ𝑡

𝑃𝑖 − 𝑃𝑤𝑠 = {( ) log( ) + log[ (𝑡𝑝2 + Δ𝑡)/Δ𝑡]}
𝑘ℎ 𝑞2 𝑡𝑝2 + Δ𝑡 (16)

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 18

 Analysis of build-up test
To analyse a pressure build-up test following two different flow rates, on a cartesian
paper we plot:
 q   t p1 + t p 2 + t   t p 2 + t  
Pws Vs   log 1
  + log  
 q2   t p 2 + t   t  
The slope, m, of the straight line on this plot is related to effective permeability by
q2 B
k = 162.6
mh
Extrapolation of the plot to Δt = ∞ gives pws = pi because the plotting function is zero at
Δt = ∞.
To calculate skin factor, s, at the end of the flow period just before shut-in

162.6q2 B q1 t p1 + t p 2 + t
Pi − Pwf = [( ) log( ) + log[(t p 2 ) + log( k 2 ) − 3.23 + 0.869 s ]
kh q2 t p 2 + t  c r
t w

(17)

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 19

 Analysis of build-up test
Subtracting equation (17) from (16) yields
𝑞1 (𝑡𝑝1 + 𝑡𝑝2 ) + (𝑡𝑝2 + Δ𝑡) (𝑡𝑝2 )(Δ𝑡)
𝑃𝑤𝑠 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 = 𝑚{( ) log[ ] + log[ + 𝑠] (18)
𝑞2 (𝑡𝑝1 + 𝑡𝑝2 + Δ𝑡)(𝑡𝑝2 ) 𝑡𝑝2 + Δ𝑡

q2 B
where, m = 162.6 and s = log( k ) − 3.23 + 0.869s
kh  ct rw2

Assuming 𝑡𝑝1 + 𝑡𝑝2 + Δ𝑡 ≈ 𝑡𝑝1 + 𝑡𝑝2 and 𝑡𝑝2 + Δ𝑡 ≈ 𝑡𝑝2 for small Δ𝑡

Equation (18) becomes

𝑃𝑤𝑠 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 = 𝑚 𝑙𝑜𝑔 Δ𝑡 + 𝑠 If we choose Δ𝑡 = 1ℎ𝑟 𝑃𝑤𝑠 = 𝑃1ℎ𝑟 𝑤𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑡

p1hr − pwf k
s =1.151*[( ) − log( ) + 3.23] for t p 2 1
m  ct rw
2

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 20

 Analysis of build-up test
BUILDUP TESTS PRECEEDED BY (n-1) DIFFERENT FLOW RATES
Superposition Method

Beginning with equation (14) for the general case qn = 0 and for (n-1) different rates
before shut-in, we have
162.6qn −1 B  q1   t   q2   t − t1   qn − 2   t − t n −3   t − tn − 2  
Pi − Pws =   log   + log   *log  +
   log   + log  
kh   qn −1   t − t1   qn −1   t − t 2   q n −1   t − t n − 2   t − t n −1 

(19)
The following analysis procedure is recommended when equation (19) is used to
model a build-up test.
1. Calculate the plotting function

 q1   t   t − tn − 2   (20)
X =   log   + ......... + log  
 n −1  
q t − t1   t − t n −1  

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 21

 Analysis of build-up test
2. Then plot Pws Vs the plotting function on Cartesian coordinate graph paper.
3.Determine the absolute value of m and then k.
pws2 − pws1 (21)
m=
X 2 − X1

qn −1 B
So, k = 162.6
mh
4. Calculate the skin factor, s.
p1hr − pwf k
s =1.151*[( ) − log( ) + 3.23]
m  ct rw
2

5. The initial formation pressure, pi, is the value of pws on the straight line
extrapolated to the time-plotting function evaluated at zero, i.e., X=0

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 22

 Analysis of build-up test
Odeh and Selig Method
Odeh and Selig suggested that a build-up test following n different rates could be
analysed by a method similar to Horner method. The shut-in pressure response is:

162.6q* B t *p + t
Pi − Pws = log( ) (22)
kh t

 n

  q j (t 2
j − t 2
j −1 ) 
where, t *p = 2 tn − j = 1

 n

 2*  q j ( t j − t )
j −1 
 j =1 
1 n
q = * *  q j (t j − t j −1 )
*

t p j =1

This method, approximate but accurate, is applicable only for pressures at

values of Δt greater than actual producing time.
6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 23
 Analysis of build-up test
Horner’s Approximation
Horner defined a pseudo-producing time tpH, as
Np
t pH = (23)
qlast
For tpH in hours, Np in STB and qlast in STB/D, equation (23) becomes
24* N p
t pH = (24)
qlast

Replacing q with qlast and t with tpH in equation (11) we get,

𝑞𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝐵𝜇 𝑘𝑡𝑝𝐻
𝑝𝑤𝑓 = 𝑝𝑖 − 162.6 ∗ log( ) − 3.23 + 0.869𝑠 (25)
𝑘ℎ 𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑤2

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 24

 Analysis of build-up test
Assuming Horner’s approximation adequately models the production history before
shut-in, the entire production history can be modelled as production at rate qlast for
time tpH. If the term Δt denotes time elapsed since shut-in, then superposition in time
by use of equation (2) yields the following equation describing BHP, pws, after shut-in:

 qlast B   k (t pH + t )
Pws = Pi −  162.6  *{log[ ] − 3.23 + 0.869 s}
 kh   ct rw 2 (26)

( − qlast ) B  k t
− [162.6 ]*[log( ) − 3.23 + 0.869 s ]
kh  ct rw 2

After combining and simplifying equation (26);

 q B  (t pH + t )
Pws = Pi −  162.6 last  *{log[ ]} (27)
 kh  t

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 25

 Analysis of build-up test
To calculate permeability we use the absolute value of the slope, m, of the semi-log
straight line,
qlast B
k = 162.6
mh
From the semi-log graph, the original reservoir pressure pi, is estimated by
extrapolating the straight line to infinite shut-in time where (tpH + Δt)=1 and log (tpH +
Δt)=0

The skin factor is estimated from

p1hr − pwf k
s =1.151*[( ) − log( ) + 3.23]
m  ct rw
2

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 26

Analysis of late-time data in flow & build-up tests
ESTIMATING DRAINAGE-AREA PRESSURE
• The average pressure in the drainage area of a well represents the
driving force for fluid flow and is useful in material-balance
calculations.
• Definition
1. For a well in a new reservoir with negligible pressure depletion,
extrapolation of buildup-test data to infinite shut-in time, (tp
+Δt)/ Δt= 1, on a Homer semilog plot provides an estimate of
original (and current) drainage-area pressure.
2. For a well in a reservoir in which the average pressure has
declined from its original value because of fluid production, the
pressure extrapolated to infinite shut-in time is called p*, which
is related, but not equal to the current average pressure in the
drainage area of the well.

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 27

Analysis of late-time data in flow & build-up tests
ESTIMATING DRAINAGE-AREA PRESSURE
• For a well in reservoir with negligible pressure depletion, we consider 2
possibilities.
• First, if the pressure transient data are not influenced by boundaries (either real
reservoir boundaries or artificial boundaries created by adjacent producing wells)
during the production period before the buildup test, a typical buildup test will
have the shape shown below.

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 28

Analysis of late-time data in flow & build-up tests
Second, for a well in a reservoir with negligible pressure depletion and having one or
more boundaries relatively near the well (and encountered by the radius of
investigation during the production period), a buildup test will exhibit the shape
shown below.

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 29

Analysis of late-time data in flow & build-up tests
MBH (Matthews, Brons, Hazebroek) Method: The MBH method is based on
theoretical correlations between the extrapolated pressure p*, and current average
drainage-area pressure, p͞, for various drainage-area configurations.

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 30

Analysis of late-time data in flow & build-up tests
A dimensionless pressure, pMBH,D is plotted as a function of a dimensionless time
tAD.

[𝑘ℎ(𝑃∗ − 𝑝)] 2.303 𝑃∗ − 𝑃ത (43)

𝑝𝑀𝐵𝐻,𝐷 = =
70.6𝑞𝐵𝜇 𝑚

0.0002637𝑘𝑡𝑝 (44)
𝑡𝐴𝐷 =
𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝐴

Where A= drainage area. Now the following procedure is recommended

for applying the MBH method.
1. Extrapolate the middle-time semi-log straight line to (tp + Δt)/ Δt =1.
The extrapolated pressure is p*.
2. Estimate the drainage area shape. If there is insufficient information
to estimate the shape then assume a circular drainage area.
3. Select the correct MBH chart for the drainage area.
6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 31
Analysis of late-time data in flow & build-up tests

MBH curves for a well situated within a square (after Matthews et al. [10]

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 32

Analysis of late-time data in flow & build-up tests

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 33

Analysis of late-time data in flow & build-up tests
4. Calculate tAD with equation (44)
5. From the appropriate MBH chart at the calculated value of tAD read
[𝑘ℎ(𝑝 ∗ −𝑝)] 2.303(𝑝 ∗ −𝑝)
𝑝𝑀𝐵𝐻,𝐷 = =
70.6𝑞𝐵𝜇 𝑚
6. Calculate p͞ by
𝑝 ∗ −(𝑚𝑝𝑀𝐵𝐻,𝐷 )
𝑝= (45)
2.303

• The advantages of the MBH method are that it does not require data beyond the
middle-time region and that it is applicable to a wide variety of drainage-area
shapes.

• The disadvantages are that the drainage- area size and shape must be known and that
reliable estimates of rock and fluid properties, such as 𝐶𝑡 𝑐1 and 𝜙, must be
available. In addition, the method is limited to well tests in single-layer formations
and cannot be applied accurately to multilayer formations

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 34

Analysis of late-time data in flow & build-up tests
Modified Muskat Method: The modified Muskat method is based on the theoretical
observation that, after boundary effects have been felt for a well centred in its
drainage area, the following relationship exists:

log( p − pws ) = c1 + c2 t (46)

Where C1 and C2 are constants.

This relationship is valid for Δt approximately in the range of

250 ct re2 750 ct re2 (47)

 t 
k k
Compared with the MBH method, the modified Muskat method has the advantage
that no estimates of reservoir properties are required. The method also applies to
hydraulically fractured wells and layered reservoirs for which the MBH method is
not applicable. The modified Muskat method has the disadvantage that it is limited
to wells reasonably centered in their drainage areas.

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 35

Analysis of late-time data in flow & build-up tests
To find 𝑝ҧ , we make an initial guess of 𝑝ҧ and plot log(𝑝ҧ -pws) Vs Δt. Various values of p͞,
are chosen until a straight-line results. The value of 𝑝ҧ that produces a straight line is
the correct average reservoir pressure.

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 36

Analysis of late-time data in flow & build-up tests
ESTIMATING PV FROM FLOW TESTS

For a well centred in a cylindrical drainage area, pseudo-steady-state

flow of a slightly compressible liquid is modelled by

0.0744𝑞𝐵𝑡 141.2𝑞𝐵𝜇 𝑟𝑒 3
𝑝𝑖 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓 = + [ln( ) − + 𝑠] (55)
𝜙𝑐𝑡 ℎ𝑟𝑒2 𝑘ℎ 𝑟𝑤 4

𝑑𝑝𝑤𝑓 −0.0744𝑞𝐵 −0.234𝑞𝐵

slope, = 2 = HOW?
𝑑𝑡 𝜑ℎ𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑡 𝑉𝑝

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 37

Analysis of late-time data in flow & build-up tests
Therefore, PV, Vp (in cubic feet), can be determined from the slope by

−0.234qB
Vp = (55)
dpwf
ct ( )
dt
For wells with drainage area shapes other than circular(cylindrical) a more
general form of, pseudo-steady-state flow equation is

0.234qBt 141.2qB 1 10.06 A 3

pi − pwf = + [ ln( ) − + s] (56)
 hAct kh 2 2
C A rw 4

Where A= drainage area of the well and CA= shape factor which depends on the
drainage-area shape and the location of the well within the drainage area

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 38

Analysis of late-time data in flow & build-up tests
Similarly for the generalized reservoir geometry, the reservoir PV can be estimated
from the slope of pwf Vs t graph in cartesian coordinates for any drainage area
configuration.

dpwf −0.234qB −0.234qB

slope, = =
dt  ct hA ctV p

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 39

 Analyzing well tests with multiphase flow
Perrine developed an approximate method to analyze pressure transient tests in
wells that produce oil, gas, and water simultaneously. It requires following
definitions:
Total rate, (qB)t = q0 B0 + Bg (qgt − q0 Rs 1000) + qw Bw

k k0 kw kg
Total mobility, ( )t = ( )t = ( + + )
 0 w g

Total compressibility, ct = c0 S0 + cg S g + cw S w + c f
where

−1𝑑𝐵0 𝐵𝑔 𝑑𝑅𝑠 −1𝑑𝐵𝑤 𝐵𝑔 𝑑𝑅𝑠𝑤

c0 = + , c𝑤 = +
𝐵0 𝑑𝑝 1000𝐵0 𝑑𝑝 𝐵𝑤 𝑑𝑝 1000𝐵𝑤 𝑑𝑝

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 40

 Analyzing well tests with multiphase flow
To analyze pressure transient tests from a well producing 2 or 3 phases
simultaneously, we plot test data just for a single phase test. For build-up test we
plot pws Vs log[(tp + Δt)/Δt] and we identify the middle-time region and determine
slope, m. So permeability becomes:

q0 B0 0 (qgt − q0 Rs 1000) Bg  g qw Bw  w
k0 = 162.6 k g = 162.6 kw = 162.6
mh mh mh

(𝑞𝐵)𝑡 162.6 𝑞0 𝑅𝑠
Total mobility, (𝜆)𝑡 = 162.6 = ∗ [𝑞0 𝐵0 + (𝑞𝑔𝑡 − )𝐵 + 𝑞𝑤 𝐵𝑤 ]
𝑚ℎ 𝑚ℎ 1000 𝑔

p1hr − pwf k
s =1.151*[( ) − log( ) + 3.23]
m  ct rw
2

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 41

 Analyzing well tests with multiphase flow
For multiphase flow, the dimensionless time and pressure functions are defined,
respectively, as
0.0002637t t p
t AD =
 ct A
2.303( p* − p ) h( p* − p )
pMBH , D = =
m 70.6qBt
When the slope of a semi-log graph doubles at late time for a well near a barrier,
the distance to the barrier can be estimated with

0.000148t t x 12
L=( )
 ct
Where Δtx= shut-in time at which the middle-time intersects the late-time line,
whose slope is double that of the middle-time line.

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 42

 Radius of Investigation
In reality reservoirs are not homogeneous, and actual pressure response during a
flow or build-up test deviates from the ideal behaviour. These deviations are usually
caused by conditions in the wellbore and near the drainage radius of the reservoir
that are not considered in the simple model described by equation (2).
RADIUS OF INVESTIGATION CONCEPT

The pressure in the wellbore

continues to decrease as flow
time increases. Simultaneously,
the size of the area from which
fluid is drained increases and the
pressure transient moves farther
out into the reservoir.

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 43

 Radius of Investigation
The radius of investigation, which is defined as the point in the formation beyond
which the pressure drawdown is negligible, is a measure of how far a transient has
moved into the formation following any rate change in a well and physically represents
the depth to which formation properties are being investigated at any time in a test.
The approximate position of the radius of investigation at any time is estimated:

kt (28)
ri =
948 ct

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 44

 Radius of Investigation
For a build-up test, pressure distributions following shut-in have the profile
illustrated in the above figure. The radius to which the rate of pressure change
becomes negligible by a particular shut-in moves father into the reservoir with time,
and the radius reached by this pressure level is given by

k t
ri = (29)
948 ct

6/25/2021 Dr Berihun Mamo Negash 45

 Question

Please email your questions at

[email protected]