GAS WELL TESTING

PDD AND PBU IN

GAS WELLS

2
The solution to the diffusivity equation, is applicable for slightly
compressible fluids (i.e. liquids) with relatively constant fluid
properties such as viscosity.
However for flow of real compressible gases in the reservoir, the
solution to the diffusivity equation requires adjustment because the
physical properties, such as viscosity, isothermal compressibility and
the gas deviation factor, are strong functions of pressure.

3
The diffusivity equation for gas through porous media is:

 p 
 Z 
1   r p p  =   
r r  Z r  k t
This equation was derived by combining the conservation of mass
equation, Darcy’s law and the following EOS for gas density:

pM
=
ZRT
4
When the left-hand side of the diffusivity equation for gas is
differentiated, the term (∂P/∂r)2 is not negligible as in the case of
slightly compressible fluids. Therefore the diffusivity equation for
gases is a non-linear partial differential equation.

Al Hussainy et al. introduced a transformation called the real gas

pseudo-pressure so that the pressure, the viscosity and gas deviation
factor could be combined in a way that allows the linearization of
diffusivity equation.

5
The real gas pseudo-pressure is defined as follows:
p

m( p ) =2 
p
dp
po
g Z
This transformation accounts for variations in gas properties with
pressure. po is an arbitrary reference pressure.
From this equation, we have:

m( p ) m( p ) p 2 p p
= =
t p t  g Z t
m( p ) 2 p p
=
r  g Z r 6
The substitution of the last two equations in diffusivity equation
gives:
 m( p ) 1 m( p )  g ct m( p )
2
+ =
r 2
r r 2
k t
This equation has exactly the same form as the diffusivity equation
for slightly compressible fluids, with the pressure replaced with the
pseudo - pressure m(p).
The close analogy between diffusivity equations for gas and for
liquids suggest that the solution for the flow of real gases should
correlate as function of dimensionless variables based on initial or
average values of viscosity and compressibility.

7
Wattenbarger and Ramey showed that the pressure transient
equations could be used, with very good approximation, in terms of
m(p), i.e.
 rD2 
mD ( p ) = p D
1
= − Ei 
 − 

2  4t D 

Using the log-approximation to the Ei-function at the flowing well,

this equation becomes:

mD ( pwf )= ln t D + 0,80907 + 2S '

1
pD =
2

8
Where S’ is the total skin factor that includes the skin resulting from
true formation damage or stimulation, S, and D is turbulence or non-
Darcy coefficient:
S ' = S + Dqsc

The effect of D is to create an increasing apparent skin for higher

production rates.
The value of D varies with pressure but for simplicity it can be
considered constant as an acceptable approximation.

9
In real units the log-approximation to the Ei-function becomes:

   
m( p wf ) = m( pi ) − 1637 q scT  kt  − 3,23 + 0,869 S '
 log
  c r 2 
kh 
  g t w  


Thus a plot of m(pwf) versus time will yield a straight line portion
corresponding to the infinite-acting radial flow regime of slope mp,
which can be used to calculate permeability:

1637 qscT
k=
mph

10
The total skin factor S’ is then calculated from:

 m( p ) − m( p )  k  
S ' = 1,151 i 1hr
− log   + 3,23
 m   c r 2  
p  g t w 

The reduced pseudo-pressure at time t=1 hour, m(p1h), should be

obtained from the semilog straight line portion (extrapolated if
necessary).

11
NON - DARCY FLOW

Darcy’s law applies to gases flowing at low rates (laminar flow), which
occur in the reservoir away from the wellbore. However, in the
vicinity of the wellbore, the flow rates of gas can become extremely
high because of the converging flow.
As these rates, inertial effects can become important and Darcy’s law
no longer applies.
The inertial effects take the form of distorted flow paths and also
turbulence in different locations in the pore structure.
Although the exact nature of this microscopic flow is not known in
the reservoir, the net effect is a higher-pressure gradient when these
inertial effects become considerable.
12
For laminar flow, Darcy’s law can be rearranged in the following form:

p 
=− u
x k
Where ∂p/∂x is the pressure gradient and u is the macroscopic
(Darcy) fluid velocity.
At higher rates, when the inertial effects become important, a
quadratic relation first introduced by Forchheimer is used:

p 
− = u +  u 2
x k

13
The right hand side of this equation contains a term for viscous forces
and a term for inertial forces, both of which contribute to the
pressure loss.

The parameter β (ft-1) is called either the Forchheimer turbulence

factor or inertial factor and can be determined experimentally or
estimated from one of the following correlations:

4,851*10 4
1,88 *1010 4,11*1010
 =  = 0,53 1, 47  =
 5 .5 k  k k 4/3
Last equation is applicable only to sandstones, dolomites and
limestone.
14
The parameter D (D/Mscf) is called the non-Darcy flow coefficient or
turbulence coefficient.
It can be estimated from:

−15
 g k
D = 2,22 *10
 gi rw h
The non-Darcy coefficient D and mechanical skin S can be
determined more accurately if two consecutives flow tests are run at
two different rates, yielding:

S1' = S + Dq sc1
S 2' = S + Dq sc 2

15
As discussed above, accuracy is improved for semilog analysis tests
by replacing pressure with real-gas pseudo pressure function, m(p),
which is expressed in psi2/cp.

For log-log analysis (type-curve analysis), particularly of wellbore

storage distorted data from both flow and buildup test, accuracy also
is improved by replacing time with adjusted pseudo time, tap(p),
which is expressed in hr-psi/cp:

t
t ap ( p ) =
dt
0
 g ct

16
For convenience, although not by necessity, m(p) and tap can be
normalized to have units of psia and hours, respectively, like the
original variables, p and t.
Normalization also gives the pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time
variables magnitudes comparable with those of the untransformed
pressure and time.
The unnormalized variables m(p) and tap typically have values of 105
to 108.
Reference values of pressure used for normalization are arbitrary.
Some engineers prefer properties evaluated at initial reservoir
pressure, other prefer at the average reservoir pressure.

17
Lee and Wattenberger define normalized adjusted pressure, pna, and
normalized adjusted time, tna, as:

1  g z 
pna =   m( p )
 t na = ( g c t ) t ap
2 p 
In terms of adjusted variables, the unsteady state equation for gas
flow is:
   
162.6q g B    kt  
pna, i - pna, wf = 

log   − 3.23 + 087 S ' 

 
kh    g c t rw2  
   

18
Where the gas formation volumetric factor at standard conditions of
pressure (14.7 psi) and temperature (60°F), Bg (bbl/scf), is calculated
at the average or initial properties of Z, T and p, from:

ZT
Bg = 0.00504
P
Note that the product qscBg is in bbl/D, similarly to the product qBo in
the oil case.

19
The similarity between equations for oil and gas indicates that all the
methods for interpreting a pressure transient test in an oil well are
also applicable in a gas well.

For semilog analysis of PBU tests, adjusted pressure and adjusted

time should be used, but the adjusted producing time, tap used in the
Horner time ratio is evaluated at current average drainage area
pressure, and therefore tap=tp
Adjusted shut-in time, ∆tna is evaluated from the integral, i.e.

d (t )
t
t na = ( g c t )
0
 g ct

20
With µg and ct evaluated at shut-in bottom hole pressures, pws, at
values of shut-in times ∆t.

For semilog analysis of a PDD test, adjusted pressure and actual

flowing time should be used.

21
PRESSURE AND PRESSURE-SQUARED

Use of adjusted time and adjusted pressure in formulating equations

for analysis of transient tests in gas wells in not always necessary.
Pressure data may be plotted in terms of p2 rather than m(p) if
reservoir pressures are less than 2000 psi.
Also, pressure data may be plotted directly in terms of p if the
reservoir pressures are above 3500 psi.
If in doubt whether to plot p or p2 or normalized adjusted m(p), use
m(p).
Wattenbarger and Ramey have proposed a simple method to
determine the best mode for plotting the data.
They suggest that the variation of the product µgZ with p examined
over the pressure range of interest.
The following is a graph of the variation in the product µgZ with
pressure and is typical of many gases.
If the variation in the µgZ product is small, then they suggest that a p2
graph would suffice.
On the other hand, if the µgZ product is a linear function of pressure,
then a p-graph would be adequate regardless of the magnitude of
the pressure gradient.
If neither of these relations is applicable, then the m(p) approach
should be used.
Thus, the procedure for graphing data depends primarily on the
variation of the product µgZ.

At high reservoirs pressures, i.e. p >3500 psi, the plot µgZ versus
pressure is almost a straight line, thus:
p p pi
 cte  
g zg g z g  gi z gi
Thus for p0=0, real gas pseudo-pressure equation can be expressed
as:
 2p  p  2p 
m( p ) =    p
  z 
dp =
 z
 g  po  g 

Thus, the normalized adjusted real pseudo-pressure, becomes:

 g z   g z  2 p 
=   
pna  p  m( p ) = 
 2p 
  z  p = p
    g 

And the unsteady state equation becomes:

   
162.6q g B    kt  
pi - pwf = 

log   − 3.23 + 087 S ' 

 
kh    g c t rw2  
   
At low pressures, i.e. less than 2000 psi, the product µgZ is almost
constant, as can be observed in the µgZ vs P plot. Thus:

 g Z  cte   g Z   gi Z i

Thus for p0=0, real gas pseudo-pressure equation can be expressed

as:

 2 p  1  2
m( p ) =    p
  z 
pdp =
 z
 g  pn  g 
The normalized adjusted real pseudo-pressure, becomes:

 g z   g z  p2  1  2
pna =  m( p ) =   =  p
2 p  2p  z 2 p
    g  

And the unsteady state equation becomes:

   
1637q gT Z    kt  
p2 - p2 = 

log   − 3.23 + 087 S ' 

i wf  
kh    g c t rw2  
   
In order to test the accuracy of these three methods, Azis et al.
calculated the sandface pressure for 25 different gas well tests
conditions form reservoirs in Alberta, Canada.
They concluded that:
1. The use of average gas properties results in more accurate
solutions than the use of initial conditions. This is true regardless
of the approach used.
2. When gas properties must be assumed constant at the initial
values, the use of the m(p) function yields the most reliable
results.
3. In very low permeability gas reservoirs, i.e. tight gas reservoirs,
the m(p) function must be used, especially if the reservoir is
produced at very high rates.

Again, all of the rules developed for PDD tests to identify near
wellbore effects (skin flow efficiency and wellbore storage
coefficient) and the start of semilog straight line for oil wells are also
applicable for gas wells, regardless of which function is used.
 CONVERTING p TO m(p)

There are several methods for converting pressure data to real gas
pseudo-pressure data:
a. The areal summation method, which involves plotting 2p/μZ versus
pressure, the area under the curve is the value of m(p)
b. The reduced properties correlation, which requires tables or charts
c. The numerical integration method is the more common method
and will be illustrated by the following example. The step by step
procedure of the numerical integration method is:
1. Obtain viscosity and gas deviation factor. If PVT data are not
available, empirical correlations can be applied.
2. For each pressure value, calculate 2p/(μZ)
3. Estimate the mean value between the former and current value of
2p/(μZ)
 2p   2p 
 
 Z  + 
 

 2p    j  Z  j −1

 Z 
 =
  mean 2

4. Estimate the pressure difference between the former and current

pressure value:

p = p j − p j −1
5. Multiply results form steps 4 and 2. Thus,
*
 2p   2p 
 
 Z  = 
 Z 
 p
 j   mean

6. Estimate pseudo-pressure as:

*
 2p 
m( p ) j =
 Z 
 + m( p ) j −1
 j
EXAMPLE 1
Given the viscosity and gas deviation factor data reported in
following table of a gas which has a specific gravity of 0.76.
Estimate the pseudo-pressure function, m(p).
viscosity,
p, psi cp Z
200 0,01117 0,9768
400 0,01176 0,9545
600 0,01236 0,9322
800 0,01297 0,9131
1000 0,0136 0,8946
1200 0,01423 0,8778
1400 0,01488 0,8631
1600 0,01555 0,8507
1800 0,01622 0,8409
2000 0,0169 0,8338
2200 0,01759 0,8295
2400 0,01828 0,828
2600 0,01898 0,8292
2800 0,01969 0,8329
3000 0,02041 0,8389
 SOLUTION

p viscosity Z 2P/μZ (2P/μZ)mean Δp (2P/μZ)mean*Δp m(p)

200 0,01117 0,9768 36660,735 18330,36748 200 3666073,496 3,67E+06

400 0,01176 0,9545 71269,9957 53965,36532 200 10793073,06 1,45E+07 7,00E+08
600 0,01236 0,9322 104148,658 87709,32666 200 17541865,33 3,20E+07 y = -0,0082x3 + 96,165x2 - 2752x + 632645
6,00E+08 R² = 1
800 0,01297 0,9131 135101,964 119625,311 200 23925062,2 5,59E+07
1000 0,0136 0,8946 164385,003 149743,4836 200 29948696,72 8,59E+07 5,00E+08
1200 0,01423 0,8778 192136,894 178260,9483 200 35652189,65 1,22E+08
1400 0,01488 0,8631 218018,819 205077,8565 200 41015571,31 1,63E+08 4,00E+08
1600 0,01555 0,8507 241904,057 229961,4382 200 45992287,65 2,09E+08
3,00E+08
1800 0,01622 0,8409 263941,268 252922,6624 200 50584532,49 2,59E+08
2000 0,0169 0,8338 283864,704 273902,9861 200 54780597,22 3,14E+08 2,00E+08
y = 62,02x2 + 29515x
2200 0,01759 0,8295 301557,717 292711,2107 200 58542242,14 3,72E+08 R² = 0,9991
1,00E+08
2400 0,01828 0,828 317128,088 309342,9025 200 61868580,5 4,34E+08
2600 0,01898 0,8292 330405,937 323767,0124 200 64753402,48 4,99E+08 0,00E+00
2800 0,01969 0,8329 341467,558 335936,7474 200 67187349,48 5,66E+08 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
3000 0,02041 0,8389 350427,396 345947,477 200 69189495,39 6,35E+08
TIAB DIRECT
SYNTHESIS
1. Wellbore Storage Coefficient

 0,42qscT  t 
C =
 

 m( p ) 

 i   lpu

 0,42qscT  t 
C =
 

 t * m( p )' 

 i   lpu

37
2. Permeability

711,26qscT
k =
h(t * m' ( p ) )r

qsc= Mscf/d T = °R

3. Skin factor
S ' = S + Dq sc
 (m( p ) )r  kt r  
= 0,5 
− ln  + 7,43

 (t * m ' ( p ) )r   (c )
t i wr 2 
 

38
4. Drainage Area

 2,355qT  t pss
A=
  (c ) h

 (t * m' ( p ) )
 t i  pss

39
EXAMPLE 2
Given the viscosity, Z factor data in Example 1, the pressure
drawdown data presented in the table and the information
given below, determine:
• Reservoir permeability,
• Total skin factor,
• Forschheimer turbulence factor,
• Mechanical skin
g= 0,76 t, hr pwf, psia
0 5000
T= 255 F 0,021 4407
0,042 4121,6
0,084 3829,2
q= 5000 Mscf/d 0,146 3639,6
0,209 3556,4
0,418 3464,6
porosity= 10% 0,626 3432,1
0,835 3410,4
Cti=13,1*10-5/psi 1,044
1,46
3394
3372,1
2,088 3347,4
Pi= 5000 psia 4,176
6,246
3306
3278,4
8,352 3261,7
h= 12,4 ft 10,44 3247,8
12,528 3236,6
14,616 3225,5
rw= 1/3 ft 16,704 3217,2
18,792 3211,6

gi=0,0253 cp 20,88
41,76
3203,2
3185,7
62,64 3161
Swi=65,5% 100,44 3104,5

Bg= 0,000728 bbl/scf

SOLUTION
Since the initial pressure is greater than 3500 psia, the
pressure test can be analyzed using the p-function.
However during the flow test the pressure dropped below
3500 psia, so it maybe advisable to use the m(p) function.
USING THE m(p) FUNCTION
1. Convert the flowing pressure pwf data to m(pwf) (Example
1). (Use the quadratic equation)
2. Plot m(pwf) vs log t
3. Calculate K
1637 qscT
k=
mph
4. Obtain Skin factor
 m( p ) − m( p )  k  
S ' = 1,151 i 1hr
− log   + 3,23
 m   c r 2  
p  g t w 
5. Obtain Forschheimer turbulence factor and non-Darcy
coefficient
4 −
 g k
 =
4,851*10 D = 2,22 *10 15

 5 .5 k  gi rw h

6. Calculate the additional skin due to turbulence, D*qsc

7. Obtain the mechanical skin factor

S = S ' − Dqsc
 1.600.000.000

1.400.000.000

1.200.000.000

1.000.000.000
K=7.45 md
mp=63330402 S’=10,3
m(p)

800.000.000
β= 5.619*109 ft-1
600.000.000
D=6,8*10-4 D/Mscf
p1h=8,1*108 D*qsc= 3,38
400.000.000 S= 6,92

200.000.000

0
0,01 0,1 1 10 100 1000
t
USING THE PRESSURE FUNCTION
1. Plot pwf vs log t
2. Calculate K
162.6qsc Bg  g
k=
mh
3. Obtain Skin factor

p −p  k  
S ' = 1,151 i 1hr
− log   + 3,23
 m   c r 2  
 g t w 
 5000

4500

4000
Pwf, psia

K=8.35 md
m=144,64 S’=6,83
3500

p1h=3400
3000

2500
0,01 0,1 1 10 100 1000
t, hr
USING TDS
1. Plot log (t*(∆mp)’) vs log t
2. Calculate K

711,26qscT
k =
h(t * m' ( p ) )r

3. Obtain Skin factor

S ' = S + Dq sc
 (m( p ) )r  kt r  
= 0,5 
− ln  + 7,43

 (t * m ' ( p ) )r   (c )
t i wr 2 
 

1,0E+10

1,0E+09

K=7.67 md
S’=10.6

1,0E+08

1,0E+07
0,01 0,1 1 10 100 1000
DELIVERABILITY
TESTS
 BASIC THEORY OF GAS FLOW IN RESERVOIRS

Gas flow in an infinite-acting reservoirs can be expressed by

the following equation:

   
m( p wf ) = m( pi ) − 1637 q scT  kt  − 3,23 + 0,869 S '
 log
  c r 2 
kh 
  g t w  


For stabilized flow (ri ≥ re):

p sc q g T   re  
m( p wf ) = m( p ) − 50300 ln  
 − 0.75 + s + D q g 
Tsc kh    w
r 

These equations provide the basis for analysis of gas well test.

51
In most of this section, the equations will be written in terms
of p2 –not because pw is more generally applicable or more
accurate, but because the p2 equations illustrate the general
method and permit easier comparison with older methods of
gas well test analysis that still are used widely.
For pressures ≤ 2000 psia for estabilized flow:

(p )
2
− p wf
2
= aq g + bq g2
1422  g ZT   re  3 
a= ln 
r  −
 4 + s 
kg h   w  
1422  g ZTD
b=
kg h

52
This equation is a deliverability equation. Given a value of
pwf, corresponding to a given pipeline pressure, we can
estimate the rate qg at which the well will deliver gas.
However, certain parameters must be determined before the
equation can be used in this way.

The constants a and b can be determined from flow tests for

at least two rates in which qg and the corresponding value of
pwf are measured; average pressure also must be known.

53
FLOW-AFTER-FLOW
TEST

54
In this testing method, a well flows at a selected constant rate
until pressure stabilizes –i.e., pseudosteady state is reached.
The stabilized rate and pressure are recorded; rate is then
changed and the well flows until the pressure stabilizes again
at the new rate. The process is repeated for a total of three or
four rates.
Rates and pressures in a typical test follow the pattern
indicated in the figure.
Two fundamentally different techniques can be used to
analyze these test data.

55
PR
pwf1

Pressure
pwf2

pwf3

pwf4

time

q4

q3
Rate

q2

q1

time
56
Empirical Method

An empirical observation- with a rather tenuous theoretical

basis- is that a plot of ( p 2 − pwf2 ) vs qg on log-log paper is
approximately a straight line for many wells in which the
pseudo steady state is reached at each rate.
The equation of the line is:

qg = C p − p( 2 2
wf ) n ( 2
log p − pwf
2
)

Log qg
57
Procedure:

1. Make the plot log ( p − p ) vs log qg

2 2
wf

2. Obtain the best straight-line

3. Calculate the slope and the n value
4. Obtain C value from any point of the straight-line
5. Replace the C and n values in the equation
6. Obtain the AOF (absolute open flow potential) using
pwf=14,7 psia

58
Theoretical Method

()
(p ) − p
 p 2 − p2 
2
  vs
= aq g + bq suggest that we plot
wf
2 2 qg
The equation wf g  qg 
 
The result (for peudosteady-state flow) should be a straight line
with slope b and intercept a. Because this line has a sounder
theoretical basis than the empirical method, it should be
possible to extrapolate it to determine AOF with less error.

59
Procedure:


()
 p 2 − p2
wf

 vs qg
1. Make the plot  qg 
on Cartesian paper.
 
2. Obtain the best straight-line
3. Calculate the slope, b
4. Read the intercept, a
5. Replace the a and b values in the equation
6. Obtain the AOF (absolute open flow potential) using
pwf=14,7 psia.

60
EXAMPLE 3
Following data were reported for a flow-after-flow test. At
each rate, pseudo steady state was reached. Initial shut-in
pressure, Pavg, was determined to be 408,2 psia. Estimate AOF.

Test pwf (psia) qg (MMscf/D)

1 403.1 4.288

2 394.0 9.265

3 378.5 15.52

4 362.6 20.177
 SOLUTION

Pwf qg P2 - Pwf 2 (P2- Pwf 2) / qg

(psia) (MMscf/D) (psia2) (psia2 / MMSCF/D)
408.2 0 - -
403.1 4.288 4137.63 964.93
394.0 9.265 11391.24 1229.49
378.5 15.552 23364.99 1502.38
362.6 20.177 35148.48 1742.01
14.7 AOF 166411.15 -

62
 Empirical Method

106

105
Pwf = 14.7 psia
( 2
q g = C p − pwf
2
) n

n = 0.690
p2-pwf2

C = 0.01461
104
1.4477
AOF
60
(
q g = 0.01461 p − p
2 2
wf )
0.69

103
1 10 100
qg
 Theoretical Method


()
 p 2 − p2
wf

 = a + bq g
 qg 
 
1800

1400
(p2-pwf2)/qg

48,167
AOF= 51,36 MMscf/D

1000

766,27
600
0 5 10 15 20 25
qg
ISOCHRONAL
TEST

65
The objective of isochronal testing is to obtain data to establish a stabilized
deliverability curve for gas without flowing the well for sufficiently long to
achieve stabilized conditions (ri ≥ re) at each (or, in some cases, any rate).
This procedure in needed for lower-permeability reservoirs, where it
frequently is impractical to achieve ri=re during the test.
An isochronal test is conducted by flowing a well at a fixed rate, then
shutting it in until the pressure builds up to an unchanging (or almost
unchanging) value, Pavg. The well then is flowed at a second rate for the
same length of time, followed by another shut-in, etc. If possible, the final
flow period should be long enough to achieve stabilized flow. If this is
impossible or impractical, it is still possible to predict the stabilized .
deliverability characteristics (with increased potential for error, of course).

66
In obtaining data in this testing program, it is essential to record flowing
BHP, pwf, as a function of time at each flow rate.
Figure illustrates rate and pressures in an isochronal testing sequence. This
figures illustrates the following important points:
1. Flow periods, excepting the final one, are of equal length (t)
2. Shut-in periods have the objective of letting p≈pavg rather than the
objective of equal length
3. A final flow period in which the well stabilizes is desirable but not
essential. .

67
PR

pwf1
pwf2

Pressure
pwf3
t t

time

t q3
qg

Final flow period

t
q2
q1

time
The most general theory of isochronal test is based on equations
using pseudopressure. However, we will once again present the
theory in terms of the low-pressure approximations to these
equations (p2 equations) because (1) they are simpler and less
abstract than equations in pseudopressure and (2) they allow
direct comparison with more conventional analysis methods based
on plots of ( p − pwf2 ) vs qg on log-log paper.
2

69
Empirical method
Experience shows that reasonably satisfactory results can be
obtained with the empirical method using the following procedure:

1. Make the plot log ( p − p ) vs log qg

2 2
wf

2. Lines should be drawn for several values of time t, and slope

1/n should be established for each isochronal deliverability
curve.
3. A line with the slope 1/n determined from the nonstabilized,
fixed-time curves then is drawn through the single stabilized
point. .

This establishes the stabilized deliverability curve. With this curve,

AOF is established in the usual way.
70
(p2-pwf2) Stabilized data point

1/n
qstabilized
C=
t3 p 2
− pwf 
2 n
Log (p2-pwf2)

1/n t2

1/n t1
AOF

Log qg
 Theoretical method


()
 p 2 − p2
wf

 vs
1. For a fixed value of t, determine b form a plot of qg
 qg 
 

2. Using the stabilized data point, determine a, from:

a=
(( p ) − p ) − bq
2 2
wf s
2
gs

q gs
3. The stabilized deliverability curve uses the constants
determined in steps 1 and 2:
.
( p) 2
− p 2
wf = aq g + bq 2
g

This equation can be used to calculate AOF. 72

EXAMPLE 4
Determine the stabilized deliverability curve and AOF from the
test data in the following table, using the empirical and
theoretical methods. (File Exercise 3)

Test Duration Pwf or Pws qg

(Hours) (psia) (MMscf/D)
Initial shut-in 48 1952 --
First flow 12 1761 2.6
First shut-in 15 1952 --
Second flow 12 1694 3.3
Second shut-in 17 1952 --
Third flow 12 1510 5.0
Third shut-in 18 1952 --
Fourth flow 12 1320 6.3
Extended flow 72 1151 6.0
Final shut-in 100 1952 --
 SOLUTION

qg p2-pwf 2 (p2-pwf 2)/qg

(MMscf/D) (psia2) (psia2 / MMSCF/D)
2.6 709183 272763
3.3 940668 285051
5.0 1530204 306041
6.3 2067904 328239

74
 Empirical Method

10000000

(
q g = C p − pwf
22
) n
P2 avg – P2wf

1000000
n = 0.827
C s = 0.000031
AOF = 8,54 MMscf / D

100000
1 10

qg
 Theoretical Method

500000
(p2-P2wf)/qg

Slope= 14554
400000
AOF= 8.46 MMscf/D

300000
Intercept: 326926.5

200000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
qg
 MODIFIED
ISOCHRONAL
TEST

77
The objective of modified isochronal test is to obtain the same data as in
an isochronal test without using the sometimes lengthy shut-in periods
required for pressure to stabilize completely before each flow test is run.
In the modified isochronal test shut-in periods of the same duration as the
flow periods are used, and the final shut-in BHP (pws) before the beginning
of a new flow period is used as an approximation of Pavg in the test analysis
procedure.
Note that this test uses approximations. It is not modeled exactly by
rigorous theory. However, modified isochronal tests are used widely
because they conserve time and money and because they have proved to
be excellent approximations to true isochronal tests. .

78
PR

Pressure
t t t t

Tiempo

q3

q2
qg

Extended flow period

q1

Tiempo
EXAMPLE 5
Determine the stabilized deliverability curve and AOF from the
test data in the following table, using the empirical and
theoretical methods. (File Exercise 3)

Test Duration Pwf or Pws qg

(Hours) (psia) (MMscf/D)
Pretest shut in 20 1940 --
First flow 12 1784 4.50
First shut-in 15 1927 --
Second flow 12 1680 5.60
Second shut-in 17 1911 --
Third flow 12 1546 6.85
Third shut-in 18 1887 --
Fourth flow 12 1355 8.25
Extended flow 81 1233 8.00
Final shut-in 120 1948 --
 SOLUTION

qg p2-pwf 2 (p2-pwf 2)/qg

(MMscf/D) (psia2) (psia2 / MMSCF/D)
4.50 612048 136010.67
5.60 890929 159094.47
6.85 1261805 184205.11
8.25 1724744 209059.88
8.00 2274415 284301.88

81
 Empirical Method
2600000

2100000

( )
∆P2/qg

1600000
q g = C p − pwf
22 n

1100000 n = 0.585
C s = 0.001527
600000
AOF = 10.79 MMscf / D

100000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
qg
 Theoretical Method

300000

200000 a= 128294
Slope= 19501 AOF=11.04 MMscf/D

a
100000
0 2 4 6 8 10