Use of Transient Data To Calculate

Absolute Permeability and Average

Fluid Saturations
Medhat M. Kamal and Yan Pan, Chevron

Summary Background Information

A new well-testing-analysis method is presented. The method The design and analysis of transient well tests was developed
allows for calculating the absolute permeability of the formation in initially for single-phase flow in the reservoir. Most of the well
the area influenced by the test and the average saturations in this testing work performed today assumes that a dominant phase flows
area. Traditional pressure-transient-analysis methods have been in the reservoir and uses the equations developed for single-phase
developed and are completely adequate for single-phase flow in flow to calculate well and reservoir properties. It is reasoned that
the reservoir. The proposed method is not intended for these condi- using the single-phase-flow equations while working with actual
tions. The method applies to two-phase flow in the reservoir (oil field data, one ends up obtaining the effective permeability of the
and water or oil and gas). Future expansion to three-phase flow is specific phase whose flow rate and fluid properties are used in the
possible. Current analysis methods yield only the effective perme- analysis (Earlougher 1977). Another approach is to use the Perrine
ability for the dominant flowing phase and the “total mobility” of method (Perrine 1956; Martin 1959; Miller et al. 1967), in which
all phases. The new method uses the surface-flow rates and fluid “total” flow mobility is calculated as
properties of the flowing phases and the same relative permeability
relations used in characterizing the reservoir and predicting its ⎛ kro krg krw ⎞
⎛ k⎞
future performance. The method has been verified by comparing ⎜⎝ ␮ ⎟⎠ = k ⎜ ␮ + ␮ + ␮ ⎟ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
the results from analyzing several synthetic tests that were pro- t ⎝ o g w⎠
duced by a numerical simulator with the input values. Use of the
method with field data is also described. Several studies addressed transient testing under specific multi-
The new method could be applied wherever values of absolute phase-flow conditions. Examples include work on solution-gas-
permeability or fluid saturations are used in predicting well and drive reservoirs (Raghavan 1976), gas/condensate reservoirs (Jones
reservoir performance. Probably, the major impact would be in and Raghavan 1988), waterflooding reservoirs (Abbaszadeh and
reservoir simulation studies in which the need to transform well- Kamal 1989), and coalbed-methane reservoirs (Kamal and Six
testing permeability to simulator input values is eliminated and 1991). Results from the previously mentioned studies have been
additional parameters (fluids saturations) become available to help helpful in providing answers to production and reservoir engineer-
history match the reservoir performance. This work will also help ing applications such as wellbore conditions, productivity indices,
in predicting well flow rates and in situations in which absolute and average reservoir pressures. There also have been other stud-
permeability changes with time (e.g., from compaction). ies to assess the feasibility of calculating the relative permeability
Results showed that the values of absolute permeability in curves from production and transient data (Serra et al. 1990;
water/oil cases could be reproduced within 3% of the correct Al-Khalifah et al. 1987). In other words, these studies went the
values and within 5% of the correct values in gas/oil cases. Errors opposite way by entering production and transient data to calculate
in calculating the fluid saturations were even lower. One of the relative permeability curves. In this study, the relative permeability
main advantages of this method is that the relative permeability relations are the input used to calculate the absolute permeability
curves used in calculating the absolute permeability and average and fluids saturations.
saturations, and later on in numerical reservoir simulation studies, Today, most of the reservoir performance predictions and
are the same, ensuring a consistent process. The proposed method production-rate forecasts are made using multidimensional multi-
does not address the question of which set of relative permeability phase numerical-simulation models. In these models, the values of
curves should be used. This question should be answered by the absolute permeability are used together with relative permeability
engineer performing the reservoir engineering/simulation study. relations to calculate the effective permeability of different phases
The proposed method mainly is meant to provide consistent results and their flow rates. Providing production or reservoir engineers
for predicting the reservoir performance using whatever relative with values of the effective permeability of oil, for example, or a
permeability relations that are being used in the reservoir simula- “total” mobility from a buildup or a falloff test does not help them
tion model. The method does not induce any additional errors in enter the required properties in numerical models. A new analysis
determining the average saturation or absolute permeability over technique is needed to produce values of absolute permeability
what may result from using these specific relative permeability that are consistent with the relative permeability relations used in
curves in the reservoir simulation study. numerical models. In this paper, we propose a multiphase analysis
The impact of this study will be to expand the use of informa- method to calculate these values.
tion already contained in transient data and surface flow rates of all
phases. The results will provide engineers with additional param- Description of Method
eters to improve and speed up history matching and the prediction In this study, we consider only two-phase flow. Although extension
of well and reservoir performances in just about all studies. to three-phase flow should be possible, we have not yet worked
enough on such a problem. We use the terminology of oil and
water; however, one of the flowing phases can be gas. The proce-
dure of this method is as follows:
Copyright © 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers (1) Obtaining Field (Input) Data. Design and run a pressure-
This paper (SPE 113903) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Western Regional transient test using normal procedures making sure to measure the
and Pacific Section AAPG Joint Meeting, Bakersfield, California, USA, 29 March–2 April flow rates of oil and water. While designing the test the flow rate
2008, and revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 4 February
2008. Revised manuscript received for review 25 September 2009. Paper peer approved
and fluid properties of the dominant phase (the one with higher
1 October 2009. flow rate in the reservoir) should be used.

306 April 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 6
kro
5
krw
kro and krw 4

kro /krw
3
2
1
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Water saturation Sw
Water saturation Sw
Fig. 2—Ratio of the oil to the water permeability.
Fig. 1—Oil and water relative permeability curves.

(2) Calculation of Effective Permeabilities. Calculate the This is an important first step in bridging the gap between the
effective permeabilities of the flowing phases from the transient results obtained from pressure-transient analysis and the data used
test. Using the conventional analysis methods, the oil flow rate, and in predicting reservoir performance. We recognize that additional
the oil fluid properties, one can calculate the effective permeability work is needed to extend this technique to heterogeneity in the res-
to oil. For example, if the infinite-acting radial-flow (IARF) regime ervoir in lithological terms (e.g., changes in relative permeability
can be identified on a semilog plot, the effective oil permeability behavior across different stratigraphic units), in terms of absolute
can be calculated using permeability variations, and in terms of saturation changes across
a reservoir unit.
162.6qo Bo␮o It is important to note that the proposed method uses the tradi-
ko = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) tional well-test-analysis techniques, and various software packages
mh
available commercially may be used to perform the analysis.
Of course, under these conditions, ko also may be calculated
from the diagnostic log-log plot. Verification Using Synthetic Data
Using the water flow rate and the water fluid properties, the To verify the proposed method, transient data for several tests gen-
effective permeability to water is calculated using erated from a numerical reservoir model were analyzed. The idea
was to see if the data (absolute permeability and fluids saturations),
162.6qw Bw␮ w used as input in the numerical model to simulate the transient
kw = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) data, could be reproduced by analyzing the tests using the method
mh
outlined in the preceding section.
(3) Calculation of Permeability Ratio. Calculate the effec- Chevron’s in-house numerical simulator, Chears, was used to
tive permeability ratio of the two flowing phases. The ratio of the generate the synthetic transient data and not to analyze it. Chears is
effective permeability of oil and water can be calculated using the a 3D multiphase finite-difference simulator (Chien et al. 1985). Runs
values obtained from Step 2, and it is the same as the ratio of oil were made using a radial model configuration, as shown in Fig. 3.
and water relative permeabilities. Three cases were simulated. The first two cases used an oil/
water system and the third case was for an oil/gas system.
kro /krw = ko /kw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)

(4) Calculation of Permeability Ratio as a Function of Satu-

ration. Calculate and plot the relation of relative permeability ratio Angle
vs. saturation. In this method, the relative permeability relations
(for example, Fig. 1) are given information. They may be obtained J =1 J =2
from laboratory measurements, empirical models, or the results of
a history-matching process. These relations should be the same as I =4 J =3
those selected for use in the numerical reservoir simulation model
or the reservoir engineering study. From these relative permeability
curves, the ratio kro/krw as a function of saturation can be derived,
Layer =1
I =3
as shown in Fig. 2.
(5) Estimation of Average Saturation. Using the value of ko/kw I =2 Layer =2
(Eq. 4) obtained from test analysis and Fig. 2, one can estimate
the average value of water (and oil) saturation in the tested area Layer =3
of the reservoir.
I =1
(6) Calculation of Absolute Permeability. Finally, using the
value of the saturation of the dominant phase (Step 5) and Fig. 1, Rout
one can calculate the relative permeability of that phase (kro or krw)
and the absolute permeability can then be calculated from
Rwell
kw k
k= or k = o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
krw kro
R1
The proposed method was developed for a single-layer homo-
geneous reservoir, which is the case considered by the majority of Fig. 3—Schematic of the numerical model used to verify the
conventional transient-analysis techniques for single-phase flow. proposed method.

April 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 307

 1000

Pressure dp and dp/dlnt, psi

Pressure (psia)
5350

100
5250
IARF
10
5150

5050 1
1500 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Oil rate (STB/D)
1000 Time, hr

500 Fig. 5—Diagnostic log-log plot for Case 1.

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (hr) calculated absolute permeability is within 3% of the correct value,
and the exact saturation value was obtained.
Fig. 4—Production rate and pressure for Case 1.
Case 3. The third case is an oil/gas case. The same configuration as
In all cases, the model was initialized with two phases present (oil in Cases 1 and 2 was used. The relative permeability curves used
and water or oil and gas) and a well at the center was produced for are shown in Fig. 6, and the ratio of the oil to gas permeability is
a given time and then shut in for a buildup test. Buildup data were shown in Fig. 7.
then analyzed using a commercial well-test-analysis software. The same production and shut-in system as in Cases 1 and 2
was used in Case 3. The results are summarized in Table 3. They
Case 1. The relative permeability relations used to generate the show that the calculated absolute permeability is within 4% of the
data are those shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The production rate and correct value and that the exact saturation was obtained.
pressure are shown in Fig. 4, and the diagnostic plot used by the
well-test-analysis software is shown in Fig. 5. Field Examples
The results for Case 1 are summarized in Table 1. It shows that Following the verification of the proposed multiphase analysis method
the absolute permeability was calculated within 3% of the correct through synthetic generated data, the method was used in three field
(input) value and that the saturation calculation was exact. As cases. In this section, we describe the field examples and comment
will be shown in the other two cases, we found that the absolute on the value of using the proposed method with real data.
permeability can be calculated within 5% of the correct value and
that the exact saturation is obtained. Typhoon. Typhoon is located in the Green Canyon section of the
Gulf of Mexico in the United States (Ring et al. 2004). The field
Case 2. The second case is similar to Case 1 with the exception is a combination structural/stratigraphic trap with turbidite sands
that the input water saturation was 0.35 instead of 0.5. Similar draped across a southerly structural dip and syndepositional north/
results were obtained, and they are summarized in Table 2. The south-trending faults. A wide range of deepwater turbidite rock

TABLE 1—RESULTS OF CASE 1 SHOW CALCULATED TABLE 2—RESULTS OF CASE 2 SHOW CALCULATED
VALUES CLOSE TO CORRECT VALUES VALUES CLOSE TO CORRECT VALUES

Parameter Input Value Calculated Value Parameter Input Value Calculated Value

k 40 40.9 k 40 41.1
ko - 2.72 ko - 10.8
kw - 10.3 kw - 4.72
sw 0.5 0.5 sw 0.35 0.35

1.0 200

0.8 krg 150

kro and krg

kro
kro /krg

0.6
100
0.4
50
0.2

0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Gas saturation Sg Gas saturation Sg

Fig. 6—Relative permeability curves for Case 3. Fig. 7—Ratio of oil to gas permeability, Case 3.

308 April 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 TABLE 3—RESULTS OF CASE 3 SHOW CALCULATED Pressure (psia)
VALUES CLOSE TO CORRECT VALUES 11500
BU #4 BU#5
Parameter Input Value Calculated Value
9000 BU#3
k 30 31.2
ko - 18.7
6500
kg - 0.0624
sg 0.04 0.04 10000 Oil rate (STB/D)
5000
0
types and depositional processes is found within the Typhoon area. 5/30/2003 8/2/2003 10/5/2003 12/8/2003 2/10/2004
Wells in this field are equipped with permanent downhole pressure Date
gauges. These gauges collected data from several buildup tests that
were run over an extended period of time. One important issue with Fig. 8—Typhoon Well 237#3 production data.
this field is the actual reduction in the permeability as the reservoir
pressure declines with production. As the field is produced, water
rates and water saturation increase with time, causing a decrease in of testing times) relating to specific test conditions and other reser-
the effective permeability of oil. Therefore, it was difficult to sepa- voir characteristics that are beyond the scope of this paper.
rate the effect of oil-permeability reduction because of saturation The results of the analyses of both tests are summarized in
change from that caused by the reduction in reservoir pressure. The Table 4. They show a reduction in the value of the absolute perme-
proposed method offers the means of distinguishing between the two ability from 244 to 87 md (i.e., the new permeability is approxi-
effects because it allows us to calculate the absolute permeability of mately 39% of the earlier value). Had we used the values of the
the formation, not the effective permeability of a specific phase. effective oil permeability to assess the reduction in the formation
Fig. 8 shows two buildup tests (Buildup 3 and Buildup 5) sepa- permeability, we would have concluded that the new value is only
rated by approximately 8 months. Both buildup tests were analyzed. 22% of the earlier value. The 39% value is more in line with the
Fig. 9 shows the log-log plot for Buildup 3. The relative permeabil- expected reduction in permeability based on rock-mechanics stud-
ity curves used in the analysis and the ratio of oil and water perme- ies that predicted the potential change in permeability as a result
ability are shown in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively. The log-log plot of decreasing reservoir pressure. No saturation logs were available
showing the analysis of Buildup 5 is shown in Fig. 12. to compare the calculated changes in water saturation with those
The log-log plots in Figs. 9 and 12 show that in both cases the from logs. However, even if such logs were available, the scale of
data reached infinite acting radial flow (IARF), and that allowed their measurements (inches) would be different from the scale of
for calculating the effective oil and water permeability from both the transient test (hundreds of feet). The proposed method allowed
tests. The plots also show other features (after approximately 3 hours us to separate the reduction in formation permeability caused by
Pressure dp and dp/dlnt, psi

1.0
k ron
1000
0.8
k rwn
kron and krwn

0.6
100

IARF 0.4

10 0.2
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time, hr
0.0
Fig. 9—Typhoon Well 237#3, pressure-transient analysis (PTA) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Buildup 3 match. Swn

Fig. 10—Oil/water relative permeability curves used in the

Typhoon field case.
800
Pressure dp and dp/dlnt, psi

600
k o /k w

400
1000
IARF
200

100
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Sw 0.01 0.1 1 10
Time, hr
Fig. 11—Ratio of the oil to the water permeability used in the
Typhoon field case. Fig. 12—Typhoon Well 237#3, PTA Buildup 5 match.

April 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 309

 TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF TYPHOON RESULTS
BU 3 BU 5 Ratio of results
Parameter July 2003 March 2004 BU 5/BU 3

k 244 87 39%
ko 117 26 22%
kw 0.226 0.292 129%
sw, norm 0.27 0.36 133%

Pressure (psia)

Pressure dp and dp/dlnt, psi

100
1960

10
1860 IARF
Oil rate (STB/D)
2500

0 1
20 60 100 140
Time (hr)
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10
Fig. 13—Myfield D Well 06, sequence of events. Time, hr
Fig. 14—Myfield D Well 06, buildup diagnostic plot.
decreased reservoir pressure from the reduction in effective perme-
ability caused by changes in fluid saturation. In this example, the
ratio of the relative permeability of oil to that of water is larger The diagnostic plot of the buildup test is shown in Fig. 14, and
than 100, which may give the impression that the flow rate of it shows IARF near shut-in time of 0.1 hours.
water is small and, therefore, uncertain. However, the water flow The ratio of the oil to the water permeability is shown in Fig. 15.
rates before Buildups 3 and 5 were in thousands of barrels per day. Using the proposed method, the value of the absolute permeability
Flowmeters are usually reliable at such high rates and, therefore, was calculated at 944 md, with a water-saturation value of 43%,
no additional uncertainty was introduced in the process. as shown in Table 5. The calculated absolute permeability value is
A probably obvious question in this field case is why not also much closer to the value of 1 darcy that was estimated from core
use the results from Buildup 4 to help validate the results of the data. Although the ratio ko/kw in this field case is approximately 12,
analyses. First, the quality of the pressure data during Buildup 4 no added uncertainty was introduced because of low water flow
does not allow a reliable analysis. Also, results from consecutive rate. The water flow rate was approximately 500 BWPD and at
buildups could have been used if the absolute permeability of this level, flowmeters are reliable.
the reservoir was constant or changing in a predictable fashion.
However, in this case, the absolute permeability is decreasing as a Petronius. Petronius is located in the Gulf of Mexico, 150 miles
function of the reservoir pressure. Therefore, learning the change south of Mobile, Alabama, USA (Pourciau 2007). Similar to the
of absolute permeability from Buildup 3 to Buildup 4 does not case of Typhoon, the reservoir permeability is expected to decrease
allow us to predict the absolute permeability at the time of Buildup with the depletion of the reservoir. Two tests were run on one of the
5 (and, therefore, verify the results of the analysis). wells in November 2003 and December 2006. The test overview
and buildup semilog plots for the two tests are shown in Figs.
Myfield D. This example is an offshore oil field. An extended 16 through 19, and the ratio of the oil to the gas permeability is
buildup test was run to assess the formation permeability. Fig. 13 shown in Fig. 20.
shows the production history of the well before the buildup test and As can be seen from Table 6, the results show that although the
the well bottomhole pressure through the entire test period. effective permeability to oil decreased from 382 to 302 md and the
effective permeability to gas increased from 1 to more than 7 md,
50 the value of the absolute permeability has not changed. Because the
gas saturation was low at the time of the 2003 test, it is difficult to
calculate it. Only an upper bound could be determined.
40
Discussion
30 A new method for analyzing transient data when multiphase flow
exists in the reservoir is being proposed. Verification of the method
kro /krw

using synthetic data generated from a numerical simulator showed

20

10 TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF MYFIELD D RESULTS

Parameter February–March 2007 Test
0 k 944 md
0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 ko 644 md
Water saturation Sw kw 53.2 md
Sw 0.43
Fig. 15—Myfield D ratio of oil to water relative permeability.

310 April 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 Pressure (psi)

Pressure, psia
3700 3800 IARF

3200

Oil rate (STB/D) 3300

12500
0
–100 –50 0 50 –4 –3 –2 –1
Time (hr) Superposition time, log[Δt/(t p+Δt)]

Fig. 16—Petronius A16 November 2003 test. Fig. 17—Petronius Well A16 November 2003 test, buildup
semilog plot.

4500 Pressure (psia) BU#3

3800 IARF

Pressure , psia
3500 3300

2500 2800

Oil rate (STB/D)

2300
5000
–4 –3 –2 –1

0 Superposition time , log[Δt/(t p+Δt)]

0 20 40 60 80
Time (hr) Fig. 19—Petronius Well A16 December 2006 Test, Buildup
3 semilog plot.
Fig. 18—Petronius Well A16 December 2006 Test.
in this proposed method is at the same level as that of the numeri-
that it calculates the correct values for the absolute permeability and cal-simulation study. In other words, this method does not increase
fluid saturations. During the verification exercise, a uniform satura- the uncertainty of the results. One of the advantages of the proposed
tion was used as a first step in testing the new method. Further work method is that regardless of which relative permeability relations
in which the fluid saturations are varying in the reservoir because of are being used in the numerical-simulation study, the method
normal field operations should be pursued in the future. In this case, provides consistent answers. This is true because the method uses
it would be interesting to find out what kind of average saturation the same relative permeability relations as the numerical reservoir
would result from using this method and why. Other cases such as model, and it produces a value for the absolute permeability. Using
layered and naturally fractured reservoirs also should be studied. this value of the absolute permeability, and the same relative per-
One of the important questions, frequently asked during reser- meability relations that produced it, guarantees the consistency for
voir simulation studies, is which relative permeability curves to use. the effective permeability of the various phases between the values
The proposed method uses the relative permeability curves already obtained from standard transient well-test-analysis technology and
existing in the simulation study without making any claims about the values used in the reservoir model.
the validity of these curves. The whole idea is to enter into the It is also important to note that the proposed method has the same
simulator an absolute permeability value that produces the same level of dependency on fluid pressure/volume/temperature (PVT)
effective permeability values obtained from the well test when used and reservoir properties (e.g., thickness and average porosity) as the
with whatever relative permeability curves in the simulator. The conventional transient-analysis methods. For example, the calculated
uncertainty resulting from using a set of relative permeability curves value of the permeability is directly proportional to the flow rate.
Errors in the value of the flow rate because of an inaccurate forma-
tion volume factor (shrinkage factor) are at the same level in this
50 method as with other conventional transient-analysis techniques.
The field cases presented in this paper show two examples in
40 which the proposed method provides additional valuable informa-
tion for reservoir characterization and performance predictions.
In one case, it was possible to separate the effects of changes in
30 permeability resulting from saturation changes and from pres-
kro /krg

sure-dependant permeability (Typhoon and Petronius). In another

20

10 TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF PETRONIUS RESULTS

Parameter November 2003 December 2006
0
k 525<k<670 656
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 ko 382 302
Gas saturation Sg kg 1.08 7.44
sg <0.05 0.09
Fig. 20—Petronius ratio of the oil to the gas permeability.

April 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 311

case, it was possible to bridge the gap between core-measured and Acknowledgments
well-test permeability. Several other advantages could be realized The authors thank Chevron for permission to publish this paper.
using this method. For example, it provides an estimation of the Christine Bourgeois, Brad Davis, and Akshay Sahni provided
average fluid saturations in the area around the tested well. This field data and valuable discussion during this work. Greg Hild
piece of information may be compared with results from numerical and Chris Urbanczyk reviewed the manuscript and recommended
simulation to help validate the history-matching process. helpful changes.
The proposed method was formulated and tested for homoge-
neous, single-layer reservoirs with two-phase flow. It does not add References
to the normal uncertainties encountered in transient testing. The most Abbaszadeh, M. and Kamal, M. 1989. Pressure-Transient Testing of
important advantage of the method is that it provides values for the Water-Injection Wells. SPE Res Eng 4 (1): 115–124. SPE-16744-PA.
absolute permeability and fluid saturations around the wells at dif- doi: 10.2118/16744-PA.
ferent times during the life of the field that are consistent with the Al-Khalifah, A.-J.A., Horne, R.N., and Aziz, K. 1987. In-Place Determina-
results of pressure-transient tests, relative permeability curves that tion of Reservoir Relative Permeability Using Well Test Analysis. Paper
have been selected for use in predicting reservoir performance, and SPE 16774 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
other formation and fluid (PVT) properties. Using these consistent Exhibition, Dallas, 27–30 September. doi: 10.2118/16774-MS.
results provide more-reliable forecasts of field performance. Chien, M.C.H., Lee, S.T., and Chen, W.H. 1985. A New Fully Implicit Compo-
Future work should reveal the applicability of the proposed method sitional Simulator. Paper SPE 13385 presented at the SPE Reservoir Simu-
to more heterogeneous conditions such as layered reservoirs; reser- lation Symposium, Dallas, 10–13 February. doi: 10.2118/13385-MS.
voirs with varying permeability, porosity, and thickness in the areal Earlougher, R.C. Jr. 1977. Advances in Well Test Analysis. Monograph Series,
direction; or reservoirs with varying fluid saturations. Future work to SPE, Richardson, Texas, USA, 5.
extend the method to three-phase flow also should be considered. Jones, J.R. and Raghavan, R. 1988. Interpretation of Flowing Well
The proposed method is not a method to calculate relative per- Response in Gas-Condensate Wells. SPE Form Eval 3 (3) 578–594;
meability curves from field data. On the contrary, it uses the rela- Trans., AIME, 285. SPE-14204-PA. doi: 10.2118/14204-PA.
tive permeability relations deemed most applicable in a given field Kamal, M.M. and Six, J.L. 1991. Pressure Transient Testing of Methane
together with results from transient tests to calculate the absolute Producing Coalbeds. SPE Advanced Technology Series 1 (1): 195–203.
permeability and average saturation values around the tested wells. SPE-19789-PA. doi: 10.2118/19789-PA.
Martin, J.C. 1959. Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reservoirs
Conclusions and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analy-
1. A pressure-transient-testing method for analyzing data when ses. SPE-1235-G. Trans., AIME, 216: 321–323.
multiphase-flow conditions exist in the reservoir is presented. Perrine, R.L. 1956. Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves. API Drilling and
The method is not intended for conditions of single-phase flow Production Practice (1956): 482–509.
in the reservoir when conventional analysis techniques are Pourciau, R.D. 2007. Deepwater Extended-Reach Sand-Control Comple-
completely adequate. tions and Interventions. SPE Drill & Compl 22 (2):157–164. SPE-
2. The method allows for calculating the absolute permeability and 98563-PA. doi: 10.2118/98563-PA.
average saturations in the region influenced by the test. Raghavan, R. 1976. Well Test Analysis: Wells Producing by Solution Gas
3. The method was verified by comparing results obtained from Drive. SPE J. 16 (4): 196–206; Trans., AIME, 261. SPE-5588-PA. doi:
analyzing synthetic data generated by a numerical reservoir 10.2118/5588-PA.
simulator to input values. Ring, J.N., Bourgeois, C.S., Howard, J., Melillo, A.J., Neal, S.L., and
4. Greater impact of the proposed method would be in numerical Smith, S. 2004. Management of Typhoon: A Subsea, Deepwater
simulation studies by providing initial input of absolute perme- Development. SPE Res Eval & Eng 7 (5): 326–333. SPE-84147-PA.
ability and saturation values at different times. doi: 10.2118/84147-PA.
5. Several field applications where the proposed method can offer Serra, K.V., Peres, A.M.M., and Reynolds, A.C. 1990. Well-Test Analysis
additional information are possible [e.g., k = k(p)]. for Solution-Gas-Drive Reservoirs: Part 1—Determination of Relative
6. Additional work to learn how to use this method in more hetero- and Absolute Permeabilities. SPE Form Eval 5 (2): 124–132. SPE-
geneous cases such as reservoirs with varying fluid saturations, 17020-PA. doi: 10.2118/17020-PA.
layered reservoirs, and naturally fractured reservoirs is needed
and encouraged.
Medhat (Med) M. Kamal is a senior research consultant and
Nomenclature leader of the dynamic reservoir characterization group with
Chevron in San Ramon, California, USA. He has more than 35
B = formation volume factor, RB/STB years of industry experience in well testing, reservoir descrip-
h = formation thickness, ft tion, and production and reservoir engineering. Kamal holds
k = permeability, md a BS degree from Cairo U. and MS and PhD degrees from
Stanford U., all in petroleum engineering. He is the editor and
ko = effective permeability to oil, md lead author of SPE Monograph 23 Transient Well Testing. Kamal
kro = relative permeability to oil, ratio served on the Board of Directors of SPE International (2007–2009)
krw = relative permeability to water, ratio representing the Western North America Region. A past distin-
kw = effective permeability to water, md guished lecturer for SPE, he served as member and chairman
m = slope of IARF semilog line, psi/log-cycle of the Annual Meeting Well Testing, Text Book and Monograph
Committees and as a technical editor, review chairman,
p = pressure, psi and executive editor of SPE Res Eval & Eng. Kamal was the
q = flow rate, STB/D first chairman of SPE Board Committee on R&D and the first
rw = wellbore radius, ft society conference on R&D. Yan Pan is a reservoir engineering
s = saturation advisor in the dynamic reservoir characterization group with
Chevron in San Ramon, California, USA. She joined Chevron in
t = time, hours 1999. Pan’s experience includes well testing, production data
tp = production time, hours analysis, and data integration in Earth and reservoir models as
⌬t = buildup time, hours well as training Chevron engineers in these areas of technol-
␮ = viscosity, cp ogy. She holds a BS degree in engineering mechanics from
Tsinghua U. in China, and MS and PhD degrees in petroleum
engineering from Stanford U. The author of several SPE papers
Subscripts and publications, Pan served as the Program Chairperson for
o = oil SPE Golden Gate Section in 2002. She is currently the chairper-
w = water son of SPE Well Testing Technical Interest Group.

312 April 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering