PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSES

Horner Method

The Ei solution of the diffusivity equation for a single rate flowing well is given as:

 
70.6 qB     948  ct rw 
2
p wf  p i  Ei   2s (1)
kh   kt  
   

Assume we have a single well producing from an infinite acting reservoir at a rate q for time
t p before it was shut-in at the surface for time  t to conduct a pressure buildup test. The
rate history of this well is shown in the figure below:

Rate history for actual pressure buildup test

Applying superposition to this well we obtain:

 
70 .6 qB     948  ct rw 
2
p i  p ws   Ei   2s
kh   k (t p   t )  
   
 
70 .6( 0  q ) B     948  ct rw 
2
 Ei   2s (2)
kh   k t  
   
or:
 
70 .6 qB     948  ct rw  
2 2
p i  p ws   Ei   Ei   948 ct rw  (3)
kh   k (t p   t )   k t 
    

Eq. 3 can be written in base 10 logarithm as:

162 .6 qB   t p  t 
pi  p ws  log   (4)
kh  t 
 

Module 5 – Pressure Buildup Test Prof. Ibrahim Sami Nashawi 1

Solving Eq. 4 for the static bottomhole pressure p ws we obtain Horner equation for pressure
buildup analysis as follows:

162 .6 qB   t p  t 
p ws  p i  log   (5)
kh  t 
 

Eq. 5 can be also written as:

 t p  t 
p ws  pi  m log   (6)
 t 
 
where:
162 .6 qB 
m (7)
kh

A plot of p ws vs. (t p   t ) /  t on semi-log graph paper should yield a straight-line with

slope m and intercept p i or p * , i.e., p * is called false reservoir pressure.

Methodology

1. Calculate (t p   t ) /  t
2. Plot p ws vs. (t p   t ) /  t on semi-log graph paper.
3. Estimate the end of wellbore storage (afterflow), i.e., end of lazy S-shape curve.
If not properly detected wellbore can cause many problems in well test analysis. Few of
these problems are:
a. Delay in the beginning of the middle-time region (MTR), making its recognition more
difficult.
b. Total lack of development of the MTR in some cases, with relatively long periods of
afterflow and relatively early onset of boundary effects.
c. Development of several false straight-lines, any of which could be mistaken for the
MTR line.
Three methods are used to estimate the end of wellbore storage effects:
Method 1
i Calculate  p  p ws  p wf , p wf is the pressure at t  0 , i.e., the moment of the
surface shut-in of the well.
ii. Calculate Agarwal’s effective time, t e , as:
t p * t
t e  (8)
t p  t
iii. Plot  p vs. t e on log-log graph paper
iv. Draw the unit-slope line
In pressure buildup test the unit-slope line means that the rate of afterflow is
identical to the flow rate just before surface shut-in of the well.
v. Wellbore storage distortion ends about 1½cycle in time after the log-log data plot
starts deviating from the unit-slope line.

Module 5 – Pressure Buildup Test Prof. Ibrahim Sami Nashawi 2

 Method 2
i. Calculate the derivative of static BHP ( p ws ) with respect to Agarwal’s effective
'
time t e , p ws  d ( p ws / d t e ) , or pressure drop derivative with respect to t e ,
'
 p ws  d (  p ws / d t e ) .
ii. Multiply the pressure derivative calculated in step (i) by t e and plot
' vs. t or t p ' vs. t on the same graph of p vs. t .
t e p ws e e ws e ws e
iii. Wellbore storage effects end when the pressure derivative plot flattens out (it
becomes more or less horizontal).

100

10
pws

te p' ws
or
te p' ws
1

0.1
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
te

Module 5 – Pressure Buildup Test Prof. Ibrahim Sami Nashawi 3

 No flow boundary

Radial flow, infinite

acting, transient flow

 Early time region (ETR) representing inner boundary effects (skin and wellbore
storage) includes the unit slope line and the hump.

 Middle time region (MTR) representing reservoir response as infinite acting

(before reaching the external boundaries).
For homogeneous reservoir the slope of derivative curve is zero (horizontal line)
in this region.

 late time region (LTR) represents the reservoir response with external boundary
effects. For no flow boundary, derivative curve has positive slope and for constant
pressure boundary, derivative will show negative slope.

Method 3
Match the log-log plot with Ramey’s type curve Fig. 4.1 p. 64, i.e., to make an
appropriate match the log-log plot should have the same grids as Ramey’s curve. When
the replotted curve for finite value of C D becomes identical to the curve for C D  0 , this
point on the actual data is the end of afterflow or wellbore storage distortion.

To make the match easier do the following:

i. Calculate the wellbore storage coefficient C as:

Awb
C  25 .65 , bbl / psi (9)


or
qB  t e
C , bbl / psi (10)
24  p

t e and  p are the coordinates of any point on the unit-slope line.

Note: Eq. 10 is more accurate than Eq. 9.

Module 5 – Pressure Buildup Test Prof. Ibrahim Sami Nashawi 4

 ii. Calculate the dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient C D as:

0.894 C
CD  (11)
 ct h rw2

C D gives the range where the match should be attempted.

Notes:
i. Even though the semi-log graph is more sensitive to pressure changes and it gives a
good estimate of the beginning of the straight-line, it is important to verify this
estimate by the pressure derivative plot and the log-log curve matching.
ii. Of course the boundary effects appear when the data start to deviate from the semi-log
straight-line at the end of MTR. The time for boundary effects (late time region, LTR)
can be estimated from Horner’s graph and verified using the pressure derivative and
the log-log plots.
4. Determine the slope m of the straight-line.
5. Calculate the formation permeability k as:
162.6 qB
k , md (12)
mh
6. Calculate the skin factor s as:
p   
1hr  p wf (  t  0)
 log    3.23
k
s  1.151 (13)
  2 
  ct rw 
m
 
p1hr is obtained from the straight-line portion of the curve or its extrapolation for
t  1 .

7. Calculate the pressure drop due to skin p s as:

141 .2 qB 
p s  s  0.869 ms , psi (14)
kh

p s indicates the effect of damage or stimulation on well performance, i.e., production

rate in terms of pressure drop. A positive p s means that part of the driving energy is
lost in the damaged zone. If the damage is removed the well can produce more oil or
produce at the same rate with less pressure drop.
8. Determine the false reservoir pressure or pressure at infinite shut-in time p * from the
straight-line or its extrapolation for (t p  t ) /  t  1 .

9. Calculate the flow efficiency E as:

J actual
E
J ideal

Module 5 – Pressure Buildup Test Prof. Ibrahim Sami Nashawi 5

 or
p *  p wf  p s p s
E  1 (15)
p *  p wf p *  p wf

E  1 indicates a stimulated well.

E  1 indicates a damaged well.

A stimulated well with a flow efficiency of two produces twice as much fluid with a
given pressure drawdown as it would have if it was not stimulated.
A damaged well with a flow efficiency of 0.1 produces 10% as much fluid with a given
pressure drawdown as it would have if the damage were removed.

10. Calculate the damage ratio 1 / E as:

1 p *  p wf
 (16)
E p *  p wf   p s

11. Calculate the damage factor = 1  E .

12. Calculate the effective wellbore radius rwa as:

rwa  rw e  s , ft. (17)

rwa  rw indicates a damaged well.

rwa  rw indicates a stimulated well.

13. Calculate the radius of investigation ri as:

kt
ri  , ft. (18)
948  ct

The radius of investigation reflects the portion or region of the reservoir sampled during
the MTR. That region is given by ri achieved by the shut-in transient at the start and
end of the MTR. This is very important because the distance a transient has moved into
the formation is approximately the distance from the well at which formation properties
are being investigated at a particular time in a well test. The larger the distance is, the
better and more significant the results of the well tests are.
Furthermore, the radius of investigation concept provides a guide for well test design.
For example, we may want to sample reservoir properties at least 500 ft from the well.
How long a test shall be run? 6 hrs? 20 hrs? We can use the radius of investigation
equation to estimate the time required to test to the desired depth in the formation.

Module 5 – Pressure Buildup Test Prof. Ibrahim Sami Nashawi 6

14. Calculate the permeability of altered zone k s as:

k
ks  , md (19)
s
1
r 
ln  s 

 rw 

where rs is the radius of the altered zone.

15. Calculate the end of wellbore storage distortion as:

170,000 C s e 0.14 s
t wbs  , hrs. (20)
kh / 

match with the one used in Horner plot.

Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson Method (MDH)

Recall Horner’s equation is given as:

 t p  t 
p ws  pi  m log   (21)
 t 
 

if the shut-in time  t is very short compared to the production time before surface shut-in of
the well t p (  t  t p or t p   t ), then we can write t p   t  t p ; thus,

 t p  t  t 
log   log p   log( t p )  log( t ) (22)
 t   t 
   

using Eq. 22, Horner equation can be written as:

p ws  p i  m log( t p )  m log(  t ) (23)

for t  1 hr we obtain from Eq. 23:

p1hr  p i  m log( t p ) (24)

solving Eq. 24 for p i we get:

p i  p1hr  m log( t p ) (25)

substituting Eq. 25 into Eq. 23 we obtain:

p ws  p1hr  m log( t ) (26)

Eq. 26 is known as MDH equation for pressure buildup test.

A plot of p ws vs.  t on semi-log graph paper should yield a straight-line with slope m .

Module 5 – Pressure Buildup Test Prof. Ibrahim Sami Nashawi 7

Methodology
1. Plot p ws vs.  t on semi-log graph paper.

2. Determine the beginning of straight-line portion of the curve using log-log plots or type
curve matching as with Horner method.
3. Determine the slope m of the straight-line.
4. Calculate the formation permeability k as:
162.6 qB
k , md. (27)
mh
5. Calculate the skin factor s as:

p   
 1hr  p wf (  t  0)  k 
s  1.151  log  3.23 (28)
  2  
  ct rw 
m
 

p1hr is obtained from the straight-line portion of the curve or its extrapolation.

6. Calculate the pressure drop due to skin, the flow efficiency, the damage ratio, the
damage factor, the effective wellbore radius, the radius of investigation, and the
permeability of the damaged zone in the same way as with Horner method.

Modifications for Multiphase Flow

The basic drawdown and buildup equations can be modified to model multiphase systems, by
replacing the single flow rate by the total flow rate and the single mobility by the total
mobility; thus, the pressure drawdown and buildup equations become respectively as:

    
log( t )  log  t   3.23  0.869 s 
162 .6 q RT
p wf  p i  (29)
t h   2 
   ct rw  

162.6 q RT  t p  t 
p ws  pi  log   (30)
t h  t 
 
The total flow rate is given as:

 q R 
q RT  q o Bo   q g  o s  B g  q w B w , bbl/D (31)
 1000 

where:
 the free gas flow rate in the reservoir is defined as:

 q R 
 q g  o s  B g , bbl/D
 1000 

q g is the total surface produced gas (SCF) multiplied by B g to convert to reservoir

conditions.

Module 5 – Pressure Buildup Test Prof. Ibrahim Sami Nashawi 8

 the dissolved gas is defined as:

qo Rs
, SCF
1000
 the total mobility is given by:

k kg k
t  o   w (32)
o  g  w

 the total mobility is calculated from the conventional slope as:

162.6 q RT
t  (33)
mh
the skin factor is calculated from the drawdown and the buildup tests respectively as:

p  p    
s  1.151 i 1hr  log  t   3.23 (34)
  2  
  ct rw 
m
 

p    
1hr  p wf
s  1.151  log  t   3.23 (35)
  2 
  ct rw 
m
 

Perrine has shown that the permeability of each phase can be calculated as:

162.6 q o Bo  o
ko  (36)
mh

 q R 
162 .6 q g  o s  B g  g
 1000 
kg  (37)
mh

162.6 q w B w  w
kw  (38)
mh
The average reservoir pressure is calculated just as for a single-phase reservoir.

Note:
i. In all the above equations:
N p (oil )
tp  (39)
qo

ii. Also an important assumption required for the accurate use of these equations for
multiphase flow analysis is that the saturation of each phase remains essentially uniform
throughout the drainage area of the tested well.

Module 5 – Pressure Buildup Test Prof. Ibrahim Sami Nashawi 9

 Pressure Buildup Test Preceded by Two Different Flow Rates
20

q1
Flow rate, STB/D

q2

tp1 tp2 t

q3=0
0
0 t1 t2 t
Time,10hours
Rate History for Pressure Buildup Test Preceded by Two Different Flow Rates

The pressure drawdown equation for constant rate test is given as:

162.6 qB   k  
pi  p wf  log( t )  log   3.23  0.869 s  (40)
kh    c r 2  
 t w 

let:

162.6 B
m'  (41)
kh

and
 
S  log   3.23  0.869 s
k
(42)
 2 
  ct rw 

substituting Eqs. 41 and 42 into Eq. 40 yields:

p i  p wf  m ' q log( t )  S   (43)

Applying the principle of superposition we get:

 
p i  p ws  m ' q1 log( t )  S  m ' ( q 2  q1 ) log( t  t1 )  S  

 m ' ( q 3  q 2 ) log( t  t 2 )  S  (44)

Module 5 – Pressure Buildup Test Prof. Ibrahim Sami Nashawi 10

Rearranging Eq. 44 we obtain:

  
p i  p ws  m ' q1 log( t )  S  m ' q 2 log( t  t1 )  S 
  
 m ' q1 log( t  t1 )  S  m ' q 2 log( t  t 2 )  S  (45)

Eq. 45 can be written as:

pi  p ws  m' q1log( t )  m' q 2 log( t  t1 )  m' q1log( t  t1 )  m' q 2 log( t  t 2 )

(46)
Collecting common terms, we get from Eq. 46:

pi  p ws  m' q1log( t )  log( t  t1 )  m' q 2 log( t  t1 )  log( t  t 2 ) (47)

Eq. 47 can be written as:

  t    t  t1 
pi  p ws  m ' q1 log     m ' q 2 log    (48)
  t  t1     t  t2 

Knowing that:

t  t  t 2
t 2  t p1  t p 2
t  t1  t p 2   t
t  t p1  t p 2   t

then, Eq. 48 can be written as:

  t p1  t p 2  t    t  t  
pi  p ws  m ' q1 log    m ' q log p 2  (49)
  t p 2  t  
2  t 
   

or:

  t p1  t p 2  t  t  t  
pi  p ws  m '  q1 log   q log p 2  (50)
  t p 2  t  2   t 
   

Factoring out q 2 we get the final form as:

q  t p1  t p 2  t  t  t  
pi  p ws  m ' q 2  1 log   log p 2  (51)
 q 2  t p 2  t   t 
   

Module 5 – Pressure Buildup Test Prof. Ibrahim Sami Nashawi 11

Substituting Eq. 41 into Eq. 51 we get the final form as:

162.6 q 2 B  q1  t p1  t p 2  t  t
  log p 2
 t  
pi  p ws   log  (52)
kh  q 2  t p 2  t    t 
   

Let:
162.6 q 2 B
m (53)
kh
Then, Eq. 52 can be written as:

q  t p1  t p 2  t  t  t  
pi  p ws  m  1 log   log p 2  (54)
 q 2  t p 2  t    t 
   

q  t p1  t p 2  t  t  t  
A Cartesian plot of p ws vs.  1 log   log p 2   should yield a
 q 2  t p 2  t    t 
   
straight line with slope m .

The formation permeability k is calculated as:

162.6 q 2 B
k , md. (55)
mh
and the skin factor s is calculated as:

p   
1hr  p wf ( t  0)
 log    3.23
k
s  1.151 (56)
  2 
  ct rw 
m
 

The end of wellbore storage effects is determined using one of the previously discussed three
methods.

Module 5 – Pressure Buildup Test Prof. Ibrahim Sami Nashawi 12