Chapter 9

Pressure Buildup Test

林再興 教授

1
The most frequently used pressure transient test

The test is conducted by

(1) q  const .  pwf 
(2) q  0  pws 
(3) pws  f (t )

To estimate
(1) k
(2) p, p*
(3) s
(4) heterogene ities or boundary
2
Pr essure analysis
  plotting procedure (This Chapter )
 Analytical solution 
  history match

 Numerical solution type curve (Chapter 4)
  history match

3
 The Ideal Buildup Test (I)
(Determination of permeability)
• Assumptions:
– Reservoir is homogeneous, slightly compressible, single phase.
– Infinite acting
– Ei or log approximation is applied
– Horner’s pseudo-producing time application is applicable

4
At t  t p  t

qB   1688crw  
2

pi  pws  70.6 ln   2s 

kh   k t p  t   
( q ) B   1688crw  
2

 70.6 ln    2 s 
kh   k t   
qB
 70.6 ln t  ln t p  t 
kh
qB  t p  t 
 70.6 ln  
kh  t 

qB  t p  t 
 pws  pi  162.6 log  
kh  t 

5
 qB  t p  t 
pws  pi  162.6 log  
kh  t 
 t p  t 
let Y  pws , X  log   , C  pi ,
 t 
qB
m  162.6
kh

 Y   mX  C

162.6qB
k
mh

6
 The Ideal Buildup Test (II)
(Determination of skin factor)
At t  t p the ins tan t a well is shut in , the following BHP, p wf , is

qB   1688crw  
2

p wf  pi  70.6 ln    2s 
kh   kt p  

or
qB   1688crw  
2

p wf  pi  162.6 log   0.869 s       (a )

kh   kt p  

qB
where m  162.6
kh
At t  t p  t
 t p  t 
p ws  pi  m log       (b)
 t 
7
Eq.(b)  Eq.(a )
 t p  t   1688crw 2 
pws  pwf  m log    m log    0.869ms
 t   kt p 
 
 pws  pwf   t p  t   1688crw 2 
 s  1.151   1.151 log    1.151 log  
 t    
 m   p   k t 
For t  1
t p  t t p  1 1
  1  1 for t p  1
tp tp tp
  pws @1hr  pwf   k  
 s  1.151 
 log  
2 
 3.23
 m  crw  

8
Example 2.1 Analysis of ideal pressure buildup test
GivenG
Oil reservoir
h  22 ft
Bo  1.3 RB/STB
  0 .2
ct  20  10 6 psi 1
o  1.0cp
rw  0.3 ft

qo  500 STB / D for 3days

(t p  3days  72hrs )
then shut  in

Estimate : k , pi , and s 9
Solution：

10
 2,000
psig
psia
1,900

pws
slope=100 psi/cycle
1,800

1,700
100 10 1
（tp+△t）/△t

11
m  slope  100 psi cycle (from figure)
162.6qB 162.6  500  1.0  1.3
k   48 md
mh 100  22
t p  t
pi  1950 psig  1965 psia at  1 (from figure )
t
 p1hr  p wf  k  
s  1.151  log    3.23
2 
 m  crw  
t p  t 72  1
At t  1hr ,   73  p ws  1764 psig
t 1
1764  1150  48  
s  1.151  log    3.23
2 
 1.0  20  10  0.2  0.3 
6
 100 
 1.43

12
Actual Buildup Test － Flow regions

13
Early - time region ( pressure transient is moving through the formation
nearest the wellbore )
 s
It is caused by  
V
 starage

M iddle - time region ( pressure transient has moved away from the wellbore
and into the bulk formation)
Radius of Re servoir boundary ;
s & Vstorage
 investigat ion  Massive heterogene ities
effect zone
(ri ) fluid / fluid contact
The data in the region can be used to determine k , s and pi etc.

Late - time region ( pressure behavior is influenced by boundary configurat ion,

interference from nearby wells
significan t reservoir heterogene ities, and
fluid / fluid contacts.
14
 Actual Buildup Tests －
Deviations from assumptions in ideal test theory

Infinite reservoir assumption

In principle, the Horner plot is incorrect when the reservoir is not

infinite acting during the flow period preceding the buildup test.
However , the Horner plot is used for all tests (even when the
reservoir has reached pseudo steady - state for the following reasons :
(1)correctfor infinite acting reservoir;
(2)to find p for t approaching to infinite;
(3)to find k for the data before affecting by boundary
15
Single - phase liquid assumption
ct  co so  cw sw  cg sg  c f
1 dBo Bg dRs
where co   
Bo dp Bo dp
1 dBw Bg dRsw
cw   
Bw dp Bw dp
1  V p 
c f   
V p  p T
1 1  z 
cg    
p z  p T
Oil is mobile phase
Water & gas are immobile

- -Homogeneo us reservoir assumption 16

 Actual Buildup Tests-
Qualitative behavior of field tests
- Early time region (ETR)
- Effect of wellbore damage (with no after flow)
(1) without wellbore damage
(2) with wellbore damage

17
- Effect of afterflow (with formation damage)
(1) without afterflow
(2) with afterflow

18
- Effect of hydraulically fractured well
(1)Non - fractured well
(2)Fractured well

19
Late - time region (LTR)
- - - boundary effect of a production well location

(1) well centered in drainage area

(2) well off - center in drainage area

20
 Effect and Duration of Afterflow
• Several problems that afterflow affects the buildup test analysis
(1) delay in the beginning of the MTR, ……
(2) total lack of development of the MTR in some cases, ……
(3) development of several false straight lines, ……

21
• The characteristics of afterflow on a pressure buildup test plot

-- In Horner plot
(1) a laze S-shape at early time
(2) In some tests, parts of the S-shape may be missing in
the time range during which data have been recorded

22
 1
- In Rameys typecurve unit slope; End of afterflow ( 1 cycle)
2

23
Pr essure Drawdown
kh pi  pw  2.637  104 kt
pD  tD 
141.2qB ctrw2

Pr essure Buildup
kh pws  pwf  2.637  104 kte t
pD  tD  te 
141.2qB ctrw2 t
1
tp

0.894Cs
CsD  ,
ct hrw2

Awb
where Cs  25.65 , or Cs  CwbVwb

24
Unit Slope line
dp D
1  C sD  0  C sD p D  t D
dt D
qB t e
 Cs 
24 p
where p  p ws  p wf

End of wellbore sterage effect

t D  50C sD e 0.14s
17,000C s e 0.14s
or t wbs 
(kh /  )

25
 Example 2.2 – Finding the end of wellbore storage distortion
t p  13,630 hrs an effective time at the final rate
qo  250 STB / D
o  0.8 cp
  0.039
B  1.136 RB / STB
ct  17  106 psi 1
rw  0.198 ft
re  1489 ft
 o  53 lbm / ft3
Awb  0.0218 ft2
h  69 ft , and
26
rising liquid level in well during shut - in
Find :
(1) At what shut - in (t) time does afterflow cease distorting the
pressure buildup test data ?
(2) At what shut - in (t) time does boundary effects appear ?
Solution :
(1)
t p  t t
(a) calculate the plotting variables , te 
t
, and p  pwf 
t
ws
1
tp
 
 
 t  t 
qt p  qt  qe t qe t  q t p  t  
qe  


 q qe    qt p
 
 t p  t 
t t
 
p

 tp 
(b) plot log  pws  pwf  v.s. log te

27
 10000
pws-pwf (psia)

1000

te  0.15hrs
100
p  146 psi

10
0.1 1 10 100
Δ te (hrs)

28
(c) Calculate wellbore storage constant from unit slope line
qB te
Cs 
24 p
te  0.15hrs & p  146 psi is on the unit slope line
250  1.136 0.15
 Cs   0.0121 bbl / psi
24 146
(c)" Calculate wellbore storage constant from well completion
data (less accuracy)
25.65 Awb 25.65  0.0218
Cs    0.0106 bbl / psia
0 53
(d) Calculate dimensionl ess wellbore storage constant
0.894Cs 0.894  0.0121
CsD   2  6031.5
ct hrw2
0.039  17  10  69  0.198
6

29
 (e) Calculate end of wellbore storage effect
- from the plot of log  p ws  p wf  v.s. log t e
1
1 cycle from deviation of unit slope line t e  8
2
t t
 8  8
t t
1 1
tp 13630
t
 t  8  8
13630
 1 
 1  t  8
 1363 
 t  8 hrs (The result is very rough)

30
 Plot of log  pws  pwf  v.s. log te

10000
pws-pwf (psia)

1000

100

10
0.1 1 10 100
Δ te (hrs)

31
 △t≒50hrs; (tp+△t)/△t = 274
△t≒7hrs; (tp+△t)/△t = 1950
4600

4500
4400

4300
Slope=70 psi/cycle
4200

pws (psia)
4100
4000

3900
3800

3700
3600
100000 10000 1000 100 10

△t=1 hr; (tp+△t)/△t =13600 (tp+△t)/△t

32
- from the equation such as

t D  50CsDe0.14s and t D  60  3.5s CsD

169,318Cs e0.14 3386.360  3.5s Cs
 twbs  and twbs 
kh /   kh /  

In the above equations. The permeabili ty must be known.

33
 Deter min ation of permeadili ty

m  70 psi / cycle 
Form the Horner plot  
 p1hr  4295 psi 
qB 250  1.136  0.8
k  162.6  162.6  7.648 md
mh 70  69
 p1hr  pwf  k  
s  1.151  log    3.23
2 
 m  crw  
 4290  3534  7.648  
 1.151  log  2   3.23
 0.039  0.8  17  10  0.198 
6
 70 
 1.15110.87  8.565  323  6.37
34
 169,318  0.0118  e 0.146.37
 twbs 
 7.648  69 
 
 0.8 
3386.360  3.5  6.57   0.0118
or twbs   4.98hrs
 7.648  69 
 
 0.8 
t p  t
 from Horner plot  2.27  103  t  6hrs
t
(2) To find end of M TR
From Horner plot, the data begin to deviate from the semi log straight line
t p  t
at  274  t  50 hrs
t
35
 △t≒50hrs; (tp+△t)/△t = 274
△t≒7hrs; (tp+△t)/△t = 1950
4600

4500
4400

4300
Slope=70 psi/cycle
4200

pws (psia)
4100
4000

3900
3800

3700
3600
100000 10000 1000 100 10

△t=1 hr; (tp+△t)/△t =13600 (tp+△t)/△t

36
 Determination of Permeability
(procedure)
(1) Find the probable beginning of the M TR
( Cessation of afterflow effects )

(2) Find the probable end of the M TR

- - The Horner plot becomes nonlinear
- - Type curve matching technique
38 ct A
- - Equation tlt 
k
for a well centered in a square or circular drainage area

(3) Calclate the slope of the M TR, and estimate k from

qB
k  162.6 where m  slope of the M TR 37
mh
(4) Radius of investigat ion at beginning and end of M TR
1/ 2
 kt 
ri     4t D 
1/ 2

 948ct 

(5) If there is no clear - cut M TR or if it is so short that it slope cannot

be determined with confidence
 using type- curve analysis.

Average permeabili ty from pseudo - steady state test data

  re  3 
141.2qB ln    
  rw  4 
kJ 

h p  pwf 
For a damage well k J  k
For a stimulate well k J  k

38
 Well Damage and Stimulation
- -Well damage - - It is caused by ..
- - Stimulatio n - - To improve a well' s productivity
by acidizatio n and hydraulic fracturing

Skin method
- - Wellbore damage  s  0  Incompletely perforated interval
- - Well stimulation  s  0

s  rwa  rw e  s  for s  0 or s  0
L f  x f   2rwa  for s  0 
qB 162.6qB
p s  141.2 s  0.869ms where m 
kh kh 39
Flow efficiency, E
J actual p  pwf  p s
E 
J ideal p  pwf
q kJ h
where J  
p  p wf   re  3 
141.2qB ln    
  rw  4 
p  pwf  p s p *  pwf  p s
E 
p  pwf p *  pwf

E  1 no damage ; no stimulation 

E  1 damaged well
E  1 stimulated well 40
Effect of incompletly perforated interval
h
s  t sd  s p
hp
 ht    ht kh  
where s p    1 ln    2

 hp    rw kv  
s  total skin factor
sd  true skin factor, caused by formation damage
s p  apparent skin factor, caused by an incompletely perforated int erval
ht  total int erval height , ft
hp  the perforated int erval, ft

  Example 2.5  

41
 Analysis of Hydraulically Fractured Wells
(Vertical fractures)

There are three basic analytical solutions for hydraulically fractured wells
(1) Uniform - flux fracture system (Nature fracture)
(2) Infinite conductivity fracture system (Hydraulic fracture)
(3) Finite conductivity fracture system (Hydraulic fracture)
(Low or internendiate conductivity fracture system)

42
Finite conductivity fracture system
Four flow period :
(1) Fracture linear flow period
282.4qBx f kft well
pi  pwf  0.0008293
k f wh  f c ft x 2f fracture

(2) Bilinear flow period

44.1qB
pi  pwf  1/ 4

h f k f w ct k 
1/ 2 1/ 4 t

(3) Formation linear flow period

4.064qB t
pi  pwf 
h kct x f
(4) Pseudo radial flow period
1
pD  ln t D  0.80907 
2 43
 Pressure Buildup for Hydraulically Fractured Wells
--Formation linear flow
Pressure drawdown:
4.064qB 
pi  pwf  t
hx f kct
Pressure buildup :

pi  pwf 
4.064qB 
t  t  t  kc
 hx p
 t p  t  t 
f t

4.064qB 
slope 
pws hx f kct
 To calculate x f by knowing k

44
 Pressure Buildup for Hydraulically Fractured Wells
--Pseudo-radial flow

Pressure dradown :

pi  ln t D  0.80907 
1
2
Pressure buildup :
qB  t p  t 
pws  pi  162.6 log  
kh  t 
qB
 slop  162.6 to find k 
kh
 p1hr  pwf  k  
s  1.151  log    3.23
2 
 m  crw  
 x f  2rwa  2rwe  s
45
 Pressure Level in Surrounding Formation
Formation pressure:
 Original reservoir pressure ( pi ) 
  from pressure buildup test
 False pressure ( p*) 
 
from (1) MBH method , or p * method
 Static drainage  area pressure ( p )

 (average pressure ) 
 (2) Modified Muskat method

46
 Original reservoir pressure
• For an infinite acting • For a reservoir with one or
reservoir and for a well more boundaries relatively
in a new reservoir (No near a test well (pressure
pressure depletion) depletion is negligible)

47
 Original reservoir pressure (cont.)
• False pressure

P*

48
 Static drainage-area pressure (p)
(1) The Matthews - Brons - Hazebroek (MBH) method, or p * method

 (2) The modified Muskat method

P * method or MBH method

t p  t
(1) Extrapolat e the midde - time line to 1
t
 t p  t 
 in the plot of pwf vs.   p *
 t 

(2) Estimate the drainage area shape :

(3) Choose the proper curve from figs 2.17A through 2.17 G
(p.36 - 39) for the drainage - area shape of the tested well
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
(4) Estimate
2.64  10-4 ktp
and find pDMBH 
p *  p 

2.303 p *  p 
ctA 70.6qB / kh m
qB
where m  162.6 ; t p  producing time in Horner plot
kh

mpDMBH
(5) p  p * 
2.303

Advantages : It does not reguire data beyond the MTR and it is

applicable to a wide varity of drainage - area slops.
Disadvantages : It is requires knownledge of drainage - area size
and shape, and estimates of reservoir and fluid
properties such as  and ct , which are not
always known with great accuracy.
- - - - - Example 2.6 - - - - -

After pseudo - staady state flow has been achieved (figs 2.17A - 2.17G)
PDMBH  ln (CA tDA)
57
 Modified Muskat Method
 
qB  2t D 3 
e  n2t D
J 1 ( n reD ) 
 p wf  pi  141.2  2  ln reD   2 2 2 
 kh  reD 4 n 1  [ J ( r )  J 2
( n 
)] 
 n 1 n eD 1

 p  p  0.0744qBt
 i ct hre2


58
In the pressure buildup
0.00388kt
qB 
ctre2
p  p ws  118.6 e
kh
qB 0.00168kt
 log( p  p ws )  log(118.6 )
kh ct re2
250 ct re2 750 ct re2
for  t 
k k
 log( p  p ws )  A  Bt
qB
where A  log(118.6 )
kh
0.00168k
B
ct re2

59
Advantages
(1) It requires no estimates of reservoir properties
when it is used to establish p
(2) It has been found to provide satisfactory p estimates
for hydraulically fractured wells and for wells with
layers of different permeabili ty that communicate only
at the wellbore.
In these case, the p * method fails.

Dis advantages
(1) It fails when the tested well is not reasonably centered
in its drainage area.
250 ctre2 750 ctre2
(2) The required shut - in time of to
k k
are frequently impractically long, particular in low - permeabili ty
reservoir.

- - - Example 2.7 - - - 60
 Reservoir Limits Test (Ⅰ)
 To estimate
(1) reservoir size 
  based on pressure buildup
(2) dis tan ce to boundaries 

61
Superposition principle for pressure drawdown
( pi  p wf ) total at well A
 (p ) due to well A  (p ) due to well I

qB    948ct rw2   A

 Ei    2 s  I
 70.6
kh   kt  
qB    948ct  (2 L) 2 
 70.6  Ei  
kh   kt 
qB   1688ct rw2  
 70.6 ln    2 s 
kh   kt  
qB   1688ct  (2 L) 2 
 70.6 ln  
kh   kt 
62
Superposition principle for pressure buildup
( pi  pws ) total at well A  (p ) sell 1  (p ) well 2
q
 pi  pws
qB  1688ctrw2 
 70.6 ln( )  2s  t
kh  k (t p  t )  q tp

Well 1
qB   3792 ct ( L) 2 
 70.6  Ei ( ) t
kh  k (t p  t )  q tp

(q ) B  1688ctrw2  Well 2

 70.6 ln( )  2s  t
kh  kt  tp

(q ) B   3792ct ( L) 2 
 70.6  Ei ( )      (1)
kh  kt 

63
 qB  1688ctrw2  qB  6537 ct ( L) 2 
 70.6 ln( )  2 s   70.6 ln( )
kh  k (t p  t )  kh  k (t p  t ) 
qB  1688ctrw2  qB  6753ct ( L) 2 
 70.6 ln( )  2 s   70.6 ln( )  (2)
kh  kt  kh  kt 
qB  t p  t 
 2  70.6 ln        (3)
kh  t 
qB  t p  t   t  t 
 pi  pws  2  162.6 log    2  m log  p 
kh  t   t 
qB
where m  162.6
kh
note : (1) Double slope  2m
(2)The time required for the slope to double
3792 ct ( L) 2 5 ctL
2

 0.02 or t  1.9  10
kt k

64
 Reservoir Limits Test (Ⅱ)
From Eq (1)
qB  t p  t  qB   3792 ct L2 
 pi  p ws  70.6 ln    70.6 Ei ( )
kh  t  kh  k (t p  t ) 
( q ) B   3792 ct L2 
 70.6 Ei ( )
kh  kt 

For t p  t  t p  t  t p
qB  t p  t  qB   3792 ct L2 
 pi  p ws  70.6 ln    70.6 Ei ( )
kh  t  kh  k (t p ) 
qB   3792 ct L2 
 70.6 Ei ( )
kh  k t 
 qB  t p  t  qB   3792 ct L2  
 pi  p ws  162.6 log    70.6 Ei  
 kh  t  kh  kt p  
qB   3792 ct L2 
 70.6 Ei ( )        ( 4) 65
kh  kt 
  qB  t p  t  qB   3792 ctL2  
 pi  pws  162.6 log    70.6 Ei  
 kh  t  kh  ktp  
qB   3792 ctL2 
 70.6 Ei ( )        ( 4)
kh  kt 
Note : (1) In ,
qB t p  t
162.6 log( ) det er min e the slope of MTR
kh t
  3792 ctL2 
Ei( ) det er min e the position of MTR
 k (t p ) 
(2) For t  small
  3792 ctL2 
Ei( ) is negligible
 k (t ) 
For t  l arg e
  3792 ctL2 
Ei( ) can not be negligible
 k (t )  66
 Reservoir Limits Test (Ⅲ)
Use Eq.(4) to analyze pressure buildup test data
t p  t
(1) Plot pws v.s. log
t
(2) Establish the M TR
(3) Extrapolat e the M TR into the LTR
(4) Tabulate the difference s, pws
*
, between
the buildup curve and extrapolated M TR
for several points (pws
*
 pws - pMT )
(5) Estimate L from the relationship implied
by the following equation :
qB    3792 ctL2 
p  70.6  Ei  
*

kt
ws
kh   

67
Note :
(1) the above equation is for t p  t
(2) if the apparent value of L tends to increase or to decrease systematically
with time, there is a strong indication that the model does not describe the reservoir
adequately .

- - - Example 2.8 - - -

68
•Other method to estimate distance from well to boundary
(method suggested by Gary)

0.000148kt x
L
c t 

69
 Estimation of Reservoir Size
• The basic idea is to compare average static reservoir pressure
before and after production of a known quality of fluid from a
closed volumetric reservoir.
N p Bo  ( p 1  p 2 )ctV R
(N p )( Bo )
 VR 
( p 1  p 2 )c t 
VR []bbls N p []STB
p 1 & p 2 [] psi ct [] psi 1

A  h  VR
VR
A 70
h
 Example 2.9 Estimating reservoir size

Given :
p 1  3000 psi p 2  2100 psi q avg  150 STB for one year
D
Bo  1.3 RB
STB
ct  10  10 6 psi 1   0.22 h  10 ft
estimate : AR  ? acres

solution :
N p  qt  150( STB / D)  365(days )  54750 STB
(N p )(Bo ) 54750  1.3
VR    35.94  10 6
bbls
( p1  p 2 )ct (3000  2100)  10  10  0.22
6

VR 35.94  106 (bbls)  5.61458( ft3 / bbl )

A   20.18  106 ft2
h 10
 20.18  106 ( ft2 ) / 43560( ft2 / acres )  463 acres
71
 Modifications for Gases
Pressure drawdown
1
p D  [ln(t D )  0.80907]
2

oil reservoir
qB  1688crw2 s 
pi  pwf  162.6 log( )  
kh  kt 1.151
where
q[]STB / D B[]RB / STB p[] psi []cp
k[]md h[] ft rw [] ft t[]hrs
 , s[] dim ensionless ct [] psi 1
72
gas reservoir
q g  gi B gi   1688 gi c girw2  ( s  Dq) 
(a) pi  p wf  162.6 log  
 
kh   kt  1 . 151 
where
q gi []Mcf / D B gi []RB / Mcf cti  c gi S g [] psi 1
178.1z i Tp sc ziT
B gi   10.069
 pi  p wf  pi  p wf
 Tsc
 2 

q  z T 
 1688  c r 2
s ' 
pi  p w  1637 )
2 2 g gi gi gi gi w
(b) log( 
kh  kt 1 .151 
where s '  s  Dq

Eq.(a ) for p  3000 psi

Eq.(b) for p  2000 psi 73
Pressure Buildup

Use superposition to develop equation describing a

buildup test for gas well

(1) For p  3000 psi based on eq (a )

q g Bgi i  t p  t 
pws  pi  162.6 log  
kh  t 
 t p  t 
In pws vs log   plot
 t 
q g Bgi i q g Bgi i
m  162.6 or k  162.6
kh mh
 ( p1hr  pwf )  k  
s  s  Dqg  1.151
'
 log   3.23
2 
  i cti rw 
74
 m 
(2) For p  2000 psi based on eq (b)
q g  i ziT  t p  t 
p 2
 p  1637
2
log 
 t 
ws i
kh
 t p  t 
In p 2
vs log  plot
 t 
ws

q g  i ziT q g  i ziT
m  1637
''
or k  1637
kh m '' h
 p 2
 p 2
 k  
s  s  Dq g  1.151  log   3.23
' 1hr wf
"
 2 
 m  i ti wc r  

75
 Modifications for Multiphase Flow
pressure drawdown

qt   1688ct rw2  s 
p ws  p i  162.6 log  
 1.151
t h   t t  
where
q o Rs
q t  q o Bo  ( q g  ) B g  q w Bw
1000
q o , q t []STB / D q g []Mcf / D Bo , Bw []RB / STB
B g []RB / Mcf Rs []CF / STB
ko kw kg
  total mobility    ct  S o co  S w c w  S g c g  c f
o w g
76
pressure drawdown

qt  t p  t 
p ws  p i  162.6 log  
t h  t 
 t p  t 
In the plot of p ws vs. log  
 t 
q q
m  162.6 t  t  162.6 t
t h mh
q o Bo  o
k o  162.6
mh
q R
(q g  o s )  g B g
k g  162.6 1000
mh
q  B
k w  162.6 w w w
mh
 p1hr  p wf    
s  1.151  log  t 2   3.23

 m  ct rw  
77
p is calculated just as for a sin gle  phase reservoir