Flow Equations For slightly compressible fluids

Ei-Function Solution; qB  948ct r 2 

p  pi  70.6 Ei  
kh  kt 
Note; the skin factor affects the pressure response
only within the altered zone. The pressure profile
at points beyond the radius of the altered zone is
not affected by the skin factor.

The additional pressure drop due to skin at the

wellbore can be calculated from the flow rate and
fluid and rock properties.

We can modify the Ei-function solution to apply for

2 cases: 1) at the wellbore, and (2) beyond the
altered zone.
qB   948   ct rw2  
• For r = rw p  pi  70.6  Ei     2 s 
kh   kt 
 

• For r > ra q B  948   ct r 2 

p  pi  70.6 Ei   
kh  kt 
Neither of these expressions is valid within the altered zone.
Neither of these expressions is valid until after the logarithmic approximation to the Ei-function becomes applicable
throughout the altered zone.
 Semi-Log Analysis of the flow tests
Pressure Drawdown tests are conducted by producing the well at known rates while
measuring bottom hole pressure as a function of time.
Used To;
a) Quantify reservoir flow characteristics, including Permeability and Skin.
b) Establish the outer limits of the reservoir and estimated the Hydrocarbon volume in the
well’s drainage area.
c) Estimate the Deliverability of the well

The Ei function solution to the diffusivity equation for a well producing at a constant rate;

qB   1688   ct rw2  

Pwf  pi  70.6  ln     2 s 
kh   kt 
 

Or,

qB   k  
pwf  pi  162.6 log
 10 t   log 
10 

2 
 3 . 23  0 . 869 s 
kh   c r
t w  

y = mx + b
• Effective permeability is computed from;

162.6qB
k
mh
• Skin Factor;
Set the flow time equal to 1 hr, and use the symbol P 1hrfor the
bottom hole pressure Pwf at that time

 pi  p1hr  k  
s  1.151  log10    3.23
2 
 m  ct rw  

Pressure P1hr lies either on semilog line or its extrapolation, we can estimate effective
permeability to the flowing in drainage area of the well and skin factor from theoretical
straight line on a semilog plot of drawdown test data.
 Semi-Log Analysis of the Pressure Build-up tests
Build up tests conducted by stabilizing a producing well at fixed rate with placing a
bottomhole gauge and shut-in the well. following shut-in bottomhole pressure build up
and rate of pressure build up is used to estimate well and formation properties;

• Average reservoir pressure

• Permeability in the drainage area
• Skin factor adjacent to the well bore

 Equation modeling pressure build up test can be developed using superposition in

time
qB   k  
pws  pi  162.6 log10 t p  t  log10    3.23  0.869 s 
2 
kh   c r
t w  
qB   k  
 162.6 log
 10 t   log 
10 
  3.23  0.869 s 
 ct rw
2
kh   

qB  t p  t 
pws  pi  162.6 log10  
kh  t 
 qB  t p  t 
pws  pi  162.6 log10  
kh  t 
Horner time ratio

t p  t
y = b+ mx pi  b @ 1
t

• Effective Permeability;

162.6qB
k
mh

• Skin Factor;

 p1hr  pwf  k  
s  1.151  log10    3.23
2 
 m  ct rw  
For variable rate prior to shut-in, we can calculate Tp with;

Cumulative production, STB

Tp   24
Stabilized rate prior to shut - in STB/D

When we use this approximation suggested by Horner, Tp is called the “Horner

Pseudo-producing time”
 Radius of investigation
The point in the formation beyond which the pressure drawdown is negligible.
• Measure of how far a transient has moved into a formation following any rate change in a well
• Physically represents the depth to which formation properties has been investigated at any time in
a test.

Radius of investigation at any time is estimated with;

Kt
ri 
948Ct

Time required to reach a given radius of investigation;

948ct ri 2
t
k
Early times; the pressure transient is near wellbore in a damage or stimulated zone.
Wellbore unloading or after-flow of fluid stored in the wellbore also distorts the test data
during this period.

Middle times; the pressure transient has moved into undamaged formation so a
straight line with a slope related to effective permeability of the flowing phase usually
occurs. This line is called “the corrected semilog straight line”.

Late times; the pressure transient encountered reservoir boundaries, interference

effect from the offset wells or massive change in the reservoir properties.
 Wellbore Storage
Bottomhole flow rate approximately equals surface rate only
after a time delay .

Following surface shut-in, fluid continues to flow from the

reservoir into the well-bore “after-flow”, until rate of after-
flow diminishes to less than one percent of rate prior to shut-
in, straight line predicted by ideal theory for a Horner graph
of build-up test data doesn’t appear.

• Fluid-filled wellbore

dpwf

q  qsf B
dt 24Vwb c wb

• Rising liquid level

dpwf q  qsf B  5.615 wb 

g 
dt

24  144 A  g 
 wb  c 
• General

dpwf

q  q sf B
dt 24Vwb c wb

Fluid-filled wellbore;

C
q  q B
sf

24
dpw
dt
C  Vwb cwb

C - Wellbore storage coefficient, bbl/psi

q - Flow rate out of wellbore at surface, STB/D
qsf - Flow rate into wellbore at sand face, STB/D
B - Formation volume factor, bbl/STB
pw - Wellbore bottomhole pressure, psi
t - Time, hrs
Awb - Area of wellbore, ft2
gc - Gravitational constant, 32.2 lb f ft/s2/lbm
g - Acceleration of gravity, 32.2 ft/s2
wb - Density of fluid in wellbore, lbm/ft 3
cwb - Compressibility of fluid in wellbore, psi -1
Vwb - Wellbore volume, bbl
Unit-Slope Line
• Flowing well
• Fluid stored in wellbore
• No flow from formation
• Shut-in well
• Afterflow equals rate prior to shut in

Pressure Elapsed time

change since qBt  qB 
log  p   log  t   log  
start of flow
p   24C 
or shut in
24C Wellbore
storage
coefficient
Unit-Slope Line

Line with slope

= 1 cycle/cycle
log p
Use any point (Dt, Dp)
on line to calculate C

log t
 Introduction
Well bore storage concept

Fig-2 Well bore storage concept

08/11/2024 15
 Introduction
Skin Factor
The permeability of the formation near the wellbore can change and lead to additional resistance.
The resistance results can be expressed by

Fig.3 Skin factor concept .

08/11/2024 16
 Introduction
Apparent Wellbore Radius:
 Apparent wellbore radius can be introduced along with skin factor.

𝑟 𝑤𝑎 ≡𝑟 𝑤 𝑒
−𝑠
𝒔=− ln
𝒓 𝒘𝒂
𝒓𝒘 ( )

08/11/2024 17
 Formation Damage and Skin

1. Causes of damage skin

2. Causes of geometric skin
3. Pressure drop due to skin
4. Rate-Dependent Skin
5. Flow efficiency
6. Skin factor and wellbore radius
• Damage Caused by Drilling Fluid;

• Damage Caused by Production;

• Damage Caused by Injection;

Geometric Skin
• Partial Penetration

ht
s sd  s p
hp

• Deviated Wellbore

s  sd  s
2.06 1.865
  '
 
'
h 
s    w
  
w
log D 
 41   56   100 

 kv  h kh
 w'  tan 1  tan w  hD 
 kh  rw kv
• Completion Skin

s  s p  sd  sdp

 h  rdp  k R k R 
sdp   ln   
 L p n  rp  k dp k d 
   
Skin and Pressure Drop;

0.00708 k h
s ps
qB

141.2qB
ps  s
kh

k   rs 
s    1 ln 
 k s   rw 
 Inertial-Turbulent Flow and Rate-Dependent Skin
The diffusivity equation assumes that Darcy’s law represents the relationship between
flow velocity and pressure gradients in the reservoir, an assumption that is adequate for
low velocity or laminar flow. However, at higher flow velocities, deviations from Darcy’s
law are observed, due to inertial effects initially and later to turbulent flow effects. In one-
dimensional radial flow, these inertial-turbulent effects (often called “non-Darcy” flow
effects) are confined to the region near the wellbore in which flow velocities are largest.
This results in an additional pressure drop similar to that caused by skin, but the
additional pressure drop is proportional to flow rate. The apparent skin, s’, for a well with
non-Darcy flow near the wellbore is given by the equation on this slide,
where D is the non-Darcy flow factor for the system. D can be regarded as constant,
although in theory it depends slightly on near-well pressure. In practice, non-Darcy flow is
ordinarily important only for gas wells, which have high flow velocities near the wellbore,
but it can be important for oil wells with high velocity flow in some situations.

s  s  Dq
Continue
Estimating The Non-Darcy Flow Coefficient
From Turbulence Parameter

• Often, only one test is available

• If so, we can estimate D from

15
2.715  10 k g Mp sc
D
hrwTsc  g ,wf
Estimating The Turbulence Parameter

• If it is not known,  can be estimated from

10 1.47 0.53
  1.88 10 k 
Effective Wellbore Radius

 rw ' 
s   ln
r


 w 

' s
rw  rwe
 Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA)

1- Conventional Methods

(Semi-Log )

2- Modern Methods

(Log-Log)
Modern Well Test Analysis Methods
Type Curve Matching
(Log-Log)

1- Gringarten Type Curve

PD vs TD/CD
2- Derivatives Type Curve

TDPD vs TD/CD
Pressure And Derivative Type Curves
 Time Regions On The Type Curve
100

WBS Transition Radial Flow

10

p’D=0.5 Horizontal Derivative

pD

1/2 log cycles

Unit Slope Line 1.5+ log cycles:
required
Radial Flow
0.1

Middle Time
Early Time Region
Region

0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
tD/CD
Type Curve Matching

• Plot field data on log-log scale.

• Align horizontal part of field data and type curve

derivative.

• Align unit slope part of field data and type curve.

• Select value of CDe2s that best matches field data.

 TCMATCH.WTD (Field Data)

10000

1000
Pressure change, psi

100

10

1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Equivalent time, hrs

 TCMATCH.WTD (Drawdown type curve, Radial equivalent time)
Radial flow, Single porosity, Infinite-acting: Varying CDe2s
100

10
Dimensionless pressure 1000

Pressure change, psi

100

0.1
10

0.01
1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Equivalent time, hr

0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Dimensionless time
 TCMATCH.WTD (Drawdown type curve, Radial equivalent time)
Radial flow, Single porosity, Infinite-acting: Varying CDe2s
100

1000

10

Pressure change, psi

100
Dimensionless pressure

10

0.1

1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Equivalent time, hr
0.01

0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Dimensionless time
 TCMATCH.WTD (Drawdown type curve, Radial equivalent time)
Radial flow, Single porosity, Infinite-acting: Varying CDe2s
100

1000

10

Pressure change, psi

100
Dimensionless pressure

10

0.1

1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Equivalent time, hr
0.01

0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Dimensionless time
 TCMATCH.WTD (Drawdown type curve, Radial equivalent time)
Radial flow, Single porosity, Infinite-acting: Varying CDe2s
100
CDe2s=7x109
pD=10 p=262 psi 1000

10

Pressure change, psi

100
Dimensionless pressure

10

0.1

1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Equivalent time, hr
0.01 teq=0.0546 hr

0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

tD/CD=1 Dimensionless time

System Modeling
Time Regions of Pressure Data
Well Test Models
Early Time Models
 Well, Reservoir and Boundary Models

• At early time during the wellbore storage-dominated flow, the curves follow a unit
slope log–log straight line.
• When infinite-acting radial flow is reached, the curves become horizontal.

• The transition from pure wellbore storage to infinite-acting behaviour gives a

“hump” with a height that characterizes the value of the skin factor.
 Wellbore Storage & Skin
• When a well is opened at surface , the first flow at the

wellhead is due to the expansion of wellbore fluid .

• This expansion continues after the reservoir fluid starts to

contribute to the production , until the sand face flow rate equals

the surface flow rate . This effect is called wellbore storage .

• The reverse effect is known after flow and it occurs during a

shut-in .
 Early Time Models Wellbore storage and Skin

Skin is an additional pressure change due to heterogeneities close to the wellbore. It is a deviation
from the ideal inflow.
Early Time Models Infinite conductivity vertical fracture
Infinite Conductivity : No Pressure Drop along the fracture
Uniform Flux: Uniform Production per unit length of fracture
Early Time Models Finite conductivity vertical fracture
The flow Inside the fracture is no longer neglected, and at early time we may observe a Bilinear flow
When the fracture effect dominates we may observe linear flow

The bi-linear flow regime is usually

happening at very early time, and is not
always seen
Early Time Models Partial penetrating (limited entry) well

Hemispherical

Spherical
Early Time Models Horizontal well
Early Time Models Horizontal well
Summary of Models

x-axis of specialized plots *

Well Test Models
Middle Time Models
 Available Reservoir Models
• Radial and homogeneous infinite acting

• Dual porosity

• Dual permeability

• Radial composite

• Linear composite

• Etc…
Middle Time Models Homogeneous

Horner Semi-Log Plot

 Middle Time Models Double Porosity

Two distinct porous media are interacting in

Naturally Fractured Reservoir
the reservoir:
• Matrix blocks with low permeability.
Cube Slab

• Fissures system with high permeability and Matchstick

uniformly distributed throughout the reservoir.

Middle Time Models Double porosity
Also called Pseudo Steady State regime: Skin > 0

1) At early times only the fissures flow into the well. The contribution of the matrix is negligible. This corresponds
to the homogeneous behavior of the fissure system.
2) At intermediate times the matrix starts to produce into the fissures until the pressure tends to stabilize. This
corresponds to a transition flow regime.
3) Later, the matrix pressure equalizes the pressure of the surrounding fissures. This corresponds to the
homogeneous behavior of the total system (matrix and fissures).

A strong WBS effect can

sometimes mask the fissure
system radial flow
 Middle Time Models Double porosity
Effect of ω

Effect of Lambda λ

Note
• If there is no skin damage at the surface
of the matrix blocks.
• The matrix reacts immediately to any
change in pressure in the fissure system
and the first fissure homogeneous
regime is often not seen (s = 0)
Middle Time Models Double Permeability

In each homogeneous layer the

flow is radial

kh 1

kh 1  kh2
Well Test Models
Late Time Models
 Boundary Models

• Infinite acting reservoir

• Linear no-flow boundary

• Constant pressure boundary

• Channel reservoir

• Intersecting sealing faults

Late Time Models Single Boundary
Late Time Models Intersecting Boundaries “ Wedge”
Late Time Models Parallel Boundaries “ Channels”
Late Time Models Circular Boundaries

No depletion
Late Time Models Composite Rectangle

Example
 1 and 3 are sealing faults
 2 is constant pressure
 4 is infinite
Late Time Models Composite Rectangle

Two Parallel
Closed Rectangle
Faults

Two Intersecting
Faults

Single Boundary

Two Intersecting Single Boundary

Closed Rectangle
Constant Pressure
Cautions:
• Recognizing may be as important as analyzing .

• Many reservoir models may produce similar pressure

responses .

• Interpretation model must be consistent with geological

and geophysical interpretations .

• Boundaries affect pressure responses of drawdown and

buildup tests differently .

Integrated Well Test
Interpretation
 Integrating Test Interpretation
Geology Model
Selection

Parameter
Geophysics
Estimation
Flow Regime
Identification

Model
Petrophysics Validation

Well Test
Engineering
Interpretation
Data
Interpreting Integrated Data
• Importance of Model Selection

• Integrating Other Data

• Geological Data

• Geophysical Data

• Petrophysical Data

• Engineering Data

• Validating the Reservoir Model

• Common Errors and Misconceptions

Similar Model Responses

Well in a Wedge Composite Reservoir

Multiple ‘Knobs’ Confuse
Composite Reservoir Well in a Box

W
R
L
M1,S1 D2
M2,S2 D1

• Mobility ratio M1/M2 • Distance to wall D1

• Storativity ratio S1/S2 • Distance to wall D2
• Distance to boundary • Reservoir length L
R • Reservoir width W
Models ‘Simplify’ Geology

-79
Well A 00

-85 -83 -81

-8 -87 00
-9 9 00 00 00 00
1 00

• Interpretation model must be consistent with (not

identical to) geological model
• Have we oversimplified the geology?
Responses Differ With Test Type

Slight divergence;

Closed Reservoir - DD Const Pres Boundary - DD TC

TC

Close match

Closed Reservoir - BU Const Pres Boundary - BU TC

TC
Importance Of Model Selection
• Most major errors caused by use of wrong
model instead of wrong method:
• Meaningless estimates

• Misleading estimates

• Two aspects of model selection:

• Selecting reservoir geometry

• Identifying features of pressure response

 Geology Offers Insights
• Depositional environment • Diagenesis

• Reservoir size • Types of boundaries

• Shape • Faults
• Orientation • Sealing

• Reservoir heterogeneity • Partially sealing

• Layering • Fluid contacts

• Natural fractures • Gas/oil

• Oil/water
Geophysics and Petrophysics
• Structure • Net pay thickness
• Faults • Porosity
• Location • Fluid saturations
• Size • Fluid contacts
• Reservoir • Lithology
compartments
• Layering
• Shape
• Orientation • Evidence of natural
fractures
 Engineering Data
• Drilling data—daily reports
• Production and flow test data
• Stimulation treatment results
• Fracture design half-length, conductivity
• Fracture treating pressure analysis results
• Problems during treatment—daily reports
• Data from offset wells
• Possible interference—production records
• Well test results
‘Reality Checks’ Validate Model
• Wellbore storage coefficient

• Skin factor

• Core permeability

• Pressure response during flow period

• Productivity index

• Average reservoir pressure

• Radius of investigation

• Distances to boundaries
Wellbore Storage Coefficient
Fluid-filled wellbore Rising liquid level

C  Vwb cwb C
144 Awb g c
5.615  wb g
• WBS coefficient from test should be within order of
magnitude of estimate

• Phase segregation can cause smaller WBS

• WBS coefficient >100x estimated value may indicate

reservoir storage instead of WBS
 Skin Factor
• Likely estimates by completion type:
• Natural completion 0
• Acid treatment -1 to -3
• Fracture treatment -3 to -6
• Gravel pack +5 to +10
• Frac pack -2 to +2

• Local field experience may suggest more

appropriate values
• Skin factor < -6 very unlikely
Core Permeability
• In-situ permeability from well test
• Core permeability to air
• High—overburden and saturation
• Low—natural fractures
• Total kh from core adjusted to in-situ value less
than kh from well test
• Fractures
• Missing core
• Most useful when entire interval cored
Production Period Pressure
• Must be consistent with shut-in pressure
response

• Must ensure consistency

• Interpret flow periods independently.

• Predict flow period pressures from results of buildup.

• Match flow and buildup periods simultaneously.

Productivity Index

Field Data q
J
p  pwf

Model Parameters
kh
J
 1  10.06 A  3 
141.2 B  ln     s
2 
 2  Aw  4
C r 

Correct model should give consistent values

Average Reservoir Pressure
• Compare average reservoir pressure from test
interpretation
• Material balance

• Analytical simulation

• Numerical simulation

• Results should be similar if same reservoir

model is used
 Radius of Investigation
kt kte
ri  ri 
948ct 948ct
• Estimate radius of investigation
• Beginning of middle-time region
• End of middle-time region
• Unrealistically large ri may indicate selected MTR is
incorrect
• Very small ri may indicate wrong MTR or test not
measuring reservoir characteristics
 Distance to Boundaries
• Reservoir size
• Production data
• Geological data
• Geophysical data
• Distances to boundaries
• Geological data
• Geophysical data

• Geoscience professionals should develop common

interpretation model.
Independent Parameters
• Dual porosity from fracture width,
spacing:
– Storativity ratio 

– Interporosity flow coefficient 

Independent Parameters

• Dual porosity from fracture width, spacing

• Composite reservoir parameters for water flood

injection well
• Radius of waterflooded zone

• Mobility ratio (k/)1/(k/)2

• Storativity ratio (ct)1/ (ct)2

Common Errors
• Most-often-misused models
• Well between two sealing faults

• Well in a radially composite reservoir

• Well in a rectangular reservoir

• Common misconceptions
• Unit-slope line indicates wellbore storage

• Peak in derivative indicates radial flow

• Strong aquifer acts as constant-pressure boundary

Well Between Two Sealing
Faults
Well in a Wedge

 Angle between faults

 Distance from well to 1st fault
 Distance from well to 2nd fault
Radially Composite Reservoir

Composite Reservoir

• Mobility ratio M1/M2

• Storativity ratio S1/S2
• Distance to boundary R
 Rectangular Reservoir
Well in a Box

L
D2
D1

• Distance to wall D1
• Distance to wall D2
• Reservoir length L
• Reservoir width W
 Unit-slope line always
indicates wellbore storage

• Unit-slope line may be caused by

• Pseudosteady-state flow
(drawdown test only)
• Recharge of high-permeability zone (either
drawdown or buildup test)
Peak in derivative implies radial flow

Linear
Bilinear
Radial

Spherical

• Peak in derivative may be caused by a flow

restriction for any flow regime
 Strong aquifer acts as constant
pressure boundary

• Mobility of water must be much higher than

that of reservoir fluid to act as constant
pressure boundary
• Maybe, maybe not for oil
• Never for gas