SPE 111269

A Deconvolution Method Based on Cumulative Production for Continuously Measured

Flowrate and Pressure Data
D. Ilk, SPE, P.P. Valk, SPE, and T.A. Blasingame, SPE, Texas A&M U.

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in
Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A., 1719 October 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This work presents a new methodology for the analysis of
permanent downhole gauge and production data based on the
deconvolution of cumulative production and bottomhole pressure measurements.
In this work we show that the cumulative production is a convolution of pressure drop (as if the well were producing at a
series of constant flowing bottomhole pressures) and flowrates
(as if the well were producing at a constant pressure throughout the production history). We then employ our modified Bspline based deconvolution algorithm which, in this work, is
based on constant stepwise pressures. We use the analytical
integration of the B-splines, weighted least squares and regularization to obtain the constant-pressure rate response function and further to estimate the initial pressure. The Laplace
transformation is not required in this work.
We have validated this approach thoroughly using a synthetic
case and we have applied this methodology to various field
example cases consisting of both high and low frequency production data. The results indicate that the new method is very
efficient in recovering the constant-pressure rate response
function in cases where rates are controlled by series of constant flowing bottomhole pressures. We also provide a
procedure to check the correlation between pressure and rate
measurements by the joint use of two deconvolution methods
(SPE 95571 and this work).
Introduction
Our primary goal is to provide a robust and error-tolerant
deconvolution approach for the diagnosis of "high-frequency"
permanent downhole gauge and "long-term" production data.
Our approach centers on the use of the cumulative production
as the "impulse" in the convolution/deconvolution process.
(SPE 111269 DRAFT DI Version, 071017)

This approach is in contrast to prior work [Ilk et al (2006)] in

which we focused on using the raw rate and pressure history
for our "B-spline deconvolution" algorithm.
In the work by Ilk et al (2006) the objective was to provide the
constant-rate pressure response function and as noted
before, our method focuses on providing the constant-pressure
rate response function. As stated, obtaining the constantpressure rate response function is not the ultimate objective
but the most important step in our procedure for the diagnosis
of the production data. In fact, in this paper we do not propose
to analyze the deconvolved rate response function exclusively
obviously these results can be analyzed, but our contention
is that the results alone will not be very meaningful unless this
procedure (deconvolution) is used in conjunction with another
method (i.e. forward modeling).
We believe that no matter how robust a particular deconvolution algorithm may be, the severely ill-conditioned nature of
the problem prevents the generation of a high resolution
deconvolved response function. At this point regularization
(or some other optimization constraint method) becomes the
critical element for a given deconvolution algorithm where
regularization is used to overcome errors associated with the
data. An "ideal" regularization method will yield a "wellbehaved" solution however; regularization may yield
smoothness, but it may (and probably will) yield biased
deconvolved responses. Bias in the raw data functions can
yield artifacts in the deconvolved response which may be
misinterpreted as reservoir features.
Our primary hypothesis is that the only way to verify if
deconvolution is successful or not is to regenerate the
pressures and rates using convolution based on the "solution"
of the deconvolution problem i.e., the constant-rate pressure response function or the constant-pressure rate response
function, as appropriate. In such a scheme the measured
pressure would be convolved with the constant-pressure
(deconvolution) solution to "regenerate" the rate profile. A
similar approach would be used for the measured rates to
generate the variable-rate pressure profile.
What does this prove? In a simplistic fashion we are using
deconvolution as a "filter," then use the filtered results to
"regenerate" the unfiltered results this process serves to
validate the data, to assess quality and establish how well the
measured rates and pressures are correlated. This is not an
analysis process. It is a consistency check, and if the

D. Ilk, P.P. Valk, and T.A. Blasingame

measured and "regenerated" data do not agree, then the data

are not correlated, and any deconvolution or convolution
would be invalid. Some might argue that such an approach is
prone to artifacts, but as our examples will show, this is not
the case.
Used properly, this process should prevent over-smoothing in
the deconvolution as an over-smooth deconvolution solution
would yield an oversmoothed convolution when we
"regenerate" the data functions. The approach has been
successful in our experience so far, but we have also observed
some cases where the deconvolution methodology could not
yield smooth results with optimum regularization. In those
cases reproduced data honor the base data to a certain extent
but the deconvolved responses are not smooth enough to be
analyzed and increasing the effect of regularization in the
solution results in over-smoothing.
At this point we do not choose to make changes in the
deconvolution methodology (in particular changes related with
implementation of the regularization procedure used in methodology). We believe that the issues are data related (e.g.
synchronization of pressure/rate data, transient break point
identification [Nomura (2006)], inconsistencies in pressure/
rate data, etc.) and further modification of the methodology
will not significantly improve the results without considering
the factors mentioned before. This can be another path for
further study but in this work we shift our attention to identify
the correlation between pressure and rate data using deconvolution. If the data are correlated then it is possible to
perform any type of analysis on the data set.
We note that the significance of deconvolution in well test and
production analysis is not underestimated but we put forward
another use of deconvolution we believe that the identification of the correlation between pressure and rate data has
significant importance in well test and production data
analysis in terms of diagnostics. In particular, this is an
important issue in "high-frequency" data sets where data
measurements are taken by permanent downhole gauges.
In the light of these remarks, we propose to use variable rate
and variable pressure deconvolution approaches together and
regenerate the pressure and rate responses and finally check if
the data are correlated or not. Ideally, when two approaches
are used together, regenerated pressures and rates have to be
identical with the base data. Any deviations or mismatches
are attributed to data inconsistencies. We believe that tying
both the constant rate and constant pressure deconvolution
approaches together will provide a "double deconvolution"
process, which while independent, should yield a clear
correlation of the production rates and pressures if these data
are truly correlated. Again, our goal is to provide a simultaneous data diagnostic and a data quality check.
To begin this process, we modify our B-spline based
deconvolution algorithm [Ilk et al (2006)] to yield constantpressure rate response functions. For this case we must recall
the diffusivity equation, for convenience we cite van Everdingen and Hurst [van Everdingen and Hurst (1949)] as this
was one of the earliest and most comprehensive treatments on
the solution of the diffusivity equation. From van Everdingen
and Hurst, in modern nomenclature, we have:

SPE 111269

1 p
k p
r
=
(in Darcy (or SI) units).................. (1)
r r r ct t

Mathematically, a particular solution to Eq. 1 (i.e. second order partial differential equation) is obtained by employing an
initial condition and two boundary conditions the outer
boundary condition defines the reservoir boundary as the inner
boundary condition describes the operating conditions. Well
test analysis solutions are generally constructed upon the solution of Eq. 1 using constant rate inner boundary condition.
When the inner boundary condition is not constant (i.e. rates
are changing with time) then Duhamel principle (superposition
principle) applies to yield the flowing well pressures which are
affected by the variable flow rates. The simplest example of a
variable rate inner boundary condition is a production
sequence which consists of a constant rate drawdown followed
by a shut-in. Eliminating the variable rate effects on the pressure and transforming the entire production sequence into a
constant rate equivalent is essentially a variable-rate deconvolution problem and recently robust algorithms have been
proposed in the literature to solve this problem [von Schroeter
et al (2002, 2004), Levitan (2005), Levitan et al (2006), Ilk et
al (2006), Ilk (2005)]. In addition, an investigation on these
algorithms is also available in literature [Cinar et al (2006)].
Contrary to the well testing, long term production of a well is
controlled by a constant bottomhole flowing pressures and for
those cases Eq. 1 is solved by applying constant pressure inner
boundary condition to obtain the rate function. In a similar
way, the rate function which is affected by the variable
pressure changes is acquired by the Duhamel's principle as
well and solving for the constant pressure rate function
translates into variable-pressure deconvolution. Few attempts
have focused on variable-pressure deconvolution in the literature so far. Unneland et al (1998) presents the application of
"rate convolution" for reservoir description and well performance monitoring. On the other hand, Kuchuk et al (2005)
provides a modification of the von Schroeter algorithm [von
Schroeter et al (2002, 2004)] for obtaining the constant-pressure rate function which they call this procedure as the rate/pressure deconvolution in their work. Kuchuk et al apply this
methodology for monitoring the productivity index, production forecast and parameter estimation.
Our approach is by some means similar to Kuchuk et al
methodology. But, our main objective is to use the variablepressure deconvolution algorithm along with the variable-rate
deconvolution algorithm for the diagnostics of the production
data. In addition, we prefer to analyze the deconvolved rate
response function in "decline-rate" form [Fetkovich (1980)]
and its auxiliary functions [Doublet et al (1994)] with the use
of "material balance time" [Blasingame and Lee (1988),
Doublet et al (1994)]. We note that this procedure is the regular practice in the analysis of the production data [Palacio and
Blasingame (1993), Agarwal et al (1999)] either by type
curves or modeling (since few solutions of Eq. 1 using
constant-pressure inner boundary condition have been developed to date compared to the solutions using constant-rate
inner boundary condition).
In short, in this work we provide a deconvolution method to
obtain the constant-pressure rate function using the cumulative

SPE 111269

A Deconvolution Method Based on Cumulative Production for Continuously Measured Flowrate and Pressure Data

production and flowing bottomhole pressure as the input data

for deconvolution. We also regenerate the variable-pressure
rates using the constant-pressure rate function (obtained from
deconvolution) by superposition and compare the regenerated
rates with the base rate data. We tie this procedure with the
regenerated variable-rate pressures using the constant-pressure
rate function (obtained from variable-rate deconvolution algorithm) to check the data consistency. Further, we analyze the
deconvolved rate response function using the decline rate and
its auxiliary functions by matching with a type curve and/or
with a model. In the next section we describe the development of the modified B-spline based deconvolution methodology.
Development of the Modified Deconvolution Method
Based on Cumulative Production and Pressures
As mentioned before in well test analysis the solution of the
diffusivity equation (Eq. 1) is derived using the constant rate
inner boundary condition (i.e., the constant-rate pressure response solution). For the variable-rate case, then the pressure
response is obtained using the superposition principle (i.e.,
Duhamel's principle), which is given in the convolution
integral form as:
t

pwf (t ) = pi

q(t ) p'u ( ) d .................................... (2)

The goal of the variable-rate deconvolution (solving for the

constant-rate pressure response, which is essentially the inverse problem) is to estimate the constant flowrate reservoir
response using the measured pressure and flowrate data. For
most deconvolution algorithms which reside in the recent
petroleum engineering literature [Kuchuk et al (2005), Levitan
(2005), Levitan et al (2006), von Schroeter et al (2002,
2004)], the algorithms are based on the use of constant stepwise flowrates (the exception is the Ilk et al (2006) algorithm
where the rates are represented continuously (in functional
form) and Laplace transform is involved).
The rates are convolved (leading to Laplace transformation if
rates are represented with functionals) or superposed (discretization in real time domain if rates are represented using constant stepwise functions) with the derivative of the unknown,
constant-rate pressure response function. Where the constantrate pressure response function is represented (approximated)
using an interpolating function. As the final step, the resulting
system of equations is solved for the coefficients of the
interpolating function in order to obtain the constant-rate
pressure response function.
Given the discussion above, it is reasonable to assume that for
the analysis of production data, the B-spline based
deconvolution algorithm should work as efficiently as they
work in the case of well test analysis (pressure transient test
data). As long-term production data sequences are often approximated by series of constant bottomhole pressures, we believe that the generalized deconvolution approach should work
well for the "step-pressure" case and consequently deconvolution approach should be modified to yield the constant-pressure rate function instead of constant-rate pressure function.

In such cases, since the rates can not be controlled by a single

constant bottomhole pressure during the entire production
history, the rate data are distorted by the variable pressures
which results in the variable-pressure rate response function.
The solution of the diffusivity equation using the constant
pressure inner boundary condition (Eq. 1) and using the
Duhamel's principle leads us the following convolution
integral describing the variable-pressure rate response function:
t

q (t ) =

p wf (t )q'u ( ) d .......................................... (3)

In Eq. 3, we note that q'u (t ) represents the derivative of the

constant-pressure rate solution. Eq. 3 can be derived from Eq.
2 and the details are given in the seminal work of van
Everdingen and Hurst [van Everdingen and Hurst (1949)].
The work by Kuchuk et al [Kuchuk et al (2005)] presents a
deconvolution methodology based on the solution of Eq. 3 as
indicated before.
In this work, our goal is to use the cumulative production
profile instead of the rate profile as depicted in Eq. 3. Therefore, taking the integral of both sides of Eq. 3 with respect to
time, we obtain
t

N p (t ) =

p wf (t ) qu ( ) d ...................................... (4)

For a quick proof, if pwf(t) is assumed constant, it is factored

out of the integral and we obtain the definition of the cumulative production function. We state two reasons for using the
cumulative production data: First, we favor to solve for the
rate function (in Eq. 4) rather than solving for the derivative of
the rate function with respect to time (in Eq. 3) because the
rate-derivative function will more likely to be unstable. Second, cumulative production data are smoother (and generally
more reliable) than rate data and therefore considering the illconditioned nature of the problem, using the cumulative production data should provide advantages on the methodology
than using the rate profile.
We now create the B-spline methodology using Eq. 4 by
representing the unknown constant-pressure rate function as a
linear combination of 2nd-order B-splines this gives:
u
qu (t ) = ci Bi2 (t ) .............................................................. (5)
i=l

Substituting Eq. 5 into Eq. 3, we have:

t

N p (t ) =

0 i = l ci Bi2 ( t - ) pwf ( ) d

.............................. (6)

If we have m cumulative pressure observations collected in a

~
vector N p that were observed at times (t1, t2, tm) then the
problem can be written as an overdetermined system of linear
equations.
This overdetermined set of equations is written as (we show
here the case where the weights are unity):
~
Np = Xc ............................................................................ (7)

D. Ilk, P.P. Valk, and T.A. Blasingame

Where X is the mxn sensitivity matrix (n is the number of

unknown B-spline coefficients and n=u-l+1). Theoretically,
the elements of the sensitivity matrix are defined as:
X j,i =

tj

Bi2 (t j ) pwf ( ) d ...................................... (8)

Where tj is the time when the rate and pressure measurement is

taken. We can take the pressure drop function outside the
integral when we use constant stepwise pressure drop functions for representing the continuous pressure drop profile as
expressed in Eq. 8 (similar to superposition). Performing
these operations on Eq. 8, we obtain:
j

X j,i = p wf (t j t j 1 )

Bi2,int (t j tk 1) .......................... (9)

k =1

In this case, Eq 9 can be calculated by use of closed formulas

where the analytic integral of the second-order B-spline is
available [Cheney and Kincaid (2003)] and hence the Laplace
transformation is not required. In this work, the entire
methodology (i.e., weighting and regularization) is same with
Ilk et al (2006) [Ilk et al (2006)] except for the calculation
of the elements of the sensitivity matrix, X. In this work we
use constant stepwise pressure drop functions to obtain Eq. 9
from Eq. 8 and therefore the use of the Laplace transformation
is not required. Note that the Laplace transformation is also
not needed in the previous methodology (variable rate deconvolution) as well when the rate data are denoted by constant
stepwise functions.
Proceeding, we solve Eq. 7 (using weighted least squares) for
the coefficients of the B-spline function with proper weighting
of the data and appropriate levels of regularization. Once the
coefficients are obtained, the constant-pressure rate function is
constructed (we denote this process as the variable-pressure
rate deconvolution throughout this work). We finally regenerate the rates affected by the variable-pressure profile by
convolution/superposition using the obtained constant-pressure rate function. The interested reader is referred to Ilk et al
(2006) [Ilk et al (2006)] for the details regarding the "Bspline" deconvolution methodology. It is worth to note that
the initial pressure can also be estimated while solving Eq. 7
for the unknown B-spline coefficients.

SPE 111269

To generate the variable-pressure rate responses, we have

specified three different constant-pressure sequences throughout the production history and we generate the rates by
convolving the constant-pressure rate solution (Eq. 10) with
the prescribed pressure drops in Laplace domain. Finally we
take the inverse Laplace transform to get the rate function in
time domain (Fig 1a).
Table 1 Reservoir and fluid properties for the Validation Case

Reservoir Properties:
Wellbore radius, rw
Net pay thickness, h
Formation permeability, k
Formation compressibility, ct
Porosity,
Outer boundary radius, re
Initial reservoir pressure, pi
Wellbore storage coefficient, CD
Skin factor, sx

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Fluid Properties:
Fluid viscosity, o
Formation volume factor, Bo

= 1 cp
= 1 RB/STB

0.3 ft
50 ft
2 md
510-6 1/psi
0.15 (fraction)
420 ft
5000 psi
0 (dimensionless)
0 (dimensionless)

Production Parameters:
Reference flowing pressure, pwf,ref = 2500 psia
Figs. 1a and 1b present the base and input data for deconvolution. Our goal is to create a production sequence which is
controlled by constant bottomhole pressures to mimic a typical
production sequence from a producing well. Note that the
changes in pressures cause transient flow periods at the beginning of each pressure variation. Traditional decline curve analysis methods [Arps (1945)] make use of fitting functions
(hyperbolic/exponential/harmonic) to the rate decline function
and proceed to forecast. In addition exponential decline empirically corresponds to the condition where the flowing bottomhole pressure is constant throughout the production sequence
during the boundary dominated flow region. In Figs 1a and
1b exponential rate decline is easy to be identified at each
production interval because of the constant bottomhole pressures.

Validation Constant Pressure Production

In this section, we provide the validation of the methodology
by comparing the results from the deconvolution procedure
with the exact constant-pressure rate solution using a reservoir
model. We have selected a homogeneous reservoir with a circular boundary (the reservoir and fluid parameters used for
this model are given in Table 1) where the single-phase flowing fluid is oil.
For reference, the constant-pressure rate solution of a
homogeneous reservoir with circular boundary is given in
Laplace domain by:
q D (s) =

s I1 (re s ) K1 ( s ) s I1 (re s ) K1 ( s )
s I1 (re s ) K 0 ( s ) + s I 0 ( s ) K1 (re s )

......... (10)

Figure 1a Generated flowrate data using the constantpressure rate solution.

SPE 111269

A Deconvolution Method Based on Cumulative Production for Continuously Measured Flowrate and Pressure Data

we have presented a comprehensive study on deconvolution

results when the base data are corrupted by errors.

Figure 1b Bottomhole pressure data and computed cumulative oil production data (input data for deconvolution).

Our motivation in this example is to prove that the modified

B-spline based deconvolution algorithm successfully converts
the variable-pressure rates into a constant pressure equivalent
rate function by matching the deconvolved response with the
exact (analytical) solution (i.e. Eq. 10). After getting the deconvolved rate response function it is theoretically possible to
employ Arps' analysis [Arps (1945)] using the exponential
decline function. But again we mention that the deconvolved
response rate function will include the transient flow region
and exponential decline function is only valid for the boundary
dominated flow region. Fig. 2 presents the deconvolved constant-pressure rate response function and its auxiliary functions (i.e. rate-integral and rate-integral derivative) in log-log
coordinates. Note that the auxiliary functions are computed
numerically from the deconvolved rate response function.
Since this is an "ideal" synthetic case we see an excellent resolution of the transient and boundary dominated flow regimes.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Comparison of the deconvolved data with the

exact solution validation of the concept.

Therefore, here we do not choose the show the cases with random errors since the B-spline based deconvolution methodology is essentially the same with the previous work (except
for not taking the Laplace transformation of the convolution
integral in this work we believe that this will not have a
significant effect on the deconvolution results when data are
corrupted by random errors but a further investigation may be
required).
Fig. 4 presents the deconvolved rate response rate function in
semi-log coordinates along with the base rate data and the
analytical solution. This plot (Fig. 4) simply illustrates the
definition of deconvolution. Taking the reference pressure as
the first pressure at the beginning of the production sequence,
deconvolution provides the equivalent rate response function
as if the well is producing with a constant reference bottomhole pressure. Furthermore, the effect of the pressure variations and the related transients on the rate response is eliminated with deconvolution as can be seen in Fig. 4. Finally,
traditional decline curve analysis can be performed by using
the exponential decline model (constant bottomhole pressure)
in the boundary dominated flow region of the deconvolved
rate response function.

Deconvolved rate data functions (constant pressure equivalent case).

In Fig. 3 we verify our results by matching with the analytical

results obtained by using Eq. 10. We get a nearly identical
match with the analytical solution confirming the validity of
our concept and methodology. It is noted that in this work we
do not present deconvolution results when the input data are
corrupted by random (Gaussian) errors. In our previous studies ([Ilk (2005)], [Ilk et al (2006)] and [Cinar et al (2006)])

Figure 4

Comparison of the variable-pressure rate data with

the deconvolved (constant-pressure) rate data.

D. Ilk, P.P. Valk, and T.A. Blasingame

We present the Cartesian plot of the regenerated rates and the

base rate data in Fig. 5 we also note the identical match.
The regenerated rates are obtained by convolving (superposing) the deconvolved rate response function with the available pressure history during the production sequence.

SPE 111269

robust mechanism to analyze production data. Second and

most importantly, we will demonstrate that the combined use
of variable-rate and variable-pressure deconvolution results in
a significant diagnostic tool for checking the consistency of
the production data. The latter has particular importance in
production monitoring applications.
Example 1: East Texas Gas Well

Figure 5

Regenerated rate data using deconvolution, identical match with the base rate data.

The purpose of this plot is to check if the base rate data are
matched with the regenerated rates according to superposition
principle. If data are not matched then deconvolution fails for
the particular case. In other words any deviations or mismatches indicate the inconsistency of the data set. As stated
before we will mostly focus on the diagnostics (consistency
check) of the production data set. As such, we also plot the
regenerated pressures obtained from variable-rate deconvolution to check with the base pressure data as well we
also call this process in this work as the "double deconvolution" approach. Essentially, the pressure and rate matches
indicate the consistency level of the data set therefore we
believe that Fig. 5 has significant value as we will show more
field examples in the following section.

Our first example presents a hydraulically fractured tight gas

well from an East Texas gas field. This case was initially
presented and analyzed by Pratikno et al [Pratikno et al
(2003)] using decline type curves developed for hydraulically
fractured wells. We have also analyzed this well in our
previous work by variable-rate deconvolution [Ilk et al
(2006)]. We were recently provided with an update data for
this well extending the production history to almost 6 years.
Fig. 6a presents the production data for this well this well
has been on continuous surveillance (daily surface gas rates
and surface pressures available) for almost 6 years. We observe a few off-trend data some erratic pressures and scattered
rates. Other than that production data are considered to be
good quality by initial visual inspection and later we are going
to prove our statement using our proposed procedure for data
consistency check.
In Fig. 6b we present the input data for deconvolution
cumulative production and pressure. There is an overall
constant pressure trend throughout the production (except for
some abnormal pressures) and we note that cumulative production follows a very smooth trend which should yield a
more stable deconvolution process according to our expectations.

Application Field Cases

In this section we present four field example applications of
the new variable-pressure deconvolution approach. We will
demonstrate the use of our modified deconvolution algorithm
on two "long-term" production data field cases, one permanent
downhole gauge case and on one field case which is a typical
well testing example. We have categorized the field examples
below:
East Texas (US) (Tight Gas) Well "regular" (daily) surface
rate and pressure measurements.
Canada (Tight Gas) Well "continuous" (very high frequency) rate and downhole pressure measurements.
South America Oil Well constant surface rates followed by
shut-ins and "continuous" (high frequency) downhole pressure measurements.
Wyoming (US) (Tight Gas) Well "regular" (daily) surface
rate and pressure measurements.

This exercise has two primary purposes: First, we will show

that the modified B-spline based deconvolution algorithm
without using the Laplace transformation and with the use of
cumulative production and pressure data as the input is a

Figure 6a East Tx gas well, production history plot.

quality is good in general.

Data

Before performing deconvolution, we need to specify that the

initial pressure for this well was available from the operator
and later we confirm this value with the initial pressure
estimate obtained by the deconvolution algorithm. We use the
entire data sequence for deconvolution but weight the data less
which we consider unreliable. However, before proceeding
further at this point we have to state that we do not weight the
data for the consistency check procedure. We will discuss this
distinction later in the text.

SPE 111269

A Deconvolution Method Based on Cumulative Production for Continuously Measured Flowrate and Pressure Data

match processes) are required for linearizing the problem.

Figure 6b East Tx gas well, computed cumulative gas

production data (input for deconvolution).

Fig. 7 presents the deconvolved rate response function and its

auxiliary functions (i.e. rate integral and rate-integral derivative both of which are computed numerically). In our analysis
procedure, Fig. 7 has a general diagnostic purpose in this
case we are able to identify the fracture flow and the transition
to boundary dominated flow. However, early part of the deconvolved response is not analyzable due to the overall data
quality and the other issues (discussed before) that could have
caused instabilities in the deconvolution algorithm. For these
reasons we do not prefer to conclude our analysis only based
on this plot. Instead we will convert this plot into its constantrate equivalent (using material balance time) in order to match
with a model which will be a finite conductivity fracture for
this well (the available solutions for finite conductivity fractured wells are present in constant rate equivalent format).

Figure 7

Deconvolved rate data functions (constant

pressure equivalent), excellent diagnostic character is exhibited.

Fig. 8 presents the deconvolved rate response functions and

the finite conductivity fractured well model. We observe an
excellent match of the deconvolved data functions for two log
cycles but data are not matched with the model for the first
two log cycles. We also note that pseudopressure and pseudotime transformations (both for deconvolution and for model

Figure 8

Deconvolved data functions (constant rate equivalent material balance time) and match with a
finite conductivity model.

In short, the match is very satisfactory and the obtained parameters are very consistent with our previous analyses. But we
still need to prove that the regenerated rates are consistent
with the base rate data to verify if deconvolution has worked
for this case or not.
In Fig. 9 the deconvolved rate response function is presented
in traditional rate decline format (semi-log plot). As seen in
the plot, the variations in rates caused by the pressure changes
are completely eliminated by deconvolution. One can also
employ traditional decline curve analysis using the constantpressure rate function to estimate the expected ultimate recovery (EUR) for this well. But we strongly advise caution on
using decline curve analysis with the deconcolved rate response because deconvolved responses are extremely sensitive
to data quality.

Figure 9

Comparison of the variable-pressure rate data with

the deconvolved (constant-pressure) rate data.

We have already shown in Figs 7 and 8 that deconvolved

results make sense but we need to verify that these results are
consistent with the base data. To achieve this, we regenerate
the rate responses by superposing the deconvolved constantpressure rate response function with the input pressure data. If

D. Ilk, P.P. Valk, and T.A. Blasingame

the results are acceptable with the base rate data within a certain extent then we conclude that deconvolution is successful.
This procedure is what we have been doing so far to verify deconvolution results for a specific case. Now we move forward to a new step which is the establishment of correlation/consistency check between the base rate and pressure
data.
In addition to regeneration of rates by the deconvolved constant-pressure rate function, we regenerate the pressures by the
deconvolved constant-rate pressure function obtained using
our previous method variable-rate deconvolution algorithm.
For the first method (variable-rate deconvolution) rates are
fixed, in this work (variable-pressure deconvolution) pressures are fixed in the algorithm. Therefore, regenerated rates
by the pressures and regenerated pressures by the rates should
be consistent with the measured rate and pressure data in order
to satisfy the superposition (Duhamel's) principle (Eqs. 2 and
3). We note that these two processes are independent from
each other but indeed provide an apparent correlation of rate
and pressure data. In Fig. 10 we apply this methodology to
identify the correlation between rate and pressure data. First,
the regenerated rates obtained by superposing the available
pressure data and the deconvolved rate response function
exhibit excellent agreement with the rate data. Next, regenerated pressures are obtained and plotted with the base pressure data it is seen that in general there is a good match of
the pressures except for some minor deviations. We conclude
from this practice that by and large, pressure and rate data are
well correlated but there are still some issues (we suspect that
in fact there had been some unreported variations in the
pressure data during the entire production history). Nevertheless, in this case our diagnostic check confirms the data
quality and provides the analyst with the information that data
are correlated and deconvolution (or any other production data
analysis methodology) should safely be used for the analysis
of the production data of this well. It is worth to note that
during the consistency check process, we minimize the
intervention to deconvolution algorithm i.e. weights are not
assigned and the value of the regularization parameter is either
kept as zero or at minimum to prevent bias/artifacts.

SPE 111269

Example 2: Canada Gas Well

This case is an example of "high-frequency" near perfect production data which were collected by a permanent downhole
gauge system.

Figure 11a Canada gas well production history plot high

frequency, excellent quality data.

Fig. 11a presents the base pressure and rate data for this well.
The well is producing from a tight gas reservoir in Canada. A
careful visual inspection of rate and pressure data confirms the
data quality at first sight. Our purpose is to analyze this data
set by variable-pressure deconvolution and confirm the quality
of the data set.
In Fig. 11b the input data for deconvolution are presented
we note a very smooth cumulative production trend except for
the break at the instant of shut-in. The entire data are used in
deconvolution unlike variable-rate pressure, in this case, it
is not practical to use only the data during the shut-in for
deconvolution. In fact, we do not prefer to use only portions
of the data for deconvolution instead as mentioned before
we weight the data (again we remind that weighting is not
performed for data quality check).

Figure 11b Canada gas well, computed cumulative gas production data (input for deconvolution).
Figure 10 Regenerated rate and pressure data by
deconvolution excellent data matches confirm
the correlation between rate and pressure data.

Fig. 12 presents the results of variable-pressure deconvolution

for this case. As expected, since the data quality is beyond
expectations a clear resolution of all flow regimes are present
on the plot. The character of finite-conductivity fracture is

SPE 111269

A Deconvolution Method Based on Cumulative Production for Continuously Measured Flowrate and Pressure Data

identified during early time and it can also be seen from the
deconvolved responses that the well is in transition to full
boundary dominated flow (late time data).

Figure 12 Deconvolved rate data functions (constant pressure equivalent), outstanding diagnostic character.

We note that these results can also be obtained using modern

production data analysis methods developed for analyzing
variable rate and pressure data [Doublet (1994), Palacio
(1993), Agarwal (1999)]. The goal of all these well-established methods is to remove the effect of variable-pressures as
same with deconvolution.
In Fig. 13 we present the deconvolved responses and its computed auxiliary functions in constant-rate equivalent format
(using material balance time). We match these data functions
with a finite conductivity fracture model and get excellent
agreement. This model is also verified using other production
data analysis methods as well.

Figure 13 Deconvolved data functions (constant rate equivalent material balance time) and match with a
finite conductivity model.

Using the first pressure point as the reference, we present the

constant-pressure rate response function in traditional decline
curve format (semi-log plot) in Fig. 14. Since pressure was
kept during the early days of production, deconvolved constant-pressure rate function is identical with the base flowrate

data.

Figure 14 Comparison of the variable-pressure rate data with

the deconvolved (constant-pressure) rate data.

Deviation of the deconvolved rate response function from the

rate data is observed when pressure variations are introduced
on the data set. The decline of the deconvolved rate response
function is similar to exponential decline. However, a few
artifacts are observed between 100 and 200 days of production.
We can estimate the "Expected Ultimate Recovery" by using
Arps [Arps (1945)] analysis. In this case our estimate of EUR
agrees well with other methods but for noisy data sets this may
not always be the case. We encourage the interested reader to
use deconvolution for this purpose but recommend extreme
caution because of the data quality.
In Fig. 15 we present the results for our data quality check
procedure. As we have stated previously in the beginning of
this example, data quality is extraordinary for this well. This
is also confirmed in Fig. 15 using our "double-deconvolution"
procedure for data correlation purpose.

Figure 15 Regenerated rate and pressure data by

deconvolution almost identical data matches
confirm the quality of the data.

There is an outstanding match of the regenerated rates with the

base rate data. It is seen that the pressures are not matched
(pressure buildup part) exactly as the rates are matched. It is
not possible to identify which data have issues since the two

10

D. Ilk, P.P. Valk, and T.A. Blasingame

SPE 111269

deconvolution algorithms are independent. However, we can

conclude that the matches are excellent confirming the overall
data quality. This example shows the significance of data quality on deconvolution actually the importance can easily be
generalized for the other methods for analyzing production
data. In short the better the data quality is more robust/efficient will the analysis be.
Example 3: South America Oil Well
This example can easily be treated by the traditional well test
analysis methodologies (and obviously by variable-rate deconvolution method) since the production sequence which includes two drawdowns followed by the shut-ins was designed for
the pressure transient analysis of this well. Fig 16a presents
the measured pressure and rate data for this case. As for this
well it was reported that the data were taken from continuous
(almost instantaneous) measurements of surface oil rates and
bottomhole pressures.
This well is a horizontal oil well (permeabilities in this field
are ranging between 20-30 md) from South America. In Fig.
16b the input data for deconvolution are presented. We can
easily analyze this set by variable-rate deconvolution to
remove the effects of the variable rates on the pressure data (as
we will show the results of variable-rate deconvolution later as
well) but our goal is to perform the variable-pressure
deconvolution methodology for this type of data set and test
the results of the variable-pressure deconvolution methodology.

Figure 16b South America oil well, computed cumulative oil

production data (input for deconvolution).

In an ideal case, the deconvolved responses obtained by the

two deconvolution algorithms; variable-rate and variable-pressure, have to be consistent (i.e. the deconvolved responses
must be matched with solutions using the same model and its
parameters). The "near ideal" previous example already
proves this statement (see Fig. 15). In this case effect of the
issues related with data (or data correlation) on the two
deconvolution algorithms is investigated.
In Fig. 17a the results of variable-pressure deconvolution are
presented. As seen the deconvolved constant-pressure rate
response and its computed auxiliary functions are not sufficient enough for an interpretation. Initially the results indicate
that variable-pressure deconvolution is not a good candidate
for the analysis of production data for this well.

Figure 16a South America oil well production history plot

constant production rates, well test sequence.

In fact, for this example we are particularly interested in the

correlation between the pressure and rate data. And as such,
using the constant-pressure rate function, which is to be
obtained by deconvolution, we will observe that if the base
rate data are matched with the regenerated rates or not. In
addition, variable-rate deconvolution will be performed to
obtain the constant-rate pressure function and then pressures
will be regenerated by superposing the constant-rate pressure
function with the rate data.

Figure 17a Deconvolved rate data functions (constant

pressure equivalent), diagnostic character is questionable.

On the other hand, when variable-rate deconvolution is performed the deconvolved constant-rate pressure function is
smoother and analyzable. We should note that in this case for
these two deconvolution algorithms, algorithmic parameters
(i.e. number of knots, weights, value of the regularization
parameter) are same.

SPE 111269

A Deconvolution Method Based on Cumulative Production for Continuously Measured Flowrate and Pressure Data

11

inconsistent data.

Figure 17b Deconvolved rate data functions (constant rate

equivalent, variable-rate pressure deconvolution is
used), very good diagnostic character is exhibited.

Figure 18b Deconvolved data functions (constant rate equivalent, variable-rate pressure deconvolution is
used) and match with a horizontal well model.

In Fig. 17b the signature for a horizontal well can be recognized on the well-testing derivative trend (i.e. early and late
time radial flow). Fig. 17b (variable-rate deconvolution)
should be satisfactory for the interpretation of this well but
one should not forget that Fig. 17a contradicts this claim as
we mentioned before that results using the two algorithms
have to be consistent.

In Fig. 19 as for each case we show the constant-pressure rate

response function in traditional decline curve analysis format
(semi-log plot). This rate function represents the case as if the
pressure is kept constant throughout the production. However,
in this case the rates are being kept constant during drawdown
periods. Therefore, this plot is not very significant for this
case unless the pressure and rate data are perfect. But we already showed that this is not the case in this example.

Figure 19 Comparison of the variable-pressure rate data with

the deconvolved (constant-pressure) rate data.
Figure 18a Deconvolved data functions (constant rate equivalent material balance time) and match with a
horizontal well model.

We continue to analyze the responses (Figs. 17a and 17b) we

obtained using the two deconvolution algorithms in Figs. 18a
and 18b. We match the deconvolved responses with the best
fit horizontal well models on these plots. The best fit models
are shown on Figs. 18a and 18b. As it can easily be seen, in
Fig. 18a data do not match very well with the model very
well. In contrast, we see a very good match in Fig 18b. In
these two figures we use horizontal well models but with differrent model parameters. When the model shown in Fig 18b
is imposed on the data in Fig 18a (except for wellbore storage), the match gets worse clearly implying the illconditioned nature of deconvolution and instability caused by

In addition, when used alone the constant-pressure rate function is not very meaningful because of the artifacts especially
seen at earlier times. We did not even attempt to estimate the
EUR in this case.
The other way to identify the data inconsistency in this case is
to apply our "double deconvolution" procedure to regenerate
the pressure and rate data to match with the base pressure and
rate data. Using the same algorithmic parameters we run the
two deconvolution algorithms to get the deconvolved
constant-pressure/rate response functions and with these
functions and base rate and pressure data, we regenerate the
pressures and rates, respectively. Fig. 20 presents the matches
of the regenerated pressures and rates along with the base
pressure and rate data. Pressure match is excellent with the

12

D. Ilk, P.P. Valk, and T.A. Blasingame

available constant rates but conversely the rate match is not

satisfactory with the given pressures. As the two processes are
not tied, it is not surprising to get a very good and bad match
altogether. It is not the scope of this work to identify which
data or part of the data set is inconsistent but obviously, from
Fig. 20 we conclude that there are inconsistencies associated
with pressure and rate data present in this case.

SPE 111269

Upon investigation of shut-in pressures it is observed that

significant wellbore storage effects dominate the pressure
transient response. For this reason pressure transient analysis
most likely will not be sufficient enough to estimate the
fracture parameters and most importantly the contacted-gasin-place of this well. Deconvolution should be a valuable
option here for the analysis of the pro-duction data.
In Fig. 21b we present the input data for the variable-pressure
deconvolution algorithm. Cumulative production trend is very
smooth except for the shut-in part. On the other hand, the
pressure data at earlier times might be affected by well cleanup effects.
We present the variable-pressure deconvolution results on Fig.
22. The deconvolved constant-pressure rate function and its
auxiliary functions clearly display high resolution. It could be
identified from the results that the well is still in transient flow
and transition to boundary dominated flow is being established. Fracture flow signature is exhibited indicating that this
data set can be matched using a finite conductivity fractured
well model. But again no conclusion is based upon this diagnostics and further verification of these results is needed.

Figure 20 Regenerated rate and pressure data by deconvolution pressure match is good but the rate
match is questionable indicating issues regarding
with pressure and rate data correlation.

Example 4: Wyoming Gas Well

In the last example we are going to perform the variablepressure deconvolution algorithm on a data set taken from a
hydraulically fractured Wyoming gas well. This well is producing from a tight gas sand with permeabilities less than 0.1
md. Fig 21a presents the measured rate and pressure data for
this well. The measurements were taken daily (surface rates
and surface pressures then converted into bottomhole) and a
pressure buildup test for 5 days was performed at a late stage
during the production sequence of this well.
It is worth to note that data quality for this well (i.e. daily rates
and pressures) is beyond average for a typical production data
set. Therefore, our expectations regarding the analysis of the
production data are higher for this well. For further reference,
transient flow period can be distinguished by inspecting the
bottomhole pressures on Fig. 21a.

Figure 21b Wyoming gas well, computed cumulative gas

production data (input for deconvolution).

In Fig. 23 we analyze the deconvolved responses in constantrate equivalent format. At first glance we note the differences
on the earlier part of the auxiliary functions (i.e. rate-integral
and rate-integral derivative). This is probably due to the
change from constant-pressure to constant-rate equivalent
functions affecting the numerical integration and the differenttiation scheme for obtaining the auxiliary functions with
respect to material balance time. In addition, we note that we
use pseudopressure and pseudotime transformation for the
analysis in Fig 23.
Deconvolved response functions are then matched with an
appropriate fractured well model. We have used a finite conductivity well model and obtain a good match of the data
functions with the model. The discrepancies at the earlier
times are most possibly a result of the erratic behavior of the
data (perhaps caused by well cleanup effects or issues related
with the conversion of the pressures from the surface to bottomhole conditions).

Figure 21a Wyoming gas well, production history plot. Data

quality is good in general.

SPE 111269

A Deconvolution Method Based on Cumulative Production for Continuously Measured Flowrate and Pressure Data

13

dary dominated flow in this plot. No estimation of the EUR is

attempted using decline curve analysis for this well because of
the low permeability prohibits the complete establishment of
the boundary dominated flow.

Figure 22 Deconvolved rate data functions (constant

pressure equivalent), very good diagnostic character is observed.

Nevertheless, the imposed model according to our diagnosis in

Fig 22 can be verified using other production data analysis
methods (i.e. we obtain similar results with the imposed model
when we employ other methodologies).

Figure 23 Deconvolved data functions (constant rate equivalent material balance time) and match with a
finite conductivity model.

We should also note that the data can simply be analyzed by

variable-rate deconvolution alone as well in particular, only
the pressure buildup portion can be taken as the input during
variable-rate deconvolution process. However, we do not prefer to do so. We do not perform variable-rate deconvolution
in this case but we make sure of the data quality using the
procedure we propose in this work.
Fig. 24 presents the deconvolved constant-pressure rate functions on semi-log plot compared with the base rate data
affected by variable pressures throughout the production sequence. Variable-pressure deconvolution algorithm effectively changes the base rate data into its constant-pressure equivalent and we observe the very good resolution of the deconvolved rate response function in Fig. 24. Once again we confirm the transient flow region and the transition to the boun-

Figure 24 Comparison of the variable-pressure rate data with

the deconvolved (constant-pressure) rate data.

Finally, we apply the procedure for pressure and rate data

correlation in Fig. 25. Some artifacts/mismatches previously
indicated that some parts of the data might be inconsistent (see
Fig. 23). When the rates are regenerated by constant-pressure
rate function with the available pressures, outstanding match is
observed.

Figure 25 Regenerated rate and pressure data by deconvolution data matches are acceptable confirming the correlation between the rate/pressure data.

On the other hand, the regeneration of the pressures by the

constant-rate pressure function with the available rates does
not yield an excellent match as the regenerated rates yield with
the base rate data. This confirms our doubts about the inconsistency related with parts of the data set. Yet, the inconsistency does not prohibit the analysis since the pressure match is
acceptable. Although the proposed procedure does not obviously let us to identify which data (pressures or rates) are
wrong, we can identify that some of the pressures in this data
set are not correct by evaluating Figs 21-25 and most importantly by inspecting the match of the pressures in Fig. 25. In
this case we believe that the rates are measured accurately and
some of the pressure data are affected by well cleanup effects.
All in all, we believe that despite of the minor inconsistencies

14

D. Ilk, P.P. Valk, and T.A. Blasingame

related with the pressure data, deconvolution works for this

case with appropriate weighting and regularization as illustrated in Fig 22 and confirmed in Fig. 25. Again, we also
prove the significance of the data quality check with our
proposed procedure in this example.
Summary and Conclusions
Summary: The most important and most substantive contribution of this work is the development of a "variable-pressure"
deconvolution algorithm that is based on the cumulative fluid
production. This achievement may seem minor or redundant
in light of the fact that essentially all other deconvolution
methods to date have relied on variable-rate deconvolution,
where the output is the "constant rate" pressure profile. In this
case, the output is the "constant pressure" rate profile.
This approach permits us to characterize each input data
stream (e.g., flowrate or bottomhole pressure) as a convolution
of the other data. This capability provides us with very strong
(and theoretically consistent) diagnostic method. The proposed "double deconvolution" method is less of an analysis
tool than it is a diagnostic tool (for model identification) and a
"filter" for confirming the consistency of the flowrate and bottomhole pressure data.
Conclusions:
1. The "cumulative production" formulation of the proposed
rate deconvolution approach is both robust and error
tolerant.
2. The proposed "double deconvolution" method (rates from
pressures; and pressures from rates) provides a consistency
check that has been missing from the literature.
3. The application of this methodology has been successfully
demonstrated using typically available field data. This
methodology provided insight as the accuracy (and precision) of the measured production data.

Nomenclature
Variables:
B
=
Bik(t ) =
CD
=
=
cf
=
cg
co
=

=
G
=
=
Gp
h
=
k
=
l
=
N
=
=
Np
=
qg
qnom =
qo
=
=
qu
m(p) =
m(p) =
=
pi
pwf
=
pwf,ref =
p
=
pu
=
=
re

Oil formation volume factor, RB/STB

k-th degree B-spline starting at bi, dimensionless
Wellbore storage coefficient, dimensionless
Formation compressibility, psi-1
Gas compressibility, psi-1
Oil compressibility, psi-1
effective porosity, fraction
Original gas-in-place, MSCF
Cumulative gas production, MSCF
Net pay thickness, ft
Formation permeability, md
Index of the first knot, dimensionless
Original oil-in-place, STB
Cumulative oil production, STB
Gas production rate, MSCFD
Nominal flowrate, STBD or MSCFD
Oil production rate, STBD
Constant-pressure rate (deconvolution), STB/psia
Pseudopressure, psi2/cp
Pseudopressure drop [m(pi)- m(pwf)], psi2/cp
Initial reservoir pressure, psia
Flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
Reference flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
Pressure drop (pi-pwf), psi
Constant-rate pressure (deconvolution), psia/STB
Outer radius, ft

rw
s
sx
t
ta
tmb
tmb,gas
tmba,gas
u
z

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

SPE 111269

Wellbore radius, ft
Laplace domain variable
Skin factor, dimensionless
Time, days
(gas) Pseudotime, days
[Np/q] (oil) Material balance time, days
[Gp/ qg] (gas) Material balance time, days
(gas) Material balance pseudotime, days
Index of the last knot, dimensionless
Gas compressibility factor
Liquid viscosity

Pseudofunctions:
1 p
p
m( p ) =
dp

2 p
z
base

0 ( p) c ( p) dt
t
c
q (t )
=
dt

q (t )
( p) c ( p)
0
t

ta = gi c gi

tmba, gas

gi gi

References
Agarwal, R.G., Gardner, D.C., Kleinsteiber, SW., and Fussell,
D.D.: "Analyzing Well Production Data Using Combined-TypeCurve and Decline-Curve Analysis Concepts," SPEREE (Oct.
1999) 478-486.
Arps, J.J: "Analysis of Decline Curves," Trans., AIME (1945) 160,
228-247.
Blasingame, T.A., and Lee, W.J.: "The Variable Limits Testing of
Gas Wells," paper SPE 17708 presented at the 1988 SPE Gas
Technology Symposium, Dallas, TX, 13-15 June.
Cinar, M., Ilk, D., Onur, M., Valk, P.P., and Blasingame, T.A.:
"A Comparative Study of Recent Robust Deconvolution
Algorithms for Well-Test and Production-Data Analysis," paper
SPE 102575 presented at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 24-27 October.
Cheney, E.W. and Kincaid, D.R.: Numerical Mathematics and
Computing, Pacific Grove, California: Brooks Cole (2003).
Doublet, L.E., Pande, P.K., McCollum, T.J., and Blasingame,
T.A.: "Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves Analysis of
Oil Well Production Data Using Material Balance Time:
Application to Field Cases," paper SPE 28688 presented at the
1994 Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico held in
Veracruz, Mexico, 10-13 October.
Fetkovich, M.J.: "Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves,"
JPT (June 1980) 1065-1077.
Ilk, D., Anderson, D.M., Valko, P.P., and Blasingame, T.A.:
"Analysis of Gas Well Reservoir Performance Data Using BSpline Deconvolution," paper SPE 100573 presented at the 2006
SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1517 May.
Ilk, D., Valko, P.P., and Blasingame, T.A.: "Deconvolution of
Variable-Rate Reservoir Performance Data Using B-Splines,"
SPEREE (October 2006) 582.
Ilk, D.: Deconvolution of Variable Rate Reservoir Performance
Data Using B-Splines, MSc. Thesis, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, USA (December 2005).
Kuchuk, F.J., Hollaender, F., Gok, I.M., and Onur, M.: "Decline
Curves from Deconvolution of Pressure and Flow-Rate Measurements for Production Optimization and Prediction," paper SPE
96002 presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, 9-12 October.

SPE 111269

A Deconvolution Method Based on Cumulative Production for Continuously Measured Flowrate and Pressure Data

Levitan, M.M., Crawford, G.E., and Hardwick, A., "Practical Considerations for Pressure-Rate Deconvolution of Well-Test Data,"
SPEJ (March 2006) 35.
Levitan, M.M.: "Practical Application of Pressure/Rate Deconvolution to Analysis of Real Well Tests," SPEREE (April 2005)
113.
Nomura, M.: Processing and Interpretation of Pressure Transient
Data from Permanent Downhole Gauges, PhD. Dissertation,
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA (September 2006).
Palacio, J.C. and Blasingame, T.A.: "Decline Curve Analysis
Using Type Curves Analysis of Gas Well Production Data,"
paper SPE 25909 presented at the 1993 Joint Rocky Mountain
Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO,
26-28 April.
Pratikno, H., Rushing, J.A., and Blasingame, T.A.: "De-cline
Curve Analysis Using Type Curves Fractured Wells," paper
SPE 84287 presented at the SPE annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5-8 October 2003.
Unneland, T., Manin, Y., and Kuchuk, F.J.: "Application of
Permanent Pressure and Rate Measurement Systems in Well
Monitoring and Reservoir Description: Field Cases," SPEFE (June
1998) 224.
van Everdingen, A.F., and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans.,
AIME (1949) 186, 305.
von Schroeter, T., Hollaender, F., and Gringarten, A.C.: "Deconvolution of Well Test Data as a Nonlinear Total Least Squares
Problem," SPEJ (December 2004) 375.
von Schroeter, T., Hollaender, F., and Gringarten, A.C.: "Analysis
of Well Test Data From Downhole Permanent Downhole Gauges
by Deconvolution," paper SPE 77688 presented at the 2002 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
29 September-2 October.

Appendix A Formulation of the Modified B-Spline

Deconvolution Algorithm in Real Time Domain
We start with Duhamel's principle for the rate function which
is distorted by the variable pressures throughout the production sequence.
t

q (t ) =

0 pwf ( ) q'u (t ) d ....................................... (A-1)

We will first prove that Eq. A-1 can be written in terms of

cumulative production (i.e., cumulative production is a convolution of pressure drop and constant-pressure rate function).
Integrating both sides of Eq. A-1 with respect to time yields:
t

N p (t ) =

0 pwf ( ) qu (t ) d

.................................. (A-2)

Our next step is to derive the formulation of the deconvolution

algorithm without the use of the Laplace transform. We can
discretize Eq. A-2 into n segments and assume constant pressure steps across these segments cumulative production is
then given by:

15

t1

N p (t n ) = (p wf1 p wf 0 )

qu ( ) d

+ KKKK

qu ( ) d

+ KKKK

0
t2

+ (p wf 2 p wf1 )

t1

tn

+ (p wf n p wf n 1 )

qu ( ) d
t n 1

...................................................................................... (A-3)
We now approximate the constant-pressure rate function
(qu()) as a linear combination of B-splines.
tj

N p (tn ) =

j =1

ci Bi2 (t j ) d
t
.. (A-4)
i =l

(pwf j pwf j 1 )

j 1

The analytical integral of a second order B-spline function is

available in closed form [Cheney and Kincaid (2003)] and is
given by:
t

Bi2,int (t ) =

b3 1

Bi2 ( ) d = bi
B3j (t ) ..................... (A-5)
3

j =i

Substituting Eq. A-5 into Eq. A-4 gives us the cumulative

production (at a prescribed time (tn)) in terms of the specified
constant pressure steps and the B-spline integral term. This
result is given as:
n

N p (t n ) =

(pwf j pwf j 1) ci Bi2,int (tn t j 1) ... (A-6)

j =1 i = l

Eq. A-6 is a linear system of equations and can be solved by

linear (weighted) least squares (using the singular value
decomposition technique) for the unknown vector of B-spline
coefficients, c. For reference, the pressure drop function is
represented as pwf = pi pwf where pi is the initial pressure
and pi can also be obtained as a result of the minimization
process (i.e. weighted least squares). Eq. A-6 can be written
in vector-matrix form as:
~
Np = Xc ........................................................................ (A-7)

The interested may refer to Ilk [Ilk (2005)] and Ilk et al [Ilk et
al (2006)] for details on the deconvolution algorithm and the
regularization procedure.