2.

4 Unsteady-State Pressure Distribution Calculations

in Directional Well
Cinco etal. 2 have presented a solution for unsteady-state pressure dis-
tribution created by a directional drilled well. They have also presented the
equations to calculate skin factors for slanted wells. Figure 2-14 shows
infinite slab reservoir with slanting well. The equation in dimensionless
form is

(2-26)

where

(2-27)

(2-28)

(2-29)

Impermeable
boundaries

Figure 2-14. Infinite slab reservoir with slanting well.15

 (2-30)

(2-31)

(2-32)

(2-33)

For fully penetrated wells:

(2-34)

For Long-Time Approximation

At large values of the dimensionless time, the dimensionless pressure at
any point in the reservoir may be expressed as

(2-35)
The pseudo-skin factor term For tD > tr>\, where

(2-36)

(2-37)

the pseudo-skin factor may be approximated as

 (2-38)

For 0<Q'w< 75 and tD > tD\

(2-39)

where
st = total skin factor, obtained from conventional pressure analysis of
field data, that includes the true skin factor, Sd
Sd sum of many factors, such as partial penetration, perforation, non-
Darcy flow, etc.
s0 = pseudo-skin factor caused by the inclination of the well.
Eq. 2-34 is discussed further in Ref. 1; however, the validity of this
equation may be checked by means of Tables 2-1 through 2-5, which
present evaluations of Eq. 2-37 and 2-38. Computation of the effect of
directional drilling on the performance of a well is illustrated in the following
example.

Example 2-6 Calculating Pseudo-skin Factor in a Slanted Well and Evalu-

ating Actual Well Condition
A pressure buildup test indicates that the skin factor 0.72 indicates mild
damage. The semilog straightline slope is HOpsi/cycle. Average angle of
inclination = 45, h 85 ft, rw = 0.29 ft, and core analysis indicates that the
kr/kz = 5. Determine the apparent skin factor caused by directional drilling.
The well fully penetrates the formation.

Solution Pressure drop due to skin = (Ap)skin = 0.869 ms = 0.869(110)(0.72)

= 68.82 psi.
From Eq. 2-27,

From Eq. 2-32,

(text continued on page 41)

 Table 2-1
pwD Versus tD With hjy (hn = 100) as a Parameter 2

tD 15 30 45 60 75
1
1 x 1(T 0.0120 0.0108 0.0088 0.0062 0.0032
2 x 10- 1 0.0707 0.0634 0.0518 0.0366 0.0189
5XlO-1 0.2703 0.2424 0.1979 0.1399 0.0724
7XlO-1 0.3767 0.3378 0.2758 0.1950 0.1009
1 0.5043 0.4522 0.3602 0.2611 0.1351
2 0.7841 0.7030 0.5740 0.4059 0.2101
5 1.1919 1.0686 0.8725 0.6170 0.3194
7 1.3477 1.2083 0.9866 0.6976 0.3611
1 x 10 1.5148 1.3581 1.1089 0.7841 0.4059
2x10 1.8436 1.6529 1.3496 0.9543 0.4940
5x10 2.2829 2.0472 1.6714 1.1816 0.6116
7x10 2.4452 2.1937 1.7914 1.2659 0.6551
1 x 102 2.6179 2.3507 1.9211 1.3571 0.7017
2 xlO2 2.9551 2.6612 2.1841 1.5473 0.7981
5 x 102 3.4032 3.0796 2.5508 1.8319 0.9528
7 xlO2 3.5681 3.2344 2.6879 1.9421 1/0183
1 x 103 3.7431 3.3991 2.8338 2.0597 1.0911
2 xlO3 * 3.7227 3.1228 2.2912 1.2375
5 xlO3 A 4.1617 3.5291 2.6291 1.4506
7 xlO3 4.3259 3.6859 2.7678 1.5432
1 x 104 4.5012 3.8555 2.9225 1.6528
2 xlO4 * 4.1916 3.2397 1.9005
5 x 104 B 4.6434 3.6793 2.2855
7 x 104 * 3.8439 2.4382
1 x 105 C 4.0195 2.6046
2 x 105 * 2.9368
5 x 105 D 3.3861
7 x 105 3.5526
1 x 106 *
2 x 106 E
5 x 106
7 x 106

* Line-source solution at the wellbore /?D(1, to) [A, B, C, D, and E],

A = -0.123 = -0.516, C = -1.175, D = -2.148, and E = -3.586.
 Table 2-2
pwD Versus tD With hD (hD = 200) as a Parameter2

tD 15 30 45 60 75
1
1 x 1(T 0.0120 0.0108 0.0088 0.0062 0.0032
2 x 10- 1 0.0707 0.0634 0.0518 0.0366 0.0189
5XlO-1 0.2703 0.2424 0.1979 0.1399 0.0724
7 x 10- 1 0.3767 0.3378 0.2758 0.1950 0.1009
1 0.5043 0.4522 0.3692 0.2611 0.1351
2 0.7841 0.7030 0.5740 0.4059 0.2101
5 1.1919 1.0686 0.8725 0.6170 0.3194
7 1.3477 1.2083 0.9866 0.6976 0.3611
1 x 10 1.5148 1.3581 1.1089 0.7841 0.4059
2x10 1.8436 1.6529 1.3496 0.9543 0.4940
5x10 2.2825 2.0465 1.6709 1.1815 0.6116
7x10 2.4443 2.1915 1.7894 1.2653 0.6550
1 x 102 2.6161 2.3455 1.9151 1.3542 0.7010
2 xlO2 2.9506 2.64589 2.1602 1.5273 0.7905
5 x 102 3.4950 3.0495 2.4937 1.7623 0.9107
7 x 102 3.5590 3.2007 2.6221 1.8553 0.9578
1 x 103 3.7332 3.3625 2.6618 1.9599 1.0117
2 xlO3 4.0726 3.6798 3.0409 2.1785 1.1322
5 x 103 4.5222 4.1029 3.4159 2.4801 1.3171
7 xlO3 4.6879 4.2601 3.5567 2.5925 1.3883
1 x 104 4.8640 4.4286 3.7090 2.7153 1.4655
2 xlO4 * 4.7620 4.0193 2.9757 1.6301
5 xlO4 A 5.2117 4.4531 3.3692 1.9071
7 x 104 5.3783 4.6166 3.5239 2.0289
1 x 105 * 4.7913 3.6919 2.1685
2 xlO5 B 5.1336 4.0260 2.4649
5 x 105 * 4.4765 2.8900
7 x 105 C * 3.0516
1 x 106 D 3.2249
2 x 106 3.5656
5 x 106 *
7 x 106 E

* Line-source solution at the wellbore />>(1, tD) - [A, B, C, D, and E],

A = -0.152, B = -0.608, C = -1.378, D = -2.494, and E = -4.099.
 Table 2-3
pWD Versus to With hD (/*# = 500) as a Parameter2

tD 15 30 45 60 75
1
1 x 10" 0.0120 0.0108 0.0088 0.0062 0.0032
2 x IO"1 0.0707 0.0634 0.518 0.0366 0.0189
5 x 10"1 0.2703 0.2424 0.0979 0.1399 0.0724
7 x 10"1 0.3767 0.3378 0.2758 0.1950 0.1009
1 0.5043 0.4522 0.3692 0.2611 0.1351
2 0.7841 0.7030 0.5740 0.4059 0.2101
5 1.1919 1.0686 0.8725 0.6170 0.3194
7 1.3477 1.2083 0.9866 0.6976 0.3611
1 x 10 1.5148 1.3581 1.1089 0.7841 0.4059
2x10 1.8436 1.6529 1.3496 0.9543 0.4940
5x10 2.2829 2.0465 1.6709 1.1815 0.6116
7 x 10 2.4443 2.1915 1.7894 1.2653 0.6550
1 x 102 2.6161 2.3455 1.9151 1.3542 0.7010
2 xlO2 2.9503 2.6541 2.1597 1.5272 0.7905
5 x 102 3.3924 3.0416 2.4834 1.7560 0.9090
7 xlO2 3.5549 3.1873 2.6024 1.8401 0.9525
1 x IO3 3.7272 3.3419 2.7286 1.9293 0.9987
2 x IO3 4.0629 3.6448 2.9766 2.1037 1.0886
5 x IO3 4.5091 4.0545 3.3218 2.3518 1.2145
7 x IO3 4.0736 4.2076 3.4588 2.4525 1.2671
1 x IO4 4.8483 4.3708 3.5982 2.5646 1.3282
2 xlO4 5.1880 4.6897 3.8805 2.7909 1.4618
5 x IO4 5.6388 5.1165 4.2609 3.0960 1.6541
7 xlO4 5.8051 5.2761 4.4063 3.2138 1.7279
1 x IO5 * 5.4474 4.5853 3.3463 1.8111
2 x IO5 A 5.7853 4.8872 3.6297 1.9994
5 x IO5 * 5.3298 4.0446 2.3171
7 x IO5 B 5.4950 4.2040 2.4521
1 x IO6 5.6710 4.3757 2.6036
2 x IO6 * 4.7144 2.9167
5 x IO6 C * 3.3534
7 x IO6 D 3.5175
1 x IO7 3.6927
2 x IO7 E*

* Line-source solution at the wellbore /?>(1, tD) - [A, B, C, D, and E],

A = -0.183, = -0.731, C = -1.647, D = -2.953, and E = -4.778.
 Table 2-4
PwD Versus tn With hjy (hD = 1000) as a Parameter 2

tD 15 30 45 60 75
1
1 x 1(T 0.0120 0.0108 0.0088 0.0062 0.0032
2 x 10'1 0.0707 0.0634 0.518 0.0366 0.0189
5 x 10"1 0.2703 0.2424 0.1979 0.1399 0.0724
7XlO-1 0.3767 0.3378 0.2758 0.1950 0.1009
1 0.5043 0.4522 0.3692 0.2611 0.1351
2 0.7841 0.7030 0.5740 0.4059 0.2101
5 1.1919 1.0686 0.8725 0.6170 0.3194
7 1.3477 1.2083 0.9866 0.6976 0.3611
1 x 10 1.5148 1.3581 1.1089 0.7841 0.4059
2 x 10 1.6436 1.6529 1.3496 0.9543 0.4940
5x10 2.2825 2.0465 1.6709 1.1815 0.6116
7 x 10 2.4443 2.1915 1.7894 1.2653 0.6550
1 x 102 2.6161 2.3455 1.9151 1.3542 0.7010
2 xlO2 2.9503 2.6451 2.1597 1.5272 0.7905
5 x 102 3.3924 3.0416 2.4834 1.7560 0.9090
7 xlO2 3.5549 3.1872 2.6023 1.8401 0.9525
1 x 103 3.7271 3.3416 2.7284 1.9293 0.9987
2 xlO 3 4.0618 3.6417 2.9734 2.1025 1.0884
5 x 103 4.5046 4.0392 3.2979 2.3317 1.2069
7 x 103 4.6676 4.1863 3.4183 2.4163 1.2506
1 x 104 4.8408 4.3437 3.5485 2.5078 1.2973
2 xlO4 5.1787 4.6548 3.8119 2.6984 1.3939
5 x 104 5.6271 5.0736 4.1789 2.9832 1.5487
7 xlO4 5.7921 5.2284 4.3160 3.0934 1.6143
1 x 105 5.9671 5.3931 4.4620 3.2111 1.6871
2 xlO5 6.3084 5.7168 4.7511 3.4426 1.8335
5 x 105 * 6.1559 5.1574 3.7805 2.0467
7 x 105 A 6.3201 5.3142 3.9192 2.1392
1 x 106 6.4954 5.4838 4.0739 2.2488
2 xlO6 * 5.8199 4.3911 2.4965
5 x 106 B 6.2717 4.8307 2.8815
7 x 106 * 4.9953 3.0343
1 x 107 C 5.1709 3.2006
2 x 107 D* E*
* Line-source solution at the wellbore PD(I, to) - [A, B, C, D, and E],
A = -0.207, B =-0.824, C = -1.850, D = -3.299, and E = -5.292.
 Table 2-5
PwD Versus to With hjy (hn 5000) as a Parameter 2

tD 15 30 45 60 75
1
1 x Kr 0.0120 0.0108 0.0088 0.0062 0.0032
2 x 10- 1 0.0707 0.0634 0.0518 0.0366 0.0189
5XlO-1 0.2703 0.2424 0.1979 0.1399 0.0724
7XlO"1 0.3767 0.3378 0.2758 0.1950 0.1009
1 0.5043 0.4522 0.3692 0.2611 0.1351
2 0.7841 0.7030 0.5740 0.4059 0.2101
5 1.1919 1.0686 0.8725 0.3170 0.3194
7 1.3477 1.7083 0.9866 0.6976 0.3611
1 x 10 1.5148 1.3581 1.1089 0.7841 0.4059
2x10 1.8436 1.6529 1.3496 0.9643 0.4940
5x10 2.2825 2.0465 1.6709 1.1815 0.6116
7x10 2.4443 2.1915 1.7894 1.2653 0.6550
1 x 102 2.6161 2.3455 1.9151 1.3542 0.7010
2 xlO2 2.9503 2.6451 2.1597 1.5272 0.7905
5 xlO2 3.3924 3.0416 2.4834 1.7560 0.9090
7 xlO2 3.5549 3.1872 2.6023 1.8401 0.9525
1 x 103 3.7271 3.3416 2.7284 1.9293 0.9987
2 xlO3 4.0616 3.6417 2.9734 2.1025 1.0889
5 x 103 4.5043 4.0384 3.2974 2.3316 1.2069
7 xlO3 4.6668 4.1841 3.4163 2.4157 1.2505
1 x 104 4.8390 4.3386 3.5424 2.5049 1.2965
2 xlO4 5.1736 4.6387 3.7875 2.6781 1.3863
5 xlO4 5.6163 5.0355 4.1114 2.9072 1.5049
7 xlO4 5.7789 5.1812 4.2304 2.9913 1.5484
1 x 105 5.9512 5.3359 4.3567 3.0805 1.5946
2 xlO5 6.2870 5.6389 4.6047 3.2550 1.6845
5 x 105 6.7332 6.0486 4.9500 3.5031 1.8105
7 xlO5 6.8976 6.2017 5.0829 3.6038 1.8630
1 x 106 7.0724 6.3649 5.2264 3.7159 1.9242
2 x 106 7.4122 6.6838 5.5086 3.9422 2.0578
5 xlO6 7.8630 7.1106 5.8891 4.2473 2.2500
7 x 106 8.0293 7.2702 6.0345 4.3651 2.3238
1 x 107 A* 7.4415 6.1935 4.4976 2.4070
5 x 107 B* C* D* E*

* Line-source solution at the wellbore /?D(1, to) [A, B, C, D, and E],

A = -0.261, B = -1.040, C = -2.321, D = -4.104, and E = -4.2886.
 Table 2-6

Well angle () se sd (A/>)5*lVl (psi)

O O +0.7200 68.82
30 -0.1828 +0.9030 86.32
45 -0.5040 +1.2240 117.00
60 -1.2355 +1.9555 186.92
70 -2.2411 +2.9611 283.05
75 -3.0237 +3.7437 357.86

(text continued from page 35)

From Eq. 2-37,

After rearranging, Eq. 238 becomes Sd st SQ = 0.72 (0.1828) =

+0.903. This indicates that the well is more damaged than originally thought
and that it is a candidate for stimulation. The true pressure drop across the
skin is = 0.869 x 110 x 0.903 = 86.32psi rather than the pressure value of
68.82 psi.
Calculated values of pressure drop across skin for various values of slant
angle are summarized in Table 2-6. This table indicates a significant effect
on well condition.

2.5 Summary
This chapter discusses the basic flow theory for oil well testing and
analysis techniques. A general equation is used for transient pressure
behavior with dimensionless pressure solutions desired. Some important
dimensionless pressure functions are presented and references to others are
provided. The dimensionless pressure approach provides a way to calculate
the pressure response and to apply techniques for analyzing transient tests in
a variety of systems. Section 2.4 presents unsteady-state pressure distribu-
tion calculations in directional oil wells.
 References
1. Ramey, H. J., Jr., and Cobb, W. M., "A General Buildup Theory for a
Well in Closed Drainage Area," /. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1971) 1493-1505.
2. Cinco, H., Miller, F. G., and Ramey, H. J., Jr., "Unsteady-state Pressure
Distribution Created by a Directionally Drilled Well," SPE-AIME, 1975.

Additional Reading
1. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H. J., Jr., and Crawford, P. B., "The Flow of
Real Gases Through Porous Media," /. Pet. Tech. (May 1966) 624-636;
Trans. AIME, 237.
2. Lee, J., Well Testing, SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 1, Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Richardson, TX, 1982.
3. Van Everdingen, A. F., and Hurst, W., "The Application of Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans. AIME (1949)
186, 305-324.
4. Amyx, J. W., Bass, D. M., Jr., and Whiting, R. L., Petroleum Reservoir
Engineering: Physical Properties, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1960,
pp. 78-79.
5. Wattenbarger, R. A., and Ramey, H. J., Jr., "Gas Well Testing With
Turbulence, Damage and Wellbore Storage," /. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1968)
877-887; Trans. AIME, 243.
6. Ramey, H. J., Jr., "Non-Darcy Flow and Wellbore Storage Effects in
Pressure Buildup and Drawdown of Gas Wells," /. Pet. Tech. (1965)
223-233; 234.
7. Chen, H.-K., and Brigham, W. E., "Pressure Buildup for a Well With
Storage and Skin in a Closed Square," paper SPE 4890 presented at the
SPE-AIME 44th Annual California Regional Meeting, San Francisco,
April 4-5, 1974.
8. Earlougher, R., Jr., and Ramey, J., Jr., "Interference Analysis in
Bounded Systems," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct.-Dec. 1973) 33^5.
9. Earlougher, R. C, Jr., Ramey, H. J., Jr., Miller F. G., and Mueller T. D.,
"Pressure Distributions in Rectangular Reservoirs," /. Pet. Tech. (1968)
20, 199-208.
10. Van Poollen, H. K., "Radius of Investigation and Stabilization Time
Equations," Oil Gas J. (1964) 63 (51), 71-75.
11. Hurst, W., "Establishment of the Skin Effect and Its Impediment to
Fluid Flow Into a Wellbore," Pet. Eng. (Oct. 1953) B-16.
12. Miller, C. C, Dyes, A. B., and Hutchinson, C. A., Jr., "The Estimation
of Permeability and Reservoir Pressure From Bottom Hole Pressure
Buildup Characteristic," Trans. AIME (1950) 189, 91-104. Also Reprint