1. Problem No 1.

A new well, in a small bounded reservoir, North Solution

of Hobbs, New Mexico, was produced at a constant
rate of 360 STB/D.
The initial pressure throughout the reservoir prior
to the flow test was 4620 psia.
Part 1. Conventional Techniques
A) Skin Effect
1. Calculate reservoir transmissibility and
1. Conventional Techniques
Skin effect
Using data given on Table 1.1, Pwf vs. time is
graphed on Cartesian (Fig. 1.1) and semi log (Fig.
1.2). Cartesian plot shows clearly the pseudo stable
state of flow characterized by a straight line.
Because the infinite active line is before PSS, the
straight line in semilog is plotted avoiding the PSS.
4700

permeability. 4600

2. Compute the skin factor.

3. Calculate flow efficiency, damage ratio and 4500

damage factor. Is the wellbore damaged or 4400

stimulated? Why?

Pwf (Psia)
4. Calculate the radial distance of the skin, if 4300

the formation permeability from lab. 4200

Pint=4245

measurements is expected to be affected 410

m*=1

percent by the skin. Compare with the 4100

apparent radius, rw.

4000

5. What is the flow rate without the skin 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Time (hours)
80 90 100 110 120 130 140

effect? Fig. 1.1 Cartesian plot Pwf vs. time

B) Wellbore Storage 4700

6. Find the wellbore storage coefficient.

7. Estimate the starting time of the semilog 4600

straight line. 4500

C) System Geometry P1hr=4440

8. Calculate the drainage volume and drainage 4400

Pwf(Psia)

area (in acres) of this well. 4300

m=140

9. Find the shape factor of this drainage area.

10. Determine the system geometry. 4200

11. Estimate the drawdown stabilization time. 4100

12. Compute the radius of drainage created

during this drawdown test. 4000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time(hours)

Fig. 1.2 Semilog plot Pwf vs. time

Table 1.1. Drawdown Test Data for Problem No. 1 From figure 1.2
t Pwf t Pwf
[hrs] [psia] [hrs]] [psia] 4160 4440
0 4,620 4.000 4,360 m 140 psia / cycle
2
0.020 4,588 7.000 4,325
0.030 4,576 10.000 4,300
Permeability is computed from
0.044 4,552 20.000 4,256
q
0.060 4,528 30.000 4,230 k 162.6 (1.1)
0.100 4,505 50.000 4,195 mh
0.200 4,486 70.000 4,172
0.400 4,478 80.000 4,160 360 *1.22 * 0.84
k 162.6 * 53.56 md
0.700 4,450 90.000 4,150 140 * 8
1.000 4,435 100.000 4,140
2.000 4,400 125.000 4,120
3.000 4,380
Transmissibility DF 1 FE (1.6)

kh 53.56 * 8 md * ft DF 1 1.77 0.77 77%

510.10
0.84 cp
These values show that the area next to the wellbore
is stimulated because S < 0, FE > 1, DR < 1, and
Skin factor is computed from DF < 0. According to Tiab (2004) this value of s is
into the range for hydraulically fractured wells (-3
to -5)
p p1hr k
s 1.1513 i log 3.23
2
m ct rw Radial distance of the skin:
(1.2)
p1hr is read from Fig. 1.2 on the infinite acting line. k r
S 1 ln s (1.7)
P1h = 4440 psia. Then, ks rw
4620 4440 53.56
s 1.1513 log 3.23 In terms of rs:
140 5 2

0.10 * 0.84 * 42 *10 * 0.29
S
k
s 3.16 1
k
rs rw * e s
(1.8)
Eq. 1.3 allows find ps value:
ks = 4.10*k from laboratory measurement
q expectations. So, ks = 219.6 md
p s 141.2 s (1.3)
kh
Then,
360 * 0.84 *1.22
p s 141.2 * (3.16) 383.6 psi 3.16
53.56 * 8 53.56
1
rs 0.29 * e 219.6
18.8 ft
Flow efficiency, damage radio and damage factor
are estimated from:
Apparent radius:
p p wf p s
FE (1.4) r ' w rw e s (1.9)
p p wf
Pwf is the last value of pressure at the end of the r ' w 0.29 * e ( 3..16) 6.8 ft
test and average pressure will be considered equal
to pi, which implies the assumption that the well is
The flow rate without effect skin is calculated using
new or steady state.
the next set of equations:
4620 4120 (383.3)
FE 1.77 177% J actual
4620 4120 FE (1.9)
J ideal
1
DR (1.5) In terms of Jideal:
FE
J actual
DR
1
0.57 57% J ideal (1.10)
1.77 FE
and, q t
C (1.14)
24 p i
q
J ideal (1.11)
p p wf p skin
360 *1.22 0.043 bbl
C 0.01
Finding Jactual:
24 70 psia

Reading tSSL (starting time of semilog straight

q
J actual (1.12) line) from Fig. 1.3; tSSL = 4 hr. Using Eq 1.15 we
p p wf find for tSSL:

360 (200,000 12,000 * s)

J actual 0.72 t SSL C (1.15)
4620 4120 kh /

Substituting this value on Eq. 1.10, [200,000 12,000 * (3.16)]

t SSL 0.01 4.6 hr
53.56 * 8 / 0.84
0.72
J ideal 0.4
1.77
System geometry
Using Eq. 1.4 and leaving Eq. 1.11 in terms of q:
From Fig. 1.1, pressure at the intercept is 4245
q psia, and m* is calculated as the slope of the straight
q s 0 actual (1.13)
FE line:

360 p 2 p1
q s 0 203 STB / D m* (1.16)
1.77 t 2 t1

Wellbore Storage 4160 4150

m* 1
80 90
Wellbore storage coefficient is estimate using Eq.
1.14 and taking (t/p)i data from Fig. 1.3 at any
But m* in terms of A is:
convenient point on the unit slope.
0.23395 q
1000 m* (1.17)
ct Ah
pr = 390 psia

Then,
0.23395 q
A
P, t*P'

(1.18)
100 (t*p')i =70 psia
( p ) i
ct (m * )h
trpi = 64 hr

0.23395 * 360 *1.22

A 5
295,941.36 ft 2
0.1042 *10 * (1.) * 8
ti = 0.042
hr
10

A 6.79 Acres
TSSL = 4 hr tr = 30 hr
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time (hours)

Fig. 1.3. Pressure derivative. V Ah (1.19)

V 0.10 * 295,941 .36 * 8 236,753 .09 ft 3
Shape factor 50.89 * 78.1
rd 0.029 308.1
2.303( p1 hr pint )
0.84 * 0.10 * 42 *10 5
m
C A 5.456 e m
( 1.20)
m*

2.303( 4454 4245)

140 140
C A 5.456 e
30.8
1

System geometry

*
t DA 0.1833 m t pss (1.21)
m

Where tpss is the starting time of pseudosteady

state flow, and is obtained from Fig. 1.1. tpss = 42
hours. Then,

(1)
t DA 0.1833 42 0.055
(140)

With CA = 30.8 and tDA = 0.055, the reservoir has

the next geometry with less than 1% error for tDA:

Where the shape is taken from

Appendix D, page 265 (Pressure
Transient Testing):

CA = 30.8828
tDA = 0.05

Drawdown stabilization time

ct (43560 A)
t s 380 (1.22)
k

0.84 * 0.10 * 42 *10 5 (43560 * 6.79)

t s 380 78.1
53.56

12. Radius of drainage created during the test

kt s
rd 0.029 (1.23)
ct