Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 1 (1988) 195-221 195

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - - Printed in The Netherlands

WELL TEST INTERPRETATION FOR RESERVOIRS WITH A

SINGLE LINEAR NO-FLOW BARRIER

F I K R I J. K U C H U K a n d S H A H K A B I R

Schlumberger-Doll Research, Old Quarry Road, Ridgefield, CT 06877-4108 (U.S.A.)

Schlumberger Well Services, P.O. Box 2175, Houston, TX 77252-2175 (U.S.A.)

(Accepted for publication November 20, 1987)

Abstract

Kuchuk, F.J. and Kabir, S., 1988. Well test interpretation for reservoirs with a single linear no-flow barrier. J. Pet.
Sci. Eng., 1: 195-221.

Sealing faults, which cut formations with or without contrasting rock properties, have a profound impact on tran-
sient pressure behavior of nearby wells. New analytical solutions with wellbore storage and skin effects are presented
for the interpretation of the wellbore pressure with and without wellbore flow rate (measured simultaneously with
the pressure) for a well located at a distance from a single fault. In the absence of measured downhole flow rate, both
constant wellbore storage and exponential decline flow rate models are considered in this work. These new solutions
offer a potential for the estimation of permeability, skin, and wellbore storage coefficient. Additionally, the well-to-
fault distance can also be estimated.
Application of the new solutions, using the logarithmic convolution, deconvolution, and nonlinear least-squares
estimation methods, is demonstrated through examples.

Introduction t e s t can be generally c h a r a c t e r i z e d into t h r e e

In t r a n s i e n t testing, m a n y factors often cause
the wellbore p r e s s u r e b e h a v i o r to differ f r o m
t h e i n f i n i t e - a c t i n g c o n s t a n t - r a t e behavior. F o r
example, t h e storage c a p a c i t y of t h e wellbore,
wellbore g e o m e t r y , a n d n e a r - w e l l b o r e com-
plexities affect the e a r l y - t i m e b e h a v i o r of the
well, while e x t e r n a l b o u n d a r i e s such as gas cap
a n d faults affect t h e l a t e - t i m e t r a n s i e n t b e h a v -
ior. D u r i n g the analysis of p r e s s u r e - t i m e data,
each p h e n o m e n o n a n d its d u r a t i o n m u s t be
recognized for t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e well-
reservoir model so t h a t its p a r a m e t e r s can be
e s t i m a t e d . T h e influence o f t h e above p h e n o m -
e n a on the t r a n s i e n t b e h a v i o r of a well pro-
gresses with time. T h e d u r a t i o n o f a t r a n s i e n t
periods. T h e s e periods are:
(1) E a r l y - t i m e period: t h e c o m b i n e d effects
of wellbore storage, d a m a g e skin, p e r f o r a t i o n ,
p a r t i a l p e n e t r a t i o n , acidized zone, fractures,
n o n - D a r c y flow, etc., d o m i n a t e t h e t r a n s i e n t
p r e s s u r e b e h a v i o r o f t h e well.
(2) M i d d l e - t i m e period: d u r i n g this period,
radial flow is established. C o n v e n t i o n a l l y ,
semilog t e c h n i q u e s are u s e d to d e t e r m i n e for-
m a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s including average r e s e r v o i r
p r e s s u r e f r o m t h e m e a s u r e d wellbore pressure.
(3) L a t e - t i m e period: d u r i n g this period,
o u t e r b o u n d a r y effects s t a r t to d i s t o r t t h e well-
bore p r e s s u r e b e h a v i o r f r o m t h e i n f i n i t e - a c t i n g
c o n s t a n t rate behavior.
S o m e t i m e s t h e s e p a r a t i o n of t h e s e periods

0920-4105/88/$03.50 © 1988 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

196
from each other is impossible. For example, the
effect of a sealing fault, which is the subject of
this study, may start during the early-time pe-
riod if it is in close proximity of the well.
Well test analysis for a well adjacent to a no-
flow barrier or a fault presents a significant
interpretation challenge. The interpretation
difficulty stems from the fact that the wellbore
storage and skin effects may dominate wellbore
pressure behavior during which the effects of a
no-flow barrier or fault are felt at the wellbore.
Consequently, the conventional semilog anal-
ysis is difficult to perform. Because of the dom-
inating influence of the inner- and outer-
boundary conditions, an appropriate interpre-
tation model is necessary for estimating reser-
voir parameters.
Since the pioneering work of Horner (1951),
wellbore pressure behavior in the presence of a
single fault has been the subject of numerous
studies; most of them, reported between 1951
and 1980, are given in the reference list. Some
authors examined pressure behavior in systems
where faults intersect at an angle (Jones, 1962;
van Poollen, 1965; Prasad; 1975) and others, in
the presence of parallel faults (Matthews and
Russell, 1967; Ramey et al., 1973; Tiab and Ku-
mar, 1980). Recently, models have also been
proposed for locating reservoir pinchout
boundaries (Home and Temeng, 1982; Gerard
and Horne, 1985 ).
Horner (1951) first reported the doubling of
slope on a pressure buildup semilog graph in
the presence of an adjacent no-flow barrier.
Russell (1963) and Pinson (1972) have shown
the existence of similar characteristic features
during two-rate flow testing. A number of other
studies (Dolan et al., 1957; Bixel et al., 1963;
Davis and Hawkins, 1963; Standing, 1964; Gray,
1965; Earlougher and Kazemi, 1980) have pre-
sented methods for the detection of no-flow
boundaries from pressure buildup tests.
The time of intersection of the two semilog
straight lines has also been used to obtain in-
formation about the distance from the well to
the fault. In particular, Gray {1965) and Ear-
lougher and Kazemi (1980) gave criteria for
producing time necessary for the development
of the doubling of slope on the Horner graph.
However, Gray (1965) and Martinez and
Cinco-Ley (1985) suggested that the distance
to a fault can be estimated even when the sec-
ond semilog line does not develop on the Hor-
ner graph due to short producing time.
Reservoir anisotropy is also an important
factor for the detection of faults as indicated by
Overpeck and Holden (1970). They showed
that the distance to the fault could be in error
by as much as 20% if anisotropy is not ac-
counted for.
Solutions have also been developed fbr par-
tially communicating fault systems (Stewart et
al., 1984; Yaxley, 1985) in which some degree
of lateral continuity for fluid flow is retained.
The pressure derivative technique has been
used recently by Clark and van Golf-Racht
(1985), and by Proano and Lilley (1986) to
solve field examples involving single and mul-
tiple faults. The interpretation of simultane-
ously measured wellbore pressure and flow rate
was presented for reservoirs with a single no-
flow barrier by Kabir et al. (1986).
In most of the works cited above, it is com-
monly assumed that the infinite acting period
is achieved before the effect of the no-flow bar-
rier is felt at the wellbore and after the effect of
the wellbore storage diminishes. In many cases,
the early-time data that are distorted by well-
bore storage and skin effects, may also contain
information about the no-flow barrier. In other
words, the storage-dominated early period and
the outer-boundary-dominated late-time pe-
riod may cause either the middle-time period
to disappear or cause too severe a distortion to
allow a conventional semilog analysis. In such
a situation, conventional methods are not suit-
able for transient analysis. The type curve
analysis is only applicable if the wellbore stor-
age remains constant during the test, and it
cannot be used as an identification (diagnos-
tic) tool if the wellbore storage dominates the
effect of the no-flow barrier.
 197

/ x pe ( rD ,tD ) = -- ~ Ei \ 4to]
/ \ LINEAR BARRIER ( FAULT}

WELL (i)
Jl _. I I' ~x
RESERVOIR
', , | /
BOUNOARY
\x ,,,"r ~ 1 ii and its Laplace transform is:

fiB (S)= -1 [Ko(rD~s)"t-Ko(dex/~)] (2)

S
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of a well with a no-flow
barrier in a n infinite reservoir. where rD= r/rw, dD=2d/rw, r=radial distance
from the wellbore axis, and d=distance from
The interpretation methods presented in this the wellbore axis to the no-flow linear barrier.
paper are an extension of the work done by Ka- The basic solution given by eqs. 1 or 2 will be
bir et al. (1986). New formulas are presented a fundamental building block for developing
for the determination of the no-flow barrier interpretation models for the analysis of well-
distance from the semilog, derivative, and con- bore pressure, with or without downhole flow
volution analyses. Analytical models are pre- rate, for a well adjacent to a no-flow barrier.
sented incorporating the constant wellbore The Laplace transform of PD given by eq. 2 is
storage, exponential flow rate decline, and used for the computation of wellbore pressure
measured downhole flow rate cases. A few well with the wellbore storage and skin effects.
test examples are given to explore the applica- For a constant producing rate in the absence
tion of the interpretation methods presented of wellbore storage effect, the interpretation of
here. transient data using eq. 1 is straightforward, as
shown by H o m e r {1951) and Earlougher
Mathematical development {1977). However, the wellbore storage may
partially or entirely mask the effect of the no-
In this section, the basic solution (influence flow barrier on the pressure response of a well.
or unit response function) for the constant rate Conceivably, the characteristic behavior of a
case without wellbore storage and skin effects reservoir with a no-flow linear barrier could be
is presented first. This solution will then be in- distorted if the distance, d, is short and/or the
corporated with different wellbore flow (stor- storage duration is long.
age) models or with measured downhole flow The effect of wellbore storage could be easily
rate. eliminated or reduced to a large degree if the
A fully penetrated well in a horizontal and downhole flow rate is measured and analyzed
infinite homogeneous reservoir containing a together with the bottomhole pressure. Prac-
slightly compressible fluid with a constant vis- ticality may, however, limit downhole flow rate
cosity is considered here. The fault cuts the in- measurement for every well. Thus, we consider
finite reservoir vertically at a distance (d) from both cases here: transient analysis of only pres-
the wellbore as shown in Fig. 1. sure or of pressure and flow rate data. As stated
The dimensionless pressure (influence or above, the wellbore flow rate behavior will be
unit response function) for the well described approximated by either the exponential or con-
above, producing at a constant rate without the stant wellbore storage flow model if it is not
effects of wellbore storage and skin, is given by measured. The constant weUbore storage model
Horner (1951) as: has been commonly used to develop type-curves
198
for different well reservoir systems for the last
two decades.
Given the constant rate behavior (influence
function) of the well-reservoir system, the re-
lationship between downhole flow rate (input)
and pressure (output) signals at the wellbore
can be described as a convolution operation:
tl)
/I
PwD (tl)) = ~ qI~ (r)PsD (tD - r ) d r
0
tl)
f.
= | qD (r) [p~)(tD --r) +
0 ervoir with a no-flow barrier. Thus, identifica-
d(tD-r)S]dr (3)
provided that qD ( 0+ ) is zero.
In eq. 3, qD is the normalized downhole flow
rate, and PwD is the dimensionless downhole
pressure, both of which are measured at the tool
location. The dimensionless pressure, PD, for
the constant rate case is given by eq. 1 and
PsD=PD+S, where S is the van Everdingen-
Hurst steady-state skin factor.
The convolution integral given by eq. 3, which
is a subset of Volterra integral equations, is well
known for providing techniques for solving
time-dependent boundary value problems. It is
also known as the superposition theorem, and
has played an important part in transient well
test analysis.
The dimensionless wellbore pressure for the
constant wellbore storage case, PwD, is given by
van Everdingen and Hurst (1949) and Agarwal
et al. (1970) as an integro-differential equation
of a convolution type, namely:
tD
PwD (tD) = 1 -- CD dr
0 [p~(tD--r)+d(tD-r)S]dde
[dpD(tD-r)~-d(tD-r)Sldr(4)dtD
and its Laplace transform is:
psD (s)
15wD(s) - l +C.s2Ps D (s) (5)
Fig. 2 presents a log-log plot of the dimen-
sionless wellbore pressure, PwD, and its deriva-
tive with respect to In tD for d= 100 ft, CD ----100,
and S= 10. Solutions given in Fig. 2 are ob-
tained by combining eqs. 5 and 2 and using the
Stehfest (1970) numerical Laplace inversion
method. Also presented in Fig. 2 are the solu-
tions without the effect of a no-flow barrier, but
with the same wellbore storage and skin effects.
As can be seen from Fig. 2, the difference in
the pressures with and without the effect of the
no-flow barrier is minimal. The derivative does
not show any distinguishing features of a res-
tion of the no-flow barrier appears impossible
from pressure or its derivative when the well-
bore storage and skin effects are dominant. In
this situation, the presence of a no-flow barrier
and its distance to the wellbore have to be
known independently for the use of semilog and
type curve matching methods.
The pressure or pressure derivative type
curves (from eq. 5 combined with eq. 2 ) can be
developed for different distances to the fault.
However, it is better to use nonlinear least-
squares estimation methods (automated type
curve matching) to analyze well test data be-
cause a set of type curves is needed for each
distance to the fault. A brief introduction to the
nonlinear least-squares estimation methods will
be given later.
For the exponential wellbore flow rate case,
the dimensionless wellbore pressure, PwD, is
given by van Everdingen (1953) and Hurst
(1953) in terms of the convolution integral as:
tD
PwD (tD) = ~ (1 --e -/j~)
t)
(6)
and its Laplace transform is:
fl/SsD (s)
i6wD (S) = - - (7)
fl+s
Fig. 3 presents a log-log plot of the dimen-
sionless wellbore pressure, PwD, and its deriva-
 199

l0 t

X
N

A
A
A
A
&,

10 °
e-
C~ A

r~
-- P,~l) with no-flow houndac,

C D = lO00 ---- dP~D/dlnt D v*ith no-Ilow boundar?

S = 10 0 P~D without n,)-llo~, houndac.

d = lOOft /X P~D/dlntl) v, lthout no-Ilow houndar,.

1 0 -t
1 0 -t 10 ° l0 t 10 2 10 ~ 10 4 10 ~

ID/CD

Fig. 2. Dimensionless wellbore pressure, PwD, and its derivative for the constant wellbore storage case.

10 t

10 °
A

-- P~D with no-llow boundary

13 = 0.00007 ---- dP~D/dlnt D with no-flow boundary

S =10 O P~D without no-flow boundary

d = lOOft ~. P~o/dlnt D without no-flow boundary

10-'
1 0 -2 10-' 10 ° l0 t 10 2 l0 s 10 4

PtD
Fig. 3. D i m e n s i o n l e s s w e l l b o r e p r e s s u r e , PwD, a n d i t s d e r i v a t i v e for t h e e x p o n e n t i a l flow r a t e case.
200
rive with respect to In tD for d-- 100, fl= 0.00007,
and S = 10. Like Fig. 2, solutions given in Fig.
3 are obtained by combining eqs. 7 and 2, and
using the Stehfest ( 1970 ) algorithm. The same
figure also presents a log-log plot o f p w D and its
derivative without the effect of a no-flow bar-
rier, but with the same wellbore storage and skin
effects. As can be seen from Fig. 3, the behavior
of pressure and its derivative for the exponen-
tial wellbore flow rate case is similar to that of
the constant wellbore storage case.
Interpretation methods
Interpretation of well test data from a well in
a reservoir with a no-flow barrier or a fault pre-
sents two problems that must be solved simul-
taneously. The first is the identification
(diagnosis) of the system; that is, identifica-
tion of the presence of a no-flow barrier or bar-
riers without independent information.
Geological and geophysical methods may pro-
vide clues about the presence and location of
the tectonic boundaries. However, these sources
do not usually reveal the nature of the no-flow
barrier - - sealing, partially sealing. The second
problem is the estimation of the distance of the
no-flow barrier to the wellbore and other un-
known reservoirs parameters, some of which are
necessary for the estimation of the distance.
Solutions of both problems are attempted
using the conventional, logarithmic convolu-
tion, deconvolution, and the nonlinear least-
squares estimation methods. Examples are
given to address the identification and estima-
tion problems.
Four synthetic well test examples are used
for the application of the interpretation meth-
ods presented below. All examples have the
same rock and formation properties and are
given in Table I with different distances to the
no-flow barrier: 5 ft for Example 1, 20 ft for
Example 2, 100 ft for Example 3, and 500 ft for
Example 4. For convenience, the constant well-
bore storage model with a C of 0.0274 bbl/psi is
used to generate the synthetic wellbore pres-
TABLE I
Rock a n d fluid data
Porosity, 0 = 0.20
Permeability, k = 40.0 m D
V i s c o s i t y , # = 0.8 cp
Compressibility, ct= 10 -:' psi t
Well radius, rw=0.35 ft
F o r m a t i o n thickness, h = 100 ft
Initial pressure, p~ = 4400.0 psi
P r o d u c t i o n rate, q = 3000 R B / D
P r o d u c t i o n time, tp = 5000 h
Skin, S = 10
sure and flow rate data. This model is given by:
dpwD ( tD )
qD (tD) = 1 -- CD (8)
dtD
However, the interpretation methods pre-
sented in-this paper are aimed at both the mea-
sured pressure and simultaneously measured
flow rate and pressure.
Conventional
In the conventional analysis, log-log pres-
sure and log-log pressure derivative plots are
used as identification (diagnostic) tools. Log-
log pressure and log-log pressure derivative type
curve methods, either graphical (Clark and van
Golf-Racht, 1985; Proanov and Lilley, 1986) or
automated (nonlinear least-squares estima-
tion, described later), can be used if the well-
bore storage is constant. However, for various
reasons, the wellbore storage a n d / o r flow rate
(for drawdown tests) may not be constant for
the duration of a test. In those situations, the
use of this model at early times must be done
with caution.
In general, the conventional methods depend
on the presence of one or two semilog straight
lines. The first conventional method is that of
Horner ( 1951 ), which depends on the presence
of two semilog straight lines. The distance to
the no-flow barrier from the Horner method is
given by Earlougher and Kazemi (1980) as:
d = 0.01217~/ktin/O/~ct (9)

where tin is the time at which the two semilog
straight lines intersect each other.
The skin from the second semilog straight can
be obtained as:
S = 2.3026 [_Aplh~--log ~ The estimation of the distance from eqs. 11
[_ m2 ~JllCtrw
+3.2275+log(2d/rw) 1 (10)
where 3Plhr=Pws(att=O)-pw~(3t=l hr), and
m2--the slope of the second Hornet semilog
straight line.
The second conventional method is the de-
superposition given by Gray (1965) and Mar-
tinez and Cinco-Ley (1985), which depends on
the existence of a first semilog straight line and
a transition period. The onset of the deviation
of the pressure or pressure derivative from the
first straight line can also be used to estimate
the distance as:
d=/0.0002637 ktav In (0.86859ml) (111
where Q,-- the time at which the pressure or its
derivative deviates from the first semilog
straight line, and ml--the slope of the first
semilog straight line.
In the desuperposition method, type-curve
matching is not needed to obtain the distance
ifeq. 11 is used. Eq. 11 is also useful if the sec-
ond semilog straight line does not develop.
The method given by Earlougher and Ka-
zemi (1980) for estimating the no-flow barrier
distance to the wellbore can also be modified
as:
d = 0.00431 x/kt~e/~)].~ct ( 12 )
where t~2 is the start of the second semilog
straight line which can be obtained accurately
from the pressure derivative plot.
To apply eq. 12, the wellbore storage effect
should be negligible at the start of the second
semilog straight line. In other words, t~2 is the
start of the second semilog straight line due to
201
radial flow with the effect of the no-flow barrier
and is not the end of the wellbore storage effect.
The wellbore storage effect should diminish be-
fore the start of the second semilog straight line,
however.
or 12 depends on a single time point. Thus,
pressure derivative plots are better suited for
the determination of tdv and tsl2 and their de-
termination from semilog plots is not recom-
mended. Nevertheless, eqs. 11 and 12 provide
an alternative to eq. 9 for the estimation of the
distance to the no-flow barrier. If the distances
obtained from eqs. 9, 11, or 12 are different from
each other, the reservoir model and the first and
second semilog straight lines should be ques-
tioned. If applicable, the distance obtained from
either eq. 9, 11, or 12 can be used as an initial
guess for the nonlinear parameter estimation.
Example 1:d=5 ft. Fig. 4 presents a syn-
thetic buildup pressure and afterflow rate data
after a constant-rate flow period of 5000 h for
Example 1. As can be seen from this figure, the
measurable afterflow period is about one hour.
Fig. 5 presents a log-log plot of the wellbore
pressure and derivative of the wellbore pres-
sure with respect to In t (for convenience, t in-
stead of At is used throughout this paper).
Usually, the derivative of the wellbore pressure
with respect to In ( tp + t ) should be used to min-
imize the effect of the producing time, tp. How-
ever, the producing time for the buildup
examples is long enough so that its effect can
be neglected.
As expected, Fig. 5 does not show the effect
of a no-flow barrier; rather, it exhibits a typical
radial system behavior since its effect on the
wellbore pressure and its derivative is masked
by the wellbore storage and skin effects. Thus,
the presence of the no-flow barrier and its dis-
tance to the wellbore have to be known for the
use of semilog and type curve matching meth-
ods. Otherwise, the test would have been ana-
lyzed as a radial system without a no-flow
barrier as shown in Fig. 6. The Horner plot, Fig.
6, exhibits a semilog straight line which yields
202

4400 . . . . . . . . 3750

i
4000 - ............... ~.~ 3000
~++++~+
++%

++÷
3600 2250
m

4 *

÷
3200-
+
- 1500
n-
,2 {
¢. O
+
l,
2800 - 750

2400 . . . . . . .A~~.... -o

•~ Pressure 1

2000 17 10"=
. . . . . . . .

10'
. . . . . . . .

10"
. . . . . . . . {

10=
+ Spinner {

10'
Time, hrs
Fig. 4. Wellbore pressure and afterflow rate for Example 1 (d=5 ft).

10 ~

f _ % % ~

10 ~
<1
¢-
c$

i0'
.fl$ O Measured pressure
, ~ Computed pressure
+ Measured pressure derivative
°° Computed pressure derivative

0 -3 10 2 10-, 10 o 10 ~
Shut-in time, hr

Fig. 5. Comparison of measured and computed pressures and their derivatives for Example 1 ( d - - 5 ft).
 203

4200-
16~67 10.'99 7.259 4.795 3.167 2.()94 1.3'84 0.9152 0.6()51
Real time, hr

4000-

O.

d 3800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aAA~Aaa
(n
fD

Q.

c AA
3600 . . . . .... ~ _ 4 ...........
A
c-
u) AA

Slope = -206.50 p s i / c y c l e ",

3400 kh = 1889.80 md-ft t . . . . . . . . . . . . AAA
k = 18.90 md ",
S = 3.09
p. = 4422.37 psi

3500
L
10' 10'
Horner time, (At+tp)/At
Fig. 6. Homer plot for Example 1 (d=5 ft).

k=18.9 mD, S=3.1 and p*=4422.4 psi. The
permeability and skin calculated from the Hor-
ner semilog straight line are incorrect. These
results can be modified to obtain the correct
values of the parameters if the of the fault is
known. The desuperposition method and Eqs.
9, 11, and 12 are not applicable to this test be-
cause the first semilog straight line is not pres-
ent due to the wellbore storage effect.
Example 2: d= 20 ft. Fig. 7 presents pressure
and its derivative with respect to In t on a log-
log graph for Example 2. As in Example 1, Fig.
7 does not show the effect of a no-flow barrier.
Here, the fault is located 20 ft away from the
wellbore. The Horner plot for Example 2 is not
much different than the Horner plot for Ex-
ample 1. As shown in Fig. 8, the semilog straight
line yields k = 18.7 mD, S-- 2.3, and p* -- 4428.7
psi. Theoretically, both semilog straight lines
in Figs. 6 and 8 should yield the same results;
however, they are not drawn spanning the same
time period.
Example 3: d= 100 ft. Figs. 9 and 10 present
a log-log pressure, log-log pressure derivative,
and the Horner plots for Example 3. What is
said about Examples 1 and 2 is also true for this
example.
Example 4:d=500 ft. Fig. 11 presents log-
log pressure and pressure derivative plots for
Example 4. Ascan be seen from this figure, the
log-log plot clearly shows the effect of a no-flow
barrier. The log-log pressure derivative indi-
cates an upward trend after a dip. This upward
trend of the pressure derivative curve can be
seen in Fig. 12 (the enlarged plot of Fig. 11 ). It
is clear from Fig. 11 that the effect of the no-
flow barrier becomes a dominant factor follow-
ing the dissipation of the wellbore storage ef-
fect, lasting around 10 h. The remaining part
of the test is the transition period between the
first and second straight line. Thus, in a real
test, identification may become a problem if we
do not know the presence of a fault. In other
words, it will be difficult to obtain a smooth
204

10 3 -

\
102 -

<1

¢..

e-,

/'

0 Measured pressure
--Computed pressure
+ Measured p r e s s u r e derivative
=-Computed p r e s s u r e derivative
I0 ° ........ I ........ I ........ I ........ I
I 0 -~ I 0 -~ i 0 -l I0 ° 101
Shut-in time, hr
Fig. 7. C o m p a r i s o n of m e a s u r e d a n d c o m p u t e d pressures a n d t h e i r derivatives for E x a m p l e 2 (d = 20 ft).

4200
10.99 7.259 4.795 3.167 2.094 1.384 0.9152 0.6051
Real time, hr

4000 -

a~ 38oo

8Q .
.~.
3600
i-
>,

Slope = -209.24 psi/cycle

3400 kh = 1865.07 m d - f t t - " ~'
k ffi 18.65 m d [
S = 2.33
P" = 4 4 2 8 , 6 7 Dsl
J
3200
102 10s

Horner time, (At+tp)/At

Fig. 8. H o r n e r plot for E x a m p l e 2 ( d = 2 0 ft).
 205

10 3 -

a.
,,=,,)
/ ,.
=
•.~ 102 - / ~%x,+
.....................
~ ......................

e~

~ 10 I -

r a Computed pressure
+ Measured p r e s s u r e derivative
- ° C o m p u t e d p r e s s u r e derivative

10° ...... I ........ I ........ I ........ I ........ I

10 3 I0 ~ 10 ' 10 ° 10'
Shut-in time, hr
Fig. 9. C o m p a r i s o n of m e a s u r e d a n d c o m p u t e d p r e s s u r e s a n d t h e i r derivatives for E x a m p l e 3 ( d = 100 ft).

4200-
16:67 - ~ . . . . . 7. . 2T5 9
10.99 4 . 7r9 5 ,
3.167 2 . 0,9 4 r . . . . . . . 0.9152
1.384 .~ - 0.6()51
R e a l time, hr

4050-

rl 3900 -

d
W

3750-
Q.
A~kA ~
¢
&
A
JC A
o) 3600 -
A
&
Slope = -193.86 psi/cycle A
kh = 2012.98 md-ft &
3450- k = 20.13 m d
S = 2.23
p"
= 4 4 0 0 . 7 3 asl

3300-

10' 10'

Horner time, (At÷tp)/At

Fig. 10. H o r n e r p l o t for E x a m p l e 3 (d= 100 ft).

206

• i
1 0 3 --:

,.; 10 2 ~

.~ lO t
e-,

10 ° ~ Computed pressure
+ Measured pressure derivative
-° Computed pressure derivative

........ I ........ I ........ I ........ I ........ I

0 -( I0 ~ I 0 -2 10-' 10 ° lO t
Shut-in t i m e , hr
Fig. 11. C o m p a r i s o n o f m e a s u r e d a n d c o m p u t e d p r e s s u r e s a n d t h e i r d e r i v a t i v e s for E x a m p l e 4 ( d = 5 0 0 ft ).

100 0 The Horner plot, as shown in Fig. 13, ex-

90 hibits a semilog straight line which yields
80 )
k-- 35.9 mD, S=8.3 andp* =4244.5 psi. As can
be seen from Fig. 12, the Horner semilog
~. 7O straight line is drawn through the transition
period. Thus, permeability and skin are lower
than the true values. The extrapolated pressure
# Onset of the effect of the
' 'co' ' ',7 no-flow boundary is incorrect because it is obtained from the first
Ooo
50
c<o
,, ° ooo U-~
Horner semilog straight line. On the other hand,
°°Oocx-~. . . . . . ~ . ~ o e O ')
the extrapolated pressures from the second
40 . . . . . . . ]
semilog straight line for Examples 1, 2, and 3
I 00 are correct. However, for Example 4, the well-
~hul-in time, hr
bore storage effect slightly overlaps the no-flow
Fig. 12. S e m i l o g p l o t o f t h e d e r i v a t i v e o f t h e w e l l b o r e p r e s - barrier effect. As can be seen from Fig. 12, the
s u r e for E x a m p l e 4 ( d = 5 0 0 f t ) . slope has not doubled at 24 h; meaning the cor-
rect second semilog straight line did not de-
pressure derivative of real data to diagnose a velop at that time.
subtle effect of the no-flow barrier from either
Fig. 11 or 12. Nevertheless, permeability and Logarithmic convolution
the distance from Fig. 12 are calculated to be
k = 36.7 mD and d = 538 ft, using eq. 11. We note The logarithmic or sandface rate convolu-
that permeability from the pressure derivative tion method, which is similar to the conven-
plot is slightly more accurate than that of the tional multirate method, is well documented in
Horner plot which is discussed below. the literature (Fetkovich and Vienot, 1984;
 207

4100
Real time, hr

4000-

CL 3900-
d

3800. "%
Q.
A
A

"A i
r-
u) 3700 -
A
b ' '
A
A

t Slope = -108.64 psi/cycle A

kh -- 3592.18 md-ft
3600- k = 35.92 md
S
p-
= 8.29
= 4244.52 psi

3500 I

10' 10'

H o m e r time, (~t+tp)/At
Fig. 13. Horner plot for Example 4 (d--500 ft).

Meunier et al., 1985, 1987; Kuchuk and Ayes- d2

taran, 1985). 0.000264~(t_ ~:)]dT} (14)
Substituting eq. 1 with skin in eq. 3 yields:
where:
tD

PwD(tD)= f q~(r) {1[

0
---~Ei 4(o 1,) J~i =/lPwf/qD and is called "reciprocal produc-
tivity index" or "rate normalized pressure"
(13) t
f, ct(t,qD) = [1/qD(t)] _t qD(~) l o g ( t - r ) d ~
Substituting the logarithmic approximation for 0
E i ( - 1/4tD) in eq. 13 when tD> 100, which is
attained for most systems after a few seconds if = logarithmic convolution time
the permeability is greater than 1 mD, and di-
viding by qD, yields (in oil-field units): rn = 162.6q/t / kh
O.4343 b = log (r//r~) - 3.2275 + 0.86859S
J~i (t) = m { [f~ct(t,qD) + b ]-
qD (t) If the well-to-fault distance, d, is small (a few
t wellbore radii from the wellbore), the argument
of the exponential integral in eq. 14 becomes
× I q~(~)Ei sufficiently small after a few seconds for rea-
0
sonably permeable systems. Thus, using the
208
logarithmic approximation for the exponential
integral in eq. 14 yields:
d~i (t) = 2m [/it t (t,qD) + b ' ]
where:
b' = log (tl/r~) - 3.2275 + 0.4343S
-log(2d/rw )
A linear plot of J ~ i vs. [lct(t,qD) should also
yield a straight line with a slope of 2m and an
intercept of 2rob'. The permeability and skin
can be obtained from the slope and intercept.
Although interpretation is straightforward for
the case of a small but known d, the identifica-
tion of a no-flow barrier from transient well-
bore pressure a n d / o r flow rate data may not be
possible from logarithmic convolution as in
conventional methods.
Fig. 14 presents a logarithmic convolution plot
of the normalized pressure as a function of the
logarithmic convolution time for Example 1 (a
fault distance of 5 ft). After a short time, the
plot exhibits a straight line. The permeability
and skin obtained from the slope and intercept
of the straight line are k = 4 1 . 2 mD and S = 10.5,
which are almost the same as actual values. As
in the conventional methods, without knowl-
edge of the fault distance, the permeability and
skin would be calculated as k = 2 0 . 6 mD and
S=3.9.
If d (distance) is not very small and the test
duration is sufficiently long, the logarithmic
convolution plot should yield two straight lines.
The first straight line is described by eq. 14 and
the second one by eq. 15. The distance to the
fault can be obtained from the intersection of
the two straight lines as:
d = 0.01217 e 1'513 ¢r,ct,, x / ~ l x c '
where (/let) i --- logarithmic convolution time at
the intersection of the first and second straight
lines on the logarithmic convolution plot.
Fig. 15 presents a logarithmic convolution plot
of the normalized pressure as a function of the
logarithmic convolution time for Example 2 (a
fault distance of 20 ft). The logarithmic con-
volution plot exhibits two straight lines (the
slope of the second straight line is slightly less
(15)
than the double of the first one ) from which the
permeability, skin, and the distance are ob-
tained as k = 4 0 . 6 mD, S = 1 0 . 2 and d = 1 6 . 3 ft.
These estimated values are close to the actual
values. We point out that the conventional
methods did not work for this case because the
effect of the no-flow barrier is masked by the
wellbore storage. The identification of the pres-
ence of a no-flow barrier and estimation of its
distance to the wellbore, permeability, and skin
are possible from the logarithmic convolution
plot.
For large d (distance) and sufficiently small
t (time), the argument of the exponential in-
tegral in eq. 14 becomes large; the exponential
integral thus approaches zero. In this case, the
logarithmic convolution method can be used
during the early time at which the no-flow bar-
rier has a negligible effect. Thus, for a radial
system, a linear plot of Jmi vs./let (t,qD) should
yield a straight line with a slope m and an in-
tercept rob. The permeability and skin can be
obtained from the slope and intercept.
The logarithmic convolution method can also
be used during the late time if the flow rate is
measured. For instance, flow rate can be mea-
sured during the late time of a drawdown test.
However, the flow rate approaches zero as pres-
sure builds up; thus, the flow rate measurement
during the late time of a buildup test is often
impractical.
Fig. 16 presents a logarithmic convolution plot
of the normalized pressure as a function of the
logarithmic convolution time for Example 3 (a
fault distance of 100 ft). The plot exhibits only
(16) one straight line period after which the after-
flow becomes too small to be measured accu-
rately in practice. The straight line in Fig. 16
yields k = 4 0 . 0 mD and S = 10.0, which are the
same as actual values. Note that the normalized
pressure deviates from the straight line at about
one hour. One can also use the deviation point,
as given in eq. 12, to compute the distance.
 209

1600
0.0008 o o~2e ooze3 o o~ss 0.0~70 02~5 05~19
Real time, hr

1500
/
o.

:3 1400 /
/
CO
¢0

1300

/
m
o
"O
"o
a)
N 1200

E
,= 1100
L A A ~
n- AA A
& / Slope -- 189.46 psi/cycle
1000 . " " kh = 2059.73 m d - f t _
/ /
k = 41.19 md
S = 3.57

900 I I I
-4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -t5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0

logarithmic convolution time, ftct

Fig. 14. Logarithmic convolution plot for Example 1 (d=5 ft).

Note that for these three examples, permea-
bility and skin calculated from the Horner sem-
ilog straight line is much lower than those
obtained from the logarithmic convolution. For
most flow systems, the late time Horner perme-
ability and skin must be equal to or greater than
the early time logarithmic convolution perme-
ability and skin. Thus, the contrast can be taken
as an indication of a no-flow barrier effect if
other possibilities are thoroughly examined.
Further, the Horner permeability is one-half of
the logarithmic convolution permeability. This
condition most likely will not occur in many
reservoirs, except for single no-flow barrier sys-
tems. After estimation of permeability and skin
from logarithmic convolution, Fig. 16, the dis-
tance is calculated from eq. 10 as d= 74 ft, which
is 26% lower than the actual value since eq. 10
is very sensitive to errors in S, APlhr, and ml.
Fig. 17 presents a logarithmic convolution plot
of the normalized pressure as a function of the
logarithmic convolution time for Example 4 (a
fault distance of 500 ft). As in Example 3, the
logarithmic convolution plot also exhibits only
one straight line period after which the after-
flow becomes too small to be measured. The
straight line in Fig. 17 yields k=40.0 mD and
S = 10.0. However, the distance to the no-flow
barrier cannot be estimated from eq. 10, be-
cause as we stated earlier, the Horner semilog
straight line given in Fig. 13 is the first one. The
estimates from the logarithmic convolution
method also support this argument because they
are close to those from the Horner method.
A reasonably long-duration drawdown test
instead of the buildup tests, as given in Exam-
ples 3 and 4, would be a better choice for elimi-
nating any ambiguity arising from the low
flowmeter response after approximately one
hour. The logarithmic convolution plot of the
drawdown test would have exhibited two
straight lines from which the permeability, skin,
and distance could have been calculated.
Thus, logarithmic convolution of rate and
210

18oo~_ o.~5 ----T

0.0028 o.o'.7 0.0777 o.3~s 1.3'34 " ~
5.982 . . . . . . . .

1650 - --
,r,=

d
U)
1500

3.
¢1

"0 1350
"0
0

as
E
1200. --

=1
¢1::
1050 - - - - - ---

90O ...... T- T
-4.50 -3.75 -3.00 -2.25 -tS0 -0.75 0,00 0.75 t50

logarithmic convolution time, flct

Fig. 15. Logarithmic convolution plot for Example 2 (d=20 ft).

pressure data from a buildup test works for the
identification of no-flow barriers and the esti-
mation of reservoir parameters, if the no-flow
barrier is not too close to the wellbore. Since the
wellbore storage effects are minimized by meas-
uring the downhole flow rate, the very early time
data, during which the effect of the no-flow bar-
rier is small, can be used for the estimation of
permeability and skin from the first straight line
on the logarithmic convolution graph. If the
distance is not too large, the plot may also ex-
hibit a second straight line from which the dis-
tance is obtained. If the distance is large, then
the logarithmic convolution and the semilog
methods can be combined to obtain it. How-
ever, one should remember that the effects of
the wellbore volume below the tool and of other
near-wellbore complexities such as perfora-
tions, acidized zone, etc., should be small so that
very early time transient pressure-rate data can
be used to detect the no-flow barrier near the
wellbore and to estimate its distance from the
wellbore. In other words, the near wellbore ef-
fects must be resolved as a constant skin region,
and the wellbore storage due to the volume be-
low the tool must become negligible before the
onset of the radial flow on the logarithmic con-
volution plot.
Deconvolution
Deconvolution is defined as determining di-
mensionless pressure (or pressure for actual
well tests ), PSD, (given in eq. 3 ) at the wellbore
for the constant flow rate from simultaneously
measured downhole pressure and flow rate. In
other words, deconvolution involves comput-
ing the pressure behavior of a well-reservoir
system as though the well produces at a con-
stant rate, from any arbitrary pressure and flow
rate history. Unlike the conventional and con-
volution methods, deconvolution of wellbore
212

1650 - i - T l i • i 1
0.0005 0.0026 0.0147 0.0780 0.3530 1.323 5.949
Real time, hr

I
1500 -
0. w 1
o3
¢t) 1350 -
a)
P,
__=
¢,
10 12oo - r
I
"10 rt I
i
!

¢I i
I
J
E I
4
1050 - t 1
,=
.= J /
n"

t
J
Slope = 97.39 p s i / c y c l e /
900 - -
kh = 4007.13 m d - f t

75O
-4.50 -3.75 -3,00 -2.25 -1.50 -0.75
k
S
= 40.07 m d
= 10.03

I
0.00
i
0.75
f
1.50

logarithmic convolution time, fict

Fig. 17, Logarithmic convolution plot for Example 4 (d--500 ft).

contains measurement errors. For
PSD [(tD)l ], the problem becomes worse be-
cause incorrect PSD [ ( ~D ) 0 ] is used for the com-
putation of the numerator in eq. 18, and the
numerator has to be again divided by qD [ (tD) 1 ].
The error in PSD (tD) will grow as ~D increases
since eq. 17 is recursive. Thus, the procedure
given by eq. 17 for deconvolution is an unstable
operation if the downhole flow rate contains
some measurement noise (errors).
Kuchuk and Ayestaran (1985) also pre-
sented a curve-fit deconvolution for eq. 3. As
discussed by them, the success of the curve-fit
deconvolution method depends on how well the
approximation function represents the behav-
ior Of PsD.
All measurements, no matter how carefully
obtained, are subject to some errors. At the
wellbore, usually errors in pressure measure-
ments are smaller t h a n errors in flowmeter
measurements. Sometimes errors can be large
in flowmeter measurements depending upon
wellbore geometry and fluid type. In any event,
the deconvolution methods mentioned above
give unstable solutions if measurements have a
small a m o u n t of noise (errors) associated with
them.
To circumvent the stability problem, Ku-
chuk et al. (1985) introduced the constrained
deconvolution method. This method is used to
compute deconvolved pressure for the exam-
ples given above. A brief discussion on con-
strained deconvolution is given for the sake of
thoroughness.
Let us assume t h a t the downhole flow rate
contains measurement noise or error which can
be expressed as:
qI) (tD) = q D (tD)-4-~(tD ) (19)
where ql) is the measured flow rate and e (tD) is
the noise in the flow rate measurements. In the
constrained deconvolution, PSD is computed in
such a way t h a t it minimizes I]e(tD)]] subject
to:

tD
P w D ( t D ) = f OD(3) X
0
[P~D(tD --~) + 5(tD-r)S]dz (20)
and:
PSD (tD) >-- for tD > 0 (21)
PSD (tD) >--- for tD > 0 (22)
PSD(D)
,r / t -~ for tD > 0 (23)
P SD (tD) is monotone increasing for tD >--0
(24)
where the prime denotes time derivative of
PSD ( tD ).
The general solutions of the diffusivity equa-
tion for a second kind of internal boundary
condition in homogeneous porous media with
nonperiodic initial and outer boundary condi-
tions will satisfy the conditions given in eqs.
21-24 when the real time is greater than 1 s and
permeability is not less than 1 mD.
The constraints given by eqs. 21-24 were first
introduced by Coates et al. (1964). Thus, de-
convolution becomes a linear least-squares
problem subject to simple bounds on the vari-
ables. The active set method is used to solve the
above minimization problem for the well test
examples.
Figs. 18, 19, 20, and 21 present a semilog plot
of the deconvolved pressures as a function of
time for Examples 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
As can be seen from Fig. 18, the semilog plot
exhibits two straight lines. The first one with a
very short duration yields k--32.1 mD and
S = 7.6. The distance from the intercept of the
two straight lines using eq. 9 is obtained as
d = 5.1 ft. The second straight line with a much
longer duration (1 h) than that of the first one
yields k=40.6 mD and S--10.3 (from eq. 10).
Although the permeability values computed
from both straight lines are not very different,
permeability computed from the second straight
line with a longer duration should be consid-
ered more reliable.
213
These estimated values are close to the ac-
tual values. Unlike the conventional and loga-
rithmic convolution methods, identification of
the presence of a no-flow barrier and estima-
tion of its distance from the wellbore, permea-
bility, and skin are possible from the
deconvolved pressure. However, accurate
downhole flow rate measurements are essential
to have successful deconvolution during the
very early time.
As in Example 1, Fig. 19 for Example 2 also
exhibits two semilog straight lines: the first one
yields k=38.0 mD and S=9.4. The distance
from the intercept of the two straight lines us-
ing eq. 9 is calculated as d= 18.5 ft. The perme-
ability and skin from the second straight line
are k=40.0 mD and S=10.6. Note that both
straight lines in Fig. 19 are well developed.
In contrast, the semilog plot for Example 3
exhibits essentially one straight line as Fig. 20
demonstrates. In this case the measurable af-
terflow period is not long enough to allow the
development of the second straight line. The
permeability, skin, and the distance are ob-
tained as k--40.0 mD, S-- 10.0, and d--121 ft
from the first semilog straight line.
The point of deviation occurs at 0.5 h. The
estimated distance is 21% higher than the ac-
tual value because eq. 11 is used with the semi-
log pressure plot instead of the derivative plot.
The presence of a no-flow barrier is assumed to
occur at the deviation point to allow computa-
tion of the distance. The deviation from the first
straight line, without the development of the
second semilog straight line, is necessary but
not sufficient for the identification of a no-flow
barrier. This is also true if the desuperposition
method is used.
As in the previous example, Example 4 also
exhibits only one straight line (Fig. 21) and
does not show the effect of a no-flow barrier.
The permeability and skin obtained from the
semilog line are k-- 40.0 mD and S = 10.0.
In general, the above results from deconvo-
lution show the possibility of identifying a no-
flow barrier system if the distance is not too
214

1650

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r. . . . . . . . .
.m J /
Q.
1500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I]J
Q.

"0

_> 12oo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12~

f't 1050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

900 . . . . . . . . . . ---.-
104 10''~ 10" 10e
Shut-In time, hr

Fig. 18. Semilo~ plot of deconvolved pressure for Example l (d = 5 ft ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1600

•~ 15oo . . . . . . . . .
] I
1,-

'~ 1400
¢/)
t/)
G)
t._

~' 1300
i
G)
"0 1200 r
> j . . . .
i
0
>
f.. 1100 -
Slope = 102.58 p s i / c y c l e t
0 kh 3804.10 m d - f t
(J
(9 k 38.04 md
f-t 1000 - = 9.38
- ,i/~Z- .... 1 s
Slope~ = 187.14 psi/cycle
/ J

900 ..... ,j

10"' 10"~ 104 10o

Shut-In t i m e , hr

Fig. 19. Semilog plot of deconvolved pressure for Example 2 (d = 20 ft ).

 215

1425

•~ 1350
¢L
d
U) 1275
(n
l_

Q.

.~, 1200

10
10
.~> 1125
0
>
t.-
0 Slope = 97.58 psi/cycle
o kh ffi 3999.20 md-ft
G) 1050 k = 39.99 md
a S = 10.00

975
10"= 10-, 10" 10°
Shut-in time, hr
Fig. 20. Semilog plot of deconvolved pressure for Example 3 (d = 100 ft).

1440 -

"~ 1360-
0,.

l,l,,

(/) 1280- _ m
(/)

Q,.
1200- .............. J
10

j
10
:> 1120
0
>
r"
0 J Slope = 97.82 psi/cycle
0 [kh = 3989.21 md-lt
1040 = 39.89 md
= 9.96

960 I
g

10.4 10"= 10 "t 10" 10'

Shut-in Ume, hr

Fig. 21. Semilog plot of deconvolved pressure for Example 4 (d = 500 ft).
216
small or too large (for drawdown test, there is
no upper limit for the distance ) and to estimate
its parameters, provided that the downhole flow
rate is measured simultaneously with pressure.
Nonlinear least-squares estimation
The purpose of the nonlinear least-squares
estimation is to construct an objective func-
tion, J, that can be minimized to obtain esti-
mates by ensuring the best fit between the
measured pressure and the model behavior. The
nonlinear least-squares estimation, also called
"automated type-curve or history matching",
is similar to type-curve matching. It can be per-
formed using wellbore pressure with (Guillot
and Horne, 1986; Kuchuk et al., 1986) and
without (a great deal of information and ref-
erences on this subject can be found in Rosa
and Horne, 1983; Barua et al., 1985a, b) down-
hole flow rate data.
Thus, the nonlinear estimation refers to
mlmmlzlng:
1 Nm
J(~)=~ ~ [Ap~f(x~,ti)-(Zlpwmf(ti)] 2 (25)
i=l
where the model behavior {computed pres-
sure), Apwbf (x,ti), is given by either eq. 3, 5, or
7, ~ = unknown parameter vector (k, S, d, etc. )
to be estimated, Apwmbf(ti)=measured pres-
sure, and Nm = number of measured data points.
c -* m
The derivative of Apwbf(x,ti) and Apwbf(ti)
with respect to in t are also used in eq. 25 for
the estimation of reservoir parameters. The de-
rivative of ztp~bf with respect to In t is com-
puted numerically from ApCbf.
The nonlinear estimation method (type-
curve matching with rate), which is described
above, is used to estimate parameters of the
system. During estimation, the no-flow barrier
distance is also assumed to be unknown. How-
ever, in the nonlinear estimation method the
model (well-reservoir system) is assumed to be
known. Unlike conventional, logarithmic con-
volution, and deconvolution methods, which
can also be used as an identification tool, the
c:
. . . . . I
Ill;
'~hlll iI~ liIl~,', ht
Fig. 22. Comparison of measured and computed pressure
derivatives for Example 1 (d = 5 ft).
nonlinear estimation method does not have any
identification power before the estimation be-
gins. However, a systematic use of different
models may eventually lead to the correct
model. For a complete interpretation of a well
test, the nonlinear estimation should be carried
out to verify the model behavior with the ob-
served behavior of the system.
Using the measured pressure and flow rate
with the mathematical model ( eq. 3 with eq. 1 ),
Fig. 5 presents the match between the mea-
sured and computed pressures and their deriv-
atives for Example 1. The estimates obtained
from these matches are:
k-- 39.6 mD, S=9.8 and d=4.7 ft
from the pressure match, and
k = 39.7 mD, S = 10.4 and d--8.7 ft
from the pressure derivative match.
Although both matches given in Fig. 5 look
exact, the enlarged plot of the pressure deriva-
tive curve, Fig. 22, shows a mismatch between
the measured and computed pressure deriva-
tive. The estimated distance from the pressure
derivative is 74% higher than the actual value.
It took 11 iterations to obtain the pressure
match and 146 iterations to obtain the pressure
derivative match starting from the same initial
guesses.
Fig. 7 presents the match between the mea-
 217

140 1600
o Measured ,ressure derivative
[ ~ C o m p u t e ( pressure derivative
1400

"~. 1200

m
1ooo
~ °Oo
~. °o
[l()O

600

80 . . . . . . . I 400 . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . I
lO' (1 ' 1() ~ lO ~
Shut-in time, hr SI;uL-in Lime, h r

Fig. 23. Comparison of measured and computed pressure Fig. 24. Comparison of measured and computed pressures
derivatives for Example 2 (d=20 ft). for Example 4 (d=500 ft).

sured and computed pressures and their deriv- Fig. 11 presents the match between the mea-
atives for Example 2. The estimates are: sured and the computed pressures and their de-
rivatives for Example 4. The estimates are:
k=39.9 mD, S=9.9 and d = 19.2 ft
k--28.58 mD, S=5.8 and d--941.6 ft
from the pressure match, and
from the pressure match, and
k=40.9 mD, S = 7 . 6 and d=l.O ft
k=36.5 mD, S=8.6 and d=919 ft
from the pressure derivative match.
As in Example 1, Fig. 7 does not show the from the pressure derivative match.
mismatch between the measured and com- The mismatches between the measured and
puted pressure derivative. However, the mis- computed pressures and their derivatives are
match is clearly shown in Fig. 23. The number shown in detail in Figs. 24 and 25. The esti-
of iterations is 87 for the pressure and 23 for mated distance is almost 100% higher than the
the pressure derivative. The estimated distance actual value from both matches. However, the
from the pressure derivative did not converge
I00
to the correct value. o o Measured pressure der va ,e
/\ --Cnmp, pres. derivative with unknown k and
Fig. 9 presents the match between the mea- 90-
sured and the computed pressures and their de-
rivatives for Example 3. The estimates are: B0-

k=39.8 mD, S--9.9 and d=99.1 ft _=

70-

from the pressure match, and

k--40.2 mD, S-- 10.0 and d--97.1 ft
60-

50
°Oo oo

from the pressure derivative match.

The numbers of iterations are 148 for the 4O . . . . . . . ]

pressure and 69 for the pressure derivative. For lO~ 10'

Shut-in time, hr
this case, the estimated distance from the pres-
sure and pressure derivative did converge to the Fig. 25. Comparison of measured and computed pressure
correct value. derivatives for Example 4 (d--500 ft).
218
permeability and skin values from the deriva-
tive match are close to the actual values. As can
be seen in eq. 12, the no-flow barrier has neg-
ligible effects on the pressure behavior of the
system before 10 h. Thus, permeability and skin
is estimated as k = 39.9 mD and S - - 9.8 from the
pressure match using a radial model without a
no-flow barrier, with 10 h of pressure and flow
rate data. When these permeability and skin
estimates are held fixed (known), the esti-
mated distance using the pressure derivative
data is d-- 507.6 ft. As can be seen from Fig. 25,
the pressure derivative match is improved.
Discussion and conclusions
In this section the interpretation results from
different methods will be discussed. This dis-
cussion, although limited to buildup tests, may
easily be extended to drawdown tests. Three
factors largely influence the transient response
and its interpretation of a well in a faulted res-
ervoir. First, the afterflow period during which
the flow rate is measurable, is an important
factor on interpretation methods. This rate
measurement problem does not arise for draw-
down tests, except for a few seconds at the be-
ginning of the test. Second, the well-to-fault
distance, coupled with storage, dictates whether
identification of the no-flow barrier is possible
from a test. Third, the producing time, which
is not discussed here, also impacts the devel-
opment of the characteristic features of a
nearby fault. Earlougher and Kazemi (1980)
provided a detailed discussion about the effect
of the producing time on the estimation of the
distance. This factor becomes important if the
distance is large and when the conventional
methods are used.
There are also other factors which affect
interpretation in practice, such as accuracy and
smoothness of downhole pressure and flow rate
measurements and the threshold value of the
flowmeter, beyond which flow rate measure-
ments become unreliable. For the synthetic ex-
amples, this threshold value is assumed to be
44 B / D .
The buildup examples given here cover a
range of well-to-fault distances, 5 to 500 ft, to
illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of each
interpretation method. In general, the fault
identification may become a problem if the dis-
tance is too small or too large from the well-
bore. Independent information about the no-
flow barrier is essential for these cases. How-
ever, for intermediate distances, such indepen-
dent information, although useful, is not a
prerequisite.
In this paper a fully penetrated well in a sin-
gle-layer infinite reservoir in which only single
phase fluid flows, is considered. Multiple fault
and layered systems are common occurrences
in many well known reservoirs. The methods
as presented here can be extended to multifault
a n d / o r layered reservoirs. For the multilayer
case, a single buildup test is not enough to ob-
tain reservoir parameters; multilayer testing is
therefore necessary.
The pressure match gives better results for
the small and intermediate distances, while the
pressure derivative approach works well for
large distances. Of course, one has to remember
that these observations could be a consequence
of the nonlinear methods that are used here.
The results presented here show that when
the effect of a no-flow barrier is not accounted
for, the estimated parameters (k, S, and p*) can
be subject to very large errors. The magnitude
of the errors is dependent upon the well-to-fault
distance. For example, if the distance is large it
is possible that only the first straight line may
be observed on the Horner plot. The permea-
bility and skin determined from the first
straight line will be correct. However, the ex-
trapolated pressure will be wrong. On the other
hand, if the distance is small it is possible that
only the second straight line may be observed
on the Horner plot. The permeability and skin
will be incorrect but the extrapolated pressure
is determined accurately. Using conventional
methods along with logarithmic convolution,
 219

deconvolution, and nonlinear estimation PD ----dimensionless sand/ace pressure for the

constant-rate case
methods will lead to the identification of the
PSD = PD q- S
no-flow barrier, a unique estimation of the PD = kh [Pi-Psf(t) ]/141.2qBl~
permeability, skin, reservoir pressure, and PwD ---- kh[pi-pwf(t) ]/141.2qB#
distance. PwbD = kh[pl-pwbf(t) ]/141.2qB/1
Pd = deconvolved pressure, psi
We did not attempt to compute the reservoir
Pwbf = downhole pressure, psi
pressure (average or extrapolated) for all cases. q = flow rate, S T B / D
It could be done easily either from the second qD = n o r m a l i z e d d o w n h o l e rate, qsf/q~B = qwbf/q~B
semilog straight line, if it is present, from the qr = reference flow rate, R B / D
qsf ---- sand/ace flow rate ( f l o w m e t e r readings, rps ),
reservoir drainage volume and geometry, or
RB/D
from the infinite-acting model with a no-flow qwbf = d o w n h o l e flow rate ( f l o w m e t e r readings,
barrier if the drainage volume is unknown. rps), RB/D
Finally, interpretation of pressure and flow r -- radial d i s t a n c e to t h e reservoir boundary, ft
rate data from a reservoir with no-flow bound- rw = wellbore radius, ft
rD = d i m e n s i o n l e s s radius
aries (this may not be available prior to the S = d a m a g e skin
interpretation) does not require the use of all s = Laplace image space variable
the methods as described above. However, in t -- time, h r
an inverse problem (identification of a system tdv = t i m e o f deviation from first semilog line, h r
tD ---- d i m e n s i o n l e s s time, 0.0002637kt/(~/ACt r 2 )
and estimation of its parameters), the tran-
tin = t i m e o f i n t e r s e c t i o n o f two semilog lines, h r
sient pressure and/or flow rate should be inter- t~12 = t i m e to t h e s t a r t o f s e c o n d semilog line, h r
preted using different methods with all ~j = p o i n t in t h e subinterval [ tj,ti + 1]
available prior information, such as past pro- = positive c o n s t a n t
duction, geological, geophysical, well logging, ]~ ~- OL~Ct r~ / (0.0002637k)

etc., to reduce the non-uniqueness of the /~ = oil viscosity, cp

¢ = system porosity
problem. z = d u m m y i n t e g r a t i o n variable
~/ = hydraulic diffusivity, k~ (~pCt)
Acknowledgment 0 = weighting factor for a u n i f o r m w e i g h t i n g for
all tj
= error in flow rate m e a s u r e m e n t , R B / D
We are thankful to Schlumberger manage- J(t) = Dirac delta f u n c t i o n
ment for permission to publish this work.
Subscripts
Appendix -- Nomenclature D = dimensionless
exp -- exponential
i = initial
B = f o r m a t i o n volume factor, R B / S T B
sf = sand/ace
C = wellbore storage c o n s t a n t , b b l / p s i
w = b o t t o m hole, well
c~ = d i m e n s i o n l e s s wellbore storage c o n s t a n t
wbf = wellbore flowing
CD -- 5.6146C/(2gOcthr~ )
wf = wellbore flowing
Ct = s y s t e m total compressibility, p s i - 1
d = well-to-fault distance, ft Superscripts
dD = d i m e n s i o n l e s s well-to-fault distance, 2d/r
= logarithmic c o n v o l u t i o n t i m e c = model or c o m p u t e d
flct
h -- f o r m a t i o n t h i c k n e s s , ft m = measured
k -- permeability, m D - = Laplace t r a n s f o r m o f
Ko -- m o d i f i e d Bessel f u n c t i o n o f s e c o n d kind,
order zero References
ml = first H o r n e r semilog slope, p s i / c y c l e
rft 2 = s e c o n d H o m e r semilog slope, p s i / c y c l e Agarwal, R.G., 1980. A n e w m e t h o d to a c c o u n t for produc-
p -- pressure, psi ing t i m e effects w h e n d r a w d o w n type curves are used to
220
analyze buildup and other test data. SPE 9289, 55th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, September 21-24.
Agarwal, R.G., A1-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H.J., Jr., 1970.
An investigation of wellbore storage and skin effect in
unsteady liquid flow, I. Analytical treatment. Soc. Pet.
Eng. J., Sept., pp. 279-290; Trans., AIME, 249.
A1-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J., Jr. and Crawford, P.B., 1966.
The flow of real gases through porous media. J. Pet.
Tech., May, pp. 624-636.
Barua, J., Kucuk, F. and Gomez-Angulo, J., 1985a. Appli-
cation of computers in the analysis of well tests from
fractured reservoirs. SPE 13662, California Regional
Meeting, Bakersfield, CA, March 27-29.
Barua, J., Horne, R., Greenstadt, J.L. and Lopez, L., 1985b.
Improved estimation algorithms for automated type
curve analysis of well tests. SPE 14255, 60th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV,
Sept. 22-25.
Bixel, H.C., Larkin, B.K. and van Poollen, H.K., 1963. Ef-
fect of linear discontinuities on pressure build-up and
drawdown behavior. J. Pet. Tech., August, pp. 885-895;
Trans., AIME, 228.
Bostic, J.N., Agarwal, R.G. and Carter, R.D., 1980. Com-
bined analysis of postfracturing performance and pres-
sure buildup data for evaluating an MHF gas well. J.
Pet. Tech., Oct., pp. 1711-1719.
Cinco, H., Ramey, H.J., Jr. and Miller, F.G., 1975. Un-
steady-state pressure distribution created by a direc-
tionally drilled well. J. Pet. Tech., Nov., pp. 1392-1400;
Trans., AIME, 251.
Clark, D.G. and van Golf-Racht, T.D., 1985. Pressure-de-
rivative approach to transient test analysis: a high-
permeability North Sea example. J. Pet. Tech., Nov.,
pp. 2023-2039.
Coats, K.H., Rapoport, L.A., McCord, J.R. and Drews,
W.P., 1964. Determination of aquifer influence func-
tions from field data. J. Pet. Tech., Dec., pp. 1417-1424;
Trans., AIME, 231.
Davis, E.G., Jr. and Hawkins, M.F., Jr., 1963. Linear fluid
barrier detection by well pressure measurements - - dis-
cussion. J. Pet. Tech., Oct., p. 1077.
Dolan, John P., Einarsen, Charles A. and Hill, Gilman A.,
1957. Special application of drill stem test pressure data.
Trans., AIME, 210: 318-324.
Earlougher, R.C., Jr., 1977. Advances in well test analysis.
SPE of AIME, Dallas, 5: 124-126.
Earlougher, R.C., Jr. and Kazemi, H., 1980. Practicalities
of detecting faults from buildup testing. J. Pet. Tech.,
Jan., pp. 18-20.
Evrenos, A.I. and Regda, E.A., 1965. A digital computer
application to the investigation of aquifer properties. J.
Pet. Tech., July, pp. 827-838.
Fetkovich, M.J. and Vienot, M.E., 1984. Rate-normaliza-
tion of buildup pressure using afterflow data. J. Pet.
Tech., Dec., pp. 2211-2224.
Gerard, M. and Horne, R.N., 1985. Effects of external
boundaries on the recognition of reservoir pinchout
boundaries by pressure transient analysis. Soc. Pet. Eng.
J., June, pp. 427-436.
Gladfelter, R.E., Tracy, G.W. and Wilsey, L.E., 1955. Se-
lecting wells which will respond to production-stimu-
lation treatment. Drill. Prod. Pract., API, pp. 117-129.
Gringarten, A.C. et al., 1979. A comparison between differ-
ent skin and wellbore storage type-curves for early-time
transient analysis. SPE 8205, 54th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, Sept.
23-26.
Guillot, A.Y. and Horne, R.N., 1986. Using simultaneous
flow rate and pressure measurements to improve anal-
ysis of well tests. SPE Formation Evaluation, 1 (3): 217-
226.
Horner, D.R., 1951. Pressure build-up in wells. Proc., 3rd
World Petroleum Congress, The Hague, Sec. II, pp. 503-
523.
Hutchinson, T.S. and Sikora, V.J., 1959. A generalized
water-drive analysis. Trans. AIME, 216, 169.
Hurst, W., 1953. Establishment of the skin effect and its
impediment to fluid flow into a well bore. Pet. Eng., Oct.,
B-6 through B-16.
Jargon, J.R. and van Poollen, H.K., 1965. Unit response
function from varying rate data. J. Pet. Tech., Aug., pp.
965-969; Trans., AIME, 234.
Jones, P., 1962. Reservoir limit test on gas wells. J. Pet.
Tech., June, pp. 613-619.
Kabir, S., Kuchuk, F.J. and Gomez-Angulo, J., 1986. Well
test interpretation in faulted reservoirs. Proc., 6th Off-
shore South East Asia Conference, Singapore, Jan. 28
31, pp. 152-161.
Katz, D.L., Tek, M.R. and Jones, S.C., 1962. A generalized
model for predicting the performance of gas reservoirs
subject to water drive. SPE 328, 37th Annual Fall Meet-
ing, Los Angeles, CA, Oct. 7-10.
Kuchuk, F.J., 1987. Gladfelter deconvolution. SPE 16377,
California Regional Meeting, Ventura, Ca., April 8-10.
Kuchuk, F. and Ayestaran, L., 1985. Analysis of simulta-
neously measured pressure and sandface flow rate in
transient well testing. J. Pet. Tech., Febr., pp. 323-334.
Kuchuk, F., Carter, R.G. and Ayestaran, L., 1985. Numer-
ical deconvolution of wellbore pressure and flow rate.
SPE 13960, SPE, Richardson, TX.
Kuchuk, F.J., Karakas, M. and Ayestaran, L., 1986. Well
testing and analysis techniques for layered reservoirs.
SPE Formation Evaluation, Aug., pp. 342-354.
Martinez, S. and Cinco-Ley, H., 1985. Detection of linear
impermeable barriers by transient pressure analysis.
Paper submitted to SPE, Richardson, Texas.
Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G., 1967. Pressure build-up
and flow tests in wells. SPE of AIME, Dallas, Texas, 1.
Meunier, D., Wittmann, M.J. and Stewart, G., 1985. Inter-
pretation of pressure buildup test using in-situ mea-
surement of afterflow. J. Pet. Tech., Jan., pp. 143-152.

Meunier, D.F., Kabir, C.S. and Wittmann, M.J., 1987. Gas
well test analysis: use of normalized pseudovariables.
SPE Formation Evaluation, Dec., pp. 629-636.
Overpeck, A.C. and Holden, W.R., 1970. Well imaging and
fault detection in anisotropic reservoirs. J. Pet. Tech.,
Oct., pp. 1317-1325; Trans., AIME, 249.
Pascal, H., 1981. Advances in evaluating gas well deliver-
ability using variable rate tests under non-Darcy flow.
SPE/DOE 9841, SPE/DOE Low Permeability Sym-
posium, Denver, Colo., May 27-29.
Pinson, A.E., Jr., 1972. Convenience in analyzing two-rate
flow tests. J. Pet. Tech., Sept., pp. 1139-1141.
Prasad, Raj K., 1975. Pressure transient analysis in the
presence of two intersecting boundaries. J. Pet. Tech.,
Jan., 89-96; Trans., AIME, 259.
Proano, E.A. and Lilley, I.J., 1986. Derivative of pressure:
application to bounded reservoir interpretation. SPE
15861, European Petroleum Conference, London, Oct.
20-22.
Ramey, H.J., 1965. Non-Darcy flow and wellbore storage
effects in pressure build-up and drawdown of gas wells.
J. Pet. Tech., Febr., pp. 223-233; Trans. AIME, 234.
Ramey, H.J., Jr., 1976. Verification of the Gladfelter-Tra-
cey-Wilsey concept for wellbore storage-dominated
transient pressures during production. J. Cdn. Pet.
Tech., April-June, pp. 84-85.
Ramey, H.J., Jr. and Earlougher, R.C., Jr., 1968. A note on
pressure build-up tests. J. Pet. Tech., Febr., pp. 119-
120.
Ramey, H.J., Jr., Kumar, A. and Gulati, M.S., 1973. Gas
well test analysis under water-drive conditions. AGA
Monograph 61-51, Arlington, VA.
Rodgers, J.S. and McArthur, B.W., 1972. Implicit solu-
tions and precision pressure measurements provide re-
liable transient analysis. SPE 4056, 47th Annual
Technical Meeting, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11.
Rosa, A.J. and Home, R.N., 1983. Automated type-curve
matching in well test analysis using Laplace space de-
termination of parameter gradients. SPE 12131, 58th
221
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Francisco, CA, Oct. 5-8.
Russell, D.G., 1963. Determination of formation charac-
teristicsfrom two-rate flow tests.J. Pet. Tech., Dec.,
pp. 1347-1355; Trans., AIME, 228.
Standing, M.B., 1964. Linear fluidbarrierdetection by well
pressure measurements -- discussion. J. Pet. Tech.,
March, pp. 259-260.
Stehfest, H., 1970. Algorithm 368, numerical inversion of
Laplace transforms. D-5, Communications of the A C M ,
13(I): 47.
Tiab, D. and Kumar, A., 1980. Detection and location of
two parallelsealing faultsaround a well. J. Pet. Tech.,
Oct., pp. 1701-1708.
Thompson, L. and Reynolds, A., 1986. Analysis of vari-
able-rate well-test pressure data using Duhamel's prin-
ciple. SPE Formation Evaluation, June, pp. 217-228.
Thompson, L., Jones, J.R., Reynolds, A. and Raghavan,
R., 1986. Analysis of pressure buildup data influenced
by wellbore phase redistribution. SPE Formation Eval-
uation, June, pp. 217-228.
Van Everdingen, A.F., 1953. The skin effect and its influ-
ence on the productive capacity of a well. Trans., AIME,
198: 171-176.
Van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W., 1949. Application of
the Laplace transformation to flow problems in reser-
voirs. Trans., AIME, 186: 305-324.
Van Poollen, H.K., 1965. Drawdown curves give angle be-
tween intersecting faults. Oil Gas J., Dec., 20: 71-75.
Witherspoon, P.A., Javendal, I., Neuman, S.P. and Freeze,
R.A., 1967. Interpretation of aquifer gas storage condi-
tions from water pumping tests. AGA Monograph NS-
38, New York City, NY.
Yaxley, L.M., 1985. The effect of a partially communicat-
ing fault on transient pressure behavior. SPE 14311, 60th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Ve-
gas, Nev., Sept. 22-25.