intercept b of the straight line is obtained by setting x = 0 and calculating

pwf. Since the permeability and intercept are known, the skin factor may be
evaluated by solving in Eq. 4-78. Thus

(4-79)

(4-80)

(4-81)

The lower boundary of the proper straight-line portion of the curve is

arbitrarily selected at a tDw of 89,000. The upper boundary varies according
to the shape of the drainage area and the location of the well within the area.
References 7 and 9 have proposed various shapes, locations and the values
of tDe at which boundary effects are first detected. By definition

(^82a)

(4-82b)

The maximum radius reached is computed by

(4-82c)

The drawdown test equations are modified to account for multiphase flow
in the same way as we discussed for buildup tests. The following example will
clarify the analysis.

Example 48 Analyzing Multi-Rate, Multi-Phase Drawdown Test

Table 4-6 shows the rate record up to stabilization. The rate and pres-
sure-time data are given in Table 47. Input data and preliminary calcula-
tions are shown in Table 4-8. Other reservoir and well data follow. Fluid
and reservoir properties: cj) = 0.09, rw = 0.67 ft, h = 25 ft, /i0 = 0.95 cP,
/30 = 1.20rb/stb, ct = 8.64 x 10"6PSi"1 and area shape = circular,^ = 160,
shut-in pressure 5500 psi.
Solution Calculated results are
For points used 3-6:
Average slope m and intercept a are calculated using a computer program
and are 33.385 psi and 5337.33, respectively. The permeability k is
 Table 4-6
Rate Record up to Stabilization

Rate Rate Rate duration Flow time to Cumulative production

No. (stb/day) (hr) end of period at the end of pressure (stb)

1 440 0.15 0.1 2.8

2 387 0.15 0.3 5.2
3 355 0.40 0.7 10.1
4 337 0.50 1.2 18.1
5 327 0.30 1.5 22.2
6 325

Table 4-7
Bottom-Hole Pressures at Corresponding Flowing Time

Point Time, Pressure,

No. '(hr) Pw/ (psi) log(r - tj-i)

1 1.66 5327 0.272

2 2.49 5322 0.425
3 3.31 5318 0.541
4 4.14 5315 0.633
5 4.97 5312 0.709
6 5.80 5309 0.775
7 6.63 5308 0.831
8 7.45 5306 0.881
9 8.29 5305 0.926
10 12.42 5299 1.099
11 17.39 5295 1.244

The skin factor s is

 Table 4-8
Calculated Results

Maximum
Points Average Intercept Permeability, Skin (API/cm Dimensionless Dimensionless radius
used slope, m of curve, a MmD) factor, 5 (psi) time, tDw time, tDe reached (ft)

1-4 30.298 79.5 5333.78 0.38 10.0 105,108 0.05304 684.1

2-5 32.916 73.2 5335.10 0.12 -4.0 145,124 0.05861 719.1
3-6* 36.704 65.7 5337.33 -0.73 -23.0 173,005 0.06134 735.7
35.536 67.8 5336.75 -0.56 -17.0 223,498 0.07242 799.4
5-8 32.608 73.7 5334.52 -0.70 -2.0 291,686 0.08847 883.5
6-9 26.922 89.5 5329.72 1.29 -30.0 413,293 0.11953 1027.0
7-10 32.634 73.8 5334.74 -0.07 -2.0 389,747 0.14773 1141.7
8-11 30.460 79.1 5332.66 0.40 10.0 469,218 0.22161 1398.4
 The pressure drop due to skin is

The dimensionless time is

The dimensionless time is

The maximum radius reached is

4.9 Drawdown Rate Normalization Methods

Methods to analyze afterflow-dominated pressure buildup data are pre-
sented. Total afterflow fluid rate should be used in multiphase flow analysis.
The logarithm of time approximation to pD for analysis of low-permeability
stimulated oil wells is often invalid. Normalized type curve analysis identifies
whether the semilog straight line exists and suggests the proper/>#1& model
for analysis purposes. Additional detailed discussions of the normalization
methods were given by Gladfelter et al.,11 Winestock and Colpitts,12 and
Odeh and Jones.7'13

Analysis Methods, Their Applications and Limitations

Figure 4-14 shows various methods of analysis and their applications and
limitations.
 Normalization
analysis techniques

Agarwal et al. skin and

Ap/Ag versus log-log t storage type curves Figure 4-15

Superposition based on log Straight line

time approximation to pD Figure 4-16
through last points

Superposition based on pD~tD

model uniform-flux vertical Constant-rate solution Figure 4-17
fracture

Figure 4-14. Various analysis techniques, their applications, and their limitations.

Drawdown Rate Normalization Equations and Solutions

The drawdown rate variation generally lasts much longer than the after-
flow rate variation. The rate normalization equation by Odeh and Jones13
for an oil well drawdown analysis can be written as

(4-83)

where

(4-84)

and the constant D' is related to the non-Darcy flow constant and is given by

(4-85)

where
D = non-Darcy flow constant
D1 = Dm
Eq. 4-83 represents an approximation to superposition for a gradually
changing flow rate condition. A superposition equation for any variation
of rate was given by Gladfelter et al. 11 with pD being approximated by the
logarithm of time as

(4-86)

A plot of {pi -pwfn)lqn versus (\lqn)YH=\ (qt - qi-\)\n(tn - f,-_i) should be

linear, if D' 0, with slope, m\ and intercept, b, yielding kh and s9 respec-
tively. Flow capacity is evaluated from the slope mf as

(4-87)

and the skin from intercept b by

(4-88a)

The fracture half-length x/ is given by

(4^88b)

If the plot bows, the data should be corrected for the quadratic effect D'q1
until the plot is made linear. When this method even is not applicable, the
logarithm of time approximation to pc is made. A more general form of
Eq. 4-86 in terms of pD to by Cornett 10 is

(4-89)

where

(4-90)

A plot of (pt - pwfn)/qn versus ( 1 / ^ ) X X 1 (qt - qi-\)pD(tn - U-\)D should

be plotted as a straight line if D' 0, with slope mf, from which kh can be
evaluated by

(4-91)
and the skin from intercept b is

(4-92)

Example 4-9 Normalization of Drawdown Pressure by Using Afterflow Data

The oil well is a low-permeability oil well. It was hydraulically fractured
and a 72-hours drawdown test was conducted. The test is neither a constant
rate nor a constant wellbore pressure situation; various techniques are
presented to demonstrate the validity and utility of normalization in well
test analysis. Table 49 summarizes the results from all methods of analysis.
Figure 4-15 is an afterflow rate normalization log-log plot
Figure 4-16 is a superposition plot based on straight line passing
through last points.
Figure 4-17 represents a superposition analysis based on value of
PD tD model.

Table 4-9
Summary of Analysis Results

Various analysis Fracture

techniques (mD-ft/cP) Skin, s length Xf (ft)

Afterflow rate normalization log-log graph 161.0 -5.1 95.4

model - Figure 4-15
Superposition based on logarithm of time 165.3 -5.3 116.20
approximation to pD - Figure 4-16
Superposition based on uniform-flux vertical 163.4 -5.2 105.0
fracture - Figure 4-17

Match points
(psi/rbbl day)

Time to start of
End of semilog straight line
half slope

Figure 4-15. Afterflow rate normalization log-log graph model.7

 ( ](psi/rbblday)

Start of the
semilog
Slope straight line
m' = 0.427

Figure 4-16. Superposition based on logarithm of time approximation to pD7

"f\psi/rbbl)
P

rri = 0.864 psi/(rbbl/day)

(Pws

b = intercept from
superposition analysis

Figure 4-17. Superposition based on uniform-flux vertical fracture - Po-fo model.7

4.10 Summary
This chapter deals with the complete analysis of drawdown test including
transient, late transient, and semi-steady-state analysis including single, two-
rate, variable-rate, reservoir limit test, and multiphase and multiple-rate testing
and discusses how superposition may be used when variable rates are involved.
 References
1. Odeh, A. S., and Nabor, G. W., "The Effect of Production History on
Determination of Formation Characteristics From Flow Tests," /. Pet.
Tech. (Oct. 1966) 1343-1350.
2. Matthews, C. S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P., "A Method for
Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir," Trans.
AIME (1954) 201, 182-191.
3. Earlougher, R. C, Jr., and Kersch, K. M., "Analysis of Short-time
Transient Test Data by Type-curve Matching," /. Pet. Tech. (July
1974) 793-800; Trans. AIME, 257.
4. Russell, D. G., "Determination of Formation Characteristics from Two-
Rate Flow Tests," /. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1963) 1347-1355; Trans. AIME, 228.
5. Earlougher, R. C , Jr., "Variable Flow Rate Reservoir Limit Testing,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1972) 1423-1429.
6. Kazemi, H., "Discussion of Variable Flow Rate Reservoir Limit Test-
ing," /. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1972) 1429-1430.
7. Odeh, A. S., and Jones, L. G., "Pressure Drawdown Analysis Variable-
Rate Case," /. Pet. Tech. (1965) 217, 960-964.
8. Van Everdingen, A. F., and Hurst, W., "The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans. AIME (1949)
186, 305-324.
9. Matthews, C. S., and Russell, D. G., Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in
Wells, Monograph, AIME, 1967.
10. Cornett, J. E., "How to Locate Reservoir Limits," Pet. Eng. J. (1961) 33,
B19-B24.
11. Gladfelter, R. E., Tracy, G. W., and Wilsey, L. E., "Selecting Wells
Which Will Respond to Production-Stimulation Treatment," Drill.
Prod. Prac. API (1955) 117-129.
12. Winestock, A. G., and Colpitts, G. P., "Advances in Estimating Gas
Well Deliverability," /. Can. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1965) 11-119.
13. Odeh, A. S., and Jones, L. G., "Two-rate Flow Test, Variable-rate Case
- Application to Gas-lift and Pumping Wells," /. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1974)
93-99; Trans. AIME, 257.

Additional Reading
1. Dietz, D. N., "Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure From Build-
Up Surveys," J. Pet. Technol. (Aug. 1965) 955-959; Trans. AIME, 234.
2. Fetkovich, M. J., "The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells," paper SPE
4529 presented at the SPE-AIME 48th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas,
NV Sep. 30-Oct. 3, 1973.
3. Jones, L. G., Blount, E. M., and Glaze, O. H., "Use of Short-term
Multiple Rate Flow Tests to Predict Performance of Wells Having
Turbulence," paper SPE 6133 presented at the SPE 51st Annual Meet-
ing, New Orleans, Oct. 3-6, 1976.
4. Dake, L. P., Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
1978.
5. Slider, H. C , "A Simplified Method of Pressure Analysis for a Stabilized
Well," /. Pet. Tech. (1971) 23, 1155-1160.
6. Earlougher, R. C, Jr., "Estimating Drainage Shapes from Reservoir
Limit Tests," /. Pet. Tech. (1971) 23, 1266-1268.