SPE-178059-MS

New Method of Water Influx Identification and Ranking for a Super-Giant

Aquifer Drive Gas Reservoir
Li Yong, Li Baozhu, Xia Jing, Zhang Jing, and Wang Daigang, Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and
Development, Petro China; Zhu Zhongqian and Xiao Xiangjiao, Tarim Oilfield Company, Petro China

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition held in Mumbai, India, 24 –26 November 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
For gas reservoirs with strong bottom or edge aquifer support, the most important thing is to avoid water
breakthrough in gas well. Because water breakthrough in gas wells can explicitly reduce well productivity
and reservoir recovery. Therefore, how to identify aquifer influx of gas wells are urgent in order to guide
the well production rate optimization and improve gas field performance.
This paper provides a new method with 3 diagnostic curves to identify aquifer influx status for gas
wells, which are mainly based on well production and pressure data. And the whole production period of
gas wells can be classified into 3 periods based on the diagnostic curves: no aquifer influx period, early
aquifer influx period, middle-late aquifer influx period. And a suite of index with both static and dynamic
description understanding are established for aquifer influx identification and ranking. Also how to use the
index to identify aquifer influx are illustrated.
This new method has been used for evaluation of all gas wells in Kela 2 gas field. It is one of the
biggest abnormal high pressure gas field in the world, which is of high gas column, high productivity of
a single well and strong aquifer support. Until now 2 of 17 production wells have been water-breakthrough
and risks of water breakthrough for other wells are increasing. Water breakthrough sequence of all wells
in Kela 2 gas field are determined based on 12 aquifer influx index evaluation by analytical hierarchy
process and fuzzy evaluation method. Then all wells are ranked into 4 types based on evaluation results:
water breakthrough wells, wells in middle-late aquifer influx period, wells in early aquifer influx period,
and no aquifer influx wells. Actual gas well performance validate this new method. Then evaluation
results are applied to well production rate optimization. In order to keep the whole gas field production
rate, production rate of wells in middle-late aquifer influx period are decreased, while production rate of
no aquifer influx wells are increased. Finally gas field performance are explicitly improved.
This paper offers a new method and a case study of aquifer influx identification and ranking for aquifer
drive gas reservoir. It also provides a methodology and reference case for engineers to develop other
similar gas fields.
2 SPE-178059-MS

Introduction
The researches on edge and bottom water breakthrough time in gas reservoirs have been deeply conducted
at home and abroad (Yang et al, 2013; Li et al, 2009; Kang et al, 2004). These literatures introduced some
water coning breakthrough time calculation formula based on simplified conceptual models. But because
of the heterogeneity in practical gas reservoirs and the continuous adjustment of production plan, the
developed results from simplified models have relatively large difference to the practical situation. And
the results evaluated by various methods are different too, so it is difficult for engineers to choose
appropriate methods for the water invasion evaluation. Some predictions on water breakthrough time were
made by using material balance analysis and water invasion indicative curves (Fan et al, 2012; Li et al,
2012), but these methods were limited because of involving too much static and dynamic pressure and
production data. Furthermore, in order to get a better prediction, a certain degree of recovery should be
achieved. The reality is that when some production wells begin to produce water, static pressure testing
is very less and the recovery degree is low. Some researchers used typical well test log-log curves (Hu
et al, 2012), and this method can only achieve good prediction of edge water invasion. For the bottom
water invasion, it is difficult by using well testing. While the well testing cannot be conducted in certain
time intervals, this method cannot be applied to every single well for a good prediction. Recently, rate
transient analysis (RTA) gets rapid development in the studies of reserves evaluation and reservoir
characterization (Kuo et al, 1983; Lee and Tung, 1990; Moran, 2004; Elahmady and Wattenbarger, 2007;
Tao et al, 2003; Blasingame et al, 1991; Mattar and McNeil, 1998; Li et al, 2016). Using RTA in water
invasion prediction is still in its infancy (Agarwal et al, 1998; Denney, 2005; Iik et al, 2010; Li et al, 2009,
2010; F.A.S.T, 2014). So water invasion prediction in gas reservoirs is one of the difficult technological
problems to be solved urgently until now.
Meanwhile, assessment of water breakthrough risk in gas wells were confined to the prediction of water
breakthrough time and the evaluation of aquifer influx (Yang et al, 2013; Li et al, 2009; Kang et al, 2004;
Fan et al, 2012; Li et al, 2012; Hu et al, 2012; Kuo et al, 1983; Lee and Tung, 1990). The water
breakthrough time is defined by water coning breakthrough time. It is always applied in heterogeneous
sandstone gas reservoirs. However, the degree of accuracy is not enough exact due to the heterogeneity
in gas reservoirs. There are some methods to determine the direction of the water source and the water
invasion phase by analyzing producing water-gas ratio, the degree of tubing pressure drop and other
production data. Besides, material balance analysis and well testing typical curves were used in aquifer
influx analysis. However, due to the singleness and the limitation of different methods, it is very difficult
to conduct a unified quantitative evaluation of producing water risk level for all wells in whole gas
reservoirs. As a result, quantitative determination of water invasion phase upon the full-reservoir scale is
also a critical problem.
In order to overcome the problems of the existing techniques, a reliable evaluation method of water
influx phase is proposed. The method involves productivity index curves analysis, water coning critical
rate and gas rate relationship, and well performance characteristics analysis. And it divides the entire gas
production history into three phases: non-aquifer influx period, early aquifer influx period and middle-late
aquifer influx period. Because this method uses whole production and pressure data throughout the
production history to evaluate the aquifer influx, it takes full account of the impact of gas production plan
and heterogeneity of gas reservoirs. So the results are more accurate and more realistic. Meanwhile, a
reliable quantitative risk assessment method of producing water for single well is established. Firstly, the
evaluation index of risk evaluation system of producing water are built. Then analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) and fuzzy evaluation method are used to comprehensively evaluate the risk of water breakthrough
for all wells in the gas reservoir. And the risk index of water breakthrough for single well is calculated
quantitatively. This method was applied to evaluate the aquifer influx of a high-pressure gas reservoir
Kela2 gas reservoir in Tarim basin, and the well performance data validate the method.
SPE-178059-MS 3

Productivity Index Curves for Aquifer influx Identification

For gas reservoirs with aquifer support, through the study of actual production data and numerical
simulation results of a conceptual model, we found that the entire production process of a gas well can
be divided into three periods from putting into production to water breakthrough: no-aquifer influx period,
early aquifer influx period and middle-late aquifer influx period. Well productivity index change
corresponding to the three periods have different characteristics, as shown in Fig. 1. Without aquifer
influx, the gas well productivity index remains constant (the actual well production index keep approx-
imately constant). With the aquifer participation in the fluid flow, the pressure of formation get obvious
support, and the production index of gas well shows an increasing trend. But as the water gradually invade
gas reservoirs, drainage radius of the gas well becomes smaller, and the production pressure difference is
gradually increased, so the production index begin to decrease. When the well begin to produce water, the
production index reduces faster. Therefore, the productivity index of a gas well has some indication of
aquifer influx. Based on the different characteristics of productivity index corresponding to different
production periods, it can be carried to identify the aquifer influx period and propose early warning of
water breakthrough.

Figure 1—Well productivity index curves for aquifer influx period diagnostic

Water Coning Critical Rate vs. Gas Rate for Water Influx Identification
In a gas reservoir with aquifer support, gas production rate will affect the water breakthrough time. When
the gas production rate is higher than critical rate of water coning/cusping, bottom aquifer is easy to form
coning, and edge aquifer is easy to advance cusping. And gas well produces water in advance. When the
gas production rate is lower than the water coning critical rate, the water won’t easily breakthrough, and
the gas reservoir can get a better development. By comparing the gas production rate history and the water
coning critical rate, aquifer influx period of a gas well can be identified. As shown in Fig. 2, when the gas
production rate is always much lower than water coning critical rate, gas well does not produce water, and
gas well is still in the no-aquifer influx period. With gradually producing gas, the water coning critical rate
get decreased, and the difference between gas rate and the critical rate decrease too. Gas well gradually
steps into the early aquifer influx period. With further production, gas production rate is higher than the
critical rate, then the aquifer conning or cusping is easily formed, and gas well is in the middle-late aquifer
influx period. If the gas well continue producing, it will produce water.
4 SPE-178059-MS

Figure 2—Comparing production rate with critical water conning production rate for water influx period identification

Well Performance Characteristics for Water Influx Identification

As mentioned earlier, the aquifer influx period can be identified by gas well productivity index. The well
productivity index is calculated by gas rate and pressure. In fact, water influx have a great impact on gas
production performance, so the water influx phase can be identified by analyzing the characteristics of gas
well performance. Without aquifer influx, reservoir pressure does not be supplemented, so the perfor-
mance characteristics of the producing well behaves as a closed gas reservoir. During the early aquifer
influx phase, gas reservoir get aquifer support, so the pressure will drop slowly than no aquifer influx
period under the same production rate. When it comes to the middle-late aquifer influx period, the bottom
aquifer conning near to the bottom perforation of gas well or edge water cusping into surrounding of gas
well, gas flow will be blocked, and gas well production pressure draw-down increases significantly with
the same gas production rate. The production performance characteristics curves corresponding to
different aquifer influx phases are summarized in Table 1. There are only exemplary illustrations on how
to identify the different aquifer influx phase by using dynamic production data under the ideal situation
of constant production rate or constant flowing pressure. In fact, the actual situation is much more
complex, we can use this simple mode for a reference comparison analysis.
SPE-178059-MS 5

Table 1—Well performance characteristics for of aquifer influx phases identification

Water Influx Identification for a Super-Giant Aquifer Drive Gas Reservoir

This new method has been used for the aquifer influx evaluation of all gas wells in Kela 2 gas field, which
is one of the biggest abnormal high pressure gas field in the world, with high gas column, high
productivity of a single well and strong aquifer support. Until now 2 of 17 production wells have been
water-breakthrough and risk of water breakthrough for other wells is increasing. Using the above method
to identify the water influx phases for all wells. Fig. 3 shows the production index curves of 3 wells in
this field. It is shown that during the production history of W1, well productivity index remain
approximately constant. Because of the adjustment of choke, there are some fluctuations. The well does
not show any signs of aquifer influx, so it is still in the no aquifer influx phase. As shown in Fig.4, well
productivity index of W12 remained constant at the beginning, and it is in the no aquifer influx phase at
that period. During the post-production period, well productivity index increased, and W12 is in early
water influx period during this period. Fig 5 shows that W7 had undergone constant productivity index
period firstly, then gradually produced into increasing productivity index period and decreasing produc-
tivity index period, which corresponded to the no aquifer influx period, early aquifer influx period and
middle-late aquifer influx period. W7 began to produce water in 2015, the water rate is lower than 10m3/d.
Therefore, the production index curves can propose the early warning for water influx. When productivity
index increase significantly, it is appropriate to reduce the production rate, while productivity index
6 SPE-178059-MS

decrease significantly, the gas production rate should keep a lower value. Based on the productivity index
curves, the water influx period can be identified for all wells in this field. W1 is in no aquifer influx period,
W12 is in early aquifer influx period and W7 is in middle-late aquifer influx period.

Figure 3—Productivity index curve of W1 (No aquifer influx period)

Figure 4 —Productivity index curve of W12 (Form no aquifer influx period to early aquifer influx period)

Figure 5—Productivity index curve of W7 (Form no aquifer influx period, early aquifer influx period-middle to late aquifer influx period)
SPE-178059-MS 7

Meanwhile, using the water coning prediction method proposed by Chaperon (1986) to evaluate the
water coning critical rate of all wells in Kela 2 gas field. By comparing the single-well gas production rate
with water coning critical rate, aquifer influx phase can be identified. The comparison of actual gas
production rate and water coning critical rate of 3 wells is shown in Fig.6. As shown in Fig.6-A, actual
production rate is much lower than critical rate, so the well is in the no aquifer influx period. Actual
production rate of gas well shown in Fig.6-B was lower than critical rate at the beginning, and it has been
reached the critical rate now, so it is in the early water influx period now. In Fig.6-C, the actual rate was
below the critical rate at the beginning, then reached the critical rate, at the last period, it is higher than
the critical rate now. So this well is in the middle-late water influx phase. Similarly, this method can be
used to evaluate the aquifer influx period of all gas wells.

Figure 6 —Comparison of gas rate with water coning critical rate for aquifer influx period identification

Integrated characteristics of gas well production rate with tubing pressures, 15 wells in the super-giant
Kela 2 gas reservoir are classified into 3 types according to the aquifer influx period. No aquifer influx
type includes 6 wells. As shown in Fig.7, gas production rate of these wells remain stable and pressure
drop has a linearly decreasing trend. And this trend has not changed. It indicates that these 6 wells are in
no aquifer influx period from the beginning.
8 SPE-178059-MS

Figure 7—Pressure and production characteristics of wells in No aquifer influx period

There are 4 wells in early aquifer influx period currently. The production and pressure characteristics
of these wells are shown in Fig.8. The trend of production and pressure remained stable at the beginning,
then at the late production period, the gas production rate were increased and the tubing pressure
decreased slower than previous period at the same time. It is shown that gas wells had obviously been
affected by aquifer and the wells were be classified into the early aquifer influx period.

Figure 8 —Pressure and production characteristics of wells in early aquifer influx period
SPE-178059-MS 9

5 wells were classified into middle-late aquifer influx period, the characteristics of pressure draw-down
and production rate are shown in Fig.9. Same to the other wells, the trend of production and pressure
remained stable at the beginning. But at the late production period, gas production rate has declined and
the downward trend of tubing pressure became faster than the previous. It means that gas production had
obviously been impact of aquifer invasion, which resulted in that gas flow resistance became larger or the
production pressure difference became larger. The wells should be classified into middle-late aquifer
influx period. And they will producing water soon.

Figure 9 —Pressure and production characteristics of wells in early water influx period

At the same time, the use of well test analysis to evaluate the distance of bottom and edge aquifer to
the wells can visually warn the aquifer breakthrough, then the water influx period can be identified and
the water breakthrough can be predicted. By using gas production profile testing, the high productivity
layer can be determined. For the wells with high productivity layer at the bottom, the bottom aquifer is
easy to breakthrough while the wells with high productivity layer on the top are relatively difficult to water
breakthrough, so the water breakthrough time is relatively late.

Aquifer Influx Evaluation Index

In order to make risk assessment of water breakthrough more reliable, the evaluation index should include
geological characteristics, actual production data and analysis results. In this paper, according to the actual
situation of the giant Kela 2 gas reservoir, the risk assessment system of water breakthrough is established.
The system include 12 specific evaluation indicators (Table 2), which include static geological informa-
tion and the evaluation results of dynamic data. The impacts of each indicator on the water breakthrough
time are given in table 2. Take the distance form bottom water to well perforation as an example to
indicate the function of single index, the shorter distance is, the earlier the well produce water.
10 SPE-178059-MS

Table 2—Impact of evaluation indicators on water breakthrough time

No. Evaluation indicator Relatively early of water breakthrough Relatively late of water breakthrough

1 Faults distribution around the well and distance to Open and short Close and long
the well
2 Distance from bottom aquifer to well perforation short long
3 Distance from edge aquifer to perforation short long
4 Development degree of fractures around the well High low
5 Cementation quality poor good
6 Productivity index curves Middle-late aquifer influx period No or early aquifer influx period
7 Water coning critical rate Vs. gas rate Middle-late aquifer influx period No or early aquifer influx period
8 Well performance characteristics Middle-late aquifer influx period No or early aquifer influx period
9 Flowing material balance analysis Middle-late aquifer influx period No or early aquifer influx period
10 Blasingame type curves Middle-late aquifer influx period No or early aquifer influx period
11 Distance from bottom or edge aquifer to well near far
interpreted by well test
12 Position of high productivity layer from production Low perforation interval High perforation interval or none
profile testing

Method of water breakthrough risk evaluation and its application

Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is mainly applied by the assessment with multiple impact
factors, of which the boundary is not clear. Its principle is based on the choice of the evaluation factors
set and remarks set, establishment of appropriate weight set, determination of membership function,
establishment of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation matrix, and the final results are evaluated by fuzzy
transformation. In the risk assessment of water breakthrough for all wells in the gas field, many factors
are involved. These factors are ambiguous and not directly quantifiable. So multi-level fuzzy compre-
hensive evaluation is an effective way to quantitatively determine the risk of producing water in gas field.
The implementation steps of fuzzy comprehensive risk evaluation of water breakthrough in gas reservoir
with aquifer are as follows:
1. Choice of the evaluation factors set and determination of remarks set
In this paper, static geological factors set is defined as: U1⫽ {Faults distribution around the well
and distance from the well, Distance from bottom aquifer to well perforation, Distance from edge
aquifer to well perforation, development degree of fractures around the well, cementation quality},
dynamic evaluation set is defined as: U2⫽{ Productivity index curves, Water coning critical rate
Vs. gas rate, Well performance characteristics, Flowing material balance analysis, Blasingame
type curves, Distance from bottom or edge aquifer to well interpreted by well test, Position of high
productivity layer from production profile testing }. These are primary evaluation factors sets. In
addition, according to the relationship between single factors and the evaluation results, the
secondary evaluation factors set is defined as: U⫽ {static geological factors set, dynamic
evaluation set}.
2. Using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to determine evaluation indicators weights set
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is established by the method of fuzzily quantifying evaluation
indicators to sort the indicators and the indicators sets. It is a kind of optimized decision-making
system method for multi-index and multi-scheme problems. Using AHP, the static geological
indicators weights matrix is: A1⫽{0.4479, 0.1674, 0.0901, 0.2619, 0.0326}, and the dynamic
indicators weights matrix is: A2⫽{0.3823, 0.1985, 0.0948, 0.0502, 0.0813, 0.1670, 0.0259}. For
a certain gas reservoir with aquifer, with the continuous acquisition of the dynamic data, the
evaluation results of aquifer influx are more accurate. Considering the characteristics of gas
reservoirs with aquifer, the weights set of secondary evaluation factors set is: A ⫽ {0.4, 0.6}
SPE-178059-MS 11

respectively corresponding to the static geological factors set and dynamic evaluation set.
3. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method for water breakthrough risk analysis
After determining the membership degree of each factor and building the evaluation matrix R,
weighted average fuzzy composite operators are used to combine the weight vector A with
membership matrix R to obtain the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation results vector B. Using the
maximum membership principle, the grade corresponding to the largest bj in evaluation results
vector B is the final qualitative result.
We Choose 12 evaluation indicators and apply this system to evaluate the risk level of water
breakthrough for 17 gas wells of Kela 2 gas field in China. Every grade of indicators is calculated. The
relationship of water breakthrough risk level grade (the largest bj in evaluation results of vector B) with
production pressure difference of gas wells is shown in Fig. 10. Through fuzzy comprehensive evaluation,
the risk of producing water for every single well are ultimately ranked, and wells are classified into 4
categories: water breakthrough wells, middle-late aquifer flux wells, early aquifer influx wells and no
aquifer influx wells. Early 2015, 2 wells began producing water. W16 is one of them, at that time, W8
is expected to produce water soon. And a half year later, concentration of chloride in formation water from
W8 sharply rose and it was a signal that the well will produce water. The actual production data verify
the reliability of the prediction.

Figure 10 —Relationship of fuzz evaluation index with production pressure difference

In addition, based on the water breakthrough risk evaluation of all gas wells, the production rates has
been optimized. The wells producing water had a higher production pressure difference. For avoid
producing water, the wells in middle-late aquifer influx period should control the production pressure
difference. The production pressure difference of the wells in early aquifer influx period maintained about
1.0 MPa. While the production pressure difference of the wells without water influx was relative large
because of the good production condition. Thus by optimizing gas production pressure difference,
maintain the gas production running smoothly, avoid early water breakthrough and improve the final
recovery of the gas reservoir.
This paper offers a new method and a case study of aquifer influx identification and ranking for aquifer
drive gas reservoir. It also provides a methodology and reference case for engineers to develop other
similar gas fields.
12 SPE-178059-MS

Conclusions
The entire production process of a gas well can be divided into three periods: no-aquifer influx period,
early aquifer influx period and middle-late aquifer influx period. Well productivity index and Performance
characteristics changes corresponding to the three periods have different characteristics.
Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method taking account of 12 index is proposed in this paper, and its
successful application in Kela 2 gas field verify the method.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Petro China Company for the permission to publish the paper and the founding from
Petro China Science and Technology Major Project (2011E-2501, 2014E-2104, 2014E-2108), national
key S&T special projects(2011ZX05015-002).

References
Yang F.R., Fan P.T., He J., et al. An Approach to Predict Water Breakthrough Time in High Gas Rate
Wells of Gas Reservoirs with Edge Water. Science Technology and Engineering, 2013, 13(29):
8745–8747.
Li Y, Li B.Z., Hu Y.L., et al. The application of modern production decline analysis in the dynamic
analysis of gas condensate reservoirs. Natural Gas Geoscience. 2009, 20(2): 304 –308.
Kang X.D., Li X.F., Zhang G.S. Methods to identify early water influx of gas reservoirs. Natural Gas
Geoscience. 2004, 15(6):637–639.
Fan H.C., Zhong B., Feng X., et al. Studies on Water invasion mechanism of fractured-watered gas
reservoir. Natural Gas Geoscience. 2012, 23(6):1179 –1184.
Li J., Wang X.H., Zhu L.Y., et al. A study of comprehensive discriminant methods of the source of
water-yielding in gas reservoirs. Natural Gas Geoscience. 2012, 23(6):1185–1190.
Hu J.K., Li X.P., Zhang J.T., et al. A new convenient method for calculating dynamic reserves and
water influx in water driving gas reservoirs. Natural Gas Geoscience. 2012, 23(6):1175–1178.
Kuo M.C.T, Occidental E, P Co. A simplified method for water coning predictions. Proceedings of the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 5-8 October 1983 held in San Francisco,
California. SPE 12067.
Lee S.H., Tung W.B. General coning correlations based on mechanistic studies. Proceedings of the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 23-26 September 1990 held in New Orleans,
Louisiana. SPE 20742.
Moran O.O., Samaniego V.F., Arevalo V.J.A. Advances in the Production Mechanism Diagnosis of
Gas Reservoirs through Material Balance Studies. Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 26-29 September 2004 held in Houston, Texas. SPE 91509.
Elahmady M., Wattenbarger R.A. A Straight-Line p/z Plot is Possible in Waterdrive Gas Reservoirs.
Proceedings of the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology Symposium, 16-18 April 2007 held
in Denver, Colorado, USA. SPE 103258.
Tao S.P., Feng X, Xiao S.H. Using transient testing to identify early water invasion of gas reservoirs.
Natural Gas Industry, 2003, 23(4): 68 –70.
Blasingame, T.A, McCray, T.L., Lee, W.J. Decline Curve Analysis for Variable Pressure Drop/
Variable Flowrate Systems. Proceedings of the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, 22-24 January
1991 held in Houston, Texas. SPE 21513.
Mattar L., McNeil R. The Flowing Gas Material Balance. JCPT, 1998, 37(2):37–42.
Li Y, Li B.Z., Xia J., et al. New Method of Aquifer Influx Status Classification for single well in Gas
Reservoir with Aquifer Support. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2015, 31(6): 94 –99.
SPE-178059-MS 13

Agarwal, R.G, Gardner, D.C, Kleinsteiber, S.W et al. Analyzing Well Production Data Using
Combined Type Curve and Decline Curve Concepts. Journal of Petroluem Technology, 1998,
50(10): 1–2.
Denney D. Practical Diagnostics Using Production Data and Flowing Pressures. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 2005, 57(3): 1–3.
Iik D., Anderson D.M., Stotts G.W.J., et al. Production Data Analysis—Challenges, Pitfalls, Diag-
nostics. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 2010, 13(3): 1–15.
Li Y, Li B Z, Hu Y L, et al. Water production analysis and reservoir simulation research in the Jilake
gas condensate reservoir. Petroleum Exploration and Development. 2010. 37(1): 89 –93.
Li Y, Li B Z, Hu Y L, et al. The application of single-well production analysis for carbonate gas
condensate reservoirs. Petroleum Geology and Recovery Efficiency. 2009. 16(5): 79 –81.
F.A.S.T. RTA™ Manual, 2014.