T

Distinguished
Author Series
Well Testing and Interpretation
for Horizontal Wells
Fikri J. Kuchuk, SPE, Schlumberger Technical Services Inc.
Summary
The use of transient well testing for determining reservoir parameters
and productivity of horizontal wells has become common because of
the upsurge in horizontal drilling. Initially, horizontal well tests were
analyzed with the conventional techniques designed for vertical
wells. During the last decade, analytic solutions have been presented
for the pressure behavior of horizontal wells. New flow regimes have
been identified, and simple equations and flow regime existence cri-
teria have been presented for them. The flow regimes are now used
frequently to estimate horizontal and vertical permeabilities of the
reservoir, wellbore skin, and reservoir pressure.
Although the existing tools and interpretation techniques may be
sufficient for simple systems, innovation and improvement of the
present technology are still essential for well testing of horizontal
wells in many reservoirs with different geological environments
and different well-completion requirements.
Introduction
This paper reviews testing and interpretation methods for hori-
zontal wells. Since Renney's! article in 1941, many articles dealing
with reservoir engineering, PI, and well-testing aspects of horizon-
tal wells have appeared in the literature. 1-12 In the last decade, many
papers have been published on the pressure behavior of horizontal
wells in single-layer, homogeneous reservoirs.Jr-" Recently,
numerous papers on interpretation of horizontal well test data
21
-
26
and on the behavior of horizontal wells in naturally fractured
27
-
29
and layered
30

31
reservoirs have appeared.
Because of the uncertainty of regulating flow rate or keeping it
constant for drawdown tests in general and buildup tests (particularly
at early-times), the use of production logging tools to measure down-
hole flow rate during pressure well tests has increased in the last
decade. These tools have increased the scope of pressure-transient
well testing by providing new measurements. Drawdown tests, for
which it has often been difficult to keep the flow rate constant, can
now provide the same quality of information as buildup tests. Thus,
the possibility of obtaining reliable information about the well/reser-
voir system by using characteristic features of both transient tests
(drawdown and buildup) has increased considerably. This is particu-
larly crucial for horizontal wells, where the early-time transient data
are the most sensitive to the vertical permeability and skin if the well-
bore storage effect is minimized. Recently, production logging and
Copyright 1995 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper is SPE 25232. Distinguished Author Series articles are general, descriptive pa-
pers that summarize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing recent develop-
ments for readers who are not specialists in the topics discussed. Written by individuals rec-
ognized as experts in the area, these articles provide key references to more definitive work
and present specific details only to illustrate the technology. Purpose: to inform the general
readership of recent advances in various areas of petroleum engineering. A softbound
anthology, SPE Distinguished Author Series: Dec. t98t-Dec. 1983. is available from SPE's
Book Order Dept.
36
downhole shut-in have been combined'? to acquire reliable pressure/
rate data during drawdown and buildup tests.
Nonaxisymmetric drilling-fluid invasion and the long, snakelike
completed wellbore make the cleanup process difficult, particularly
toward the tips of horizontal wells. Therefore, it is important to
obtain flow profiles and the effective well length, which is often
much less than the drilled length, for the interpretation of horizontal
well tests. The effective well length is important for determining
damage skin and the vertical permeability. Production logging for
horizontal wells is now usually conducted with a coiled-tubing sys-
tem.
32
The fluid profiles also provide information about standing
water and wellbore crossflow, both common phenomena.V Unfor-
tunately, the wellbore crossflow during buildup tests makes inter-
pretation difficult. In many instances, the pressure data may not
reveal any information about the wellbore cross flow. The wellbore
temperature profiles are often useful tools for determining wellbore
crossflow for buildup tests.
Significant progress has been made over the last decade in devel-
oping forward analytical models and interpretation techniques for
horizontal wells. Many flow regimes predicted by the theory, which
are essential for system identification, have been observed in the
field examples. However, testing horizontal wells is sill challenging
in terms of measurements and interpretation. The field experience
documented in the last decade indicates that interpreting tests from
horizontal wells is much more difficult than for vertical wells.
The objective of this paper to present solutions and to describe
problems in pressure-transient testing and interpretation for hori-
zontal wells rather than to provide a scholarly review of the litera-
ture on the subject.
Flow Regimes for Horizontal Wells
Let us consider a horizontal well (Fig. I) completed in an anisotrop-
ic reservoir, which is infinite in the x and y directions. The formation
permeabilities in the principal directions are denoted by k
x
=k
y
=kH
and kz = kv, with a thickness, h, porosity, fjJ, compressibility, Ct, and
viscosity,,u. The well half-length is 4. the radius is r
w
, and the dis-
tance from the wellbore to the bottom boundary is z.,.. The boundary
conditions at the top and bottom(in the z direction) of the system are
either no flow and/or constant pressure. For this horizontal well in
a single-layer reservoir, we provide simple equations for obtaining
permeabilities and skins. There are usually several flow regimes
with different durations because of the partially penetrated nature of
horizontal wells and multiple boundary effects. For instance, as Fig.
2 shows, we may observe three radial (pseudoradial) flow regimes
for a horizontal well in a vertically bounded single-layer reservoir.
The flow regimes for horizontal wells have been investigated by
many authors,I4-18 and specific methods have been proposed to
identify flow regimes and their durations under ideal conditions.
January 1995 JPT
derivatives
Ex. 2
. _
10-4
0.1
10
pressure
Zw

x
ky
L
o

Fig. 1-Horizontal well model.
I
I
I Z
.....
H-Lw
I
I
I

""""""
h
and the damage skin as
mIl = 162.6qll/2 jkHkvL
w
(1)
s 1.151[ + 3.2275 + 2 log 1'(
. . .. .. . . . .. . . .. .. (2)

(AA)]
+ 4 - + - log --- ,
k
H

TABLE 1-RESERVOIR PARAMETERS FOR
EXAMPLES SHOWN IN FIG. 3.
h
kH kv i;
Zw
Example
.Q!L
(md) (md)
J!!L J!!L
.
1 100 100 10 500 20 0.00146
2 100 100 1 500 20 0.00389
3 100 100 5 500 5 0.00194
4 40 100 5 500 20 0.00197
5 200 200 1 500 20 0.00530
Where fwD = (f
W
/ 2L
w
l(1+
k - Il
c,
[2 (h )2]
v - 0.00026377Ct
sjb e
max zw. - z., . (4)
where lsfbe is the time to feel the second (farthest) boundary effect.
In practice. Eqs. 3 and 4 may not be reliable because the Ilcr prod-
uct may not be accurately known . Nevertheless, they can be used
qualitatively. Alternatively. because Eqs. 3 and 4 provide two pieces
of information. they may also be used to provide constraints on the
positions of the boundaries. Thi s information is useful when the
where tsnbe is the time to feel the effect of the nearest boundary. or
where q is the constant flow rate, !i.PI hr = Po- Pw(t= I hour) for
drawdown tests, and !i.Plhr=Pw(!i.t=1 hour) - (!i.t- 0) for buildup
tests. Pw at 1hour for both tests is obtained from the semilog, Horner,
or derivative plot.
In principle, the geometric mean permeability j kHk
v
and damage
skin may be obtained from the first radial flow regime. provided thaI
the wellbore pressure during this regime is not affected by wellbore
storage and/or boundaries. The anisotropy ratio is needed for calcu-
lati7 damage skin from Eq. 2. However, because the dependence
on kH/k
v
is logarithmic. its effect on the damage skin estimation
will usually be small.
The vertical permeability may be obtained from the time of onset
of the deviation of the pressure or pressure deri vative from this flow
regime as (in oilfield units)
k - Il
c,
. 2 2
V - 00002637 t mm [zw.(h - zw)], (3)
. "I. snbe
Fig. 3-Derivatives for Examples 1 through Sand pressure for
ExampleS.
10-
2
Third radi al
_J ._.
Time
Fig. 2-Radial flow regimes for a horizontal well.
First radial
7
-
r
Hemi-radial
-.. ..r--.
First Radial Flow Regime. The first flow pattern for horizontal
wells is ellipti c-cylindrical. After some time. the elliptic-cylindrical
flow regime becomes pseudoradial, as shown in Fig. 2. This radial
flow around the wellbore may continue until the effect of the nearest
boundary is felt at the wellbore. It may not develop if the anisotropy
ratio. kH/kV. is large. The behavior of this regime is similar to the ear-
ly-time behavior of partially penetrated wells. The derivatives for
all examples, for which the well/reservoir parameters are given in
Table 1 (see Ref. 18), clearly indicate (Fig. 3) the first radial flow
regime . The slope of the semilog straight line can be expressed as
Log-log plots the change in the wellbore pressure. !i.p...
associated with type curves have been used extensively as diagnostic
and interpretation tools since the early 1970's.9 In the early 1980s.
Bourdet et al.
33
showed that a combined log-log plot of pressure and
pressure derivative is a better diagnostic and interpretation tool than
a pressure plot alone for comparing measured transient data with the
model responses. In this paper. the pressure change and pressure
derivative are denoted by !i.Pw and dPw/dIn t. respectively.
10
OJ
.2:
Cii
>

o
JPI' January 1995 37
location of one of the boundaries changes with time, such as when
the gas cap moves downward or when there is an unknown continu-
ous shale above or below the well.
Second Radial Flow Regime. This is a hemicylindrical flow
regime, as shown in Fig. 2, that follows the first radial flow. This
flow regime may occur when the well is not centered with respect
to the no-flow top and bottom boundaries. In some cases, only this
flow regime may be observed without the first flow regime. The
slope obtained from this flow regime is two times larger than that
obtained from the first regime. Thus,
mrz = 2m
rl
(5)
and
s 2302{ + 32275 + IO{(1 + fj;) ;:]
- log ( ,/,kHkVz) } . . (6)
-r/lctrw
As in the first radial flow regime, the geometric mean permeability
j kH/k
v
and damage skin may be obtained from this flow regime.
Intermediate-Time Linear Flow Regime. If the horizontal well is
much longer than the formation thickness, this flow regime may
develop after the effects of the upper and lower boundaries are felt
at the wellbore. As Fig. 3 shows, the derivative for Example 4 exhib-
its a linear flow regime for almost one logarithmic cycle because the
formation thickness (Table I) is short (40 ft). The slope of the linear
straight line (plot of pressure vs. the square root of time) is given by
mil = (8.128q/2L
wh)j/l/kJIPc,
(7)
and the skin by
S = (2LwjkHk v/141.2q/l)!1POhr
+ 2.303
where !1POhr is the intercept. Note that if bo. jkv/k
H
(h/L
w),
is not
small, then the linear flow regime will not take place because the
flow will spread out significantly from the ends of the well before
the effects of the top and bottom boundaries are seen.
Third (Intermediate) Radial FlowRegime. After the effects of the
top and bottom boundaries are felt at the wellbore, a third radial flow
pattern will develop (Fig. 2) in the x-y plane. This regime does not
exist for wells with a gas cap or aquifer. The semilog straight-line
slope is
m
r
3 = 162.6q/l/k
Hh
(9)
and the skin is
(10)
where S, - 2303 IO{ (1 + jf;}-
- fj; L(t - + (11)
38
Eq. 11 is valid only for no< 2.5. The full expression given by
Kuchuk et ai.
18
should be used when ro 2.5.
The start of this flow regime can be written as18
tv = 20, (12)
where tv = (13)
The start ofthe third radial flow regime defined by Eq. 12is some-
what subjective. Clonts and Ramey,13 Goode and Thambynaya-
gam.!" Ozkan et ai.,16 and Odeh and Babu17 presented different
expressions for the start of the third regime. Although it can be used
only qualitatively to determine an upper bound to the horizontal
permeability (see Fig. 3), Eq. 12 is a good approximation for the
start of the third radial flow regime. However, for bo 1, Eq. 12
becomes crude, as shown by Curves 2 and 5 in Fig. 3. For these two
examples, the start times are actually less than those obtained from
Eq. 12. For large anisotropy ratios, ho may become large, and the
start of the radial flow regime could be much larger than that
obtained from Eq. 12.
Other flow regimes may also develop, depending on the outer
boundaries in the x and y directions and the well geometry. For
example, a spherical flow regime may occur if a horizontal well is
much shorter than the formation thickness.
Constant-Pressure Boundary. If the top or bottom boundary is at
a constant pressure, a steady-state pressure is achieved at the well-
bore. The total skin can then be expressed as
s = (jkHk
v
Lw/374.4q/l)!1Pss - 2.303
I
[
8h (nz
w)
(h - zw) fj;H]
X og ( 2h + --r::- k
v
'
nr; 1 + ,;kv/k
H
...................... (14)
where !1pss is the pressure difference between the well pressure and
constant pressure at the boundary. The height of the formation may
be estimated from the time lcbp- at which the wellbore pressure
becomes steady state, as
h = 0.01 jkvtCbP/cjJ/lCt, (15)
where tcbp is the time to reach the steady-state pressure at the well-
bore. Alternatively, if h is known, this equation may be used to esti-
mate the vertical permeability.
Interpretation
Horizontal test well data may be interpreted in two steps: the first is
the identification of the boundaries and the main features, such as
faults and fractures, of the model from flow regime analyses. Unlike
most vertical wells, well test measurements from horizontal wells
are usually affected by nearby shale strikes and lenses and by top
and bottom boundaries at early times. The second step is to estimate
well/reservoir parameters and to refine the model that is obtained
from flow regime analyses.
The graphical type curve procedure is practically impossible for
the analysis of horizontal well test data because usually more than
three parameters are unknown, even for a single-layer reservoir.
Thus, along with the flow regime analyses, nonlinear least-squares
techniques are usually used to estimate reservoir parameters. In
applying these methods, one seeks not merely a model that fits a
given set of output data (pressure, flow rate, and/or their derivatives)
but also knowledge of what features in that model are satisfied by
the data. Evaluation of model features can be done iteratively during
estimation and by the diagnostic tools mentioned above (identifying
flow regimes). However, if the uncertainties about the model can be
resolved with the diagnostic tools, the estimation can be carried out
with a greater confidence at a minimal cost. For instance, if the loca-
tions of the lower and upper boundaries are known or identified
January 1995 JPT
Fig. 5-The permeability and thickness distributions for the
nine-layer reservoir.
Layered Reservoirs. Most oil and gas reservoirs are often layered
(stratified) to various degrees because of sedimentation processes
over long geologic times. The geologic characterization of layered
reservoirs and their evaluation have received increasing attention in
recent years because of the widespread use of 3D seismic and high-
resolution wireline logs.
Understanding the pressure-transient behavior of layered reser -
voirs is important because of the strong influence that layering has
on the productivity of horizontal weIIs.
12
However, single-layer
models are often used for the interpretation of weII-test data from
layered reservoirs. Recently, an interesting example-" was pres-
ented to examine the behavior of a horizontal weII in a nine-layer
reservoir and in two equivalent single-layer reservoirs. The nine-
layer system consists of nine different-thickness horizontal layers
with high and low horizontal and vertical penneabilities randomly
distributed among the layers (Fig. 5) . In this nine-layer reservoir,
each layer is a laterally and vertically continuous flow unit that com-
municates vertically (formation crossflow) with adjacent layers
in the z direction. The horizontal well is completed in the middle
of the fifth layer. For computation of the single-layer response,
we used the thickness-weighted arithmetic average horizontal
permeability < k
H
> = [k7= j(kH);h;]/h, and the harmonic aver-
age vertical nneability < k
v
> = hr7k7=lhj(kvl; or < k
v
> =
k7=1 (kHkv);hjh
r
(the < kHk
v
> curve in Fig. 6), where lit =
k7=A
As shown in Fig. 6, the derivatives for these three cases clearly
indicate the first radial flow regime before the effects of the bottom
100
kH
!iJ kv
80 60 40
permeability, md
20 a


5

g) 15 '.:.::::\,:x";-,:x
20
:
10

15.
Fractured Reservoirs. Many horizontal weIIs have been drilled in
fractured reservoirs, such as Respo Mare" and Austin Chalk,23 to
increase production. The solutions presented for horizontal wells in
naturaIIy fractured (double-porosity) reservoirs are a simple exten-
sion of homogeneous single-layer solutions.
27-29
Although the
double-porosity model may work for late-time behavior, it does not
work at early- and middle-time intervals unless the fracture density
is very high and its conductivity is low.
1000
from the flow regime analyses, the horizontal and vertical pennea-
Lilities and damage skin can beestimated with a greater confidence.
The well bore volume of horizontal wells is usually larger than
those of vertical wells. Field observations indicate that well bore
storage may vary considerably as pressure builds up. The effect of
wellbore storage can be easily eliminated or reduced if the down-
hole flow rate is measured and analyzed with the bottornhole pres-
sure. As stated, a downhole shut-in tool should be used for buildup
tests, particularly for low-productivity wells, to minimize the weII-
bore storage effect.
It is well known that the estimated parameters for horizontal wells
are strongly correlated. For instance, vertical permeability and well-
bore storage are strongly correlated. Skin is correlated to both kH
and ky. As recommended by Kuchuk et al.,21 it may be necessary to
conduct a short drawdown test and a long buildup test for flowing
wells to estimate these parameters confidently. These two tests
should be carried out sequentially. For shut-in weIIs, the drawdown
should be long enough to minimize the effect of producing time.
Fig, 4 presents pressure derivatives for two drawdown and two
72-hour buildup tests with a 24-hour producing time for the same
system with different vertical penneabilities. For the drawdown
tests, derivatives are taken with respect to the logarithmic of the test
time. For buildup tests, derivatives are taken with respect to the log-
arithm of the Homer time (t
p
+6. t}/6.t, where t
p
is the producing
time and 6.t is the test time].
As Fig. 4 shows, even for a 24-hour producing time, the effect is
visible. The behavior of the low-vertical-permeability case is not
drastically different from that of the high-vertical-permeability
case. A 24-hour producing time is about the minimum time required
to flow the well for these two systems. The drawdown derivative
type curves without skin and storage for these two systems are pres-
ented in Fig. 3 as Example 1 (ky =10 md) and Example 2 (ky =I
md). Note that none of the flow regimes that are clearly visible in
Fig. 3 can be identified in Fig. 4 because of the weIIbore storage and
skin effects. Although these are noise-free synthetic data, the third
radial flow regime is hardly identifiable even at 72 hours. This prob-
lem would become much more pronounced for real tests . If the
downhole flow rate is measured or a downhole shut-in device is
used, the identifiable data interval would then be increased.
--nine-layer
harmonic <ky>
-----harmonic <kHky>
'R
gj'


... 100
QJ
"0
--DOfor kv=10md
11 BUfor kv=lO md
---.- DD for kv = 1 md
o BUfor ky= 1 md 100
10
time, hr
Fig. 4-Comparison of derivatives for drawdowns and buildUps
for different vertical permeabllities.
Fig. 6-Comparison of derivatives for layered and equivalent
homogeneous single-layer systems.
JPT January 1995 39
and top no-flow boundaries. After a transition period, all curves flat-
ten, indicating a late-time radial flow regime. This occurs because
during this period the horizontal well behaves as a point-source well
in the x-y plane. As Fig. 6 shows, the behavior of the nine-layer res-
ervoir is completely different from that for a reservoir with two
equivalent single layers, except for the late-time radial flow regime,
which evolves in 100 hours. Note that the shape of the derivative of
the nine-layer case is similar to that of the single-layer case given
by Example I (Fig. 3). Consequently, identification of such a layer
system may not be possible and may also lead to an incorrect inter-
pretation, particularly in estimating the vertical permeability and the
distance to the boundaries. As Fig. 6 also shows, it is difficult to say
which averaging techniques work better for vertical permeability.
Therefore, a multilayer reservoir generally cannot be treated as an
equivalent single-layer system, except when the permeability varia-
tions are small .
30
.
In addition, the behavior of the gas and water zones may differ
from that of the constant-pressure boundary condition, and the
effect of a gas cap or a water zone should not automatically be
assumed as a constant-pressure boundary.P
Conclusions
Over the last decade, significant progress has been made in develop-
ing forward analytical models and interpretation techniques for hor-
izontal wells. The effects of the top and the bottom boundaries, such
as no-flow and/or constant-pressure boundaries, on the transient
behavior of horizontal wells have been recognized. Flow regimes
have been presented for system identification and for estimation of
a number of reservoir parameters.
A wide variety of testing equipment (hardware) for vertical wells
has been adapted for testing horizontal wells. Production logging
and/or downhole shut-in have been used successfully to acquire reli-
able pressure and rate data for drawdown and buildup tests. Produc-
tion logging tools usually have been run with a coiled-tubing system.
Field experience indicates that the interpretation of well tests
from horizontal wells is much more difficult than for vertical wells .
A large anisotropy ratio and the existence of multiple boundaries
with unknown distances to the wellbore increase the complexity of
the interpretation. Minimizing the well bore storage effect is crucial
for system identification and parameter estimation.
The pressure derivative is shown to be an effective system identi-
fication tool that can also provide initial approximations of the non-
linear estimation. Relying solely on nonlinear estimation without
diagnostics may lead to an erroneous model and estimates.
The behavior of a multilayer reservoir with a horizontal well can-
not be treated as an equivalent single-layer system with average
properties.
Nomenclature
c/ = total compressibility, Lt
2tm
, psi - I
h = thickness, L, ft
k= permeability, L2, md
L = length, L, ft
m= slope
n = number of layers
p= pressure, mlLt
2,
psi
q = flow rate, L
3tt,
RB/D
r = radius, L, ft
S= skin
t = time, t, hours
x, y, z= coordinates, L, ft
Jl = viscosity, mILt, cp
ljJ = porosity, fraction
Subscripts
D = dimensionless
H = horizontal
hr= hour
i = layer number
1= linear
0= initial or original
40
p = producing
r= radial
ss = steady-state
t= total
v= vertical
w= well
wf= flowing pressure (drawdown)
x, y,z= coordinate indicator
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Schlumberger for permission to publish this paper.
I am indebted to P.A. Goode, R.M. Thambynayagam, and DJ.
Wilkinson for their contributions to horizontal well testing.
References
\. Renney, L.: "Drilling Wells Horizontally," Oil Weekly (Jan. 20,1941 )
12.
2. Giger, EM., Reiss, L.H., and Jourdan, A.P.: "Reservoir Engineering
Aspects of Horizontal Drilling ," paper SPE 13024 presented at the 1984
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept.
16-19.
3. Giger, EM.: "Horizontal Wells Production Techniques in Heteroge-
neous Reservoirs," paper SPE 13710 presented at the 1985 SPE Middle
East Oil Technical Show, Bahrain, March 11-14.
4. Reiss, L.H.: "Production From Horizontal After 5 Years," 1PT (Nov.
1987) 1411; Trans. , AIME, 283.
5. Sherrard. D.W., Brice, B.W., and MacDonald , D.G.: "Application of
Horizontal Wells at Prudhoe Bay," 1PT(Nov. 1987) 1417.
6. King, G.R. and Ertekin, T.: "Comparative Evaluation of Vertical and
Horizontal Drainage Wells for the Degasification of Coal Seams,"
SPERE (May 1988) 720.
7. Babu, O.K. and Odeh, A.S.: "Productivity of a Horizontal Well,"
SPERE (Nov. 1989) 417.
8. Joshi, S.D.: "Augmentation of Well Productivity With Slanted and Hor-
izontal Wells," 1PT (June 1988) 729; Trans., AIME 285.
9. Karcher, BJ., Giger, EM., and Combe , J.: "Some Practical Formulas to
Predict Horizontal Well Behavior," paper SPE 15430 presented at the
1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Oct . 5-8.
10. Goode, P.A. and Kuchuk, FJ.: "Inflow Performance of Horizontal
Wells," SPERE(Aug. 1991) 319.
I \. Goode, P.A. and Wilkinson, OJ.: "Inflow Performance of Partially
Open Horizontal Wells," 1PT(Aug. 1991) 983.
12. Kuchuk, FJ. and Saaedi, J: "Inflow Performance of Horizontal Wells in
Multilayer Reservoirs," paper SPE 24945 presented at the 1992 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, Oct. 4-7.
13. Clonts, M.D. and Ramey, HJ. Jr.: "Pressure Transient Analysis for
Wells with Horizontal Drainholes,' paper SPE 15116 presented at the
1986 SPE California Regional Meeting, Oakland, April 2--4.
14. Goode, P.A. and Thambynayagam, R.M.: "Pressure Drawdown and
Buildup Analysis for Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Media," SPEFE
(Dec. 1987) 683; Trans., AIME, 283.
15. Daviau, E et al .: "Pressure Analysis for Horizontal Wells," SPEFE
(Dec. 1988) 716.
16. Ozkan, E., Raghavan, R., and Joshi, S.D. : "Horizontal Well Pressure
Analysis," SPEFE (Dec. 1989) 567; Trans . AIME, 287.
17. Odeh, A.S. and Babu, O.K.: "Transient Flow Behavior of Horizont al
Wells: Pressure Drawdown and Buildup Analysis," SPEFE (March
1990) 7; Trans ., AIME, 289,
18. Kuchuk, FJ. et al .: "Pressure-Transient Behavior of Horizontal Wells
With and Without Gas Cap or Aquifer," SPEFE (March 1991) 86;
Trans ., AIME. 291.
19. Rosa, AJ and Carvalho, R.S.: "A Mathematical Model for Pressure
Evaluation in an Infinite-Conductivity Horizontal Well," SPEFE (Dec.
1989) 559.
20. Ozkan. E. and Raghavan , R.: "Performance of Horizontal Wells Subject
to Bottomwater Drive," SPERE (Aug. 1990) 375; Trans. AIME, 289,
2\. Kuchuk, FJ. et al.: "Pressure Transient Analysis for Horizontal Wells,"
JPT (August 1990) 974; Trans., AIME, 289.
22. Abbaszadeh, M. and Hegeman, P.: "Pressure-Transient Analysis for a
Slanted Well in a Reservoir With Vertical Pressure Support," SPEFE
(Sept. 1990) 277; Trans ., AIME, 289.
23. Lichtenberger, GJ.: "Pressure Buildup Test Results From Horizontal
Wells in the Pearsall Field of the Austin Chalk," paper SPE 20609 pres-
ented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibit ion,
New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.
January 1995 JIYI'
SI Metric Conversion Factors
Canadian SPEICIM/CANMET IntI. Conference on Recent Advances in
Horizontal Well Applications, Calgary, March 20-23.
Fikri J. Kuchuk is chief reservoir engineer for Schlumberger
Middle East in Dubai. He was a senior scientist and a group
leader at Schiumberger-Doll Research Center, Ridgefield , CT,
and conducted research in pressure transient testing , inverse
problem, flow through porous media, and downhole pressure
and flow rate measurements. He was a consulting professor in
the Petroleum Engineer ing Dept. of Stanford U. during
1988-1994. Kuchuk was the recipient of the 1994 Reservoir Engi-
neering Award. He was the Program Chairman for the 1993
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition and has chaired
many SPEtechnical committees.
E-OI =m
E-04 =,um
2
E+OO = kPa
ft x 3.048*
md x 9.869 233
psi x 6.894 757
"Conva rsion factor is exact.
24. Rosenzweig, U., Korpics, D.C., and Crawford, G.E.: "Pressure Tran-
sient Analysis of the JX-2 Horizontal Well, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska," pa-
per SPE 20610 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.
25. Shah, P.C., Gupta , D.K., and Deruyck, B.G.: "Field Application of the
Method for Interpretation of Horizontal-Well Transient Tests," SPEFE
(March 1994) 23.
26. Suzuki, K. and Nanba, T.: "Horizontal Well Test Analysis System," pa-
per SPE 20613 presented at the 1990SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.
27. Carvalho, R.S. and Rosa, AJ .: ' 'Transient Pressure Behavior for Hori-
zontal Wells in Naturally Fractured Reservoir," paper SPE 18302 pres-
ented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Oct. 2- 5.
28. Williams, E.T. and Kikani, 1.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Horizon-
tal Wells in a Naturally Fractured Reservoir," paper SPE 20612 pres-
ented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Sept. 23- 26.
29. Aguilera, R. and Ng, M.e.: "Transient Pressure Analysis of Horizontal
Wells in Anisotropic Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," SPEFE (March
1991) 95.
30. Kuchuk, FJ.: "Pressure Behavior of Horizontal Wells in Multilayer
Reservoirs With Crossflow,' paper SPE 22731 presented at the 1991
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 6-9.
31. Suzuki, K. and Namba, T.: "Horizontal Well Pressure Transient Behav-
ior in Stratified Reservoirs," paper SPE 22732 presented at the 1991
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 6-9.
32. Domzalski, S. and Yver, J.: "Horizontal Well Testing in the Gulf of
Guinea," Oil Field Review (Apri l 1992) 42.
33. Bourdet, D. et al.: "A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test
Analysis," World Oll (May 1983).
34. Kuchuk, FJ . and Kader, A.S: "Pressure Behavior of Horizontal Wells
in Heterogeneous Reservoirs," paper HWC94-25 presented at the 1994
JPT January 1995 41