Pressure Build-Up Analysis, Variable-Rate Case

A. S. ODEH
MEMBER AIME
F. sEIIG

ABSTRACT
A second-order approximation to. the exact solution of
the diffusivity
equation corresponding
to the pressure
build-up ofa well producing at a variable rate is derived.
This approxitnation is applicable when the wells shut-tn
time. is larger than the total time elapsed since the well
was first produced. The resulting equations are compact in
form and easy to use. Thus, the need for Horners
theoredcally precise but rather laborious solution to the
above problein is eliminated. In addition, these equations
apply where the use of Horners widely known approximate @ethod is questionable.
From a practical point of view, the reported method is
best suited for analysis of drill-stem tests and short production tests conducted on new wells.

The utility of drill-stem and short production tests in

reservoir studies has long been recognized by the reservoir
engineer. If interpreted correctly they could lead to a
wealth of information upon which may depend the success or failure of reservoirs analyses.
Initial reservoir pressure and the average flow capacity
are two quantities that are normally sought from a drillstem and/or a short production test analysis. Pressures are
the most valuable and useful data in reservoir engineering.
Directly or indirectly, they enter into all phases of reservoir engineering calculations. Therefore, their accurate
determination is of utmost importance. The flow capacity
kh of the reservoir is indicative of its commercial capability. In addition, it can indicate the presestce of a damaged zone around the wellbore and, thus, the necessity
for remedial measures.
Of the several methods used to analyze drill-stem and
short production tests, Horners method is by and large
the most common. It applies to an infinite reservoir and/
or a limited reservoir where the effect of production has
not been felt by the boundary.
Horners method makes use of the so-called pointsource solution of the cliffusivity equation, The pointsource solution is approximated by a logarithmic function
and the superposition theorem is utilized to give the
familiar pressure build-up equation
162,6 qlog10 ~.
t+e

where 0 is the shut-in time, q is in reservoir barrels per

day and the rest of the symbols conform with AIME
nomenclature,
Eq. 1 was derived for a well which produced at a constant rate q from time zero to time tand was then shut in.
In actuality, such a constant rate of production does not
normally obtain. Therefore, a correction must be applied
to Eq. 1 to account for the varying rates of production.
Horner suggested two methods. The first, which results in
a theoretically accurate solution, is rather lengthy and
laborious and, thus, it is not suited for routine analysis.
The second which has been termed a good working
approximation is the one used by the majority of the
reservoir engineers. In the second method, Eq, 1 is modified by simply introducing a corrected time t.and writing
162,6q log,, ~
te+b , . , . .
pw=p, -_

(1)

OrIg[nal manuscript received in society of Petroleum Eng[neers oillce

Dec. 20, 19S2, Revised maauscrlpt received March 19, 196S. Paper sn-eProduction Research ssmpcdum
Sv&i
Sented at U. of Oklaho~SPE
APrSS20.80, 196S, in Norman, Okla,
References given at end of sraper.

(2)

kh

INTRODUCTION

Pto=P$~

SOCONY MOBIL OIL CO., INC.

DALLAS, 7EX.

where q is the last established production rate prior to

shut-in, and t.
is obtained by dividing the total cumulative
production by the last established rate. Horners original
paper does not give any indication that this method of
correction is based on any theoretical justification. In
addition, there is a question as to what constitutes the last
established rate. Jn case of a drill-stem test some.engineers
use tbe average rate obtained by Ydividing the total fluid
produced by the total flow time, while others calculate the
average rate by dividing the. total fluid produced by the
last flow-period time, Obviously, different results obtain
for the different flow rates used.
Because of this, a simple method to the varying-rate
case was developed which is theoretically sound and
which defines clearly the flow rate and its associated time
to be used in the calculations, The final equation arrived
at is
162.6 q*
t* + e
log,,, .~
. - . . (3)
Pto pi-
kh

where q%and tare a modified rate and time, rt=:ectively,

and can be easily calculated. In addition, it N shown
theoretically that Horners approximate method, if used
for a variable-rate case, gives the correct pressure but
would not be expected to give the correct flow capacity.
MATHEMATICAL

ANALYSIS

The general equation governing the flow of slightly

compressible fluid in porous media may be written as
ap 1 ap
4CI-L w
(4)
S+?s=--rx

The elementary solution to Eq, 4, representing an

instantaneous withdrawal of Q units volume of fluid at
the origin at t = O, is known as the irtatantaneous sink
JOURX.4L OF PETROLEUM

TECSSXOLOCY

...

or source sol.
AP =-
lf

function of time could be measured and Eq. 9 becomes

then

and is given by

-ik.

QP
4nkht e

the rate of withdrawal,

t

q (~),

is variable,

then

Q = ~ q(r) dr
o

and

;t
p,p

= J4rkh

_We-4-)d
t r

T,

(5)

where p, is the reservoir pressure at t = O.

In the case of an inthite reservoir with the well located
at r = O, and if the well is flowed for time t and then
shut in for time 6, and if t-,, (the well. radius) can be
approximated by zero, and ignoring the effects of afterproduction, the sand-face shut-in pressure at time t + 6 is
given by
tto
Q(T) e-
P
PI

[J

P=zm

where A

-&

q(T)

4rkh //+

O-re

Data

<)7

(6)

rwy)pc
T

A production test was conducted on u well according

to the schedule shown in Table 1. After nine hours, the
welf was shut in and the sand-face pressure was recorded,
as shown in Table 2. The problem is to calculate the
reservoir pressure and the average HI of the field.
Sctlution

t* as given by Eq. 11 is equal to

* ~ _478.5
(

t+e-~e

+=d-a-a

+Ei

-$.......
, )]

(7)

liu.

By the proper ex~ansion of the Ei functions and the

integral in Eq. 7, one arrives at (see Appendix A)
t$ + t3
162.6pq@
log,. ......(8)
Pi-P=
~h
$
where

,.=+hy) . . . . . . (!+

= 11 hours,
-t 319 x 3 -t- 159,5
x 3) 24
24x11
= 260.9 reservoir B/D.
Extrapolation of the straight-line portion which is given
t~
+ o
>1 (Fig. 1) gives an iniapproximately by 2> ~
tial pressure of 3,000 psi.
162,6q%p.
kh =
= 97 md-ft where P = 0.6 CP, and
m m is the slope of the straight line = 263 psi/cycle. For
comparison, the same example was worked out using
Horners method, Fig. 1. It resulted in an initial pressure
of 3,005 psi and a kh of 77 md-ft. A simulated case on
an R-C network electric analyzer resulted in an initial
pressure of 3,000 psi and a kh of 100 md-ft,

and

TABLE

%@+
. .

(lo)

Eq, !3 holds only when both t and t are less than d, a

condition necessary for the validity of I@ A-4 and A-7
of Appendm A. This condition could be obtained easily
in drill-stem tests and short production tests. V is the
volume of the fluid produced from time t = O until the
well is shut in. Eqs. 8, 9 and 10 are given in practical
engineering units,
During a short production test, the rate of flow as a
JULY,

X 1.5 + 319 X4.5+

159.5 X 7.5 3
478.5 + 319 + 159.5
)7

q,, ~Eq. lo) = (478.5 x3

q(T)

where Ei (-x)

the pressure ;t the start of the fist flow

period, i.e., at t = 0, p. is the pressure at the end of the
second flow period prior to shutting-in the well for the
final pressure build-up, i.e., at t,.
APPLICATION

It is desirable to approximate Eq. 6, so as to put it

in a workable form. Ttds can be done by introducing a
modified rate, q* = constant, and a modified time t~t,
such that the integration at the right-hand side of Eq, 6
can be carried out analytically. q* and t* have to be
chosen in such a way that

p. represents

EXAMPLE 1

1.

~ dr

t+er
@
f.ko
q(.) ~- + ~r
Jt t+e T
.

where it is assumed that the q t curve was dhdded into

n equal time intervals each of At length.
For a drilkcm
test the rate of flow as a function of
time is usually riot known. The pressure as a function of
time during the flow pe:iods is known. With a reasonable
degree of accuracy, Eq. 9 could be written (see Appendix
B) as
.,1
8&-1
2[(Pi,+, - p,,) (tr+l + t,)]
p ~ 2
t1~.o
(12)
?+-1
z (Pt{ - Pi)
.[

1-SCHEDULE

FOR CONDUCTING

Tlmw Intewol
(hotird

Average Producfien Rate

[fes. B/D)

0.3

47a,5
::$.;

PRODUCTION

:$.;
19:9

:$

TASIE
Sh~J-$inTnw

;
5
;

TEST

Production per 3-Hour

interval (ras. bbll

Prawfb
JPQg_
2812.5
2S3S
;W*5

2SAND.FACE

PRESSURE

Shy~&uf~rne

::
15
17

Pressure
~
2919
2929,5
2935
2942

2910

791

196S
.

..-

\1~ .
-....

3000

\.\

. .. .
~ ----%.,

~
~

_..

2900

Y..
,

\...w,
.

~
~
P8C0

T*Q

METHOO

.. . HORNER%

THF.

METHOD

i
MODIFIED

TIME

SHUT-IN

SHUT-IN

M2Q!.EW

TIME

TIME

FIG. ll)SMJiMIXATIOS OF ORIGINALRESERVOIRPBESSMEAX[l

AVERAGEFLmv CAPACITYEXAMPLE
1.

EXAMPLE

2.A FIIHJ)

l%.

ZI)STEHJIIXATIONOI; ORIGISAL RESSRWIR

AVERACE

Dam

the original reservoir pressure and the average~of

p.
field.

the

Thus, the~obpdined
. #
~obtained

IA{ [38 x 4 + (229 69)83

89-

+ (366 229)113+

(480

+ (546480)168]/[38
+ 366-229

366)143

+229-.69

+ 480-366

i- 546-

= 69 minutes.

9* =

17.0X24X60
69

=355

480] ~)
r

reservoir B/D.
~x+e

The extrapolated

straight-line

portion

of the ~

plot, Fig. 2, resulted in an initial pressure of 1,935 psig.

The slope was 385 psi/cycle. Thus,
kh
355x
, =

162.6

= 150md-ft/cp,
385
h
Forcomparison, the calculations were made using z=55
minutes, i.e., the second flow period time, This is what
is normally done in DST calculations.$ Thus, q =
17X60X24
= 445 reservoir B/D. The results, as shown
55

in Fig. 2, are an initial pressure of 1,920 psig and a slope

of 392 psi/cycle. Therefore,
..
TASIE
First Flew
Period
Time
[mIn)

(&)

S-DST

DATA

Initial
Closed.!n Pressure
&l

.j&.~

FROM TEST

PRIWW

AXIJ

I141; 2.

185 nld-tt/cp,

by this method is tugner man the

by the t:q: method by 23 per cent.

DISCUSSION

Solution

I: (Eq. 12) =

~I,OIYCAPACITYESAXI

lilt [b~.j x 445

.__..__.
.
391
p

CASK

The drill-stem test data shown in Tab1e3 were obtained

from a test run on Well x. In the test, 2.6 reservoir bbl
of oil and 14.4 bbl of salt water were recovered. Calculate

i SHUT-lM~
TIME
SHUT-IN
TIME

RUN ON WELL

sec;::dFyw

[&l

Final
Clesed.in Pressu~
Time
&+lnJ

&

The results of the two examples indicate that while the

initial reservoir pressure values obtained by the t* g* and
Horners approximate method compare favorably, the
flow capacities could vary markedly. This is expected considering the derivation that went into E-q. 8. If A, the
difference between the true integral value and the approximate formula, vanishes as 6- then, the first coefficient
in the expansion of A must be zero resulting in qt = V.
This means one requires only that the product of the time
chosen for the calculation and the flow rate should be
equal to the fluid produced from t = O to shut-in time.
Thus, one is reminded of Horners method which requires
only that t,q= V. Therefore, Horners method if applied
to a variable-rate case results in a first-order approximation. From the derivation it is seen that a, is the intercept
of the straight line as O approaches infinity, which in practical application gives the ori@ - serwir pressure.
The slope of the straight-line v &tion of the bui!d-up
curve which is used to calculate the average kh of the
reservoir is given by a,, the coefficient of the 6- term.
Thus, to obtain a good value for the slope one must require that A vanishes at least as O-. This requirement,
though fulfilled in the ~+q!method, thus leading to Eq, 9,
is absent in Horners method. This explains why the kbs
obtained. by Horners method if used for a variable-rate
case could be considerably in error.
The kiz obtained from pressure build-up analysis is
normally used to indi,cate whether a damaged zone exists
around the wellbore and the need for remedial measures.
It is clear that, if the kh is considerably in error, one can
easily arrive at the wrong conclusion with subsequent
financial loss. On this basis the use of the t*q2 method
in a varying-rate case is strongly recommended.
Strictly speaking, the t*q* method applies when both
t*and t are less than d. This means, the analyst in drawing the straight-line portion of the pressure build-up curve
should attach considerable importance to the points which
JOURNAL
. .

OF

PETROLEUM

1ECUNOI.OGY
.

*.-

in the range 2> ~>

fa]i approximately

sponding to the restriction imposed on Eq. 8. Therefore,

for a proper pressure build-up analysis, fhe well s@l-in

;ZG=l

,.

..

.,,

,,,

A~<I

-F/4p

6 e

end with
in

A~~Q

+ ,

()

1 +$

=$-$+~

(A.6)f4

(A-7 )

~o, ,

we obtain after a small amount of rearranging,

t
a,=

q(r)dr-q*

t<

..

Jc
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

(1,=

R. H. 13arham, M. E, Brewer and W. H. Wilson ran the

simulated case on the analyzer. The authors are grateful
for their help. The authors would like a!so to thank the
management of Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc., for permission to publish this paper.

1,

.
?0,

DERIVATION

r)q(r)

d,

(A-8)

q>
($+Ao)

...

.0.

(A-9)

.,.

Setting u, = O yields
t

.7. Cardriwl H, S. and Jaeger,

APPENDIX

{A + 1-

REFERENCES
. Pressure Build-Up in Wells, Proc., Third
%~drke?v C~;g., The Hague (1951) 11,503.

J, C,: conduction
of Ifeut in
solids, Second Ed. (1959 ).
3, DoIan, J. P., Eirsarsen, C. A. and Hill, G. A.: .%ecial AP lication of Drillstem
Test Pressure Data, Trans., AIIIE
(1957) 210, 318.
4. Johnston Testers, Inc.: Prrscticul DrilC.Stem Test Manual.
5. Amrnann, C. B,: Case Histories of Analysis of Characteristics
of Reservoir Rock from Drill-Stem Tests, .frrur. Pet. ?ech.
(.MW, 1960) XII, No. 5,27.
6. Zak, A. J., Jr. and Griffin, Phil, 111: Evaluating DST Data,
Oil und Grss jour, (April 15, April 29 and May 13, 1957).

(A-5 )

[Ei(-+)-13(---#&)]
~h(t-$-)-)

time should be at least I YZ tiines the time elapsed since

the well was first produced. Drill-stem tests and short

production tests on new wells could be easily made to

satisfy the time-limit condkion. Therefore, the t*c?
method is best suited for the analysis of the pressure
build-up data of these two tests. For a well that has been
producing for a relatively long period, the shut-in time
required for the correct application of the t*g*method
might be too long to be economically feasible. Ort the
other hand,. Horners approximate method, which is a
first-order approximation, would not be expected to give
the correct flow capacity either.

-#++; +4(t-d+
1

.4

1 corre-

qxro= q(T)dT=V
J
o
Setting a, = O yields
t
.4v+w

(A-11)

AV,

(A-12)

Vl

dr =Y+

~o

4,-fi(;7:].
,,,.,

,:=

OF EQS. 8,9 AND 10

g(~)r

, or

(A-13,

If the production rate q(7) is plotted vs t,the r co-ordinate

of the center of gravity, t,, is given by

The introduction of a modilled production rate q and

a modified time tithas to be performed in such a way
that the difference

/,=

:(r)~ d~
1 ; ,.

,.

(A-14)

q(r)dr
Jo

and we obtain the final form of the solution

-t#),q*=;

Z* =2(1
tends toward zero for large values of 6. We will write A
as a power series in 6- in the form

q*t#,::

t+6

196~

. .

.
,IU1,Y,

(r - 7) ~
.
*,

. ..

T) q[r)rfl$

(A-16)

(A-3)

?+

(t
f

which turns out to be very small for most of the cases.

With the aid of Eqs. A-1 and A-6, Eq. 6 can be written
in the form
1$ + f)
At*
=.#$ln
8--~+

(A-17)
P*-P
[
L.%s@.ti
Using the full expression for A, it is easily seen that

Using the expansions

.+1

t
o

It can be seen immediately that a, = O for any value of

q and d. Thus, if we adjust these parameters such that
A vanishes at least like 6-, then tz* and t* will be a
solution of the two equations

. . . . (A-15)

The coefficient tr, can be expressed in the form

a, =-

al = O,
a g-- O.....,...,..

. .

~pfwct
.

16k*h#

is negligible, and we obtain Eq. 8,

{A-4)
.:

.,

,,

..

. .

. .. .

...

-.
m,m

.. ..

?
1

APPENDIX B
Eq, 12 from Eq.9,0ne

Inordertodcrive

observes that

Substituting Eq. B-4 in Eqs, B-1 and B-2 and dividing,

one obtains

AV
- yields

and

q(r)

At

t
~f- J
f(7)T Jr = x
o
~
,.
...
:

V,i+l
t,+,

-t,
vW(f-l

).

...

.,.

(B-1 )

v,,) . . . (B-2)
i(,)d, =31(V!,+1
0
Jo
Assuming that the changes in compressibility and temperature of the produced fluid during the flow periods
are negligible, one can write for any time r during the
flow periods
v =

$+&=

t
J

Z+hL=CV+

h,,

(B-3)

where p and v are, respectively, the pressure recorded by

the upper gauge and the fluid velocity at the upper gauge
level, z is the fluid head above the upper gauge and iz,.
represents friction losses, Thus,
.V=~A

-p,

Cp()

(B-4)

where P, = h]. - ~,

2g

t,=+

7 fh

9(T)dT
J o

-%i{[(%-~)r+l-(f-~)f
- $[(f-p):{+l-(%
-~)fil

. ..

(B-5)

4..

,.

.,

711

X[(p,,:,
t,=l~k

811
w,,+,

p,,)

(t,+,
+ t,)]
-

,.

(13.6 )--\ -L,

PI,)

where p. and p. are, respectively, the pressures recmded

by the upper gauge at the start of the first flow period,
i.e., t = O, and at the end of the second flow period prior
**
to shutting-in the well for pressure build-up.

JOURNAL OF FETROLEVMBECSSNOLOGW

?94

From physical consideration and if the time increments

are chosen small enough, one can neglect the change in
p, and p between t,and r,,,, and Eq, B-5 becomes

,.

..