Thermal Recovery Well Test Design

and Interpretation
A.K. Ambastha, * SPE, and H.J. Ramey Jr., SPE, Stanford U.

Summary. Because a reservoir undergoing a thermal recovery process is typically idealized as a composite reservoir, this study de-
velops new design and interpretation equations by investigating pressure-derivative behavior of a well in a two-zone, radial, infinite or
finite composite reservoir. Accurate design equations help establish the test duration required to observe a particular feature in well test
data and thus the applicability of an interpretation method to determine front radius, or swept volume.
This study shows that the dimensionless time to the end of the first semilog line (deviation time) based on front radius is a constant.
The deviation-time method may be used if wellbore storage does not mask the first semilog line. Design equations for the time of the
beginning of the second semilog line and the time to observe outer-boundary effects show that the intersection-time method is not suitable
for thermal recovery well test analysis. Correlations developed for the end of pseudosteady-state behavior of the swept region should
help select the correct Cartesian line to calculate swept volume. This paper also presents derivative type curves applicable for all front
radii, with mobility and storativity ratios as parameters for infinitely large composite reservoirs. For closed and constant-pressure outer
boundaries, the ratio of outer boundary to front radius is the third parameter.

Introduction
The behavior of composite reservoirs has recently attracted much
attention, and many studies have appeared on this subject. A com-
posite system can occur naturally or may be artificially created.
Aquifers with two different permeabilities forming two regions,
oil and water or gas and oil zones, with different properties in a
reservoir, and a finite-thickness skin region are examples of naturally
occurring two-zone composite systems. Secondary or tertiary
recovery projects-such as waterflooding, polymer floods, gas in-
jection, in-situ combustion, steamdrive, and CO 2 miscible
flooding-artificially create conditions wherein the reservoir can
be viewed as consisting of two zones with different rock and/or
fluid properties. Geothermal reservoir well tests can often be rep-
resented by a composite reservoir model.
The pressure behavior of composite reservoirs has been con-
sidered extensively. 1-13 Recently, Brown 14 investigated pressure-
derivative behavior of composite reservoirs but limited his study
to mobility and storativity ratios on the order of 0.4 to 2.0 and 0.3
to 30, respectively. Such mobility and storativity ratios are typical
of cases with finite-thickness skin regions around the wellbore. Wat-
tenbarger and Ramey 15 modeled a finite-thickness skin region as
a composite system and obtained pressure-transient behavior for
such systems using finite-difference techniques. Their solutions cor-
respond to a range of mobility ratio from 0.1 to 3.6, which is the
range Brown used. In this study, we consider mobility and stora-
tivity ratio contrasts typical of thermal recovery processes and de-
velop new design and interpretation equations by investigating
pressure-derivative behavior. The Eggenschwiler et at. 10 analytical
solution was used for a two-zone, infinitely large composite
reservoir. A constant rate was specified at the inner boundary. The
Horne et al. II solution was used for finite composite reservoirs.
The outer boundary for a finite reservoir can be either closed or
at a constant pressure. Wellbore storage was neglected in this study.
Implications of this study on different methods to calculate front
rapius or inner-zone volume are discussed.
Pressure-Derivative Approach. Whenever a straight line is sought
on a graph of pressure vs. a function of time, we seek a constant
slope. Thus, pressure derivatives can be used directly. Also, a
pressure derivative can enhance a pressure signal and may be more
sensitive to disturbances in reservoir conditions. 16-18 In general,
a pressure-derivative graph shows the start and end of a given flow
regime later and earlier, respectively, than is indicated on a pressure
graph at a specified accuracy. This is illustrated for simple cases
in Ref. 19.
The examples in Ref. 19 suggest that there is often more detail
evident in a derivative graph than is apparent in a pressure graph.
Times of specific flow events determined from pressure-derivative
analysis, however, can often be different from those determined
• Now at the U. of Alberta.
Copyright 1989 SOCiety of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1989
from pressure analysis. Because the duration of a flow regime
appears shorter on a derivative graph, care is required for well test
analysis by a specialized method to ensure that pressure data are
in the correct time range. Because of detail enhancement in a
derivative graph, however, better type-curve matching may be pos-
sible with a derivative type curve. To use pressure derivatives,
design equations and type curves based on pressure derivatives for
the system under consideration are necessary. We consider com-
posite reservoirs in this study. Fig. 1 is a schematic of a composite
reservoir. Inner-and outer-region properties are assumed to be
different. The distance R is the front radius, which is an important
parameter sought in thermal recovery well test analysis. Strictly
speaking, fronts in thermal recovery usually are not cylindrical
owing to gravity effects. Thus, the front radius exists only in some
average sense. It is perhaps better to speak of the volume of the
inner region, especially when pseudosteady data are available.
"Front radius" is used here, however, as a matter of convenience.
This term has been used in most of the previous studies of well
test analysis appliep to thermal systems.
Methods To Estimate Front Radius. Different methods have been
proposed to estimate a front radius from pressure-vs.-time data:
(1) deviation-time method, (2) intersection-time method, (3) type-
curve-matching methods, and (4) pseudosteady-state method.
The deviation-time method 20 ,21 uses the time at the end of the
semilog pressure-vs.-time line corresponding to the inner region
to calculate a front radius on the basis of a theoretical dimension-
less deviation time. The intersection-time method 9 ,22,23 uses the
intersection time of two semilog lines corresponding to the mobili-
ties of the inner and outer regions to calculate a front radius, again
with a theoretical dimensionless intersection time as the basis. A
type-curve-matching method was proposed by Bixel and van
Poollen. 6 Barua and Horne 13 used automated type-curve match-
ing to analyze thermal recovery well tests. Eggenschwiler et al. 10
proposed a pseudosteady-state method for large mobility and stora-
tivity contrasts. They observed that the swept region could behave
like a closed system for a short duration after the end of the semi-
log line corresponding to the inner-region mobility. During this time,
a pseudosteady Cartesian line may develop with a slope that can
be related to the swept volume. This method should be indepen-
dent of the geometry of the swept region and has been applied by
several investigators to field and simulated cases 24-30 with appar-
ent success.
Infinite Outer· Boundary Results
We now consider pressure-derivative behavior for a well producing
(or injecting) at a constant rate in a two-zone composite, infinitely
large reservoir. The derivative of well pressure with respect to the
base 10 logarithm of time is
dPwD/d log tD=tD In(IO)£-I{sPwD}' ................ (1)
173
 30
Co =0
M =10

Fs = 100
20 Ro

.9

-
OJ)
0
10

-J
-0

10
•
A
50
100
-0
• 1000

o~~~~--~---L--~
O.ot 0.1 10 100 1000

Fig. 2-Semilog pressure derivatives.

1000
CD =0
..... fw
= 100
R ....0
100 Fs
bJ)

~
--.
0 10
g
I
0.01 0.1 10 100 1000 10000
E

Fig. 1-Two-zone, radial composite reservoir. Fig. 3-Effect of mobility ratio on pressure derivative.

where PwD is the dimensionless wellbore pressure drop in Laplace
space, as given by the Eggenschwiler et al. solution. Inversion from
Laplace space to real space was performed with the Stehfest 31 in-
version algorithm. Wellbore storage was neglected to make the tran-
sition between the zones unambiguous. Storage and skin can easily
be added to Eq. 1. Because the pressure derivative is not affected
by the presence of skin as long as wellbore storage is zero, 14 it
is not necessary to assume negligible skin to study the pressure-
derivative behavior.
Correlating Parameter. Satman et al. 32 and Tang 33 plotted
pwD-In(RD I500) vs. tRD to correlate pressure responses for all
front radii to the response for RD =500. R D =500 is an arbitrary
choice, and tRD is given by
tRD = [(0.OOO264k 1)/(t/>IlCt h]( tIR2)=(tD IRB)' ......... (2)
Satman et al. and Tang correlated pressure responses, neglecting
wellbore storage or skin. Their approach suggests that a graph of
dpwDld log tD vs. tRD should apply for all front radii. An example
of such a correlation is shown in Fig. 2, which shows semilog
pressure-derivative behavior for several dimensionless front radii.
Mobility and storativity ratios are 10 and 100, respectively. The
storativity ratio is defined as
Fs=(t/>cth/(t/>cth =M IT! . ........................... (3)
Curves for RD=50, 100, and 1,000 appear to form a single
curve for all times. The curve for RD = 10 is also shown in Fig.
2. The curve for RD = 10 is slightly different from the other curves
for tRD ::50.5. Thus, the correlation is valid for practical purposes.
It is likely that well bore storage and other practical matters could
affect results for RD <50 and tRD<0.5.
Effect of Mobility and Storativity Ratio. Fig. 3 shows the effect
of mobility ratio on semilog pressure-derivative behavior for a fixed
storativity ratio of 100. The semilog pressure-derivative behavior
for a homogeneous reservoir (M = 1, Fs = 1) is also shown in Fig.
3. The first semilog straight line of slope 1.151 develops on a dimen-
sionless graph OfPwD vs. 10g(tD)' After the end of the first semilog
line, the pressure derivative rises for M~ 1. During the transition
period, the pressure derivative goes through a maximum above the
slope of the second semilog line corresponding to the outer-region
mobility, if mobility ratio, storativity ratio, or both are greater than
unity. Even in the case of unit mobility ratio, there is a long tran-
sition between the two semilog straight lines. The second semilog
line slope is 1. 151M. For large mobility and storativity ratios, the
inner region may behave like a closed system for some time during
the transition period after the end of the first semilog line.
Pseudosteady-state behavior of the inner region during the tran-
sition was found by Eggenschwiler et al. Thus, during the early
transition period, a Cartesian graph of pressure vs. time may contain
a straight line, with a slope related to the volume of the inner region.
From Fig. 3, the following is apparent for a storativity ratio of 100.
1. The first semilog line ends at tRD -0.18 for any value of mo-
bility ratio studied.

174 SPE Fonnation Evaluation, June 1989


--J ':[ ~~
l
....0
bl)
:@
FS -1
I O,oi
O.oJ 0.1 10 100 1000 10000
Fig. 4-Effect of storativlty ratio on pressure derivative.
2. There is a long transition period between the end of the first
semilog line and the beginning of the second semilog line.
3. The transition period is longer for larger mobility ratios. This
translates to a longer time to the beginning of the second semilog
line for large mobility ratios.
4. The time of the maximum derivative and the magnitude of the
maximum derivative are affected by mobility ratio.
Brown 14 reported a minimum transition time of approximately
two log cycles for composite reservoirs. Long transition periods
are also observed in Wattenbarger and Ramey'sl5 solution for
pressure-transient behavior for a single well with wellbore storage
and a finite skin thickness in an infinitely large reservoir. The skin
region was treated as the inner region, and the formation as the
outer region.
Fig. 4 shows the effect of storativity ratio on semilog pressure-
derivative behavior for a mobility ratio of 10. For storativity ratios
greater than unity, the pressure derivative rises above the value
I. 151M during the transition period and passes through a maximum
slope. Thus, a hump occurs in the pressure-derivative behavior for
mobility and storativity ratios larger than unity. Fig. 4 shows the
following for a mobility ratio of 10.
I. Storativity ratio does not affect the time to the end of the first
semilog line corresponding to the inner-region mobility and mildly
affects the time to the beginning of the second semilog line corre-
sponding to the outer-region mobility. The transition time between
the two semilog lines is approximately three log cycles in duration.
2. Storativity ratio affects the derivative behavior at intermediate
times. The storativity ratio mildly affects the time and magnitude
of maximum slope.
Pressure Derivative Type Curve
and DeSign Equations
Fig. 5, a graph of semilog pressure derivative vs. tRD with mo-
bility and storativity ratios as parameters, is a pressure-derivative
type curve for composite reservoirs in the absence of wellbore
storage. Analysis of Fig. 5 results in several empirical well test
design equations for composite reservoirs. These design equations
are summarized in the following.
The time to the end of the first semilog straight line is
(tRD)end=0.18 .................................... (4)
The time of the maximum derivative in the transition is
(tRD)max=(l.8+0.4log Fs)M . ...................... (5)
The time of start of the second semilog line is
(tRD)n =90(1 + log Fs)M . ........................... (6)
Eqs. 5 and 6 apply if mobility and storativity ratios are greater
than unity. In addition, the time to the beginning of the first semilog
line corresponding to inner-region mobility is 29
tD ~ 140, ......................................... (7)
which is the same as the time to the beginning of the semilog line
for a finite-radius well with no wellbore storage in an infinitely large
homogeneous reservoir. The time in Eq. 7, though correct, is of
little practical importance because of storage and skin. The time
SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1989
1000
.9
100
bI)
:@
--~ 10
1
0.1 10 100 1000 10000 le+05
Fig. 5-Pressure-derivatlve type-curve for composite
reservoirs.
is much larger than the time from pressure analysis, however, which
emphasizes an important result of this study. Pressure and pressure
derivatives may appear to indicate greatly different event times.
Design equations presented in Eqs. 4 through 7 are accurate to within
2 % in pressure derivative. Several investigators 22 ,23,33 have de-
veloped criteria for (tRD)end and (tRD)n using pressure data to
certain precision. In the following, we compare Eqs. 4 and 6 with
other design criteria.
Time to the End of the First Semilog Line. This time, also called
the deviation time, has been used to calculate front radius. 20 ,21,23
The appropriate equation in field units to calculate the front radius is
R=V[0.OOO264kl/(<f>l'cth][te~d/(tRD)end]' ............. (8)
where tend = time to the end of the first semilog line on a pressure
vs. log(time) graph (hours) and (tRD )end = dimensionless deviation
time based on front radius. van Poollen20 used a value for (tRD)end
derived from the radius-of-drainage concept in an earlier paper. 21
Merrill et at. 23 derived a value for (tRD )end by generating a wide
range of pressure-falloff curves for two-zone, radial composite
reservoirs using a numerical simulator. They found the dimen-
sionless deviation time to lie between 0.13 and 1.39 by running
several cases. The arithmetic average dimensionless deviation time
was 0.389. They stated that the range of error with the arithmetic
average value of (tRD )end =0.389 would be
0.58~RestIRact ~ 1.89 .............................. (9)
They felt that the range of error was too large and suggested
against indiscriminate use of deviation time to calculate the radius
of a fluid bank. Sosa et at. 34 used the average dimensionless devi-
ation time of 0.389 to analyze simulated falloff tests in water-
injection wells. They observed that the front radius using the
deviation-time method was not an accurate estimate for the radius
of the waterflooded region.
Tang 33 approximated (tRD)end to be 0.4 by observing the
pressure response from the Eggenschwiler et at. 10 analytical so-
lution. Although (tRD )end of 0.18 and 0.4 are not dramatically
different, a front radius calculated with (tRD ) end =0.4 will be ap-
proximately 0.67 times a front radius calculated with (tRD )end =
0.18, with all other parameters remaining the same. This is a sig-
nificant difference in answers for front radius, indicating the need
for accurate specification of deviation time to obtain meaningful
results from the deviation-time method.
Use of Eqs. 4 and 8 creates a convenient expression in field units
to calculate R as
R=V [k l 1(<f>l'cth](tend/681.8) . ...................... (10)
Mobility or storativity ratio or both should be about one order
of magnitude away from unity to obtain a deviation time precisely
and thus reasonable results from the use of Eq. 10. Eq. 10 can be
used if the assumptions of the analytical model are reasonably
satisfied and wellbore storage does not mask the first semilog line
corresponding to the inner-region mobility. Also, a new correlation
has been developed for the time to the end of storage-dominated
period given by19
(tDICD)""0.04810g(CDe2S)-0.03, ................. (11)
175
 le+05
Co =0
20
10000 M = 10
Fs = 1000
15 _0.
rco fRo= 10
..P FS =1000 RD bl) 1000
bl)
:@
~
-...
10 reD fR D = 10
50
......0.
.g 100

J 5
• 100 100

• 1000 10
1000

0
0.01 0.1 10 100 1000 10000 I
0.01 0.1 10 100 1000 10000

tRD

Fig. 6-Semllog pressure derivative va. t liD (constant- Fig. 7-Semllog pressure derivative va. fliD (closed outer
pressure outer boundary). boundary).

which describes the time by which the slope of a fog-log graph of Tang 33 obtained
pressure vs. time has decreased by 2 % from the initial value of unity .
(IRD)I1=dOM2-IIFs IFs for MIFs~1 ............... (13a)
Although not investigated in this paper, the geometry of the swept
region is also a critical factor in the application of the deviation- and (tRD)11 =-0.44+(1OM 2IFs) for M1F s< 1. .......... (13b)
time method. If the swept inner region is not cylindrical, then the
Substituting Fs=1 in Eq. 13a results in
deviation time should correspond to the closest discontinuity
affecting the transient response at the well. Thus, deviation time (tRD)11 =- 10M. . .................................. (14)
could correspond to a "minimum" front radius and an underesti-
Thus, Eqs. 12 and 14 produce a time of the beginning of the
mated swept volume. The swept region may not be cylindrical be-
second semilog line in the same range for Fs= 1. Eq. 12 is accurate
cause of (1) gravity override and underride, as in thermal processes,
to within 9%, and Eq. 14 to within 5%. Tang also states, without
(2) viscous fingering, as in the case of unfavorable mobility ratio
derivation, that dimensionless wellbore pressure drop for the second
processes (such as CO 2 flooding), and (3) injection into a fractured
semilog line is
well. '
PwD= ~[M In(2.2458tRD IT/)+ln(R,5)] . ............... (15)
Time of the Beginning of the Second Semilog Line. This time
has been of interest to many investigators. Development of a second Eq' 15 is derived starting from Ramey's approximate solution
semilog line is required for the intersection-time method to determine in the Appendix. Derivation in the Appendix provides a criterion
front radius. Odeh 22 investigated systems with mobility ratios for the time of the beginning of the second semilog line as follows:
equal to diffusivity ratios (i.e., F s= I) that varied from 0.25 to 50
(IRD)I1> lOOMIFs for MIFs~ 1 ................... (16a)
using an analytical solution. He found by graphical methods that
the second semilog line starts at and (tRD)11 > 100 for M IF s S; 1. ..................... (16b)
(tRD)I1=7.7M, for Fs=l. ......................... (12)
Thus, Eqs. 16 establish a lower limit for (tRD)I1' Any design
By comparing the pressure response from the Eggenschwiler el equation presented for (tRD)11 must produce (IRD)l1larger than or
al.1O analytical solution with Ramey's9 approximate solution, equal to those from Eq. 16.

40 le-t07
CD =0 CD :0

M=IO le+06 M=IO

30
Iffi)S

S' .9 10000
0/) 0/)
0
:;; :@
--
d
c
20
--
d
."
c 1000
."

100
10

10

I
0.01 0.1 \0 100 1000 10000 I_S le+()6
10 100 1000 10000 Ic+OS le+06

tRD

Fig. 9-EHect of reD IR D on pressure derivative (closed out-

Fig. 8-EHect of reO IR D on pressure derivative (conatant- er boundary).
pressure outer boundary).

176 SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1989

 1000
100 CD =0
Fs = 100
10 M =100
Cl
...:<
.."
RD
---Cl
100
.g
0.1 • 500
• 1000
0.01
0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 10 100 1000 10000
Fig . 10-Cartesian derivative .
A comparison of results from Eqs. 13 and 16 showed that re-
sults from Eqs. 13 were poor. Eqs. 13 apply if M, F s, and 1/ are
all greater than unity. Eq. 6 results in a longer time than Eq. 13.
The difference between times computed from Eqs. 6 and 4 is the
transition time to reach the second semilog line after the end of
the first semilog line. Even for moderate-mobility-ratio cases, the
transition time is so long that well tests would seldom be run long
enough to observe the second semilog line. The second semilog
line may also be masked by outer-boundary effects. It is likely that
only one semilog line will be evident in most cases. Next, outer-
boundary effects are considered to quantify the time when the outer
boundary affects pressure-transient behavior.
Outer-Boundary Effects
For a finite outer boundary, PwD in Eq. 1 is given by the Horne
et al. 11 solution. Figs. 6 and 7, which illustrate typical results,
apply for M=IO, Fs=l,OOO, and reD/R D=IO. Three cases of
RD=50, 100, and 1,000 are shown on both figures. In addition
to M and Fs, the group reD/R D is a third correlating parameter
for finite, composite reservoirs.
The reservoir approaches steady-state behavior at late times for
a constant-pressure outer boundary. On a pressure-derivative graph,
such as Fig. 6, steady state is indicated by a pressure derivative
of zero. Because large mobility and storativity contrasts imply closed
reservoir behavior, the pressure derivative rises for some time after
the end of the first semilog line corresponding to the inner-region
mobility in Fig. 6. But the outer-boundary effects eventually
dominate, and the reservoir approaches steady state after exhibiting
a maximum pressure derivative.
A reservoir approaches pseudosteady-state behavior at late times
for a closed outer boundary produced at a constant rate. Pseu-
dosteady state is characterized by a linearly increasing pressure
derivative on either a Cartesian graph or the log-log graph of Fig.
7. The effects of mobility and storativity contrasts and the outer
boundary are such that stabilization to a maximum derivative and
bending over of the pressure derivative is not seen in Fig. 7. In-
stead, the reservoir goes directly to pseudosteady state.
Figs. 8 and 9 show pressure-derivative behavior for constant-
pressure and closed outer boundaries, respectively, for several
values of reD/RD' Mobility and storativity ratios are 10 and 1,000,
respectively, for Figs. 8 and 9. Interaction of the effects of mo-
bility and storativity contrasts and the outer boundary determines
the pressure-derivative behavior at any time. Depending on the size
of the outer region, a second semilog line mayor may not appear.
Figs. 8 and 9 show that reD/R D should be greater than 1,000 for
the second semilog line to be evident, if M=1O and Fs=I,OOO.
Thus, even if one is willing to run a well test long enough, the second
semilog line may be masked by outer-boundary effects. Analysis
of pressure-derivative behavior for several values of M, F s , and
SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1989
1000
100 CD =0
Fs = 100
10
j
.."
~
0.1
M 1
0.01
0.001
0.001 o.oJ 0.1 10 100 1000 10000
Fig . 11-Effect of mobility ratio on Cartesian derivative .
reD /RD for closed and constant-pressure outer boundaries resulted
in the following relation for the dimensionless time at which the
pressure-derivative response for a finite, composite reservoir departs
from that of an infinitely large composite reservoir:
(tRD)depart = [(reD/RD)2M]/5Fs· .................... (17)
Eq. 17 should be applied only to cases where M and Fs 2: 1. The
accuracy of Eq. 17 depends on the values of M and Fs. Eq. 17
is best for large values of M and F s compared to unity. It applies
to both closed and constant-pressure outer boundaries. For the
homogeneous-reservoir case (M= 1, Fs= 1), Eq. 17 indicates that
the pressure-derivative response departs from infinite-acting be-
havior at tAD=0.2f7r, where tAD is the dimensionless time based
on area A =7rr;. A comparison ofO.2f7r with 0.1 [which is (tAD)pss
for a well producing at a constant rate in a closed homogeneous
reservoir] indicates the results of Eq. 17 when M and F s are close
to unity.
Eq. 17 quantifies the outer-boundary effects on transient responses
in composite reservoirs and is a means to determine whether desired
features will be seen in a pressure-transient test. A comparison of
Eqs. 17 and 6 provides a limit for reD/R D to observe a second
semilog on a pressure-transient test as
(reD/R D) >-J450(1 +log Fs)Fs . .................... (18)
Similarly, a comparison of Eqs. 17 and 5 provides a limit for
reD/R D to observe a maximum semilog pressure derivative as
(r eD/RD»-J(9+210g Fs)Fs . ..................... (19)
Eqs. 18 and 19 show that the limiting value of reDIR D for ob-
serving a second semilog line or maximum semilog derivative is
only a function of the storativity ratio. Eq. 18 shows that for a large
storativity ratio, a second semilog line will be masked because of
outer-boundary effects. The limit on reDIRD posed by Eq. 18
suggests that the intersection-time method is not applicable for
thermal recovery well test analysis.
Type-Curve-Matchlng Method
Wellbore storage should be small to use the type-curve presented
in Fig. 5 for an infinitely large composite reservoir. We recommend
well test data collection to a time slightly larger than the time indi-
cated by Eq. 5 so that a bending over of the semilog pressure deriva-
tive is observed. An approximate correlation for the maximum serni-
log pressure derivative in an infinitely large composite reservoir is
(dPwDld log tD)max=(1.1+log Fs), for M=1 ........ (20a)
and (dPwDld log tD)max=(0.7+10g Fs)M, for M2: 10... (20b)
The accuracy of Eqs. 20 improves as the values of mobility and
storativity ratios increase beyond unity. Eqs. 20 are applicable only
177
 1000
100 CD =0
M = 100
10
j
"0
......
0 1 10 100
.g Fs
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 10 100 1000
Fig. 12-Effect of storatlvlty ratio on Cartesian derivative.
for the cases where M"2 1 and Fs > 1. We should also ensure that
the limit on reDIR D based on Eq. 19 to observe a maximum
semilog pressure derivative is satisfied.
If the conditions mentioned are satisfied, then type-curve matching
can provide the values of M and Fs. The pressure derivative match
point can be used to calculate (klp.)1 by
(~) = 141.2qB (dPwDld log tD)match , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)
P. I h (dpw /d log t)match
and the time match point yields an estimate of front radius, R, if
the inner-region properties are known. An estimate of front radius,
R, is given by
R= J"-0-.000-=--264-k-I --tm-a-tc-h-. . ....................
(<!>P.C,)I (tRD) match
There may be cases where the limit based on Eq. 19 is not satisfied
and therefore a type curve like Fig. 5 is not appropriate. In such
cases, analysis should consider the parameter reDIRD in addition
to M and Fs. One option is to use automated type-curve matching
in these cases. If any of the three parameters are known with
reasonable accuracy by independent means, however, then a type
curve can be prepared showing the effects of the other two param-
eters, and usual type-curve matching can be performed to estimate
those parameters.
Pseudosteady-State Method
For large mobility and storativity ratios, the swept inner region may
behave as a closed reservoir and exhibit pseudosteady-state behavior
for a short period of time after the end of the first semilog line.
Pseudosteady-state behavior may be observed when tAD >0.1. Eg-
genschwiler et al. \0 used the slope of a Cartesian straight line to
calculate the inner-zone swept volume through a relation expressed
in field units as
Vs=(5.615qB)lmcc, . ............................. (23)
During pseudosteady state, the dimensionless pressure for a well
in a homogeneous reservoir is given by 35
PwD=21rtAD + If21n(Alr;) + Ihln(2.2458/CA). . ......... (24)
Differentiating Eq. 24 with respect to tAD results in
dP wD ldtAD=21r, ................................. (25)
where tAD is based on area, A =1rR2. The Cartesian pressure
derivative during infinite-acting (semilog) radial flow for inner and
outer regions, respectively, are given by
dPwDIdtAD = 1I2tAD ............................... (26)
and dpwDldtAD =M 12t AD . ........................... (27)
178
100 r-------~-------~
CD =0
Slope within 2% of 21t
Slope within 5% of 21t
....
10
.i,
.'.' 1000..'
.. ..
o
-<
10000
,,
.
,. "
0.1 ~~====:l:=
10 100
__ ~1000
Mobility Ratio
Fig. 13-Correlatlon for the end of pseudosteady-state be-
havior.
In a log-log presentation, a Cartesian derivative would show a
slope of - 1 during infinite-acting radial flow of inner and outer
(22) regions and would be constant at 21r during the pseudosteady-state
period. This is shown in Fig. 10. Dimensionless front radii of 100,
500, and 1,000 are presented in Fig. ro. Mobility and storativity
ratios are both 100 in Fig. 10.
Fig. 11 presents the effect of mobility ratio on the Cartesian
pressure derivative for Fs= 100. Early- and late-time behaviors
shown in Fig. 11 follow Eqs. 26 and 27. From Fig. 11, after the
end of the infinite-acting radial flow corresponding to the inner-
region mobility, a short-duration pseudosteady-state period is
evident, depending on the value of mobility ratio. The larger the
value of mobility ratio, the longer the duration of the pseudosteady-
state period.
Fig. 12 presents the effect of storativity ratio on the Cartesian
pressure derivative for M= 100. Remarks for Fig. 11 apply to Fig.
12 also. For a given mobility ratio, the pseudosteady-state period
is longer for larger storativity ratios. Storativity ratio affects the
Cartesian pressure derivative at intermediate times. The late-time
Cartesian pressure derivative is independent of the storativity ratio
and follows the behavior indicated by Eq. 27.
Correlations for the time to the end of pseudosteady-state behavior
are shown in Fig. 13. From Fig. 13, the time to the end of
pseudosteady-state behavior is larger for larger values of mobility
and storativity ratios. Using the correlation for the slope to be within
2 % of 21r in Fig. 13, empirically, we observe that pseudosteady-
state behavior is likely to appear for cases with MFs"2 104 and
M "210, if pseudosteady-state behavior is desired to last up to
tAD ""0.2. Correlations presented in Fig. 13 should be of help in
selecting the correct pseudosteady Cartesian line to calculate swept
volume.
The limit on reDIRD to observe pseudosteady-state behavior re-
sults from comparing tAD=O.1 with Eq. 17:
reD IRD >..J1rFs /2M . ............................. (28)
The limit of Eq. 28 is more likely to be satisfied than the limits
of Eq. 18 or 19 for typical values of M and Fs encountered in
thermal recovery processes. Also, because the pseudosteady-state
SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1989
method is independent of the swept-region geometry, this method
should yield reasonably correct swept volume and "average" front
radius for irregularly swept regions.
Conclusions
1. Pressure-derivative behavior for composite reservoirs with mo-
bility and storativity contra!'ts typical of thermal recovery processes
has been studied in the absence of wellbore storage.
2. Several new design and interpretation equations related to the
specific flow regimes observed in composite reservoir well tests
have been developed.
3. The deviation time method may be used if wellbore storage
does not mask the first semilog line. This method is sensitive to
the deviation time, however, and may underestimate swept volume
in cases of irregularly swept regions.
4. The intersection-time method is not suitable for thermal
recovery well test analysis for two reasons: either a well test would
seldom be run long enough to see a second semilog line or outer
boundary effects would mask the second semilog line. This con-
clusion is in agreement with qualitative observations of previous
investigators. Also, wellbore storage may mask the first semilog
line, rendering the intersection-time method inapplicable.
5. Conditions have been established for the applicability of a
derivative type-curve matching method. Guidelines have been
provided for sufficient test data collection to ensure reliable type-
curve matching.
6. A correlation has been developed for the time to the end of
pseudosteady-state behavior corresponding to the swept inner region
for large-mobility- and large-storativity-ratio cases. This correlation
should be of help in choosing a correct pseudosteady Cartesian line.
If a pseudosteady Cartesian line develops, the pseudosteady-state
method should yield a correct swept volume and "average" front
radius for irregularly swept regions. Alternatively, a type-curve
based on the Cartesian slope may be used to evaluate the size of
the inner region.
Nomenclature
A = area, 7rR2 or 7rre2, ft2 [m 2]
B = FVF, RB/STB [res m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]
Cr = total system compressibility, psi - I [Pa - I]
C = wellbore storage coefficient, bbl/psi [m 3 /Pa]
CA = shape factor
CD = dimensionless wellbore storage,
5.6146C 127r(¢crhhr;
Fs = storativity ratio, (¢cr)l/(¢crh
h = formation thickness, ft [m]
k = permeability, md
.,c -I = inverse Laplace transform
me = Cartesian line slope, psi/D [PaId]
M = mobility ratio, (kIp.) 1 I(kl p.h
PD = dimensionless pressure drop in inner region,
k1h(Pi -p)1141.2qBp.1
Pw = wellbore pressure, psi [kPa]
PwD = dimensionless wellbore pressure drop,
k1h(Pi -Pw)1141.2qBp,j
PwD = dimensionless wellbore pressure drop in Laplace
space
q = surface flow rate, STBID [stock-tank m 3 /d]
r = radius, ft [m]
rD = dimensionless radius, rlrw
re = outer-boundary radius, ft [m]
reD = dimensionless outer-boundary radius, r elrw
r w = wellbore radius, ft [m]
R = discontinuity radius, ft [m]
R aet = actual discontinuity radius, ft [m]
RD = dimensionless discontinuity radius, Rlr w
Rest = discontinuity radius estimated with Eq. 8, ft [m]
s = Laplace parameter
t = time, hours
tAD = dimensionless time based on area A
tD = dimensionless time, O.OOO264(kl¢tJ.Cr)ltlr;
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, June 1989
tend = deviation time, hours
tRD = dimensionless time based on R,
O.OOO264(kl¢p,crh tlR2
(tRD )depart = dimensionless time for slope response to deviate from
infinitely large composite reservoir behavior
(tRD)end = dimensionless deviation time
(tRD)max = dimensionless time for maximum semilog slope
(tRD)IT = dimensionless time of the start of second semilog line
Vs = swept volume, ft3 [m 3]
1/ = diffusivity ratio, (kl¢p,c rh I(kl¢p,c rh
p, = viscosity, cp [Pa' s]
¢ = porosity, fraction
Acknowledgments
Financial support was provided by the Stanford Geothermal
Program, U.S. DOE Contract No. DE-AT02-80SF1l459, SUPRl-
A, U.S. DOE Contract No. AC03-8ISF1l564, SUPRl-A Indus-
trial Affiliates, and Stanford U.
References
I. Hurst, W.: "Interference Between Oil Fields," Trans., AIME (1960)
• 219, 175-92.
2. Mortada, M.: "Oilfield Interference in Aquifers of Non-Unifonn Prop-
erties," JPT (Dec. 1960) 55-57; Trans., AIME, 219.
3. Loucks, T.L. and Guerrero, E.T.: "Pressure Drop in a Composite
Reservoir," SPEJ (Sept. 1961) 170-76; Trans., AIME, 222.
4. Jones, P.: "Reservoir Limit Test on Gas Wells," JPT (June 1962)
613-19.
5. Rowan, G. and Clegg, M.W.: "An Approximate Method for Tran-
sient Radial Flow," SPEJ (Sept. 1962) 225-56.
6. Bixel, H.C. and van Poollen, H.K.: "Pressure Drawdown and Buildup
in the Presence of Radial Discontinuities," SPEJ (Sept. 1967) 301-
09; Trans., AIME, 243.
7. Larkin, B.K.: "Solutions to the Diffusion Equation for a Region
Bounded by a Circular Discontinuity," SPEJ (June 1963) 113-15;
Trans., AIME, 228.
8. Carter, R.D.: "Pressure Behavior of a Limited Circular Composite
Reservoir," SPEJ (Dec. 1966) 328.-34; Trans., AIME, 237.
9. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Approximate Solutions for Unsteady I,iquid Flow
in Composite Reservoirs," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Jan.-March 1970) 32-37.
10. Eggenschwiler,.M. et al.: "Interpretation of Injection Well Pressure
Transient Data in Thennal Oil Recovery, " paper SPE 8908 presented
at the 1980 SPE California Regional Meeting, Pasadena, April 9-11.
II. Horne, R.N., Satman, A., and Grant, M.A.: "Pressure Transient
Analysis of Geothennal Wells with Phase Boundaries," paper SPE 9274
presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Sept. 21-24.
12. Onyekonwu, M.a.: "Interpretation of In-Situ Combustion Thennal
Recovery Falloff Tests," PhD dissertation, Stanford U., Stanford, CA
(1985) .
13. Barna, J. and Horne, R.N.: "Computerized Analysis of Thennal
Recovery Well Test Data," SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 560-66.
14. Brown, L.P.: "Pressure Transient Behavior of the Composite
Reservoir," paper SPE 14316 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
15. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "An Investigation of Wellbore
Storage and Skin Effects in Unsteady Liquid Flow: II. Finite Difference
Treatment," SPEJ (Sept. 1970) 291-97; Trans., AIME, 249.
16. Bourdet, D. et al.: "A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test
Analysis," World Oil (May 1983) 95-106.
17. Bourdet, D. et al.: "Interpreting Well Tests in Fractured Reservoirs, "
World Oil (Oct. 1983) 77-87.
18. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A., and Pirard, Y.M.: "Use of Pressure
Derivative in Well Test Interpretation," paper SPE 12777 presented
at the 198.4 SPE California Regional Meeting, Long Beach, April 11-13.
19. Ambastha, A.K.: "Pressure Transient Analysis for Composite
Systems," PhD dissertation, Stanford U., Stanford, CA (1988).
20. van Poollen, H.K.: "Transient Tests Find Fire Front in an In-Situ Com-
bustion Project," Oil & Gas J. (Feb. I, 1965) 78-80.
21. van Poollen, H.K.: "Radius of Drainage and Stabilization Time
Equations," Oil & Gas J. (Sept. 14, 1964) 138-43.
22. Odeh, A.S.: "Flow Test Analysis for a Well With Radial Discon-
tinuity," JPT(Feb. 1969) 207-10; Trans., AIME, 246.
23. Merrill, L.S., Kazemi, H., and Gogarty, W.B.: "Pressure Falloff
Analysis in Reservoirs With Fluid Banks," JPT (July 1974) 809-18;
Trans., AIME, 257.
24. Walsh, J.W. Jr., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Brigham, W.E.: "Thennal In-
jection Well Falloff Testing," paper SPE 10227 presented at the 1981
179
 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct.
5-7.
25. Messner, G.L. and Williams, R.L.: "Application of Pressure Tran-
sient Analysis in Steam Injection Wells," paper SPE 10781 presented
at the 1982 SPE California Regional Meeting, San Francisco, March
24-26.
26. Messner, G.L. and Williams, R.L.: "Further Investigation of Pressure
Transient Testing in Steamflood Projects," paper SPE 11087 presented
at the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Sept. 26-29.
27. Onyekonwu, M. O. et al.: "Interpretation of Simulated Falloff Tests, "
paper SPE 12746 presented at the 1984 SPE California Regional
Meeting, Long Beach, April 11-13.
28. Onyekonwu, M.O., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Brigham, W.E.: "Application
of Superposition and Pseudosteady State Concepts to Thermal Recovery
Well Tests," paper SPE 15536 presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
29. Fassihi, M.R.: "Evaluation of an Analytical Technique for Estimating
Swept Volume From Thermal Pressure Falloff Tests in Heterogeneous
Systems," SPEFE (June 1988) 449-58; Trans., AIME, 285.
30. Da Prat, G., Bockh, A., and Prado, L.: "Use of Pressure Falloff Tests
to Locate the Burning Front in the Miga Field, Eastern Venezuela,"
paper SPE 13667 presented at the 1985 SPE California Regional
Meeting, Bakersfield, March 27-29.
31. Stehfest, H.: "Algorithm 368, Numerical Inversion of Laplace Trans-
forms," D-5, Communications of ACM (Jan. 1970) 13, No. 1,49.
32. Satman, A. et al.: "An Analytical Study of Transient Flow in Systems
with Radial Discontinuities," paper SPE 9399 presented at the 1980
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24.
33. Tang, R.W.-K.: Transient Pressure Analysis in a Composite Reservoir,
topical report, U.S. DOE (Aug. 1982).
34. Sosa, A., Raghavan, R., and Limon, T.J.: "Effect of Relative Perme-
ability and Mobility Ratio on Pressure Falloff Behavior," JPT (June
1981) 1125-35.
180
35. Ramey, H.J. Jr. and Cobb, W.M.: "A General Pressure Buildup Theory
for a Well in a Closed Drainage Area," JPT(Dec. 1971) 1493-1505;
Trans., AIME, 251.
Appendix-Late·Time Drawdown Solution for a
Wen In an Infinitely Large Composite Reservoir
Dimensionless wellbore pressure drop using Ramey's9 approx-
imate solution is
PwD(tD) = - ~{Ei( -I/4tD)-Ei( -R'jj/4tD)
+Me[(11- 1)RJI /4tDEi( -1]R'jj/4tD)}' .......... (A-I)
All Ei terms can be replaced by their log approximations and the
exponential term will be within 1% of 1.00, if
tRD ~ 100M 1Fs for M IFs~ 1 ..................... (A-2a)
and tRD~IOO for MIFs :5.1. ....................... (A-2b)
A simplification of Eq. A-I under the conditions of Eq. A-2 re-
sults in
PwD(tD)= ~{M In[(2.2458tD)/(1]R'jj)] +In(R'jj)}. ...... (A-3)
which represents a late-time drawdown solution for dimensionless
wellbore pressure drop. Eq. A-3 is the same as that reported by
Tang. 33
SPEFE
Original SPE manuscript received for review Sept. 27. 1987. Paper accepted for publication
Nov. 25. 1987. Revised manuscript received July 13. 1988. Paper (SPE 16746) first
presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas.
Sept. 27-30.
SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1989