Chapter: 2

Pressure Buildup Tests

1/2

1. Build-up test analysis

This test is the most commonly used test in field. The test is conducted by allowing a
well to flow at constant flow rate for a certain period of time. Then the well is shut down
allowing the pressure to build up in the well. The well pressure (usually downhole) is
recorder as a function of time. These recordings can be used to estimate:
a- Formation permeability
b- Average pressure in the drainage area
c- Reservoir heterogeneity
d- Location of reservoir boundaries
e- Stimulation and damages in the wellbore.

2- Idealized Pressure Buildup Tests

The discussion of the idealized pressure buildup test serves as a base case where the data
from actual well testing is compared to. An ideal case would involves:
a- An infinite acting reservoir
b- Homogenous porous media
c- Isotropic (no directional changes in rock properties)
d- Slightly compressible fluid
e- Single phase fluid
f- Fluid properties are constant during the test.

Lets consider a well that produced at a constant rate, q, for a time period of tp. Now the
well is shut-in and the time elapsed since shut-in is t. The following figure present a
demonstration of this case.

2/2

To represent the closure of a well, mathematically, we can assume that at time tp, an
imaginary well with a flow rate of (-q) is imposed so that the flow rate before tp equals q
and after tp equals zero.
From Matthews and Russells solution for diffusivity equation is given as:
ct rw 2
70.6qB

Pwf = Pi
Ei

kh
0
.
00105
kt

And the pressure drop due to skin is given as:

qB rskin k
ln
Pskin =
1

0.00708hk rw k skin
Now, the total pressure drop can be calculated as:

Pi Pwf =

ct rw 2
70.6qB
qB rskin k

E
948
141
.
2
ln
1

hk r k
kh
kt
w skin

rskin
ct rw 2 k
qB

E
948
2
1
= 70.6

ln
kt k skin rw
hk
During well testing, the argument of the Ei function is small after a short time, therefore,
using the logarithmic approximation (Ei (x) = ln(1.781x)), results in:
rskin
ct rw 2 k
qB

ln
1688
2
1
Pi Pwf = 70.6

ln
kt k skin
r
hk
w

From the definition of skin factor:

k
r
s=
1 ln skin
k skin rw
The equation can be written as:

ct rw 2
qB
Pi Pwf = 70.6
ln
1688

2
s

kt
hk

3/2

Now, back to the situation where we have an actual well and an imaginary well, the
pressure of the actual well (Pws) can be calculated using the principles of superposition
as:

ct rw 2
ct rw 2
qB
( q )B
Pi Pws = 70.6
s
s

ln
1688
2
70
.
6
ln
1688
2

hk
k (t p + t )
k (t )
hk

qB t p + t
Pws = Pi 70.6
ln

hk t

Or
qB t p + t
Pws = Pi 162.6
log

hk t

t p + t
will be a straight line

The previous equation suggests that a plot of Pws and log

with a slope, m, equals to (162.6 qB ) .

hk

4/2

Since the slope is negative from the plot, then it is more convenient to deal with the
absolute value of m. Thus we will redefine m as:
qB
m = 162.6
hk

From the slope, reservoir permeability can be determine. (The slope in a logarithmic
scale can be found by taking the difference of any two point that are apart by one cycle as
shown in the previous figure).
t + t
Moreover, if we extend the line till p
equals 1, then the value of initial pressure

(Pi) can be found. The skin factor can also be determined from the ideal pressure
buildup data. At the time just before the well is shut in, the flowing bottomhole pressure
can be written as:

ct rw 2
qB
ln
1688
2

Pwf = Pi + 70.6
s

kt p
hk

ct rw 2
qB
log
1688
0
.
869

= Pi + 162.6
s

kt p
hk

ct rw 2

0.869 s
= Pi + m log 1688

kt p

The pressure after the well is shut in, can be calculated from:
t p + t

Pws = Pi m log

Combing the previous two equations yields, the skin factor, s, can be written as:

Pws Pwf
s = 1.151
m

2
t + t

+ 1.151log1688 ct rw
+ 1.151log p

kt
t p

5/2

 t p + t
is small (i,e
Taking any time after well shut in, that ensure the value of log

t
p

taking a small t after well shut in) and record the pressure at that time. Usually the
pressure after 1 hour of well shut (P1-hr) in is recorded. The skin factor is written as:

ct rw 2
+ 1.151log1688

kt

k
P Pwf
+ 3.715
1.151log
= 1.151 1hr
2
m

c
r

t w

P Pwf
s = 1.151 1hr
m

P Pwf
= 1.151 1hr
m

log
3
.
23
+

2
ct rw

This procedure of determine reservoir permeability, initial pressure, and skin factor is
known as Horner plot technique.

6/2

Example-1:
A newly drilled well produced at a constant flow rate of 500 STB/day. A pressure
buildup test was designed for the well, therefore, the well was shut in after 3 days. The
following information are related to the oil and reservoir properties.
Bo

= 1.3 bbl/STB

= 1.0 cp

ct

= 2010-6 psi-1

= 22 ft

porosity

= 0.2

rw

= 0.3 ft

Moreover, the following table shows the recorded shut in pressure (Pws) versus time.

Time after Shut-in (t), hours

Pws, psi

1,150

1,794

1,823

1,850

16

1,876

24

1,890

48

1,910

Determine the formation permeability, initial reservoir pressure (Pi), and skin factor (s)
using Horner plot technique.

7/2

Solution

t p + t
to analyze pressure buildup data.

Horner suggest the plot of Pws and log

Knowing tp as 3 days (72 hours), the following table can be constructed

t,
hours
2
4
8
16
24
48

(tp+t)/t
37.0
19.0
10.0
5.5
4.0
2.5

Pws,
psi
1,794
1,823
1,850
1,876
1,890
1,910

Horner plot is shown in the following figure.

The slope is equal to 100 psi, therefore, the formation permeability is calculated as:
500 1.3 1
qB
k = 162.6
= 162.6
= 48 md

22 100
hm

8/2

t + t
The extrapolation of the line to p
= 1.0 gives an initial reservoir pressure of 1,950

psi. The skin factor is calculated after deterring the pressure after one hour of well shut
in (P1-hr). From the plot, P1-hr is 1764 psi. Therefore the skin factor, s, can be calculated
as:

P1hr Pwf
s = 1.151
m

+ 3.23
log
2
c r

t w

1,764 1,150

48

= 1.151
+ 3.23
log
5
2
100

0.2 1 2 10 0.3

= 1.43

The flowing pressure (Pwf) is given at time zero as 1,150 psi in the table. This well has a
flow restriction because skin factor is positive.

9/2

3- Actual Pressure Buildup Tests

In actual wells, the responses in terms of pressure versus time is more complicated than
for the ideal case. Instead of simply a straight line, we usually obtain a curve with
complicated shape. To understand the complexity involved in real well testing, the
concept of pressure propagating into reservoir as time progress is important.

As a

pressure disturbance happened in a well, the pressure wave propagates into reservoir
formation. We can divide this propagation into three different regions:
1- Early-Time region: during which a pressure transient is moving the formation
near the wellbore.

2- Middle time region: a pressure during which a pressure transient is moving away
from the wellbore and deep into bulk formation
3- Late-Time region: during which the pressure transient has reached the well
drainage radius.
The following figure shows a schematic of these different regions

10/2

The characteristics of each time region is discussed in detailed:

1- Early-Time Region
Due to drilling operations, most well have altered permeability near the wellbore (a
new trend in the industry is to use the underbalanced drilling operations to reduce the
impact of drilling fluids on the permeability around the wellbore). Therefore, the
straight line behavior observed for ideal buildup tests will not be shown in actual
buildup well tests due to the presence of the altered permeability region around the
wellbore. Sometimes, we have a very thin thickness of the altered permeability
region, which reduce its effect on pressure responses. The following figure shows a
cased hole well with drilling and perforation damages.

The other factor which deviates the behavior of actual buildup well tests from an ideal
one is the assumption of instantaneous closure of flow downhole upon the surface
shut down of the production. To illustrate this point more, consider a well, with a
production rate of q, which has been produced for time period of tp. At time = tp, the
well was shut down by closing the production at surface.

Due to fluid

compressibility, the downhole rate requires sometimes to reach an actual zero flow
rate. This effect is called the wellbore storage effect and the required time is called

11/2

wellbore storage time. The following figure illustrate the difference between actual
and ideal responses of downhole rate in reaction to well closure.

The effect of wellbore storage on pressure response, usually, lasts longer than the
effect altered permeability zone.

2- Middle-Time Region
When the time of buildup pressure test moved beyond the time of wellbore storage
effect and altered permeability zone effect, we start to see the ideal pressure buildup
test responses. The ideal behavior will continue until the pressure propagation wave
reaches one or more reservoir boundaries, massive heterogeneities, or fluid/fluid
contact. To use Horner method, pressure data during the middle time is needed.
Therefore, it is crucial to distinguish between pressure responses during early, middle,
and late time regions.

3- Late-Time Region
When pressure continue to propagate beyond middle time it will eventually reach the
drainage boundaries of the well. In this late time, pressure responses will be affect by
boundary configuration, interference from nearby wells, significant reservoir
heterogeneities, and fluid/fluid contact.

12/2

4- Deviations from Assumptions in Ideal Test Theory

4.1. Deviation from Infinite Reservoir Assumption
When deriving Horner plot for ideal case, we assumed that the reservoir is infinite
acting during the periods before and after well shut in. However, most reservoirs
are in the pseudosteady state before closing the well. Therefore, the applications of
Horner plotting technique is not correct theoretically. Researchers still use Horner
plot for the following reasons:
a) For infinite acting reservoirs, where at time = tp+t, pressure wave did not
reach reservoir boundaries or radius of investigation (ri) < external reservoir
boundaries (re), Horner method can be used.
b) For finite reservoirs, pressure data recorded during the middle time can be still
used to determine reservoir permeability.

Another plotting technique for finite acting reservoir was proposed by Miller,
Dyes, and Huthchinson (MDH). Consider the equation,
qB t p + t
Pws = Pi 162.6
log

hk t

This equation can be written as:

qB
qB
[log(t )]
Pws = Pi 162.6
log(t p + t ) 162.6

hk
hk
= Pi m log(t p + t ) + m[log(t )]

When tp>> t during the pressure buildup test duration, then log(tp+t) log(tp) =
constant. Thus:
Pws = C + m[log(t )]

Thus a plot of Pws versus log(t) will be a straight line with a slope (m) and an
intercept of (C).

13/2

4.2. Deviation from Single-Phase Liquid Assumption

The previous mathematical developments (in Chapter 1) were made assuming the
flow of a single phase where the total compressibility was defined as the
compressibility of that fluid plus the compressibility of the formation. However, in
hydrocarbon reservoirs, usually, there are more than one fluid flowing through
porous media.

Therefore, to account for this fluid we have modify the total

compressibility to account for more than one fluid. The new definition of total
compressibility is:
ct = co S o + c w S w + c g S g + c f

In addition to the compressibility, corrections also needed to account for relative

permeabilities and fluid viscosity. The following equation, which describes the
simultaneous flow of (oil, water, and gas) in radial geometry, is shown:
c t
P
1 P
=
r
r r r 0.000264 t t

Where
t =

kg

ko

kw

4.3. Deviation from Homogeneous Reservoir Assumption

The previous development is made for homogeneous reservoirs.
reservoir is homogeneous in nature.

However, no

Thus, the application of the previous

development, and especially the Horner plot is limited. Yet, we still can use the
previous development to find average rock and fluid properties.

14/2

5- Analysis of Field Pressure Buildup Tests

In light of the previous discussion, the expected behavior of recorded pressure at
wellhead, Pws, after well shut in is discussed for the most common situation in actual
cases.
a- Effect of near wellbore damage (skin) on the early pressure responses
The following figure shows a comparison between an ideal and actual pressure
buildup data during the early time region in Horner plot.

The figure shows that two cases, Case 1 without near wellbore damage (skin) and
Case 2 with near wellbore damage, without wellbore storage. The extension of
straight line in case 1 shows the flowing wellbore pressure (Pwf) just before well
closure. However, in actual cases, the flowing wellbore pressure will be less than
the one in ideal case due to the presence of near wellbore damage (Skin). The
figures below illustrate the reason why we have less flowing pressure for the near
wellbore damaged cases.

15/2

To provide the same flow rate (q), the pressure drop (P = Preservoir - Pwf) should be
higher for cases with near wellbore damage (less permeability) to overcome the flow
resistance.

Since reservoir pressure is the similar in both cases, then flowing

pressure for near wellbore damage cases should be lower. Usually, we dont see the
effect of near wellbore damage in actual pressure buildup tests because the pressure
recorded during this time interval is also affected by wellbore storage, which has
more time duration than near wellbore damage.

b- Effect of wellbore storage and near wellbore damage (skin) on the early pressure
response
Nearly, all pressure buildup tests are exposed to the effects of wellbore storage
and near wellbore damage. The following figure shows two cases, one with only
near wellbore damage and the other with both near wellbore damage and wellbore
storage. The figure shows how the presence of wellbore storage distort early time
data (ETR) and delay the start of the middle time region (MTR). The extension of
both curves should provide the same flowing bottomhole pressure. The presence
of wellbore storage challenges the accurate determination of the beginning of
middle time region (MTR) where the recorded pressure data are used in Horner
plot.

16/2

c- Effect of fractures on the early pressure response

The presence of fractures in the reservoir will affect pressure and fluid flow
behaviors during pressure buildup tests. Naturally fractured reservoirs are

Naturally fractured reservoirs are characterized by the presence of two

distinct types of porous media: matrix and fracture. Because of the different
fluid storage and conductivity characteristics of the matrix and fractures,
these reservoirs often are called dual-porosity reservoirs. Fig. 1 illustrates a
naturally fractured reservoir composed of a rock matrix surrounded by an
irregular system of vugs and natural fractures. Fortunately, it has been
observed that a real, heterogeneous, naturally fractured reservoir has a
characteristic behavior that can be interpreted using an equivalent,
homogeneous dual-porosity model such as that shown in the idealized
sketch. (Petrowiki)

Fig. 1

The following figure shows a typical response of a naturally fractured reservoir

during pressure buildup test.

The pressure buildup slowly during the early time (ETR) and the middle time
region (MTR) starts only after the pressure transient has moved beyond the region
influenced by the fracture presence.

17/2

d- Effect of well location on late time region (LTR)

The location of the well undergoing pressure buildup test, with respect to the
reservoir boundaries is important to understand the wellhead pressure behavior
during the late time region (LTR). Indeed, the late time region start earlier when
a well is located near the reservoir boundaries and vice versa. The following
figure show pressure responses of pressure buildup tests for a well in the center of
a circular reservoir and a well near reservoirs boundary.

As shown in the figure, the start of middle time region (MTR) starts earlier for the
case with un-centered well and the duration of late time region (LTR) is longer so
that the pressure drop reach all boundaries.

18/2

5- Wellbore Storage More details

From the previous discussion, it is concluded that the presence of wellbore storage
has an influential effect on pressure behavior during buildup tests. Wellbore storage
(1) delays the beginning of middle time region (MTR); (2) might eliminate the middle
time region (MTR) from well test duration; (3) produces false indications of middle
time region (MTR).

The importance of an accurate determination of the beginning

of the middle time region (MTR) in a pressure buildup test is highly recognized for
Horner plot where reservoir permeability, skin factor, and static pressure of drainagearea pressure can be solved for.
The presence of wellbore storage (sometimes called afterflow) can be indicated by a
lazy S-shaped curve during the early time as shown in the following figure.
Sometimes, data from specific time period might be absent in the figure. Therefore,
wellbore storage can be determined on by looking at the plot.

From Chapter (1), we defined the following parameters:

PD =

kh(Pws Pwf

141.2 q B

19/2

tD =

0.000264kt e
ct rw2

CsD =

0.894 Cs
hct rw2

where
C s = 25.65

Awb

for a well with a rising liquid/gas interact in the wellbore

, and C s = c wbVwb for a wellbore contain only single phase fluid.

te is defined as:

t e =

t
t
1 +
t
p

The dimensionless plot in Chapter (1) can be used to determine the time at which
the wellbore storage end by type curve matching. When the unit slope line ends,
then taking 1.5 log cycle will shows the end of wellbore storage. In case the unit
slope line is not shown, then the preplotted curve for finite value of CsD become
identical to the curve for CsD = 0, then the point of this match is the end of wellbore
storage effect. In this case, the following empirical equation is used.
t wbs

170,000C s e 0.14 s

kh

20/2

Example-2:
The following table shows the pressure buildup test for an oil well at the center of square
reservoir with a lateral length of 2640 ft.

t, hours
0
0.15
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1
2
4
6
7
8
12
16
20
24
30
40
50
60
72

Pws, psi
3534
3680
3723
3800
3866
3920
4103
4250
4320
4340
4344
4350
4364
4373
4379
4384
4393
4398
4402
4405
4407

The well was producing for 19 months at a rate of 250 STB/day. The following data also
provided.

= 0.8 cp

= 0.039

= 1.136 bbl/STB

ct

=1710-6 psia-1

rw

= 0.198 ft

= 53 lbm/ft3

Awb

= 0.0218 ft2

= 69 ft

1- At what shut in time (t) does the afterflow cease distorting the pressure buildup
test data?
2- At what shut-in time (t) do boundary effects appears?

21/2

Solution:

First of all, we have to calculate the external radius of the reservoir. We can assume that
we have a circular reservoir with the similar area. Thus

re =

6,969,600

= 1,489

ft

The effective production time is

t p = 19 30 24 = 13680 hr

(For practical purposes, we assume 1 year = 365.25 days and 1 month = 30 days)

22/2

The following figure show a plot of pressure after well closure (Psw) and

t p + t
t

From the figure, the end of wellbore storage (afterflow) is shown at 2,200 which
corresponds to t = 6.2 hrs. The end of wellbore storage is characterized by the
end of a lazy S-shaped curve in pressure response. In fact, the lazy S-shaped
curve can be a consequence of different reservoir characteristics, so we need to
confirm the end of wellbore storage using type curve analysis from our discussion
for Chapter (1). First, plot (Pws-Pwf) versus t e =

1 + t
t
p

in a log-log graph as

shown in the following figure.

23/2

The figure indicates that the pressure response deviated from the unit slope line at
around te = 0.2 hr (t 0.2 hr). Moreover, the figure shows that after 1.5 log
cycle from that deviation, the wellbore storage ended at te = 7 hrs (t 7 hrs).
The figure also shows that the reservoir boundaries were felt at around te = 40
hrs (t 40 hrs). To confirm the duration of the MTR, we match this plot with
the type curve plot for wellbore storage discussed in Chapter (1). The following
figure illustrates that the actual data fit well curves for s = 0 for several values of
CsD (e.g. CsD = 103, 104, and 105).
In fact, the actual data well test data indicated that the recorded pressure data
coincide with the CsD =0 for s = 5 at te = t = 4 to 6 hrs which agrees with the
actual data plot. Moreover, the data from the semi-log plot suggest that the start
of boundary effect is around

t p + t
t

= 250 , (t 55 hrs), and from the log-log

plot it was 40 hrs.

We can assume that the MTR spans the time range of t = 7 hrs to t = 40 hrs.

24/2

25/2

We can narrow the range of matched CsD by calculating CsD in advance. From
Chapter 1:
qsf = q +

24 Cs dPw
B
dt

For q = 0, the previous equation can be written as:

Cs

qB t
24 P

Thus, from the unit slope line at t = 0.1, P = 100, thus:

Cs

qB t (250 )1.136 0.1

bbl
=
= 0.0118
24 P
24
100
psi

Then

C sD =

0.894C s
0.894(0.0118)
=
= 5,882
2
ct hrw
(0.039) 1.7 10 5 (69)(0.198)2

Therefore, the match should be attempt in the range 10 3 < C sD < 10 4 .

26/2

6- Determination of Permeability
As discussed previously, reservoirs average permeability can be determined form the
data within the MTR. Therefore, the selection of MTR duration is crucial in the
calculations of average permeability. The MTR cannot start until the wellbore storage
distortion ceases. The following steps illustrate the usual procedure to determine the
average permeability
1- Determine the start of MTR by estimating the end of wellbore storage
2- From Horner plot, fit the data after wellbore storage to the best line. The deviation
from this line at later time can be used to estimate the end of MTR.
3- From the fitted line, which represents the duration of MTR, calculate the slope and
estimate the average permeability as:

k = 162.2

qB
mh

4- You may need to calculate the radius of investigation at the start and the end of
MTR to know the volume of sampled region.
5- The average permeability can be calculated from fluid flow equation, if average
pressure (P ) is known, as:
r 3
141.2qB ln e
rw 4
kj =
h(P Pwf )

If
kj < k the well is damaged
kj > k the well is stimulated
kj = k the well is neither damaged no stimulated

27/2

Example-3:
For the buildup test in the previous example, determine formation permeability

Solution:
From Example 2, the MTR spans the time range of t = 7 hrs to t = 40 hrs.
7 t 40

1,995

t p + t
t

343

From Example -2, the semi-log plot is reproduced

As indicated in the figure, the slope of the straight line is 80 psi/cycle. Thus
k = 162.2

(250)(1.136)(0.8) = 6.68 md
qB
= 162.2
(80)(69)
mh

28/2

To find the sampled portion of the reservoir, at t = 7 hrs:

ri =

kt
6.68(7 )
=
= 304
948ct
948(0.039 )(0.8) 1.7 10 5

ft

kt
6.68(40 )
=
= 729
948ct
948(0.039 )(0.8) 1.7 10 5

ft

at t = 40 hrs
ri =

The fraction of wellbore drainage area that was sampled during MTR is
% tested =

729 304
100 28%
1489

The following figure shows a schematic of the tested area.

29/2

7- Well Damage and Stimulation

After permeability determination form the slope of MTR line, the skin factor can be
determined. From previous section, the skin factor can be calculated as:
P1 hr Pwf
s = 1.151
m

log
c r 2

t w

+ 3.23

Where P1-hr is the value of Pws at shut in time t of 1 hr. This value can be found by
extrapolating the middle time line to the x-axis value when t = 1 as shown in the
following figure.

When the numerical value of skin factor is:

1- Positive then we have a flow restriction such as wellbore damage due to
drilling fluids
2- Negative then we have a stimulated well where the region surrounding the
wellbore have higher permeability value than the formation.

30/2

7.1 Estimation of Effective Wellbore Radius

The skin factor can be visualized as an enhancement of wellbore size. Thus, the effect of
positive skin factor on flow rate can be substituted by using a wellbore with a smaller
radius and vice versa. The new apparent radius (rwa) of the wellbore is defined as:

rwa = rw e s
Consider the pressure drop equation;

ct rw 2
q o Bo o
Pi Pwf = 70.6
ln 1688 kt
hk
ct rw 2
q B
= 70.6 o o o ln 1688
kt
hk

+ ln e 2 s )

ct rw 2 e 2 s
q B
= 70.6 o o o ln 1688
kt
hk
ct rwa2
q o Bo o
= 70.6
ln 1688 kt
hk

2s

This means that the effect of skin on the total pressure drop is the same as that of a well
with no skin but with a wellbore radius of rwa.

31/2

7.2 Calculation of Additional Pressure Drop New Wellbore Due to Skin

From the discussion in the previous chapter, we derive:
q B
Ps = 141.2 o o o s
hk
= 0.869m(s )

Where m is the slope of middle time region. The effect of additional pressure drop on
well productivity is crucial. For example, a well may be producing 500 STB/day of oil
with a pressure drop of 1,000 psi. Suppose that the analysis of a pressure buildup on this
well shows Ps = 600 psi, and that 600 psi of the pressure drop occurs across the altered
permeability zone. This implies that if the damaged were removed, the well could
produce much more oil with the same pressure drop or we could produce the same
amount of oil with less pressure drop.

32/2

7.3 Calculation of Flow Efficiency

Let define the flow efficiency as the ratio of actual productivity index (PI) of a tested well
to its ideal PI. Thus:

E=

J actual P Pwf Ps
=
J ideal
P Pwf

Sometime the determination of average pressure requires lengthy calculations. Flow

efficiency values greater than one indicate stimulated well; while values below one
indicate damaged well. Moreover, a flow efficiency value of 0.2 means that the well
productivity is reduced to 20% and the flow in the well is restricted by 80%. On the
other hand, a flow efficiency of 2 indicate that the well is producing twice as its original
productivity.

In many cases, the average reservoir pressure before well shut-in can be

approximated as P* where P* is determined as the value of middle time line at

t p + t
t

= 1 . Thus:

*
J actual P Pwf Ps
=
E=
J ideal
P * Pwf

33/2

Example-4:
For the pressure buildup test in example 2:
1- Calculate the skin factor
2- Calculate the effective wellbore radius, (rwa)
3- Calculate the additional pressure drop near the wellbore, if any
4- Calculate the flow efficiency
5- Verify the end of wellbore storage distortion

Solution:
1- The skin factor can be calculated the following equation
P1 hr Pwf
s = 1.151
m

log
c r 2

t w

+ 3.23

P1-hr can be determined by extrapolating the middle time line to the time t = 1
(

t p + t
t

13,680 + 1
= 13,681 ) as shown in the following figure.
1

P1-hr is estimated as 4,280 psi

34/2

Now, skin factor can be calculated as:

4,280 3,534

6.68
s = 1.151
log
2
6
80

(0.039 )(0.8) 17 10 (0.198)

+ 3.23 = 4.66

From Example 2, we found that the data matched well with type curve of s = 5
which agrees with the calculated value.

2- The effective wellbore radius, rwa, is calculated as:

rwa = (0.198)e 4.66 = 0.00187

ft

This can be interpreted as that the tested well is producing 250 STB/day of oil
with the same pressure drawdown as a well having the same pressure drawdown
and a radius of 0.00187 ft without a permeability altered zone.

3- The additional pressure drop due to skin is estimated as:

q B
Ps = 141.2 o o o s = 0.869m(s ) = (0.869 )(80 )(4.66 ) = 323
hk

psi

Thus, 323 psi out of the total pressure drawdown (approximately 4420 3534 =
886 psi) is caused by damage.

4- P* can be determined from Pws vs

t p + t
t

. The following figure shows the

determination of P* as 4,530 psi

35/2

E=

P * Pwf Ps
P Pwf
*

4,530 3,534 323

= 0.675
4,530 3,534

5- To find the end of wellbore distortion, we can use the following equation:

t wbs

170,000C s e 0.14 s 170,000(0.0118)e 0.14(4.66 )

= 6.68 hr
=

6.68 69
kh

0.8

This value agrees closely to our finding in Example 2.

36/2

7.4 Effect of Incompletely Perforated Interval

In many cases, not all formation thickness is open to flow. In fact, the common options
for well completion are divided among open or cased holes as shown in the following
figure.

The presence of cased hole (where casings are used to control flow from different zones
through well perforations) imposed more restrictions on the flow of fluid toward the
wellbore and increases the value of skin factor. Researchers found that the total skin
factor in cased hole wells can be calculated as the summation of skin due to drilling
damage, sd, and skin due to perforation, sp.

s=

Thus:

ht
sd + s p
hp

Where:
ht

= total formation height, ft

hp

= perforated length, ft

37/2

Moreover, the following equation can be used to determine the skin factor due to
perforation:
h
h
s p = t 1 ln t

h
rw
p

kH
kV

Where:
kH

= horizontal permeability, md

kV

= vertical permeability, md

38/2

Example-5:
A well with disappointing productivity is perforated in 10 ft of a total formation thickness
of 50 ft. Vertical and horizontal permeabilities are believed to be equal. A pressure
buildup test was run on the well. The following data are provided:
Pwf

= 1,190 psi

P1-hr

= 1,940 psi

= 0.2 m

= 0.5 cp

rw

= 0.25

ct

= 1510-6 psi-1

= 3.35 md

= 50 psi/cycle

Calculate s, sd, and sp and determine whether the productivity problem results from
formation damage or from other causes.

Solution:
The total skin factor can be calculated the following equation
P1 hr Pwf

k
+ 3.23
log
s = 1.151
2
c r
m

t w

1,940 1,190

3.35
= 1.151
log
2
6
50

(0.2 )(0.5) 15 10 (0.25)

= 12.3

+ 3.23

The skin due to perforation can be estimated as:

h
h
s p = t 1 ln t

hp
rw

kH
kV

50 50

2 = 1 ln
1 2 = 13.2

10 0.25

The skin factor from damage is then calculated as:

sd =

hp
ht

(s s ) = 10 (12.3 13.2) = 0.18

p

50

With this small skin factor for damage, the well is neither damaged nor stimulated and
the observed productivity problem is due to the incompletely perforated interval.

39/2

7.5 Analysis of Hydraulically Fractured Wells

Hydraulic fracturing (also hydrofracturing, hydrofracking, fracking, or fraccing)

is a well-stimulation technique in which formation is fractured by a hydraulically
pressurized liquid. Some hydraulic fractures form naturally.

A high-pressure fluid

(usually chemicals and sand suspended in water) is injected into a wellbore to create
cracks in the deep-rock formations through which natural gas, petroleum, and brine will
flow more freely. When the hydraulic pressure is removed from the well, small grains of
hydraulic fracturing proppants (either sand or aluminum oxide) hold the fractures open
once the deep rock achieves geologic equilibrium.

The following figure shows a

hydrocarbon formation before and after fracking job.

Different Type of Proppants

40/2

For fractured wells, the pressure responses differ than those of unfractured wells.

For

fractured wells, type curves are usually used to interpret reservoirs responses due to
pressure changes. For high conductivity fractures, the pressure drop in the fractures is
small and linear fluid flow can occur from reservoirs rock into fractures. Linear fluid
flow implies that a uniform fluid flux into the fracture per unit cross-sectional area at all
points along fracture as shown in the following figure.

From linear flow into vertical fractures discussion in previous chapter, the following
equation is introduced:
qB
Pi Pwf = 4.064
hL f

kct

Considering a buildup test with a very long production time before well shut in
( t p >> t ), the previous equation can be written as:
qB
Pws Pwf = 4.064
hL f
A plot of Pws versus

kct

t will produce a straight line with a slope, mL, equals

qB
m L = 4.064
hL f

kct

Fracture length, Lf, can be determined from the slope.

When linear flow is not recognized and the relationship between Pws and

t is not

linear, then, the fracture length can be estimated knowing that

L f = 2 rwa

41/2

Since:
P1 hr Pwf
s = 1.151
m

log
c r 2

t w

+ 3.23

And
rwa =

Lf
2

= rw e s

Then

Lf
L
= 2.303 log f
s = ln
2rw
2rw
Therefore,
L
Lf
1
= 2.303 log f 2.303 log
2.303 log
rw
2rw
2
P1 hr Pwf

k
+ 3.23
log
= 1.151
c r 2
m

t w

Or divide by 1.151
Lf
2 log
2

1 P Pwf
2 log = 1 hr
m
rw

k
log c r 2

t w

+ 3.23

Which can be written as:

log(L f ) =

1 Pwf P1 hr

m
2

k
+ log
ct

2.63

The previous equation can be used when we have an estimates for P1-hr and k. In many
cases, the middle time region (MTR) for fractured wells cannot be identify due to the
early effect of fracture and late effect of reservoir boundary on pressure responses as
shown in the following figure.

42/2

It has been found that for a fracture length of more than one tenth of external radius,
L f > 0.1 re , that the boundary effect start before the influence of fracture disappear.

43/2

8- Estimating Pressure in Surrounding Formation

The pressure buildup tests can be used to estimate the pressure in the region surrounding
the tested well. For ideal well test case (in Chapter 1), for an infinite reservoir, the
original reservoir pressure was estimated by extrapolating the buildup test data to infinite

t p + t

= 1 . For actual wells, this extrapolation leads to P* which is

shut-in time
t

related, but not equal, to the current average drainage area pressure.

8.1 Original Reservoir Pressure

For new reservoirs, the extrapolation of the middle time region line (MTR) to the shut-in

t p + t

= 1 gives an estimate of the original reservoir pressure.

time
t

Here the

assumption is that the pressure decline is negligible and production from the well is
minimal.

This can be applied only before pressure change reaches reservoirs

boundaries. The following figure shows a schematic of this procedure.

44/2

In the case when the effect of reservoirs boundaries is felt, the extrapolation of the LTR
line would give the original reservoir pressure under the assumption of negligible
pressure depletion. The following figure shows a schematic of estimating the original
reservoir pressure from LTR line.

45/2

8.2 Static Drainage-Area Pressure

If the pressure depletion is significant, then the original reservoir pressure cannot be
estimated form the extrapolation of MTR or LTR line. In this case, well testing can be
used to estimate the average pressure in the drainage area of the well. Commonly, two
methods are used: Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek (MBH) P* Method and Modified Muskat
Method.

1- Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek (MBH) P* Method

This method is referred to as P* method in which the extrapolation of the MTR line to

t p + t

shut-in time of
= 1 is used to determine a P* value. P* then can be used to
t

calculate the static drainage-area pressure P , which is the stabilized pressure for a
well giving enough shut-in time.

Matthews et al. investigated several cases and

proposed a method to find P from P* value.

They presented their results in

graphical format as a function of tDA versus PD MBH. Where:

t DA = 0.000264
PD MBH =

kt p

ct A

kh P* P
70.6qB

The following figures shows the solutions obtained by MBH for various reservoir
shape and well locations.

46/2

Figure (A1)

Figure (A2)
47/2

Figure (A3)

Figure (A4)
48/2

Step to use MBH method

t p + t

= 1 and read P*.

1- Extrapolate MTR line to
t

2- Estimate the drainage area shape

3- Choose the proper curve.
4- From tDA, find the value of PD MBH.
5- Calculate P as
P = P*

(70.6qB ) P
kh

D MBH

= P*

m
PD MBH
2.303

where m is the slope from Horner plot.

49/2

Example-6:
For the buildup pressure test shown in Example 2, estimate the average pressure in the
wells drainage area using P* method.

Solution:

t p + t

1- From the extrapolation of MTR line to

= 1 , P* can be determined as
t

4,530 psi (As shown in Example 4).

2- As indicates in Example 2, the lateral length is 2,640 ft and the area = 6,969,600
ft2

3- As indicated in Example 2, the well is centered in a square drainage area,

therefore, Figure (A1) is used in this case.
50/2

4- From Example 2,

= 0.8 cp

tp

= 19*30*24 = 13,680 hr

= 0.039

=1710-6 psia-1

ct

From Example 3, k = 6.68 md. Therefore, tDA can be calculated as

t DA = 0.000264

kt p

ct A

= 0.000264

6.68 13,680
= 6.53
0.039 0.8 17 10 6 (6,969,600 )

From Figure A1, PD MBH can be found as 5.25

5- Knowing the slope, m, = 80 psi/cycle (From Example 3), Calculate P as

P = P*

(70.6qB ) P
kh

D MBH

= P*

80
m
5.25 = 4,347 psia
PD MBH = 4,530
2.303
2.303

51/2

1.1 Using Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek (MBH) P* Method to Determine Shape

Factors for Reservoirs
In chapter 1, the following equation was introduced (replacing initial pressure Pi
by P*):

2s

kt p

70.6qB
+ 2s
=
ln
2
kh 1688 ct rw

P * Pwf =

ct rw2
70.6qB
ln1688
kh
kt p

Furthermore, from the discussion in Chapter 1 for shape factor, the following
equation can be rewritten:
P Pwf = 141.2
= 70.6

qB 1 10.06 A 3
+ s
ln
kh 2 C A rw2 4

qB 10.06 A
1.5 + 2 s
ln
2
kh C A rw

Subtracting the previous two equations yields:

(P

Pwf (P Pwf ) = 70.6

P * P = 70.6

kt p
qB
ln
kh 1688 ct rw2

kt p
qB
ln
kh 1688 c t rw2

qB 10.06 A
1.5 + 2s
+ 2s 70.6
ln
2
kh C A rw

10.06 A

ln
C r 2 + 1.5

A w

= 70.6

kt p
C A rw2
qB

(
)
+
ln
4
.
482
ln

kh 1688 c t rw2 10.06 A

= 70.6

qB 0.000264kt p C A
ln
ct A
kh

= 70.6

qB
[ln(t DA C A )]
kh

Thus:

52/2

ln (t DA C A ) =

P* P
qB
70.6
kh

From the definition of PDMBH:

PD MBH =

kh P* P
70.6qB

Thus:
PD MBH = ln(t DA C A )

The previous equation implies that there is a linear relationship between PDMBH
and tDA during pseudosteady state time.

In the previous figures, the start of PSS

time is indicated for each reservoir shape and well location.

Example-7:
Calculate the shape factor for a circular reservoir with a well at the center.

Solution:
Choose a dimensionless time, tDA, after PSS as indicated in Figure A-1.

Thus:
PD MBH = ln (t DAC A ) = ln (1 C A ) = 3.454

Or
CA = 31.6

53/2

2- Modified Muskat Method

For a well producing at constant rate in a cylindrical bounded reservoir, the solution
of flow equation was shown as:

e n t D J 12 ( n reD )
qB 2t D
3

(
)
Pwf = Pi 141.2
+
ln
r

+
2

eD
2
2
2
kh reD2
4
n =1 n J 1 ( n reD ) J 1 ( n )

Using superposition in time to simulate a pressure buildup following a stabilized

flow, the previous equation can be written as:
0.00388 kt

ct re2

qB
P Pws = 118.6
e
kh
Taking the logarithm on both sides:

qB 0.00388kt

log(P Pws ) = log118.6

kh
ct re2

Which has the form:

log(P Pws ) = A + Bt

Where A and B are constants. In the development of the previous equation, the shutin time should be range as
250ct re2
750ct re2
t
k
k
The procedure of Modified Muskat method starts with an assumption of average
reservoir pressure, P , and plot the previous equation. This process continues until a
straight line relationship between log(P Pws ) versus t. It is important to mention
that the correct average reservoir pressure, P , should give a straight line during the
correct applicable time interval.

54/2

Example-8:
Consider the pressure buildup test in Example 2, estimate the average pressure in the
wells drainage area by using modified Muskat Method.

Solution:
The first step is to check the time validity for the data points in the range
250ct re2
750ct re2
t
k
k

750(0.039 )(0.8) 17 106 (1,489 )

250(0.039 )(0.8) 17 106 (1,489 )
t
6.68
6.68
2

44 t 132

So, the data point between 44 and 132 hours are considered. The following table
summarizes the calculations of (P Pws ) .
t,
hours

Pws, psi

40
50
60
72

4398
4402
4405
4407

Assumed P , psi
4408 4412 4422
P -Pws, psi
10
14
24
6
10
20
3
7
17
1
5
15

The following figure shows the relationship between (P Pws ) and t under different
assumed P . As shown in the figure, the value of 4,412 psi is the best choise.

55/2

9- Reservoir Limits Test

Pressure buildup data, for a well, can be used to estimate reservoirs size and distance to
boundaries.
1- Estimation of Distance to Boundaries
From Chapter 1, we used the principle of superposition to impose an imaginary well
to represent a no-flow boundary. The developed equation to describe pressure change
was:
2

ct (2 L )2
qB 1,688ct rw
qB

ln
2
70
.
6
948
Pi Pwf = 70.6
s
E

kh i

kt p
kt
kh

For an imaginary well of a well in a pressure buildup test, the previous equation can be
written as:

ct rw2
ct rw2
qB
( q )B

ln
1
,
688
2
70
.
6
ln
1
,
688
2
Pi Pws = 70.6
s
s

kh
k (t p + t )
kt
kh

ct L2
ct L2
qB
( q )B

3
,
792
70
.
6
3
,
792
E
70.6
E

i
kh i
k (t p + t )
k (t )
kh

If the shut-in time large, such that the logarithmic approximation of the Ei function can be
used, then:
t + t
qB t p + t
+ ln p
Pi Pws = 70.6
ln

kh t
t
qB t p + t
= 141.2

ln
kh t

Which can be written as:

qB t p + t

Pws = Pi 325.2
log
kh t

From the previous equation, for a well near a sealing boundary, such as a sealing fault,
the slope of the pressure build up test will be double and the time needed for the slope to
be doubled will be:
3,792ct L2

< 0.02
kt

56/2

Or
1.9 10 5 ct L2
t >

For low permeability reservoirs or in case the distance is too large, the duration of the
pressure buildup test might not be sufficient. In these cases, the pressure shut-in can be
approximated as:

ct L2
ct L2
qB t p + t
qB

log
0
.
434
3
,
792
70
.
6
3
,
792
Pws = Pi 162.6

kh i
kt p
k (t )
kh t

With the previous equation, the distance to the boundary (L) can be estimated using the
following method:
t + t
1- Plot Pws versus log p

2- Establish the MTR line

3- Extrapolate the MTR into LTR as shown in the following figure

4- Choose several points in the LTR and find the difference Pws* = Pws PMT
5- Estimate L from the following equation

ct L2
qB

3
,
792
Pws* = 70.6

kt
kh

The following example illustrates this method

57/2

Example-9:
Geologist suspect that a fault near a newly drilled well. A pressure buildup test was run
to confirm the presence of this fault. The following table shows the test data.
t, hours

Pws, psi

t, hours

Pws, psi

t, hours

Pws, psi

3,103

4,085

30

4,614

3,488

10

4,172

36

4,700

3,673

12

4,240

42

4,770

3,780,

14

4,298

48

4,827

3,861

16

4,353

54

4,882

3,936

20

4,435

60

4,931

3,996

24

4,520

66

4,975

Other information are

= 0.15

Awb = 0.00545 ft2

= 0.6 cp

= 54.8 lbm/ft3 qo

ct

= 1710-6 psi-1

rw

= 0.5 ft

= 1,221 STB/day

= 8 ft

Bo = 1.31 bbl/STB

Before the test, the well produce a total of 14,206 STB of oil during 279.2 hours. The
analysis of these data indicate that wellbore storage lasted for 1 hr and based on a slope
of 650 psi/cycle of the earliest straight line, reservoir permeability was estimated as 30
md. The depth of investigation after one hour was 144 ft.
From these data, determine whether the buildup test data indicate that the well is
behaving as if it were near a single fault and estimate distance to an apparent fault from
buildup data several time in the LTR.

58/2

Solution:
t + t
1- Plot Pws versus log p
as shown in the following figure.
t

2- Establish the MTR line

The MTR line is established with a slope of 650 psi/cycle as shown in the figure.

59/2

3- Extrapolate the MTR into LTR.

The extended LTR line is shown with a slope of 1300 psi/cycle (double the slope
of the MTR)

4- Choose several points in the LTR and find the difference Pws* = Pws PMT
This step can be done manually or by substituting several values of
t p + t
into the equation of MTR line. The equation of MTR line can be

found as:
650 t p + t
+ 5070
PMT =
ln
2.303 t

60/2

The following table summarizes the calculation of Pws* = Pws PMT

t, hours
6
8
10
12
14
16
20
24
30
36
42
48
54
60
66

(tp+t)/t

Pws, psi

47.5
35.9
28.9
24.3
20.9
18.5
15.0
12.6
10.3
8.8
7.6
6.8
6.2
5.7
5.2

3,996
4,085
4,172
4,240
4,298
4,353
4,435
4,520
4,614
4,700
4,770
4,827
4,882
4,931
4,975

PMT, psi
3980
4059
4120
4170
4211
4247
4306
4354
4412
4458
4496
4528
4556
4581
4603

Pws-PMT
16
26
52
70
87
106
129
166
202
242
274
299
326
350
372

5- Estimate L from the following equation

ct L2
qB

P = 70.6
Ei 3,792 kt
kh

*
ws

t, hours
6
8
10
12
14
16
20
24
30
36
42
48
54
60
66

16
26
52
70
87
106
129
166
202
242
274
299
326
350
372

Ei (x)

L2, ft2

L, ft

-0.05615
-0.09078
-0.18280
-0.24829
-0.30646
-0.37458
-0.45541
-0.58749
-0.71696
-0.85853
-0.97122
-1.05813
-1.15336
-1.23944
-1.31754

1.9
1.567
1.11
0.929
0.8082
0.69899
0.599023
0.48056
0.39283
0.32319
0.27932
0.2519
0.22186
0.1972
0.18419

3.31E+04
3.64E+04
5.74E+04
5.76E+04
5.85E+04
5.78E+04
6.19E+04
5.96E+04
6.09E+04
6.02E+04
6.07E+04
6.25E+04
6.19E+04
6.12E+04
6.29E+04

182
191
240
240
242
240
249
244
247
245
246
250
249
247
251

Where X values are estimated using Ei(-x) table. From the previous table, it can be concluded that
the distance between the well and the boundary is between 240 and 250 ft.

61/2

A quick method to estimate the distance between a well and the boundary is suggest by
Gray. In this method, a specific time at the intersection of the extension of MTR and the
double slope line is determined as tx as shown in the following figure.

This time can be used in the following equation to find the distance:
L=

0.000148kt x
ct

t + t
From the previous example, this intersection occurs at p
= 17 as shown in the
t

figure below.

From which tx can be determined as 17.45 hr. Thus

L=

0.000148kt x
0.000148(30)(17.45)
=
= 225
(0.15)(0.6) 17 106
ct

ft

Which is close enough to the answer.

62/2

2- Estimation of Reservoir Size

The results of pressure buildup test can be used to estimate reservoir size.
Considering the concept of compressibility, the change in pressure with respect to the
volume withdraw can be employed to determine reservoir size.

ct =

1 V
VR P

Consider a volumetric reservoir with a constant total compressibility, then the average
reservoir pressure after producing Np barrel of oil can be calculated as:

P2 = P1

(N )(B )
p

V R ct

Or

VR =

(N )(B )
(P P )c
p

63/2

Example-10:
Two pressure buildup tests were conducted on a reservoir, where the first one indicated
an average reservoir pressure of 3,000 psi and the second test indicated an average
reservoir pressure of 2,100 psi. Knowing that the well have been produced at a rate of
150 STB/day in the year between the two tests. Average oil formation volume factor, Bo,
is 1.3 bbl/stb, total compressibility, ct, is 10 10-6 psi-1, porosity, , is 22% and average
sand thickness, h is 10 ft. Estimate area, AR, of the reservoir in acres.

Solution:

In order to find the area, first we have to find the volume of the reservoir.

VR =

(N )(B ) =
(150 365)(1.3)
= 35.9 10
(P P )c (3,000 2,100)(10 10 )(0.22)
p

bbl

Then the reservoir area, AR, can be determine from:

VR =

43,560 AR h
5.615

Thus:

AR =

VR 5.615 35.9 10 6 5.615

=
= 463 acres
43,560 h
43,560 10

64/2

10- Modifications for Multiphase Flow

For an infinite acting reservoir, the multiphase drawdown can be described by the
following equation:

Pwf = Pi + 162.6

q Rt 1688ct rw2
log
t h
t t

1.151

The pressure buildup equation can be also written as:

Pws = Pi 162.6

q Rt t p + t

log
t h t

In the previous two equations, the total flow rate, qRt, is given bbl/day as:
q Rt = q o Bo + (q g q o Rs )B g + q w Bw

The total mobility, t, is defined as:

t =

ko

kw

kg

t p + t
results in a
The pressure buildup equation implies that a plot of Pws and log

straight line with a slope, m, equals

m = 162.6

q Rt
t h

From which the total mobility can be determined. Moreover, researchers showed that the
permeability to each phase, effective permeability, can be estimated from the slope as:

k o = 162.6

q o Bo o
mh

65/2

k g = 162.6

(q

q o Rs )B g g

k w = 162.6

mh
q w Bw w
mh

The skin factor, in multiphase flow cases, can be found as:

P1 hr Pwf

s = 1.151
log t 2
m

ct rw

+ 3.23

The methods to find average reservoir pressure in multiphase flow is similar to the one
developed previously.

66/2

Example-11:
A buildup tes is run in a well that produces oil, water, and gas simultaneously. Well,
rock, and fluid properties evaluated at average reservoir pressure during the test include
the following:
So

= 0.58

cf

=3.510-6 psi-1

= 1.5 cp

Sg

= 0.08

cg

=0.3910-3 psi-1

= 0.7 cp

Sw

= 0.34

cw

=3.610-6 psi-1

co

=86.410-6 psi-1

= 0.03 cp

Bo

= 1.3 bbl/STB

Bw

Bg

= 1.48 bbl/MSCF

Rs

= 0.17

= 0.3

rw

1.02

bbl/STB

= 685 SCF/STB
h

= 38 ft

the production rates prior to the buildup test were

qo

= 245 STB/day

qw

= 38 STB/day

qg

= 489 MSCF/day

t p + t
a plot of Pws versus log
shows that the slope of the MTR, m, is 78 psi/cycle and
t

that the P1 hr = 2,466 psi. Flowing pressure, Pwf, at the instant of shut-in was 2, 028 psi.
From these data, estimate t, ko, kw, kg, and s.

67/2

Solution:

k o = 162.6

q o Bo o
(245)(1.3)(1.5) = 26.2 md
= 162.6
(78)(38)
mh

k w = 162.6

q w Bw w
(38)(1.02)(0.7 ) = 1.49 md
= 162.6
(78)(38)
mh

k g = 162.6

(q

q o Rs )B g g
mh

= 162.6

(489 10

)(

245 685 1.48 10 3 (0.03)

= 0.78 md
(78)(38)

Then

t =

ko

kw

kg

26.2 1.49 0.78

+
+
= 45.6
1.5
0.7 0.03

md
cp

We have to find the total compressibility, ct, in order to find skin factor. Thus:
ct = S o c o + S g c g + S w c w + c f
= 0.58 86.4 10 6 + 0.08 0.39 10 3 + 0.34 3.6 10 6 + 3.5 10 6
= 86.0 10 6

psi 1

The skin factor, s, can be calculated as:

P1 hr Pwf

s = 1.151
log t 2
m

ct rw

+ 3.23

2,466 2,028

45.6
= 1.151
log
2
6
78

(0.17 ) 86 10 (0.3)
= 1.5

+ 3.23

68/2