.

.
SPE 7142
A Method for Estimating the Interporosity
Flow Parameter in Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs
D.O. Uldrich* ,SPE-AIME, U. of SouthernCalifornia
Iraj Ershaghi, SPE-AIME, U. of SouthernCalifornia
Abstract
For naturally fractured reservoirs of the doublc-
porosity type, Warren and Root) defined two
parameters characterizing such systems, Ffi and e.
While Ffi may be obtained easily from the straight
lines of the buildup or drawdown plot, no explicit
method for estimating e was suggested in the original
paper.
This paper presents a method whereby the
coordinates of the inflection point on a buildup or
drawdown plot may be used to estimate e. We show
that for pressure drawdown tests, Ecan be estimated
under certain conditions, while for pressure buildup
tests, only the ratio of the interporosity flow
parameter to the total system porosity/com-
pressibility product, t/[(@c, )J + (@!)m.l, Q is
obtained. By using the concept of inflection points,
an equation is derived where Fft may be obtained
from a pressure buildup or drawdown test when no
early- or late-time data are available.
Introduction
Warren and Rootl presented a solution to the
problem of radial flow of a slightly compressible
fluid in a naturally fractured reservoir. They assumed
that flow occurs only in the fractures and that the
matrix blocks, assembled as a uniformly distributed
source. deliver the fluid to the fracture system. They
characterized such a system by two parameters
related to the properties of the reservoir. One of these
parameters, the fluid capacitance coefficient, ~Jt, is
Orlglnal manuswlpt received In .%elety of Petroleum P@neere office Fab.
22, 1978. Paper accepted for publlcetlon Jan 18, 1979. Revlsad manuscript
receked Aug. 1, 1979. Papar ($PE 7142) first @esented at the SPE.AIME 4Sth
Annual Callforni8 Regional Meeting, held In San Franclaco, April 1244, 1S78.
This paper wIII be Included In the 19797ran8act/on8 volume.
Nowwith Conoco Inc., Ventura, CA.
W37+3SW791W10.71428 OO.25
@1979 Society of Petroleum Englneera of AIME
used to represent the ratio of the porosity/com-
pressibility product for the fractr es to that for the
entire system: (@c,)f/ [(@cr), + . :,)~. ]. The second
parameter, c, is defined as the interporosity flow
parameter, which indicates the degree of in-
terporosity flow between the matrix blocks and the
fracture system. As shown by Kazemi,2 the fluid
capacitance coefficient may be obtained from tho
following equation:
Fjt
= antilog (-tip/m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
where, bp = vertical separation of the two straight
lines on a buildup or drawdown test plot, psi (kPa);
and m = slope of the straight lines on a buildup or
drawdown test plot, psi/cycle (kPa/cycle). While the
computation of Ffi from this equation is straight-
forward, no clear method of finding c has yet been
proposed. In the original paper, Warren and Root
did not elaborate on a suitable method for the
determination of e. Kazemi discussed the use of
interference test data to find the total system
porosity/compressibility product, (@c,)f i- (@c,)~a.
Using this information, a trial-and-error procedure
may be applied to the pressure buildup equation to
obtain a satisfactory answer for c. The optimum c
VJQS defined as the value resulting in the best curve fit
of the theoretical equations to the. field data.
Crawford et aL3 used a nonlinear least-squares
~egression method so obtain the four parameters, PI,
k,, E, and Ff, by minimizing the R value in the
following:
~= ,$(w,) [P.. (At,) -(pA(AtJ)]2
. ...(2)
where n = total number of pressure measurements;.
Pus(Atj )
= shut-in wellbore pressure computed at
At, from the theoretical equation, psi (kPa);
F
324 80CISTVOF PZTZOLELMEIWINEERSJ OfJ ift4AL
.
.
(A, ).L) (At,)
= measured wellbore pressur~ at time
At,, psi (kPa); and Wj= weighing function to guide
toward a match. They presented the results of
analyzing five cases of pressure buildups.
The purpose of our paper is to present an alter-
native and perhaps improved method for obtaining c,
using visual inspection of the pressure data and
simple charts and formulas.
Development of the Proposed Technique
The theoretical formulas presented by Warren and
Root show that the pressure buildup or drawdown
curves for an infinite reservoir would have two
parallel straight-line sections whose slopes are equal
and related to the flow capacity of the formation.
These lines are connected by a curved transition
region as shown in Fig. 1a and 1b. The equations
may be written as follows:
Pressure Drawdown
For(Ar,)~ > 100(F,, ),ift << 1,
(Aty)~ >100 (all data).
P.j =Pj - mlog [2.24 (A(J)~ ] -0.434 mc
L -4 L -J
- 0.87m*s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
Pressure Buildup
Fore.(Af,)~ >3,
(Af.)o > 100(Ff,),ife c< l,or
(Af, )D >100- :,UF,, <<1.
.
.-
[
1
molog (?p)D+(iy. )= +
PwsPi -
(At,)~
J
0.434 mEi
[ 1
- e .(At, ) ~
Ff, ( l-~f, ) -
[1
-6 (At~) ~
0.434 mE, , F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(f)
- f t
As shown in Fig. 5 of Warren and Roots paper, for
a given value of Ff,, the location in time of the point
of inflection on the transition portion of the pressure
test is dependent on c.
Our approach in this study was based on deriving
the coordinates of the point of inflection and thus
determining a relationship to obtain ~. The derivation
of those coordinates for both pressure buildup and
drawdown in an infinite fractured reservoir may be
found in Sections A and Bof Appendix A.
For drawdown, the inflection point derivation
yields
~*(Atj)~
=- F,,.ln(~f, ).......,.......,..(5)
When Eq. 5 is substituted back into the original
drawdown equation, Eq. 3, and c is solved for, the
result is
E=-Ff, ln(Ff,) antilog (Pwfi + %3 -t-
.
0.351 +0.87 m-s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(6)
where FEID
EH- E[ Ff 5?l
L J L -J
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
Fig. 2 maybe used to obtain F&~as a function of Ff,.
It is evident from Eq. 6 that if the skin factor,s, is
known or is considered negligible, then e may be
calculated independently. If no approximation for
skin factor is available, then only the ratio of e to the
total system porosity/compressibility product may be
calculated. This ratio is calculated most easily from a
rearrangement of Eq. 5 and the definition of
(b)
Fig. 1. Schematic of pressured awdown (a) and pressure
buildup (b) c urves.
.01 0.1 1,0 10.0
I .0 1.0
1 1 1 1 I $111
111111
* JMW%L7 ~
EI=RI%=
0.001 0.001
-:01 0.1 Lo 10.0
Fig. 2. Plot of two exponential Integral difference func-
tions, FE,Dand FED
O~OBER 1979 313
.
G
Differentiatirig the buildup equation, Eq. 4, twice
leads to the c~nclusion that at the inflection point
[+J
c*(At$ D. _
exp
F,, -
~fi.(l -Ff, )-[(t~D+(At$)DloE , ., .,., , , (9)
Ff, G(1 - & )-[(tp)D -t- (A?;) D]eoFfl
Eq. 9 can be rearranged so that
e~(At:)D=F~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(10)
The importance of F~ is that it is a function of F,,
and A?~/(tP+ At,7 only, and both of these can be
read easily from a buildup plot without knowing c or
(*, )1+ (@, ) ~,. Fig. 3 was developed to obtain F~
from these two variables. Using this value of F~, the
rat io of e to (&, )f + (@c,) ~. can be calculated
quickly in a manner similar to Eq. 8:
E FDpr2W
,00,00(11)
(4%)/+ (ti, )m.
= 0.0002641, At:
In conclusion, one cannot, unfortunately, evaluate
both e and (@c,)J + (#c, ) m. independently from a
drawdown test (unless the skin factor is known), or
from a buildup test, or from a combination of both
tests, using this method. However, if either e or
(@, )J + (@, ) ~. is knovn, then by the inflection
point analysis presented here, the other value can be
obtained quickly.
Estimation of Ft
hi the above derivations, we assumed that the value
of F,, was known. However, Kazemis technique
reqt?ires that both the early- and late-time straight-
Iine branches be formed. If a pressure testis stopped
before the late-time branch is evident, but after the
inflection point time occurs, F~,still can be estimated
from the slope of the early branch, the inflection
point pressure, and the pressure on the extrapolated
early-time straight line at the inflection point time.
Similarly, if the early-time straight-line branch is
masked by wellbore storage effects, then Ffi can be
estimated from the late-time branch slope, the in-
flection point pressure, and the extrapolated pressure
on the late-time branch at the inflection point time.
These pressures are illustrated in Fig. 1 for both
early- and late-time branch extrapolations on both
buildup and drawdown tests. The details of the
derivations are given in Appendix B.
F can be estimated from the early-time branch of
a drawdown test by reading (p~f)_lY, P:., and m
from the drawdown plot and using them to calculate
F~~with Eq. 12:
F
2.303[P:J - (P:~)ca,IYl . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~12)
DD =
m
Eq. B-8 shows that F~~is a function of F,, only. This
334
value can be used directly in Fig. 2 to find Ffl from
the curve marked F~D.
Sec. A of Appendix B also shows the derivation of
a relationship that can be used in a drawdown test
when the early-time branch is obscured by wellbore
effects but the late-time branch is developed. This
relationship is a modification of Eq. 12 to allow for
the constant pressure difference between the two
branches. The derivation shows that
F
2. 303 [(Pt f ) l at e - )?t f l
EID =
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..(13)
m
AS stated earlier, F~,~is a function of Ffi only, as is
F~~. Once again, F~,~is calculated from a drawdown
plot using Eq. 13 and then this value is used to read
FJ,from Fig. 2 using the F~,~curve.
Sec. B of Appendix B contains the derivation of
similar equations to find F;, from incomplete buildup
tests. FGr the case where the buildup test shows only
the early-time branch and the inflection point, a
variable, F~Um,,lY, can be calculated from
2.303[(p&),,,l%- P:SI . ., . . . . , . . . (14)
F
BU-earl y =
m
Eq. B-14 shows that F~u~,r,yis a function of Ffi and
F~ [which is itself a function of Ff, and
At;/ (fP+At:)]. Therefore,
FBu-earIy
and
At;/ (tP + Atf) can be used to determine Ff,. Fig. 4 is
used for that purpose.
Fhmlly, the case in which wellbore effects olx.cure
the early-time branch also is included in Sec. B,
Appendix B. The derivation is analogous to that for a
drawdown test. The variable, ~~u.l,[,,is defined as
0.001 0.01 0. I
I
+g-l-~-1
. .
o.ool~
mill-il l-l
0.0001
0.001 0.01 0.1
--30
\ ,
I
0.1
,@.0.01
-0.001
~o.0001
Lo
At:
Fig. 3. Plot of ~B as a function of F,t and
tp+ At;
SOCCEIV OF FETROLEUMENGINSSRS JOURNAL
.
.
-,
F~u.la~, =
2.30XP;, - (P;, ) Mel
2 * *...**....
(15)
m
where F~u.,,~, is a function of FJ, and At?/ (tP + Af~)
.
alone. Calculating FBu.lateas above and taking
At~/ (tP + At:) from a buildup plot, Ffi is obtained by
using Fig. 5.
Application of the Proposed Method
The method proposed here was applied to the data
presented by Crawford et aL3 and Kazemiz. Table 1
is a summary of additional test data not shown in
Crawford et al.s original paper. These data sub-
sequently were provided by Crawford. The location
of the point of inflection on each of Crawford et al.s
buildup curves, in terms of At~/ (tp+-A?:), is shown
in Col. 2 of Table 2. Using these values and Ff,
(derived from inflection point analysis as will be
described later), values of FB were estimated from
Fig. 3. Applying Eq. 11, the values of s were
calculated and are shown in Col. 6 of Table 2. For an
estimation of (~, )J + (@c,) ~,, we used the data
given for the matrix porosity and compressibility,
and the definition of F, (we bottom of Table 1).
A comparison of the values obtained using the
proposed method with those determined by
Crawford et ai. (Cols. 6 and 7 of Table 2) indicates
that not only are the values similar, but variations or
errors in the selection of the point of inflection will
still provide e values in the same order of magnitude
as those obtained by the nonlinear regression ap-
proach.
Table 3 presents the results of this inflection point
analysis on the three pressure drawdown cases
discussed by Kazemi. Again, the similarity of the
results to those Kazemi used in his simulation is
striking.
The final application of the technique proposed
here was to analyze the pressure buildup curves of
Crawford et al. to determine F,,, assum!ng that the
late-time straight-line branches had not formed. The
results of this analysis, summarized in Table 4, show
that good agreement exists between the values from
inflection point and nonlinear regression analyses in
four of the tive cases. In Test D, the values differ
significantly. However, we used the values of Ff,
derived by inflection point analysis to obtain e in
Table 2, not the values from Crawford et al. Note
that in Test D, while the value of Fj, using the new
-%
method exceeds that from nonlinear regression by a
factor of 2.3, the values of c derived from both are
essentially the same. This may indicate that c is in-
sensitive to the uncertainty in estimating FJ,.
Nomenclature
antilog(x) =
c, =
E, (-x) -=
OCTOBSR1979
1(P, dimensionless
total system compressibility [fluid and
rock, l/psi (l/kPa)]
-1
w e-. d~
, exponential integral
x u
function, dimensionless
0.0 LO 2.0 S.0 4.05.0 607.08.0 9.0 10.0
1.0
H
1 I I I I I I
1.0
I
I I I I I I I I
t\i \ I
GLM
KFFEFFHO
------
0.0 Lo m 3.0 4B 5.06.0 Zo 8.09.0 10:0
6W-EARLY
Fig. 4. Plot of F,, as a func tion of FBu-e8rIyand ~~-j.
P
0.01 0.1 1.0 10
I .0 Lo
0.1 0s1
I, hdl l l I 11111 Il l
0.001 0.001
0.0001 0.0001 -----
0.01 0.1
-----
Lo 10
At:
Fig. 5. Plot of Fft as a function of FBu.l~teand .
tn +At:
\
331
.
.
TABLE 1- SUMi!flARY OF WELL TEST DATA3
~e~t q,SWD
(m31d)
A 1,210
(192.4)
B
(::)
c 362
(57.6)
D 1,292
(205.4)
E 1,289
(204.9)
P*CP
(Pas)
(o.Ri8k3)
(0.%io)
(o.&Al)
(0.%$2)
(0.%?5)
B,RB/STB
(m3/m3)
1.210
(1.210)
1.200
(1.200)
1.200
(1.200)
1,230
(1.230)
1.260
(1.260}
h, f!
(m)
130
(39.9)
170
(51,8)
130
(39.6)
175
(53.3)
262
(79.9)
m, psllcycle
~f, md (kPa/cycle)
233
(::)
2 234.0
(1610)
146 22.7
(157)
353 17.6
(121)
35 72.0
(500)
.%,
F,t
J.d
(l/kPa)
5.25 0.102 9.66 X 104
(1.40 x 10+)
28.80 0.127 1.20 x 10-*
(1.74 x 10-5)
10.74 0.107 1.22 x 10+
(1.77 x lo-f)
10.87 0.094 1.65 X 10-6
(2,3!3 X 10-5)
3.64 0.121 1.67 X 10-6
(2.42 X 10-5)
1
Not&(@ct)f+ (@c/)ma = (@o/)ma J
(1-Fft)
TABLE 2- COMPARISON OF METHODSTO OBTAIN 6 FROM PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS
(UsingCrawfordetttLa3 data)
At;
Test tP+At: (See n$~ below) At:, h F$ (lhis ~ethod) (Crawfo~d etd.)

A 0.17 0.096 1.02 0.290 1.5 x 10-~ 2.1 x 10-5
B 0.18 0.123 6.26 0.331 6.0 X 10-5 12,0 x 10-5
c 0.17 0.105 2.24 0.305 1.6 X 10-* 2.2 x 10-*
D 0.31 0.220 4.94 0.463 4.4 x 10- 4.4 x 10-7
E 0.50 0.180 3.84 0.540 4.0 x 10-6 4.$ x 10-6
Note These values of F~t were obtained by uelng the new method presented In this paper. They sre not the vsluea ob-
tained byCrawford etei (See Tabla 4.)
TABLE 3- COMPAf?lSON OF METHODSTO OBTAIN 6 FROM PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TESTS
(UsingKazemis2data)
!.
F,t
P%, Psi PI, Psi
m, psllcycle
Test (See note below) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa/cycle) FEID (See no~e below) (This ;ethod) (Kaz;mi)

1 0.024324 3,535 4,000 81.7

(24 370) (27 560) (583)
2 0.052493 2,800 3,000 32.6
(19310) (20 660) (225)
3 0.026037 4,820 53.6
(33 230) (%%0) (370)
Note Theaa valuee are takan from Kazemls paper.
Test
A
B
c
D
E
.90 0 2.76 X 10-5 2.56 X 10-6
.37 0 1.00 x 10-6 1.03 x 10-6
,80 0 5.98 X 10-4 6.03 X 10-4
TABLE 4- COMPARISON OF METHODS TO OBTAIN Fn FROM PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS
(Using Crawfordet aLs3data)
(PJ8)esrl , Psi
(kPa\
.,
3,712
(25 590)
3,700
(25 510)
+.
3,522
(24 280)
3,830.0
(25026)
3,487.5
(23908)
Pp&$l
?,696
(25500)
3,565
(24580)
3,508
(24190)
3,622.5
(24976)
3,426.7
(23626)
m, psllcycle
(kPa/cycle) FBu-aerlv
45,6 0.307
(314)
234 1.33
(1610)
22.7 1.42
(157)
17.6 0.981
(121)
72.0 1.31
(498)
At:
tp +At; (This %thod) (Crawf%d et al.)
0.17 0.098 0.102
0.18 0.123 0.127
0.17 0.105 0.107
0.31 0.220 0.094
0.50 0.180 0.121
338 SGCI STY OF PETROLEUMENGINSSSSJ OURNAL
exp(x) =
F. =
F
BU =
F~ =
F
DD =
F
EI D =
F,, =
k
=
In(x) =
log(x) =
m=
P=
Pi =
P. =
Pwf =
P., =
ilp =
rW=
R=
s
=
tp =
Atj =
At. =
Wj =
~
2.718X,dimensionless
EG (At:) D, pressure buildup solution at
the inflection point, dimensionless
factor used to estimate F, from in-
complete pressure buildup data (FBU.
~arly: used when the early-time branch is
developed; F~u.l,,,:used when the late-
time branch is developed), dimen-
sionless
0.0002641,
MJC,)J+(fM)mJ.~r2w
factor used to convert actual time to
dimensionless time, l/hr
factor used to calculate F,, from
pressure drawdown test when the late-
time branch is not evident, dimens-
ionless
exponential integral difference at the
inflection point, dimensionless
(@,)/
fluid capacitance
(@, )J+(&, )m,
coefficient, dimensionless
permeability (k= average per-
meability), md
natural logarithm (to base e) of x,
dimensionless
common logarithm (to base 10) of x,
dimensionless
slope of straightline portions of
pressure buildup and drawdown plots,
psi/cycle [kPa/cycle).
pressure
initial reservoir pressure
wellbore pressure
flowing wellbore pressure
static wellbore pressure
pressure separation between straight-
Iine portions in pressure buildup and
drawdown plots, psi (kPa)
wellbore radius, ft (m)
value to be minimized in nonlinear
regression method of Crawford et al.,
dimensionless
total skin factor, dimensionless
equivalent time well was on production
before shut-in for pressure buildup
test, hr
elapsed time in pressure drawdown
test, hr
elapsed time in pressure buildup test,
hr
weighing function used to guide
nonlinear regression method toward a
Acknowledgments
We appreciate G.E. Crawford of Exxon Production
Research Co. and H. Kazemi of Marathon Oil Co.,
who provided additional data for the examples
shown here. D.O. Uldrich is also grateful to Conoco
Inc. for assistance during the final preparation of this
paper.
References
1.
2,
Warren,J.E. and Root, P, J,: The Behavior of Natudly
FracturedReservoirs, SW. Pet,Eng, J, (Sept. 1963)24S-25S;
Thins,, AIME, 22S.
Kazemi, H.: pressure Transient Analysis of Naturally
match, l/ps~ (1/kPa*)
x =log OUJ), abscissa of the pressure
drawdown plot, dimensionless
OCTOBER In
Y = log
[
(tp)~+(At.)~
(lit, )D
[1
tp + At,
= log --& - , abscissa of the
s
a
=
e
=
=
:=
Superscript
*
=
Subscripts
B=
BU =
D=
DD =
early =
EID =
f=
i=
late =
ma =
P=
s
=
t
=
w=
pressure buildup plot, dimensionless
matrix-to-fracture geometric factor,
l/ftZ (1/m2)
a. k~~srzW
E,
, interporosity flow
parameter, dimensionless
fluid viscosity, cp (Pa s)
porosity, dimensionless decimal
fraction
value at the inflectio,l point ~
solution to buildup equation
factor used to estimate F,, from in-
complete pressure buildup test
dimensionless
drawdown
value using extrapolated pressure on
early-time branch at the inflection
point
exponential integral difference
flowing (e.g., pW.), or fracture (e.g.,
%,)
initial
value using extrapolated pressure on
late-time branch at the inflection point
matrix
producing
static
total system
wellbore
3.
Fractured Reservoirs With Uniform Frac{ure Distribution,;
Ser. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec. 1969)451-462; Trans., AIME, 246.
Crawford, G. E., Hagedorn, A. R., and Pierce, A.E,: Analysis
of Pressure Buildup Tests in a Naturally Fractured Reservoir,
J. Pet. Tech, (Nov. 1976) 129S-1300.
SB
<.
APPENDIX A
Derivation of the Coordinates of the
Point of Inflection
.
Sec. A-Pressure Drawdown
The equation for pressure drawdown in an infinite
reservoir represented by the Warren and Root mode:
may be written as
Pwf=pi - miu~ (Atf)D - m(o.asl )0.dadm
Ei[jj~/~]+0.434mEi[-~~j~D]
-0.87 ms, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1)
This is Eq. 3 in the text. Normally, pwy is plotted
Vsx = log(A?J); Eq. A-1 then can be written as
P Wf
= pi - mx - mlog(FD)-().351 m
-0434moEiLx:~EJ+00434m
Ei
[ 1
- e FD10X
-0.87 ms.
1- Fft
. . . . . . . . . ..(A-2)
Double differentiation of Eq. A-2 with respect to
X gives
z.$@=
-2.()%r??- (/itf]D
1- Fft
These are Eqs. 6 and 7 in the text.
Sec. B-Pressure Buildup
The Warren and Root formula for pressure buildup
in an infinite reservoir is written as
r 1
[ 1
(tp)D+(At~)~ + 0434m
.- m-log
Pws =Pl
(A?S)D
Ei [ ~~f l ~- J -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-7)
This is Eq. 4 in the text. Normally, PWSis plotted
Vs
r 1 1- 1
I II
~=,og (ip)D+ (At.)D slog tP+At~
(Ats)D Ats
Eq. A-7 then can be written as
PWS=Pi - m Y+ O.434mEi
[
- ~(tp)D
Ff, .(1 - Ff,)(lOy - 1)
1
- 0. 434 mEi
[
~(tp)D
(1 - Ffl)(loy - 1)
1
..................(A-8)
Double differentiation of Eq. A-8 with respect to
Ygives
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)
~ .0 and
At the inflection point, ~=
6- (Atf)D =- Fft ln(F~). . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-4)
This is Eq. 5 in the text. Substituting Eq. A-4 into
Eq. A-1 and solving for q
e = -Fff ln(F~f) antilog
.
( )
a + ~ +-0.351+0.87 ms , (A-5)
m 2.303
where
E D=E [ - l - Ei [ F*l o( A-
~2(Pws ) =
2.303 m[(tP)D + (AtS)zd(AtS )D
dyz
(@2D(l ~fi)
[[ 1[ ~$) D
(l-Ffi)-[(fP)~+(AtS)D]-~ exP
-[ 1
F~.(1 -Fy~)-[(tP)D+ (Ats)Dl*c .
Fft

d2@ws) =Omd
At the inflection point, dy2
r 1
.
330 -m OF F13TRC!LEUM ENGINSERSJ OURNAL
,.
.
This is Eq. 9 in the text. Eq. A-10 can be rearranged
so that
eS(At~)D=FB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(A-II)
When this definition of FB (Eq. 10 in the text) is
substituted back into Eq. A-10, the result shows that
FB is a function of
Ff t
and
(At:) D![ (fp ) D + (At:) D]&which is equal to
AtV(tP+Atf):
1
(tP)D+(AtJ)D ,FB
(At~)D
(fp)D+(&)D
(At~)D
1
FftGFB
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-12)
APPENDIX B
Estimation of Fft from Early-or
LateTimeand Transient Data
Sec. A-Pressure Drawdown
Using Warren and Roots equation, *
Pwf =Pi - m log(Atf) D - ().351 m -0.434 m
Ei
[ 1
- e (Atj) D
Fyr(l - ~jt)
+ 0.434 m
Ei
[ 1
-c. (Atf)D -087m ~
.
1- Fft
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(B-1)
At early times, such that
,O(Atf)D
+[Fj(l - Ffi)] <0.01, the exponential integral
functions can be approximated by logarithmic
functions:
G
Ei
- ~+(Atf)D
1- Fjt
= in
L
Substitution of Eqs. B-2 and B-3 into Eq. B-1
yields the equation for the early-time branch of the
OCTOBER1979
drawdown plot. If this straight time line is ex-
trapolated to the time of inflection,
AtJ (see Fig.
1), the pressure, (piJ) -Iv, would be
(p~j) ~lY =Pie- mlog(AtJ) D- 0.351 m+
0.434 mln(Ffi) -0.87 ms . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (B-4)
The actual pressure at the inflection point, P%f, is
given by
p% =pi -3 mlog(At}) D -0.351 m -0.434 m
J EID-0.87 m s,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-5)
where
[
MF~ )
FEID=Ei
l-Ffi
[ 1
_EFfi ln(F~ )
i
l-~ft
. (B-6)
EcJ. B-6 is ECI.7 in the text. Subtracting Eq. B-5
from Eq. B-4, -
2.303 b;t (P;j) edy]
#k
FDD= > . ...**....
(B-7)
m
where
FDD=-~E~D- h(Ffi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(B-8)
Since ~~~) early= (l%f) late - 6? l%. B-7 can be
expressed m terms of (p?j) late instead of (p%j) ~rlY
using Eq. 1:
Sec. B-Pressure Buildup
Using Warren and Roots equation, 1
r 1
m.log (tp)D+(At.)D +
Pws Pi -
(At, )D
I_ J
OAMmGE,
0.434 mE,
- c.(AtS)D
1
Fft(l-Fj) -
- e.(AtS)D
II? 1
. . . . . . . . . . ..(B-1O)
1- -rfi J
This is Eq. 4 in the text. At early times, such that
c.(At~)D/[F~f(l - Fft)] <0.0~, the exponential
integral functions can be approximated by the
logarithmic functions in Eqs. B-2 and B-3. Sub-
stituting ihese two equations into Eq. B-10 yields the
equation for the early-time brar ck of the buildup
plot. If this straight line is extrapolated to the in-
flection point time, At: (see Fig. 1), the extrapolated
pressure,(p~~ ) ~ly, would be
~.
331
.0
.
(P?vs ) early Pi -
l Og[ ( p) f J f l ) Dl +
0.434 mln(Ffl) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(B-11)
The actual inflection point pressure, pj~, can be
derived when Eq. A-12 is substituted into Eq. B-10,
- ml Og[ ( p) : ~~: ) Dl +
P% =Pl
0.434 mEi
[ 1
-FB
FjN-Fjr) -
[1
- FB
0.434 mEi
l-Ffi
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-12)
Subtracting Eq. B-12 from Eq. B-11gives
2.303[(p~s ) cfuIY- P%], , . . . . (B-13)
?BCkarly =
m
where
.
[ 1
-FB -E
FBU-~Iy =Ei
l-Fft i
- FB
1
F~(l - Ff,) -
ln(Fjf). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-14)
Eqs. B-13 and B-14 can be modified so that Ffi is
estimated from the inflection point and the late-time.
branch. This is done by using Eq. B-9 in the same ~
way as for the drawdown case. Here,
@~s ) early= (/%) late- 6P, and using Eqs. B-9, B-
13, and B-14, we derive
where
FBu-laie = Ei
Ei
()
-FB
.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(B-16)
1- Fft
SPEJ
332 SOCIETY OF FSTROLSUR2 SNGINSERSJ OURNAL