Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE 62916
The Green Element Method for Numerical Well Test Analysis
Rosalind A. Archer, SPE, Texas A&M University, and Roland N. Horne, SPE, Stanford University
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in Dallas, U.S.A. 1-4 October, 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the authors. Contents
of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum
Engineers and are subject to correction by the authors. The material, as presented
does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission
to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where
and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245
Abstract
To use pressure transient test data in computerised meth-
ods for integrated reservoir charcterisation numerical sim-
ulations of the well tests are typically required. Numerical
artifacts occurring in the simulation must be avoided as
much as possible so that they do not adversely affect the
reservoir characterisation.
This work explores the advantages of a hybrid bound-
ary element method known as the Green element method for
modeling pressure transient tests. Boundary element meth-
ods are a natural choice for the problem because they are
based on Greens functions, which are an established part of
well test analysis. The classical boundary element method
is limited to single phase flow in homogeneous media. This
works presents formulations which give computationally ef-
ficient means to handle heterogeneity. The accuracy of the
scheme is further enhanced by incorporating singularity pro-
gramming.
Comparisons of the proposed Green element approach to
standard finite difference simulation show that both meth-
ods are able to model the pressure change in the well over
time. When pressure derivative is considered however the
finite difference method produces very poor results which
would give misleading interpretations. The Green element
method in conjunction with singularity programming repro-
duces the derivative curve very accurately.
Introduction
The boundary element method (BEM) was applied by Num-
bere and Tiab1 to generate steady-state streamlines in sec-
tionally homogenous two-dimensional reservoirs. Masukawa
and Horne2 considered immiscible displacement problems
using BEM. Kikani and Horne3,4 applied BEM to generate
pressure transients in arbitrarily shaped homogeneous reser-
voirs. The problem of flow in heterogeneous reservoirs was
addressed by Sato and Horne5,6 who developed a perturba-
tion based approach. This approach became increasingly
computationally intensive as the reservoir hetereogeneity
became more pronounced.
The standard form of BEM is not applicable to flow
in heterogeneous media so hybrid boundary element based
schemes were considered. This study focused on the appli-
cation of the Green Element method (GEM). Taigbenu7,8
first presented GEM in 1990 and described it as an
element-by-element implementation of the boundary ele-
ment method. Taigbenu considered the Laplace, diffu-
sion, nonlinear Boussinesq and convection-diffusion equa-
tions. Taigbenu and Onyejekwe applied GEM to ground-
water flow in the unsaturated zone9 .
Archer and Horne10 discussed the application of the
GEM and the Dual Reciprocity Boundary Element Method
to one-dimensional pressure diffusion and tracer flow in het-
erogeneous media. Archer and Horne11 and Archer12 ex-
tended the analysis to two dimensions. Singularity program-
ming was introduced to study well tests. This work com-
pares the performance of the proposed GEM/singularity
programming approach to finite difference simulation of well
tests.
Theory
Treatment of Heterogeneity To use the classical bound-
ary element method the differential equation being consid-
ered must include a 2 operator. The single-phase flow
equation:
p
(kp) = ct (1)
t
is therefore not in a form suitable for solution by a boundary
element method.
2 THE GREEN ELEMENT METHOD FOR NUMERICAL WELL TEST ANALYSIS SPE 62916

Taigbenu and Onyejekwe9 demonstrated how the single- The singular part of the pressure solution given in Equation
phase flow equation could be solved by rewriting it as: (4) satisfies:
ps
ct p 2 psD = D (13)
2 p = lnk p + (2) tD
k t
Subtracting Equation (13) from (12) gives:
Incorporation of Singularity Programming Masuka-
wa and Horne2 and Sato13 applied singularity programming ko pD ps
in conjunction with boundary element methods to compute 2 pD 2 psD = D lnk pD (14)
k tD tD
pressure transients. Unlike the current study Satos solution
was performed in Laplace space. Singularity programming Noting that pD = pns s
D + pD Equation (14) can be simplifed
decomposes the solution into singular and nonsingular com- to:
ponents:   s
pD = pns s 2 ns k0 pns ko pD
D + pD (3) pD = D
+ 1 lnk (pns s
D + pD )
k tD k tD
The singular solution used in this work is based on the (15)
pressure response of a well flowing at a given rate in an
The right hand side of Equation (15) includes both the
infinite homogeneous reservoir with uniform permeability,
singular and nonsingular solutions. This does not present a
k0 (Dake14 ):
problem however since the singular solution is known and
  can be incorporated easily into the boundary element solu-
q ct r2
ps = pi + Ei (4) tion.
4k0 h 4k0 t
where Ei(x) is the exponential integral: Green Element Method To transform Equation (15)
Z s into an integral equation suitable for solution with GEM
e the right hand side terms, which do not depend on time or
Ei(x) = ds (5)
x s space derivatives of pns
D , are collected together:

Out of regard for numerical stability dimensionless vari- k0 pns

ables were used in the implementation of the singularity 2 pns
D =
D
lnk (pns
D)+f (16)
k tD
programming. The choice of dimensionless variables in this
work follows that of Sato13 : where  
ko psD
pi p f= 1 lnk (psD ) (17)
pD = (6) k tD
pi
x Equation (16) can be cast as an integral equation in the
xD = (7) usual manner by multiplying it by the Greens function G
A and integrating over the domain:
y
yD = (8) Z Z
A i ns pns (r)
pD (ri ) + K1 (r, ri )pns
D (r)d K2 (r, ri ) D d
q 2 n
qD = (9)
4k0 hpi ZZ  
k0 pns
k0 t = G D
lnk pns
D + f d (18)
tD = (10) k tD
ct A
Using this choice of variables the singular solution is: where
  G = K1 = ln(r ri ) (19)
2
s rD
pD = qD Ei (11) G(r, ri )
4tD K2 = (20)
n
To apply singularity programming in a heterogeneous The integrals in Equation (18) are then written as summa-
reservoir careful consideration must be made of the nonsin- tions over the elements:
gular solution. The GEM solution scheme will be used to
solve for the nonsingular solution. To ascertain what differ- XM Z
i ns
ential equation must be solved for the nonsingular solution pD (ri ) + K1 (r, ri )pns
D (r)d
consider the equations that govern the pressure and the sin- 2 e=1
e

gular part of the pressure. The pressure satisfies:

M Z
X
k0 pD pns
D (r)
2
pD = lnk pD (12) K2 (r, ri ) d
k tD e=1 e n
SPE 62916 ROSALIND A. ARCHER and ROLAND N. HORNE 3

M ZZ
X  
k0 pns Example 2: Reservoir with Closed Boundaries
= G D
lnk pns
D +f d (21) The value of using singularity programming in combination
e=1 e k tD
with the Green Element Method can be demonstrated by
Equation (21) can be written in a more compact form in comparing well tests simulated using this technique to well
terms of the element matrices R, L, U , V and T : tests simulated using a commercial finite difference simu-
lator. The first example is a well test in a closed square
XM   reservoir. The well is located at the center of the reservoir.
k0 p
Rij pj + Lij qj Uijl Vijl lnkj pl + Tij fj = 0 The simulator uses a standard Peaceman15 well index. The
e=1
kj tD reservoir properties are given in Table 1. The reservoir di-
(22) mensions are 3000ft by 3000ft.
Note that in Equation (22) the subscript and superscript The GEM solution used a mesh of 21 by 21 nodes and
have been dropped from pns D for clarity. the simulation used a grid of 21 by 21 cells. No local grid
Z refinement was used in the finite difference simulation. The
e G(r, ri ) reservoir is homogeneous, so an analytical solution could be
Rij = Nj d ij i (23)
e n generated for this problem. The finite difference simulation
Z is compared to this analytical solution in Figure 2. The
Leij = G(r, ri )Nj d (24) GEM simulation is shown in Figure 3.
e The well test response calculated using finite difference
ZZ simulation appears to show some wellbore storage effects,
Uijl = G(r, ri )Nj Nl d (25) however these are artifacts of the finite difference compu-
e tation approach. In the late part of the well test the data
simulated using finite difference simulation did not sense the
ZZ   closed boundary until much later than it should have.
e Nj Nl Nj Nl
Vijl = G(r, ri ) + d (26)
e x x y y Example 3: Gridding Study The performance of the
ZZ finite difference method in reproducing the pressure deriva-
tive curve was investigated further by running more finite
Tij = G(r, ri )Nj d (27)
e difference simulations. To assess the role of gridding the
simulation was repeated with both uniform and nonuniform
Equation(22) was solved using a fully implicit treatment i.e: grids. The grid parameters used are shown in Table 2. For
the nonuniform cases the geometric factor is the ratio be-
XM 
k0 pm+1 pm tween adjacent grid cell sizes i.e. in the last case the cell
Rij pm+1
j + Lij qjm+1 Uijl l l
containing the well is 5ft by 5ft and the adjacent cells are
e=1
kj t
6.5ft by 6.5ft. The grid used for the first nonuniform case

is shown in Figure 4.
Vijl lnkj pm+1
l + Tij fjm+1 = 0 (28)
The time stepping scheme was the same for all the mod-
els, both GEM and finite difference. The finite difference
Results solution was calculated and reported in the following man-
Example 1: Comparison to an Analytical Solution ner:
- 10 steps of 0.0001 days
Example 1: Well Test in a Closed Reservoir To - 10 steps of 0.001 days
test the combination of singularity programming and GEM - 10 steps of 0.01 days
a pressure transient was computed and compared to a tran- - 20 steps of 0.1 days
sient generated analytically. The reservoir properties are - all subsequent time steps one day
given in Table 1. The reservoir dimensions are 2500ft by
3000ft. The finite difference simulator was able to compute the
The grid used for the GEM solution of the nonsingular solution at intermediate times also if its time step control
component of the problem was a 10 by 10 mesh. The well algorithm required it.
was located in the center of the reservoir. Constant pressure The pressure and pressure derivative curves computed
boundaries were imposed on all sides. The resulting draw- using the uniform and nonuniform grids are shown in Fig-
downs are compared to the analytical solution in Figure 1. ures 5 to 10. The derivative curves for all the uniformly grid-
The agreement between the GEM and analytical solutions ded cases show that the effect of the boundary on the deriva-
is excellent. tive curve is resolved better as the grid is refined. However
even when the grid is refined to 101 by 101 cells the bound-
Examples 2 and 3: Comparison to Finite Difference ary location is still sensed incorrectly. All the uniformly
Solutions gridded cases exhibit a period of infinite-acting radial flow
4 THE GREEN ELEMENT METHOD FOR NUMERICAL WELL TEST ANALYSIS
before sensing the closed reservoir boundary. The nonuni-
formly gridded cases performed worse than the uniformly
gridded cases in their reproduction of the pressure deriva-
tive. The infinite-acting radial flow period did not appear.
Instead of remaining level during the time corresponding to
infinite-acting radial flow the derivative maintains a steady
downward slope.
The effects of the errors in the pressure derivative curve
in this suite of finite difference simulations were quantified
by treating each one as data in a well test analysis. The
interpretation was performed using a standard regression
procedure. The estimates for skin and permeability from
the regression are highly correlated so the skin was set to
zero in each case to ensure the treatment of the permeability
was consistent. The initial pressure was also fixed at its
true value of 2000psi. The wellbore storage coefficient was
set to zero. Regression was used to determine the reservoir
permeability and the location of the boundaries. The results
are shown in Table 3.
Recall that the true permeability is 150md and the true
boundary location is 1500ft. The uniformly gridded cases
all predict permeability values of 154-161md, which is due
to the regression trying to fit the early time derivative data
which appear to show wellbore storage. If the fit is per-
formed manually ignoring this data the true permeability
of 150md is predicted.
Example 4: Reservoir with Constant Pressure
Boundaries A well test was simulated in a reservoir with
the properties given in Table 1. The well was located in
the center of the reservoir and constant pressure boundary
conditions were applied on all sides. Finite difference sim-
ulation was used to simulate the well test. The constant
presure boundary was simulated by putting injection wells
in every cell along the boundary. The resulting well test
response is shown in Figure 11. The effect of the constant
pressure boundary was not well matched on the derivative
curve. The same well test was simulated using GEM com-
bined with singularity programming. The transient is shown
in Figure 12. This simulation captures the effect of the con-
stant pressure boundary accurately also.
Examples 5 and 6: Well Test Simulation without
Singularity Programming Two wells tests were modeled
to study the performance of the GEM simulation scheme
without singularity programming. The set of reservoir prop-
erties given in Table 4 were common to both models. The
boundary conditions applied were constant pressure bound-
ary conditions.
To assess how the strength of the singularity affects the
computed results two cases were considered. In the first case
(Example 5), k = 100md and qw = 100ST B/d and in the
second case (Example 6) k = 150md and qw = 50ST B/d.
The singularity in Example 5 is three times stronger than
in Example 6. The pressure and pressure derivative curves
computed when Example 5 and Example 6 were simulated
SPE 62916
using GEM without singularity programming are shown in
Figures 13 and 14. The analytical versions of these curves
are presented for comparison.
Figures 13 and 14 show that when singularity program-
ming is not used the match to the pressure is not as precise
as when singularity is applied (compare to Example 4, Fig-
ure 12). The early time behavior of the derivative curve
is matched poorly. Figure 15 illustrates how this poorly
matched derivative curve could be interpreted if it were
treated as true data in a classical well test analysis. The
match was performed on the derivative, and gave rise to
the estimates shown in Table 5.
The values in Table 5 are clearly erroneous, they demon-
strate the artificial wellbore storage effect that occurs in this
method as the well drains the grid block it is located in. Sin-
gularity programming is successful in avoiding this artifical
effect.
Conclusions
The simulated well test examples show that the combina-
tion of GEM and singularity programming can reproduce
pressure transients accurately in comparison to analytical
models. The proposed method was able to reproduce the
pressure derivative curve much more accurately than con-
ventional finite difference simulation. The use of singular-
ity programming was shown to be a key component of the
proposed method. When singularity programming was re-
placed by the use of a Peaceman15 well index the accuracy
of the method suffered significantly. The Peaceman well
index is not strictly appropriate for modeling pressure tran-
sient tests because it was derived for single-phase, steady-
state, radial flow in a homogeneous reservoir. Sato13 showed
that singularity programming was a useful tool when ap-
plied in conjunction with the perturbation boundary ele-
ment method. The well test modeled in Example 5 when
singularity programming was not used was also simulated
using finite difference simulation. Neither the GEM scheme
nor the finite difference scheme produced an accurate deriva-
tive match, however the GEM simulation accurately repro-
duced the effect of the reservoir boundaries on the derivative
curve.
Example 3 shows that the effect of a closed boundary on
the pressure derivative could not be reproduced accurately
by finite difference simulation. Using nonuniform gridding
exacerbated this problem and caused the infinite-acting ra-
dial flow period to be misrepresented in the pressure deriva-
tive curve. GEM in conjunction with singularity program-
ming produced accurate matches to every pressure transient
considered without being hampered by numerical artifacts.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the SUPRI-D research Con-
sortium on Innovation in Reservoir Testing for its financial
support.
SPE 62916 ROSALIND A. ARCHER and ROLAND N. HORNE 5

Nomenclature 8. Taigbenu, A. E.: The Green Element Method, Kluwer

c compressibility, psi1 Academic Publishers, 1999
G Greens function 9. Taigbenu, A. E. and Onyejekwe, O. O.: Green Element
h thickness, f t Simulations of the Transient Nonlinear Unsaturated Flow
k permeability, md Equation, Appl. Math. Modelling, 19, 1995, 675-684
L GEM element matrix 10. Archer, R.: Computing Flow and Pressure Transients
M total number of elements in Heterogeneous Media Using Boundary Element Methods,
r distance (radial), f t Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford U., 2000
p pressure, psi 11. Archer, R. and Horne, R. N.: Flow Simulation in Het-
q flowrate, ST B/d erogeneous Reservoirs Using the Dual Reciprocity Boundary
R GEM element matrix Element Method and the Green Element Method, Euro-
T GEM element matrix pean Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery VI,
t time, hours September 8-11, 1998, Peebles, Scotland
U GEM element matrix 12. Archer, R., Horne, R. N. and Onyejekwe, O. O.: Petro-
V GEM element matrix leum Reservoir Engineering Applications of the Dual Reci-
x distance, f t procity Boundary Element Method and the Green Element
y distance, f t Method, 21st World Conference on the Boundary Element
Method, 25 - 27 August, 1999, Oxford University, England
Greek 13. Sato, K.: Accelerated Perturbation Boundary Ele-
, porosity ment Model for Flow Problems in Heterogeneous Reservoirs,
, viscosity, cp Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford U., 1992
14. Dake, L. P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering,
Subscripts Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1978
D dimensionless
15. Peaceman, D. W.: Interpretation of Well-Block Pres-
i initial
sures in Numerical Reservoir Simulation, SPEJ, 253, 1978,
o reference
183-194
Superscripts
ns nonsingular
s singular SI Metric Conversion Factors
cp 1.0 E-03 =P a s
f t 3.048 E-01 =m
References
md 9.869233 E-04 =m2
1. Numbere, D. T. and Tiab, D.: An Improved Streamline- psi 6.894757 E+00 =kP a
Generating Technique that uses the Boundary (Integral) El-

ement Method, SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1988, Conversion factor is exact

1061-68
2. Masukawa, J. and Horne, R. N.: Application of the Table 1: Examples 1 to 4 - Reservoir properties
Boundary Integral Method to Immiscible Displacement Prob-
lems, SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1988, 1069-77 k 150 md
3. Kikani, J. and Horne, R. N.: Application of Boundary 0.3
Element Method to Reservoir Engineering Problems, Jour- 1 cp
nal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 1989, 229-241 pi 2000 psi
4. Kikani, J. and Horne, R. N.: Pressure-Transient Anal- qw 50 STB/d
ysis of Arbitrarily Shaped Reservoirs With the Boundary ct 10e-06 psi1
Element Method, SPE Formation Evaluation, 1992, 53-60 rw 0.3 f t
5. Sato, K. and Horne, R. N.: Perturbation Boundary h 50 f t
Element Method for Heterogeneous Reservoirs: Part 1 -
Steady-State Flow Problems, SPE Formation Evaluation,
1993, 306-314
6. Sato, K. and Horne, R. N.: Perturbation Bound-
ary Element Method for Heterogeneous Reservoirs: Part
2 - Transient Flow Problems, SPE Formation Evaluation,
1993, 315-322
7. Taigbenu, A. E.: A More Efficient Implementation of
the Boundary Element Theory, Proc. 5th International
Conference on Boundary Element Technology (BETECH
90), Newark, Delaware, 1990, 355-366
6 THE GREEN ELEMENT METHOD FOR NUMERICAL WELL TEST ANALYSIS SPE 62916

102

Table 2: Example 3 - Gridding study

10

Number of cells dx = dy, ft Gridding Geometric

style Factor
11 by 11 272.72 Uniform N/A

psi
1
21 by 21 142.85 Uniform N/A
41 by 41 73.17 Uniform N/A
GEM, p
101 by 101 29.70 Uniform N/A GEM, dp
Exact, p
37 by 37 10 to 223.83 Nonuniform 1.2 10-1
Exact, dp

45 by 45 5 to 189.68 Nonuniform 1.2

35 by 35 5 to 215.73 Nonuniform 1.3

10-2
10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104
time, hours

Figure 1: Example 1 - GEM + singularity programming

Table 3: Example 3 - Well test interpretation of finite dif- 102

ference simulations

Case Gridding Permeability Boundary 10

Style Estimate, md Estimate, ft

delta p, pressure derivative

11 by 11 Uniform 154 2750
21 by 21 Uniform 158 2380 1

41 by 41 Uniform 160 2047

101 by 101 Uniform 161 2024
37 by 37 Nonuniform 185 3430 10-1

45 by 45 Nonuniform 196 4010

35 by 35 Nonuniform 203 4000 Finite Difference, p
Finite Difference, dp
-2 Exact, p
10
Exact, dp

10-3
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
Time, hours
Table 4: Examples 4 and 5 - Reservoir properties
Figure 2: Example 2 - Finite difference simulation of well
0.3 test in closed reservoir
1cp 102

pi 2000 psi
ct 10e-06
aa
rw 0.3ft aa
aaaa b
aaaaaaa
10
aaaaaaaaaaaa b
h 50ft aaaaaa
a a a a a a a aa b
b
a b
b
Length 3000ft b
delta p, pressure derivative

b
b
b
Width 3000ft 1 b
b
bb
b
b b b b b b b bbb bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
b

10-1

a
Table 5: Example 5 - Regression matched parameters b
GEM, p
GEM, dp
-2 Exact, p
10
Exact, dp

Parameter Value Confidence Interval True Value

C 6.46 stb/psi 6.2e02 % 0 STB/psi
10-3
S -7.62 2.7 % 0 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103

k 48md 2.1e02% 50 md Time, hours

Figure 3: Example 2 - GEM simulation of well test in a

closed reservoir
SPE 62916 ROSALIND A. ARCHER and ROLAND N. HORNE 7

102

10

delta p, pressure derivative

1

a b
10-1

500 ft Finite Difference, p

Finite Difference, dp
Geometric factor = a/b Exact, p
-2
10
Exact, dp
Figure 4: Example 3 - Nonuniform grid
102

10-3
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
Time, hours
10
Figure 7: Example 3 - Pressure derivative for uniform 101
by 101 grid case
delta p, pressure derivative

10-1

Finite Difference, p
Finite Difference, dp
10-2 Exact, p
Exact, dp

102
10-3
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
Time, hours

Figure 5: Example 3 - Pressure derivative for uniform 11 by 10

11 grid case
102
delta p, pressure derivative

10

10-1
delta p, pressure derivative

1
Finite Difference, p
Finite Difference, dp
10-2 Exact, p
Exact, dp

10-1

10-3
Finite Difference, p 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
Finite Difference, dp Time, hours
10-2 Exact, p
Exact, dp
Figure 8: Example 3 - Pressure derivative for nonuniform
grid case 1
10-3
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
Time, hours

Figure 6: Example 3 - Pressure derivative for uniform 41 by

41 grid case
8 THE GREEN ELEMENT METHOD FOR NUMERICAL WELL TEST ANALYSIS SPE 62916

102 10
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a aa
a a aaaa
a a a aaaaaaa a a aaaaaaaa a a aaaaaaaa

10
1
b b b bbbbbbbb bbb
bb bbbbbbb b bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bb
delta p, pressure derivative

delta p, pressure derivative

bbb bb bbbbbbbb
b
b
1 b
b
b
10-1 bb
bb
b b
10-1
b
b b
b b b
Finite Difference, p a Finite Difference, p
Finite Difference, dp 10-2 b Finite Difference, dp
10-2 Exact, p Exact, p
Exact, dp Exact, dp

10-3 10-3 b b bb
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
Time, hours Time, hours

Figure 9: Example 3 - Pressure derivative for nonuniform Figure 11: Example 4 - Finite difference simulation of well
grid case 2 test in a reservoir with constant pressure boundaries

102 10
aa a a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaa a a aaaaa
aaa a a aaaa
a a a aaaa

10
delta p, pressure derivative

delta p, pressure derivative

1
b bbbbbbbb b b bbbbbbb b b bbbbbbb b b
b bb
b b
b
b
b
b
10-1 b
b
10-1 b
Finite Difference, p a GEM, p b
Finite Difference, dp b GEM, dp b
10-2 Exact, p Exact, p
Exact, dp Exact, dp b
b

b
10-3 10-2 bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
Time, hours Time, hours

Figure 10: Example 3 - Pressure derivative for nonuniform Figure 12: Example 4 - GEM simulation of well test in a
grid case 3 reservoir with constant pressure boundaries
SPE 62916 ROSALIND A. ARCHER and ROLAND N. HORNE 9

102

10
delta p, pressure derivative

10-1

GEM, p
GEM, dp
10-2 Exact, p
Exact, dp

10-3
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
Time, hours

Figure 13: Example 5 - GEM simulation without singularity 10

programming

1
delta p, pressure derivative

10-1

10
GEM, p
10-2 GEM, dp
Regression Match, p
Regression Match, dp

1
10-3
delta p, pressure derivative

10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103

Time, hours

Figure 15: Example 6 - Artificial skin/storage effect

10-1

GEM, p
10-2 GEM, dp
Exact, p
Exact, dp

10-3
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
Time, hours

Figure 14: Example 6 - GEM simulation without singularity

programming - example two