SPE 106922

New Flow Regimes for Well Near-Constant-Pressure Boundary

W. Sui, J. Mou, L. Bi, J. Deng, and C. Ehlig-Economides, Texas A&M U.

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1518 April 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). 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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Recent studies have shown field data exhibiting a negative half
slope trend in the pressure derivative that cannot be explained as
spherical flow. In one case the well was located in an elongated
fluvial reservoir bounded on one end by an aquifer acting as a
constant pressure boundary. In another case the well was also in
an elongated reservoir, this time crossed by a highly conductive
fault. None has shown a rigorous derivation for the analytical
equations for this flow regime.
This study derives flow regime equations for two new flow
regimes encountered by a well near a constant pressure
boundary. When there is no evidence of another nearby
boundary, the pressure derivative trends are radial flow until the
constant pressure boundary is encountered, and after that a
straight trend with negative unit slope is observed. This flow
regime is named here as dipolar flow. When the well is in an
elongated reservoir near a constant pressure boundary
perpendicular to the elongated direction, possible flow regimes
include radial, dipolar flow, linear flow, and a flow regime with
negative half slope, which is named here as dipole linear flow.
Normally falling derivative behavior due to a constant
pressure boundary is assumed to signal the end of any useful
parameter estimation, but the new dipole flow regimes are
sensitive to permeability and to the distances to the constant
pressure boundary and to boundaries defining the elongated
reservoir. This study shows how to use the flow regimes to
determine distances to closed and constant pressure boundaries,
and to identify bedding plane permeability anisotropy (kx from
well to constant pressure boundary, ky parallel to constant
pressure boundary plane). The new flow regimes are present in
standard single fault and rectangle models for pressure transient
behavior, but they have never been rigorously derived or
described.

Introduction
The plot of the log of the pressure change and its derivative with
respect to superposition time as a function of the log of elapsed
time was first introduced by Bourdet et al.1 as an aid to typecurve matching. Referring to the Bourdet plot as the log-log
diagnostic plot, Ehlig-Economides2,3 summarized relationships
between pressure derivative responses and flow geometries
described as flow regimes. In the past 20 years, flow regime
analysis has been accepted by industry and used widely in
commercial interpretation software.
A commonly encountered flow regime, a negative half slope
trend in the derivative is known as an indication of spherical or
hemispherical flow. Ehlig-Economides et al.4 studied in detail
this flow regime, which is associated with the limited entry
completion.
However, some field data exhibit a negative half slope in the
pressure derivative but cannot be interpreted as spherical or
hemispherical flow. Two cases can be found in literature. One
case is given by Escobar,5 who studied an elongated reservoir
with a constant pressure boundary normal to the elongation.
However, the author mistakenly named the negative half sloping
flow regime parabolic flow because he observed a parabolic
shape for the isobars created by a numerical simulator. In this
work, we will show the correct model does not give
parabolically shaped isobars. The other case was presented by
Al-Ghamdi et al.6 This time a highly conductive fault serves as
the constant pressure boundary in an elongated reservoir. This
paper showed field examples illustrating the same negative 1/2
slope trend and provided a model to match the data, but it did
not provide a flow regime equation for the behavior.
In both cases the well was located in an elongated reservoir
which is bounded on one end by a constant pressure boundary.
The schematic plan view is given in Fig. 1. Here the term
elongated reservoir means a long, narrow reservoir which
could have a stratigraphic origin such as fluvial deposition, or a
structural origin such as parallel sealing faults.5, 7-9
In addition, unlike the rapid drop in the pressure derivative
seen when a well is surrounded by a circular or square constant
pressure boundary, when the well is near a single lateral linear
constant pressure boundary, the pressure derivative drops with a
slope of -1. Physical examples of such a constant pressure
boundary include a downdip aquifer10 or an updip gas cap, or a
well near a finite conductivity fault.11 A diagram of a well near a
single constant pressure boundary is shown in Fig. 2. This figure
also illustrates that a well near a constant pressure boundary is
equivalent to the well plus an image well with a rate of opposite
sign at a distance twice that between the well and the constant
pressure boundary.

In the diagrams, the distance between the well and the

constant pressure boundary is denoted as dx. If the parallel
sealing boundaries exist, the reservoir width is denoted as b, and
the distance to the nearer sealing boundary is dy, the further
boundary, Dy. Additionally, the reservoir is assumed to be
homogeneous and its thickness is h.
In this paper, we name two new flow regimes, dipolar flow
and dipole linear flow, with characteristic derivative slopes of
negative one and negative one half, respectively. The name
dipolar flow was selected because this flow regime results from
the dipole represented by the well and its image with rate of
opposite sign. The name dipole linear was selected because in
this case the dipole is located in an elongated reservoir that
induces linear flow. Equations for the flow regimes are provided
along with how they can be used to determine reservoir
parameters of interest.
General Drawdown Model
Flow regimes are best understood by first examining the
behavior of the drawdown pressure transient. A general system
is depicted in Fig. 3 showing an elongated rectangle with two
long parallel sealing boundaries, one constant pressure boundary
relatively near the well, and one boundary either no flow or
constant pressure much further from the well. The reservoir
length is denoted as a, and the reservoir shape could be adjusted
by changing the ratio between reservoir length and width, a/b.
The cases in Figs. 1 and 2 are special cases of this general
model.
Assuming the nearest and furthest boundaries from the well
are constant pressure, and the well is located half way between
the two parallel sealing boundaries, the drawdown type curve
family was generated using commercial software without
wellbore storage in Fig. 4 and with wellbore storage in Fig. 5.
Figure 6 shows the same cases as in Fig. 4 with the furthest
boundary closed to flow. Table 1 lists the well and reservoir
parameters used to generate the figures.
Figures 4-6 show three reservoir shapes, Case I: a b , Case
II: a > b , and Case III: a >> b . Figure 4 exhibits 4 flow
regimes: radial, dipolar, linear, and dipole linear, with pressure
derivative slopes of 0, -1, 1/2, and -1/2 respectively.
Figure 4 also shows that the appearance and order of these
flow regimes are determined by the reservoir shape. In a square
reservoir, if the nearest boundary to the well is constant
pressure, and the other boundaries are much further from the
well, dipolar flow will follow radial flow. However, because the
other boundaries are nearly equidistant from the well, the distant
constant pressure boundary will induce steady-state flow, seen
as a sharp drop in the pressure derivative, before evidence of the
parallel sealing boundaries can be detected.
The situation in the elongated reservoir is more complicated.
As for the square reservoir, first radial flow develops around the
well until the nearest reservoir boundary is detected. Radial flow
could be followed by dipolar flow, linear flow or, dipole linear
flow, depending whether the well is nearest the constant
pressure boundary or the parallel sealing boundaries. If the well
is closest to a constant pressure boundary, dipolar flow is
observed and then dipole linear flow. If, instead, the constant
pressure boundary nearer the well is further away from the well
than the parallel sealing boundaries, linear flow may develop

SPE 106922

first, followed by dipole linear flow. If the well is equidistant to

the constant pressure and parallel sealing boundaries, then
dipole linear flow will follow radial flow.
It is interesting to note that dipolar flow and linear flow are
exclusive. Once one of them appears, the other one will not be
seen at all.
In Fig. 4, without wellbore storage effect, all the possible
flow regimes are visible. However, in practical interpretations, it
is very likely that the wellbore storage effect may mask radial
flow, dipolar flow, and even part of dipole linear flow. Figure 5
illustrates the same cases with a constant wellbore storage
effect.
Figure 6 shows the behavior in late time when the furthest
boundary is closed to flow. For drawdown, the first effect of the
closed boundary is a rise from the prevailing derivative trend.
When the pressure signal echos back to the constant pressure
boundary, the system finally reaches steady state, and the
pressure derivative drops steeply.
Figure 7 shows why the dipole linear flow regime should not
be called parabolic flow, as suggested by Escobar5. It can be
seen clearly that the isobars do not have a parabolic shape.
Dipolar Flow
By using the line source solution and superposition of image
wells, the following flow regime equation for dipolar flow was
obtained. Details are provided in Appendix A.
m d =

267728.5qB 2ct d x2
k 2h

(1)

where md is the slope of the straight line portion in a graph of

pressure change versus the reciprocal of elapsed time.
Alternatively, md can be determined as the value of any data
point in the portion of the data with a pressure derivative slope
of -1 multiplied by t for the same data point.
Figures 8-10 illustrate how to identify and use the dipolar
flow regime in practical interpretations. It should be noted that
the wellbore storage appears in all of the cases, as it does in
practical tests. Table 2 lists the well and reservoir parameters
used to generate these figures.
In Fig. 8, the wellbore storage effect and radial flow are
easily identified in early time. After the radial flow, the pressure
derivative shows a negative unit slope trend, indicating that a
constant pressure boundary must be the nearest boundary to the
well. The permeability is calculated from radial flow,
k=

70.6qB
,
mr h

(2)

where mr is the level of pressure derivative in radial flow

period. Meanwhile, the distance from well to the constant
pressure boundary could be determined either from the time of
departure from radial flow
dx = 2

0.0002637ktendradial
,
ct

(3)

or from a point taken in the portion of data following the -1

trend,

SPE 106922

dx =

md k 2 h

267728.5qB 2ct

(4)

In Fig. 9, dipolar flow is followed by dipole linear flow

which indicates the appearance of the lateral sealing boundaries
of the elongated reservoir. Based on this flow regime transition,
the timing of the departure from dipolar flow can be seen an
indication of the distance from the well to the nearest of the
parallel sealing boundaries. The spacing, b, between the parallel
boundaries is determined from the dipole linear flow regime
equation introduced in the next section.
In Fig. 10, the radial flow part is completely masked by
wellbore storage effect, making permeability determination
difficult. However, if seismic data shows the presence of an
aquifer or a highly conductive fault, permeability can be
determined from the flow regime equation for dipolar flow,
k = d x

267728.5qBct
.
m d h

(5)

Dipole Linear Flow

The flow regime equation for dipole linear flow is given as
follows, and the derivation is provided in Appendix B.
=
mdl

30823.6qBd x2
khb

(6)

is the slope of the straight line portion in a graph of

where mdl
pressure change versus the reciprocal of the square root of
elapsed time. Alternatively, mdl can be determined as the
value of any data point in the portion of the data with a pressure

derivative slope of -1/2 multiplied by 2 t for the same data

point.
In the previous section, Fig. 9 included dipole linear flow.
Solving Eq. 6 for b,
b=

30823.6qBd x2
m dl kh

(7)

On the other hand, if dipole linear flow appears following

linear flow, the reservoir width can be obtained from the results
of previous works9 in elongated reservoirs.
b=

8.168qB

mlf h k ct

12

(8)

where mlf is the slope of straight line in the p ~ t plot. Then

the distance to the constant pressure boundary could be
determined by
d x2

m khb
.
= dl
30823.6qB

(9)

Similarly, if dipole linear flow happens directly after radial

flow, the distance from the well to the constant pressure
boundary must be approximately the same as its distance to the
sealing boundaries, giving d x b 2 .

The cases until now have the well located half way between
the parallel sealing boundaries. Figure 11 shows two different
cases. In one case, as before the well is centered between the
parallel sealing boundaries. In the second case, the constant
pressure boundary is nearest to the well, one sealing boundary is
somewhat further away from the well, and the third sealing
boundary parallel to the second is still further away. From the
pressure derivative curve of the nonsymmetry case, we can see
that there is a slight deviation from the -1 trend when the first
sealing boundary is felt, followed by a return to the -1 trend.
This behavior is analogous to slope doubling for radial flow.
The timing of the departure form dipolar flow can be used to
estimate the distance to the nearer sealing boundary. Also,
compared to the symmetry case, the start time of dipole linear
flow in the nonsymmetry case is much later. As before, the
distance, b, between the parallel sealing boundaries can be
determined if the dipole linear flow regime is visible.
Buildup Diagnosis
Theoretically, the buildup type curves are similar to those in
drawdown tests. However, the results of buildup test depend on
the duration of the previous drawdown and the formation
properties.
In Figs. 12 and 13, we show two different buildup diagnostic
plots of an elongated reservoir by simulation. In Fig. 12, the
buildup test starts after a 10-hr drawdown, while it is 500 hrs in
Fig. 13. Due to the short drawdown time period in Fig. 12, the
buildup curve is distorted a lot by the superposition effect. From
Fig. 12, though we still can identify the flow regimes and
choose an appropriate reservoir model, the final match needs to
be done using nonlinear regression. Such distortions in the
buildup test can be avoided by a relatively long pre-drawdown,
which is the situation depicted in Fig. 13.
Interestingly, unlike the case for a circular or square
drainage area for which it is impossible to distinguish with a
buildup test whether the outer boundary is closed or constant
pressure, after sufficiently long drawdown, a buildup test does
distinguish the mixed boundary conditions and can nonuniquely
interpret them.
Field Example
A field example taken from Ref. 12 is used to validate the
model. A pressure drawdown test was run in a well in a
channelized reservoir in Columbia. Table 1 lists the well and
reservoir parameters for this example. The log-log diagnostic
plot is shown in Fig. 14.
Examination of diagnostic plot enables identification of
radial flow, followed by linear flow, followed by dipole linear
flow with derivative slopes of 0, 1/2, and -1/2, respectively.
The following match points were obtained:
(tp)r = mr = 60.38 , mlf = 148.57 from a specialized plot
of p vs t , and mdl = 870.53 from a specialized plot of p
vs 1 / t .
The permeability, k, can be calculated from radial flow using
Eq. 2,

SPE 106922

k=
=

70.6qB
mr h

(70.6)(1400)(1.07 )(3.5)
(60.38)(14)

= 438 md.

The distance to the parallel sealing pressure boundary is

given by Eq. 8,
8.168qB

b=
mlf h k ct
=

d
k x = k e x
dx

12

(8.168)(1400)(1.07 )
3.5
(148.57 )(14)( 438 ) (0.24)(9 10 6 )

= 358 ft.

The distance to the nearer constant pressure boundary is

calculated by Eq. 9,
m khb
d x = dl
30823.6qB
=

d y
k y = ke
dy

(11)

whenever the principle permeability directions are aligned with

the boundary directions.
When the principle permeability directions are not aligned
with the boundary directions, the observed directional
permeability16 is
1 cos 2 sin 2
,
=
+
k r k H max k H min

(12)

where kr is the permeability in some specific direction, and is

the counterclockwise angle with respect to kHmax. For isotropic
reservoir, kHmax = kHmin = kr.

(870.53)(438)(14)(358) 57921743
(30823.6)(1400)(1.07 )(3.5)

If ke = k x k y , we conclude that x and y are the directions of

= 300ft.

horizontal principal permeability, and kHmax = max(kx, ky), kHmin

The interpretated parameters are close to those given by

Escobar12 except the value of dx. A match with the data is shown
in Fig. 15.
Besides the methods we presented above, the intersection
timing methodology13, 14 can also be used to verify the distance
calculated by other ways. The related equations are given in
Appendix C. The distances b and dx can be verified by using
Eqs. C-2 and C-4. In Fig. 14, the intersection points are choosen
as tRL = 0.62 hr and tLDL = 6 hr respectively. Results are b = 345
ft, and dx = 302 ft, which are very close to the results calculated
above.
A second match with the data is shown in Fig. 16. Since
Escobar12 never mentions that the well or the reservoir are
fractured, it is difficult to explain why there would be such a
negative skin. The match in Fig. 16 has a skin of zero. This very
interesting result shows that even with so much detail in the
transient response, the interpretation is subject to nonuniqueness due to the possibility that wellbore storage has
masked the radial flow regime. However, as is often the case,
information on whether the well is naturally fractured or has
been hydraulically fractured would be very helpful in resolving
much of the ambiguity. Table 3 compares the 2 interpretions.
Effect of Bedding Plane Permeability Anisotropy
Since most elongated reservoirs are due to parallel stratigraphic
or structural features, bedding plane permeability anisotropy
may occur. For two dimensional flow, the bedding plane
geometric mean permeability is defined as
k e = k Hmax k Hmin

portion of pressure derivative response. Flow regime analysis

shows that different flow regimes are dominated by different
directional permeabilities. Ayestaran et al.15 examined the
possibility of combining seismic data and transient pressure test
data to quantify the large-scale anisotropic permeabilities. In the
elongated reservoir, if the distance to the sealing boundaries and
to the normal boundary could be determined from seismic data,
we could estimate kx and ky by

(10)

where kHmax and kHmin are the principle bedding plane

permeability values and ke can be calculated from the radial flow

= min(kx, ky). If k e k x k y , we can determine , kHmax, and

kHmin by solving
1
cos 2 1 sin 2 1
=
+

k H max
k H min
k r1

sin 2 2 cos 2 2
1
=
+
.

k H max
k H min
k r2

k e = k H max k H min

(13)

where k r1 and k r2 are the permeabilities in r1 and r2 directions

which depends on different flow regimes. The following
example illustrates this method in detail.
Anisotropy Example
A synthetic example was generated by commercial software to
illustrate the method of calculating anisotropic permeabilities.
Table 1 lists the well and reservoir parameters for this example,
including distances to boundaries that can be derived from
seismic data. The log-log diagnostic plot is shown in Fig. 17.
A match for this example assuming permeability isotropy is
shown in Fig. 18. Although this is an excellent match for the
data, the interpreted result is k = 700md, b = 322ft, dx = 277ft,
and dy = Dy = 161ft, and the distances are inconsistent with the
seismic data. This inconsistency is due to permeability
anisotropy. The following discussion explains how to use the
known distances to determine the principle permeabilities and
the angle of the maximum permeability tensor from north.
The following match points were obtained:

SPE 106922

(tp )r

= mr = 2.59 , tendradial = 0.072hr, mlf = 13.751 from

a specialized plot of p vs t or from the pressure derivative

plot.
Firstly, the geometric mean permeability, ke, is calculated
from the radial flow portion of pressure derivative response by
Eq. 2,
ke =
=

70.6qB
mr h

= 700 md.

When anisotropy exists, the infinite-acting radial flow is

distorted to be an elliptical flow whose shape is determined by
the horizontal maximum and minimum principle permeabilities.
Observing that linear and dipole linear flow appear after
elliptical flow, indicates that the elliptical flow encounters the
nearest parallel sealing boundary first. This indicates the
permeability in the r1 direction along which the pressure change
feels the elongation boundary first.
The angle is the counterclockwise angle with respect to r1
direction. Considering the shortest time to reach the sealing
boundary provides an equation including the deviation angle .
The timing point of the departure from radial flow is given by
Eq. 3 by replacing dx with r1,

(r1 2)2 ct
0.0002637k r1

(14)

where
r1 = d y cos ,

(15)

1
cos ( ) sin ( )
=
+
.
k r1
k H max
k H min
2

(16)

Substituting Eq. 15 and 16 into Eq. 14 and rearrangement

yields
t endradial ( ) =

d y2ct
4 0.0002637k H max k H min

k H min cos 2 ( ) + k H max sin 2 ( )

.
cos 2

(17)

To find out the leading to the minimum tendradial,

( ) = 0 , which yields
let tendradial
k H min tan ( )
=
.
k H max
tan

2 cos 2 ct

0.0002637t endradial

(100 2)2 (0.2)(1.4)(1 10 5 )

(0.0002637 )(0.072)cos 2

= 368.7 cos 2 .

Linear flow is donominated by kx, so we consider x direction

as the r2 direction. Once the linear flow develops, the
permeability in x direction can be calculated by rearranging Eq.
8,

(70.6)(500)(1.1)(1.4)
(2.59)(30)

t endradial =

k r1

(d y
=

(18)

Additionally, the permeability in r1 direction, k r1 , is

calculated from the timing of the departure from radial flow by
rearranging Eq. 3 and replacing dx with r1,

8.168qB

k r2 = k x =
bmlf h

ct

(8.168)(500)(1.1)
(1.4)

=
(
)(
)(
)
300
13
.
751
30
(
)
0
.
2
1 10 5

= 922.4 md.
2

Substitute k r1 and k r2 into Eq. 13, and combine Eq. 13 with

Eq. 18, we can determine , , kHmax, and kHmin by solving

1
cos 2 ( ) sin 2 ( )
,
=
+

2
k H max
k H min
368.7 cos

2
2
1 = cos ( 2) + sin ( 2 ) ,
k H max
k H min
922.4

k e = k H max k H min ,
k
tan ( )
H min =
.
tan
k H max

(19)

The solution is kHmax = 2150.1md, kHmin = 227.9md, = 21,

and the anisotropic angle from y direction is 67. The
anisotropic ratio is k Hmax k Hmin = 9.4 . A plan view of the
permeability configuration is shown in Fig. 19. The calculation
results are very close with the real solution, kHmax = 2213.5md,
kHmin = 221.4md, k Hmax k Hmin = 10 , and = 75.
Conclusions
Two new flow regimes called dipolar flow and dipole linear
flow have been studied and identified by their signals on
pressure derivative curves, -1 and -1/2 slope respectively. The
physical meanings of dipolar flow and dipole linear flow are
discussed and the flow regime equations are presented. Also,
practical interpretation techniques are provided by way of
examples.
Nomenclature
a = reservoir length, ft
b = reservoir width, ft
B = formation volume factor, RB/STB
C = wellbore storage coefficient, bbl/psi
ct = total compressibility, psi-1
dx = well testing distance to the near constant pressure
boundary, ft
dxD = dimensionless distance, dipole linear flow

d x = actual distance to the near constant pressure

boundary, ft
dy = well testing distance to the lateral sealing boundary,
ft
d x = actual distance to the lateral sealing boundary, ft
h = formation thickness, ft
k = permeability, md
ke = geometric mean permeability, md
kHmax = horizontal maximum principal permeability, md
kHmin = horizontal minimum principal permeability, md
kr = directional permeability, md
kx = permeability from the well to constant pressure
boundary, md
ky = permeability parallel to constant pressure plane, md
p = pressure, psi
pi = initial reservoir pressure, psi
pD = dimensionless pressure
pD = dimensionless pressure derivative
q = oil-well production rate, B/D
rw = wellbore radius, ft
rD = dimensionless distance, radial flow
t = time, hours
tD = dimensionless time
tDb = dimensionless time for linear flow
tDDL = intersection of dipolar line and dipole linear line, hr
tendradial = the timing point at which radial flow ends, hr
tLDL = intersection of linear line and dipole linear line, hr
tRD = intersection of radial line with dipolar line, hr
tRL = intersection of radial line with linear line, hr
xD = dimensionless distance, linear flow
= counterclockwise angle with respect to the horizontal
maximum permeability, degree
= counterclockwise angle with respect to the direction
of pressure diffusion, degree
= formation porosity, %
= fluid viscosity, cp
= diffusivity coefficient
Abbreviations/Subscript
d = dipolar
r = radial
l = linear
dl = dipole linear
IARF = infinite-acting radial flow
WBS = wellbore storage

References
1. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A., and Pirard, Y.M.: Use of Pressure
Derivative in Well Test Interpretation, SPEFE (June 1989) 293.
2. Ehlig-Economides, C.: Use of Pressure Derivative for Diagnosing
Pressure-Transient Behavior, JPT (October 1988) 1280.
3. Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D., and Ehlig-Economides, C.: Petroelum
Production Systems, Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey (1994) 251.
4. Ehlig-Economides, C.A., Nduonyi, M., and Abiazie J.: Test Design
for Vertical Permeability Determination from a Conventional
Pressure Buildup Test, paper SPE 103680 presented at the 2006
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
24-27 September.
5. Escobar, F.H. et al.: New Finding on Pressure Response in Long,
Narrow Reservoirs, J. CT&F (November 2005) 151.

SPE 106922

6.

Al-Ghamdi, A., BinAkresh, S.A., and Bubshait, S.A.:

Characterization of Conductive Faults and Fractures Responsible
for Inter-reservoir Communication in the Shedgum Leak Area of the
Giant Ghawar Field, Saudi Arabia, paper SPE 81517 presented at
the SPE 13th Middle East Oil Show&Conference, Bahrain, 9-12
June.
7. Nutakki, R. and Mattar, L.: Pressure Transient Analysis of Wells in
Very Long Narrow Reservoirs, paper SPE 11221 presented at the
1982 SPE Annual Technical Coference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, 26-29 September.
8. Kohlhaas, C.A., del Giudice, C., and Abbott, W.A.: Application of
Linear and Spherical Flow Analysis Techniques to Field Problems
Case Studies, paper SPE 11088 presented at the 1982 SPE Annual
Technical Coference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 26-29 September.
9. Ehlig-Economides, C. and Economides, M.J.: Pressure Transient
Analysis in an Elongated Linear Flow System, SPEJ (December
1985) 839.
10. Ehlig-Economides, C.: Model Dignosis for Layered Reservoirs,
SPEFE (September 1993) 215.
11. Abbaszadeh, M. and Cinco-Ley, H.: Pressure Transient Behavior
in a Reservoir with Finite-Conductivity Fault, SPEFE (March 1995)
26.
12. Escobar, F.H. et al.: Pressure and Pressure Derivative Analysis for
Linear Homogeneous Reservoirs without Using Type-Curve
Matching, paper SPE 88874 presented at the 2004 SPE Annual
International Technical Conference and Exhibition, Abuja, Nigeria,
2-4 August.
13. Tiab, D.: Analyses of Pressure and Pressure Derivatives Without
Type-Curve Matching: ISkin and Wellbore Storage, paper SPE
25426 presented at the 1993 Production Operation Symposium,
Oklahoma city, Oklahoma, 21-23 March.
14. Tiab, D.: Analyses of Pressure and Pressure Derivatives Without
Type-Curve Matching: IIIVertically Fractured Wells in Closed
Systems, paper SPE 26138 presented at the 1993 Western Regional
Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, 26-28 May.
15. Ayestaran, L.C. et al.: Well Test Design and Final Interpretation
Improved by Integrated Well Testing and Geological Efforts, paper
SPE 17945 presented at the 1989 SPE Middle East Oil Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, 11-14 March.
16. Chen, H. et al.: Estimation of Permeability Anisotropy and Stress
Anisotropy From Interference Testing, paper SPE 49235 presented
at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, 27-30 September.
17. Miller, F.G.: Theory of Unsteady-State Influx of Water in Linear
Reservoirs, J. Inst. Pet. (November 1962) 365.

Appendix A. Flow Regime Equation for Dipolar Flow

Figure 2 shows that the single lateral constant pressure boundary
at a distance bx from the well is easily modeled as a well with
rate q plus an image well with rate q located across the
boundary at the same distance bx. The line-source solution is
given as
pD =

1 rD2
Ei
2 4t D

(A-1)

where the dimensionless variables are defined as

pD =
tD =

kh( pi p )
,
141.2qB

0.0002637 kt

ct rw2

(A-2)

(A-3)

SPE 106922

rD =

r
,
rw

(A-4)

and Ei symbolizes the well known exponential integral,

Ei( x ) =

x D2
t Db
pD

exp
=2
4t D
xD
x D2
b

(A-5)

By superposition of two linear flows, the wellbore pressure

of the producer is
p D = ( p D ) producer + ( p D )injector .

(A-6)

kh pi p wf

pD =
t Db =

141.2qB
0.0002637kt

Thus for a draw down test, the pressure difference is

r2

Ei D
4t
D

xD =

(A-7)

1
exp
4t D

r2

exp D
4t
D

(A-8)

Using the Taylor expansion to approach, the pressure

derivative in the log-log plot is
dp D rD2 1
=
.
dt D
8t D2

Since rD >>1, Eq. A-9 is approximated as

dp D rD2 1 rD2
=
2 .
dt D
8t D2
8t D

(B-1)

(A-9)

(B-2)

(B-3)

x
,
b

(B-4)

and erfc symbolizes the complementary error function,

exp( y 2 )dy .

(B-5)

By superposition of two linear flows, the wellbore pressure

of the producer is
p D = ( p D ) producer + ( p D )injector .

(B-6)

d xD =

dx
,
b

(B-7)

for a draw down test, the pressure difference is

(A-10)

(A-11)

which is the flow regime equation of dipolar flow.

Substitute the dimensionless variables in
m
267728.5qB 2ct d x2
dp
=
= d .
d ln t
t
k 2 ht

),

Defining another dimensionless parameter,

Therefore, we have
dp
r2
dp D
= tD D = D ,
dt D
d (ln t D )
8t D

ct b 2

erfc( x) =

The pressure derivative in terms of time is then

dp D
1
=
dt D
2t D

where the dimensionless variables are defined as

e y
dy .
y

1 1
p D = Ei
2 4t D

erfc x D
2 t

Db

d2
p D = 2 t Db 1 exp xD
tD

d
+ 2d xD erfc xD
tD
b

(B-8)

The pressure derivative in terms of time is

(A-12)

Appendix B. Flow Regime Equation for Dipole Linear

Flow
Escobar5 uses images of the line source solution to provide the
model for dipole linear flow (which he calls parabolic flow). A
simpler derivation for the dipole linear flow regime equation
uses the plane source solution, which applies once linear or
dipole linear flow is established.
As for dipolar flow, the constant pressure boundary at a
distance bx from the well is easily modeled as a well with rate q
plus an image well with rate q located across the boundary at
the same distance bx, this time using the planar source solution
for each well to represent the effect of the parallel sealing
boundaries. This approximation will apply until the pressure
transient disturbance reaches the far boundary.
The dimensionless planar source solution of the diffusivity
equation between two infinite parallel bed boundaries was given
by Miller17

dp D
=
dt Db

t Db

d2
1 exp xD
tD

(B-9)

For large enough t, the exponential term in Eq. B-9 can be

approximated by Taylor expansion, and

dp D
=
dt Db

t Db

2
d xD
.
t Db

(B-10)

Therefore,
1

dp D
dp D
2
= t Db
= d xD
t D2 ,
b
dt Db
d ln t Db

(B-11)

which is the flow regime equation of dipole linear flow given by

Escobar without derivation.
Substituting for the dimensionless variables in Eq. B-10
gives

SPE 106922

(3) Intersection of dipolar line with dipole linear line.

m
15411.8qBd x2 2
dp
=
t = dl .
d ln t
khb
2 t

(B-12)

(t D pD )d

Appendix C. Characteristic Lines and Points

(1) Intersection of radial line with dipolar line.
2
(t D pD )d = rD , (t D pD )r = 0.5 .
8t D
dx =

0.0002637kt RD
.
ct

b=2

b=2

(C-1)

0.0002637kt DDL
.
ct

(tD pD )l =
dx =

t Db , (t D pD )r = 0.5 .

0.0002637kt RL
.
ct

rD2
2
, (t D pD )dl = d xD
tD2 .
b
8t D

(C-3)

(4) Intersection of linear line with dipole linear line.

(2) Intersection of radial line with linear line.

(tD pD )l =

(C-2)

t Db

2
, (t D pD )dl = d xD
tD2 .

0.0002637kt LDL
.
ct

(C-4)

SPE 106922

TABLE 1RESERVOIR AND FLUID PROPERTIES

General Drawdown
Anisotropy
Field Example
Example
Cases
0.3
100

0.51
14

0.1

0.24

0.2

3.5
1.07
9E-6
1400

1.4
1.1
1E-5
500
700
10

dy, ft

1
1
3E-6
1000
33
1
400, 1200, 6400
400
25, 50, 100, 200, 400
200

Dy, ft

200

, cp
B, RB/STB
-1
ct, psi
q, B/D
k, md
kHmax/kHmin
a, ft
b, ft
dx, ft

dx

0.33
30

Fig. 2: Diagram of a well near a single constant pressure

boundary.

Dy
300
530
100

closed or
constant pressure

rw, ft
h, ft
,

dx

dx

dx

Dx
dy

200

a
TABLE 2RESERVOIR AND FLUID PROPERTIES FOR THREE
DRAWDOWN TESTS WITH DIPOLAR FLOW

, cp
B, RB/STB
-1
ct, psi
k, md
q, B/D
Test 1
0.0001
400
400
25
200

C, bbl/psi
a, ft
b, ft
dx, ft
dy, ft

Test 2
0.0005
3000
800
75
400

0.3
100
0.1
1
1
3E-6
33
1000
Test 3
0.001
400
400
25
200

Fig. 3: Diagram of a general system in which a well is near the

constant pressure boundary.
1000

100
p and p', psi

rw, ft
h, ft
,

slope: 1/2

slope: -1/2

10

slope: -1
1

0.1

II

III

0.01
0.001

0.1

10

100

1000

10000

t, hr

Fig. 4: General Drawdown type curve family without wellbore

storage effect. Three different reservoirs are, I a/b =1, II a/b
=3, and III a/b =16.
1000

100
p and p', psi

TABLE 3COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS

FOR FIELD EXAMPLE
Interpretation 1
Interpretation 2
C, bbl/psi
0.0969
0.1268
-4.37
0
S
k, md
425
2321
a, ft
1070
2250
b, ft
340
170
dx, ft
340
1103
Dx, ft
730
1147
dy, ft
155
82
Dy, ft
185
88

0.01

10

0.1

Dy
dx

b
dy

Fig. 1: The schematic plan view of a linear oil reservoir one end
bounded by constant pressure boundary.

0.01
0.001

0.01

0.1

II
10

III
100

1000

10000

t, hr

Fig. 5: General Drawdown type curve family with wellbore

storage effect (C=0.01bbl/psi). Three different reservoirs are, I
a/b =1, II a/b =3, and III a/b =16.

10

SPE 106922

1000

1000

100

10

p and p', psi

p and p', psi

100

0.1

10

WBS
0.01

Dipolar

IARF

flow

0.1

I
0.001
0.001

0.01

0.1

II
10

100

III
1000

0.01
0.001

10000

t, hr

Fig. 6: General drawdown type curve familty with further no flow

boundary. Three different reservoirs are, I a/b =1, II a/b =3,
and III a/b =16.

0.01

0.1

Dipole
linear
flow

10

100

Fig. 9: Drawdown test 2 with WBS, radial flow, dipolar flow, and
dipole linear flow.
1000

100
p and p', psi

t=0.1 hr Radial flow

t=1 hr Linear flow

10

WBS

Dipolar flow

0.1

t=30 hrs Dipole linear flow

0.01

Fig. 7: Simulated isobaric contours for the elongated reservoir

(a = 6400ft, b = 400ft, dx = 400ft).

100
p and p', psi

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

t, hr

Fig. 10: Drawdown test 3 with WBS and dipolar flow.

1000

10

WBS

IARF

Dipolar flow

0.1

0.01
0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

t, hr

Fig. 8: Drawdown test 1 with WBS, radial flow, and dipolar flow.

1000

t, hr

10

SPE 106922

11

1000

1000

4950 ft

p and p', psi

1000 ft

1250 ft

Reservoir-2

10

5000 ft

p and p', psi

100

tLDL = 6 hr
100

tRL = 0.62 hr
mr = 60.38 psi

0.1

0.01

625 ft

4950 ft

625 ft

Reservoir-1

10
1250 ft

0.1

100

Fig. 14: Pressure and pressure derivative log-log plot for field
example.
0.1

10
t, hr

100

1000

10000

Fig. 11: Drawdown test with radial flow, dipolar flow, and dipole
linear flow in two different reservoirs.

Buildup

100

1000

p and p, psi

1000

p and p', psi

10
t, hr

5000 ft

0.001
0.01

10

Drawdown
1

0.1
0.01

tp

100
t, hr

Fig. 15:
example.

0.1

10

100

Interpretation 1 by commercial software for field

1000

t, hr
Fig. 12: Comparison of buildup and drawdown type curves in
elongated reservoir, the superposition effect exists for a short
drawdown flow period.

Buildup

100
p and p', psi

p and p, psi

1000

1000

10

Drawdown

tp

0.1
0.01

0.1

10

100

1000

t, hr

Fig. 13: Comparison of buildup and drawdown type curves in

elongated reservoir, there is little superposition effect for a long
drawdown flow period.

t, hr
Fig. 16: Interpretation 2 by commercial software for field
example.

12

SPE 106922

100

10

p and p, psi

p and p', psi

1000

0.1
0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

100

t, hr

Fig. 17: Log-Log diagnostic plot of synthetic anisotropy

example.

kHmax

kr

ky

kx
kHmin
Fig. 19: Plan view of permeability configuration.

100

t, hr

Fig. 18: Match result of the anisotropy example when assuming

isotropic permeability field.