SPE 64753

Analyzing Pressure Transient Test in Semi-Infinite and Finite Reservoirs Using DeSuperposition Method
Shi-Yi Zheng*, Heriot-Watt University; George Stewart*, EPS and Patrick Corbett*, Heriot-Watt University
* SPE Members
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition in China held in Beijing, China, 710 November 2000.
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, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Conventional well test interpretation is dominated by the
analysis of pressure BuildUp (BU). The method for analyzing
BU is derived by the principal of superposition based on the
constant terminal rate DrawDown (DD) solution of an
infinite reservoir with uniform properties. The presentation
of the diagnostic plot (log-log plot) and flow regime
identification from the pressure derivative curve in the Late
Time Region (LTR), in particular, critically rely on time
functioning. The most popular time functioning used for well
test analysis is Horner and Agarwal equivalent time. However,
these time functioning methods are not reliable for the LTR
analysis. When linear (semi-infinite fluvial channel or
compartmentalized systems) and pseudo-steady-state flow
(finite or closed system) are present, the flow regime
diagnostic at LTR using Horner or Agarwal equivalent time
frequently result in a false definition of flow regime and
misleads the analyst.
The de-superposition method can present the pressure BU
in the same way as that for a DD, so the ambiguity in
identifying the LTR behavior can be resolved. On the other
hand, the DD LTR behavior (pressure derivative) in semiinfinite or finite reservoir systems is very valuable for the
identification of the reservoir external boundary conditions
(even though it is usually not good to define the radial flow
region due to the rate fluctuation and often, incorrect
production history input). Experience has proved that BU
analysis using the de-superposition method combined with DD
LTR analysis can provide much more confident well test

analysis.
In this paper, two field examples conducted in the fluvial
gas reservoirs in the Gulf of Thailand have been interpreted in
this way. At first, one of the tests has been analyzed using the
conventional method by ignoring the DD. Then, the
examination of DD LTR and the analysis of pressure BU
using de-superposition method have been conducted to show
where analysis was wrong in the first approach. Following the
same procedures, the second test has been interpreted to
further demonstrate the value of de-superposition method in
analyzing test conducted in reservoirs with limited extent.
Introduction
Gas reservoirs in the Pattani Basin, Gulf of Thailand were
formed in fluvial depositional environment (Fig.1). Economic
gas reserves were discovered at a reservoir depth from about
8100-ft 9800 ft. of Tertiary fluvial channel sand. The field is
highly affected by normal faulting. Numerous discontinuous
reservoirs exist in fluvial sands within a thick Miocene
succession. The reservoir compartments are relatively small,
and DST tests are often dominated by LTR boundary response
because of the limited reservoir size. The analysis of well tests
conducted in the area often show linear flow and pseudosteady-state flow (reservoir depletion), which confirmed that
the tested reservoir blocks are either semi-infinite or finite
extents9.
Within a DST testing period, DD can capture the LTR
response nicely in these reservoir systems due to their smaller
size. But the following BU often missed this signature because
it needs at least one and a half to two times of the preceding
DD duration to be able to identify such boundary response7. In
practice, this requirement can not be always satisfied due to
the economic and operational reasons.
One of the main objectives for well testing during the field
appraisal stage is to estimate the reservoir productivity. This
can be achieved by stabilising radial flow during the test. The
analysis of the radial flow period will give the formation flow
capacity as well as the permeability. However, its impossible
to extract such reservoir parameter by analyzing DD due to the
difficult in identifying the radial flow regime/period on the
pressure derivative curve. This has been resulted from the rate
fluctuation and phase segregation of high velocity gas during
flowing period.

SHI-YI ZHENG, GEORGE STEWART AND PATRICK CORBETT

According to the theory of pressure transient analysis, with

the DD at as high as practically available constant rate for a
flowing period so that the final flow regime has been
stabilized, there is no need for an extended BU as long as the
semi-log straight line can be defined. Then the preliminary
analysis results such as reservoir permeability, initial reservoir
pressure and skin can be derived. However, in reality, the rate
of DD started from zero can never be constant. The averaged
constant rate usually has a tolerance of 10%, which makes it
impossible to identify the regions or flow regimes from
the derivatives on the diagnostic plot. Then, the definition of
the semi-log straight line from DD is always questionable.
This often leads to the over or under estimation of the
reservoir flow capacity due to the uncertainty in the slope of
the semi-log straight line. So, the analysis of pressure BU
becomes prevailing, in which the rate is constant (depending
on the preceding DD rate history). The resolution of the
pressure derivative is improved enough for the diagnostic of
the flow regimes experienced by the preceding DD. However,
an inherent problem here is that BU LTR derivative signature
is often skewed due to the error in the DD history input and
the use of the time functioning3.
The correct interpretation of the BU LTR boundary
response requires the sound knowledge about the preceding
DD history (rate history and the duration of flowing time),
reservoir heterogeneity (geology) and time function used. This
is critical, in particular, for the reservoirs with limited extent
such as fluvial channel reservoirs.
Since well test analysis results depend on the interpretation
model, the change of LTR interpretation will lead to the
change of the corresponding model. If the diagnostic of the
flow periods from the BU data can not reflect the flow regimes
experienced by the preceding DD, the parameters derived
from the BU analysis are clearly not reliable due to the
uncertainty in the selection of the interpretation model. Not to
mention the interpretation of the LTR response, which will
yield the information about the reservoir boundary conditions.
In this paper, two field examples from the fluvial gas
reservoirs in the Gulf of Thailand have been analyzed by
considering the aspects addressed above. Both DD and BU
have been analyzed using superposition and desuperposition
methods. The problems in analyzing pressure transient from
finite and semi-infinite reservoirs by using the traditional
superposition method have been demonstrated. The correct
procedures of analyzing such pressure data are presented.
Due to the nature of non-uniqueness of the transient
pressure response (solution), the geological information must
be integrated in well test analysis. The correct use of the time
functioning by considering the testing time; preceding
production history and aware of its impact on the late time
transient Behaviour is of great importance to ensure the
correct selection of the interpretation model, so that the true
reservoir properties or heterogeneities as well as the reservoir
geometry can be derived9.

SPE 64753

The Theory of Superposition and De-Superposition

The theory of pressure transient analysis is analogous to the
theory of heat transfer in solids2. The solution for constant rate
DD analysis was derived with the assumption that the
reservoir is infinite acting, and has uniform properties. The
method for BU analysis was developed on this basis by
applying the superposition principle. In general, as shown in
Fig.2, the following two methods are used for BU analysis: (1)
time functioning which compresses the time scale, and
corrects the pressure difference due to the preceding
production history. (2) de-superposition which keeps the shutin time as it is, but stretches the BU data vertically to the
corresponding pressure point derived from the extrapolation of
the preceding DD pressure. In case (1), examples include the
use of Horner and Agarwal time functions, in which Agarwal
equivalent time over correction problem is frequently found
in the practice, because they are not valid for pressure analysis
in finite and, semi-infinite (channel) reservoirs. The case (2)
method, i.e. de-superposition method3 can resolve the over
correction problem, and is always recommended for the
analysis of pressure transient in channel and reservoirs with
limited extents.
Before these methods can be applied, it is worth while to
review the fundamentals of the theory and address the limits
of the different methods. Then, both the desuperposition and
the superposition methods will be used to analyze the field
examples.
Superposition Theory
The principle of superposition says that the response of the
system to a number of perturbations is exactly equal to the
sum of the responses to each of the perturbations as if they
were present by themselves5. This principle has allowed the
application of the constant terminal rate DD solution of the
diffusivity equation to more complex reservoirs. The
application in general includes the following two cases: (1)
superposition with respect to time, in which the pressure
response can be analyzed by treating variable rate DD history
as the sum of subdivided flow intervals, during which the rates
are relatively constant. (2) Superposition with respect to
distance, in which the pressure response of a well located in a
semi-infinite reservoir can be analyzed as the infinite reservoir
by using image wells.
A typical example for case (1) is the BU analysis method
derived by Theis (1935) a French hydrologist, now
associated with the name of Horner in the petroleum literature,
in which a pressure response from a BU of time t following a
producing time (DD) of tp can be reproduced by considering
the history as a two rate test. The superposition of the DD
solution during tp by considering +q and solution during t by
considering q yields the famous Horner time function for the
BU analysis (Fig.3). The pressure DD solution derived is
expressed as:

Pwf (t p ) = Pi m log(t p )

(1)

ANALYSING PRESSURE TRANSIENT TEST IN SEMI-INFINITE AND FINITE RESERVOIRS USING DE-SUPERPOSOTION METHOD

SPE 64753

A plot of the well bottom hole flowing pressure Pwf versus

producing time tp on a semi-log plot will show a semi-log
straight line, where the slope, m can be derived and the
reservoir permeability can be calculated by using the
following equation:

m = 162.6

qBo
kh

(2)

Considering the pseudo-producing time

t p (cumulative

production divided by most recent rate), applying the principle

of superposition, in an infinite acting reservoir, Horner has
derived a formulation for BU analysis, which relate the well
shut in pressure Pws to

t p + t
t

as semi-log relationship:

t p + t
Pws (t p + t) = Pi m log
t
t p + t

Where,

...(3)

is termed Horner superposition time.

In the Agarwal equivalent time formulation, both DD and

BU solutions in equations (1) and (3) have been considered.
As shown in Fig.4:

Pws (t p + t) Pwf (t p )
...(4)
t p + t
= m log(t p ) m log
t
Since Pwf (t p ) = Pws (t = 0) , replacing this into equation
(4):

Pws (t p + t) Pwf (t p ) = Pws (t p + t) Pws (t = 0)

t t
t p + t
p

= m log(t p ) m log
= m log
t
t p + t
(5)
Where:

t e =

t p t
t p + t

...(6)

has been defined by Agarwal as equivalent time1, when the

BU pressure response evaluated at time t is equal to the DD
pressure response evaluated at time t e . A semi-log plot
using this time function will yield a straight line with slope m,
which is the same as that in the Horner formulation.
As shown in Fig.4, if the well continues to produce after tp for
a time t p + t instead of being shut-in, the well bottom hole
flowing pressure will be:

Pwf (t p + t) = Pi m log(t p + t)

...(7)

The pressure drop between well shut-in pressure at tp and the

pressure at the end of further production for a time t p + t is:

Pwf (t p + t) Pwf (t p )
= m log(t p + t ) + m log(t p )

...(8)

tp
=B
= m log
t p + t
which is a constant for certain producing and shut-in time.
Further examination of equation (5) gives rise to the following
expression:

Pws (t p + t) Pws (t = 0)
t p t
tp
= m log
+ m log(t) ...(9)
= m log
t p + t
t p + t
= B + m log(t)
For large value of tp (long production) and relatively small
shut-in time (especially t < 0.1t p ), t p + t t p and

tp

t p + t

1 , so B=0. The well shut-in pressure now, reduces

from a function of equivalent time to a function of well shut-in

time t , which is MDH formulation. Under this condition,
comparing equation (9) with DD solution in equation (1) and
replace tp with t , it is clear that the BU is exactly the same
as DD, but with a different sign. In another word, BU is a
reverse process of DD.
The typical example for case (2) is the transient pressure
analysis method for a well near an no-flow boundary. In this
case, the pressure response from a well near a no-flow
boundary can be treated as two identical wells producing with
the same rates +q, and located at the same distance to the noflow boundary. The superposition of the DD solution from the
two wells yields the solution for one well flowing near an noflow boundary such as a fault.
However, these are all based on the DD solution with the
assumptions of infinite acting reservoir having uniform
properties. When these conditions are not satisfied, any results
derived by using the method described above are not valid. So,
the alternative method for well test analysis in the
heterigeneous reservoir systems should be used. One of such
methods is the de-superposition method.
De-Superposition Theory
The analysis of a pressure BU test in a developed reservoir
situation using DD theory applied to the difference between
the well shut-in pressure pws and the DD extrapolated pressure,
ex
1, 6
p ex
. When
wf , i.e (Pws p wf ) is known as desuperposition
the flowing time, tp, is large it is very often quite adequate to

SHI-YI ZHENG, GEORGE STEWART AND PATRICK CORBETT

ex
take pwf as constant over the shut-in period and equal to
pwf(tp) = pws(t=0) . In this case a DD type curve is
directly applicable to BU test interpretation if
pws(tp + t) pws(t = 0) is plotted against t on the
appropriate log-log scales.
It is also possible to analyze BU tests using DD theory or
ex
DD type curves when pwf cannot be treated as constant and
shows infinite acting Behaviour. The buildup pressure effect
is defined as:
(p)

BU

= p

(t + t) p (t = 0)
ws p
ws

(10)

and is illustrated in Fig.5. In this method, the basic principle

of superposition is invoked and the DD response is written as :
ex
pDD = pws pwf
.
(11)
The extrapolated pressure is hooked to the last flowing
pressure, pwf(tp) , and an extrapolation of the form:
tp + t
ex
pwf = pwf(tp) m ln
tp

(12)

corresponds to infinite-acting radial flow in the (extrapolated)

ex
DD period. The quantity pwf is defined as:
tp + t
ex
ex
pwf = pwf(tp) pwf = m ln
tp

(13)

showing in Fig.5 and is the correction to pBU which must be

made to yield pDD . The desuperposition method therefore
becomes iterative if only buildup data is analyzable. In the
first pass m is taken as zero and the permeability, k, is
ex
determined with pwf equal to pwf(tp). A second pass is then
made using the extrapolation formula (13) and the reservoir
parameters are re-evaluated. This process converges very
quickly but most analysts prefer the equivalent time approach
since it is fully implicit and no iteration is required. In
desuperposition the pressure scale is stretched as illustrated
ex
in Fig. 2 by the addition of the pwf term. This method is
associated with Slider6.
The functioning process does compress the response but
this is an unavoidable feature of buildup analysis inherent in
the Horner plot, for example. Desuperposition allows a DD
response to be generated up to the maximum value of t but it
is certainly not the case that the depth of investigation of the
buildup corresponds to tmax.

SPE 64753

Case one: semi-infinite fluvial reservoir system

The infinite reservoir is defined as the reservoir system with
infinite extent. Accordingly, the semi-infinite reservoir is the
reservoir system which extent has been limited by no-flow
boundaries, such as fault or channel sand margin. The
diagnostic of such reservoir is the determination and analysis
of linear flow induced by the parallel/sub-parallel no-flow
boundaries. The derivative fingerprint of the linear flow
regime is the half slope of the derivative curve from both DD
and BU on the diagnostic plot at LTR. However, this has been
proved not easy in the well test analysis of fluvial reservoirs3, 4,
9
. In this first case study, a DST test from such depositional
environment is presented to show difficulty in the test
interpretation. Accordingly, a right procedure integrating DD
and BU analysis has been developed through this study.
As shown in Fig.6, the main BU diagnostic plot from a DST
in the Gulf of Thailand conducted by UNOCAL. The tested
formation of 2471 to 2488m (8107 ~ 8163 ft, MD) was
deposited in fluvial channel environment of Tertiary age. The
flow regimes from this plot can be interpreted as: (1) early
time region (ETR) wellbore storage with the evidence of
pressure and derivative overlay, and together give rise to a unit
slope, (2) middle time region (MTR) radial flow as the fact
that the transient pressure is infinite acting during the test and
no boundary has been reached as the zero slope pressure
derivatives indicated (derivative plateau).
The reservoir model from this interpretation seems very
simple - a classic radial homogeneous reservoir with infinite
extent (within the radius of investigation). However, when the
main DD is considered, the interpreted reservoir model is very
different. As shown in the diagnostic plot of the DD on the
Fig.7, the derivative half slope at LTR clearly shows a typical
channel reservoir characteristics, in which the late time
transient linear flow is obvious (nearly one log cycle
derivatives with half slope). If the reservoir model from the
DD diagnostic plot is true, the linear flow regime should also
be observed from the BU diagnostic plot.
The fact is that linear flow indicated by an up-turn of
pressure derivatives with half slope after MTR is not seen on
the BU diagnostic plot as shown in Fig.6. Due to the
preceding flowing history before the final BU, the
superposition time functioning has been used for the BU
analysis. Then the problem must be resulted from the use of
the superposition - equivalent time functioning in this case.
However, when linear flow exists, the superposition of the
DD solution (a logarithmic approximation, here Agarwal
equivalent time) is not valid. The superposition of square root
time function should be used in this case. For the further
analysis, the de-superposition method, i.e. the pressure
extrapolation method has been applied to the BU analysis. In
this approach, The rate of pressure decline (the gradient) used
for the linear flow extrapolation is derived from main drawdown linear flow plot. The resulted BU pressure and pressure
derivatives has been presented in the diagnostic plot as shown
in Fig.8. Now the half slope of the pressure derivative curve at
LTR is shown up indicating linear flow. This is consistent
with the Behaviour shown from DD in Fig.7. This has

SPE 64753

ANALYSING PRESSURE TRANSIENT TEST IN SEMI-INFINITE AND FINITE RESERVOIRS USING DE-SUPERPOSOTION METHOD

confirmed the flow system/interpretation model is a reservoir

with two parallel boundaries rather than a reservoir with
infinite extent. With the interpretation model defined from
both the DD and BU, the test has been analyzed again, which
leads to the final derivation of the reservoir properties such as
permeability and GIIP. The final matching results are shown
in Fig.9 of the BU diagnostic plot and Fig.10 of the test
history with the initial reservoir pressure of 3760 psia.
This analysis procedure is also suitable for the interpretation
of the closed reservoir system when the test has been under the
condition of reservoir depletion. If the pseudo-steady-state of
the unit slope at LTR from the DD diagnostic plot is present,
the pressure extrapolation method for BU can be used to
confirm the diagnostic of the reservoir model, so the confident
well test analysis results can be derived. In conclusion, even as
often stated that DD is not good enough to analyze, it is
suggested that DD should always be checked before analyzing
the BU, especially for the diagnostic purpose, or analyze both
DD and BU at the same time.
Case two: finite fluvial reservoir system
In the previous case, a procedure combining DD and BU
analysis has been stabilized to resolve the uncertainty in the
selection of the well test interpretation model. Desuperposition method applied to the BU analysis provides
further support to the pressure signature, at LTR in particular,
seen from the preceding DD3. In this section, another field
example from the Gulf of Thailand will be examined through
this procedure again, in an effort to emphasize the importance
of the DD LTR response and de-superposition analysis of the
BU. This case study however, also provides a more integrated
approach by including seismic attribute data in a further
attempt to define the reservoir geometry away from the well
location8.
From the seismic interpretation, the well encounters the
reservoir sand on a fault terrace between two major normal
faults (displacement about 152m or 500ft.) which trend northsouth and throw down to the east. The reservoir horizon dips
10 west and depth to top reservoir at the well location is
2984m (9790 ft., MD), 2158m (7079ft, TVDSS). Some minor
faults in several orientations, including some which are normal
to the trend of the major faults and serve to segment the fault
terrace are also present. The structure contours run
approximately north-south parallel to the major faults, but
with a suggestion of closure to north and south of the well
location.
Fig.11 shows the seismic amplitude map of the event
picked as top sand. Around the well location there is an
elongate zone of high amplitudes, but this does not exactly
correspond to the morphology of the structural high amplitude.
Indeed it is more banana shaped, and following the high
amplitudes away from the fault terrace itself, both to east and
west, one gets an impression of a sinuous feature cutting
across the structural grain, approximately from the top right
(Northeast of the area) to the bottom left (Southwest). If one
mentally strips out the effect of amplitude dimming adjacent

to fault planes, this effect is enhanced. There are other highamplitude zones, especially to the east. An almost identical
picture is given by the amplitude of the base sand pick. An
interpretation of the amplitude patterns, together with the
faulting, is shown in Fig.12. This suggests that the elongate,
high amplitude zones represent sand-prone fluvial channel
belts, low amplitude background areas are potentially
alluvial plain muds, and intermediate amplitudes possibly
represent thin sandy/silty crevasse splay deposits.
The DST test was conducted in the interval of 29842998.6m (9790 ~ 9838 ft., MD) of the Tertiary fluvial channel
sand in the Gulf of Thailand during the field appraisal stage.
The perforation was made underbalanced using 3.3/8" TCP
with shot density of 6 SPF. The primary objectives of this test
are to derive information on the zone deliverability, reservoir
performance, fluid sampling and to determine the reservoir
limitation from depletion.
As shown in the test overview of Fig.13, the extreme high
pressure on the upper left corner is mud pressure. The
reservoir depletion can also be observed from comparing the
first and second build-ups. For the test analysis, instead of
analyzing the final BU, the main DD has been analyzed first.
Fig.14 shows the main DD diagnostic plot. The pressure
derivatives are noisy in general, but the LTR response shows a
quite clear unit slope of pseudo-steady-state flow period.
Fig.15, the diagnostic plot of the final BU derived from
applying the desuperposition method - using the rate of
pressure decline derived from the main draw-down, shows the
radial flow (derivative plateau), linear flow and the pseudosteady-state flow at LTR. These flow regimes explain that the
tested reservoir has parallel boundaries and limited extent,
which further confirmed the fault closure of the seismic
interpretation around the well. The analysis of the defined
flow regimes yields the results such as the reservoir
permeability, skin, and the channel width. Considering the
closed reservoir system, first confirmation of the interpretation
has been made through simulation (using Greens functions),
to the final build-up on the diagnostic plot shown in Fig.16,
where the radial, linear and final pseudo-steady-state flow
regimes have all been matched. Taking the results and
reservoir model used for this match, the whole test scenario
has been matched as well. This has given the final
interpretation results as shown in (Fig.17). The tested
reservoir volume has been calculated, so the channel sand
length has been derived.
Conclusions
The analysis of the two field examples has shown that the
combined DD and BU analysis have greatly reduced the
uncertainty in well test interpretation, the selection of the
interpretation model in particular. This in return, yields a more
confident reservoir description. The DD LTR response
diagnostic and analysis followed by the de-superposition
method applied to the BU analysis has provided an effective
way of analyzing well test data. Seismic attribute data have
been very useful in constraining the reservoir limits and
orientation during the test analysis.

SHI-YI ZHENG, GEORGE STEWART AND PATRICK CORBETT

The procedures developed in case studies presented in this

paper are useful for well test interpretation in semi-infinite and
finite reservoirs often seen in fluvial reservoir systems. In
particular, this study has found:

The DD LTR response can provide the important

information for well test interpretation in semi-infinite
and finite reservoirs such as the channel sand and
compartmentalized reservoir systems.
Both DD and BU should always be analyzed together
using superposition and de-superposition methods to
ensure the correct selection of the interpretation model.
This is essential to ensure the correct interpretation of the
test, so the derivation of the confident results, then useful
information.
De-superposition method for the BU analysis is always
recommended for well test analysis in semi-infinite and
finite reservoirs. Especially in the case when the DD LTR
response has shown the boundary effect, de-superposition
method provides a useful way of comparing the pressure
transient behavior from both DD and BU.
For well testing in semi-infinite and finite reservoirs, in
order to see the reservoir signature experienced by the
preceding DD, the time required for the following BU is
much longer than that of the DD - at least one and a half
or two times of the preceding DD duration.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Unocal, Thailand for provide
the data and the permission to publish the paper. Arco British,
Shell, Norsk Hydro, Exxon/Mobil, Unocal, Phillips,
Wintershall and BP/Amoco are acknowledged for funding
this work within GEOTIPE Project. Geoquest RT and EPS
are thanked for the provision of software to undertake this
study.
Nomenclature
t
well shut-in time, hour
volume factor, RB/STB
Bo
k
formation permeability, mD
m
slope of the semi-log straight line
Pi
initial reservoir pressure, psia
Pwf
well bottom hole flowing pressure, psia
well bottom hole shut-in pressure, psia
Pws
tp
production time, hour

viscosity, cp
h
formation thickness, ft.
ex
pwf
extrapolated well flowing pressure, pasia
ex
pwf
the well flowing pressure drop during t, psia
References
1. Agarwal, R.G.: A New Method to Account for Producing Time
Effects when Drawdown Type Curves Are Used to Analyze
Pressure Buildup and Other Test Data, 1980, SPE 9289.
2. Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C.: Conduction of Heat in Solids,

SPE 64753

1959, Oxford University Press. 510.

3. Ehlig-Ecomonides, C.A., Ambrose, R.W. and Joseph, J.A.:
Pressure Desuperposition Technique for Improved Late-Time
Transient Diagnosis, 1990, SPE 20550.
4. Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Economides, M.J.: Pressure
Transient Analysis in An Elongated Linear Flow System, 1985,
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, Dec., 839-847.
5. Horne, R.N.: Modern Well Test Analysis, 1995, Petroway Inc.
185.
6. Slider, H.C.: Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering
Methods, 1976, The Petroleum publishing Company.
7. Stewart G. and Whaballa A.E.: Pressure Behaviour of
Compartmentalized Reservoirs, 1989, SPE 19779.
8. Zheng, S.Y., Corbett, P.W.M., Stewart, G. and Emery A.:
Integrated Well Test Interpretation of A Fluvial Reservoir in the
Gulf of Thailand, 2000, Presented at the 62nd Conference and
Technical Exhibition, Glasgow, Scotland, 29 may-2 June 2000.
9. Zheng, S.Y.: Well Testing and Characterization of Meandering
Fluvial Channel Reservoirs, 1997, PhD Thesis, Heriot-Watt
University.