SP~ 8029
Analysis of Interference Test Data
Influenced by Wellbore Storage and Skin
at the Flowing Well
Wei Chun Chu, SPE-AIME, u. ofTulsa
J. Garda-Rivera, * SPE-AIME, u. ofTulsa
Rajagopal Raghavan, SPE-AIME, u. of Tulsa
Introduction
With the advent of sensitive pressure gauges and
because of the need to obtain precise information on
reservoir heterogeneity for implementation of ter-
tiary recovery programs, interference tests have
become popular. It is well-established that the results
of a muItiwell test are influenced more by reservoir
heterogeneity than those of a single-well test. The line
source solution presented first by Theis 1 serves as a
starting point for the analysis of interference test
data. This solution assumes that the storage capacity
of the flowing well and the skin region around the
sand-face have a negligible effect on the observation-
well response. This assumption is valid if the distance
between the flowing well and the observation well is
large. However, if .the distance is small, then the
effect of storage and skin on the observation-well
response can be significant. The pressure response at
any point in the reservoir will be damped and delayed
as a result of the storage effect at the active well (with
or without the skin effect), because the main effect of
the storage capacity of the flowing well is to cause a
lag in the time required for the surface rate to equal
the sand-face rate. For given reservoir properties, the
magnitude of the delay depends on the well bore
volume, the nature of the storage phenomenon, and
the skin effect.
To our knowledge, the effect of wellbore storage
'Now with the Ins!. Mexicano del Petroleo.
This paper presents new solutions for analyzing interference test data affected by
wellbore storage and skin effects at the flowing well. Three parameters of interest-
wellbore storage phenomenon, skin effects, and distance between two wells - are
considered simultaneously. The new type curves should improve significantly the
ability to analyze such data.
JANUARY 1980
on interference data was examined first in the
groundwater hydrology literature. 2,3 In petroleum
engineering literature, Prats and Scott 4 were the first
to consider the effect of well bore storage on the
resporise of a pulse test. They concluded that the
porosity-compressibility product, cj>c I' of the for-
mation would be overestimated and the hydraulic
diffusivity, k!cJ>clp.., would be underestimated if the
well bore storage effect was significant and not
considered in the data analysis. Also, they noted that
care should be taken in measuring pressure data if the
well bore storage effect was significant, because the
magnitude of the actual pressure response would be
lower than expected.
They did not quantify the effect of a skin region
around the well but did discuss qualitatively the
influence of the skin factor. However, Prats and
Scott assumed that the storage effect existed at the
observation well and not the flowing well. In a
subsequent paper, we show that their results can be
used to analyze pulse test data influenced by the
storage effect at the active well.
For the problem at hand, Jargon 5 was the first to
quantitatively examine the influence of well bore
storage and skin effects. Jargon showed that if
well bore storage and skin at the active well influence
01492136/80/00018029$00.25
1980 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
171
the pressure behavior at the observation well, and if been evaluated to obtain the pressure drop as a
the line source solution is used to analyze data, the function of time. The main difficulty appears to be
permeability-thickness product will be un- the numerical evaluation of the Laplace inversion
derestimated and the porosity-compressibility integral. An algorithm to invert the Laplace trans-
product will be overestimated. Jargon was the first to form numerically came to our attention after this
present type curves to estimate the permeability- work was completed. We consider this algorithm in
thickness and porosity-compressibility products. the Discussion section of this paper.
However, his attempts to include skin effect at the We have computed the wellbore pressure drop by
active well as a correlating parameter were un- the principle of superposition, because the sand-face
successful. He was able to obtain correlations only as flow rate has been tabulated in the literature by
a function of the wellbore storage constant, CD' for Ramey and Agarwal 8 and Ramey et 01.9 Admittedly
specific values of the skin factor, s, where CD and s this is an approximate procedure, because the
are defined 6 as: solutions will not apply at small distances (less than a
few feet) from the well bore. However, this limitation
is not important, because we principally are in-
5.615C C terested in analyzing interference test data and in
C D =2 h 2= h 2' . . . . . . . . . . (1)
7rc/>C trw 27rc/>Ct r w such cases the distance between the active and ob-
servation wells is larger. We discuss the limitations of
this procedure in the Discussion section.
khilpskin 27r X 10 - 9 khilpskin
s= =------..::..:.:.:=. ..... (2) Applying the principle of superposition, the
141.2qBp. qBp. pressure drop in the reservoir may be computed by

The first equality in Eqs. 1 and 2 should be used qBp. f. (qB) sfi
when quantities are measured in conventional oilfield Pi-p(r,/)=-2 10- 9 kh ~ B
units, and the second should be used when 7rX 1=1 q
measurements are made in SI metric units. 2
In this paper, we present a generalized method ( o[
. 1f2El - 1 9 c/>c t w ]J ' . . . . . . (3)
wherein all three parameters of interest - the 3.6xlO- 4k(t-t i )
well bore storage phenomenon, the skin effect, and
the distance between wells - are considered where (qB) sf is the sand-face rate, q is the surface
simultaneously. The basis for simultaneously con- rate, and - Ei ( - u) is the exponential integral. 10 All
sidering the three parameters is demonstrated quantities in Eq. 3 are expressed in SI metric units. If
rigorously. (Jargon obtained correlating parameters conventional oilfield units are used, the constants
in an empirical fashion.) New type curves are O.57rx 10- 9 and 3.6x 10- 9 should be replaced by
presented for analyzing data when the wellbore 141.2 and 2.64 x 10 -4, respectively. By introducing
storage and skin effects at the active well influence dimensionless variables, II Eq 3 becomes 0

the observation-well response.

Theory and Assumptions PD(rD,t
D
) = - Yz t (qB)sfi
qB
The basic assumptions of the problem considered i=1

here are identical to those assumed by Agarwal et

01. 6 The problem is the classic one of the flow of a
slightly compressible fluid in a uniform,
homogeneous, isotropic porous medium.
Gravitational forces are negligible. The well is
located in an infinite system; that is, the effect of where P D (r D' t D) is the dimensionless pressure drop
boundaries is not considered. Initially the pressure, defined by
Pi' is constant at all locations. The inner boundary
condition assumes constant surface rate production kh
through a wellbore of finite volume. A steady-state PD(rD,tD ) = 141.2qBp. [Pi-p(r,t)]
(zero storage capacity) skin effect at the sand-face
also is assumed. 27rx 1O- 9 kh
[Pi -p(r,t)], ... (5)
The governing partial differential equation, the q B p.
initial condition, and the boundary conditions are
given in Ref. 6. The solution to the problem by the t D is the dimensionless time based on the wellbore
method of Laplace transforms 7 also is given in Ref. radius defined by
6. The expression for the pressure drop in the
reservoir is not derived explicitly, and only the ex-
pression for the wellbore pressure drop is given.
However, it is not possible to obtain the wellbore
pressure drop unless the expression for the pressure
drop in the reservoir is obtained first. and
Although the solution to the problem in Laplace
space has been available for several years, it has not rD =r/r W' (7)

172 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

In Eqs. 5 and 6 the first equality should be used if
quantities are measured in conventional oilfield
units, and the second equality should be used if SI
metric units are used.
Eq. 4 serves as the basis for the approach taken
here. Ramey el 01. have shown that the dimensionless
sand-face flow rate (qB) sfl qB may be correlated
uniquely as a function of IDICD if CD exp(2s) is held
constant. The result obtained by Ramey el 01. applies
for all values of CD exp(2s) normally encountered in
well test analysis. Thus, Eq. 4 may be rewritten as
well with the line source solution if no data at the
active well are available. Jargon has shown that in
such cases estimates of the permeability-thickness
product would be low and the porosity-
compressibility product would be high. The malni-
tude of these errors would depend on CD and s.
As shown in Figs. 1 through 3, the difference in
pressure drops between the line source solution and

Q.
o

Q.
o
a:
o
r 2 w
.Ei[- 4(tD~tDi)J . ................. (8)
a:
~
(/)
w
a:
Q.
I
Noting that (qB) sfjlqB is a function of IDICD and (/)
(/)
W
17-----20
2
C D exp(2s), Eq. 8 indicates that the dimensionless ..J
2
5X 10
o ' - -_ _ _ 10 4
pressure drop should correlate in terms of three u; - - -_ _ 10 10
parameters: IDICD , I D lrD 2 and C D exp(2s).
2
w , - - -_ _ _ 1020
::;
Because I D I r D 2 is used as a parameter in all in- o COexp(2s)

terference tests, the group t D I CD can be dropped 1(}&..L,-I.IL-I~J.j.j.Jw...--'--'-....... 2 3

10- 1 I 10 10 10
and replaced by group CDlrD2. Thus, the DIMENSIONLESS TIME TO DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE SOUARED"D /r 6
parameters of interest become: tDlrD2, C D exp(2s),
and CDlrD2. Fig. 1-povs tol(/ due to wellbore storage and skin at a
Eq. 8 also demonstrates the basis for Jargon's flowing well in an infinite reservoir, Co 1(0 2 10 -1. =
correlation. By a trial and error approach, Jargon
found that C D lrD 2 was the best correlating (0
parameter for given values of s. * Eq. 8, however, CD/r~ I
indicates that CD I r D 2 should serve as a parameter Q.
0

for all combinations of CD' s, and rD' In this in- r:L LINE SOURCE
0
a: SOLUTlON~
vestigation, the results provided by Ramey et 01. and 0 .....-:~
w
Ramey and Agarwal were used to test the above a:
=> ./
hypothesis for a number of combinations of CD's, en
en
/
w
a:
/
and rD' In all instances it was found that the above Q. /
hypothesis was justified. en
(I) 1 /
w 10
Z
..J I
Results ~ I
z
Figs. 1 through 3 are sample type curves obtained in w
2
/
this study. The dimensionless pressure drop was 0
computed from Eq. 8 using the tabulated values of I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 3
10' I (0 10 10
qBsflqB given by Ramey et 01.... Type curves were DIMENSIONLESS TIME TO DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE SQUARED"D/r~
prepared for 18 values of CDlrD2 in the range 2.5 X
10- 3 '5.CD lrD 2 '5.10 for all values of CD exp(2s) Fig. 2-povs toir02 due to well bore storage and skin at a
presented by Ramey et 01. Appendix A * * presents flowing well in an infinite reservoir, C o ir02 1. =
tabulated values of PD vs tDlrD2 for the range of
10
parameters of interest. The line source solution 1
co/r~ .. 10
(CD =0, s=O) is shown as a dashed line on Figs. 1 ., Q

through 3. The shape of the CD exp(2s) >0 curves is ..-0 LINE SOURCE ~ ___

a: SOLUTION~.",.,........-- __
seen to be similar to the line source solution. This 0
w ,/ .,
implies that it would be difficult to determine if a:
,/
interference data are affected by wellbore storage '"'"w" ,/ I
0:
Il.
/ . 20
and skin unless data also are obtained at the flowing U) / 5XI0
2

well. This observation is important, since it may be

U)
w
..J
10' / 10'
10
Z
0 / 10
possible to type-curve match interference data in- in
z / 10
20
w Coellp (2s)
fluenced by wellbore storage and skin at the active ::IE
is
/
Icll..-IL.L.llUJ.J/W:.......>'-"iUJJ.w...-I....u..I.I.U.II--,-J....UUoW.I-.l.-J...w..IoIIo..J
1 2 4
'Inspection of Fig. 6 in Ref. 5 indicates some spread in the results as '0 and Co 16 I 10 10 10' 10
are varied for fixed values of CO/'02. The reason forthis is not known. DlMENSION..ESS TIME TO DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE SQUARED.ID/~

"Large-scale type curves of parameters shown here and Appendix A may be Fig. 3-povs to/(02 due to well bore storage and skin at a
obtained from R. Raghavan, U. of Tulsa, Dept. of Petroleum Engineering, 600 S.
College Ave., Tulsa, OK 74104. flowing well in an infinite reservOir, Co 1(02 10. =
JANUARY 1980 173
the well bore storage-skin cases is large at early times.
The magnitude of the difference depends on C D lrD 2 Discussion
and C Dexp(2s). Ultimately, all cases merge with the In this section we discuss the conditions under which
line source solution, indicating that the wellbore the solutions presented are valid. Also presented is an
storage effect at the flowing well has become overview of the parameters that control the pressure
negligible. A comparison of the various curves for distribution in the reservoir and the correlating
constant values of C Dexp(2s) indicates that if groups that can be used to describe the pressure
CD I r D 2 is small, the results are close to the line distribution. As is well known, the pressure response
source solution. On the other hand, if CDlrD2 is at an observation well due to production (or in-
large, the difference in computed pressure drops jection) through a well of finite radius can be
between the line source solution and the well bore represented by the line source solution I for all values
storage-skin curves is large. This result can be ex- of tDlrD 2 provided rf. ~20 and at all values of rD
plained readily. A large value of C D lrD 2 implies provided t D l r D 2 ~70. 4 .
that either the storage constant is large or the Similarly, we should not expect the solution
distance between the two wells is small. Con- presented here to be representative of the pressure
sequently, one would expect a considerable dif- drop at all values of rD for all times of interest. The
ference in pressure behavior at early times. A small range of conditions for which our solutions are
value of CD I r D 2 implies that either the storage applicable can be established only by comparing the
constant is small or distance between the two wells is results of the rigorous solution with the approximate
large. Thus, for this case the difference in pressure solution.
drops would be small. In addition to the above As shown by Agarwal et al., the complete solution
observations, the results shown in Figs. 1 through 3 to the problem under consideration may be obtained
indicate that as the skin effect increases for a given by the application of the Laplace transformation
value of C D lrD 2 , the difference in computed technique. In Laplace space, the pressure distribution
pressure drops between the line source and well bore in the reservoir is given by
storage-skin cases increases.
Fig. 4 presents a comparison of the results ob-
tained here and those obtained by Jargon. The results
of our study compare favorably with Jargon's work.
Although the approach used in this study is more
general, many of Jargon's conclusions pertaining to
the effects of well bore storage and skin on in- ................................... (9)
terference data are still valid. Thus, it does not
appear worthwhile to repeat all of the useful in-
formation presented in Conclusions 1 through 5 and where p is the variable in Laplace space (s, which is
9 of Ref. 5. commonly' used to denote the Laplace space, is not
Finally, one difference between the type curves used here because s represents skin factor); PD (rD)
obtained here and those by Jargon should be is the Laplace transformation of p D (r D' t D); and
mentioned. The Ramey et al. and Ramey and Ko (x) and KI (x) are modified Bessel functions of
Agarwal studies represented the skin region by the the second kind of order zero and one, respectively. 7
van Everdingen-Hurst I2 ,13 skin effect. Jargon, The pressure distribution may be obtained by
however, represented the negative skin factor by a applying the inversion theorem for Laplace trans-
region of high permeability and finite thickness. formation 7 to Eq. 9. However, the inversion integral
Thus, for small values of C Dexp(2s), the results would have to be evaluated numerically. This can be
obtained here and those in Ref. 5 are different. a formidable problem from a computational
viewpoint; it may be simpler to solve the problem by
the method of finite differences, as was done by
Jargon. However, it was shown recently that the
algorithm presented by Stehfest 15 may be used to
...
Q

numerically invert the transform. 16 We used the

cL
o
~ Stehfest algorithm to obtain p D (rD' t D ) and
~ compared the results to those obtained by the ap-
=>
U) proximate solution.
U)

'"
a: We found that Eq. 8 predicted the pressure
CL
U)
Coup (2.) response accurately for all times of interest for
10 4
rD ~20. We also found that if C D lrD 2 ~O.25, Eq. 8
U)

'"
..J
10
5
~
U) 10
6 was accurate if rD ~ 10. Therefore, we concluded
;o
that the correlating parameters (t D I r D 2 , C Dexp(2s) ,
and C D lrD 2 ) are sufficient for analyzing all in-
IclLL.,...I..LJ.....,.,.I4.u..IJ-.....L...J...J....L..I.JwJ........JL......L.J..J..&.I.LI.L;;-..I-..L...J..l..U.W
2 3
terference test data dominated by wellbore storage
10"' I 10 10 10 skin, because the dimensionless distance between
OtMENSIONLESS TIME TO DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE SQUARED, I 0/' ~
wells for all interference tests is at least one order of
Fig. 4 - Comparison of results of this study with the magnitude greater than 20.
Jargon study. In the process of testing the solutions, we also
174 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 TABLE 1 - APPLICABILITY OF THE STEHFEST
ALGORITHM
The Stehfest algorithm does not work for the following
range of values of Coexp (2s) and C o Jro 2 .
Co exp(2s) C o lf02
1 ~7.5 X 10- 2
10 ~7.5 X 10- 1
10 2 ~ 7.5
found that the Stehfest algorithm is unsuitable for
the problem under consideration if s:::;; - 2. That is,
the algorithm may not apply for small values of
C Dexp(2s). This results because there is a pole on the
positive real axis of the complex p-plane If s < 0 and
the inversion theorem does not take this into ac-
count. This observation also applies to the results
obtained by Agarwal et al. even though Eq. 9 is
correct for all values of s when s<O. Our in-
vestigation indicated that no solution can be obtained
if the numerical inverter is used for the conditions
given in Table 1.
The validity of our solution cannot be established,
then, unless the inversion integral is evaluated
properly when s:::;; - 2. To our knowledge, no simple
method exists whereby a pole on the positive side of
the teal axis can be taken into account while applying
the inversion theorem. Agarwal et al. avoided this
problem by using the effective well bore radius
concept-i.e., by replacing tD by tDexp(2s) and CD
by C D exp(2s) and assuming the skin factor term to
be zero. Therefore, the results presented here can not
be validated independently for s:::;; - 2 unless the
problem is solved by a different approach. However,
considering that all the other solutions are accurate
for rD ~20, further verification is n~t neede~. T~e
Stehfest algorithm should be used with care If s IS
negative. More details are given in Ref. 16.
Although it is established in the literature, one
final point regarding the correlation presented here
should be noted. Both Earlougher and Kersch 17 and
Ramey et al. have pointed out that C D exp(2s) is not
a good correlating function to represent the well bore
pressure drop and sand-face flow rate, respectively,
if C D exp(2s) is small. This limitation also applies to
the results presented here. We used C Dexp(2s) over
the r~n~e 1:::;; C Dexp(2s) :::;; 1040 for several values of
CDlrD to test its validity. We found that if rD ~20,
then C Dexp(2s) is an adequate correlating parameter
even for small values of CDexp(2s). Only if rD <20
does the group C D exp(2s) break down as a
correlating parameter.
In summary, an examination of the pressure
distribution surrounding a well su,bject to well bore
storage and skin effects indicates the following.
1. If rD ~20 (in a number of cases rD ~ 10), the
dimensionless pressure drop is a function of the three
groups (tDlrD2, C D exp(2s) , and C D lrD 2 ) for all
values of the parameters of interest.
2. If r D < 20 and if C Dexp(2s) is large (~I000),
the pressure drop is a function of rD' t D , and
C D exp(2s) .
3. If rD <20 and C D exp(2s) < 1000, the pressure
drop is a function of rD' t D , CD' ands.
4. The well bore pressure drop is a function of
JANUARY 1980
C D exp(2s) and tDICD if C D exp(2s) is large. If
C D exp(2s) is small, it is a function of t D , CD' ands.
Cases 2 and 3 are of academic interest only as far
as interference testing is concerned. Thus, we can
conclude that the three dimensionless groups
[tDlrD2, CDlrD2, and C D exp(2s)] are sufficient. to
analyze interference test data. If these correlatmg
groups are tested to determine if they describe the
pressure response at distances close to the well bore,
they will break down. These groups do not (and were
never intended to) apply when rD is small.
Example
A computer-generated example intended to
demonstrate the use of the type curves is presented
here. Table 2 presents pressure data obtained during
the interference test. The two observation wells are
located approximately 30 m (100 ft) from the in-
jection well (Fig. 5). From Fig. 5 it is evident that
well bore storage controls pressure behavior at the
injection well at early times. However, we note that
the test has been run long enough to analyze pressure
data at the flowing well by the,semilog approach. The
data at the flowing well were analyzed first to
determine the effective permeability and skin factor.
We estimated the permeability to be 20 md and the
skin factor to be 20.2. The dimensionless storaye
constant, CD' computed from the unit slope line 8
on the log-log graph was found to be 9.91 x 10 3 .
These calculations are not presented here as the
procedure has been explained thoroughly in the
literature.
Jargon has shown that the time at which the
well bore storage effect will become negligible at an
observation well is given by
tD (CD )0.86
-2 =(230+ ISs) -2 . . ............ (10)
rD rD
Using Eq. 10 we find that the well bore storage effects
at Wells A and B would become negligible only after
173 and 167 hours, respectively. Consequently, the
type curves presented here, which consider well bore
storage and skin at the active well, should be used to
SEMI-LOG ANALYSIS -2 2
PERMEABILITY,k a l.97XI0 fLm (20md) 0 ~ 0 0
SKIN FACTOR,' a 20.2 0 START SEMI-LOG
STRAIGHT LINE
o
o
,;
,;
APPROXIMATE END
~
. OF STORAGE PERIOD
UNIT SLOPE LINE
eB
(CO a 9.91 X 10 3 ) T
27m
N
I
~ A
~3Im--i
FLOW TIME,' hours
Fig. 5 - Pressure change vs flowing time at the injector.
175
analyze the data. Using the value of CD and the
respective values of rD, we.find that the type curves
corresponding to CDlrD2 =7.5 x 10- 2 and 10- 1
should be used for analyzing data at Wells A and B,
respectively. Also, the interference data should be
matched with the C D exp(2s) =3.48 x 10 21 curve.
Type-curve matches using the CDexp(2s) = 10 20
curve are shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. The
match points are indicated. We now proceed with the
estimation of the flow capacity and the storage
capacity surrounding Well A.
From the pressure match (P D = 6.2 x 10 - 2 ,
!lp = 10 kPa) we have
PD =6.2x 10- 2 =
21rx 10- 9 (k) (14.63 m)(10 kPa)
That is, k= 19.1 md.
From the time match (tDlrD2 =0.87, t=2.78
hours) we have
2 3.6x 10- 9 (19.1 md)(2.77 hours)
t Ir =0.87=
D D (cpc t ) (8x 10- 4 Pa.s)(30.58m)2
That is, c t =2.93 X 10- 7 kPa -I.
If the data shown in Fig. 7 are analyzed along these
lines, the following result is obtained: k= 19.1 md
and cpc t = 2.9 x 10 -7 kPa - I. From these com-
putations, we conclude that the formation is
relatively homogeneous in the area surrounding the
three wells. We should note that we arrive at the
above conclusion as a result of examining the
pressure data at the flowing well.
Conclusions
We have examined the methods for analyzing in-
terference data affected by well bore storage and skin
at the flowing well. W~ have shown that the skin
factor may be combined with the well bore storage
constant to describe the pressure behavior at an
observation well. Consequently, separate type curves
are not needed for specific values of the skin factor,
s. On the basis of our study, the following con-
clusions are warranted.
1. Three dimensionless groups (t D I r D 2 ,
C D exp(2s), and C D lrD 2 ) govern the pressure
behavior at an observation well if rD ~20. This
condition almost always will be met during in-
terference testing of oil and gas reservoirs.
. 2. For rD <20, the dimensionless pressure drop is
governed by t D , rD, CD' and s. If C D exp(2s) is large

TABLE 2 - RESERVOIR, WELL AND PRESSURE DATA

Reservoir and Well Data

Initial pressure, Pi, kPa (psi) 1.69 X 104 (2,405)
Porosity, <p, fraction of bulk volume 0.18
Thickness, h, m (tt) 14.63 (48)
System compressibility, c t , kPa -1 (psi -1) 1.59 x 10- 6 (1.1 x 10- 5 )
Formation volume factor, B, res m3 /stock-tank m3 (RB/STB) 1 (1)
Flow rate, q, dm 3 /s (STB/D) 3.55 X 10- 1 (193)
Viscosity, f.L, Pa s (cp) 8 X 10- 4 (0.8)
Distance to observation wellS, " m (tt)
Well A 30.58 (100)
WeliB 26.5 (87)
Well radius, 'w, m (tt) 8.41 x 10- 2 (0.276)

Pressure Data
Flowing Well Observation Well A Observation Well B
Time Pressure Change Time Pressure Change Time Pressure Change
(hours) (psi) (kPa) (hours) (psi) (kPa) (hours) (psi) (kPa)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0088 4.55 31.4 1.21 0.38 2.62 0.91 0.29 2.0

0.021 11.3 78.0 1.5 0.65 4.48 1.13 0.50 3.43
0.031 15.8 108.8 0.8 0.97 6.69 1.36 0.75 5.15
0.044 22.4 154.5 2.42 1.74 12.0 1.81 1.35 9.31
0.088 43.9 302.9 3.02 2.63 18.1 2.26 2.06 14.2
3.62 3.60 24.8 2.72 2.85 19.7
0.22 103.7 714.9 4.53 5.15 35.5 3.40 4.12 28.4
0.44 189.1 1304.0 5.13 6.20 42.7 3.85 5.00 34.5
0.66 259.8 1791.3 6.04 7.80 53.8 4.53 6.36 43.8
0.88 318.4 2195.3 7.54 10.40 71.7 5.66 8.36 59.5
1.31 407.6 2810.1 9.10 12.88 88.8 6.79 10.85 74.8
1.75 469.5 3237.4 12.10 17.28 119.0 9.06 15.00 103.0
2.19 512.9 3536.4 15.0 20.97 145.0 11.32 18.64 128.5
3.06 565.2 3896.9 18.0 24.08 166.0 13.59 21.80 150.0
4.38 600.4 4139.8 24.2 28.80 199.Q 18.1 26.90 185.0
8.75 627.0 4323.4 30.2 32.30 223.0 22.65 30.77 212.0
21.88 640.5 4416.5
30.63 644.8 4445.6
43.76 649.1 4475.6
87.53 657.3 4532.1

176 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 10 3 10 3
WELL A WELL B I
CO/r~ a 7.5XI0- 2 CO/r~ a 10
rO a 363 ro a 315
..........-.:---
/.......-:"""'-- //'"
0
0
"-
"-
'".; 10
2 /" '".; LINE SOURCE /"
/'"
LINE SOURCE /"
<l SOLUTION-y <l SOLUTION~
u.i u.i
'":x: '"z
z
~
/ ~
:x:
u /
u
w
r--I---
w
a: -L
l
a: :> -I
-I 10,- ---
:>
(/) 10 (/)
(/)
(/) w
w a: 10
a: 10 I /
"-
Po I /
"-
Po
I /
I /
1/
II
II I
MATCH POINT
l I
MATCH POINT
2
PO a 62XI0 ,Llp a lOkPa

-~
Po = 6.2X I02,LlP= 10kPa
102 __ _-1 'O/r~ a 1.17,' a 2.78 hours
lo2l__ 'O/r~ a 8.7XI6~' a2.78hour.
16
1
'o/r6 I 10
1
'o/r~
I 2
I 2 1 10 10
16
10-1 10 10
FLOW TIME,', hour.
Fl OW TIME,', hour.

Fig. 6 - Type-curve match of the pressure data at Well A. Fig. 7 - Typecurve match of the pressure data at Well B.

(~ 1000), the well bore storage constant and skin Jl = viscosity of flowing fluid, Pa s (cp)
factor can be combined in terms of the group <I> = porosity, fraction of bulk volume
C D exp(2s),
Subscripts
Nomenclature D = dimensionless
B=formation volume factor, res i= initial
m 3 /stock-tank m 3 (RB/STB) r = radial dimension
c t = total system effective isothermal sf = sand-face
compressibility, kPa - I (psi - I) t= total
C= unit storage factor, m 3 IkPa (RB/psi) w=well
CD = dimensionless storage constant wf = well flowing
-Ei( -u) = exponential integral,

r"'e- XdX References

I. Theis, Charles v.: "The Relation Between the Lowering of the
Ju x Piezometric Surface and the Rate and Duration of Discharge
of a Well Using Ground-Water Storage," Trans., AGU (1938)
h = net formation thickness, m (ft) 519-529.
k = effective permeability to flowing phase, 2. Papadopulos, I.S.: "Draw-Down Distribution Around a
md Large-Diameter Well," Proc., Nat. Symp. on Ground-Water
Ko (x) = Bessel function of the second kind of Hydrology, San Francisco, CA (1967) 157-168.
3. Moench, A.F. and Evans, D.D.: "Thermal Conductivity and
order zero Diffusivity of Soil Using a Cylindrical Heat Source," Proc.,
K I (x) = Bessel function of the second kind of Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. (May-June 1970) 34,377-381.
order one 4. Prats, M. and Scott, J.B.: "Effect of Wellbore Storage on
P = Laplace variable Pulse-Test Pressure Response," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1975) 707-
709.
p(r,t).= fluid pressure, kPa (psi) 5. Jargon, J.R.: "Effect of Wellbore Storage and Wellbore
p D = dimensionless pressure drop Damage at the Active Well on Interference Test Analysis," J.
jJ D (r D) = Laplace transform of the dimensionless Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1976) 851-858.
pressure drop 6. Agarwal, R.G., AI-Hussainy, R., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "An
Investigation of Well bore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady
Pi = initial pressure in the system, kPa (psi)
Liquid Flow: I. Analytical Treatment," Soc. Pet. Eng. J.
Pwj == flowing well pressure, kPa (psi) (Sept. 1970) 279-290; Trans. AIME, 249.
~Pskin = pressure drop across skin region, 7. Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.e.: Conduction oj Heat in
kPa (psi) Solids, second ed., University Press, Oxford (1959) Chap.
q = surface flow rate, dm 3 Is (STB/D) XII.
8. Ramey, H.J. Jr. and Agarwal, R.G.: "Annulus Unloading
qsj=sand-face rate, dm 3 Is (STB/D) Rates and Well bore Storage," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1972)
r= radial location, m (ft) 453-462; Trans., AIME, 253.
r D = dimensionless radius 9. Ramey, H.J. Jr., Agarwal, R.G., and Martin, I.: "Analysis of
r w = well radius, m (ft) 'Slug Test' or DST Flow Period Data," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech.
(July-Sept. 1975) 37-47.
s = skin factor, dimensionless 10. Wenzel, L.K.: "Methods of Determining Permeability of
t = time, hours Water-Bearing Materials with Special Reference to Discharge
t D = dimensionless time based on well bore Well Methods," USGS W.S.P. 887(1942).
radius II. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the

JANUARY 1980 177

 Laplace Transform to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans., Time Transient Test Data by Type-Curve Matching," J. Pet.
AIME (1949) 186, 305-324. Tech. (July 1974) 793-800; Trans., AIME, 257.
12. van Everdingen, A.F.: "The Skin Effect and Its Influence on 18. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Short-Time Well Test Data Interpretation
the Productivity Capacity of Wells," Trans., AI ME (1953) in the Presence of Skin Effect and Well bore Storage," J. Pet.
198,71-78. Tech. (Jan. 1970) 97-104; Trans. AIME, 249.
13. Hurst, W.: "Establishment of the Skin Effect and Its Im-
pediment to Fluid Flow into a Well Bore," Pet. Eng. (Oct. SI Metric Conversion Factors
1953) B-6 through B-16.
14. Mueller, T.D. and Witherspoon, P.A.: "Pressure Interference
bbl x 1.589 873 E-Ol m3
Effects Within Reservoirs and Aquifers," J. Pet. Tech. (April cp x 1.0* E-03 Pas
1965) 471-474; Trans., AIME, 234. ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
15. Stehfest, H.: "Algorithm 368 Numerical Inversion of Laplace psi x 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
Transforms, (D-5)," Communications of the ACM (Jan.
1970) 13, No.1, 47-49.
Conversion factor is exact.
16. Sandal, H.M., Williamson, J.W., Horne, R.N., and Ramey,
H.J. Jr.: "Interference Testing with Wellbore Storage and
JPT
Skin at the Produced Well," paper SPE 7454 presented at the
SPE 53rd Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office March
16. 1979 .. Pape,,(SPE 8029) accepted for publication May 18, 1979. Revised
Houston, Oct. 1-3, 1978. manuscnpt received Nov. 16, 1979.
17. Eariougher, R.C. Jr. and Kersch, K.M.: "Analysis of Short- This paper will be included in the 1980 Transactions volume.

178 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY