Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests (Lee and Holditch, JPT (Sept. 1981))
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Field Cases: Lee and Holditch, JPT (September 1981)
This project set concerns the analysis of pressure buildup tests in gas wells that have been
hydraulically fractured. Note that the pseudopressure and pseudotime transformations are
used—so these data can be analyzed exactly like liquid (i.e., oil) cases.
Lee and Holditch analyze these tests in some detail in the attached article, but their analysis is
by no means the "best" answer. Lee and Holditch did not have the benefit of the pressure
derivative function—and their efforts were not uniquely focused on the use of the model for a
vertical well with a finite conductivity vertical fracture. In short, use the analyses given by
Lee and Holditch as a guide, but not as an answer that must be reproduced.
You should begin your analysis using the "Economides" type curves for a well with a finite
conductivity vertical fracture in an infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir, including wellbore
storage effects. The governing relations for the "Economides" type curves are given by:
Formation Permeability:
qB  pwD M P
k = 141.2
h p MP
Dimensionless Wellbore Storage Coefficient (for a Fractured Well):
CDf read from the type curve match
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity:
CfD read from the type curve match
Fracture Half Length:
 t or  te M P
x f2 = 0.0002637 k 1
 ct CDf tDxf /CDf M P
Skin Factor: (Cinco-Ley and Samaniego Correlation: u=ln(CfD))
s = ln rxw +
f
1.648546 - 3.002711 x10-1 u + 1.506532 x10-1 u 2
1 + 2.136604 x10-1 u + 9.513761 x10-2 u 2 + 8.276998 x10-3 u 3
Required:
1. Using the attached plots, you are to perform the following analyses: (if applicable)

Cartesian analysis of "early" time (wellbore storage distorted) data:
a. The pressure at the start of the test, pi.
b. The wellbore storage coefficient, Cs.

Semilog analysis of "middle" time (radial flow) data: MDH/Horner Analysis
a. The formation permeability, k.
b. The near well skin factor, s.

Log-log analysis of the "pressure and pressure derivative" functions:
a. The formation permeability, k.
2
b. Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient, CDf (fractured well).
c. Dimensionless fracture conductivity, CfD (fractured well).
d. Fracture half-length, xf.

Cartesian analysis of "late" time (boundary-dominated flow) data:
a. Estimate the average reservoir pressure, p, using a Muskat Plot.
3
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests (Lee and Holditch, JPT (Sept. 1981))
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Required: (Continued)
2. You are to provide a critical and detailed review (at least 1 page) for:

Lee, W.J. and Holditch, S.A.: "Fracture Evaluation With Pressure Transient
Testing in Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs, JPT (September 1981), 1776-1792.
3. You are to prepare a comprehensive report of your analyses—this report should be no
less than 5 (five) pages of narrative discussion (not including plots, equations, etc.).
You are to document your work completely, as well as describe your analysis procedures and results in full detail.
Data: (P324_00A_FinPrj_SPE9975.doc)
This file is located at http://pumpjack.tamu.edu/~t-blasingame/
Grading Rationale:
You are strongly encouraged to work in groups, but you must provide your own work
and you must write your own report. "Sharing" various sections of work will be
considered scholastic dishonesty and will be rewarded with an "F" grade (as provided
for in the University Regulations (now titled Student Rules)).
My concept of grading is that an "average" effort should yield a "C" grade—hence, my
grading scheme is very demanding and somewhat subjective—but it is consistent, and
you should be able to predict your performance by your level of effort.
Table 1 — Grading Policy
Score
A
Description
Outstanding
B+
Very Good
B
Good
C+
Above Average
C
Average
D+
Below Average (Fair)
D
Below Average (Poor)
F
Unacceptable
Criteria
No major technical errors.
Perfection.
No major technical errors.
Near perfect work.
No major technical errors.
Much more effort than requested.
Minor Technical Errors.
More effort than expected.
Minor Technical Errors.
Effort exactly what was expected.
Minor Technical Errors.
Effort less than expected.
Significant Technical Errors.
Effort less than expected/poor effort.
Significant Technical Errors
Poor/unacceptable effort.
4
Tom Blasingame
(28 April 2000)
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests (Lee and Holditch, JPT (Sept. 1981))
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
'
"Cinco-Samaniego" Type Curve: pwD and pwD
vs. tDxf — Various CfD Values
5
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests (Lee and Holditch, JPT (Sept. 1981))
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
"Cinco-Samaniego" Skin Factor Correlation:
6
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests (Lee and Holditch, JPT (Sept. 1981))
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
'
Bourdet-Gringarten Type Curve: pwD and pwD
vs. tD/CD — Various CD Values
7
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests (Lee and Holditch, JPT (Sept. 1981))
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
'
"Economides" Type Curve: pwD and pwD
vs. tDxf/CDf —CfD =1
8
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests (Lee and Holditch, JPT (Sept. 1981))
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
'
"Economides" Type Curve: pwD and pwD
vs. tDxf/CDf —CfD =2
9
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests (Lee and Holditch, JPT (Sept. 1981))
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
'
"Economides" Type Curve: pwD and pwD
vs. tDxf/CDf —CfD =5
10
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests (Lee and Holditch, JPT (Sept. 1981))
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
'
"Economides" Type Curve: pwD and pwD
vs. tDxf/CDf —CfD =10
11
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests (Lee and Holditch, JPT (Sept. 1981))
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
'
"Economides" Type Curve: pwD and pwD
vs. tDxf/CDf —CfD =1x103
12
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests (Lee and Holditch, JPT (Sept. 1981))
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Ansah Type Curve: Pressure Buildup in a Bounded (Closed) Reservoir System (1"x1" format)
13
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests (Lee and Holditch, JPT (Sept. 1981))
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Stewart Type Curve: Well in an Infinite-Acting Reservoir System with a Single or Multiple Sealing Faults. (1"x1" format)
14
15
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests (Lee and Holditch, JPT (Sept. 1981))
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Field Cases:
Case 1: Well 5 (Lee and Holditch, JPT (September 1981))
Reservoir properties:
=0.03
h=30 ft
Gas properties: (at the initial reservoir pressure (pi) of 8800 psia)
g=0.6 (air=1)
T= 325 oF
Bgi=0.5755 RB/MSCF
gi=0.0297 cp
ct=cgi=6.37x10-5 psia-1
Production parameters:
ppwf(t=0) = 3456.8 psia
qg=1,500 MSCF/D (constant)
tp=180.8 hr
Case 2: Well 10 (Lee and Holditch, JPT (September 1981))
Reservoir properties:
=0.057
h=27 ft
Gas properties: (at the initial reservoir pressure (pi) of 9,950 psia)
g=0.6 (air=1)
T= 308 oF
Bgi=0.5282 RB/MSCF
gi=0.0317 cp
ct=cgi=5.10x10-5 psia-1
Production parameters:
ppwf(t=0) = 1518.2 psia
qg=1,300 MSCF/D (constant)
tp=144 hr
Case 3: Well 12 (Lee and Holditch, JPT (September 1981))
Reservoir properties:
=0.045
h=45 ft
Gas properties: (at the initial reservoir pressure (pi) of 2200 psia)
g=0.7 (air=1)
T= 180 oF
Bgi=1.2601 RB/MSCF
gi=0.0174 cp
ct=cgi=4.64x10-4 psia-1
Production parameters:
ppwf(t=0) = 8.2597 psia
qg=325 MSCF/D (constant)
tp=680 hr
Reference(s):
1. Lee, W.J. and Holditch, S.A.: "Fracture Evaluation With Pressure Transient Testing
in Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs, JPT (September 1981), 1776-1792.
Required:
1. Using the attached plots, you are to perform "type curve" analysis on these data and
provide estimates of the following parameters:
a.
b.
c.
d.
The formation permeability, k.
The dimensionless fracture conductivity, CfD.
The dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient for a fractured well, CDf.
The fracture half-length, xf.
16
e. The near-well skin factor, s (from semilog analysis and correlation with xf).
* You are also to verify/calculate properties using the various specialized plots that are
provided. Be sure to perform all analyses and verification calculations.
17
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests (Lee and Holditch, JPT (Sept. 1981))
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Field Cases:
Required: Continued
2. You are to provide a critical and detailed review (at least 1 page) for the following
paper(s):







Lee, W.J. and Holditch, S.A.: "Fracture Evaluation With Pressure Transient
Testing in Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs, JPT (September 1981), 17761792.
For each paper you are to address the following questions: (Type or write neatly)
Problem:
What is/are the problem(s) solved?
What are the underlying physical principles used in the solution(s)?
Assumptions and Limitations:
What are the assumptions and limitations of the solutions/results?
How serious are these assumptions and limitations?
Practical Applications:
What are the practical applications of the solutions/results?
If there are no obvious "practical" applications, then how could the solutions/
results be used in practice?
Discussion:
Discuss the author(s)'s view of the solutions/results.
Discuss your own view of the solutions/results.
Recommendations/Extensions:
How could the solutions/results be extended or improved?
Are there applications other than those given by the author(s) where the solution(s) or the concepts used in the solution(s) could be applied?
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 5"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Well Test Data Functions: Well 5—Lee and Holditch, JPT (September 1981)


(hr)
pws
(psia)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
0.0333
0.0667
0.1000
0.1667
0.2667
0.3333
0.5000
0.6667
0.8333
1.0000
2.0000
3.0000
4.0000
6.0000
8.0000
9.0000
11.0000
13.0000
15.0000
17.0000
19.0000
21.0000
23.0000
25.0000
27.0000
29.0000
31.0000
34.0000
37.0000
39.0000
42.0000
45.0000
48.0000
51.0000
54.0000
57.0000
59.0000
61.0000
63.0000
65.0000
5869
5875
5893
5917
5947
5959
5994
6018
6041
6059
6154
6231
6296
6414
6497
6544
6627
6710
6781
6846
6905
6959
7018
7065
7107
7148
7183
7243
7302
7337
7391
7432
7479
7521
7562
7598
7621
7639
7663
7681
t

ta
(hr)
tae
(hr)
ppws
(psia)
pp
(psi)
0.0209
0.0420
0.0631
0.1055
0.1694
0.2122
0.3196
0.4277
0.5362
0.6451
1.3063
1.9780
2.6578
4.0389
5.4446
6.1558
7.5950
9.0542
10.5314
12.0249
13.5340
15.0576
16.5962
18.1486
19.7117
21.2844
22.8661
25.2559
27.6679
29.2877
31.7349
34.2010
36.6851
39.1862
41.7019
44.2312
45.9244
47.6227
49.3261
51.0348
0.0209
0.0420
0.0631
0.1054
0.1692
0.2120
0.3190
0.4267
0.5346
0.6428
1.2969
1.9566
2.6193
3.9506
5.2854
5.9531
7.2888
8.6224
9.9517
11.2750
12.5915
13.9000
15.2009
16.4930
17.7739
19.0426
20.2989
22.1603
23.9958
25.2048
26.9964
28.7605
30.4971
32.2060
33.8860
35.5373
36.6221
37.6941
38.7534
39.8003
3470.57
3476.17
3492.96
3515.35
3543.34
3554.53
3587.19
3609.58
3631.04
3647.83
3736.46
3809.55
3871.33
3983.49
4062.38
4107.06
4186.33
4266.40
4334.90
4397.60
4454.52
4506.61
4563.53
4609.16
4650.16
4690.18
4724.34
4782.91
4840.50
4874.66
4927.37
4967.39
5013.27
5054.63
5095.03
5130.49
5153.15
5170.88
5194.53
5212.26
13.77
19.37
36.16
58.55
86.54
97.73
130.39
152.78
174.24
191.03
279.66
352.75
414.53
526.69
605.58
650.26
729.53
809.60
878.10
940.80
997.72
1049.81
1106.73
1152.36
1193.36
1233.38
1267.54
1326.11
1383.70
1417.86
1470.57
1510.59
1556.47
1597.83
1638.23
1673.69
1696.35
1714.08
1737.73
1755.46
 pp'(ta)  pp'(tae)
(psi)
(psi)
8.02
22.90
36.16
51.65
63.37
67.29
77.71
92.08
97.11
105.93
157.64
205.00
227.96
284.80
345.23
368.29
395.89
436.69
463.86
478.27
490.57
502.99
518.32
530.99
547.23
551.78
565.36
579.00
581.64
581.84
590.90
588.91
602.75
603.12
608.12
606.37
605.35
601.67
603.51
596.76
8.03
22.91
36.18
51.69
63.43
67.38
77.86
92.37
97.46
106.40
159.05
207.97
232.03
292.23
357.42
383.25
415.41
460.48
493.57
511.68
530.31
548.24
572.27
594.96
606.73
625.56
641.56
663.73
679.18
676.24
690.56
696.73
709.93
724.78
729.07
735.20
735.69
732.49
736.50
734.56
18
Point
41
67.0000
7698
52.7478
40.8345
5229.01
1772.21
593.66
734.42
19
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 5"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Cartesian Plot: Well 5 — Early-Time Pseudopressure versus Pseudotime Data
20
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 5"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Semilog Plot: Well 5 — "MDH" Plot — Pseudopressure versus Pseudotime Data
21
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 5"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Horner Plot: Well 5 — Pseudopressure versus Pseudo-Horner Time Data
22
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 5"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Muskat Plot: Well 5 — Pseudopressure versus Pseudopressure Derivative Data
23
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 5"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Log-log Plot: Well 5 — Pseudopressure Drop and Pseudopressure Drop Derivative Data Versus Shut-In Pseudotime (1 inch x 1 inch)
24
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 5"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Log-log Plot: Well 5 — Pseudopressure Drop and Pseudopressure Drop Derivative Data Versus Shut-In Effective Pseudotime (1 inch x 1
inch)
25
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 10"
Well Test Data Functions: Well 10—Lee and Holditch, JPT (September 1981)


(hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
0.0167
0.0333
0.0500
0.0833
0.1333
0.2500
0.3333
0.4167
0.5000
0.6667
0.8333
1.0000
1.2500
1.5000
1.7500
2.0000
3.0000
4.0000
5.0000
6.0000
8.0000
10.0000
12.0000
14.0000
16.0000
18.0000
21.0000
25.0000
28.0000
31.0000
34.0000
37.0000
40.0000
43.0000
46.0000
52.0000
55.0000
58.0000
61.0000
64.0000
67.0000
70.0000
3589
3643
3701
3829
3936
4130
4321
4474
4638
4967
5394
5761
6167
6459
6857
7309
7759
7923
8138
8306
8509
8637
8732
8822
8891
8958
9040
9096
9135
9172
9207
9237
9270
9298
9323
9350
9365
9372
9384
9396
9404
9416

ta
(hr)
0.0052
0.0081
0.0160
0.0273
0.0447
0.0872
0.1189
0.1522
0.1867
0.2599
0.3393
0.4255
0.5646
0.7132
0.8711
1.0402
1.7663
2.5267
3.3083
4.1109
5.7585
7.4434
9.1524
10.8826
12.6315
14.3969
17.0702
20.6638
23.3745
26.0977
28.8330
31.5794
34.3367
37.1046
39.8819
45.4550
48.2492
51.0473
53.8489
56.6549
59.4646
62.2780
tae
(hr)
0.0052
0.0081
0.0160
0.0273
0.0447
0.0871
0.1188
0.1520
0.1865
0.2594
0.3385
0.4242
0.5624
0.7097
0.8659
1.0327
1.7449
2.4831
3.2340
3.9968
5.5371
7.0776
8.6055
10.1180
11.6128
13.0884
15.2611
18.0707
20.1102
22.0936
24.0229
25.8996
27.7256
29.5026
31.2320
34.5492
36.1400
37.6873
39.1927
40.6584
42.0855
43.4755
pp
 pp'(ta)  pp'(tae)
ppws
(psia)
(psi)
(psi)
(psi)
1553.49
1595.53
1640.69
1740.34
1823.64
1982.26
2140.63
2267.48
2409.98
2696.14
3081.09
3419.54
3800.12
4076.83
4460.03
4899.43
5340.78
5502.13
5714.81
5881.18
6082.44
6209.78
6304.29
6393.82
6462.47
6529.13
6610.94
6666.82
6705.73
6742.65
6777.57
6807.51
6840.43
6868.37
6893.31
6920.25
6935.22
6942.20
6954.18
6966.15
6974.13
6986.11
35.29
77.33
122.49
222.14
305.44
464.06
622.43
749.28
891.78
1177.94
1562.89
1901.34
2281.92
2558.63
2941.83
3381.23
3822.58
3983.93
4196.61
4362.98
4564.24
4691.58
4786.09
4875.62
4944.27
5010.93
5092.74
5148.62
5187.53
5224.45
5259.37
5289.31
5322.23
5350.17
5375.11
5402.05
5417.02
5424.00
5435.98
5447.95
5455.93
5467.91
77.58
70.58
133.66
177.37
197.99
387.19
538.73
659.47
876.50
1147.91
1279.20
1372.29
1587.93
1316.55
1348.38
1281.78
724.86
743.47
631.75
677.28
562.81
513.46
484.42
457.60
445.37
415.09
397.40
379.10
358.03
338.84
311.99
297.59
296.14
288.75
288.26
272.11
266.89
254.91
250.74
239.41
225.72
227.36
77.59
70.59
133.68
177.40
198.07
387.49
539.37
660.29
877.96
1150.39
1282.55
1376.37
1594.94
1323.89
1356.79
1289.56
733.38
757.90
647.58
695.79
604.85
540.36
542.29
493.17
478.39
459.16
450.18
438.44
419.54
399.31
382.36
356.82
363.19
378.90
378.43
370.04
368.66
359.02
353.03
351.54
343.98
344.81
26
Point
pws
(psia)
t
27
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 10"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Cartesian Plot: Well 10 — Early-Time Pseudopressure versus Pseudotime Data
28
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 10"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Semilog Plot: Well 10 — "MDH" Plot — Pseudopressure versus Pseudotime Data
29
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 10"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Horner Plot: Well 10 — Pseudopressure versus Pseudo-Horner Time Data
30
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 10"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Muskat Plot: Well 10 — Pseudopressure versus Pseudopressure Derivative Data
31
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 10"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Log-log Plot: Well 10 — Pseudopressure Drop and Pseudopressure Drop Derivative Data Versus Shut-In Pseudotime (1 inch x 1 inch)
32
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 10"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Log-log Plot: Well 10 — Pseudopressure Drop and Pseudopressure Drop Derivative Data Versus Shut-In Effective Pseudotime (1 inch x 1
inch)
33
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 12"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Well Test Data Functions: Well 12—Lee and Holditch, JPT (September 1981)


(hr)
pws
(psia)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
0.0083
0.0167
0.0250
0.0333
0.0500
0.0667
0.0833
0.1000
0.1167
0.1333
0.1667
0.2000
0.2333
0.2667
0.3000
0.3333
0.4000
0.4667
0.5333
0.6000
0.6667
0.8000
0.9333
1.0667
1.2000
1.4667
1.7333
2.0000
2.2667
2.6000
3.0000
3.4000
3.8000
4.2000
4.6000
5.0000
5.4000
5.8000
10.4000
16.0000
190
270
319
365
438
500
551
597
636
670
726
774
815
848
880
906
955
992
1027
1057
1084
1131
1171
1206
1236
1287
1330
1366
1396
1433
1467
1498
1523
1544
1575
1590
1605
1624
1761
1813
t

ta
(hr)
tae
(hr)
ppws
(psia)
pp
(psi)
0.0004
0.0015
0.0030
0.0046
0.0085
0.0131
0.0181
0.0235
0.0293
0.0354
0.0484
0.0621
0.0766
0.0917
0.1072
0.1232
0.1563
0.1907
0.2261
0.2625
0.2997
0.3761
0.4608
0.5418
0.6244
0.7941
0.9688
1.1478
1.3301
1.5624
1.8468
2.1360
2.4296
2.7269
3.0281
3.3327
3.6396
3.9491
7.6467
12.3488
0.0004
0.0015
0.0030
0.0046
0.0085
0.0131
0.0181
0.0235
0.0293
0.0354
0.0484
0.0621
0.0766
0.0917
0.1072
0.1232
0.1563
0.1907
0.2261
0.2625
0.2997
0.3761
0.4608
0.5418
0.6244
0.7941
0.9688
1.1478
1.3301
1.5624
1.8468
2.1360
2.4296
2.7269
3.0281
3.3327
3.6396
3.9491
7.6467
12.3488
10.27
20.27
27.49
36.33
51.40
67.73
81.33
96.22
108.86
120.45
141.83
160.38
178.37
192.85
206.89
219.75
243.99
262.40
281.63
298.10
312.93
340.39
364.48
385.56
404.97
438.30
466.90
492.21
513.30
539.46
564.97
588.23
606.99
622.93
647.59
659.52
671.45
686.56
800.32
846.00
2.01
12.01
19.23
28.07
43.14
59.47
73.07
87.96
100.60
112.19
133.57
152.12
170.11
184.59
198.63
211.49
235.73
254.14
273.37
289.84
304.67
332.13
356.22
377.30
396.71
430.04
458.64
483.95
505.04
531.20
556.71
579.97
598.73
614.67
639.33
651.26
663.19
678.30
792.06
837.74
 pp'(ta)  pp'(tae)
(psi)
(psi)
7.57
9.44
15.43
20.93
31.29
42.03
50.32
55.18
61.33
65.24
71.91
78.22
82.49
88.60
90.63
93.59
100.19
104.84
109.29
110.89
114.68
121.44
126.95
131.39
134.62
140.65
146.47
148.73
152.07
150.92
159.90
157.23
160.10
157.65
166.32
164.06
163.44
167.34
127.62
124.26
7.57
9.44
15.43
20.93
31.29
42.03
50.32
55.18
61.33
65.24
71.91
78.22
82.49
88.60
90.63
93.59
100.19
104.84
109.29
110.89
114.68
121.44
126.95
131.39
134.62
140.65
146.47
148.73
152.07
150.92
159.90
157.23
160.10
157.65
166.32
164.06
163.44
167.34
127.62
124.26
34
Point
41
29.1667
1933
23.8318
23.8318
953.80
945.54
163.96
163.96
35
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 12"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Cartesian Plot: Well 12 — Early-Time Pseudopressure versus Pseudotime Data
36
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 12"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Semilog Plot: Well 12 — "MDH" Plot — Pseudopressure versus Pseudotime Data
37
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 12"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Horner Plot: Well 12 — Pseudopressure versus Pseudo-Horner Time Data
38
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 12"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Muskat Plot: Well 12 — Pseudopressure versus Pseudopressure Derivative Data
39
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 12"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Log-log Plot: Well 12 — Pseudopressure Drop and Pseudopressure Drop Derivative Data Versus Shut-In Pseudotime (1 inch x 1 inch)
40
Petroleum Engineering 324 — Well Performance
Final Project — Analysis of Gas Well Tests — Lee and Holditch "Well 12"
28 April 2000 — Due: Thursday 11 May 2000
Log-log Plot: Well 12 — Pseudopressure Drop and Pseudopressure Drop Derivative Data Versus Shut-In Effective Pseudotime (1 inch x 1
inch)
41