See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/254533874

Pressure Transient Testing Under Multiphase Flow Conditions

Article · January 2011

DOI: 10.2118/141572-MS

CITATIONS READS
3 229

2 authors, including:

Medhat Kamal

42 PUBLICATIONS   313 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pressure Transient Analysis of Polymer Flooding With Coexistence of Non-Newtonian and Newtonian Fluids View project

Falloff Testing Under Multiphase Flow Conditions in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Medhat Kamal on 12 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE 141572

Pressure Transient Testing Under Multiphase Flow Conditions

Medhat M. Kamal and Yan Pan, Chevron Energy Technology Company

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, 25–28 September 2011.

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 have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Although pressure transient testing technology was developed assuming single phase flow in the reservoir, multiphase
flow conditions are the norm rather than the exception. The single-phase flow assumption is valid for oil reservoirs
above the bubble point pressure with no water production and relatively dry gas reservoirs. For oil reservoirs below the
bubble point pressure, gas condensate reservoirs below the dew point pressure and fields producing water, the
multiphase flow effects should be considered in transient test analysis. Several attempts have been reported in the
literature to handle multiphase flow effects (e.g., Perrine 1956, Martin 1959 and Raghavan 1976). A recent multiphase
testing method to calculate the absolute permeability of the reservoir and the average fluid saturations at the time of a
transient test has been proposed (Kamal and Pan 2010). This paper briefly describes the three methods, presents
results of using them to analyze example synthetic data and shows a field example illustrating lessons learned and
best practices to use the recent approach.

The recently proposed method has been validated through analyses of synthetic data and, as the field example shows,
that the same absolute permeability calculated when a field was producing only oil above the bubble point pressure,
was obtained when the reservoir pressure dropped below the bubble point and both oil and gas were being produced.
Another example leads to the same conclusion when an oil field is producing under oil-water two-phase flow condition
and water saturation changes at different stages of the field life. A major advantage of the method has also been
illustrated (Kamal and Pan 2010) through yet another field example where it showed how to separate the effects of
various factors (e.g., multiphase flow, compaction, etc.) on changing the value of permeability.

Background
Production of oil and gas reservoirs under multiphase flow conditions is encountered in a large number of cases. Flow
in reservoirs may start as single phase if the initial pressure is higher than bubble or dew point pressures, however, in
most cases as pressure declines with production multiphase flow occurs. Flow of oil and water or gas and water also
occurs frequently in reservoirs as water from aquifers or from injection wells flows with existing hydrocarbons.
Analyzing transient testing data under multiphase-flow requires considering the effect of relative permeability functions
on the flow of fluids in the reservoir. In this paper, the effect of two-phase flow is addressed (oil and gas, oil and water,
or gas and water). Other multiphase flow situations, like three phase flow, gas condensate reservoirs (Raghavan et al.
1999), or Coalbed methane reservoirs (Kamal and Six 1993) are out of the scope of this work.

The theoretical work of Perrine (1956) and Martin (1959) replaces the single phase mobility term, k/μ, by a total
mobility term

λ λ λ λ , ………………………. (1)
2 SPE 141572

The effective permeability is calculated by

.
, ………………………………….…………………………………………………………… (2)

As addressed in SPE Monograph 23 (Kamal 2009), most current software programs allow for analyzing both flow and
shut-in periods using Perrine-Martin method, although it is not clear this method can be used during flow periods due
to saturation changes. It should also be noted that software programs after calculating the total mobility, multiply it by
the dominant phase viscosity and then report a “permeability” or an “equivalent permeability” term that has no physical
meaning.

Raghavan (1976) introduced the concept of a pseudopressure function for multiphase flow in solution gas drive
reservoirs. That function can be written as:

, ……………………………………………………………………………. (3)

This method implies that the relative permeability is a function of the pressure. This means that the pseudopressure
function should be calculated for each test. Raghavan (1976) proposed the following procedure:

1. For each value of pressure, tabulate the fluid properties.

2. Using the following equation, calculate krg/kro as a function of pressure,
, ………………………………………………………………………………………….. (4)

3. From the relative permeability vs. saturation curve, calculate So at krg/kro obtained in the previous step.
4. Determine kro values as a function of pressure from So values calculated in Step 3.
5. Compute kro/( μoBo) and krg/( μgBg) as functions of pressure and generate the pseudopressure.

Kamal and Pan (2010) proposed a new method to calculate the absolute permeability and average fluid saturations
around a tested well. Their method applies equally when the flowing phases are oil and gas, oil and water, or gas and
water. It uses the same relative permeability relations which are used in the reservoir engineering or simulation study
where the results from analyzing the pressure transient tests will be incorporated. They proposed the following steps
be followed to analyze transient tests with two phases (oil and water) flowing. The same steps apply for oil / gas or gas
/ water:

1. Design and run a pressure transient test using normal procedures.

2. Calculate the effective permeabilities of the flowing phases from transient tests. For example, if an oil-water
system is being considered and the Infinite Acting Radial Flow regime can be identified on a semilog plot, the
effective oil permeability can be calculated using Eq. 5 and the effective water permeability can be calculated
using Eq. 6

162.6q o Bo μ o
ko = , ……………………………….……………………………………………………………… (5)
mh
162 .6 qw Bw μ w
kw = . …………………………………………………………………………………………….... (6)
mh

3. Calculate the effective permeability ratio of the two flowing phases. The ratio of the effective permeability of oil
and water can be calculated using the values obtained from Step 2, and it is the same as the ratio of oil and
water relative permeabilities.
k ro k rw = k o k w , ………..……………………………………………………………………………………….... (7)
SPE 141572 3

4. Calculate and plot the relation of relative permeability ratio versus saturation. In this method, the relative
permeability relations (for example, Fig. 1) are given information. They may be obtained from laboratory
measurements, empirical models, or resulted from a history matching process. These relations should be the
same as what have been selected for use in the numerical reservoir simulation model or the reservoir
engineering study. From these relative permeability curves, the ratio kro/krw as a function of saturation can be
derived as shown in Fig. 2.

1
6
Kro
0.8
Krw 5
Kro and Krw

Kro/Krw
0.6
3
0.4
2
0.2 1

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Water Saturation Sw Water saturation Sw
Fig. 1 – Oil and water relative permeability curves Fig. 2 – Ratio between oil and water permeabilities.

5. Using the value of ko/kw (Eq. 7) obtained from test analysis and Fig. 2; one can estimate the average value of
water (and oil) saturation in the tested area of the reservoir.
6. Finally using the value of the saturation of the dominant phase (Step 5) and Fig. 1, one can calculate the
relative permeability of that phase and the absolute permeability can then be calculated from Eq. 8

kw k
k= or k = o , ………………………………………………………….………………………………… (8)
k rw k ro

Comparison of Results Using Various Methods

The Kamal-Pan method was verified by comparing results of analyzing synthetic data with the input values used in
creating them (Kamal and Pan 2010). In this study, another two sets of synthetic data, one for an oil-water system and
one for an oil-gas system, were created using a finite difference numerical simulator and the generated transient data
were analyzed using both Perrine-Martin and Kamal-Pan methods. The objectives were to determine the validity of the
different methods under various conditions, understand the meaning of the values generated by both methods and
develop guidelines (if possible) to recommend how to use their results effectively. Raghavan pseudopressure method
was not tested as it pertains to oil-gas system only and the interest here is for both oil-water, gas-water, and oil-gas
systems.

Oil-Water System
The input data for the oil-water system are shown in Table 1. The relative permeability relations used are shown in
Fig. 3.

The well was produced at a surface rate of 500 STBO/D for 1000 hours and shut-in for a buildup of 1000 hours (Fig.
4), and the results of the buildup data were analyzed. Figs. 5 and 6 show the diagnostic and semilog plots of the
buildup test respectively.
4 SPE 141572

TABLE 1 – PROPERTIES OF OIL-WATER SYSTEM

Property Value Units
o
Reservoir temperature 180 F
Reservoir initial pressure 4200 psi
Fluid type Dead oil and water
Water salinity 20,000 ppm
Water formation volume factor Meehan & Ramey Correlation
Water viscosity Russell & Matthews Correlation
o
Oil gravity 40 API
Oil formation volume factor Standing Correlation
Oil compressibility Vasquez and Beggs Correlation
Oil viscosity Beggs and Robinson Correlation
Formation net thickness 50 ft
Absolute permeability 25 md
Porosity 0.18
Formation compressibility 3E-06 psi-1
Initial water saturation 0.4
Wellbore radius 0.3 ft
Well completion Fully penetrating vertical well
Reservoir dimensions 4000 X 4000 Square with outer no flow ft X ft
boundaries
Well location Center of reservoir
Liquid rate [STB/D] Pressure [psia]

1.0 25
kro kro/krw krw 3600
0.8 20 3100
kro and krw

kro /krw

2600
0.6 15
Oil rate
0.4 10
Water rate
250
0.2 5

0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Water saturation - sw,norm Time [hr]
Fig. 3 – Oil and water relative permeabilities Fig. 4 – Well bottomhole pressure and oil and water
and their ratio. surface rates.
Pressure dp and dp/dlnt, psi

3800
Pressure [psia]

1000
3300

100 2800

10 -8 -6 -4 -2
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time [hr] Superposition Time
Fig. 5 – Diagnostic plot for buildup test of Fig. 6 – Semilog plot of buildup test of
an oil-water system. an oil-water system.
SPE 141572 5

The results of the analyses are shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2 – ANALYSES RESULTS OF OIL-WATER SYSTEM

Property Perrine-Martin Kamal-Pan Units
Effective Oil Permeability 11.6 11.5 md
Effective Water Permeability 1.95 1.88 md
Equivalent Oil Permeability 19.7 NA md
Absolute Permeability NA 24.89 md
Skin 0.007 -0.040 dimensionless
Average Water Saturation NA 0.408 fraction

Oil-Gas System
The input data for the oil-gas system are shown in Table 3 and Fig. 7. The well was produced at a surface rate of 500
STBO/D for 1000 hours and then shut-in for another 1000 hours for a buildup test (Fig. 8). The results of the buildup
test were analyzed. Figs. 9 and 10 show the diagnostic and semilog plots respectively.

TABLE 3: PROPERTIES OF OIL-GAS SYSTEM

Property Value Units
o
Reservoir temperature 200 F
Reservoir initial pressure 3500 psi
Gas oil ratio 700 SCF/STB
Fluid type Saturated Oil
o
Oil gravity 42 API
Gas solubility Standing Correlation
Oil formation volume factor Standing Correlation
Oil compressibility Vasquez and Beggs Correlation
Oil viscosity Beggs and Robinson Correlation
Gas specific gravity 0.7
Gas H2S content 0.0
Gas N2 content 0.0
Gas CO2 content 0.0
Gas super compressibility Standing Correlation
Gas viscosity Lee Correlation
Formation net thickness 30 ft
Absolute permeability 12 md
Porosity 0.15 fraction
Formation compressibility 3E-06 psi-1
Wellbore radius 0.3 ft
Well completion Fully penetrating vertical well
Reservoir dimensions 10000X10000 square with outer no flow boundaries ft X ft
Well location Center of reservoir
6 SPE 141572

Liquid rate [STB/D] Pressure [psia]

1.0 25

kro kro/krg 3000

0.8 20
k rg
kro and krg

kro /krg
0.6 15

Gas rate [Mscf/D]

500 1000
Oil rate
0.4 10
Gas rate
250 500
0.2 5

0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 1000 2000
Gas saturation - sg,norm Time [hr]
Fig. 7 – Oil and gas relative permeabilities Fig. 8 – Well bottomhole pressure and oil and gas
and their ratio. surface rates.
Pressure dp and dp/dlnt, psi

3400

Pressure [psia]
3300
100

3200

3100
10 -4 -2
1 10 100 1000
Time [hr] Superposition Time
Fig. 9 – Diagnostic plot for buildup test of Fig. 10 – Semilog plot for buildup test of
an oil-gas system. an oil-gas system.

The results of the analyses are shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4 – ANALYSIS RESULTS OF OIL-GAS SYSTEM

Property Perrine-Martin Kamal-Pan Units
Effective oil permeability 9.83 7.16 md
Effective gas permeability 0.0604 0.362 md
Equivalent oil permeability 10.1 NA md
Absolute permeability NA 11.65 md
Skin -6.23 -0.0235 dimensionless
Average gas saturation NA 0.0595 fraction

Field Example
The recently proposed multiphase analysis method (Kamal and Pan 2010) has been applied in several field cases.
Only one case is presented in this paper to demonstrate the application..

Petronius
Petronius is an oil field located in the Gulf of Mexico, 150 miles south of Mobile, Alabama (Pourciau 2007). The field is
a weakly confined channel system of middle Miocene turbidites deposited within canyons and charged with
hydrocarbons. The oil gravity is 30.1 API with bubble point pressure of 5228 psia.

Well A09 is equipped with permanent downhole gauges. The pressure data, oil and gas rates from April 2006 to March
2008 are shown in Fig. 11. In October 2006, the well bottom-hole pressure decreased rapidly and the reservoir
SPE 141572 7

pressure was suspected to have dropped below bubble-point pressure. A series of buildup tests were conducted at
this well during the two-year period (Fig. 12). Buildup Tests #2, #3 and #6 were run during the single-phase flow period
before October 2006, and buildup test #22 was conducted in January 2008 when the reservoir pressure was below the
bubble-point pressure. The diagnostic log-log plot (Fig. 12) indicated that all the tests reached radial flow regime (the
flat portion of the pressure derivative, lower curve) and allowed the estimation of the effective oil permeability. The
radial flow regime of Buildups #2, #3 and #6, shown as the green dashed line, overlap each other and are below the
radial flow regime of Buildup #22 which is shown as the red dashed line. This implies that the effective oil permeability
has decreased due to multiphase flow effects (gas came out of solution in the reservoir). The late-time transient
behavior (6 hours after shut-in for Buildup Tests #2, #3 and #6, and 20 hours after shut-in for Buildup Test #22) was
caused by some particular reservoir features in Petronius, which is not the focus of this paper and will not be
discussed here.

To obtain the absolute permeability of the formation, any buildup tests with high quality data before October 2006
during single-phase flow period can be analyzed. However, with the benefit of the availability of permanent downhole
gauge data with a series of buildup tests, this provided a unique opportunity to test the multiphase testing method.
Therefore, Buildup #22 conducted during two-phase flow condition was analyzed using the proposed procedure, and
later was validated with the results from buildup #3 analysis during the single-phase oil flow period.

In Petronius reservoir simulation study, the relative permeability curves shown in Fig. 13 were used. The same set of
curves (red and green in Fig. 13) and the corresponding relative permeability relation kro/krg curve (blue in Fig. 13)
were utilized in the multiphase well test analysis.

BU#2
  BU#6
Pressure - psia

5500 BU#3

BU#22
4500
BHP = 5,228
3500
P>Pb P<Pb
Gas rate – Mscf/D
2500

5000 Oil rate – STB/D

2500

2007 Time 2008

Fig. 11 – Petronius Well A09 production and PDG data.

 
psi

1.0 50
build-up #2 kro/krg krg
Pressure dP and dP/dlnt,

build-up #3 0.8 40
build-up #6
[p ]

kro and krg

1000 build-up #22 (ref)

0.6 30
kro/krg

koeff when P<Pb 0.4 20

kro
100
0.2 10
ko eff when P>Pb 0.0 0
10 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time, hr Gas saturation - sg,norm
Fig. 12 – A series of buildups at Petronius Well A09. Fig. 13 – Petronius oil and gas relative
permeabilities and their ratio.
8 SPE 141572

Following the multiphase well test analysis procedure, first, Buildup #22 was analyzed using oil rates and oil properties
as shown in the log-log plot (Fig. 14). The obtained effective oil permeability is 73.6 md. Second, the same buildup
data was analyzed using the corresponding gas rates and gas properties, and the estimated effective gas permeability
is 2.44 md. Third, the effective oil and gas permeability ratio was calculated using these two estimations and the value
is 30.2. In the fourth step, using Fig. 13 and kro/krg value of 30.2, the corresponding value of the average gas saturation
of 0.11 of the tested area in January 2008 was obtained. The fifth step was to find the kro value of 0.56 in the relative
oil permeability curve in Fig. 13 using the calculated gas saturation of 0.11. At this step, the relative gas permeability
curve could be used to estimate krg value instead. However, in this field case, the obtained gas saturation is relatively
small and the resolution of krg curve at this range is low, hence it was chosen to use kro curve. The last step was to use
the kro value of 0.56 and the estimated effective oil permeability of 73.6 md to calculate the absolute permeability
value, which is 130 md.

Since buildup test data during single-phase oil flow period was available in this field case, Buildup #3 conducted at
early production was selected to validate the multiphase analysis results. The estimated permeability from Buildup #3
is 130 md as shown in the log-log plot Fig. 15.

The results of the analyses of both tests are summarized in Table 5. They show that the absolute permeability
estimated from Buildup #22 after reservoir pressure dropped below bubble-point pressure using the multiphase test
analysis method is consistent with what is obtained from Buildup #3 during single-phase flow period.

 
psi
Pressure dP and dP/dlnt, psi

Pressure dP and dP/dlnt,

[p ]

1000

100

100

koeff when P>Pb

10 10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10
Time, hr Time, hr
Fig. 14 – Petronius Well A09 PTA – BU#22 match. Fig. 15 – Petronius Well A09 PTA – BU#3 match.

TABLE 5 – SUMMARY OF PETRONIUS RESULTS

BU #22 – Jan. 2008 BU #3 – Apr. 2006
keff, md kr Absolute k, md Absolute k, md
Oil 73.6 0.56 130 130
Gas 2.44
ko/kg 30.2
Sg 0.11 0.00

Discussion
Some of the most widely used approaches to analyze data from transient tests from reservoirs producing under
multiphase flow conditions have been reviewed. In this study, multiphase flow conditions for two-phase flow only (oil-
water and oil-gas) were addressed. Results obtained from the method currently available in most commercial software
(Perrine-Martin) and true values used in generating synthetic data were compared. Values of the effective permeability
of individual phases appear to be reasonable as they fall between their expected upper and lower bounds. The range
limits are obtained by multiplying the absolute permeability by the relative permeability at the maximum and minimum
possible saturations from the relative permeability curves. This is expected based on Perrine (1956) development of
the concept of calculating the effective permeability for individual phases (Eq. 2). Actually, this is the same concept
SPE 141572 9

used in developing relative permeability relations in laboratory measurements and calculating flow rates in numerical
reservoir simulators. In laboratory measurements of relative permeability relations, the flow rates of different phases
(e.g., oil and water) at a specific fluid saturation, the pressure drop across a core sample, the dimensions of the core,
and the fluid properties of each fluid are substituted in Darcy’s flow equation and the effective permeability of each
phase is calculated at that specific saturation. In numerical reservoir simulators, the flow rates of different phases
through a grid block at any time step is calculated from Darcy’s flow equation using the pressure drop across the grid
block, the fluids properties, and the derived effective permeability of each phase from the absolute permeability of the
grid block, the fluid saturations at the time step and the relative permeability relations. The concept of using the “total
mobility” (Eq. 1) and the fluid properties of any phase (e.g., oil in an oil reservoir) to calculate an equivalent
permeability produced values that cannot be correlated with physical properties. The calculated values of skin are
inconsistent. This may be due to ignoring the effect of saturation changes around the wellbore (Kamal and Raghavan
2009).

Results from a recently proposed method by Kamal and Pan (2010) produce the same effective permeability values for
different phases as Perrine-Marin because they use the same equations. Additionally, calculation of the formation
absolute permeability produces the same values as those used as input to generate the synthetic data. The calculated
skin and fluid saturations are also accurate. The main difference and advantage of this method is the use of the
relative permeability relations to calculate reservoir properties needed to predict future performance. It may be
suggested that using relative permeability relations with synthetic data is straight forward since these relations are
accurately known in this case, whereas, in analyzing data from actual fields, there are uncertainties associated with the
relative permeabilities. The main point is that regardless of the uncertainties associated with the relative permeabilities,
a certain relation is used in any reservoir engineering study or reservoir simulation model to first history match and
then to predict the future performance of the field. Using this same relative permeability function in calculating the
absolute permeability, skin, and average fluid saturations from transient tests guarantees consistency between the
reservoir model and historical field data and future performance.

In Petronius field case, the use of permanent downhole gauges (PDG) produced transient data from a series of buildup
tests at different production stages including single-oil-phase and oil-gas two-phase flow conditions. The application of
Kamal-Pan method showed that it could estimate accurate absolute permeability of the formation during two-phase
period. This was proved by comparing the results obtained at later production stage with the estimation from early
stage single-phase buildup test.

Conclusions
The following conclusions apply to the multiphase transient testing analysis studied in this work which has been limited
to two-phase systems:

1. The effective permeability for individual phases calculated using Perrine-Martin and Kamal-Pan methods
appear to be correct.
2. The absolute permeability, skin, and fluid saturations calculated using Kamal-Pan are correct since they
are the same as the input values used to generate synthetic transient data.
3. Using the same relative permeability relations in analyzing multiphase transient testing data and in the
reservoir simulation model guarantees consistency between field and model results.
4. “Equivalent” permeability or mobility produced in commercial software are not the same as absolute
permeability and the skin values calculated using this approach are not accurate.
5. The application of Kamal-Pan method in the oil-gas field case proved that it can be used to calculate
consistent values of absolute permeability of the formation under two-phase flow condition similar to what
is calculated during the single-phase flow period, and the change of fluid saturations could be monitored
through buildup tests at various production stages.

Nomenclature

B = formation volume factor, RB/STB

h = formation net thickness, ft
k = permeability, md
kg = effective permeability to gas, md
ko = effective permeability to oil, md
10 SPE 141572

krg = relative permeability to gas, ratio

kro = relative permeability to oil, ratio
krw = relative permeability to water, ratio
kw = effective permeability to water, md
m = absolute value of slope of IARF semilog line, psi/log-cycle
p = pressure, psi
q = flow rate, STB/D
R = producing gas/ oil ratio, scf/STB
Rs = solution gas / oil ratio, scf/STB
rw = well bore radius, ft
s = saturation
z = deviation factor
λ = mobility (k/μ), md/cp
μ = viscosity, cp

Subscripts
eff = Effective
f = fluid
g = gas
o = oil
r = relative
w = water

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Chevron for permission to publish this work.

References
Kamal, M. M. and Pan, Y. 2010. Use of Transient Data to Calculate Absolute Permeability and Average Fluid
Saturations. SPE Res Eval & Eng 13 (2): 306-312. SPE-113903-PA. doi: 10.2118/113903-PA.

Kamal, M. M., and Six, J. L. 1991. Pressure Transient Testing of Methane Producing Coalbeds. SPE Advanced
Technology Series, 1 (1): 195-203. SPE-19789-PA. doi: 10.2118/19789-PA

Kamal, M. M. 2009. Transient Well Testing. Monograph Series No.23, SPE, Dallas TX. Chapter 15 by Raghavan, R.,
447-475.

Martin, J.C. 1959. Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reservoirs and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase
Pressure Buildup Analyses. SPE-1235-G. Trans., AIME, 216: 321–323.

Perrine, R.L. 1956. Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves. API Drilling and Production Practice: 482–509.

Pourciau, R. D. 2007. Deepwater Extended-Reach Sand-Control Completions and Interventions SPE Drill & Compl 22
(2): 157-164. SPE-98563-PA. doi: 10.2118/98563-PA

Raghavan, R. 1976. Well Test Analysis: Wells Producing by Solution Gas Drive. SPE J. 16 (4): 196–206; Trans.,
AIME, 261. SPE-5588-PA. doi: 10.2118/5588-PA.

Raghavan, R., Chu, W.C,, and Jones, J. R. 1999. Practical Consideration in the Analysis of Gas-Condensate Well
Tests. SPE Res Eval & Eng 2 (3): 288-295. SPE-56837-PA. doi: 10.2118/56837-PA.

View publication stats