Geological well testing is a valuable tool that allows us to improve understanding of pressure transient behaviour in a fractured reservoir. However, not all wells in a fractured reservoir will show pressure transients that are expected for NFRs. Our findings demonstrate that high resolution models with proper grid refinement around the wells and fractures are required to model pressure transient behaviour adequately and produce a physically meaningful wellbore response for a fractured reservoir. The key concept for interpreting well test data from fractured reservoirs is the dual-porosity model. This model, originally developed by has been the industry standard for modelling NFRs and interpreting well-test data from NFRs for more than 50 years. Although there are a number of factors impacting the exact shape of the pressure transients, our results suggest that observing the classical “V-shape” in the pressure derivative, as expected from a dual-porosity model may be an exception, rather than a rule in NFR, even for well-connected fracture networks. Our work quantifies when and why the assumptions inherent to the dual-porosity model break down when interpreting well-test data from NFR.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aljuboori, F., Bisdom, K., Corbett, P.W.M., Bertotti, G. and Geiger, S.
    [2015] Using outcrop data for geological well test modelling in fractured reservoirs. 77th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Maldrid, Spain, 1–4 June
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bourdet, D.
    [2002] Well test analysis: The use of advanced interpretation models. Handbook of Petroleum Exploration & Production (HPEP), 3, 426.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cinco-Ley, H.
    [1996] Well-test analysis for naturally fractured reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 48(1). 51–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Corbett, P.W.M., Geiger-Boschung, S., Borges, L., Garayev, M. and Valdez, C.
    [2012] The third porosity system: Understanding the role of hidden porosity in well test interpretation in carbonates. Petroleum Geoscience, 18, 73–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Kuchuk, F. and Biryukov, D.
    [2012] Transient pressure test interpretation for continously and discretely fractured reservoirs. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE 158096.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. [2015] Pressure-transient tests and flow regimes in fractured reservoirs. SPE SPE Res Eval & Eng, 17(1), 82–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Morton, K.L., Noguerira, P.B., Booth, R.J.S. and Kuchuk, F.J.
    [2012] Integrated interpretation for pressure tests in discretely fractured reservoirs. SPE EUROPEC / EAGE, Copenhagen, Demark, 4–7 June, SPE 154531.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Morton, K.L., Booth, R.J.S., Chugunov, N., Biryukov, D., Fitzpatrick, A. and Kuchuk, F.J.
    [2013] Global sensitivity analysis for naturally fracture geological modeling parameters from pressure transient test. SPE EUROPEC / EAGE, London, United Kingdom, 10–13 June, SPE 164894.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Morton, K.L., Kuchuk, F.J. and Fitzpatrick, A.
    [2015] Active and interference well pressure transient data interpretation in naturally fractured reservoirs. 77th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, IFEMA Maldrid, Spain, 1–4 June, We N118 02.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Narr, W., Schechter, D. S. and Thompson, L.B.
    [2006] Naturally fractured reservoir characterization. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Warren, J.E. and Root, P.J.
    [1963] The behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs. SPE Journal, 3(03), 244–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Wei, L., Hadwin, J., Chaput, E., Rawnsley, K and Swaby, P.
    [1998] Discriminating fracture patterns in fractured reservoirs by pressure transient tests. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE 49233.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error