Further Discussion on Pressure Drawdown and Buildup in the Presence of Radial Discontinuities

In an earlier publication* I showed the development of the instantaneous point source solution for a well producing at a constant rate at the center of a system of two radial, adjoining sands of different permeabilities. I also showed how a wellbore radius could be incorporated if this were the development required. For the purpose of that paper and the point I wished to make, this solution served. It yielded a simplifying solution of sands in series identified by Eqs. VI-26 and VI-27. (These equations are reproduced in part by Bixel and van Poollen as their Eq. 3, Page 302.) I am well aware that the simplified solutions are approximations. The facts that these Ei-functions satisfy the diffusivity equation and meet the boundary conditions both at the well and at the interface between sands, and that the earliest time considerations yield zero pressure drop, are evidence that the solutions are good approximations. This was the purpose for these formulas, which I interpret that where the permeabilities are of finite order of magnitudes in the respective media, the relations give satisfactory answers. However, from the authors' point of view there are reservations, which leads me to consider their entire generalization as illustrated in their Figs. 1 through 14. What I understand from their storage capacity, relationship Fs, which is the ratio of the product of porosity and compressibility of Sand II to Sand I, that is employed here by the authors as a correlative means of identifying one figure from another, there is nothing in the exact mathematics that supports such a term as a means of correlation. This is taken out of context, unsustained that this applies. Here the mathematics are known, where the true correlation is the diffusivity term of one sand to another. This entails permeability that refers back again to the term M in their paper for the transmis-sibility of fluid from one sand to the other that should have also been a part of this storage capacity. In Figs. 8 through 14, which purported to show the simplified equation following this correlation, there are apparent discontinuities for M equal to or less than 0.1000 that differ from the trends for greater values of M. In this connection there is no reference radius given for this cumulative pressure drop in the paper that would permit me to make these calculations. However, what is clear for M equal to 0.1000 or less we are treated to almost a closed barrier at the interface; a condition entered by the writers without qualification. This across-the-board treatment of these simplified formulas, whatever the motive of the authors, enters into a range of permeabilities that even I as the contributor would have reservations that such could apply. Under comparable conditions I would be looking at a closed reservoir or some facsimile for such. The extent to which the approximation or the exact equations pertain is not evident in the generality offered by Bixel and van Poollen in their paper. Only when they or other writers show the comparison of the pressure distributions within the formations can one be able to judge the rational limits to subscribe to the simplified formulas.