SOCIETYOF PETROLEUMENCHXEERSOF Am

63OO North CentralExpressway

DallasjTexas

=R

SPE

800

THIS IS A PREPRINT--- SUBJECTTO CORRECTION

MAKING

MORE COMPLETE

USE OF DST DATA

by
J. R. Dean and L. O. PettyjMembersAIMS,
(Tohnsto~
TesterstDallas and Ho.MonjTex.
PublicationRights Reserved
This paper is to be presentedat the MechanicalEngineeringAspectsof DrillingProduction
on March 23-24} 1964, and is considered.
the propertyof the Societyof
Symposiumin Fort Worth2 !l!ex.,
PetrolewnEngineers. Permissionto publish is hereby restrictedto an abstractof not more than 300
worclsjwith no illustrations,
~less the paper is specificallyreleasedtio the press by the EdT$or ot
the Journalof PetroleumTechnologyor the ExecutiveSecretary, Such abstractshouldcontain
conspicuousacknowle@@e.ntof where and by whom the papeiris presentecl,Publicationelsewhereafter
publicatiori
in Journalof PetroleumTechnologyor Societyof PetroleumEngineersJournalis gran.tecl
on
requestlprovi&ingproper creditis given that publi.catio~
s.ndthe originalpresentationof the paper.
shouldbe sent to the
Discussionof this paper is invited. Three copiesof any ciiscussion
maybe presenteaat the abovemeetingand
Soci&5yof PetroleumEngineersoffice. Such d.iscuss~on
consideredfor publicationin one of thetwo SPE magazineswith the paper.

A.i3SECRACT
l.is paper touchesbrieflyupon the
qualitativeantidiscussesmore fully the
quantitativevaluesthat can be Clerivea
from a
properly conducteadrill-stemtest. These values
are shown to come from the test data obtained
from sufficientfluid recoveryandadequate shutin pressurebuild-ups, A brief discussionis
given showingseveralreferencesfor backgrouucl
materialin the field of.productionana DST
pressurebuild-upClatti
analysis.

Apresentatlon is made of the generally

acceptedassumptionsand empiricaleqtiations
that
areuseiiin DST data analysis.
INTRODUCTION
.

For many years the DS!l?

was usetlonly as a
qualitativeformationevaluationtoolj determining the type of fluia presentand an apparent
rate of flow< Recentapplicationof pressure
build-upcurve smalysisto the DST pressure
builtl-up
has shown that quantitativeformation
evaluationcan also be made with excellent
Recognizingthat good data is ?mportantto
reliability,and prior to settingPipe. Quanticompleteevaluation,the paper briefly aiscusses tative evaluationrequtresgood pressurebuild-u~
some of the specificdata that are needeci
and ho% data .arxLenhances
the importanceof the final
they might be obtained. Some verygenertirules- shu%-inpressurebuild-upportionof the normal,
of-thumb
are given 8uggestingflow anclshut-in
DST pressurechart.
time relationshipsbased on surfaceflow reactions. The resultsof threeseparatestu(lies
ar<
The naturalsequenceis followedby discussbrieflymentionedshowingshut-intime and
ing some generalrules-of-thumfor time
allotmentthat may be appl~edduringthe actual
resultingp~essurebuild-uprelationshipsas
operationof the ~est that wild.help in getting
indicationsof completionpotenti~l.
.
... .. .. .
the-necessaryaata-.
~e-authors concluaeby
=d
making some brief evaluationsof particularDST
Eight examples Qf actual MT res~ts
their correspondingHomer plots are presented
data to illustratethe type of informationthat
and discussed. Interpretations
are made on each
can be gleanedfrom a DST today.
of these.exampl.es
baseclon the informationshowrl
and suggestedeffectsare made.
WHATA M)! CANTELLYOU
Referencesand illwtrationsat end of paper.

Ona DST with s.uff.icient

formationfluid

/
MIXTNG
TS!li!(.
W --TKV ..
T)AWA
.--
.. .MORF!
.. . . (?OMPT.KTF!
---- -- T--....

am-ml

I.Jb-w-w>

The wellboredamagedeterminationthrough
te estimateddamageratio calculation is one
of the most useful.of the evaluationtechniques.
Most DST evaluatorsnow rec~gnizethat the
indicatedrate of flow from qualitativetests is
of the true potential
1. Extrapolatedmaximum reservoirpressure, not always representative
of the formatlon
and that the differenceis
in the absenceof a stabilizedmechanical
generallywellboredamageeffect. By making the
measurement,for hydrodynadca hydrocarbon
calculation,evaluationcan bemade as to
column,smd reeervoirdepletionstudiesat the
whetherpoorproductionTs the result of demage
timeof EST.
2* Averageeffectiveformation
permeability or low permeability.
to formationfluid,at reservoircondit~onbp
All or the above qusatitativedeterminathroughtransmlsstbility
and flow capacity
tions are formationcharacteristic~
that may be
calculatLons.
from a normalD-W!at no extra cost to the
3. Formationbarriersjlithologyand/or
operator. All that 1s requiredis a properly.
fluidphase anomaliesand approximatedistances
conductedDST, one in which sufficientquantity
to these anomalieswhen they occur within the
of the reservoirfluid is recoveredto identity>
radiusof investigationof the test.
and a good clean pressurechart is obtained
4. The gross effectsofwellboreda,mage4
showingadequatepressurebuild-ups.
throughan estimateddamage ratio [EDR].
calculation.
HOW TO GET DATA FOR QUANTITATIVEANALYSIS
Quite often the initialshut-inportion of
Astatisticalstudy of presentDST field
the DST will not be held long enoughto allow a
proceduressuggeststhat the normal!DST
stabilized[leveledout] mechanicalreadingof
generaXLyis not conductedin a manner that will
the rnsMmum reservoirpressure. Since this
obtainadequatedata for the above calculations.
pressure
readingis quite importantin hydro.The most commonfaults committedintaking a DST
dynamicand reservoirdepletionstudies,it is
are: I] lhm.u?ficient
descriptionof recovery
a loss to not have this measurementwhen direct
and/or flow, 2] Dnproperdescriptionof the
or qualitativedata only is used from the test.
drill pipe and col.1.ars
for volumetriccalculaHorners5elasstcpaper has shown that it is
tions, and 3] Inadequatepressurebuild-up
possibleto get a mathematicalstatementof this
times.
maximumreservoirpressurewhen certain.conditionsaremet by a pressurebuild-up. TMS
To aid in proper interpretationof the
Hornerplot extrapolationtechniquehas been
basic data: a qualitativeas we~ as quantitative
appliedsuccesstilY6 and IS now considered
descriptionof the fluid contentsof the test ar(
routineon completeDST data analysis.
neecled.A WSI1 equippedtechnicianarrives on
locationwith a centrifuge,hydrometer,pit~t
Horner presentedin his paper a means of
tube or orificewelltester}assortmentof
solvingfor an average
effectivepermeability
chokes,pressuregaugesand titrationkit to
from pressurebuild-upadlysis
The Perrine7
e papers are
supplygravityof the oil> percentagewater
and Miller, Dyes and Hutchinson
and/or distillateconcentrat~on,
gas volume
other examplesof pressurebuild-upanalysisfor
flow rates,and chloridecontentof the water
permeabilitydeterminations.The industry,as a
from a formationtest recovery. Fig. 1 is an
wholej has acceptedthe Hornermethod as the one
illustrationof a technicianskit containing
most generall$applicableto lXT conditions.
In the absenceof a
some of these articles.
IblanJet alj Zak and GriffinJ2Ammann3and,
flowingtest he determinesthe fluid level in th(
lately,Mai,erg
have excellentpapers showingthe
applicationto DST data. Uuder proper conditions
, drill pipe or drill collarscarefullyand recordl
of each.
the.averageeffectivepermeabilityso calculated the correspondinglengthsand I..D.s
will be one of the best permeabtl.tty
determina.
tions made, primartlybecause it is ma&e at
Additionalinformationthat is obtainedat
the well site includetested interval>type of
reservoirconditionswith ~servoir fluids.
test> hole size,mud type and.water loss; a
Since-Hornersdevelopmentwas for perfect timed descriptLovof surfaceflow rates,times
for the flow DerLodsjinitial.
shut-inperiod.sod
cOniLltions,
it followsthat other than perfect
f+nal shut-inperiod,formationname? net effecin the straight
conditionsWill(yieldvariations
tive porosityand lithologiccharacteristics.
line plot. One of the purposesof this paper is
. . ..
.
to discuss-someof these variations~d their----- ,...
A pressurechartwhich recordsthe complete
interpretation.Mathews)loHurst} et al~ wrote
earlierpaperspresentingfozmationabnormalities
subsurfacepressurehtstoryof the test iS most
important. It is from this chart that all data,
effect on pressurebuild-upsand their analysis.
Any numberof acceptableradius of investigation except rate of flow$ are obtainedfor our
equationsis availablefor approximatingdistance
a quantitativeanalys~softhetest. It is also
possib2eto use the flow curve for checking
from the wel.1.boxe
to any detectedabnormality,

.-
.
_..
..
and a satisfactorypressurebuild-up,it is
possibleto make mathematicalplots and calculat3.0nsl-3
from which interpretxttive
valuesmay
be made for:

,.

I?E.800

.?

J. R. --.
DEAN
end
L. O.
PETTY
.
.

againstreportedfootagerecovery. To satisfy
the conditionsfor our mathematicalcalculations
a breakdownof our pressurebuild-upsmust be
made. This is achievedby a measurementof a
pressurecorrespondingto a pre-determinedchange
in shut-inbuild-uptime read from the chart
basefine. This is where.mostof the pressure
data determinationproblemsstart, .l?aihare
of
the final shut-into satisfyHornersrelationship, that is to say, insufficientshut-intime
to reach %he straightline plot, is one reason
good wells are somettiepluggedsud pipe is set
on non-commercialwells when it shouldnot have
been. i% is necessaryto satisfythe conditions
of the Horner formulaon a DST, or an adequate
DST has not been obtainedfor proper analysis.

The study furtherrevealedthat 49 per cent

of the tests observedwexe technicallysuccessful
[goodmechanicaltests]but had low evaluation
informs%-ion
value. In nearly ev6ry instance%Qo
much emphasiswas placed on the flow pezi.otl
and
not enough on the final pressurebuild-upperiod.
Furtherstudy revealedthat 95 per centiof this
49 per cent couldhave been made near perfectby
givingbetter considerationto flow -- shut-in
time relationshipsIn conductingthe tests. This
is not necessarilyadvocatinglonger tests,but
rather,that the test times be apportioned
differently;givingthe final shut-inperiod as
much or more considerationas the flow period.

One operatorasked, IS there any way to

anticipatethe length of the aftei-flow period
after shut-inon aDrill.Stem Test? If the
HOW TO OBTAIN BETTERBUILD-TJP
DATA
length of the afterflow period canbe aaticlRecognizingthat there is a definite
pated, the additionalsmountof final shut-in
between rate of flow formationand
time necessaryto obtain adequatebuild-upfor
rele,tionsbip
fluid characteristics
and pressurebuild-up,
calculationscan be planned. One hundredDSfs,
certaingeneralrules-of-thumb
have been
a random sample,having rates of flow, permea,suggeeted
that should improvethe chancesfor
bilitiesand damageratioswhtch vary radically
better datx and at the same time keep test costs were used for thts study. A breakdownof At
to aminimum.12 These generalrules-of-thumbare plottedaga~nsteffectivepermeability[whereAt
based on data analysis,statisticalstudiessad
is definedas the time in minutes from shut-in
on tihreeBroad classesof observedsurface
to the~pointwhere the afterflow curvebecame
reactionsof fluid entry into the tool.
asymptoticto the straightltne build-upplot, AI
Vs
TtAt is as followsa
An Initialflow period of not more than
At
three to five minutes incxeasesour chancesof
obtainingan accurateindicationof original
Fractionof all Data
Cumulativ
per cent
per cent
static formationpressuretremendously. Experi- At in minutes
ence has shown that three cofive minutes are
o - 15
48.9
enough to relievemost superchargingthat
48.9
might exist and tend to denotedepletion.
15 - 30
62.8
13*9
30- 45
32.6
[Depletioncanbe detectedbyseeing a drop
95.4
between the comparisonof the maximum initial
45 and greater
4.6
100 2
m
shut-inpressure [mechanicalor extrapolation]
to the maximumfinal shut-inpressure [mechanical
This study indicatedthat in 95.4 per cent
or extrapolation].Generally it is believed
of the cases the afterflow is over In 45
that if a reservoircan be supercharged
enoughto denote depletionthen a Itiitedreser- minutes. Aplot of afterflow time against
voir does exist. This is simplysayingthat, in
calculatedpermeability[Fig.2] acrossthe
the relativelyshort time it takes to drill the
tested intervalshows a definite&ecreasein
afterflow with an increasein effectivepermezone, circulate,come out, pick up thetest
ability. It is felt that if the net effective
tool, go back in and test; if enough fluid is
to create an abnomnallyhfgh
porosity.interval
[not available],ratherthan
lost to a reservoir
initialshut-inpressurereading [super
the tested %nterval,had been used the trend
charging]so that depletionis suggestedthen
would be more evident;
the reservokris not large enoughto be commercial.
Da two other wtudiss,one in a North
Louisianafield13where the completiondata was
availableto check againsttest data> and the
In the statisticalstudyby Pe$ty it was
indicatedthat those tests using 30zninute1S1
o%her involvingthe Wi.lliston
and Green Rtver
times yieldedstabilizedmechanicalformation
BasLns14in the RockyMountatnArea where most
pressurereadings59 per cent of the time. Those of the checkingwas done on a followup basis, it
testsusLagksminute .TSI
times-yieldedstabil.
was.-showmt
hatao well-which requireda-shut-inLzed mechanicalformationpressurereadings75
timelongerthan the flow period to achieve
per cent of the time and those-using60 minutes
adequatepressurebuild-updata for a satlsfactoz
1S1 95 per cent of the the. Using this infozma- Hornerplot, resultedin a practical.
completion.
tion, it is suggested~ha% @ virginareas where These studiesgive an experiencedreasonto

thereis no testingexperienceto use as a guide, believethat, generally,when the afterflow is

not completedby the time the shut-intime is
use a @.nimumof 60 minutesfor ISI times.
._&_.

1+

MAKTNG
MORE
COMPLETEUSE OF DST DATA
-.

equal to the flow time, then it is very unlikely

that a practicalcompletioncan be made.
These studiessad.conclusionsmake the
generalrules-of-thunbfor
selectl.ng
appropriate
times for the flow and shut-inperiodsas set
forth in Pettysarticleeven more valid. In
reviewthts paper suggeststhat If the blow remains strong throughoutthe flow period,plan to
ruu the final shut-intorthesame length of
time the tool was open. If the blow is only
fair, longerfinal shut-inshouldbe taken; for
example,if you use a 50 minute flow, then shutin the test for 75 mlnutes.If the blow is weak
and d~es then shut the tool in and make the
final shut-intwice as long as the flow period:
for example,if the blow dies in 30 minutes then
run a 60 minute final shut-in. This author
stronglysuggeststhat if a formationis being
tested in an area that is notoriousfor opening
with a very weak blow, ana after the Initial
shut-in,the final flow is openedwith no blow,
then do not run an initialshut-in. &ave the
tool open as long as there Is any blow so that
flo~itime, T,is established. Keepingin mind
the importanceof gettingthe build-upinto the
straightline portion of the plot, then at least
doubleand-preferablytriplethe final shut-in
time. The EDR equationis Lnclependent
of actual
rate of flow, bu% flow must exist for a given
time to see if the problemis damage or low permeability. If the blow is extremelystrongand
Iiquidssurface,
shut the tool in and ruu a final
shut-in
equal to one-halfthe flow time.
Use of these suggestionswill.greatly
increasethe technicalvalue of data obtained
from the test, primarilybecausemore of the
straightline portionwill be plotted. It is in
this part of the plot that reservoirdata and
irregularities
are revealed.
INTERPRETATION
AND RESULTS

completioncosts $1,200.per well in this field

by not drill stem testing. In the relatively
long life of the testing companies,sufficient
evtclence
has been i3eento challengethis sta%ement. In one area where 40 wells were clrilled
by
one operatorthe pay was tested only 5 times.
The operatorseemedto think that theyhaa
saved 35 x 1,200 or $42,000. Pipe wa~ set on six
baa attemptsmaybe knowingthat they were
gambles. The facts pointout that 35 x 1,200 or
$42,000would have tested all the wells and
30,000x 6 or $180)000was spentattemptingcompleti.on
on the six doubtfuls. This is a loss of
$138,000. A drill stem test program conducted
and evaluatedproperlythroughoutthe development
program couldhave saved this amount. This lost
completioninformation,a means of knowingthat
productionis being accomplishedat a minimum
pressuredrop preservingreservoirhorsepoweri=
primaryprociuctlon
anclaffordingexcellent
averagepermeabilitymaps for planningfuture
floods.
In the follcwingsectionevaluationsare
made to show how the DST data may be used.
Formationtest pressurebuild-upplots are
presentedand discussedas an attemptto shcw
some of the variousanomaliesthat can occur
during these build-ups. In most cases it has
been possibleto check that the reasongLven for
the major anomaliesshown is practicalfor the
specificinstanceof each. It was reportedwith
the test that Fig. 6 shouldbe from a test
intervalwith two or more zones open to the wellbore. Fig. 7 has been confirmedto be a fault.
Fig. 8 was completedflowingyet was put on the
pump withfn a month.
From the i~lustrations$t can quicklybe
seen that the straightline portionof buila-up
plots has only two directionsho break, up or
down from the steadystatetrml. Careful
judgmentana evaluationof all the data existing,
betweenthe engineeringand geologicaldepartments, on the nature of the specificLocslity
or reservoirin questionare requiredto d.etermiz
what anomalymost likelyappliesto the specific
example. DST informationby itselfis not
sufficient.

What a EST will tell you and how to get good

basic~ta have been discussedbriefly. The
formulasusea in a quantitativeanalysisofthis
data are in the appendixof this paper. Now it
is time for applicationby piecingthese data
togetherwith other data supplieci
by other
servicesinto a reservoirstory. If the well
It becomesapparentthat a singleanomaly
site geologists,engineers>dr~lltngforemenand
may be due to severalcombinedvariables..Multiserv$cecompanysales engineersare schooledon
ple anomalieson a singlebuild-upplot may be
tlieabove,educatedrecommendations
can be made
ilueto severalsingleor combinedvariables.
to managementprior to settingpipe and/or comEach evaluationcan al%ys be a subjectfor some
pletingthe well. If the person or persons
controversybecauseeight independentvariables
involvedfai> to piece these data togetherinto
and two basic assumptionsare actingtogether,oz
a reservoirstory,the uneconomic tendencyof the againstone another,during-eachbuil+up.
industrytoday of setting..pipe
on..anyshow--will .-Stratigraphic,..
seismic,.
and.geological-maps
prevail. Companieswill continueto spend money
shoulddefinitelybe investigatedbefore reachin~
on bad guessesand hopelesscompletionattempts, a conclusion. It is hoped that this sectionwill
clraining
explorationbudgets. This money cotia
help in inte~reti.ngthe resultswhen observing
go to drillingwildcatselsewhere.
build-upcharacteristics.
.. .
The remarkhas oftenbeen heard we cut our
h tihissection the authorshave used
.L-.

EWE-800

~.
=
~.

k
cm-Rnn
L a-

.T.
.,
.

R.

. .

lTTi!AN
-.

and
.-

reproductionsof data fron actual field results.

In all instancesthe illustrationsconsistof the
pressurechartwith the pertinentprkssure
readingsand the Hornerplot resultingfrom the
breakdownof these shut-inpressurebuild-ups.
The resultsof the calculationsmade, using the
empiricalequations,are also given.
Becausethe point is so important,the
authorsare again repeatingthe warningthat
these interpretations
are made using the data
&vaTlableand accumulatedexperiencebut are
still interpretations
of indivi&uals. It is
possibleto have other interpretations
of the
same data. The DST information,by itself)iS
generallynot enoughto make the final conclusions but must be weighedwith all the informatzionavailablefrom any source.
PERFECTOILWELL BUILD-UPPLOT
This Is the appearanceof an ideal oil well
shut-inbuild-up. The straightlice portionwas
establishedand extrapolatedon both build-up
plots. The intersectionat definiteshut-in
time shows that the infinitesystemassumption
held duringthis test. A comparisonof onlY
field readingsfor shut-inPressuresof 3~033 Psi
for the initialand 2j912 for the final shut-in
might suggestotherwise. The calculateddamage
ratio of 0.82 indicatesthat no wellboredamage
is pree.ent
at the time of this test and the
.
estimatedflo~irate of 8z4 bbl/dayto the wellbore shouldbe approached,upder simil.a~
conditionsupon completion. The wellboreis more
than capableof producingits allowableas it is
antisince dzima~eisnt%present-nostimulation
would be recommendedto preservereservoir
energy. The permeability,pay thicknessand
fluid viscositycan be expectedto remain
constantfor a radiusof 48 ft from the wellbo~e,
since no slope changeis evidenton the build-up
plot. If an isopachon flow capacity[~] map
is being constructed leave the contoursconstant for this 48 ft radius. Think of the
Hoiner
plot as a time sweep on a cathoderay
tubeusing the radar principle. The borehole
acts as the centeror energy sourcewith the
flow time on DST actingas the transmitterand
the shut-inplot as the receivingtime, PH?Senting the picturethat is neefied.
PERiECllGAS
WEIL BUILD-UPPLOT
[Figs.kA and 4B1

T,.
-.

,,

h.
.

PErm
-----

<
/

fcccinformation. A %hree minute pre-flowwa;

used making accountedtime to this point 33
minutes. A good gas flow rate was established
In 1 hour and 18 minutesof 1.3 MMcf/dayleaving
one hour and 45 minutes for final shut-inmaking
it possibleto obtain a good build-up. All of
the water cushionwas recoveredplus some mud and
distillate.
For data analysis,an ectimateof the GOR
showedthis to be a gas test so the gas formulas
were applied. The plots of the breakdownsgtve
the appearanceof -m ideal gas well shut-in
build-up. The definite S shape of the initial
helps to indicatethat the straightline portion
was establishedwhich was extrapolated.The
gentle curve over to the left of thefinal shutin build-upalso indicatesthat the strai~htline
sectionwas selectedeven thoughthe completeS
is not visible. The agreementor the final
shut-inextrapolationto the initialshut-in
extrapolationat infinityshows that no
boundarieswere encounteredwithin the radiusof
investigationof this test and no depletion
occurred. The originalreservoirpressureof
4,536 gives a controlpoint ~f a potentimetric
surfacemap.
If this is the first well in the field then
the 1S1 pressurewill be the first pressureon a
pressuredecline curve,
If swell is a step out and %he measuredor
Extrapolatedmaximum 1S1 pressurereadiugsagree
with those of surroundingproducers,then communicationof permeabilitiesexist and this area
is being affectedby drawdownof the producerand
effectivedrainagein the primarystage can be
expected. If the effectivedrainageis too good
an examinationof the spacingis warranted.
Assuminga relativeconstantsverage
effectivepermeabilityfo~ any given rock unit in
a particulararea the discoverywell shouldact
as a transmissibility
index for payout and
indicatorfor settingpipe. 51e.transmissibility
in this instanceis Io38mS.
The tested
Cp
intervalis 117 ft and might be misleadingwhen
xeducingto K [effectiveto gas] over that
interval. Net effectivepfirosity
is generally
known prior to settingpipe so transmissibility
and permeabilitycan be checkedfor each well.
The mostimportantpoint on this test is the
EDR of 3.11,indicatingthat damage is present.
Thissuggests that the flow rate of 1.3 ~cf/day
might be increasedto [1.3x 3.11] 4.043 MMcf/day
if-somemeans of-removingall-thewellhoxedamageis found.

This is a good formationtest and gooti

mechanicaltest of the Oswegoover a 117 ft
intervalin-DeweyCounty,Okla* Tool opened
immediatelywith a very strong blow denoting
good permeabilityso only a 30 minute 1S1 was
Even though a calculation.was
made for,
used. It was stillnecessaryto extrapolatefor
radiusof investigationfor this test, _ insigthe staticpressureas no stabilizedMechanical
readingof tihestattcpressurewas obtained. The nificaatvalue results. The relativelyhigh
compressibility
ofgas and short flow time
operatortook the time to run a 3-1/2hour test

.
1:..-.

..-.#.

. ...-

..--

contributeta this small value. No reservo%r

phasechangeeare seen on the final shut-is
build-upplot.
In sumary, the story Ls that removalof
wellboredamagewill increasethe flow rate of
%hie zone. No depletionis evidenced. The same
Kh can be expectedwithin the radius of investig~t-ion
of the test. Averageeffectivepermeability and porositycan be obtainedfrom *he
teat and log data prior to settingpipe.
BUILD-UPIN QUESTIONAB~ DWGED
OILTOWATER CONTACT

ZONE OR

--

---

-.-

----

c!eptof the two slopeson the Hornerplot a%

w

= 3.2.
~ty+At
=
A%

3.2

At = 55 minutes

And~owLng that k= 38md

V = 1*9 Cp
$ = :21per cent
C.1X1O-5
ha followingr = l Kt
\ 40 q.lc
*[551 @
hen i 4 i,440[40][,21][l.91[11
= U

[Figs.5A and 5B]

In the previoustwo figures perfect
build-upsand tests have been discussed. Fig. 5
presentsa challengeto both the engineerand
geologist. Quite often, as shown here; a
stratghtline build-upoccurs hmnediatelyafter
the after-flow
period and.breaks downward. It
also happens,too often for coincidence,that
bhe.ratio
of the first slope dividendby the
second slope very closelyapproximatesthe ERD.
In this case Slope M,of 226 psi/log cycle
dividedby SlopeM2 of 153 psi/log cycle equals
1;47. The calculatedEDR equals 1.36.
In this specificcase the ratio is also in
the range of the differencesof the @ factor
for oil and I@ factorfor water. A contactof
oil to water could also have this appearancesad
e+
the ratio of the slope could be of this magnitud
The investigatingradiusis computedto be 96 ft
using an averageporosityof 21 per cent for the
Dakota sand in SweetwaterCounty$Wyo. The key
to thq pxoper selectlonlies in this case to a
qualitativeanalysisof the recovery. The
.
recoveryof 19.67 bbl [1,661ft] of cle~ 35,2
gravitycrude is conspicuouslyfree of water,
mud or filtrate. Mr. J. W. Roachs1,5
formula
for determinationof hydrocarboncolumnby use
OF one potn% controlis applicable.
A expecteddepth to the assumedoil-water
aaomalyCS.Ube calculatedby pickingthe intex-

:..-

---

14
ri
If the calculateddlp angle is within reason
it can be assumedto be an oil to water contact.
This cau be checkedagainstcomputedseismic
dips, subsurfacemapping,surfacemappingand a
dip-metersurveyprior to drillinga down-dip
offset. If the angle of dip is known and d - 14
is computed*hen the radiusto the oil-water
contactcan be computed. If this radius is
greaterthan the radiusof investigationof this
test then it might be assumedthat deep demage
exists. Usually it can be said damagewon%
occurthis deep. The Ttlter cake will protect
the reservoir,but reservoirshave been damaged
beyond repair to this depth.

And CosO=~

BUI~-i IN TwO INTERVALSTHROUGHA

DAMAGEDZONE
[Figs.6A and 6BI
!l?his
was a test of an intervalthat was
known to have two zones of porosityopen to khe
wellbore.
A comparisonof the ratio Ml/+ to the
no correlation.
calculatedEDR of 2.2 shows
Prior to slopeMI there appearsto have been a
possibleshort stabilizi~gbuild-upM the
dwaged zone, then the build-uptraverseda zone
?
\

:
,,
?~.!w.

..--..~g

ZcXtd

(;- ,-- @
where d =
..b
..

... -+

rfi-uuv

of higher permeability. Ii is most strikingthat

both *he inl%ialand final build-upshow this
conditionand the extrapolationsof each of the
two elopesto Lnfinite shut-intime resultin
slope intersections.The recoveryindicatesthat
multipleflulds are presentwithmultiplezones
of permeability. The logs shcnald
be examinedfol
the possibilityof effectivelyiscdatingan oil
productivezoue.

and would have saved the operatorthe expenseof

settingpipe on this one. This well was
completedat 12,000 ft and put on pump within
30 days. A check of the one point determination
and radius to the pressureanomalyis suggested
againsta dip angle for better defin%ttonof the
build-upanomaly.
PERMEABILITYDECREASESAWAY FROM
WELL AND DEPLETION

FAULT
[Figs.9A, 9Band9C]
[Figs. 7A =d 7B1
This ammalyhas bien proven to be a fault
in the reservoir. Four tests in four different
zones in this well had this type anomaly. The
extrapolationof the Initialshut-inbuild-up.
Indicatesan originalreservoirpressureof
4,223 psi. @he extrapolationof the final shutin shows in Slope MI the primarypermeability
plot. Slope I@ shows a perfectexampleof a
sealingfault within the radiusof investigation
of this test. Its interestingto note that in
a boundaryconditionthe extrapolationof Slope
M2 to infiniteshti-inindicatesan original
reservoirpressuresomewhathigher but still.
within recorderaccuracyas comparedto the
extrapolationof the initialshut-inpressure.
The mathematicsof build-upanalysisstates
that the slope of .abuild-up curvewill double
itselfwhen the influenceof a sealingfault is
manifested. The first straightline portion
exhibitsa slope of 54 psi/log cycle and the
slopeof the secondpart is I-08psi/log cycle.
It holds that a slope changeof two is one fault
or sealingbarrier such as a salt dome, a slope
changeof four is two faults,horst or garben,
and a slope changeof eight [veryrare] is
three faultsor denotinga shear fault system.
The .EDRof 4.23 tells us that this zone is
capableof producing5,6oo BOPD if no wellbore
damagewere present.
A triangulationwas worked using the computed radiusto the anomalyof each test in the
four zones and it was found that the dip angle
on the faultwas62 degrees. This checks
favorablywith the known dip angle of faultsin
Upton Couuty,Tex.
DEPLETIONTHROUGHA DAMAGEDZONE

This is a very interestingtest of the

Morrow Sand in Beaver County,Okla. The Morrow
formationLs known for its lentlcularsand
developmentin this area.
A stabilizedmechanicalreadingof the
originaletaticreservoirpressurewas obtained
by the initialshut-inpressurebuild-up. The
extrapolationof khe final shut-inexhibitstwo
slopesand the extrapolationof the final slope
to infiniteshut-intime indicatesdepletlon
after only 22 minutes of total productionat a
rate of 3.4 MMcf/D. Thediffermce of &he
mechanicalmeasurementand the extrapolationIs
outsidethe range of accuracyQf the recorders
and depletionwas belLevedto ex3-st.The two
definiteintervalsof straightline slopeplots
usuallyindicatesa barrier in the formation
within the radiusof investigationof the test.
This barrier couldbe a changeof permeabi+ityj
a fault,a gas-wateror gas-oilcontactbut in
thts case its believedto be a cheagein
flow
capacity. This is to say, a changein permeability and its thickness: This test did not
recoverany water or oil-so two possiblesolutions were eliminated. In the case of a fault,
the mathematicsinvolvedTn comparingthe slopes
dont ftt. Thisleaves flow capacity. When
comparedto the known nature of the Morrowsands
this fits the best. It is suggestedthat a flow
capacitymap of the Morrow sands might turn up
some interestingfeatures. .
The engineersanalysisof the radiusto
thZs aaomalyis most interesting.A radtusto
the momaly was computedto be 39 ft. A calcuradius of circularreservoirbasetion volumetric
depletioncomputedto be 137 ft. In view of thi
tiatamd prior experiencewith indicateddepletion on drill stem tests this companydecided
not to set pipe in spite of the indicatedrate
of flow.

[Figs 8A and 8B]

Thiswell.flowed a~ the rate of 1)278 BOPD

on test...Theextrapolationsof the in$tial.
shut
In vs the final shut-insuggestdepletionat
infiniteshut-intime. In this ease, depletion
may also be suspectedby the differencein the
,~mechanical
measurementsfor the initialshut-in
,.
md fifisil
shut-in. A secandDST would have
establishedanotherpoint on the declinecurve
:::

,Referringto Fig. 9C,,subjectwell is

locatedat point A. After subjectwell operator
abandonedWell A,anvther operatoroffset +t. ~
locationB which did not have thfs sand. A
secondoffset at locatlonC by the asme ope,rator
fciund10 ft of said but no drill stem test was
iun. Pipe -s set and the well.completed. It
produceda fewdays.and depleted,.
indicating
anothersmall lens. Well.D was drilledand the
.

. .
i

MAKINGMORE COM13J 1 USE OF DSTDATA

operatorwas a little luckierthis time, it took
3inonthsto depletethis lens. It is pointedOUI
that a DST at locationC would have eliminated,
the expenseof completion,paid the drilling
expenseat D and anotherproperlyconductedDST
a% D might have pu% the completiondollarsspen%
here into anotherexplorationwell..
SHUT-INPERIODSTOO SHORT TO
OBTAINRELZABIEDATA
[Figs.10A and lOB]
This test openedwi%h a very weak blow for
five minuteswhich ~ndicatesa 60 minute fnitial
shut-inshouldbe used, but a 30 minute was
used Instead. The tool re-openedwith a weak
blow for 35 minutes and died, It was left open
for 25 additionalminutes and shut-in45 minutes
on the final shuti-in.
The flow rate fOroil was only 24.4 B/D.
The tested intervalvas at 8,348 to 8,443 ft
which would requirequite an outlayof capital
to set pipe and to complete. It is believedthat
if the 25 minuteshad been added to the final
shut-inof 45 minutesa satisfactoryslopemight
have been obtained. Applyingthe rule-of-thumb
sugges%edin previousdiscussions,the tool
shouldhave been shut-inat the.end of the 35
minute flow period sad a shu~-inof FT x 2 for
FSItime WOU.1.d
show that a minimumof 70 minutes
shouldhave been used. A test conductedin this
manner on this zone couldhave told the operator
whetherhe had a damageproblem or if this zone
has almostno permeability.
If the problem is wellboredamageand it is
appreciablethen $he gamblebecomesmore of a
sure thing. If the problem is permeabilityand
stimulationis not practicalthen put a plug in
it and do not give it a secondthought.

,3. By the use of properunderstandingof

reservoirrelationshipsand the data obtained
from a properlyconductedDST and other fonnatio
evaluation
tools availableto the industry,
wiser decisionson the expenditureso-favailable
funds may be made. However,it is stressedthat
such conclusionsare dependentupon interpretative conclusionsand limitedknowledgecan be
harmful.
k, As a resultof the experiencegained
from three separatestudiesit is concludedthat
there is a definiterelatlonehip,between
shut-in
pressurebuild-upreactionsand completion
potentialof most geologicalhorizons.
REFERENCES
1.

2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

7*

8.
CONCLUSIONS
1. With sufficientfluid recoveryand
adequatepressurebuild-updata a normal drill
steamtest cm be used to determinethe flluld
contentof the subjecttest intervallan indiof
this fluid,average
cated rate of flo~i
effectiveformationpermeabilitytothe flowing
fluid,maximum reservoirpressureat the time of
the test, indicatedwellboredemage effect,
formationand/orfluidanomalieswhen they occur
within the radtus of investigationof the test
and the approximateradius of influenceof the
test and/or distanceto any detectedanomalies.
2;- With proper-application
of a ~ew simple
rules-of-thumb
that relate shut-inpressure
build-uptimes to flow time surfacereactionsit
is possibleto conducta test on most any formatiou in such a mannerthat sufficientdata can b<
listed in the
made to make the determinations
fixst conclusion.

SPE-800

9.

10.

n.
---

12.
13.

Eolan,J.TP.,
EinarsenJC. A. and Hill,
G. A.; SpecialApplicationsof Drill-Stem
~ot ~8ssure Data,Trans.,AIME [1957]
.
, * Zak, A. J., Jr. and Griffin,P. 111:
Heresa Method for EvaluatingDST Data)
Oil and Gas Jour. [April,1957].
Aamlann,(2.B.: rCase
Historiesof Analyses
of characteristics
of ReservoirRock from
Drill Stem Tests,Jour. Pet. Tech. [May,
196o1XII, No. 5,
. 27.
van Everdtngen,A. F.: The Skin Effect
and Its ~fluence on the ProductiveCapacit
of a Well, Trans.,AIME [19531198, 171.
Horner,D. R.: PressureBuild-~in
Wells, F&oc. Third World Pet. Congr.jSect
11, E. J~r~ll, IAden, Holland [1951].
vu Poollen,H. K. and Eateman,S. J.:
Applicationof DST to HydrodynamicStudie~
World Oil [Jqly,1958].
Perrine,R. L.: Analysisof Pressure
Build-upcurves,Paper No. 801-32-1,
PacificCoast list.,Div. of Prod.,API,
Los Angeles [liay,
1956]..
Miller,.(?.
C., Dyes,A. B. and Hutchinson;
C. A.: The Estimationof Permeabilityand
ReservoirPressurefrom E&tom Hole Pressur
Build-upCharacteristics,
Jour. Pet.Tech.
[April,1950] Vol. 2, 91.
Maier, L. F.: RecentDevelopmentsin the
Interpretation
and Applicationof DST
Data~ Jour. Pet. !l?e-&.
[Nov.,1962] Vol.
XIV.
. No. Il.
Mathews,C. S.: AnalysiscofPressure
Build-upand Flow Test Data,SPE Formation
EvaluationSymposiumPaper No. N-1,
Houston [Nov.,1960].
Hurst~W., Hayniej O. K. and Walker,R. N.$
SomeProblemsin PressureBuild-up,
Paper SPE 145, 36th AnnualFall Mtg.,
Dallas--[Oct.,
,9611;also-New
Concept
ExtendsPressureBuild-upAnalysis,Pet.
[Aug.,1962] #+, No. 9, 41.

Petty,L..O.:
How to Get Better Data from
.. .
a Drill-StemTest.,Oil and Gas Jour.
[Feb.5, 1962].
Hart,F.and Apple, C. L.: FormationTest

..

;PE-800

14

15

J. R. DEAN ~ d L. O. PETTY

Characteristics
Tell_CompletionStory in the
Many - PendletonArea, Bulletinof
JohnstonTesters,1963.
Hillhouse,J. D.: RecommendedFormation
Testing Procedures,Willistonand Green
River Basins,pres+ntedto the SpringMtg.,
Rocky Mtn. Dist., Div. of Prod.~API
[April,1963].
of Hydrocarbon
Roach, J. W.: Determination
Col~ by Use of One Point Control,Paper
presentedto Mid ContinentDill-StemTest
SeminarUniv. of Okla.,Norman,Okla.
Sept., 1963].

2. q=

[EDRI [Q] [zak- Griffin]

3. Tr~sm%ssibili%y~=
4. Flow CapacityKh ~

[Horner]

L62.6 Q@
~

5* Permeability[etfect~veto liquid]K=

APPENDIX
7* P. s. = [po X2.3@ft/
si] - [Recorder
to sea level]

QuantitativeCalculationAssumptions
b quantitativeanalysisof DST data most
of the derivedformulasfor build-upsassume
that the fluid flow followsDarcysbasic law.
For review,the assumptionsmade by Horner and
followedby others in the developmentof these
most commonlyused empiricalformulasare
listed.
1. Formationis homogeneous. This assumption causes permeabilityand wellboredamage
calculationsto be averagedthroughthe net
producinginterval,which is assumedto be
constantand horizontal.
2. Formationis infinitelylarge. The
amount of fluid extractedduring a no~al DST is
usuallyinfinitelysmall in comparisonto the
total fluids available. If the fomnationis
finitethe subjectwell is assumedto be in the
center.
3. Fluid is taken as singlephase flow.
In the case of gas production,if liquid is
producedat the surface,condensationis assumed
to have occurredinthe drill pipe. In the case
of oil production,if gas is producedat the
surface,phase separationis assumedto have
occurred.inthe drill pipe. B hydrocarbonsand.
vate~ are producedthe water is assumedto have
come from a separatehorizon. Althoughthe
equationswere developedassumingthat the
pressure throughoutthe formationwould remain
above the bubble point, it has been found that
these equationswill quite often hold true when
this conditiondoes not exist.
4. Flow ~s radial and SteadyState. By
radialflow itis assumedthat flow is coming
equally from all parts of the reservoir. By
steadystate it is assumedthat at the time
these equationsare applicablethe formationis
approachinga state of equilibriumevidencedby
a straightline plot.
..
.
EmpiricalEquations- LiquidFlow
1. EDR=

Po - Pf
M[104T* 2.651

where M = PI - p~o [~b~

log Cycle

Zs,k- Phil Griffin]

8.

ri

:/&

[Van Pool.len]

where t is time in days.

Gas Flow
Pop -.P#
.1. EDR =
Mg[log T+ 2.65]

where %=
2. ~

:;;~2
= [EDRI [Qgl

[Zak- Gri.tl?in]

Kh -1637Tf~
3. Transmisstbilit,y
m
t-- -, KK
L%
m

[Horner]
4. Flow CapacityKh= 1637 TfQguZ
%
5. Permeability[effectivetogas] K=
162.6 OTfQRuZ
%h
.

6. .P. S.

[P.X 2.309 ft/psi]- [Recorder

depth to sea level]
[Van Poollen]

7* i ~ko &#c

Symbolsand Dimensions
b=
9 =
c =
EDR =
@ =
h=
K=
Kh =
~r~
~

948.2 conversionfactor
Formationvolume factor,vol/vol
Fluid compressibility,
vol/vol/psi
Estimated@mage ratio
Formationporosity,fractional
Net effectiveporous intery~, f~ .
%~eability [effective],
md
Flow capacity,md-ft

WmnsmissibiXity~ factor,md-ft/@

~ Slope of shut-inbuild-upfor gas, P12 P102/logcycle

,.

SPE-800

MAKINGMORE COMPLETEUSE OF DST DATA

f-1

Slope of shut-inbuild-upfor liquid,

PI - P~()/log cycle
pressureat point of Interest for radius.
of Investigationcalcula~lon,psi
Final f10WlW3 Pressure$ Psig
Final shut-inpressureat time t, psi.g
InitialShut-inpressure,psig
Maximumreservoirpressure,psig
Final shut-inbuild-upextrapolation,
at
log 1, psig
Final shut-inbuild-upextrapolation
at
log 10, PsQ3
Productivityindex,B/D/psi
PoteQtiometricsurface,feet of fresh
Ra;~t~ flowto wellboreduringtest, B/D
Rate of oil flow duringtest, B/D
Rate of water flow dwing test, B/D
Theoreticalrate at which swell should
flow fluid when damage is removed,B/D
or MCF/day
Rate of gas flow at the surfaceduring
test, MCF/day
Radiusof investigation,ft
Wellboreradius,in.
Water saturation,ft
Shut-intime period,minutes
Transientpressuretime to point of intere~t or interceptof slopeplots, hours
Incrementaltime ofshut-h period,
minutes
Open t?lowtime period,minutes
Formationtemperature,Win
Fluid ViSCOS~_by, C&I
factor [Compresslbillty
Gas cleviation
factor]

..-.
-..,=
.
---..
v
,..
.
..>
$-~
.-

J..

.,

. .

~,

,.

k.

. ,
,,...,,.,

,:

,.<$+,s

I
!
,.

$:.;
~.

,/

!..

.,

,,

--~,-.

~ ,.

. .,

~:..

----

. . ... .. ....=..

. .

.-. -..
._

-.

Ffsi:l
-.

._.

!-......
J.,.......

..,_
..

. . .. .

,::
-:,

, *........
-..;..-.
-,.-,
: . ..

-,

. ...

. .. :....=

CALCULATEDPERMEABWW

Flg. f!

.. ..-

md.

-!

:.

. . ....:---

.. . .

.. .

...

. ..-

. ...-..-

-.

.
. ..

. . ~.

,.,

..

,-

.
.

.. =,..

.,
-

. _.-.

..:

~Oqvsg/kh7gmas
.

is-n.
L.1.
h-

C.*
M-

..

t
,

..

U.,

d..w!.

N-.

* .,
&L
@tr-Olin$mn

.!.

t,

Tmlsa$.
L4a

*W**?
.-,

..

c,

Fls,

31

RI*.

JOHNSTON

TSSTE&t,

k...

30

INC.

0..

8.. .

-L*W,

~-

-.

.s4

-W.

..2--

.,,,

%,

.-

1,,

PIE,

,,.
Ti7-

4B

:1

>,
.
..
.,
.
,
\
.. i~~-; . /.
!/:
),/
.,,.-:,-.,
~.:d...... ... .....
c
\.
.@
-.
,
-@
-... --4
,,
.=,.
---....
.....
,J.
.,i

&

FJr.5B

.
-.

~..

.. . . .. ..

.. .

. . ...-..=.

. ..

..-

..

.. .

,.

:,.

%-#
. .

,
!..
.,.

,__..

,.

,,..
,.~
,.
.
., ,.
, 4,
4.
,..

,,

:
~=~-.-.m

_-_=_

h
.

Fix.

.,-~~:,

.~.

P?t.

.. .

;;
:70.a#

.. ,

k~

.!

7A
FI*,

JOHNSTON

,i
1

1
..-.

.Fl#,

--....

aA

-.

,...

T1$7CRS,

INC.

Eai.

711

./.

,)

&onNs&::m?s
..

!4

!,.

P*,

__

L,.:::=:
..
* *M
::E;&-

.!.,4,

:-

----

--

.0!

.:..--

:: :;;,

,,
.,

.*.4..

,.,,

... .
... ,

, .,,.,0.

TM

&yL.,,. .

!!t:

,,,6
.

,:1,

:.:,

$.=-.4

.-

----

,,

z. !y?

,a-*I--

Ii

,
[

..

Fill.

@yonNsr:::Em.

9C

,..

..S

m
L..!.

,- .

.+

,..
. . ..

:{-.
!,-

:.,..

..,
,,,

q:
Qlr.

10B

. .

..

. . .

.. .

.
~,,
.

. .

-.