Copyright 1991 Society of Petroleum Engineers

ally evolved on the basis of an input signal of constant flow rate

This paper (SPE 18949) was prepared for presentation at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regionall at the surface. For low-permeability wells, the rate stabilization time
Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, March 6-8, 1989.
can be too long for a cost-effective test. With only pressure recorded
downhole, the downhole flow rate can be deduced implicitly by
Summary assuming constant wellbore storage. In low-permeability wells, how-
In this paper, we present a technique that allows one to perform ever, the wellbore-storage coefficient is rarely constant.
a short-term well test, The short duration of the test results in During the last 5 years, the industry has experimented with the
reasonably good estimates of formation permeability, skin factor, use of simultaneously recorded pressure and flow rates with con-
and reservoir pressure. The technique, referred to as "Quicklook," siderable success. 2-6 The direct downhole measurement of flow
requires pressure measurement at the surface and downhole. After rates removes the uncertainties associated with implicit evaluation
perforating, the formation is subjected to an instantaneous-rate draw- of the sandface flow rates and allows a rigorous analysis of the early-
down or injection for a couple minutes. The instantaneous-rate peri- time data.3.4 In low-permeability wells, however, the pretreatment
od is followed by a shut-in period of sufficient duration to achieve flow rates are too low for commercially available flowmeters to
the desired radius of investigation. Three interpretation plots are measure accurately.
made to perform the analysis: a derivative type plot for flow-regime Here we present a test technique and interpretation methodology
identification and type-curve analysis, a specialized plot [rate- that allow one to perform a short-term (typically 2 hours or less)
convolved Homer (RCH) analysis] for certain flow parameter cal- well test on low-permeability wells with prestimulation downhole
culations, and a system-verification plot. A desirable feature of the flow rates too low to measure with commercially available flow-
technique is that the testing and perforating can be performed dur- meters. The associated interpretation system can provide a reasona-
ing the same trip. Two field examples from low-permeability wells bly good estimate of formation permeability, skin factor, and
illustrate the technique and data interpretation. reservoir pressure. The technique is called Quicklook. After per-
forating, the formation is subjected to an instantaneous-rate draw-
Introduction down or injection for a couple minutes. 7,8 This period is followed
Optimized stimulation design for low-permeability wells requires by a shut-in period long enough to provide the desired radius of
know ledge of formation permeability, skin factor, and reservoir investigation. Ayoub et ai. 7 showed that the pressure response to
pressure. The conventional well test with only transient pressure an instantaneous-rate drawdown of unit strength is governed by the
is most widely used to obtain these parameters. Successful appli- derivative of the pressure response pertaining to a conventional step-
cation of a conventional test can require long periods of produc- rate change. We complement and extend their work by providing
tion drawdown and subsequent shut-in for pressure buildup in a specialized plot to enhance the flow-parameter calculations. Be-
low-permeability wells. Addition of downhole transient-rate data cause the test technique for the Quicklook test as described here
can significantly reduce the test duration and enhance interpreta- is the same as IMPULSE Testing** in Ref. 7, we continue to refer
tion quality. In low-permeability wells, however, the pretreatment to our test technique as IMPULSE Testing. The technique requires
flow rates are usually too low for commercially available flowmeters pressure measurement downhole and at surface or intermediate po-
to measure accurately. Additionally, these techniques require a spe- sitions (for flow-rate computation). The technique is also applica-
cial trip into the well after perforating. ble when downhole measured flow rates are directly available.
For commercial production, nearly all low-permeability wells re-
quire some form of stimulation, from small acid jobs to massive Test Technique
hydraulic fracture treatments. Knowledge of formation permeabil-
ity is critical in decisions about the fracture half-length required During the test, downhole pressure measurements are made. The
for efficient reservoir drainage. Reservoir pressure is an impor- downhole pressure sonde can be on a tubing-conveyed perforator
tant parameter controlling fluid loss and affecting treatment size or through-tubing perforator by wireline. Fluid properties and ini-
and fluid selection. The skin factor plays a direct role in the size tial surface pressure can be used for flow-rate computations. 9,10
and type of an acid job. After perforating, the formation is subjected to an instantaneous-
Transient well testing has long been recognized as a viable and rate drawdown or injection for several minutes, similar to the IM-
practical technique to estimate formation permeability, reservoir PULSE Testing technique. The rate impulse period is followed by
pressure, and skin factor. 1 The conventional techniques for inter- a shut-in period long enough to achieve the desired radius of in-
preting well tests are based on analyzing the pressure response of vestigation.
a system (reservoir) to a perturbation (in pressure and flow rate) The three basic types of configurations for such short-term test-
introduced at a boundary (well). Knowing the perturbation and its ing using a tubing-conveyed perforator with downhole gauge are
response, one hopes to identify the system and to determine its pa- surface flow, closed chamber or compressive, and slug flow. Fig,
rameters. Because pressure and flow rate are integral parts of all 1 illustrates the closed-chamber, compressive, and slug-flow con-
analysis equations, one should theoretically be able to use either figurations.
pressure or flow rate as an input signal and obtain the same re- In a surface flow test, the wellbore is completely filled with a
sults. But because the devices for measuring pressure have been, cushion fluid chosen to provide an underbalance pressure against
and still are, much more accurate and sensitive than the devices the formation. When the guns are fired, formation fluid flows
for measuring flow rates, well-test analysis procedures have gener- through the perforations and displaces the wellbore fluid. Immedi-
ate fluid recovery is observed at the wellhead. The well is shut in
, Now at Schlumberger Seaco. (downhole or surface) after production for a short period of time
"Mark of Schlumberger. and pressure-buildup data are collected for analysis. 9
SPE Computer Applications, March/April 1991
30-----------------------------------------------------------
In compressive IMPULSE Testing, a small chamber of air or
CLOSED CHAMBER rcp gas is left at the top of the tubing with the well shut in at the sur-
face. Upon perforating, fluid flows into the wellbore and compresses
Gas the gas, thereby rapidly increasing bottornhole pressure (BHP) and
Chamber retarding fluid production from the reservoir. A closed-chamber
drillstem test (DST) and a backsurge test (the formation is flowed
into an atmospheric chamber enclosed within the tubing) are other
forms of compressive IMPULSE Testing.
The slug test is a special form of a DST designed for wells that
do not flow to surface. Here, the DST valve is opened and the for-
D<l~+-- Valve
mation is subjected to cushion pressure plus any hydrostatic pres-
sure exerted by fluids below the valve. The wellhead is left open
during the entire flow. The well flows into the wellbore until the
"'-+-Gauge
hydrostatic pressure from the rising fluid column becomes essen-
Packer tially identical to the reservoir pressure, at which point fluid flow
ceases and the well kills itself.
....-+- Guns In general, the short-term test procedure involves fluid-flow du-
ration of 2 to 10 minutes and a subsequent shut-in response for a
time period equivalent to 6 to 20 times the fluid-flow duration.

Fig. 1-Three testing configurations for the short-term test. Test-Data Interpretation Methodology
The IMPULSE Testing analysis using BHP's has been applied suc-
cessfully in gulf coast high-permeability wells. 7 Instant withdrawal
or injection of a unit volume of fluid causes a change in pressure
proportional to the derivative ofthe reservoir's pressure response.
End of impulse Therefore, the IMPULSE Testing plot, as described in Ref. 7 and
1t illustrated in Fig. 2, is an excellent plot for flow-regime identifica-
Pressure
tion. The IMPULSE Testing plot can also be type-curve matched
for permeability and skin factor. However, the calculated skin fac-
tor relies more on the late-time data than on skin-related early-time
data. Also, the generation of an IMPULSE Testing plot requires
knowledge of initial reservoir pressure, Pi . In this study, Pi is one
of the unknown parameters that we attempt to estimate. In the IM-
PULSE Testing plot, a correct assumption of Pi will allow the
Derivative
generation of the zero-slope derivative for a homogeneous radial
11 Ap.At flow system. We recommend that the IMPULSE Testing plot be
emphasized for flow-regime identification (vital information in well-
Time (Log scaled) test analysis).
Once the transient rate is made available by pressure measure-
Fig. 2-Typical IMPULSE derivative plot. ments, the Duhamel's principle (or superposition) can be applied
to integrate the changing wellbore pressures and rates. We call this

Role-Convolved Horner Piol

p*
4500

4125
Absence Presence
3750 of of
Flow Rate Flow Rate

3375

0>3000
·iii
':
III
2625
~

D- 2250

1875 6
6

........".,,"-
1500
Skin Too High
66 --
....... .........
1125 Skin Too Low '" --'-.
-"
750
0 390 780 1170 1560 1950 2340 2730 3120 3510 3900
Time Function

Fig. 3-Typical RCH plot.

---------------------------------------------------------31
technique the RCH plot because of its similarities with the conven- where tD = dimensionless time, PD = dimensionless pressure,
tional Homer plot. The idea behind this technique was originally Pi> (tD)=time derivative of PD (tD), the constant-rate solution of
mentioned by Meunier et al. 2 but never pursued as a serious op- the flow model, PwD (tD) = dimensionless wellbore pressure drop,
tion to sandface-rate convolution. 3 Combining the earlier work of qD = dimensionless flow rate, q/qo (rate at any time/initial rate),
van Everdingen and Hurst lO with Duhamel's principle of super- and r=integration variable.
position, we get Integrating by parts, noting that PD (0)=0 and qD (0)= I, we get

PwD (tD) = J
r to qD (r)pi> (tD -r)dr, .................... (1) J
PwD (tD)=PD (tD)+ to qD(r)PD(tD-r)dr+sqD(tD), ... (2)
o o

IBOO+-------~~--------~----------~----------~--------__t

~
VI 1600
0..

LLJ
II<
=>
VI
Ul
~ 1400
IL.
LLJ
..J
C
:<:
:I:
C
:: 1200 Simulated P~Qssure
c
'" C!J(!)OOOc!) Rctual Pl"'assurQ

1000+------+-----+------+-----+------+
0.00 0.1l0 O.BO 1. 20 I. 60 2.00
DELTA TIME (HOURS)
TTPE-CURVE HELL BORE STORAGE & S,IN (HOMOGENEOUS)
PRESSURE HISTORT MATCH (SIMULRTION)

Fig. 4- Typical verification plot.

2750

2500

2250- .....

:=- 2000
en
---c.
Q)
~
1750
::l
en
en
Q)
~

a. 1500-

1250-
A

1000
/ Well Shut In At Surface
750- I

0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (hrs)

Fig. 5-Transient-pressure data, Example Well 1.

32-----------------------------------------------------------
where s=dimensionless skin factor. The RCH plot is a graphofpw vs. [qo log(t) +E(t) +sq(t)]. Such
For the case of radial flow in infinite reservoir and using the a plot has the following characteristics.
logarithmic approximation, Eq. 2 can be written as: 1. For correct s, the data should fall on a straight line with slope
m'=162.6p./kh. Viscosity is denoted as p., formation permeability
Pw=Pi-m'[qO 10g(t)+E(t)+sq(t)], .................. (3) as k, and formation thickness as h.
2. The extrapolation of the straight line to [qo 10g(t)+E(t)
where Pw = wellbore pressure, Pi = initial reservoir pressure, t=test +sq(t)] =0 provides Pi (similar to conventional Horner plot).
time, and m' = slope of linear portion of semilog plot of pressure- 3. For values of s that are too low, the data curve downward.
transient data. E(I) can be computed from the following numeri- For values of s that are too high, the line curves upward. Obtain-
cal approximation 2 : ing an incorrect slope will affect the s, as well as the permeability
and Pi estimates.
Fig. 3 is an example RCH plot (from Field Example 1 discussed
later) illustrating the characteristics described above. For a correct
skin value, the data set exhibits a straight line, the slope of which
is inversely proportional to kh (md-ft). For skin values that are too
with high or too low, the characteristic described in Point 3 is observed.
The intercept of the straight line at f (t) = 0 gives extrapolated pres-
sure (p*) or Pi' Also indicated in Fig. 3 is the separation between
the measurable/estimated flow-period data (called presence of flow
rate) and the subsequent no-flow data (called absence of flow rate).
The last step in our interpretation methodology is a verification
plot. The calculated permeability, skin factor, and reservoir pres-
sure are used to compute the flow- and no-flow-period transients.
A close match between the computed and actual data verifies the
computed reservoir flow parameters. Fig. 4 is an example of a verifi-
+ ... cation plot taken from our Field Example 2. Note that proper verifi-
cation should involve history matching of transient data other than
those used in the flow-parameter calculations. The nature of the
short-term prestimulation test discussed here, however, involves
only one transient as limited by an impulse; therefore, the nature
of the verification discussed should not be construed as all-inclusive.
+ ... The short-term test-data interpretation methodology can be sum-
marized with three specific plots: a derivative plot for flow-regime
identification and type-curve analysis, a specialized plot (RCH anal-

70
A
A
"t.
60 .......................

50
A

--
(f) 40

--
a.
~

~
(])
c
30 A

c
a. "
CJ) 20 ............ Il

A
A
10 ...../s. .•..

'"
'""
o

-101---------~----------r---------,---------_r--------~----~
o 2 4 6 8 10
Time (hrs)

Fig. 6-Transient-rate data, Example Well 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------33
ysis) for certain flow-parameter calculations, and a verification plot. Field Example 1. This example compares the RCH analysis using
This procedure is intended for prestimulation well evaluation and early-time rate and pressure data with a conventional Horner anal-
is not recommended to replace long-term pressure-drawdown and ysis using only long-term pressure data. The data of the field ex-
-buildup tests for detailed evaluation of formation fluid properties ample are given in Table 2 of Ref. 5. The example well, located
and reservoir heterogeneities. in Atascosa County, TX, is a gas well completed in a sandstone
formation. The test involved downhole flow rate and pressure meas-
Field Examples urement during the pressure-buildup test. The shut-in was long
We present two field examples to illustrate the interpretation meth- enough for a conventional Horner analysis.
odology. First, we demonstrate the applicability of the individual Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate the transient-pressure and -rate data dur-
steps of the interpretation methodology (Field Example 1) and then ing that test. Fig. 7 is the RCH plot. The plot of shut-in pressure
present the entire methodology as a case study (Field Example 2). vs. the time function can be divided into two sections: presence
The flow-regime identification by the IMPULSE Testing plot is and absence of flow rate. The former section pertains to the early-
well-documented in Refs. 7 and 8; the verification plot is illustrat- time analysis using the rate and pressure data and is the RCH plot.
ed in Refs. 4 and 6. The latter section can be considered essentially the conventional

Rote-Convolved Horner Plot

p*
4500

4125
Absence Presence
of of
3750 low Rate Flow Rate

3375

0>3000
'iii
':: 2625
I/)
;!:
0.. 2250

1875

1500

1125
s = -1 :: +4
..oJ -~.....~---....-.....-~.

750
0 390 780 11701560195023402730312035103900
Time Function

Fig. 7-RCH plot exhibiting the effect of the presence of flow rate, Example Well 2.

1800,---------------------------------------------------------,
I!l I!J I!J
I!J I!J I!J
1725

1650

1575

'iii I!J
a. 1500 I!J
~
.," I!J

~ 1425 I!J
a.

1350 I!J

1275 I!l

I I!l Row Dotal

1200

1125 V
0.00
.
0.15 0.30 0.45
.
0.60 0.75 0.90 1.05
.
1.20 1.35 1.50
Time. hour

Fig. 8-Transient-pressure data, Example Well 2.

34-----------------------------------------------------------
Horner analysis. Once the correct skin factor is attained by trial
TABLE 1-EXAMPLE WELL 2 DATA
and error, the rate-convolved data points fall onto a straight line.
In this case, the data points also align quite well with the slope of Net pay, It 300
the conventional Horner plot. This suggests that the estimated per- Wellbore radius, ft 0.37
meability and p* from both methods will be the same. In the ab- Porosity, fraction 0.11
sence of late-time Horner slope, we select the best-fitting straight Oil density, °API 29.6
line, assuming that radial flow is present. If the IMPULSE Testing Oil viscosity, cp 0.67
deviation plot does not identify the presence of a radial flow re-
gime, then use of the RCH plot is not recommended. This field
example demonstrates that, with reliable early-time rate data, a assumed IMPULSE Testing plot reservoir pressure of 1,771 psi
short-term test analysis using RCH analysis can provide similar an- and RCH analysis reservoir pressure of 1,751 psi. This close agree-
swers as the late-time Horner method. Because the radius of in- ment also suggests that the type-curve match of Fig. 10 should pro-
vestigation of the RCH analysis typically is less than that of vide a permeability comparable to the Fig. 11 estimate. The
conventional Horner analysis, one may not see this agreement if IMPULSE Testing plot type-curve match provides a permeability
permeability changes occur away from the wellbore. of 0.31 md.
The verification plot of this example is shown in Fig. 4. Notice
Field Example 2. A transient test was performed in this example the good agreement between the simulated and the actual pressure
oil well after an underbalance perforating job. Both downhole and response.
surface pressures were measured during the initial instantaneous
flow following perforation and subsequent shut-in using a down- Limitations and Recommendations
hole valve. Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate the monitored transient pres- Successful application of the interpretation methodology depends
sure and calculated transient flow rate. The initial pressure rise on the calculation of stable flow rate from pressure. Noisy flow-
during the first several minutes of Fig. 8 pertains to production fol- rate data can significantly influence the flow-parameter estimation.
lowing the perforating job. The remainder of the pressure increase Note that the presence of multiphase fluid flow significantly affects
is due to well shut-in with a downhole shut-in valve. Fig. 10 is flow-rate calculation from pressures.
the IMPULSE Testing plot using only the transient pressure and There is an interdependence between the IMPULSE Testing
cumulative flow. The presence of radial flow is established at a deJivative plot and the RCH plot. The IMPULSE plot requires ini-
dimensionless time of 50, as illustrated by the zero slope on the tial reservoir pressure for computational purposes. The initial pres-
derivative type-curve match of Fig. 10. A reservoir pressure of sure can be attained from the RCH plot. However, application of
1,771 psi was used to develop the example derivative plot. Pres- the RCH plot is valid only when the flow regime is identified as
ence of boundary effects can be noticed at about 10 2 dimension- radial flow by the IMPULSE Testing plot. Therefore, a recom-
less time.
mended method of analysis should comprise the plotting of the RCH
Having confirmed the presence of a radial flow regime, we can
plot and the calculation of reservoir pressure assuming radial flow.
now attempt the radial flow RCH plot (see Fig. 11). The various
Then one can perform IMPULSE Testing plot, verify the presence
legends pertain to the dimensionless skin factor. Late-time data be-
of radial flow, and if radial flow is present, proceed to other flow-
tween 0 and 20 RCH time curve upward, indicating boundary ef-
parameter calculations using the RCH analysis. Currently, we are
fects as seen in the IMPULSE Testing plot. Between 20 and 200
limited to only radial-flow-rate convolution. Rate convolution with
RCH time, the slope is the same, regardless of the chosen dimen-
other flow models-dual porosity, hydraulically fractured, etc.-
sionless skin factor. This phenomenon is to be expected-skin fac-
needs to be introduced to complement this interpretation meth-
tor does not affect the late-time data pattern. The skin factor is
determined by choosing the s factor that allows the majority of the odology.
early-time data to fall on the drawn straight line. The RCH plot
allows us to estimate permeability, skin factor, andp* of 0.35 md, Conclusions
0.9, and 1,751 psi, respectively. Table 1 presents the data pertain- 1. A transient test technique and interpretation methodology is
ing to this example well. Note the close agreement between the presented that allow short-term testing of low-permeability wells

1000
~
900

800
I!l
700

0
600
"-
to
0::
IlIl
~ 500 I!l
e I!l
I!l
~
0
;;: 400

300

200 I!l
I [!) flo.rote I
100 I!l

I!l
Ilh
0
0.00 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.90 1.05 1.20 1.35 1.50
Time, hour

Fig. 9-Transient-rate data, Example Well 2.

--------------------------------------------------------35
with prestimulation flow rates too low for commercial downhole Jurek for her endless efforts in preparing this paper.
flowmeters to measure.
2. A desirable feature of the technique is that testing and per- References
forating can be performed during the same trip. I. Earlougher, R.C. Ir.: Advances in Well Analysis. Monograph Series,
3. The short-term test requires the use of the IMPULSE Testing SPE, Richardson, TX (1977) 5.
derivative plot to identify the important flow regime, an RCH plot 2. Meunier, D., Wittmann, MJ., and Stewart, G.: "Interpretation of Pres-
for certain flow-parameter calculations, and the verification plot sure Buildup Test Using In-Situ Measurement of Afterflow," JPT (Jan.
to confirm the results. 1985) 143-52.
4. The method presented currently is limited to only radial-flow 3. Kuchuk, F. and Ayestaran, L.: "Analysis of Simultaneously Measured
systems. Also, caution should be exercised when noisy flow-rate Pressure and Sandface Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing," JPT (Feb.
data are used in the interpretation. 1985) 323-34.
4. Joseph, J., Ehlig-Economides, C.A., and Kuchuk, F.: "The Role of
Acknowledgments Downhole Flow and Pressure Measurements in Reservoir Testing,"
paper SPE 18379 presented at the 1988 SPE European Petroleum Con-
We express our appreciation to Schlumberger management for al- ference, London, Oct. 16-19.
lowing us to publish this study. We also express our appreciation 5. Ahmed, U., Kuchuk, F., and Ayestaran, L.: "Short-Term Transient-
to M. Thambynayagam, C. Ehlig-Economides, and S. Kabir for Rate and Pressure-Buildup Analysis of Low-Permeability Reservoirs,"
reviewing this paper. Special thanks and appreciation go to Sharon SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 611-17.

D~Qwdown Type-Curve
Multi-Rote Type-Curve
C!lC!lC!lC!lC!l(!) Pressure Doto, a2.Bu
Derivative Type-Curve
en
a..
:;:)
0
II< P~e55u~e Match: 1.ij5000E-02
t!I Time Match: 100.0
w
II<
:;:)
CII
en
w
II<
a.. 0
10
en
en
w
..J
Z
0
en
z
w
-
lI:
I :)

IO-2+------------------4-------------------r------------------+------------------+
10- 1 10
1
DIMENSIONLESS TIME, TO/CO
TYPE-CURVE WELLBCRE STCRA~E , S(IN (HCMC~ENECUSI
CO-E(2SI=1.OOE+00

Fig. 10-IMPULSE derivative plot, Example Well 2.

36

Rate-Convolved Horner
1800
Legend
!!l SO 1 = 0.00
1740 SO 2 1.00
*
(!) SO
SO
3 =
4 =
2.00
3.00
1680 SO 5 = 4.00
K= 0.347 mD
1620 0.91
S
p. = 1750.8 si
~ 1560
:J
UI
UI

.t" 1500
"
"0
E 1440
.':!
~ 1380

1320

• ..
,
1260

1200

1140
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Ra le-Convolved Horner Time

Fig. 11-RCH plot for final Qulcklook answer computation, Example Well 2.

6. Meunier, D.F., Kabir, C.S., and Wittmann, M.J.: "Gas Well Test Anal-
ysis: Use of NOllllalized Pseudovariables," SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 629-36.
7. Ayoub, J.A., Bourdet, D., andChauvel, Y.: "Impulse Testing," SPEFE
(Sept. 1988) 534-46; Trans., AIME, 285.
8. Cinco-Ley, H. et al.: "Analysis of Pressure Tests Through the Use
of Instantaneous Source Response Concepts," paper SPE 15476 present-
ed at the 1986 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
9. Tariq, S. and Ayestaran, L.: "Analysis and Application of Pressure,
Flow Rate, and Temperature Measurements During a Perforating Run, "
SPEPE (Feb. 1991) 83-92.
10. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans., AIME (1949)
186, 305-24.
11. Simmons, J.F.: "Convolution Analysis of Surge Pressure Data," JPT
(Jan. 1990) 74-83; Trans., AIME, 289.