Oil Well Testing

Introduction
Well testing is the only technique that examines a significant portion of the
reservoir under dynamic conditions to determine its production capability
and reservoir properties. The basic reasons for testing a well can be
summarized as follows:

to obtain a physical sample of the fluids produced from the reservoir;

to obtain a measured flow rate indicative of the productivity of the

formation;

to obtain pressure data for the calculation of reservoir parameters

and for the recognition of natural or induced anomalies around the
borehole.

Pressure recorders were first used in testing to confirm that the tools had operated
correctly throughout the test. As the science of pressure transient analysis developed,
it was realized that pressures recorded during the test could be used in the
calculation of many useful reservoir characteristics to aid in assessing the potential
productivity of the reservoir.

Reservoir characteristics that can be calculated from a well test include,

but are not limited to, the following:

Reservoir Pressure buildup or falloff curves can be extrapolated to obtain

static reservoir pressure.

Permeability is a measure of the ability of the reservoir rock to

transmit fluid flow. The permeability measured by a well test is the
effective permeability of the reservoir rock for the produced fluid.

Transmissivity is a measure of the ability of the reservoir to

transmit the fluid contained within it. It is a function of both
reservoir rock and fluid properties.

Skin Factor is a quantitative measure of the degree to which the

permeability in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore has been
altered as a result of the drilling, completion, and production
process.

Damage Ratio is the ratio of the theoretical production rate to the

actual production rate measured during the test. It is an indication
of the degree to which the well's productivity can be improved by
removing the skin damage induced during drilling and completion
of the well.

Productivity During a test, the productivity of the well is measured

at a flowing pressure that may or may not represent a reasonable
producing pressure. The test results can be used to predict the
productivity of the well at any desired flowing pressure.

Chapter 1 Page 1
 Radius of Investigation is the approximate radial distance from
the wellbore that is investigated by the test; the test analysis
results represent the average properties of the reservoir within this
radius.

Reservoir Anomalies within the radius of investigation include

barriers and fluid contacts. Permeability changes or layered
reservoirs are often reflected in the pressure behavior observed
during a test. This information, when used in conjunction with other
data, can often help in defining the exact type of anomaly.

Reservoir Depletion Since there is a physical removal of reservoir

fluid from a finite system during a drillstem test (DST), the
reservoir pressure drops. Most often this pressure drop is so minute
that it is far beyond the resolution of the pressure recorders. If an
observable pressure depletion occurs during a test, then a small
reservoir has been penetrated and most likely would not contain
commercial quantities of hydrocarbons.

The preceding list presents the main parameters that can be obtained by analysis of
the data yielded by a properly designed test.

Fundamental Flow Equation

All pressure analysis techniques are derived from solutions to the partial
differential equations that describe the flow of fluids through porous media
under various boundary conditions. This mathematical description of fluid
flow is based on three physical principles: (1) the law of conservation of
mass, (2) Darcy's law, and (3) equations of state.

The law of conservation of mass and Darcy's law apply regardless of the
fluid type and are the basis of the flow equation and, therefore, of
pressure analysis. The equations of state apply to a specific fluid, e.g., oil,
gas or water, and describe the relationship between that fluid's density,
pressure, and temperature.

In differential terms the law of conservation of mass can be expressed as

      (1)
Equation 1 is also termed the continuity equation.

Darcy's law states that the volumetric rate of flow per unit surface area at
any point in a porous medium is proportional to the potential gradient in
the direction of flow at that point.

Mathematically, Darcy's law for radial flow is

      (2)
To obtain the general flow equation, the continuity and Darcy's equations (Equations
1 and 2) are combined to yield:

Chapter 1 Page 2
       (3)
The general flow equation (Equation 3) describes the flow of a fluid in the reservoir at
all times and is independent of fluid type. This equation is called the radial diffusivity
equation. The derivation of this equation is based on the following assumptions:
 Darcy flow exists, i.e., no turbulence effects exist.
 Single-phase fluid flow exists.
 Gravitational effects are negligible.
 Reservoir is homogeneous and isotropic.
 Permeability and porosity are constant.
 Flow is isothermal (of constant temperature).

To obtain the flow equation for oil flow, the equation of state for oil must be
incorporated into the radial diffusivity equation (Equation 3).

Equations of state for liquids and gases are of different form. Thus, flow
equations for flow of liquids through porous media are somewhat different
from those describing the flow of gases. In addition, the equations
describing the flow of gases through porous media depend upon the
assumptions made in their derivation (i.e., pressure, pressure squared, or
pseudo-pressure approach).

The basic assumption for liquid flow is that the liquid's compressibility is
small and constant. The compressibility of any fluid is defined as the
relative change in volume per unit change in pressure. Mathematically,

      (4)
Equation 4 can also be written as

      (5)
Since c is assumed to be constant, Equation 5 can be integrated to yield
Ln() = cP       (6)

 = ecP       (7)

Equation 7 is the equation of state for a liquid. Incorporating Equation 7 into Equation
5 yields the radial flow equation for a liquid. Assuming a constant viscosity, the flow
equation is as follows:

      (8)
Equation 8 is the radial diffusivity equation for liquid flow. This second-order
differential equation is easily solved for a given set of boundary conditions.

In addition to the assumptions made to derive Equation 3, the following

additional assumptions were made in order to obtain Equation 8:

 Compressibility is small and constant.

 Pressure gradients are small, so that the second-order terms are negligible.
 Viscosity is constant.

Chapter 1 Page 3
In the absence of the preceding assumptions, the flow equation would be nonlinear
and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to solve analytically. These assumptions do
introduce inaccuracies into the system; however, judicious use of the flow equation
yields acceptable results.

Test analysis is performed using solutions to the flow equation that have
been obtained by assuming different boundary conditions. To facilitate the
various forms of the fluid flow equations and to make solutions of the
equations universal in applicability (for consistent initial and boundary
conditions) it is convenient to express the flow equation in dimensionless
terms, as follows:

      (9)

Dimensionless terms for various specific forms of this equation are defined
below:

SI Units:

 pD = (khp) / (1842qB)
 tD = (.0000036kDp)/ (ctrw2)
 rD= r/rw

Oilfield Units:

 pD = (141.2khp) / (qB)
 tD = (.0002637kDp)/ (ctrw2)
 rD= r/rw

   

 Flow Periods

Pressure response at the wellbore of a reservoir having a finite areal

extent, regardless of wellbore storage, exhibits three flow regimes:

· transient or infinite-acting radial flow;

· transitional flow;

· steady state or pseudo-steady state flow.

The pressure response for these flow regimes is shown in Figure 1

(Observed states of flow during a drawdown test (finite-acting system)).

Chapter 1 Page 4
 Figure 1

To actually observe all of the flow regimes, it is necessary that the

wellbore be located in the center of the reservoir and the reservoir be
produced at a constant rate for a significant amount of time.

The natural occurrence of true steady state flow is unlikely. Steady state
flow can only occur if there is no mass depletion occurring at any point in
the system. It may be Possible to approach a true steady state flow when
using an enhanced recovery technique where the injection and production
masses are perfectly balanced. In most reservoirs a pseudo-steady state
flow is achieved where the reservoir pressure undergoes a decline
proportional to the rate of production.

The transitional flow period is not usually analyzed because of the complex
interactions between the changing reservoir pressure and the geometry of
the reservoir, making analysis difficult.

All well tests undergo a transient or infinite-acting radial flow period at

some point in the test. As a result, an analysis technique based on this
flow regime would be universally applicable as long as this flow regime
could be recognized on the data. The following sections demonstrate how
to recognize and analyze this flow regime.

Chapter 1 Page 5
 Drawdown and Buildup Transients

When a well is opened to flow for a drawdown test or shut in for a buildup,
a pressure gradient, or transient, is established between the wellbore and
the reservoir. This pressure transient propagates into the reservoir at a
speed that is directly dependent on the reservoir's rock and fluid
properties. For clarification, examine Figure 1 ,

Figure 1

Figure 2 ,

Chapter 1 Page 6
 Figure 2

Figure 3 ,

Chapter 1 Page 7
 Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 4

and Figure 5 (Pressure transient propagation in a reservoir).

Chapter 1 Page 8
 Figure 5

The top half of Figure 1 schematically represents a horizontal cross section

of the well and the lower half represents the pressure profile in the
reservoir. At a time, t, equal to zero, the pressure observed at the
wellbore is equal to the initial reservoir pressure, Pi.

When the well is opened to flow, the pressure in the wellbore is reduced,
which creates a pressure differential between the wellbore and the
reservoir. This disturbance, or pressure transient, propagates into the
reservoir such that at time t1, the disturbance is evident out to a given
radius, r1 ( Figure 2 ). At distances greater than r1, the reservoir pressure
is still at Pi. Since this pressure response is similar to that which would be
observed in an infinite reservoir, this period is called the transient or
infinite-acting radial flow period.

After shutting in the well at time t2, a buildup pressure transient is

generated that also propagates into the reservoir, as illustrated in Figure 3
. The original drawdown transient still exists and has moved out to a
distance r2. The buildup transient is evident out to a distance r1 and is
actually the algebraic sum (superposition) of the drawdown and buildup
transients.

The existence of the buildup transient causes an overall decrease in the

pressure gradient in the reservoir and a slow down in fluid movement. In
other words, pressure measured at the wellbore increases.

At a later time, t3, both the drawdown and buildup transients have moved
farther into the reservoir ( Figure 4 ). The overall pressure gradient in the

Chapter 1 Page 9
reservoir is further reduced. Also, the buildup transient appears to be
"catching up" to the drawdown transient. Since the buildup and drawdown
transients actually traverse the same area in the same time, the buildup
transient's radius initially increases more rapidly than the drawdown
transient's radius. As a result, the buildup transient appears to be catching
up to the drawdown transient. Since both transients are still propagating
into the reservoir, they would never actually merge in an infinite reservoir.

Figure 5 depicts the pressure in the reservoir as time approaches infinity.

At this point all transients have essentially disappeared and, assuming an
infinite reservoir, pressure has returned to Pi. The actual time required for
the transients to be nonexistent is a function of gauge sensitivity. If a
gauge cannot measure a pressure change of 1 psi, then when pressure
changes are less than 1 psi, all transients will have essentially
disappeared.

This pressure response represents the infinite-acting radial flow regime,

also called transient flow. By solving the flow equation for this regime it is
possible to analyze the pressures and obtain information about reservoir
characteristics.

Transient Flow Equation

To solve the flow equation for the transient flow regime, it is necessary to
define the initial and boundary conditions for the system in order to obtain
a unique solution. The conditions assumed to be present during a well test
are as follows:

1. Initially the reservoir is at uniform pressure throughout:

PD = 0 at tD = 0 for all rD      (10)

2. The reservoir is infinite:

PD — > 0 as rD — >  for tD > 0       (11)

Although all reservoirs do have finite limits, most reservoirs appear

infinitely large compared to the small volumes of fluid removed during a
drillstem test. If the reservoir does not behave as an infinite reservoir
during the test, then measurable depletion will most likely occur.

3. The flow rate at the wellbore is constant:

      (12)

To further simplify the solution of Equation 9, it must be assumed that the

radius of the wellbore is negligible compared to the radius of the reservoir
investigated during the test. Thus, boundary condition 3 becomes

Chapter 1 Page 10
       (13)

The solution to the resulting equation is known as the "line source"

solution of the radial flow equation, and is expressed in dimensionless
terms as

       (14)

At the wellbore, r = rw so rD = 1 and Equation 14 reduces to

       (15)

Ei is the exponential integral defined as

      (16)

For practical purposes, Equation 16 can be approximated by

Ei (-x) = ln (x) + 0.5772 for x < 0.1        (17)

From Equation 15,

so

       (18)

Rearranging equation 18 yields

PD = 0.5 [ln (tD) + 0.809]      (19)

Equation 19 is the solution to the radial flow equation (Equation 9) for the
transient or infinite-acting flow regime. This solution is the basis of all
pressure analysis.

Substituting the expressions for the dimensionless parameters, in

conventional oilfield units, gives

Chapter 1 Page 11
       (20)

Equation 20 describes the pressure response observed at the wellbore of

an infinite reservoir for a change in production from an initial rate of 0 to a
final rate of q. The underlying assumptions necessary to obtain this
equation must be kept in mind when using the equation. These
assumptions are as follows:

 Compressibility is small and constant.

 Pressure gradients are small.
 Viscosity is constant.
 Fluid flow is single phase.
 Flow rate is constant.
 Reservoir is infinite.
 Darcy flow exists.
 Gravity effects are negligible.

For liquid flow, most of the above assumptions are generally met. During
the flow period, though, it is possible that flow rate, q, cannot be
maintained absolutely constant. As a general rule, if the rate changes by
less than 10%, from the beginning to the end of the test, it is considered
to be constant for analysis purposes.

Drawdown Test Analysis

Equation 20 for liquid flow is the basis for pressure analysis. Consider
Equation 20, where

DP = Pi - Pwf =       (20)

This equation can be simplified to

Pwf = Pi - [ log(t) + C ]      (21)

where:

C=       (22)

Equation 21 indicates that Pwf is a function of time during the transient

flow period. If flow rates are maintained constant, Pwf must decrease
logarithmically with increase in time. From Equation 21, a plot of Pwf
versus log(t), will yield a straight line having a slope, m, as follows:

m=       (23)

Chapter 1 Page 12
Note: The slope indicated by Equation 23, and all other references to slope
or derivative, are presented in the conventional manner as being positive.
The actual slope is negative, so its absolute value should always be used
in these equations.

Equation 23 forms the basis of transient flow analysis. A plot of Pwf versus
log(t) is constructed and the slope of the indicated straight line is
determined.

Permeability is then determined from Equation 23, where

k=       (24)

Buildup Analysis
Pressure transient analysis involves examining the pressure response
caused by a change in flow rate. For a buildup, the rate changes from q to
0, therefore q = -q. To evaluate the response at the wellbore, all
transients preceding the start of the buildup transient must be taken into
account. To account for the preceding transients, a technique called
superposition is used.

Equation 9 is a linear partial differential equation. Consequently, simple

solutions can be added to give a resultant effect of a more complicated
case. For example, consider the case of a single constant flow followed by
a single shut-in. The flow rate and pressure response, as functions of time,
are depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 2 .

Figure 2

Chapter 1 Page 13
 Figure 1

The actual pressure response is the result of an additional flow rate of -q

starting at time tp in order to achieve an effect of q = 0 for times following
the shut-in, tp +t.

Applying the principle of superposition, the resultant buildup pressures will

be given by

PD = (effect of +q for tp + t) + (effect of -q for t)       (25)

Therefore, from Equation 19,
PD = 0.5 [ ln (tpD + tD) + 0.809 - ln (tD) - 0.809 ]       (26)
So,

PD = 0.5 ln        (27)

In terms of base 10 logarithms, Equation 27 becomes

PD = 1.1513 log        (28)

Equation 28 describes the pressure buildup at the wellbore as a function of shut-in
time, t, when preceded by a constant flow rate of duration t p. This relationship was
developed by Horner in his classic work on pressure buildup analysis.

Note that from Equation 28 a plot of PD versus log [(tpD + tD)/tD] should
result in a straight line with slope 1.1513 and intercept 0. Such plots are
known as Horner plots.

Chapter 1 Page 14
Expressing Equation 28 in oil field units yields

Pws = Pi +  log        (29)

Plotting Pws versus log [(tp + t)/ t] will yield a straight line with an intercept of Pi and a
slope, m, of

m =        (30)
The intercept of this plot represents an infinite shut-in time. This occurs when the log
expression is equal to one. Since, as time becomes very large,

log  — > log  — > log (1) = 0       (31)

Based on the above results, it is obvious that any buildup can be extrapolated to
infinite shut-in time. As a result, pressure depletion can be quantitatively investigated
if more than one flow and buildup are run during a test.
Two-Rate Analysis
Although it is possible to analyze a well test that has more than two flow
rates, the math does lend itself to interpretation by hand. The special case
of a test with two rates can be hand-interpreted relatively easily.

Figures 1 through 7 schematically represent the pressure response in the

reservoir for the two flow rate situation. Figure 1 represents the reservoir
shut-in and stabilized; Figure 2 represents the first flow sequence,

Figure 1

Chapter 1 Page 15
which lasts until time t1.

Figure 2

At this point the flow rate is changed, so that at time t2 the pressure
distribution is as shown in Figure 3 .

Chapter 1 Page 16
 Figure 3

After time = t3 ( Figure 4 ) the second flow transient appears to be

catching up to the first flow transient.

Chapter 1 Page 17
 Figure 4

If the second rate is maintained long enough, the second transient will be
close enough to the first transient that the first transient can be ignored
and a Horner analysis can be performed. If the well had been shut in at
time = t4 ( Figure 5 ), it would be necessary to include both transients in
the buildup analysis.

Figure 5

Figure 6

Chapter 1 Page 18
 Figure 6

and Figure 7 represent a later pressure buildup and the stabilization

following the flow period of Figure 4 .

Chapter 1 Page 19
 Figure 7

Using the principle of superposition, flow and buildup equations can be

used to derive a model for this situation.

For drawdown, liquid flow,

Pwf = Pi - 

- 

-  (32)

where: tp is the flow time since the rate change.

For the buildup situation, Equation 32 is increased by one term to account

for the buildup pressure. Simplification of the final equation yields

Pws = Pi -  (33)

Equations 32 and 33 will accurately model a two-rate flow test, provided

the following criteria are met:

The second rate is kept strictly constant.

The reservoir is homogeneous and infinite-acting for the total time

since the well began flowing.

Rate changes are instantaneous.

If any of the above criteria are not met, the resulting analysis may be substantially in
error. Most reservoirs do not support the second criterion. The third criterion is more
easily met if permeability is high enough such that wellbore storage effects are
minimal.

Using superposition techniques, analysis could be extended to any number

of flow periods, but the resulting equations make hand analysis extremely
tedious.

Wellbore Storage
In practice, Horner plots of pressure buildup data show deviations from
the expected straight line, especially during the early time portions of the

Chapter 1 Page 20
buildup plot. These deviations are due largely to the fact that the
assumptions used in deriving the flow equations are not adhered to in
realistic well testing situations. Some of the more important causes for
deviations from idealized behavior are the following:

wellbore damage resulting in a zone of altered permeability near the

wellbore;

multiphase flow;

wellbore storage effects.

These effects are eventually overcome later and the Horner plot will yield a straight
line that can be extrapolated to the initial reservoir pressure. However, if shut-in time
is insufficient to overcome these effects, the buildup data cannot be analyzed using
Horner's method.

Other anomalies that cause deviation from ideal behavior can often be
identified by using test results in conjunction with other available data.

When a well is opened to flow or shut in for a buildup, the rate change at
the surface is not instantaneously transmitted to the sandface. The actual
rate at which the change is transmitted to the sand face is a function of
the distance to the sandface and the compressibility of the medium
through which it travels. As a result, there is a gradual change in rate to
the desired value. This phenomenon is called wellbore storage, or
afterflow. The effect of wellbore storage is to add another flow regime to
the original three. This flow regime occurs immediately following the
shutting in or opening of the well.

Figure 1 depicts the effect of wellbore storage and near-wellbore damage

on the Horner plot.

Chapter 1 Page 21
 Figure 1

This plot is not analyzable with conventional techniques until the wellbore
storage effects have dissipated.

Figure 2 (The afterflow effect on flow rates) demonstrates the effect of

shutting the well in at surface.

Chapter 1 Page 22
 Figure 2

The reservoir continues to flow for a given time and eventually stops
flowing. The time for wellbore storage effects to be insignificant, in an oil
well, can be approximated by

      (34)

The value calculated for tws becomes important if surface shut-ins are
considered. Rather than calculate the end of wellbore storage effects, it is
possible to estimate tws by the use of a log-log plot.

Semilog, or Horner, analysis is valid only after wellbore storage effects

have ended. Therefore, the value for  tws must be determined prior to
analysis.

Skin Factor Determination

One of the most useful parameters calculated from test pressure results is
the degree of wellbore damage. Prior to quantitative analysis of pressure
buildup curves, the potential productivity of a well was judged upon the
rate at which it produced during the test. In many cases, however, the
productivity of a well is limited by severe damage in the vicinity of the
wellbore caused by the drilling process. In the past, many wells have been
abandoned because of a failure to recognize the presence of formation
damage.

Chapter 1 Page 23
True mechanical skin is the result of a permeability reduction in the
vicinity of the wellbore. This zone of altered permeability causes additional
resistance to fluid flow, and as a result, there is an increased pressure loss
as the fluids flow into the wellbore ( Figure 1 ). To account for this altered
permeability near the wellbore, Van Everdingen defined a skin factor, S,
which relates the pressure drop in the damaged zone to the dimensionless
flow rate. Thus, to account for the skin factor, Equation 19 becomes

Figure 1

PD = PD (S = 0) + S         (35)

PD = 0.5 [ln (tD) + 0.809] + S         (36)

From Equation 36 it is apparent that a positive skin factor will result in a

higher PD, thereby giving a lower flowing pressure. A negative skin factor
will yield a higher-than-expected flowing pressure.

The buildup equation is not altered when this concept is introduced, since
the skin factor cancels when the principle of superposition is applied. As a
result, by combining Equation 36 (which gives the wellbore pressure
before shut-in) with Equation 27 (which gives the wellbore pressure after
shut-in), it is possible to calculate a value for the skin factor, S.

From Equation 36, in oilfield units, the pressure drop at the wellbore, prior
to shut-in, is as follows:

Chapter 1 Page 24
 (37)

(38)

The buildup pressure equation is

(39)

Substituting and solving Equations 38 and 39 for the skin factor, S, yields

(40)

It is conventional practice to choose a shut-in time of one hour and a

corresponding Pws = Plhr. The Plhr point must read off of the straight line
drawn on the Horner plot. For this practice, Equation 40 becomes

(41)

It is also common practice to assume that l/tp is very small, so that the
last term in Equation 41 can be dropped. This is a poor practice for tests
that do not have long flow periods, like drillstem tests. For those situations
where the last term in Equation 41 is negligible, the skin factor equation
reduces to

(42)

True mechanical skin is typically less than +10 and greater than -3. If the
calculated skin is less than -3 and the well has not been fracture-
stimulated, the straight line used for analysis may be in error. If the
calculated value is higher than +10, then additional factors must be
contributing to the observed pressure drop.

Any deviation from radial flow will cause an additional pressure drop that
cannot be accounted for with the radial flow equations. To determine if the
value of S is truly mechanical in origin, a number of situations that can
cause skin should be considered and, if possible, minimized prior to the
test:

Chapter 1 Page 25
 turbulence, i.e., nondarcy flow, associated with high flow rates;

wells completed with only part of the formation thickness open to

the wellbore, i.e., partial penetration or partial completion, causing
a deviation from radial flow in the vicinity of the wellbore;

a dipping formation, or a deviated well, which increases the

thickness of the formation communicating with the wellbore,
causing a flow rate greater than that predicted by the flow
equation.

The first two situations result in an additional positive skin factor and the last situation
results in a negative skin factor.

Damage Ratio
After the skin factor has been calculated, it is possible to predict the
productivity of the well when the skin damage is removed by accounting
for the additional pressure drop caused by the skin. The pressure drop
caused by the skin can be calculated by comparing Equation 38 with
Equation 20 and isolating the skin component. The pressure drop caused
by the skin is

Ps = 0.87 m S       (43)

The damage ratio is defined as the ratio of the theoretically predicted flow
rate, qt, when no skin damage exists, to the flow rate actually measured
during the test, qm:

      (44)

The theoretically predicted flow, when S = 0, is obtained by solving

Equation 37 for qt.

      (45)

From Equation 30,

      (46)

Substituting Equations 45 and 46 into Equation 44 results in

Chapter 1 Page 26
       (47)

In terms of pressure drop, Equation 47 can be expressed as

      (48)

Wellbore damage will exist if qt > qm. This corresponds to a positive value
for the skin factor and a DR > 1.0. If the wellbore is in a stimulated
condition, then qt < qm. The calculated skin factor will be negative and DR
will be less than 1.0. If neither stimulation nor damage exists, then S = 0,
qt = qa, and DR = 1.0.

Productivity Index

For oil wells, it is convenient to express the productivity of the well as a

productivity index, PI, defined as

      (49)

PI relates the unit production rate to unit pressure drawdown and provides
a basis for comparison to other wells, and/or for predicting production
rates at different flowing pressures. The specific productivity index, PIs, is
the PI divided by the net pay thickness.

If wellbore damage is present, i.e., S > 0, it is desirable to determine what

the PI for the well would be if the effect of the damage were removed.
This determination can be obtained by dividing the theoretically predicted
flow rate, qt, by the observed pressure drawdown. There are a number of
ways to calculated the PI with the damage removed:

      (50)

      (51)

      (52)

Note that in the case of a stimulated wellbore, the theoretical PI will be less
than the actual PI. In such cases, the actual productivity index should be used
in assessing the fu Radius of Investigation and Time to
Stabilization

Chapter 1 Page 27
After all the reservoir parameters have been obtained, the next problem is
determining how far into the reservoir the test has investigated. Radius of
investigation, rinv, is the distance that a pressure transient has moved into
the reservoir following a rate change. It represents the distance beyond
which the drawdown in pressure, caused by producing the well, becomes
negligible.

Examining this another way, flowing a well causes an impulse to be

formed at the wellbore that propagates into the formation. Consider Figure
1,

Figure 1

Figure 2 and Figure 3 (Impulse propagation into reservoir caused by

producing a well): at time 0,

Chapter 1 Page 28
 Figure 2

the impulse is formed and starts to travel into the reservoir.

Chapter 1 Page 29
 Figure 3

For any given time, the maximum effect of the impulse will be experienced
at a certain radius, called the radius of investigation. The location of this
impulse is given by

      (53)

Expressing Equation 53 in terms of oil field units (rinv in feet and t in hours)
yields

      (54)

When using Equation 54, remember that the results are only approximate
and its accuracy will depend on the homogeneneity of the reservoir.

Considering its limitations, the calculated value for rinv should be used as
an order of magnitude.

Chapter 1 Page 30
A graphical presentation of the change in rinv with time is given in Figure 4
(Pressure distribution in formation near producing well).

Figure 4

As shown in this figure, the pressure transient extends farther into the
reservoir as time increases.

Eventually, the transient, or pulse, will reach the reservoir's outer

boundary at a radius of re. The time it takes to reach re is called
stabilization time (tS) or time to pseudo-steady state (tPSS). Note: If the
calculated rinv is greater than re, then the actual rinv is re.

Time to stabilization is the time required for the pressure pulse to reach
the outer boundaries of the reservoir. For a bounded reservoir, this is the
time that pseudo-steady state flow occurs. In other words, at times
greater than tPSS, measurable reservoir depletion occurs.

The time to pseudo-steady state can be estimated using Equation 54 by

substituting re, the radius to the outer boundary, for rinv, and solving for
tPSS. The results are given below:

      (55)

Chapter 1 Page 31
Conversely, the time required to investigate up to any given radius can be
estimated using Equation 55 and substituting a given radius for re

Figure 5 (The effect of mobility ratio: The radius of investigation versus

flow time during a drawdown test) demonstrates the effect of rinv as a
function of flow time for various permeabilities.

Figure 5

ture potential of the well.

Pressure Depletion Estimation

If more than one buildup is run during a test, it is then possible to
determine whether pressure depletion has occurred.

In the case of drillstem testing, the extrapolated pressure obtained from

the first shut-in is termed Pi and is assumed to represent the initial
reservoir pressure. The pressure obtained from the subsequent buildup is
termed PR and represents the average reservoir pressure after flowing the
well. For an infinite reservoir, these pressures will be equal. If PR is less
than Pi, then it is possible that the reservoir pressure has been depleted
by production of the oil during the flow period.

Chapter 1 Page 32
In cases where measurable reservoir depletion occurs, a depletion factor,
expressed as a percentage of the initial reservoir pressure, should be
calculated, where

% depletion =        (56)
Small differences between the initial and final shut-in pressures may occur as a result
of recorder hysteresis, and extrapolation of these pressures on the Horner plot can
further magnify these differences. For this reason, depletion of 3% or less must be
examined very closely to determine whether it is truly depletion. Also, various
reservoir anomalies may make the Horner method of extrapolation invalid. If depletion
is detected, and there is any doubt whatsoever that it is valid, a second test having a
substantially longer flow and final shut-in is required.

Exercise-1

What are the three physical principles that describe fluid flow through a
porous medium? What two equations are combined to yield the general
flow equation (radial diffusivity equation)?

Solution

The three physical principles that describe fluid flow through a porous
medium are

1. law of conservation of mass — sometimes termed the continuity

equation

2. Darcy's law for radial flow

3. equation of state

The law of conservation of mass and Darcy's equation are combined to

yield the general flow equation.

Exercise-2

List nine assumptions on which the radial diffusivity equation for liquid
flow is based.

Solution

1. Darcy flow exists.

2. Single-phase fluid flow exists.

3. Gravitational effects are negligible.

4. Reservoir is homogeneous and isotropic.

5. Permeability and porosity are constant.

6. Flow is isothermal.

Chapter 1 Page 33
 7. Compressibility is small and constant.

8. Pressure gradients are small (second-order terms negligible).

9. Viscosity is constant.

Exercise-3

List the three flow regimes evident during a drawdown test in a reservoir
having a finite areal extent, and display the regimes on a pressure versus
time graph ( Figure 1 ). What portion of the graph is evaluated to
determine reservoir permeability and skin factor?

Figure 1

Solution

Chapter 1 Page 34
 Figure 2

Figure 2 (Graph of flow regimes during drawdown test).

1. transient (infinite-acting radial flow)

2. transitional

3. steady state (pseudo-steady state)

The pseudo-steady state flow period can be evaluated to yield

permeability and skin factor

Exercise-4

What is the equation that is the basis for all pressure transient analysis?
Show the simplified equation in conventional oilfield units.

Solution
The basis for all pressure transient analysis is the line source solution to the radial
diffusivity equation. In conventional oilfield units:

P = Pi - Pwf = 

Chapter 1 Page 35
Exercise-5

Briefly explain wellbore storage and show the equation that can be used to
approximate the time at which wellbore storage effects will not adversely
affect the pressure transient analysis.

Solution
When a well is opened to flow, or shut in for a buildup, the rate change at the surface
is not instantaneously transmitted to the sandface. The actual rate at which the
change is transmitted to the sandface is a function of the distance to the sandface
and the compressibility of the medium through which it travels. As a result, there is a
gradual change in rate to the desired value. This phenomenon is called wellbore
storage, or afterflow. The effect of wellbore storage is to add another flow regime to
the original three. This flow regime occurs immediately following the shutting in or
opening of the well.

The equation used to estimate the time of wellbore storage effects is (in
conventional oilfield units) as follows:

tws = 
Exercise-6

What is a typical range for a calculated skin factor? Why is this range
important? What conditions may exist that would indicate a false
mechanical skin factor?

Solution

Skin factors generally are between -3 and +10. Calculated values outside
of this range may indicate that an incorrect slope was used in the
evaluation.

The following conditions may cause a false mechanical skin factor:

· High flow rates tend to be turbulent, i.e., nondarcy flow.

· Wells completed with only part of the formation thickness open to

the wellbore — i.e., partial penetration or partial completion —
cause a deviation from radial flow in the vicinity of the wellbore.

· A dipping formation, or a deviated well, increases the thickness of

the formation communicating with the wellbore, resulting in a flow
rate greater than what is predicted by the flow equation.

The first two situations result in an additional positive skin factor and the
last situation results in a negative skin factor.

Chapter 1 Page 36
Log-log Analysis
Pressure Derivative
The interpretation of the pressure data is centered about the use of the
diagnostic log-log plot illustrated in Figure 1 (Log-log plot of pressure vs
time (1) and derivative plot (2)).

Figure 1

In order to prepare the log-log plot it is necessary to compute the

pressure change that occurred during the test period as well as the value
of the derivative of the pressure change. The calculation of the pressure
change, P, is simply the absolute value of the difference between the
pressure at any time and the pressure at time zero. In other words,

P = abs [P(t) - P(t = 0)]        (57)

The pressure change during the flow period will be

P = Pi - Pwf (t)        (58)

The pressure change during the buildup period will be

Chapter 1 Page 37
 P= Pws(t) - Pwf(tp)        (59)

The pressure derivative is computed with respect to the natural logarithm

of the elapsed time change. This formulation is based upon Equation 19,
the infinite-acting radial flow equation.

The derivative of the dimensionless pressure change with respect to the

natural logarithm of the dimensionless time is equal to a constant, 0.5, as
demonstrated below:

m' = = = 0.5       (60)

In oil field units, the derivative is

m' =       (61)

The difference between Equation 61 and Equation 23 is a factor of 2.303,

the difference between natural logs and base 10 logs. This demonstrates
that the derivative is representative of a conventional semilog analysis.

The derivative of the data can be computed in a number of different ways.

An acceptably accurate method is to fit a straight line, using linear
regression techniques, through the data points located around the point at
which the derivative is desired. An estimate of the value of the derivative
is then obtained from the slope of this straight line. In equation form the
derivative is calculated as follows:

-m' =         (62)

Equation 62 is the derivative for drawdown data. It is presented in this

form to maintain the convention of a positive slope.

For the buildup case, the derivative is calculated with respect to the
Horner function instead of elapsed time, as follows:

-m' =         (63)

where:

H=         (64)

Chapter 1 Page 38
In Equations 62 and 63, n is the number of points used to compute the
derivative. This parameter is termed the smoothing parameter. The higher
the value for n, the smoother the derivative will be. Unfortunately, the
higher the value for n, the less representative is the calculated derivative
of the true value. The "best" value for n cannot be determined absolutely;
instead, a number of values should be used.

One of the problems that arises in the application of the log-log plot is in
the computation of the derivative value. Regardless of the method used to
compute the derivative, measurement errors that occur when collecting
the pressure data are amplified in the derivative values. Occasionally, the
derivative values can be so "noisy," or scattered, that it may not be
possible to recognize the diagnostic shape of the derivative. Figure 2 is an
example plot of a "noisy" derivative.

Figure 2

The derivative plot is especially helpful when trying to find the end of
wellbore storage effects as well as determining the cause of an anomalous
pressure response.

The infinite-acting period occurs after the end of the wellbore-influenced

period and prior to the influence of reservoir boundaries. Since the
boundaries do not affect the data during this period, the pressure behavior

Chapter 1 Page 39
is identical to the behavior of an infinite reservoir. Infinite-acting radial
flow can be recognized on the log-log plot by the apparent stabilization of
the derivative value following a period a relatively high values. Note that
for a negative skin condition, the wellbore storage period does not have
this initial high value for derivative.

The boundary influenced period begins when reservoir boundaries cause

the pressure behavior to deviate significantly from the infinite-acting
behavior. Boundary effects are evident by a late time deviation of the
derivative value. The shape of the derivative curve during the boundary-
influenced period can be used to determine the type of boundary that is
influencing the pressure behavior. Figure 3 demonstrates some of the
different shapes of the derivative curve for a number of reservoir
configurations.

Figure 3

By far, the most common use of the derivative is to determine the end of
wellbore storage. To assist in this determination, we use type curves that
show derivatives for different wellbore storage conditions. A type curve is
a log-log plot of dimensionless pressure parameters presented in such a
way that they are universally applicable. They are generated from
solutions to the flow equations.

Chapter 1 Page 40
Log-log type curves are relatively straightforward and are very useful for
analyzing data and verifying analysis results.

Effective Shut-in Time

The reason semilog analysis for a buildup is valid is because of

superposition, i.e., plotting (tp + t)/t. A problem arises when buildup
data are used for type curve matching, since all type curves are generated
for a flowing reservoir. It is possible to modify buildup data and take the
flow into account by a technique called de-superposition. Plotting P
instead of P is a partial de-superposition.

De-superposition is not presented here because it is a tedious technique

and may cause additional errors if not applied properly. To remedy this
problem, a technique similar to the (tp + t)/t superposition was
introduced by Agarwal, and entails the modification of the t axis into a te
axis. This te is called effective shut-in time and is defined as

te =         (65)

Examining Equation 65, it is obvious that as shut-in time, t, becomes

very large, te becomes

te =>         (66)

Equation 66 states that as shut-in time approaches infinity, effective shut-

in time approaches the total flow time. Based on this result, if the log-log
plot is constructed using te, it will be possible to extrapolate the date to
infinite shut-in time, te = tp and determine the reservoir pressure.

A plot of P versus te effectively superposes the buildup data into the
equivalent drawdown data. With this new plot, the drawdown type curves
are directly usable with the buildup data.

Log-Log Analysis Procedure

The following procedure is for using type curves to analyze oil tests.

1. Plot P versus t for drawdown or P versus te for buildup on

log-log paper the same size as the type curves that are going to be
used.

2. Plot the derivative versus t on the same paper. Do not use te
for the derivative plot since it already accounts for the flow period
preceding the buildup.

3. Place the plotted data on top of the type curve and move it until
most of the data falls on one of the PD plots on the type curve.
Note the value for dimensionless wellbore storage and skin factor,
CDe2S.

Chapter 1 Page 41
 4. Complete the match by placing the derivative data on the curve
that corresponds with the CDe2S. The proper match is achieved
when the pressure and derivative data lie on corresponding curves
at the same time.

5. With the data matched, record corresponding values of (P, PD),

(t, tD/CD) from any convenient match point and the matched
CDe2S curve.

6. Calculate the analysis results from the following equations:

U.S. Oil field Units

k (in md) =       (67)

CD =       (68)

S = 0.5 ln       (69)

The values obtained from the type curve analysis should correspond to the
values derived by conventional semilog analysis. The match will not be
perfect because of the finite number of type curves available with which to
match the data.

The following example serves as an introduction to the use of the

derivative plot in pressure transient analysis. The analysis was also
conducted using the Horner and the Miller-Dyes-Hutchison (MDH) methods
for comparison purposes.

A buildup test was run in an oil well in a field that had been producing for
8-1/2 months. From initial tests and work performed prior to production,
the following is known about the reservoir:

Pi = 30,206 kPa (4381 psi)

koh= 600 md-m (1969 md-ft)

h = 6 m (20 ft)

ko= 100 md

perfs: 2542 to 2548 m (8340 to 8360 ft)

= 28%

Pwf = 23,538 kPa (3414 psi)

ct = 1.1 l0-6/kPa (7.6 10-6/psi)

Chapter 1 Page 42
 µo = 0.59 mPa-S (0.59 cp)

Bo= 1.39 reservoir bbl/stock tank bbl

Oil initially in place: 1.4 106 m3 (8.8 million STB)

Pb= 13,886 kPa (2014 psi)

reservoir area = 3540 ft 4080 ft (l080 m 1250 m)

fault 150 m (500 ft)

The reservoir is a volumetric undersaturated oil reservoir producing under

expansion drive. The well was placed on production at 55 m3/d (345
bbl/d) and produced 14,310 m3 (90,000 STB).

It was decided to run a buildup test on this reservoir to estimate the

current reservoir pressure and to recalculate reservoir parameters.

Recorders were run in the hole and allowed to measure the flowing
pressure before the well was shut in. The well was shut in for 100 hours to
record the buildup pressures. The recorders were than recovered and the
data was analyzed.

Three techniques are available to evaluate the data from this reservoir:
type curves, the conventional Horner analysis, and the MDH method.

Type Curve Analysis

The plot of P versus t was plotted on log-log paper along with the
computer-generated derivative versus t (see Figure 1 ).

Chapter 1 Page 43
 Figure 1

A close match was obtained using the procedure detailed here. The values
obtained from the match were as follows:

CDe2S = 1015

P

PD



tD/CD = 500

From these points, the permeability and skin factor were calculated (in SI
units) as

k= = 101 md

S = 0.5 ln = 0.5 ln = 15.4

Chapter 1 Page 44
where:

CD =

MDH Analysis

For a finite reservoir producing at pseudo-steady state flow, a buildup can

be analyzed using a semilog plot of Pws versus log t. Conventional
equations apply.

Examination of the flow data from this reservoir indicated that pseudo-
steady state flow commenced after approximately 165 hours of flow. Since
the actual flow time was much greater than this, an MDH analysis was
performed.

Figure 1 contains the log-log derivative plot of the shut-in pressures.

Matching this data indicated that wellbore storage effects had dissipated
after 3 hours. This was followed by a radial flow period from 3 hours to 8
hours, at which point the derivative increased in value to approximately
double the radial flow value. This response is typical of a faulted reservoir.

The semilog plot of this data exhibits the same response. Straight lines
drawn through the data yielded the following (see Figure 2 ):

Chapter 1 Page 45
 Figure 2

m1= 164 kPa/cycle (23.8 psi/cycle)

m2= 330 kPa/cycle (47.9 psi/cycle)

P1 hr = 26,259 kPa (3808 psi)

tX = 37 hours

Using the above values, analysis yields

koh =

koh = 1933 md-ft (589 md-m)

ko= 97 md

S = 1.51

S = +12.6

Chapter 1 Page 46
Distance to the fault is estimated to be

L = 0.0122 = 0.0122

L = 652 ft (199 m)

These values are in agreement with the those obtained by use of the type
curve technique.

Horner Analysis

Analysis of the buildup data may also be performed using Horner

techniques if the proper value of tp can be determined. This value for tp is
difficult to obtain since it is based on an infinite radial system. The
reservoir being evaluated is a closed system that underwent pressure
depletion during production.

If it is assumed that after the onset of pseudo-steady state flow, the

pressure transient in the reservoir is independent of time, since it has
reached all areas of the reservoir, then tp can be assumed to be equal to
tpss, the time at which pseudo-steady state flow begins. From the previous
section, PSS flow started after 165 hours of flow, therefore tp = 165.

Figure 3 is the Horner plot of the buildup pressures.

Chapter 1 Page 47
 Figure 3

Analysis of this plot yields:

m1= 162 kPa/cycle (23.5 psi/cycle)

Plhr = 26,256 kPa (3808 psi)

m = 338 kPa/cycle (49 psi/cycle)

P* = 26,769 kPa (3882 psi)

tX = 25.5 hours

koh = 1959 md-ft (597 md-m)

ko = 99 md

S = +12.8

L = 548 ft (167 m)

Extrapolation of the second straight line yielded

P* = 3882 psi (26,769 kPa)

Chapter 1 Page 48
Since the reservoir is finite, the above "false" pressure will be higher than
the actual average reservoir pressure, which, based on reservoir
simulation work, is approximately 3877 psi.

The values obtained by Horner analysis are in agreement with those

obtained by the simpler MDH method and by type curve analysis.

Test Analysis Overview

Analysis of the buildup pressures yielded results similar to values obtained

previously. The relatively high skin factor is probably caused by the
additional pressure drop resulting from the nearby fault.

Based on reservoir pressure, there has been a reduction of 11.5% for a

recovery of 1% of the oil in place. Based on this observation, some form of
pressure maintenance should be considered for this reservoir. Further
reservoir engineering is warranted.

Exercise-1
On the derivative plot shown ( Figure 1 ), indicate times that illustrate
wellbore storage, infinite-acting, and boundary effects.

Figure 1

Chapter 1 Page 49
Solution

Figure 2.

Chapter 1 Page 50
Test Design
Test Interval Selection

When picking an interval to be tested, particular attention should be paid

to the following parameters, since they have the potential to adversely
affect the analysis of test results:

 more than one zone open to the wellbore

 interzone communication, due to poor cement bond
 partial zone completion
 gas/oil/water interfaces within the completed interval

These situations produce anomalous pressure responses and, unless the

cause is accurately known and can be taken into account, a unique
analysis of the data will be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.

Once the objectives of the testing program are established, the planning
effort consists of assembling all relevant data, defining the equipment
taking its limitations into account and preparing a rational approach to
achieving the test objectives while remaining within the constraints of
equipment, time and budget.

Test Planning

Test design is accomplished in four steps:

1. Choose the type of test.

2. Choose the flow rate(s).

3. Predict the required flow duration.

4. Predict the required buildup duration.

Choice of Test

There are two basic types of tests conducted on wells, depending on

whether the primary objective is to obtain deliverability data or reservoir
data.

Deliverability tests include conventional backpressure tests, flow after flow

tests, isochronal tests, etc. Tests run primarily for reservoir data include
drawdown and buildup tests. It is also possible to obtain reservoir data
from deliverability tests, and vice versa.

Choice of Flow Rate and Flow Pressure

The rate at which it will be possible to flow the well is dependent on

equipment and reservoir constraints. Flow from high-permeability
reservoirs will be limited by the tubing string and surface equipment, and
flow from low-permeability reservoirs will be limited by downhole pressure
differential limitations. As a general rule, a minimum sandface pressure
drawdown of 5% is desirable. Maximum sandface pressure drawdown is

Chapter 1 Page 51
limited by reservoir parameters (e.g., sand production) and equipment
differential limitations.

For analysis purposes, interpretation of the semilog straight line is most

reliable when the slope lies in the range of 30-130 psi/cycle. Lower values
tend to be influenced by gauge response and higher values often introduce
uncertainties into the extrapolated value of pressure obtained from buildup
analysis.

Estimating Flow Time

The objectives of the test determine the actual flow time of the well. Flow
time estimates are made based on three parameters:

· wellbore storage time

· required radius of investigation

· time to stabilization

Minimum flow time should be at least five times the wellbore storage time.
Maximum flow time will depend on test objectives as well as reservoir
performance and well conditions at the time of the test. It is difficult to
specify these times prior to the test because actual reservoir parameters
are not known. Because of the complexities of most reservoirs, general-
rule types of flow and buildup times do not necessarily yield the optimum
data.

The optimum test plan would entail an overall test design prior to the test
with modification of the parameters, as required, at the wellsite as the test
progresses.

Estimating Shut-in Time

For most tests of new wells, such as a drillstem test (DST), the following
general rule is often used to predict buildup times:

· high permeability: shut-in for 1.5 times the flow time

· average permeability: shut-in for two times the flow time

· low permeability: shut-in for three times the flow time

As an average, a shut-in time that lasts twice as long as the flow time is
commonly specified. This is not necessarily the optimum time when
considering most reservoirs. It is possible to calculate the required shut-in
time as the test progresses, thereby taking test conditions into account.

To estimate the required shut-in time, the recommended criterion to be

met is that the shut-in pressure must reach a value equal to 99% of the
initial reservoir pressure. For lower-permeability reservoirs this criterion
could be changed to 97%, based on the allowable 3% depletion factor.

Chapter 1 Page 52
Based on the transient buildup equation, the shut-in time, tS, for a
homogeneous, infinite reservoir is given by the following equations:

99% : tS =        (70)

97% : tS =        (71)

If the existence of a fault is suspected, the value of tS obtained using the
estimated permeability would be considered to be a minimum value. The
presence of a fault can be taken into account by halving the value for
permeability and calculating a new value for tS. The optimum shut-in
time, to meet the 99% Pi, or the 97% Pi, criterion would then be this new
value of tS.

If surface pressure readout of downhole shut-in pressures is available, the

shut-in time can be further refined by adding a second criterion; namely,
the Horner plot must exhibit a straight line and extrapolate to Pi. Once the
99% Pi or the 97% Pi threshold is reached and if the second criterion is
met, then the shut-in can be terminated.

Using the above technique to predict shut-in times optimizes the buildup
data and increases the possibility of obtaining a unique, quantitative
analysis.

Overall, in order to obtain the optimum data from a test, the final design
parameters should be determined at the wellsite as the test progresses. If
equipment that allows surface recording of downhole pressures is used
during the test, it is possible to analyze the data as the test progresses.

Test Design Example

A production test has been proposed for an exploration well that has
encountered a 35-ft-thick oil reservoir. From logs, a correlation well from a
nearby field and geological data, the following estimates of reservoir
properties can be made:

rw= 0.328 ft

= 22%

Sw = 38%

So = 62%

ct = 8.3 10-6/psi

Bo = 1.18 RB/STB

Chapter 1 Page 53
 µ = 0.8 cp

ko = 250 md

Investigation out to a radius of 1000 ft is desired. Reservoir depth is 8500

ft and is believed to be normally pressured for this area. Therefore,

Pi = 8500 ft 0.433 psi/ft = 3680 psi

Based on equipment limitations, the highest realistic oil flow rate that can
be sustained is 8500 bbl/d.

To determine if reservoir pressure depletion occurs during this test, an

accurate determination of initial reservoir pressure is essential. Therefore,
the test must have a short initial flow period lasting approximately 5
minutes and followed by a 60-minute initial shut-in.

The formation is well consolidated, and therefore a drawdown of

approximately 15% (550 psi) is a reasonable value to use as a basis for
determining expected production rates.

For a first approximation, the transient radial flow equation will give the
flow rate for this drawdown. Assuming a flow time of two hours and a skin
factor of zero, the flow equation yields a flow rate of 4998 bbl/d. This rate
is well within the limitations of the equipment and this drawdown is a
realistic value.

The slope of the resulting buildup curve will be approximately

m= = 87.7 psi/cycle

This slope is within the optimum range for analysis.

The practicality of a reservoir limits test can be determined by calculating

how long it will take before the pseudo-steady state flow regime begins.

A structure map shows the reservoir to be basically circular with the well
located in the center. Radius, re, of the reservoir is estimated to be 3000
ft. Time to stabilization, tPSS, will be

tPSS = = 49.8 hours

Based on this value, a test to observe reservoir limits is probably not

economical.

The time required to reach a radius of investigation of 1000 ft is given by

tp = = 5.5 hours

Chapter 1 Page 54
This is a reasonable flow time. If the well is flowed for this length of time,
then the minimum required shut-in time, calculated using Equation 70, is

tS = 3.4 hrs

Practically speaking, a shut-in time of three hours after a five-hour flow is

not realistic. This demonstrates that very long shut-ins are not necessary
in some cases.

For this well, the recommended test program is as follows:

Initial flow = 5 minutes

Initial shut-in = 60 minutes

Main flow @ 5000 bbl/d = 5 hours

Final shut-in = 5 hours

Selection of Pressure Recorders

Pressure and temperature recorders provide the most important test data
for reservoir evaluation. The keys to recorder selection are reliability,
sensitivity, and accuracy. Reliability refers to the instrument's ability to
survive test conditions and to record pressures and temperatures.
Sensitivity, or resolution, is a measure of how small a change in pressure
can be observed by the pressure gauge. Accuracy refers to the closeness
of comparison between the gauge reading and the true condition.

Mechanical pressure recorders have been in use for many years. Their
mechanism consists of a bourdon tube connected to a needle that scribes
a record on a coated metal foil that is driven by a mechanical clock.
Mechanical temperature recorders are similar except that the temperature
sensitivity is obtained with a coiled spring rather than a bourdon tube.

Mechanical recorders are available with operating pressures up to 25,000

psi and temperature limits of 400° F or more. Their resistance to shocks
(e.g., underbalanced perforating) is fair to good. Sensitivities in the order
of 0.05% of full scale are claimed (0.1% of full scale is more realistic) and
accuracies of 0.25% of full scale are possible. Since the records produced
are mechanical, hand reading of the charts is required. Also, temperature
corrections must be applied to the pressure data based on a calibration
table for each gauge. The gauge reading process can be slow and is the
major limitation to accuracy and sensitivity in mechanical recorders.

Mechanical clocks can be selected for operating times from a few hours to
several days.

Electronic pressure and temperature recorders have gained wide

acceptance over the past five years. Quite a variety of approaches to
electronically measuring pressures and temperatures currently exists. The
early models use a bourdon tube with an electronic strain gauge to
convert the bourdon tube deflections into analog data. Others place a
strain gauge on a diaphragm and read pressure directly.

Chapter 1 Page 55
Another method is to measure the variation in oscillations of a crystal.
Conversion of analog to digital data is usually done in the electronics
package within the recorder. Memory systems range from various solid
state systems to a mini-cassette recorder within the gauge case.

Working pressures of up to 22,000 psi are available and normally some

over-pressure beyond the range is permissible without damaging the
element in the recorder. However, electronic gauges are temperature
sensitive. Failure rates rise dramatically at temperatures over 300° F and
few manufacturers claim the ability to operate much over this value.

Susceptibility to shocks is slightly higher with electronic recorders than

with their mechanical counterparts. One company has been able to
successfully run their recorders in conjunction with tubing-conveyed
perforating systems without undue failures. Electronic recorders provide
sensitivities in the range of 0.001% to 0.0025% of full scale. Accuracies of
0.05% of full scale are common. The temperature correction function is
carried out electronically, either within the recorder, or in the surface
gauge-reading computer. Recorder reading is automated, so that fully
accurate printouts can be obtained within minutes of gauge recovery. Most
of the surface computers can also carry out pressure analysis such as
Horner plots.

The operating time for electronic recorders is governed by the sampling

rate and memory capacity. In the currently available recorders, memory
capacities range from 1200 to 2000 data points. By setting a 30-second
sampling rate, for instance, an operating time of 10 to 16.6 hours is
possible. Some electronic recorders offer time-delay start and pressure-
switch start options in order to maximize the recovery of test data, as
opposed to recording data while running in.

The most recently developed gauge is the so-called "smart" gauge. This
tool adjusts its sampling rate based on the rate of pressure change so that
drawdown and early stages of the buildup periods are sampled more
frequently, but at later times, when pressure changes occur more slowly,
less frequent readings are recorded.

Surface readout gauges are also currently being offered. One tool
combines a downhole memory with surface readout to overcome well-
flow/wireline problems. This gauge records flowing data in memory
without the wireline connection. During shut-in, the wireline probe is run
and connected to retrieve the stored data and observe the shut-in at
surface in a real-time mode.

Whenever possible, electronic gauges should be used and set at the

fastest possible sampling rate that will allow the complete test to be
recorded.

Placement of Pressure and Temperature Recorders

The following are recommendations for pressure/temperature recorder

placement.

 Electronic recorders should be the primary devices for data acquisition.

Chapter 1 Page 56
  For offshore well tests, at least two sets of electronic recorders should be run
below the tester valve. Onshore, one set of recorders below the valve should
suffice.
 At least one electronic recorder should be run above the chokes (above the
tester valve if no chokes are used).
 Each electronic recorder should have a mechanical pressure recorder for
back-up. A minimum of one mechanical temperature recorder should also be
used for backup.
 At least one pressure recorder should be ported so as to record annulus
pressure.
 One recorder set, consisting of electronic pressure/ temperature recorder,
and a mechanical pressure recorder, should be run as close to the
perforations as possible.
 One recorder set consisting of electronic pressure/ temperature recorder and
a mechanical pressure recorder should be run approximately midway
between the tester valve and the perforations, if this distance is significant.
 Pressure and temperature elements should be selected such that formation
pressure and temperature fall within the applicable range and the recorders
will be able to survive bull-heading pressures if required (in the absence of
better data, bull-heading pressure may be assumed to be 1.0 to 1.2 psi per
foot of depth).
 Recorder operating times (mechanical clocks and sampling frequencies)
should be selected to allow for the total running-in time plus the total of all
anticipated flow and shut-in times. Running-in time should be based on
similar tests from offsetting wells. When data are unavailable, running-in time
can be approximated as 1 hr per 1000 ft of depth plus four hours for final rig-
up.
 Time delay or pressure-switch start should not be relied on for all electronic
recorders.

The preceding are recommendations; experience and well conditions will

determine the actual recorder make-up for an individual test.

Exercise-1
What is a reasonable shut-in time when conducting a DST in a high-
permeability reservoir? In a low-permeability reservoir?

Solution
High-permeability reservoir: 1.5 times the flow time

Low-permeability reservoir: 3 times the flow time

Exercise-2
What are the three most important characteristics of a pressure and
temperature recorder? Briefly discuss.

Solution
The most important characteristics of a pressure and temperature recorder
are reliability, sensitivity and accuracy.

Chapter 1 Page 57
Reliability refers to the instrument's ability to survive test conditions and
to record pressures and temperatures. Sensitivity, or resolution, is a
measure of how small a change in pressure can be observed by the
pressure gauge. Accuracy refers to the closeness of comparison between
the gauge reading and the true condition.

Exercise-3
What are some limitations to a mechanical pressure recorder? What are
some advantages?

Solution
Limitations: The charts must be read visually, and the accuracy may be
poor if a lower-resolution (48-hour or more) clock is used. The pressure
data must be corrected for temperature based on a specific calibration
table.

Advantages: Mechanical recorders have successfully been used for many

years. Viable operating conditions may approach 25,000 psi and 400° F.
Their resistance to shock is fair. Accuracies of 0.25% of full scale are
possible.

Exercise-4
What are some limitations to electronic recorders? What are some
advantages?

Solution
Limitations: Caution must be exercised so that the tool's memory will
store all the data points over the test duration. Temperatures above 300°
F and pressure above 22,000 psi may damage the tool.

Advantages: Electronic recorders provide sensitivities in the range of

0.001% to 0.0025% of full scale. Accurate printouts of the data can be
obtained within minutes of the gauge recovery. On-site computer-
generated Horner analysis is possible. Electronic recorders are less
susceptible to shock than mechanical gauges. Time sampling may be
accurately obtained for intervals as short as 30 seconds.

Chapter 1 Page 58
Test Analysis
Qualitative Test Analysis
The sequence of events that make up a test and the corresponding
response on the pressure chart are depicted in figures 1 through 8. While
the test string is being lowered into the well ( Figure 1 ), the shut-in valve
is closed and the bypass valve is opened.

Figure 1

This places the recorders in contact with the annulus, and as a result the
mud hydrostatic is recorded. While the packer/seal assembly is being set,
the shut-in and bypass valves are closed ( Figure 2 ).

Chapter 1 Page 59
 Figure 2

The result is that the mud below the packer is compressed, which is
evident as a "squeeze" pressure on the charts. If the zone has been
perforated or the test is in openhole, this "squeeze" pressure will be
dissipated into the reservoir. Figure 3 represents the initial flow when the
shut-in valve is opened and the bypass valve is closed.

Chapter 1 Page 60
 Figure 3

The pressure recorded by the gauge will reduce very quickly and read
cushion hydrostatic, then increase as mud is produced into the test string.
Following the initial flow, the shut-in valve is closed and the pressure
builds up ( Figure 4 ).

Chapter 1 Page 61
 Figure 4

Following the initial shut-in, the well is opened for the main flow ( Figure 5
).

Chapter 1 Page 62
 Figure 5

The pressure recorded by the gauge falls to a value equivalent to the

hydrostatic pressure of the test string contents. If liquid was produced
during the initial flow then the pressure at the start of the main flow
should equal the pressure at the end of the initial flow. If gas was
produced, then this initial pressure would be less than the flowing pressure
recorded at the end of the initial flow period.

The well is then shut in for the final buildup ( Figure 6 ) and the pressure
returns to reservoir pressure. On some off-shore well tests, the reservoir
fluids below the shut-in tool are injected back into the reservoir.

Chapter 1 Page 63
 Figure 6

This is called bullheading, and is evident on the pressure charts as an

increase in pressure above hydrostatic followed by a decline ( Figure 7 ).

Chapter 1 Page 64
 Figure 7

Finally, the test string is pulled out the hole and the recorder measures
the decreasing mud hydrostatic pressure ( Figure 8 ).

Chapter 1 Page 65
 Figure 8

Once the recorders have been retrieved, a qualitative analysis of the

pressure charts is performed to verify that the test was successful. Points
to be examined include the following:

1. Did the recorder work?

2. Were all the flow and buildup periods recorded?

3. Are all the recorder charts similar in appearance?

4. Is the final hydrostatic pressure similar to the initial hydrostatic

pressure?

5. Do the recorded pressures correlate to what actually occurred?

6. Are the charts analyzable?

Figures 9 to 16 are "typical" pressure charts that may be observed after a test. The
following is a qualitative interpretation of the charts:

Chapter 1 Page 66
Figure 9 This successful test produced water during both flow periods,
which eventually "killed" the well.

Figure 9

Permeability is very good.

Figure 10 This successful test examined a zone having little or no

permeability. Recovery probably would be a couple of feet of mud.

Chapter 1 Page 67
 Figure 10

Figure 11 This successful test probably produced low-rate oil.

Chapter 1 Page 68
 Figure 11

The flowing pressures at the end of the initial flow and start of the final
flow are the same indicating liquid recovery. Oil is indicated by the shape
of the shut-in curves. The very gradual buildup evident during the initial
shut-in indicates low permeability, but the rapid buildup during the final
shut-in indicates a much better permeability. This means that there was a
zone of reduced permeability around the wellbore during the initial flow,
but not during the final flow. This could have been the result of "cleaning
up" the section of the reservoir that had been invaded by drilling mud.

Figure 12 This test was a misrun caused by a packer seat failure as the
well was opened for the initial flow.

Chapter 1 Page 69
 Figure 12

Figure 13 This figure represents a successful test of a gas reservoir.

Chapter 1 Page 70
 Figure 13

The initial flow period indicates that the test was run with a liquid cushion
that was recovered very quickly. The pressure at the start of the final flow
period was less than at the end of the initial flow period, indicating gas
production. The reservoir cleaned up and flow stabilized during the main
flow period as is evidenced by the steady increase and stabilization of the
flowing pressure. Indicated permeability is very high.

Figure 14 This is a successful test of an oil-producing zone.

Chapter 1 Page 71
 Figure 14

The test was run with a nitrogen cushion. This is apparent from the main
flow period where the pressure shows a reduction followed by liquid
buildup in the test string. The lower pressure recorded during the final
shut-in may indicate that the reservoir has been depleted.

Figure 15 This figure indicates that the test was a partial misrun.

Chapter 1 Page 72
 Figure 15

The initial flow and shut-in are valid but communication with the annulus
occurred at the start of the final shut-in. This makes the final shut-in
pressure data invalid.

Figure 16 This is the pressure chart from a test run in an offshore well.

Chapter 1 Page 73
 Figure 16

The chart indicates a successful gas test. This is indicated by the lower
flowing pressure at the start of the main flow. During the main flow
period, the water cushion was recovered very quickly. The increasing flow
pressure followed by a stabilization indicates that the zone was "cleaning-
up." Shut-ins indicate good permeability. An interesting occurrence is
evident prior to the initial flow period. The pressure response indicates an
injection into the reservoir followed by a return to hydrostatic. This is a
valid response, given that the zone was perforated before the test string
was run. The test string was run in, set, then lifted for a space-out before
final setting for the test. The injection pressure profile corresponds to the
initial "sting" into the packer and indicates that the zone is permeable. The
result of this operation will be to invade the reservoir with mud filtrate.

After the recorders have been examined qualitatively and it is apparent

that the test was successful, one recorder is chosen for analysis purposes
using the techniques presented in this module. The recorder closest to the
perforations should be chosen for analysis.

Chapter 1 Page 74
Hydraulically Fractured Well Test Analysis
This section deals with the analysis of test data collected from wells that
have been hydraulically fractured. The purpose for testing fractured wells
is to determine fracture and reservoir properties in order to evaluate the
success of the fracture treatment and predict a long-term deliverability for
the reservoir.

Fracture Stimulation
When a well is hydraulically fractured, the pressure is increased on the
formation until it cracks. Fluid containing sand is then placed in the crack.
The fluid leaks off into the formation and the fracture closes on top of the
sand so that it remains propped open. Figure 1 represents an ideal
fracture.

Figure 1

The goal of fracturing is to open up more surface area to the wellbore

without drilling another well. Since more reservoir area is in direct
communication with the wellbore, a greater volume of fluid can be
produced into the wellbore per unit time, resulting in an increased
production rate.

Chapter 1 Page 75
To understand why q increases, reexamine Equation 38. Basically,
fracturing increases the effective wellbore radius, rw, by some amount.
From Equation 38, if rw increases, the value of the log term decreases,
which results in an increase in q for a given P. The only effect fracturing
has on the flow equation is to increase rw or, equivalently, reduce the skin
factor.

= Pwf + m          (38)

Fracturing does not alter the reservoir permeability in any way.

Pressure analysis of a fractured well test requires the use of type curves
that have been numerically generated. These numerical solutions are
based on one of three assumptions:

infinite-conductivity fracture,

uniform-flux fracture, or

finite-conductivity fracture.

The type curves for an infinite-conductivity fracture are shown in Figure 2 .

Figure 2

Chapter 1 Page 76
Type curves for a uniform-flux fracture are included in Figure 3 , and finite-
conductivity fracture type curves are shown in Figure 4 .

Figure 3

Unless formation permeability is extremely low — i.e., in the microdarcy range —

pressure response, for most fractured wells, appears to be representative of a finite
conductivity fracture system.

Chapter 1 Page 77
 Figure 4

Based on this observation, only the finite conductivity fracture system is considered in
this section. Note: For the remainder of the section, the term "fracture" refers to finite-
conductivity fracture.

Fracture Flow Regimes

After a well has been fractured, a new set of flow regimes is produced. The
main flow regimes are depicted in Figure 5 and are as follows:

fracture linear flow

Figure 5

Chapter 1 Page 78
 bilinear flow

formation linear flow

pseudo-radial flow

For infinite-conductivity and uniform-flux fracture systems only the third and fourth
flow regimes are evident on pressure data. Fracture linear flow normally occurs at a
time too early to be of practical use, since it is normally masked by wellbore storage
effects. The start of pseudo-radial flow may occur at a time that is not economically
feasible to reach, and in fact may not occur at any time during a well test. In order to
determine kh for the reservoir, it is necessary for the reservoir to undergo radial flow.
For this reason, if a fractured well test analysis is required, it is imperative that a
prefracture test be performed to determine kh for the reservoir. If this is not done, a
unique analysis of the data may not be possible, since there will be two unknowns:
reservoir permeability and fracture length.

If wellbore storage effects last for a significant amount of time, it is

possible that the first three flow regimes will be obscured. If this occurs,
analysis to determine fracture length is not possible. In this case, success
of the fracture treatment will have to be determined using the calculated
skin factor. As a general rule, a fracture is successful if skin factor is
reduced to less than -3.

If wellbore storage effects are short-lived, then a bilinear flow analysis or

a linear flow analysis can be performed to determine fracture length and
conductivity. For analysis of fractured wells, a new set of dimensionless
parameters are used. These are the dimensionless time for a fractured
well, tDf, and the dimensionless fracture conductivity, FCD, defined as
follows:

tDf =          (72)

FCD =          (73)

In the above equations, wf is the fracture width and Xf is the fracture half-length.

Bilinear Flow Analysis

The occurrence of bilinear flow is characterized by a 1/4 slope on a log-log

plot. An example plot showing bilinear flow is given in Figure 6 .

Chapter 1 Page 79
 Figure 6

The plot in Figure 6 indicates that bilinear flow occurred for more than one
log cycle. As a result, it can be concluded that the 1/4 slope is valid and
can be analyzed to determine fracture half-length.

The pressure behavior during the bilinear flow period is modeled using the
following equation:

PD =          (74)
In oilfield units, the pressure response equation is:

P =          (75)
When the 1/4 slope is evident on the log-log plot, the data should be replotted on
linear paper as p versus t1/4. The slope, mbf, of a straight line drawn through the
data can be used to determine fracture conductivity as follows:
kf wf =         (76)
With the above value for kf wf, the value for FCD can be determined. The next step is
to calculate a PD value for any P, using

PD =          (77)
With values for PD and FCD, the log-log plot can be matched to the appropriate
fracture type curves and corresponding values for t and t Df obtained. The value for Xf
is then calculated using Equation 72.

To verify that the data that were examined actually was in bilinear flow,
the time range for the existence of bilinear flow must be calculated.
Theoretically, bilinear flow will occur for a dimensionless time of

tDf =  FCD > 1.6         (78)

tDf =  FCD < 1.6         (79)

Chapter 1 Page 80
Linear Flow Analysis

The occurrence of formation linear flow is characterized by a 1/2 slope on

the log-log plot. This flow regime will normally be evident and analyzable
for fractures with very high conductivity (FCD > 300). The beginning of the
linear flow regime occurs at

tDf FCD2 = 100 (80)

If data that exhibit the 1/2 slope on the log-log plot are obtained, then analysis follows
the same steps as for bilinear flow analysis. The log-log curves of Figure 3 or 4 are
used.

The equations that govern linear flow analysis are based on the pressure
response equation during this flow regime:

PD = ( tDf)1/2         (81)
In oilfield terms, Equation 81 is

P = 4.064          (82)
Thus, a plot of P versus t1/2 will yield a straight line having a slope, mlf, of

mlf = 4.064          (83)

Equation 83 can be used to determine xf.

To verify that the data used for analysis actually represented formation
linear flow, the valid range of data occurs during

< tDf < 0.016         (84)

Based on the time at which linear flow ends, t Df = 0.016, it is possible to estimate the
formation permeability. At the end of linear flow, the data on the P versus t1/2 will
deviate from a straight line.

Using the time of this deviation with Equations 72 and 83 yields

k = 100.1          (85)
In Equation 85, telf, represents the time at the end of linear flow.

Pseudo-Radial Flow Analysis

After a sufficient period of time has passed, and if the reservoir boundaries
do not influence the pressure behavior, flow begins to converge radially to
the well-fracture system. This period is the pseudo-radial flow period and
will actually begin after a dimensionless time of

tDf > 2.5 for low FCD         (86)

tDf > 5 for high FCD         (87)

Chapter 1 Page 81
This period is termed the pseudo-radial flow period because it is identical to the radial
reservoir case but with a negative skin factor caused by the presence of the fracture.
During this period the pressure behavior is described by

PD = 0.5 ln  + 0.404 + S         (88)

If pseudo-radial flow is achieved, then conventional (i.e., semilog) techniques can be
used.

Fractured Well Test Analysis Example

Refer to the derivative plot given in Figure 7 .

Figure 7

Given:

h = 18 ft  = 15%

ct = 1.3  l0-5/psi rw = 0.328 ft

tp = 22.3 hrs Bo = 1.37

µo = 0.53 cp Pwf = 4668.9

qo = 1100 bbl/d

a) From Horner plot (see Figure 8 ):

m = 717.5 psi/cycle

Chapter 1 Page 82
 Figure 8

Plhr = 5125 psi

P* = 6106 psi

Calculations:

k = 10 md

s = -4.7 (successful fracture)

rinv = 477 ft

b) From bilinear plot (see Figure 9

Chapter 1 Page 83
 Figure 9

):
mb = 405 psi/hr1/4

kw = 7272 md-ft (Equation 76)

Recognizing Anomalous Pressure Behavior

Anomalous pressure response is apparent during a test by a deviation
from the semilog straight line. Possible causes for an anomalous response
include faults, porosity changes, permeability changes, net pay variations,
fluid contacts, multi-layered reservoirs, or any combination of these.
Analysis of anomalous pressure data is difficult and normally does not
yield unique and conclusive results.

Before assuming that the pressure response is reservoir related, the

possibility of equipment malfunctions should be investigated. This can be
done by examining tubing and casing pressures throughout the test for
any signs of significant variations.

One anomaly that appears to be the most common is a no-flow boundary,

most commonly referred to as a fault. Theory dictates that a fault is
evident on the semi log plot by an apparent doubling of slope. However,
although a fault causes the slope to double, a doubling of slope does not
necessarily indicate the existence of a fault. This result demonstrates the
problem associated with trying to quantify the cause of an anomalous
pressure response.

To fully determine the cause of the anomalous pressure response, the test
parameters must be modified to take them into account. This is done by
monitoring the flow and buildup pressures during the test, performing an

Chapter 1 Page 84
analysis and using the results to make the necessary modifications to the
flow and shut-in times. The objective is to verify the observed response by
extending either the flow or shut-in time.

Three common causes of anomalous pressure response are

no-flow boundaries — faults

channel sands — linear flow

multilayered reservoirs

The following sections will present information on recognizing and analyzing tests
affected by these anomalies.

No-Flow Boundaries — Faults

In many reservoirs, an anomaly often encountered during a production
test is the no-flow boundary, or fault. When the pressure transient reaches
the fault, the area available for flow is halved. The result is that the rate of
pressure decline is twice the normally expected pressure decline. In other
words, the slope of the semilog straight line doubles. It should be noted
that although the presence of a fault causes the semilog slope to double, a
doubling of slope does not necessarily indicate a fault.

Figure 1 shows the effect of a fault on the log-log derivative plot and
Figure 2 shows the effect on the Horner plot.

Chapter 1 Page 85
 Figure 1

Chapter 1 Page 86
 Figure 2

To estimate the distance to the boundary from the buildup data, the
intersection point of the two straight lines drawn on the Horner plot is
determined. Using the time read at the intersection point, tx, the
approximate distance, L, to the boundary may be estimated from

L = 0.0122          (89)
Equation 89 is an approximation and is valid only if t p is much greater than tx. If this
condition does not apply, then the effect of the flow time has to be considered.
Earlougher presents a technique to evaluate L for this situation.

Conventional analysis can be performed on the early time portion of a

faulted reservoir test. The pressure extrapolation to determine reservoir
pressure must be performed carefully. If the second slope is not fully
developed — i.e., the slope does not double — an extrapolation will not
yield an accurate value for PR.

Input Parameters

h = 6 m  = 15%

Chapter 1 Page 87
 ct = 2.65  10-6/kPa rw = 0.1 m

tp = 906 mins TR = 94 °C

µo = 0.8 mPa-s Bo = 1.38

qo = 166 m3/d Pwf = 15922 kPa

Analysis Results
m1 = 272 kPa/cycle m2 = 532.1

Plhr = 33947 kPa tx = 225.1 mins

koh = 1448 md-m

ko = 241 md

skin = 69.6

rinv = 407 m

p* = 34457 kPa

m2/m1 = 1.95

Table 1: Horner analysis — faulted reservoir DST #4. Zone: Jeanne D’Arc.

Channel Sands — Linear Reservoirs

Linear flow is apparent during a test if a plot of pressure versus the square
root of time yields a straight line. For the buildup case, a plot of pressure
versus [(tp + t)1/2 - t1/2] is constructed. This buildup plot is called the
tandem root of time plot. If the reservoir is experiencing linear flow, both
drawdown and buildup root of time plots will exhibit straight lines, and the
conventional semilog plots will have a continuously increasing slope. An
example semilog plot, log-log derivative plot, and square root plot of a
test of a channel sand are included as Figure 3 ,

Chapter 1 Page 88
 Figure 3

Figure 4 and Figure 5 .

Chapter 1 Page 89
 Figure 5

Chapter 1 Page 90
 Figure 4

Figure 6 shows the flow patterns for a test of this type of reservoir.

Chapter 1 Page 91
 Figure 6

From this diagram it is obvious that radial flow occurs during the early
stages of the test. As a result, conventional analysis is performed on the
early time data during the test of a channel sand.

It is possible to evaluate the late time data from this type of test and
determine channel width. This technique is not presented here. For more
information, see the References.

As for most anomalous reservoirs, extrapolation to static pressure has to

be done carefully, otherwise an invalid conclusion of depletion may result.

Table 2 , below, lists the results of analysis of this example test. Note
that the extrapolated pressure is significantly less than the actual pi of
40,000 kPa.

Input Parameters

h = 10 m   = 20%

ct = 2 10-6/kPa rw = 0.1 m

tp = 10 TR = 100 °C

µo = 0.8 mPa-s Bo = 1.1

qo = 100 m3/d Pwf = 28340 kPa

Chapter 1 Page 92
Analysis Results
m1 = 1646.1 kPa/cycle m2 = 7102.1

Plhr = 35524 kPa tx= 6.64

koh = 114.9 md-m

ko = 11.5 md

skin = -0.1

rinv = 0 m

p* = 39413 kPa

m2/m1 = 4.31

Table 2: Horner analysis linear reservoir DST #1.

Multilayered Reservoirs
Multilayering effects most commonly occur when a test interval includes
multiple sands that are isolated from each other by a shale bed. If the
properties of each sand are significantly different, then one sand will
contribute more fluid to the production than the other, resulting in
different pressure profiles in each sand. When the wells are shut in, the
resulting buildup will exhibit multilayer effects.

Testing a multilayered reservoir is similar to testing two separate zones

together (assuming no reservoir crossflow). These tests are apparent on
the semi log plot by an initial straight line followed by a break upward in
the data. If the shut-in is long enough, there may also be a final
stabilization in the pressure. Figure 7 shows the idealized pressure
response of a test of a multilayered reservoir.

Chapter 1 Page 93
 Figure 7

The deviation from the initial straight line is caused by the high-
permeability zone returning to initial reservoir pressure. This zone was
depleted more than the low-permeability zone and therefore takes longer
to return to initial reservoir pressure.

In some cases, the deviation from the semilog straight line appears to
indicate a doubling of slope and the shut-in was not long enough to
observe the final stabilization. For this situation, more information is
required with respect to fault locations in order to determine the most
likely cause of the slope change.

Figure 8

Chapter 1 Page 94
 Figure 8

is a log-log derivative plot and Figure 9 is a superposition plot

demonstrating the effect of testing a multilayered reservoir.

Chapter 1 Page 95
 Figure 9

For the multilayer situation, the initial straight line is analyzed and yields
the combined zone parameters. There is no analytical technique available
to analyze the late-time pressure response.

Table 3 , below, lists the results of analysis of this example test.

Input Parameters

h = 3.6 m   = 22%

ct = 1.6  10-6/kPa rw = 0.1 m

tp = 8351 mins TR = 88 °C

µo = 0.37 mPa-s Bo = 1.1

qo = 659 m3/d Pwf = 17272 kPa

Analysis Results
m1 = 324 kPa/cycle m2 = 803.8

Plhr = 19985 kPa tx= 0.6 mins

Chapter 1 Page 96
 koh = 1779 md-m

ko = 494 md

skin = 2.2

rinv = 2762 m

p* = 22659 kPa

m2/m1 = 2.48

Table 3: Horner analysis multilayered reservoir. Zone: sand.

Exercise-1

Following the recovery of the pressure data, what qualitative analysis

should be performed to verify that the test was successful?

Solution
The following questions should be answered after reviewing the test
results in the field:

1. Did the recorder work?

2. Were all the flow and buildup periods recorded?

3. Are all the recorder charts similar in appearance?

4. Is the final hydrostatic pressure similar to the initial

hydrostatic pressure?

5. Do the recorded pressures correlate to what actually

occurred?

6. Are the charts analyzable?

Exercise-2
A DST was run on an interval perforated from 3057 m to 3061 m in the Lower Jeanne
d'Arc formation. This well was perforated with a tubing-conveyed perforating gun with
a shot density of 13 shots/m. The well was opened for an 11-minute preflow and
followed by a 35-minute shut-in. Following the initial shut-in, the well was opened for
a 10.5-hour main flow, then shut in for 15 hours. Following the main shut-in the well
was opened for 36 minutes to obtain PVT samples, after which time the well was shut
in. Figure 1 is a record of the pressure versus time linear plot for the entire test.

Chapter 1 Page 97
 Figure 1

Table 1 and Table 2 , below, contain the analysis parameters and flow data obtained
from various sources. The Horner plot for the initial shut-in period is shown in Figure
2.

Chapter 1 Page 98
 Figure 2

Figure 3

Chapter 1 Page 99
 Figure 3

and Figure 4 are the plots generated for data obtained during the main shut-in period,

Chapter 1 Page
100
 Figure 4

and Figure 5 is the Horner plot generated for the final shut-in period.

Chapter 1 Page
101
 Figure 5

From the information given, solve the following:

a. Using Figure 2 , determine the reservoir pressure from the initial shut-in
period.

b. Using Figure 3 and Figure 4 , calculate koh, ko, S, rinv and P* for
the main shut-in period. What does the shape of the derivative plot
indicate? Explain.

c. Using Figure 5 , calculate for the final shut-in period the same
values calculated in (b). What do the P* values obtained indicate?

 
Date, dimly 08/01/85    
DST 1    
Zone/Sand Jeanne    
D'Arc

Interval, m 3057-3061    
Oil Viscosity, mPa-s 1.4 (est)    

Chapter 1 Page
102
Oil Volume Factor, rm3/sm3 1.19    
Bubble Point, kPa —    

Compress.  106, 1/kPa 1.4    

Porosity, % 11    
Net Pay, m 1.5    
Water Sat'n, % 50    
Drainage Radius, m 405    
Wellbore Radius, m 0.1    

    Main Flow PVT Flow

Oil Flow Rate m3/d 46.6 39

Gas Flow Rate sm3/d 4207 —

Water Flow Rate m3/d — —

Oil Gravity °API 23 —

Gas Gravity air = 1 0.81 —

Chlorides ppm — —

GOR sm3/m3 90 —

Wellhead Pressure kPa 896 34

COMMENTS:
1. Logs indicate that this sand is comprised of a shaly sand with interbedded
shales and tight limestone stringers.

2. Water saturation based on a water resistivity, Rw, of 0.05 ohm-

m.

3. Fluid parameters were estimated from correlations.

4. Net pay determined using cutoffs of 9% porosity and 60% water

saturation.

Table 1: Beothuk M-05, analyses parameters.

 
Date, dimly 08/01/85    
DST, # 1    
Zone/Sand Jeanne D'Arc    
Interval, m 3057-3061    

Chapter 1 Page
103
Perf. Interval, 3051-3061    
m

Res. 88    
Temperature,
°C

Gauge, # 65258    
Gauge Depth, 3041.8    
m

Casing Size, 244    

mm

Packer Depth, 3046.3    

m

Test String, 89    
mm

Perforator Type tubing    

conveyed

Perf. Density, 13    
Im

Sand Prod'n, —    
%BS&W

    Main Flow PVT Flow

Final Flow min. 628 36

Surface Choke mm 10.3 7.9 (adi)

Downhole mm — —
Choke

Cushion Length m full full

Stable thp kPa 896 34

Final tht oC 2 0

Pi at Gauge kPa 36,217 36,217

Pwf at Gauge kPa 22,012 24,059

PR at Gauge kPa 29,202 28,198

Oil Flow Rate m3/d 46.6 39

Oil Gravity °API 23 —

Water Flow m3/d — —

Rate

Chlorides ppm — —

Chapter 1 Page
104
Gas Flow Rate sm3/d 4207 —

GOR sm3/m3 90 —

Gas Gravity air = 1 0.81 —

CO2 % 0.50 —

H2S ppm — —
Table 2: Beothuk M-05, well and flow data.

Figure 6

a. The Horner plot constructed for the initial shut-in is

extrapolated to (tp + t)/ t = 10° = 1. The pressure at this time is
read from the graph to be 36,200 kPa. Note: This pressure would
be corrected to indicate the pressure at the midpoint of the
perforations if the tool were placed above or below this point.

Figure 7

b.

Figure 7

Chapter 1 Page
105
 The log-log derivative plot indicates that wellbore storage effects
lasted approximately 15 minutes. The data following the wellbore
storage is analyzed using the Homer plot. The correct slope of
442.6 kPa/cycle is calculated. Using the data given, calculated
values are as follows:

koh = 377 md-m

ko = 251 md

From the Homer plot, Plhr = 27,186 kPa. Using this value, the skin factor is calculated
as
S = +6.6
The Homer plot indicates boundary effects occur at approximately (t p + t)/ t = 10.
Using this value, radius of investigation is calculated to be
rinv = 420 m
P* is obtained by extrapolating the late-time straight line to (t p + t) t = 1.0. This
pressure is shown to be 29,200 kPa.

The shape of the derivative plot indicates that a short, 25-minute infinite-
acting radial flow period occurred (shut-in time from 15 min. to 40 min.).
The increase in the derivative value following the radial flow period
indicates boundary effects.

Figure 8

c.

Chapter 1 Page
106
 Figure 8

The slope of 351.2 kPa/cycle was determined from the Horner plot. P lhr was
obtained from this semilog straight line was 28,070 kPa. From this, the
following was calculated:

koh = 397 md-m

ko = 265 md

S = +6

Extrapolation of the late-time data yields P* = 28,200 kPa. The P* values obtained
from the three shut-in pressures indicates that reservoir depletion has occurred
during relatively short flow periods. This behavior, in conjunction with the calculated
radius of investigation, indicates that a reservoir of very limited areal extent has been
tested.

Example-3
A DST was run on the Petrel formation tertiary sandstone which was perforated from
2403.1 m to 2408.6 m at a shot density of 20 shots/m. Two flow tests were conducted
for various lengths of time. Figure 1 indicates the pressure versus time linear plot for
the full test.

Chapter 1 Page
107
 Figure 1

The analyses parameters and flow data obtained from various sources are shown in
Table 1 and Table 2 , below. The data points obtained from the tests were plotted as
shown in Figure 2 ,

Chapter 1 Page
108
 Figure 2

Figure 3 and Figure 4 .

Chapter 1 Page
109
 Figure 3

Examination of the log data indicated that the test interval was made up of a porous
shaly sandstone containing tight limestone stringer. Pressure response was therefore
expected to indicate multilayered reservoir properties.

Chapter 1 Page
110
 Figure 4

Solve the following:

a. Using Figure 2 , determine the reservoir pressure for the initial shut-in
period.

b. Using Figure 3 and Figure 4 , calculate koh, ko, S, rinv and P*

for the second shut-in period.

 
Date, dimly 04/05/85

DST, # 2

Zone/Sand Petrel

Interval, m 2403.1-2408.6

Oil Flow Rate, m3/d 95

Gas Flow Rate, sm3/d 7125

Water Flow Rate, m3/d —

Oil Gravity, °API 21.5

Chapter 1 Page
111
Gas Gravity, air = 1 0.68

Chlorides, ppm —

GOR, sm3/m3 75

Wellhead Pressure, kPa 2358

Oil Viscosity, mPa-s 1.6

Oil Volume Factor, rm3/sm3 1.23

Bubble Point, kPa 19,800

Compress.  106, 1/kPa 1.6

Porosity, % 20

Net Pay, m 3.5

Water Sat'n, % 35

Drainage Radius, m 405

Wellbore Radius, m 0.1

COMMENTS:
1. Logs indicate a multilayered zone with the zones having significantly
different properties.

2. Water saturation based on a water resistivity, Rw, of 0.07 ohm-

m.

3. Fluid parameters obtained from the Core Labs report.

4. Net pay determined using cutoffs of 9% porosity and 60% water

saturation.

Table 1: Mars M-54, Analyses parameters.

 
Date, dimly 04/05/85    
DST 2    
Zone/Sand Petrel    
Interval, m 2403.1-2408.6    
Perf. Interval, m 2403.1-2408.6    
Res. Temperature, °C 72    
Gauge, # MRPG-449A    
Gauge Depth, m 2358.3    
Casing Size, mm 244    

Chapter 1 Page
112
Packer Depth, m 2394.2    
Test String, mm 89    
Perforator Type tubing    
conveyed

Perf. Density, /m 20    
Sand Prod'n, %BS&W 0    

    Rate #1 Rate #2

Final Flow min. 338 278

Surface Choke mm 12.7 12.7

(adj)

Downhole Choke mm — —

Cushion Length m full full

Stable thp kPa 3578 2358

Final tht °C 0 5.5

Pi at Gauge kPa — 23,720

Pwf at Gauge kPa 21,050 19,092

PR at Gauge kPa — 23,429

Oil Flow Rate m3/d 79 114

Oil Gravity °API 20.5 21.5

Water Flow Rate m3/d — —

Chlorides ppm — —

Gas Flow Rate sm3/d 5652 8825

GOR sm3/m3 72 77

Gas Gravity air = 1 0.68 0.68

CO2 % — 0.4

H2S ppm — —
Table 2: Mara M-54, Well and flow data.

Solution:

Figure 5

a. The Homer plot generated from the data obtained was used to
determine P*. Extrapolation of the late-time data yielded

P* = 23,700 kPa
Chapter 1 Page
113
Due to the thickness of the interval being evaluated, in this case the correction of
pressure to the midpoint of the perforations would not be significant.
Figure 6

b.

Figure 6

The log-log derivative plot indicates that wellbore storage effects

had dissipated after 25 minutes of shut-in. The infinite-acting radial
flow period appeared to last through 60 minutes. The Horner plot
yielded a semilog straight line with a slope of 672.2 kPa/ cycle.
Using the data supplied, the Homer analysis yields the following:

koh = 598 md-m

ko = 171 md

From the Homer plot, = 22270 kPa. The skin factor was calculated to be
S = -0.8
The radius of investigation was calculated to be
rinv = 228 m
A straight line drawn through the late-time data yields a slope with a magnitude 2.14
times the first slope. There is a rather large extrapolation to infinite time. Therefore, it
is not unreasonable to assume that the late-time slope would continue to increase as
Chapter 1 Page
114
would be expected during the test of a multilayered reservoir. Extrapolation of the
late-time slope yields
P* = 23,430
If the multilayered reservoir assumption is correct, depletion is not likely, since the
buildup pressures would have continued to increase if the shut-in period was
extended.

The interval examined by this test was shown by well logs to display
multilayered properties. As a result, a multilayered pressure response was
expected. The permeability calculated was very good, but deliverability
would be low because of the thin sections tested.

Chapter 1 Page
115