FACULTY OF ENERGY AND OIL & GAS INDUSTRY

PET 1306 Well Test Analysis

Lecture 13. Well Test Interpretation Workflow

Prepared by Aibek Abdukarimov

 Outline
• 11.1 Introduction
• 11.2 Collect Data
• 11.3 Review and Quality Control Data
• 11.4 Deconvolve Data
• 11.5 Identify Flow Regimes
• 11.6 Select Reservoir Model
• 11.7 Estimate Model Parameters
• 11.8 Simulate or History-Match Pressure Response
• 11.9 Calculate Confidence Intervals
• 11.10 Interpret Model Parameters
• 11.11 Validate Results
• 11.12 Field Example

2
 10.1 Introduction
In previous lectures, we have discussed a wide variety of wellbore and
near-wellbore phenomena, reservoir models, and analysis methods. This
lecture presents a recommended systematic workflow to use when
interpreting a pressure-transient test.

3
 10.2 Collect Data
The first step in analyzing a pressure-transient test is to collect the data
necessary to interpret the test. Tables 11.1 and 11.2 list the data required
for interpreting most pressure-transient tests.

4
 10.2.1 Geology and Geophysics.
Geology and geophysics are two of the most important sources of information
used in well test interpretation. Since geology, geophysics, and well testing all
interpret different aspects of the same underlying physical object, the models
used for all three disciplines should be mutually consistent.
Structure maps. Structure maps include information about locations and
distances to faults and other boundaries, distances to fluid contacts, and location
of offset wells.
Isopach Maps. Isopach maps may be constructed on gross formation thickness,
net sand thickness, net-pay thickness, or net hydrocarbon thickness.
Cross Sections. Cross sections provide information similar to that provided by
gross formation thickness isopach maps. Cross sections also indicate the
presence of other zones that may be in communication with the tested zone.
6
 10.2.2 Petrophysics
Petrophysics provides both information for interpretation and data for
parameter estimation in well testing. Although interpreted open hole
wireline logs are used in virtually every well test interpretation, cased-
hole logs and lab data are also important sources of information for both
interpretation and parameter estimation.
Wireline Logs. A standard logging suite provides information necessary to
estimate porosity, water and gas saturation, and net-pay thickness.

7
 11.2.2 Petrophysics
The spontaneous potential and gamma ray logs provide an indication of the
shaliness of the formation, which is used in estimating net-pay thickness. The
density, neutron, and sonic logs can be used to estimate porosity; the density
and neutron logs can be used together to estimate gas saturation.
The various resistivity logs may be used to estimate water saturation.
Other logs provide supplemental information that may help in selecting an
appropriate reservoir model or to detect the presence of conditions that may
affect the test. Borehole image logs detect the presence of natural fractures.
Cement bond logs may be useful for determining whether or not there is
communication behind pipe between different zones.

8
 11.2.2 Petrophysics
Interpreted Logs. The raw log data should be processed by a log interpretation
specialist, unless the well test analyst is also an expert in log interpretation. At
a minimum, interpreted log data must include average porosity and fluid
saturations over the tested interval, as well as net-pay or net formation
thickness.
Lab Data. In addition to laboratory-measured porosity and permeability data,
two types of special core analysis are particularly important for well testing,
pressure-dependent porosity, and relative permeability.
Pressure-dependent porosity data may be used to estimate pore volume
compressibility.
Relative permeability data are useful for analyzing reservoirs in which a
transient encounters a fluid contact or other change in saturation during a test.
9
 11.2.3 Reservoir Data
Reservoir data required for well test interpretation include formation
temperature, initial pressure, datum elevation, and location of fluid contacts.
Temperature is required for estimating fluid properties from correlations.
Temperature may be obtained from open hole logs or from downhole
electronic pressure gauge data.
Initial Pressure. For the initial test on a new well, the initial reservoir
pressure will normally be one of the objectives of the test. However, a rough
estimate of the pressure is useful for validation of the results of the analysis.
Reservoir pressure is also necessary for estimating fluid properties from
correlations for use in pressure-transient analysis.

10
 11.2.3 Reservoir Data
The datum elevation for a reservoir is normally chosen after the
hydrocarbons have been mapped with enough confidence to estimate the
location of the hydrocarbon pore volume weighted average depth for the
reservoir.
Reservoir Fluid Contacts. Locations of any gas/oil, oil/water, or
gas/water contacts provide information about distances to expected
changes in mobility that may appear as a composite reservoir boundaries
during a pressure transient test.

11
 11.2.4 Fluid Property Data
Fluid property data are required to estimate virtually every parameter
describing any reservoir model. The important fluid properties for
parameter estimation are formation volume factor, compressibility, and
viscosity, all of which may be obtained from correlations or from
laboratory tests. In addition, the bubble point or dewpoint pressure should
always be considered during well test interpretation.
Fluid Properties Parameter Estimation. The three fluid properties
required for well test interpretation are viscosity, formation volume factor,
and compressibility. Whether obtained from laboratory data or
correlations, all three properties are subject to uncertainty.

12
 11.2.4 Fluid Property Data
Viscosity is especially problematic for heavy oils. There is some
indication that oils with measured viscosities higher than 1 cp are non-
Newtonian (McCain et al. 2011), and therefore, laboratory measurements
of viscosity (and correlations based on laboratory data) may not
accurately represent fluid behavior in the reservoir.
The formation volume factor may be estimated either from correlations,
or calculated from laboratory pressure, volume, temperature (PVT) data.
Fluid compressibility is particularly important for estimating radius of
investigation, distances to boundaries, drainage areas or volumes, and
hydrocarbons in place.

13
 11.2.4 Fluid Property Data
Bubblepoint Pressure or Dewpoint Pressure. For an oil reservoir, the
bubblepoint pressure is particularly important for well test interpretation.
The bubblepoint pressure may be used to improve the accuracy of some of
the fluid property correlations
Finally, the pressures during a test should be compared to the bubblepoint
pressure to determine whether the pressure response might be affected by
multiphase phenomena.

14
 11.2.5 Rate Data Prior to Test
Some of the most important data for well test interpretation is the rate
history before a test. The question that often arises is “How much of the
rate history is really necessary?” For a well that has been producing for
several years, it seems obvious that daily production early in the life of the
well can have no impact on the pressure response. On the other hand,
ignoring rate history can lead to misinterpretation of rate-history-induced
pressure changes as reservoir boundaries
J.Spivey and J.Lee “Applied Well Test Interpretantion”(2013) recommend
that detailed rate data for time period preceding the test for a total duration
of the least of the following: (1) duration of the entire rate history, (2) 10
times duration of test, and (3) time to reach pseudosteadystate flow.

15
 11.2.6 Well Data
• Workover History. The analyst should be familiar with the workover history for the
well.
• Type of Completion. The type of completion gives a strong indication of the range of
skin factor to be expected, whether positive or negative. The type of completion also
determines the wellbore model to use for model selection,whether a vertical well, a
hydraulically fractured well, or a horizontal well.
• Type of Stimulation. The type of stimulation, if any, will also indicate the range of
skin factor to be expected. Stimulation types include matrix acid, acid fracture, and
hydraulic fracture.
• Type of Artificial Lift. Artificial lift can have a significant effect on the pressure
behavior during flow periods, and the nature of wellbore storage (WBS) after shut-in.
Types of artificial lift include rod pump, electric submersible pump, gas lift, and
plunger lift.

16
 11.2.6 Well Data
• Wellbore Schematic. The wellbore schematic showing the wellbore configuration
during the test should always be available to the analyst doing the interpretation.
The schematic should include the depths and sizes of the tubing, casing, and
liners; perforated interval(s), with shot size and density; location of screens etc.
• Tool-String Schematic. The tool-string schematic should show the placement and
depth of each gauge and where the gauges are located within the gauge carrier(s).
• Wireline Formation Test Data. Wireline formation test data provide estimates of
pressure and permeability for comparison with conventional pressure-transient
test results.
• Offset Wells. Offset well data should include bottomhole locations, completed
intervals, production and/or injection history, and pressure-transient tests.

17
 11.2.6 Well Data
• Previous Pressure-Transient Tests. A complete interpretation of a
pressure-transient test should include a comparison with the results of
previous tests on the same interval, and an explanation of any
differences in skin factor, permeability, reservoir model, or distances to
boundaries.
• Daily Reports. Daily reports for drilling, cementing, completion, and
stimulation may provide information about reservoir characteristics;
problems encountered may suggest problems with wellbore integrity.
Mud weight can be used to provide a rough estimate of formation
pressure. Mud weight can also be used to determine if there was
pressure communication with the mud column during a drillstem test.

18
 11.2.7 Test Data and 11.2.8 Gauge Data
• Test data should include the test design document, the daily report for
test operations, choke size and flow rates or volumes vs. time for all
phases, a schematic of the surface equipment in use during the test, and
tubing and casing pressure data vs. time during the test, in addition to
the gauge data.
• In addition to the pressure and temperature vs. time recorded by each
gauge, the gauge type, serial number, and date of most recent calibration
should be available. If pressure is recorded vs. elapsed time, the date and
time the gauge started recording is often essential to synchronize the
data with the test rate data as well as pressure data from other gauges.

19
 11.3 Review and Quality Control Data
• One of the most important steps in well test interpretation is quality
checking and validating the data before continuing with the
interpretation. Mattar and Santo (1992) recommend that 50% of the
analyst’s time should be spent examining, validating, and reconciling the
raw data.

20
 11.3.1 Estimate Errors in Rock and Fluid Properties
• One of the primary sources of errors in parameters estimated during well
test interpretation is uncertainty in the input data.
• In any problem where one of the objectives is to estimate distances to
boundaries, drainage areas, or fluid in place, the total compressibility is
likely to have the largest error of any of the input data. Unfortunately,
typical values for compressibility tend to be an order of magnitude lower
than worst-case values, causing overoptimistic estimates of fluid in
place.
• It is essential to obtain accurate pore-volume and fluid compressibility
estimates before booking reserves based on well test interpretation
alone.
21
 11.3.2 Review Geology and Petrophysics
• Review the data collected in Sections 11.2.1 and 11.2.2, with a view to
understanding how the geology and petrophysics might affect the
pressure-transient response. Of particular interest are grain size and
sorting, evidence of layering or natural fractures, heterogeneities,
expected reservoir compartment size and connectivity, and distances to
boundaries.

22
 11.3.3 Review Well History and Offset Well Data.
11.3.4 Review Rate-Time Data.
• Review the data collected in Section 11.2.6.
• The first step in quality checking the data is to review the rate-time data,
most easily done graphically on a Cartesian scale. The following
questions should be addressed while reviewing the rate-time data.
• Is the data complete?
• For multiphase flow, are the fluid ratios constant before the test? During
the test?
• Are there any offset wells that might affect the pressure response?
• For a gas well, is the production rate high enough to lift liquids?

23
 11.3.5 Review Gauge Data
• Review the gauge data on a Cartesian scale. Identify the beginning and
end of each flow period. Other phenomena that may be identified
include: (1) running in the hole, (2) flowing or static gradient survey
stops, (3) swabbing, (4) perforating, (5) other rig activity, and (6) pulling
out of the hole. It may be helpful to refer to the test report and the rate
history while reviewing the gauge data.
• Review pressure and temperature data from each gauge to identify
erratic readings or unexplained noise. Erratic temperature data may
indicate problems with the pressure data as well.
• Does the pressure pass through a bubblepoint or dewpoint during the
test?
24
 11.3.6 Compare Gauge Data and 11.3.7 Synchronize Rate Data With
Primary Gauge.
• When there are multiple gauges, data from all of the gauges should be
compared. Mattar and Santo (1992) advise the analyst to “compare all
the pressure recorders for inconsistencies; do not rely on one recorder
when one or more backup recorders are used.”
• Identify the time and pressure at the beginning of each test period.
Correct identification of the pressure at the beginning of each test period
(or more accurately, the pressure at the end of the previous flow or shut-
in period) is essential to getting an accurate estimate of skin factor.

25
 11.3.8 Identify Non-Reservoir Phenomena.
• The next step is to review the pressure data from the primary gauge on a log-
log scale. Often, phenomena that are not initially apparent on a Cartesian
scale can be quickly recognized from the pressure derivative curve on a log-
log scale. This review should be repeated for each test period.
• WBS Phenomena. Identify the WBS unit-slope line.
• Non-Darcy Skin Factor
• Movement of Liquids Past Gauge
• Pressure Oscillations
• Gauge Precision Artifacts
• Abrupt Leak

26
 11.3.9 Account for Non-Reservoir Phenomena
• Once a non-reservoir phenomenon has been identified, the interpretation
must somehow account for the phenomenon. Three options are to (1)
ignore it, (2) model it, or (3) remove it from the data.

27
 11.4 Deconvolve Data
• The most general method for taking into account a variable rate history is
the convolution equation. The convolution equation is based on applying
the principle of superposition in time to an arbitrary rate history.
• Convolution is the process of calculating the variable rate pressure
response for a given flow rate history, when the constant-rate pressure
response is known. Convolution is a forward problem. Mathematically,
convolution is a stable operation with a unique solution.
• Deconvolution is the process of calculating the constant-rate pressure
response for a given flow rate history and the resulting variable rate
pressure response. Deconvolution is an inverse problem. Unlike
convolution, deconvolution is mathematically unstable and has no unique
solution.
28
 11.4 Deconvolve Data
Convolution. For any reservoir for which the diffusivity equation is valid, the
pressure response for a well with a rate history comprising a series of N
constant-rate flow periods can be obtained using superposition in time as
Eq. 1

where ∆pu(t) is the unit pressure response for a well producing at constant
unit rate.
Approximating an arbitrary rate history as a series of constant-rate flow
periods, then taking the limit as the duration of each flow period approaches
zero, we obtain the convolution equation for the pressure response for anEq. 2
arbitrary rate history:
29
 11.4 Deconvolve Data
• Deconvolution, the inverse problem, is the process of solving Eq.2 for
the unit pressure response ∆pu(t) when the rate history q(t) and the
resulting pressure response p(t) are known. Unlike convolution, in
general, deconvolution is an unstable mathematic operation, with no
guarantee that a unique solution exists.
• Rate normalization is an approximate deconvolution method that can be
used when the flow rate is changing slowly and smoothly. Rate
normalization only accounts for changes in the pressure response caused
by simultaneous changes in the flow rate; it cannot account for pressure
changes during buildup caused by rate changes during the preceding
flow period.

30
 11.5 Identify Flow Regimes
• After the data have been quality-checked, and optionally deconvolved,
the next step is to identify any flow regimes exhibited during the test.
The primary tool for flow-regime identification is the log-log
diagnostic plot.
• The standard log-log diagnostic plot is a graph of the pressure change
and the logarithmic derivative of pressure vs. time on a log-log scale.
The logarithmic derivative will exhibit a characteristic slope for each
flow regime, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 6 “Applied Well Test
Interpretation” by J.Spivey and J. Lee (2013)

31
 11.6 Select Reservoir Model
• Major errors in interpretation are more likely to be caused by using the
wrong reservoir model or by incorrectly identifying the flow regime
than by using any specific analysis method. Parameter estimates from
the wrong model or the incorrect flow regime are at best meaningless; at
worst, they lead to poor reservoir management decisions.

32
 11.6.1 The Ideal Reservoir Model
• An ideal reservoir model is one that meets all of the following criteria:
(1) it includes all important physical phenomena; (2) it fits the entire
observed rate and pressure history; (3) it is consistent with available
geology, geophysics, and petrophysics; and (4) it provides a useful
reservoir characterization (i.e., it helps make better reservoir
management decisions).
• Of these criteria, providing a useful reservoir characterization is the
only essential criterion*. It costs money to design, conduct, and analyze
a pressure-transient test. That expense is justified only by the value of
the information obtained from the test. The value of information for a
well test interpretation using a model that does not lead to better
reservoir management decisions is zero!.
33
 11.6.2 Engineering Data and 11.6.3 External Data.
• Tools for Model Selection. The process of model selection is based
primarily on two sources of information, engineering data and external
data.
• Engineering data to be considered when selecting a reservoir model
include the type of completion, the diagnostic plot, and the analyses of
previous pressure-transient tests.
• External Data. Geology, geophysics, and petrophysics are the primary
sources of external data used for reservoir model selection. Geology and
geophysics provide information about reservoir shape, lateral extent, and
nature of boundaries, evidence for natural fracturing, layering, and
possible reservoir compartmentalization.
34
 11.7 Estimate Model Parameters
• Once a reservoir model has been selected, the process of estimating the
parameters that describe the model is fairly straightforward. Most of the
parameter estimation methods can be classified as straight-line
methods, loglog methods, and simulation/history matching methods.
Although any of these methods may be used to obtain estimates of
reservoir properties, the recommended workflow is to use straight-line
or log-log methods to get rough estimates of reservoir parameters, then
refine those rough estimates using manual or automatic history
matching.

35
 11.7.1 Straight-Line Methods
• In straight-line methods, pressure and/or time-plotting variables are
calculated so that data in a specific flow regime fall on a straight line.
The slope and intercept of the straight line are used to estimate reservoir
parameters specific to the flow regime and model selected for
interpretation.
• Straight-line methods have several advantages and disadvantages (self-
study, p.287).

36
 11.7.2 Log-Log Methods
• Log-log methods rely on a graph of the pressure change and the logarithmic
derivative vs. a superposition time plotting function on a log-log scale. As with
straight-line methods, the superposition time function implicitly assumes that a
single flow regime describes all terms in the superposition.
• Manual Log-Log Analysis. Manual log-log analysis has almost the same
advantages and disadvantages as straight-line analysis.
• Type Curve Analysis. Type curve analysis uses the log-log graph of pressure
change and pressure derivative, or field data graph, along with a set of solutions to
the diffusivity equation for the selected reservoir model, or type curve, in
dimensionless form.
• Superposition time functions have the same limitations for type curve analysis as
for straight-line analysis. Superposition type curves must be generated specifically
for a given rate history.

37
 11.8 Simulate or History-Match Pressure Response
• This is one of the most important steps of the interpretation workflow, as
it closes the loop on the interpretation. However, it is also one of the
steps most frequently omitted.

38
 11.8.1 Simulation
• The most general way to account for both variable rate history and
complex reservoir models is the use of analytical or numerical
simulation along with manual or automatic history matching. Analytical
simulation avoids the assumptions that have to be made to use straight-
line or type-curve methods, such as the use of superposition time
functions, or pressure and time transforms. Numerical simulation can
be used to model a wide variety of boundary conditions and/or nonlinear
phenomena for which analytical solutions are not available.

39
 11.8.2 Manual History Matching
• In manual history matching, the analyst fixes the known reservoir
properties and varies the values of the unknown reservoir properties
until the calculated pressure response matches the observed pressure
response. Manual history matching can be performed with either
analytical or numerical simulation.
• General Principles. History matching should incorporate the full-rate
history using superposition. One of the primary reasons for using
simulation/history matching is to confirm results obtained from straight-
line and type-curve methods. Use of superposition time functions, such
as the Horner time ratio or the Agarwal equivalent time, should be
avoided.

40
 11.8.3 Automatic History Matching
• After rough estimates of reservoir parameters have been obtained using
some combination of straight-line analysis, type-curve analysis, and
manual history matching, automatic history matching may be used to
fine-tune the estimates. Automatic history matching, sometimes called
automatic type curve matching, uses a nonlinear regression algorithm to
find the combination of model parameters. (Check the steps, p.291)

41
 11.8.4 Evaluate the Match
• Whether using numerical or analytical simulation, the match must be
evaluated graphically to determine whether or not it is satisfactory. Evaluate
the match using several different graphs rather than relying on a single graph.
• Cartesian Graph (tends to hide mismatches in the pressure response at early times that might be caused by
poor estimates of permeability, skin factor, and WBS coefficient .)

• Log-Log Graph (especially sensitive to WBS coefficient, permeability, lateral changes in reservoir quality, and
reservoir boundaries)

• Semilog Graph (the semilog graph is also useful for evaluating the pressure match, since it avoids the
compression of the pressure scale)

• Specialized Graphs (The specialized straight-line graphs for any identified flow regimes should be reviewed
to ensure the simulated pressure response matches the field data during those flow regimes)

• Residual Plots (Residual plots are graphs of the difference between the measured and simulated pressure
responses.)

42
 11.9 Calculate Confidence Intervals
• If the right conditions are met, confidence intervals for individual
parameters or a joint confidence region for the solution may be
calculated. A two-step process is recommended. First, validate the
assumptions on which confidence limits are based. If the assumptions
are valid, calculate the confidence limits.

43
 11.10 Interpret Model Parameters
• One step that is often overlooked in pressure-transient interpretation is
to interpret the parameters obtained from the parameter estimation
process in terms of physical reservoir properties. This is particularly true
of the composite reservoir models and the dual porosity reservoir
models.

44
 11.11 Validate Results
• Another important step in the workflow is to validate the results of the
interpretation. The validation process includes (1) performing simple
reality checks to make sure that results are reasonable, (2) checking for
consistency for estimates of the same parameter from different flow
periods, (3) comparing test results with those from previous tests on the
same well, (4) calculating the radius of investigation at the beginning
and end of each flow regime, (5) simulating the complete rate and
pressure history and comparing the simulated and observed pressure
histories, and (6) comparing parameter estimates with external data.

45