INTRODUCTION

Drawdown test runs the pump at several flow rates by adjusting the downstream resistance to

flow. Different drawdowns are observed as the drawdown ʻsettles intoʼ a steady value. The total

drawdown is the sum of the drawdown from the formation and the drawdown from the pump

equipment, total drawdown = s f + s w = C f Q + C w Q 2.

Pumping Test Procedures and Test Analysis

Bruin and Hudson (1955) presented a solution for the equation: sw = BQ + CQ2 which can be

used to determine the aquifer and well loss constants B and C which is demonstrated in the

example below. They ran a test to determine if the theory was correct. Most of the wells tested

were installed using the air-hammer drilling method and well diameters ranged from 4 to 8

inches. Submersible pumps were generally used for testing and the discharge pipes were

equipped with totalizing water meters and/or a calibrated orifice for flow measurement. Water

levels were measured in the pumping wells using electronic sounding equipment or transducers.

The step-drawdown pumping tests were generally a precursor to longer term constant-rate

pumping tests and the data derived from the step tests were used to estimate a sustained yield for

the longer term constant-rate tests. The test data were analyzed by a graphical solution to Jacob’s

equation developed by Bruin and Hudson (1955). The basic theory of step-drawdown test

analysis is provided below. Jacob (1947) introduced the concept of a multiple step-drawdown

pumping test with the objective of determining well losses and the effective radius of a well.

Jacob noted that drawdown in a pumping well has two components: the first component termed

“Aquifer or Formation Loss” arises from the “resistance” of the aquifer matrix to fluid flow.

Aquifer loss is proportional to discharge (Q) and increases with time as the cone of influence

expands.

1
The second component, termed “Well Loss”, represents the loss of head that accompanies the

flow through a well screen (or water bearing fractures in an open-hole well) and in the casing.

Well loss is proportional to the square of the discharge (Q) and is independent of time.

Jacob defined the following equation:

SW = BQ + CQ2 (1)

Where:

sw: Total drawdown in a pumping well [L].

Q: Pumping Rate [L3 /t].

BQ: Component of drawdown due to aquifer or formation loss [L].

CQ2: Component of drawdown due to well loss [L].

B: Aquifer loss constant [t/L2]. B represents the total resistance of the aquifer matrix from the
well wall out to the radius of influence.

C: Well loss constant [t2 /L5].

Another way of expressing the total drawdown in a pumping well is:

SW = Q/(4πT)* {ln(4tT/rw 2 S) – 0.5772} + CQ2 (2)

Where:

B: 1/4πT* {ln(4tT/rw 2 S) – 0.5772}

T: Transmissivity [L2 /t].

t: Time [t].

S: Storativity (dimensionless).

RW: Effective well radius [L].

2
Injectivity Test

This is a procedure conducted to establish the rate and pressure at which fluids can be pumped

into the treatment target without fracturing the formation. Most stimulation treatments and

remedial repairs, such as squeeze cementing, are performed following an injection test to help

determine the key treatment parameters and operating limits. Likewise, these injection tests are

also conducted when there is need in pumping secondary recovery fluids such as water, nitrogen

[N2], carbondioxide [CO2], pure natural gas and steam. It can also be defined as

a test series of reservoir water injection rates at different pressures to predict the performance of 

an injection. Under the injectivity test, there are two major sub-tests that are usually carried out

in order to evaluate the viability of water drilling. For wells that have poor overall permeability

and can be overpressured throughout their openhole depth during injection, the injectivity

index can be easily calculated once the main loss zone has been identified. Usually the pressure

gradient in the well while injecting cold water is significantly greater than in the hot formation,

so the evaluation of the injectivity index should be made as close as possible to the zone of

highest injectivity, which may not be at the same depth as the “major” loss zone, since the

pressure difference between the wellbore and the formation increases with depth, favoring the

deeper zones. This is particularly important where there is a large openhole length (>1000 m). In

wells with poor permeability, it may take several hours or even days for the well pressures and

formation pressures to equilibrate following an injection test, and care must be taken to check

that the zero pressure used to evaluate the pressure tests matches stabilized pressures measured in

the weeks of heating following the injection test. For very low permeability wells, it is easy to

overpressure the formation, even at relatively small injection rates (as low as 10 l/s) and obtain

misleading indications of permeability because the wellbore pressure is sufficient to stimulate the

3
natural rock permeability by opening fractures. For higher permeability wells that have inflows

at the upper levels during injection (because wellbore pressure is lower than formation pressure

in the upper part of the open hole), a value for gross permeability may not be very meaningful,

since the value will depend on the depth at which the pressure is measured and may not take into

account the additional inflowing fluid. In some cases, the inflow rate can be greater than the

injection rate at the surface, so comparing the downhole pressure change with the surface

injection rate may not be realistic.

Although it is the stabilized pressure at each rate that is used to define the injectivity, the

pressure transient measured after changing the injection flow rate should always be checked for

signs of irregularity: rebounds, cycling, severe pump noise, and, most important, unlogged

changes in pump rate (for example, caused by failure of a valve in the rig pumps, which can be

difficult to identify because the pump rate is usually determined by counting the stroke rate and

assuming a fixed volume per stroke). If such irregularity is observed during a pump test, then the

injectivity data are at best of lower accuracy or totally invalidated. The injection flow rates can

be cross-checked using the fluid velocity determined from spinner data measured in the cased

hole at the top of each spinner profile.

Fall-off and Step Rate Tests 

These tests are commonly conducted on disposal and injector wells.

Injectivity/fall-off test is conducted to evaluate well injectivity by determining:

 Formation permeability

 Wellbore skin factor

 Reservoir pressure
4
Step Rate Test

This test is conducted to determine the formation pressure breakdown. The idea behind this test

is that by slowly increasing the injection rate in steps of equal time, a fracture will initiate and

begins to grow, which will then produce minimal increases in bottom hole-injection pressure

with increasing rate. The intercept of the fracture line at zero injection rate, yields the formation

closure pressure (Pc)

The most important factors to consider when conducting an injectivity test include: 

1. The fluids injected should be clean.

2. The wellbore should be circulated before injecting to prevent any plugging of the

injection and flow path (perforations, leak in a casing, etc.). 

3. The injection should be conducted until pressure stabilizes for each step (5 to 10 min

each). 

4. Increase rate while pumping pressure remains below target pressure or MASP.

5. Injection should be taken at rates that maintain pressure below the MASP and never

exceeding the fracturing pressure. 

6. Operational procedures should be kept consistent between different wells to enable

meaningful comparisons.

7. A perforation or leak wash treatment, e.g., small acid volume, may be applied to increase

the injectivity.

Drill Stem Test

Drill stem test (DST) is the conventional method of formation testing and reservoir evaluation

which obtains reservoir data under dynamic (rather than static) conditions. A DST is essentially a

5
temporary completion, a method of evaluating reservoir formations without costly and time-

consuming completion procedures. The basic drill stem test tool consists of a packer or packers,

valves or ports that may be opened and closed from the surface, and two or more pressure-

recording devices. The tool is lowered on the drill string to the zone to be tested.  The packer or

packers are set to isolate the zone from the drilling fluid column. The valves or ports are then

opened to allow for formation flow while the recorders chart static pressures.  A sampling

chamber traps clean formation fluids at the end of the test. Analysis of the pressure charts is an

important part of formation testing.

Applications of Drill Stem Tests

Cased Hole stimulation

Performed after the well is cased, cased hole drill stem testing uses a retrievable production

packer that is set above the zone of interest. The well is then flow tested through perforations in

the casing. The two types of cased hole testing are pressure operated and mechanically operated.

Open Hole

Because it's performed before casing is run, open hole drill stem testing can be the most

economical way to determine productive capacity, pressure, permeability or the extent of an oil

or gas reservoir. The testing equipment is run into the well and the zone of interest is isolated

using inflate or compression-set packers, depending on your requirements and drilling

conditions.

6
Alternate Procedures

Depending on testing objectives and scope of work, drill stem testing may also be performed in

combination with various other exploration and completion process such as fluid loss control and

well control, closed chamber tests, well stimulation, and a combination of DST and TCP.

Procedure

During normal well drilling, drilling mud is pumped through the drill stem and out of the drill

bit. In a drill stem test, the drill bit is removed and replaced with the DST tool and devices are

inflated above and below the section to be tested (SPWLAG, 2006). These devices are known as

packers and are used to make a seal between the borehole wall and the drill pipe, isolating the

region of interest (SPWLAG, 2006). A valve is opened, reducing the pressure in the drill stem to

surface pressure, causing fluid to flow out of the packed-off formation and up to the surface.

Data attainable from a Drill Stem Test

Normal data recovery from a Drill Stem Test includes items such as fluid recovery and

description, blow descriptions test times, mud and hole data and the pressure/time data as

recovered from the chart record. These items are reported from the field and recorded on a field

data sheet or envelope. In addition to field data (direct information), additional reservoir

characteristics may be calculated utilizing the test data recovered in the field (indirect

information). Some of these reservoir characteristics are:

1. Permeability

The permeabilities calculated utilizing DST data are average effective permeablities. These are

the best possible measurements since they are obtained under actual reservoir conditions.

7
2. Wellbore Damage

The determination of the magnitude of wellbore damage is one of the more valuable items to be

calculated from drill stem test data. Many wells have been passed up and abandoned only

because they were not evaluated fully with respect to wellbore damage.

3. Maximum Reservoir Pressure

If a stabilized initial or final shut-in is not obtained during the course of a drill stem test, it is

possible to utilize the available data and perform a mathematical determination (extrapolation) of

the stabilized reservoir pressure.

4. Depletion or Drawdown

If a particular reservoir is sufficiently small enough, any withdrawal of fluid will result in a

pressure drop. This drop in pressure is called depletion or drawdown.

5. Radius of Investigation

Since physical removal of fluids from the reservoir occurs during a drill stem test, there is a

definite effect on the surrounding formation. By using the data obtained from a DST,

mathematical calculations may indicate the distance into the reservoir which was affected by the

removal of reservoir fluids.

6. Barrier Indications (Anomaly Indications)

Many reservoirs are assumed to be homogenous in composition and the reservoir fluids

contained are single phase in nature. This is not always the case; drill stem tests will often

indicate changes or anomalies within the radius of investigation of a test. Determinations are

8
possible utilizing test data to further determine the type of anomaly and its distance from the

wellbore.

Interpretation

Interpretation of DST results is often regarded as an art rather than a science. Certainly, a DST

can provide a valuable indication of commercial productivity from a well, provided engineering

judgment and experience are properly utilized. Interpretations of various pressure charts are

shown in Figure 2.1 

9
Types of Well Test

Five test types are briefly discussed below: Pressure Build-Up, Injection/Fall-Off, Multi-rate,

Multiple well, and Closed Chamber.

Pressure Build-Up Test (PBU): A pressure transient is induced by producing a well for a period

of time and subsequently shutting the well either downhole or at the surface for a buildup period.

The rate schedule depends on the objectives of the well test. Usually, data from the production

periods of a test are noisy and, thus, not usable for pressure-transient analysis. Although a PBU

test means a loss of revenue, it is preferred over a simple drawdown test when the objectives of

the test involve obtaining reservoir properties and completion efficiency

Injection/Fall-Off Test (IFOT): Alternatively, a pressure transient can be created by injecting

fluid into a well. When the well is shut-in after injection, the reservoir pressure falls off. Usually,

the injection fluid is water. The different properties between water and reservoir fluid must be
10
taken into account for the analysis. The shut-in time is generally shorter than for PBU tests

because the main objective does not include a characterization of reservoir heterogeneity. Similar

to the advantages of buildup tests over drawdown tests, it is preferable to conduct a fall-off test

whenever an accurate estimate of kh is needed. For injection wells that go on vacuum when shut-

in, a rate-change test should be considered rather than a falloff because much of the test will

likely be dominated by afterflow caused by the falling liquid level in the wellbore

Multi-Rate Test: These tests can be conducted on both oil and gas wells. In these tests, several

stabilized flow rates are achieved at corresponding stabilized flowing bottom-hole pressures. In

gas wells flow rates are sufficiently high that turbulent or inertial pressure drops near the

wellbore can be significant. In such cases, the additional pressure drop measured by the skin can

be confused with the pressure drop caused by non-Darcy or inertial flow. In gas wells in which it

11
takes a long time to achieve stabilized rates, wells are shut in and produced for a fixed time

interval at several different rates. This test is usually considered for a gas well to characterize the

degree of turbulence and to measure the parameters associated with deliverability. Flow after

flow, isochronal, and modified isochronal are different versions of multi-rate tests. The

isochronal test is conducted by alternately producing the well then shutting it in and allowing it

to build to the average reservoir pressure before the beginning of the next production period. The

modified isochronal test is conducted like an isochronal test, except the shut-in periods are of

equal duration. The shut-in periods should equal or exceed the length of the flow periods.

Multiple-well Tests: These are used to establish communication between wells and determine

the inter-well reservoir properties. The principle of multiple-well testing can also be applied

between various sets of perforations in the same wellbore. Multiple-well tests between offsetting

wells determine the reservoir properties areally. Tests that are run between various sets of

perforations in the same wellbore usually determine the vertical reservoir permeability. Multiple-

well tests are more sensitive to reservoir heterogeneity than single-well tests (SPE-10042-PA).

There are two types of multiple-well tests: Interference and pulse.

1. Interference test – The flow rate of a production or injection well is changed abruptly and

the pressure response of a static observation well is monitored. The time required for the

pressure transient to reach the observation well and the associated pressure change can be

measured to characterize the degree of communication between the two wells.

2. Pulse tests – An alternative to interference tests in situations where the physical

separation between wells is small, such as in pattern floods. Instead of simply changing

the rate at the active well, a series of pressure pulses are created by alternatively flowing

12
 and shutting in the active well. Pressure is monitored at one or several observation wells.

This type of test is difficult to execute successfully in low-permeability, high-

compressibility reservoirs with wide well spacing.

Interference tests are usually much more expensive than pulse tests because of the loss of

revenue arising from having to shut-in a major portion or all of the tested reservoir to conduct the

test. Also, ambiguity exists in interference test interpretation because it is uncertain that an

observed response was actually caused by the active well. In a pulse test, if a repeated signal is

received in an observation well, there is little doubt that it was caused by the rate changes in the

active well

Closed-Chamber Test: The technique was originated to reduce operational and safety problems

caused by hydrate formation during conventional drill stem tests in the Canadian Arctic. A

13
closed-chamber test is conducted with the drill-string in the borehole. The surface valve is closed

for the duration of the test. A downhole gauge is recommended. When the well begins to flow,

air in the string is compressed and the volume of reservoir-fluid inflow is calculated as a function

of time by monitoring the surface pressure. The downhole valve is closed to stop flow when the

surface pressure reaches a value calculated a priori. This ensures that a known volume of

reservoir fluid has been produced. No hydrocarbons are brought surface. The fluids are produced

into the drill or completion string. Closed chamber tests are environmentally friendly and safe

when H2S is expected (Theis, 1935).

14
 REFERENCES

Bruin J. and Hudson .E. (1955). Selected methods for pumping test analysis. Illinois State Water

Survey, Report of Investigation 25

Cooper, H., Jr. &. E. Jacob. (1946). A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation

constants and summarizing well-field history. Transactions, American Geophysical Union

27:525-34.

Horne, R. N., (1999) Modern Well Test Analysis A Computer-Aided Approach, Petroway, Inc.

Islam, F. (2011) Production Technology https://production-technology.org/drill-stem-test-dst-

data-attainable/

Jacob .E. (1947). Drawdown test to determine the radius of artesian well. American Society of

Civil Engineers.

Lee, J., Rollins, J. B., and Spivey, J.P., (2003). Pressure Transient Analysis, SPE Textbook

Series Vol. 9

Raghavan, R., (2005) Well Test Analysis, Prentice Hall

Sheahan, N., (1971). Type Curve Solution of Step Drawdown Test. Groundwater, Vol. 9, No.

1:25-29

Society of Petrophysicists & Well Log Analysts glossary". Archived from the original on 23

September 2006. Retrieved 12 September 2006.

15
Theis, C. (1935). The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and

duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage. Transactions, American Geophysical

Union, Washington, D.C.

16