Advanced Well Testing Analysis &

Design using Software application

By: Kareem Abouelfetouh

Chapter 1

Introduction
Importance of Pressure & Production Data
Analysis
 What Is A Well Test?
• A tool for reservoir evaluation and
characterization

 Investigate a much larger volume of the

reservoir than cores or logs
 Provides estimate of permeability under
in-situ conditions
 Provides estimates of near wellbore
condition
 Provides estimates of distances to
boundaries
Well Test Applications
• Exploration

• Reservoir Engineering

• Production Engineering
 Well Test Objectives
• Define reservoir limits ( drainage Area & Distance to
boundaries )

• Estimate Average drainage area pressure

• Charactrize reservoir ( K, S, reservoir model)

• Diagnose productivity problem (tightness, K & S)

• Evaluate stimulation treatment effectiveness

• Evaluate communication between wells and between

layers
 Types of Test
Type of tests is governed by the test objective.

•Transient tests which are relatively short term tests are used
to define reservoir characteristics.
– Drawdown Test

– Build-up Test

– Injection Test

– Falloff Test

– Interference Test

– Drill Stem Test

 •Stabilized tests which are relatively long duration tests are used
to define long term production performance.

– Reservoir limit test

– AOF (single point and multi point)

– IPR (Inflow Performance Relationship)

 Basic Definition & Concepts

 During a well test, a transient pressure response that is created

by a temporary change in production rate is measured.

 The well response is usually monitored during a relatively

short period of time compared to the life of the reservoir.

 In most cases, the flow rate is measured at surface while the

pressure is recorded down-hole.
 Types of Test-Drawdown Test

– Conditions
• An static, stable and shut-in is opened to flow
• flow rate is supposed to be constant
(for using traditional analysis)

– Objective
• To obtain average permeability of
the reservoir
rock within the drainage area of the
well
• To assess the degree of damage or
stimulation
• To obtain pore volume of the
reservoir
•To detect reservoir in homogeneity within the
 Types of Test-Buildup Test

– Conditions
•A well which is already flowing (ideally constant
rate) is shut-in
•Down hole pressure measured as the
pressure builds up

– Objective
•To obtain average permeability of the reservoir
rock within the drainage area of the well
• To assess the degree of damage or stimulation
•To obtain initial reservoir pressure during the
transient state
•To obtain the average reservoir pressure over
the drainage area of the well during pseudo steady
state
 Types of Test-Injection Test

– Conditions
•An injection test is conceptually identical to
a drawdown test, except flow is into the
well rather than out of it.

– Objective
•Injection well testing has its application in
water flooding, pressure maintenance by
water or gas injection, gas recycling and EOR
operations.
•In most cases the objective of the
injection test is the same as those of
production test (k,S,Pavg).
•Determination of reservoir
heterogeneity and front tracing.
 Types of Test
• Falloff Test:
– A pressure falloff test is usually proceeded by an injectivity test of a long
duration. Injection then is stopped while recording the pressure. Thus, the
pressure falloff test is similar to the pressure buildup test.

• Drill Stem Test (DST):

–It is a test commonly used to test a newly drilled well (since it can only be
carried out while a rig is over the hole.
–In a DST, the well is opened to flow by a valve at the base of the test
tool, and reservoir fluid flows up the drill string.
–Analysis of the DST requires the special techniques, since the flow rate is
not constant as the fluid rises in the drill string.
 Flow‐After‐Flow Test

–In this testing method, a well flows

at a selected constant rate until
pressure stabilizes - i.e., pseudo steady
state is reached.

–The stabilized rate and pressure are

recorded; rate is then changed and the
well flows until the pressure stabilizes
again at the new rate. The process is
repeated for a total of three or four
rates.
 Isochronal Test
– An isochronal test is conducted by flowing a well at a fixed rate, then
shutting it in until the pressure builds
up to an unchanging (or almost unchanging) value, P¯.

–The well then is flowed at a second rate for the same length of
time, followed by another shut-in, etc.

–If possible. the final

flow period should be
long enough to achieve
stabilized flow.
 Modified Isochronal Test
–The objective of modified isochronal tests is to obtain the same data as
in an isochronal test without using the sometimes lengthy shut-in periods
required for pressure to stabilize completely before each flow test is run.

–In the modified isochronal test shut-in periods of the same duration as
the flow periods are used. and the final shut-in BHP (Pws) before the
beginning of a new
flow period is used
as an approximation
to P¯ in the test analysis
procedure.
PTA: Multi-well Tests
• Flow rate is changed in one well
• Pressure response is measured in one or more other wells
• Directional variations of reservoir properties (orientation of natural fractures)
• Presence or lack of communication between two points in the reservoir
• Ratio of the porosity-compressibility products of the matrix and fracture systems

1. Interference tests
– The active well is produced at a measured, constant rate throughout the test
– (Other wells in the field must be shut in so that any observed pressure response can be
attributed to the active well only.)
2. Pulse tests
– The active well produces and then, is shut in, returned to production and shut in again
– Repeated but with production or shut-in periods rarely exceeding more than a few hours
– Produces a pressure response in the observation wells which usually can be interpreted
unambiguously (even when other wells in the field continue to produce)
 The Diffusivity (Flow) Equation
Describes the flow of fluid in a porous medium
 Combines the:

1) Continuity equation
2) Equation of state for slightly compressible liquids
3) Darcy’s law

• Assumptions
• Horizontal flow.

• The reservoir is Homogeneous and isotropic.

• Viscosity, perm, porosity and total compressibility are
independent of pressure.
• Constant temperature.
 1) The Continuity Equation;
The Law of Conservation of Mass; Mass in – Mass Out = Accumulation = Mass after – Mass Before

m   Av 1   Av 2

2) Equation of State for a Slightly Compressible Liquid;

Specifies the dependence of fluid density on the fluid pressure and temperature.

C  P  Po 
  oe
3) Darcy’s Law Flow Equation;

kAp
q
L
The Diffusivity Equation;
p k
General form:  0.0002637 2 p
t ct

p k 1    p 
Radial form:  0.0002637   r 
t ct r  r  r 

p k 2 p
Linear form:  0.0002637
t ct x 2
Ei-Function Solution to the Diffusivity Equation;
qB  948ct r 2   e u
p  pi  70.6 Ei    Ei  x    du
kh  kt  x u
The Ei-function solution to the diffusivity equation assumes line source well (finite size of wellbore can be
neglected).

This solution is valid only for r > rw .

It predicts the pressure response in the reservoir as a function of both time t and distance from the center
of the wellbore r.
Short times or large distances = large x
Long times or short distances = small x

For short times, x > 10, pressure response predicted by the

Ei-function is negligible.
For long times, x < 0.01, pressure response may be
calculated using the logarithmic approximation to the Ei-
function.

For intermediate times, 0.01 < x < 10, the full Ei-function
must be used to calculate the pressure response.

Short-Time Approximation for Ei-Function Solution

948 ct r 2
p  pi (large radius or small time) kt
 10

Long-Time Approximation to Ei-Function Solution

qB  1688   ct r 2  948 ct r 2

p  pi  162.6 log10    0.01
kh kt (small radius or large time) kt
 
 Crude Oil Gravity
The crude oil density is defined as the mass of a unit volume of the
crude at a specified pressure and temperature.
 Crude Oil Viscosity

Dead-Oil Viscosity

The dead-oil viscosity is defined as the viscosity of crude oil at atmospheric

pressure (no gas in solution) and system temperature.

Saturated-Oil Viscosity

The saturated (bubble-point)-oil viscosity is defined as the viscosity of

the crude oil at the bubble-point pressure and reservoir temperature.

Undersaturated-Oil Viscosity

The undersaturated-oil viscosity is defined as the viscosity of the crude oil at a pressure above
the bubble-point and reservoir temperature.
Well Test Models
1-Volumetric Behavior
1-Volumetric Behavior
2-Radial Flow
2-Radial Flow
2-Radial Flow
 Radial and homogeneous infinite acting

• When infinite acting

radial flow IARF is
established , the derivative
stabilizes and follows a
horizontal line .

• On a semi-log plot ,
those points associated
with the horizontal
derivative follow a straight
line of slope m.
3-Spherical Flow
3-Spherical Flow
3-Spherical Flow
3-Spherical Flow
4-Linear Flow
4-Linear Flow
4-Linear Flow
5- Infinite-acting reservoir
 Infinite-acting reservoir
100
Drawdown Type Curve

10
Dimensionless pressure

No boundaries encountered
1

0.1

0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
6- Sealing Fault

(If so, far away….)

No-flow boundary

Producing well
Superposition in space

Producing wells

Radial flow pattern

Apparent no-flow boundary between wells
Superposition in space

Producing well
Image well

Equal distances from

no-flow boundary

Real no-flow boundary

 Sealing fault
100

10
2M
Dimensionless pressure

1
M

0.1

0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
7- Intersecting sealing faults

“Wedge” reservoir

No-flow boundaries

Producing well
 Intersecting sealing faults
100
Drawdown Type Curve

10
Dimensionless pressure

The narrower the angle, the

longer to reach new horizontal (360/) x M
1
M
Derivative levels off at
0.1
(360/) x (derivative of infinite-acting response)

0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
 Intersecting sealing faults
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respedt to equivalent time,
plotted against shut-in time
10
Dimensionless pressure

Drawdown
tpD=108
tpD=107
1

tpD=106
tpD=105

0.1
Derivative, drawdown curves similar

0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
8- Channel reservoir

No-flow boundaries

(Effects of ends
not felt )

Producing well
 Channel reservoir
100
Drawdown Type Curve Slope  1/2

10
Dimensionless pressure

Slope = 1/2

0.1

0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
 Channel reservoir
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent
time, plotted against shut-in time
10
Dimensionless pressure

tpD=108
Drawdown
tpD=107
1

tpD=106
tpD=105

0.1 Derivative curve shape resembles

drawdown curve shape

0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
9- Closed circular boundary

No-flow boundary

Producing well
 Closed circular boundary
100
Drawdown Type Curve
Unit slope may be seen
10
Dimensionless pressure

earlier if two zones with

different permeability
Both slopes approach unit
are present
1 slope at late times
(pseudosteady-state flow)

0.1
Reservoir limits test yields
pore volume of interval

0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
 Closed circular boundary
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
10
equivalent time
Dimensionless pressure

Drawdown

1 Slope drops sharply

for very small values
of producing time
0.1
before shut-in
tpD=105 ttpD =107,10
pD=10
7
,108 8

tpD=106
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless equivalent time
Circular constant-p boundary

Possibly strong aquifer

supporting pressure Constant-pressure
equally from all directions boundary

Producing well
 Circular constant-p boundary
100
Drawdown Type Curve

10
Dimensionless pressure

 Pressure approaches
1
constant value at late times
 Derivative falls exponentially
0.1

0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
 Circular constant-p boundary
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent time
10
Dimensionless pressure

1
Derivative falls off rapidly

0.1
Drawdown
tpD=105 tpD=106 tpD=107,108

0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless equivalent time
 Primary reservoir characteristics
• Types of fluids in the reservoir
– Incompressible fluids
– Slightly compressible fluids
– Compressible fluids

• Flow regimes
– Steady-state flow
– Unsteady-state flow
– Pseudosteady-state flow

• Reservoir geometry
– Radial flow
– Linear flow
– Spherical and hemispherical flow

• Number of flowing fluids in the reservoir.

– Single-phase flow (oil, water, or gas)
– Two-phase flow (oil–water, oil–gas, or gas–water)
– Three-phase flow (oil, water, and gas)
Flow Regimes
 D. Radial Flow in infinite reservoir with well bore storage

Wellbore Storage

 Distortions in the reservoir response due to the volume of wellbore.

A crucial part of the transient analysis is to distinguish the effects

of wellbore storage from the interpretable reservoir response .
In Drawdown test
•On opening the valve at surface, the initial flow rate is due
to wellbore unloading
•As wellbore unloading gradually decreases to zero, the flow from
the formation increases from zero to qwh

In Build up test
•After shut‐in at the surface, flow from the formation does not
stop immediately.
•Flow of fluid into the well persists for some time after shut‐in due
to compressibility of the fluid.
•The rate of flow changes gradually from qwh at the time of shut‐in
to zero during a certain time period.
Well bore storage coefficient, Cs :

=
C s v
wb

Cs P
: Well bore storage coefficient,(bbl/Psi)

vwb :Volume change in well bore (bbl)

 P :Pressure change (Psi )

C S = C FE
+C FL
Well bore storage effect due to fluid expansion :

=Vwb Cwb
C FE

Vwb = Volume of fluid in well bore (bbl)

Cwb = Average fluid compressibility in well bore Psi -1

Well bore storage effect due to change of fluid level in annulus

144Aa
C FL = = 25.64 
5.615p A p
a

( I  ( OD 2 
Aa = π  2 C  – 
D
L2  2  
1

t
 144
Aa : Area of annulus (ft2)
IDc : Inner diameter of (in)
casing: Outer
ODt diameter of tubing ( in)
ρ : Density of fluid in well bore (lbm/ft 3)
 To relate sand face flow rate to well head flow
rate we can use :

q sf = 24C S dpw
wh + B dt
q o

qwh: Flow rate at well head (STB/Day)

qsf: Flow rate at sand face (STB/Day)

B : Formation volume factor ( bbl/STB)

CS : Well bore storage coefficient

(bbl/psi)
Derivation :

In – Out = Accumulation
 To determine the duration of well bore storage effect it is
better the well bore storage
constant (Coefficient ) is defined as a dimensionless variable :

0.894C
=
C SD 2
S φct hrw
 Dimensionless time and dimensionless pressure are :

t D = 0.000264kt
2
φµct w
r

0.00708kh – pw
pD =
qi B
)
( pi µ
CsD :Dimensionless well bore storage constant
Cs :Well bore storage constant bbl/psi
h : Formation thickness ft
φ : porosity, fraction
ct : total compressibility, psi−1
r : Well bore radius ft
q : oil flow rate STB/day
tD : Dimensionless time
: permeability, md
k
: test time hr
t
: viscosity, cp
μ
PD : Dimensionless pressure
B : formation volume factor bbl
/psi
  For constant-rate production

dpD
qsf = 1– SD
qwh C dt D

 Previous Eq is the inner boundary condition for the problem of

constant-rate flow of a slightly compressible liquid with well bore
storage.
 Presence of unit slope line :

 At the earliest time for a given value of CSD and for most value of
s , a unit slope line (i.e., line with 45° slope ) is present on the
graph.

 This line appears and remains as long as all production comes from
the well bore and none comes from the formation.
dpD
q sf = qsf = 0 1–C SD =
0 qwh 0 dt D

dtD =CSD
dpD
 Integrating from tD = 0 (where pD=0 ) to tD and pD the result is
C S D  pD
=tD
 Taking logarithms of both side of the equation,

logCSD = logt
D

+ log pD
 Thus a graph of log pD vs.
log tD will have a slope of
unity.
 Any point on (pD ,tD ) on this unit slope line must satisfy the
following relation
CS D 
pD =
tD 1
 For any point of this line (unit slope line ) with its appropriate
time and pressure we can find Cs from following equation

∆t : hr
∆p :Psi
q: STB/day
B: bbl/STB

CS =
( qB 
24 
P
t
 
End of Wellbore Storage Distortion :

 One useful empirical observation is that end of well bore storage

distortion (twbs ) occurs approximately one and half log cycle
after disappearance of the unit slope line.
 Another useful observation is that the dimensionless time at which
well bore storage distortion ceases is given by:

 For positive skin

t D = (60 + 3.5s )CSD

twbs
=
(200000 +12000s )CS
kh
µ
 For negative skin and No skin

t D )60C SD
Example :

The following data are available for an oil well under draw down test.
If the well produces with constant rate, calculate the well bore storage
constant and End of Wellbore Storage distortion .

Vwb = 180 bbl rw : 0.25ft

ODt : 2 in ct : 20 × 10-6 psi-1
IDc : 7.675 k : 30 md
in μo :2 cp
h ::50
ρ 45 ft s :0
o
φ : 15
lbm/ft 3 co : 10 × 10-6 psi-1
%
Well bore storage constant due to fluid
expansion :
C =V C = 180 (1010–6 ) = 0.0018
FE wb wb
bbl psi

Well bore storage constant due to change of fluid level in

annulus

( OD
2
  2 1

Aa = π ( I C  – t
 1 
= π ( 7.675 – (  = 0.2995ft
2

2 2  2  1442  2  2 144 2
D 
 L      L 
  

 0.2995
C FL = 144Aa = 25.64 = bbl
25.64 = 0.1707
5.615p A p
a
45
psi
The total well bore storage constant

C S = CFE FL = 0.0018 + 0.1707 = 0.1725

psi
+C bbl

Dimensionless well bore storage constant

0.894 0.1725
C SD 0.894C2 = =
= φc hr 0.15(20 × 10 ) 50 
-6

S
t w 16271
0.252
 End of Wellbore Storage Distortion :

twbs (200000 +12000s )CS (200000 +12000 0) 0.1725 =

= kh = 30 
50 2
46hr
µ
Or t D = 0.000264kt
φµct rw 2 =
0.000264 30t
0.15 2 (20 × 10-6 )
0.252

t D = (60 + 3.5s )CSD = (60 + 3.5

t= 46 hr
0.000264kt = 0.000264
0t )D16271 = 976260
φµct w 2 2 (20 × 10-6 )
0.1530t
=
r 0.252
 Radius of investigation
 By radius of investigation ri we mean the distance that a pressure
transient has moved into a formation.

 This distance is related to formation rock and fluid properties and

time elapsed since the rate change. The rate affects only the magnitude
of the pressure response.
1

kt 
ri = 2
( 
 948φµtC

 darcy
k : milli
t : hr
µ : cp
 The effect-of-mobility ratio:
(the radius investigation versus flow time during a drawdown test).

 If the mobility of one reservoir is

five times less than that of
another, the former must be
tested five times longer if the same
radius is to be investigated in both
cases.

 This assumes, of course, that the

porosity and fluid compressibility
are the same in both cases.
The effect of production rate on pressure transients during a drawdown
test

 Read Example 1.4 -

Calculation of Radius
of Investigation on page
15
 Principle of Superposition

 The superposition concept states that the total pressure drop at any
point in the reservoir is the sum of the pressure changes at that
point caused by flow in each of the wells in the reservoir.

 This concept can be applied to account for the following effects on

the transient flow solution:

1. Effects of multiple wells

2. Effects of rate change
3. Effects of shut-in after a flow period
4. Effects of the boundary
 1.Effects of Multiple Wells :

 Wells A, B, and C, start to produce at the same time from an

infinite reservoir
 In terms of Ei functions and logarithmic approximations,

 Note that this equation includes a skin factor for Well A, but does
not include skin factors for Wells Band C. Because most wells have a
nonzero skin factor and because we are modeling pressure inside the zone of
altered permeability near Well A, we must include its skin factor.
 2.Effects of Variable Flow Rates :

 Every flow rate change in a

well will result in a pressure
response which is independent of
the pressure responses caused by
other previous rate changes.

 The total pressure drop that has

occurred at any time is the
summation of pressure changes
caused separately by each net
flow rate change.
3.Effects of shut-in after a flow period

Pt = P1 +
P2
2
qµ  
( 1688φµct
= –70.6B 1kh O
ln
w
 –
L r  kt 
2s   2
 
–70.6 (0 – q1 ) ( 1688φµct w

kh ln  –
µBO  r k (t – 
 

L 2s  
4. Effects of the boundary

 The effect of the

boundary on the pressure
behavior of a well would be
the same as the effect from
an image well located a
distance 2L from the actual
well.

 HW ) Read example 1.5 – on page 18 John

lee
 Horner's Approximation

 In 1951, Horner reported an approximation that can be

used in many cases to avoid the use of superposition in
modeling the production history of a variable-rate well.

 With this approximation, we can replace the sequence of Ei

functions, reflecting rate changes, with a single Ei function that
contains a single producing time and a single producing rate.

 The single rate is the most recent nonzero rate at which the well
was produced; we call this rate qlast for now.
  The single producing time is found by dividing cumulative
production from the well by the most recent rate; we call this
producing time tp or pseudo producing time

 Then, to model pressure behavior at any point in a reservoir, we

can use the simple equation
 when is the approximation adequate?

 If the most recent rate is maintained sufficiently long for the

radius of investigation achieved at this rate to reach the drainage
radius of the tested well, then Horner's approximation is always
sufficiently accurate.

 If the last constant rate for at least twice as long as the previous
rate.
Example : Application of Horner's Approximation

 Following completion, a well is produced for a short time and

then shut in for a buildup test. The production history was as
follows.

1. Calculate the pseudo producing time, tp‘

2. Is Horner's approximation adequate for thiscase?

If not, how should the production history for this well be simulated?
 1.

2.

 Thus, Horner's approximation is probably adequate for this case.

 It should not be necessary to use superposition, which is required

when Horner‘s approximation is not adequate.
Chapter 3

Pressure Buildup
Tests
 Basically, the test is conducted by

 producing a well at constant rate for some time,

 shutting the well in (usually at the surface),
 allowing the pressure to build up in the well bore,
 and recording the pressure(usually down hole) in the well bore as a
function of time.

 From these data, it is frequently possible to estimate

 formation permeability
 current drainage-area pressure,
 characterize damage or stimulation
 and reservoir heterogeneities or boundaries.
Methods of analysis:
• Horner plot (1951):
Infinite acting reservoir

• Matthews‐Brons‐Hazebroek(MBH,1954):
Extension of Horner plot to finite
reservoir.

• Miller‐Dyes‐Hutchinson (MDH plot,

1950): Analysis of P.S.S. flow conditions.
The Ideal Buildup Test

By ideal test we mean

 a test in an infinite, homogeneous, isotropic reservoir

containing a slightly compressible, single-phase fluid with
constant fluid properties.

 Any well bore damage or stimulation is considered to be

concentrated in a skin of zero thickness at the well bore; at the
instant of shut-in, flow into the well bore ceases totally.
 Assume that

1) A well is producing from an infinite-acting reservoir

2) The formation and fluids have uniform properties,
3) Horner's pseudo producing time approximation is applicable.

By using superposition for following Fig ,

we find that :

qµB  2
( 1688φµC
Pi – Pwf = – ln t w
– 
kh  r
70.6 L  k (t + t ) 
p

2S 
2
 
–70.6 (–q ) µB ln( 1688φµC  – t w

kh L 
r k 
 
 t
 2S 
 which becomes
t +
q µ B ( t 
Pwf = Pi – ln p 
70.6 kh   
or t
qµB +
(tp 
ln x = 2.303log Pwf = Pi –162.6 log t 
x kh   
t

 The form of above equation suggests that shut-in BHP, Pws

recorded during a pressure buildup test should plot as a
straight-line function of log [(tp + Δt) / Δt].
 Further, the slope m of this straight line should be

qµB
m = –162.6
kh

 It is convenient to use the absolute value of m in test analysis;

accordingly, we will use the convention that m is considered a
positive number and that

q : STB/day
qµB B : bbl/STB
m= k : md
162.6 kh μ : cp
h : ft
 Thus, formation permeability, k, can be determined from a buildup
test by measuring the slope m.

 If we extrapolate this straight line to infinite shut-in time

[i.e., (tp + Δt) / Δt = 1] the pressure at this time will be the original
formation pressure Pi .
 Conventional practice in the industry is to plot Pws vs (tp + Δt) / Δt
on semilogarithmic paper .

 The slope m on such a plot is found by simply subtracting the

pressures at any two points on the straight line that are one cycle
(i.e., a factor of 10) apart on the semi log paper.
 Calculation of skin factor s

 Buildup test does NOT allow

for skin calculation. Skin
is obtained from FLOWING
pressure before shut-in.

 At the instant a well is shut in, the flowing BHP, Pwf ' is

2

= Pi + q µ B  ( 1688φµCt w 
Pwf
r   (p
kh ln k t + t  – 
70.6 L

2S  )
qµB
2

= Pi ( 1688φµC
t w
kh  r k (t p + t 
 l
o g 
 – 
+162.6 L   
0.869S  
)
  2  
( 1688 φµ C r
Pw f = Pi + m 
log  t w
 – 0.869S

L k (t +  
 p

 At shut-in time Δt in the buildup test,

t )

m (log
= Pi –  t p + t )
Pws   

t 
 Combining these equations andL solving for the skin factor S, we have

(Pws –
 ( 1688φµCt w (tp +
s= wf
+  + 1.151
log r k t   tp
1.151 P m
 log 
t 


 It is conventional practice in the petroleum industry to choose a fixed
shut-in time, Δt, of 1 hour and the corresponding shut-in pressure, P1
hr , to use in this equation.

 (although any shut-in time and the corresponding pressure

would work just as well).

 The pressure, P1 hr must be on the straight line or its

extrapolation.

 We usually can assume further that log [(tp + Δt) / tp] is negligible.
( t +1 
log p 
 t0p
 

  With these simplifications,

(
s= 1hr – Pwf )– ( k  
1.151 P m φµC r 2
 + 
L  t w 
 log
 3.23

: The last pressure before shut-in

Pwf
P1hr : The BHP 1hour after shut-in

 Note again that the slope m is

considered to be a positive number
in this equation.
 Q µB
P = 141.2 → Ps = 0.87 m S
s
S hk


s
Ps m
0.87
=

 rs
Skin = ln ( k –
rw 
 sk
L 
1

 Example - Analysis of Ideal Pressure Buildup Test

 A new oil well produced 500 STB/D for 3 days; it

then was shut in for a pressure buildup test,
during which the data in following table were
recorded.

 For this well, net sand thickness, is 22 ft; formation volume factor, is
1.3 RB/STB; porosity, is 0.2; total compressibility, is 20× 10-6; oil
viscosity is 1.0 cp; and well bore radius is 0.3 ft.

 From these data, estimate formation permeability, k, initial reservoir

pressure, Pi and skin factor, s.
 Solution

 Producing time, tp , is given to be 3

days, or 72 hours thus, we
develop following Table .

 We plot these data, and they fall along a straight line suggested
by ideal theory.
 The slope m of the siraight line is 1,950 - 1,850 = 100 psi (units are
actually psi/cycle).

p1 – p 2  psi
m = tan α = 100 : 
= log10 – log1 cycle
L

 qµB 162.6  500
k = 162.6 →k =

1.31 mh
→k = 48md
100
 The skin factor s is found 22
from


s = 1.151 1 hr – Pw f )– log ( k  
+
(LP
2
 m φµC r 
t w

   3.23
 The value for Pws is P1 hr on the ideal straight line

at (tp + Δt) / Δt =(72+ 1)/1 =73; this value is P1 hr = 1,764 psig. Thus,
 ( 48  
s= (1764 –1150) – log

1.151 
L 100  
(0.2 )(1.0 (2 –5
(0.3
2  + 3.23 =


1.43 
)10 ) ) 
 From extrapolation of the buildup curve to [(tp + Δt) / tp] = 1, Pi =
1950 psig.
 Actual Buildup Tests
In this case instead of a single straight line for all times, we obtain a curve
with a complicated shape.

Based on radius-of-investigation concept, we logically can divide a

buildup curve into three regions :
 (1)An early-time region during which a pressure
transient is moving through the formation nearest the well
bore;

(2) A middle-time region during which the pressure transient has

moved away from the wellbore and into the bulk formation; and

(3)A late-time region, in which the radius of investigation has

reached the well's drainage boundaries.
Deviations From Assumptions in Ideal Test Theory

1. The infinite-reservoir assumption

2. The single-phase liquid assumption
3. The homogeneous reservoir assumption

4. The infinite-reservoir assumption

 Frequently, the reservoir is at pseudo steady-state before shut-in; if

so, neither the Ei-function solution nor its logarithmic approximation
should be used :

2

)Prod .well s – q µ B  ( 1688φµCt w 
(Pi – Pwf kh ln
  – 
70.6 r L 
k (t + t )
p  
2S 

  Instead, if the well is centered in a cylindrical reservoir
T he pi c t ure can't be displayed.

 Thus, the Horner plot is incorrect when the reservoir is not infinite
acting during the flow period preceding the buildup test.

 This difficulty is resolved in different ways by different analysts. In

this course, we will use a method supported by the research of Cobb
and Smith.
 We will use the Horner plot for all tests (even when the reservoir has
reached pseudo steady-state during the production period preceding
the test) for the following reasons.

1. This method of plotting is correct theoretically for an infinite-acting

reservoir (i.e., at time tp + Δt , ri <re ).

2.The Horner plot offers a convenient means of extrapolating to

Δt→∞ not found in some other plots.

3.For finite-acting reservoirs, formation permeability can be

determined accurately at even greater shut-in times than from a plotting
method developed specifically for reservoirs at pseudo steady state at
shut-in.
 Other analysis methods for finite-acting reservoirs are discussed by
Miller, Dyes, and Hutchinson (MDH) and Slider.

 Many analysts use the data plotting method suggested by MDH

because it is simpler than the Horner method.

 Consider a buildup test with a middle-time region

log(t p + t 
= Pi – m  ) 
Pws   

t 
L

Pws = P – m log (t + t ) + m
i p

log t
If tp » Δt during the range of shut-in time values, then

log (t p + t )  log t p
= constant
And

Pws = constant + m logΔt

 This leads to the plotting technique suggested by MDH: Pws vs. logΔt

 It has the same slope m as the Horner plot (in the time range of
applicability).
 2. The single-phase liquid assumption

 The assumption that a petroleum reservoir contains only a single-

phase liquid must be modified.

 Even reservoirs in which only oil flows contain an immobile water

saturation; many also contain an immobile gas saturation.

 These factors are taken into account if we use total compressibility,

Ct

ct = S o c o + S w cw + S g c g + c f
3. The homogeneous reservoir assumption

 No reservoir is homogeneous, yet solutions to the flow equations are

valid only for homogeneous reservoirs.

 The solutions prove to be adequate for most real reservoirs,

particularly early in time while conditions nearest the tested well
dominate test behavior.

 Modifications to the simple reservoir models have been developed

for some important reservoir heterogeneities.
Empirical relationships to verify the end of well bore storage distortion

170000C e 0.14s
twbs
tD  C 0.14s  s
sD e
( kh

 µ



For a well bore containing only single-phase fluid(liquid or
gas) We define

te =
t t
( 
1+ 
 p

t
 H.W )Read the Example 2.2 on page 29 john lee
 Determination of Permeability

 Because bulk-formation permeability is obtained from the slope of

the MTR line, correct selection of this region is critical.

 Average permeability ,kJ , also can be estimated from information

available in buildup tests.

Predicting the time at which the MTR ends is more difficult than
predicting when it begins.

Basically, the middle-time line ends when the radius of investigation

begins to detect drainage boundaries of the tested well; at this time,
the pressure buildup curve begins to bend.
 The time at which the middle region ends depends on

(1) The distance from the tested well to the reservoir boundaries
(2) The geometry of the area drained by the well
(3) The duration of the flow period as well as the shut-in period.

 If a well was at pseudo steady-state before shut-in, the time Δt at

which the L TR begins for a well centered in a square or circular
drainage area is approximately:

L  380φµct A : the drainage area of the tested well ft2

t A K

 If the well was not at pseudo steady-state, ΔtL is larger than calculated
by the rule above.
 In many cases we simply assume that the straight line spanning the
times between the end of after flow distortion and a later bend of the
Horner plot constitutes the MTR.

 Average permeability, kJ from data obtained in a buildup test.

( is valid only if pseudo steady-state is reached during the production period)

 re
141.2qB µ ln – 3
L rw 4
kj 
= (–
 
P– 
h 
Pwf
For a well that is neither damaged nor stimulated kJ = k

For a damaged well kJ < k

For a stimulated well kJ > k

k : bulk-formation permeability, k, determined from the slope of the MTR

 H.W ) Read the Example 2.3 on page 30 john lee

Estimation of Effective (Apparent ) Well bore Radius

re– S wa = r
w
 Calculation of effective well bore radius is of special value for
analyzing wells with vertical fractures.

 Model studies have shown that for highly conductive vertical

fractures with two equal-length wings of length Lf

Lf 
2rwa

 Thus, calculation of skin factor from a pressure buildup or

falloff test can lead to an estimate of fracture length - useful
in a post fracture analysis.
Productivity Index (PI or J) :

J = PI Q STBD
:  psi
= Pi – wf L
P  

Specific Productivity Index (Js) :

Q
PI S = PI
s = h ( 
J 
 Pi –
h 
=
Pwf
Flow Efficiency (FE) =Productivity Ratio (PR) :

(
 Q
  ( – 
  ( Pi – wf
  – wf  – s
J act i
   P

= P– act P
wf
FE = PR act
=P ideal
=
= J ideal P Q 
( ( 

( –
P 

  r
 Pi –
  Pr –

 ac ac

P i – wf Pwf Pwf
ideal t t

PR
(P *

– *P
wf
) –
s

 (
P
P – wf
P
)
 For a damaged well, flow efficiency is less than one; for a stimulated
well, flow efficiency is greater than one.
Damage Ratio (DR ):

( –

1 J  Pr – Pwf

DR act
FE = Jact
ideal
= 
( – –
P – P
 r wf P

= act s


Damage Factor
(DF ):
( –

–
 r P – P 
DF = 1– FE =
wf
act P

s
= P s

( – ( –
1–   Pr – Pwf
  Pr – Pwf

act act
 

 H.W )Read the Example 2.4 on page 32 john lee

 Modifications for Gases

 Wattenbarger and Ramey have shown that for some gases at

pressures above 3,000 psi, flow in an infinite-acting reservoir can be
modeled accurately by the equation

162.6q g µi B  (
= Pi 1688φµi  (S + 
Pwf kh log ti
  C kt p  1.151 
gi
+ 
– 
L Dq g )

 This equation has the same form as the equation for a slightly
compressible liquid, but there are some important differences:
1) qg is expressed in (Mscf / D), and Bg in (RB/Mscf), so the product
qgBg in (RB/D) as in the equation for slightly compressible liquids.

2) All gas properties (Bg , µg, and Cg ) are evaluated at original

reservoir pressure, Pi.

3)The factor D is a measure of non-Darcy or turbulent pressure loss

(i.e., a pressure drop in addition to that predicted by Darcy's law).
 D cannot be calculated separately from the skin factor from a
single buildup or drawdown test; thus, the concept of apparent skin
factor, s' =s+Dqg" is sometimes convenient since it can be determined
from a single test.

 For p > 3000 psi,

162.6q µ B ( t p + t
Pws = Pi – g g g
log  
kh L   
 
t

– )– ( k  
s (g =
= s + Dq (


1hr
Pwf
m

φµ C r 2
 + 
1.151 L log  i t i w 
) P  3.23
 For p < 2000 psi,

q g µi z iT (tp + 
Pws = Pi –1637
2 2
log t 
kh   
2 t
2
– ( k  
( 1hr wf
–
s  = s + D (q
g

P )  i ti w 
φµ C r 2 + 
L m log 
P 
 3.23
) =
1.151
 where m" is the slope of the plot Pws 2 vs. log [(tp + Δt) /

q µi z iT
Δt] which is 1637 khg .
  what technique should be used to analyze gas reservoirs with
pressures in the range 2,000 < p < 3,000 psi ?

 One approach is to use equations written in terms of the gas

pseudo pressure instead of either pressure or pressure squared.

 This is at least somewhat inconvenient, so an alternative approach is

to use equations written in terms of either Pws or Pw 2 and accept the
resultant inaccuracies,

 Read example 2. 10- Gas Well Buildup Test Analysis on page 45

 Modifications for Multiphase Flow

Chapter 4

Average Reservoir Pressure

 Original Reservoir Pressure

 This technique is possible only for a well in a new reservoir (ie .one in
which there has been negligible pressure depletion).

 Strictly speaking, this is true only for tests in which the radius of
investigation does not encounter any reservoir boundary during
production.
 For a reservoir with one or more boundaries relatively near a
tested well the late-time line must be extrapolated

Note that our discussion is still restricted to reservoirs in which there

has been negligible pressure depletion.
Static Drainage-Area Pressure

 For a well in a reservoir in which there has been some pressure

depletion, we do not obtain an estimate of original reservoir pressure
from extrapolation of a buildup curve.

 For wells with partial pressure depletion, extrapolation of a buildup

test to infinite shut-in time provides an estimate of p*, which is
related to, but is not equal to, current average drainage-area
pressure.

 Our usual objective is to estimate the average pressure in the drainage

area of the well; we will call this pressure static drainage-area pressure.
Typical pressure buildup curve for a well in a finite reservoir
 We will examine four useful methods for making these estimates:

1) The Mallhews-Brons-Hazebrock (MBH) p*

method
2) The modified Muskat method.
3) The Ramey–Cobb method
4) The Dietz method

5) the Mallhews-Brons-Hazebrock (MBH) p* method

 In this method series of buildup curves were computed for wells at

various positions in drainage areas of various shapes using
imaging techniques and the principle of Superposition.

 The results of the investigation

0.000264kt are summarized in a series of plots
of kh ( p * – vs. p
.
φµct A
p)
70.6qµB
 kh ( p * –
= 2.303( p * – p
)
p70.6q m
µB
)
0.000264kt p
φµct A is a dimensionless time and is symbolized by t
DA

kh ( p * – is a dimensionless pressure and is given the symbol PDMBH

p)
70.6q µ
A:Bdrainage area of the tested well expressed in square
feet
 To increase the accuracy of the p* method use tpss (producing
time required to achieved pseudo
steady state) in Horner plot and abscissa the MBH figures.

 For calculation of producing time to achieved pseudo steady state

tpss we can use following relation

φµct A
DA )pss
t pss = 
L

0.000264k (t

 9hut In Time, 6t,
0. hr 10 20 40
Step 1. Calculate die drainage area of the i 1
well: A ' *e Î
)'
Step 2. Compare the production time th, i.e., 310 hours,
with the time required to reach the pseudosteady
o1 = s2GG PSIG
etnte —40
§q by applying Equation 1.3.t5. Estimate tip using PBIG/CYCLE
(I ) = 0.1 to give:

(0.09)(0.2)(22.6 x 1Œ6)( )(2640)*

O.
(0.W0263D(12.8
1
= 264 hours)
Thua we could replaœ i by 264 hours in our
analy-
sis because
1.2 $ > the
, wc use tg. actual
However, since Îp iÔ
production time ofÖ 310
Ü
I I I
hottrs in the 8 64# 3
Step 3. calcuiafion.
Figure 1.38 does not show since the 10* 2 1@ 10'
eemiiogstraight line is not extended to ($ 1 At)/at = 1.0.
However, @ can be calculated from § at ( -J-
H)/bt 10. 0 by extrapolating one cycle. That is:
p' = 3325 -J- (1 cycle) (40 psi/cycle) — 3365
psig Step 4. Calculate by applying Equation 1.3.14 to
give:

0.0002637(12.8)
" (0. 09)(0.3}(22. 6 x I0-^)(z) 310
(2ô40)*
0. the
SÎep 5. Fnsm 117curve of the circle in Figure 1.42,
obtain
the value of x at = 0.11?, to give:
 2) The modified Muskat method.

The modified Muskat method is based on solution to the flow

equations for a well producing from a closed, cylindrical reservoir at
constant rate.

Using superposition to simulate a buildup following stabilized

flow (depth of investigation has reached reservoir boundaries), the
equation can be approximated as

p– qµB ( –0.00388k t
ws = 118.6 exp 
p kh  φµ c r 2

 t e

 ( q µ B  0.00168k
) = log 118.6 –
log( p – ws t   kh φµ c r 2
 t e
p 
 Note that above equation has the form

log( p – pws ) = A + B
t
 where A and B are constants. log ( p – p ) ws versus Δt is
linear
 Approximations used in developing this equation are valid in the
shut-in time range.

250φµc r 2 750φµc r
2
k
t e
 t k 
t e
1. Assume a value for p-.
2. Plot log (p-- pws) versus Δt
3. Is it a straight line?
4.If the answer is yes, the
assumed value is the average
reservoir pressure
otherwise go to 1.

 H.W ) Read the Example 2.7 on page 40 john lee

Advantages
1. It requires no estimate no estimates of reservoir properties when it is used
to establish Pavg.

2.It provide satisfactory estimates of Pavg for hydraulically fractured

wells and layered reservoirs.

Disadvantages
3.It fails when the tested well is not reasonably centered in its
drainage area.

4.The required shut-in times are frequently impractically long,

particularly in low permeability reservoirs.
 3)The Ramey–Cobb method

Ramey and Cobb (1971) proposed that the average pressure in the
well drainage area can be read directly from the Horner semi log
straight line if
the following data is available:

● shape of the well drainage area;

● location of the well within the drainage area;

● size of the drainage area.

 4) The Dietz method

 Dietz (1965) indicated that if the test well has been producing long
enough to reach the pseudo steady state before shut‐in, the average
pressure can be read directly from the MDH semilog straight‐line
plot, i.e.,
• Pws vs. log(t), at the following shut‐in time:
Chapter 5

Flow
Tests
  A pressure drawdown test is conducted by producing a well,
starting ideally with uniform pressure in the reservoir.

 Rate and pressure are recorded as functions of time.

These tests are particularly applicable to

(1) New wells

(2) Wells that have been shut in sufficiently long to allow the pressure to
stabilize
(3)Wells in which loss of revenue incurred in a buildup test would
be difficult to accept
 An idealized constant-rate drawdown test in an infinite-
acting reservoir is modeled by the logarithmic approximation
to the Ei-function solution:



Pwf = Pi 162.6q µ B ( 1688 φµ C
–
t w
kh  log kt
+ r L 
  
0.0869s
 Like buildup tests, drawdown tests are more complex than suggested
by simple equations.

 The usual test has an ETR,

an MTR, and an LTR.
 Duration of wellbore unloading can be estimated by qualitative
comparison of a log-log plot of (Pi - Pwf) vs. t or with the empirical
equation

twbs =
(200000 +12000s )CS
or
t  (60 +
D SD kh
µ
3.5s )C
 In the MTR, a plot of Pwf vs. log t is a straight line with slope, m,
give", by

qµB
m = 162.6
kh
 After the MTR is identified, skin factor, s, can be determined.

s = 1.151(Pi
– P1 hr )– log ( k  
 m φµC t rw
2
+ 
L  
 
3.23

 The LTR begins when the radius of investigation reaches a portion

of the reservoir influenced by reservoir boundaries or massive
heterogeneities.
 For a well centered in a square or circular drainage area, LTR occurs
at a time given approximately by

t lt  380φµCt A : ft2
k
A

 For more general drainage-area shapes, tlt can be calculated from

the number in the column "Use Infinite System Solution With
Less Than 1% Error for tDA <" .

t lt  3800φµCt At
k
DA
 To analyze the typical test, the following steps are suggested.

1. Plot flowing BHP, Pwf, vs. flowing time, t, on semi log paper.

2.Estimate twbs from qualitative curve matching ; this usually marks

the beginning of the MTR (except for fractured wells).

3. Estimate the beginning of the LTR, tlt ,using deviation from a

match with to confirm deviation from an apparent semilog
straight line

4.Determine the slope m of the most probable MTR, and

estimate formation permeability

5. Estimate the skin factor s

 Example - Constant-Rate Drawdown Test Analysis

 The data in table were recorded during a constant-rate pressure

drawdown test. The wellbore had a falling liquid/gas interface throughout
the drawdown test. Other pertinent data include the following.

 The tubing areas is 0.0218 sq ft; the density of the liquid in the well bore
is 53 Ibm/cu ft. Determine the formation permeability and skin factor.
Solution
 We first plot
 flowing BHP. Pwf vs. t on semilog paper
 and (Pi - Pwf) vs. t on log-log paper.

 Then we determine when well bore effects ceased distorting the curve.

 From the shape of the semilog graph, this appears to be at about 12 hours;
however, we can check this assumption with the log-log graph,
 For several values of CD (e.g., 103 to 104), the graph shows well bore
storage distortion ends at Δt= 5 hours,
 The boundary effects begin when the drawdown curve begins
to deviate from the established straight line on the semi log graph
at a flowing time of 150 hours.

 This is confirmed qualitatively on the less sensitive log-log graph by

noticeable deviation beginning at t ≈ 260 hours.

 The slope of the middle-time line is

m=3652 – 3582 = 70 psi / cycle

=
162.6qµB
=
(162.6)(250)(1.136)(0.8)
= 7.65md
k mh
(70)(69)
 We next calculate
 the skin factor s.

s = 1.151(Pi
– P1 hr )– log ( k  
 m φµC r 2
+ 
L t w

   3.23

= 1.151 (4412 – – log (1.442 10 7

 70 0.198 )
2  + 3.23
 =
L  

3652)
 6.37 
(
CS 
p = 0.0106[bbl /
25.65Awb
(200000 +12000(6.37))(0.0106) =
= (200000 +12000s )CS = psi ]
twbs kh (7.65)(69)
µ 0.8 4.44[hrs ]

 This closely agrees with the result from the log-log curve fit.
 Estimation of reservoir pore volume, Vp

 It is possible when the radius of investigation reaches all

boundaries during a test so that pseudo steady-
state flow is achieved.

 In pseudo steady- state flow, Pwf is related linearly to time and

the rate of change in Pwf with time is related to the reservoir pore
volume.
V P = –0.234qB
( 6 wf

ct 
p 
6pwf  6t vs. t plot on ordinary Cartesian
wf
6t : graph
The slope of the straight-line
paper.
P
 The graph of vs. t is a straight line once pseudo steady-
Pwf
state is achieved
 It is important to remember, that these equations apply only
to closed. or volumetric, reservoirs (i.e .theyare
not validif there is water influx or gas-cap expansion).

 Further they are limited to reservoirs in which total com-

pressibility Ct is constant (and, specifically. in-dependent of
pressure).

 H.W ) Read the Example 3.2 on page 53 john lee

 Analysis of Drawdown Test with Varying Rate

 An analysis method that leads to proper interpretation is

available. but it can be used only if the
producingrate is changing slowly and smothly.

 Winestock and Colpitts show that when rate is changing

slowly and smoothly. the equation modeling the
MTR of the drawdown test becomes

2
Pi – wf 162.6µB 
( 1688φµCt w
P log  + 0.0869s  +
= q  kh L r kt 
negligible.terms

The analysis technique is
 Plot (Pi - Pwf) / q vs. t on semi log
paper
 Identify the middle-time straight
line
 Measure the slope m' in psi/
STB/D/cycle;
 Calculate khkh =
from 162.6
µB m
and 


(P  k
s=  i – Pwf  1 – 2

 +
q 
 
1.151 L m 1h (
φµC
t w


 r log
 r 3.23
Example- Analysis of Drawdown Test with Varying Rate

 The data in Table were obtained in a drawdown test in

which the rate q was measured as a function of time.

 Other data include the following

 Determine formation permeability and skin factor.

 Solution
 Pressures for now times greater than about 6 hours are
increasing even though production continues for
another 179 hours and even though the rate decline from this
time to the end of the test is only 27 STB/D (from 150 to
123 STB/D).
Thus, we must use the variable-rate analysis technique;

 thefirststep is to tabulate (Pi - Pwf) / q as in Table .

 On the basis of curve shape, wellbore storage appears to end
at approximately 6
hours;

 There is no deviation from the straight line for t > 6

hours; accordingly, we assume the MTR spans the time
range 6 hours < t < 185 hours.
 m' = 3.616 - 3.328 = 0.288

kh = 162.6
µB
=
(162.6)(0.8)(1.136)
= 7.44md
m (0.288)(69)
and 
  k
s= ( Pi – Pwf  1
  
q – 
2
+
1.151 m 1h
 φµC
t w 
L ( 
 r log
 r 3.23
( 7.44  

= –

3.04 (0.039 )(0.8 (17 –6
(0.198
2  + 3.23 =
1.151 L log 10 

6.02 
0.288 ) ) ) 
Since Cs ≈ 0.0106 bbl/psi, as in previous
Example ,

(200000 +12000s )CS

twbs =
kh
µ
=
(200000 +12000(6.02))(0.0106) = 4.5[hrs ]
(7.44)(69)
0.8

 This qualitatively confirms the choice of well bore

storage distortion end.
 Multirate Tests
 We develop a general theory for behavior of multirate
tests in infinite-acting reservoirs for slightly compressible liquids.

 Consider a well with n rate changes during its

production history,
 We use superposition of the
logarithmic approximation to the
Ei-function solution; to simplify the algebra.
2
162.6q µB 
Pi = ( 1688φµCt w
– Pwf log  –
 kh L  r kt 
 
0.0869s
k
162.6qµB ( – 3.23 + 0.0869s
= kh logt + logφµC r 2
 t w  

= m q (logt +

s) & s =
k
– 3.23 +
m  = 162.6
kh
2
φµCt rw 0.0869s
log
where µB
 For n rates and for t > t n-1 application of superposition
leads to

Pi – Pwf = m q1 (logt + s ) + m (q2 – q1 ) Llog (t –

t1 ) + s 

+m (q3 – q 2 ) Llog (t – t 2 ) + s

– q j –1 )
 + ...
Pi – P fw n
log (t – jt–1
Σ
=  (q ) n+ m
qn m j q n (q –qs ,q) log (t – t s )0
+m
=1 j n n –1 L n –1

In which qo = 0 and t0 =+
0. s 
 In terms of more fundamental quantities,
n – q j– k 
(q j –1 )+ m
Pi – P  log – 3.23 + 0.0869s
log(t –t
fw
qn m Σj qn L φµCt rw
2

=
=1 j
1 ) 
 

 For the special case q n = 0 (a pressure buildup test).

Pi – Pwf = m q1 (logt + s ) + m (q2 – q1 ) Llog (t –

t 1 ) + s 

++ m (qn –1 – q n –2 ) Llog (t – t n –

= 162.6
µB
kh (q j j –1
–q )log (t – j– )
j 1
=1
 The reservoirn must be infinite acting for the total time elapsed t since
) t qn –1 Llog (t – t n –1 )
Σ + at
the well began producing
2 s ql –m
rate .
Pressure Build up Test Preceded by
Two Different flow Rates

Pi – Pws = m  q1 logt + (q2 – q1 ) log (t – t1 ) – q 2

log(t –t 2 )
t (t – 1
q µB q1 ( + 
Pi – Pws = 162.6 2 log  
t
kh q2  t –1 t log t 2
  
–t
t –t2= t1 = t p1
t
t = t p1 + t p 2 +
t 2 = t p1 + t t
 Then

q 2 µB q1 ( t p1 + tp +  (tp2 + 
Pi – Pws = log t + t 
2 t + 
162.6 kh q 2  p2 log   
t t

 We can use this equation when the production rate is

changed a short time before a buildup test begins, so
that there is not sufficient time for,
Horner's approximation to be valid, we frequent can
consider all production before time t1 to have been at rate
q 1 for time tp1 and production just before the test to have
been at rate q2 for time t p2'
 To analyze such a test, we plot

Note that semi log paper is not be used; instead, two logarithms is plotted
on an ordinary Cartesian axis.
Two-Rate Flow Test
This type of test can be used when
estimates of permeability, skin
factor, or reservoir pressure are
needed but when the well cannot be
shut in because
loss of income cannot be tolerated.

If : Lt1 = t p1  & Lt

– t p1 = t 
 On Cartesian paper

 In above Eq. P1 hr is the flowing pressure at Δt' = 1 hour on

the MTR line and Pwf is the flowing pressure at the time
the rate is changed (Δt' ≈ 0).
 H.W ) Read the Example 3.4 on page 59 john lee
Chapter 6

Gas Well
Testing
 Flow tests conducted on gas wells

1. Tests designed to yield knowledge of reservoir

• Drawdown
• Buildup

2. Tests designed to measure the deliverability (down hole deliverability)

• Back pressure tests

• Isochronal type tests
 Deliverability Tests

 Deliverability tests have conventionally been called back pressure

tests because they make possible the prediction of well flow rates
against any particular “back pressure” .

 Since most flowing well tests are performed to determine the

deliverability of a well, the term “deliverability tests “ is
used rather than “back pressure tests” .

 The purpose of these tests is to predict the manner in which

the flow rate will decline with reservoir depletion
Various deliverability tests of gas well

• Flow‐after‐flow (Conventional Back Pressure Test)

•Flowing the well at several different flow rates

•Each flow rate being continued to pressure stabilization

• Isochronal

•A series flow tests at different rates for equal periods of time

•Alternately closing in the well until a stabilized flow (last flow rate is
. long enough to achieve stabilization)

• Modified isochronal deliverability tests

• A series tests at different rates for equal periods of flow‐time

and
. shut‐in times
 Stabilized Flow Equations; r,_re

The approximate time to stabilization

]U {ztr

lO
’ I
!h n

Tk COtI5f8ntS A. 8, 1 , and H’ can be determined from flow tests for at

least
tWn f6tC lfi Which y an4 the cnffesjx›nding »iue rr /./»x xxcrured,
y,
‹il,so must be Lnown.
 Flow-After-Flow Tests

 In this testing method, a well flows at a selected constant

rate until pressure stabilizes - i.e., pseudo steady state is
reached.

 The stabilized rate and pressure are recorded; rate is then

changed and the well flows until the pressurestabilizes
again at the new rate. The process is repeated for a
total of three or four rates.
 Two different techniques can be used to analyze these test
data.

I. Empirical Method
II. Theoretical Method

I. Empirical Method

 A plot p 2 = p 2 – 2
g on log-log paper is approximately
p wf vs. q
of
a straight line for many wells in which the pseudo steady state
is reached at each rate in a flow-after-flow test sequence.
 The equation of the line in this
plot is

( ) = C (p
g wf 2 n
q =C p 2

–p
Where : )
2 n
 An AOF determined from such a lengthy extrapolation may be
incorrect.
 The constants C and n in are not constants at all. They
depend on fluid properties that are pressure (and, thus, time)
dependent.

Accordingly, if this type of deliverability

curve is used, periodic retesting of the well will
show changes in C and perhaps in n.

 We must emphasize that deliverability estimates based on

this plot assume that pressures were
stabilized (ri ≥ re) during the testing period used to
construct the plot.
 II. Theoretical Method
2

 We plot ( p2–
wf

) vs. qg the result (for pseudo steady-state

qg
p
flow) should be a straight line with slope b and intercept a.

 Because this line has theoretical basis than the log -log
plot, it

should be possible to extrapolate it to determine AOF with

less error.
Example :
The data in following Table were reported for a flow-after-flow (or four-
point) test . At each rate, pseudo steady state was reached. Initial (i.e.,
before the test) shut-in BHP, p¯, was determined to be 408.2 psia.

Estimate the AOF of the tested well using

(1) the empirical plot and
(2) the theoretical flow equation.

In addition plot deliver abilities estimated using the theoretical equation

on the empirical curve plot.
Solution :

We prepare a table of data to be plotted for both empirical and

theoretical analyses.
1. Empirical Method. From a plot of (p¯2 _ ) vs. q, on log-
Pwf 2
Iog paper, and extrapolation of this plot to P¯2_ Pwf 2 = 166,411
(where Pwf = 0 psig or 14.7 psia). AOF ≈60
MMscf/D.

The slope of the curve, l/n, is

 Thus, n = 0.690. Then,

Thus. the empirical deliverability equation is

Stabilized gas well deliverability test.
 2. Theoretical Method.

The theoretical deliverability equation is

Next figure. is a plot of (p¯2 _ )/qg , vs. qg for the test

Pwf 2
data. Two points on the best straight line through the data are
(2.7; 900) and (23.9; 1900). Thus,
Stabilized deliverability test. theoretical flow equation.
 Solving for a and b, we find that a = 773 and b = 47.17.
Thus, the theoretical deliverability equation is

 We can solve this quadratic equation for the

AOF:

 The solution is
 Isochronal Tests
 The objective of isochronal testing is to establish a stabilized
deliverability curve for a gas well without flowing the well
for sufficiently long to achieve stabilized conditions (ri ≥ re) at
each rate.

 An isochronal test is conducted by flowing a well at a fixed

rate, then shutting it in until the pressure builds up to an unchanging
(or almost unchanging) value, p¯.

 The well then is flowed at a second rate for the same

length of time, followed by another shut-in, etc.

 If possible. the final flow period should be long enough to

achieve stabilized flow.
Important points
 The most general theory of isochronal tests is based
on equations using pseudo pressure.

However, wewill once again present the theory in terms of

the low-pressure approximations to these equations (p2
equations) because

(1) They are somewhat simpler and less abstract than

equations in pseudo pressure

(2)They allow direct comparison with

more conventional analysis methods based on plots
of (p2 - pwf2) vs. q on 1og·log paper.
 We observed previously that the radius of investigation
achieved at a given time in a flow test is
independent of flow rate and, thus

 at a given time, the same portion of the reservoir

is being drained at each rate in isochronal
test and, as a good approximation, stabilized flow
conditions exist to a point just beyond r=ri

 Two different techniques can be used to analyze these test

data.

I. Empirical Method
II. Theoretical Method
I. Empirical Method

1. The (p¯ 2 – pwf 2) vs. q should be plot on 1og·log paper

2. Lines should be drawn for several values of time t. and

the 𝟏 should be established for each isochronal deliverability
slope 𝒏
curve.
𝟏
3. A line with the slope determined from the nonstabilized
𝒏
fixed-time curves· then is drawn through the single
stabilized point. (qg , p¯2 - pwf2 )

This establishes the stabilized deliverability curve. Once the

stabilized deliverability curve is determined. AOF is established in
the usual way.
II. Theoretical Method

The theoretical method for analyzing isochronal test data is

based on the theoretical equations for stabilized flow and
transient flow .

For stabilized flow

For transient flow :

1. For a .fixed value of t. determine b from a plot of (p¯2 -

pwf2)/qg vs. qg

2. Using the stabilized data point [qgs , (p¯2 - pwf 2)s ] determine
a from 2

a= ( p –p ) 
 2 wf s 2 gs

L – bq qgs
3. The stabilized deliverability curve uses the constants
determined in Steps 1 and 2:
p2 – p 2
= aq + bq 2
wf g
g

 This equation can be used to calculate the

AOF, :

–a + a 2 + 4b ( p 2 –
AOF
14.72 ) 2
=
b

 Read example 5.2 on page 82 John Lee .

 Since an isochronal test consists of a series of draw down
and buildup tests.kh and s usually can be determined from
them.

 .Recall that a single test provides only an estimate of s' =s +

Dqg

 To determine s, we must analyze at least two tests: eithe

drawdown tests run at different rates or
buildup tests following drawdown tests at different rates.

 We can then plot s' vs. qg ;

extrapolation to qg =0
provides an estimate of true
skin factor s
Modified Isochronal Tests
 The objective of modified isochronal tests is to obtain
the same data as in an isochronal test without lengthy shut-in
periods required for pressure to stabilize completely .

 In the modified isochronal test , shut-in periods of the same

duration as the flow periods are used.

 The final shut-in BHP (Pws) before the beginning of a

new flow period is used as an approximationto p¯
in the test analysis procedure.
 For the first flow period, use (p¯2_ P wf ,1 2 ) = (Pws,1 2 - wf ,12 )
for the second flow period, use (Pws,2 2 - wf,2P2 ). Otherwise, the
P
analysis procedure is the same as for the "true" isochronal
test.

 Read example 5.3 on page 84 John Lee .

Chapter 7

Software Review
 •In well testing in general and in well test
interpretation software there are several emerging
trends:

– This market segment is very competitive.

– Popular software are easy to use and follow a common integrated
interpretation methodology.
– Ease of use at the expense of functionality (and vice versa) is not
tolerated for long.

• The technical community is up to date with state-of the- art

technology
- demands/needs the latest to be incorporated.

• Numerical well testing is becoming popular.

•Integrated interpretation methodology incorporating both

analytical and numerical techniques is required.
 Saphir (Kappa)
•One of the easiest to use and most popular well testing packages
available in the market today. Has around 1400 site licenses with 200
companies(including Schlumberger).

•A very simple application. However the latest version - Level 3 - has

a numerical option.

•Efficient window management. Good user interface; has a

single window to display plots as you move along in your
interpretation workflow.

• Saphir is very rich in functionality and is under active

development.
File Edit Action View WEB Window Help

Group: ' ' Gauge: New plot

§$ SADC {# ' - EJiBu, 2DM, |% %• j ,•

For Hel Ram=46MB -

VM=12MB
 PanSystem (EPS)
•PanSystem is a popular well test analysis software -probably
more ‘scientific’ than Saphir.

•Reasonable graphical user interface and has all features of

an advanced well test interpretation package.

•Has an integrated interpretation environment involving

derivative plots, specialized analysis, and non-linear regression.

•PanSystem has an interface to numerical simulation PanMesh

is based on finite-element technology.
 Data Edlt

31¥9.7 2. 48
9 9

21
25.82 Æ
0
Interpret 2000 (Baker Hughes)

• Interpret 2000, was previously known as Interpret/2(SSI).

•Conventional analytical interpretation and modeling application

much of the original program development was by Alain Gringarten.

• No numerical options.

•Has a nice user interface, which appears to be very similar

to Saphir.
 Zodiac (Schlumberger)
•Has a long history, and has been around since 1992 when it
replaced earlier software called Star. Now linked to GeoFrame , and
in maintenance mode only.

•Consists of two separate programs: test design and test

interpretation. Each of these is divided into a number of sub-modules.

•Has a useful section for layered reservoir tests and selective

inflow performance (SIP) analysis.

•Does provide good analytical techniques for interpreting well tests,

and has some functionality which is still absent in many well test
analysis packages.
 BorDyn (Schlumberger)
•BorDyn is pressure transient analysis software for test
validations at the well site.

•Primarily used to insure that the test objectives have been

reached by monitoring data integrity and providing the means for a
simple interpretation of the data during its acquisition.

• Functionalities include:
– real time plotting, transient definition, derivative and convolution
derivative analysis, flow regime identification and associated
specialized plots, etc.
 Well test 200 (Schlumberger)
•Well test 200 is an integrated well test analysis package which is able
to use ECLIPSE to calculate numerical solutions to well tests.

•It is partially integrated within the ECLIPSE suite of applications,

e.g. SimOpt.

•Allows users to validate their raw well test data, perform

conventional analytical interpretation and interactively prepare a
numerical model.

•Has an innovative type of gridding called perpendicular

bisection (PEBI) or Voronoi grids.
References :
 Pressure Transient Testing By John Lee

Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells

By C.S.Matthews & D.G.Russell