Types and Purposes of

Well Tests
 Pressure transient tests

 We generate and measure pressure changes with time

 Deliverability tests

Well controlled production

 (Production Analysis)

 Use of production data for goals usually achieved by well testing

 Goals of pressure
transient tests (PTA)
 to quantify important reservoir rock, and fluid
properties
 permeability, porosity and average
reservoir pressure
 to locate and identify reservoir heterogeneities
 sealing faults, natural fractures, and
layers
 to characterize near wellbore and wellbore
conditions
 affected by drilling and completion
operations
 Production data
analysis
 Reservoir properties (permeability,
skin factor, fracture half-length, etc).
 Reservoir pore volume (estimated
using long-term production
performance).
 Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)—
movable fluid volumes.
 PTA: Single-Well Tests
 one well in which the pressure response is measured
following a rate change.
 pressure buildup test
 shut in after controlled production
 drawdown or flow test
 (specific drawdown tests: are called reservoir limits
tests)
 pressure falloff test
 similar to a pressure buildup test, except it is,
conducted on an injection well
 injectivity test
 Inject into the well at measured rate and measure
pressure as it increases with time
 analogous to pressure drawdown testing.
 PTA: Multiwell 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
 Multiwell tests:
 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.)
 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)
Deliverability tests (DT)
 production capabilities of a well
under specific reservoir conditions

 primarily for gas wells

 absolute openflow (AOF) potential

 inflow performance relationship (IPR)

or gas backpressure curve
 DT: Flow-After-Flow
Tests
(referred to as gas backpressure or four-point tests)

 producing the well at a series of different stabilized

flow rates
 measuring the stabilized bottomhole flowing
pressure at the sandface
 typically, with a sequence of increasing flow rates
 DT: Single-Point Tests
 low-permeability formations

 flowing the well at a single rate until the bottomhole flowing

pressure is stabilized

 required by many regulatory agencies

 requires prior knowledge of the well's deliverability

behavior

 (from previous testing or from correlations with other

wells producing in the same field under similar conditions)

 DT: Isochronal Tests
 Specifically, the isochronal test is a series of single-point
tests developed to estimate stabilized deliverability
characteristics without actually flowing the well for the
time required to achieve stabilized conditions
 The isochronal test is conducted by alternately
producing the well, then shutting in the well and
allowing it to build up to the average reservoir pressure
prior to the beginning of the next production period.
 General Test Design
Considerations
 If properly designed and implemented, a well
test can provide much useful information about
both individual wells and the reservoir

 In general, the goals of a well test are not only

to obtain sufficient. data to meet the stated
objectives, but also to accomplish these tasks
in a timely and inexpensive manner
 Issues
 Development Wells vs. Exploration Wells
 Producing Wells vs. Injection Wells
 Shallow Wells vs. Deep Wells
 Stimulated Wells vs. Unstimulated Wells
 Effects of Reservoir Properties
 Low Permeability vs. High Permeability
Formations
 Single Zones vs. Multiple Zones
 Safety and Environmental Considerations
 Sweet Gas vs. Sour and Corrosive Gases
 Other environmental Concerns
 Production data
analysis
 Reservoir properties (permeability,
skin factor, fracture half-length, etc).
 Reservoir pore volume (estimated
using long-term production
performance).
 Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)—
movable fluid volumes.
 Ideal Reservoir Model
 Based on diffusivity equation, which,
to achieve objective, combines
 Law of conservation of mass
 Darcy’s law
 Equation of state
 Simplifying assumptions introduced
as needed
Ideal Reservoir Model
Wellbore

2 p 1 p c t p
 
r 2 r r 0.000264k t
 Ideal Reservoir Model
Compressibility of total system
(small and independent of pressure)

2
 p 1 p  ct p
2
 
r r r 0.000264k t
Permeability
(constant and isotropic)
 Ideal Reservoir Model
Porosity Viscosity
(constant) (independent of pressure)
2
 p 1 p  ct p
2
 
r r r 0.000264k t
 Ideal Reservoir Model

Hydraulic diffusivity , 1

2
 p 1 p  ct p
2
 
r r r 0.000264k t
 Solution to Diffusivity
Equation
 Assume that:
 Well produces at constant rate, qB
 Well has zero radius
 Reservoir is at uniform pressure, pi, before
production begins
 Well drains an infinite area (p→ pi as r→∞)

qB   948 ct r  2
p  pi  70.6 Ei
kh  kt 
 
 Solution to Diffusivity
Equation

Pressure at distance r
from well at time t
 2
qB   948 ct r 
p  pi  70.6 Ei
kh  kt 
 
 e u
Ei(  x ) 
 x u
du
Ei function
 Solution to Diffusivity
Equation
 e u
Ei(  x ) 
x u
du
 Accurate approximation for

5 2 2
3.79 x10 ct rw 948ct re
t 
k k
 Solution to Diffusivity
Equation
 e u
Ei(  x ) 
x u
du
 Simplification with negligible error,
when x < 0.01

Ei(  x ) ln1.781 x 
 Altered Zone and Skin
Factor
 Most wells have damage near
wellbore
 Results from drilling or completion
operations
 Other wells stimulated by acidizing
or hydraulic fracturing
 Altered Zone and Skin
Factor
 2
qB   948 ct r 
p  pi  70.6 Ei
kh  kt 
 
• Fails to properly model damaged
wells
• Includes explicit assumption of
uniform permeability throughout
drainage area up to wellbore
 Altered Zone and Skin
Factor
qB  ra  qB  ra 
ps 141.2 ln   141.2 ln 
k a h  rw  kh  rw 

qB  k   ra 
ps 141.2   1 ln 
kh  k a   rw 
Altered Zone and Skin
Factor

p
ΔpS

pw

rw
rs
r
 Altered Zone and Skin
Factor
 Solution to the diffusivity equation:
 2
qB   948 ct r 
p  pi  70.6 Ei
kh  kt 
 
 2 
qB  948 ct r w 
pi  pwf   70.6 Ei   p s
kh  kt 
 
where
qB  k   ra 
ps 141.2   1 ln 
kh  k a   rw 
 Altered Zone and Skin
Factor
 For r = rw , average of Ei function is so
small that logarithmic approximation
can be used, so drawdown is:

qB   1688ct rw2   k   ra  

pi  pwf  70.6  ln   2  1 ln  
kh   kt   k a   rw  
 Altered Zone and Skin
Factor
 Dimensionless skin factor in terms of
equivalent altered zone:
 k   ra 
s   1  ln 
 ka   rw 
• Thus drawdown is:
qB   1688c r 2  
pi  pwf  70.6 ln
   t w
 2s
kh   kt  

 Algebraic sign of skin
factor
 k   ra 
s   1  ln 
 ka   rw 
(ka<k) The greater the difference
between ka and k, the larger s is
S

-∞ 0 ∞
 If a well is:
 Damaged, s will be positive
 Algebraic sign of skin
factor
 k   ra 
s   1  ln 
 ka   rw 
(ka>k) The deeper the stimulation treatment,
the larger |s| is
S

-∞ 0 ∞
 If a well is:
 Damaged, s will be positive
 Stimulated, s will be negative
 Algebraic sign of skin
factor
 k   ra 
s   1  ln 
 ka   rw 

(ka=k) S

-∞ 0 ∞
 If a well is:
 Damaged, s will be positive
 Stimulated, s will be negative
 Neither damaged nor stimulated, s = 0
 Effect of skin on
calculated p
 At wellbore radius, use
  1688c r 2 
qB 
pi  pwf  70.6  ln t w

 2s
kh
  kt  
 Outside altered zone, use

qB   948 ct r 2 
p  pi  70.6 Ei
kh  kt 
 
Altered zone affects only pressure near
the well.
Skin Factor Estimates
Type of Stimulation or CompletionSkin
Natural completion 0
Small acid treatment -1
Intermediate acid treatment -2
Large acid or small fracture treatment -3
Intermediate fracture treatment -4
Large fracture treatment in
low­permeability reservoir -6
Very large fracture treatment in
low­permeability reservoir -8
IT Flow and Rate-
Dependent Skin

s s  Dq
 Radius of Investigation
 Distance a pressure transient has
moved into formation following rate
change
2000 in well
t=0 ri ri ri ri
t = 0.01 hr
t = 1 hr
Pressure,
psi
t = 100 hr

t = 10,000 hr

1000
1 10 100 1000 10,000
Distance from center of wellbore, ft
Radius of Investigation
 Radius of investigation for a given time t :

kt
ri 
948ct

• Time required to reach a given radius

of investigation ri :
2
948 ct ri
t
k
 Pseudosteady-State
Flow
 Constant rate
 Cylindrical drainage area
2
 Begins att  948 c r
t e
k
qB  0.000527 kt  re  3 
pwf  pi  141.2   ln    
kh 2
  ct re  rw  4 
 Pseudosteady-State
Flow
 Replace original reservoir pressure,
p
pi , with average pressure,

V 5.615qB( t / 24) 0.0744qBt

pi  p   
c tV 
c t re2 h c t hre2

Pressure decrease resulting from removal

of qB RB/D of fluid for t hours
 Pseudosteady-State
Flow

0.0744qBt 0.0744qBt qB   re  3 

pwf  p    141.2  ln   
ct hre2 ct hre2 kh   rw  4 
qB   re  3 
 p  141.2  ln   
kh   rw  4 
 Pseudosteady-State
Flow
 Equations more useful if they include
skin factors to account for damage
or stimulation
qB   re  3 
p  pwf 141.2  ln     (p) s
kh   rw  4 

qB   re  3 
p  pwf 141.2  ln    s 
kh   rw  4 
 Pseudosteady-State
Flow
 and

qB  0.000527kt  re  3 
pi  pwf 141.2   ln     s 
kh 2
  c r
t e  rw  4 
 Productivity Index

Productivity index
Stabilized rate
q kh
J 
p  pwf   re  3 
141.2 B  ln    s 
  rw  4 
Pressure drawdown
Generalized Drainage Area
Shapes
 More general reservoir shapes:

Drainage area, ft2

qB  1  10.06 A  3 
p  pwf 141.2  ln    s
2  4
kh  2 C r
 Aw  

Shape factor for specific drainage-area

shape and configuration
Generalized Drainage Area
Shapes
 Productivity index, J, can be
expressed for general drainage-area
geometry as:

q 0.00708kh
J 
p  pwf  1  10.06 A  3 
B  ln    s
2  2  4
  C A rw  
 Drainage Area Shapes
1 2 3 4
Infinite System Pseudosteady-State System
Reservoir Less Than 1% Exact Less Than 1%
shape CA Error for tDA < for tDA > Error for tDA >

31.62 0.10 0.1 0.06

30.8828 0.09 0.1 0.05

21.8369 0.025 0.3 0.15

2.0769 0.02 1.7 0.50

Generalized Drainage Area
Shapes
 Information in this table allows us to
calculate:
 Maximum elapsed time during which a
reservoir is infinite-acting
 Time required for the for the pseudosteady-
state solution to predict pressure drawdown
within 1% accuracy
 Time required for the pseudosteady-state
solution to be exact
Generalized Drainage Area
Shapes
 For maximum infinite-acting time in
hours
Use Infinite System
Solution With Less Than
1% Error for
0.0002637kt
t DA  
ct A
ct At DA col 2
t<
0.0002637k
 Drainage Area Shapes
1 2 3 4
Infinite System Pseudosteady-State System
Reservoir Less Than 1% Exact Less Than 1%
shape CA Error for tDA < for tDA > Error for tDA >

31.62 0.10 0.1 0.06

30.8828 0.09 0.1 0.05

21.8369 0.025 0.3 0.15

2.0769 0.02 1.7 0.50

Generalized Drainage Area
Shapes
 For pseudosteady-state equation to
be exact
Use
0.0002637kt
t DA  
ct A
ct At DA col 3
t>

0.0002637k
 Drainage Area Shapes
1 2 3 4
Infinite System Pseudosteady-State System
Reservoir Less Than 1% Exact Less Than 1%
shape CA Error for tDA < for tDA > Error for tDA >

31.62 0.10 0.1 0.06

30.8828 0.09 0.1 0.05

21.8369 0.025 0.3 0.15

2.0769 0.02 1.7 0.50

Generalized Drainage Area
Shapes
 For pseudosteady-state equation to
be accurate within 1%
Use
0.0002637kt
t DA  
ct A

ct At DA col 4

t>

0.0002637k
Generalized Drainage Area
Shapes
Transient Region

pwf
Late-Transient Pseudosteady-State
Region Region

log t
Semilogarithmic coordinates
Generalized Drainage Area
Shapes
Transient Region

pwf
Pseudosteady-State
Late-Transient Region
Region

t
Cartesian coordinates
 Pseudosteady-State
Flow
 Closed drainage area (no-flow
boundaries)
 Permanent
• Zero-permeability rock
 Temporary
 Constant-rate production
 Reservoir pressure drops at uniform rate at
all points in reservoir
• At well
• At reservoir boundary
True Steady-State Flow
 Occurs throughout drainage area of
well when
 Boundary pressure maintained constant
 Well produces at constant rate
 Conceivable in well with edge-water
drive
 Conceivable in repeated flood
patterns
 Steady-State Flow
Equation
 Constant-pressure outer boundary
 Applicable after boundary effects appear

qB   re  
pi  pwf 141.2  ln   s 
kh   rw  
 Constant Bottomhole
Pressure
 More likely than constant rate
 Boundary-dominated flow
 Transients reach all drainage area
boundaries
 Steady-state flow
 Transient reaches constant-pressure
reservoir boundaries
No-Flow Boundaries
r4
No-Flow Outer
r3
Boundary
t1= 0.3 day r2
r1 Fluid at the farthest
t2= 1 day boundary starts moving
t3= 3 days
toward the well
t4= 10 days

Radial Pressure Profiles

Constant Well Rate Constant Well Pressure
r4 r3 r2 r1 r1 r2 r3 r4

t1 t2 t3 t4 t5
No-Flow
t5 t4 t3 t2 t1 t  Boundary
Changing pwf Constant pwf
Constant-Pressure
Boundaries
r 4
Constant-Pressure
r3
Outer Boundary
t1= 0.3 day r2
r1 Fluid at the farthest
t2= 1 day boundary starts moving
t3= 3 days
toward the well
t4= 10 days

Radial Pressure Profiles

Constant Well Rate Constant Well Pressure
r4 r3 r2 r1 r1 r2 r3 r4

t1 t2 t3 t4
Constant-Pressure
t4 t3 t2 t1 Boundary
Changing pwf Constant pwf
 Wellbore Storage
 Ei-function solution assumes
constant flow rate in reservoir, t = 0
 Actually able to control only surface rate
 Reservoir rate approaches surface
rate during unloading
 Then Ei solution becomes valid
 Wellbore unloading during test is
called wellbore storage
Wellbore Storage—Flow
Test

Rate
Surface Rate

Bottomhole Rate

0
Time
 Pressure Buildup Test

Rate
Surface Rate
Bottomhole Rate

0 Time
 Mass Balance Modeling
q q
pt

Area  Awb ( ft 2 )

qsf pw qsf pw
wellbore completely filled wellbore with a rising or
with single-phase fluid falling liquid/gas interface
Mass Balance Modeling
 Wellbore with single-phase fluid

24Vwb c wb dpw
q sf q 
B dt
 Mass Balance Modeling
 Well with rising or falling liquid/gas
interface
24  25.65 Awb  d ( pw  pt )
q sf q   
B   wb  dt
Frequently assumed to be constant
(convenient but frequently inaccurate)
General Mass-Balance
Form
For a fluid-filled wellbore, C c wbVwb bbl/psi

24C dp w
q sf q 
B dt
For a moving liquid/gas interface 25.65 Awb
with unchanging surface pressure, C   bbl/psi
wb
 Unit-Slope Line
 Flowing well
 Fluid stored in wellbore
 No flow from formation
 Shut-in well
 Afterflow equals rate prior to shut in
Pressure Elapsed time
change since qBt  qB 
log p  log t  log 
start of flow
p   24C 
24C Wellbore
or shut in
storage
coefficient
 Unit-Slope Line

Line with slope

= 1 cycle/cycle
log p
Use any point (t, p)
on line to calculate C

log t
 Linear flow
 Long, highly conductive vertical
fractures
 Long, relatively narrow reservoirs
 Horizontal wells during certain times
 Linear Flow Equation

Af = Cross-sectional area
perpendicular to flow
1/ 2
qB  t 
pi  pwf 16.26  
A f  kct 
Af = 4hLf
Af = wh
for linear flow
into vertical for linear flow in
fractures channel reservoirs
 Spherical Flow
 In wells with limited perforated intervals
 Into wireline formation test tools

Flow
Boundaries
 Spherical Flow
 In wells with limited perforated intervals
 Into wireline formation test tools
 Modeled by solution to the diffusivity
equation
 One-dimensional spherical flow
 Uniform pressure prior to production
 Boundary conditions: constant flow rate, infinitely
large drainage area
 Spherical Flow
2456qB  c t
ms  3
ks 2

70.6qB 1 70.6qB
pwf  pi   ms  s
k s rs t k s rs

2
 1  3
k s  k h kv 2  rs is the radius of the
  sphere into which flow
converges
Superposition in Space
 Total pressure drop at any point in a
reservoir
 Sum of pressure drops at point caused by
flow in each well in the reservoir
Well A

rAC
rAB

Well C Well B
 Superposition in Space
 Using


pi  pwf 
superposition:
total at Well A
 pi  p due to A
  pi  p due to B
  pi  p due to C
Superposition in Space
 For infinite-acting reservoir, Ei-function
solution including logarithmic approximation
pi 
at Well A:
pwf total at Well A 
q A B   1,688ct rwA  
2
 70.6  ln  2s A 
kh   k t  t A   


q B B  - 948ct rAB 
2
 70.6 Ei
kh 
 k t  t B  


qC B  - 948ct rAC  2
 70.6 Ei
kh 
 k t  t C  

Superposition and
‘Image’ Wells

Image Actual
Well L L Well

q q

No Flow Boundary
 Superposition and
‘Image’ Wells
qB   1,688c r 2  
pi  pwf   70.6 ln
   t w
 2s
kh   kt  

qB   948ct 2 L 
 2
 70.6 Ei
kh  kt 
 
(no skin factor)
Superposition and
‘Image’ Wells

Image Well Actual Well

Image Well Image Well

Superposition and
‘Image’ Wells

Actual
Well
Superposition and
‘Image’ Wells

Image Actual
Well L L Well

-q +q

Constant-Pressure Boundary
Superposition and
‘Image’ Wells
Superposition in Time
0 ( q2 q- 2q1 )
q1 ( q3 - q2 )
t Well 2 Wellq3 3
q Well 1
t1 t2
0
q1
Well 1
( q2 - q1 )
Well 2
t1
Well 3
( q3 - q2 )
 Superposition in Time
pi  pwf ( p )1  ( p ) 2  ( p ) 3

q1 B   1 , 688 c r 2  
t w 
 70.6  ln  2s
kh   kt 
 

 (q 2  q1 ) B   1,688 c t rw2  
 70.6 ln    2s
kh   k ( t  t1 )  

 (q 3  q 2 ) B   1,688 c t rw2  
 70.6 ln    2s
kh   k ( t  t 2 )  
 Horner Approximation
 Replaces sequence of functions with
single function
 Single producing time, rate
 Preserves material balance in drainage
area
 Properly gives greatest weight to most
recent rate
 Particularly useful for hand calculations
 Superposition more appropriate with computer
software
Horner Approximation
Cumulative production from well, STB
Np
t p hours  24
qn
Most recent rate

70.6  q B  2
70.6 nn B  - 948c t r 
pi  p   Ei
kh  kt
k t 
 pp 
Log Approximation to
Ei-Function
y = mx + b
qB
pwf  pi  162.6 
kh
  k  
 log 10 t  log 10    3.23  0.869 s 
 2
  c t rw  
 Drawdown Test Graph
162.6qB
k
1,200p  p  k   (  m )h
s 1.151 i 1hr
 log 10    3.23
  m  c r 2  
 t w 

b ( pwf 2  pwf 1 ) ( pwf 2  pwf 1 )

(t1, pwf1)
m 
Pressure, log10 (t 2 )  log10 (t1 ) log10 (t 2 / t1 )
psi
(t2, pwf2)

Powers of 10
700
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Elapsed Test Time, hrs
 Semilog Analysis
 Pressure Buildup Tests
Rate during production of
q +q.
t

0t = 0 tp
Time, t
t
0
Rate after shut-in of -q
-q

q
Sum after shut-in
of 0.
0 t
tp
tp +t
 Semilog Analysis
 Superposition process
qB   k  
pws  pi  162.6
kh
 
 log10 t p  t  log10 

  3.23  0.869 s 
2 
   c t rw  

qB   k  
 162.6  log10 t  log10    3.23  0.869 s 
kh    c r 
2

 t w 

 Simplified
qB  t p  t 
pws  pi  162.6 log 10  

kh   t 
 Buildup Test Graph
162.6qB
2,000 k
(  m )h
pws 2  pws1
m pi
 t p  t   t p  t 

log 10    log 10  
 t   t 
 2  1
Pressure, psi
 t p  t 
 
 t  , pws 2
 t p  t   2
 
 t  , pws1
 1

1,400
10,000 1,000 100 10 1

Horner time ratio (tp + Δt)/Δt

 Solving for Skin Factor
qB  t p  t 
pws  pi  162.6 log 10  

kh   t 

qB   k  
pwf  pi  162.6
kh
 
 log10 t p  log10    3.23  0.869 s 
2
   c r
t w 

 p1hr  pwf  k  
s 1.151  log10    3.23
  m  
  c r 2
t w 
Radius of Investigation in
Buildup
2,000

t = 10,000 hr
ri
1,800

ri
1,600 t = 100 hr
Pressure,
psi
1,400
ri
t = 1 hr

1,200 ri
t = 0.01 hr
t=0
1,000
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Distance from center of wellbore, ft
Radius-of-Investigation in
Buildup

1/ 2
 kt 
ri  
 948ct 
29 October 2002