By: Amin Nemati

References :

Pressure Transient Testing By John Lee

 Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells By

C.S.Matthews & D.G.Russell
Chapter 1

Introduction
Importance of Production Data Analysis
 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.
Forward Solution :

Input =  System =  Output=?

Backward Solution :

Rate = Well + Reservoir Pressure = 

Change Response
 I. • Reservoir evaluation

The Objectives of Well Test II. • Reservoir management

III. • Reservoir description

I. Reservoir evaluation

– Deliverability(conductivity; kh)
• Design of well spacing
• Number of wells • Wellbore stimulation

– Properties (initial reservoir pressure)

• Potential energy of the reservoir

– Size (reservoir limits)

• Closed or open (with aquifer support) reservoir boundaries

– Near well conditions (skin, storage and turbulence)

 II. Reservoir management

– Monitoring performance and well conditions

III. • Reservoir description

– Fault, Barriers
– Estimation of bulk reservoir properties

Other :
kh
-  Transmissibility - Fracturing parameters (ω , λ )


- Effective permeability -Non-Darcy effect ( D ) by Multirate test

--
 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)

 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
drainage area of the well.
 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.
• Interference Test:
– In an interference test one well is produced and pressure is observed in a
different wells.
– To test reservoir continuity
– To detect directional permeability and other major reservoir heterogeneity
– Determination of reservoir volume

• 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.
 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
Chapter 2

Fluid Flow in Porous Media

 The Ideal Reservoir Model :

 To develop analysis and design techniques for well testing. we

first must make several simplifying assumptions about the well and
reservoir that we are modeling.

 100 % saturated with single fluid

 Flow is radial
 Homogenous & Isotropic (φ=cte & k =cte ) reservoir
 Infinite acting reservoir
 Constant rate
 Fully penetrated
 Isothermal
 ….
These assumptions are introduced as needed. to combine

(1) The law of conservation of mass.

(2) Darcy's law
(3) Equations of state

If we combine the law of conservation of mass and Darcy's law,

we obtain a partial differential equation that simplifies to

2
d p 1 dp C 0 dp
2
 
dr r dr 0.000264k dt
t = time, hr k = permeability, md
 2
d p 1 dp C 0 dp
2
 
dr r dr 0.006328k dt
Eq. 1
t = time, day k = permeability, md

The assumptions and limitations used in developing diffusivity equation :

1. Homogeneous and isotropic porous medium

2. Uniform thickness
3. Single phase flow
4. Laminar flow
5. Rock and fluid properties independent of pressure
When the reservoir contains more than one fluid, total compressibility
should be computed as :

The term [0.006328k/ φμct ]and [0.000264 k/φμct] in previous equations

are called the diffusivity constant and is denoted by the symbol η, or:

0.006328k 0.000264k
 
C t C t

k: milli darcy k: milli darcy

t :day t :hr
Solution to the diffusivity equation :
To obtain a solution to the diffusivity equation it is necessary to specify an
initial condition and impose two boundary conditions.

The initial condition simply states that the reservoir is at a uniform pressure
pi when production begins.

The two boundary conditions require that the well is producing at a constant
production rate and that the reservoir behaves as if it were infinite in size,
i.e., re = ∞.
 There are four solutions to diffusivity equation that are particularly
useful in well testing:

A. The solution for a bounded cylindrical reservoir

B. The solution for an infinite reservoir with a well considered to be a

line source with zero well bore radius

C. The pseudo steady state solution

D. The solution that includes well bore storage for a well in an infinite
reservoir.
 A. The solution for a bounded cylindrical reservoir

 A realistic and practical solution is obtained if we assume that :

1) a well produces at constant rate, qB, into the wellbore (q flow

rate in STB/D, and B is FVF in RB/STB).

2) the well, with wellbore radius r w ' is centered in a cylindrical

reservoir of radius, r e‘ and that there is no flow across this outer
boundary.

3) before production begins, the reservoir is at uniform pressure, Pi .

 By previous assumptions the most useful form of solution that
relates flowing pressure, Pwf to time and to reservoir rock and fluid
properties is :

qub  2t D 3 
e J 1  n reD 
 n 2t D 2 
pwf  p i  141.2  2  ln reD   2 2 2 
kh  reD 4 n 1  n  J 1  n reD   J 1  n   
 
2
 

 In this formula re 0.000264kt

reD  tD 
rw C t rw 2

n are the roots of J 1  n reD Y 1  n   J 1  n Y 1  n reD   0

and where J 1 and Y1 are Bessel functions.

 The most important fact about previous equation is that, under
the assumptions made in its development, it is an exact solution.

 It sometimes is called the van Everdingen-Hurst constant-

terminal rate solution.

 It will not be necessary to use this equation in its complete form to

calculate numerical values of Pwf

 Instead, we will use limiting forms of the solution in most

computations.
B. The solution for an infinite reservoir with line source well

 assume that :

1) a well produces at constant rate, qB,

2) The well has zero radius.
3) The reservoir is at uniform pressure, Pi before production begins .
4) The well drains an infinite area (ie., that P Pi ; as r  ).
 Under these conditions, the solution to diffusivity equation is :

q  BO  948C t r 2 
P  r , t   Pi  70.6 Ei  
k: milli darcy
t :hr
kh  kt 
=
q  BO  r  2
P  r , t   Pi  70.6 Ei   
kh  4t 
 Where P is the pressure (psi) at distance r (feet) from the well at
time t (hours),
  Ei -function solution is an accurate approximation to the more exact
solution for time:

3.79  10 C t rw
5 2
C t re 2
t 948
k k

For times less than , the At times greater than, the reservoir's
assumption of zero well size boundaries begin to affect the pressure
limits the accuracy of the distribution in the reservoir. so that the
equation; reservoir is no longer infinite acting.
The mathematical function, Ei, is called the exponential integral and is defined by:

a) x  0.02  Ei   x   ln x  0.5772
Ei(-x) = ? b) x  10  Ei   x   0
c) x  0.02  Ei   x   3.3
d )0.02  x  10  Use table 7.1 0r fig 7.11 Craft
 For the damaged or stimulated zone the additional pressure drop
( ∆PS ) across this zone can be modeled by :

q B  rs  k 
Ps  141.2 S Skin  ln   1 
kh  rw  ks  

 So the total pressure drop at the well bore is

q B  948 C r 2

Pi  Pwf  70.6 Ei  t w
  Ps
kh  kt 
q  B   948C t rw 2  k  rs  
 70.6 E i    2 ln   1  
kh   kt   ks  rw  
 For r = rw the argument of the Ei function is sufficiently small after a
short time that we can use the logarithmic approximation; thus,

q  B   1688C t rw 2  
Pi  Pwf  70.6  ln  
kh   kt 
And

q  B   1688C t rw 2  
Pi  Pw f   70.6  ln    2S 
kh   kt  

 This equation is used only for calculation of pressures at the

sandface of a well .
  For r = rw Previous equation

 For rw< r < rs No simple equation

 For r s < re Use first equation (Ei –function )

 H.W ) Read the Example 1.1 John Lee on page 5

C. The Pseudo steady-State Solution :

 The summation involving exponentials and Bessel functions is

C t re 2
negligible for this solution, after this time 948 t
k

q  B  2t D 1
Pwf  Pi  141.2  2  ln reD  
kh  reD 2
Or

q  B  0.000527kt re 1 
Pwf  Pi  141.2   ln  
kh  C t re 2
rw 2 
 During this time period we find, by differentiating previous
p
equation  cte and it is :
t

pwf 0.0744qB
If t :hr 
t C t hre 2

pwf 1.87qB
If t :day 
t C t hre 2
  Since the liquid-filled pore volume of the reservoir, Vp (cubic feet),
is

pwf 0.23qB
V p   re h2
 t :hr
t C tV p

 Thus, during this time period, the rate of pressure decline is inversely
proportional to the liquid-filled pore volume Vp.

 This result leads to a form of well testing sometimes called reservoir

limits testing, which seeks to determine reservoir size from the rate
of pressure decline in a well bore with time.
 Another useful form of equation is achieved by replacing Pi with P¯
and including skin factor

 q  B  re 3 
Pwf  P  141.2 ln   S 
kh  rw 4 
 Further, we can define an average permeability, kj

 re 3 
k ln  
 rw 4 
kj 
 re 3 
ln r  4  S 
 w 
 k is reservoir permeability without damage
 Since we sometimes estimate the permeability of a well from
productivity-index (PI) measurements, and since the productivity
index J (STB/D/psi), of an oil well is defined as

q k jh
PI  J  

P  Pwf  re 3 
141.2B   ln  
 rw 4 

 This method does not necessarily provide a good estimate of

formation permeability, k.

 HW) Read example 1.2-Analysis of Well From PI Test on

page 7 John lee
  Flow Equations for Generalized Reservoir Geometry

 Previous equation is limited to a well centered in a circular drainage

area.

 Pseudo steady- state flow in more general reservoir shapes:

 q B  1  10.06A  3 
Pwf  P  141.2  ln  2  S 
kh  2 C
 Aw r  4 

where
A = drainage area, sq ft,
CA = shape factor for specific drainage-area shape and well location,
dimensionless.
  Productivity index, J, can be expressed for general drainage-area
geometry as
q 0.00708kh
PI  J  

P  Pwf  1  10.06A  3 
B   ln  2  s
 2 C
 Aw r  4 

 Other numerical constants tabulated in following table allow us to

calculate

i. the maximum elapsed time during which a reservoir is infinite acting

(So that the Ei-function solution can be used)

ii. the time required for the pseudo steady-state solution to predict
pressure drawdown within 1% accuracy

iii. time required for the pseudo steady-state solution to be exact.

 For a given reservoir geometry, the maximum time a reservoir is
infinite acting can be determined using the entry in the column
"Use Infinite-System Solution With Less Than 1% Error for tDA < “

0.000264kt
 Since, t DA  this means that the time in hours is
C t A
calculated from

C t At DA
t
0.00264k
 Time required for the pseudo steady-state equation to be accurate
within 1 % can be found from the entry in the column headed "Less
Than 1% Error for tDA>" and the relationship

C t At DA
t
0.00264k

 Finally, time required for the pseudo steady-state equation to be

exact is found from the entry in the column "Exact for tDA >."
 Flow regimes that occur in different time ranges.

Flow regions on semi

logarithmic paper

Flow regions on
Cartesian coordinate
graph.

 HW) Read Example 1.3 - Flow Analysis in Generalized

Reservoir Geometry (on page 8)
 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 :

v wb
Cs 
P
Cs : Well bore storage coefficient,(bbl/Psi)

v wb :Volume change in well bore (bbl)

P :Pressure change (Psi )

C S  C FE  C FL
Well bore storage effect due to fluid expansion :

C FE V wb  C wb

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 Aa
C FL   25.64 
5.615 

 IDC 2  ODt  2  1
A a        144
 2   2  

Aa : Area of annulus (ft2)

IDc : Inner diameter of casing (in)
ODt : Outer diameter of tubing ( in)
ρ : Density of fluid in well bore (lbm/ft3)
 To relate sand face flow rate to well head flow
rate we can use :

24C S dpw
q sf  qwh 
B o dt

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 S
C SD 
ct hrw 2
 Dimensionless time and dimensionless pressure are :

0.000264kt
tD 
ct rw 2

0.00708kh  p i  pw 
pD 
qi B 
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
k : permeability, md
t : test time hr
μ : viscosity, cp
PD : Dimensionless pressure
B : formation volume factor bbl /psi
  For constant-rate production
q sf dp D
 1  C SD
qwh 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.

q sf dp D
q sf  0 0 1  C SD 0
qwh dt D

dt D  C SD dpD
 Integrating from tD = 0 (where pD=0 ) to tD and pD the result is

C SD  p D  t D
 Taking logarithms of both side of the equation,

log C SD  log p D  log t D

 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

C SD  p D
1
tD
 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

 qB  t
CS   
 24  P
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 C SD

twbs 
 200000  12000s C S
kh

 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 in k : 30 md
ρo : 45 lbm/ft3 μo :2 cp
h :50 ft s :0
φ : 15 % co : 10 × 10-6 psi-1
Well bore storage constant due to fluid expansion :

bbl
C FE V wb C wb  180 10  10   0.0018
6

psi

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

 IDC 2  ODt  2  1  7.675 2  2  2  1

A a            
     0.2995ft 2

 2   2   144  2   2   144

144Aa Aa 0.2995 bbl

C FL   25.64   25.64   0.1707
5.615  45 psi
The total well bore storage constant

bbl
C S  C FE  C FL  0.0018  0.1707  0.1725
psi

Dimensionless well bore storage constant

0.894C S 0.894  0.1725

C SD    16271
ct hrw 0.15   20 × 10   50  0.25
2 -6 2
 End of Wellbore Storage Distortion :

twbs 
 200000  12000s C S

 200000  12000  0  0.1725
 46hr
kh 30  50
 2

Or tD 
0.000264kt
ct rw 2

0.000264  30  t
0.15  2   20 × 10-6   0.252

t D   60  3.5s C SD   60  3.5  0 16271  976260

t= 46 hr
0.000264kt 0.000264  30  t
tD  
ct rw 0.15  2   20 × 10-6   0.252
2
 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  2
ri   
 948C t 

k : milli darcy
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

q1 B O   1688c t rw 2  
 70.6  ln    2s 
kh   kt  

70.6
 0  q1   B O   1688ct rw 2  
 ln    2s 
kh   k t  t 1   
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 :

q B   1688C r 2  
Pi  Pwf  70.6  ln  t w
  2S 
kh   k t p  t   

70.6
 q   B   1688C t rw 2  
ln    2S 
kh   k  t  
 which becomes

q  B  t p  t 
Pwf  Pi  70.6 ln  
kh  t 
or
q B  t p  t 
ln x  2.303log x Pwf  Pi  162.6 log  
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

q B
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
q B B : bbl/STB
m  162.6 k : md
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

q B   1688C r 2  
Pwf  Pi  70.6 ln  t w
  2S 
kh   k t p  t   

q  B   1688C t rw 2  
 Pi  162.6 log    0.869S 
kh   k t p  t   
  
   1688 C r 2  
Pw f  Pi  m  log  t w
  0.869 S 
  k t p   t   
 

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

  t p  t  
Pws  Pi  m log  
 t 

 Combining these equations and solving for the skin factor S, we have

 Pws  Pwf   1688C t rw 2   t p  t 

s  1.151   log    1.151 log  
 m   k t   tp 
 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 p 1 
log  0
 t p 
 
  With these simplifications,

s  1.151 

 P  Pwf
1 hr
 
 log 
k  
 3.23
2 
 m  C t rw  

Pwf : The last pressure before shut-in

P1hr : The BHP 1hour after shut-in

 Note again that the slope m is

considered to be a positive number
in this equation.
 Q B
Ps  141.2 S   Ps  0.87 m S
hk

Ps
s
0.87 m

 rs  k 
Skin  ln   1 
 rw  k s 
 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    100 :  
log10  log1  cycle 
 q B 162.6  500  1.3 1
k  162.6 k   k  48md
mh 100  22

 The skin factor s is found from


 P  Pw f
s  1.151  1 hr
  log  k  
   3.23 
 m   C r
t w
2
 

 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,
  1764  1150   48  
s  1.151   log    3.23  1.43
 100   0.2 1.0   2  10 5   0.3  2  
   

 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

1. 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 :

q B   1688C r 2  
 Pi  Pwf Prod .well  70.6 ln  t w
  2S 
kh   k t p  t   
  Instead, if the well is centered in a cylindrical reservoir
The picture can't be display ed.

 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

  t p  t  
Pws  Pi  m log  
 t 

Pws  Pi  m log t p  t   m 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 co  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 s e 0.14s
0.14s twbs 
t D  C sD e  kh 
  
 

 For a well bore containing only single-phase fluid(liquid or gas)

We define
t
t e 
 t 
1  
 t p 

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:

380ct A A : the drainage area of the tested well ft2

t L 
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 3 
141.2qB  ln  
 rw 4 
kj 
 
h  P  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

S
rwa  rwe
 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

L f  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) :

Q  STBD 
J  PI  : 
Pi  Pwf  psi 

Specific Productivity Index (Js) :

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

 
 Q      
 P P  P  P
 i wf   r wf   Ps
P  P
J act  i wf act  ideal  act
FE  PR    
J ideal       
 Q  P  P
 i wf  P  P
 r wf 
 act  act
 P P 
 i wf ideal

PR 
  Pwf   Ps
P *

  Pwf
P *

 For a damaged well, flow efficiency is less than one; for a stimulated
well, flow efficiency is greater than one.
Damage Ratio (DR ):

  
P  P
 r wf 
1 J  act
DR   ideal  
FE J act  
 r wf   Ps
P  P
 act

Damage Factor (DF ):

 
 r wf   Ps
P  P
Ps
 act
DF  1  FE  1  
    
P  P
 r wf  P  P
 r wf 
 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 i B gi   1688i C t i   S  Dq g  
Pwf  Pi  log    
kh   kt p  1.151 


 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 g  g B g   t p  t 
Pws  Pi  log  
kh   t 


 P  Pwf
s   s  D q g   1.151  1 hr
 
 log 
k  
 3.23
2 
 m  i C t i rw  
 For p < 2000 psi,

2 2
q g i z i T  t p  t 
Pws  Pi  1637 log  
kh  t 


 P 2  Pwf 2
s   s  D q g   1.151  1 hr
 
 log 
k  
 3.23
2 
 m   i C ti rw  

 where m" is the slope of the plot Pws2 vs. log [(tp + Δt) / Δt]
q zT
which is 1637 g i i .
kh
  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 Pws2 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

1) 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 are summarized in a series of plots

kh  p *  p  0.000264kt p
of vs. .
70.6q  B ct A
 kh  p *  p  2.303  p *  p 

70.6q  B m

0.000264kt p
is a dimensionless time and is symbolized by tDA
ct A

kh  p *  p 
is a dimensionless pressure and is given the symbol PDMBH
70.6q  B

A: drainage 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

 ct A 
t pss    t DA  pss
 0.000264k 
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

q B  0.00388k t 
p  pws  118.6 exp  
kh  c r
t e
2

  q B  0.00168k t
log  p  pws   log 118.6 
 kh   c r
t e
2

 Note that above equation has the form

log  p  pws   A  B t

 where A and B are constants.  log  p  pws  versus Δt is linear

 Approximations used in developing this equation are valid in the
shut-in time range.

250ct re 2 750ct re 2
 t 
k k
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
1. It fails when the tested well is not reasonably centered in its drainage
area.

2. 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:

162.6q  B   1688C t rw 2  
Pwf  Pi  log    0.0869s 
kh   kt  
 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

 200000  12000s C S
t D   60  3.5s C SD or twbs 
kh


 In the MTR, a plot of Pwf vs. log t is a straight line with slope, m,
give", by

q B
m  162.6
kh
 After the MTR is identified, skin factor, s, can be determined.



 Pi  P   k  
s  1.151  log    3.23 
1 hr

 m   C r
t w
2
 

 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

380C t A
t lt  A : ft2
k

 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 <" .

3800C t At DA
t lt 
k
 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

162.6q  B 162.6  250 1.136  0.8

k    7.65md
mh  70  69 
 We next calculate the skin factor s.



 Pi  P   k  
s  1.151  log    3.23 
1 hr

 m   C r
t w
2
 

  4412  3652   1.442  10 7  

 1.151   log    3.23   6.37
 
  0.198 
2
 70  

25.65Awb
CS   0.0106 bbl / psi 

 200000  12000s C S  200000  12000  6.37    0.0106 
twbs   
 4.44 hrs 
kh  7.65 69 
 0.8

 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.

0.234qB
VP 
 pwf 
ct  
 t 
pwf
: The slope of the straight-line Pwf vs. t plot on ordinary Cartesian
t graph paper.
 The graph of Pwf vs. t is a straight line once pseudo steady-
state is achieved
 It is important to remember, that these equations apply only to
closed. or volumetric, reservoirs (i.e . they are not valid if
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 producing rate 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

Pi  Pwf 162.6 B   1688C t rw 2  

 log    0.0869s   negligible .terms
q kh   kt  
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 kh from

B
kh  162.6
m
and

 Pi  Pwf  1  k  
s  1.151    log  2 
 3.23
 q 1hr m   C t rw  
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;

 the first step 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
B

162.6  0.8 1.136 
 7.44md
m  0.288 69 
and
 Pi  Pwf  1  k  
s  1.151    log  2 
 3.23
 q 1hr m   C t rw  
 3.04  7.44  
 1.151   log    3.23  6.02
 0.288   0.039  0.8 17  10   0.198 
6 2

   
Since Cs ≈ 0.0106 bbl/psi, as in previous Example ,

twbs 
 200000  12000s C S
kh

 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.

162.6q  B   1688C t rw 2  
Pi  Pwf  log    0.0869s 
kh   kt  

162.6q  B  k 
  log t  log  3.23  0.0869s 
kh  C t rw 2


 m q  log t  s 
where
B s  log
k
 3.23  0.0869s
m   162.6 &
kh C t rw 2
 For n rates and for t > t n-1 application of superposition leads to

Pi  Pwf  m q1  log t  s   m  q 2  q1   log t  t 1   s 

 m  q 3  q 2  log t  t 2   s   ...

 m  q n  q n 1  log t  t n 1   s 

 This can be written more compactly as

Pi  Pwf
 m 
n
 q j  q j 1 
log t  t j 1   m s , q n  0
qn j 1 qn

In which qo = 0 and t0 = 0.
 In terms of more fundamental quantities,

Pi  Pwf
 m 
n
 q j  q j 1  
log t  t j 1   m  log
k 
 3.23  0.0869s 
 C t rw
2
qn j 1 qn 

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

Pi  Pwf  m q1  log t  s   m  q 2  q1  log t  t 1   s 

   m  q n 1  q n  2  log t  t n  2   s 

m q n 1 log t  t n 1   s 

B n
 162.6
kh
 q
j 1
j  q j 1  log t  t j 1 
 The reservoir must be infinite acting for the total time elapsed t since
the well began producing at rate ql .
Pressure Build up Test Preceded by
Two Different flow Rates

Pi  Pws  m  q1 log t  q 2  q1  log t  t 1   q 2 log t  t 2 

q 2  B q1  t   t  t1 
Pi  Pws  162.6 log    log  
kh q 2  t  t 1   t  t 2 

t  t 2  t t1  t p1
t 2  t p1  t p 2 t  t p 1  t p 2  t
 Then

q 2  B q1  t p 1  t p 2  t   t p 2  t 
Pi  Pws  162.6 log    log  
kh q 2  t p 2  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 : t 1  t p 1  & t  t p 1  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
 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 pressure stabilizes 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

2 2 2
 A plot of p  p  pwf vs. qg on log-log paper is approximately
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

q g  C  p  pwf
2

2 n
 C  p 
2 n

Where :
 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

p 2
 pwf 2 
 We plot vs. qg the result (for pseudo steady-state
qg
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 _ Pwf 2 ) vs. q, on log-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 _ Pwf 2 )/qg , vs. qg for the test
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, we will 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
slope should be established for each isochronal deliverability
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 - pwf2)s] determine a

from
 p 2  pwf 2   bq gs 2 
a s 
q gs
3. The stabilized deliverability curve uses the constants
determined in Steps 1 and 2:

p 2  pw f 2
 aq g  bq g 2

 This equation can be used to calculate the AOF, :

a  a 2  4b ( p 2  14.7 2 )
AOF 
2b

 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 approximation to p¯ in the test
analysis procedure.
 For the first flow period, use (p¯2_ Pwf ,12 ) = (Pws,12 - Pwf ,12 )
for the second flow period, use (Pws,22 -Pwf,22 ). Otherwise, the
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.

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.
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.