ENM200 Well Testing Notes

PgDip/Msc Energy Programme/ Subsurface Well Testing
Robert Gordon University Page 1 of 25

Well Testing
Summary
This topic reviews:
- Purpose of Well Testing
- Appraisal, Exploration and Development Well Testing
- Transient Well Test Analysis
o Essential Equations
o Pressure Drawdown and Pressure Buildup Tests
o Type Curve Analysis
o Gas Well Testing
o Deliverability Testing
o Drill Stem Testing
Table of Contents
Summary .................................................................................................. 1
Table of Contents ....................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 2
2. Purpose of Well Testing......................................................................... 2
2.1 Appraisal/Exploration Well Testing.................................................... 2
2.2 Development Well Testing............................................................... 5
3. Transient Well Test Analysis - Fundamentals............................................ 5
3.1 Radial Flow Equation........................................................................... 5
3.2 Pressure Response ............................................................................. 7
3.3 Pressure Drawdown Analysis................................................................ 9
3.4 Pressure Buildup Analysis.................................................................. 12
3.5 Type Curve Analysis ......................................................................... 16
3.6 Gas Well Testing .............................................................................. 19
3.7 Deliverability Testing ........................................................................ 21
3.8 Drill Stem Testing ............................................................................ 22
4. Example Calculations.......................................................................... 23
Horner Pressure Buildup Analysis............................................................. 23
References .............................................................................................. 25
1. Introduction
There are a number of different sources and techniques available to help generate a
comprehensive description of the reservoir in order to make important development decisions and
reliable performance predictions.
Some of the most important are:
- Geophysical and Geological Studies.
- Well Drilling Data; Core analysis and Log interpretation.
- Pressure Testing of Wells.
It is essential that information from these different areas is brought together to assess and
compare when generating a description of the reservoir. This will help eliminate inconsistencies
in the data, minimise assumptions and provide the most complete representation of the reservoir.
Pressure testing of wells involves inducing pressure changes in the reservoir by flowing (and
closing in) a production well and measuring the resultant pressure response. Pressure testing
can also be carried during injection into a well and is termed injectivity testing.
The pressures are measured on a gauge in the wellbore. The wellbore flowing pressure (p
wf
) and
the wellbore static (shut-in) pressure (p
ws
) are recorded as a function of time.
These rate, time and wellbore pressure measurements are then interpreted to determine
reservoir pressure, reservoir size and productivity.
2. Purpose of Well Testing
2.1 Appraisal/Exploration Well Testing
Most offshore exploration and appraisal well tests are designed to measure or determine the
following:
- Initial Reservoir Pressure (p
i
psia)
The initial reservoir pressure can be determined from a pressure buildup plot,
although it is more routinely obtained by running an MDT (Modular Dynamic Tester
proprietary name for Schlumbergers tool).
- Production Rate (Oil, q
o
stb/d)
The production rate is essential in determining the commercial viability of the
accumulation.
- Collection of Fluid Samples
The importance of collecting reliable fluid samples cannot be overemphasized since
the PVT properties are used in virtually all reservoir engineering calculations:
determination of hydrocarbons initially in place, the behaviour of the reservoir
during production, the recovery efficiency and design of the surface facilities.
- Skin Factor (S, dimensionless)
The skin factor, S, is a dimensionless number that represents the level of formation
damage caused while drilling and completing a well. This damage affects the
efficiency with which a well can produce. In appraisal wells the damage could be
substantial and must be determined in order to evaluate the performance of future
development wells which will be designed and drilled to eliminate formation damage.
This will help determine the number of wells required to develop the accumulation.
A wells performance is defined by its Productivity Index (PI) which is the ratio of a
wells production rate to its drawdown at that particular rate. The drawdown is the
difference between the flowing bottom hole pressure and the wells static pressure.
Basically, the higher the PI, the more productive the well for a given drawdown.
Ways to increase a wells PI include skin removal, fraccing and horizontal drilling.
During a well test the observed productivity index of a well can be defined by
Equation 2.1.
psi / d / stb
p - p
q
Drawdown Pressure
Rate Oil
PI
wf i
o
= =
EQUATION 2.1
Where:
q
o
is the oil rate (stb/d).
P
i
is the initial reservoir pressure (psia).
P
wf
is the wellbore flowing pressure (psia).
In Equation 2.1 the total drawdown includes p
skin,
the additional pressure drop
across the damaged zone (reduced permeability zone). Its effect on flowing bottom
hole pressure is shown in Figure 2.1 and it is defined in terms of the dimensionless
skin factor, S, in Equation 2.2.
psi S
h k
B q
141.2 p
o o
skin
=
EQUATION 2.2
Where:
q
o
is the oil rate (stb/d).
is oil viscosity (cp).
B
o
is the oil formation volume factor (rb/stb).
k is the average effective permeability to oil in the presence of irreducible water (mD).
h is the effective formation thickness contributing to flow (ft).
S is the skin factor (dimensionless).
Figure 2.1 Effect of p
skin
on flowing bottom hole pressure
- Reservoir Characteristics
Permeability
The permeability of the formation determined from well testing is the average,
effective permeability to oil in the presence of irreducible water. It can be used to
match or predict well performance using analytical or numerical simulation
techniques.
Its value is normally smaller than the permeability value obtained from routine core
analysis which is the absolute permeability of the reservoir rock. The absolute
permeability is defined as a measure of the ability of the permeable rock to transmit a
fluid when only one fluid is present in the rock.
Fractured and Layered Reservoirs (Dual Porosity Systems)
Naturally fractured reservoirs in which there is a connected network of fractures and
surrounding supporting system (the matrix) are often described as classic dual
porosity reservoirs. Dual porosity systems consist of two porous regions which
exhibit markedly different properties. In the case of fractured reservoirs the
connected network of fractures feeds fluid to the well and the matrix supplies the
fracture network.
Two layer reservoirs can also be described as dual porosity systems. In this case a
low permeability or tight layer would be adjacent to a much higher permeability zone.
Well test interpretation in these two cases is more complex than reservoirs which
exhibit homogeneous behaviour.
- Reservoir Boundaries
Reservoir boundaries (faults) and pressure depletion can be determined from
pressure buildup analysis.
Hydrocarbon contacts may also be inferred if there is a significant mobility contrast
between the fluids.
p
wf
Log r
p
s
Formation
Damaged
Zone
r
w
2.2 Development Well Testing
Most development well tests are designed to monitor reservoir pressure trends and determine
changes to formation parameters for reservoir management purposes:
- Reservoir Pressure
The average pressure ( p ) within the drainage area of an individual well can be
determined from pressure buildup tests. Average pressure decline trends for
individual wells and the reservoir system can then be monitored and history matched
using material balance and numerical simulation techniques.
- Skin Factor
Changes in the magnitude of the skin factor of a well can be monitored from regular
pressure buildup tests. Large skin factors could then be reduced or eliminated by
remedial workover treatments to improve the wells productivity.
- Productivity Index
Changes in a wells flow efficiency can be monitored from regular pressure buildup
tests.
- Effective Permeability
Changes to the effective permeability of development wells can be monitored from
regular pressure buildup tests. A reduction in permeability could be attributed to
reservoir compaction in depletion drive developments. The effectiveness of
stimulation treatments could also be regularly monitored by assessing changes in the
effective permeability.
3. Transient Well Test Analysis - Fundamentals
3.1 Radial Flow Equation
Most pressure analysis techniques are based on solutions to the radial diffusivity equation shown
in Equation 3.1 This equation models how pressure changes with location and time. It is given in
radial form to represent the flow of fluids into a wellbore. (For full derivation of this equation see
Ref 2, Chapter 5 or Ref 3, Chapter 2)
t
p
k
c
0.000264
1
r
p
r
1
r
p
t
2
2
c
c |
=
c
c
+
c
c
EQUATION 3.1
Where:
p = pressure, psi
r = radial distance, ft
c
t
= total compressibility, psi
-1
= fluid viscosity, cp
k = effective permeability, mD
| = porosity, fraction
t = time, hours
This linearised differential equation assumes horizontal fluid (liquid) flow, negligible gravity effects
and a homogeneous, isotropic formation. It assumes that the well is perforated across the entire
formation thickness and the pore space is 100% saturated with any fluid. It also assumes that the
fluid has a constant viscosity and a small and constant compressibility. It combines the basic
physical principles of mass conservation, Darcys law and isothermal compressibility.
Darcys law is defined as a measure of the ability of the permeable rock to transmit a fluid when
only one fluid is present in the rock. It is a measure of the ease of flow of a fluid through a porous
medium and for one dimensional linear horizontal flow Darcys law (in Darcy units) is:
cm length L
cp viscosity fluid
atm pressure p
cm flow to area sectional cross A
D Darcy, ty, permeabili k
cc/sec rate flow q
L
p
kA
q
2
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
And can be expressed in field units as;
rb/stb factor volume formation oil
o
B
cp viscosity fluid
psi/ft gradient pressure
l
p
ft flow to area sectional cross A
mD ty permeabili k
stb/d rate production q
l
p
o
B
kA
1.127x10 q
2
3
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Field units of permeability are Darcy, D and milliDarcy, mD, (Darcy/1000).
Equations similar in form to Equation 3.1 are encountered in the theory of diffusional transport
processes, for example in heat conduction and equations of this type are referred to as diffusivity
equations.
The quantity:
c
k
t
|
is known as the hydraulic diffusivity constant and its magnitude determines
the depth of investigation into the reservoir as observed by the pressure response during the
test.
3.2 Pressure Response
Solutions to the radial diffusivity equation (Equation 3.1) are dependent on the initial and
boundary conditions imposed in the well test. One important solution is known as the Constant
Terminal Rate (CTR) solution and it forms the basis of other more complicated solutions.
This solution describes the pressure response observed on a gauge located in the wellbore of a
well that has been produced at a constant rate, q, from time t = 0. It is the equation of bottom
hole flowing pressure (p
wf
) versus time for constant rate production for any value of flowing time.
The CTR solution can then be described for two extreme outer boundary conditions; the Bounded
Reservoir System and the Steady State System (Open outer boundary) as discussed below.
Bounded Reservoir System
The flowing bottom hole pressure (BHP) response for a closed system for the constant terminal
rate solution is shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2 Decline in bottom hole flowing pressure for a bounded system
In this case the pressure declines continuously and can be described by three different periods;
transient, late transient and semisteady State (sometimes called pseudo-steady state) each
corresponding to a specific physical state of the reservoir.
In the transient flow period the wellbore pressure response is unaffected by any faults or
boundaries in the reservoir. This period is also called the Infinite Acting Radial Flow (IARF)
period.
The most common values calculated from the transient flow period are the effective
permeability, the skin factor and the initial reservoir pressure. These values together with
the shape and size of the drainage area can be used to calculate or predict the well
production rate for different flowing bottomhole pressures, p
wf
.
In the late transient flow period the wellbore pressure response is affected by the reservoir
boundaries. Both the shape of the drainage area and the location of the well with respect to the
boundaries may influence the pressure response.
In the semi-steady state flow period the wellbore pressure response is affected by all the outer
boundaries in the reservoir and for a constant production rate, the rate of change of pressure with
respect to time is constant i.e.
constant
t d
p d
wf
=
In an appraisal well test this pressure response may indicate the presence of a very small
hydrocarbon volume.
In a producing field, equilibrium between the production from all wells may be reached and for
each well pseudo-steady state flow will occur within the well drainage area. The analysis of
pressure behaviour in non-symmetrical drainage systems involves a shape dependent constant,
C
A
, known as a Dietz shape factor.
Steady State Reservoir System
The flowing bottom hole pressure response for a steady state system for the constant terminal
rate solution of the radial diffusivity equation is shown in Figure 3.3.
Time, t
Late Transient
Transient
Semi-Steady State
Pressure, p
wf
Figure 3.3 Steady-state wellbore pressure response
In this case, after the initial transient pressure drop, the pressure at the wellbore and throughout
the whole system does not vary with time, i.e.
0
t d
p d
=
This pressure response can be observed for the following systems:
- The reservoir is completely recharged by a strong aquifer.
- In high flow capacity reservoirs.
- In reservoirs with a gas-cap.
- When injection and production are balanced (total voidage replacement).
3.3 Pressure Drawdown Analysis
A pressure drawdown test involves producing a well at a constant rate from time t = 0, after it has
been shut in. Bottom hole flowing pressures are then continuously measured as a function of
time. This is known as a single-rate drawdown test and the rate schedule and pressure response
for this test is shown in Figure 3.4.
Variable rate testing involves flowing the well at a series of different rates (increasing or
decreasing) for different periods of time. A rate schedule and resulting pressure response for an
example multi-rate test is shown in Figure 3.5.
Time, t
Transient
Steady-state
Pressure, p
wf
0
dt
p d
=
Figure 3.4 Rate and bottom hole pressure response for singlerate test
Figure 3.5 Rate and bottom hole pressure response for multirate test
In pressure drawdown analysis during the purely transient pressure response, the constant
terminal rate solution of the radial diffusivity equation can be approximated by the line-source
solution, also known as the exponential integral solution. A detailed review of this solution can
be found in References 1,2,3 and 4.
The solution results in the following familiar form of the pressure drawdown equation (Equation
3.2) for the transient flow period:
BHP, p
wf
Time, t
t = 0
Rate, q
Time, t
q = 0
Closed -In
Producing
t = 0
Rate, q
Time, t
BHP, p
wf
Time, t
0.87S 3.23 -
r c
k
log t log
h k
B q 162.6
- p p
2
w t
i wf
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
+
=
EQUATION 3.2
Where:
p = pressure, psi
q = flow rate, stb/d
B = formation volume factor, rb/stb
c
t
= total compressibility, psi
-1
h = formation thickness, ft
| = porosity, fraction
= fluid viscosity, cp
r = radial distance, ft
S = skin factor, dimensionless
t = time, hours
Equation 3.2 can be rearranged to give a straight line relationship between p
wf
and log t as:
hr) (1 wf wf
p t Log m p + =
The semilog plot of pwf vs log t is shown in Figure 3.6. Any deviation from the straight line during
the very early time period could be attributed to wellbore storage effects. Wellbore storage
effects make the very early transient pressure behave as though it were reflecting production only
from the expansion of the fluid in the wellbore rather than the formation.
Deviation from the straight line during the late time period can be attributed to boundary effects as
they interrupt the infinite acting pressure behaviour and the system moves into semi-steady state
behaviour.
Figure 3.6 Semilog plot of flowing pressure performance
From this semilog straight line plot the slope, m is:
BHP, p
wf
Log t
Infinite acting,
Transient period
Early time,
Wellbore Storage
Late time,
Boundary effects
cycle log / psi
h k
B q 162.6
- m

=
From which the permeability thickness product, kh can be obtained.
The skin factor can be obtained from the value of p
wf
taken from the straight line for a flowing time
of one hour and solving Equation 3.2 to give:
3.23
r c
k
log -
m
p - p
1.151 S
2
w t
i hr) (1 wf
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
=
Multi-Rate Testing and the Principle of Superposition
The analysis presented above assumes a constant rate production history. In practice
maintaining a constant flow rate is difficult and analysing more complex variable rate histories is
possible using the Principle of Superposition. Basically this principle states that it is
mathematically possible to generate the solution of a complex problem by combination of the
simpler linear solutions.
In well testing superposition in time is used to account for flow rate changes (including zero rate
when the well is shut-in) and superposition in space is used to account for multiple wells and
different boundaries. Superposition is also known as Convolution.
Reservoir Limit Testing
The flow period of a drawdown test can be extended to increase the reservoir volume
investigated by the test. If produced for long enough the test can be used to estimate the initial
oil in place. Once a semi-steady state pressure decline has been established the slope, m*, of
the straight line section of a plot of p
wf
versus t may be used to estimate the connected reservoir
drainage volume using the following equation:
* m c
B q
0.234 - h A
t
o
= | Where Ah is the net rock volume in cuft
and the STOIIP, N, can be estimated from:
STOIIP =
* m B c
) S 1 ( B q
0.0417 -
oi t
wc o

3.4 Pressure Buildup Analysis
A pressure buildup test involves shutting in a producing well and recording the closed in pressure
as a function of time. It is probably one of the most extensively used transient well testing
procedures. The rate schedule and pressure response for this test are shown in Figure 3.7.
Figure 3.7 Rate and pressure response for a buildup test
There are a number of ways of analysing the results of a buildup test, one of the most well known
being the Horner method. The buildup test rate schedule is the simplest form of a two rate test
in which the second rate is zero and analysis involves the principle of superposition.
Horner Buildup Analysis
If the producing time, t
p
was long enough to establish infinite acting radial flow (IARF) then the
Horner pressure buildup equation (for IARF flow) is given by Equation 3.3:
t
t t
log
h k
B q 162.6
- p t) ( p
p
i ws
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
A +
= A
EQUATION 3.3
Where:
p = pressure, psi
q = flow rate, stb/d
B = formation volume factor, rb/stb
h = formation thickness, ft
t = time, hours
Equation 3.3 describes a straight line with intercept p
i
and slope m. It is known as the Horner
Buildup Plot or Semilog Plot:
(Wellbore Static Pressure)
Rate
Time
q
t
p
t
Time
Pressure
p
i
p
wf
p
ws
t
p
t
t
t t
log m - p t) ( p
p
i ws
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
A +
= A
The permeability-thickness product can be calculated from:
ft mD
m
B q 162.6
kh

=
Using the superposition principle means that the skin factor does not appear in the pressure
buildup equation but it can still be obtained from the buildup data and the flowing pressure prior to
the buildup as:
3.23
r c
k
log -
t
1 t
log
m
p - p
1.151 S
2
w t
p
p 0) t ( wf hr) (1 ws
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
| +
+ =
= A
Where p
ws(1 hr)
is obtained from the straight line portion of the pressure buildup curve 1 hour after
shut-in, m is the slope of the linear buildup (psi/log cycle) and p
wf
is the final flowing pressure.
This skin factor equation can be used if the producing time, t
p
is of the order of 1 hour (as in
drillstem testing), for much larger flowing times the term: log (( t
p
+ 1) / t
p
), can be omitted.
The Horner Buildup plot is shown in Figure 3.8. The initial part of the plot is non-linear due to
wellbore storage effects. The extrapolated buildup pressure, p
*
has no real physical meaning
except in the infinite reservoir case where the pressure would continue to build up in infinite
acting radial flow to the initial reservoir pressure.
Of course no reservoir is infinite, but if the production volume prior to the buildup was negligible
compared to the oil in place then; p
*
~ p
i
~ p . Where p is the average drainage area pressure.
Figure 3.8 Horner Buildup Plot
t
t t
log
p
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
A +
p
ws
Small t
kh
B q 162.6
m

=
p
*
p
(1 Hr)
Miller-Dynes-Hutchinson (MDH) Buildup Analysis
Another well known technique for analysing the results of a transient build up test is that of Miller,
Dynes and Hutchinson (MDH).
The MDH buildup analysis involves plotting p
ws
(or the pressure change, p) versus log t as
shown in Figure 3.9. This can be carried out when the producing time (t
p
) is significantly greater
than the shut in time (t).
The slope of the straight line (m), gives the permeability-thickness product which is identical to
that obtained from the Horner plot:
ft mD
m
B q 162.6
kh

=
and the skin factor (which for the MDH method is independent of the producing time, t
p
), can be
calculated as:
3.23
r c
k
log -
m
p - p
1.151 S
2
w t
0) t ( wf hr) (1 ws
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
=
= A
Where p
ws(1 hr)
is obtained from the straight line portion of the pressure buildup curve 1 hour after
shut-in, m is the slope of the linear buildup (psi/log cycle) and p
wf
is the final flowing pressure.
The initial part of the plot is non-linear due wellbore storage effects. The linear buildup trend can
be extrapolated to give the initial reservoir pressure, p
i
in an initial well test (infinite-acting
reservoir).
Figure 3.9 MDH Buildup Plot
Radius of Investigation (Drainage)
The radius of investigation is defined as the distance seen into the reservoir when infinite acting
(transient) flow conditions exist. It is defined as:
t
inv
c
t k
0.03 r
|
=
p
ws
Shut in time, log t
kh
B q 162.6
m Slope

= =
End of wellbore
storage
p
i
Where r
inv
is the radius of investigation in feet and t is the total producing or closed in time in
hours during infinite acting radial flow.
Fault Detection
Single faults or a system of faults (boundaries) can be detected from various types of well test
and are determined using the method of images, (Ref 5). An example Horner buildup plot for a
single linear fault is shown in Figure 3.13.
In this plot the permeability and skin factor can be obtained in the usual way from the infinite
acting flow period (first straight line). The doubling of the slope then indicates the presence of a
single sealing fault. The distance to the fault can be estimated from:
t
x
c
t k
0.01217 d
|
A
=
Where d is the distance to the fault in feet and t
x
(the closed in time in hours) is the point at
which the two semilog straight lines intersect.
Figure 3.13 Horner plot for buildup data (Single fault case)
3.5 Type Curve Analysis
Many of the analysis techniques used in modern well testing software packages are based on
type curve interpretation.
Early type curve matching involved plotting dimensionless pressure versus a dimensionless
time group on a log-log scale. This could be carried out for either drawdown or buildup pressure
responses.
t
t t
log
p
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
A +
p
ws
Slope = m
Slope = 2m
Dimensionless pressure is defined as:
( ) p - p
B q 141.2
h k
p
i D
=
and the dimensionless time group as:
C
t h k
0.000295
C
t
D
D
A
=
Where C
D
is the dimensionless wellbore storage constant and C is the wellbore storage
constant which is a measure of the wells capacity to store fluid.
The technique of converting variables into their dimensionless form is a well known
technique which simplifies the mathematics involved in solving complex equations. In the
case of well test interpretation the technique helps simplify solutions of the radial diffusivity
equation.
The type curve analysis technique is possible because the actual pressure response has the
same shape as the dimensionless pressure response on a log-log scale. Matching the data
involves plotting actual pressure differences as a function of time and overlying the plot on pre-
defined dimensionless type curves. The matched data can then be used to determine the
permeability and skin factor from the infinite acting radial flow period. (Although the skin factor is
not defined in the dimensionless parameters given above, pre-defined type curves have been
generated for specific values of the grouped term,
2S
D
e C , from which the skin factor can be
obtained)
A set of pre-defined log-log type curves are shown in Figure 3.10 where the approximate start of
the semi-log straight line refers to the beginning of infinite acting radial flow (IARF).
This early type curve analysis had various shortcomings including poor resolution of the log scale
and was improved significantly by the addition of the derivative type curve which is the current
technique used for flow regime diagnostics.
Figure 3.10 Log-log type curves (from A.C. Gringarten, SPE Paper 8205, 1979)
Derivative Type Curve Analysis
The reservoir properties of permeability and skin factor have been determined from semilog
(Horner, MDH) or log-log graphs of pressure versus time. It is also possible to determine
reservoir characteristics from techniques which are based on the rate of change of pressure with
time. This type curve matching involves matching a derivative type curve where the derivative is
the slope of the semilog plot presented on a log-log scale, (Figure 3.11).
On the derivative plot in Figure 3.11 the early time wellbore storage is seen as a unit slope
straight line, (m1). The infinite acting radial flow (IARF) period is shown as m2, a horizontal line,
which makes identifying this flow period much easier than on the semi-log plot. Figure 3.11 also
shows late time effects as a unit slope, m3.
The matched data can then be used to determine the permeability and skin factor from the infinite
acting radial flow period and also help define flow regimes. Figure 3.12 depicts various flow
regimes during early, middle and late time pressure responses.
Figure 3.11 Semilog and derivative type curve.
Figure 3.12 Derivative type curves showing various flow regimes
Derivative type curves are routinely used in well test analysis and are considered to be
one of the key techniques for flow regime diagnostics. All modern software packages
available for pressure transient analysis are based on identifying flow regimes in order to
generate the most appropriate model which can be used to help predict future well
performance.
t
Early Time
Near Wellbore
Middle Time
Reservoir
Late Time
Boundaries
Constant-pressure
Outer Boundary
Dual Porosity
(Infinite acting)
Radial flow
W
e
llb
o
r
e
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
L
in
e
a
r
F
lo
w
(F
ra
c
tu
re
,
H
o
riz
o
n
ta
l
W
e
ll)
Pressure
Derivative
p
m1
m3
m2
IARF
t t
Pressure Derivative Plot
m3
m2
IARF
m1
Semilog Plot
Semilog straight line
Another interpretation technique routinely used is that of Deconvolution. This is the reverse of
superposition. Basically, deconvolution is the conversion of a variable rate pressure profile into
an equivalent constant rate production sequence. It is a way of reconstructing the transient
pressure behaviour often hidden in well test data due to flow rate variation. The technique is
extremely sensitive to the quality of the actual pressure and rate data available and is mainly
used to complement other analysis techniques.
3.6 Gas Well Testing
The analysis techniques used for gas well testing are similar to those available for oil well testing.
In gas well testing, interpretation techniques also account for the change in gas properties with
pressure and Non-Darcy flow. Non-Darcy or turbulent flow near the wellbore occurs due to an
increase in gas velocity and results in an additional pressure drop that is treated as skin. This
skin due to turbulence is rate dependent and multi-rate testing is required to quantify its value to
give the apparent total skin as:
Apparent total skin = Damage skin factor (S) + Rate dependent skin (DQ)
Where D is the Non-Darcy flow coefficient, (1/(Mscf/d)) and Q is the gas flow rate, (Mscf/d)
To account for the effect of changing gas properties the real gas pseudopressure, m(p) in
psia
2
/cp is used. (A full review of the real gas pseudopressure is given in Ref 2, Chapter 8).
Various multi-rate testing schedules are used in gas well testing to determine the permeability
and total skin factor, one of the simplest being a flow period followed by a buildup which is
followed by a second flow period as shown in Figure 3.14. (From Ref 2, Chapter 8)
Figure 3.14 Gas well test: Rate schedule and bottom hole pressure response.
Rate, Q
Q
1
t t
t
1
t
t
max
Q
2
Bottom
hole
pressure
t
1
t
max
t t
p
wf
p
ws
Analysis of Buildup Period
The Horner buildup plot of m(p
ws
) versus log ((t + t) / t ) for the shut-in period gives the slope of
the straight line section as:
cycle log / cp / psia
h k
T Q 1637
m Slope,
2 1
|
.
|
\
|
=
Where Q
1
is the first gas flow rate in Mscf/d and T is the temperature in Deg R.
The total skin factor can be determined (from the buildup data) as:
3.23
r ) c (
k
log -
m
) m(p - ) m(p
1.151 DQ S S
2
w i t
0) t ( wf hr) (1 ws
1
1
'
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
= + =
= A
The linear trend can be extrapolated to give m(p
i
) from which the initial reservoir pressure can be
calculated.
Analysis of Flow Periods
The early transient pressure responses from each flow period can be analysed to estimate the
permeability and total skin factors from which the damage and rate dependent skin factors can be
determined. Semilog plots of m(p
wf
) versus log t for each flow period give the slope of the
straight line section as:
cycle log / cp / psia
h k
T Q 1637
m Slope,
2
|
.
|
\
|
=
from which the permeability can be calculated and compared to the value obtained from the
buildup analysis.
The total skin factors for each flow period can be calculated from the following equations:
( )
3.23
r ) c (
k
log -
m
p m - ) m(p
1.151 DQ S S
2
w i t
hr 1 wf i
1
1
'
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
= + =
( )
3.23
r ) c (
k
log -
m
p m - ) m(p
1.151 DQ S S
2
w i t
hr 1 wf hr 1
ws
'
2
2
'
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
= + =
Where m(p
wf
) is determined for t = 1 hour and m(p
ws
) is determined from extrapolating the linear
trend on the buildup plot to one hour after the shut-in period has ended.
From these total skin factor equations the damage skin factor and the rate dependent skin factor
can then be determined.
3.7 Deliverability Testing
Deliverability testing of oil and gas wells is carried out to provide an estimate of well performance
against specific bottom hole flowing pressures including atmospheric pressure. This type of test
evaluates the ability of a well to deliver and not the characteristics of the reservoir. The estimates
can be used in inflow performance relationship (IPR) calculations for oil wells and as the absolute
open hole flow (AOF) potential of a gas well; the maximum gas rate when the back pressure at
the sandface is zero.
One type of deliverability test for an oil well is a flow after flow test. This is where the well is
produced at a certain rate until a stable flowing bottom hole pressure is reached. The rate is then
increased or decreased and again kept constant until the pressure stabilises. Data from this test
can provide the inflow performance relationship (IPR) for the oil well as shown in Figure 3.15.
Above the bubble point pressure a straight line relationship exists between the bottom hole
flowing pressure and the flow rate which gives a constant Productivity Index (PI). Below the
bubble point pressure the wells deliverability can be predicted by the Vogel IPR.
Figure 3.15 Example IPR for Oil Well
Above the Bubble Point Pressure:
constant
p - p
q
PI
wf
= =
Where p is the average reservoir pressure.
Below the Bubble Point Pressure (Vogel IPR):
p
p
0.8 -
p
p
0.2 - 1
q
q
2
wf wf
max
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
In order to evaluate the AOF potential of a gas well, multi-rate testing is carried out to evaluate
non-darcy flow. One such multi-rate test is the modified isochronal flow test where the well is
produced then shut-in for equal times for a number of sequences followed by a final flow period to
a stabilised pressure.
q
Max. Flow Rate
p
wf
p
b
PI = constant
Vogel IPR
p
3.8 Drill Stem Testing
Drill stem tests (DST) are typically carried out in exploration wells to determine the possibility of
commercial production. The DST provides a temporary completion of the test interval.
A common test sequences involves:
- A short flow period of five or ten minutes
- A buildup period of one hour
- A flow period to establish stable flow
- A final shut-in period (approximately one and a half times as long as the final flow period).
The permeability and skin factor can be obtained by analysing the transient pressure data by the
various techniques described in the previous sections.
Drill stem testing is reviewed fully in the DST documentation and Well Test Manual provided by
EXPRO and will not be covered further in this section.
4. Example Calculations
Horner Pressure Buildup Analysis
An appraisal well is produced for 1 hour then shut-in for a pressure buildup. Production, pressure
and fluid data for the undersaturated reservoir are detailed below:
Oil Rate q = 1000 stb/d
Reservoir Thickness, h = 130 ft
Porosity, | = 35 %
Oil Viscosity, = 2.2 cp
Oil Formation Volume Factor, B
oi
= 2.1 rb/stb
Total compressibility, c
t
= (c
o
S
o
+ c
w
S
wc
+ c
f
) = 36 x 10
-6
psi
-1
Shut-In time
t (Hours)
Wellbore Pressure
P
ws
(psia)
t
t t
p
A
A +
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
A +
t
t t
log
p
0.0 1300 (Final P
wf
)
0.5 3375 3.00 0.477
1.0 3709 2.00 0.301
1.5 3809 1.67 0.222
2.0 3847 1.50 0.176
2.5 3865 1.40 0.146
3.0 3877 1.33 0.125
3.5 3887 1.29 0.109
4.0 3896 1.25 0.097
4.5 3901 1.22 0.087
5.0 3907 1.20 0.079
5.5 3912 1.18 0.073
6.0 3916 1.17 0.067
From these data the initial reservoir pressure, effective permeability and skin factor are
determined from the Horner buildup plot of p
ws
versus
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
A +
t
t t
log
p
shown below:
Effective permeability:
Slope of linear section (IARF) of semilog plot, m = 630.5 psi/log cycle.
mD
h m
B q 162.6
k

=
mD 9 k
mD
130 x 630.5
2.2 x 2.1 x 1000 x 162.6
k
=
=
Skin Factor:
3.23
r c
k
log -
t
1 t
log
m
p - p
1.151 S
2
w t
p
p 0) t ( wf hr) (1 ws
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
| +
+ =
= A
3.23
(0.3) x 10 x 36 x 2.2 x 35 . 0
9
log -
1
1 1
log
630.5
1300 - 3767
1.151 S
2 6 - |
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
| +
+ =
( )
1.0 S
3.23 6.557 - 0.301 3.913 1.151 S
=
+ + =
Initial Reservoir Pressure:
Extrapolation of the linear section (IARF),
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
A +
t
t t
log
p
to zero gives the initial reservoir pressure
as 3957 psia.
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
P
ws (1 hr) = 3767 psia
P
i
= 3957 psia
|
|
.
|
\
|
A
A +
t
t t
log
p
p
ws
References
1. The Practice of Reservoir Engineering (Revised Ed.), L.P. Dake, Elsevier, 2001
2. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, L.P. Dake, Elsevier, 1978
3. Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells, C.S. Matthews and D.G. Russell, SPE
Monograph, 1967
4. Advances in Well Test Analysis, R.C. Earlougher, SPE Monograph, 1977

ENM200 Well Testing Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENM200 Well Testing Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PgDip/Msc Energy Programme/ Subsurface Well Testing

Robert Gordon University Page 1 of 25

You might also like