Well Test Analysis

Section 1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................3
Purpose of this Chapter .................................................................................................................................4
Transient Pressure Response.........................................................................................................................4
Mathematical Basis for Pressure Analysis Methods .....................................................................................5
Flow of Oil (Constant Compressibility Liquid) ............................................................................................6
Basic Concepts and Terms ............................................................................................................................7
Flow of Gas ...............................................................................................................................................7
Total Compressibility ................................................................................................................................8
Types of Flow Regimes .............................................................................................................................8
Skin Effect ...............................................................................................................................................11
Flow Efficiency .......................................................................................................................................12
Wellbore Storage .....................................................................................................................................12
Principle of Superposition .......................................................................................................................14
Effect of Boundaries ................................................................................................................................15
Radius of Investigation............................................................................................................................16
Phase Redistribution ................................................................................................................................18
Production Well Testing: Types of Tests and Techniques of Analysis.......................................................19
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................19
Test Types................................................................................................................................................19
Pressure Drawdown Test .....................................................................................................................19
Pressure Buildup Test ..........................................................................................................................19
Drill Stem Testing (DST).....................................................................................................................20
Multi-rate Testing ................................................................................................................................20
Multi-well Testing................................................................................................................................20
Planning the Test .....................................................................................................................................20
Test Objectives ........................................................................................................................................20
Single Well Test Benefits ........................................................................................................................21
Leaks Near or in the Wellbore or Reservoir ........................................................................................21
Stimulation Treatments ........................................................................................................................21
Step-out Locations ...............................................................................................................................21
Time Decay of Performance ................................................................................................................21
Critical Flow Rates ..............................................................................................................................21
Detecting Impediments ........................................................................................................................21
Multi-well Test Benefits ..........................................................................................................................22
Communication....................................................................................................................................22
Competitive Production .......................................................................................................................22
Detecting Undrilled Reserves ..............................................................................................................22
Infill Drilling........................................................................................................................................22
Reserves in a Naturally Fractured Reservoir .......................................................................................22
Summary of Well Testing Benefits .........................................................................................................22
Establishing Test Procedures...................................................................................................................22
Reservoir Limits Tests.............................................................................................................................22
Quantitative Analysis Methods of Pressure Transient Tests ...................................................................23
Type Curves .........................................................................................................................................23
How to Use Type Curve Matching ......................................................................................................24

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1-1

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Characteristics of Type Curves ............................................................................................................25

1. Interference Type Curve (line source solutionFig. 1.19) .................................................................... 25
2.
3.

Pressure Drawdown Type Curve (unfractured reservoir)........................................................................ 25

Fractured Reservoir Type Curves............................................................................................................ 26

Characteristics of the fractured well type curves .................................................................................27

Semi-log Methods ................................................................................................................................30
The Mathematical Basis of the Semi-log Methods ......................................................................................... 30
Applying Semi-log Method to Drawdown/Fall-off Tests .............................................................................. 34
Applying Semi-log Method to Pressure Buildup Tests................................................................................... 34
MDH Plot (Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson plot) ...................................................................................................... 36
Type Curve Matching and Semi-log Method for Gas Reservoirs ................................................................... 37
Reservoir Limit Test ....................................................................................................................................... 39
Derivative Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 39
Dual Porosity Reservoirs................................................................................................................................. 39
Warren and Root Model.................................................................................................................................. 41
Kazemi Model................................................................................................................................................. 41
Definitions....................................................................................................................................................... 41

Derivative Plots for a Heterogeneous System .........................................................................................43

Gas Well Deliverability Testing ..............................................................................................................43
Backpressure Tests ..................................................................................................................................45
Rate-After-Rate Tests...................................................................................................................................... 45
Isochronal Tests .............................................................................................................................................. 45
Modified Isochronal Tests............................................................................................................................... 45

Pressure Transients and Backpressure Tests ...........................................................................................47

Backpressure Plots ...............................................................................................................................48
Effect of permeability and perforated interval .....................................................................................49
Nomenclature ..............................................................................................................................................51
Greek & Other Symbols ..........................................................................................................................51
References ...................................................................................................................................................52
General Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................54
DST Chart Interpretation and Analysis ...................................................................................................54
Production Well Testing ..........................................................................................................................54

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1-2

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

developments were introduced when Van

Everdingen and Hurst5 and Moore et al.6
introduced the concept of wellbore storage.
Shortly after, Hurst7 and Van Everdingen8
introduced the concept of wellbore skin factor.
Finally, Matthews et al.9 introduced an analytical
approach to calculate average reservoir
pressure from extrapolated pressure. The
solution was a function of reservoir area, shape,
and location of the well in the reservoir.

Introduction
The original idea of analyzing pressure versus
time data from a producing or shut-in well to
obtain information on the producing stratum first
appeared in hydrology. Hydrologists were mainly
interested in the behavior of underground water
flow in large aquifers. Shortly after, Theis1
published his pioneering work on fluid flow in
porous media, which included his point-source
solution, Muscat2 studied a problem more suited
to oil reservoirsthe eventual static pressure
behavior of a shut-in well in a closed oil
reservoir. When compared to the initial reservoir
pressure, this new static pressure can be used
to measure the quantity of hydrocarbons
produced up to the time of the test.

The period described above may be considered

the first phase of modern well test analysis. The
second phase of modern well test analysis may
be called type curve analysis," as compared to
the "semi-log straight line" phase described
above. This phase was pioneered by Ramey.
Numerous publications by Ramey10-13 and his
students, initially at Texas A&M and then at
Stanford University, made this technology
available and popular.

The need for a reliable quantitative analysis was

driven by economics. Accurate formation
permeability determination is needed to better
forecast reservoir production and, in turn, better
forecast cash flow. Determination of initial
reservoir pressure and drainage boundaries
gives us the information needed to determine
the amount of hydrocarbon in place.
Determination of well condition (skin factor)
enables us to predict how much expenditure is
needed to improve productivity and the expected
return of this workover.

The third phase of well test analysis is the

"derivative." This phase was initiated by Tiab
and Kumar.14,15 However, the technology was
made popular through a series of papers by
Bourdet.16-18 The derivative technology requires
higher precision pressure measurements that
were not available earlier. The derivative
technology has significantly improved model
recognition, which has led to a surge in model
development. For the first time it was possible to
determine various models with some degree of
certainty.

Since Muscat, literally thousand of papers have

been published on the analysis of pressure
tests. Several new pressure tests were devised
to determine specific reservoir parameter. This
explosion in literature was basically due to the
ease in which pressure behavior could be
measured and the enormous value of the
parameters calculated from these tests. Among
other useful information, pressure tests can be
used to estimate

how efficiently a well is completed

the need for and the success of a

stimulation treatment

the general type of well treatment desired

The fourth phase of well test analysis was the

development of "computer-aided analysis,"
which is essentially a nonlinear optimization
technique to match the observed data against
existing models.19-21 This development, although
it made analysis significantly easier and allowed
engineers to consider excessively complicated
situations, could be considered a double-edged
sword. Many times, because of the complexity of
the models considered, an analysis may not be
unique. The best way to overcome this
uniqueness problem is to consider information
from other sources, such as seismic, logging,
etc.

the degree of connectivity of one well to

another

The last phase is use of "knowledge-based

system/Neural network"22 to determine the
possible models that match the data. Which
model is the most realistic should probably be
determined from other information as previously
discussed.

Modern well test analysis started when Horner3

and Miller et al.4 presented their famous papers
where semi-log straight lines were introduced as
the first technique to analyze pressure tests.
Within a few years, other fundamental

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1-3

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Original models for well testing were basically

concerned with homogenous, isotropic systems
producing under radial flow conditions. Now,
well testing has been expanded tremendously to
consider a variety of complex models that
enhanced the applicability and usefulness of the
technology. These models include but are not
restricted to

Hydraulically fractured reservoir with infinite

or finite conductivity

Radially composite reservoirs

Hydraulically fractured radially composite

reservoir

Layered reservoir

Horizontal well model

Dual porosity models including the sugar

cube or layered models representing
naturally fractured systems

Fractured horizontal well model, both with

transverse or longitudinal fractures

Uniform flux model that approximates the

behavior of some the naturally fractured
reservoirs

weighted the parameters will be and the closer

they should be to the parameters that will apply
after the well is on production. This will allow you
to make better completion decisions and
economical projections for the well the well
under considerations.

Purpose of this Chapter

This chapter will show you how to use well
testing results to learn more about the reservoir.
By learning how to interpret test results, you can
make wise decisions about the future of the
well-reservoir system. You will also learn how to
plan and conduct a test to meet your specific
needs.
Production well tests are usually conducted after
completion of the well. Usually, before a
production well test, you already have some
qualitative information about reservoir
parameters from core analysis, well logging, and
drillstem testing (DST). This means that the
extent of sampling in the reservoir has been
relatively small. In production testing, you
sample a much greater portion of the reservoir
than in the other tests mentioned (Fig. 1.1).
DSTs and production well tests determine
several reservoir parameters under dynamic
(flowing) conditions; as a result, the larger the
extent of the sampling, the more properly

Log

Fig. 1.1Relative extent of the reservoir

sampled by cores, logs, drillstem tests, and
production well tests under normal conditions

decrease in rate. It could take the form of

shutting in a producing well (buildup test). It
could be also a result of putting a previously
closed-in well on production (drawdown test).
More elaborate tests can be designed involving
one or more wells and one or more rate
changes. A limited number of these tests will be
covered in this document: specifically,
drawdown, buildup, and interference tests.

Transient pressure response refers to the

pressure response as a function of time that
results from a change in a wells production rate.
This change could be as an increase or

2000, Halliburton

Pr oduction
T esting

C
o
r
e

Transient Pressure
Response

Halliburton

DST

1-4

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

In summary, pressure tests may be used for any

of the following reasons:
Determine formation permeability

Operations, advantages, and limitations of these

three tests will be discussed in a later section.
A well test analysis involves qualitatively and/or
quantitatively determining the system properties
from the measured response. This problem is
usually referred to as inverse problem, in direct
contrast to the direct problem. In direct problem,
the system is well defined and the system
response to an imposed change may be
calculated. Design of a well test is an example of
this direct problem.

Determine average formation pressure,

which may be used in material balance
calculations to determine recoverable
reserves

Detection of a permeability barrier in the

vicinity of wellbore

Determine the size of a reservoir

Porosity of the reservoir

The reverse problem, analysis of a well test, is

significantly more complicated. Except for the
simplest system, the response may not be
uniquely defined by a model. An analyst will
have to determine the most likely system that
matches the observed behavior. This should
not be done based on pressure-time behavior
alone. Other sources such as seismic, drilling
log, and well logging are extremely important in
producing a realistic picture of the reservoir. This
is especially true when analyzing some of the
complicated cases involving a combination of
the models listed above.

Determine condition of the well by

determining skin factor

Help in drilling and completion decision

making

In addition, pressure tests may be used before

or after a stimulation treatment to
Select stimulation candidates

Determine degree of success or failure of a

stimulation treatment

Properly design a stimulation treatment

Mathematical Basis for

Pressure Analysis
Methods

In other words, the inertia effect is not a factor in

fluid flow in porous media. Except in a few
cases, this assumption is usually valid. Only
conservation of mass is used to develop the
governing differential equations:

Except for flow near a high gas flow rate well,

fluid flow in a reservoir is usually laminar.
Extensive analysis of this type of flow in porous
media has been made. Coupled with knowledge
of physical properties of fluids and rock, fluid
flow theory forms the principal basis of for the
study of fluid flow in porous media. In this
section, the mathematical principles of this
theory are briefly discussed and presented. For
more details, please refer to SPE Monograph #1
by Matthews and Russel23 or SPE Monograph
#5 by Earlougher.24

....................................................................( 1.1)

[Mass rate in] [Mass rate out ] = [Mass storage rate]

For development of the governing differential

equation, the above equation is applied to an
infinitesimally small element.
Neglecting gravitational forces, Darcys equation
for laminar flow in porous media is

2000, Halliburton

k dp
....................................(1.2)
ds

Darcys equation may be used to express the

mass rate terms in Eq. 1.3. For a radial flow
system of constant thickness, taking the limits of
Eq. 1.3 as the element under consideration
approaches zero volume, Eq. 1.3 becomes

We will begin the mathematical description of

pressure analysis by showing a material balance
over a differential element of reservoir volume.
We will end up with the governing partial
differential equation describing how fluid flows in
the system. Because of the very low fluid flow
velocity, conservation of energy may be ignored.

Halliburton

1 rk p

= ( ) ....................(1.3)
r r r t

1-5

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

development will result in a separate differential

equation for each phase. In addition, equations
describing the interaction between the various
phases will also have to be developed. The
interaction equations are the mass conservation
of each phase, evolution of one phase into
another or solution of one phase into another. In
addition, the pressure of each phase is related
to other phases through the capillary pressure
relationship. Clearly, the multi-phase system is
considerably more complex than a single-phase
system. For simplification, the rest of this
chapter will be devoted to single-phase flow
only.

Equation 1.3 is the continuity equation under

radial flow conditions. The general three
dimensional form for fluid flow in a reservoir is
given in Eq. 1.4

kr

!
u p =

( )......................(1.4)
t

where:

+j
+k
x
y
z

Both Eqs. 1.3 and 1.4 assume single phase flow

in a porous media. Equations describing
multiphase flow have been developed in the
fashion given above. However, that

Equation 1.7 describes how a specific fluid

would flow in porous media. To generalize Eq.
1.7, the following dimensionless form for
pressure and time and radius are used:

Flow of Oil (Constant

Compressibility Liquid)

pD

Because the overwhelming majority of liquid

reservoirs are isothermal (fluid flow at a constant
temperature), density will be treated as a
function of pressure only. The isothermal
compressibility (hereafter called
compressibility) is defined in the following
equation of state:

c ( p p sc )

r
...........................................(1.10)
rw

2 pD 1 pD
+
2
rD rD
rD

pD
...................(1.11)
t D

Equation 1.11 is used to construct the general

solution of fluid flow through porous media. This
solution is in terms of the dimensionless
parameters pD, tD and rD. In other words the
solution would be independent of reservoir and
fluid properties. Thus using this general solution,
one could easily construct the solution for a
specific reservoir and fluid parameters. In this
case the differential Eq. 1.11, may be solved
only once and produced as a type curve. This
illustrates the importance of the use of
dimensionless parameters.

This is the equation of state for a constant

compressibility liquid. It applies reasonably well
for many liquids such as oil and water.
Equations 1.3 (radial flow) and 1.6 can be
simultaneously solved either analytically or
numerically to get the pressure distribution in a
radial flow system when a constant
compressibility liquid is flowing through the
porous medium. If the rock and fluid properties
are assumed to be constant, then substituting
Eq. 1.6 for density ( ) into Eq. 1.3 will yield the
following governing partial differential equation.

The assumptions implicitly used in constructing

the Eq. 1.11 are listed as follows.
1. Homogenous and isotropic permeability

c p
1 p
.....................(1.7)
r
=
r r r
k t

2000, Halliburton

0.0002637 kt
............................(1.9)
2
ct rw

Substituting Eqs. 1.8 and 1.9 into Eq. 1.7

produces the following dimensionless flow
equation:

................................(1.6)

Halliburton

rD

1
1
= ..............(1.5)
p
T p T

= sc e

khp
...............................(1.8)
141.2q

tD

If compressibility (C) is constant, Eq. 1.5 can be

solved using separation of variables, yielding
the following equation:

2.

1-6

Constant porosity

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

3.

Constant thickness

7.

Radial flow in reservoir

4.

Small and constant compressibility

8.

Laminar flow in reservoir

5.

Constant temperature

9.

Negligible gravity force

6.

Constant viscosity

10. Small pressure gradient

and z are evaluated at average

reservoir pressure ( p ) .
where

Basic Concepts and

Terms

Based on this approximation, Eq. 1.14 would be

identical to Eq. 1.7, except that the solution is in
2
terms of p instead of p. This simply means that
the techniques developed for liquid reservoirs
may be applied to gas reservoirs provided that
2
p is used in various plots instead of p. Of

In this section, some of the basic concepts

encountered in welltest analysis are explained.

Flow of Gas
Although many excellent equations of state are
available for gases, the one based upon the law
of corresponding states has achieved a wide
acceptance in petroleum reservoir engineering.
This is because it can be readily applied to multicomponent gases.
Using Eq. 1.12, the compressibility of real gas is
expressed as:

Z,
cp

0.01

For an ideal gas, the compressibility factor, z, is

unity and dz is 0, and the compressibility is
simply the reciprocal of pressure.
Substituting Eq. 1.13 into Eq. 1.14 results in the
following equation:

Solution of Eqs. 1.14 would yield the pressure

distribution in a gas reservoir. Remember that
because both viscosity and compressibility
factor are functions of pressure, Eq. 1.14 in its
existing form is nonlinear, which makes it
significantly more difficult to solve. In addition,
as will be explained later, superposition may not
be applied to non-linear equations. Therefore,
linearizing the gas flow equation is highly
desirable.

0
0

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

p, psia

Fig. 1.2Variation of p and Z with pressure.

30 0

20 0

10 0

There are two approaches to linearize Eq. 1.14.

First, at pressures below 1,000 psi, the viscositycompressibility product may be approximated as
follows:

z = z

z z
= Constant
= Constant

0.03

0.02

1 1 dz
...................................(1.13)
Cg =
p z dp

c p 2
1 r

.............(1.14)
p 2 =

r r z
kz t

Gas Gravity = 0.66

Reduced T emperature = 1.6

0.04

z, cp

pv = znRT ..........................................(1.12)

0.05

0
0

50 0

1,00 0

1,50 0

2,00 0

Fig. 1.3: m(p)-p curve for the gas in Figure 1.2.

1-7

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

course, conversion factors and analysis

equations would have to be modified to
correspond to the new plotting parameter.

regardless of the type of fluid, the same general

equation may be used to produce the pressure
behavior with time. Only when we convert the
solution into a dimensional form, the effect of the
type of fluid would appear through the use of the
dimensionless definition of pressure and time.

At pressures above 5,000 psi, the viscositycompressibility product is a linear function of

pressure (Fig. 1.2). Using this approximation,
the resulting governing differential equation
would be in terms of pressure.

Total Compressibility

Thus, if pressure is low, p may be used, and if

pressure is high, use of p in equations would be
acceptable. In the middle range neither one is
applicable.

The term ct , total compressibility, is generally

defined as

ct = co so + cw sw + cg sg + c f ..................(1.19)

A general approach to linearize Eq. 1.14 is to

use the transformation suggested by AlHussainy, et al.25

m( p ) =

The solution presented in the type curves later

on in this chapter assumes that a single-phase
fluid flows and occupies the pore space.
However, the above equation also allows for
non-flowing phases, such as connate water, to
be considered. Eqs. 1.19 can be simplified for
both oil and gas reservoirs. In oil reservoirs, if
the formation pressure is higher than the bubble
pressure for the crude oil, the free-gas phase
would not exist and Eq. 1.19 becomes

2p

z dp.............................(1.15)
0

Thus, the governing partial differential equation

of gas flow in a porous medium becomes:

c m( p )
1 m( p )
......(1.16)
r
=
r r
k
r
t

ct = co so + cw sw + c f .............................(1.20)

The function m(p) is usually called real gas

potential or gas pseudo-pressure. The
relationship between the pseudo pressure
function and pressure is given in Fig. 1.3.

On the other hand, in gas reservoirs the oil

phase does not exist, simplifying Eq. 1.19 to

The similarity between Eqs. 1.7 (equation for oil

and water flow) and 1.16 (equation for gas flow)
indicates that the solution for Eq. 1.7 can be
used as solution for the pseudo-pressure
distribution in a gas reservoir. Further, this
implies that all techniques developed for
analyzing the transient pressure behavior of an
oil well can be applied to a gas well if m(p) is
substituted for pressure.

But, because Cf and Cw Sw are usually much

smaller then CgSg, Eq. 1.21 may be
approximated by Eq. 1.22:

ct = cg s g + cw sw + c f ............................(1.21)

ct cg s g ..............................................(1.22)

Types of Flow Regimes

Although we will concentrate on radial flow
regime, there are other regimes that may exist
depending on reservoir and well condition.
Figure 1.4 illustrates some of these flow
regimes. Other flow regimes exist under
specialized conditions, such as finite
conductivity fractures and horizontal wells.

Equation 1.16 may be transformed to a

dimensionless form using dimensionless
pressure and time similar to the ones defined in
liquid case. Because of dependency of gas
properties on pressure, the dimensionless
pressure and time are defined as follows:

pD
tD

=
=

khm( p)
.............................(1.17)
1.424qT
0.0002637 kt
.........................(1.18)
2
i ci rw

Substituting the pD and tD definitions into Eq.

1.16 yields the dimensionless form of fluid flow
equation given earlier in Eq. 1.10. Thus,

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1-8

Radial - This flow pattern occurs in wells

located in infinitely large reservoirs. It can
also occur in a finite reservoir, provided the
effects of the reservoir boundaries on
pressure behavior have not been felt yet. In
radial flow, the stream lines are converging
towards the wellbore. The density of stream
lines per unit area increases as they get
closer to the wellbore. In other words the

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

fluid velocity increases as it gets closer to

the wellbore, causing a higher pressure drop
near the wellbore. This will cause a
logarithmic distribution of pressure versus
distance away from the wellbore. In extreme
case, the convergence of the stream lines
would cause flow to become turbulent,
causing an extra pressure drop that would
appear in the analysis as an extra skin
factor. The long term approximation of this
flow regime is logarithmic is p log(t ) .

hemispherical flow is p

Linear - This flow pattern occurs in

laboratory experiments when fluid is injected
at one end of a cylindrical core and it flows
in parallel stream lines through the uniformly
permeable sample. It also occurs at early
time of production around infinitely
conductive fractures, when fluid flows in
parallel stream lines into the fracture, then
flows in similar pattern in the fracture to the
wellbore. The long-term approximation of
this flow regime is

p t .

Spherical - In this flow regime, the stream

lines are converging towards the center of a
sphere. The iso-potential lines are spherical
in shape.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

Hemispherical -This flow regime may occur

if hydrocarbon is produced through a probe,
like and RFT (Repeat Formation Tester) or
SFT. This flow regime is similar to spherical
flow except that the sphere is cut in half.
Equations controlling both flow regimes are
essentially the same. The long term
approximation for both spherical and

1-9

1
.
t

Elliptical - This flow pattern occurs in a

fractured reservoir after the initial linear flow
has occurred in an infinitely conductive
fracture. This looks fairly similar to the radial
flow regime, except that the iso-potential
lines are elliptical shaped instead of circular.
This flow regime is usually difficult to
analyze, however it may be noticed from
Fig. 1.4 that as the outer ellipses become
less elongated. In other words after a
reasonably long time the ellipses may be
approximated by circles, and the flow is
termed pseudo-radial flow. At that point, the
radial flow equations are applied to this flow
regime with a negligible error. Thus the long
term approximation for this flow regime is
logarithmic, p log(t ) .

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Top View

Side View

A.

FLOW LINES

FLOW LINES

LINEAR

WELL

B.
ISOPOTENTIAL
LINES

WELL

FLOW LINES

RADIAL

WELL

C.
ISOPOTENTIAL
LINES

WELL

FLOW LINES
FLOW LINES
SPHERICAL

WELL

D.
ISOPOTENTIAL
LINES

FRACTURE

FLOW LINES

WELL
ELLIPTICAL

WELL

E.
ISOPOTENTIAL
LINES

WELL

FLOW LINES
FLOW LINES

Fig. 1.4Flow regimes.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 10

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Skin Effect

W ellbore

S tatic P ressu re

Usually, permeability of a formation is found to

be reduced near the wellbore as a result of
drilling and completion practices. Drilling fluid
invasion of the formation, dispersion of clay,
presence of a mud cake, and cement tend to
reduce formation permeability around the
wellbore. This same effect can be produced by a
decrease in the area of flow near the wellbore.
Thus, partial well penetration and limited
perforation or plugging of perforations would
also give the impression of a damaged
formation. Conversely, an inclined well or
formation increases the area of flow near the
wellbore, giving the impression of a stimulated
well (higher permeability around the wellbore).

P ressure in F orm ation

S kin or
Z one of
D a m age

k
rd

k 1 ln r

d
w

'
rw

= rw e s ............................................(1.25)

radius. If s is a negative value, the effective

wellbore radius would be larger than rw. If s is a
positive value, the effective wellbore radius
would be smaller than rw. Effective wellbore
radius is a term that was developed to describe
the radius of an equivalent well with skin factor
of zero. One can easily see from Eq. 1.25 that if
s is positive the effective wellbore radius,

'
rw , is

smaller than rw. Thus the damaged well under

consideration is equivalent to a well with zero
skin but smaller radius rw. Thus both real and
equivalent wells would have the same
productivity under the same pressure drop.
The concept of effective wellbore radius has
been used widely in solving the differential
equation for fluid flow under a negative skin
condition. Without this equivalency the equation
would become highly unstable under stimulated
conditions. This is because the skin factor forms
a pressure source/sink condition.

.......... .......... ......( 1.23)

If the permeability around the wellbore is

infinitely higher than the original reservoir
permeability (a larger well radius), Eq. 1.23 may
be written in one of the following forms:

An equation similar to Eq. 1.25 had been

developed for fractured wells. In this case an
equivalent skin factor and wellbore radius may
be related to the length of a vertical hydraulic
fracture with infinite conductivity through Eq.
1.26.

x f = 2rwe s ........................................(1.26)
Thus, if rw = 3 in. and s is -5, the half-length of
an infinitely conductive fracture, xf , is 74.2 ft.
Equation 1.27 relates the fracture half-length of
a natural unpropped fracture to an equivalent
skin factor and wellbore radius.

x f = erwe s

r'
s = ln w ....................................(1.24)
r
w

2000, Halliburton

P ressure D ro p
A cross S kin

'
rw is usually referred to as effective wellbore

This expression indicates that if the area around

the wellbore has a lower permeability than the
original reservoir permeability, that is a damaged
well, skin factor would be greater than zero
(positive value). If the permeability around the
wellbore is higher than the reservoir
permeability, that is, stimulated well, skin factor
would be lower than zero, (negative value). Skin
factor of zero indicates no change in
permeability around the wellbore.

Halliburton

Fig. 1.5Pressure distribution in a reservoir with a skin.

Hawkins26 derived the following expression

relating the skin factor to wellbore radius,
damage radius and permeabilities of both
reservoir and damaged area.
=

skin

F low ing P re ssure

The zone of reduced (or higher) permeability

has been called a skin, and the resulting effect
on permeability is called skin factor. Skin factor
can be used as a relative index to determine the
efficiency of drilling and completion practices. It
is positive for a damaged well, negative for a
stimulated well, and zero for an unchanged well.
(See Fig. 1.5). Acidized wells usually show a
negative skin. Hydraulically fractured wells,
though not affecting the formation permeability,
often show values of s (skin factor) ranging to as
low as -7.

= 2.7183rw e s ..........(1.27)

Where e is the natural logarithm base.

1 - 11

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

than zero. If the well does not flow (it is plugged)

the flow efficiency will become zero.

Thus, the fracture half-length for the same

conditions as previously shown (rw = 3 in. and
s = -5) is 100.86 ft.

Sometimes the term damage ratio (DR) is used

to describe the well conditions. Damage ratio is
the reciprocal of flow efficiency.

As mentioned earlier, the skin factor (s) acts as

a pressure sink/source. This extra pressure drop
due to presence of skin may be calculated using
Eq. 1.28.

pskin

Wellbore Storage

q
= s
...............................(1.28)
2kh

Wellbore storage, also called after-flow, afterproduction, after-injection, and wellbore

unloading or loading, has long been recognized
as an important parameter affecting short-time
transient pressure behavior. Pressure transient
theory presented so far assumed that the shut-in
of a well in a buildup test (or production rate in a
drawdown test) occurs at the sand-face.
However, in many tests, the well is shut in at the
surface causing the wellbore volume (wellbore
storage) to affect the early time pressure
response. When this wellbore storage is
significant, it must be considered during
transient test data or meaningless data may be
28
analyzed.

In field units, Eq. 1.28 becomes

141.2q
pskin = s
.......................(1.29)
kh

If the skin is positive, the flowing pressure pwf ,

will actually be lower than that of an undamaged
well by the amount of pskin. The above equation
may be used to quickly yield the effect of
reducing skin factor on flowing pressure.

Flow Efficiency
Another relative index for determining the
efficiency of drilling and completion on a well is
provided by flow efficiency. This is defined as
the ratio of actual productivity index of a well to
its productivity index had the skin factor been
reduced to zero.

Flow efficiency =

Wellbore storage causes the sand-face flow rate

to change slower than the surface flow rate.
Wellbore storage is the ability of the wellbore to
store fluid per unit of pressure change. Zero
wellbore storage means that the flow condition is
imposed at the sand-face. Figure 1.6
schematically shows the ratio of sand-face (qsf)
to surface rate (q) when a shut-in well starts to
produce at a surface rate q. For wellbore
storage greater than zero, the majority of flow
rate will come out of the wellbore storage. The
formation contribution to total flow rate will
initially be very small. However the ratio will
increase with time until it reaches 1, meaning
that all fluid produced at the surface is coming
out of the formation. The larger the wellbore
storage, the longer it would take for stabilization
to occur. On the other hand when the wellbore
storage coefficient is negligible, qsf /q = 1 at all
times.

J actual
................(1.30)
J ideal

Where:

J actual =
J ideal

q
..................................(1.31)
p pwf
q
..............(1.32)
p ( pwf + pskin )

p = average reservoir pressure

Thus the final expression of flow efficiency is
given below:

Flow efficiency =

p pwf pskin
p pwf

Depending on the system, one of two methods

is used to calculate the wellbore storage
coefficient. In a compressible system the
following equation could be readily derived to
describe storage:

......(1.33)

If the well is unchanged, the flow efficiency is

unity. If the well is stimulated, the flow efficiency
will be higher than unity. Damaged wells have a
flow efficiency less than unity. However, the flow
efficiency of a damaged well can not be less

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

wellbore storage coefficient C = v p = vc ....(13.34)

wellbore storage coefficient C =

1 - 12

Awb hc
.......... ....(13.35)
5.615

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

reverse situation can occur as well; with high,

rising-liquid-level storage at the beginning of
injection changing to fluid-compression storage
as the wellhead pressure begins to increase.
Figure 1.7 illustrates behavior when wellbore
storage changes in value.

Thus, in this case, the storage ability of the well

depends on the wellbore volume.
In case of declining or rising liquid level, the
equation describing wellbore storage may be
expressed as follows:
144gc z
..........(1.36)
5.615 g

Wellbore storage obscures the effect of

formation on pressure response. When wellbore
storage is dominant, the pressure versus time
plot on a log-log scale is linear (unit slope
straight line) as shown in Fig. 1.7. No
meaningful information can be obtained till this
period of wellbore storage dominance has
expired. This period may be described using the
following equation:
p = 0.0417

1
C1
C2
C3

qsf/q

wellbore storage coefficient C =

q t
.............................................(1.37)
C

Because Eq. 1.37 is only dependent on wellbore

and fluid parameters, no information could be
obtained as long as the observed behavior is
controlled by this equation.

As we have seen earlier, dimensionless

definition of parameters may be used to
generalize a specific equation. In case of
wellbore storage, the dimensionless form is as
follows:
5.615C
...............................................(1.38)
CD =
2
2 ct h rw
Sometimes the wellbore storage coefficient may
change during transient testing. For example,
consider a fall-off test in a water injection well
with a high wellhead pressure during test
injection. When the well is shut-in, initially the
pressure at well head would be high but would
decrease to atmospheric pressure and
eventually would go on vacuum if the static
formation pressure is below hydrostatic
pressure. At this point the change in pressure
would be due to falling liquid level instead of
decompression of liquid. As a result, the
wellbore storage coefficient, which is for fluid
decompression, changes to the higher fallingliquid-level coefficient. This second storage
coefficient easily could be a hundred to a
thousand times greater than the first. The

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

tD

Fig. 1.6Effect of wellbore storage on sandface flow rate, C3 > C2 > C1.

Exponential Integral Solution

Log (p)

Ways have been devised to minimize the effect

of wellbore storage on pressure behavior. The
most obvious way is to reduce the volume of the
well by using a packer to eliminate the annulus
volume. One may reduce this volume further by
introducing a downhole closure mechanism to
eliminate the majority of the tubing volume

C1

C2

t1

t2

Log (t)

Fig. 1.7Theoretical pressure response for both

increasing and decreasing wellbore storage: C2 >
C1. (Adaptation of data from Earlougher, Kersch,
and Ramey)

1 - 13

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Time

A.

Rate

tp

tp + t

B.

Rate

Actual System

C.

Rate

Equivalent System

-q

Fig. 1.8Schematic of actual and equivalent systems.

changes in rates (superposition in time) or to
consider the effect of boundaries (superposition
in space) or to consider the addition of new wells
to a reservoir (superposition in both time and
space).
The most widely used application of
superposition principle is the well-known Horner
plot used in analysis of buildup tests. The rate
versus time of a buildup test may be
represented by Fig. 1.8.A. This figure may be
considered as the summation of Figures 1.8.B

Principle of Superposition
Principle of superposition is a mathematical
principle that applies to linear differential
equations with linear boundary conditions. In
essence it states that a complex problem may
be broken into a group of simpler problems. The
addition of the solutions of the simpler problems
will yield the solution of the complex problem.
This principle may be applied to account for

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 14

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

and 1.8.C. Principle of superposition states that

the summations of the solutions of problems
1.8.B and 1.8.C is a solution to problem 1.8.A.
Following this procedure, Horner equation may
be derived from the basic drawdown equation.

Sealing

Actual System

Considering skin factor, the long term solution of

the problem in Fig. 1.8.B is the fairly simple
drawdown equation,

k
p1 = m log(t p + t )+ log
c r 2

t w

Producing

2s
..(1.39)
3.2275 +

2.303

Where
162.6q
..................................................(1.40)
m=
kh
The solution for the problem in Figure 1.8.C is
similar, however one will have to remember that
rate is injection rather than production.

k
p 2 = m log t p + t + log
c r 2

t w

Equivalent System
Actual

2s
...(1.41)
3.2275 +

2.303

method of images may be used to replace the

well-barrier system with a two well system.
Basically, the barrier acts as a mirror and may
be replaced with an imaginary well identical to
the real well in physical properties and
appearance. Figure 1.9 is a schematic of both
the actual and equivalent systems.

t + t
pt = m log p
t ........................................(1.42)

Thus, if pt or pws (shut-in pressure) is plotted

t p + t

vs. log
t , the long term data will form a

straight line with a slope m. Formation

permeability may be calculated from the slope,
m. Skin factor may be calculated using the
following equation:

Because of the distance between the two wells,

the effect of the imaginary well will be
insignificant to start with and observed pressure
will be as if the real well is located in an infinite
reservoir. At any time, using principle of
superposition, the following equation gives the
total pressure drop at the real well:

p1hr p wf

log
s = 1.1515
c r 2 + 3.2275.....(1.43)
m

t w

pi p wf = 162.6

Application of the above two equations in

analysis will be illustrated in the examples given
in a later section. Application of principle of
superposition to account for boundary effect is
discussed in the following section.

2s
q
kt
log
1688 c r 2 + 2.303

kh
t w

2
q 948 ct (2 L )

..............(1.44)
70.6
Ei

kh
kt

Effect of Boundaries
In this section, we will study how the presence of
boundaries affects well pressure. To effectively
do that, we will demonstrate how an engineer
may account for the presence of barriers using
the principle of superposition.
The effect of boundaries may be calculated
using the method of images. If a producing well
has a nearby infinite single sealing barrier,

2000, Halliburton

Fig. 1.9Well near a no-flow boundary.

Adding the two solutions produces Horners

equation.

Halliburton

Image

At early time, the second term of Eq. 1.44 is

negligible compared to the first one and the
equation may then be simplified into the
following expression:

2s
q
kt
= 162.6
+
p p
log

i
wf
kh
1688 c r 2 2.303
t w

2s
k
.........(1.45)
= m log t + log
+
2

1688 ct rw 2.3026

1 - 15

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

After a sufficiently long time Eq. 1.44 will be

approximated by the following expression:

2s
q
kt
= 162.6
+
p p
log

i
wf
kh
1688 c r 2 2.303
t w

+ 162.6

pi

Boundary
Effect

q
kt

log
1688 c (2 L )2 ...................(1.46)
kh
t

M1

This equation may be written in the simpler form:

pi p wf = 325.2

q
k
s
log t + log
...
+
1688 ct rw (2 L ) 2.303
kh

M =
2
M
2

M2

...(1.47)
Equation 1.47 may be written in the following
form:

( 2 to 1 Slope)

MDH: P versus Log(dt)

k
s
...........
+
pi pwf = 2m log t + log

1688 ct rw (2 L ) 2.303

Fig. 1.10 Test on a wellnear a boundary.

...(1.48)
Equations 1.47 and 1.48 indicate that when
flowing pressure pwf is plotted versus time, the
late time behavior will have two straight lines.
The slope of the second one is double the slope
of the first. The first straight line reflects the
period before the boundary is felt. The second
straight line indicates the period when the effect
of the barrier on the well is felt. An example of
such a test is given in Fig 1.10. The same
behavior would also appear during a buildup
test.

Sealing Boundaries

Actual System
Producing
Well

When a well is near multiple barriers, the

situation becomes a lot more complex. If a well
is in between two parallel sealing boundaries,
the system may be replaced by an infinite
number of wells as shown in Fig. 1.11.
Practically speaking, only three or four levels of
wells may be needed to emulate the presence of
the two barriers. A well in a closed rectangle
system may be represented in a similar fashion.

Image Wells

I3

I2

I1

I1

I2

I3

Radius of Investigation
Equivalent System

If a well is opened to flow, shut in, or the

production rate is changed, a pressure gradient
between the wellbore and the reservoir will
result. This pressure gradient (or transient) then
propagates away from the wellbore at a speed
that depends on rock properties and in-situ fluid
properties. Rock properties include permeability,
porosity, and thickness. Fluid properties include
viscosity, compressibility, and fluid saturation.
Contrary to popular belief, propagation speed of

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

Fig. 1.11Well between two no-flow boundaries.

the pressure transient does not depend on fluid

production rate.
To find the radius of the pressure transient away
from the wellbore, use these equations for
approximate radial flow.

1 - 16

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

been developed.27 The following equation

describes this approach for a gas reservoir.

Gas well:

ri =

kg t
...........................(1.49)
948 s g ( g cg )i

3792.19 ct ri 2

= (qk qk 1 ) Ei

(tn tk 1 )k
T f + 459.67
k =1

705.2828s y kh

Oil well:

ri =

...(1.51)
Where Tf is formation temperature and Sy is the
gauge resolution.

kot
..................................(1.50)
948i oct

where sg is gas saturation and g c g

Clearly, radius of investigation depends on the

gauge resolution. Fig. 1.12 shows an
exponential decline in both gas in place (GIP)
and radius investigated versus a decreasing
gauge resolution (increasing values of Sy). In
this well case, the use of an electronic quartz
gauge with .01 psi resolution would more than
double the volume investigated by a gauge with
only .1 psi resolution.

is the

product of gas viscosity and gas compressibility

at initial reservoir pressure.
The above equations correspond to the distance
traveled by a pressure pulse created by an
instantaneous source, hence its independence
of rate. Some researchers have expressed
concern about using Eqs. 1.44 and 1.45 to
determine radius of investigation. An equation
that includes flow rate and gauge resolution has

R adius of Investigation (ri) & Gas in Place (GIP)

vs
Gauge Resolution (S y )

800

(ft)

(MMSCF)

1042
813
559
229
94

Reservoir Parameters
net pay = 100 ft
wellbore radius = 0.333 ft
permeability = 10 md
gas viscosity = 0.0249 cp
porosity = 10%
sw = 10%
gas rate = 1000MSCF/D
flow time = 24 hours
z factor = .99972
Bg = 6.6477E-4 RB/SCF
ct = 1.1865E-4 1/psi
skin = 0
initial pressure = 5000 psi
formation temp = 200 deg F

GIP

.001
.01
.1
1.0
2.5

1000

ri

(psi)

Radius of Investigation (ft)

Sy

8224
5007
2367
397
67

600

400

9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000

ri
200

2000

GIP

Gas in Place (MMSCF)

1200

1000

2.449

2.313

2.177

2.041

1.905

1.769

1.633

1.497

1.361

1.225

1.089

0.953

0.817

0.681

0.545

0.409

0.273

0.137

0
0.001

Gauge Re solution (psi)

Fig. 1.12 Radius of Investigation and Gas in Place vs Gauge Resolution (Sy )

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 17

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Raghavan,28 on the other hand, suggests

calculating the distance to sealing fault that its
effect on pressure is about to appear. In this
case one may call this the radius of area devoid
of boundaries. This approach should be
applicable to pressure buildup tests, too. This
definition may be tied to production rate and
gauge resolution.

and eventually the total system including the

matrix. Figure 1.13 shows the buildup response
for various producing times as well as the
response from a long drawdown test. It is clear
from Fig. 1.13 that as the producing time gets
longer, the behavior of the buildup test will
approach that of a drawdown test. It is also clear
that a buildup test would not reveal a flow
regime that had not been investigated by the
preceding drawdown. For example if the
drawdown test was terminated before the matrix
system was investigated, the buildup test could
reveal reliable information on that portion of the
reservoir.

Other authors have stated that what is not seen

during a drawdown would not be seen in a
buildup test. This may be easily visualized in a
test where more than one flow regime may be
encountered, such as effect of boundary, dual
porosity system, fractured reservoirs, etc. For
example, if the drawdown test was too short to
observe effect of a boundary, buildup could not
be used to calculate distance to the boundary
regardless how long it may be. In a very
interesting article, Earlougher and Kazemi29
stated that radius investigation during a
drawdown test should be at least four times the
distance to a sealing fault to observe doubling of
slope during a buildup test.

Phase Redistribution
During a buildup test, pressure is expected to
monotonously increase with time. However in
some instances wellbore effect may cause a
sharper than expected increase in pressure
followed by a decrease in pressure, as given in
the field example illustrated in Fig. 1.14. This
peculiar phenomenon is due to phase (gas and
liquid) redistribution inside the wellbore. When
gas bubbles rise inside a liquid column it causes

Another example is a buildup test on a dual

porosity system. In a dual porosity system, one
would observe wellbore storage effect followed
by effect of fractured system, a transition period,
10 1

10

S
CD

=0
= 100
= 0.1
= 0.001

103

104

105

106

102

10

TPD = 10

-1

PD
10 -2

10 -3

10 -4
10 -2

10 -1

10 0

10 1

102

10 3

10 4

10 5

106

tD/CD
Fig. 1.13Log-log plot of PD vs. tD/CD for buildups for a naturally fractured formation.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 18

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

pressure to increase by an amount equal to the

difference in specific weights of the phases
times the column height. Stegemeier and
Matthews30 performed analytical and
experimental research and were the first to
explain this phase redistribution phenomenon.

300
psia

1200
1100

Bottom hole
Pressure
(40 H P)
300 psia

In actual field cases, the increase (hump) in

pressure does not usually reach the pressure
defined above, because as pressure inside the
wellbore increases quickly, fluid flow would
reverse, i.e. flow into the formation. Thus it is
expected that as permeability gets higher, the
magnitude of the hump would be smaller.
Formulating the phase redistribution as a
secondary wellbore storage, Fair31 presented a
solution and type curves for wells exhibiting this
phenomenon.

900
800
700
600

Surface
Tubing
Pressure

300 psia

P re ssure Ch anges, p si

1000

500
400

( TP)

148 H P

( TP)

300
200
100
0
0

100

200

Tim e After C losing In, m in

Fig. 1.14Pressure buildup example of phase

redistribution, South Texas well.

at a constant rate. During the test, the

bottomhole pressure is monitored. The behavior
of this pressure will be affected by wellbore
storage at early time and by skin factor
throughout the test. Therefore, analysis of this
test by semi-log or type-curve matching methods
can theoretically determine skin, storage
coefficient, permeability and porosity. Practically
speaking, however, only permeability and skin
can be determined with high accuracy.

Production Well Testing:

Types of Tests and
Techniques of Analysis
Introduction
This section will cover techniques currently in
use for analyzing data from pressure
interference, drawdown, and buildup tests in oil
and gas wells. We will provide the mathematical
basis for such analysis techniques as type curve
matching and semi-log. A straight-forward, stepby-step procedure is provided to apply the actual
techniques and find such factors as formation
permeability, skin, reservoir conductivity, storage
coefficient, porosity, and others. Example
problems and their solutions are included in the
back of this section.

Test Types
Pressure Drawdown Test
This test is conducted by producing a new well
or a well that has been shut-down for a long time

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 19

Pressure Buildup Test

This is the most common test and probably the
easiest to conduct. In this test, the well is
produced at a constant rate (or almost constant
rate). The well is then shut-in and the pressure
rise with time is recorded. The pressure
response is affected by both skin factor and
wellbore storage. Analysis of this test yields
reservoir and fracture parameters. Semi-log
methods and type curve matching can be used
for analysis. The main reason behind the
popularity of this test is the expected
smoothness of the data due to the constant rate
during the buildup period (zero rate).

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Drill Stem Testing (DST)

Planning the Test

DST is a temporary completion of a well to allow

testing of a particular zone. DST allows an
operator to determine key reservoir parameters
such as formation permeability and formation
initial reservoir pressure. It will also give
indication of possible problems with the reservoir
such as depletion, sand tendency, and the
presence of a nearby barrier. Following a DST,
an operator may choose to either permanently
complete the well or plug & abandon the well
depending on the wells economic feasibility. A
DST usually consists of four periods: two flows
and two shut-ins.

Multi-rate Testing
The simplest multirate test is a buildup test. In
the case of a buildup test the second period had
a zero flow rate. Other multirate tests are fairly
easy to conduct and analyze as long as both
rate and pressure are accurately monitored for
all periods. Multirate tests includes pulse
testing, isochronal testing, and modified
isochronal testing. This type of tests yields
information similar to what could be obtained
from a drawdown test.

To obtain information that may characterize the

reservoir in various directions, one may have to
conduct a multi-well test. In such a test, the flow
rate at a producing well is varied while the
pressure is monitored at one or more
observation wells. Analysis of these pressure
data yields information that could not have been
obtained from a single well test. For example,
directional permeability, direction of natural
fractures or hydraulic fractures may be obtained.

Drilling operations information

Core samples logs

any other previous production tests.

Neglecting this information usually increases

testing costs. For example, consider a fault or a
fluid interface close to the wellbore where a
buildup test is being used to determine reservoir
characteristics. Because of the closeness of the
fault, it would be advised to minimize wellbore
storage to obtain useful data. This may be
accomplished by shutting the well in near the
sand face instead of at the surface. By doing
this, you would separate the time between the
end of wellbore effects and the beginning of
boundary effects. A downhole shut-in tool may
be necessary if phase segregation is occurring
in the wellbore when a fault or fluid interface is
near the wellbore.

By knowing the history and the future plans for a

well-reservoir system, you can set realistic test
objectives.

Test Objectives
Operators conduct production well tests to
determine some or all reservoir and wellbore
characteristics, to predict individual well
performance, or both. Well testing is most
beneficial when used for exploration. Testing to
discover new reserves or preventing dry holes
are testings two main purposes. Often,
operators use production well tests to prove
there are enough hydrocarbons in place to
justify the cost of building a pipeline to the well.
Production well tests can be time consuming,
but well worth the effort if data is gathered
correctly.

The simplest form of a multi-well test is an

interference test in which only one observation
well is employed. Because of the distance (tens
or hundreds of feet) between the producer and
observation wells, it is expected that fairly small
changes in pressure at the observation wells
would be monitored. The use of electronic
gauges may be necessary to achieve a reliable
analysis.

2000, Halliburton

Pretest information usually allows you to

properly select a bottomhole pressure gauge for
resolution and range. It usually provides the
needed reservoir parameters so you can design
the most efficient test that would achieve the test
objectives.

Multi-well Testing

Halliburton

The first step in conducting a production well

test is planning. Too often, inadequate planning
leads to trouble and costly mistakes. Naturally,
knowing about the well-reservoir system is
helpful for planning a test; collect as much
pretest information as possible. If available, you
can gather pretest in formation from:

Seismic data (geology)

1 - 20

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Single Well Test Benefits

In addition to determining reservoir parameters,
production tests on individual wells offer several
other potential benefits.

F1

Water

Leaks Near or in the Wellbore or

Reservoir

F3
Oil
F2

One benefit of a well test in either a wildcat or

producer, is that it helps detect leaks. Wellbore
leaks in the very early part of the test, and
reservoir leaks very late in the test are important
to know for gas storage and other projects (Fig.
1.15).

Fig. 1.15Leaks near or in the wellbore or

reservoir.

Oil

Stimulation Treatments
F4

From a short-term test, you can usually decide

whether it is economical to stimulate a well and
how to stimulate it. Running a short-term test
before and after the stimulation treatment allows
you to determine whether the treatment was
effective.

F2
F3
Water
F1

Fig. 1.16Fingering of water into the

wellbore.

Step-out Locations
By running a long-term test, you can prove
whether a reservoir exists at a step-out drilling
location. You can also determine the direction of
the step-out by analyzing geological or seismic
sources.

F4
F1

Time Decay of Performance

F3
Oil

You can also predict the time decay of well

performance from well test results. For gas
wells, the shift of the back-pressure line is
commonly used. For oil wells, the projected
decay of the productivity index is used. You
must know the initial reserves and the drainage
shape of the well before you can predict time
decay of well performance.

Water

Fig. 1.17Water coning into the wellbore.

Detecting Impediments
Critical Flow Rates

You can detect impediments such as sealing

faults, leaky or unsealed faults, or rock or fluid
discontinuities by running well production tests.
By knowing this information, you can more
completely describe the reservoir and make
reliable economical projections for the well.

During well testing, you can also determine the

critical flow rates where coning or water
fingering begins (Fig. 1.16 and 1.17).

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 21

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

stimulation is necessary, you can make it as

economical as possible. A well designed testing
program can also help you establish production
rates to recover maximum hydrocarbons and to
justify the cost of a pipeline to the well. After
establishing the goals of the test, you can select
the most economical, effective type of test for
the goal you have set.

Multi-well Test Benefits

When more than one well is involved, you can
run an interference or pulse test to obtain other
beneficial information, provided the proper
testing procedures are used.

Communication
Interference tests are commonly run to
determine if two or more wells are
communicating through the zones from which
they are producing. This is important for
secondary recovery processes and is necessary
before determining fracture orientation and
directional reservoir parameters.

Establishing Test Procedures

The way you conduct the test depends on the
test objectives, the characteristics of the wellreservoir system, the way you will analyze the
test data, and more than likely, a governmental
agencys requirements. Transient well testing
primarily involves four types of tests:

Drawdown/buildup tests

Competitive Production
If two operators have adjoining wells that are
producing from the same zone, interference
testing ensures that neither is producing
hydrocarbons from the other operators lease.

Drillstem tests (DSTs)

Since drawdown/buildup tests are the most

common, we will discuss them in detail in this
section. Keep in mind, though, that you conduct
injection/falloff tests and DSTs similarly.

In many reservoirs, if you carefully gather and

analyze field data, undrilled reserves can be
detected.

Interference/pulse tests are used less often and

are not within the scope of this section. Recent
publications on interference testing consider the
effects of anisotropic reservoirs. From the well
test analysts point of view, you should not select
a drawdown test alone, unless the well cannot
be shut in for operational or economical
reasons. Buildup test data is normally the main
source of data used for determining the wellreservoir description. Of course, a buildup
cannot occur unless well drawdown occurs first.
Analysis techniques allow you to analyze
drawdown and buildup data simultaneously.

Infill Drilling
In tight reservoirs, optimum well spacing is
important to efficiently drain the reservoir for
maximum return on your investment. Production
well testing from this can help you determine if
infill drilling will be profitable.

Reserves in a Naturally Fractured

Reservoir
The only reasonable way to determine
hydrocarbon volume in a naturally fractured
reservoir is from multiple-well testing.

Reservoir Limits Tests

If the single-rate drawdown test lasts long
enough for the pressure transient to be affected
wellbore, the test becomes a reservoir limits
test. Figure 1.10 shows a reservoir limit test
where the rate of pressure decline is twice as
fast because of the impediment effect on the
pressure as compared to the rate of pressure
decline for an infinite-acting reservoir.

Summary of Well Testing

Benefits
Without a properly designed testing program,
you could waste a large amount of money. By
evaluating well testing data and other wellreservoir system data, you can avoid conducting
unnecessary stimulation treatments. If

2000, Halliburton

Interference/pulse tests

Detecting Undrilled Reserves

Halliburton

Injection/falloff tests

Figure 1.18 shows a reservoir limit test

performed on a well in the middle of a reservoir.

1 - 22

Section 1

Flowing Pressure, pwf, psia

Well Test Analysis

pi

Flowing Time, t (hrs)

Fig. 1.18Cartesian plot of the drawdown test data showing pseudo steady state.

2.637 x104 kt
..............................(1.53)
2
ct rw
r
rD = ................................................(1.54)
rw

This figure above shows that a plot of pressure

versus time would eventually become linear,
where the slope of the straight line is a function
of reservoir area. This period of linear pressure
decline with time is the period where pseudosteady conditions prevail. Pseudo-steady
condition starts at

t DA = 0.1 =

tD =

If Eqs. 1.52 to 1.54 are substituted into the

governing differential equation, the following
general dimensionless equation would result.

2.637 x10 kt
.
ct A

2 p D 1 p D pD
......................( 1.55)
+
=
2
rD rD
rD
tD

Quantitative Analysis Methods

of Pressure Transient Tests

The same dimensionless groups are used for a

gas reservoir except that the dimensionless
pressure is defined as:

Type Curve Matching is a useful technique for

analyzing data from drawdown, buildup and
interference tests. To understand type curve
matching, however, one must first understand
the basic characteristics of type curves.

pD =
where

m(p)=change in gas pseudo-pressure, MMpsi2/cp

q = production rate in MMCF/D
T = reservoir temperature in R.

Type Curves
As discussed earlier, the following
dimensionless groups are used in the petroleum
engineering literature for an oil reservoir.

pD =

The solution of Eq. 1.55 is general. The

pressure behavior of any reservoir that satisfies
assumptions 1 to 10 on Page 5 should resemble
this general solution. However, the reservoir
data will shift in both the x and y directions by a
certain factor that depends on reservoir and fluid
properties. If both the general solution of Eq.

kh pi p
................................(1.52)
141.2 q

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

khm( p )
....................................(1.56)
1.417qT

1 - 23

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

104

105

106

107

108

10

kh
pi p r , t
141.2q
t D 0.0002637kt
=
2
ct r 2
rD
pD =

PD

10-1

10-2
10-1

102

10

103

104

tD/rD2
Fig. 1.19Line source solution.
log plot of the general solution is usually called
type curve.

C h an g e in P ress ure, ps i

10 3

Type Curve Matching is a technique designed

to find the amount of shift between the field data
curve and the general solution curve along the
p (pressure) and the t (time) axes. By
substituting the shift amount along the p axis
and the shift amount along the t axis into Eq(s).
1.52-54, the unknown reservoir properties may
be calculated. These parameters may include
formation permeability, porosity and skin factor,
and others.

10 2

How to Use Type Curve Matching

10 1

When a drawdown or a pressure buildup test is

too short for the semi-log straight line to
develop, the data cannot be analyzed using
semi-log methods. The general type curve
matching method that will be described here can
be applied to any system with known pD vs. tD.
Type curve matching may be used for
drawdown, buildup and interference testing.
The type-curve matching techniques have been
described in many ways; the method outlined
next is probably the simplest, and will be
illustrated for Fig. 1.19. This figure is the type
curve for pressure interference tests using the
line source solution.

10 0
10 1

10 2

10 3

T im e , d a ys

Fig. 1-20Field data for type curve matching

1.55 and the field data are plotted on a log-log
graph, the shift, or transformation, from one
plotted curve to the other will be linear. The log-

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 24

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

1.

2.

t D 2.637 x10 4 kt
=
.........................( 1.61) .
2
2
ct rw
rD

From reservoir, well, and test conditions

choose the type curve that matches the
test, well and reservoir condition; this will
usually be a log-log plot of pD vs. tD. Notice
that on Fig 1.20, the observed test data are
plotted as p vs. test time, t, using the
same size scale as the base type curve.

7.

Using the time-scale match-point data and

the permeability just determined, to
estimate the reservoir porosity:

2.637 x10 4 k
=

ct rw

Calculate p, or change in pressure with

time, for pressure buildup data for the
interference test:

(t )m
tD

2
rD m

......( 1.62) .

p = p i p wf (t )....................................(1.57) .
In general, for any kind of test,
p = pw (t = 0 ) pw t ...........................(1.58) .

3.

4.

1.

Interference Type Curve (line source

solutionFig. 1.19)

This type curve describes the effect a

producing well has on an observation well.

The distance between the observation and

producing well should be much larger than
the wellbore radius of the producing well.

Slide the tracing paper with plotted data

along the type curve, keeping the grids on
each graph parallel, until the data points
match the type curve. After the match is
completed, pick a convenient match point,
such as an intersection of major grid lines.
Finally, record values of that point on the
data plot [(p)m , (t)m] and the corresponding
values beneath that point on the type curve
grid [(pD)m , (tD)m]. The ordinate (pD) of this
type curve is dimensionless pressure,

If pressure is plotted versus time on a semi2

log scale, the data corresponding to (tD/rD )
> 25 will yield a straight line. The slope (m)
of this straight line is

m=

162.6 q
................................(1.63) .
kh

2.

Pressure Drawdown Type Curve (unfractured

reservoir)

Figure 1.21 is designed for pressure

drawdown test of a single well. The effects
that skin factor and wellbore storage have
on reservoir performance are considered.
Notice, however, that the shapes of the
various curves on these graphs are similar,
making it fairly difficult to achieve a unique
type curve match.

All the curves begin as a straight line with

unit slope. The unit slope straight line
indicates the presence of wellbore storage.
As the dimensionless wellbore storage CD
becomes smaller, the duration of the unit
slope straight line gets shorter.

kh p
...........................( 1.59) .
141.2 q

By substituting the match point values from

Step 4 and rearranging this equation, we
estimate formation permeability:

k = 141.2
6.

Several type curves exist in the literature. The

tests for these type curves have already been
discussed. They are illustrated in the example
problems in the last section.

Note that p is always calculated as a

positive number. Also, the time parameter
is the running test time, t.
Plot observed test data by placing tracing
paper over the desired type curve, tracing
the major grid lines and marking the
observed p (psi) and, t (hours), as given
in Fig. 1.20. Note: Any pressure or time
units can be used as long as the
conversion factors in Eq. 1.52 and 1.53 are
modified accordingly. Plotting p vs. t
using the type curve grid showing through
the tracing paper as a guide will guarantee
that the data plot and the type curve have
the same scale.

pD =
5.

Characteristics of Type Curves

q ( p D )m
....................( 1.60) .
h (p )m

Similarly use the definition of the abscissa

on the type curve,

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 25

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

102

s = 20
s = 10
s=5

CD = 0
10

s=0

PD

s = -5
2

10

CD

CD

10

10

10 P =
=
D

CD

CD

CD =

10-1
102

103

104

105

kh
pi pwf
141.2q
0.0002637kt
tD =
2
ct rw

5.6146C
2
2ct hrw

106

107

tD
Fig. 1.21PD vs. tD for a well with storage and skin effect (radial flow).

As the skin factor gets higher, the curves

flatten out more abruptly.

If pressure is plotted vs. time on semi-log

scale, the data corresponding to

rigorous and should always yield an

accurate analysis. Pressure buildup data
must be corrected if the producing time is
short. Otherwise, type-curve matching will
give erroneous results. Specialized
technique have been developed for
analysis of such cases, however they are
outside the scope of this chapter.

t D C D (60 + 3.5s )...........................( 1.64)

will fall on the straight line with a slope m.

m=

162.6 q
................................(1.65)
kh

3.

This type curve is also used for matching

buildup tests. However, it should be
remembered that in order to use pressure
buildup data for type curve matching one of
the following conditions should be satisfied.
(1) That the drawdown test has lasted long
enough such that the change in
pressure with time is small (pseudosteady state). (Figure 1.22)
(2) That the pressure buildup data have
been corrected for the change in
pressure with time using the principle of
superposition.

b.

2000, Halliburton

Fracture conductivity.

Dimensionless fracture conductivity, CfD , is

defined in the following equation:

C fD =

Although only an estimate is involved in the

first condition, if the condition is satisfied,
as it is the case in many buildup tests, a
pressure buildup test should yield fairly
accurate results. The second condition is

Halliburton

Fractured Reservoir Type Curves

In this section, we will only consider a well

intercepting a vertical fracture with fracture
height equal to the formation height. This type
curve is designed for a drawdown test, however,
it can also be used for pressure buildup tests.
Figures 1.22 and 23 are schematic diagrams of
a well intercepting a vertical fracture. Three
quantities are usually mentioned in descriptions
of fractured reservoirs.
a. Distance from wellbore to the outer
boundary, xe , as illustrated in Fig. 1.22

kf w
............................................(1.66)
kL f

where:

1 - 26

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

kf is the fracture permeability in millidarcies, w is

the width of the fracture in feet, and Lf is the
fracture half-length in feet.
In terms of conductivity, three types of fractures
exist:

Pi

Pressure

p1

Pwf Line
t

tp
Time
+q

Uniform flux fracture

This specific solution assumes that fluid
flow into the fracture is uniform along the
fracture face, which implies a fairly small
pressure drop along the fracture. This type
curve, Fig. 1.26, was initially used to
approximate the behavior of dual porosity
systems. In modern analysis specialized
models for dual porosity have been
developed that replace this type curve.

p2

dp2 dp1

Infinite conductivity fracture

In this type, it is assumed that there is no
pressure drop inside the fracture. Figure
1.25 gives the type curve for this type of
fracture.

Pws Line

Rate

tp

Time

Finite conductivity fracture

In this case there is an appreciable
pressure drop inside the fracture. The flow
regimes that may arise in this case may be
complicated and require more care in
analysis in pressure transient tests. Figure
1.27 gives the type curve for a well
intersecting a finite conductivity fracture.

+q
Rate

-q
t

tp

Characteristics of the fractured well

type curves

Time

Fig. 1.22Buildup schematic.

The type curves of infinite conductivity and

uniform flux fracture start with straight lines
whose slopes are one-half. This slope
indicates a linear flow regime in the
formation. This straight line characterizes
the infinite conductivity in Fig. 1.25 and the
uniform flux type curve in Fig. 1.26.

The finite conductivity fracture goes through

more complicated flow regimes illustrated in
Fig. 1.28. The finite conductivity does not
have the half-slope straight line
characteristic of infinite conductivity
fractures because of the pressure drop in
the fracture is significant in comparison to
the pressure drop in the formation. This
causes the system to first go through a
linear flow regime (linear in the fracture)

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

Wellbore

Lf

No Flow
Boundary

xe

Fig. 1.23Schematic diagram for a well

intercepting a vertical fracture.

1 - 27

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Fracture

Wellbore
kr

xf
w
Fig. 1.24Schematic of a fractured well.
equation.

followed by a bi-linear flow regime (the

fracture and formation).

162.6q
............................(1.67)
kh

The start of the semi-log straight line

depends on dimensionless fracture
conductivity as shown in Fig. 1.29.

The bi-linear regime of finite conductivity

fractures is characterized by a quarter
slope straight line. The duration of the bilinear flow period depends on the
dimensionless fracture conductivity. (see
Fig. 1.29)

The dimensionless time on these two

graphs is defined a little differently than on
previous graphs. It is

t Df =

After a transition period, the fractured

reservoir data forms a semi-log straight line
whose slope is given in the following

Dimensionless Wellbore Pressure Drop, pwD

m=

The linear flow of the fracture is due to

expansion of fluid in the fracture and is
usually too short in duration to be of any
practical use in evaluating the fracture.

2.637 10 4 kt
....................(1.68).
ct L2f

The fracture half-length may be calculated

from type-curve matching. The skin factor
for these may be related to the fracture

102

xe/xf = 1 10/7

10/3

5
10

101

Drainage Area
A = (2xe)2

100

2Lf
2xe

10-1
10-2

10-1

100

101

102

103

Dimensionless Production Time, tD

Fig. 1.25Propped hydraulic fractures. (Infinite conductivity fractures where p=0)

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 28

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Dimensionless
Wellbore Pressure Drop,wD
p

10 2
x e /x f = 1

10/7

10/3

5
10

10 1

20

10

Drainage Area
2
A = (2x e)

2L f
2x e

10 -1
10 -2

10 -1

10 0

10 1

10 2

10 3

Dimensionless Production Time, tD

Fig. 1.26Natural, unpropped fractures. (Uniform Flux fractures where p is small)

for finite conductivity fractures

half-length as follows.
for infinite conductivity fractures

L f = nrwe s ...............................(1.71)

L f = 2rwe s ...............................(1.69)

where n is a factor that depends on fracture

conductivity. Figure 1.31 gives this factor
as a function of conductivity.

for uniform flux fractures

L f = 2.718rwe s ........................(1.70)

Dimensionless Pressure, pwD

10

Dimensionless
Fracture
Conductivity
(CfD)
1
0.1
0.5
1

p wD =

5
10

p wD =

10 -1

10 -2

kh p
141 .2 q

50
100
500

C fD =
10 -3
10 -5

10 -4

10 -3

10 -2

( )

kh p 2
Gas
1424 q zT
kh [m ( p )]
Gas
=
1424 qT

p wD
tD x

Oil

2 .634 10 4 kt
( c t )i L2f
Lf w
kL f

10 -1

Dimensionless Time, tDLf

Fig. 1.27Log-log type curves for finite capacity vertical fractures (constant well rate).

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 29

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Linear Fracture Flow

Eliptical or Transitional Flow

Bilinear Flow

Pseudo Radial Flow

Linear Form ation Flow

Fig. 1.28Fracture flow regimes.

10

Semi-log Methods
Time at the End of the Bilinear Flow Period, tebD

It is sometimes difficult to find a unique match

when attempting to use the type curve match
technique. This difficulty especially occurs when
using it for wells with wellbore storage and skin.
However, analysis of the solution of the
governing differential equation has shown that in
the transient pressure region, pressure is
directly proportional to a logarithmic function of
time. Thus, if pressure is plotted versus time on
a semi-log graph, a straight line will result. The
slope of the straight line is a unique function of
fluid and rock properties as well as the
production rate.
The Mathematical Basis of the Semi-log Methods
A solution of the governing partial differential
equation for an oil reservoir is:

pwf = pi +

2
70.6q rw
Ei
4t ..................( 1.72)

kh

where
2.637 10 4 k
=
....................................( 1.73)
ct

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

-1

10

-2

10

-3

Fracture Tip

10

yD

-4

Reservoir
Fracture

Well

(0.0)
1
yD= w / 2Lf

10

xD

-5

10

-1

10

10

Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, CfD

Fig. 1.29Dimensionless time at the end of the
bilinear flow period, constant pressure production.

1 - 30

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Uniform-Flux Solution
Dimensionless Pressure, pwD

4
Dimensionless Fracture
Conductivity, C fD
3
0.63
3.14
2
6.28

Approximate Start
of Semi-Log Straight Line

31.4
500
1

0
10 -3

10 -2

10 -1

1
Dimensionless Time, tD

10 2

10

10 3

Fig. 1.30The pseudoradial flow regime for a finite-conductivity vertical fracture.

Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, CfD

10 2

10 1

10 0

10 -1

10 -2

10 -3
10 0

10 1

10 2

10 3

10 4

n
Fig. 1.31Factor n as a function of dimensionless fracture conductivity.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 31

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

In dimensionless form, equation 1.72 becomes:

4t

ln 2 0.577........( 1.75)
r
w

4t
162.6q
= pi
log
1.78r 2 ..............( 1.76)

kh
w

pwf = pi

1 1
....................................( 1.74) .
pD = Ei
2 4t D

As given in Fig. 1.32 the function Ei becomes a

logarithmic function when its argument becomes
smaller than 0.01. In other words Eq. 1.74
becomes logarithmic when 1/4tD becomes less
than 0.01 (tD > 25), Eq. 1.74 can be
approximated by the following equation:

pwf

70.6q
kh

For a radial flow regime, if dimensionless time,

tD, is less than 25, the semi-log method cannot
be applied. For an average oil reservoir with no
skin or wellbore storage, tD = 25 will correspond
to a few seconds or a few minutes of real time.

10

Exponential Integral Values

e u du
u
x

Ei ( x) =

For x < 0.02

Ei ( x) = ln( x) + 0.577

1.0
-0.02

-0.04

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-0.06

-0.08

-2.5

-3.0

-.10

(-x)

0.1

.01
0

-0.5

-3.5

Ei(-x)
Fig. 1.32Ei function.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 32

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

3860

Pressure, psi

3800
3740
3680
3620

3560
3500
10-2

Slope = 16, psi/cycle

kh = 1500 md-ft
k = 30.16 md
S = 0.94
10-1

100

101

102

t, Hours
Fig. 1.33 Semilog graph for a drawdown test.
2.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

The early part of pressure data deviates

from the straight line due to presence of
wellbore storage.

3.

As the transient period ends, the pressure

behavior deviates from the straight line.

4.

(Eq. 1.53 may be used to calculate the exact

corresponding real time.) Thus this condition is
not the restricting condition in determining the
start of a semi-log straight line. Usually wellbore
storage and to a lesser extent skin factor are the
controlling factors. The concept of skin as
introduced by Van Everdingen can be added to
Eq. 1.76. Thus, the final equation for the
pressure drop within a well after flowing for time,
t, is

162.6q
4t
+ 0.87 s ..( 1.77) .
pwf = pi
log
2
kh
1.78 rw

This equation simply means that after a

sufficiently long producing time, bottomhole
flowing pressure, pwf, of a drawdown test
behaves as a logarithmic function of time. In
other words, a semi-log plot will produce a
straight line. Figure 1.33 is a typical semi-log
plot which has the following characteristics:
1. The presence of skin and/or wellbore
storage affects the dimensionless time at
which the semi-log straight line begins. The
rules listed below may be used to
determine the start of the semi-log straight
line.

The slope of the straight line portion is

m=

162.6q
..................................( 1.78)
kh

One may calculate formation permeability from

the slope, m. Also, Eq. 1.77 may be rearranged
in the following fashion to calculate skin factor.

p p1hr

k
log
+ 3.23....( 1.79)
s = 1.151 i
2
ct rw
m

Because semi-log plotting tends to suppress the

differences between points, It is important to
summarize the rules necessary to find the
beginning of the semi-log straight line.
1. Plot type curve (log-log)

Storage case (unit slope). First, pick

start of semi-log straight line according
to one of the following rules.
(1) Start of the semi-log straight line
will be 1-1/2 log cycles in time from top
of unit slope straight line, or.

1 - 33

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

4.

Infinite conductivity and uniform flux

fracture case (1/2 slope linear flow).
Pick start of semi-log straight line,
according to one of the following rules.
(1) It starts at a time corresponding to
twice the pressure drop at the end of
the one-half slope straight line. If rule
fails (line projects far above data), use
next rule
(2) Use type curve matching with
fracture type curve. Use tDf >5 for start
of semi-log straight line. If data do not
extend beyond tDf >5, find k, xf from
match point then compute s from xf ,
according to Eq. 1.69 to 1.71.

p p1hr

k
log
+ 3.23....( 1.79)
s = 1.151 i
2
ct rw
m

Applying Semi-log Method to Pressure Buildup Tests

2.

Plot pressure on the ordinate scale and log

(tp +t)/ t on the abscissa scale. The
resulting figure is usually called a Horner
plot. Figure 1.34 is a typical Horner plot for
a damaged well, s>0. On the other hand,
Fig. 1.35 is an example of a Horner plot for
a highly stimulated well. Please note how
the pressure data approach the straight line
in both cases.

3.

Using the log-log curve and rules outlined

earlier, determine the correct semi-log
straight line.

4.

Measure the slope, m, of the straight line.

5.

In general it is not advised that one

should use the semi-log technique for
analysis of a well intersecting a
fracture unless the formation
permeability is high and the fracture is
very short. In case of a tight gas
formation with an average fracture
length of a few hundred feet, it would
take thousands of hours to reach a
semi-log period. Obviously, it is not
practical to conduct a buildup test of
that length.

Calculate the formation permeability from

the following equation.

k=

Applying Semi-log Method to Drawdown/Fall-off Tests

6.

To determine the formation permeability and

skin factor from a drawdown test using the semilog method, follow these steps:
1. Plot the bottomhole flowing pressure on the
ordinate scale and the logarithm of
producing time on the abscissa scale (Fig.
1.33).

162.6q
...........................................( 1.80)
mh
Measure the shut-in pressure after one
hour of shut-in (p1hr) - (from the straight
line). Substitute this into Eq. 1.81 to
calculate the skin factor.

p1hr pwf

k
log
+ 3.23..( 1.81)
s = 1.151
2
ct rw
m

Note: p1hr may be higher than pwf if the well

is damaged or lower than pwf if the well is
stimulated.

Using the rules outlined earlier find the

correct semi-log straight line.

3.

Substitute p1hr in the following equation to

calculate the skin factor.

For a build-up test, the semi-log method has to

be modified to account for this two-rate test.
This special method, Horner Method, uses the
principle of superposition to derive the
necessary equations.
To calculate permeability and skin factor using
the Horner method, follow these steps.
1. Construct a table of pressure vs. (tp+t)/ t

Finite conductivity fracture. Start of

semi-log straight line depends on
dimensionless fracture conductivity as
shown in Fig. 1.30. The straight line
starts earlier than that for an infinite
conductivity fracture. A different way
of looking at it is that a finite
conductivity fracture is equivalent to a
shorter infinite conductivity fracture.

2.

Determine the flowing pressure after one

hour of production measured on the straight
line p1hr.

6.

t D = C D (60 + 3.5s )

Calculate the formation permeability using

Eq. 1.78.

5.

(2) The start of the semi-log straight

line would start at :

Measure the slope, m, of the straight line.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 34

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

t, Hours

10

100

4600

1-hour Ideal Curve

Pressure

4400
4200
4000
3800

Distortion caused by
Wellbore damage and
after production

3600
3400
100,000

3534
10,000

(tp+ t )/t

1000

100

Fig. 1.34Pressure buildup showing effect of wellbore damage and after production.

3820

Pressure, psia

3750
3680

3610
3540
skin = -5.51

3470 k = 7.167 md
Intercept = 3764.2 psi
Slope = -94.9 psi/cycle

3400
100

101

102

(t + t)/t

103

104

105

Fig. 1.35Example Horner plot for a stimulated well.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 35

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

7.

8.

9.

well under test in the reservoir. Figure

1.36 is an example of these figures for a
square reservoir.

Extrapolate the straight line to intersect the

y coordinate at (tp+t)/t =1. The intercept
is usually called p* (p-star). This pressure
value is the average reservoir pressure
after an infinitely long shut-in time. This
pressure would be the average reservoir
pressure if the reservoir is infinite in extent.

10. The pressure drop due to the presence of

skin factor is calculated using Eq. 1.83

p skin = 0.87 ms..................................( 1.83)

Since the reservoir extent is finite, a typical

pressure buildup test that is run for a long
time is illustrated in Fig. 1.36, in which the
average reservoir pressure is lower than
the extrapolated pressure, p*.

11. Flow efficiency is

The actual reservoir average pressure, may

be calculated from Figures 4.3 to 4.9 in
SPE Monograph Vol. 1. It should be noticed
that the dimensionless time in the figures
are defined based on areal extent as given
below.

If the producing time in a pressure buildup test is

much longer than shut-in time, a simplified
version of Horner plot may be used for analyzing
the test. The basis of this method is that given a
long producing time, tp, the following
approximation is valid:

t DA =

F .E. =

p pwf pskin
......................( 1.84)
p pwf

MDH Plot (Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson plot)

2.637 10 4 kt
..........................( 1.82)
ct A

(t

where A is the reservoir area in ft2 and t is

producing time (in hours) before shut-in.

+ t ) t t.......................................( 1.85)

Thus for a long producing time, Horner plot may

be approximated by plotting pressure versus
shut-in time, t. This plot is usually referred to
as MDH plot. Figure 1.38 is a example of this
semi-log plot.
Analysis of buildup data using the MDH plot is

The dimensionless pressure in Figs. 4.3 to

4.9 in SPE Monograph 1 is not only a
function of reservoir size and shape, it is
also a function of the relative position of the

p*

Bottomhole Pressure, Pws, psi

1300
Slope = -m
1200
Probable p

1100

1000

5 4

987 6 5 4
102

(tp + t)/t

987 6 5 4
101

2
1

Fig. 1.36Typical pressure-buildup curve for a well in a finite reservoir.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 36

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

pD M B H = 2.303(
p*-p)/m

5
4
3

*(t DA ) pss

*
*

1
well 1/8 of height away from side
*(t DA ) pss

0
-1
10

-2

10

-1

10

Dim ensionless Production Tim e, t pD A

Fig. 1.37Matthews-Brons-Hazebrock dimensionless pressure for different well locations in a square

drainage area.
identical to that using Horner plot. Equations
1.80 and 1.81 may be used to calculate
permeability and skin factor. However, since the
method of plotting is different from Horner graph,
p* may not be determined from the MDH plot.

Thus, the equation used to calculate observed

data to change in pressure versus time is slightly
modified for gas reservoir type curve matching.

The following statements summarize the

differences between the techniques of plotting.
Horner plot considers the production time
before shut-in while MDH ignores it.

m( p ) = m( pw )t =0 m( pw )t ... ..................(1.86)

The dimensionless gas pressure in terms of

pseudo-pressure is defined in equation 1.56.
Equation 1.87 is used to calculate the formation
permeability using the match point.

MDH plot assumes that the producing time

is long while Horner plot is general. If the
producing time is several times the shut-in
time, both Horner and MDH plots will give
comparable results. If the producing time is
short, MDH method would not be accurate.

k = 1.417

Gas reservoirs may be analyzed using the same

type curve matching technique used in the
previous pages for oil. However, since gas
viscosity and compressibility depend on
reservoir pressure, the pseudo-pressure function
m(p), introduced earlier, should be used in place
of pressure. If the reservoir pressure is high,
exceeding 5,000 psi, using pressure for analysis
may give acceptable results.

2000, Halliburton

qT ( p D )m
............................( 1.87)
h (m( p ))m

Semi-log methods discussed earlier may be

used for gas reservoirs. However, m(p) is plotted
versus time or (t+t)/t. The slope of the straight
line is

Type Curve Matching and Semi-log Method for Gas

Reservoirs

Halliburton

To perform type curve matching, m(p) is

plotted versus t.

1 - 37

m=

1.632qT
............................................( 1.88).
kh

The skin factor is calculated from the following

equation as

m( p )1hr m( p )wf
k
+ 3.23
s = 1.151
log
2
ct rw
m

..................................................................( 1.89) .

Figure 1.39 is an example of Horner plot for a

gas well.

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Shut-in Pressure, pws, psi

4500

p = 4405 psi

4300

M 80 psi/log
p 1 hr = 4230 psi

4100

3900

3700

3500
1

102

10

Shut-in Time (t), hours

Fig. 1.38Pressure buildup, MDH graph.

3200

m(p), MMpsi^2/cp

2700

2200

1700

1200
Slope = 638 Mpsi^2/cp/cycle
Intercept = 7929 psi
kh = 0.853 md/ft
k = 0.0099 md
Skin = -1.96

700

200
100

101

102

103

104

105

(t + t)/t

Fig. 1.39Example of Horner plot for a gas well.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 38

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Reservoir Limit Test

Equation 1.92 indicates that the long term

approximation on the derivative plot is a
horizontal line, a very simple way to identify
presence of a Horner plot.

During the transient period, the pressure

behavior with time is transient or unsteady
steady state. After the boundaries of the
reservoir are encountered the well performance
reaches a phase usually termed pseudo-steady
state. During this period the pressure at the
wellbore is a linear function of time. Pressure is
also a function of reservoir area, shape of the
reservoir and location of the wellbore relative to
the boundaries. Equation 1.90 describes the
well performance for a homogenous reservoir.
p wf

0.23395q
70.6q A
= pi
t
ln 2

ct hA
kh
rw

The early time approximation for the

homogenous system when dominated with
wellbore storage is given below:

pD =

The derivative of Eq. 13.3 is given in Eq. 1.94.

tD

2.2458
+ ln
+ 2s
C

Equation 1.90 indicates that a plot of flowing

pressure versus time will eventually follow a
straight line. The slope of the straight line is a
direct function of area. The intersect is a
function of initial reservoir pressure, area, shape
factor and skin factor. A test that utilizes this
technique to determine reservoir area is usually
referred to as reservoir limit test, Fig. 17 gives
an example of this test.

By examining other flow regime in the same

fashion to determine how they would appear in
derivative plot, one could show that linear and
bi-linear flow regimes would continue to appear
as one-half and one-quarter slopes.
Figures 1.40 and 1.41 show the effect of
wellbore storage and skin factor on pressure
derivative for a radial flow, homogenous
reservoir. Figure 1.42 shows the behavior of a
finite conductivity fracture.

Derivative Approach
The use of the derivative plot has revolutionized
welltest analysis. By using derivative plots one
analyzes a test not only by studying how
pressure changes with time but also by studying
how the derivative of pressure with time
changes. In order to take derivative of pressure
with time, we first have to have accurate and
frequent sampling of pressure as a function of
time, and second we have to develop a
methodology to best calculate this derivative.
The first concern was satisfied with introduction
of new generations of EMRs. The second
concern will be addressed in a later section.

Dual Porosity Reservoirs

Most limestone and dolomite reservoirs and
some sandstone reservoirs are naturally
fractured. Limestone and dolomite reservoirs
may also contain vugs and cavities. Natural
fractures are usually narrow and do not contain
a significant percentage of oil when compared to
the reservoir matrix. However natural fractures
are highly conductive as compared to the low
permeability reservoir matrix. For all practical
purposes all hydrocarbon flows from the lower
permeability matrix system to the naturally
fractured system and then into the wellbore. In
other words fluid does not flow from the matrix to
the wellbore directly. In essence the system
consists of a high porosity portion and a low
porosity portion, hence the name dual or double
porosity.

We need now to address the basic concepts of

derivative plots under radial flow conditions.
The long term approximation of fluid flowing in a
homogenous reservoir is given below.

1
(ln t D + 0.80907) + s.......................( 1.91)
2

Taking the derivative of dimensionless pressure

with respect to the natural log of dimensionless
we get Eq. 1.92.

There are several ways to view a naturally

fractured reservoirs. The earliest model was
developed by Barenblatt et. al.32 This model was
further developed by Warren and Root.33 This

p
1
t D D = ................................................( 1.92)
t D 2

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

p D t D
=
.............................................( 1.94)
t D C D

Equation 13.94 indicates that wellbore storage

effect would appear as a unit slope straight that
would coincide with the log-log plot of pressure
versus time.

..................................................................( 1.90 )

pD =

tD
...................................................( 1.93) .
CD

1 - 39

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Dimensionless Pressure and Derivative

101
100

10-1

0
0

Skin = 0

10-2
10
100
1000

10-3

10000
10-4
10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107 108

Dimensionless Time

Fig. 1.40Effect of wellbore storage on pressure behavior.

Dimensionless Pressure and Derivative

102

Skin
101

10
5
0

100

-5

10-1

10-2

Wellbore Storage = 100

10-3
10-4
10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101
102
103
104
Dimensionless Time

105

106

107

108

Fig. 1.41Effect of skin factor on pressure behavior.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 40

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Dimensionless Pressure and Derivative

10

CfD = 1
0

10

1
5
10
50

-1

10

-2

10

-3

10

-4

10

-3

10

-2

-1

10

10

10

10

10

Dimensionless Time
Fig. 1.42Effect of fracture conductivity on well response.
Definitions

model is sometimes called sugar cube model.

Another approximation of the naturally fractured
system was presented by Kazemi.34 Figure 1.42
gives a schematic of both models.

To account for both matrix and fractured system

properties, the following two parameters have
been introduced, System storativity, , and
interporosity transmisivity, . They are defined
as follows:

Warren and Root Model

Warren and Root model assumes that the
reservoir consists two overlapping spaces. The
matrix system feeds the fractured system
hydrocarbon that flows into the reservoir. The
model does not describe the flow behavior
inside the matrix and the fluid flow from matrix to
fractured system is pseudo-steady state.

Kazemi approximated the dual porosity reservoir

as a system of repeated layers of high and low
conductivity. The fractured layer has high
conductivity and low storage capacity, while the
matrix layers have low conductivity and high
storage capacity. Kazemis solution considers
the fluid flow behavior inside the fracture
system. Thus fluid flow may follow transient flow
behavior. Other authors have expanded on
Kazemis models.35-37

2000, Halliburton

km 2
rw ..............................................( 1.96).
kf

The term depends on the geometry of the

interporosity flow pattern from the matrix to the
fractured system.

Kazemi Model

Halliburton

f ctf
.....................................( 1.95)
m ctm + f ctf

1 - 41

Storativity ( ) could be 1 or less. A

homogenous system will have a storativity of
1.0. In this case the matrix porosity is equal to
zero, and the system has one porosity, that of
the fractured system. Storativity usually ranges
from 0.01 to 0.1 for most naturally fractured
reservoirs. Interporosity transmisivity (), on the
other hand, usually ranges from 10-3 to 10-10.
Interporosity transmisivity has to be lower than
10-3 for the system to be heterogeneous enough
to affect pressure behavior.

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Kazemi
Model

Actual
Reservoir

Fracture
Matrix

Matrix
Fracture

Warren-Root
Model

Fractures
Matrix
Fig. 1.43Schematic representation of fractured reservoirs.
another semi-log straight line reflecting the
total system forms.

Dimensionless pressure and dimensionless time

are also defined somewhat differently from that
of a homogenous system.

pD =

tD =

kh f p

141.2q

c tf

2
+ m ctm ) rw

Dual porosity system is characterized by

two parallel straight lines on a semi-log
graph. Because of the fractured systems
high conductivity, only fractured system
properties affect pressure behavior at early
time, yielding a semi-log straight line. As
the matrix system starts to contribute fluid
to the system, a transition period takes
place. Eventually as the system stabilizes,

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

Transmisivity affects the time of start of

transition. The smaller the transmisivity,
the later the transition period would start. A
small transmisivity means that matrix
conductivity is low and consequently, its
effect would start later in time than a higher
permeability matrix system
Although the dual porosity system is
characterized by the two parallel lines in a
semi-log graph, the first straight line may be
masked by wellbore storage. Thus in case
of high wellbore storage, only the second
line may appear.

...............................( 1.98)

Figure 1.44 illustrates the effect storativity and

transmisivity have on the semi-log plot of
pressure versus time. The following
observations may be made from the figure.

As storativity gets smaller the separation

between the two semi-log straight lines gets
larger. This is simply because the early
time straight line is controlled by the
fracture system storage, and lower
storativity means larger difference between
the storage capacity of the matrix and
fracture systems.

.........................................( 1.97)

0.000264k f t

( c

1 - 42

Section 1

Dimensionless Wellbore Pressure, pwD

Well Test Analysis

12
=1

10

=10-1
=10-2

=10-3
=10-9

8
=10-7

6
=10-5

M=1.151

10

10

10

10

10

10

Dimensionless Time,tD
Fig. 1.44Dimensionless pressure, pwD, vs. Dimensionless time, tD: the Warren and Root model.
As was discussed earlier, the use of pseudopressure in case of gas flow will cause the gas
flow to closely resemble the fluid of a slightly
compressible liquid. The following equation was
shown to control the flow of gas in porous
media.

Derivative Plots for a

Heterogeneous System

( )

m pwf = m( pi )

Figures 1.45 and 1.46 show the effect of

Omega and Lambda on a test behavior. As
shown in the figures, Omega () will cause a
trough in the derivative type curve, while
Lambda () will control when this trough will take
place. This trough is basically the transition
period from a fracture dominated flow to a total
system (matrix and fracture) dominated flow. A
smaller Omega will cause a larger trough. On
the other hand, a smaller Lambda will cause the
trough to occur later in time. The Warren and
Root model was used to develop these two
figures.

If turbulence factor (D) is to be considered, the

above equation may be written as follows.

( )

m p wf = m( pi )

1.637qT
kh

kt
log
2

1688 i cti rw

2 s + D qg
+

2.303

................................................................( 1.100)
The term Dqg accounts for the extra pressure
near the wellbore due to turbulence (nondarcy
flow) which may occur in high flow rate gas
wells. This extra pressure drop increases as
rate increases, i.e. the total pressure drop will
become a non-linear function of rate. Thus the
skin factor calculated using equation 1.100 will
yield a skin that consists of two components, the
mechanical damage and the turbulence effect.
To calculate the two components, at least two
tests will have to be performed. If more tests are
performed, linear regression may be performed

In this section, we will discuss the basic theory

and application of deliverability testing of gas
wells. We apply equations for transient and
pseudo-steady state equations for flow of gas in
porous media.

2000, Halliburton

2s
kt
log

+
2
1688i cti rw 2.303

.................................................................( 1.99)

Gas Well Deliverability Testing

Halliburton

1.637qT
kh

1 - 43

Section 1

Dimensionless Pressure and Derivative

Well Test Analysis

102

= 10-5

101

0.5
0.1

105

106

100

0.1
0.01

10-1

10-2
10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

103

104

107

108

Dimensionless Time

Delta pD or dt*Delta pD

Fig. 1.45Effect of storativity in well response: Warren and Root model.

Delta tD
Fig. 1.47Effect of transmisivity, , on pressure response: Warren and Root model.
to determine the best fit for both mechanical skin
and turbulence factor.

m( p ) =

For stabilized flow, the following equation

describes the pseudo-steady state behavior of a
gas well.

( )

m pwf = m( pi )

3.275qT
kh

r 0.75 2 s + D qg
log e
r 2.303 + 2.303
w

(p

2
pb
...................................( 1.102)
pzp
2

If pressure is below 2,000 psi, the pseudopressure function may be approximated as

discussed earlier by using the average reservoir
viscosity and compressibility factor. The
following equation for stabilized flow may result.

.............................................................( 1.101)

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 44

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

2
pwf = p 2

3.275qT p z p re 0.75 2 s + D qg
log
+
r 2.303
2.303
kh
w

pseudo-steady state or closing boundary effects

arrive at the wellbore.
All of these studies considered the ideal case of
a well located in the center of a circular drainage
area. The different types of backpressure tests
are described in the following paragraphs.

................................................................( 1.103)
This equation may be written in the abbreviated
form,

Rate-After-Rate Tests

2
p 2 p wf = aq + bDq g ............................( 1.104).

All backpressure tests include a drawdownbuildup sequence except the rate-after-rate

(conventional) backpressure test. If possible,
the rate-after-rate test should include a final
buildup that can be analyzed to collect better
information. Figure 1.47 shows a pressure vs.
time graph of a rate-after-rate test including a
final buildup.

If fluid flow is laminar, the value of the

turbulence factor D is negligible and equation
1.104 is reduced to,
2
p 2 p wf = aq.........................................( 1.105).

This equation indicates that a plot of the

pressure difference versus stabilized rate would
yield a straight line. In a log-log plot the straight
line should have a unit slope. If such a plot is
used for turbulent flow, D>0, the plot will yield a
curve instead of a straight line. The following
sections will discuss the cases for both laminar
and turbulent flow. It should be remembered
that these techniques could be applied to oil
wells, too.

Isochronal Tests
Figure 1.48 is a pressure vs. time graph
showing the way to conduct an isochronal
backpressure test. Isochronal means equal
times. In this case, the flowing times on each
rate are equal. Buildup times are determined by
the time it takes to return to initial reservoir
pressure. There can be any number of flowingbuildup sequences. Figure 1.49 shows a fourpoint isochronal test. The last flow rate is
usually flowed until stabilized flow is reached.
Then, the well is shut in for a final buildup.

Equation 1.100 is frequently expressed in a

somewhat different format given below.

2
q = Cn p 2 pwf

) ...................................( 1.106)
n

For wells producing from high-permeability, thick

reservoirs, this is an excellent test. But for wells
producing from low-permeability, thin (low flow
capacity) reservoirs, this test is time consuming
and costly; each buildup period could take a
week or more. Make sure the well is cleaned up
before the test starts. Ideally, the test should
start with the bottomhole pressure at static
reservoir pressure. This is true for all well tests.

where:

Cn is the backpressure coefficient

n is exponent defining type of flow (laminar or
turbulent)
Using equation 1.106, one may derive an
expression for calculating Cn from reservoir and
fluid properties; however, specialized
backpressure tests are run to empirically
determine the backpressure coefficient and
exponent.

To cut testing costs on tight reservoirs, the

modified isochronal test was developed.
Modified Isochronal Tests

Backpressure Tests
Since Rawlins and Schellhardts US Bureau of
Mines Monograph 7 in 1939, a great deal of
backpressure testing literature has accumulated
in engineering libraries. Cullender and Cornells
1955 investigation28,29 are noteworthy since they
recognized that the backpressure coefficient (Cn)
decays as a function of producing time until

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 45

Figure 1.50 shows a four-point modified

isochronal test on a pressure vs. time graph.
Modified isochronal tests are probably the best
all-around tests, because the flow periods are
equal and the shut-in periods are equal. As a
result, testing costs could be reduced
considerably for tight reservoirs. For tight
reservoirs, shut-in times might be as much as
twice the length of the flow period.

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

pi

pi

pw

pw
2nd
Flow

1st
Flow

Clean-Up
Period
0

1st
Flow

Clean-Up
Period

4th
Flow

3rd
Flow

Time

2nd
Flow

3rd
Flow

4th
Flow

Final
Buildup

Time

Fig. 1.48Four point rate-after-rate test including

final buildup.

Fig. 1.47Four point rate-after-rate test.

pi

Final
Build-Up

Extended
Flow

4th Flow

3rd Shut-In

3rd Flow

2nd Shut-In

2nd Flow

1st Shut-In

1st Flow

Clean-Up Period

Pw

Time
Fig. 1.49Isochronal backpressure test.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 46

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

pi

Final
Build-Up

xtended
low

4thFlow

3rd Shut-In

3rd Flow

2nd Shut-In

2nd Flow

1st Shut-In

1st Flow

Clean-Up Period

Pw

Time
Fig. 1.50Four-point modified isochronal backpressure test.
decreasing flow rate schedule will make little or
no difference. The smallest rate should give a
measurable drawdown and lift the liquids out of
the wellbore.

Pressure Transients and

Backpressure Tests
Considering that pressure transients move out
with time from the wellbore, you can see that for
a rate-after-rate test, the resulting drawdown
transient continues to move out farther into the
reservoir as the test progresses with time.
When conducting an isochronal test, the
drawdown pressure transients move out to
about the same radius for each drawdown
period. Then, they become nonexistent before
the next drawdown period starts. This is also
nearly true when you are conducting a modified
isochronal test. The pressure transients during
the buildup periods do not disappear, but they
become small.

An increasing or decreasing flow rate schedule

for the rate-after-rate backpressure tests makes
a great difference in tight reservoirs. Pressure
transients are slow in changing with time in a
tight reservoir. Therefore, if turbulence is
causing a pressure drop in the reservoir, a flow
rate change at the surface does not mean that
the flow in the reservoir rock immediately
changes. In other words, the pressure drop in
the reservoir caused by turbulence carries over
to the next rate. Analyzing the data becomes
complicated, particularly when you are
examining decreasing flow rate schedules on
rate-after-rate tests. It is always a good idea to
run an increasing flow rate schedule unless the
reservoir has a permeability greater than 50 md.

Since the pressure transients become small or

disappear during the buildup of modified
isochronal and isochronal tests, an increasing or

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 47

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Backpressure Plots
4-Hour Flow Rates
5-Hour Flow Rates

The backpressure plot is a plot of pressure and

rate data according to Eq. 1.106. In the
backpressure plot, the difference in the square
of pressure is plotted versus flow rates of
different periods at different times on a log-log
scale. Figure 1.51 is an example of this type of
plot. If the flow is strictly laminar and follows Eq.
1.105, the slope of each line will be unity and the
intercept is Cn.
In tight gas reservoirs drilled on 640-acre
spacing, it is not practical to design a test based
on time to reach stabilized flow. For micro darcy
formations, it may take years to achieve
stabilized flow.
For the modified isochronal test, take the static
pressure for each rate just before the rate
begins. Determine the stabilized flow line by a
point taken from the stabilized flow period. This
line is drawn parallel to the hourly rate line
through the stabilized point. Each one of these
lines shows what the well will be producing for a
particular drawdown during that time after
opening. The plot is also used along with
material balance to predict the rate of flow rate
decay.

(Static Pressure)2

(Static Pressure)2 - (Flowing Pressure)2

(psia)2

A
e
at

ow

ed
liz
bi
a
St

2-hr Flow Rates

10

100

10.000

AOF

1.000

Oil Flow Rate (B/D)

100

1.000

OR

10.000

100.000

Gas Flow Rate (Mscf/D)

Fig. 1.51Sandface backpressure plot.

with the x-axis), or exponent (BI) of 0.5 (Fig.
1.52).
2
p 2 pwf = bDq 2 ......................................( 1.107)

If you use wellhead data to make a

backpressure plot, the slope of the lines will be
greater than 45 for laminar flow. Liquid holdup
and friction in the wellbore causes a nonlinear
pressure loss increase as the rate increases. If
the slope of the lines on the plot are outside the
range of 45 to 63.5, the data are probably
incorrect.

Turbulent Flow

63.5

Log p2

The slope of the line is affected by any pressure

drops that react in a nonlinear way with flow
rate. The main cause of this is turbulent flow.
For laminar flow Eq. 1.105 would control the
sand face pressure as a function of time. Thus
the slope of the straight line would be 1 (forms a
45 angle with the x-axis). However, turbulent
flow contributes to the pressure drop nonlinearly as flow rate increases in the reservoir. If
the flow is fully turbulent Eq. 1.107 would control
the flow resulting in a slope of 2 (63.5 angle

2000, Halliburton

1-hr Flow Rates

3-hr Flow Rates

This plot is commonly used to determine

absolute open flow (AOF) potential for a well.
Before the energy crisis of 1973, many state
agencies used the AOF to determine the
allowable rate for a gas well. Currently, gas
wells that have no critical rate problems are
usually produced at capacity. The AOF has no
real physical meaning; it is determined by setting
the sand face flowing pressure equal to zero and
finding out the flow rate from the stabilized line
on the sand face backpressure plot. If wellhead
data is used for the plot, you can find the
maximum wellhead deliverability of the well in
the same way as the AOF.

Halliburton

Fl

Laminar Flow

45

Log q

Fig. 1.52Turbulent flow effect on slope of

backpressure line.

1 - 48

Section 1

As Figure 1.52 shows, turbulence will cause the

curve to deviate from linear behavior, thus, no
usable information may be obtained from this
part of the data. Since it is not expected to see
fully turbulent flow, turbulence effect will cause
the line to deviate from the unit slope line but not
fully reach a slope of 2.

2
i

2
p wf

qg, MMscf/D

Fig. 1.53Modified isochronal test analysis,

theoretical flow equation, constant

Turbulence effect may be quantified in one of

two ways. One is to plot the data as given in
Figs. 1.51 and 1.52. The slope of the straight
will indicate the degree of turbulence. The
closer the slope to two, the higher the
turbulence. The main disadvantage of this
approach is that the plot will be more of a curve
than a straight line. However, a better approach
is to manipulate the equations to obtain linear
plots for turbulent flow. To do that Eq. 1.104 is
rewritten in the following form.

(p

100,000

(pws2-pwf2/qg, psia2/MMscf/D

Line shifting on the sand face backpressure plot

with time depends on reservoir permeability,
size, and shape. As shown earlier, this shifting
can be related to the backpressure coefficient
(C). In many cases, this shift to the stabilized
line is not measured with a well test. However,
you can calculate the positioning of the
stabilized line for different reservoir sizes and
shapes.

200,000

Well Test Analysis

for various perforated intervals. The results of

this simulation work are graphically shown in
Figs 1.54 and 1.55.

Figure 1.54 shows that the relationship between

AOF and permeability is linear for a fairly long
range of permeability. At a very low formation
permeability, the trend curves toward zero rate
for zero permeability. The slope of the straight
line depends on the reservoir and fluid
properties including perforated interval. Thus
one could produce any of these lines using only
two simulation runs. The main use of the
straight line may be for design purposes.
However, it could be also used for achieving a
quick estimate of reservoir permeability. In this
case the design line is developed using a
simulator. Once an actual isochronal test is run
and actual AOF is determined using the plotting
technique outlined earlier, interpolation or
extrapolation of the design curve may be used to
estimate reservoir permeability.

) q = a + bDq...........................( 1.108)

Thus, a plot of the left hand side of the above

equation versus rate will yield a straight line
whose slope is a function of turbulence factor.
The intercept is a function of reservoir properties
and skin factor. Figure 1.53 is an example of
this plot. If the flow is strictly laminar, the
produced straight line will have a slope of zero,
i.e. straight line is horizontal. If the flow is fully
turbulent, the intercept would be zero, i.e. the
straight line would pass through the origin.
However, one has to remember that the
possibility of observing a fully turbulent flow is
very small.

AOF, on the other hand is not a linear function of

perforated interval as clearly shown in Fig. 1.55.
Similar figures may be produced relating AOF to
skin factor.

Effect of permeability and perforated

interval
The effect of permeability and perforation on
AOF was studied using an analytical simulator.40
The simulator was used to simulate a series of
modified isochronal tests for various reservoir
permeabilities. All other reservoir properties
were kept the same. The runs were repeated

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 49

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

1600
100% perf
1400
80% perf
70% perf

1200

AOF, MMCF/D

60% perf
1000

50% perf
40% perf

800
30% perf
600

400

200

0
0

Formation Permeability, md

Fig. 1.54AOF vs. formation permeability for various perforated intervals.

1600

1400

1200

AOF MMcf/d

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of Perforated Interval

Fig. 1.55AOF vs. perforated interval.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 50

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Greek & Other Symbols

Nomenclature
C
CD
CfD
ct
g
gc
h
k
ke
kf
kg
ko
kw
Lf
m
m(p)
p
pb
pD
pi
pwf
pws
p1hr
p*
p

Wellbore storage coefficient, res bbl/psi

Wellbore storage coefficient, dimensionless
Fracture Conductivity, dimensionless
-1
Total system compressibility, psi
2
Acceleration of gravity, ft/sec
2
Units conversion factor, 32.17 lbm ft/(lbf sec )
Formation thickness, ft
Formation permeability, md
Effective permeability, md
Permeability of fracture, md
Effective permeability to gas, md
Effective permeability to oil, md
Effective permeability to water, md
Fracture half length, ft
Semi-log slope, psi/cycle/cycle, or
2
MMpsi /cp/cycle/cycle
2
Gas pseudo-pressure, psia /cp
Pressure, psia
Base pressure, psia
Pressure, dimensionless
Initial pressure, psia
Bottomhole flowing pressure, psia
Bottomhole shut-in pressure, psia
Theoretical pressure one hour into test period
(flow or shut-in), psia
Extrapolated pressure from buildup semi-log
line, psia
Average reservoir pressure, psia

t DLf

Formation volume factor, res vol/surf vol

(beta)
Gas formation volume factor, RB/Mscf

Oil formation volume factor, RB/STB

Gas gravity (gamma)

Difference (delta)
Hydraulic diffusivity (eta)

Transmissivity (lambda)
System storativity (omega)
Viscosity, cp (mu)

Effective porosity, fraction/percent (phi)

Density, lb/ft (rho)

Gradient

Flow rate of oil or gas, STB/D or Mscf/D

Flow rate of oil, STB/D
Flow rate of gas, Mscf/D
Radius, radial distance, ft
External boundary radius, ft
Wellbore radius, ft
Skin, dimensionless
Temperature, 0R
Time, hours
Time, dimensionless (based on wellbore radius)
Time, dimensionless (based on total drainage
area)
Time, dimensionless (based on fracture

tp
w
z

length)
Production time, hours
Fracture width, ft
Gas compressibility factor, dimensionless

q
qo
qg
r
re
rw
s
T
t
tD
tDA

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 51

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

13. Ramey, H. J. Jr.: Practical Use of Modern

Testing Methods, Pressure Transient
Methods, Reprint Series, SPE Richardson
TX (1980) 14, 46-67; also SPE 5878
presented at the 1976 SPE Annual
California Regional Meeting, Long Beach
CA, April 8-9.

References
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Theis, C. V.: The Relationship Between

the Lowering of Piezometric Surface and
the Rate and Duration of Discharge Using
Ground Water Storage, Trans. August
(1935) 519.

14. Tiab, D. and Kumar, A. Application of

Function to Interference Analysis, J. Pet
Tech. (Aug. 1980), 1466-77.

Muscat, M.: Use of Data on Buildup of

Bottom-hole pressure, Trans. AIME (1937)
123.

15. Tiab, D., and Kumar, A.: Detection and

Location of two Parallel Sealing Faults, J.
Pet Tech. (Oct. 1980), 1701-08.

Horner D. R.: Pressure Buildup in Wells,

Proc. Third World Pet. Cong., E. J. Brill
(ed.), Leiden (1951) II, 503-22.

16. Bourdet, D., Whittle, T. M., Douglas, A. A.,

and Pirard, Y. M.: A New Set of Type
Curves Simplifies Well Test Analysis,
World Oil (May 1983) 95-106.

Miller, C. C., Dyes, A. B. and Hutchinson,

C. A.Jr.: Estimation of Permeability and
Reservoir Pressure From Bottom-hole
Pressure Buildup Characteristics, Trans.
AIME (1950) 189, 91-104.

17. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J. A., Whittle, T. M.,

Pirard, Y. M., and Kniazeff, V.: Interpreting
Well Tests in Fractured Reservoirs, World
Oil (Oct. 1983) 77-87.

Moore, T. V., Schilthuis, R. J., and Hurst,

W.: The Determination of Permeability
From Field Data, API bulletin 211, API,
Dallas (1953).

18. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J. A., and Pirard, Y. M.:

Use of the Pressure Derivative in Well Test
Interpretation, SPEFE (June 1989) 293;
Trans. AIME, 287.

Van Everdingen, A. F., and Hurst, W.:

Application of the Laplace Transformation
to Flow Problems, Trans. AIME (1949)
186, 305-24.

19. Rodgers, J., Coble, Larry, Boykin, R. S.,

and Mokha, J. S. Non-Linear Well Test
Analysis Reveals Reservoir Boundary
Shape, Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 14, 1981.

Hurst, W.: Establishment of the Skin Effect

and its Impediment to Fluid flow Into a
Wellbore, Pet. Eng. (Oct. 1953).

8.

Van Everdingen, A. F.: The Skin Effect and

Its Influence on the Productive Capacity of
a Well, Trans. AIME (1953), 171-76.

9.

Matthews, C. S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek,

P.: A Method for Determination of Average
Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir, Trans.
AIME (1954) 201, 182-91.

21. Rosa , A. J, and Horne, Roland.:

Automated Type-Curve Matching in Well
Test Analysis Using Laplace Space
Determination of Parameter Gradient, SPE
12131 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Francisco, Oct. 5-8.

10. Ramey, H. J, Jr.: Short-Time Test Data

Interpretation in the Presence of Skin Effect
and Wellbore Storage, JPT (June 1970)
97-104

22. Horne, R. N.: Advances in ComputerAided Well Test Interpretation, JPT (July
1994) 599.

11. Agarwal, Ram, Al-Hussainy, Rafi, and

Ramey, H. J. Hr.: An Investigation of
Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in
Unsteady State Liquid Flow I. Analytical
Treatment, Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept. 1970)
279-290.

23. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.:

Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells,
SPE Monograph Vol. 1.
24. Earlougher, R.C., Jr.: Advances in Well
Test Analysis, SPE Monograph Vol. 5.

12. Wattenbarger, Robert A., and Ramey, H. J.

Jr.: An Investigation of Wellbore Storage
and Skin Effect in Unsteady State Liquid
Flow II. Finite Difference Treatment, Soc.
Pet. Eng. J. (Sept. 1970) 291-297.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

20. Soliman, et. al : Evaluating Fractured Well

Performance Using Type Curves, SPE
12598, presented at the 1984 Permian
Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference
held in Midland TX, March 8-9, 1984.

25. Al Hussainy, R, Ramey, H.J., Jr., and

Crawford, P.B.: The Flow of Real Gases

1 - 52

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

38. Cornell, D.: Calculations of Stabilized Gas

Well Performance Curves from
Backpressure Test Data, (1955) Trans.,
AIME, 204.

Through Porous Media, J. Pet. Tech.

(May, 1966) 624-635; Trans., AIME, 237.
26. Hawkins, M. F. Jr.: A Note on the Skin
Effect, Trans AIME (1956) Vol. 207, 356357

39. Cullender, M.H.: The Isochronal

Performance Method of Determining the
Flow Characteristics of Gas Wells, (1955)
Trans., AIME, 204, 137-142.

27. Rodgers, John S. and McArthur, Bill W.:

Implicit Solutions and Precision Pressure
Measurements provide Reliable Transient
Analyses, SPE 4056 presented at the 47th
Annual Fall Meeting of SPE held in San
Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11, 1972.

40. RESULTS, In-house design software.

28. Raghavan, R.: Well Test Analysis,

Prentice Hall Petroleum Engineering Series
29. Earlogher, R. C., and Kazemi, H.:
Practicalities of Detecting Faults From
Buildup Testing, JPT (January 1980), pp.
18-20.
30. Stegemeier, G. L. and Matthews, C. S.: A
Study of Anomalous Pressure Buildup
Behavior, SPE Reprint Series 9, 75-81.
31. Fair, W. B. Jr.: Pressure Buildup Analysis
with Wellbore Redistribution, SPEJ (April
1981) 259-270
32. Barenblatt, G. E., Zheltov, I. P., and
Kochina, I. A.: Basic Concepts in the
Theory of Homogenous Liquids in Fissured
Rocks, Jour. App. Math. Mech. (1960)
1286-1303.
33. Warren, J. E., Root, P. J.: The Behavior of
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Soc. Pet.
Eng. Jour. (September 1963) 245-255.
34. Kazemi, H.: Pressure Transient Analysis of
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Trans.
AIME 256 (1969) 451-461.
35. DeSwann-O. A.: Analytical Solutions for
Determining Naturally Fractured Reservoir
Properties by Well Testing, Soc. Pet. Eng.
Jour. (June 1976) 117-122
36. Serra, K., Reynolds, A. C., Raghavan, R.:
New Pressure Transient Analysis
Procedures for Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs, Jour. Pet. Tech. (December
1983) 2271-2284.
37. Petak, K. R., Soliman, M. Y., and
Anderson, M. F.: Type Curves for
Analyzing Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,
SPE 15638 presented the 61st Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of
SPE, held in New Orleans, LA October 5-8,
1986.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 53

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

General Bibliography

Ramey, J.J., Jr., Agarwal, R.G., and Martin,

I.: Analysis of Slug Test or DST Flow
Period Data, The Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, (July Sept. 1975),
37-47.

DST Chart Interpretation and

Analysis

Saldana Cortez, M.: Drillstem Test Data

Analysis Considering Inertial and Frictional
Wellbore Effects, Ph.D Dissertation,
Stanford University, Nov. 1983.

Shinohara, K.: A Study of Inertial Effects in

the Wellbore in Pressure Transient Well
Testing, Ph. D. Dissertation, Stanford
University, April 1980.

Simmons, J. F. and Sageev, A.:

Application of Closed Chamber Theory to
Backsurge Completion Testing, SPE
Production Engineering (Nov. 1988) 527535.

Simmons, J. F.: Interpretation of

Underbalanced Surge Pressure Data by
Rate Tiem Convolution, JPT (Jan. 1990),
74-83.

Soliman, M. Y.: Analysis of Buildup Tests

with Short Producing Time, SPE Formation
Evaluation (Aug. 1986) 363-371.

Murphy, W.C.: Detection of Natural

Fractures from a Drill Stem Test,
Southwestern Petroleum Short Course,
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX (April
20-21, 1978).

Soliman, M. Y.: New Technique for

Analysis of Variable Rate or Slug Test,
SPE 10083 presented at Annual Fall
Technical Conference, San Antonio, TX,
Oct. 1981.

Soliman, M.Y. and Petak, K.R.: Method

Analyzes Pressure for Short Flow Times,
Oil and Gas Journal (Apr. 30, 1990) 49-54.

Murphy, W.C.: The Effect of Permeability

Discontinuities on Pressure Build up
Behavior, AIME, Liberal, KS (Nov. 18-19,
1965).

Production Well Testing

Alexander, L.G.: Theory and Practice of

the Closed Chamber Drillstem Test
Method, JPT (Dec. 1977) 1539-1544.
Ferris, J.G. and Knowles, D.B.: The Slug
Test for Estimating Transmissibility, USGS
Ground Water Note 26, 1-7, 1954.

Fulton, D.D.: A Primer of DST Chart

Interpretation, HRS 1000, Halliburton
Internal Publication.

Kamal, M.M. and Six, J.L.: Pressure

Transient Testing of Methane Producing
Coalbeds, SPE 19789 presented at the
1989 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8 11.

Mfonfu, G.B.S. and Grader, A.S.: An

Implicit Numerical Model for the Closed
Chamber Test, SPE 19832 presented at
the 1989 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
TX, Oct. 8-11.

Petak, K.R., Prasad, R.K., and Coble, L.E.:

Surge Test Simulation, SPE 21832
presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional
Meeting and Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium held in Denver, CO, April 1517, 1991.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 54

Agarwal, R.G.: Real Gas Pseudotime A

New Function for Pressure Buildup
Analysis of Gas Wells, SPE 8279
presented at the 1979 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las
Vegas, NV, Sept. 23-26.

Petak, K.R., Finley, D.B., and Coble, L.E.:

Drillstem Test and Closed Chamber
Drillstem Test Simulation, SPE 23115
presented at the Offshore Europe
Conference held in Aberdeen 3-6 Sept.
1991.

Agarwal, R.G.: A New Method to Account

for Producing Time Effects When
Drawdown Type Curves are Used to
Analyze Pressure Buildup and Other Test
Data, SPE 9289 presented at the 1980
SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Sept. 21-24.

Odeh, A.S. and Selig, F.: Pressure Build up

Analysis, Variable Rate Case, JPT, July
1963, pp 790-94: Trans. 228.

Al Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H.J., Jr.:

Application of Real Gas Flow Theory to

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Pressure Build Up Characteristics, Trans.,

AIME (1950) 189, 91-104.

Well Testing and Deliverability

Forecasting, JPT (May 1966) 637-642,
Trans., AIME (237).

Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A., and Pirard, Y.M.:

Use of the Pressure Derivative in Well Test
Interpretation, SPE Formation Evaluation
(June 1989) 293-302.

Paghavan, R.: Well Test Analysis: Wells

Producing by Solution Gas Drive, SPEJ
(Aug. 1976) 196-208; Trans., AIME, 261.
Ramey, H.J., Jr.: Interference Analysis for
Anisotropic Formations A Case History,
JPT (Oct. 1975) 1290-1298; Trans., AIME,
259.

Ramey, H.J., Jr.: Short time Well Test

Data Interpretation in the Presence of Skin
Effect and Wellbore Storage, JPT (Jan.
1970) 97-104; Trans., AIME, 249.

Gringarten, A.C., Bourdet, D., Landel, P.A.,

and Kniazeff, V.: A Comparison Between
Different Skin and Wellbore Storage Type
Curves for Early Time Transient Analysis,
SPE 8205 presented at the 1979 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 23-26.

Petroleum Production Handbook, Vol. I & II,

Thomas C. Frick, Editor in Chief, Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, TX
(1962).

Fetkovich, M.J.: The Isochronal Testing of

Oil Wells, SPE 4529 presented at the SPE
AIME 1973 Annual Fall Meeting, Las
Vegas.

Peirce, A.E.: Case History: Waterflood

Performance Predicted by Pulse Testing,
SPE 6196 presented at the 1976 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans (Oct. 3-6).
Preprint.

Falade, G.K. and Brigham, W.E.: The

Dynamics of Vertical Pulse Testing in a
Slab Reservoir, SPE 5055 A presented at
the 1974 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston (Oct.
6-9). Preprint.

Muskat, M.: Use of Data on the Build Up of

Bottomhole Pressures, Trans., AIME
(1937) 123, 44-48.

Falade, G.K. and Brigham, W.E.: The

Analysis of Single Well Pulse Tests in a
Finite Acting Slab Reservoir, SPE 5055 B
presented at the 1974 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston (Oct. 6-9). Preprint.

Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C.: Conduction

of Heat in Solids, Oxford at the Clarendon
Press (1959).

Muskat, M.: The Flow of Homogeneous

Fluids Through Porous Media, McGraw Hill
Book Co., Inc., New York (1937).

Rawlins, E.L. and Schellhardt, M.A.:

Backpressure Data on Natural Gas Wells
and Their Application to Production
Practices, Monograph 7, USBM (1936) 7.

Horner, D.R.: Pressure Buildup in Wells,

Proc., Third World Pet. Cong. (1951) Sec.II.

Hurst, W.: Establishment of the Skin Effect

and Its Impediment to Fluid Flow Into a
Wellbore, Pet. Eng. (Oct. 1953) B 6
through B16.

Van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: The

Application of the Laplace Transformation
to flow Problems in Reservoirs, Trans.,
AIME (1949) 186, 305-324.

Van Everdingen, A.F.: The Skin Effect and

Its Influence on the Productive Capacity of
a Well, Trans., AIME (1953) 198, 171-176.

Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D, and Pollock,

C.B.: Evaluation and Performance
Prediction of Low Permeability Gas Wells
Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic
Fracturing, J. Pet. Tech. (March, 1979)
362-372.

Cinco, L.H. Samaniego, V.F., and

Dominguez, A.N.: Transient Pressure
Behavior for a Well with a Finite
Conductivity Vertical Fracture, Soc. Pet.
Eng. J. (August 1978) 253-264.

Johnson, C.R., Greenkorn, R.A., and

Woods, E.G.: Pulse Testing: A New
Method for Describing Reservoir Flow
Properties Between Wells, JPT (Dec.
1966) 1599-1604; Trans., AIME, 237.
Jones, P.: Drawdown Exploration
Reservoir Limit, Well and Formation
Evaluation, SPE AIME 824 G presented at
the 1957 Permian Basin Oil Recovery
Conference, Midland, TX (April 18-19).
Miller, C.C., Dyes, A.B., and Hutchinson,
C.A., Jr.: The Estimation of Permeability
and Reservoir Pressure From Bottom Hole

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

1 - 55

Section 1

Well Test Analysis

Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J., Jr., and

Raghaven, R.: Applied Pressure Analysis
for Fractured Wells, J. Pet. Tech. (July,
1975) 887-892.

Hawkins, M.F., Jr.: A Note on the Skin

Effect, Trans., AIME (1956), Vol. 207, 356357.

Jones, P.: Reservoir Limit Test, Oil and

Gas J. (September 14, 1964) 138.

Lee, J.: Well Testing, SPE Textbook

Series, Vol. 1.

Halliburton
2000, Halliburton

Marquardt, D.W.: An Algorithm for Least

Squares Estimation of Nonlinear
Parameters, J. Soc. Indust. Appl. Math.
(June, 1963) 11, No. 2, 431-441.

1 - 56

Sabet, M.A.: Well Test Analysis, Gulf

Publishing Company,1991.
Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J., Jr.:
Gas Well Testing With Turbulence,
Damage, and Wellbore Storage, J. Pet.
Tech. (Aug. 1968) 877-887; Trans., AIME,
243.

Section 1