Well Testing of Tight Gas Reservoirs

A. JAHANBANI

Petroleum University of Technology

R. AGUILERA

University of Calgary

Abstract
A tight gas reservoir is commonly defined as a reservoir having
less than 0.1 milliDarcies permeability. Because of the very low
permeability, hydraulic fracturing is usually carried out in efforts
to establish commercial production. There are several basic concepts and field cases of different well tests in tight gas reservoirs
in the literature. In this paper, we gather information and provide
a guide to some of the most important tests.
Generally because of low permeability, a well will not flow
initially at measurable rates and conventional well testing cannot
be applied. We review procedures for design of pre- and postfracture tests in single and dual porosity reservoirs. The prefracture test permits estimating preliminary values of reservoir
permeability and initial pressure. The post-fracture test provides
data for estimating fracture half length and conductivity. We also
review the application of convolution/deconvolution methods to
analyze well tests with significant wellbore storage.
Because of economic and environmental reasons, short duration procedures are preferred. However, although effective in
many instances, these methods also have their own limitations.

Introduction
Unconventional reservoirs (tight gas, coal bed methane, shales
gas and gas hydrates) will be an important pat of the global energy
mix for decades to come. Large reserves, long-term potential, costs
and gas prices and some other factors account for the great influence of these resources on the future of energy.
There is no formal definition for tight gas. A commonly used
definition, describes tight gas reservoirs as those having permeabilities smaller than 0.1 milliDarcies.
Well testing is generally done as an aid to estimate gas in-place
and recoverable volumes. Initial pressure (pi) is a critical parameter not only for estimating gas in-place, but also for determining
how much field development is required and whether or not the
field is overdeveloped. In addition to pi, well testing provides an
estimate of permeability and skin.
A problem associated with well testing in tight gas sands is
that usually long times are required to reach radial flow, due to
their extremely low permeabilities. Therefore, conventional well
tests cannot be applied to these reservoirs. Because of initial uneconomic rates, fracturing is usually required. Lee(2) has suggested
procedures for pre- and post-fracture tests design. In order to have
measurable gas rates for pre-frac testing, often a breakdown with
acid, KCl water or N2 is necessary.
There are many different types of pre-frac open-hole and casedhole tests. Some of the important open-hole tests include DST

(drillstem test) and wireline formation tests such as RFT (repeat

formation test), MDT (modular dynamic test), RCI (reservoir
characterization instrument) and FRA (formation rate analyzer).
Their objective is primarily to estimate the initial pressure, but in
tight gas reservoirs there is a problem usually known as a supercharge effect, which leads to wrong estimates of initial pressure.
Cased-hole tests include slug tests, impulse tests, PID (perforation inflow diagnostic) tests, closed chamber tests, FRT (flow rate
tester), mini-frac tests, DFIT (diagnostic fracture injection test),
ACA (mini-frac after-closure analysis) and PITA (perforation inflow test analysis).
In this work, we have concentrated mostly on important casedhole tests and found that all of them are variations of the same
principles. In these tests, the wellbore is cased and perforated. The
reservoir is then flowed for a short time and subsequently it is shutin. Pressure is recorded and analyzed by different methods. These
tests are shorter, cheaper and greener (i.e. more friendly to environment) than conventional tests, so they are highly desirable in tight
gas well testing. However, because of the short flow period, they
develop a very short radius of investigation and the quality of the
obtained data may be poorer than what could be gained from conventional tests. Nevertheless it should be stated that for all practical purposes, cased-hole tests are the preferred tests.

Pressure-Transient Test Design in Singleand Dual-Porosity Tight Gas Reservoirs

Post-fracture tests are often useful for assessing the stimulation
job for various reasons like finding the cause of unimproved productivity following a treatment and optimizing the stimulation design for future works. However, the proper analysis of these tests
requires preliminary estimates of permeability and initial reservoir
pressure which can be obtained from a pre-fracture test.
To estimate permeability to gas, kg, and initial pressure, pi, in
a pre-fracture test; and fracture half-length, xf, and fracture conductivity, cfD, following a post-fracture job, the test must be designed carefully. Lee(1) has proposed procedures for making these
estimates in single porosity reservoirs. He has formulated the test
design equations in terms of ordinary pressure and time, and evaluated the pressure-dependent gas properties at average pressure.
To analyze a buildup test properly, the testing time should exceed the time of wellbore storage distortion, unloading or afterflow
(twbs). Downhole shut-in must be used as much as possible to reduce down to a minimum wellbore storage effects.
Lees(1) method has been extended for the case of dual-porosity
tight gas reservoirs by Shahamat and Aguilera.(2) An example is
presented in Figure 1 that shows the effect of wellbore storage
in a dual-porosity reservoir with an infinite conductivity vertical

Peer Reviewed Paper (Review and Publication Process can be found on our Website)
64

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

Dimensionless Pressure (PD)

104
X eD

103

feeding into the fractures. This could be the result of damage induced during the hydraulic fracturing job.

102
101
100

10-2 -4
10

Infinite
10
5
2
1

CD =

10-1

01

0.0

Small Fracture Injection Tests

10

Sealed outer boundary

Constant pressure outer boundary

0.0

0.1

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

103

104

Dimensionless Time (tD)

FIGURE 1: Wellbore storage, infinite conductivity vertical fracture,
dual porosity reservoir (omega = 0.01). Outer boundary effects are
included. (Source: Shahamat and Aguilera, 2008)(2).

fracture. The graph developed using a storativity ratio () of 0.01

and an interporosity flow coefficient () equal to 6.2E05, also
shows outer boundary effects with and without pressure maintenance. When the wellbore storage (CD) is zero, the log-log slope is
0.5, indicating linear flow. Wellbore storage changes the slope to
1.0, even if linear flow is going on in the reservoir.
Most tight gas reservoirs we are familiar with contain the presence of natural microfractures. However, these fractures are usually ignored in pressure transient analysis and the reservoirs are
evaluated nearly always using single-porosity models. One possible reason is the complex behaviour of the hydraulically fractured, naturally fractured tight gas reservoir, which causes their
build up plots to look sometimes like single-porosity reservoirs(2).
A large value of the interporosity flow coefficient associated
with the hydraulic fracture (f) means fast transfer of fluids between matrix and fractures and shift of the dual porosity response
on a log-log pD tD plot to the left. This shifting effect is such
that there is a limit beyond which the pD tD plot for dual and
single-porosity reservoirs becomes nearly the same. An example
of this would be the case of a dual-porosity slab model with storativity ratio of 0.01, fracture spacing of 7.5 ft, and matrix and fracture permeabilities of 0.01 and 0.1 mD, respectively. In this case,
if the half-fracture length (xf) is 500 ft, then f = 40,000 and this
large value of interporosity flow coefficient will mask the dualporosity behaviour in the pD tD graph. Figure 2 illustrates this
case, in which it is nearly impossible to discern dual from single
porosity(2).
Another possibility for not seeing dual-porosity behaviour
would be a very small value of f; so that the matrix takes a long
time to start feeding into the fractures(2). In this case, the fractures
would reach boundary dominated flow before the matrix starts

PD (dpD/dtD)

101

Single porosity model

Dual porosity model, 0.01, f - 10,000

100
10-1
10-2
10-3

10-4

10-2

100

102

104

106

tD
FIGURE 2: Dimensionless pressure and pressure derivative curves
for a single and dual porosity reservoirs dominated by linear flow
at early times, yet obscured by wellbore storage effects (CD = 0.01,
= 0.01 and f = 40,000). In this case it is nearly impossible to
distinguish the behaviour of the single and dual porosity reservoirs.
(Source: Shahamat and Aguilera, 2008)(2).
October 2009, Volume 48, No. 10

To better estimate formation properties and optimize the design

of fracture stimulation, some special tests are performed prior to,
during or following a fracturing treatment, besides traditional tests.
Some of the pre-fracturing tests like minifrac, impulse fracture injection and mini-fall-off tests are applied as small injection tests
for creating short fractures before the main fracture stimulation.
The analysis of mini-frac tests was introduced by Nolte(3). Since
then, the analysis of such tests has progressed significantly. They
are typically done prior to a fracturing treatment for estimating formation and fracture parameters. Because the pumping time is usually much shorter than the fall-off time, the test can be considered
as a conventional test but with a short producing time. During the
shut-in period, the fracture closes and pressure decline is recorded.
The methods of analysis are categorized as pre-fracture closure
and after-fracture closure methods.

Pre-Closure Analysis
The pre-closure methods were proposed by Mayerhofer and
Economides(4, 5). They introduced a technique for estimation of
formation permeability along with fracture parameters from a
mini-frac test.
Their technique is based on an infinite-conductivity vertical
fracture solution to the diffusivity equation with a changing fracture face skin effect. They have decoupled the total pressure change
resulting from the transient flow from fracture to reservoir (during
fracture closure) into some components. Only the pressure change
of reservoir and that of filter cake are considered to be important. In this approach, the filter cake is treated as a changing skin
effect.
The first step in their method of analysis is to prepare a diagnostic log-log plot of the rate-normalized pressure (RNP) and its
derivative versus time. From there, the transient reservoir response
can be identified. The next step is to analyze a specialized plot that
permits estimating permeability to gas.

After-Closure Analysis (ACA)

Gu et al.(6) and Abousleiman et al.(7) presented solutions for after
fracture closure analysis of late-time pressure behaviour (pseudoradial flow regime) based on an impulse assumption. This overcomes the required long flow and shut-in times of other methods.
This test is very similar to slug test, in which a small volume
of fluid is injected or produced to impose a pressure disturbance.
Analysis of the response to this disturbance gives reservoir parameters. The difference between these two tests is that no fracture is
created during injection in a slug test; however, the idea behind impulse fracture test is to create a short fracture that can penetrate the
damaged zone around the wellbore and hopefully expose the virgin
and unaltered formation to flow transients.
Some parameters such as leakoff coefficient, closure pressure
and minimum horizontal stress can be estimated from mini-fracture and micro-fracture injection stress tests. Because the impulse
fracture test procedure is very similar to these two tests, it can be
coupled with them to obtain additional information.
One of the disadvantages of impulse fracture test is that, because
it has a short duration, its radius of investigation is very small compared to traditional well tests. However, it is bigger than the radius
of investigation of a slug test.
The impulse fracture test is analyzed on the basis of an instantaneous-source solution to the diffusivity equation. The concept of
instantaneous-source response suggests that an instantaneous fluid
removal (addition) occurs at the source that causes a pressure disturbance throughout the reservoir system.
Gu et al.(6) have proposed equations to analyze the impulse fracture injection test. The late-time pressure decline behaviour (when
65

t is large) using the instantaneous-line-source solution to diffusivity equation is described by:

p = p pi

Vi 1
4 k h t

........................................................................... (1)

The late-time solution is the same whether or not the well is

fractured. This is useful for determining permeability, because the
fracture does not interfere with the late-time data. A late-time unitslope line (on log-log plot) is an indicator of the radial flow instantaneous-source solution. The derivative is given by:

V 1
dp
i
d (ln t ) 4 k h t

............................................................................. (2)

Equation (2) shows that a unit-slope line is obtained if the pressure derivative is plotted against time on log-log coordinates. This
is useful in identifying the flow regime when there is no information about initial pressure.
A Cartesian plot of p versus 1/t yields a straight line for the
late-time data whose slope gives the value of permeability. Extrapolation of the straight line to 1/t = 0, gives the initial reservoir
pressure. The analysis could also be applied to the case with no
fractures, which is identical to an injection-type slug test.
Usually long shut-in times are required to apply the impulse solution. In 1997, Nolte et al.(8) further developed the application and
analysis techniques (also known in the industry as mini-fall-off
tests). The after-fracture closure period potentially consists of:
Pseudo-linear flow period: used to calculate closure time,
spurt loss and fracture length.
Pseudo-radial flow period: used to calculate reservoir pressure and transmissibility.
The late-time pressure decline data is analyzed for pseudo-radial flow, from which reservoir parameters can be calculated by
a technique similar to conventional Horner plot method. The following relationship exists:

()

( ) ........................................................................... (3)

p t pi = mR FR t , tc

where tc is the time to fracture closure with zero time at the start of
injection and FR is the radial flow time function defined as:
t
1
16
FR t , tc = ln 1 + c =
1.6
4 t tc
2
.................................................... (4)

( )

Equation (3) indicates that a Cartesian plot of pressure versus

FR results in a straight line with an intercept equal to the initial
pressure pi and a slope equal to mR. Transmissibility is determined
from:
V
kh
= 55.3 i

mR tc

.................................................................................... (5)

The early-time pressure decline data after fracture closing is

analyzed for pseudo-linear flow. Nolte et al.(8) have presented
techniques and equations to calculate spurt loss and fracture half
length.
Flow regime is identified by plotting the pressure difference,
p(t) pi and pressure derivative against FR or FL2 on log-log coordinates. For radial flow, this plot yields a unit slope line. For
linear the slope is equal to 0.5 because FR FL2. A pressure derivative plot overlying the pressure data on a unit slope line is a
66

confirmation of the presence of a radial flow regime. Also, a half

slope line derivative plot displaced by a factor of one half from
the linear flow line is a confirmation of linear flow. For the application of ACA, it is necessary to reach linear and/or radial flow.
Talley et al.(9) have presented successful field applications of the
ACA technique.
Many authors have assumed either pseudo-radial or linear flow
regime during the after closure period. Soliman et al.(10) have presented a generalized technique which is simple to apply. They have
adapted well-test analysis techniques to mini-frac tests and verified
their approach using a numerical simulator as well as field data.
Their approach to the analysis of after-closure period indicates
whether the data are analyzable. It determines the flow regime and
also formation permeability and initial reservoir pressure. Soliman
et al.(10) believe that their technique is not limited to mini-frac test
analysis, but can also be applied to analyze the post-fracturing
data. Their work suggests that three flow regimes may exist in the
analysis of after closure data:
1. Pseudo-radial flow regime: This can be seen when the created fracture is short and there is no residual fracture conductivity. In this case, the fracture is closed completely.
2. Bilinear flow regime: This is the case when the created
fracture is long and not completely closed. Therefore, it has
some residual conductivity.
3. Linear flow regime: In this case, the created fracture remains open with high conductivity. This could happen if
the permeability is low and the test was done in a propped
fracture.

Convolution / Deconvolution
The application of superposition theorem (Duhamels principle)
in petroleum industry dates back to 1949 when van Everdingen
and Hurst(11) published their classic paper of the application of the
Laplace transform to flow problems. The terms superposition and
convolution and also the terms de-superposition and deconvolution are used interchangeably.

Convolution
The convolution theory is very useful in manipulating the constant rate and constant bottomhole pressure solutions of the diffusivity equation to obtain variable rate and variable bottomhole
pressure solutions. In 1949, van Everdingen and Hurst(11) proposed
the variable rate solution of the diffusivity equation using convolution of the constant rate solution with the variable rate under
consideration. Finally, they obtained a dimensionless convolution
integral that can be written as:

( )

tD

( ) d d
0

( )

qD D pDCR t D D d D

pwD t D = qD1 pDCR t D +

.............. (6)

where pwD(tD) is the variable rate solution, qD(tD) is the variable

rate under consideration and pDCR(tD) is the constant rate solution
(unit response function). In non-integral form, it is:

( )

( )

n1

pwD t D = qD ,1 pDCR t D + qD , j+1 qD , j pDCR t D t D , j

j =1

)
................. (7)

Deconvolution
The importance of the superposition theorem lies in determining
the constant rate solution when the variable rate and pressure data
are available. This approach is called deconvolution. From the previous equations, if pwD(tD) and qD(tD) are known, pDCR(tD) can be
determined through a de-convolution process. Once the constant
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

rate solution is obtained, reservoir parameters can be evaluated by

matching this solution with available constant rate type curves.

wD =

The de-convolution is performed numerically by discretizing

the convolution integral of Equation (6). Raghavan(12) showed that
this integral can be approximated as:

( )

( )

( )

n1

( )

pwD t D = qD tD ,1 pDCR t D + qD tD , j+1 qD tD , j pDCR t D t D , j

j =1

tD =

()

i w t
i wf

3.6 103 kt
ct Ac

)i

................................................................................ (14)

................................................................................... (15)

(8)

where

qD =

tD , j+1 = j+1t D , j + 1 j+1 t D , j+1

............................................................. (9)

and 0 j+1 1. Different values of j+1 result in schemes similar

to those used in finite-difference methods. The underlying idea is
to obtain the constant rate solution, pDCR(tD), using this approximation. This is an optimization process, wherein the parameters of the
unit response function (reservoir parameters and size) are varied in
order to match the observed pressure.
Deconvolution renders itself useful in the analysis of well tests
including afterflow (wellbore storage) period typical of tight gas
reservoirs. During this period, although the surface rate is kept
constant, the sandface rate is changing. Therefore, simultaneously
measured bottomhole pressure and flow rate can be used with a deconvolution scheme to obtain the constant rate response.
Linear Gas Flow
To partially linearize the gas flow equation, the collected pressure data are analyzed by use of pseudo-pressure, defined as:

( )

p =2
0

pdp
z

................................................................................... (10)

Production from tight gas reservoirs can be associated with

linear flow and in many cases it is persistent for several years.
Also, hydraulically fractured wells (the usual case in tight gas reservoirs) cause the development of a linear flow regime. One useful
technique for analyzing wells producing with linear flow is the deconvolution method. In this case, the constant rate solution is as
follows(13):

( )

DCR p t D = 4 t D

........................................................................ (11)

Substituting this solution into Equation (7) (in terms of pseudopressure) gives:
n1

( )

wD p t D = 4 qD ,1 t D + 4 qD , j1 qD , j
j =1

t D t D, j
.......... (12)

where the dimensionless parameters are defined as:

DCR

()

k Ac i w t
=
1.295 qT

.................................................................. (13)

October 2009, Volume 48, No. 10

()

1.295 q t T

k Ac i wf

) .......................................................................... (16)

In dimensional form, Equation (12) is written as:

n1

i w t = C [q1 t + q j+1 q j

j =1

()

t tj

....................................... (17)

where
C=

0.55T
k Ac

( ct )i

.............................................................................. (18)

and Ac = 4xf.h. The factor C is determined through an optimization process to match the observed bottomhole pressure. Once C
is determined, permeability can be estimated. Viscosity and total
compressibility are functions of pressure but in this case they are
treated as constants evaluated at initial pressure. This will introduce
some errors in calculations as the pressure changes, particularly in
the analysis of afterflow period with large pressure variations. As
mentioned by Helmy(13), it is helpful to reconstruct the superposition based on average reservoir pressure instead of initial reservoir
pressure.

Perforation Inflow Test

Perforation inflow tests are a green and cost-effective technique for the evaluation of pre-frac reservoir parameters. This test
provides estimates of the reservoir pressure, flow capacity, gas inflow rate and skin(14, 15).
A buildup test conducted immediately after cleanup can cause
the fracturing fluid (still present in the formation) to mask the postfrac reservoir data. Therefore, permeability estimates obtained
from post-frac tests can be optimistic, resulting in wrong predictions of gas production. Perforation inflow testing helps to solve
this problem by analyzing the period following the perforation of
the testing interval. In this period, flow rate is not constant and
there is a large influx at the beginning that will die after some time.
An obvious advantage of this technique is the capability of measuring low gas inflow rates in tight gas wells.
In this test, the surface valve is closed during the test period
and fluids enter a closed chamber. The pressure response following
extreme underbalanced perforating conditions is recorded and analyzed by different methods, including, for example, rate convolution analysis and perforation inflow test analysis (PITA).

Rate Convolution Analysis

To analyze the pressure buildup during a perforation inflow
test, pressure and flow rate have to be defined simultaneously.
Using the closed chamber theory, the recorded pressure data can
be converted to gas rates. This theory states that based on material
67

balance principle, fluid entering the wellbore is equal to the fluid

production minus gas volume change. Therefore, by definition of
gas compressibility in the wellbore chamber and chain rule, we
have:

q=

(24) Vw cw dp
Bg

dt

.............................................................................. (19)

where Vwcw is the wellbore storage coefficient. Then, pressure

and calculated closed chamber gas influx rate are used to estimate
reservoir parameters. This method is particularly concerned with
measuring the afterflow pressures after extreme underbalanced
perforation.
Conventional well-test analysis methods assume a constant rate
or constant pressure solution. However, in perforation inflow tests,
both pressure and rate vary with time. To apply the rate convolution analysis, it is necessary to discretize the varying flow rates occurring during the closed chamber test.
Adding additional pressure drop caused by skin to Equation (7)
gives:

( )

( )

pwD t D = qD ,1 pDCR t D +
n1

(qD, j+1 qD, j ) pDCR (t D t D, j ) + qD (t D ) s

j =1

. ....................................... (20)

The pressure solution for infinite acting radial flow at the wellbore is approximated by:

Equation (23) states that a Cartesian plot of wellbore normalized pseudo-pressure (nw) versus the rate convolution time function, results in a straight line. From the slope of this line, formation
flow capacity or permeability can be calculated by Equation (25).
Equation (23) also states that a value of skin is required before performing the analysis. Therefore, different preliminary
values of skin must be assumed. On the Cartesian plot at very low
rates, curves with different values of skin form a single line. The
most correct line is the one that demonstrates the best straight line
through most of the curve. The skin value corresponding to this
line is therefore considered as the skin.

Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA)

Perforation inflow test as presented above is a simple and inexpensive way of recording buildup pressures. Different methods
and solutions have been proposed for the analysis of short duration
tests. However, most of them concentrate on the late-time data for
determination of permeability and reservoir pressure. A method
known as PITA, developed by Rahman et al.(14, 15) analyzes, in
addition to late-time data, the early-time data for determination of
skin. Although calculation of flow rate is not necessary for analysis
in this method, it can be calculated with the use of Equation (19).
When well tests are associated with significant afterflow effect
(showing large pressure changes), like in tight gas reservoirs, the
diffusivity equation can be completely linearized by use of pseudopressure and pseudo-time transforms(19) as follows:
1 1
r =
r r r 0 ta

............................................................................. (26)

where
1
pDCR t D = ln t D + 0.80907 + s
2
..................................................... (21)

( )

( )

0 =

Pseudo-pressure defined by Equation (10) can be normalized by

choosing the variables at initial reservoir condition as(16):

3.6 103 k

................................................................................... (27)

Pseudo-pressure is defined by Equation (10) and pseudo-time

is:

n =

i Zi
2 pi

.......................................................................................... (22)

( ) dtc

ta t =

........................................................................................ (28)

Tariq(17)

Based on the work of

and using normalized pseudopressures, Hawkes and Hategan(18) suggest that Equations (20) and
(21) for gas flow can be written as:

( ) s

q t
ni nw = m log t + 0 +

q1
q1

()

.................................................... (23)

The term in the bracket is called rate convolution time function and:
n1 q
q

0 = j+1 j tn t j log tn t j tn t j+1 log tn t j+1

j =1
t j+1 t j

) (

) (

) (

) (

... + 0.434 q1 qn + qn qn1 log qn qn1

) (

) +

. . (24)

where

m=
68

q Bg
0.535 kh

......................................................................................... (25)

The boundary conditions include having an instantaneous pressure drop from pi to wellbore pressure at the time of perforation.
The use of Laplace transformation with some approximations results in straight forward equations for handling early and late-time
analysis.
Different flow regimes are identified. The early-time data are
dominated by wellbore storage, from which skin can be calculated.
Late-time data are reservoir dominated and can be analyzed to provide estimates of reservoir pressure and permeability. In order to
obtain reasonable estimates of reservoir parameters, pressure data
must contain at least some part of the reservoir dominated flow. To
determine if this is the case, a special derivative known as impulse
derivative (IDER) can be used(17, 18):

( )

IDER = ta

d
w
dta ............................................................................ (29)

The traditional pressure derivative is calculated from ta(dw/

dta), which is very similar to IDER, but IDER contains ta2 rather
than ta. Therefore, a log-log diagnostic plot of IDER results in a
straight line with a slope equal to 2 during the wellbore-storagedominated flow period while conventional derivative shows a slope
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

of 1. However, the two graphs are very similar to each other. The
part of the graph where derivative becomes flat (slope = 0) represents reservoir dominated flow and gives the approximate start of
radial flow. Sometimes the reservoir dominated flow is reached
after a very long time, which is not practical. This problem can be
reduced by making the wellbore volume smaller and hence getting
faster influx from reservoir.
In conventional well-test analysis, we start from early-time and
progress to late-time, but in PITA late-time data is analyzed first.
The working equation for late-time analysis is(14, 15):

w = i

(24) (1.842 103 )Vw ( i w0 )

2 khta

.......................................... (30)

Equation (30) indicates that a Cartesian crossplot of w versus 1/

ta, should result in a straight line through the late-time data points,
from which it is possible to determine:
i from intercept at 1/ta = 0, which is then converted to pi.
k or kh from the slope of the line and the calculated i.
The working equation for early-time analysis is(14, 15):

w = w0 +

kh i w0 ta

( )(

24 1.842 103 Vw s

period compared to the shut-in time (instantaneous source solution). Furthermore, unlike the Soliman et al.(10) method, the
impulse method cannot determine the proper flow regime and
assumes radial flow. Therefore, the former method seems to
be more reliable.
7. Convolution/deconvolution of wellbore-storage-dominated
data by simultaneously measuring and analyzing the pressure
and rate data offers a solution to the problem of long duration
pre-frac testing in tight formations. However, deconvolution
methods become unstable when there is severe rate change.
8. Rate convolution analysis reduces the entire data set to a
single linear trend by discretizing variable flow rates. However, in its derivation, radial flow was assumed, which seems
not to be as effective as linear flow for tight gas reservoirs.

........................................................ (31)

Equation (31) shows that a Cartesian crossplot of w versus ta,

should result in a straight line through the early-time data points.
Anchoring the line at w0 which is the initial cushion pseudo-pressure, we can determine skin from the slope of the line by using
values of i and k calculated from late-time data analysis.

Summary and Conclusions

Well-test analysis is mature and well-defined for conventional
reservoirs. However, the methods cannot be applied generally to
tight gas reservoirs because of their extremely low permeability.
Hydraulic fracturing is usually needed to try making tight gas
reservoirs commercial. A pre-frac test is necessary for proper evaluation of post-frac test. Among different pre-frac tests, we concentrated on small fracture injection tests (before fracture stimulation)
and perforation inflow tests as short-term and cost-effective tests.
Based on this work, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Lees(1) pressure transient test design for single-porosity tight
gas reservoirs can be extended to the case of dual-porosity
reservoirs(2).
2. After fracture closure, analysis (ACA)(20) and perforation
inflow test analysis (PITA)(14, 15) provide reasonable values
of reservoir parameters in a relatively short period of time.
However, because of short duration, they show very short
radius of investigation and the quality of the obtained data
may be poorer than that which could be gained from conventional tests. Nevertheless, for all practical purposes, they are
the preferred tests.
3. These methods have their own limitations that have to be
considered. For example, for both the ACA and PITA, specific flow regimes (radial and linear) have to be observed in
the pressure data; otherwise, the analysis can be in error.
4. Most of the methods for analysis of short tests focus on latetime data. However, the PITA method analyzes both late time
and early time. In order to obtain reasonable estimates of reservoir parameters from PITA, pressure data must contain at
least some part of the reservoir dominated flow. This method
is able to calculate low gas flow rates in tight gas reservoirs.
5. The well testing based technique proposed by Soliman et
al.(10) is based on rigorous analysis considering both the injection and the shut-in periods.
6. The impulse test used by Gu et al.(6) and Abousleiman et al.(7)
to develop their method assumes a negligibly short injection
October 2009, Volume 48, No. 10

Acknowledgements
Parts of this work were funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC agreement 34782506), ConocoPhillips (agreement 4204638) and the Alberta Energy
Research Institute (AERI agreement 1711). Their contributions are
gratefully acknowledged. The authors express their gratitude to the
Department of Chemical & Petroleum Engineering of University
of Calgary for support during the course of this work.

Nomenclature
= area perpendicular to flow, m2
= gas formation volume factor, m3/ m3
= dimensionless fracture conductivity
= total compressibility, kPa1
= gas compressibility in wellbore, kPa1
= factor defined by Equation (18)
= dimensionless wellbore storage as a function of xf
(rather than rw)
FL
= linear-flow time function
FR
= radial-flow time function
h
= net pay thickness, m
IDER = impulse derivative, (kPa)3.hr/(Pa.s)2
k
= permeability, mD
m
= slope defined by Equation (25)
mR
= slope of pseudo-radial ACA
p
= pressure, kPa
pD
= dimensionless pressure
pDCR = constant rate solution (unit rate response)
pi
= initial pressure, kPa
pwD = variable rate solution
q
= flow rate, m3/d
qD
= dimensionless flow rate
qD,1 = dimensionless initial flow rate
rw
= wellbore radius, m
s
= skin factor
t
= time, hr
ta
= pseudo-time, hr.kPa/Pa.s
tc
= fracture closure time, hr
tp
= producing time, hr
twbs = duration of wellbore storage distortion, hr
t
= shut-in time, hr
T
= temperature, K
V i
= injected volume, m3
Vw
= wellbore (chamber) volume, m3
xf
= fracture half length, m
Z
= gas deviation factor

= interporosity flow coefficient for dual porosity
reservoir
0
= defined by Equation (27)
j+1 = weighting parameter
f
= interporosity flow coefficient for hydraulically fractured well in dual porosity reservoir

= viscosity, Pa.s

= pi number
Ac
Bg
cfd
ct
cw
C
CD

69

D



DCR
i
ni
nw
w
wD
wf
w0

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

integration variable
porosity, fraction
defined in Equation (4)
pseudo-pressure, (kPa)2/Pa.s
constant rate solution (unit rate response)
initial pseudo-pressure, (kPa)2/Pa.s
initial normalized pseudo-pressure, kPa
wellbore normalized pseudo-pressure, kPa
wellbore pseudo-pressure, (kPa)2/Pa.s
variable rate solution
pseudo-pressure at flowing BHP, (kPa)2/Pa.s
initial cushion pseudo-pressure or wellbore pseudopressure at ta= 0, (kPa)2/Pa.s

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl
cP
ft
ft3
psi1
psia
mD

1.589873 E01 = m3
1.0 E03 = Pa.s
3.048 E01 = m
2.831685 E02 = m3
1.450377 E04 = Pa1
6.894757 E+00 = kPa
9.87 E+14 = m2

References
1. Lee, W.J. 1987. Pressure-Transient Test Design in Tight Gas Formations. J. Pet Tech 39 (10): 11851195. SPE-17088-PA. doi:
10.2118/17088-PA.
2. Shahamat, M.S. and Aguilera, R. 2008. Pressure-Transient Test Design in Dual-Porosity Tight Gas Formations. Paper SPE 115001 at the
CIPC/SPE Gas Technology Symposium 2008 Joint Conference, Calgary, 1619 June. doi: 10.2118/115001-MS.
3. Nolte, K.G. 1979. Determination of Fracture Parameters from Fracturing Pressure Decline. Paper SPE 8341 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA,
2326 September. doi: 10.2118/8341-MS.
4. Mayerhofer, M.J. and Economides, M.J. 1993. Permeability Estimation From Fracture Calibration Treatments. Paper SPE 26039
presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, 2628
May. doi: 10.2118/26039-MS.
5. Mayerhofer, M.J. and Economides, M.J. 1996. Field Cases for Permeability Determination from Minifracs. SPE Advanced Technology
Series 4 (1): 111117. SPE-26999-PA. doi: 10.2118/26999-PA.
6. Gu, H., Eibel, J.L., Nolte, K.G., Cheng, A.H-D., and Abousleiman,
Y. 1993. Formation Permeability Determination Using ImpulseFracture Injection. Paper SPE 25425 presented at the Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 2123
March. doi: 10.2118/25425-MS.
7. Abousleiman, Y., Cheng, A.H-D., and Gu, H. 1994. Formation Permeability Determination by Micro or Mini-Hydraulic Fracturing.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology 116 (2): 104114.
8. Nolte, K.G., Maniere, J.L., and Owens, K.A. 1997. After-Closure
Analysis of Fracture Calibration Tests. Paper SPE 38676 presented
at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, USA, 58 October. doi: 10.2118/38676-MS.
9. Talley, G.R., Swindell, T.M., Waters, G.A., and Nolte, K.G. 1999.
Field Application of After-Closure Analysis of Fracture Calibration
Tests. Paper SPE 52220 presented at the SPE Mid-Continent Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 2831 March.
doi: 10.2118/52220-MS.
10. Soliman, M.Y., Craig, D., Bartko, K., Rahim, Z., and Adams, D.
2005. Post-Closure Analysis to Determine Formation Permeability,
Reservoir Pressure, Residual Fracture Properties. Paper SPE 93419
presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference,
Bahrain, 1215 March. doi: 10.2118/93419-MS.
11. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W. 1949. The Application of the
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs. Trans.,
AIME, 186: 305324.
12. Raghavan, R. 1993. Well Test Analysis, 268335. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
13. Helmy, M.W. 1999. Analysis of Well Performance with Multiple
Shut-in Periods. PhD dissertation, Texas A&M University, College
Station, Texas.
14. Rahman, N.M.A., Pooladi-Darvish, M., and Mattar, L. 2005. Development of Equations and Procedure for Perforation Inflow Test
Analysis (PITA). Paper SPE 95510 presented at the SPE Annual
70

Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 912 October. doi:

10.2118/95510-MS.
15. Rahman, N.M.A., Pooladi-Darvish, M., Santo, M.S., and Mattar, L.
2006. Use of PITA for Estimating Key Reservoir Parameters. Paper
2006-172 presented at the Petroleum Societys 7th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (57th Annual Technical Meeting),
Calgary, 1315 June.
16. Meunier, D.F., Kabir, C.S., and Wittmann, M.J. 1987. Gas Well Test
Analysis: Use of Normalized Pressure and Time Functions. SPE
Form Eval 2 (4): 629636. SPE-13082-PA. doi: 10.2118/13082-PA.
17. Tariq, S.M. 1989. Rate-Convolved Horner Plot for Analysis of Simultaneously Acquired Flow Rate and Pressure Data. Paper SPE
19816 prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 811 October. doi:
10.2118/19816-MS.
18. Hawkes, R.V. and Hategan, F. 2004. Modern Concepts in Perforation
Inflow Diagnostic (PID) Testing: A Safe, Green, and Cost-Effective
Technique for Evaluating Pre-Frac Reservoir Parameters. Paper SPE
90827 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 2629 September. doi: 10.2118/90827-MS.
19. Kabir, C.S. and Hasan, A.R. 1986. Prefracture Testing in Tight Gas
Reservoirs. SPE Form Eval 1 (2): 128138. SPE-12918-PA. doi:
10.2118/12918-PA.
20. Harting, T.A., Cox, D.L., Murillo, R., Young, T.L., Adegbola, K.A.,
and Schupp, D. 2004. Application of Mini-Falloff Test to Determine Reservoir Parameters and Optimize Fracture Designs in a Tight
Gas Field. Paper SPE 90455 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 2629 September. doi:
10.2118/90455-MS.

ProvenanceOriginal Petroleum Society manuscript, Well Testing of

Tight Gas Reservoirs (Paper 2008-161; SPE Paper 130066), first presented at the 9th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (the 59th
Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society), June 1719, 2008, in
Calgary, Alberta. Abstract submitted for review January 8, 2008; editorial
comments sent to the author(s) June 15, 2009; revised manuscript received
August 21; paper approved for pre-press August 26, 2009; final approval
September 8, 2009.

Authors Biographies
Ashkan Jahanbani was awarded the university prize for being ranked as the top student of the B.Sc. and M.Sc. programs from
the Petroleum University of Technology.
He was the leader of the student scientific
association at the Petroleum University of
Technology, Ahwaz (2005 2006). His interests include fluid flow through porous
media, well-test analysis, naturally fractured reservoirs and tight gas sands. He
holds a B.Sc. degree in petroleum reservoir
engineering from the Petroleum University of Technology, Iran,
and M.Sc. and M.Eng. degrees from the Petroleum University of
Technology and the University of Calgary in a dual-degree program. He is also a member of SPE.
Roberto Aguilera is Professor and ConocoPhillips-NSERC-AERI Chair in the
Schulich School of Engineering at the University of Calgary, Chairman of the Journal
of Canadian Petroleum Technology (JCPT)
Editorial Review Board, a principal of
Servipetrol Ltd., and a director of Junex
in Quebec. He is a petroleum engineering
graduate from the Universidad de America
at Bogota, Colombia, and holds Masters
and Ph.D. degrees in petroleum engineering
from the Colorado School of Mines. He is a Distinguished Author
of JCPT (1993 and 1999), a recipient of the Outstanding Service
Award (1994) and the Distinguished Service Medal (2006) from
the Petroleum Society of Canada, and a Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) Distinguished Lecturer on the subject of naturally
fractured reservoirs for the 2000 2001 season.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology