Well Test Interpretation - ENSPM - 1a PDF

WELL TESTING
AND
INTERPRETATION
D. Bourdet
CONTENTS
Pages
1 - PRINCIPLES OF TRANSIENT TESTING..................................................................................... 1
1-1
1-2
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
DEFINITIONS & TYPICAL REGIMES ................................................................................................7
2 - THE ANALYSIS METHODS ......................................................................................................... 27

2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
LOG-LOG SCALE ........................................................................................................................ 27

PRESSURE CURVES ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 28
PRESSURE DERIVATIVE ............................................................................................................. 37
THE ANALYSIS SCALES ...............................................................................................................44
3 - WELLBORE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 47

3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
WELL WITH WELLBORE STORAGE AND SKIN, HOMOGENEOUS RESERVOIR ................................. 47

INFINITE CONDUCTIVITY OR UNIFORM FLUX VERTICAL FRACTURE ............................................ 48
FINITE CONDUCTIVITY VERTICAL FRACTURE ............................................................................. 50
WELL IN PARTIAL PENETRATION ............................................................................................... 53
HORIZONTAL WELL ................................................................................................................... 57
SKIN FACTORS............................................................................................................................71
4 - FISSURED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE POROSITY MODELS.................................................. 75

4-1
4-2
DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................. 75
DOUBLE POROSITY BEHAVIOR, RESTRICTED INTERPOROSITY FLOW (PSEUDO-STEADY STATE
INTERPOROSITY FLOW).......................................................................................................................... 77
4-3
DOUBLE POROSITY BEHAVIOR, UNRESTRICTED INTERPOROSITY FLOW (TRANSIENT INTERPOROSITY
FLOW) ................................................................................................................................................. 85
4-4
COMPLEX FISSURED RESERVOIRS ...............................................................................................90
5 - BOUNDARY MODELS................................................................................................................... 95
5-1
5-2
5-3
ONE SEALING FAULT ................................................................................................................. 95

TWO PARALLEL SEALING FAULTS .............................................................................................. 97
TWO INTERSECTING SEALING FAULTS...................................................................................... 101
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
CLOSED SYSTEM ..................................................................................................................... 104

CONSTANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY ........................................................................................... 111
COMMUNICATING FAULT......................................................................................................... 113
PREDICTING DERIVATIVE SHAPES .............................................................................................117
6 - COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS....................................................................................... 119

6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 119

RADIAL COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR ............................................................................................... 120
LINEAR COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR................................................................................................ 123
MULTICOMPOSITE SYSTEMS .....................................................................................................125
7 - LAYERED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE PERMEABILITY MODEL........................................ 127

7-1
7-2
7-3
DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 127

DOUBLE PERMEABILITY BEHAVIOR WHEN THE TWO LAYERS ARE PRODUCING INTO THE WELL 129
DOUBLE PERMEABILITY BEHAVIOR WHEN ONLY ONE OF THE TWO LAYERS IS PRODUCING INTO THE
WELL ............................................................................................................................................... 131
7-4
COMMINGLED SYSTEMS: LAYERED RESERVOIRS WITHOUT CROSSFLOW ...................................133
8 - INTERFERENCE TESTS ............................................................................................................. 135
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-4
8-5
INTERFERENCE TESTS IN RESERVOIRS WITH HOMOGENEOUS BEHAVIOR .................................. 135

INTERFERENCE TESTS IN DOUBLE POROSITY RESERVOIRS ....................................................... 139
INFLUENCE OF RESERVOIR BOUNDARIES ................................................................................. 143
INTERFERENCE TESTS IN RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIR ........................................................ 143
INTERFERENCE TESTS IN A TWO LAYERS RESERVOIR WITH CROSS FLOW ..................................146
9 - GAS WELLS................................................................................................................................... 149

9-1
9-2
9-3
GAS PROPERTIES ..................................................................................................................... 149

TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF GAS WELL TESTS .............................................................................. 150
DELIVERABILITY TESTS ............................................................................................................154
10 - BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS ........................................................ 159

10-1
10-2
10-3
BOUNDARIES IN FISSURED RESERVOIRS............................................................................... 159

BOUNDARIES IN LAYERED RESERVOIRS ............................................................................... 160
COMPOSITE CHANNEL RESERVOIRS ......................................................................................162
11 - COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES ................................................................. 165

11-1
11-2
11-3
FISSURED-LAYERED RESERVOIRS ........................................................................................ 165

FISSURED RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIRS......................................................................... 166
LAYERED RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIRS..........................................................................167
12 - OTHER TESTING METHODS.................................................................................................. 169

12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5
DRILLSTEM TEST ................................................................................................................. 169

IMPULSE TEST ..................................................................................................................... 172
RATE DECONVOLUTION ....................................................................................................... 173
CONSTANT PRESSURE TEST (RATE DECLINE ANALYSIS) ....................................................... 174
VERTICAL INTERFERENCE TEST ............................................................................................175
13 - MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS .................................................................................................. 179

13-1
13-2
PERRINE METHOD ............................................................................................................... 179

OTHER METHODS .................................................................................................................180
14 - TEST DESIGN ............................................................................................................................. 183

14-1
14-2
14-3
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 183

TEST SIMULATION ............................................................................................................... 183
TEST DESIGN REPORTING AND TEST SUPERVISION ................................................................184
15 - FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST ANALYSIS....................................................... 185

15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-5
15-6
15-7
RATE HISTORY DEFINITION .................................................................................................. 185

ERROR OF START OF THE PERIOD......................................................................................... 186
PRESSURE GAUGE DRIFT ..................................................................................................... 188
PRESSURE GAUGE NOISE ..................................................................................................... 188
CHANGING WELLBORE STORAGE ......................................................................................... 189
TWO PHASES LIQUID LEVEL ................................................................................................. 190
INPUT PARAMETERS, AND CALCULATED RESULTS OF INTERPRETATION ................................191
16 - CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 193

16-1
16-2
INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE ............................................................................................ 193

REPORTING AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS .......................................................................203
APPENDIX - ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS..................................................................................... 205

A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
DARCY'S LAW ......................................................................................................................... 205

STEADY STATE RADIAL FLOW OF AN INCOMPRESSIBLE FLUID .................................................. 205
DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION........................................................................................................... 206
THE "LINE SOURCE" SOLUTION ................................................................................................208
NOMENCLATURE............................................................................................................................. 209
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 212
Most figures presented in this set of course notes are extracted from "Well Test Analysis: The Use of
Advanced Interpretation Models", D. Bourdet, Handbook of Petroleum Exploration and Production 3,
ELSEVIER SCIENCE, 2002. http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/628241
1 - PRINCIPLES OF TRANSIENT TESTING
1-1 Introduction
1-1.1 Purpose of well testing
Description of a well test
During a well test, a transient pressure response is created by a temporary change

in production rate. The well response is usually monitored during a relatively short
period of time compared to the life of the reservoir, depending upon the test
objectives. For well evaluation, tests are frequently achieved in less than two days.
In the case of reservoir limit testing, several months of pressure data may be
needed.
In most cases, the flow rate is measured at surface while the pressure is recorded
down-hole. Before opening, the initial pressure pi is constant and uniform in the
reservoir. During flow time, the drawdown pressure response p is expressed :
p = pi p (t ) (psi, Bars)
( 1-1)
When the well is shut-in, the build-up pressure change p is estimated from the
last flowing pressure p(t=0) :
p= p(t) p(t =0) (psi, Bars)
( 1-2)
Rate, q
Pressure, p
pi
t Dd
p BU
p Dd
p(t=0)
drawdown
t BU
build-up
Time, t
Figure 1-1 Drawdown and build-up test sequence.
The pressure response is analyzed versus the elapsed time t since the start of the
period (time of opening or shut-in).
Well test objectives
Well test analysis provides information on the reservoir and on the well.
Associated to geology and geophysics, well test results are used to build a
reservoir model for prediction of the field behavior and fluid recovery to different
-1-
Chapter 1 - Principles of transient testing
operating scenarios. The quality of the communication between the well and the
reservoir indicates the possibility to improve the well productivity.
Exploration well : On initial wells, well testing is used to confirm the exploration
hypothesis and to establish a first production forecast: nature and rate of produced
fluids, initial pressure (RFT, MDT), reservoir properties.
Appraisal well : The previous well and reservoir description can be refined (well
productivity, bottom hole sampling, drainage mechanism, heterogeneities,
reservoir boundaries etc.)
Development well : On producing wells, periodic tests are made to adjust the
reservoir description and to evaluate the need of a well treatment, such as workover, perforation strategy etc. Communication between wells (interference testing),
monitoring of the average reservoir pressure are some usual objectives of
development well testing.
Information obtained from well testing
Well test responses characterize the ability of the fluid to flow through the
reservoir and to the well. Tests provide a description of the reservoir in dynamic
conditions, as opposed to geological and log data. As the investigated reservoir
volume is relatively large, the estimated parameters are average values.
Reservoir description :
Permeability (horizontal k and vertical kv)
Reservoir heterogeneities (natural fractures, layering, change of characteristics)
Boundaries (distance and shape)
Pressure (initial pi and average p )
Well description :
Production potential (productivity index PI, skin factor S)
Well geometry
By comparing the result of routine tests, changes of productivity and rate of
decrease of the average reservoir pressure can be established.
1-1.2 Methodology
The inverse problem
The objective of well test analysis is to describe an unknown system S (well +

reservoir) by indirect measurements (O the pressure response to I a change of
rate). This is a typical inverse problem (S=O/I).
-2-
input
system
O
output
As opposed to the direct problem (O=IxS), the solution of the inverse problem is
usually not unique. It implies an identification process, and the interpretation
provides the model(s) whose behavior is identical to the behavior of the actual
reservoir.
Interpretation models
The models used in well test interpretation can be described as a transfer function;
they only define the behavior (homogeneous or heterogeneous, bounded or
infinite). Well test interpretation models are often different from the geological or
log models, due to the averaging of the reservoir properties. Layered reservoirs for
example frequently show a homogeneous behavior during tests.
Analytical solutions are used to generate pressure responses to a specific
production rate history I, until the model behavior O is identical to the behavior of
S.
Input data required for well test analysis
Test data : flow rate (complete sequence of events, including any operational
problem) and bottom hole pressure as a function of time.
Well data : wellbore radius rw, well geometry (inclined, horizontal etc.), depths
(formation, gauges).
Reservoir and fluid parameters : formation thickness h (net), porosity ,
compressibility of oil co, water cw and formation cf, water saturation Sw, oil
viscosity and formation volume factor B. The different compressibility's are
used to define the total system compressibility ct :
ct =co(1Sw)+cwSw+c f (psi-1, Bars-1)
( 1-3)
The reservoir and fluid parameters are used for calculation of the results. After the
interpretation model has been selected, they may always be changed or adjusted if
needed.
Additional data can be useful in some cases : production log, gradient surveys,
bubble point pressure etc. General information obtained from geologist and
geophysicists are required to validate the well test interpretation results.
-3-
1-1.3 Types of tests

Test procedure
Drawdown test : the flowing bottom hole pressure is used for analysis. Ideally,
the well should be producing at constant rate but in practice, drawdown data is
erratic, and the analysis is frequently inaccurate.
Build-up test : the increase of bottom hole pressure after shut-in is used for
analysis. Before the build-up test, the well must have been flowing long enough
to reach stabilized rate. During shut-in periods, the flow rate is accurately
controlled (zero).
Injection test / fall-off test : when fluid is injected into the reservoir, the
bottom hole pressure increases and, after shut-in, it drops during the fall-off
period. The properties of the injected fluid are in general different from that of
the reservoir fluid.
Interference test and pulse test : the bottom hole pressure is monitored in a
shut-in observation well some distance away from the producer. Interference
tests are designed to evaluate communication between wells. With pulse tests,
the active well is produced with a series of short flow / shut-in periods, the
resulting pressure oscillations in the observation well are analyzed.
Rate, q
Pressure, p
Gas well test : specific testing methods are used to evaluate the deliverability
of gas wells (Absolute Open Flow Potential, AOFP) and the possibility of nonDarcy flow condition (rate dependent skin factor S'). The usual procedures are
Back Pressure test (Flow after Flow), Isochronal and Modified Isochronal tests.
Initial
shut-in
Clean
Variable
up
rate
Build-up
Stabilized
rate
Time, t
Figure 1.2 Typical test sequence. Oil well.
Well completion
Production test : the well is completed as a production well (cased hole and
permanent completion).
Drill stem test (DST) : the well is completed temporarily with a down-hole
shut-in valve. Frequently the well is cased but DST can be made also in open
-4-
hole. The drill stem testing procedure is used only for relatively short tests. The
drill string is not used any more, and production tubing is employed.
Flowh ead
B OP S tack
Casing
Tu bing
Tes t tool
P ack er
Figure 1.3 Onshore DST test string.
1-1.4 Well testing equipment

Surface equipment
Flow head : is equipped with several valves to allow flowing, pumping in the
well, wire line operation etc. The wellhead working pressure should be greater
than the well shut-in pressure. The Emergency Shut Down is a fail-safe system
to close the wing valve remotely.
Choke manifold : is used to control the rate by flowing the well through a
calibrated orifice. A system of twin valves allows to change the choke (positive
and adjustable chokes) without shutting in the well. The downstream pressure
must be less than half the upstream pressure.
Heater : Heating the effluent may be necessary to prevent hydrate formation in
high-pressure gas wells (the temperature is reduced after the gas expansion
through the choke). Heaters are also used in case of high viscosity oil.
Test separator : In a three phases test separator, the effluent hits several plates
in order to separate the gas from the liquid phase. A mist extractor is located
before the gas outlet. The oil and water phases are separated by gravity. The oil
and water lines are equipped with positive displacement metering devices, the
gas line with an orifice meter. Surface samples are taken at the separator oil and
gas lines for further recombination in laboratory.
-5-
Flowhead
Burner
Choke
maniflod
Heater
Gas
Rig HP
pump
Gas
manifold
Separator
Water
Air
pump
compressor
Water
Oil
Oil
manifold
Surge
tank
Burner
Transfer pump
Figure 1.4 Surface set up.
Oil and gas disposal : The oil rate can be measured with a gauge tank (or a
surge tank in case of H2S). Oil and gas are frequently burned. Onshore, a flare
pit is installed at a safe distance from the well. Offshore, two burners are
available on the rig for wind constraint. Compressed air and water are injected
together with the hydrocarbon fluids to prevent black smoke production and oil
drop out.
Downhole equipment
Pressure gauges : Electronic gauges are used to measure the bottom hole
pressure versus time. The gauge can be suspended down hole on a wireline, or
hung off on a seating nipple. When they are not connected to the surface with a
cable, the gauges are battery powered and the pressure data is stored in the
gauge memory. No bottom hole pressure is available until the gauge is pulled to
surface. With a cable, a surface read out system allows to monitor the test in
real time, and to adjust the duration of the shut-in periods.
Down hole valve : By closing the well down hole, the pressure response is
representative of the reservoir behavior earlier than in case of surface shut-in
(see wellbore storage effect in Section 1-2.1). DST are generally short tests.
Several types of down hole valve are available, operated by translation, rotation
or annular pressure. A sample of reservoir fluid can be taken when the tester
valve is closed.
Bottom hole sampler : Fluid samples can also be taken with a wire line bottom
hole sampler. During sampling, the well is produced at low rate.
-6-
RFT, MDT :The Repeat Formation Tester and the Modular Formation
Dynamics Tester are open hole wire line tools. They are primary used to
measure the vertical changes of reservoir pressure (pressure gradient), and to
take bottom hole samples. From the pressure versus depth data, fluid contacts
(oilwater OWC and gasoil GOC) are located, communication or presence of
sealing boundaries between layers can be established. RFT and MDT can also
provide a first estimate of the horizontal and vertical permeability near the well
by analysis of the pressure versus time response.
1-2 Definitions & typical regimes

1-2.1 Wellbore storage
When a well is opened, the production at surface is first due to the expansion of
the fluid in the wellbore, and the reservoir contribution is negligible. After any
change of surface rate, there is a time lag between the surface production and the
sand face rate. For a shut-in period, the wellbore storage effect is called afterflow.
Pressure profile
rw
pi
pw
Figure 1-5 Wellbore storage effect. Pressure distribution.
-7-
Rate, q
Pressure, p
q surface
q sand face
Time, t
Figure 1-6 Wellbore storage effect. Sand face and surface rates.
Wellbore storage coefficient
For a well full of a single phase fluid,
C = V =coVw (Bbl/psi, m3/Bars)

p
( 1-4)
where :
co : liquid compressibility (psi-1, Bars -1)
Vw : wellbore volume (Bbl, m3)
When there is a liquid level, with p = g h , V = Vu h and
: liquid density (lb/cu ft, kg/m3)
g/gc : gravitational acceleration (lbf / lbm, kgf / kgm)
Vu : wellbore volume per unit length (Bbl/ft, m3/m)
C =144
Vu
(Bbl/psi)
(g gc)
Vu
(m3/Bars)
(g gc)
WB
S
( 1-5)
Pressure change, p
C =10197
Elapsed time, t
Figure 1-7 Wellbore storage effect.

Specialized analysis on a linear scale.
Specialized analysis
Plot of the pressure change p versus the elapsed time t time on a linear scale. At
early time, the response follows a straight line of slope mWBS, intercepting the
origin.
-8-
p=
qB
t (psi, Bars)
24C
( 1-6)
Result : wellbore storage coefficient C.
C=
qB
(Bbl/psi, m3/Bars)
24 m WBS
( 1-7)
1-2.2 Radial flow regime, skin (homogeneous behavior)

When the reservoir production is established, the flow-lines converge radially
towards the well. In the reservoir, the pressure is a function of the time and the
distance to the well.
Pressure profile
ri
rw
pi
S=0
pwf
Figure 1-8 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution. Zero skin.

p
ri
rw
pi
S>0
pwf(S=0)
pwf(S>0)
p skin
Figure 1-9 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution.

Damaged well, positive skin factor.
-9-
p
pi
ri
rw
pwf(S<0)
pwf(S=0)
S<0
p skin
Figure 1-10 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution.

Stimulated well, negative skin factor.
Skin
The skin is a dimensionless parameter. It characterizes the well condition : for a

damaged well S > 0, and for a stimulated well S < 0.
kh
pSkin (field units)
141.2qB
kh
S=
pSkin (metric units)
18.66qB
S=
( 1-8)
Damaged well (S > 0) : poor contact between the well and the reservoir (mudcake, insufficient perforation density, partial penetration) or invaded zone
Stimulated well (S < 0) : surface of contact between the well and the reservoir
increased (fracture, horizontal well) or acid stimulated zone
Steady state flow in the circular zone :
k
rw
ks
rs
141.2qB rS 141.2qB rS
(psi, field units)
ln
ln
kS h
rw
kh
rw
18.66qB rS 18.66qB rS
p w, S = 0 =
(Bars, metric units) ( 1-9)

ln
ln
kS h
rw
kh
rw
p w, S p w , S = 0 =
p w, S
The skin is expressed :
k
r
S=
1 ln S
kS
rw
( 1-10)
Equivalent wellbore radius :
rwe = rw e S (ft, m)
( 1-11)
- 10 -
Pressure change, p
For homogeneous reservoirs, a pressure versus time semi-log straight line

describes the radial flow regime. The analysis gives access to the reservoir
permeability thickness product kh, and to the skin coefficient S.
m
p(1hr)
Log t
Figure 1-11 Radial flow regime.

Specialized analysis on semi-log scale.
Semi-log straight line of slope m :
p = 162.6
p = 21.5
k
qB
3.23 + 0.87 S (psi, field units)
log t + log
2
kh
ct rw
qB
k
3
.
10
0
.
87
+
S
(Bars, metric units)( 1-12)
log t + log
kh
c t rw2
Results:
qB
(mD.ft, field units)
m
qB
(mD.m, metric units)
kh = 21.5
m
kh = 162.6
( 1-13)
k
3
23
S = 1151
. 1 hr log
+
.
(field units)
ct rw2
m
p
k
(metric units)
S = 1.151 1 hr log
+
3
.
10
2
c
r
t w
( 1-14)
1-2.3 Examples of infinite acting radial flow behaviors

In the following examples, two wells A and B are tested twice with the same rate
sequence, and the four test responses are compared on linear and semi-log scales.
- 11 -
The two wells have very different characteristics. Well A is in a low permeability
reservoir. During one test the skin is moderate with S=6, and during the other test
the well has no skin damage (S=0). Well B is in a higher permeability reservoir
(four times larger than for well A) but the skin factors are large, respectively S=25
and S=60 (this large value is relatively exceptional. It suggests a completion
problem such as limited entry).
pressure, psi
6000
no skin
4000
moderate skin
2000
0
0
10
20
30
40
time, hours
Figure 1.12 Test history plot well A (low permeability).
On the test history plots Figure 1.12 and Figure 1.13, the two wells show
apparently a similar behavior. For each well, the flowing pressure is low during
one test (the last flowing pressure is 3200 psi before shut-in), and higher during the
other test (last flowing pressure of 5500psi before shut-in).
pressure, psi
6000
high skin
4000
very high skin

2000
0
0
10
20
30
40
time, hours
Figure 1.13 Test history plot well B (higher permeability).
On semi-log scale, the pressure response is more characteristic of the well and
reservoir condition than on the previous linear scale plots. In the case of well A
with low permeability and low skin, the pressure drop during drawdown is mainly
produced in the reservoir, and the slope of the semi-log straight line is high.
- 12 -
pressure change, psi
3000
moderate skin
2000
1000
0
0.001
p skin
0.01
no skin
0.1
10
100
time, hours
Figure 1.14 Semi-log responses for well A.
pressure change, psi
3000
very high skin

2000
p skin
1000
0
0.001
high skin
0.01
0.1
10
100
time, hours
Figure 1.15 Semi-log responses for well B.
Conversely, with the higher permeability example of well B, most of the pressure
drop is due to skin damage, and the response tends to be flat with a low semi-log
straight-line slope.
1-2.4 Fractured well (infinite conductivity fracture) : linear flow regime
xf
Figure 1-16 Fractured well. Fracture geometry.
- 13 -
Linear flow regime
At early time, before the radial flow regime is established, the flow-lines are
perpendicular to the fracture plane. This is called linear flow.
Figure 1-17 Infinite conductivity fracture. Geometry of the flow lines.

Linear and radial flow regimes.
Plot of the pressure change p versus the square root of elapsed time
response follows a straight line of slope mLF, intercepting the origin.
p = 4.06
qB
hx f
Pressure change, p
p = 0.623
ct k
qB
hx f
mL
t : the
t (psi, field units)
ct k
t (Bars, metric units)
( 1-15)
Figure 1-18 Infinite conductivity fracture.

Specialized analysis with the pressure versus the square root of time.
Result : the half fracture length xf
x f = 4.06
x f = 0.623
qB
ct k hmLF
qB
ct k hm LF
(ft, field units)
(m, metric units)
- 14 -
( 1-16)
1-2.5 Fractured well (finite conductivity fracture) : bi-linear flow regime

Bilinear flow regime
kf
wf
Figure 1-19 Finite conductivity fracture. Geometry of the flow lines during the
bi-linear flow regime.
When the pressure drop in the fracture plane is not negligible, a second linear flow
regime is established along the fracture extension. This configuration is called bilinear flow regime.
Plot of the pressure change p versus the fourth root of elapsed time
straight line of slope mBLF, intercepting the origin.
p = 44.11
h k f w 4 ct k
qB
h k f wf
Pressure change, p
p = 6.28
qB
c t k
t :
( 1-17)
m BLF
Figure 1-20 Finite conductivity fracture. Specialized analysis with the

pressure versus the fourth root of time.
Result : the fracture conductivity kfwf
1 qB
k f w f = 1944.8
c t k hm BLF
1 qB
k f w f = 39.46
ct k hm BLF
- 15 -
( 1-18)
1-2.6 Well in partial penetration : spherical flow regime

Spherical flow regime
Spherical flow can be observed in wells in partial penetration, before the top and
bottom boundaries are reached. Later, the flow becomes radial.
kV
kH
kH
hw
Figure 1-21 Well in partial penetration. Geometry of the flow lines. Radial,
spherical and radial flow regimes.
p = 70.6
qB ct
qB
2452.9 3 2
k S rS
k S t
(psi, field units)
p = 9.33
qB c t
qB
279.3 3 2
k S rS
k S t
(Bars, metric units)
t . The
( 1-19)
m SP
H
Pressure change, p
Plot of the pressure versus the reciprocal of the square root of time 1
response follows a straight line of slope mSPH :
Figure 1-22 Well in partial penetration. Specialized analysis with the pressure
versus 1/ the square root of time.
Result : the spherical permeability ks
ct
k S = 2452.9qB
mSPH
23
(mD, field units)
- 16 -
c t
k S = 279.3qB
mSPH
23
( 1-20)
(mD, metric units)
The permeability anisotropy is expressed with :
kH kH
=
kV k s
( 1-21)
1-2.7 Fissured reservoir (double porosity behavior)

In fissured reservoirs, the fissure network and the matrix blocks react at a different
time, and the pressure response deviates from the standard homogeneous behavior.
Pressure profile
p
pi
rw
ri
pm
pf
pwf
Figure 1-23 Double porosity behavior. Pressure distribution.
Fissure system homogeneous regime.
First, the matrix blocks production is negligible. The fissure system homogeneous
behavior is seen.
- 17 -
p r
w
pi
ri
pm > pf
pwf

Transition regime.
When the matrix blocks start to produce into the fissures, the pressure deviates
from the homogeneous behavior to follow a transition regime.
pi
p r
w
ri
pm = pf
pwf

Total system homogeneous regime (fissures + matrix).
When the pressure equalizes between fissures and matrix blocks, the homogeneous
behavior of the total system (fissure and matrix) is reached.
- 18 -
1-2.8 Limited reservoir (one sealing fault)

When one sealing fault is present near the producing well, the pressure response
deviates from the usual infinite acting behavior after some production time.
Pressure profile
p
rw
pi
ri
pwf
Figure 1-26 One sealing fault. Pressure profile at time t1.

The fault is not reached, infinite reservoir behavior.
p
rw
pi
ri
pwf

The fault is reached, but it is not seen at the well. Infinite reservoir behavior.
p
pi
rw
ri
pwf

The fault is reached, and it is seen at the well. Start of boundary effect.
- 19 -
rw
pi
ri
pwf

The fault is reached, and it is seen at the well. Hemi-radial flow.
t1 : the fault is not reached, radial flow

t2 : the fault is reached
t3 : the fault is seen at the well, transition
t4 : hemi-radial flow
Figure 1-30 One sealing fault. Drainage radius.
Pressure change, p
A second semi-log straight line with a slope double (2m). Result : the fault
distance L.
2m
m
Log t
Figure 1-31 One sealing fault.

Specialized analysis on semi-log scale.
The time intersect tx between the two lines is used to estimate the fault distance
L:
- 20 -
L = 0.01217
kt x
(ft, field units)
ct
L = 0.0141
kt x
(m, metric units)
c t
( 1-22)
1-2.9 Closed reservoir

In closed reservoir, when all boundaries have been reached, the flow changes to
Pseudo Steady State : the pressure decline is proportional to time.
Pressure profile
As long as the reservoir is infinite acting, the pressure profile expands around the
well during the production (and the well bottom hole pressure drops).
ri (t1)
p
pi
Re
ri (t1)
rw
t1
ri (t2) = Re
t2
t3
t4
Infinite acting
pwf
Pseudo Steady State
Figure 1-32 Circular closed reservoir. Pressure profiles.

Time t1: the boundaries are not reached, infinite reservoir behavior: the
pressure profile expands.
Time t2: boundaries reached, end of infinite reservoir behavior.
Times t3 and t4: pseudo steady state regime, the pressure profile drops.
During the pseudo steady state regime, all boundaries have been reached and the
pressure profile drops (but its shape remains constant with time).
- 21 -
During drawdown, plot of the pressure versus elapsed time t on a linear scale. At
late time, a straight line of slope m* characterizes the Pseudo Steady State regime:
p = 0.234
qB
qB
A
t + 162.6
log 2 log( C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S (psi, field units)
ct hA
kh rw
p = 0.0417
qB
qB
A
t + 21.5
log 2 log(C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S (Bars, metric
c t hA
kh
rw
( 1-23)
units)
Pressure, p
pi
ppseudo ste
ady
state
slope m*
Time, t
Figure 1.33 Drawdown and build-up pressure response.

Linear scale. Closed system.
Result : the reservoir pore volume hA.
qB
(cu ft, field units)
ct m *
qB
hA = 0.0417
(m3, metric units)
ct m *
hA = 0.234
( 1-24)
During shut-in, the pressure stabilizes to the average reservoir pressure p ( < pi ) .
1-2.10 Interference test

Pressure profile
With interference tests, the pressure is monitored in an observation well at distance

r from the producer. The pressure signal is observed with a delay, the amplitude of
the response is small.
- 22 -
pi
5000
Pressure (psia)
Observation well
4500
Producing well
4000
3500
0
100
200
400
300
500
Time (hours)
Figure 1-34 Interference test. Response of a producing and an observation

well. Linear scale.
Producing well
Observation well
p
pi
ri
rw
pwf
Figure 1-35 Interference test. Pressure distribution.
1-2.11 Well responses

A limited number of flow line geometries produce a characteristic pressure
behavior: radial, linear, spherical etc. For each flow regime, the pressure follows a
well-defined time function: log t , t , 1 t etc. A straight line can be
drawn on a specialized pressure versus time plot, to access the corresponding well
or reservoir parameter.
A complete well response is defined as a sequence of regimes. By identification of
the characteristic pressure behaviors present on the response, the chronology and
time limits of the different flow regime are established, defining the interpretation
model.
- 23 -
For a fractured well for example, the sequence of regimes is :

1. Linear
(1)
2. Radial
(2)
Figure 1.36 Fractured well example.
In the case of a well in a channel reservoir :

1. Radial
(1)
(2)
2. Linear
Figure 1.37 Example of a well in a channel reservoir.
1-2.12 Productivity Index

The Productivity Index is the ratio of the flow rate by the drawdown pressure drop,
expressed from the average reservoir pressure p .
PI =
( p pwf )
( 1-25)
(Bbl/D/psi, m3/D/Bars)
The Ideal Productivity Index defines the productivity if the skin of the well is zero.
PI (S=0) =
( p pwf ) pskin
(Bbl/D/psi, m3/D/Bars)
( 1-26)
During the infinite acting period p pi , the Transient Productivity Index is

decreasing with time.
PI =
kh
(Bbl/D/psi, field units)
k
162.6 B log t + log
3.23 + 0.87 S
ct rw2
kh
(m3/D/Bars, metric units)
PI =
k
21.5B log t + log
3.10 + 0.87 S
2
c
r
t w
- 24 -
( 1-27)
The Pseudo Steady State Productivity Index is a constant
PI =
PI =
kh
A
log( C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S
162.6 B log
rw2
kh
A
21.5B log 2 log(C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S
rw
(Bbl/D/psi, field units)
(m3/D/Bars, metric units)
( 1-28)
1-2.13 Pressure profile and Radius of Investigation

The Exponential Integral of Equation A-16 defines the pressure as a function of
time and distance :
ct r 2
141.2qB
Ei
p (t , r ) = 0.5
(psi, field units)
kh
0.001056k t
c t r 2
18.66qB
(Bars, metric units) ( 1-29)
p (t , r ) = 0.5
Ei
0.0001423kt
kh
For small x, Ei( x ) = ln ( x ) : the Exponential Integral can be approximated by

a log (with = 1.78, Euler's constant).
[ (
162.6qB
log 0.000264 k t ct r 2 + 0.809 (psi, field units)
kh
21.5qB
p (t , r ) =
log 0.000356k t ct r 2 + 0.809 (Bars, metric units) ( 1-30)
kh
p( t , r ) =
[ (
(The semi-log straight line Eq. 1-12 corresponds to Eq. 1-30 for r=rw).
p
Log r
pi
t1
t2
t3
t4
pwf
Figure 1-38 Pressure profile versus the log of the distance to the well.
When presented versus log(r), the pressure profile at a given time is a straight line
until the distance becomes too large for the logarithm approximation of the
- 25 -
Exponential Integral. Beyond this limit, the profile flattens, and tends
asymptotically towards the initial pressure.
The radius of investigation ri tentatively describes the distance that the pressure
transient has moved into the formation. Several definitions have been proposed, in
general ri is defined with one of the two relationships :
(0.000264k t c r ) = 41 or = 1
(0.000356k t c r ) = 14 or = 1
2
t i
t i
(field units)
(metric units)
(in dimensionless terms of Equation 2.4 or 8-2, t D riD2 =
( 1-31)
1
1
2
= 2 ).
or t D riD
4
This gives respectively,
ri = 0.032 kt ct (ft, field units)

ri = 0.037 kt c t (m, metric units)
( 1-32)
and
ri = 0.029 kt ct (ft, field units)

ri = 0.034 kt ct (m, metric units)
( 1-33)
(the radius of investigation is independent of the rate).

The radius of investigation ri is sometimes viewed as the minimum distance of any
event, such as a reservoir limit, that cannot be observed during the test period.
With the sealing fault example of Figure 1-30, the pressure transient reaches the
fault 4 times earlier the boundary can be observed on the producing well pressure
behavior.
In practice, for an initial flow period, the radius of investigation of Equation 1-32
or 1-33 is relatively consistent with the distance estimated by a simulation, when a
boundary effect is introduced at the end of the test period. For a shut-in periods,
Equations 1-32 and 1-33 are not always accurate.
- 26 -
2 - THE ANALYSIS METHODS
2-1 Log-log scale

For a given period of the test, the change in pressure p is plotted on log-log scale
versus the elapsed time t. This data plot is then compared to a set of
dimensionless theoretical curves.
102
101
P,
psi
100
10-1
10-3
(3.6 sec)
10-2
(36 sec)
10-1
(6 mn)
100
101
102
t, hr
Figure 2-1 Log-log scale.
pD = A p,
t D = B t ,
{ A= f ( kh,...)}
{B = g( k , C, S ...)}
( 2-1)
The shape of the response curve is characteristic : the product of one of the
variables by a constant term is changed into a displacement on the logarithmic
axes. If the flow rate is doubled for example, the amplitude of the response p is
doubled also, but the graph of log(p) is only be shifted by log(2) along the
pressure axis. With the log-log scale, the shape of the data plot is used for the
diagnosis of the interpretation model(s).
log pD = log A + log p
( 2-2)
log t D = log B + log t
The log-log analysis is global : it considers the full period, from very early time to
the latest recorded pressure point. The scale expands the response at early time.
- 27 -
Chapter 2 - The analysis methods
2-2 Pressure curves analysis

2-2.1 Example of pressure type-curve : "Well with wellbore storage and
skin, homogeneous reservoir"
Dimensionless terms
Dimensionless terms are used because they illustrate pressure responses

independently of the physical parameters magnitude (such as flowrate, fluid or
rock properties). For example, describing the well damage with the dimensionless
skin factor S is much more meaningful than using the actual pressure drop near the
wellbore.
Dimensionless pressure
kh
p (field units)
1412
. qB
kh
p (metric units)
pD =
18.66qB
pD =
( 2-3)
Dimensionless time
0.000264 k
t (field units)
ct rw2
0.000356k
tD =
t (metric units)
c t rw2
tD =
( 2-4)
Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient
CD =
CD =
0.8936C
(field units)
ct hrw2
0.1592C
c t hrw2
(metric units)
( 2-5)
Dimensionless time group
tD
kh t
= 0.000295
(field units)
CD
C
tD
kh t
(metric units)
= 0.00223
CD
C
- 28 -
( 2-6)
Dimensionless Pressure, pD
1 02
1060
1050
1040
1030
1020
1015
1010
8
10
106
104 103
102 10
3
1
0.3
Approximate start of
semi-log straight line
10
CDe2S
1
10-1
10-1
102
10
103
104
Dimensionless time, tD/CD
Figure 2-2 Pressure type-curve: Well with wellbore storage and skin,
homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
CDe(2S) = 1060 to 0.3.
Dimensionless curve group
0.8936C 2 S
(field units)
e
ct hrw2
0.1592C 2S
(metric units)
C D e 2S =
e
c t hrw2
CD e 2 S =
( 2-7)
The curve label CD e2S defines the well condition. It ranges from CD e2S =0.3 for
stimulated wells, up to 1060 for very damaged wells.
Log-log matching procedure
Pressure change, p (psi)
103
102
101
1
10-3
10-2
10-1
101
Elapsed time, t (hours)
Figure 2-3 Build-up example. Log-log plot
- 29 -
102
The log-log data plot p, t is superimposed on a set of dimensionless type-curves

pD, tD /CD. The early time unit slope straight line is matched on the "wellbore
2S
storage" asymptote but the final choice of the CD e curve is frequently not unique
(Figure 2-12).
Results of log-log analysis
Pressure match PM = p D p : the permeability thickness product
kh = 141.2qB (PM ) (mD.ft, field units)

kh = 18.66qB (PM ) (mD.m, metric units)
( 2-8)
Time match TM = (t D C D ) t : the wellbore storage coefficient
kh 1
(Bbl/psi, field units)

TM
kh 1 3
C = 0.00223
(m /Bars, metric units)
TM
C = 0.000295
( 2-9)
Curve match : the skin
C D e 2 S Match
S = 0.5 ln
CD
( 2-10)
2-2.2 Shut-in periods

Drawdown periods are in general not suitable for analysis because it is difficult to
ascertain a constant flowrate. The response is distorted, especially with the log-log
scale that expands the response at early time. Build-up periods are preferably
used : the flowrate is nil, therefore well controlled.
Example of a shut-in after a single rate drawdown
Build-up responses do not show the same behavior as a first drawdown in a

reservoir at initial pressure. After a drawdown of tp, the well shows a pressure
drop of p(tp). It takes an infinite time to reach the initial pressure during build-up,
and to produce a pressure change pBU of amplitude p(tp). Build-up responses
depend upon the previous rate history.
- 30 -
Rate, q
Pressure, p
pi
pBU(t)
p (tp)
t BU
q
0
0
tp
tp+t
Time, t
Figure 2-4 History drawdown - shut-in.
The diffusivity equation used to generate the well test analysis solutions is linear.
It is possible to add several pressure responses in order to describe the well
behavior after any rate change. This is the superposition principle.
For a build-up after a single drawdown at rate q, an injection period at -q is
superposed to the extended flow period.
(p (tp+t) - p (t) )
Pressure, p
pi
p (t)
p (tp+t)
Rate, q
p (tp)
q
0
-q
0
tp
Time, t
Figure 2-5 History extended drawdown + injection.
Log-log analysis : build-up type curve
[p
( t ) D ]BU
= pD ( t ) D pD t p + t
( )
+ pD t p
The pressure build-up curve is compressed on the p axis when t>>tp.
- 31 -
( 2-11)
10 2
CDe2S drawdown
type curve
pD(tpD )
10
build-up type curve

1
tpD
10-1
10-1
10
102
Dimensionless time, tD /CD
103
104
Figure 2-6 Drawdown and build-up type curves (tpD = 2).
Semi-log analysis : superposition time
[p(t )]BU
[p(t )]BU
t p t
k
+ log
3
.
23
+
0
.
87
S
log
(psi, field units)
ct rw2
t p + t
t p t
qB
k
= 21.5
+ log
3
.
10
+
0
.
87
S
log
kh
t p + t
ct rw2
= 162.6
qB
kh
( 2-12)
With the superposition time, the correction compresses the t scale.
10
CDe2S drawdown
type curve
pD(tpD )
build-up type curve
tpD
0
10-1
10
102
103
104
Dimensionless times, tD / CD and [ tpD tD / (tpD + tD) CD ]
Figure 2-7 Drawdown and build-up type curves of Figure 2-6

on semi-log scale.
Horner method
t p + t
qB
log
(psi, field units)
t
kh
t p + t
qB
= p i 21.5
log
kh
t
pws = pi 162.6
p ws
- 32 -
( 2-13)
10
P*
0
1
102
10
103
104
105
Horner time, [(tpD + tD) / tD ]
Figure 2-8 Horner plot of build-up type curve of Figure 2-6.
Horner analysis :
The slope m,
The pressure at t =1 hour on the straight line
The extrapolated pressure to infinite shut-in time (t = ): p*.
Results :
qB
m
qB
kh = 21.5
m
kh = 162.6
( 1-13)
tp +1
k
(field units)
S = 1151
. 1 hr log
+
log
+
3
.
23
tp
ct rw2
m
t p +1
k
(metric units)
S = 1.151 1 hr log
+
log
+
3
.
10
2
m
t
c t rw
p
( 2-14)
In an infinite system, the straight line extrapolates to the initial pressure and p*=pi.
Multi- rate superposition
At time t of flow period # n, the multi-rate type curve is :
pD ( t ) D
MR
n 1
qi qi 1
pD (t n ti ) D pD ( t n + t ti ) D + pD ( t ) D ( 2-15)
n 1 qn
q
i =1
- 33 -
Pressure, p
Rate, q
Period #
1,2,, 5,
6,.....10,
11
q1,. q5=0, q6,..q10,
q11=0
Time, t
Figure 2-9 Multi- rate history. Example with 10 periods before shut-in.
The multirate superposition time is expressed :
p ws (t ) = pi 162.6
p ws (t ) = p i 21.5
B n1
(qi qi 1 )log(t n + t ti )+(qn qn1 )log(t ) (psi, field units)
kh i =1
B n 1
(qi qi 1 ) log(t n + t t i ) + (q n q n 1 ) log(t ) (Bars, metric
kh i =1
( 2-16)
units)
Limitations if the time superposition: the sealing fault example
In the following example, the well is produced 50 hours and shut-in for a pressure
build-up. A sealing fault is present near the well and, at 100 hours, the flow
geometry changes from infinite acting radial flow to hemi-radial flow.
5000
Pressure, psi
4500
Radial
4000
Hemi-radial
3500
Radial
50
Hemi-radial
100
150
Infinite reservoir
Sealing fault
200
250
300
Time, hours
Figure 2-10 History drawdown build-up. Well near a sealing fault.
During the 50 initial hours of the shut-in period (cumulative time 50 to 100 hours),
both the extended drawdown and the injection periods are in radial flow regime.
- 34 -
The superposition time of Equations 2-12 or 2-13 is applicable, and the Horner
method is accurate.
At intermediate shut-in times, from 50 to 100 hours (cumulative time 100 to 150
hours), the extended drawdown follows a semi-log straight line of slope 2m when
the injection is still in radial flow (slope m). Theoretically, the semi-log
approximation of Equation 2-11 with Equation 2-12 is not correct.
Ultimately, the fault influence is felt during the injection and the 2 periods follow
the same semi-log straight line of slope 2m (shut-in time >> 100 hours, cumulative
time >> 150 hours). The semi-log superposition time is again applicable.
In practice, when the flow regime deviates from radial flow in the course of the
response, the error introduced by the Horner or multirate time superposition
method is negligible on pressure curve analysis results. It is more sensitive when
the derivative of the pressure is considered.
Time superposition with other flow regimes
The time superposition is sometimes used with other flow regimes for straight-line
analysis. When all test periods follow the same flow behavior, the Horner time can
be expressed with the corresponding time function. For fractured wells, Horner
time corresponding to linear (Equation 1-15) and bi-linear flow (Equation 1-17) is
expressed respectively :
(t
+ t
12
( t )
12
(hr1/2)
(t p + t )1 4 (t )1 4 (hr
( 2-17)
1/4
( 2-18)
The Horner time corresponding to spherical flow of Equation 1-19 has been used
for the analysis of RFT pressure data.
( t )1 2 (t p + t )
1 2
(hr-1/2)
- 35 -
( 2-19)
2-2.3 Pressure analysis method

The analysis is made on log-log and specialized plots. The purpose of the
specialized analysis is to concentrate on a portion of the data that corresponds to a
particular flow behavior. The analysis is carried out by the identification of a
straight line on a plot whose scale is specific to the flow regime considered. The
time limits of the specialized straight lines are defined by the log-log diagnosis.
4000
p*
p(1hr)
Pressure, psia
3750
slope m
slop
em
3500
3250
3000
1
101
102
103
104
(tp +t )/ t
Figure 2-11 Build-up example of Figure 2-3. Semi-log Horner analysis.
1 02
1060
1050
1040
1030
1020
1015
1010
8
10
106
104 103
102 10
3
1
0.3
10
CDe2S
1
10-1
10-1
102
10
103
104
Figure 2-12 Build-up example of Figure 2-3. Log-log match.
For the radial flow analysis of a build-up period, the semi-log superposition time is
used. The slope m of the Horner / superposition straight line defines the final
pressure match of the log-log analysis.
PM =
p D 1.151
(psi-1, Bars-1)
=
p
m
( 2-20)
2S
Once the pressure match is defined, the CD e curve is known accurately. Results
from log-log and specialized analyses must be consistent.
- 36 -
2-3 Pressure derivative

2-3.1 Definition
The natural logarithm is used.
p ' =
dp
dp
(psi, Bars)
= t
dt
d ln t
( 2-21)
The derivative is plotted on log-log coordinates versus the elapsed time t since
the beginning of the period.
2-3.2 Derivative type-curve : "Well with wellbore storage and skin,

homogeneous reservoir"
Radial flow
Log p
Log p'
p' = constant
Log t
Figure 2-13 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale.
Radial flow.
p = 162.6
p = 21.5
qB
k
3.23 + 0.87 S (psi, field units)
log t + log
2
ct rw
kh
qB
k
3
.
10
+
0
.
87
S
log t + log
(Bars, metric units)( 1-12)
kh
c t rw2
The radial flow regime does not produce a characteristic log-log shape on the
pressure curve but it is characteristic with the derivative presentation : it is
constant.
p ' = 70. 6
qB
(psi, field units)
kh
p ' = 9.33
qB
kh
In dimensionless terms,
- 37 -
( 2-22)
dp D
= 0.5
d ln( t D C D )
( 2-23)
Wellbore storage
p =
qB
t
24C
(psi, Bars)
( 1-6)
qB
p' =
t (psi, Bars)
24C
( 2-24)
During wellbore storage, the pressure change p and the pressure derivative p'
are identical. On log-log scale, the pressure and the derivative curves follow a
single straight line of slope equal to unity.
Log p
Log p'
Slope 1
Log t
Wellbore storage
Derivative of Section 2-2 example
During the transition between the wellbore storage and the infinite acting radial
2S
flow regime, the derivative shows a hump, function of the CD e group.
Pressure derivative, p' (psi)
103
102
pe
slo
101
0.5 line
1
10-3
10-2
10-1
101
102
Elapsed time, t (hours)
Figure 2-15 Derivative of build-up example Figure 2-3. Log-log scale.
- 38 -
Dimensionless Pressure erivative, p'D
Derivative type-curve
1 02
CDe2S
1060
10
103
102
10
3
1
0.3
10-1
10-1
1040 1050
1030
1020
1015
1010
108
106
104
102
10
103
104
Figure 2-16 "Well with wellbore storage and skin, homogeneous reservoir"
Derivative of type-curve Figure 2-2. Log-log scale.
CDe(2S) = 1060 to 0.3.
Derivative match
Dimensionless Pressure Derivative, p'D
The match point is defined with the unit slope pressure and derivative straight line,
and the 0.5 derivative stabilization.
1 02
10
10-1
10-1
102
10
103
104
Figure 2-17 Derivative match of example Figure 2-3. Log-log scale.
2-3.3 Other characteristic flow regimes

During other characteristic flow regimes, the pressure changes with the elapsed
time power 1/n :
- 39 -
p = A (t )1 n + B (psi, Bars)
With:
1/n =1
1/n =1/2
1/n =1/4
1/n =-1/2
( 2-25)
during the pure wellbore storage and the pseudo steady state regimes,
in the case of linear flow,
for bi-linear flow,
when spherical flow is established.
The logarithm derivative is:
p ' =
dp
A
1n
= (t )
(psi, Bars)
d ln t n
( 2-26)
The log-log pressure derivative curve (p', t) follows a straight-line slope of 1/n.
Infinite conductivity fracture (linear flow)
On log-log scale, the pressure and derivative follow two straight lines of slope 1/2.
The level of the derivative half-unit slope line is half that of the pressure.
p = 4.06
qB
hx f
p = 0.623
p' = 2.03
qB
hx f
qB
hx f
p' = 0.311
qB
hx f
ct k
ct k
ct k
ct k

( 1-15)

( 2-27)
Slope 1/2
Log p
Log p'
Log t

Infinite conductivity fracture.
- 40 -
Finite conductivity fracture (bi-linear flow)
A log-log straight line of slope 1/4 can be observed on pressure and derivative
curves, but the derivative line is four times lower.
p = 44.11
p = 6.28
qB
h k f w 4 ct k
qB
h k f wf
p' = 11.03
p' = 1.571
c t k
qB
h k f w 4 ct k
qB
h k f wf
( 1-17)

4
ct k
( 2-28)
Slope 1/4
Log p
Log p'
Log t

Finite conductivity fracture.
Well in partial penetration (spherical flow)
p = 70.6
qB ct
qB
2452.9 3 2
(psi, field units)
k S rS
k S t
p = 9.33
qB c t
qB
279.3 3 2
k S rS
k S t
p' = 1226.4
p ' = 139.6
qB ct
k S3 2 t
qB c t
k S3 2 t
( 1-19)
(psi, field units)
The shape of the log-log pressure curve is not characteristic but the derivative
follows a straight line with a negative half-unit slope.
- 41 -
( 2-29)
Log p
Slope 1/2
Log p'
Log t

Well in partial penetration.
Closed system (pseudo steady state)
The late part of the log-log pressure and derivative drawdown curves tends to a
unit-slope straight line. The derivative exhibits the characteristic straight line
before it is seen on the pressure response.
Log p
Slope 1
Log p'
Log t
Closed system (drawdown).
A
log 2 log(C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S (psi, field units)
rw
qB
qB
A
p = 0.0417
t + 21.5
log 2 log(C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S (Bars, metric
kh
c t hA
rw
p = 0.234
qB
qB
t + 162.6
ct hA
kh
( 1-22)
units)
qB
ct hA
qB
p ' = 0.0417
ct hA
p ' = 0.234
- 42 -
( 2-30)
2-3.4 Data differentiation

The algorithm uses three points, one point before (left = 1) and one after
(right = 2) the point i of interest. It estimates the left and right slopes, and
attributes their weighted mean to the point i. On a p vs. x semi-log plot,
p
p
x2 + x1
x 2
dp x 1
=
x1 + x2
dx
( 2-31)
It is recommended to start by using consecutive points. If the resulting derivative

curve is too noisy, smoothing is applied by increasing the distance x between the
point i and points 1 and 2. The smoothing is defined as a distance L, expressed on
the time axis scale. The points 1 and 2 are the first at distance x1,2>L.
The smoothing coefficient L is increased until the derivative response is smooth
enough but no more, over smoothing the data introduces distortions. With this
smoothing method, L is usually no more than 0.2 or 0.3.
L
Pressure change, p
2
i
1
x1
p1
x2
p2
Log (superposition)
Figure 2-22 Differentiation of a set of pressure data.
At the end of the period, point i becomes closer to last recorded point than the
distance L. Smoothing is not possible any more to the right side, the end effect is
reached. This effect can introduce distortions at the end of the derivative response.
2-3.5 Build-up analysis

For a shut-in after a single drawdown period (the Horner method is applicable), the
derivative is generated with respect to the modified Horner time given in the
superposition Equation 2-12 :
- 43 -
p ' =
t p + t dp
dp
t
=
(psi, Bars)
t p t
tp
dt
d ln
t p + t
( 2-32)
For a complex rate history, the multirate superposition time is used.

In all cases, the derivative is plotted versus the usual elapsed time t : the log-log
derivative curve is not a raw data plot but is dependent upon the rate history
introduced in the time superposition calculations.
Limitations if the time superposition: the sealing fault example
When the response deviates from the infinite acting radial flow regime, the
derivative with respect to the time superposition can introduce a distortion on the
response, as illustrated on the log-log derivative of the build-up example of Figure
2-10 for a well near a sealing fault.
Pressure change, p
and Pressure Derivative, psi
1 04
1 03
1 02
drawdown
build-up
101
10-2
10-1
10
102
103
104
Elapsed time t, hours
Figure 2-23 Log-log plot of the build-up example of Figure 2-10. Well near a
sealing fault.
2-4 The analysis scales

The log-log analysis is made with a simultaneous plot of the pressure and
derivative curves of the interpretation period. Time and pressure match are defined
with the derivative response. The CD e2S group is identified by adjusting the curve
match on pressure and derivative data.
- 44 -
and Derivative, p'D
1 02
1060
1050
1040
1030
1020
1015
1010
108 106
104 103
102 10
3
1
0.3
10
CDe2S
1
10-1
10-1
102
10
103
104
Figure 2-24 Pressure and derivative type-curve for a well with wellbore
storage and skin, homogeneous reservoir.
The double log-log match is confirmed with a match of the pressure type-curve on
semi-log scale to adjust accurately the skin factor and the initial pressure. A
simulation of the complete test history is presented on linear scale in order to
control the rates, any changes in the well behavior, the average pressure etc.
- 45 -
- 46 -
3 - WELLBORE CONDITIONS
3-1 Well with wellbore storage and skin, homogeneous

reservoir
3-1.1 Characteristic flow regimes
1. Wellbore storage effect. Result: wellbore storage coefficient C.
2. Radial flow. Results: permeability-thickness product kh and skin S.
3-1.2 Log-log analysis
and Derivative, p'D
1 02
CDe2S =1030
high skin
10
pe
slo
low skin
CDe2S =0.5
0.5 line
10-1
10-1
102
10
103
104
Figure 3-1 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in an infinite
homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
CDe(2S) = 1030 and 0.5.
3-1.3 Semi-log analysis

50
CDe2S =1030
Slope m
40
30
skin
20
10
Slope m
0
10-1
10
102
Figure 3-2 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-1.
- 47 -
CDe2S =0.5
103
104
Chapter 3 - Wellbore conditions
3-2 Infinite conductivity or uniform flux vertical fracture

Two models are available: one considers a uniform flux distribution along the
fracture length and, with the other, the fracture conductivity is infinite.

1. Wellbore storage
2. Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. Results: fracture half-length xf.
3. Pseudo radial flow: derivative stabilization at 0.5. Results: permeabilitythickness product kh and the geometrical skin S.

Dimensionless terms
t Df =
t Df =
0.000264 k
t (field units)
ct x 2f
0.000356k
ct x 2f
t (metric units)
( 3-1)
and Derivative, p'D
On Figure 3-3, CD = 0. The two models are slightly different during the transition
between linear flow and radial flow. With the uniform flux model, the transition is
shorter and the pressure curve is higher.
10
0.5 line
10-1
1/2
pe
o
l
S
Uniform flux
Infinite condutivity
10-2
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
10
102
103
Dimensionless time, tDf
Figure 3-3 Responses for a well intercepting a high conductivity fracture.

Log-log scale.
No wellbore storage effect CD = 0. Infinite conductivity and uniform flux.
Match results
The kh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. 2-8) and the fracture
half-length xf from the time match :
- 48 -
xf =
0.000264k 1
(ft, field units)
ct
TM
xf =
0.000264k 1
(m, metric units)
ct
TM
( 3-2)
The fracture stimulation is seen as a negative skin during the radial flow regime.
With infinite conductivity fracture, this geometrical skin effect is defined from the
fracture half-length xf as :
x f = 2 rw e S (ft, m)
( 3-3)
And, for the uniform flux solution,
x f = 2.7 rw e S (ft, m)
( 3-4)
Figure 3-4 Flow line geometry near a fractured well.
3-2.3 Linear flow analysis
The half fracture length xf is also estimated from Equation 1-16.

1.2
m LF
0.8
0.4
Uniform flux
Infinite condutivity
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Square root of dimensionless time, tDf

Figure 3-5 Square root of time plot of Figure 3-3.
Early time analysis.
- 49 -
1.0
and Derivative, p'D
3-2.4 Fractured well with wellbore storage

10
1/2
pe
S lo
0.5 line
CD=0
10-1
104
103,
10-2
-4
-3
10
10
10-2
10-1
10
102
103
Dimensionless time, tDf
Figure 3-6 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storage. Infinite
conductivity fracture. Log-log scale.
3
4
CD = 0, 10 , 10 .
3-2.5 Damaged fracture with wellbore storage

and Derivative, p'D
10
1
S=1
10-1
S=0.3
S=0
10-2
10-2
10-1
10
102
103
Figure 3-7 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storageand skin.
Infinite conductivity fracture. Log-log scale.
S = 0, 0.3, 1.
3-3 Finite conductivity vertical fracture

With the finite conductivity fracture model, there is a pressure gradient along the
fracture length. This happens when the permeability of the fracture is not very high
compared to the permeability of the formation, especially when the fracture is
long.

1.
2.
3.
4.
Wellbore storage
Bi-linear flow : 1/4 slope straight line. Results : fracture conductivity kfwf.
Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. Results : fracture half-length xf.
Pseudo radial flow : derivative stabilization at 0.5. Results : permeabilitythickness product kh and the geometrical skin S.
- 50 -

The dimensionless fracture conductivity kfDwfD is defined as :
k fD w fD =
k f wf
( 3-5)
kx f
and Derivative, p'D
10
1
0.5 line
10-1
1/2
pe
Slo
10-2
/4
Slope 1
10-3
10-1
10
102
103
104
105
Figure 3-8 Response for a well intercepting a finite conductivity fracture. Loglog scale.
No wellbore storage effect CD = 0, kfDwfD = 100.
For large fracture conductivity kfDwfD, the bilinear flow regime is short lived and
the 1/4-slope pressure and derivative straight lines are moved downwards. The
behavior tends to a high conductivity fracture response (when kfDwfD is greater
than 300, see Figure 3-10).
and Derivative, p'D
10
1
kfDwfD=
10-1
0.5 line
1
1/2
pe
Sl o
10
10-2
100
10-3
/4
Slope 1
10-1
10
102
103
104
105
Figure 3-9 Response for a well intercepting a finite conductivity fracture. Loglog scale.
No wellbore storage effect CD = 0, no fracture skin, kfDwfD = 1, 10 and 100.
Match results
The kh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. 2-8) and the fracture
half-length xf from the time match (Eq. 3-2). The fracture conductivity kfwf is
estimated from the match on the bi-linear flow 1/4 slope.
- 51 -
The fracture negative skin is defined by two terms: the geometrical skin of an
infinite conductivity fracture (Eq. 3-3), and a correction parameter G to account
for the pressure losses in the fracture.
k f wf
S LKF = G
kxf
+ ln 2rw
xf
( 3-6)
rwe / xf
0.5
10-1
10-2
10-1
102
10
103
Dimensionless fracture conductivity, kfDwfD
Figure 3-10 Effective wellbore radius for a well with a finite conductivity
fracture. Log-log scale.
3-3.3 Bi-linear and linear flow analyses

The fracture conductivity kfwf is estimated with Equation 1-18, the fracture halflength form Equation 1-16.
3-3.4 Flux distribution along the fracture
Dimensionless flux, qfD
Uniform flux
Infinite conductivity
Finite conductivity
kfDwfD >300
1
5
0.5
0
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
Dimensionless distance, x /xf
Figure 3-11 Stabilized flux distribution.

Uniform flux, Infinite conductivity (kfDwfD > 300) and Finite conductivity
fracture (kfDwfD = 0.5 and 5) models.
- 52 -
3-4 Well in partial penetration

3-4.1 Definition
Sw
kV
kH
h
hw
zw
Figure 3-12 Geometry of a partially penetrating well.
hw : open interval thickness

zw : distance of the center of the open interval to the lower reservoir boundary
kH : horizontal permeability
kV : vertical permeability

1. Wellbore storage.
2. Radial flow over the open interval : a first derivative plateau at 0.5 h/hw.
Results : permeability-thickness product for the open interval kHhw, and the
skin of the well, Sw.
3. Spherical flow : -1/2 slope derivative straight line. Results : permeability
anisotropy kH/kV and location of the open interval in the reservoir thickness.
4. Radial flow over the entire reservoir thickness : second derivative stabilization
at 0.5. Results : permeability-thickness product for the total reservoir kHh, and
the total skin ST.
The total skin combines the wellbore skin Sw and an additional geometrical skin
Spp due to distortion of the flow lines, as depicted on Figure 1-21:
Spp is large when the penetration ratio hw/h or the vertical permeability kV is low
(high anisotropy kH/kV).
For damaged wells, the product (h/hw)Sw can be larger than 100.
ST =
h
S w + S pp
hw
( 3-7)
A skin above 30 or 50 is indicative of a partial penetration effect.
- 53 -
and Derivative, p'D
Influence of kV / kH
102
10-3 -2
10 -1
10
10
first stabilization
1
0.5 line
kV/kH = 10-1
10-2
10-3
10-1
10-1
102
10
103
104
105
106
Figure 3-13 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage
and skin. Log-log scale.
hw/h = 1/5 in center of the interval, CD = 33, Sw=0, kV / kH = 0.10, 0.01 and
0.001.
When the vertical permeability kV is low (low kV/kH), the start of the spherical
flow regime is delayed (-1/2 derivative slope moved to the right).
and Derivative, p'D
Influence of zw/h
102
10
hem
i-sp
h
sph
eric
al
eric
al
0.5 line
10-1
10
102
103
104
105
106
107
and skin. Log-log scale.
hw/h = 1/10, CD = 6, Sw=0, kV/kH = 0.005, zw/h = 0.5 and 0.2.
Match results
The kHh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. 2-8). The wellbore skin
Sw and the penetration ratio hw/h are estimated from the first radial flow when
present (derivative plateau at 0.5 h/hw) :
hw p2nd stab. m2nd line

=
=
p1st stab.
h
m1st line
( 3-8)
The permeability anisotropy kV/kH and location of the open interval are estimated
from the spherical flow -1/2 slope match.
- 54 -
3-4.4 Semi-log analysis

kV/kH =
40
10-3
10-2
10-1
Slope m
30
Spp
20
10
0
10-1
102
10
103
104
105
106
Figure 3-15 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-13.

Influence of kV / kH on Spp (Sw=0).
The final semi-log straight line defines kHh and ST. When a first semi-log straight
line is seen (radial flow over the open interval), it defines the permeabilitythickness kHhw (penetration ratio hw/h with Eq. 3-8), and the wellbore skin Sw.
3-4.5 Geometrical skin Spp

When the penetration ratio hw h and the dimensionless reservoir thicknessanisotropy group (h rw ) k H kV are not very small, Spp can be expressed :
S pp
h
h
=
1 ln
2 rw
hw
hw
kH h h
+
ln
h
k V hw
2+ w
(z + hw 4)(h z + hw 4) ( 3-9)
(z hw 4)(h z hw 4)
With hw h = 0.1 and kH/kV = 1000, Spp = 68 whereas with hw h = 0.5 and
kH/kV = 10, Spp = 6 only.
3-4.6 Spherical flow analysis

Plot of p versus 1 t . The straight line is frequently not well defined and the
analysis is difficult : on example kV/kH =10-3 of Figure 3-13, the spherical flow
regime is established between tD/CD=104 and 106. The straight line is very
compressed, it ends before 1
t D C D =0.01.
- 55 -
When the open interval is in the middle of the formation, the slope mSPH of the
spherical flow straight line gives the permeability anisotropy from Equations 1-20
and 1-21. If the open interval is close to the top or bottom sealing boundary, flow
is semi-spherical and the slope mSPH must be divided by two in Equation 1-20.
40
kV/kH =
35
10-3
30
slopes mSPH
10-2
10-1
15
20
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Dimensionless time function, 1 t D CD
Figure 3-16 Spherical flow analysis of responses Figure 3-13. One over
square root of time plot.
3-4.7 Influence of the number of open segments
When the open interval is distributed in several segments, the ability of

vertical flow is improved compared to the single segment partially
penetrating well of same hw. On the examples Figure 3-17 with 1, 2 and 4
segments, the 1/2 slope is displaced towards early time when the number of
segments is increased (the global skin is respectively 17.9, 15.9 and 13.9).
and Derivative, p'D
102
segments
1
2
4
10
10-1
1
10
102
103
104
105
and skin. Log-log scale. One, two or four segments.
hw/h = 1/4, CD = 100, Sw=0, kV /kH = 0.10, one segment centered, two or four
segments uniformly distributed in the interval.
- 56 -
3-4.8 Constant pressure upper or lower limit

In the case of a bottom water / oil contact or a gas cap on top of the producing
interval, no final radial flow regime develops after the spherical flow regime: the
pressure stabilizes and the derivative drops.
and Derivative, p'D
102
10
1
oil
water
10-1
1
10
102
103
104
105
Figure 3-18 Responses for a well in partial penetration with a bottom

constant pressure boundary. Log-log scale.
hw/h = 1/5, CD = 1000, Sw=0, kV/kH = 0.005, one segment on top.
The dotted derivative curve describes the response with sealing upper and
lower boundaries.
3-5 Horizontal well

3-5.1 Definition
kV
kH
kH
h
zw
Figure 3-19 Horizontal well geometry.
L : effective half length of the horizontal well

zw : distance between the drain hole and the bottom-sealing boundary
kH : horizontal permeability
kV : vertical permeability
- 57 -

Well Test Interpretation - ENSPM - 1a PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Test Interpretation - ENSPM - 1a PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Test Interpretation - ENSPM - 1a PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WELL TESTING

2 - THE ANALYSIS METHODS ......................................................................................................... 27

LOG-LOG SCALE ........................................................................................................................ 27

3 - WELLBORE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 47

WELL WITH WELLBORE STORAGE AND SKIN, HOMOGENEOUS RESERVOIR ................................. 47

4 - FISSURED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE POROSITY MODELS.................................................. 75

ONE SEALING FAULT ................................................................................................................. 95

CLOSED SYSTEM ..................................................................................................................... 104

6 - COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS....................................................................................... 119

DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 119

7 - LAYERED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE PERMEABILITY MODEL........................................ 127

DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 127

INTERFERENCE TESTS IN RESERVOIRS WITH HOMOGENEOUS BEHAVIOR .................................. 135

9 - GAS WELLS................................................................................................................................... 149

GAS PROPERTIES ..................................................................................................................... 149

10 - BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS ........................................................ 159

BOUNDARIES IN FISSURED RESERVOIRS............................................................................... 159

11 - COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES ................................................................. 165

FISSURED-LAYERED RESERVOIRS ........................................................................................ 165

12 - OTHER TESTING METHODS.................................................................................................. 169

DRILLSTEM TEST ................................................................................................................. 169

13 - MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS .................................................................................................. 179

PERRINE METHOD ............................................................................................................... 179

14 - TEST DESIGN ............................................................................................................................. 183

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 183

15 - FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST ANALYSIS....................................................... 185

RATE HISTORY DEFINITION .................................................................................................. 185

16 - CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 193

INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE ............................................................................................ 193

APPENDIX - ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS..................................................................................... 205

DARCY'S LAW ......................................................................................................................... 205

1 - PRINCIPLES OF TRANSIENT TESTING

During a well test, a transient pressure response is created by a temporary change

p= p(t) p(t =0) (psi, Bars)

Figure 1-1 Drawdown and build-up test sequence.

Well test objectives

Chapter 1 - Principles of transient testing

Information obtained from well testing

The objective of well test analysis is to describe an unknown system S (well +

Chapter 1 - Principles of transient testing

Input data required for well test analysis

ct =co(1Sw)+cwSw+c f (psi-1, Bars-1)

Chapter 1 - Principles of transient testing

1-1.3 Types of tests

Figure 1.2 Typical test sequence. Oil well.

Chapter 1 - Principles of transient testing

Figure 1.3 Onshore DST test string.

1-1.4 Well testing equipment

Chapter 1 - Principles of transient testing

Figure 1.4 Surface set up.

Chapter 1 - Principles of transient testing

1-2 Definitions & typical regimes

Chapter 1 - Principles of transient testing

For a well full of a single phase fluid,

C = V =coVw (Bbl/psi, m3/Bars)

Figure 1-7 Wellbore storage effect.

Chapter 1 - Principles of transient testing

Result : wellbore storage coefficient C.

1-2.2 Radial flow regime, skin (homogeneous behavior)