SPE

SPE 13182

CURRENT DRILLSTEM TESTING PRACTICES:

DESIGN, CONDUCT & INTERPRETATION
by James C. Erdle, member SPE-AIME, FLOPETROL JOHNSTON, NAM
Denver, Colorado

Copyright 1964 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AlME

Th!s psper was presented at the 59th Annual Techmcal Conference and Exhibition held m Houston, Texas, September 16-19, 1964. The material ia sub
ject to correction by the author. Permisscm to COPY IS resmcted 10 an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway,
Drawer 64706, Dallas, Texas 75206 USA. Telex 720989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT Both of the above “limitations” are not inher-

ent to the technique, they are created by: (1)(,,
---- WW-mff,,?.nc
improvements in Drillstem Test.design, iiiofiitcrifiq~uu,-~~~;~~ ~f +--+
LC>L A-..nla”+a”+
CL+U IPIIII=,II. ?I~d ~, ““%-”s b.., ,-,
and interpretation procedures which maximize the pro- inflexible wellsite procedures that do not allow
bability of a successful test and permit well perfor- for varied response to observed behavior (3)
mance predictions. inappropriate use of “standard” pressure transient
test interpretation techniques, and (4) a lack of
INTRODUCTION concern for setting and prioritizifigDST tilf07fi6t-
ion objectives. These operational deficiencies,
Drillstem Testing is a 50-year-old technique tradi- along with the common practice of using flow rate
tionally used and controlled by exploration personnel data as a “quantitative” indicator of reservoir
to ositivel identify reservoir fluid ~during production rate potential (see paragraph one
wil%--l-Y
cat drl lng operations when other sources of in- above), explain why DST data has not been utilized
formation have been either unavailable or unreliable. to its full potential by the oil industry, in
The use of drillstem test data by engineering personnel particular by engineering personnel.
has historically been limited to: (1) reserve esti-
mation using extrapolated reservoir static shut-in The application of appropriate, and in many
pressures from DST shut-in periods i-unction with cases improved, DST technology in the Rocky Moun-
log data (porosity and net pay) and PVT data (measured tain area of the United States during the past 2.5
or from correlations), and (2) qualitative projection years has provided the evidence that with proper
_L ------
of reservoir (not welij reduction rate potential by equipment, test proc.e&iFf?S iifid ifiterpretaticm
combining measured DST ff--- ‘- with the various
ow rate data techniques, DST data can be used not only to identify
indicators of near-well-bore transmissibility reduction reservoir fluid type during wildcat drilling opera-
(i.e. damaged formation) or improvement (i.e. stimu- tions, but also to accuratel predict well perfor-
ated formation) which are calculated by applying an mance quantitativeltiate versu~me behav-
“appropriatet’pressure transient test interpretation fian be predicted as a function of the post DST
technique to DST shut-in period data. initial completion design (open hole DST) or recom-
pletion design (cased hole DST). Drillstem tests
The use of DST data for the engineering purposes are now being used routinely as an engineering and
described above, and for any other quantitative engi- management tool to access the economic impact of
neering calculations, for that matter, has always been expensive completion or recompletion (i.e. work-
looked upon as unrealizableby many engineers and scien- over) design decisions, such as “what frac length,
tists in the oil industry, including the pressure tran- prop size and prop type is economically optimum”
sient theory experts in the academic conmnunity. Sup- and “what shot density, gun type and pressure
posed limitations of the technique can be generalized differential is economically optimum” for each
into two categories. First, the duration of a typical individual well. Equally as important, because
DST is short, on the order of hours (minimum) or sev- this capabi~ permits prior prediction of flow
eral days (maximum), which leads many to automatically rate versus time behavior for any specific comple-
dismiss the results as being influenced by a statisti- tion or recompletion design selected, a valid
tally insufficient sample of the reservoir. Second, evaluation of the effectiveness of the implemented
the physical behavior which occurs during most DST’s completion is now possible. This application of
(i.e. non-surface or slug flow during the= periods the “new” DST technology is most economically
and longer (than flow periods) duration shut-in periods attractive when custom designing, then evaluating,
which are characterized by decreasing wellbore storage hydraulic fracturing treatments for individual
effects), is considered by many not properly analyzable wells. Each well tested, then treated, can be
by the most coffmfonly
available (and used) semi-log properly evaluated in terms of treatment success.
(Horner) and log-log (various type curves) interpreta- Post-treatment tests can diagnose potential causes,
tion techniques. therefore corrections, for poor treatment results.
~ v“—. . “A.uu. .*.-J .s. . ...” . -e . .-u” al-b L3LUL

Even the traditional “should we set pipe” de- This procedure would allocate all on-bottom test
sion is more frequently being made quantitatively, time to reservoir fluid recovery, w~out “pretending”
by projecting flow rate and cumulative recovery to satisfy engineering requirements for a static
versus time behavior for various completion design reservoir pressure by using a shut-in period of insuf-
alternatives and appraising the economics of com- ficient duration for analysis. This type of DST desig!
pleting the well, as opposed to the traditional could appropriately be described as a “stockholder
“ ,.l;+=+<wn annrnat-h.
+mlllk.”.!.- ..~~..---... test” in which maximum fluid recovery is the-
important test objective.
The Drillstem Test design, monitoring, and
interpretation procedure recotmnendationswhich When engineering data is also a high priority DST
permit the accurate prediction of well performance information objective, the most significant change in
are fully described. Some very practical guide- the design of the test involves the wellsite proce-
lines are presented to maximize the probability dures. Both flow and shut-in periods are required.
that every DST will provide the desired information The allocation of test time to each flow and shut-in
on every zone tested, whether th~ed informa- period becomes critical, especially in the open hole
tion is only the formation fluid type (traditional environment, where on bottom test time usually is
use) or a full-blown well performance prediction limited. The wellsite procedure should also take into
and completion design optimization (modern use). account the interpretation techniques which are pre-
A general screening process for judging the utility ferred so appropriate data will be obtained.
of “old” DST data, such as is found on “scout cards”,
concludes the paper. Specific DST design recommendations are difficult
to generalize in a short paper, however, several im-
DRILLSTEM TEST DESIGN PROCEDURES portant points can be made. Referring to the standard
DST equipment diagram (Figure 1) for reference to the
The design of any DST involves the selection of terminology, the following equipment and hole PrePar-
equipment, wellsite procedures and interpretation ation procedures are recontnended:
techniques that will attain the information desired
from the test. The information which can be obtained (1) TEST INTERVAL LENGTH - The shorter the test
from a DST includes: interval, the better. ~ause some or-
~at~=must be displaced ahead
1. identification of reservoir fluid type of the reservoir fluids (especially oil and
water), the smaller that volume, the more
2. static reservoir pressure likely a test will recover reservoir fluid,
at least in the test tool sample chamber, if
3. transmissibility of the reservoir rock not the drillstring or tubing. Wellbore
effective to reservoir fluids at insitu storage effects during shut-in periods will
conditions within the radius of investi- also decrease as the rat-hole volume is
gat!on of the test. decreased. Even in the case of a simple
‘--..-’-fliiidrecevery
%tockinoiaer test’!re~~l-vull
4. reduction or improvement in transmissi- (if it occurs) is difficult to allocate to
bility of the reservoir rock near the a particular section of a long test interval
wellbore (damage ratio or skin factor)
(2) CUSHIONS - The smaller and fewer, the better,
5. changes in transmissibility of the reser- Both water~m~s~l~t=
voir rock away from the wellbore due to uses in drillstem testing, but their overuse
natural (faults, pinchouts, etc.) or is conmon and leads to difficult, if not
man-made (drainage boundaries, etc.) impossible, pipe recovery description un-
phenomenon. certainties and can prevent reservoir fluid
samples from being produced during a test
6. quantitative impact of completion decisions due to excessive back-pressure on the forma-
on post-test well performance tion. Cushions should be run for four rea-
sons: (1) prevention of pipe collapse
Obviously, the DST design must reflect the during deep tests and/orwhenmud weights
types of information desired from each individual are high (in the Rocky Mountains this is
test, and the priority level assigned to each piece generally not a problem at depths shallower
of information. For example, if the only objective than 10,000 ft), (2) control of differen-
of a particular open hole OST is reservoir fluid tial pressure across the packers at the
identification, a very simple string of tools can start of the initial flow period (should be
be utilized, along with a wellsite procedure that 5000 psi or less for open hole tests and
calls for one, and only one, flow period, with no 7500 psi or less for cased hole tests if
eh,,+.
allub=;n
.
time. bottomhole temperatures are not excessive),
(3) prevention of high diffc?rent.ialpres=
sures across the sand-face or completion
when testing unconsolidated formations or
gravel-pack completions (maintain differen-.
tial pressures at the sand-face below 400
psi to prevent formation sand production,
gravel pack plugging or hydraulic fracture
 JAMES
----- .
SPE 13182 Exvl.lli 3

propant production), and (4) pipe protec- (7) BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE/TEMPERATURE RECORDERS -
tion from corrosive gases using a slug of Three recorders ——are a minimum for~DST.
inhibitor. Use of a cushion for reasons Two or more recorders are trad~onall~un
other than the above is unnecessary and below the test tool to measure both flowing
creates uncertainty in the fluid recovery and shut-in pressures during the test, and
and flow rate measurement calculations. hydrostatic mud column pressure while trip-
ping in and out of the hole (one gauge is
(3) TEST TOOLS - Use tools that offer the most ported to see pressures in the rat-hole and
*~m mawdmg=f= one is ported to see pressures inside the
.
most operating=, owhiie minimizi;q~ ~OOI system, downstream of the perforations
need to rotate the drl~ring
—— or tubi~ in the anchor pipe or lower packer sub). A
The most~b~t=for stationary rig third gauge placed above the test tool valve
operations operate by up and down pipe and ported to see pressure inside the drill
motion. Floating rig operations require string is strongly recommended. This place-
a pressure operated tool system. Pressure- ment al1ows: (1) detection of test tool
operated tools have less operating force and drillstring leaks during tripping opera-
available for opening and closing and, there, tions and during shut-in periods, (2) cal-
fore, must be serviced more completely to culation of true liquid pipe fillup rates
insure reliable operation. Sleeve-type since no test tool pressure drops occur
valves have more potential sealing area than between this position and the test tools,
full bore valves, and are more reliable as and (3) slug test type curve analysis of
a result. Rotationally operated tools are pipe fillup flow periods, since the flow
more difficult to monitor (is it open yet?), period pressure increases are strictly due
are limited to a fixed number of openings to the increasing hydrostatic weight of the
and closings (usually 2 each) and should produced fluid column rising in the drill-
not be rotated when tripping in or out of string (i.e. no critical flow pressure drops
the hole, which is often difficult to com- can occur downstream of the gauge positioned
pletely prevent. Rotational tools are only above the test tool, which if allowed to
~e~~,wend~d for shallow (less than 2000 ft) happen can invalidate attempts at perform-
openhole drillstem test operations. ing a slug test analysisj.

(4) PACKERS - Longer elements do no better than The choice between electronic and mechanical
shorter elements in o en h~e~e~ pressure recorders is currently based more
~h –+—A”.—
lona oacker e ements look llke on convenience and speed of data processing
they s;ould &eate more contact area with than accuracy and sensitivity of pressure
the borehole wall, they in fact, bend into and temperature measurements. Electronic
an hour glass shape, just as short elements recorders are definitely more accurate and
do. The surface contact area is essentiall~ have greater resolution than mechanical
the same for both long and short packer recorders, but on most drillstem tests, that
elements. A major disadvantage of most superiority does not always produce signif-
long element packer designs is the lack of icantly different engineering results. The
petal-plates, which are required to prevent advantage of electronic recorders in DST
extrusion of the rubber around the bottom work is in the area of data processing.
of the packer. Mechanical recorders produce etchings on
metal charts which must be digitized man-
(5 HOLE CONDITIONS - Clean —holes —— and low —vis- ually, with the aid of a computer, or in the
cosity, low water ~mud systems means most sophisticated systems, totally by com-
successf~DST ‘s. Successful open ~DST’ puter. No matter what the degree of sophis-
require proper conditioning of the mud sYs- tication, mechanical chart processing is
tern,cleaning up of any fiil at the bottom subject to inconsistency and is slow rela-
of the hole, and a caliper run to assist tive to computer readouts of the digital
<-
Ill m.el-a
pcwmcr .-s+ caln~tinn
.2Cswl, .7U,>w..!”.o. w~~~~ lQ~s should data stored in electronic recorder memories.
be 10 cc or less and viscosity should be
80 sec or less to minimize mud cake thick- (8) TEST INTERVAL ISOLATION - The fewer the
ness and swabbing effects, respectively. packer seats needed and th~h== —.
Scraper runs before cased hole DST’s are formatifip=t~ —— ~d-fl ulds,
essential to prevent leftover cement from the more likely the chances for~ successful
——
tearing up elements and nulliying potential *. Various means~l~ng the test
sealing areas. Interval exist (Figure 2). The on-bottom
test with conventional (hard rubber) packers
(6) PACKER SEATS - The harder and tighter the is the most successful open hole testing
formation selected for o en hole packer technique because: (1) only one packer
location, ——
~~kn%ective seat is needed (two packers are usually run
~1 be create . Ope~hole DST packer to insure one good seat), (2) formation
=s~u~ be opposite consolidated sand- damage due to filtrate invasion is minimum
stone and nonfractured carbonate formations since this style of DST is conducted shortly
Shales and unconsolidated formations almost after the formation has been penetrated by
always make unsuccessful packer seat candi- the drill bit, and (3) the test interval
dates. Cased hole DST packer seats should is short, maximizing the chances for reser-
be located a~ay from !!ner laps m! any voir fluid sample recovery.
squeeze work, such as abandoned perforations
The second most successful style of open Designing drillstem test wellsite procedures
hole DST is the on-bottom straddle test with normally involves two main areas of concern: (1) the
conventional packers. This system can be duration and number of flow and shut-in periods, and
used to isolate the test interval from (2) the safe control and monitoring of the test on
below, as well as above, when an overzealous location to insure acquisition of all required data
driller fails to discontinue “making hole” while maintaining complete control of the “temporary
at the bottom of the zone of interest. well” at all times.
Mechanically, this style of DST has to be,
and is, less successful than an on-bottom, The number of flow and shut-in periods required
non-straddle test because a minimum of two depends, as stated earlier, on the type of information
packer seats must be achieved. desired from the DST, and the priority level estab-
lished for each specific piece of information. An
When the zone of interest is more than 300 industry-standard test consists of two flows and two
feet off bottom, a third style of DST isola- shut-ins, and serves as a good “lets meet halfway”
tion equipment, called an off-bottom strad- accommodationbetween the needs and constraints of
41 -
Ul~
A--+
L~>L
..:*L -......,,...+:-
..?.1
WI (.11 LUllVCllL.lUl191 &i~k~~~, ;~ ~iifi. ~~illt=rc
. ..-.-s ot=nlnai<t<
z--.-z----
and
----
enaineers
-..=...__. _, The puroose
,.–– of
Now, three packer seats are required, fur- each test period and the recommended “rule-of-thumb”
ther reducing the probability for a success- durations are as follows:
ful test.
(1) INITIAL FLOW - Required simply to remove
The last and least successful form of open hydrostatic mud column pressure from the
hole testing involves the use of inflatable rat-hole and not to remove large quantities
packer elements in place of the conventional of fluid from~e formation being tested.
(hard rubber) elements, in all three isola- Recommended duration of five minutes or
tion systems described above. The primary less. Longer initial flow time means less
reasons open hole testing with inflatable likelihood of obtaining wellbore storage-
packers is more risky are: (1) the hole is free buildup data during the initial shut-in
out of guage or washed out, creating the period (i.e. more gas out of solution in the
need for the more expandable inflatable rat-hole and in the formation near the well-
packers in the first place, (2) washed out bore creates larger and longer wellbore
holes are usually associated with ionger storage effects).
formation exposure times to the mud system,
therefore more “skin” damage is likely (i.e. (2) INITIAL SHUT-IN - The acquisition of bottom-
performing all DST’s after reaching total hole pressure buildup data which is free of
depth is typical in some areas and creates wellbore storage effects is the only objec-
the washed out hole conditions which neces- tive of the initial shut-in period. The
sitate inflatable package use), and (3) duration of this phase of a drillstem test
inflatable packers are more delicate and should never be less than 60 minutes.
susceptible to damage than conventional Obviously, it is impossible to exactly pre-
packers, causing a higher misrun rate due to dict the shut-in time required to obtain
hitting bridges tripping in and out of the semi-log extrapolatable buildup data, how-
hole and excessive use of drillstring weight ever,experience in the Rocky Nountain area
when manipulating the test tools. suggests a 60 to 90 minute initial shut-in
period is sufficient cifi
fiiiiety
pe?ceiltOf
When the major purpose of an open hole DST the OST’S run as lon as the initial flow
is reservoir fluid identification, and the time does not -+-–
excee the reco~~
critical “should we set pipe” decision is iii3iiGtK— ——
pending on the results, then the inflatable
packer systems may be worth the additional It would be desirable, for DST design pur-
risk Qf at=ttina
=-.-...= qtuck
------ in ~h~ hel~e HQ4&@-, poses, to be able to mathematically quantify
if engineering data is the major purpose of the required shut-in time as a function of
the OST, and the decision to set casing has estimatable reservoir and wellbore para-
already been made based on previous DST’s on meters, such as transmissibility, skin fac-
shallower zones or other information, then tor, total reservoir rock/fluid system com-
consideration should be given to exchanging pressibility within the radius of investi-
the inflatable packer open hole OST for a gation of the preceding flow period, and
cased hole DST. Avaiiabie equipment now ~a~-~o~e f~uf~ ~y~&r, ~or,ppe~~f~j]f~y.
permits simultaneous perforating (with Unfortunately, this degree of mathematical
casing guns run below the OST tools) and sophistication is not currently inherent in
testing from a workover rig during the well any available type curve solution (i.e.
completion process. Perforation efficiency single phase flow only) or multi-phase
can be evaluated immediately and the need reservoir simulator (i.e. oversimplified,
for stimulation treatments can be determined steady-state wellbore hydraulics only). If
and optimized without recourse to the “trial- a mathematical model would be constructed
and-error” approach which typifies the which can precisely model the fluid satura-
process of bringing most wells “on stream”. tion in the rat-hole as a function of flow
time during a slug flow process, in addition
to the already available fluid saturation
profiles it] the reservoir (i.e. coning
models), then suitable estimates for “time
to semi-log straight line or end of all
 ------ - ---- -
.JAl”mbL. L.WLL
5
SPE 13182

wellbore storage effects” could be calcu- formations in the cased hole environment are
lated for a range of expected reservoir/ reservoir boundary and shape determination
wellbore physical properties prior to each feasible engineering objectives.
test. If you attempt to do this with cur-
rently available models, especially type (4) FINAL SHUT-IN - The final shut-in period
curve solutions, you come up with absurd should be at least as long as the final flow
shut-in time requirements, varying from period, and up to twice as long if time
extremely short to extremely long, depending permits. Experience has proven that when
~H ~~~r e~tfmated input oara~~ter~,
~--- these ~uidelines are followed, engineering
analysls of the bottomhole pressure buildup
(3) FINAL FLOW - ~~e ~jn~mum ~~jec~fve of ~~e ~a~a Is. a?!lwlst >1,., >,,Cpo=a!”o-
lJl”mJ> .e+hla ~j/ s~~~-~orI

final flow period on every DST is to produce analysis techniques, which are much pre-
a quantity of reservoir fluid sufficient to ferred to log-log type curve techniques for
allow reservoir fluid to reach the test tool DST buildup data interp~ion (see section
sample chamber prior to the start of the on interpretation for details).
final shut-in period. Should engineering
data be a high-priority objective, then a In the complete absence of even “ballpark”
second requirement of the final flow period estimates for expected reservoir conditions, a very
iS that the ---4..-:--++,..-
prUUULIIIy
1.,,
LIUIC U=
lIUIIS
,...-,ama,,nh
=Itvu=l)
tm
.V reasc!!!able
apprcach to selecting fins? flow and shut-
generate a disturbance in reservoir pressure in period durations is as follows:
to a distance away from the wellbore suffi-
cient to “see beyond” any damaged or altered (1) Determine by mutual agreement with all
transmissibility regions near the wellbore, involved parties the total on-bottom test
and also sufficient to reach out to the time available.
distance of any suspected discontinuity or
boundary, if confirming such an anomaly is (2) Subtract the initial flow and shut-in
Gfieof the testcbjectives. period durations from this total available
test time, since their durations will not
Unlike the case for shut-in periods, it is change substantially from one test to the
possible to quantify the flow time required next.
to achieve the above objectives, but the
calculations will be only as accurate as (3) If a homogeneous test interval is antici-
your estimates for required reservoir par- pated (i.e. no multilayer or dual porosity
ameter input data. These pre-test design systems suspected) allocate one-third of the
ge~~u~atj~n~ do ~~rv~ an excellent purpose remaining on-bottom time to the final flow
in that they screen out unrealistic test period and the rest to the final shut-in
objectives based on test t?ineaiiciI’or
cost n-m<,+ This sollaratinn m~x~m~zQs
!”....”,”,, ~h~ nrnha-
P=,,WU. ~. ---
constraints. bility of obtaining buildup data analyzable
by semi-log techniques.
The time required to produce a volume of
reservoir fluid equal to the rat-hole volume (4) Ifa heterogeneous test interval is antici-
(a reasonable goal that normally assures pated, allocate the remaining on-bottom
sample chamber recovery of reservoir fluid) time equally between the final flow and
can be calculated as a function of reser- shut-in periods. This allocation creates
voir, rat-hole, drillstring and initial test more flow time which may be required to
condition parameters by utilizing the slug adequately detect the presence of hetero-
test t pe curve model developed by Ramey, geneous behavior. The greater allocation of
et al .f,2 The procedure is described in time to the final flow period is especially
Figure 3. Remember, the calculated time ‘is critical to detecting and quantifying the
not necessarily the total final flow time presence and nature, respectively, of natur-
required, since any additional test objec- ally fractured or fissured systems.
tiVeS Will most often add to the total
required flow time. Many alternative test designs can be utilized to
accomplish more specific objectives. A single flow/
The concept of radius of investigation, in single shut-in period test may be more appropriate in
conjunction with an “appropriate” model for very low transmissibility formations if unfeasibly long
describing the nature of the “skin” sur- shut-in times are required to obtain wellbore storage-
rounding the wellbore (i.e. either the zero free buildup data during an initial shut-in period. A
radius or finite radius models may be appli- third flow period tacked on the end of a two flowftwo
,cable for a specific formation), can be used shut-in period test can be used to try all possible
to calculate the flow time required to “see” means to achieve maximum reservoir fluid recovery or
a given radius away from the wellbore. This flow to surface (i.e. the “stockholder test”) without
procedure is described in Figure 4. It is destroying the possibility of obtaining engineering
important to note that by going through this data from the test. Even open hole acidizing and
second exercise, it is not difficult to perforatingare being tried in an attempt to increase
understand why most DST’s are not designed reservoir fluid recovery from formations susceptible
to detect boundary conditions or determine to severe damage during drilling. A suitable and
the size of a reservoir. Reservoir flow practical procedure can be designed to achieve the
capacity to a specific borehole is a reason- desired results under almost any conditions.
able engineering objective for most DST’S.
Only when testing very high transmissibility
 6 CUP.RENT DRILLSTE TESTING PRACTICES SPE 13182

Monitoring and control system design is deferred and reservoir response is available in real time at
to the following section, where the various systems the surface via the electronic transmission of bottom-
available are described. hole pressure data through conductor cable run inside
the drillstring. Test timing is no longer an educated
DRILLSTEM TEST MONITORING PROCEDURES guessing game since interpretation plots can be made
during the test to determine when sufficient data has
The design procedures described in the previous been acquired. Increased reliability and reduced cost
section can only be as effective as the ballpark will speed the acceptance of surface pressure readout
estimates that, of necessity, prompt them. The systems.
factors which influence the selection of hardware
Patjngsj such as.pressure: temperature and presence The termination of the final test period (be it
of corrosive flulds (i.e. gases and abrasives), can a flow or shut-in period) is not the time to end care-
usually be estimated fairly accurately before the ful monitoring procedures. Other than the bottomhole
test, but the uncertainties associated with the esti- pressure data, the most important measurements of a
mates of reservoir flow capacity (i.e. transmissi- pipe fillup (or non-surface flow) DST take place while
bility and skin) make pre-test timing estimates sus- tripping the test tools out of the hole.
ceptible to potentially large errors. After all, if
we knew reservoir flow capacity in advance, why test? Even though,a fixed quantity of fluids has been
produced into the drillstring during the flow periods,
The importance of DST monitoring systems and the exact nature and volume of those fluids is not
their use in responding to actual (i.e. real time) clear until the fluids are recovered at the surface.
test behavior is, therefore, the key to safe control Three methods of drillstring fluid recovery are pos-
of the test and the acquisition of data sufficient to sible: (1) pull the drillstring “wet” and catch
achieve the mired test information objectives. fluid samples after.each stand of liquid-filled drill-
Three systems for monitoring drillstem tests are string is broken, (2) reverse out the recovered
currently in use: (1) the traditional ‘~bubble fluids after pulling one or two stands of drillpipe,
bucket” systems, (2) the “closed chamber” systems, taking fluid samples at the floor manifold, and (3)
and (3) the systems which directly transmit bottom- pull the drillstring “wet” until liquid is encounter-
hole pressure to the surface in real time, sometimes ed, then re-attach the surface flow control equipment
known as “surface pressure read-out” systems. The and reverse out the recovered fluids, again taking
relative merits of all three systems are compared in fluid samples at the floor manifold.
Figure 5.
The third method is preferred because it is”both
Watching and “interpreting” the bubble bucket is safe and results in a controlled reversing out pro-
familiar territory to most of the personnel tradition- =, as opposed to the uncontrolled u-tubing process
ally associated with drillstem testing on location. that occurs when reversing out is performed just off
Certainly, the strength of the blow caused by air bottom. Even better results occur with method three
being displaced out of the drillstring and through the when reversing out is performed slowly, in a piston-
“bubble hose” into a bucket of water by rat-hole mud like displacement process, and recovered liquids are
and reservoir fluids filling up the pipe during flow flowed into a clean tank, instead of being dumped to
periods, can be qualitatively related to reservoir a flare pit. The final results of these recommenda-
flow capacity and reservoir fluid type. However, tions are more accurate pipe recovery descriptions
erroneous interpretations from “experienced” bubble (i.e. both fluid type and volume) anda smaller
I-..-l---
UU(,Kel,
...&-.l.’.....
wabc]ler>
..... QIcaI,cu
IIave
-.”...,1.,I
,“,,..,,
wurc
,l-=m=l,,-=kla
IAIWaIILZI~LrdWI=
nc-r)=
“+, s volume Of ccl!’!tam~natec!
drilling mud?
than anyone cares to admit. The simple uncertainty
existing during the course of a “bubble bucket” DST Sample chamber measurements are extremely crucial
is cause for concern regarding safe control of the to the overall interpretation of a non-surface flow
“temporary well”. DST. It has recently become common pratice amongst
several DST service companies to not measure sample
The logical, and least expensive, alternative to chamber gas recoveries in lieu of the calculation
the bubb e bucket is a closed chamber monitoring procedure described in the next section. This is
system. J ,4 The bubble hose is simply closed off and extremely ill-advised and can lead to a completely
replaced with a sensitive surface pressure gauge erroneous interpretation of the nature of the reser-
(usually electronic for added sensitivity). Quanti- voir liquids, especially when stable, foamy emulsions
tative interpretation of the surface pressure behavior are recovered.
during both flow and shut-in periods is possible.
Rapid determination of reservoir fluid type and flow The importance of fluid sample ana]ysis cannot be
rates is the goal of closed chamber monitoring sys- overemphasized. Grindouts should be performed on all
tems, permitting better overall control of a test and samples to determine percentages of each major fluid
real time test procedure modifications that lead to a type recovered in the drillstring and the sample
higher probability of obtaining analyzable data. chamber, after emulsions have been broken. Chemical
propertie=h~t~ym= content and
Every drillstem test would benefit from a con- nitrates content should also be measured. Special
version to a “closed chamber” monitoring system, but notice should be given to performing these chemical
current economic conditions and resistance to change analyses on water cushion samples taken both before
amongst wellsite personnel, especially wellsite con- and after the DST (i.e. fresh water isn’t so fresh
sultants, will prolong the transition period. after coming into contact with dried mud on the inside
walls of the drillstring!).
The most sophisticated, and expensive means of
monitoring a drillstem test is the surface pressure
readout system.5 Total knowledge of test toolstatus
DRILLSTEM TEST INTERPRETATION_PROCEOURES When sample chamber initial drainage pres-
~ure is “va=t~p than final flowing pressure,
Y,-”---
The danger inherent to the “stockholder” type of but less than the last measured final shut-
drillstem tests so commonly run in the past is that in pressure, a lower seal tool leak occured
they do not provide the diagnostic information re- during the final shut-in period. Calculated
quired to determine: (1) why the formation yielded gas-liquid ratios will be unreliably high
fluids at the measured rates, (2) how long the under these circumstances.
measured rates can be sustained, (3) how much the
measured rates can be increased by an optimum comple- When sample chamber initial drainage pres-
tion design and stimulation treatments, if any, and sure is greater than both final flowing
(4) most importantly, how much trust can be placed or pressure and the last measured final shut-in
the observed data for economic decision-making pur- pressure, a lower seal tool leak occurred
poses. during the trip out of the hole. Under
these circumstances, an unreliably high per-
Proper interpretation of drillstem test data centage of mud is observed in the sample
identifies the specific reservoir parameters which are chamber and should be discounted accord-
jointly establishing the flow capacity of the tested ingly.
formation (i.e. transmissibility, skin factor, static
pressure and fluid type). This diagnostic information (3) DETERMINE FORMATION FLUID TYPE FOR ANALYSIS
attaches “strings” to the measured data and in doing PURPOSES - Transmissibility of reservoir
so prevents overly optimistic or pessimistic conclu- fluids should be calculated effective to
sions. either the combined liquid phases or the
total equivalent gas phase (i.e. convert
The drillstem test interpretation procedure re- condensate to equivalent gas volume). A
commended for the common slug flow DST is as follows: very effective means of distinguishing a
gas-producing formation from one producing
(1) CHECK REPORTED DATA FOR ACCURACY AND CON- both liquid and gas is to observe the shape
SISTENCY - Cnmpare measured hydrostatic of the log-log plot of the final shut-in
pressures (initial and final) with that period data (see next step). Slopes greater
expected from mud weight and gauge depth(s). than one in magnitude (i.e. greater than 45
Check recorder positioned above the test degrees in angle measured from horizontal)
tool for indications of leaks during the indicate gas going back into solution with
test or while tripping in or out of the associated oil, identifying the zone as
L-1-
Ilule. AIW - ..-t.1,, U“lllpll,=
Iouyllly ez.mn.wa r-,,ehinm
G“s!ll”,! pp~~~~~~ being a liquid producing formation. Log-log
with reported cushion length and final plots exhibiting siopes with magnitudes less
flowing pressure with reported pipe recovery than or equal to one indicate zones produc-
length. Gross inconsistencies represent a ing free gas. The gas produced never
red flag to further quantitative analysis goes completely back into solution with
until the inconsistencies can be resolved. associated liquid production (i.e. formation
water, mud or mud filtrate) in the rat-
(2) CHECK THE REPORTED SAMPLE CHAMBER GAS RE- hole.
COVERY - Gas normally leaks from the sample
chamber while tripping the test tools out of (4) CALCULATE LAST FLOW RATE AND EFFECTIVE
the hole after a test. The loss of gas PRODUCING TIME - A proven approach to
manifests itself in the reduced value of accounting for the non-constant nature of
sample chamber pressure in comparison to the the pipe”fillup (i.e. slug flow) flow rates
final flow pressure, the pressure at which which preceed DST shut-in periods is to
the sample was trapped. The leakage can calculate the fillup rate just prior to the
easily be accounted for by applying the termination of the final flow period, and
equation of state for a real gas to the use this rate for pressure transient anal-
physical conditions existing in the sample ysis purposes. Use of the last flow rate
..___-- -* *1--A:“... -c ..’!Z..:..-
l..c.T.*la demands the use of an effective producing
cnarrmer.dL Lnrs LIIIIe UI LIU>IIIY ,+3= ,=, ,=
l). time in all semi-log analysis caicuiations,
When foamy, stable emulsions are trapped in and is simply the flow time required to
the sample chamber, the calculated gas-in- produce the actual recovered fluid volume at
place at final flowing conditions can actu- the last flow rate. A tabulated procedure
ally be less than the measured surface gas for calculating drillstring liquid recovery
recovery. The correct gas volume to use is and last flow rate is presented in Table 2.
the measured surface gas recovery under
these circumstances, thus the need for gas Gas test flow rates are either measured at
measurement equipment during sample chamber the surface through the bean choke in the
draining. floor manifold, a positive displacement
meter or a separator (rarely on land DST’s),
or can be calculated using the closed cham-
ber monitoring system data. The closed
chamber system is required when testing gas
zones with a water cushion in the drill-
string, in order to measure total gas flow
rate under the cushion.
8 CURRENT DRILLSTEN STING PRACTICES SPE 13182

(5) CONSTRUCTION OF INTERPRETATION PLOTS-Semi- gation, and neutral skin when severe damage
Iog (i.e. Horner) and log-log (log or plugging of the fractures near the weii-
AP vs log At) plots should be constructed bore has occurred durinq the drillina pro-
for each shut-in period (see Figure 7). The cess”(open hole OS~durln - ~ment-
log-log plots can be used to identify m~ (cased hole +DST “ — —
wellbore-storage-free buildup data, if any
exists, and set data ranges on the semi-log The comparison of measured and expected well-
plots through which straight lines can be bore storage constants can often reveal the
drawn. This simple procedure almost always presence of a natural fracture system even
produces extrapolated reservoir pressures when severe plugging or damage prevents
from initial and final shut-in periods that direct conmwnication of the fracture system
agree within 20 to 50 psi, depending on the (i.e. indicated by the nature of the pres-
type and range of recorder run. The final sure response, a high transmissibility, and
shut-in period log-log plot also provides a a negative skin factor) with the wellbore.
means for estimating the bubble point Even indirect linkage of a large volume
pressure of the rat-hole fluid system, which (relative to the rat-hole) fracture system
is hopefully dominated by reservoir fluid by with the wellbore will cause the measured
the end of the final flow period. wellbore storage factor to be at least an
order of magnitude greater than what would
(6 QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF INTERPRETATION be expected if only the rat-hole volume
PLOTS - Because drillstem tests are gener- stood between the test tool am! the trans-
ally short in duration and test intervals missibility of the formation matrix.
generally encompass one producing formation,
anomalies associated with outer boundary Qualification of reservoir parameters
conditions and multi-layer inner boundary calculated from drillstem tests using the
conditions are rare in Rocky Mountain area radius of investigation and wellbore storage
OST’S. The most prevalent form of anomalous constant numbers can prevent financially
behavior seen locally is dual porosity be- disastrous decisions. For example, the
havior created by the presence of natural abandonment of a severely damaged formation
fractures or fissures in the producing could easily be justified from measured DST
formations, many of which are carbonates. flow rates and calculated reservoir para-
This behavior appears as illustrated on meters alone, since all normal indications
Figure 8. Frequently a drastic drop in the would suggest a very tight, non-damaged
last measured shut-in pressure from the zone. A less costly, yet non-optimum situa-
initial to the final shut-in periods is tion can occur if a decision to hydrauli-
associated with dual porosity formation cally fracture the formation is made, based
DST’s, and can be misread as a “depletion” on the low transmissibility in the altered
indication when proper interpretation pro- 20ne. A much larger than necessary fracture
cedures are not followed. treatment~ign woulfisult from the use
of the damaged zone transmissibility in well
(7) QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF INTERPRETATION performance prediction calculations. Well
PLOTS - The quantitative diagnostic para- performance potential could even be decreas-
meters required to “understand” the behavior ed in the case of a plugged natural fracture
observed during a DST are quite simple to system by filling the almost infinite trans-
calculate (see Table 3). The real key to a missibility void space of the fissures with
successful drillstem test interpretation is lower transmissibility proppant. The extra
the generation ofa proper understanding of cost and inconvenience of the wellbore
what the numbers mean, how representative of cleanup operations created by the early
the tested formation they really are, and “screenout” during the pumping of the
how they can be used (see next section). treatment, Caused by severe underestimation
of leakoff rates, would be the final unfor-
Two parameters, in particular, provide a tunate result in either of the above sce-
strong indication of how representative the narios.
calculated reservoir parameters might be.
~~yare: (1) the radius of investigation The comparison of static reservoir pressures
(2) the observed versus expected derived from two or more OST shut-in periods
wel~bore storage constant. A short (i.e. also requires special consideration. Obvi-
less than 10 feet) radius of investigation, ously, if static reservoir pressure decreases
coupled with a knowledge of how much drill- significantly (i.e. more than the plus to
ing mud the tested interval may have “con- minus accuracy range for the specific type
sumed” prior to the test, immediately of pressure recorder used) from one shut-in
signals a warning flag which may mean the period to the next as a result of reservoir
calculated reservoir parameters are repre- fluid production during the intervening
sentative of only the invaded or altered flow period, then true “depletion” is occur-
zone surrounding the wellbore. Typically, a ring, indicating the wellbore has penetrated
neutral damage ratio (i.e. DR=l) or skin a reservoir of “limited” size. Because the
6.-+.-...
,Ue.u, t+ . s=O) fiijmber
~t.=. is associated wiK~ economic implications of this type of ob-
this condition, along with a low transmis- servation are significant, it is imperative
sibility. Many tests of naturally fractured that the proper method for determination of
formations exhibit this ““...”.,,”.,”,8
entnh~m=++fi.
fig~o~
“, sttitic ..,...-=..-..
!eservulr - pressure from DST shut-in
transmissibility, short radius of investi- period data be utilized.
SPF 13182 JAMES C . ERDLE 9

Many non-engineering personnel simply Reservoir parameters may be calculated from the
compare the bottomhole pressures measured at pipe fillup (i.e. slug flow) data created during
the end of each shut-in period to determine the flow periods of a drillstem test when shut-
whether or not “depletion” has been observed in period data is unavailable or not analyzable
during a DST. This technique is, of course, by the semi-log technique. Matching of the pipe
totally incorrect and will, by the nature of fillup pressure plot to a slug test type curve
the test times utilized on most DST’s, requires a large span of data (i.e. the pipe
produce false indications of depletion. fillup rate must nearly cease, in which case the
temporary well is said to have “killed itself”)
The correct approach for determining static to assure a unique match.
reservoir pressure from any shut-in period,
including those from DST’s, is to extrap- The validity of the last flow rate/effective
olate the measured pressure data to an producing time approach to DST shut-in period
infinite shut-in time using a semi-log or interpretation is discussed in the appendix.
Horner plot. The key to the success of this Confirmation of this approach using a numerical
method is the proper selection of the simulation model that creates shut-in period
portion of the data through which a straight data following pipe fillup (i.e. slug flow )
line can be drawn and extrapolated to infi- flow periods is presented.
nite shut-in time. As stated earlier, a
log-log plot of the measured pressure build-
up data must be constructed to assist in the
location of correct semi-log straight line. NELL PERFORMANCE PREDICTION USING DST DATA
However, existing ‘;ruies-of-thunib”
start of
straight line indicators, such as the “one- It is very important to emphasize that flow rates
and-one-half cycle rule”, and the “correct measured during drillstem tests are short duration
start of semi-log straight line” boundary flow rates, and as such, should never be used as in-
lines drawn on many radial flow/ wellbore dicators of sustainable productifite potential.
storage/skin type curves, are not appro- However, used in conjunction with measured bottom-
priate@guides for determining~n storage- hole pressure data in the interpretation process
free data begins during DST shut-in periods. described above, the prediction of sustainable pro-
These indicators cannot be used on most DST duction rate potential is possible and theoretically
shut-in periods due to the continually valid over reasonable periods of producing time.
decreasing rat-hole fluid compressibility Perhaps as significant, the reservoir parameters
(i.e. continually decreasing wellbore derived from DST data can be used in reservoir sim-
storage) which typifies all DST’s in which ulation models and combined with models of fluid flow
oil and gas are produced, and many other through perforations, gravel packs, hydraulic frac-
DST’s which produce at least some quantity tures, tubing, chokes, safety valves, and flowlines
of gas. Misapplication of the “rules-of- to engineer completions in an economically optimum
+1..,
1.,,
~llumu indicators %? the start of storag!?- fachinn. and cumulative
.“-......, and nroiect
-..- ~.-”-–- production rate
free data results in the erroneous conclu- recovery versus time for the completion design
sion that semi-log straight line data (i.e. actually implemented.
storage-free data) rarely is observed on
drillstem tests. In fact, the opposite These “new” engineering uses of DST data are
conclusion is more accurate. Eighty percent becoming more widely practiced through the use of
of the DST’s run in the Rocky Mountain area cased hole DST’s conducted at the beginning of the
of the United States exhibit enough storage- weii completion process (iiiCorijunctioti
‘withtiibifig-
fwae
,,W- ch,,t-j~
-,.”” rn=rind d~~~ t.o p~rform SeMi-10Q conveyed perforation equipment) and during workover
r-. ---
analysis. operations on existing wells that are experiencing
deviations from planned or expected production rates
~he easiest method for using the log-log for “unknown” reasons. These cased hole DST’s can
shut-in period plots for storage-free data be less costly (i.e. they are run off workover rigs)
identification is to: (1) calculate the and more reliable (i.e. they can be run longer with- T
initial dimensionless wellbore storage out fear of hole collapse or getting stuck) than
coefficient (CD)i, which corresponds to gas open hole tests, thus their increasing popularity.
compressibility control, (2) calculate the
final dimensionless wellbore storage coef- An illustration of the negative aspects of the
ficient (CD)f, which corresponds to liquid traditional, non-engineering use of measured DST data
compressibility control, (3) overlay the (or any other flowrate observation test, for that
measured log-log plot data on a suitable matter), and the contrasting positive aspects of the
radial flow/storage/skin type curve (Watten- modern, engineering use of interpreted DST data is
barqer,betals finite skin type curve is the graphically presented in Figures 9 & 10. Each plot
most appropriate type curve available for shows the flowing bottomhole pressure that would
application to DST shut-in period data), have to be created in order to cause a specific flow
- . -:-
using the calculated CD-ValUeS as guides, rate through: (i) the reSerWulr (i.e. the doitinifiard
and (4) determine the shut-in time at sloping curves known as Inflow Performance Relation-
which the measured data coincides with the ship or IPR curves), and (2) the plumbing system
storage-free (i.e. CD = O) portion of the (i.e. the roughly horizontal curves whose slopes
skin curve best matching the real data. change from negative-to-zero-to-positive, known
Some trial-and-error may be necessary, but as tubing intake curves). The intersection of the
not usually.
tubing intake and IPR curves quantify the rate at swabbed periodically. This plot illustrates the
which a well will flow (if it can) under a specific absolutely erroneous conclusions that can be reached
set of conditions, such as a fixed static reservoir about well production potentials from #an short term
pressure, transmissibility and skin factor for the flow rate observation test, including stockholder”
reservoir and a fixed tubing diameter, producing DST’s, swab tests and deliverability tests.
gas-liquid ratio and wellhead pressure for the
tubing. Production rate will decline with time not only
due to transient IPR behavior, Fioure
.:-.- 10 shows that
Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the flow rate changing the completion system design will also have
potential of the same formation completed with two a quantifiable impact. In this example, completing
different tubing sizes. Figure 9 represents an open the well on 2.875 inch tubing and setting the well-
hole completion through 4.5 inch drillpipe, typical head choke so that a flowing wellhead pressure of
of a well completion configuration at the time of 100 psig is created causes the well to flow to sur-
an open hole DST. Figure 10 represents a cased hole face at a rate of 720 STB/D after one hour of pro-
completion of the identical formation through 2.875 ducing time. This rate is less than the pipe fill-
inch tubing. Pressure losses through perforations UP rate after one hour of flow because more energy
are assumed to be negligible for this example. is required to flow the reservoir fluid to surface
against the wellhead pressure. As in the case of
Notice that the inflow performance curves change the open hole DST completion, the production rate
with producing time on both plots, a phenomena called will decline with time due to transient IPR effects,
transient IPR behavior. This behavior, typical of until unstable flow conditions are reached after
low transmissibility formations, occurs during the approximately 4380 hours of production.
early producing life of the formation and continues
up to a time equal to the “time to stabilization”or
;;.. Two important observations can_be made regarding
time to pseudo-steady-state”, after which true the above examples. First, it should not be surpris-
reservoir depletion begins within the entire drainage ing to anyone that the production rate(s) measured
area of the well under study. Transient IPR behavior during a drillstem test are rarely matched or sus-
is extremely significant in many formations because: tained after the well is completed. That the post-
(1) it
.—.means flow rate potential decreases with time, completion well performance can be quantified in
and (2) it’s duration can be very long, up to years advance of completing the well from interpreted DST
in tight gas formations. Significantly, these tran- data is significant. Second, production rate declines
sient IPR curves can be calculated using the reser- in existing wells cannot always be attributed to
voir parameters derived from DST data. mechanical wellbore problems or formation damage
problems. That the impact of various completion
The tubing intake curves quantify the flowing designs, treatment designs and plumbing system
hnttnmhnla nmncc[lwa wsmI+waA j-c IIpUS~II ~P ~~eti A-.;”...A..S,,+mm”.n
u=aIyIIa u,, Iut.uic
,.,,.11 ... k- ,.,,...+4S<AA
..’.....C,.-...”,.
WCI I per IUIIIIarIbC uarl U= qUaIILII ICU
---”-,,,,,”,- !-,----,- , -vu,,=-
reservoir fluids to the surface at any desired rate. in advance is of great significance to production
Where the curves exhibit negative or zero slopes engineers in terms of how they do their jobs (i.e.
indicates combinations of flow rate and flowing initial completion designs, workover candidate
bottomhole pressure which will result in unstable selection, and completion design modifications).
flOw . Where an IPR curve intersects a tubing curve
defines: (1) whether or not natural ,flow is pos- THE UTILITY OF OLD DST DATA
sible, (2) whether that flow wil1 be steady or
unstable (i.e. a flowing well that is slugging or The use of scout card data is common by explora-
heading), and (3) the specific rate at which the tion personnel in their search for new prospects
“well” will produce. If the well cannot flow and by engineering personnel in their evaluation of
naturally, the rate at which the well can be pumped old wells available for purchase. Given the limited
is available simply by’entering the IPR curve at a information presented on scout cards, and taking into
flowing bottomhole pressure corresponding to the consideration the information presented in this paper,
desired fluid level on top of the perforations, and one might conclude that it is dangerous to conclude
reading down to the corresponding reservoir flow anything from scout card data. The lack of sample
rate. Whether a well is completed as a naturally chamber data on most scout cards makes this conclu-
flowing well or on pump, it is obvious that if the sion appropriate. Furthermore, no conclusions
well is completed in a formation that exhibits regarding depletion indications can be made since
transient IPR behavior, then the well’s production only measured shut-in pressures are reported, not
rate wiii deciine with time in a predictable, extrapolated shut-in pressures. About the only
quantifiable manner. useful aspect of scout card data is that it can
lead an experienced DST interpretation expert,
h“s+n
myU III
-a+,i,..”:..”
Icbu I rIIIIy
+a
w
E:.-.,,
r Iyurc
. . (1
Y,
. . .. . . . .
>uppu>c
.
a
----
urwe
L----
IIuur
*k--..-l_
AL- ------ ---L,--*--- -m —---------
J_*_
unrwuyn Lne pruper cumDlndclon UT measurea uaca, tO

final flow been used during a drillstem

period had be curious enough to pursue obtaining a copy of the
test of the formation, and that the final flowing full DST report, from which solid conclusions can
pressure had been 1000 psig. The IPR curve for one be reached.
hour of producing time indicates the measured pipe
fillup rate would have been 820 ST8/D (i.e. the
formation could not have flowed liquid to surface up
the 4.5 inch drill pipe). The unqualified use of
this last measured flow rate as an indicator of
sustainable production rate potential would have been
disasterously misleading, since the DST pipe fillup
rate would have dropped considerably had the flow
period been longer, even if the drill pipe had been
SPE 13182 JAMES MWJA LL

CONCLUSIONS 4. Alexander, L.G.: “Theory and Practice of the

Closed-Chamber Drill-Stem Test Method”, paper
1. Drillstem testing, when done properly, can pro- SPE 6024 presented at the SPE-AIME 51st Annual
vide valuable reservoir information from which Fall Meeting, New Orleans, Oct. 3-6, 1976.
well performance predictions can be made.
5. MacLeod, C., Mitchell, S., Guimerd, A. and
2. Short flow times and long test intervals have Glutin, B.: “Surface Read-out of DST Data in
contributed to substantial mud recoveries durin~ Real Time”, paper OTC 3458 presented at the
DST’s of hydrocarbon-bearing formations. llth Annual Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, April 30 - May 3, 1979.
3. Sample chamber recovery results are much more
significant than drillstring recovery results. 6. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J., Jr.: “An
Tnunctina+inn
.,,.-.,”,=..” ,“,, nf
“, Wallhnrn
..-, ,“”,,. ~tnt-ana
““”,”=- anrl
..,,” <kin
-,.,,.
4. Lack of qualification of OST interpretation Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: II. Finite
results using the radius of investigation and Difference Treatment”, Society of Petroleum
wellbore storage constant numbers can lead to Engineers Journal (Sept. 1970) 291-297;
the bypassing of potentially productive zones Transactions of AIME, Vol. 249.
and the overuse and overdesign of hydraulic
fracture treatments. APPENDIX

5. Drillstem tests can be custom-designed to A more rigorous mathematical treatment of the”

achieve specific information about each for- physical processes which occur during a drillstem
mation tested. test is needed to fully understand the significance
of drillstem test data. Such a model would include
6. Cased hole drillstem tests are becoming a very multi-phase flow behavior in both the reservoir and
imnnrt.n+
S-VW. -.s, .
nwr.rl,,e+inn
V. V.. W-- FVIO
c.mriimr.awinn
-.,Y.,.--. .UBY
f’n~m.+inn
IV B. W- SV II
+ha ..I,,.”1.:.-.”
p IUllluIIly e.,.-+----
I,llc >y>Lc!ll.
T1...-.
.-7.,..
Illc >Iuy
cIluw
l.... 14 . aw.lruyc
\l.c.
..+,-....
”C.

evaluation tool, both for initial completion free) process would constitute the inner boundary
design and problem well diagnosis. condition during flow periods, and a PVT-based (i.e.
changing storage due to gas redissolving into the
7. Use of the last flow rate/effective producing liquid phase, not phase segregation effects) inner
time concept for semi-log buildup analysis of boundary condition would dominate the shut-in periods.
slug flow DST’s is the most appropriate and
practical approach. 8ecause the rigorous model described above does
not yet exist, the practical approach to perfecting
8. Drillstem test interpretation is a complex pro- DST interpretation procedures is to generate DST-type
cess that should not be assigned to inexperience data as faithfully as possible using existing models,
personnel. then determine how to apply cormnoninterpretation
techniques in a manner which will result in correct
9. More sophisticated DST simulation models are reservoir answers. This procedure was applied to
needed to fully evaluate the impact of trans- determine which combination of flow rate, producing
ient, multi-phase wellbore and reservoir time and final flowing pressure should be used to
hydraulics on DST interpretation results. obtain correct reservoir parameters when applying the
conmnonlyused semi-log (i.e. Horner) analysis tech-
nique to DST buildup period data.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A single-phase, slightly compressible fluid
I would like to thank the management of Flopetr[ numerical reservoir simulation model was used to
Johnston (North America) for permission to publish general DST-like buildup data following DST-like slug
this paper. Pete He emen (numerical model), Nelson flow periods. Single phase flow was used so that the
Haver (computer runs! and Deborah Hanford (Manuscri[ only deviation from semi-log interpretation technique
review) deserve special mention for their contribu- assumptions was non-constant, or slug flow prior to
tions to this work. a shut-in period. The generated buildup data was then
interpretated in a variety of ways to arrive at the
REFERENCES method which consistently produced reservoir parameter
closest to those input to the simulation model.
1. Ramey, H.J., Jr., Agorwal, Ram G., and Martin, 1
“Analysis of ‘Sluq Test’ or DST Flow Period A typical wellbore storage buildup following a
Data,;’ Journal o~ Canadian Petroleum Technolo~ slug flow period is presented in Figure 11. The reser
(July-Sept. 1975) 37-42. voir parameters and plumbing system input data for
this example are given in Table 4. Four interpreta-
2. Kohlhass, C.A.: “A Method for Analyzing tion techniques were used to extract reservoir para-
Pressures Measured During Drillstem - Test meter information from the simulated data, three
Flow Periods”, Journal of Petroleum Technology “buildup” analysis methods and one “drawdown” analysis
(Oct. 1972) 1278-1282; Transactions of AIME , technique:
Vol. 253.
(1) Horner using actual flow time, final flowing
3. Erdle, J.C., Upchurch, J.M., and Warren, D.A.: pressure and average flow rate (i.e. pipe
“Early Fluid Entry Determination; Key to Safe, fillup rate).
Optimum Drillstem Testing”, paper SPE 6884
presented at the SPE-AIME 52nd Annual Fall (2) Horner using effective flow time, final
Meeting, Denver, Oct. 9-12, 1977. flowing pressure and last flow rate.
12 JAMES C . ERDLE SPE 13182

(3) Rigorous super position analysis of shut-

in accounting for all rate variation
during slug flow period.

(4) Slug test type curve match using slug

flow period data.

The plots are presented in Figure 12.

pretation results are given in Table 5.
Inter-

The most accurate interpretation technique is

a rigorous su~erpositiotl analysis of the shut-in
period data, In theory. In practice, this technique
is not advised unless a pressure recorder is run
above the test tool to measure rising fluid column
pressure. Even then, the changing of fluid types
DRIL~RP1

COLLARS

COLLARS
PE
TUBING
l!!
~.

II
e
—

—
FLOW CONTROLHEAD

REVERSEOUT VALVE

RECOROER(A30VETEST VALVE)
(i.e. dens~ties) can make calculation of rate versus H(
flow time approximate, at best. TEST VALVE

Changing fluid densities during the flow period

BYPASS VALVE
would also cloud the interpretation of slug flow
data using the slug test type curve method. Diffi-
culties in obtaining a unique match also render this
technique of little value on many drillstem tests. JARS
k
The standard Horner method results in a large
error in skin factor (i.e. a false stimulation
effect is indicated). Unfortunately, this technique
is still widely used by engineering personnel in
—-PACKER (S)
oi? companies, consulting firms and DST service

m
~
companies. Equally as misleading is the shape of
the standard Horner plot, which in this example
falsely indicates a potentially naturally fractured
RAT HOLE _ ...
1,1,1
Ill
,1, [,

condition.

The effective flow time/last flow rate Horner

analysis technique is the most practical way to
I.E!J
0
II
—RECORDER
—RECORDER
(INSIDE)
(OUTSIDE)

avoid the pitfalls of the other three techniques FIGURE1 TYPICALDST TOOL STRING
(i.e. Odeh&Selig is considered a special case
of the rigorous superposition technique and is
affected by the same problems) and obtain accurate
reservoir parameter information from actual drill-
stem tests. The true test of the accuracy of DST-
derived reservoir data is how well it predicts well
performance, and several years of actual experience
suggest the effective producing time/last flow rate
Horner analysis approach works best. In the simu-
lated example, a slightly conservative estimate of
transmissibility is coupled with an almost exact
(i.e. rounded off to the nearest whole number) value
of skin factor. The shape of the Horner plot is
substantially straightened as should be expected
in this homogeneous formation example.

—
-99U
—.-
o-a
y&Bl
9— -11 u-
--l WU-1

n-z WEaMrlwltsllnmw
MaAllal -
 m OkTA

Civ.n: Orillpi* capacity(cDp) . IM1/ftl

Cushion px...ur. (Paml . rpciql

W*llbar* radius (rw) - [ftl

3ut-hol. “d- (Vrh) - [bbll

Emtiaat@ : Initi.1 3us*rv0ir Pressure (pi) -— lpsigl

Poxosity (w [fractional]
“—

‘h-l b-r-i. Cc-pr.snbility (.t) - [psi-l 1

Nat Pay Thick..m {h) Ift]

-—
WSarvoix Liquid Vise..ity (u) ICPI @ (Pi+ Pwf)/2
-—
-..rv.&r L&quid Gradient ($) -— [psi/ft] (61.27z(131.5+API)

Effectiv- [email protected] [k) - ml

Skin Factor (s) . [-1

-UTIWS

~ ●2., 0.8936 (CDJ6) ●2=

D — [-l - OCtmw.

xt
‘rh
Pwf : — [F’~i91 -—
CDP

u % %?
tp : — [mini - 203’390
%7 (GL %)
t=
‘e’” (~mis r.ad frmP. slug tam
- Pwf
type

cum. at int.rsectim of -
~ - ~ ..d CD=2s
20

FIGVR? 3 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM DST FLON-PER1OD DURATION BASED ON

SESERVOIR FLUID IDENTIFICATION SSQUIRSKENTS

133FVTMTA

EStilutd
:
yv:a: ~-::~c~: ..--”..ssmiliq !Qt! [psi-]]
---- -—

WScrvoiz Liquid Viscc.sity (u) “— ICpl @ (Pi+ Pwf)/2

Eff*ctiv* Peruability (k) -— td]

Skin ?.ctor (.I -— l-l

Invadd s.nn Radius (r,) -— Ift]

mllborm Radius (cJ -— Ift]

ocsired Radius of 1nvasti9ati.m (ri”vl -— [ftl

O!Jc
tp : lminl - 56,6000 -# r: ~ +])
( ln(r,/rwl ‘inv
2- ‘:]
[

FIGURE 4 DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM DST FLOW PERIOD DUAATION

SASED ON RADIUS OF INVESTIGATION RECNJIR.EMENTS

FIGURE 5 OET mllrfosmc SYE7SMS

l.nd win. ir..l f..tures)

amvsffF10n6L cwsml CNAfNss Sm.?mx SS6D our

[i%iiiz%:]
pre9.ur.
I
b.ctdole

[
1M3ULM6TIOMDESW2D
D12U11KTERI [’””s] [
cr.nnict.d co .urf.c.
.nd analyzed 1
1. 6C:4C;,CO01. .apOZ. tir.s - cod .r* closiilt.
.penins. fairly - cool at. much c.” dmt.r=ine with
certain usi.r toJude. c.tal c.rc.i.ty
cool el.sinaa can b. dif-
ficult co judge

2. PA: :Uf!c!=z reser-+air - no ~nclfl.blc data i. - quantifiabledata i. quancif~blr data i.

fl.td bun r.covered t. avail.bl. d.rin~ ce.c ●vmil.ble durinc ce.t .v. il.bl. a.rmg c.mt
obtain . r.p..smtat iv*
*aW1. ?
3. !4.v.the shut-in period. - no qusntifi.bl.dst. i. - n. qua.cifiabl. data
is qumt<finbi. data i.
be rut Ions rn.ugh co ●vail.bl. durin6 t..t .vaii.bl, durins cast ●vail.bl. durins t.x
obtain ●nalyzable data
without m.cing .* tire?
 TI

II
II
II I I START RIN’41NG
ill
“N‘“y’l I 1
mcFlaJE

I II
g1
. # I ~ I ,z~w;:w
: ~ PULL PACKER
OUT OF HOLE WI’s2-s
?
u SHUT-IN PSR1OD 2NTSRPS2XAT1m PLOTS
SECOND ?
CLOSING S1OP To
%XMITIAL ~ SECOND CVAL rnmsmw sSHSVlOR
?! REVERSE OUT
:+ CLOSING OPEN lNG

--—
——————
n. f
INITIAL @2‘lower .
1/
v
TOPEN 1NG ‘?
\ P

.“/;
0
0 TEST TI!4E + ..”
!“
FIGL!RE 6 TYPICAL PRESSURE BEHAV1OR FROM A SUCCESSFUL OST
P
ILLUSTRATING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ABOVE TEST VALVE “s
1.=9(Pw; Pwf I
ANO BELOW TEST VALVE RECOROER POSITIONS
I
I

. I

. ,1
. 1

LOG [Ct)

LOG-LOG
SHUT-IN

PLOT
PERIOD INTESPPZTATION

P“ -----
-----
---
PLOTS

sEMI-LOG (HORfJE~l PLOT

1
SLUG -

. . .
WSL
PSRIOO 1NTERPSSTATION
PLOT

POSY3S1TYSEHAVXOR

X5
liquid ccmpr.ssibilitY
wellbore storage
.
4 Smss mm .T~ :
. . . . . . . . .
bubble -
point

“.
Pus P* - Pwfm
.
/— . 1 P“ - P*tar~ \
loq (PW*-P,
I
\ w. .wr*~sibilitY
wellbore storage
. ,
/ 8
/

log (Lt) log

{t-f:;”}

109 (t)

SLUG PLOW PERIOD INTERPRSTATIONPLOT FIGURE B TYPICAL DuAL-POROSITY (HETEROGENEOUS )

RESSRVOIR BEHAVIOR ON DST SHOT-IN AND
I . . . SLUG FLOSS PSRIOD PLOTS
1 .
.
.
.
P* - Pwf(t)

p - ‘Start .

F]GIJRE 7
OL
DST SHUT-IN
log

ANO SLUG FLOW PERIOO

(t)

INTERPRETATION PLOTS
 !7:05, VI ,,7 Ffe 8,1 I. NO, I
FIGURE9 WELL PERFORMANCECURVES 1u61w 3.830 IN. 1.0.
SfZEt
FOR AN FLUIO lWEOIL ,
3S WI. 500 GOR. PBP . ?67S PSI
OPEN HOLE (DST)CCHPLETION K . 1.5 I@. H . 30 F:. 3KIN = O.oo
n . 6000 MI

r
16,51:q3 <7 FEt!-W I No. I
FIGURE10 UELL PERFORMANCECURVES 7U31NG s12Et ?.UUI IN. 1.0.
FOR A FLUlil lVP: : OIL
35 #Pl . S00 GOR. PBP 2S75 P31
CASED MOLE COMPLETION K . 1.5H0, M = 30F1 , SKIN. O.OC
PR - 6000 P31

.-—.—....— _._— -—.—.-

3000

2000

. . .- ----
1000

BO”[TCIMHCILE PRESSURE LUG = IW’!N%CUKIIT f“L13NIUITE (BBLS/01

FIEL’JRtimrr !43.D5r09i Coww :
IN3TRUI’ENr NO. Ar2_ :
mer~ ‘3Fr
c9F’RfXrY o PSI
PORT O%NINLi
3
——. —. .— .—— —.-—— —. -...— -— —.-

—— / -— -— —-—

~“
/

—— —-— .— ——- — .

FIGUS.E 11 S1310LATSDB~OLE PRSSSURE VSRSUS T133S FOR A

_—— --——— — ____ —— DST SLUG FLU3 PERIOD AND SUBSSOUSNT SFKFT-lN psR1

-.—— -——— . . ..— —. —-—- —-- .-

——-

———
--1-. ‘---- .
—— --- .,——— ----- -—- !-
-. _--_= —
‘-[7 ‘- ——.
4s 90 .35 180 L2< 270 315 30 IIJh
..—.—.—
E~flPW!J TIME lMI’4J .UWs’rm-?xm
r— SLtt@191WER
—- -3
 —
.-

..—.—

-. __—.
F,
. .-
-2—
/’
/“...
.
.
.- —

+
m

FIGUSE 12A IIOSNER PLOT OF Ti2E SHOT-IN PERIOO OATA OSING ACTUAL
PRODUCING TIME AND AVENAGE FLON NATE (ISTERPNETATION
NSTSOD #1)

Al (VJNJ —-— ~87—-.7

-_–. ,–—. -.... —–-l.–—I—__——...,— _ l—- 1
,, . . .,”

.-
R!J.L9__.. o .$ 9 ,2 -7
_ ...._—__-— — ..— — “1
=;r..n ?F.Pmrlw. ml~~
$ ~ H[lOJtQ P-u I
_:. .

-1”--
--
lNSIQP!IWI No. ‘“’ r- “-””- ‘“ ‘c “
,fl.4.Qvr
I
. ..

-“;/k
. 1. ---

---[—
- .. ———.
- 71
.#~ ___
‘--i 1--”- >- 1
-. 1 --4 “-” I

/
.,
,+
‘-+

I ““ “.“. l..
4

I 1
~~”.”cfi
:!1~=
=07 F-w

[
13 ,.90

FIGURE 12B BORNER PLOT OF TSE SSUT-IN PERIOD DATA OSING EFFECTIVE
PRODUCING TIUS ANO LAST FLON SATE (INTENPNSTATION
UETSOD #2)
 rxmss 12c Rnwtcws sor8R p051T10N mm or m3ESSOT-IN P13R10D
OATA (INTSRPSXTATION 3UT230D i 3)

\
\q

\
\ e
,
0
0

IOeeeo not. f.. .86. a. \

--- Stro!ght Lt.. Pe?a.etmr, ---

Slop. . = -1.0762 “ ‘1...,
P It”t.rc.ptl= 5001.0
x.
P [0!=!1 = 3592.6

\
‘\.,
\.
30[
o 500 10DO 1500
SUPCRPOSI11ON FuNC1[ON
BUILD-UP RFIER R SLUG FLOMPERIOO
SUPERP051TIONHIT}I 06 FLOU PER1OOS

!.00
o mnmmmm
[ ~ABL= ] RET SAHF’LE CHM@ER GAS RECOVERY CALCULATIONS

0.90 —— —
——–q

I INPUT OATA

0.00, ,
‘2-X.1 VOIUMC
of sqle chamber (V,=) - [ccl

Vol- of oil r.covered (Voil) _ — [ccl

veluresof all liquids ncOv*r*d (Vliql- [ccl

0.70.

tiservoir t~rature [T=) - — [“F]

rinal flowing pz*ssure (Pwf) - — [psial

o.eo. cm z - factor @ PWf c T= l~f) “— [-l

CUCULATIONS

Gas .01- @ Pwf (Qwf) - — [’tfl

Produced gas-oil ratio (GOR) - — [“fl~)

““~
Produced gas-liquid ratio (GLR) .= IScflbk.11

P~f x (v - “liq
) X 0.001249
Q.<: _ “ {Ty460) x <f
,--
0.30. -

GOR: .
Qgufx 159,000
Veil

0 20. ——. Qqwf x 1S9 ,000

GLs: —“
‘liq

10-1 1OQ 10’ ! 02

ELOpsEO Trmf I141N]
SECONDHRLF OF SLUG FLON PEP1OC
FORM. 1I OO-O1OU82

rIGUR2 120 SLUG TEST TYPE CURVE PLOT Or TSE rLCSi PERIOO
DATA ( INTESPAETATION 332TRO0 #4)
 TABLE 2> CORRECTED (NET I F 1PE RECOVERY CALC1l..,TIONS

PIPE REPORTED PIPE RECOVERY LIQUID pEKEmAGES AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES LIQUID GPADIENTS (psi/ft)
RECOVERY LENGTH
_S’CAGE (ft] s 0,1 API 8 mud lb /gal * H,O Pm 8 other lb /.3?.1 V oil V mud v H*O V oth

T-t. 1 —.
TL.
I.e,,th
-.. _.

jrr =
SAMPLE CHAMBER Vo=”w PHYS:CAL
LIQUID TYPE
(cc)

OIL

MUD

H20

OTHER

?UCAL VOLUM2 Tv-

AVERAGE LIQUID GRAOIENT OF TOTAL

PIPE
RECOVERY I .-E LIUJID
GRAO.
OFS.C.RECOVERY I
SMPL2 VoLmlE FP.Aclnm or ‘K?TAL
CW24EER — 2AMVLE cXAIMER LIQ. GRAO.
BASED ON Vol.m.s
OIL
~
121 I I
I
! .—.— 1 1 1
I mm
AVG. S.C.
--l GRAD ~sc “ I

.—-.
CORREW (NET) TOTAL PIPE R-Y LEmm (~1

0RD3!R OF RECOROER FINAL (j LENG’HI e CORRECTEDTOTAL L=’=m

PREFERENCE FOS1TIOM FIMIING BE-
E - [e-exvscl / VPR

1 - 0

2 INSIDE

3 OWTSIDE

cORRWT (NET) PIPE RECOV2RY LICVID VOLUMES

PIPE CORRECTED LENG’IW sTAGE LIQUID PHASE VOLUMES

RECOVERY
sTATE ““-’--=?$ ‘;%: olL ~D Hz” mWER

1 1 J 1

LESS H20 OJ5H. LESS H20 cum.

— I
NEC ?OTAL L1QU1O NET H20
I
 TABLE 3B SENI-LOG MALYSIS CALCULATIONS FOR DST SHOT-IN
PER1OO DATA (GAS PRODUCING FORMATIONS)

CALCOLATIOS.2S

ml 1.63.714 ‘last ‘r
INPUT DATA —:—
u - mu

. Shxu
m:
semi-log pl.t .910pe .
(m) bsia2/cP/109
cycle] u

Entrapdatd shut-i. psauda-pr.ssure (v”) . lpsia2/cpl x: . Sh

K
Final flowing pseudo-pr.ssure (*wf) . [psia*/cpJ

La=t flow rate (%st) . [!4scf/dl

$*-$“f ‘t ff
Effective producing tim (tpeff1 . lminl s: . 1.1512 [ ~ - 109 ( ~
tw
) + 5.0061

POrOsity (0) . [fracl

Net pay thickmss (h) . Ift]

$*-$ti
wellbore radi.. (=) . [ftl DR: .
Kt
Total reservoir compressibility (cc) . [psi-ll (@$wf)
m[109 (*z
t“
) - 5.OX 1

Av.raq. .es.rvOLr fluid viscosity (u) . [CPl (wwf)

LOg-lcq pl.t initial 4S. line slcpa (m.) . [psi/mini

Ses.rvoir
sat-hole VO1-

tqrature
(“*)

(Tr)
.
.
I*1J

[*R}
r
in”: .
G%=
w.r.g. reaervoar fluid formation ..31- factor ( B) . [bbl/scfl@(*”t*wf1/2 c
.s.694 —
%stB
-as :— -
‘*

c b
●xp : — -
P“f

TSBLS 4 INPNT DATA FOR SINNLATED DRILLSTEM TEST EXAUFLE

RESERVOIR DATA (cylindrical 9e_tSY)

K - 5md
h - 30 ft
U -lCP
TASLE 5 ISSTSRPSZTATION SZSULTS USING FOUR TECSNIOUES TO
B - 1 rv21/sTs
SNALYZE SIMULATED DST SSNT-IN PERIOD FOLLONING A
‘e - 6w0 ft (20 lcw-spac8d md*s)
SLUG PLON (PIPE FILLuP ) FLm PERIOD
=“ . .33 ft
s -0
Pi - 50U0 PSi.
-1 INTSRF2UITATION TsCSNIQUE NIN5EER
= 1 E-05 psi
Ct
$ - 0.10
JQ Q J3J J4J

PLUMSING SYSTEM DATA Shlu 160.0 136.3 151.1 160.2

s - 2.5 - 0.3 0.6 1.2
Pipe m - .0142 bbl/ft P“ 49S6 5W7 5001
?luid grad - .433 psi/ft
*12b0r* storage factor - 0 bbl/p=i
Szufing flc”dProamur. . 14.7 psia

TEST SSUUSNCE

F1OW p9ri0d - 120 min

shut-in pried - 240 tin
 TAsLE 2B LAST FLOW MTE AND EFFECTIVE PRODUCING TINE CALCULATIONS

INFUT OATA

Tvtal correctbd pipe liquid r*.Ov*ry (Vw) . [ml

dP
sat. of flowing Pr.ssura incmas. Q ●nd of SIT (+) . [ps./minl

average sample chamber liquid gradient fVSCI . lpsi/ftl

actual total producing tima (tp) . . [bbl/ftl

Drill pipe capacity (CDP) . [bbl/ftl

Drill collar capacity (Cxl . [bbl/ftl

CSIXU2ATIOWS

Av.rage liquid flow rate (qavq) . lSTB/d)

ust liquid flow rate (qla,tl . [sT6/dl

Effective producing time (tpffl . imi”l

‘*V9 : — - ’440 x “n.cltP

‘%st ‘— - 1440x “DP

Or CXlx ~/V
SC

tpff ’ — ‘ 1440 x ‘d%ST

TABLE 3A SBNI ‘LOG ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS FOR OST SHUT-IN PERIOO

DATA (LIOUID PRODUCING FORf4AT10N5 )

INPUT DSTA CALCULATIONS

plot Slope
sa,i-log (m) - [psi/log cycle]
.
Sxtrapalated shut-i” pr.ssure (P). [psi.]
e: . 162.6 ‘lastB
Final f lowinq (Pwf)
pr.ssur. - [psi.] u m

Last flow rate (qlast) . [STO/Dl

ml: .~xv

Eff..tive producing time (‘-f f1 - [m.]

Kh
Porosity ($)- [frac] x: —“ T

~:~ p-y ._~

~=~-~~
g= (h) - [ftl .
p - Pwf ‘t ff
WaIlbore radius (Zw) - — [ftJ s: . 1.1512 [~ - 1- ( ~) + 5.0061
. $%rw
Total r9servoir compressibility (Ct) - [PSI-11e (P +Pwf)/2
.
Avaraqe r*”rv.ir fluid Vi’cosity (lJ)- IcP) @ (P +Pwf)/2
. P“- Pwf
Av.raqe r9nrv0ir fluid formation .011JM3factor (B) - lbbl/STBl@(P +Pwf)/2 DR : .
ff ‘t
q-hq plot initial 45. line slope lpsihinl m[loq (~)- 5.006]
{Me) -
$U’t‘w
sat-hole VO1~ [Vrhl = [bbll

. e,,
Tzmwsussibilxty (y) - [md-ft/cpl ‘xnv: t
Ibbility lK/u) - [md/cPJ

(K) - [d] - ‘lastB

Eff*ctiv. pcrumbility
1440 m
e
Skin factor (s) = ‘ l-l

0am89* ratio (DR) - [-1

v
.— rh
Fadius of investigation (rinv ) . — fftl Pwf
mammal WI ILIO.. storage factor(c-- ) - _ [bbl/psil

SxP9ct8d wellbore storage factor lcexP~ = [bbl/psil ,