Use of Recording Pressure Gages in Drill-Stem Tests

R. S. CHRISTIE
*
ABSTRACT
The author defines briefly the drill-sten1 test, emphasizing the inanortanre of obtaining a pressure record

when making this test, and discusses at length the interpretation of records m obtained.

A drill-stem test may be made to obtain indications of

the potentialities of a suspected oil o r gas sand, to test
for water shut-off after cementing pip?, or to determine
the casing point in a known producing horizon. The
drill-stem test is obtained by running, on the bottom of
the drill pipe, a valve which can be opened and closed
from the surface. All the formations in the hole are
packed off with the exception of that section of the hole
to be tested. The drill pipe is r u n into the hole with the
testing-tool valve closed. After the packer has been set,
the valve is opened; and liquid or gas a t the testing point
enters the drill pipe. I n all cases the success of the test
depends on the successful operation of the testing tool.
Whether or not the valve functions properly can be quite
positively determined on the surface for shallower wells,
but becomes less positive with increasing depth. It is
important to obtain a s much information a s possible on
each test.
In a test for water shut-off there is little or no open
hole below the casing in the well close to the point of
testing and, consequently, small hazard. On the other
hand, a formation test or casing-point test is usually
made with several hundred feet of open hole, with resultant danger of sticking the drill pipe by settling cuttings or caving. If i t becomes necessary to run the test
several times, the walls may be weakened and cause
trouble when drilling is resumed.
A kecord of the changes in pressure below the testing
tool will make more positive the information ordinarily
obtained by such a test, and frequently give information that could not otherwise be obtained. A recording
pressure gage can be placed into a special container,
which can be a p a r t of the anchor of the testing tool.
Fig. 1 shows one type of container.

does not lower appreciably a t the top of the hole, i t is

assumed the test is successful; but this is not always
true, because the fluid may drop due to leaky tool joints

Purpose of Test
The primary purpose of a drill-stem test is to determine whether a given formation contains gas, oil, or
water. The test may give negative results in the face
of other positive indications. This is particularly true
in deep holes, a s i t is not always possible to ascertain
whether the packer is holding and the valve functioning properly. When the valve is opened and the fluid

* Amerada

Petroleum Corp.. Fort Worth, Tes.

Container for Pressure Gage for Use in Drill-Stem Tests.

FIG. 1
or because of loss into some formation, or may fluctuate
due to gas or a i r pockets-all despite the fact t h a t the
packer may have held and the valve opened to give a
test. To eliminate any doubt a s to the mechanical operations of the tester, a recording pressure g a g s below the
tester will record differences in pressures occasioned by

USE

OF

RECORDING
PRESSURE
GAGESIN DRILL-STEMTESTS

the operation of the tester. Fig. 2 shows how the tester

functioned in a well a t a depth of 5,685 ft. The test was
for a water shut-off. Without the pressure record the
test would have been interpreted a s a successful shut.off. A subsequent test proved t h a t water was not shut
off. Fig. 3 shows a test taken on a well a t a depth.of
3,463 ft. At the end of about 5 min. the full weight of
the drill pipe was on the packer. The fluid dropped
Pressure
IDW

:ooo

degree of accuracy the capacity' of the well to produce

whether i t be gas, oil, or water. In a gas well the open
flow can be determined from the drop in pressure and
the rate of flow. Fig. 4 is a pressure chart taken in a
well which produced gas a t the rate of 5,400,000 cu.
ft. per day, with a drop in pressure of 262 Ib., from
a reservoir pressure of 983 lb. The colnputed open-flow
capacity of the sand is about 20 million cu. ft. of gas

- I&lspm

Pressure

aow

- Lbs /JV

Drill-Stem Test of Water

Shut-off at 5,685 Ft.-The
Testing-Tool Valve Failed to
Open.
FIG. 2

Effect of Pressure of Partially--plugged Perforations, or

Choke in the Testing Tool.

Pressure changes in a DrillStem Test of a Gas Sand.

FIG. 4

FIG. 3

about 30 ft. During the total time of 33 min. there was

no change in the fluid. level until the valve was closed..
From the irregularity of the chart and from indications
on the surface, i t is reasonable t o believe the bottom
choke was partially plugged. With a small opening and
a high differential pressure when the valve is opened,
such a result may be obtained.

per day. The static reservoir pressure was ,obtained

by not unseating the packer for 2 min. after the bottom valve had been closed, which was sufficient time
for a pressure ,reading. A static reservoir pressure obtained a t this stage of completion will be Inore nearly
the original formation pressure than any subsequent
pressure.

Ai~alysisof Recorded Pressures

Oil-Well Application

An analysis of the pressures recorded shows whether

the testing tool functioned properly, and indicates other
iulportant factors. I t is possible to obtain with some

A similar method can also be applied to an oil well,

but sufficient tests have not a s yet been obtained to determine dependability. Fig. 5 presents data obtained

on a drill-stem test taken a t a depth of 4,418 ft. With

the tester valve open 20 min., 614x1. drill pipe filled 900
ft. with oil and 180 ft. with drilling mud. On this basis
the calculated flow was 102 bbl. per hour, with a bottom-hole pressure of approximately 300 lb. A production test after completion obtained approsinlately 60
bbl. an hour, with a bottom-hole pressure of 1,150 lb.
and a low gas-oil ratio. Fig. 6 shows the results of a
drill-stem test t h a t produced water. The test was taken

5m

may show a section of mud that is gas-cut and much

lighter than the remainder of the column. Further testing may prove this to be caused by a gas- or'oil-bearing
formation which has been passed up. Even though no
other formation is obtained, a pressure gradient gives a
graphic picture of the condition of the mud in the hole.
From such a picture i t may be found advisable to condition the mud before further testing or drilling ahead.
I n Fig. 7 the measured hydrostatic head was 2,915 Ib.

P r e s s u r e - lbs /qm
lorn

1600

2000

Pressure Changes in a DrillStem Test of an Oil Sand.

FIG. 5

Drill-Stem Test of a Water

Sand at 3,270 Ft.-Calculated
Plow, 60 Bbl. Per Hour.

Drill-Sten1 Test of a Water

Sand at 5,704 Ft. and Check for
Mud Condition.

FIG. 6

FIG. 7

a t a depth of 3,270 ft. The decrease in pressure between

the making up of the last stand of drill pipe and the
setting of the packer may have been caused by the
formation taking fluid. From the volume of fluid in
the drill pipe, the estimated flow was' approximately
60 bbl. per hour. The bottom-hole pressure while flowing a t this rate was 1,424 lb., which is sufficient pressure for a n artesian well.

The hydrostatic head calculated from the weight of the

mud was 2,930 lb., which proved the entire colunln of
mud was in good condition. Occasionally mud is heavier
than necessary, but tests of formation pressure are more
likely to prove that for safety the mud should be
heavier.

Pressure Gradient

Many wells a r e completed by landiiig pipe on bottom,

then perforating the pipe a t those points where indications of oil were encountered while drilling. A drillsten1 test of the perforation may frequently he quicker

While running the gage, a i~ressuregradient of the

drilling fluid is also'obtained. A study of this gradient

Well Completion

and more economical than bailing. The pressure record

of such a test, shown in Fig. 8, will aid in interpretation
of the test. When ,the bottoln valve was opened, the
pressure dropped to allnost 0, and only small gas blows
by heads occurred during the hour the valve was open.
I t was known from a previous drill-stem test that the
potential of the sand was much greater than was obtained by the later test. Several additional perforations
and tests were required before sufficient information was
gained to permit proper completion of the well.
The usual method of testing a cement job is by bailing the hole and allowing i t to stand to determine if fluid
is entering the hole. Frequently a drill-stem test can be
substituted. This method will prove whether a shut-off

functioned properly. The best guarantee is to use a

recording pressure. gage in conjunction with the test.
In addition to the principal value for using a pressure
gage, other facts can be determined which may be of
equal importance. The approximate potential can be

valve opened

valve closed

Drill-Stenn Test after Perforating Pipe in a Gas Horizon

at 4,005 Ft.

unsuccessful Water Shut-off Drill-Stem Test at 5,685 Ft.

FIG. 8

FIG. 9

is obtained, and often a t less expense. The pressure

gage will show the amount and rate-at which the water
is corning into the hole if the shut-off job is unsuccessful.
Fig. 9 i s a pressure record of an unsuccessful water
shut-off. The hole contained water a s a drilling fluid.
The drill pipe was run into the hole empty; and, upon
opening the tester valve, approximately 30 min. was
required to fill the drill stem up to the top and flow a ,
small amount of water.
Fig. 10 is a pressure chart on a drill-stein test of a
successful shut-off. When pulled out, the drill pipe contained nothing but 5 ft. of mud in the bottoni.

Pressure
500

- L b s / ~ g I;?..
1000

1500

CONCLUSION

A drill-stem test is usually a satisfactory method of

testing a formation to determine the advisability of
setting pipe for a production test. I t is much more satisfactory when tl~e<eis proof that the testing tool

Drill-Sten1 Test Showirlg Pressure Changes When There

Is No Flow into the Drill Pipe.
FIG. 10

estimated, the reservoir pressure measured, and the condition of the drilling fluid determined. Additional applications a r e determining the success of perforation
jobs, water shut-off jobs, and in testing for casing seats.
Just a s all improvements in the drilling and producing of oil wells become standard practice, so also will
the use of recording pressure gages in drill-stem tests
hecorne a n essential p a r t of the test.

Chairman J. T. Hayward (Barnsdall Oil Company) :

We have heard a very interesting paper, and on something t h a t is absolutely new. I understand that a number of tests shown here were only taken during the
last month. We have all stood around the top of the
hole when drill-stem tests were made, and watched
the mud. After a longer or shorter time, depending
on conditions, i t begins to fall; and, when the tester
was pulled out, we had to guess whether there was
anything there or not. Usually, 50 per cent of the
guesses have been wrong, I suppose. Now we have a
method that enables us to overcome that difficulty.

G. E. Cannon (Humble Oil and Refining Company) :

The author states that 2 min. was long enough time to
obtain the formation pressure. We used similar methods
in making tests, and found that the maximum pressure
was not obtained until the end of 15 min. Of course,
our plan varies from the, one you use.
Another peculiar thing was that, in some of these
'

tests, just before the packer was set, a record was obtained of the hydrostatic pressure, and after unseating
the packer, there was a reduction in the hydrostatic
pressure by a s much a s 5 to 10 per cent, and there was
no loss of fluid. I thought that was quite interesting.
Mr. Christie: That is a n unusual condition. I t might
be well to run a recording gage in the pipe and outside
of it. Perhaps some of the loss is due to leaky tool
joints, and going into the tool pipe.
Mr. Cannon: No, the hole was full of mud. We set
the packer; and, after unseating the packer, i t was full.
There was no loss there.
Mr. Christie: I have no explanation for that.

A Voice: The author cites a case where the calculated flow was 102 bbl. per hour with a bottom-hole pressure of approximately 300 lb., and another instance
where the production test was 60 bbl. a n hour, with
bottom-hole pressure of 1,150 Ib. I s t h a t indicative of
the accuracy of the test?
Mr. Christie: As a matter of fact, the pressure
obtained on the drill-stem test fell almost esactly on
the production curve after completion. We had a pressure here of 1,150 Ib., with 60 bbl. a n hour on the production test; and on the drill-stem test we had 102 bbl.,
with a pressure of 300 lb. Of course, the first test, unless
taken for a considerable length of time, is not a true
test, because it takes some time for the sand to clean up.
We have subsequently taken a second test in that well,
and i t shows the well to have dropped off some. I t
didn't follow the first curve.