WELL TESTING: INTRODUCTION

In order to characterize the behaviour of oil and gas reservoirs, and to

predict their future performance, it is essential to track the evolution of
fluid pressures and production rates over time. Obtaining the latter is
relatively straight forward, and fluid production tends to be metered with
reasonable accuracy.
Reservoir pressures are determined by well testing.
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 on the test objectives.
For well evaluation, tests are commonly conducted in less than 2 days.
In the case of reservoir limit testing, several months of pressure data may
be needed!
Note: Pressures tend to be measured downhole, while production rates
tend to be measured at surface.

WELL TESTING: INTRODUCTION (2)

Information obtained from well testing

Well testing, often called pressure transient analysis (PTA), is a powerful tool for reservoir
characterization. The following information can be extracted from well tests:
Permeability The value obtained from a well test is much more useful than that from core
analysis, because it represents the in-situ, effective permeability averaged over a large
distance (tens or hundreds of metres).
Skin (damage or stimulation) Most wells are either damaged or stimulated, and this has
a direct effect on the deliverability of the well. The skin is a measure of the completion
effectiveness of a well. A positive skin (typically +1 to +20) represents damage, while a
negative skin (typically -1 to -6) represents improvement.
Average reservoir pressure This parameter, which is either measured directly or
extrapolated from well test data, is used in material balance calculations for determining
hydrocarbons in-place.
Deliverability potential The IPR (inflow performance relationship) or the AOF (absolute
open flow) is used in forecasting a wells production.
(Well productivity index (PI), flow rate per day per unit drawdown pressure)
Reservoir description Reservoir shape, continuity, and heterogeneity can be determined
from pressure transient tests
Fluid samples The reservoir fluid composition and its PVT (pressure-volumetemperature) properties can have a significant effect on the economics and production
operations.
Well testing is also an integral part of good reservoir management and fulfills government
regulations.
(From: Mattar and Dean, 2008)

TYPES OF WELL TESTS

Drawdown tests:
The flowing bottomhole pressure (FBHP) is used for analysis. Ideally, the
well should be producing at a constant rate... sometimes difficult to
achieve.
Build-up test:
The increase of BHP after shut-in is used for analysis. Before the build-up
test, the well must have been flowing long enough to reach a stabilized
rate. Flow rate is accurately controlled (i.e., 0)
Injection/Falloff test:
Fluid is injected into reservoir. Pressure rise during injection, and falloff
after shut-in, are analyzed. Properties of injected fluid are different from
reservoir fluids... more difficult to interpret with confidence.
Interference test:
BHP monitored in a shut-in observation well that is distant from the
production well.

Deruyck et al., 1992

TYPES OF WELL TESTS (cont.)

Gas well test:
Analogous to oil wells, but some differences. E.G., Absolute Openhole
Potential (AOFP) tests well is opened to patm (and/or a succession of
relatively low back-pressures). Also, non-Darcy flow may occur, not to
mention the fact that gas is highly compressible.
WHEN THE TESTS ARE RUN:
Production test:
The well has been completed as a production well, commonly as a cased
hole with a permanent completion (e.g., perforations). The well is
monitored at surface, from the wellhead.
Drill stem test (DST):
The well is completed temporarily with a downhole shut-in valve, and
isolation is achieved using packers. The well may cased and perforated
OR openhole. Usually conducted immediately after drilling using the drill
stem, but more common to run the test on production tubing now.
Test duration is usually relatively short compared to a production test.

Information obtained during

the process of production

Testing a cased well: A

test valve and pressure
gauges downhole are
combined with surface
separation and flow
measurement equipment
to gather formation
drawdown and buildup
pressure and flow rate
data. Samples of
formation fluid are taken
at surface for analysis.

Reverse circulation valve

Downhole test valve
Packer
Pressure data
Fm. being tested

Vella et al., 1992

Pressure
recorder

Deruyck et al., 1992

In the following slides, we will study the pressure response

during a conventional well test (constant production rate)

TRANSIENT FLOW (EARLY)

Outer flow boundary

pi

FBHP or pwf

re
FBHP response dominated by skin and reservoir permeability.
No information about reservoir boundaries.

TRUE STEADY STATE FLOW

(E.G., Very Active Aquifer Support, Waterflooding)
Open flow boundary

p pi , at r re

pi

p
0, at all r
t
final pwf
re
Not commonly achieved under natural conditions.

SEMI (or PSEUDO) STEADY-STATE FLOW (LATE)

Outer flow boundary

pi
t1

p
0, at r re
r

t2

p
constant, at all r re
t

pwf1
pwf2
re
FBHP response dominated by reservoir boundaries.

DIFFUSION EQUATION FOR RADIAL FLOW

Assumptions:
Top view

Side view

e.g., undersaturated oil

Homogeneous
Isotropic
Fully penetrating well
Single-phase flow
Constant viscosity
Small & constant compressibility

1 p c p
r
r r r
k t
This equation is derived based on mass conservation and Darcys law.

TRANSIENT FLOW:
APPROX. SOLUTION FOR INFINITE-ACTING RESERVOIR
pwf

QB 4kt
2S
pi
ln
2
4 kh crw

pi

FBHP or pwf

re
FBHP response dominated by skin and reservoir permeability.
Note the logarithmic dependence on time.

MECHANICAL SKIN FACTOR: S

Consider a well flowing at a given rate Q. With no near-well permeability

impairment, the pressure profile would be as shown by the dashed line.
However, in the case of a damaged well, the actual pressure required to
achieve flow rate Q is shown by the solid line. The incremental pressure drop
close to the well has been defined by ven Everdingen as:
QB

pskin

2 kh

MECHANICAL SKIN FACTOR: S

pskin

QB

S
2 kh

Re-arranging gives:

2 kh
S
pskin
QB

IF you know the radius and permeability of the damaged

zone, you can solve for S as follows:

k e k a ra
S
ln
ka
rw

pe

pwf

ka
rw

ke
ra

re

CONDITIONS RESULTING IN SKIN

Positive skin (impaired production) Negative skin (stimulated production)
Formation damage
Partial well penetration
Perforations

Hydraulic fractures
Acid fractures
Acid wash/squeeze

PRODUCTIVITY INDEX (PI)

Q
PI
pi pwf

PI f k , rw , S , h, , etc.
PI is a popular method of quantifying well performance. It includes the
effect of skin. It is expresses in units of production rate per day per unit
pressure drawdown... in metric field units: scm / day / kPa

SEMI (PSEUDO) STEADY-STATE FLOW SOLUTION

pwf

QB 1 4 A
2 kt

pi
S
ln
2
2 kh 2 C A rw c A

pi
pe

t1

pwf

FBHP response dominated by reservoir boundaries

(area A; shape factor CA).
Note the linear dependence on time.

re

SHAPE FACTORS & SEMI STEADY-STATE FLOW (1)

pwf

QB 1 4 A
2 kt

pi
S
ln
2
2 kh 2 C A rw c A

The semi steady-state inflow equation appears to be restrictive in

that it only applies for a well producing from the centre of a circularshaped drainage area.
Obviously, reservoirs will not be circular in general, nor will the
producing well(s) be centered within them.
Further, when multiple wells are producing from a common reservoir,
each well will assume its own ~fixed drainage area.
The so-called Dietz Shape Factors (CA) have been derived to enable
the use of the semi steady-state inflow equation for a number of
different geometries.

SHAPE FACTORS & SEMI STEADY-STATE FLOW (2)

Variables used in the preceding slides on well testing [SI units]:

r = radial distance [m]
rw = wellbore radius [m]
re = outer radius of the reservoir[m]
p = fluid pressure [Pa]
pwf = flowing bottomhole pressure [Pa]
pi = initial reservoir pressure [Pa]
pe = current reservoir pressure at the outer boundary [Pa]
= porosity
= Eulers number = 1.781
= fluid viscosity [Pas]
c = fluid compressibility, isothermal [Pa-1]
k = (effective) permeability [m2]
t = time [s]
S = skin factor
Q = fluid production rate [stcm/s]
B = fluid formation volume factor [rcm/stcm]
h = reservoir thickness [m]
A = reservoir area (in plan view) [m2]
C = reservoir shape factor

EXAMPLE PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TEST (1)

A well has been tested by producing at a constant rate of
240 scm/d for a period of 100 hours. It is suspected, from
seismic and geological evidence, that the well is draining in
isolated reservoir block which has approximately a 4:1
rectangular shape. The extended drawdown test has been run
to confirm this, and to measure other properties of the reservoir.
Following are the known reservoir properties, and the flowing
bottomhole pressures that were measured during the test.
Q:
240 stcm/d
h:
6.00 m
rw:
0.10 m
phi:
0.18
c: 2.18E-06 /kPa
1 mPas

Bo:
1.2 rcm/stcm
pi:

24115 kPa

Time
(hours)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0

pwf
(kPa)
24115
20098
19981
19898
19836

5.0
7.5
10.0
15.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0

19767
19623
19499
19251
19030
18624
18259
17893
17535
17191
16832
16481
16129

EXAMPLE PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TEST (2)

Consider the early time flow data, for which we expect the transient
inflow equation to hold true:

QB 4kt

pwf pi
2S
ln
2
4 kh crw

We can re-work this equation like this:

pwf

QB
QB 4k

ln t
pi
2S
ln
2
4 kh crw
4 kh
no time-dependent terms

[Recall that ln(ab) = ln(a) + ln(b)]

We see that a plot of pwf against ln(t) should have a slope of:
... and an intercept of:

QB 4k
2S
pi
ln
2
4 kh crw

QB

4 kh

EXAMPLE PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TEST (3)

A plot of pwf against ln(t)
should have a slope of:
QB

4 kh
From the regression
line, we see that:
QB
201.25 kPa
4 kh

QB
240 stcm/d 1.157 10 5 d/s 1.2 rcm/stcm 10 3 Pa s
k

3
201.25 10 Pa 4 h
201.25 103 Pa 4 6 m

k 2.20 10 13 m 2 220 millidarcies

EXAMPLE PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TEST (4)

The y-intercept of our regression tells us that:

QB 4k
3

pi

2
S

21757

10
Pa
ln

2
4 kh crw

Which can be solved for S as follows:

2 kh
QB 4k
3

S
ln
pi 21757 10 Pa
2
QB
4 kh crw

2 2.2 10 13 m 2 6 m
S
240 stcm/d 1.157 10 5 d/s 1.2 rcm/stcm 10 3 Pa s

4 2.2 10 13 m 2

24115 21757 10 Pa 201.25 10 ln

3
9
1

1.781 0.18 10 Pa s 2.18 10 Pa

S 3.45

2
0.1m

EXAMPLE PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TEST (5)

Consider the late time flow data, for which we expect the semi
steady-state inflow equation to hold true:

p wf

QB 1 4 A
2 kt

pi
S
ln
2
2 kh 2 C A rw c A

We can re-work this equation like this:

pwf

QB 1 4 A
QB

pi
ln

2 kh 2 C A rw
h c A
no time-dependent terms

We see that a plot of pwf against t should have a slope of:

... and an intercept of:

QB 1 4 A
S
pi
ln
2
2 kh 2 C A rw

QB
h c A

EXAMPLE PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TEST (6)

A plot of pwf against t
should have a slope of:

QB
h c A

From the regression

line, we see that:
QB
9.836 10 3 kPa/s
h c A
9.836 Pa/s

QB
240stcm/d 1.157 10 5 d/s 1.2 rcm/stcm
A

6 m 0.18 2.18 109 Pa 1 9.836 Pa/s

h c 9.836 Pa/s
A 1.44 105 m 2 14.4 hectares

EXAMPLE PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TEST (7)

The y-intercept of our regression tells us that:

QB 1 4 A
7

pi

1
.
967

10
Pa
ln

2
2 kh 2 C A rw

Which can be solved for CA as follows:

1
2 kh
1 4A
S
ln C A
1.967 107 Pa pi ln
2
2
QB
2 rw

2 2 2.2 10 13 m 2 6 m
ln C A
240 stcm/d 1.157 105 d/s 1.2 rcm/stcm 103 Pa s

1 41.44 105 m 2
3.45
1.967 10 Pa 2.412 10 Pa ln
2
2 1.781 0.1 m

ln C A 2.04 C A 7.69

Error: These
two terms
should be
multiplied by 2.
See next slide
for correct
version.

EXAMPLE PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TEST (7) Corrected version

The y-intercept of our regression tells us that:

QB 1 4 A
7

pi

1
.
967

10
Pa
ln

2
2 kh 2 C A rw

Which can be solved for CA as follows:

1
2 kh
1 4A
S
ln C A
1.967 107 Pa pi ln
2
2
QB
2 rw

2 2 2.2 10 13 m 2 6 m
ln C A
240 stcm/d 1.157 105 d/s 1.2 rcm/stcm 103 Pa s

41.44 105 m 2
2 3.45
1.967 10 Pa 2.412 10 Pa ln
2
1.781 0.1 m

ln C A 2.04 C A 7.69

These two terms have been corrected here.

The final answer that was originally given was correct.

EXAMPLE PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TEST (8)

ln C A 2.04 C A 7.69

Here is the closest match

from the table of Dietz
shape factors.

EXAMPLE PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TEST (9)

Here is what we have interpreted for this reservoir:

Permeability 2.20 10 13 m 2 220 millidarcies

Skin factor 3.45

Area 1.44 105 m 2 14.4 hectares
Reservoir shape:

DIMENSIONLESS VARIABLES
Its actually much more convenient to
convert our well test data to dimensionless
form, then perform type-curve matching to
obtain our reservoir parameters.

rD

r
rw

p D rD , t D

tD

kt
crw2

2 kh
pi p r , t
QB

PRESSURE DERIVATIVES
More advanced well test analyses often involve fitting to both the
dimensionless pressure type-curves, as well as its derivative.

ESTIMATING RESERVOIR PRESSURE:

HORNER PLOT ANALYSIS
In the preceding slides, we saw how pressure data from a
drawdown test in an oil well could be used to calculate k, S, A and
CA. What about estimating initial reservoir pressure (pi)?
One way to estimate pi is using the bottomhole shut-in pressures
(pws) recorded during a pressure build-up test.
The so-called Horner plot involves graphing:

pws

t t
vs. ln
t

where t is the length of time that the well was flowed prior to the
build-up test, and t is the time since shut-in.
If we could shut-in the well to infinite time, pws would reach pi.
Linear extrapolation of the data to ln[(t+t)/t] = 0 is equivalent to
extrapolating the data to infinite shut-in time.

(DST Test)

pws

t t
ln
t

APPENDIX A
Extra Stuff
Regarding Well Testing

GAS WELL TESTING (1)

The hypothesis of slightly compressible fluids (i.e., small, constant
compressibility) used for oil-well test analysis of not valid for gas
systems.

Gas Viscosity (mPas)

Recall that gas compressibility is strongly dependent on

pressure... in fact, so is gas viscosity.
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0

10000
20000
30000
40000
Pressure (kPa); T = const = 360K

Gas compressibility

= 0.85; temperature = 200F).

GAS WELL TESTING (2)

In 1966, Al-Hussaniy et al. demonstrated that the radial flow equation can
be linearized approximately (i.e., rendered into a form that we can solve
analytically) by replacing all pressure terms with the so-called gas
pseudo-pressure, m(p).
The pseudo-pressure, also called the real gas potential, is defined as:
p

p
m p 2
dp
z
p

where:
p
=
the pressure of interest
p0
=
a reference pressure (chosen arbitrarily,
usually a value less than the lowest pressure to be
experience in the well test)

=
gas viscosity
z
=
gas z-factor

GAS WELL TESTING (3)

The radial diffusion equation then becomes:

1 m p c m p
r

r r
r
k
t
Remember the transient inflow equation for oil?

pwf

QB 4kt
2S
pi
ln
2
4 kh crw

Heres the analogous solution for gas inflow:

m p wf

QB 4kt
2 S '
m pi
ln
2
4 kh crw

GAS WELL TESTING (4)

Transient gas inflow equation:

m p wf

QB 4kt
2 S '
m pi
ln
2
4 kh crw

Note that the skin factor has been expanded to account for nonDarcy flow effects:

S' S D Q
Where D is called the non-Darcy flow coefficient.
With more time, we could go on to do an example calculation
analogous to the one we did last lecture for an oil well.
Please note that the transformation between p and m(p) is not as
stinky as it might seem.

m(p),
psi/cP

p, psi
Gas pseudo-pressure, as calculated in Table 8.1 (Gas gravity = 0.85; T = 200F)

SOLUTION GAS DRIVE RESERVOIRS

For an oil reservoir below the bubble point, we really shouldnt
pretend that the total fluid compressibility (i.e., oil + gas + water) is
small and constant.
There is also a multiphase pseudo-pressure, which linearizes the
inflow equations and allows us to make use of the well test
analysis techniques presented in the last lecture.
p

k ro
m p 2
dp
B
0 o o

where:
p
o
Bo

=
=
=

the pressure of interest

oil viscosity
oil formation volume factor

CORRECTION FOR VARIABLE FLOW RATES

The mathematical basis for well test analysis assumes constant
flow rate throughout the test. If rates have varied over time, once
technique that allows you to use conventional interpretation is by
calculating an equivalent flow time (te).

WORK-AROUNDS FOR TESTS OF NON-CONSTANT RATE

See also Superposition Methods, in any textbook

on well test analysis.

www.fekete.com