1

Example 1: Well 38R of XXX Oilfield

Fluid type oil.
Naturally flowing producing well.
Test type - build up test (wellhead shut-in), run of pressure gauge by wireline unit.

Formation parameters data:
1. Initial reservoir pressure and temperature, average formation porosity all these parameters
are presented by the Customer and are required for all wells that develop a certain layer of a
certain oilfield.
2. Effective oil-saturated thickness is an individual characteristic of a well. It is presented by
Customer or, if possible, is calculated by Contractor on the basis of geophysical data.
Fluid parameters data:
Gas-oil ratio, water cut, oil density for reservoir and standard conditions, water density for reservoir
conditions, gas specific gravity, the bubble point pressure, oil and water formation volume factors,
reservoir oil and water viscosity, rock and total compressibility all these parameters are presented
by Customer.
Well parameters data:
Perforation interval, fluid flow rate, treatment history, spatial location of well and nearby wells all
this information is presented by Customer.

Input data
Reservoir J1
Perfs, m 2800-2805
Effective reservoir height, m 5.50
Well radius, mm 108
Well orientation Vertical
Rotary table, m 98.79
Elongation, m 0
Fluid type oil
Average porosity 0.17
Initial reservoir pressure, bar 254.93
Initial reservoir temperature, C 92
Bottom-hole pressure at the gauge depth, bar 83.97
Bottom-hole pressure at the perfs, bar 87.80
Liquid rate, m3/day 52.7
Water cut, part 0.01
Oil specific gravity 0.826
Oil specific gravity at reservoir conditions 0.708
Gas oil ratio, m3(20C)/m3 99
The Bubble point pressure, bar 120.84
Oil viscosity, cP 0.36
Oil formation volume factor, 3/3 1.391

After recalculation of input data we get the graph of bottom-hole pressure measured by the
gauge (Pic.4). Start and end points of the test are marked, and production history is accounted.

Test Overview
Pic.4. Test Overview (Well 38R)


We use input data in order to point out features which characterize specific type of reservoir
heterogeneities for selection of an adequate model to describe transient behaviour.
After input into PanSystem of all data required we analyse diagnostic log-log plot and
specialized plots. Diagnostics of log-log plot (pressure derivative) is needed to derive filtration
parameters. The graph shows that derivative plateau (radial flow, zero slope line) is visible.
To interpret well 38R of XXX Oilfield a radial homogeneous formation model and
constant pressure boundaries model were chosen. Radial homogeneous formation model was
chosen because diagnostic plot (Pic.5) illustrates radial flow with zero slope and pressure
stabilization all these justify that (i) a steady flow moves toward the wellbore; (ii) formation has a
circle (radial) shape; (iii) formation is homogeneous. As to the plot, pressure derivative falls down,
which means some boundary, or a constant pressure front situated not very far from the well. This
can be either active aquifer or injection well.


2

Log-Log Plot
Radial flow (zero slope)
Beginning of constant
pressure boundary influence
Pic.5. Conventional Analysis and Simulation Log-Log Plot (Well 38R)

After flow regimes determination, permeability, k and skin factor, S parameters were derived.
To analyse the radial flow we refer to semi-log plot. Those points representing radial flow at
log-log plot gives horizontal straight line. As derivative of the function is more sensitive to pressure
changes, we start from log-log plot with its equivalent time and convert equivalent time into Horner
time, which brings us to semi-log plot. Radial flow interval was marked at semi-log plot, and
calculations showed similar filtration parameters data. This justifies the adequate choice of flow
regime.
Besides, radial flow plot (Pic.6) shows visible shift of pressure derivative trend, which
confirms constant pressure boundaries presence.

3

Radial Flow Plot
Shift of the line
trend
Pic.6. Radial Flow (Semi-Log) Plot (Well 38R)

Structural J1 map of XXX Oilfield justifies the model chosen. It says that the inspected well
is situated as far as 100 m from oil-water contact, which support the reservoir pressure (Pic.7). The
map shows as well that no other objects can influence the curve and derivative behaviour. Thus,
external data sources justify the interpretation model pre-selection.


Pic.7. Structural Map Fragment (J1, XXX Oilfield)


4
After calculation of all parameters required for the given model, verification of
interpretation results was performed. We need to find a set of well and reservoir parameters, that
provide the best match between acquired data and selected model. The reliability of data is
determined by inflow performance relationship curves, one of which is derived from analysis of
acquired data, and the other is from field calculations. Calculated and logged data were used to
construct IPR curves of the following shape (Pic.8).


Inflow Performance Curves
Pic.8. IPR Curves (Well 38R)


This helps to obtain absolute open flow (AOF) and productivity index (PI) values, based on
calculated and logged data, which were used to produce the graph. The solution is considered to be
correct if the two curves convergence is less than 10% (perfect for our case), which justifies
satisfactory reliability of the formation and bottom-hole parameters data.
Besides, we use calculated parameters data for matching bottom-hole pressure and flow rate
values (Pic.9).


5

Matching
Pic.9. Pressure and Flow Rate Values Matching (Well 38R)


This plot illustrates calculated and modelled values of flow rate and pressure. And it is clear
that approximating and diagnostic curves are matched correctly. This means that reliability of the
data derived is quite sufficient. The resulting formation parameters data are as follows:

Results of interpretation
Permeability, mD 4.89
Skin 0.16
Type of reservoir boundary Constant pressure boundary
Distance to boundary, m 116.14
Type of reservoir model Radial homogeneous
Reservoir pressure at perfs, bar 232.39
Productivity index (3/day)/bar 0.39
Absolute open flow, at Pwf = 0, 3/day 70.64
Measured productivity index (3/day)/(kg/cm2) 0.37
Measured absolute open flow, at Pwf = 0, 3/day 67.14
Radius of investigation, m 340.50
Total compressibility, 1/bar 2.01E-04
Rock compressibility, 1/bar 5.55E-05
Wellbore storage coeff., 3/bar 0.01
Correlations for Pb, Rs, Bo: Glaso
Uo correlation: Oil viscosity correlation Beal and others
Ug correlation: Gas viscosity correlation Carr and others


6
7
Example 2: Well 155 of XXX Oilfield
Fluid type oil.
Naturally flowing producing well.
Test type - build up test (wellhead shut-in), run of pressure gauge by wireline unit.

Input data
Reservoir J1
Perfs, m 2811.6-2814.6
Effective reservoir height, m 8.00
Well radius, mm 108
Well orientation Deviated
Rotary table, m 83.72
Elongation, m 0.95
Fluid type oil
Average porosity 0.17
Initial reservoir pressure, bar 289.59
Initial reservoir temperature, C 90
Pressure at the gauge depth, bar 152.18
Bottom-hole pressure at the perfs, bar 157.95
Liquid rate, 3/day 74
Water cut, part 0.01
Oil specific gravity 0.834
Oil specific gravity at reservoir conditions 0.741
Gas oil ratio m3(20C)/m3 78.73
The Bubble point pressure, bar 115.431
Oil viscosity, cP 0.48
Oil formation volume factor, 3/3 1.27

After recalculation of input data we get the graph of bottom-hole pressure (Pic.10) measured
by the gauge. Start and end points of the test are marked, and production history is accounted.


Test Overview
Pic.10. Test Overview (Well 155)

After input into PanSystem of all data required we analyse diagnostic log-log plot and
specialized plots. Diagnostics of log-log plot (pressure derivative) is needed to derive filtration
parameters.
To interpret well 155 of XXX Oilfield a partial perforation formation model was chosen.
This model means that only a part of effective formation thickness was perforated. Pressure
derivative shape gave the reason for such pre-selection (Pic.11).
After wellbore storage effect period the following flow regimes are visible in series: radial
flow to perforation, spherical flow, and radial flow to the wellbore, which characterize partially
perforated formation thickness.

8

Log-Log Plot
Spherical flow
Radial flow to
perforation
Radial flow to
the wellbore
Pic.11. Analysis and Simulation Log-Log Plot (Well 155)
Log-log plot shows - slope of the spherical flow line. Specialized plot (Pic.12) justifies
spherical flow regime.


Spherical Flow Plot
Spherical flow
Pic.12. Spherical Flow Plot (Well 155)
9
Other external data sources (geophysical data parameters) verify the flow model pre-selected
(Pic.13) effective formation thickness is 8m (2811-2819m), producing interval is 3m (2811.6-
2814.6m).
Testing end time corresponds to average radius of investigation and counts 165m. Structural
and field development maps assisted to determine that nearby wells and other structural changes do
not exert any influence within investigation radii.


2800
2805
2810
2815
2820
2825
2830
2835
2840
-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0

10

Logged Data
Perforated interval
Effective formation
thickness
Logged Data

Pic.13. Part of SP (Spontaneous Polarization) Curve for Well 155 of XXX Oilfield


After calculation of all parameters required for the given model, verification of
interpretation results was performed. We need to find a set of well and reservoir parameters, that
provide the best match between acquired data and selected model. The reliability of data is
determined by inflow performance relationship curves, one of which is derived from analysis of
acquired data, and the other is from field calculations. The following parameters were used to
construct IPR curves: extrapolated reservoir pressure, bottom-hole pressure, and flow rate. Further
calculations gave the following shape of IPR curves (Pic.14):


Inflow Performance Curves
Pic.14. IPR plot (Well 155)



This helps to obtain absolute open flow (AOF) and productivity index (PI) values, based on
calculated and acquired data, which were used to produce the graph. The solution is considered to
be correct if the two curves convergence is less than 10% (perfect for our case), which justifies
satisfactory reliability of the formation and bottom-hole parameters data in this very example.
Besides, we use calculated parameters data for matching bottom-hole pressure and flow rate
values (Pic.15).

11

Matching
Pic.15. Pressure and Flow Rate Values Matching (Well 155)

This plot illustrates calculated and modelled values of flow rate and pressure. And it is clear
that approximating and diagnostic curves are matched correctly. This means that reliability of the
data derived is quite sufficient. The resulting formation parameters data are as follows:

Results of interpretation
Permeability, mD 10.88
Skin 0.87
Vertical permeability, mD 6.18
Distance to the top of perforation, m 4.43
Height of perforated interval, m 3.00
Type of reservoir boundary No boundary
Type of reservoir model Partial penetration
Reservoir pressure at perfs, bar 301.17
Productivity index (m3/day)/bar 0.5
Absolute open flow, at Pbh = 0, 3/day 123.49
Measured productivity index (m3/day)/bar 0.52
Measured absolute open flow, at Pbh = 0, 3/day 129.34
Radius of investigation, m 170.50
Total compressibility, 1/bar 1.78E-04
Rock compressibility, 1/bar 5.30E-05
Wellbore storage coeff. , 3/bar 0.005
Correlations for Pb, Rs, Bo: Glaso
Oil viscosity correlation Beal and others
Gas viscosity correlation Carr and others

12
13
Example 3: Well 6402 of XXX Oilfield
Fluid type oil.
Naturally flowing producing well.
Test type - build up test (wellhead shut-in), run of pressure gauge by wireline unit.

Input data
Reservoir J1
Perfs, m 2969.5-2978
Effective reservoir height, m 8.80
Well radius, mm 108
Well orientation Deviated
Rotary table, m 92.22
Elongation, m 179.30
Fluid type oil
Average porosity 0.17
Initial reservoir pressure, bar 295.5
Initial reservoir temperature, C 90
Pressure at the gauge depth, bar 137.81
Liquid rate, m3/day 88.3
Water cut, part 0.02
Oil specific gravity 0.829
Oil specific gravity at reservoir conditions 0.741
Gas oil ratio m3(20C)/m3 81.24
The Bubble point pressure, bar 214.14
Oil viscosity, cP 0.52
Oil formation volume factor, m3/m3 1.232


After recalculation of input data we get the graph of bottom-hole pressure measured by tool
(Pic.16). Start and end points of the test are marked, and production history is accounted.


Test Overview
Pic.16. Test Overview (Well 6402)

After input into PanSystem of all data required we analyse diagnostic log-log plot and
specialized plots. Diagnostics of log-log plot (pressure derivative) is needed to derive filtration
parameters.
To interpret well 6402 of XXX Oilfield a radial homogeneous formation model and two
parallel boundaries model were used. The model selection is based on diagnostic curve shape
(Pic.17). After radial flow within the formation of 220 m average radius the pressure derivative rise
is observed, which produces slope that represents a linear flow.

14

Log-Log Plot
Parallel
boundaries impact
beginning
Radial flow
regime
Pic.17. Analysis and Simulation Log-Log Plot (Well 6402)
Log-log plot shows slope of the spherical flow line. Specialized plot (Pic.18) justifies
linear flow regime. Such pressure behaviour is typical for channel reservoir model when wells are
restricted by two boundaries, which are parallel to each other or lay at a small angle.

Linear flow
Pic.18. Linear Flow Plot (Well 6402)
15
Location of the tested well relative to other objects is used to confirm the pre-selected model
(Pic.19). Only OWC and/or well 164-R drainage area can influence the pressure behaviour as wells
5213 and 5364 are shut-in. This location of objects proves chosen two parallel boundaries model.
One boundary is impermeable and corresponds to the coupling of wells 164-R and 6402 drainage
areas in the South, and the other is a constant pressure boundary that corresponds to active aquifer
support in the North-West and North-East.
Radial flow termination conforms to formation average radii of 220m, which is a well 164-R
drainage area beginning simultaneously. It is difficult to determine the exact location of the well
relative to the two boundaries, as signal noisiness does not allow determining transient regime from
radial flow termination and simultaneous effect of two boundaries.


Pic.19. Structural Map Fragment of J1 Formation of XXX Oilfield

After calculation of all parameters required for the given model, verification of
interpretation results was performed. We need to find a set of well and reservoir parameters, that
provide the best match between acquired data and selected model. The reliability of data is
determined by inflow performance relationship curves, one of which is derived from analysis of
acquired data, and the other is from field calculations. The following parameters were used to build
IPR curves: extrapolated reservoir pressure, bottom-hole pressure, and flow rate. Further
calculations gave the following shape of IPR curves (Pic.20):

16

Inflow Performance Curves
Pic.20. IPR Curves (Well 6402)



This helps to obtain absolute open flow (AOF) and productivity index (PI) values, based on
calculated and acquired data, which were used to produce the graph. The solution is considered to
be correct if the two curves convergence is less than 10% (perfect for our case), which justifies
satisfactory reliability of the formation and bottom-hole parameters data in this very example.
Besides, we use calculated parameters data for matching bottom-hole pressure and flow rate
values (Pic.21).


17

Matching
Pic.21. Pressure and Flow Rate Values Matching (Well 6402)

This plot illustrates calculated and modelled values of flow rate and pressure. And it is clear
that approximating and diagnostic curves are matched correctly. This means that reliability of the
data derived is quite sufficient. The resulting formation parameters data are as follows:

Results of interpretation
Permeability, mD 19.92
Skin 2.80
Type of reservoir boundary Parallel boundaries
Distance to boundary L1,m 175.09
Distance to boundary L3,m 531.19
Type of reservoir model Radial homogeneous
Reservoir pressure at the gauge depth, bar 215.26
Productivity index (3/day)/bar 1.29
Absolute open flow, at Pbh = 0, 3/day 156.30
Measured productivity index (m3/day)/bar 1.35
Measured absolute open flow, at Pbh = 0, 3/day 162.71
Radius of investigation, m 580.00
Total compressibility, 1/bar 2.36E-04
Rock compressibility, 1/bar 5.30E-05
Wellbore storage coeff. , m3/bar 0.04
Correlations for Pb, Rs, Bo: Not used
Oil viscosity correlation Not used
Gas viscosity correlation Not used

18
19

Resume and Conclusions:

Simulation model can be matched on the basis of well testing parameters and reservoir
pressure interpretation. Further, all these data are used for planning of optimization jobs, for
reservoir pressure mapping, and treatments. Seismic detailed analysis may be performed to obtain
more precise and accurate data parameters.
Based on well testing data parameters, programmes of fields well test monitoring for several
years ahead are designed, which enables actual data to be obtained and matched.