Practical

Reservoir Engineering Aspects

Of
Well Testing

By
A. K. Mandal
August, 2011

5.0 Drill Stem testing

Drill Stem Testing is carried out in a well which is under
drilling and is not completed. It is carried out even before a
formation is known to be productive. This type of test is known
as Open Hole Drill Stem Tests (DST). In Cased Hole DST,
tests are carried out after completing a well with casing and
cementation.
5.1

Open Hole Drill Stem Tests:

There are two general types of Open Hole Drill Stem
Tests.
To test possible productive zones as they are
penetrated during drilling. This type of testing is normally
based on the information about hydrocarbon shows as
obtained from examination of drilling mud / mud-logs, drillcuttings and / or coring.
To test possible productive zones after drilling through to
greater depths or to total depth. In this method, information
obtained from mud-logs, side-wall cores and various electrologs are used to select the possible zones to be tested. In this
method straddle packers (dual packers) or two cement plugs
are used to isolate each interval for testing.

5.1.1 Conducting an Open Hole Drill Stem Test:

A test is conducted with a drilling string and necessary
down-hole tool assembly while keeping the well under
complete control and in safe condition. Drill Stem Testing tools
usually include two or more recording pressure gauges, one
or two packers and a set of flow valves. T
ypical Drill Stem
Test tool assembly for open hole test is shown below.
General sequences of operations during an Open Hole
DST are as below.
A drilling fluid (mud) of relatively higher specific gravity
is used while drilling. This exerts a hydrostatic pressure
against the formation higher than the expected formation
pressure and thus, prevents unwanted and uncontrolled flow

of formation fluids from the formation into the well-bore /

surface.
This hydrostatic mud pressure acting against the
formation has to be cut-off to allow the formation fluid to come
into the well bore and then to the surface.
Formation
Fluids

Tester Valve

Drilling Fluid:
Mud
Closed-in Pressure Valve
Sampling Chamber & Equalizing
Valve
Choke
Cement

Casing
Open
hole
Anchor Shoe

Safety Joint

Packer
Perforated Anchor
Pressure Recorder
Drilled Well-bore, un-cased

Schematic Diagram of a conventional Open Hole Drill Stem Test

Tool a packer just above the

This is done by setting
formation to be tested to seal off the annular space between
the test string and the casing / well bore.
The mud column, thus, remains in the annulus between
the test string and the casing / well bore and the hydrostatic
head of mud column which was acting against the formation
is eliminated.
A tester valve assembly attached in the drill string is
positioned above the packer. This valve assembly prevents
any fluid entry into the string during running-in.

 Pressure recorders as well as sampling chambers are

also attached in the test string. Pressure recorders are placed
in a Gauge Carrier / Bundle Carrier.
The tester valve is opened after the packer is set at a
pre-determined depth.
The formation is now open to the hydrostatic head
exerted by the fluid column inside the Test String, as against
the hydrostatic head of mud column present earlier.
The formation fluids, if mobile, can flow into drill string
and then to the surface.
Flowing and shut-in pressure tests are carried out.
If the formation fluid is produced at the surface, rate
measurements are done. Formation fluid samples are also
collected at the surface.
If the formation fluid does not reach up to surface,
formation fluid is trapped in the sampling chambers attached
in the test string. Formation fluid sample is also collected from
inside the test string as influx from the formation.
Formation fluid samples, thus, collected in the sample
chambers and from the test string, can be used for various
analysis purposes.
What are the sequences of operation in the following
schematic diagram of an Open Hole Test carried out?
Mention significances of major points, lines and curves.
Change in pressure with Time and Operations
N
A

E
F
J

Pressure

I
H
B

K
L

Time

Schematic Diagram of pressure records during a

conventional Drill Stem Test
Sequence of operations of the above test conducted:
A: Test started.
B: Test string reached bottom.
C: Packer is set. Note a slight rise in pressure. This is
because of compression of fluid below the packer while
packer is set.
D: Tester valve is opened.
E: Reflects hydrostatic pressure exerted by the fluid
cushion (water or diesel cushion) placed inside the Test
String.
E F: As well is in open condition, formation fluid
enters into the well / string. Profile of flowing pressure
of the well under this prevailing condition is recorded
as E-F.
F: Represents final flowing pressure. At this point well
is closed for recording first shut-in pressure.
G: Represents the build-up pressure records of the
formation with time. This build-up pressure, if
stabilized, will represent the Initial Reservoir Pressure.
H: After build-up, well is opened again with a choke.
Flowing pressure records are represented by H.
At I, well is again closed for a second shut-in period.
J: Records of build-up pressure profile with respect to
time.
K: Represents the maximum shut-in pressure recorded
during the second shut-in period.
It is very important to observe if the final build-up
pressures of both first build-up (as at G) and second
build-up (as at K) have stabilized or not.
If both the final build-up pressures have stabilized, and
are almost same then this will confirm Initial Reservoir
Pressure, Pi.

Meaning of points, lines, and curves on pressure chart:

The base line, at point A and at point N, represents the
surface pressure.
Line A-B shows the increasing hydrostatic pressure of the
mud column as the tool is lowered into the hole. pihm is
the initial hydrostatic pressure of the mud column when
the tool reaches the interval to be tested.
When the tester valve is opened at point D, the pressure
drops immediately from pihm to the initial flowing
pressure, pif1, (point E) during the first flow period.
Line E - F is the pressure response during the initial flow
period.
As fluid flows into the drill string, the liquid level in the
pipe rises and causes pressure at the tool to increase
from pif1 to the final flowing pressure during the first flow
period, pff1(point F).
Curve F G is the initial shut-in period.
When the tester valve is closed, pressure builds up to the
initial shut-in pressure, pisi (end of curve G).
When the tester valve is reopened for the second flow
period, pressure drops immediately from the initial shut-in
pressure, pisi, to the initial flowing pressure during the
second flow period, pif2.
As in the initial flow period, pressure increases from pif2
to pff2, the final flowing pressure in the second flow
period.
Curve H I is the pressure response during the second
flow period.
When the tester valve is again closed, pressure builds up
(curve J) to the final shut-in pressure, pfsi (point K).
Curve I K is the pressure response during final shut-in
period.
When the packer is pulled loose after the end of the test,
pressure returns to the final hydrostatic pressure of the mud

column, pfhm, point L.

Line L - N shows the decreasing hydrostatic pressure of
the mud column as the tool is pulled out of the hole.
5.1.2 Test periods of an open hole DST:
An open hole DST must be planned to fit the specific
situation. Past experience in the area should be studied in
planning subsequent tests.
Test duration in an open-hole testing is quite short while
that during the cased-hole testing can be of relatively longer
duration.
An open hole drill stem test commonly consists of two flow
periods and two shut-in periods:
o Initial flow period - 5 minutes or less. Purpose is to remove any excess pressure, which may
have resulted from setting the packer.
to draw down the pressure slightly near the well
bore, permitting any mud-filtrate-invaded zone to bleed
back to or below static reservoir pressure.
o Initial shut-in period 1 hour or more. Purpose is
to Obtain reliable value for Initial Reservoir
Pressure.
Allows the formation pressure to build up to true
static formation pressure.
If its duration is long enough and beyond the
well bore storage effects then the buildup data would
enable initial estimation of reservoir properties.
o Final flow period - 30 minutes to several hours. It
is designed to evaluate the formation for some distance from
the well,
obtain reservoir fluid sample in test chamber,

 exert draw-down pressure to extend as far as

possible into the formation to see / investigate beyond
any near-well bore damage.
o Final shut-in period 1 to 2 times the Final flow
period.
It enables analysis of pressure transient data for
estimating reservoir properties.
Extrapolated shut-in pressures from the initial
and final shut-in periods should be in agreement.
If the second extrapolated pressure is
significantly smaller than the first, then reservoir depletion
may be indicated.
5.1.3 Information obtained from Open Hole Drill Stem Tests:
Depending on the type of fluid flow to the surface, the
following inferences can be drawn about the formation being
tested.
Formation may be productive of gas if high surface
pressures are observed and little or no liquid is recovered
from the test string.
Formation may be productive of oil if moderate surface
pressures are observed and liquid recovered from the string is
oil, free of water.
Formation is productive of water if low surface pressures
are observed and water is recovered from the test string.
Many tests, however, cannot be interpreted by these
elementary rules.
Open hole DST often yield valuable information about
gas-oil and oil-water contacts as well as potential productivity
of the formation.
In many cases, a fluid contact will be present within the
interval being tested.
o A gas-oil contact is evidenced by high surface
pressure and small to moderate recovery of oil.

o An oil-water contact is evidenced in formations with

permeability more than 100 mds, by recovery of both oil
and water.
In zones of lower permeability, relatively large transition
zone will exist in the interval being tested. Consequently, both
oil and water will be produced, thus obscuring the location of
a contact by an Open Hole DST.
5.2

Cased Hole Drill Stem Tests (CHDST):

In this method, tests are carried out after completing a well
with casing, cementation etc.
The down-hole test string and testing sequences, in
general, are quite similar with those of Open Hole DST,
except using tubing instead of drill pipe as test string.
However, testing durations in Cased Hole DST is much
longer. There may be several shut-ins and flowing periods
depending on the response of the zone and type of test being
carried out.
Typical characteristics of a Cased Hole Drill Stem Testing
are Testing intervals are selected on the basis of information
gathered from mud-logs, side-wall cores and various electrologs.
For each selected zone, casing is perforated at the
selected depths using suitable depth control devices.
Well is completed with test string and packer.
This type of test yields valuable results in the sense that
normally positive evidence about presence of oil and gas is
obtained. However, production of saline water or no
production should be viewed as non-conclusive tests.

 The possibilities of leakage behind the casing, non or

improper penetration of perforating bullets and other similar
problems must be carefully examined before any conclusion
is drawn about the assessment of the zone being tested.
However, the cased hole method of drill string testing is
more reliable than the open hole testing.

Formation
Fluids

Tester Valve

Completion Fluid
Closed-in Pressure Valve
Casing

Sampling Chamber & Equalizing

Valve
Choke

Cement
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
S

Safety Joint
Packer
assembly

Perforations
Perforated Anchor

Pressure Recorder
Anchor Shoe

Schematic Diagram of a conventional Cased Hole Drill Stem Test

Tool
5.2.1 Advantages of Cased Hole DST:

 Primary advantage of Open Hole DST tools was

avoidance of casing and well completion costs as tests are
conducted in open-hole condition.
Need for more data over longer time period to
investigate much further into the reservoir made Cased Hole
DST a better choice than open-hole DST.
Length of test time in open hole is strongly influenced by
well bore stability because formation may cave in on packer
and stick the DST string down hole.
A hazard of well bore stability is eliminated by Cased
Hole DST testing after the casing has been set and
cemented.
In many locations, particularly in offshore, almost all
testing is now done in cased hole.

5.2.2 Recent advancements in Cased Hole Test Tools:

On land and from fixed platforms, open hole DST tools
can function effectively in cased holes by using the type of
packer that grips the casing, rather than relying on bottom
hole support.
Growing need for data acquisition for longer durations
and offshore drilling, especially with floating rigs and deviated
wells, led to the development of more robust and advanced
down-hole tools.
Old weight-set tools became unsatisfactory because
packers could unseat due to heaving of the floating vessels /
rigs on a floater.
High-angle wells make it more difficult to control
reciprocating tools.
Tools introduced in early 1970s, used annular pressure
(APR Tools) to control and activate down hole tools.
Tools introduced in late 1970s allowed coiled tubing to
be run inside the test string, through the down hole test valve,
and to the producing zone.

 Subsequent developments enabled availability of more

versatile tools which offer benefits of
down hole shut-in,
permitting access to perforations by standard wire line
conveyed equipment with O.D. up to 2 inches,
perforating, down-hole sampling, and placing or
recovering pressure gauges during testing,
use of production logging tools (PLT) for down-hole
flow measurement during drawdown tests.
Reverse circulation is another important phase of testing
operations for establishing communication between inside the
test string and annulus just above test valve. Improvements in
Reverse Circulating Valves made following benefits.
Mud can be pumped through annulus to flush out
formation fluid left in the test string.
Allows test string to be pulled dry fluid drains out of
tubing down hole as test string is pulled out of well.
Circulating valves in Full-bore string now can be
opened and closed repeatedly (MFE Tool) which enables
placing fluid cushion inside drill string, above test
valve, to apply controlled draw-down for controlled
formation fluid entry from the formation to the well-bore /
test string / surface.
Cushion can be conveniently circulated into place
using multiple-operation circulation valve.

Tubing Conveyed Perforation (TCP) guns add further

advantages
Significantly cuts rig time (and, thus, cost of test)
needed to shoot and test, particularly for long intervals,
Allows perforation to be carried out under-balanced,
minimizing invasion of well bore fluid into formation,
Due to perforations being in under-balanced condition,
initial production surge into the well bore after perforating also

flushes out debris and crushed formation from perforation

tunnel and, thus, reducing formation damage.
5.2.3

Collecting Down-hole Data:

During tests, pressures and temperatures are

measured and are stored in down-hole pressure recorders.

It is also possible to transmit pressure responses to

the surface using a wire-line (conductor cable).

Only mechanical gauges were available in the

1930s when Drill Stem Testing was introduced; then came
electronic gauges.
First gauges used strain gauge sensors, adequate
for most tests.
Need for better resolution and stability provided
impetus for development of quartz gauges.
5.2.4

Flow Measurement and Sampling on Surface:

n surface, fluids produced during a test are normally

O
handled using temporary equipments at the well site which
facilitates in

quickly controlling the pressure and shutting-in the

well,

separation of produced fluid into its gas, oil and

water phases and allow the individual produced fluids to be
metered,

collection of samples at the surface, and

disposal of produced effluent in environmentally

acceptable manner.
5.3

Troubleshooting of DST Pressure Charts:

It is important to carefully examine the DST charts to
check and decide if the test was mechanically and
operationally successful. A good DST chart has the following
characteristics:
The pressure base line is straight and clear;

 Recorded initial and final hydrostatic mud pressures

are the same and are consistent with depth and mud weight;
Flow and buildup pressures are recorded as smooth
curves.
A good DST chart has the following characteristics:
the pressure base line is straight and clear;
recorded initial and final hydrostatic mud pressures
are same and are consistent with depth and mud weight; and
flow and buildup pressures are recorded as smooth
curves.

The DST pressure chart will also indicate bad well-bore

conditions and tool malfunctions, and other difficulties can be
identified from the DST charts.To recognize a poor DST, one
must be familiar with DST chart characteristics.
Interpretation of some pressure charts for various testing
conditions are schematically illustrated in the following
figures.

a) Fluid loss before packer

is fully released.

c) Tool did not close.

No build-up pressure.

e) Clock stopped during

build-up, normal test.

b) Packer failed, could not be

set.

d) Tool did not open.

f) Effect of large super-pressure.

Pressure build-up during flow and
build-up period.

g) Dry test, no formation

permeability. Small quantity
mud may be recovered.

h) Low permeability formation.

i) Tool at bottom, gauge

plugged before packer set.

j) Gauge plugged after packer

set, before tool opened.

k) Two layered effect. Two

zones with varied permeability.

l) Gauge gradually plugged

during flow period.

m) Typical behavior of gas

reservoir when flow occurs
at surface.
5.4

n) Rippled appearance in flow

curve indicates that gas has
broken through liquid and well
is heading (flowing in surges).

Analysis of Drill Stem Tests:

In earlier times, a drill stem test primarily used to yield
information about the formation fluid content. The pressure
charts were being used mainly to evaluate the tool operation.
Drill-stem testing can be viewed as a temporary well
completion, to test and to determine productive characteristics
of a specific zone.

5.4.1 Reservoir information obtained from DST interpretation:

Analysis of pressure data of a properly planned and
executed DST may provide, at a reasonable cost, good data
to help evaluate
the productivity of the zone,
the completion practices,
the extent of formation damage and perhaps the need
for stimulation, and
formation properties.
Reservoir characteristics which can be estimated from
DST analysis are
Average effective permeability:
o This is an estimate of effective permeability.
o Better than core permeability as the test covers a
much larger reservoir volume and the estimated
permeability is average of the volume within the radius of
investigation.

o The estimate yields effective permeability, rather

than absolute permeability.

Reservoir pressure: Measured, if shut-in time is

sufficient, or calculated, if not.

Barriers, permeability changes, and fluid contacts:

These reservoir anomalies affect the slope of the pressure
buildup plot. They usually require to be substantiated with
additional information / data to differentiate one from the
other.

Radius of Investigation: It is an estimate to know

how far away from the well bore the test has investigated OR
the DST has seen.

Depletion: This can be detected if the reservoir is

small and the test is properly run.
5.4.2 Checking Validity and Consistency of Reporting DST Data:
To check validity of the recorded DST data, following steps
are followed:
Calculate the hydrostatic mud pressure and check
against the recorded initial and final hydrostatic mud
pressures by using the following equations:
0.433

Mud gradient, (ft/psi) = --------x mud weight (lb/gal) --- (1).

8.33

Hydrastatic pressure,(psi) = Well depth,(ft) x mud gradient --- (2).

8.33
Mud weight = Hydrostatic pressure x well depth x ------- ---- (3).
(lb/gal)
0.433

 Check estimated mud weight with the reported mud

weight.
Check accuracy of pi [estimated from extrapolated
line of the second shut-in to (tp + dt)/dt =1].

To check and finish from here AKM, 15.8.2011.

5.4.3 DST Flow Rate / Pressure Rate behavior
Flow rates during flow periods are variable and usually
decrease with time since fluid is produced against an everincreasing back pressure of the rising column of liquid in test
string.
Flow Rate / Pressure Rate Behavior
3 Cycle DST
Flow
Rate,
bopd

Flow periods of DST

are examples of
Slug Tests, if the
fluid is not produced
to surface.

Time, minutes

Buildup periods
are examples of
buildup tests.

Pw, psig

Time, minutes

The time rate of decrease in flow rate is a strong

function of skin factor and permeability.

 If permeability is low and/or skin factor is high, flow

rate is almost constant.
Normally flow rates during DST tests are not
measured. If measured or estimated, these tests can be
analyzed by using average or variable rate methods etc.
Estimation of Average Flow Rate: following steps are
followed.
Calculate mud gradient, MGR, psi/ft
0.433
MGR = Mud density, (lb/gal) x -----8.33

-------- (4)

Estimate feet of mud, FOM as

Initial shut-in pressure at the end of first flow period

FOM = ---------------------------------------------------------------------MGR

---- (5)

Calculate capacity of the drill collar, CDR, as

CDR = Cs x -----, bbl/ft.

144

------------------------------ ---- (6)

where
CS = 25.65 x _
Awb (ft2) Vu = 0.007 bbl/ft

CF = Vu w
=0.0215 bbl

_ (lbm/ft3)
wellbore storage coefficient
Awb _r2p
(ft2)
_ fluid density (lbm/ft3)
141:5
131:5 API_
rp ID drill collar (ft)

API fluid gravity

Estimate fluid produced from formation, FPF, as
FPF = CDR x FOM, ft
. Calculate initial flow rate,
Qi = FPF divided by ( Flow time 1440 min/day), stb/ day
Above & below from Oil well testing Handbook, Chapter12 :DST AKM,2.8.2011
12.7 DST Analysis Methods, Uses, and Limitations

Analysis of DST provides a practical and economical means for estimating

important formation parameters prior to well completion. A proper run and
interpreted DST yield more valuable information. DST pressure buildup data
are analyzed much like any other pressure buildup data; the techniques of
Chapter 5 apply. Figure 129 shows various DST analysis methods, uses, and
their limitations.
DST Analysis Methods and Their Limitations
Horners plot method
Pressure buildup data
commonly analyzed using
Horner and MDH
techniques, when formation
thickness and fluid viscosity
are known and shut-in
period is long enough, and if
wellbore storage is not
dominant. Horner plot of the
buildup data has a straightline
section with slope m.
The value of m may be used
to determine formation
characteristics

Type curve matching methods Computer matching DST

Particularly useful when
conventional
interpretation techniques
cannot be applied with
confidence. It requires
numerical reservoir
simulator and uses a
history match approach to
vary formation properties
until the simulator
matches the DST pressure
and rate
If wellbore storage is
significant then use
Ramey, Agarwal and
Martin Type curves.4
Include skin effect that may
be used to analyze DST flow
period data as long as flow
does not reach the surface
and there is no significant
change in the wellbore
storage coefficient. This
method cannot apply under
constant-rate conditions, and
can only be used to check
the accuracy.
Kohlhaas Type Matching Curves5
This method was used previously in water-well analysis. Can be applied to oil wells to determine kh/storage
coefficient. This method has the following limitations:
Used in conjunction with results of buildup analysis that yield an improved reservoir evaluation for field use.
Estimate kh/ during a flow period of generally short duration; the results are influenced strongly by
condition near the wellbore.
Correa and Ramey Method9
This method is based on Solimans work (1982). Correa and Ramey (1986) showed that if the average flow rate is
known and t > tp, then a plot of p
ws

versus tp/[tp + t] on rectangular graph paper should give a straight line

of slope from which the formation permeability and skin factor can be determined. Extension of the straight line to
[tp/[tp + t] = 0 should provide initial pressure, pi. The limitation is:
This method cannot be used in a multiphase environment.

Figure 129. Most common methods to analyze DST data and their limitations.
396 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Horners Plot Method

DST pressure buildup data are analyzed much like any other pressure
buildup data. In a DST, the flow period is about the same duration as the

shut-in period, and so pressure buildup data must be analyzed with the
Horner plot, pws versus log[(tp _t)/_t]. The value used for tp is usually
the length of the proceeding flow period. However, if initial flow period is
very long, it is more accurate to use the sum of the flow period length for tp
for the final buildup. If the shut-in period is long enough, and if wellbore
storage is not dominant, a Horner plot of buildup should have a straight-line
section with slope _m, the value of m may be used to estimate the formation
permeability k from the following equation:
k
162:6qo_o_o
mh
127
Formation thickness h must be the net thickness of productive zone, which
should be determined from log analysis. If net thickness h is not available, kh
or formation capacity is determined:
kh
162:6qo_o_o
m
128
If all the reservoir parameters are unknown, transmissibility kh/_o_o is
estimated:
kh
_o_o

162:6qo
m
129
If _o and h are not known, kh/_o may be estimated by rearranging
Eq. 129.The flow rate normally used is the average over tp. Many times
DST results are affected by formation damage. Thus, to be meaningful, the
effect of flow restriction caused by the damaged zone must be accounted for
in analyzing a specified DST. The skin factor is estimated from the following
empirical equation for a dimensionless value s denoting skin factor.
s 1:151
p1hr _pwf _t0
m
_log
k
__octr2
w

__
log
tp 1
tp
__
3:23
__
1210

The term log[(tp 1)/tp] is normally neglected when tp >> 1 or when the
skin factor is high.
The skin factor is useful in comparing damage between wells; however, it
cannot be readily applied to a specified formation to show what that zone
should make if damage was removed. Zak and Phil Griffin8 carried
Drill-Stem Testing Methods 397

Eq. 1210 one step further introducing the concept of damage ratio (DR),
which compares flow rate observed on a DST (qo) to the theoretical flow rate
without damage (qt).
DR
qt
qo
1211
An equation for calculation of DR based on the skin factor is related to the
equation14
DR
pi _ pwf
m log
ktp
__octr2
w

__
_ 2:85
_ _ 1212
DR substantially greater than 1.0 indicates damage. Eq. 1212 can be simplified
by assigning average values to the formation parameters k, _, ct, _o, and
rw. This produced an equation for estimated damage ratio (EDR):
EDR
pi _ pwf
mlog tp 2:65
1213
An equation for calculation of DR based on the skin factor relation is
reported as
Jideal
Jactual

_p _ pwf
_p _ pwf _ _pskin
1214
where pressure drop across the skin is computed as
_pskin
141:2qo_o_o
kh
s 0:869ms 1215
A more dependable means of evaluating the necessity of well remedial
treatment for skin effect or for production stimulation is by calculating the
flow efficiency of the well:
Flow efficiency
pi _ pf _ _pskin
pi _ pf
1215a
Initial or average pressure _p is estimated by extrapolating the Horner
straight line to infinite shut-in time (tp _t)/_t 1. Both the first buildup
plot and the second buildup plot extrapolate to the same static or initial
pressure. A second DST is sometimes required to define the depletion. If the
second buildup static pressure is lower than the first, then depletion of the
reservoir is possible.
398 Oil Well Testing Handbook

If the rate varies during the flow period, then the multiple analysis
technique is used. Odeh and Selig2 proposed a simplified analysis technique
that is useful for large rate variation when tp is less than shut-in time. The
rate and tp are modified by
q_
1
t_
p

XN
j1

qjtj _ tj_1 1216

and
t_
p 2 tp _
PN
j1

qjt2j
_ t2j
_1
2
PN
j1

qjtj _ tj_1
2
6664
3
7775
1217
The modified values, t_
p and q_ are used in the Horner plot. For practical
purpose, the radius of investigation during DST is equivalent to the radius of
drainage given by

ri
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k_tmax
948__oct
s
ft 1218
The following equation from Van Poollen1 may be used to estimate
the radius of investigation of a particular DST in an infinite radial flow
system:
ri
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ktp
5:76 _ 104__oct
s
1219

Type Curve Matching Methods4,5

Using Ramey, Agarwal, and Martin Type Matching Curves4
These type curves shown in Figure 1210 include skin effect that may be
used to analyze DST flow period data. In this figure, the dimensionless
pressure ratio is defined as
pDr
pD
pDo

pi _ pwf t
pi _ po
1220
Drill-Stem Testing Methods 399

where po is the pressure in the drill string immediately before the flow period
begins or for the final flow period po would be the pressure at the end of first
flow period.
The dimensionless time tD is defined by
tD
0:0002637kt
__octr2
w

1221
and the dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient is defined by
CD
6:615C
2__cthr2
w

1222
For a DTSflow period, the wellbore storage coefficient usually results from
a rising liquid level in the drill pipe. Thus,
CD e2s
= 105
CD e2s
= 1010
CD e2s
= 1020
CD e2s
= 1040
CD e
2s = 1
CD e
2s = 5
CD e
2s = 10
CD e
2s = 103
CD e
2s = 104
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10 102 103

0
p
D

=(p
i

p
wf (t)

(p

p
o

)
CD
tD

Figure 1210. Semilog type curves for DST flow period for early- and late-time
data (after Ramey et al.).4
400 Oil Well Testing Handbook

C
Vu
_
144
g
gc
_ _ 1223
where Vu is the volume per unit length of the drill pipe in barrels per foot. The
following steps are used to analyze DST test using Ramey et al. type curves:
. The matching technique is similar to the method described in Chapter 8.
The pressure ratio always goes from zero to one and is independent of
flow rate and formation properties.
. Plot pressure ratio versus log time, minutes on semilog tracing paper
(same scale as type curve).
. Laid over the grid of Figure 1210, the pressure scale is fixed. When
tracing paper data plot is slid to match one of the type curves, only
horizontal section is used.
. Once the field data have been matched to one of the type curves, data
from both the overlay and the underlying type curves are read at a
convenient match point.
. Three data items are required
. Parameter on curve match (CDe2s)M;
. The time scale match point tM;
. And the corresponding point from the type curve, (tD/CD)M.
Permeability may be estimated from the time scale match point by using
the following equation:
k 3389
_o
h
C
tM
tD
CD
__
M

1224
Skin factor is estimated from the parameter on the curve matched
s 0:5 ln
_cthr2
wCD e2sM
0:89359C
__
1225
DST analyses commonly report damage ratio, DR
DR
Jideal
Jactual

_p _ pwf
_p _ pwf _ _pskin
1226
where the pressure drop across the skin is computed:
_pskin
141:2qo_o_o
kh

s 1227

Drill-Stem Testing Methods 401

Using Kohlhaas et al. Method5,6 Type Matching Curves

This method can be used in conjunction with data from buildup analysis,
the reservoir evaluation of reservoir conditions through verifying or contrasting
of results. These type curves are shown in Figure 1211.
Method ofAnalysis
. Record pressure during the flow period between initial and final shut-in
pressure.
. Calculate ( pw _ pi)/( po _ pi) versus time and plot on graph paper of the
same type and size where po is the pressure at the beginning.
. Obtain match point; curve match Cr2s
/r2p
with [Tt/r2p
]M; find [t]M in
minutes corresponding to match points where T is equal to kh/_.
. Calculate permeability from the time scale match points:
k 3647
_r2p
_htM
Tt
r2p
"#
M

1228

Curve A
Curve B
Curve C
Curve D
Curve E
0.1
0.01
103
104
105
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
103 102 101 1 10 100
C.=
Tt
rp
(p
w

p
o

)
(p
o

p
i

)
2
rp
2

rs
2

Figure 1211. Type curves for flow period analysis.5

402 Oil Well Testing Handbook

From value of curve and with rs and rp, calculate wellbore storage
coefficient, C
C
r2s
r2p
"#
_ value of curve 1229
where rs and rp are radii of hole size and drill pipe, respectively.
. Porosity is estimated as
_ 2:31
C
_whct
.

1230

Correa and Rameys Method9,10

Correa and Ramey showed that if the average flow rate, qavg, is known
and _t > tp then a plot of pws versus tp/[tp _t] on rectangular graph
paper should give a straight line of slope mc, from which formation
permeability and skin factor can be estimated using the equations given
below:
k
70:6qavg__
mch
1231
Estimate skin factor from equation
s
pi _ pwfo
2mc
qavg
qtp
_
1
2
ln
ktp
__ctr2
w

__
3:72 1232
where
tp
qt
q1
and
qavg
qt
tp
q1, qavg, and qt flow rate before shut-in, average flow rate during the test,
and total liquid recovered, respectively.
Extension of the straight line to tp/[tp _t] 0 will provide initial pressure, pi.
Drill-Stem Testing Methods 403

Initial pressure can be estimated using equation

pi pws mc
tp
tp _t
__
1233

Drill-Stem Buildup Test Analysis with Limited Data

If the pressure data available are incomplete, the analysis procedure

explained previously cannot be used. A few key data points are read at the
well site just after the test. These include:
. Initial hydrostatic mud pressure;
. Initial shut-in pressure, pisi;
. Pressure at the end of first flow period;
. Pressure at the end of second flow period;
. Final shut-in pressure, pfsi.
The flow and shut-in period duration are usually also reported. Such
limited data may be used to estimate reservoir properties, using the following
equations:
. The initial reservoir pressure is taken as
pi _ _p _ pisi 1234
. The value of m for the semilog straight line is approximately given by
m
pist _ pisi
log
tp _t
_t
_ _ 1235
where _t is the total shut-in time (time when pisi was read)
. Permeability may be estimated as

k
162:6qo_o_o
mh
1236
Note: This practical method will not be useable, if the initial and final
shut-in pressures are the same, m estimated from Eq. 1235 will be zero.
Estimate damage ratio using the following equations:
Jideal
JActual

0:183 pisi _ pfsi

m
or
Jideal
JActual

pisi _ pfsi
m4:42 log tp
1237
404 Oil Well Testing Handbook

The following examples will clarify DST analysis by various methods.

Example 12116 Analyzing DST Using Horner Plot
ADST was conducted on an oil well. The following information was reported
by the DST Company. The pressure buildup data are given in Tables 121 and
122.Well/reservoir and pressure buildup data are given inTables 121 and 122.
Determine the following:
. Check validity and consistency of reported DST data
. Formation permeability, k
. Skin factor and pressure drop due to skin
. Initial reservoir pressure
. Flow efficiency
. Damage ratio
. Apparent wellbore radius
. Radius of investigation
Table 12116
Test type open hole
Hole size 7:88 in.
Pipe length 240 ft
Diameter of collar 45 in.
Reservoir pressure @ gauge depth 2560 psi
Pressure at the end of first flow 371 psi
Final shut-in pressure 1005 psi
Pressure at the end of second flow period 643 psi
Final shut-in pressure 1969 psi
API_ 36:87 API
ct 8:0 _ 10_6 psi_1
Initial shut-in pressure 2660 psi
_o 1:215 rb/stb
Vu 0:0197 bbl/ft and _ 52:78 lb/ft3
Total well depth 6550 ft
Mud density 7:5 lb/gal
Collar length 240 ft
Gauge depth 6549 ft
First flow period 6 min
First shut-in period 30 min
Second flow period 60 min
Second shut-in period 120 min
_ 16%
_o 1:0 cP
h 17 ft
rw 0:33 ft
tp1 6 min , tp2 120 min
Drill-Stem Testing Methods 405

Table 122
Pressure Buildup Test Data15

(1) Time, _t (min) Time, _t (hr) Dimensionless time

_t Pressure, pws (psig)
First flow period
0 0.000 371
3 0.050 3.00 665
6 0.100 2.00 672

(tp_t)

9 0.150 1.67 692

12 0.200 1.50 737
15 0.250 1.40 786
18 0.300 1.33 832
21 0.350 1.29 874
24 0.400 1.25 919
27 0.450 1.22 962
30 0.500 1.20 1005
Second flow period
3 0.050 41.00 665
6 0.100 21.00 672
9 0.150 14.33 692
12 0.200 11.00 737
15 0.250 9.00 786
18 0.300 7.67 832
21 0.350 6.71 874
24 0.400 6.00 919
27 0.450 5.44 962
30 0.500 5.00 1005
33 0.550 4.64 1046
36 0.600 4.33 1085
39 0.650 4.08 1128
42 0.700 3.86 1170
45 0.750 3.67 1208
48 0.800 3.50 1248
51 0.850 3.35 1289
54 0.900 3.22 1318
57 0.950 3.11 1361
60 1.000 3.00 1395
63 1.050 2.90 1430
66 1.100 2.82 1467
69 1.150 2.74 1499
72 1.200 2.67 1536
75 1.250 2.60 1570
78 1.300 2.54 1602
81 1.350 2.48 1628
84 1.400 2.43 1655
87 1.450 2.38 1683
406 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Solution To analyze pressure buildup test, follow these steps:

. Identify the MTR and find the slope of MTR, p1 hr, and p_ of the Horner
plot of the second shut-in period (Figure 1212).
. Prepare Horner plot of the first and second shut-in buildup pressures on
the same graph paper as shown in Figure 1213.
. Check validity and consistency of reported DST data.
Mud gradient
7:5 _ 0:433
8:33
0:390 ft=psi (Eq. 121)
Table 122 (continued)
(1) Time, _t (min) Time, _t (hr) Dimensionless time
_t Pressure, pws (psig)
90 1.500 2.33 1713
93 1.550 2.29 1737
96 1.600 2.25 1767
99 1.650 2.21 1794
102 1.700 2.18 1819
105 1.750 2.14 1845
108 1.800 2.11 1869
111 1.850 2.08 1894
114 1.900 2.05 1917
117 1.950 2.03 1948
120 2.000 2.00 1969
End of wellbore
storage effects
Unit-slope line
104
103
102
10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Shut-in time, t (hours)
p
ws

(tp_t)

wf

] (psi)

Figure 1212. loglog data plot.

Drill-Stem Testing Methods 407

Hydrostatic pressure 6549 _ 0:390 2554 psi (Eq. 122)

The reported initial reservoir pressure at gauge depth is 2560 psi, which
is in good agreement with pi p_ 2554 psi (extrapolated pressure
from the first shut-in straight line). The mud weight should be
Mud weight
8:3325546540
0:433
7:52 lb=gal (Eq. 123)
Thus the reported mud weight is correct.
. Formation permeability, k.
From the extrapolated MTR, line of the second shut-in to (tp _t)/_t 1
pi p_ 2550 psi
Using Eq. 127
k
162:6qo_o_o
m2h

162:6835:21:01:215
445:017
21:81mD from initial slope
k
162:6qo_o_o
m2h

162:6370:61:01:215
310:017
13:89mD from final slope
Final shut-in
q2 = 370.6
m2 = 310.0
k2 = 13.89 mD
s = 5.2
Initial shut-in
ql = 835.2 stb/day
ml = 445.0 psi/cycle
kl = 10.6 mD
s = 2.79
Final shut-in
Initial shut-in
Slope, m2 = 310 psi/cycle
Slope, ml = 455.0 psi/cycle
p* pi
100
10
1
0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
[ tp + t ]
Shut-in pressure in 1000, P
ws

(psi)
t

Figure 1213. Semilog Horner plot for data.

408 Oil Well Testing Handbook

In general k as determined from the initial shut-in could be different from

that determined from the final shut-in. This is because of the differences in
the radii of investigation.
. Skin factor and pressure drop due to skin from Eqs. 1210 and 1215:
s 1:151
p1hr _ pwf _t0
m
_ log
k
__octr2
w

__
log
tp 1
tp
__

 3:23
__
1:151
"
1395 _ 371
445
_ log
10:6
0:16 _ 1 _ 8:00 _ 10_6 _ 0:332
!
log
3
2
__
3:23
#
1:1511:6900 _ 7:8884 0:1761 3:23 _2:79
_pskin 0:869 ms 0:869445_2:79 _1079 psi
. Initial reservoir pressure
pi ffi p_ 2550 psi
. Flow efficiency
Flow efficiency FE
pi _ pwf _ _pskin
_p _ pwf
(Eq. 1215a)

2550 _ 371 _ _1079

2550 _ 371
1:50
. Damage ratio
Damage ratio DR
1
FE

1
1:5
0:67 (Eq. 1212)
. Apparent wellbore radius
rwa rw e_s 0:33 e__2:79 5:37 ft
. Radius of investigation
ri
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k_tmax
948__oct
s

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffififfiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffiffiffiffiffiffi
10:6 _ 120=60
948 _ 0:16 _ 1 _ 8:0 _ 10_6
r
(Eq. 1218)
132 ft
Drill-Stem Testing Methods 409

Example 12216 Reworking Example 121 Using Type Curve Matching

Techniques
. Ramey, Agarwal, and Martin Method
. Kohlhaas Method
Solution Using Ramey, Agarwal, and Martin Method
Table 123 shows the test data and computation results. Figure 1214
shows the data plot of Table 123 matched to Figure 1210.
First calculate wellbore storage coefficient C:
C
0:0197
52:78
144
32:17
0:0517 bbl=psi (Eq. 1223)

CD
5:615 _ 0:0517
2 _ 3:142 _ 0:16 _ 17 _ 8:0 _ 10_60:3282 2:973 _ 104 (Eq. 1222)

Find formation permeability and skin factor using semilog type curves
early- and late-time data
k 3389 _
1
17
0:0517
log 108
__
_ 7:057 35:77mD (Eq. 1224)
s 0:5 ln
0:16 _ 8:0 _ 10_60:332 _ 1010
0:89359 _ 0:0517
"#
5:15 (Eq. 1225)
Using Kohlhass Method: Numerical values of type curves are presented in
Table 124 and graphical form (see Figure 1215) for various values of the
skin factor.
Calculate permeability from the time scale match points using Eq. 1228:
k 3647
_r2p
_h t M
Tt
r2p
"#
3647 _
1:0 _ 1:92 _ 1
0:82 _ 17 _ 66
14:3mD
Porosity is estimated using Eq. 1230:
_ 2:31 _
C
_whct
2:31 _
18:82 _ 10_7 _ 0:0517
0:82 _ 17 _ 8:0 _ 10_6 0:20
Example 12316 Analyzing DST Using Correa and Rameys Techniques
The following initial shut-in pressure data were taken from Ref. 16:
Flow rate before shut-in175 stb/day, average flow rate during initial
410 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Table 123
Drill-Stem Data for Flow Period Analysis4
Time (min) Pressure (psig)
( pi _ pwft)(3475 _ pressure)
(psig)
( pi _ po)
(3475 _ 643)
(psig)
Dimensionless
pressure ratio
( pi _ po)(3475 _ 643)
( pi _ pwft)(3475 _ pressure)
Ratio of dimensionless
time and wellbore storage
tD/CD read from type
curve after matching
0.0 643 2832 2832 1.0000
3.0 665 2810 2832 0.9922 0.196
6.0 672 2803 2832 0.9898 0.392
9.0 692 2783 2832 0.9827 0.588
12.0 737 2738 2832 0.9668 0.784
15.0 786 2689 2832 0.9495 0.980
18.0 832 2643 2832 0.9333 1.176
21.0 874 2601 2823 0.9184 1.372
24.0 919 2556 2823 0.9025 1.568
27.0 962 2513 2823 0.8874 1.764
30.0 1005 2470 2823 0.8722 1.960
33.0 1046 2429 2823 0.8577 2.156

36.0
39.0
42.0
45.0
48.0
51.0
54.0
57.0
60.0

1085
1128
1170
1208
1248
1289
1318
1361
1395

2390
2347
2305
2267
2227
2186
2157
2114
2080

2823
2823
2823
2823
2823
2823
2823
2823
2823

0.8439
0.8287
0.8139
0.8005
0.7864
0.7719
0.7617
0.7465
0.7345

2.352
2.548
2.744
2.940
3.317
3.333
3.529
3.725
3.921

Table 123 (continued)

Time (min) Pressure (psig)

( pi _ pwft)(3475 _ pressure)
(psig)
( pi _ po)
(3475 _ 643)
(psig)
Dimensionless
pressure ratio
( pi _ po)(3475 _ 643)
( pi _ pwft)(3475 _ pressure)
Ratio of dimensionless
time and wellbore storage
tD/CD read from type
curve after matching
63.0 1430 2045 2823 0.7221 4.117
66.0 1467 2008 2823 0.7090 4.313
69.0 1499 1976 2823 0.6977 4.509
72.0 1536 1939 2823 0.6847 4.705
75.0 1570 1905 2823 0.6727 4.901
78.0 1602 1873 2823 0.6614 5.097
81.0 1628 1847 2823 0.6522 5.293
84.0 1655 1820 2823 0.6427 5.489
87.0 1683 1792 2823 0.6328 5.685
90.0 1713 1762 2823 0.6222 5.881
93.0 1737 1738 2823 0.6137 6.077
96.0 1767 1708 2823 0.6031 6.273
99.0 1794 1681 2823 0.5936 6.469
102.0 1819 1656 2823 0.5847 6.665
105.0 1845 1630 2823 0.5756 6.861
108.0 1869 1606 2823 0.5671 7.057
111.0 1894 1581 2823 0.5583 7.253
114.0 1917 1558 2823 0.5501 7.449
117.0 1948 1527 2823 0.5392 7.645
120.0 1969 1506 2823 0.5318 7.841

flow 395 stb/day; tp (initial flow)21 min; _o 0:85 cP; _o 1:021 rb/stb;
h35 ft; total fluid recovered32:5 stb; rw 0:29 ft; ct 4:75 _ 10_5 psi_1;
and _0:12 fraction. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor.
Solution Figure 1216 is a plot of the initial shut-in data of Table 125
according to Correa and Rameys method. From this figure the following
information can be obtained. Slope of the straight line 488 psi/cycle. Estimate
formation permeability and skin factor using Eqs. 1231 and 1232.
k
70:6qavg__
mch

70:6 _ 395 _ 0:85 _ 1:021

488 _ 35
1:415mD
s
pi _ pwfo
2mc
qavg
qtp
_
1
2
ln
ktp
__ctr2
w

__
3:72

CD e2s = 105
CD e2s = 1010
CD e2s = 1020
CD e2s = 1040
CD e2s = 1
CD e2s = 5
CD e2s = 10
CD e2s = 103
CD e2s = 104
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10 102 103
0
p
D

= (p
i

p
wf
(t)

)
(p
i

p
o

)
C
D

Match points are:

CDe 2s = 1010
[t]M = 2.0334
tD/CD M
= 7.057
k = 35.77 mD
s = 5.15
kh/o = 608.1
k/ct
h = 105.21 104
t
D

Figure 1214. Semilog type curve match for DST flow period early- and late-time
data (after Ramey et al.).4
Drill-Stem Testing Methods 413

2220 _ 0
2 _ 488
_
395
175
_
1
2
ln
1:415 _ 21=60
0:12 _ 0:85 _ 4:75 _ 10_6 _ 0:292
__
3:72
2:2887 _ 2:2571 _ 0:516:3132 3:72 0:73

12.8

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------To start from here 27.07.2011.

DST Interpretation: From Advanced PTA trg. CourseAKM,27.07.2011.

Flow Periods
As noted previously, pressure
increases
during the flow periods of DST. Why
does this
happen?
Flow period is an example of wellbore
storage
due to rising of fluid in drill pipe.
t1
pwf1
t2
pwf2
pwf2 > pwf1

5.615
144 c
F

CA
2

A r
density of the fluid
cp

in drill pipe.

Estimation of Flow
Rate
In cases flow rates are not measured,
we
could compute flow rate from the
amoun of
total fluid produced or from measured
pressures, assuming constant wellbore
storage coefficient by using the
following
formula:
Or using a piecewise constant
pressure
approximation for the measured
pressure
data.

()()
( ) 24 24
1

jj
wf j wf j
F
t
wf

tt
ptpt
C
dt
dp
qtC
sf j F

Estimation of Flow
Rate
2
( ) ( ) 1
wf j wf j
j

ptpt
p

An Example

w =/144
= 0.325 psi/ft
Vu = 0.007 bbl/ft
CF = Vu w
=0.0215 bbl/psi
qavg = 91.05 bbl/D
(for one-hour
flow period)
Taken from Bourdets book Well Test Analysis: The Use of Advanced
Interpretation Models.

An Example

24 24
24 0.0215 4900.73 4724.51 91 /
1
tp
F wf wf p
avg F
pp

C dp p t p q dt C
t dt t
bbl D

Slug Test Type Curve

 Ramey has developed type curves for

analyzing flow periods of DSTs, not
requiring
the knowledge of flow rate data.
0

()
pp
ppt
pp
i
i wf

wD DR

()
11
pp
ptp
pp
0

i
wf
wD DR

Dimensionless Pressure
Dimensionless Time
t
C
kh
C
t

DF

0.000295
D

FDD

t
kh C t C

/
0.000295

Rameys Slug Test Type

Curve

Use of Rameys Type

Curve
Data is matced only sliding in the time
axis
horizontally.
From time match points determined,
we can
obtain kh/ with the estimated value of
CF

from:
From the value of CDe2s curve
matched, we
can estimate skin factor:

/
0.000295
FDDM
M

kh C t C
t

22
5.615
tw
F

c hr
CC

1 ln

S
DM
D

Ce
s
C

An Example
An Example
k = 41.7 md
s = 6.5

Relationship Between Slug

and
Constant Surface Rate
Solutions
In 1989, Peres et al. (SPE 19843)
showed
that slug test data could be
converted to
data that would be obtined if the well
produced at a constant surface rate.
()
()
0.000295
0
s
Fi

kh I p
Cpp
cwD

Fi

kh t p
Cpp
p

()
0.000295
cwD

I p t

p d

t
ss
0

( )( )
p (t) p p (t) s i wf
Peres et al. method is valid any model;
fractured well, etc.

We can use numerical integration

to
perform the conversion:
I p t

p d

t
ss
0

( )( )

Trapezoidal rule

n
j
jj
sjsj
n
j
t
t

tt
ptpt
Iptpd
sns

j
j1

1
1
1

()
2
()()
( )( )
1

Relationship Between Slug

and
Constant Surface Rate
Solutions

Slug ve Sabit Yzey Debili

Test
likisi
Then, we can type curve match
I(ps) and
tps vs t with the wellbore storage
type
curves for constant-rate drawdown
tests.

M
FDDM

t
kh C t /C
0.000295

D
M
s
D

C
Ce
s
2

ln
2
1
22
5.615
tw
F

c hr
CC

From Derivative and/or Time Match Points:

From the curve matched value of CDe(2s):

s
F i cwD M

tp
kh C p p p


0.000295
()0

Relationship Between Slug

and
Constant Surface Rate
Solutions
Example Test 1

kh/ = 197 md-ft/cp, s = 0, test during

underbalance perforation
test: CF = Vwcwf , cwf = 7.3x10-6 1/psi, Vw = 331 bbl,
ct = 23x10-6
1/psi, = 0.41 cp, h = 39.37 ft

Example Test 2

kh/ = 575, s = -2.3, = 60 cp, h = 38 ft, =

0.062, ct = 10.2x10-6
1/psi, CF = 3.65x10-2 bbl/psi

Example Test 3

kh/ = 21.5, s = -1.5, = 0.43 cp, h = 23 ft, =

0.13, ct = 1.5x10-5
1/psi, CF = 1.61x10-2 bbl/psi

Slug Test Semi-log

Analysis
We can perform semilog analysis of slug
test data
using convolution or superposition time

s
cr
tk
kh
C

ptp
Ipt
tw
ms
F
wf

log 3.23 0.87

0.000295
1.151
()
()
s

2
0

0
1
1

()
()()
log
ptp
ptpt
ttt
1

wf n
wf j wf j

n
j
ms n j

Slope = m

log 3.23
/( )
1.15 2
0 **
tw
ms
s wf t

cr
tk
m
Ippp
s ms

Slug Test Semi-log

Analysis
Then, make

ms

wf

vs t
ptp
Ipt.
()
()
0


log 3.23
/( )
1.15 2
0 **
tw
ms
s wf t

cr
tk
m
Ippp
s ms

plot
m
kh C
kh
m CF F
0.000295
1.151
0.000295
1.151

Note
It should be noted that Surge, Perforation
inflow,
and Impulse Tests are all examples of Slug
tests,

and can be anayzed by the methods

discussed for
slug tests.
Rahman et al. (JCPT, 2008) uses a latetime
equation given by:
He also gives early time approximations
which can
be used to determine skin.

kh t
p t p CF pi p
wf i

1
2
( ) 24 * 141.2 0
His late-time analysis procedure is OK if radial
flow exits.

Example Test
t*ms
From semi-log analysis we found: kh/
= 21.1, s = -1.2
From type-curve matching: we found kh/
= 21.5, s = -1.5

DST Buildup Period

 Buildup pressure data can be

analyzed by
conventional methods based on
superposition time function if the rates
can
be computed.

Wellbore storage phenomena is

different from the flow period.
S w wf

C V c

Volume between shut-in valve

And production zone, bbl
compressibility of the fluid,
1/psi

Classical Horner Analysis

For DST
Buildup
We can use an average flow rate
from the
slug period:

t
tt
ptpmp
ws i ( ) log

/
162.6
kh
q
m sf average

p
wf p
sf average F

ptp
q C 0( )
24

1.151 log 3.23 2

tw
i ort p

cr
kt
m
spp
2
( ) 0 wf p
ort

ppt
p

Convolution for DST

Buildup
We will use the flow rate computed prior to
shut-in:
Once flow rates are calculated, we can use
them to
compute Agarwal multi-rate equivalent time:

N
j
b
pj
pj
eM
j

ttt
tt
tt
11
1
sf N
sf j sf j

q
qq
b
j

, , 1

Convolution for DST

Buildup
If we identify radial flow regime
from log-log

diagnostic plot of buildup data, then

we can
perform semilog analysis of buildup
data:

N
jpj
pj
sf p
sf p sf j

ttt
ttt
qt
q
kh
ws i

qt
ptp
1

log 1
()
162.6 ( )
,

H
sf p sf p

m
kh q t
kh
qt
m
162.6 ( ) 162.6 ( )

N
jpjtw
pj
sf p
sf j sf j
H
hr wf p

cr
k
tt
tt
qt
qq
m
ppt
s
1
2
1
1,,11

1
log
()
()

log 3.23

1.151

DST Buildup Example

Log-Log plot based on Agarwal Multi-rate

DST Kapama
Dnemi/rnek
Klasik Horner grafii
kh/ = 1309 md-ft/cp
s = 3.3

DST Buildup Example

Horner Plot
kh/ = 1031 md-ft/cp
s = 0.8

12.7 DST Analysis Methods, Uses, and Limitations - From Oil Well Testing

Handbook Chapter-12.
Analysis of DST provides a practical and economical means for estimating
important formation parameters prior to well completion. A proper run and
interpreted DST yield more valuable information. DST pressure buildup data
are analyzed much like any other pressure buildup data; the techniques of
Chapter 5 apply. Figure 129 shows various DST analysis methods, uses, and
their limitations.
DST Analysis Methods and Their Limitations

Horners plot method

Pressure buildup data
commonly analyzed using
Horner and MDH
techniques, when formation
thickness and fluid viscosity
are known and shut-in
period is long enough, and if
wellbore storage is not
dominant. Horner plot of the
buildup data has a straightline
section with slope m.
The value of m may be used
to determine formation
characteristics

Type curve matching methods Computer matching DST

Particularly useful when
conventional
interpretation techniques
cannot be applied with
confidence. It requires
numerical reservoir
simulator and uses a
history match approach to
vary formation properties
until the simulator
matches the DST pressure
and rate
If wellbore storage is
significant then use
Ramey, Agarwal and
Martin Type curves.4
Include skin effect that may
be used to analyze DST flow
period data as long as flow
does not reach the surface
and there is no significant
change in the wellbore
storage coefficient. This
method cannot apply under
constant-rate conditions, and
can only be used to check
the accuracy.
Kohlhaas Type Matching Curves5
This method was used previously in water-well analysis. Can be applied to oil wells to determine kh/storage
coefficient. This method has the following limitations:
Used in conjunction with results of buildup analysis that yield an improved reservoir evaluation for field use.
Estimate kh/ during a flow period of generally short duration; the results are influenced strongly by
condition near the wellbore.
Correa and Ramey Method9
This method is based on Solimans work (1982). Correa and Ramey (1986) showed that if the average flow rate is
known and t > tp, then a plot of p
ws

versus tp/[tp + t] on rectangular graph paper should give a straight line

of slope from which the formation permeability and skin factor can be determined. Extension of the straight line to
[tp/[tp + t] = 0 should provide initial pressure, pi. The limitation is:
This method cannot be used in a multiphase environment.

Figure 129. Most common methods to analyze DST data and their limitations.

Horners Plot Method

Type Curve Matching Methods4,5
Using Ramey, Agarwal, and Martin Type Matching Curves4
Using Kohlhaas et al. Method5,6 Type Matching Curves

Correa and Rameys Method9,10

Drill-Stem Buildup Test Analysis with Limited Data
If the pressure data available are incomplete, the analysis procedure
explained previously cannot be used. A few key data points are read at the
well site just after the test. These include:
. Initial hydrostatic mud pressure;
. Initial shut-in pressure, pisi;
. Pressure at the end of first flow period;
. Pressure at the end of second flow period;
. Final shut-in pressure, pfsi.
The flow and shut-in period duration are usually also reported. Such
limited data may be used to estimate reservoir properties, using the following
equations:
. The initial reservoir pressure is taken as
pi _ _p _ pisi 1234
. The value of m for the semilog straight line is approximately given by
m
pist _ pisi
log
tp _t
_t
_ _ 1235

where _t is the total shut-in time (time when pisi was read)
. Permeability may be estimated as
k
162:6qo_o_o
mh
1236
Note: This practical method will not be useable, if the initial and final
shut-in pressures are the same, m estimated from Eq. 1235 will be zero.
Estimate damage ratio using the following equations:
Jideal
JActual

0:183 pisi _ pfsi

m
or
Jideal
JActual

pisi _ pfsi
m4:42 log tp
1237
The following examples will clarify DST analysis by various methods.
Example 12116 Analyzing DST Using Horner Plot
A DST was conducted on an oil well. The following information was reported
by the DST Company. The pressure buildup data are given in Tables 121 and
122.Well/reservoir and pressure buildup data are given inTables 121 and 122.
Determine the following:
. Check validity and consistency of reported DST data
. Formation permeability, k
. Skin factor and pressure drop due to skin
. Initial reservoir pressure
. Flow efficiency
. Damage ratio
. Apparent wellbore radius
. Radius of investigation
Table 12116
Test type open hole
Hole size 7:88 in.
Pipe length 240 ft
Diameter of collar 45 in.
Reservoir pressure @ gauge depth 2560 psi
Pressure at the end of first flow 371 psi
Final shut-in pressure 1005 psi
Pressure at the end of second flow period 643 psi
Final shut-in pressure 1969 psi
API_ 36:87 API
ct 8:0 _ 10_6 psi_1
Initial shut-in pressure 2660 psi
_o 1:215 rb/stb
Vu 0:0197 bbl/ft and _ 52:78 lb/ft3
Total well depth 6550 ft
Mud density 7:5 lb/gal
Collar length 240 ft
Gauge depth 6549 ft
First flow period 6 min
First shut-in period 30 min
Second flow period 60 min
Second shut-in period 120 min
_ 16%
_o 1:0 cP
h 17 ft
rw 0:33 ft
tp1 6 min , tp2 120 min
Drill-Stem Testing Methods 405

Table 122
Pressure Buildup Test Data15

(1) Time, _t (min) Time, _t (hr) Dimensionless time

_t Pressure, pws (psig)
First flow period

(tp_t)

0 0.000 371
3 0.050 3.00 665
6 0.100 2.00 672
9 0.150 1.67 692
12 0.200 1.50 737
15 0.250 1.40 786
18 0.300 1.33 832
21 0.350 1.29 874
24 0.400 1.25 919
27 0.450 1.22 962
30 0.500 1.20 1005
Second flow period
3 0.050 41.00 665
6 0.100 21.00 672
9 0.150 14.33 692
12 0.200 11.00 737
15 0.250 9.00 786
18 0.300 7.67 832
21 0.350 6.71 874
24 0.400 6.00 919
27 0.450 5.44 962
30 0.500 5.00 1005
33 0.550 4.64 1046
36 0.600 4.33 1085
39 0.650 4.08 1128
42 0.700 3.86 1170
45 0.750 3.67 1208
48 0.800 3.50 1248
51 0.850 3.35 1289
54 0.900 3.22 1318
57 0.950 3.11 1361
60 1.000 3.00 1395
63 1.050 2.90 1430
66 1.100 2.82 1467
69 1.150 2.74 1499
72 1.200 2.67 1536
75 1.250 2.60 1570
78 1.300 2.54 1602
81 1.350 2.48 1628
84 1.400 2.43 1655
87 1.450 2.38 1683
406 Oil Well Testing Handbook

Solution To analyze pressure buildup test, follow these steps:

. Identify the MTR and find the slope of MTR, p1 hr, and p_ of the Horner
plot of the second shut-in period (Figure 1212).
. Prepare Horner plot of the first and second shut-in buildup pressures on
the same graph paper as shown in Figure 1213.
. Check validity and consistency of reported DST data.
Mud gradient
7:5 _ 0:433
8:33
0:390 ft=psi (Eq. 121)
Table 122 (continued)
(1) Time, _t (min) Time, _t (hr) Dimensionless time
_t Pressure, pws (psig)
90 1.500 2.33 1713
93 1.550 2.29 1737
96 1.600 2.25 1767
99 1.650 2.21 1794
102 1.700 2.18 1819
105 1.750 2.14 1845
108 1.800 2.11 1869
111 1.850 2.08 1894
114 1.900 2.05 1917
117 1.950 2.03 1948
120 2.000 2.00 1969
End of wellbore
storage effects
Unit-slope line
104
103
102
10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Shut-in time, t (hours)

(tp_t)

p
ws

p
wf

] (psi)

Figure 1212. loglog data plot.

Drill-Stem Testing Methods 407

Hydrostatic pressure 6549 _ 0:390 2554 psi (Eq. 122)

The reported initial reservoir pressure at gauge depth is 2560 psi, which
is in good agreement with pi p_ 2554 psi (extrapolated pressure
from the first shut-in straight line). The mud weight should be
Mud weight
8:3325546540
0:433
7:52 lb=gal (Eq. 123)
Thus the reported mud weight is correct.
. Formation permeability, k.
From the extrapolated MTR, line of the second shut-in to (tp _t)/_t 1
pi p_ 2550 psi
Using Eq. 127
k
162:6qo_o_o
m2h

162:6835:21:01:215
445:017
21:81mD from initial slope
k
162:6qo_o_o
m2h

162:6370:61:01:215
310:017
13:89mD from final slope
Final shut-in
q2 = 370.6
m2 = 310.0
k2 = 13.89 mD
s = 5.2
Initial shut-in
ql = 835.2 stb/day
ml = 445.0 psi/cycle
kl = 10.6 mD
s = 2.79
Final shut-in
Initial shut-in
Slope, m2 = 310 psi/cycle
Slope, ml = 455.0 psi/cycle
p* pi
100
10
1
0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
[ tp + t ]
Shut-in pressure in 1000, P
ws

(psi)
t

Figure 1213. Semilog Horner plot for data.

408 Oil Well Testing Handbook

In general k as determined from the initial shut-in could be different from

that determined from the final shut-in. This is because of the differences in
the radii of investigation.
. Skin factor and pressure drop due to skin from Eqs. 1210 and 1215:
s 1:151
p1hr _ pwf _t0
m
_ log
k
__octr2
w

__
log
tp 1

tp
__
3:23
__
1:151
"
1395 _ 371
445
_ log
10:6
0:16 _ 1 _ 8:00 _ 10_6 _ 0:332
!
log
3
2
__
3:23
#
1:1511:6900 _ 7:8884 0:1761 3:23 _2:79
_pskin 0:869 ms 0:869445_2:79 _1079 psi
. Initial reservoir pressure
pi ffi p_ 2550 psi
. Flow efficiency
Flow efficiency FE
pi _ pwf _ _pskin
_p _ pwf
(Eq. 1215a)

2550 _ 371 _ _1079

2550 _ 371
1:50
. Damage ratio
Damage ratio DR
1
FE

1
1:5
0:67 (Eq. 1212)
. Apparent wellbore radius
rwa rw e_s 0:33 e__2:79 5:37 ft
. Radius of investigation
ri
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k_tmax
948__oct
s

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffififfiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffiffiffiffiffiffi
10:6 _ 120=60
948 _ 0:16 _ 1 _ 8:0 _ 10_6
r
(Eq. 1218)
132 ft
Drill-Stem Testing Methods 409

Repeat Formation Tester

Applications
Multiple measurements of formation pressure with one trip
into well on wireline
Identification of permeable zones and estimates of
permeability

Reservoir fluid sampling

Description of repeat formation tester
Operation depicted schematically in Fig. 3
Tool is set, packer moves out on one side, and back-up
pistons move out on opposite side
Body of tool is held away from borehole wall to reduce
chances of differential sticking
Probe is inserted into formation; filter prevents sand entry
into tool
Pressures during flow (drawdown) and shutin periods can be
measured with pressure gauge
Fluid samples can be obtained in 1.0 and 2.75 gallon sample
chambers (typical sizes)
Pressures recorded during tester run illustrated in Fig. 4
Initial pressure is that of mud column
Pressure drops as flow is initiated
When pre-test sample chambers are full (time T2),
pressure builds up toward final shutin pressure
14 Drillstem and RFT Testing
NExT April 2000

Analysis of buildup data may yield permeability and

static reservoir pressure estimates
Hydrostatic mud pressures are again measured after tool
is retracted
Filter
Filter Probe
Mudcake
Packer
Filter Probe
Piston
Pressure Gauge
Chamber 1 (Slow Rate)
Chamber 2 (Fast Rate)
Pretest Chambers
Seal Valve
(To Upper
Sample Chamber)
Seal Valve
(To Lower
Sample Chamber)
Flow Line
Equalizing
Valve
(To Mud Column)

Fig. 3 - RFT pre-test and sampling schematic.

Drillstem and RFT Testing 15

NExT April 2000
ANALOG PRESSURE
RECORDING (psi)
0 10000
DIGITAL PRESSURE RECORDING
(psi)
TIME (MINUTES)
0 10000
0 1000
0 100
0 10
0
1
4
5
7000 80 9

HYDOSTATIC PRESSURE 7039 psi

FORMATION PRESSURE 6571 psi
6000 500 70 1
T1
p2 T2
t
p1

FLOW RATE

t0 q1 q2
t1
t2
SHUT IN

HYDOSTATIC PRESSURE 7039 psi

7000 0 30 9

Fig. 4 - Typical pressure recording during a pretest.

16 Drillstem and RFT Testing
NExT April 2000

Alternatives available in RFT assembly in addition to standard

packer/probe assembly:
Large Area Packer
For hard, tight formations
Has very large flow area into the probe
Large Diameter Probe
For low to medium porosity
For well-consolidated formations of low permeability
May also be considered for very high permeability rocks (>
1000 md) to avoid probe plugging
Fast-Acting Probe
For soft, unconsolidated formations where a good seal is
difficult to obtain
Probe advances rapidly into formation and reduces formation
collapse
Probe also responds instantly to slight collapse during
testing/sampling and moves deeper into the rock
Long-Nosed Probe
1-1/2 times longer than the standard probe
Penetrate deeper into soft formation
Unconsolidated rock improves chances of a good seal (an
alternative to the fast-acting probe)
Drillstem and RFT Testing 17
NExT April 2000

The Cased-Hole RFT

Uses a shaped-charge to perforate the casing
Used successfully in open-hole to test hard, tight formations
Perforation tunnel provides a large flow area

RFT Interpretation
Interpretation of RFT data are beyond the scope of this

session and, hence, no attempt is being made.

MDT Formation Testing from Basic PTA , Chapter-1 AKM,
11.8.2011

From Well logging book, page 220,

identification of contacts from RFT pressure data.
Exercise 2.2: Using Pressure Data :

The following plot may be generated:

220 Well Logging and Formation Evaluation
Form Press
600
5100 5150 5200 5250 5300
Pressure (psia)
Depth (m tvdss)
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
OWC-646
FWL-646
oil (0.85 g/cc)
water (1.02 g/

From Well logging book, page 44, identification of contacts

from RFT pressure data.
At this point it will probably be helpful if the distinction is explained
among FWL, FOL (free oil level), OWC, GWC (gas/water contact), and
GOC and how they are related in pressure measurements (see Figure 2.7.1).
44 Well Logging and Formation Evaluation
4950.00 4960.00 4970.00
2990
3000
3010
3020
3030
3040
Depth (mtvdss)
3050
3060
3070
3080
3090
5000.00
Form Press
GOC - 3047.5
OWC - 3059
FWL - 3063
water (1.05 g/cc)
oil (0.3 g/cc)
gas (0.1 g/cc)
4980.00 4990.00
Pressure (psia)

Figure 2.7.1 Example of Formation Pressure Plot

220 Well Logging and Formation Evaluation Exercise 2.2: Using Pressure Data Plot for determination of

OWC, to put.

Form Press
600
5100 5150 5200 5250 5300
Pressure (psia)
Depth (m tvdss)
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
OWC-646
FWL-646
oil (0.85 g/cc)
water (1.02 g/cc)