Well Testing PDF

Fundamentals of Well Test Design and Analysis, D. Bourdet and P.
Johnson 2001
www.opc.co.uk
BASIC WELL TEST DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

(5 Days)
FOR
BP EXPLORATION OPERATING COMPANY
COURSE NOTES
May 2001
BY
DOMINIQUE BOURDET AND PIERS JOHNSON

Fundamentals of Well Test Design and Analysis, D. Bourdet and P. Johnson 2001
www.opc.co.uk
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
2. FUNDAMENTALS OF WELL TESTING................................................................................................................. 9

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF A WELL TEST..................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................ 9
2.3 INPUT DATA REQUIRED FOR AND INFORMATION GAINED FROM WELL TESTING ........................................................ 11
3. AN OVERVIEW OF PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS.............................................................................. 15
3.1 BASIC EQUATIONS....................................................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 WELL TEST INTERPRETATION METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 16
3.3 TYPES OF WELL TESTS .............................................................................................................................................. 17
4. TYPICAL TEST PROCEDURE................................................................................................................................ 21
4.1 OPERATIONAL TIPS ..................................................................................................................................................... 21
5. FLOW STATES............................................................................................................................................................ 23
5.1 STEADY STATE............................................................................................................................................................ 23
5.2 PSEUDO-STEADY STATE ............................................................................................................................................. 23
5.3 TRANSIENT STATE ...................................................................................................................................................... 23
6. DARCYS LAW............................................................................................................................................................ 24
7. THE DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION AND ITS SOLUTIONS .................................................................................. 26

7.1 HYPOTHESES ............................................................................................................................................................... 26
7.2 DARCY'S LAW.............................................................................................................................................................. 26
7.3 PRINCIPLE OF CONSERVATION OF MASS (CONTINUITY EQUATION)............................................................................ 26
7.4 EQUATION OF STATE OF A CONSTANT COMPRESSIBILITY FLUID ................................................................................ 26
7.5 DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION .............................................................................................................................................. 27
7.6 DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION IN DIMENSIONLESS TERMS ................................................................................................... 27
8. RESERVOIR AND FLUID ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOLVING THE DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION .............. 29
8.1 THE LINE SOURCE SOLUTION ...................................................................................................................................... 29
8.2 SEMI-LOG APPROXIMATION : RADIAL FLOW REGIME ................................................................................................. 29
8.3 RADIUS OF INVESTIGATION......................................................................................................................................... 30
9. WELLBORE STORAGE............................................................................................................................................ 31
9.1 DEFINITION ................................................................................................................................................................. 31
9.2 CARTESIAN PLOT ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................ 32
9.3 ESTIMATING WELLBORE STORAGE FROM COMPLETION ............................................................................................. 33
10. SKIN ............................................................................................................................................................................... 35
10.1 DEFINITION.................................................................................................................................................................. 35
10.2 RADIAL FLOW REGIME ................................................................................................................................................ 36
10.3 SEMI-LOG EQUATION................................................................................................................................................... 37
11. SUPERPOSITION THEORY..................................................................................................................................... 39
11.1 MULTI RATE THEORY : TIME SUPERPOSITION ............................................................................................................. 39
11.2 IMAGE WELL THEORY TO MODEL BOUNDARIES : SPACE SUPERPOSITION ................................................................... 42
12. LOG LOG ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................................ 44
www.opc.co.uk
12.1 LOG-LOG SCALE .......................................................................................................................................................... 44

12.2 PRESSURE CURVES ANALYSIS : EXAMPLE OF "WELL WITH WELLBORE STORAGE AND SKIN, HOMOGENEOUS
RESERVOIR" ................................................................................................................................................................ 45
12.3 BUILD-UP ANALYSIS : BUILD-UP TYPE CURVE ............................................................................................................ 48
13. SEMI LOG ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................................... 50
13.1 M.D.H. ANALYSIS : P VS LOGT .............................................................................................................................. 50
13.2 HORNER ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................................................... 50
14. DERIVATIVE ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................................... 52
14.1 DEFINITION.................................................................................................................................................................. 52
14.2 DERIVATIVE TYPE-CURVE : EXAMPLE OF "WELL WITH WELLBORE STORAGE AND SKIN, HOMOGENEOUS
RESERVOIR" ................................................................................................................................................................ 52
14.3 DATA DIFFERENTIATION ............................................................................................................................................. 55
14.4 THE ANALYSIS SCALES ................................................................................................................................................ 56
15. PRINCIPAL FLOW REGIMES ................................................................................................................................ 58
15.1 RADIAL FLOW ............................................................................................................................................................. 58
15.2 LINEAR FLOW.............................................................................................................................................................. 59
15.3 BI-LINEAR FLOW ........................................................................................................................................................ 63
15.4 SPHERICAL FLOW ........................................................................................................................................................ 66
15.5 PSEUDO STEADY STATE............................................................................................................................................... 67
16. BOUNDARY THEORY .............................................................................................................................................. 68
16.1 ONE SEALING FAULT ................................................................................................................................................... 68
16.2 TWO PARALLEL SEALING FAULTS ............................................................................................................................... 70
16.3 TWO INTERSECTING SEALING FAULTS ........................................................................................................................ 77
16.4 CLOSED SYSTEM.......................................................................................................................................................... 81
16.5 CONSTANT PRESSURE BOUNDARIES............................................................................................................................ 88
16.6 SEMI PERMEABLE BOUNDARY..................................................................................................................................... 92
16.7 PREDICTING DERIVATIVE SHAPES ............................................................................................................................... 94
17. RESERVOIR PRESSURE .......................................................................................................................................... 96
17.1 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 96
17.2 APPLICATIONS OF RESERVOIR PRESSURE .................................................................................................................... 97
18. MOBILITY CHANGE THEORY ........................................................................................................................... 101
18.1 DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 101
18.2 RADIAL COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR................................................................................................................................. 102
18.3 LINEAR COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR ................................................................................................................................. 107
18.4 MULTICOMPOSITE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................................................... 109
19. PARTIAL PENETRATION THEORY .................................................................................................................. 110
19.1 DEFINITION................................................................................................................................................................ 110
19.2 CHARACTERISTIC FLOW REGIMES ............................................................................................................................. 110
19.3 LOG-LOG ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................. 111
19.4 SEMI-LOG ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................. 112
19.5 GEOMETRICAL SKIN SPP ........................................................................................................................................... 112
19.6 SPHERICAL FLOW ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................... 113
20. HYDRAULIC FRACTURE THEORY................................................................................................................... 115
20.1 INFINITE CONDUCTIVITY OR UNIFORM FLUX VERTICAL FRACTURE ......................................................................... 115
20.2 FINITE CONDUCTIVITY VERTICAL FRACTURE ........................................................................................................... 117
21. HORIZONTAL WELL THEORY .......................................................................................................................... 119
www.opc.co.uk
21.1 DEFINITION................................................................................................................................................................ 119

21.2 CHARACTERISTIC FLOW REGIMES ............................................................................................................................. 120
21.3 LOG-LOG ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................. 120
21.4 VERTICAL RADIAL FLOW SEMI-LOG ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 122
21.5 LINEAR FLOW ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... 123
21.6 HORIZONTAL PSEUDO-RADIAL FLOW SEMI-LOG ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 124
21.7 DISCUSSION OF THE HORIZONTAL WELL MODEL ...................................................................................................... 126
21.8 OTHER HORIZONTAL WELL MODELS ......................................................................................................................... 132
22. SKIN FACTORS ........................................................................................................................................................ 136
22.1 THE DIFFERENT SKIN FACTORS ................................................................................................................................. 136
22.2 GEOMETRICAL SKIN .................................................................................................................................................. 136
22.3 ANISOTROPY PSEUDO-SKIN....................................................................................................................................... 137
23. PERFORMING A TEST DESIGN.......................................................................................................................... 138
23.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................... 138
23.2 HARDWARE ............................................................................................................................................................... 139
23.3 GAUGES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 139
23.4 PRESSURE RESPONSE ................................................................................................................................................ 140
23.5 AN EXAMPLE TEST DESIGN....................................................................................................................................... 142
24. GAS WELL TESTING .............................................................................................................................................. 145
24.1 GAS PROPERTIES ....................................................................................................................................................... 145
24.2 TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF GAS WELL TESTS .............................................................................................................. 146
24.3 DELIVERABILITY TESTS............................................................................................................................................. 150
24.4 ODEH-JONES ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................ 155
25. FISSURED RESERVOIRS....................................................................................................................................... 159
25.1 PRESSURE PROFILE .................................................................................................................................................... 159
25.2 DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 161
25.3 DOUBLE POROSITY BEHAVIOR, RESTRICTED INTERPOROSITY FLOW (PSEUDO-STEADY STATE INTERPOROSITY
FLOW). ....................................................................................................................................................................... 164
25.4 DOUBLE POROSITY BEHAVIOR, UNRESTRICTED INTERPOROSITY FLOW (TRANSIENT INTERPOROSITY FLOW)......... 178
25.5 MATRIX SKIN............................................................................................................................................................. 184
25.6 EXAMPLES OF COMPLEX HETEROGENEOUS RESPONSES ........................................................................................... 186
26. FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST ANALYSIS.................................................................................. 188
26.1 RATE HISTORY DEFINITION ....................................................................................................................................... 189
26.2 ERROR OF START OF THE PERIOD .............................................................................................................................. 190
26.3 TIME ERROR CORRECTION........................................................................................................................................ 193
26.4 CHANGING WELLBORE STORAGE............................................................................................................................. 194
26.5 TWO PHASES LIQUID LEVEL ...................................................................................................................................... 195
26.6 PRESSURE GAUGE DRIFT ........................................................................................................................................... 197
26.7 PRESSURE GAUGE NOISE ........................................................................................................................................... 199
27. WELL TESTING HARDWARE ............................................................................................................................. 200
27.1 SURFACE TEST EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 200
27.2 SUBSEA EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................................................................. 210
27.3 PRESSURE MEASUREMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 211
27.4 DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 212
27.5 QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS .................................................................................................................................... 215
27.6 SAMPLING ................................................................................................................................................................. 216
27.7 SAFETY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 218
27.8 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES .......................................................................................................................................... 220
www.opc.co.uk
28. INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE, REPORTS AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS.......................... 222

28.1 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................ 223
28.2 THE DIAGNOSIS : TYPICAL PRESSURE AND DERIVATIVE SHAPES .............................................................................. 225
28.3 SUMMARY OF USUAL LOG-LOG RESPONSES .............................................................................................................. 227
28.4 CONSISTENCY CHECK WITH THE TEST HISTORY SIMULATION .................................................................................. 231
29. APPENDICES............................................................................................................................................................. 237
29.1 NOMENCLATURE ....................................................................................................................................................... 237
29.2 LIQUID TO GAS CONVERSION CHART ........................................................................................................................ 241
29.3 FLARING FLOW CHART ............................................................................................................................................. 242
29.4 TESTING FLOW CHART .............................................................................................................................................. 243
www.opc.co.uk
OVERVIEW
This intensive course teaches participants how to design and analyse pressure transient
tests, for both oil and gas, commonly used by the petroleum industry. Participants are
taught how to properly design tests to achieve specific objectives and how to use both
classical and interactive computer analysis methods (PIE) to analyse data. The course
covers both pressure transient theory and the practical aspects of well testing, including the
equipment employed, using both lecture and problem sessions.
OBJECTIVES
Participants will:
Be able to design and analyse well tests with classical and software tools
Gain experience with real test data sets
Learn about the equipment used for well testing
Become aware of the implications of accurate planning
Appreciate how the theory can affect the practical aspects of testing and interpretation.
Acknowledgements are due to Mike Wilson of Well Test Solutions Ltd., for his support in
the preparation of these notes and his permission to include examples generated in PIE, the
well test interpretation software package.
www.opc.co.uk
1. INTRODUCTION
The pressure behaviour of a well can be easily measured and is extremely useful in
analysing and predicting reservoir performance or diagnosing the condition of a well.
Various instruments to measure flowing and static pressures in oil and gas wells have been
in use since the 1920's. The recording devices that have been used include mechanical, (the
Borden tube which records via a stylus mark on a blackened metal sheet), sonic
(echometers which measure liquid levels) and electronic instrumentation (which measure
pressure and temperature). Continuous recording instruments, such as the Amerada
gauge, have been available since the early 1930's. Today the preferred instrument is the
electronic (memory) gauge.
One of the earliest applications of bottom-hole pressure measurements in wells was the
determination of static or average reservoir pressures from the bottom-hole pressure
measured after a well had been shut-in for between 24 and 72 hours. Although this static
measurement indicated the average formation pressure in the permeable and productive
reservoir it soon became apparent to engineers that static pressure measurements
depended considerably on the time for which the well had been shut-in. Thus, the lower
the permeability, the longer the time required for pressure stabilisation in the well. This
lead to the realisation that when a well was shut-in, the rate of the pressure build-up would
be a reflection of the reservoir permeability around the well.
Since a well test and subsequent pressure transient analysis is the most powerful tool
available to the reservoir engineer for determining reservoir characteristics and planning
production schedules, the subject of well test analysis has attracted considerable attention.
Petroleum Engineering literature alone includes more than 500 published technical papers
on this subject whilst the field of ground water hydrology also contains a similar number of
publications on pump test analysis. A well test is the only method available to the reservoir
engineer for examining the dynamic response in the reservoir and considerable information
can be gained from a well test. Therefore, well testing is a subject which should be
considered seriously.
After static pressure measurements, the most common methods of transient (time
dependant) pressure analysis required that data points be selected such that they fell on a
well-defined straight line on either semi-logarithmic or cartesian graph paper. The well test
analyst must then insure that the proper straight line has been chosen if more than one line
can be drawn through the plotted data. This aspect of interpretation of well test data
requires the input of a reservoir engineer. Equally important is the design of a well test to
ensure that the duration and format of the test is such that it produces good quality data
for analysis.
www.opc.co.uk
With the advent of powerful desktop computers and software, analysis of transient well
test pressure data took another step forward with the introduction of type curve analysis.
The computer can perform large numbers of calculations necessary to generate a type curve
which is specific to the reservoir itself and also takes into account many different flow
periods which not all straight line analysis did. This eliminates generalisations but still
requires interpretation of the data set which the reservoir engineer must perform. This is
considered to be the best and most efficient method of well test analysis currently available.
The results obtained from transient pressure analysis are used to set up numerical
simulation models for predicting future production and to assist in making estimates of the
Hydrocarbons Originally in place. Both explicitly compelling reasons to carry out well
tests.
It should also be noted that all units within these course notes where not clearly stated are
oilfield units which means psi, feet, Barrels etc rather than S.I. Units.
www.opc.co.uk
2. FUNDAMENTALS OF WELL TESTING
2.1 Description of a Well Test
A Well Test is the examination of the transient behaviour of a porous reservoir as the result
of a temporary change in production conditions performed while measuring all the
relevant parameters. It is usually performed over a relatively short period of time in
comparison to the producing life of a field.
2.2 Terminology and Definitions
Drawdown/Injection period
The drawdown can be both the part of the test when the well is flowing (fluid extracted
from the reservoir) and a value represented by the difference in pressure between the initial
static reservoir pressure and the flowing bottom hole pressure. The injection period is the
opposite of a drawdown in that fluid is injected into the reservoir creating an increase of
pressure in the near well bore area and the reservoir.
Build up/Fall off
The build up can be both the part of the test when the well is shut in (not flowing) and a
value represented by the difference in the pressure measured at any time during the build
up and the final flowing pressure. A fall off is the time after the ending of an injection
period where the pressure falls. In both cases the flow rate is known to be zero.
Perforating
This is the activity of making holes in the casing and/or reservoir so that there is
communication between the reservoir and the well bore. This is usually achieved by
detonating explosives when the perforating guns are known to be at the correct perforating
depth. If the pressure in the wellbore prior to perforating is less than the reservoir pressure,
this is known as underbalanced perforating. This can have the effect of improving well
productivity by allowing the perforations to flow immediately after perforating reducing
the skin (see below for definition). When the pressure in the well is greater than in the
reservoir, this is overbalanced perforating. Underbalanced perforating is preferred
whenever practical and safe and is widely used today. It can also be useful to replace the
drilling mud with specialised completions fluids (brine, diesel, base oil for example) to
improve well productivity on perforating.
Well Bore Storage

www.opc.co.uk
Wellbore storage is an early transient phenomenon whose effect decays in time and occurs
every time a rate change takes place. Usually the well rate is controlled at the surface by
means of a valve or choke. When the valve or choke is opened, wellbore fluids are initially
produced at the wellhead while production at the perforations remains zero. During this
early time period the wellbore is said to be unloading or decompressing. Eventually, the
perforations will also start to produce and in time equal the production at the wellhead.
During constant production, wellbore storage effects are negligible. At the point of shut-in,
wellbore storage is referred to as afterflow. Whilst the rate at the wellhead is zero,
production at the perforations continues, gradually decaying to zero. Well bore storage is
expressed in units of volume per unit of pressure, barrels per psi, with the nomenclature of
C.
Skin
This is a dimensionless value attributed to the near well bore damage or stimulation.
Reservoir permeability in the near wellbore area is frequently altered as a result of drilling,
production, or stimulation of the well. For example, the invasion of drilling fluids, or
migration of fines during production tends to lower the permeability in the near wellbore
region. The well is subsequently referred to as damaged under these circumstances and
this is represented by a positive skin value. Conversely, stimulation treatments such as
acidizing or fracturing may create an increase in the near wellbore permeability relative to
the overall reservoir permeability. This is summarised below;
Skin > 0 Damaged

Skin = 0 Neutral
Skin < 0 Stimulated (not usually less than -5)
The value is dimensionless and is represented by the letter S.
Permeability
Permeability is a measure of the ability of a porous rock to transport a fluid through it and
is measured, usually, in Darcys, D, or millidarcies, mD. Its units are L2.
Porosity
Porosity is the amount of void (space) in a porous rock measured as a percentage of the
whole rock.
Mobility
www.opc.co.uk
Mobility is the combination of the ability of a rock to transport a certain fluid through it
given a fluids viscosity and is permeability divided by viscosity, k/.
Partial Penetration
This describes a well completion where only part of the total permeable formation is
perforated or communicating with the well.
Hydraulic Fractures
These are, usually, purposefully induced cracks in the formation rock which allows a much
greater wellbore contact with the formation and should not be confused with Natural
fractures explained below.
Natural Fractures (or Double Porosity)
This is where naturally occurring fractures in the formation rock exist meaning there are
two different porosities, one for the fractures and one for the rock between the fractures. In
order for this effect to be observed in transient test analysis, the difference in the two
porosities must be significant, generally an order of magnitude.
Radius of Investigation.
When a change of flow rate occurs in a well, ie, initial flow, a change in the reservoir
pressure from its initial undisturbed state is created. Over time this pressure disturbance
propagates further away from the wellbore. The radius of investigation is defined as the
distance that a significant pressure disturbance has propagated away from the well. The
mathematical description is given in section 8.3.
2.3 Input data required for and Information gained from well testing
The fundamental role of the reservoir engineer is to produce oil and gas reservoirs having
determined the characteristics of the in-place fluids and the reservoir. In general, the
characteristics are listed below and it should be noted that whilst the first four parameters
are used to estimate the amount of hydrocarbons in place the reservoir permeability
establishes the ability of the fluids in place to flow through the reservoir:
a) Net pay.
b) Porosity.
c) Reservoir description;
www.opc.co.uk
- Lateral extent,
- Shape,
- Heterogeneities,
- Boundaries.
d) Average reservoir pressure (static pressure) and temperature.
e) Formation permeability given net pay.
In practice net pay, porosity and the reservoir description are derived from the geological
interpretation of core data, log data and geophysical surveys.
Pressure transient tests are generally conducted to determine the average reservoir
pressure, the effectiveness of the well completion (determining a value of skin - see below),
the well productivity/deliverability, distances to boundaries and permeability of the
reservoir volume drained by the well. It should also be noted that pressure transient tests
can be designed to estimate the size and shape of the drainage volume. Other reasons for
testing may be to determine the nature of the produced fluids, production problems, to
clean up the well for production, the maximum possible flow rate, and connectivity in the
reservoir.
For any well production (or injection) usually takes place via the drilled wellbore hence the
conditions prevailing around the wellbore are of particular interest particularly if the sand
face may be damaged during drilling or as a result of production operations. Quantitative
information gained from a welltest, therefore, enables the reservoir engineer to determine
whether or not low productivity in a well is due to damage, low formation permeability, or
a low driving force for moving fluid to the well.
Similarly if a well has been stimulated to remove formation damage the success of the
operation can be evaluated hence the reservoir engineer can make practical decisions
regarding future well stimulation treatments and/or operating practices. Thus it can be
said that a pressure transient test is a fluid flow experiment used to determine one or more
of the reservoir characteristics and properties mentioned above.
Input Data Required
To perform a test analysis a considerable amount of information is required. The following

list summarises this to perform an interpretation of a single pressure test. a) through g) are
mandatory while h) and i) are optional.
a) The well production rates as a function of time.

www.opc.co.uk
b) The bottom-hole pressure as a function of time.
c) The wellbore configuration;
- completion report.
- string diagram.
- gauge depths.
d) A documented test history including;
- a complete sequence of events.

- any operational problems.
e) Well data
- drilled v true depths if well not vertical.

- direction and length of horizontal or inclined sections relative to reservoir
boundaries or discontinuities.
Well bore radius (drill bit size not casing size)
f) Rock and fluid properties
Net pay (formation thickness, h)

Porosity
Water Saturation
Oil viscosity
Water compressibility*
Oil compressibility*
Rock compressibility*
g) Geological interpretation of the reservoir extent and likely formation

characteristics.
General information obtained from Geologists and Geophysicists
h) Production logs (optional but recommended with large h)
To determine Producing intervals.
i) Gradient surveys (optional but recommended) to confirm;
- Static fluids levels and fluid contacts/interfaces

- Static fluid densities.
www.opc.co.uk
* Individual compressibilities can be combined and represented by Total Compressibility

of the reservoir.
Whenever possible, the above data should be obtained prior to performing the test and
used to run a test design to examine the theoretical response for the planned test. Failing to
plan the test is planning to fail.
For exploration well testing where test parameters may not be readily available, Robert C
Earloughers SPE Monograph Advances in Well Test Analysis has an appendix in which
many of the above parameters can be derived from correlations.
Why perform well tests?
A large amount of information can be gained from performing well tests. A non exhaustive
list of this information follows;
Well Tests (Transient Pressure Tests) are performed to Determine:
Nature of produced fluids.

Rates of produced fluids.
Reservoir and well characteristics.
Location of reservoir limits (or not).
Well deliverability (drawdown/rates).
Sand production (if any).
Maximum rate.
Hydrocarbons in place.
Well connectivity (interference tests).
Reservoir layers.
Production characteristics and any production problems.
The long term productivity from a short term test operation.
When well tests can derive such a large amount of information it should be evident that
Well Testing is a valuable tool to the reservoir engineer. Therefore:
PERFORM WELL TESTS WHENEVER POSSIBLE

www.opc.co.uk
3. AN OVERVIEW OF PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS
3.1 Basic equations
Transient pressure analysis models are solutions to the diffusivity equation obtained by a
combination of Darcys law and various hypotheses for the fluid in the reservoir.
When it is assumed that the fluid density remains constant and that the flow is through a
horizontal linear porous medium then Darcys law can be expressed as follows;
kA p
q= (Eq. 3-1)
l
where,
q is the flow rate

k is the permeability of the porous medium,
A is the area available to flow,
is the viscosity of the fluid flowing through the porous medium,
l is the length of porous medium through which the flow is transported.
P is the pressure drop over the length l
For radial flow, which is flow in a hydrocarbon reservoir into a well bore, Equation 3.1
becomes;
kh dp
q = 2 (Eq. 3-2)
dr
which, after separating the variables, integrating with respect to r from well bore, rw to the
effective radius of investigation, re, introducing an equation for skin by van Everdingen and
expressing the equation in field units the equation becomes;
qB re
pe p wf = 1412
. ln + S (Eq. 3-3)
kh rw
In summary, for radial flow into a well bore, the pressure difference (drawdown) is directly
proportional to the following parameters;
Flow rate
www.opc.co.uk
Viscosity
Formation volume factor
Permeability
formation thickness
well bore radius (limited effect because of the ln term)
skin
The application of Darcys Law and the different solutions to the diffusivity equation will
be explained in more detail later in this text.
References: L.P Dake, Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Chapter 4, sections 4.1 to 4.7
3.2 Well Test Interpretation Methodology
Well test interpretation can be simplified if it is considered as a special pattern recognition

problem. This concept is illustrated by the following schematic;
INPUT(I) SYSTEM (S) OUTPUT (O)
Thus, the problem is to define the system when knowing the output for a given input. In a
well test, a known constant signal, I (a constant production rate) is applied to a system, S
(the well and reservoir) and the response of that system, O, (the change in bottom hole
pressure) is measured.
The aim of well test interpretation is, therefore, to identify and characterise the system
knowing only the input and output signals. This is called the INVERSE PROBLEM where;
O / I ----> S
The solution to this problem involves the selection of a well defined theoretical model
where output for the same input signal is as close as possible to that of the actual reservoir.
Hence, the construction of the model response involves the DIRECT PROBLEM where;
I * S ----> O
www.opc.co.uk
Interpretation therefore relies on theoretical models which are assumed to have

characteristics which are representative of those of the actual well and reservoir. The
solution to the inverse problem is not unique but the number of possibilities decreases as
the number of output responses increases and measurements become more accurate.
The aim of well testing is to evaluate the well and reservoir system under dynamic
conditions. The interpretation of measured data combined with reservoir engineering
expertise results in the production of a reservoir model. The reservoir model subsequently
enables the prediction of field production in terms of production rate and fluid recovery.
Together with economic considerations, the reservoir model can be used to formulate a
development strategy. Having determined the development strategy, the production
facilities and completion can then be optimised accordingly.
3.3 Types of Well Tests
Throughout this course a number of different tests will be considered and discussed. The
following sections illustrate the wide variety of tests available to the reservoir engineer.
Classification by Completion
Production Test
The well is completed as a production well in cased hole hence the well completion is
permanent, even though it may be pulled out of the well on completion of the test.
Production tests are generally carried out on initially completing development wells to
define reservoir parameters and then routinely run as part of the reservoir management
strategy.
DST (Drill Stem Test)
In a DST, the well is completed temporarily with down-hole control provided by

conventional DST tools. This type of completion can be used in cased or in open hole, and
is usually associated with exploration and appraisal wells where the aim of the test is to
determine as many reservoir parameters as practically possible or to confirm the
observations of previous tests on other exploration wells. Drill Stem tests are so called
because originally the drill string (drill pipe) was used as the production string. This is now
considered unsafe in all parts of the world and production tubing is employed.
High Pressure High Temperature Tests

www.opc.co.uk
These tests are classified separately since the pressures and temperatures encountered give
rise to special considerations. However, permanent production equipment is usually used
and in all other ways the test will be similar to a production test.
Classification by Test Procedure
Pressure build-up
Pressure build-up tests are performed with the well is shut in and not flowing. In all cases
a build up is recommended. The well must be flowing, ideally at a constant rate, before the
well is shut-in and the rise in bottom-hole pressure recorded. Almost without exception, a
build up will produce better quality pressure data than a drawdown.
Besides the issue of data quality which in itself is important, the other compelling reason a
build up is used is that it is the only time in a well test when the flow rate is categorically
known without any margin of error. It is always zero.
Pressure drawdown
In a pressure drawdown test the well is shut-in prior to commencing the test so that
pressure can equalise throughout the formation. Having run pressure measuring
equipment into the wellbore the flowing pressure is recorded as the well is produced at a
nominal constant rate. Data quality can be erratic but with good data and a constant rate,
drawdowns can be used to derive drainage areas as well as to derive reservoir properties
by normal type curve analysis.
Injection
Injection tests are usually only performed to determine maximum sustainable injection
rates for reservoir injection projects or stimulation operations. In practice injection tests are
normally followed by fall-off tests. Note that drawdown and injectivity tests are not
popular as it is frequently not possible to hold the rate at a constant level throughout the
test period. These tests can be analysed, as a stand alone test or as part of a subsequent
production test/DST, in a similar way to any other test, by making the production rate
negative.
Pressure fall-off
Pressure fall-off tests, which are similar to build-up tests in that the production rate is zero,
follow injection tests. Ideally the injection rate is stabilised and held constant for a pre-
determined duration prior to ceasing injection. The decline in the bottom-hole pressure is
then recorded as the reservoir pressure stabilises.
www.opc.co.uk
Step-rate
Step rate tests involve flowing the well at different rates. The main advantage of these tests
is that the well is not shut-in between rates saving time. Flowing the well at different rates
helps establish production characteristics from low to high rates for future reference and to
determine rate dependant phenomena. (See gas well testing below)
Gas well testing
In gas wells special tests are used to determine the rate dependent skin factor and the
Absolute Open Flow (AOF) potential of the wells tested. Some of the most common tests
encountered are;
i) Flow after flow (FAF) and multi-rate tests.
ii) Isochronal tests.
iii) Modified Isochronal tests.
Whilst the flow after flow test can be conducted without shutting-in the well thus saving
time, the isochronal and modified isochronal test sequences require the well to be shut-in
between different flow rates. In an isochronal test the well is shut-in after each flow period
until the previous shut-in pressure is reached, (ie, all flow and build-up periods may be
different). For the modified isochronal test all flow and build-up periods are equal in
duration except for the final stabilised flow. Generally, it has been found that isochronal
tests (of both types) produce better results and more build ups for analysis and a modified
isochronal test takes less time and is therefore popular with financial managers.
Interference and Pulse Tests
Interference and Pulse tests are used primarily to define reservoir rather than individual
well characteristics. They are commonly used to evaluate communication between wells
completed in the same formations and are therefore excellent for determining average
reservoir perrmeabilities between wells. A typical test would involve the measurement of
the pressure response at a shut-in observation well or wells due to a rate change
(interference test) or a series of rate changes (pulse test) at another well. In vertical
interference tests the test is designed to evaluate communication between different
formations in the same well, where the same formation is encountered at different depths
or is vertically displaced in a faulted reservoir.
Classification by Operational phase

www.opc.co.uk
Exploration
The initial exploration phase of drilling a well into a structure about which nothing is
known other than from geological and seismic data (sometimes referred to as a wildcat)
carries the most risk of not being tested. If hydrocarbons are identified from mud logs and
electric logs and a test is performed, these are usually the simplest and shortest. The
primary aim will be to confirm the presence and nature of hydrocarbons, take a some
samples of the produced fluids, obtain an indication of the flow rates and to determine a
value of permeability and skin. Historically, wildcat wells have had approximately a one in
ten chance of finding commercial hydrocarbons. This ratio is lower in known hydrocarbon
provinces, such as the North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico, perhaps one in eight. Usually the
transient solution to the diffusivity equation is employed for this type of testing where the
limits of the reservoir are not encountered by the pressure transient.
Appraisal
Once the presence of hydrocarbons has been confirmed from an exploration well test, the
structure is appraised by drilling further wells to examine the extent of the hydrocarbons.
Appraisal well tests will usually be designed specifically to clarify any structure/reservoir
uncertainty such as the limit of the reservoir or changes in fluid phases across the structure
(as may happen in a large gas condensate field).
Development
At the field development phase, the well may not even be tested or it may be completed,
cleaned up and suspended for future production. Only if something unexpected is found
from drilling or logging is the well fully tested.
www.opc.co.uk
4. TYPICAL TEST PROCEDURE
For any test, drawdown or build-up the following procedures should be incorporated into
the test programme;
a) Prepare the well. This can mean running casing, changing the completion fluid from
mud to brine, which can allow the annular pressure operated downhole tools to operate
more reliably, or place a plug or cement in the well.
b) Run a bottom-hole pressure gauge and a completion in the well. Ideally the gauges
should be located opposite or below the perforations and below any fluid contacts in
the wellbore.
c) Produce the well (ideally at a constant rate or rates) for some period of time, tp, (hours).
d) During the flow period measure the relevant parameters, determine produced fluid
properties and take PVT samples. Take some samples early in the test in case of
subsequent problems.
e) Shut the well in and monitor the bottom-hole pressure response if surface read-out is
available. When using downhole shut-in tools monitor the wellhead pressure (which
should not be bled down to zero) response to ensure that the well is shut-in and
remains shut-in throughout the test.
f) Make well safe to allow retrieval of gauges and completion if applicable.
g) Retrieve gauges and validate data before terminating operations. Repeat test if data
quality is poor or corrupt.
h) Proceed with interpretation.
4.1 Operational Tips
Pressure test everything on site.
Ensure sufficient fixed chokes are available, usually from 16/64 to 1 every 4/64 and
always flow for long periods of time after clean up on a fixed choke. Examine adjustable
choke tip and zero before each test.
Ensure sufficient orifice plates are available for the Daniel meter.
www.opc.co.uk
Calibrate the measuring instruments on the separator; liquid meters with pumps and tank,
Barton with Dead Weight Tester and calibrated air supply.
Verify the separators safety valve certification and all equipment certification if applicable.
Ensure remote ignition system of burners works if offshore.
Ensure burner booms are hung and rigged correctly to avoid problems during adverse
weather conditions.
Record high and low tides throughout the test.
Record every pressure cycle of the annulus if using annular operated downhole tools.
Do not move or hit anything connected to the well during the build up as long as all is well.
Check policy on opening the well in the dark and encountering H2S prior to commencing
operations.
Make friends with the Chef. You may miss regular meals when testing so it is useful to
have an ally in the galley!
www.opc.co.uk
5. FLOW STATES
For pressure transient analysis the governing flow equation, referred to as the diffusivity
equation, expressed in cartesian coordinates is:
kx p
2
k y 2 p kz p
2
p
+ + = ct
x 2
y 2
z 2
t (Eq. 5-1)
Only the following flow states, as solutions to the above equation, are considered in
common well test interpretation theory and in this material.
5.1 Steady State
The time derivative is assumed to be equal to zero, ie:
p
= 0
t (Eq. 5-2)
This means the pressure in the reservoir never changes with time and occurs when a
constant pressure boundary exists at some distance from the well.
5.2 Pseudo-steady State
The time derivative in Equation 5.1 is a constant, ie:
p
= constant
t (Eq. 5-3)
This means that the pressure is changing constantly with time and the value of the constant
depends on the reservoir. In other words, all boundaries have been encountered and the
reservoir is depleting.
5.3 Transient State
The time derivative is expressed as a function of time and space, ie:

www.opc.co.uk
p
= f (x, y,z,t)
t (Eq. 5-4)
This state is most frequently encountered in exploration pressure transient testing.

However, as the radius of investigation increases with time Pseudo-steady state may be
observed if the radius of investigation reaches the outer boundaries.
6. DARCYS LAW
Darcy's law expresses the rate through a sample of porous medium as a function of the
pressure drop between the two ends of the sample.
q
A
dp / dl
Figure .6-16-2 : Rate through a sample.
q k dp
=V = (Eq. 6-1)
A dl
With :
q : volumetric rate
A : cross sectional area of the sample
V : flow velocity
k : permeability of the porous medium
: viscosity of the fluid
The flow velocity V is proportional to the mobility k/ and to the pressure gradient dp/dl.
In case of radial flow, the Darcy's law is expressed :
q k dp
=V = (Eq. 6-2)
2rh dr
www.opc.co.uk
q q
re rw
Figure 6-3 : Radial flow.
For steady state flow condition, the pressure difference between the external and the
internal cylinders is :
q re
pe pw = ln (Eq. 6-3)
2 kh rw
The relationship is used in the definition of the dimensionless pressure.

www.opc.co.uk
7. THE DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION AND ITS SOLUTIONS
7.1 Hypotheses
Constant properties : k, , and the system compressibility.
Pressure gradients are low.
The formation is not compressible and saturated with fluid.
7.2 Darcy's law

k
V= grad p (Eq. 7-1)

7.3 Principle of conservation of mass (continuity equation)

The difference between the mass flow rate in, and the mass flow rate out the element,
defines the amount of mass change in the element during the time dt.

div V = (Eq. 7-2)
t
m
The density = is used.
v
7.4 Equation of state of a constant compressibility fluid

The compressibility, defined as the relative change of fluid volume, is expressed with the
density :
1 v 1
c= = (Eq. 7-3)
v p p
With a constant compressibility, the fluid equation of state is :
ct p p0
= 0e (Eq. 7-4)
www.opc.co.uk
For a liquid flow in a porous medium, the total system compressibility ct is attributed to an
equivalent fluid :
ct = co So + cw S w + c f (Eq. 7-5)
7.5 Diffusivity equation

Combining the three equations:
k p
div grad p = = ct (Eq. 7-6)
t t
In radial coordinates, and with the condition of low pressure gradients defined with the
( )
2
p
approximation 0 it comes,
r
p
r

1 r ct p
div grad p = = 2 p = (Eq. 7-7)
r r k t
k
The ratio is called hydraulic diffusivity.
ct
7.6 Diffusivity equation in dimensionless terms

(U.S. oil field system of units)
The dimensionless pressure is given by;
kh
pD = p (Eq. 7-8)
141. 2 qB
with the dimensionless time given as;

www.opc.co.uk
0. 000264 k
tD = t (Eq. 7-9)
ct rw2
and the dimensionless radius
r
rD = (Eq. 7-10)
rw
The diffusivity equation in dimensionless terms becomes:
pD
rD
1 rD pD
= 2 pD = (Eq. 7-11)
rD rD tD
www.opc.co.uk
8. RESERVOIR AND FLUID ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOLVING THE

DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION
8.1 The line source solution
Initial condition : the reservoir is at initial pressure.
pD = 0 at tD < 0 (Eq. 8-1)
Well condition : the rate is constant, the well is a "line source".
pD
Lim rD = 1 (Eq. 8-2)
r0 rD
Outer condition : the reservoir is infinite.
Lim pD = 0 (Eq. 8-3)

r
The solution is called Exponential Integral.
1 rD2
p D ( t D , rD ) = Ei (Eq. 8-4)
2 4t D

e u
Ei( x ) = du (Eq. 8-5)
x
u
8.2 Semi-log approximation : radial flow regime
The Exponential Integral can be approximated with a log.
For x < 0.01, Ei( x ) = ln( x )

www.opc.co.uk
with = 1.78 : Euler's constant
p D (t D , rD ) =
1
2
[ ( )
ln t D rD2 + 0.809 ] (Eq. 8-6)
p(r,t) log(r)
ri1
pi
ri2
t1
pw1
t2
pw2
Figure 8-1 : Pressure profile versus the log of the distance to the well.
8.3 Radius of investigation
The radius of investigation ri is in general defined with one of the two relationships;
1 1
t D riD2 = or t D riD2 = . (Eq. 8-7)
4 2
This gives respectively,
ri = 0. 032 kt ct (Eq. 8-8)
and
ri = 0. 029 kt ct (Eq. 8-9)
Time is given in hours, porosity as a decimal and radius of investigation is in feet. Note
also that the radius of investigation is independent of the rate.
www.opc.co.uk
9. WELLBORE STORAGE
9.1 Definition
The production at surface is due to the expansion of the fluid in the wellbore. The reservoir
contribution is negligible.
"
rw
r
pi
pw
Figure 9-1 : Wellbore storage effect. Pressure profile.
During constant production, wellbore storage effects are negligible. At the point of shut-in,
wellbore storage is referred to as afterflow. Whilst the rate at the wellhead is zero,
production at the perforations continues gradually decaying to zero. Wellbore storage is
defined as the difference between the sandface and wellhead rates and is assumed to be
proportional to the wellbore storage constant, C, ie:
www.opc.co.uk
Pressure, p
Rate, q
q surface
q sand face
Time, t
Figure 9-2 : Wellbore storage effect. Sand face and surface rates.
24 C dp w
q sf q = (Eq. 9-1)
B dt
where
qsf = the flow rate at the sand face
q = the flow rate at the surface
B = the formation volume factor
dpw = the change in downhole pressure after the rate change
dt = the time after rate change
9.2 Cartesian plot analysis
Wellbore storage effects dominate the pressure transient response at early time
independent of the reservoir characteristics. It is possible to estimate a value of well bore
storage, C, during this early time period from or a cartesian plot. Assuming that a well has
just been put on production then the sand face rate, qsf, will initially be zero until it
stabilises at the constant surface rate, q. Substituting these conditions into equation 9.1
gives:
qBt
p = (Eq. 9-2)
24 C
Equation 9.2 above indicates that the wellbore pressure response is linear with time at early
time, after a rate change when wellbore storage effects are dominant. A cartesian plot of
the early time data will exhibit a straight line which passes through the origin.
www.opc.co.uk
Dp
mWBS
0 Dt
Figure 9-3 : Well Bore Storage plot (Cartesian)
For the above cartesian plot of t versus p and equation 9.2 the slope of the gradient of the
early time data, mWBS,which falls on a straight line will be given as follows;
qB
mWBS = (Eq. 9-3)
24 C
from which the well bore storage constant can be derived with knowledge of the other
parameters.
9.3 Estimating wellbore storage from completion
An estimate of well bore storage can be made from the volume of the completion and the
compressibility of the fluid as follows;
C = Vw c (Eq. 9-5)
where;
C is the well bore storage constant

Vw is the well bore volume and
c is the compressibility of the fluid in the well bore.
This method is not as accurate as deriving the well bore storage from the plots described
above since the compressibility of the fluid in the well bore will change with pressure
www.opc.co.uk
(which changes with time), particularly with gas. It does, however, allow the engineer to
make a first estimate.
Typically, values of well bore storage are less than 1 bbl/psi for both oil and gas and for a
downhole shut in, which reduces the compressible well bore volume significantly, values
can be as low as 10-3 bbl/psi or less. It is desirable to minimise the well bore storage to
eliminate the risk of masking, or hiding, reservoir effects and also to reduce the amount of
time required to carry out the test.
In order to minimise these effects, the gauge measuring the downhole pressure should be
placed as near to the reservoir as possible and a downhole shut in employed.
The above theory is applicable for wells which are filled completely. When the well bore is
only partially filled and the liquid level is changing, the well bore storage constant C, is
given by the following equation;
Vu
C= (Eq. 9-4)
g
144 g c
where
Vu is the well bore volume per unit length in barrels

is the fluid density
g is the acceleration due to gravity ft/sec2and
gc is a units conversion factor 32.17 lbmft/lbfsec2
Reference: SPE Monograph Advances in Well Test Analysis, Robert C Earlougher.Page 10

www.opc.co.uk
10. SKIN
10.1 Definition
kh
S= pSkin (Eq. 10-1)
141. 2 qB
Damaged well (S > 0) : poor contact between the well and the reservoir (mud-cake,
insufficient perforation density, partial penetration) or invaded zone
Stimulated well (S < 0) : surface of contact between the well and the reservoir increased
(fracture) or stimulated zone
Steady state flow in the circular zone :
k
rs
ks rw
141. 2 qB rS 141. 2 qB rS
pw, S pw, S =0 = ln ln (Eq. 10-2)
kS h rw kh rw
The skin is expressed :
k r
S=
kh
. qB
1412
(
pw , S pw , S = 0 = )
1 ln S
k S rw
(Eq. 10-3)
www.opc.co.uk
10.2 Radial flow regime
"
!
" ! # #
" # #
rw
r
pi
pw S=0
Figure 10-1 : Radial flow regime. Pressure profile. Zero skin.
rw
r
pi
S>0
pw(S=0)
pw(S>0) Dp(skin)
Figure 10-2 : Radial flow regime. Pressure profile. Damaged well, positive skin
factor.
www.opc.co.uk
rw
rwe r
pi
pw(S<0)
S<0
pw(S=0)
Figure 10-3 : Radial flow regime. Pressure profile. Stimulated well, negative skin
factor.
10.3 Semi-log equation
qB k
p = 162.6 log t + log 3.23 + 0.87 S (Eq. 10-4)
kh ct rw
2

The skin, S, can be calculated from the following equation
.
S = 1151
(
pi p wf (1hr ) )
log
k
+ 3.23

(Eq. 10-5)
m cr 2
w
where;
Pi is the initial reservoir pressure (or final flowing pressure for a build up)
Pwf(1hr) is the pressure determined from a semi log plot of (log) time versus pressure
after 1 hour (zero on the log scale)
m is the slope of the plot mentioned above during the transient period
k is the permeability
is the reservoir porosity
is the fluid viscosity and
rw is the well bore radius
www.opc.co.uk
Dp
slope m
Dp(1hr)
0
Log(Dt)
Figure 10-4 Radial flow regime. Specialized analysis on semi-log scale.
Another concept frequently used in pressure transient analysis is the concept of the
equivalent wellbore radius. This is the equivalent radius assuming a skin factor of zero, ie,
well undamaged, that gives the same pressure drop as a well with skin. The equivalent
wellbore radius rwe, as a function of skin can be estimated from:
rwe = rw e s (Eq. 10-6)
where,
If S > 0, rwe < rw
and
If S < 0, rwe < rw
So, where the skin factor is positive, implying damage, the equivalent wellbore radius will
be less than the actual drilled wellbore radius (the fluid flows an additional distance
thereby increasing the pressure drop). Conversely, for stimulated wellbores the equivalent
radius will be larger. To summarise, the value of the skin factor quantifies the
communication between virgin formation and the wellbore.
Reference: L.P.Dake, see index under Mechanical Skin factor, determination of

www.opc.co.uk
11. SUPERPOSITION THEORY
11.1 Multi rate theory : time superposition
Example of a shut-in after a single rate drawdown
5000
Dp drawdown
4000
Dp build-up Dp drawdown
p, psi
3000
0 100 200 300 400 500
time, hr
Figure 11-1 : History drawdown - shut-in.
The superposition principle : an injection period is superposed onto the drawdown period.
5000
p(tp)
4000 p(Dt)
p, psi p(tp+Dt)
3000
Drawdown
Injection
2000
0 100 200 300 400 500
time, hr
www.opc.co.uk
Figure 11-2 : History drawdown - injection.
[p D ( t ) D ]BU = pD ( t ) D pD t p + t( ) D
( )
+ pD t p
D
(Eq. 11-1)
Semi-log scale superposition function
The superposition time is used for semi-log analysis :
qB t p t
[p( t )] = 162.6 log
kh t p + t
+ log
k
ct rw2
3.23 + 0.87 S (Eq. 11-2)

BU
With the superposition time, the correction compresses the t scale.
1500
2S
CDe type curve
1000
tp
Dp, psi
compression
drawdown and
compressed build-up
500 build-up
0
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04
Dt & (tp.Dt)/(tp+Dt), hours
Figure 11-3 : Drawdown and build-up type curves on semi-log scale.
With the Horner method, the superposition time is simplified as :
qB t p + t
pws = pi 162. 6 log (Eq. 11-3)
kh t
www.opc.co.uk
Multi- rate superposition
At time t of flow period # n, the multi-rate dimensionless pressure is :
n 1
qi qi 1
[ pD ( t ) D ] MR
=
i =1 q n 1 q
[n
]
pD (tn 1 ti ) D pD ( tn 1 + t ti ) D + pD ( t ) D (Eq. 11-4)
4000
3900
p, psi
3800
Dt
3700
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
t1 t2 t3 t4 time, HR.
Figure 11-4 : Multi- rate history.
The multirate superposition time is expressed :
B n 1
pws ( t ) = pi 162.6
kh
(q
i =1
i qi 1 ) log( t n + t ti ) +( qn qn 1 ) log( t ) (Eq. 11-5)
www.opc.co.uk
11.2 Image well theory to model boundaries : space superposition
One sealing fault example
"
#
" ! #
" #
rw L r
pi
pw
Figure 11-5 : One sealing fault. Pressure profile.

The fault is not reached. Infinite reservoir behavior.
rw L r
pi
pw

The fault is reached, but it is not seen at the well. Infinite reservoir behavior.
www.opc.co.uk
rw L r
pi
p infinite
pw

The fault is reached, and it is seen at the well. Boundary effect.
Flow regimes :
Radial flow
Semi-radial flow
This sequence of regime can be simulated by

introducing the interference effect of an image
well. This well, at distance 2L from the active L L
well, produces at same rate q. The median line
is no-flow. Well Image
(q) (q)
A second semi-log straight line with a slope double (2m)

www.opc.co.uk
Dp
2m
m
0
Log(Dt)
Figure 11-8 One sealing fault. Semi-radial flow regime.
12. LOG LOG ANALYSIS
12.1 Log-log scale
102
101
P,
psi 100
10-1
10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102

(3.6 sec) (36 sec) (6 mn)
t, hr
Figure 12-1 : Log-log scale.
On the log-log plot, the well pressure response is compared to a set of dimensionless
theoretical curves.
www.opc.co.uk
p D = A p , { A= f ( kh,...)}
(Eq. 12-1)
t D = B t , {B = g( k , C, S ...)}
The shape of the response curve is characteristic : the product of one of the variables by a
constant term is changed into a displacement on the logarithmic axes.
log pD = log A + log p

(Eq. 12-2)
log t D = log B + log t
The log-log scale expands the response at early time.
12.2 Pressure curves analysis : example of "Well with wellbore storage and skin,
homogeneous reservoir"
Dimensionless terms
Dimensionless pressure
kh
pD = p (Eq. 12-3)
141. 2 qB
Dimensionless time
0. 000264 k
tD = t (Eq. 12-4)
ct rw2
Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient
0.8936C
CD = (Eq. 12-5)
ct hrw2
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+02
1.00E+60
1.0E+01
pD
slope 1
1.0E+00 1
1.00E-01
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
tD/CD
Figure 12-2 : Pressure type-curve : Well with wellbore storage and skin,
homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
CD.e(2S) = 1060, 1030, 1015, 106, 103, 10, 1, 0.1.
Dimensionless time group
tD kh t
= 0. 000295 (Eq. 12-6)
CD C
Dimensionless curve group
0.8936C 2 S
CD e 2 S = e (Eq. 12-7)
ct hrw2
Log-log matching procedure
The log-log data plot p, t is superimposed on a set of dimensionless type-curves pD, tD /

CD.
At early time, well bore storage create a unit slope straight line. In log-log co-ordinates
equation 12.2 becomes:
qB
log p = log + log t (Eq. 12-8)
24 C
www.opc.co.uk
The early time unit slope straight line is matched on the "wellbore storage" asymptote but
the final choice of the CD e2S curve is frequently not unique.
1.0E+03
1.0E+02
Slope=1
Dp
1.0E+01
1
1.0E+00
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02
Dt
Figure 12-3 : Build-up example. Log-log plot
Results of log-log analysis
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
1
pD
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
tD/CD
Figure 12-4 : Build-up example. Log-log match.
Pressure match : the permeability thickness product

www.opc.co.uk
. qB ( PM )
kh = 1412 (Eq. 12-9)
Time match : the wellbore storage coefficient
kh 1
C = 0.000295 (Eq. 12-10)
TM
Curve match : the skin
CD e 2 S Match
S = 0.5 ln (Eq. 12-11)
CD
It is also important to determine from the log-log match when the end of well bore storage
occurs. In the past a rule of thumb existed which stated that well bore storage finished
after 1 log cycles on the time scale of a log log plot. There was no scientific base to this
and was sometimes completely wrong. It is suggested that the end of well bore storage
occurs, for a build up, once the sand face flow rate falls to less than 1% of the original
surface flow rate. This convention is adopted in PIE, a transient test analysis software
package, and is used to mark the plot (shown in figure 23.1, as ENDWBS).
12.3 Build-up analysis : build-up type curve
Build-up data should be matched against build-up type curves, generated with the time
superposition.
When t>>tp , the pressure curve is compressed on the p axis.

www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+04
tp
2S
CDe type curve
1.0E+03
Dp, psi
drawdown build-up
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04
Dt, hours
Figure 12-5 : Drawdown and build-up type curves (tp = 2 hr).
www.opc.co.uk
13. SEMI LOG ANALYSIS
13.1 M.D.H. analysis : p vs Logt
Semi-log straight line of slope m :
qB k
p = 162.6 log t + log 3.23 + 0.87 S (Eq. 13-1)
kh ct rw
2

Results:
qB
kh = 162. 6 (Eq. 13-2)
m
p k
S = 1151
. 1 hr log + 3.23 (Eq. 13-3)
m ct rw
2

13.2 Horner analysis
qB t p + t
pws = pi 162. 6 log (Eq. 13-4)
kh t
www.opc.co.uk
4000.00
p*
m
3750.00
p, psi
3500.00
3250.00
3000.00
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04
Log [(tp+Dt)/Dt]
Figure 13-1 : Semi-log Horner plot
Horner analysis :
The slope m,
The pressure at 1 hour on the straight line
The extrapolated pressure p*.
Results :
qB
kh = 162.6 (Eq. 13-5)
m
p k tp +1
. 1 hr log
S = 1151 + log + 3.23 (Eq. 13-6)
m ct rw2 tp
www.opc.co.uk
14. DERIVATIVE ANALYSIS
14.1 Definition
The natural logarithm is used.
dp dp
p ' = = t (Eq. 14-1)
d ln t dt
For a shut-in after a single drawdown period (the Horner method is applicable), the
derivative is generated with respect to the modified Horner time given in the superposition
Equation 11-2 :
dp t p + t dp
p ' = = t (Eq. 14-2)
t p t tp dt
d ln
t p + t
For a complex rate history, the multirate superposition time is used.
In all cases, the derivative is plotted on log-log coordinates versus the elapsed time t since
the beginning of the shut-in period.
14.2 Derivative type-curve : example of "Well with wellbore storage and skin,
homogeneous reservoir"
Radial flow
Log(Dp)
Log(Dp') Dp'=constant
Log(Dt)
Figure 14-1 : Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale. Radial flow.
www.opc.co.uk
qB k
p = 162.6 log t + log 3.23 + 0.87 S (Eq. 14-3)
kh ct rw
2

The derivative is a constant.
qB
p ' = 70. 6 (Eq. 14-4)
kh
In dimensionless terms,
dp D
= 0.5 (Eq. 14-5)
d ln( t D C D )
Wellbore storage
q
p = t (Eq. 14-6)
24 C
q
p ' = t (Eq. 14-7)
24 C
Log(Dp)
slope 1
Log(Dp')
Log(Dt)
Figure 14-2 : Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale.
Wellbore storage
www.opc.co.uk
Derivative analysis of previous example
1.0E+03
1.0E+02
Dp', psi
Slope=1
0.5 line
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02
Dt, hours
Figure 14-3 : Derivative of build-up example Figure 12.3. Log-log scale.
1.0E+02
1.00E+60
1.0E+01
pD'
1.0E+00 slope 1 0.5
1.00E-01
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
tD/CD
Figure 14-4 : "Well with wellbore storage and skin, homogeneous reservoir"
Derivative of type-curve Figure 12.2, log-log scale.
CD.e(2S) = 1060, 1030, 1015, 106, 103, 10, 1, 0.1.
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
pD'
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
tD/CD
Figure 14-5 : Derivative match of example Figure 12.4.
14.3 Data differentiation
The algorithm uses three points, one point before (left = 1) and one after (right = 2) the
point i of interest. It estimates the left and right slopes, and attributes their weighted mean
to the point i. On a p vs. x semi-log plot,
p p
x2 + x1
dp x 1 x 2
= ( 14-8)
dx x1 + x2
www.opc.co.uk
L
(2) . .
. .. ....
p . . .. .. .
Dx1 Dp2
Dp1. . Dx2
.. (1).
.
x Superposition
Figure 14-6 : Differentiation of a set of pressure data.
It is recommended to start by using consecutive points. If the resulting derivative curve is

too noisy, smoothing is applied by increasing the distance x between the point i and
points 1 and 2. The smoothing is defined as a distance L, expressed on the time axis scale.
The points 1 and 2 are the first at distance x1,2>L.
The smoothing coefficient L is increased until the derivative response is smooth enough but
no more, over smoothing the data introduces distortions. With this smoothing method, L is
usually no more than 0.2 or 0.3.
At the end of the period, point i becomes closer to last recorded point than the distance L.
Smoothing is not possible any more to the right side, the end effect is reached. This effect
can introduce distortions at the end of the derivative response.
14.4 The analysis scales
The log-log analysis is made with a simultaneous plot of the pressure and derivative curves
of the interpretation period. Time and pressure match are defined with the derivative
response, adjusting the curve match on pressure and derivative data the CD e(2S) group is
identified by.
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
slope 1
1.0E+00 0.5
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
tD/CD
Figure 14-7 : Pressure and derivative type-curve for a well with wellbore storage
and skin, homogeneous reservoir.
The double log-log match is confirmed with a match of the pressure type-curve on semi-log
scale to adjust accurately the skin factor and the initial pressure. A simulation of the
complete test history is presented on linear scale in order to control the rates, any changes
in the well behavior, the average pressure etc.
www.opc.co.uk
15. PRINCIPAL FLOW REGIMES
In pressure transient analysis the reservoir engineer is interested in analysing the pressure
behaviour at the wells resulting from well and reservoir effects. Individual wells may or
may not penetrate the formation fully, be fractured or damaged and these factors will affect
the pressure behaviour at the well in different ways. The flow regimes are, without
exception, relatively near well bore effects, since ultimately in an infinte reservoir the
flow regime tends to radial flow. Thus, it becomes necessary to understand the various
flow regimes which can exist near wellbores and these are considered below.
15.1 Radial Flow
If it is assumed that a well extends through the productive zone of the reservoir, the flow
lines at all elevations around the well would be radial. For a producing well the flow lines
would converge whilst for an injection well they would diverge. A schematic diagram of
the flow lines, showing the lines of equal pressure (isopotentials), is presented in Figure
16.1 below. Thus if flow is radial everywhere in the reservoir, the pressure at the well for a
constant rate drawdown can be expressed by the following equation:
qB
p = ( pi - p w ) = 162.6 log t + constant
kh (Eq. 15-1)
where,
p is the pressure drop in psi,

pi is the initial reservoir in psi,
pw is the flowing pressure at time t in psi,
q is the flow rate in STB/Day,
B is the formation volume factor RB/STB,
is the viscosity of the reservoir fluid in cp,
k is the reservoir permeability in mD,
h is the reservoir thickness in feet and
t is the producing time in hours.
Inspection of Equation 15.1 indicates that a plot of pw v log t will be a straight line.
www.opc.co.uk
SECTION
PLAN
Figure 15-1 Geometry of flow lines in Radial Flow
15.2 Linear Flow
Linear flow occurs at early time in hydraulic fractures as depicted in Figure 15.2. It can also
occur in a horizontal well during transition from vertical radial flow to pseudo radial flow
www.opc.co.uk
or in a well situated between two parallel no-flow boundaries at later times. In the latter
case flow is radial until the radius of investigation reaches the parallel boundaries after
which the flow becomes linear. The pressure response during linear flow is proportional to
the square root of time.
1/ 2
qB
p = ( pi - p w ) = 4.064 t 1/ 2 + constant
x f h ct k (Eq. 15-2)
where,

xf is the fracture half-length (or half-length of horizontal drain or half distance
between faults) in feet,
is the reservoir porosity,
ct is the total system compressibility in 1/psi,
k is the reservoir permeability in mD and,
With reference to Equation 15.2 a plot of pw v t1/2 will give a straight line.
Infinite conductivity fracture response
xf
www.opc.co.uk
Figure 15-2 : Infinite conductivity fracture. Geometry of the flow lines. Linear and
radial flow regimes.
On a plot of the pressure versus the square root of time, the response follows a straight line
intercepting the origin.
Dp
slope mLF
0 SQRT(Dt)
Figure 15-3 Infinite conductivity fracture. Pressure versus the square root of time.
qB
p = 4 . 06 t (Eq. 15-3)
hx f ct k
qB
p' = 2.03 t (Eq. 15-4)
hx f ct k
On log-log scale, the pressure and derivative follow a half unit slope straight line, the
derivative is half the pressure.
www.opc.co.uk
slope 1/2
Log(Dp)
Log(Dp')
Log(Dt)
Infinite conductivity fracture.
www.opc.co.uk
15.3 Bi-Linear Flow
Bi-linear flow occurs in finite conductivity hydraulic fractures in very early time. This
regime is termed bi-linear because fluid stored in the fracture flows towards the well in a
linear pattern parallel to the fracture face. At the same time flow in the formation tends to
be linear and perpendicular to the fracture face as illustrated by Figure 15.5.
Figure 15-5 : Finite conductivity fracture. Geometry of the flow lines during the bi-
linear flow regime.
During a drawdown, the bi-linear regime is usually followed by a linear flow regime when
the pressure losses inside the fracture become negligible. At later time the bi-linear regime
may be followed by a radial, (pseudo-radial) flow regime. In practice this flow regime is
rarely observed in the pressure response.
The drawdown pressure response during bi-linear flow is:
qB
p = ( pi - p w ) = 44.1 1/ 4 t
1/ 4
+ constant
h( k f w ) ( ct k )
1/ 2
(Eq. 15-5)
where,

h is the reservoir thickness in feet,
kfw is the fracture conductivity in mDft,
ct is the total system compressibility in 1/psi and
k is the reservoir permeability in mD and
www.opc.co.uk
From Equation 15.5 it can be seen that a plot of pw versus t1/4 will be a straight line.
Dp slope mBLF
0
0 4thRT(Dt)
Figure 15-6 Finite conductivity fracture. Pressure versus the fourth root of time.
On log-log scale, the pressure and derivative follow a quarter unit slope straight line, the
derivative is 1/4 the pressure.
qB
p = 44.11 4
t (Eq. 15-6)
h kf w4 ct k
qB
p' = 1103
. 4
t (Eq. 15-7)
h k f w 4 ct k
slope 1/4
Log(Dp)
Log(Dp')
Log(Dt)
www.opc.co.uk
Finite conductivity fracture.

www.opc.co.uk
15.4 Spherical Flow
Spherical flow is most frequently encountered in partially penetrating wells as shown in

Figure 15.8. At early time, flow into a partially penetrating well is radial over the
perforated interval thickness. At later time, however, the flow becomes spherical if the
perforated interval is small compared to the total formation thickness. At very late time the
flow becomes radial again with respect to the total formation thickness.
h hw
zw
Figure 15-8 : Well in partial penetration. Geometry of the flow lines. Radial,
spherical and radial flow regimes.
During spherical flow the pressure response is:
qB ( ct )1/ 2
p = ( pi - p w ) = 2452.91 1/ 2 t
-1/ 2
+ constant
kh k z (Eq. 15-8)
where

ct is the total system compressibility in 1/psi and
kh is the horizontal reservoir permeability in mD,
kz is the vertical reservoir permeability in mD and
From Equation 15.8 it can be seen that a plot of pw versus t-1/2 gives a straight line.
www.opc.co.uk
Dp
slope mSPH
0
0 1/SQRT(Dt)
Figure 15-9 Well in partial penetration. Pressure versus 1/ the square root of time.
On log-log scale, the derivative follow a negative half unit slope straight line, the pressure is
not characteristic.
qB qB ct
p = 70. 6 2452. 9 (Eq. 15-9)
k S rS k S3 2 t
qB ct
p ' = 1226. 4 (Eq. 15-10)
k S3 2 t
Log(Dp)
slope -1/2
Log(Dp')
Log(Dt)
Well in partial penetration.
15.5 Pseudo steady state
At late time during drawdwon, the response follows a straight line on linear scale :
www.opc.co.uk
qB qB A
p = 0.234 t + 162.6 log 2 log(C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S (Eq. 15-11)
ct hA kh rw
Dp
slope m*
0 Dt
Figure 15-11 Closed reservoir. Linear scale.
On log-log scale, the pressure and derivative follow the same unit slope straight line.
qB
p' = 0.234 t (Eq. 15-12)
ct hA
Log(Dp)
slope 1
Log(Dp')
Log(Dt)
Closed system. (Drawdown).
16. BOUNDARY THEORY
16.1 One sealing fault

Characteristic flow regime
www.opc.co.uk
1. Radial flow
2. Semi-radial flow
Figure 16-1 Flow regimes for a well near a boundary
With a boundary at a fixed distance from the well, in early time, the typical radial flow
regime is observed with a corresponding flattening of the derivative on a log log plot.
During later time, the boundary causes the flow regime to change to an approximate semi
radial flow with a corresponding upturn in the derivative on the log log plot which
eventually flattens out again at a value twice the radial flow value. This is illustrated for
different boundary distances on the log log plot below in figure 16.2.
Log-log analysis
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
LD=100
1.0E+00
300 1000 3000
1.0E-01
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 16-2 : Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a homogeneous
reservoir limited by one sealing fault. Log-log scale.
Several distances.
CD = 100, S = 5, LD = 100, 300, 1000, 3000.
www.opc.co.uk
Semi-log analysis
The time of intercept tx between the two semi-log straight lines can be used to estimate
the distance between the well and the sealing fault :
k t x
L = 0. 01217 (Eq. 16-1)
ct
20.0
LD =100
slope 2m 300
15.0
1000
3000
pD
10.0
slope m
5.0
0.0
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 16-3 : Semi-log plot of previous examples Figure 16.2.
16.2 Two parallel sealing faults
Definition
L2
Well
L1
Characteristic flow regimes
1. Radial flow
www.opc.co.uk
2. Transition
3. Linear flow
Log-log analysis
1.0E+02
B
A
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
B slope 1/2
1.0E+00
0.5 A
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 16-4 : Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous

reservoir limited by two parallel sealing faults. Log-log scale.
One channel width, two well locations.
CD = 3000, S = 0, L1D = L2D = 3000 (curve a) and L1D = 1000, L2D = 5000 (curve b).
1.0E+02
L1D=L2D=500
1.0E+01 1000
pD & pD'
2500
5000
1.0E+00 500
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
www.opc.co.uk
Figure 16-5 : Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near two parallel
sealing faults. Homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
The well is located midway between the two boundaries, several distances between
the two faults are considered.
CD = 300, S = 0
L1D = L2D = 500, 1000, 2500 and 5000.
www.opc.co.uk
Semi-log analysis
On semi-log scale, only one straight line is present. During the late time linear flow, the
responses deviate in a curve above the radial flow line.
40.0
500
30.0
1000
pD
20.0
2500
10.0 slope m 5000
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 16-6 : Semi-log plot of previous example Figure 16.5.
20.0
15.0
B
pD
10.0
slope m
A
5.0
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD

www.opc.co.uk
Linear flow analysis
40.0
500
30.0
1000
slope mch
pD
20.0
2500
10.0 5000
0.0
0.0E+00 5.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.5E+02 2.0E+02 2.5E+02 3.0E+02 3.5E+02
SQRT(tD/CD)
Figure 16-8 : Square root of time plot of previous example Figure 16.5.
The pressure change p is plotted versus the square root of the elapsed time t. The slope
mLF and the intercept pint of the linear flow straight line are used to estimate the channel
width and the well location.
qB
mLF = 8133
. (Eq. 16-2)
h( L1 + L2 ) k ct
qB
L1 + L2 = 8.133 (Eq. 16-3)
hmLF k ct
kh
= pint S (Eq. 16-4)
141. 2 qB
L1 1 L + L2
= arcsin 1 exp( ) (Eq. 16-5)
L1 + L2 2 rw
www.opc.co.uk
www.opc.co.uk
Build-up analysis
1.0E+02
D
C
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
D
1.0E+00
C
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 16-9 : Build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous
reservoir limited by two parallel sealing faults. Log-log scale. One channel width,
two well locations.
The two dotted derivative curves correspond to the drawdown solution. The build-up
responses (solid lines) are generated for (tp/C)D = 2000.
CD = 3000, S = 0, L1D = L2D = 5000 (curve a) and L1D = 2000, L2D = 8000 (curve b).
9.0
D
8.0
C slope m
7.0
pD
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
(tpD + tD) / tD
Figure 16-10 : Semi-log plot of previous example Figure 16.9 (Horner time).
The extrapolation of the Horner straight line does not correspond to the infinite shut-in
time pressure.
www.opc.co.uk
For an infinite channel, when both the drawdown and the shut-in periods are in linear flow
regime, the superposition function is expressed as (tp+t) 1/2 - (t) 1/2. The extrapolation of
the linear flow straight line to infinite shut-in time, at (tp+t) 1/2 - (t) 1/2 = 0, is used to
estimate the initial reservoir pressure.
9.0
D
8.0
C slope mch
7.0
pD
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
0.0E+00 1.0E+01 2.0E+01 3.0E+01 4.0E+01 5.0E+01
SQRT (tpD+tD/CD) - SQRT (tD/CD)
Figure 16-11 : Square root of time plot of previous example Figure 16.9.
pD versus [(tpD+tD)/CD]1/2 - [tD/CD]1/2.
16.3 Two intersecting sealing faults
Definition
www.opc.co.uk
L2
Well
L1 w
The angle of intersection between the faults is smaller than 180, the wedge is otherwise
of infinite extension.
LD is the dimensionless distance between the well and the faults intercept and the well
location in the wedge is defined with w. The distances L1 and L2 between the well and the
sealing faults are expressed as :
L1 = LD rw sin w (Eq. 16-6)
L2 = LD rw sin( w ) (Eq. 16-7)
1. Radial flow
2. Fraction of radial flow
Log-log analysis
If for example the angle between the faults is 60 (/3), the wedge is 1/6 of the infinite plane
(2), and the derivative stabilizes at 3.
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+02
B
A
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
180 / =3
B
1.0E+00
0.5 A
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
reservoir limited by two intersecting sealing faults. Log-log scale.
CD = 3000, S = 0, LD = 5000, = 60, w = 30 (curve a) and w = 10 (curve b).
p1st stab.
= 360 (Eq. 16-8)
p2nd stab.
1.0E+02
10
10
1.0E+01 20
pD & pD'
180
45
90
135
1.0E+00
180
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD

reservoir limited by two intersecting sealing faults. Log-log scale.
www.opc.co.uk
Several angles of intersection , the well is on the bisector w = 0.5 , the distance to
the two faults is constant L1D = L2D = 1000, the distance LD to the fault intercept
changes.
CD = 1000, S = 0, = 10, LD = 11473; = 20, LD = 5759; = 45, LD = 2613; = 90,
LD = 1414; = 135, LD = 1082; = 180, LD = 1000.
Semi-log analysis
On a complete response, two semi-log straight lines can be identified. The first, of slope m,
describes the infinite acting regime. The second, with a slope of (360/)m, defines the
fraction of radial flow limited by the wedge.
60.0
10
50.0 slope (360 /) m

20
40.0
45
pD
30.0
20.0 90
135
slope m
10.0 180
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
m1st line
= 360 (Eq. 16-9)
m2nd line
www.opc.co.uk
20.0
B
15.0
slope 6 m
pD
10.0 A
slope m
5.0
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
16.4 Closed system
Definition
Only the rectangular reservoir shape is considered. The well is at dimensionless distances
L1D, L2D, L3D, and L4D from the four sealing boundaries, the dimensionless area of the
closed reservoir is expressed as:
A
= ( L1D + L3 D )( L2 D + L4 D ) (Eq. 16-10)
rw2
www.opc.co.uk
5050
pi
5000
pressure, psi
4950 p-
4900
pseudo steady state
m*
4850
4800
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
time, hours
Figure 16-16 : Drawdown and build-up pressure response.

Closed system.
The pseudo steady state regime
The well, at initial reservoir pressure pi, is produced until all reservoir boundaries are
reached. At the end of the drawdown, the pseudo steady state regime is shown by a linear
pressure trend. The well is then closed for a shut-in period, the pressure builds up until the
average reservoir pressure p- is reached, and then the curve flattens. The difference (p -p-), i
between the initial pressure and the final stabilized pressure defines the depletion.
1.0E+02
slope 1
B
A
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
A&B
B
1.0E+00
0.5
A
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 16-17 : Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage
in a closed square homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
The two dotted derivative curves correspond to the drawdown solution. The build-up
responses (solid lines) are generated for (tp/C)D = 1000.
www.opc.co.uk
CD = 25000, S = 0 .Curve A: L1D = L2D = L3D = L4D = 30000, curve B: L1D = L2D = 6000,
L3D = L4D = 54000.
Drawdown log-log analysis

1.0E+02
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
1.0E+07
A/rw2=1.0E+06
1.0E+00
1.0E+08
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 16-18 : Drawdown responses for a well with wellbore storage in a closed
square homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
Three reservoir sizes, the well is centered or near one of the boundaries.
CD = 100, S = 0, A/rw2 = 106, 107, 108 (L1D = 200)
1.0E+02
slope 1

D C
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
D
C
1.0E+00 slope 1/2
0.5
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 16-19 : Pressure and derivative drawdown responses for a well with
wellbore storage in a closed channel homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
CD = 1000, S = 0
curve a: L1D = L3D = 20000, L2D = L4D = 2000
curve b: L1D = L2D = L3D = 2000, L4D = 38000 .
www.opc.co.uk
Drawdown semi-log straight lines analysis
20.0
A/rw2=1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
15.0
slope 2m
pD
10.0
slope m
5.0
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 16-20 : Semi-log plot of Figure 16.18.

www.opc.co.uk
Drawdown linear and semi-linear flow analysis

50.0
D
40.0
slope 2 mch
30.0
pD
20.0
C
10.0
slope mch
0.0
0.0E+00 2.0E+02 4.0E+02 6.0E+02 8.0E+02
SQRT(tD/CD)
Figure 16-21 : Linear flow analysis plot of Figure 16.19.
The slope for the infinite channel behavior (Curve a) is expressed in Equation 16.2. For the
limited channel (b) the slope of the linear flow straight line is double :
qB
mSLF = 16.27 (Eq. 16-11)
h( L2 + L4 ) k ct
Drawdown pseudo-steady state analysis

50.0
A/rw2=1.0E+06
40.0
1.0E+07 slope m*
30.0
pD
20.0 1.0E+08
10.0
0.0
0.0E+00 2.0E+05 4.0E+05 6.0E+05 8.0E+05
tD/CD
www.opc.co.uk
Figure 16-22 : Pseudo steady state flow analysis plot Figure 16.18.
During pseudo-steady state regime, the drawdown dimensionless pressure is expressed as :
A 2. 2458
p D = 2 t DA + 0.5 ln + 0.5 ln +S (Eq. 16-12)
rw2 CA
The dimensionless time tDA is defined with respect to the drainage area :
0. 000264 k
t DA = t (Eq. 16-13)
ct A
The "shape factor" CA characterizes the geometry of the reservoir and the well location.
With real data, the pressure during pseudo steady state flow regime is expressed :
qB qB A 2.2458
p = 0.234 t + 162.6 log 2 + log + 0.87 S (Eq. 16-14)
ct hA kh rw CA
the slope m* of the pseudo-steady state straight line provides the reservoir connected pore
volume :
qB
hA = 0. 234 (Eq. 16-15)
ct m *
When kh and S are known from semi-log analysis, the shape factor CA is estimated from the
intercept pint of the pseudo-steady state straight line :

pINT A
log 2 0.87 S

162.6qB kh rw
C A = 2.245810 (Eq. 16-16)
Build-up analysis
www.opc.co.uk
Pressure and derivative build-up analysis
Figure 16.23 presents three build-up examples for a well in a closed rectangle. The
rectangular reservoir configuration is described in the Shape Factors Tables with CA =
0.5813 and the start of pseudo steady state is defined at tDA = 2 (or tD/CD = 54600). The well
is closed for build-up just before or during the pure pseudo steady state flow, the three
production times are tpDA = 0.6, 2 and 10.
1.0E+02

1.0E+01
pD & pD'
tpDA = 0.6
1.0E+00
tpDA = 2, 10
1.0E-01
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 16-23 : Build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
closed rectangle homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
The well is close to one boundary. Three production times are considered.
CD = 292, S = 0, L1D = 500, L2D = 1000, L3D = 3500, L4D = 1000
tpD/CD (tpDA) = 16400 (0.6), 54600 (2), 273000 (10)
When all reservoir boundaries have been reached during drawdown, the shape of the
subsequent build-up is independent of tp. At late times, the stabilized dimensionless
pressure p-D is expressed as :
A rw2
p D = 1151
. log + 0.35 + S (Eq. 16-17)
CA
Semi-log analysis of build-up

www.opc.co.uk
10.0
pD-
8.0
slope m
6.0
pD
4.0
tpDA = 0.6 2 10
2.0
0.0
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
(tpD + tD) / tD
When tp>>t, the Horner time can be simplified with tp+t tp :
t p + t
log = log t p log t (Eq. 16-18)
t
For different production time tp in a depleted reservoir, the Horner straight lines of slope m
are parallel.
The Horner plot Figure 16-24 is presented in dimensionless terms. The straight line
extrapolated pressure p* changes with t and, later, the curves flatten to reach p = 8.62 of
D p D
Equation 16.17. For examples B and C, p*D > p D , but not for exampe A. With real pressure,
the average pressure p decreases when tp increases.
16.5 Constant pressure boundaries
Definition
www.opc.co.uk
Gas
Oil
Water
L L
Well Image
(q) (-q)
Figure 16-25 Representation of Constant Pressure Boundary

www.opc.co.uk
Log-log analysis
The dimensionless stabilized pressure is defined as :
pD = ln(2 LD ) + S (Eq. 16-19)
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
1.0E+00 300 1000 3000

LD=100
1.0E-01
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 16-26 : Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near one
constant pressure linear boundary in a homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
Several distances.
CD = 100, S = 5, LD = 100, 300, 1000, 3000.
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
sealing fault : 1
1.0E+00
0.5
1.0E-01
constant pressure
1.0E-02
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
www.opc.co.uk
Figure 16-27 : Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage
and skin near two perpendicular faults in a homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
The closest fault is sealing, the second at constant pressure.
CD = 100, S = 0, = 90, w = 20, LD = 1000.
Semi-log analysis
15.0
3000
1000
slope m 300
10.0
LD =100
pD
5.0
0.0
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
The time of intercept tx between the semi-log straight line and the constant pressure line is
used, as for a sealing fault, to estimate the distance of the boundary :
k t x
L = 0. 01217 (Eq. 16-20)
ct
The difference of pressure between the start of the period and the final stabilized pressure,
[p- - p(t=0)], can also be used to estimate L :
kh
p p
( t = 0 ) S

. qB
1412
L = 0.5rw e (Eq. 16-21)
www.opc.co.uk
16.6 Semi permeable boundary
Definition
lf
kf
The partially communicating fault, at distance L from the well, has a thickness lf and a
permeability kf. The dimensionless fault transmissibility ratio is expressed as :
k f lf
= (Eq. 16-22)
k L
Log-log analysis
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
1.0E+00
0.5 0.5
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 16-29 : Pressure and derivative drawdown response for a well with wellbore
storage near a semi-permeable linear boundary. Homogeneous reservoir. Log-log
scale.
CD = 104, S = 0, LD = 5000, = 0.05
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
=1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001
1
1.0E+00
0.5
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 16-30 : Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a semi-
permeable linear boundary. Log-log scale.
Several transmissibility ratios.
CD = 100, S = 5, LD = 300, = 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001.
Semi-log analysis
20.0
= 0.001
0.01
slope 2m
15.0
0.1
1
slope m
slope m
pD
10.0
5.0
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD

www.opc.co.uk
16.7 Predicting derivative shapes
3
5
2
Figure 16-32 : Closed reservoir example.
Example of a drawdown in a closed system, the shape of the reservoir is assumed to be a

trapezoid. After wellbore storage, the response shows :
1 - the infinite radial flow regime (derivative on 0.5),
2 - one sealing fault (derivative on 1),
3 - the wedge response (derivative on /),
4 - linear flow (derivative straight line of slope 1/2),
5 - pseudo steady state (straight line of slope 1).
4
3
Log(Dp')
2
1
Log(Dt)
Figure 16-33 : Derivative response for a well in a closed trapezoid.
www.opc.co.uk
www.opc.co.uk
17. RESERVOIR PRESSURE
17.1 Definitions
Figure 17.1 illustrates the pressures p*, pi and p which can be derived from a typical semi
log build-up plot. It is interesting to note that they are all different in value. A brief review
of these three pressures will be made before considering the applications and methods of
determining average reservoir pressures.
6000.
Pi
5000.
Pbar
4000.
SLOPE
P PSI
P*
3000.
Homogeneous Reservoir
slope of the line = -.13335 PSI/cycle
extrapolated pressure = 4739. PSI
2000.
R(inv) at 1.750 hr = 351. FEET

R(inv) at 2.611 hr = 429. FEET
prod. time=48.00 hr at rate=5000.000 STB/D
skin = -1.68
permeability = 36.6 MD
1000.
Perm-Thickness = 3660. MD-FEET

5.3 HR .48 HR .048 HR
0. 5000. 10000. 15000.

SUPERPOSITION
Figure 17-1 : Plot showing different reservoir pressures
pi - Initial reservoir pressure
This is a definitive term describing the virgin reservoir conditions prior to any fluid
withdrawal. The initial reservoir pressure can be derived from RFT/FMT measurements
while logging the well prior to testing. This pressure value can also be determined from
extrapolation of a semi log or superposition plot to infinite shut-in time if the amount of
fluid withdrawn for the reservoir prior to the survey is negligible compared with the
hydrocarbons in-place and if the reservoir is infinite-acting at the time of the shut-in, (ie, the
reservoir boundaries have not been seen). Generation of a type curve which accurately
matches a set of pressure data from a test will also yield a value of pi providing the
reservoir system is infinite.
Volumetric average reservoir pressure, p

www.opc.co.uk
This is the pressure that will eventually be reached if a well is shut-in long enough for the
reservoir to reach static equilibrium. It will change continuously with fluid withdrawal or
production, if no water influx is assumed. Note that the average reservoir pressure is not a
value that can be derived by direct extrapolation of any plot of the build-up data and
applies to a closed system.
The semi-log extrapolated or "False" pressure, p*
This is the pressure obtained by extrapolating the correct semi-log straight line portion of a
plot to infinite shut-in time, ie, when:
t + t t + t
= 1 or log = 0
t t
(Eq. 17-1)
As discussed earlier, p* can be equal to pi if production has been relatively minimal and the
reservoir is still infinite-acting at the time of shut-in, eg, during a DST. If this is not the case,
p* has no physical significance.
A large amount of error can be introduced by assuming that p* is equal to p . As will be

demonstrated later, the difference between p* and p can be quite large and is a function of
the reservoir shape, well configuration and producing time. The difference between p* and
p increases with producing time for most reservoir shapes.
It should also be noted that the true p* is derived from extrapolation of the semi log straight
line used to calculate the permeability thickness product, kh, or permeability k. In a well
near a boundary, there may be two (or more) straight lines on the semi log plot. p* is
obtained from extrapolation of the first (earlier time) straight line. This p* may be less than
p and possibly even less that pws or the measured build-up pressures.
17.2 Applications of reservoir pressure
An important task of the reservoir engineer is to determine the quantity of fluids in place.
Undoubtedly the porosity, , thickness, h, drainage area, A, and water saturation, Sw, play
an important role. In addition to these parameters, the average reservoir pressure assists in
determining the quantity of fluids in place and recoverable.
www.opc.co.uk
For a well producing from a closed (bounded) system the average reservoir pressure is the
maximum pressure which will be recorded if the well is shut-in for an infinite time
assuming no water influx. In developed fields, the field average reservoir pressure used to
be determined by estimating individual drainage areas, shapes, and hydrocarbon volumes
and then weighting the observed individual well 's p . A preferable method currently is to
use type curve analysis since this describes the reservoir characteristics more accurately.
As the reservoir is produced, the relationship of p with fluid withdrawal volumes

provides important evidence regarding the reservoir drive mechanism, ie, depletion drive
(originally saturated or undersaturated oil), water drive, limited water influx, etc.
Determination of individual well productivity, which indicates how many barrels per day
or mmscfd can be withdrawn for a given sand face pressure drawdown, requires that p (or
the reservoir boundary pressure, pe) be known.
A volumetrically averaged pressure is required for wells within a field to help determine if
the entire reservoir is being adequately drained.
Average reservoir pressure is an essential piece of data for history matching reservoir
performance with computer simulation models. An understanding of the average reservoir
pressure concept is required to properly use individual build-up derived pressures and
relate them on an appropriate radial basis.
The manner in which different areas of a reservoir deplete (or re-pressure with secondary
or enhanced recovery schemes) can help characterise the extent of sand lenses, location and
effectiveness of faults continuity between different areas of a field, partially transmissible
boundaries and other reservoir heterogeneities.
Drainage Volumes of Wells
Each producing well in a bounded reservoir will drain a certain volume surrounding that
well. Initially, (during the early transient period), all wells will drain from an equal
volumetric share of the reservoir (if thickness, porosity, saturations and compressibility are
constant) since the radius of drainage is a function of the dimensionless producing time, tDp,
not the production rate.
During the early transient period, therefore, the individual well flow rates are proportional
(for equal drawdowns) to kh/. Once the reservoir is producing under pseudo steady-state,
ie, dp/dt is nearly constant throughout the reservoir, each well will drain a volume of the
reservoir proportional to its producing rate
www.opc.co.uk
Generally, it is sufficiently accurate to assume that drainage areas are symmetrical and
divide them according to a convenient parameter such as well spacing. This becomes
acceptable if the p 's so-derived are used in material balance calculations where, once again,
pressure differences (changing p's) rather than absolute p 's are used. It is important,
however, to understand the drainage area concept so that in cases of large production
imbalances, irregular well spacing, heterogeneous pay thickness, etc., or in applications
where an accurate absolute pressure is required, that appropriate consideration be given to
non-symmetrical drainage.
From a cartesian plot of p v t it is possible to determine the drainage area by identifying

the data points corresponding to pseudo-steady state flow. Provided that the data points
lie on a straight line the following expression may be used:
qB
p = 0.234 t + p INT
ct hA (Eq. 17-2)
If Equation 17.2 is re-written in the form:
p = m * t + p INT (Eq. 17-3)
Then the slope m* corresponding to pseudo-steady state flow is given by:
0.234qB
m* =
ct hA (Eq. 17-4)
The drainage area can be calculated by rearranging Equation 17.4 to obtain:
0.234qB
A =
ct hm* (Eq. 17-5)
Note that this analysis will only be applicable to drawdowns of very long duration, ie,
those exceeding 3 months.
The Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek (MBH) Method
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek superimposed the effects of many image wells and calculated

build-up curves for a variety of different reservoir shapes and relative well locations. The
superposition of the image wells utilised the Ei function which necessarily assumes that the
www.opc.co.uk
drawdown and build-up are both following infinite-acting behaviour rather than assuming
the drawdown had reached pseudo-steady state as was done by Miller, Dyes and
Hutchinson.
This method is largely redundant with todays interpretation technology since a type curve
in a bounded system can be generated which represents, albeit theoretically, the exact
pressure response for the given system including the fluid withdrawal. The initial pressure
is therefore found for the actual reservoir system.
The Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson (MDH) Method
Miller, Dyes and Hutchinson presented a technique that could be used to estimate the
average reservoir pressure for a well producing at pseudo-steady state prior to shut-in, in
the centre of a circular (or nearly geometrically regular) drainage area. For the same reason
presented above in the MBH method, this method is largely redundant and its use is not
recommended.
www.opc.co.uk
18. MOBILITY CHANGE THEORY
18.1 Definitions
(k/)2, (ct)2 (k/)2, (ct)2
(k/)1, (ct)1 (k/)1, (ct)1
Radial composite Linear composite

Figure 18-1 : Model for composite reservoirs.
With the radial composite model, the well is at the center of a circular zone of radius r. With
the linear composite model, the interface is at a distance L. The well is located in the region
"1". The parameters of the second region are defined with a subscript "2".
Mobility & storativity ratios
( k )1
M= (Eq. 18-1)
( k )2
( ct )1
F= (Eq. 18-2)
( ct )2
Dimensionless variables
The dimensionless variables (including the skin) are expressed with reference to the region
"1" parameters.
www.opc.co.uk
k1h
pD = p
141. 2 qB 1 (Eq. 18-3)
tD k1h t
= 0. 000295
CD 1 C (Eq. 18-4)
0.8936C
CD = (Eq. 18-5)
( ct )1 hrw2
k1h
S= pSKIN
141. 2 qB 1 (Eq. 18-6)
r
rD =
rw (Eq. 18-7)
L
LD =
rw (Eq. 18-8)
18.2 Radial composite behavior
Influence of heterogeneous parameters M and F

www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+02
M = 10
1.0E+01
M = 10
pD & pD'
M=2
1.0E+00
M = 0.5
0.5
1.0E-01
M = 0.1
0.5 M
1.0E-02
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 18-2 : Radial composite responses, well with wellbore storage and skin,
changing mobility and constant storativity. Log-log scale.
The two dotted curves correspond to the closed and the constant pressure circle
solutions.
CD = 100, S = 3, rD = 700, M = 10, 2, 0.5, 0.1, F =1.
25.0
20.0
M = 10
M=2
15.0
M = 0.5
pD
slope m
10.0
M = 0.1
5.0 slopes m M
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD

www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+02
F = 10
1.0E+01
F = 0.1
pD & pD'
F = 10
1.0E+00 0.5 0.5
F = 0.1
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 18-4 : Radial composite responses, well with wellbore storage and skin,
constant mobility and changing storativity. Log-log scale.
CD = 100, S = 3, rD = 700, M = 1, and F =10, 2, 0.5, 0.1
15.0
slopes m
F = 10
10.0 slope m
F = 0.1
pD
5.0
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Log-log analysis
The permeability thickness product k1h of the inner region is estimated from the pressure
match, and C from the time match :
. qB 1 ( PM )
k1h = 1412 (Eq. 18-9)
www.opc.co.uk
k1h 1
C = 0.000295 (Eq. 18-10)
1 TM
At early time, the homogeneous (CD e2S)1 curve defines the skin factor S. The mobility ratio
M is estimated from the two derivative stabilizations.
p2nd stab.
M=
p1st stab. (Eq. 18-11)
Semi-log analysis
The first semi-log straight line defines the mobility of the inner zone, and the wellbore skin
factor S.
qB 1 k1
p = 162.6 log t + log 3.23 + 0.87 S (Eq. 18-12)
k1h ( ct )1 rw
2

The second line, for the outer zone, defines M and the global skin SRC.
qB 2 k2
p = 162.6 log t + log 3.23 + 0.87 S RC (Eq. 18-13)
k2h ( ct )2 rw
2

The skin SRC includes two components : the wellbore skin factor S and a radial composite
geometrical skin effect, function of the mobility ratio M and the radius rD of the circular
interface :
1 1
S RC = S + 1 ln rD (Eq. 18-14)
M M
When the mobility near the wellbore is higher than in the outer zone (M>1), the geometrical
skin is negative.
Build-up analysis
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+02
build-up
drawdown
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
1.5
1.0E+00 0.5
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 18-6 : Build-up radial composite response, well with wellbore storage and
skin, changing mobility and constant storativity. Log-log scale.
The dotted pressure and derivative curves correspond to the drawdown solution.
CD = 11500, S = 5, rD = 2000, M = 3, F = 1.
With a strong reduction of mobility (M>>10), drawdown and build-up responses can show
the behavior of a closed depleted system, before the influence of the outer region is seen.
1.0E+02
build-up 50
drawdown
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
1.0E+00 0.5
tp
1.0E-01
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
tD/CD
Figure 18-7 : Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage
and skin in a radial composite reservoir.
The dotted pressure and derivative curves correspond to the drawdown solution. CD =
1000, Sw = 0, rD = 10000, M =100, F =1 and tp/CD=3200.
www.opc.co.uk
18.3 Linear composite behavior
Influence of heterogeneous parameters M and F
The second homogeneous behavior is defined with the average properties of the two
regions :
k 1 k
APPARENT
= 0.5 1 + (Eq. 18-15)
M 1
1.0E+02
M = 10
1.0E+01
M = 10
pD & pD'
1.0E+00 0.5
1.0E-01
M = 0.1
1.0E-02
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 18-8 : Linear composite responses, well with wellbore storage and skin,
changing mobility and constant storativity. Log-log scale.
The two dotted curves correspond to the sealing fault and the constant pressure fault
solutions. CD = 100, S = 3, LD = 700, M = 10, 2, 0.5, 0.1, F = 1.
www.opc.co.uk
15.0
M = 10
10.0 slope m
M = 0.1
pD
5.0
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 18-9 : Semi-log plot of Figure 18-8.
Log-log analysis
The two derivative stabilizations are used to estimate the mobility ratio M :
p2nd stab.
M=
2 p1st stab. p2nd stab. (Eq. 18-16)
1.0E+02
Radial
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
Linear
1.0E+00 Radial
Linear
0.5
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 18-10 : Comparison of radial and linear interfaces. Well with wellbore
storage and skin in composite reservoirs. Log-log scale.
CD = 200, S = 0
Linear composite : M = 5, F = 1, LD = 300
Radial composite : M = 1.667, F = 1, rD = 300
www.opc.co.uk
18.4 Multicomposite systems
Three inner regions with abrupt change of mobility
1.0E+01
1.0E+00 rD= 1000, M=0.1

0.5 rD= 2500, M=0.15
pD & pD'
rD=50000, M= 0.5
033
rD= 1000, M=0.1
0.1
1.0E-01
0.05
rD= 2500, M=0.15
rD=50000, M= 0.5
1.0E-02
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 18-11 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage and
skin in a 4 regions radial composite reservoir.
CD = 5440, Sw = 0, F =1. r1D = 1000, k/2 = 1.5 k/1, r2D = 2500, k/3 = 5 k/1, r3D =
50,000, k/4 = 10 k/1.
The dashed curves correspond to radial composite responses with only one zone (rD =
1000, M = 0.1, rD = 2500, M = 0.15, rD = 50,000, M = 0.5).
Two inner regions with a linear change of mobility

www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+01
1.0E+00 0.5
pD & pD'
rD=10000
1.0E-01
rD=1000
0.05
1.0E-02
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
tD/CD
Figure 18-12 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore storage
and skin in a radial composite reservoir, linear change of transmissivity.
CD = 1000, Sw = 0, F =1. From r1D = 1000 to r2D = 10,000, M decreases linearly from 1
to 0.1. The dashed curves correspond to radial composite responses (M=0.1, rD =
1000, rD = 10,000).
19. PARTIAL PENETRATION THEORY
19.1 Definition
h hw
zw
Figure 19-1 : Well in partial penetration. Geometry of the flow lines.
hw : open interval of thickness

zw : distance of the center of the open interval to the lower reservoir boundary
kH : horizontal permeability
kV : vertical permeability
19.2 Characteristic flow regimes

www.opc.co.uk
1. Radial flow over the open interval : first derivative stabilization (at 0.5 h/hw) and first
semi-log straight line. Results : permeability-thickness product for the open interval,
kHhw, and skin of the well, Sw.
2. Spherical flow : -1/2 slope derivative straight line. Results : permeability anisotropy
kH/kV and location of the open interval in the reservoir thickness.
3. Radial flow over the entire reservoir thickness : second derivative stabilization and
second semi-log straight line. Results : permeability-thickness product for the total
reservoir, kHh, and the total skin of the well, St.
The total skin combines the wellbore skin Sw and an additional geometrical skin Spp due to
partial penetration :
Spp is large when the penetration ratio hw/h or the vertical permeability kV are low (high
anisotropy kH/kV).
For damaged well, the product (h/hw)Sw can be larger than 100.
h
St = S w + S pp (Eq. 19- 1)
hw
A skin above 30 or 50 is indicative of a partial penetration effect.
19.3 Log-log analysis

1.0E+02
c
b
a
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
slope -1/2
first stabilization
1.0E+00
0.5
kH/kV = 10 (a), 100 (b), 1000 (c)

1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 19-2 : Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage and
skin. Log-log scale.
hw/h = 1/5, CD = 33, S=0, kH / kV = 10 (curve a), 100 (curve b) and 1000 (curve c).
www.opc.co.uk
The kHh product is estimated from the pressure match. The wellbore skin Sw and the
penetration ratio hw/h are estimated from the first radial flow (derivative plateau at 0.5
h/hw):
hw p2nd stab. m2nd line
= = (Eq. 19- 2)
h p1st stab. m1st line
When the vertical permeability kV is low (high kH/kV), the start of the spherical flow regime
is delayed (-1/2 derivative slope moved to the right). The permeability anisotropy kH/kV
and location of the open interval are estimated from the spherical flow -1/2 slope match.
19.4 Semi-log analysis

40.0
c
slope m
30.0 b
a
Spp
pD
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Influence of kH / kV on Spp (Sw=0).
The final semi-log straight line defines kHh and St. When a first semi-log straight line is seen
(radial flow over the open interval), it defines the permeability-thickness kHhw (penetration
ratio hw/h with Eq. 19-2), and the wellbore skin Sw.
19.5 Geometrical skin Spp
When the penetration ratio hw h and the dimensionless reservoir thickness-anisotropy

group (h rw ) k H k V are not very small, Spp can be expressed :
www.opc.co.uk
hw
h
S pp =
h
1 ln
kH h h
+ ln
( z + hw 4)(h z + hw 4)
( z hw 4)(h z hw 4)
(Eq. 19- 3)
hw 2 rw k V hw h
2+ w
h
With hw h = 0.1 and kH/kV = 1000, Spp = 65 whereas with hw h = 0.5 and kH/kV = 10, Spp = 6
only.
19.6 Spherical flow analysis
Plot of p versus 1 t . The straight line is frequently not well defined and the analysis is
difficult : on example (c), the spherical flow regime is established between tD/CD=104 and
106. The straight line is very compressed, it ends before 1 t =0.01.
35.0
30.0
b
pD
25.0
a
20.0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
1/SQRT(tD/CD)
Figure 19-4 : Spherical flow analysis of responses Figure 19.2. One over square root
of time plot.
When the open interval is in the middle of the formation, the slope mSPH of the spherical
flow straight line:
www.opc.co.uk
qB qB ct
p = 70. 6 2452. 9 (Eq. 19- 4)
k S rS k S3 2 t
The spherical permeability is expressed as :
23
ct
k s = 2452.9qB (Eq. 19- 5)
mSPH
The permeability anisotropy is:
3
kH kH
= (Eq. 19- 6)
kV k s
If the open interval is close to the top or bottom sealing boundary, flow is semi-spherical
and the slope mSPH must be divided by two in Equation 19-4.
www.opc.co.uk
20. HYDRAULIC FRACTURE THEORY
20.1 Infinite conductivity or uniform flux vertical fracture
1. Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. Results : fracture half length xf.
2. Pseudo radial flow : derivative stabilization at 0.5. Results : permeability-thickness
product kh and the geometrical skin S.
Log-log analysis
Dimensionless terms :
0. 000264 k
t Df = t (Eq. 20-1)
ct x 2f
0.8936C
CDf = (Eq. 20-2)
ct hx 2f
1.0E+01
a
1.0E+00
0.5 line
pD & pD'
slope 1/2 a
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
tDf
Figure 20-1 : Responses for a well intercepting a high conductivity fracture. Log-
log scale.
Infinite conductivity (curve a) and uniform flux (curve b).
No wellbore storage effect CD = 0.
www.opc.co.uk
On Figure 20-1, CD = 0. The two models are slightly different during the transition between
linear flow and radial flow. With the uniform flux model, the transition is shorter and the
pressure curve is higher.
Match results :
0.000264 k
xf = (Eq. 20-3)
ct (TM )
With the infinite conductivity fracture, the geometrical skin effect is defined as :
x f = 2 rw e S (Eq. 20-4)
And, for the uniform flux solution,
x f = 2. 7 rw e S (Eq. 20-5)
1.40
b
mLF
1.20
a
1.00
0.80
pD
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0E+00 2.0E-01 4.0E-01 6.0E-01 8.0E-01 1.0E+00
SQRT(tDf)
Figure 20-2 : Square root of time plot of Figure 20-1.

Early time analysis.
www.opc.co.uk
Plot of the pressure versus the square root of time : the response follows a straight line
intercepting the origin. The slope mLF is :
qB
p = 4. 06 t (Eq. 20-6)
hx f ct k
The half fracture length xf is estimated from the slope :
qB
x f = 4.06 (Eq. 20-7)
ct k hmLF
Fractured well with wellbore storage
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
pD & pD'
1.0E-01
CD = 0
1.0E-02
1000 10000
1.0E-03
1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
tDf
Figure 20-3 : Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storage Infinite
conductivity fracture. Log-log scale.
CD = 0, 103, 104.
20.2 Finite conductivity vertical fracture

www.opc.co.uk
1. Bi-linear flow : 1/4 slope straight line. Results : fracture conductivity kfw.
2. Linear flow : 1/2 slope straight line. Results : fracture half length xf.
3. Pseudo radial flow : derivative stabilization at 0.5. Results : permeability-thickness
product kh and the geometrical skin S.
Log-log analysis
The dimensionless fracture conductivity kfDwfD is defined as :
k f wf
k fD w fD = (Eq. 20-8)
kx f
For large fracture conductivity kfDwD, the bilinear flow regime is short lived and the 1/4
slope pressure and derivative straight lines are moved downwards. The behavior tends to a
high conductivity fracture response.
1.0E+03
1.0E+02 slope 1/2
0.5 line
pD & pD'
1.0E+01
slope 1/4
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-04 1.0E-02 1.0E+00 1.0E+02 1.0E+04 1.0E+06
tDf
Figure 20-4 : Response for a well intercepting a finite conductivity fracture. Log-log
scale.
No wellbore storage effect CDf = 0, kfDwfD = 100.
The kh product is estimated from the pressure match and the fracture half length xf from the
time match (Eq. 20-1). The fracture conductivity kfw is estimated from the match on the bi-
linear flow 1/4 slope.
www.opc.co.uk
Bi-linear flow analysis
On a plot of the pressure versus the fourth root of time, the straight line intercepts the
origin. The slope mBLF is :
qB
p = 44.11 4
t (Eq. 20-9)
h k f w 4 ct k
The fracture conductivity kfwf is estimated with
2
1 qB
k f w = 1944.8 (Eq. 20-10)
ct k hmBLF
21. HORIZONTAL WELL THEORY
21.1 Definition
kV
kH
kH
L L zw
Figure 21-1 : Horizontal well geometry.
L : effective half length of the horizontal well

zw : distance between the drain hole and the bottom sealing boundary
kH : horizontal permeability
kV : vertical permeability
www.opc.co.uk
21.2 Characteristic flow regimes
Vertical radial flow
Linear flow
Horizontal radial flow
Figure 21-2 : Horizontal well flow regimes.
1. Vertical radial flow : a first derivative plateau at 0.25(h L) k H kV . Results : the

permeability anisotropy kH/kV and the wellbore skin Sw or the vertical radial flow total
skin STV.
2. Linear flow between the upper and lower boundaries : 1/2 slope derivative straight line.
Results : effective half length L and well location zw of the horizontal drain.
3. Radial flow over the entire reservoir thickness : second derivative stabilization at 0.5.
Results : reservoir permeability-thickness product kHh, and the total skin STH.
21.3 Log-log analysis
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
0.5 line
pD & pD'
1.0E-01
first stabilization slope 1/2
1.0E-02
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 21-3 : Response for a horizontal well with wellbore storage and skin in a
www.opc.co.uk
reservoir with sealing upper and lower boundaries. Log-log scale.
With long drain holes, the 1/2 derivative slope is moved to the right. When the vertical
permeability is increased, the first derivative stabilization is moved down.
The kHh product is estimated from the pressure match. The effective half length L and well
location zw are estimated from the intermediate time 1/2 slope match. The vertical radial
flow total skin STV and the permeability anisotropy kH/kV are estimated from the first radial
flow in the vertical plane (permeability thickness 2 kV k H L and derivative plateau at
0.25(h L) k H kV ).
Influence of L
The examples presented Figures 21-4 to 21-22 are generated with h = 100 ft and rw = 0.25 ft.
1.0E+01
pD & p'D
1.0E+00
L/h=2.5 5 10
1.0E-01
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 21-4 : Influence of L on pressure and derivative log-log curves.

SQRT (kV kH)*L constant, (p1st stab.)D= 0.223. CD = 100, Sw=0, Lw/h=2.5, kV/kH=0.2;
Lw/h=5, kV/kH=0.05; Lw/h=10, kV/kH=0.0125.
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
pD & p'D
1.0E+00
L/h=2.5 5 10
1.0E-01
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 21-5 : Influence of L on pressure and derivative log-log curves.

SQRT (kV kH)*L constant, (p1st stab.)D= 1. CD = 100, Sw=0, Lw/h=2.5, kV/kH=0.01;
Lw/h=5, kV/kH=0.0025; Lw/h=10, kV/kH=0.000625.
Influence of zw
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
pD & p'D
1.0E-01
zw/h=0.125 0.25 0.5
1.0E-02
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 21-6 : Influence of zw on pressure and derivative log-log curves.

CD = 1000, Sw=2, Lw/h=15, kV/kH=0.02, zw/h=0.5, 0.25, 0.125.
21.4 Vertical radial flow semi-log analysis

www.opc.co.uk
162.6 qB kV k H t
p = log 3.23
2 kV k H L ct rw2
(Eq. 21- 1)
1 k k
+0.87 S w 2 log 4 V + 4 H
2 kH kV
The skin STV measured during the vertical radial flow is expressed with the wellbore skin
Sw and the anisotropy skin Sani :
4 k k +4 k
V H H kV
S TV = S w + S ani = S w ln (Eq. 21- 2)
2
Sometimes, the vertical radial flow skin is expressed as S'TV, defined with reference to the
equivalent fully penetrating vertical well :
' h kH
S TV = S TV (Eq. 21- 3)
2L kV
3.0
2.0
pD
1.0 horizontal radial flow

vertical radial flow
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
21.5 Linear flow analysis

www.opc.co.uk
. qB
8128 t . qB
1412 . qB
1412
p = + Sw + Sz (Eq. 21- 4)
2Lh ct k H 2 kV k H L kH h
During the linear flow regime, the flow lines are distorted vertically before reaching the
horizontal well, producing a partial penetration skin Sz.
kH h r kV z w
S z = 1151
. log w 1 + sin (Eq. 21- 5)
kV L h k H h
21.6 Horizontal pseudo-radial flow semi-log analysis
qB k t
p = 162.6 log H 2 3.23 + 0.87 S TH (Eq. 21- 6)
k H h ct rw
STH measured during the horizontal radial flow combines S'TV of Equation 3.11 and the
geometrical skin SG of the horizontal well (function of the logarithm of the well effective
length and a partial penetration skin SzT , close to the linear flow skin Sz ) :
h kH
S TH = S w + SG (Eq. 21- 7)
2L kV
L
S G = 0.81 ln + S zT (Eq. 21- 8)
rw
kH h r k z
S zT = 1151
. log w 1 + V sin w
kV L h k H h
(Eq. 21- 9)
k H h 2 1 zw zw
2
0.5 +
kV L2 3 h h 2
www.opc.co.uk
4.0
zw/h=0.125
0.25
0.5
3.0
pD
2.0
slope mVRF
slopes mHRF
1.0
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
kV/kH = 1 kV/kH = 0.1 kV/kH = 0.01 kV/kH = 0.001
-2
S
-4
kV/kH = infinity
-6
zw/h = 0.5 _____
zw/h = 0.1 - - - - -
-8
h/rw=1000
-10
1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
L/rw
Figure 21-9 : Semi-log plot of the geometrical skin SG versus L/rw.

Influence of kV/kH. h/rw =1000, zw/h=0.5, 0.1.
www.opc.co.uk
2
h/rw = 2000 h/rw = 4000
h/rw = 1000
0
h/rw = 500
-2
S
-4
kV/kH = infinity
-6
zW /h = 0.5 _____
zW /h = 0.1 - - - - -
-8
kV/kH=0.1
-10
1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
L/rw
Figure 21-10 : Semi-log plot of the geometrical skin SG versus L/rw.

Influence of h/rw. kV/kH =0.1, zw/h=0.5, 0.1.
21.7 Discussion of the horizontal well model
Several well conditions can produce a pressure gradient in the reservoir, parallel to the
wellbore. The vertical radial flow regime is then distorted, and the derivative response
deviates from the usual stabilization at 0.25(h L) k H kV ). During horizontal radial flow,
the geometrical skin can be larger or smaller than SG of Equation 21-8 and 21-9.
Non-uniform mechanical skin

www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
pD & p'D
Sw i =
1.0E-01 4, 4, 4, 4
8, 5.3, 2.6, 0
0, 8, 8, 0
8, 0, 0, 8
1.0E-02
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 21-11 : Influence of non-uniform skin on pressure and derivative curves.
CD = 100, L =1000 ft, h =100 ft, rw =0.25 ft, zw/h =0.5, kV/kH=0.1. The well is divided in
4 segments of 500 ft with skins of Swi=4, 4, 4, 4 (uniform damage), Swi=8, 5.33, 2.66, 0
(skin decreasing along the well length), Swi=0, 8, 8, 0 (damage in the central section),
Swi=8, 0, 0, 8 (damage at the two ends).
The two ends of the well are more sensitive to skin damage.
Finite conductivity horizontal well
When the pressure gradients in the wellbore are comparable to pressure gradients in the
reservoir, the flow is three-dimensional and the derivative is displaced upwards during the
early time response. During horizontal radial flow, the total skin STH is less negative.
Partially open horizontal well
When only some sections of the well are opened to flow, the response first corresponds to a
horizontal well with the total length of the producing segments. Later, each segment acts
like a horizontal well, and several horizontal radial flow regimes are established until
interference effects between the producing sections are felt. Then, the final horizontal radial
flow regime is reached for the complete drain hole. The more distributed the producing
sections, the more negative the total skin STH.
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
0.5
pD & p'D
0.5/2
0.5/4
1.0E-01 w ell c urv e
1.0E-02
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
tD/CD
Figure 21-12 : Influence of number of open segments on pressure and derivative

log-log curves. Total half-length 2000 ft, effective half-length 500 ft.
CD = 100, Leff =500 ft, h =100 ft, rw =0.25 ft, zw/h =0.5, kV/kH=0.1. 1, 2 and 4 segments,
Swi=0.
When the producing segments are uniformly distributed along the drain hole, the total skin
STH can be very negative even with a low penetration ratio. On the examples Figure 21-13,
with penetration ratios of 100, 50, 25 and 12.5%, STH is respectively 7.9, -7.4, -6.6 and 5.1.
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
pD & p'D
1.0E-01 12.5%
25%
50%
100%
1.0E-02
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
tD/CD
Figure 21-13 : Influence of the penetration ratio on pressure and derivative log-log
curves. Four segments equally spaced. Total half-length 2000 ft, penetration ratio
12.5, 25, 50 and 100%.
CD = 100, Leff =250, 500, 1000 and 2000 ft, Swi=0, h =100 ft, rw =0.25 ft, zw/h=0.5,
kV/kH=0.1.
Non-rectilinear horizontal well

www.opc.co.uk
During the vertical radial flow, the upper and lower sealing boundaries can be reached at
different times when the well is not strictly horizontal. The transition between vertical
radial flow and linear flow is then distorted.
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
pD & p'D
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
tD /C D
Figure 21-14 : Non-rectilinear horizontal wells. Pressure and derivative curves.

CD = 100, L = 2000 ft (500+1000+500), Swi=0, h =100 ft, rw =0.25 ft, kV/kH=0.1,
zw/h =0.95, 0.5, 0.95 and 0.5, 0.95, 0.5 (average 0.725).
Changes in vertical permeability
On Figure 21-15, a thin reduced permeability interval is introduced in the main layer. When
a homogeneous layer of total thickness is used for analysis, the vertical permeability over-
estimated and effective well length is too small.
1.0E+01
thre e la ye rs
1.0E+00
pD & p'D
1.0E-01
o ne layer =
h 1+h2 +h 3
h3
1.0E-02
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
tD/CD
Figure 21-15 : Horizontal well in a reservoir 3 layers with crossflow. Pressure and
derivative log-log curves.
CD = 100, L = 1000 ft, Sw=0, h =100 ft (h1=45ft, h2=5ft, h3=50ft), k1=k3=100k2,
rw =0.25 ft, (kV/kH)i=0.1, zw/h = 0.25 (well centered in h3).
www.opc.co.uk
One layer (h1+h2+h3) : k= (k1h1+ k2h2+ k3h3) / (h1+h2+h3), L = 550 ft, Sw=-0.2,
kV/kH=0.4, zw/h = 0. 5 (well centered in h1+h2+h3).
One layer (h3) : k= k3, L = 1000 ft, Sw=0, kV/kH=0.1, zw/h = 0. 5 (well centered in h3).
Anisotropic horizontal permeability
In anisotropic reservoirs, horizontal well responses are also sentitive to the well orientation.
kz
ky
kz ky 2L
kx
ky L2
kx ky h
Figure 21-16 : Effective permeability during the three characteristic flow regimes
towards a horizontal well.
The final horizontal radial flow regime defines the average horizontal permeability
k H = k x k y . During the linear flow regime, only the permeability ky normal the the well
orientation is acting. At early time, the average permeability during the vertical radial flow
is k z k y .
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
pD & pD'
2
ky L
kx ky h
1.0E-01
kz ky 2L
1.0E-02
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 21-17 : Influence of the permeability anisotropy during the three

characteristic flow regimes.
When the isotropic horizontal permeability model is used for analysis, the apparent effective
half-length is :
La = 4 k y k x L (Eq. 21- 10)
(the vertical permeability kz is unchanged).
ky
ky
kx kx
Figure 21-18 : Horizontal well normal to the maximum permeability direction :
apparent effective length increased.
www.opc.co.uk
ky
ky
kx kx
Figure 21-19 : Horizontal well in the direction of maximum permeability :
apparent effective length decreased.
Presence of a gas cap or bottom water drive
When the constant pressure boundary is reached at the end of the vertical radial flow
regime (or hemi radial in the examples Figure 21-20), the pressure stabilizes and the
derivative drops. It the thickness of the gas zone is not large enough, the derivative
stabilizes at late time to describe the total oil + gas mobility thickness.
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
no gas cap
p D & p 'D
1.0E-01 h g as =
20 ft
1.0E-02 h g as 10 0 ft
h o il
1.0E-03
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD /C D
Figure 21-20 : Horizontal well in a reservoir with gas cap and sealing bottom
boundary. Pressure and derivative log-log curves.
CD = 100, L = 1000 ft, Sw=2, h =100 ft, rw =0.25 ft, (kV/kH)=0.1, zw/h = 0.2 (well close to
the bottom boundary). Gas cap : hgas= 0.20, 1.0, 5.0 h, gas=0.01 oil, ct gas=10 ct oil.
21.8 Other horizontal well models

www.opc.co.uk
Multilateral horizontal well
As for partially penetrating horizontal wells, the different branches of multilateral wells
start to produce independently until interference effects between the branches distort the
response. At later time, pseudo radial flow towards the multilateral horizontal well
develops.
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
pD & p'D
1.0E-01 tw o branc hes
one branc h
f our branc hes
1.0E-02
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
tD/CD
Figure 21-21 : Multilateral horizontal wells. Pressure and derivative curves.
CD = 100, L = 1000 ft (500+500 or 250+250+250+250), Swi=0, h =100 ft, rw=0.25 ft,
kV/kH=0.1, zw/h = 0.5.
In the case of intersecting multilateral horizontal wells, increasing the number of branches
does not improve the productivity. With the radial symmetric examples of Figure 21-21,
total skin STH of the horizontal well is STH =-6.8 (one branch) and respectively 6.6 and 6.2
with two and four branches.
When the distance between the two producing segments is large enough, the response
becomes independent of the orientation of the branches. The responses Figure 21-22 tend to
be equivalent to the example with two segments of Figure 21-12. The total skin STH is more
negative when the distance between the branches is increased. For the two multilateral
horizontal wells of Figure 21-22, STH =-7.1 (and STH =-6.8 with one branch).
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+01
: one branch
1.0E+00
pD & p'D
1.0E-01
: tw o branches at 90
: tw o branches parallel
1.0E-02
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
tD/CD
Figure 21-22 Multilateral horizontal wells. Pressure and derivative curves.

CD = 100, L = 1000 ft (500+500), Swi=0, h =100 ft, rw=0.25 ft, kV/kH=0.1, zw/h = 0.5. The
distance between the 2 parallel branches is 2000ft, on the second example the
intersection point is at 1000ft from the start of the 2 segments.
Fractured horizontal well
Two configurations are considered : longitudinal and transverse fractures. At early time,
the different fractures produce independently until interference effects are felt. With
longitudinal fractures, bi-linear and linear flow regimes can be observed, possibly followed
by horizontal radial flow around the different fractures. For a single fracture of half-length
yf, the slope mBLF and mLF are expressed :
qB
mBLF = 44.11 ( 21-11)
yf k f w 4 ct k H
qB
mLF = 4.06 ( 21-12)
h yf k H ct
With transverse fractures, the flow is first linear in the formation and radial in the fracture,
it changes into linear flow, and later into the horizontal radial flow regime around the
fracture segments. The radial linear flow regime yields a semi-log straight line whose slope
is function of the fracture conductivity. For a single transverse fracture of radius rf, the slope
mRLF and mLF are:
www.opc.co.uk
qB
mRLF = 813
. ( 21-13)
kk w
qB
mLF = 517
. ( 21-14)
h rf k H ct
Once the interference effect between the different fractures is fully developed, the final
pseudo radial flow regime towards the fractured horizontal well establishes. As for
partially open horizontal wells, the time of start of the final regime is a function of the
distance between the outermost fractures.
www.opc.co.uk
22. SKIN FACTORS
22.1 The different skin factors
Name Description Type

Sw Infinitesimal skin at the wellbore. Positive or
negative
SG Geometrical skin due to the stream line curvature (fractured, partial Positive or
penetration, slanted or horizontal wells). negative
Sani Skin factor due to the anisotropy of the reservoir permeability. Negative
SRC Skin factor due to a change of reservoir mobility near the wellbore Positive or
(permeability or fluid property, radial composite behavior). negative
S2 Skin factor due to the fissures in a double porosity reservoir. Negative
D.q Turbulent or inertial effects on gas wells. Positive
22.2 Geometrical skin
Well A Well B Well C
Figure 22-1 Configuration of wells A, B and C.

A = fully penetrating vertical well, B = well in partial penetration,
C = horizontal well.
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+02
B
S>0
1.0E+01
S<0
pD & pD'
S>0 C
1.0E+00 B
S<0 C
1.0E-01
A : vertical well
B : partial penetration
C : horizontal well
1.0E-02
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 22-2 Pressure and derivative response of wells A, B and C. Log-log scale.
30.0
A : vertical well B
B : partial penetration
C : horizontal well
20.0
pD & pD'
S>0
10.0 A
S<0
C
0.0
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 22-3 Semi-log plot ofFigure 22-2 examples.
22.3 Anisotropy pseudo-skin
An equivalent transformed isotropic reservoir model of average radial permeability is used,

by a transformation of variables in the two main directions of permeability kmax and kmin.
With
k = k max k min (Eq. 22- 1)

www.opc.co.uk
k k
x' = x = x 4 min (Eq. 22- 2)
k max k max
k k
y' = y = y 4 max (Eq. 22- 3)
k min k min
The wellbore is changed into an ellipse whose area is the same as in the original system, but
the perimeter is increased. The elliptical well behaves like a cylindrical hole whose
apparent radius is the average of the major and minor axes, and produces an apparent
negative skin :
rwa =
1
2
[
rw 4 k min k max + 4 k max k min ] (Eq. 22- 4)
min k max + k max k min

4k 4
S ani = ln
2
(Eq. 22- 5)
k + k max
= ln min
2 k
Sani is in general low but, for horizontal wells, when kV/kH <<1, Sani =-1 may be observed.
23. PERFORMING A TEST DESIGN
23.1 Introduction
A test design is the examination of one or more theoretical pressure responses in the
reservoir given (or by estimating) all other parameters. In order to obtain the best results,
optimum data and achieve objectives it is important to carry out a test design before
performing the actual test. Indeed it can also determine if the original objectives can
actually be achieved. In an ideal world this should be carried out by the engineer who will
actually supervise the test, or have a direct influence on it, since it also gives the engineer
an idea of what the optimum operating conditions will be to achieve the objectives.
Consideration should also be given to the hardware to be used to ensure that safe operating
conditions will be encountered. This is relatively simple since in many parts of the world
the operating conditions can easily be estimated from local wells drilled in the area and the
equipment is a choice of two or maybe three options off the shelf. In some exceptional
circumstances, where the test is planned to be unconventional, equipment may have to be
designed specifically for the test. There is also the issue of obtaining approval from
www.opc.co.uk
relevant authorities to carry out a test. Enough time should be allowed to gather the
information required and submit this to the authorities to ensure that the approval will be
forthcoming in a timely manner.
23.2 Hardware
Equipment for well testing usually comes as standard. More details of the equipment can
be found in section 26. However, the most important considerations are the pressure and
temperature to be encountered, with temperature nudging ahead of pressure in order of
importance, from the reservoir to the burners. This information can be obtained from offset
wells ahead of drilling the well and from the drilling and electric logs while the well is
being drilled. The logging stage is sometimes too late to change the equipment so if in
doubt, select the higher rated equipment. To date the majority of wells have surface shut in
well head pressures of less than 10,000 psi but this may change in the future.
The reason the temperature is more important to know and consider than the pressure is
that the properties of materials, particularly metals, change more significantly with
temperature than with pressure. This issue becomes particularly significant in high
pressure high/temperature wells and there are guidelines issued by the Institute of
Petroleum called Well Control during the Drilling and Testing of High Pressure Offshore
Wells, Model code of safe practice, Part 17 which addresses these type of tests (and the
drilling of the wells) in more detail.
Consideration should also be given to the tubing properties and the annular fluid when
using annular pressure operated tools since it is possible to collapse the tubing downhole
when applying surface annular pressure. Also consider the materials properties at
reservoir temperatures.
23.3 Gauges
The gauges measure the downhole pressure (the output response of the system) and are
therefore of the utmost importance. We have established that it is best to observe the
pressure during a period when the well is not flowing and some of the analysis is carried
out using the change in pressure from the time of shut in. Depending on the reservoir
characteristics, the change in pressure can be very small after a long or short period of shut
in. So small in fact that the change in pressure cannot be measured by even the best of
gauges. It is therefore vital that a test design is performed, to examine the pressure change
at the end of the build up to ensure that gauges are chosen that can measure the response.
If not, the following options exist to resolve the problem;
www.opc.co.uk
a. Flow the well for longer

b. Create a bigger drawdown
c. Obtain a better gauge
As a guide, 0.1 psi per hour will be measured by a quartz gauge but this will change with
time as the technology improves. Consult with the gauge provider for gauge
characteristics.
And finally on the subject of gauges, put them as close as possible to the
perforations/reservoir to minimise the risk of phase segregation or pressure gradient
changes and use several for redundancy.
23.4 Pressure Response
During any flow period, well bore storage must have finished before any pressure data can
be used for reservoir analysis. So this must be the first check; that well bore storage is over.
As stated in section 9, this can be said to be when the sand face flow rate becomes less than
1% different to the surface flow rate. The plots below shown in Figure 23-1, show two
build ups, one with a long build up for analysis and the other with a build up that limits the
amount of information that can be gained from any analysis. In the lower plot, it can be
seen that some information can be derived from the analysis.
1996/01/02-0000 : OIL
ENDWBS
10 -1
DP + DERIVATIVE (PSI/STB/D)
10 -2
UNIT SLP
10 -3
10 -4
10 -3 10-2 10 -1 10 0 101
DT (HR)
End of Well Bore Storage not reached
www.opc.co.uk
1996/01/04-0000 : OIL
ENDWBS
10 0
10 -1
STABIL
10 -2
UNIT SLP
10 -3
10 -2 10-1 10 0 10 1 102
DT (HR)
End of WBS Reached
Figure 23-1 Considering Well Bore Storage
Another consideration for the test design is to ensure that the flow and build up will be
long enough to determine the existence of one or more boundaries or for determination of
hydrocarbons in place. As has been explained in previous sections of this document, a
single linear boundary manifests itself in the derivative as an upturn and eventual
flattening of the derivative with the value of the second stabilisation being twice the first.
To examine hydrocarbons in place, a known volume is extracted while measuring a
corresponding drop in pressure which must be measurable with the gauge to be employed.
These checks are performed in a similar way to checking the end of well bore storage.
To summarise;
1. Check the gauge can read the pressure change at the end of the build up period.
2. Ensure well bore storage ends well before the data does.
3. Ensure flow periods will be long enough to achieve objectives.
www.opc.co.uk
23.5 An Example Test design
This example is illustrative of how a test can be planned (designed) to achieve objectives.
In this example, which in reality may be considered a little tenuous but illustrates the
procedure well, it is believed that there are some boundaries at a distance of approximately
300 feet. One of the objectives of the test is to determine if the boundaries are intersecting
(pinched out) or parallel (a channel). The question which needs to be answered is how long
must the test be to confirm which of the two possibilities actually exists?
It will be assumed that the flow rate (oil) will be 2,500 BOPD (estimated from another well
previously drilled into a similar reservoir) and the initial reservoir pressure is 5000 psi
(from drilling and logging). The reservoir type assumed will be homogeneous with a
vertical well drilled into it. The static data is as follows;
Oil formation volume factor 1.5

Viscosity (cp) 2.1
Porosity (%) 15
Water Saturation (%) 25
Formation thickness, h (feet) 350
Oil compressibility (1/psi) 1e-5
Water compressibility (1/psi) 1e-7
Formation compressibility (1/psi) 1e-6
Well bore radius (feet) 0.354
The well and reservoir data needed for the test design is as follows;
well. storage (Bbls/psi) 0.01

skin 0.0
permeability (mD) 100
One boundary (Feet) 300
Other boundary (Feet) 300
Angle of boundary intersection, 60 (in the case of intersecting boundaries only)
(Degrees)
Using the above parameters and a process of trial and error it is possible to determine
optimum flow period durations in order to be able to distinguish one reservoir type from
the other. As a starting point, a drawdown of 12 hours as a minimum can be used and
increased accordingly to be sure of achieving objectives. For the purposes of a test design
the build up can be very long and modified later to be of a practicable duration. A starting
point for the duration of the build up could be 150 hours or more.
After creating the theoretical pressure response for the above conditions and parameters
(24 hour flow and 150 hour build up) the build up response is shown below in Figure 23-2.
www.opc.co.uk
Examination of the plot reveals that the build up should be in the order of 50 - 60 hours to
be sure of determining which reservoir response is occurring. However, examination of the
digital pressure data shows that the pressure change at the end of the build up is less than
the recommended 0.1 psi per hour and therefore liable to inaccuracies in the gauge
measurement. Increasing the drawdown to 48 hours resolves this problem and the
derivative plot appears to be virtually unchanged, shown in Figure 23-3. This process can
be adapted to any reservoir investigations including the end of well bore storage, the time
to reach stabilisation and distances to boundaries.
The difference in the two responses is clear. For a reservoir with parallel boundaries
(channel) the later time response on the derivative is a positive half slope which is
indicative of linear flow. This will continue until such time as linear flow is interrupted. In
the case of intersecting boundaries, the derivative will eventually display a second
stabilisation (a flattening of the derivative) which will occur at 2/ times the value of the
first stabilisation. (refer to chapter 16 - Boundary theory) The build up needs to be long
enough to determine which response is occurring.
1998/01/02-1200 : OIL
Intersecting Boundaries
10 -2
Parallell Boundaries
10 -3
10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2
DT (HR)
Figure 23-2: Derivative plot: 12 hour flow,150 hour build up

www.opc.co.uk
1998/01/03-1200 : OIL
Intersecting boundaries
10 -2
Parallell boundaries
10 -3
10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2
DT (HR)
Figure 23-3: Derivative plot: 48 hour flow, 150 hour build up

www.opc.co.uk
24. GAS WELL TESTING
Two different types of test are used with gas wells. Transient analysis provides a
description of the producing system, as for oil wells. With deliverability testing, the
theoretical rate at which the well would flow if the sandface was at atmospheric pressure,
"the Absolute Open Flow Potential" AOFP, is estimated.
24.1 Gas properties
Gas compressibility and viscosity
The viscosity and the compressibility of gas cg change with the pressure.
1 1 Z
cg = ( 24-1)
p Z p
Z is the real gas deviation factor. For an ideal gas Z=1, and the compressibility is cg=1/p.
Pseudo-pressure
The pseudo-pressure m(p), also called "real gas potential", is defined :
p
p
m( p) = 2 ( p)Z ( p) dp ( 24-2)
p0
The pressure p is expressed in absolute unit, m(p) has the unit of (pressure)2 / viscosity,
psia2 / cp with the usual system of units. The reference pressure p0 is an arbitrary constant,
smaller than the lower test pressure.
The complete pressure data is converted into pseudo-pressure m(p) before analysis. The
change of pseudo-pressure, expressed as m(p)-m(p[t=0]), is independent of the reference
pressure p0.
Pseudo-time
The pseudo-time tps is sometimes used as a complement of m(p).

www.opc.co.uk
t
1
t ps = dt ( 24-3)
0
( p)ct ( p)
The pressure must be known during the complete flow rate sequence in order to estimate
and ct before calculation of the superposition with the pseudo time tps.
24.2 Transient analysis of gas well tests
Simplified pseudo-pressure for manual analysis
On Figure 24-1, Z is plotted versus p for a typical natural gas at constant temperature :
- When the pressure is less than 2000 psia, the product Z is almost constant and m(p)
simplifies into :
p 2 p02
p
2
m( p) = pdp = ( 24-4)
Z p0
i Zi
On low pressure gas wells, it is possible to analyze the test in terms of pressure squared p2.
- When the pressure is higher than 3000 psia, the product Z tends to be proportional to p
and p/Z can be considered as a constant. The pseudo-pressure m(p) becomes :
p
2p 2 pi
m( p) = dp = ( p p0 ) ( 24-5)
Z p0 i Zi
On high pressure wells, the gas behaves like a slightly compressible fluid, and the pressure
data can be used directly for analysis.
- Between 2000 psia and 3000 psia, no simplification is available and m(p) must be used.
www.opc.co.uk
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
Mu*Z, cp
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Pressure, psia
Figure 24-1 : Isothermal variation of Z with pressure.
Dimensionless parameters
Nomenclature
In field units, the standard pressure is psc =14.7psia and the temperature is Tsc = 520R (60F,
all temperatures are expressed in absolute units). The gas rate is expressed in standard
condition as qsc in Mscf/D (103scft/D ).
When the pseudo-pressure is used, the dimensionless terms are defined with respect to the
gas properties at initial condition (subscript i). With the pressure and pressure squared
approaches, the properties are defined at the arithmetic average pressure of the test
(symbol -).
Dimensionless pressure
m(p):
. 105
pD = 1987
kh Tsc
Tq sc psc
( m( pi ) m( p))
( 24-6)
= 7.03104
kh
Tq sc
( m( pi ) m( p))
www.opc.co.uk
p2:
. 105
pD = 1987
kh Tsc 2
ZTq sc psc
pi p 2 ( )
( 24-7)
= 7.03104
kh
ZTq sc
pi2 p 2 ( )
p:
kh p Tsc
pD = 3.97610 5 ( pi p)
ZTq sc psc
( 24-8)
kh p
= 1406
. 10 ( pi p)
3
ZTq sc
Dimensionless time
m(p):
0. 000263k
tD = t ( 24-9)
i cti rw
2
p2 and p:
0. 000263k
tD = t ( 24-10)
ct rw
2
Dimensionless wellbore storage
As for oil wells, the wellbore storage coefficient is expressed in Bbl/psi.
m(p):
0.8936C
CD = ( 24-11)
cti hrw2
p2 and p:
0.8936C
CD = ( 24-12)
ct hrw2
www.opc.co.uk
Dimensionless time group tD/CD
m(p):
tD kh t
= 0. 000295 ( 24-13)
CD i C
p2 and p:
tD kh t
= 0. 000295 ( 24-14)
CD C
Skin
On gas wells, the skin coefficient S' is expressed with a rate dependent term, also called
turbulent effect or non-Darcy skin.
S ' = S + Dq sc ( 24-15)
In a multirate sequence, the analysis is made with respect to the rate change (qn - qn-1), and
the skin is estimated from the change of pskin between the flow periods n and n-1. S' is
expressed :
q n ( S + Dq n ) q n 1 ( S + Dq n 1 )
S' = = S + D(q n + q n 1 ) ( 24-16)
q n q n 1
During shut-in periods (qn = 0) and during a period immediately after shut-in (qn-1 = 0), the
actual flow rate is used in Equation 24-15.
www.opc.co.uk
12.0
S'=S+D(qn+qn-1)
10.0
slope = D
8.0 intercept = S
6.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
qn+qn-1, Mscf/D
Figure 24-2 : Variation of the pseudo-skin with the rate qn + qn-1.
24.3 Deliverability tests
Deliverability equations
Empirical approach (Fetkovitch, or "C & n")
1.0E+09
slope = 1/n
1.0E+08 pwf=14.7psia
pi2-pwf2, psia2
1.0E+07
AOF=9000Mscf/D
1.0E+06
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
q, Mscf/D
Figure 24-3: Deliverability plot for a back pressure test.

Log-log scale, pressure squared method.
www.opc.co.uk
( )
n
qsc = C pi2 pwf
2
( 24-17)
The stabilized flowing pressure pwf is expressed in absolute units. The coefficients C and n
are two constant terms. n can vary from 1 in the case of laminar flow, to 0.5 when the flow
is fully turbulent.
Theoretical approach (LIT, or Houpeurt's, or Jone's, or "a & b")
In a closed system, the difference between the pseudo-steady state flowing pressure pwf and
the following shut-in average pressure p- is expressed as :
T
() ( )
m p m pwf = 1637 log
kh
A rw2
CA
T
+ 0.35 + 0.87 S qsc + 1422 Dq sc2
kh
( 24-18)
4.0E+04
stabilized
3.5E+04
Dm(p)/q, psia2*D/cp/Mscf
transient
slope = b
3.0E+04
intercept = a
2.5E+04
2.0E+04
1.5E+04
0.0E+00 2.0E+03 4.0E+03 6.0E+03 8.0E+03 1.0E+04
q, Mscf/D
Figure 24-4 Deliverability plot for an isochronal or a modified isochronal test.

Linear scale, pseudo-pressure method.
With a circular reservoir of radius re, CA = 31.62 and m(p) is simplified :

www.opc.co.uk
T
() ( )
m p m pwf = 1637 2 log
kh
0.472re
rw
T
+ 0.87 S q sc + 1422 Dq sc2
kh
( 24-19)
Before the pseudo-steady state regime, the response follows the semi-log approximation
and m(p) is :
T kt
() ( )
m p m pwf = 1637 log
kh i cti rw
2

T
+ 3.23 + 0.87 S q sc + 1422 Dq sc2
kh
( 24-20)
The two m(p) deliverability relationships can be expressed as a(t) qsc + b q2sc. During the
infinite acting regime, a(t) is an increasing function of the time whereas "a" is constant
when pseudo-steady state is reached. The coefficient "b" is the same in the two equations.
The Absolute Open Flow Potential is :
q sc , AOF =
(
a + a 2 + 4b m( p) m(14.7) ) ( 24-21)
2b
Back pressure test (Flow after flow test)
The well is produced to stabilized pressure at three or four increasing rates and the
different flow periods have the same duration.
www.opc.co.uk
7050
pi
7000
pwf1
pwf2
pwf3
Pressure, psia
6950 pwf4
6900
6850
6800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time, hr
Figure 24-5 Pressure and rate history for a back pressure test.
3.5E+04
Dm(p)/q, psia2*D/cp/Mscf
3.0E+04
slope = b
2.5E+04
intercept = a
2.0E+04
0.0E+00 2.0E+03 4.0E+03 6.0E+03 8.0E+03
q, Mscf/D
Figure 24-6 Deliverability plot for a back pressure test.

Linear scale, pseudo-pressure method.
Isochronal test
The well is produced at three or four increasing rates and a shut-in period is introduced
between each flow. The drawdowns, of same duration tp, are stopped during the infinite
acting regime. The intermediate build-ups last until the initial pressure pi is reached. A final
flow period is extended to reach stabilized flowing pressure.
www.opc.co.uk
7050
pi
7000
Pressure, psia
6950
pwf1
pwf2 pwf5
6900 pwf3
pwf4
6850
6800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time, hr
Figure 24-7 Pressure and rate history for an isochronal test.
1.0E+08
stabilized
p=14.7psia
(pi2 or pws2) - pwf2, psia2
transient
1.0E+07
slope = 1/n
1.0E+06
AOF=8000Mscf/D
1.0E+05
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
q, Mscf/D
Figure 24-8 Deliverability plot for an isochronal or a modified isochronal test.
Log-log scale, pressure squared method.
Modified isochronal test

www.opc.co.uk
The intermediate shut-in periods have the same duration tp as the drawdowns, and the last
flow is extended until the stabilized pressure is reached.
pws1 pws2 pws3 pws4 pi

7000
pwf1
Pressure, psia
6800
pwf2
pwf5
pwf3
6600
pwf4
6400
6200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time, hr
Figure 24-9 Pressure and rate history for a modified isochronal test.
24.4 Odeh-Jones Analysis
Introduction
The Odeh-Jones plot is used to plot all data from all flow-periods in the current period for
analysis. This plot can be used to compare the data in several build-up's and draw-down's.
Drawing a straight-line on this plot is used to determine a value of permeability and skin
that is global for the entire period for analysis and not just for a single flow-period.
The Odeh-Jones plot is particularly useful for the analysis of tests with simultaneous sand-
face rate and pressure measurements. The Odeh-Jones time transform is a numerical
evaluation of the general convolution integral:
t
dPd
Pw = Sq (t ) + q ( )
=0
dt t
d ( 24-22)
www.opc.co.uk
This integral uses the rate-history together with the line-source solution to define the time-
transform of the data. Note that the line-source solution,Pd', and skin-factor,S', include
coefficients to convert them to 'psi' when multiplied by a rate.
A typical application of the Odeh-Jones plot is for gas-well A.O.F. (absolute open flow) test.
Instead of assuming pseudo-steady-state flow as in a typical L.I.T. analysis, the Odeh-Jones
plot allows all the pressure and rate-data to be 'convolved' to analyse the transient
behaviour in all the flow-periods of the test. The resulting Odeh-Jones analysis yields
permeability, skin-factor, and the turbulence coefficient. This is the recommended method
for a gas-well test analysis to derive the turbulence factor.
The Odeh Jones Transform
An Odeh-Jones plot, plots the transformed time, 'X', and transformed pressure, 'Y', defined
by the equations:
(q
j =1
j q j 1 ) log( tk t j )
Xk = ( 24-23)
qn
( pi pk )
Yk = ( 24-24)
qn
where 'n' ranges over all of the rates and 'k' ranges over all the pressure points in the period
for analysis. The value of 'Pi' is the extrapolated pressure entered on the small table
displayed prior to creating the plot.
It is recommended that a value of extrapolated pressure is obtained from the Superposition

plot analysis of a build-up. Otherwise, a reasonable value of initial-pressure should be
used, perhaps from an RFT or MDT, or as a last resort, the highest pressure value in the test
data. Note that if this value is wrong, the plot will show interesting curves and
displacements due to odd behaviour in the 'Y' transform. If the value of extrapolated
pressure is not available, then try several values of 'Pi' for the 'Y' transform so the best
straight-lines are seen on the plot.
PIE, a well test interpretation software package which incorporates this technique, uses a
convention of ALWAYS having the 'X' and 'Y' transform value INCREASE with increasing
time. The problem with superposition functions is that they increase or decrease with time
depending on the flow rate changes. To avoid this, a 'rotation' of the data is made so there is
www.opc.co.uk
a consistent behaviour. If this was not done, the plot for several flow periods with storage,
skin, and reservoir heterogeneities would be impossible to understand.
Clearly, there is a problem for the 'X' transform when a flow-period has a zero rate. PIE
follows a convention of dividing by the preceding rate, '', in order to avoid division by zero.
This fix-up results in all build-up pressures plotting in the lower left quadrant of the plot.
Note that this convention means the value of skin factor for a build-up cannot be calculated.
Even though this is a limitation to the transform, it is useful to plot build-up data because
this data usually shows the radial-flow behaviour most clearly.
When analyzing a gas-well or multi-phase test, the objective is to place a line of constant
permeability through the data for each producing flow-period in order to obtain an
estimate of turbulence coefficient and mechanical skin factor. Select each flow-period in
turn and use the FIXSL function to set a straight-line through the data. With several lines on
the plot, PIE will compute the turbulence factor and mechanical skin from the least-squares
best-fit of the skin-factors vs. rates. An example Odeh-Jones plot for a gas-well test is shown
in Figure 24-10.
Odeh-Jones Analysis
When analyzing a gas-well or multi-phase test, the objective is to place a line of constant
permeability through the data for each producing flow-period in order to obtain an
estimate of turbulence coefficient and mechanical skin factor. Select each flow-period in
turn and use the FIXSL function to set a straight-line through the data. With several lines on
the plot, PIE will compute the turbulence factor and mechanical skin from the least-squares
best-fit of the skin-factors vs. rates. An example Odeh-Jones plot for a gas-well test is shown
in the figure below;
www.opc.co.uk
1999/01/03-0143 : GAS (PSEUDO-PRESSURE)
ODEH-JONES PLOT
Reference Pressure= 5801.520 PSI
.060
FP.003 Slope= .009171 Int.= .051497 MPSI2/CP/MSCF/D

FP.003 K= 3.92 MD S= .855 .004
FP.001 K= 3.92 MD S= -.891 .003
FP.004 K= 3.92 MD S= .555
ODEH.004
.040
Turb=.00082 1/MSCF/D Smech= -1.47

(PI-P(T))/Q (MPSI2/CP/MSCF/D)
.001
SLOPE
.020
ODEH.001
0.
.005
-.020
-.040
-.060
-5. -4. -3. -2. -1. 0. 1.

SUPERPOSITION/Q
Bloom-hardy Brap #1
Figure 24-10 Odeh-Jones plot showing analysis and results
The Odeh-Jones plot is very similar to the Superposition plot, therefore, all of the diagnostic
characteristics seen in the Superposition plot apply to the Odeh-Jones plot as well. For
example, a linear no-flow reservoir boundary shows up on the Superposition plot as a
doubling of slope. This characteristic is also seen on the Odeh-Jones plot. Use the Odeh-
Jones plot as a diagnostic plot to help decide which model would best match the test
behaviour.
www.opc.co.uk
25. FISSURED RESERVOIRS
In fissured reservoirs, the fissure network and the matrix blocks react at a different time,
and the pressure response deviates from the standard homogeneous behavior.
25.1 Pressure profile
"
!
&
$ ! % % '
#
rw
pm r
pi
pf pi = pm > pf
pw
Figure 25-1 : Double porosity behavior. Pressure profile.

Fissure system homogeneous regime.
First, the matrix blocks production is negligible. The fissure system homogeneous behavior
is seen.
www.opc.co.uk
"
!
& " ! % ' # '

#
rw
r
pi
pm
pf pi > pm > pf
pw

Transition regime.
When the matrix blocks start to produce into the fissures, the pressure deviates from the
homogeneous behavior to follow a transition regime.
www.opc.co.uk
"
!
!
#
" $ ! # ' % %
'
rw
r
pi
pi > pf = pm
pw

Total system homogeneous regime (fissures + matrix).
When the pressure equalizes between fissures and matrix blocks, the homogeneous
behavior of the total system (fissure and matrix) is reached.
25.2 Definitions
Permeability
The fluid flows to the well through the fissure system only and the radial permeability of
the matrix system does not contribute to the mobility (km = 0).
The permeability thickness product kh estimated by the interpretation is used to define an

equivalent bulk permeability of the fissure network, over the complete thickness h :
kh = k f h f (Eq. 25-1)
Porosity
www.opc.co.uk
f and m : ratio of pore volume in the fissures (or in the matrix), to the total volume of the
fissures (of the matrix).
Vf and Vm : ratio of the total volume of the fissures (or matrix) to the reservoir volume (Vf +
Vm = 1).
= f V f + mVm (Eq. 25-2)
In practice, f and Vm are close to 1. The average porosity of Equation 25.2 can be simplified
as :
= Vf + m (Eq. 25-3)
Storativity ratio
( Vct ) f ( Vct ) f
= = (Eq. 25-4)
( Vct ) f + ( Vct )m ( Vct ) f +m
Interporosity flow parameter
km
= rw2 (Eq. 25-5)
kf
is related to the geometry of the fissure network, defined with the number n of families of
fissure planes. For n = 3, the matrix blocks are cubes (or spheres) and, for n = 1, they are
slab.
n ( n + 2)
= (Eq. 25-6)
rm2
rm is the characteristic size of the matrix blocks. It is defined as the ratio of the volume V of
the matrix blocks, to the surface area A of the blocks :
rm = nV A (Eq. 25-7)
www.opc.co.uk
When a skin effect (Sm in dimensionless term) is present at the surface of the matrix blocks,
the matrix to fissure flow is called restricted interporosity flow.
k m hd
Sm = (Eq. 25-8)
rm k d
km
rm
hd
kd
n=3, cubes n=1, slabs

Figure 25-1 Matrix skin. Slab and sphere matrix blocks.
The analysis with the restricted interporosity flow model (pseudo-steady state interporosity
flow) provides the effective interporosity flow parameter eff :
rw2 k d
eff = n (Eq. 25-9)
rm hd k f
eff is independent of the matrix block permeability km.
Dimensionless variables
kh
pD = p (Eq. 25-10)
. qB
1412
www.opc.co.uk
tD kh t
= 0.000295 (Eq. 25-11)
CD C
0.8936C
CDf = (Eq. 25-12)
( Vct ) f hrw2
0.8936C
CDf + m = (Eq. 25-13)
( Vct ) f +m hrw2
The storativity ratio correlates the two definitions of dimensionless wellbore storage :
CDf + m = CDf (Eq. 25-14)
25.3 Double porosity behavior, restricted interporosity flow (pseudo-steady state

interporosity flow).
Log-log analysis
Pressure type curves
Three component curves :
1. - (CDe2S)f at early time, during fissure flow.
2. - eff e-2S during transition regime, between the two homogeneous behaviors.
3. - (CDe2S)f+m at late time, when total system behavior is reached.
A double porosity response goes from a high value (CDe2S)f when the storativity
corresponds to fissures, to a lower value (CDe2S)f+m when total system is acting.
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+02
2S
CD e
eff e
-2S
1.0E+01
pD
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04
tD/CD
Figure 25-2 Pressure type-curve for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity flow.
CDe2S = 1030, 1010, 103, 5, 0.1, 5.10-3.
effe-2S = 10-30, 10-10, 10-6, 10-2, 0.5.
Typical responses
The limit "approximate start of the semi-log straight line" shows that the wellbore storage
stops during the fissure regime with example A. With example B, wellbore storage lasts
until the transition regime, and the fissure (CDe2S)f curve is masked.
1.0E+02
approximate start of the
semi-log straight line
o o o A
B
1.0E+01
pD
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 25-3: Pressure examples for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity flow.
www.opc.co.uk
CDe2S = 1030, 1010, 105, 104, 1, 0.1, 5.10-3. effe-2S = 10-30, 10-7, 3.10-4, 10-2.
o = A : (CDe2S)f = 1, (CDe2S)f+m = 0.1, = 0.1, effe-2S = 3.10-4.
= B : (CDe2S)f = 105, (CDe2S)f+m = 104, = 0.1, effe-2S = 10-7.
On semi-log scale, two parallel straight lines are present with example A. With example B,
only the total system straight line is seen.
10.0
B
8.0
slope m
6.0 slope m
pD
4.0
A
2.0 slope m
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 25-4: Semi-log plot of Figure 25-3 examples.
1.0E+02
o o o A
B
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 25-5: Pressure and derivative examples of Figure 25-3 for a well with
wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state
interporosity flow.
CDe2S = 1030, 1010, 105, 104 (only pD), 1, 0.1, 5x10-3 (only pD).
www.opc.co.uk
effe-2S =10-30, 10-7, 3x10-4, 10-2. effCDf+m/(1-) =10-2, 3x10-4. effCDf+m/(1-) = 10-
3, 3x10-5.
With the derivative, example A shows two stabilizations on 0.5. The derivative of example
B stabilizes on 0.5 only during the total system homogeneous regime.
On the derivative type-curve, the transition is described with two curves, labeled
( eff CD f + m ) [ (1 )] (decreasing derivative) and ( eff CD f + m ) (1 ) .
www.opc.co.uk
Match results
. qB ( PM )
kh = 1412 (Eq. 25-15)
kh 1
C = 0.000295 (Eq. 25-16)
TM
(C De
2S
) f +m
S = 0.5 ln (Eq. 25-17)
CDf + m
(C e ) D
2S
f +m
=
(C e ) 2S
(Eq. 25-18)
D
f
(
eff = eff e 2 S e 2 S) (Eq. 25-19)
Pressure and derivative response
With the restricted interporosity flow model, the derivative exhibits a valley shaped
transition between the two stabilizations on 0.5, when the three characteristic regimes are
developed.
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
1.0E+00
0.5 line
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 25-6 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage in
double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.
CDf+m = 103, S = 0, = 0.1, eff= 6.10-8
(CDe2Sf =104, effe-2S= 6.10-8 and CDe2Sf+m = 103)
Influence of the heterogeneous parameters and eff
Influence of
With small values, the transition regime from CDe2Sf to CDe2Sf+m is long. On the derivative
responses, the transition valley drops when is reduced. On semi-log scale, the first
straight line is displaced upwards and the horizontal transition between the two parallel
lines is longer.
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+02
= 1.0E-03
1.0E+01
1.0E+00 0.5
pD & pD'
= 1.0E-01
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
= 1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
tD/CD
Figure 25-7 Double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.
Influence of . Log-log scale.
CDf+m =1, S =0, eff=10-7 and =10-1, 10-2 and 10-3
10.0
slope m
8.0
= 1.0E-03
slope m
6.0
pD
4.0
= 1.0E-01
2.0
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
tD/CD
Figure 25-8 Semi-log plot of Figure 25-7.
www.opc.co.uk
Influence of eff
The interporosity flow parameter defines the time of end of the transition regime. The
smaller is eff, the later the start of total system flow. On the pressure curves, the transition
regime occurs at a higher amplitude and, on the derivative responses, the transition valley
is displaced towards late times.
1.0E+02
= 1.0E-08
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
1.0E+00 0.5
1.0E-01
= 1.0E-06 = 1.0E-08
1.0E-02
1.0E- 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
01
tD/CD
Figure 25-9 Double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.
Influence of eff. Log-log scale.
CDf+m =100, S =0, =0.02 and eff=10-6, 10-7 and 10-8
www.opc.co.uk
12.0
= 1.0E-08
8.0
slope m slope m
= 1.0E-06
pD
4.0
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
tD/CD
www.opc.co.uk
Analysis of the semi-log straight lines
10.0
8.0
Double porosity
6.0
pD
4.0
slope m
Homogeneous
2.0
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 25-11 Semi-log plot of homogeneous and double porosity responses.
CD = CDf+m = 100, S = 0, = 0.01 and eff= 10-6
During fissure flow, if the first semi-log line is present,
qB k

p = 162.6 log t + log 3.23 + 0.87 S (Eq. 25-20)
kh ( Vct ) f rw2

The second line, for the total system regime is :
qB k

p = 162.6 log t + log 3.23 + 0.87 S (Eq. 25-21)
kh ( Vct ) f +m rw2

The vertical distance p between the two lines gives :
= 10p m (Eq. 25-22)
When only the first semi-log straight line for fissure regime is present, if the total storativity
is used instead of that of the fissure system, the calculation of the skin gives an over
estimated value Sf :
www.opc.co.uk
1
S f = S + 0.5 ln (Eq. 25-23)

www.opc.co.uk
Build-up analysis
Log-log pressure build-up analysis
When the production time tp is small, the three characteristic regimes of a double porosity
response are not always fully developed on build-up pressure curves. Whatever long are
the three build-up examples of Figure 25-12, only example C exhibits a clear double
porosity response. The build-up curve A does not show a double porosity behavior, but
only the build-up response of the fissures. For example B, the build-up curve flattens at the
same p level as the effe-2S transition, there is no evidence of total system flow regime.
1.0E+01
fiss. & tot. system drawdown
C
double porosity B
A
pD
1.0E+00
tpA tpB tpC
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 25-12 Drawdown and build-up pressure responses for a well with wellbore
storage and skin in double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state interporosity
flow. Log-log scale.
CDf+m = 0.1, S = 0, = 0.1, eff= 3.10-4 (CDe2Sf =1, effe-2S= 3.10-4 and CDe2Sf+m =
0.1). tpD/CD = 100 (A), 9.103 (B), 3.105 (C).
www.opc.co.uk
8.0
tpC
drawdown
build-up tpB
6.0
C
tpA
B
pD
4.0
2.0
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 25-13 Semi-log plot of drawdown and build-up pressure responses of Figure
25-12.
Horner & superposition analysis
In example C, the initial pressure pi is obtained by extrapolation of the second straight line,
the first one extrapolates to pi + m ln (1/). If the drawdown stops during the transition,
(example B), the extrapolated pressure p* is between pi and pi + m ln (1/), depending upon
tp.
0.0
slope m
p*>pi
(p-pi)D
-2.0
A
p*=pi
-4.0
B
-6.0
C
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
(tp + Dt) / Dt
Figure 25-14 Horner plot of the three Build-ups of Figure 25-12.

A (tpD/CD = 100), B (tpD/CD = 9.103) and C (tpD/CD = 3.105).
www.opc.co.uk
Derivative build-up analysis
1.0E+00
C
pD'
1.0E-01
A
B
build-up
drawdown
1.0E-02
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 25-15 Drawdown and build-up derivative responses of Figure 25-12.

www.opc.co.uk
25.4 Double porosity behavior, unrestricted interporosity flow (transient

interporosity flow)
Log-log analysis
Pressure type-curve
Two pressure curves :
1. - ' at early time, during transition regime before the homogeneous behavior of the total
system
2. - (CDe2S)f+m later, when the homogeneous total system flow is reached
The two families of curves have the same shape: the ' transition curves are equivalent to
CDe2S curves whose pressure and time are divided by a factor of two.
' is defined as :
(C D e2 S ) f +m
'= ' 2 S
(Eq. 25-24)
e
The constant ' is related to the geometry of the matrix system. For slab matrix blocks
'=1.89, and for sphere matrix blocks ' = 1.05.
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+02
2S
CD e
'
1.0E+01
pD
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04
tD/CD
Figure 25-16 Pressure type-curve for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow.
CDe2S = 1030, 1010, 103, 5, 0.1, 5.10-3.
' = 1030, 1010, 103, 5, 0.1.
Typical responses
A long transition on a ' curve is seen on example A. With example B, the wellbore storage
is large, and the transition is shorter on the tD/CD time scale.
1.0E+02
o o o A
B
1.0E+01
pD
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 25-17: Pressure examples for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, slab matrix blocks.
CDe2S = 1030, 1010, 6.103, 10, 0.1. ' = 1030, 1010, 106, 5.
o = A : (CDe2S)f+m = 10, = 0.001, ' = 106, e-2S = 1.8914*10-5.
www.opc.co.uk
= B : (CDe2S)f+m = 6.103, = 0.001, ' = 1010, e-2S = 1.1348*10-6.
On semi-log scale, example A shows a first straight line of slope m/2 during transition,
before the total system straight line of slope m. With example B, only the total system
straight line is present.
10.0
8.0
B
6.0 slope m A
pD
4.0 slope m/2
slope m
2.0
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 25-18: Semi-log plot of Figure 25-17 examples.
1.0E+02
o o o A
B
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 25-19: Pressure and derivative examples of Figure 25-17.
CDe2S = 1030, 1010, 6.103, 10, 0.1. ' = 1030, 1010, 106, 5.
CDf+m (1-)2 = 3.10-2, 3.10-3, 3.10-4, 3.10-5.
www.opc.co.uk
With the derivative, example A shows a first stabilization on 0.25 before the final
stabilization on 0.5 for the total system homogeneous regime. The derivative of example B
exhibits only a small valley before the stabilization on 0.5.
The end of transition, and the start of the total system homogeneous regime, is described by
a ( CD ) (1 )2 derivative curve.
Match results
On a double porosity response with unrestricted interporosity flow, after the wellbore
storage hump the derivative exhibits a first stabilization on 0.25 before the final stabilization
on 0.5.
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
1.0E+00 0.5 line

0.25 line
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 25-20 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage and
skin in double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, slab matrix blocks.
Log-log scale.
CDf+m =10, S = 5, = 0.01, = 10-5.
(CDe2Sf = 2.2 107, e-2S= 4.5 10-10 and CDe2Sf+m = 2.2 105)
(C De
2S
)f +m
=' 2 S
(Eq. 25-25)
'e
is difficult to access with the transient interporosity flow model.
Slab and sphere matrix blocks
With the two types matrix geometry, the pressure curves look identical but the derivatives
are slightly different. At late transition time, the change from 0.25 to the 0.5 level is steeper
on the curve generated for slab matrix blocks.
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
1.0E+00
0.5
Sphere
0.25 Slab
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 25-21 Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, slab and
sphere matrix blocks. Log-log scale.
CDe2Sf+m=1, '=104 and =10-2.
Slab: e-2S = 1.89 10-4, Sphere: e-2S = 1.05 10-4.
Influence of the heterogeneous parameters and
Influence of
1.0E+02
1.0E+01 = 1.0E-03
pD & pD'
1.0E+00 0.5
= 1.0E-01
= 1.0E-03
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
tD/CD
Figure 25-22 Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, slab matrix
blocks. Influence of on pressure and derivative curves.
CDf+m =1, S =0, =10-7 and =10-1, 10-2 and 10-3
www.opc.co.uk
10.0
8.0
slope m/2
slope m
6.0
pD
4.0 = 1.0E-03 = 1.0E-01
2.0
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
tD/CD
Influence de
1.0E+02
= 1.0E-08
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
1.0E+00 = 1.0E-06 0.5
= 1.0E-08
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
tD/CD
Figure 25-24 Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, slab matrix
blocks. Influence of on pressure and derivative curves.
CDf+m =100, S =0, =0.02 and =10-6, 10-7 and 10-8
www.opc.co.uk
12.0
= 1.0E-08
8.0
= 1.0E-06
pD
slope m/2
slope m
4.0
0.0
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
tD/CD
Build-up analysis
1.0E+00
C
A
pD & pD'
B
1.0E-01
build-up
drawdown
1.0E-02
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 25-26 Drawdown and build-up derivative responses, double porosity

reservoir, unrestricted interporosity flow, slab matrix blocks.
CDf+m = 0.1, S = 0, = 0.1, = 3.10-4. tpD/CD = 100 (A), 9.103 (B), 3.105 (C).
25.5 Matrix skin

www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+01
Sm = 0
1.0E+00 0.5
pD & pD'
Sm = 0
0.25
1.0E-01 0.1
1
10 Sm = 100
1.0E-02
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
tD/CD
Figure 25-27: Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, slab matrix
blocks with interporosity skin.
CDf+m = 1, S = 0, = 0.01, = 10-5. Sm = 0, 0.1, 1, 10, 100.
1.0E+00
pD'
1.0E-01
ooo restricted
Sm = 1 Sm = 10 Sm = 100
1.0E-02
1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
tD/CD
Figure 25-28: Comparison of Figure 25-27 derivative responses with the restricted
interporosity flow model.
eff = 2.500x10-6 (Sm = 1), eff = 3.323x10-7 (Sm = 10), eff = 3.333x10-8 (Sm = 100).
1.0E+01
Sm = 0
1.0E+00
0.5
pD & pD'
Sm = 0
0.25
1.0E-01
0.1
1
10 Sm = 100
1.0E-02
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
tD/CD
www.opc.co.uk
Figure 25-29: Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, sphere matrix
blocks with interporosity skin.
CDf+m = 1, S = 0, = 0.01, = 10-5. Sm = 0, 0.1, 1, 10, 100.
1.0E+00
pD'
1.0E-01 ooo restricted
Sm = 1
Sm = 10 Sm = 100
1.0E-02
1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
tD/CD
Figure 25-30: Comparison of Figure 25-29 derivative responses with the restricted
interporosity flow model.
eff = 1.66x10-6 (Sm = 1), eff = 1.96x10-7 (Sm = 10), eff = 2.00x10-8 (Sm = 100).
1.0E+01
unrestricted sphere
1.0E+00 unrestricted slab
pD & pD'
1.0E-01
restricted
1.0E-02
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 25-31: Log-log plot of pressure and derivative responses for a well with
wellbore storage and skin in double porosity reservoir, restricted and unrestricted
interporosity flow, slab and sphere matrix blocks.
CDf+m = 1, S = 3, = 0.02, = 10 -4. CDe2Sf+m=403, e-2S = 2.48*10-7.
Slab: ' = 3.07*10 9, Sphere: ' = 1.71*10 9
25.6 Examples of complex heterogeneous responses

www.opc.co.uk
One sealing fault in double porosity reservoirs:
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
pD & pD'
start of the sealing fault
1 1
1.0E+00 0.5
fissure regime transition total

system
1.0E-01
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
tD/CD
Figure 25-32 : One sealing fault in double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state
interporosity flow. Log-log scale.
CD = 104, S = 0, LD = 5000, = 0.2, = 10-9
www.opc.co.uk
Triple porosity solution
The model considers two sizes of matrix blocks. The blocks are uniformly distributed in the
reservoir.
1.0E+01
fissure fissure + total

group 1 system
pD & pD'
regime
1.0E+00
0.5
1.0E-01
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
tD/CD
Figure 25-33 : Triple porosity response, pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.

Log-log scale.
CDf+m = 1, S = 0, = 0.01, eff1 =10-5, 1 =0.1, eff2 =5x10-7, 2 =0.9.
9.0
slopes m
fissure
regime
6.0
total system
pD
fissure +
groupe 1
3.0
0.0
1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
tD/CD
Figure 25-34: Semi-log plot of Figure 25-33 example.
26. FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST ANALYSIS

www.opc.co.uk
26.1 Rate history definition
Two approaches can be used in order to simplify the rate history :
1. An equivalent production time is defined as the ratio of the cumulative production

divided by the last rate (called equivalent Horner time). On the test example, tp=120.
2. When there is a shut-in period in the rate history, if the bottom hole pressure is almost at
initial pressure, it can be assumed that the rate history prior this shut-in is negligible.On
the test example, tp=20.
4000
3900
pressure, psi
3800
3700
3600 tp=120
tp=20
3500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
time, hr
Figure 26-1 : Example of a two drawdowns test sequence.
Linear scale.
1.0E+03
1.0E+02
Dp & Dp', psi
tp=20
1.0E+01
tp=120
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Dt, hr
Figure 26-2 : Log-log plot of the final build-up.
The derivative is generated with three different rate histories.
www.opc.co.uk
In practice, if the duration of the analysed period is t, it is possible to simplify the rate
history for any rate changes that occurred at more than 2t before the start of the period.
All rate variations immediately before the analysed test period must be used in the
superposition time.
26.2 Error of start of the period
3830
3810 e
pressure, psi
3790 a
b
3770
c
3750
169.7 169.8 169.9 170.0 170.1 170.2 170.3
time, hr
Figure 26-3 : Example of Figure 26-1 at time of shut-in. Time and pressure errors.
- Shut-in time error : curve a = 0.1 hr before and curve b = 0.1 hr after the actual shut-
in time.
- Shut-in pressure error : curve c = 10 psi below and curve d = 10 psi above the last
flowing pressure.
- Error in time and pressure : curve e.
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+03
1.0E+02
Dp & Dp', psi
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Dt, hr
Figure 26-4 : Case a = shut-in time too early.
1.0E+03
Dp & Dp', psi
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Dt, hr
Figure 26-5 : Case b = shut-in time too late.
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+03
Dp & Dp', psi
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
c
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Dt, hr
Figure 26-6 : Case c = last flowing pressure too low.
1.0E+03
Dp & Dp', psi
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Dt, hr
Figure 26-7 : Case d = last flowing pressure too high.

www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+03
Dp & Dp', psi
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Dt, hr
Figure 26-8 : Case e = shut-in time too late, last flowing pressure is taken in the
build-up data, during the wellbore storage regime.
26.3 Time Error Correction
1980/12/12-0600 : OIL
correction for zero time = -3.000 seconds

slope of the line = 1043. PSI/hr
Volume = .3581E+04 Reservoir-BBLS
250.
Storage Coefficient (calculated) = .0358 BBLS/PSI

End of Well-bore Storage dt = 13.27972 hr
200.
150.
DP (PSI)
100.
50.
0.
SLOPE
-.10 0. .10 .20 .30
DT (HR )
Figure 26-9 : PIE Well Bore Storage plot(Cartesian)

www.opc.co.uk
As stated before, pure wellbore storage yields a straight line on a cartesian plot passing
through the origin. If the straight line does not pass through the origin, or the points in
pure wellbore storage on a log-log plot do not lie on a unit slope straight line, or the
pressure points cross over the derivative, there could be a time error as illustrated in Figure
9.3
Time errors are usually due to an error in recording the exact shut-in time, a pressure
reading not being recorded at the exact shut in time due to infrequent sampling rates, or the
length of time involved to fully open the well, ie, difficulty in defining a start time. If a
cartesian plot showing a straight line can be made from the early time data, it may be
corrected for the time error. Some software packages (PIE for instance) will automatically
make this correction for the user once the well bore storage has been identified on the plots.
However, it should be noted that time errors are early time phenomena relating to the well
bore and do not ultimately effect the reservoir response. There is more on this subject
within chapter 25.
26.4 Changing Wellbore Storage
There are instances in which various types of wellbore storage phenomena can combine
(for example, fluid expansion followed by a falling liquid level in a fall-off test). In this
event the line of unit slop may be distorted and data can depart from the line of unit slope.
During this period absolutely nothing may be learned of the reservoir flow capacity,
formation diffusivity or skin effect. These effects are known as changing well bore storage
effects (see section below) and should be planned to be avoided.
During drawdown, the wellhead pressure may drop below the bubble point of the oil,
hence, in the tubing, there will be both free gas and oil. Since the wellbore storage constant
is proportional to the compressibility of the fluid in the tubing a large wellbore storage
constant will initially be observed if the well is shut-in (due to large compressibility of gas).
www.opc.co.uk
1988/07/08-1229 : GAS (PSEUDO-PRESSURE)
ENDWBS
Homogeneous Reservoir
** Simulation Data **
well. storage = .00228 BBLS/PSI
Skin(mech) = 1.72
permeability = .470 MD
Turbulence = 0. 1/MSCF/D
DP + DERIVATIVE (MPSI2/CP/MSCF/D)
Perm-Thickness = 30.8 MD-FEET

10 -1
Initial Press. = 11680. PSI

Skin(mech)+DQ = 1.72
Smoothing Coef = 0.,0.
PD=1/2
10 -2
10 -3
10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1
DT (HR)
Figure 26-10 : Changing Well Bore Storage
Later, as the pressure builds-up, the wellhead pressure will pass the bubble point hence gas
will re-dissolve in the fluid thereby giving a smaller wellbore storage constant. Changing
wellbore storage can yield a log-log pressure behaviour which shows a slope greater than
unity. This is often seen as a `humping' of the early time log-log data and is particularly
evident in gas wells. This is illustrated above in plot 9.5. A type curve is overlaid on the
data illustrating for this well in the reservoir the well bore storage in early time is not the
same as that which matches the reservoir in later time. It has changed.
26.5 Two phases liquid level
In diphasic wells (oil + water, or gas + condensate), a phase redistribution in the wellbore
can produce a characteristic humping effect.
www.opc.co.uk
diphasic flow changing liquid level end of phase

segregation effect
Figure 26-11 : Changing liquid level after phase segregation.
When, after shut-in, water falls at the bottom of the well for example, the weight of the
column between the pressure gauge and the formation is not constant as long as the water
level rises and the gauge pressure is not parallel to the formation pressure. In some cases
the build-up pressure can show a temporary decreasing trend after some shut-in time.
During this time interval, the derivative becomes negative.
4000.00
3500.00
Humping
pressure, psi
Pressure difference after

3000.00 phase segregation
Pressure difference before

phase segregation
2500.00
2000.00
18.00 28.00
time, hr
Figure 26-12 : Example of build-up response distorted by phase segregation.

Humping effect.
www.opc.co.uk
If the interface between the two phases stabilizes or reaches the depth of the pressure
gauge, the pressure difference between gauge and formation returns to a constant, and the
remaining build-up data can be properly analyzed.
When phase redistribution is expected, the pressure gauge should be as close as possible to
the perforated interval (or even below).
1.00E+04
1.00E+03
Dp & Dp', psi
1.00E+02
1.00E+01
1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02
Dt, hr
Figure 26-13 : Log-log plot of the build-up example of phase segregation.
26.6 Pressure gauge drift

www.opc.co.uk
300.0
200.0
Dp, psi
100.0
0.0
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0
Dt, hr
Figure 26-14 : Final build-up of Figure 26-1. Drift of 0.05 psi/hr.

Linear scale.
1.0E+03
Dp & Dp', psi
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Dt, hr
Figure 26-15 : Log-log plot of the build-up example. Drift of 0.05 psi/hr.
www.opc.co.uk
26.7 Pressure gauge noise
250.0
200.0
150.0
Dp, psi
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0
Dt, hr
Figure 26-16 : Final build-up of Figure 26-1. Noise of +1 psi every 2 points.
Linear scale.
1.0E+03
1.0E+02
Dp & Dp', psi
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Dt, hr
Figure 26-17 : Log-log plot of the build-up example. Noise of + 1 psi every 2 points.
Three points derivative algorithm. No smoothing.
www.opc.co.uk
27. WELL TESTING HARDWARE
Well testing hardware can be broken down into three main areas; Surface well test
equipment, subsea well test equipment (only applicable on offshore floating drilling units)
and downhole/botttomhole equipment. The practical aspects of well testing can have a
significant impact upon the quality of the test data and thus on the validity of the test
results. When designing the mechanical aspects of a completion, future needs must be
considered in the initial design. The following discussion on equipment will be orientated
toward testing requirements.
27.1 Surface Test Equipment
Surface Test Tree, Flowhead or Wellhead
The Wellhead, flowhead or test tree is usually a hollow cross (sometimes manufactured out
of a large block of metal) with a valve on each of the arms of the cross. The master valve is
a full opening valve at the bottom of the cross which can stop flow from the well. When
flowing the well this remains open. The swab valve is a full opening valve, similar to the
master valve, which is placed at the top of the flow cross. The swab valve allows wireline
instruments to be introduced into a flowing well without shutting a well-in to rig up a
lubricator. Unless logging or there is wireline in the hole, the swab valve is usually closed
while flowing the well.
On one side of the cross is the flow wing valve which can also stop the flow from the well
and this is sometimes hydraulically operated and connected to the emergency shut down
system so that this valve closes when the emergency shutdown system is activated. Any
wireline in the hole is not cut. On the other side of the cross, is the kill wing valve which is
connected to a kill pump which could kill the well in case of emergency. This is usually
closed during testing and open for pressure testing and killing the well or reverse
circulating. There is also often a check (or non return valve) in the kill wing valve
preventing from the well/flowhead into the kill line to the pump.
The flowhead should have a rated working pressure greater than the flowing, shut-in, or
injection pressure of the well. Wellhead damage can easily result in losing control of the
well. For this reason, downhole safety valves are frequently used to prevent blowouts
should a wellhead be damaged. Operations are made easier if the flowhead is able to
support the weight of the completion and the lower part of the flowhead can swivel
independently from the upper part of the flowhead for packer setting. A further (lower
master) valve is sometimes added beneath the swivel as an extra isolation point in case the
swivel leaks.
www.opc.co.uk
Coflexip Hoses/Chicksans
These link the wellhead to the choke manifold or the rig high pressure piping leading to the
choke manifold. Today, coflexip hoses are mainly used and in some cases chicksans are
used. A coflexip hose is a metal armoured flexible thermoplastic hose capable of holding
pressures of up to 15,000 psi with a temperature rating of between 4 and 266 degF.
Chicksans are solid metal pipe with a rotational high pressure link allowing movement.
These are rarely used today but originally were always used. The flexibility is particularly
important when testing on floating drilling units.
Pipework
Frequently, the drilling unit on which the test is performed, has fixed piping specifically for
linking well testing equipment together. This can make the rig up easier but can contain
debris if used infreqently or not hold the required pressure. Other sections of pipe are
taken to the location as part of the test kit and used to link together all of the test
equipment. It therefore must be pressure tested once it is rigged up. The pipe is linked
together using screw Weco (brand name) unions which contain a plastic/rubber seal.
This seal must be rated to the correct pressure and service (C02, H2S)
Sand Trap
A sand trap is usually installed between the flowhead and the choke manifold. Typically it
consists of two vertical pressure cylinders containing a wire mesh of a certain size which
can be changed to suit the operations. There are two cylinders to allow for one to be on
stream while the other is bypassed and emptied. They can be used to measure the
quantity of sand produced.
Sand production can also be monitored by the use of a sand detection probe placed in the
well flow stream and works by sand grains impacting on the probe.
Data Header
The data header is specially manufactured short length of pipe installed just upstream from
the choke manifold. It contains screw tapped holes for attaching pressure gauges sampling
points and other measuring devices (sand production monitoring device for instance). This
is also the point at which the bubble hose is attached for monitoring the early stages of a
test in low flowrate wells.
Choke Manifold
www.opc.co.uk
The choke manifold is a pressure reduction and flow control device and the well isolation
point (the well is usually shut in using the choke valves). The manifold will have a
minimum of four valves and usually a fixed and variable choke. The variable choke is used
in the early stages of a test to vary the flow rate until the well is cleaned up and relatively
stable. The variable choke is a tapering cone which is screwed in or out of a cylindrical
hardened (usually Tungsten Carbide) orifice to vary the size. Thereafter, a fixed choke is
used of a known, accurately measured size. The fixed choke is similar to the cylindrical
hardened orifice of the variable choke but without the cylindrical cone sitting in it. The
choke size is measured in 1/64 and fixed chokes are usually found in steps sizes of 4/64
from 16/64 to 64/64. It is useful to check a complete set is available prior to testing.
Some choke manifolds will have a bypass. For the choke manifold to control the well (as
opposed to other parts of the production system) the choke should operate under critical
flow conditions. This is when the upstream pressure is more than twice the downstream
pressure.
A positive choke should be used at the wellhead to control the well's flow rate during a
drawdown test having cleaned the well up on an adjustable choke. Several different
chokes sizes should be available so that the desired flow rates can be obtained. Whenever
possible, chokes should be changed without shutting in the well. If a wellhead or choke
has twin valves, which in the case of a choke is usual, this is possible. Because of wear and
erosion, adjustable chokes do not provide the desired accuracy to use them in testing for
the measurement of produced field volumes. Furthermore, the adjustable choke should be
checked at the end of each flow period for erosion and the zero setting.
Steam Heat Exchanger or Heater
This device is used to heat the well effluent. This could be to reduce the risk of hydrates
forming by raising the temperature or to lower the viscosity of oil. It consists of a series of
looped pipes separated by a choke to allow for heating prior to pressure reduction. There is
a strong preference to use a separate steam generation unit which can pipe steam to the
heat exchanger water bath. This removes the risk of ignition of the well effluent. This is an
indirect heater where the steam is piped through a water bath, the temperature of the water
is subsequently raised and the hot water heats the well effluent.
Separator
The separator is the heart of the surface well testing equipment. It serves the purpose of
separating the oil/condensate, gas and water and allowing measurement of their respective
flow rates. They can be vertical or horizontal and rated to different pressures (usually 600
or 1440 psi) allowing for different flow rates as indicated below;
www.opc.co.uk
Pressure rating Liquid flow rate BOPD Gas flow rate MMscf/d
600 psi 10,500 28
1440 psi 14400 60
The above rates are maxima for one phase only and cannot be achieved at the same time.
The separation is achieved by retaining the fluid in the separator and allowing relative
densities to separate the fluids. The retention time will determine the effectiveness of the
separation and is regulated by the pressure and level of liquids in the separator. The
pressure is controlled by an automatic control valve regulated by the operator. The level is
controlled by a float the position of which is regulated by the operator. The float should
normally be removed for transportation since it can fall off.
Liquid production rate measurement
Liquid production rates are usually measured by a positive-displacement meter which

consists of two primary elements; a stationary case, and a moving element. The moving
element isolates a fixed volume of fluid in the case for each cycle of operation. The mobile
element can be vanes (turbine), cam arrangement with a disc, or a piston. Positive
displacement and turbine meters must meet certain requirements as to proper installation
and operation.
The minimum recommended capacity for a positive displacement meter is 20% of the
maximum flow rate. The meters must be installed so that gas breakout does not occur in
the meter. Gas flow through turbine meters or positive displacement meters must also be
avoided if the meters are to measure volumes accurately.
Meters must also be proved (tested) on a regular basis. The proving of a meter establishes a
meter factor which is used in calculating the volume for the period. The meter reading
must also be corrected for temperature, pressure and compressibility. The calculation of
actual volume through a positive displacement meter is given by the following equation:
(Gross Volume)(MF)( F tL )
Actual Volume =
1 - (P - VP)(F) (Eq 27-1)
Gross Volume = Meter reading.
MF = Meter factor from the last proving.
FTl = Volume correction factor (temperature correction).
P = Operating pressure, psig.

www.opc.co.uk
VP = Vapour pressure at operating temperature, psig.
F = Compressibility factor.
Practically, all of the above is combined into a meter and shrinkage factor measured from
comparing the meter reading to the actual volume recorded in a tank after the gas has left
the oil.
Tank Gauging is another accurate way of measuring a liquid flow rate. The time to fill a
fixed, known volume of a tank is used to estimate the production rate. The volume can be
determined by calculating or having calibrated the volume per unit length (or height) of the
tank.
Gas production rate measurement
To measure the gas production, it is necessary to have a continuous flow rate recorder. In
most situations a Barton meter (or its equivalent) is used. The Barton recorder is a two pen
recorder that marks on a circular chart. The chart is driven by a clock mechanism. One pen
records the meter run pressure upstream of a calibrated orifice. The other pen records the
differential pressure (pressure loss) across the orifice.
A continuous pressure recorder on the flowline can be useful in interpreting test data. It
can also prove to be an invaluable asset if the bottom hole instrument should fail. With a
continuous record of the surface pressure, the test will not be a complete loss. If a
continuous pressure recorder is used on the flowline, it should be proved by using a dead
weight tester. Continuously calculating computers for orifice meters are also available and
can prove valuable in establishing the well flow rate prior to or during the test.
Orifice Meters are used in conjunction with the Barton recorder to measure the gas flow
rate. The orifice meter consists of a flat plate orifice, of a known size, with the absolute
pressure upstream of the plate and differential pressure across it being measured. The
orifice plate is installed in a section of pipe, known as the meter run with a known, fixed ID.
The gas flow rate is calculated using the equation:
Q=0.024 C' hwpf (Eq 27-2)
where:
www.opc.co.uk
hw= Differential across the orifice measured in inches of water.
Pf =Flowing pressure in psi.
Q=Flow Rate in MCFD
C'=Orifice constant
The orifice constant used in most calculations is:
C' = Fb*Fpb*Ftb*Fg*Ftf*Fr*Y*Fpv*Fm*F1*Fa (Eq 27-3)
where the orifice factors are obtained from tables published by the Service Companies. The
factors are:
Fb = Basic orifice factor. Fb is a function of the experimental constant for different orifices
and the following assumptions:
Standard temperature=60F = 520R

Gas gravity=1.00 (air)
Flowing temperature=60F = 520R
Fpb=Pressure base factor which corrects C' for the case when standard pressure is
not 14.73 psia. It is calculated from:
Fpb = 14.73/pb
where pb is the standard pressure used.
Ftb=Temperature base factor which corrects C' for the case when the standard
temperature is not 60F and is calculated from:
Ftb = Tb/520
where Tb =standard temperature in R
Fg =Specific gravity force which corrects the orifice coefficient for the specific gravity
of the gas where.
Fg = (1/G).5 = 1/G
and G = Specific gravity of the gas.
www.opc.co.uk
Ftf=Flowing temperature factor which corrects for the case when the flowing
temperature is not 60F.
Ftf = (520/(460 + Tf))

where Tf = Flowing temperature in F.
Fr=Reynolds number factor which corrects the orifice coefficient for variation in
Reynolds number.
Fr = 1 + b/hwpf
and b is obtained from charts. The charts assume that gas viscosity is essentially constant.
Y=Expansion factor to correct for the change in gas density as the pressure changes
across the orifice. The specific heat ratio, cp/cv is assumed constant at 1.3.
Fpv=Supercompressiblity factor to correct for the compressibility variation of the gas

from an ideal gas where:
Fpv = _1/z
Fm=Manometer factor which corrects for errors in a mercury actuated meter at

higher pressures. It is only used when mercury type meters are recording the pressure
differentials.
F1=Gauge location factor which corrects for meter locations when the meter is other
than at 45 latitude and sea level.
Fa=Thermal expansion factor to correct for expansion (or contraction) of the meter
plate when the temperature varies appreciably from the conditions under which the orifice
was bored. It is used when temperature of the meter run is above 120F or below 0F.
Since standard tables based on experimental data are used to obtain Fb, the physical
set-up of the metering system becomes important.
A meter run should be sized so that it can handle the anticipated maximum and minimum
flow rates. The smallest meter run should not have an ID smaller than 3 inches. To
determine the meter run size needed, calculate the orifice size from the following equation:
C
Orifice size =
250 (Eq 27-4)
www.opc.co.uk
where C' is calculated from Equation 26.1 after setting hw to pf (numerical values not units).
The Meter run should then be sized from:
Meter run = Orifice size x 1.5
Measurement of the pressure drop across the orifice is generally made with a bellows
assembly. The bellows is connected to the differential pen of a two pen recorder. The
flowing pressure is measured by a Bourdon tube which is connected to the second pen of
the two pen recorder. The two pen recorder marks a chart which is later integrated to
determine the amount of gas produced. To integrate the chart, several items must be
known, ie, orifice size, tap type and the temperature of the flowing stream.
Recently another method of measuring the pressure drop has seen use. The pressure is
measured by transducers which transmit an electrical signal. In most cases the signal is fed
into a microcomputer. The computer then calculates the flow rate using Equation 11.1 after
the orifice size has been programmed into the computer and pressure and temperature
measurements input by the transducers.
Tanks
A gauge tank is a simple atmospheric tank for collecting and measuring the liquids. A
surge tank is a low pressure vessel serving the same purpose.
During testing operations, produced fluids must be either stored in appropriate gauge
tanks or disposed of in a proper manner. Produced gas can either be sold to the pipeline or
flared using burners and booms. Oil can be temporarily stored until it is sold or burned.
For small amounts of oil it is often more convenient to burn the oil. Water should be stored
until it can be disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner. There must be
sufficient storage capacity on location at the start of a test to handle the anticipated fluid
that is produced during the test.
Transfer pumps
These are used to pump out the dead oil from the tanks. These are usually electrically
driven but for safety can be air driven.
Gas and oil diverter manifolds
This is a collection of valves allowing flow to be diverted from one burner to the other. A
gas diverter manifold is a simple two valve manifold. In the case of the oil manifold it also
www.opc.co.uk
incorporates more valves to allow the tanks to pumped out and diverted to the burners.
An oil manifold will consist of five valves.
Burners
It is necessary to dispose of oil and gas offshore in an environmentally friendly manner.

The issue of the protecting the environment has become more significant in the 1990s and
BP has been leading the way in this field. A burner is employed which is attached to the
end of a boom with piping along it to the burners themselves. The burner consists of one or
more heads which incorporate a nozzle which mixes the oil with air to atomise it and allow
the oil to burn more easily. The air and oil mixture is then sprayed with a water ring to cool
it and reduce the smoke effects. It is recommended that the air is supplied from a separate
supply from the rig which are usually two or more (for back up) air compressors.
Depending on the oil flow rate, it is usually necessary to cool the drilling rig with a water
screen which also reduces the effects of radiated heat. An manually operated ignition
system requires a methane supply and electricity to ignite a spark plug. The gas is simply
piped to the end of boom and burns with the oil. Two booms and burners are required to
cater for changes in wind direction and to avoid the drilling rig being engulfed in smoke.
In summary, to burn oil offshore the following is required;
1. A point to attach the burner boom

2. An abundant supply of water
3. Air compressors
4. A methane supply (containers)
5. Electricity for the ignitions system.
Even with the optimum operating conditions, a moderate wind, pure oil, good burner
nozzles and an abundant air supply and water, there is still a risk of some oil carrying over
into the sea. This is highly undesirable and not good for the environment. There is a slow
move towards so called Green Testing whereby the oil is stored in tanks offshore or
piped to a collection vessel. There are also specialist vessels with all the test equipment on
board which hold the produced oil on board in tanks similar to a FPSO but on a smaller
scale. This has the added benefit of offering the opportunity to sell the oil at the end of the
test to offset some of the costs.
Onshore, a pit is dug a safe distance from the operations and the liquid hydrocarbons
simply burnt. Gas is diverted to a similar area and burnt. Consideration should be given to
the heat generated which could damage the surrounding area.
Vent lines
Vent lines are tied into the burners or run overboard.

www.opc.co.uk
Emergency Shut Down System
The well and facilities are protected by an automatic shut down system which can be
manually operated as well. It will automatically shut down when an input signal is
received and this can be the following;
( High pressure upstream and downstream of the choke

( Low pressure upstream and downstream of the choke (ruptured pipe)
( High liquid level in the separator
( High pressure in separator
( High liquid level in tank
( Flamable gas detection
( H2S detection
( Manual shut down
Data Recorder
Usually electronic data recorders are used today for collecting all the relevant test data.
This includes, the fluid rates, pressures throughout the production test system and
temperatures. The information is presented in real time and can be useful in observing
trends and detecting problems. Hand recording of all of the data must be carried out too in
case of electronic disaster.
Lubricators
This is necessary to safely enter a wellbore with a wireline string. The lubricator is simply a
series of steel tubes long enough to hold the wireline tools. The lubricator has a stuffing
box and flow tubes at the top end, which is a sealing device which pumps viscous oil
around the wireline and holds the well head pressure with the help of packing elements.
There is a valve on top of the flowhead at the bottom of the lubricator. The valve is closed
until the tools are inside and the lubricator is screwed together. The valve is then opened
and the tools lowered into the well. The lubricator assembly is made up on the top of the
swab valve (if the well is so equipped).
The packing elements prevent pressure and fluid escaping from the wellbore. A stuffing
box with the flow tubes generally has a working pressure of up to 10,000 psi. For electric
wireline a control head with a grease injector must be used while for slick line only a
stuffing box is generally employed. The type of lubricator should be coordinated with the
service company providing the wireline services to ensure compatibility with the flowhead
and for pressure rating.
www.opc.co.uk
27.2 Subsea Equipment
Lubricator valve
A lubricator is a surface controlled safety valve which is used as an isolation valve in the
landing string and can also act as a second barrier from the formation after the downhole
valve. This allows the entry of long wireline strings into the well bore without the need for
a long lubricator.
Sub Sea Test Tree
This is vital for safe testing operations offshore using a floating drilling rig. The valve is
called different trade names and the most commonly used are E-Z Valve and SSTT. The
valve functions from the surface with control hoses which are attached to the valve itself.
The valve acts as a seal for pressure from below with a rotating ball valve and a backup
flapper valve which will only hold pressure from below. The ball valve will cut wire,
sometimes with extra assistance required but the flapper valve will not. It is possible to
pump through the valve from above thus allowing the opportunity to kill the well if
necessary. The main purpose of the valve is to allow the landing string to become safely
disconnected from the main tubing string without the need to kill the well allowing the
floating rig to move off location and leave a live well in a safe condition. The reasons for
movement of the rig are usually for severe weather warnings (typhoons or hurricanes) or
could be for any reason which threatens the safety of the rig in its testing location.
The Dummy Run
When testing offshore from a floating structure, the test string is fixed in the BOP on the
seabed at the hanger. The section of the test string from the fluted hanger to the rig floor is
called the landing string. Since the rig moves up and down around this section of
tubing/pipe there must be enough sticking up above the rig floor to cater for tides and
heave in bad weather.
The annulus is made by closing the rams (usually the pipe rams and/or annular preventer)
around a specially prepared short section of pipe called a slick joint above which the sub
surface test tree is placed. On the lower end of the slick joint is a fluted hanger which fits
into the hanger in the BOP. If the Sub Surface Test Tree has to be employed, it is important
to be able to close the top rams or the annular preventer above the lower section of the test
tree left in the BOP stack. While there will usually be a diagram of the BOP Stack on the rig,
it is wise not to rely on it and to actually physically check the selected rams close on the
slick joint and not on the Test Tree. This is done by performing a dummy run.
www.opc.co.uk
To perform a dummy run, the slick joint is painted white. This is then attached to the
landing string with no Test Tree and with the fluted hanger attached below. The landing
string is then run until the fluted hanger lands off in the BOP hanger. The selected rams are
closecd, left for a few moments closed and then opened again. While this is done the actual
length of landing string run can be measured at the rig floor so that suitable length pup
joints can be selected to obtain the optimum stick up. Once the landing string has been
pulled out of the hole again, the painted slick joint is examined to ensure that the rams
closed somewhere in the middle of it and not where the Test Tree would have been.
To summarise, the dummy run achieves two objectives;
1. To confirm that the position of the rams is such that they will close on the slick joint and
not the Test Tree.
2. To allow pup joints to be selected to give the optimum stick up on the rig floor.
27.3 Pressure Measurement
Downhole Gauges
Bottom hole pressure is usually obtained by running a bottom hole pressure (BHP) gauge
to a predetermined depth on wireline or by running a number of gauges (frequently four)
in the downhole test assembly. Normally, the gauges are set at the bottom of the open
perforations. However, in all cases it is important to position the gauge as near as
practically possible to the perforations or formation.
The majority of the gauges are either "hung off" downhole or are suspended downhole on a
wireline. To hang off a gauge, an instrument hanger, wireline mandrel and a seating nipple
are used. All of the wireline run equipment must be able to pass through the tubing string
and be able to be held in place, when "hung off" by the appropriate completion equipment.
Therefore, the equipment run in with the tubing will dictate the future feasibility of testing
a specific well.
When using gauges, which are almost always now electronic, the following should be
noted;
i) It is necessary to allow the gauges to reach thermal and mechanical equilibrium. This is
especially important during static surveys.
ii) Proper handling of any hysteresis effects. Hysteresis, if present, will be known if the
instrument is properly calibrated.
www.opc.co.uk
iii) Proper calibration of gauges is critical, if believable and accurate pressures are to be
obtained.
With surface readout the downhole pressure can be obtained in real time and analysis can
be performed during the test. The test can then be terminated as soon as enough data is
gathered and the well returned to production, suspended or abandoned. Furthermore,
operational problems can be detected and the test modified or curtailed as required.
Several items should be considered when planning a test using surface readout
instruments;
i) The power supply available must have a voltage and frequency compatible with the
instrument.
ii) If the equipment is battery powered, extra batteries should be on location and the
batteries should be tested prior to being run.
iii) The surface equipment may require a protected environment (air conditioning)
iv) Surface readout gauges are not recommended for use in H2S or other corrosive
environments.
The gauges are carried in a gauge carrier and can be arranged to record pressure from
within the tubing or the annulus pressure.
Dead Weight Tester
A dead weight tester should be used to monitor the surface flowing pressures as a back-up
to any data acquisition system. Surface pressures should be recorded periodically during
the test with earlier time readings being made more frequently.
27.4 Downhole Equipment
The practical aspects of well testing have a significant impact upon the quality of the data
acquired and therefore on the validity of the test results.
Landing Nipples
The industry has various types of landing nipples available to be used in the tubing string.
The two main types of nipples are selective and non-selective. Selective nipples allow any
number of nipples of the same ID to be located in the tubing string. The nipple generally
has a top no-go which is an enlarged ID that the running tool passes down through. Once
www.opc.co.uk
the desired nipple has been located, the wireline tools are moved upward into the nipple.
The dogs on the locking mandrel will engage the no-go. The mandrel is then released from
the wireline. For a bottom hole shut-in tool, the packing of the mandrel seals in the polish
bore of the nipple. When using an instrument hanger, a mandrel without packing is used
so that the well fluids can mover through the tubing. Other downhole shut in tools are self
contained and usually annular pressure operated.
There are some drawbacks to running bottom hole pressure tests using the hanging-off
procedure. If the well produces sand or was fracced either sand can settle in the nipple and
cause the packing seals on the mandrel to leak, (thereby nullifying the desired bottom hole
shut-in) or sand will fall off the side of the tubing and land on the mandrel causing it to
stick (A stuck mandrel can be difficult if not impossible to retrieve by wireline.
Furthermore the additional wireline work necessary to run, set, and later retrieve the
bottom hole pressure tools can sometimes damage these sensitive tools.
If the wellbore does not have landing nipples, there are other alternatives in obtaining
bottom hole pressure data. One method is to leave the instruments suspended by the
wireline. The main disadvantages of this are the increased cost of a wireline unit on
location and deterioration and failure of the wireline if it is exposed to a hostile
environment (ie H2S) over a long period of time. There is also a safety consideration in
leaving the wireline in the well. If a well has to be shut-in, the only valve that can be closed
is the wing valve since closing the master valves will cut the wireline resulting in a fishing
job.
It is, therefore, recommended that a soft set running tool and a shock absorber be used
when "hanging off" bottom hole pressure instruments. The softest tools are designed to
release without a jarring action. The shock absorber suspends the recording instruments
below the landing mandrel. The springs of the shock absorber are designed to minimise
impact on the bottom hole instruments during the running and retrieving operations.
Wireline Reentry guide
This is a specially strengthened slant ended short piece of pipe to guide wireline tools back
into the test string.
Packers
A packer is a tool which is designed to isolate one section of the wellbore from another. It
also acts as a support for some or all of the test string above it. There are two types of
packers available, permanent and retrievable. Both types are designed to isolate sections of
a wellbore by using slips and elastic packing elements. Permanent packers are set using an
www.opc.co.uk
electric wireline or by applying pressure to expand certain parts of it and to allow the slips
to grip the casing and set the packer. A setting tool sets off a charge which causes the slips
to set and the packing element to expand and seal. The permanent packer has a polished
bore into which a tubing seal element is positioned.
A permanent packer allows tubing movement and removal of tubing. If tubing subs and a
nipple are run on the bottom of the packer, a plug can be used to shut-in the well while the
tubing is removed without killing the production zone. Permanent packers hold pressure
from above or below the packer. Permanent packers are only permanent in the sense that
when the tubing is removed, the packer remains in the hole. Permanent packers can be
removed by milling over the packer slips and fishing the tool.
Retrievable packers are designed to be removed from the well or hole when the tubing is
removed. Retrievable packers can be set in a number of ways. The most common methods
are mechanical and hydraulic. Mechanical setting varies with the packer but usually a
combination of rotating the tubing and setting down some of the tubing weight on the
packer is employed. Hydraulic systems generally involve exceeding a predetermined
pressure to shear pre-set shear pins which allow the packer to set by the hydraulic pressure
acting on pistons.
Wireline set packers are similar to the permanent packer and vary as to whether they hold
pressure from either above or below, or both. These packers are difficult to drill or mill up
if left in the hole but can be run with tubing subs and nipples below the packer.
Consideration should be given to whether or not the packer will be subjected to a greater
pressure from below than above, as is experienced during stimulation pumping. Some
retrievable packers have slips that only prevent movement downwards and will therefore
come unseated when pressured from below.
Tester Valve
The tester valve is a valve that is opened and closed for flow and shut-in periods. The valve
is actuated by either a reciprocating motion, rotation or more usually today by annular
pressure. In the case of a rotating ball valve, the valve opens to the full bore size, usually 2
, the valve is designed to cut wire (so beware of this fact when performing wireline
operations) and to open with a differential pressure across it. More recent innovations for
the operations of down-hole tester valves include pre-programming of the tool by
electronics and operating it by sending lower pressure pulses to it via the annulus. Recent
tester valves also allow circulation for the spotting of acid or nitrogen.
Reversing Valves
www.opc.co.uk
These are one shot or re-usable valves establishing communication between the annulus
and the tubing. At the end of a test it is useful to be able remove the oil from the tubing and
this is achieved by reverse circulating (pumping down the annulus and up the tubing).
Two are usually employed for reduntancy.
Safety Joint
This is a short length of pipe used to back off the string from above the packer to retrieve
the gauges in the event the packer gets stuck in the well.
Hydraulic jar
This is used in conjunction with the safety joint to create a hammer action to assist in
retrieving stuck pipe.
27.5 Quality Control Checks
Correct field interpretation of data is very important because once the pressure record is
retrieved, the decision must be made to either accept the accuracy of the data or repeat the
test. A similar judgement regarding test quality must also be made by the reservoir
engineer when subsequently evaluating the data. It is therefore necessary to determine
whether or not the test was satisfactory from a mechanical standpoint, and whether the
accuracies of the recorded pressures are adequate for subsequent evaluation. It is therefore
suggested that the guidelines discussed earlier are followed.
Occasionally, a well may indicate depletion and a limited reservoir based on a DST. Such
an observation is made when the extrapolated final shut-in has a pressure lower than the pi
from the initial shut-in. Before making such a statement, the DST data should be examined
closely. Earlougher states that depletion effects should not even be considered unless the
difference between pisi and pfsi is more than 5% of pisi. Earlougher also writes that a second
test should be conducted prior to concluding that a reservoir is limited. Barriers, reservoir
heterogeneity, limited flow times, and gauge inaccuracies may also contribute to a lower
value of pfsi.
For the reasons noted above, a conclusion that the reservoir has experienced depletion
should be examined closely. Very limited reservoirs may indeed see a pressure drawdown
during a DST. The value of a reservoir that shows depletion after a DST may also be
limited. This fact should be discovered by the DST analyst - not by an uneconomic full field
development.
www.opc.co.uk
27.6 Sampling
The purpose of obtaining a reservoir fluid sample is to collect a sample which is

representative of the reservoir fluid. A reservoir fluid sample is analyzed in the laboratory
to determine fluid characteristics. The results of the laboratory analysis are used to manage
the reservoir production. If the samples obtained are not characteristic of the reservoir
fluids, then effective management of the reservoir can not be attained. The proper
sampling of reservoir fluids is thus quite important hence the planning and taking of
samples will be discussed in the following sections.
Sample Type
Reservoir fluids can be sampled by either subsurface means or by collecting a sample on

the surface. Representative reservoir fluid samples may be collected using a subsurface
sampler when the flowing bottom hole pressure is greater than the bubble point for oil or
dew point for gas-condensate. For a well that makes free water or when a large volume of
sample is required, subsurface samplers are not good choices. Surface samples can be
collected in two ways;
Recombination.
Surface samples are taken at the wellhead or at separators.
Planning the Sampling Programme
The first step in planning a sampling programme is to determine if a sample of original

reservoir fluid is required or is the sample simply that of the fluid below the bubble point
or dew point. The former is the more difficult task and will be covered in this discussion.
For the latter case, a recombination sample is recommended.
Type of Reservoir
The sampling programme and technique are dependent upon the type of reservoir that is
being studied. There are four basic types of reservoirs:
1. Oil
2. Volatile oil
3. Gas Condensate
4. Gas
The first three types of reservoirs require that a sample be obtained before the bottom hole
pressure drops below the bubble point/dew point pressure. Once the bottom hole
pressure falls below the bubble point/dew point, the original fluid characteristics will not
www.opc.co.uk
be observed. Thus, the original samples must be obtained early in a reservoir's life. For a
gas reservoir the fluid remains constant throughout the life of the reservoir so a sample
may be obtained at any time.
Reservoir Characteristics
The following characteristics should be considered when planning the sampling

programme.
If a group of wells is separated from another group because of structural and/or

stratigraphic changes, each group of wells should be sampled.
Thick reservoirs often have variations in fluid compositions and should be sampled at
several depth intervals.
If the reservoir appears to be homogeneous, but GOR and/or oil gravity vary over the field,
each area of similar GOR and gravity should be sampled.
Condition of the reservoir fluid near the wellbore must be considered (avoid gas coning,
high flow rates creating high gas saturation near the wellbore, near wellbore pressure is
below the bubble point, etc.).
Producing Characteristics
Important producing characteristics of a well which should be recorded at the time of

taking a sample are:
Current water production, if any.
GOR and oil gravity typical of surrounding wells and reservoir.
Well productivity index:- high or low.
Well flows naturally.
Presence of water-oil, gas-oil, gas-water contacts.
Conditioning the Well
The aim of sampling a well is to obtain a sample which is representative of the reservoir
fluid. In the wellbore and near wellbore vicinity, the fluid is often not representative of the
reservoir fluid. This is because the greatest pressure drop occurs close to the wellbore and
this often results in some alterations of the otherwise typical reservoir fluid.
www.opc.co.uk
Shutting in a well may restore the well to reservoir pressure, but it may not restore the fluid
to its original composition. Conditioning a well is designed to restore the fluid composition
to original reservoir conditions by displacing the altered fluid with representative reservoir
fluid. Conditioning generally requires flowing a well at much lower than normal rates.
Conditioning the different types of well is reviewed below.
Flowing Oil Wells
A flowing oil well is conditioned by producing the well at successively lower rates thus
decreasing the pressure drop near the wellbore. The well is flowed at each rate until the
GOR stabilises. The flow rate reduction continues until the GOR remains constant for two
successive flow rates. A constant GOR indicates that the oil is above the bubble point. If
the GOR decreases after a rate reduction, this can be indicative of free gas saturation near
the wellbore. If GOR increases after a rate reduction, it can be indicative of the well
producing from a gas zone and an oil zone. Such a well should probably not be used for
sampling.
Pumping Oil Wells
The same procedure for flowing oil wells is followed except that the rate reduction is
obtained by reducing the pump rate. Most wells on pump will be below the bubble point
and are not satisfactory for obtaining a bottom hole reservoir fluid sample in the hopes of
evaluating conditions above the bubble point.
Gas Condensate Wells
Gas condensate wells are conditioned in the same fashion as a flowing oil well.
Volatile-Oil Wells
Conditioning a volatile oil well is as for a flowing oil well. However, in a volatile oil well,
GOR will usually remain stable between flow rates even though the fluid composition is
changing. If a reservoir is believed to be a volatile oil reservoir, then reservoir fluid samples
should be obtained as soon as possible after completion. It may also be prudent to consider
having anti foaming chemicals on the location to prevent (or minimise) foaming in the
separator.
27.7 Safety
The safe conduct of any test is of the utmost importance. The safety considerations covered
are general recommendations and are not intended to be an exhaustive list but some ideas
www.opc.co.uk
for consideration. Each test will be different and so adjustments to the safety items will be
necessary for each test while there are always some facts which will never change. Before
conducting any test, a check with regulatory agencies for any specific safety requirements
should be made.
Ensure that all equipment is certified by an external certifying body such as Det Norsk
Veritas or similar.
Make sure that the wellhead, flanges, fittings and other equipment rated working pressure
is greater than the expected pressures and is compatible
Make sure that there is no leakage at or through any pipe, valve or connection. In other
words pressure test everything prior to testing.
Ensure there is a safe method of igniting the flare.
If well fluids contain H2S, ensure that all personnel are aware of potential H2S problems
and safety equipment is available.
Comply with any company and/or government safety requirements.
Use common sense.
Restrict the use of all hot work. It is recommended that all hot work ceases during flowing
of the well and is limited to safe areas once the well is live.
Keep personnel outside the accommodation to a minimum during flowing.
Establish criteria for opening the well in the dark and for shutting the well down if H2S is
encountered unexpectedly.
Hold regular safety meetings, especially prior to opening the well for the first time to
ensure that all personnel are aware of what will be happening.
Do not lift objects over wireline while running in or out of the hole or over pressured pipes
or vessels.
Smoking is prohibited outside of the accommodation.
Make sure the emergency shut down buttons function and everyone knows where they are.
Arrange for someone to check the pipes for leaks throughout the flow period.
www.opc.co.uk
Ensure that downhole safety valves are open but able to function. Do not leave wireline in
hole without government or company approval.
Ensure that a tool joint is not in the pipe rams when the packer(s) is set and verify that the
pipe ram rubbers are the proper size for the pipe. Note also that BOP's should be tested
prior to beginning a DST.
Know the formation strength at the casing seat from an earlier pressure test or from offset
information.
Make sure that the choke manifold, and/or meter run, is rated for the maximum surface
pressure anticipated. Insure that flare line(s) is properly staked and that the flare can be
ignited safely.
Have the wellhead rated for greater than the maximum anticipated pressure. Check the
opening and closing of the valves on the wellhead.
Keep the annulus full tripping in and out of the hole and monitor the annulus fluid level
during the test. Keep track of volumes and pump strokes into the annulus.
It is recommended that any DST be run during a period of good visibility, preferably
daylight. Visibility is necessary when observing the annulus and fluid flow, if any, through
the choke manifold.
Comply with any company and regulatory authority requirements.
27.8 Environmental issues
BP are leading the way in minimising the impact on the environment from burning
hydrocarbons. The following is taken from internal BPX correspondence.
In line with the BPX stated goal of no damage to the environment , John Brownes (BPs Chairman)
commitment that our goal is to only flare in emergencies, and to reduce emissions to zero as soon as
practicable, the following is an attempt to give guidance on the environmental considerations during Well
Testing. Given that the technology to allow us to meet these goals is not yet available and there are
cases where testing is considered advantageous to optimum development of any given reservoir, it is
important that the environmental and business implications of testing are fully considered. It is not the
intent to prohibit testing within BPX but to ensure that consistent decisions are made in line with our
corporate aspirations
These guidelines apply to both operated and partner operated activities. It is acknowledged that partner
operations can be more difficult however we still require assurance that we are doing all in our power to influence our partners
www.opc.co.uk
1. The need to test and preplanning

Prior to any well test, either conventional or extended, it is important that a full review of the need to test
the well is conducted by an appropriate level of peer review. Once this has been agreed the duration of the
test must be minimised to reduce the volume of emissions which will be caused by any well testing .
Prior to any testing the Business unit must evaluate all emissions and clearly have a program of
environmental protection in place.
In all cases where testing takes place the most efficient burners available must be used. Prior to well testing the business
unit must ensure to the satisfaction of the peer review team that measures have been put in place to ensure cleanest possible
burn and to reduce potential start up problems.
At completion of the operation a full environmental report will be prepared
2.Gas Testing
Currently all testing involves flaring or in certain cases cold venting where the option of gas disposal does not
exist.(eg. Export or re-injection to a nearby well)
For short duration tests flaring or cold venting will be allowed, for longer (more than 1 week) tests all
practical efforts must be made to dispose of the gas either by export or via re-injection. In cases where
this is deemed impracticable by the business unit EXCO approval must be received prior to testing.
3.Oil testing
For short term tests flaring is allowed on remote sites where liquid export is impracticable. Offshore,
drop out must be minimised and vessels with anti pollution capability available on standby. A peer review of
operational procedures and equipment must be performed.
Onshore, bunding must be used to capture any unburnt liquid hydrocarbons which must then be
disposed of in an appropriate manner.
For extended well tests flaring liquids is unacceptable . Associated gas will fall within the same criteria as
gas in section 2.
In all cases testing must be immediately suspended if equipment in use is not operating to the standards
assumed in preplanning of the test.
As we move forward we will be investigating new testing technology including gas to liquid conversion,
and business unit support will be sought to help drive these technologies through to delivery.
Reference should be made to the appendix which has two flow charts referring to the planning phases of
the testing operations and considerations to the environment.
www.opc.co.uk
28. INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE, REPORTS AND PRESENTATION

OF RESULTS
The procedure to perform a well test interpretation and the style and content of any well
test interpretation report will vary from location to location. This is in no way intended as a
strict format to follow but is included as a guide since it may be useful in the absence of any
other guidelines.
An outline for the method to perform the analysis follows;
1. Gather all available data together and review it.

2. Determine other data that is required but which is not available and make estimates in
consultation with other specialists with knowledge of the well and reservoir. The data
required is listed in section 2.3.
3. Load pressure, rate and static data into the chosen software package.
4. Compare gauges data (assuming more than one) and select one which has the longest
(not necessarily the most) amount of reliable useful data.
5. Examine the plots and confirm that the data can be analysed and that it is not all well
bore storage.
6. Perform a diagnostic analysis to determine initial values of permeability, skin and
boundary distances to ensure the solutions are within the expected range (if known).
7. Select a type curve model
8. Attempt to obtain a suitable match on all three plots; log-log/derivative, semi
log/superposition, data plot.
9. Repeat steps 7 and 8 for as many reservoir models as are suitable.
10. Produce a report which may include all the plots with both diagnostic and type curve
analysis. It may be a good idea to include in the report a summary of the results at the
beginning, a description of the parameters used in the analysis, their origin and any
assumptions which were used to derive them. It is also useful to include somewhere a
sequence of events for the test, a summary of the actual data used in the analysis so that
someone else could repeat the interpretation at a later date, a log of the reservoir
interval and a completion diagram.
The reports last a long time and ideally should contain everything that another engineer
would need to repeat the interpretation several years later since it will usually become
separated from other data.
www.opc.co.uk
28.1 Methodology
Well test analysis is a three steps process :
1 Identification of the interpretation model. The derivative plot is the primary

identification tool.
2 Calculation of the interpretation model. The log-log pressure and derivative plot is
used to make the first estimates.
3 Verification of the interpretation model. The simulation is adjusted on the three
usual plots : log-log, test history and superposition.
www.opc.co.uk
Log-log
analysis Model selection (derivative)
Estimate parameters : kh, C,

heterogeneities , boundaries
(derivative) and S (pressure)
Simul #1 . . . . . . #n
Test
Adjust initial pressure pi
history Check the data (variable skin,
simulation consistent rate history)
Check the model response on a

larger time interval
Superposition Adjust parameters (pi, S, C...)

simulation
Next model
End
www.opc.co.uk
28.2 The diagnosis : typical pressure and derivative shapes
Flow regime identification
GEOMETRY LOG-LOG TIME RANGE

shape slope Early Intermediate Late
Radial No Double Homogeneous Semi infinite

porosity behavior reservoir
0 restricted
Linear 1/2 Infinite Horizontal Two sealing

conductivty well boundaries
1/2 fracture
Double
Bi-linear 1/4 Finite Finite porosity
conductivity conductivity unrestricted
1/4 fracture fault with linear
flow
Spherical Well in partial

No penetration
-1/2
Pseudo Wellbore Layered no Closed

1 storage crossflow reservoir
Steady State
1 with (drawdown)
boundaries
Steady State Conductive Constant

fault pressure
boundary
0
-1 ()
www.opc.co.uk
Changes of properties during radial flow
Mobility decreases : Sealing boundaries, composite reservoirs, horizontal well with a long
drain hole.
Dp
Log(Dp')
Log(Dt) Log(Dt)
Figure 28-1 The mobility decreases (kh ).
Log-log and semi-log scales.
Mobility increases : Composite reservoirs, constant pressure boundaries, layered systems,

wells in partial penetration.
Dp
Log(Dp')
Log(Dt) Log(Dt)
Figure 28-2 The mobility increases (kh ).
Storativity increases : Double porosity reservoirs, layered and composite reservoirs.

www.opc.co.uk
Dp
Log(Dp')
Log(Dt) Log(Dt)
Figure 28-3 The storativity increases ( ct h ).
Storativity decreases : Composite systems.
Dp
Log(Dp')
Log(Dt) Log(Dt)
Figure 28-4 The storativity decreases ( ct h ).
28.3 Summary of usual log-log responses
Well models
Wellbore storage and Skin

1
p'
1 Wellbore storage, C C
p&
2 Radial, kh and S S
kh
t
www.opc.co.uk
Infinite conductivity fracture
p'
1 Linear, xf 1/2
xf kh, ST
p&
2 Radial, kh and ST
Finite conductivity fracture

p'
1 Bi-linear, kf wf xf
p&
2 Linear, xf kh, ST
3 Radial, kh and ST kf w f 1/2
1/4
Partial penetration
p'
1 Radial, hw and Sw
-1/2
Spherical (mobility ), kV
p&
2
3 Radial, kh and ST kV kh, ST
hw, Sw
Horizontal well
p'
1 Radial vertical, kV and Sw

Linear (mobility ), L
p&
2 1/2 kh, ST
3 Radial, kh and ST L
kV , Sw
Reservoir models
www.opc.co.uk
Double porosity, restricted

interporosity flow
p'
1 Radial fissures, k kh, S
Transition (storativity ),
p&
2
and
3 Radial fissures + matrix, kh

and S
t
Double porosity, unrestricted

interporosity flow
p'
Transition,
p&
1
kh, S
2 Radial fissures + matrix, kh
and S
Radial composite
1 Radial inner, k1h and Sw

p'
2 Transition (mobility or ), r
p&
3 Radial outer, k2h and ST k2h, ST

k1h, Sw
k1h > k2h; k1h < k2h r

t
Radial Composite
1 Radial inner, k1h and Sw

p'
2 Transition (mobility or ), L
p&
(k1h+k2h)/2,
3 Radial total, (k1h+k2h)/2 and ST ST
k1h, Sw
k1h > k2h; k1h < k2h
L
t
Double permeability, same skin

S1=S2
p'
,
p&
1 No crossflow kh, ST
2 Transition (storativity ), ,

and (kV)
3 Radial, kh1+kh2 and ST t
www.opc.co.uk
Double permeability, partial

penetration S1=
p'
k2h2, S2
p&
1 Radial, k2h2 and S2 kh, ST
2 Transition (mobility ), (kV)
3 Radial, kh1+kh2 and ST
t
Boundary models
Sealing fault
p'
1 Radial, kh and S
p&
2 Transition (mobility ), L kh, S

3 Hemi-radial
L
t
Channel
1 Radial, kh and S
p'
2 Linear, L1+L2 1/2

p&
L1
: Off-centered L1+L2
1 Radial, kh and S kh, S
2 Hemi-radial, L1
3 Linear, L1+L2 t
Channel closed at one end

p'
1 Radial, kh and S 1/2

p&
2 Linear, L1+L2 1/2

3 Transition (mobility ), L3 L3
kh, S L1+L2
4 Semi-linear
t
Intersecting faults
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L1+L2
p'

3 Fraction of radial,
p&
L1 1/2
: Off-centered L1+L2
1 Radial, kh and S kh, S
2 Hemi-radial, L1
3 Linear, L1+L2 t
www.opc.co.uk
Closed system centered

-
p
p'
1 Radial, kh and S 1
p&
2 Pseudo steady state, A
: Build-up kh, S A
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Average pressure, p and A
t
Closed channel
1
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L1+L2 -
p'
p
3 Pseudo steady state, A 1/2
p&
: Build-up L1+L2
A
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L1+L2 kh, S
3 Average pressure, p and A
t
Closed with intersecting faults
1 Radial, kh and S 1
2 Linear, L1+L2
3 Fraction of radial, -
p'
p
4 Pseudo steady state, A
p&

: Build-up A
1/2
1 Radial, kh and S
L1+L2
2 Linear, L1+L2 kh, S
4 Average pressure, p and A t
Constant pressure boundaries

p'
1 Radial, kh and S
p&
kh, S -1
2 Transition (mobility ), L L
One boundary
Multiple boundaries
t
28.4 Consistency check with the test history simulation

www.opc.co.uk
In the following examples, the initial pressure is 5000 psi. The interpretation model, defined
from log-log analysis of the short shut-in period, may be inconsistent when applied to the
complete rate history.
Increase of derivative response after the last build-up point (second sealing boundary)
The log-log derivative plot suggests the presence of a sealing fault.
1.0E+00
Dp & Dp', psi
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04
Dt, hr
Figure 28-5 Log-log plot of the final build-up.
Homogeneous reservoir with a sealing fault.
The sealing fault model is not applicable on the extended production history.
10
95
90
5000 85
pi=4914 psi 80
75
70
65
pressure, psi
60
4800 55
50
45
40
35
4600 30
25
20
15
10
50
4400 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
time, hr
Figure 28-6 Test history simulation. Linear scale.
Homogeneous reservoir with a sealing fault.
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+00
Dp & Dp', psi
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04
Dt, hr
Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.
100
950
pi=5000 psi 900
5000 850
800
750
700
650
pressure, psi
600
4800 550
500
450
400
350
4600 300
250
200
150
100
500
4400 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
time, hr
When a second sealing fault, parallel to the first, is introduced farther away in the reservoir,
the extended production history match is correct.
Decrease of derivative response after the last build-up point (Layered semi infinite
reservoir)
www.opc.co.uk
The log-log derivative plot suggests the presence of two parallel sealing faults.
1.0E+00
Dp & Dp', psi
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Dt, hr

With the parallel sealing faults model the initial pressure before the production history is
too high.
www.opc.co.uk
5500 10000
9500
9000
8500
5000 pi=5443 psi 8000
7500
7000
6500
pressure, psi
4500 6000
5500
5000
4500
4000 4000
3500
3000
2500
3500 2000
1500
1000
500
3000 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
time, hr

The reservoir is a two layer no crossflow, one layer is closed. At late time, the derivative
stabilizes to describe the radial flow regime in the infinite layer. The hump at intermediate
time corresponds to the storage of the limited zone.
www.opc.co.uk
1.0E+00
Dp & Dp', psi
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04
Dt, hr

Two layers reservoir, one infinite and one closed layer.
10000
5000 9500
9000
8500
pi=5000 psi 8000
7500
4500 7000
6500
pressure, psi
6000
5500
4000 5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
3500 2500
2000
1500
1000
500
3000 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
time, hr

Two layers reservoir, one infinite and one closed layer.
www.opc.co.uk
29. APPENDICES
29.1 Nomenclature
A = Surface, sq ft
B = Formation volume factor, RB/STB
cg = Gas compressibility, psi-1
co = Oil compressibility, psi-1
ct = Total compressibility, psi-1
ct = Total compressibility at the average pressure of the test, psi-1
C = Wellbore storage coefficient, Bbl/psi
CA = Shape factor
D = Diffusivity ratio (outer zone / inner zone), or turbulent flow coefficient
e = Exponential (2.7182 . . .)
Ei = Exponential integral
k = Permeability, md
kf = Fracture or fissures permeability, md
kH = Horizontal permeability, md
km = Matrix blocks permeability, md
ks = Spherical permeability, md
kV = Vertical permeability, md
h = Thickness, ft
hw = Perforated thickness, ft
L = Distance, or length of an horizontal well, ft
m = Straight line slope (semi-log or other)
m(p) = Pseudo pressure or gas potential, psia2/cp
m* = Slope of the pseudo steady state straight line, psi/hr
M = Mobility ratio (outer zone / inner zone)
n = Number of fissure plane directions, or turbulent flow coefficient
p = Pressure, psi
pf = Fissure pressure, psi
pi = Initial pressure, psi
pm = Matrix blocks pressure, psi
pw = Well pressure, psi
p* = Extrapolated pressure, psi
p = Reservoir average pressure, or during the test, psi
q = Flow rate, STB/D or Mscf/D (103scft/D)
r = Radius, ft
ri = Radius of investigation, ft
rm = Matrix blocks size, ft
rw = Wellbore radius, ft
S = Skin coefficient, or saturation
www.opc.co.uk
Spp = Geometrical skin of partial penetration

St = Total skin
Sw = Skin over the perforated thickness
www.opc.co.uk
t = Time, hr
tp = Horner production time, hr
v = Volume, cu ft
V = Volume ratio (fissures or matrix), or flow velocity
xf = Half fracture length, ft
w = Fracture width, ft
Z = Distance to the lower reservoir limit, ft, or real gas deviation factor
Z = Real gas deviation factor at the average pressure of the test
= Geometric coefficient in , or transmissibility ratio of a semi-permeable fault
= Transition curve of a double porosity transient interporosity flow
= Constant of a curve
= Difference
= Euler's constant (1.78 . . . )
= Porosity, fraction
f = Fissures porosity, fraction
m = Matrix blocks porosity, fraction
= Mobility ratio
= Interporosity (or layer) flow coefficient
= Viscosity, cp
= Viscosity at the average pressure of the test, cp
= Angle between two intersecting faults
w = Well location between two intersecting faults
= Geometrical coefficient of the location of a well in a channel
= Storativity ratio
= Density, lb/cu ft
Subscripts
AOF = Absolute Open Flow Potential

BLF = Bi-linear flow (slope m)
BU = Build-up
D = Dimensionless
e = External
f = Fracture, fissures or formation
H = Horizontal
i = Initial or investigation
int = Intersection of straight line
LF = Linear flow (slope m)
m = Matrix
www.opc.co.uk
o = Oil
p = Production (time)
pp = Partial penetration
ps = Pseudo (time)
PSS = Pseudo permanent
s = Spherical
sc = Standard conditions
S = Skin
SLF = Semi linear flow (slope m)
SPH = Spherical flow (slope m)
t = Total
V = Vertical
w = Well, or water
wf = Flowing well
ws = Shut-in well
WBS = Wellbore storage regime (slope m)
1 = Inner zone, or high permeability layer(s)
2 = Outer zone, or low permeability layer(s)
www.opc.co.uk
29.2 Liquid to gas conversion chart

www.opc.co.uk
29.3 Flaring Flow Chart
BPX WELL TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES

Asset Team Decides BPX Goal
Data or Clean-Up Formation of Peer Review
Zero Damage to the Environment
Flare only in Emergencies
Requirements Appropriate Level
Skills Brought Reduce Emissions to Zero
Should be Early Enough to Influence Design Demonstrably Independent Of the Asset The technology to achieve this along with Testing and
Is PVT critical, can you
use an MDT
How clean do you need to
be Data Acq. or Objective Of Peer Review
Justification Of Emissions
Clean Up is not yet available but we must minimise the
impact.
Is Deliverability critical, What completion fluid,
what about if the well is
obviously good
what perf debris
Why cant the production
Clean-Up Plan Will it change any decisions ?
Minimisation of Emissions
Distance to faults and facilities handle the fluids Have all appropriate measures been taken ?
other late time effects - Is the best equipment being used ?
What would it take to
will they really change enable the production Feasibility Of Ops Plan
anything.
DSTs can reduce
uncertainty not remove it
facilities to take the fluid Internal Challenges on
Environmental Aspects Peer Review Will it work Operationally
Will it get the Data required
Environmental
Report
Must Not
Be Flared Oil Business Unit Prog Vs Act Emissions
Sheen Monitoring
Assoc. Yes
Oh No
A Decision Shr ub
Leader Spills
Chemicals Used / Discharged
Gas Equipment Performance
Gas Is the Test Lessons Learned
Exco Approval Longer than

Required 1 Week ?
No
Inform Tech. Yes
Directors Environmentally
or Politically Statutory
Particularly Approval
Test or
Sensitive To Flare Clean-Up
No
If the Equipment Performance

is unsatisfactory and causing
Detailed Pollution or Excess Emissions
Programme
Asset Assurance
Procedures
Evaluation of Emissions
Peer Review Suspend
Environmental Impact
Programme of Environmental Protection Technical Integrity Immediately
Contingency Plans
HAZOP/HAZID/ Risk Assessment
www.opc.co.uk
29.4 Testing flow chart
Well testing and environment

Guidelines flowchart
Peer Review of
Complete Burner selection operational
ExCo approval to
environemtal Burn gas and procedures
burn gas > 1 week
report burner trial and equipment
Gas
Environmental
Team decided Peer Review on Technical Director assessment and
test required test need endorsement control program
Oil
Complete Burn oil Burner selection Peer Review of

environemtal and gas and operational
report short tests only burner trial procedures
and equipment

Well Testing PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Well Testing PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Fundamentals of Well Test Design and Analysis, D. Bourdet and P.

BASIC WELL TEST DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

BP EXPLORATION OPERATING COMPANY

DOMINIQUE BOURDET AND PIERS JOHNSON

2. FUNDAMENTALS OF WELL TESTING................................................................................................................. 9

7. THE DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION AND ITS SOLUTIONS .................................................................................. 26

12.1 LOG-LOG SCALE .......................................................................................................................................................... 44

21.1 DEFINITION................................................................................................................................................................ 119

28. INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE, REPORTS AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS.......................... 222

2. FUNDAMENTALS OF WELL TESTING

2.1 Description of a Well Test

2.2 Terminology and Definitions

Build up/Fall off

Well Bore Storage

Skin > 0 Damaged

The value is dimensionless and is represented by the letter S.

Natural Fractures (or Double Porosity)

d) Average reservoir pressure (static pressure) and temperature.

e) Formation permeability given net pay.

Input Data Required

To perform a test analysis a considerable amount of information is required. The following

a) The well production rates as a function of time.

b) The bottom-hole pressure as a function of time.

c) The wellbore configuration;

d) A documented test history including;

- a complete sequence of events.

- drilled v true depths if well not vertical.

f) Rock and fluid properties

Net pay (formation thickness, h)

g) Geological interpretation of the reservoir extent and likely formation

General information obtained from Geologists and Geophysicists

h) Production logs (optional but recommended with large h)

To determine Producing intervals.

i) Gradient surveys (optional but recommended) to confirm;

- Static fluids levels and fluid contacts/interfaces

* Individual compressibilities can be combined and represented by Total Compressibility

Why perform well tests?

Well Tests (Transient Pressure Tests) are performed to Determine:

Nature of produced fluids.

PERFORM WELL TESTS WHENEVER POSSIBLE

3. AN OVERVIEW OF PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS

3.1 Basic equations

q is the flow rate

3.2 Well Test Interpretation Methodology

Well test interpretation can be simplified if it is considered as a special pattern recognition

INPUT(I) SYSTEM (S) OUTPUT (O)

Interpretation therefore relies on theoretical models which are assumed to have

3.3 Types of Well Tests

DST (Drill Stem Test)

In a DST, the well is completed temporarily with down-hole control provided by

High Pressure High Temperature Tests

Classification by Test Procedure

Gas well testing

i) Flow after flow (FAF) and multi-rate tests.

ii) Isochronal tests.

iii) Modified Isochronal tests.

Interference and Pulse Tests

Classification by Operational phase

4. TYPICAL TEST PROCEDURE

f) Make well safe to allow retrieval of gauges and completion if applicable.

h) Proceed with interpretation.

4.1 Operational Tips

Pressure test everything on site.