PROCEEDINGS, Twenty-Sixth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, California, January 29-31, 2001 SGP-TR-168

ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTS IN KIZILDERE GEOTHERMAL FIELD

Umran Serpen, Mustafa Onur Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering Istanbul Technical University Istanbul, 80626, Turkey e-mail: serpen@itu.edu.tr, onur@itu.edu.tr. encountered in all wells, and the marbles are much more continuous and thicker with better permeability, the deeper marble zone was targeted for exploitation. o The recent discovery of 240 C temperature was made in another stratigraphicaly separate gneiss of Paleozoic, which has no primary porosity and permeability, either. The drilled wells indicate variable flow capacity ranging from low to high (3 to 85 darcy-m). Particularly, the wells drilled in the area delimited by geological and geophysical studies show much higher permeability. Reservoir rocks, especially marbles, do not have primary porosity and permeability, but secondary porosity and permeability due to fracture networks. Although many well tests have been conducted in Kizildere field since its discovery, only a handful of them are adequate for the application of recent well test analysis techniques based on pressure derivative (Bourdet et al., 1983) and computer-aided nonlinear regression analysis (Horne, 1995). The well tests conducted in the well KD-15 were found to be suitable for the purpose of analysis with such modern interpretation methods. In the following sections, we show how these modern techniques when combined with conventional methods lead to more reliable and accurate interpretation of the well tests conducted in the KD-15 in the Kizildere geothermal field. FIELD DATA INTERPRETATION Here, we present the analyses of two buildup tests conducted before and acidizing the well KD-5 in 1988. In this section, first, we give well completion data for KD-15 and other data pertinent to fluid and reservoir system, and then present the interpretation of pre-acid and post acid buildup tests conducted in well KD-15. Well KD-15 The well KD-15 had a depth of 510 m, and it was 5/8 completed with casing of diameter 9 inches up to the depth of 390 m. From the depth of 390 m to 506.1

ABSTRACT In this study, the analyses of two build-up tests, one before and the other after acidizing well KD-15 in the Kizildere geothermal field, Turkey, are presented. In the interpretation of these field tests besides conventional log-log and semi-log methods, modern methods such as pressure-derivative (logarithmic time rate of pressure) and nonlinear regression analysis are employed. It is shown that the use of modern analysis techniques in conjunction with conventional analysis techniques provides more reliable and accurate interpretation of geothermal well tests. INTRODUCTION Located in the western extreme of the B. Menderes graben where it intersects with Gediz and rksu grabens, the Kizildere geothermal field is a liquido dominated reservoir with temperatures of 195-212 C at depths of 300-800 m. The field was discovered in 1968, and 17 wells were drilled until mid 1970s assessing the capacity and at the same time developing the field. A power plant of 20 MWe generation capacity fed by 6 production wells was installed at the field and power generation started in 1984. Three additional production wells were drilled two years later to produce more steam. The field has been generating approximately 7.5 MWe of energy for the last 16 years. A deep well, drilled to 2300 m o in 1997 for reinjection, struck 240 C temperature, but it has not been connected into production line. Two stratigraphicaly separate zones in the field were initially identified as reservoir during the exploratory stage; shallow one in limestones of Miocene with o temperatures of 196-200 C and moderate permeability, and few hundred meters deeper one in o marbles of Paleozoic with temperatures of 200-212 C and high permeability. Since limestones are not continuously distributed and therefore not

m, the well is open hole with a diameter of 8 inches. A slotted pipe with a diameter of 7 inches was set from 390 m to the bottom of the well to prevent frail graphite-schist caving in. The well was producing with brine containing around 1.5% CO2 (by weight) in solution under reservoir conditions (Satman et al., 1999). The salinity of brine is 4500 ppm. At the bottom hole conditions, the temperature of the fluid o was 206 C. The flashing point-pressure of the brine at this temperature (assuming 1.5% CO2 dissolved in the brine) is 54 bar (Ugur, 1996), while the boiling point pressure of brine at this temperature is around 18 bar. Reservoir system consists of marble and gneiss and does not have matrix porosity in Kizildere, and production occurs through the fracture networks intersecting the well. A waterloss test conducted in the well is shown in Fig. 1. Evaluating Fig. 1 and losses occurred during drilling, fractured intervals are identified between 390-410 and another interval at the bottom of well between 490-506.1 m.
350

1/2

buildup test is 40.31 bar, while the measured pressure value at the end of post-acid buildup test is 41.47 bar. All pressure measurements were made using a mechanical bourdon tube pressure gauge at the depth of 450 m using Amerada, and no pressure measurements were made during the preceding flow periods of pre- and post-acid buildup tests. So, only pressure measurements pertaining to pre- and postacid buildup tests were available for interpretation. Model Identification Figure 2 compares pressure change and its derivative pertaining to pre- and post-acid buildup tests conducted on the well. Pressure-derivative data were computed using a three-point formula with no smoothing (Bourdet et al., 1989). All derivative data shown in Fig. 2 were obtained by differentiating the pressure change data (p = pws-pwf,s, where pws denotes the shut-in pressure and pwf,s denotes the flowing bottomhole pressure at the instant of shut-in) with respect to Horner time ratio and plotted versus elapsed time in the buildups to eliminate the producing time effects. In Fig. 2, both pressure change and derivative data are normalized by flow rates to remove the effects of different rates between the two tests. Table 1 gives the wellbore parameters used for the tests. The most obvious difference between the two tests is the reduction in wellbore damage. This would be expected as a result of the stimulation. Note that the type of wellbore storage phenomena is quite different between the two tests. Post-acid test data show less wellbore storage effects than pre-acid test data, but this is expected due to well stimulation which increases bottomhole pressure and hence decreases the total compressibility of the wellbore fluid. Pre-acid buildup pressure data show a typical behavior of wellbore storage coefficient that increases with time (Earlougher, 1977). Pressure and derivative data corresponding to pre-acid test in the time interval from 0.02 to 0.1 hours clearly show a well-defined unit slope line. From conventional analysis of this unit slope line, wellbore storage 3 coefficient, C, was estimated as 0.934 m /bar.

Casing shoe 400 Circ. losses(407.8m)

Depth, m

450

500

Circ. losses(497m)

550 50 60 70 80 90

Temperature, C

Figure 1. Depth-temperature profile in a waterloss test in KD-15. Pre-Acid and Post-Acid Buildup Tests Prior to pre-acid buildup test, the well was produced with a constant mass production rate of 70 ton/h for 24 hours. The measured flowing pressure at the instant of shut-in is 19.3 bar. The duration of the preacid buildup test was 21.45 hours. The measured pressure value at the end of pre-acid buildup test is 41.13 bar. Because the productivity of the well was found to be quite low because of flow impairment in the well and formation due calcite scaling, the well was acidized to increase the productivity. After acidizing, the well was produced at a constant mass production rate of 168 ton/h for 24 hours and then shut-in for a buildup test for 1.5 hours. The flowing bottom hole pressure at the instant of post-acid

TABLE 1 WELL AND RESERVOIR DATA FOR KD-15 BUILDUP TESTS

, h,m -1 ct, bar , cp rw, m 0.07 116.1 -3 7.6x10 0.15 0.108

Mass production for pre-acid test: 70 ton/h. Producing time for pre-acid test: 24 hours Mass production for post-acid-test:168 ton/h

Producing time for pre-acid test: 24 hours

1E+1 Normalized pressure change and derivative, bar/(ton/h)

pre-acid (pressure change) pre-acid (derivative)

1E+0

post-acid (pressure change) post-acid (derivative)

indicate that pre-acid buildup test was ended during the wellbore storage flow period. Actually, this indicates the advantage of derivative data for model identification by visual inspection of the log-log diagnostic plot. As shown later, any failure to recognize appropriate flow regimes exhibited by the test data will lead to erroneous results in interpreting pre-acid test data for the well KD-15. Pressure and pressure-derivative data pertaining to post-acid buildup test (see Fig. 2) give an indication of wellbore storage effects at very early time, but this is not very conclusive because of the absence of a well-defined unit slope line on pressure-derivative data. Actually, derivative data in the time interval from 0.01 to 0.1 hours (which is about a log-cycle) is almost flat, which may indicate the existence of a radial flow period. Derivative data in the time interval from 0.1 to 0.5 hours decrease and then, show a scattering for test times greater than 0.5 hours. This scattering can indicate another radial flow because pressure data hardly change near the end of buildup test and, thus, differentiation of such pressure data causes scattering (noise) in derivative data near the end of buildup. Similar observations have been made in the literature (Bourdet et al., 1989). Based on the behavior of pressure-derivative data for post-acid buildup test, at least four possible models can be considered for the analysis; namely, wellbore storage/homogeneous reservoir model, wellbore storage/double-porosity model, homogeneous reservoir/partially-penetrating well or homogeneous reservoir/multiple limited-entry well. Therefore, in identifying whichever of these four models could be used in the analysis other information and especially geological data should be resorted. Because reservoir rocks, such as marble and gneiss do not have matrix porosity in Kizildere, double-porosity model should be ruled out. However, partially-penetrating (or single limited entry) and multiple limited entry well models for the well KD-15 can be considered. As known, there is a well-developed fracture system in Kizildere field (Serpen et.al., 1998). As noted previously, two fractured zones are observed in KD15, one between 390-410, and the other between 490506.1 and are believed to behave as homogeneous systems. The KD-15 penetrates 116.1 m within the reservoir (Serpen and Ugur, 2000). Thus, multiplelimited entry well/homogeneous reservoir model appears to be a valid candidate for the analysis. The flattening (or constancy) observed in derivative graph between 0.01 and 0.1 hours (Fig. 2) can be attributed to radial flow based on the total open interval thickness of 36.1 m. The scattering observed after 0.5 hours for post-acid buildup test can then be attributed to correspond pseudo radial flow of system acting on the total reservoir thickness (116.1 m). Other model that might match derivative behavior, shown in Fig. 2, is storage/complete-penetration/ homogeneous

1E-1

1E-2

1E-3

1E-4

Line of unit slope

1E-5 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 1E+0 Time, t, hour 1E+1 1E+2

Figure 2. Comparison of pre- and post-acid buildup tests for the well KD-15. Based on the values of flashing-point pressure, boiling-point pressure and flowing bottom hole pressure (at the instant of pre-acid buildup test) given previously, it is apparent that there exist three different phases, namely, steam, CO2 and brine in the wellbore prior to pre-acid buildup test. Because flowing bottom hole pressure (19.3 bar) is smaller than the flashing point pressure (54 bar), it is also important to note that there exist two phases; brine and CO2, in the formation near the wellbore. Intuitively, one would expect that the wellbore coefficient should decrease with time in a buildup test as the total compressibility of wellbore fluid will decrease. However, it is well known that the wellbore storage coefficient during pressure buildup, which is a result of complex interaction between phase redistribution, afterflow, mass transfer, and nonisothermal effects in the wellbore and formation near the wellbore, can either increase or decrease during a pressure buildup test (Miller, 1980, Fair, 1981, Hegeman et al, 1993, Xiao et al., 1996). Apparently, pressure data pertaining pre-acid test shown in Fig. 2 are an example of a buildup test with increasing wellbore storage phenomenon. Later, we will attempt to analyze pre-acid buildup test data using Fairs changing wellbore storage/homogeneous reservoir model. It is also interesting to note that pressure-derivative data pertaining to pre-acid test (Fig. 2) do not show any discernable flow regimes representing the formation (e.g, radial flow, linear flow, etc.). Derivative data for pre-acid buildup test clearly

reservoir model. Although partial penetration (with single or multiple limited entry) model looks like more realistic from the well completion data, there are not enough data to discard complete penetration model. Therefore, both models are used in the following analysis. Before concluding this section, it is important to note that because flashing point pressure is 54 bar and the maximum bottom hole pressures measured during pre- and post-acid buildup tests are 41.13 bar and 41.47 bar, respectively, two phase effects (CO2 and brine) should exist in the formation near the wellbore during both tests. Thus, we should consider two phase effects for modeling these pressure buildup tests. Unfortunately, we do not have enough information (e.g., relative permeability curves) to analyze these tests by using a model accounting for two-phase effects in the formation. Therefore, in the following sections, conventional well-test models based on single-phase flow are used to analyze these buildup tests. Conventional Semi-log Analysis Fig. 3 shows Horner plot for pre- and post-acid buildup tests. When we fit a Horner semilog straight line through the last 3 points of pre-acid test as shown in Fig. 3, Horner analysis for pre-acid buildup test gave the following estimates: flow capacity, kh = 1 darcy-m; skin factor, s = -1.0, and initial reservoir pressure, pi = 42.88 bar. As discussed previously, derivative data shown in Fig. 2 clearly indicate that radial flow during the pre-acid buildup test was not established, and, thus, conventional semi-log analysis for pre-acid buildup test cannot be applied. Thus, the estimates obtained from Horner analysis of pre-acid buildup test cannot represent the reliable estimates of unknown parameters.
45
m_l = 0.182 bar/log-cycle m_e = 0.6 bar/log-cycle

Because significant calcite scaling occurred in the formation, we do not expect the skin factor to be negative for pre-acid test. Furthermore, the estimated value of flow capacity from Horner analysis of preacid test is quite lower than the expected value of kh, which is believed to be not less than 10 darcy-m. Actually, these results indicate that when performing semi-log analysis, one should first inspect derivative data to identify the existence of proper semilog straight line(s) and their time periods. When we fit a Horner semilog straight line through the last 6 data points of Fig. 2 for the post-buildup test, the slope of the Horner semilog straight line was found as ml = 0.182 bar/cycle as shown in Fig. 3. In Fig. 3, ml is used to denote the slope of late-time Horner semilog straight line. Horner analysis gave the following estimates: flow capacity, kh = 71.4 darcy-m, skin factor, s = 1.54, and initial reservoir pressure, pi = 41.68 bar. If we assume that the late time Horner semilog straight line is due to radial flow based on the total reservoir thickness assumed to be 116.1 m, then we obtain k = 0.615 darcy. As noted previously, the flattening of derivative data in the time interval from 0.01 to 0.1 hours for post-acid buildup data could be attributed to early-time radial flow due to possible multiple-limited entry. Thus, we fit a Horner semilog straight line through 4 data points of Fig. 2 in this time interval for the postbuildup test, the slope of the early-time Horner semilog straight line was found as me = 0.6 bar/cycle as shown in Fig. 3. Assuming that the multiplelimited entry model is valid, conventional Horner analysis of this early-time semilog straight line resulted in the following estimates: flow capacity, khw = 21.66 darcy-m., and skin factor, s = -4.4. Here, hw is used to denote the net thickness of the open interval. The net thickness of open interval can be computed from the ratio of late-time Horner semilog straight line slope, ml, to early-time Horner semilog straight line slope, me (Yildiz and Cinar, 1998). From this computation, hw = 35.2 m. was determined. As known, for single- or multiple-limited entry wells, the skin factor estimated from the early-time semilog straight line represents the mechanical skin factor, while the skin factor obtained from late-time semilog line is the total of mechanical skin and pseudo skin due to partial penetration (Brons and Martin, 1961 and Yildiz and Cinar, 1998). As noted previously, the early-time semilog straight line gave a mechanical skin factor value of 4.4, which indicates that existing calcite scaling in the formation near the wellbore is completely dissolved after acidizing. Because the reservoir system is naturally fractured, it is quite possible to have highly negative mechanical skin factor (Stewart and Ascharsobbi, 1988). Note that the late-time Horner semilog straight line gave a

40

Shut-in pressure, bar

35

30
slope = 5.4 bar/log-cycle

25

20
pre-acid buildup test post-acid buildup test

15 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Horner time ratio, dimensionless

Figure 3. Horner plot for pre- and post-acid tests.

skin value of 1.54 representing the total of mechanical skin and the pseudo-skin due to partial penetration. Because pseudo-skin is always positive, a skin value of 1.54 appears to be a realistic one. If we had knowledge of multiple-limited entry configuration, vertical permeability as well as skin and flow rate distribution for each open interval, then an estimate of the pseudo-skin factor could be determined (Yildiz and Cinar, 1998). Unfortunately, such information was not available to us. Of course, if we assume that a model based on a single open interval is valid, then the pseudo-skin factor, sb, could be determined from st = sb + (h/hw) s. Here, st is the total skin factor obtained from late-time semilog straight line, and s is the mechanical skin factor obtained from early-time semilog straight line. Using the values of total and mechanical skin factors estimated from semilog analysis of the post-acid test, the pseudo-skin was determined as sb = 12.97. Nonlinear Regression Analysis Here, to further validate our results obtained from from conventional semilog analysis and refine our parameter estimates, we consider nonlinear regression analyses of pre- and post-acid buildup tests. For the nonlinear regression analyses of these tests, we used a computer program developed in our department (Menekse, Onur and Zeybek, 1995). First, we perform regression analysis of the pre-acid buildup data by using the constant-wellbore-storage model and changing-wellbore-storage model (Fair, 1981) with complete penetration for homogeneous reservoir. In regression based on constant-storage model, we used superposition to account for producing time effects. Because superposition to changing-storage model cannot be applied, we considered pre-acid buildup data as an equivalent drawdown test when changing-storage model was considered. History matches of pre-acid buildup data obtained as a result of regression analysis based on both models are shown in Fig. 4.

1E+2
measured pressure data "measured" derivative data

pressure change and derivative, bar

1E+1

1E+0

1E-1
computed pressure (constant-storage model) computed derivative (constant-storage model) computed pressure (changing-storage model) computed derivative (changing-storage model)

1E-2 1E-2 1E-1 1E+0 Time, t, hour 1E+1 1E+2

Figure. 4. History matches of pre-acid test data with changing storage and constant storage models. Parameter estimates and their associated 95% confidence intervals obtained from regression analyses using both models are summarized in Table 2. In Table 2, C and represent the phase redistribution parameters in the changing-storage model (Fair, 1981), and the numbers in parenthesis represent the lower and upper limits of 95% confidence interval for parameters. Note from Fig. 4 that the matches of measured data with both model data are quite good, particularly the one obtained with changing-storage model. However, we should note that we were not able to obtain reliable estimates of k and s from these matches (Table 2) because we found a perfect correlation between these two parameters and obtained very large confidence intervals for these parameters. TABLE 2 RESULTS FROM NONLINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF PRE-ACID TEST DATA
changingwellbore-storage model 70683 (0-2.5x109) 4.7x104 (-7x10 -1x10 ) C, m3/bar C, bar 15.58 (13.8-17.4) 96.1 (4.7-188)
6 8

kh, darcy-m pi, bar s

constantwellbore-storage model 31443 (0-3.3x108) 41.58 (41.09-42.08) 1.5x105 (-2x109-2x109) 15.38 (14.6-16.2) -

, hour
std*of errors, bar

3.1x10-3 (0-1x10 )
-2

1E+1

0.271

0.284
pressure change and derivative, bar

measured post-acid pressure data "measured" post-acid derivative data computed pressure (complete penetration) computed derivative (complete penetration)

*Standard deviation Results of Table 2 also indicate that only C and pi are well determined from post-acid test data because of narrow confidence intervals associated with these parameters. Actually, these results are not surprising because derivative data pertaining to pre-acid test in Fig. 2 clearly showed that pre-acid buildup test ended completely in the wellbore storage dominated flow period and, thus, one cannot obtain reliable estimates of k and s from such data. This example clearly demonstrate the advantage of using nonlinear regression in the interpretation of well-test data for identifying which parameters are well determined in the data set. Of course, if pre-acid test was run for a longer time to observe the radial flow period, we could have been able to determine reliable estimates of k and s. These results indicate that one cannot obtain individual estimates of k and s from pre-acid buildup test data, reliably, unless an independent knowledge of k or s is available from other sources. Next, regression analysis of the post-acid buildup test was considered. Based on well completion data and Horner analysis given previously, we should consider the multiple-limited entry model in regression. However, the use of such model requires us to know flow rate and skin distribution in each open interval (Yildiz and Cinar, 1998). Because we do not have such information, we were not able to consider this model in regression. However, we considered a single limited-entry well/homogeneous reservoir model with no wellbore storage effects for regression. In this model, we assumed that the length of the open interval is 35 m (as determined from Horner analysis given previously) and is located at the bottom of the well. Although not shown, we considered different configurations for the open interval (e.g., the open interval in the middle of formation thickness), but found that the single limited-entry model with the open interval at the bottom of the formation thickness matches better with the post-acid data. Thus, in the analysis, we considered two different models; constantstorage/complete penetration/homogeneous reservoir model and partial penetration (with no storage and open interval at the bottom)/homogeneous reservoir model. It is important to note that in regression, we use superposition to properly account for producing time effects. In other words, we do not treat post-acid buildup test as an equivalent drawdown test in regression. History matches of post-acid buildup data obtained as a result of regression analyses based on both models are shown in Fig. 5.

1E+0

1E-1

computed pressure (partial penetration) computed derivative (partial penetration)

1E-2 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 Time, t, hour 1E+0 1E+1

Figure 5. History matches of post-acid test data with complete and partial penetration models. Derivative data shown in Fig. 5 were obtained by differentiating pressure data with respect to shut-in time and plotted with respect to shut-in time. Parameter estimates obtained are summarized in Table 3. Based on the results given in Fig. 5 and Table 3, both models appear to give similar results, but the partial penetration model matches better with the early time data and provides smaller confidence intervals for k, s and pi. Note that confidence intervals obtained for parameters are quite narrow, and the standard deviation of pressure errors for both models is around 0.02 bar. These results indicate that nonlinear regression analysis of post-acid test data provide reliable estimates of k, s and pi. The estimates of k, s and pi obtained from nonlinear regression analysis of post-acid buildup test also agree well with those obtained from conventional Horner analysis. Because the flow capacity, kh, is well determined from post-acid buildup test, we reconsidered regression analysis of pre-acid buildup test by fixing kh = 60.3 darcy-m in wellbore-storage/complete penetration model. So, kh was eliminated from the unknown parameter set in regression. This regression analysis provided an estimate of skin factor as s = 279 with a 95% percent confidence interval of 275283. This indicates that the well KD-15 were highly unproductive due to scaling, partial penetration and possibly two phase effects existing in the formation near wellbore before acidizing.

TABLE 3 RESULTS FROM NONLINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF POST-ACID TEST DATA

Complete penetration model 60.3 (51-70) pi, bar S C, m3/bar Std of errors, bar 41.74 (41.69-41.79) -0.35 (-1.2-0.4) 6.8 (5.6-8.0) 0.016 0.019 partial penetration model 65.5 (64-67) 41.72 (41.71-41.74) -3.8 (-3.9 - -3.7) 0*

Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J. A., Pirard, Y.M. (1989), Use of Pressure Derivative in Well-Test Interpretation, SPE Formation Evaluation, Vol. 4, No. 2, June, 293302. Brons, F., Marting, V. E. (1961), The Effect of Restricted Fluid Entry on Well Productivity, Journal of Petroleum Technology, February, 172180; Trans., AIME, 222. Earlougher, R.C. (1977), Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE Monograph, Vol. 5, SPE, Dallas. Fair, W.B., Jr. (1981), Pressure Buildup Analysis With Wellbore Phase Redistribution, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, April, 259-270; Trans., AIME, 271. Hegeman, P.S., Hallford, D. L., and Joseph, J. A. (1993), Well-Test Analysis With Changing Wellbore Storage, SPE Formation Evaluation, Vol. 8, No. 3, September, 201-207. Horne, R.N. (1995), Modern Well Test Analysis-A nd Computer-Aided Approach, 2 Edn., Palo Alto: Petroway Inc. Menekse, K., Onur, M., Zeybek, M. (1995), Analysis of Well Tests From Naturally Fractured Reservoirs by Automated Type-Curve Matching, Paper SPE. 29898, SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, March. Miller, C. W. (1980), Wellbore Storage Effects in Geothermal Wells, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, December, 555-566. Satman, A., Ugur, Z., Onur, M. (1999), The Effect of Calcite Deposition on Geothermal Well Inflow Performance, Geothermics, 28, 425-444. Serpen, U., Satman, A., Kasap, I. (1998), Assessment of Well Testing in Kizildere Geothermal Field, GRC Annual Meeting, San Diego, 20-23 September, p. 589-594. Serpen, U., Ugur, Z. (2000), Use of temperature and Pressure Surveys for Defining Some Features of st Kzldere Geothermal Reservoir, Proceedings 21 Annual PNOC-EDC Geothermal Conference, Manila, 1-3 March.

kh, darcy-m

*fixed as known in regression DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In this work, we considered analyses of pre- and post-acid tests conducted in the well KD-15 in the Kizildere geothermal field. The analysis of pre-acid test data using pressure-derivative and nonlinear regression indicated that one cannot determine reliable estimates of the permeability and skin factor from pre-acid data because the pre-acid test was ended during the wellbore storage dominated flow. The analysis of post-acid test using the conventional semilog method in conjunction with pressure derivative and regression provided the appropriate model and reliable estimates of permeability and skin factor. It appears that limited-entry well model better describes the well. The penetration ratio computed by analysis of post-acid test resulted in hw/h = 0.303. In other words, if total producing zone is 116.1 m, it is understood that partial flow is coming from only 35.2 m of the total thickness. This value seems to agree well with the value of 36.1 m. obtained from temperature profile (Fig. 1) and fluid losses occurred during drilling. Because these surveys are generally taken at every 25 m and are not continuos, some errors (under or over estimating) might easily occur in defining fractured intervals. Therefore, these two values can be considered to conform to each other very well. The permeability and skin factor values computed by semilog analysis for post-acid test are also in close agreement with those obtained from regression analysis. REFERENCES Bourdet, D., Whittle, T.M., Douglas, A.A., Pirard, Y.M. (1983), A New Type Curves Simplifies Well Test Analysis, World Oil, May, 95-106.

Stewart, G., Ascharsobbi, F. (1988), Well Test Interpretation for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, paper SPE 18173, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 2-5 October. Ugur, Z. (1996), Modeling of Calcium Carbonate Precipitation in Oil and Geothermal Fields, Ph.D. Dissertation, December, Istanbul Technical University. Xiao, J., Fuentes-N., F., Alhanati, F. J., Reynolds, A.C. (1996), Modeling and Analyzing Pressure Buildup Data Affected by Phase Redistribution in the Wellbore, SPE Advanced Technology Series, 4, May, 28-37. Yildiz, T., Cinar, Y. (1998), Inflow Performance and Transient Pressure Behavior of Selectively Completed Vertical Wells, SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, October, 467-475.