Well Test Analysis

Dr Mostafa Ghasemi
Email: mostafa.baboli@utp.edu.my
Ext:7375
Room: No.8, 2nd floor, Block J3
Pressure Transients During a Drawdown Test in a Finite Reservoir

Figure 6
Pressure Transients During a Drawdown Test in a
Finite Reservoir

Figure 7
 Reservoir Pressure Response During a Drawdown-
Buildup Test Sequence

Because it is often difficult to maintain a constant production rate

during a drawdown test and because the mathematics involved are
easy to interpret, we normally allow a well to produce for a period of
time, then shut it in (production goes to zero) and observe the buildup
in pressure at the wellbore. This constitutes a pressure buildup test,
which is the most common type of well test.
 Reservoir Pressure Response During a Drawdown-
Buildup Test Sequence
The pressure distribution
in the reservoir is shown
in Figure 8 . Note that the
well is shut in at t = t4 and
that the pressure builds up
thereafter. In buildup
tests, except for the early
influence of decaying well
rates on pressure
response, the majority of
test data relate to a
condition where the rate is
zero and thus not
changing. Figure 8
 Well Test Diagnostic

Dr Mostafa Ghasemi
Email: mostafa.baboli@utp.edu.my
Ext:7375
Room: No.8, 2nd floor, Block J3
Each region is identified schematically in Figure 1 . For our purposes we
shall use the mathematical terminology because it is normally used in the
literature, but you should keep in mind the physical definitions of each
region as we proceed.

Figure 1
 The Inner Boundary Conditions (The Wellbore
and Near-Wellbore Regions)

The inner boundary conditions are those that exist at or near the
wellbore. There are three that are most commonly found in practice:

Wellbore storage
Skin effect
Induced fractures

We should spend a little time developing and understanding of each of

these.
 Wellbore Storage

When a wellbore is opened to

flow, it is opened at the surface
(Figure 2). The early
production comes from the
decompression of fluids in the
wellbore and other wellbore
effects, and not from fluids in
the reservoir. This effect is
referred to as unloading, a
form of wellbore storage.

Figure 2
 Wellbore Storage
Figure 3 shows the difference that
exists in the flow rate at the surface
and the flow rate at the sandface, or
perforations. There is a time delay
before the flow rate from the
reservoir equals the flow rate at the
surface. Essentially, this wellbore
storage effect causes the reservoir
flow rate to gradually, rather than
instantaneously, reach the surface
flow rate. It is important that we
incorporate or account for the
wellbore unloading when we
interpret the pressure/flow data Figure 3
collected during a well test.
 Quiz: Wellbore Storage
Just as there is a delay in flow-rate response during the opening of a
well for a drawdown test, there is also a delay when a well is shut in
at the surface to begin a buildup test ( Figure 4 ).

In this case the surface flow stops instantaneously, while the sandface
flow gradually drops to zero. This condition is a second wellbore
storage effect that is often referred to as after flow.

After-flow must also be incorporated into the interpretation of buildup

test data.
Wellbore Storage

Figure 4
 Skin Effect

It is well known that the properties of the reservoir near the wellbore
are usually altered during drilling, completion, and stimulation
procedures. The invasion of drilling fluids, the presence of mudcakes
and cement, partial penetration of the formation, and insufficient
perforation density are some of the factors that cause "damage" to the
formation, and, more important, cause an additional, localized
pressure drop during flow (see Figure 5 , The near-wellbore skin effect
and Figure 6 , The positive and negative skin effects).
Skin Effect

Figure 5
Skin Effect

Figure 6
 Skin Effect
Skin is the term used to refer to the alteration of permeability that
exists near the wellbore.

The skin factor, s, is used to quantify the skin. If the well has been
damaged, there is an additional pressure drop at the wellbore for a
given flow rate and the skin factor is positive. If the well has been
stimulated and the pressure drop at the wellbore has been decreased,
the skin factor is negative.

We should point out that, unlike well-bore storage, which has an effect
only on the early data, the skin effect is constant throughout a well test
(unless the skin is a function of flow rate). A supplemental positive or
negative pressure drop caused by the skin remains throughout the test.
Its magnitude will change as the flow rate changes.
 Induced Fractures

The flow patterns around a well will be different for a well that has
undergone an induced fracture treatment compared to one that has not
been so stimulated. For an induced fracture, it is often assumed that
the fracture consists of a vertical plane passing through the wellbore.

Within the general vicinity of the fracture the flow behavior is considered
to be bilinear; linear into the fracture and linear within the fracture (see
Figure 7 , Schematic of bilinear flow both into and within an induced
fracture).
Induced Fractures

Figure 7
 Induced Fractures
Soon after a well is opened to flow, then, the pressure transient takes
on the shape of an ellipse (plan view) around the fracture (bilinear
flow period).

In time, as the pressure transient moves outward, the fracture length

has less influence on the shape of the transient and, assuming the
reservoir boundaries do not influence the pressure behavior, the flow
begins to converge to radial flow.

The ellipses, expanding outward, become circles (pseudoradial flow

period). The characteristics of these fracture flow periods are
dependent upon the fracture length and fracture conductivity.
 The Basic Model (The Reservoir Beyond the
Wellbore)

Moving outward from the wellbore and near-wellbore region we enter

Region 2, known mathematically as the basic well test model. Most
basic models within the oil industry have impermeable upper and
lower boundaries, which are of infinite lateral extent.

These same conditions apply to the ideal model. Within the reservoir
itself we may have either a homogeneous- or a heterogeneous-acting
porous medium.
 Homogeneous Reservoirs

A homogeneous-acting reservoir is one that, with respect to flow, acts

as though it has identical properties throughout.

This condition may exist either because the reservoir has identical
properties throughout or because it is so randomly heterogeneous that
it acts as though it is a single homogeneous reservoir.

Many petroleum reservoirs have been found to be homogeneous and,

in early years, all reservoirs were considered to be homogeneous-
acting for purposes of well test analysis.
 Heterogeneous Reservoirs
Heterogeneous-acting reservoirs have been the subject of many recent
developments in well-testing analysis. These reservoirs include dual
porosity, dual permeability, triple porosity, layered systems (with or
without crossflow) and composite systems.

The dual-porosity reservoir, for example, consists of two homogeneous

porous media of distinct porosity and permeability that interact.

They may be uniformly distributed or segregated but only

one medium can produce fluid to the well; the other acts as a source.
Examples of dual-porosity reservoirs are the fissured reservoir and the
multi-layer reservoir with high permeability contrast between the layers
(Gringarten, 1982).
 Heterogeneous Reservoirs
In the fissured reservoir ( Figure 8 and Figure 9 ) a high permeability
fissure system delivers fluids to the well; low permeability "matrix"
blocks "bleed" fluid into the fissure system, where it is subsequently
delivered to the wellbore.

In the multilayer system ( Figure 10 ), only one layer delivers fluids to

the wellbore. The other layers act as sources of fluids. In Figure 10 the
fluids move vertically to the layer that communicates with the
wellbore and then horizontally to the wellbore. Both of these double-
porosity systems exhibit the same double-porosity behavior during
well tests.

The term dual-permeability heterogeneous reservoir refers to two

distinct porous media, as in a double-porosity system, but, in this case,
each medium can produce into the wellbore.
Heterogeneous Reservoirs

Figure 8
 Well Test Diagnostic

Dr Mostafa Ghasemi
Email: mostafa.baboli@utp.edu.my
Ext:7375
Room: No.8, 2nd floor, Block J3
Characteristic Pressure Response to the
Various Elements of the Reservoir Model
Each of the elements in a reservoir model--those relating to the inner
boundary conditions, the basic model and the outer boundary conditions-
- will cause a different pressure response during a well test. The
differences will be reflected in the magnitude of recorded pressure level,
the time when it is measured, or both. We need to understand what effect
will be observed at what time during the test.
To characterize these changes graphically, we need to plot the recorded
pressure versus time in some form. Because we may have pressures
decreasing (drawdown) or increasing (buildup) during a test, we may
characterize both tests by plotting the change in sandface pressure p
that occurs between the beginning of the test and the time of
measurement versus the elapsed test time t. To avoid distortion of scale,
we plot these variables on a log-log scale. The appropriate axes are
shown in Figure 1 .
Figure 1
Intuitively, we know that the earliest recorded pressure information
during our well test will be in response to wellbore storage. We shall
refer to this time period as Period 1.

Next in time will be the pressure response at the wellbore shortly after
production begins to flow from the reservoir. The pressure response
characteristics during this period, Period 2, will depend upon the
presence of induced fractures, partial penetration, and the presence of
fissures and/or multilayers.
After some period of transitory flow behavior, the pressure response will
begin to exhibit the properties of infinite-acting radial homogeneous flow
(Period 3), which will continue if the reservoir is infinite-acting, or begin
to change again for a finite reservoir (Period 4).
The four periods characterizing the reservoir model are shown in
Figure 2 . We should now take a closer look at the characteristics of each
period.

Figure 2
 Period 1: Characteristic Pressure Response
to Wellbore Storage
In most practical cases the effect of inner and outer boundary conditions
on the pressure behavior of a reservoir model is independent of the
nature of the basic model (homogeneous or heterogeneous). This is so
because each condition dominates at different times and each exhibits a
specific behavior. This behavior has a characteristic shape when p is
plotted versus t on log-log scale.
 Period 1: Characteristic Pressure Response to
Wellbore Storage
Wellbore storage has been found to exhibit its own characteristic shape (
Figure 3 ). It yields a log-log straight line of unit slope at early times.
This means that if the pressure data recorded during a well test has a unit
slope log-log straight line passing through early time data it is indicative
of wellbore storage. However, it should be kept in mind that the
appearance of a straight line is not proof of wellbore storage; it may not
be the straight line that is desired for the reservoir system being tested.

Because p is proportional to t, the same data points will plot as a

straight line on Cartesian coordinates ( Figure 4 ). This is often referred
to as a specialized plot.
Period 1: Characteristic Pressure Response to
Wellbore Storage

Figure 3
Period 1: Characteristic Pressure Response to
Wellbore Storage

Figure 4
Period 2: Characteristic Pressure Response to
an Induced Fracture
The pressure response to a hydraulically induced fracture occurs during
Period 2 and has two characteristic shapes; one is for a high-conductivity
fracture, the other for a low-conductivity fracture.

A high-conductivity fracture communicating with the wellbore yields a

log-log straight line with half-unit slope ( Figure 5 ). Because this means
that p is proportional to t a specialized plot of p versus t
yields a straight line through the same points ( Figure 6 ).
Period 2: Characteristic Pressure Response to
an Induced Fracture

Figure 5
Period 2: Characteristic Pressure Response to
an Induced Fracture

Figure 6
Period 2: Characteristic Pressure Response to
an Induced Fracture
The characteristic plot of a low-conductivity fracture communicating
with the wellbore will yield a log-log straight line with a slope less than
0.5 ( Figure 7 ).

Figure 7
Period 2: Characteristic Pressure Response to
an Induced Fracture
It is important to recognize that during a well test the pressure response
to an induced fracture will come later in time than that of wellbore
storage. Thus, the characteristic plot may initially have a unit slope
(wellbore storage) followed by a transition to half-slope (high-
conductivity factor).

The above comments may imply that the period following wellbore
storage is always linear flow and should be analyzed as such. The
inexperienced interpreter may analyze transition as half slope and draw
incorrect conclusions. Beware of this pitfall! The data must go from
Period 1 to Period 3 pressure response and the transition need not yield a
log-log straight line.
Exercise:

Open
 Answer:

1.The time to that unit slope straight line ends is on 0.08.

2. It shows the end of wellbore effect.

3. In Semilog scale the start of straight line is on 2 hr.

4.It shows that the wellbore storage effect is finished and we

are getting the pure reservoir response.
Period 3: Characteristic Pressure Response to
Infinite-Acting Radial Flow
There is a point in time during a well test when the early pressure
response to wellbore storage, fractures, and other near-wellbore effects
gives way to infinite-acting radial flow.

There is a 1.5 log cycles between the end of the unit slope straight
line representing of wellbore storage and the start of purely reservoir
response.

This means that the leading edge of the pressure transient at the radius of
investigation moves outward radially and as though the reservoir were
infinite in extent. This period and other periods are shown graphically in
Figure 8 .
Period 3: Characteristic Pressure Response to
Infinite-Acting Radial Flow

Figure 8
Period 3: Characteristic Pressure Response to
Infinite-Acting Radial Flow

We note that the well is fractured and that a sealing fault exists some
distance from the well. At the onset of a drawdown test, wellbore storage
takes place and there is no pressure change in the reservoir. Once flow
from the reservoir begins, the presence of an induced fracture causes
flow to be linear and normal to the fracture. As production continues and
the area of drainage expands, the an isotropy caused by the fracture
disappears and infinite-acting radial flow is established.
Period 3: Characteristic Pressure Response to
Infinite-Acting Radial Flow

The outer edge of the pressure transient is, in effect, a circle that has the
wellbore as its center. During infinite-acting radial flow, the specialized
plot is one where p is a linear function of log t ( Figure 9 ) (semi-log
straight line). This, in turn, yields characteristic log-log behaviors for
the homogeneous ( Figure 10 ) and heterogeneous ( Figure 11 ) basic
models.
Period 3: Characteristic Pressure Response to
Infinite-Acting Radial Flow

Figure 9
Period 3: Characteristic Pressure Response to
Infinite-Acting Radial Flow

Figure 10
Period 3: Characteristic Pressure Response to
Infinite-Acting Radial Flow

Figure 11
Period 3: Characteristic Pressure Response to
Infinite-Acting Radial Flow
There are various methods for approximating the time when infinite-
acting radial flow or, in terms of the specialized plot, the semilog straight
line begins. The "one and one-half cycle" rule is reasonably good for
damaged wells. That rule states that radial flow begins, on a log-log plot,
one and one-half cycles after the end of the unit slope straight line
characteristic of wellbore storage (Gringarten et al., 1979).
Period 4: Characteristic Pressure Response to
Finite Reservoir Outer Boundary Conditions
In the event that the reservoir is finite with either no-flow or constant
pressure outer boundary conditions, infinite-acting radial flow conditions
will come to an end when the effect of the outer boundary is "felt" at the
wellbore. Thus, in Figure 8 , we note that the pressure transient is
eventually reflected back from the sealing fault, causing an additional
pressure drop at the wellbore. For a no-flow boundary (closed system)
we see in the characteristic plot that p begins to increase ( Figure 12 )
and becomes asymptotic to a unit-slope straight line at later times; its
specialized plot of p versus t ( Figure 13 ) approaches a straight line.

For a constant pressure outer boundary condition, the reservoir pressure

ultimately stabilizes at the pressure of the outer boundary ( Figure 14 ).
Period 4: Characteristic Pressure Response to
Finite Reservoir Outer Boundary Conditions

Figure 12
Period 4: Characteristic Pressure Response to
Finite Reservoir Outer Boundary Conditions

Figure 13
Period 4: Characteristic Pressure Response to
Finite Reservoir Outer Boundary Conditions

Figure 14
 Examples of Characteristic Curves for
Various Reservoir Systems
We have synthesized in Figure 15 (The characteristic shape of the
pressure response of a total reservoir system during a well test) what we
learned about the reservoir system. Note that each region has its own
characteristic shape. In effect, the log-log behavior of a complete model
is simply obtained as the superposition of the log-log behavior of each
individual component of the model.
In Figures 16, 17 and 18 we see three characteristic curves obtained from
drawdown test data on different reservoirs. In Figure 16 we see the
characteristic curve for a well with wellbore storage in a closed
homogeneous system; in Figure 17 , a fracture is added to the system;
and in Figure 18 we see a well with wellbore storage producing from an
infinite-acting heterogenous reservoir.
Examples of Characteristic Curves for Various
Reservoir Systems

Figure 15
Examples of Characteristic Curves for Various
Reservoir Systems

Figure 16
Examples of Characteristic Curves for Various
Reservoir Systems

Figure 17
Examples of Characteristic Curves for Various
Reservoir Systems

Figure 18