Bottomhole pressure

WE LL TES TiNG

Bubblepoint

pAB

Wellbore Potential

pAC

Testing Design and Analysis

Bruno Deruyck
Montrouge, France

Christine Ehlig-Economides
Clamart, France

Jeffrey Joseph
London, England

B
A

Well testing is performed in so many different guises that it is easy to lose

These are to confirm the economic potential

C
Crossflow rates

Production rate

In its simplest form, testing provides shortterm production of reservoir fluids to the
surface permitting the operator to confirm
the showindicated by cuttings, cores and
logsand estimate reservoir deliverability.
In its subtlest form, measured pressure transients caused by abrupt changes in production can characterize completion damage,
reservoir permeability and distant reservoir
heterogeneities.
The logistics of well testing are simple in
concept, but complex in practice. Flowing
an exploration well requires a temporary
completion. Flowing any well not connected to downstream facilities requires
heavy surface equipment including separators and flares. Obtaining pressure transients
requires alternately shutting and opening
the well, preferably downhole, and making
accurate downhole measurements of pressure. Increasingly, testing is performed in
combination with perforating and produc-

28

tion logging to measure downhole flow.

They are routinely run in horizontal as well
as vertical wells.
Developing the multifarious and intricate
hardware to accomplish all these tasks is a
design engineers dream. And juggling the
many options for conducting a well test provides endless challenges in the field (see
The Nuts and Bolts of Well Testing, page
14). This article concentrates not on hardware but on the information well tests give
and how tests are designed and interpreted.
Primary concerns in testing exploration
wells are obtaining representative samples
and estimating reservoir producibility.1 Fluid
samples are needed to determine various
physical parameters required for well test
analysis, such as compressibility and viscosity, and for pressure-volume-temperature
(PVT) analysis that unlocks how the hydrocarbon phases coexist at different pressures
and temperatures.2 For oil, a critical PVT
parameter is bubblepoint pressure, the pressure above which oil is undersaturated in
gas and below which gas within oil starts
being released. Maintaining reservoir pressure above bubblepoint is key to successful
testing since the principle of transient analysis, described below, holds only if flow in
the reservoir remains monophasic. Estimating reservoir producibility requires achiev-

nEstimating producibility by altering the

production rate and noting changes in
bottomhole pressure (top). A wells productivity index, or inflow performance, is
the slope of the straight line, measured in
barrels of oil per day per psi. The straightline response curves downward once
pressure falls below bubblepoint and gas
starts coming out of solution.
In a layered reservoir, individual production rates measured using a production logging toollayers A, B and C in this
exampleare plotted versus each layers
wellbore potential, the wellbore pressure
normalized to a datum. This so-called
selective inflow performance technique
reveals individual layer inflow performances and also pressure imbalances
between layers that can promote crossflow.

In this article, COMPUTEST (wellsite computer system), FPE (Fluid Properties Estimation), IMPULSE
(measurement while perforating), MDT (Modular Formation Dynamics Tester), PLT (Production Logging
Tool), RFT (Repeat Formation Tester), SPG (Sapphire
Pressure Gauge), STAR (Schlumberger Transient Analysis and Report) and ZODIAC (Zoned Dynamic Interpretation Analysis and Computation) are marks of
Schlumberger.
1. Barnum RS and Vela S: Testing Exploration Wells by
Objectives, paper SPE 13184, presented at the 59th
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas, USA, September 16-19, 1984.
2. Freyss H, Guieze P, Varotsis N, Khakoo A, Lestelle K
and Simper D: PVT Analysis for Oil Reservoirs,
The Technical Review 37, no. 1 (January 1989): 4-15.

Oilfield Review

ing stable flow rates at several choke sizes

and then determining the productivity index
from the slope of the flow versus drawdown
pressure data (previous page ).
The type of oil as determined by a sample
and the ability of the well to produce are
the first steps toward commercial exploitation. If well productivity is less than
expected, then wellbore damage may be
the cause. This is the next concern in testing
exploration wells. Estimating the near-wellbore condition to perform necessary remedial action and ultimately to plan a well
completion strategy for the field is accomplished from the transient analysis part of a
well test.
Transient analysis, however, reaches
deeper than just the near-wellbore region.
Today, it contributes so much to characterizing the reservoir that engineers increasingly
refer to well testing as reservoir testing.
Analysis can indicate the likely producing
mechanism of the formationfor example,
how much production comes from fractures, how much from intergranular poros-

ityand it can determine the producing

zones permeability-thickness product, kh. It
can see to the limits of the reservoir indicating the probable shape (but not orientation)
of the reservoir boundaries and can show
whether the primary recovery mechanism is
from water or gas-cap support. This information becomes crucial in the appraisal and
production stages of field development
when engineers combine testing interpretation results with seismic and geologic data
to refine their understanding of the reservoir.
How does transient pressure testing work?
Imagine first an oil well in stable production
with a certain pressure drawdown between
the far limits of the reservoir and the well.
Now shut in the well. In the formation, a
sort of concertina effect takes place (below).
Oil near the wellbore is the first to sense the
shut-in and gets stopped in its tracks as it
tries to push more oil ahead of it, getting
compressed in the process. Then, the shock
is felt farther away as news of the shut-in, so
to speak, travels to the outer regions of the
reservoir. Gradually, the pressure builds up

everywhere, eventually reaching the reservoir pressure that drives production.

The reservoir engineer follows this chain
of events by measuring the pressure
buildup, or transient, and through analysis
determines information about the reservoir
from near the wellbore to its limits. An analogous chain of events occurs if instead of
shutting in the well, the well is opened and
allowed to flow. Again, it is oil near the
wellbore that first senses the disturbance,
but it is only a matter of time for oil deeper
in the reservoir to respond and begin flowing too. Drawdown pressure measurements
to track these events practically mirror the
buildup response. In fact, transients can be
obtained simply by increasing or decreasing
the flow rate.
Transient testing depends on accurate
pressure measurements taken long enough
after the flow rate change to observe what
the test was designed to detect. Impulse testing, for example, measures the transient that
occurs as a well is perforated, allowed to
produce for a short time and then shut in.

sight of its two real purposes.

of a discovery well and to maximize the cost efficiency of production in a developing or mature field.
Integrated with other measurements, well tests help provide the basis of reservoir characterization.

Fracture

Sealing fault

nPlan view showing the movement of wave fronts of a pressure transient

progressing away from a well. This shows a hydraulically fractured well
drilled near a sealing fault. Once wellbore storage disappears, the transient moves into the formation along linear paths perpendicular to the
fracture. Farther from the well, the transient moves radially from the
borehole. On hitting the sealing fault, the transient begins reflecting back
toward the borehole.
April 1992

29

3. Ayestaran L, Ayoub J, Campbell J, Fairhurst D, Herrera

IC, Munsell S and Sneed BJ: IMPULSE Testing, The
Technical Review 36, no. 4 (October 1988): 37-45.
4. For a review:
Horne RN: Modern Well Test Analysis: A ComputerAided Approach. Palo Alto, California, USA:
Petroway, Inc, 1990.
For the development of well test analysis:
Ramey HJ Jr: Advances in Practical Well Test Analysis, paper SPE 20592, presented at the 65th SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September 23-26, 1990.
5. Bourdet D, Whittle TM, Douglas AA and Pirard YM:
A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test
Analysis, World Oil 196 (May 1983): 95-106.
Bourdet D, Ayoub JA and Pirard YM: Use of Pressure
Derivative in Well Test Interpretation, paper SPE
12777, presented at the 1984 California Regional
Meeting, Long Beach, California, USA, April 11-13,
1984.

30

Conventional

Interference

Flow

Impulse

Pressure

The primary target is the near-wellbore

region (right ).3 The goal is to assess formation damage and, if necessary, perform stimulation. Tests last just an hour or two. In a
conventional test conducted to investigate
reservoir boundaries, often called a limit
test, the transient must be long enough for
the pressure disturbance to reach the
boundaries and then create a measurable
response in the well. How long this takes
depends on formation and fluid characteristics. In particular, the lower the formation
permeability, the more time is neededtests
can continue for days. Longest lasting are
interference tests, in which the effect of a
transient created in one well is observed in
another, yielding information about reservoir transmissivity and storativity.
The analysis and interpretation of well
tests have evolved remarkably since the
technique became established in the 1930s.
Today, a unified methodology has developed to obtain the maximum information
from any transient.4 The conventional test
on a new well comprises two flow periods
and two shut-ins (next page). The first flow
period, perhaps an hour long, is designed to
clean up the near-wellbore region and give
the field crew time to manipulate chokes to
establish a practical, stable flow rate. The
well is then shut in and pressure builds up
to reservoir pressure, an important parameter for the reservoir engineer. Then begins a
long flow period, followed by a shut-in lasting at least 1.2 to 1.5 times as long. This last
step generates the transient designed to
yield the reservoirs secrets. Of course, there
are many variants on this theme (see Textbook Well Test from the Congo, page 33).

Time

nThree types of well testing: Impulse, conventional and interference. Impulse testing
measures the transient caused by a very brief flow, typically just as the well is perforated. Results yield skin and permeability and may indicate if remedial stimulation is
required. Conventional well testing measures the shut-in transient after a lengthy flow
period and is often used to detect reservoir limits. Interference testing measures the
transient in a well caused by one or more flow pulses in a nearby well. Results yield
details about interwell transmissivity and storativity.
The basic data obtained are change in
pressure, p, versus elapsed time since the
transient was initiated, t. In traditional
analysis, p is plotted against the logarithm
of (tp + t )/t , a dimensionless variable in
which tp is the duration of the flow period.
This is the Horner plot( t p + t )/ t is
called Horner time (next page)and the
transient is analyzed by tracing the
progress of the data from right to left.
First comes wellbore storage, which refers
to the obfuscating role of the wellbore fluid
when a transient is initiated. The moment a
well is shut in or allowed to flow, fluids in
the wellbore must first compress or expand
before formation fluids can react. If flow is
controlled from the surface, the entire wells
fluids contribute to wellbore storage and the
effect can dominate the pressure transient
for hours afterward. The effect is exacer-

bated if well pressure toward the top of the

well drops below bubblepoint and part of
the well is filled with compressible gas.
Wellbore storage is substantially reduced by
shutting in the well downhole, minimizing
the volume of fluids that contribute.
As wellbore storage dissipates, the transient begins to move into the formation.
Pressure continues building up, but at a
slower rate as the transient moves far
enough to achieve radial flow toward the
wellbore. This is the so-called radial-flow
regime that appears as a straight line trend
on the Horner plot. The radial-flow regime
is crucial to quantitative interpretation, since
it provides values for kh and skin, S, a mea-

Oilfield Review

sure of the extra pressure drop caused by

wellbore damage. Skin takes positive values
in a damaged well when pressure drop near
the wellbore is greater than expected and
negative values when stimulation creates
less pressure drop. Next, the transient
encounters the limits of the reservoir and
pressure departs from its straight-line radialflow response.
The definition of Horner time is based on
a step change in flow rate, with one flow
period followed by a buildup. In actual
tests, there are always at least two prior flow
periods, often many more, and each affects
the pressure response after it occurs. Nevertheless, their cumulative effect can be determined using the superposition principle,
which states that transients occurring
sequentially simply add up. This results in
generalized Horner time that takes into
account the flow rates and flow times for all
previous flow periods. Using generalized
Horner time, the Horner plot retains its
validity in determining kh and skin for the

most complex series of drawdowns and

buildups, providing that the radial-flow
regime is present in the response.
Although the Horner plot is acceptable for
interpreting the radial-flow regime of easyto-interpret tests, a straight-line trend is often
difficult to pick out. Alternatively, there may
be several straight-line trends, of which only
one represents radial flow. Also, the plot
fails to provide ready insight into the nature
of reservoir limits. As pressure measurements improved in accuracy, it was this
aspect that increasingly engaged the attention of reservoir engineers. The solution, discovered in in the early 1980s, was a double
logarithmic, or log-log, plot of two sets of
data versus t (below).5 One set is simply
p, the other is the gradient, or derivative,
of the response on the Horner plot. The
virtue of the log-log plot is that reservoirs
similar in construction but perhaps differing
in thickness, porosity and permeability give
rise to similar looking responses and can be
recognized as belonging to a class.

A pressure transient breaks into several

regimes on the log-log plot, each seeing
deeper than the last. The first regime typically reflects wellbore storage, during which
both the pressure and derivative curves
overlay and increase along a straight line of
unit slope. As wellbore fluids stabilize, pressure continues building up, but at a slower
rate. The derivative curve swings down,
eventually flattening out as the transient
moves far enough from the wellbore to
achieve radial flow. Since the radial-flow
regime is a straight-line trend on the Horner
plot, the derivative curve on the log-log plot
is constant and traces a horizontal line. The
interpreters first task always is to identify
this derivative plateau, but this may require
waiting a long time in tests dominated by
wellbore storage (page 34, top).
Lengthy wellbore storage can totally mask
earlier flow regimes that occur for certain
borehole-formation configurations and formation types, causing distinct perturbations
(continued on page 34)

Data

1st
Buildup

2nd Flow

2nd Buildup

Pressure

1st Flow

Horner Plot

Limits

Radial
flow

Time

sient test. Testing engineers use the first flow period to

clean up formation damage and adjust the choke to
gauge the producing capacity of the well. The first
buildup provides a first estimate of reservoir pressure.
Then begins a long flow period, followed by a longer
buildup. Analysis of the transient measured during this
second buildup reveals details of the near-wellbore
region, formation characteristics such as permeability,
and distant limits of the reservoir.
Traditional analysis centered on the Horner plot
(middle), in particular the straight-line trend that signals radial flow. Today, the log-log plot (bottom) of p
and the derivative, the slope of the Horner plot, is used
to first diagnose the various flow regimes of the transient. Then, specialized plots such as the Horner plot
are used to estimate specific parameters such as permeability, skin and reservoir pressure.

Wellbore
storage

Log-Log Plot

p and Derivative

nElements of a conventional two-stage buildup tran-

(tp + t )/t

Wellbore
storage

Limits
Limits
Radial flow

April 1992

31

5 Five pressures, one obtained in surface

readout and four in memory mode, are
compared after normalization for different
gauge depths. Agreement is within 12 psi,
well within bounds of gauge technology.

Pressure, psi

Surface readout
SPG gauge
Qtz. gauge 2

3035

Qtz. gauge 1
Strain gauge
19

19.5

20

Time, hr

2 Downhole pressure jumps

to the reservoir pressure level
and then drops as the well is
opened to clean up perforation
debris.

Flow rate, bopd

Pressure, psi

4800

104

S = 20

p and Derivative, psi

3065

6 During the buildup, the

measured pressure transient (data
points) is compared at the wellsite to
the design (solid lines), which considered
a range of skin values between 3 and
20. A value of 3 corresponds to a
stimulated formation, 20 to a damaged
one. Finding skin was crucial because
it determined the necessity of an acid
job. Overlaying the data on the design
shows skin to be between 0 and
5in fact, it was calculated at 1. This
indicated that an acid job would
probably benefit production.
Permeability is less important here,
because it is well known in the area
100 md was assumed for the design,
85 md was estimated
from the data.

5
0
3

103

102

101
10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

Elapsed time, hr

9 The well is shut in as the

acid job is prepared and
performed.

3 The well is shut in so the

surface readout device can be
lowered into the hole.

11 The well is shut in so the

surface readout device can
be lowered again and hooked
into the drillstem test tool.

1000

10 The well is flowed back to

clean up after the acid job.

1000
0

4 With pressure now available

at the surface (red curve), a
6-hour flow period begins,
followed by a slightly longer
buildup.
7 Once the radial-flow regime
of the buildup is confirmed,
the surface readout device is
pulled out of the hole.
Pressure data change
color, from surface readout
to downhole memory mode.

32

30

8 A short flow period

during which a
production logging
profile is made,
the tool passing
through the fullbore
drillstem tool to the
newly perforated
reservoir formations
below. The flow profile
shows good production
from the sandstone
but not so good from
the overlying limestone,
confirming that
production would
definitely benefit
from an acid job.

40

50

Time, hr

60

13 Comparison at wellsite between

BOPD/psi
2035

Perfs.
2040

Limest.

1 The test begins with underbalanced perforation to

minimize wellbore damage
using tubing-conveyed
perforating guns slung below
the drillstem test tool.

20

2045

2050

2055

Sandstone

10

Depth, m

pre- and post-acid buildups using

surface pressure readout data.
Using specialized analysis, the data
indicates pre-acid skin to be 1, and
post-acid skin to be 2, a substantial
improvement.
Because the post-acid drawdown
and buildups are comparitively longer,
the data sees further into the
reservoir. After the radial-flow
regime plateau, the post-acid
derivative goes up and then down,
eventually becoming noisy as gauge
resolution is coming into play. This is
the time to halt the test.

Oilfield Review

Textbook Well Test from the Congo

Gilles Bourdarot
Alain Desplanques
Elf Congo
Pointe-Noire, Congo

This textbook case study comes from an Elf exploration well in the Congo. The 2200-m [7218-ft]
deep reservoir comprises a limestone overlying a sandstone, both having 20 to 22% porosity. The
well test uses all the modern techniquestubing-conveyed perforating, production logging and
sampling through fullbore drillstem equipment, surface readout and wellsite validationand is
designed to accomplish two goals:

Mike Pearson
Montrouge, France

One is to estimate near-wellbore damage, reducing it if necessary with a matrix acidization and
then checking that the acid cleanup workedall without removing the drillstring from the hole.
This was intended not only to benefit production in the well, but also to help plan a completion
strategy for field development. The other goal was to investigate reservoir volume and identify
reservoir boundaries.
The record of surface oil flow rate and downhole pressure for the 130-hour test tells most of the
storyfollow the annotations in sequence. The surface oil flow rate data points are derived from
measuring outflows from the surface separators. The data are stored in the COMPUTEST wellsite
computer system. The lines represent averaged values for the duration of a flow period.
The green pressure curve represents data stored in downhole memory throughout the test and
then read out after retrieving the drillstring. In fact, four pressure gauges were used in this
downhole memory mode: one strain gauge, two quartz gauges and one SPG Sapphire Pressure
Gauge. The red curve represents pressure data obtained with the surface readout device hooked

17 The sampler is
then pulled and a
second production
logging profile is made
with the well flowing
at a higher rate.
Comparing pre- and
post-acid flow profiles,
the acid job can be
seen to have
successfully stimulated
the limestone.

16 A fluid sampler is run in on

12 A long, 24-hour flow period

wireline, through the fullbore

drillstem test tool to position
opposite the producing formations.
The well is allowed to flow
gently to preserve bottomhole
pressure above bubblepoint
while sampling takes place.

and a buildup lasting almost

two days then followed. This was
to confirm the effectiveness of the
acid job and to investigate
reservoir volume and boundaries.

Perfs.
2040

Limest.

Now go to 1 .

BOPD/psi
2035

Depth, m

pressure data points make up the curves in the plot.

2045

Sandstone

into the drillstem tool and read in real time at the surface. Over 75,000

2050

2055

14 Toward the end of the

buildup, the surface readout
device is pulled out of the hole.

70

80

90

100

120

130

15 The second buildup was interpreted

100

Pre-acid buildup

10-1

Post-acid buildup

10-2
10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

Elapsed time, hr

102

using data measured in downhole

memory mode and thus covering the
buildup to its very end. The data were
analyzed off-site, after the drillstring
was pulled.
This match (lines) is based on
a no-flow boundary and a constantpressure boundary (possibly the
water table). Another good match
to the data was obtained by
assuming a composite radial model.
Only the reservoir engineer in
cooperation with geologist and
geophysicist can decide which is
more appropriate.

103

p and Derivative, psi

101

Normalized
p and Derivative, psi/BOPD

110

102

101

100

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

Elapsed time, hr

In five days, with only one pipe trip into the hole, this properly designed and executed well test has
brought the exploration well to maximum potential, determined formation permeability, provided
representative samples for PVT analysis, investigated far-reservoir boundaries, and set in place a
completion strategy for development wells of the field.

33

Downhole shut-in

p and Derivative, psi

100

10-1

Surface shut-in

10-2

10-3
10-2

10-1

100

Time, hr

101

102

nReduction of
wellbore storage
with downhole
shut-in. The log-log
plot compares two
well tests, one shut
in at the surface,
the other shut in
downhole. In the
surface shut-in test,
wellbore storage
masks the radialflow plateau for
over 100 hours
(4 days) (square
data points). The
plateau emerges
clearly in the downhole shut-in data
after just one hour
(triangular data
points).

Impermeable Boundary
Well

Partially Sealing Fault

Well

Intersecting Impermeable Boundaries

(From Joseph et al,

reference 6.)

Well

on the derivative response. The signs are

varied (next page ). A partially penetrated
formation produces a linear trend on the
derivative curve with a slope of 1/2. In wells
where the formation is strongly layered or
naturally fractured, the derivative tends to
dip before it rises to the radial-flow plateau.
If wellbore storage is not too dominating, the
transient can be analyzed to pinpoint the
most likely explanation.
The last regime on the log-log plot occurs
when the pressure transient has travelled far
from the well and encounters the reservoir
or drainage-area limits. Testing theorists
have worked out the transient response to a
catalog of boundary geometries ( right ). In
most cases, the transient responses alone do
not offer enough differentiation to enable
the interpreter to definitively establish the
boundary type. The choice of the type as
well as the orientation of the boundary
geometry must be guided by geologic, seismic and log data.
There are three categories: no-flow
boundary, constant pressure boundary and

34

the special case in which the test is long

enough to reach all the no-flow boundaries,
thus forming a closed system. Examples of
no-flow boundaries include sealing
faultsperhaps several of thempinchouts,
and channels. Because no-flow boundaries
reflect the transient back toward the well,
they cause p to rise at higher than its normal radial-flow rate, so the derivative curve
jumps to a higher level. A sealing fault
causes the plateau value to double. With
two intersecting sealing faults, the jump is
correspondingly higher. If a fault is partially
sealing, the derivative curve starts to jump
but then falls back to its radial-flow value.
Constant-pressure boundaries, like a gas
cap or aquifer, allow the pressure transient
to flatten out at the boundary pressure, so
the derivative takes a nosedive, which is
instantly recognizable. In a closed system,
pressure is completely contained within the
reservoir. How this affects the p and
derivative curves depends on whether the
transient is a drawdown or buildup. In
drawdown, both curves track a line of unit
slope, again an easily recognizable effect. In
buildup, the derivative curve starts moving
toward the line of unit slope but takes a
nosedive before reaching it, somewhat similar to the constant-pressure boundary case.
These reservoir models are simpler than
nature generally allowsin reality, a mixture of responses should be expected.
Thanks to the superposition principle, however, responses may be combined to produce a realistic transient response for even
the most complex situation. Simulating data,
though, is the easier forward task. More dif-

Parallel Impermeable Boundaries

Well

Truncated Channel

Well

Pinchout
Well

nA representative selection of no-flow

boundaries studied by well-test theorists.
Any of these may appear in the late-time
portion of a transients diagnostic log-log
plot. The associated parameters defining
the boundary may then be estimated by
regression analysis.

Oilfield Review

Specialized

Flow Regimes
Wellbore
storage
Radial
flow

Horner

p, Derivative

Log-log

Other
Time

Horner time

Function of time

Homogeneous
Reservoir
Wellbore storage
coefficient

Partially
Penetrating Well

Infinite Conductivity
Vertical Fracture
(Fracture half-length)2
matrix permeability

t
Finite Conductivity
Vertical Fracture
Fracture permeability
fracture width

Sealing Fault

Constant Pressure
Boundary

nResponse of log-log plot (left column) to

several common reservoir systems, showing different flow regimes (see legend).
The log-log plot is used by analysts to
diagnose the flow regimes present in the
transient. Once regimes are identified, the
Horner plot (semi-logarithmic) and other
specialized plots (linear) are used to evaluate parameters characterizing the system.

Linear Channel
Matrix permeability
(channel width)2

Dual-Porosity

35

ficult for the analyst is the inverse procedure

of finding the best model to match actual
test data (below ).6
For the traditional test comprising two
flow periods and two buildups, transient
analysis focuses on the second buildup. The
first step is to identify the various regimes on
the log-log p and derivative-curve plots
and then choose the most likely model for
each. Estimation of model parameters is
then made using specialized plots that allow
a focused analysis of each flow regime (previous page ). For example, wellbore storage
in the early data is determined from the
slope of the straight-line portion of a linear
p versus t plot. Confirmation and characterization of a vertical, high-conductivity
fracture, recognized by a half-slope derivative trend on the log-log plot, come from a
plot of p versus t . The radial-flow
plateau is best analyzed using the generalized Horner plot. And so on.

Using a workstation, the reservoir engineer interacts with a computer program,

such as STAR Schlumberger Transient Analysis and Report and ZODIAC Zoned
Dynamic Interpretation Analysis and Computation programs,7 to build a comprehensive model using all the parameters found
for the various flow regimes, predict what
the entire transient should look like, and
compare the results with the data. In this
forward modeling process, the interpreter
tweaks parameters, either manually or automatically using a nonlinear regression
scheme, and perhaps alters the choice of
model for one of the regimes to obtain the
best possible fit. There may be several combinations of models that match the data
equally well. In this case, other data must
be sought to decide which model is the
most appropriate (next page ).
The final interpretation step, called history
matching or verification, uses the model

Raw data

Preprocessing

Openhole logs
PVT data
Production logs

Model diagnosis

Specialized plots

Parameter estimation

History matching

Results

nThe order of business

in pressure transient
analysis.

36

established in the second buildup to predict

pressure response throughout all four periods of the test and confirms that the model
satisfactorily accounts for all data. This may
result in more parameter adjustment
because every period must now be matched
simultaneously, even though the second
flow period is planned intentionally long to
minimize the influence of previous periods.
In some cases, interference from earlier
well manipulations may obscure key
regimes of the transient being analyzed.
Interpreters then resort to a process called
desuperposition that attempts to isolate the
transient from earlier ones and in particular
reform the given transients data to mimic
how the reservoir would have reacted if the
flow rate change had been an isolated, perfect step.8
Designing well tests involves many of the
same steps the interpreter uses. This is
because once a test has been proposed,
both the pressure data and the datas interpretation can be simulated to show that the
test as designed meets its goalsdesign simulation requires estimates of formation and
fluid parameters from nearby wells or the
well in question. By predicting the likely
shape of the log-log p and derivative
curves, the engineer can demonstrate the
feasibility of detecting and characterizing
the anticipated reservoir features. For example, design simulation ensures that wellbore
storage does not smother the feature being
sought and guarantees a test that is long
enough to view suspected reservoir boundaries. Another important feature of simulation is determining the accuracy and precision required of the pressure gauges.
The design phase not only maps out the
mechanics of a test, but also ensures that,
once underway objectives are met. For
example, the progress of the planned transient can be followed at the wellsite and
compared with that forecast during the
design. To avoid the costly mistake of rigging down before the transient indicates a
desired feature, wellsite validation of data
during the test remains a must. This is best
accomplished with surface readout of
downhole gauges and enough computing
power at the surface to produce appropriate
plots, notably the log-log diagnostic plot. If
the reservoir response is quite different from
that assumed in the design, wellsite diagnosis permits an instant correction of the job,
perhaps a lengthening of the transient, to

Oilfield Review

p and Derivative

101

Sealing Fault

ensure optimum use for the data. In certain

cases, real-time readout is not feasible and
downhole recording must be used. Data
validation can still be performed onsite right
after retrieving the gauges.
Integral to well test design is selection of
hardware, which involves many options. To
minimize wellbore storage, should the well
be shut in downhole rather than at surface?
In a low producer, will the act of shutting in
actually kill the well? How sensitive must the
pressure gauges be? To some extent, these
questions are decided by the operators standard practices, the current status of the hole,
the configuration of the downhole hardware
and, not least, safety considerations.
The options have expanded in recent
years. While drillstem test (DST) equipment
has always guaranteed downhole shut-in in
new wells, downhole shut-in devices for
completed wells did not become commercial until the early 1980s. Pressure gauges
have evolved from crude mechanical
devices to quickly reacting, highly accurate
quartz gauges. Perhaps the most unexpected
innovation is a downhole flow measurement.
Traditional well testing theory dispensed
with a flow measurement because it
assumed constant wellbore storage,
enabling flow to be estimated from early
pressure data. But reality is less predictable.
Wellbore storage often varies as the fluids in
the wellbore change during the test, and a
downhole flow measurement in fact offers a
valuable complement to conventional pressure data.
Downhole flow measurements are currently performed using production logging

100

10-1

Two Intersecting Perpendicular Faults

p and Derivative

101

100

10-1

Dual-porosity Model

p and Derivative

101

100

10-1

Dual-permeability Model

p and Derivative

101

100

10-1

10-1

100

101

102

103

Time

6. Joseph J, Ehlig-Economides CA and Kuchuk F: The

Role of Downhole Flow and Pressure Measurements
in Reservoir Testing, paper SPE 18379, presented at
the SPE European Petroleum Conference, London,
England, October 16-19, 1988.
Ehlig-Economides CA, Joseph JA, Ambrose RW Jr and
Norwood C: A Modern Approach to Reservoir Testing, Journal of Petroleum Technology 42 (December
1990): 1554-1563.
7. The newer ZODIAC program includes all the features
of the older STAR program.
8. Ehlig-Economides CA, Ambrose RW and Joseph JA:
Pressure Desuperposition Technique for Improved
Late-Time Transient Diagnosis, paper SPE 20550,
presented at the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
September 23-26, 1990.

nFinding the best model to fit the data. In this case, four scenarios fit quite well, but the dual-permeability model fits best. Dual
permeability means a two-layered formation with a different
permeability in each layer.

April 1992

37

p and Derivative

Model

Time

P(t) =

T
0

q() p(t-) d

Pressure

Flow rate
Time

nThe convolution integral that converts pressure response to a unit step change in flow,
p(t), and actual measured flow rate, q(t), into measured pressure response, P(t). Convolution revolutionizes transient analysis when downhole flow measurements are available, for example as measured by production logging in a flowing test. The mathematical manipulation virtually wipes out wellbore storage, leaving later portions of the
transient clearly visible.
nAn example

103

Pressure change

p and Derivative, psi

Convolution derivative
102

Pressure derivative
101

100

10-1
10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

Time, hr

38

10-1

100

101

showing wellbore
storage virtually
eliminated using
the convolution
derivative. The
transient was introduced by changing the wells production rate and
downhole flow was
measured using
production logging.

tools and therefore not deployable when

downhole shut-in is planned. The most
common uses are to measure transients
caused by either shutting in or altering the
flow rate at the surfacethe tool, entered
into the well through a conventional riser
and lubricator, is suspended just above the
producing zone. A drawback of the current
technology is the threshold and resolution
of the spinner in the logging tool that measures flow. Well testing experts dream about
a robust flow measurement incorporated
into the DST tool, enabling continuous flow
measurements in newly drilled wells.
If flow measurements are at hand, how
does that change testing analysis? The necessary theoretical ground was broken in the
1980s. The underlying principle is, once
again, superposition.9 Suppose the pressure
response to a unit step change in flow is
p(t t 0 ), where t 0 is when the step change
occurs. Then the pressure response, P(t ), to
a gradual change in downhole flow rate,
q (t ), may be computed by approximating
the gradual change with a series of stair
steps, then considering each step as providing a minitransient, and finally through the
superposition principle summing all the
minitransients (left ). As the steps are made
smaller, this sum becomes the convolution
integral:
T

P ( t ) = q () p (t ) d .
0

During a test, downhole pressure gauges

measure P (t ) and a flowmeter measures q(t ).
But p(t ) is what the interpreter wants. Getting at it requires the reverse process of
deconvolution, which unfortunately is a
rather unstable numerical procedure. More
commonly, interpreters favor a procedure
called logarithmic convolution that converts
the two measurements more easily into
something that fits existing analytical techniques (left ).
Logarithmic convolution is a mathematical trick in which a form for p ( t ) is
assumedusually the response for infiniteacting radial flowthat simplifies the above
convolution integral to a simpler expression
involving a rate-normalized pressure
P(t )/q (t ), written J (t ), and a new time-scale
called sandface rate convolution time, tsfrc .
J (t ) and its derivative with respect to tsfrc
offer the same diagnostic power as the conventional well testing analysis described
earlier with the advantage that most of the
wellbore storage is removed.

Oilfield Review

There are several advantages to testing a

well with downhole pressure and flow measurements under drawdownand one disadvantage. The disadvantage is that reservoir
shut-in pressure is not measured. The advantages are:
in producing wells, little production is lost
since the well is never shut-in.
in poor producers, production is not killed
as may occur during a shut in.
in layered reservoirs, testing under drawdown reduces the possibility of crossflow
between producing layers, while this can
easily occur in a buildup test complicating
the interpretation.
The techniques most popular application in
layered reservoirs, though, is in analyzing
individual layer kh and skin values.10
This involves measuring a series of transients created by changing the production
rate, one for each layer with the production
logging tool situated at the top of the layer
(right ). The amount of data acquired is huge
and can be analyzed in several ways with
varying degrees of sophistication. The key,
however, is to first analyze the transient
measured with the tool situated just above
the bottom layer, yielding that layers reservoir properties. Then, a second transient is
measured with the tool situated above the
next layer, revealing reservoir properties of
the new layer and bottom layer combined.
Since reservoir properties for the bottom
layer are already estimated, the transient
can be analyzed to reveal just the new
layers properties. The process continues up
the well.
Layered reservoir testing (LRT) was originally conceived to investigate production
wells. Recently in offshore Congo, AGIP
used the technique to evaluate a layered
reservoir encountered by an exploration
well. Conventional testing of individual pay
zones in an exploration well would normally call for a separate DST-perforation run
for each zone. But using layered reservoir
testing, AGIP obtained reliable kh, skin and
productivity index values for individual
zones with only one trip in the hole, at a
considerable cost savings (see Exploration
Layered Reservoir Testing in the Congo,
next page).
The drawback of using an LRT in the
exploration setting is that production from
different zones commingles, ruling out representative sampling from different pay
zones. Fortunately, a recent technological

B
Time

Surface flow rate

Downhole
C
Pressure

Flow

nSequence of downhole pressure and flow transients measured using a production logging tool in a layered reservoir test. A separate transient is measured with the tool positioned at the top of each zone. Analyzing the transients yields individual zone permeability and skin values.
innovation provides a solution. Samples of
extraordinary reliability may now be
obtained from any number of zones using
the new wireline-conveyed MDT Modular
Formation Dynamics Tester, but this has to
be planned in advance because the sampling takes place in open hole (see The
MDT tool: A Wireline Testing Breakthrough, page 58).
In addition to convolution and layered
reservoir testing, there are other advantages
to supplementing conventional pressure
data with production logging measurements. A flow profile run during stabilized
production or shut-in can pinpoint where
production is coming from and provide
invaluable data on crossflow between
zones. The information may directly influence testing interpretation. For example, if a
zone is producing only from its upper part,
a portion of the transient will react as if the
well were only partially completed. The
diagnosis must be adjusted accordingly. The
fluid density measurement in production
logging also plays a role by indicating
whether gas is coming out of solution, giving a warning that a test may be occurring
at below bubblepoint conditions.
Perhaps the most valuable contribution of
downhole flow measurements is in testing

9. Meunier D, Wittmann MJ and Stewart G: Interpretation of Pressure Buildup Test Using In-Situ Measurement of Afterflow, Journal of Petroleum Technology
37 (January 1985): 143-152.
10. Kucuk F, Karakas M and Ayestaran L: Well Test
Analysis of Commingled Zones Without Crossflow,
paper SPE 13081, presented at the 59th SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston
Texas, USA, September 16-19, 1984.
Ayestaran L, Ehlig-Economides C, Shah P, Kuchuk F,
Nicolson B and Wittmann M: Layered Reservoir
Testing, The Technical Review 35, no. 4 (October
1987): 4-11.

(continued on page 45)

April 1992

39

Exploration Layered Reservoir Testing in the Congo

Luigi Piero

Augustine Alagoa

AGIP Congo

Pointe-Noire, Congo

Pointe-Noire, Congo

AGIPs innovative use of layered reservoir testing

Lower layer
Upper layer
Composite

RFT Pressure

Congo. The goal of the test was to evaluate two

producing layers only a few meters apart with
only one trip into the hole, a much less costly
undertaking than the usual two trips. The LRT
technique was originally developed for testing
production wells, in which several layers produce
commingledin this case, LRT is a must to evaluate each layers dynamic properties. Here, AGIP
extended the method to the exploration environment, where openhole data suggest several pay

nReservoir geometry near the two layers

investigated by a layered reservoir test in

AGIPs Congo exploration well.

zones quite close to each other.

The discovered field is an elongated structure
bounded by two faults forming a V shape (left).

Pressure potential, bar

(LRT) in an exploration well occurred offshore

308

300

292

10

20

30

Bottomhole flow rate, m3/hr

nSelective inflow performance plot for the

two reservoir layers, showing the lower
layer to be easily the more productive
and the reservoir pressure corrected to a
depth datum of 2735 m to be the same in
both layers315 bars.

The well penetrates several reservoirs. Five tests

were performed in the well, two using the LRT

in. tubing-conveyed perforating (TCP) guns to

technique. Each LRT test looked at two distinct

enhance cleanup and control perforation damage.

layers. This example presents results from the

The test began with a flow period to clean up

the well, then a shut-in during which a production

shallower pair.
The bottom layer is a 17-m [56-ft] thick sand-

logging profile was recorded. The well was then

stone/limestone mix of 26% porosity, while the

opened on a 3/8-in. choke, and transient pressure

top layer is a 7-m [23-ft] thick limestone of 20%

and flow measurements were recorded with the

porosity. The layers are separated by about 4 m

production logging tool positioned above the top

[13 ft] of silts. The well was completed with 7-in.

zone (above). After flow stabilized, a second pro-

casing and perforated underbalanced with 4

1/2-

duction logging profile showed that 95% of production came from 10 m [33 ft] of the bottom
layer and just 5% from the top layer. The tool was
then moved to the top of the bottom zone and a
new transient measured after the choke was
increased to 1/2 in. The choke was finally
increased to 3/4 in. and a final transient measured with the tool back above the top zone.
First, the flow profiles were analyzed to obtain
the inflow performance of and reservoir pressure
in each layer. Plots of pressure normalized to a

40

Oilfield Review

40

about 70 m [230 ft] from the wellbore. This tied

13.5

AGIPs experience proves the validity of the

technique is usually difficult to apply when, as in

m [360 ft] apart. That meant the well was about

this case, one zone monopolizes production. Yet

55 m [180 ft] from each barrier, confirming that a

the results seem reliable and even extend to clar-

V-shaped fault structure bounded the reservoir.

0.0

LRT technique in an exploration setting. The

well between two flow barriers spaced about 110

Spinner,
rps

in with results from a deeper test that placed the

ifying the reservoir boundaries. The cost savings

When both transients were analyzed, skin val-

Pressure,
bar

12

15

Time, hr

nRaw downhole pressure and flow rate

transients measured with a production
logging tool during the layered reservoir
test.

trip in the hole, the elimination of a bridge plug

bottom). This is expected as most of the produc0

considerable. They accrue from only needing one

more so for the bottom layer (see LRT Results,

272

from reducing the rig time needed for the test are

ues for the two layers were found to be negative,

316

run that would have been required if the two

tion comes from the bottom layerit probably

zones had been tested conventionally, and finally

got the best chance of an effective cleanup during

only needing one cleanup period rather than two.

underbalanced perforating. The less favorable

These cost savings would increase as the number

skin value in the upper layer suggests production

of zones increases.

here would benefit from stimulation.

datum versus sandface flow rate confirmed that

(above). But more importantly, the plots showed
the two layers to be in equilibrium. Both had a
normalized pressure of 315 bars, close to the
RFT Repeat Formation Tester values obtained
during openhole logging. The similar values preclude crossflow during shut-in, confirmed by the
shut-in flow profile.
Next, data from the first two transients were
analyzedthe third transient was considered
invalid after it was noticed that bottomhole flowing pressure had dropped below estimated bubblepoint pressure. Bubblepoint and other fluid
parameters such as viscosity had been measured

Normalized p and Derivative, bar/m3/hr

the bottom layer was easily the most productive

p
Derivative
Convolution derivative
Model

101

100

10-1

at the wellsite on samples using the FPE Fluid

Properties Estimation device. Fortunately, the
first two transients provided an adequate interpretation. We will follow interpretation of the
second transient, obtained with the production
logging tool situated above the bottom layer, as

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

Elapsed time, hr

nLog-log plots of rate-normalized pressure, derivative and convolution derivative for

the second transient, with the best-fit model response superimposed. Arrows on the
convolution-derivative data mark the plateau corresponding to the radial flow regime.

an example (right).
The first step is model diagnosis. The convolu-

LRT Results

tion-derivative plot reveals the radial-flow

Interpretation

plateau. Before and after radial flow, the trends

are less well-defined making it difficult to diagnose the nature of the formationhomogeneous
or dual porosityand reservoir limits.
Analysis of the radial-flow regime gave initial

Top Layer

Bottom Layer

95

1.4

30

Flow Profile
Production contribution, %
Productivity Index,

m3/day/bar

Transient

values for the bottom layers permeability and

Permeability, md

105

skin. Then, several formation models and reser-

Skin

-1

-3.5

voir configurations were considered to match the

flow and pressure data of the entire transient. A
good match was obtained (see solid lines on plot)
assuming a dual-porosity model, suggested by
log and core data, and a flow barrier located

April 1992

41

Horizontal Well Testing in the Gulf of Guinea

Simon Domzalski

Jean-Pierre Yver

Port-Gentil, Gabon

Montrouge, France

Production Logs Flowing

200

Fluid Velocity
Profile

m/min
0
1650

Pressure

psi
1637.5
1.2

Fluid Density

g/cm3
0.2

Production Logs Shut-in

160

Fluid Velocity
Profile

-40
1650

psi

Pressure

1637.5
1.2

Fluid Density
RFT

Well Sketch

m/min

g/cm3
Caliper

0.2
13.5 in.
7.5 in.

Gamma Ray
1084

TVD

1091
2.95

Openhole Logs

0.25

N %

-15

1.95

45.0

1000

-0.25

1000

Ilm

Ild ohm-m
0.10

0.10

nComposite of production logging passes along a horizontal producing well in the Gulf of Guinea, West Africa with well trajectory.
Passes during shut-in reveal possible crossflow and settling of water and oil in troughs and peaks of the well geometry. Passes while
producing indicate no flow coming from the initial section of the horizontal trajectory and a fluid density equivalent to a 20% water
holdup. In all passes, pressure correlates with true vertical depth.

42

Oilfield Review

Log-Log Plot

A recent test in a horizontal well in the Gulf of

Guinea, West Africa illustrates the key role pro-

Pressure and Derivative, psi

10-2

Early-time
radial

10-3

Late-time
radial

10-4

duction logging can play in horizontal transient

testing. The well taps separate units of a sandstone oil reservoir with a 560-m [1840-ft] horizontal trajectory that travels about 23 m [75 ft]
10-5
10-4

below the gas/oil contact and 14 m [46 ft] above

10-3

the water/oil contact. At 860-m [2820-ft] mea-

10-2

10-1

100

101

60,000

70,000

Elapsed time, hr

sured depth, the well crosses a fault.

Horner Plot

The well was completed with a prepacked

1675

screen and slotted liner. For testing, shut-in was

at surface and the PLT Production Logging Tool
measuring flow, pressure and fluid density was

1665

tubing. Density was measured with a nuclear

fluid densitometer, because the conventional
pressure difference method employed by a gradiomanometer is inoperative in the horizontal envi-

Pressure, psi

pushed along the horizontal section with coiled

1655

ronment. An obstruction prevented logging for the

last 200 m [660 ft] of the horizontal trajectory.

1645

Day one of the two-day test began with production logging passes up and down the well while
the well was flowing about 9900 barrels of oil per
day (BOPD). The well was then shut in and a brief

1635
20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

nDiagnostic plot
for the two buildups
combined and specialized Horner
plot for the second
buildup test. The
diagnostic plot
includes pressure
change, the pressure change
derivative and the
convolution derivative (green open
triangles and diamonds only shown
at early time when
different from
derivative).
Characteristic of
horizontal well
tests, two plateaus
can be picked out
that on the specialized plots give horizontal and vertical
permeability values and skin. The
convolution derivative that eliminates
wellbore storage
proves most reliable for establishing the first plateau.

Generalized Horner time

30-minute buildup test made with the tool positioned at the beginning of the horizontal section.
A second series of up and down passes were then

1.07 g/cm3 and the oil density of 0.6 gm/cm3, giv-

passes is at 860 m, where a shift in the oil/water

made with the well still shut-in (previous page).

ing a water holdup of about 20%. The slight

interface may indicate water entry from the fault

increase in fluid density from 930 to 910 m prob-

known to intersect the well at that depth. Under

shows 60% of production coming from below the

ably reflects an increase in holdup caused by

shut-in and flowing conditions, pressure can be

obstruction at 980 m, 40% coming from between

water accumulation in this uphill section of the

seen to correlate precisely with true vertical depth.

the obstruction and 860 m, and practically noth-

trajectory. The effect is later masked by an

ing coming from the initial section of the horizon-

increase in production.

With the well flowing, the fluid velocity profile

tal section. The fluid density profiles indicate a

During shut-in, the fluid velocity profile indicates

Day two of the test comprised a buildup lasting

three hours, with the production logging tool
positioned again at the beginning of the horizon-

some crossflowformation pressure measure-

tal section and the well having previously been

ments made just after drilling indicated a 12-psi

producing through a 156/64-in. choke at about

spread along the horizontal trajectory, a signifi-

value intermediate between the water density of

10,100 BOPD.

cant amount for a high permeability reservoir.

A diagnostic plot combining data from both

The up and down fluid density passes indicate

buildups reveals the characteristic double

water settling in the trajectory troughs and oil fill-

plateau of horizontal wells (above). The first

ing the peaks. The only movement between the

April 1992

43

Pressure and Derivative, psi

102

101

100

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

Time, hr

nA regression analysis best fit (solid lines) to the buildup data

assuming a homogeneous formation model for the reservoir. The

fit is reasonable except toward the end of the test. Possible reasons for this discrepancy include crossflow after shut-in, a wrong
assumption about the length of horizontal trajectory actually producing, and the formation being layered rather than homogeneous.

plateau corresponds to early-time radial flow in

the vertical plane, while the later plateau corre-

to conduct a transient test under drawdown.

This test, like most other horizontal well tests,

sponds to radial flow in the horizontal plane.

would have been impossible to analyze without

With a Horner plot, horizontal and vertical perme-

the production logging profiles, particularly the

abilities were estimated. Although the results

flow profiles. These clearly indicated that the first

were of the same order of magnitude as those

segment of the producing section did not pro-

obtained from previous tests conducted in vertical

duce, essential information for the regression

wells and cores from these wells, the assumed

analysis; the downhole flow rates made possible

homogeneous formation model failed to match

a convolution derivative plot that gave much

the test data at later timethe derivative data

firmer indication of the early-time radial flow than

show a flattening trend while the model shows a

the normal derivative; and the shut-in profiles

decreasing trend (above).

pointed to crossflow, a caution to the wise analyst.

This discrepancy could have three causes:

First, it may not be correct to assume that the
entire horizontal length past the restriction is producing. Second, the fit should perhaps be made
with a layered rather than homogeneous model.
Third, there may have been crossflow during the
second buildup, just as was observed in the first
buildup. The only way to eliminate this factor is

44

Oilfield Review

horizontal wells.11 Horizontal wells pose

two special problems for the reservoir engineer. The first is the unavoidably large wellbore storage effect. Horizontal sections may
extend for thousands of feet and cannot be
isolated from the transient. The second is
the more complex nature of the transient.
Once wellbore storage is stabilized, three
regimes possibly replace the radial-flow
regime of a conventional test (right ).
First is radial flow in a vertical plane
toward the well, indicated by a plateau on
the derivative curve on the log-log
plotthis regime is termed early-time,
pseudo-radial because permeability
anisotropy (vertical to horizontal) actually
causes an elliptical flow pattern. The second
regime begins when the transient reaches
the upper and lower boundaries of the producing zone and flow becomes linear
toward the well within a horizontal plane.
The derivative curve traces a line of slope
1/ 2. The third regime occurs as the transient
moves so far from the well that flow
becomes radial again, but this time in the
horizontal plane. The derivative curve
enters a second plateau.
Although this makes diagnosis more difficult, it also offers benefits. As in conventional testing, the first plateau gives kh and
skin, but k is now the geometric average of
permeability in the vertical plane perpendicular to the horizontal wellbore trajectory, k y k z , the wellbore trajectory being
considered parallel to the x-axis. The intermediate linear flow period gives horizontal
permeability along the y axis, ky , and the
second plateau gives the average permeability in the horizontal plane, kx k y . In
theory, the three regimes together can provide a breakdown of permeability into its
three components.
The key to a successful interpretation is
recognizing the first plateau, not only
because this alone gives k z , but also
because it is the only regime that can
directly provide skin. However, it is the
regime most likely to get swamped by the
large wellbore storage occurring in a horizontal well. The key to this dilemma is
either downhole shut-in, or downhole flow
measurements and logarithmic convolution.
Because of the length of a horizontal
wells producing zone, supplementing test

April 1992

y
z

nPhases in a horizontal well transient test. After wellbore storage has disappeared,
flow is first radial toward the well in the vertical y-z plane, then linear in the y-z plane,
finally radial in the x-y plane. The first and third regimes produce plateaus on the loglog diagnostic plot and can be analyzed to provide vertical and horizontal permeability.
data with flow profiles measured during
production logging is even more crucial for
pinpointing production and recognizing
crossflow (see Horizontal Well Testing in
the Gulf of Guinea page 42).12 Crossflow is
common in horizontal wells as in vertical
wells, particularly during a buildup test, and
may seriously jeopardize interpretation.
Drawdown tests are therefore recommended
as an insurance policy, particularly for new
wells in developed fields where differential
depletion may exacerbate crossflow.
The underpinnings of horizontal well testing theory are developing rapidly. Interference testing of horizontal wells is being
worked out, as is the influence on the horizontal well-test response of the same range
of reservoir heterogeneities and boundaries
that are now well understood for conventional testing.

The future of testing is assured, of course.

What will accelerate its use and impact is
better integration with other reservoir data,
improved downhole pressure and flow sensors, further development of transient theory
and a continued evolution of the interactive
computer software that now aids interpreters.
HE
11. Clark G, Shah P, Deruyck B, Gupta DK and Sharma
SK: Horizontal Well Testing in India, Oilfield
Review 2, no. 3 (July 1990): 64-67.
Shah PC, Gupta DK, Singh L and Deruyck BG: A
Field Application of the Methodology for Interpretation of Horizontal Well Transient Tests, paper SPE
20611, presented at the 65th SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
USA, September 23-26, 1990.
12. Ahmed U and Badry R: Production Logging as an
Integral Part of Horizontal Well Transient Pressure
Test, paper SPE 20980, presented at Europec 90,
The Hague, The Netherlands, October 22-24, 1990.

45