SPE 93984
Well Testing Best Practice
Shi-Yi Zheng and Patrick Corbett
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland
2004 Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 14th Europec Biennial Conference held in
Madrid, Spain, 13-16 June 2005.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 14th Europec Biennial Conference held in
Madrid, Spain, 13-16 June 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the SPE, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage
of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract
of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain
conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper will present study results from a ten-year long oil
industry sponsored research project in this subject area. The
survey of well testing practice covered situations from a range
of major oil companies in China, Europe and Russia, which
reflected problems that have long existed. These issues were
further confirmed at the 2002 SPE well testing Forum. It was
realised there is a need to promote best practice in the oil
industry, and in well testing in particular, and that was the
motivation for this paper.
Well testing, regarded as transient pressure testing, is usually
very expensive. Bad testing data resulting from lack of design,
preparation and unsupervised operation are really expensive.
The contribution from the test to your asset is negative if a
decision is made based on the information derived from non-
representative data. Therefore, why not carefully prepare or
design your test beforehand? There should be no excuse after
spending two million dollars for a test and failing to deliver
the information you expected. In our eleven years of research
and teaching experience worldwide in the subject area, we
found that well test interpretation engineers need skills other
than in the subject itself in order to get more value from well
testing. There is also a need to clarify the ambiguity in some
well testing concepts such as data, information, analysis and
interpretation, in order to develop a test procedure that is
generally easy to follow and understand. In this paper, the
study results will address all issues from justifying a test to the
right procedures to conduct and interpret a test. The definition
of a transient pressure test and a PI test, well test objectives
and alternative measurements available to consider in the oil
industry, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of these
measures, are critically reviewed. We term this approach: Well
Testing Best Practice (WTBP).
Introduction
Transient pressure measurement while attempting to keep the
well flow rate constant has been accepted as an industry
standard practice. This has been called, in general, well test.
So, as soon as well test is mentioned, it invariably means
transient pressure test. Otherwise, a test will be named
specifically (e.g., production test).
When the well bottom hole flowing pressure is kept
approximately constant, but measuring the flow rate change as
a function of time, i.e., the transient rate, this type of test is
referred to as decline curve analysis. It is increasingly used for
the purpose of reservoir management.
According to operation procedures, well test (i.e. a transient
pressure test includes pressure draw-down test) which is
conducted by flowing the well with constant rate, while
measures the pressure change (decline) as a function of time,
pressure build-up test, which is done by closing a flowing well
to measure the pressure recovery (build-up) in the reservoir
against the time, fall-off test, which is completed by shutting
off an injection well, then measures the pressure fall-off as a
function of time.
In general, well test means both pressure drawdown and build-
up tests. The test is combined and conducted continuously in a
series. The test flow rate and drawdown, or build-up durations
are designed according to the test objectives.
Well test objectives are classified in the following three major
areas; this is also shown in Fig.1:
1. Well test for reservoir evaluation
2. Well test for reservoir description
3. Well test for reservoir management (monitoring)
Well test for reservoir evaluation
The objectives of the test include: test for flow
capacity/productivity, initial reservoir pressure, fluid sampling
for PVT analysis. These will provide some basic reservoir and
fluid parameters for reservoir evaluation.
2 Shiyi Zheng and Patrick Corbett
Well test for reservoir description
The objectives of the test are to derive information about
reservoir anisotropy, heterogeneity, drainage geometry and
boundary conditions such as constant pressure, no-flow and
closed reservoir boundaries. These determinations ore often
non-unique and several models with a range of parameters
might be investigated.
Well test for reservoir management
The objectives of the test for reservoir management can be
subdivided into the following three areas:
1. A test designed for the future monitoring of the reservoir.
Systematic test design, operation, analysis and interpretation at
appraisal phase. This will ensure value for information in
reservoir description, evaluation and management.
2. Extended well testing, which will consider long-term
pressure drawdown and build-up data from permanent down
hole gauge. The objective of the test is to confirm hydrocarbon
reserve, reservoir drive mechanism, reservoir
boundary/compartmentalization, and geological
structure/element/heterogeneity. These together will provide
improved reservoir characterization, modelling and
simulation.
3. Time-lapsed well testing during field development phase.
This will include selected well test study on reservoir model
and field well test data for the purpose of model calibration
and reservoir monitoring/management.
This application of well testing is different from fibre optic
reservoir temperature and pressure monitoring. Also this is
different from reservoir decline curve analysis for production
forecast and reservoir management.
Well test best practice
Due to the cost, in order to justify if it is necessary or worth
testing (value for information), an engineer should always ask
herself (himself) the question: to test or not to test? If the
answer is YES, then the test objectives need to be clearly
specified according to the description above. If the answer is
NO, in order to achieve the test objectives (e.g. to get the
required reservoir and fluid parameters), what are the wireline
alternative measurements can be used? Fig.2 shows some
options as some well test alternatives. Each of these can only
achieve part of those from a well test operation. Several of
these measurements together may need to be combined in
order to obtain the total test results4. The key for the decision-
making is the cost.
CO2 emission during a test in some countries or for some
companies might be another restriction, which should be taken
into account as well. To meet the particular test objective, a
test needs to be designed carefully before the operation. Fig.3
shows a workflow for justifying a well test program1.
93984
In the last ten years, fluvial reservoir characterization and
research has been focused on the aspects of testing for
reservoir description and evaluation. The advance in well
testing is the integration of geology and reservoir engineering
through numerical modelling and simulation of well test, i.e.
numerical well testing. This not only provides a platform for
integration, but also adds a further step in well testing
interpretation procedure well test forward modeling2, 5, 6, 8,10.
As illustrated in Fig.4, the solid line outlined an example when
considering to test. The test objective is for reservoir
evaluation, where fluid and rock properties are expected to be
derived from the test. According to the cost, these parameters
can be obtained through three alternative measurements such
as wireline logs, wireline tester and sampler. So the final
decision might be that there is no need to do well testing. In
many areas the pressure to test comes from the need to
confirm reserves.
In Fig.5, as solid line outlined, it shows an example when
considering to test. The test objective is for reservoir
description, where reservoir boundary and dynamic
performance are expected to be derived from the test. In this
case, none of the listed alternative measurements can satisfy
the test objectives. So the final decision is to do well testing.
However, in some countries, a test still cant be operated due
to the strict no CO2 emission policy (Fig.6).
It should be pointed out that well testing for reservoir
management is not an entirely different test from those
performed for reservoir description and reservoir evaluation. It
is a well-designed test that can fulfill all these three tasks (test
for reservoir description, evaluation and management) in a
systematic, yet continuous way. Further more, a test can be
performed in a time-lapsed fashion (4D well testing) to
monitor reservoir property change such as kh, boundaries such
as sealing or leaky fault, change of OGC or OWC, injected
water front etc. etc. In this way, well testing is used for
reservoir monitoring in order to provide information that will
help to make decision in time for reservoir management.
As reservoir management, well test is required to start at the
right beginning of a field life as well as during the
development. Information about the reservoir, especially
geological information on the architecture can be best
extracted from a well test conducted at exploration or
appraisal phase3, 7. On this basis, well test conducted later has
a good reference to justify the results against fluid effects.
Common well testing problems
Our experience over a broad geographic spread (China,
Europe and Russia) has identified recurrent problems that have
long existed in well testing practice and these can be classified
in the following eight aspects:
1. Lack of well test design: this problem exists in the oil
industry from east to the west. It is more difficult to
design a test than to do it. This is because either due to
limit of data required for the design, particularly at the
93984 Well Testing Best Practice
field appraisal phase, or due to the difficult in modeling
inflow and outflow (for example, vertical lift performance
in a vertical well), which knowledge is from production
engineering side. So there is no prediction of the future
test performance, which can be derived through
sensitivity studies during the design. A test outcome is left
to some degree of risk, so surprises are often seen in the
test.
2. Design, operation and analysis of a well test by
different team or persons: This happened more due to
organization structure than the technology itself. Some
companies are still very much functional based, where
communication within the company is made through
functional office (most time by a person who has limited
discipline knowledge of the technology). Operation is
always successful, whilst the problem can be easily
spotted by an experienced reservoir engineers from the
data. In western oil industry, the situation is less of a
problem because the company structure is asset based and
the feedback loop to other field data and the application
are necessary.
3. Using the same test program for all reservoirs: Almost
all the oil companies have a pragmatic in-house testing
program. This will give a generalized rate schedule and
test durations for flow and well shut-in. This is not what
we define as well test design, which should be produced
from modeling and numerical simulation. Since reservoirs
are all different in terms of size, rock and fluid properties,
heterogeneities, etc., a test program should be designed
specifically in order to meet the test objectives. It can be a
pity to realize a boundary was detected from the
diagnostic plot, but can not define what kind of boundary
it really is due to lack of enough data (test not long
enough).
4. Mis-operate a test: (1) Sampling or do running
production logs during the drawdown (DD). Many tests
conducted in this way because the operator thinks that as
long as the final pressure build-up is ensured, the test is
successful. They forget that fact that the buildup (BU)
results critically rely on the preceding DD with respect to
skin factor calculation and flow history. A
disturbance during a well-stabilized DD period, will
impact the BU data leading to the deviation of the
analysis. (2) Shut-in the well before flow rate
stabilization: this is part of the problem identified in (1).
A disturbance such as sudden drop the rate during the
DD, which will cause the pressure to build-up, then flow
continued, but not for long before the well shut-in. This
will impact the BU data. According to the pulse theory, it
will take five times the duration of that of a disturbance,
in order to remove the impact of such a disturbance. (3)
Using decreasing-rate schedule for multiple rate test
rather than using increasing-rate: this was found from
field examples from North Africa. The only advantage to
do this in a gas well is to help cleaning-up the well
damage caused by drilling and completion. As far as well
test itself concerned, using an increasing rate schedule
will be much better than using a decreasing rate schedule.
(4) Using surface shut-in instead of down-hole shut-in:
This is very crucial in gas-condensate reservoirs. The
3
strong well bore storage effect caused by using surface
shut-in will fail a build-up test. In reality, it may be
difficult to do down-hole shut-in due to operation limit in
a high temperature and high-pressure gas-condensate
well. (5) Well flowing below the bubble point pressure.
This this can be avoided with a proper well test design for
exploration or appraisal wells. The pressure drop during
the DD and well bottom hole flowing pressure can be
optimized through the NODAL analysis, which is part of
the well test design program.
5. Misunderstanding the test concept, limit of analysis
method and basic requirement for the data: (1)
Analyzing PI test data using pressure derivative
diagnostic: this is due to misunderstanding transient
pressure and production tests. Also due to not aware that
using pressure derivative curve for the purpose of
diagnostic requires high-resolution data, which is only
available from the modern pressure gauges. (2) Only
analyzing BU, but ignoring the DD: the reason cause this
is still due to lack of the understanding of well testing
theory. Practically, it is difficult to get decent DD data
due to difficult in controlling the flow rate. Pressure
build-up, on the other hand, is always good quality. So
engineers get used to analyze BU data in order to get
reservoir parameters. However, this doesnt mean that the
DD can be ignored. In our experience, DD data can
provide invaluable information about the reservoir in
channel and closed reservoir systems12. (3) A short DD
followed by a long BU: a pressure build-up is designed in
such that its duration will be long enough to recover the
reservoir volume experienced by the preceding DD, this
usually 1.5 2 times of that from the preceding DD.
Depending on the reservoir permeability and outer
boundary conditions, this rule of thumb can be different.
So why have a very long BU then? Only reason is that the
operator or well test designer havent considered the right
well testing procedure.
6. Misuse or wrong interpret the test data: (1) No time to
analyze the data or analyze all the test data in the same
fashion: permeability and skin: some companies have
done so many well tests, but the test data either not
analyzed or simply looked at by a relatively junior
engineer for reservoir permeability and skin using the
same procedure. If some one calculates the cost to
conduct these tests, clearly, the test data treated this way
cannot justify the value for information. (2) Pursue
perfect match for well test analysis: a perfect match
between the analytical solution and tested data can easier
to mislead an interpreter. The key in well test analysis is
to get the model right. This requires a fully studies to the
disciplines involved including sensitivity analysis. An
interpretation based on a wrong model derived from a
perfect match is meaningless, or rather misleading.
However, a right model may not match the test data
exactly. (3) Comparing the derived model and property
such as permeability with those from different
measurements: this is a matter of measurement scale,
volume, and tolerance 11. Well testing yields multiple
models and parameters with ranges of values. The
4 Shiyi Zheng and Patrick Corbett
uncertainty can be reduced when integrated with other
data.
7. Complicated model, simple well test behavior or vice
versa: a good example to discuss this problem is well
testing naturally fractured reservoir, in which case,
fractures/fissures are easily found from core, logs, while
the well test response shows a uniform reservoir behavior.
In this case, the test can be analyzed using the
homogeneous model to derive the effective property of
the reservoir. Because if the heterogeneity of the reservoir
distributed in 3-D space uniformly, then the resulting
reservoir becomes homogeneous reservoir. In another
case of well testing naturally fractured reservoirs, the
testing time is not long enough to see the total system
behavior (in most cases), so it is difficult to select
interpretation model according to the pressure derivative
curve alone. Some time, the derivative curve shows a
response similar to that from a complicated reservoir
model, but the reason causing this particular response is
entirely different. The key is the timing of a specific flow
regime appearing.
8. Other factors affecting well testing response and
results: with a high-resolution pressure gauge down-hole,
any disturbance in the well and formation will be
recorded. In order to get decent data from a well test, a
well-designed test with good test supervision can avoid
some of the problems. However, engineers also should be
prepared to learn how to identify the problems from the
data. These problems as often seen from a well test are:
(1) Liquid level rising during a test: when testing an oil
reservoir with water cut or testing gas-condensate
reservoir, the liquid phase of the fluid will be segregated
in the well-bore due to gravity causing the liquid level
rising during a test. This will impact the pressure recorded
on the gauge. (2) Phase segregation in the well bore: this
can be identified from the Cartesian plot and pressure
derivative diagnostic plot in some tests. It is important to
recognize this as a well bore behavior, while the timing of
reservoir behavior will follow this later, where the radial
flow can be defined. (3) Derivative calculation artifact at
Late Time Region (LTR): this is often seen when
analyzing pressure build-up data. During BU, when the
reservoir pressure is approaching the reservoir initial or
average pressure, the pressure differences measured
between a time interval is very small at LTR, so the
derivative calculation by differentiation will yield
negative values. While most of the well testing software
does not allow these values to be plotted, where the
noise appeared on the derivative curve at LTR
vertically. This has nothing to do with reservoir (4) Time
functioning (over correction at LTR): the disadvantage of
time functioning in analyzing pressure build-up data is it
will compress the time scale. This will lead to missing
LTR behavior or misinterpret the LTR response12 (5)
Inaccurate rate history input: again, this will cause the
derivative from a BU at LTR to change slope resulting in
selecting the wrong model for test analysis (6) Bottom
hole flowing pressure increase with time: this can be
recognized from Cartesian plot of the draw-down. The
reason causing this is the formation damage, so the skin is
93984
decreasing during flow due to cleaning up. It is difficult to
analyze such a test.
Correct well testing procedure
The key to ensure that a quality well test can be conducted is
to map out a right procedure, then strictly stick to it. A correct
well testing procedure should include the following stages in a
systematic way: test design through numerical modeling and
well test simulation with clear objectives test operation
supervised by testing engineer data evaluation to ensure the
reliability, representativity of the test data analysis including:
diagnostic using log-log plot and reservoir system type curves
(generated during the design), specialized analysis, matching
(flow regimes and history matching) interpretation through
well test forward modeling (data integration), well test
numerical simulation, and finally documentation. These
together are called Numerical Well Testing (NWT) for WTBP.
A well test report should address all these aspects in details
together with the analysis of resulting uncertainty (model and
properties). The final well test model (forward model) is a
database for the future well test design, also can be used in
calibrating the existing full field reservoir simulation model.
Conclusions
This paper presented a general procedure for considering well
testing. According to the type of reservoirs, type of wells and
government regulation in different countries, a specific best
practice guideline should be made available to the engineers in
order to reduce cost and increase the value of information
from well testing.
In the life of a field, wells need to be tested (monitored). Well
testing is very expensive. A well-planned test cannot only
deliver the expected result; it also can save money through
providing accurate information, which will eventually lead to
the right decision-making.
In conclusion, this paper has covered the following:
Well Testing Best Practice (WTBP) as correct well
testing procedure- a systematic approach in doing well
testing is provided (also in a flow chart as attached
figures). The oil companies might have their own best
practice guide made according to their specific reservoir
conditions, well and field situations.
After a decision has been made to test, a test plan should
include, in details, test design, operation procedures, data
evaluation, test analysis procedures and integrated test
interpretation through numerical well testing.
In terms of well testing objectives, it includes: (1) Well
testing for Reservoir Evaluation in field exploration and
appraisal phase, (2) Well testing for Reservoir Description
in field appraisal and development phase, (3) Well
testing for Reservoir Management in production and
development phase (well test and reservoir monitoring).
A well test best practice guide needs to define clear
objectives for testing including to test or not to test?
The value of information is essential to justify a test.
93984 Well Testing Best Practice 5

Common well testing problems are identified, and the
reasons causing these problems briefly described.
Acknowledgement
We wish to acknowledge Shell, Wintershall, ConocoPhillips,
and Yukos for sponsoring the research work within GEOTIPE
Project. ConocoPhillips, Wintershall and BG Group are
acknowledged for their continued support within PRIME
Project. Schlumberger and Edinburgh Petroleum Services
(EPS) are acknowledged for allowing the use of their software
packages during the course of the research. The authors thank
the mentoring of George Stewart as we came to grips with the
various data sets. The opinions expressed in this paper are
solely the authors and the conclusions are broadly for the
industry as a whole rather than any specific company.
10. Zheng, S., Corbett, P., and Stewart, G., 1996, Variable formation
thickness - Impact on pressure-transient-test permeability,
synopsis of SPE 36552, JPT, Nov., 1018-1021.
11. Zheng, S., Corbett, P., Ryseth, A., and Stewart, G., 2000,
Uncertainty in well test and core permeability analysis: A case
study in fluvial channel reservoir, Northern North Sea, Norway,
AAPG Bulletin, 84(12), 1929-1954.
12. Zheng, S., Stewart, G., and Corbett, P., 2000, Analyzing pressure
transient test in semi-infinite and finite reservoirs using de-
superposition method, SPE 64753, SPE Int. Oil and Gas
Conference, Beijing, China, 7-10 Nov.

Nomeclature
BU BuildUp
DD DrawDown
ETR Early Time Region
LTR Late Time Region

Reference
1. Bennett, C., 2002, BPs view of reduced emissions testing, SPE
Well Testing Forum, Bali, May.
2. Corbett, P., Zheng, S., Pinisetti, M., Mesmari, A. and Stewart, G.,
1998; The integration of geology and well testing for improved
fluvial reservoir characterisation, SPE 48880, presented at SPE
International Conference and Exhibition, Bejing, China, 2-6
Nov.
3. Gunter, G.W., Finneran, J.M., Hartmann, D.J., and Miller, D.J.,
1997 Early determination of reservoir flow units using an
integrated petrophysical approach, SPE 38679, Proceedings of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Formation Evaluation and Reservoir
Geology, Part 1, 373-380.
4. Hollaender, F., 2001, Well Testing To Test or Not To Test,
ATW Workshop notes, 14-16 November, London
5. Morton, K., Thomas, S., Corbett, P., and Davies, D., 2002,
Detailed analysis of probe permeameter and vertical interference
test permeability measurements in a heterogeneous reservoir,
Petroleum Geoscience, 8, 209-216.
6. Robertson, E., Corbett , P., Hurst, A., Satur, N., and Cronin, B.,
2002, Synthetic well test modelling in a high net-gross outcrop
system for turbidite reservoir description, Petroleum
Geoscience, 8, 19-30
7. Tyler, N. and R. J. Finley, 1991, "Architectural Controls on the
Recovery of Hydrocarbons from Sandstone Reservoirs," in The
Three-Dimensional Facies Architecture of Terrigenous Clastic
Sediments and Its Implications for Hydrocarbon Discovery and
Recovery, A. D. Miall and N. Tyler (eds.), SEPM Concepts
in Sedimentology and Paleontology, Tulsa, Oklahoma: 3 1-5.
8. Zheng, S., Corbett, P., and Emery, A., 2003, Geological
interpretation of well test analysis, An example from a fluvial
reservoir in the Gulf of Thailand, Journal of Petroleum Geology,
26(1), 49-64
9. Dubost, F.X., Zheng, S.Y., Corbett, PW.M., 2004, Analysis and
numerical modeling of wire line pressure tests in thin-bedded
turbidities, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 45
247 261.