FUNDAMENTAL OF WELL

TEST INTERPRETATION
PART I

Author : Agihtias Salam

Reservoir Engineer LAPI ITB
26 April 2018
CONTENT

▪ Basic concept on Well Test Interpretation

▪ Basic Interpretation (Homogeneous Res.)
▪ Flow Regimes and Diagnostic Plot
▪ Some Field Cases
AVERAGE COST FOR WELL TEST
TRAINING
 THE BASIC CONCEPT

Bourdet et al. (1983)

TYPES OF WELL TESTING

▪ Drawdown Test
Open well with constant rate -> Decreasing Pwf
▪ Build-Up Test
Shut-in Well -> Increasing Pwf
▪ Injection/Fall-off Test
Fluid is injected -> Increasing Pwf
Shut-in Well -> Decreasing Pwf
▪ Interference/Pulse Test
Active Well (Injection/Production) -> Pwf monitored at
observation well
THE OBJECTIVES OF WELL
TEST INTERPRETATION
▪ Exploration and Appraisal.
➢ How much oil or gas does this reservoir contain?
➢ At what rate can wells in this reservoir produce?
▪ Reservoir Engineering.
➢ What is the in-situ permeability?
➢ What are the nature of and distances to reservoir
boundaries?
➢ What is the average reservoir pressure?
▪ Production Engineering.
➢ Is well damage?
➢ How effective was the stimulation treatment?
FLOW REGIMES

▪ STEADY STEATE (Water Drive/Aquifer Support)

𝝏𝒑
=𝟎
𝝏𝒕
▪ PSEUDOSTEADY STATE (Boundary)
𝝏𝒑
= 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒕
𝝏𝒕
▪ TRANSIENT STATE (Infinite Reservoir)
𝝏𝒑
= 𝒇 𝒙, 𝒚, 𝒛, 𝒕
𝝏𝒕
 THE FLOW EQUATION

𝟏 𝝏 𝝏𝑷 ∅𝝁𝒄 𝝏𝑷
𝒓 = (1) Diffusivity Equation
𝒓 𝝏𝒓 𝝏𝒓 𝒌 𝝏𝒕

Laplace Transform !!

𝒒𝝁 𝟏 ∅𝝁𝒄𝒓𝟐 Solution of Diffusivity Equation

𝑷 𝒓, 𝒕 = 𝑷𝒊 − − 𝑬𝒊 − (2)
𝟐𝝅𝒌𝒉 𝟐 𝟒𝒌𝒕 Under certain assumptions.

Pressure at any point in a Homogeneous, Isotropic reservoir due to the horizontal

flow of a slightly compressible fluid toward a central well producing at a
constant rate is given by the Equation (2) (Matthew and Russel 1967).
𝟕𝟎. 𝟔𝒒𝝁𝑩 ∅𝝁𝒄𝒓𝒘𝟐
𝑷 𝒓𝒘, 𝒕 = 𝑷𝒊 + 𝑬𝒊 − (3)
𝒌𝒉 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟏𝟎𝟓𝟓𝒌𝒕
MAIN CONCEPT

Will match
if correct properties
are used

SAND SAND
The objective is to find the properties
That will make the mathematical model
that describes the reservoir match the
measured response from the well
 FORWARD AND INVERSE
PROBLEMS

Forward problem Inverse problem

Well test interpretation is an inverse problem. The two central problems of well testing are
(1) To identify the unknown reservoir model
(2) To estimate the unknown parameters of that model.

Correct model identification is an essential componen of well test interpretation.

If the model is wrong, the resulting parameter estimates are useless.
MODERN WELL TEST
INTERPRETATION
Step 2 Step 3
Step 1 Identify as many flow Calculate appriopriate initial
Quality Control : regimes as possible using reservoir system properties
Good Data? input data and other from each flow regimes
reservoir des. information

Adjust parameters on
Input Data Geology, Geophysics, the model
core, well completion

No Step 4
History matching entire test
response; Good match
between models and field
test data?

Yes
END (Complete Report)
WELL TEST INTERPRETATION
METHODS

Pi 𝟏𝟔𝟐. 𝟔 𝒒𝝁𝑩 STRAIGHT-LINE METHOD

𝒌=
𝒎𝒉

𝟏𝟔𝟐. 𝟔 𝒒𝝁𝑩 𝒕𝒑 + ∆𝒕
𝑷𝒘𝒇 = 𝑷𝒊 − 𝒍𝒐𝒈 𝒚 = 𝒎𝒙 + 𝒄
𝒌𝒉 ∆𝒕

y b m x
WELL TEST INTERPRETATION
METHODS
TYPE-CURVE METHOD
10000

1000

Dp
100

10
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
time, hours

Gringarten-Bourdet type curve (1983)

HOW ABOUT THIS?

SIMULATION AND
HISTORY MATCHING

Gringarten-Bourdet type curve (1983)

 FLOW REGIMES
▪ WELLBORE STORAGE At the wellbore
▪ SPHERICAL FLOW
Near wellbore
▪ BILINEAR FLOW
▪ LINEAR FLOW Near wellbore/Boundary
▪ RADIAL FLOW Reservoir
The preesure response for most flow regime may be epressed as a power-law
function plus a constant :
∆𝑷 = 𝒎𝒏 𝒕𝒏 + 𝒃𝒏 OR ∆𝑷 = 𝒎 log 𝒕 + 𝒃

n : characterise specific flow regime

bn : intercept related to skin factor

log ∆𝑷 = 𝐧 log 𝒕 + 𝒎𝒏 + log 𝒃𝒏

𝒅𝒑
𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝒕 = 𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐠(𝒕) + 𝐥𝐨𝐠(𝒏𝒎𝒏 )
𝒅𝒕
 THE BOURDET PRESSURE
DERIVATIVE PLOT

Typical pressure derivative plot for infinite – acting radial flow Distorted Pressure derivative plot

Because of the diffusive nature of the pressure response in a porous material, there are no
Sharp transition anywhere in a wellbore pressure transient. Hence, the transition from WBS
Behavior to reservoir – dominated behavior is a slow evolution.
Various kind of reservoir models and boundaries can be recognised by the use of pressure
deriative plot, such as Radial or Linear Composite Reservoir, faults, etc. (Later will be
explained)
TRANSIENT FLOW PERIODS
 FLOW REGIMES (AT WELLBORE)
WELLBORE STORAGE (n=1) : Fluids which produced after shut-in
is from the wellbore not the reservoir.

Pressure response

SAND FACE SAND FACE

The wellbore storage introduces

a time delay between surface rate
and sand face rate
𝒅𝒑
𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝒕 = 𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐠(𝒕) + 𝐥𝐨𝐠(𝒏𝒎𝒏 ) n=1
𝒅𝒕
SKIN (AT WELLBORE)

Skin Zone = Damage Zone

 FLOW REGIMES (SPHERICAL FLOW)

This model assumes that the well produces

From an interval smaller than the net drained interval.
The pressure drop due to flow regime (2) [spherical]
Is a near wellbore reservoir effect caused by the
Anisotropy.
𝒅𝒑
𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝒕 = 𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐠(𝒕) + 𝐥𝐨𝐠(𝒏𝒎𝒏 ) n = -1/2
𝒅𝒕

t(dp/dt)

t
FLOW REGIMES (LINEAR FLOW)
Early Time (Fractured Near Wellbore) Late Time (Boundary Effects)
FLOW REGIMES (RADIAL FLOW)
During radial flow, the pressure response is a linear
Function of the logarithm of time !
The slope usually be used to calculate mean
Permeability (we will go into that shortly !)
Once the early-time, near-wellbore effects are over
The wellbore transient reflects the transmission of
Pressure out in the reservoir
As time proceeds, the response is
Characteristic of conditions farther
and farther away from the wellbore.
At very late time, the pressure
response is affected by the influence
of boundaries, but before those late
times, the pressure response does
not yet respond to any boundaries
that may be present, and the
reservoir acts as if it were infinite.
Diagnostic plot for a infinite acting vertical well with constant WBS and skin
FLOW REGIMES

Sketch map of special typical portions of pressure derivative curve on log-log plot
 RADIUS OF INFLUENCE

The radius of influence (investigation) tentatively

describes the distance that the pressure transient has
moved into the formation.
Also, ROI is one of the most abused results in well test
interpretation. By itself it is a harmless relation between time
and distance for a given mobility (Oliver, H 2009). WHY??
𝒌𝒕 This definition assumes that the flow is radially
𝒓𝒊 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟗 homogeneous. This definition will lose its meaning in the
𝝁∅𝑪𝒕
face of complex configurations : fractured wells, horizontal
wells, lateral boundary, composite zones, and heterogeneous
formations. (better to speak area of investigation.
For this reason, ROI is only a Vague concept (not clearly
expressed or known) that qualitatively describes the
expansion of the range of influence.
 FLOW CONDITION
Homogenity characteristics only exist in a certain local range in any formation, whereas
heterogenity charateristics are Absolute and Universal.

Impermeable boundaries

Composite boundaries

OR OR OR
(k2<k1) (k2<k1) (k2<k1)
FLOW CONDITION

Composite boundaries

OR OR OR
(k2<k1) (k2<k1) (k2<k1)

Characteristics of Type Curves when flow condition in the reservoir is restricted or bettered
(a) When flow is restricted
(b) When flow is bettered
 EXAMPLE 1 (DRAWDOWN TEST)

Field data 1 Type curve matching

▪ Move the field-data graph vertically until the horizontal part of the field-data derivative
overlies the horizontal part of the type-curve derivative
• Move the field-data horizontally until the unit-slope portion of the data overlie the type-curve
 EXAMPLE 1

▪ On the type-curve graph, find the pressure and pressure derivative curve pair that best match the
Observed field data
• Record the 𝑪𝑫 𝒆𝟐𝒔 corresponding to the chosen type-curve pair
• Select (𝒕𝑫 /𝑪𝑫 )mp
• Select (𝑷𝑫 /∆𝑷)𝐦𝐩
EXAMPLE 1
Permeability :
𝑞𝜇𝐵 𝑃𝐷
𝑘=
0.00708 ℎ ∆𝑃

(125)(1.152)(2.122) 100
𝑘=
0.00708 (50) 3,400
Dimensionless WBS coefficient :
0.0002637 𝑘 𝑡
𝐶𝐷 =
∅𝜇𝐶𝑡 𝑟𝑤 2 𝑡𝐷 /𝐶𝐷

WBS coefficient :
∅𝜇𝐶𝑡 ℎ𝑟𝑤 2
𝐶= 𝐶𝐷
0.894
Skin :
𝐶𝐷 𝑒 2𝑠
𝑆 = 0.5 𝑙𝑛
𝐶𝐷
 EXAMPLE 2
Although the log-log graph of pressure change and pressure derivative vs. time is often
Associated with type-curve analysis, it may be used to estimate permeability, skin factor,
And WBS coefficient without the use of type curves.
▪ Identify WBS and IARF
▪ Draw horizontal line through IARF
and read (tΔP’)r
▪ Pick a convenient time during IARF
(Δtr), then draw vertical line to Δpw=60Psi

intersect the pressure-change curve

(blue curve)
▪ Draw a horizontal line from the
intersection line to the y-axis, then Δtw=0.01 hr
read the pressure change (ΔP)r
▪ Calculate permeability from:
𝟕𝟎.𝟔 𝒒𝝁𝑩
▪ 𝒌=𝒉 𝒕∆𝑷′ 𝒓
 EXAMPLE 2
Although the log-log graph of pressure change and pressure derivative vs. time is often
Associated with type-curve analysis, it may be used to estimate permeability, skin factor,
And WBS coefficient without the use of type curves.
▪ Calculate permeability from:
𝟕𝟎.𝟔 𝒒𝝁𝑩
▪ 𝒌=𝒉 𝒕∆𝑷′ 𝒓
▪ Calculate the skin factor from :
𝟏 ∆𝑷𝒓 𝒌∆𝒕 Δpw=60Psi
▪ 𝒔=𝟐 − 𝐥𝐧
𝒕∆𝑷 𝒓 𝟏𝟔𝟖𝟖∅𝝁𝑪𝒕 𝒓𝒘 𝟐

Δtw=0.01 hr
CONCLUSIONS

▪ Well testing is an inverse problem then the

solution is not unique
FINISH
WELL TEST INTERPRETATION
WORKFLOW
PART II

Author : Agihtias Salam

Reservoir Engineer LAPI ITB
8 May 2018
GRAPH SCALE
The three scales most frequently used in well test interpretation are the Cartesian scale,
The semilog scale, and the log-log scale.

The pressure change has a range from 10 Expansion of the time scale makes it very
To 180 psi, but the half pressure change is Easy to read the early pressure data
Not known.
“HIDDEN” BEHAVIOR

Why does the log curves show spikes On the cartesian scale (y-axis), the pressure data
When the pressure change curve is Does not look smooth. The spikes on P’ curve are
smooth? Caused by abrupt shift in pressure data.
WELL TEST INTERPRETATION WORKFLOW

1. Collect Data
2. Review & QC Data
3. Identify flow regime
4. Select the reservoir model
5. Estimate the parameters manually
6. Simulate or history-match
7. Interpret the estimated model parameters
8. Validate the result
1. COLLECT DATA
1.1 Geology Data

Depth Structure Map

1. COLLECT DATA
1.2 Petrophysics Data (Log)

Cement bond log Borehole image logs Well log

1. COLLECT DATA
1.2 Petrophysics Data (RCAL & SCAL)
▪ Core porosity
as an input parameter
▪ Core permeability
kh core ≈ kh well test
▪ Relative Permeability
(end point)
1. COLLECT DATA
1.3 Reservoir Data

▪ Temperature
usually obtained from downhole log for estimating fluid
properties
▪ Initial Pressure
usually obtained from downhole log for estimating fluid
properties
▪ Reservoir Fluid Contacts (OWC/GWC/GOC)
Provide distances to the nearest contact (expected changes in
mobility (k/µ) that may appear as a composite reservoir
boundaries.
1. COLLECT DATA
1.3 Fluid Property Data
▪ Fluid Compressibility
1 𝑑𝑉
𝑐𝑜 = (Usually in the range of 𝟏 𝒕𝒐 𝟓 𝟏𝟎−𝟔 𝟏/𝑷𝒔𝒊)
𝑉 𝑑𝑃

1 (Usually in the range of 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝒙𝟏𝟎−𝟔 𝟏/𝑷𝒔𝒊) Q (rate)

𝑐𝑔 ≈
𝑃

𝒌𝒕
𝒓𝒊 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟗
𝝋𝝁𝑪𝒕
1. COLLECT DATA

▪ Workover History
Stimulated or not?
▪ Type of Completion
Type of completion gives a strong indication of the range of Skin
factor to be expected.
▪ Test Data
Daily report for test operation, choke size, flow rate vs time.
2. REVIEW AND QC DATA

▪ Compare Gauge Data

Calculate the difference curve between the primary gauge and
the remaining gauges.
Which gauge is the most accurate?
Which gauge is closest to the perforation?
▪ Identify Non-Reservoir Phenomena
Gauge drift
Movement gas-liquid interface in wellbore
MOVEMENT OF GAS-LIQUID INTERFACE IN
WELLBORE

Any abrupt changes on pressure

derivative must be caused by wellbore
phenomenon.
NON-DARCY SKIN FACTOR

Is the derivative during the transition out of WBS

much steeper than predicted for a well
with contstant WBS and Skin ?
 GAUGE DRIFT

Match non drifting gauge (green)

Gauge drift is caused by unstable electronic

components and fatigue of the sensin material
used in the instruments.
Usually this phenomena will affect late-time
behavior of pressure derivative, which will
result in wrong interpretation if we did not know
that such drift exist. Match drifting gauge (red)
IDENTIFY FLOW REGIMES

Sketch map of special typical portions of pressure derivative curve on log-log plot
SELECT RESERVOIR MODELS
Ideal reservoir model :
• Includes all important physical phenomena
(the wellbore, the completion, the reservoir medium, and the reservoir boundaries)
• Fits the entire observed rate and pressure history
(the model should predict a pressure response that mathces the complete pressure
History for the well)
• Consistent with available geology, geophysics, and petrophysics

Radial Composite Model

INTERPRET MODELS PARAMETERS
Inner zone Mobility (k/µ)1
Mobility ratio=
M1/M2
Oueter zone Mobility (k/µ)2

Cases in which composite models used :

• Modeling (simulating) changes of reservoir
Properties
• Modeling fluid front
• Matching any strange response whatever (this is
very BAD REASON)
VALIDATE RESULTS
➢ Reality check.
▪ Skin factor
𝒓𝒆
𝐒𝒎𝒊𝒏 = −𝒍𝒏 the most negative skin factor
𝒓𝒘
▪ WBS Coefficient
Normally WBS Coefficient will be no larger than 0,05 to 0,2 bbl/psi
▪ Distance to Boundaries
▪ Permeability
Permeability should be compared to core permeability data, if available.
K core > k well test may be wrong res.model used
K core < k well test the reservoir might be fractured
FINISH