Chapter 5 Well Testing (III)

Weibo Sui
Ph.D, Associate Professor
College of Petroleum Engineering, CUPB
 Type Curve

• What are type curves?

– Type curves are graphic plots of theoretical solutions to flo
w equations under specific initial and boundary conditions
of the interpretation model representing a reservoir-well s
ystem.
– Most common type curves are presented in dimensionless
pressure (pD) versus dimensionless time (tD) .
 Infinite reservoir, line source well (Transient)

The dimensionless groups are defined as

kh
pD   pi  p 
141.2qB 
r
rD 
rw
re
reD 
rw
0.0002637 kt
tD 
 ct rw2
0.894C
CD 
 ct hrw2
 Agarwal Type Curve

Agarwal et al. (1970)

 Type Curve Matching

• Log-log type curve analysis make use of the dimensionless vari

ables. Since dimensionless pressure and time are linear functi
ons of actual pressure and time, we can calculate kh and φh:

kh kh
pD   pi  p  log p  log pD  log
141.2qB  141.2qB

0.0002637 kt 0.0002637k
tD  log t  log t D  log
 ct rw2  ct rw2
 p 
kh  141.2qB   D 
 p  M
0.0002637 kh 1
 hct 
 rw2  tD 
 
 t M
Gringarten Type Curve
 Bourdet’s Derivative Plot (1983)

• The derivative plot provides a simultaneous presentation of lo

g ∆p vs. log ∆t and log dp/d(lnt) vs. log ∆t.
– Pressure change log-log plot (Gringarten)
– Pressure change derivative log-log plot

d  p  d  p 
p    t (Drawdown test)
d  ln t  d  t 
Bourdet’s Derivative Plot (1983)
 Wellbore Storage Effect (WBS)

During WBS, the pressure change is a linear function of time since

the beginning of the transient:
p qB qB
qB  24C  p  t  log p  log t  log
t 24C 24C
Which means the unit slope. For the pressure change derivative:
d  p 
p    t
d t
p qB
Substitute  into above p, we find that
t 24C
qB

p  d t  p
24C
Infinite Acting Radial Flow (IARF)

70.6qB   kt 
p  r, t   pi  ln  2 
kh  1688 ct r 

d p 70.6qB   141.2qB  
p     0.5  
d ln t kh  kh 
which means p is a constant value.
In dimensionless pressure and dimensionless time form, we have
kh
pD   pi  p 
141.2qB
0.0002637k
tD 
 ct rw2
Therefore, the dimensionless pressure change derivative is
dpD dp
pD   t D D  0.5
d ln tD dtD
Combined Gringarten and Bourdet Plot
 The Pressure Derivative

To compute the pressure derivative, calculate the pressure change:

p  pi  pwf (t ) for drawdown data, and
p  pws  pwf (t p ) for buildup data, where
pi  Initial reservoir pressure
pwf  Bottom hole flowing pressure
pws  Bottom hole shutin pressure
t  Elapsed time since start of drawdown or buildup transient
t p  Duration of production time prior to shutting in for buildup
Compute tp as the cumulative production prior to the buildup test
divided by the last rate before shut-in.

13
 Pressure Derivative

For drawdown analysis, the pressure derivative, in its simplest form, is

computed as the derivative of p with respect to the natural logarithm (ln) of
the elapsed time (ti)
dp / d ln( t )  [ p (t i 1 )  p (t i 1 )] /[ ln (t i 1 )  ln(t i 1 )] for the elapsed time Δt  t i  t 0
where t 0  Starting time for the transient data
For buildup analysis, the preferred pressure derivative calculation is
d p / d  [ p(ti 1 )  p(ti 1 )] / [ i 1   i 1 ] for the elapsed time Δt  ti  t0
where
  superposition time and
 i  ln[t p ti / (t p  ti )]
 Flow Regimes

• Wellbore Storage

• Radial Flow
• Spherical
• Linear

• Bilinear

15
 Radial Flow Regimes for Vertical Wells

Top of Bottom
zone of zone

Partial Radial Flow Complete Radial Flow

Sealing Boundary
Fracture

Fracture
Boundary

Actual Well Image Well

Pseudoradial Flow to Fracture
Hemiradial Flow to Well
Near Sealing Boundary
Radial Flow Regimes for Horizontal Wells

Radial flow

Pseudoradial flow

Hemiradial flow

17
 Spherical Flow Regimes

Spherical Flow to Partially Hemispherical Flow to

Completed Zone Partially Completed Zone

18
 Linear Flow Regimes

Fracture

Fracture
Boundary

Fracture Linear Flow Linear Flow to Fracture Bilinear Flow

Linear Flow to Linear Flow to Well

Horizontal Well in Elongated
Reservoir
 Flow Regime Identification

e
at
st
r
Radial ea

dy
Li n

ea
Sp

st
he

do
ri c
al

eu
Ps
Radial Radial

ge e ar
a Li n
t or ar
s ne
re Li
b o ear
l Bilin
el
W

FRID Tool
 Flow Region Identification

• Wellbore Storage (WBS) - Estimate Cs, wellbore

storage coefficient (bbls/psi)
• Middle time region (MTR) - calculate skin, k & p*
2001/01/02-0000 : OIL

• Late Time region (LTR) - boundaries, kh variations

(pi or p* for depleted reservoir)
DP + DERIVATIVE (PSI/STB/D)

e
at
st
r
Radial nea

y
i

ad
L

te
Sp
10 -2

he

os
ric

ud
a l LTR

e
Ps
MTR
Radial Radial
WBS
10 -3

e ar
ag
10r-2 10 -1 0i
10L
ne
10 1 10 2
o ar
st
Delta-T (hr)
neWell Test Diagnostic Flow Regions
re Li
b o ear
l Bilin
el
W
 Time Region Identification
2001/01/02-0000 : OIL
DP + DERIVATIVE (PSI/STB/D)
10 -2

LTR
MTR

WBS
10 -3

10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2
Delta-T (hr)
Well Test Diagnostic Flow Regions

22
Early and Middle Time Analysis
 Drawdown Analysis

• C, k, s
– cartesian plot (C)
– semilog analysis (k, s)
– log-log derivative (C, k, s)

24
 Drawdown Analysis
102/01/01-1200 : N/A
4000. 4500. 5000. 5500. 6000.
pressure PSI

0. 10. 20. 30.

rates STB/D
0. 500. 1500.

0. 10. 20. 30.

Time (hours)
Cartesian Drawdown Analysis – C
2002/01/01-1200 : OIL

20.
15.

Dp mC
DP (PSI)

Zoom
10.

Dt
5.
0.

0. 5. 10. 15. 20.

Delta-T (hr)
Cartesian Plot

qB qB qB
p  t  mC  C  in bbl/psi
24C 24C 24mC
Semi-log Drawdown Analysis – s
2002/01/01-0000 : OIL

4995.
4990.
P PSI
4985.

Semilog Slope, m
4980.

SLOPE
4975.

0.0100 HR 0.10 HR 1.0 HR 10. HR

-3000. -2000. -1000. 0. 1000.

Superposition(T)
Semilog Analysis
162.6qB 
k
mh
 pi   pwf  k 
s  1.151  1hr
 log  3.23
 m  ct rw
2

 2002/01/01-0000 : OIL

Log-Log Drawdown Analysis – C

ENDWBS
DP + DERIVATIVE (PSI/STB/D)
10 -2

pressure derivative, m'

STABIL
10 -3

UNIT SLP

10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1
Delta-T (hr)
Log-log Derivative Analysis

d (p ) p 2  p1

d (t ) t 2  t1
(Dt2, Dp2)
qB
log Dp C
d (p )
(Dt1, Dp1) 24
d (t )
 2002/01/01-0000 : OIL

Log-Log Drawdown Analysis – k, s

ENDWBS
DP + DERIVATIVE (PSI/STB/D)
10 -2

pressure derivative, m'

STABIL
10 -3

UNIT SLP

10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1
Delta-T (hr)
Log-log Derivative Analysis

70.6qB
k , m is the level of the derivative, m=m/2.303
mh
 pi  pwf kt 
s  1.151   log  3.23 for t in IARF
 m ct rw
2

 PBU Analysis
(straight line methods)

• C, k, s, p*
– cartesian plot (C)
– semilog analysis (k, s, p*)
– - log-log derivative (C, k, s, p*)
 PBU Analysis
2002/01/01-1200 : OIL
4995.
pressure PSI
4985.
4975.

0. 10. 20. 30.

rates STB/D
800.
400.
0.

0. 10. 20. 30.

Time (hours)
Data Plot
 Cartesian PBU Analysis – C
2002/01/01-1200 : OIL

20.
15.

Dp mC
DP (PSI)

Zoom
10.

Zoom Dt
5.
0.

0. 5. 10. 15. 20.

Delta-T (hr)
Cartesian Plot

qB
C in bbl/psi
24mC
Horner PBU Analysis – k, p*

p*
Horner slope, m
4995.
4990.
P PSI
4985.
4980.

10 0 10 1 102 103
(Tp + dT)/dT

Semilog (Horner) Analysis

162.6qB    t p  t  
pws  pi   log  
kh   t 
162.6qB 
k
mh 33
Horner PBU Analysis – s

p*
Horner slope, m
4995.
4990.
P PSI
4985.
4980.

10 0 10 1 102 103
(Tp + dT)/dT

Semilog (Horner) Analysis

 pwst 1hr  pwf t 0 k 

s  1.151   log  3.23
 m  ct rw
2

34
 2002/01/01-1200 : OIL

Log-Log PBU Analysis – C, k, s

ENDWBS
DP + DERIVATIVE (PSI/STB/D)
10 -2

UNIT SLP STABIL

10 -3

10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1
Delta-T (hr)
Log-log Derivative Analysis

35
 2002/01/01-0000 : OIL

Log-Log PBU Analysis – C

DP + DERIVATIVE (PSI/STB/D) ENDWBS
10 -2

pressure derivative, m'

STABIL
10 -3

UNIT SLP

10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1
Delta-T (hr)
Log-log Derivative Analysis

d (p ) p 2  p1

(Dt2, Dp2) d (t ) t 2  t 1
log Dp qB
C
d ( p )
(Dt1, Dp1) 24
d ( t )

36
 2002/01/01-0000 : OIL

Log-Log PBU Analysis – k, s

ENDWBS

DP + DERIVATIVE (PSI/STB/D)
10 -2

pressure derivative, m'

STABIL
10 -3

UNIT SLP

10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1
Delta-T (hr)
Log-log Derivative Analysis

70.6qB
k , m is the level of the derivative
mh
 p k  t p  t  
s  1.151  ws
 log  3.23  log    log t 
m   cr 2  t
 w  p  
for pws , t in IARF, where pws  pws  pwf ( t p )
37
p, p’, psi Finite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture

Linear Flow (1/2 slope)

Bilinear Flow (1/4 slope)

Time, hrs

Finite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture

 Finite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture

e
at
st
r
Radial nea

dy
Li

ea
Sp

st
he

do
r ic
al

eu
Dp, Dp’, psi

Ps
Radial Radial

e r
ag i nea
r L
s to ea
r
e Li n Linear Flow (1/2 slope)
bor ear
l Bilin
el
W
Bilinear Flow (1/4 slope)

Time, hrs

Finite Conductivity Hydraulic Fracture

Late Time Analysis
 Late-Time Analysis: Outer Boundary
Dp, Dp’, psi

Complete Radial Flow

Time, hrs

Drawdown
 Closed Boundary – PSS Flow
In a closed system, after the pressure wave has reached the outer boundary
p
 const
t
Based on the material balance and compressibility definition,
1 dV p 1 0.234qBdt
ct   
V p dpwf Vp dpwf
where V p is the pore volume of the reservoir, Vp  Ah .
ct is in psi 1 , V p is in ft 3 , q is in STB/d, B is in bbl/STB, t is in hr, pwf is in psi.

We can do the following things according to this relationship:

(1) Calculate V p by the slope of the straight line pwf vs. t
dpwf 0.234qB
slope m    Vp
dt ctV p
(2) The initial oil in place (N p , STB) is given by
1
N V p So
5.615
Closed Boundary – PSS Flow

(3) By integration, the above equation can be written as

pwf 0.234qB t
pi wfdp  
V p ct 0
dt

0.234qB
 pwf  t
V p ct
d pwf 0.234qB
 
 pwf  t
d ln t V p ct
 vs. log t is a straight line with unit slope (m=1).
Thus we know log pwf
Dp, Dp’, psi

Complete Radial Flow

Time, hrs
Drawdown
Rectangular Drainage Area
Boundary Models – Single Sealing Fault

Characteristic flow regimes:

• Radial flow
• Hemi-radial flow
Boundary Models – Single Sealing Fault

The pressure drop can be simulated using the image well method,
pi  pwf  p1  p2

162.6qB    kt   70.6qB    948 ct  2 L  2  

 lg  2 
 Ei   
kh   1688 ct rw   kh   kt  
For the short beginning of the drawdown test, the pressure has not reached
the fault, the pressure disturbance caused by the image well cannot be felt,
 948 ct  2 L  2 
(t is very small, 2L rw , thus Ei     0)
 kt 
162.6qB    kt 
pwf  pi  lg
  2 
kh   1688 c r
t w 

t
 pi  m lg
1688rw2
  
 m lg t   pi  m lg 
 1688rw2 
Boundary Models – Single Sealing Fault

 948 ct  2 L  2 
After the fault has been felt by the well, i.e. Ei     0，
 kt 
the p2 cannot be omitted any longer.
948 ct  2 L 
2

If  0.01, the pressure drop equation can be approximated as

kt
t t
pwf  pi  m lg  m lg
1688  2 L 
2
1688rw2
2
 t 
 pi  m lg  
 1688 rw  2 L 
 t 
 pi  2m lg  
 1688rw  2 L 
  
 2m lg t   pi  2m lg 
 1688 rw  2 L 
Compared with the early-time radial flow equation, we can find that the slope
of the straight line in the semi-log plot doubled when the fault is felt.
Semi-log Plot
 Boundary Models – Single Sealing Fault

Consider the cross point (t = t x ) of the radial flow and hemi-radial

flow straight line, we can solve the distance to the sealing fault,
tx tx
pi  m lg  pi  2m lg
1688rw2
1688rw  2 L
Solved for L,
0.000148kt x
L
 ct
At the same time, if we draw the log-log derivative plot, we find that
the derivative level doubled when the fault is felt.
Boundary Models – Single Sealing Fault
Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Plot
Dimensionless Pressure Derivative Plot
 Intersecting Fault

θ = 60⁰

A 60 deg. angle between the intersecting faults is equivalent to the

active well plus 5 image wells for a total of 6 effective wells. The
derivative level will rise to 6 times the level of the initial radial flow
response.
Intersecting Fault

q = 30o
 Time Region Analysis

• Early-time analysis
– wellbore storage
– skin factor
• Middle-time analysis
– reservoir model (IARF, hydraulic fractured, natural fractured r
eservoir)
– reservoir properties (permeability etc.)
• Late-time analysis
– outer boundary
 Well Testing Analysis Procedures

• Data plots
– prepare log-log plots of pressure change and pressure change deri
vative vs. elapsed time during the test.
– prepare special plots of the data (semi-log plot etc.)
• Qualitative type-curve analysis
– identify the appropriate reservoir model
– identify any characteristic flow regime that can be analyzed
with special analysis techniques
• Semi-log or specialized analysis
– estimate formation properties
• Quantitative type-curve analysis
– confirm or complement specialized analysis results
 Cutting-Edge Well Testing Technique

• Reservoir and well model

– Various boundaries
• Constant pressure, closed system, faults, composite reservoir, leak
y fault, incomplete boundary
– Naturally fractured reservoir, multilayer reservoir
– Hydraulic fractured well, partially penetration well, horizon
tal well
– Multiphase flow
 Cutting-Edge Well Testing Technique

• Pressure-Transient-Analysis Software
– Initialization
– Test design
– Loading/editing data
– Diagnostic tools
– Modeling capability
• Model selection, parameter estimation, numerical model
– Optimization
– Report generation
Permanent Downhole Gauge
 In-Class Exercise

Please use log-log pressure change derivative plot and semi-log p

lot to solve problem 1 and 2. Beside determining the parameters
required in the problem, please determine the early-time, middl
e-time and late-time flow regime.

1. PTT Ch2, Problem 16

2. PTT Ch2, Problem 37
 In-Class Exercise

3. The following table gives measured data for a buildup test for a finite-ac
ting well. Before shut-in for buildup, the well pressure was declining line
arly at 0.431 psi/hr. Use this information to determine the following para
meters.
(1) Reservoir pore volume, Vp
(2) Permeability-thickness product, kh

Reservoir Parameters
qBo, RB/D 333.3
ct, psi-1 8×10-6
μ, cp 2
m*, psi/hr -0.431
 t p t p
(hours) (psia) (hours) (psia)
1 3138.65 15 3165.94

2 3146.75 16 3166.30

3 3151.31 17 3166.62

4 3154.42 18 3166.89

5 3156.73 19 3167.13

6 3158.54 20 3167.33

7 3160.01 21 3167.50

8 3161.22 22 3167.64

9 3162.24 23 3167.75

10 3163.11 24 3167.85

11 3163.85 25 3167.92

12 3164.49 26 3167.97

13 3165.04 27 3168.00

14 3165.52 28 3168.02
 In-Class Exercise

4. A well is opened to flow at 150 STB/day for 24 hours. The flow rate is the
n increased to 360 STB/day and lasted for another 24 hours. The well flo
w rate is then reduced to 310 STB/day for 16 hours. Calculate the pressu
re drop in a shut-in well 700 ft away from the well given:
 =15% h  20ft k  100md o  2cp
Bo  1.2bbl/stb rw  0.25ft pi  3000psi ct  12  106 psi 1