Applied Well Test Interpretation

Field Problem 2-1—Gas Well Reservoir Limits Test

You have drilled and completed a new well. The following data are given.

h = 40 ft φ = 20 % Sw = 50 %

Bg = 0.567 bbl/Mscf µg = 0.0341 cp cg = 57.5×10-6 psi-1

cw = 2.5×10-6 psi-1 cf = 6.5×10-6 psi-1

The well produced at an average rate of 6,400 Mscf/D for 41 days. The choke size was increased, and the well
produced at an average rate of 11,350 Mscf/D for the next 31 days. The wellhead and calculated bottomhole
pressures are shown in the graph below.

9000

8000 8610
Pressure, psia

7000
7490

6000

5000
WHP
BHP

4000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time, days

What can you learn about this reservoir from the given data?

Solution
Although the data are very noisy (especially the data from around 33 days through the end of the data at 72
days), the calculated flowing bottomhole pressure data for the first thirty days appear to be following a consistent
downward trend along a straight line. Since the total drawdown during this period is approximately 10% of the
initial pressure, we will analyze the data for this gas well using the equations for a slightly compressible liquid.
We draw a straight line through the data from approximately 10 days through 33 days.. The intercept of the
straight line is bpss = 8,610 psi, and the slope mpss is:

8,610 − 7,490
m pss = = 14 psi / day = 0.583 psi / hr
80 − 0

To calculate the pore volume, we need the total compressibility ct:

418 5/21/2009
 Appendix A—Solutions to Exercises

ct = c f + So co + S g cg + S wcw
= [6.5 + 0 + (1 − 0.5)(57.5) + (0.5)(2.5)]× 10− 6
= 36.5 × 10− 6 psi −1

Next, we calculate the pore volume and original oil in place:

0.234qB (0.234 )(6,400 )(0.567 )

Vp = =
m pss ct (
(0.583) 36.5 × 10− 6 )
= 3.99 × 107 ft 3

q (1 − S w ) (6,400)(1 − 0.5)
G= =
(
24 m pss ct (24 )(0.583) 36.5 × 10− 6 )
= 6.26 × 106 Mcf
= 6.26 Bcf

Finally, we calculate the drainage area:

Vp 3.99 × 107
A= =
φh (0.2)(40) .
= 4.99 × 106 ft 2 = 114 acres

5/21/2009 419
 Applied Well Test Interpretation

Field Problem 3-1—MDH Buildup Analysis

Using the Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson method, analyze the buildup test shown below as completely as possible, given
the following data (Miller et al., 1950):

qo = 115 STB/D h = 120 ft φ = 15 %

Bo = 1.69 bbl/STB µo = 0.33 cp ct = 15.2×10-6 psi-1

3800 3781 psi

3750

3700

3650

3600
Pressure, psi

3550

3500

3450

3400

3350

3300
1 3302 psi 10 100 1000
Shutin time, hr

Solution:

p1 − p 2 3,781 − 3,302 479

m = = = = 159.7 psi / ~
log HTR1 − log HTR 2 log(1,000 ) − log(1) 3 − 0

162.6qBµ (162.6)(115)(1.69)(0.33)
k= = = 0.544 md
mh (159.7 )(120)
We cannot calculate skin factor, since we do not know the flowing bottomhole pressure at the moment of shut-in,
pwf. The skin factor was introduced in 1953 by Van Everdingen, after publication of the Miller et al. paper.

422 5/21/2009
 Appendix A—Solutions to Exercises

Field Problem 3-2—Horner Buildup Analysis

Well CB-161 in the Casabe field was completed on 7 February 1950. The well produced 5,847 STB of oil before
being shut in for an extended buildup test. Using the Horner method, analyze the test as completely as possible,
given the following data (Horner, 1951):

qo = 641 STB/D Np = 5,847 STB h = 349 ft

Bo = 1.075 bbl/STB µo = 40 cp

1300

1280 psi
1280

1260
Pressure, psi

1240

1220

1200

1160 psi
1180

1160
100 10 1
Horner time ratio

Solution:

p1 − p 2 1,280 − 1,160 120

m = = = = 81.24 psi / ~
log HTR1 − log HTR 2 log(1) − log(30 ) 0 − 1.477

162.6qBµ (162.6 )(641)(1.075)(40 )

k= = = 158 md
mh (81.24)(349)
Assuming the reservoir is infinite acting from the beginning of the flow period through the end of the buildup, the
initial reservoir pressure is 1,280 psi. We cannot determine the skin factor because we do not know the last flowing
bottomhole pressure before shut-in, pwf. The skin factor was introduced in 1953 by Van Everdingen, after
publication of the Horner paper.

5/21/2009 423
 Appendix A—Solutions to Exercises

Field Problem 4-1—Log-Log Type Curve Analysis

Well A is one of the best wells in the field. Other wells in the field have responded well to small fracture
stimulation treatments. Even though this is one of the best wells in the field, you believe that it may be a good
candidate for stimulation.
Analyze the pressure buildup data in Prob_4-1_BuildupTC_Analysis.xls and make a
recommendation as to whether or not the well should be stimulated.

Solution:

1000
t/(tD/CD) = 1.660E-02
pD/∆p = 3.020E-02
CDe2s
CDe2s = 3.889E+63
10125
100 1060

1030
1015
108
10 103
1
pD, tD*pD'

0.01
0.001

0.1

0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
tD/CD

Even without doing the calculations, it is obvious from the shape of the derivative that this well is highly damaged.
Notice that the derivative during the transition out of wellbore storage is much steeper than the type curve. This
behavior is typical of a buildup test in a well with a high non-Darcy skin factor.

From the type curve match, you calculate

qBµ ⎛ p D ⎞ (575)(1.48)(0.42 )
k= ⎜ ⎟= (0.0302) = 132.6 md
0.00708h ⎜⎝ ∆p ⎟⎠ (0.00708)(11.5)

CD =
0.0002637 k ⎛ ∆t e ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ =
(0.0002637 )(132.6) (0.0166) = 6,012
φµct rw 2
( −6
)
⎝ t D C D ⎠ (0.119 )(0.42 ) 14.5 × 10 (0.365)
2

⎛ C e2s ⎞ ⎛ 3.889 × 10 63 ⎞
s = 0.5 ln⎜⎜ D ⎟⎟ = 0.5 ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 68.9
⎝ CD ⎠ ⎝ 6,012 ⎠

The well has a very high skin factor. Since other wells in the field have responded well to small fracture treatments,
you recommend that the well be frac’ed.

5/21/2009 429
 Applied Well Test Interpretation

Field Problem 4-2—Log-Log Type Curve Analysis

Congratulations! Your manager gave you the go-ahead to stimulate Well A. You have just completed another
buildup following the stimulation treatment.
Analyze the pressure buildup data in Prob_4-2_BuildupTC_Analysis.xls. Was the stimulation
treatment a success, or should you start looking for another job?

Solution:

1000
t/(tD/CD) = 1.950E-02
pD/∆p = 3.631E-02
CDe2s
CDe2s = 3.860E+01
10125
100 1060

1030
1015
108
10 103
1
pD, tD*pD'

0.01
0.001

0.1

0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
tD/CD

This is your lucky day! It is obvious from the post-fracture buildup that the stimulation successfully removed the
skin.

From the type curve match, you calculate

qBµ ⎛ p D ⎞ (580 )(1.48)(0.42 )

k= ⎜ ⎟= (0.03631) = 160.8 md
0.00708h ⎜⎝ ∆p ⎟⎠ (0.00708)(11.5)

CD =
0.0002637 k ⎛ ∆te ⎞
⎜ ⎟=
(0.0002637 )(160.8) (0.0195) = 8,564
( )
φµct rw 2 ⎜⎝ t D C D ⎟⎠ (0.119 )(0.42) 14.5 × 10 −6 (0.365)2

⎛ C e2s ⎞ ⎛ 38.60 ⎞
s = 0.5 ln⎜⎜ D ⎟⎟ = 0.5 ln⎜ ⎟ = −2 . 7
⎝ CD ⎠ ⎝ 8,564 ⎠

Congratulations! Now you can start planning what to do with that large bonus you’ll get in December.

430 5/21/2009
 Applied Well Test Interpretation

Field Problem 6-1—Volatile Oil Reservoir

You have conducted a buildup test on a well in a volatile oil reservoir. Using the diagnostic plots given in Prob_6-
1_VolatileOilRsvr.xls, identify and analyze as many flow regimes as possible. Assume the perforated
interval is in the center of the pay zone. Reservoir properties are given below.

pi = 5,425 psia h = 35 ft φ = 23 %

Bo = 1.72 bbl/STB µo = 0.171 cp co = 168×10-6 psi-1

Sw = 25 % cw = 2.4×10-6 psi-1 cf = 4×10-6 psi-1

Sg = 10 % cg = 293×10-6 psi-1 ct = 150×10-6 psi-1

rw = 0.25 ft q = 800 STB/D

Solution:

Radial flow begins at an equivent time of 2 hrs, and lasts until 7 hrs.

10000

IARF

1000

pr = 390 psi
∆p, tdp/dt, psi

100

(tdp/dt)r = 25 psi

10

1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 ∆t = 3 hr 10 100 1000
r
∆te, hr

Analysis of the data in radial flow gives the permeability and skin factor:

70.6qBµ (70.6 )(800 )(1.72 )(0.171)

k=
( )
h t∆p′
=
r
(35)(25)
= 19.0 md

1 ⎡ (∆p )r ⎛ kt r ⎞⎤
( ) − ln⎜⎜
s= ⎢ ⎟
2 ⎟⎥
2 ⎢⎣ t∆p′ r ⎝ 1, 688φµ ct w ⎠⎥
r ⎦

=
1 ⎡ 390 ⎛
− ln⎜⎜
(19)(3) ⎞⎤
⎟ = 2. 1
⎢ 2 ⎟⎥
2 ⎢⎣ 25 ( )
⎝ (1,688)(0.23)(0.171) 150 × 10 (0.25) ⎠⎥⎦
−6

446 5/21/2009
 Appendix A—Solutions to Exercises

Spherical flow begins at an equivalent time of 0.4 hrs and lasts until 1.7 hrs.

10000

SF

1000
∆p, tdp/dt, psi

100

(tdp/dt)s = 30 psi

10

1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 ∆ts = 1 hr 10 100 1000
∆te, hr

Analysis of data in spherical flow gives the spherical permeability, and, combined with the horizontal permeability
from infinite-acting radial flow, the vertical permeability.

1 ⎛ dp ⎞
mS = 2t S 2 ⎜ t ⎟ = 2(1)(30 ) = 60 psi ⋅ hr 2
1

⎝ dt ⎠S

2
⎛ qBµ φµct ⎞ 3

k S = ⎜ 2,453 ⎟
⎜ mS ⎟
⎝ ⎠

( ) ⎞⎟
2
⎛ (800)(1.72)(0.171) (0.23)(0.171) 150 × 10 −6 3

= ⎜ (2,453)
⎜
⎝
(60) ⎟
⎠
= 8.17 md

Finally, we calculate the vertical permeability from the spherical and horizontal permeabilities:

kv =
kS
3
=
(8.17 ) = 1.51 md
3

kh
2
(19.0)2

5/21/2009 447
 Applied Well Test Interpretation

Volumetric behavior begins at an equivalent time of 16 hrs and lasts until 30 hrs.

10000

VB

1000
∆p, tdp/dt, psi

100
(tdp/dt)v = 50 psi

10

1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10∆ts = 20 hr 100 1000
∆te, hr

Since this is a buildup test, the volumetric behavior cannot be pseudosteady state flow from a closed reservoir.
Instead, it is recharge or repressurization of a relatively high permeability reservoir compartment by fluid from
another portion of the reservoir. Analysis of data in volumetric behavior gives the volume and oil in place of the
compartment being repressurized.

1 ⎛ dp ⎞ 1
mV = ⎜t ⎟ = (50) = 2.5 psi hr
∆tV ⎝ dt ⎠V 20

0.234qB
A=
φhct mV

=
(0.234)(800)(1.72)
(0.23)(35)(150 × 10 −6 )(2.5)
= 106,700 ft 2
= 2.45 acre

The compartment responsible for the volumetric behavior is very small.

The slope of the derivative increases at the end of the test; this is probably because of a decreasing compressibility
in the reservoir as gas is forced back into solution as the pressure builds up at the end of the test.

448 5/21/2009
 Applied Well Test Interpretation

Field Problem 7-1—Well in a Wedge

You have conducted a buildup test on an oil well producing from a deep, high pressure reservoir. The well is
thought to lie between two intersecting sealing faults. Using the diagnostic and analysis plots given in Prob_7-
1_WedgeReservoir.xls, estimate or put bounds as many of the following as possible: permeability, skin
factor, the angle at which faults intersect, distance to faults. Assume well is centered between the two faults.
Reservoir properties are given below. (Adapted from Example 6, Chu, 1996)

pi = 17,100 psia h = 20 ft φ = 19 %

Bo = 1.27 bbl/STB µo = 0.71 cp co = 12×10-6 psi-1

Sw = 20 % cw = 1.9×10-6 psi-1 cf = 4×10-6 psi-1

rw = 0.25 ft q = 400 STB/D ct = 14×10-6 psi-1

Solution:

The infinite-acting radial flow period is hidden by wellbore storage. The only reservoir flow regime we see is
fractional radial flow between the intersecting sealing faults. We can find a lower bound on the permeability and
skin factor by constructing a horizontal line tangent to the minimum in the derivative during the transition out of
wellbore storage.

100000

10000

pr = 3300 psi
∆p, t(dp/dt), psi

1000

100 (tdp/dt)r = 170 psi

∆tr = 3 hr
10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

∆t, hrs

70.6qBµ (70.6 )(400 )(1.27 )(0.71)

k=
h t ∆ p′
=
( ) (20)(170 )
r
= 7.49 md

1 ⎡ (∆p )r ⎛ ktr ⎞⎤
− ln⎜⎜
( )
s= ⎢ ⎟⎥
2 ⎣⎢ t∆p′ r ⎟
⎝ 1,688φµct rw ⎠⎦⎥
2

=
1 ⎡ 3300 ⎛
− ln⎜⎜
(7.49 )(3) ⎞⎤
⎟ = 4. 1
⎢ 2 ⎟⎥
2 ⎣⎢ 170 (
⎝ (1,688)(0.19 )(0.71) 14 × 10 (0.25) ⎠⎦⎥
−6
)

452 5/22/2009
 Appendix A—Solutions to Exercises

We can get an estimate of the distance to the boundary from the radius of investigation at the tangent point:

ri =
kt
=
(7.49)(3) = 112
(948)(0.19)(0.71)(14 ×10 −6 )
ft
948φµct

100000

10000
∆p, t(dp/dt), psi

1000 (tdp/dt)r = 600 psi

100

10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

∆t, hrs

We can estimate an upper bound on the angle between the faults from the minimum in the derivative and the value
of the derivative during fractional radial flow:

(t dp dt )r IARF 170
θ max = 360 = (360 ) = 102°
(t dp dt )r FRF 600

Automatic history matching with a wedge reservoir model gives a permeability of 9.58 md, a skin factor of 6.5, an
angle between boundaries of 68°, and a distance to the boundaries of 95 ft.

5/22/2009 453
 Applied Well Test Interpretation

Field Problem 7-2—Water Injection Well

Your company has been operating a water injection well in a carbonate reservoir for several months. Injectivity has
dropped significantly since injection began. You have conducted a falloff test to determine the cause of the problem
with the injectivity. The pressure response appears to be consistent with a radial composite reservoir.

Using the diagnostic plot given in Prob_7-2_WaterInjectionWell.xls, analyze the two radial flow
regimes to get permeability and skin, then estimate the size of the inner zone.

You have two possible stimulation options: 1) matrix acid treatment, which will give a skin factor of -3, and 2)
hydraulic fracturing to create a 100 ft long fracture, which will give an estimated skin factor of -5. Which, if either,
of the stimulation treatments do you recommend?

Reservoir properties are given below. (Adapted from Example 4, Chu, 1996)

q = 5,250 STB/D h = 15 ft φ = 24 %

Bw = 1.04 bbl/STB µw = 0.54 cp ct = 3×10-6 psi-1

rw = 0.35 ft

Solution:

1000
pr = 460 psi

100
∆p, t(dp/dt), psi

(tdp/dt)r = 70 psi

10

∆tr = 0.1 hr ∆teIARF = 0.3 hr

1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

∆t, hrs

This pressure response is consistent with a radial composite reservoir model, with two radial flow periods, one from
approximately 0.08 hrs to 0.3 hrs, the second from approximately 3 hours through the end of the test at 40 hrs.
Since this is a falloff test on a water injection well in a waterflood project, the composite reservoir model is
reasonable. The inner zone represents the water bank, and the outer zone the oil zone.

First, we first estimate the permeability and skin factor from the first radial flow period:

70.6qBµ (70.6 )(5250 )(1.04 )(0.54 )

k=
h t∆p′
=
( ) (15)(70)
r
= 198 md

454 5/22/2009
 Appendix A—Solutions to Exercises

1 ⎡ (∆p )r ⎛ kt r ⎞⎤
− ln⎜⎜
( )
s= ⎢ ⎟
2 ⎟⎥
′
2 ⎣⎢ t∆p r ⎝ 1,688φµct rw ⎠⎦⎥

=
1 ⎡ 460 ⎛
− ln⎜⎜
(198)(0.1) ⎞⎤
⎟ = −2 . 9
⎢ 2 ⎟⎥
2 ⎣⎢ 70 (
⎝ (1,688)(0.24 )(0.54 ) 3 × 10 (0.35) ⎠⎦⎥
−6
)
The negative skin factor from the first radial flow peiod suggests that the well is not damaged, and is in fact
stimulated instead.

We can estimate the distance to the interface between the inner and outer zones from the radius of investigation
equation:

ri =
kt
=
(198)(0.3) = 401 ft
948φµct (948)(0.24)(0.54)(3 × 10 −6 )

1000

pr2 = 600 psi

100
∆p, t(dp/dt), psi

10
(tdp/dt)r2 = 6.2 psi

∆tr2 = 10 hr
1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

∆t, hrs

For the second radial flow period, we find

70.6qBµ (70.6 )(5250 )(1.04 )(0.54 )

k=
h t∆p′
=
( ) (15)(6.2)
r
= 2240 md

1 ⎡ (∆p )r ⎛ kt r ⎞⎤
− ln⎜⎜
( )
s= ⎢ ⎟⎥
2 ⎣⎢ t∆p′ r ⎟
⎝ 1,688φµct rw ⎠⎦⎥
2

=
1 ⎡ 600 ⎛
− ln⎜⎜
(2240 )(10) ⎞⎤
⎟ = 38.7
⎢ 2 ⎟⎥
2 ⎣⎢ 6.2 (
⎝ (1,688)(0.24 )(0.54 ) 3 × 10 (0.35) ⎠⎦⎥
−6
)
We can get an independent estimate of the size of the inner region as follows. The net additional pressure drop
across the inner region including the effects of stimulation in the inner zone is

5/22/2009 455
 Applied Well Test Interpretation

∆ps =
141.2qBµ
s=
(141.2)(5250)(1.04)(0.54) (38.7 ) = 480 psi
kh (2240)(15)
The additional pressure drop due to stimulation in the inner zone is

∆ps =
141.2qBµ
s=
(141.2)(5250)(1.04)(0.54) (− 2.9) = −407 psi
kh (198)(15)
Thus, the total pressure drop across the inner zone if the inner zone skin factor were zero would be

∆p s ,tot = 480 − (− 407 ) = 887 psi

And the skin factor for the outer zone would have been

s=
kh
∆ps =
(2240)(15) (887 ) = 71.6
141.2qBµ (141.2)(5250)(1.04)(0.54)
The equation for skin factor for a radial composite damaged zone around the wellbore is given by

⎛k ⎞ ⎛r ⎞
s = ⎜⎜ − 1⎟⎟ ln⎜⎜ a ⎟⎟
⎝ ka ⎠ ⎝ rw ⎠

Rearranging, we have

⎛ s ⎞ ⎛ 71.6 ⎞
ra = rw exp⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 0.35 exp⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 360 ft
⎝ k ka − 1 ⎠ ⎝ (2240 198) − 1 ⎠

We conclude that the inner zone is too large for a stimulation treatment to be of any benefit.

456 5/22/2009
 Appendix A—Solutions to Exercises

Field Problem 12-1—One-Point Method, Low Permeability Gas Well

Given the following data, estimate the permeability using the one-point method. Compare your answer with the
results of a subsequent buildup, permeability of 2.19 md with a skin factor of 0.22.

φ= 0.199 h= 40 ft rw = 0.25 ft
Bgi = 0.546 bbl/Mscf µgi = 0.0356 cp cti = 2.98×10-5 psi-1
pi = 9665 psia pwf = 9189 psia s’ = 0
Gp = 5,850 Mscf qg = 1,950 Mscf/D

Solution:

Calculate equivalent producing time:

t=
24G p
=
(24)(5850) = 72 hr
qg (1950)
Make initial guess for k = 0.1 md

Iteration 1:
Calculate transient drainage radius:

12
(0.1)(72 )
12
⎛ kt ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
rd = ⎜ ⎟ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 300 ft
⎜ 377φ µ c
⎝ g t
⎟
⎠ ⎝ (377 )(0 . 199 )( (
0.0356 ) 2.98 × 10 −5 ) ⎠

Calculate new value of permeability k:

141.2q g Bg µ g ⎡ ⎛ rd ⎞ ⎤
k= ⎢ln⎜ ⎟ − 0.75 + s '⎥
h( pi − p wf ) ⎣ ⎜⎝ rw ⎟⎠ ⎦

=
(141.2)(1950)(0.546)(0.0356) ⎡ln⎛ 300 ⎞ − 0.75 + 0⎤
(40)(9,665 − 9,189) ⎢ ⎜ 0.25 ⎟ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦
= 1.782 md

5/21/2009 465
 Applied Well Test Interpretation

Iteration 2:
Calculate new radius:

12
(1.782)(72)
12
⎛ kt ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
rd = ⎜ ⎟ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 1,270 ft
⎜ 377φ µ c
⎝ g t
⎟
⎠ ⎝ (377 )(0 .199 (
)(0.0356) 2.98 × 10 −5 ) ⎠

Calculate new value of permeability k:

141.2q g Bg µ g ⎡ ⎛ rd ⎞ ⎤
k= ⎢ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 0.75 + s '⎥
h( pi − pwf ) ⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦

=
(141.2)(1950)(0.546)(0.0356) ⎡ln⎛ 1,270 ⎞ − 0.75 + 0⎤
(40)(9,665 − 9,189) ⎢ ⎜ 0.25 ⎟ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦
= 2.188 md

Iteration 3:
Calculate new radius:

12
(2.188)(72)
12
⎛ kt ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
rd = ⎜ ⎟ = ⎜⎜ ⎟ = 1,407 ft
⎜ 377φ µ c
⎝ g t
⎟
⎠ ( −5 ⎟
⎝ (377 )(0.199 )(0.0356 ) 2.98 × 10 ⎠ )
Calculate new value of permeability k:

141.2q g Bg µ g ⎡ ⎛ rd ⎞ ⎤
k= ⎢ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 0.75 + s '⎥
h( pi − pwf ) ⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦

=
(141.2 )(1950 )(0.546 )(0.0356 ) ⎡ ⎛ 1,407 ⎞ ⎤
⎢ ln⎜ ⎟ − 0.75 + 0⎥
(40)(9,665 − 9,189) ⎣ ⎝ 0.25 ⎠ ⎦
= 2.217 md

At this point, calculation has converged for all practical purposes. Results from the one-point method, 2.2 md
assuming a skin factor of 0, compare very well with the more accurate results from the buildup, 2.19 md with a skin
factor of 0.22.

466 5/21/2009