WELL TEST INTERPRETATION

Instructor:

Louis Mattar, B.Sc., M.Sc., P.Eng

Course Outline
WELL TEST INTERPRETATION
This course is intended for engineers and specialist who want to learn the reasons for
well testing, and the information that can be derived from it. The procedures and
principles for analyzing vertical well tests will be extended to apply to horizontal wells.
The course will deal with both oil and gas well test interpretation, drillstem tests, wireline
formation tests and production tests, interference tests, detection of boundaries,
estimation of stabilized flow rates from short tests, etc.
The Practice of well test interpretation will be emphasized over the Theory. To this end,
Data Validation and the PPD (Primary Pressure Derivative) will be used to illustrate
wellbore dynamics, and extricate these effects from the apparent reservoir response.
Throughout the course, the theme will be:
W.T.I >> P.T.A.
WELL TEST INTERPRETATION (W.T.I.)
involves a lot more than simply
PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS (P.T.A.)
This course is aimed at obtaining an understanding of the concepts. These will be
presented graphically (using a computer), thus keeping equations to a minimum. The
Practical aspects of the interpretation process will be highlighted.

WELL TEST INTERPRETATION

Detailed Course Contents
1. Introduction
a. Why test
b. Course Philosophy
c. Types of tests
d. Types of fluids
e. Types of reservoirs
f. Approaches to well test interpretation
2. Basic Concepts
a. Simplifying assumptions reservoir
b. Drawdown test oil
c. Type curves (Dimensionless)
d. Skin effect
e. Wellbore storage/Bourdet et al type curves
3. Gas Flow Considerations
a. Turbulence
b. Pseudo-Pressure
c. Pseudo-Time
4. Flow Regimes Vertical Wells
a. Segmented approach
b. Early Time Wellbore Storage
- Linear fracture Storage
- Bilinear
- Spherical
c. Transient Flow Radial
d. Late Time Transition
- Linear channel
- Stabilized steady state
- pseudo-steady state
5. Flow Regimes Horizontal Wells
6. Useful Concepts
a. Radius of investigation
b. Time to stabilization
c. Superposition

7. Drawdown Analysis (or Injection)

a. Procedure
b. Specialized Analyses
c. Horizontal Wells
8. Buildup Analysis
a. Horner Plot
b. Equivalent Time
c. M.D.H. Plot
d. Average Reservoir Pressure
e. Detection of boundaries
f. Other Buildup Curves
g. D.S.T.
h. Horizontal Wells
9. Non-Reservoir Effects
a. Data Validation
b. Welbore Dynamics
c. Primary Pressure Derivative PDD
10. Production Forecasting
a. Transient/Stabilized IPR
b. AOF Sandface/Wellhead
11. Test Design
12. Complex Models
13. Pitfalls
14. References/Nomenclature
15. Miscellaneous
a. ERCB Chapter 3
b. Acoustic Well Sounders
c. EUB Guide 40
d. Partial Penetration
e. Practical Considerations

LOUIS MATTAR, M.Sc., P. Eng.

PRESIDENT
Fekete Associates Inc
B.Sc. Honours in Chemical Engineering, University of Wales in Swansea, 1965
M.Sc. in Chemical Engineering, University of Calgary, 1973
Membership: APEGGA; Petroleum Society of CIM; Society of Petroleum Engineers
Louis worked for the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board, where he was the
principal author of the world-renowned E.R.C.B. publication "Theory & Practice of the
Testing of Gas Wells, 1975", which is an authoritative text on the subject.
For several years, Louis was Associate Professor at the University of Calgary where he
taught courses in Reservoir Engineering and Advanced Well Testing, and conducted
research in tight gas reservoirs, and multi-phase flow.
Since 1981 he has been with Fekete Associates, a consulting company that specializes
in well testing and reservoir engineering. He has analyzed and supervised the
interpretation of thousands of well tests and specializes in the integration of practice
with theory. He has appeared as an expert witness in several Energy Board hearings.
He has conducted studies ranging from shallow gas reservoirs to deep sour wells, from
small pools to a 5000-well reservoir/completion/production study, and from waterfloods
to gas storage.
Louis teaches the CIM course in Gas Well Testing, Theory and Practice, as well as
Modern Production Decline Analysis to the SPE and to several companies. He has
authored 43 technical publications. He is an adjunct professor at the University of
Calgary.
AWARDS:
Louis was the SPE Distinguished Lecturer in Well Testing for 2002-2003. He is a
Distinguished Member of the Petroleum Society of CIM. In 1995, he received the CIM
Distinguished Author award and the Outstanding Service award. In 1987, he received
the CIM District 5 Technical Proficiency Award.

TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS
BY
LOUIS MATTAR
43.

MATTAR, L.: Analytical Solutions in Well Testing, Invited Panelist, CIPC Panel
Discussion at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary,
Alberta, June, 2003.

42.

MATTAR, L. and ANDERSON, D.M.: A Systematic and Comprehensive

Methodology for Advanced Analysis of Production Data, SPE 84472, presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
October, 2003.

41.

RAHMAN, A.N.M., MILLER, M.D., MATTAR, L: Analytical Solution to the

Transient-Flow Problems for a Well Located near a Finite-Conductivity Fault in
Composite Reservoirs, SPE 84295, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October, 2003.

40.

ANDERSON, D.M. and MATTAR, L.: MaterialBalanceTime During Linear

and Radial Flow, CIPC 2003-201, presented at the Canadian International
Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, June, 2003.

39.

ANDERSON, D.M., JORDAN, C.L., MATTAR, L.: Why Plot the Equivalent
Time Derivative on Shut-in Time Coordinates?, presented at the SPE Gas
Technology Symposium, May 2002, Paper number 75703.

38.

POOLADI-DARVISH, M. and MATTAR, L.: SAGD Operations in the Presence

of Overlying Gas Cap and Water Layer-Effect of Shale Layers, CIM 2001-178

37.

THOMPSON, T. W. and MATTAR, L.: Gas Rate Forecasting During BoundaryDominated Flow, CIM 2000-46, Canadian International Petroleum Conference
2000, Calgary, Alberta, June 2000.

36.

JORDAN, C. L. and MATTAR, L.: Comparison of Pressure Transient Behaviour

of Composite and Multi-layered Reservoirs, presented at the Canadian
International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, June, 2000.

35.

MATTAR, L.: DISCUSSION OF A Practical Method for Improving the Accuracy

of Well Test Analyses through Analytical Convergence, Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, May 1999.

34.

STANISLAV, J., JIANG, Q. and MATTAR, L.: Effects of Some Simplifying

Assumptions on Interpretation of Transient Data, CIM 96-51, 47th Annual
Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, Alberta, June 1998.

33.

MATTAR, L. and McNEIL, R. The Flowing Gas Material Balance, Journal of

Canadian Petroleum Technology (February, 1998), 52, 55

32.

MATTAR, L.: Derivative Analysis Without Type Curves, presented at the 48th
Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, Alberta,
June 8-11, 1997

31.

MATTAR, L.: Computers - Black Box or Tool Box? Guest Editorial, Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, (March, 1997), 8

30.

MATTAR, L.: How Useful are Drawdown Type Curves in Buildup Analysis?,
CIM 96-49, 47th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM,
Calgary, Alberta, June 1996.

29.

MATTAR, L. and SANTO, M.S.: A Practical and Systematic Approach to

Horizontal Welltest Analysis, The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology,
(November, 1995), 42-46

28.

MATTAR, L.: Optimize Your Gas Deliverability With F.A.S.T. PIPERTM,

American Pipeline Magazine, August, 1995, 16-17.

27.

MATTAR, L.: Commingling, Internal Report

26.

MATTAR, L.: Reservoir Pressure Analysis: Art or Science?, Distinguished

Authors Series, The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, (March, 1995),
13-16

25.

MATTAR, L.: Practical Well Test Interpretation, SPE 27975, University of Tulsa
Centennial Petroleum Engineering Symposium, Tulsa, OK, U.S.A., Aug., 1994

24.

MATTAR, L., HAWKES, R.V., SANTO, M.S. and ZAORAL, K.: "Prediction of
Long Term Deliverability in Tight Formations", SPE 26178, SPE Gas Technology
Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, June, 1993

23.

MATTAR, L.: "Critical Evaluation and Processing of Data Prior to Pressure

Transient Analysis," presented at the 67th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Washington, D.C., October 4-7,
1992

22.

MATTAR, L. and SANTO, M.S.: "How Wellbore Dynamics Affect Pressure

Transient Analysis," The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 31,
No. 2, February, 1992

21.

MATTAR, L. and ZAORAL, K.: "The Primary Pressure Derivative (PPD) - A New
Diagnostic Tool in Well Test Interpretation," The Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, Vol. 31, No. 4, April, 1992

20.

ABOU-KASSEM, J.H., MATTAR, L. and DRANCHUK, P.M.: "Computer

Calculations of Compressibility of Natural Gas", Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, Calgary, Alberta, Sep.-Oct. 1990, Vol. 29 No. 5 p. 105

19.

MATTAR, L.: "IPR's and All That - The Direct and Inverse Problem", Preprint
Paper No. 87-38-13, 38th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of
CIM, Calgary, Alberta, June 1987

18.

BRAR, G.S. and MATTAR, L.: "Reply to Discussion of: The Analysis of Modified
Isochronal Tests to predict the Stabilized Deliverability of Gas Wells without
Using Stabilized Flow Data", The Journal of Petroleum Technology, AIME
(January, 1987), 89-92

17.

LAIRD, A.D. and MATTAR, L.: "Practical Well Test Design to Evaluate Hydraulic
Fractures in Low Permeability Wells", Preprint Paper No. 85-36-8, 36th Annual
Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM, Edmonton, Alberta, June
1985

16.

MATTAR, L. and ZAORAL, K.: "Gas Pipeline Efficiencies and Pressure Gradient
Curves", Preprint Paper No. 84-35-93, 35th Annual Technical Meeting of the
Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, Alberta, June 1984

15.

MATTAR, L. and HAWKES, R.V.: "Start of the Semi-Log Straight Line in Buildup
Analysis", Preprint Paper No. 84-35-92, 35th Annual Technical Meeting of the
Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, Alberta, June 1984

14.

WASSON, J. and MATTAR, L.: "Problem Gas Well Build-Up Tests - A Field
Case Illustration of Solution Through the Use of Combined Techniques", The
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology (March - April, 1983), 36-54

13.

NUTAKKI, R. and MATTAR, L.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Wells in Very

Long Narrow Reservoirs", Preprint Paper No. SPE 1121, 57th Annual Fall
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME, New Orleans, LA, September 1982

12.

LIN, C. and MATTAR, L.: "Determination of Stabilization Factor and Skin Factor
from Isochronal and Modified Isochronal Tests", The Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology (March - April, 1982), 89-94

11.

MATTAR, L. and LIN, C.: "Validity of Isochronal and Modified Isochronal Testing
of Gas Wells", Preprint Paper SPE 10126, 56th Annual Fall Technical
Conference of AIME, San Antonio, TX, October 1981

10.

KALE, D. and MATTAR, L.: "Solution of a Non-Linear Gas Flow Equation by the
Perturbation Technique", The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
(October-December, 1980), 63-67

9.

ADEGBESAN, K.O. and MATTAR, L.: "Prediction of Pressure Drawdown in Gas

Reservoirs Using a Semi-Analytical Solution of the Non-Linear Gas Flow
Equation", Preprint Paper No. 80-31-39, 31st Annual Technical Meeting of the
Society of CIM, Calgary, Alberta, May 198077. MATTAR, L.:
Variation of
Viscosity-Compressibility Product With Pressure of Natural Gas", Internal Report,
1980

8.

MATTAR, L.: Variation of Viscosity-Compressibility Product With Pressure of

Natural Gas", Internal Report, 1980

7.

MATTAR, L., NICHOLSON, M., AZIZ, K. and GREGORY, G.: "Orifice Metering
of Two-Phase Flow", The Journal of Petroleum Technology, AIME (August,
1979), 955-961

6.

AZIZ, K., MATTAR, L., KO, S. and BRAR, G.: "Use of Pressure, Pressure
Squared or Pseudo-Pressure in the Analysis of Transient Pressure Drawdown
Data from Gas Wells", The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, (April June, 1976), 1-8

5.

MATTAR, L., BRAR, G.S. and AZIZ, M.: "Compressibility of Natural Gases", The
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, (October-December, 1975), 77-80

4.

E.R.C.B. (1975), "Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells, Third Edition"
(co-authored by L. MATTAR) Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board,
Calgary

3.

MATTAR, L. and GREGORY, G.: "Air-Oil Slug Flow in An Upward-Inclined Pipe

- 1: Slug Velocity, Holdup and Pressure Gradient", The Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, (January - March, 1974), 1-8

2.

GREGORY, G. and MATTAR, L.: "An In-Situ Volume Fraction Sensor for Two
Phase Flows of Non-Electrolytes", The Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, (April - June, 1973), 1-5

1.

MATTAR, L.: "Slug Flow Uphill In an Inclined Pipe", M.Sc. Thesis, University of
Calgary, Alberta, 1973

EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY

LOUIS MATTAR, P.Eng

Appeared before National Energy Board / Alberta Energy Utilities Board to give
evidence and testimony relating to oil and gas issues on several occasions to represent:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
viii)
ix)
x)
xi)

NOVA Corporation of Alberta

Merland Exploration Limited
GasCan Resources Ltd.
Bralorne Resources Limited
Encor Inc.
Norcen Energy Resources Ltd.
Gulf Canada Resources Ltd.
Paramount Resources
Devon Canada Inc
Rio Alto
Alberta Energy Company

Appeared before the Alberta Court of Queens Bench, as an expert, to represent:

i)

Novalta Resources Ltd.

5.

1.

Traditional (Arps)

2.

Fetkovich

3.

Blasingame

4.

Agarwal-Gardner

NPI - Normalized Pressure Integral

6.

Modeling

Traditional Decline Analysis

(ARPS)

Empirical
Boundary Dominated Flow

Exponential, Hyperbolic and

Harmonic Equations

q = qie Dit

exponential
hyperbolic
q

harmonic

q=

qi
(1 + bDit )1/ b

q=
t

qi
1 + Dit

b = 0 Exponential
0 < b < 1Hyperbolic
b = 1 Harmonic

D is Constant
Rate

Slope

The graph on
the right is a replot of the one
on the left, but
the vertical
scale has been
changed to
Log flow rate.
This converts
the red curve
on the left into
a straight line

D = 2.303*Slope
Log Flow Rate

Flow Rate

D = Slope
Rate

D is Constant

Slope

Time

Time

Exponential Decline - D is Constant

D is Constant
Rate
Slope
Time

The graph on the

right is a re-plot of
the one on the left,
but the horizontal
scale has been
changed to
Cumulative
Production
instead of Time.
This converts the
red curve on the
left into a straight
line.

D = Slope
Flow Rate

Flow Rate

D = Slope
Rate

D is Constant

EUR
Slope
Cumulative Production

Exponential Decline - D is Constant

dq

Dt = ln

q
qi

dq

dq

D = K * q = dt
q
t
q dq
0 Ddt = qi q

K=

K=

Di
qb

qt dq
Di
* dt = b +1
0qb
qi q
i
t

Q = q * dt = q i* e Dt * dt

Di t 1 1
=
qi
qi qt

Q=

qi qi * e Dt
D

qi * e Dt = q

Q=

qi q
D

Q = q * dt = q i (1 + bDi t ) b * dt

Q=

qi
(1 + bDi t )
(1 b) Di
b
q
(1 + bDi t ) = i
q

Q=

EXPONENTIAL

q = q i (1 + Di t )

q = qi (1 + bDi t ) b

qi

(1 b )Di

(q

1 b

Di
qi

q dq
Di
dt = 2
qi q
qi

bDi t
b
= q b qi
b
qi
q = qi * e Dt

dt
q

D = K * q1 =

D = K * q = dt
q

b 1
b

Q = q * dt = qi (1 + Di t ) 1 * dt

q1b

Q=

qi
[ln(1 + Dit ]
Di

(1 + Dit ) = qi
q

HYPERBOLIC

Q=

qi qi
ln
Di q

HARMONIC

Log Flow Rate

Harmonic Decline

Abandonment Rate

Cumulative Production

Harmonic decline will become a straight line if plotted as log-Rate

versus Cumulative Production.
THE RATE WILL NOT REACH ZERO, and thus the ultimate
recoverable reserves (at zero rate) cannot be quantified, unless a (nonzero) abandonment rate is specified.

Fetkovich
Late Time
Boundary-Dominated

Early Time
Transient

Constant Operating Conditions

Fetkovich Theory
-Developed because traditional decline curve
analysis is only applicable when well is in
boundary dominated flow
- Fetkovich used analytical flow equations to
generate typecurves for transient flow, and
combined them with emprical decline curve
equations from Arps
-Resulting typecurves encompass whole
production life of well

Fetkovich Theory Empirical Portion

exponential
hyperbolic
harmonic
q

log(q)

log(t)

Theoretical Meaning of Exponential Stem

Boundary-Dominated Flow
Start of Boundary-Dominated Flow
pi
Boundary-Dominated

Pressure ( p )

Transient Flow

re
Distance ( r )

Other Type of Boundary Dominated Flow - Constant Rate

Pseudo-Steady State Flow

Start of Pseudo-Steady
pi
Transient Flow
Pressure ( p )

Pseudo-Steady State
Flow
Time
re
Distance ( r )

TRANSIENT
FLOW

Fetkovich Theory Analytical Portion

Analytical solution for constant flowing pressure
Single
Curve
forisAll
re/rwas
Transient
Flow
a single
curve;
Different stems for
Transient
Flow
Boundary-Dominated
Flow
is a family
of curves

Same
SameBoundary
Transient for
for all
all re/rwa
re/rwa 's's

Curves separate during

boundary dominated flow
Different re/rw 's

Different re/rw 's

Curves separate
during transient flow

Fetkovich Theory Analytical Portion

Analytical solution for constant flowing pressure
Single
Curve
forisAll
re/rwas
Transient
Flow
a single
curve;
Different stems for
Transient
Flow
Boundary-Dominated
Flow
is a family
of curves

qDd

Same Boundary for all re/rwa 's

Different re/rw 's

Curves separate
during transient flow

tDd

Fetkovich Theory Analytical Portion (b)

Rate Decline Curves for "Constant Wellbore Flowing Pressure"

Transient Flow
Transient rFlow
Different
e/rw

10

Boundary
Boundary
Dominated
Flow
becomes Flow
Dominated
Exponential Decline
is Exponential
Decline

qDd

Analytical solution for

constant flowing
pressure

0.1

Matching will give reservoir parameters

0.01
0.0001

0.001
re/rw=10
re/rw=200

0.01

tDd

re/rw=20
re/rw=1000

0.1

re/rw=50
re/rw=10000

10
re/rw=100
exponential

Fetkovich Theory Boundary Dominated and Transient

Fetkovich Decline Type Curves
10

Boundary
DominatedEmpirical
Stems

qDd

0.1

TransientAnalytical
Stems

0.01

0.001
0.0001

0.001

re/rw=10
re/rw=1000
b=0.6

0.01

re/rw=20
re/rw=10000
b=0.8

0.1

tDd
re/rw=50
b=0
b=1.0

re/rw=100
b=0.2

10

100

re/rw=200
b=0.4

Type Curve Matching

The rate and transient stem matches are
used for kh calculations
141.2 Bo re
1
ln

qDd = q
kh ( p p ) r

i
wf
wa match 2

k=

141.2 B q

h ( pi pwf ) qDd

re

ln
match rwa match 2

Type Curve Matching cont.

The time and transient stem matches are
used for skin calculations
tDd =

t
rwa =
t Dd

0.00634kt
2

r
1
1
2 re
1 ln e

ct rwa

2
2
r
r
wa match wa match

match

0.00634k
r
1
1 r
ct e
1 ln e

2 rwa match rwa match 2

r
S = ln w
rwa

10

CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION TYPE CURVES

10

QDd

0.1

0.01

0.001
0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

100

tDd
re/rw=10
b=0

re/rw=20
b=0.2

re/rw=50
b=0.4

re/rw=100
b=0.6

re/rw=200
b=0.8

re/rw=1000
b=1

re/rw=10000

Fetkovich / Cumulative Type Curves

10

Fetkovich Type Curves

1

qDd,QDd

Cumulative Type Curves

0.1

0.01

0.001
0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

tDd

10

100

re/rw=10

re/rw=20

re/rw=50

re/rw=100

re/rw=200

re/rw=1000

re/rw=10000
re/rw=1000

re/rw=10
re/rw=10000

re/rw=20
b=0

re/rw=50
b=0.2

re/rw=100
b=0.4

re/rw=200
b=0.6

b=0.8

b=1.0

b=0

b=0.2

b=0.4

b=0.6

b=0.8

b=1

11

Constant Pressure
and
Constant Rate Solutions

The Two Solutions Boundary Dominated

12

The Two Solutions Boundary Dominated

Advanced Decline Analysis

(Blasingame et al)

13

P.54
Transient Flow is a family of curves;
Boundary-Dominated Flow is a single curve
10

Transient Flow

Boundary Dominated
Flow becomes
Exponential Decline

qDd

0.1

0.01
0.0001

0.001
re/rw=10
re/rw=1000

0.01
re/rw=20
re/rw=10000

tDd

0.1

re/rw=50
exponential

1
re/rw=100

10
re/rw=200

Concept of Material Balance Time

Actual Rate Decline

Equivalent Constant Rate

q
Q

actual
time (t)

material
balance = Q/q
time (tc)

14

P.92
Decline Based on Time or Material-Balance-Time
10

qDd

Material-Balance-Time

0.1
Exponential Decline
becomes Harmonic
Decline when plotted using
Material-Balance-Time

0.01

Time
0.001
0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

100

tDd, tcDd
re/rw=10

re/rw=20

re/rw=50

re/rw=100

re/rw=200

re/rw=1000

re/rw=10000

Exp ---t

Exp --- tc

Concept of Rate Integral

rate integral
= Q/t

actual rate

actual
time

actual
time

15

B lasingame Typecurves (Vertical W ell - R adial Flow Model)

P.95

1.00E+03

1.00E+02

1.00E+01

qDd, qDdi, qDdid

q Ddi
1.00E+00

1.00E-01

q D did

1.00E-02

q Dd

1.00E-03

1.00E-04

1.00E-05
1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05
tDd

q
p
i

q
p
i

q
pp
i

q
=
=tc
pid dln(tc)
dtc

(oilwells

q
pp
i

q
=
=tca (gaswells
pp i d
d ln(tca)
dtca

Concept of Pseudo-Time

1
b

compressibility

q
=
pi
p
tc + 1
ctGib
reservoir pressure
For gas wells, compressibility (and viscosity)can
not be considered constants at low reservoir
pressure

Equation becomes non-linear for gas wells no longer follows the harmonic decline

16

17

Exponential Decline

Constant pressure
(varying rate)
q

OGIP

EUR
Cumulative Production

Flowing Material Balance

Initial pressure

p/z

Constant rate
(varying pressure)
flo
wi
ng

pr
es
su
re
s

OGIP
Cumulative Production

18

Agarwal-Gardner Flowing Material Balance

q/p

variable rate and

variable pressure

OGIP
Cumulative/(C*p)

Modern Production Decline

Analysis
Review

19

Traditional
Empirical
Single-phase and two-phase (0 < b < 1)

Boundary-dominated regime
Data q vs. t
Constant operating conditions

Fetkovich
Empirical and theoretical
Single-phase and two-phase (0 < b < 1)

Analytical solution for single-phase flow

Exponential decline (b = 0)
Introduction of transient stems (k and S)

Boundary-dominated regime and transient

Constant bottomhole pressure
Data q vs. t

20

Blasingame
Theoretical Analytical solution
Single-phase

Accounts for variable BHP

Introduction of MB Time
Exponential decline turned to Harmonic (b = 1)

Boundary-dominated regime and transient

Data q/p vs. tc (makes use of pressure data)
Be careful of sparse data points on the bottom
of Harmonic stem

Blasingame (cont.)
Application to gas reservoirs
The vertical axis is changed to q/m(p)
The horizontal axis is changed to MB pseudotime, tca
Requires iteration for correct determination of
MB pseudo-time

Analytical solution for single-phase flow

Accounts for variable BHP
Harmonic (b = 1)

Data q vs. MB time, tc

21

Agarwal Gardner
Uses the same data as Blasingame
The same analysis techniques and plotting
apply

The flowing material balance plot allows an

alternative representation of data
Very advantageous for determination of OGIP

22

DELIVERABILITY

CHAPTER 3

TESTS

INTRODUCTION

Deliverability
tests have conventionally
been called "back
pressure" tests because they make possible
the prediction
of well flow
rates against any particular
pipeline
"back pressure."
Since most
flowing well tesks are performed to determine the deliverability
of a
well, the term "deliverability
tests" is used in this publication
rather than "back pressure tests."
The purpose of these tests is to
predict
the manner in which the flow rate will decline with reservoir
depletion.
The Absolute Open Flow (AOF) potential
of a ~~11 is defined
as khe rate at which the well would produce against a zero sandface
back pressure.
It cannot be measured directly
but may be obtained from
deliverability
kcsts.
It is often used by regulatory
authorities
as a
guide

in setting

maximum allowable
1.1

producing

rates.

History

It iu interesting
to note the historical
development of
In the early days, a well was tested by opening
deliverability
tests.
it fully
CO the atmosphere and measuring the gas flow rate, which was
This method ~8s recognized as
termed the practical
open flow pokential.
undesirable
because khe pokential
thus obtained depended on khe size of
the well tubing, and apart from the serious waskage of gas resulting
from such practices,
wells were ofken damaged through water
attrition
by sand particles.
The basic work towards development of a practical

coning
test

and
was

carried out by Pierce and Rawlins (1929) ,of the U.S. Bureau of Mines
and culminaked wikh the publication
of the wel.l-known and widely used
Monograph 7 of Rzwlinu and Schellhardt
(1936).
Their kesk,
known as the

3-1

3-2

"conventional
back pressure test,"
several different
flow rates with

consisted of flowing
each flow rate being

the well
continued

at
to

pressure stabilization.
They observed that a plot of the difference
between the square of the static reservoir
pressure and the square of
the flowing
would yield
showed that

sandface pressure versus the corresponding

rate of flow
a straight
line on a logarithmic
coordinate
plot.
They
this stabilized
deliverability
plot could be empLoyed to

determine the well capacity at any flowing

sandface presaute,
including
zero, corresponding
to absolute open flow conditions,
and also showed
that it could be used to predict
the behaviour
of a well with reservoir
depletion.
The critical
aspect of the Rawlins and Schellhardt
conventional
deliverability
test is that each separate flow rate must be continued
to stabilized
conditions.
In Low permeability
reservoirs,
the time
required
to achieve pressure stabilization
can be very large.
As a
consequence the actual duration
of flow while conducting
conventional
tests on such reservoirs
is sometimes not lengthy enough, and the
resulting
data can be misleading.
Cullender
(1955) described the
"isochronal
test" method which involves
flowing
the well at several
different
flow rates for periods of equal duration,
normally much less
than the time required
for stabilization,
with each flow period
commencing from essentially
static conditions.
A plot of such pressure
and flow rate data, as is described above for the conventional
test,
gives a straight
line or a transient
deliverability
plot.
One flow rate
is extended to stabilization
and a stabilized
pressure-flow
rate point
is plotted.
A line through this stabilized
point parallel
to that
established
by the isochronal
points gives the desired stabilized
deliverability
plot.
This stabilized
deliverability
line is essentially
the same as that obtained by the conventional
test.
Another type of isochtonal
test was presented by Katz et al.
(1959, p. 448).
This "modified
iaochroiial
test" has been used
extensively
in industry.
The modification
requires
that each shut-in
period between flow periods,
rather than being long enough to attain
essentially
static conditions,
should be of the same duration
as the

3-3

flow period.
calculating
point.
test.

The actual
the difference

Otherwise,

1.2

unstabilized
shut-in
pressure is used for
in pressure squared for the nexr flow

the data plot

New Approach

is identical

to Interpreting

to that

for

Gas Well Flow

an isochronal

Tests

It is observed that there has been a progressively

greater
saving of time, and a reduction
in flared gas with the evolution
of
various deliverability
tests.
Application
of the theory of flow of
fluids
through porous media, as developed in Chapter 2, results
in a
greater understanding
of the phenomena involved.
Accordingly
more
inFormation,
and greater accuracy, can result
from the proper conduct
and analysis of tests.
It will be shown in a later chapter that the analysis of data
from an isochronal
type test, using the laminar-inertial-turbulent
(LIT) flow equation will yield considerable
reservoir
in addition
to providing
reliable

information
deliverability

concerning the
data.
This
may be achieved even without conducting the extended flow test which
is normally associated with the isochronal
tests,
thus saving still
more time and gas. For these reasons, the approach utilizing
the LIT
flow analysis is introduced
and its use in determining
deliverability
is illustrated
in this chapter.
This will set the stage for subsequent
chapters where the LIT flow equation will be used fo determine certain
reservoir
parameters.
2 FUNDAMENTALEQUATIONS
The relevant
theoretical
considerations
of Chapter 2 are
developed further
in the Notes to this chapter to obtain the equations
applicable
to deliverability
tests.
Two separate treatments with
varying degrees of approximation
may be used to interpret
the tests.
These will be called the "Simplified
analysis"
and the "LIT flow
analysis. "

3-4

2.1

(Rmulins

This approach
and Schellhardt,

of empirical
the form
SC

Analysis

is based on the well-known

Monograph 7
1936) which was the result of a Large number

observations.

Simplified

- c (p; - p$

The relationship

is co~~+~~nlyexpressed

c(Ap')n

in

(3-U

where
9BC -.

fl.ow rate

at standard

conditions,

(14.65 psia, 60oF)

average reservoir
pressure

=
=

of the well to complete stabilization,

flowing
sandface pressure,
psia
(pi - p:f)

obtained

MMscfd
by shut-in
psia

a coefficient
which describes
the position
stabilized
deliverability
line

of the

stabilized

= an exponent which describes the inverse of the slope

of the stabilized
deliverability
line.
It should be noted that pwf in the above equation is the
flowing
sandface pressure resulting
from the constant flow

If the pressure is not srabilized,

C decreases with
rat=, q,,.
duration
of flaw but eventually
becomes a fixed comcam at
stabilization.
Time to stabilization
and related matters is
discussed in detail
in Section 7.1. In the Note$ to this chapter,

it

is shown that n may vary from 1.0 for completely

laminar flow in the
formation
to 0.5 for fully turbulent
flow, and it may thus be considered
to be a measure of the degree of turbulence.
1.0 and 0.5.

Usual.ly n will

be between

A plot of Ap* (= pi - pif) versus q,, on logarithmic

coordinates
is a straight
Line of slope i a6 shown in Figure 3-l.
Such a plot is used to obtain the deliverability
potential
of the well
against

any sandface

pressure,

including

the AOF, which is the

3-5

deliverability

against

considered

to be constant

expected

that

this

only

the

range

for

beyond

the

a zero

sandface

pressure.

for

a limited

range

form
of

tested

of

the

flow

flow

of

deliverability

rates

raee~

C ad

used

to

flow

rates

reLationship

during

can lead

n may be

the

will

is

be used

Extrapolation

test.

erroneous

and, it

results

(Govier,

1961).

100

IO
q,JAMscfd

FIGURE 3-1. DELIVERABILITY

To

C and n,
to the

the

more

relationships
(3N-7)

and

obta-ln

a greater

empirically

of

understanding

analysis

interest

representative

of

the

gas properties

such

in

are

These

(3N-8).

TEST PLOT-SIMPLIFIED

derived

rigorous

rauge

100

Equation

the

to

equations

as viscosity,

the

equation,

given

of

of

flow

Notes

this

by Equations

temperature

Factors
(3-l)

for

tested,

that
is

a flow

affect

compared
The

chapter.
(3N-3),

show that,
rates

FLOW ANALYSIS

(3N-4),
rate

C and n depend

and compressibility

on

3-6

factor,
and reservoir
properties
such as permeability,
net pay thickness,
external boundary radius, wellbore
radius and well damage. As long as
these factors do not change appreciably,
the same stabilized
deliverability
plot should apply throughout
the life of the well.
In practice,
the viscosity,

the compressibility

of the well may change during

advisable
to check the values
2.2
Pressure-squared

factor

of the gas and the condition

the producing Life of the well,

of C and n occasionally.

and it

is

LIT Flow Analysis

Approach

The utility
The theory

of Equation (3-l),
is Limited by its approximate
of flow developed in Chapter 2 and in the Notes to

narure,
this chapter confirms that the straight
really only an approximation
applicable
rates tested.
The true relationship
if

line plot of Figure 3-l is

to the limited
range of flow
plotted
on logarithmic
slope of i = 1.0 at very low

coordinates
is a curve with an initial
values of q,,, and an ultimate
slope of i = 2.0 at very

high values

of cl,,.
Outside North America, there has been in general use a
quadratic
form of the flow equation often called the Forchheimer or the
Houpeurt equation or sometimes called the turbulent
flow equation.
It
is actually
the laminar-inertial-turbulent
(LIT) flow equation of
Chapter 2, developed
by Equation (3N-2)as

further

AP2 E ;2R - pif

in the Notes to this

chapter,

and is given

= a' qac + b' q&

(3-2)

where

alqsc=
b'q;c
Equation

pressure-squared

drop due to laminar

flow

and wellbore
effects
= pressure-squared
drop due to intertial-turbulent
flow
(3-2)

effects.
applies

for

all

values

of q,,.

It

is shown in

3-7

the Notes to this chapter that Equation (3-l) is only an approximation

of Equation (3-Z) for limited
ranges of p,,.
In the derivation
of Equation (3-21, an idealized
situation
was assumed for the well and for the reservoir.
It is important
to
know the extent and the applicability
of the assumptions,made
when
test results are being interpreted.
Sometimes anomalous results may be
explainable
in terms of deviations
from the idealized
situations.
Accordingly,
the assumptions which are clearly
defined in Chapter
Section 5.1 are summarized below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Isothermal
conditions
prevail
throughout
Gravitational
effects
are negligible.
The flowing fluid
is single phase.
The medium Is homogeneous and isotropic,

2,

the reservoir.

and the

porosity
is constant.
Permeability
is independent
of pressure.
Fluid viscosity
and compressibility
factor are constant.
Compressibility
and pressure gradients
are small.
The radial-cylindrical
flow model is applicable.

Pressure

Approach
Since this approach is seldom used for the analysis of
deliverability
tests, relevant
equations have not been derived in the
Notes as was done for the pressure-squared
approach.
However, it can
be shown, by procedures similar, to those for the pressure-squared
approach, that
Ap Z sR - P,f = a I 1 qsc+b"

4zc

(3-3)

where
a' 'qsc = pressure drop due to laminar flow and well effects
flow
b"q' SC = pressure drop due to inertial-turbulent
effects
The application
of Equation (3-3) is also restricted
by the
assumptions listed
for the pressure-squared
approach.

3-8

Pseudo-Pressure

Approach

Assumption
enors,

particularly

pressure
the

(6)
in

gradient

is

pseudo-pressure

or pressure
the

the

(3-3)

for

equation

is

Equation

(3N-9)

of

gas from

is

used,

instead

need

for

assumption

the

is more

all

is

rigorous

ranges
in

It

tight

approach

developed

flow

can be a cause

small.

equation

Equation

above

seldom

approaches,

resulting

mentioned

shown

the

to

Notes

where

Chapter

the

2 that

is

if

eliminated

Equation

rigorous

chapter

the

pressure-squared

(6)

The

this

in

either

of pressure.

serious

reservoirs

of

than

of

(3-2)

LIT

and is

and
or

flow

given

by

as
$

- qwf = a qs,

+ b q2SC

where

$R
Ilrwf
a 4sc

pseudo-pressure

corresponding

to

sR

pseudo-pressure

corresponding

to

pwf

pseudo-pressure

drop

due to

leminar

drop

due

to

inertial-turbulent

is

more

well
=

b q2SC
Since
either

the

the
is

used

effects.

pseudo-pressure

pressure

incorporating
approach,

the

or the

pressure-squared

this

is

its

constructed

Example
versa,

for

2-l).

as easy

of

referred

is

treated

reviewed

here.

gas at

is

using

then

used

in

LIT

approach

to

as the

LIT(q)

greater

detail

in

A curve

reservoir
for

p or p2 as the

has been

When Qwf reflects

q,,.
a no Longer

at

the

than

I/J versus

temperature

converting
working
this

constructed,

of

p to

q, and vice

variable,
approach

a stabilized

the

stabilized

increases
value.

pressure

with

A plot

duration

9 is
becomes

used.
just

of

A@ versus

due to a constant
of

flow
q,,

(see

p2 approach.

rate

constant

Is

curve

$ - p curve
as the

concept

a particular

This

analyses,

henceforth

application

and instead

Once the

flow

2 but

rigorous

manuel.

The pseudo-pressure
Chapter

analysis

pseudo-pressure,
in

and

conditions

pseudo-pressure
flow

flow

but

stays

on arithmetic

3-9

coordinates
0rigii-l.

would give a curve, concave upwards, passing through the

This CUFV~ has an initial
slope of 1, cor,resposding
to laminar

flow, whereas at the higher

reflecting
turbulent
flow.

fl.ow rates the slope increases to 2,

Consequently,
for large extrapolations,

considerable
difference
would be obsened in the AOF values obtained from
this curve and from the straight
line plot of the Simplified
analysis.
In order to obtain a plot that ia consistent
with Figure 3-1,
the arithmetic
coordinate
plot is discarded
in favour of a logarithmic
plot of Equation (3-4).
A straight
line may be obtained by plotting
This particular
method is
(A$ - bq;,) Y~TSUG g,, as shown in Figure 3-2.
chosen since the ordinate
then represents
the pseudo-pressure
drop due
to laminar flow effects,
a concept which iu consistent
with the Simplified

q,,, MMscfd

FIGURE 3-2. DELlVERABlLlTY TEST PLOT-LIT(q)

FLOW ANALYSIS

3-K

The deliverability
pressure
particular

may be obtained
value of A9

q SC =

potential
by solving

-a + J(a2

the quadratic

against

any sandface

Equation

(3-4)

for

-c 4 b A$)
2b

a and b in the LIT($)

reservoir
viscosity

of a well

flow

the

(3-5)

analysis

depend on the same gas 'and

properties
as do C and n in the Simplified
analysis except for
and compressibility
factor.
These two variables
have been

taken into account in the conversion

of p to @, and consequently,
will
not affect
the deliverability
relationship
constants a and b.. It
EOllOWS, therefore,
that the stabilized
deliverability
Equation (3-41,
or its graphical
representation,
is more likely
to be applicable
throughout

the life

of a reservoir

than Equations

(3-l),

(3-2)

or (3-3).

3 DETERMINATION OF STABILIZED FLOW CONSTANTS

Deliverability

tests

have to be conducted on wells to

the values of the stabilized
flow

determine,
among other things,
constants.
Several techniques are available
to evaluate
the Simplified
analysis,
and a and b, of the LIT($)
flow
from deLiverability
data.
3.1

Simplified

A logarithmic
coordinate
pl.ot
a straight
line over the range of flow
stabilized
deliverability
line gives $
The coefficient
C in Equation (3-l) is

C and n, of
analysis,

Analysis
of Ap' venus qs, should yield
rates tested.
The slope of this
from which n can be calculated.
then obtained
from

(3-6)

3-11

3.2

LIT($)

Flow Analysis

Least Squares Method

A plot of (A$-b&)
versus q,,, on logarithmic
coordinates,
should give the stabilized
deliverability
line.
a and b may be obtained
from the equations given below (Kulczycki,
1955) which are derived by
the curve fitting
method of least squares

(3-7)

(3-8)

where
N

number of data points

Graphical

Method
This method utilizes
the "general curve,"
developed by Willis
Before discussion
on the use of the
(1965), shown in Figure 3-3.
general curve method, the details
of its development
should be clearly
understood.
Equation

(3-4),

with

a = b = 1 can be written

as
O-9)

A$ = qsc + 49c
The straight
plot

11neu in Figure

of A$ versus

3-3, which is a logarithmic

q, are represented

A+ = qSC

coordinate

by the equations
(3-10)

(3-11)

3-12

If the plots of Equations

(3-10) and (3-11) are added for the same
value of q SC' the resulting
plot is the general curve.
To distinguish
Figure 3-3 from a data plot, the latter
will
be referred

to as the deliverability
plot.
To determine a and b, actual data are plotted

on logarithmic

coordinates
of the same size as Figure 3-3.
This stabilized
deliverability
data plot is laid upon the general curva plot, and
keeping the axes of the two plots parallel,
a position
is found where
the general curve best fits the points on the data plot.
The stabilized
deliverability
curve is now a trace of the general curve.
The value of
a is read directly
as A$ for the point on the deliverability
plot where
the line given by Equation (3-10) intersects
the line qac = 1 of the
dellverability
plot.
The value of b is read directly
as A$ for the
point on the deliverability
plot where the line given by Equation (3-11)
plot,
intersects
the line pSC = 1 of the deliverability
If the point at which'a*is
to be read does not intersect
the
plot, 'a"may instead be read where
PSC = 1 line of the deliverability
by 10 or 100, respectively,
qsc equals 10 or 100 and must then be divided
Similarly,
b may be read where q,, equals 10
to get the correct
value.
or 100 and must then be divided by 10' or loo*, respectively.
The advantage of this method is the speed with which
deliverability
data can be analyzed.
However, it should be used only
when reliable
data are available.
The above procedure may be applied to data from a conventional
test to yield a stabilized
deliverability
curve.
With isochronal
data,
however, it will yield a transient
deliverability
curve.
To obtain the
stabilized
deliverability
curve, it should be remembered that the value
of b is independent
of duration
of flow and must be the same for the
Accordingly,
stabilized
and the transient
deliverability
relationships.
the general curve is positioned
so that it passes through the stabilized
flow point and maintains
the value of b obtained from the transient
deliverability
is

illustrated

curve.
The application

of this

graphical

by Example 3-4 in Section

method to calculate
4.3.

a and b

3-13

101

LEQUATION

(3-11)

100
g,,,

FIGURE

3-3.

GENERAL

MMscfd

CURVE FOR THE ANALYSIS

From R. 8. Willil

(19451

OF DELIVERABILITY

DATA

3-14
The general

curve

of Figure

3-3 may also be used with

LIT(p')
approach.
The method is the same as described
Equation (3-2) is now fit instead of Equation (3-4).

the

above except

4 TESTS INVOLVING STABILIZED FLOW

In the preceding analyses, C or a are constant only when
stabilization
has been reached.
Before stabilization
is achieved,
the
Tests to determine the stabilized
flow is said to be transient.
deliverability
of a well may combine both transient
and stabilized
conditions.
Various tests that may be used directly
to obtain the
deliverability
or the AOF of a well are described in this section along
with examples of their Interpretation
by both the Simplified
and the
General guidelines
for the field
conduct and
LIT($)
flow analyses.
All the
reporting
of these tests are discussed in a later chapter.
tests treated in this section have at least one, and sometimes all, of
the flow rates run until pressure stabilization
is achieved.
This is
the deliverability
obtained will not
very important
as, otherwise,
Tests in
reflect
stabilized
conditions
and will thus be incorrect.
which no one flow race is extended
discussed in Section 5.
4.1

to stabilized

Conventional

conditions

will

be

Test

As mentioned in Section 1, Pierce and Rawlins (1929) were the

first
to propose and set out a method for testing gas wells by gauging
This
the ability
of the well to flow against various back pressures.
type of flow test has usually
been designated
the "conventional"
TO perform a conventionaL
test, the stabilized
deliverability
test.
shut-in reservoir
pressure,
p,, is determined.
A flow rate, qsc, is
The stabilized
then selected and the well is flowed to stabilization.
The flow rate is changed three or
flowing pressure,
p,f, is recorded.
four times and every time the well is flowed to pressure stabilization.
The flow-rate
and pressure histories
for such a test are depicted in

3-15

Figure 3-4.
Interpretation
below will give the desired

of the pressures
deliverability

----7.------

and flow
relationship.

rates

as shown

7-----l-.--

t-

FIGURE 3-4. CONVENTIONAL

TEST- FLOW RATE AND

PRESSURE DIAGRAMS

Simplified

Analysis
A graph of bp* (= ;; - p;f) versus qsc, on logarithmic
This gives a
coordinates,
is constructed
a~ shown in Figure 3-1.
straight
line of slope i or reciprocal
slope, n, known as the "back
From this straight
pressure line" or the deliverability
relationship.
line and Equation (3-l) the AOF or the deliverability
against any sandface back pressure may be obtained.

of the well

LIT($)

Flow Analysis
The values of pwf are converted to Q,, using the applicable
The values of a and b are
$ - p curve, similar
to Figure 2-4.
calculated
by the methods of Section 3 and the deliverability
relationship is expressed in form of Equation (3-4).
The deliverability
for any known A$ may then be obtained from Equation (3-S).
It is recommended that even though the deliverability

q,,

3-16

relationship
is derived by computation,
the equation obtained should be
plotted
on logarithmic
coordinates
along with the data points.
Data
which contain significant
errors will then show up easily.
ErrOIleOUS
data points must be discarded and the deliverability
relationship
then
recalculated.
A sample
both the Simplified
(for gss composition
Although
flow analyses will
analysis beyond the

deliverability
calculation
for a conventional
test by
and the LIT($) flow analyses is shown In Example 3-l
see Example A-l; for the Q - p curve see Figure 2-4).
in many instances,
both the Simplified
and LIT(@)
give the same reuult,
extrapolation
by the Simplified
range of flow rates tested can cause significant

errors.
Such il situation
is well
conventional
Cest (Example 3-l).

illustrated
The LIT($)

by the calculations
flow analysis gives

for a
an AOF

of 37.8 MMscfd while the Simplified

analysis yields an AOF of 44.0 MMscfd.
This method of testing and the interpretation
of the data iu
and the method has been considered
the basic
relatively
simple,
acceptable

standard fur
In a reservoir

testing
gas wells for many years.
of very high permeability,
the time required

to obtain
stabilized
this type
test may
hand, in

stabilized
flow fates and flowing
pressures,
as well as a
shut-in
formation
pressure is usually not excessive.
In
of reservoir
a properly
stabilized
conventional
deliverability
be conducted in a reasonable period of time.
On the other
low permeability
reservoirs
the time required
to even
In this
approximate
stabilized
flow conditions
may be very long.
situation,

It

IS not practical
to conduct a completely
stabilized
test,
and since
the results
of an unstabilized
test can be very misleading,
other methods of testing
should be used to predict
well behaviour.
4.2

Isochronal

Test

The conventional
delivetsbilLcy
test carried out under
qualifies
as an acceptabLe approach to attslning
stabilized
conditions,
the relationship
which is essential
to the proper interpretation
of
tests,
because it extends each flow rate over a period of time

3-17

sufficient
to permit
edge of the reservoir

the radius of investigation

or the point of interference

wells.
This ensures that the effective
The effective
dralnage radius concept is
If each fl.ow rate of a multi-point
test
time insufficient
for stabilization,
the

to reach the outer

between neighbouring

drainage radius is constant.

discussed in Section 7.1.
extends for a fixed periad of
effective
drainage radius,
td,

which is a function
of the duration
of flow, is the same for each point.
The isochronal
flow test which was proposed by Cullender
(1955), is
based on the principle
that the effective
draInage radius in a given
reservoir
is a function
only of dimensionless
time, and is independent
of the flow i-ate.
He suggested that a series of flow tests at different
rates for equal periods of time would result in a straight
line on
logarithmic
coordinates
and demonstrated
that such a performance curve
would have a value of the exponent n essentially
the same as that
LIT($)
flow theory
established
under stabilized
flow conditions.
confirms that b too is independent
and may, therefore,
be determined
flow rates,
c and a stay constaflt

of the duration
of flow (Section 3N.3)
from short flow tests.
For different
provided the duration
of each flow is

constant 1 Whereas n or b may be obtained from short (transient)

from stabilized
isochronal
flow tests, C or a can only be derived
conditions.
The isochronal
flow data may thus be used in conjunction
with only one stabilized
flow point to replace a fully
stabilized
the isochronal
test consists
conventional
deliverability
test.
Briefly,
of alternately
closing in the well until
a stabilized,
or very nearly
the well at different
stabilized
pressure,
&, is reached and flowing
rates for a set period of time t, the flowing
sandface pressure,
pwf,
at time c being recorded.
One flow test is conducted for a time period
long enough to atrain
stabilized
conditions
and is usually referred
CO
The flow rate and pressure sequence are
as the extended flow period.
depicted in Figure 3-7.
A brief
discussion
of the theoretical
validity
of isochronal
tests is given in Section 3N.5 of the Notes to this chapter.

3-18
EXAMPLE

3-1

ILLUSTRATING
TEST.

SEE

(A*-

AND

_.,-.^

DELlVERAi3lllTY
FIGURES
bqtt)

CALCULATIONS

3-5

AND

3-6

VERSUS

q,,,

RESPECTIVELY.

FOR

FOR

PLOTS

A
OF

CONVENTIONAL
Ap

(NOTE:

VERSUS
IMPLIES

FLOW
4

SC

q,,)

,..,-

SHf-lN
^. --,_--

-----------------------

0.00229

190

36.1

4.3

5.50

AOF l~tkcfd~

RESULTS
DISCARDED

POINT

FLow

TRANSIENT

FLOW!

I.C.

-kt

STABILIZED
i.e.

FLOW:

356

- $Irf

ii

= a+q + bq2
q*

4 +

GR -

qw+

: 0.0625

: aq

+ b$

q + 0.00084 q~

DELIVERABILITY:
q = ib[-a

FOR vJ* zD,

qEAOF

+ /++4b
I

37.8

(Ir,

-J;,)]

MMrcfd

3-19

q,,,MM,cfd

FIGURE 3-5. PLOT OF Ap2 VERSUS q,, - CONVENTIONAL

FIGURE 3-6. PLOT OF (A*-bq:)

VERSUS q,c- CONVENTIONAL

TESIT

TEST

3-20

EXTENDED FLOW RATE

I
1

t-

FIGURE 3-7. ISOCHRONAL

TEST- FLOW RATE AND PRESSURE DIAGRAMS

Simplified

Analysis
The best straight
line is drawn through the isochronal
points
plotted on logarithmic
coordinates.
This is the transient
deliverability
line.
A straight
line parallel
to the transient
deliverability
line
drawn through the stabilized
point is the stabilized
deliverability
line
from which the AOF or flow against any sandface back pressure can be
read.
LIT($)

Flow

Analysis
From the isochronal

flow rates

and the corresponding

pseudo-

pressures at and b can be obtained from Equations (3-7) and (3-8); at

refers to the value of a at the isochronal
time t. A logarithmic
plot of
data are also plotted.
(A$ - bq;J versus qgc is made and the isochronal
This plot is used as before to identify
erroneous data which must be
rejected
and a t and b recalculated,
if necessary.
The data obtained from the extended flow rate,
used with the value of b already determined in Equation
the stabilized
value of a. This is given by

4$ and qsc are

(3-4) to obtain

3-21

(3-12)

a and b are now known and the stabilized

deliverability

relationship

may

be evaluated
from Equation (3-4) and plotted
on the deliverability
plot.
A sample calculation
of stabilized
deliverability
from an
isochronal
fest is shown in Example 3-2 (for gas composition
see
Example A-l; for the $ - p curve see Figure 2-4).
The values of AOF
calculated
by rhe twcl methods are not too different
since only a small
extrapolation
is required.
However, the LIT($)
a more correct value and should be used instead
analysis.
4.3

Modified

Isochronal

In very tight reservoirs,

it
attain a completely stabilized
reservoir
flow period,
nor is it always practical

flow analysis does give

of the Simplified

Test

is not always practical

to
pressure before the initial
during the test to shut-in

the

reservoir
until the original
pressure is attained.
Aa a result,
the
true isochronal
test proves impractical
as a means of testing many
wells.
Katz et al, (1959, p. 448) suggested that a modified
isochronal
test conducted with a shut-in
period equal to the flow period
may give satisfactory
results
provided
the associated
unstabilized
shut-in pressure is used instead of pR in calculating
the difference
of
pseudo-pressure
or pressure-squared
for the next flow rate.
This method
has been used for testing
many wells, and indeed has given results which
As in the isochrdnal
test, two lines are
appear quite satisfactory.
obtained,
one for the isochronal
data and one through the stabilized
point.
This latter
line 1s the desired stabilized
deliverability
curve.
This method, referred
to as the modified
isochronal
test, does not yield
The
a true isochronal
curve but closely approximates
the true curve.
pressure and flow rate
are depicted in Figure

sequence of the modified

3-10.

isochronal

flow

test

3-22
EXAMPLE

ILLUSTRATING

3 -2

TEST.

SEE FIGURES

I&SIMPLIFIED

DELIVERABILITY

baf,)

VERSUS

3-8
Q...

AND

CALCULATION5
3,-9

FOR

RESPECTIVELY.

FOR

PLOTS
(NOTE:

OF

AN

ISOCHRONAL

Apz VERSUS

q IMPLIES

clsc AND

q,,)

ANALY
RESULTS
q _ c

p @z_

k*
1952

3810

I.320

1742

p,;

*I I

i 0.000017

RESULTS
DISCARDED

POINT

Flow

2
TRANSIENT
1.e.

316

STABILIZED
I.e.

316

FLOW!

- $w.r
FLOW;

4,

zL5.182
qR

A'# -

bq*

22.28

uuqwt z22.28

FOR $w =0, q = AOF :

+g

* bq2

q .+ 1.870

qwf

DEL'VERAB'L'~~~+b Cm0 +&

0 =

eq

qz

+ bq2

q + 1.870

qz

+ *b ('JR - ew, ) ]
8.3

MMrcfd

3-x

I
!

loo

FIGURE 3-8.

AOF: 9.0 MM,cfd

1 II/l
10
q,<,MMscfd

100

PLOT OF Ap2 VERSUS q,, - ISOCHRONAL

q=, MMscfd

GURE 3-9.

PLOT OF (At/t-bq,:)

VERSUS q,,-ISOCHRON

3-24

lsochronal

A brief
tests

discussion
of the theoretical
validity
of modified
is given in Section 3N.5 of the Notes to this chapter.

92

EXTENDED FLOW RATE

t-

t---w
FIGURE 3-10. MODIFIED ISOCHRONAL
TEST-FLOW
AND PRESSURE DIAGRAMS

RATE

Analysis
The method of analysis of the modified
isochronal
test data
is the came es that of the preceding
isochronal
method except that
instead of &, the preceding shut-in
pressure is used In bbtainfng
ap2
or A$. The shut-in pressure to be used for the stabilized
point is p,,
the true stabilized
shut-in
pressure.
A sample calculation
of stabilized
deliverability
from a
modified
isochronal
test is shown in Example 3-3 (for gas composition
see Example A-l; for the I) - p curve eee Figure 2-4).
The values for
ilDF obtained by the different
methods are very nearly the eeme because
of the small extrapolation.
analyzed by the graphical
example, Example 3-4.

The test of Example 3-3 may also be

method of Section 3.2 as shown in the following

3-25
EXAMPLE

3-3

ILLUSTRATING
TEST.
qsc

SIMPLIFIED

LIT ($)

DELlVERAElllTY

SEE

AND

FIGURES
IA9

3-11

-h,c)

VERSUS

CALCULATIONS
AND
q,,.

3 - 12

FOR
FOR

A MODIFIED

PLOTS

RESPECTIVELY.

OF

(NOTE:~

ISOCHRONAL
Ap

VERSUS

IMPLIES

4,<)

ANAlYSIS

ANALYSIS

RESULTS
DISCARDED
N=

POINT

TRANSIENT

<,

315

MMpri&p

i.e.

FLOW:

315

STA81tlZED
1.d.

315

&

-J;{

lr;,

= a,q + bqZ

z 3.273

- h
FLOW:

q + -LAG_
= oq

$v;r

: 9.747

qz

+ bqz

q +

1.641

qz

DELIVERABIIITY:
(EXTENDED
FLOWI

q'

A+;~, 183
0 -

A'# -

bq2
0

8.00

b:
=

9.747

q = ib[-

1.641
FOR qwf -0,

q :AOF

t /a2

+4b
11.2

($

- VJ,)

MMrcfd

3-26

+,MMscfd

FIGURE 3-11. PLOT OF &I

VERSUS q,,-

MODIFIED

ISOCHRONAL

q,,, MMscfd

FIGURE 3-12. PLOT OF (A$-bq,:)

VERSUi q,, -MODlF

IED ISOCHRONAL~~TEST

3-27

EXAMPLE 3-4
Introduction

This,example

method of Section
Problem

Plot
logarithmic

So,lution

Figure

3-2 to the analysis

the application
of modified

of the graphical

isochronal

Calculate
the values of a, b and AOF for
test data of Example 3-3.

isochronal

3x3

illustrates

test data.

the modified

A$ versus qsc (transient,

modified
isochronal
coordinates
of the same size as the general

data) on
curve of

3-3.

This deliverability
data plot is shown in Figure 3-13:
The transient
deliverability
curve is drawn from the best
match of the deliverability
data plot and the general curve.
The values
of a and b are obtained from the intersections
of the straight
lines,
repr:sented
by Equations
(3-10) and (3-U),
the deliverability
data plot.
This gives

at

= 1.6

with

the q

SC

= 1 line

of

3.3

Plot the stabilized

flow point and maintaining
the value of
b = 1.6 draw the stabilized
deliverability
curve.
The intersection
of
the straight
line, represented
by Equation (3-lo),
with the q,, = 1 line
of the deliverability
data plot gives
a =
and the resulting

9.75
deliverability

AOF = 11.7

curve

shows an

MMscfd

Figure 3-3 may be used to obtain good approximations

for
a, b, and AOF, but it is recommended that the calculation
methods of

DiSCUSSiOIl

Examples 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 using

better results.

the LIT($,)

flow

analysis

be used Ear

3-28

3-29

4.4

Single-Point

Test

If

from previous
tests conducted on the well,,the
reciprocal
slope n or the inertial-turbulent
(IT) flow effect
constant,
b, is howa,
only one stabilized
flow point is required
CO give the deliverability
relatXonship.
This is done by selecting
one flow rate and flowing
the
well at that tate to stabilized
conditions.
Often this fest is
conducted as part of a pressure survey 1n a reservoir
on production.
The gas in this test is usually flowed into a pipeline
and not wasted.
Care is taken to ensure that the well is producing at a constant rate
and has stabilized.
This rate and the flowing pressure
The well is then shut-in
long enough that the stabilized

are recorded.
shut-in

pressure

GR can be determined.
Knowing the static pressure p,, the stabilized
flowing
sandface pressure,
pwf, and the rate q,,, either the Simplified
or the
LIT($)
analysis may be used to obtain
the srabilized
deliverability
of
the well.
For the Simplified
analysis the stabilized
point is
on the usual logarithmic
coordinates
and through it a straight
inverse slope, n, is drawn.
In the LIT($)
flow analysis,
the
data, AIJJand q
are inserted with the previously
known value
SC
into Equation (3-12) to yield a value for a. The stabilized

plotted
line of
stabilized
of b

deliverability

is then given by Equation (3-4).

A sample calculation
of stabilized
deliverability
from a
single-point
test is shown in Example 3-5.
n and b are known from
previous
tests; n = 0.60, h = 1.641 (for gas composition
see Example
A-l; for the IJ - p c"r"e see Figure 2-4).
5 TESTS NOT INVOLVING STABILIZED FLOW
In the previous

sections,

tests

which would yield

the

deliverability
of a well, directly,
we're described.
Each of those tests
included at least one flow rate being rm to pressure stabilization.
In
the case of tight reservoirs,
stabilization
could take months or even
ye&Y.
This is obviously
a great inconvenience
and alternative
methods

3-30

must
to

be used
conduct

to determine

stabilized

flow

teats,

used

to obtain

the

In

and that

the
of

(3N-10)

from

the

Notes

of

the

Sections

isochronal

same value

is

to

placed
rate

before

analysis

chapter

is

single-point

deliverability.

the

and modified

it

the

calculated

and 4.3

may be

by calculation.

and using

4.2

transient

volume,

on production,

b is

having

of

drainage

that

applicable

this

flow

wells

flow

accuracy

stated

conditions.
be obtained

the

without

relationship

has been

an extended

has been

stabilized

of

deliverability
well

confirm

deliverability

The LIT($)

a knowledge

to monitor

It

stabilized

tests.

a stabilized

analysis

given

with

when the

desirable

could

flow

along

Subsequently,

test

the

same for
it

transient

was shown

isochronal

that

flow

to

stabilized

flow.

the

stabilized

value

or
b

data,

From Equation
for

a is

by

x lo6

a = 3.263

0.472

re

rw

(3-13)

+*

where
k

effective

net

temperature

external

rw

well

radius,

ft

skin

factor,

dimensionless

usu;llly

re,

before
it

is

stabilized

shown

to note

of

the

radius

of

T are
value

know0
of

or build-up
that

data.

reliable

reservoir,
the

OR

drainage

and onSy

area,

k and

of

the

by the

present

ft

s need

a can be calculated.

For

values

md

ft

how k and a may be obtained

In

it

be determined

Chapters

analysis

purpose

to

of
is

k and s may be obtained

the
only

from

4 and
transient
necessary

transient

alone.
Thus

is

to gas,

pay thickness,

11, and

rw,

the

drawdown

tests

permeability

sufficient

Sections
isochronal

to
to

4.2

obtain

the

stabilized

deliverability

conduct

the

isochxonal

part

and 4.3.

data

are

The
used

extended

to obtain

flow
the

of

points
value

of

relationship,
the

tests

are

not

b from

it

described
required.

Equation

in
The
(3-8).

EXAMPLE

3-s

ILLUSTRATING
TEST.

b-b-

SEE

DELIVERABILITY
FIGURES

ha:,)

VERSUS

3-14
qsc,

AND

CALCULATIONS
3-15

F,OR

RESPECTIVELY.

FOR

PLOTS
(NOTE:

Of

A SINGLE
Ap*

POINT

VERSUS

q IMPLIES

q,,

AND

q,,)

RFSIJITS

0.00108

AOF (MMrcfd)
=

9.5

RESULTS
DISCARDED

POINT
TRANSIENT

FLOW!

1.e.

-hYt

STABILIZED

b=
[EXTENDED
FLOW1

NIXA'!-ZqZ
'+'
N Es2 - Eq Zq
A+:
0 z

q'

183
A'k 9

bql

I.#.

JR -

309

FLOW:

qwf

T@ -

-e,,

= +q

qwc;,

113.601

+ bq2

qz

: aq

+ bq*

q +

1.641

qz

DELIVERABILITV:

7.2

br
i

13.601

q : tb[-O

1.641
FOR $*# -4,

qAoF

+ b2+4b
?

10.2

(qn

-J;,)]

MMscfd

3-32

10000

FIGURE 3-14. PLOT OF Ap2 VERSUS q,< - SINGLE

FIGURE 3-15. PLOT OF (A+bq$

VERSUS &-SINGLE

POINT TEST

POIN T TEST

3-33

The value

of

a i$

k and s from

the

calculated

from

dtawdown

or build-up

is,

in

all

the

practice

it

rate

the

and is
the

thus

shown

obtained

temperature
of

a straight

the
size

which

may cause

(Wentink

et

of

the

MOEOVer,
the

of

pipe,

of

a Eunctim

not

only

throughout

represent
3-17.

of
the

the

is

to

different

average

At any

condition

of

but

the

of

that

1967);

the

flowing
instead

in

which

well

drop
also

of

gas

does
in

reservoir

is

on the

itself

is

level.

relationship

to obtain

has

throughout

wellbore

is

curves

pressures,

it

flowing.

apply

pressure

represented

and may be used

back

depends

not

the

different

relates

However,
as it

the

it

it

pipeline

reservoir.

the

a well,

depletion

slope

to

because

gathering

deliverability
of

the

be a curve

useful

for

pressure

rate

wellhead
life

plot

or 3-2.

deliverability

and Cleland,

relationship

fl.ow

the

is valid

than

unique

the

deliverability

the

or annulus,

since

3-1

equal

of

flow

1971).

example,

being

HOWeVer,

Figures

coordinates

the

the

by

versus

wellhead

variations

plot

sandface

well

Because
constant

not

the

the

al.

accessible

tubing

unlike

life

for
mote

as the

at

conditions

as before.

of

In

B, and the

necessarily

made,

that

pressures

sandface

curses

(Edgington

are

the

may be plotted

not

deliverability

is

disadvantage

is

tests

sandface.

in Appendix

known

wellbore

situation,

to

On logarithmic

3-16.

A wellhrad

pressure,

Is

corrections

line

to a surface

sandface

the

ae the

be obtained

to

pressures

the

determined

conditions,

to measure

pressures

sandface

in

first

by the

sandface

measured

wellhead

plot

unless

to

detail

may then

deLiverability

using

moreover,

in

obtained

in Figure

wellhead

to are

given

similar

The relationship

refer

may be converted

relationship

a manner

obtained

more convenient

procedure

instances,

in

referred

pressures

calculation

some

sections

sometimes

deliverability
in

previous

These

having

analyses.

relationships

pressures
is

wellhead.
the

the

(3-13)

WELLHEAD DELIVERABILITY

The deliverability
described

Equation

are

not
needed

as shown in
by p,,

the

the

wrllhead

to

Figure

sandface

3-34

deliverability
by converting
the sandface pfess~res to wellhead
conditions
using the method of Appendix B, in reverse.
7 IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING
TO DELIVERABILITY TESTS
In all

of the tests described so far, the time to stabilization

is an important
factor,
and is discussed in detail
below.
Moreover, the
flow rate is assumed to be constant throughout
each flow period.
This
condition
is not always easy to achieve,in
ptac'cice.
The effect on
test results of a non-constant
flow rate is considered
In this section.
The choice of a sequence of increaslng
or decreasing
flow rates is also
discussed.
7.1

Time to Stabilization

and Related

Matters

Stabilization
originated
as a practical
consideration
and
reflected
the time when the pressure no longer changed significantly
with time; that is, it had stabilized.
With high permeability
reservoirs
this
point
was not too hard to observe.
However,
with tight
formations,
the

pressure

does

not

stabilize

for

a very

long

time,

except where there

mechanism acting on the pool, true steady-state
the pressure never becomes constant.
sometimes

years.

months

and

is a pressure maintenance
is never achieved and

MOreOVer,

Stabilization
is more properly
defined in terms of a radius of
investigation.
This is treated,
in detail
in Chapter 2, but will be
reviewed here.
When a disturbance
is initiated
at the well, it will
have an immediate effect,
however minimal, at all points in the
reservoir.
At a certain
distance
from the well,
however,
the effect
of
the disturbance
will be so small as to be unmeasurable.
This distance,
at which the effect
is barely detectable
is called the radius of
investigation,
the formation
the

no-flow

rinv.
until
boundary

As time increases,
it reaches the outer
between

adjacent

this

radius

boundary

flowing

wells.

moves
of

the

outwards
reservoir

From

then

into
OF

on,

It

3-35

100
1

10

100

q,,, MMscfd

FIGURE 3-16.

WELLHEAD DELIVERABILITY

PLOT

3000

IO

12

14

lb

18

~7 MMscfd

FIGURE 3-1Z WELLHEAD DELIVERABILITY

VERSUS FLOWING WELLHEAD
PRESSURE, AT VARIOUS STABILIZED SHUT-IN PRESSURES

3-36

stays constant,
that is, r inv = re* and stabilization
Is said co have
been attained.
This condition
is also called pseudo-steady
state.
The pressure does not become constant but the rate of pressure decline
does.
The time to stabilization
and is given by Equation (3N-15)

can only be determined

approximately

as

(3-14)
where
ts, = time to stabilization,
hr
r
= outer radius of the drainage
e
= gas viscosity
at p,, cp
i;
porosity,
fraction
$ = gas-fllled

area,

ft

k
= effective
permeability
to gas, md
There exist various rule-of-thumb
methods for determining
when
stabilization
is reached.
These are usually based on a rate of pressure
decline.
When the specified
rate, for example, a 0.1 psi drop in 15
minutes, is reached, the well is sard to be stabilized.
Such oversimplified
criteria
can be misleading.
It is shown in the Notes to this
chapter that at stabilization,
the race of pressure decline at the well
is given by Equation (3N-19) as

(3-15)

This shows that the pressure decline in a given time varies

from well to well, and even for a particular
well, it varies with the
flow rate.
For these reasons, methods of defining
stabilization
which
make use of a specified
rate of pressure decline may not always be
reliable.
The radius of investigation,
rinvf
after t hours of flow is
given by Equation (3N-21).
This equation is portrayed
graphically
in
Figure 3-18.

3-37

for

rinv

< re

(3-M)

As long as the radius of investigation

is less than the
exterior
radius of the reservoir,
stabilization
has not been reached
and the flow is said to be transient.
Since gas well tests often
involve
interpretation
of data obtained in the transient
flow regime,
For transient
flow,
a review of transient
flow seems appropriate.
Equations (3-l) and (3-4) still
apply but neither
C nor a IS constant.
Both C and a will change with time until stabilization
is reached.
From this time on, C and a will stay constant.
Effective

Drainage

Radius

A concept which relates

transient
and stabilized
flow
equations is that of effective
drainage radius,
rd, which is discussed
in detail
in Chapter 2. It is defined 8s that radius which a
hypothetical
steady-state
circular
reservoir
would have if the pressure
at that radius were s R and the drawdown at the well at the given flow
rate were equal to the
at the well increases
investigation
reaches
the effective
drainage

rd

= 0.472

The above
radius of drainage
be emphasized that
reservoir
and that
unsteady-state
flow
distinction
between
of investigation
Section 6.4.

actual drawdown.
Initially,
the pressure drop
and so does rd.
Ultimately,
when the radius of
the exterior
boundary, re, of a closed reservoir,
radius is given by Equation (Z-101)
re

(3-17)

equation is the source of the popular idea that the

It should
only moves half-way
into the reservoir.
at all times, drainage takes place from the entire
r d is only an equivalent
radius which converts an
the
equation to a steady-state
one. Furthermore,
the concepts of effective
drainage radius and radius

should

be understood

as,described

in Chapter

2,

3-38

3-39

7.2

The usual
to use,

where

test,

decreasing

practice

possible,

conventional

hold-up

in

there
is

ig

the

wellbore

of

Rates

deliverability

increasing

a likelihood

to

a problem,

in

form

rates.

hydrates,

results

In

forming,

higher

wellbore
Where

hydrates.

a decreasing

is

tests

flow

of

as it
tendency

is

Flow

conducting

advisable

and a decreased

in

of

a sequence

if

sequence

temperatures

Sequence

sequence

liquid

may be

preferred.
If

the

conducted,
rate

conventional

that

Is

the

or a decreasing
Ilowever,
should

rate

sequence

for

the

be used,

,or the

stabilization

is,

selected,

fesf

of

modified

pressure

sequence

is

give

the

will

isochronal

otherwise

the

isochronal

true

are

observed

relationship.

an increasing
loses

the

isochronal

a new

an increasing

deliverability

method

properly

before

Either

imaterial.

test,

test

is

test

rate

accuracy,

sequence

and may not

be acceptable.
The extended
isochronal

test

already
at

beginning,

conditions,
Often,

In

a shut-in
as the

at

must

so far,
In

practice

measured

the

is

to

tare

this

situation

it

in

the

to

the
it

isochronal
to

is

need

is

conducted

stabilized

flow

periods.

stabilization,

(isochronal)

this

last

well

essentially

may be chosen

and the

time

of

necessarily

not

with

isochronal

with

or without
rate,

as long

stabilization.

theory
each

of

Flow

Rate

applicable
flow

rarely

flow

If

test.

appropriate

Constancy

is

if

extended

rate

pressure

within

a critical

of
simply

flow

the

flow

the

be shut

at the

or modified

beginning,

However,

between

incerpretlng

through

then

taken

any suitable

extended

the

end of

rate

7.3

In

the

stabilization.

intervening
is

at

commencement

being

fact,

flow

at

well
the

of

either

isochronal

reading

and later

be so.

to

last

a pressure

or
the

prior
the

rate

may be run

on production,

the

flow,

flow

period
achieved.

prover,

the

co the
is

tests

assumed
If

upstream

the

described

to be constant.
flow

pressure

is

being
declines

3-40

continuously
If

with

an orifice

praccice~is

time,

and hence

meter

is

set

the

to

being

This

declining

wellhead

is

changed

not

pressure
downstream

pressure

regulator,

often
the

short

rarely

constant,

the

well.

All

factors

flow

these

rate

for

approach.

The

%amnarized

in

the

results

are
the

values
should
In
but

as is
in

the
rate

case

coupled

due

involve

the

back
flow

the

gas flowing

temperature

CO a gradual
for

with

from

wellhead

a fixed

period.

declining

rates
the

waraing

is
up of

the

an absolutely

Constant

a method

of analysis

the

information

in

flow

such

the

rate

rate

of

their

drawdown

findings

flow

are

and the

to vary

this

testing

are

applicable

to

provers

need

not

be kept

in

order

has been

made

to run

to

well

and

and utilized

may include

absolutely
with
Since

orifice
to

sudden
plates

adhere

to a

has commenced.

DELIVERABILITY

the

entire

continuously

IXI change

period

the

meters.

in

rapid,
flowing

over

and

not even

FOR DESIGNING

excessively

averaged

or orifice

approach,

a flow

not

corresponding

smoothly

reason,

be collected

information

flow

rates

pertaining

should

and McCain

below.

flow

decision

to

some of

this,

once

Harrell

validity

related

values

whatever

Lee,
the

than

with

GUIDELINES

rate.

rather

of

schedule,

developed

study

given

invalidate

Once the

procedure.

of

view

for

investigation

flow

usual
at

flow

resulting

of

the

meter,

the

a continuously

but

may be allowed

permissible

the

flow,

orifice

in

flow

their

changes

be used

period.

prespecified

all

choke,

simulation,

chapter,

tests

constant,

is

gas

choke

difficult

in

of

a later

instantaneous

changes

the

(1965)

variations

Provided

time,

it

by numerical

deliverability

flow

the

periods,

and Colpitts

confirmed,

pressure

of

being

make

the

correspondingly.

to be maintained.

account

(1972)

flow

variation

Winestock
to

results

decreases

throughout

the

calculations

During

temperature.

of

rate

of

upstream

pressure

Moreover,

flow

to measure

upstream

constant

rate.

used

choke,

setting

setting.

the

logs,

TESTS

a deliverability
to

the

in

specifying

drill-stem

test,

reservoir

under
the

teats,

test

3-41

previous

delrverabiliey

history,

fluid

studies.

In

wells
the

composition
the

should

of

is

the

of

some of

same

formation

first-hand

certainly

conducted

field

have

on that

and temperature,

absence

completed
value

testa

a major

well,

cores

these

production

and geological

derails,

data

from

may be substituted.

experience

must

not

influence

on the

neighbouring
At

all

times,

be underestimated

design

and

and conduct

of

tests.

8.1

A knowledge
lmporrant
the

factor

in

such

or from

the

not

of

data

are

order

Otherwise
is

more

used

if

the

An important

only

approximate

the

the

that

the

in

the

is

Co be used

for

directly

tests,

accurate

than

greater

conducted

well.

If

well

previous
on the

such

will

a very

determining

from

for

well

information

behave

same pool,

of

should

point

rather

than

being

tested

is

the

type

the

in

which

a
the

flowing
tied
of

flowperiodswhen
A single-point

into
test,

the

is not
time

test

is

modified

It

co stabilization

is

may be conducted.

preferable.
isochronal

known,

The isochronal
test

and

should

be

is warranted.

a test

is

is

that

wells,

deliverability

If

ce*Es

discussed
if

isochtonal

test,

and calculating
to

a pipellne,
but

stabilized

flow
is

in

to be flared,
type

the

the

must

be taken

points

appropriate

rather

are

is
to

duration
than

ensure

the

flow

the

well

available
sufficiently

to be obtained.

when the

1,

stabilized

Where

flexibility

Chapter

by testing

teats

stabilization.
more

care

fully

may be accomplishad

using

a well

test

more

gas is

This

be minimized.

new exploratory

stabilization

a conventional

accuracy

choice

to

(3-14).

isochronal

conventional

long

test

of

time

Equation

consideration

test

choosing

stabilization

may be known

wells

of a few hours,

The

the

of

This

neighbouring

from

one of

test

of

type

for

available.

may be estimated
the

the

may be assumed

When the

of

Test

required

characteristics

it
to

of

or deliverability

production

similar

time

a well.

as drill-stem

available,

manner

the

deciding

deliverabiliey

tests,

is

of

Choice

deliverability

in

3-42

relationship
of

this

test
is

of

well

relationship

is

prior

is

stabilized

rate

is

known

for

flowing

mentioned

in

Chapter

equipment

are

the

of

the

gas and

possibility
This
the

of

to prevent
complete

at

plugging

in

rate

in

the

six

to eight

test

equipment

be measured

with

Calculations
inaccurate

the

of

the

Extremely

hydrate

because

will
of

liquid,

from

be at
the

temperature

least

well.

It
above

the

such a

of

well
the

the

to

hydrate

or

the

Failure
due to

flow

must

hole

Choice

of Flow

Rates

the

before
flow

to lift

the

to maintain

these

it

can

provers.

become
practically

mandatory.
equipment

sulphur

minimum

gas

be included

and wherever

bottom

times,
to

liquid

becomes

Where

affect

causes

liquid

bombs

be sufficient

The

data

pressures

wellbore

required

analysis

test.

flow

critical

or

point,

the

Long

of

wellhead

test,

test.

surface

corrosion

that

also

the

with

a multi-point

the

of

equipment.

before

meters

use of

the

during

be free

pressure

and

or condensate,

at

the

choice

A and wiJ.1

measurements.

from
in

hole

Appendix

the

needed

are

be investigated.

of

orifice

liquid

during

sections

water

testing

the

enomaLous

gas must

problems

should

gas well

in

are

the

may make

equal

updating

as the

in

result

be it

8.3

should

pool

a measurement

must

in

and pressure

bottom

1n conducting

the

is

to be used

pressures
is

of

conduct

pressures,

formation

outlined

hours,

sandface

gases

to

affecting

to be expected

standard

use of

sour

impossible

and

since

when there

possible

rates

One or two separators

stabilizes.
the

used

flow

equipment

or partial

of

of

and only

Equipment

factors

heating

Production

of

the

methods

formation

least

ratio

the

is needed

Some of

of

by the

time

survey

equipment

effluent

hydrate

fluctuations
of

6.

and location

choice

that

of

expected

may be done

a pressure

Choice

types

liquid

tests,

pressure.

8.2

The various

previous

A convenient

and all

and the

from

desired.

to a shut-in

probably

flow

the

deposition.

flow
liquids,

rate

if

used
any,

a wellhead

considerations

do not

3-43

apply, the minimum and maximum flow rates are chosen, whenever practical,
such that the pressure drops they cause at the well are approximately
5
par cent and 25 per cent, respectively,
of the shut-in pressure.
Alternatively,
they may be taken to be about 10 per cent and 75 per cent,
respectively,
of the AOF. High drawdown rates that may cause well
damage by sloughing of'the
formation
or by unnecessarily
coning water
into the wellbore must be avoided.
Care must also be taken to avoid
retrograde
condensation
within the reservoir
in the vicinity
of the
well or in the well itself.
In the isochronal
and modified
isochronal
tests, the extended flow rate is often taken to be approximately
equal
If flaring
is taking place, flow should
to the expected production
rate.
be at the mlnLmum rate consistent
with obtaining
useful information.
Some idea of the flow rates at which a we13 is capable of
flowing may be obtained from the drill-stem
test or from the preliminary
In the absence of any data whatsoever,
the AOF may
well clean-up flows.
be estimated from Equation (3N-12)
by assuming stabilized,
purely
lamisar

flow

in the reservoir.

k h qR

AOF =

(3-18)
3.263

s may be estimated
approximately
Chapter 7.

similar

x lo6 T[l,,

from similar
wells

8.4

(0.472

$)

stimulation

in the formation,

Duration

+ &]

treatments

performed

or from Table

7-l

on
in

of FLOW Rates

In conducting tests
which involve
stabilized
conditions,
the
conventional
test, a single-point
test and the extended rate of the
isochronal
and modified
isochrcnal
tests, the duration
of flow must be
at least equal to the approximate time to stabilization
as calculated
from Equation (3-14).
The duration
of the isochronal
periods is determined by two
considerations,
namely, (a) wellbore
storage time and (b) the radius of

3-44

investigation.
a. The wellbore
storage time, tws, it the approximate
time
required
for the wellbore
storage effects
to become negligible.
This
can be calxulated
from Equation (3N-24) which is developed in the Notes
to this chapter:

"*

36177 ii vws cws

kh

O-19)

where
vws = volume of the wellbare
tubing (and aanulus, if
is no packer)
= compressibility
c
of the wellbore
fluid evaluated
ws
the mean wellbore
pressure and temperature

there
at

Equation (3-19) is presented graphically

in Figure 3-19 for the case
of a three-inch
internal
diameter tubing string in a six-inch
internal
diameter casing, with and without an annulus packer.
b. The radius of investigation
has been discussed in Section
7.1.
Rarely does wellbore
damage or stimulation
extend beyond 100 feet.
In order to obtain data that are representacive.of
the formation,
the
flow period must last
feet.
For wells wlrh
investigate
100 feet
3-18.
From Equation
t

longer than the time to investigate

the first
100
no damage or improvement an approximate
time to
is obtained
(3-14)

loo = 1000 $

from Equation

(3-X)

loo2 = 1.0 x lo7 $

R

or from Figure

(3-20)
R

of flow that will

The greater of tws and tlOO is the minimum duration
yield data representative
of the bulk formation
rather than the wellbore
area.
A duration
equal to about four times this value is recommended
for

the isochronal

periods.

3-45

----

Z
Y
-

tus

NOT

PACKED

-----s
\
\\
*

\t\
-

kh, md-ft
FIGURE

3-19.

TIME

REQUIRED
FOR WELLBORE
TO BECOME
NEGLIGIBLE

STORAGE

EFFECTS

3-46

EXAMPLE 3-6
Introduction
to the design

This example illustrates

of a deliverability
test.

calculations

that

are essential

Problem

A well was completed in a dry, sweet gas pool which is being

developed with a one-section
spacing between wells.
It has been cored,
logged and drill-stem
tested, acidized and cleaned but no deliverability
tests have,
deliverability

so far, been performed

test.

on it.

Design

a suitable

Solution
Choice of Test
Before the choice of a suitable
test can be made, the
t
approximate time to stabilization,
S' must be known. This being the
first
well in the pool, and the drill-stem
test flow rate not being
stabilized,
the time to stabilization
is not known and should be
estimated from Equation (3-,14).
This requires
a knowledge of the
Following

factors:

re' P,, $9 k, i,
= 2640 ft, equivalent
obtained
= 2000 psia,

to a one-section
spacing;
from the drill-stem
test;

= 0.15, the gas filled

porosity
is obtained by
multiplying
the formation
porosity
by the gas
saturation,
from logs:
=

both quantities

temperature

Equation

(3-14)

deducible

120 md, the build-up

period of the drill-stem
test was analyzed by methods described
in Chapter
From logs,
to give an effective
kh = 1200 md-ft.

h = 10 ft;
= 0.0158 cp, the gas composition
same as that of Example A-l.

From

being

is

580%.

is known and is the

The reservoir

3-47

= (looo)(o.15)(o.o158)(2640~2
(120) (2000)

_ 69 hours

This time to stabilization

four rates of a conventional

is considered to be too long to conduct the

test.
The isoehronal
procedures will be
considered
instead.
The permeability
and the build-up
characteristics
experienced
during drill-stem
testing
suggest that if P modified
isochronal
test were to be used, the shut-in
pressures between flows
would build up sufficiently
to make the modified
isochronal
test's
validity
comparable to char of an isochronal
test.
Therefore,
a
modified
isochronal
test is chosen to determine the deliverability
relationship.
Flow Periods
The time necessary to investigate
is obtained from Equation (3-20)
t

100

the reservoir

from Figure

k PR
@D

into

= 1.0 x lo7 *

se (1.0 x 10)(0.15)(0.0158)
(120) (2000)
alternatively,

100 feet

1.01 x lOa,

= o 1o hours

3-18 with

t lpo = 0.10 hours

The time required

for wellbore
storage effects
to become
negligible
is obtained from Equation
(3-19) or Flgure 3-19.
SiIlC@
there is a bottom hole packer, the wellbore
volume is that of the tubing
alone (diameter of tubing = 0.50 feet, length of tubing = 5000 feet).
The average compressibility
of the gas in the wellbore,
knowing the gas
composition
and an assumed average pressure in the tubing of about
1800 psia, is 0.00060 psi-l.

3-46

EXAMPLE 3-6
Introduction

This

to the design
Problem

example illustrates

of a deliverability

A well

was

completed

calculations

that

are essential

test.
in a dry,

sweet gas pool which is being

spacing between wells.
It has been cored,
acldized and cleaned but no deliverability

developed with a one-section

logged and drill-stem
tested,
tests have, so far, been performed
deliverability
test.

on it.

Design

a suitable

Solution
Choice of Test
Before the choice of a suitable
test can be made, the
t
approximate time to stabilization,
6' must be known. This being the
first
well in the pool, and the drill-stem
test flow rate not being
stabilized,
the time to stabilization
is not known and should be
estimated from Equation ,(3-14).
This requrres a knowledge of the
following

factors:

re'

a.
b.
C.

c
;;
9

=
=
=

d.

e.

From Equation

(3-14)

$9

$7

k,

L,

2640 ft,

equivalent
to a one-section
spacing;
obtained from the drill-stem
test;
2000 psia,
0.15, the gas filled
porosity
is obtained by
multiplying
the formation
porosity
by the gas
saturation,
both quantities
being deducible
from
logs;
120 md, the build- up period of the drill-stem
test was analyzed by methods described
in Chapter
From logs,
to give an effective
kh = 1200 md-ft.
h = 10 ft;
0.0158 cp, the gas composition
same as that of Example A-l.
temperature
is 580'R.

is known. and is the

The reservoir

3-47

= (1000)(0.~5)(0.015E)(2640)2
(120)(2000)

_ 6g hours

This time to stabilization

is considered to be too long to conduct the
four rates of a conventional
test.
The isochronal
procedures will be
considered
instead.
The permeability
and the build-up
characteristics
experienced
during drill-stem
testing
suggest that If a modified
isochronal
test were to be used, the shut-in pressures between flows
would build up sufficiently
to make the modified
isochronal
test's
validity
comparable to that of an isochronal
test.
Therefore,
a
modified isochronal
relationship.

test

is chosen to determine

Flow Periods
The time necessasy
is obtained

from Equation

to investigate

alternatively,

the reservoir

= o 1o ho"rs

3-18 with

1.01 x loa,

The time required

into

x 10')(0.15)(0.015s)
(120)(2000)

ftom Figure

k iR
m=

100 feet

(3-20)

c 100 = 1.0 x 10's

= (1.0

the deliverability

t loo = 0.10 hours

for

wellbore

storage

effects

to become
since
3-19.

negligible
is obtained from Equation (3-19) or Figure
volume is that of the tubing
there is a bottom hole packer, the wellbore
alone (diameter
of tubing = 0.50 feet, length of tubing = 5000 feet).
The average compressibility
of the gas in the wellbore,
knowing the gas
composition
1800 psia,

and an assumed average

is 0.00060 psi-l.

pressure

in the tubing

of

about

3-48

From Equation

(3-19)
36177 u U", cws
kh

t ws

= (36177)(0.015a)(n*
(120)

alternatively,

from

Figure

3-19

0.25"
(10)

5000)(0.00060)

= o.28 hours

with

; cw* Lt = 4.7 x 1o-2,

t "S = 0.28 hours

Since

the duration

of the isochronal. periods

=4t ws = 1.12 hours = 1.5 hours

(say)

of the extended flow period

= 69 hours = 72 hours
s

(say)

the duration
zt
Flow Rates

Because of a mal.function
in the flow metering recorder,
flow
Accordingly
an estimate
rates during well clean-up are not available.
of the AOF will be made from Equation (3-W.
This requires
a knowledge
uf the following
factors:
il.
b.
C.
d.
From Equation

r
= 0.25 fr
TW = 580R, obtained during drill-stem
from the Q-p
TR = 330x10" psi'/cp,
= 0.0, no data available
for this
s
(3-18)

AOF z:

k h Ji,
3.263 x lo6 T [log

(0.47,

;)

+ &]

testing
curve of Figure
new pool

2-4

3-49

(120)(10)(330

=e

r105)

(3.263x106)(580)

A suitable

10% of

AOF

6 MMscfd

75% of

AOP

45 Mi%cfd

range
first

rate

6 MMscfd,

for

1.5

hr

12 MNscfd,

for

1.5

hr

24 MMscfd,

for

1.5

hr

48 MMscfd,

for

1.5

hr

rate

fourth
An extended

flow

Since

is

flow

rate

of

the

this

wastage

deliverability

is

would

25 MMscfd

is

for

to
of

flaring

connected.

well,

some

is

of

by deferring

from

the

recommended.

and since

75 MMscf

Meanwhile,

Section

be

72 hour8

the

be avoided

be calculated

described

would

rates

connected

involve

a pipeline

method

about

no pipeline

that

until

the

rate

would

recommended
test

rate

flow

= 57 MMscfd

approximate

rate

third

.4:;;:;40]

of

second

there

log

the

gas,

this

the

stabilized

isochronal

test

extended

it

is

part

of

data,

the

using

5.

Equipment

pressure
in

From

a knowledge

and the

reservoir

Appendix

anywhere

A it
in

necessary
choke
the

test

be ample

pressures

involved,
Because

water

orifice

measuring

of

that

heater

to handle
all
oE the

pressures.

run.

composition,

are

unforeseen

equipment

A bottom

of

single
hole

reservoir

the

not

method

Likely

heating

preceding

presence

the

and by using

No special

condensation,.a

meter

gas

hydrates

equipment.

standard

should

mostly
the

the

the

temperature

can be seen

and the

0peratioIl.

of

CO form

equipment

and following
hydrate

be rated

small

quantities

separator
pressure

is

the

problems.

should

will
gauge

for

adjustable
Because

of

high-pressure
of

liquids,

suffice
is

outlined

desirable

prior

to
for

CALCULATING ANTJPLOTTING TEST RESULTS

Earlier
sectione
and their application.

describe the various types of deliverability

tests
The calculation
of the flow rates and the
conversion
of surface measured pressures CD sub-surface
pressures are
discussed in Chapter 6 and Appendix B, respectively.
Familiarity
with
these will be assumed. The methods for calculating
and plotting
test
results are outlined
fn this sectidn.
The calculations
for determining
the deliverability
ship mey be carried out as shown in Examples 3-1 to 3-5.
examples both the Simplified
and the LIT($) flow analyses
the purpose of illustration,
preferably
the more rigorous

relationIn these
were used for

but only one of these interpretations,

LIT($) flow analysis,
is needed.
If

approxWate calculations
need to be done in the field,
the Simplified
analyeis
inay prove to be conventient.
The pressures used is the calculations
are those at the
sandface and may be obtained by direct measurement or by conversion
of
the wellhead pressures.
In obtaining
the differences
in pressuresquared or pseudo-pressure,
the pairs of pressures involved
in the
subtraction
vary for the different
tests.
They are summarized in
Figure 3-20 which shows the appropriate
pressures connected by a
vertical
link.
The conventional
test will be used to explain the
application
of Figure 3-20.
The initial
shut-ln
pressure and the pressure at the end of
Flow 1 are converted
to p', for the Stmplified
analysis,
or to $, by
using the appropriate
$ - p curve, for the LIT($) flow analysie.
The
difference

in these two pressure-squared

or pseudo-pressure
terms,
AP' Of 4, correspond to the flow rate, q,, of Flow 1. The came
procedure is carried
out for Flow 2, Flow 3 and Flow 4. For the other
tests, Ap' or A$ values are obtained from the pressures linked together
in Figure 3-20.
The points
plotted as detalled
below.

(Ap2,q,,)

or (AIJJ- bq&,q,,)

are then

3-51

:ONVENTlONAL
I

:7

INITIAL SHUT-IN
FLOW

MODIFIED
ISOCHRONAL

ISOCHRONAL

SHUT-IN
FLOW

.--J
:I
:I

SHUT-IN
FLOW 3
SHUT-IN
FLOW 4
SHUT-IN
EXTENDED

FLOW

STABILIZED

SHUT-IN

I
I

:Il

(I) In tha modified irochronol test, the initial shut-in preraure may not bs fully stabilized.

FIGURE 3-20.

SANDFACE PRESSURES USED IN COMPUTING

FOR DELIVERABILITY TEST ANALYSES

9.1

Simplified

Ap2 OR A$

Analysis

plot of Ap' versus q,, should be made on logarithmic

coordinates
and a straighr
line should be drawn Khrough a minimum
of
three points.
If a straight
line is not Indicated
by at least three
The

and
consideration
slope
of the
1.0 or less
well, unless
points,

different

also if the LIT($)

flow analysis is not meaningful,
The reciprocal.
should be given to retesting
the well.
line is the exponent n. If the value of n is greater Khan
should be given to retesting
the
than 0.5, consideration
experience
with wells in that pool indicates
Khat a

n value would not be obtained.

If a well has been retesred,
and the test ls still
unsatisfactory,
the best fit line may be drawn through the points of
If the resulting
value
the test which appear to be the most acceptable.
an n of 1.0 shall be dram
of n is greater than 1.0, a line reflecting

3-52

through

the

0.5,

a line

flow

rate

highest
reflecting

rate

point.

an n of

0.5

the

case

of

be positioned

plotting

the

reciprocal

illustrated

in

reflect

slope

Figure

n Is

through

less
the

line
a,

points.

If

at

the

consideration

than
lowest

in

points

line

This

1~ done

appropriate
the

point,

scatter

of

a and b from
p,,

flow

by

rate.

a8 is

and the

points
to

is

that

entire

with

least

excessive

has been

retested,

well,

from

the

procedure
three

or if

a different

and

deliverability

and the

the

(3-7)

deviation

at

(3-4)

coordinates

calculated

retesting

indicates

Equations

ari excessive

be repeated

data

by Equation

on logarithmic

be rejected,

be given
pool

represented

showing

or b should

that

deliverability

FLOW Analysis

points

should

should

wells

the

through

versus

data

data

plotted

calculating

the

conditions.

relationship

the

Any

tests

versus

drawn

LIT($)

(AIJJ - bqic)

be made with

straight

Ap

by calculating

of

relationship.

with

of n Is

3-8.

be determined
A plot

type

of

The deliverability

should

value

be drawn

stabilized

value

9.2

(3-E).

the

shall

isochronal

to

stabilized

A line,of

should

If

point.
In

should

flow

line

data

b is

unless

of

negative,

experience

would

not

be

obtained.
If

the

unsatisfactory,

a least

acceptable
then

(for

should

a value

These

well

of

be made.
zero

In

in

involve
satisfactory
pressure

to

Simplified

test

only

a retest

alterations

measurements

be used

to

n = 1.0

of

the
(for

still

that

out

resulting

an estimated

procedure
This

if

place

is

points

turn

in

a one-year

test

relationship.

data

or b still

relationship

wrthin
in

the

test

appear

most

to be negative,
negative

number.

b = 0) and n = 0.5

analysis.

the

is

at

of

equivalent

any case,

unsatisfactory
be given

the

are

fit

If

should

two condi,tions
a = 0)

squares

and the

two-phase

one,
period.
in

change
flow

from
and

may involve

second

consideration

The fetest

an attempt

appears

this

to obtarn
direct

should
should
a
sandface

to be a possibility,

or

3-53

it may involve
another type of flow test.
In the case of isochronal
type rests, the deliverability
line
should be positioned
to reflect
stabilized
conditions.
This is done by
calculating
a from Equation (3-12) if a stabilized
flow was conducted,
and plotting
the resulting
stabilized
deliverability
line a6 shown in
Figure 3-9.
In the absence of stabilized
from Eqvation
(3-13).

flow

data a may be calculated

NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
3N.1
Pressure-Squared

LIT Flow Analysis

Relationship

Equation (3-l),
deliverability
equation,
to a kheoretically
the LIT(p2)
flow
for

the commonly used Rawlins and Schellhardt

was obtained empirically
but may be related
Equation (3-2), also called
derived relationship,
equation.

Combining Equations (2-101) and (2-102).

and substituting
various dimensionless
variables
from Tables 2-3 and 2-4 gives,

stabilized

flow

(pseudo-steady

1.417
2
PR - P,f =

-2

for

state)

x lo6 qSC u z T
kh

3.263 x lo6 qsc p z T

kh

The above equation assumes laminar flow in the reservoir.

The skis factor,
s, and inertial-turbulent
flow effects,
DqsC,
discussed in Chapter 2, Section 9, may be introduced
to give, from
Equation (2-143)

(3N-1)

3-'54

-2
2
PR - P,f = 3.263XX1~'YZT[log(o.4::re)+~]q*c
+

1.417 x 106 II Z T
D q:c
kh
,

(3N-2)

q,, + b' qic,

Therefore
(3N-3)

bl = 1.417 x IO6 v 2 T D
kh

(3-l)
Miller

(3N-4)

The interrelationship

of a' and b' to C and n of Equation

has been given in various

and Riley (1963), Willis

forms by Houpeurt (1959), Carter,

(1965)
and Cornelson (1974).
Tek,

Grove and Poetrman (1957) gave similar

relationships,
in graphical
One form of the interrelationship,
for various ranges of flow rates.
as expressed by Cornelson
(1974) assumes
a.

b.
c.
d.

form,

Equation (3-l)
is valid for qmin 2 qsc C q,,,.
This
defines the range of flowrates
within which the Fi - p$
Versus'q,,
plot is a straight
line on a Log-log Plot;
Equation (3-2) &valid
for 0 2 q,, 5 AOP;
and (3-Z) is
The function
;;; - p& from Equations (3-l)
equal with the range qmin to qmax;
The rate of change of the above functions
is
the geometric mean of qmin and q,,,,
to give

equal at

(3N-5)

3-55

(3N-6)
and
4*c

c=

ON-l)
a + b qsc

+ b qic

a + 2b q,,

ar + b qsc
*=

In addition
(3-l)

and (3-2),

for Equation
seen that:

(3N-8)

a t 2b qs,

it

(3-2)

to the above interrelationship

can be shown chat Equation
for

various

ranges

of flow

between Equations
(3-l)

rates.

is an approximation
It

IS

readily

and
for very low flow rates
aqsc .> bq;, , Ap = aq,,
Conversely,
f ram Equation UN-5)
n of Equation (3-l) = 1.0.
for n = 1, a = I3 and Equation (3-2) reduces to
Equation (3-l) :
and
for high flow rates
aqsc << bq& , Apz = bq;,
Conversely,
from Equation (3~-6)
n of Equation (3-Z) = !.5*
and Equation (3-2) reduces to
for n = 0.5,
b = ($)
Equation

(3-l).

Hence n may vary

turbulent

from 1.0 for

fully

laminar

flow

to 0,5 for

flow.

Pseudo-Pressure
Relationship
Equation (3-4).
the rigorous
form of the LIT($)
flow equation,
can be related to Equation (3-l) in a manner similar
to that of the
previous
section.
Equations (3N-5) to (3N-8) are applicable
with a
and b replaced by a and b.
An equivalent
form of Equation (3N-2) in terms of pseudopressure

is obtaiaed

by combining

Equations

(2-101)

and (2-103)

with

3-56

appropriate

substitutions

from Tables

2-3 and 2-4,

and from Equation

(2-143)

1.417

x lo6

D Gc

kb

= a q*, + b qic

(38-9)

Therefore

a -

3-263;;@

1.417 x lo6 T D
kh

T [10g(o4;;

@)

+ h]

(3N-10)

(3N-11)

The interrelationship
of a and b to C and n of Equation (3-l)
can be obtained from Equations
(3N-5)
to (3N-8) simply by replacing
a'
and b' by a and b.
An approximate
idea of the absolute open flow potential
of a
well may be obtarned from Equation (3N-9) by neglecting
the Dq' term
and estimating
7-1. Hence

the skin

factor,

%-"

Equations

3.263

x IO6 T [h+.472

Time to Stabilization
(3N-2)

only; that is, for t > ts,

with appropriate
substitution

7, Table

k h 5,

AOF = qsc

3N.2

s, by the methods of Chapter

;)+

and Related

*]

(3N-12)

Matters

and (3N-9) apply to stabilized

conditions
the time to stabilization.
Equation (2-104),
for

dimensionless

quantities

from

3-57

Table 2-3,

can be written

aa

ON-131

,Substituting

for

x from Table

2-4 gives

(3N-14)
Approximate

compressibility

ae reciprocal

pressure

gives

$P r;
2
1000
ts

(3N-15)

k iR

Stabilization
is often, in practice,
defined in terms of a
specified
rate of pressure decline.
Such an approach is theoretically
inconsistent
as shown below.
At stabilization,
the applicable
flow equation (excluding
skin and IT flow effects)
in Equation (2-83) which can be written,
with appropriate
substitutions
for dImensionless
quantities
in terms
of pressure from Table 2-3 as

PR - Pf

The rate bf pressure

(3N-16) with respect

decline
to

is obtained

by differentiating

Equation

time

(3N-17)

Substituting

for

y and h from Table

2-4 gives

3-58

2 (7.385x105)(2.637X10-')

apwf
-=at

2 T qsc

F$h?r;

(3N-18)

Approximating

compressibility

as reciprocal

pressure

gives

(3N-19)
Equati.on

(3N-19)

shows that

at stabilization

the rate

of

pressure decline depends upon the flow rate and reservoir

characteristics
pressure decline rate that does
such as T, $, h and re. Any specified
not take all of these factors
into account is obviously
unacceptable
as
a definition
of stabilization.
Before stabilization
is achieved,
the radius of investigation,
r.XIV
given

as .dcfined
by

by Equation

(2-105),

is a function

of time and is

(3N-20)

Substituting

for

X from Table

approximated

by the rcciprocnl

2-4 and assuming

compressibility

may be

pressure
(3N-21)

r.1,n-9 = 0.032

3N.3

(3N-1)

The deliverability
and (3N-9), apply

Transient

Relationshlp

relationships,
represented
at stabilized
conditions,
that

by Equations
is, for rinv=re.

When rinv c re, the flow conditions

are said to be transient.
transient
flow, combining Equations (2-72) and (2-143) with
substitutions
from Tables 2-3 and 2-4 gives

For

appropriate

% - $"f

3.263X106
k h

log

+k

'SC +

2.637X1O-4
k t + 0.809
2.303
+ !Ji ci r;

1.417 x lo6 T
k h
D q:c

= at 4,. + b qic

(3N-22)

Therefore

at is obviously
equal durations
of flow,
therefore

isochronal
value for
and (3N-22).

a function
of the duration
of flow.
For
as in an isochronal
test, t is a constant and

at is a constant.
This
tests.
b is initially
transient
and stabilized

3N.4

Table

forms the theoretical

basis for
Independent of time and has the same
flow as shown by Equations (3N-9)

Wellbore

Storage

Time

Equation (2-154) with appropriate

substitutions
2-4 and 0 from Equation (2-150) becomes

for

h from

(38-24)

3N.5

Laochronal

Type Tests

Aziz (1967b)established
the theoretical
and modified
isochronal
tests using the Simplified

validity
of isochronal
flow equation,

3-60

Equafion (3-l),
radial
unsteady-state
laminar flow equations and several
simplifying
assumptions.
Noting that in the publication
by Aziz (L967),
Modified Isochronal
Testing and,Another Modification
of the Isochronal
Test should be reversed since the latter
is actually
the proper modified
isochronal
test, the theoretical
justification
may be extended quite
simply to include the LIT(e)
flow equation,
Equation (3-4), skin and IT
flow effects.
Such an analysis would, however, assume that the
principle
of superposition
may be applied CO the unsteady-state
LIT flow
equation.

Quiz Section 1

Name.

1. Give FIVE reasons for testing:

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
2.

Which tests - Transient (T) or Stabilized (S) have the primary objective
of obtaining the following information:

Permeability ( ), Damage ( ), Stimulation ( ), Hydrocarbons in place ( ),

Reservoir heterogeneities ( ), Deliverability ( )
3.

Give approximate time duration (hours) for the following tests:

Drawdown-----, Buildup------, DST (on-land)------,
DST (offshore)------, RFT------, Interference-------, Deliverability-------,

4.

Which is the better type of test : Pulse or interference. Why?

5.

Name the two tests that can be used to determine porosity. ----------------, -----------------

6.

If you had very limited funding and could only conduct one test, which test
would you choose, and why?

7.

During the first week of production, Well A produces @1000 bopd

whereas Well B produces @ 2000 bopd. Give three reasons for the
difference:
a.
b.
c.

Name
Exercise 2-3 DP(skin)
Calculate Pressure drop caused by skin DP(skin),
for two wells in different reservoirs but with the same skin:

Case 1:
K = 1, h = 141.2, q = 500, B = 1, Mu = 1
DP(skin) =

s=5

(141.2*q*B*Mu / (k*h)) * s

= psi Problem? or No Problem?

Case 2:
K = 100, h = 141.2, q = 500, B = 1, Mu = 1
DP(skin) =

s=5

(141.2*q*B*Mu / (k*h)) * s

= psi Problem? Or No Problem?

Conclusion:

Name:
Quiz Section - 2
1.) Name 5 assumptions basic to all well testing equations.
a.)
b.)
c.)
d.)
e.)
2.) Give the equation for emptying a tank.
3.) Name 2 advantages of dimensionless variables.

4.) What is a type curve?

5.) Define pressure drop due to skin.

6.) Define skin.

7.) State the relationship between skin and Delta P skin.

8.) a. What is the theoretical limit for positive skin ?
b. What is a realistic range of skin for positive skin ?
c. What is a realistic range of skin for negative skin ?
9.) A well has a skin of 50; Is this a problem ? ( yes, no, dont know ).
Explain why?

Name..
Exercise 3-1 Turbulence a,b,c

Determine the cause of skin ..Damage? or Turbulence?

s = s + D*q

a)
q2 = 6

s2 = 14

q1 = 1

s1 = 4

S= ??

D = ??

b)
q2 = 6

s2 = 26

q1 = 1

s1 = 1

S= -??

D = ??

c)
q2 = 6

s2 = 2

q1 = 1

s1 = 7

S= ??

D = ??

Name:...
Quiz (Sections 4 5)
For the given Flow Regimes identify the slope of the derivative and the
functional form of P = f(t), based on the following:
4
f(t) = t , t , t , log t ,

Vertical Well

1
t

Slope of Derivative

P = f(t)

Wellbore Storage
Linear Flow
Bi-linear Flow
Spherical
Radial
Channel
Pseudosteady State
Steady State

Horizontal Well
Vertical Radial Flow
Linear Flow
Horizontal Radial Flow

Name:...
Quiz (Section 4 5) contd
Sketch the flow paths for:
a.) radial flow

b.) linear flow in a fracture

c.) linear flow in a channel

Define Derivative:

Sketch the derivative for:

1. WBS, radial flow, BDF

2. WBS, fracture, (no radial flow)

3. Fracture, radial flow, channel

4. Horizontal well

Name: ..
Section 6 - Quiz
Write, in dimensionless form, the radius of investigation relationship
Re-write it in field units (state units of each variable)

Is concept of radius of investigation exact or approximate?

Time to stabilization is time to reach : 1st , 2nd , 3rd or ALL boundaries?
In theory, stabilization means the same as:
Pseudosteady state
yes
Boundary Dominated Flow yes
Tank Type Behavior
yes
Steady state
yes

or
or
or
or

no
no
no
no

In the field, stabilization means:

Time to stabilization depends on: reservoir size (yes or no),

permeability (yes or no),
shape (yes or no),
fluid properties (yes or no), flow rate (yes or no),
Superposition means:
There are 2 wells at the same location (Yes or No).
2 wells cannot be side by side (Yes or No).
If the rate changes the pressure must change too (Yes or No).
Superposition in space deals with boundaries, changing rates, and
multiple wells. (Circle any that apply)
Pressure at the well is: P = A (log t) + B
Pressure in reservoir is: P = B Ei (r2/t)
Write an equation for the pressure drop at well A in presence of well B
which is located 200 ft away .

Name:..
Quiz - Section 7
Drawdown Analysis Procedure:

Log Log plot of Derivative

Linear flow - fracture

(slope =

Radial flow Analysis

(slope =

Wellbore Storage

(slope =

Linear Flow - Channel

(slope =

Pseudosteady State

(slope =

Vertical Well Specialized Plots (straight line analysis)

Semilog Vs.

slope gives.

Linear plot Vs...

slope gives ..or.

Storage Plot Vs

slope gives or.

Horizontal Well Derivative plot:

E
B
A

C
2 1

1
1

you get vertical permeability from?

you get skin from?
you get horizontal permeability from?
Where do you get the negative skin that makes a horizontal well
equivalent to a vertical well?
What information can you get from C?

Name:
Section 8 Quiz

Given the Flow Equation:

pi p wf = 162 .4

qB
k

+
s
3
.
23
0
.
869
log t + log

kh
ct rw2

Derive the equation for a Build-Up following a single constant rate.

Define: Effective Producing time (tp or tc):

Define: Horner time:
Define: Equivalent time:
Explain Superposition time:

Define: p :
pR

pi

When are they equal?

Name:
Section 8 Quiz contd.
How are buildup and fall-off analysis related?
Which part of buildup test data is used to calculate skin?
What is a Horner plot?
What is an M.D.H. plot?
When is it appropriate to use one or the other?

What are M.B.H. plots?

Name:
Quiz Section - 9
Define the PPD.
What is it used for?
How does it differ from derivative?
Why are static gradients conducted?

When should they be conducted?

Why do we use bottomhole pressure recorders instead of wellhead
recorders?
Name two things that can cause an increase in the PPD.

If a Horner plot has the shape shown above, how can you tell whether
this is a multilayered reservoir effect or a wellbore dynamics effect?

If a Derivative plot has the shape shown above, how can you tell
whether this is a dual porosity reservoir or a wellbore dynamics effect?

Name:..
Quiz Section 10
Write down the simplified AOF equation:
What are the limits on n, and what do they represent?
A modified Isochronal test should have 3 sets of information shown on
the plot. Name them:
If it takes too long to reach stabilization, what are the various options?
Discuss whether an AOF test is valid throughout the life of a well:

Write the LIT equation:

If there are no wellbore problems, what fraction of sandface AOF is the
wellhead AOF?
Why do we measure both wellhead and sandface pressures during a test?

The field tester says the rate stabilized after 6 hours. The well test
analyst says, It takes 6 months to stabilize. Discuss the above
statements: