Chapter 15

Gas Well Testing Field Case Studies

15.1 Introduction
This chapter presents various field case studies in low, high permeability, and fractured carbonate gas wells including summary, conclusions, and recommendations. It also includes a gas well test evaluation sheet, state report forms, and various cross plotting techniques before and after workovers.

15.2 Gas Well Test Evaluation Sheet

Well Data and Basic Parameters
~ Filed name Well name Zone number Interval Reservoir datum Estimated reservoir pressure Reservoir temperature Net hydrocarbon thickness Gas saturation Porosity Fluid viscosity Compressibility Hydrocarbon porosity Fluid gradient Z-factor Well radius Drainage radius Cumulative production prior to test aaaabbbb ccccfeet feet ss psia 0 R feet fraction fraction cP psi" 1 fraction psi/ft feet feet mmcf

Gas Composition "Gas IH 2 SI CO 2 IN 2 I Ci I C 2 I C 3 11C4 I nC 4 I iC 5 I nC 5 I C 6 I C 7 + composition

MoI % I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
Well Test Data

1 1

Choke size I Rate I Duration I Cumulative I Final BHP I Final THP (-/64") (mmcfd) (min) time(hr) (psia) (psia)

Amerada Data Amerada no. Serial no. Last calibrated data Depth of Amerada

Interpreted data: MBH correction: tp (hr) tpDA (dimensionless time) Buildup slope m(mmpsia 2 /cP) if(Pwfo) (mmpsia2/cP) f (Pwf) At=i (mmpsia2/cP) Calculated data: kh = k= 1.632 x 10%cT , md m kh/h ft

,'=i.i5i r ( * > i * - * Q ^ > _ L rn

m(Ap)j' = 0.867 m / Ap =

k log

+3.231

<t>hix ctrl

Pressure data: HPi) = F = 4ntDA

Af

is(Pwf) = f(pR) = eF

15.3 Shallow Low-Pressure and Highly Productive Gas Reservoirs

The following example illustrates how to determine the stabilized deliverability curve and AOF. Example 15-1 Determining Stabilized Deliverability Curve and AOF from the Test Data A gas well produces from a shallow low-pressure, highly productive reservoir. The well has been tested by a multirate test and the results are plotted in Figure 15-1. One and one-half durations of each flow period was enough to reach stabilization of flowing wellbore pressure. In fact, it was observed that pressures stabilized almost instantaneously after each rate change. Solution The log-log backpressure plot gives a straight line which defines a backpressure exponent n = 1 /slope = 0.56. The backpressure coefficient is

Slope, B = 0.001607 Indicates pressure loss due to high velocity flow Dqsc

Intercepts = 0.00145 Indicates pressure loss due to steady state skin s

Gas flow rate, mmscfd

Figure 15-1. Linear plot for determining high-velocity effect on gas well performance.

calculated from the curve as C = 8.0 x 10 6 (ll,200) a56 = 43,204 scf/day/psia2 The backpressure equation then is qsc = 43,204(p| / ^ ) 0 ' 5 6 and the absolute open flow is 45.538 mmscfd. A Cartesian plot of Ap2/qsc versus qsc (Figure 15-1) gives a straight line (except for a small deviation and the low rate point). The intercept of the line is A = 0.00145 psia2/scfd/D and the slope is mmscfd or, when expressed in scf/d, * = 1.607xl0-9 p S i a 2 / S C f d / d scfd/d The low n value and the high B value indicate large rate-dependent skin. The slope B in Figure 15-1 indicates the significance of the high-velocity effect on the productivity of the well. A large slope implies large rate-dependent skin. The intercept A is related to steady-state skin factor. If the rate needs to be written in terms of flowing pressure, the quadratic equation can be solved as follows: ^A2+
qsc =

B = 1.607 x 10-3

Pdia2/SCM

4B(pl-p2wf)-A

YB
^(0.00145)2 +4(1.607 x I O " 9 ) ^ - plf) - 0.00145 2(1.607 x 10"9)

This equation can be used to calculate the AOF for this example.

15.4 Recommended Form of Rules of Procedure for Backpressure Tests Required by State Regulatory Bodies
All backpressure tests required by a state regulatory body shall be conducted in according with the procedures set out by the state regulatory body except for those wells in pools where special testing procedures are applicable.1"3 The calculations shall be made in the manner prescribed in the appropriate test examples. The observed data and calculations shall be reported on the prescribed forms. Gas produced from wells connected to a gas transportation facility should not be vented to the atmosphere during testing. When an accurate test can be obtained only under conditions requiring venting, the volume vented shall be the minimum required to obtain an accurate test. All surface

pressure readings shall be taken with a dead weight gauge. Under special conditions where the use of a dead weight gauge is not practical, a properly calibrated spring gauge may be used when authorized by the state regulatory body. Subsurface pressures determined by the use of a properly calibrated pressure bomb are acceptable. The temperature of the gas column must be accurately known to obtain correct test results; therefore a thermometer well should be installed in the wellhead. Under shut-in or low-flow-rate conditions, the external temperature may distort the observed wellhead temperatures. Whenever this situation exists the mean annual temperature should be used.

15.5 Appropriate State Report Forms

The appropriate state report forms are as follows.

Texas Gas Well12

Uses tubing pressures Square root chart entries for gas measurement GE system dialogue Answers transferred to G-1 form

New Mexico Gas Well1'2

Uses tubing pressures Deviated well UCS system dialogue Answers transferred to preprinted state form C-122

Oklahoma Gas Well3

Uses casing pressures Single-point test Case No. 1 assigned to input data GE system dialogue Answers presented in report form

Offshore Gas Well Using IOCC Procedure3

Uses bottom-hole pressures UCS system dialogue Answers presented in report form for natural gas Oklahoma

15.6 Stimulation Efforts Evaluation, Summary, and Recommendations

This section presents theoretical and practical aspects of methods used to determine absolute open flow potential (AOF), formation permeability, overall skin factors, average reservoir pressure, and gas in place in low- and highpermeability gas reservoirs. Test analysis methods examined include deliverability, Horner, type curves, and reservoir limit test analysis. It also includes a brief summary, conclusions, and recommendations of two field case studies. One case is for a low-permeability gas reservoir; the other is for a highpermeability gas reservoir. These two cases demonstrate well test analysis applications in low- as well as high-permeability gas reservoirs.

Low-Permeability Gas Well, Nilam Gas Field, Indonesia

Case Studies: Nilam Gas Field, Well # N-38/gas, Zone GSOA Nilam gas field is in Kalimantan, Indonesia, and is "offshore." The reservoir is 12,950 ft deep and consists of layers of clay and sandstone. The overall thickness is about 52 ft with average porosity of about 14 to 20%. The empirical deliverability equations are qsc = 1.3152 x 10" 6 (~p2R - plh) (wellhead conditions) qsc = 0.5997 x 10~6 (~p2R - plf) (bottom-hole conditions) Stabilized flow equations are also developed using the LIT(\J/) approach to estimate deliverability potential of this gas well against any sandface pressure. The values of exponent n = 1 and formation permeability = 8.274 mD indicate, that it is a low-permeability gas reservoir (see Table 15-1 for a summary of results). The laminar-inertial-turbulent (LIT) flow equations are ^(PR) ~ is(Pwh) = 45.5574 sc q + 2.1429 q 2 c (wellhead conditions) + 0.1785 q)c (bottom-hole conditions)

is(pR) - if(pwf) = 9l.S213qsc

Returning again to the Forscheimer equation, ~p\ p^ = Aqsc + Bq2c, kh is small (339.23 mD), A qsc becomes large, and the B q2c term can become negligible (not necessarily zero) when compared to the laminar pressure drop term. We could then write qsc = j(~p2R P^f)1'0Calculate the following quantities
n

J2S> = 76.145
i n

Y^q = 27.087

Table 15-1 Summary of Results Wellhead pressure (psia) Shut-in Ratel Rate 2 Rate 3 Rate 4 Extended rate Final shut-in n C AOF 2388 2015 1640 1365 1015 1015 2388 1.0 1.3152 x 10" 6 7.50 Bottom-hole pressure (psia) 3700 3144 2566 2158 1836 1721 3700 1.0 0.5997 x 10~6 8.21 Flow rate (mmscf/d) 2.397 5.214 6.144 7.186 6.148 mmscfd/psia mmscfd Choke size (inch) 16 24 32 48 32

Table 15-2 Specific Results of Pressure Buildup Analysis Using Four Rate Tests Parameters qsc VKPvv/i) xjf(Vwfo) m kh k s' s D \lr(AP)skin xjf(Pi) xJr(PR) Static gradient Estimated values 6.148 mmscfd 690xl0 6 psia 2 /cP 669xl06psia2/cP 21.0x106 psia2/cP 339.23 mD-ft 8.274 mD +16.869 +3.649 2.137511 64.44 mmpsia2/cP 861.12 mmpsia2/cP 772.0 mmpsia2/ cP 0.110 psi/ft Remarks

Apparent skin True skin Turbulent factor 995 psia 3955 psia 3702 psia

See Table 15-3 See Table 15-3 True skin From Horner plot

J2<12= !60.088
^TY xq = 441.037 Solving by the least square method, we get s = +3.649 (true skin) D = 2.137511 (turbulent factor) Figure 15-2 shows a graphical method to estimate true skin factor.

Table 15-3 Evaluation of True Skin and TVirbulent Factor Gas flow rate # Gasflowrate^mmscfd T/r(Pw/l),mmpsia2/cP ^(Pw/o),mmpsia2/cP m, mmpsia2/cP/cycle Jch,mD-ft K,mD S', apparent skin 1 2.397 770 592.45 15 185.163 4.516 8.748 2 5.214 765 418.12 20 302.078 7.366 14.842 3 6.144 752 306.21 21 339.00 8.268 16.728 4 7.186 745 227.88 22 378.480 9.231 18.958 5 6.148 650 201.25 21 339.229 8.279 16.869

Apparent skin factor, s'

True skin s = 3.80

Gas flow rate q, mmscfd Figure 15-2. Apparent skin factor s' versus gas flow rate.

Radius of Investigation At the beginning of the middle transient regime (MTR), At =1 hr, 102 ft. At the end of the middle transient regime (MTR), At =10 hr, 321 ft. Thus a significant fraction of the well's drainage area has been sampled and its permeability is 6.282 mD. AtAr = 147.12 hr, 1233 ft. At Ar = 468.78 hr, 2200 ft which is equal to the assumed re.

Reservoir limit: m* = 0.29412 x 106 psia2/cP/hr Vp = 2.59288 x 1011 scf (gas filled pore volume of the reservoir) Basis on pt = 3965 psia Conclusions and Recommendations A Homer plot using pseudopressure was used to obtain reservoir parameters. This completion has fair permeability to gas and positive true skin factor, indicating an undamaged well. Overall, the results of analysis are reasonable and can be accepted as reliable. Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that: The completion would probably benefit from stimulation. Test procedures were suitable for this well. Production could continue from this reservoir at this gas well using a 32/64 inch choke size.

High-Permeability Gas Well: Batak Gas Field, Indonesia

Case Studies: Batak Gas Field, Well # B-9Ugas, Zone F-I Batak gas field is in Kalimantan, Indonesia, and is "offshore." The reservoir is 5500 ft deep and consists of layers of sand and limestone. The overall thickness is about 68 ft with average porosity of about 15 to 22%. The empirical deliverability equations are qsc = 0.00095(~p2R - plh)'69 (wellhead conditions) qsc = 0.00473 (~p2R - plf)M (bottom-hole conditions) Stabilized flow equations are also developed using the LIT(VO approach to estimate deliverability potential of this gas well against any sandface pressure. The values of exponent n = 0.69 (wellhead conditions), n = 0.61 (bottomhole conditions), respectively, and permeability = 920 mD indicate that it is a high-permeability gas well. See Table 1 5 ^ for a summary of results. The laminar-inertial-turbulent (LIT) flow equations are
IT(PR)

~ is(Pwh) = I.lSlSqsc + 0.2677q2sc (wellhead conditions) - f(Pwf) = 0.6430#5C + 0.0597^2c (bottom-hole conditions)

^(PR)

Table 15-4 Summary of Results Wellhead pressure (psia) Shut-in Ratel Rate 2 Rate 3 Rate 4 Extended rate Final shut-in n C AOF 2602 2567 2532 2317 2281 2463 2602 0.69 0.00095 49.07 Bottom-hole pressure (psia) 3795 3774 3757 3723 3717 3754 3795 0.61 0.00473 110.03 Flow rate (mmscf/d) 1.446 6.681 15.790 16.566 10.822 mmscfd/psia2 mmscfd Choke size (inch) 16 24 32 48 32

Table 15-5 Specific Results of Pressure Buildup Analysis: Two-Rate Test Units qsc ir(Pwfi) ir(Pwfo) m kh k s' s D ^-(AP)1S^n \/f (Pi) is (PR) Static gradient mmscfd mmpsia2/cP mmpsia2/cP mmpsia2/cP mD-ft mD Apparent skin True skin Turbulent factor mmpsia2/cP mmpsia2/cP mmpsia2/cP psi/ft Buildup # 1 16.566 834.85 816.51 0.40 45,284.82 1053.14 +39.25 +5.57 2.03308 1.6975 psia (true skin) 839.3 3786 psia from Horner Plot 0.116 Buildup # 2 10.822 838.55 827.90 0.35 33,809.17 786.26 +27.57

Returning again to the Forscheimer equation ~p\ - p^f = Aqsc + Bqfc, kh is large (920.0 mD), A qsc becomes small, and we would have

qsc =

1 /2

VB^

2 \ -61 P R Pwf

It is clear then that it is not necessary for flow to be completely turbulent throughout the reservoir for the slope (n) to be equal to 0.5.

Conclusions and Recommendations A Horner plot using pseudopressure was used to obtain reservoir parameters. This completion has high permeability to gas and positive true skin factor, indicating an undamaged well. Overall, the results of analysis are reasonable and can be accepted as reliable. Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that: The completion would benefit very little from stimulation. Test procedures were suitable for this gas well. Restrictions caused by turbulent effects are occurring in this well. Larger tubing size is recommended. Production could continue from this reservoir at this well using a 32/64 inch choke size.

15.7 Formation Characteristics from Fractured Carbonate Gas Reservoirs Field Case Study for Analyzing Buildup Tests Having Two Slopes
Special pressure responses from well tests must be analyzed in light of all available information. Adams et al.4 have presented a complete evaluation of a fractured carbonate gas reservoir. In a conventional buildup plot, two slopes were observed, with the first one having a higher value than the second one (Figure 15-2). After a detailed analysis, they concluded that the matrix permeability could be evaluated from the first slope, and the mean permeability of the matrix-fracture system could be evaluated from the second slope. Their results using this criterion were reasonable when compared with known geologic and core data. The use of special pressure responses for buildup tests in a fractured carbonate gas reservoir will be illustrated with an example using the method proposed by Adams et al.4 Example 15-2 Analyzing Buildup Test with Two Slopes in a Fractured Carbonate (CO3) Reservoir Figure 15-4 shows a buildup for well A, which is located in a fractured carbonate reservoir. The figure shows three straight lines. Figure 15-3 shows permeability variation of core data for this well. Gas properties are as follows: T = 900F; psc = 15.025 psia; Tsc = (60 + 460) = 5200R; qg = 0.548 mmscfd; h = 160 ft; rw = 0.3 ft; \xg = 0.0131 cP; 0 = 0.03 fraction; ct =0.0009psi" 1 . Solution Figure 15-4 shows a buildup plot of Xogi^1) versus x/f(p). This figure shows three straight lines, with their corresponding slopes, the

Horizontal FA = ( 0 . 2 - 0 . 0 1 ) / 0 . 2 = 0.95

Absolute permeability, mD

Vertical Fv= (0.0047 - 0.002) / 9.9947 = 0.96

Cumulative sample frequency, % Figure 15-3. Core permeability variation for gas well (after Adams et a/.).4 extrapolated value of ij/(p) at infinite shut-in, and ty(pws)\hr at 1 hr. Adams et al. carried out the interpretation as follows (see Table 15-6). 1. The matrix permeability km was calculated from _ 57.92 x l06qscPpST mihTsc _ 57.92 x .548 x 15.025 x (90 + 460) ~ 26.0 x 106 x 160 = 0.121mD 2. The skin factor s was calculated from

(15-1)

s = 1.151 \fiPhhr
1^1 = 1151

fiPwf)

- log J ^ , + 3.231

[(98.7-37.4) xlO6 ^ L 26.0x10^ 0.12 ] g 2 + ~ 0.03 x 0.0131 x 0.0009 x 0.3 ' J = 1.151 [2.358 - 7.019 - 3.23] = -1.131

Table 15-6 Calculated Gas Properties Pressure (psia) 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Z-factor 0.792 0.805 0.821 0.841 0.861 0.886 0.912 0.949 0.969 1.000 Gas viscosity fj, (cP) 0.0149 0.0142 0.0135 0.0129 0.0122 0.0188 0.0144 0.0111 0.0107 0.0105 il>(p) (mmpsia2/cP) 296.0 237.5 184.2 136.8 95.6 61.3 34.5 15.4 3.9 0

V(F*) = 159mmpsia2/cP Slope m2 = 10.5 mmpsia2/cP/cycle Pseudo-pressure, vj/(P), mmpsia2/cP

Slope m/ = 26 mmpsia2/cP/ cycle

Straight-line intersect at (t+At) /At = 26.5

q = 548 mscfd / = 1570 hours Wellbore radius, rw = 0.3 ft h = 160 ft

V(P), hr =-98.7 mmpsia2/ cP

i|/(P) W f= 37.4 mmpsia 2 /cp

Figure 15-4. Pressure buildup curve for gas well. 3. Well A is located in the center of one-half of a 2:1 rectangle. The permeability of outer region k2 was calculated from k2 = Jc2 = kxmx 0.12 x 26.0 x l O 6 10.5 x 106
2 U ;

= 0.3 mD

The ratio fe/^i equals 2.48. Since the drainage area is known to be 780,000 sq ft, the dimensionless producing time can be calculated from _ 0.000264Jfc2f _ 0.000264 x 0.3 x 1570 _ = (f)iJict A 0.03 x 0.0131 x 0.00063 x 780,000 =

tDA

' (15-3)

* The dimensionless correction to ^r(P) is 1.2 from curve III of Figure B-3 for the case of a 2:1 rectangle. * _ m,2 x correction xlr(p) = V } xl/(p) yy) ^ ^ 2.303

ilr(p) = 159.0 x 106 - 5.5 x 106 = 153.5 mmpsia2/cP 4. The reservoir flow efficiency can be calculated from xlf(p)-xjf{pwf)-QM9mxs f(p)

11, =

f{pwf)
og ( }

_ 153.5 - 37.5 - 0.869 x 26.0(-1.131) _ , ~ 153.5 - 37.4 ~

5. The distance x to the change in permeability can be calculated from

k2 L

m2

4>V>ctrl

0.3 ~ 1 O g 0.03 x 0.0131 x 0.0009 x 0.3 2 +

3 23

'

Consequently x/rw = 292 and x = 87.6 ft. This distance to change in permeability can also be compared from4 / x \
2

AtD

w ~ HW) W

A 2 V-^-*!)

(i5 7)

JC/r w = 322 and JC = 96.6 ft. The values of x calculated by two methods are of the same order of magnitude and consequently it can be concluded that the change of k is about 90 ft from the wellbore.

15.8 Buildup Interpretations Before and After Workovers

In practice, it is desirable to get as much information as possible from a pressure buildup test. Trying as many crossplotting techniques as possible can do this. The buildup data before and after workover were obtained in various zones, block III, Benuang Gas Field, and South Sumatra, Indonesia. Field examples are reproduced here because of their practical implications.

Buildup Data Completely Controlled by Afterflow

Figure 15-5 shows a conventional plot of shut-in pressure versus log of shut-in time. The pressure buildup data are completely controlled by afterflow.

Condition ratio = 3.9 No work over is recommended Improved conditions Around the wellbore Curved

At, hours Figure 15-5. is(P) versus Af-Semilog plot.

Interpretation would be based on conventional radial flow equations, using what appears to be the straight-line portion of the curve A. The condition ratio using as a basis this straight line is 3.9 and indicates improved conditions around the wellbore. Under these conditions, no workover would be attempted in this well. Figure 15-6 shows a plot of shut-in pressure versus shutin time in Cartesian coordinates. A straight line is obtained, which indicates that the buildup data are entirely dominated by wellbore storage (afterflow). Figure 15-7 shows a log-log plot of pressure differential versus time. A straight

Shut-in pressure. V (p)

Straight line indicates buildup data entirely dominated by afterflow

At, hours Figure 15-6. if (P) versus Af-Cartesian coordinate crossplot (fractured gas well).

A y / , mmpsia2/cP

Buildup data dominated by wellbore storage (afterflow)

Straight line of slope 1.0 (45) indicates afterflow

At, hours Figure 15-7. Log A^ versus log AtLog-log plot (fractured gas well).

Before work over \\j(P), mmpsia2/cP Condition ratio < 1 Skin factor is negative

Curve A

Shut-in time At, hours Figure 15-8. is(P) versus log Af-Semilog plot. line with a unit slope is obtained, which also indicates that the buildup data are dominated by afterflow.

Pressure Buildup Data with Long Afterflow and Beginning of Linear Flow
Figure 15-8 shows a conventional semilog plot of shut-in pressure versus time. The apparent straight line A allows the calculation of a condition ratio greater than 1 and a negative skin. Under these conditions no workover should be attempted. The analysis, however, was followed by cross plotting the shut-in pressure versus time in Cartesian coordinates. The plot revealed a straight line for the first 25 hr (Figure 15-9), which was indicative of afterflow. Figure 15-10 is a log-log cross plot of incremental pressure Ap (shut-in pressure flowing pressure) versus time. A straight line of unit slope was not apparent during the first 40 hr of shut-in. Absence of such a straight line points to the possible presence of skin on the face of the fracture. Starting at 40 hr, there is a straight line of half-unit slope, which is indicative of linear flow. The interruption of the straight line is attributed to change of pumps and or skin damage on the surface of the fracture around the wellbore. Figure 15-11 is a plot of pressure differential versus square root of shut-in time on Cartesian coordinates. This type of cross plot results in a straight line, in which linear flow dominates. The intercept of the straight line at zero shut-in time equals the pressure drop due to skin. The slope of the straight line can calculate the length of the fracture or the formation permeability depending on which parameter can be reasonably assumed. In this case the combination of all plots

Before work over

VjZ(P), mmpsia2/cP

Straight-line portion Indicates afterflow

Shut-in time At, hours Figure 15-9. f(P) versus shut-in timeCartesian coordinate plot (fractured gas well).

Before work over 25 degree

Ay/, mmpsia2//cP

25 degree Straight-line of slope is ( 0.5 (26 ) indicates linear flow

Shut-in time At, hours Figure 15-10. Log AP versus log Af-log-log plot (fractured gas well). provided valuable information and led to the recommendation of a stimulation job. Figure 15-12 shows the results of a pressure survey after the workover in semilog coordinates. Figure 15-13 shows a straight-line portion on Cartesian coordinates, which is indicative of afterflow. This period ended after 16 hr shut-in. Figure 15-14 shows a log-log cross plot of pressure differential versus time. A straight line

Before work over

Ay/, mmpsia2/cP

(At)05, hours05 Figure 15-11. A^ versus V^Af-Specialized plot (fractured gas well).

Shut-in pressure, VjZ(P)

After work over Curved

Shut-in time At, hours Figure 15-12. \j/(P) versus log Af-Semilog plot (gas well). with unit slope is obtained which ends at 20 hr. This unit slope is indicative of afterflow. Another straight line is obtained after 20 hr. The slope of this line is 0.5 and indicates that flow becomes predominantly linear. Figure 15-15 shows a Cartesian cross plot of pressure differential versus square root of shut-in time. The resulting straight line indicates the presence

After work over

Shut-in pressure, \\f(P)

Straight-line portion Indicates afterflow

Period could alter 16 hours shut-in

Shut-in time At, hours Figure 15-13. A^ versus Af-Cartesian coordinate plot (fractured gas well).

After work over

Shut-in pressure, \\f(P)

St-line of slope = 0.5 Indicates linear flow St-line of slope = 45 Indicates afterflow

Shut-in time At, hours Figure 15-14. x/r(P) versus log Af-Semilog plot (gas well).

After work over

Shut-in pressure, i|/(F)

Shut-in time (Atf\

(hours) 05

Figure 15-15. \/r(P) versus AtCartesian coordinate plot (fractured gas well).

of linear flow. The intercept at zero shut-in time is equivalent to the pressure change due to skin, and in this case is negative indicating that the stimulation job was successful. Note: The variety of cross plots presented in this case led to recommend stimulation of a well with damage and resulted in damage removal and improved conditions around the wellbore.

Pressure Buildup Data Controlled for a Short Period

Figure 15-16 shows the conventional semilog plot and the "first glance" straight line. Figure 15-17 shows a cross plot of shut-in pressure versus time in Cartesian coordinates. The lack of a straight line at early times indicates that the afterflow period dies very quickly. Figure 15-18 shows a log-log plot of pressure differential (shut-in pressure flowing pressure) versus time. A straight line of half-unit slope is obtained which indicates linear flow. Also notice that the unit slope straight line, indicative of wellbore storage, is missing. Figure 15-19 shows a Cartesian cross plot of pressure differential (shut-in pressure flowing pressure) versus square root of shut-in time. A continuous straight line is obtained which indicates the predominance of linear flow. The intercept of this line at zero time is negative, indicating improved conditions around the wellbore.

\\f(P), mmpsia2/cP

First glance st-line

Curved

Shut-in time At, hours Figure 15-16. is (P) versus Af-Semilog plot (fractured gas well).

Lack of a st-line early times indicates that after flow period dies very quickly \j/(P). mmpsia2/cP

Afterflow period dies very quickly

Shut-in time At, hours Figure 15-17. V(P) versus Af-Cartesian coordinate plot (fractured gas well).

No wellbore storage effect

Ay/, mmpsia2/cP

St-line of slope = 0.5 Indicates linear flow

Figure 15-18. Log Axj/ versus log AtLog-log plot (fractured gas well).

Intercept is negative indicating improved conditions around the wellbore

A y/, mmpsia2/cP

Figure 15-19. A\[r versus +/AtSpecialized plot (fractured gas well).

Pressure Buildup Data Showing a Small Afterflow

Figure 15-20 shows a conventional semilog cross plot which results in two straight lines named A and B. Figure 15-21 shows a Cartesian cross plot of shut-in pressure versus time which indicates no early straight line and,

Shut-in pressure, mmpsia2/cP

St-line B St-line A

Shut-in time At, hours Figure 15-20. is(P) versus log Af-Semilog plot (fractured gas well).

consequently, that the afterflow period dies rapidly. Figure 15-22 shows a log-log cross plot of pressure differential (shut-in pressure flowing pressure) versus shut-in time. There are a few early-scattered points and then a straight line in the half-unit slope, which indicates linear flow. In the late portion there is a slightly curved line, which indicates the presence of radial flow. Finally, a plot of pressure differential (Ap) versus square root of shut-in time is shown in Figure 15-23. There is a very clear straight line, which suggests linear flow, followed by a curved portion when radial flow is attained. The straight-line portion A of Figure 15-20 can calculate formation permeability using radial flow theory. With the slope of Figure 15-23, its intercept at zero shut-in, and the formation permeability determined from Figure 15-20, we can calculate the fracture length and pressure drop with a good degree of accuracy.

Shut-in pressure, mmpsia2/cP

No early straight line Afterflow period dies rapidly

Shut-in time At, hours Figure 15-21. f{P) versus tCartesian coordinate plot (fractured gas well).

Curved line indicating Radial flow

Avj/, mmpsia2/cP

St-lineofslope = 0.5 Indicating linear flow

Shut-in time At, hours Figure 15-22. Log Ax/r versus log Af-Log-log plot (fractured gas well).

(4/>)Skin = - 1 5 p s i Shut-in pressure, mmpsia2/cP Curved portion Indicating radial flow

St-line indicating linear flow

Shut-in time, hours Figure 15-23. A^ versus AtCartesian coordinate plot (Fractured gas well).

References and Additional Reading

1. Back Pressure Test for Natural Gas Wells, revised edition. Railroad Commission of Texas, 1951. 2. Interstate Oil Compact Commission (1962). Manual of Back Pressure Testing of Gas Wells. 3. Kansas State Corporation Commission (1959). Manual of Back Pressure Testing of Gas Wells. 4. Adams, A. R., Ramey, H. J., and Burgass, R. J., "Gas Well Testing in a Fracture Carbonate Reservoir," /. Petroleum Technol. (Oct. 1988), 11871194. 5. Earlougher, R. C, and Ramey, H. J., Jr., Miller, F. G., and Mueller, T. D., "Pressure Distribution in Rectangular Reservoirs," J. Petroleum Technol. (1960)20, 199-208.