SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

Well Test Analysis and Design (EG551Q)

Continuous Assessment 1
Instructor: Dr. Panteha Ghahri

Majid Khan Pasha I.D: 51660208

1. Introduction and Objectives:..............................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................1
1.2 Well Test Types............................................................................................................2
1.3 Instrument Gauges:......................................................................................................2
1.4 Pressure Build up Test:................................................................................................3
1.5 Pressure Draw-down Test:...........................................................................................3
1.6 Technical preparation for the well testing:..................................................................3
1.7 Objectives:...................................................................................................................3
2. Methodology......................................................................................................................4
3. Results:...............................................................................................................................4
4. Uncertainty Analysis..........................................................................................................6
5. Conclusion:........................................................................................................................7
Bibliography................................................................................................................................i
Equations used:..........................................................................................................................ii
Appendix A...............................................................................................................................iii
Appendix B................................................................................................................................v
Appendix C.............................................................................................................................viii

Table of Figures and Tabl

Figure 1: Well test objectives.....................................................................................................1
Figure 2: Pressure build-up and drawdown curves....................................................................3
Figure 3: Well test pressure vs time plot....................................................................................5
Figure 4: Production rate vs time for the well test.....................................................................5
Figure 5: Sensitivity analysis graphs for wellbore storage, permeability and skin factor
respectively (from left to right)..................................................................................................6
Figure 6: Graph plotted for Agarwals method for the first buildup.........................................iii
Figure 7: MDH semi-log analysis for drawdown......................................................................v
Figure 8: Change in pressure vs tested time for wellbore storage.............................................v
Figure 9: Type curve match using Bourdets method...............................................................vi
Figure 10: Log -log plot for final buildup in excel and software...........................................viii
YTable 1: List of well test
objectives1
Table 2: Well test data................................................................................................................4
Table 3: Flowrate schedule.........................................................................................................4
Table 4: Results of well test analysis.........................................................................................5
Table 5: Sensitivity analysis parameter......................................................................................6
1. Introduction and Objectives:
1.1 Introduction
The main objective of the well testing is to figure out the capability of a formation to yield
hydrocarbons. In addition, it is significant to find out the fundamental explanation for a wells
efficiency. Accurately modelled, performed, and reviewed well test mostly can give
knowledge about Permeability, reservoir pressure, degree of well bore damage (skin factor),
reservoir periphery/outer limit, distance to faults and diversification (Lee, 1982).
Formation fluids enters the wellbore by creating the pressure drawdown in the wellbore
during the basic well test. We can describe the tested well in a better way if we determine the
flow rate and the pressure in the well bore at the time of the production or at the time of a
shut-in phase followed by production. (Lee, 1982) . It is a general exercise in industry to
measure the transient pressure while keeping the well flow rate constant this has been named
well test. If bottom hole pressure is kept constant and flow rate changes with time i.e., q as a
function of time (transient rate) called decline curve analysis. Well test includes both pressure
drawdown and build up tests. Both test performed together and run in series. (Zheng, 2005)
It is not an economical operation which includes substantial resources and logistics contrast
to static state, in order to turn on the responses required for analytical modelling. A simple
well test process composed of surface ring, incorporating downhole tools which includes
gauges, check valves, flow change over valves, isolation valves and packer assemblies,
incorporating with surface/deck system for separating, sampling and estimating the fluids
flowing from the well. (Nel technology , 2015)
Well Test Objectives are mainly divided in to three parts are listed in Table 1 and Figure 1.
Table 1: List of well test objectives
Well Test objectives Test includes to evaluate
1. Reservoir Evaluation Flow capacity, productivity, initial reservoir pressure,
fluid sampling for PVT analysis
2. Reservoir Description Reservoir anisotropy, heterogeneity, drainage
geometry, boundary conditions.
3. Reservoir Subdivided in to three areas
Management/Monitoring 1. Future Monitoring includes systematic test
design, operations, analysis, and
interpretation at appraisal phase.
2. Extended well testing for long term pressure
drawdown and build up data from down-hole
gauge.
3. Time lapsed well testing performed during
field development phase (Zheng, 2005)
Figure 1: Well test objectives
1.2 Well Test Types

Following are the types of well tests considered for determining the said properties are:
1. The drawdown test records decreasing bottom-hole pressure at constant flow rate.
2. The build-up test is carried out by shutting in the well after a period of production
and record the increasing pressure.
3. Flow Test used for the well designed to explain the flow of the moveable fluids to
the surface and provide the feasibility of the reservoir.one of the flow tests like drill
stem tests (DSTs) are performed in the open hole to get the fluid sample, measures
the bottom hole pressure, Permeability and extent of the damage.
4. The injection or fall-off test consists of a) injecting a fluid in the reservoir and
recording the pressure followed by b) shutting in the well and recording the
decreasing pressure.
5. The interference or pulse test carried out by varying the flow rate in one well and
then measuring the pressure changes in another well. This method helps in
determining communication between the two wells.
6. Production Test runs for longer period than the drawdown test.
7. RFT: wireline tools can be used for well testing for casing or open-hole. At the
desired depth, the levers are engaged against the side of the wellbore to make a seal.
A perforation charge has fired while performing the test inside the casing to make
contact between the well and formation in order to produce the small amount of
formation fluid for analysis. This test is useful to get the information about the
vertical pressure, obtain pressure samples, and estimate the permeability.
8. Drill-Stem Test: Prior completion or installing the complete production facilities it
is useful to test the well in newly developed reservoirs or in high risk developments.
This test is performed with the string which is used to drill the well while drilling rig
is on site. It reduces the testing time and also get the fluid sample at the same time.
9. Bankers Test related to the productivity of the well, not helpful to estimate the
reservoir properties like permeability, area etc. (PetroWiki PEH, 2015)

1.3 Instrument Gauges:

There are mainly two types of BHP gauges i.e, Mechanical and Electrical type gauges. Usage
of each gauge depends on the accuracy of data needed and cost. Mechanical gauges are not
very popular among the engineers for modern analysis. Whereas they are used on high
temperature wells and electrical gauges are not recommended for such high temperatures.
Electronic gauges are widely used due to the high accuracy but they are expensive than the
mechanical one. Three main electrical gauges are used as a pressure sensors i.e., 1) Quartz
crystal gauge are more accurate gauges, works when capacitance changes with the applied
pressure.it has two quartz crystals, sensor and reference crystal. 2) Capacitance gauge,
similar to the quartz crystal gauge only difference is that it uses quartz substrate instead of
crystal, more accurate than the above gauge and 3) Strain electrical gauges works on the
deflection of diaphragm which is measured and converted into pressure. Other types of
gauges are Tubing conveyed gauge (mechanical type), gauge carriers, SRO combination
gauges, wireline conveyed gauges, Memory gauges run on slick-line and electronic gauges
run on electric line. (S.P.A, ENI, 1999)

This report will not only focus on the pressure build-up and drawdown well tests but in
addition will compare the two methods. Various methods of analysis are also used and
discussed as part of this report.
1.4 Pressure Build up Test:

Build-up test is conducted by using the following method, initially well is allowed to produce
to cause draw-down i.e. constant rate q for a sometime then well is shut-down to build up or
increase back the pressure near to the original/reservoir pressure and this test can be analysed
by Agarwals method and type curve method. Build up curve can be divided in to three
regions, 1) Early Time region (ETR) a transient pressure is moved from the formation to the
well bore in this region.2) Middle-Time region (MTR), transient pressure has been moved
away to the bulk formation from the well bore.3) Late-time region (LTR) transient pressure is
approached to the drainage boundaries (Chaudhry, 2004).

1.5 Pressure Draw-down Test:

In this test the bottom-hole pressure is analysed during the constant rate (well is producing),
well is completely shut down prior the draw-down test until the pressure is reached to the
initial pressure and become stabilizes throughout the formation.it can be divided in to three
zones for analysis i.e., Transient zone or early flow period, flow characteristics can be
examined.2) Late transient period.3) Semi steady state, used to test the reservoir limit.
(Chaudhry, 2004)

Figure 2: Pressure build-up and drawdown curves

1.6 Technical preparation for the well testing:

1. Equipment for well testing at the surface should be established and pressure tested as
per the standards.
2. At pipe desk the DST tools should be checked
3. Make sure down-hole components of the test string are as per the requirement, inner
and outer diameters, threads and collars. Assure all items should be cleaned and free
from dirt, rust (clean it if any).
4. Visually inspect the condition of packer rubbers and all other tools/equipment
5. Make sure cement bonding time has been tested and logged prior to use in order to
ensure the integrity of the mix. (S.P.A, ENI, 1999)
1.7 Objectives:
The objective of the report is to present the findings of the well test analysis that have been
conducted in oil reservoir using various methods. The initial build up test was analysed using
 Agarwals method for semi-log analysis. Whereas, drawdown test was conducted and
analysed using the semi-log graph of pressure versus time. Second build-up test was analysed
using Bourdets type curve match. Finally, a well test analysis software was used (Kappa
Saphir) to analyse and compare the results from the manual calculations. These methods were
used to calculate the permeability (k), initial pressure (Pi), skin factor (s) and wellbore storage
(C).

2. Methodology
To perform the well test analysis the data was given (Table 2), which consists of a two-hour
clean-up interval superseded by 1st build-up interval for three hours, drawdown interval for 24
hrs at constant rate of production and finally 2nd build-up interval for 48 hrs. which can be
summarised in Table 3 below.

Table 2: Well test data

Paramete Porosity h Well dia Bo Ct (psi-
1
rs (ft) (in) (bbl/STB) ) (cp)
Values 0.15 315 7.5 1.35 1.35E- 0.8
5

Table 3: Flowrate schedule

Operation Clean 1st build- Productio 2nd build-
up up n up
Duration (hrs) 2 3 24 48
Flow rate 3980 0 5000 0
(STB/D)

A best fit line was constructed to find out the infinite acting radial flow region, while drawing
the semi log graph (Figure 6) between the pressure and equivalent time (te) data in order to
analyse the 1st build-up region. Permeability (Equation 1), skin factor (Equation 2Equation 5)
and the initial pressure were calculated with the help of the line gradient (m).
In case of draw-down interval, MDH method has been used and best-fit line was constructed
to find out the infinite acting radial flow region, permeability was derived (Equation 1) from
the negative gradient and skin factor (Equation 3) was calculated by using the previously
calculated initial pressure in 1st build-up region. Graph between the delta P and delta, (Figure
7) for the well bore storage.
To analyse the 2nd build-up region the graph was plotted between the pressure and the
derivative of the pressure vs delta t. The values for the CDe2S, PD , tD /PD , delta P and delta t
were deduced from the Bourdets type curve and log-log curve in order to calculate the
permeability, skin factor and the well bore storage using Equation 5 to Equation 10.

3. Results:
The Table 4 shows the results of manual and software calculation for both 1st and 2nd build-up
and draw-down regions and these regions can also be seen Figure 3 and Figure 4.
 Pressure vs Time
5100
5000

4900

Pressure, psi 4800

4700

4600

4500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Time, hrs

Figure 3: Well test pressure vs time plot

 Production rate vs time
6000

5000

4000

Production rate q stb/D 3000

2000

1000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Time hrs

Figure 4: Production rate vs time for the well test

The 1st build-up region has the smallest values of the permeability and skin factor when
compared to the other values and 2nd build up region represents the highest value for the well
bore storage. In software, no massive difference in values has been observed during the
analysis of the three regions. In both calculations, the 5000-psi pressure has been observed
which is equal to the initial reservoir pressure. Permeability values falls under the satisfactory
range. Positive values have been observed for the skin factor i.e. from 4.83-6.49 which
indicates the wellbore damage. Normally wellbore storage coefficient for the vertical well is
0.001bbl/psi and this value can be cut down by down-hole shut-in to 0.001bbl/psi, well bore
storage coefficient increases with the higher compressibility or fluid volume and slope of the
straight line would be shifted towards the later times (Anon., n.d.) . whereas calculated values
for well bore storage is vary from 0.01-0.0275 bbl/day.
Table 4: Results of well test analysis
Properties Units/symb 1st Build- Draw- 2nd build- Kappa
 ols up down up Saphir
Gradient m 19.6240 21.53 - -
Permeability md/K 113.1 129.46 138.31 120
Initial Psi/Pi 5000.40 - - 5000
Pressure
Skin factor s 4.83 5.71 6.49 5.50
Wellbore bbl/psi - 0.0275 0.016 0.01
storage

To observe the effects of altering the skin, well bore storage and permeability on the pressure
log-log plot a sensitivity analysis has been conducted. Different values (higher, lower and
average) were selected for each parameter and concluded that pressure and derivate pressure
curve moved down and shifted to the left when permeability values were increased and
responded in opposite directions while decreasing the permeability values. The curves were
shifted to the right while increasing the values for well bore storage. Only increase in hump
height has been observed while increasing the skin factor rest of the things remain unchanged
on the plot. The Kappa Saphir represented the well test as homogenous reservoir, constant
wellbore storage and vertical well. The sensitivity analysis is shown in Figure 5, and the
values selected are displayed in Table 5.

Table 5: Sensitivity analysis parameter

Paramete C skin k.h
r
Unit (bbl/ps (md.ft
i) )
Model 0.001 5.50 37799.
value 9
Sensitivit 0.002 0 1
y values 0.003 -5.5 15000
0.004 3 60000
0.01 11 80000
 Figure 5: Sensitivity analysis graphs for wellbore storage, permeability and skin factor respectively (from left to right)

4. Uncertainty Analysis
1. It is not possible to keep the flow rate constant during the draw-down test due to the
choke which controls the flow rate and works in steps therefore constant flow rate
does not achievable.
2. There are more uncertainty in the data when well test runs for the shorter period of
time as compared to the well test runs for the longer period of time, which reduces the
uncertainty.
3. Chances of physical error in the pressure data due to noise, temperature, and time
shift.
4. Uncertainty about calculating the parameters like permeability, which depends on the
viscosity and compressibility, these properties are not very accurate which might
affect the estimation of reservoir parameters.
5. Human error is the biggest factor while selecting the best match during the Bourdets
type curve matches, which can doubt the estimation.

Following are the common well testing Problems:

1. Improper design for well testing.
2. Same test program used for all reservoirs
3. Unable to understand the test concept, test data.
4. Analysis of well test data, design and operation by various team or persons.
5. Complex model, easy well test practice and vice versa
6. Faulty instruments/gauges (Zheng, 2005)

5. Conclusion:
The well test data was examined by both manually and through software, Agarwals
equivalent time method, MDH method and Bourdets type curve match were used to
performed the manual calculations on the other hand Kappa Saphire software was used to
estimate the both draw-down and build-up data but the results were pretty much similar in
both cases. During the test, various parameters were calculated like permeability, skin factor
and well bore storage. Sensitivity analysis were performed while selecting the arbitrary
values for the permeability, skin factor and well bore storage and recorded the different
behaviours of the curves and concluded that the reservoir is homogenous, has constant
wellbore storage, vertical in shape with infinite boundary.
Uncertainty in our model are caused by, inability to keep flowrate constant during drawdown,
the short test time of the first build-up, noise in pressure data, uncertainty involved in
determination of fluid and rock properties and finally human error.
Bibliography
Ahmed, T., 2010. Reservoir Engineering Handbook. s.l.:s.n.
Anon., n.d. Test Wells. [Online]
[Accessed 28 02 2017].
Chaudhry, A. U., 2004. Oil well testing handbook. Advanced TWPSOM Petroleum Systems,
Inc., Houston, Texas: Gulf Professional Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier.
Lee, J., 1982. Well Testing. Texas: SPE text book series, Volume 1.
Nel technology , 2015. National Maesurement System, Glasgow: TUV SUD Limited.
PetroWiki PEH, 2015. PetroWiki: Well test. [Online]
Available at: http://petrowiki.org/Well_test
[Accessed 27 February 2017].
S.P.A, ENI, 1999. Well test Procedure, s.l.: s.n.
Zheng, S.-Y. a. C., 2005. Well Testing. Best Practice, p. 8.
Equations used:
q Bo
m=162.6( ) Equation 1
Kh

s=1.151
[ Pws ( t e =1 hr )P ws ( t=0 )
m
log
k
c t r 2w
+3.23
] Equation 2

s=1.151
[ PiP1 hr
m
log
k
ct r 2w
+3.23
] Equation 3

qB
C= Equation 4
24 mWBS
PD
P M match = Equation 5
P
tD

T M match =
( )
CD Equation 6
t

k=
141.2 qB ( PP ) P M
D
match
Equation 7
h
kh t
C=0.000295 (
tD CD )
T M match Equation 8

0.8936 C
CD= Equation 9
c t h r 2w

C D e2match
s

s=0.5 ln ( CD ) Equation 10
Appendix A

Figure 6: Graph plotted for Agarwals method for the first buildup
Calculations For 1st Build-up Interval:
1. Best fit equation of line from semi-log plot of equivalent time (Figure 6) is
y=8.5226 ln ( x ) +4994.5
2. Convert the natural log to log 10 by replacing ln(x) with ln(10)xlog(x) above eq
becomes y = 19.6240log(x) + 4994.5 and compare it with y = mx+c
gives m = gradient= 19.6240 and y-intercept = 4994.5
q Bo
3. Calculate the Permeability by rearranging the above Equation 1 k =162.6( mh )

K=162.6 ( 0.819.6240
x 3980 x 1.35
x 315 )
=113.10 md

4. Calculate the skin factor by using the eq

P ws ( t e =1 hr )P ws ( t=0 ) k
s=1.151[
m (
log 2
)
r w C t
+3.23]

To calculate the Pws ( t e =1 hr ) substitute the value of x=1 in best fit eq whereas

log(0) = 0 will get y=4994.5

For Pws ( t=0 ) = 4801.7 last flowing pressure, substitute all the values in above eq
to get the skin factor
4994.54801.7 113.1
s=1.151[
19.6240
log
(
0.15 x 0.8 x 0.31252 x 1.35E-5
+3.23 ]
)
S=4.83
5. To calculate the initial pressure Pi at te=tp=2 hrs plug in best fit line eq will get
y=8.5226 ln ( 2 ) + 4994.5 = 5000.5 psia
Appendix B

Figure 7: MDH semi-log analysis for drawdown

Figure 8: Change in pressure vs tested time for wellbore storage
Calculations for draw-down Interval
1. Best fit equation of line from semi-log plot of equivalent time (from Figure 7) is
y=9.351 ln ( x )+ 4754.9
2. Convert the natural log to log 10 by replacing ln(x) with ln(10)xlog(x) above eq
becomes y = -21.531log(x) + 4754.9 and compare it with y = mx+c
gives m = gradient= -21.531 and y-intercept = 4754.9

3. Calculate the Permeability by

rearranging the above Equation 1
q Bo
k =162.6( )
mh

K=162.6 ( 0.821.531
x 5000 x 1.35
x 315 )
=129.46 md

4. Calculate the skin factor by using the eq

P iP1 hr k
s=1.151[
m
log
( r 2w Ct )
+3.23]

Whereas Pi=5000.4 psi the ist build up interval , to calculate the P1 hr put value
of x=1 in best fit equation whereas log(0) = 0 will get y=4754.9
substitute all the values in above equation to get the skin factor
5000.44754.9 129.46
s=1.151[
21.531
log
(
0.15 x 0.8 x 0.31252 x 1.35E-5
+3.23]
)
S=5.71
5. To calculate the wellbore storage use the graph of t and P () the equation of best fit
line (on Cartesian coordinates) is y=10213 x , we have gradient =
mWBS=10213
6. wellbore storage can be calculated through the Equation 8
5000 x 1.35
C= =0.0275 bbl/ psi
24 x 10213
Appendix C

Figure 9: Log -log plot for final buildup

Figure 10: Type curve match using Bourdets method

Calculations For 2nd build-up Interval:
1. Match the best curve of the Bourdets type curves with the log-log plot curve (Figure
2s
10) After matching the best curve (Figure 9), the value of C D e is calculated as
108 .
tp
2. The Values for C D and PD are 10 and 20 respectively after selecting the

random point on graph.

3. The values for P and t are 350 and 0.01, correspondence to the above-
mentioned values on the log-log without moving the Bourdets type curves.
4. Calculate the values for PM match and TM match with the help of the Equation 5
and Equation 6 as follows,

10
TM match= = 1000
0.01

20
PM match = = 0.0571
350
5. Calculate permeability by using Equation 7

141.2 x 5000 x 1.35 x 0.8 x 0.0571

K= = 138.31 mD
315

6. Calculation for Wellbore storage by using the Equation 8

138.31 x 315 x 0.01
C=0.000295 = 0.016 bbl/psi
0.8 x 10

7. 1st of all calculate the dimensionless storage CD prior to calculate the skin factor by
0.8936 x 0.016
using the Equation 9 C D = 0.15 x 1.35E-5 x 315 x 0.31252 = 229.52

8. Calculate the skin factor by using the Equation 10

108
s=0.5 ln (
229.52 )
=6.49