1969 o

SPWLA TENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, MAY 25-28, 1969
(This is a pre-print, subject to correction.)
ENGINEERING OF DRILL STEM TESTING
BY
M. Lebourg*
Johnston
Houston, Texas
ABSTRACT
Drill stem testing is often described as a temporary completion in

open hole. Through th.e years it has evolved from a simple qualitative
evaluation to a sophisticated quantitative evaluation of potentially produc-
tive formations.
Formation fluid is recovered during a drill stem test, and in addition,

pressure changes during successive flow and shut-in periods are recorded.
Many formation parameters can be derived from these data if the drill stem
test is properly engineered. Fluids being produced (oil, gas or water),
the characteristics of that fluid, the potential of production, permeability,
formation damage, andi geological anomolies can all be defined.
Most important is the fact that this is the only evaluation service
which can be run in open hole and can identify formation characteristics
distant from the well bore.
The drill stem test should also be considered as part of total eval-
uation which includes geology, core analysis and logging, to mention only
the major services.
The drill stem test of today, with the advent of new tools and progress
made in interpretation, can be engineered following basic guide lines to
furnish the maximum data with the maximum safety of the well and mini-
mum rig time investment.
Field examples are presented in the appendix to illustrate the for-

mation parameters which can be evaluated from a properly engineered test,
*Now Consulting Engineer
-l-
-__
INTRODUCTION
A drill stem test conducted under open hole conditions is often

defined as a temporary completion. The formation data available from
a drill stem test are obtained under dynamic conditions because formation
fluid is produced during the test. The other formation evaluation services,
such as logging, obtain data for estimating formation parameters under
static conditions. The fluid and pressure data obtained from a properly
conducted drill stem test can be used to reach a correct decision in
regards to the economic feasibility of completing the well.
The drill stem test provides only a portion of the data which is
normally available for evaluation of a formation. Other data are avail-
able from geological studies, drilling information, cores, logs, and
other miscellaneous sources. It is pointed out that the drill stem test
is the only evaluation device which can furnish data regarding the forma-
tion at a considerable distance from the well bore.
To obtain full return on investment in this service, the drill stem

test must be engineered in the same fashion as logging services. The
modern tools available today give us the opportunity to derive maximum
benefit from fluid and pressure data without impairing the safety of the
well and with minimum rig time investment.
FLUID INFORMATION
Information on the type and volume of fluid produced during the

drill stem test can be grouped into three categories:
1. Surface Information
Wells producing at the surface will provide flow informa-

tion through the use of proper chokes. In addition, the
use of separators and tanks can give us precise informa-
tion as to gas/oil ratio and water production.
2. Drill Pipe Information
The majority of the tests do not produce to the surface,

and it 1s customary to study the recovery in the drill pipe
either by reversing out the produced fluid or by evaluating
the recovery while pulling out of the hole.
Outside of the amount of liquid recovery, other data are

mostly qualititative, and are often defined in such terms
as muddy water, gas and oil cut mud, etc. Gas recovery
on a well that does not flow to the surface is, at best,
an educated guess.
- 2-
3. Sampler Recovery
Modern drill stem testing tools are equipped with a

sampler which traps a sample of the flowing fluid at the
bottom of the hole at the end of the final flow period.
The sampler is brought to the surface under pressure

where it can be drained and analysed resulting in the
followi:ng basic data:
OBTAINABLE DATA
I. BASIC DATA NORMALLY OBTAINED II. BASIC DATA WHICH CAN BE

IN THE FIELD OBTAINED IN THE FIELD
1. Gas/oil ratio (By special request and

2. Gravity of oil/API supply of necessary
Specific gravity* equipment by operator)
3. Reservoir temperature
4. Reservoir pressure
5. PPM chloride from recovered 8. Viscosity (liquid)
water by titration 9. Gas gravity
6. Resistivity of recovered water
7. Gas/water ratio
* By conversion from
API gravity
PRESSURE INFORMATION 0
Down hole pressure recorders are an integral part of the testing
string . They are positioned below the control valve to record pressure
during the flow and shut-in periods.
The pressure cha:rts can be read accurately with special readers

and the build-up can be interpreted using the Horner method of analysis.
- 3 -
-
SPWLA TENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, MAY 2528, 1969
In an “infinite” and homogenous ideal reservoir the following

information can be obtained from the test data and Horner Plot: (Shown
in Fig. 1)
1. Reservoir pressure
2. Flowing pressure and rate of flow
3. Estimated damage ratio
4. Effective transmissibility
5. Potentiometric surface
In combination with log, core and fluid information
6. Damage ratio
7. Effective permeability of the zone
8. Radius of investigation
LARGE HOMOGENEOUS
RESERVOIR
I M
Fig. 1
-4-
CENTERED FINITE RESERVOIR EXCENTERED FINITE RESERVOIR

Fig 2 Fig 3
In many reservoirs discontinu-

FAULTS
ities exist within the radius of inves-
l - tigation of the test and these discon-
tinuities can be detected on the
Horner Plot of the build-up.
In the case of sealing discon-

.. - tinuities two basic cases are recog-
a /
/ -------------- nized:
IO logT+8 -
8 1. A sealing barrier limiting
b - <q
the reservoir and the
“d” CAN BE CALCULATED ? resulting typical build-up 0
6.I
.:
i are shown on Fig. 2 and
Fig. 3 depending upon
the location of the well
within the reservoir.
2. A sealing barrier such as

fault is shown in Fig. 4
and the distance from the
fault to the well bore can
Fig 4 be calculated.
- 5-
-
Discontinuities in porosity, permeability, fluid distribution or

formation thickness are often present within a reservoir. These discon-
tinuities have a predictable affect on the Horner Plot and examples are
shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.
CHANGE
OF
PERMEABlLll
Fig 5 Fia 6
- 6 -
Under Fig. 5, I and II ,, the economics of completing the zone can be

evaluated. In III, additional geological data, detailed fluid analysis
and logging information will be needed to identify this fluid discon-
tinuity and to reach a decision for completion. Under Fig. 6, I and II
are a clear indication of possible improvement of production through
s ti.mulation . In III and in the case of water production other formation
evaluation services wi.11 be needed to decide the next step required to
reach the gas, and careful analysis of the sample will help in identi-
fying the condition. In III with oil production the gas/oil ratio will be
an indicator.
A test interval that contains two zones with different character-

istics will yield build--up plots as indicated by Fig. 7 and Fig. 8.
I I
IO T+8
NIT
Fig 8
- 7 -
-
It is difficult to identify the various discontinuities that exist

with a single pressure build-up. Data from a properly engineered test
along with logging data are necessary to determine the true character-
istics of a reservoir.
ENGINEERING OF THE TEST
Modern dril 1 stem testing equipment makes available additional

information which is the key to the engineering of the test.
The control valve in the testing string is operated by up and down

motion. A change from flow to shut-in or vice versa is effected by
lifting the drill pipe until a free point is observed on the weight indi-
cator on the rig. The pressure existing below the control valve is
reflected in the observed free point. A change in pressure results in a
change in the buoyancy of the test string and in a free point that corre-
sponds with the pressure within the test interval. By knowing the
hydraulics of the control valve, it is possible to calculate the approxi-
mate pressure in the test interval at each manipulation of the valve.
This telepressure information will play a decisive role in the selection
of subsequent flow and shut-in times.
The weight indicator reading will also indicate differential

sticking of the string above the test tool, if it exists. This information
will be used to avoid problems and possible costly fishing jobs, thus
improving greatly the safety of the testing operation.
ENGINEERING FOR FLUID INFORMATION
We have mentioned the importance of the sample recovered at the

end of the final flow period. It is recognized that formation fluid must
be flowing through the sampler at the time it is closed to obtain a
representative fluid sample. When a fast decreasing blow is apparent,
it is recommended that the flow period cease, and the tool closed before
the well dies. If a well dies during the flow period, this could give an
erroneous interpretatian of the sample due to segregation in the string
and the following build-up will be of no value for interpretation.
Whenever need for complete information on the fluid recovery is

anticipated, it is suggested that two samplers be run in series. One can
be drained on the rig floor for field evaluation and the other can be
shipped to a laboratory for complete analysis.
In flowing wells it is recommended that changing chokes during the

flow period be done with discretion because the resulting build-up will be
affected if drastic changes in flow rate occur during the test. When a well
is flowing water to the surface the flow period should be maintained long
- a -
enough to allow for obtaining an uncontaminated sample in the chamber.

This sample can be of significant value for log analysis.
ENGINEERING FOR PRESSUREINFORMATION
In engineering for pressure information we are faced with problems

very similar to logging. It is possible to compare the flow period to the
current electrodes source and the shut-in period to the measuring spacing
of a logging tool. We can also compare the after flow effect into the well
bolre to the well bore effect on logging techniques and the formation
damage to invasion.
The length of the flow period will influence the radius of penetra-
tion of the pressure transient and will act more or less as a change in
spacing of the current electrodes. Length of the shut-in, in the same
manner, will influence the radius of investigation and should be long
enough to reflect all information generated during the flow period.
By keeping the initial flow short, in contrast with the subsequent

long flow periods, we will improve the interpretation and eliminate error
as to the characteristics of the formation which could be present in a
single flow and shut-in or successive flow and shut-in periods of near
equal time. This compares to the use of dual spacing logging tools.
,,+/’
FSI
TWO SHUT- IN TWO SHUT- IN

0
-TWO ZONES-
- DISCONTINUITY-
Fig 9
- 9 -
On Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 we have illustrated the difference between

tests involving radial discontinuities and multiple zone interference.
In regards to the after flow and formation damage which can mask
pressure data reflecting the matrix of the zone tested, it was shown in
“Detection of Deep Formation ‘Damage”’ that extra long shut-ins will
eliminate this problem. A review of the tests run by our company during
1968 shows a large improvement in the number of tests interpretable due
to increased shut-in time. There is also no indication of increased diffi-
culties in sticking of the tools. The use of telepressure indicators has
certainly helped greatly in avoiding many problems.
We have taken advantage of this experience to develop a more

complete system for engineering a drill stem test as shown in Fig. 11.
Low Telepressure
Initial Shut-
1 In Final Flow Final Shut- In
Final Shut- In CASE II

3-4 Hours
Good Telepressure
Low Telepressure
Final Flow Final Shut-h
30 Mins. to TDesired 3f Min.
STRONG BLOW Initial Shut-In 2ndFlow \

EndShut-In
I_
3-5 Mins. 90 Mins. 30Mins.
-
60 Mins.
CASE I I I
Good Telepressuref
Finol Flow Final Shut-In
30Mins. to TDesired 9OMins. or 2T Min.
Ir Good Te lepressum
Fig II
It should be noted that in all cases we have increased our require-

ment to at least one long shut-in. In Case I, we will have the possibility
to differentiate between a low permeability zone and a zone with low per-
meability extending some distance from the well bore. During the after
flow period the radius of investigation is still increasing and valid informa-
tion can be obtained from the extended shut-in time. Most of the time in
- 10 -
Case I, the initial shut-in will be of little value for interpretation. In

Case II, often the initial shut-in is valid but the extended second shut-in
will give us the opportunity to detect anomalies which exist at a con-
siderable distance from the well bore. Case III should give us a very
interpretable test. The extended final shut-in will, in the case of
depletion of a limited high permeability zone near the well bore, permit
us to detect a zone of low permeability away from the well bore or the
permeability of the matrix when dealing with fractured reservoirs. This
situation is illustrated in Fig. 12.
VERY LOW
‘ERMEABILITY
/
I VER? HIGH
PERMEABlLlTl
0
Up to now we have considered the part of the pressure recording

involving the build-up period. The flow pressure recording should also
be analysed carefully since it will reflect the amount of fluid being pro-
duced and often the type of fluid. Changes in rate of pressure increase
can indicate changes from filtrate flow to gas, or a reduction of flow rate
confirming possible depletion. These changes will in many cases affect
the interpretation of the build-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Drill stem testing today, with the advent of new tools and progress
made in interpretation, can be engineered similarly to logging techniques,
following basic guide lines, to furnish the maximum data with the maximum
safety of the well and minimum rig time investment .
The importance of using drill stem testing as part of the total forma-
tion evaluation program is now a reality and the information recovered is
playing a significant role in the decision to complete a well and in the
planning of subsequent drilling.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance and data provided

by many petroleum industry personnel. Permission by Johnston to publish
this paper is also gratefully acknowledged.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Horner, D. R.: Pressure Build-Up in Wells, Proceedings Third World

Petroleum Congress Section II
2. J. A. McAlister, Jr., B. P. Nutter , M. Lebourg: A New System For

Better Control and Interpretation of Drill Stem Tests, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, February 1965
3. Johnston Testers 1964 Review of Basic Formation Evaluation
4. Johnston Testers 1965 Review of Tele-Pressure Recording
5. M. Lebourg , A. T. Campbell, E. J. Witterholt: Detection of Deep

Formation “Damage”, SPWLA Seventh Annual Logging Symposium 1967
6. Pressure Analysis Methods, No. 9 Petroleum Transactions Reprint

Series, S.P.E.
7. C. S. Matthews, D. G. Russell: Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests

in Wells, S. P.E. Monograph Volume 1
- 12 -
APPENDIX I
Examples are presented to illustrate the advantages of engineering

a drill stem test for maximum recovery of data.
To classify these examples we have used the three cases covered

in the guide lines given for conducting a test.
In each case a :poorly conducted test is shown to illustrate the

contrast of data acquired with a properly engineered test for the same
expense to the customer.
Case I
(a) Poorly engineered test

Properly engineered test - discontinuity
:;C Properly engineered test - low permeability
Case II

(b) Properly engineered test - discontinuity
(4 Properly engineered test - low permeability
Case III

(b) Properly engineered test - discontinuity
(4 Properly engineered test - homogenous reservoir
We have also included field examples to illustrate geological data

obtained from properly engineered drill stem tests.
(a) Fault
(b) Limited reservoir depletion 0
(c) Two zones in test interval
- 13 -
‘CASE I (a)
POORLY ENGINEERED TEST
The initial flow period indicated low blow at the surface, and the
pressure at the end of the intial shut-in was definitely low from telepres-
sure surface indications.
To save rig time, a short final shut-in was run, resulting in a

pressure plot giving no information what-so-ever for the evaluation of the
zone.
The sample recovery indicates the presence of gas, however, due

to lack of information on the zone, the potential cannot be evaluated.
Return on investment: Zero
LOW TELEPRESSURE
4 Mins. 29 Mins. / 136 Minr. 60 Mins.
I
INITIAL FL% INITIAL SHUT- IN FlNAL FLOW FINAL SHUT- IN
MULTI-FLOW EVALUATOR PRESSURE RECORDER

FLUID SAMPLE DATA CHART
;fegEg 1 50 P.S.I.G. at Surface

Recovery:
Cu. Ft. Gas 1.00
cc.
Oil
cc. Water
cc. Mud - ( TRACE
Tot. Liquid cc. -

Gravity - OAPl @ - OF.
Gas/Oil Ratio - CU. ft./bbl.
RESISTIVIP~ %LNopEK
Recovery
Water ‘@- - OFAPPrn
RECOVER
Mud ‘@- - OF.
Filtrat/@_ - “F .-ppm
T;;;;t .25 @- 47 oF.

.21 56 oF 24000
Filtrate--@_ .-ppm
) -TIME
- 14 -
Reservoir Engineering Data
Estimated Damage Ratio

EDR
MaximumReservoir Pressure
PO
Slope of Shut-in Curve

M
Potcntiomctric Surface
(Datum Plane, Sea Level) PS
Productivity Index
PI
Radius of Investigation
T+At
At
- 15 -
CASE I (b)
WELL ENGINEERED TEST - DISCONTINUITY
The initial flow period indicated small blow at the surface, the
pressure at the end of the initial shut-in was low.
By using an engineered procedure for the subsequent flow and shut-

in period, good shut-in pressure was obtained indicating a discontinuity and
the presence of improved permeability.
The sampler indicated gas production, however, economic eval-

uation of the zone from the tes,t was recognized as not profitable.
LOW TELEPRESSURE
5 Mins. 60 Mins. 121 Mins. 179 Mins.
I_/
INITIAL FLOW INITIAL SHUT-IN FINAL FLOW FINAL SHUT-IN

ggg: 100 P.S.I.G. at Surface

Recovery:
Cu. Ft. Gas 0‘7
tt. Oil
cc. Water
ct. Mud 1100
lot. Liquid cc. 1100
Gravity “API @ - OF.
RESISTIVITY CdHoLNoTREK
Recovery
Water ‘@’ oF.Lppm
&ovew 1 o+@ - 68 0F.

Filtrate ’ o+@??-°F_!.?%ppm
g$,:; 3.4@
--. 70 OF
Filtrate 3 l 2@&oF-%%ppm
-TIME
- 16 -
Gas Reservoir Engineerhg Data
Estimated Damage Ratio / Effective lknrmisribility Kh Md-ft.

EDR 2.28 29.51 Cp
I
GAS -7
Maximum Reservoir Pretrurt p0 Flow Rate GAS
1993 P3.I.G. Q* 10.9 MCF/Day
Slope of Shut-in Curve Flow Rote
% 366OOOPSl’/log cycle Q
Potentiomotric Surface Flow Rate
(Datum Plane, scd Level) ” ~ 5739 ft. Q
I Radius of Investigation
t-
I II ft. II K (Effective to GAS ) 1 ,044 Md.
4200
3800
2600
1800
0
1400
P d b L
T+At
At
- 17 -
CASE I (c)
WELL ENGINEERED TEST - LOW PERMEABILITY
A weak blow at the surface during the initial flow and a low pressure
at the end of the initial shut-in influenced the engineering of the remaining of
the test.
From the good final shut-in recorded it was possible to confirm the
low permeability of the reservoir and reach the decision that completion
would not be commercial.
,LOW TELEPRESSUW
IO Mins. 60 Mins. 135 Mins. 273 Mins.
I

g$;E& 4 75 P.S.I.G. at Surface

Recovery;
Cu. Ft. Gas 2.6
cc. Oil 540
cc. Water
cc. Mud 220 (OIL CUT1
Tot. Liquid cc. 760

lz*au;ty - OAPI Q - OF.
Gas/Oil Ratio - cu. ft./bbl.
RESISTIVITY :%%&L=
Recovery
Water- -@- - OFLrmm
Recovery
Mud -@- - “F.
Filtrate--l@_ - “F Lppm
:::;:t .80@ 68 OF.

Filtrate--@- - oFEppm
- 18 -
Estimated Damage Ratio

EDR
Maximum Reservoir Pressure

PO

M
Potcntiometric Surface
Productivity Index
PI
4000
3500
-
4
2
3000 f
2500
2000
0
I500
T+b.t
nt
- 19 1
SPWLA TENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, MAY 2528, 1969
CASE II (a)
POOR LY ENGINEER ED TEST
Weak initial blow during the initial flow period, but good pressure at
the end of the initial shut-in.
The final shut-in was definitely not engineered and too short, result-
ing in a test, with no information from pressure build-up.
Due to the presence of hydrocarbons in the sampler decision was

reached to retest this zone follow&g an engineered procedure.( See test
CASE II (b)
GOODTELEPRESSURE
12 Mina 59 Mins. / 59 Mins. 60 Mins.
r

Sampler 150
PRL%5U~~ P.S.I.G. at Surface
Recovery;
Cu. Ft. Gas
.5
cc.Oil 300
cc.Water 600
cc.Mud
Tot. Liquid cc.
900
Sravity 39.2 o,xP,
e 60 OF.
Gas/Oil Ratio 265 cu. ft./bbl.
RESISTIVITY CcHoLNopElNDTE
$:pry .20 n 70 o~.38000,,~,,,

%FFry - @-OF.
Filtrate - @‘OF- -porn

!%~p~k.%_@~=‘F.
Filtrate l28 @ 70 oF26000ppm

-TIME
- 20 -
Estimated Damage Ratio Effective f ransmissibility Md.ft.

EDR F
? cp.
Maximum Reservoir Pressure Effective Transmissibility H!_
P. ? P.S.I.G.
WB %! P
M PSI/log cycle Q Bbl./day
?
Patentiomctric Surface Flow Rate
(Datum Plane, See Level) PS ? ft. Q ‘Bbl./day
Productivity Index Gos Oil Ratio

PI ? Bbl./day/Psl GOR CF,‘BbI.
Radius of Investigation ? ft. K (Effective to ) ? Md.

2600
2400
1800
1600
8 r
d m c
T+At
At
- 21 -
CASE II (b)
This is an engineered test of the previous attempt. The good final

shut-in disclosed from the Horner plot a discontinuity and the presence of
improved transmissibility away from the well bore.
The well was completed and stimulated giving commercial product-

ion. Engineering of the test permitted the reaching of the correct decision.
GOOD TELEPRESSURE
16 Mins. 92 Mins. / 58 Mins. 239 hlins.
I
INITIAL FLOW INITIAL SHUT-IN FINAL FLOW FINAL SHUT- IN

Sampler 80
Pressure P.S.I.G. at Surface
Recovery:
Cu. Ft. Gas ,47
ct. Oil 570
CC.Water
cc. Mud 360 (50s WATFR_
Tot. Liquid CC.+

Grsvity 3 7 8,
l :~PI BJ QF.
Gas/Oil Ratio cu. ft./bbl.
RESISTIVITY %LNopElNDTE
Recovery
Water_@ :°F.-ppm
Euyvew .26 @__%-OF.
Filtrat,~@60°F.~pPm
$$$;t ,35 $$ 70 OF.

FiltrateA 28, 70 OF26000ppm
--TIME
- 22 -

Effective Transmissibility
TOTAL LIQUID
!5!!_
PB
72 -83 F P
Effective Transmissibility I& Md-ft.
.I*B CP.
Flow Rate
P 118 Bbl./day
““‘OS cyc’e TOTAL LIQUID
Flow Rote
Q BblJday
G$$; R”t&Fr sAMplEfiOR I44 CF/BbI.
Radius al Investigation 83 ft. K (Effective toT(SI;AL LIQUID ) 6.94 Md.
(3000
-2800
2600
2400
7
(?
3
Ii
2200 $
Lz
I800
0
1600
d ui d m
T+ At
At
- 23 -
CASE II (c)
WELL ENGINEERED TEST - LOW PERMEABILITY
The initial flow period indicated a small blow of gas to surface,

the pressure at the end of the initial shut-in was good.
Good engineering of the test at this point resulted in a final pressure

build-up confirming the low permeability of the zone. It was possible from
the test to reach the decision that the zone could not be economic to complete.
GOOD TELEPRESSWZE
5 Mills. 60 Mins. / 60 Mins. 183 hlins.
PRESSURERECORDER
MULTI-FLOW EVALUATOR
Sampler 220
Pr.ZZ.SUr.3 P.S.I.G. at Surface
Recovery;
Cu. Ft. Gas
1.80
13ll
I L”
cc. Oil
cc. Water 300
cc. Mud 430
Tot. Liquid cc. 850
Gravity., ,, - oAPl@ - OF.
RESISTIVIM CcHoRlNDTE
Recovery 11
Water& @70 ‘JF.m!$pm
Recovery
Mud -@‘OF.
Filtrate-L@-°F .Lppm
&;,y;t- 1 .8, - 66 OF
.
FiltrateA@ oFmOOC)npm
-TIME
- 24 -
Estimated Damage Ratio Effective Transmissibility Kb @

EDR 0.50 LIQUID 5.39 cp.
B
Maximum Reservoir Pressure Effective Transmissibility &i-f&
P0 2885 P.S.I.G. !k
P” LP.
M LIQUID Q 40 Bbl./doy
Potentiometric Surface Flow Rate

(Datum Plane, Sea Level) PS Q BblJday
Productivity Index
PI Gas Oil Ratio GOR CF/BbI.
I II I
Radius of Investigation I2 ft. K (Effective to LIQUID ) 0.053 Md.
T+ At
At
- 25 -
CASE III (a)
POOR LY ENGINEER ED TEST
The initial flow indicated a strong blow at the surface, and good
telepressure was our indication of a good’initial shut-in.
At the end of the second shut-in there was a clear indication of a

lower pressure. The test proceeded with a long final flow period and a
final shut-in which proved to be too short for accurate interpretation.
While the initial test could have, if well engineered, confirmed the
existence of a limited reservoir, a retest will be necessary to confirm this
discontinuity and this would result in additional expenditure.
/GOOD TELEPRESSURE /LOW TELEFRESSURE

15 Mins 64 Mhs. # 122 Mills. 202 Mm. 383 Mins.
INITIAL SECOND FINAL FINAL

‘!zkL SHUT- IN z%Y SHUT-IN FLOW SHUT- IN
PRESSURE RECORDER
CHART
FLUID SAMPLE DATA
sp;gig 3 00 P.S.I.G. at Surface

Recovery:
Cu. Ft. Gas
2.2
cc. Oil
cc. Water -
cc. Mud
Tot. Liquid cc. -
CrsuiW - OAPI @I - CF.

RESISTIVITV %u%lNDTE
Recovery
Water/@ :OF.:ppm
kzvery - @- - OF.
- 26 -
Gas Rocarvoir Enginssrimng Data
age Ratio Effective Transmissibility Kh Md-ft.

EDR 10.39 s;r 30
GAS CP.
voir Pressure P Flow Rate
0 6289 P.S.I.G. Q, 535 MCF/Day
GAS
of Shut-in Curve Flow Rate
4 l888OCOPSl’/log cycle Q
Potentiomctric Surface Flow Rate
(Datum Plane, Sea Level) PS - ft. Q
1 Radius of Investigation 113 ft. II K (Effective toGAS ) IO.007 Md.
48000
42000
36000
F
c
24000 Nj
i
ae
18000
6000
P m L
Tf At
At
- 27 -
-
CASE III (b)
The initial flow indicated a very strong blow and fluid at the surface,
the initial shut-in gave good telepressure indication.
The second shut-in indicated a slightly lower telepressure and the

decision was reached to plan a long final shut-in.
The resulting plot from the final shut-in and the initial shut-in
information gives a clear indication of low and very high permeability
zones producing into the well bore. There is also indication of depletion
in the higher permeability zones and the disclosure of a low permeability
matrix. While only an approximate value can be given on this matrix
permeability, the decision could be made to complete the zone.
GOOD TELEPRESSURE SLIGHTLY LWXEASNG TEIBRESSIJRE

16 Mins. 62 Mlns. J 58 Mins 62 Mins. / 360 Mills. 674 kilns.
IO
INITIAL FLOW INITIAL SECOND FINAL
SHUT- IN “%? SHUT-IN SHUT-IN

I I
;;g$: 2800 P.S.I.G. at Surface
RaCOVery:
Cu. Ft. Gas
24.75
cc. Oil
80
cc. water
cc. Mud
Tot. Liquid CC
80
,Gravity - “API @ - OF.
RESISTIVIM CdnoLNoTRElNDTE
ka$J$e’y
-.___.Z@_QF. :ppm
Recovery
Mud - @-OF.
Filtrate 2@:°F.-ppm
Mud Pit
Sample- LOF.
Filtrated:78 oF.mppm
-TIME
- 28 -
GOS Ramwoir En&oaring Data
Estimated Damage Ratio Effective Tranrmirribllity Kh Md.h.

EDR ?
?;r ? cp.
Maximum Reservoir Pressure p Flow Rate
0 5918 P.S.I.G. GAS Q, 7470 MCF/Day
Slop0 of Shut-in Curve
*, ? PS12/log cycle F’ow Ra’s Q
Potantiomrtric Surfaco Flow Rate
(Datum Plane, Sea Level) ” .;) ft. Q
Radius of Invortigation F ft. K (Effectiveto ) ? Md.

J
oem
L
h m lo * m N c
T+ At
At
- 29 -
-
CASE III (c)
WELL ENGINEERED TEST - HOMOGENEOUS RESERVOIR
In all flow periods strong blow was observed and telepressure indi-
cation remained consistent during the successive shut-in.
Times for each phase of the test were well engineered and resulted
in. a classic plot of a large homogeneous formation.
From the test, all parameters identifying the fluid and the formation
could be evaluated and the well was completed with all information required
available.
5 Mins. 180 Mins.
INITIAL INITIAL SECOND FINAL FINAL

FLOW SHUT-IN s:hYD SHUT-l N FLOW SHUT-IN

I I
Sampler
pressure 845 P.S.I.G. at Surface
Recovery:
Cu. Ft. Gas
2.70
cc. Oil 1600
ct. water
tt. Mud
I
Tot. Liquid cc.
1600
Gravity
39.6 OAPl @ 60 OF.
Gas/Oil Ratio
268 cu. ft./bbl.
RESISTIVIN %l%lNDTE
Recovew _
Water- @- - OF .-ppm
Recovery
Mud -@- - “F.
Filtrate -@_ - OF .Appm
F;Ap7;t 5.1 @-. 70 OF
Filtrate-
4.8. _
7o OF. 850 ppm
- 30 -
Estimated Damclgc Ratio

EDR
Maximum Rcrervoir Pressure p,

M
Potentiometris Surface
Productivity Index
PI
2180
2140
2060
1980
1940
0
1900
omm Ir m u) d m b
T+ At
At
- 31 -
FIELD EXAMPLE (a)
FAULT
This is a water test, and by engineering the flcawand shut-in

period, valuable geological information was recovered.
The presence of the fault apparent on both second and final shut-
in can be used effectively in planning further drilling exploration. The
fault .was calculated to be approximately 160’ from the well.
In this case,
information from other formation evaluation services
and the test’s results permitted to reach the decision not to proceed with
further exploration of this zone.
3 Mins.
INITIAL SECOND FINAL

‘El~L SHUT- IN “B? SHUT- IN ‘:E SHUT- IN
PRESSURE RECORDER
$Jg; 500 P.S.I.G. at Surface

Pecovery!
0.3 A
F r-l-9r
Cu. Ft. Gas
cc.Oil
cc. Water
2340
CC.
Mud
Tot. Liquid CC.
2340
A
;ravity OAPI @ - OF. 1
!
LttcL&@
RESISTIVITV CcHoLNopElNDTE
__JX_~F._._23X~plll
C
P Ii
kYry -@- - OF.
Filtrat/@L°Fp
~&73_&?64~F.
3Pm d
I c
Filtrate 2 * 6@64oFspm
-TIME
- 32 -
Estimated Damage Ratio Effective Transm$ii$ $ Md.ft

EDR 2.90 3555 cp
Maximum Reservoir Pressure Effective Transmissibility
PO 4655 P.S.I.G. xh
PB ?+k P
Slope of Shut-in Curve Flow Rate
M, 59 PSI/log cycle WATER Q 1290 Bbl./dw
I II I
Radius of Investigation 612 h. K (Effective to WATER 1 178 hid.
4720
4680
4640
4520
4480
0
P * m N c
T+At
nt
- 33 -
-
FIELD EXAMPLE (b)
LIMITED RESERVOIR DEPLETION
This is a well engineered test. The flow and shut-in times were
well planned and the resulting pressure plots give a well confirmed indica-
tion of a limited reservoir and depletion of the zone.
While this is a water test, the same information can be obtained

from an initial test with oil or gas production.
GOOD TELERRESSLIRE
3 Mins. 61 Mins. / 30 Mine. 90 Mlns. 180 Mills.
INITIAL SECOND FINAL FINAL

‘$I# SHUT- IN %zD SHUT- I N FLOW SHUT- IN
PRESSURE RECORDER
CHART
FLUID SAMPLE DATA
;;;t$ 1050 P.S.I.G. at Surface

Recovery; 4.05
Cu. Ft. Gas
ct.Oil
1060
tt.Water
CC.Mud
1060
Tot. Liquid CC.
Gravity - OAPI @ - OF.

RESISTIVITY CcHoLNdpElNDTE
kXY_Q@68~F*3100ppm
R~COWW
Mud -@I- - “F.
Filtrate ---z@- - “F .-“pm
&$; 208~ 64 ='F.
Filtrate’ 2 4@__@_oF._%&ppm
L ,
- 34 -
Reservoir Engineering boto

Effective Transmissibility xh Md-ft.
TOTAL LIQUID 34.6
PB CP.
Effective Transmissibility !a_ Md-ft.
PB CP.
Slope of Shut-in Curve Flow Rate
PSI/log Cycle TO-,.&_ L,QU,D Q 260 Bbl./day
Flow Rate
Q Bbl./day
Gas Oil Ratio
0.0933 Bbl./d.y/PsI G~R CF/Bbl.
Radius of Investigation K (Effective to LlQlJlD ) I .57 Md.
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
0
b&oirldY; 1500
c P m N
T+At
at
- 35 -
- -
FIELD EXAMPLE (c)
TWO ZONES IN TEST INTERVAL
This example is given to illustrate the interpretation of two zones

producing within the test interval.
On both the initial shut-in with very short radius of investigation

and the final shut-in with a larger radius we see indication of discontinui-
ties in the build-up, clearly indicating the two zones involved.
The test interval was subsequently logged and the two zones were
identified.
In this case, only very approximate parameters can be calculated.

Good evaluation can be obtained only by retesting those zones separately
and applying the test guide line,
GCIODTELEPRESURE
I .5 Mins. 66 Mins. A- 57 Mins. 132 Mins.
I-
GOOD BLOW

Sampler
Pressure 610 P.S.I.G. at Surface
Recovery;
Cu. Ft. Gaa
5.4
cc. Oil
cc. Water 10 ( OIL CUT
cc. Mud
Tot. Liquid CC.
10
Zravity QAPI @ - OF.

#IL&#);
RESISTIVIN
Recovery
tiater-@-‘Fp - wm
zzvery - @-OF.
FiltrateI@-°F.-PPm
$$ 2.3 e 63 OF.
16
Filtrate~@-°F.----PPm 62 700
- 36 -
Gas Reservoir Engineering Data
Estimated Damage Ratio Et~~~~o’Xlm’M:!IIibility t$ 6862 cp.

Md-ft
Maximum Reservoir Pressure Flow Rote GAS Q, 1600 MCF/Day
Slope of Shut-in Curve Flow Rat;

(APPROX.) Q
Potentiometric Surface Flow Rote

(Datum Plane, Sea Level) Q
Radius of Investigation 1, K (Effective to ) - Md.
300
z
6
:
d
I-
200 ;
::
2
0.
100
- 37 -
SPWLA TENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, MAY X-28, 1969
APPENDIX II
SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS & DIMENSIONS
B Formation Volume Factor vol./vol.

BO PD Barrels Oil Per Day
C Fluid Compres sibility vol./vol./psi
DR Damage Ratio
DST Drill Stem Test or similar formation test
EDR Estimated Damage Ratio
OF Degrees Fahrenheit
FSI Final Shut-in (generally pressure) Psig
h Formation thickne s s ft.
IS1 Initial Shut-in (generally pressure) P-Q-
k Permeability md
kh md ft
4B Transmissibility Factor CP
M Horner plot slope constant (Liquid) psi/log cycle
MCFPD Thousand cubic feet per day
Horner plot slope constant (Gas) psi2/log cycle
? Pre s sure psig
Pf Formation pressure at flow time T psig
PF Final flow pressure of DST psig
PO
Maximum reservoir pre s sure psig
PI Productivity Index BOPD/psi
PS Potentiometric Surface ft.
q Fluid flow rate c.c./sec.
Q Fluid flow rate STBOPD
QA Actual rate of flow STBOPD
MCF PD
Q, Gas rate of flow
Theoretical rate of flow STBOPD
QT
ra Radius to discontinuity ft.
li Radius of investigation ft.
rw Radius of well bore inches
SW Water Saturation fractional
T Flow time min., hr. or day
Tf Formation Temperature OR
Gas deviation factor
(mu) Fluid viscosity centipoise
” (phi) porosity fractional
0 (theta) shut-in time min., hr. or days
- 38 -
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
M.LEiBOURG
M. LEBOURGreceiveda M.E. degreefrom Ecole WationaleArts ET Metiers,

Paris,Francein 1932 and an EE degreefrom Ecole SuperieureD'Electricite,
Paris,France in 1933. In 1934 he was employedby Societede Prospection
Electrique-Schlumberger,Paris,France,as DesignEngineerin the Engineering
Departmentuntil transferringto SchlumbergerWell SurveyingCorporation
in 11936,
becomingDirectorof Engineering, Mechanical& ProductionEngineering
Departments. In 1962 he transferredto JohnstonTestersas ExecutiveVice
Preskdent.
Mr. Lebourgis a memberof AIME, API, ASM, and SPWLA,
- 39 -

1969 o

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1969 o

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SPWLA TENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, MAY 25-28, 1969

(This is a pre-print, subject to correction.)

ENGINEERING OF DRILL STEM TESTING

Drill stem testing is often described as a temporary completion in

Formation fluid is recovered during a drill stem test, and in addition,

Field examples are presented in the appendix to illustrate the for-

*Now Consulting Engineer

A drill stem test conducted under open hole conditions is often

To obtain full return on investment in this service, the drill stem

Information on the type and volume of fluid produced during the

Wells producing at the surface will provide flow informa-

2. Drill Pipe Information

The majority of the tests do not produce to the surface,

Outside of the amount of liquid recovery, other data are

Modern drill stem testing tools are equipped with a

The sampler is brought to the surface under pressure

I. BASIC DATA NORMALLY OBTAINED II. BASIC DATA WHICH CAN BE

1. Gas/oil ratio (By special request and

The pressure cha:rts can be read accurately with special readers

In an “infinite” and homogenous ideal reservoir the following

2. Flowing pressure and rate of flow

3. Estimated damage ratio

In combination with log, core and fluid information

7. Effective permeability of the zone

CENTERED FINITE RESERVOIR EXCENTERED FINITE RESERVOIR

In many reservoirs discontinu-

In the case of sealing discon-

2. A sealing barrier such as

Discontinuities in porosity, permeability, fluid distribution or

Under Fig. 5, I and II ,, the economics of completing the zone can be

A test interval that contains two zones with different character-

It is difficult to identify the various discontinuities that exist

ENGINEERING OF THE TEST

Modern dril 1 stem testing equipment makes available additional

The control valve in the testing string is operated by up and down

The weight indicator reading will also indicate differential

ENGINEERING FOR FLUID INFORMATION

We have mentioned the importance of the sample recovered at the

Whenever need for complete information on the fluid recovery is

In flowing wells it is recommended that changing chokes during the

enough to allow for obtaining an uncontaminated sample in the chamber.

ENGINEERING FOR PRESSUREINFORMATION

In engineering for pressure information we are faced with problems

By keeping the initial flow short, in contrast with the subsequent

TWO SHUT- IN TWO SHUT- IN

On Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 we have illustrated the difference between

We have taken advantage of this experience to develop a more

Final Shut- In CASE II

STRONG BLOW Initial Shut-In 2ndFlow \

It should be noted that in all cases we have increased our require-

Case I, the initial shut-in will be of little value for interpretation. In

Up to now we have considered the part of the pressure recording

The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance and data provided

1. Horner, D. R.: Pressure Build-Up in Wells, Proceedings Third World

2. J. A. McAlister, Jr., B. P. Nutter , M. Lebourg: A New System For

3. Johnston Testers 1964 Review of Basic Formation Evaluation

4. Johnston Testers 1965 Review of Tele-Pressure Recording

5. M. Lebourg , A. T. Campbell, E. J. Witterholt: Detection of Deep

6. Pressure Analysis Methods, No. 9 Petroleum Transactions Reprint

7. C. S. Matthews, D. G. Russell: Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests

Examples are presented to illustrate the advantages of engineering

To classify these examples we have used the three cases covered