Well Test Analysis

Course Lead: Prof. M. Jamiolahmady

Examination Paper- Questions
Attempt only one part of questions 1 to 3 and all questions 6 to 9.

1A) Draw the schematic dimensionless pressure drop and flow rate (qr/qw) versus
dimensionless radius (r/rw) for semi-steady state and steady state when both flow regimes are
producing at the same constant wellbore flow rate (qw) but with different pressure drawdown
and discuss their differences. (8)
A1A) Figure 20 of Chapter 1 and related text, i.e., SS has a constant flow rate whilst flow rate
of SSS accumulates from zero to its maximum value at the wellbore due expansion of fluid.
Both SS and SSS pressure drop values are significant and similar near the wellbore but overall
drawdown is greater for SS flow because the well production passes unchanged through the whole
radial zone whilst for the SSS it accumulates between external and wellbore to give the same flow rate
at the wellbore.

1B) In the context of welltest analysis, why has shape factor been introduced? Name six types
of skin and six applications of distributed pressure measurements. (8)
A1B) The classical welltest interpretation is based on flow through a pure homogenous radial
flow. Drainage area in most reservoirs is not radial. Therefore shape factor has been
introduced to apply the same equations as those of radial flow to analysis the results.
1) Formation damage 2) hydraulic fracturing 3) perforation 4) well deviation 5) acid
stimulation 6) presence of an immobile second phase flow around the wellbore 7) sand
consolidation treatment, 8) partial penetration.
1) Measurement of formation pressure, 2) identification of fluid type and 3) fluid contacts, 4)
evaluation of reservoir structure 5) sampling reservoir fluids (6) Detection of hydrocarbon
trapped as a residual saturation. (7) Permeability profiling (8) Identification of effective
vertical permeability (9) Identification of horizontal permeability barriers & areal variation
of pressure by comparing DPM data of different wells.

2A) A fault has split a formation in two halves with a downward displacement of the resultant
right hand side block. As a result of the good communication between the two sides, the
original water oil contact has changed. Compare the log and RFT responses based on the

1
recorded water oil contact (WOC) in two separate wells (well A and well B on diagram 1)
drilled in the left and right side blocks, and explain which WOC (log or RFT) should be used
for oil in place calculation. Also mention another scenario that similar difference between
RFT and log responses can be observed. (8)

Well A
Original WOC
New WOC Well B

(a) (b)
A2A) (i) Figure 8 of Chapter 7 and related text. (ii) Oil-wet rock.

2B) For the co-current upward flow with equal flow rates for the two phases, draw the
schematic profile of the pressure gradient that would be observed by RFT in the single-phase
water and gas and two-phase water-gas zones. You can use the corresponding equation in the
attached List of Equation sheet. (8)
A2B) Figure 23 of Chapter 8 in Section 6.4, Equation 28 simplified for single-phase gas and
water and noting that in the two phase zone the gradient is intermediate between water and
gas gradients according to the corresponding equation.

3A) During fluid sampling by Repeat Formation Tester, two drawdowns and one buildup is
recorded. Compare the draw down and buildup responses based on the flowing four criteria
(1) radius of investigation (2) reservoir heterogeneity (3) formation damage (4) invasion
profile (8).
A3A) Section 5.4 of Chapter 6 with a summary in slides 27 and 28.

3B) The hydrostatic pressure gradient based on the PVT data has been measured to be 0.46
psi/ft. RFT data in the water column shows a water gradient of 0.54 psi/ft, Describe four
possible reasons for such a difference. (8)
A3B) (i) Error in pressure measurements (ii) Error in depth calibration (ii) supercharging (iii)
the viscous gradient for upward flow of water added to the hydrostatic pressure gradient for
the RFT data.

2
Q4) Draw a schematic diagram of the full draw down pressure response for a well positioned
off centered between two parallel faults on the derivative Log-Log diagnostic and semi-log
plots for all the following four flow regimes. (15)
(i) Wellbore storage flow,
(ii) Transient middle time flow,
(iii) Semi-infinite flow.
(iv) Linear flow.

A4)

100

10

1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Time [hr]

200
[psi]
ΔP , psi
Pressure

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Log(t)
Superposition Time Function

3
5) A fault has split a formation with two layers with equal pore volumes creating four blocks
with juxtaposition between the two sides of the fault. There are no communications across the
two layers, but there is good vertical communication within the clean sand layer at the top and
also within the shaley sands at the bottom. There are two production wells on the right hand
side blocks and original pressures at the interface of the two layers are the same. Draw the
schematic profile of the RFT pressure gradient, after some production, recorded in an
observation well drilled in the left hand of the fault, together with the pressure point of the
producing well at the datum corresponding to the interface of two layers, for the following
two cases:
(i) there is poor communication across the whole fault within the clean sand and shaley sand
and production from top layer is significantly more (ii) production from the two layers is the
same, the communication across the fault within the clean sand and that across clean sand and
shaley sand are good but that within shale sand is poor. (10)

A5) Similar Examples are in Section 10.5 of Chapter 8.

A5) (i) (ii)

1 2

4
6) The MDT data of a reservoir are limited to oil zone. The top structure depth is 9400 ft, oil
gradient is 0.35 psi/ft and at a depth of 11000 ft, Preservoir = 6020 psi, PBubble = 5460 psi.
Demonstrate whether the reservoir has a gas cap or is under saturated, if (i) the compositional
gradient with depth is ignored (ii) the dashed line in Figure below represents the trend of
bubble point gradient for the reservoir fluid. If, in any of the two cases, there is a gas column
estimate its height. (8)

A6) i) As the top structure pressure is 5460 psi and is equal to the constant Pb of 5460 psi, it is
saturated without a gas cap ii) saturated with a gas cap of around 400 ft. You need to
demonstrate how you reach to these final answers foe which see Section 5 of Chapter 7, you
also need to know how write the equation of a line.

7) Compare WFT with core and WT permeabilities. This should only be done based on two of
their key characteristics. (6)
7) (i) A WFT tool gives an in-situ measurement as in well testing, but unlike core measurements. (ii)
WFT measurements are discrete allowing permeability profiling, as is possible with core data
(including mini-permeameter) but not with well testing, which produces an average value of the
interval.

8) A well is to be stimulated with a limited fracture height. The fracture height, hf, is

approximately half of the fracture wing length, xf, which is equal to the formation height. The

fracture is in the middle of the formation distanced equally from the top and bottom.
(a) Calculate and compare the steady state (based on external pressure) and semi-steady-state
productivity index (Jsss) for the un-fractured well with full penetration.

5
(b) Use the concept of the effective wellbore radius of an infinite conductivity fracture in
conjunction with the Brons and Marting theory of limited entry to determine the semi-steady-
state productivity index (Jsss) for the limited fracture height case.
(c) Compare the value calculated in (b) with (i) Jsss of the un-fractured well with full
penetration (ii) Jsss of a well with a fracture of full height, hf=h. (12).
Reservoir Data:
h = 200 ft, k = 8 mD,  = 0.8 cp, kz = 0.08 mD,
Bo = 1.2, rw = 0.5 ft. re = 1000 ft.

A8)
The productivity index formulation (Slide 59 of Chapter 1), Prats’s formulation (Equation 127
in Section 12 of Chapter 1) of and Brons and Marting chart (Figure 54 of Chapter 1), should
be used. These are all attached to the exam papers.
1.127  10 3  2 kh
J
 r 
B   ln e    S a 
 rw 

Based on Pe is 0.5 for SSS, 0 for SS. Based on Pave is 0.75 for SSS, 0.5 for SS.

6
hs 100
xf=h 200
hf=xf/2 100
rweff=xf/2 100
b=hf/h 0.5
hd=hs/rweff*Sqrt(k/kz) 10
Sp from bronz and Martin 1.5
Jsss-un-Frac 1.723
Jss-Un-Frac 1.553
Jsss-Partially Frac 3.866
Jsss-fully Frac 7.601

(i) Jss is lower because for Jsss, 0.75 is not subtracted from ln(re/rw) in the denominator.
(ii) Jsss of the un-fractured well is lower than that of Jsss of the partially fractured well
because the benefit of increased effective wellbore radius as a result of fracturing is greater
than the skin for partial penetration of the partially fractured well.
(iii) The benefit of increased effective wellbore radius is much more evident for the fully
fractured well with the highest Jsss.

9) The data given in the table below refers to a constant rate build-up test performed on an oil
well with the radial drainage area. The production time prior to well shut-in was 1000 hrs,
which is larger than the semi-steady state time of 100 hrs. Determine the formation
permeability and skin assuming Horner plot using modified Horner plot such that P* is equal
to the pressure at the external radius of 1600 ft at the time of shut-in. You can use any of two
points on the MTR region for your analysis. Slider de-superposition can be used to analyse
this BU using drawdown theory. Calculate the de-superposed equivalent pressure drawdown
only for the last recorded data point. You need to calculate the slope of semi-steady-state
draw-dawn prior to shut-in. Use the MBH method to calculate average reservoir pressure?
(25)
Reservoir Data: h = 100 ft, CA=31.62 qs = 5000 STB/D,
rw = 0.35 ft,  = 0.25, ct=5.0*10-5 psi-1, o = 0.8 cp, Bo=1.2

7
 Shutin Time/hr p/psi
1 0.000 3000
2 0.010 3040
3 0.020 3130
4 0.032 3170
5 0.050 3195
6 0.100 3230
7 0.200 3248
8 0.320 3249
9 0.500 3259.4
10 1.000 3269.1
11 1.800 3277.2
12 3.200 3285.0
13 5.900 3293.2
14 11.100 3301.3

A9)
MTR slope and P* intercept values are shown in the plot. Substituting the available data in the
corresponding equations, which are available in the List of Equation sheet attached to the
exam papers gives: Permeability (k)=243 mD Skin (S)=3.8, A=8.04E6 ft2, semi-steady-state
draw-dawn gradient=0.14 psi/hr, PDD=PBU-m*t=302.85 psi, PD-MBH=0.923 and
Pave=3320.59 psi.