WE LL TES TiNG

Bottomhole pressure
Bubblepoint

∆pA–B

∆pA–C

Wellbore Potential
Testing Design and Analysis

Bruno Deruyck Christine Ehlig-Economides Jeffrey Joseph

Montrouge, France Clamart, France London, England B

A C
Well testing is performed in so many different guises that it is easy to lose
Crossflow rates
These are to confirm the economic potential
Production rate
In its simplest form, testing provides short- tion logging to measure downhole flow. nEstimating producibility by altering the
term production of reservoir fluids to the They are routinely run in horizontal as well production rate and noting changes in
bottomhole pressure (top). A well’s pro-
surface permitting the operator to confirm as vertical wells. ductivity index, or inflow performance, is
the show—indicated by cuttings, cores and Developing the multifarious and intricate the slope of the straight line, measured in
logs—and estimate reservoir deliverability. hardware to accomplish all these tasks is a barrels of oil per day per psi. The straight-
In its subtlest form, measured pressure tran- design engineer’s dream. And juggling the line response curves downward once
sients caused by abrupt changes in produc- many options for conducting a well test pro- pressure falls below bubblepoint and gas
starts coming out of solution.
tion can characterize completion damage, vides endless challenges in the field (see In a layered reservoir, individual pro-
reservoir permeability and distant reservoir “The Nuts and Bolts of Well Testing,” page duction rates measured using a produc-
heterogeneities. 14). This article concentrates not on hard- tion logging tool—layers A, B and C in this
The logistics of well testing are simple in ware but on the information well tests give example—are plotted versus each layer’s
wellbore potential, the wellbore pressure
concept, but complex in practice. Flowing and how tests are designed and interpreted. normalized to a datum. This so-called
an exploration well requires a temporary Primary concerns in testing exploration selective inflow performance technique
completion. Flowing any well not con- wells are obtaining representative samples reveals individual layer inflow perfor-
nected to downstream facilities requires and estimating reservoir producibility.1 Fluid mances and also pressure imbalances
heavy surface equipment including separa- samples are needed to determine various between layers that can promote crossflow.
tors and flares. Obtaining pressure transients physical parameters required for well test
requires alternately shutting and opening analysis, such as compressibility and viscos-
the well, preferably downhole, and making ity, and for pressure-volume-temperature In this article, COMPUTEST (wellsite computer sys-
accurate downhole measurements of pres- (PVT) analysis that unlocks how the hydro- tem), FPE (Fluid Properties Estimation), IMPULSE
(measurement while perforating), MDT (Modular For-
sure. Increasingly, testing is performed in carbon phases coexist at different pressures mation Dynamics Tester), PLT (Production Logging
combination with perforating and produc- and temperatures.2 For oil, a critical PVT Tool), RFT (Repeat Formation Tester), SPG (Sapphire
parameter is bubblepoint pressure, the pres- Pressure Gauge), STAR (Schlumberger Transient Anal-
ysis and Report) and ZODIAC (Zoned Dynamic Inter-
sure above which oil is undersaturated in pretation Analysis and Computation) are marks of
gas and below which gas within oil starts Schlumberger.
being released. Maintaining reservoir pres- 1. Barnum RS and Vela S: “Testing Exploration Wells by
Objectives,” paper SPE 13184, presented at the 59th
sure above bubblepoint is key to successful SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
testing since the principle of transient analy- Houston, Texas, USA, September 16-19, 1984.
sis, described below, holds only if flow in 2. Freyss H, Guieze P, Varotsis N, Khakoo A, Lestelle K
and Simper D: “PVT Analysis for Oil Reservoirs,”
the reservoir remains monophasic. Estimat- The Technical Review 37, no. 1 (January 1989): 4-15.
ing reservoir producibility requires achiev-

28 Oilfield Review
 ing stable flow rates at several choke sizes ity—and it can determine the producing everywhere, eventually reaching the reser-
and then determining the productivity index zone’s permeability-thickness product, kh. It voir pressure that drives production.
from the slope of the flow versus drawdown can see to the limits of the reservoir indicat- The reservoir engineer follows this chain
pressure data (previous page ). ing the probable shape (but not orientation) of events by measuring the pressure
The type of oil as determined by a sample of the reservoir boundaries and can show buildup, or transient, and through analysis
and the ability of the well to produce are whether the primary recovery mechanism is determines information about the reservoir
the first steps toward commercial exploita- from water or gas-cap support. This infor- from near the wellbore to its limits. An anal-
tion. If well productivity is less than mation becomes crucial in the appraisal and ogous chain of events occurs if instead of
expected, then wellbore damage may be production stages of field development shutting in the well, the well is opened and
the cause. This is the next concern in testing when engineers combine testing interpreta- allowed to flow. Again, it is oil near the
exploration wells. Estimating the near-well- tion results with seismic and geologic data wellbore that first senses the disturbance,
bore condition to perform necessary reme- to refine their understanding of the reservoir. but it is only a matter of time for oil deeper
dial action and ultimately to plan a well How does transient pressure testing work? in the reservoir to respond and begin flow-
completion strategy for the field is accom- Imagine first an oil well in stable production ing too. Drawdown pressure measurements
plished from the transient analysis part of a with a certain pressure drawdown between to track these events practically mirror the
well test. the far limits of the reservoir and the well. buildup response. In fact, transients can be
Transient analysis, however, reaches Now shut in the well. In the formation, a obtained simply by increasing or decreasing
deeper than just the near-wellbore region. sort of concertina effect takes place (below). the flow rate.
Today, it contributes so much to characteriz- Oil near the wellbore is the first to sense the Transient testing depends on accurate
ing the reservoir that engineers increasingly shut-in and gets stopped in its tracks as it pressure measurements taken long enough
refer to well testing as reservoir testing. tries to push more oil ahead of it, getting after the flow rate change to observe what
Analysis can indicate the likely producing compressed in the process. Then, the shock the test was designed to detect. Impulse test-
mechanism of the formation—for example, is felt farther away as news of the shut-in, so ing, for example, measures the transient that
how much production comes from frac- to speak, travels to the outer regions of the occurs as a well is perforated, allowed to
tures, how much from intergranular poros- reservoir. Gradually, the pressure builds up produce for a short time and then shut in.

sight of its two real purposes.

of a discovery well and to maximize the cost efficiency of production in a developing or mature field.

Integrated with other measurements, well tests help provide the basis of reservoir characterization.

Fracture

Sealing fault

nPlan view showing the movement of wave fronts of a pressure transient

progressing away from a well. This shows a hydraulically fractured well
drilled near a sealing fault. Once wellbore storage disappears, the tran-
sient moves into the formation along linear paths perpendicular to the
fracture. Farther from the well, the transient moves radially from the
borehole. On hitting the sealing fault, the transient begins reflecting back
toward the borehole.

April 1992 29
The primary target is the near-wellbore Impulse Conventional Interference
region (right ).3 The goal is to assess forma-
tion damage and, if necessary, perform stim-
ulation. Tests last just an hour or two. In a
conventional test conducted to investigate
reservoir boundaries, often called a limit
test, the transient must be long enough for
the pressure disturbance to reach the
boundaries and then create a measurable
response in the well. How long this takes
depends on formation and fluid characteris-
tics. In particular, the lower the formation
permeability, the more time is needed—tests
can continue for days. Longest lasting are
interference tests, in which the effect of a
transient created in one well is observed in
another, yielding information about reser-
voir transmissivity and storativity.
The analysis and interpretation of well
tests have evolved remarkably since the
technique became established in the 1930s.
Today, a unified methodology has devel-
Flow

oped to obtain the maximum information

from any transient.4 The conventional test
on a new well comprises two flow periods
and two shut-ins (next page). The first flow
period, perhaps an hour long, is designed to
Pressure

clean up the near-wellbore region and give

the field crew time to manipulate chokes to
establish a practical, stable flow rate. The
well is then shut in and pressure builds up
to reservoir pressure, an important parame-
Time
ter for the reservoir engineer. Then begins a
long flow period, followed by a shut-in last- nThree types of well testing: Impulse, conventional and interference. Impulse testing
ing at least 1.2 to 1.5 times as long. This last measures the transient caused by a very brief flow, typically just as the well is perfo-
step generates the transient designed to rated. Results yield skin and permeability and may indicate if remedial stimulation is
required. Conventional well testing measures the shut-in transient after a lengthy flow
yield the reservoir’s secrets. Of course, there period and is often used to detect reservoir limits. Interference testing measures the
are many variants on this theme (see “Text- transient in a well caused by one or more flow pulses in a nearby well. Results yield
book Well Test from the Congo,” page 33). details about interwell transmissivity and storativity.

3. Ayestaran L, Ayoub J, Campbell J, Fairhurst D, Herrera

The basic data obtained are change in bated if well pressure toward the top of the
IC, Munsell S and Sneed BJ: “IMPULSE Testing,” The pressure, ∆p, versus elapsed time since the well drops below bubblepoint and part of
Technical Review 36, no. 4 (October 1988): 37-45. transient was initiated, ∆t. In traditional the well is filled with compressible gas.
4. For a review: analysis, ∆p is plotted against the logarithm Wellbore storage is substantially reduced by
Horne RN: Modern Well Test Analysis: A Computer-
Aided Approach. Palo Alto, California, USA:
of (tp + ∆t )/∆t , a dimensionless variable in shutting in the well downhole, minimizing
Petroway, Inc, 1990. which tp is the duration of the flow period. the volume of fluids that contribute.
For the development of well test analysis: This is the Horner plot—( t p + ∆ t )/∆ t is As wellbore storage dissipates, the tran-
Ramey HJ Jr: “Advances in Practical Well Test Analy- called Horner time (next page)—and the sient begins to move into the formation.
sis,” paper SPE 20592, presented at the 65th SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
transient is analyzed by tracing the Pressure continues building up, but at a
Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September 23-26, 1990. progress of the data from right to left. slower rate as the transient moves far
5. Bourdet D, Whittle TM, Douglas AA and Pirard YM: First comes wellbore storage, which refers enough to achieve radial flow toward the
“A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test to the obfuscating role of the wellbore fluid wellbore. This is the so-called radial-flow
Analysis,” World Oil 196 (May 1983): 95-106.
Bourdet D, Ayoub JA and Pirard YM: “Use of Pressure
when a transient is initiated. The moment a regime that appears as a straight line trend
Derivative in Well Test Interpretation, paper SPE well is shut in or allowed to flow, fluids in on the Horner plot. The radial-flow regime
12777, presented at the 1984 California Regional the wellbore must first compress or expand is crucial to quantitative interpretation, since
Meeting, Long Beach, California, USA, April 11-13,
1984. before formation fluids can react. If flow is it provides values for kh and skin, S, a mea-
controlled from the surface, the entire well’s
fluids contribute to wellbore storage and the
effect can dominate the pressure transient
for hours afterward. The effect is exacer-

30 Oilfield Review
sure of the extra pressure drop caused by most complex series of drawdowns and A pressure transient breaks into several
wellbore damage. Skin takes positive values buildups, providing that the radial-flow regimes on the log-log plot, each seeing
in a damaged well when pressure drop near regime is present in the response. deeper than the last. The first regime typi-
the wellbore is greater than expected and Although the Horner plot is acceptable for cally reflects wellbore storage, during which
negative values when stimulation creates interpreting the radial-flow regime of easy- both the pressure and derivative curves
less pressure drop. Next, the transient to-interpret tests, a straight-line trend is often overlay and increase along a straight line of
encounters the limits of the reservoir and difficult to pick out. Alternatively, there may unit slope. As wellbore fluids stabilize, pres-
pressure departs from its straight-line radial- be several straight-line trends, of which only sure continues building up, but at a slower
flow response. one represents radial flow. Also, the plot rate. The derivative curve swings down,
The definition of Horner time is based on fails to provide ready insight into the nature eventually flattening out as the transient
a step change in flow rate, with one flow of reservoir limits. As pressure measure- moves far enough from the wellbore to
period followed by a buildup. In actual ments improved in accuracy, it was this achieve radial flow. Since the radial-flow
tests, there are always at least two prior flow aspect that increasingly engaged the atten- regime is a straight-line trend on the Horner
periods, often many more, and each affects tion of reservoir engineers. The solution, dis- plot, the derivative curve on the log-log plot
the pressure response after it occurs. Never- covered in in the early 1980s, was a double is constant and traces a horizontal line. The
theless, their cumulative effect can be deter- logarithmic, or log-log, plot of two sets of interpreter’s first task always is to identify
mined using the superposition principle, data versus ∆t (below).5 One set is simply this derivative plateau, but this may require
which states that transients occurring ∆p, the other is the gradient, or derivative, waiting a long time in tests dominated by
sequentially simply add up. This results in of the response on the Horner plot. The wellbore storage (page 34, top).
generalized Horner time that takes into virtue of the log-log plot is that reservoirs Lengthy wellbore storage can totally mask
account the flow rates and flow times for all similar in construction but perhaps differing earlier flow regimes that occur for certain
previous flow periods. Using generalized in thickness, porosity and permeability give borehole-formation configurations and for-
Horner time, the Horner plot retains its rise to similar looking responses and can be mation types, causing distinct perturbations
validity in determining kh and skin for the recognized as belonging to a class. (continued on page 34)

Data

1st Flow 1st 2nd Flow 2nd Buildup

Buildup
Pressure

Horner Plot
Limits Radial
flow

Time
Wellbore
∆p

nElements of a conventional two-stage buildup tran- storage

sient test. Testing engineers use the first flow period to
clean up formation damage and adjust the choke to
gauge the producing capacity of the well. The first
buildup provides a first estimate of reservoir pressure.
Then begins a long flow period, followed by a longer
buildup. Analysis of the transient measured during this
(tp + ∆t )/∆t
second buildup reveals details of the near-wellbore
Log-Log Plot
region, formation characteristics such as permeability,
and distant limits of the reservoir.
Traditional analysis centered on the Horner plot
(middle), in particular the straight-line trend that sig-
∆p and Derivative

nals radial flow. Today, the log-log plot (bottom) of ∆p Wellbore

and the derivative, the slope of the Horner plot, is used storage
to first diagnose the various flow regimes of the tran-
sient. Then, specialized plots such as the Horner plot
are used to estimate specific parameters such as per- Limits
Limits
meability, skin and reservoir pressure. Radial flow

∆t

April 1992 31
 5 Five pressures, one obtained in surface
readout and four in memory mode, are
compared after normalization for different
gauge depths. Agreement is within 12 psi,
well within bounds of gauge technology.
6 During the buildup, the 104
measured pressure transient (data
3065 points) is compared at the wellsite to S = 20
Surface readout the design (solid lines), which considered

∆p and Derivative, psi

SPG gauge a range of skin values between –3 and 5
Qtz. gauge 2 20. A value of –3 corresponds to a 103
0
Pressure, psi

stimulated formation, 20 to a damaged

one. Finding skin was crucial because –3
it determined the necessity of an acid
job. Overlaying the data on the design 102
shows skin to be between 0 and
Qtz. gauge 1 5—in fact, it was calculated at 1. This
Strain gauge indicated that an acid job would
3035 probably benefit production.
19 19.5 20 Permeability is less important here, 101
Time, hr because it is well known in the area— 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101
100 md was assumed for the design, Elapsed time, hr
85 md was estimated
from the data.
2 Downhole pressure jumps
to the reservoir pressure level
4800 and then drops as the well is
opened to clean up perforation 9 The well is shut in as the
acid job is prepared and
Pressure, psi

debris.
performed.

3 The well is shut in so the

surface readout device can be 11 The well is shut in so the
lowered into the hole. surface readout device can
be lowered again and hooked
into the drillstem test tool.
Flow rate, bopd

1000 10 The well is flowed back to

clean up after the acid job.

1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 Time, hr 60

1 The test begins with under- 13 Comparison at wellsite between

balanced perforation to 8 A short flow period BOPD/psi pre- and post-acid buildups using
minimize wellbore damage during which a 0 5 surface pressure readout data.
using tubing-conveyed production logging 2035 Using specialized analysis, the data
perforating guns slung below profile is made,
Perfs. indicates pre-acid skin to be 1, and
the drillstem test tool. the tool passing post-acid skin to be –2, a substantial
through the fullbore 2040 improvement.
Limest.

drillstem tool to the Because the post-acid drawdown

Depth, m

4 With pressure now available newly perforated and buildups are comparitively longer,
at the surface (red curve), a reservoir formations 2045 the data sees further into the
6-hour flow period begins, below. The flow profile reservoir. After the radial-flow
followed by a slightly longer shows good production regime plateau, the post-acid
Sandstone

buildup. from the sandstone 2050 derivative goes up and then down,
but not so good from eventually becoming noisy as gauge
the overlying limestone, resolution is coming into play. This is
7 Once the radial-flow regime confirming that
of the buildup is confirmed, 2055 the time to halt the test.
production would
the surface readout device is definitely benefit
pulled out of the hole. from an acid job.
Pressure data change
color, from surface readout
to downhole memory mode.

32 Oilfield Review
 Textbook Well Test from the Congo

Gilles Bourdarot This textbook case study comes from an Elf exploration well in the Congo. The 2200-m [7218-ft]
Alain Desplanques deep reservoir comprises a limestone overlying a sandstone, both having 20 to 22% porosity. The
Elf Congo well test uses all the modern techniques—tubing-conveyed perforating, production logging and
Pointe-Noire, Congo sampling through fullbore drillstem equipment, surface readout and wellsite validation—and is
designed to accomplish two goals:
Mike Pearson
One is to estimate near-wellbore damage, reducing it if necessary with a matrix acidization and
Montrouge, France
then checking that the acid cleanup worked—all without removing the drillstring from the hole.
This was intended not only to benefit production in the well, but also to help plan a completion
strategy for field development. The other goal was to investigate reservoir volume and identify
reservoir boundaries.
The record of surface oil flow rate and downhole pressure for the 130-hour test tells most of the
story—follow the annotations in sequence. The surface oil flow rate data points are derived from
measuring outflows from the surface separators. The data are stored in the COMPUTEST wellsite
computer system. The lines represent averaged values for the duration of a flow period.
The green pressure curve represents data stored in downhole memory throughout the test and
then read out after retrieving the drillstring. In fact, four pressure gauges were used in this
downhole memory mode: one strain gauge, two quartz gauges and one SPG Sapphire Pressure
Gauge. The red curve represents pressure data obtained with the surface readout device hooked
into the drillstem tool and read in real time at the surface. Over 75,000 17 The sampler is BOPD/psi
pressure data points make up the curves in the plot. then pulled and a 0 5
second production 2035
Now go to 1 . logging profile is made Perfs.
with the well flowing
16 A fluid sampler is run in on at a higher rate. 2040

Limest.
12 A long, 24-hour flow period wireline, through the fullbore Comparing pre- and

Depth, m
and a buildup lasting almost post-acid flow profiles,
drillstem test tool to position
two days then followed. This was the acid job can be 2045
opposite the producing formations.
to confirm the effectiveness of the seen to have
The well is allowed to flow
acid job and to investigate successfully stimulated
gently to preserve bottomhole

Sandstone
reservoir volume and boundaries. the limestone. 2050
pressure above bubblepoint
while sampling takes place.

2055
14 Toward the end of the
buildup, the surface readout
device is pulled out of the hole.

70 80 90 100 110 120 130

101 15 The second buildup was interpreted

using data measured in downhole
∆p and Derivative, psi/BOPD

103
memory mode and thus covering the
buildup to its very end. The data were
∆p and Derivative, psi

analyzed off-site, after the drillstring

100 Pre-acid buildup was pulled. 102
This match (lines) is based on
a no-flow boundary and a constant-
Normalized

pressure boundary (possibly the

10-1 water table). Another good match 101
Post-acid buildup to the data was obtained by
assuming a composite radial model.
Only the reservoir engineer in
cooperation with geologist and 100
10-2
geophysicist can decide which is
10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102
more appropriate.
Elapsed time, hr Elapsed time, hr

In five days, with only one pipe trip into the hole, this properly designed and executed well test has
brought the exploration well to maximum potential, determined formation permeability, provided
representative samples for PVT analysis, investigated far-reservoir boundaries, and set in place a
completion strategy for development wells of the field.
33
 nReduction of Impermeable Boundary
wellbore storage
with downhole Well
shut-in. The log-log
Downhole shut-in plot compares two
100 well tests, one shut
in at the surface,
the other shut in
∆p and Derivative, psi

downhole. In the
surface shut-in test,
10-1 wellbore storage
Surface shut-in Partially Sealing Fault
masks the radial-
flow plateau for Well
over 100 hours
(4 days) (square
data points). The
10-2
plateau emerges
clearly in the down-
hole shut-in data
after just one hour
(triangular data
10-3 points). Intersecting Impermeable Boundaries
10-2 10-1 100 101 102 (From Joseph et al,
Time, hr reference 6.)

Well
on the derivative response. The signs are the special case in which the test is long
varied (next page ). A partially penetrated enough to reach all the no-flow boundaries,
formation produces a linear trend on the thus forming a closed system. Examples of
derivative curve with a slope of –1/2. In wells no-flow boundaries include sealing
where the formation is strongly layered or faults—perhaps several of them—pinchouts, Parallel Impermeable Boundaries
naturally fractured, the derivative tends to and channels. Because no-flow boundaries
dip before it rises to the radial-flow plateau. reflect the transient back toward the well,
If wellbore storage is not too dominating, the they cause ∆p to rise at higher than its nor-
transient can be analyzed to pinpoint the mal radial-flow rate, so the derivative curve Well
most likely explanation. jumps to a higher level. A sealing fault
The last regime on the log-log plot occurs causes the plateau value to double. With
when the pressure transient has travelled far two intersecting sealing faults, the jump is
from the well and encounters the reservoir correspondingly higher. If a fault is partially
Truncated Channel
or drainage-area limits. Testing theorists sealing, the derivative curve starts to jump
have worked out the transient response to a but then falls back to its radial-flow value.
catalog of boundary geometries ( right ). In Constant-pressure boundaries, like a gas
most cases, the transient responses alone do cap or aquifer, allow the pressure transient Well
not offer enough differentiation to enable to flatten out at the boundary pressure, so
the interpreter to definitively establish the the derivative takes a nosedive, which is
boundary type. The choice of the type as instantly recognizable. In a closed system,
well as the orientation of the boundary pressure is completely contained within the
geometry must be guided by geologic, seis- reservoir. How this affects the ∆ p and Pinchout
mic and log data. derivative curves depends on whether the Well
There are three categories: no-flow transient is a drawdown or buildup. In
boundary, constant pressure boundary and drawdown, both curves track a line of unit
slope, again an easily recognizable effect. In
buildup, the derivative curve starts moving
toward the line of unit slope but takes a
nosedive before reaching it, somewhat simi-
lar to the constant-pressure boundary case. nA representative selection of no-flow
These reservoir models are simpler than boundaries studied by well-test theorists.
nature generally allows—in reality, a mix- Any of these may appear in the late-time
ture of responses should be expected. portion of a transient’s diagnostic log-log
Thanks to the superposition principle, how- plot. The associated parameters defining
the boundary may then be estimated by
ever, responses may be combined to pro- regression analysis.
duce a realistic transient response for even
the most complex situation. Simulating data,
though, is the easier forward task. More dif-

34 Oilfield Review
 Log-log Horner Specialized Flow Regimes

Wellbore

∆p, Derivative
storage
Radial

∆p

∆p
flow
Other

Time Horner time Function of time

Homogeneous
Reservoir
Wellbore storage
coefficient

∆t
Partially
Penetrating Well

Infinite Conductivity
Vertical Fracture
(Fracture half-length)2
× matrix permeability

∆t
Finite Conductivity
Vertical Fracture
Fracture permeability
× fracture width

4
Sealing Fault ∆t

nResponse of log-log plot (left column) to

several common reservoir systems, show-
Constant Pressure ing different flow regimes (see legend).
Boundary
The log-log plot is used by analysts to
diagnose the flow regimes present in the
transient. Once regimes are identified, the
Horner plot (semi-logarithmic) and other
specialized plots (linear) are used to eval-
uate parameters characterizing the system.

Linear Channel

Matrix permeability
× (channel width)2

∆t
Dual-Porosity

35
ficult for the analyst is the inverse procedure Using a workstation, the reservoir engi- established in the second buildup to predict
of finding the best model to match actual neer interacts with a computer program, pressure response throughout all four peri-
test data (below ).6 such as STAR Schlumberger Transient Anal- ods of the test and confirms that the model
For the traditional test comprising two ysis and Report and ZODIAC Zoned satisfactorily accounts for all data. This may
flow periods and two buildups, transient Dynamic Interpretation Analysis and Com- result in more parameter adjustment
analysis focuses on the second buildup. The putation programs,7 to build a comprehen- because every period must now be matched
first step is to identify the various regimes on sive model using all the parameters found simultaneously, even though the second
the log-log ∆p and derivative-curve plots for the various flow regimes, predict what flow period is planned intentionally long to
and then choose the most likely model for the entire transient should look like, and minimize the influence of previous periods.
each. Estimation of model parameters is compare the results with the data. In this In some cases, interference from earlier
then made using specialized plots that allow forward modeling process, the interpreter well manipulations may obscure key
a focused analysis of each flow regime (pre- tweaks parameters, either manually or auto- regimes of the transient being analyzed.
vious page ). For example, wellbore storage matically using a nonlinear regression Interpreters then resort to a process called
in the early data is determined from the scheme, and perhaps alters the choice of desuperposition that attempts to isolate the
slope of the straight-line portion of a linear model for one of the regimes to obtain the transient from earlier ones and in particular
∆p versus ∆t plot. Confirmation and charac- best possible fit. There may be several com- reform the given transient’s data to mimic
terization of a vertical, high-conductivity binations of models that match the data how the reservoir would have reacted if the
fracture, recognized by a half-slope deriva- equally well. In this case, other data must flow rate change had been an isolated, per-
tive trend on the log-log plot, come from a be sought to decide which model is the fect step.8
plot of ∆ p versus ∆ t . The radial-flow most appropriate (next page ). Designing well tests involves many of the
plateau is best analyzed using the general- The final interpretation step, called history same steps the interpreter uses. This is
ized Horner plot. And so on. matching or verification, uses the model because once a test has been proposed,
both the pressure data and the data’s inter-
pretation can be simulated to show that the
Raw data test as designed meets its goals—design sim-
ulation requires estimates of formation and
fluid parameters from nearby wells or the
well in question. By predicting the likely
shape of the log-log ∆ p and derivative
Preprocessing curves, the engineer can demonstrate the
feasibility of detecting and characterizing
the anticipated reservoir features. For exam-
ple, design simulation ensures that wellbore
Openhole logs storage does not smother the feature being
PVT data Model diagnosis sought and guarantees a test that is long
Production logs enough to view suspected reservoir bound-
aries. Another important feature of simula-
tion is determining the accuracy and preci-
sion required of the pressure gauges.
Specialized plots The design phase not only maps out the
mechanics of a test, but also ensures that,
once underway objectives are met. For
example, the progress of the planned tran-
sient can be followed at the wellsite and
Parameter estimation compared with that forecast during the
design. To avoid the costly mistake of rig-
ging down before the transient indicates a
desired feature, wellsite validation of data
during the test remains a must. This is best
History matching accomplished with surface readout of
downhole gauges and enough computing
power at the surface to produce appropriate
plots, notably the log-log diagnostic plot. If
the reservoir response is quite different from
Results that assumed in the design, wellsite diagno-
sis permits an instant correction of the job,
perhaps a lengthening of the transient, to
nThe order of business
in pressure transient
analysis.

36 Oilfield Review
 Sealing Fault ensure optimum use for the data. In certain
101
cases, real-time readout is not feasible and
downhole recording must be used. Data
validation can still be performed onsite right
∆p and Derivative

after retrieving the gauges.

Integral to well test design is selection of
100 hardware, which involves many options. To
minimize wellbore storage, should the well
be shut in downhole rather than at surface?
In a low producer, will the act of shutting in
actually kill the well? How sensitive must the
pressure gauges be? To some extent, these
10-1
questions are decided by the operator’s stan-
Two Intersecting Perpendicular Faults
101 dard practices, the current status of the hole,
the configuration of the downhole hardware
and, not least, safety considerations.
The options have expanded in recent
∆p and Derivative

years. While drillstem test (DST) equipment

has always guaranteed downhole shut-in in
100
new wells, downhole shut-in devices for
completed wells did not become commer-
cial until the early 1980s. Pressure gauges
have evolved from crude mechanical
devices to quickly reacting, highly accurate
10-1 quartz gauges. Perhaps the most unexpected
Dual-porosity Model innovation is a downhole flow measurement.
101 Traditional well testing theory dispensed
with a flow measurement because it
assumed constant wellbore storage,
∆p and Derivative

enabling flow to be estimated from early

pressure data. But reality is less predictable.
100 Wellbore storage often varies as the fluids in
the wellbore change during the test, and a
downhole flow measurement in fact offers a
valuable complement to conventional pres-
sure data.
Downhole flow measurements are cur-
10-1
rently performed using production logging
Dual-permeability Model
101 6. Joseph J, Ehlig-Economides CA and Kuchuk F: “The
Role of Downhole Flow and Pressure Measurements
in Reservoir Testing,” paper SPE 18379, presented at
the SPE European Petroleum Conference, London,
∆p and Derivative

England, October 16-19, 1988.

Ehlig-Economides CA, Joseph JA, Ambrose RW Jr and
Norwood C: “A Modern Approach to Reservoir Test-
100 ing,” Journal of Petroleum Technology 42 (December
1990): 1554-1563.
7. The newer ZODIAC program includes all the features
of the older STAR program.
8. Ehlig-Economides CA, Ambrose RW and Joseph JA:
“Pressure Desuperposition Technique for Improved
Late-Time Transient Diagnosis,” paper SPE 20550,
10-1 presented at the 65th SPE Annual Technical Confer-
10-1 100 101 102 103 ence and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
Time September 23-26, 1990.

nFinding the best model to fit the data. In this case, four scenar-
ios fit quite well, but the dual-permeability model fits best. Dual
permeability means a two-layered formation with a different
permeability in each layer.

April 1992 37
 tools and therefore not deployable when
downhole shut-in is planned. The most
∆p and Derivative

common uses are to measure transients

caused by either shutting in or altering the
flow rate at the surface—the tool, entered
into the well through a conventional riser
and lubricator, is suspended just above the
producing zone. A drawback of the current
technology is the threshold and resolution
of the spinner in the logging tool that mea-
Time Model sures flow. Well testing experts dream about
a robust flow measurement incorporated
T into the DST tool, enabling continuous flow
P(t) = 0
q(τ) p(t-τ) dτ measurements in newly drilled wells.
If flow measurements are at hand, how
does that change testing analysis? The nec-
essary theoretical ground was broken in the
Pressure 1980s. The underlying principle is, once
again, superposition.9 Suppose the pressure
response to a unit step change in flow is
p(t – t 0 ), where t 0 is when the step change
occurs. Then the pressure response, P(t ), to
a gradual change in downhole flow rate,
Flow rate q (t ), may be computed by approximating
the gradual change with a series of stair
steps, then considering each step as provid-
Time ing a minitransient, and finally through the
superposition principle summing all the
nThe convolution integral that converts pressure response to a unit step change in flow, minitransients (left ). As the steps are made
p(t), and actual measured flow rate, q(t), into measured pressure response, P(t). Convo-
lution revolutionizes transient analysis when downhole flow measurements are avail- smaller, this sum becomes the convolution
able, for example as measured by production logging in a flowing test. The mathemat- integral:
ical manipulation virtually wipes out wellbore storage, leaving later portions of the
T
transient clearly visible.
P ( t ) = q (τ) p (t– τ ) d τ .
nAn example
0

showing wellbore
103 storage virtually During a test, downhole pressure gauges
eliminated using measure P (t ) and a flowmeter measures q(t ).
Convolution derivative Pressure change the convolution But p(t ) is what the interpreter wants. Get-
derivative. The
∆p and Derivative, psi

transient was intro- ting at it requires the reverse process of

102
Pressure derivative duced by chang- deconvolution, which unfortunately is a
ing the well’s pro- rather unstable numerical procedure. More
duction rate and commonly, interpreters favor a procedure
101 downhole flow was
measured using called logarithmic convolution that converts
production logging. the two measurements more easily into
something that fits existing analytical tech-
100 niques (left ).
Logarithmic convolution is a mathemati-
cal trick in which a form for p ( t ) is
assumed—usually the response for infinite-
10-1
acting radial flow—that simplifies the above
10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101
convolution integral to a simpler expression
Time, hr involving a rate-normalized pressure
P(t )/q (t ), written J (t ), and a new time-scale
called sandface rate convolution time, tsfrc .
J (t ) and its derivative with respect to tsfrc
offer the same diagnostic power as the con-
ventional well testing analysis described
earlier with the advantage that most of the
wellbore storage is removed.

38 Oilfield Review
 There are several advantages to testing a A B C
well with downhole pressure and flow mea-
Surface flow rate
surements under drawdown—and one dis-
advantage. The disadvantage is that reservoir
shut-in pressure is not measured. The advan-
tages are:
•in producing wells, little production is lost A
since the well is never shut-in.
•in poor producers, production is not killed
as may occur during a shut in.
•in layered reservoirs, testing under draw-
down reduces the possibility of crossflow Downhole
between producing layers, while this can C
easily occur in a buildup test complicating
the interpretation. Pressure
The technique’s most popular application in
layered reservoirs, though, is in analyzing
individual layer kh and skin values.10
This involves measuring a series of tran- B Flow
sients created by changing the production
rate, one for each layer with the production
logging tool situated at the top of the layer
(right ). The amount of data acquired is huge
and can be analyzed in several ways with A B C
varying degrees of sophistication. The key, Time
however, is to first analyze the transient nSequence of downhole pressure and flow transients measured using a production log-
measured with the tool situated just above ging tool in a layered reservoir test. A separate transient is measured with the tool posi-
the bottom layer, yielding that layer’s reser- tioned at the top of each zone. Analyzing the transients yields individual zone perme-
voir properties. Then, a second transient is ability and skin values.
measured with the tool situated above the
next layer, revealing reservoir properties of innovation provides a solution. Samples of 9. Meunier D, Wittmann MJ and Stewart G: “Interpreta-
the new layer and bottom layer combined. extraordinary reliability may now be tion of Pressure Buildup Test Using In-Situ Measure-
Since reservoir properties for the bottom obtained from any number of zones using ment of Afterflow,” Journal of Petroleum Technology
37 (January 1985): 143-152.
layer are already estimated, the transient the new wireline-conveyed MDT Modular 10. Kucuk F, Karakas M and Ayestaran L: “Well Test
can be analyzed to reveal just the new Formation Dynamics Tester, but this has to Analysis of Commingled Zones Without Crossflow,”
layer’s properties. The process continues up be planned in advance because the sam- paper SPE 13081, presented at the 59th SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston
the well. pling takes place in open hole (see “The Texas, USA, September 16-19, 1984.
Layered reservoir testing (LRT) was origi- MDT tool: A Wireline Testing Break- Ayestaran L, Ehlig-Economides C, Shah P, Kuchuk F,
nally conceived to investigate production through,” page 58). Nicolson B and Wittmann M: “Layered Reservoir
Testing,” The Technical Review 35, no. 4 (October
wells. Recently in offshore Congo, AGIP In addition to convolution and layered 1987): 4-11.
used the technique to evaluate a layered reservoir testing, there are other advantages
reservoir encountered by an exploration to supplementing conventional pressure
well. Conventional testing of individual pay data with production logging measure-
zones in an exploration well would nor- ments. A flow profile run during stabilized
mally call for a separate DST-perforation run production or shut-in can pinpoint where
for each zone. But using layered reservoir production is coming from and provide
testing, AGIP obtained reliable kh, skin and invaluable data on crossflow between
productivity index values for individual zones. The information may directly influ-
zones with only one trip in the hole, at a ence testing interpretation. For example, if a
considerable cost savings (see “Exploration zone is producing only from its upper part,
Layered Reservoir Testing in the Congo,“ a portion of the transient will react as if the
next page). well were only partially completed. The
The drawback of using an LRT in the diagnosis must be adjusted accordingly. The
exploration setting is that production from fluid density measurement in production
different zones commingles, ruling out rep- logging also plays a role by indicating
resentative sampling from different pay whether gas is coming out of solution, giv-
zones. Fortunately, a recent technological ing a warning that a test may be occurring
at below bubblepoint conditions.
Perhaps the most valuable contribution of
downhole flow measurements is in testing
(continued on page 45)

April 1992 39
 Exploration Layered Reservoir Testing in the Congo

Luigi Piero Augustine Alagoa

AGIP Congo Pointe-Noire, Congo
Pointe-Noire, Congo

AGIP’s innovative use of layered reservoir testing RFT Pressure Lower layer
(LRT) in an exploration well occurred offshore Upper layer

Pressure potential, bar

Congo. The goal of the test was to evaluate two Composite
308
producing layers only a few meters apart with
only one trip into the hole, a much less costly
300
undertaking than the usual two trips. The LRT
technique was originally developed for testing
292
production wells, in which several layers produce
commingled—in this case, LRT is a must to eval-
uate each layer’s dynamic properties. Here, AGIP 0 10 20 30 40
extended the method to the exploration environ- Bottomhole flow rate, m3/hr
ment, where openhole data suggest several pay nSelective inflow performance plot for the
two reservoir layers, showing the lower
zones quite close to each other.
nReservoir geometry near the two layers The discovered field is an elongated structure
layer to be easily the more productive
and the reservoir pressure corrected to a
investigated by a layered reservoir test in
depth datum of 2735 m to be the same in
AGIP’s Congo exploration well. bounded by two faults forming a V shape (left).
both layers—315 bars.
The well penetrates several reservoirs. Five tests
were performed in the well, two using the LRT in. tubing-conveyed perforating (TCP) guns to
technique. Each LRT test looked at two distinct enhance cleanup and control perforation damage.
layers. This example presents results from the The test began with a flow period to clean up
shallower pair. the well, then a shut-in during which a production
The bottom layer is a 17-m [56-ft] thick sand- logging profile was recorded. The well was then
stone/limestone mix of 26% porosity, while the opened on a 3/8-in. choke, and transient pressure
top layer is a 7-m [23-ft] thick limestone of 20% and flow measurements were recorded with the
porosity. The layers are separated by about 4 m production logging tool positioned above the top
[13 ft] of silts. The well was completed with 7-in. zone (above). After flow stabilized, a second pro-
casing and perforated underbalanced with 4 1/2- duction logging profile showed that 95% of pro-
duction came from 10 m [33 ft] of the bottom
layer and just 5% from the top layer. The tool was
then moved to the top of the bottom zone and a
new transient measured after the choke was
increased to 1/2 in. The choke was finally
increased to 3/4 in. and a final transient mea-
sured with the tool back above the top zone.
First, the flow profiles were analyzed to obtain
the inflow performance of and reservoir pressure
in each layer. Plots of pressure normalized to a

40 Oilfield Review
 about 70 m [230 ft] from the wellbore. This tied AGIP’s experience proves the validity of the
13.5
in with results from a deeper test that placed the LRT technique in an exploration setting. The
Spinner,

well between two flow barriers spaced about 110 technique is usually difficult to apply when, as in
rps

m [360 ft] apart. That meant the well was about this case, one zone monopolizes production. Yet
0.0 55 m [180 ft] from each barrier, confirming that a the results seem reliable and even extend to clar-
V-shaped fault structure bounded the reservoir. ifying the reservoir boundaries. The cost savings
316 When both transients were analyzed, skin val- from reducing the rig time needed for the test are
Pressure,

ues for the two layers were found to be negative, considerable. They accrue from only needing one
more so for the bottom layer (see “LRT Results,” trip in the hole, the elimination of a bridge plug
bar

bottom). This is expected as most of the produc- run that would have been required if the two
272
0 3 6 9 12 15
tion comes from the bottom layer—it probably zones had been tested conventionally, and finally
Time, hr got the best chance of an effective cleanup during only needing one cleanup period rather than two.
nRaw downhole pressure and flow rate underbalanced perforating. The less favorable These cost savings would increase as the number
transients measured with a production skin value in the upper layer suggests production of zones increases.
logging tool during the layered reservoir
test. here would benefit from stimulation.

datum versus sandface flow rate confirmed that

the bottom layer was easily the most productive
∆p
(above). But more importantly, the plots showed Derivative
Normalized ∆p and Derivative, bar/m3/hr

the two layers to be in equilibrium. Both had a 101 Convolution derivative

normalized pressure of 315 bars, close to the Model
RFT Repeat Formation Tester values obtained
during openhole logging. The similar values pre-
clude crossflow during shut-in, confirmed by the
shut-in flow profile. 100

Next, data from the first two transients were

analyzed—the third transient was considered
invalid after it was noticed that bottomhole flow-
ing pressure had dropped below estimated bub-
10-1
blepoint pressure. Bubblepoint and other fluid
parameters such as viscosity had been measured
at the wellsite on samples using the FPE Fluid
Properties Estimation device. Fortunately, the
10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101
first two transients provided an adequate inter-
Elapsed time, hr
pretation. We will follow interpretation of the
second transient, obtained with the production nLog-log plots of rate-normalized pressure, derivative and convolution derivative for
the second transient, with the best-fit model response superimposed. Arrows on the
logging tool situated above the bottom layer, as convolution-derivative data mark the plateau corresponding to the radial flow regime.
an example (right).
The first step is model diagnosis. The convolu-
LRT Results
tion-derivative plot reveals the radial-flow
Interpretation Top Layer Bottom Layer
plateau. Before and after radial flow, the trends
Flow Profile
are less well-defined making it difficult to diag-
Production contribution, % 5 95
nose the nature of the formation—homogeneous
or dual porosity—and reservoir limits. Productivity Index, m3/day/bar 1.4 30

Analysis of the radial-flow regime gave initial Transient

values for the bottom layer’s permeability and Permeability, md 7 105
skin. Then, several formation models and reser- Skin -1 -3.5
voir configurations were considered to match the
flow and pressure data of the entire transient. A
good match was obtained (see solid lines on plot)
assuming a dual-porosity model, suggested by
log and core data, and a flow barrier located

April 1992 41
 Horizontal Well Testing in the Gulf of Guinea

Simon Domzalski Jean-Pierre Yver

Port-Gentil, Gabon Montrouge, France

200
Production Logs Flowing

Fluid Velocity m/min

Profile
0
1650
Pressure psi
1637.5
1.2
Fluid Density g/cm3
0.2
160
Production Logs Shut-in

Fluid Velocity
Profile m/min

-40
1650
Pressure psi
1637.5
1.2
Fluid Density g/cm3
0.2
RFT Caliper 13.5 in.
7.5 in.
Well Sketch

Gamma Ray
1084
TVD m
1091
0.25 2.95 -15

∆ρ ρB ∅N %
Openhole Logs

-0.25 1.95 45.0

1000 1000

Ilm Ild ohm-m

0.10 0.10

nComposite of production logging passes along a horizontal producing well in the Gulf of Guinea, West Africa with well trajectory.
Passes during shut-in reveal possible crossflow and settling of water and oil in troughs and peaks of the well geometry. Passes while
producing indicate no flow coming from the initial section of the horizontal trajectory and a fluid density equivalent to a 20% water
holdup. In all passes, pressure correlates with true vertical depth.

42 Oilfield Review
 Log-Log Plot
10-2

Pressure and Derivative, psi

10-3 Early-time
radial
Late-time
radial

A recent test in a horizontal well in the Gulf of nDiagnostic plot

for the two buildups
Guinea, West Africa illustrates the key role pro- 10-4
combined and spe-
duction logging can play in horizontal transient cialized Horner
testing. The well taps separate units of a sand- plot for the second
buildup test. The
stone oil reservoir with a 560-m [1840-ft] hori- diagnostic plot
zontal trajectory that travels about 23 m [75 ft] includes pressure
10-5 change, the pres-
below the gas/oil contact and 14 m [46 ft] above 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 sure change
the water/oil contact. At 860-m [2820-ft] mea- Elapsed time, hr derivative and the
convolution deriva-
sured depth, the well crosses a fault. Horner Plot tive (green open
The well was completed with a prepacked 1675 triangles and dia-
monds only shown
screen and slotted liner. For testing, shut-in was
at early time when
at surface and the PLT Production Logging Tool different from
measuring flow, pressure and fluid density was derivative).
1665 Characteristic of
pushed along the horizontal section with coiled horizontal well
tests, two plateaus
Pressure, psi

tubing. Density was measured with a nuclear

can be picked out
fluid densitometer, because the conventional that on the special-
pressure difference method employed by a gradio- 1655 ized plots give hor-
izontal and vertical
manometer is inoperative in the horizontal envi- permeability val-
ronment. An obstruction prevented logging for the ues and skin. The
convolution deriva-
last 200 m [660 ft] of the horizontal trajectory. 1645 tive that eliminates
Day one of the two-day test began with produc- wellbore storage
tion logging passes up and down the well while proves most reli-
able for establish-
the well was flowing about 9900 barrels of oil per ing the first plateau.
1635
day (BOPD). The well was then shut in and a brief 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
30-minute buildup test made with the tool posi- Generalized Horner time
tioned at the beginning of the horizontal section.
A second series of up and down passes were then 1.07 g/cm3 and the oil density of 0.6 gm/cm3, giv- passes is at 860 m, where a shift in the oil/water
made with the well still shut-in (previous page). ing a water holdup of about 20%. The slight interface may indicate water entry from the fault
With the well flowing, the fluid velocity profile increase in fluid density from 930 to 910 m prob- known to intersect the well at that depth. Under
shows 60% of production coming from below the ably reflects an increase in holdup caused by shut-in and flowing conditions, pressure can be
obstruction at 980 m, 40% coming from between water accumulation in this uphill section of the seen to correlate precisely with true vertical depth.
the obstruction and 860 m, and practically noth- trajectory. The effect is later masked by an Day two of the test comprised a buildup lasting
ing coming from the initial section of the horizon- increase in production. three hours, with the production logging tool
tal section. The fluid density profiles indicate a During shut-in, the fluid velocity profile indicates positioned again at the beginning of the horizon-
value intermediate between the water density of some crossflow—formation pressure measure- tal section and the well having previously been
ments made just after drilling indicated a 12-psi producing through a 156/64-in. choke at about
spread along the horizontal trajectory, a signifi- 10,100 BOPD.
cant amount for a high permeability reservoir. A diagnostic plot combining data from both
The up and down fluid density passes indicate buildups reveals the characteristic double
water settling in the trajectory troughs and oil fill- plateau of horizontal wells (above). The first
ing the peaks. The only movement between the

April 1992 43
 102
Pressure and Derivative, psi

101

100

10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101

Time, hr

nA regression analysis best fit (solid lines) to the buildup data

assuming a homogeneous formation model for the reservoir. The
fit is reasonable except toward the end of the test. Possible rea-
sons for this discrepancy include crossflow after shut-in, a wrong
assumption about the length of horizontal trajectory actually pro-
ducing, and the formation being layered rather than homogeneous.

plateau corresponds to early-time radial flow in to conduct a transient test under drawdown.
the vertical plane, while the later plateau corre- This test, like most other horizontal well tests,
sponds to radial flow in the horizontal plane. would have been impossible to analyze without
With a Horner plot, horizontal and vertical perme- the production logging profiles, particularly the
abilities were estimated. Although the results flow profiles. These clearly indicated that the first
were of the same order of magnitude as those segment of the producing section did not pro-
obtained from previous tests conducted in vertical duce, essential information for the regression
wells and cores from these wells, the assumed analysis; the downhole flow rates made possible
homogeneous formation model failed to match a convolution derivative plot that gave much
the test data at later time—the derivative data firmer indication of the early-time radial flow than
show a flattening trend while the model shows a the normal derivative; and the shut-in profiles
decreasing trend (above). pointed to crossflow, a caution to the wise analyst.
This discrepancy could have three causes:
First, it may not be correct to assume that the
entire horizontal length past the restriction is pro-
ducing. Second, the fit should perhaps be made
with a layered rather than homogeneous model.
Third, there may have been crossflow during the
second buildup, just as was observed in the first
buildup. The only way to eliminate this factor is

44 Oilfield Review
horizontal wells.11 Horizontal wells pose
two special problems for the reservoir engi-
neer. The first is the unavoidably large well-
bore storage effect. Horizontal sections may
extend for thousands of feet and cannot be
isolated from the transient. The second is
the more complex nature of the transient.
Once wellbore storage is stabilized, three
regimes possibly replace the radial-flow
regime of a conventional test (right ).
First is radial flow in a vertical plane
toward the well, indicated by a plateau on
the derivative curve on the log-log
plot—this regime is termed early-time,
pseudo-radial because permeability
anisotropy (vertical to horizontal) actually
causes an elliptical flow pattern. The second
regime begins when the transient reaches
y
the upper and lower boundaries of the pro- z
ducing zone and flow becomes linear
toward the well within a horizontal plane.
The derivative curve traces a line of slope
1/ 2. The third regime occurs as the transient

moves so far from the well that flow

becomes radial again, but this time in the
horizontal plane. The derivative curve
x
enters a second plateau.
Although this makes diagnosis more diffi-
cult, it also offers benefits. As in conven-
tional testing, the first plateau gives kh and
skin, but k is now the geometric average of
permeability in the vertical plane perpen-
dicular to the horizontal wellbore trajec- nPhases in a horizontal well transient test. After wellbore storage has disappeared,
tory, k y k z , the wellbore trajectory being flow is first radial toward the well in the vertical y-z plane, then linear in the y-z plane,
considered parallel to the x-axis. The inter- finally radial in the x-y plane. The first and third regimes produce plateaus on the log-
mediate linear flow period gives horizontal log diagnostic plot and can be analyzed to provide vertical and horizontal permeability.
permeability along the y axis, ky , and the
second plateau gives the average perme-
ability in the horizontal plane, kx k y . In data with flow profiles measured during The future of testing is assured, of course.
theory, the three regimes together can pro- production logging is even more crucial for What will accelerate its use and impact is
vide a breakdown of permeability into its pinpointing production and recognizing better integration with other reservoir data,
three components. crossflow (see “Horizontal Well Testing in improved downhole pressure and flow sen-
The key to a successful interpretation is the Gulf of Guinea” page 42).12 Crossflow is sors, further development of transient theory
recognizing the first plateau, not only common in horizontal wells as in vertical and a continued evolution of the interactive
because this alone gives k z , but also wells, particularly during a buildup test, and computer software that now aids interpreters.
because it is the only regime that can may seriously jeopardize interpretation. —HE
directly provide skin. However, it is the Drawdown tests are therefore recommended
regime most likely to get swamped by the as an insurance policy, particularly for new 11. Clark G, Shah P, Deruyck B, Gupta DK and Sharma
large wellbore storage occurring in a hori- wells in developed fields where differential SK: “Horizontal Well Testing in India,” Oilfield
Review 2, no. 3 (July 1990): 64-67.
zontal well. The key to this dilemma is depletion may exacerbate crossflow. Shah PC, Gupta DK, Singh L and Deruyck BG: “A
either downhole shut-in, or downhole flow The underpinnings of horizontal well test- Field Application of the Methodology for Interpreta-
measurements and logarithmic convolution. ing theory are developing rapidly. Interfer- tion of Horizontal Well Transient Tests,” paper SPE
20611, presented at the 65th SPE Annual Technical
Because of the length of a horizontal ence testing of horizontal wells is being Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
well’s producing zone, supplementing test worked out, as is the influence on the hori- USA, September 23-26, 1990.
zontal well-test response of the same range 12. Ahmed U and Badry R: “Production Logging as an
Integral Part of Horizontal Well Transient Pressure
of reservoir heterogeneities and boundaries Test,” paper SPE 20980, presented at Europec 90,
that are now well understood for conven- The Hague, The Netherlands, October 22-24, 1990.
tional testing.

April 1992 45