SIRT UNIFERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

WRITEEN BY: -
ABDUL AZEEZ IBRAHIM 2041025

UNDER SUPERVISSION: -
DR. Faraj Eddeake
Table of Contents

1. Introduction.......................................................................................2
2. Applications of pressure transient tests..........................................2
3. Pressure flow convolution and deconvolution................................3
4. Benefits of downhole shut-in............................................................4
5. Test type.............................................................................................5
A. Multilayer tests...............................................................................5
B. Wireline pressure transient tests..................................................6
C. NODAL analysis............................................................................8
6. Using pressure to characterize reservoir fluids.............................8
7. Temperature profiles in production and injection wells...............8
8. Vertical extent of fracturing and detecting lost circulation..........9
9. Conclusion.........................................................................................9
10. References........................................................................................10
1. Introduction
It is generally known that there are limits of applicability of the classical pressure transient test
configurations. These limits are imposed by the mathematical models themselves and the errors
produced from measurements or computational limitations. It is the purpose of this book to
describe some of the advanced interpretation methods which have been developed to overcome
these limitations, and to discuss how these methods can be used to extract the amount of
available pressure transient information and to improve reservoir management. In one sense,
some of these methods represent a significant advance over the classical solutions, and these
could be considered key simple tools. This is the first timely book relating to this important
subject. For the practitioner, being made aware of the advanced analysis techniques with their
proven capabilities.

The objectives of advanced pressure transient testing fall into three broad categories: (1) to
increase the number and range of reservoir types and conditions under which pressure transient
tests can be interpreted or used in well testing and reservoir management, (2) to increase the
quality of the results or reduce the measurement errors so that practical pressure transient tests
can be interpreted accurately and with certainty, and can provide enhanced surveillance, and (3)
to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of acquiring these pressure transient results. What
is desired, ultimately, is an entire toolbox full of practical and valuable pressure transient test
analysis tools, each with special abilities, to be used in the wide variety of potential reservoir and
well problems encountered.

An analysis of pressure transient testing can provide information about the reservoir and fluid
properties in the volume surrounding the wellbore. It is a method used to determine the in-situ
flow characteristics of rock.

2. Applications of pressure transient tests

Productivity tests are conducted to:

 Determine well deliverability

 Characterize formation damage and other sources of skin effect
 Identify produced fluids and determine their respective volume ratios
 Measure reservoir pressure and temperature
 Obtain representative fluid samples suitable for PVT analysis
 Evaluate completion efficiency
 Evaluate workover or stimulation treatments.
Descriptive reservoir tests are conducted to:

 Assess reservoir extent and geometry

 Determine hydraulic communication between wells
 Characterize reservoir heterogeneities
 Evaluate reservoir parameters.

3. Pressure flow convolution and deconvolution

The pressure-flow convolution involves simultaneous bottomhole flow rate and pressure
measurements to correct for the variations of bottomhole pressure caused by flow rate
fluctuations during drawdown tests.

The bottomhole pressure and flow rate are mathematically convolved (coupled) as follows:

tD
pD ¿D¿=∫ qD ( τ ) pD ( tD−τ ) dτ …
0

where pD, the pressure function equivalent to a constant flow rate situation, is obtained by
mathematical deconvolution of the pressure from the flow-rate fluctuations. When software
deconvolution operators are used, trial and error is required to convolve a flow-rate schedule
with a pressure function that approximates the true constant rate-equivalent pressure function,
thus reproducing the measured pressures. The process can be made to converge rather rapidly for
a pressure measurement of a given resolution, as long as the results allow for an acceptable
margin of error.
 Fig 1

Fig 2

Fig. 1 shows an example in which the transient consists of a step-rate change from a high value
with a downhole spinner flowmeter rotation rate of approximately 17 revolutions per second
(rps) to a lower value with a flowmeter response of approximately 7 rps. Clearly, the pressure
and flow-rate data mirror each other, which is precisely the effect of the convolution. A constant
flow-rate function was sought to interpret this test. The technique used here makes use of
semilog analysis, in which rate-normalized pressures are plotted vs. the "sand face convolution
time" (a time function akin to a generalized superposition function). The result (Fig. 2) is a
straight line on the semilog plot, which in turn can be interpreted to yield the test objectives of
the permeability and skin effect.

4. Benefits of downhole shut-in

Fig. 3 shows superimposed log-log plots for two buildup tests run on the same well. The surface
shut-in test barely reaches radial flow after 200 hours. However, a large fraction of the wellbore
volume is eliminated in the downhole shut-in test, and consequently radial flow is detected
almost as early as the first minute after shut-in, and confirmed after 1 hour. This test, which lasts
100 hours, could well have been aborted after a maximum of 5 hours without any loss of
information.

5. Test type
A. Multilayer tests

To interpret tests when several layers are producing in a commingled environment, a

generalization of the pressure-flow convolution is used. Conventional well tests performed on
commingled multilayer reservoir systems normally do not yield interpretable data. The different
dynamic reservoir parameters (i.e., kh, skin effect, static pressure, boundary condition,
heterogeneity) of each layer induce off-phase flow rate events in the layer that do not
superimpose themselves to yield a predictable sand face pressure response. By using
simultaneous bottomhole pressure and flow rate measurements and designing the drawdown test
as a succession of step-rate tests (Fig. 4), a rigorous solution to deriving the dynamic reservoir
parameters can be obtained for each layer.

Fig. 4 – Typical design for a three-layer multirate test (PL = production logging).

Steps in a typical multilayer test

The following steps describe a typical design for a three-layer multirate test:

1. The well is shut in, and the pressure and flow sensors (typically conveyed by a production
logging tool) are positioned above the top of the uppermost layer. The well is opened to the
smallest choke opening, and the ensuing transients of rate and pressure are recorded until
stabilization occurs. Finally, a continuous flow profile is recorded across the set of producing
layers.
2. The pressure and flow sensors are repositioned above the top of the middle layer. The well is
opened to the intermediate choke opening, and the ensuing transients of rate and pressure are
recorded until stabilization occurs. A second continuous flow profile is recorded across the
set of producing layers.
3. The pressure and flow sensors are repositioned above the top of the lowermost layer. The
well is opened to the largest choke opening, and the ensuing transients of rate and pressure
are recorded until stabilization occurs. A third continuous flow profile is recorded across the
set of producing layers.
4. In a last, optional step, the pressure and flow sensors are repositioned above the top of the
uppermost layer and the well is shut in again. The observed transients of rate and pressure are
recorded as in a traditional buildup test.

The interpretation of this data set (which includes SIP data) makes extensive use of the pressure-
flow convolution to extract the individual layer parameters. After the results are obtained, it is
advised to verify their quality by forward-simulating the commingled pressure and flow response
of the layered system and by matching the simulated responses to the measured data. A single-
well numerical simulator is used with the layered system described by the interpreted values of
permeability and skin effect for each layer. The surface flow rate schedule is input, and the
simulator predicts the commingled pressure response of the system as well as the individual layer
flow history for the entire test, which must match the measured downhole pressure and flow rate
records.

B. Wireline pressure transient tests

Some interpretation techniques are unique to wireline testers because of the specific hardware
used to perform the tests. Wireline testers investigate a smaller region around the wellbore
because of the smaller volumes flowed. Wireline pressure testing offers unique advantages over
drillstem testing, however, because of the variety of options available in the downhole hardware
configuration, multiprobe arrangements, and packer devices. Stewart and Wittmann first
described some salient techniques specific to wireline pressure testing in 1979.

In wireline pressure testing, the static pressure is measured by shutting in the sampling system
after retrieving a small sample, typically 5 to 20 cm 3. The subsequent buildup duration is short,
and the stabilized static pressure is typically obtained within a few seconds to a maximum of
approximately 30 minutes.

In low-permeability situations, the buildup may take much longer. Continued testing with the
tool hanging stationary at the same depth, firmly seated against the formation, may be
impractical. In addition, pressure measurements may be affected by the supercharging
phenomenon as described previously, resulting in understated pressures.

Packer probe tests: small-scale drillstem testing

A packer probe fitted into the string of a modern wireline tester increases the area of the
formation open to the flow during formation sampling, typically by a factor of up to several
thousand. This increase multiplies flow rates by the same factor, which in turn greatly increases
the depth of investigation. In some cases, a packer probe test has a depth of investigation similar
to that of a small-scale DST.
Packer and multiple-probe tests for vertical interference testing

A packer probe can be used in tandem with a vertical probe to test for vertical permeability. The
vertical probe is located on a generatrix (parallel to the tool axis) with the sink (packer) probe of
the downhole tool. The distance of the vertical probe from the sink probe is adjustable. Whereas
the pressure response at the sink probe depends on the local values of the permeability tensor,
called kx, ky, and kz, which are the permeabilities along arbitrary axes x, y, and z, respectively, the
pressure response at the vertical probe (which is considered an observation probe) is a function
of both the horizontal permeability at the vertical probe and the vertical permeability being
measured. Thus, both pressure responses must be modeled simultaneously by a numerical
parameter estimator.

Fig. 5 depicts the results of a tandem test. The dots are pressure measurements and the dashed
curves are the pressures reconstructed from probe responses calculated from the interpretation
results. Fig. 5a shows the response at the sink (packer) probe, and Fig. 5b shows the response at
the vertical probe, which was set approximately 1 hour after the packer was set. The test
sequence included a number of open-close cycles generated at the sink probe by the use of a
flow-control module. A sample was also taken between times 2,800 and 3,800 seconds. The
vertical probe response clearly shows the delayed interference response that occurred after that
probe was set. From this data set, the horizontal mobility kh/μ was calculated as 1.0 md/cp, and
the vertical mobility kv/μ was calculated as 0.3 md/cp. Fig. 6 shows the log-log plot of the
buildup between times 3,800 and 4,700 seconds that occurred after the sample was taken.

Fig. 5 – Sink probe (a) and vertical probe (b) pressure

 responses during a vertical interference test conducted with wireline tester.

Fig. 6 – Log-log plot of post-sampling buildup from the vertical interference test of Fig. 5.

C. NODAL analysis

The objective of NODAL analysis is to predict well-producibility characteristics, also referred to

as vertical lift properties (VLP), for various tubular and pressure configurations. If the pressure
data are limited to sandface and wellhead measurements, the normal procedure is to generate
several sets of VLP characteristics and select the one that best represents the measured pressure
data. There may not be a unique solution. Recording a continuous profile of pressure vs. depth
can alleviate non-uniqueness because the profile constitutes a precise measurement of the
multiphase pressure losses that take place in a well. Using a continuous profile for input leads to
better optimization of production rates with NODAL analysis.

NODAL analysis, aided by distributed pressure measurements, is the best way to design gas-lift
systems. Gas-lift valve placement involves matching the pressure drop in the valves with the
amount of pressure available in the well above the valve opening pressure. The pressure drops in
the tubing, in turn, depends on the location and flow capacity of the valves.

6. Using pressure to characterize reservoir fluids

Pressure and temperature provide important information about the phase behavior and calibration
of the equation-of-state for a fluid and average fluid density in flowing wells.

The average fluid density can be calculated by differentiating the pressure measurement vs.
depth. In the absence of fluid friction on pipes, the acceleration and kinetic terms can be written
as follows:

dp
=0.00135 pft g cosδ …..2
dD

In a well flowing above the bubble point, the bubble point pressure can be inferred from a plot of
the fluid density in the tubing. At the depth where the pressure reaches bubble point pressure, gas
starts evolving from solution, and the density of the fluid shows a break to lower values. Density
can be measured by differential pressure measurements.
Similarly, the pressure gradient in wet gas wells shows a break when the dewpoint is reached and
condensate forms.

7. Temperature profiles in production and injection wells

All the mass-transfer processes taking place in and around a wellbore produce changes in the
wellbore temperature. Measuring the wellbore temperature is a good diagnostic tool for
applications such as identifying fluid entries into and exits from the wellbore, monitoring
exothermic reactions such as cement hydration, determining the effects of temperature change on
compression or decompression (Joule-Thompson effects), detecting the movement of fluids
behind the casing, and identifying non=geothermal fluid entries into the wellbore.

Recommendations for temperature profiling

To obtain good-quality temperature profile data, the following procedures are recommended:

1. Record a complete profile from surface to total depth (bottom of the well) on the first descent
into the well. If the well is shut in, the thermal equilibrium becomes disrupted after the first
passage of the temperature sensor, and unrecorded temperature anomalies may be lost
forever. If the well is flowing, the first descent is a unique opportunity to diagnose leaks,
spurious flow, or loss of completion integrity.
2. It may be possible to record a representative geothermal gradient if the well is shut in.
3. Record shut-in profiles if possible. Always compare shut-in profiles with the flowing
profiles.
4. Repeat all runs.
5. In dual completions, run the temperature log in both tubing strings because the two logs are
not identical.
6. Use short depth scales for presentation. They highlight temperature anomalies better than
large depth scales.
7. Always interpret temperature logs together with flowmeter data.

8. Vertical extent of fracturing and detecting lost circulation

The temperature of fluids and solids injected during a frac job is low relative to that of the
formation which causes anomalies in the geothermal profile. This effect also applies to lost
circulation zones that receive excessive amounts of drilling mud. Diagnosis of these anomalies
with temperature surveys can supply quantitative data on the fracture size and amount of mud
lost.

9. Conclusion

The pressure transient test conducted has provided valuable insights into the reservoir
characteristics and well performance. The key findings from the test are as follows:
 1. Reservoir Permeability: The analysis revealed a permeability of X millidarcies, indicating
[high/low] fluid flow capacity within the reservoir.
2. Skin Factor: The calculated skin factor is Y, suggesting [damage/improvement] near the
wellbore region. A positive skin factor indicates wellbore damage, while a negative value
suggests stimulation effects.
3. Wellbore Storage: The test indicated a wellbore storage coefficient of Z, which is
[typical/atypical] for this type of reservoir and suggests [explanation of wellbore storage
effects].
4. Pressure Derivative Analysis: The pressure derivative curve shows [specific patterns],
which align with [expected/unexpected] reservoir behavior. This helps in identifying
boundary conditions and heterogeneities.
5. Reservoir Boundaries and Geometry: The test results suggest [the presence/absence] of
boundaries such as faults or aquifers at a distance of [specific distance], impacting long-
term production forecasts.

10. References

1. Joseph, J., Ehlig-Economides, C.A., and Kuchuk, F. 1988. The Role of Downhole Flow and Pressure
Measurements in Reservoir Testing. Presented at the European Petroleum Conference, London, United
Kingdom, 16-19 October 1988. SPE-18379-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/18379-MS
2. Kuchuk, F.J., Karakas, M., and Ayestaran, L. 1986. Well Testing and Analysis Techniques for Layered
Rese
3. Cater, D. V.: Hisrov of Pcrrolewfn Engineering, API, Dallas (1961).