Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology

Well Testing Analysis

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 1

 Skin factor
It is not unusual during drilling, completion, or
work over operations for materials such as mud filtrate,
cement slurry, or clay particles to enter the formation and
reduce the permeability around the wellbore. This effect is
commonly referred to as “wellbore damage” and the
region of altered permeability is called the “skin zone.”
This zone can extend from a few inches to several feet
from the wellbore. Many other wells are stimulated by
acidizing or fracturing, which in effect increases the
permeability near the wellbore. Thus, the permeability
near the wellbore is always different from the
permeability away from the well where the formation has
not been affected by drilling or stimulation.

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 2

 Skin factor

Near-wellbore skin effect.

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 3

 Skin factor

Representation of positive and negative skin effects

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 4

 Skin factor
The effect of the skin zone is to alter the pressure
distribution around the wellbore. In case of wellbore
damage, the skin zone causes an additional pressure loss
in the formation. In case of wellbore improvement, the
opposite to that of wellbore damage occurs. If we refer to
the pressure drop in the skin zone as ∆pskin
∆pskin = [∆p in skin zone due to kskin] – [∆p in the skin
zone due to k]
Applying Darcy’s equation gives:
∆𝐩𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧
𝐐𝛍𝐁 𝐫𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧 𝐐𝛍𝐁 𝐫𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧
= 𝐥𝐧 − 𝐥𝐧
𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟕𝟎𝟖𝐡𝐤 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐰 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟕𝟎𝟖𝐤𝐡 𝐫𝐰
3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 5
 Skin factor
Or
𝐐𝛍𝐁 𝐤 𝐫𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧
∆𝐩𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧 = − 𝟏 𝐥𝐧
𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟕𝟎𝟖𝐤𝐡 𝐤 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐰
k = permeability of the formation, md
kskin = permeability of the skin zone, md
The above expression for determining the
additional pressure drop in the skin zone is commonly
expressed in the following form:
𝐐𝛍𝐁 𝐐𝛍𝐁
∆𝐩𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧 = 𝐬 = 𝟏𝟒𝟏. 𝟐 𝐬
𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟕𝟎𝟖𝐤𝐡 𝐤𝐡

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 6

 Skin factor
where s is called the skin factor and defined as
𝐤 𝐫𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧
𝒔= − 𝟏 𝐥𝐧
𝐤 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐰
Depending on the permeability ratio k/kskin and if ln(rskin/rw) is
always positive, there are only three possible outcomes in evaluating the
skin factor s:
(1) Positive skin factor, s>0: When the damaged zone near the wellbore
exists, kskin is less than k and hence s is a positive number. The magnitude
of the skin factor increases as kskin decreases and as the depth of the
damage rskin increases.
(2) Negative skin factor, s<0:When the permeability around the well kskin
is higher than that of the formation k, a negative skin factor exists. This
negative factor indicates an improved wellbore condition.
(3) Zero skin factor, s = 0: Zero skin factor occurs when no alternation in
the permeability around the wellbore is observed, kskin = k.

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 7

 Skin factor
The proposed modification of the previous flow
equation is based on the concept that the actual total
pressure drawdown will increase or decrease by an
amount pskin. Assuming that pideal represents the pressure
drawdown for a drainage area with a uniform permeability
k, then: ∆pactual = ∆pideal + ∆pskin
(pi – pwf)actual = (pi – pwf)ideal + ∆pskin
The above concept of modifying the flow equation to
account for the change in the pressure drop due the wellbore skin
effect can be applied to the previous three flow regimes:
(1) steady-state flow;
(2) unsteady-state (transient) flow;
(3) pseudosteady (semisteady)-state flow.
3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 8
 Skin factor
(1) steady-state radial flow
∆pactual = ∆pideal + ∆pskin
𝐐𝐨 𝛍𝐨 𝐁𝐨 𝐫𝐞 𝐐𝐨 𝛍𝐨 𝐁𝐨
(pi – pwf)actual = 𝐥𝐧 + 𝐬
𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟕𝟎𝟖𝐤𝐡 𝐫𝐰 𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟕𝟎𝟖𝐤𝐡

𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟕𝟎𝟖𝐤𝐡(𝐩𝐢 –𝐩𝐰 )
=>𝐐𝐨 = 𝐫
𝛍𝐨 𝐁𝐨 𝐥𝐧 𝐞 +𝐬
𝐫𝐰

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 9

 Skin factor
(2) Unsteady-state radial flow
∆pactual = ∆pideal + ∆pskin
For slightly compressible fluids
𝐐𝐨 𝛍𝐨 𝐁𝐨 𝐤𝐭
pi – pwf = 𝟏𝟔𝟐. 𝟔 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝟐 − 𝟑. 𝟐𝟑 +
𝐤𝐡 ∅𝛍𝐜𝐭 𝐫𝐰
𝐐𝐨 𝛍𝐨 𝐁𝐨
𝟏𝟒𝟏. 𝟐 𝐬
𝐤𝐡
𝐐𝐨 𝛍𝐨 𝐁𝐨 𝐤𝐭
pi – pwf = 𝟏𝟔𝟐. 𝟔 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝟐 − 𝟑. 𝟐𝟑 + 𝟎. 𝟖𝟕𝐬
𝐤𝐡 ∅𝛍𝐜𝐭 𝐫𝐰

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 10

 Skin factor
(2) Unsteady-state radial flow
∆pactual = ∆pideal + ∆pskin
For compressible fluids
𝟏𝟔𝟑𝟕𝑸𝒈 𝑻 𝒌𝒕
𝒎 𝒑𝒊 − 𝒎 𝒑𝒘𝒇 = 𝒍𝒐𝒈 −
𝒌𝒉 ∅𝝁𝒄𝒕 𝒓𝟐𝒘

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 11

 Skin factor
(3) Pseudosteady-state flow
For slightly compressible fluids
𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟕𝟎𝟖𝒌𝒉 𝒑−𝒑𝒘𝒇
𝑸𝒐 = 𝒓𝒆
𝛍𝐨 𝐁𝐨 𝒍𝒏 −𝟎.𝟕𝟓+𝒔
𝒓𝒘

For compressible fluids

𝒌𝒉 𝒎(𝒑)−𝒎(𝒑𝒘𝒇 )
𝑸𝒈 = 𝒓𝒆
𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟐𝐓 𝒍𝒏 −𝟎.𝟕𝟓+𝒔
𝒓𝒘
𝒌𝒉 𝒑𝟐𝒓 − 𝒑𝟐𝒘𝒇
𝑸𝒈 =
𝒓𝒆
𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟐𝑻𝝁𝒛 𝒍𝒏 − 𝟎. 𝟕𝟓 + 𝒔
𝒓𝒘

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 12

 Skin factor
Turbulent flow factor
All of the mathematical formulations presented so far are
based on the assumption that laminar flow conditions are
observed during flow. During radial flow, the flow
velocity increases as the wellbore is approached. This
increase in the velocity might cause the development of
turbulent flow around the wellbore. If turbulent flow does
exist, it is most likely to occur with gases and causes an
additional pressure drop similar to that caused by the skin
effect. The term “non-Darcy flow” has been adopted by
the industry to describe the additional pressure drop due to
the turbulent (non-Darcy) flow.

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 13

 Skin factor
Turbulent flow factor
(ψ)actual = (ψ)ideal + (ψ)skin + (ψ)non-Darcy
−𝟏𝟐 𝜷𝑻𝜸𝒈
(ψ)non-Darcy = 𝟑. 𝟏𝟔𝟏 ∗ 𝟏𝟎 𝑸𝟐𝒈
𝝁𝒈𝒘 𝒉𝟐 𝒓𝒘
𝜷 = 𝟏. 𝟖𝟖 ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝟏𝟎 𝒌−𝟏.𝟒𝟕 ∅−𝟎.𝟓𝟑
The term FQg2 can be included in all the
compressible gas flow equations in the same way as the
skin factor.

Unsteady-state radial flow

𝟏𝟔𝟑𝟕𝑸𝒈 𝑻 𝒌𝒕
𝒎 𝒑𝒊 − 𝒎 𝒑𝒘𝒇 = 𝒍𝒐𝒈 − 𝟑. 𝟐𝟑 + 𝟎. 𝟖𝟕𝒔 + 𝐅𝑸𝒈 𝟐
𝒌𝒉 ∅𝝁𝒄𝒕 𝒓𝟐𝒘

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 14

 Skin factor
Turbulent flow factor
Unsteady-state radial flow
𝟏𝟔𝟑𝟕𝑸𝒈 𝑻 𝒌𝒕
𝒎 𝒑𝒊 − 𝒎 𝒑𝒘𝒇 = 𝒍𝒐𝒈 − 𝟑. 𝟐𝟑 + 𝟎. 𝟖𝟕𝒔 + 𝟎. 𝟖𝟕𝑫𝑸𝒈
𝒌𝒉 ∅𝝁𝒄𝒕 𝒓𝟐𝒘

pressure-squared approximation
𝟏𝟔𝟑𝟕𝑸𝒈 𝑻𝝁𝒛 𝒌𝒕
𝒑𝟐𝒊 − 𝒑𝟐𝒘𝒇 = 𝒍𝒐𝒈 − 𝟑. 𝟐𝟑 + 𝟎. 𝟖𝟕𝒔 + 𝟎. 𝟖𝟕𝑫𝑸𝒈
𝒌𝒉 ∅𝝁𝒄𝒕 𝒓𝟐𝒘

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 15

 Skin factor
Turbulent flow factor
Pseudosteady-state flow

𝒌𝒉 𝒎(𝒑)−𝒎(𝒑𝒘𝒇 )
𝑸𝒈 = 𝒓𝒆
𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟐𝐓 𝒍𝒏 −𝟎.𝟕𝟓+𝒔+𝑫𝑸𝒈
𝒓𝒘

𝒌𝒉 𝒑𝟐𝒓 − 𝒑𝟐𝒘𝒇
𝑸𝒈 =
𝒓𝒆
𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟐𝑻𝝁𝒛 𝒍𝒏 − 𝟎. 𝟕𝟓 + 𝒔 + 𝑫𝑸𝒈
𝒓𝒘

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 16

 Skin factor
Turbulent flow factor
Steady-state flow
𝒌𝒉 𝒎(𝒑)−𝒎(𝒑𝒘𝒇 )
𝑸𝒈 = 𝒓𝒆
𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟐𝐓 𝒍𝒏 −𝟎.𝟓+𝒔+𝑫𝑸𝒈
𝒓𝒘
𝒌𝒉 𝒑𝟐𝒓 − 𝒑𝟐𝒘𝒇
𝑸𝒈 =
𝒓𝒆
𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟐𝑻𝝁𝒛 𝒍𝒏 − 𝟎. 𝟓 + 𝒔 + 𝑫𝑸𝒈
𝒓𝒘

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 17

 Skin factor
Example 1: An oil well is producing at a constant flow
rate of 1000 STB/day under unsteady-state flow
conditions. invasion of the drilling fluid to a radius of 2 ft.
The permeability of the skin zone is estimated at 20 md as
compared with the unaffected formation permeability of
60 md. The wellbore radius is 0.25 ft. The reservoir has
the following rock and fluid properties:
Bo = 1.25bbl/STB, μo = 1.45 cp, ct = 13 × 10−6 psi−1
pi = 4000 psi φ = 20%, h = 20ft
(1) Calculate the pressure at radius of (r, t): (5, 2); (100;
10); (200; 100)

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 18

 Skin factor
Example 2: A gas well has an estimated wellbore damage
radius of 2 feet and an estimated reduced permeability of
30 md. The formation has permeability and porosity of 60
md and 15% respectively. The well is producing at a rate
of 25 MMscf/day with a gas gravity of 0.62. The
following additional data is available:
rw = 0.25, h = 20ft, T = 160◦F, μgw = 0.013cp
Calculate the apparent skin factor

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 19

 Skin factor

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 20

 Skin factor

3/25/2016 Well Testing Analysis 21