WELL TEST ANALYSIS: TUTORIALS

Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

TUTORIALS GRADING

Grade 1 questions will help you to prepare for the exam and is possible to have such questions in the exam.

Grade 2 questions will not be in the exam as they appear because they include at least an equation or a concept
that is not (i) discussed in the notes or (ii) included in the exam equation sheet or (iii) part of learning outcomes.
However their understanding will help you to better prepare for exam and solve questions of grade 1.

Grade 3 questions are available for those of you who would like to expand their reservoir engineering
understanding but will have minimal impact on your exam preparation.

CHAPTER 1: TUTORIAL 1
Question 1............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 2............................................................................................................................................. 2
Question 3............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 4............................................................................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 1: TUTORIAL 2
Question 1............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 2............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 3............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 4............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 5............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 6............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 7............................................................................................................................................. 2
Question 8............................................................................................................................................. 2

CHAPTER 2 TO CHAPTER 5: TUTORIAL 1

Question 1............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 2............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 3............................................................................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 2 TO CHAPTER 5: TUTORIAL 2

Question 1............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 2............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 3............................................................................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 2 TO CHAPTER 5: TUTORIAL 3

Question 1............................................................................................................................................. 2
Question 2............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 3............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 4............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 5............................................................................................................................................. 2

CHAPTER 2 TO CHAPTER 5: TUTORIAL 4

Question 1............................................................................................................................................. 3
Question 2............................................................................................................................................. 3
Question 3............................................................................................................................................. 3

CHAPTER 6 TO CHAPTER 8: TUTORIAL 1

Question 1............................................................................................................................................. 1
Question 2............................................................................................................................................. 1

2
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

CHAPTER 1: TUTORIAL 1

Question 1
A well has been perforated over a 100 ft interval located in the middle of a 300 ft thick formation. Analysis
of a pressure build up test indicated that the total skin effect was 20. Determine the potential increase in
productivity index if a further 100 ft of formation is perforated yielding a completed interval of 200ft, again
located centrally. Assume the reservoir is undersaturated with no nearby gas or water contacts. You need to
calculate and compare PI values for these two perforated intervals of 100 ft and 200 ft.
Reservoir Data:
kr = 180 md, kv = 5 md, rw= 0.25 ft,
re = 1000 ft, μo = 1.0 cp, Bo = 1.2.

Question 2
A particular reservoir has a 30 ft thick oil column beneath a very large gas cap. It is desired to produce the oil
before the gas. Determine the optimum thickness of the perforated interval which gives the maximum oil
production rate without gas coning. Discuss the approximations inherent in simple coning theory as applied to
this problem.
Reservoir data:
μo= 0.9 cp, ρo = 0.69 g/cc, ρg= 0.31 g/cc, kr= 5100 md,
kz= 51 md (assume), re= 850 ft, rw= 3.5 in., Bo = 1.24.
A fluid of density 1 g/cc has a hydrostatic pressure gradient of 0.433 psi/ft.

Question 3
The reservoir development of a particular isolated fault block, roughly square in shape, is based on four
producing wells as shown below. The first three wells are each located approximately at the centre of a quarter
sub-square of the block which has a total surface area of 10x106 ft2. The fourth well, when drilled, was found
to be situated near the intersection of two of the bounding faults as shown below. Pressure testing indicated
that the well was about 400 ft from the sealing fault planes. If this well’s
production is significantly affected by the proximity of the boundaries it
can be sidetracked to a new location 800 ft from the fault planes.
Estimate the incremental oil production resulting from the sidetrack
operation from a drawdown of 600 psi. The production mechanism is
semi-steady-state primary depletion and the damage skin factor may be
assumed to be 1.5. The reservoir is undersaturated and there is negligible
natural water drive.
Reservoir Data:
h = 160 ft, μ = 0.9 cp,
k = 700 md, B = 1.22, rw= 0.3 ft.

Question 4
A well was completed over the upper 150 ft of a 250 ft thick sand and a well test indicted a very high total
apparent skin of 34. A production log was also run and this showed that, in fact, only top 50 ft of perforations
were producing. Estimate the well total skin factor following underbalanced (clean) reperforation assuming
the same perforation characteristics (shots per foot, perforation length, etc.). The effective permeability
anisotropy (kh/ kv) can be taken as 10 and the well bore radius rw is 0.33ft.
3
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

CHAPTER 1: TUTORIAL 1 SOLUTIONS

Question 1
The total apparent skin, Sa, is given by the Jones and Watts equation:
Std
Sa = + S pp
b
For 100 ft perforated in a 300 ft thick formation i.e. b = 0.33 the Brons and Marting correlation gives:
hs k
hd = = 3.6x10 3
rw kv
Spp = 13.2 (perforated interval in middle i.e. hs = 150 ft)
In this case Sa from a well test (PBU) is 20
The true or intrinsic skin is given by: Std = b ( Sa - Spp) =2.28
For an apparent (total) skin of 20 the well productivity index, Jsss , is given by:
Std = 2.28
bbl / d /psi

It is presumed that the intrinsic skin is created during drilling and exists over the whole region.
The second case corresponding to 200 ft perforated will now be evaluated; again:
Std
Sa = + S pp
b
where b = 0.67 and Spp from the Brons and Marting correlation (for the same hD) is 3.3 giving:
2.28
Sa = + 3.3 = 6.71
0.666
The well PI for this total skin of 6.71 is: Jsss = 22.4, which is an increase of 10.8 bbl/d/psi or 93.1% highlighting
the benefit of reduction of total apparent skin from 20.0 to 6.7 due to reduction in limited entry.

Question 2
The critical rate is given by:

where is the difference in the fluid hydrostatic gradients

hp Spp hap hap

re re
lnr + Spp lnr + Spp
w w

5 25.456 33.43 25 0.747

10 10.953 18.93 20 1.0565
15 5.570 13.547 15 1.1073
20 2.738 10.715 10 0.9333
25 1.018 8.995 5 0.5559

4
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

Optimum Value of hap

Question 3
The Dietz shape factor for a well in a 1600-1600 ft square drainage area and located 400 ft from the boundaries
(location A in the diagram) is 4.51. The productivity index is given by:

It should be noted that this calculation can be done by directly using the Darcy law i.e. replacing Jsss from the
first into the second formula.
If the well is relocated to the centre of the drainage area (location B in the diagram) CA becomes 30.88 and
the PI is Jsss = 82.36 and the new rate is qs = 49.42 MSTB/D and Incremental oil production = 4.94 MSTB/D.

Question 4
Std
Sa = + S p p or Std = b ( S a - Spp )
Again b
hp 50
b= = = 0.2 and Sa = 34
In the first case h 250

hs k
hd =
rw kz
= 2.396x103 where hs = h = 250 ft
From the Brons and Marting chart Spp = 24.21
And Std = 0.2(34 - 24.2) = 1.96
hp 150
b= = = 0.6
With 150 ft perforated and flowing – the second case – h 250
The geometric skin now becomes: Spp = 4.25 (again from the B&M chart,b = 0.6, hD = 2.396x103)
1.96
Sa = + 4.25 = 7.52
Hence the new total Sa is given by: 0.6
5
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

CHAPTER 1: TUTORIAL 2

Question 1
A formation of thickness 300 ft is to be completed with a limited height fracture (for sand control) at the bottom
of the zone. The fracture half length, xf , will be 60 ft and the fracture height, hf , will be 100 ft. Estimate the
productivity of the well given the following reservoir properties:
Reservoir Data:
μ = 0.7 cp, kh = 180 md, kz= 3 md Bo = 1.22, re= 1000 ft.

Question 2
A well is to be stimulated with a limited height fracture. The fracture height, hf , is approximately equal to
twice the fracture wing length, xf , and in the intended design the fracture height is roughly half the formation
height and is positioned at the top of formation. Use the concept of the effective wellbore radius of an infinite
conductivity fracture in conjunction with the Brons and Marting theory of limited entry described in chapter 1
to determine the well productivity index (PI). Compare this PI with that of the un-fractured well and that of a
well with a fracture of full height (hf = h) to highlight the impact fracturing and limited entry skins.
Reservoir Data:
μ = 2 cp, kh = 1 md, kz= 0.05 md h=100 ft
Bo = 1.2, rw = 0.354 ft, re= 1000 ft.

Question 3
A formation has been severely damaged during drilling with the well exhibiting a skin factor, S , of 70. The
virgin formation permeability, k , from the well test is 70 md and the formation thickness is 150 ft. The
wireline logs indicate a depth of filtrate invasion of 6 ft and it is presumed that the damage is uniform over the
invaded annulus. An acid stimulation job is being designed which will remove formation damage to a radial
depth of 3 ft from the wellbore i.e the acid dissolves interstitial clay, polymer and mud solids and returns the
permeability to the unaltered value. Calculate the well skin factor after stimulation and the volume of acid
required for the treatment if ϕ = 0.2, residual oil saturation is 0.3 and rw = 0.354 ft.

Question 4
A fault block of pore volume 10 MMbbl is produced by a single well of productivity index, Jsss, equal to 5
bbl/day/psi. The initial reservoir pressure is 6500 psia and the bubble-point pressure of the fluid is 4800 psia.
How much oil can be produced before the bottom-hole flowing pressure falls below the bubble-point.
Reservoir data:
ct = 4.5x10-5 psi-1 q = 7000 bbl/day, ϕ = 0.21, Swc = 0.18.

Question 5
A particular formation has been shown to be amenable to acid treatment which can increase the rock
permeability from the intrinsic value of 5 md to an improved value of 17 md due to its effect on interstitial
clay. In a formation of 80 ft thickness and 20% porosity, estimate how much the well (steady-state)
productivity index (based on Pe) will be increased if 1000 bbl of acid are injected into the formation, assuming
piston displacement of connate water, reducing oil to a residual saturation of 0.35 and negligible wellbore

6
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

radius compared to invaded zone radius. This requires you to calculate and compare the productivity index
values before and after the treatment.
Reservoir data:
Bo = 1.2, o = 0.8 cp, re = 5000 ft, rw = 0.3 ft, Swc = 0.25.

Question 6
A well test on a newly drilled well indicates a formation permeability, k, of 120 md and a skin factor, S, of 26.
These results are based on a formation thickness, h, equal to 78 ft and a wellbore radius, rw of 0.3 ft. The
resistivity logs indicate a depth of invasion, ri, of 4 ft and the formation damage is attributed to montmorillonite
swelling. A service company offers a water-based treatment which will restore the damaged permeability to
90% of the original, unaltered state. Determine the SSS well productivity index, Jsss, before and after such a
treatment assuming an open-hole completion. The well spacing, i.e. the approximate distance to nearby wells,
can be assumed to be 5000 ft and the oil viscosity, μ, is 0.8 cp. What volume of treatment fluid would you
recommend for this job?
Reservoir data:
Bo = 1.25, Swc = 0.27, ϕ = 0.18, Waterflood residual oil saturation, Sor = 0.35.

Question 7
It is proposed to hydraulically fracture an oil well in a low permeability formation characterised by the
following parameters:
k = 24 md, h = 80 ft, μ = 2.5 cp, re = 3000 ft,
rw = 0.35 ft, Bo = 1.22, pi = 6225 psia.
The skin factor, S, for the unfractured well (perforated
completion) is –1.3 and the proposed fracture is of half
length, xf, equal to 100 ft. Determine the increase in well
production rate on fracturing the well given the tubing
performance curve below.

Question 8
The vertical lift performance (VLP) curve for a 31/2"
tubing is given in the accompanying diagram below. A
well test has shown that the current average reservoir
pressure is 6000 psia, the permeability is 650 md and the
skin factor is 9. The initial reservoir pressure is 6000 psi.
In this case the skin is due to wax deposition and a solvent
treatment would reduce the skin factor to 3. Calculate the
incremental oil production rate from carrying out this
work-over.
Reservoir data:
μo = 0.5 cp, h = 60 ft, Bo = 1.3,
rw = 0.3 ft, ϕ = 0.2, re = 3000 ft.

7
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

CHAPTER 1: TUTORIAL 2 SOLUTIONS

Question 1
The fracture is treated as a vertical cylindrical well of large radius i.e.
xf 60
rw, eff = = = 30 ft
from Prat’s formula: 2 2
The effect of the limited height is allowed for using the Brons and Marting limited entry theory.
h k 300 180
hd = = = 77.46
rw , eff kz 30 3

hp hf 100
b= = = = 0.333
h h 30
00
From the Brons and Marting correlation: Spp = 5.83
The PI of the fractured well is given by:

This is based on an assumed drainage radius, re, of 1000 ft.

Question 2
For the fractured well assume the effective wellbore radius is given by the Prats equation:
xf
rw, eff =
2
and the PI is given by the limited entry expression:

h h 100
Shppf = = 2 x f from
is obtained f = and
i.e. xBrons = Marting
= 25 ft
2
h 4
h 4
100
hf = = 2 x f i.e. x f = = = 25 ft
2
h 4
h 100 4
h f = x=f 2 x f25i.e. x f = = = 25 ft
rw , eff =2 = = 12.5 4 4
x2 25 2
rw , eff = f = = 12.5
x2f 25 2
r 50 = = = 12.5
bw ,=eff 2= 0.52
100
50
b= = 0.5
100
50
b = h = 0.k5 100 1 8
hd =100 by the IPE-WT
Prepared = teaching team
rwh, eff kkz 12 .5 0.105
100
hd = =
rwh, eff kkz 12 .5 0.105
100
 50
b= = 0.5
100
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

h k 100 1
hd = =
rw , eff kz 12.5 0.05
From the Brons and Marting correlation: Spp = 3.5 (Figure 54 of Chapter 1), hence,

PI of unfractured well assuming no damage skin:

PI of full height fractured well:

PI of full height fractured well is more than that of fractured by 0.04 bbl/d/psi or 97.6%. However partial
penetration removes the benefit of fracturing giving same PI as that of un-fractured well.

Question 3
Assuming an open hole completion, the Hawkins equation is:

In the present case S = 70 rs = 6 ft and rw = 0.354 ft

Solving for ks gives:
k 70
ks = i.e. ks = = 2.72 m d
S 70
+1 +1
rs 6
ln ln
rw 0.354
After acid stimulation there is a region between r1 = 3 ft and r2 = 6 ft where the permeability is still 2.72 md.
The incremental pressure drop over this region is given by the Hawkins equation in the form:

The pore volume of the acidised region is:

As the acid invades oil is left behind as a residual saturation, Sor, which is typically 0.3. Hence the acid required
Va = (1 - Sor ) Var = 0.7 ´ 149 = 104 bbl
will be:

9
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

Question 4
The drawdown in the well is given by the PI formula:

(
q = J sss p - pwf )
Alternatively,
q 7000
p = pwf + = 4800 + = 6200 psia
J sss 5
Thus the average pressure can only fall 300 psi i.e. Δp = 6500 – 6200 = 300 psi
The simple material balance is:
ΔV = ctVΔp, ΔV = 4.5x10-5x10x106x300 = 0.135x106 bbl
This is all that can be produced before pwf falls below the bubble-point

Question 5
The depth of invasion of the acid is given by the volume balance:

assuming oil is left as a residual saturation and connate water is displaced by the acid. If the volume of acid
is in barrels this equation may be written:

The negative skin due to acid stimulation is given by the Hawkins equation:

The productivity index is given by:

The PI without acid treatment is 0.304 bbl/d/psi which means acid treatment has increased PI by 0.114 bbl/d/psi
or 37.5% compared to the untreated case. This is achieved because of the resultant enhanced permeability or
negative skin.

Question 6

The Hawkins equation is

which on solving for ks gives 10.87 md
10
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

Supposing now ks = 0.9x120 = 108 md then:

The productivity index is given by:

Case 1 - S = 26 Jsss = 1.8953 bbl/d/psi

Case 2 - S = 0.2878 Jsss = 7.738 bbl/d/psi
In this calculation re was assumed as 2500 ft because well spacing has been mentioned as 5,000
Assume the injected acid displaces the connate water in a piston-like fashion; then:
Vd = πri2hϕ(1 - 0.35) = 459 ft3 = 81.75 bbl

Question 7
The productivity index for the unfractured well is given by:

and for the fractured well, it is:

Case 1 - unfractured S = -1.3 Jsss = 0.6363 bbl/d/psi

Case 2 - fractured xf = 100 ft Jsss = 1.3346 bbl/d/psi

The IPR lines are plotted on the well performance diagram as shown below and the oil production increases
from 3381 to 6713 bbl/d.

Well Vertical Lift Performance

11
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

Question 8
The semi-steady-state (SSS) productivity index is given by:

or in SPE field units:

For the base case skin of 9, PI with damage is:

Jsss = 24.33 bbl/d/psi
If the skin is reduced to 3 the PI becomes:
Jsss = 37.08 bbl/d/psi
On a well performance diagram the straight line IPR is given by:
1
pwf = pi - qs
J sss where pi = 6000 psia, in this case
Case 1) slope = - 0.0411
Case 2) slope = - 0.0270
The two IPR’s are plotted on the supplied well performance diagram and the respective operating points
(intersections of IPR and VLP) are:
Skin 9: qs = 34711 bbl/d
Skin 3: qs = 37147 bbl/d
an increase of 2436 STbbl/d

Well Performance Diagram

12
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

CHAPTER 2 TO CHAPTER 5: TUTORIAL 1

Question 1
The data given in Table 1 below refers to a constant rate drawdown test on an oil well. Determine the formation
permeability and skin using manual semilog analysis.
Reservoir Data:
pi = 6500 psia, Bo = 1.3, qs = 9500 STB/D, rw = 0.3 ft,
h = 130 ft, ϕ = 0.23, -5 -1
ct = 3.0x10 psi , μo = 0.7 cp.
What is the depth of investigation of this test?

Question 2
The build-up data for a shut-in following the drawdown of question 1 is given in Table 2. Determine the
permeability and skin from the Horner plot of this data. From Table 1, Pwf=3632.09 at tp =12 has been
considered as Pwf (Δt=0).

Question 3
Determine the wellbore storage coefficient for the data referring to question 1 and make a plot of the downhole
(sandface) rate versus time.

Table 1: Drawdown Data Table 2: Builup data

13
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

CHAPTER 2 TO CHAPTER 5: TUTORIAL 1 SOLUTIONS

Question 1
70.6 ´ qs Bom 70.6 ´ qs Bom
m=- i.e. k = -
The slope of the semi-log drawdown plot is m = - 107.3 psi/(lnkhcycle), Hence, mh = 44 md.

Intercept of Semilog straight line on graph, pwf(t = 1)=3898.7 psia, hence,

The depth of investigation is given by

Question 2
Build-up semi-log period plot is shown below. It is noted that p* is close to pi that is given in question 1
highlighting the reliability of data based on infinite acting with minimal production

14
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

p* = 6502 psia pwf(t=0) = 3632.09 psia m = -108.64 psi/(ln cycle)

i.e. S = 0.5(26.42 – 20.89 + 7.43) = 6.5
- essentially the same result as drawdown analysis

Question 3

Log-Log plot
For wellbore storage:
qs Bot M
Cs = where Dqp MB = 100 psi and t M = 0.00412 hr
24DpM ot M
Cs = s where where Dp M = 100 psi and t M = 0.00412 hr are the coordinates of an
24DpM
arbitrary selected point on the unit slope straight line fitted to the data points affected by WBS.
This gives Cs = 0.021 bbl/psi.
Computation of sand face flow-rate, qsf - derivative dp/dt computed in Excel by two-point finite difference
Cs dp
qsf = qs + 24
(dp/dt is negative in drawdown), i.e. Bo dt

15
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

CHAPTER 2 TO CHAPTER 5: TUTORIAL 2

Question 1
A build-up test was carried out on a well which had produced a cumulative oil production of 1.035MMbbl.
The stabilised oil flow-rate prior to shut-in was 5800 STBO/D. The well is located in a multiwell reservoir
with a drainage area estimated to be 194 acres. Determine the reservoir permeability and skin factor from the
build-up response based on semi-steady-state time. For (tsss). For calculation assume a permeability of 250 md
which is a typical value for this field.
Reservoir Data:
μo= 0.8 cp, Bo = 1.25, ct = 12.75x10-6 psi-1, ϕ = 0.26,
2
h = 137 ft, rw = 0.25 ft, 1 acre = 43560 ft .

= 0.1, time for drainage area to reach SSS

Time (min) Pressure (psi) Time (min) Pressure (psi)
0 2270 60 2464
1 2331 90 2469
2 2374 120 2476
3 2397 180 2481
4 2408 240 2484
5 2417 300 2488
6 2420 360 2489
7 2424 420 2491
8 2428 480 2491
9 2431 540 2495
10 2433 600 2496
15 2440 660 2497
30 2452 720 2497
45 2458

Question 2
The build-up test given below indicates that a fault or faults may have affected the late time data. Assess
whether or not this behaviour is due to a single fault. If so determine the distance to the fault.
Reservoir data:
qo = 4500 STB/D, μo = 0.75 cp, Bo = 1.4,
-6 -1
ct = 13.0x10 psi , ϕ = 0.22, h = 125 ft,
rw = 0.35 ft, pwf(Δt=0) = 3701 psi, tp = 60 hr.

Shutin Time Pressure, pw s Shutin Time Pressure, pw s

(hr) (psi) (hr) (psi)

0.017 3733 2.0 3785

0.033 3747 3.0 3789
0.050 3753 4.0 3792
0.067 3754 5.0 3796
0.083 3757 6.0 3799
0.167 3764 7.0 3801
0.250 3766 8.0 3804
0.333 3769 9.0 3805
0.500 3773 10.0 3807
1.000 3779 11.0 3809
1.500 3783 12.0 3810

16
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

Question 3
A geologic map of a reservoir indicates two definite faults and a third possible fault as indicated in the
accompanying diagram. A well test has to be designed to verify whether or not the third sealing fault is present.
The permeability is estimated to be 150 md and the other fluid and reservoir properties are given below. Using
the available derivative type curve for elementary faults to identify how long should the major flow period and
the subsequent build-up be in order to allow a definite discrimination to be made. The test separator capacity
will allow a flow-rate of 8000 STbbl/d. Assume (i) the build-up duration to be 1.5 and 4 times draw-down
duration for the 90 degree and u-shaped fault systems, respectively, (ii) 50% conservative error in the
permeability value. Note that inspection of the derivative type curve for elementary fault systems shows that
a dimensionless flowing time, td/L2d, of about 5 will be required to distinguish between a right-angle fault pair
and a U-shaped fault system.
Reservoir data:
μo = 0.5 cp, h = 60 ft, Bo = 1.3, ϕ = 0.2,
-5 -1
ct = 5x10 psi , rw = 0.3 ft, pi = 7500 psia.

17
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

CHAPTER 2 TO CHAPTER 5: TUTORIAL 2 SOLUTIONS

Question 1
For a well which has flowed for a long time the actual producing time is replaced by the time for the drainage
area to reach semi-steady-state - this is known as the Kazemi method. In the present case:

Taking k as 250 md and solving for tsss gives: tsss = 34 hr

The actual (constant rate equivalent) producing time is:
1.035 ´ 10 6 ´ 24
tp = = 4283hr
5800
However tsss is used since it is shorter.
Ln((tsss + Pressure (psi) Ln((tss s + Pressure (psi)
Dt)/Dt) Dt)/Dt)
0 2270 3.5553 2464
7.6212 2331 3.1641 2469
6.9285 2374 2.8904 2476
6.5236 2397 2.5123 2481
6.2364 2408 2.2513 2484
6.0137 2417 2.0541 2488
5.8319 2420 1.8971 2489
5.6782 2424 1.7677 2491
5.5452 2428 1.6582 2491
5.4279 2431 1.5640 2495
5.3230 2433 1.4816 2496
4.9200 2440 1.4088 2497
4.2341 2452 1.3437 2497
3.8359 2458

The slope of the semilog straight line is m = –13.95 psi/ln cycle giving the permeability as:

18
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

70.6qs Bom
k =- = 214 md
mh
The skin factor is given by:

where pwf(t=0) = 2270 psi

Substituting the numbers gives S = 0.3

Question 2
ln ((tp + Dt)/Dt) Pressure, pw s ln ((tp + Dt)/Dt) Pressure, pw s
(psi) (psi)

8.1692 3733 3.4340 3785

7.5061 3747 3.0445 3789
7.0909 3753 2.7726 3792
6.7985 3754 2.5649 3796
6.5846 3757 2.3979 3799
5.8869 3764 2.2588 3801
5.4848 3766 2.1401 3804
5.1995 3769 2.0369 3805
4.7958 3773 1.9459 3807
4.1108 3779 1.8648 3809
3.7135 3783 1.7918 3810

Note that the slope ratio is close enough to 2 to confirm a single sealing fault.
The Horner plot is shown above with two straight lines fitted. The first line is the MTR and is of slope –8.76
psi/ln cycle i.e.
70.6 ´ qs Bom
k =- = 305 md
mh
The skin factor follows as: S = -2.28 . . . based on pwf = 3701 psi and p* = 3814.6 psi
The intersection of the first and second lines occurs at the Horner time function = 2.8
i.e. Δtx = 3.885 hr
For build-up the distance from the fault is given by:

19
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

In the present case Δtex = 3.649 and L = 277 ft - this is the distance to the fault

Question 3
As noted in the question, inspection of the derivative type curve for elementary fault systems shows that a
dimensionless flowing time, td/L2d, of about 5 will be required to distinguish between a right-angle fault pair
and a U-shaped fault system – the two possible cases indicated on the geologic map.

or in SPE field units:

is the design condition. Solving for t (in hours) gives:

and substituting the parameter values yields:

5 ´ 0.2 ´ 0.5 ´ 5 ´ 10 5 ´ 250 ´ 250
t= = 39.5hr
0.0002637 ´ 150
Hence a 40 hour flow period would be sufficient followed by a 60 hour build-up. Given that the permeability
of 150 md is only an estimate the test duration should be increased to allow for possible error. Say the
permeability is only 75 md (probably a conservative estimate of potential uncertainty) then the flow period
should be 80 hour followed by a 120 hour build-up. This is the recommended test design which stipulates that
the build-up be 1.5 times the flow period. If the system is indeed a U-shape i.e. a channel system then a longer
build-up is necessary, say four times the drawdown period i.e. 320 hours – quite a change in the test design
especially in an offshore test from a semisubmersible rig.

20
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

CHAPTER 2 TO CHAPTER 5: TUTORIAL 3

Question 1
Linear flow to an infinite-conductivity fractured well is described by the constant rate pD function:

Supposing this equation can be used where the drawdown, (pi – pwf), is constant, i.e. specified constant bottom-
hole flowing pressure, pwf, - the Fetkovich approximation, derive an expression for the declining rate as a
function of time.
A hydraulically fractured gas well has the following properties:
k = 0.05 md μ = 0.02 cp xf = 400 ft
-4
ct = 1.0x10 psi -1
ϕ = 0.06 h = 80 ft
pi = 5000 psi pwf = 1500 psi Bg = 0.00365 ft3/scf
End of linear flow: tDxf = 0.016 and there is no WBS.

Question 2
It is desired to carry out a pre-fracture test in a tight oil reservoir with the properties given below in SPE units.
The duration of the wellbore storage is predicted by the Ramey correlation: [tD]slsl = CD(60 + 3.5S).
Wells in the field have a wellbore storage coefficient, Cs, of the order of 0.1 bbl/psi and the skin factor due to
drilling damage is expected to be of the order of 10. Design a well test to determine the reservoir permeability,
k. Nearby wells have k around 0.3 md.
Reservoir data:
ϕ = 0.15, h = 80 ft, rw = 0.354 ft,
-6
ct = 4.0x10 psi -1
μ = 1.3 cp, Bo = 1.2.

Question 3
The accompanying diagrams (shown in the solution) show the log-log diagnostic plots for four exploration
well tests. Comment on the possible models for interpretation of these tests in the light of pressure data alone.

Question 4
The log-log diagnostic plots (including derivative) for four well tests are shown in the accompanying diagrams
(shown in the solution). For each one indicate the flow regimes and possible geological explanations for the
observed behaviour.

Question 5
A well is flowed at constant rate of 1500 STB/D for 4.8 hr and then shut-in for a build-up the analysis of which
gave a permeability, k, of 210 md and a skin factor, S, of 4.8. The last flowing bottom-hole pressure, pwf(tp),
was 3600 psia. Assuming infinite-acting radial flow prepare a graph of the pressure profile versus radius in
the reservoir at the moment of shut-in. Please note you need to have access either to an Ei Table or
corresponding equations in P.31 and P.32 of Chapter 2.
Reservoir Data:
ϕ = 0.18, μ = 1.4 cp, ct = 3.0x10-5 psi-1,
h = 60 ft, rw = 0.35 ft, Bo= 1.25.
21
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

CHAPTER 2 TO CHAPTER 5: TUTORIAL 3 SOLUTIONS

Question 1
Rearranging the CRD model in the form:
pf ct k 1
q = 2hx f ( pi - pwf )
m t
In SPE (oil) field units this becomes:

or

where Bg = 0.00365 ft3/scf

Substituting the parameter values this becomes:
Q = 1.01´ 1010 ´ 1 MMscf/d
t

The flow-rates given by this calculation are very high indeed and will not be realised in practice since the
fractured well will take considerable time to clean-up. The linear flow period only lasts one day at this
permeability level of 0.05 md.

Question 2
In field units the wellbore storage equation takes the form:

mCs
t slsl = 3390 ´ ( 60 + 3.5S)
i.e. kh
Taking Cs as 0.1 bbl/psi the time to the beginning of the semilog straight line is:
tslsl = 1744 hr i.e. 73 days
A well test will therefore require a flowing time of at least 75 days to get out of storage in drawdown and then
a build-up, which is around 1.5 times longer than DD, i.e. 112.5 days or at least 100 days, is required to see a
portion of the semilog straight line.

22
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

Question 3
DP refers to derivative plateau.

Figure 1: Infinite conductivity fracture response, k from DP, xf , from linear flow plot, no wellbore storage.

Figure 2: Channel reservoir response, k from DP, W from linear flow graph.

Figure 3: Classic ideal wellbore storage, k from DP or type curve match.

23
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

Figure 4: 120o Intersecting Fault - tripling of the logarithmic derivative, k from DP and L from intersection of
two lines in the semi-log plot or from type curve match.

Question 4
DP refers to derivative plateau.

Figure 1: US wellbore storage dominated, DP infinite acting radial flow in a homogeneous reservoir.

Figure 2: First DP, infinite acting radial flow, Second DP, 90o intersecting fault.
24
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

Figure 3: US wellbore storage dominated, DP infinite acting radial flow, HS Linear flow Channel reservoir.

Figure 4: Infinite conductivity fractured well HS Linear flow, DP infinite acting pseudoradial flow.

Question 5
The dimensionless pressure change, p = pi - pr , is given by:

In the problem the pressure profile at a time, t = 4.8 hr is sought.

Hence

Also
The pressure profile at t = 48 hr is calculated as follows using the Ei solution:

25
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

The skin pressure drop is given by:

Since the flowing bottom-hole pressure is 3600 psia, the initial reservoir pressure, which should include DPs
occurring only at the wellbore radius, is:
pi = 3600 + 141.2 + 196 .71 = 3937.9 psia Using this value the data of last column can be calculated using
Pr=Pi-DP.

26
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

CHAPTER 2 TO CHAPTER 5: TUTORIAL 4

Question 1
A pressure build-up test was carried out on a well using a downhole valve so that wellbore storage effects were
negligible. The semilog (Horner) build-up plot for this test is shown in the diagram. Make an interpretation
of this test on the basis that both the early and middle time data are valid. There are no late time effects due
to boundaries such as faults or gas caps. The logs show a deep depth of invasion of mud filtrate.

Test and Reservoir Data:

ϕ = 0.22, μ= 0.85 cp, ct= 11x10-6 psi-1,
h= 165 ft, Bo= 1.27, tp= 36 hr,
qs= 6130 STB/D, rw= 0.33 ft, pwf(Δt = 0)= 4758 psia.
For Horner plot analysis using field units and natural logs:

Question 2
The constant sandface rate solution of an infinite-conductivity fracture (plane source) is given, at early time
by linear flow theory viz.:

Show how a two-rate well test in a fractured well can be analysed when linear flow is occurring. Under what
conditions could this theory be used to analyse a build-up with afterflow?

Question 3
A two-rate test has a flow schedule of the form shown in the accompanying diagram (shown in the solution).
Derive a time function which will allow the pressure data in the second flow period to be analysed. Assume
infinite acting flow and is not affected by WBS or boundaries.
27
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

CHAPTER 2 TO CHAPTER 5: TUTORIAL 4 SOLUTIONS

Question 1
The line designated 1 on the Horner plot is the middle time region (MTR) of ideal slope where:
m = - 7.28 psi/ln cycle,
Hence the formation permeability is given by:
70.6 ´ qs Bom
k =- = 389 md
mh
The skin factor is given by the equation:

For the MTR i.e. line 1:

1
S= ( 41.21 - 24.86 + 7.43) = 11.9
2
The early time region straight line, designated 2, represents the pressure disturbance propagating in the
damaged region; here:
m = - 29.8 psi/ln cycle
and the damaged region permeability, ka, is given by:
70.6 ´ qs Bom
ka = - = 95 md
mh
The skin for this ETR line is:
1
Sa = (16.00 - 23.61 + 7.43) = -0.1
2
(Sa = - 0.0053 if numbers used in computation are not rounded off)
The difference between these two skin values gives the mud invasion skin.
The Hawkins equation for mud invasion skin is:

=11.9-(-0.1)=12 and S=12 giving ra=16.

This seems a bit excessive for mud filtrate invasion!

28
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

Horner Plot
Question 2
A two-rate test has a rate schedule of the form:

Rate Schedule

The principle of superposition takes the form:

Substitution of the fundamental CRD model (pD function) i.e.: , into above gives:

The quantity 1
(q t + (q - q ) (T - t )
2 1 )is known as a linear flow superposition time function and a specialist
plot of pwf(t) versus this quantity will have a slope:

If the permeability, k, is known say from a prefracture test then the (effective) area of the fracture wing, hxf,
may be determined.
For build-up i.e. q2 = 0 and q1 = q the superposition equation simply becomes:

Here the build-up superposition time function is referred to as a tandem square root. For this to be valid the
maximum value of t must be such that the condition tDxf < 0.016 is satisfied.

29
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

Question 3

The principle of superposition takes the form:

which may be written:

Assuming the radial flow model: this becomes:

Here STF is a logarithmic superposition time for a two-rate test in the second flow period i.e. t > T1.

30
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

CHAPTER 6 TO CHAPTER 8: TUTORIAL 1

Question 1
An RFT survey in an appraisal well in a gas reservoir gave the following data:

Saturation Logs from a North sea Gas Well.

The open-hole logging suite indicated the gas saturation as shown in the diagram. What do you infer from
these data. Discuss the reservoir engineering implications of the interpretation of the data set.

Question 2
A WFT survey in an oil well gave the data in the table below. Plot the data on a pressure depth diagram and
make a best estimate of the water-oil contact. The hydrostatic pressure gradient of the formation water at
reservoir conditions is 0.4953 psi/ft. The relation between time of observable build-up and reciprocal
permeability (supercharging index, SI = ks-1) is given by the relation:
1 Tob
SI = =
ks 40

31
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team
Confidential Institute of Petroleum Engineering – Heriot-Watt University Well Test Analysis

CHAPTER 6 TO CHAPTER 8: TUTORIAL 1 SOLUTIONS

Question 1
In the graph below the pressure has been plotted against true vertical depth and the gradients found by overlay.
The observed pressure gradient intersection is at 15346 ft. Hence the gas on the logs below this depth, where
the RFT shows a water gradient, must be nonproducible i.e. a residual saturation and the lower gas-water
contact on the logs is a paleocontact.

Question 2

Pressure - Depth Diagram

Production logging surveys in flowing wells is a necessary adjunct in the history matching process.

32
Prepared by the IPE-WT teaching team