Copyright 1991 Society of Petroleum Engineers
ally evolved on the basis of an input signal of constant flow rate
This paper (SPE 18949) was prepared for presentation at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regionall
Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, March 6-8, 1989.
Summary
In this paper, we present a technique that allows one to perform
a short-term well test, The short duration of the test results in
reasonably good estimates of formation permeability, skin factor,
and reservoir pressure. The technique, referred to as "Quicklook,"
requires pressure measurement at the surface and downhole. After
perforating, the formation is subjected to an instantaneous-rate draw-
down or injection for a couple minutes. The instantaneous-rate peri-
od is followed by a shut-in period of sufficient duration to achieve
the desired radius of investigation. Three interpretation plots are
made to perform the analysis: a derivative type plot for flow-regime
identification and type-curve analysis, a specialized plot [rate-
convolved Homer (RCH) analysis] for certain flow parameter cal-
culations, and a system-verification plot. A desirable feature of the
technique is that the testing and perforating can be performed dur-
ing the same trip. Two field examples from low-permeability wells
illustrate the technique and data interpretation.
Introduction
Optimized stimulation design for low-permeability wells requires
know ledge of formation permeability, skin factor, and reservoir
pressure. The conventional well test with only transient pressure
is most widely used to obtain these parameters. Successful appli-
cation of a conventional test can require long periods of produc-
tion drawdown and subsequent shut-in for pressure buildup in
low-permeability wells. Addition of downhole transient-rate data
can significantly reduce the test duration and enhance interpreta-
tion quality. In low-permeability wells, however, the pretreatment
flow rates are usually too low for commercially available flowmeters
to measure accurately. Additionally, these techniques require a spe-
cial trip into the well after perforating.
For commercial production, nearly all low-permeability wells re-
quire some form of stimulation, from small acid jobs to massive
hydraulic fracture treatments. Knowledge of formation permeabil-
ity is critical in decisions about the fracture half-length required
for efficient reservoir drainage. Reservoir pressure is an impor-
tant parameter controlling fluid loss and affecting treatment size
and fluid selection. The skin factor plays a direct role in the size
and type of an acid job.
Transient well testing has long been recognized as a viable and
practical technique to estimate formation permeability, reservoir
pressure, and skin factor. 1 The conventional techniques for inter-
preting well tests are based on analyzing the pressure response of
a system (reservoir) to a perturbation (in pressure and flow rate)
introduced at a boundary (well). Knowing the perturbation and its
response, one hopes to identify the system and to determine its pa-
rameters. Because pressure and flow rate are integral parts of all
analysis equations, one should theoretically be able to use either
pressure or flow rate as an input signal and obtain the same re-
sults. But because the devices for measuring pressure have been,
and still are, much more accurate and sensitive than the devices
for measuring flow rates, well-test analysis procedures have gener-
, Now at Schlumberger Seaco.
"Mark of Schlumberger.
SPE Computer Applications, March/April 1991
at the surface. For low-permeability wells, the rate stabilization time
can be too long for a cost-effective test. With only pressure recorded
downhole, the downhole flow rate can be deduced implicitly by
assuming constant wellbore storage. In low-permeability wells, how-
ever, the wellbore-storage coefficient is rarely constant.
During the last 5 years, the industry has experimented with the
use of simultaneously recorded pressure and flow rates with con-
siderable success. 2-6 The direct downhole measurement of flow
rates removes the uncertainties associated with implicit evaluation
of the sandface flow rates and allows a rigorous analysis of the early-
time data.3.4 In low-permeability wells, however, the pretreatment
flow rates are too low for commercially available flowmeters to
measure accurately.
Here we present a test technique and interpretation methodology
that allow one to perform a short-term (typically 2 hours or less)
well test on low-permeability wells with prestimulation downhole
flow rates too low to measure with commercially available flow-
meters. The associated interpretation system can provide a reasona-
bly good estimate of formation permeability, skin factor, and
reservoir pressure. The technique is called Quicklook. After per-
forating, the formation is subjected to an instantaneous-rate draw-
down or injection for a couple minutes. 7,8 This period is followed
by a shut-in period long enough to provide the desired radius of
investigation. Ayoub et ai. 7 showed that the pressure response to
an instantaneous-rate drawdown of unit strength is governed by the
derivative of the pressure response pertaining to a conventional step-
rate change. We complement and extend their work by providing
a specialized plot to enhance the flow-parameter calculations. Be-
cause the test technique for the Quicklook test as described here
is the same as IMPULSE Testing** in Ref. 7, we continue to refer
to our test technique as IMPULSE Testing. The technique requires
pressure measurement downhole and at surface or intermediate po-
sitions (for flow-rate computation). The technique is also applica-
ble when downhole measured flow rates are directly available.
Test Technique
During the test, downhole pressure measurements are made. The
downhole pressure sonde can be on a tubing-conveyed perforator
or through-tubing perforator by wireline. Fluid properties and ini-
tial surface pressure can be used for flow-rate computations. 9,10
After perforating, the formation is subjected to an instantaneous-
rate drawdown or injection for several minutes, similar to the IM-
PULSE Testing technique. The rate impulse period is followed by
a shut-in period long enough to achieve the desired radius of in-
vestigation.
The three basic types of configurations for such short-term test-
ing using a tubing-conveyed perforator with downhole gauge are
surface flow, closed chamber or compressive, and slug flow. Fig,
1 illustrates the closed-chamber, compressive, and slug-flow con-
figurations.
In a surface flow test, the wellbore is completely filled with a
cushion fluid chosen to provide an underbalance pressure against
the formation. When the guns are fired, formation fluid flows
through the perforations and displaces the wellbore fluid. Immedi-
ate fluid recovery is observed at the wellhead. The well is shut in
(downhole or surface) after production for a short period of time
and pressure-buildup data are collected for analysis. 9
30-----------------------------------------------------------
In compressive IMPULSE Testing, a small chamber of air or
CLOSED CHAMBER rcp gas is left at the top of the tubing with the well shut in at the sur-
face. Upon perforating, fluid flows into the wellbore and compresses
Gas the gas, thereby rapidly increasing bottornhole pressure (BHP) and
Chamber retarding fluid production from the reservoir. A closed-chamber
drillstem test (DST) and a backsurge test (the formation is flowed
into an atmospheric chamber enclosed within the tubing) are other
forms of compressive IMPULSE Testing.
The slug test is a special form of a DST designed for wells that
do not flow to surface. Here, the DST valve is opened and the for-
D<l~+-- Valve
mation is subjected to cushion pressure plus any hydrostatic pres-
sure exerted by fluids below the valve. The wellhead is left open
during the entire flow. The well flows into the wellbore until the
"'-+-Gauge
hydrostatic pressure from the rising fluid column becomes essen-
Packer tially identical to the reservoir pressure, at which point fluid flow
ceases and the well kills itself.
....-+- Guns In general, the short-term test procedure involves fluid-flow du-
ration of 2 to 10 minutes and a subsequent shut-in response for a
time period equivalent to 6 to 20 times the fluid-flow duration.

Fig. 1-Three testing configurations for the short-term test. Test-Data Interpretation Methodology
The IMPULSE Testing analysis using BHP's has been applied suc-
cessfully in gulf coast high-permeability wells. 7 Instant withdrawal
or injection of a unit volume of fluid causes a change in pressure
proportional to the derivative ofthe reservoir's pressure response.
End of impulse Therefore, the IMPULSE Testing plot, as described in Ref. 7 and
1t illustrated in Fig. 2, is an excellent plot for flow-regime identifica-
Pressure
tion. The IMPULSE Testing plot can also be type-curve matched
for permeability and skin factor. However, the calculated skin fac-
tor relies more on the late-time data than on skin-related early-time
data. Also, the generation of an IMPULSE Testing plot requires
knowledge of initial reservoir pressure, Pi . In this study, Pi is one
of the unknown parameters that we attempt to estimate. In the IM-
PULSE Testing plot, a correct assumption of Pi will allow the
Derivative
generation of the zero-slope derivative for a homogeneous radial
11 Ap.At flow system. We recommend that the IMPULSE Testing plot be
emphasized for flow-regime identification (vital information in well-
Time (Log scaled) test analysis).
Once the transient rate is made available by pressure measure-
Fig. 2-Typical IMPULSE derivative plot. ments, the Duhamel's principle (or superposition) can be applied
to integrate the changing wellbore pressures and rates. We call this

Role-Convolved Horner Piol

p*
4500

4125
Absence Presence
3750 of of
Flow Rate Flow Rate

3375

0>3000
·iii
':
III
2625
~

D- 2250

1875 6
6

........".,,"-
1500
Skin Too High
66 --
....... .........
1125 Skin Too Low '" --'-.
-"
750
0 390 780 1170 1560 1950 2340 2730 3120 3510 3900
Time Function

Fig. 3-Typical RCH plot.

---------------------------------------------------------31
technique the RCH plot because of its similarities with the conven-
tional Homer plot. The idea behind this technique was originally
mentioned by Meunier et al. 2 but never pursued as a serious op-
tion to sandface-rate convolution. 3 Combining the earlier work of
van Everdingen and Hurst lO with Duhamel's principle of super-
position, we get
where tD = dimensionless time, PD = dimensionless pressure,
Pi> (tD)=time derivative of PD (tD), the constant-rate solution of
the flow model, PwD (tD) = dimensionless wellbore pressure drop,
qD = dimensionless flow rate, q/qo (rate at any time/initial rate),
and r=integration variable.
Integrating by parts, noting that PD (0)=0 and qD (0)= I, we get

PwD (tD) = J
r to qD (r)pi> (tD -r)dr, .................... (1) J
PwD (tD)=PD (tD)+ to qD(r)PD(tD-r)dr+sqD(tD), ... (2)
o o

IBOO+-------~~--------~----------~----------~--------__t

~
VI 1600
0..

LLJ
II<
=>
VI
Ul
~ 1400
IL.
LLJ
..J
C
:<:
:I:
C
:: 1200 Simulated P~Qssure
c
'" C!J(!)OOOc!) Rctual Pl"'assurQ

1000+------+-----+------+-----+------+
0.00 0.1l0 O.BO 1. 20 I. 60 2.00
DELTA TIME (HOURS)
TTPE-CURVE HELL BORE STORAGE & S,IN (HOMOGENEOUS)
PRESSURE HISTORT MATCH (SIMULRTION)

Fig. 4- Typical verification plot.

2750

2500

2250- .....

:=- 2000
en
---c.
Q)
~
1750
::l
en
en
Q)
~

a. 1500-

1250-
A

1000
/ Well Shut In At Surface
750- I

0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (hrs)

Fig. 5-Transient-pressure data, Example Well 1.

32-----------------------------------------------------------
where s=dimensionless skin factor.
For the case of radial flow in infinite reservoir and using the
logarithmic approximation, Eq. 2 can be written as:
Pw=Pi-m'[qO 10g(t)+E(t)+sq(t)], .................. (3)
where Pw = wellbore pressure, Pi = initial reservoir pressure, t=test
time, and m' = slope of linear portion of semilog plot of pressure-
transient data. E(I) can be computed from the following numeri-
cal approximation 2 :
with
+ ...
+ ...
The RCH plot is a graphofpw vs. [qo log(t) +E(t) +sq(t)]. Such
a plot has the following characteristics.
1. For correct s, the data should fall on a straight line with slope
m'=162.6p./kh. Viscosity is denoted as p., formation permeability
as k, and formation thickness as h.
2. The extrapolation of the straight line to [qo 10g(t)+E(t)
+sq(t)] =0 provides Pi (similar to conventional Horner plot).
3. For values of s that are too low, the data curve downward.
For values of s that are too high, the line curves upward. Obtain-
ing an incorrect slope will affect the s, as well as the permeability
and Pi estimates.
Fig. 3 is an example RCH plot (from Field Example 1 discussed
later) illustrating the characteristics described above. For a correct
skin value, the data set exhibits a straight line, the slope of which
is inversely proportional to kh (md-ft). For skin values that are too
high or too low, the characteristic described in Point 3 is observed.
The intercept of the straight line at f (t) = 0 gives extrapolated pres-
sure (p*) or Pi' Also indicated in Fig. 3 is the separation between
the measurable/estimated flow-period data (called presence of flow
rate) and the subsequent no-flow data (called absence of flow rate).
The last step in our interpretation methodology is a verification
plot. The calculated permeability, skin factor, and reservoir pres-
sure are used to compute the flow- and no-flow-period transients.
A close match between the computed and actual data verifies the
computed reservoir flow parameters. Fig. 4 is an example of a verifi-
cation plot taken from our Field Example 2. Note that proper verifi-
cation should involve history matching of transient data other than
those used in the flow-parameter calculations. The nature of the
short-term prestimulation test discussed here, however, involves
only one transient as limited by an impulse; therefore, the nature
of the verification discussed should not be construed as all-inclusive.
The short-term test-data interpretation methodology can be sum-
marized with three specific plots: a derivative plot for flow-regime
identification and type-curve analysis, a specialized plot (RCH anal-

70
A
A
"t.
60 .......................

50
A

--
(f) 40

--
a.
~

~
(])
c
30 A

c
a. "
CJ) 20 ............ Il

A
A
10 ...../s. .•..

'"
'""
o

-101---------~----------r---------,---------_r--------~----~
o 2 4 6 8 10
Time (hrs)

Fig. 6-Transient-rate data, Example Well 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------33
ysis) for certain flow-parameter calculations, and a verification plot.
This procedure is intended for prestimulation well evaluation and
is not recommended to replace long-term pressure-drawdown and
-buildup tests for detailed evaluation of formation fluid properties
and reservoir heterogeneities.
Field Examples
We present two field examples to illustrate the interpretation meth-
odology. First, we demonstrate the applicability of the individual
steps of the interpretation methodology (Field Example 1) and then
present the entire methodology as a case study (Field Example 2).
The flow-regime identification by the IMPULSE Testing plot is
well-documented in Refs. 7 and 8; the verification plot is illustrat-
ed in Refs. 4 and 6.
Field Example 1. This example compares the RCH analysis using
early-time rate and pressure data with a conventional Horner anal-
ysis using only long-term pressure data. The data of the field ex-
ample are given in Table 2 of Ref. 5. The example well, located
in Atascosa County, TX, is a gas well completed in a sandstone
formation. The test involved downhole flow rate and pressure meas-
urement during the pressure-buildup test. The shut-in was long
enough for a conventional Horner analysis.
Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate the transient-pressure and -rate data dur-
ing that test. Fig. 7 is the RCH plot. The plot of shut-in pressure
vs. the time function can be divided into two sections: presence
and absence of flow rate. The former section pertains to the early-
time analysis using the rate and pressure data and is the RCH plot.
The latter section can be considered essentially the conventional

Rote-Convolved Horner Plot

p*
4500

4125
Absence Presence
of of
3750 low Rate Flow Rate

3375

0>3000
'iii
':: 2625
I/)
;!:
0.. 2250

1875

1500

1125
s = -1 :: +4
..oJ -~.....~---....-.....-~.

750
0 390 780 11701560195023402730312035103900
Time Function

Fig. 7-RCH plot exhibiting the effect of the presence of flow rate, Example Well 2.

1800,---------------------------------------------------------,
I!l I!J I!J
I!J I!J I!J
1725

1650

1575

'iii I!J
a. 1500 I!J
~
.," I!J

~ 1425 I!J
a.

1350 I!J

1275 I!l

I I!l Row Dotal

1200

1125 V
0.00
.
0.15 0.30 0.45
.
0.60 0.75 0.90 1.05
.
1.20 1.35 1.50
Time. hour

Fig. 8-Transient-pressure data, Example Well 2.

34-----------------------------------------------------------
Horner analysis. Once the correct skin factor is attained by trial
and error, the rate-convolved data points fall onto a straight line.
In this case, the data points also align quite well with the slope of
the conventional Horner plot. This suggests that the estimated per-
meability and p* from both methods will be the same. In the ab-
sence of late-time Horner slope, we select the best-fitting straight
line, assuming that radial flow is present. If the IMPULSE Testing
deviation plot does not identify the presence of a radial flow re-
gime, then use of the RCH plot is not recommended. This field
example demonstrates that, with reliable early-time rate data, a
short-term test analysis using RCH analysis can provide similar an-
swers as the late-time Horner method. Because the radius of in-
vestigation of the RCH analysis typically is less than that of
conventional Horner analysis, one may not see this agreement if
permeability changes occur away from the wellbore.
Field Example 2. A transient test was performed in this example
oil well after an underbalance perforating job. Both downhole and
surface pressures were measured during the initial instantaneous
flow following perforation and subsequent shut-in using a down-
hole valve. Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate the monitored transient pres-
sure and calculated transient flow rate. The initial pressure rise
during the first several minutes of Fig. 8 pertains to production fol-
lowing the perforating job. The remainder of the pressure increase
is due to well shut-in with a downhole shut-in valve. Fig. 10 is
the IMPULSE Testing plot using only the transient pressure and
cumulative flow. The presence of radial flow is established at a
dimensionless time of 50, as illustrated by the zero slope on the
derivative type-curve match of Fig. 10. A reservoir pressure of
1,771 psi was used to develop the example derivative plot. Pres-
ence of boundary effects can be noticed at about 10 2 dimension-
less time.
Having confirmed the presence of a radial flow regime, we can
now attempt the radial flow RCH plot (see Fig. 11). The various
legends pertain to the dimensionless skin factor. Late-time data be-
tween 0 and 20 RCH time curve upward, indicating boundary ef-
fects as seen in the IMPULSE Testing plot. Between 20 and 200
RCH time, the slope is the same, regardless of the chosen dimen-
sionless skin factor. This phenomenon is to be expected-skin fac-
tor does not affect the late-time data pattern. The skin factor is
determined by choosing the s factor that allows the majority of the
early-time data to fall on the drawn straight line. The RCH plot
allows us to estimate permeability, skin factor, andp* of 0.35 md,
0.9, and 1,751 psi, respectively. Table 1 presents the data pertain-
ing to this example well. Note the close agreement between the
TABLE 1-EXAMPLE WELL 2 DATA
Net pay, It 300
Wellbore radius, ft 0.37
Porosity, fraction 0.11
Oil density, °API 29.6
Oil viscosity, cp 0.67
assumed IMPULSE Testing plot reservoir pressure of 1,771 psi
and RCH analysis reservoir pressure of 1,751 psi. This close agree-
ment also suggests that the type-curve match of Fig. 10 should pro-
vide a permeability comparable to the Fig. 11 estimate. The
IMPULSE Testing plot type-curve match provides a permeability
of 0.31 md.
The verification plot of this example is shown in Fig. 4. Notice
the good agreement between the simulated and the actual pressure
response.
Limitations and Recommendations
Successful application of the interpretation methodology depends
on the calculation of stable flow rate from pressure. Noisy flow-
rate data can significantly influence the flow-parameter estimation.
Note that the presence of multiphase fluid flow significantly affects
flow-rate calculation from pressures.
There is an interdependence between the IMPULSE Testing
deJivative plot and the RCH plot. The IMPULSE plot requires ini-
tial reservoir pressure for computational purposes. The initial pres-
sure can be attained from the RCH plot. However, application of
the RCH plot is valid only when the flow regime is identified as
radial flow by the IMPULSE Testing plot. Therefore, a recom-
mended method of analysis should comprise the plotting of the RCH
plot and the calculation of reservoir pressure assuming radial flow.
Then one can perform IMPULSE Testing plot, verify the presence
of radial flow, and if radial flow is present, proceed to other flow-
parameter calculations using the RCH analysis. Currently, we are
limited to only radial-flow-rate convolution. Rate convolution with
other flow models-dual porosity, hydraulically fractured, etc.-
needs to be introduced to complement this interpretation meth-
odology.
Conclusions
1. A transient test technique and interpretation methodology is
presented that allow short-term testing of low-permeability wells

1000
~
900

800
I!l
700

0
600
"-
to
0::
IlIl
~ 500 I!l
e I!l
I!l
~
0
;;: 400

300

200 I!l
I [!) flo.rote I
100 I!l

I!l
Ilh
0
0.00 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.90 1.05 1.20 1.35 1.50
Time, hour

Fig. 9-Transient-rate data, Example Well 2.

--------------------------------------------------------35
with prestimulation flow rates too low for commercial downhole
flowmeters to measure.
2. A desirable feature of the technique is that testing and per-
forating can be performed during the same trip.
3. The short-term test requires the use of the IMPULSE Testing
derivative plot to identify the important flow regime, an RCH plot
for certain flow-parameter calculations, and the verification plot
to confirm the results.
4. The method presented currently is limited to only radial-flow
systems. Also, caution should be exercised when noisy flow-rate
data are used in the interpretation.
Acknowledgments
We express our appreciation to Schlumberger management for al-
lowing us to publish this study. We also express our appreciation
to M. Thambynayagam, C. Ehlig-Economides, and S. Kabir for
reviewing this paper. Special thanks and appreciation go to Sharon
Jurek for her endless efforts in preparing this paper.
References
I. Earlougher, R.C. Ir.: Advances in Well Analysis. Monograph Series,
SPE, Richardson, TX (1977) 5.
2. Meunier, D., Wittmann, MJ., and Stewart, G.: "Interpretation of Pres-
sure Buildup Test Using In-Situ Measurement of Afterflow," JPT (Jan.
1985) 143-52.
3. Kuchuk, F. and Ayestaran, L.: "Analysis of Simultaneously Measured
Pressure and Sandface Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing," JPT (Feb.
1985) 323-34.
4. Joseph, J., Ehlig-Economides, C.A., and Kuchuk, F.: "The Role of
Downhole Flow and Pressure Measurements in Reservoir Testing,"
paper SPE 18379 presented at the 1988 SPE European Petroleum Con-
ference, London, Oct. 16-19.
5. Ahmed, U., Kuchuk, F., and Ayestaran, L.: "Short-Term Transient-
Rate and Pressure-Buildup Analysis of Low-Permeability Reservoirs,"
SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 611-17.

D~Qwdown Type-Curve
Multi-Rote Type-Curve
C!lC!lC!lC!lC!l(!) Pressure Doto, a2.Bu
Derivative Type-Curve
en
a..
:;:)
0
II< P~e55u~e Match: 1.ij5000E-02
t!I Time Match: 100.0
w
II<
:;:)
CII
en
w
II<
a.. 0
10
en
en
w
..J
Z
0
en
z
w
-
lI:
I :)

IO-2+------------------4-------------------r------------------+------------------+
10- 1 10
1
DIMENSIONLESS TIME, TO/CO
TYPE-CURVE WELLBCRE STCRA~E , S(IN (HCMC~ENECUSI
CO-E(2SI=1.OOE+00

Fig. 10-IMPULSE derivative plot, Example Well 2.

36

Rate-Convolved Horner
1800
Legend
!!l SO 1 = 0.00
1740 SO 2 1.00
*
(!) SO
SO
3 =
4 =
2.00
3.00
1680 SO 5 = 4.00
K= 0.347 mD
1620 0.91
S
p. = 1750.8 si
~ 1560
:J
UI
UI

.t" 1500
"
"0
E 1440
.':!
~ 1380

1320

• ..
,
1260

1200

1140
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Ra le-Convolved Horner Time

Fig. 11-RCH plot for final Qulcklook answer computation, Example Well 2.

6. Meunier, D.F., Kabir, C.S., and Wittmann, M.J.: "Gas Well Test Anal-
ysis: Use of NOllllalized Pseudovariables," SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 629-36.
7. Ayoub, J.A., Bourdet, D., andChauvel, Y.: "Impulse Testing," SPEFE
(Sept. 1988) 534-46; Trans., AIME, 285.
8. Cinco-Ley, H. et al.: "Analysis of Pressure Tests Through the Use
of Instantaneous Source Response Concepts," paper SPE 15476 present-
ed at the 1986 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
9. Tariq, S. and Ayestaran, L.: "Analysis and Application of Pressure,
Flow Rate, and Temperature Measurements During a Perforating Run, "
SPEPE (Feb. 1991) 83-92.
10. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans., AIME (1949)
186, 305-24.
11. Simmons, J.F.: "Convolution Analysis of Surge Pressure Data," JPT
(Jan. 1990) 74-83; Trans., AIME, 289.