Tech 101
Well Test Analysis in Practice
Alain C. Gringarten, Imperial College London
Why Do We Test Wells?
The main reason for testing an
exploration well is to take a fluid sample.
Further reasons are to measure the
initial pressure, estimate a minimum
reservoir volume, evaluate the well
permeability and skin effect, and
identify heterogeneities and boundaries.
Testing producing wells aims at
verifying permeability and skin effect,
identifying fluid behavior, estimating the
average reservoir pressure, confi rming
heterogeneities and boundaries, and
assessing hydraulic connectivity.
How Do We Test Wells?
We create a step change in rate—for
instance, by closing a flowing well or
an injection well (buildup or falloff,
respectively); by opening a well
previously shut in (drawdown); or by
injecting in a well previously closed
(injection). This rate change creates a
change in pressure in the same well
(exploration or production testing) or in
a different well (interference testing).
In layered reservoirs, there is also a
change in the rates from each individual
layer, which can be measured with a
production logging tool (PLT).
A change in rate can be created at
the surface by shutting or opening the
master valve or at the bottom of the well
with a special downhole shut-in device.
Wellhead shut-in is commonly used in
wells already in production, whereas
bottomhole shut-in is standard practice
after drilling [a drillstem test (DST)].
The way the rate signal is created is not
important as far as well test analysis
is concerned. The same interpretation
This article contains highlights of paper SPE
102079 “From Straight Lines to Deconvolution:
The Evolution of the State of the Art in Well Test
Analysis,” SPEREE (Feb. 2008), 11-1, pp 41–62.
10
methods are used for production tests, and in the reservoir modeling aspect
DSTs, analysis of wireline formation tests, of reservoir simulation). The problem
and now for testing while drilling. What is of nonuniqueness is well recognized
most important for analysis is the quality in the oil industry and accounts for the
of the rate input signal—which must be increasing use of stochastic modeling
of the proper shape and duration—and techniques, which aim at providing
the quality of the measured pressure alternative equiprobable representations
output signal. of the reservoir to capture the
uncertainty associated with predictions.
How Do We Interpret Well Tests? Nonuniqueness decreases as the amount
We try to identify an interpretation model of information increases.
that relates the measured pressure As illustrated in Fig. 1, there are
change to the induced rate change and two possible signals we can use to
is consistent with other information identify an interpretation model. One
about the well and reservoir. This is is the difference Δp=[p(Δt)−p(Δt =0)]
an inverse problem without a unique between the pressure p(Δt) at an
solution. Petroleum professionals are elapsed time Δt in a flow period and the
confronted with the inverse problem pressure p(Δt =0) at the start of the flow
whenever they interpret data and period (a flow period is a period during
model processes (for instance, in which the rate is constant). This signal
geophysical interpretation, in geological and its derivative with respect to the
interpretation, in log interpretation, superposition time are plotted on a log-
Alain C. Gringarten (a.gringarten@imperial.ac.uk) holds the
Chair of Petroleum Engineering at Imperial College London,
where he is also director of the Centre for Petroleum Studies.
Before joining Imperial in 1997, he held a variety of senior
technical and management positions with Scientific Software-
Intercomp; Schlumberger; and the French Geological Survey
in Orléans, France. Gringarten’s research interests include
fi ssured fluid-bearing formations, shale gas, fractured wells,
gas condensate and volatile oil reservoirs, high and low
enthalpy geothermal energy, hot dry rocks, and radioactive waste disposal. He is a
recognized expert in well test analysis and received the Society of Petroleum
Engineers (SPE) Formation Evaluation Award for 2001, the 2003 SPE John Franklin
Carll Award, the 2005 SPE Cedric K. Ferguson certificate for the best technical paper
published in 2004, and the North Sea SPE Regional Service Award for 2009.
Gringarten was an SPE Distinguished Lecturer for 2003–04. He has published more
than 90 technical papers and was responsible for many advances in well test
interpretation. A member of SPE since 1969, he was elected a Distinguished Member
in 2002 and an Honorary Member in 2009. Gringarten has chaired or organized many
SPE Advanced Technology Workshops, and is currently a member of the following
SPE International committees: R&D; Information and Management; Carll-Uren-Lester
Awards; Honorary and Distinguished Members Selection Committee; and SPE PE
Faculty Pipeline Award Committee; and was 2011 chair of the SPE Talent Council. He
holds MS and PhD degrees in petroleum engineering from Stanford University and an
engineering degree from École Centrale Paris, France.
 q1 qi Flow Period n pressure
q n–1 qn

log Δp
q2
Rate

Δt derivative
Δt 1 Δt 2 ∆t i Δt n–1
log Δt
Time from the start of the test
tp = Σ jn–1
=i Δtj tp+Δt Log-log analysis

pi
Δp
m
Pressure

Δp=|p(Δt) – p(Δt =0)|

Time
f (Δt)
Δt = t(Δt) – t(Δt =0) Specialized analysis
Fig. 1—Log-log and specialized analysis.

log graph. In such a graph, various flow
regimes (e.g., linear, bilinear, spherical,
radial) exhibit distinctive shapes and
occur at different times, and this is used
to identify them (log-log pressure and
derivative analysis). The existence of
the flow regimes can be verified on
flow-regime-specialized graphs by
plotting Δp=[p(Δt)−p(Δt =0)] vs. f (Δt) on
a Cartesian graph (specialized analysis),
where f is a flow-regime-specific
q1
q2
Rate
function. f (Δt) is equal to Δt for wellbore
storage and pseudosteady-state flow, Δt
for linear flow, 1 Δt for spherical flow,
log(Δt) for radial flow, etc.
The other signal is [pi−p(Δt)], where
pi is the initial pressure (Fig. 2). Because
pi is usually not known, the signal is
actually p(Δt), to be plotted against a
flow-regime-specific superposition time,
∑ i =1 [(qi –qi –1)/(qn –1–qn )]f ( ∑ j =1 Δtj +Δt)−f (Δt),
n −1 n −1
on a Cartesian plot (Horner analysis).
qi Flow Period n
q n–1 qn
f (Δt) is the same as for specialized
analyses. In both specialized and Horner
analyses, a straight line is obtained
where the flow regime dominates and the
straight-line slope and intercept provide
the well and reservoir parameters that
control this flow regime.
What Is a Well Test
Interpretation Model?
The interpretation model is made of the
combination of the individual flow regime
components that dominate the flow
period at different times. The number
of interpretation model components is
limited to three types (Fig. 3), namely

Δt • The basic dynamic behavior of the

reservoir during middle times, which
Δt 1 Δt 2 ∆t i Δt n–1
is usually the same for all the wells in a
Time from the start of the test given reservoir
tp = Σ jn–1
=i Δtj tp+Δt • Near-wellbore effects at early times
resulting from the well completion that
p* may vary from well to well or from test
pi
m pi – p(Δt = 0)| to test
p • Boundary effects at late times,
Pressure

determined by the nature of the reservoir

boundaries, which is the same for all
the wells in a given reservoir, and by
∑ [(q
n−1
i =1 i − qi −1 ) (qn−1 − qn )] f (∑
n−1
j =1
)
Δt j + Δt − f (Δt ) Time the distance from the well to these
boundaries, which may differ from well
Horner analysis
Δt = t(Δt) – t(Δt =0) to well
Although there are few possible
Fig. 2—Horner analysis. interpretation model components, their

Vol. 8 // No. 2 // 2012 11

 Tech 101

combination can yield several thousand

different interpretation models to NEAR-WELLBORE RESERVOIR BOUNDARY
match all observed well behavior. The EFFECTS BEHAVIOR EFFECTS
challenge for the well test interpreter
is to diagnose from the observed well Wellbore Homogeneous Specified
behavior which components should be
Storage Rates
included in the interpretation model. A Skin Heterogeneous Specified
schematic of the complete interpretation Pressure
process is shown in Fig. 4. Fractures
– 2-Porosity Leaky
What Is the Difference Partial – 2-Permeability Boundary
Penetration
Between the Various – Composite
Interpretation Methods? Horizontal
The main difference between the Well
available analysis techniques is their
ability to diagnose and verify an EARLY TIMES MIDDLE TIMES LATE TIMES
interpretation model efficiently. In this
respect, the derivative log-log analysis
Fig. 3—Components of the well test interpretation model.
method is much better than the log-log
pressure analysis method. Both are
significantly better than straight-line- applied. And, once a straight line has available, the derivative approach
based techniques used in specialized been selected, there is no rule to indicate superseded log-log pressure analysis,
and Horner analyses. Specifically, if it is indeed the correct one (i.e., the which before had superseded straight-
straight-line techniques, although simple one corresponding to the flow regime line techniques. This does not mean that
to use, are poor at selecting the very being analyzed). This is why, when new techniques have eliminated previous
straight lines on which they are to be powerful personal computers became ones. These are still used, but they are

IDENTIFICATION VERIFICATION

DATA

EARLY TIMES MIDDLE TIMES LATE TIMES

Wellbore Storage Homogeneous Specified Rate

NO
Skin
Fractures Heterogeneous Specified Pressure COMPARE
Partial Penetration – 2-Porosity CONSISTENT?
WITH
Horizontal Well – 2-Permeability Leaky Boundary
– Composite DATA
YES

CONSISTENT
NEAR-WELLBORE WELL TEST
RESERVOIR BOUNDARY
EFFECTS BEHAVIOR EFFECTS INTERPRETATION
MODEL

CALCULATE
WELL TEST INTERPRETATION MODEL MODEL
BEHAVIOR ANOTHER YES
MODEL?

NO

END
Fig. 4—Interpretation model identification process.

12
 4,000 200 trend, which must not be confused with
FP 66 a boundary effect), phase redistribution
180
in the wellbore, and a pressure trend
FP 186
160 in the reservoir. But the most impact
FP 203
3,000 by far comes from the rate history.
140 Oversimplifying the flow-rate history can

Total Rate, MMscf/D

jeopardize the reliability of the pressure
Pressure, psia

120
derivative as a diagnostic tool (this holds
2,000 FP 386 100 true also for Horner analysis).

80
What Is Well Test Deconvolution?
60 Deconvolution transforms variable-rate
1,000 pressure data into a constant-rate initial
40 drawdown with a duration equal to the
total duration of the test and directly
20
Measured rates yields the corresponding pressure
Analysis rates 0
0 derivative, normalized to a unit rate. This
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
Elapsed Time, hours derivative is free from the distortions
(a)
caused by the pressure-derivative
calculation algorithm and from errors
102
FP66
introduced by incomplete or truncated
FP186 rate histories.
FP203
10 FP386
Deconvolution is not a new
interpretation method but rather is a new
Pressure Derivative, psi

tool to process pressure and rate data

1 in order to increase the amount of data
10–1
10–2
10–3
10–3
(b)
Fig. 5—Example of deconvolution.
integrated in a methodology that allows
them to be applied correctly.
Pressure derivatives combine great
diagnosis and verification capabilities
with the accuracy of straight-line
methods. Derivative shapes for various
flow regimes at early, middle, and late
times in a flow period are distinctly
different, which is not necessarily the
case with pressure change. For instance,
spherical flow is easy to identify on the
derivative, whereas it is invisible on the
pressure drop curve. The main drawback
of derivatives, however, is that, contrary to
Deconvolved Derivative
10–2 10–1 1 10 102 103 104 105
Elapsed time, hours
pressure data, they are not measured but
must be calculated. A number of factors
can affect the shape of the derivative
curve and, therefore, mislead the
interpreter. Some can be easily identified:
derivation algorithm, sampling frequency
of the data acquisition, gauge resolution,
time or pressure errors at the start of
the period, erratic raw data points, or
multiphase flow. Others are more difficult
to see and may affect the analysis. These
include end effects (if the last pressure
in a flow period is too high or too low, the
derivative shows an upward or downward
that can be analyzed with derivative,
pressure, and straight-line analyses. The
gain is clearly greater in long tests, such
as with permanent downhole pressure
gauges, in which the total test duration is
one or two orders of magnitude greater
than the duration of the longest flow
period at constant rate. Deconvolution,
however, is also useful in short tests
such as DSTs because it gives access
to a greater radius of investigation
and enables differentiation between
true test behavior and artifacts of the
derivative calculation.
An example of deconvolution is shown
in Fig. 5. The red curve in Fig. 5b is
the deconvolved derivative obtained by
deconvolution of the entire rate history
shown in Fig. 5a. Its duration, equal to
the total production time, is two orders
of magnitude greater than the longest
buildups, represented by discrete
points in Fig. 5b. The shift between
the deconvolved derivative and the
buildup data in Fig. 5b is from the rate
history before the respective buildups.
In this particular example, the extended
derivative showed contribution to
production from a lower layer after 10 4

Vol. 8 // No. 2 // 2012 13

 Tech 101
hours. This could not be seen from the
longest buildups, limited to 10 3 hours.
Deconvolution actually blurs the
difference between conventional well
test and production-data analysis.
During the course of many years,
several methods have been proposed to
analyze production data to extract all the
information that is usually obtained from
conventional well test analysis without
the constraint of shutting in wells. These
methods have been attempting to convert
variable rate and pressure into variable
pressure at constant rate or into variable
rate at constant pressure. Examples
are the decline curve analysis by use
of material balance time, the reciprocal
productivity index method, and the rate/
time type curve. The aim of all these
methods is achieved with deconvolution,
which produces much cleaner
transformed data and much better results
when estimating permeability and
distances to boundaries.
What’s Next?
Improvements in well test analysis will
essentially come from three areas:
richer signals (i.e., those containing
more information), better interpretation
techniques (providing significant
improvements in the identification and
validation of the interpretation model),
and more-complex models that represent
the geology better. Reservoir geology
14
is very complex, whereas well test
interpretation models are rather simple.
Some of the geological complexity
can be seen and quantified from
well test analysis with more-complex
interpretation models that represent
geological bodies more closely. For
instance, vertical permeability and
meander information in a fluvial
meandering channel can be found from
well test data in the transition between
radial flow in middle times and channel
flow at late times. The corresponding
data are ignored when the analysis
is performed with the usual simple
interpretation models.
Efforts to reduce costs and
environmental impact are also likely to
impose additional changes. Well testing
in exploration and appraisal wells has
become increasingly unpopular in recent
years. Reasons include cost, safety,
and environmental impact. Well testing
also has become rare in production
wells because of the potential revenue
loss during buildups. Whether suitable
alternatives can be found is the subject
of regular debate. Alternatives to DSTs
include wireline formation tests and mini-
DSTs for sampling, permeability, and
initial reservoir pressure; core and log
analyses for permeability; and geology,
seismic analysis, and geochemistry for
reservoir heterogeneities, boundaries,
and fluid contacts. However, there is no
suitable well-testing replacement for
fi nding skin (well damage), effective
permeability, and hydraulic connectivity
throughout large reservoir volumes
and obtaining the large fluid samples
required for sizing surface processing
facilities or for determining the quality of
the fluids from a commercial viewpoint.
Production tests, on the other hand, tend
to be replaced by continuous recording
with permanent pressure and rate
gauges in production wells. These data
are particularly well suited for analysis
with deconvolution.
Conclusions
Well test analysis has come a long
way since the 1950s when the
interpretation methods on the basis of
straight lines gave unreliable results.
We now have a methodology that
provides repeatability and techniques
with derivatives and deconvolution that
enable a high level of confi dence in
interpretation results.
It can be safely predicted that the
importance of well test analysis in
reservoir characterization will continue
to increase as new tools such as
permanent downhole pressure gauges
and downhole flowmeters become more
widely used and as the scale relationship
with the interpretation of other data from
geophysics, geology, and petrophysics
becomes better understood. TWA