Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET)

Department of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Engineering

Course code: PMRE 6006

Course title: Well Testing

Topic: Software assignments

Submitted to
Dr. Mohammed Mahbubur Rahman
Professor & Head
Department of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Engineering
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET)

Submitted by

Srimonta Roy

ID: 0422132023

Date of submission : 17/04/2023

Contents
Example 2: PBU Simple ................................................................................................................. 3

#EXAMPLE1A DD-_BOUND: ..................................................................................................... 5

#EXAMP1_DD_simple .................................................................................................................. 8

#EXAMP6_PBU_2por ................................................................................................................. 13

2|Page
 Example 2: PBU Simple
We analyzed a reservoir well test data though the Saphir, some of the reservoir data are

The well was producing at a rate of 2500 STB/d for a duration of 21.6 hours before the production
was abruptly halted. Following this, the well remained closed for a period of 26.4 hours, during
which time the pressure increased from 2989.39 psia to 5948.82 psia. This indicates that a Pressure
Build-Up Test was conducted. To generate a pressure derivative curve on a log-log plot, the data
for Q and load pressure were loaded into Saphir.

And get Results

To verify the accuracy of the provided information, I utilized the Saphir simulation technique. This
involves the use of software to simulate various factors such as skin, wellbore storage,
permeability, KH, and initial pressure through a process called back calculation. The most notable
aspect of this technique is that if the results are not satisfactory, the pressure derivative curve will
not match up. Thus, the pressure derivative curve acts as a reliable indicator of the accuracy of the
data provided.

3|Page
If I get curve which match with pressure derivative and pressure curve than it indicate that all result
are ok. Otherwise, I have to change reservoir model, Boundary regime and analysis with others
property.

Fig -01: log log plot of pressure derivative curve

Here I can easily see that my stimulate curve match with pressure derivative curve and pressure
curve. Which indicate that all result I got earlier is correct.

Fig-02 : History plot

History plot also matching nicely.

4|Page
Result and Decision:
Based on the available information, it appears that the test conducted was a simple Build-Up Test
in an infinitely homogeneous reservoir. The reservoir does not exhibit dual porosity, and the well
is unfractured. The permeability of the reservoir is 83 md, and the initial reservoir pressure was
measured to be 6006 psia.

#EXAMPLE1A DD-_BOUND:
We analyzed a reservoir well test data though the Saphir, some of the reservoir data are

From the data table I notice that when I produce my well at constant rate (2500.00 STB/d ) Pressure
reducing with time . From data table at 0 hrs. pressure is 6009 psi and at 72 hours pressure is 2541
psi So I can say that the my test is Draw down test. which is also check flowrate and pressure
profile

Figure-03: Pressure and flow rate profile (Using pressure Transient analysis -Saphir-Kappa)

5|Page
 Using this tool –if I plot every required data

Analysis log log and history plot

Figure -04:History plot (does not match properly).

Figure-05: log log plot of pressure derivative curve

From the pressure derivative curve and pressure curve I notice that pressure derivative curve does
not match. Here skin and wellbore storage are quite matched. So I need to stimulate.

In analysis I changed Boundary model infinite to circular and set reservoir drainage area

6|Page
Figure-06: Analytical Stage

Figure:-07 log-log plot of derivative curve( upper one) and history match ( lower one)
Above two figure good match are find which indicate that

7|Page
Result and discussion:
Based on the information provided, it appears that the reservoir under consideration is a
homogenous circular bounded reservoir with a permeability of 85 md. The initial reservoir
pressure was measured to be 6009 psia, and the skin value is 7.47.

#EXAMP1_DD_simple
I analyzed a reservoir well test data though the Saphir, some of the reservoir data are

FLUID PROPERTIES

Bo, RB/STB 1.21 Viscosity, cp 0.92

Ct, 10^-6/psi 8.72

____________________________________________________________________

RESERVOIR PROPERTIES

Porosity, fr 0.21 Formation Thickness, ft 23

Wellbore Radius, ft 0.401

The initial pressure of the reservoir was recorded as 6009.00 psia. A pressure drawdown test was
conducted by setting the flow rate at a constant rate of 2500 STB/D for a period of 21.60 hours,
resulting in a gradual decline of the pressure from 6009.00 psia to 2988.93 psia.

To analyze the collected data, I input the production rate and pressure data into the Saphir software.
I then proceeded to remove any noise from the data and plotted and extracted the relevant
information for further analysis.

8|Page
 Fig-08 : Stage of Analysis

In the extraction stage , We get the pressure derivative curve in the special graph paper which scale
is same as type curve. Then the software make an approximate match with type curve and gives
regarding values .

Fig-09 : Stage of Extraction

9|Page
 Fig -10: Making a match

To analyze the collected data, an analytical solution was applied assuming the reservoir is a
standard reservoir with homogeneous conditions and no faults or boundaries, and is infinite in size.
After obtaining the analytical solution, the match between the analyzed data and the obtained
solution was checked for satisfactory results.

If the match is not satisfactory, the model can be improved by modifying some of the variables
such as skin factor, permeability, storage coefficient, Omega, Lamda, and other relevant
properties. Through this iterative process, a better match with the type curve can be achieved, and
more appropriate values of the reservoir properties can be determined.

10 | P a g e
Figure-11 : Data Result

On the above fig we can notice that in primary stage we assumed the reservoir model as
Homogeneous and boundary model as infinite . Then We generated the model .

Fig -12: Analytical Stage

We can observe the satisfactory of the match and thus the value should be all right . No need for
further approximation . Yet we tried improvement just for additional precision of values.

11 | P a g e
 Fig-13 : Improvement Stage

Yes, that's correct. If the storage unit slope curve is already in good match with the data, it suggests
that the values of the formation volume factor, porosity, and total compressibility are reasonable
and do not require any modification. Therefore, in such cases, it is more appropriate to focus on
determining the values of the skin factor and permeability, as these parameters can vary and have
a significant impact on the well's productivity.

Result and Discussion

Based on the analysis and stages performed, it can be concluded that the reservoir is homogeneous
and there are no boundary effects. The flat pressure derivative curve indicates that the well has
reached radial flow, and the absence of deviation from the straight flat line suggests that there are
no boundaries for the reservoir, indicating an infinite boundary condition.

The analysis also revealed a positive skin factor of +7.47, which is considered high, and a
permeability of 85.292 mD, which is quite good. These parameters play a significant role in
determining the well's productivity, and the obtained values can provide valuable insights into the
reservoir's properties. Further analysis and evaluation of the well's performance based on these
findings can assist in making informed decisions regarding exploration and production activities.

Source Analytical Skin 7.47077

Transmissivity 1961.42 md.ft ΔP skin 1496.78 psi

Transmissibility 2131.98 md.ft/cp Initial pressure 6009.00 psia

12 | P a g e
 Permeability 85.2792 md Wellbore storage 0.0154353 bbl/psi

Mobility 92.6948 md/cp Porosity 0.21

Pbar 6009.00 psia Productivity Index 0.824865 STB/D/psi

#EXAMP6_PBU_2por
I analyzed a reservoir well test data though the Saphir, some of the reservoir data are

FLUID PROPERTIES

Bo, RB/STB 1.27 Viscosity, cp 0.812

Ct, 10^-6/psi 8.3

____________________________________________________________________

RESERVOIR PROPERTIES

Porosity, fr 0.14 Formation Thickness, ft 210

Wellbore Radius, ft 0.41

At initial Condition well was flowing at a rate of 4000STB/d , that continued for another 200 hours.
After this period well was shut down and pressure started to rise from the 3801.00 Psi to 3924.91
psi . It’s a clear sign of pressure buildup test .

First, we gave input the Production Rate and Pressure data into the Software Saphir. Then We

denoised any kind of noises in the data, plotted and extracted them.

13 | P a g e
 Fig-14 : Stage of Analysis

14 | P a g e
In the extraction stage, We get the pressure derivative curve in the special graph paper which scale
is same as type curve. Then the software itself tried to make an approximate match with type curve
and gives regarding solutions.

Fig-15 : Stage of Extraction

Fig:-16 Stage of Extraction

15 | P a g e
But in this case a good match is not found. This is because we primarily consider the reservoir as
a standard reservoir , like we assume that it’s an infinite reservoir in a homogeneous condition that
does not have any fault or boundary. So this reservoir must have something different from the
preliminary assumptions. Actually we can guess from the pressure derivative curve that the
reservoir model should be a Dual Porosity Reservoir as we see a decline in the pressure derivative
curve after the beginning of radial flow.

At analysis stage now we change the model to the “Dual Porosity Reservoir” and apply the new
conditions. Now we find better match .

Fig-17: Changing the reservoir Model from Homogeneous to Dual Porosity Reservoir

16 | P a g e
Now we get a good match which can be taken as satisfactory.

FIG -18 : Result analysis

17 | P a g e
We performed further Improvement with regard to Omega and Lambda as long as it does not get
enough precision . We are doing wrt to Omega and Lambda as they are responsible for curve
deviation in the radial flow area. And we did it also for C as it was not getting a good match. We
didn’t take k,s in this improvement process as they were showing rational value.

Fig 19: Improvement Stage

Results and Discussion

All the analysis and stages suggest that the reservoir is a dual porosity reservoir and it has no
boundary effect .

As pressure derivative curve becomes flat it means the well reached in radial flow then it goes
downward and returns to its old path it means it’s a dual porosity reservoir . When the pressure
derivative curve becomes flat for second time it means flow has become radial flow again. After
that as the pressure derivative curve is not deviated from the straight flat line it indicates that there
exists no boundary for the reservoir which is boundary condition is infinite.

We found a positive skin factor which is + 5.51231, which is very high and permeability of 327.900
mD which is quite good . Other properties are

Transmissivity 68859.0 md.ft Initial pressure 3929.32 psia

18 | P a g e
 Transmissibility 84801.7 md.ft/cp Wellbore storage 0.100633 bbl/psi

Permeability 327.900 md Porosity 0.14

Mobility 403.818 md/cp Pbar 3929.32 psia

Skin 5.51231 Productivity Index 31.1723 STB/D/psi

ΔP skin 46.6277 psi Omega 0.09549

Lambda 6.577e-8

19 | P a g e