TIME ZONE 1

SCHOOL OF ENERGY, GEOSCIENCE, INFRASTRUCTURE & SOCIETY

Institute of GeoEnergy Engineering

G11WT

RESERVOIR ENGINEERING - WELL TEST ANALYSIS

August Diet – 2021/2022

Date: August 2022

Duration 3 hours

1. This paper consists of 8 questions. Answer all 8 questions of this paper.

2. State clearly any assumptions made and include all the intermediate calculation
steps. No marks can be given for an incorrect answer if the method of calculation
is not presented and no complete mark will be awarded to a correct final answer
if intermediate steps are not included.

3. The required plots should be drawn by hand and be clearly readable.

4. The answer to any descriptive part of any questions should be your own words
and within the stated word limit. Any text copied directly from notes or other
sources and any words over the stated word limit will not be marked. Equations
or numbers are not counted as words.

5. Marks for each question are shown in brackets.

Heriot-Watt University Reservoir Engineering - Well Test Analysis G11WT – 2021/22

Question 1
Wireline formation tester (WFT) is a powerful tool for obtaining information about
reservoirs.
(i) For an oil reservoir, the WFT observed pressure gradient intersection (OPGI)
(essentially the level of the water oil fluid contact in a reservoir) of a well is
different by 3m from that of the other wells, identify four different reasons for such
a difference.
(6 marks)
[Answer word limit: 100 words]
(ii) If there are discrepancies between log and WFT data, identify which one of these
actions is the most reliable one to confirm the results. Discuss your reason for
your selection.
(a) Repeat the log operation (b) Repeat the WFT operation, (c) Test the well for
large fluid production, (d) Try to get a fluid sample using WFT.
(4 marks)
[Answer word limit: 50 words]

(Total = 10 marks)

Question 2
WFT is a powerful tool and can potentially provide various types of data.
(i) Describe the result of the large hole effect on the measured pressure profile of
water wet and oil wet rocks.
(3 marks)
[Answer word limit: 100 words]
(ii) Draw a schematic diagram of the WFT response and capillary pressure curve of
a water wet rock consisting of water and oil columns. Discuss any links between
these two curves particularly highlighting the impact of WOC and FWL on the
WFT response in this plot and in practice.
(5 marks)
[Answer word limit: 100 words]

(Total = 8 marks)

Question 3
Six parameters (µ, kh, A, S, CA and rw) affect productivity index as per the equation
available in the attached equation sheet. Put these six parameters in three groups
(starting with most important ones) based on the impact of their variation on
productivity index (i.e., how much the result will change when you either increase or
decrease any of these parameters by a given factor). Justify your choice of each group
with a supporting statement.
(8 marks)
[Answer word limit: 100 words]

Page 2 of 15
Heriot-Watt University Reservoir Engineering - Well Test Analysis G11WT – 2021/22

Question 4
A well fully penetrating the whole producing zone of a
bounded homogenous reservoir, is distinctly closer to a
sealing fault A, which intersects another sealing fault B with
a 60 degree intersection angle as shown in this Figure. The
outer boundary encircling the drainage area is much further
away from the well. Assume the well is producing from a
valve at the surface with a constant rate.

(i) Draw a schematic diagram of diagnostic log-log

derivative signatures identifying the corresponding full
signatures of the ETR, MTR and LTR flow regimes of
a drawdown performed in this well with full boundary effects.
(8 marks)
(ii) Identify the specialized plot for the flow regime immediately after the infinite
acting period and the information which is obtained from the fitted line slope.
(3 marks)
(iii) On a different plot show ONLY the signature of the section related to the two
faults if fault B was a leaky one with a moderate transmissibility ratio of α~1.0.
(3 marks)

(Total = 14 marks)

Question 5
A fault has divided a formation containing two
layers separated by a thin impermeable shale
creating four potentially separated reservoir zones
P1,1
(shown in the Figure).
Draw the schematic profile of the WFT pressure
P1,2
gradient, after some production, recorded in an P2,1
observation well drilled on the left hand side of the
P2,2
fault. On the plot, also show the pressure of the
producing wells drilled in the right hand blocks at
the datum corresponding to the shale. for the
following two cases:
You need to support your selected position of all pressure profiles in case (i) and that
of block 2,1 in case (ii).
(i) Production from the top layer is twice than that of the bottom layer, which has the
same pore volume. There is no communication across the fault within the top
layer. There is some communication across the fault within the bottom layer.
There is no communication across two sides of the fault between bottom layer
on the right and top layer on the left.
(9 marks)
(ii) In the plot for case (i), show where the position of the block 1,1 pressure point
would be if the top layer pore volume is two times less. Other data remain the
same.
(3 marks)

(Total = 12 marks)

Page 3 of 15
Heriot-Watt University Reservoir Engineering - Well Test Analysis G11WT – 2021/22

Question 6
Wireline formation tester (WFT) data of a certain reservoir are limited to the oil zone
only. The top and bottom structure depths are 7900 ft and 8800 ft, respectively. The
oil gradient is 0.34 psi/ft, Preservoir=6870 at a depth of 8200 ft and PBubble is 6700 psi.

(i) Demonstrate whether the

reservoir has a gas cap
(and if so, determine its
thickness) or not if:
a. The compositional
gradient with depth is
ignored.
(4 marks)
b. The green line in this
figure represents the
trend of bubble point
gradient for the
reservoir fluid.
(3 marks)
(ii) Determine the depth of FWL and height of water column if the water gradient is
0.42 and extension of the water gradient line at the surface gives 3416 psi.
(3 marks)

(Total = 10 marks)

Question 7
A vertical well was perforated across the whole producing interval with a perforated
skin of 1.5. Later it was decided to stimulate this perforated well by an acid job
increasing its productivity index by a factor of 1.8. Using the given reservoir data:
(i) Calculate skin due to stimulation only and the steady-state productivity index,
based on external pressure (Jsse), for open hole, perforated and perforated
stimulated wells and compare these three PI values to highlight the impact of
perforation and stimulation.
(9 marks)
[Answer word limit: 50 words]
(ii) Calculate Jsse for the open hole and stimulated-perforated wells which also suffer
from a damage skin of 2.5. Compare this value with those in part (i), to highlight
the impact of damage in general and on the final performance of this well in
particular.
(7 marks)
[Answer word limit: 80 words]
(Total = 16 marks)

Reservoir Data:
kh = 10 mD, h = 150 ft, µ = 0.70 cp, kv = kz = 0.1 mD,
Bo = 1.2 RB/STB, rw = 0.37 ft, re=1000 ft.

Page 4 of 15
Heriot-Watt University Reservoir Engineering - Well Test Analysis G11WT – 2021/22

Question 8
The data given in the table below refers to a constant rate drawdown test performed
on an oil well with a circular drainage area.
(i) Prepare the semi-log plot for this test.
(4 marks)
(a) Discuss a reason for the deviation of first two points from the semi-log plot.
(4 marks)
[Answer word limit: 40 words]
(b) Use any two points in the MTR region to estimate permeability and skin.
(4 marks)
A buildup test was performed after 2000 hrs of production, please note that semi-
steady-state was experienced after 1500 hrs. Analysis of this buildup using the
modified Horner plot has given P*=6572 psi and the same skin and permeability that
were obtained using DD analysis.
(ii) Calculate Average reservoir pressure.
(4 marks)
(iii) Describe the concept of probe radius and calculate its value based on tsss and for
the last BU pressure of 6428 psi measured at ∆t=6.0 hrs.
(6 marks)
[Answer word limit: 30 words]

(Total = 22 marks)

Prepare the plot in (i) in Log base 10 (i.e. not natural log). Use the corresponding
equations that are in the attached sheet and based on Log base 10.

Reservoir Data:
h = 154 ft, CA = 31.62, qs =1000 STB/D, Bo = 1.2 RB/STB, Pi=7080 psi
rw = 0.35 ft, φ = 0.18, ct = 3.8*10-5 psi-1, µo = 0.78 cp. re=1300 ft.

Prod. Time/hr P /psi

0.000
0.001 6960
0.01 6950
1 6700
4 6664
10 6640.2

END OF PAPER

Page 5 of 15
Heriot-Watt University Reservoir Engineering - Well Test Analysis G11WT – 2021/22

SUMMARY OF EQUATIONS

1. SPE FIELD UNITS

1.1 Radial Flow: Chapter 1
kh
Skin Factor: =S ∆PS
141.2qs B µ

 k  r
Hawkins Equation: S =  − 1 ln S
 k S  rw

1.127 ×10−3 × 2πkh

Productivity Index: J=
 r 
Bµ  ln e − α + Sa 
 rw 
α=0, 0.5 or 0.75 depending on the flow conditions and basis of pressure used to calculate J.
Semi-steady-state productivity index with shape factor and based on average pressure:

S td
Jones and Watts Equation: Sa = + S pp
b

hs k
Dimensionless Formation Thickness: hD =
rw kv

hP
Penetration ratio, b=
h
Effective Wellbore Radius: rw ,eff = rw e −S

xf
Prats Equation: rw ,eff =
2
dy y n +1 − y n
=
Forward Differentiation dx n x n +1 − x n

dy y n − y n −1
=
Backward Differentiation dx n x n − x n −1

dy y n +1 − y n −1
=
Centered Differentiation dx n x n +1 − x n −1

Page 6 of 15
 Heriot-Watt University Reservoir Engineering - Well Test Analysis G11WT – 2021/22

1.2 Well Testing: Chapters 1-5

PD =
(Pi − Pwf ) ⋅ 2πkh
Dimensionless Pressure:
887.2q s Bµ
0.00026367 kt
Dimensionless Time: tD =
ϕµct rw2

70.6q µ B  −948ϕµ ct r 2 
Exponential Integral Solution: ∆P = Pi − Pwf = − Ei   + ∆PS
kh  kt 

 qµ B   kt 
Transient Radial Flow (line
= source) in DD: ∆P 162.6   log − 3.23 + 0.87 S 
 kh   ϕµ ct rw
2

Skin Factor from the Semi-Log plot During Drawdown Period:
P −P k 
S 1.151  i 1hr − log
= + 3.23
 |m| ϕµ ct rw
2

Transient Radial Flow (line source) in Buildup (with Horner Time Function):

qµ B  t p + ∆t 
p=
ws p * −162.6 log 
kh  ∆t 

Skin factor Based on Information Obtained during Buildup

 p * − pwf (∆t =0) kt p 
=S 1.151  − log + 3.23
 |m| ϕµ ct rw
2

Semi-Steady State solution (DD):

qB qµ B  A 
=∆P 0.234 t + 162.6 log 2 − log(C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S 
ϕ ct hA kh  rw 

0.00026367 × 4kt
Radius of Investigation: ri =
ϕµ ct

qT
Depth of Investigation in Build-up Testing: rinv = 0.0827
ϕ ct hδ pgr

kt
Radius of Drainage rprobe = 0.0244
ϕµ ct

k ∆te
Probe Radius rprobe = 0.0244
ϕµ ct

Wellbore Storage Coefficient: C s = cV

5.615CS
Dimensionless Wellbore Storage Coefficient: CD =
2πϕct hrw2

Page 7 of 15
Heriot-Watt University Reservoir Engineering - Well Test Analysis G11WT – 2021/22

3390 µ Cs
Ramey Correlation for the Duration of Wellbore Storage:
= tSLSL (60 + 3.5S )
kh
tSLSL - Beginning of Semilog Straight Line
kt x
Distance to the Fault for Drawdown Analysis: L = 0.01217
ϕµ ct
Distance to the Fault for Buildup Analysis:
𝑘𝑘∆𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ∆𝑡𝑡𝑥𝑥 𝑡𝑡𝑝𝑝
𝐿𝐿 = 0.01217� where ∆𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 =
∅𝜇𝜇𝑐𝑐𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡𝑝𝑝 +∆𝑡𝑡𝑥𝑥

Linear Flow Regime in DD

0.00026367 kt
Dimensionless Time over Drainage Area: t DA =
ϕµ ct A
162.6q µ B
Semi-log Straight Line Slope: | m |=
kh
0.234qB
Cartesian Straight Line Slope: | m* |=
ctϕ Ah
−2.303( P1 hr − P*int )
|m|
Dietz Shape Factor from Straight Line Analysis: C A = 5.456 × ×e |m|

| m* |

MBH Dimensionless Pressure:

4π t pDA + ln(4t pD / γ ) − 2 pwD (t pD ) + 2S

( pD ) MBH =

when tp>tsss then ( PD ) MBH = ln(C At pDA )

1.3: Nomenclatures
pe : pressure at external radius, re (psia)

pwf : bottom-hole flowing (sandface) pressure (psia)

k : formation permeability (md)

h : formation thickness i.e. net pay (ft)
B : oil formation volume factor
ϕ: porosity

Page 8 of 15
Heriot-Watt University Reservoir Engineering - Well Test Analysis G11WT – 2021/22

µ : oil viscosity (cp)

qs : oil flow-rate at stock tank conditions (bbl/d)

S : van Everdingen and Hurst dimensionless skin factor

ka : permeability in annular altered region

ra : radial extent of altered region

hp
b : penetration ratio in a limited entry completion b=
h
hp : thickness of completed interval (ft)
Std : intrinsic skin of completed interval as given by Hawkins equation
Sa : total apparent skin

SG : geometric skin factor

L1 and L2 : Distances to boundary 1 and boundary 2
Spp : geometric skin due to flow convergence (Brons and Marting)
kv or kz : vertical permeability (md)

xf : fracture half-length (ft)

rw ,eff : effective wellbore radius of equivalent cylindrical well (ft)

A : drainage area, ft2

t : time, hr
Ct : Total compressibility factor, 1/psia
To convert a natural to base-10 logarithm, divide by 2.303, Log(100) = Ln(100)/2.303.

2. SI UNITS
2.1 Shape Factor
CA for a well inside a rectangle
4A
CA =
 4π L2  a3
b 3
  L1 
γ rw2 exp  
D
+ D
 + 2 ln  
 L1  3 3   2π rw sin(π cD )  
in which γ =1.781

Page 9 of 15
Heriot-Watt University Reservoir Engineering - Well Test Analysis G11WT – 2021/22

CA for a well inside a triangle or wedge

4A θ 2
CA = where A = re
   2
 4π  re 3    θ ro / rw  
γ rw2 exp   ln −   + 2 ln 
 θ  ro 4   θ 
 2π sin(π o )  
  θ   ,

Page 10 of 15
Heriot-Watt University Reservoir Engineering - Well Test Analysis G11WT – 2021/22

2.2 Distributed Pressure: Chapters 6-8

5660q µ
The RFT Drawdown Permeability Equation: kd =
∆pDD
The Build-up Equation for RFT Probe Pressure vs Spherical Time Function:
p=
s m′f s (∆t ) + pi

q2 / q1 (q2 / q1 − 1) 1
f s (∆
=t) − −
∆t T2 + ∆t T1 + T2 + ∆t
2/3
q 
ks = 1856 µ  1  (ϕ ct )1/ 3
 m′ 
µ hb (q2 PV1 − q1 PV2 )
The Semi-Steady State Unit Potential Difference: (δψ b ) sss =
kb ab ( PV1 + PV2 )
The Local Gradient for Counter-current (water-oil) Two-Phase Flow:

The Local Gradient for Co-current Upward (water-gas) Two-Phase Flow:

qµw
+ g (M ρ g + ρw )
∂p Akrw k
=
∂D 1+ M

Page 11 of 15
Heriot-Watt University Reservoir Engineering - Well Test Analysis G11WT – 2021/22

Unit Conversion Tables

1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF UNITS

To convert from To Multiply by

acre meter2(m2) 4.046873E+03
atm MPa 1.013250E-01
atmosphere pascal (Pa) 1.013250E+05
bar pascal (Pa) 1.000000E+05
bar MPa 1.000000E-01
barrel meter3 1.589873E-01
bbl/day meter3/day 1.589873E-01
centimeter of mercury (0C) pascal (Pa) 1.333220E+03
centimeter of water (4C) pascal (Pa) 9.806380E+01
centipoise pascal second (Pas) 1.000000E-03
centistokes meter2 per second (m2/s) 1.000000E-06
cp Pas 1.000000E-03
cSt mm2/s 1.000000E+00
cu in meter3(m3) 1.638706E-05
cubic yard meter3(m3) 7.645549E-01
darcy m2 9.869233E-13
degree (angle) radian (rad) 1.745329E-02
degree API g/cm3 141.5/(131.5+˚API)
degree Celsius kelvin (K) Tk = Tc + 273.15
degree Fahrenheit degree Celsius Tc = (TF -32)/1.8
degree Fahrenheit kelvin (K) Tk = (TF + 459.67)/1.8
degree Rankine kelvin (K) Tk = TR /1.8
dyne newton (N) 1.000000E-05
dyne cm newton meter (Nm) 1.000000E-07
dyne/cm2 pascal (Pa) 1.000000E-01
foot in (inch) 1.200000E+01
foot meter 3.048000E-01
foot of water (39.2F) pascal (Pa) 2.988980E+03
ft lbf joule (J) 1.355818E+00
ft lbf/hr watt(W) 3.766161E-04
ft lbf/min watt(W) 2.259697E-02
ft lbf/s watt(W) 1.355818E+00
ft/hr meter per second (m/s) 8.466667E-05
ft/min meter per second (m/s) 5.080000E-03
ft/s meter per second (m/s) 3.048000E-01
ft/s2 meter per second2 (m/s2) 3.048000E-01
ft2 meter2(m2) 9.290304E-02
ft3 meter3(m3) 2.831685E-02
kilogram per meter3
g/cm3 (kg/m3) 1.000000E+03
gallon (U.K.Liquid) meter3 (m3) 4.546092E-03
gallon (U.S.Liquid) meter3 (m3) 3.785412E-03
hour second 3.600000E+03
hydraulic horsepower hhp kW 7.460430E-01

Page 12 of 15
Heriot-Watt University Reservoir Engineering - Well Test Analysis G11WT – 2021/22

inch meter 2.540000E-02

inch meter (m) 2.540000E-02
inch of mercury (32F) pascal (Pa) 3.386380E+03
inch of mercury (60F) pascal (Pa) 3.376850E+03
inch of water (39.2F) pascal (Pa) 2.490820E+02
inch of water (60F) pascal (Pa) 2.488400E+02
kelvin degree Celsius Tc = Tk - 273.15
kgf m newton meter (Nm) 9.806650E+00
kgf s2/m (mass) kilogram (kg) 9.806650E+00
kgf/cm2 pascal (Pa) 9.806650E+04
kgf/m2 pascal (Pa) 9.806650E+00
kgf/mm2 pascal (Pa) 9.806650E+06
kilogram force (kgf) newton (N) 9.806650E+00
kilogram mass (kgm) lbm 4.420751E-02
kilowatthour (kW hr) joule(J) 3.600000E+06
km/hr meter per second (m/s) 2.777778E-01
lbf N 4.448222E+00
lbf/in2 GPa 6.894757E-06
lbm kilogram (kg) 4.535924E-01
lbm kg 4.535924E-01
lbm/ft3 kg/m3 1.601846E+01
litre meter3(m3) 1.000000E-03
micron meter (m) 1.000000E-06
mile meter (m) 1.609300E+03
millibar pascal (Pa) 1.000000E+02
millidarcy m2 9.869233E-16
µs/ft µs/m 3.280840E+00
ohm centimeter ohm meter (Ωm) 1.000000E-02
pascal (Pa) psi 1.451000E-04
poise pascal second (Pas) 1.000000E-01
pound force (lbf) newton (N) 4.448222E+00
ppg psi/ft 5.200000E-02
psi MPa 6.894757E-03
psi/ft kPa/m 2.262059E+01
psi-1 Pa-1 1.450377E-04
scf/bbl standard m3/m3 1.801175E-01
sq in meter2(m2) 6.451600E-04
stokes meter2 per second (m2/s) 1.000000E-04
tonne kilogram (kg) 1.000000E+03
ton (UK) kilogram (kg) 1.016047E+03
watt Js-1 1.000000E+00
yard foot 3.000000E+00

Page 13 of 15
Heriot-Watt University Reservoir Engineering - Well Test Analysis G11WT – 2021/22

2. SI UNIT PREFIXES

multiplication factor SI prefix Symbol

1018 exa E
1015 peta P
1012 tera T
109 giga G
106 mega M
103 kilo k
102 hecto h
10 deka da
10-1 deci d
10-2 centi c
10-3 milli m
10-6 micro µ
10-9 nano n
10-12 pico p
10-15 femto f
10-18 atto a

Page 14 of 15
Heriot-Watt University Reservoir Engineering - Well Test Analysis G11WT – 2021/22

Page 15 of 15