Well test model - Interpretation process &

methodology
 1. Well Test Interpretation Process

 Comprehensive interpretation of acquired data is critical for efficient reservoir development

and management because it quantifies the parameters that characterize the dynamic response
of the reservoir
Well Test Interpretation Process

• Well testing tries to describe an unknown system by matching parameters in a model to measurement

Direct Problem
Inverse Problem
 Well Test Interpretation Process Overview

 The objective of well test interpretation is to obtain the most self-consistent and correct
results.

This can be achieved by following a systematic approach

4
Well Test Interpretation Process

Interpretation Process (1) Identification of the Interpretation Model (Inverse Problem).

 Well Test Interpretation Model (1)

 One important ingredient of the integrated methodology was the realization from experience
that although reservoirs are different in terms of physical description (type of rock, depth,
pressure, size, type of fluid, fluid content, etc.), the number of possible dynamic behaviors of
these reservoirs during a well test are limited.

 This is because a reservoir acts as a

low-resolution filter so that only high
contrasts in reservoir properties can
appear in the output signal
Well Test Interpretation Model (1)

Furthermore, these dynamic behaviors are obtained from the combination of three components
that dominate at different times during the test, namely
Well Test Interpretation Model (1)

The complete interpretation model is made of the combination of the individual components

Although the number of interpretation model components are limited (five near-wellbore effects,
two basic reservoir behaviors, and three types of outer-boundary effects), their combination can
yield several thousand different interpretation models to match all observed well behaviors
Well Test Interpretation Process

Interpretation Process (2) Calculation of the Interpretation Model Parameters (Direct Problem).
Well Test Interpretation Process

Interpretation Process (3) Verification of the Interpretation Model

Well Test Interpretation Process Details

11
 2. Interpretation methodology

1. Data processing

 The first step in data processing is to split the entire data set into individual flow periods.
 The exact start and end of each flow period are specified
 Interpretation methodology

2. Data transformation

 The next step is to transform the reduced data so that they display the same identifiable
features, regardless of test type.
 A popular transformation is the pressure derivative
 Interpretation methodology

3. Flow regime identification

 After the data are transformed, the task of identifying the flow regime begins
 Identifying flow regimes, which appear as characteristic patterns displayed by the pressure
derivative data, is important because a regime is the geometry of the flow streamlines in the
tested formation
 Interpretation methodology

Flow Regime Identification tool (FRIT)

 The popular Flow Regime Identification tool (FRIT) is used to differentiate the eight
common subsurface flow regimes on log-log plots for their application in determining and
understanding downhole and reservoir conditions

The eight flow regime patterns commonly observed in well test data are radial, spherical, linear, bilinear,
compression/expansion, steady-state, dual-porosity or -permeability, and slope doubling
 Interpretation methodology

4. reservoir parameters computation

 for each flow regime identified, a set of well or reservoir parameters can be computed using
only the portion of the transient data that exhibits the characteristic pattern behavior.
3. Well Test Interpretation Model - Near-Wellbore

Early time region (ETR)

Near-wellbore effects at early times resulting from the well completion that may vary from
well to well or from test to test
 3. Well Test Interpretation Model - Near-Wellbore

1. Wellbore storage
 The compression/expansion flow regime occurs whenever the volume containing the
pressure disturbance does not change with time and the pressure at all points within the
unchanging volume varies in the same way.

• When a well is opened at

surface, the first flow at the
wellhead is due to the expansion
of wellbore fluid alone. This
expansion continues after the
reservoir fluid starts to
contribute to the production,
until the sandface flowrate
equals the surface flowrate
(when expressed at the same
conditions).
• This effect is called wellbore
storage, as is the reverse effect,
also known as afterflow,
observed during a shut-in.
Wellbore storage is quantified
by the constant C, defined as
DV/DP, and expressed in
STB/psi

The derivative of the compression/ expansion flow regime appears as a unit-slope trend.
 Well Test Interpretation Model - Near-Wellbore

1. Wellbore storage
 Taking a larger C will move the unit slope to the right, hence increase the time at which wellbore
storage will fade
 Wellbore storage tends to masks
infinite acting radial flow on a
time that is proportional to the
value of C.

 Wellbore storage will also tend to

mask other flow regimes that
can be present in a well test.

 Early time well responses such as

linear, bi-linear, spherical and
hemispherical flow will disappear if
the storage effect is considerable.
 Effects of heterogeneous reservoirs
can also be masked by wellbore
storage
 Well Test Interpretation Model - Near-Wellbore

1. Wellbore storage
 Wellbore storage does not affect the late time pseudo steady state response.

Effect of wellbore storage, semilog and history plot

 Well Test Interpretation Model - Near-Wellbore

1. Wellbore storage
 At a point in time, and in the absence of any other interfering behaviors, the Derivative will
leave the unit slope and transit into a hump which will stabilize into the horizontal line
corresponding to Infinite Acting Radial Flow
Well Test Interpretation Model - Near-Wellbore
2. Skin
The simplest model is a vertical well fully penetrating the reservoir producing interval

A positive skin corresponds to a damaged well, and a

negative skin corresponds to a stimulated well.
Well Test Interpretation Model - Near-Wellbore
2. Skin
how this signature is affected by skin.
A useful rule of thumb is that when radial flow is first seen in the derivative, a separation between the 2 curves of one log cycle is approximately
equivalent to a zero skin - less than a log cycle is a negative skin, more is skin damage.

On the loglog plot, the shape of the derivative response,

and with a much lower sensitivity the shape of the
pressure response, will be a function of the group C.e2S.
 Well Test Interpretation Model - Near-Wellbore

3. Spherical flow
This flow regime occurs in partially completed wells and partially penetrated formations.
Both spherical and hemispherical flow are seen on the derivative as a negative half-slope trend.

Once the spherical permeability is determined from

this pattern, it can be used with the horizontal
permeability kh quantified from a radial flow
regime occurring in another portion of the data to
determine the vertical permeability kv.
Well Test Interpretation Model - Near-Wellbore

3. Spherical flow
The characteristic flow regime is spherical flow until upper and lower boundaries have been
reached and then followed by radial flow in the reservoir

Sensitivity to anisotropy
Well Test Interpretation Model - Near-Wellbore

4. Linear flow
It also is found in wells producing from an elongated reservoir.
Linear flow is exhibited in the derivative as a positive half-slope trend.

At early time only the part of the reservoir in

front of the fracture will significantly contribute
to the well production, orthogonal to the
fracture plane
 4. Well Test Interpretation Model – reservoir model

Middle time region (MTR)

The basic dynamic behavior of the reservoir during middle times, which is usually the same
for all the wells in a given reservoir

The basic reservoir dynamic behavior reflects the

number of porous media of different mobilities
(kh/µ) and storativities (Øcth) that participate in the
flow process
4. Well Test Interpretation Model – reservoir model

 Radial flow
The most important flow regime for well test interpretation is radial flow, which is recognized as
an extended constant or flat trend in the derivative
Well Test Interpretation Model – reservoir model

 Radial flow
• the pressure front moves in a 2-dimensional radial pattern
• The plateau height corresponds to the constant slope on a semi-log plot, and depends on
permeability and geometry
 Reservoir model – Radial Composite Systems (2)

 example of heterogeneous behavior is the composite behavior, which implies one set of mobility
and storativity values around the well and a different one at some distance from the well.

 Examples of composite behaviors are found in

such circumstances as:
1. low-permeability oil reservoirs when pressure around the
wellbore drops below the bubblepoint pressure,
2. in low-permeability gas condensate reservoirs when pressure
is less than the dewpoint pressure
3. in carbonate reservoirs after acidification,
4. and in oil reservoirs surrounded by an aquifer.

With composite models, the reservoir is divided into 2 regions of

different mobilities and/or storativities
 Reservoir model – Radial Composite Systems

 Composite behavior may be caused by a change in reservoir thickness or porosity, a variation of

facies, or a change in fluid mobility in the reservoir.

In the case of the radial composite model, there is a circular inner

zone, with the well located at the center, and an infinite outer zone
 Reservoir model – Radial Composite Systems

 the early time corresponds to the inner zone, and the late time behavior depends upon the
properties of the outer zone

With any model, the direction of movement of the derivative can be remembered as
‘down = good’, as a downward movement means an increase in mobility
 5. Well Test Interpretation Model – Boundary model

late time region (LTR)

Boundary effects at late times, determined by the nature of the reservoir boundaries, which
is the same for all the wells in a given reservoir, and by the distance from the well to these
boundaries, which may differ from well to well

 Outer boundaries can be of three types:

1. prescribed rate (e.g., no flow as in the case of a sealing fault),
2. prescribed pressure (e.g., for instance, constant pressure, as in the case of a gas cap or an active aquifer)
3. or leaky (i.e., semipermeable), as in the case of a nonsealing fault
 1. Well in a Bounded Drainage Area

 After radial flow has occurred, If unit slope occurs as the last observed trend, it is assumed to
indicate pseudo steady-state conditions for the entire reservoir volume contained in the well
drainage area.

If the unit slope develops after

radial flow, either the zone (or
reservoir) volume or its shape
can be determined

Late-time unit slope behavior caused by pseudosteady state occurs only during drawdown.
2. Slope doubling - Sealing Fault

Superposition in distance
 2. Slope doubling - Sealing Fault

 Slope doubling describes a succession of two radial flow regimes, with the slope of the second
exactly twice that of the first.

This behavior typically results

from a sealing fault or caused by
a permeability heterogeneity,
particularly in laminated
reservoirs

If slope doubling
is caused by a sealing fault, the distance from the well to the fault can be determined
2. Slope doubling - Sealing Fault

The semi-log response for the sealing fault

is a second straight line with double the
slope of the IARF line, as seen in
the doubling of the derivative.

If slope doubling
is caused by a sealing fault, the distance from the well to the fault can be determined
 3. Pressure maintenance - Steady state

 Steady state implies that pressure in the well drainage volume does not vary in time at any
point and that the pressure gradient between any two points in the reservoir is constant.

This condition may occur for

wells in an injection-production
scheme.

In buildup and falloff tests, a steeply falling derivative may represent either pseudosteady or
steady state
Build up response in different systems

 Comparison between 4 boundaries conditions

 4. Intersecting Faults

 If the first fault is far enough away, infinite-acting radial flow is established after wellbore
storage.
 Similarly, the first fault will always cause the derivative to double, as until it is seen the second
fault will have no effect.

If the well is centered (1), there will be a single jump to the final stabilization, at a value 360/q times the
initial radial flow stabilization. If the well is much closer to one fault (2), the single fault doubling of the
derivative may be seen before a second jump.
4. Intersecting Faults
 5. Parallel Faults – channel

 The well is either between parallel faults or in a channel:

The late time behavior will be linear flow, resulting in a 1/2-unit slope on both the log-log and derivative plots, as for
a fracture in early time. Before that there may be infinite-acting radial flow, and there may be a doubling of the
derivative due to the first fault being a lot closer than the second:
 5. Parallel Faults – channel

 The well is either between parallel faults or in a channel:

 6. Non-sealing fault – channel

 There are cases in which the fault does not fully seal.
 A non-sealing fault allows the transient wave to cross over the fault and keep traveling

A scalable dimensionless conductivity of

the boundary (fault transparency), τ
Effect of boundary distance
All Models Summary

46
All Models Summary

47
All Models Summary

48
All Models Summary

49
 6. Integrating Test Interpretation

 The objective of well test interpretation is to obtain the most self-consistent and correct
results.

This can be achieved by following a systematic approach

50
Integrating Test Interpretation

 The model parameters hopefully correspond to a reality in the subsurface, but the solution

is generally non-unique both in terms of model and model parameters.

 Severe simplifications/assumptions are often made to obtain a unique solution, and a

requirement for any useful well test analysis is that it is consistent with realistic geological

concepts for the reservoir at hand

Integrating Test Interpretation

• Importance of Model Selection

• Integrating Other Data

– Geological Data

– Geophysical Data

– Petrophysical Data

– Engineering Data

• Validating the Reservoir Model

• Common Errors and Misconceptions

Integrating Test Interpretation

• Importance of Model Selection

• Most major errors caused by use of wrong model instead of wrong method
– Meaningless estimates
– Misleading estimates

• Two aspects of model selection

– Selecting reservoir geometry
– Identifying features of pressure response
Integrating Test Interpretation

• Integrating Other Data - Geological Data

Integrating Test Interpretation

• Integrating Other Data - Geophysics and Petrophysics

Integrating Test Interpretation

• Integrating Other Data - Engineering Data

Integrating Test Interpretation

• Integrating Other Data

Integrating Test Interpretation

• Validating the Reservoir Model

• Wellbore storage coefficient

• Skin factor
• Core permeability
• Pressure response during flow period
• Productivity index
• Average reservoir pressure
• Radius of investigation
• Distances to boundaries
• Independent estimates of model parameters
Integrating Test Interpretation

• Validating the Reservoir Model

Integrating Test Interpretation

• Validating the Reservoir Model

Integrating Test Interpretation

• Validating the Reservoir Model

Integrating Test Interpretation

• Common Errors and Misconceptions

• Most-often-misused models
– Well between two sealing faults
– Well in a radially composite reservoir
– Well in a rectangular reservoir
Integrating Test Interpretation

• Common Errors and Misconceptions

• Common misconceptions
– Unit-slope line indicates wellbore storage

• Unit-slope line may be caused by – Pseudo-steady-state flow (drawdown test only)

– Recharge of high-permeability zone (either drawdown or buildup test)
Integrating Test Interpretation

• Common Errors and Misconceptions

• Common misconceptions
– Peak in derivative implies radial flow
Integrating Test Interpretation

• Common Errors and Misconceptions

• Common misconceptions
– Strong aquifer acts as constant pressure boundary