SCHOOL OF ENERGY AND PETROLEUM INDUSTRY

Pulse Test
Prepared by:
Zhaksylykov Zharkyn
Serikbay Zhantore
Taburova Sitora
Tileuov Alisher
Toktar Tomiris
 Introduction
Pulse testing, introduced in the 1960's, is a useful analytical technique to
detect communication between wells and estimate interconnected reservoir
properties (permeability). The technique is also an ideal source of data for
purposes of reservoir description, as it provides a measurement of formation
storage , hydraulic diffusivity and transmissibility . In addition, the
method can be used qualitatively to describe communication across faults and
between zones, direction and magnitude of fracture trends.

School of Energy and Petroleum Industry 2

 Concept and principles
The basic element in pulse-testing is the
well pair consisting of a pulsing well
and an adjacent responding well (Fig.
1). At the pulsing well, a series of flow
disturbances is generated by alternate
intervals of flow and shut-in.

Figure 1 Pulsing and Responding Well Pair.

School of Energy and Petroleum Industry 3
 Results
Figure 2 Pulse Test Terminology
The slight pressure changes in the
reservoir are transmitted to the
wellhead of the responding well. Here a
sensitive differential pressure gauge
records the pressure responses which
contain intelligence introduced into the
reservoir with the series of flow
disturbances. From the record of
pressure response, the pressure
response amplitude, and the time lag
(Fig. 2) are determined.

School of Energy and Petroleum Industry 4

Comparison of Interference Test and Pulse Test

Figure 3 Illustration of rate history and Pressure Figure 4 Illustration of rate (Pulse) History and
Response for an Interference Test Pressure Response for a Pulse Test.
5
School of Energy and Petroleum Industry
 Comparison of Interference Test and Pulse Test
Interference Test (Fig. 3):
1. Ambiguity exists in interference test interpretation because it is uncertain that an
observed response was caused by the active well.
2. Type curve matching, or the exponential integral type curve, is a straightforward analysis
tool.
Pulse Test (Fig. 4):
1. Analysis methods are more intricate and typically call for a computer.
2. The repeated pattern of pulse tests makes it possible to suppress “noise” caused
by continued production of wells not directly involved in the test, which is why the
results are more accurate.
3. Compared to interference test data, pulse test values are far less impacted by
boundary conditions like faults and aquifers.
School of Energy and Petroleum Industry 6
 Advantages and Limitations
Advantages:
 In a pulse test, if a repeated signal is received in an observation well, there is little doubt
that it was caused by the rate changes in the active well.
 Since the pulse-test instruments have a sensitivity of about 0.001 psi, pulses of several
hours or less in duration will generate a measurable response in most reservoirs. For this
reason, many well pairs can be tested in a short period of time with little interference in
field operations.
 The method also can be used qualitatively to describe communication across faults and
between zones, and direction and magnitude of fracture trends.

Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 7

Limitations:
• In the case of reservoirs with a low diffusivity () and a large distance rD between
the wells, the time needed to produce three pressure oscillations in the observation
well can be so long that pulse testing is not possible. Only the interference
procedure can be envisaged in such conditions.

Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 8

Economic Analysis of a Pulse Test
Equipment and Tools:
• Pulse testing equipment: $50,000 - $200,000
• Data acquisition systems: $20,000 - $50,000
• Wellhead sensors and monitoring devices: $10,000 - $30,000 Figure 7 Floor Choke Manifold to Control
Flow Rates and Reduce Well Pressure

• Calibration tools: $5,000 - $15,000

Total Estimated Cost Range:

$300,000 - $750,000 per Well Test

Figure 9 Downhole memory gauges Figure 5 Multifunction Flowheads to Control

Flow With Surface Pressure Barriers
Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 9
 Pulse Test Analysis Method for Two-Well System
The following equations are used to calculate permeability and the porosity-
compressibility product ():

( ( )
)
𝟐
𝒕𝑳
∆𝒑𝑫
𝟏𝟒𝟏 . 𝟐 𝒒𝑩 𝝁 ∆ 𝒕𝒄
( 𝐄𝐪
𝟎 . 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟐𝟔𝟒 𝒌 𝒕 𝑳
𝒌= 𝟏)
𝝋.𝒄 = ( 𝐄𝐪 . 𝟐 )
( )
[ ]
𝟐
𝒉∆𝒑 𝒕𝑳 𝒕
∆ 𝒕𝒄 𝟐
( 𝒕 𝑳 )𝑫
𝝁𝒈 𝒓 𝟐
𝒓 𝑫

= amplitude of a pulse
= total cycle length (including both shut-in and flow periods) 𝑘h ∆ 𝑝
= time lag (time elapsed between the end of a pulse and the pressure peak ∆ 𝑝 𝐷=
141.2 𝑞 𝜇 𝐵
caused by the pulse)
=dimensionless pressure response amplitude
0.0002637 𝑘
= dimensionless time lag ( 𝑡 𝐿 ) 𝐷= 2
Dimensionless distance between the tested wells (r w is for observation 𝜑 𝜇𝑔 𝑐 𝑡 𝑟 𝑤
well).
Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 10
Figure 10 Time Lag and Response Amplitude Figure 11 Time Lag and Cycle Length
Relationship for the First Even Pulse Relationship for First Even Pulse.

Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 11

Figure 12 Time Lag and Response Amplitude Figure 13 Time Lag and Cycle Length
Relationship for the First Odd Pulse. Relationship for First Odd Pulse.
Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 12
 Figure 14 Time Lag and Response Amplitude Figure 15 Time Lag and Cycle Length
Relationship for All Odd Pulses Except the First. Relationship for All Odd Pulses Except the First.
Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 13
 Figure 16 Time Lag and Response Amplitude Figure 17 Time Lag and Cycle Length
Relationship for All Even Pulses Except the First. Relationship for All Even Pulses Except the First.
Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 14
 Horizontal Pulse Test Analysis Techniques
Kamal and Brigham have presented a technique to analyze horizontal pulse tests once pulse
test data are available and plotted and time lags and pressure responses are measured.

Ratio of pulse length to the total cycle length:

∆ 𝑡𝑝 𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑
𝐹= = ( Eq . 3 )
∆𝑡 𝑐 𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 + 𝑠h𝑢𝑡 −𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑

𝑡𝐿 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑔
= ( Eq . 4 )
∆ 𝑡𝑐 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡h

Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 15

 0.0002637 𝑘 𝑡 𝐿
Dimensionless time lag:( 𝑡 𝐿 ) 𝐷 = 2
( Eq . 5 )
𝜑 𝜇𝑔 𝑐 𝑡 𝑟 𝑤

𝑟
𝑟 𝐷
Dimensionless distance between the active and observation wells: =
𝑟 𝑤

𝑘h ∆ 𝑝
Dimensionless pressure response ∆ 𝑝 𝐷=
amplitude: ( 𝐸𝑞 . 6 )
where q is the flow rate at active well. 141.2 𝑞 𝜇 𝐵

Permeability is estimated from:

𝑘=
141.2 𝑞𝐵 𝜇 { ∆ 𝑝𝐷
[ 𝑡𝐿
∆𝑡 𝑐 ]} ( Eq . 7 )

( )
h∆𝑝 𝑡𝐿 2

∆ 𝑡𝑐

where and are from the observation well response for the pulse being analyzed.
Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 16
Porosity-compressibility product is estimated from:
0.0002637 𝑘 𝑡 𝐿
𝜑 𝑐 𝑡= ( 𝐸𝑞 . 8 )
𝜇𝑟
2

[( (𝑡
𝑟
𝐿 𝐷
2
𝐷
)
)]
Formation storage is determined from:

𝑆 =𝜑 𝑐 𝑡 h ( Eq . 9 )

Hydraulic diffusivity:
𝑘
𝜂= ( Eq . 10 )
𝜑 𝑐𝑡 𝜇

Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 17

Example 1
A pulse test was run in a reservoir in which
the distance between wells, r was 1320 ft.
Formation fluid viscosity was 0.6 cp;
formation thickness h was 18 ft; and
porosity was 0.11. In the test following rate
stabilization, the active well was shut-in for
1 hours, then produced 1 hours, shut-in for
1 hours, etc. Production rate q was 550
bbl/d and formation volume factor B=1.
From these data estimate k and for third
pulse.

Figure 18. Pressure Response in Pulse Test.

Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 18

 Solution
1. Calculate and corresponding to the flow rate
history of the active well.
∆ 𝑡 c =2 h
∆ 𝑡𝑝 1
𝐹 = = =0.5
∆𝑡𝑐 1 +1
2. Determine the time lag,, and the
pressure variation,, associated with the
pulse.
¿ 0𝑝
9 min∆ , 15 hour
=0.42 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝑡 Figure 18. Pressure Response in Pulse Test.
3. Calculate :
𝐿 9
∆ 𝑡𝑐
= 0.075
120
=¿

Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 19

 4. Read and from Fig 14 and 15

0,0013 0.0875

0.075 0.075

( ) [ )
]
2
𝑡𝐿 (𝑡 𝐿 𝐷
𝑝𝐷 = 0.0013 =0.0875
∆ 𝑡𝑐 𝑟
Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry
2
𝐷 20
 ( )[ ]
𝑡𝐿
2
( 𝑡 𝐿) 𝐷
𝑝𝐷 = 0.0013
2
=0.0875
∆ 𝑡𝑐 𝑟 𝐷

( ( )
)
2
𝑡𝐿
∆𝑝𝐷
141.2 𝑞𝐵 𝜇 ∆ 𝑡𝑐
5. Determine the reservoir`s permeability
𝑘= :
( )
h∆𝑝 𝑡𝐿
2

∆ 𝑡𝑐

141.2 ×550 ×1 ×0.6 ×0.0013

𝑘= =1410 𝑚𝐷
18 × 0.42 0.075
2

0.000264 𝑘 𝑡 𝐿
6. Determine the reservoir`s capacity: 𝜑 𝑐 𝑡=
𝜇𝑔 𝑟
2
[ (𝑡
𝑟
𝐿 𝐷
2
𝐷
)
]
0.000264 × 1410 × 0.15 −7 −1
𝜑 𝑐 𝑡= 2
=6.1039 × 10 𝑝𝑠𝑖
0.6 × 1320 × 0.0875

Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 21

Case Study
Korolev Field - is an isolated carbonate
platform located 15 km from the better
known Tengiz field. It was discovered
in 1986 and had been characterized as a
smaller version of the 1979 Tengiz
discovery due to similarities in
stratigraphic age, reservoir thickness
and oil properties.

Figure 17 Wells of the Korolev Field

School of Energy and Petroleum Industry 22
As an individual interwell analysis the pulse test from P-6 to P-2 was conducted
(Fig. 20) as well as single-well buildup tests at P-2 and P-6. Fig. 18 and 19 present
the results of build-up at P-2 and P6 respectively.

Figure 18 Buildup Test at P-2. Figure 19 Buildup Test at P-6.

Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 23

Figure 20 Pulse Test from P-6 to P-2.

Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 24

The following results were obtained from pulse test:
• Flow communication confirmed
• 40-hour time lag (1.6 km apart)
• Much higher flow capacity (kh) from pulse test than from individual buildup test
indicates the present of conductive fracture network linking the two wells
• Matrix-fracture properties of the fast-path between wells are obtained

Figure 21 Comparison of Buldup and Pulse Test Data

Faculty of Energy and Oil & Gas Industry 25

 Nomenclature
A = constant in the dimensionless cycle period equation
B= formation volume factor, RB/STB
C = constant in the dimensionless cycle period equation
c t = isothermal coefficient of compressibility, psi -1
D = constant in the dimensionless cycle period equation
E = constant in the dimensionless response amplitude
equation
F = constant in the dimensionless response amplitude
equation
H = constant in the dimensionless response amplitude
equation
h = formation thickness, ft.
k = permeability, md
School of Energy and Petroleum Industry 26
∆p = response amplitude, psi
∆pD = dimensionless response amplitude
q = flow rate, STB/D
R = ratio between the pulse period and the shut-in
period
R’= pulse ratio.
rbw= distance between the pulsing and the
responding wells,
∆t= pulse period, minutes
∆tcyc= cycle period minutes
∆tcycD = dimensionless cycle period
tl = time lag, minutes
tlD = dimensionless time lag
μ = viscosity,
φ= porosity, fraction
School of Energy and Petroleum Industry 27
 References
[1] R. N. Horne, Modern Well Test Analysis a Computer-Aided Approach. Palo Alto, CA: Petroway,
2012.
[2] Filippi, B., Nabipour, A. and Fukuda, N. (2016) ‘Old technique new insights: Reservoir properties
society of petroleum engineers from pulse testing’, All Days [Preprint]. doi:10.2118/182291-ms.
[3] McKinley, R.M., Vela, S. and Carlton, L.A. (1968a) ‘A field application of pulse-testing for
detailed reservoir description’, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 20(03), pp. 313–321.
doi:10.2118/1822-pa.
[4] Johnson, C.R., Greenkorn, R.A. and Woods, E.G. (1966) ‘Pulse-testing: A new method for
describing reservoir flow properties between Wells’, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 18(12), pp.
1599–1604. doi:10.2118/1517-pa.
[5] Kamal, M. and Brigham, W.E. (1976) ‘Design and analysis of pulse tests with unequal pulse and
shut-in periods’, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 28(02), pp. 205–212. doi:10.2118/4889-pa.
[6] wiki.aapg.org
[7] glossary.slb.com

School of Energy and Petroleum Industry 28

[8] Lecture 11. Different types of WTA.
[9] Practical Well Testing and Production Data Analysis Workshop by Chevron.
[10] www.searchanddiscovery.com
[11] Lee, J. (1982) Well testing. New York: Society of Petroleum Engineering.
[12] Chaudhry, A.U. (2004) Oil well testing handbook. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Gulf Professional.
[13] Kamal, M. and Brigham, W.E. (1975) ‘Pulse-testing response for unequal pulse and shut-in periods
(includes associated papers 14253, 19365, 20792, 21608, 23476 and 23840)’, Society of Petroleum
Engineers Journal, 15(05), pp. 399–410. doi:10.2118/5053-pa.
[14] McAleese, S. (2002) Operational aspects of oil and gas well testing. Burlington: Elsevier Science.
[15] glossary.slb.com
[16] petrowiki.spe.org

School of Energy and Petroleum Industry 29

 SCHOOL OF ENERGY AND PETROLEUM INDUSTRY

Pulse Test
Prepared by:
Zhaksylykov Zharkyn
Serikbay Zhantore
Taburova Sitora
Tileuov Alisher
Toktar Tomiris