Recent Developments in the Interpretation and

Application of DST Data

Abstract
L. F. MAIER
JUNIOR MEMBER AIME
This paper presents a summary of the latest drill-stem
test interpretation techniques which may be applied by
well operators to the majority of field cases. Recommenda-
tions are submitted for obtaining better DST data, and the
evaluation of data received is discussed.
Oil, gas and multiphase flow are considered. MeJhods
of calculation are advanced to help determine reservoir
pressure, productivity index, transmissibility, damage ratio,
radius of investigation and absolute open-flow potential.
Application of calculated information to well completion
is discussed, and several gas case histories are tabulated
which illustrate the general correlation between DST in-
formation and actual well performance.
Introdnction
The information contained with a drill-stem test report
may be considered to be of four general categories: (1)
factual data including statistical well information and a
description of the testing tools; (2) measured data con-
cerning the recovered fluids and their properties, the time
periods involved and general remarks based on observa-
tions during the test; (3) recorded pressure and tempera-
ture data; and (4) interpretation calculations, where ap-
plicable.
Greater emphasis is now being placed on the quality
and completeness of the physical measurements and ob-
servations made during the test. This has been necessary
in order to complement the accuracy and dependability
of the pressure-recording instruments.
Interpretation is considered an important part of the
drill-stem test, and for this reason the necessary calcula-
tions are now being done on the majority of tests run
in Canada. This information has proven to be of consid-
erable assistance to the well owner in well-completion.
formation-evaluation and hydrodynamic studies. This paper
is an up-to-date presentation of practical methods of drill-
soom test interpretation and suggestions for improved test-
ing techniques generally applicable to Canadian conditions.
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office
March 12, 1962. Revised manuscript received July 27, 1962. Paper pre-
sented at SPE Production Research Symposium held April 12-13, 1962,
in Tulsa, Okla.
NOVEMBER, 1962
SPE 290
HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO. LTD.
CALGARY, ALTA.
Previous authors' interpretation methods'-' are combined
with new developments and modifications to present a
comprehensive interpretation guide for the great majority
of DST results encountered.
Evaluation of Basic DST Data
Before he can begin the drill-stem test interpretation,
the well operator must evaluate the basic data which were
measured and recorded. Examination of the pressure data
and the charts will reveal whether or not the test was
satisfactory from a mechanical viewpoint and will help
to verify the accuracy of the gauges. A zero-pressure base
line is drawn on the chart by the bourdon tube pressure-
recording ins.trument prior to assembly in the testing
string, and the recorded pressure must "zero-in" on this
base line at the time of tool assembly and "zero-out"
during disassembly after the test.
Since stair-stepping pressure curves may be caused by
gauge malfunction, they must be considered to be un-
representative of true formation pressures. Depending
upon the severity of the steps, such pressure data may
be of some value but must be used with extreme caution.
If all gauges appear to have recorded correctly, the
proper way to check their accuracy is to compare their
recorded pressures at such key points as initial closed-in
pressure, final flow pressure and final closed-in pressure.
If the initial and final hydrostatic pressures are clearly
defined on the charts, these may be used as well. The
recorded pressure difference between any two gauges at
these key points is compared with the predicted difference
due to the hydrostatic head between the gauges. The dis-
crepancy between the recorded and calculated difference
is divided by two, and this is calculated as a
percentage of the average pressure of the two gauges.
This is equal to the possible per ctfnt error of each gauge,
assuming their accuracies to be equal.
The volumes of liquid recoveries often are difficult to
determine accurately due to intermingling of the various
fluids produced and, occasionally, due to severe gas-cutting.
Gas flow measurements may be hampered by liquid flow
through the flare line. Production test kits containing the
'References given at end of paper.
1213
necessary equipment can materially assist in evaluating
the recovery. The kit illustrated in Fig. 1 contains a pitot
tube, side static device, orifice well tester, manometers,
pressure gauges, thermometers, hydrometers, pH paper,
etc.
Assuming friction drop is nil, the final flow pressure on
the uppermost gauge equals the hydrostatic head of fluid
above it; thus, the reported liquid recovery may be veri-
fied. A check may also be made on the reported flow times
and closed-in-times. Since time deflection on the chart
is measured in thousandths of an inch, then for anyone
chart the ratios of reported times to chart deflections
should be equal for all timed periods.
Pressure Build-Up Curves
The well known equation",7 describing pressure build-up
characteristics of a well is expressed as
_ 162.6 qpl3 (I + ())
po - Pt - kh log -()- .
(1)
The boundary conditions make this equation particu-
larly well suited for DST application, and the assumptions
usually are as valid for a DST as they are for producing
wells. Theoretically, a plot of po vs log (I ()) will
It . . h r f I 162.6 qfLB
resu m a stralg t me 0 s ope m equal to kh ' and
I
, I (I + ()) ..
extrapo atmg og -()- to zero Will Yield Pt.
The dual closed-in pressure method of testing has now
become an almost universal standard, and only this tech-
nique will be considered in this paper. The sequence of
events usually is classified as first fiow, initial closed-in
pressure, second flow and final closed-in pressure.
The first flow period of several minutes aids in the
removal of any "supercharged" pressure caused by drilling-
mud or filtrate invasion near the well bore, During this
period there also may be a removal of some of the dam-
age or skin effect. This would tend to stabilize the effective
permeability (and, hence, the flow conditions) prior to
the second flow period, improving the accuracy of the
interpretation.
Failure to remove the "supercharged" pressure will be
indicated by an extrapolated initial closed-in pressure
Fig. I-DST production test kit.
1214
which is significantly higher than the extrapolated final
closed-in pressure. A study of the build-Up plots on the
majority of tests run in Canada for the past two years
illustrates that, in many cases, "supercharged" pressures
were not removed prior to initial shut-in. This is par-
ticularly true in the case of gas-well testing, where almost
half of such tests indicate "supercharging". Experience
shows that a first flow time of 5 to 15 minutes generally
is satisfactory in removing "supercharge". While these
longer flow times may result in build-up curves of lesser
closure, requiring slightly more extrapolation to determine
reservoir pressure, it still is more desirable to work with
true pressures. Good initial closed-in pressure curves are
nearly always obtained provided the closed-in time is
approximately 30 minutes or more. A discrepancy in the
extrapolated pressures may also be caused by partial
depletion of the reservoir during the second flow period,
and there are several cases on record where this has hap-
pened in various formations and localities. Fig. 2 illus-
trates a pressure chart from such a test. It is often diffi-
cult to distinguish between "supercharged" pressure and
partial depletion, which is another important reason for
eliminating "supercharge".
It is not uncommon to observe an initial closed-in
pressure which has a slower build-up than the final closed-
in pressure; an example is shown in Fig. 3. In such cases,
the initial build-up is influenced by the presence of a
deeply-invaded, low-permeability damaged zone, since the
radius of investigation is quite small for short flow times,
Longer first flow times would result in build-ups more
characteristic of the undamaged formation.
For adequate interpretation, the time required for the
second flow period is subject to a large number of factors.
This usually is dictated by experience and knowledge of
reservoir and hole conditions, as well as by the nature
of the blow. It is usually desirable to have the final
closed-in time equal to the second flow time-or perhaps
longer in the event of a poor blow. Exceptions to this
rule include most gas wells, very badly damaged wells,
or oil wells with an indicated kh of greater than 500 md-ft.
Here, a closed-in time equal to one-half the flow time
usually is sufficient.
Another common build-up characteristic is the S-type
curve, and some causes of this have been described' as
Fig. 2-Pressure chart for limited reservoir partially de-
pleted during DST.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
follows: (1) minute mud leakage around the packer,
- through vertical permeability, results in a build-up plot
which extrapolates approximately to the hydrostatic mud
pressure; and (2) high drawdowns on low-permeability
wells may cause gas to come out of solution, thus increas-
ing the gas saturation near the wellbore. As the pressure
increases during the build-up, the gas goes back into so-
lution and some after-production of oil must take place.
This slow-rate after-production is probably the most com-
mon cause of the S-type build-up.
Since two separate combinations of flow and closed-in
periods are involved, two sets of calculations may be
carried out if desired. The second-period calculations
generally can be considered more accurate, since longer
flow times are customary and more stabilized skin condi-
tions exist.
In the extrapolation of the final closed-in pressure, it
must be considered that the well has been producing for
a time equal to the sum of the two flow periods, but
interrupted by the initial closed-in period. If the initial
closed-in pressure build-up is complete, or very nearly so,
then the influence of the first flow period may be disre-
garded in the final closed-in pressure build-up plot, and
the flow time used would be that of the second period
only. If the initial build-up is poorly developed, the final
build-up will be affected by all previous events and a
modified build-up equation will apply, derived by super-
imposing the point-source solution. As discussed in Ap-
pendix A, this solution may be closely approximated by
b
f I fl . . h . t + () Th
su stItutlOn 0 tota ow time III t e expression -()-. e
build-up plot will have a slight curvature, but in using
the points with the lowest value of t () for the straight-
line extrapolation, good results may generally be obtained.
Under normal testing conditions, for example, if the
second flow period is more than five or six times that of
the first flow period and at least as long as the initial
closed-in period, there will be virtually no error in the
extrapolated pressure and the error in the slope of the
plot will be less than 2 per cent. If the first flow period is
equal to the second flow period, error in extrapolated
Fig. 3-Chart showing initial closed-in pressure build-up
influenced by wellbore damage.
NOVEMBER, 1962
pressure generally will be only about 0.5 per cent, but
the error in the slope could be approximately 10 per cent.
The error in the slope may be corrected by dividing the
measured slope by log ( + 1) ((), + t;, + b + 1 ) , as
illustrated in Fig. 4.
One assumption in Eq. 1 is that constant rate of pro-
duction exists prior to shut-in; however, on a liquid re-
covery test the flow rate usually decreases throughout the
flow period. Dolan, et aZ: illustrated that the error through
use of an average flow rate was not significant provided
the rate of change of q was relatively constant. This usu-
ally holds true in the majority of tests on oil reservoirs,
at least where the calculated productivity index is less
than approximately 1.5 BID-psi. However, with the
marked increase in the number of water-source wells
drilled in recent years and the use of the drill-stem test
for their evaluation, large numbers of very prolific wells
have been tested where the average-flow-rate simplification
does not apply. The entire interpretation of such cases
must be handled in a different manner, which is beyond
the scope of this paper.
Oil Flow
The transmissibility of the formation tested
calculated from the slope of the build-up plot.
ko h 162.6 qo Bo
}Lo rno
may be
(2)
Since Bo is usually unknown at the time of the DST
analysis, it may be necessary to estimate it from some
type of average correlation plot." An estimate may also
have to be made of the oil viscosity under reservoir con-
ditions! in order to calculate the in situ capacity (koh),
and through knowledge of the net pay thickness in the
test interval the average effective permeability may be
estimated. This permeability represents the estimated res-
ervoir permeability to the extent of the radius of investi-
gation during the test. It would not normally include the
effect of skin damage in the immediate vicinity of the
'" 0.
..
0.




-
t


,I'-
-
I-
I'ro
II
10
Let tl=9;=t2
Correction Factor= 0.901
=089
m2 .
Slope= m
l
........

"'-
'-....
Fig. 4-Approximate and exact build-up plots, considering
influence of first flow period.
1215
well bore , unless the investigation radius did not extend
beyond the damaged zone.
The next step is to calculate the average productivity
index during the flow period. It has been common prac-
tice to assume that the flow rate is constant, and to cal-
culate productivity index by dividing the average flow
rate by the difference between reservoir pressure and final
flow pressure. However, the flow rate is rarely constant,
and a more realistic drawdown would be calculated by
considering some average wellbore pressure during the
flow period.
As the flow period progresses the well bore pressure
increases, causing the flow rate to decline. These factors
can vary widely, depending upon the well's capability. The
flow period could be divided into a number of time in-
crements and the productivity index calculated for each
increment. Such calculated values mayor may not be
relatively constant during the flow period. An identical
to the average of these values is obtained by di-
vldmg the. production rate (total liquid recovery
volume dIvIded by total flow time) by the difference
between reservoir pressure and the weighted average flow
pressure.
J = _q_o_
Pt - P
(3)
P may be obtained by reading the flow pressure at a
number of equally spaced time intervals and calculating
the average of these values. A total of 10 intervals is
usually adequate.
If well bore damage exists at the time of the DST the
producing characteristics' of the well will be affected.' The
P?ssible causes of damage or skin effect have been widely
dIscussed and several calculation methods have been pre-
sented. As a close approximation for the DST case (see
Appendix B), the van Everdingen dimensionless skin fac-
tor may be expressed as
[
p - p ]
s;:::::; 1.1515 - log (kot) - 1.80 (4)
Damage ratio, defined as the ratio of theoretical J to ac-
tual J, is derived from the skin equation.
DR;:::::; (Pt - p)/mo
log (kot) + 1.80
(5)
The pressure drop caused by the skin may then be calcu-
lated from Eq. 6.
(Pt - p) (DR - 1)
PD = DR
(6)
Under the transient flow conditions existing during the
DST flow period, the "drainage radius" coincides with the
wellbore radius at zero flow time and continually propa-
gates outward until the flow period ends unless the tran-
sient radius reaches some barrier. This radius is commonly
referred to. as the effective radius of investigation, since
the reservOir properties are being measured to its extent.
One solution" was obtained by an empirical correlation
of known mathematical data, which may be expressed
by Eq. 7 (see Appendix C).
r, ::::: 4.63 (kot)' . (7)
A. pressure chart for an example oil test is shown in Fig.
5, WIth the build-up plot given in Fig. 6.
Gas Flow
Gas-well test interpretation may be conducted with
1216
some degree of accuracy, similar to the methods used for
oil reservoirs. It must be realized that the applied equa-
tions assume that the compressibility and viscosity of the
gas remain reasonably constant over the range of tempera-
ture and pressure variation encountered in the reservoir
during the flow period. Such is not the case, of course,
since these parameters are functions of pressure and the
differential pressure between reservoir and wellbore may
be quite large on some drill-stem tests. This situation is
most common with low-permeability reservoirs and/or
some degree of skin damage. In the event of skin, how-
ever, a large percentage of the pressure drop would be in
the immediate vicinity of the well bore , and the majority
of the effective area of investigation would have a relatively
small drawdown. In reviewing a large number of drill-
stem tests performed on a variety of reservoirs, it was
found that only a small percentage showed excessive pres-
sure drawdowns between the reservoir and the external
boundary of the skin. Nevertheless, reducing the draw-
down will certainly improve the accuracy of the calcu-
lations, and more extensive use of chokes should be made
in instances where required.
Fig. chart for an example oil test, South
Canevale Well 13-12 (Mobil Oil-'Pure-'Sinclair-British
American).
1800

'iii
a.
1700

1500
1450
I

\
'\
.\
CI


Initial CIP
1\
\
BT No, 1506
D 3883'
Pf
1791 psi
mo 288 psi/cycle

r-..
"1\
,\,
I
10

e
Fig. 6-Build-up plot, South Carievale Well 13-12.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
The pressure build-up equation applicable to gas wells
- is expressed by
,_ ,_ 1632 q'/LZT[ I (t + ())] (8)
p. - PI k h og -()-
9
The build-up plot of po' vs log (t ~ ()) is constructed
(
t + ()) b' 0
and extrapolated to log -()- = 0 to 0 tam P/.
As in the case of the liquid interpretation, the trans-
missibility may be calculated after measuring the slope of
the build-up plot.
k.h 1632q,zT (9)
/Ly my
With a knowledge of h and an estimation of/Ly and 7.
from suitable data on gas properties, the capacity and
permeability of the formation may be calculated.
The assumption of constant flow rate in the build-up
equation usually is not a serious one. Variations in flow
rate are not nQrmally extreme and the rate usually be-
comes fairly constant if adequate flow times of one hour
or longer are allowed. One accepted practice is to measure
the flow rate at a number of equally spaced time intervals
throughout the test. In the event of any appreciable de-
viation from constant flow rate, the average of the various
measured rates should be used in Eq. 9. Likewise, p,
usually becomes reasonably constant; when necessary, how-
ever, p may be used in any expression containing flowing
pressure.
To date, there has been no general analytical solution
to the nonlinear partial differential equation describing
the flow of natural gas through porous media. However,
by reducing the differential equation to an appropriate
finite-difference equation, numerical solutions have been
obtained" by digital simulation on electronic computers.
Aronofsky and Jenkins13 concluded that the numerical
solutions nearly coincided with the solutions for transient
liquid flow for a wide range of dimensionless flow rates.
By combining the liquid and gas equations, a theoretical
equation was given" for gas flow during the early stages
of production which may be expressed as
1.1515 [log kgtjcp/L cr,': + 5.01] = 1.1515 (p/ - p,')
mg
(10)
Noting that actual gas-well behavior did not conform
with the theoretical equation, Smith" proposed that it be
modified by the addition of the S factor and another cor-
rection term designated as the Y function. The resulting
equation is equivalent to the van Everdingen skin equation
modified by the addition of the Y term. For DST use,
it may be simplified by assuming the parameters as given
in Appendix B.
S + Y:::::: 1.1515 [ p / ~ ? p , - - log (kutpI) + 1.40]
(11)
The damage ratio may then be calculated by Eq. 12.
DR:::::: (p," - p,")/my .
log (kgtPI) - 1.40 + Y/1.1515
(12)
The Y function is an empirical term designed to adjust
the theory to conform with actual gas-well behavior in
accounting for the additional pressure drop caused by a
condition commonly referred to as turbulent flow.
Its importance in the presented equations is unknown
since no attempt has been made to evaluate it from DST
NOVEMBER, 196:1
data. It could be determined as outlined in Ref. 14 if the
drill-stem test were run in a particular manner; however,
if it has not been determined, it may be ignored and ap-
parent values of DR and S calculated.
The pressure drop across the skin may be calculated
from the following equation.
= (P/ (DR - 1) + p.')l _
PD DR P.,
(13 )
The radius of investigation of the gas well during a DST
may be approximated by the expression
r, :::::: 0.125 (k.tPI)' (14)
The equation describing the back-pressure performance
of a gas well is expressed as
qg = C (p/ - p,')" (15)
Data taken from a DST which achieves a constant flow
rate may be considered valid for plotting as a single point
on a back-pressure plot of q. vs p/ - p,'. Such a point
certainly could be in error; however, for the purpose of
an estimation of the absolute open-flow potential it does
have some value. This is particularly true since the infor-
mation in most cases would be available prior to comple-
tion of the well. Expressed in equation form (see Ap-
pendix D),
[
p/ 1"
q, = qg -,--,
P! - p,
(16)
If the exponent n cannot be estimated, it may be assumed
to have the extreme values of 0.5 and 1.0, and a range
of qA calculated.
The computed value of qA will be with respect to the
time at which q. and p, were measured, usually at time t.
Studies of isochronal-performance testing
15
-
17
show that
the performance coefficient C decreases with time until
stabilized flow conditions prevail. This may require con-
siderable time except in highly permeable wells. In most
cases, therefore, the open-flow potential calculated by
Eq. 16 will be somewhat higher than that which would
be calculated for stabilized flow. A corrected value may
be calculated by Eq. 17.
{[
p/ ][In (r./r
w
) ]}" (17)
q, = qu p/ _ p,' In (r,/rw)
The value of r, is calculated as previously discussed, and
r, is established from the well spacing.
Figs. 3 and 7 illustrate the pressure chart and build-up
plot of an example gas test interpretation.
Multipbase Flow
In certain cases driII-stem tests are performed on reser-
voirs which may produce various combinations of oil,
water and gas as separate phases. Such tests may be in-
terpreted by applying the same theory as was used for
the single-phase interpretations, the only modification being
the substitution of the effective total fluid properties of
the muItiphase system for the equivalent single-phase
properties.18
The pressure build-up curve may be plotted as in an
oil test, and the plot extrapolated to obtain reservoir
pressure.
Each fluid is first considered separately to obtain the
individual transmissibilities.
162.6 B,qo
(2)
l:!l7
(18)
kgh 1632 zT
- = (qg - q"R,) (19)
fLu my
where mu = p/ - PlO'. Eq. 19 assumes that the gas phase
is distributed uniformly throughout the interval h. If the
two phases are segregated within this interval, separate
values of h must be estimated for each phase.
From these equations, individual mobilities (k/ fL) are
determined, and total mobility is calculated as the sum
of the individual mobilities. Individual permeabilities and
relative-permeability ratios may also be calculated.
It must be stressed that in certain cases it is possible
to recover large quantities of filtrate water which are
sometimes mistaken for formation water." Such cases
usually can be identified by proper sampling and labora-
tory analysis. More-reasonable values of effective perme-
ability would be calculated by considering the filtrate water
as hydrocarbon production rather than formation-water
production.
The remaining calculations involve fluid compressibility.
In multiphase work the total compressibility, which is the
sum of the fractional compressibilities, is used. When oil
and gas compressibilities are unknown, total fluid com-
pressibility may be approximated as
_ I
c, :::::: So (10-') + SrI - + Sw (3 X 10-'). (20)
PI
Knowledge of fluid saturations is also required, and
these may be estimated through use of relative-perme-
ability-ratio plots'O when actual data are unknown. Errors
through approximations of the individual fluid compressi-
bilities and the fluid saturations will be minimized since
they are applied in the logarithm; however, the following
equations must be regarded as estimates only.
1218
s:::::: 1.1515 P -log (+.-) (:} + 3.23]
(21)
DR:::::: (PI - p)/m"
log ( +.-) (:} - 3.23
(22)
4.4
4.2
8T No. 542
D 5945'
Pt
2
4,230,000 psi
2

Pt 2057 psi
mg 850,000 psi7cycle

I--
"-
i'--
Initial CIP
'"
i'i' I !
!'
1
i
P
I I
10
Fi.g. 7-Build.up plot, Pembina Well 11-26
(White Rose, et al).
I
r, z 0.0143 [(:} (:,)r
(23)
Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate the pressure chart and build-up
plot of an example multi phase test interpretation.
Field Application of DST Interpretation
The reservoir information obtained from the drill-stem
test analysis generally is considered to have some degree
of reliability and to be of considerable worth in formation
evaluation. The acceptance of this information has ex-
panded such that the drill-stem test must be considered
as much an evaluation tool as it is an exploration tool.
While much of the information is considered to be ap-
proximate, in many cases it is the only information and
can often be available before the well is completed. In
fact, DST information has proven to be of great assistance
to the well owner in the well completion itself.
The wide variations in skin conditions encountered at
the time of the DST clearly show that a well's potential
should not be based on recovery alone, and in some in-
Fig. 8-Pressure chart for an example multi phase test,
Hamilton Lake Well 5-13 (Standard Oil Co. of California).
900

800
700
600
550
I

:::::::-



i--
"I--
i
I I
8T No. 676
D 2981'
Pt
842 psi
ma opprox.99psilcycle
.



i
-i
I
10
Fig. 9-Build.up plot, Hamilton Lake Well 5-13.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
stances the question of whether or not to abandon may be
decided by the well owner through knowledge of the
- damage ratio. Well stimulation is becoming increasingly
important, and more emphasis is being placed on designed
or engineered treatment recommendations for maximum
efficiency. These calculations involve a two-step operation
of first removing the well bore damage and then increasing
the formation capacity. Thus, a knowledge of DR and
formation kh is essential, and this information may be
gained from the DST analysis.
Table 1 presents a comparison between the absolute
open-flow potential calculated from the DST and that
derived from back-pressure testing after well completion
on a number of gas wells. It must be considered that the
skin effect could change from the time of the DST to
the time of completion and the stimulation treatment may
or may not remove all of the damage, or it may improve
the formation capacity such that the net result in produc-
tion improvement is greater than that possible from
removal of damage alone. Considering the many complex
and unknown factors involved, there is a relatively good
correlation between the DST predicted and the actual
well performance figures when considered in the light of
the stimulation treatments involved.
Suggestions
The following may be of assistance in normal situations,
depending upon the specific conditions of the well in ques-
tion.
1. The volume of liquid recovery should be carefully
measured. The various liquids or contaminated mixtures
should be adequately described and density measurements
taken.
2. Measure the gas flow at several equally spaced time
intervals throughout the flow periods.
3. Pressure drawdown on gas tests should be reduced,
where necessary, through more extensive use of chokes.
4. The first flow period should be at least five minutes,
and the initial closed-in period at least 30 minutes. The
second flow period is dictated by experience and knowl-
edge of conditions and generally should be longer for
weaker blows. The final closed-in period usually should
equal the second flow period.
5. Prior to interpretation, evaluate the accuracy of
the pressure gauges by comparing their recorded pressures
at several key points.
6. The hydrostatic pressure of liquid recovery should
be calculated and compared with the final flow pressure.
Conclusions
1. Regardless of the type of fluid recovery, most DST
results may be interpreted with a reasonable degree of
accuracy to help obtain reservoir pressure, average effec-
tive permeability, productivity index, damage ratio, radius
of investigation and absolute open-flow potential.
2. The calculated data are in relatively good agreement
with data from other sources.
3. In addition to its contribution towards formation-
evaluation and hydrodynamic studies, DST interpretation
may be of considerable help in the well owner's design of
stimulation treatments.
Nomenclature
b = t, + t, minutes
9 '
B = formation volume factor, reservoir bbIjSTB
c = compressibility, psi-
'
C = coefficient in back-pressure equation, McfjDj
psi'
D = gauge depth, ft
DR = damage ratio, dimensionless
h = net reservoir thickness, ft
J = productivity index, BjD-psi
k = permeability, md
m = slope of pressure build-up plot, psi/cycle or
psi2jcyc1e
n = exponent in back-pressure equation, dimen-
sionless
p f = static reservoir pressure, psi
TABLE l-DST PREDICTED GAS WELL PERfORMANCE COMPARED WITH POSTCOMPLETION PERfORMANCE, ASSUMED n = 0.8
q. Predicted Stimulation Final Stimulation
Well Formation (MMeI/D) DR qA (MMcf/D) Treatment qA (MMcf/D) Effect
_._---
White Rose Blairmore (55) 2.S0 1.42 13.68S 1,000gal acid 4.S0 1.22
Pembina 1126
H. B. Uno-Tex 03 (Is) 0.108 35.S 4.00 500gal acid 17.20 4.30
Wimborne 729
Zapata Mazy 11 23 Glauconitic (ss) 3.20 3.0 10.80 50gal acid 7.S0 0.70
Zapata Mazy 1727 Viking (ss) 1.10 12.0 2.29 14,000lb.
sand frac 3.35 1.46
Pacific Bubbles Baldonnel (dol) 1.10 2.6 2.95 16,7S0'gal odd 7.40' 2.S0
,d771
Pacific Jedney Baldonnel (dol) 1.41 1.7 12.68 4,250gal acid 3.50 1.31
d77J
Pacific Jedney Halfway (ss) 1.25 6.3 9.07 40,000lb
d77J sand frae 18.40 2.03
Pacific Jedney Halfway (ss) 1.79 1.6 3.03 36,600lb
C86c .sand froc 7.70 2.S5
Dome Laprise Boldonnel (dol) 0.648 12.8 8.47 6,000'gal acid 13.20 1.56
Creek b2H
Dome Laprise Baldonnel
Creek a2SH
(dol) 0.310 10.1 3.13 5,SOOgal acid 2.20 0.70
Dome Laprise BaldonneI (dol) 0.486 3.6
Creek a81H
18,SOOgal add 4.80 2.71
McCoy Dome Baldonnel (dol) 0.486
Bubbles ba62B
2.1 1.04 11,SOO'gal acid 4.80 4.61
Panalta Drum Glauconitic (ss) 2.50 4.1 11.S0 10,OOOlb
heller 63
3S0lb AI. 39.00 3.39
pellet frae
'qA was 2.90 MMcf/D after 3,000'901 acid wash.
1962
1219
P. = flowing welIbore pressure, psi
p = weighted average flowing weIlbore pressure,
psi
P. = weIIbore pressure at time B, psi
1+ B . h I'
P,. = P. at -B-- = 10 on strmg t- me
portion of
build-up plot, psi
PD = pressure drop across skin, psi
q = production rate, STB/D or Mcf/D (14.65 psia
and 60F)
r. = stabilized radius of drainage, ft
r, = radius of DST investigation, ft
r w = weIIbore radius, ft
R, = solution gas-oil ratio, Mcf/D /STB
s = fluid saturation, fraction
S = skin effect, dimensionless
I, = first flow time, minutes
I, = second flow time, minutes
I = effective flow time (I, + 12, or (2 ), minutes
T = temperature, OR
Y = correction factor, dimensionless
z = compressibility factor, dimensionless
p.. = viscosity, cp
cp = porosity, fraction
B = time point during the closed-in period, min-
utes
B, = total time of initial closed-in period, minutes
Subscripts
A = absolute open-flow potential
g = gas
0= oil
I = total
w = water (except for r.,)
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to express his appreciation to the
various producing companies for permission to publish
their weII data, and to Halliburton Oil WeII Cementing
Co. Ltd. for permission to present and publish this paper.
References
1. Black, W. M.: "A Review of Drill-Stem Testing Techniques
and Analysis", Jour. Pet. 1'ech. (June, 1956) VIII, No.6, 21.
2. Olson, C. c.: "Subsurface Pressures Tell Story", World Oil
(Feb., 1953).
3. Zak, A_ J., Jr. and Griffin, P., III: "Here's a Method for
Evaluating DST Data", Oil and Gas Jour. (April, 1957).
4. Dolan, J. P., Einarsen, C. A. and Hill, G. A.: "Special Ap-
plications of Drill-Stem Test Pressure Data", Trans., AIME
(1957) 210, 318.
5. Ammann, C. B.: "Case Histories of Analyses of Characteris-
tics of Reservoir Rock from Drill-Stem Tests", Jour. Pet.
Tech. (May, 1960) XII, No.5, 27.
6. Horner, D. R.: "Pressure Build-Up in Wells", Proc . Third
World Pet. Cong., Section II, E. 1. Brill, Leiden, Holland
(1951) .
7. van Everdingen, A. F.: "The Skin Effect and Its Influence OIl
the Productive Capacity of a Well", Trans., AIME (1953)
198, 171.
8. van Poollen, H. K.: "Status of Drill-Stem Testing Techniques
and Analysis", Jour_ Pet. Tech. (April, 1961) 333.
9. Nisle, R. G.: "The Effect of a Short Term Shut-In on a
Subsequent Pressure Build-Up Test on an Oil Well", Trans.,
AIME (1956) 207, 320.
10. Calhoun, J. c., Jr.: Fundamental's of Reservoir Engineering,
1220
U. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Okla. (1955).
11. Hurst, W., Haynie, O. K. and Walker, R. N.: "Some Prob-
lems in Pressure Build-Up", Paper SPE 145 presented at 36th
Annual Fall Meeting of SPE in Dallas (Oct. 8-11, 1961);
also "New Concept Extends Pressure Build-Up Analysis", Pet_
Engr. (Aug., 1962) 34, No.9, 41.
12. Jenkins, R. and Aronofsky, J. S.: "Unsteady Radial Flow of
Gas Through Porous Media", lour. Appl. Mech. (June,
1963) 20.
13. Aronofsky, J. S. and Jenkins, R.: "A Simplified Analysis of
Unsteady Radial Gas Flow", Trans., AIME (1954) 201, 149.
14. Smith, R. V.: "Unsteady-State Gas Flow Into Gas Wells",
Jour. Pet. Tech. (Nov., 1961) 1151.
15. Cullender, M. H.: "The Isochronal-Performance Method of
Determining the Flow Characteristics of Gas Wells", Trans.,
AIME (1955) 204, 137.
16. Tek, M. R., Grove, M. L. and Poettmann, F. H.: "Method
for Predicting the Back-Pressure Behavior of Low-Permeabil-
ity Natural Gas Wells", Trans., AI ME (1957) 210, 302.
17. Poettmann, F. H. and Schilson, R. E.: "Calculation of the
Stabilized Performance Coefficient of Low-Permeability Nat-
ural Gas Wells", Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 240.
18. Perrine, R. L.: "Analysis of Pressure Build-Up Curves",
Paper presented at meeting of Pacific Coast Dist. API, Div.
of Production, Los Angeles, Calif. (May, 1956).
19. Grynberg, J.: "DST-Success or Failure?", Oil and Gas Jour.
(June 22, 1959).
APPENDIX A
The effect of interrupting the total flow time during a
DST with a short initial closed-in period may be accounted
for by using a modified build-up equation: which is applied
. (/2 + B) (I, + B, + I, + B)
by plotting P. vs log -B- B, + I, + B . For
normal DST time periods, this plot will be very closely
. t + ~ + B
apprmamated by a plot of P. vs log B
In accordance with theory, both curves will converge
to the same pressure as B approaches infinity_ However,
h I
. I' I, + t, + B . h
t e p ot mvo vmg 0 wIII ave some curvature
and a lesser slope in the region under consideration. This
slope equals P, - PlO'
The slope of the exact plot,
m = P, - PlO (24)
log (t2 + B) (t, + B, + t, + B)'
B B, + I, + 0
t, + I. + 0
PlO occurs when B = 10, or
Let
Then
B = t, + t,
9 .
b
= t, + I,
9 .
In = P, - p" (25)
log ~ + 1 ) (B i +- I;, + b= + 1 )
(
I, + t2 + ())
Thus, the slope of the plot of log B vs P.
may be corrected by dividing by 10g( + 1) (B. + IL + b
+ 1 ). The correction is approximate since the inexact
plot was assumed to have no curvature. No correction
is necessary for DST accuracy unless t, approaches t,.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHI'(OLOGY
Fig. 4 illustrates the magnItude of error of the approxi-
mate plot and shows application of the correction factor.
APPENDIX B
Use is made of the van Everdingen skin equation to
calculate damage ratio. Eq. 13 of Ref. 7 may be expressed
in field units as
S = 1.1515 [Pi: P, - log (kf/cf>fLcrw') + 5.01] .
(26)
Parameters .p, .fL and c are usually unknown at the
time of the immediate DST analysis. Assuming average
values of .p = 0.15 and fLC = 0.955 X 10-
5
cp-psi'" then
for the oil case the equation may be simplified and all
approximate solution derived. While I'w is known, for
simplicity assume it equals 0.333 ft, since actual variations
would cause less error than probable deviations from the
assumed cp, fL and c values.
Then
Sz 1.1515 [Pi; P -log (kot) - 1.80] (4)
When S = 0, DR = 1.0.
Let qo = qa', rno = rna' for undamaged system
Oz -log (k"tJ -- 1.80] (27)
162.6 q.'fL"Bo
Since rn,' = --,--:--
k"h
q.' z koh (PI - p) (28)
162.6 fLoBo [log (kot) -+ 1.80] .
Also,
rnokoh
qo = -j 62.6 J-LoB. '
DR = (PI - p) /111" _
qo log (kot) + 1.80
(5)
The skin equation for gas, containing the Y function,
becomes
S + Y = -log (kgt/cf>fLPw') + 5.01J
(29)
Assuming C =_1_ psi", fLg = 0.02 cp, S", = 0.26, gas-filled
PI
.p = 0.15 (I -- 0.26) and r w = 0.333 ft, then
S + Y z 1.1515' p/ - --log (k9tPi) + 1.40]
L rnv .
(11)
Solving for damage ratio as before,
(p/-p,')/rn
g
(12)
log (k9tPi) - 1.40 + Y/1.1515
For multiphase flow, the skin equation may be handled
as in the liquid case, with the substitution of total com-
pressibility and total mobility.
Assuming .p = 0.15 and r", = 0.333 ft,
S z 1.1515[PI::' p - 10g( +-)( +) , + 3.23]
(') 1 \

DR Z (PI - p)/rna
IOg(+)( t - 3.23
(22)
It is of value to know the pressure drop across the
i'iOVEMBER, 1962
skin. By definition, for liquid and multi phase flow
DR = Pi - P (30)
Pi - (p + PD)
Rearranging,
PD =
(PI - p) (DR - I)
DR
(6)
For the gas case, pressure-squared
introduced into Eq. 30, resulting in
terms would be
Pf) = [p/ (DR ;;R
1
) + p,' 1'-- p, (13 )
APPENDIX C
The transient drainage radius during the drill-stem test
continually increases with flow time. Its maximum value
is of interest since reservoir properties are being measured
out to this extent. A radial drainage formula (Eq. 8 of
Ref. 11) has been developed by an empirical correlation
of known mathematical data, applicable to the constant-
rate case with a fixed pressure at the exterior boundary.
This equation can be applied to estimate the radius of
investigation during the test, and can be expressed as
r, Z 2.6408 --
(
kt )!
.pfLc
(31)
Assuming the same values of cp, JL and C as in Appendix
B, then
(oil flow)
(gas flow)
(multiphase flow)
r, z 4.63(k.t)!,
r, z 0.125(kg tPI)t,
r, z 0.0143 t (:Jr
APPENDIX D
(7)
(14)
(23)
The equation describing the back-pressure performance
of a gas well is expressed as
qg = C(p/ - p,')" . (15)
Since
qg = qA when p, ,= 0,
then
qA = C (p/)" = q" [ ,Pt" ,]"
Pi - p,
(16)
Assuming n varies from 1.0 to 0.5, then
. q9Pi-
maximum q" = -.,----:;.
P/ - p,-
(32)
and
(33)
During the DST flow period, the performance coeffi-
cient C may be somewhat higher than it would be for
stabilized flow, particularly if the permeability were not
very high. Thus, the flow potentials calculated by the
afore-mentioned methods would likewise be higher than
the actual stabilized values.
Considering r, as the stabilized drainage radius and C
as the stabilized performance coefficient, and r, the drain-
age radius and C, the performance coefficient at time t,
then by applying Eq. 5 of Ref. 17,
C
,
(InrJrw)"
C, = In r,/r".
(34)
1221
Since stabilized
C,
q" = C. qA,
then stabilized
{[
P,' ] [In(r';r,,)]}"
q" = q. p,' - p; In(r./r .. )
(17)
DISCUSSION
H. K. VAN POOLlEN
MEMBER AIME
L. F. Maier is to be commended on an excellent paper
in which he ably updates and summarizes drill-stem test
evaluation methods. In using some of the published works,
the author oversimplified the concepts without further
elaboration.
The author of this discussion takes exception to the
use of Eq. 17 as derived in Appendix D, using Eqs. 34
and 16. Maier refers to a paper by Poettmann and Schil-
son
17
and, particularly, to Eq. 5 of that reference. He
assumed that a = r.", which is an oversimplification. The
"a" referred to by Poettmann and Schilson is the effective
welibore radius. Because a is usually unknown, a much
more elaborate relationship of absolute open flow to poten-
tial at any time t was originally given. So Maier's short-cut
is only valid if his r w, the actual wellbore radius, is equal
to the effective well bore radius.
MARATHON OIL CO.
lITTLETON, COLO.
In Table 1, Maier shows a comparison of predicted
gas-well performance with post-completion performances.
To obtain the predicted absolute flow, the author has
made use of Eqs. 16 and 12, while assuming certain values
for porosity and wellbore radius. Also, a value of n = 0.8
was assumed for the slope of the back-pressure curve.
The difference between final measured open flow and the
predicted open flow was accounted for by the stimulation
treatment. Ratios given between measured and predicted
open flows were called "stimulation effect". It could be
quite possible that this effect is due to errors introduced
while making the afore-mentioned assumptions.
The discussor does not object to the use of simplifying
assumptions for the purpose of field analyses of drill-stem
tests. Nevertheless, the use of such assumptions should
be clearly indicated.
AUTHOR'S REPLY TO H. K. VAN POOLLEN
In order to estimate open-flow potential from DST
data, certain assumptions must be made; for example "n"
was assumed equal to 0.8 in the calculated data of Table
1. You may consider a = r w an assumption which appears
valid for this particular application from our experience
in this area.
The stimulation effect as used here is considered to be
the effect of the stimulation treatment over and above that
of removing the well bore damage. The effect of ignoring
the possible range of variations in effective wellbore radius
under normal DST conditions would be slight compared
to the magnitUde of most of the damage-ratio factors
1222
which are used in calculating the stimulation effects of
Table 1. The significance of Table 1 is that, even though
the calculated stimulation effects are dependent on the
validity of the single-point estimation of absolute open-
flow potential as well as the approximate nature of the
damage-ratio equation, the results are in reasonbly good
agreement with expected productivity increases which are
normal for the type and size of stimulation treatments
used on the particular wells. ***
EDITOR'S NOTE: A PICTURE AND BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
OF L. F. MAIER WERE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPT., 1962 ISSUE
OF JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY