Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

r

Recent Developments in the Interpretation and


Application of DST Data

L. l?. Maier
8

Halliburton oi~ Well Cementing Co., Ltd.


Calgary, Alberta

Dktributed

by Hallibution

Company

SPE 290

0!

.,. .,

Recent Developmentsin the Interpretation and


Application ;f DST Data
L. F, MAIER

JUNIORMEMBER AIME

Abstract

This paper presents a summary of the latest dri[tktem


test interpretation techniques which may be applied by
well operators to the majority of field cases. Recommerfdadons
are submitted for obtaining better DST data, and rhe
evaluation of data received is discussed.
Oil, g-as and multiphase flow are considered. Methods
of calculation are advanced to help determine reservoir
pressure, productivity index, transmiwibility, damage ratio,
radius of investigation and absolute open-flow potenticd.
Application of calculated information to well comph?tion
is discussed, and several gas case historier are tabulated
which illustrate the general correlation between DST information and actual well performance.
Intrmktion

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 festing tools; (2) measured data concerning the recovered fluids and their properties, the time
periods involved and general remarks based on observations during the test; (3) recorded pressure and temp+mature data; and (4) interpretation calculations, where applicable.
Greater emphasis is now being placed on the quality
and completeness of the physical measurements and observations 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 calculations are now being done on the majority of tests run
in Canada. This information has proven to be of considerable 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 drillstem test interpretation and suggestions for improved testi ng techniques generally applicable to Canadian conditions.
OrLginsl manuscript
reaefved in Society of Petroleum
Engineers
office
EfarcLI 12, 1962, Revised manuscript
received
July 27, 1962. PaDer wesented at SPE Production
-arch
SmPOSIW
held APri[
12-1S. 1952.
in l!ulsa, Okla.
NOVEMBER,

1962

HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO. LTD.


CALGARY, ALTA.

Previous authors interpretation methods- are combined


with new developments and motlfications to present a
comprehensive interpretation guide for the great majority
of DST results encoimtered.
..
Evabratkm

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 pr=ure data
and the charts will reveal whether or not the test was
satisfactory from a mechanical viewpoint and wiU help
to verify the accuracy of the gauges. A zero-pressure base
line is drawn on the chart by the bourdon tube pressurei~~rnent
prior
to assembly in the tmf~
string, and the recorded pressure must zero-in on this
base line at the time of tobl assembly and zero-out
during disassembly after the test.

rwor~lng

Since stair-stepping pressure curves may be causti by


gauge malfunction, they must be considered to be unrepresentative of true formation pressu.es. 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 poiots as initial closed-in
pressure, final flow pressure and final closed-in pressure..
If the inifial and final hyrkostatfc 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 discrepancy between the recorded and calculated difference
is divided by two, and thk quantity is calculated as a
percentage of the average pressure of the two gauges.
l%is is equal to the possible per c~nt error of each gauge,
assuming their accuracies to be equal,
The volumes of liquid recoveries often are difficult fo
determine accurately due to intermingling of the various
fluids produced and, occasionally, due to severe gas-cutting.
Gas flow measurements may be hampered by Jiquid flow
tbraugh the flare line. Production test kits containing the
%amIIces

dvm at

end of pap=.
121s

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,
Ctc.
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 verified. A check may also be made on the reported flow times
imd closed-in-times, Since time deflection on the chart
is measured in thousandths of an inch, then for any one
chart the ratios of reported times to chart deflections
should be equal for all timed periods,
PressureBuild-Up

Curves

The well known equation describing pressure build-up


characteristics of a well is expressed as
162.6 g@
t-l-e
(1)
Iog r....
kh
()
The boundary conditions make this equation particularly well suited for DST application, and the assumptions
usually are as valid for a DST as they are for producing
po=pl

wells. Theoretically,

a plot of p, vs log

result in a straight line of slope m equal to


extrapolating log

t-to

()
~

t+e
e

()

will

162,6 qpfl
~h
, and

to zero will yie[d p,.

The dual closed-in pressure method of testing has now


become an almost universal standard, and only this technique will be considered in this paper, The sequence of
events usually is classified as fsrst fiow, initial closed-in
pressure, second flow and final closed-in pressure.
The first flow period of several minutes aids in the
removal oi any supercharged pressure caused by drillingmud or filtrate invasion near the wellbore. During this
period there also may be a removal of some of the damage 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,

which is sismificantlv higher than the extrapolated &tat


closed-in pr~ssure. A study of the build-up plots on the
maiority of tests run in Canada for the past two years
illu~tra{es that, in many cases, supercha~ged pres~ures
were not removed prior to initial shut-in. This is particularly 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 duririg the second flow period,
and there are several cases cm record where this has happened in various formations and localities. Fig. 2 ilhrstrates a pressure chart from such a test. It is often difYscult 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 closedin 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 inore
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 M 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 causp of this have been described as

Failure to remove the supercharged pressure will be


indicated by an extrapolated initial closed-in pressure

Fig.
Fig.
1214

lDST

production

test kit,

2-Pressure

chart for limited reservoir


pleted during DST.
JOURNAL

OF

PETROLEUM

partially

TECHNOLOGY

de.

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 Iow-permeability
wells may cause gas to come out of solution, thus increasing the gas saturation near the wellbore. As the pressure
increases during the build-up, the gas goes back into solution and some after-production of oil must take place.
This slow-rate after-production is probably the most common cause of the S-type build-up.
Since two separate combinations of flow and closed-in
periods are involved, two sets bf crdctdations may be
carried out if desired, The second-period calculations
generally can be considered more accurate, since longer
flow jimes are customary and more stabilized skin conditions 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 disregarded in the final closed-in pressure build-up plot, aod
the flow time used would be that of the second period
only. If the initial buiid-up is poorIy developed, the final
build-up will be affected by all previous events and ri
modified build-up equation wi[l apply, derived by superimposing the point-source solution.e As discussed in Appendix A, this solution may be closely approximated by
f +. e ~t,
substitution of total flow time in the expression .
.
6
build-up plot will have ri slight curvature,

but in using

t+e
the points with the lowest value of ~
for the straightline extrapolation, good resuits 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 ueriod. there will be virtually no error in the
extrauolat~d pressure and the error ii the sIope of the
plot ~ill be l&s than 2 per cent, If the first flow- period is
equal to the second flow period, error in extrapolated

pressure generally will be only about OS 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

easuredslOpeby
104++)
(%+::+
~+])yas
illustrated in Fig. 4.
One assumption in ~. 1 is that constant rate of production exists prior to shut-in; however, on a liquid recovery test the tlow rate usually decreases throughout the
ffow period. DoIan, et aL 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 usually holds true in the majority of tests on oil reservoirs,
at least where the calculated productivity index is les$
than approximately 1.5 B/D-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.
011 Flow
The transmissibility of the formation tested may be
calculated from the slope of the build-up plot.
k. h
162.6 q. B,
.
.. . . . . . . . (2)
%
b
Since B. is usually unknown at the time of the DST
anaIysis, it may be necessary to estimare it from some
type of average correlation plot, An estimate may also
have to be made of the oil viscosity under reservoir conditions in order to calculate the in situ capacity (M),
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 investigation during the test. It would not normally include the
effect of skin damage in the immediate vicinity of the

tJJ
e
I

.-

II

In
0.

lope. ml

cat

E
Slope~ m

II
I

Fig. 3&bct

NOVEMBER,

showing
influenced
1962

initial closed-in pressure


by wellbore damage.

build-up

11111
10

(w%%%)

~,g. 4-Approximate
and exact buildup
plots, considering
influence of first flow period.
1215

wellbore, 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 practice to assume that the flow rate is constant, and to calculate 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 wellbore pressure
increases, causing the flow rate to decline. These factors
can vary widely, depending upon the wells capability. The
flow period could be divided into a number of time increments and the productivity index calculated for each
increment. Such calculated values may or may not be
relatively constant during the flow period, An identical
solution to the average of these values is obtained by dividing the average production rate (total liquid recovery
volume divided by total flow time) by the difference
between reservoir pressure and the weighted average flow
pressure.
J=

some degree of accuracy, similar to the methods used for


oil reservoirs. It must be realized that the applied equations assume that the compressibility and viscosity of the
gas remain reasonably constant over the range of temperature 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, however, a large percentage of the pressure drop would be in
the immediate vicinity of the wellbore, arid 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 rxcessive pressure drawdowns between the reservoir and the external
boundary of the skin, Nevertheless, reducing the drawdown will certainly improve the accuracy of the calculations, and more extensive use of chokes should be made
in instances where required.

o
-..........,(3)
Pt-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 wellbore damage exists at the time of the DST, the
producing characteristicsof the well will be @ected. The
possible causes of damage or skin effect have been widely
discussed and several calculation methods have been presented. As a close approximation for the DST case (see
Appendix B), the van Everdingen dimensionless skin factor may be expressed as
s=

1.1515

~
log(k.t)
1.80
. (4)
o
[
1
Damage ratio, defined as the ratio of theoretical J to actual J, is derived from the skin equation.
(P1 ~) /mO
Iog(k.t)+l.80
. . . . 5)
The pressuse drop caused by the skin may then be calculated from Eq. 6,
DR z:

1800
,

(o,;)

(DR 1)
. . . . . ./,
(6)
DR
Undw the trai~sient flow conditions existing during the
DST flow period, the drainage mdhm coincides with the
wellbore radius at zero flow time and continually propagates outward until the flow period ends urdess the transient radius reaches some barrier. This radhss is commonty
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 F@.7 (see Appendix C).
pD -_

Fig. 5--Preesure chart for an example


oil test, ,South
(Mobil Oil-I% re-Sincltiir.British
Carievale Well 13.12
American ).

r,&4.63(kOZ)~.

(7)

A pressure chart for an example oil testis shown in Fig,


5, with tbe buifd-up piot given in Fig. 6.

\.

,=
a

& 1600

Initial ~P
L

II

!500

D
\

!450
10
t+e
7-

Gas Flosv
Ga%well test interpretation
1216

may be conducted

with

Fig. 6-BuiId.np

plo~

sOURNAL

South Csrievale
OF

PETROLEUM

,.

Well M-12.
TECHNOLOGY

The pressure build-up equation applicable to gas wells


is expressed by
P9=

P/-

;;;q,o,(+

,.,

The build-up plot of p? vs log


and extrapolated to log

t+e
~

()

t+e
~

()

(8,

is constructed

1.1515 @ogkJ/@~cr,O + 5.01] = 1.1515 (P: ~- P:)


s
. . . . . . ;..
, .,.
, ,.
-(lo)
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 correction term designated as the Y function. The resulting
equation is equivalent to the van Everdingen skin equation
modMed by the addition of the Y term. For DST use,
it may be simplified by assuming the parameters as given
in Appendix B.
Y=

qiIOg (,k,rp,) + 1.40


9
[
1
..+.
. . . . .,.
, ,.,
. [11)
The damage ratio may then be calculated by Eq. 12.
DR z

1,1515

(p; - p;)[m.
log (k,rpf) - 1.40+ Y/1.1515

(12)

The Y function is an empiricaI 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,

1962

? -P.
. ,.
. (13)
)
The radius of investigation of the gas well during a DST
may be approximated by the expression
Po=

= O to. obtain p,.

As in the case of the liquid interpretation, the transmissibility may be calculated after measuring the slope of
the build-up plot.
k,h
1632 q, ZT
(9)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
mg
1%
With a knowledge of h and an estimation of ~, and z
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-u})
equation usuaUy is not a serious one. Variations in flow
rate are not rmrmally extreme and the rate usually becomes 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 tippreciable deviation 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, however, ~ 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 Jenkhrs3 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

s+

data. Itcould lx 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 apparent values of DR and S calculated,
The pressure drop across the skin may he calculated
from the following equation.

r, s0,125

pf~DR-I)+p:
DR

(k,tp, )~

The equation describing the back-pressure


of a gas well is expressed as

(14)

performance

-p,)
. . . . . . . . . (15)
q, =C(p;
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 PI= - 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 information in most cases would be available prior to completion of the well. Expressed in equation form (see Appendix D),
(16)
If the exponent n cannot be estimated, it may be assumed
to have the extreme values of 0.5 and 1.0, and n range
of q. calculated.
The computed value of g. will be with respect to the
time at which q, and p, were measured, usuallY at time r.
Studies of isochronal-performance
testing- show that
the performance coefficient C decreases with time until
stabilized flow conditions prevail. This may require considerable time except in Klghly 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.
(17)

~{.=q,{[p:yp,,]p::;;:]]}.

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.
Msdtfphisse

)?kSW

In certain cases drill-stem tests are performed on reservoirs which may produce various combinations of oil,
water and gas as separate phases. Such tests may be irrterpreted by applying the same theory as was used for
the single-phase interpretations, the only modification being
the substitution of the efiective total fluid properties of
the multiphase system for the equivalent single-phase
properties.w
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 separa~ly to obtain the
indhidual transmissibilities.
k.h
162.6 B,q.
.
%~.......

(2)
..

.
1217

kJt
.-

162,6 B.qw

,.

P.

l%

k,h
.

1632 ZT

(% -q,,R,)
m.

Pa

(18)

. . , . . .

(19)

where mv = P,l - p,,. Eq. 19 assumes that the gas phase


is distributed uniformly throughout the interval h. If the
two phases are segregated within thh interval, separate
values of h must be estimated for each phase.
From these equations, individual mobiiities (k/p) are
determined, and total mobility is calculated as.the sum
of the individual mobllities, 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 laboratory analysis. More-reasonable values of effective permeability 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 conlpressibility may be approximated as
c, =s,, (10-) +

;+

s,,

(3

x 10-) .

Figs. 8 and 9 ill~s~ra~ the p~&ure chart and build-up


plot of an example multiphase 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 !his information has expanded 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 approximate, in many cmes 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 wells potential
should not be based on recovery alone, and in some in-

(20)

Knowledge of fluid saturations is also requirtd, and


these may be estimated through use of relative-permeability-ratio plots when actual data are unknown. Errors
through approximations of the individual fluid compressibilities
and
the fluid saturations will be minimized since
they are applied in the logarithm; however, the following
equations must be regarded as estimates only.
.sS

DR ~

1.1515 ~
!, 0
[
. . . . .

(+)
. .

(Pf F) /mz#
l.~lr.i

10(:)

wf

(+)1
. .

...:

3231
. (2])
.

- 323

(22)
Fig. 8Pressure
chart for tin exampIe multipimse
test,
H:mtilton Lake Well !5-13 (S!nndard Oil Co. of California).

-4.4

4,2

800
~- 3.8
.5
Q

.;
a

Final

~
\
.
a 3.4

CIP

,,

II

111111-.

11111111

II

ill

1.

800

3.0
10
f+e

550

m
[

10

f+e
=1-

Fig. 7Build-up plot, Pembina Well 11-26


(Wkhe Rose, et al.).
1310

Fig. 9Build-up

plot, Hamilton

JOURNAL

OF

Lake Well 5.13.

PETKOLEIJM

TECHNOLOGY

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.

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 fist removing the wellbore 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 tire: of the DST tu
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 production improvement is greater than that possible from
removal of damage alone. Considering the many complex
and unknown factors involved, the]ie 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.

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 effective 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 formationevahzation and hydrodynamic studies, DST interpretation
may be of considerable help in the well owners design of
stimulation treatments.

b=~

Suggestions

t, + t,

, minutes

B== formation volume factor, reservoir bbl/STB


compressibility, psi-
E
coefficient in back-pressure equation, Mcf/D/
psi
D= gauge depth, ft
DR = damage ratio, dimensionless
h= net reservoir thickness, ft
J= productivity index, B/D-psi
k= permeability, md
m = slope of pressure build-up plot, psi/cycle or
psi/cycle
n = exponent in back-pressure equation, dimensioriless
Pr = static reservoir pressure, psi

The following may be of assistance in normal situations,


depending upon the specific conditions of the well in question.
1. The vohme 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 knowledge ~f conditions and generally should be longer for

.._.
TASLE 1DST PREDICTED GAS-WELL

Well
White Rose
Pembina 11-26
H, B. Uno.Tex
Wknberne 7.29
ZaPOta Mazy 11.23
Zgpata Mozy 17-27

F.armaiian
.
IJlolrmore (ss)
D-3

PERFORMANCE COMPtiE

(M&D)

[Is)

2.30
0.108

Glauconitic
;iklns (ss)

(ss)

3.20
1,10

DA

D WITH

PDST.COMPLETION

Predlcled
q,i (hVAcF/D)

Ffnd

[MMcf/D)

stlmk!~fon

. .._

4<50

1.22

35.5

4.00

17.20

4,30

3.0

10,80

0.70

2,39

50-sal acid
14,0004b.
sand frac

7,50

2.0

3.35
7.40*

1.46
2.50

3.50

I .31

MO

2.03

2.6

2.95

16,750-soI

Pa:!;

jedney

Baldennel

1.41

1.7

2..6S

4,250-Eal

jedney

acfd

acid
edd

Halfway

($S)

S.25

6.3

9.07

40,000.lb
sand frac

Pagf&6 :dney
. .

Halfwsy

[ISI

I .79

1.6

3,03

36,600.lb
sand frac

Doma Laprtse
Creek b-2.ff

8aldwmel

[del]

0.64S

12.8

S,47

6,000wII

acid

7.70
13.20

2.55
1.56

Dame LaDrlse
Creek u.25.H
Dome Lawlse
Creek 0.81 .H

Baldwmel

(d.al)

0.310

10.1

3.13

5,500.991

acid

2.20

0.70

Saldonnel

[del)

0,486

3,6

~ .77

18,500.gal

acid

4.80

2.71

MCIXIY Dome
8ubbles b.a62.B

Bald.nnel

[dol}

0.486

2.1

1.04

11,500-ga[

acid

4.80

4.61

Panatta

Glaumnltfc

2.50

4.1

11.50

10,000.lb
$and,
350-lb Al.-

39.00

3.39

belier

Drum.
4.3

%L was 2.90 WcF/D


1962

(SII

after 3,000. gal acid wg$h.

ASSUMED n = 0.8

qA

-_ .

500.s01 acid

?.10

NQVBMBJZR,

1,040.gal

8aId.annol (dol)

Pa:f;
.

PERFORMANCE,

SNmulaNOn
Treatment

FacJf}7 ~bbles
. .

[del)

_.

B,6S5

1,42

p, = flowing wellbore pressure, psi


; = weighted average flowing wellbore pressure,
psi
P* = wellbore pressure at time 6, psi

t+e
p,o=poat~=

10 on straight-line portion of

build-up- plot, psi


=
PD pressure drop across skin, psi
g=productioh
rate, STB/Dor Mcf/D (14.65 psia
and 60F)
r, = stabilized radius of drainage, ft
ri = radius of DSTinvestigation, ft
rw = wellbore radius, ft
,
R, = solution gas-oil ratio, Mcf/D/STB
s = fluid saturation, fraction
S= skin effect, dimensionless
t, = first flow time, minutes
t,= secorrd thwtime,minutes
t= effective flow time (t, + t,, or t,), minutes
T= temperature, R
Y = correction factor, dimensionless
z = compressibility factor, dimensionless
.,
p = viscosity, cp
~= porosity, fraction
d =time point during the closed-in period, ,minUtes
O, =total timeof initial closed-in period, minutes

Subscripts
A =absolute open-flow potential
g = gas
o = oil
t = total
w = water (except for r.)
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to express his appreciation to the
various producing companies for permission to publish
their well data, and to Halliburton Oil WelI 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,lour. Pet. Zkch. (June, 1956) VIII, No, 6, 21.
2. Olson, C: C.: YSubsurfacePressures Tell Story, World Oil
(Feb., 1953).
3, Zak, A. J,, Jr. and Griffin, P,, III: Heres a Method for
Evaluating DST Data, Oil od Gas Jour. (April, 1957),
4. Dolan, J. P., Einarsen, C. A. and Hill, G. A.: Special Ap.
placations of Drillstem Test Pressure Data, Trans., AIME
( 1957) 210, 318.
5. Ammann, C, B,: Caee Histories of Analyses of Characteristics of Reservoir Rock from Drillstem Tests, Jour. Pet.
Tech. (May, 1960) XII, No. 5,27.
6. Horner, D, R.: Pressure Build-Up in Wells, Proc.. Third
~~~$, Pet, Cong., Section II, E. J. Brill, Leiden, Holland
i. van.,Everdingen, A. F.: The Skin Effect and Its Influence on
~~8 P~$etive Capacity of a Well, Trurw, AIME (1953)

,.
8. van Poollen, H, K.: Status of DrfI1-StemTesting Techniques
o

and Analysis,Jour. Pet. Tech. (April. 1%1) 333.


9. N~le, R.- G.: me Effect of a Sho:i Term Shut.In on a
Srsbaequent Pressure Build.Up Teat on an 011 Well, Trnns.,
AHWE (1956) 207, 320.
10. Calhoun, J. C., Jr,, Fursdomentuk of Reservoir Engineering,
1220

U. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Okla. (1955).


11, Hursk W., Haynie, O; K. and Walker, R. N,: Some &oblems 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., 1!!62) 34, No. 9, 41.
12, Jenkine, R and Aronofsk , J. S.: Unsteady Radial Flow of
Gas Through Porous ~dia, Jour. AwL Mwh. (June,

1963) 20.

13. Aronofsky, J, S. and Jenkins, R.: A Simplified Anal sis of


Unsteady Radial Gas Flow, Tram, AIME (1954) 20~, 149.
14. Smith, R. V.: Unsteady.State Gas FlowInto Gas Wells,
Jour. Pet. Tech. (Nov., 1961) 1151.
15. Cullende~, M. H.: The Isochronal.Perforrnmwe Method of
Determinmg the Flow Characteristics of Gas Wells, Trans,,
AIME ( 1955) 204, 137,
16. Tek, M. R:, Grove, M. L. and Poettmann, F. H,: ilfethod
for Predicting the Backpressure Behavior of Low-Permeabil.
ity Naturaf Gas Wells, Trans., AIME ( 1957) Z1O, 302.
17, Poettmann, F. H, and Schilson, R. E.: Calculation of the
Stabilized Performance Coefficient of Low.Permealrility Nat.
tiral 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, Cslif. (May, 1956).
19. Grynberg, J.: DST-Success or Failure?, Or? and GasJour.
(June 22, 1959).

APPENDIX

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
+e
t,+e t,-te+t,
by plotting p, vs log ~
, For
e, + f,,+ 0 )
normal DST time periods, this plot will be very closely
t,+t, +o
approximated by a plot of PCvs log
~
.

( ,)(

In accordance with theory, both curves will converge


to the same pressure as 0 approaches infinity. However,
t,+t, +e
the plot involving
will have some curvature
0
and a lesser sloie in the region under ~onsideration. This
slope equals P, - p,,.

The slope of the exact plot,

L+t,-to=
e
t, + t,
O=T.

p,. occurs when

loor

Let
b

t,-it,
= -T

Then

=ig
6--lT==J 25)
Thus, the slope of the plot of log
may be corrected by dividing by log
+1

), The

correction

t,+t,

($+

is approximate

-1-fl

Vs po

)1

t,

L9+t,

+h

since the inexact

plot was assumed to have no curvature. No correction


is necessary for DST accuracy unless t, approaches t~.
JOURNAL

0S

PETROLEUM

7?ECStNOLOG3f

Fig. 4 illustrates the magmtude of error ot the approximate plot and shows application of the correction factor.
APPENDIX

skin, By definition, for liquid and multiphase flow


~~ = - Pf -F,,

Pf

Use is made of the van Everdingen skin equation to


calculate damage ratio, Eq. 13 of Ref. 7 may be expressed.
in tle[d units as
Iog (kf/$$#cr,) -1-5,01 .
Is= 1,1515 ~
[
1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (26)
Parameters ~, ~ and c am usually unknown at the

s=

-;

1.1515 *

- log (k,,r) -1.80

(4)

When S = O, DR = 1.0.
Let q,, = q., I?lo= m. for undamaged system
0=

1,1515

;
[
m.

162.6 q./&
k~

Since m. =

~,,
=

Pr2(~R

(30)

) ..- ~,

APPENDIX

(6)

terms would b?

I)fi,:

DR

(13)

The transient drainage radius during the drill-stem test


continually increases with flow t~me, Its maximum value
is of interest since reservoir properties are being measured
out to this extent. A radial drainage formula (Eq. 8 of
Ref. i 1) has been developed by an empirical correlation
of known mathematical data, applicable to the constantrate case with a tlxed pressure at the exterior boundary,
This equation can be applied to estimate the radius of
investigation during the test, and can be expressed as

=26408
()~

31)

Assuming the same values of +, p and c as in Appendix


,

B, then

For the gas case, pressure-squared


introduced into Eq, 30, resulting in

. .., (27j

kols (p, -;). .- ,


9. = 162.6 p.B. [log (k.f)
+ 1.801

.,O

pD=Q?L-@D(~-_!l

k~

log (Ic,,z) --1,80

Rearranging,

time of the immediate DST analysis. Assuming average


values of + = 0.15 and PC := 0.955 X 10-h cp-psi, then

for the oil case the equation may be simplified and an


approximate solution derived. While r. is known, for
simplicity assume it equals 0.333 ft, since actual variations
would cause less error than probable deviations from the
assumed ~, p and c values.
Then

,,,

(P + P.)

(28)

(oil flow)
(gas flow)

r, s 4.63( k.t)t,
.
r, s 0.125 (krp,)*,

.
.

.
,

.
.

. . . . . . .-00143[(
. . . .3(91
.....

(7)
(14)

(multiphase flow)

Also,
m.k.h
q. = -162.6 p,B.
(1% ;) /w
DR ~ ~:~
c?,, 1% (M +ZKiti
. . (5)
The skin equation for gas, containing the Y function,
becomes
s+

1,1515 ~ - PV= - log (k.t/@UcrW) + 5.01


1
[ m~
?.
. . . . . . . . . . . (29)

Y=
...

Assuming c = ~

jf)=o.15(1 --

DRz

,.

(PI = -

p.) /mg

log (k,tp,) 1.40 + Y/1.1515 -

1,1515 +;o
[
...
...

(12)

log(:)(+)
.,

+ 3.23]
.,

...

(2!)

(p/ ;) /mu

DR z

10g(+)(+)i
-.323
22)
It is of value to know the pressure drop across the
XOYEMBER,

% =C(p;

-p:)

1962

the back-pressure
as

, . . . .

performance
,

. . ,

(15)

.~
mce
90 = qf when p. = O,
Ihen
,J

(/);)

0.26) and r,, ==(),333 it,then

For multiphase flow, the skin equation may be handled


as in the liquid case, with the substitution of total compressibility and total mobility,
Assuming ~ = 0.15 and r,, = 0.333 ft,
s=

The equation describing


of, a gas well is expressed

rft=

Y=l.l515---ktg (k,tp,) + 1.40


1 )?1
1
...
, .,,
, ...
. . . . . (11)
Solving fo~ damage ratio as before,

APPENDIX D

psi, P, = 0.02 Cp, s. = 0.26, gas-filled

s+

(23)

,,

(f:

,,

[1

(16)

Prz -P.

Assuming J1varies from 1.0 to 0.5, then


%P?

maximum q,, =--,


P!- - P.

(32)

and
rluPI
n,.
,.,
..
(33)
minimum tf~ = -,,
(P, - P*)i
During the DST flow period, the performance coetlicient 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 Jikewise be higher than
the actual stabilized values.
Considering r. as the stabilized drainage radius and C,
as the stabilized perfornumce coefficient, and rl thedrainage radius and C? the performance coefficient at time /,
then by applying Eq. 5 of Ref. 17,

~~
()
c,

In r,/r,.
lnrc/r,,

(34)
1:21

Since stabilized
q4 =

then stabiliid

29A,

(17)

0,.

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 )%{. 17 as derived in Appendm D, using Eqs, 34
and 16. Maier refers to a paper by Poettmann and Schilson and: particularly, to Eq. 5 of that reference. He
assumed that a = rw, which is an oversimpli5cation, The
a referred to by Foettmann and Schilson is the effective
weilbore radius. Because a is usuaily unknown, a nmch
more elaborate relationship of absolute open flow to potential at any time t was originally given. So Maiers short-cu$
is only valid if his r., the actual wellbore radius, is equal
to the effwtive wellbore radius,

AUTHORS

REPLY

TO

In order to estimate open-flow potential from DST


data, cm-:ain assumptions must be made; for example n
was assumed equal to 0.8 in the calculated data of Table
1. You may consider a = re 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 wellbore damage, The effect of ignoring
the possible range of variations in effective wellbore radius
under normal DST condhions would be slight compared
to the magnitude of most of the damage-ratio factors

MARATHON OIL CO.


L17rLE70N, 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 E@, 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 maktng the afore-mentioned assumptions.
The discusser 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,

H.

K.

VAN

POOLLEN

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
vaiidity of the single-point estimation of absolute openflow 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 qnd size of stimulation treatments
**
used on the particular wells,
EDITORS NOTE: A PICTURI? AND B1OORAPH1CAL
SKETCH
OF L, F, MAMR WERE PUBLISHEDINTHESEPT,,1962 ISSUE
OF JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY.

:.
,,.
3222

.. .

,.

. . ..-.
JO UR~AL

OF

PETROLEUM
.

TECHNOLOGY