FEATURE ARTICLE
A REVIEW of DRILL-STEM TESTING TECHNIQUES
and ANALYSIS
W. MARSHALL BLACK
JUNIOR MEMBER AIME
Abstract
The present techniques of using
the drill-stem test as a formation
evaluation tool are discussed. The
basic drill-stem test operation is di-
vided for discussion into three phases:
planning the test, performing the test,
and interpretation, both qualitative
and quantitative. The use of small
bottom chokes and large top chokes
is suggested in order to permit quan-
titative interpretation for gas-oil ratio,
productivity, and permeability. The
importance of measuring chloride
content on a suite of samples taken
from a recovered column of salt wa-
ter is illustrated.
Introduction
A drill-stem test is a temporary
completion of the well. Drill-stem
tests are usually made for one or
both of the following reasons: ( 1)
to determine the producible fluid
content of a formation, and (2) to
determine the ability of a formation
to produce.
Drill-Stem Testing Methods
The drill-stem test, or temporary
completion, . can be made either in
open hole or inside casing through
perforations. A drill-stem testing pro-
gram can be planned for a well so
that the tests will be made in accord-
ance with one of three general meth-
ods:
1. Test possibly productive inter-
vals in open hole as the zones are
penetrated; normally, this method is
used in conjunction with coring and
Original manuscript received in Petroleum
Branch office on Sept. 15. 1955. Revised man-
uscript received May 1'6. 1956. Paper pre-
sented at Formation Evaluation Symposium.
Oct. 27-28. 1955. Houston. Teo<.
JUNE,1956
SPE 589-G
HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO.
HOUSTON, TEX.
ether-cuts may be used to detect hy-
drocarbon shows.
2. Test possibly productive inter-
vals in open hole after drilling deep-
er or reaching total depth; normally,
this method requires that a cement
plug be set for each test, unless strad-
dle packer testing is employed. Side-
wall cores and logs are commonly
used to detect the shows.
3. Test possibly productive inter-
vals through perforations after casing
has been set; log and core data may
be used in selecting the intervals.
Drill-stem testing is widely used to
confirm or prove the presence and! or
the producibility of oil and gas that
is detected by the other services. The
testing program in a well can follow
anyone of the methods of drill-stem
testing outlined in the preceding sec-
tion; however, the method of testing
cored shows as the prospective pays
are penetrated is probably most wide-
ly used at present. Under this meth-
od, a test will usually be made after
penetrating a few feet into the pros-
pective zone, and if the results are
favorable, subsequent tests may be
made in search for fluid contacts.
Testing programs during the early
phases of field development are as
important as the coring and logging
programs for delineation of the res-
ervoirs and for establishing or con-
firming the gas-oil and oil-water con-
tacts.
Trends in Drill-Stem Testing
Since the early days about three-
fourths of all drill-stem tests have
been performed in open hole prior
to setting oil string casing. This pre-
dominance of open-hole testing defi-
nitely places drill-stem testing in
the category of exploratory forma-
tion evaluation. Presently, tests in-
side casing are about 91 per cent
mechanically successful as compared
with 81 per cent 10 years ago, and
conventional open-hole, wall packer
testing is mechanically successful
about 87 per cent of the time as
compared with 72 per cent 10 years
ago.
The Drill-Stem Testing Tool
Modern drill-stem testing tools are
highly versatile and consequently are
complex. The various components
may be assembled in innumerable
combinations, either to provide spe-
cial information or to provide for
emergencies that may develop. The
following paragraphs briefly outline
the functions of the more common
tool components.
The three basic mechanisms or
components of a drill-stem test tool
are as follows: (1) the tester valve,
(2) the by-pass valve, and (3) the
packer. These three component
mechanisms will be found in some
form in any good drill-stem test tool.
The functions of each of the basic
components in the assembly are as
shown below.
FUNCTIONS OF BASIC COMPONENTS OF TOOL
1. The Tester or Retaining Valve
o. To prevent drilling mud from entering empty
drill pipe while funning in.
b. To aid in preventing drilling mud from enter-
ing drill pipe while pulling out and, conversely,
to aid in retaining formation liquid recovery with~
in the drill pipe.
c. To open the tool, permitting passage of forma
tion fluids into the empty drill pipe after the
packer is set.
2. The ByPass or Equalizing Valve
o. To permit mud under hydrostatic pressure to
flow downward throug h the packer mandrel at the
conclusion of the test into the hole below the
packer. This action equalizes the pressure above
and below the packer, making it easier to pull
loose.
b. To provide additional area through which the
drilling mud can pass around the packer while
running in and pulling out of the hole.
Note: The new "hydraulic testers" ore unitized
teater valves and bypass valves; the respective
functions of these are unchanged.
21
 3. The Packer
o. To bridge the hole at Q point immediately above
(and also below on straddle tests) the zon,e to
be tested, thus permitting this zone to be relleve~
of hydrostatic mud pressure when the tool
opened and isolating the zone from other forma-
tions.
Important auxiliary components of
the drill-stem test tool are as follows:
the disk valve, the shut-in pressure
valve or tool, the formation or bot-
tom choke, the anchor pipe, and the
pressure recorders. In addition to
these, a circulating valve, a safety
joint, and sometimes a set of jars
may be included in the test tool or
in the drill pipe or tubing string.
FUNCTIONS OF AUXILIARY COMPONENTS IN
TYPICAL TEST TOOL STRING
1. The Disk Valve
o. To aid in preventing drilling mud from enter-
ing the drill pipe while running in.
b. To permit the packer to be set firmly and tester
valve opened before the tool is finally opened by
dropping a go-devil to rupture the disk valve (as
used with certain tool assemblies).
2. The Shut-In Pressure Valve or Tool
o. To permit the test tool to be closed at the con-
clusion of the flow period with reduced likelihood
of unseating the packer or letting pressure equal-
ize around the packer through the by-pass.
b. To aid in preventing drilling mud from enter-
ing the drill pipe while pulling out and, converse-
ly, to aid in retaining the formation liquids recov
ered within the pipe.
3. The Formaton or Bottom Choke
a. To restrict the volume of formation fluids that
flow through the drill pipe to the surface.
b. To hold some backpressure under the packer,
which reduces the hydrostatic load on the packer,
and to reduce the amount of pressure drawdown in
the formation.
c. To allow quantitative drill-stem test interpreta-
tion.
4. The Anchor Pipe
a. To support the open-hole wall packer at the
desired place in the bore hole.
b. To aid in screening out cuttings or junk that
might plug the choke or foul other tool com-
ponents.
5. The Pressure Recorders
a. To provide measurements of hydrostatic mud
pressure, formation flowing pressures upstrea!,"
from the formation choke, and formation shut-In
or bottom-hole pressure. These pressure measure-
ments are necessary for complete test interpreta-
tion and formation evaluation; therefore, the pres-
sure recorders are, in a sense, among the most
important components of the tool.
b. To provide a graphic record of the proper or
improper functioning of the test tool.
6. The Circulating Valve
a. To permit test recoveries to be pumped out of
the drill pipe by reverse circulation into a pit or
tank.
b. To provide a means of conditioning the mud
in the annul us and thus make testing a safer op-
eration.
7. The Safety Joint
a. To provide a means of releasing the drill pipe
and tool from a stuck packer or anchor.
8. The Jar
a. To increase the possibil ity of freeing (] stuck
tool. (The jar used for this purpose is usually a
special hydraulic tool designed to deliver impact
blows.)
b. To facilitate setting the tool for measuring for.
motion shut-in pressure when a rotating shut-in
pressure valve is not used. (The jar used for this
purpose is a simple telescoping slip joint arrange-
ment.)
9. The Surface Control Head
a. To permit control of fluid flow from the drill
pipe at the surface through means of valves and
chokes.
Planning the Test
The Basic Decisions
Detailed consideration must be
given to a number of factors in plan-
ning a drill-stem test in order to in-
sure that the desired information will
be obtained and to increase the prob-
ability of a mechanically successful
test. Decisions must be made before-
hand on the following: ( 1) service
company to be employed; (2)
22
amount of hole to test; (3) packer
size or sizes; (4) location of packer
IS
seat; (5) top and bottom choke
sizes; (6) probable length of flowing
and shut-in period and use of dual
shut-in periods; (7) type of pressure
gauges, manner of placement in the
tool, and optimum pressure capacity
and clock speed; (8) use of, type,
and location of circulating sub, safety
joint, and jar; (9) use of water cush-
ion and amount; (10) method of
handling test production at the sur-
face; and (11) special packer ar-
rangements.
Amount of Hole to Test
In most instances, a more conclu-
sive test can be obtained by testing
the shortest section practical. In thin
sands, where it is desired to locate
the gas-oil and oil-water contacts, a
test zone of 2 to 5 or 10 ft is often
used in open hole. Where producing
zones of greater thickness are en-
countered, it may then be feasible to
test more hole per test. This is par-
ticularly true in long limestone sec-
tions where the location of the porous
zones may not be known, and it is
usually desired to determine the over-
all fluid content and productivity of
a certain interval. If the volume of
the hole below the packer is too
great, the drilling fluid may fill the
pipe to such an extent that a low
formation pressure will be insuffi-
cient to cause entry of any appre-
ciable quantity of formation fluids
against the backpressure. Also, the
source of water produced from a
long interval is indefinite.
Selection of Packer Size
W'all Packers
The open-hole wall packer does
not enjoy the controlled conditions
of usage of the hookwall packer; it
is frequently required to seal off in
plastic formations and in a hole
whose diameter is known only ap-
proximately. Successful use of rub-
ber in wall packers requires that the
stresses be kept low enough that the
rubber will act entirely in the elastic
or solid phase; that is, it must return
to its original shape when the load is
taken off. This must be done by
keeping the clearance between the
packer and the wall of the hole as
small as practical, by keeping the
axis of the packer parallel to and
coincident with the axis of the hole,
and by choosing the packer seat in
the least plastic formation possible.
It is important to have a straight
true-to-gauge hole and a sufficiently
heavy, rigid anchor pipe.
Rathole testing is employed wh.::re
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLO(;Y
a core hole, or hole of reduced diam-
eter, is drilled ahead for exploratory
purposes. Successful use of conven-
tional double-end wall packers re-
quires a very close fit to the hole
size. Because of this, a reduction in
hole size or rathole for the last 300
to 500 ft of hole, including the test
zone, permits greater packer clear-
ance while running in and out in
the full hole. Ratholing is largely
confined to soft formation areas.
It has been found that the ratio
of hole size to packer size largely
governs the amount of packer com-
pression that will occur at pressure
differentials up to 5,000 psi and that
leakage or rupture of the rubber
element will occur if the ratio of
hole size to packer size is such that
complete mandrel travel is attained.
A differential pressure of 5,000 psi
will produce complete compression
when ratio of hole size to packer
size approaches 1.25; 5,000 psi dif-
ferential pressure will cause about
50 per cent compression when ratio
of hole size to packer size is about
1.08 or 1.10. In the commonly
drilled hole sizes, the 1.08 ratio pro-
vides a reasonable balance between
clearance in true-to-gauge sections
of hole and the excess expansion
available should the packer seat yield
or be washed out.
Somewhat larger clearances can be
used with the new "expanding shoe"
packers, and in areas where a re-
duced size hole or rathole need not
be used, this type of wall packer has
excellent application. These packers
were developed in part to facilitate
full hole testing by permitting a
smaller packer diameter to be used
than is feasible with conventional
packers.
Selection of Wall Packer Seats
Open-hole packer seats should be
chosen in true-gauged sections of
hard nonplastic formations. Exami-
nation of cores will provide the best
basis for selection of packer seats;
in the absence of visual core exam-
ination, a caliper log will be helpful.
Electric logs and sidewall cores may
also be of use. When setting packers
in the top of sand bodies overlain
by soft shale, at least 2 ft of sand
should be allowed for the packer
seat. If possible, wall packers should
not be reset in the same seat on suc-
ceeding tests. In fractured forma-
tions, use of dual packers (two wall
packers run next to each other) is
often advisable.
Selection of Choke Size
The choice of the bore diameter
of the bottom choke depends upon a
number of variables, the primary
considerations being safety, test in-
terpretation, and the possibility of
the choke becoming plugged. Gen-
erally, the size of the bottom choke
should govern the size of the choke
used in the control head at the sur-
face; the bottom choke should con-
trol the amount of flow and should
be small enough in relation to the
top choke size that, barring difficul-
ties, excessive pressures will not de-
velop in the drill pipe or tubing at
the surface.
If the bottom choke is to be used
as a meter in interpreting for gas-oil
ratio and productivity, the top choke
should not restrict the flow to the
extent that the backpressure plus the
head due to the recovered liquid on
the bottom choke is greater than
about 40 to 50 per cent of the up-
stream pressure on the bottom choke.
Under these conditions, the flow is
said to be "critical" and is independ-
ent of the downstream pressure.
When pressure downstream of the
bottom choke exceeds about 50 per
cent of the upstream pressure, the
flow rate will progressively diminish
as the drill pipe fills. Under these
conditions, the flow is termed "non-
critical," and an accurate average
rate cannot be determined.
Bottom choke bores ranging from
3/16 to % in. used with top chokes
ranging from SIs to I in. are satisfac-
tory for the nonflowing type of test
in moderately to highly productive
zones and where the top choke ex-
hausts only air or gas. Bottom chokes
smaller than 3/16 in. are usually
undesirable due to the ease with
which they will plug. For the flow-
ing type of test through tubing where
the bottom choke is not used as a
flowmeter, a 3/16- or %-in. bore
bottom choke used with a top choke
of about the same bore may prove
more feasible. Gas zone tests are
sometimes made with bottom chokes
ranging from % - to s -in. bore in
order to obtain a measurable pres-
sure drawdown. Zones of very low
permeability which have very low
flowing pressures are frequently test-
ed without chokes; however, this
practice is not recommended unless
there is sufficient prior experience to
indicate that nonrestricted flow is
safe.
In some areas drill-stem testing is
made very difficult due to the choke
or choke screen becoming plugged
with sand grains or pieces of shale,
no matter how thoroughly the hole
is conditioned before the test. One
technique of testing under such con-
ditions, where a subsurface adjust-
JUNE, 1956
able choke is not available, is to
place the position choke up in the
drill pipe string above a suitable
amount of water cushion. This slight-
ly reduces the pressure differential
across the face of the well bore when
the tool is opened and assures that
a volume of formation fluid at least
equal to the volume of the water
cushion will be recovered before the
choke plugs.
Length of Test
Flow Period
Generally, it is better practice to
test moderately to highly productive
zones for a long period with a small
bottom choke (3/16 to % in.) and
relatively small pressure drawdown
than to test for a short period with
a large choke (s to 1/2 in) and
more severe drawdown.
Two factors are of significance in
deciding the duration of the flow pe-
riod: ( 1 ) the length of time for
which it is safe to leave the drill
pipe undisturbed without danger of
sticking, and (2) whether the bottom
choke is to be used as a meter in
interpreting GOR and productivity,
or whether the test is to be flowed
to surface tankage and interpreta-
tions made by means of surface
metering equipment.
The common use in many areas
of 20Vz - or 25Vz -minute flow periods
for 41h - and 5-in. drill pipe, respec-
tively, is purely an aid toward sim-
plified quantitative test interpreta-
tion. For these sizes of drill pipe,
the number of feet of liquid recov-
ered during flow periods of these
lengths happens also to be the num-
ber of barrels per day that the test
would produce during 24 hours
through the particular size of choke
under critical flow conditions. This
amount of time, which might be
termed as the standard flow period,
can be computed for any size of
pipe by Eq. 1. Standard flow periods
are suited to moderately to highly
productive areas where it is not de-
sired to flow the well, large drill
pipe is in use, and the several thou-
sand feet of oil or water that can
be recovered in the standard time
generally will not exert a backpres-
sure on the bottom choke in excess
of 50 per cent of the upstream pres-
sure. For such testing, a I-in. bore
top choke is often used so as to hold
backpressure to a minimum.
Computed pressure profiles indi-
cate that when testing sands of mod-
erate to high permeability, the length
of the flow periods ordinarily used,
30 minutes to one hour, has small
effect on the amount of pressure
drawdown in the sand around the
well; and it is truly important only
in controlling the amount of recov-
ery at the particular flow rate. The
rate of production, as governed by
the choice of choke size, has a large
effect on the amount of drawdown.
Pressure drawdown should be kept
moderate in order to reduce the
packer load, permit pressure buildup
in shorter shut-in periods, and re-
duce coning and fingering of gas or
water.
Shut-In Period
At the conclusion of the flowing
period, it is customary to close the
test tool on bottom using a rotating
shut-in tool. It is highly desirable to
obtain a complete buildup of pres-
sure in the test zone to the native
formation pressure for the following
reasons:
1. The shape of the pressure build-
up curve reveals information regard-
ing formation permeability.
2. The formation pressure is re-
quired for estimates of productivity
and to ascertain whether an adequate
(or perhaps excessive) mud weight
is being maintained.
The length of the shut-in period
required to obtain a complete build-
up is primarily dependent upon the
formation permeability and second-
arily upon the degree of drawdown
caused by the flow period. The feasi-
bility of waiting for a complete build-
up depends largely upon hole condi-
tions.
If experience has proved that the
tool cannot be left shut in long
enough, plans may be made to ob-
serve a partial buildup both before
and after the flow period. This is
referred to as a "dual shut-in" test
and is described below.
PROCEDURE FOR DUAL SHUTIN TEST
1. The volume of the hole below the packer is
calculated and the displacement of the anchor is
subtracted. This gives the volume of the mud only.
2. The test fool assembly, using a hydraulic
tester valve, is made up with sufficient drill pipe
or tubing placed above the hydraulic tester to
accommodate 10 to 15 per cent of the mud volume
below the packer. A disk valve is placed in the
string at this point.
3. The tool is set and the hydraulic tester opened
in the usual manner, but the disk valve go-devil
is not dropped until the initial shut-in time has
elapsed and a flow period is desired. At the con-
clusion of the flow period, the rotating shut-in
tool is closed and the normal shut-in buildup is
taken.
When on bottom and the hydraulic tester opens,
the mud pressure below the packer is relieved into
the empty drill pipe below the disk valve and the
formation is free to produce; however, the pres-
ence of the disk valve restricts the amount that the
formation can produce and more complete shut-in
buildup may be obtained in an equivalent time
than can be obtained after the flow period.
Selection of Pressure Recorders
No drill-stem test should be run
without two subsurface pressure
23
gauges; if possible, one gauge should
measure the pressures upstream or
below the bottom choke inside the
perforated anchor, and the other
should be blanked-off so as to meas-
ure pressures outside the perforated
anchor. Under this arrangement, the
two pressure records should agree
exactly unless the holes in the per-
forated anchor become plugged, in
which case the ~lanked-off gauge
will trend toward the formation shut-
in pressure while the inner gauge will
reflect the pressure inside the anchor,
either atmospheric pressure or that
due to the head of fluid recovered
before the plugging occurred. If the
choke becomes plugged but the an-
chor pipe does not plug, both gauges
should trend toward formation shut-
in pressure. The backwashing that
occurs when the by-pass is opened
will usually clear the plugging mat-
ter from the perforations and may
clear the choke if run under the
equalizing valve; proof that plugging
occurred cannot always be obtained
solely by examining the tool.
The pressure recorders are built in
a number of pressure capacities as
well as clock speeds. The service
company should be informed of the
maximum expected pressure and the
expected period of time that the tool
will be on bottom. The pressure re-
corder may then be selected, if avail-
able, so that the maximum recorded
pressure will be approximately two-
thirds to three-fourths of the max-
imum pressure capacity of the gauge,
and the chart travel during the time
on bottom will not cause excessive
overlapping of the stylus traces. If
the test recovery is to be reversed out
with pumps, the pressure capacity
of the gauge should be sufficient to
record the mud pressure plus circula-
tion pressure.
Location of Auxiliary Tool
Components
The circulation tool is frequently
run one to three stands of pipe above
the tester valve. This permits reten-
tion of an uncontaminated sample
of formation liquids, if the recovery
is reversed out. The jar is placed
above and as close to the packer as
possible.
Water Cushions
With the opening of the test tool,
the pressure on the formation is re-
duced almost instantaneously from
mud pressure of several thousand psi
to the initial flowing pressure or
sometimes to atmospheric pressure.
This flash release of pressure is un-
desirable for the following reasons:
(1) it may cause caving of the for-
24
mation and stick the anchor; (2) it
may cause plugging of anchor per-
forations or the bottom choke, and
(3) it contributes to packer failures.
Flui~ cushions or water blankets
can be placed in the drill pipe above
the test tool to reduce the pressure
differential that occurs across the
wall of the bore hole and packer as
the tool is opened; however, this
procedure may make test interpreta-
tion difficult, particularly when the
recovery is small, because the forma-
tion liquids may mix with the water
cushion.
It is sometimes advisable to use
fluid cushions when testing high-
pressure gas sands for reasons of
safety. The cushion will effect lower
surface pressures until it has been
produced out of the pipe. Occasion-
ally, water blankets are a necessity
on deep tests in order to prevent the
drill pipe or tubing from collapsing
due to high external mud pressures.
Gas Cushions
Natural gas or bottled nitrogen
have been used instead of water to
provide an initial reduction in the
pressure differential applied to the
formation when the tool opens. This
is accomplished by pressuring the
tubing to the desired amount through
the control head just prior to open-
ing the tool. This backpressure is
then bled off slowly after opening
the tool. Gas cushions have been
used to good advantage for drill-
stem testing during workovers where
high-pressure gas is available from
a gas-lift system.
Method of Handling Test
Production at the Surface
The fluids recovered should be
disposed of in the manner which
involves least hazard to the drilling
rig, surroundings, and to the further
progress of the well. Consideration
should also be given to the degree
of accuracy required in measuring
the volume of recovery. If at all pos-
sible, the recovered liquids should be
reversed out into a tank or pit.
Special Packer Arraugements
Dual Wall Packer Testing
Two wall packers of the same or
slightly different size can be run one
above the other to give added assur-
ance of obtaining a satisfactory seat.
The practice is widely used where
there is doubt as to the condition of
the packer seat, particularly in frac-
tured formations. To be effective,
both packers should be set in sand
or hard formations. When set in a
hard, competent formation, the lower
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOI.OG\
pacKel carries the larger load. If the
lower packer fails, the upper packer
assumes the load.
Straddle Packer Testing
Open-hole straddle testing involves
testing a productive interval which
may be as much as several thousand
feet from bottom. A wall packer is
set in a competent seat above and
below the interval to be tested so
that a selected zone may be isolated
for testing through means of a per-
forated nipple which is placed be-
tween the two packers; convention-
ally, the blank anchor extends to
total depth. Use of a straddle packer
by-pass tool will permit mud pres-
sure to be equalized above the top
packer and below the bottom packer
at all times. This arrangement per-
mits leakage of either packer to be
detected by watching the mud level
in the annulus. It also provides for
easier release of the bottom packer.
Both packers must withstand approx-
imately the same pressure differen-
tial. The blank anchor below the
lower packer is not severely loaded
as in a conventional test unless the
straddle packer by-pass tube is not
used and the formation breaks down
or filtration processes reduce the vol-
ume of mud trapped in the hole un-
der the lower packer. A new develop-
ment is a sub having dogs that can
be caused to wedge into the wall of
the bore hole to support the straddle
tool.
Three pressure recorders should
be used-two for the test zone in
the usual fashion and one below the
lower packer arranged so as to meas-
ure pressure in the zone under the
lower packer.
Straddle testing is being applied
extensively in the multi-sand forma-
tions of Southwest Texas, where
usual interval tested is about 30 ft
or less and the average distance off
bottom is about 200 ft and ranges
up to over 1,000 ft. It is being used
in drilled rather than cored rathole
intervals in wells where logs are run
every 500 to 1,000 ft; possibly pro-
ductive zones for testing are chosen
by log and sidewall core interpreta-
tion. There has also been extensive
application in the East Texas area
to permit complete 50- to 90-ft dia-
mond cores to be cut prior to pulling
out to test.
Straddle hookwall packer testing
inside casing may be employed where
there are several perforated intervals
and it is desired to test each selec-
tively without setting bridge plugs
or squeeze cementing.
 Performing the Test
Preparing the Hole
The hole may have to be reamed
down to reduce the amount of rat-
hole. Generally, 300 to 500 ft of rat-
hole is the maximum that is cus-
tomarily carried. After reaming, the
hole should be washed clean to bot-
tom of the remaining rathole and
should then be circulated at least
one cycle. In circulating the hole
clean, the bit should be positioned at
a point above the packer seat; pipe
should be lowered occasionally to
clear and condition the rathole in the
test interval. The trip out to test
should not be begun until such time
as the tool can be made up, run to
bottom, and opened with a minimum
of delay or waiting time. Periodic
tests of mud weight should be made
while circulating so that a reliable
value of the hydrostatic pressure can
be calculated to check the accuracy
of the pressure recorders.
Making Up the Tool
After assembly of the open-hole
tool, measurements should be taken
to check the packer spacing and to
permit the last joint of pipe added to
be marked at the point where it
should be flush with the rotary when
the tool is just touching bottom. This
procedure permits the tool to be
eased into contact with the bottom
of the hole and provides a check on
the weight indicator; weight indicator
readings alone may lead to difficul-
ties if true bottom has not been
reached. A similar procedure should
be used for testing inside casing, and
the mark should be placed so that
the lowest part of the test tool will
be the necessary distance above the
top perforation so as to permit the
surface control head to be conven-
iently accessible from the derrick
floor.
Running In
The speed at which the tool can be
run to bottom should be at least 25
per cent slower than usual; a mod-
erate amount of spudding is possi-
ble. From time to time while run-
ning in, the drill pipe should be
checked for leaks by observing
whether or not air is flowing from
the pipe and by observing the
amount of spill-over that occurs as
each stand is lowered into the hole.
If it becomes necessary to shut down
with the tool only part way to bot-
tom, close watch should be kept on
the annulus mud level to determine
that mud is not entering the pipe
through a leaking tool or tool joint.
JUNE, 195()
Opening the Tool
Short duration, nonflowing, open-
hole tests should not be permitted to
exhaust gas or air to atmosphere
within the derroick unless it is certain
that surface pFessUlles will be negli-
gible; this applies particularly to
power rigs. Flow lines should be
rigged to the reserve pit and suffi-
cient flexible pipe should be con-
nected to the control head to permit
the pipe to be picked up with a
minimum of delay to close the tester
valve in the event of an emergency.
Care should be taken to see that a
tool joint will not foul the blowout
preventers. Since it may be desired
to pump through the drill pipe or
tubing in case an open-hole test gets
out of control and since the control
head may be as much as 30 ft up
in the derrick, a surface control head
to which the kelly can be connected
throughout the test will permit hoist-
ing or pumping to begin with a mini-
mum of difficulty and loss of time.
The same precautions apply to tests
made inside casing, although the con-
trol head is usually accessible for
making connections.
All safety rules regarding smoking
or open fires should be rigidly en-
forced dwring the drill-stem test. Ex-
plosion-proof safety lights should be
dimmed or turned off, while unpro-
tected light bulbs should always be
turned off. Power rig engines might
best be idled in order that hoisting
power will be available without de-
lay, provided the test flow is directed
to a pit or tank off the rig floor. .Tust
before opening the tool, the annulus
should be filled if necessary. Close
watch on the annulus mud level
should be maintained when the tool
is opened; a sudden drop in fluid
level indicates that the packer is not
sealing. A very slow loss of fluid is
not serious since it is usually caused
by a loss of mud or filtrate to a frac-
tured or porous zone; however, con-
stant vigil should be maintained
throughout the test and the mud level
kept in sight at all times.
Before opening the tool, the high-
pressure rubber hose provided by the
service company should be connected
from the control head to the gauge
manifold on the rig floor; the end of
the hose may be held in a bucket of
water to allow the increased hlow
that will occur when the tool is
opened to be detected immediately.
Shut-In Period
At the conclusion of the flow pe-
riod, the tool is closed by means of
the rotating shut-in pressure valve.
On gas tests, if the flowing pressure
has been high, it may be desirable to
bleed pressure on a small choke
while rotating; after rotation has
clo&.ed the tool, the flow line may be
reconnected and the pressure blown
down to the pit or tank,s. During the
shut-in period, the formation pres-
sure builds up to its static or maxi-
mum value under the packer. Unless
the formation is very permeable, this
may require an excessive amount of
time.
Pulling Out
At the conclusion of the shut-in
period, the drill pipe is raised a foot
or so while observing the mud level
in the annulus. The level may drop
sIlghtly when the equalizing valve
opens and mud flows into the zone
under the packer. After pressure has
equalized across the packer, strain
may be taken to unseat the packer
and start slowly out of the rathole.
Once the packer is clear of the
rathole, the tool may be pulled out
more rapidly. Care should be taken
to see that the well is not swabbed in
while pulling out; a torn wall packer
may bridge even the larger diameter
main hole. The annulus should be
filled after pulling each thribble of
pipe until it is clear that no swab-
bing is occurring and then at least
after each three thribbles or more
often, depending on drill pipe size,
last casing size, mud weight, and
the mud overload pressure being
carried. Should the annulus be filled
and overflowing continuously, it may
not be possible to determine whether
the overflow is from the pumps or
due to swabbing action. The per-
missibility of rotating out of the
hole depends upon what components
are included in the tool string.
Reversing Out Test Recovery
When the recovery is oil, removal
by pulling wet stands involves a defi-
nite fire hazard since the oil is
dumped from each stand onto the
floor and cellar as the stands are
broken out. In addition, gas pockets
within the column of oil may cause
heading of the oil from the top of a
st-and high up in the derrick. The re-
sulting cold spray can be ignited by
causing hot light bulbs to explode, or
by blowing onto magnetos and hot
exhaust manifolds on power rig en-
gines, or the boilers on steam rigs.
The inclusion in the string of a
reverse circulating sub which can be
opened to the annulus at the conclu-
sion of the test will permit the oil to
be flowed or pumped by reverse cir-
culation to a pit or tank with relative
safety, even at night. This is particu-
larly desirable in the case of hook-
wall packer testing inside casing
since this type of test is usually con-
ducted for a long enough period to
permit the pipe to be entirely filled
with formation liquids, and pump
pressure can be applied to the annu-
lus while the packer is set with min-
imum danger of breaking down the
formation. Reverse circulation in
open hole is less attractive because of
this danger, hazard of sticking the
pipe, and difficulty in accurate meas-
urement of small-volume recoveries.
When fluid recovery is believed to
be large, a suggested procedure for
open-hole reversing is indicated
below.
PROCEDURE FOR OPEN HOLE REVERSING
1. At conclusion of flowing period, place 500
to 1,000 ft of fresh water of known chloride in
the drill pipe.
2. Pull pipe until water is encountered. Check
that pump is primed and ready.
3. Open circulation sub and reverse out fresh
water and formation liquids by letting mud "U
tube" into pipe; keep the annulus filled. Control
flow from pipe with a suitable choke. If blowout
preventer must be closed, use as little pump pres-
sure as is necessary, and count pump strokes while
formation Iiquid~ are flowing to assist in deter-
mining volume; if may be desired to rotate pipe
while reversing, if a swivel-type surface control
head is available.
4. Pull remaining pipe and remove circulation
sub; place a solid-type thread protector or plug in
each of the remaining two to five thribbles, as
each is pulled, and use a sealed mud saver when
breaking out. The purpose of the plugs is to pre-
vent heading of oil from a thribble that has been
raised into the derrick.
Salt Water Samples yields only formation water, the mud
Absence of oil or gas in a tested below the packer is displaced up-
formation cannot be considered ward into the drill pipe by water en-
proved unless evidence is obtained tering the well bore. At first this
that representative formation water water is mud filtrate, followed in
is recovered. During the course of a turn by salt water. Fig. 2 illustrates
study of subsurface waters in which the resultant variation of salinity
a large number of drill-stem tests with depth in the recovered water
were made for the specific purpose column. The salinity increases rapid-
of obtaining representative water ly below the mud to a maximum
samples, a system of sampling was constant value. Any part of the water
column having this maximum con-
developed by M. S. Taggart, Jr., of
stant salinity is representative forma-
Production Research Division, Hum- tion water, or very nearly so.
ble Oil & Refining Co., which per- From the point of view of sam-
mits determining by examination of pling, it may be seen that a sample
the samples themselves whether rep- taken just below the mud would have
resentative water is produced. The had a chloride content of only
following examples have been se- 32,000 ppm, whereas the true chlor-
lected from the results of this study ide content of the formation water
was about 66,000 ppm. Except in ex-
to illustrate the variations of salinity
of the produced water frequently ceptional cases, such as after acidiz-
encountered under different condi- ing or when the drilling mud is of
very high salinity, the water samples
tions of drill-stem testing.
with the highest salinity are those
Typical Su.ccessfu.l Test which more nearly approach true
In the usual drill-stem test that formation water.

Taking the Data

Some type of drill-stem test opera-
tions report should be filled in. A
sample form is 5hown on Fig. 1. It
should be remembered that the re-
sults of the drill-stem test data may
be reviewed years after the test by
reservoir or workover analysts, who
will depend heavily on thorough, <: .... ' .. 0 .nv'..o., o. D 9% _IN __ .!'OL~...DATA_ '... 10..... NOI..Il, .,n D"LD HOLC ~,"
.1lT . . , ~. ~. ~'''.
adequate reports for guidance. TOT .. L oc..... . A#o
II.,.
n_. ,o~ 0"
-
""'''OLC''V .990
- n
n., ....O""'T
.Lin
D' ""V .. O\.C
,,"'THOLC
$D n

Drill-Stem Test Interpretation

Fluid Content -,4~~So~_,,,.,,.,_.,:t
OPERATIONS TIME RECORD
L .... 'V .."' LC'''' .. O\.. "S'8 'o"~rro"~"_

When formation liquids are re- 7 :''6z 'O"p""'_"

~~
versed out or when the pipe is ~----
.,,,",,,""'.."00. ~ _ -_ _
~
pulled from the hole, an account of '''. OUTD' .. OLI:

....."'oo.=o~"~"" .. ~.'"
_ -_ _

the liquids recovered should be taken, ... ~"'~ro~ o.'"~".~....

both as to type and the volume in

barrels. The gravity of the oil should
be taken. It is important that the re-
covery of all liquid be measured MEASURED AND COMPUTED PRESSURE DATA

accurately as it is from this measure-

ment that the rate of production in
barrels per day may be computed. ESTIMATED PRODUCTIVITY DURING TEST
The volume of rathole mud recov- uN~ ~~+~.
o
~
P~OOUCTIVITY

-m~---:i!fjli!"~~{
INDEX

ered should be approximately equal p"cltqr+ _

to or less than the volume of mud ;;~~:;':N7. ;;;;".:::::,:;:":~.:::~~: :;::;.:~::~:~.;;;,r:;q.~
~. DllTl".. '''' ...VIO"
"L"'D <:OH,.",.&"'SfIlCMl::f ~. on'[I,,,,,,,,,,,,o .. _ ~00U<:V1VIVV '/ii+JlijiiCb";t
that was originally trapped below the " '..... " 0 ..

Bottom -' fcct of 10re ,.",,/ mile' u.ty .. hpJ

=
packer in the test zone. A larger vol-
ume of mud in the recovery may be
..... ~m
n.,-eIlONII ... VOII,~
indicative of a fractured or vugular ~.~"'''CO OH.~. I
IHftIl",OCO.V:

formation, provided that the mud

level did not fall in the annulus dur-
ing the test. Fig. I - Sample record of a drill-stem test.

26 JOIJRNAL OF PETROLEUM TECID,OLO(;Y

Effect 0/ Leaking Packer
Fig. 3 illustrates the effect of a
leaking packer on the variation of
salinity with depth in the recovered
water column. A sample taken im-
mediately above the tool in this test
would have had a salinity about 24
per cent less than that of the forma-
tion water. Likewise, a sample taken
near the top of the column would
have had a salinity much too low.
Effect of Inadequate Yield
Drill-stem tests sometimes recover
only mud and mud filtrate, the yield
being insufficient to result in recovery
of formation water. The mud flltrate
may have become contaminated with
salt from the formation or by mix-
ing with formation water and m<l.y
be mistakenly presumed to represent
formation water. An example of in-
sufficient yield to recover represen-
tative water is illustrated in Fig. 4.
In this particular well, the tested in-
terval was exposed to mud flltration
for an unusually long time prior to
the test. The chloride content of the
water entering the well bore was still
increasing at the time the tool was
closed, and none of the recovered
water was representative of the true
formation contents.
Difficulty in Cased Hole
The sampling of water recovered
by drill-stem te<;ts in cased holes
through perforations requires special
precautions. Fig. 5 presents a com-
parison of the results of testing in
open and in cased hole in two wells.
The wells were tested at very nearly
the same depth, and both were tested
in the same section of the formation.
Both tests should have produced
water of substantially the same sa-
linity, since the salinity of this for-
mation water is known from other
tests to vary regularly with depth.
Although the water recovered from
the No. B-1 well reached a maxi-
mum constant salinity with depth in
the pipe, which ordinarly would he
taken as evidence of representative
formation water, the maximum saIt
concentration was about 20 per cent
less than that of representative water
recovered from open hole in the No.
1 well. Apparently, water traveling
behind the casing from some other
formation was produced during the
test in the No. B-1 well.
The illustrations given show that
a single sample of water recovered
during a drill-stem test is inadequate
for determining the properties of for-
mation waters. The single sample
may be representative, but this can-
not be determined. A suite of sam-
JUNE, 1956
pIes, on the other hand, permits the
determination from the variation in
salinity with depth in the recovered
water column of whether the pro-
duced water is representative.
The per cent of salt water recov-
ered may be estimated by dividing
the number of barrels or feet of for-
mation salt water by the number of
barrels or feet of total liquid, exclu-
sive of rathole mud; however, such
percentages may be erroneous when
the test is of short duration and the
amount of recovery is small.
Pressure Measurements --
Chart Interpretation
Test interpretation, aside from the
visual examination of the liquid drill-
stem test recovery, requires prelimi-
nary interpretation of the pressure
charts. The charts should be exam-
ined carefully, first to ascertain that
the tool operated properly and did
not tend to plug, and second to as-
certain that the pressures during the
test were measured accurately. The
accuracy of the gauges must be
judged by comparison of key pres-
sures read from both charts and by
checking the measured initial mud
pressure against the computed mud
pressure.
The following key pressures
should be read from the charts:
initial mud, minimum flow, average
flow, maximum flow, shut-in forma-
tion pressure, and final mud. To read
these key pressures, a knowledge of
the exact sequence of events during
the test and the time at which these
events occurred is required.
Charts from successful tests per-
formed in the conventional sequence
of operations with no water cushion
will have the same general configura-
tion, although the magnitude of pres-
sures and time periods will vary with
"r----,---------------,
c...."'on
25 - T
--.------~-
Mud Fdt''''e
& Soh w"'
8 8
"":xl ----------~--"---___'_<}_--__j
~ I
a:: 15
g
~---=-=-____::_l_:c_____,,_L_L--------'
",000
_ 17_
CHLORIDE CONTENT: PPM
Fig. 2 -- Example of usual variation
of salinity with depth in recovered
water column.
the individual test. The upper portion
of Fig. 6 shows the typical configu-
ration, the conventional sequence of
events, and the relative magnitude
of the corresponding pressures. Sim-
ilarly, charts from tests performed in
the conventional sequence but which
were unsuccessful for one of the
more common reasons will have a
characteristic configuration which
discloses the reason for the failure.
The lower portion of Fig. 6 shows
these typical configurations.
Basic but minor differences in gen-
eral chart configuration for conven-
tional sequence tests of moderately
to highly productive zones will oc-
cur during the flow period, depend-
ing on which of the following two
conditions prevailed:
1. Critical flow: A small bottom
choke (3/ 16 in.) used with a large
top choke (1 in.) will usually cause
the flow of fluid into the drill pipe
through the bottom choke to be
"critical" or independent of the
pressure inside the drill pipe. Critical
flow will produce a nearly constant
pressure throughout the flow period.
2. Non-critical flow: A large bot-
tom choke, or none at all (equiva-
lent to % in. choke), used with any
size top choke will cause the rate of
flow of fluid into the drill pipe to
diminish constantly as the pipe fills.
The rise of liquids within the drill
pipe causes a corresponding increase
in flowing bottom-hole pressure
which will level off only when the
head or backpressure due to the re-
covered liquid column approaches
the formation pressure.
Low permeability formations are
normally revealed on the pressure
charts by extremely low flowing pres-
sures which often are too low for the
gauge to record; however, when the
tool is shut in, enough fluid may en-
'11'",
30
-1_
i
"
-+- ~20
! ~
~
I
~
I 15 --
..
~ ~
i!
I
iii
~
~
-
11 10
i
I'~ ~
0
0
CHLORIDE CONTENT, PPM
Fig. 3--Example of effect of leaking
packer on variation of salinity with
depth in recovered water column:.
ter the test zone to cause a slow where little oil, condensate, or water value of Q, the gas production rate,
buildup of pressure. Such formations is produced can be estimated from in Mcf per day on the horizontal
should not be rejected too hastily in the charts. scale,
view of the potentialities of acid 4. Draw a line through this point
Ability of the Well to Produce
treatment or fo~ation fracturing up and to the right at a 45 angle to
processes. the vertical axis.
Open Flow Potential
Fig. 7 shows schematic examples 5. Draw a line parallel to the hori-
of the several conditions discussed Frequently it will be desirable to
estimate the open flow potential of a
zontal axis along the value of in Ps,"
above. thousands. At the intersection of this
gas sand interval from drill-stem test line with the 45 line, read the value
Gas-Oil Ratio data. A reasonable estimate of open
If little or no water is produced of Q, in Mcf per day, which is the
flow potential based on data for one
during the test, the gas-oil ratio may approximate open flow potential of
rate of flow can be obtained as fol-
be estimated by using the charts, lows: the tested interval.
Figs. 8 and 8-A. The rate of gas 1. Estimate of Mcf per day gas
production during tests of gas zones Productivity Factors and Specific
production rate, Q, during the drill- Productivity Factors
stem test by the procedure described
12r----,-------r-------,-------, e...n,on in the preceding paragraph. An index of the ability of the
\

' ..... ---i-___: .

+ 2. Evaluate: (P si 2 - P/) formation to produce liquid can be
10 -- -",-.. c-=-t-- --+--+---
, ,
Where, Psi = Formation shut-in
pressure + 15 = psia
obtained from the nonflowing type
of test usually employed for explora-
+ P r = Average flowing pres- tory testing in open hole. This re-
sure + 15 = psia quires very accurate measurement of
3. On log-log graph paper plot the the length of the flow period, amount
value of (P'i 2 - P/) in thousands of recovery, and the formation flow-
on the vertical scale against the ing and shut-in pressures. A produc-

- - CRITICAL FLOW
- - - NON CRITICAL FLOW

CHLORIDE CONTENT: PPM

Fig. 4-Example of unsufficient yield

to recover representative water.

45

'"
I
I
j\
Well No. 1 ~
TIm.

PRESSURES: A-tNlTlAL MUD

8 PACKER SQUEEZE
C - AVE. FLOWING
O-SHUlIN
E- FINAL MUD
EVENTS' 0 -I.t THRl88LE IN
e -ON BOTTOM
- TOOL OPfNEO
1- BUlLO UP COMPUTE
b-LAST THRI88LE IN
d-PJI,CI(R SET
f -TOOl CLOSEO

tI - EQUALIZING VAL.VE OPENED

DST 51345195 ft. --... O-c - ORAWOOWN I - MQ(ER UNSEATED
J - 1st THRUL.E OUT k - LAST THAl88LE OVT
in open ~ol. I - nWE RUNNINe IN
2- FLOW PERIOD
35 TYPICAL CHARTS FROM 5 - SHUT IN PfRIOO
A SATISFACTORY TE ST 4 - TIME PULLING OUT

I
JO
<5 (TOP GAGE NOT BLANKED OFF. BOTTOM GAGE BLANKED OFF)
g LEGEND: - - TOP CHART (OR 80TH CHARTS)
- - - BOTTOM CHART
~ I 0
g ! (CRITICAL FLOW)

'"~ 2S
\

~
a:
-'
-'
ii'
0
"-
20
0 I
Well No. B-1
l'i
z DST 513()'5154 ft. - .....
thrjugh perforct,oi'
~
15

.
!
I PACKER FAILD NO SHUT-IN PRESSURE
!, !
10

,/_TJI\

1rt
i I
" i'+-! \ ~ \
. , ,
i '
I I \

i i
. ' \
I A C \ 0 E
j I \
20,000 40,000 60,000 so,ooo
OILORIDE CONTENT: PPM CHOKE PLUGGING ANCHOR PLUGGED TOP CLOCK STOPPED I} STARTED

Fig. 5 - Example of failure to test Fig. 6 - Pressure chart interpretation: Typical charts from a satisfactory test
formation behind casing. and charts from common types of mis-run.

28 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECIlNOLOt;)

 tivity factor or index is computed
from these data.
The productivity, or PF, is defined
as the ratio of a constant formation
2- - 3
liquid production rate, barrels of
oil plus water per day, to the pres-
sure drop opposite the sand face.
The utility of the PF results from
NO PERMEABILITY VERY LOW PERMEABILITY SAND FACE POSSIBLY PLUGGED
the fact that the variation in sand
face pressure in good to strong wells
is usually a linear function of pro-
duction rate. The specific productiv-
ity factor is the PF divided by the
net productive feet of exposed pro-
ducing interval as judged from ex-
amination of cores or logs. The spe-
cific PF has an approximate linear
relationship to the ratio of effective
HI-GH PERMEABILITY ON
3116- BOTTOM CHOKE
HIGH PERMEABILITY ON
1/4- BOtTOM CHOKE
HIGH PERMEABILIty WITH
NO BOTTOM CHOKE
permeability to viscosity, millidarcys
(CRtlICAL FLOW) (CRITICAL FLOW) (NON-CRITICAL FLOW)
per centipoise.
The PF and specific PF can be
computed from drill-stem test data
as outlined by Eqs. 1 through 4.
- 2 ,-
Use of Produtivity Factors
The relationship given in Eq_ 5
DE
can be helpful in investigating the
possibility of obtaining flowing pro-
EXCESSIVE FLUID HEAD INSIDE PIPE
GAS TEST - UNLOADED WATER CUSHION
duction by assuming a minimum
0- WATER CUSHION RISING TO SURFACE
b- WATER CUSHION BEING PROOUCED
FLOWING PRESSURE UPSTREAM OF CHOKE
REMAINED CONSTANT UNTIL THE BACK
satisfactory tubing pressure and a
c- FLOWING DRY GAS
d- TOOL SHUT IN
PRESSURE DUE TO LIQUID ACCUMULATION
INSIDE PIPE BECAME EXCESSIVE, RESULTING
maximum gradient; for example, the
IN A DIMINISHING FLOW RATE. dead oil gradient corresponding to
the API gravity of the oil or a gra-
Nor: rH RUNNING IN AAO PULLING our PERIODS ON rHSE CHARrS
ARE SHOWN COMPRESSED ON riME SCALE FOR CLARlrr.
dient corresponding to a mixture of
Fig. 7 - Pressure chart interpretation: various testing conditions. oil and an estimated per cent salt

,,~
,=
..~

," ..
'O~ ....
.>
.. '

..
,~

"
I" "
Ift.o
"

'" ",+H++-H--f1-H+f-1H--+H++-H--+H+---frH '" .'"

:~: .~.Jo
~

"oF'~'I;-'+-H+++-A--+++UP~E. FI(lUR{S FOR 1I4'~, CHOkE

,r'~ "
"
:: :+++~t~f=-1-~t+~t+'=-t---t"-'t-'"-1'-""+'-"H'-+O'-'t-"---t"'-,"+O-"H4/+l--rH4J<
I
"
,.
. .0

Fig. 8 - Gas-oil ratio chart: s- and *-in. chokes. Fig. 8A - Gas-oil ratio chart: 3/16- and 3/8in. chokes.
Flow of fluid and gas through 1/8- and 3/16-in. by 6-in. chokes. Flow of fluid and gao through 1/8- and 1/4-in. by 6-in. chokes.
(Plotted from test data for downstream pressures less than 125 psi (Plotted from fest data for downstream pressures less than 125 psi
for values of /10 from 0.5 to 2.0 and API gravities from 32 to 42) for values of /Lo from 0.5 to 2.0 and API gravities from 32 to 42)

JUNE, 1956
water. If substantial production is
indicated by this method, flowing
production is probable since the ac-
tual flowing gradient will be reduced
by dissolved or free gas.
Use of Specific Productivity Factors
At times it may be of interest to
make an estimate of the effective
permeability of the tested zone. This
estimate may be made by utilizing
the approximate relationship, given
by Eq. 6, between specific PF, the
viscosity of saturated reservoir oil
at reservoir temperature and pres-
sure, and effective permeability.
Subsurface sample analysis is re-
quired to determine the viscosity of
the reservoir oil; however, examina-
tion of a large number of analyses
revealed that for reservoir tempera-
tures between 140 and 240F, the
viscosities of saturated reservoir oils
correlated reasonably well with API
gravity of residual oil after flash
separation at 0 psi. The correlation
is shown on Fig. 9.
Sample Drill-Stem Interpretation
The problem occurs frequently of
determining whether or not a drill-
stem test has indicated that com-
mercial production can be attained.
There are methods of analyzing the
test data which at least present a
basis for founding opinions, even
by personnel not too familiar with
the area. It must be realized even the
broadest conclusions resulting from
such analyses are subject to unavoid-
able error due to the number of
variables that exist.
The following is an example of a
complete drill-stem test interpretation
such as might be made from a typ-
ical "morning-wire" drill-stem test
summary in the form previously
suggested.
DST OF FORM FROM 10,889' 10 10,898'. 7"
WAll PKR SET AT 10,889'. 3/16" BTM CK & '/"
TOP CK. TOOL OPEN 25V, MIN & SI 30 MIN
MAX SURF PR 180#. REC 20' MUD & 1,100' OR
19.5 BBlS OF 35.5 DEG API GRAY OIL NO S/W.
CHl OF MUD 7,200 PPM. PR CHART AT 10,861'
IMP 5,925# MFP 4,445# AFP 4,445# SIP 5,146#
FMP 5,995#. PR CHART AT 10,866' IMP 5,818#
MFP 4,380# AFP 4,380# SI P 5,025# FMP
5,890#.
1. Check accuracy of pressure gauges
Initial mud pressure from the top gauge
5,925 psi, as compared with 5,818 psi from the
bottom gauge, a difference of 107 psi. A check
indicated that mud weight was 10.2 Ib/gal at the
time of the test.
Computed initial mud pressure due to
Ib/gol mud was:
10.2 X 10,866 X 0.052 = 5,750 psi
It was noted further that initial mud pressure
due 10 10.3 Ib/gal mud would be 5,815 psi,
30
which agrees closely with the bottom gauge read-
ing of 5,818 psi. The bottom gauge was then
assumed as reasonably accurate.
2. Check for complete pr~ssure buildup
Since the bottom gauge pressure chart was nof
available for examination and since the summary
did not indicate whether or not the shut-in pres-
sure buildup was complete, a check on the normal --- -+ -_.-
shut-in pressure for the depth was made by ex-
amining initial reservoir pressures measured in
other producing reservoirs of comparable depth in
the area. It was found that an initial shut-in gra-
dient of 0.465 psi/ft subsea was normal for the
area. The elevation of the well in question was
taken as 0 ft for convenience since it was known
that a borge rig was in use.
Computed normal pressure was:
10,866 X 0.465 = 5,050 psi
This was considered a reasonable check with the
5,025 psi recorded by the bottom gauge and the
formation pressure was assumed to be 5,050 psi
since buildup may not have been complete.
3. Check for critical flow during test
In order to determine that the recovery entered
the pipe at a constant rate, the head on the bot-
tom choke due to the recovery was computed and
found to be less than 50 per cent of the upstream
recorded maximum flowing pressure of 4,380 psi.
Head due to 1,100 ft of oil and 180 psi surface VISCOSITY OF SATURATEO RESERVOIR OIL AT Po&. T,. CENTIPOISE
pressure:
1,100 X 0.35 + 180 = 565 psi Fig. 9 - Correlations of API gravity
as compared with: 50 per cent of 4,380 = 2,190 with viscosity.
psi.
4. Compute daily production rate during test
Since critical flow seemed evident, the produc- R = F when Bf X 1,440
tion rate during the test was computed using Eq. 1
0$ follows: L
F
R = T X 8f X 1,440 Productivity Factor =
= 1,100 X 0.01778 X 1;440 Production Rate BID
25.5
Pressure Drawdown (psi)
= 1,100 B/D
5. Compute estimated productivity factor (2)
The productivity factor was estimated by using
1,100 BID production, 5,050 psi formation pres- F
sure, and 4,380 psi flowing pressure: L Bf 1,440
1,100
(5,050 _ 4,380) = 1.6
4
B
/D . d d
pSI raw own PF = (3)
P,j - P f
6. Estimate gas-oil ratio
Gas-oil ratio was estimated to be about 1,000
cu II/bbl Irom Ihe flow chari lor 3/16in. choke, Specl'fic PF = - - - PF---
Fig. 8A, using 1,100 B/D and 4,380 psi flowing Feet of Net Pay
pressure.
7. Evaluate possibility of flowi.ng production (4)
Having evaluated the productivity factor, it was R PF (P" - P t - P f ,. - DX Gr)
possible to check the probability of flowing pro-
duction as follows: {a} assumed no water produc- (5)
tion would occur, and (b) assumed a maximum
gradienl 01 0.370 psi/It due 10 dead 35.5 API K = 1,000 (Specific PF) V (6)
oil.
The amount of production theoretically possible Symbols:
even with this extremely high gradient was ,om-
puted as follows, using Eq. 5, and assuming 500 R = Flow rate, BID
Ib combined tubing pressure and friction pressure
loss: F = Liquid recovered, ft
R = PF (P" - p, - PfT - D X Gr)
= (1.6) (5,050 - 500 - 10,866 X 0.370) L = Length of test, minutes
= 850 B/D
8. Estimate effective permeability
Bf = Pipe capacity, blft
The specific productivity factor and effective per- 1,440 = Minutes per day
meability were evaluated using Eqs. 4 and 6. A
formation volume factor of 1.25 was assumed. The Gr = Flowing gradient, psi/ft
viscosity of the 35.5 API oil at reservoir condi-
tions was estimated at 0.5 cp from Fig. 9. V Viscosity of saturated oil
PF
Speci fie PF = Feet of net pay at reservoir condition
1.64 P" Formation shut-in pres-
9 sure, psi
= 0.18 slocklank B/D/psi/It
0.18 X 1.25 = 0.225 reservoir B/D/psi/It Pf Formation flowing pres-
K = 1,000 (Specific PF) V
= 1,000 (0.225) (0.05) sure, psi
= 112 md
P t = Tubing pressure, psi
WQS
P fr = Friction loss, psi
APPENDIX D = Completion depth, ft
10.2 F K Effective permeability, md
R X Bf X 1,440
L PF Productivity Factor
(1)
***
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLO(;\