Qualitative Test Analysis

The sequence of events that make up a test and the corresponding response on the pressure chart are
depicted in figures 1 through 8. While the test string is being lowered into the well ( Figure 1 ), the shut-in
valve is closed and the bypass valve is opened.

Figure 1

This places the recorders in contact with the annulus, and as a result the mud hydrostatic is recorded. While
the packer/seal assembly is being set, the shut-in and bypass valves are closed ( Figure 2 ).
 Figure 2

The result is that the mud below the packer is compressed, which is evident as a "squeeze" pressure on the
charts. If the zone has been perforated or the test is in openhole, this "squeeze" pressure will be dissipated
into the reservoir. Figure 3 represents the initial flow when the shut-in valve is opened and the bypass valve
is closed.
 Figure 3

The pressure recorded by the gauge will reduce very quickly and read cushion hydrostatic, then increase as
mud is produced into the test string. Following the initial flow, the shut-in valve is closed and the pressure
builds up ( Figure 4 ).
 Figure 4

Following the initial shut-in, the well is opened for the main flow ( Figure 5 ).
 Figure 5

The pressure recorded by the gauge falls to a value equivalent to the hydrostatic pressure of the test string
contents. If liquid was produced during the initial flow then the pressure at the start of the main flow should
equal the pressure at the end of the initial flow. If gas was produced, then this initial pressure would be less
than the flowing pressure recorded at the end of the initial flow period.

The well is then shut in for the final buildup ( Figure 6 ) and the pressure returns to reservoir pressure. On
some off-shore well tests, the reservoir fluids below the shut-in tool are injected back into the reservoir.
 Figure 6

This is called bullheading, and is evident on the pressure charts as an increase in pressure above hydrostatic
followed by a decline ( Figure 7 ).
 Figure 7

Finally, the test string is pulled out the hole and the recorder measures the decreasing mud hydrostatic
pressure ( Figure 8 ).
 Figure 8

Once the recorders have been retrieved, a qualitative analysis of the pressure charts is performed to verify
that the test was successful. Points to be examined include the following:

1. Did the recorder work?

2. Were all the flow and buildup periods recorded?

3. Are all the recorder charts similar in appearance?

4. Is the final hydrostatic pressure similar to the initial hydrostatic pressure?

5. Do the recorded pressures correlate to what actually occurred?

6. Are the charts analyzable?

Figures 9 to 16 are "typical" pressure charts that may be observed after a test. The following is a qualitative
interpretation of the charts:
Figure 9 This successful test produced water during both flow periods, which eventually "killed" the well.

Figure 9

Permeability is very good.

Figure 10 This successful test examined a zone having little or no permeability. Recovery probably would
be a couple of feet of mud.
 Figure 10

Figure 11 This successful test probably produced low-rate oil.

 Figure 11

The flowing pressures at the end of the initial flow and start of the final flow are the same indicating liquid
recovery. Oil is indicated by the shape of the shut-in curves. The very gradual buildup evident during the
initial shut-in indicates low permeability, but the rapid buildup during the final shut-in indicates a much
better permeability. This means that there was a zone of reduced permeability around the wellbore during
the initial flow, but not during the final flow. This could have been the result of "cleaning up" the section of
the reservoir that had been invaded by drilling mud.

Figure 12 This test was a misrun caused by a packer seat failure as the well was opened for the initial flow.
 Figure 12

Figure 13 This figure represents a successful test of a gas reservoir.

 Figure 13

The initial flow period indicates that the test was run with a liquid cushion that was recovered very quickly.
The pressure at the start of the final flow period was less than at the end of the initial flow period,
indicating gas production. The reservoir cleaned up and flow stabilized during the main flow period as is
evidenced by the steady increase and stabilization of the flowing pressure. Indicated permeability is very
high.

Figure 14 This is a successful test of an oil-producing zone.

 Figure 14

The test was run with a nitrogen cushion. This is apparent from the main flow period where the pressure
shows a reduction followed by liquid buildup in the test string. The lower pressure recorded during the final
shut-in may indicate that the reservoir has been depleted.

Figure 15 This figure indicates that the test was a partial misrun.
 Figure 15

The initial flow and shut-in are valid but communication with the annulus occurred at the start of the final
shut-in. This makes the final shut-in pressure data invalid.

Figure 16 This is the pressure chart from a test run in an offshore well.
 Figure 16

The chart indicates a successful gas test. This is indicated by the lower flowing pressure at the start of the
main flow. During the main flow period, the water cushion was recovered very quickly. The increasing
flow pressure followed by a stabilization indicates that the zone was "cleaning-up." Shut-ins indicate good
permeability. An interesting occurrence is evident prior to the initial flow period. The pressure response
indicates an injection into the reservoir followed by a return to hydrostatic. This is a valid response, given
that the zone was perforated before the test string was run. The test string was run in, set, then lifted for a
space-out before final setting for the test. The injection pressure profile corresponds to the initial "sting"
into the packer and indicates that the zone is permeable. The result of this operation will be to invade the
reservoir with mud filtrate.

After the recorders have been examined qualitatively and it is apparent that the test was successful, one
recorder is chosen for analysis purposes using the techniques presented in this module. The recorder closest
to the perforations should be chosen for analysis.