USMS

023575

Slug Test Method in Pressure-Sensitive Reservoirs

Jack Dvorkin, Stanford U.; J.D Walls, Rock Physics
Assocs.; Amos Nur, Stanford U.

Copyright

I'lV

Society of Petroleum Engineers

This manuscript was provided to the Society of Petroleum Engineers for distribution
and possible publication in an SPE journal. The material is subject to correction
by the author(s). Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words. Write SPE Book Order Dept., Library Technician, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.

SPE

JUL 1 5 1991
SPE

UNSOLICITED

Technical Publications

Slug Test Method in Pressure

Sensitive Reservoirs
Jack Dvorkin, Stanford D., Joel D. Walls, SPE,
and Amos N ur, Stanford D.

SUMMARY
We present a methodology for the estimation of the hydrologic properties of /
highly pressure sensitive reservoirs based on the results of slug tests. These
properties include a permeability-pore pressure parameter, =

t ;;, as well

as the product of a reference permeability and formation thickness koH.

We include the skin effect into consideration using the concept of effective
wellbore radius. We show that the results of the traditional interpretation of
a slug test data in a pressure sensitive reservoir may vary with varying initial
pressure in a wellbore.

Introduction
A slug test is a simple and economical means of evaluating hydrologic properties of a reservoir at a point source such as an injection or production well.
The name derives from the removal or addition of a "slug" of water and the

2357'

SPE

2J57'

resulting well level change over time. Slug tests were first used to evaluate
water wells

and were later adapted for drill stem testing of oil wells

1,2

3.

The effect of skin damage was introduced to the slug test analysis by Ramey,
et.al.

4.

Current slug test methodology 4,5 has been developed under the assumption that the reservoir has a constant permeability during the test. However,
coal has been shown to exhibit strong sensitivity of fluid permeability to net
pressure changes

7.

These results reveal that permeability of coal is 10 to .

100 times more sensitive to net stress than tight gas sands. Other evidence
of this effect is illustrated by well tests in coal beds of the Northeast Blanco
Unit 403

8.

Permeability measured in the Basal Zone during an injection test

was 17 times higher than in the same zone during a production test.

,To address these problems, we have developed a mathematical solution to

the pressure dependent slug test problem and will show that the solution can
be applied to improve interpretation of well test data from coalbed methane
and other pressure sensitive formations. Previous examples of well test solutions involving non-linear gas flow have been presented by AI-Hussainy et.al.
9,

Evers and Soeiinah

Yilmaz et.al.
parameter I =

12

10,

and Ostensen

11.

However, our method follows

who introduced a new term, the permeability-pore pressure

t;;.

Using this method, we have presented a new set of type

2

SPE

curves which can be used to estimate kH, skin, and /.

Filtration in Pressure Compliant Medium

To derive the equation for single-phase liquid filtration we combine Darcy's
law with the continuity equation. The equation of mass conservation is:

8(p<p) + 8(pqx) + 8(pqy) + 8(pqz) = 0,

8t
8x
8y
8z

(1)

where t is time; x, y and z are spatial coordinates; p is fluid density; <p is

formation porosity; qx, qy and qz are volumetric flow rates through unit area
in x, y and z directions.
The relations between flow rates and pressure gradient are gIVen by
Darcy's law:

qx

k8P

= ---,
J.l 8x

k8P
q = ---, qz
y
J.l 8y

k8P

= ---,
J.l 8z

(2)

where P is pore pressure; k is formation permeability; J.l is fluid viscosity.

Substituting (2) into (1) we obtain:

We introduce the following terms 12:

a. fluid compressibility

23575

ifE 23575

b. pore-volume compressibility

c. permeability-pressure parameter

1 dk
1= kdP'
We assume that the permeability-pressure parameter is constant for the
range of pressure change under consideration

This implies an exponential .

12.

form for permeability-pore pressure relation:

k = ko exp[,(P - Po)],
where ko is the permeability at a certain characteristic (reference) pressure Po.
This relation is supported by experimental data

13

and

14.

The exponential

form for permeability-pressure dependence was also employed by Evers and

Soeiinah

10.

These parameters, if used to express fluid density p, porosity </>, and

permeability k through pressure P, lead to the following form of equation

(3):

For one-dimensional plane filtration this equation is:

11</>(f3m + f3i )f)P _ a P

k

at - ax 2
4

(f3
i

+I

)( ap)2

ax .

SPE

For radial filtration we have:

~ 8P

IUP(Pm + PI) 8P _ 8 P
. k
8t - 8r 2

+ r 8r +

(,8
I

+I

)(8P)2

8r .

(4)

Slug Test
A slug test involves the injection or withdrawal of a slug (certain amount)
of water into or from a well. Pressure at the wellbore bottomhole is equal to
the hydrostatic pressure of the fluid column in the wellbore:

Pr=R = pgL,
where L is the fluid level in the wellbore (Fig. 1); R is the wellbore external
radius; 9 is the gravity constant. The fluid flow rate in the wellbore Q is
related to Las:

where R 1 is the wellbore internal radius. Using Darcy's law we can express
flow rate Q through pressure gradient Pr at the bottomhole:

at r

= R,

where H is the thickness of the formation (Fig. 1); lower case

indexes t and r denote partial derivatives. Combining these equations we

can relate Pt and Pr at the bottomhole:
P, t -

2pgHRk P.
J.l

R2
1

(5)

23575

SPE

23575

at r = R.
To model a slug test we must solve equation (4) with boundary condition

at r

00

and boundary condition (5) at r

= R.

Here P oo is the pressure

at infinity. An initial condition for pressure distribution in the reservoir can

be, for example, P = P00 at t = 0 for R < r <
pressure at the bottomhole is: P

= Pi

at r

00.

An initial condition for

= Rand t = 0,

where Pi is the

initial hydrostatic pressure. The injection of the fluid into the formation will
occur if Pi > Poo The condition Pi < P oo means the withdrawal of a slug.

Traditional Normalization
In this section we give a solution to the problem of fluid filtration through
a pressure-compliant reservoir using the traditional approach to the normalization of equations: dimensionless pressure is introduced as a ratio of actual
pressure to a certain characteristic pressure. We show that the characteristics
of pressure propagation through a pressure-compliant reservoir are strongly
affected by the pressure at the reservoir boundary. The results of a slug test
may vary significantly depending on the initial fluid level in a wellbore.

SPE

Normalized Equation
Symbols

P and

f will be used below to denote the normalized pressure and

coordinate.
Normalized variables are:

P = P/Po; f
where

= r/R; t = TT,

is normalized time; T = R 2 /ao;

ao =

a(Po). Parameter a is:

_
k
a(P) = /l<P(f3m + f3f) .
Equation (4) has the following normalized form:
(6)

where

a(P)

= a/ao;

b(P)

= (f3f + ,)Poa(P).

Boundary condition (5) becomes:

(7)
where
J{

=2pg~k(P)(~?
ao/l

R1

The normalized boundary condition at infinity and the normalized initial

condition at f = 1 are: P = Pool Po at f =
T

= O.

00,

and P = Pi! Po at f = 1 and

2357 5.

SPE

Linearizing Equation
To linearize a non-linear equation (6) we introduce a function F(P):

(8)

F(P) = exp(AP),
where A = ({3f

+ /,)Po.

This approach has been used to describe the flow

of real gases through porous media

sensitive reservoirs

and to model the filtration in stress-

10,11.

Expressing partial derivatives of

P through

partial derivatives of F we

can transform equation (6) to the following one:

Fr

= a(P) (Frr + Fr/f).

(9)

To express normalized pressure P through function F we will use the formula:

P=

(In F) / A. The boundary and initial conditions for function F can be

obtained from conditions for

P using formula (8).

For example, the boundary

condition at f = 1 has the following form: Fr = K Fr.

The linearization of equation (6) is important for the successful implementation of an implicit numerical scheme: the non-linear term makes this
scheme highly unstable.

23575

SPE

Numerical Solution - Spatial Pressure Distribution - Slug Test

To solve equation (9) we employed an implicit numerical scheme (the CrankNicolson method). In our computations we assumed that Poo = 0, so that
the pressure is counted from its level at infinite distance from the wellbore.
The spatial distribution of pressure in a pressure compliant reservoir is
given in Fig. 2 for different values of parameter ,. This example shows a
plane filtration of water in an infinite half-space with constant pressure kept
at the left boundary. Different curves in every plot correspond to different
time moments. The results indicate that pressure propagation through the
reservoir becomes "piston-like" as , increases.
The numerical modeling of a pressure drawdown in a pressure-compliant
reservoir during a slug test was performed for dIfferent levels of initial pressure
in a wellbore. Properties of the reservoir as well as wellbore geometry and
fluid properties were kept unchanged. The reference pressure was Po

=P =
00

1 M Pa; parameter, was 10- 7 Pa- 1 The initial pressure Pi was 2, 7, Ii

and 21 M Pa. Pressure at the bottomhole was related to the initial pressure
(Fig. 3).
This example shows that drawdown curves are different when initial pressure changes. Thus, if the traditional method

is used, the hydrologic prop-

erties of the same reservoir will be found to be different in different experi9

2357;

SPE

ments.

Proposed Method of Normalization

In this section we will introduce dimensionless variables for the slug test
problem in a different way. To model a one-dimensional radial filtration in a
pressure-compliant reservoir we use equation (4):

Wp((3m

+ (31) 8P

~ 8P
8r

_ 8 P
8t - 8r 2

+r

((3
1

+,

)(8P)2
8r

A slug test is described by the following boundary and initial conditions:

D

rt -

2pgHRk
2

p.R}

rr

at r = R; P = P00 at r = 00; P = P00 at t = 0 for R < r < 00; P = Pi at

r = Rand t = O. Permeability is related to pore pressure as:

k = k oexph'(P - Po)],
where Po is a reference pressure.

Assumptions and Estimates

Assuming that permeability is related to porosity by Kozeny's equation we
conclude that k is proportional to (p3, and 4> is proportional to P/3. Thus,
we can relate porosity and pore pressure:

10

23575

SPE

where <Po is porosity at P = Po. This equation leads to the following expression for pore-volume compressibility:
1 d<p

13m = 4> dP = ,/3.

Fluid compressibility is:

1 dp

131:- pdP

1
=

Pe5'

where Co is the velocity of sound. For water

131 = 0.444.10- 9 Pa- 1 .

For highly compliant reservoirs, has the order of 10- 7 to 10-6 Pa- 1
Thus, for the cases of interest, we have the following estimates:

131

13m

131

7.

and

Using these estimates we can transform the equation of radial

filtration to the following form:

(10)
For convenience we assume that pressure is measured from the initial
reservoir pressure P00. It means that P00 =

o.

We also assume that the

reference pressure Po = 0 so that

where ko and <Po are permeability and porosity at the initial reservoir conditions.

11

23575

seE 23575

New Function - Normalization

We introduce a dimensionless function F(P):

F(P) = expbP).
It is necessary to point out that here P is actual non-normalized pressure.
This approach (exponential normalization) differs from the traditional linear normalization of pressure. This function is related to permeability and
porosity as follows:

Coordinate r and time t are normalized in a traditional way:

2

where x and

J-lR </>0
3 ko

= xR; t = T---"

are normalized coordinate and time.

Substituting function F(P) and normalized variables into equation (10)

we obtain:

(11)
Boundary conditions are: Fr = CIFFx at x .= 1; F = 1 at x =
conditions are: F = 1 at 1 < x <

00;

F = C2 at x = 1 for

00.

Initial

= O. In these

expressions we introduced two dimensionless parameters:

(12)

12

SPE

Evaluating Hydrologic Properties

Two constants C1 and C2 define the shape of a drawdown curve F

= F( T).

Using the fact that P = In F / "y, we will be able to find a match between a
given pressure drawdown curve P = P(t) and one of the curves that depend
on C 1 and C2 If C1 is known, parameter

"y

can be found as:

where Pi is the initial pressure for the actual slug test.

Now the product H </>0 can be calculated using the value of constant C1 :
3 R2 1

H</>o = CI -2 R~-'
pg
"y
Finally, if

Tm

is the point of a close match corresponding to physical

time t m , we can find the ratio </>0/ ko:

From these equations we can easily find the product koH:

(13)

Type Curves
As we mentioned before, the hydrological properties of a pressure-compliant
reservoir can be evaluated provided that a match between an observed pres-

13

2357 5

SPE

sure drawdown curve and one of computed curves is found. To create a type
curve chart we calculated function In(F)1 In(C2 )

PI Pi versus argument

In T for different constants C1 and C2

Showing the dependence of a slug test curve on two parameters C 1 and C2
requires a number of graphs or one complicated graph for computed pressure
drawdown curves. This fact introduces some difficulties and uncertainties in
a visual curve matchin~procedure. Thus, an accurate numerical matching
technique has to be developed.
In this paper we offer an approximate matching technique. Our approach
is based on the observation that at the level P/ Pi = 0.1 the product C 1 T is
approximately constant for different C1 and same C2 in a wide interval of C1
from 10-4 to 10- 2 (Fig. 4).
This observation allows us to find a matching curve on a type curve chart
plotted for constant C 1 and different C2 (Fig. 4). When C2 is found, we can
calculate the product C 1 T m at P/ Pi = 0.1 and find a corresponding real time
match point t m . Then koH can be calculated from (13). This approximate
method gives an estimate for koH with accuracy within 20% range.
It is necessary to mention that if C2 < 1, an initial pressure Pi is negative

and, thus, pressure buildup in a wellbore occurs. Yet, in this case we will also
observe a PI Pi drawdown because actual pressure (that is negative relative

14

2357;

SPE 23575

to the initial reservoir pressure) is related to negative Pi-

Skin Effect
To treat the skin effect we will follow
wellbore radius

using the concept of "effective"

15_

For a pressure compliant reservoir the relation between flow rate Q and
pressure gradient Pr is:

(14)
Here we used the following relations:

Resolving equation (14) we can find that for steady flow, .6.F between r = rl
and r

= r2 is:

where F1 corresponds to rl and F2 corresponds to

r2-

We introduce a skin factor s as follows:

(15)

where .6.Fs is .6.F at the wellbore interface.

15

SPE

We define the effective wellbore radius R e as that which makes the calculated

~F

in a reservoir without skin effect equal to that in an actual reservoir

with skin. Thus, from (15):

s = In R

Re

= Rexp( -s).

(16)

Now we can notice that equation (13) does not include parameter / and
actual external wellbore radius R. It means that the knowledge of R is not
required in this case and we can treat the problem including skin effect

4.

This approach means that the constant C 1 in (12) is actually expressed

as follows:

where the effective radius Re is defined in (15). Now we can find Re :

3C1
2pg H / </>0

R e = R1

If the information about the actual wellbore radius R is available, we can

find a skin factor s from (16).

Application of the Method

During the slug test of combined Mary Lee and Blue Creek seam (coal thickness 2.06 m) water was slugged to surface from its initial level 54 m. This
means that Pi = -O.54M Pa. The normalized pressure drawdown curve is
16

2357'

SPE

given in Fig. 6. Applying this curve to the type curve chart in Fig. 5 we can
find a match at C 2

::::::

0.3. Thus, 1'=2.23 . 10- 6 Real time for the matching

point at PjPi =O.l is approximately 2.1 .105 s; dimensionless time

T ::::::

2100.

Thus, from (13) koH :::::: 5Ri . 10-12 ; ko :::::: 2.43Ri 10- 12
The interpretation of observed pressure change curve in the example gave
realistic estimates of parameters I' and koH. The value I' can be used to
predict reservoir performance with pressure depletion.
It is important to mention that the pressure change curve presented in

Fig. 6 could be also interpreted by means of the traditional method

4.

Our

method must be used if there is a difference in permeability values obtained

with different initial pressures in the same reservoir. We believe this effect
may be practically important in coalbed methane wells tested by alternately
injecting and withdrawing fluid.

Conclusions
A new methodology for the estimation of the hydrologic properties of highly
pressure sensitive reservoirs based on the results of slug tests is developed.
These properties include a permeability-pore pressure parameter I' =

t;; as

well as the product of a reference permeability and formation thickness koH.

We show that a slug test dynamics depends on two dimensionless parameters

17

2J 57 5

SPE

2357 5

C 1 and C2 An approximate technique of matching an observed pressure

drawdown curve with computed type curves is offered. The interpretation
of observed pressure change curve in the example gave realistic estimates of
parameters, and koH. We include the skin effect into consideration using
the concept of effective wellbore radius. We show that the results of the
traditional interpretation of a slug test data in a pressure sensitive reservoir
may vary with varying initial pressure in a wellbore.

Nomenclature
Co- sound velocity in fluid;

C1 , C2

dimensionless parameters, eq. (12);

F(P) - "pseudopressure", eq..(8);

9 - gravity acceleration;

H - formation thickness;

k - formation permeability;
ko - reference permeability;

L - fluid level in a wellbore;

P,

P - pore pressure;

Po - reference pore pressure;

P00

initial reservoir pressure;

18

seE 2357 S

Pi - initial pressure at the bottomhole;

Q - flow rate in a wellbore;

qx, %" qz, - filtration flow rates;

R - wellbore external radius;

R 1 - wellbore internal radius;

Re

wellbore effective radius;

s - skin factor, eq. (15);

t - time;
tm

real time at a matching point;

x, y, z - spatial coordinates;

(31 - fluid compressibility;

(3m - pore- volume compressibility;
I - permeability-pressure parameter;
J.l - fluid viscosity;

p - fluid density;
T -

normalized time;

Tm -

dimensionless time at a matching point;

<P - formation porosity;

<Po - reference formation porosity.

All parameters are expressed in SI metric system.

19

seE 2357 5

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their appreciation to GRI and Taurus Exploration for providing the slug test data used here. We also thank Dr.
H.J.Ramey for his review and helpful suggestions with regard to slug test
data interpretation.

References.
1. Ferris, J .G. and Knowles, D.B.: "The slug test for estimating transmissi-

bility," USGS Ground Water Note 26, (1954) 1-7.

2. Maier, L.F.: "DST interpretation calculations for water reservoi~s." Halliburton Services Ltd. Report, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (1970).
3. Kohlhaas, C.A.: "A method for analyzing pressures measured during
drillstem test flow periods," J. Petro Tech., v.24 (October), (1972) 12781282.
4. Ramey, H.J., Jr., Agarwal, R.G., and Martin, I.: "Analysis of 'Slug Test'
or DST flow period data," J. Can. Petr. Tech., v.13, no 3 (July-Sept.),
(1975) 37-47.
5. Koenig, R.A. and Schraufnagel, R.A.: "Application of the slug test in
coalbed methane testing," Coalbed Methane Symp., Tuscaloosa, AL (1987).

20

seE

6. Rushing, J.A., Blasingame, T.A., Poe, B.D., Jr., Brimhall, R.M., and
Lee, W.J.: "Analysis of slug test data from hydraulically fractured coalbed
methane wells," SPE 21492, Gas Technology Symp., Jan. 22-24, (1991).
7. Koenig, R.A.: "Application of hydrology to evaluation of coalbed methane
reservoirs," Gas Research Institute, Topical Report on Contract 5087-2141489, (1989) 114.
8. Mavor, M.J., Britton, R.N., Close, T.M., Erwin, T.M., Logan, T.L., and
Marshall, R.B.: "Evaluation of the Cooperative Research Area, Northeast
Blanco Unit," GRI Topical Report GRI-90/0041 (1989).
9. AI-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J, Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: "The flow of real
gases through porous media," J. Petro Tech., v.18 (May), (1966) 624-636.
10. Evers, J.F., and Soeiinah, E.: "Transient tests and long-range performancein stress-sensitive gas reservoirs," J. Petro Tech., v.29 (August), (1977)
1025-1030.
11. Ostensen, R.W.: "The effect of stress-dependent permeability on gas
production and well testing," SPE Formation Evaluation, v.1, no 3 (June),
(1986) 227-235.
12. Yilmaz, 0., Nur, A., and Nolen-Hoeksema, R.: "Pore pressure fronts in
fractured and compliant rocks," submitted to "Geophysics" (1990).

21

23575

SPE 23575

13. Thomas, R.D., and Ward, D.S., "Effect of overburden pressure and water
saturation on gas permeability of tight sandstone cores," J. Petro Tech., v.24
(February), (1972) 120-124.
14. Walls, J., Nur, A., and Bourbie, T.: "Effect of pressure and partial water
saturation on gas permeability in tight sands: experimental results," J. Petro
Tech., v.34 (April), (1982) 930-936.
15. Matthews, C.S., and Russel, D.G.: "Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in
Wells," New York, Dallas, SPE of AIME, (1967) 167.

22

SPE

FIGURE CAPTIONS

FIGURE 1. Slug test in a wellbore.

FIGURE 2. Spatial pressure distribution in a pressure-compliant reservoir:

plane filtration in a half-space with constant pressure kept at the left boundary; different curves at each plot correspond to different time moments.

FIGURE 3. Pressure drawdown curves in the same reservoir for different

initial pressure.

FIGURE 4. PjPi drawdown curves for C2

=4

and C1

= 0.01,0.001

and

0.0001 (from left to right).

FIGURE 5.

Type curve chart for C1 = 0.01 and C2 increasing from

0.000625 to 32 (C 2=32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.7, 1.5, 1.3, 1.1, 0.9, 0.7, 0.5, 0.25,
0.125, 0.0025, 0.00125 and 0.000625 from left to right).

23

2'575

SPE 23575

FIGURE 6. P / Pi dropdown curve during the slug test of combined Mary

Lee and Blue Creek seam.

24

SPE

23575

R
...
Fluid

level

Formation

FIGURE 1. Slug test in a wellbore.

SPE 23575

..,=710-1 I/Pa

Distance

..,=110-6

Distance

Distance

l/Pa

..,=21O-6 1/Pa

Distance

FIGURE 2. Spatial pressure distribution in a pressure-compliant reservoir:

plane filtration in a half-space with constant pressure kept at the left boundary; different curves at each plot correspond to different time moments.

SPE

2357;

l'i, MPa

I
. I

Lnr
8

12

FIGURE 3. Pressure drawdown curves in the same reservoir for different

initial pressure.

SPE 23575

0.14
I

1\

0.12
I

0.1

0.08
1\
I

,
1\

0.06
rT

"
1\

"

0.04
1

I"

,,",

0.02
7

'"

"

l't.

Lnr

10

11

12

FIGURE 4. P/Pi drawdown curves for O2 = 4 and 0 1 = 0.01,0.001 and

0.0001 (from left to right).

13

'"

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

. 6
Lnr

FIGURE 5. Type curve chart for C1 = 0.01 and C2 increasing from

0.000625 to 32 (C2=32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.7, 1.5, 1.3, 1.1, 0.9, 0.7, 0.5, 0.25,
. 0.125, 0.0025, 0.00125 and 0.000625 from left ~o right).

SPE 23575

\,

'\

r\

P/Pi

1\

\
004

1\

-2

Lnt

FIGURE 6. P/ Pi drop down curve during the slug test of combined Mary
Lee and Blue Creek seam.