SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 1984

IMPORTANCE OF BOTTOM-HOLE FLOW B

MONITORING DURING TRANSIENT PRESSURE TESTING

by

Mohamed A. Awad and Jean Tergiman

Schlumberger Middle East, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.

ABSTRACT

The analysis of transient pressure data collected during conventional

well testing may lead to erroneous results. This is in many cases due
to the absence of the downhole flow performance picture during the
test.

This paper presents evidence from actual field tests performed in the
Middle East that the simultaneous measurements of pressure, rate,
density and temperature performed downhole by the Production Logging
Tool (PLT)*, are not only needed to reduce testing time by
incorporating the measured afterflow into the analysis, but also needed
to do the proper interpretation of test data. The paper presents
several interesting test examples, that would have been misinterpreted
completely if the downhole flow monitoring was not performed during
these tests. The theory for using these simultaneous PLT* measurements
is reviewed briefly in connection with this part of the paper.

The paper also shows a new use of the simultaneous PLT measurement of
pressure, rate and temperature to derive deliverability and turbulence
parameters of gas wells, without performing one of the conventional
deliverability multi-rate testing methods. This new approach uses the
PLT measured afterflow following the closing of the well at surface as a
variable rate schedule, from which deliverability and turbulence
parameters could be calculated. Results obtained from this approach
are compared to those obtained from conventional isochronal gas well
testing on several Middle East gas wells. The clear advantage of the
method is reducing gas well testing time, however, it is applicable
only for dry gas reservoirs.

The production logging and testing data given in the paper should be
very useful to extend the afterflow analysis to gas wells. Although the
examples given in this paper are from the Middle East, it is believed
that the new ideas presented are also applicable elsewhere.

* Mark of Schlumberger

-1-
SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 1984

INTRODUCTION

Well testing may be definedl as the type of testing which consists of

generating and measuring pressure variations with time in a well, following
flow rate change at this well. The recorded pressureltime data is
subsequently used to estimate certain important reservoir and well
parameters. These include : well productivity/infectivity, reservoir
pressure, permeability, well-bore damage and improvement effects as well as
reservoir and fluid discontinuities.

In a classtcal well test, the flow rate is monitored at surface while

pressure is measured down-hole using a pressure gauge. The pressure
time data is then analyzed assuming that the surface flow rate schedule
is representative of the down-hole conditions apart from fIuid
conversion and afterflow considerations. The interpretation models2
are implicitly assumed valid.

It has been noticed from many actual field tests that the analysis of only
pressure-time data gathered during conventional well testing may lead to
erroneous results; due to the absence of the down-hole flow performance
picture during these tests. This absence normally leads to overlooking
serious violations of the basic assumptions inherent to the analysis models
and hence to test data misinterpretation.

A well test may also be performed with the Production Logging Tool
(PLT), which provides simultaneous down-hole measurements of pressure,
flow rate, temperature and density.

The following sections of this paper show the importance of down-hole

flow monitoring for: reducing testing time for wells characterized with
long duration afterflow, ensuring proper interpretation of test data
and deriving deliverability and- turbulence parameters of gas wells from
a single rate drawdown followed by a build-up.

A. REDUCED TESTING TIME BY INCORPORATING MEASURED AFTERFLOW

Al. BACKGROL~D

When a well is closed-in at surface for a pressure build-up (PBU), the sand
face flow rate does not go to zero immediately, the formation continues to
produce for sometime, and the additional production is accommodated by the
compression of the well-bore fluids. This phenomenon is called afterflow
or well-bore storage effect. Other types of afterflow behaviour are also
known.

Early time test data is affected by afterflow, and the semi-logarithmic

straight lines that are used to determine reservoir and well parameters
could only be defined when this afterflow becomes negligible.

-2-
 SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 1984

Rules to estimate the start of the correct straight line have been
developed, such as the famous 1$ log cycle rule.

A plot of LogAp versus Log At for a PBU which is affected by afterflow,

will show a unit slope line through the early time data points. The
correct semi-log straight line will start at approximately 1% log cycles
from the end of the unit slope line.

In extreme cases for tight or severely damaged reservoirs, afterflow may be

so long such that too long (sometimes impractical) shut-in times will be
_needed to reach the correct semi-log line.

Type-curve matching could also be used for the interpretation of test data.
This approach suffers from the non-uniqueness problem ; where the same set
of data could be matched to several models giving widely different
reservoir and well parameters.

The simultaneous measurement of the PLT made it possible to measure

downhole afterflow following rate changes at surface. The measured
afterflow could then be incorporated into the analysis equations using the
principle of superposition. Thus, early time data points could be used to
define the semi-log straight line. This application should reduce testing
time, especially for wells characterized with long duration afterflow.

AZ. TEST PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS

The application of this technique to perform a PBU test calls for the PLT
to be positioned above the top perforations during the last part of the
drawdown and through to the end of the shut-in period. Pressure, spinner
(rate), temperature and gradiomanometer (density) are recorded
simultaneously versus time. The collected data may be analyzed in real
time to make the full use of testing a well this way. Figure-1 shows how
the PLT is positioned in the well during a test.

PBU analysis incorporating measured afterflow has been in ro uc

5, %, + recently
and several papers have been presented on the subject. Stewart
et-a13 gave an excellent coverage of the analysis method.

To analyze a PBU test, and instead of plotting shut-in pressures:

against Log At , MDH6- or against

tp + At
log ~t Horner7,

-3-
SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 1984

Stewart et-a13 showed that a plot of :

PW8 Pwf (Pressure Function)

lqd
versus :
F(At) (Time Function)
lqd
should give a straight line, where F(41 t) is the superposition time
function incorporating the measured afterflow :

(1)
Permeability andskin factor are calculated from the slope and intercept of
this line as in the conventional interpretation. Integral (1) is normally
approximated ly~a summation term as given by references 3 and 8.

For the purpose of this paper let us call the pressure and time functions
defined abovezlp(q,t) and F(q,t) respectively. We will also call the
resulting ~lot Incorporating the Measured ~fterflow (PIMA).

A3. EXAMPLES A & B

Figures 2 and 3 show the analysis plots for 2 PBU tests from the Middle
East, where downhole flow monitoring took place during the testing.

The measured afterflow in Well A lasted for about 6 minutes. MDH line may
be defined after one hour of shut-in time, while the line obtained from the
afterflow analysis (PIMA) is reached after only one minute. In Well-B,
afterflow lasted for two minutes, and the advantages of incorporating
afterflow in the PBU analysis over the conventional MDH approach are also
evident.

Very early time data points in Figures 2 and 3 are not on the defined PIMA
line. This may be reflecting a heterogeneous reservoir nature.

B. PROPER TEST INTERPRETATION

Bottom-hole flow monitoring during transient pressure testing has been

found very important to ensure proper interpretation of the pressure/time
data. Cases of crossflow, phase segregation and non-uniform layer
pressures are typical examples. Two actual PBU tests from the Middle East
are given below to demonstrate this fact.

-4-
 SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 1984

B
B1. EXAMPLE C

Well-C was producing at a down-hole rate of 10175 RBPD, when it was closed
in for a PBU. MDH plot for the collected pressure/time data is shown on
Figure -4. This test was performed using the PLT, and the spinner
performance during the build-up portion of the test is given on Figure -5.
In fact, the perforated interval of this well never stopped production ;
the rate declined from 8.93 rps (corresponding to 10,175 RBPD) to 1.1 rps
(corresponding to 1250 RBPD) in 6 minutes and continued at the later value
for the rest of the build-up which lasted for approximately one hour. This
continued production is thought to be a crossflow to some upper formation
through a casing leak a few thousand feet above the perforated zone.

It is evident that erroneous results would have been obtained if the

pressure build-up data of well-C had been interpreted assuming shut-in
conditions following closing the well at surface. Figure -6 shows both the
conventional MDH plot and the plot incorporating the measured down-hole
flow rate (PIMA). The measured rate schedule is also presented on the same
figure. An excellent PIMA straight line is obtained throughout the whole
test, which provides the correct permeability, skin, and reservoir
pressure. Table -1 gives the test data of well-C PBU, including the
calculated PIMA time and pressure functions.

B2. EXAMPLE D

Well-D is another oil producer from the Middle East. The well was flowing
at a downhole rate of 8900 RBPD prior to its shut-in for a PBU. Figure -7
shows the MDH plot for this test. A line could be fitted through the last
portion of the data giving permeability, skin and reservoir pressure.

A flowmeter pass after 18 hours of PBU revealed that a crossflow of about

1100 RBPD from interval 10850 - 10844 feet to interval 10814 - 10819 feet,
was still active at the end of the shut-in period. Figure -8 shows the
crossflow in this well.

This is an example of a layered reservoir with non-uniform pressure

distribution. Well-D test data could only be interpreted properly in terms
of permeability, skin and pressure of individual layers, using adequate
single well model that can handle non-uniform pressures and crossflow
across the well-bore. Without downhole monitoring in well-D, PBU
interpretation would have been done without revealing the layered reservoir
nature.

The importance of down-hole flow monitoring for proper test interpretation

of Wells C and D need not to be overemphasised.

-5-
SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 1984

C. SHORT DURATION GAS WELL DELIVERABILITY TESTING

Cl. BACKGROUND

The purpose of gas well deliverability tests is to predict the flow rate
decline with reservoir depletion. Some kind of a multi-rate test is
normally performed to calculate the deliverability of a gas well ; the
isochronal or modified isochronal tests are typical ones.

A deliverability test normally defines a quadratic form of the flow equation

- Forchheimer equation. This equation is also called the Laminar- inertial
turbulent (LIT) equation. It can be expressed in this form :

A(XP) = aq,= + bq:c (2)

where : the function A (XP) could be pressure, or pressure squared or

pseudo pressure, a q is the pressure drop due to laminar flow and well
effects and bq~c isst%e pressure drop due to interial - turbulent - flow
effects.

A plot of A(xp) / q should result in a straight line whose

slope is (b) and int$~ce~trs~~?a5c. In practice, b is determined from the
non-stabilized points of the isochronal test, while (a) is equal to the
intercept at qsc = O of a line with slope (b) passing through the
stabilized point. This will be shown in example E and more details on the
subject can be found in reference 9.

The simultaneous PLT measurement- of pressure, rate, density and temperature

presents a new method for deriving deliverability and turbulence parameters
of gas wells ; without performing one of the conventional multi-rate tests.

C2. THE NEW APPROACH

This new approach requires that the well is produced at a relatively high
rate for a period of time long enough to reach stabilization (this
corresponds to the extended flow period in an isochronal test). The well
is then shut in for build up. The flow rate prior to shut-in is monitored
at surface, and the PLT is used throughout the test to monitor downhole
pressure, spinner (rate), temperature and density.

The measured afterflow following closing of the well at the surface is

used, provided it lasts for a few minutes,- as a variable rate schedule,
from which deliverability and turbulence parameters could be calculated.
In fact pairs ofAp/q and q are taken such that

A Pi = Pwsi - Pwf and qf = % - qwsi

-6-
 SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 19S4

B
Figure -9 shows how the points are chosen. When the afterflow stops, ie.
~ws i . 0, q will be equal to q while P% keeps increasing as the well
pressure build% up until we eventually reach the stabilized point. In
practice the stabilized point is taken as the last point in the drawdown
preceding closing the well for build-up.

The rate ~si in standard cubic feet per day is calculated using spinner,
temperature and pressure readings at each point, with incorporating surface
measurement of the rate qo. A conversion factor C is calculated such that:

go Bgo
c= (Smv)o
(3)

where Bg is defined as :

Bgo = 0.0283~ (4)

10

The rate qwsi will be :

c (smv)w,~
qw(li= ~
(5)
gwai
10
Alternatively the rate at standard conditions could be obtained
qwsi
using spinner, friction corrected gradionometer reading (density) along
with the rate q. and standard conditions gas density.

in this case :

qO(splN)w~iPWOi
!lwei= (0)
WWO(PO)

C3. EXAMPLE E

The new approach has been applied to several actual gas well tests from the
Middle East. The results have been compared to those obtained from modified
isochronal tests. The following example demonstrates the good agreement
obtained.

Figure -10 shows a modified isochronal test performed for well-E. The
measured afterflow associated with the last build up in figure -10 is shown
on figure -11. The well was flowed at 11.2, 19.95, 28.9 MMCFpD for 4
hourseach with each 2 rates seperated by a build up for 4 hours. An
extended flow period of 13.32 hours at a rate of 32.2 MMCFPD was performed
following PBU-3 and finally the well was shut in for build up for about 13
hours. The afterflow recorded at the beginning of the last PBU lasted for
about 10 minutes as could be seen on figure -11.

-7-
SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 1984

Table 2 summarizes the modified isochronal test data used to establish the
conventional deliverability line shown on figure -12. Table 3 shows the
data perinent to the deliverability calculations from afterflow data.
Rates shown in this table are calculated using equation (5).

The new approach proposed here resulted. in a non-stabilized deliverability

line giving almost the same slope as the conventional line, the stabilized
point is the same for both approaches. The comparison is shown on figure
-12. & P/q versus q was used here, however the same approach could have
been done using the psuedo real gas function m (p). Conditions during the
test on Well -E were such that using P instaad of m(P) was proper. Data
points start to deviate from the deliverability line when afterflow rate
drops to about 352 of the initial rate q , i.e. when q is 65% of q .
%si
For Well-E example, this point is at qi = 2f MMCFPD. It }s evident thgt
data points will continue to approach a vertical line corresponding to q -
32.2 MMCFPD for Well E. When afterflow reaches zero, all the points w!ll
fall on this line.

C4 . APPROACH VALIDITY

Several gas well tests have confirmed the validity of this approach. These
tests were performed in straight holes. Condensate production was
typically less than 10 BBLS/MMCF and afterflow lasted for about 10 minutes.
The new approach did not give satisfactory results in cases where the
spinner performance was far from perfect; such as in deviated holes
especially for wells characterized with condensate production of more than
20 BBLS/MMCF and short duration after flow of only 1-2 minutes or less.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE NEW APPROACHS

APPLICATION FOR A GIVEN WELL IS FIRST VERIFIED BY COMPARING RESULTS WITH A
CONVENTIONAL TEST AS GIVEN IN EXAMPLE E. SUBSEQUENT TESTS COULD THEN BE
PERFORMED USING THE NEW METHOD.

More tests are being used to compare the conventional method to this new
approach. A gas well model is also being used to study the limitations and
opitimize the application. Findings from this simulation work along with
its application to other fi d examples will be the the subject of a
f!
forthcoming SPE Presentation.

-8-
 SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 1984

CONCLUSIONS B

Bottom - hole flow monitoring during transient pressure testing is very

important for :

1. Reducing testing time for wells characterized with long duration

afterflow.

2. Ensuring proper test data interpretation.

3. Deriving deliverability and turbulence parameters of gas wells from a

single rate test followed by a build up provided the afterflow lasts
for few minutes and the well is producing dry gas.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the operating companies of the Middle East who kindly
released the data presented in this paper. They also would like to thank
Schlumberger Middle East for permission to pu-blish the paper. Special
thanks are also due to J. P. Guerle who supervised the data acquisition of
most of the data presented in the paper.

NOMENCLATURE

At Time since well was shut-in

tp Production time prior to shut-in

P Flowing pressure prior to shut-in at t = O

Wf
P Shut-in pressure
Ws
q(t) Measured down-hole flow rate at time (t)

q. Base Down-hole-flow rate at reference time (normally rate

prior to shut-in)

qd Dimension-less flow rate = q(t)/q

o

qd Derivative of qd with respect to time

r Integral variable for time

Flow rate at time ti

qwsi

-9-
SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 1984

c Conversion factor to calculate standard conditions gas flow

rate.

B Gas formation volume factor

g
SPIN Spinner reading

z Compressibility factor

T Temperature

P Pressure psia

gas density

REFERENCES

1. Earlougher, R.C. Jr., : Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE of AIME

Monograph Volume 5, 1977.

2. Matthews, C.S., and Russell, D.G. : Pressure Build-Up and Flow Tests
in Wells, SPE of AIME Monograph Volume 1, 1967.

3. Stewart, George, Wittman, M.J., and Meunier, Denis : Afterflow

Measurement and Deconvolution in Well Test Analysis, paper SPE 12174
presented at the 58th SPE Annual Fall Meeting in San Francisco, Ca,
October 5-8, 1983.

4. Kucuk , Fikri and Ayestaran, Luis : Analysis of Simultaneaously

Measured Pressure and Sandface Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing,
paper SPE 12177 presented at the 58th SPE Annual Fall Meeting in San
Francisco, Ca, October 5-8,1983.

5. Fetkovich, M.J. and Vienot, M.E. : Rate Normalization of Build-Up

Using Afterflow Data, paper SPE 12179 presented at the 58th SPE Annual
Fall Meeting in San Francisco, Ca, October 5-8, 1983.

6. Miller, C.C., Dyes, A.B., and Hutchinson, C.A., Jr.: The Estimation of
Permeability and Reservoir Pressure from Bottom-Hole Pressure Build-Up
Characteristics, Trans., AIME (1950) 189, 91-104. Also Reprint
Series, No. 9 - Pressure Analysis Methods, SPE of AIME, Dallas (1967)
11-24.

7. Homer, D.R. : Pressure Build-Up in Wells, Proc., Third World Pet.

Cong., The Hague (1951) Sec. II, 503-523. Also Reprint Series, No. 9
- Pressure Analysis Methods, SPE of AIME, Dallas (1967) 25-43.

8. Meunier, Denis, Wittman, M.J. and Stewart, George : Interpretation of

Pressure Build-Up Tests Using In Situ Measurement of Afterflow, paper
SPE 11463 presented at the Middle East Oil Technical Conference of SPE,
Manama, Bahrain, March 14-17, 1983.

-1o-
 SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 1984

9. Energy Resources Conservation Board : Theory and Practice of the B

Testing of Gas Wells, Third Edition, second printing with corrections,
ERCB, 640 - 5th Ave, S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3G4, 1978.

10. Meunier, Denis, - Personal Communication, December, 1983.

11. Abed, A.F., E1-Hadidi, S., and Awad, M.A. : short Duration Gas well
Deliverability Testing Using Simultaneous Downhole Flow and Pressure
Measurements , paper presented for the 59th SPE Annual Fall Meeting,
Houston, Texas, September 16-19, 1984.

. .
I PLT
PRESSURE,RATE,
TEMPERAUEcDENSITY
ARERECORDED
0/
SMJLTANEOUSLY

PERFORATIONS

Figure 1 : Downhole Monitoring of Test Data with the Production

Logging Tool (PLT)

-11-
 TABLE 1 TABLE 3

wELL -C PBU DATA WELL -E AFTESFLOW, PBU & DELIVERABILITY DATA

(3)
At .hrs SPIN, rps P ,psia ~ & ,14WFPD &
m
SPIN,rps LEQA w 4EkQ *0.O
0.0011
17.5
14.73
5240.47
5255.32
254
254.85
0.0
27.18
32.2.4
5.06
38.43
2.94
0.0017 13.51 5264.10 255.02 2.4.94 7.30 3.24
0.0 8.93 2911.83 0.0022 12.52 5272.66 255.16 23.14 9.10 3.54
0.0028 7.64 2916.48 -2.9321 32.2180 0.0028 11.68 5281.23 255.26 21,60 10.64 3.83
0.0056 6.99 2925.26 -2.5393 61.7510 1.0033 10.80 5289.72 255.37 20.00 12.24 4.02
0.0089 6.20 2933.89 -2.4136 72.0425 0.0039 9.98 5298.11 255.58 18.48 13.76 4.19
0.0122 5.65 2942.22 -2.2382 82.6683 0.0045 9.42 5306.25 255.68 17.47 14.71 4.45
0.0167 4.87 2952.44 -2.1204 89.2620 0.0056 8.35 5322.03 255.87 15.51 16.73 4.87
0.0211 4.49 2961.63 -1.9306 100.2078 0.0057 7.30 5336.92 256.04 13.58 18.66 5.17
0.0256 4.07 2969.89 -1.8320 106.7805 0.0078 6.63 5350.93 256.17 12.34 19.90 5.55
0.0311 3.72 2979.23 -1.7467 115.4931 0.0089 6.03 5364.12 256.26 11.24 21.00 5.89
0.0367 3.31 2987.69 -1.6740 120.6007 0.01 5.63 5376.60 256.35 10.51 21.73 6.26
0.0433 2.97 2996.58 -1.5751 127.0869 0.0134 4.67 5410.16 256.60 8.75 23,49 7.22
0.0511 2.s1 3005.40 -1.5070 130.1846 0.0167 3.99 5439.36 256.79 7.50 24.74 8.04
0.0600 2.11 3013.96 -1.4472 133.7495 0.02 3.46 5465.04 256.91 6.52 25.72 8.73
0.0706 2.19 3022.44 -1.2793 146.4955 0.025 2.89 5498.39 257.00 5.47 26.77 9.64
0.0833 1.77 3030.92 -1.2567 148.4353 0.0317 2.37 5535.22 257.06 4.50 27.74 10.62
0.0989 1.75 3039.17 -1.1267 158.3731 0.0422 1.89 5580.67 257.08 3.61 28.63 11.88
0.1189 1.38 3047.50 -1.0363 160.4665 0.0528 1.58 5615.85 2$7.07 3.04 29.20 12.85
i 0.1465 1.27 3055.59 -0.9495 167.5892 0.0695 1.08 5658.62 257.11 2.09 30.15 13.87
0.1800 1.03 3063.63 -0.8748 171.4892 0.0861 0.89 5692.35 257.15 1.72 30.52 14.81
0.2289 1.23 3071.73 -0.7258 185.4267 0.1061 0.72 5725.78 257.14 1.40 30.84 15.74
0.2972 1.11 3079.79 -0.5833 191.8585 0.1372 0.50 5768.03 257.13 0.97 31.27 16.87
0.4039 1.17 3087.85 -0.4126 202.4283 0.1756 0.33 5809.53 257.07 0.65 31.59 18.02
0.5495 1.22 3095.86 -0.2611 213.1495 0.2136 0.00 5843.04 257.08 0.00 32.24 18.69
0.8011 0.8 3103.90 -0.1402 210.9994 0.4494 0.0 5973.07 256.54 0.0 32.24 22.72
1.2333 1.19 3111.29 0.0968 230.2530 0.6572 0.0 6037.81 256.25 0.0 32.24 26.73
1.2950 0.0 6142.46 2S5.74 0.0 32.24 27.98
1.8478 0.0 6190.57 255.40 0.0 32.24 29.47
2.7317 0.0 6238.70 255.15 0.0 32.24 30.96
TASLE 2
3.9211 0.0 6278.74 254.98 0.0 32.24 32.20
4.9694 0.0 6302.77 254.82 0.0 32.24 32.95
6.4121 0.0 6326.78 254.69 0.0 32.24 33.69
WSLL -E MODIFISD ISOCNRONAL TEST DATA 7.6866 0.0 6342.79 254.49 0.0 32.24 34.19
9.3038 0.0 6358.80 254.38 0.0 32.24 34.69
11.3905 0.0 6374.80 254.28 0.0 32.24 35.18
g,lomPD sP2N,rps &!&! 12.7960 6383.54 254.15 0.0 32.24 35.46
26.4
(P*) ::: 6479.75 0.0 32.24 38.43
11.17 5.63 294.73
19.95 10.33 578.45 29.00
30.9 %tabillced point (1) frcm qtution (5) (2) 32.24 - ~i (3)~P - F-5240.47
28.90 15.85 892.86
32.24* 1.7.5 1239.28 38.43

tabilixed point
 SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 1984

I 1 I I 11111 1 t 1 I II 181 I I I I 81 I II I I # 1 11111 I I v 1 111

01 1(

o
0

H
FTERFLOW

PIMA = PBU ANALYSIS

v
o
INCORPORATING MEASURED
AFTERFLOW
o MDH

1
:3 -2 -1 0 1
F(q, t)

Figure 2 : Well - A Build UP Plots

1 I , , 1 , r, m , I I , ,, , , I I , d
o 001 0.01 0.1
At ( HOURS )

F(q, t)

Figure 3 : Well - B Build Up Plots

-13-
SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10.13, 1984

3150

3100

P
2 3050
Y
E
3
kz 3000

2950

10

8
+
+
+
+
+
6 +
+
+
+
*)

4 *+
+
B
*
%
2 ++++
+e
+*++++*++++++ +
++
0 I r I IrTll( I I I ,r141,

o.io
1 0.01 1 10
bt t ;;Rs )

Figure 5 : Well - C Monitored Down-hole Flow

Rate during PBU

- 14 -
 300 I I I 1 1 1 I 10
. 0.001
. 0.01
---- 0-1 1 10
At ( HOURS )

1
270 9

240 I PIMA 8
.-
: 210 7
n 1 \

1
6
u

5
1 an
UI

I
a
o
1204 VI ii!
m
z
-1
$
n
an 90 ii
-3 -1
x
>
z
z
c
60 -2 >
r
m
/
30 . -1
.

0 I I I n o
I 1 I
-3 -2 -1 0 1

F(q, t)
Figure 6 : Wel 1 - C PBU Analysis Incorporating Measured Down-hole Flow Rate Data
TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 1984

2200-

2000-

n
g g
m 8
a.
w 1800- :
u :
a 8
3
co 8
UY
w 1600- 2
K 0
0
0
0
Ooo
1400-

80
00000

o 0 000 Ooooomoooooooooooo
m I 1 11111
1200 1 11911 1 1 I I 18ael v 1 # a #,811 I 1 n 1 # 1Iv
0.001 0.01 0.1 10 100
At( HOURS )

Figure 7 : Well - D Build Up - MDH Plot

CABLE SPEED, (FIMN ) SPINNER, RPS

o 100 200 0 s

:
:
:
: 10800
,
,
1
:
I

:
y Dowhl

,
+ - UP I
t
, [

I
:
1:;

:
:,
,
1 ~ J
PERFCRATION:
i

Figure 8 : Well - D Crossflow During PBU

-16-
 SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 1984

PR: RESERVOIR PRESSIJRE B

---------- ----------- ! -- . . . . ..- --------- --------- -

STABILIZED

w
a
= Pwsi ,----------------- - ----
co
u)
Lu
a
a Pwf ~ . .
9

9 ,
8 *
I *
a :
o .

TfME

1 STABILIZED POINT RATE: q.

qo
**
w
1- :
I8
2
~ qw~l -- --------------+ ---;
~ ,
u. *: I
1
*9 B
# *
# [
a *

to tl
TIME

Figure 9 : Choice of Points for Deliverability Plot

32.2 MMCFPD
13.92 HOURS
28.9
4

19.96
4

11.2
PERFORATE
AC IDIZE-CLEAN 4

PBU 1 BU 2 PBU : PBU 4

L 1
4 4 4 12.78 HOURS

Figure 10 : Well - E Modified Isochronal Test

-17-
SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 1984

15 +

lo-
1 +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
5-

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 10 100
At ( HOURS)
Figure 11 : Well - E MeasuredAfterflowat the Beginningof PBU 4

o 20 40
q, MMCFPD

Figure 12 : Deliverability plot

-18-
 SPWLA TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 10-13, 1984

ABOUT THE AUTHORS B

AWAD TERGIMAN

Mohamed A. Awad is a Senior Staff Reservoir Engineer with Schlumberger

Middle East in Abu Dhabi, where he provides interpretation and marketing
support in the areas of well testing, reservoir simulation and reservoir
engineering. Prior to joining Schlumberger in March 1981, Mr. Awad worked
as a Senior Reservoir Engineer in charge of special studies for QGPC,
Qatar. Mr. Awad also worked as a consulting reservoir engineer with
Williams Brothers Engineering Company in Tulsa, Oklahoma where he performed
reservoir and economic studies for various U.S. and international oil
companies. Mr. Awad taught for one year at the Petroleum Engineering
Department of the University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and was involved in
drilling activities in Egypt for about three years. Mr. Awad received a
B.S. degree in 1971 from Cairo University and an M.S. degree in 1977 from
the University of Tulsa, both in Petroleum Engineering. Mr. Awad is a
member of SPWLA and SPE of AIME.

Jean Tergiman is the Marketing manager with Schlumberger Middle East in Abu
Dhabi. Before joining Schlumberger in December 1972, Mr. Tergiman worked
in the Centre d'etudes nucleaires de Grenoble. Mr. Tergiman graduated
from the University of Grenoble with a degree in Electronics and performed
Business Administration Studies for one year. He is a member of SPWLA and
SPE.

- 19 -