Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 27975

Practical Well Test Interpretation

Louis Mattar, Fekete Assocs. Inc.
SPE Member

Copyright 1994, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the University of Tulsa Centennial Petroleum Engineering Symposium held in Tulsa, OK, U.S.A., 29-31 August 1994.

This paper was selected for pre~entation by an S~E Program Committ~e following review.of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as prese~ted, have not. been reviewed by th~ Soe~e.ty of _Petroleum Engmeers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of th~ Soc1ety of _Pe!roieum En~meer~, 1ts officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Eng meers. Perm1ss1on to copy 1s restncted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

Abstract some of the evidence must be rejected, ignored or

Well Test Interpretation involves much more than
Pressure Transient Analysis. It includes scrutinizing
the field notes, the surface operations, the equipment
and the wellbore configuration. It means incorporating
geological information and production information;
adjusting the measured data to reservoir conditions
and accounting for multiphase effects both in the
well bore and in the reservoir; recognizing that well bore
effects during a buildup are different from those during
a drawdown; in short, integrating the practical issues
with the theoretical analysis.
Field examples will be presented to illustrate these
effects. Ignoring these effects can lead to the wrong
pressure transient analysis.
Introduction
Reservoir engineering integrates many .. looks .. into the
reservoir; for example core analysis, log analysis,
pressure analysis and production analysis. Each one
of these gives its own view into the reservoir. Some
only investigate a few inches (core, logs) while others
reflect a much larger (1 oo•s of feet) radius of
investigation (pressure, production). The ..looks.. can
be supportive of each other and fit in with other .. looks..
into the reservoir, such as geology or seismic
interpretations. However, quite often, these .. looks ..
can be contradictory of each other, in which case
explained away. It is the responsibility of the analyst to
integrate all these perspectives of the reservoir in order
to arrive at the best possible interpretation.
The same analogy applies within each discipline. For
example in the field of pressure analysis, Pressure
Transient Analysis (P.T.A.) must be viewed as being
only part of the picture, not the whole picture. Well
Test Interpretation (W.T.I.) must encompass the field
notes describing how the test was conducted,
previous tests, initial and final static gradient, the
wellbore configuration, multi-phase aspects in the
wellbore, wellbore dynamics (references 1, 2 and 3),
material balance and production information, in
addition to P.T.A.
P.T.A. has become a very sophisticated tool, and
because of i~s ..advanced .. nature, it tends to be placed
on a pedestal, to the neglect of other more useful yet
simpler information. For example, a P.T.A. on a flow
and buildup test may indicate a dual porosity reservoir.
While this may be the case (and there are many
wellbore dynamics that may contra-indicate that), we
may have overlooked the fact that static gradients
before and after the test indicate depletion (a non-
economic reservoir - hence the dual porosity issue
becomes a red herring).
This article is not intended to belittle the value of
P.T.A., rather it attempts to emphasize the point that
this powerful tool must not be used in isolation, and
that its value is greatly enhanced when it is used within

175
 2 PRACTICAL WELL TEST INTERPRETATION
the broader perspective of Well Test Interpretation
(W.T.I.). In the rest of the paper, I will discuss several
cases (unrelated to each other) each illustrating some
practical aspect of well testing.
1. Measure Initial Pressure
Figure 1 represents synthetic data of a buildup test
(150 hr. flow 31 hr. shut-in) as published in the late Dr.
Ramey's paper (reference 4). The difficulty, as
expressed in that publication, was that there was no
correct Horner straight line, and at best the
permeability that could be derived from this Horner
plot was 37.6 mD as compared to the true permeability
of 48 mD.
In this particular example, the initial pressure was
known but was not displayed on the Horner plot. If we
place the initial pressure on the x-axis = 1 (infinite
shut-in time) as in Figure 2, it becomes evident that the
pressure is returning to the initial pressure. If the
semilog straight line is anchored on the initial pressure,
then the value of permeability calculated is 44.8 mD.
This is significantly better than the previous calculation
and is acceptably close to the true answer. [If you
know where you have come from, it is easier to know
where you are going to.]
2. Design Your Test
In this case history, there were 6 oil wells in a pool, one
in the centre and five in a circle around it. In order to
establish interwell properties and confirm
communication, a pulse test was conducted with the
central well as the active well. Out of the five
observation wells, two {2) responded as expected from
the design {Figure 3), two {2) showed a very confused
response {Figure 4), and one {1) showed no response
at all to the active well, but seemed to respond to a
well producing from another pool! [Things don't
always go the way you plan them.]
3. Select Your Pressure
Gauge Service Companv
A lot of emphasis is placed on selecting the pressure
gauge for a particular test. Often it is more important
to select the right service company than to select the
right gauge. Even the best of gauges need to be
properly calibrated and maintained. The question
often arises as to whether one should use a quartz
176
SPE 27975
gauge or a strain gauge. Mattar et al (reference 1) give
an example of strain gauge and a quartz gauge from
different manufacturers which track each other
flawlessly. Figure 5 shows data from a strain gauge
and a (supposedly much more accurate) quartz
gauge; the one is building up while the other is
declining; the difference between them is some 200
kPa, and independent measurements show the strain
gauge to be the correct one. [The quality of service is
more important than the type of the· instrument.]
4. Is Temperature Important or Not?
Electronic pressure gauges are known to · be
temperature sensitive, quartz much more than strain
gauges. Thus it is important to have a good handle on
the temperature when measuring the pressure,
otherwise significant interpretation errors can occur.
Figures 6 and 7 show two different tests, each using
two strain gauges by the same manufacturers. Both
tests show a temperature anomaly. In Figure 6 the
pressures from both recorders track excellently in
spite of the temperature discrepancy. In Figure 7 there
is a temperature anomaly of the same magnitude, yet
the pressures do not track, diverging at early time and
converging at late time. [Sometimes it matters and
sometimes not.]
5. Frequency of Sampling
Unlike analog gauges, digital electronic gauges do
not provide a continuous pressure trace, but they give
individual data points at each sample time. In order to
optimize the number of data points, a sophisticated
sampling program can be designed, whereby a large
number of pressures are measured when there are
rate changes, from one rate to another, or from flow to
shut-in {or vice-versa), and fewer data points are taken
elsewhere. It has often been observed that a change
in the frequency of sampling can result in a change in
the recorded pressure trend as illustrated in Figure 8.
This is obviously not a reservoir effect but the artifact
of the electronics of the pressure recorder. Also the
more complex the sampling program is, the more it is
prone to operator error. Moreover, having a complex
pre-programmed sampling scheme removes a lot of
the flexibility needed during some tests. For example,
if the test had been designed to flow for 12 hours and
then be shut-in, but halfway through the flow period,
the well started loading up or hydrating and it became
necessary to modify the test, the complex pre-set
 SPE 27975 L. MATIAR
sampling frequency program may be totally
inappropriate for the modified test, and much needed
valuable data may be missed as a result. [Keep it
simple.]
6. Wellbore Tubular Configuration
Figure 9 shows data from two downhole recorders. It
is obvious that the more you flow, the higher the
pressure gets! This strange observation is readily
explained if it is recognized that the recorder is
situated some 90 m below the sliding sleeve, through
which gas is flowing from the annulus to the tubing.
The space between the sliding sleeve and the
recorder run depth is slowly filling up with water
throughout the test. If the pressure at the end of the
test is corrected for this hydrostatic colurrm of water,
then the final reservoir pressure is some 300 kPa less
than the initial reservoir pressure, indicating severe
depletion during the test (in spite of the apparent
increasing pressure). [Conduct a static gradient
before and after a test, and account for tubular
configurations.]
7. Repeatable Anomalies
Figure 1.0 is a plot showing two buildup tests
conducted on the same OIL well 6 months apart. They
both show a significant non-reservoir anomaly (60
kPa) some 7 hours into the test. At the end of the test
a static gradient run in the well showed GAS and not
OIL to be present in the wellbore. The cause of the
anomaly is obviously a wellbore dynamic associated
with phase segregation and liquid efflux. [Wellbore
dynamics can be very obvious, but they may be subtle
and inconspicuous.]
8. Drawdown (Injection) versus
Buildup (Falloff)
P.T.A. is based on the drawdown (Injection) equation
and Buildup (Falloff) analysis utilizes this solution
along with the principle of superposition. In theory, the
analysis of drawdown (injection) data should yield the
same answers as buildup (falloff) data. In practice, this
happens only rarely. Very often, the analysis from the
flow period gives different results from the analysis of
the shut-in period. Figures 11 and 12 are examples of
significantly different analyses of the injection and
falloff data on the same test. Such inconsistencies
must be resolved by information external to the test;
177
3
for example, what is the true reservoir pressure? did
the injection create a hydraulic fracture which heals
during the falloff? [The P.T.A. models may be too
idealized to represent a real-life situation.]
9. Mysterious Data
In spite of all efforts, we were unable to find an
explanation for the periodicity observed on the buildup
test of a dry gas well shown in Figure 13. Both
electronic pressure recorders showed the same
oscillations. [We may never know all the answers.]
10. Non-Unique Solutions:
· Many well tests can be interpreted using several
different reservoir models. Selecting the appropriate
model often cannot be done without recourse to
external information e.g. geological deposition-91
environment. Figures 14 and 15 show 2 different
models simulating the same test data with equally
acceptable results.
In THEORY, every reservoir is unique, and its behavior
is different from other reservoir. However, in
PRACTICE, the differences between many reservoir
models are so small that they are marked by the
scatter of practical data measurements. In the event of
the multiplicity of models, the late H.J. Rameys
philosophy must be heeded, namely: [start with a
simple model and proceed to a progressively more
complex model, only as you need to.]
Conclusions
(1) "If you torture the data long enough, it will
confess to anything".
(2) Pressure Transient Analysis (P.T.A.) should be
utilized within the broader framework of Well
Test Interpretation (W.T.I.).
(3) W.T.I. > > P.T.A.
4 PRACTICAL WELL TEST INTERPRETATION SPE 27975

References
1. MATTAR, L: ..Critical Evaluation and Processing
of Data Prior to Pressure Transient Analysis, ..
Presented at the 67th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Washington, B.C., .October
4-7, 1992.

2. MATTAR, L and SANTO, M.S.: .. How Wellbore

Dynamics Affect Pressure Transient Analysis, ..
The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology,
Vol31, No.2, February, 1992.

3. MATTAR, L and ZAORAL, K.: ..The Primary

Pressure Derivative (PPD) - A New Diagnostic
Tool in Well Test Interpretation," The Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol 31, No. 4,
April, 1992.

4. RAMEY, H.J.: ..Advances in Practical Well Test

Analysis," J.P.T., June 1992.

178
 HORNER
PRESSURE BUILDUP PLOT

3200,-----------------------------------------------------------~

k = 37.6 md

(f)
~
0.

1200

800~~~~~~--~~~~~--~--~~~~~~----~~~~L-~--~
104 103 102 10 1 1.0
< t+t~t )/t.t Figure

HORNER
PRESSURE BUILDUP PLOT

3200.-----------------------------------------------~----------,

Anchor on Pi
Pi

(f)

c: 2000
(f)
~
0.

1600

1200

179
 Observation Well Response (w~lls 1 and 2)

Rattt at active
,/ well
10200t
-
cu
a. 1 01 so'·-
I
I
I
I

-
I

~
~

I·
I
I
I

, ,I

360 1080 1200

Figure 3

Observation Well Response (wells 3 and 4)

, - - - ! " ' - .. ,---- ____ ,.. __ ,__ -------- ~

I :
I
I
I

10150

10100

10050

Figure 4
180
 Comparison of Quartz and Strain Gauge

14800

14600
·'a.."0" Quartz
Jif.

Q)
...
:I
(I)
(I)
___ ..... ____ _-~-----~----------------------·
Q) _,.-
... I
/

a.. I
I

1------------------~~--~---
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
St r a iln
I

13800~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-10 0.0 10 60 80 90
INITIAL 3678
DELETED 48
REMAINING 3630
Figure 5

Inconsistent Temperature but Consistent Pressure

18000~------------~------------------------------------------~--.71

-t
(I)
3
p
-Q.
(I)
CQ

-(')

Figure 6

181
 Inconsistent Temperature - Inconsistent Pressure

65

-~-~-·--~----------
Pressure Difference ',,,
-~----~---~--~-~-----'

6540 51
60

Figure 7

Effect of Sampling Frequency on Pressure Trend

0
n.
.Y.
14448
' j ' li~p~i~i:u~:~uency~ r~~:~. . ' ..
Q) 0 ' ~ ~
~0 f(..:.,. __ __~· OSa~ol.i.ogoF.r~q~eooc,yo.
\..,

::J
(/)
0000 . . . . 0 . . 0; 0 0 0 0 . . 0 . . . . 0 ) • .... 0 0 ..... 0 ojo ...
0
0 0 0 0 .. 0 0 .. 0 .. 0 ....... 0 0 . . 0:0 0 . . o o
0 ....

(/) 1: , = 5 minutes : :
Q) : : :

.._ \ : 0 : 0

n.
\ :

Figure 8

182
 Apparent Increasing Reservoir Pressures Attributed to

Tubular Configuration

4000

Q.
0 ___ ,.. __ ... _~.. .... ---- ~------------------------ ---------
.::{.

Q)
I..
::J
Ill
Ill
Q)
I..
Q.

I..
Q)
"0
I..
0
()
Q)

l20 0u0~.0~ 4w0~ l 80~ ~12u0wu~ ~ 2l 0~0~ 24~0~ 2~80~ 3u2~0~ 3~6~0~4u0~0 Time,(hr)

Figure 9

Two Buildup Tests, 6 months apart

3150

3125
~ ~
r ~
lDII"""'

v
Jv
3100
ill
f.
:I ..

-,
Ill ...
Ill Ill 3075
ill II. ~~
f.
p., ~
l..---"'"'
~
~
3050
j
v
302b
I!
·~
~
~
3000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Ti11e (hours)
Figure 10

183
 Inconsistent Fall-off Model

2700~=-----------------------------------------------------------------------------~

pi 924.0
k 0.34
2400 s = -0.361

2100

Ill
a. 1800 .QJoco
a.
Dooo.
Dooooo OlJ

1200

15 18 24 27
t ,hr
Figure 11

Inconsistent Injection Model

2700r----------------~------------------------~--------------------------------~

pi 1324.7
k 0.022
2400 s = -4.790

2100

Ill
a. 1800
a.

1500

3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
t ,hr Figure 12

184
 Mysterious Effects

r-- 7000 ~l
I 7000
I
I I
I
I
I
I
5800
I
)......_
0 0
5800 I
;o;o
a. a. CD CD
0 0
~~

.,0 .,0
a. a.
......
Ql Ql

::J ::J
CD CD
Ul Ul
Ul Ul
Ql Ql
......
a. a.
('j..-
"11::==11::
.......
Ql Ql
,.....,..._
"0"0 a. a.
... ... CD CD
1010
0 0
0 0
Ql Ql ()()
.......,.......,
a:: a:: I

l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·-1

Figure 13

SINGLE NO FLOW BOUNDARY

104r------------------------------------------------------------------------,
Parameters
k 100.00
s 5.000
CD 100.00
rd 100. 00

0
a.
~

0
.....
;:
a.
I
Ul
;:
a.

101L---~~-L~~~~~--~~~~~---L~~-L~~~--~~~~~~--~--~~~~
10-2 10- 1 1. o 10 1 102 103
t.t Figure 14

185
 COMPOSITE MODEL

104

103 Parameters
0 k 1 = 100.00
Q_
s = 5.000
......
..::{.
. CD = 100.00
(X) 0
m ...... r 1 = 104.49
~
Q. k2 = 47. 18
I
{/)
~
Q.

102

1
1 1 1 ·1 102 10 3
,00 -2 10-
1 0
· 6t ° Figure 15