.- .
—
..
—
PETROLEUM
,4$~~r
$@/
%4@
Determination of Formation Characteristics
From Two-Rate Flow Tests
D. G, RUSSEL1
JUNIOR MEMBER AIME
ABSTRACT
A sintple method has been developed with which ffowing
hottotn-hole pressure data front two-rate flow tests in oil
or gas wells can be analyzed to estimate the forn~a(ion
pet-meabiiity, skin factor and average reservoir pressure.
The required pressure data are obtained by observation oj
the transient hottottt-hole pressure behavior after the stab-
ilized prodncing rate of the well is citanged to another,
higher or lower, - rate. The new method yields the satne
infortnatian m a cotsventiona[ pressure buildup analysis,
hut e!itninates the need for closing ‘in the well, The ana-
lysis of a t we-rate ffow test is of the same degree of difli-
cuIIy and reqnires about the satne engineering time for
application as a con;entiona[ pressure buildup analysis.
The extended closed-in periods experienced with con-
veittionai buildups because of long, low-rate af terproduc-
tion periods are elindnated by j!ow tests. Other anomaious
pressure buildup eflects, such as “huntpittg” dtte to well-
hore phase se.vre~ation, can be success~ally e[tntinated wi~h
the new method. Generally, flow tests of about 24 ftours’
dllration run with conventional pressure measurement
equiptnent are suficient for interpretation purposes.
Field testing of the nvo-rate jfow test method has estab-
li.rl!cd that it is a reliable and ecottotnical ntethod which
can be used in many instances to cotjlplenlent or even
replare conventional pressure buildup tnethods.
INTRODUCTION
The principal method for estimating formation pernvaa-
bility and well damage, or skin factor, in a producing, oil
or gas well is the analysis of shut-in bottom-hole pressure
buildup data.’ This familiar method has been used quite
successfully by reservoir engineers for many years. It is
based on the solution of the radial flow equation for
constant rate conditions, and requires that the well be
closed in for a sufficient period of time to obtain a
clearly defined linear portion on the plot of observed
t-t-At
bottomhole pressure vs log ~t—(where At is shut-in
time, and t is producing time to the instant of shut-in).
From the slope of the plot and other normally obtainable
data, the permeability, skin factor, and reservoh pressure
at infinite shut-in time (if the reservoir were infinite) can
be, estimated. ,.-
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers oflice
July II, 19&3. Revised manuscript recslvcd Nov. 3, 1963. Paper pre-
sented at the SPE Fall Meeting held [n Sew Orleans. Oct. 6.9. 1%?.
preferences given at end of ptmer.
fliscus-slon of this and xII following tcchnictd mwera 1s invited. Dis.
russlon in +mithw (three copies) may be sent to the ollice of the
Jowwal of Petro[etmaTechwlwu, Any discussion oiTered after Dec. s1,
196s, should he in the form of a new mtper. No discussion should
exceed 10 uer cent of the manuscript king dls.!uwd.
“D”S:CEMSSER,IV63’”
.. ... . . . . . . .
TRANSACTIONS
6+
. .,
SHELLDEVELOPMENT CO.
HOUSTON, TEXa
Over the years several drawbacks have become ap-
parent in the use of conventiorudl shut-in pressure buikf-
ups for determining permeability and skin factor, The
conventional pressure buildup interpretation theory as-
sumes that a well is closed in. at the sand face and
that no production into the well occurs afte~shut-in. In
practice, of course, the well is closed in at the surface,
and inflow into the well continues until the well fills
sufficiently to transmit the effect of closing in to the
formation. This adjustment period is commonly referred
to as the *’after-production” portion of the pressure build-
up.
In the tight reservoirs, long, low-rate after-production
periotfs frequently ~ccur, and the well must he shut in
for several days or, in some instances. evev weeks to
obtain an interpretable buildup curve.: Obviously. such
long shut-ilt times can cause loss in current income, both
frofi reduced oil production and from the fiict’ that
personnel and pressure measurement equipment are occu-
pied with a single well for too long a time. Inothercases,
even long shut-in periods do not seem to-be of much aid
in obtaining ah interpretable buildup.:’ If there is con-
siderable phase redistribution (liquid fallout or huhhle
rise) after a well is sh t in, then curves with no ‘inter-
pretable portion are otenr obtained during the buildup.
In addition to instances in which wellbore effects cause
trouble, there are also cases in which the major objection
to use of the closed-in pressure buildup is simply the fact
that the well must be shut in. When there is no proration
and when the well has limited producing capacity, closing
in the well means 10SSof income.
From the foregoing discussion it is apparent that it is
desirable to have an alternative method of obtaining the
same information as t~at derived from a conventional
buildup without the need of closing in the well. One
possible solution which has been offered for this problem
is the use of a bottom-hole shut-in tool’ which isolates the
major portion of the flow string from the..formation face
during tbe buildup, In this paper an alternative method
which is frequently successful in avoiding wellbore effects
and which does not require the use of special equipment
is presented.
A new, simple method has been developed with wh”ich
the flowing bottom-hole pressure data from flow tests in
oil or gas wells can be used to estimate permeability, skin
factor and the average reservoir ”pressure. The required
pressure data are obtained by observation of the transient
—. bottom-hole pressure behavior after the stabilized produc-
tion”rateof the well ischanged to another, higher or Iower
rate. The need for closing in the well is eliminated, and
pressure measurement periods of only 18 to 24 hours. are
usually sufficient, even in tight reset’bo”irs.Thus, the new
1317 -
.’
.,.
two-rate flow tw ‘hod yields the same information as
the pressure huh . . . . method but avoi& the need for
shuttihg in the well and usually requires less pressure
measurement time, especially in tighter reservoirs.
Johnson, et a~ recently presented a variable-rate method
for determining wellbore damage in water injection wells.
This new method enables measurement of the skin effect
in an injection well without the need for closing in the
well for an “extended pressure falloff survey. It is mmz-
tioned in this paper because it is an excelient example of
the utility of variable-rate procedures in obtaining data
which formerly were obtainable only from shut-in pres-
sure measurements.
In the sections of the paper which follow, both the
theoretical and practical aspects of the testing procedure
and interpretation theory are dhcussed and. illustrated. In
addition, several ~teld examples have been included to
illustrate application of the two-rate flow test method
under various field conditions.
TESTiNG PROCEDURE AND
INTERPRETATION THEORY
DESCRIPTION OF TESTING PROCEDURE
In preparation for a two-rate flow test, a well is usually
stabilized for several days at a constant producing rate,
and both oil and gas production rates are measured on a
daily basis. Three to four hours prior to the rate change,
the bottom-hole pressure bomb is lowered into the well,
and pressure measurement is begun.. This is necesimy in
order to obtain a dependable value for the flowing pres-
sure prior to the test. The producing rate is then changed
by adjustment of the choke at the wellhead, and, after a
usually short period of transition, the rate stabties at its
new value. Meanwhile, the transient pressure response
caused by the “rate change is being measured. The fiow test
pressure and production rate behavior with time are
shown schematically on Fig. 1 for the case in which the
rate is reduced. The period of transient pressure change
caused by the change in rate (labeled A on Fig, 1) is
followed by a period during which boundary and inter-
fereizce effects are felt (labeIed B), and finally the well
returns to a stabilized pressure decline (labeled C). It is
essential to measure only the pressures just prior to the
rate change and during a portion of the transient re-
-lAyr;:;E l@’-Q’+Q
:
$ 162.6g,@3 ~og(f i- A?)/l
:.
@ PORTION OF PRESSURE HISTORY
: uSEO IN FLOW TEST ANALYSIS
1 @ :~:~:$~A:#~~~\ERFERENCE
—1
g PAST PRESSURE HISTORY,
: (NOT NEECCO FOR I
: ANALYSIS] @ y~~wR;#f&ST~ STAWLIZEO
v-7
—t ‘&_At —
‘TIME—
sponse interval. Typically, the total measurement time is “
from 18 to 24 hours, although in exceptionally tight
formations measurement times of from 36 to 48 hours
have occasionally been required.
Because the stabilized rate after the rate is changed
does not become operative immediately, it is necessary to
obtain more than an opening and closing tank gauge dur-
ing the test. If special test equipment or metering sepsrra-
tors are avaflable~ the rate measurement generally causes
no trouble. In cases in which no special equipment of this
type is available, it is desirable to have several gauges of
the stock tank during the’”time the test is being run. In
this reamer a better idea of the stabilized rate is obtained.
Ordinarily, no special pressure measurement equipment
is required to make the pressure measurements on a two-
rate flow teat. Most of the tests which have been run thus
far have been obtained simply with pressure bombs, It
is desirable, of course, that the presure bombs be cali-
brated for the specific pressure range which is expected
to be encountered.
INTERPRETATION THEORY
For the development of interpretation formulas, a
completely penetrating well in a horizontal reservoir of
infhite radial extent is assumed, The reser~.Xr rock is
considered to be a homogeneous and iso~ .:.::, ~orous
medium completely filled with a fluid of small and con-
stant compressibility. The reservoir was initially at a
uniform pressure p, and has been produced since time
t = O up to the time of the flow test at a constant rate
of production q,.
It has been shown that under the foregoing assumptions
the flowing pressure at the wellbore at time t can be
expressed as
P*J = p,
-=[-’’(--)’2s1
. . . . . . . . . . (1)
The units in this equation are so-called practical unils—
barrels per day, millidarcies, hours, centipoises, ,feet, and
pounds per square inch. The parameter S is the skin fac-
tor detlned by van Everdingen” and Hurst,’
Assuming that the rate of production after the rate
change (q,) becomes operative immediately upon the
change in rate, we can express the following pressure at
the wellbore at time At after the rate change (using Eq.
1 and the principle of superposition) -asx
p.f = pl – – 3.23 -i- 0.87S
kh #cfirm= 1
[
+ 162.6 (q, –q,)@ k~t
log— – 3.23 + 0.87S . (2)
kh ( r#Jc/.lrw’ )
For ail but very small At, Eq. 2 can be simplified and
rearranged to yield
162.6q,pB log k
p.! = p, -
kh ( -
#c/.w,o-
— 3.23 + 0.87S
)

.- 162.6q@ log ~t+At + % log At

SHORT TIME LAG USUALLY REOUIFKO
BEFORE NEW STAS,LE RATC IS REilCHEO I kh ( ql )
. (3)

From inspection of Eq. 3 it is apparent that a plot of

observed flowing- bottom-hole pressure p. f vs -
t+Af
log ~ + : log AZ
-—
will yield a straightine with slope b, which is given by
Ftc. 1—SCHEMATIC PLOTSOFPISODUCTION RATE AND BOTTOM.
●The amiment of ** Et function in Eq. 1 become ve~ sm~ ‘n
HOLE PRSSSUSEPESSORMANCE FORTWO.RATE after zmaduction I%@ns. To ob~in Ea % We $@l-=-ent ~DDrQ*-
Fz.ow TESTS(gz<g,). matbrs H-X) e in x + 006772. . . * b~n $m~lOy*-

. . . .JOURNAL OF .PES’SZOLEUM TZZCENOLOGY

“1s’s8
..
 # ●

162.6g@3 APPLICABILITY OF THE

l)== -ah.,..,., .. ”(4) METHOD AND THEORY
Thus, the kit product or k can be found from the above BOUNDARYAND INTERFERENCEEFFECTS
relationship, The interpretation theory is based on the infinite resel-
If we assume for the moment that a value for k can be voir solution of the radial flow equation for a dightly
found as indicated above, a formula for the sk~ factor compressible fluid, In practice, however, the method will
can be derived, The flowing bottom-hole pressure in the generally be applied to wells which produce from bounded
well at time z can be expressed as drainage volumes, It may be expected then that the plot
of p., Vs
162.6wB kt
Plol (d = PI –

. .
kh
. .
(
,’
.
log

,.,
-
$cprW
– 3.23

,.
+ 0.87S
.)
. . . (5)
log —
t+At
~ log At
At ‘g, -.
will be linear for a period of time after the rate change
The flowing pressure at some time A~ after the rate and will then start to deviate from linearity as boundary
change can be expressed by means of Eq, 3 m and (or) interference effects are reflected at the well.
The times at which such effects will be felt will be of
pm, (A~)=p, – 162:~B ( -3.23-1- 0.87S) exactly the same magnitude as wmdd be the case if a
“ conventional buildup were being run in the well, The
162.6q,@ ]Og ~ + k~t general appearance of a two-rate flow test curve in the
kh ( At
By subtracting Eq. 5 from Eq. 6 and rearranging, we have
+Iog —
~c,urw’ )
. . (6) case of a well producing from a bounded homogeneous
drainage volume is shown on Fig. 2. In this case, i.e.,
% < q,, the effect of a boundary is to cause the points
to bend over and deviate from the straight line, This
0.c)0707k/z~.,TAf) – p.,(f)] + ~ 15 deviation becomes progressively greater as the well finally
s = 3.71 +
(% - d/@ reaches a semisteady-state pressure decline at rate q!.
% f +Tt kt MODIFICATIONFOR OIL AND GAS FLOW
— log ~ –IWE+Z “ log*
L!12)( At ) If the reservoir is producing above bubble-point pres-
sure, th~ assumptions concerning compressibility end
. . . . . . . . . . (7)
mobility k/p are suitably fulfilled. Below the bubble point,
Eq. 7 is the most general form which may be used for when both oil and free gas exist in the pore space, how-
determination of the skin factor. A simpler formula for ever,. the compressibility and mobility are no longer con-
the skin factor can be developed from Eq. 7 if we stant. In cases of this type, the total compressibility and
assume that z = l_ hour and log (t+ 1) ~ log t. In this totrd mobility .of the’ reservoir fluids must be substituted
case Eq. 7 can be simplified to give for the single-fluid compressibility and mobility in the
interpretation theory, Readers who are not familiar with

[(
this procedure are referred to the paper by Matthews;
.s = 3,71 + 1.15 +
q, – q, )( P~Al hr) – p.j(t)
–b )
which contains example calculations of the application of
the conventional pressure buildup analysis in re~ervoirs
producing at pressures below the bubble point. A modi-
k fication analogous to that illustrated by Matthews for the
- log —; .,. ; ., ,.. (8) pressure buildup interpretation theory must be made when.
fhcprw’
1. the two-rate flow test analysis is applied below the bubble
point. Thfs ‘is illustrated in a field example later in the
where p., ( 1 hr) is “the value of the pressure read from
paper. It should be noted that the pressure range over
the linear portion of the flow test plot for ~ = 1 hour. which the total compressibility and mobility vary in a
If both k and S have been determined, these values can two-rate flow test is usually less than the range in a closed-
be substituted into Eq. 5 to yield an estimate of the value in pressure build-up because the total amount of pressure
of p’. In the case of a bounded reservoir, this calculated change is less, Thus, the assumption of constant com-
value of p, will actually be the “extrapolated” pressure p* pressibility and mobility may be less restrictive in the
discussed by Matthews, et al? This pressure can be cor- case of flow tests,
rected to the’ average reservoir pressure by use of the Mat-
thews, et al method and the values for k, S and other q2=q,
parameters used earlier in the tlow test analysis. w
a FIRST APPEARANCE OF
;
k– BOUNDARY EFFECTS
If the magnitude of the pressure drop acros~ the skin w
‘Yoo
u
is of interest, it can be calculated from a. /
~ RETURN TO
~ SEM ISTEADY -
!f STATE FLOW EARLY DEVIATION FROM
LINEARITY DURING RATE
T’hus at rate q,, z RESTABILIZATION
1- \’
Ap(skin) = 0.87(-h) (S) . . . , :. (9)
0
I
and at rate Iz,

Ap(skin) = 0.87 ~ (-b)(s) . . , (lo)

~ INCREASING-
FLOW TIME
‘“ I
() t +At
It may be noted that a conventional pressure buildup lo9~+ =q, [OQAt-
is simply a speciai case of a two-rate flow test in which
FIG,2—APPEARANCE
OFTWO-RATE
FLOWTESTCURVE
IN
% = ~. BOUNDEO
HOMOGENEOUS
RESERVOIR.

DECEMBER, 1969 1.s49

.“. ””- ‘.

. . . .. . . ‘ . . .. . . . . .
 RATE RESTABILIZATION
Another point pertinent ‘:0 practical use of two-rate flow
tests concerns the assumption of instantaneous change
in flow rate in development of the interpretation theory.
Such an instantaneous change in flow rate is never ful-
filled in practice because the adjustment in bottom-hole
inflow rate results from a change in choke size at the
wellhead, Thus, the flow test performance of a well after
a change in choke size is directly related to the vertical
lift performance characteristics of the well, Field experi-
ence with the flow test method indicates’ that rapid stabili-
zation of flow conditions usually occurs within the flow
string, and, therefore, surface producing rate measure-
ments are not greatly distorted. Rapid restabilization ap-
pears to be directly related to the fact that the flow
string is continuously resupplied with mass during a two-
rate flow test.
In general it has been found from field tests that the
restabilization period is shorter in the case of a rate re-
duction than in the case of a rate increase. These ob-
servations’ seem to make sense physically, because in th@
case of a rate reduction the high-mass ffow rate into the
tubing very quickly provides the incremental amount of
mass needed to estirblish a new flow “equilibrium in the
flow string, In the case of an increase in rate, the rc-
stahilization is slower because there must be a net decrease
in the mass content of the flow string while the inflow
from the formation is tit a relatively high value. In this
latter case the restabilization process is much slower.
Stegemeier and Matthewi’ show that the net rate of
fluid accumulation into the tubing is proportional to the
rate of change of the difference between tubing-head
und bottom-hole pressure. When two-rate flow tests are
made, it is suggested that A(p,.j– P,,) be Plotted Vs Al
wrd that the pressure-time points for times beyond those
tit which A(p,r, –-p,,,) becomes essentially a COnSLant be
utilized in the unalysis, The recording of wellhead pres-
sures during the flow test is therefore desirable. In’ wells
without packers a change in choke size will cause flow
into or out ot’ the tubing-casing annulus, depending on
whether the flow rate is reduced or increased, respectively.
“The fluid infiux rate into the smnuhrs is proportional 10
A(p,,, -p.,), Thus in wells without packers a Plot of Al
vs A(p,,, -p,.*) should indicate whether mmullls inflllx is
occurring. Generally it has been observed in field appli-
cations of the method that fate restabilization has occurred
when the points of the flow test plot lie on a straight lhre.
This is a reasonable rule of thumb; however, exceptions
have been observed, and the measurement of wellhead
pressures to ascertain whether stabilized flow in the thrw
string is occurring is recommended.
On Fig, 2 an example of the-d;i%tion of points from
linearity during rate restabilization is shown schematically.
In the field examples which are presented later in the
paper other examples of deviation during rate restabiliza-
tion can be seen.
RESERVOIR Hill’flROGENEITIES
ANI) GIN) XIETRICALEFFKCTS
Reservoir heterogeneities introduce effects into two-
rate flow test behavior which are quite similar to those
previously reported for pressure .buildups, For exampie,
in the case of reservoirs composed of stratified layers;
two-rate flow test curves exhibit changes in slope ex-
actly analogous to those reported by Lefkovits, ef a~ for
pressure build-ups, Toobtain thetheo~etical two-rate flow
test performance in any heterogeneous reservoir situation
of interest (in the case of fiOWof a single, slightlY com-
pressible fluid), one need only combine the solutions for
1s50
. . . .)
the pressure b~havior at wnstant producing rate by the
method of superposition. The.literature contains a wealth
of solutions for constant rate behavior in various reservoir
situations. Thus it is not overly difficult to obtain theoreti-
cal information quickly on two-rate flow test behavior.
As an illustration of this procedure a derivation of the
pressure behavior during a two-rate flow test of a well
located near a fmdt or other linear barrier to flow is
presented in Appendix A. The interpretation formulas
which are needed in this particular instance are also given,
A computed example of a two-rate flow test in a well
located 100 ft from a fault is shownon Fig. 3. The data
assumed for this example are given on the figure. It can
be seen that ‘the ffow-test. plot possesses two distinct
straight-line slopes. As is the case with a pressure build-up,
thesecond or’’late time” portion of the flow test curve has
a slope which is exactly double that of the “early time”
portion of the curve.
FIELD EXAMPLES
This section presents examples of application of the
two-rate flow test method.
EXAMPLE A
Well A is a flowing producer from is typical low-
permeability limestone reservoir in the Permian 13asin re-
gion of West Texas. [n this particular reservoir, pressure
buildup data are usually of poor quality because of long.
low-rate after-production periods which occur when the
wells are closed in. Pressure buihfups of 72 hours” dura-
tion, or in some cases even’ longer, ate required to obtain
interpretable data.
In preparation for the two+ate flow test, the well was
stabilized at a rate of 107 STB/D on a 12/64-in. choke.
The rate was reduced to 46 STB/f) by a reduction in
choke size to 7/64 in. The well is equipped with a pro-
duction packer. Wellhead pressures were not recorded dur-
ing the test; however, producing rates were mzmured by
means 6f a continuous-recording metering oil and gas
separator.
Flowing bottom-hole pressures were mewured in th~
well for a period extending from three hours prior to thu
rate change until 22 holu’s after the rate change. The re-
sulting flow test plot and duta pertinent to the flow test
unalysis are shown on Fig. 4. As is suggested hy th~
appearance of the tlow test plot, the producing rate stishi-
Iized at 46 STB/D very soon after the rate change. This
was confirmed by the metering separator measurements.
, , I
23C4
27 28 29 30 S.1 32 33 3* ‘5 3
,Oq t +4!
~.lf.lOq At
Mc. 3—EFFECT OF A FAULT ON FLOW Tswr BSHAVIOiZ,
COMPUTED EXAWPLIL
JOtJRNAL OF PS%TROLEUM TECIiiSO1.OGV
. ,.: . .
-.
— ●
✎✌

To illustrate the computational procedure, the applica- have been obtained, This is not caused by ~eflection of k
tion of the interpretation theory to the data presented on reservoir boundary or some heterogeneity; rather, the ef-
Fig. 4 is detailed in Appendix B. Results of the analysis fect is due to the slow restabiliztstion of the producing rate
are as follows: k = 3 md, S = – 3.6, p:’ = 32548 psig. after the rate change.
The calculated results are believed to be correct. The Since the flow in the reservoir in this case was definitely
absolute permeability as determined from core analysis in the two-phase region, it was, necessary to use the total
measurements in this well averages about 3.5 md. The mobility (k/p) T and the total compressibility (cT) in the
well was acidized heavily upon completion, so the skin- flow test analysis. The following formulas are used to de-
factor value which was calculated is believed to be cor- termine these quantities:
rect. No attempt hm been made to correct the p* value B. cIR.
.— 1 .—,
(lB,,
J by the Matthews, et af’ method to obtain the average res- c“= z 7p– B,, dp
ervoir pressure; however, the p* value is believed to be of
1
the correct order of magnitude. Of greatest signiflcance$s c,,>—,
the fact that dependable results were calculated by the two- P
rate flow test method from data obtained with a 22-hour CT == s. (,,+ sr,c,,+ S,(c,c,
t,est. whereas shut-in. times of Several days had formerly k ]6~,~
been required to obt~n stiitable data for a conventional = ~ lB,.cI/,,+B,,{q,,, –g.,,Ri) +B,.q,,,].
p ,.
[--”1
buildup analysis. .,. 1n this case the values for these quantities are
l-lx.4\1PI.K B ci- = 2.77 X 10-cpsi-i
and
Well B is a flowing producer ina low-permeability
k
limestone reservoir in South Texas. The well produces at
im excessive gas-oil ratio and is equipped with a produc-
tion packer.
~ [1 = 9.8, md/cp.

The a;aly& gave the following results:

Well B was stabilized at aproducing rate of 70 STB/D k,,h = 8.8 md ft,
on an 8/64-in. choke, After reduction of the choke size k,, == 1.1 md,
to 6/64 in,, the well flowed at a rate of 40 STB/D. Ap- S = –2.5,
proximately 5 hd”urs of flow time subsequent to the rate P ‘“= 4,506 psig.
cktange were required before the producing rate again be- No attempt was made to calculate the average reservoir
came stable. During this time the oil and gas producing pressure, because the magnitude and configuration of the
rates’ were erratic. Both oil and gas production were drainage area of Well B were not known. The result,
measured by means o! a continuous-recording oil and gas p$’ = 4,506 psig, compares favorably with a nine-day static
separator. pressure of 4,584 psig which was measured in this well six
The flow test plot for this test and data pertinent to monfhs prior to the two-rate flow test.
the wudysis of the test are shown on Fig. 5. Again it is The values obtained” for k,, and S compare favorably
apparent from the general appearance of the flow test plot
that rate restabilimtion occurred at a flow time of about 3601
5 hours after the change in producing rate, The early por-
tion of the flow test plot (M <5 hours) appears to be t=22hr
practically linear, and it appears that two linear sections w’ RESULTS
k = I.lmd
s * -2.5
% p* 04506 psig
3250,
.
350

.s
w \
a
w-
K ‘$

z
/slt=5.5hr
co
:340
a 00
0 SLOPE =-670 psig o
w a
J G..
0
o ‘.\
z c’
A ~. o
SLOPE = -90psi -At = 2hr o BASIC DATA - WELL
1- o At,lh!
1- qol = 70 ST B/OAY -J =0.12

7
J
8 33( qoz=40 STB/DAY Sa=o. z
\ 0

at STP Sg=O.l (EST)

% I *86,500 bpd O
3170 RE3ULTS .. qg2=55)600bpd ~f ~Tp 8.= 1.52
k: 3.Omd qhr. 3169psig A h *8ft po*o.34cp
S.-3.6
3160 r “~=o.13ft~ NP*23,773 STB
p*: 5548psig
I
r ~ , 23,7?3
-- x24= B151hr
I I I I I I 1 I 1~ ru
3159!0
3.1’ 3.2 3,3 3,4 3.5. 3,6 3.7 3.s - 32C
3.4 3,s 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.s ‘
109 * + ~~1 log At ‘
log & + aq, log &f

II%. &f%uw ‘f%s’r ~LU’r$ WH.L>\. Fm 5—F1.u\r‘~hsr l’1.uT/wW. ]].

DEcEMBER, 196S : 1.%31

,- .
-.. .
 *
-.

with those estimated from conventional buildups in the
few cases in this reservoir in which buildups arc inter-
pretable.
A, 72-hour pressure buildup obtained early in the life
of Well B is shown on Fig. 6 in order to illustrate the
general character of buildup curves in this reservoir.
Typically, if the wells are left shut in long enough, there
is a transition from the curve with continuously increasing
‘slope shown on Fig, 6 to a straight-line portion of lesser “
slope after six or seven days of shut-in. Lmnger shut-in
times, however, necessitate the pulling and rerunning of
pressure bombs, which frequently causes scatter in the
pr~sure data and makes the- quality of the information
obtainable from a buildup analysis much less reliable.
Two-rate flow tests are now being run in this reservoir
on a routine basis as an sdternative to conventional pres-
sure buildups.
EXAMPLE C
Well C is a WIICOXsand gas producer located in South
Texas~. The typical pressure buildup behavior which has
been experienced in Well C.is shown on Fig. 7. The very
pronounced “hump” which occurs on the pressure buildup
precludes any attempts at quantitative analysis of the pres-
sure behavior. The distortion of this curve is due to phase
redistribution effects (liquid fallout) in the tubing subse-
quent to shut-in.
To obtain a flow test, Well C was stabilized at a pro-
ducing rate of 8,781 Mcf/D for a three-day period, after
4000 ,- 72-h~ PRESSURE BUILDUP
Np= 4145 STB
3600 -
3202 -
2800 -
2400- #-- /
~,:o”~y
zoo0~-~ I [
30,000 K@o 1000
.*
Fm. G-PRESSURE BUILDLIP CURVE, WELL B.
which the rate was reduced to 6,(IO2 Mcf/ D, Flowing
bottom-hole pressure readings were obtained over a period
extending from three hours prior to the rate change until
22,5 hours after the rate change. The resulting flow test
plot is shown on Fig. 8. It may be noted that the points
from At = 20 minutes onward lie on the linear portion
of the curve. Analysis of the data presented on Fig, 8,
with the normal modifications for gas flow, yields the fol-
lowing values:
W = 813 md ft,
k = 5,7 md,
S = 4.29,
p* == 3,560 psig.
Th&e parameter values are known to be of the correct
order of magnitude from the pressure buildup calculations
obtained earlier in the life of this reservoir prior to the
time that phas? distribution effects began to cause prob-
lems in buildup behavior. The p* value was corrected by
use of the Matthews, et tt~ method to yield an average
reservoir pressure of 3,520 psig. The average pressure was
estimated independently from material balance considera-
tions to be 3,480 psig, so the calculated pressure appears
to be acceptable,
It is significant that the two-rate flow test method “can
be used to eliminate the problems which result from
“humping” buildups. Prior to this time it has been neces-
sary to run a bottom-hole shut-in tool to prevent phase
redistribution effects frgm distorting the buildup curve.
Two-rate flow tests have replaced pressure buildups en-
tirely in this reservoir.
EXAMPLE b
The final field example is from Well D, a flowing pro-
ducer from a tight sandstone reservoir. This example has
been included because it is an excellent field example of
the effects that a fault introduces on a two-rate flow test.
.— The original hole which was drilled for Well D cut the
! fault above the objective horizon and failed to find the
sand productive. As a result this originaI hole was side-
tracked at a shallower depth, and the hole was deflected
/ into the oil-b~aring portion of the sand. Calculations in-
0’”
dicated the bottom~h~le location of the well to be approxi-
mately 40 ft from the fault.
Early in the life of Well D a two-rate flow test was
obtained. The well was stabilized at a rate of 81 STB/D
II I I I
‘loo I prior ‘to the tes$ and the rate was reduced to 53 STB/D.
Pressures were measured for a period of two hours prior
to the rate change and 16 hours subsequent to the rate
change. The resulting flow test plot is shown on Fig. 9.

m
8. SIC D4rA- WELL C_
o

. .

S.=os
, . E$,lnhr
<.3,.,.?!!”

FIs. 7 . Pressure buildup cusve - l?ell C.

lb. 7—PssssuaE BUILDUP CuavE,WELL C. ‘ FIG,8—FLOW TEST PLOT, WELL f:.

1362 JOURNAL 0S PETROLEUM TECH NO1.OCX

l.: ,. . . .. .“ . .. .. . . . . . .
I .“” ‘“-’
I .. . .
● ☛

As would be suggested by the appearance of the plot, 2100 woo o -Al*8hr BASIC OhTA - L
rate restabilization occurred very quickly. The significant

Q
At. Shr q; .81 S7016 B . L24

“1,~,1
feature of the flow test plot is the change in slope which ,g2060 qz .53 STS/d + s0.32
NP I ?3135TB SWX0.12
occurs at a flow time of four hours subsequent to the x
~ ,5x, o-6p*i-l
h SIOfl
change in rate, The second slope of the flow test plot is z 2020 A1.4hr
~. rw s 0.4ft t .605 hr
almost exactly double the slope at earlier time, thus in-
3 F . 0.6cP
dicating the presence of the fault. Another feature of g 19s0

this flow test which is of interest is the return of the well 3 .,

~o normal pressure decline at the 53-STB/D rate during : 1940
the late portion of the flow test, This particular feature ~ RESULTS
At.lhr
of the curve was expected because the reservoir width the : !900 k~l, emd
well drains was known to be of limited areal extent. : Ss -3.6
dxSOfl
- Data pertinent to the analysis of the flow test are 1860
shown on Fig. 9. The formulas derived in Appendm A for
the case of a well located near a fault were used to ana- ‘82°23 2.s 27 e9 3.1 3.3
lyze the behavior of Well D. The results of this analysis .t+bt
(were as fol[ows: IO(67 +~ log Al
Q, ,
-,
k = 1.8 md,
FIG, 9—FLOW TEST PLOT, WELL D,
s = -3.6,
d=38 ft. ior can be eliminated in most” cases by the use of the
The very close agreement of the distance to the fault cal- two-rate flow test procedure.
culated from the flow test and that inferred from hole-de- 4, Evaluation of well completion and formation para-
flection surveys is quite good and is indicative of the ac- meters by the flow test malysis method avoids the long
curacy of pressure analysis methods for determining the dis- ‘shut-in times for pressure measurements which frequently
tance to barriers under fairly ideal test conditions, The are needed in tight reservoirs for conventional buildup
permeability and skin factor values which were determined analysis. Losses in income caused by extended shut-in
are believed to be of the correct order of magnitude, & time can thus be eliminated. Flow tests of 12 to 24 hours’
though no core data or conventional buildup data are duration usually yield adequate data for analysis, even in
available to support this conclusion. tight reservoirs.
5. The methods presented in this paper can be applied
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS , to flow tests in gas wells or wells producing oil and gas
in a manner analogous to the extension of conventional
The two-rate flow test analysis methcd is simple both buildup theory to these cases,
in concept and in application, The mathematical analysis 6. Reservoir heterogeneity or geo,netrical effects can
leading to the development of the flow test analysis theory be inferred from two-rate flow test analysis in a manner
is quite elementary; however, the signhicant point to be similar to that usually employed for co”nventionaI pressure
gained from this paper is that- two-rate ffow tests are a buildups, In these cases longer tests may be required.
practical means of analyzing well performance and elimi-
nating som~ of the problems which have resulted from the NOMENCLATURE
use of closed-in pressure buildup methods. The ffow test
method is a promising new tool qnd is sufficiently proved b .= slope of flOw test plot, psifiog cycle
to be used to complement or in some cases replace the B = formation
volume factor, dimensionless
conventional pressure buildup.

@ p
~ =compressibility, psi-’x’
In planning and executing two-rate flow tests, one needs - Ei( -x) = exponential integral function defined by

r
to have a general idea of the flow characteristb of the
well. If field personnel are not familiar with the behavior E( –x) = — dw
of the well, it is advisable to observe the flowing behavior c w
of the well at two or three diflerent flow rates to obtain k = permeability, ml
a general impression of its performance characteristics. By p = pressure, psi
obtaining such observations in advance, one is able to p* = bottom-hole pressure at infinite shut-in time
make a better choice of the flow rates to be used during if well were producing from infinite reser-
the flow test. A basic requirement of the two-rate pro- voir
cedure is that the well flow without surging or heading
at each rate. . % = oil production rate, sTB/D
Q, = gas production rate, B/D at stock-tank pres-
Based on the foregoing material the following conclu- sure
sions are offered.
r = ridhss, ft
1. ~alysis of a two-rate test, in which the bottom-
R.; = gas soIubility in oil
hole pressure behavior is observed after the producing rate
of the well is changed, will yield accurate estimates of S = skin factor
formation permeability, skin facbm and the extrtnwlated S. = oil saturation, fraction.
. pressure p*. s, = gas saturation, fraction
2. The two-rate flow test analysis procedure presented S@= water saturation, fraction
in this paper is easy to apply and requires about the same
*OofnfmecclbiIiticc ussd in this paper am aotudk wfsh~d cOwrss-
time for application as the conventional shut-in pressure sibilitiso of fluids with rccrmct to their saturation. Tbw in d ~c~a-
, buildup analysis. tiom the total porosity $ is utilized, and the fluid mmwo-mibility iS
csdculated fwm c=c.A.+c.SW+c&. To combirfe a rock com reasibil-
ity term, tbe fluld and rock compremibilltks must be wdght $ scccwd:,
3. The problem of “humping” pressure buildup behav- ing to frsction of bulk volume occupied by each material.

.
DECEtdWk3i 1963 :

., . . . . . .
 t = producing time to instant of rate change,
+ Ei .—. rpcp.4d –2s’, ,. (A-1)
hours o.oolo5kt )1
(
4/ = producing time mem.urecf from rate change,
hours Using the frrmiliar method of supe~position, as with the
development of the interpretation theory in the text of
~ = a reference producing time, measured from the report, we can establish quite easily that during st two-
the time of rate change, which is used in rate flow test the flowing bottom-hole pressure of a well
calculation of skin factor, hours is given by
p, = viscosity, cp

SLJ}IS(:1{11“1s
~ = porosity, fraction
PUI = p, + ~V-

r#lcp4dJ
[(Ei _ ___ ~CPl”.” + At)
o,oolo5k(r )
70.6(q, – ——
(L)FB
1 = conditions prior to rule chwrgc
+ Ei
~ = conditions after-~~tc change ( – TOOI05 ,W+AI)----)1 kh
e = drainage boundary tjwp.r,.’ $JJC,,48
/
g
= flowing conditions’
=gas phase
I4
[(
Ei

I.2q,@s
–——--–
0.oO105kA/ )(
-1- Ei
)1
– ~ 00105k3t

i= initia] reservoir conditions — —.— . . . . . . . . . (A-2)

I{h
o = oil phase
Eq. A-2 was used to calculate the theoretical example
w = wellbore when used with p or r; refers to
of a well producing near a fault, which is presented in the
water phase otherwise text.
ch = casing head By examination of the behavior of Eq. A-2 for early
lh = tubing hetid and late flow times after the rate change, the interpre~~tion
theory pertinent to this type of well test in this assumed
WWKEX[XS situation can be obtained. At early time after the rate
in Wells-”,Prof.., l’bird
change, Eq. A-2 can be written as
l.lfarlwr, I), R.: ‘“l>ressure Buildup
70.6q,p.B ~i ~ :;:o:& _ 70.6q,lJB
\Y’[,rld I’etrOleu]l; CO]lg. (1951) Sect. 11,50.3.
?. JliIler, C. C., Dyes, A. B. and Hutchin.wn, C. A., Jr.: ~l’Xti-
mution of Permeability und Resemoir Pressure From flottan-
Holc Pwww B1lild-tlp ~llara(t(>ristics”, Truns..AI~IE ~1950J
p,., = p, +—--—
kh ( ) kit

189, 91.
3. SLr.gsweier, G. L. find XItitthews, (1. S.: “A Sturfy of Anu- [’n(0’:;:5f)+-2s -o”’7721--~sf*
MJIOUS Prrwuw Baihl. op flrlmvinr””. Trans.. AI!l E (1958) t+At
213, 44. Iog—- Klog M...... (A-3)
( At + q, )
4,1>itwr. S. C.. Ri,.v. j, D. and ‘Illonmi, C. E.: “A Comparison
nf ‘f%erwetiru[ Ptwsnrr Build-up Curves with Field Curws Thus, during the early part of the flow tcsl, before the
ol}tuinrd frnrn f30ttonl.Hnlc Sllut-Ia TswQ”, .fuur. Pet. TdI. effect of the fauit is apparent, the conventional two-rate
(Aug.. 1949) 49.
flow test plot of p,,, w
5..Tohnsnn, [1. R., Grwnkorn. R. A, aad Widner, G, W.: “A
\’arialJ*-fLite I’wt.edore for Apl)rai.ing Wellbore Ilnmage-in
Waterllnod input Well.’:, .lour. Pet. ?kch. (Jan., 1963} 85.
(). \un Everrfingen. A. F.: ‘“’HIP Skin Effect ttnd Its Influence o])
the Prudu(.tive (;alau.ity nf a Well”, Trnns., AI1lE (1953) is linear with slope
198, 171. 162.6q,/J.B
[,, =--- ,.. (A-4)
7, Hurst. W.: ‘“fktablisluneat of the Skiu EfTert and Its In}pedi- 7–””’”””
ment to Fluid Flow into a Well Bore’”. Pet. IIng. (Oct.. 1953]
25, B.6. At is later time after the rate change, Eq. A-2 can be
X.h[sttthews, c S., ftrmrs, F. and t{suzel~roek, P.: ‘6A Method fnr
Determination nf Average Pressure in a Baunderf Rcxervnir”,
Trans., AIME (1954) 201,182.
9. JIatthews. C, S.: “Analysis of Preswre Build-up and Flow
TestData’’,jot/r.Pct, Tech. (Sqrt.,1961) X62.
10. ~f&wits, H. C., Hazehroe!i, P.. .411en, E. K. mrd Ilntthews: 325.2q,p.B I+N +“Z: log At
+ 2S- 1.1544 – ~~ log ~
,. .: “A Study of tht: Behavior of Bounded Rewrvoirs (km. 1 kh ( )
IIowd of Stratified Layers”, .%x.. Pet, s%g.Jour. (March, 1961]
43. . . . . . . (A-5)..!. ,

,,
APPENDIX A fault is reflected at the well, the flow-test plot is Iinem
EFFECT OF A FAULT OR LINEAR BARRIER TO
FLOW ON TWO-RATE FLOW TE3T BEHAVIOR
To stimulate the two-rate flow test performance of a
single well in the presence of a fault or other linear barrie~,
the point-source solution to the radial tlow equation and the
method of images can be used. It has been shown’ that
the pressure behavior of a well which produces at a con-
stant rate q and which is located a distance d from a
fault is given by
It can be seen from Eq. A-5 that, after the effect of the
with slope
325,2q,pB
1),= 21), = - –-–;:j~—- . . : . . . (A-6)
Therefore at later times during a flow test the effect of
the fault is to double the earlier slope of the flow test plot.
To derive an expression for the distance to the fault,
we can utilize the fact that the extrapolated straight-line
relationships for the, earlier and later portions of the flow
test plot intersect when extended. The expressions given
hy Eqs. A-3’ and A-5wrnay be equated to yield

1!35L -“
. . . .. . .-. . .,
.“
● ✌✎✎

t+- At 162.6q, pB
+ 2.303
( 10g ~+-; 10~ Al
) *
, . (A-7) M=

kh = (162.6)
go ,

(107) (0.6) ( IS)

r-1-At —P
where log ~ + ; log M is the value on the 90
[ 1.,
klt = 174 md ft,
time factor scale at which the two straight-line portions k=3md.
of the flow test plot intersect.
The next step in the analysis procedure is the determi-
Eq, A-7 must be solved by trial and error for the correct
nation of the skin factor S. For this purpose Eq, 8 of
value of d.
the text is used.
For producing time t sui%ciently large [so that log
f= log (t+ Az)], Eq. A-7 can be simplified to yield the
following expression for d: ‘=37’+
’’5[(Z%X2A’
‘r!~p’”’(’))
d z
d
kAz.
6792$cp’’’’ ””-’
. (A-8) - log
+=’ 1‘
where A(, is- the. elapsed producing time after the rate
S=3,71+ ,.15;(,.;:46)(3’69 ;’’”)
Ii-At
change corresponding to log7+; log4t ‘
[ I● 3
In most practical cases Eq. A-8 should yield a good esti- – 10g (0,06) (9.32 x 10-:) (0,6) (0)04) ,
1.
mate of d.
S = –3.6.
If the early slope of the flow test curve is utilized ( Eq.
A-3), the formulas for estimating k and S are the same Note that the c value used in this calculation is A,,=
as those presented in the text, However, to estimate p, (1,21 XIO-’) (0.77) = 9.32 X10-’ psi-’.
(or p“ ), the following equation must be used; Having found values for k and S, one may now proceed
kt to determine p~’, By setting p, ‘pt’ and rearrawiw ~q,
162.% @ ,05 ,,

P; = P./ (1) +- 5 of the text, we have

kh +c/J.r,.-
[
kt
– 3,23+ 0,~75 – 0,434 hi @’p4#
( – mo-iii% )1 ‘
(A-9)
p“ =“prj(t) -t (-b)
( log —
@c/U,:
– 3.z3 + 0.87s’

Substitution of the appropriate values into the above fornl-

)
,

Thus, it’ a fault is present, an estimate of the distance ula yields

to the fault must be obtained before pk can be calculated, (3)(5,922)
p* ,= ?;! :8 + (90) log -–-— —--- .—.
The units utilized in the relationships derived in this (0.06) (9.32x 10”’) (0.6) (0.04)
Appendix are the same as those employed in the text of [
the report.
– 3,23 -t (0.87) ( –3.6) = 3.54S P@
1
APPENDIX B
Eqs. 9 and 10 of the text yield estimates of the pressure
TWO-RATE FLOW TEST CALCULATIONS drop acrcss the skin at rates q, and q,. rcspectivclY.
FOR EXAMPLE A Thus, at q,,
I+At 3P (skin) = 0.87 ( -1)) (S)
From the basic flow test plot ofp ,., vs log –-~~– + -:: = 0.87(90) ( –3.6)
-1 [
= 282 psig,
log M I for Well A (see Fig. 4] the value of – b is 90 psig. and tit 9,,
Thus, ~om Eq. 4 of the text, Ap(skin) = 0.87 (q,/q,) ( -b) (S)
~0 _ 162,6q@ = 0.87 (0.43) (90) ( –3.6)
kh “ = I 21 psig. **

..