PE 313

Well Test Analysis and

Interpretation

TYBTech Petroleum Engineering

 MODULE III
Pressure Build-up Test and
Pressure Drawdown Test
Pressure Build-
up Tests
 Introduction

Using this data, possible to

Test conducted by flowing the estimate formation
Allow the pressure build up in
well at a constant rate followed permeability, current drainage
the wellbore and record the
by shutting the well in (usually area pressure, characterize the
pressure (usually downhole)
at the surface) formation damage, reservoir
boundaries
 The Ideal Build Up Test

• Ideal pressure build up test is the one conducted in an infinite, homogeneous, isotropic
reservoir containing a slightly compressible single phase fluid with constant fluid properties
• Any wellbore damage is concentrated in a skin of zero thickness at the wellbore
• At the instant of the shut in, flow into the wellbore ceases completely
• No real build up is modeled according to this idealized description
• But analysis methods prove more useful to realistic situation if the effects of deviation from
ideal assumptions are understood
 Ideal Build-up Test

• Assume that:
1. The well is producing from an infinite acting reservoir
2. The formation and fluid have uniform properties so that Ei function is applicable
3. Horner’s pseudo-producing time approximation is applicable
 Ideal Build-up Test

• The well has produced for a time tp at rate q

before shut in
• Elapsed time since shut in is Δt, then using
principle of superposition,
=
 Ideal Build-up Test

• Which becomes, =
• OR = ------------------------------(Equation 1)

• Equation 2.1 suggests that shut in BHP recorded during a pressure build up test should
plot as a straight-line function of
• The slope of this line should be
• Absolute value of m is considered for well test analysis
• Therefore --------------------------------(Equation 2)
 Ideal Build-up Test

• Thus formation permeability k is determined from a

pressure build up test by measuring the value of the
slope m
• Original reservoir pressure can be found out by
extrapolating this slope to infinite shut-in time (At
Horner time = 1)
 Ideal Build-up Test
• Determination of skin factor:
• At the instant of well shut in, the flowing BHP can be calculated as:
=
=
=
At shut in time Δt in the build-up test, =
Combining above two equations and solving for the skin factor s,
 Ideal Build-up Test

• It is common practice in the industry to choose shut in time Δt = 1 hour and corresponding
shut in pressure , and assuming that is negligible, we get simplified version of the skin
equation

• Note that slope m in this equation is taken as a positive number

• To summarize, we can determine formation permeability, original reservoir pressure pi and
skin factor s from ideal pressure build up test
 Real Build-up Test

• Instead of a straight line, we get a curve for real well pressure build up test
• Based on ROI concept, we can divide the real pressure build up test into 3 distinct regions:
1. An Early Time Region (ETR) during which the pressure transient is moving through
near formation zone
2. A Middle Time Region (MTR) during which the pressure transient has moved away
from the near wellbore damage and into the bulk formation
3. A Late Time Region (LTR) in which the pressure transient has reached reservoir
boundaries
 Real Build-up Test – Early Time
Region (ETR)

• Most well have altered permeability near the wellbore

• No straight line until pressure transient caused by shutting in a well moves away from this zone
• Another complication at earliest times: continuous movement of the fluid in the wellbore (afterflow, a form of
wellbore storage)
• Why does afterflow affect the character of the PBU curve at the earliest times?
• In equation for PBU test = , the assumption is that at Δt = 0, the flow rate abruptly changes to zero
• However at the instant of shut in, the downhole rate is still q (and not 0 like q surface)
• Afterflow usually lasts longer that the time required for the transient to move out of the damaged zone
• ETR ends when the afterflow ceases to exist and straight line seen on plot of pws vs time
 Real Build-up Test – Middle Time
Region (MTR)

• Seen after the radius of investigation has moved away from the zone of altered permeability and afteflow ceases
to exist
• Usually observe ideal straight line slope of which is used to estimate formation permeability and skin factor
• Systematic analysis of PBU test requires to accurately determine the MTR on plot of vs
Real Build-up Test – Late Time Region
(LTR)

• Given enough time, the pressure transient will reach one of reservoir boundaries
• This is end of MTR and start of LTR
• In this region, the pressure response of the well will be influenced by presence of boundaries
• Other factors that influence pressure response during LTR include interference from other wells, fluid fluid contact,
reservoir heterogeneities etc
 Qualitative behavior of Field Tests

• Curve 1: Ideal PBU test where MTR lasts for almost entire duration of the
test
• Curve 2: Indicates response of a damaged well with altered zone near well
• Rapid rise in pressures from flowing pressure to build up pressure along
MTR
• Neither case observed often in practice because afterflow distorts the
early data
 Qualitative behavior of Field Tests

• Curve 1: Obtained with near perforations shut in (minimizing

the duration of afterflow)
• Curve 2: Obtained with more conventional surface shut-in
• NOTE: Flowing pressure at shut in is same for both cases but
afterflow appearing with surface shut-in:
1. Completely obscures the information reflecting
near wellbore conditions in ETR
2. Delays beginning of MTR
 Qualitative behavior of Field Tests

• Figure shows characteristic behavior of pressure build up test

for hydraulically fractured well without afterflow
• Pressure builds slowly first, MTR identified only after the
pressure transient has moved away from the fractured zone
and into the bulk formation
• Possibility of boundary effects appearing even before the end
ETR
 Qualitative behavior of Field Tests

• Two distinct behavior of LTRs

• Curve 1: pressure response for a well reasonably centered in
drainage area
• Curve 2: Highly off centered well in its drainage area
 Effects and Duration of Afterflow
• Problems arising from afterflow:
• Delay in beginning of MTR
• Total lack of development of MTR in some cases
• Development of several false straight lines
• Recognition of MTR is crucial for successful build-up analysis
• Need for method to determine when the afterflow ceases to
distort the pressure build-up test is clear
• Characteristic influence of afterflow on PBU test is lazy s-
shaped curve
• In some tests, data before time A may be missing or data for
times greater than time B may be missing
• Shape of the PBU curve is not sufficient
 Effects and Duration of Afterflow
• Log-log graph of vs Δt is even more diagnostic indicator of the
end of afterflow distortion
• Figure shown here based on analytical solution to diffusivity
equation for constant rate production with wellbore storage is
also useful for pressure build-up tests
• Dimensionless pressure given by
• Dimensionless time and dimensionless wellbore storage
constant is defined essentially for constant rate production
AND
• Where =
• End of afterflow distortion occurs approximately one and half
log cycle after the unit slope disappears
 Effects and Duration of Afterflow
• Regardless of whether unit slope line is present, end of
afterflow storage distortion can be determined
• This is achieved by overlaying log-log plot of the test data onto
Ramey’s graph (shown here)
• Find any pre plotted curve that matches the data and note
where pre plotted curve for finite value of CsD becomes
identical to CsD = 0
• If unit slope line is present, we can use it to establish value of
CsD to characterize the actual test
• Note that any point on unit slope line must satisfy the
relationship =
• In terms of variables with dimensions,
• Where and are values from a point on unit slope line
• We can then establish CsD using
 Effects and Duration of Afterflow

• We can use the empirical relationship given below to mark the

time for end of wellbore storage distortion

OR
Example 2.2 John Lee

Given: Petrophysical data, fluid data, shut in pressures

measured as a function of time
Questions:
1. At what shut in time (Δt) does afterflow cease
distorting the pressure build up data
2. At what shut in time do boundary effects appear?
 Example 2.2 John Lee

Using Ramey’s type curve matching, CsD can be

calculated for an unknown CsD
• A point (100, 0.1) appears on strainght line section
of the curve
• Using these values, we can calculate Cs ,

• And then CsD can be determined

From the solution for CsD, matching should be

performed between 10^3 <CsD<10^4
 Determination of Permeability

• Procedure to determine bulk formation permeability is as follows:

1. Determine the probable beginning of the MTR by estimating when the afterflow effects disappear
2. Assume that the end of MTR on the Horner plot occurs when the curve becomes non linear, verify
the end of MTR with the help of log-log plot curve matching techniques
3. Plot middle time slope (MTS) on middle time region, determine the slope value and estimate
permeability from:

𝑞𝐵𝜇
k =162.6
𝑚h
4. Radius of investigation may be useful for determining the beginning and end of MTR to
provide plausible explanation however this approach will only provide qualitative answer
5. If there is no clear-cut MTR, or MTR is short, quantitative type curve matching can be useful for
permeability determination
 Well Damage and Stimulation

• Estimation of effective wellbore radius

• Additional pressure drop due to skin near wellbore

In terms of mid-time slope,

• Flow Efficiency:
 Pressure Level in the Surrounding
Formation

• A PBU test can be used to find out average drainage area pressure in the formation surrounding the well
• Original/Initial reservoir pressure can be found out from extrapolation of the last part of the pressure vs time plot

• ORIGINAL Reservoir Pressure:

 Pressure Level in the Surrounding
Formation

• Static Drainage Area Pressure:

• We do not calculate initial reservoir pressure in case of a depleted reservoir since extrapolating the middle time region
of the pressure build up test
• We calculate average pressure in the drainage area with the help of two methods:
1. The Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek (MBH) method
2. The modified Muskat method
 Pressure Level in the Surrounding
Formation

• Static Drainage Area Pressure:

• The Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek (MBH) method:
• The p* method developed by Matthews et al by computing build up curves for various reservoir geometries
• Then comparing the p* calculated through extrapolation of MTS and comparing it with static drainage area pressure ()
which is the value at which pressure will stabilize given sufficient shut in time
• Build up curves computed using imaging technique and superposition principle
• Results of the investigation summarized in series of plots of vs
• Note that can be written more compactly as 2.303 /m , also written as
• Also the group is a dimension less time and is written as
Pressure Level in the Surrounding
Formation
Pressure Level in the Surrounding
Formation
 Pressure Level in the Surrounding
Formation

• Steps to follow for application of this method:

1. Extrapolate the middle time line to = 1 and read extrapolated pressure p*
2. Estimate the drainage area shape, which is reasonably symmetrical
3. Choose a proper curve from standard curves shown in next slides, for the drainage area shape of the tested well
4. Estimate and find as 2.303 /m =
5. Calculate = - m /2.303

• Advantages: Does not require more data that beyond the MTR, and applicable to a wide variety of drainage geometries
• Disadvantages: requires knowledge of drainage area size (area), estimates of rock and fluid properties
 Pressure Level in the Surrounding
Formation

• Modified Muskat Method:

• Based on limiting form of the equation

• Using superposition, to simulate a pressure build up following stabilized flow and noting that boundary effects are felt in
the build up, the equation can be approximated as:

• For PBU analysis, the equation usually takes the form given by:

• Approximation behind developing these equations are valid only for:

 Pressure Level in the Surrounding
Formation

• Note that the equation has the form

• The above form of the equation suggests how it is applied:

• Assume a value of and plot log( - pws) vs Δt until a straight line appears, when it does the correct value of has been
assumed
• Assumed value of is too low: plot has noticeable downward curvature for the time range
• Assumed value of too high, produces noticeable upward curvature in the same time range
 Pressure Level in the Surrounding
Formation

• Two advantages over MBH method:

1. Requires no estimates of reservoir properties for estimation of
2. Found to provide satisfactory estimates for hydraulically
fractured reservoirs and for wells with layers of different
permeability intervals communicating through well
• Disadvantages:
1. Fails when tested well is not reasonably centered in a drainage
2. The required shut in times of

are frequently practically very long especially for low perm reservoirs
 Reservoir Limits Test

• Single boundary near a well causes the slope pf a build up curve to double
• We can estimate the distance to the boundary
• For a well located near a boundary we can apply superposition principle to find total pressure drop:

• Similar equation can be developed for a pressure build up test:

 Reservoir Limits Test

• For shut in time sufficiently larger such that the logarithmic approximation of the Ei functions, the equation becomes:

• Which then becomes:

• Two observations can be made:

1. For a well near a boundary, such as sealing fault, the equation shows that the slope of a build up curve doubles
2. The time required for the slope to double can be long, OR
• For a large L or small permeability, shut in time required for the logarithmic approximation to be valid can be longer than
the time ordinally available for a build up test
• For this reason, awaiting doubling of boundary is not the best approach of identifying the no-flow boundary
 Reservoir Limits Test
• Some analysts prefer to write the superposition principle for pressure build up tests more directly, noting that for tp >> Δt
it may be rearranged as:

• Reasons for this rearrangement is as follows:

1. The term determines the position of the MTS

2. At earliest shut in time, the Ei become negligible. Physically this means that the transient has
not encountered any no flow boundaries and LTR has not yet begun
 Reservoir Limits Test

• Method for analyzing the build up test:

1. Plot pws vs
2. Establish the MTR
3. Extrapolate the MTR to LTR
4. Tabulate the differences, between the build up curve and extrapolated MTR
for several points
5. Estimate L from relationship implied by equation below: