SPE 67241

Determination of the Skin Factor for a Well Produced at a Constant Bottomhole

Pressure
I.M. Kutasov, SPE and M. Kagan, School of Petroleum Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium
held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2427 March 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A new technique has been developed for analyzing the
constant bottomhole pressure (BHP) test data. The method
presented in this note allows to calculate the skin factor for
damaged and stimulated oil wells. Advantages of the BHP test
are: (1) they do not require that well be shut in; (2) the fluid
production can be easily controlled (at constant flow rate tests
the BHP is changing with time); and (3) wellbore storage
effects on the test data are short-lived. It is assumed that the
instantaneous flow rate and time data are available from a well
produced against a constant bottomhole pressure. Only records
of the flowing time and cumulative production data are
required to compute the value of the skin factor.
A semi theoretical equation is used to approximate the
dimensionless flow rate. This formula is used to obtain a
quadratic equation for determining the skin factor. The
accuracy of the basic equation will be shown below. The paper
includes an example o calculation.
Dimensionless Flow Rate
Let us assume that the well is producing against a constant
bottomhole pressure from an infinite-acting reservoir and the
effective wellbore radius concept can be used1. In this case the
relationship between well flow rate and time for a well with a
constant BHP in oil field units is2
kh ( pi p wf )
q= qD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
141.2 B
0.0002637kt
tD = 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
ct rwa
rwa = rw e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
Where qD is dimensionless flow rate, and tD is the
dimensionless time based on the apparent well bore radius
(rwa) concept. We should also to note that Equation 1 is widely
used in petroleum industry to forecast oil flow rates.
Analytical expressions for the function qD = f (tD) are available
only for asymptotic cases or for large values of tD3,4. The
dimensionless flow rate was first calculated (in tabulated
form) by Jacob and Lohman3. Sengul5 computed values of qD
(tD) for a wider range of tD and with more table entries. We
have found6,7 that for any values of dimensionless production
time a semi theoretical Equation 4 can be used to forecast the
flow rate
1
qD = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
ln(1 + D t D )
1
D=d+ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
tD + b
2
d= ; b= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
2 2
In the Table 1 values of qD* calculated after Equation 4 and
the results of a numerical solution5 (qD*) are compared. The
agreement between values of qD and qD* calculated by these
two methods is seen to be good.
2 I. M. KUTASOV, M. KAGAN SPE 67241

Skin Factor Nomenclature

Let
1 B = oil formation volume factor, RB/STB
c = exp 1, x = t D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) ct = total compressibility, Lt2/m, psi-1
qD h = reservoir thickness, L, ft
then after simple transformations we obtain from Equation 4 q = fluid flow rate, L3/t, STB/D
qD = dimensionless fluid flow rate
x 2 + a1 x + a 2 = 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8) k = permeability, L2, md
and rw = well radius, L, ft
2 rwa = effective wellbore radius, L, ft
a a initial reservoir pressure, m/Lt2, psi
x = t D = 1 + 1 a 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9) pi =
2 4 pwf = bottomhole flowing pressure, m/Lt2, psi
where s = skin factor
db c + 1 bc t = production/test time, t, hrs
a1 = , a2 = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(10) tD = dimensionless production /test time
d d = viscosity, m/Lt, cp
= porosity
The apparent (effective) well radius is calculated from
Equation 2
0.0002637kt References
r wa = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11) 1. Uraiet, A.A. and Raghavan, R., Unsteady Flow to a Well
t Dct producing at Constant Pressure, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
October 1980, P. 1803-1812.
and, finally 2. Lee, J. Well Testing, SPE Monograph Series, 1982.
rwa 3. Jacob, C.E. and Lohman, S.W., Non-steady Flow to a Well of
s= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12) constant Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer. Trans. Amer.
rw Geophys. Un., 1952, p. 559-564.
4. Ehlig-Economides, C.A., and Ramey, H.J., Jr., Pressure Buildup
Thus, we obtained a quadratic equation for estimating the skin
for Wells Produced at a Constant Pressure, Soc. Pet. Eng. J,
factor. In the practice the values of qD are estimated from February, 1981, 0. 105-114.
equation 1. 5. Sengul, M.M., Analysis of Step-Pressure tests, SPE Paper No.
12175, 58th annual technical conference and Exhibition,
San Francisco, October 5-8, 1983.
Example 6. Kutasov, I.M. Dimensionless Temperature, Cumulative Heat Flow
Using the table5 of qD* = f(tD) we generated data for this and Heat Flow Rate for a Well With a Constant Bore-face
simulated example. The reservoir, well, and fluid data Temperature. Geothermics, 16, No. 2, 1987, p. 467-472.
(Table 2) were chosen to allow to avoid interpolation of qD* 7. Kutasov, I.M. Applied Geothermics for Petroleum Engineers,
Elsevier, 1999.
values. Let us now assume that the Well started to produce oil
and the Wells skin factor is equal to zero. Later, after some
SI Metric Conversion Factors
time of production, a constant BHP test was conducted and it
cp x 1.0* E- 03=Pa.s
was found that due to formation damage the skin factor
ft x 3.048* E- 01=m
increased to s = 4.605. To improve the Well performance well
ft2 x 9.290 304* E- 02=m2
stimulation was conducted and a new constant BHP test has
ft3 x 2.831 685 E- 02=m3
shown that the skin factor was reduced to s = - 4.605.
in. x 2.54* E+00=cm
The results of calculations after Equations 1-12 are presented
lbf x 4.448 222 E+00=N
in Table 3 and Figures 1 and 2. The results of calculations
md x 9.869 233 E- 04= m2
show that the Equation 4 can be used to compute the flow rate
psi x 6.894 757 E+00=kPa
and skin factor. Indeed, the assumed and calculated values of
the skin factor are in a very good agreement.
*Conversion factor is exact
Conclusions
A new method has been developed for analyzing the constant
bottomhole pressure test data. The suggested method allows
one to calculate the skin factor for damaged wells or
stimulated wells.
SPE 67241 DETERMINATION OF THE SKIN FACTOR FOR A WELL PRODUCED AT A CONSTANT BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE 3

8000

800

6000 700
flow rate, STB/D

600

flow rate, STB/D

4000
s=0
500

400
s = - 4.605
2000

s=4.605
300

0 200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

time, hours time, hours

Fig. 1- Flow rate vs. time, s = - 4.605 Fig. 2- Flow rate vs. time, s = 0 and s = - 4.605

Table 1- Comparison of values of

dimensionless flow rate for a well with constant BHP:
qD* - Ref. 5, qD Equation 4
tD q D* qD q/q*
100,%
0.0001 56.918 56.930 0.02
0.0002 40.392 40.405 0.03
0.0005 25.728 25.741 0.05
0.001 18.337 18.350 0.07
0.002 13.110 13.122 0.09
0.005 8.4694 8.4818 0.15
0.01 6.1289 6.1410 0.20
0.02 4.4716 4.4835 0.27
0.05 2.9966 3.0079 0.38
0.1 2.2488 2.2596 0.48
0.2 1.7152 1.7255 0.60
0.5 1.2336 1.2430 0.77
1 0.98377 0.99260 0.90
2 0.80058 0.80877 1.02
5 0.62818 0.63555 1.17
10 0.53392 0.54068 1.27
20 0.46114 0.46730 1.34
50 0.38818 0.39351 1.37
100 0.34556 0.35025 1.36
200 0.31080 0.31484 1.30
500 0.27381 0.27706 1.19
1,000 0.25096 0.25366 1.08
2,000 0.23151 0.23372 0.95
5,000 0.20986 0.21153 0.80
10,000 0.19593 0.19727 0.69
20,000 0.18370 0.18477 0.58
50,000 0.16966 0.17044 0.46
100,000 0.16037 0.16098 0.38
4 I. M. KUTASOV, M. KAGAN SPE 67241

Table 2-Reservoir, well, and fluid data for the

stimulated example

Assumed parameters
h = 50, ft k= 34.84, md
= 0.15 pi = 3000, psi
-6
ct = 2510 , 1/psi pwf = 2500, psi
B = 1.028, RB/STB = 2.0, cp
rw = 0.35, ft

Table 3- Calculated values of the skin factor. For stimulated well tD(t = 1 hr) = 1.00; for well with s = 0
tD (t = 1 hr) = 1.0104, and for a well with s = 4.605 tD (t = 1 hr) = 1.0108

t,hrs q D* s = - 4.605 q D* s = 0.0 q D* s = 4.605

0.1 2.24880 -4.599 0.25096 0.044 0.117420 4.611
0.2 1.71520 -4.597 0.23151 0.042 0.112860 4.608
0.5 1.23360 -4.594 0.20986 0.038 0.107340 4.606
1.0 0.98377 -4.591 0.19593 0.035 0.103510 4.604
1.5 0.86994 -4.589 0.18859 0.033 0.101390 4.603
2.0 0.80058 -4.587 0.18370 0.032 0.099942 4.602
3.0 0.71620 -4.585 0.17722 0.030 0.097966 4.602
4.0 0.66440 -4.583 0.17288 0.028 0.096611 4.601
5.0 0.62818 -4.581 0.16966 0.027 0.095585 4.600
6.0 0.60088 -4.580 0.16711 0.026 0.094763 4.600
7.0 0.57928 -4.579 0.16502 0.026 0.094079 4.600
8.0 0.56157 -4.578 0.16325 0.025 0.093494 4.599
9.0 0.54668 -4.577 0.16171 0.024 0.092984 4.599
10.0 0.53392 -4.577 0.16037 0.024 0.092533 4.599