.

CHAPTER
9
GAS
WELL- TES TIN G

Generally speaking, there are two types of gas well testing. The first kind,
deliverability testing, includes the well-known back pressure and isochronal tests.
The purpose of such tests is to obtain the bottom hole pressure drop (dP2)
corresponding to a given constant wellhead flow rate (Qsc) for a particular well. It
has been accepted that log(dP2) versus log(Qsc) has a nearly linear relationship.
Figure 9-1 [1-1] illustrates the relationship between the flow rate Qsc and the
driving force dP2 at the sandface. The first low flow rate is usually above the
line, suggesting that the curve may be gradually concave upward. Generally,
the straight line relationship for a particular well applies throughout the lifetime
of the well, as long as the production remains in single phase. By extending
the performancecurve, log dP2 versus log Qsc, one can obtain the absolute open
flow, or AOFI. Though this AOF number does not reflect reality, it does ap-
proximate the capacity of the well. Usually, a deliverability test does not need
any information on fluid/reservoir parameters, and is developed on an empirical
basis.
The secondkind of well testing includes drawdown, buildup, two-rate, and
multi-rate tests, as well as the type-curve method: These tests are designed to
determine the near-well reservoir parameters, such as flciw capacity defined as
the product of permeability and formation thickness (kh), skin factor (s), high-
velocity factor (D), and wellbore storage capacity (CD).2

J AOF is defined as the flow rate against zero atmospheric back pressure; in other words, AOF is
the maximum theoretical flow rate that could be delivered.
2k, h, S, D, and CD are defined in Chapter 8.

383
384 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUCll0N AND STORAGE

10.000
8000

6000

4000 ~ -.,
3000 Ii ~-.,
~
2000 ~ -.,

N ! / ~~ -
.~
Co
1000
- 800
.gGOO
0
,
g 400
cE 300 /
~;;,
",I 200
,..
Q:

100
80
GO ,
40
30 ..

20

10
1 2 3c 4 6 8 10 20 3040 60 100 200
Q flow rote MMcf / doy

FIGURE 9.1
Typical back pressure plot [Katz et al., 1-1, courtesy McGraw-Hill Publishing CoJ.
"

9.1 DELIVERABILITY TESTS

Deliverability tests are conventionally called back pressure tests because they
make possible the prediction of well flow rates against any particular pipeline
back pressure. Since Rawlins and Schellhart [6-47] of the U.S. Bureau of Mines
published the well-known Monograph 7: Back-pressure Data on Natural Gas
Wells and Their Application to Production Practices introducing the later widely
used "back pressuretest," many supplemental methods have been suggested.In
this chapter, besides the back pressure test, several selected methods will be
included and discussed;they are the isochronal test, the modified isochronal test,
the inverse productivity index (IPI), and the modified inverse productivity index.

Back Pressure Test

Rawlins and Schellhardt [6-47] observedthat a plot of dP2 =p} - p2 (Pj: closed
average formation pressure; P: flowing stabilized sandfacepressure) versus Qsc
would yield a straight line on a logarithmic plot. The back pressure equation is
expressedas
Qsc = C(p} - p2t = C(l1.p2t (9.1)
 ,

GAS WELL-TESTING 385

or in another fonn:3
10glO dP 2 = -- 1 10glOC+ -1 10glO Qsc (9.2)
n n
where Qscis the flow rate at standardconditions, C is the perfonnance coefficient,
and n is an exponent that describesthe inverse of the slope lln of the plot.
Figure 9-2 shows the typical four-point back pressure test, which is a
standardregulatory testing procedure in several statesof the United States.
From a theoretical point of view, the stabilized pressure could be obtained
by integrating the Darcy equation in the drainage area:4

PDW = - dP2 = In-rd (8.35)

P~QD rw
which can be rearrangedin tenns of p2:
10glO dP 2 = 10glO
( ~ln;:
'YpZT rd ) + l?glOQsc (9.3)

where all the variables are defined as in Chapter 8 for the particular set of units
used.
Equation (9.3) shows that, for a viscous Darcy approach, the slope of
log dP2 versus log Qscshould be 1 (l/n = 1). Slopesgreater than 1 (l/n > 1) may
be due to the high-velocity effect or the variation of gas properties (JL,Z, and c);
seeFig. 9-3 [1-1]. Elenbaasand Katz [9-13] calculated a curve that was gradually
concave upward to account for the high-velocity effect (Fig. 9-4). Cornell [2-13]
measuredthe high-velocity coefficient /3of core samplesand correlatedit with
penneability k to show there is no transient behavior from viscous to quad-Darcy
flow [2-19] (discussedin Chapter 2). Indeed, the gradual change of slope of back
pressurecurves proves their point.
Figure 9-5 is a plot of dp2(psia2) versus Qlkh(Mcf/day/md/ft) for various
discovery pressuresand penneabilities; using this chart, the approximate penne- ,.
ability could be obtained by back pressuretest. The empirical equation (9.1) could 'II
be useful in correlating multiple well data. The constant C at a given dP2 is a I
deliverability of the' well, and the sum of the constant C's representsthe total
capacity of the field. One immediate drawback of the back pressure test is its
need of stabilized pressures, which may~be obtained after a long duration
time, especially for some tight sand wells (k is small).

Isochronal Test
Cullender [9-11] proposed a series of flow tests at different rates for the same
length of time (Fig. 9-6). The resulting plot of dP2 versus Qsc, would have the

3Log1Ois used for convenience of plotting.

4Despite different flow rates, drainage area is the same.
386 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUCTION AND STORAGE

"&.
<]
01
.2

°1 °2 °3 °4 10g(0)
-.- Pf

1 PressureDrop due to 01

a. PI
o~-°1 -
due to °3 - 02
. : : ................ P4

. . .

to t1 t2 t3 t4

04

03
0 02
02-°1
01

to t1 t2 t3 t4

FIGURE 9-2
Typical four-pointbackpressuretest.
 .

GASWELL-TESTING387

100
80
60
40

20
"'..
Q:
",110
~8
6
4

1000
Q, Mcf per day

FIGURE 9.3
Variation of slope of back pressure curves for viscous and turbulent flow [Katz et al., 1-1, courtesy
McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.].

same slope as the stabilized back pressure performance curve. Then, extending
the last flow rate to reach stabilized pressureP and imposing the slope onto the
stabilized point (pJ - p2), one could obtain an approximate performance curve
without stabilizing the pressuresexcept for the last flow rate. Figure 9-7 shows
the typical isochronal test procedure.
The isochronal test .canbe justified mathematically. Theoretically, the pres-
sure drop at wellbore for a viscous Darcy case (no high-velocity effect) is
I
PDW = 2(ln tD + 0.80907)+ s (9.4)

which can be explicitly expressedin logarithmic form as

10glO~ 2 = 10glO { ~ 1 ( In ~Akt
'YILZT 2 [ + 0.80907) + s]} + 10glOQsc (9.5)

Eq. (9.5) indicates that as long as one keeps the same duration time, (the fIrSt
term of the right-hand side has the same magnitude for all flow rates), the slope
of the unstabilized performance curve should be one, the same as for the stabi-
lized performance curve. Indeed, Equation (8.37) shows that, assuming wellbore
storage and high velocity do not have an effect, the drainage radius r d moves
away from the wellbore with the same speed regardless of the flow rate applied.
It should be noted that too short a duration time in isochronal testing may
lead to erroneous interpretation of data because of the wellbore storage effect.
The minimum duration time free of wellbore storage effect is
tD = (60 + 3.5s)CD (8.49)

CD, s, and D could be obtained by the type-curve or the two-rate test, and k
(used in tD) could be determined either by the drawdown test or the buildup test.
388 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUCTION AND STORAGE

lOOO

100

II)
~ 10
<
II)
:)
0
I-
1:

.('.,
0:
..'
~
1

100 !OOO I(¥JOO IOQOOO

Q-MCFDAT 14.7PSIA

FIGURE 9-4
Calculated back pressurecurve showing transition from laminar to turbulent flow [Elenbaas & Katz,
9-13, courtesy SPE~AIME].

For shallow storage fields, the wellbore storage effect may go away in a short
time; however, for deep wells, the effect of unloading wellbore contents has to
be handled carefully.

.
Like the back pressuretest, the isochronal test requires the shut-in pressure
to be returned to the original pressure between measurements.As a result, the
isochronal test is impractical for many wells.

Modified Isochronal Test

In order to conserve time and operational cost, Katz et al. [1-1] suggested a
modified isochronal test conducted with a shut-in period equal to the flow period,

-
 .
GASWELL-TESTING389

100,000 DiscoverysIJIIf-inpr,ssur, = 11:/ 000 PSI;'

80.000

60,000 1//
40000
, 6 /
30.000 / /
20,000 J / /
//4000

/J/ /'J
10.000 D
BOOO
6000 // /' /
4000 2(; It
3000 I A /
/
2000 ~ /
~.~ ""
1000 c I r. / /" ~ /
1000,1

800 ~
0 600 ~:!; ,\19~

i~400 /. ~..f-77
~ Z/ /~ -
N'; 300 k,'"'
.- 'c'", 00'
':200 c, :" '/ . ;
~, '~
N..
~ 100 / ~
80

4Or-~\~~
~,
f---"o ~ ~~
GOf--
f- .~ ,)\e-

,0
09
//

'.V/
~~"
~ c, '

: ~ ~7
~~~f,;
'
,

10
8
~ ~

6
4 ", c"c.'
." c.
3 '
, "'
2
.Co
C C"
"
1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 08 1.0 2 3 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 60 80 100 200 300
fJ Mcl/da,
FKmd-x-iT

FIGURE9-5
Performance curvesfrom coredatafor O.6-gravitygas[Katz et aI., 1-1, courtesyMcGraw-HillPub-
lishing Co.].
 390 NAruRAL GAS ENGINEERING:PRODUcnON AND STORAGE

100
80
60

40

~
~ 20
~
0
~

!:;
N
0.810

I 8
N
If: 6

4
"

I
2 4 6 8 1.000 2 4 6 8 10,000
Q (Mc'/ D@t4.65)

FIGURE 9.6
Isochronal performance curves of gas well No.1. Duration of flow: (a) 0.1 hr, (b) 0.2 hr,
(c) 0.5 hr, (d) 1.0 hr, (e) 3.0 hr, and (j) 24 hr [Cullender, 9-11, courtesy SPE-AIME].

as depicted in Fig. 9-8. Instead of waiting for pressures to be stabilized, the

unstabilized shut-in pressuresare used. This is a purely empirical approach that
does not yield a true isochronal curve but closely approximatesone. This method
has given satisfactory results for many wells. Hinchman and Poettmann [9-15]
performed an error analysis and concluded that the stabilizing time (shut-in)
should be as long as possible and about twice as long for the last flow rate of a
four-point test as for the other flow rates.

Inverse Productivity Index

Many researchers reported that the back pressure test performance curve is actu-
ally concave upward as the flow rate increases, as shown in Fig. 9-9. The straight
line concept is just regionally applicable. Extrapolating beyond the test flows
region may lead to erroneous results [9-14]. In Fig. 9-9, two test regions are
selected; the high flow rate (Test 2) region has a higher slope (smaller n) than the
low flow rate (Test 1) region. What causes the performance curve to be concave
upward? Is there any theoretical basis?
The flow equation with additional considerations of skin and high-velocity
J effects is:
PDw(ST) = PDw + s + DQsc (8.47)
Combining Eqs. (8.47) and (8.31) in terms of p2, results in
 GAS WELL-TESTING 391

.
-.
True Back Pressure Curve
i Ext~nd to Steady State

~ O""'~
~ \
D""" Last Flow Rate
-g Slope A = Slope B ,.
e~ ...D"
~\O~
0"""""""'" i

°1 °2 °3 °4 10g(0)

~.(!.~!tial)

c..
, '-

"5 ~
I-.- ~ ~
~
Q)

TIME
,
Extend to Steady State
I

°3 .~ ~ ~ 04
= ~
.c ~

°2 ~ ~
a .9
°1 ... ! -.. :.ta19-+
"C

"""

TIME

FIGURE 9-7
Typical isochronal test.
 ~';.
392 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUC110N AND STORAGE

On+yOn> 1 [Hinchman& Poettmann)

04

OJ
0 02

01
~t

TIME

a.. , ~ , ,..., ~.(.i.~.~~~~!)

... ...
... ....
..... ... ....
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ... ...
... ... . ..
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .

TIME

FIGURE 9-8
Modified isochronaltest.

~p - { ~
'Y~T [ 2"
I ( In~ Akt + 0.80907) + . S] } . Qsc + ( ~.
' 'Y~T D ) Qsc
2 (9.6)
2-

Assuming the times for stabilizing pressuresare roughly the same for different
flow rates, the Q~c term of Eq. (9.6) will causefurther deviation from the unique
slope line when the flow rate (Qsc) increases.If the magnitude of Q~cterm of Eq.
(9.6) is much larger than that of the Qsc term (high-velocity effect dominates),
the equation can be rearrangedas

loglO ~p 2 = loglO ( ~
'YIJZT . D ) + (2)loglO Qsc (9.7)

Plottinglog ~p2 versuslog Qsc for this casewill yield a performancecurvewith

a slope equal to 2 (n = ~). Thus, the back pressure performance curve always
has the slope between I (viscous Darcy) and 2 (high-velocity effect); that is,
~ S n s I.

Joneset. al. [9-17] and Lee [9-18] suggesteda plot of M2/Qsc versus Qsc.
This idea comes from rearranging Eq. " (9.6) as ,

~('!f'>
 . - . t
True AOF Estimated AOn

.. ... "'
"' O.6;~'WELL-TES11NG

.
393

:\
.-.,.-./..
I'
C\l.' . I'IIIII
N True Curve ,j""'! ,I"I " "" \
III IIIIII
" III
" I"

"~ - , " c

..
~ "ii) .~~.§, slope close to 1
Q) Q)
OJ f-.'
-
0 0 .'
~
Q)
C)

. t." ~
.a

..
~
.' ~
.-.

~
0)
Q)
~

>-
C)
.
."-..
.
.
I-

slope close to 2

log Q
FIGURE 9-9
Truedeliverabilitycurveandthe four-pointbackpressuretest.

flp2 --
""Q:"
[~
'Y~T [ 21n~
1( Akt + 0.80907 ) 'Y~T
+ sJ} + ( ~'D ) 'Qsc

The first term in the right-hand side of Eq. (9.8) is of the same magnitude for
all flow rates if the stabilization times are long and roughly close. By plotting
flp2/Qsc versus Qsc, one should obtain a straight line whos~ slope reflects the
high-velocity factor D; see Fig. 9-10.
In oil field technology, a useful indicator of deliverability has been the
productivity index J, expressedin terms of stock tank barrels per day per psi
pressuredrop within the drainagematrix: J = q/(Pav - P). Logan et al. [8-34]
extendedthis concept to gas wells by defining Qsc/dP~ as the productivity index,
representingthe deliverability of gas wells. Hence, a plot of dP2/Qsc versus Qsc
is called inverse productivity index, or IPI, plot.
Furthermore, Lee [8-29], normalized IPI by dividing it by pi:

IPIN = - flp2 (9.

P}Qsc
A plot of dP2/(p}Qsc) versus Qschas

Slope = -'YJJZT. -D (9.10)

kh p2
f
as shown in Fig. 9-11. Under the condition of AOF, IPIN becomesapproximately
equal to I/Qsc; therefore, by extrapolating the operating line (Fig. 9-11) to
"-,,, intercept the AOF line (I/Qsc line), one obtains AOF graphically.
~ ,~
.
 394 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUcnON AND STORAGE

2000
Q ilP2/Q
0
:::::. 4.288 965
0.. 9.265 1,229
E 15.552 1,502
~ 1800 20.177 1,742

0
e
~ 1400

-
~
'"
cu
'in
S 1000
0 [m(P) approach]
",--
0..
~

FIGURE 9-10
Inverse productivity index plot.

This normalized IPI concept not only could serve as an alternative to the
back pressure plot, but also could be used for isochronal tests, as long as
measurementsare free of wellbore storageeffect.
So far in this chapter, the pressuresquared, p2, has been exclusively used
instead of the pseudopressurem(P). However, Corbett and Wattenbarger [9-
10] reported that not only does the high-velocity effect cause p2 performance
curves to be concave upward, but also gas property (11.,Z, and c) variations
due to pressure drop cause the performance curve to move downward. Thus,
if a large pressure drop is expected, the pseud.QP.!"essureapproach is suggested
(simply change p2 to m(P),pJ to m(Pf), and 'Y,uZto 'Y from Eq. (9.1) through
Eq. (9.10)).
The last flow rate may not be stabilized in a low-permeability reservoir.
Poettmannproposed utilizing the pseudostabilization time tps, to locate the stabi-
lized lines in plots such as those in Figs. 9-7 and 9-11. The pseudostabilization
time is obtained by equating Eqs. (8.31) and (8.32):

tps = 376cf>~r;
k (9.11)

All variables are in field units and P (not Pi) is used in this calculation.
Poettmann's method is practical. Eq. (9.8) can be simply expressed as
.1.p2/Qsc = a(t) + bQsc. By conducting at least 3 or 4 isochronal or modified
isochronal tests with different flowing times, the relationship between a(t) and
time can then be determined (plotting .1.p2/Q'sc versus Qsc); that is, a(t) = A +
Blog1O(t).With calculated tps, the stabilized a(tps) can be calculated. As a result,
~ -
 -'111_.- :"~;'
" ~~~;';(\!; )c':.,

GASWELL-TESnNG 395
I
slope (p2) = (y;i""'Z"T/Pf2kh) D

- slope (m) = (YT/mfkh) D ,,'

r
"
O- ,,'(stabilized curve)
E ,,'
:::::- "" Operating line
E " "

t
~ """, ","(Unstabilized curve)
'- ' ,,'
0 ""

FIGURE 9-11
Normalized inverse productivity index plot.

the stabilized lines in Figs. 9-7 and 9-11 can be located without conducting the
extended flow. It should be noted that, theoretically, with strong high-velocity
effect, the stabilization time is more than that predicted by Eq. (9-11) [8-34].

Example 9.1. A four-point back pressureprocedure was conducted. The pressures

were recordedtwice during eachflow rate; one after 4 hour and the other at the
stabilized condition. Well was shut-in between flow rates. The pressuresrecorded
are [9-18]:

P, psis Q""MMcf/day P} - PZ, psia2 ~/Q", ~/(p} Q",); IPIN

408.2 (Pf) 0 - - -
406.9 (1/2 hr) 4.288 1,060 247 0.00148
403.1 4.288 4,138 965 0.00580
402.1 (1/2 hr) 9.265 4,943 534 0.00320
394 9.265 11,391 1229 0.00739
393.7 (1/2 hr) 15.552 11,628 748 0.00449
378.5 '15.552 23,365 1502 0.00903
383.1 (1/2 hr) 20.177 19,862 984 0.00591
362.6 20.177 35,148 1742 0.01047
14.7 AOF 166,411 - -

Calculate the AOF by each of the following methods: '

1. Back pressureplot, using stabilized data

2. Normalizedinverseproduc~vityindex, using stabilizeddata
3. Usingonly flow datafor 4 hour, exceptfor the last flow rate (20.77 MMcff
day), for which you may use the stabilized data.
 .
396 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUC110N AND STORAGE

'" """" P = 14,7 psia """,..""""""",

105

C\I

co
'00
.9:

~ 104
<j
C)
.Q .

AOF = 60 MMcf/D

103 :

1 10 100

log Q (MMcf/D)

FIGURE 9.12
Stabilized gas well deliverability test,

Solution. Plot IlP2 versus Qsc on log-log coordinates (Fig. 9-12) and extend the
straight line to IlP2 = 166.411 psia2:
AOF = 60 MMcf/day (back pressure test)

Plot 11.P2/(pJQsJ versus Qsc on arithmetic coordinates (Fig. 9-13) and extend
the straight line to the AOF line (I/QsJ:

AOF = 51.5MMcf/day (norInalized IPI)

Plot IlP2/(pJQsc) (~ hour) versus Qsc (Fig. 9-14) and draw a parallel line
through the stabilized point of the last flow rate (Qsc = 20.177 MMcf/day,
11.P2/(pJQsJ = 0.01047):

AOF = 53 MMcf/day (isochronal type IPIN)

The use of a straight line approach on log-log coordinates (back pressure plot)
results in a 15.8 percent error in the calculation of AOF.

9.2 TEST FOR DETERMINING

RESERVOIR PARAMETERS
This section will introduce the gas well tests for obtaining important reservoir
parameters such as the flow capacity kh, the skin factor s, and the high-velocity
factor D.
 .
GAS WElJ..-TESTING 397

0.040

0.030 AOF line ( = 1/Q)

a-

~~~
t',
r::-- 0.020
"... ~\{\e

~"" O~e ~'3-\\{\~

0.010 D D

D
D AOF=51.5

0.000
0 10 20 30 40
t
50 60 70

Q (MMcf/D)

FIGURE 9-13
Normalized inverse productivity index (IPI) plot.

N
8
-
0..-
0.02

/t~ O~e~:
~,,~~ .\~e
0
:
.
:
:
..q

i~ 0.01 ~ ~

0 :
I :
0 :
0 :
0 ~ 53 MMcf
0.00
0 20 40 60

Q (MMcf/D)

FIGURE 9-14
Isochronaltype nonnalizedinverseproductivityindex (IPI) plot.

~:"!
 v

398 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUCTION AND STORAGE

By interpreting dynamic responses(pressure drop history at sandface) for

a constant wellhead flow rate withdrawing process, the drawdown test gives the
value of the flow capacity kh.~h~~rate test, which uses several different
wellhead flow rates, permits the calculation of kh as well as the skin factor s
and the high-velocity factor D. The buildup test, a special case of multi-rate test
with an immediate shut-in after a drawdown process, also allows one to obtain kh
by observing the sandfacepressure being gradually brought back to its original
value.
Unlike most deliverability tests described in the first part of this chapter,
these tests are extensions from oil well testing practice and are based on a
theoretical rather than an empirical background. The purpose of these tests is
to deterlnine the reservoir characteristicsthat will affect flow perforlnance.

Drawdown Test
Figure 9-15 shows a constant terlninal flow rate withdrawing process and its
responding pressurehistory. There are three stagesof the pressureresponse: (1)
early time flow, (2) transient flow, and (3) pseudo-steady state flow.
In the early time flow period, data are affected by wellbore storage, flow
through fractures, and unstabi1izedflow rate at the wellhead; thus, it can not

Q)
"'iU

~
0 ..
:+= ::
"C
cIS
Q)
.c
"Q)
3:
d : t, Time
0 1 2

~
I '/ '""~
~ ~ pseudo-steadystate

~ early-timeflow transientflow ~
~
m
:- fractures
~~:~~;r~I~~~r~~~
flow
~:~ct
~~~
~ ~ ~
a:: ~ t, Time

0 1 2
FIGURE 9-15
Wellhead flow rates and responding sandfacepressures:A procedure of drawdown test.
 .
GAS WELL-TESTING 399

really reflect the true reservoir response. The wellhead flow rate is physically
difficult to keep constant, especially when the valve has just opened.
The transient flow period begins at time tv = 60(Cv + 3.5s'), after which
the pressureresponsecan be describedby Eq. (8.47): ' "

1 ,,( !

Pvw(S1) = 2(ln tv + 0.80907)+ s + DQsc °(8.47)

/

which can be expressedin explicit form as in terms of pseudopressurem(P),

~m = (mi - m)

2kh YTQsc( In ~Ak + 0.80907 +

loglO t + ~
= 2.3026yTQsc 2s + 2DQsc
)

(9.l2a)
andin termsof pressuresquaredp2,

A p 2 -- (p 2 ..2 ) -
... i - r- - 2.3026YJJZTQsc
2kh l oglO t

+ YJJZTQsc
2kh ( ln~ Ak + 0.80907 + 2s + 2DQsc) (9.l2b)

Pseudopressurem(P) will be used in the rest of this chapter instead of

pressuresquaredp2. When~e choosesto use p2 for simplicity, the coefficient
Y should be replaced by YJJZ. In using m(P), the averagevalue of"J:iC'will be
assumedto be roughly equal to its initial value .uiCi; by making this assumption,
one can avoid a tedious iteration (trial-and-error) procedure.The subscript i will
be used to denotethe initial value. Also, except for plotting purposes, In(x) will
be used instead of lOglO(X).
A plot of ~m (or M2) versus lOglOt (versus t on semilogarithmic coor-
dinates) gives a straight line (Fig. 9-16). By examining Eq. (9.l2a), the slope
should be

Slope = 1.151~ (9.13)

and kh is simply

kh = 1.151~ (9.14)
slope
If ~ml is definedas the valueat t = 1, which canbe obtainedfrom the
straightline portion(extrapolated,
if necessary),the apparentskin factor s' is

s' = s + DQsc = _211( 2.3026~ml - ln~ i\k - 0.80907) (9.15)

sope 'V.uicirw
 .
400 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUcnON AND STORAGE

260

240 .
--
Q
I . .
Sx .
~ 220
"-
"" .
.~
~
~'" 200 slope= 1.151~'YTQ.c

180

160
1 10
t(hours)

FIGURE 9.16
Typical drawdown test analysis.

The transient flow ends at the time

tD = ~
cPJ-L,c,rw
= i (~
9 rw
)
2
=i ~~
9
(
rw
)
2
= O.I( ~
rw
)
2
(9.16)

which is a rearranged form of Eq. (8.37a). Data obtained beyond the stabilized
time, as shown in Fig. 9-15, should not be included in the analysis.

Example 9.2. A drawdown process was conducted for well A. The pressure-time
data for a flow rate of Qsc = 29.14 MMcf/day wereas follows:

t, hr log1ot P, psia m, psia2/cp, x 10-' Am

0 - 4217 1099.8 0
1 0 3792 929.8 170.0
2 0.301 3685 887.0 212..8
3 0.477 3655 875.0 224.8
4 0.602 3635 867.0 232.8
5 0.699 3621 861.4 238.4
6 0.778 3610 857.0 242.8

Well/reservoir/fluid data are as follows:

T = 645°R
.
h = 35 ft
 .
GAS WELL-TEsTING 401

<fJ=0.055
re = 5000ft
Tw = 0.4 ft
JLi= 0.022 cp
Ci = 0.00018psia-l
m (psia2/cp)= -587 x 106+ 0.4 x 106X P (psia)(3500psia < P < 4500 psia)
Calculatethe penneabilityk near the we11bore
and the apparentskin factor s' =
s + DQsc.

Solution. Plot Ilm versus10glO

t (Fig. 9-16):
slope= 63 x 106
Obtainkh and k from Eq. (9.14):
kh = 1.151~ = 1.151 (1.422 x 106)(645)(29.14) = 488.29
slope (63 x 106)

k= ~ =~ = 14md
h 35
Calculates' from Eq. (9.15) (Ilml = 194.3x 106by extrapolationto t = 1 in Fig.
9-16):
s' = ! ( 2.3026Ilml -':'ln~ - 0.80907
.2 slope <fJJLiCir; )
, .
= ! ( (2.3026)(194.3 X 106) -1 (2..63Zx 10-4)(14) - 0.80907
2 (63 x 106) n(0.055)(0.022)(0.OOO18)(0.4)2 )

= - 2.64
Checkthe time at which the transientbehaviorends,Eq. (9.16):

tD = ~
<fJJLiCir
w
= 0:1 ~
(rw
)2

( ~ )2 = (0.055)(0.2~2)(0.00018)(0..4)2(0 1)( ~ )2

t = ~~
Ak ()
(.1) rw (2.637 x 10-4)Q4) . 0.4

= 147.5hr > 6 hr of testingtime

Hence,it is appropriateto apply Eqs. (9.14) and (9.15).

When a drawdown lasts long enough, deviation from the straight line of
Fig. 9-16 canbe observed.At later stages,a plot of dm versust givesa straight
line on arithmetic coordinates, and its slope reflects the flow Tate and size of the
reservoir. This test technique is referred to as the reservoir limit test. This is of
little use for gas storagebut is important for off-shore production operations.
 .
402 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUCfION AND STORAGE

Multi-Rate Test

As discussedin Chapter 8, basedon the superposition principle, one can describe

pressuretransient behavior by summarizing effects of all previous flow histories
[9-20]; that is,
Ilmn mj. - mn ~n
- = = L(QD,j - QD,j-l)PDW I

Q.- Q t - ti-I (9.17)

mj. mj. j=l J J-1..

which is simply an extension of Eq. {8.57).

Since a constantwellhead flow rate is hard to maintain, it helps to discretize
it to several constant rate regions, and then apply Eq. (9.17) to analyze the data
of the pressuretransient behavior.
Eq. (9.17) can be expressedin explicit form:
Ilmn = mj. - mn
[ n
YT ~(Qj
= 2kj; - Qj-l)ln (tn - tj-l)
J=l

+ i(Qj - Qj-l) lnA + 0.80907 + 2SJ)]

( (9.18)
j=l 'f'JL,c,rw

The last summation term of Eq. (9.18) involving Sj' (s + DQ1,S + DQ2,
. . . , S + DQn), can be further simplified by ignoring DQj terms up to the last
flow rate; in other words, by assuming Dl up to Dn-l have no transient effects
and vanish immediately after switching the flow rate. Then, Eq. (9.18) can be
simplified to

Ilmn = mj. - mn = ~{[~(QJ- Qj-l) In (tn - tJ-u]+ C,}

Cn = Qn[ lnA + 0.80907 + 2(s + DQn) ] (9.19)

'f'JL,c,rw

As shown in Fig. 9-17, by plotting Ilmn versus the newly defined flowrate-time
factor, Ff:
n
Ffn = L(Qj - Qj-l) In (tn - tj-l) (9,20)
j=l
for flow rates n = 1,2,3,4, the slope should be (yT)/(2kh), which reflects the
value of kh. In addition, Cn of each flow rate could be obtained by extrapolating
to the point at which Ff = O. In practice, the positive values of In (tn - tj-l) are
preferred; that is, the magnitudes of tn - tj-l shouldbe madeto fall between1
and 20 by choosing the appropriate units.
 .
\ GAS WELL-TESTING 403

<I>
"'cU

~ °3
g
-g
<I>
02
£
"Qj
~
- °4
a TIME

;;;;;~:;:::~ 03

CD
0 02
slope= B

~-
;;-
I
01
S
x ~-
Q.
,"
N~
"- C1 0
E 0
<1 0
0 04

(FT)..= t(Qi - Qi-J In(t- 4)

i=1

FIGURE 9-17
Multirate test analysis:~m. vs. Fr..

The C n term can be rearranged as:

2C = ( ln,l. Ak 2 + 0.80907 + 2$) + (2D)Qn (9.21)

Qn 'PILicirw
Thus, a plot of Cn/Qn versus Qn has a slope of 2D (Fig. 9-18). With the k
obtained from the slope (yT)/(2kh) of the dmn-versus-FTnplot, one can calculate
the skin factor s.
It is believed [9-12] that this method has been used in Europe for sometime.
More related material ca:nbe seen in reference [8-17]. The method can only be
applied in the time before the transient behavior of pressuredrop ends. Extension
of this method for a finite reservoir can be seen in reference [1-11]. Odeh and
Jones [9-20] proposed plotting dP2/Q versus log-time factor FT/Q to retrieve kh
and s from the slope and intercept.
 .
404 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING:PRODUcnON AND STORAGE

C.
q.

q.

9.0 /"

8.5 ~ V
8.0 /'"
/' 0 E!
d ./ ql
-.,
Q 7.5 L L-

_/ slope(turbulence)= 2D = 0.104
7.00
c2
r--
q,
6.5

6.0
20 25 30 35 40
q.
FIGURE 9.18
High-velocity effect plot of multirate test: Cn/Qn versus Qn.

Two-Rate Test
The two-ratetest, developedby Russell[9-23], is a particularfonD of multi-rate
test applyingtwo ratesonly (Fig. 9-19). It is a simple gas well test to separate
the skin factor s andthe high-velocityfactorD from apparentskin factors'.
The first flow rate representsa simpledrawdowntest. Equation(9.19) for
the secondflow rate canbe simplified to
~mz = mi - mz = 2kj;{[QIln
yT (tz - to) + (Qz - QI) In (tz - tl)] + Cz}

Cz = Qz{ lnA + 0.80907+ 2s + 2DQz} (9.22)

'/".uicirw
 .
GAS WELL-TESTING 405

The procedures of conducting a two-rate test are summarizecd as follows:

1. Apply two different terminate rates-usually the first one doubles the second.
Record the sandface pressures continuously after switching the flow rate.
2. Plot 11m2versus the FT factor, Q1ln (t2 - to) + (Q2 - Q1) In (t2 - t1), on
arithmetic coordinates. Slope is (yT)/(2kh), from which kh can be determined;
also, the product (slope' C2) can be obtained by extrapolating the straight line
portion to FT = O.
3. Draw a line through the endpoint of the first flow rate with slope (yT)/ (2kh)
from step 2, and extrapolate it to obtain (slope' C 1) at FT = O.
4. Either plot C n/ Qn versus Qn to obtain the slope 2D, with which s can be
calculated, or solve sand D simultaneously from C1 and C2 with the kh
obtained from step 2.

Example 9.3. As in Example 9.2, the initial pressure in a well was 4217 psia and
the first flow rate was 29.14 MMcf/day. The record up to 6 hours was missing,
but the final pressure was 3610 psia. After the flow rate was switched to 20.06
MMcf/day, the pressure-time data were as follows:

I, hr 4J FTz P, psia m,psiaz/cp ~m,psiaz/cp

6 0 52.21 3610 857 x 106 242 X 106
7 1 56.70 3793 930.2 x 106 169.6 X 106
9 3 54.06 3799 932.6 167.2
11 5 55.26 3797 931.8 168.2
13 7 57.08 3791 929.4 170.4
15 9 58.94 3789 928.6 171.2
17 11 60.78 3785 927.0 172.8
19 13 62.26 3781 925.4 174.4
21 ,15 64.13 3777 923.8 176.0
23 17 65.64 3774 922.6 177.2
25 19 67.06 3771 921.4 178.4
27 21 68.40 3768 920.2 179.6
29 23 69.65 3765 919.0 180.8
31 25 70.84 3763 918.2 181.6

Well/reservoir/fluid data are the same as in Example 9.2.

Calculate the permeability k near the wellbore, the skin factor s; and the high-
velocity factor D.

Solution. Plot Ilm versus PI factor, I]=I(Qj - Qj-J In (12- Ij-l), on arithmetic
coordinates (Fig. 9-20).

slope = ~= 0.858 X 106

 .
406 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUCnON AND STORAGE

Q)
- Q

ro 1

0
~
;;::

"C
ro
::. ~
m
~
d
t, Time

~
;:,
(/)
(/)
Q)
0.-
Q)

~
'E
ro
(/)

a.

.
. FIGURE 9-19

Typical flow rates and corresponding

t, Time pressuresfor a two-rate test.

Obtain kh and k by rearranging this equation:

kh = "IT = (1.422 x 106)(645) = 534.5 md . ft

2(slope) 2(0.858 x 106)

k = ~ = ~ = 15.3 md

Draw a line through the point (11m= 242.8 x 106 from Example 9.2, and PT
= 52.21) with slope =0.858 x 106. The intercept (PT = 0) should be slope. C1:
Ilml(PT = 0) = slope' C1 = 198.0 X 106
Ilmz(PT = 0) = slope. Cz = 120.9 X 106 '

Plot Cn/Qn versus Qn, as in Fig. 9-18.

f! = Ilml(PT : 0) = 198.0X 106 = 7.92
QI slope' QI (0.8585 x 106)(29.14)

~ = Amz(PT= 0) = 120.9X 106 = 6.97

Qz slope. Qz (0.8585x 106)(20.06)
slope (high-velocity effect) = 2D = 0.104
D = 0.052l/MMcf/day
Calculate s by rearranging Eq. (9.22):

s = -1{ -Cz),.k- In - 0.80907 - 2DQz}

2 Qz <f>.uicir~
 .
GAS WELL-TESTING 407

190

~
a °2
180 a
~
~
a
I a
0
a
x

& a
---
"., a
.~
Q,
~ a

~ 170 .13

""IT 6
13
13
slope = (ill) = 0.858 x 1.0

160
50 60 70 80
FT factor,-~;=I (Qj - Qj-I)ln(t - t;)

FIGURE
~ 9-20
Two-ratetest analysis:Ilm versusFf factor, "L j=l(Qj
2 - Qj-Jln(t2 - tj-J.

= !2{ 6.972 - (2.637 ~ 10-4)(15.3) -

In (0.055)(0.022)(0.00018)(0.4)20.080907.- 2(0 052) (.20 06)}

= -3.79
Total test time is 31 hours during which the pressuredrop is still in the
transientperiod.

Buildup Test
The buildup test consists of a shut-in immediately after a constant flow rate
withdrawing process. Figure 9-21 shows the wellhead flow rate curve and the
corresponding sandfacepressureresponses.The buildup test is the simplest test
and is just an extreme form of the two-rate test. Theis [8-40], and later Horner
[9-16], showed that a plot of the shut-in pressure P versus log «tl. + ~t)/~t)
would result in a straight line for an infinite-acting reservoir.
For a buildup test, Q2 = 0 in Eq. (9.22), reducing the equation to

~m = mi yT1{
- m = 2"kj; Q1m ~t } = (2.3026)~yTQ1logl.o-~
t1 + ~t (9.23)
 .
408 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUCnON AND STORAGE

As shown in Fig. 9-22, plotting dm versus(tl + dt)/ dt on semilogarithmic

coordinatesshouldresult in a straightline with

Slope= (2.3026)Ql~ (9.24)

from which kh could be calculated:

kh = 1.151~ (9.25)
slope
Eq. (9.23) does not give any informationon the skin factor or the high
velocity factor. However,the apparentskin factor, s' = S + DQsc,still could be
obtainedby utilizing the shut-inpressureat dt = 0:
s' = s + DQsc = ! { dm2(dt = 0) . ~ - In-~- - 0.S0907
} (9.26)
2 Ql yT ct>JLiCir~
where k and (yT)/(2kh) are obtained from a buildup test plot.

Example 9.4. A well is tested under the sameconditions as Example 9.3; however,
instead of switching to the second flow rate, an immediate shut-in was conducted;
the pressure-timedata after the shut-in were as follows:

m, psia2/cp, ~m psia2/cp,
t, hr 41, hr (tl + ~t)/41 P, psia x 10-6 x 10~
6 0 - 3610 - 242.6
7 1 7 4086 1047.4 52.4
8 2 4 4123 1062.2 37.6
9 3 3 4143 1070.2 29.6
11 5 2.2 4164 1078.6 21.2
13 7 1.86 4175 1083.0 16.8
15 9 1.67 4183 1086.2 13.6
17 11 1.55 4187 1087.8 12.0
19 13 1.465 4192 1089.8 10.0
21 15 1.4 4194 1090.6 9.2
22 16 1.375 4196 1091.4 8.4
26 20 1.3 4199 1092.6 7.2

Calculate the permeability k near the well bore and the apparent skin factor s' =
s + DQsc.
Solution. Plot 11m2versus 10g«tl + Ilt)/ Ilt) (Fig. 9-22).

Slope= 2.3026~ . Qi = 62.17 x 106

Obtainkh and k from Eq. (9.23):

kh = 1 1511::?::Qo!= 1 151(1.422x 106)(645) = 494.9 md . f t
. slope' 62.17x 106 (29. 14)
 .
GAS WELL.TESTING 409
Q)

~ 01
~
0
;;:

"C
m
Q)
.I::

""Q)

~ 0
. 2
0
t, Time

2?
::I
(/)
(/)
Q)
a.
Q)
0
m
'E
m
(/)

0:: FIGURE 9-21

. Wellhead flow rates and corresponding sandface
t, Time pressuresfor a buildup test.

k = ~= ~ = 14.2 md

Calculates' = s + DQscfrom Eq. (9.26) with Am(At = 0) = 242.6x 106:

s' = s + DQsc = !{ Am2(At = 0) .~ - In~ - 0.80907
2 QI 'YT q,.u;c;r~ } .
= "2
x 106)(2.3026)
1{ (242.662.17 X 106 - (2.637 x 10-4)(14.2)(6)
In (0.055)(0.022)(0.00018)(0.4)2 - 0.80907 }

= -2.6 g.lfS" 1?J.~::J-

Determination of Equalized Reservoir Pressures

Periodic measurementsof the shut-in or formation reservoir pressure must be
made in order to calculate gas reservesand to correct the back pressureas the field
is depleted. In low-permeability formations appreciable pressuredifferences may
exist between various points even after long shut-in times. These differences are
due to the low ratesat which gas can flow through a low-permeability formation to
reach the depleted zones. Such pressuredifferences should be taken into account
by the calculation of an equalized reservoir pressure. The equalized pressure
is the uniform pressure that would exist in the reservoir after such a long time
had passed that flow of gas to the depleted areas had ceased and, for practical
purposes, no pressuregradients existed in the reservoir.
The method of Matthews, Brons, and Hazebroek (MBH) [9-19] involves the
use of a buildup curve with time. Figure 9-23 shows the plot of pressuresquared
p2 versus log .:\t/(t1 + .:\t). The straight line portion of such a plot, which develops
 .
410 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRbDUCnON AND STORAGE

60

50
slope"" 2.3026~' Ql "" 62,17 X 106

f'
0
40 .
...
x
~
;;-
~
30 '

';;
...
E
<1 m
20
m
m
m
10 a'
m

0
1 10
(11+ .1t)/.1t

FIGURE 9-22
Typical builduptest plot: ~m versus(tl + ~t)/~t.

after a short time following the shut-in, is extrapolated to ~t/(tl + ~t) = I,

or infinite shut-intime. This extrapolatedpressuresquared,denotedby p*2, is
greaterthan the equalizedshut-in pressuresquaredp2 becauseof the overall
declinein the reservoirpressureas a whole that will havet~en placewhenthe
equalizationis complete.The relationshipbetweenp*2 and p2 is
--

""'1p"2

0 ~ "" '-2P

p2

L;

A "'"

A'

log At/ (tl + At).

FIGURE 9-23
Sketchof pressurebuildup curve,p2 vs. log ~tl(tl + ~t).
 .
GAS WELL-TESTING 411

6
\. . I I'
,
c -
..;
~~/
5
T
Heer,'OgonOrCircle--- ~~V
Squore '\ ~ ~ ./
4; £~ilote~~ lriong/~'v ~~
F i
,.A~/"
~ HhonIbus
I,
.i ,i
/" II I'
3 ~ ""-- Hi hI Irion 'Ie I

.,,~
.J ~ ~ .1

2 ~,,~/
,..~
I!, ,
"'"-" !
~V/. i I

I~/ !
1 ~ .., I
~~~
~-~ .
0
0.01 0.02 0.03'0,04 0,060.08o't 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0,8 1 2 3 4 6 8 10;

tDA = tD(
r:
-!!.) = -
)'kt A = area 0
ff '
Inlte
.
reservoIr
.

A t/>/liCiA

FIGURE 9-24
Pressurefunctionof onewell in centerof equilateralfigures[Matthew,Brons,andHazebroek,9-19,
courtesySPE-AIME].

-;:;2
r = P*2 - 2:""3O3F
slope (9.27)

where "slope" is the slope of the straight line portion of Fig. 9-23 and F is the
MBH factor, showed in Fig. 9-24 for various shapes of finite reservoirs. The
dimensionless time tDA used in Fig. 9-24 is defined as

tDA = tDCAW = ~ A where A = areaof finite reservoir (9.28)

'/-'.uiCi

Example 9.5 [I-I]. A finite square-shapereservoir was withdrawn for 24 hr; a

buildup plot was plotted in teffils of p2, and the slope of the straight line portion
was 44.1 x 103. The extrapolated p*2 is 3,983,200 psia2, as shown in Fig. 9-25.
Reservoir/well data are as follows:

Initialpressure
Pf 2000psia
Wellbore radius rw 0.5 ft
Average viscosity IX- 0.016 cp
Porosityct> 0.15
Reservoir
radiusre 400 ft
Compressibilityc 5 x 10-4 l/psia
Peffileabilityk 20 md
 .
412 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUCTION AND STORAGE

3990 I

I l,"

3980 -'"

V"
I~/
E 3970 .!J:/

~ ,0",'
"0 b/
.. \6"
~ - 0\0_,
~
~
3960 (ot
~j.\'
~ / ~, -
+-
N - " Actual (P)2
Co. 3950 / ~

3940
/y
/V
3930
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
JL
t, +P.t

FIGURE 9-25
Calculatedbuilduppressureplot to detenninep* [Katz et aI., 1-1, courtesyMcGraw-HillPublishing
Co.].

What is the equalized pressureP?

Solution. Calculate tDA:

=~ = (2.637 x !0-4)(20)(24) = 0 21
tDA <PILi CiA (0.15)(0.016)(5 x 10-4)( 1T4002) .
and F = 1.85 (from Fig. 9-24).
From Eq. (9.27) expressedin terms ofP2, the equalized pressure is
-p= P
( *2
-23Q3F
slope
) 1/2 = ( 3,983,200-23"63(1.85)
44100 .
) 1/2 = 1986.9psla

Type-Curve Method
When the skin factor s and the high-velocity contribution DQsc are lumped
together as the apparent skin factor s', Eqs. (8.13) and (8.16) can be solved for
PDw(STW) numerically or analytically with rD and tD as independent variables
for different values of CD and s'. The results are shown in Fig. 9-26 [9-22]. It
is a general purpose chart becauseall the variables are dimensionless. This chart
is used in the type-curve method.
The relationships between dimensionless variables and real physical vari-
ableson a log-log basisare
 .
.., " - -. . -g
~
1
~
-
0 Il.
C/)
>,
"
'"
t=
=
0
()
N
N
d- o
>,
. 0 ~
2 - Oij
~
'",
~ ~
U
'"
=
0
~- 'g
>
.s
E
'"
=
~
"
>
..
2
~
~
~
rf:;
~
=
~ ()
M
,
=--0-
"'
0
N ~'i
2 S ...
- - ad - g
~ t3
s:
J11
 .
414 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUcnON AND STORAGE

loglO PDW(STW)= IOglO (dm) - IOglO ~

yTQ

Ak ¥ .q.!tf
0
IOglO tD = IOglO t + IOglO ,I. 2 (9.29)
'/'J-LiC
irw
Equation (9.29) and Fig. 9-27 show that a plot of dm versus t and PD
versus tD should result in two curves with the same slope in log-log coordinates.
Therefore, the generalizedchart of PD versus tD in Fig. 9-26 servesas a reference
chart, and by matching a plot of dm versust to that of PD versustD and measuring
the difference of positions between the two charts, one can determine kh.
With the two curves matched, it is convenient to take t = 1 as the match
point.5 The permeability k can be calculated by
Ak
tDmatchpointcorrespondingtot=l = ,I. 2 (9.30)
'/'J-LiCi r w

Alternatively,by choosingPD = 1 as the matchpoint, one could use

to PD= 1
dnlmatch point corresponding =~
yTQ (9.31)

to determinethe flow capacitykh.

, Actually, aftermatchingtwo curves,all the pointson both chartscouldbe usedasthe matchpoint.

"
;!,
"
«

,;
,

E
~ ~
\ "i <I ~1
0
Q.
... ~
0'<:1.
Q)
0
i;~,
-e. -.. t
81 -4- -s; -.-
-..
oS
~
tf:

- IOglO -yTQ
(-)
kh

log tD

FIGURE 9-27
Relationship between dimensionless plot (PD vs. tD) and real physical property plot (~m vs. f).
 .
GAS WELL-TESTING 415

D
'-
&' DDD
...
~

';;
...

= [~ -~ 1 /
~- slope
ri>l1iCir~'1TQ / CD

FIGURE 9-28
0 Utilization of very early time
0 datato determinethe wellbore
t, time storageconstant,CD-

An immediate drawback of the type-curve method is that all the curves in

Fig. 9-26 have similar shapes-the curves could be matched at many possible
positions. As a result, it most likely will mislead unless another constraint is
included to help the determination of the right position.
After kh and CD are obtained by this matching technique, one must go back
to check the value of (:D by rearranging Eq. (8.48) for the very early time data:

CD = - tD = - t
( Ak (~~
. --'"-
) c "O Jc«
..
il""'-".J-/
'7 (9.32)
PDw Ilm <fJJ.LiCir~ yTQ tJl, v \ c;.
(J/' .
where t/ilm could be obtained graphically, as shown in Fig. 9-28. The CD values
obtained from the matching technique and from Eq. (9.32) should be close; if not,
an iterative (trial-and-error) procedure must be used until satisfactory results are
achieved. Since the flow rate at early time could not possibly be kept constant,
utilization of such CD values may be questionable in many cases.
Bourdet et al. [9-8], published a breakthrough paper using another con-
straint: pressure gradient with respect to time dP/dt on the same graph with pres-
sure P versus time. Figure 9-29 shows this type-curve and the matching procedure.
The variables shown in Fig. 9-29 can be found in Table 8.1.
Most type-curves follow the same principle as stated above. More details of
using type-curves can be found in references [1-21,8-17]. A selected type-curves
package can be ordered directly from SPE [9-24].

9.3 COMMENTS
It is hard to judge which tests are superior to which others. They all serve their
own purposesand have been used for years. The decision to conduct any particular
test procedure should take into account the production/injection scheduleas well
as state regulations. A combination of more than one test is recommendedand
should give better understanding and predictions of a particular well/reservoir's
characteristics.
 .
416 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUC110N AND STORAGE

100
Coe2S

~ 10
r!
~
,0
c.
"C
c
co
cf 1

0.1
0,1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Dimensionlesstime, to/Co
(a)

Dimensionlesstime,to/Co
0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
I 100
CurvematchCoe2S=4 x 109 2S
Pressurematch= 0,0179
Time match= 14,8
1,000
10 ~
r!
~
,0
c.
"C
c
co

1 ~
'in

<1

0.1

1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
~t, hr
(b\

FIGURE 9.29
Type-curve with both pressureand pressure derivative [Bourdet et aI., 9-8, courtesy World Oil].
 .
GAS WELL-TESnNG 417

This chapter includes only arbitrarily selected testing procedures with which
the authors are familiar, and it has omitted others that the authors are not qualified
to discuss.

HOME PROBLEMS
9.1. A well is 2500 ft deep and produces 0.6-gravitygas from perforations in the upper
55 feet of a 110-ft section of gas sand. The open flow measuredon the well is 15
Mcf/day when the pressure is 1150 psia. The measured permeability of the cores
from the well average 50 md. How close is the performance to that predicted from
core data?
9.2. Determine the performancecoefficient C and exponent coefficient n for the following
four-point test:

Q, Mcf/day AP2, psia2, x 103

1000 310
2300 950
3900 2100
5200 4000

9.3. Consider the following data from two drawdowntests on a single well. Estimate the
permeability k, skin factor s, and turbulence factor D for the well [9-7].
Gas properties are shown in Table 8.2, and reservoir data are as follows:

Initial pressure 2300 psia

Formation thickness 10 ft
Wellbore radius 0.5 ft
Porosity 0.1
Gas saturation 0.77

Transient pressuredata are as follows:

Time, hr 1.6 MMcf/day 3.2 MMcf/day

0.0 2300 2300

0.0232 1855 1105
0.04 1836 1020
0.06 1814 954
0.08 1806 906
1.00 1797 860
2.00 1758 700
4.00 1723 539
6.00 1703 387
 .
418 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUCTION AND STORAGE

0.6

0.5 .- .. . -
(/)
z
0
~
0.4 -.J
~
N
(/)
0.3 0-

0.2
NIL
0-
.
I
NIL
0-

0.1

FIGURE 9-30
0 Drawdowncurvesfor well 4 [Carter,
0.1 I 10 Miller & Riley, 9-9, courtesy
TIME, HOURS SPE-AIME].

9.4. After 100 hours flowing 1.6 MMcf/day of gas, the well in Problem 9.3 was shut in
and the pressure buildup observed. Just before the well was closed in, the flowing
pressurewas measuredto be 1584 psia. The buildup pressureresponseis as follows
[8-35]:

Time, after shut-in, hr Pressure,psia

0.2 1831
0.4 2010
0.6 2048
0.8 2117
1.0 2141
2.0 2173
4.0 2205
6.0 2224

9.5. The drawdown and buildup data for two flow rates on a low-permeability gas well are
given below, and the gas properties are given in Table 8.2. Estimate the permeability
and skin factor for the well.

Initial pressure 4000 psia

Formation thickness 200 ft
Porosity 0.2
Water saturation 0.2
Wellbore radius 0.5 ft

Transientpressuredataare:
 .

GAS WELL-TESnNG 419

Time, br 10 MMcf/day 5 MMcf/day

0.0 4000 4000

0.2 2253 3311
0.5 2185 3277
1.0 2133 3250
2.0 2078 3224
4.0 2023 3198
7.0 1979 3178
10.0 1952 3166
20.0 1899 3142
40.0 1844 3118
70.0 1798 3099
100.0 1769 3086

Shut-in

100.2 2300 3300

100.5 3000 3600
101.0 3668 3838
102.0 3719 3862
104.0 3769 3886
107.0 3808 3905
110.0 3831 3917
120.0 3875 3938
140.0 3913 3957
170.0 3939 3970
200.0 3952 3976

What is the permeability around the wellbore?

9.6. Pressuredrawdown curves for a well with production rates of 770 and 1773 Mcf/day
are given in Fig. 9-30. Other available data for this well are as follows:
T = 5900R
Z = 0.879

c/J = 0.114
P= 1200 psia
,u = 0.0164 cp

h=8ft
rw = 0.5 ft
r e = 2980 ft (640-acre spacing)

Determine the equation of the stabilized back pressurecurve; i. e., the constants
a, b in the equation
P} - p2 = aQsc + bQ;c

where Qscis Mcf/day production.

 420 NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUC110N AND STORAGE

9.7. Calculateskinfactors, high-velocityfactorD, andpermeabilitykfrom thefollowing

data[F. E. Beck].

Flow 1 Flow 2 Flow 3 Flow 4 Shut-in

2.05MMcm 4.835MMcfl> 5.981MMcm 8.117MMcm -
t,mln P, psis t, mln P, psis t, min P, psis t, mln P, psis t, mln P, psis

201.2 1418.31 409.53 1401.79 471.37 1381.73 530.57 1355.77 582.83 1321.55
202.03 1412.41 411.07 1392.35 472.28 1374.65 531.52 1347.51 583.12 1392.94
202.90 1408.87 412.40 1386.42 473.63 1368.18 532.75 1339.25 584.03 1397.6f
204.47 1408.28 413.87 1382.91 474.92 1359.31 534.28 1328.63 585.17 1398.84
209.68 1408.28 416.02 1382.91 477.02 1356.36 535.55 1322.73 586.52 1399.43
215.00 1407.69 418.52 1382.91 482.02 1356.36 537.35 1322.14 587.42 1399.4;
220.50 1407.10 420.57 1382.91 487.37 1356.36 542.52 1322.14 588.80 1400.6]
225.82 1407.10 422.87 1382.91 492.62 1356.36 547.72 1322.14
231.50 1407.10 428.40 1382.91 497.75 1355.77 553.03 1322.14
236.75 1407.10 433.53 1382.91 503.22 1355.77 557.95 1322.14
241.87 1407.10 438.75 1382.91 508.38 1355.77 563.35 1321.55
247.02 1407.10 443.95 1382.91 513.77 1355.77 568.60 1321.55
252.45 1406.51 449.08 1382.91 519.35 1355.77 573.90 1321.55
257.75 1406.51 454.18 1381.73 524.60 1355.77 579.52 1321.55
263.12 1406.51 459.80 1381.73 530.57 1355.77 582.83 1321.55
268.28 1406.51 464.75 1381.73
273.52 1406.51 471.37 1381.73
279.52 1406.51
284.82 1406.51
290.17 1406.51
295.23 1406.51
300.48 1405.92
306.10 1405.92
311.12 1405.33
316.30 1404.74
322.22 1404.15
327.87 1404.15
333.22 1404.15
338.62 1404.15
343.68 1404.15
348.67 1404.15
354.10 1403.56
359.92 1403.56
365.25 1402.97
370.63 1402.38
376.25 1402.38
381.63 1401.79
409.53 1401.79

Formation thickness h = 59 ft

Gas gravity G = 0.56

Porosity <P = 0.34

System compressibility c = 5.44 x 10-4psia-1
 .
GAS WEu.-TESTING 421

Reservoir T = 109°F
temperature
Wellbore Radius rw = 0.25 ft

RECOMMENDED READINGS
9-1. Dake, L. P., Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company
(1978).
9-2. Donohue, D. A. T., and T. Ertekin, Gaswell Testing: Theory, Practice, and Regulation,
International Human Resources Development Corporation, Boston (1982).
9-3. Ear1ougher, R. C., Jr., Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE Monograph Vol. 5., SPE, Dallas
(1978).
9-4. Energy Resources Conservation Board, Gas Well Testing, Theory, and Practice, 3rd Ed. (field
units, 1975), 4th Ed. (metric units, 1979).
9-5. Lee, W. J., Well Testing, first printing, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas (1982).
9-6. Matthews, C. S. and D. G. Russell, Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Well, AIME
Monograph Vol. 1, SPE-AIME, New York (1967).

REFERENCES
9-7. A1-Hussainy, R., and H. J. Ramey, Jr., "Application of the Real Gas futential," SPE Preprint
1234B (1965).
9-8. Bourdet, D., T. M. Whittle, A. A. Doug1a, and Y. M. Pirard, "A New Set of Type Curves
Simplifies Well Test Analysis," World Oil, 95-104, May (1983).
9-9. Carter, R. D., S. C. Miller, and H. G. Riley, "Determination of Stabilized Gas Well
Performancefrom Short Flow Test," J. Pet. Tech., Vol. 15, No.6, 651-658, June (1963).
9-10. Corbett, T. G. , and R. A. Wattenbarger, "An Analysis of and Correction Method for Gas
De1iverabi1ityCurves," SPE 14208, SPE 60th Annual Meeting, Las Vegas (1985).
9-11. Cu11ender,M. H., "The Isochronal Performance Method of Determining the Flow Character-
istics of Gas Wells," Trans. AIME, Vol. 204, 137-142 (1955).
9-12. De Loos, J. M., private communication (1986).
9-13. Elenbaas, J. R., and D. L. Katz, "A Radial Turbulent Flow Formula," Trans. AIME, Vol.
204,25 (1948).
9-14. Govier, G. W., "Interpretation of the Results of Back PressureTesting of Gas Wells," Trans.
AIME, 511-514, LXN, (1961).
9-15. Hinchman, S. B., and F. H. Poettmann, "Error Analysis and Design Considerations for
BackpressureTesting of Gas Wells," SPE Preprint 15520 (1986).
9-16. Homer, D. R., "Pressure Build-Up in Wells," Proceedings. 3rd World Pet. Congress-Set
II/, 503-521 (1951).
9-17. Jones, L. G., E. M. Blount, and O. H. Glaze, "Use of Short Term Multi Rate Flow Tests
to Predict Performance of Wells Having Turbulence," SPE Preprint 6133, 51st SPE Annual
Meeting, New Orleans (1976).
9-18. Lee, W. J., Well Testing, first printing, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas (1982).
9-19. Matthews, C. S., F. Brons, and P. Hazebroek, "A Method of Determination of Average
Pressurein a Bounded Reservoir," Trans. AIME, Vol. 201, 182 (1954).
9-20. Odeh, A. S., and L. G. Jones, "Pressure Drawdown Analysis, Variable-Rate Case," Trans.
AIME, Vol. 234, 960-964 (1964).
9-21. Poettmann, F. H., "Discussion of Analysis of Modified Isochronal Test to Predict the Sta-
bilized Deliverability futential of Gas Wells without Using Stabilized Flow Data," J. Pet.
Tech.. Vol. 38, No. 10, 1122-1124, Oct. (1986); discussion, G. S. Barr, L. Matter, S. B.
Hinchman, and H. Kazemi, J. Pet. Tech., Vol. 19, No.1, 89-96, Jan. (1987).
.
422 NAruRAL GAS ENGINEERING: PRODUCTION AND STORAGE

9-22. Ramey,H. J., Jr., "Short Time Well TestData Interpretationin the Pressureof Skin Effect
andWellboreStorage,"J. Pet. Tech.,Vol. 22, No. 1,97-104, Jan. (1970).
9-23. Russell,D. G., "Determinationof FormationCharacteristicsfrom Two-RateFlow Tests,"J.
Pet. Tech.,Vol. 15, 1317-1355(1963).
9-24. Societyof PetroleumEngineers,"Type-CurvesPackage,"Richardson,Texas(1985).