Definition: Drawdown Test

Conditions:
• An static, stable and shut-in well is opened to flow.
• flow rate is supposed to be constant.
• The method can be extended for rate change.
• Mainly for new wells and wells that have been shut-in
sufficiently long to allow the pressure to stabilize.

Objective:
• To obtain average permeability.
• To assess the degree of damage or stimulation
• To obtain pore volume of the reservoir; reservoir limit
test
• When economic considerations require a minimum loss
of production time, this test also can be used to estimate
the deliverability of a well.
 Drawdown Test with Skin

162.6qBo    k  
pwf (t) = pi − log(t)+log  −3.23+ 0.87S
kh   ct rw2 
 

pwf (t) = a + mlog(t)

162.6qBo 
m=−
kh
162.6qBo    k  
a = pi − log  −3.23+ 0.87S

  ct rw
2
kh 
Estimating Permeability and Skin
Estimating Permeability and Skin
It is noted that at t=1, ln t=0. hence the skin factor can be obtained
by evaluating p wf at 1 hr on the plot and substituting in the above
equation

162.6qB
k=−
mh

 pi − p1hr  k  
S = 1.151 − log 10   + 3.23

2
 m  c r
t w  
Estimating Permeability and Skin

• The net effect of skin is to create an additional pressure drop

around the wellbore

qB
ps = 141.2 S
kh
p s = 0.87 m S

 p wf − p1 hr   p wf − p1 hr 
m=   =  log( t) − 0  m in psi/cycle
 log( t) − log(1)   

162.6qB
k=
mh
 Example 2.1 and 2.12

Estimate effective permeability and skin from the drawdown data.

• Q= 250 STB/D

• h= 69 ft

• Φ=0.039

• Pi= 4412 psia

• Ct=17*10-6

• rw= 0.198 ft

• μ= 0.8 cp
Example 2.1 and 2.12

Pwf vs. t
Cartesian Plot
3700

3650

3600
Pwf

3550

3500

3450

3400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
t
Example 2.1 and 2.12

Pwf vs. t
Semi-log Plot
3700

3650

3600
Pwf

3550

3500

3450

3400
1 10 100 1000
t
Example 2.1 and 2.12
(200000 + 12000 S ) C s
t wbs =
kh 
380  ct A
t Lt =
k
Example 2.1 and 2.12

Pwf vs. t
Semi-log Plot
3700

3650
y = -32.37ln(x) + 3659.7
R² = 0.999
3600
Pwf

3550

3500

3450

3400
1 10 100
t
Example 2.1 and 2.12

 p wf − p 1hr   3582 − 3652 

m=   =  log(10) − log(1)  = −70 psi / cycle
 log( t) − log(1)   

162.6qB
k= = 7.6md
mh

 p i − p 1hr  k  
S = 1.151  − log 10   + 3.23  = 6.4
 ct rw 
2
 m 
Example 2.1 and 2.12
Now, we check the radius of investigation at the beginning and the
end of the apparent middle-time to ensure that we are sampling a
representative portion of the formation with the following equation
considering:
The beginning t=12 hr and the end t=150 hr

kt
ri =
948ct

t=12 ri= 427 ft

t=150 ri= 1511 ft
A substantial amount of formation has been sampled. Thus, we can
be confident that the calculated permeability is representative of the
formation.
Pseudo Steady-state Flow Approximate Solution
Example 2.1 and 2.12

Pwf vs. t
Cartesian Plot
3700

3650

3600
Pwf

3550

3500

3450

3400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
t
Example 2.1 and 2.12

Pwf vs. t
Cartesian Plot
3700

3650
y = -0.2244x + 3531.8
3600 R² = 0.9995
Pwf

3550

3500

3450

3400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
t
Example 2.1 and 2.12

pwf 0.0744qBo
=−
t  te
c r 2

Vp =  re h
2

pwf 0.234qBo Vp = 17.61*106 ft3 =

=−
t ctV p 3.14*106 res. bbl
Example 1.24 and 1.25

Estimate the oil permeability and skin factor from the below drawdown data.
Also determine the geometry and drainage area of the test well.
Example 1.24 and 1.25
Example 1.24 and 1.25
Flow equations for generalized reservoir geometry
 Flow equation for generalized reservoir geometry

_
141.2qB 1 10.06A  3 
p− pwf =  2 n 2
 − + S
kh   C Arw  4 

In terms of average reservoir pressure:

_ 162.6 qB   2.2458A 

pwf =p − log 2

kh   C Arw 
In terms of initial reservoir pressure:
_
 0.234qBo 
p = pi 
− t

 t c Ah 
Flow equation for generalized reservoir geometry

 162.6 qB  2.2458A   0.234qB o 

pwf = pi − + log   − t
  
 CArw   ct Ah 
2
 kh

CA

Pore Volume
Example 1.24 and 1.25
Example 1.24 and 1.25
m exp2.303(p
CA = 1hr − pint ) m
5.456
mpss
Example 1.24 and 1.25
Drawdown Test: Variable Testing with Smoothly Changing Rate

• The line source solution assumes that rate does not vary with
time.
• In many testing situations, a strictly constant producing rate is
impractical or even impossible to maintain.
• In case of variable rate, using the techniques based on constant
rate, lead to interpretations that are seriously in error.
• Winestock and Colpitts, 1977, show that even when both
pressure and rate vary with time, the following equation can be
used as long as the rate is changing slowly and smoothly:

pi − pwf (t ) 162.6Bo   k  
= log(t )+ log 2
 −3.23+ 0.87S
q kh    ct rw 

Drawdown Test: Variable Testing with Smoothly Changing Rate

pi − pwf (t ) On semi-log paper gives a straight line with

vs. t slope = m’
q

162.6B
k=
m' h

 1  pi − pwf   k  
S = 1.151 '   − log 10   + 3.23
 ct rw 
2
m  q 1hr
Example 2.2

del p vs. t
4

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Example 2.2

del p vs. t
4

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

2.8
y = 0.1275ln(x) + 3.0316
2.6 R² = 0.9964
2.4

2.2

2
1 10 100 1000
 Example 2.2

• h= 69 ft; Φ=0.039; Pi= 4412 psia; Ct=17*10-6

• rw= 0.198 ft; μ= 0.8 cp; B=1.136 RB/RSTB

slope = m’= 0.29

162.6 B
k= '
= 7.4md
mh
1  p i − p wf   k  
S = 1.151 '   − log 10   + 3.23 = 5.8

2
m  q 1hr  c r
t w 
Drawdown Test: Flow Tests with Discrete Rate Change

• Consider a well with n rate changes during its production

history like the figure.
• We use superposition in time.
Drawdown Test: Flow Tests with Discrete Rate Change

• Let’s write the following equation

162.6qBo    k  
pi − pwf (t) = log (t)+log  − 3.23+ 0.87S
2 
kh    c r
t w 

• As
 _

pi − pwf (t) = + 
'
m qlogt S
 
• Where

162.6 B _  k 
m=
' S = log   −3.23+0.87S
 c r 
2
kh  t w
Drawdown Test: Flow Tests with Discrete Rate Change

• For n Rates:

= m q1 logt + S  + m (q2 − q1 )log(t − t1)+ S 

 _
  _

pi − pwf
' '

   

+ m (q3 − q2 )log(t − t2 )+ S + ...
'
_

 

+ m (qn − qn−1 )log(t − tn−1 )+S 

'  _

 
This can be written as:

pi − pwf  (q − q
( ) + m'
n _
= m'  ) .log t − t j−1  S
qn j=1  j qn j−1 
n-Rate Flow Test

pi − p wf (q j − q j−1 )
)
.log(t − t j−1 
n
1. Plot vs.  
qn j=1  qn 

162.6 B
2. Determine permeability from k=
m'h
3. Calculate skin factor from:

 b '   k  
S = 1.151 '  − log 10   + 3.23
 ct rw
2
 
m 
pi − pwf
b’ is the value of when the plotting function is zero
qn
 Example 2.3

• Estimate the permeability and skin factor with the multi-rate

flow test analysis technique

• h= 10 ft; Φ=0.12; Pi= 4412 psia; Ct=48*10-6

• rw= 0.25 ft; μ= 0.6 cp; B=1.2 RB/RSTB; Pi=3000 psia

Example 2.3

6.5

6
y = 0.9434x + 4.643
R² = 0.999
5.5

5
b’
4.5

3.5

3
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Example 2.3

b’=4.63 and m’=0.94

162.6 B
k= '
= 12.5md
mh

 b '   k  
S = 1.151 '  − log 10   + 3.23 = 0.45
 ct rw
2
 
m 
Two Rate Flow Test

162.6 q2 Bo   q1   q2 − q1 
pi − p wf =  .log (t )+  .log(t − t1)
kh  q2   q2 
 k  
+ log − 3.23 +
  c r 
2
 t w  0.87S
Two Rate Flow Test
We can re-arrange and introduce specialized nomenclature as
t1 = t p1
t − t p1 = t '
Then the equation becomes:

162.6 q2 Bo    k  
pwf = pi − log  2  − 3.23 + 0.87S
kh   ct rw  
162.6 q1 Bo    tp1 + t'   q2  
− 
log  +  .log t '

kh ' 
  t   q1 
Two Rate Flow Test

 t p1 + t '   q2 
pwf vs. log +  .log t '
1. Plot  t '   q 
   1

162.6 q1B
2. Determine permeability from k=
mh

3. Calculate skin factor from:

 q  p − p   k  
S = 1.151   − log 10   + 3.23
1 1hr wf 1

q1 − q2   ct rw 
2
m 