WELL TESTING

Introduction
Well testing has come a long way since the first drill stem test was run in 1926. From a simple composite packer and valve run on drill string, the scope of well testing has blossomed into a broad array of sophisticated down hole and surface technologies.

What is well test?

A well test is a period of time during which the rate and/or pressure of a well is recorded to estimate well or reservoir properties, to prove reservoir productivity, or to obtain general reservoir management data.

Why do we test well?

The main reason for testing an exploration well is to take a fluid sample. Further reasons are to measure the initial pressure, estimate a minimum reservoir volume, evaluate the well permeability and skin effect, and identify heterogeneities and boundaries. Testing producing wells aims at verifying permeability and skin effect, identifying fluid behavior, estimating the average reservoir pressure, confirming heterogeneities and boundaries, and assessing hydraulic connectivity. By measuring in-situ reservoir conditions and fluids as they flow from the formation, the testing process gives E&P companies access to a variety of dynamic and often unique measurements. Depending on the scale of a test, some parameters are measured at multiple points along the flow path, allowing engineers to compare down hole pressures, temperatures and flow rates against surface measurements of the same parameters. Through well testing, operators can extract reservoir fluid samples both down hole and at the surface to observe changes in fluid properties and composition between the perforation and the wellhead.

Data Measuring Point

Depending on the scale of the test, a variety of measurement may be obtained down hole, at the surface, and the different floe path. Surface Acquisition Depending on the scale of the test, a variety of Depending on the scale of the test, a variety of Measurements may be obtained down hole, at Measurements may be obtained down hole, at the surface, and at different the surface, and at different Points along the flow path Points along the flow path Depending on the scale of the test, a variety of Depending on the scale of the test, a variety of Measurements may be obtained down hole, at Measurements may be obtained down hole, at the surface, and at different the surface, and at different Points along the flow path Points along the flow path

Down Hole Acquisition Depending on the scale of the test, a variety of Depending on the scale of the test, a variety of Measurements may be obtained down hole, at Measurements may be obtained down hole, at the surface, and at different the surface, and at different Points along the flow path Points along the flow path

Well Test Objectives

Exploration well: On initial well, confirm HC existence, predict a first production forecast (DST: fluid nature, Pi, reservoir properties The exploration well predicts the following characteristics: Nature and rate of produced fluid Initial pressure Reservoir properties Appraisal well: Refine previous interpretation, PVT sampling, (longer test: production testing) The appraisal well predicts the following characteristics: Reservoir properties Permeability Heterogeneity Reservoir boundaries Well productivity Fluid properties (sampling) Development well: On production well, satisfy need for well treatment, interference testing, Pav The development well predicts the following characteristics: Reservoir properties Drainage mechanism (permanent gauges) Communication between wells Well productivity Average pressure

Pre-Job Meeting
The following information should be discussed prior to the job. Test Objectives Pressure and temperature data Flow rates Downhole samples Test duration Test multiple zones Type of data collectionsurface readout, memory gauges Analysis of collected data

Well Information Expected bottom hole temperature Elastomers required Data collection required Weight of annular fluid Surface pressure - Pressure rating required for the surface equipment Down hole pressure Pressure rating required for the downhole tools Packer required Type of cushion required Data collection system required Tubular required Type of Productioncrude, dry gas, H2S, CO2, etc. Elastomers required Tools required Surface equipment required Test duration Type of mud systemwater based, oil based, brine - Elastomers required - Tools required Casing or liner Size and weightto determine size of tools - Pressure rating - Location of liner lap - Pressure rating of liner lap Hole conditions - Total Measured Depth (MD) - True Vertical Depth (TVD) - Maximum deviationcan have an effect on what tools are used and if wire line is practical - Type of formationwill sand be produced? Perforating - Tubing conveyed perforatingpressure activated, bar job - Perforating before test - Wireline guns through down hole tools Type of work string - Tubingrecommended for high pressure gas, HPHT - Drill collarsdrift needed for wire line passage - Landing stringfor floating vessel Drill pipe Cushion - Type of cushiondetermines type of elastomers required- Weight of cushiondetermines pressure differential across test tools and works tring - Method of cushion placementspot, selffill, fill at surface

Well site Preparation Prior to testing, the following preparations need to be completed. Equipment Preparation Pressure test blowout preventers (BOP) Pressure test subsea equipment Pressure test surface equipment Function test downhole tools Pressure test downhole tools Drift all equipment Obtain work permits for pressure testing Personnel Preparation Hold safety meeting before test - Know location of firefighting equipment - Know evacuation procedures - Stress no smoking rule during test - No welding or open flames during testing - No lifting over surface well test area - Use correct personal safety equipment Instruct all essential personnel what procedures will be followed during testing. - Running in hole (RIH) - Firing tubing conveyed Perforating (TCP) guns - Flowing well - Shut-ins - Wireline procedures - Sampling - Killing well - Reversing out - Pulling out of hole (POOH) Know when to abort test. - H2S detected over flowing limitequipment not rated for H2S service - Downhole tool malfunction - Subsea tool malfunction - Surface leak that cannot be bypassed or repaired quickly - Deteriorating weather conditions - Leak in string, casing, tubing, etc. Establish methods of communication. - Voice - Hand signals - Hand radios Conducting a Safe Well Test During a test, there are numerous factors to be considered to help ensure a safe well test. Picking Up Tools Only qualified personnel to sling and direct crane operator Use a guide rope line for long assemblies Always use handling subs

Making Up Tools All tools to be measured and drifted prior to running in well Tool operator to direct the make up of the tools and advise driller on proper torque requirements Use safety clamp or dog collar any time the elevators are released from the tool Always use a hole cover Do not use iron rough neck on tools Running in Well Ensure the hole is filled before running in Ensure the hole is stable before running in

Types of Well Testing

During well test reservoir fluid are produced to a separator at varying rates according the prescribed schedule. These days take less than two days to evaluate a single well or months to evaluate reservoir extent. The most common test include are: Build up test Draw down test Fall of test Injection test Interference test Isochronal test (a series of buildup and draw down test) Back Pressure Test

Build up Testing
Test Objectives The primary purpose of performing a build-up test is to determine the: Wellbore damage (skin) & stimulation Determination of reservoir permeability. Determination of pressure level in the surrounding formation Reservoir limits test However, during the course of a build-up, it is possible to encounter reservoir boundaries. If all the reservoir's boundaries are contacted during the build-up, the size of the reservoir can also be determined. If the well has been pressure tested before, subsequent testing allows relative material balance calculations (decline curve analysis), as well as the determination of the drive mechanism for the reservoir. In ideal build up test we mean a test in an infinite, homogenous, isotropic reservoir containing a slightly compressible, single phase fluid which constant fluid properties. Any well bore damage or stimulation is considered to be concentrated in a skin of zero thickness at the well bore. Now we suppose that well is producing from an infinite acting reservoir, the formation and fluid have uniform properties so that Ei function applied, the Horners pseudo producing time approximation is applicable. Basic Equation for Buildup Test The basic equations of pressure build up test are: Pws = Pi - (162.6qBo/kh) log (tp+t/t)

This is the equation of a straight line when plotted as Pw Vs log (tp+t/t) (Horner plot) with slope m =162.6qBo/kh and intercept Pi From this k & s can be determined as k = 162.6(qBo/mh) S = 1.1513(((P1hr-Pwf)/m)-log (k/ Ctrw2) +3.23) Fault distance= (0.0122ktx/ Ct) 1/2 Pskin= 0.87ms

Procedure Install the SPIDR on a well that has been flowing steadily for several days. Check for leaks in the system after installation. The SPIDR must be recording for at least 15 minutes prior to shut in (check the box for the SPIDR wake-up time). Shut the well in manually at the wing. After the well has been shut in, check for leaks again. When the build-up is over, the SPIDR may be rigged down and returned, or it may be left on the well for further testing while the well is flowing. Installation of SPIDR The SPIDR is not position sensitive. However, it is strongly recommended that it be installed on the crown of the well. Before installing "Tee" between the needle valve and gauge on the crown, crack open the needle valve to blow clear any foreign material. Do not use tools on the capillary tubing's knurled nuts. If finger tight does not affect a seal, try reversing the capillary tube assembly. Avoid kinking or crushing the capillary tubing. Teflon tape or thread dope should be used on all threaded fittings. DO NOT use tape or any type of sealant on the capillary tubing. If running a build-up, periodically check all fittings for leaks with the SNOOP leak detector, especially after a shut-in. The electrical port protector caps on the SPIDR must be in place when a port is not in use. A schematic of a SPIDR well-head installation is shown below

Build up test graph

Advantages A build-up test is one of the simplest tests to perform. The biggest advantage in performing a build-up is that it is a constant rate test: Q = 0. Simply install the equipment while the well is flowing, and then shut the well in upstream of the choke. Disadvantages The drawback to performing a build-up test is that you lose cash flow. (Some people might think that you are actually losing gas, but it's still down there.) Nevertheless, if the test objectives are to determine skin and perm, and the rock has permeability greater than 2 milli Darcies, most build-up tests can be limited to 2 days. Commentary It has been our experience that it is easier to obtain management approval for a build-up test when it is done in conjunction with a planned shut in due to facilities scheduled maintenance. After a build-up it is advisable to perform a single rate drawdown, or a Modified Isochronal test.

Draw Down Test

Test Objectives The objectives of a drawdown test are to determine: Estimates of permeability Skin factor Reservoir volume These tests are particularly applicable to: New wells Wells that have been particularly shut in sufficiently long to allow the pressure to stabilize Wells in which loss of revenue incurred in buildup test would be difficult to accept.

Exploratory wells are frequent applicant for lengthy draw down test, with common objectives of determining minimum or total volume being drained by the well. Basic Equations for Draw Down test Basic equations are as follows: Pwf=Pi (162.6qBo/kh)((log t + log (k/Ctrw2)3.23+0.87s) This is the equation of a straight line with slope m = 162.6(q Bo /kh) From slope permeability and skin can be calculated as k = 162.6(q Bo /mh) S = 1.151(((P1hr - Pwf)/m) - log(k/ Ctrw2 )+3.23) Procedure Install the SPIDR on a well that has been shut-in and stable. "Stable" is defined as the shut-in well head pressure changing at a rate of less than 1 psi per hour. Check for leaks in the system after installation. The SPIDR must be recording for at least 15 minutes prior to opening the well (check the box for the SPIDR wake-up time). Begin flowing the well on a single choke size. If the well must be "stepped-up", try to get the well up to full rate within 30 minutes. Continue flowing on a constant choke size for the duration of the test. If shut-ins or flow interruptions occur during the course of the drawdown, try to get the well back on-line as soon as possible on the same choke size. Graph for Draw down Test

Advantages The main benefit of running a drawdown is that cash flow is not interrupted. Another advantage is that reservoir boundaries are easier to locate, relative to build-up tests. Disadvantages The drawback to running a drawdown is that the rate may not be constant. However, changing the choke periodically to maintain a constant rate will cause more problems than letting

the rate fluctuate. In order to get accurate analysis on a drawdown, it is critical that no choke changes occur during the test.

Fall of Test
Basic definition
The measurement and analysis of pressure data taken after an injection well is shut in. These data are often the easiest transient well-test data to obtain .Wellhead pressure rises during injection, and if the well remains full of liquid after shut-in of an injector, the pressure can be measured at the surface, and bottom hole pressures can be calculated by adding the pressure from the hydrostatic column to the wellhead pressure. Since most water-injection wells are fractured during injection, and injection wells often go on vacuum, the fluid level can fall below the surface. Dealing with this complication requires reverting to bottom hole pressure gauges or sonic devices. Explanation Fall-off (IFO) testing typically refers to testing done in either Water disposal wells or injector wells for pressure maintenance or secondary/tertiary recovery methods. They are most often employed when either a new well is drilled and completed for this purpose or more commonly a pre-existing production well is converted into a disposal/injection well. The IFO is the mirror image of a Pressure Build-Up (PBU) on a producing well and analysis can derive the same types of fundamental wellbore/reservoir information on an injector well that can with a producing well, skin, permeability and reservoir pressure. The main interest in the IFO is to understand skin and its effect on injector. Because we are limited to 0.5 psi/ft. on injection surface pressures, an increasing skin will require ever higher injection pressures to maintain the same injection rates. At some future point we will be limited by the surface injection pressure limitation, as set by the state, not mentioning the increased cost of fueling injection pumps. If the well in question is a Saltwater Disposal (SWD) well, which often have less stringent separation/filter requirements for the injected fluid, skin accretion can happen quickly. Knowing your "original" wellbore condition before injection begins and then testing periodically thereafter or when you notice increasing injection pressures would be a good idea.

Injection Well Testing

A well in which fluids are injected rather than produced, the primary objective typically being to maintain reservoir pressure. Two main types of injection are common: gas and water. Separated gas from production wells or possibly imported gas may be reinjected into the upper gas section of the reservoir. Water-injection wells are common offshore, where filtered and treated seawater is injected into a lower water-bearing section of the reservoir. A useful injection well measure should be: 1. Actionable: useful for initiating cost-effective maintenance 2. Reliable: physically based, free of extraneous effects 3. Comparable: at a well, over time, with accumulated injection 4. Comparable: between wells in a well field and between wells in different well fields, aquifers A key technical challenge in selecting and applying a useful injection well measure is that

it should be clearly distinct and isolated from other effects that cause water levels to rise in an injection well. The mechanical wellbore skin surrounding a well is the thin (inches at most) radius starting at the original borehole wall and extending out into the aquifer. It is the radius where sediments finer than that in the aquifer and microbial colonies accumulate. The adjective mechanical is needed because the petroleum and natural gas industry well tests analysts have called a wide variety of near-well processes that add to drawdown or build-up skins: partial penetration, nonlinear flow.

Traditional Measures of Injection Well Performance

The traditional measures of injection well performance organize into three categories: Purely data-based methods, Methods comparing data and simple models, and Simulation model parameter estimation methods

Purely Data-based Methods

The purely data-based methods compare only measured quantities or simple arithmetic operations on measured quantities. The catalog accumulated here includes: 1. Water-level rise in injection well at a standard time 2. Water-level rise/injection rate for injection well at a standard time 3. Injection rate/water-level rise for injection well at a standard time 4. Difference in water-level rises at a standard time between injection well and separate observation well 5. Water-level rise at a standard time normalized to standard injection rate and standard viscosity The purely data-based methods are by far the most attractive because they are very simple to compile and many professionals have compiled some or all of these measures for several decades, which lends confidence in their use. The disadvantages of these purely data-based methods are that: 1. The base for calculating the rise of water levels can be complex the preinjection water level may not be a stable starting point 2. The standard time for comparison has an unreliable foundation - it isnt standard and analysis of injection in each well and aquifer combination would likely benefit from a unique standard time 3. With the exception of comparing rises in an injection well and a nearby observation well, these measures dont isolate mechanical wellbore skin from other effects 4. These measures cant be reliably compared across other wells and well fields and therefore the profession is limited from accumulating transferable experience and judgment as has developed using AWTA in the petroleum and natural gas industry.

Comparisons of Data and Simple Models

These measures are variations on the efficiency idea from engineering in which observations are compared to theoretically perfect operations. The catalog accumulated here includes: 1. Ratio of observed water-level rise in the injection well at standard time to water level rise simulated with the Theis equation at standard time

2. Difference between observed water-level rise in injection well at standard time and water-level rise simulated with Theis equation at standard time. The advantages of these efficiency-based methods are that they are relatively simple to compile and that many professionals have calculated these measures for several decades, which lends confidence to their use. The disadvantages of these efficiency-based methods are that: 1. The base for calculating the rise of water levels can be complex the preinjection water level may not be a stable starting point 2. The standard time for comparison has an unreliable foundation - it isnt standard and analysis of injection in each well and aquifer combination would likely benefit from a unique standard time 3. Situations are rare for which the Theis Equation is theoretically perfect performance. Theis doesnt incorporate many significant and well-understood processes (e.g., finite diameter well, mechanical wellbore skin, partial penetration, etc.) 4. These measures are not comparable across different settings.

Parameters from Fitting to Simple Models

Methods in this class match a selected simple model (short equation) to observations by methodically estimating the model parameters (i.e., coefficients). The coefficients can be compared over time to track injection well performance. The catalog accumulated here includes: BQ+CQn parameters are B, C, and n [although n should be 2] Other polynomials or similar equations Artificial Neural Networks

The disadvantages of these methods comparing data and simple models are that:
Standard time for making calculations has an unreliable foundation Physical interpretation of the coefficients is unclear Casing versus aquifer inertial flows not separated Mechanical wellbore skin is ambiguously mixed in several coefficients Some coefficients change with time, while some do not change with time These measures are not comparable across different settings

Isochronal Test
A fundamental reason that the conventional test is theoretically sound is that the radius of investigation is constant for each flow period. In order to uphold this principle, the isochronal test takes advantage of the fact that the radius of investigation is a function of time and not flow rate. An isochronal test is conducted by flowing a well at several different flow rates for periods of equal duration, normally much less than the time required for stabilization. A shut-in, long enough for the pressure to reach essentially static conditions, is performed between each flow period. In addition, an extended flow rate, long enough to reach pressure stabilization, is required. In tight reservoirs the length of time required to reach pressure stabilization between flow periods could make the isochronal test impractical.

Modified Isochronal Test

The modified isochronal test is an isochronal test which requires that each shut-in between flow periods, rather than being long enough to attain essentially static conditions should be of the same duration as each flow period. It also requires an extended flow period.

Single Point Test

A single point test consists only of an extended flow period. They require an estimate of the degree of turbulent flow in the formation. This estimate is often based on information provided by other wells in the same formation or calculated from reservoir and fluid properties.

AOF Flow Conditions

Extended Flow Normally an isochronal test includes one flow rate that is extended to stabilization and a stabilized pressure and flow rate point is determined. This point is the extended flow pressure and flow rate for the test. Single point tests do not include the multi-rate portion of a test and consist of only an extended rate and pressure. Stabilized Shut-in Stabilized generally refers to a test in which the pressure no longer changes significantly with time. For AOF tests, the stabilized shut-in pressure is a pressure that reflects the average reservoir pressure at the time. It is either measured during the test or determined from the interpretation of the data. Stabilized Flow In high permeability reservoirs or wells with small drainage areas, it may be possible to flow the well until stabilization during the extended flow period of a deliverability test. In these cases, the stabilized pressure and flow rate point is the extended flow point. Many tests, however, are not flowed to stabilization because of time constraints (especially in tight reservoirs). An extended flow and stabilized shut-in are still performed at the end of these deliverability tests so that the buildup data can be analyzed and from that the stabilized rate calculated. Stabilized flow can be determined by calculation or by creating a model of the reservoir, doing a forecast at a specified pressure, and finding the point when the rate has stabilized (usually at 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year) . Types of Analyses Two types of analysis are available, the simplified analysis or the laminar-inertialturbulent (LIT) analysis. LIT analysis Is more rigorous than simplified analysis and is usually only used in tests where turbulence is dominant and the extrapolation to the AOF is large. However, in most cases the simplified analysis is sufficient to determine the AOF and deliverability. Pressure Method For both the simplified and LIT analysis, two pressure options are available, the pressure squared or the pseudo-pressure approach. Pressure Squared The pressure squared approach is the more traditional method, and is often used because it is easier to understand and calculate. However, it is only valid for medium to low pressure ranges but is just as accurate as the pseudo-pressure approach in this range. Pseudo-Pressure

Using pseudo-pressure will be more accurate than the pressure squared approach, especially when dealing with a high pressure system, where gas viscosity (mg) and compressibility (cg) cannot be assumed to be constant. Thus, pseudo works for all pressure ranges, although it is more difficult to calculate and requires more computational time. Simplified Analysis The simplified analysis is based on the following equation: Pressure squared or Pseudo-pressure

The analysis of a modified isochronal test using the simplified method is illustrated below. For the modified isochronal test, pws must be used instead of pR because the duration of each

shut-in period is too short to reach static conditions. 2 The data is plotted on a log-log plot of versus qst where

is defined as:

The flow and shut-in periods of equal duration provide the information required to plot four points. A straight line, called the transient deliverability line, is drawn through these four points.
The duration of the last flow rate is extended until the pressure response has stabilized. This information is used to plot another point called the stabilized point. A line parallel to the transient deliverability line is drawn through the stabilized point. This is called the stabilized deliverability line.

If the extended flow period does not reach pressure stabilization, a stabilized point can be found by calculation from a buildup test The parameter n can be determined from the slope of the line as follows:

Thus, slope is equal to 1 / n, and n is called the inverse slope. The other parameter, C, can be determined using n and the coordinates (qst and pR) of any point on the stabilized deliverability line (e.g. the stabilized point) as follows:

Note that C and n are considered to be constant for a limited range of flow rates. In theory, it is expected that this form of the deliverability relationship will be used only for the range of flow rates used during the test. However, in practice it is used indiscriminately for a wide range of rates and pressures. LIT Analysis The LIT analysis is used with dealing with high rate wells where turbulence is a major factor. Only the pseudo-pressure approach can be used in this situation since pressures are in a higher range due to the turbulence effects. LIT analysis is defined by the following equation:

Note that the pseudo-pressure squared terms (a qst and b qst2) are equivalent to skin due to damage (sd) and skin due to turbulence (sturb). The coefficients a and b are defined in the example below. The analysis of an isochronal test using the LIT method is illustrated below.

Data is plotted on a Cartesian plot of Dy / q versus qst where Dy / q is defined as:

As in the simplified analysis, the transient deliverability line is drawn through the four isochronal points and a parallel stabilized deliverability line is drawn through the stabilized point. The LIT coefficients, a and b, can be obtained by re-arranging the deliverability equation into the form below and plotting Dy / q versus qst on Cartesian coordinates.

From this equation the slope of the line is equal to b. The parameter a is determined by rearranging the above equation to solve for a and then substituting b and the coordinates (qst and yR) of any point on the line.

Back Pressure Test

During a back pressure test a well is allowed to flowed against a specific back pressured until its BHP and surface pressure are stabilized an indication that flow is coming from the outer reaches of the drainage area.

Absolute Open Flow (AOF)

The absolute open flow (AOF) potential of a well is the rate at which the well would produce against zero sand face back pressure. It is used as a measure of gas well performance because it quantifies the ability of a reservoir to deliver gas to the wellbore. Deliverability tests make possible the prediction of flow rates against any particular back pressure, including AOF when the back pressure is zero. This result is illustrated on the following inflow performance relationship (IPR) plot.

Note that the AOF and deliverability plots can be generated at both wellhead and sand face.

Types of Deliverability Tests

There are a number of tests which can be conducted in order to calculate the deliverability of a well as described below. Conventional Back Pressure Test The conventional back pressure test is conducted by flowing a well at different rates. Each rate is sustained until the radius of investigation has reached the outer edge of the drainage area and pressure stabilization has been reached. This type of test is not practical for low permeability reservoirs because the time to reach pressure stabilization for each rate is excessive.

Interference Well Testing

The pressure variation with time recorded in observation wells resulting from changes in rates in production or injection wells. In commercially viable reservoirs, it usually takes considerable time for production at one well to measurably affect the pressure at an adjacent well. Consequently, interference testing has been uncommon because of the cost and the difficulty in maintaining fixed flow rates over an extended time period. With the increasing number of permanent gauge installations, interference testing may become more common than in the past. Targets of interference test: The target is defined by the customer. Survey program is designed in order clarify maximum issues. Interwell communication test (between active and observe wells). Reservoir parameters estimation; Fault between wells rectification; Productive layers pitching detection; Development correction according to the interference test results; Reserves confirmation (SEC classification); Brief description Description, advantages and disadvantages of interference test.

Parameters determination
Reservoir parameters Reservoir parameters such as reservoir pressure, Bubble point pressure, porosity; totals Compressibility, pay thickness distribution are analyzed and clarified in order to estimate its influence on disturbance wave propagation through the tested part of reservoir. Fluid parameters Fluid parameters such as saturation, water cut, fluid densities, viscosities, volume factors etc. are analyzed and clarified in order to estimate its influence on disturbance wave propagation through the tested part of reservoir. Operation parameters Considering the task the following parameters are defined: An observation and disturbing wells Number of pulses Pulse duration Test duration Operation regimes of wells Test duration criteria Test tool parameters, reservoir nose influence are considered while choosing the duration of test. Zone of silence The zone where there no changes of operation regimes should be done is defined. The zone of investigation is defined considering reservoir parameters. Tools technical characteristics Required parameters of tools (range of measurements, sensibility, resolution, accuracy, memory capacity, continuous operation time etc.) and appropriate tools are selected.

Results of design
Calculation results Disturbing well continuous operation time (one cycle): in hours Observation well shut down time (one cycle): in hours Whole test duration: in hours Signal delay: in hours Cumulative volume of injected/produced water: in cu.m Bottom hole pressure: bar Basing on the calculated model the well test is designed. Predicted plots of bottom hole pressure of production/injection wells are submitted; Interpretation Interference test data quality estimation the following aspects are depicted in result of test data analysis:

 External processes influence on the pressure disturbance wave propagation from disturbing till observation well; Technical errors; Range of data for interpretation; Average rate of disturbing cycles (pulses) for interpretation; Possibility of interpretation of available data and its result; The criteria of interference test response time definition Time response depicts the time necessary for pressure disturbance pulse traveling from disturbing well till observation well. Accuracy of this parameter estimation depends on the reservoir noise amplitude, duration of noise from disturbing well and pressure gauges sensitivity. Basing on the time of pulse traveling within the reservoir the order of wells which sensed the pulse the conclusions about Interwell connectivity should be done.

Fault location
Basing on the amplitude and pressure response time the location of fault may be done. Test parameters tuning After comparison of interference test design and obtained data the further tests are adjusted. Simulation model is tuned. New adjusted and refined filtration model will be able to match the history of field development. Interpretation data and parameters of test comparison The trajectory of pressure propagation wave is defined, qualitative estimation of reservoir features, pitching and further well test recommendations are generated on the basis of data correlation. Influence of test results on reserves estimation The basis of reserves classification is on the proved reserves. In the results of interference test interpretation and Interwell connectivity the new regions of proved reserves grows are defined, areas and volumes of corresponding types of reserves are estimated.

Multi-rate Well Testing

The different types of multi-rate tests, as well as addressing which type of well test should be performed to meet a given objective. Different types of multi-rate tests are performed to meet the following objectives: 1. Evaluate the completion (skin, type of skin, DeltaP across completion) 2. Evaluate the reservoir (permeability, distance to limits, reservoir volume, P*) 3. Satisfy state or federal regulations (MMS initial or annual survey, state mandated deliverability tests, etc.) 4. Determine deliverability or AOF as required by pipeline operators

Rate-After-Rate Test
The most common type of multi-rate test is rate-after-rate test. To perform this type of test, pressures are recorded during a build-up and during successively increasing rate steps as the well is opened. Rates, as well as pressures, should be recorded during the flow periods. It is recommended for SPIDR (surface) tests that this initial rate be 1.2 times the unloading velocity of the well bore. After the rate and pressure have stabilized, or after a given fixed time interval, the rate is then increased. This process is then repeated as desired (usually 4 rates for a 4-pt. test), and then the well is either shut-in again or simply allowed to produce. It is common practice to have the final rate be 2-3 times as long as the previous rates. Once the data has been gathered, the BHP's are plotted on an Absolute Open Flow (AOF) plot to determine the deliverability of the well and the Absolute Open Flow of the well. AOF is defined as the number of cubic feet of gas per 24 hours that would be produced by a well if the only pressure against the face of the producing reservoir in the well bore were atmospheric pressure. The flow of gas to the well bore can be described as Q=C (BHPsi2 - BHP wf2)n where Q is the rate, BHPsi is the shut in BHP and BHPwf is the flowing BHP, C is a constant that describes the position of the stabilized deliverability line, and n is an exponent that accounts for non-ideal gas and non-steady state flow.

Rate Modified Drawdown Test

Another version of a multi-rate test is a 2-rate modified drawdown. In this case, a flowing well has its rate doubled to start a new transient. The drop in Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure's (FBHP's) enables reservoir and completion evaluation. Another type of 2-rate test is performed by reducing the rate and observing the pressure increase in the FBHP's. This type of test is performed on wells where there is concern for phase re-segregation during a build-up. Hypothetically, this partial build-up should provide everything that a normal build-up would provide. In practice, this type of test should only be used to determine if the well has a significant skin and to provide a rough estimate of permeability. Another use of a 2-rate test is to estimate the reservoir pressure by assuming a constant PI (productivity index) and plotting (Pinitial Pwell flowing)/Q. However, this technique is only valid in high-permeability reservoirs. One of the difficulties in a rate-after-rate test is that some of the rate changes may not be large enough to create a new transient in the reservoir. To ensure a new transient is created each time the rate is changed, the new rate should be double the previous rate. If this is not the case, boundaries may affect the pressure decline differently for different rates, which often leads to an underestimation of the well's PI. To mitigate this problem, isochronal tests may be performed.

Isochronal (Modified) Tests

Isochronal tests (and Modified Isochronal tests) provide more accurate deliverabilitys than those provided by a rate-after-rate test and also permit evaluation of rate-dependent skin. After a stabilized SIBHP is achieved, the well is produced in the same sequence as a rate-afterrate test, except that at the end of each rate, the well is shut-in. In an Isochronal test, the well is shut-in until the SIBHP stabilizes; in a Modified Isochronal test, the well is shut-in for the length of time of the previous flow period. The last flow period is generally 4-6 times the length of the other flow periods. After the final flow period, the well may be shut-in again, especially if the initial shut-in data were not gathered. In practice, modified isochronal tests are performed much more often than regular isochronal tests, since they are less open-ended (fixed shut-in times),

take less time and provide equivalent results. Deliver abilities are determined in a similar fashion to rate-after-rate tests, except that the final shut-in pressure prior to the rates is used to calculate the effective Delta across the reservoir, instead of a fixed P*. In general, the only drawback to a multi-rate test is that it has to be executed properly to get meaningful results. All flow periods must be the same length of time except the final "stabilized flow" period which should be 2-3 times the length of the previous flow periods for a rate-afterrate or 4-6 times the flow period for Isochronal tests. Rate-after-rate tests should have at least 3 rates and isochronal tests should at least 4. Most importantly, each successive flow rate should be HIGHER than the previous rate.

Summary
Multi-rates are useful for completion and reservoir evaluation, regulatory testing and AOF or deliverability of the well. A "rule of thumb" for drawdown testing (after shut-in) is that it is usually believable up to 2 TIMES the length of the previous shut-in. Therefore if the well has been shut-in for 2 days prior to the drawdown the first 4 days of the drawdown is typically reliable information. Constant Choke, not constant rate. Simultaneously test while selling gas Multi-rate or flowing tests are typically not well-suited for type-curve analysis methods.