DETERMINATION OF HYDRODYNAMIC

PARAMETERS OF PODHALE GEOTHERMAL

RESERVOIR

Piotr DUGOSZ
*
, Stanisaw NAGY
**







INTRODUCTION

10 wells have been drilled and further two are planned in the Central Valley of the Podhale
Region, 7 of them are deep geothermal wells. Baska IG-1 ia a production well and Biay Dunajec PAN-
1 is reinjection well, in the Geothermal Plant running since 1993.
The construction of the first in Poland, Experimental Geothermal Plant, Baska-Biay Dunajec
was completed in October 1992.
This installation is located about 10 kmnorth of the city of Zakopane and 90 kmsouth of the city
of Cracow. The building up of plant started in 1989 as an implementation of geological, geophysical and
drilling investigation of Podhale Basin (S - Poland) as well as technical projects, carried out by Mineral
and Energy Research Centre of Polish Academy of Sciences. Mentioned scientific researches allowed to
preliminary estimate the geothermal resources and amount of available heat. Results of investigation
indicated that, the amount of heat in disposal is enough to cover the heat demand of Zakopane, Nowy
Targ and other villages and small towns, located within Podhale Region with area of 475 km
2
.

GEOLOGY AND GEOTHERMAL POTENTIAL OF PODHALE
Podhale subbasin is a large synclinal geostructural unit, build of Mesozoic and
Paleocene formations, located between Tart and Pieniny Klipppen Belt.
The subsurface geological structure of mentioned subbasin is shown on the
perpendicular to the main axis of subbasin, geological cross-section. The bed-rock of
subbasin (syncline) is build of Mesozoic rocks (Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous),
which are mutually thrust upon each other, just like it take place in Tatra Mountains.
On the Mesozoic formation, Paleocene formation occupy discordantly, in the
lower part build of clays, numulitic limestones of middle Eocene (thickness from 0 to
130 m.) and in the upper part consist of Podhale flysch formation of Eocene-Oligocene
age.

*
Mineral and Energy Research Centre of Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow, Wybickiego 7 St.
**
University of Mining and Metallurgy, Drilling and PetroleumEng. Department, Cracow, Al. Mickiewicza 30
2

As a main and geothermal reservoir and the best producer, Eocene - numulitic
limestones, Triassic dolomites and limestones and Jurassic sandstones are considered.
The Cretaceous and Jurassic formation which builds the Pieniny Klippen Belt do
not possess a good reservoir properties and therefore forms a natural northern boundary
of the reservoir.
Within Podhale Region, as a implementation of the central R&D Programme,
following deep boreholes were drilled: Biay Dunajec PAN-1; Poronin PAN-1;
Furmanowa PIG-1; Chochow PIG-1; Bukowina Tatrzaska PIG-1. All these drillings
confirmed the geothermal reservoir location within the numulitic limestones of Eocene
and Triassic dolomites. It was also confirmed that, directly above the geothermal
aquifer, Podhale flysch formation consist of layers of sandstones intercalated by layers
of shales occurs with thickness from 1000 m near Zakopane to 2560 m close to Baska.
In mentioned above wells (except Baska IG-1 and Biay Dunajec PAN-1) due
to financial crisis and problems with access to proper equipment, there were not
performed any intensification of flow that would allow to correctly confirm discharge
rates.
Geothermal reservoirs are available on area 475 km
2
of Podhale Region (the
whole area that lies within Polish Frontiers). These aquifers occur in following
formations :
- numulitic limestones of Eocene, middle Triassic dolomites of Reglowa Unit
(Central and Northern part of basin)
- numulitic limestones and Jurassic sandstones, limestones and middle Triassic
dolomites of lower Reglowa Unit ( Przytatrzaska zone )
- Jurassic and Triassic limestones and sandstones of the lowest Reglowa Unit (at
depth about 3 km within Przytarzaska Zone and 3 to 5 km within Northern Zone)

PRESENT STATE
The reservoir temperatures around the Experimental Geothermal Plant is
measured to 86 C at 2565 m and the pressure is calculated to 233 bar at 2135 m below
the production wellhead. The distance between the wells is approx. 1250 m. The salinity
of the geothermal water is 3 g/l and the shut in pressure approx. 27 bar for the
production well and 24 bar for the injection well (the injection well has the colder water
column and 9 m higher elevation above sea level for the wellhead than the production
well (685m and 679 respectively).
The geothermal water contains 20 ml/l of gases with unknown bubble point. The
permeability is controlled only by fractures of different orientations. The gross thickness
of the reservoir is up to 600 m. Cores from the wells shows a low porosity matrix with
fractures in all directions. The production well Baska IG-1 has a 6 5/8 inch casing from
the top with a cement plug at 2740 meter below ground level. The well is by now
perforate from 2545 m to the 2740 m. The main reservoir stretches from the start of the
perforations down to the 2740 m.
The injection well (Biay Dunajec PAN-1) has a 9 5/8 casing from the top to
2135 m and a full diameter (from the drilling for 9 5/8 casing) open hole completion
down to 2394 m (a fish of 120 m of 5 inch pipe exists in the well).
3

In August 1994 new well heads were installed with outlets diameter equal to
diameter of casing.

TEST DATA FOR PRODUCTION AND INJECTION WELLS
(ARTESIAN FLOW THROUGH RESTRICTION)
The casing was perforated from 2560 to 2656 m depth without any production.
After hydroperforation and pumping of 6.4 m
3
acid into the formation at 2588 to 2590
m depth, yield of 60 m
3
/h was obtained. During 3 weeks production the wellhead
temperature was 72C and measured pressure 19 bars. The flow and pressure stabilized
fast and remained constant during the whole period of test.
In October 1990 10 m
3
of concentrated HCl was pumped into reservoir. It stayed
for two hours, and after two hours was returned to the surface. Another 40 m
3
was
pumped down, which also stayed 2 hours and the full open whole was tested obtaining
yield 200 m
3
/h with a wellhead temperature of 65-70C and a wellhead pressure of 13
bar during 2 day test. The flow and pressure were checked stable after 5 hours and
remained constant during the rest of the test.

PARAMETERS OF GEOTHERMAL DOUBLET OPERATION
The doublet started producing November 1990 during the period until August
1991 the production continued without heat exchanger and the flow increased from 21-
22 m
3
/h to to 23-25 m
3
/h .
The plant was stopped September 1991 to October 1992 in order to install a heat
exchangers and a cyclone filter. The production was restarted October 1992 at 26-36
m
3
/h and the production has continued since. Presently (March 1995 geothermal pumps
run and giving the production - injection rate of 60 m
3
/h). The chemical composition of
the water has not changed. A tracer was injected when the Pilot Plant started producing
and it has not reached the production well.

THE FLOW PATTERN IN THE RESERVOIR
The net reservoir thickness is not known, but 400 m of 600 gross thickness has
been used in some earlier calculations. As a preliminary assumption the homogeneous
reservoir with a porosity of 8 % (approx. 2 from matrix and 6% from fractures) is
concerned with the thickness 200 m.
The existence of fractures in all directions in the cores indicates the same macro
flow pattern as found through pore throats in homogenous reservoir and calculations are
made for such a reservoir.

THE NATURAL FLOW IN THE RESERVOIR
The reservoir pressure is listed to 233 bar at 2135 depth below the production
wellhead equal to 2144 below the injection wellhead. With 75 C , 3 g/l salinity
production well should indicate static wellhead pressure of 233 bar(reservoir pressure) -
984 x 9,81 x 2135/10
5
(water column pressure) =26,9 bar, which matches the measured
27 bar. A normal injection well temperature of 55 C gives a static wellhead pressure of
4

approx.: 233 bar -993 x 9,81 x 2144/10
5
=24,1 bar, what correspondents the measured 24
bar.
There is thus no indication of pressure difference between the pilot plant wells
and thus no indication of a natural flow in the reservoir which might change the
traveling time for the cold front from the injection well to the production well.
A natural flow traveling about 1,2 meter per year would require a 15 bar natural
pressure difference between the well if the permeability is 100 mD and 1.5 bar if the
permeability is 1000 mD. In another words, the velocity of filtration in range of 1
m/year, it would require on distance 1200 m pressure difference of 0.14 bar with
permeability 1000 mD This range of permeability is several times higher than we can
face within Miocene Carpathian aquifers.

CHANGES OF PRESSURE DURING THE DOUBLET PRODUCTION
The steady doublet operation is driven by the weigh difference of an approx. 2500 m
production well water column with temp. 75 C and 55 C injection well column. This
pressure difference becomes then the (993-984)x9,81x2500/10
5
=2,2 bar
The friction pressure drop in the 9 5/8 inch injection well casing can be ignored.
The pressure loss for 75 C geothermal water in 2600 m casing 6 5/8 is approx. 0.25
bar at the 30 m
3
/h . The pressure difference at reservoir level becomes about 2 bar. It
gives the permeability and thickness product in range of 55 Dm , without skin effect.

BREAKTHROUGH OF COLD WATER FRONT FROM INJECTION WELL
Calculations based on a net reservoir thickness of 200 m with a low porosity of 8
% leads to increased water velocities compared to calculations based on the gross
reservoir thickness. This gives earlier calculated break through of cold water front to the
production well and reduced extraction of heat from the reservoir. It is done to
compensate for increased water velocities in channels of main fracture pattern path and
in order to compensate for heat accumulated in reservoir zones which is not close to the
main water flow paths.
The case where all water in the doublet flow in a single large fracture
between the well should be eliminated through the injected tracer, which have not
yet been seen in the production well. The calculated time to the beginning of a
temperature decrease in the production well (breakthrough of cold front) in the Pilot
Plant is approx. 100 years ( the 200 m homogeneous reservoir with 8 % porosity ).

POTENTIAL FLOW RATES
A simple extrapolation of the measured flow of 200 m
3
/h at approx. 10 bar draw-
down without pressure support from an injection well indicates that up to 300 - 400
m
3
/h could be produce in a doublet using a surface based pump (no submersible pump).
The production from the existing doublet is however limited by the pressure loss in
the 6
5
/
8
" casing. The apparent solution to the problem of the flow restriction in the pro-
duction well of the Pilot Plant is to use the present production well for injection.
5

The present injection well is however colder (initially and from already injected
water) and this solution must thus await the drilling of a new well. The pressure loss for
80
o
C geothermal water in 2600 m 6 5/8 casing is approx. 10 bar at 200 m
3
/h and 23 bar
at 300 m
3
/h. The pressure loss for 40
o
C geothermal water in 2200 m 9 5/8 casing is
approx. 1 bar at 200 m
3
/h and 5 bar at 400 m
3
/h.

The stabilized draw
down in a production well
for a doublet with 1200 m
well distance and a 200 m 8
% porosity homogenous
reservoir at 86
o
C is
proportional to the flow and
inversely proportional to the
transmissivity. The draw
down in the production well
is calculated to 1.4 bar per
m
3
/h at one Dm ( Darcy
meter).The pressure
stabilizes typically in 1 -2
months (depend on perme-
ability). The stated fast
stabilization of pressures
and flows for artesian flow
tests and the drastic increase
in productivity from acid
jobs performed when the
wells were completed
(which may not yet have
been used to its full
potential) does indicates high skins. Actual permeability is thus expected better than the
ones calculated from the tests disregarding skin effect and other flow restrictions from
the completion.

WELL TEST PROGRAM AND ITS PERFORMANCE
The wells were tested during the period 21 - 23 September 1994. The objectives
of the test were :
- to prove the hydraulic communication between the two wells,
- to determine the productivity of the well Baska IG-1 and the injectivity of the
well Biay Dunajec PAN-1,
- if possible, to prove hydraulic communication in the reservoir between two wells
and the observation well Poronin PAN-1, which is located 6 -7 km away.
Furthermore, to check it
Tab. 1 Theoretical location of cold water breakthrough
from injection well towards production well, based on
Landela and Sauty, model (1978)
Production
rate
[m
3
/h]
Breakthrough front
position after 30
years of
production [m]
Breakthrough front
position after 20
years of
production [m]
6 60 0 7 77 78 8 6 63 35 5
8 80 0 8 89 98 8 7 73 33 3
1 10 00 0 1 10 00 04 4 8 82 20 0
1 12 20 0 1 11 10 00 0 8 89 98 8
1 14 40 0 1 11 18 88 8 9 97 70 0
1 16 60 0 1 12 27 70 0 1 10 03 37 7
1 18 80 0 1 13 34 47 7 1 11 10 00 0
2 20 00 0 1 14 42 20 0 1 11 16 60 0
6

- the pressure gradient between the two wells and Poronin PAN-1 in order to
investigate natural flow in the reservoir

TEST OF BIAY DUNAJEC PAN-1
The wells had been shut-in for several weeks before the tests, allowing the
wellhead pressure to stabilize. Before the start of the test , pressure transducers and data
loggers were installed on the wells Biay Dunajec PAN-1, Baska IG-1 and Poronin
PAN-1 in order to monitor the wellhead pressure during the entire test. Furthermore, the
barometric pressure was monitored continuously during the test in order to be able to
correct the well pressure data for the effect of changes of the barometric pressure , if
corrections were found to be necessary.
The well Biay Dunajec PAN-1 was produced in the period 21/9/1994 13:45 -
21/9/1994 19:57 with a rate of about 260 m
3
/hr. The temperature changes on the
wellhead during the testing are shown on Fig 3 and as a function of pressure drop and
depth. The density changes in a in static well are shown on Fig 5 and density of water
vs. depth after 6 hours of testing on Fig 6. The temperature distribution as a function of
time and depth is shown on the Fig 7.
The last plot was constructed on the basis of well head temperature
measurements and using the non-stationary model of heat transfer in the well (Ramey
1962). Using the analytical solution of heat diffusion equation the temperature
distribution was estimated for yield of 260 m
3
/h as function of time t (h) and depth h
(m)
T T t t h
t t h
o
= + +
+ +

( . . * . * ) *
( . * . * * . * * ) *
00187 0003925 00003375
23172 10 2084 10 124 10
2
6 7 8 2 2


( (1 1) )

T t t t t t
o
= + + + 7061 147499 725672 181325 2243 0109
2 3 4 5
. . * . * . * . * . *
( (2 2) )
The wellhead pressure of Biay Dunajec PAN -1 well before , during and after
the test is shown in Fig. 8. The build up test data shown in Fig 8 were interpreted using
the Horner plot method (Earlougher, 1977, Lee, 1982, Sabet, 1991, Kjaran, Eliasson
1983). On the Fig 9. the pressure build up curve is presented in Cartesian coordinates,
where wellbore storage is calculated. On the Fig. 10 the classic build up pressure curve
in semilog (Horner) coordinates for nonsteady state as time function , defined in
following way:
( (t t
p p+ +A At t) )/ /A At t, , ( (3 3) )
where:
t
p
-time of pumping,
At- build up pressure time
The equation that allows to determine the product of permeability and effective
thickness is :
7

p p m
t t
t
i wf
p
=
+
log( )
A
A
(4)
where
m
q B
k h
=

2149 10
3
,

( (5 5) )
Skin effect can be calculated as well from equation (Lee, 1982):
S
p p
m
k
c r
hr wf
t w
=



|
\

|
.
| + 1151 51
1
2
, log( ,
|
( (6 6) )
For Biay Dunajec PAN-1 well the product of permeability and effective
thickness was estimated as:
kh
e
=92 D m
total skin effect as:
s =34.
Using the Gringarten type match method as well the Bourdet matching of
derivative curve (Bourdet, 1983, Bourdet at al.., l989, Kjaran, Eliasson, 1983, Sabet,
1991, Lane, Lee, Watson, 1991, Ramey, 1992, Watson, Gatenns, Lane, 1988) the
results were very close to these obtained in standard Horner method. The storage
coefficients was estimated as C
s
=0.097m
3
/bar. The results of matching process are
presented on Fig 11. On this Fig. within the final phase of test duration one can see the
slight rising of pressure vs time derivative slope, that can be interpreted as influence of
boundary conditions (barrier) located about 250 m away.(Riley, 1988). The
interpretation of this test using the double porosity method (Warren, Root, 1963) does
not indicate the credibility features (very low values of factors of correlation matrixes,
K, S, C) (Horne, 1994), and rather short test period does not allowed fulfill the
requirements of this interpretation technique.
The skin effect was calculated based on following parameters:
| = 8% , c = 6,6 10
-5
1/bar, = 0,3 mPa s, r
w
= 0,1075 m.
The pressure drop of 17 bars of 22 total, is estimated to be due to skin effect, which
consist of three main factors:
* the real damage of the feed zone, for example because of 200 m left in the well
drill fish of 5 diameter
* partial penetration of the of the well
* non isothermal flow in the vicinity of wellbore (cooling down of the well)

S
h
h
S S S
t
p
d t p
= + + ( ) ( (7 7) )
w wh he er re e
S S
d d - - r re ea al l s sk ki in n e ef ff fe ec ct t, ,
8

S S
t t- - t te em mp pe er ra at tu ur re e p ps se eu ud do os sk ki in n, ,
S S
p p- - p ps se eu ud do os sk ki in n d du ue e t to o p pa ar rt ti ia al l p pe en ne et tr ra at ti io on n o of f t th he e w we el ll l
P Ps se eu ud do os sk ki in n d du ue e t to o p pa ar rt ti ia al l p pe en ne et tr ra at ti io on n o of f t th he e w we el ll l, , ( (L Le ee e, , 1 19 98 82 2) ) i is s d de es sc cr ri ib be ed d b by y
f fo ol ll lo ow wi in ng g e eq qu ua at ti io on n : :
S
h
h
h
r
k
k
p
t
p
t
w
h
v
=
|
\

|
.
|
|
\

|
.
| 1 2 ln( ) ( (8 8) ). .
Assuming homogenous permeability and thickness h
t
=600 m the pseudoskin
was calculated as:
S
p
=13,4
This result was confirmed using the Brons-Marting plot.(Reynolds et al., 1984).
The temperature pseudoskin calculation was based on the following model
(Kjaran, Eliasson, 1983):
The injection water of 60C temperature creates a sharp front in the aquifer
around the well, with radius of r
s
=50 m. In fact this front is not sharp due to processes of
diffusion and forced convection that govern the heat transfer within the reservoir.
Assuming the radius of 50 m is very conservative approach and calculations for 100 m
give very similar range of value. Using the following formula as pressure drop between
well and r
w
cold zone r
s
:
p p
q
k h
r
r
s wf
C
C
s
w
=

t
60
60
2
ln ( (9 9) )
and between r
s
and r
e
as:
p p
q
k h
r
r
e s
C
C
e
s
=

t
86
86
2
ln ( (1 10 0) )
by adding sides of equations (9) and (10), as result one can obtain:
p p
q
k h
r
r
r
r
e wf
C
C
C
C
C
C
s
w
e
s
=


+
|
\

|
.
|

86
86
60
86
86
60
2
ln ln ( (1 11 1) )
o or r u us si in ng g t th he e s st ta an nd da ar rd d f fo or rm m t th ha at t e ex xp pr re es ss s f fl lo ow w e eq qu ua at ti io on n, ,
p p
q
k h
r
r
S
e wf
C
C
e
w
=


+
|
\

|
.
|

t
86
86
2
ln ( (1 12 2) )
w we e c ca an n o ob bt ta ai in n, , b by y c co om mp pa ar ri is so on n o of f e ex xp pr re es ss si io on n l lo oc ca at te ed d i in n b br ra ac ck ke et ts s, , f fo or rm mu ul la a f fo or r t th he e
t te em mp pe er ra at tu ur re e p ps se eu ud do os sk ki in n: :
S
r
r
t
C
C
C
C
s
w
=
|
\

|
.
|

60
86
86
60
1 ln ( (1 13 3) ). .
F Fo or r a as ss su um me ed d a ab bo ov ve e v va al lu ue es s , , t th he e t te em mp pe er ra at tu ur re e p ps se eu ud do o- -s sk ki in n v va al lu ue e i is s e es st ti im ma at te ed d a as s
S S
t t= =3 3, ,2 2. . T Th he e r re ea al l, , d da am ma ag ge e o of f t th he e f fa ac ce e o of f t th he e w we el ll l i is s
9

S
S S
h
h
S
d
p
t
p
t
=

= 40 ,
w wh ha at t l lo oo ok ks s r re ea al li is st ti ic c d du ue e t to o l le ef ft t i in n t th he e w we el ll l d dr ri il ll l f fi is sh h. . T Th he e d dr ra ai in na ag ge e r ra ad di iu us s w wa as s
e es st ti im ma at te ed d r r
i in nv v= =8 89 99 9 m m a as s w we el ll l a as s t th he e t to ot ta al l d dr ra ai in na ag ge e a ar re ea a A A= =2 2, ,6 6 k km m
2 2
. . T Th he eo or re et ti ic ca al l p po ot te en nt ti ia al l
y yi ie el ld d o of f t th he e ( (n no ot t r re ea al l) ), , w wi it th h a as ss su um mp pt ti io on n t th ha at t i in n t th he e w we e c ca an n h ha av ve e a at tm mo os sp ph he er ri ic c p pr re es ss su ur re e i is s
e es st ti im ma at te ed d i in n r ra an ng ge e o of f 1 13 3 5 50 00 0 m m
3 3
/ /h h, , p pr ro od du uc ct ti iv vi it ty y i in nd de ex x 5 59 9 m m
3 3
/ /h h/ /b ba ar r, , w wh ha at t g gi iv ve es s t th he e v va al lu ue e
o of f p po os ss si ib bl le e y yi ie el ld d, , i if f 5 5 % % d dr ra aw wd do ow wn n p pr re es ss su ur re e i is s a as ss su um me ed d, , i in n r ra an ng ge e o of f 5 59 90 0 m m
3 3
/ /h h. . f fr ro om m t th he e
r re es se er rv vo oi ir r w wi it th h t th he e s sk ki in n a as ss su um me ed d t to o b be e e eq qu ua al l z ze er ro o. .


TEST OF BASKA IG-1
The well Baska IG-1 was produced in the period 22/9/1994 - 09 :19 hrs -
22/9/1994 - 18 :18 hrs with a rate of about 60 m
3
/ hr. The wellhead pressure during the
test is shown in Fig. 12. The pressure build-up data seem to be disturbed for some
reason (Figs.12, 13, 14), possibility due to a theoretical calculation using the reservoir
properties determined from the test of Biay Dunajec PAN-1 indicated a skin factor of
about 40. In order to explain the reasons for such high skin one must take into
consideration firs two factors that were described in Biay Dunajec PAN-1 well.
Pseudoskin in this case due to partial penetration of the well would be 13,7 and real
damage of near well zone would be 8,6 This indicates that about 4,5 bar of the total
drawdown pressure of 5,5 bar is due to skin effect.


INTERFERENCE TEST IN BASKA IG -1/BIAY DUNAJEC PAN-1 WELLS
The pressure data from Baska IG-1 well during the production of the well
Biay Dunajec PAN -1 are shown in Fig. 15. The pressure vs time in Cartesian
coordinates is shown on Fig 16. On the Fig 17 the result of matching the interference
test curve with the type curve is presented. This method gave the following values of
directional permeability 927 Dm an the product of compressibility and porosity in range
of c
t
=5,276 10
-6
1/bar.
The well Baska -1 did respond some what faster thane expected , which could
indicate some heterogeneity in the reservoir.


CONCLUSIONS
1. The hydraulic communication in the reservoir between the two wells Biay Dunajec
PAN-1 and Baska -1 has been definitively proved.
2. The produkt kh of the reservoir seems to be of the order of 94 Dm. The data
suggest that the effective thickness of the reservoir in contact with the wells Biay
Dunajec PAN-1 and Baska IG-1 is of the order of 100 m with an average
permeability of 94 md.
10

3. It is possible that the reservoir between the two wells is fractured to some degree ,
however new wells and further tests are is needed to quantify this, anyhow we can
expect a fault located 250 m away from Biay Dunajec PAN-1 well..
4. The well Biay Dunajec PAN-1 has a high positive skin factor in range of 34
probably due to following three factors: real damage 4,2, partial penetration of the
well, 13,4 and cold zone 3,2. It indicates scope for improvement of the productivity
by stimulation. The present productivity is about 11.8 m
3
/hr per bar pressure
drawdown. The theoretical productivity index with assumption that skin is equal 0 ,
is estimated in range of 59 m
3
/h . The radius of test influence as 899 m and area of
drainage 2,6 km
2
.
5. The interference test allowed to determine directional permeability between well
Baska IG-1 and Biay Dunajec PAN-1 as well the product of compressibility and
porosity was estimated.
6. The productivity of the well Baska IG-1 is about 10 m
3
/h per bar of pressure
drawdown. The test data do not allow direct determination of the skin factor due to
the disturbance from the leaking valve. Assuming that the reservoir properties
determined in the well Biay Dunajec PAN -1 are representative for Baska IG-1, a
skin factor of the order of 40 has been estimated.(13,7 as partial pseudoskin, 8,3 as
real skin). This indicates potential for productivity improvement by stimulation.
7. As expected no pressure response was observed in the well Poronin PAN-1. The
degree of hydraulic communication with the two other wells are thus still unknown.
8. The static piezometric level in the 3 wells is practically the same, indicating little
natural flow in the reservoir with Darcy velocity lower than 1 m/year.


LITERATURE
B Bo ou ur rd de et t D D. ., , A Ay yo ou ub b, , J J . . A A. ., , P Pi ir ra ar rd d, , Y Y. .H H. ., , 1 19 98 89 9, , U Us se e o of f P Pr re es ss su ur re e D De er ri iv va at ti iv ve e i in n W We el ll l T Te es st t
I In nt te er rp pr re et ta at ti io on n, , S SP PE E F Fo or rm ma at ti io on n E Ev va al lu ua at ti io on n, , J J u un ne e 1 19 98 89 9, , p p. . 2 29 93 3
B Bo ou ur rd de et t, , D D. . e et t a al l. ., , 1 19 98 83 3, , A A N Ne ew w S Se et t o of f T Ty yp pe e C Cu ur rv ve es s S Si im mp pl li if fi ie es s W We el ll l T Te es st t A An na al ly ys si is s, ,
W Wo or rl ld d O Oi il l ( (M Ma ay y 1 19 98 83 3) ), , p p. .9 95 5
E Ea ar rl lo ou ug gh ht te er r R R. . C C. ., , J J r r, , A Ad dv va an nc ce es s i in n W We el ll l T Te es st t A An na al ly ys si is s, , M Mo on no og gr ra ap ph h S Se er ri ie es s V Vo ol l. . 5 5, , S SP PE E, ,
D Da al ll la as s, ,
H Ho or rn ne e R R. . N N. ., , 1 19 99 94 4, , A Ad dv va an nc ce es s i in n C Co om mp pu ut te er r- -A Ai id de ed d W We el ll l T Te es st t I In nt te er rp pr re et ta at ti io on n, , J J P PT T, , J J u ul ly y
1 19 99 94 4, , p p. . 5 59 99 9
K Kj ja ar ra an n S S. . P P. ., , E El li ia as ss so on n J J . ., , 1 19 98 83 3, , G Ge eo ot th he er rm ma al l R Re es se er rv vo oi ir r E En ng gi in ne ee er ri in ng g L Le ec ct tu ur re es s N No ot te es s, ,
U UN NU U, , I Ic ce el la an nd d, , R Re ep po or rt t 1 19 98 83 3- -2 2
L La an ne e H H. . S S. ., , L Le ee e, , W W. . J J . ., , W Wa at ts so on n, , A A. .T T, , 1 19 99 91 1, , A An n A Al lg go or ri it th hm m f fo or r D De et te er rm mi in na at ti io on n S Sm mo oo ot th h, ,
C Co on nt ti in nu uo ou us s P Pr re es ss su ur re e D De er ri iv va at ti iv ve es s F Fr ro om m W We el ll l T Te es st t D Da at ta a, , S SP PE E F Fo or rm ma at ti io on n
E Ev va al lu ua at ti io on n, , D De ec c. . 1 19 99 91 1, , p p. .4 49 93 3
L Le ee e J J . ., , 1 19 98 82 2, , W We el ll l T Te es st ti in ng g, , S SP PE E T Te ex xt tb bo oo ok k S Se er ri ie es s, , V Vo ol l. .1 1, , S SP PE E, , D Da al ll la as s
R Ra am me ey y, , 1 19 96 62 2, , W We el ll lb bo or re e H He ea at t T Tr ra an ns sm mi is ss si io on n, , J J P PT T, , A Ap pr ri il l 1 19 96 62 2
11

R Ra am me ey y, , H H. . J J . . J J r r, , A Ad dv va an nc ce es s i in n P Pr ra ac ct ti ic ca al l W We el ll l T Te es st t A An na al ly ys si is s, , J J P PT T, , J J u un ne e 1 19 99 92 2, , p p. .6 65 50 0
R Re ey yn no ol ld ds s A A. .C C. ., , C Ch he en n J J . .C C. ., , R Ra ag gh ha av ve en n R R. ., , 1 19 98 84 4, , P Ps se eu ud do o- -s sk ki in n F Fa ac ct to or r C Ca au us se ed d b by y P Pa ar rt ti ia al l
P Pe en ne et tr ra at ti io on n, , J J P PT T, , D De ec c. . 1 19 98 84 4, , p p. . 2 21 19 97 7
R Ri il le ey y M M. ., , 1 19 98 88 8, , D De et te ec ct ti in ng g L Li in ne ea ar r B Ba ar rr ri ie er rs s b by y T Ty yp pe e C Cu ur rv ve e A An na al ly ys si is s, , S SU UP PR RI I T TR R6 61 1, ,
N No ov v. . 1 19 98 88 8, , U U. . S S. . D De ep p. . o of f E En ne er rg gy y, , B Ba ar rt te es sv vi il ll le e, , O Ok kl la ah ho om ma a
S Sa ab be et t M M. . A A. . 1 19 99 91 1, , W We el ll l T Te es st t A An na al ly ys si is s, , C Co on nt tr ri ib bu ut ti io on ns s i in n P Pe et tr ro ol le eu um m G Ge eo ol lo og gy y a an nd d
E En ng gi in ne ee er ri in ng g, , G Gu ul lf f P Pu ub bl li is sh hi in ng g C Co om mp pa an ny y, , H Ho ou us st to on n
S So ok ko o o ow ws sk ki i J J . ., , D D u ug go os sz z P P. ., , W W. . B Bu uj ja ak ko ow ws sk ki i, , 1 19 99 93 3, , P Pr re es se en nt t S St ta at te e a an nd d P Pr ro og gr ra am mm me e o of f
t th he e G Ge eo ot th he er rm ma al l E En ne er rg gy y U Ut ti il li iz za at ti io on n i in n P Po od dh ha al le e R Re eg gi io on n, , P Pr ro oc c. . o of f E En nv vi ir ro on nm me en nt ta al l
P Pr ro ot te ec ct ti io on n b by y t th he e U Us se e o of f G Ge eo ot th he er rm ma al l E En ne er rg gy y, , S Se ep pt t. . 1 13 3- -1 18 8, , 1 19 99 93 3, , T Te ec ch hn ni ik ka a
P Po os sz zu uk ki iw wa a G Ge eo ol lo og gi ic cz zn ny yc ch h, , G Ge eo os sy yn no op pt ty yk ka a i i G Ge eo ot te er rm mi ia a, , N No os s. . 5 5- -6 6, , p p. . 2 21 15 5
W Wa ar rr re en n J J . . E E. ., , R Ro oo ot t P P. . J J . ., , 1 19 96 63 3, , T Th he e B Be eh ha av vi io or r o of f N Na at tu ur ra al ll ly y F Fr ra ac ct tu ur re ed d R Re es se er rv vo oi ir rs s, , S SP PE EJ J , ,
S Se ep pt t. . 1 19 96 63 3, , p p. . 2 24 45 5
W Wa at ts so on n, , A A. .T T. ., , G Ga at te en ns s, , J J . .M M. .I II II I, , L La an ne e, , H H. .S S, ,1 19 98 88 8, , M Mo od de el l S Se el le ec ct ti io on n f fo or r W We el ll l T Te es st t a an nd d
P Pr ro od du uc ct ti io on n D Da at ta a A An na al ly ys si is s, , S SP PE E F Fo or rm ma at ti io on n E Ev va al lu ua at ti io on n, , M Ma ar rc ch h 1 19 98 88 8, , p p. . 2 25 55 5