SPE 115820

Method and Application of Cyclic Well Testing with Production Logging

J. Rochon, SPE, V. Jaffrezic, SPE, and J.L. Boutaud de La Combe, SPE, TOTAL Exploration & Production; M.
Azari, SPE , S. Roy, SPE, and D. Dorffer, SPE, Halliburton Energy Services; A. Webb, and J. Singer, SPE, GE
Energy Oilfield Technology

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 2124 September 2008.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
One of the predicaments of traditional well testing is the requirement of shutting-in a well to conduct a pressure buildup test
for the purpose of obtaining well and reservoir properties. This deterrent factor is more prominent in prolific wells due to loss
of revenue and problems associated with crossflow or when bringing a well back on production. Moreover, in case of
commingled reservoirs, conventional buildup provides only average values of permeability, skin, and pressure.
An innovative periodic well testing technique named WTPL (Well Testing by Production Logging) has been developed in
which a cyclic wave function is imposed in the wellbore by modulating the flowrate. The analysis of the acquired rate
function and the resulting pressure wave then provides formation characteristics such as permeability and skin in the vicinity
of the well. This technique eliminates the disadvantage of shutting-in a well and maintains the production with a modulating
periodic pattern. In addition, the WTPL can be easily applied to commingled reservoirs to estimate the individual
permeability and skin for each layer. This effort has also resulted in the development of a downhole flow modulation tool
capable of creating the cyclic flow patterns needed for the new testing method.
Introduction
In developed fields, a pressure buildup test is the main tool for monitoring well productivity (permeability and skin) and
reservoir pressure. However, operators are reluctant to perform such a test as it involves shutting-in their producing well.
Shutting-in results in loss of revenue and in some wells with hydrate problems or excessive water production, it also could be
difficult to bring the well back on production. Moreover, closing a well for a pressure buildup test might damage the near
wellbore by asphaltine deposits or by water crossflow from higher pressured zones to more depleted layers.
Another limitation of a conventional buildup test is in its application to commingled reservoirs where it only provides a
total permeability-thickness and an average skin value. Usually, permeability is then distributed between different layers
based either on small-scale permeability measurements (mainly from cores) or on the flow profile derived from interpretation
of the results from production logging testing, PLT, (with questionable uniform skin assumption). In both cases, such a
distribution can result in erroneous reservoir characterization. In addition, in case of significant skin contrast between layers,
the total permeability-thickness can be underestimated.
This paper introduces a new well testing method named Well Testing by Production Logging (WTPL) which does not
require shutting down the production in order to obtain formation permeability and skin. WTPL imposes short periodic
variations of flowrate which result in similar cyclic pressure variations. The resulting reservoir response is recorded
bottomhole using a PLT string. The amplitude ratio and phase lag of the pressure relative to the flowrate can then be analyzed
to provide formation properties such as permeability and skin factor.
A specific flow modulation device was developed to generate periodic bottomhole rate and pressure oscillations. This tool
can be combined with standard production logging tools and can be configured for both production and injection wells in
several casing/tubing sizes for both high and low flowrates. In commingled wells, it can be sequentially deployed above each
producing zone to provide permeability and skin values for each layer.
Field examples provided in this paper will describe the application of this technique in detail. The formation properties
obtained through this method are also compared with results derived from analysis of traditional pressure transient tests.

SPE 115820

Technique and Background

Harmonic well testing was first introduced by Kuo in the early 70s1. He showed that when a well is produced with a
sinusoidal rate pattern, the resulting pressure variation is also sinusoidal with the same frequency after the early transient
period has disappeared. He also established that the resulting pressure cycles are delayed with respect to flowrate by an
amount that depends on the reservoir flow model, the transmissibility of the reservoir, the skin factor, and the wellbore
storage. In case of radial flow, the amplitude ratio and the phase lag of the pressure relative to the flowrate, A and (see
Figure 1), are related to the permeability and skin of the formation by the following relationships in SI units:

P
q

A =

kh =

(1)

(2)

8 A sin( )

1
+ ln( D ) 0.116
4 tan( ) 2
where the dimensionless frequency D is defined as:
c t rw2
D = 2
kT
S =

(3)

(4)

P
T

2
-4

Delta P = Pi-Pw(t), psi

Flow Rate, q(t), STB/D

T
-8
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

-5
900

Time, sec
Figure 1 A cyclic rate and the pressure response with a 5-min period and a phase lag of 57.3 sec.

Another major step in harmonic testing is the work of Hollaender et al.2 who demonstrated that:
1. The derivative of the amplitude ratio with respect to the logarithm of the period displays the same features as a
conventional pressure derivative plot. As shown in Figure 2 for a vertical well in a homogeneous reservoir, the
derivative curve displays a similar behavior as a conventional log-log pressure derivative plot with three distinct
regions of (1) a unit-slope straight line during wellbore storage, (2) a hump due to positive skin at early times, and (3)
a stabilization corresponding to the radial flow regime.
2. Harmonic well testing does not require stopping production; testing can proceed with flowrates oscillating around the
average production value.
3. The theoretical constraint of perfectly sinusoidal rate can be removed as any periodical variations can be decomposed
into sum of sine functions using Fourier analysis.

SPE 115820

Nevertheless, Hollaender et al. pointed out that, for the same radius of investigation, harmonic tests are significantly
longer than conventional tests. He concluded that from a practical point of view harmonic testing can not be used for
reservoir characterization purposes. He suggested that it could be well suited for monitoring of near wellbore properties (i.e.,
permeability and skin).

(2)
(1)

(3)

Elapsed time (hrs) and period (hrs)

Figure 2 Comparison of conventional pressure and pressure derivative plot (blue) with amplitude ratio and derivative of
harmonic testing.

1 md
10 md
50 md
100 md
500 md
1000 md

Radius of Investigation, ft

800

600

Practical Range for Downhole Modulation

400
Practical Range for Surface Modulation

200

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Time, min
Figure 3 Radius of investigation for different permeability values.

The WTPL method is based on a combination of harmonic testing and production logging testing. A proper WTPL can be
designed based on the data obtained from an initial well test or from the expected range of reservoir and fluid properties.

SPE 115820

Permeability and skin can then be estimated from Kuos equation. Moreover, with downhole measurements of rate and
pressure, wellbore storage is significantly reduced making it possible to use a shorter cycle period to achieve radial flow
regime. Ideally calibrated against an initial buildup test, WTPL can be run periodically to monitor well productivity without
the need to stop production3.
Another practical advantage of harmonic testing with PLT tools is that the combined tools can be used to obtain
permeability and skin for each layer in a commingled well4. As long as the same frequency is used in each layer, the data
from successive levels can be subtracted to obtain the properties of the intervals between each level (see the Appendix for
more details).
With a minimum of three to four test cycles per layer, the practical maximum period is likely to be below one hour in
order to keep reasonable test durations. Figure 3 provides a plot of the radius of investigation for different permeability
values versus the variation period for a formation porosity of 20%, fluid viscosity of 1 cp and a total compressibility, ct, of
10-5 psi-1. Within the practical range of periods shown here, the WTPL is useful for measuring formation permeability with a
radius of investigation ranging from a few feet to several hundreds of feet. Also, the test duration for a low permeability
formation should be longer than for a high permeability formation to provide a sufficient radius of investigation into the
payzone. Figure 3 also indicates that reservoirs with permeability values below 10 md do not appear to be proper candidates
for WTPL as they require higher test periods to achieve sufficient depth of investigation in the payzone.
Tool Review
A downhole flow modulation tool string capable of creating the required cyclic flow patterns has been developed. This tool
can be set up for both producer or injector wells in a range of casing and tubing sizes for both high and low flowrate wells.
The flow modulation device was designed to run along with a standard production logging tool. Different components of a
standard production logging tool can be combined with this new device to achieve the planned test objectives. The tool string
can be set at different depths in a wellbore for multi-layer testing and analysis without the need of setting any packer.
There are several advantages to modulating the flow downhole rather than on surface. The main one is that the entire
process is controlled and synchronized in one package. It is also easier to add more components to a PLT tool string than to
modify surface equipment with special chokes. Finally, shorter periods can be obtained with downhole modulation which is
best suited for investigating the near-wellbore region and to measure both the depth and permeability of the damaged zone.

Figure 4 The WTPL tool string for downhole flow modulation.

Figure 4 shows a diagram of a typical tool string configuration. This tool string has the standard components like casing
collar locator, centralizers (if required), inclinometer/accelerometer, fluid density, inline spinner, diverter or packer type flow

SPE 115820

meter (if required), CTF (capacitance temperature and fullbore flowmeter), gamma ray, and telemetry. The tools highlighted
with yellow in Figure 4 are the specific components for this new flow modulation device.
The tool introduces a blockage into the flow that can be activated remotely from the surface. The extent of the blockage
can be modulated to induce a variable pressure difference across the tool. Repeatable pressure cycles can be created, the
period and amplitude being determined by parameters entered into the control software at the surface.
Even though only one pressure device is required for the formation characteristic calculations, two pressure gauges are
used to monitor and record the pressure on both sides of the modulating device. These two gauges allow the operator to act
on any excessive pressure fluctuations. The diverter and modulator are designed to withstand a working pressure differential
of greater than 5 psi. An anchor assembly is used to maintain the position of the tool string in the well. For injector wells, an
inverted anchor is used in addition to the standard anchor. The downhole flow modulation tool specifications are provided in
Table 1.
Table 1 The tool specifications for the downhole flow modulation
Parameters
Tool OD
Maximum Pressure
Maximum Temperature
Maximum Casing OD
Minimum Tubing OD
Maximum peak to peak P
Flowrate
Flowrate
Productivity Index
Productivity Index

Values

Units

1 11/16
15,000
350
7
3.5
5
50 - 1,500
300 - 9,000
1 - 100
0.4 - 40

inches
psi
deg F
inches
Iiches
psi
3
m /D
B/D
3
m /D/bar
B/D/psi

Application Process
During a cyclic testing, both pressure and flowrate are oscillating according to the modulation frequency of the motor. Their
values are also influenced by the production or injection pattern in the reservoir. In processing the harmonic well data, the
first step is to extract the periodic modulations of flowrate and pressure from their background values. For such extractions,
the following simple but effective filter removes any constant or linearly varying component:

Sout (t ) = [S(t ) 2 S(t + T 2) + S(t + T )] 4

(5)

where S is the flowrate or pressure data and T is the period of the test. Because the filter is forward looking by one cycle
time T, the last cycle is lost by the filtering process. The results could be improved by applying the filter more than once,
but each time one more cycle of data will be lost.
After the background noise is removed, the next step is to extract the signal at the exact frequency of modulation by using
a type of matched filter. For this extraction, a reference signal is formed from the motor that drives the modulator and is
applied separately to the flowrate and the pressure data to find the amplitude and phase shift with respect to the reference
signal. The cyclic response can then be expressed as the ratio A of the two amplitudes, and the phase lag which is the
difference in phase shifts.
The peak-to-peak pressure variation induced by the modulator in the tool string is about 5 psi (0.34 bar). Because the
lowest designed productivity index for the tool is 0.4 B/D/psi, the minimum flowrate change is 2 B/D (0.33 m3/day). With a
fullbore spinner, the corresponding change in revolutions per seconds is 0.006 rps in a 7-in. casing. Even though 0.006 rps is
a small value, it can still be measured because the exact frequency is known. Nevertheless, it is important to obtain sufficient
data so that the flowrate signal can be extracted from the noise with sufficient accuracy. Accuracy can be accomplished by
recording the spinner data at high sampling rate and for a sufficiently long period of time. Normally, the signal-to-noise ratio
of the pressure data is high enough that any related error can be ignored.
The effect of spinner noise has been modeled, and the results were incorporated in a test design software program which
recommends the optimum test duration for a set of reservoir and borehole parameters. The software also provides the
required minimum test period at which wellbore storage is negligible and the desired radius of investigation is achieved. The
real-time data acquisition capability of the WTPL allows adjusting the modulation period and the number of cycles, once the
tool is placed in position and after the data from the first few cycles are obtained. Thus, the required data is being acquired
without recording unnecessary information or, conversely, not obtaining sufficient data.
An unlimited number of frequencies may be recorded at each test level and processed after the job. However, the current
wellsite quality control and interpretation software is oriented toward testing multi-layer formations by recording at many
levels all with the same frequency. A cycle period that provides the best results for the least productive layer is selected for
all the layers. This selection typically means a longer test period. The response at a particular level can be subtracted from the

SPE 115820

response at the next level below (in an injection well, it is the next level above) to give the response of the interval between
the levels.
The next step is to convert the results from rps/psi into harmonic productivity index values. A minimum of three data
cycles are required to obtain repeatable quality results. The reservoir parameters are then evaluated by the Kuos technique
with a quick processing model. The data could also be exported into more sophisticated models for further processing. The
results of a typical analysis for a two layer test are provided in Table 2.
Table 2 The software output showing the results for a two layer test analysis

Field Applications and Examples

Several examples are provided here to show the application of the WTPL test in single and multi-layer formations. The
reservoir properties obtained through this method are also compared with results derived from analysis of traditional pressure
transient tests.
Case Study 1, A Single-Layer Gas Well.
A WTPL test was conducted on an offshore gas well in Indonesia in January 2007 with the objective to validate the
WTPL method against a conventional buildup test. This well is vertical and is producing gas from one layer. At the time of
this test the WTPL modulation tool was not ready for field applications. Thus, periodic variations were manually imposed
from surface using a variable choke. A production logging tool was used to monitor the downhole fluid flow, pressure,
density, and the capacitance during this WTPL test.
14

10.5
WHP
Gas rate

WHT
12

Well
offload

9.0

10

7.5
PL
Passes

T=
T=
6 min 16 min

Test 2
T = 30 min

Test 1
T = 30 min

Switch on MP

6.0

4.5

3.0

1.5
Shut in for
RIH

0
0.0

0.0
2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

Time of Day, hr
Figure 6 The entire sequence of events for the gas well test with WTPL technique.

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

qg, MMscf/D

Pressure (bars), Temperature (C), Choke ( /64)

Choke

SPE 115820

The well was shut-in prior to running the production logging tool down the hole. After the flowrate was stabilized,
production logging passes were conducted at 10, 20, and 30 m/min. The calculated flowrate data from production logging
passes were in close agreement with the measured production values from the separator.
Following the spinner calibration, the production logging tool was stationed at 13,937 ft RT (4,248 m) (see
Nomenclature) for WTPL test cycles. The flow was cycled from the surface by changing the choke size from 46/64 inches to
64/64 inches and back to 46/64 inches during the cycles and, at the end of the test, returning back to the original 56/64 inches.
Time periods of 6, 16 and 30 minutes with a minimum of 6 cycles per test were used for comparison.
The entire sequence of events with the recorded flowrate, pressure, temperature, and choke sizes are shown in Figure 6.
The change in the flowrate data, at around 18:00 hr for the test with a cycle period of 30 min, could not be explained by
reservoir or wellbore behavior. This discrepancy occurred at the time that the operator crew changed for the night shift and,
thus, was not an acceptable WTPL test. This 30-min test period was repeated for another 6-cycle test to obtain a more reliable
set of data.
Following the WTPL sequence, the well was produced at approximately 5,740 Mscf/D for 10 hours before shutting-in the
well for a 10-hour pressure buildup test.
The recorded downhole pressure and the spinner data for the last WTPL test with 6 cycles of 30 min period is shown in
Figure 7. The cyclic modulations of flowrate and pressure were then extracted from the data plotted in Figure 7 with
equation (5) to obtain the pure periodic responses which are provided in Figure 8. The formation response to the production
without a cyclic pattern can then be obtained by subtracting the cyclic data of Figure 8 from the total response data of Figure
7. This data plotted in Figure 9 shows a small pressure decline with almost a constant flowrate.
Analysis of the WTPL test provided a radius of investigation of 46 ft (14 m) during a 30 min cycle period. The average
permeability was calculated to be 97 md and the skin damage was 0.6. Tests performed at higher frequencies also provided
similar results.

55

Pressure Trend

725

54.5

54
723
53.5
722

53

721

Spinner velocity, rps

Pressure recorded, psi

724

52.5

720

719

52
0

2,000

4,000

6,000

Time, sec

8,000

10,000

12,000

Raw pressure
Spinner velocity

Figure 7 The downhole pressure and spinner data for the last WTPL test with six cycles of 30 min period.

-1

-1

-2

-2

Periodic part of spinner velocity, rps

SPE 115820

Periodic part of pressure, psi

Pressure
Spinner
-3
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

-3
9,000

Time, sec
Figure 8 The pure periodic responses for the last WTPL test with six cycles of 30 min period.

724

55

Carrying part of pressure, psi

Spinner
723

54.5

Pressure Trend

722

54

721

53.5

720
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Carrying part of spinner velocity, rps

Pressure

53
9,000

Time, sec
Figure 9 The background formation response without cyclic pattern during the last WTPL test with six cycles of 30 min period.

The Log-Log plot of the pressure buildup test which was carried out right after this WTPL test is provided in Figure 10.
The analysis of this buildup test gave a radius of investigation of 164 ft (50 m), an average permeability of 110 md, and a
skin damage of 0.7. The results of the WTPL test are in good agreement with the ones obtained by this conventional pressure
buildup analysis and also with other tests performed several months earlier on the same well.

SPE 115820

(The pressure buildup test shown in Figure 10 was impacted by phase segregation of gas and water in the wellbore after
the well was shut-in. This incident was recorded by the density and the capacitance tools of the PLT string when the well was
shut-in. The PLT logs recorded the liquid level rising up the spinner first and then reaching to the capacitance and finally to
the nuclear measurement devices. After a few minutes, due to gas segregating and moving up the wellbore and getting
compressed, the water was pushed down into the formation while the liquid level was dropping down. The pressure hump
and the derivative drop shown in Figure 10 around a time of 0.5-1.5 hrs are caused by this phase segregation phenomenon.)

Figure 10 The Log-log plot of the pressure buildup test which was carried out right after the WTPL test.

Case Study 2, A Multi-Layer Oil Well.

A WTPL test was run on an oil well located onshore Venezuela in July 2004. This well has a 20 deviation and produces
volatile oil from three different layers of A, B and C as shown in Figure 11. Periodic variations were imposed from surface
with a computerized choke. A production logging tool was used to monitor the downhole fluid flow, pressure, and density
during this WTPL test.

Flow Distribution

PLT Stations

17,800 ft

Layer A

35%
18,005 ft

Layer B

25%
18,130 ft

Layer C

40%

Figure 11 PLT stations and flow distribution from PLT passes for the multi-layer test.

10

SPE 115820

Production logging passes were first conducted to calibrate the spinner. Stationary PLT runs were then performed to
conduct WTPL tests above layers C, B, and A. The WTPL tests were repeated for layers A and C. The flow was modulated
from surface by changing the choke size from 28/64 inches to 24/64 inches and back to 28/64 inches during the cycles. A
time period of ten minutes per cycle with a minimum of five cycles per test were used for this WTPL test. The entire
sequence of events with the recorded flowrate, pressure, GOR, and choke sizes are shown in Figure 12.

WHFP (psi)

GOR (scf/stb)

Choke (comando)

7000

35

6000

30

5000

25
WTPL @ 18130ft

4000

WTPL @ 18005ft

WTPL @ 17800ft

WTPL @ 17800ft WTPL @ 18130ft

20

2000

10

1000

0
01
:
7
/0
08

07

07

/0

/0

23
:

21
:

00

00

00
07

/0

7
/0
07

19
:

17
:

00
15
:
7
/0
07

00

15

00

3000

Choke (/64")

40
Qo (stb/d)

Pressure (psi), Oil rate (stb/d), GOR (scf/stb)

8000

Figure 12 WTPL sequence of events for the multi-layer oil well test.

The data was processed according to the procedure detailed in the Appendix. The periodic parts of the pressure, flowrate,
amplitude ratio, and phase lag were measured for each layer. The permeability and skin for each layer were then estimated
from Kuos method, and the results are displayed in Table 3. The analyses of this three-layer WTPL test indicate negative
skin values with a total formation capacity of 2,319 md-ft. These results are somewhat different than the ones obtained from
interpretation of the last pressure buildup test conducted in May 2002 which provided a total formation capacity of 3,020 mdft and a skin factor of -0.3. The log-log plot of the pressure buildup data of May 2002 test is shown in Figure 13.
Typically, the wells in this area develop asphaltine deposits with production and drop in flowing pressure. Asphaltine
deposition could cause permeability reduction in the near-wellbore vicinity investigated by the WTPL with a radius of
investigation of 30-40 ft during this test. On the other hand, for the conventional pressure buildup test shown in Figure 13, the
start of the infinite-acting radial flow occurs at around 0.3 hrs with a corresponding radius of investigation of 100 ft. Thus,
the near-wellbore area investigated by the WTPL was not integrated during the pressure buildup test because it was covered
by the wellbore storage effects. Unfortunately, it was not possible to confirm this assumption with another conventional
pressure buildup test following the WTPL due to the high risk of asphaltine problems associated with shutting-in this well.
Table 3 The WTPL interpretation results for a three-layer test
Layer
A
B
C
Total

Formation Capacity, kh
(md-ft)
792
910
616
2,319

Permeability
(md)
5.7
12.3
6.4

Skin
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0

Radius of Investigation
(ft)
33
41
31

SPE 115820

11

Figure 13 Log-log plot of the pressure buildup and derivative performed in May 2002.

To validate the WTPL interpretations, well testing software was used to design a three-layer model with the results
provided in Table 3. The flowrate data measured at the top station (17,800 ft) was used to simulate the corresponding
pressure values. Figure 14 shows that the simulated data closely match the measured pressure data during the WTPL test.
Table 4 provides the reservoir and PVT input data for this three-layer simulation model.

Pressure, psi

50
40
30
20
10

BHP from simulation

BHP data from PLT

0
-10

Rates, STB/D

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Oil flowrate from spinner

measurements

200

-100

-400
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Time, hours
Figure 14 Comparison of the pressure measurements with the simulated data.

0.4

12

SPE 115820

Table 4 The input data for the three-layer reservoir simulation model
Three-Layer Reservoir with NO Cross-Flow and Limits
** Simulation Data **
Static-Data and Constants
Volume-Factor = 2.409 vol/vol
well. storage = .6485E-03 BBLS/PSI
Thickness
= 309.3 FEET
Skin(1)
=
-1.0000
Viscosity
= 0.1700 CP
Skin(2)
=
-1.0000
Total Compress = .1368E-04 1/PSI
Skin(3)
=
-1.0000
Rate
= 30.10 STB/D
permeability-1 =
5.7000 MD
Storivity
= 0.0003763 FEET/PSI
permeability-2 =
12.300 MD
Storativity
Diffusivity
= 9559. FEET^2/HR
permeability-3 =
6.4000 MD
Gauge Depth
= N/A FEET
Omega(1)
=
0.43466
Perf. Depth
= N/A FEET
Omega(2)
=
0.28522
Datum Depth
= N/A FEET
Layer(P2-P1)
=
0. PSI
Analysis-Data ID: DATA
Layer(P3-P1)
=
0. PSI
Based on Gauge ID:
Perm-Thickness =
2318.8 MD-FEET
PFA Starts: 2004-11-03 12:00:00
Initial Press. =
28.6700 PSI
PFA Ends : 2004-11-03 12:30:00
Type-Curve Model Static-Data
Layer-1 Thick. = 139. FEET
Layer-2 Thick. = 74.0 FEET
Layer-3 Thick. = 96.3 FEET

Finally, WTPL results were compared to SIP analysis (Selective Inflow Performance) performed during the PLT runs.
The productivity index values for different layers were calculated for the WTPL interpretation results by assuming a circular
drainage area with a radius of 1,000 ft in the following equation:

PIWTPL =

kh
A

2.245

+
+
S
162.6 B log drainage
log
0
.
87

CA
rw

(Oilfield units)

(6)

where the shape factor, CA, is 31.62 for a circular drainage area. The average flowing pressure can then be estimated with the
following equation:

P = Pwf + q / PIWTPL

(7)

where q and Pwf are the average flowrate and the average flowing pressure values measured during the WTPL station runs.
Table 5 provides a comparison of productivity index and the average pressure for both WTPL and SIP analyses. The
calculated layer pressure values are close to each other but there are some differences in the productivity index values
between the SIP and the WTPL analyses results which could be attributed to:
Pseudo-steady state was not achieved during the multi-rate sequence for the SIP analysis
The near wellbore permeability given by the WTPL could be different than the reservoir permeability due to
asphaltine deposits in the well vicinity which could result in incorrect productivity index estimation by using
equation (6)
The assumed drainage area and shape are not correct.
Table 5 Comparison of productivity index and average pressure for WTPL and SIP
Layer
A
B
C

PI from WTPL
(STB/D/psi)
2.0
2.4
1.7

PI from SIP
(STB/D/psi)
1.9
4.8
2.4

Pbar from WTPL,

(psi)
6,960
6,390
7,260

Pbar from SIP, (psi)

7,030
6,420
7,350

Conclusions
A new well testing method called periodic well testing or WTPL has been introduced and developed. The method consists of
generating periodic downhole flow variations and measuring the bottomhole flowrate and pressure variations with a PLT tool
string. Formation permeability and skin damage in the near- to intermediate- vicinity of the wellbore area were calculated
from the amplitude ratio and phase shift between pressure and flowrate signals. The two field examples showed the main
applications of the WTPL:

SPE 115820

13

In commingled reservoirs, the WTPL testing provides permeability and skin for each layer which can not be
obtained from a conventional pressure buildup analysis.
It is easy to use, without production loss and with no prior production history requirement.
The WTPL test results are in good agreement with the conventional pressure buildup analysis results.
It can be an essential monitoring tool for well productivity evaluation (permeability and skin) for reservoir and
production engineers.
The WTPL acquisition could be used as a productivity indicator, reducing the use of standard pressure buildup
testing and increasing the well production. When a WTPL test indicates abnormal productivity, then a conventional
pressure transient testing can be launched.

Nomenclature
A
= Amplitude ratio of pressure and rate variations
Adrainage = drainage Well drainage area, ft2
BHP
= Bottomhole pressure, psia
Bo
= Oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
CA
= Drainage area shape factor
ct
= Total compressibility, psi-1
GOR
= Gas oil ratio, Scf/STB
h
= Reservoir thickness, ft
k
= Reservoir permeability, md
PI
= Productivity Index, STB/D/psi
PLT
= Production logging testing
rps
= Round per second
rw
= Wellbore radius, ft
RT
= Rotary table (a reference to measure well depths)
S
= Skin factor
T
= Cycle period, hr
WHP
= Wellhead pressure, psia
WHT
= Wellhead temperature, oF
WTPL
= Well Testing by Production Logging

= Formation porosity
= Phase lag between flowrate and pressure, radians
= Oil viscosity, cp
= Cycle frequency, = 2 / T , radians/hr
2
= Dimensionless frequency, = c t rw
D

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their gratitude to TOTAL Exploration & Production Company, Halliburton Energy Services, and
GE Energy Oilfield Technology management teams for granting permission to develop and publish this paper.
References
1. Kuo, C.H.: Determination of Reservoir Properties from Sinusoidal and Multirate Flow Tests in One or More Wells, SPEJ (Dec
1972) 499-507.
2. Hollaender, F., Hammond, P.S., and Gringarten, A.: Harmonic Testing for Continuous Well and Reservoir Monitoring, paper SPE
77692, presented at the 2002 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Sept. 29-Oct. 2.
3. Despax, D., Dovis, R., Fedele, J.M., and Martin, J.M.: Method and Devices for Determining the Quality of an Oil Well Reserve, US
Patent 6,801,857 Oct 5, 2004.
4. Despax, D., "Method of determining the per strata reserve quality of an oil well", US Patent 2,817,587

Appendix: vertical well and commingled reservoir

Periodic variations of rate and pressure can be represented by complex exponential functions such as:

q(t ) = q ei t

P(t ) = P ei ( t + )

(A-1)

14

SPE 115820

Where q and P are the amplitude of the flowrate and the pressure variations and

is the phase lag between the two

signals in radians. The phase lag in the unit of time is given by T and the cycle frequency can be obtained from the cycle
2
period by:

2
T

(A-2)

The ratio of the flowrate to pressure signal defines the harmonic reservoir response:

R=

q (t ) q i 1 i
=
e = e
P (t ) P
A

(A-3)

This complex number is independent of time and is used to compute permeability and skin from Kuos method given by
equations (2) and (3) in the paper.

kh=

S=

(A-4)

8 sin[arg(R)]

4 tan[arg( R )]

1
ln ( D ) 0 .116
2

(A-5)

The following example demonstrates the application and the sequence of the WTPL testing. The order of testing for a two
layer formation shown in Figure 15, after steady state flow conditions have prevailed, is as follows:
1. Perform a harmonic test with a period T with the PLT string located above layer 1 at station 1
2. Perform a second harmonic test with the same period T with the PLT string located above layer 2 at station 2

PLT station 2
Layer 2
PLT station 1
Layer 1

Figure 15 The WTPL testing sequence for a two-layer reservoir.

The recorded pressure and rate data at station 1 can be used in equation (A-3) to obtain the harmonic response for layer 1:

Rlayer 1 =

qlayer 1 (t )
Player 1 (t )

q station 1 (t )
Pstation 1 (t )

q station 1
Pstation 1

i station

At station 2, the PLT records pressure and flowrate variations of:

Pstation 2 (t )

and

q station 2 (t ) = qlayer 1 (t ) + qlayer 2 (t )

The rate function for layer 2 can now be obtained from the harmonic response of layer 1 by the following relation:

SPE 115820

15

qlayer 2 (t ) = qstation 2 (t ) Rlayer1 Pstation 2 (t )

Then, the harmonic response for layer 2 can be calculated from the above rate and pressure functions as:

Rlayer 2 =

qlayer 2 (t )
Pstation 2 (t )

The harmonic responses for both layers, Rlayer 1 and Rlayer 2 , can then be interpreted to obtain permeability and skin
values for each layer by using equations A-4 and A-5.