The formation is subjected to a rate impulse created by briefly flowing the well or

injecting into the formation. The pressure response to an ideal rate impulse (i.e.,
to an instantaneous source of strength unity) is given by the derivative of the
pressure response to a conventional step-rate change. This general solution is
used in developing an interpretation method based on recently published type
curves of the derivative of pressure.
Impulse testing is particularly useful for wells that do not flow to the surface and
for wells where extended flow may not be desirable (because of sand problems,
for example). Applied in conjunction with underbalanced perforating, this method
provides a low-cost evaluation of the reservoir and wellbore condition. Several
field examples are presented to illustrate the analysis technique.
Introduction
Well testing is recognized as a unique means to evaluate the characteristics of
oil and gas reservoirs under dynamic conditions. Testing procedures are well
established for wells flowing to the surface for long durations (several hours to
several months), and recent analysis developments, such as the pressure
derivative method, have improved the interpretation techniques. In addition, the
use of onsite computers for data acquisition and analysis ensures that the test is
conducted efficiently toward achieving its objectives. When flow to the surface is
not possible or desirable for a significant duration, however, test interpretation
may become difficult or inconclusive.
This paper proposes a method that is well adapted to test wells that do not flow
to the surface or where extended flow may not be desirable. The formation is
subjected to an impulse rate created by briefly flowing the well or injecting into
the formation. The method requires measuring the quantity of fluid produced or
injected and the corresponding pressure variations as produced or injected and
the corresponding pressure variations as a function of time. The interpretation
technique relies on recently published type curves of the pressure derivative.
Because the initial flow of a drillstem test (DST) can be short enough to be
considered an impulse, the method is illustrated with two example DST's that are
analyzed by classic methods for the final shut-in and the impulse technique for
the initial shut-in. Additional examples illustrate the use of this technique in
conjunction with tubing-conveyed perforating (TCP) and with backsurge
operations.
Background
Hydrocarbon-bearing formations are commonly tested by measuring the
downhole pressure and flow rates as a function of time during a given sequence
of opening and closing of the well. The physical characteristics of the fluids are
also evaluated. These measurements are analyzed during the test using on-site
computers to provide information for efficiently conducting the test toward
achieving its objectives.

Several methods are commonly used for interpretation. The best known is the
Horner method; part of the data are in infinite-acting radial flow and display a
semilog straight line that is used to determine the physical characteristics of the
formation. Type curves representing the global pressure response of flowing or
shut-in wells for a variety of reservoir configurations are also used; a log-log plot
allows diagnosis of the reservoir behavior and identification of the different
characteristic flow regimes, such as infinite-acting radial flow. This is generally
used to justify the validity of a semilog (Horner) analysis.
More recently, a method based on the analysis of the derivative of pressure with
respect to the appropriate time function was proposed; it uses a log-log plot of
the slope of the conventional superposition plot (generalized Horner) as a
function of time. This method benefits from the advantages of both log-log and
semilog analysis. It provides on a single plot an analysis of the global response
with improved definition, because the derivative magnifiessmall phenomena of
interest and gives an excellent indication of the reservoir behavior.
DST 1-Final Shut-In. To illustrate the use of the derivative method, the final
buildup of DST 1 is analyzed as shown in Fig. 1. The match is done with the type
curve for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a homogeneous reservoir. Earlytime data are affected by changing wellbore storage. At the beginning of the
shut-in, the compressibility of free gas in the wellbore is predominant and results
in a high wellbore storage coefficient. predominant and results in a high wellbore
storage coefficient. As pressure builds up, the free gas dissolves in the oil and the
predominant compressibility decreases, resulting in a lower storage predominant
compressibility decreases, resulting in a lower storage coefficient. This
phenomenon is more frequently encountered when the well is damaged and is
shut in at the surface, which is the case for this example. The derivative shows
clearly that infinite-acting radial flow was attained after about 45 minutes of shutin. Table 1 lists the data; calculations and results of the analysis are given in
Appendix A.
DST 2-Final Shut-In. For wells not flowing to the surface, the analysis of transient
pressure data is difficult. Fig. 2 presents the pressure recorded during DST 2 on a
well that did not flow to the surface. The data are listed in Table 2. A closedchamber system was used to evaluate the rates during the initial and final flow
periods.
Fig. 3 presents an analysis of the final shut-in using the derivative of pressure.
Analysis of this test was more difficult because of the poor quality of the data
recorded by mechanical gauges; no infinite-acting radial flow was identified and
more than one solution could be obtained. Furthermore, a conclusive analysis of
the initial shut-in is difficult because of the short duration of the initial flow.

The next section presents a new technique to interpret the initial shut-in, thus
making the overall analysis of the test more reliable.
Impulse Testing
Description. Impulse testing consists of a short injection or production period,
followed by a falloff or a buildup period. It production period, followed by a falloff
or a buildup period. It requires accurate measurements of the pressure variations
with time and of the total quantity of the fluid injected or produced.