SPE 120893

Pressure Transient Well Testing Encountered Complexities: A Case Study

Pooyan Karami and Abolfazl Hashemi
Petropars Oil and Gas Company
National Iranian Oil Company
Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 811 June 2009.
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
Pressure transient testing is one of the most useful reservoir description methods. It provides valuable information about
the reservoir/well-bore characteristics (e.g., homogeneity, heterogeneities, phase segregation, stimulation effectiveness,
interventions, etc.) and quantitative information about reservoir parameters (e.g., permeability, fracture length, average
reservoir pressure, skin, wellbore storage, etc).
The study of pressure transient testing in one of the Iranian giant oilfields was initially undertaken to estimate important
well and reservoir flow parameters and characterize heterogeneities in the Fn limestone formation; However, during the course
of interpretation, numerous engineering complexities were encountered due to the nature of well behavior and reservoir
conditions led to the masking of the actual reservoir response: 1) a high permeable reservoir with high degree of
heterogeneities with high skin and high wellbore storage, 2) Partial penetration behavior due to asphaltene plugging on the
sand-face/left fish in hole, 3) an obvious hump effect due to phase segregation inside the well 4)Pre and Post acid pressure
transient response behaviors in a successful diversion acidizing operation 5)An interference response behavior due to a nearby
well bore shut in.
The paper also presents how transient well testing in conjunction with dynamic pressure-production data have helped to
clarify the boundary effect on a build up test; the modified build up secondary derivative based on the pseudo-steady state
extrapolation of the preceding drawdown period shows a constant trend which recognized as close boundary effect.
Introduction
Well test analysis is a well-known and widely applied reservoir characterization technique. The objectives of a well test
usually fall into three major categories: Reservoir evaluation, Reservoir management, and Reservoir description.
Reservoir evaluation is to reach a decision as how best to produce a given reservoir or to know its deliverability, properties,
and size. Thus the attempt is to determine the reservoir conductivity (kh, or permeability-thickness product), initial reservoir
pressure, and the reservoir limits (or boundaries). Also, the near wellbore condition is examined in order to evaluate whether
the well productivity is governed by wellbore effects (such as skin and storage) or by the reservoir at large. Skin effect is not
always just due to wellbore damage. If a well has limited entry, or only partially penetrates the formation, then flow cannot
enter the well over the entire producing interval and the well will experience a larger pressure drop for a given flow rate than a
well that fully penetrates the formation. This geometric effect gives rise to the partial penetration skin effect. There are other
operation issues, which may have influence on the pressure drop such as asphaltene deposition. Asphaltene may manipulate
the reservoir property or skin factor. Unstable asphaltene can form a separate phase that might plug the oil-bearing rock
formation near a well1. At the discussing oilfield in the southwest of Iran, one well demonstrates the problem of asphaltene
plugging in an obvious draw down. One full well test campaign was designed to find out the reason of pressure fluctuation
through production.
Well test interpretation differentiates distant pressures from the local pressures (well locations) that can actually be
measured. Analysis of reservoir limits gives the ability to determine how much reservoir fluid is present (e.g. oil, water) and to

SPE 120893

estimate whether the reservoir boundaries are closed or open (a nearby tight zone). In the indicated field, the geophysical
reservoir model evaluation indicates tight region surrounded the oil zone but it is not easy to detect it in all well test data.
Reservoir Management during the life of a reservoir is monitoring performance and well condition. It is useful to monitor
changes in average reservoir pressure so that forecasts of reservoir performance are improved. At the field, wellhead pressure
is monitored and rate of the wells are updated by multiphase flow meter every day. This close look helps to have a high
performance production preventing water and particle production. Moreover every year some key wells are selected in order to
accomplish a full separator flow well test.
Reservoir Description is basically taking into account the heterogeneity of the reservoir rock. The heterogeneity may
influence the pressure transient behavior to a measurable extent, and most will affect the reservoir performance. However, it is
important to recognize, there is a limit to the level of detail that can be achieved in a reservoir description. This is because
pressure transmission is an inherently diffusive process, and hence is governed largely by average conditions rather than by
local heterogeneities. However beyond a limit of heterogeneity the down hole pressure of the well is affected.
A new well test response has been identified for a high-pressure high temperature Oil Field. The reservoir is affected by
two main dissolution events, first early diagenetic dissolution and second paleokarst. These geological phenomena is not
dissolving the layer evenly, therefore a heterogeneous media with different porosity created. Figure 1 is a seismic attribute
related to the porosity distribution in one of the most productive layers including all the discussing wells. As shown in the crest
of the structure, the layer is highly leached by sedimentological phenomena (red regions) and distribution of low porosity is
detected both inside and outside the boundary of the reservoir. Consequently the well test response of this type of reservoir is
not like ordinary homogenous layers. So the heterogeneity is quite obvious in well test pressure response both in pressure
difference and derivative. Since, the diagenetic phenomena are partially affecting a layer; therefore may produce a variety of
well test responses. Later on in this paper will be discussed that basically there are two hump effects in this giant oilfield. (1)
Phase redistribution hump which is quite obvious in well#5 and (2) intermediate humps in derivative curve detected in some
wells. The hump at intermediate time corresponds to the storage of the limited zone2. The reservoir is a three layers no
crossflow. As shown in figure 2 there are dense interlayers in between. At late time, the derivative stabilizes to describe the
radial flow regime in the infinite layer. A humped middle time response in a number of field examples is identified. Figure 6,
7 and 13 (i.e. humps in well#1, 2 and 5) illustrate humped derivatives and these data have been interpreted in by various
combinations of radial composite and fault models. Abdassah and Ershaghi3 introduced the other explanation about the humps
in the derivative curves through triple porosity model in 1986. And moreover recently, in 2004, Dreier et.al.4 presented
quadruple porosity models (Figure 3). By comparing their understandings with this field well test results, it could be hardly
concluded that a triple or quadruple type of model may have the same figure as some wells in this oil field.
At the end it is suggested that these data show the geochoke phenomena, for which there is not currently an easy method
to apply either an analytical solution or a type curve match5. Geochoke phenomenon is the restriction of flow for short period
of time represents depletion of the high permeability zones connected to the well, and the delay in recharging from other
patches away from the well. The geochoke model in heterogeneous reservoirs is a response, which can define the different
well test trends. The idea is tested on the reservoir model by choosing one well completed in one of the most heterogeneous
layers. The results indicated for the build up period there are bottom hole pressure changes, which is different with the wells
drilled in homogenous regions.
Fn Formation: History and Geological
Overview of the Oilfield
The field structure is an almost symmetrical 4 ways dip anticline elongated in N-S direction with a smooth 5 degree
inclination. Its closure, at the Fn formation top (Target formation), is 22 km long and 8.4 km wide. The initial pressure of the
reservoir was more than 9000 psi, and the temperature is above 140C while the bubble point pressure is around 4200 psi. The
total compressibility of the reservoir is roughly about 1.5e-5 and oil viscosity is 0.33 centipoises. The Fn producing formation
(Khami Group, lower Cretaceous) is composed of Limestone with alternations of porous zones (3 reservoir layers) and
interbedded with mudstone and shaly limestone (interlayers) as shown in figure 2. Sequences of carbonate dense and high
permeable layers indicate several environments of diagenesis, in which, some layers exposed to leaching phenomena but the
interlayers are remained unscathed. Foremost, expectable fracture network are not observed in the cores, however leaching
effects are frequently revealed. Single porosity has been seen throughout the appraisal and development wells with an average
of 20% and the expected permeability is in the range of 0.1-100mD. The Top of the Fn formation is somewhere around 4090
msl and the thickness is about 400m. As shown in Figure 4, 31 wells drilled in this field. Each well is completed in a different
reservoir layer with specific completions such as: Openhole, perforated and slotted liner. As depicted on figure 4, all the
producing wells are on the flank and injection wells are on the crest. On figure 4 the black dash line is cutting through the
production wells from layer 3 and the blue dash line is passing through the wells completed in layer 2. Since layer one has
lowest productivity and with lots of asphaltene problem therefore just one well drilled in layer 1 close to the crest. The third
layer has the maximum permeability and performance within the layers and the wells in layer 3 are quite productive in
comparison with layer 2 wells. The productivity index of the layer 3 mostly is about 10 bbl/d/psi and layer 2 is around 2

SPE 120893

bbl/d/psi. The API of layer 2 and 3 is about 39, and the GOR is around 1500 SCF/STB, H2S content is 5000ppm and except for
two wells the Basic Sediment and Water (BS&W) of all wells is zero.
Since the reservoir is carbonate type and is likely to be fractured therefore the well test interpretation acting a role in
reservoir characteristic clarity. In the log data no indication of fracturing is observed. In the core sample there is indication of
micro-fracture but not any evidence of fracture network. Well testing is one of the disputes to identify the reservoir
heterogeneity. Therefore the challenge of making a dual porosity or single porosity type of simulation model is a dispute. The
well test results and discussions are applied to clarify the built reservoir model. There is no indication of dual porosity
response in well test data; however a complex reservoir with special pressure responses is quite obvious. The welltest data of
this field is also compared with the quadruple porosity (figure 3) but it is difficult to conclude the quadruple reservoir type.
The disturbance of the derivative curve could be an indication of geochoke phenomena by permeability distribution.
Asphaltene deposition is one of the great obstacles at field operation where a thorough asphaltene instability analysis
reveals the possibility of deposition. Sometimes the asphaltene plug the tubing and shut down the well or form sludge in the
separators to reduce the process performance. Periodical asphaltene removal operation is necessary throughout the production
history.
Case Histories
The field started to produce from 2003 with 25,000 bbl/day and currently is producing 100,000 bbl/day. The reservoir
pressure currently has reached to 8000 psi down hole static pressure after more than 100 million bbl of oil production. Simple
Multirate tests (Min. 8 hours) following with long shut-ins (Min. 36 Hours) were performed (Figure 5) on each well during the
field history to estimate important well and reservoir flow parameters and characterize the Fn limestone formation. The main
objectives of the operation are: Record static bottom hole pressure, gather information on well productivity, and infer
formation petrophysical characteristics (kh, Skin). This complete measurement is done once after well completion and also all
the wells should be tested in a round of 4 years. Of course the test is also planned for abnormal issues. During the course of
interpretation, numerous engineering complexities were encountered due to the nature of well behavior and reservoir
conditions led to the masking of the actual reservoir response. Around 30 well-test operations have been done and interpreted,
among which several interpretations show complexities. There are some disturbances in pressure differences and pressure
derivative, which make it an issue to get a match. It should be mentioned that the same smoothing and settings in Pansys
software are applied for all the well test data. Some challenging responses are presented in this paper for some wells while the
rest of the wells have quite normal pressure behavior i.e. regular wellbore storage, skin and infinite acting behavior.
Well#1 and #2; High permeable reservoir with high degree of heterogeneities, high skin and high wellbore storage.
These two prolific wells are located at the west bank of the field producing from Fn level 3. Well 1 has a 5-7/8 Open
hole completion and well 2 has 5 slotted liner completion. Both pressure/temperature static gradient surveys show unique
fluid column of oil inside the wellbore. Flowing periods show poor data quality for interpretation so the 36 hours build up data
used for interpretation. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the log-log plots, where the high skin and high wellbore storage are obvious.
The high well bore storages are apparently due to surface shut-ins and deep gauge depths of more than 4100m. Both tests show
high permeable layer of around 40 to 90 mD.
The late time responses clearly depict tremendous degree of heterogeneity away from the well bores which is unique in
the field. By looking at two curves the idea of geochoke phenomena5 and quadruple porosity4 come to the mind. The evidence
of fracture in well log data is not detected but the heterogeneity and mico-fracures in cores are quite apparent. Therefore the
possibility of geochoke phenomena is more fulfilled. Although Corbett presented the geochoke phenomena for fluvial
sediments3 but the same degree of heterogeneity is observed. As Corbett discussed in his paper the low permeable region
around high permeable zone may affect well test responses5. In this paper different location of the well in heterogeneous
region demonstrate different well tests responses. Derivative curves of well #1 and 2 (Figure 6 and 7) show the same type of
rising and falling after shut in as geochoke model of Corbett. These derivative changes may have an indication of highly
heterogeneous region close to well location.
In order to examine this idea on the reservoir model, well#9 is selected as the only producing well, which completed in
one of the most heterogeneous layers. As shown in figure 8 around the well there is high permeable zone (red region)
surrounded by low permeable and then the boundary of reservoir. The well is flown for 3 choke sizes and then the build up
data is collected. The build up data of this well is plotted in figure 9. The pressure derivative response of this well is quite
disturbed in comparison with other wells. Although the grid sizes are quite big but still the geochoke phenomena is detected as
some disturbance in pressure build up. The average grid size is 150*150 (m*m) and it was more convenient to reduce the grid
sizes however it is out of the scope of this paper.

SPE 120893

Well#3; Partial penetration behavior due to asphaltene plugging on the sand-face

Depending on the type of the wellbore completion configuration or limited entry to the wellbore, it is possible to have
spherical or hemispherical flow near the wellbore. If the well penetrates the reservoir for a short distance below the cap rock,
the flow will be hemispherical. When the well is cased through a thick pay zone and only a small part of the casing is
perforated, the flow in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore will be spherical. Even when one portion of the wellbore is
plugged by a fish or obstruction same phenomena happens. Away from the wellbore, the flow is essentially radial; however,
for a short duration of the transient test, the flow will remain spherical during the test showing a negative half slop on the
derivative plot.
Well#3 is located in the north side of the field completed in Fn formation layer 2 with perforated 5 liner. Three flow
periods following a build up conducted. Bottom-hole pressure fluctuations measured by the memory gauges during flowing
periods indicate some plugging below the gauges near the sandface. Each pressure increase in a flow period corresponds to the
increased wellhead pressures and oil/gas rates confirming the sandface plugging (Figure 10). Figure 10 shows a full flow test,
beginning with 3 choke size flow (i.e. 24/64, 28/64 and 36/64) and a build up operation. As seen in the curve the down hole
pressure of the second choke behave in a strange manner. During 8 hours of production with 28/64 choke the bottom hole
pressure increases even more than the smaller choke size bottom hole pressure. By pressure increase the oil flow rate and
temperature are also raised. Therefore there is something which frequently plugging the flow path below the memory gauge.
This kind of fluctuation is quite often happens during the daily well production. First there was doubt about the water column
hold up but after 3 days of close water sampling survey it was cleared that the water is not a problem because water content
was always less than one percent. Since there is asphaltene problem in this well therefore the preliminary screening for
asphaltene stability was coherent and suggests that the asphaltene molecules are unstable and has the potential to flocculate
and precipitate out of the reservoir fluid when subjected to pressure, temperature or compositional changes. According to the
isothermal depressurization of reservoir fluid at the bottom hole temperature (289 F), maximum asphaltene is instable and
come out of solution between 4800 to 6800 psia and in each flow period during the test the flowing bottom hole pressure due
to high skin values is less than layer-2 asphaltene onset pressure (AOP=7300 psia).

Flow period #1, 24/64, FBHP=6001 psi

Flow period #2, 28/64, FBHP=6271 psi
Flow period #3, 36/64, FBHP=5254 psi

The maximum depth tagged by the gauge cutter during the drift operation prior to well test operation was 4315m and the
deepest perforation set starts at 4317m, confirms that the lowest portion of the wellbore was plugged with debris of probable
asphaltene; hence the negative half slop is an obvious partial penetration behaviour due to spherical flow on the log-log plot
(Figure 11). Figure 11 is the pressure difference and derivative of build up pressure data. In this figure the negative half slope
is quite obvious and in comparison with all the well tests it has the longest more than 2.5 hours partial penetration behavior.
Well#4; Partial penetration behavior due to left fish in hole.
Well#4 has 5-7/8 open-hole completion in Fn formation layer 3 located in the south side of the field. During drilling
operation part of the Bottom Hole Assembly (BHA) lost in the openhole section. Also during the welltesting operation the two
tandem memory gauges left in the hole and apparently the top of the fish is not known, therefore the negative half slope line on
the log-log plot confirms the limited entry of about 60 meters inside the wellbore following high wellbore storage and high
skin values which is usual in the field (Figure 12). In figure 12 the negative half slope is pretty differentiable from other part of
the curve. The well has a productivity index of 7 and skin sensitivity analysis with the performance analysis software reveals
that the PI can be at least doubled if the entire production interval exposed to the wellbore.
Well#5; Hump effect due to phase segregation inside the well.
Stegemeier and Mathews6 (1958), in a study of anomalous pressure buildup behavior discussed the effects of several
reservoir conditions on the Horner straight-line plot. The problem occurs when gas and oil or oil and water are segregated in
the tubing during shut-in, which can cause the wellbore pressure to increase. This increase in the pressure could exceed the
reservoir pressure and force the liquid to flow back into the formation with a resulting decrease in the wellbore pressure.
Stegemeier and Mathews investigated this humping effect, which means that bottom-hole pressure builds up to a maximum
and then decrease. They attributed this behavior to the redistribution of fluids within the wellbore. Wells which show the
humping behavior either are completed in moderately permeable formations with a considerable skin effect i.e. restriction to
flow near the wellbore or the annulus is packed off.
Well 5 is located in the south east of the field completed with 5-7/8" Open-hole in the second layer and generally has the
two above conditions based on the field history. The well is producing around 30% of water cut during flowing condition
(Figure 15). As shown in the figure this phenomenon is rare in the field because the nearby wells have no water cut content.
Figure 13 and 14 illustrate the pressure decrease on the Horner plot and obvious zero value on the log-log derivate in the
middle time region. Derivative curve on figure 13 detected a high skin wellbore followed by a late segregation subsequent

SPE 120893

with moderate reservoir heterogeneity. Since the memory gauge is set in 4340 m depth and it took time for water to segregate,
therefore there is a comparably long lag time between wellbore storage and segregation phenomena.
Well#6; Pre and Post acid pressure transient response behaviors in a successful diversion acidizing operation.
Well 6 located in the east bank of the field completed with a 5 perforated liner. Basically before putting the well on
production a flow after flow following a shut in period test was done in order to check the performance of the well. Figure 16
shows the log-log plot of the build up test confirming the high value of skin in order of 200, therefore a diversion acidizing
operation designed to reduce the skin and compare the results. Maximum 230 barrels of 15% HCL with the diverting fluid
pumped into the well. Figure 17 illustrates the acidizing was very much successful and the significantly reduced amount of
drawdown within post stimulation flowing conditions compare to the pre-stimulation period. The post stimulation well test
results confirms the successful diversion acidizing operation reduced the skin value to the order of -4 and double the rates
(Figure 18).
Moreover, Figure 18 depicts a boundary effect on the post-stimulation derivative plot, which is not seen on the prestimulation data, note should be taken that the pre-stimulation shut in period was around 26 hours but the post-stimulation
build up period is around 36 hours. However the boundary effect in 26 hours of post stimulation is detecting reservoir
boundary while in pre-stimulation is converging to straight-line radial flow. The challenge is to figure out from well test
response whether the boundary effect is a constant pressure or a closed boundary as we know the two types of boundaries have
the same response on the build up derivative curves.
P is defined for the build up as
P=Pws-Pwf@t=0
Where,
P
psi, Pressure difference
psi, Shut-in pressure
Pws
psi, Flowing pressure before shut-in
Pwf@t=0
But a new P value is defined by extrapolating the pseudo-steady state flowing condition before the shut-in period as
P=Pws-Pwf extrapolated
Figure 19 illustrates the graphical calculation of the new P values. It is clearly seen that if the well is flowing under
steady-state condition for example in a case of the constant pressure boundary then the definition of the two equations would
be the same since the extrapolation of the flowing condition would stay at a constant value like Pwf@t=0.
Figure 20 shows an example of new P and its derivative for the two cases of constant pressure boundary and closed
boundary. It shows that in the case of constant pressure boundary the derivative approaches to zero but in the case of a closed
boundary it stays on a constant value.
The long flowing period in a welltest operation is practically impossible to find out whether the well is flowing under
steady state condition or pseudo-steady state condition, therefore we look at the wellhead pressure data after the well is put on
production and in the case of well#6 (Figure 21) it can be clearly seen that the well is flowing under pseudo-steady state
condition since (dp/dt=constant), therefore the new P and its derivative are calculated (Figure 22). The derivative shows a
constant value, which confirms the pseudo-steady state condition of the well.
Figure 1 shows a low reservoir quality facies boundary, which is very close to well #6, confirms the closed boundary effect of
the pressure response. Although the lower amplitude corresponding to dense rock on the seismic data is close to well#6 but it
seems the boundary of the well is not quite closed. Therefore longer time production can give more evidence of this
conclusion.
To get a match of the post stimulation Log-Log plot was a challenge because there is no detected boundary or close
boundary in the rest 30 wells. Therefore it was intricate to imagine there is close periphery around this well. However as it can
be seen from figure 18 with close boundary assumption a pretty satisfying match is achieved. Moreover in figure 1 the
wellhead pressure drop is confirming there should be a dense rock region around the well, which poorly feed the well.
Well#7; Interference response behavior due to a nearby well bore shut in.
Well#7 is located in the south of the field very close to well#4 with the open-hole completions in the same layer. Two
gauges were run in well 7 for data acquisition for a period of five months. Once the gauges were retrieved, the one of the
gauges was found burnt out. Performing the Quality Check of the gauge data the bottom-hole pressure data was roughly good
for interpretations.
Since the well has produced through different choke sizes for almost five months, Equivalent Production Time (Tp) has
been calculated as follows:
Tp=24*Ccum/Clast
Where

SPE 120893

Tp
Hour, Production time
Ccum
STB, Cumulative oil production
Clast
STB/Day, Last oil rate before shut in
Where the parameters at the shut-in time are:
Cum. Oil Production = 1,781,738 STB
Average oil rate= 11,850 STB/Day
By using the above equation and well production data, Equivalent Production Time has been considered 3,600 hr. The
shut in period is 446 hours. Applying the average oil rate over the following period, build up data was chosen due to better
derivative quality. After closing Well #7, the nearby Well #8 was kept producing. Passing 6 hours after Well #8 was closed, an
indicative change has been observed in derivative curve of Well #7 (Figure 23). This slope change is recognized as
Interference Effect; that is, well # 7 & well #8 have interference on each other.
Conclusion
1.

2.

3.
4.

5.

On most of the Log-Log derivative plots we may clearly see the negative half slop after the wellbore storage at early
times due to spherical flow. In some cases like well#3 and #4 it happens because of sandface/bore hole plugging due
to asphaltene or left fish in hole, but in other cases the partial penetration behavior is probably owing to partial layer
perforation therefore the perforation clean up or more perforation is recommended.
Acidizing has enormous effect in well stimulation in this field and can reduce the pressure drawdown exposed to
sandface and consequently particle production is decreased. Reducing particle production is in priority since there is
well plugging happening for some wells. Therefore acidizing is recommended for all the wells not just for production
increment purpose also for less pressure drawdown, which prevent water early breakthrough, and also less particle
production.
Furthermore as seen in Well#6 the post stimulation well test results can give more information about the reservoir
boundary therefore removing skin by well stimulation may make the well testing more efficient tools for reservoir
study.
The derivative variation in well test data can be an indication of reservoir heterogeneity. As detected from seismic
data, there are karstification phenomena in Fn formation and according to Corbett geochoke theory it can be shown in
well test log-log plots. Even though the geochoke is firstly presented for fluvial sediments but for this field of highly
heterogeneous carbonate reservoir is also observed.
Variation in wellbore pressure in Well#3 is happening in a range of wellbore pressures. By this variation all related
data are varied. Since this well has asphaltene problem therefore the explanation could be asphaltene plugging on the
sandface. There was doubt about water column load off but a water sampling is done for 3 days during pressure
variation but not any evidence of high water cut observed.

References
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

de Boer, R.B., Leerlooyer, K., Eigner, M.R.P., and van Bergen, A.R.D.: Screening of Crude Oils for Asphalt
Precipitation: Theory, Practice, and the Selection of Inhibitors, SPE PF (Feb. 1995) 10, 55-61.
Bourdet, D., Well Testing and Interpretation, IFP school, Ecole Du Petrole ET DES Moteurs, 1983.
Dreier, J., Ozkan, E., and Kazemi, H.: New analytical pressure-transient models to detect and characterize
reservoirs with multiple fracture systems, paper SPE 92039 presented at the 2004 International Petroleum
Conference, Puebla, Mexico, 8-9 November 2004.
Abdassah, D. and Ershaghi, I.: Triple-porosity Systems for Representing Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, SPE
Formation Evaluation (April 1986), 113.
Corbett, P.W.M, Ellabad,Y., Egert, J.I.K., and Zheng, S: The geochoke well test response in a catalogue of
systematic genotype curves, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS.
Stegemeier, G. and Matthews, C. (1958). "A study of anomalous pressure build up behavior," Trans. AIME, 213,
44-50.

SPE 120893

Well # 3
Well # 2

Well # 6

Well # 1
Well # 5

Well # 7
Well # 4

Figure 1 Heterogeneity in layer 3

Figure 2 Fn formation layers and interlayers

Figure 3 Typical Quadruple porosity response behavior (Dreier

et.al, 2004)

Figure 4 Fn formation Closure

SPE 120893

Figure 5 Typical test overview

Figure 6 Log-log plot of well#1

Well#9

Figure 7 Log-log plot of well#2

Figure 8 Well location in heterogeneous zone

SPE 120893

WBHPDQ19

Delta P (ps i)

10

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

Elapsed Time (hours)

Figure 9 Well Bottom Hole Build up of well#9

Figure 11 Log-log plot of well #3

Figure 10 Well head and Bottom hole pressure of well#5

Figure 12 Log-log plot of well#4

10

SPE 120893

Figure 13 Log-log plot of well#5

Figure 15 Flow periods on well#5

Figure 14 Horner plot of well#5

Figure 16 Pre stimulation log-log plot of well#6

SPE 120893

11

Figure 17 Pre-Post stimulation well tests

Figure 18 Well#6 post acid log-log plot

10000.0000

4400
4200

1000.0000

4000
Pw f (psi)

P=Pw s-Pw s extrapolated

100.0000

P=Pw s-Pw s extrapolated

P=Pw s-Pw s @t=0

3800
3600

constant slope of the

10.0000

closed boundary effect

Zero value of the constant
pressure boundary

3400

1.0000

3200
3000
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Time (hr)

Figure 19 New P definition

3000

3500

4000

0.1000
1

10

Figure 20 New P and its derivative

100

12

SPE 120893

4400
4200
4000

15000

3000
2800
2600
2400
2200

dp/dt = Constant

10000

2000
1800
1600
1400

5000

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

2007/11/14 2008/01/03 2008/02/22 2008/04/12 2008/06/01 2008/07/21 2008/09/09 2008/10/29 2008/12/18 2009/02/06

Derivative of the new

P definition P=Pws-Pwf

1000

100

10
Derivative

20000

3800
3600
3400
3200

Pressure(Psia)

Oil Rate (STB/Day)

25000

0.1

0.01
0.01

Derivative of the traditional P

P=Pws-Pwf@t=0

0.1

10

Elapsed Time (hr)

Date

Figure 21 Well# 6 WHP and Rate

Well#8 Shut in

Figure 23 Interference behavior on Well#7

Figure 22 Well#6 log-log derivatives

100