seal valve is easily recognized by the fact that the pressure reading at the

surface of the undrained sample chamber is less by a few hundred psi than
the shut-in pressure recorded on the formation test log.

Reservoir Rock's Porosity Distribution System Analysis

Evaluation of heterogeneity of the reservoir rock's porosity systems can
be made using a wireline formation tester. It is a sample chamber of up to
several gallons capacity combined with pressure gauges. The test chambers
are forced against the borehole wall in a sealing pad, and firing a shaped
charge perforates the formation. The signal to fire the charge is transmitted
on logging cable. Fluid is collected during sampling, and pressure is recorded.
Following sample collection, shut-in pressures are recorded as they build up
with time.
The pressure versus time records from the formation tester permit the
evaluation of the heterogeneity of the reservoir rock's porosity system,
whether it may be considered as a uniform and homogeneous porosity
development or as a multiple porosity system made up of matrix porosity
and of course porosity (vugs, fracture, fissures, joints, etc.). By a Pollard-
type plot (1959)7 [\og(ps p) versus time], it is possible to identify the type
of prevailing porosity and the respective fraction of each; these data are of
importance in the interpretation of fractured rocks. It has been shown by
Pirson and Pirson7 that the respective volumes of the course and fine pore
system may be evaluated by plotting the successive pressure differences
versus time on semilog paper. Figure 12-19 is a representation of porosity

Figure 12-19. Porosity partition in heterogeneous porous rock.

 First difference buildup curve
pressure derivative (psia)
Pressure and

Slope = C^1

Time, hours

Figure 12-20. log(p s - pw) versus time - first difference curve.

partition in heterogeneous porous rock and shows how to develop the

equation of partitioning coefficient. Notice that this approach interrelates
buildup analysis with log interpretation. Figure 12-20 is a \og(ps pw)
versus time plot. The straight-line portion (BC) indicates the matrix porosity
re-pressuring the fracture porosity, when Ap within the fractures and Ap
between the coarse fissures and the wellbore has become negligible. Figure
12-21 is a log of pressure differential (average fracture pressure - well
pressure) across "skin" near the wall of the well. This is represented by the
difference plot (AB - DB) versus time. When the pressure drop due to skin
becomes negligible, a straight line (FG) results. Pollard concluded that such
plots of the log of pressure differential associated with any of the regions
Pressure and pressure derivative (psia)

Time (hours)

Figure 12-21. \og(ps-pw) versus time - first and second difference curves.
against time would result in a straight line from which it would be possible to
determine properties such as volume of the fracture pore space system and
well skin effect.

Matrix Pore Volume Calculation

With plots of Figures 12-20 and 12-21, it is possible to calculate the
matrix pore volume Vm from the following relationship as proposed by
Pirson and Pirson:7

(12-38)

where
q = flow rate at moment of shut-in, cm3/s
ai = slope of straight line (BC) of first differences, s/cycle
cj)m matrix porosity, fraction
D = intercept of first difference at time zero, psi
H = intercept of second difference at time zero, psi
Cf compressibility of fluid in the fracture, psi.

Fracture Pore Volume Calculation

From Figures 12-20 and 12-21, we can also evaluate the pore volume of
the fracture Vf from the relationship

(12-39)

where a^ is the slope of the straight line (FG) of second difference (s/cycle).

Partitioning Coefficient Estimation

Partitioning coefficient concept, introduced by Pirson, has proven an
important tool for the evaluation of fracture media. It is porosity breakdown
between coarse (fracture) and fine (fracture) pore space. The partitioning
coefficient v can be estimated from the following relationship. Figure 12-19
shows how to develop the equation of partitioning coefficient.

(12-40)
 total volume of a heterogeneous porous rock (12-41)

(12-42)

where

(12-^3)

Also

(12-44)

Well Skin Effects

Figure 12-21 indicates that the extrapolated l v a l u e is approximately the
difference between the pressure in the fractures close to the wellbore and the
average coarse fissure flowing pressure at shut-in. The pressure differential
due to skin Ap is

Aps = (ps-D-E) (psi) (12-45)

A sample problem will illustrate the technique.

Example 12-4 16 Analyzing Reservoir Rock's Porosity Distribution System

The pressure record of a formation tester is read as follows as a function
of time in seconds in an oil well. The results are recorded in Table 12-6.
Estimate partitioning coefficient and well skin effect.

Solution The static pressure (ps) recorded is 925 psi. A first difference (Ap) is
made by subtracting the observed pressure from ps. The values of Ap so
obtained are plotted on a semilogarithmic plot (Figure 12-22). A series of
straight lines are obtained. The reciprocal slope a\ is read yielding 1032 sec/
cycle and the intercept C 112 psi. The value of the second difference (AAp) is
obtained by reading the difference between the Ap curve and the extended
straight line of slope a\. These points are plotted on the AAp curve and give
 Table 12-6
Pressure Record of Formation Tester for Oil Well {pstatk = 2000)

Shut-in time Shut-in Pressure

(min) time (sec) (psi) ^P= Pstatic ~Pw (PSi) AA/? (psi)
0.6667 40 400
1.1667 70 500 1500 1105
1.5000 90 600 1400 1010
1.6667 100 700 1300 907
1.7500 105 800 1200 820
2.0000 120 950 1050 672
2.5000 150 1300 700 335
3.0000 180 1500 500 145
3.5000 210 1600 400 55
3.8333 230 1650 350 12
4.6667 280 1675 325 0
5.5000 330 1715 285
7.1667 430 1725 275
7.6667 460 1740 260
9.5000 570 1755 245
Pressure, Ap, pressure derivative, AAp

curve

curve

Shut-in time (seconds)

Figure 12-22. Formation test pressure difference plot.

a reciprocal slope 0L2 = 23 sec/cycle and an intercept D = 500 psi. The porosity
partitioning coefficient or porosity breakthrough is determined using Eq. 12-44:

which represents the fraction of large pore space (vugs, fracture, fissures,
joints) in the total porosity, which controls the fluid flow at the wellbore. The
skin effect in this well can be calculated using Eq. 12-45:

Aps = ps - D - C = 925 - 500 - 112 = 313 psi

or about one-third of the total pressure drawdown during sampling.

12.9 Summary
This chapter discusses DST equipment and operational procedures,
recommended flow, and shut-in time for DST. It presents trouble-shooting
DST pressure charts for barrier detection, checking validity and consistency
of reported DST data, DST analysis methods such as Horner's plot, type
curve matching techniques, DST buildup test analysis with limited data.
These methods are discussed in detail for their uses and limitations including
wireline formation test data evaluation.

References and Additional Reading

1. Van Poollen, H. K., "Status of Drill-Stem Testing Techniques and
Analysis," J. Pet. Tech. (April 1961) 333-339. Also Reprint Series,
No. 9 - Pressure Analysis Methods, Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME, Dallas, TX, 1967, pp. 104-110.
2. Odeh, A. S., and Selig, F., "Pressure Buildup Analysis - Variable Rate
Case," /. Pet. Tech. (July 1963) 228, 790-794; Trans. AIME, 228. Also
Reprint Series, No. 9 - Pressure Analysis Methods, Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Dallas, TX, 1967, pp. 131-135.
 3. Timmerman, E. H., and Van Poollen, H. K., "Practical Use of Drill-
Stem Test," /. Can. Pet. Tech. (April-June 1972) 31-41.
4. Ramey, H. J., Agarwal, R. G., and Martin, L, "Analysis of Slug Test or
DST Flow Period Data," /. Can. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1975) 37-42.
5. Kohlhaas, C. A., "A Method for Analyzing Pressures Measured During
Drill-Stem Test Flow Periods," SPE-AIME, Oct. 11, 1971.
6. Cooper, H. H., Jr., Bredehoeft, J. D., and Papadopulos, "Instantaneous
Charge of Water," Water Resources Res. (1967) 3, No. 1, 263-269.
7. Pirson, R. S., and Pirson, S. J., "An Extension of the Pollard Analysis
Method of Well Pressure Build-Up and Drawdown Tests," paper SPE
101 presented at the SPE-AIME 36th Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas,
Oct. 8-11, 1961.
8. Zak, a. J, Jr., and Phil Griffin, III, "Evaluation of DST Data," Oil Gas J.
April, p. 122, April 29, p. 193, May 13, p. 136, May 27, p. 125, 1957.
9. Correa, A. C, and Ramey, H. J., Jr., "A Method for Pressure Buildup
Analysis of Drillstem Tests," SPE paper 16802 presented at the 1987
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
10. Soliman, M. Y., "Analysis of Pressure Buildup Tests with Short Produc-
tion Time," paper presented at the SPE-AIME 57th Annual Fall Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 26-29, 1982.
Also SPEFE, Aug. 1986, pp. 363-371.
11. Schlumberger Educational Services, repeat Formation Tester, SMP-
9070, Houston, TX, 1986.
12. Murphy, W. C, "The Interpretation and Calculation of Formation
Characteristics from Formation Test Data," Pamphlet T-101, Hallibur-
ton Co., Duncan, OK, 1970.
13. Black, W. M., "A Review of Drill-Stem Testing Techniques and Analy-
sis," /. Pet. Tech. (June 1956) 21-30.
14. Van Everdingen, A. F., "The Skin Effect and Its Influence on the
Productive Capacity of a Well," Trans. AIME (1953) 198, 171-176.
15. Amman, C. B., "Case Histories of Analyses of Characteristics of
Reservoir Rock from Drill-Stem Tests," /. Pet. Tech. (May 1960) 27-36.
16. Amanat, U. C, "Pressure Transient Test Analysis: User's Handbook,"
Vol. 8, Advanced TWPSOM Petroleum Systems Inc., Houston, TX,
1995.
 Chapter 13
Interference
and Pulse Test
Analysis Methods

13.1 Introduction
Both interference and pulse tests, also known as multiple-well testing,
involve more than one well. These types of tests can be used to obtain an
adequate reservoir description for homogeneous (both isotropic and aniso-
tropic) and heterogeneous systems. Numerical solutions must be used to
analyze pressure transient data from heterogeneous systems. At the same
time, it is one of the most important and useful tests to understand the well
behavior in a water flood and enhanced oil recovery projects. Figure 13-1
shows field application of interference and pulse tests.

13.2 Interference Test Analysis Techniques

Interference testing is one form of multiple-well testing. These tests are
used to determine whether two or more wells are in pressure communication
in the same reservoir and, when communication exists, to provide estimates
of vertical formation permeability k and porosity/compressibility product
(f>ct, in the vicinity of the tested wells. In the homogeneous isotropic system,
the porosity and thickness are the same everywhere in the reservoir. Permea-
bility k is also the same everywhere and in all direction. Interference is
conducted by producing from or injecting into one of these wells (active
well) and the pressure response is observed in the other well (observation
well) (see Figure 13-2). The active well starts producing at uniform pressure
at time zero and the other pressure response in the observation well at a
distance r from active well begins after some time lag.
 Practical application of
interference and pulse tests

Interference tests Pulse tests

Long-duration rate modification in one A pulse test provides equivalent data by

well creates a pressure interference in
an observation well that can be
analyzed for reservoir properties such
as transmissivity and storativity.
Analysis technique is simple by using
type curve matching (exponential
integral type curve)
using short-rate pulses (with smaller
observed pressure changes). Following
parameters such as hydraulic diffusivity,
transmissibility and formation storage can be
estimated.
Pulse test values are much less affected by
boundary conditions such as faults and
aquifers than are interference test values.
Analysis technique is more complicated and
usually requires a computer

Figure 13-1. Field application of interference and pulse tests.

Active well Observation

well

Figure 13-2. Influence region for interference or pulse testing.

Interference Test Analysis by Type Curve Matching

Type curve matching technique is applied to interference test analysis. Type
curve matching is simpler for interference testing than for single-well testing
because there is only one type curve (Figure 13-3). To consider for infinite-
acting system, the following steps are used to analyze an interference test:
Plot pressure drawdown data in an observation well, Ap = pt pwf(t),
versus time, t, on tracing paper using the grid of Figure 13-3.
Slide the plotted test data over the type curve (horizontal or vertical)
until a match is found.
The match point data are used to estimate formation properties. In
Figure 13-3, the ordinate of the type curve is dimensionless pressure,
 Figure 13-3. Exponential integral solution type curve.3

which is estimated using the pressure match points and the following
equation:

(13-1)

By substituting match point values and rearranging Eq. 13-1, we esti-

mate permeability in the test region using the pressure match points and
the following equation:

(13-2)

Similarly, use the definition on the abscissa of the type curve in Figure
13-3, to estimate the dimensionless time and dimensionless radius.

(13-3)