Multiple-Rate Tests

It is often difficult or impractical to maintain a constant flow rate long enough to complete a
drawdown test. One alternative is the buildup est; a second is the multiple, or variable, rate test.
A multiple-rate test may consist of

· an uncontrolled variable rate;

· a series of constant flow rates;

· testing at a constant bottom hole pressure and with a varying flow rate.

Unlike the buildup test, multiple-rate testing provides test data while production continues. The
introduction of more than one rate in a well-test sequence causes additional pressure transients to
be introduced into the reservoir. The pressure transient for a typical two-rate test is shown in
Figure 1 .

Figure 1

Note that the second flow rate superimposes a second pressure transient on the first and both
continue to move outward in the reservoir as production continues.

The conventional "back-pressure" test for a gas well is a classic multiple-rate well test. As we see
in Figure 2 (Flow rate and pressure history of a typical conventional test), the well goes through
four successive flow rates, each lasting until the flowing pressure stabilizes.

Figure 2

This is followed by a shut-in period, which again lasts until the pressure stabilizes. With this
information, the inflow performance of a gas well may be predicted.

Our ability to use multiple-rate tests successfully is founded on the availability of instruments
that measure flow rate and pressures accurately and on our ability to solve the equations that
represent multiple-rate flow conditions.
Interference Tests

An interference test is one in which we measure the change in pressure that occurs in an
offsetting, shut-in observation well. This change in pressure is caused by changes in flow rates at
one or more active wells ( Figure 1 , Pressure response at active and observation wells during a
drawdown (interference) test).

Figure 1

By measuring the response in the observation well to changes in flow rates at the various active
wells, it is possible to develop an understanding of the reservoir properties that exist between the
wells (Kamal, 1983). It is also possible to run a vertical interference test between two isolated
zones in a single wellbore, thereby defining the degree of pressure communication vertically in
the reservoir near the wellbore (Burns, 1979).

Pulse Tests

A pulse test is a special form of interference test. It is conducted by allowing the flow rate at the
active well to change several times in the form of a series of alternate flow and shut-in periods
rather than producing the well at a single constant rate. (A pulse can also be generated by
injecting into rather than producing from the active well.) This test relies on the fact that it is
possible to measure accurately small pressure changes in the observation well. The pressure vs.
time profile measured at the observation well is shown in Figure 2 for a pulse test in which the
active well is alternately produced and shut in.

Figure 2

The shape and arrival time of the pulses recorded in the observation well are used to estimate the
properties of the reservoir between the two wells.
1.2 Pressure Profiles at the Wellbore

Drawdown Tests, Infinite Reservoirs

Although it helps our understanding of reservoir flow phenomena to discuss pressure

distributions within the reservoir, we are able to record such pressure changes only where wells
penetrate the formation. If pressures are recorded in the well that is being produced and/or shut
in (the active well), we have drawdown/ buildup tests; if they are recorded at a nearby
observation well, we have interference, or pulse, tests.

By limiting our pressure analysis to a single radius (the wellbore radius, rw, is the most obvious
one to use), we can plot the production rate and pressure response at the wellbore versus time.
(Note: time is now the independent variable, not radius.) We see the results for the base-case
drawdown test applied to the "infinite acting" reservoir model in Figure 1 .

Figure 1

This is a classical wellbore pressure transient response. Note that the change in pressure, p, and
elapsed flow time, t, are illustrated graphically. Plots of p versus t are important aspects of
well test interpretation.
Drawdown Tests, Finite Reservoirs

It is possible for a reservoir to be finite-acting rather than infinite-acting in radial extent. For
example, it may have a limited fluid volume caused by an enclosing no-flow outer boundary or,
alternatively, a constant-pressure outer boundary that might be caused by an active water drive or
a regular injection pattern. In these cases, the reservoir is finite in radial extent and, as shown in
Figure 1 , (Observed states of flow during a drawdown test) there will be an early, transient,
pressure-response period that occurs before the outer boundary is "felt" at the wellbore.

Figure 1

Soon thereafter there will be a pseudosteady-state pressure response that is evidenced by a

constant rate of change in pressure with time at a particular radius—in this case, the wellbore.
The pressure profile during this pseudosteady-state period becomes a straight line on linear
coordinate paper. The region between the transient and pseudosteady-state periods is referred to
as the transitional or late transient period (Odeh and Nabor, 1966).

During pseudosteady-state flow in a radial flow system it can be shown that

(2.2)
This equation allows us to use the slope of the straight line on linear coordinates during
pseudosteady-state flow to estimate the volume of the reservoir with radius, re, that the wellbore
drains. All terms on the right-hand side are known or may be estimated and so we may calculate
re, the average radius of the finite reservoir.

This is an example of reservoir limit testing, a method of estimating reservoir size using wellbore
pressure response during a drawdown test.

Buildup Tests, Infinite Reservoirs

Because it is often difficult to maintain a constant flow rate on a well during a well test
(drawdown), it is customary to test a well by flowing it for a period of time and then shutting it
in (buildup). The pressure data recorded during buildup is conveniently analyzed using the fact
that it plots as a straight line on a semilog scale, as we see in Figure 1 (A semilog plot of pressure
versus (tp + t)/ t during buildup test (infinite-acting system)

Figure 1

and Figure 2 (A semilog plot of wellbore pressure versus (tp + t)/ t during a buildup test
(infinite-acting system)(horizontal scale reversed from Figure 1).
 Figure 2

A plot of the wellbore pressure profile versus time for a drawdown test followed by a buildup
test for our ideal reservoir model appears in Figure 3 .

Figure 3

Horner (1951) showed that the pressure in the wellbore during the buildup period, pws, when
plotted against log (tp + t)/ t will yield a straight line as shown in Figures 1 and 2 (Horner
plot). Note that tp is the equivalent producing time and is given by
 (2.3)

t is the time since shut-in. When t is small, the term (tp + t)/ t is large. For this reason
the horizontal axis in Figure 1 has a large value on the left where t is small and smaller values
to the right. Sometimes the horizontal scale of Figure 1 is reversed as shown in Figure 2 (large
values running from right to left).
A very long time after shut-in, (tp + t)/ t will approach a value of 1.0 and the reservoir
pressure, , will build up to its original value of pi as shown in Figure 3 .

Finite Reservoir

For a homogeneous but finite acting radial flow system, the wellbore pressure during buildup
will exhibit the characteristic Horner plot semilog straight line during its early phase. However,
because of the finite extent of the reservoir, some depletion will have occurred during the period
of production and the average reservoir pressure will not build up to a value as high as the
original pressure. A typical example is shown in Figure 1 , (A semilog plot of pressure versus (tp
+ t)/ t during buildup test (finite-acting system).
 Figure 1

The straight line extrapolation would give us p* whereas the reservoir pressure, because of
depletion, would have stabilized at . The pressure, p*, is often referred to as the false
pressure. Methods have been developed to estimate the average reservoir pressure, , so that
we do not have to wait the long time that may be needed for the pressure to reach this level.

A means for estimating , the average reservoir pressure for a finite reservoir, known as the
MBH method, has been developed by Matthews, Brons, and Hazebroek (1954) for many
different reservoir drainage areas. It requires a knowledge of the extrapolated pressure, p*, and
the drainage area and shape, together with the MBH method curves.