SPE 150748

Best Use of Production Tests – Estimating Well Productivity Parameters in

the Absence of Bottomhole Pressure Tests
Ibukun Samson, Laser Engineering; Mike Onyekonwu, IPS UNIPORT

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

well productivity parameters. A discussion on the
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference conditions under which trends can be extrapolated
and Exhibition held in Abuja, Nigeria, 30 July–3 August 2011.
is also provided. A sample data set is included in
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
the paper as an example to demonstrate some of
have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to the proposed procedures and to clarify ambiguities.
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
Introduction
abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must Well productivity parameters constitute important
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.
parameters used by E & P professionals in
evaluating the performance of oil and gas wells.
Parameters of interest include average reservoir
Abstract pressure pr, flowing bottomhole pressure pwf,
Most operators routinely (usually monthly) carry out productivity index (J, or PI), skin factor (S), flow
production tests on flowing wells as against the efficiency (FE), permeability (K) and net pay
bottomhole pressure (BHP) surveys which are not thickness (h). The knowledge of the value of these
frequently done. This is often the case in wells parameters throughout the life of the field can
where economic considerations do not support the efficiently aid in the reservoir / well management
costs of acquiring such data. The semi-annual and optimal depletion of the field. For proper
acquisition of BHP data as required by the reservoir management therefore, the asset
Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) is very management engineers (or technologists) need to
seldom implemented. This is more so in wells be able to estimate or predict these parameters
located in marginal fields or wells belonging to throughout the field life cycle. The ability to estimate
smaller operators. In cases where the data is the value of these parameters throughout reservoir
actually acquired, interpretation of the acquired data life can help diagnose pending well problems and
is frequently not done. may ultimately help save a sick well (especially in a
green filed) or prolong the life of a dying well in a
The lack of BHP data has made it difficult for many brown field.
E&P professionals to estimate well productivity
parameters such as productivity index (J), skin (S) The challenge is that while most of these
and flow efficiency (FE). These parameters are parameters can be obtained by carrying out a
required to predict the performance of production bottomhole pressure (BHP) survey and interpreting
wells and estimate the reserves for such wells. The the resulting data, many operators do not carry out
estimated reserves in turns affect the evaluation of BHP surveys regularly because of cost
economic viability of such assets. considerations. Also the loss of production due to
well shut-in for testing make regular BHP surveys
This paper enumerates practical procedures for unattractive for operators. The problem is even
estimating and monitoring well productivity more severe for marginal field operators who are
parameters from analysis of routine production test usually tight on budget because of lower field
data. It also provides procedures for quality reserves.
checking (therefore accepting or rejecting) results of
well productivity parameters obtained from While many operators do not carry out regular BHP
interpretation of BHP tests. The paper goes on to surveys, most of them do carry out regular
introduce trend analysis as a means of estimating production (flow) test however. Most operators
2 M. Qiang, S. Ibukun, K. Eke, D. Odogu and M. Onyekonwu
typically perform monthly flow test on producing
wells. This paper examines procedures whereby
estimates of important well performance parameters
can be obtained from the routine flowtests without
absolute reliance on BHP survey data. The
procedures enumerated in this paper may not often
yield the most accurate value of the parameters, but
they often proffer useful approximate values or
ranges of these parameters. These approximate
values or ranges are often sufficient for many
engineering applications and for proper reservoir or
well management purposes. Though this paper
advocates estimating well performance parameters
from routine production test data, it does not in any
way suggest that BHP surveys are not important or
demean the importance of carrying out regular BHP
surveys. Interpretation of properly acquired BHP
surveys give more accurate values of well
performance parameters, whereas the procedures
enumerated in this paper can provide a means of
quality checking BHP test interpretations.
Estimating Productivity Index J (or PI) from
Production Test Data
The productivity index J of a single phase oil flow is
defined as the ratio of the oil production rate to the
drawdown.
q that upon well events like shut-in, workover or re-
J= ............1
p r ! p wf
Including the effect of skin and changes to the rock
and fluid properties with production, the productivity
index for radial flow can be written as:
p IPR for the wells and sensitizing on the average
0.00708kh r
k ro
J= ! dp
( p r " p wf )[ln(0.472re / rw ) + S ] pwf µ o Bo
.......... .......... .........2
The productivity index (also PI), of a well can be
estimated from test data if reservoir pressure is
known. The procedure is to construct inflow
performance relation (IPR) for the well using the PI
entry method and sensitize on the PI until the test
data (i.e. test BHP and flowrate) is matched. The
correct estimate of the well’s PI is that which
matches the test data. If the test flowing BHP is not
known, it may be estimated from procedures
discussed subsequently. Figure 1 shows an
idealized production well IPR plot that has been
matched to test data.
SPE 150748
Estimating BHP from Production Test Data
If there is no BHP data from the test information as
a result of lack of pressure gauges down-hole
and/or lack of flowing gradient survey, the well
BHPs can be estimated by using appropriate
vertical lift correlations. This can be done with most
of the commercially available system analyses
packages. Typically, required data to calculate the
flowing BHP include the well’s deviation survey,
water-cut, GOR, flow rate, well head pressure and
temperature, and bottom-hole temperature during
the test.
The flowing bottom-hole pressure (FBHP) can also
be estimated if the well’s PI decline curve shows
interpretable trend. The procedure here is to first
estimate the well’s PI by extrapolating the PI decline
curve and then use this PI to construct the well’s
IPR based on the PI entry method. The FBHP is
then obtained from the plot by entering the chart
with the test rate and reading off the equivalent
FBHP corresponding to the IPR curve. Care must
however be taken in constructing the oil well IPR
using the PI entry method. The above and below
bubble point behaviours must be respected.
Apart from the presence of interpretable trend,
another issue with the PI decline curve analysis is
entry, the data has to be re-initialized before
extrapolation of the trend can be possible.
Estimating Average Reservoir Pressure from
Production Test Data
Average reservoir pressure can be estimated from
test data if the BHP is known, by constructing an
reservoir pressure to match the constructed data to
the IPR. The reservoir pressure that matches the
IPR to the test data is the correct estimate.
Depending on the IPR method being used,
knowledge of the skin, or FE or PI may be required
in constructing the IPR. Also if the BHP is not
known, it may be estimated by using test data in
appropriate vertical lift correlations as previously
discussed. Estimation of reservoir pressure from
production test data can serve as a means of
monitoring reservoir pressure (i.e. for surveillance
purposes). This can in turn aid the reservoir/well
management process immensely.
Estimating Flow Efficiency (FE) from Production
Test Data
Flow Efficiency (FE) or productivity ratio (PR) (or
condition ratio) is defined as the ratio of the well’s
actual productivity index to its productivity index if
there is no skin:
 3 Analytical Evaluation of Kukaku Field SPE 150748

engineering computations. This assumption is valid

&J # if:
FE = $$ actual !! ........3 a. Field life is considerable (i.e. greater than 10
% J ideal " q =cons tan t years), or
In terms of drawdown, FE is the ratio of the ideal b. Annual cumulative production does not
drawdown to the actual drawdown. It can be exceed 10% of field reserves at the end of the
computed from the following equations: previous year, or
c. Annual net reservoir voidage does not exceed
5% of reservoir hydrocarbon pore volume
ideal drawdown Pr ! Pwf ! "Pskin
FE = = (HCPV).
actual drawdown Pr ! Pwf This implies that equation 6 can be used to estimate
the flow efficiency of the well using the same
..........................4
reservoir pressure and production test data of two
successive months, provided there was no well
141.2qo µ o Bo S intervention job between the successive months.
!Pskin = .........5
ko h This calculation procedure also assumes that there
is no spontaneous or significant reservoir (or
geologic) event around the wellbore within the one-
The FE was introduced by Standing (1970) to month period, so that the reservoir skin around the
correct for skin effect on the Vogel inflow wellbore is essentially the same over the period.
performance relation (IPR). FE typically ranges from
0.5 to 1. A FE less than 1.0 implies that the well is Alternatively, if the reservoir pressure is known to
damaged whereas FE greater than 1.0 implies a some degree of certainty, the FE can be obtained
stimulated well. FE equal to 1.0 implies that the well from a single stabilized flow test by constructing the
is neither damaged nor stimulated. Well’s IPR plot and matching the test data by
varying the flow efficiency. The correct flow
If two stabilized flow tests are available and efficiency is that which matches the IPR to the test
reservoir pressure is accurately known, FE can also data. To use this method however implies that the
be calculated with the equation: IPR method chosen must require flow efficiency as
an input parameter (e.g. Vogel IPR with Standing
correction for FE).
& p # & p wf 2 #
$$1 ' wf 1 !!q 2 ' $$1 ' !q1
pr " p r !" Note that the difference between the FE and the
FE = 2.25 % 2
%
2
.......6 well inflow quality indicator (WIQI) is the inclusion of
& p # & p wf 2 #
$$1 ' wf 1 !! q 2 ' $$1 ' ! q1 the partial completion pseudoskin in the calculation
% p r " % p r !" of the ideal productivity index for WIQI, whereas it is
Where : not included in the computation of FE. Also in the
same vein, neglecting the disparity in computation
q1 = first test rate ; stb / day of ideal productivity index as a result of the inclusion
q 2 = sec ond test rate; stb / day or otherwise of pseudoskin due to partial
p wf 1 = first test BHP; psia completion, the FE is essentially equivalent to the
well completion efficiency (WCE) for a newly
p wf 2 = sec ond test BHP; psia completed well or re-entered (e.g. workover) well.
p r = average reservoir pressure; psia
If the skin is known, FE can be calculated using
equation 7, for a well producing from centre of a
Typical production test data include tubing head circular shaped drainage area, or equation 8 for a
pressure, tubing head temperature, liquid rate, oil
well producing from a non circular drainage area.
rate, water-cut, GOR, and bottomhole hole pressure
(if downhole pressure gauge is installed).
ln(0.472re / rw )
Many operators typically run monthly production test
FE = ................7
on their wells. For many fields in which wells have
ln(0.472re / rw ) + S
attained pseudosteady state, change in average
reservoir pressure may be considered negligible
over a single-month period for most reservoir
4 M. Qiang, S. Ibukun, K. Eke, D. Odogu and M. Onyekonwu SPE 150748

1 4A Note that when using the Darcy’s IPR method,

ln correction has to be made for rate dependent (non
2 !C A rw 2 Darcy) skin Dqo or Dqgsc. The rate dependent skin is
FE = ............8
1 4A applicable to wells producing at high rate and/or
ln +S excessive GOR levels; hence the flow is no longer
2 !C A rw 2 expected to be laminar. In cases where the flow is
stabilized and producing GOR levels are not
substantially more than the dissolved GOR, the non
In radial drainage geometry, where values of re and Darcy (rate dependent) skin can be omitted in
rw are not known exactly, FE can be estimated by constructing the Darcy IPR for oil wells without
assuming that: sacrificing model accuracy. Either the Jones et al or
the Darcy methods can be used for constructing the
ln(0.472re / rw ) ! 7 IPR for gas wells. The rate dependent skin should
however always be computed for gas wells.

This implies: A drawback of these IPR methods (Darcy and

7 Jones et al) is that knowledge of the average
FE ! .............9 reservoir permeability K, and thickness h, in the
7+S
well’s drainage volume are required to construct
Estimating Skin Factor from Production Test IPR using these methods. These data can however
Data be obtained from petrophysical interpretation,
The skin factor was introduced as a parameter to especially interpretation of log data. The interpreting
describe a zone of permeability alteration around petrophysicist must however take care to obtain
the wellbore. The total skin is a cumulative result of values that represent averages for the region of the
various near wellbore activities such as, crushing of reservoir equivalent to the wells drainage volume.
formation by drill bit thereby causing some damage This may require some form of inter-well correlation
around the wellbore during the process of drilling and application of geostatistical methods; especially
the well, invasion of mud filtrate into the formation for fully developed (in terms of number of wells)
also while drilling, stimulation of the formation by reservoirs.
fracturing or acidizing the wellbore vicinity, etc.
Whenever a single factor that contributes to the total If an IPR method that requires the flow efficiency
skin is isolated, it is referred to as a pseudoskin. (e.g. Vogel with Standing’s correction for IPR) is
used to construct the IPR, the skin factor can be
The skin factor for a well can be computed from test computed by rewriting equation 7 as:
data if the average reservoir pressure is known by
matching the well’s IPR to the test data. The well’s ln(0.472re / rw )
S= ! ln(0.472re / rw ) .... 12
chosen IPR method must require either the skin as FE
an input (e.g. Darcy’s IPR methods), or FE as an Or
input (as in Vogel with Standing correction for skin & 1 #
factor). S = ln(0.472re / rw )$ ' 1!.............13
% FE "
The Darcy’s inflow equation for stabilized i.e.
(pseudosteady state) oil flow is given as: S = ln(0.472re / rw )[DR ' 1]...............14
or
0.00708k o h(Pr ! Pwf )
qo = ........10 & DF #
µ o Bo [ln(0.472re / rw ) + S ] S = ln(0.472re / rw )$ ...................15
% FE !"
While Darcy’s equation for gas flow is given as:
Where, DR = damage ratio = (1/FE), and
DF = damage factor = (1-FE)

q gsc =
(
703 " 10 !6 k g h Pr2 ! Pwf2
µ g ZT [ln(0.472re / rw ) + S ]
) ........11
Similar equations can be obtained for calculating
the skin in non circular drainage areas. From
equation 9, an approximate value of the skin factor
can also be obtained as:
 5 Analytical Evaluation of Kukaku Field
( 1 % treatments, re-entry, application of new technology,
S " 7& ! 1# " 7(DR ! 1) .......... .....16
' FE $
Estimating Reservoir Kh from Production Test
Data
If the skin or (FE) is known, the average Kh in the
well’s drainage volume can be estimated from test
data using the Darcy or Jones et al IPR methods (or
any other methods that use Kh as an input
parameter).
The technique here is to match the constructed IPR
to the production test data by sensitizing on the Kh.
The Kh value that matches the test data is the
estimated correct Kh value. If either the Jones et al
or the Darcy methods are being used, the value of
the skin must be known from other sources (or
analyses). The value of the Kh obtained can be
validated by re-computing the Kh upon carrying out
another test (typically within a month of the first test)
following the same procedures. Computed Kh value
from both tests should be approximately equal. If
the difference is far off, test data should be check
for consistency and other assumptions examined for
applicability.
The Kh obtained from production test data is similar
to that obtained from interpreting data from BHP
surveys. Kh obtained by these methods is more
representative of the average value for the drainage
volume than those from log interpretation in that
they give a single value effective Kh for the
reservoir as against log values which use
mathematical averaging techniques which may not
represent best estimates for the reservoir. Once the
Kh has been obtained, the average reservoir
permeability can be obtained by dividing the product
Kh by the average net reservoir thickness h.
Some Notes on Using Trend Analysis in Well
Surveillance
Ajienka (2007) has demonstrated the use of trend
analysis in monitoring well performance. The
analysis can be done on single well performance
and on group basis. The group may be based on
such factors has similarity in fluid type, completion
type, treatments, reservoir etc. Extrapolation of
trend analysis for a particular well is similar to
production decline curves analysis (DCA). The
assumption for decline curve analysis (under
pseudosteady state) is that the same factors that
affected production in the past will affect production
in the future. This means that extrapolation cannot
be done beyond the deployment or application of
any technology that was not in place during the
period of formation of the trend e.g. well workovers,
SPE 150748
or commencement of improved recovery schemes.
The same is true of trend analysis for well
performance parameters.
First a definite trend needs to be established. If
there is no definite trend, any extrapolation may be
misguided. Second, extrapolation cannot be done
beyond period of changing production factors, as
previously explained. In some cases however, some
extrapolation can be done beyond period of
changing production factors by reinitializing the data
e.g. after a well workover, and assuming the data
will follow the same trend (i.e. same decline
exponent or slope, etc.) it followed before the
workover. This assumption should be made with the
strictest of analysis and engineering judgments
preferably by an experienced engineer as it has the
ability to produce very erroneous results. Having
said that however, we may have to rely on such
methods as they sometimes represent the only
available source of data and it is generally agreed
that information derived from this kind of analysis is
better than none at all. Also such derived
information sometimes prove to be adequate.
Figure 2 is a sample PI decline curve for an internal
gravel packed well (after Ajienka).
Conclusion
This paper has so far demonstrated that it is
possible to obtain well performance parameters
such as average reservoir pressure (pr), flowing
bottomhole pressure (pwf), productivity index (PI),
flow efficiency (FE), skin factor (S), and formation
Kh from routine production test data. This test is
usually performed monthly on producing wells by
most operators. To obtain the actual values of most
of these parameters however, a well executed BHP
survey (flowing gradient, static gradient, build up,
drawdown, etc.) data has to be properly interpreted.
The challenge with BHP surveys is that they are
often not regularly performed (because of cost of
acquisition) and when they done a lot of them are
seldom properly executed because of the
knowledge gap of operations personnel and / or
inexperience, which in turn leads to acquisition of
useless (misrepresentative or uninterpretatble) data.
A further reason why BHP surveys are not often
done is the loss of production associated with many
of the tests as wells have to be shut-in for some
time (e.g. build up), or flowed at lower choke size to
stabilize (e.g. prior to shut in for build up and during
drawdown).
Analyses of production test data on the other hand
provide a means of frequently estimating well
6 M. Qiang, S. Ibukun, K. Eke, D. Odogu and M. Onyekonwu SPE 150748

performance parameters, albeit with lesser Nomenclature

accuracy than a properly executed and interpreted
J = productivity index (stb/day/psi)
BHP test. Estimates of wellbore parameters from
production tests however serve most purposes of PI = productivity index (stb/day/psi)
engineering calculations and reservoir / well
Pr = average reservoir pressure, psia
management. A great benefit of estimating well
o
performance parameters from production test data Tres = Reservoir Temperature, F
is in the area of well surveillance or monitoring. o
THT = Tubing Head Temperature, F
Trend analysis of these parameters can be done
and analysis of these trends can serve as excellent THP = Tubing Head pressure, psig
monitoring and management tools; depending on
IPR = Inflow Performance Relation
the ingenuity of the analyst.
BHP = bottomhole pressure in well, psia
Analysis of production test data have the additional
FBHP = flowing bottomhole pressure in well, psia
benefit of serving as a means of estimating wellbore
parameters for periods in which BHP surveys are Pwf = flowing bottomhole pressure in well, psia
not available. Additionally, estimates of well
FE = floe efficiency
performance parameters from production tests can
be used as a means of validating values of the K = formation permeability, md
same parameters obtained from BHP interpretation
Ko = effective formation permeability to oil, md
as they provide expected approximate values of
those parameters independent of BHP tests. Kg = effective formation permeability to gas, md
Kro = relative permeability to oil, dimensionless
Having examined the desirability of estimating well
production performance parameters from analysis Krg = relative permeability to gas, dimensionless
of production tests, it is pertinent to note that the
h = net pay thickness, ft
accuracy of such estimates depend on the
applicability of the underlying assumptions. S = skin factor
Depending on the parameters being estimated and
!o = oil viscosity, cp
the estimation procedure, such assumptions may be
enumerated as: !g = gas viscosity at T, pavg = 0.5 (pr + pwf), cp
Bo = oil formation volume factor, bbl/stb
1. Parameters such as reservoir pressure, skin and
FE do not change substantially over a single Rsi = solution gas to oil ratio, scf/stb
calendar month. This implies that estimates of
Z = gas compressibility factor
such parameters from test data for two
o
successive months should effectively yield values T = reservoir temperature, R
that are not significantly different.
"pskin = pressure drop due to skin, psi
2. The same factors will affect values of well
performance parameters throughout the period of re = drainage radius of well, ft
analysis i.e. from period of trend generation to
rw = wellbore radius, ft
period of trend extrapolation or forecasting.
2
3. There are no changes in significant geological or A = drainage area, ft
engineering events that can affect well
# = Euler constant = 1.781
productivity. Significant geologic events may
include breaking of a fault that can cause CA = Dietz Shape Factor
recharge into or fluid loss from reservoir and the
D = Ramey D factor, (1/stb/d) for oil equation, and
loss of reservoir trapping mechanism, amongst
other events. Significant engineering events (1/Mscf/d) for gas equation
include incessant well shut-in or flow disruptions,
qo = oil flow rate, stb/day
use of un-optimized choke sizes, well workover or
re-entry, deployment of artificial lift systems, qgsc = gas flow rate at standard conditions, Mscf/d
change in reservoir drive mechanism (including
DR = damage ratio = (1 / FE), dimensionless
commencement of secondary or tertiary recovery
schemes). DF = damage factor = (1 - FE), dimensionless
IGP = Internal gravel pack
 7 Analytical Evaluation of Kukaku Field SPE 150748

Well Data
References
Deviation Survey
1. Beggs, H. D.: Production Optimization Using
Nodal Analysis, OGCI Publications, Tulsa, 2003 MD TVD
2. Standing, M. B.: "Inflow Performance
0 0
Relationships for Damaged Wells Producing by
Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs," JPT (November 4300 4273
1970) 1399-1400. 4600 4528
3. Standing, M. B.: "Concerning the Calculation of 4900 4800
Inflow Performance of Wells Producing from
11300 10350
4. Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs," JPT
(September 1971) 1141- 1142. 11400 10430
5. Vogel, J. V.: "Inflow Performance Relationships
for Solution Gas Drive Wells," JPT, (January Tubing 3.958” ft; to 11,000 ft MD
1968) 83-93. 6” casing from to 11 400 ft MD
6. Jones, L. G., Blount, E. M., and Glaze, O. H.:
"Use of Short Term Multiple Rate Flow Test to Temperature Survey
Predict Performance of Wells Having
MD Temp.
Turbulence," SPE 6133, SPE of AIME, (1976).
7. Ajienka J. A.: “Well Surveillance and Production 0 45
Enhancement Procedures”; Lecture Notes of 11400 210
Short Course taught at SPE NAICE 2007.
8. Dake, L. P.: “Fundamentals of Reservoir First Test Data
o
Engineering”, Published by Elsevier Science B. THP =930 psig; THT = 134 F; Water cut = 15%;
V. Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1997 Edition. Liquid rate = 7200 stb/day; GOR = 820 scf/stb;
9. PERFORM™ Technical Reference Manual;
Copyright IHS Energy, 2004. Second Test Data
o
10. PROSPER™ User Guide; Copyright Petroleum THP = 290 psig; THT = 157 F; water cut = 15%;
Experts Ltd., Edinburgh, Scotland, (2010). Liquid rate = 12 000 stb/day; GOR = 820 scf/stb.

It should be noted that the accuracy of the

Sample Data Set estimated well performance parameters above is
This example shows how two flowtest data highly dependent on the ability of the outflow
performed on a well can be used to: correlation to properly model well lift performance.

a. Predict the well’s FBHP for both tests, Solution Procedure

b. Determine the well’s flow efficiency using The commercial package PROSPER™ is used in
equation 6, this analysis.
c. Estimate the skin factor
d. Determine the PI 1. Enter the PVT data and match; especially data
at bubble point. We choose Standing’s
PVT Data correlation for Pb, Bo, and Rs, and Begg’s et al
o
Rsi = 820 scf/stb; oil gravity = 34 API; gas gravity = correlation for oil viscosity.
o
0.833; water salinity = 150,000 ppm; Tres = 210 F;
Pb = 3256 psig; Pres = 4500 psig; Bo = 1.491 rb/stb; Enter the well data. Proceed to calculate BHP
oil viscosity; 0.435 cp; Water cut = 0%. from WHP as:

Reservoir Data Test 1: FBHP = 3826 psig

K = 50 md; h=200 ft; drainage area = 500 acres; Test 2: FBHP = 3341 psig
shape factor = 31.6 (i.e. circular drainage radius); rw
= 0.4 ft. (outflow correlations used is the Petroleum
Expert 2 Correlation)
2. Using equation 6 and the two test data (i.e.
pressure and rate), compute the FE as:
8 M. Qiang, S. Ibukun, K. Eke, D. Odogu and M. Onyekonwu SPE 150748

& p # & p #
$$1 ' wf 1 !!q 2 ' $$1 ' wf 2 !!q1 4. Since both test data are above bubble point, the
pr " pr
FE = 2.25 % 2
% "
2
.......6 PI can be determined by any of the test data
& p # & p # using the straight line PI relation (equation 1)
$$1 ' wf 1 !! q 2 ' $$1 ' wf 2 !! q1 as:
% pr " % pr "

q
& 3826 # & 3341 # J= ............1
$1 ' !12000 ' $1 ' !7200 p r ! p wf
% 4500 " % 4500 "
FE = 2.25 2 2
& 3826 # & 3341 #
$1 ' ! 12000 ' $1 ' ! 7200 7200
% 4500 " % 4500 " J= = 10.7 stb / day / psi
4500 ! 3826
i.e. using the first test data, or
FE = 0.616
12000
J= = 10.4 stb / day / psi
3. The skin can be approximated from equation 16 4500 ! 3341
as:
Using the second test data.
( 1 %
S " 7& ! 1# " 7(DR ! 1) .......... .....16 The PI determined by both test data are effectively
' FE $
equal.
S " 7(1.62 !1)

S ! 4.36

Else from reservoir data,

43560 A
re =
"
43560 ! 500
re =
"
re = 2633 ft

Using equation 13, we compute the skin as:

& 1 #
S = ln(0.472re / rw )$ ' 1!.......... ...13
% FE "

& 1 #
S = ln(0.472 ( 2633 / 0.4)$ ' 1!
% 0.616 "

S = 8.04(1.62 ! 1)

S = 5.01

(or solve for skin using equation 8,

remembering to convert area which is given in
acres to the units of sq.ft by multiplying by
43560)
 9 Analytical Evaluation of Kukaku Field SPE 150748

7
Idealized IPR
6

5 y = -6E-05x 2 - 0.012x + 6.3601

R2 = 0.9769

!"#$%&'$'% 4
Flowing BHP (PSIG)

PI
3

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Liquid Rate (STB/D)

Time (Months)

Figure 1: Idealized IPR Plot Showing Match to Figure 2: Example PI Decline Curve for an IGP
Test Data Well (after Ajienka)