Drillstem test 335

Limitations o f slug test analysis

Several other analysis methods have been presented for slug test interpretation. Peres et
al. (1993) proposed integrating the slug test pressure response and using the
conventional pressure type curves as a complement to the derivative curves.
Conversely, Ostrowki and Kloska (1989) suggested using the time derivative of Ramey
et al. slug test type curves to match the derivative of slug pressure.

Whatever method is used, the analysis of slug tests is not as accurate as the analysis of a
standard drawdown response with a constant surface rate. The following two factors are
identified as the main limitations for slug tests interpretation:

1. Definition of the initial pressure: All slug test analysis methods use the
dimensionless pressure ratio of Equation 9.1. With this group, the initial reservoir
pressure pj must be known accurately and a small error in p~ can introduce a large
distortion on the late time data curve. This is especially true in low-pressure wells, when
the flowing pressure becomes close to the initial pressure and the difference (p,- p,,j)
relatively small.
2. WeIlbore storage effect: Due to changing liquid level, the wellbore storage
coefficient C is large and, as the duration of the flowing period is in general short, the
response is often influenced by the wellbore storage effect for the entire flowing time.
The radial flow regime is not seen, and the match is difficult to conclude uniquely.

9.1.3 Build-up analysis

At the end of the drill stem test procedure, the well is shut-in down-hole for a pressure
build-up. Two possibilities have to be considered, depending on whether the well is shut
in before the liquid level has reached the surface or not:

1. If the surface flow rate is well established before shut-in, the build-up is analyzed in
the same way as the shut-in period of a producing well (Section 2.2.2).
2. When, as illustrated in Figure 9.1, the well is shut-in while the liquid level is still
rising, the decreasing sand face rate has to be known as a function of time in order to
analyze the subsequent build-up. Due to the high cost of down-hole flow metering, and
for safety reasons, rate measurements are in general not considered for non-surface
flowing DST's and flow rates must be estimated.

Rate estimation

In the following section, an example of flow rate estimation for a DST with no flow at
surface is presented. As shown in Figure 9.3 with the simulated DST example of Figure
9.1, the slug test response is described by several pressure steps. Knowing the liquid
gravity and neglecting inertial and frictional effects in the production string (which is
reasonable since fluid velocity is low), the pressure difference between each step is
33 6 S p e c i a l tests

converted into the corresponding height of fluid. From the capacity of the production
pipe, the height is converted into volume. With this hydrostatic calculation, the final
build-up period can be analyzed with the multiple rate methods described in Section
2.2.2.

In this example, the one-hour flow period is divided into 6 time intervals. During each
interval j, the constant pressure p j is defined as the average pressure between the start

and the end of the time interval p j - ( P i-1 + P j ) / 2 . Seven pressure points are used" P0
is the pressure in the string immediately before opening, and P6 is the last flowing
pressure p (At =0). The rise of liquid level is estimated from pressure difference
between two steps ( p / - P / - i ) . Assuming a specific gravity of 0.75, the oil gradient is

estimated at 0.325 R/psi. The capacity of the drill string is 0.007 bbl/fi.

j
5000

4900 400
P6
O9 - 300 n
4800
v 0
(1)
rn
(I.)
o9
or) 4700
Po - 200
n
I
4600 ql I - lOO

q5 q6 L
i ~ I I 1
4500 0
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2

Time (hours)
Figure 9.3. Example of rate estimation during a DST flow period. Linear scales.

Table 9.1. Rate calculation example

point time, pressure, average fluid rise, rate of fluid flow rate,
# hr psi pressure, psi ft rise, ft/hr BOPD
- - Ahj qj = 0.007x
- Ah P/ - p / - I kh'/=
j tj pj P/ f= 0.325 tj-t~_ 1 24xkh'
1 1000 4724.51
1 2095 4753.13 4738.82 44.05 (*) 805.06 135.25
1 3414 4783.17 4768.15 90.25 684.00 114.91
1 5110 4816.47 4799.82 97.45 576.04 96.77
1 7120 4848.19 4832.33 100.04 497.42 83.57
1 8983 4873.02 4860.61 87.00 466.09 78.30
2 1000 4900.73 4886.88 80.83 399.73 67.15
(*) the first rate ql is estimated with P0 - P 0 and the time rate of fluid rise Ah' is
doubled.
Drillstem test 3 37

As shown in Table 9.1, the flow rate decreases from 135.25 to 67.15 BOPD, the average
rate during the one-hour flow period being 91.05 BOPD.

Inertial and frictional effects can be ignored for the usual DST conditions. In high rate
producing wells, they could become significant (Saldana-C and Ramey, 1986).

Practical analysis of DST's

As for any build-up test, the final shut in period is analyzed using log-log and semi-log
methods. Due to the down hole shut-in device, the effect of the wellbore storage is short
lived during a DST build-up period. Frequently, the response reaches the radial flow
regime before the first recorded point and, on log-log scale, the pressure and derivative
responses tend to be flat. As a result, both the time match and the curve match CD e 2S
can be difficult to fix on the PD versus tz)/C~) dimensionless type curve. The match of the
build-up data is not uniquely defined, and the analysis does not provide the wellbore
storage coefficient C but only the kh product and the skin coefficient S.

Computer analysis allows a simulation of the complete test to be made as a checking

procedure but, with most interpretation programs, the wellbore storage coefficient C
used in the simulation is constant during the complete test sequence. With DST's, when
the down-hole valve is closed for build-up, C is two or three orders of magnitude
smaller than the wellbore storage of a flowing well. As a result, the DST simulation,
generated from the build-up analysis results, does not match the flow period accurately.

de Franca Correa et al. (1987) view the flow / shut-in sequence of non-surface flowing
DST's as a single slug test period, with a sharp change of wellbore storage at time of
shut-in. After the initial instantaneous pressure drop, the wellbore storage first
corresponds to the changing liquid level of Equation 1.8. When the down-hole valve is
closed, the storage becomes the compressibility term of Equation 1.7. With this
description of the DST sequence, the complete test can be simulated accurately.

9.2 IMPULSE TEST

9.2.1 Test description

In impulse tests, the well is produced from or injected into the reservoir for only a few
minutes and then closed. The impulse technique is a variation of the DST analysis
method:
9 For a DST, a step pressure drop is applied to the formation and, during the resulting
slug test period, the well is considered to be flowing. A build-up test is made after the
flow (second flow and shut-in of Figure 9.1).