Question 3 of 6: Drawdown test – permeability, skin, and end of wellbore storage
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
EGBC National Exam — Petroleum Engineering, 2016-May. 3 hours, closed book, non-communicating calculator. This paper's own cover page reads “98-Pet-B5, Well Testing,” not Reservoir Mechanics — every question below is pressure-transient/well-test analysis. NOTES items 4/5 state that five (5) questions constitute a complete exam and only the first five as they appear are marked; all six questions on the paper are solved in full below. Three of the six questions (Q3, Q4, Q6) are chart-reading questions built around semilog/log-log plots with no printed data table for Q3/Q4; every value read from those charts is flagged check where it feeds a boxed result. Q6 ships a short printed data table for its early-time linear-flow fit; its flow-regime identification uses the full log-log pressure-change/derivative plot.
Reference texts: Lee, J., Well Testing, SPE Textbook Series Vol. 1 (diffusivity equation, radial flow, wellbore storage, superposition); Earlougher, R.C., Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE Monograph Vol. 5 (Horner analysis, interference/pulse tests, reservoir-limit tests); Bourdet, D., Well Test Analysis: The Use of Advanced Interpretation Models, Elsevier (derivative diagnostic plot, flow-regime identification); Cinco-Ley, H. & Samaniego, F., “Transient Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells,” JPT, 1981 (infinite-conductivity vertical fracture linear flow).
Question 3: Drawdown test – permeability, skin, and end of wellbore storage (20 marks)
Values are reported to the nearest 1–5 psi / significant figure the chart resolution supports.
Given. $q=550$ STBD, $h=20$ ft, $B_o=1.45$ bbl/STB, $\phi=0.23$, $c_t=6\times10^{-5}\ \text{psi}^{-1}$, $\mu=0.42$ cP, $r_w=0.5$ ft, $p_i=5665$ psia. Drawdown data read from the printed chart (excerpted; full 23-point set spans $t=0.13$ to $726$ hr):
Flowing pressure vs. time (read from the printed chart)
$t$ (hr)
$p_{wf}$ (psia)
0.13
5645
0.63
5577
2.08
5549
4.20
5527
24.8
5440
98.3
5370
244.5
5322
486.7
5267
725.9
5211
Find. (a) Permeability $k$; (b) Skin factor $S$; (c) End of wellbore storage; (d) Acidizing recommendation.
Approach. Plot $p_{wf}$ vs. $\log t$ (MDH plot); the log-log $\Delta p$-vs-$t$ plot flattens out of its early steep decline by $t\approx0.5$–1 hr, marking the approach of the end of wellbore storage, while a regression search across the full semilog data set (excluding early storage-affected and any late boundary-affected points) finds the true infinite-acting radial-flow straight line spanning $t=4.2$ to $245$ hr ($R^2=0.999$) — comfortably more than a log cycle past the storage-affected region, the standard buffer. That line gives $m$ and the extrapolated $p_{1hr}$ for the permeability and skin equations.
Digitized drawdown data (red) with the fitted MTR straight line (dashed); shaded band marks the regression window $t=4.2$–245 hr used for $k$ and $S$.
Fit the middle-time-region (MTR) straight line. Least-squares fit of $p_{wf}$ vs. $\log_{10}t$ over $t=4.2$ to $245$ hr (12 points, $R^2=0.999$) gives slope
$$m\approx 115.1\ \text{psi/cycle},\qquad p_{1hr}\approx 5600\ \text{psia (extrapolated on the fitted line)}$$
(b) Skin factor. Using the drawdown skin formula with $p_i=5665$ psia and the fitted $p_{1hr}$,
$$S=1.151\left[\frac{p_i-p_{1hr}}{m}-\log_{10}\!\left(\frac{k}{\phi\mu c_tr_w^2}\right)+3.23\right]$$
$$S=1.151\left[\frac{5665-5600}{115.1}-\log_{10}\!\left(\frac{23.7}{(0.23)(0.42)(6\times10^{-5})(0.5)^2}\right)+3.23\right]$$
$$\boxed{S\approx -3.9}$$
(c) End of wellbore storage. The log-log $\Delta p$-vs-$t$ plot shows a steep early decline (consistent with unit-slope storage domination) that has already flattened toward the eventual radial-flow trend by $t\approx0.5$–1 hr; the semilog straight line is not reliably established until $t\approx4$ hr (about a log cycle later, the standard buffer used to avoid residual storage distortion in the fitted slope). Check: chart-read estimate.
$$\boxed{t_{WBS,end}\approx 1\ \text{hr}}$$
(d) Acidizing recommendation. The computed skin is strongly negative ($S\approx-3.9$), indicating a completion that already performs better than an undamaged (zero-skin) well — not a damaged one.
$$\boxed{\text{No, acidizing is not recommended: }S<0\text{ shows no formation damage.}}$$