SPE 164871

Well-head Pressure Transient Analysis

Charidimos E. Spyrou, SPE, Schlumberger, Peyman R. Nurafza, SPE, E.ON E&P, Alain C. Gringarten, SPE,
Imperial College

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE Europec held in London, United Kingdom, 10–13 June 2013.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to 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 abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA) of bottom-hole pressure data (BHP) is a well-established method for estimating reservoir
flow parameters and identify well behaviour. Unfortunately, permanent recording of bottom-hole data is not always
operationally possible, for example in the case of high pressure and high temperature (HP/HT) reservoirs. On the other hand,
most wells are equipped with gauges at the well head which record well head pressure data (WHP) continuously. This paper
investigates the feasibility of using WHP data for identifying well test behaviour. The objective is to assess the ability to
derive key well and reservoir parameters from WHP data in the absence of BHP data, focusing primarily on the estimation of
permeability and skin.
Three different actual reservoir fluid and wellbore conditions were studied: a water injector with a single phase fluid
in the wellbore and a reasonably constant fluid density; a dry gas well, also with single phase in the wellbore but changing
fluid density; and a gas condensate well with multiphase flow and varying density in the wellbore. In each case, both WHP
and BHP data were available. These WHP and BHP data were analysed separately with conventional PTA methods in order
to compare resulting permeabilities and skin factors. WHP data were then converted to BHP data, using methods available in
the literature in the water and dry gas cases, and two different approaches developed in this work for the gas condensate case.
In the case of the water injector, analysis of both the original WHP data and the converted BHP data provides a good
estimate of permeability while overestimating the skin factor. A correction can be applied to the WHP derived skin, to match
the BHP skin value.
In the dry gas and gas condensate cases, WHP analysis overestimates both permeability and skin factor. In the dry
gas case, the WHP derived permeability and skin can be corrected to yield the BHP values, whereas PTA on the converted
BHP data does provide the correct permeability. Finally, in the gas condensate case, it is possible to obtain the correct
permeability from converted BHP in the absence of phase redistribution, whereas the skin factor remains overestimated.

Introduction
One of the key tasks of reservoir engineers is to identify well and reservoir behaviour, especially during the appraisal phase
of a field development. Bottom-hole (BH) Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA) is a well-established method for estimating
reservoir flow parameters and identifying well behaviour. Permanent recording of bottom-hole data is not always
operationally possible, however, for example in the case of high pressure and high temperature (HP/HT) reservoirs. On the
other hand, well head (WH) gauges are present on most wells and WH pressures are often continuously recorded by
operating companies. The availability of WHP data raises the question of whether this data can be used in the absence of BH
pressures to identify well and reservoir behaviour. The aim of this work is to investigate the ability of WH data to provide
useful estimations of key reservoir parameters such as permeability and skin.
There are several advantages to be able to derive useful information from WH data. The cost of recording WH data
(which are recorded anyway in most cases) is much less than that of a downhole survey, and the risks associated with running
tools in the wellbore are eliminated. This would be particularly useful in HP/HT conditions where wells cannot be tested due
to harsh downhole conditions, such as high temperatures and pressures, completion integrity issues and tubing restrictions.
Despite its significance, this area has not yet been fully explored. Smith (1950) was the first to propose a WH to BH
conversion algorithm for dry gas wells in flowing conditions. Cullender and Smith (1956) developed a procedure which is
widely used to calculate bottom-hole pressures in gas wells and makes no assumptions for temperature and compressibility.
Several methods were also developed to account for the presence of liquid in the wellbore such as that of Govier and
Fogarasi (1975) and the modified Cullender and Smith equation by Peffer et al. (1988). All the above methods provide
2 SPE 164871

satisfactory results but are limited to flowing conditions. Dall’Olio and Vignati (1998) were the first to develop a
methodology which allows the use of WH pressure data for test interpretation purposes, by correcting the analysis results to
reservoir conditions. Fair et al. (2002) presented a methodology to categorize wells based on fluid type and reservoir and
wellbore behavior, and a procedure to test wells from the surface.
This paper assesses the ability of PTA of WH pressure build ups (PBU) to identify well behaviour. Three different
cases have been investigated according to the fluid behaviour in the wellbore: a water injector case where there is a single
phase fluid in the wellbore and the density is reasonably constant; a dry gas case, still single phase but with with density
variations in the wellbore; and a gas condensate case where a two-phase fluid is present in the tubing and the density varies.
The study is primarily focused on determining the impact on permeability and skin.
The analysis of each three cases will be presented individually. The approach used was to study WH datasets for
which corresponding BH pressures were available and to compare WHP and BHP analysis results. The comparison was then
extended to the analysis of BHP converted to bottomhole conditions.

Methodology, Analysis and Discussion

Case 1: Water Injector

Log-log plot comparison
WHP and BHP for a water injection well are shown in Figure 1. There is only a single-phase fluid in the wellbore, with a
constant density. The BHP and WHP derivative curves in the log-log plots of Figure 2 are very similar, but the corresponding
pressure change curves are different, with the WH curves being above the BH curves. This implies that WHP data should
yield the same permeability as BHP data, but would significantly overestimate the skin.

Figure 1: Pressure and Rate history.

SPE 164871 3

BH data

and derivative(psi)
and derivative(psi) FO3
Pressure change

Pressure change
and derivative(psi)
FO1 FO2 WH data

Pressure change
Time (hr) Time (hr) Time (hr)
Pressure change and

FO5 FO6

and derivative(psi)
FO4

and derivative(psi)

Pressure change
Pressure change
derivative(psi)

Time (hr) Time (hr) Time (hr)

Figure 2: Log-log plots comparison between BH and WH data.

PTA
PTA of the data (Figure 3) confirms the observations as shown in Table 1. Fall-off 6 was the only period long enough to
reach radial flow stabilization. BHP and WHP analyses yield the same permeability value, which was then used to calculate
the skin factor from the other fall offs. As expected from the log-log plots, WHP data overestimate the skin effect. The skin
calculated from BHP data decreases with successive fall-offs, suggesting that the well is getting stimulated (possibly through
the creation of a fracture). Such a trend is not obvious with WHP, as skin variation is more random.
Pressure change and 

10000
BH
derivative (psi)

1000
BH WH
100 k(mD) 27 27
FO1
Skin 37.5 93.5
10
k(mD) 27 27
FO2
1 Skin 26.7 70
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Time (hr) k(mD) 27 27
10000
FO3
WH Skin 22.7 52.9
Pressure change and 
derivative (psi)

1000 k(mD) 27 27
FO4
Skin 20.8 92
100
k(mD) 27 27
10 FO5
Skin 20.4 65.2

1 k(mD) 27 27
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 FO6
Skin 3 13.9
Time (hr)
Table 1: Permeability and skin estimations from BH
Figure 3: PTA on BH and WH (FO6).
and WH data.

Analytical Approach
The above observations can be verified analytically. Fig. 4 presents the difference between BH and the WH pressures vs.
time for Fall Off 1 (FO1). The difference is higher during the first few seconds (which means that the WH pressure is falling
off faster than the BH) then stabilizes, indicating that BHP is the sum of WHP and a constant , the weight of the water
column during that fall off: .

The BHP, pwf, during a fall off after radial flow has been reached is given by Eq. 1:
4 SPE 164871

.
log 3.23 0.87 ……...…………………………………………...………………...(1)

The WHP, pwh, is therefore given by Eq. 2:

. .
log 3.23 0.87 log 3.23 0.87 (2)
.

Analysis of WH data yields a higher total skin factor than analysis of BH data, but the same permeability as the
derivatives of the LHS of Eqs 1 and 2 with respect to are identical.

3900 10000
Measured BH

3400 8000
Estimated BH
WH

Pressure (psi)
2900 6000
Δp (psi) 

BH‐WH
2400 4000

1900 2000

1400 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 26.4 26.6 26.8 27 27.2
Time (hr) Time (hr)
Figure 4: Subtraction of WH from BH pressures (FO1). Figure 5: Plot of the estimated along with the actual and the WH
data (FO1).

The same results are obtained with actual and converted BHP data for FO1 are shown on the Cartesian plot of Fig.5
and Fig.6 respectively. The match is very good in Fig. 5 except at early times for the same reason as in Fig. 4. The high initial
converted BH pressures yields a higher converted pressure change curve in Fig. 6 and therefore a higher skin effect than the
actual BH pressure data. The permeability is the same.

10000
Water Injector
100
Pressure chang and derivative (psi)

80
1000
WH skin factor

60

40
100 WH Vs BH
Corrected Vs BH
20 ideal

10 0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (hr) BH skin factor
Figure 6: Log-log comparison between estimated and actual BH Figure 7: WH and corrected skin factor Vs BH.
pressures (FO1).

It is possible to use the permeability derived from the WH analysis to calculate the skin. Since the high WH pressure
at the first seconds of the fall-off is a result of the water injection, the pressure values corresponding to those time steps
should be eliminated. Then the converted BH pressures can be used to estimate skin by rearranging the semi-log radial flow
approximation equation (Eq. 3). This correction method can yield satisfactory results as it can be seen in Table 2.

0.80907 2 …...………………………………………………….……………………………..…….(3)
SPE 164871 5

.
…………………………………………………………….……………………………………………..(4)

.
where and
.

It is shown in Fig.7 that the correction provides satisfactory results of the skin. The WH vs. BH curve however
displays an inconsistency between FO3 and FO4. After FO3 the injection rate was increased. Since the WH pressure is
affected by the injection of the water it can be assumed that increased injection rate will result to a higher WH pressure at the
beginning of the fall-off. Consequently a higher curve of the WH data is expected and therefore an increased skin
estimation.

WH BH Corrected
FO1 93.7 37.5 36.3

FO2 70 26.7 25.3

FO3 52.9 22.7 22.6

Skin
FO4 92 20.8 22.4

FO5 65.2 20.4 21.8

FO6 13.9 3 1.8

Table 2: Comparison of the corrected skin against WH and BH estimations.

Case 2: Dry Gas

For the purpose of this study and as a limit to the methods described, a dry gas well is considered. This is a well with an oil
production of less than 10bbl/MMcf (Fair et al. (2002)). The complexity of this case is greater than the water injection case.
In the wellbore there is still single-phase but now the density varies along the wellbore due to the compressibility of gas.
2800
Pressure (psia)

2400

2000

1600
3x

2x
Gas Rate 
(MMscf)

1x

x
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time (hr)
Figure 8: Rate and pressure history.

Log-log plot comparison and WTA

For this case only two datasets of BH with their corresponding WH pressure were available. The majority of the WH
pressures at each time step were interpolated and only a few values of pressure were measured. For this reason the data were
deconvolved to generate drawdown responses and compare the log-log plots. As shown in Figure the and derivative
curves have very similar shapes and the WH curves seem to be slightly shifted downwards. Consequently we expect the WH
data to predict higher permeabilities and skin factors. This is confirmed by PTA (Fig. 10) which is consistent with the
observations. WH data slightly overestimated permeability and skin for both cases (Table 3).
6 SPE 164871

1.E+09 1.E+09
BU1 BU2
Pressure change and derivative (psi)

Pressure change and derivative (psi)
1.E+08 1.E+08

1.E+07 1.E+07

BH data
WH data
1.E+06 1.E+06
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time (hr) Time (hr)

Figure 9: Dry gas log-log plot comparison of BH and WH data.

1.E+09 1.E+09
WH
BH
Pressure change and 
Pressure change and 

1.E+08 1.E+08
derivative (psi)
derivative (psi)

1.E+07 1.E+07

1.E+06 1.E+06

1.E+05 1.E+05
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time (hr) Time (hr)

Figure 10: PTA on WH and BH data.

BH WH
k(mD) 22 32
BU1
Skin 0.9 2.8

k(mD) 21 28
BU2
Skin -1.1 -0.7

Table 3: PTA results.

Analytical Approach
Smith, R.V. (1950) was the first one to find a relation between well head ( ) and bottom-hole ( ) pressures by
integrating the energy balance equation along a straight line assuming a constant tubing internal diameter and negligible
variation of . Neglecting acceleration losses the correlation between WH and BH pressure should be represented in the
form (Eq. 5):

…….………………………………………………………………..…………….………………………..(5)

……………..…………..……………………..…………………………………………….………………………..(6)
.
……………………………………………………..………………………………………………..……………(7)

where and represent the gravity forces and the friction losses respectively. Since this study focuses on Pressure Build-
ups where there is no flow in the wellbore it is safe to assume that friction losses are minimum and therefore neglect . Eq. 5
is then used to calculate BH pressures in the form of Eq. 8. The results of the converted BH pressure are shown in Fig. 11.
The error in each time step is less than 2%.
SPE 164871 7

As it can be seen in the log-log plots (Fig.12), the estimated BH derivative overlays the derivative of the actual BH
data that suggests that the converted data can estimate the same permeability as the actual. The curve though is shifted
upwards which indicates that the skin estimation would be greater than the actual. This is likely to be because in both
examples Eq. 8 at early times tends to underestimate the BH pressures with an error that is greater than middle and late times
where the error stabilises at a lower value. The error stabilisation explains why the derivatives are the same and the higher
error at the beginning explains the higher curve.

…………………………………………………………………………………………..……………….…….(8)

Figure 11: Dry gas converted BH pressures against actual BH and WH pressures.

1.E+09 1.E+09
BU1 BU2
Pressure change and derivative (psi)
Pressure change and derivative (psi)

1.E+08 1.E+08

1.E+07 1.E+07
BH data
WH data
Estimation
1.E+06 1.E+06
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time (hr) Time (hr)
Figure 12: Log-log plots of the estimated BH against actual BH and WH pressures.

Dall’Olio and Vignati (1998) in their paper suggest that the value of the permeability derived by the interpretation of
the WH data can be corrected to match the value that a proper BH interpretation would yield. Using Darcy’s law for single
phase gas (Eq. 9) and Smith’s formula (Eq. 5) they found a correlation between the correct permeability and the one
estimated by WH data (Eq. 10).

7.03 ∗ ………..……………..……………………………………………………………………(9)
.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…(10)

where the subscript ref is referring to the values that were used for the WH interpretation and refers to the gravity losses
of Eq. 5. For viscosity, z factor and Temperature without subscript, values that represent reservoir condition should be used.
Similar to what was done for the water injector case, by knowing the corrected permeability and with an estimation of the BH
pressures the skin can be estimated using Eq. 4. The results are in a very good agreement with the actual as it can be seen in
Table 4 as well as Fig. 14 and Fig. 15.
8 SPE 164871

1.E+09
Normalized pressuere change and 

BH WH Corrected
1.E+08 k(mD) 22 32 24
derivative (psi)

PBU1
Skin 0.9 2.8 0.6

k(mD) 21 28 22
1.E+07 PBU2
Skin -1.1 -0.7 -1.4
BH data Table 4: Table of the corrected k and skin using
WH data Dall'Olio and Vignati method.

1.E+06
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time (hr)
Figure 13: Rate-normalised log-log plot of the two build-ups.

Figure 14: WH and corrected permeability values Vs BH. Figure 15: WH and corrected skin factor values Vs BH.

Case 3: Gas Condensate

When a gas condensate reservoir pressure drops below the dew point pressure, liquid condensate is formed. This leads to the
presence of a two-phase fluid in the wellbore during production. Due to the compressibility of the gas and condensate, the
density varies along the wellbore. In addition to that the hold-up depth is not constant and during the shut-in, liquid
reinjection in the reservoir may take place. The exhibition of this complex behaviour makes the study of this case more
difficult than the previous two.
For this rich gas condensate reservoir two examples of build-ups have been studied (Figure 1). For the first one the
reservoir pressure is above the dew point pressure whereas for the second the pressure is below and a condensate bank is
formed.
5x 8400 5x
BU1 BU2 5500

4x 4x
8100
Production (MMscf/d)

Production (MMscf)

4500
Pressure (psi) 
Pressure (psi) 

3x 3x
3500
7800
2x 2x
2500

7500
1x 1x 1500
Rates Rates
Pressures Pressures
x 7200 x 500
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Time (hr) Time (hr) 
Figure 16: Rate and pressure history.
SPE 164871 9

Log-log plot Comparison and WTA

In contrast to what it was observed in the water injector and dry gas case, the study of the log-log plots is not helpful as the
plots seems not to display any specific trends (Figure 1 17). Despite that, it is expected that the WH interpretation would
overestimated permeability. It is not clear what the estimation of the skin would be because in Fig. 17 LHS, WH
interpretation is likely to overestimate it while in Fig. 17 RHS, WH curves are shifted downwards and the WH skin
estimation would be the same as the BH skin estimation. The WTA on the two datasets (Fig. 18) confirms the observations
and the results are shown in Table 5.
PTA on the BH pressures returned different permeabilities for the two build-ups. Reservoir pressure dropped below
the dew point pressure at some time between the two build-ups. A condensate bank therefore should exist around the well at
the time of the second build-up. Consequently the BU2 permeability represents the permeability of the condensate bank. If
the shut-in period were longer an increased in mobility would have been seen as a second stabilization of the derivative at the
BU1 permeability, which represents the reservoir permeability (Fig. 19). The BU1 skin values in Table 5 represent the
wellbore skin effect, whereas the BU2 skin values corresponds to the total skin factor which is the sum of wellbore and
condensate bank skins.
1.E+08 1.E+09
Pressure change and derivative 

BU1 BU2

Pressure change and derivative 
1.E+08
(psi)

1.E+07

(psi)
1.E+07
BH data
WH data
1.E+06 1.E+06
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time (hr) Time (hr)

Figure 17: Gas Condensate log-log plot comparison BH and WH.

1.E+08 1.E+09
WH
Pressure change and derivative 

BH
Pressure change and derivative 

1.E+08
1.E+07
(psi)

1.E+07
(psi)

1.E+06
1.E+06

1.E+05 1.E+05
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Time (hr) Time (hr)
Figure 18: WTA on Gas Condensate data.

BH WH
k(mD) 7.46 13.7
BU1
Skin -1.49 3.79

k(mD) 1.71 3.59

BU2 Second stabilization
Skin 31.7 34.6 First stabilization (outside condensate
due to condensate bank zone)
Table 5: PTA results for the Gas Condensate case. bank

Figure 19: Gas Condensate pressure and derivative behaviour

10 SPE 164871

1.E+09

Normalized pressure change 
and derivative (psi)
1.E+08

1.E+07
BH data
WH data
1.E+06
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time (hr)

Figure 20: Rate-normalized plot of the two built-ups.

Analytical Approach
As a first step an attempt was made to correct the WH estimations of permeability and skin as was done for the water injector
and dry gas cases. Results were less representative of the actual values and even of the WH derived parameters.
When flow is multi-phase in the wellbore and the reservoir is shut-in, liquid falls back and reinjection may occur.
Due to the difference in the density between the two phases Wellbore Phase Redistribution (WPR) takes place (Ali et al.
2005). The denser phase moves to the bottom of the well whereas the lighter phase rises to the surface. Because of
compressibility effects, WPR results to an increase in the wellbore pressure which is dissipated through the formation until
equilibrium is reached between the reservoir and the wellbore (Ali et al. 2005).
After WPR is over, the well exhibits a segregated phase distribution (Nurafza et al. 2009) where the gas column lies
above the oil column. Because of that two different pressure gradients are observed, one for the gas column and one for the
oil column. As a result there is no direct pressure communication between the WH and the reservoir (Fair 2001, Fair et al.
2002). The pressure communication can only be established when and if all of the liquid is reinjected in the reservoir and
there is only single-phase gas present in the wellbore (Fair et al. 2002).
Since there is no pressure communication between the WH and the reservoir WH derived parameters cannot be
corrected to match the actual. The only way forward is to convert WH to BH pressures. In the following sections two
conversion methods will be presented and discussed.

WH to BH Conversion
An operational WH to BH pressure algorithm should be able to take into account the temperature profile in the wellbore
through time (Fair et al. 2002, Hasan et al. 2005). In HP/HT fields the WH temperature can go up to 300oF due to the flow of
the fluids from the reservoir. During shut-in the flow stops allowing for the WH to cool down. It is well known that this
phenomenon could results in a drop of WHP during build-up late times. In Fig. 21 a real field example displaying this
behaviour can be seen.
In addition to the wellbore-temperature profile, a conversion algorithm is necessary to account for the change in
fluid properties for different pressures and temperatures. Consequently a PVT model should be created and used.

Figure 21: Example of WH pressure decreasing during a shut-in in a Gas Condensate well.

1st Method: Modified Peffer et al.(1988) Equation

In their paper Peffer et al. (1988) developed a method to calculate BH pressures using a modification of Cullender and Smith
(1956) equation (Eq. 11) to account for the presence of liquid in the gas to obtain satisfactory results for flowing conditions.
SPE 164871 11

………………….…..…………………………………………………………………………(11)
.

The above form of the equation is only applicable to dry-gas wells. The adjustment that Peffer et al. (1988)
proposed, so that the presence of liquid would be accounted, was to change the surface gas gravity in Eq. 11 with a wet-gas
specific gravity that can be calculate by Eq. 12 developed by Rzasa and Katz (1945). When the molecular weight of the
condensate is not known it can be estimated by Eq. 13 (Cragoe 1929).
,

, ……………………..………………………..…………………………………………………………….(12)

.
.…………………………………………………………….....…………………………………………………(13)
.

Since a shut-in is investigated, the methodology used in this study was to consider friction losses equal to zero and
therefore neglect the friction term from the Eq. 11 and apply the Peffer et al. (1988) modification. The conversion equation
for a shut-in then takes the following form:

………………………………………………………………….………………………………………..(14)
.

The equation was tested and validated with two dataset where both the WH and the corresponding BH pressures
were known. To implement the equation a Visual Basic Application (VBA) Macro was developed and an existing PVT
model was used. The Macro was designed to run an algorithm that divides the wellbore in 100ft segments and take the WH
pressure and Temperature as initial inputs. It then calls for the PVT model to calculate , , and for that pressure and
temperature. These parameters are used to estimate wet gas specific gravity with Eq. 12. The next segment’s pressure is then
calculated by Eq. 14 which is implemented with the trapezoidal rule. The procedure is repeated until the depth of the bottom-
hole gauge is reached.
The algorithm was found to be very sensitive to temperature and produced erroneous results when temperature was
changing with time. For this reason in the simulations the temperature profile was varied versus the well depth but not versus
time.
The results of the conversion can be seen in Fig. 22 where the estimated BH pressures are plotted against the actual.
The error in each time step is less 2%. The log-log plots of the two datasets were then compared (Fig. 23). The estimated
derivative is similar to the actual and in the case of BU2 seems to overlay it. The curve though is much higher for the
estimated pressures. This is because the method under predicts the pressure at early times whereas at middle and late times it
over predicts it. The derivative seems to be the same because the error between estimated and actual values is stabilizing after
early times. Results indicate that the converted BH pressures might estimate the permeability correctly but overestimate skin.
This is confirmed by the PTA and the results are displayed in Table 6 as well as in Fig. 24 and Fig. 25.

7900 5900

4900
7700 Measured BH
Pressure (psi) 

Pressure (psi) 

Measured BH Estimated BH
3900
Estimated BH
7500
2900

7300 1900
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (hr) Time (hr)

Figure 22: Estimated BH pressures against the actual (modified Peffer method).
12 SPE 164871

1.E+08 1.E+09
BU1 BU2
Pressure change and derivative (psi)

Pressure change and derivative (psi)
1.E+08

1.E+07

1.E+07

BH data
WH data
Estimation
1.E+06 1.E+06
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time (hr) Time (hr)
Figure 23: Log-log plot comparison. Estimated BH pressures against actual and WH (modified Peffer method).

BH WH Estimation
k(mD) 7.46 13.7 6.75
BU1
Skin -1.49 3.79 0.312

k(mD) 1.71 3.59 1.71

BU2
Skin 31.7 34.6 43.3

Table 6: Results of the WTA on estimated BH, actual and WH pressures.

Figure 24: WH and corrected permeability Vs BH. Figure 25: WH and corrected skin factor Vs BH.

2nd Method: Adding Column Weight

A simplified method was also tested. The idea was to use the PVT model to find an average density of the fluid for each
100ft segment since an equation that gives wet gas specific gravity is known (Eq. 12). The density was used to find the
weight of the fluid column and add it to the WH pressure. The procedure is repeated until the bottom-hole gauge depth is
reached. Temperature was varied versus time in agreement with a WH temperature profile that was recorded during a shut-in
performed on another well in the same field.
The results of the estimations obtained by the adding column weights are plotted in Fig. 26. The method provides
very good results for the calculation of pressure at each time step. The error, although high in the first few seconds, is less the
2% for the rest of the built-up. The log-log plots of the estimated data (Fig. 27) though, are different from the actual BH
pressure log-log plots. This is because the error is changing at each time step and is not reaching a stabilization point as
happened in the 1st method. Therefore the results are not suitable for a PTA as they yield incorrect results. Nevertheless the
method can provide a good estimation of the pressures. The increasing error between estimated and actual data though is an
indication that as the build-up progress results will be less representative.
SPE 164871 13

7900 5900
BU1 BU2
4900
7700

Pressure (psi)
Pressure (psi)

Measured BH
3900
Measured BH
Estimated BH
7500
Estimated BH
2900

7300 1900
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (hr) Time (hr)
Figure 26: Comparison of the estimated with the actual BH pressures (adding column weights method).

1.E+08 1.E+09
BU2
Pressure change and derivative (psi)

BU1

Pressure change and derivative (psi)
1.E+08

1.E+07

1.E+07

BH data
WH data
Estimation
1.E+06 1.E+06
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time (hr) Time (hr)

Figure 27: Converted data against actual and WH log-log plot comparison.

Conclusions
Water Injector
 It is shown that analysis of WH data can yield the same derivative with the BH data, by integrating log-log
observations, PTA results and the analytical approach.
 The BH pressure during build-up can be reasonably estimated by adding the weight of the water column to the WH
pressure data. The derivative curve generated by the estimated pressures matches the derivative generated by the
actual data indicating that the permeability can be predicted correctly.
 Skin can be corrected using the permeability derived from the WH interpretation, the estimated BH pressures and
the semi-log radial flow approximation, to satisfactorily match the results from BH data.
Dry Gas
 WH data can be converted to BH using Eq. 4, with an error of less than 2%. The converted BH data yield the same
pressure derivative as the actual BH data, indicating that the WH data can predict permeability quite accurately in
the cases of a dry gas fluid in the wellbore.
 WH derived permeability can be corrected to the actual value using Dall’Olio and Vignati (1988) correlation.
 Skin can be adjusted to match the estimation of BH data, using the corrected permeability, the estimated BH
pressures and the semi-log radial flow approximation (Eq. 4).
Gas/Condensate
 Two methods were developed to calculate BH pressures providing reasonable results. The error between estimated
and actual pressures in the modified Peffer et al. (1988) method is stabilizing at middle and late times and
consequently leads to a derivative that is very similar with the one from BH data. PTA indicates that permeability
can be estimated using the converted pressures. Skin factor though is overestimated.
 A good estimation of the pressures can be provided by using the Adding Column Weight method, but the results
should be used only as a sense of BH pressures, not for PTA.
14 SPE 164871

Acknowledgements
This study was conducted by Charidimos Spyrou at Imperial College in partial fulfillment of post-graduate study
requirements. The authors would like to thank E.ON E&P UK and Total E&P UK as well as BG Group, Carrizo, Centrica,
Chevron, Dana Petroleum (E&P) Limited, Dyas E&P, ENI UK Limited, ExxonMobil, Noreco, Premier and Summit
Petroleum, for providing data and their permission to present and publish this material. Our appreciation goes to Basil Al-
Shamma, Paul Arkley and Helene Nicole for taking time from their busy schedule to discuss and provide their ideas. Lekan
Aluko is also acknowledged for his contribution.

Nomenclature
Formation volume factor Initial pressure (psi)
Compressibility (psi-1) Reservoir pressure (psi)
Gas specific gravity Reference pressure (psi)
Oil specific gravity Bottom-hole pressure (psi)
Wet gas specific gravity Well head pressure (psi)
Turbulence factor Flow rate
Vertical Depth (ft) Gas flow rate (Mscf/d)
Change in a given parameter Reservoir radius (ft)
Moody friction factor Well radius (ft)
Gravity acceleration (m/s2) Porosity
Reservoir thickness (ft) Gas Condensate Ratio (scf/bbl)
Permeability (mD) Density (kg/m3)
Gas relative permeability (mD) Skin
Friction losses Time (h)
Gravity Forces Dimensionless time
Well length (ft) Temperature (oF)
Oil molecular weight Compressibility (dimensionless)
Viscosity (cp)
Dimensionless pressure

References
Ali, A.M., Falcone, G., Hewitt, G.F., Bozorgzadeh, M., Gringarten, A.C., 2005: “Experimental Investigation of Wellbore Phase Redistribu-
tion Effects on Pressure-Transient Data”, paper SPE 96587 presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held
in Dallas, Texas 9-12 October 2005.
Cragoe, C.S., 1929: “Thermodynamic Properties of Petroleum Products”, Bureau of Standards, US Dep. of Commerce, 1929,
Miscellaneous Publication No. 97, 22.
Cullender, M.H., Smith, R.V., 1956: “Practical Solutions of Gas-Flow Equation for Wells and Pipelines with Large Temperature
Gradients”, Trans., AIME, 207 (1956), 281-87.
D. Dall’Olio and L. Vignati, 1998: ”Well Heat Test Analysis: Save and Safe”, paper SPE 39971 presented at the SPE Gas Technology
Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada 15-18 March 1998.
Fair, C., 2001: “Is it a Wellbore of a Reservoir Effect?”, Hart’s E&P.
Fair, C., Cook, B., Brighton, T., Redman, M. and Newman, S., 2002: “Gas/Condensate and Oil Well Testing-From the Surface”, paper SPE
77701 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas 29 September-2 October 2002.
Govier, G.W., Fogarasi, M., 1975: “Pressure Drop in Wells Producing Gas and Condensate”, J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (October-December 1975)
14, No. 44, 28.
Hasan, A.R., Kabir, C.S. and Lin, D., 2005: “Analytical Wellbore-Temperature Model for Transient Gas-Well Testing”, SPE Reservoir
Evaluation & Engineering, June 2005.
Nurafza, P.R., and Fernagu, J., 2009: “Estimation of Static Bottom Hole Pressure from Well-Head Shut-in Pressure for a Supercritical
Fluid in a Depleted HP/HT Reservoir”, SPE 124578, paper presented at the SPE Offshore Europe Oil & Gas Conference & Exhibition
held in Aberdeen, UK, 8-11 September.
Peffer, J.W., Miller, M.A. and Hill, A.D., 1988: “An Improved Method for Calculating Bottomhole Pressures in Flowing Gas Wells with
Liquid Present”, SPE Production Engineering 1988.
Rzasa, M.J., Katz, D.L., 1945: “Calculation of Static Pressure Gradients in Gas Wells”, Trans., AIME, (1945) 160, 100-05.
Smith, R.V., 1950: “Determining Friction Factors for Measuring Productivity of Gas Wells”, Trans. AIME (1950) 73.
http://www.spidr.com/oil-and-gas/Understanding-Wellbore-Cooling/subpage129.html