TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
AbstractIn order to meet most test objectives, conventional transient well testing usually requires long flow and shut-in periods. However, the current industry drivers demand short, costeffective, and environmentally friendly test procedures, especially in exploration wells. This is particularly true in deepwater and arctic environments where conventional tests may be prohibitively expensive or logistically not feasible.While various short-term tests, test procedures, and interpretation methods are available for conducting successful short-term tests, clarity is lacking for specific applications of these methods. Some of these tests include surge testing, closed-chamber testing, slug testing, underbalanced perforating and testing, and back-surge perforation cleaning. This paper provides comprehensive evaluation of general closed-chamber tests, including general surge tests, and their comparison with special tests such as, FasTest,™ Impulse™ test, and slug tests. For each of these techniques, the review will examine:• Test design, testing procedure • Theoretical background of each of these techniques • Method of data analysis including comparison based on both theoretical and practical considerations to determine the expected reliability, accuracy, and ease of analysis. A large portion of the paper will be devoted to field examples. Several actual case studies are analyzed using the various techniques, and results are tabulated and presented. The analyses of several of these examples will be presented in significantly more detail to compare techniques available to analyze the well-testing data obtained from surge testing, closed-chamber DST, slug testing of oil wells, underbalanced perforating and testing, and back-surge perforation cleaning.
