Advanced Well Testing

handbook

by G. Pedaci

mob: +39 347 622 47 63

1
 INDEX

WELL TESTING

1.0 INTRODUCTION 3

2.0 WELL TESTING PRINCIPLES X

3.0 FIELD DATA ANC QUALITY CONTROL X

4.0 DIFFERENT TYPES OF WELL TEST X

5.0 GENERAL FLOW DIFFUSITY EQUATION IN POROUS

SYSTEMS X

6.0 FLOW CONDITIONS X

7.0 GAS TESTS X

8.0 WELL DELIVERABILITY IN BOTH OIL & GAS WELLS X

9.0 DRAWDOWN AND BUILD-UP TESTS X

10.0INTRODUCTION TO TYPE CURVE AND PRESSURE

DERIVATIVE APPROACH X

11.0EARLY TIME MODELS X

12.0MIDDLE TIME MODELS X

13.0LATE TIME SCHEDULE X

14.0WELL TEST EQUIPMENT X

15.0DOWN HOLE GAUGE X

16.0WELL TEST DESIGN AND COSTS X

17.0FLUID SAMPLING X

18.0TEST IN AGGRESSIVE ENVIRONMENTS X

19.0BIBLIOGRAPHY X

2
 WELL TESTING

1.0 INTRODUCTION

3
2.0 WELL TESTING PRINCIPLES

2.1 Main Targets To Be Achieved

As soon as the drilling of a well is finished, if the well results to be hydrocarbons

bearing, in order to evaluate the production capacity, most notably pressure and
rate, of the well it is necessary to perform a well test in the mineralized layers.

The primary targets of a well test are:

Determine the nature of the produced hydrocarbons and its rates.

The new reservoir has been penetrated with a well . The primary interest of all
persons concerned, for commercial reasons, is to evaluate the kind of fluid
produced ( oil or gas ?) and at which rate.

Fluid sampling is important in order to perform PVT (Pressure-Volume-

Temperature) analysis. The aim is at collect in oil and gas samples, whether
down-hole or at the surface, in the exact ratio of gas /oil. The PVT parameters
obtained in the laboratory are used directly in the well test analysis, in the
recovery calculations and in the design of surface facilities.

Initial reservoir pressure (Pi) and temperature (T)

The determination of the initial reservoir pressure (Pi) is of paramount

importance. It is standard practice in a well to run the RFT prior to setting the final
production casing.

This RFT provides the exact pressure of the reservoir at its depth. This method is
preferable to the pressure build-up method which requires an extrapolation, quite
subjective.

The RFT pressure of the reservoir has to be reported to the datum by using the
pressure gradient of the reservoir fluid.

The temperature is very important for the gas field, since determines the
formation volume factor (Bgi) of the gas originally in place.

4
2.2 Reservoir Fluid Flow Analysis

Fluid samples will allow a measurement of basic fluid properties such as

composition, formation volume factor (Bo and Bg), gas-oil ratio (GOR) & viscosity
(µo).

Fluid samples will also allow measurement of fluid contaminants such as H2S,
CO2, asphaltenes, wax, mercury, etc.

Representative measurements can often only be made at the well site due to
degradation of samples over time.

Fluid samples from different zones will determine fluid variations with depth and
in particular can be used to define fluid contacts.

2.3 Reservoir Parameters Determination

Evaluation of the formation characteristics: Effective permeability (K ) and flow

capacity (Kh)

The capacity Kh (permeability by formation thickness) of the formation can be

calculated by the build-up interpretation. By knowing the h from the log analysis it
is possible then to evaluate the permeability K.

The value of this K is the average effective permeability to oil or gas in the
presence of the irreducible water saturation.

The well test permeability should be compared with the average, absolute
permeability determined from the cores analysis.

The effective permeability is always smaller then the absolute permeability.

Damage around the wellbore by means of the skin effect (S)

Evaluation of the skin factor has great importance in either appraisal and
development wells. Well become damaged either for the human activities while
drilling (mud, cement, perforations, etc) or for the movements of formation solids
(sand, paraffin, chemical reaction, etc).

Whatever the reason for the damage, the first step in preparing a remedial job is
the calculation of the magnitude of the skin factor, S.

S is a dimensionless number representing the degree of formation damage

caused by the mud invasion during drilling. The mud particles obstruct the

5
porosity of the formation so declining is permeability. The formation will produce
less because of the mud damage.

2.4 Productitvity Index Definition

Definition of the Productivity Index (PI) of the oil well actual and ideal and the Gas
Flow Equation in a gas well is carried out by means of well testing.

The PI is the ratio of the oil production rate per unit of pressure drawdown.

The Gas flow equation gives the gas rate for the squared pressure drawdown.

2.5 Well Efficiency Control

Control the efficiency of a well completion operation and a stimulation operation.

If well tests are conducted both prior to and after those operations the value of
the skin factor, S, will sanction the efficiency of those operations. If S diminishes
after an operation it means that operation has been conducted positively
otherwise (S increases) negatively.

2.6 Reservoir Geometry

For the reservoir geometry the evaluation of the presence of faults, contacts,
magnitude of the reservoir, radius of drainage, by means of a well testing is
important.

A long and expensive flow test is required to locate boundaries (faults).

If the static pressure after a certain flowing time stabilizes to a value minor to the
pi value it is an indication of small reservoir. If the static pressure indicates a
trend towards the pi the reservoir is consistent in magnitude.

The depletion of the reservoir can be detected if the reservoir is small (the initial
reservoir static pressure declines after a prolongated production) or big (the initial
reservoir static pressure does not decline after a prolongated production)

2.7 The Interpretation of Well Testing

The interpretation of the well testing can give also the following:

 correlation among the producing intervals of different wells;

 definition of the driving mechanism of the reservoir;

6
  planning the future programme of drilling for the field development;

 estimate the surface facilities for the full field development.

The importance of well testing never must be underestimated. The accuracy of a

calculation of the hydrocarbon reserves depends a lot on the results of the well
tests.

A well testing performed in good way will give the possibility to :

 compute the Original Hydrocarbons in Place with good precision;

 understand the future well behaviour for rates and pressure;

 plan the field development in better way;

 define the well completion ( tubing size, gravel packing, etc).

In order to get all the expected results, as outlined above, all the data achieved
with a well testing must be taken under close examination.

For a well testing one must consider:

 all the rates of oil, gas and water;

 all the bottom hole pressures either during the flowing period (draw-down
pressure) or during the shut-in period (build-up).

 temperature at the bottom hole;

 all pressures and temperatures at well head and at the separator.

The most common and practical method of testing wells is the pressure build-up
test for which a well is produced at a constant rate q (stb/d) for a flowing time t
(hours), after which is closed-in for a pressure build-up.

During the flowing period, the pressure recorded at the bottom hole is
denominated pwf (psia – well flowing pressure) and during the subsequent build-
up pws (psia- well static pressure) which is measured in the shut-in time Δt
(hours). See figure 2.1.

7
 pwf, flowing presure
pw (psia) Pws, well static pressure

t Δt
time (hours)
q

q (stb/d)

t t Δt
time (hours)

Fig. 2.1: Rate, q, and pressure profile during a well testing

8
3.0 FIELD DATA AND QUALITY CONTROL

Well testing represents a major source of data to engineers and geologists

investigating the potential economic viability of hydrocarbon accumulations.
However, well tests are expensive and should only be performed if the
information required:

a) improves the value of the project by more than the cost of the test

and

b) cannot be adequately acquired more cheaply by an alternative method.

The planning stage is important in determining the value of the well test, defining
clear objectives for the test, selecting the test type, specifying the equipment
required and the procedures to be followed, and indicating what actions should
be taken on the rig site if the observed response differs from that anticipated.

3.1 Parameters Definition

Time

It must be recorded during a well test all the time of each event : when an event
starts and when finishes in terms of date and hours and minute.

Duration

An event must be declared in its duration in time.

Event

An event must be reported for what it is. For example:

 pre-flow, short period of well flowing before the real test in order to control
the connection of all the equipments;

 initial reservoir pressure, pi, to evaluate the original reservoir pressure

before any flowing;

 clean-up, event to clean the well from mud or completion fluid, in order to
allow the formation fluid to reach the surface as clean as possible;

 first flowing, the well is put on production with a certain choke in order to
flow with a certain rate, q1, more or less stabilized;

9
  first build-up, the well after the rate of fluid stabilized in closed in order to
allow the reservoir pressure to come back at the original value of pi;

 second flowing, the well is put on production with a second choke in order
to flow with another rate, q2, more or less stabilized;

 second build-up, the well after the rate q2 of fluid stabilized in closed in
order to allow the reservoir pressure to come back at the original value of
pi;

 acid job, in the well has been injected acid in order to enter into the
formation and allow a clearing or a dissolution of the mud particles which
obstruct the flow of the reservoir fluid;

 etc.

Choke

The choke diameter has to be reported, usually in inches. An inch is divided in 64

parts. So a choke of 32/64” indicates a choke of ½ inch(1/2”).

The choke is put on the surface after the well head and determine the flow rate of
the well.

The choke has the particularity to stabilize the flow provided that the pressure
upstream the choke is bigger than twice the pressure downstream the choke.

Rate

The rate of the fluid produced, oil or gas, is of paramount importance since this
indicates the capacity of the reservoir to produce.

In case of oil the rate must be measured in stock tank condition (60°F and 1 psia)
and usually in barrel per day. The unit of the oil rate is so stb/d.

Being the time of the flowing usually inferior to the 24 hours of one day, the
volume of oil produced in a certain time must be recalculated on daily basis.

In case of gas the rate unit usually is the thousands of standard cubic feet in a
day, M scf/d. Being the standard condition: 60°F and 1 psia.

Gas Oil Ratio (GOR)

10
During the well test the ratio of the volume of gas over the volume of oil in a
certain period must be measured.

Both volumes must be measured at standard condition and stock tank condition.

The unit of the GOR is usually standard cubic feet over stock tank barrel, scf/stb.

Well Head Pressure (WHP)

The well head pressure during the test must be taken regularly, specially at the
start-up of each event during the same and at the end of the event.

This pressure is upstream the choke. The well head pressure should be taken
specially when it is stabile.

The unit of the WHP is generally the psi, as measured at the manometer, so psi
gauge (psig).

Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP)

The bottom hole pressure is taken with down hole equipment such Amerada or
SRO.

The electronic SRO allows the transmission of the pressure value at the surface.

The BHP is important to indicate the pi initial reservoir pressure, and the value
during the flowing periods. The most important is the recording of the bottom
pressure during the build-up.

The interpretation of the build-up trend will indicate a lot information on the kind of
reservoir.

The unit of the BHP is generally the psi absolute , as measured at the down hole
pressure gauge plus 14.7 psi (psia).

The BHP has to be declared always at which depth has been taken. This is
relevant in case the reservoir pressure has to be reported to a datum.

Usually the datum is taken in the middle of the reservoir thickness or next to the
relevant contact oil/water or gas/water. The datum is a depth from the sea level.

Bottom Hole Temperature (BHT)

11
This parameter is very important for a gas field since the Gas Originally in Place
(GOIP) depends from the Bgi ( initial gas formation volume factor), which is
function of the pressure and temperature.

However the temperature is useful for the PVT analysis of both gas and oil.

The unit of the BHT is usually the Fahrenheit (°F).

Others

If during the well test a pressure gradient profile in the well is taken by means of
wireline operations must be reported.

This is useful to better determine the nature of the fluid produced in the wellbore.
If the pressure gradient indicates a density of about 0.8 Kg/lt the fluid in the
wellbore is oil; if it is 1.0 Kg/lt is water and if it is less than 0.07 kg(lt it is gas.

 Density of the Oil (API gravity).

 Gas composition (hydrocarbons; CO2; H2S, N2; etc) and associated

parameters (z, molecular weight, specific gravity, etc).

 Separator of gas/oil/water parameters : pressure and temperature.

 Stimulation job: acidification, fracturation etc

3.2 Test Objectives Setting

Example of data available: three wells, B1, B2, and B3 have been drilled into
sand formation, two have tested oil and the third B3 logged only water bearing
reservoir.

The two oil bearing wells have been completed awaiting a tieback to a nearby
production facility.

12
Fig. 3.1: Top sands map, indicating discovery and possible northern block
accumulation

A 3-D seismic section is available across the area, and shows that there is
potential for an additional accumulation in a northern block, which is the target of
appraisal well B-4.

The proposed well B-4 includes the objectives to core the well once there are
hydrocarbon shows in the mud returns. Coring will continue until the hydrocarbon
bearing interval is fully cored. A full open hole logging suite will be run, including
RFT pressure and fluid sampling.

The drilling proposal also requires an outline production test proposal to ensure
that the necessary equipment can be made available in time if the well is found to
be hydrocarbon bearing.

Before trying to set the well test objectives, it is necessary to be aware of the
overall objectives of the field.

These are to:

 assess the presence and nature of hydrocarbons in the northern block

 determine whether the sands (if present and hydrocarbon bearing) are
commercially productive ;

13
  corroborate the geological and geophysical model of the northern block to
assist with future development of the northern block ;

 determine whether the northern block is in pressure communication with

the main block.

Te outcome of the production test is likely to influence whether further appraisal

or development wells are necessary or whether the northern block prospect has
to be included in the main field development plan.

The result of the test may have very significant impact on the overall value of the
project, and decision making theory should be applied to determine the value of
the information gained from the test.

3.3 Quality Control Procedures

Before interpreting a test, a fundamental step is the quality control of the raw data
( Q.C.). This operation is complex and important at the same time.

In fact, possible anomalies are sometimes well masked and not identifiable;
moreover, the choice of parameters which are not representative of the real
system leads to conclusions unrelated with the physical reality of the reservoir
phenomena.

It is fundamental that the control and validation of all the data recorded is carried
out on site. This quality control allows for a rapid modification of the operations in
order to remedy to possible failures in the surface equipments and in the
electronic gauges measurements.

Should the Q.C. be carried out at a later time, just before the interpretation, and
data found to lack representativeness, the necessity to repeat the test would
involve much higher additional costs; moreover, there is the risk that the well
performances are no longer the same as those at the time of the original test.

Field data must be taken with accuracy, otherwise the validity of the test will be
very limited. Great accuracy must be given to the gas rate and oil rate at standard
condition and stock tank.

For instance if in the oil there is a lot emulsion the rate of the oil can be wrong.

If in the gas stream there is a lot of inerts, such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen
the gas rate can be wrong.

14
Of paramount importance is the quality of the down-hole pressure gauge for the
build-up measurements. A quartz pressure gauge should have a sensitivity of
0.001 psi and an accuracy of +-0.1 % of each reading in psi.

Validate Gauges

The quality control on bottom hole parameters has a remarkable impact on the
test interpretation.

In fact the definition of the most suitable reservoir model starts from the analysis
of the log-log plot (diagnostic -plot) which describes the behaviour of the bottom
hole pressure and of its derivative.

The acquisition of bottom hole data, as far as pressure and temperature are
concerned, is made by using high precision electronic gauges located just above
the producing formation.

As already mentioned, they can be of the two types: Memory or SRO Gauges,
the latter allowing for real time readings.

It is fundamental that the gauges, independently from the type, are accurately
calibrated in laboratory. For this reason, the Service Company must provide the
certification and the specifications found in the last calibration.

Bottom hole pressure gauges

Quartz pressure gauge are often necessary to assure very precise pressure
reading.

Specifications of the pressure reading shall be as follows:

 Sensitivity = 0.001 psi

 Accuracy = + - 1.0 psi or + - 0.01 % of the reading

Surface pressure gauges

The simplest and cheapest location for a pressure gauge is at surface on the
wellhead. Such a location can however give problems. Firstly, downhole shut-in
cannot be used to avoid wellbore storage.

Secondly, the wellbore skin effect is difficult to calculate as the pressure

drawdown at the gauge is not only due to the reservoir but also to rate dependent
friction losses in the wellbore.

15
Thirdly, phase segregation of fluids in the wellbore may cause massive pressure
fluctuations.

Wellhead gauges are best used in injection wells where the wellbore fluid is
monophasic and incompressible. Even in this case temperature effects can
cause problems in interpretation as the cool injection water is heated up
throughout the wellbore.

Wellbore storage

If the reservoir description near the well bore is important (eg nearby faulting)
then early time build-up pressure data is important. After a rate change early time
reservoir pressure response can be masked by the compressibility of the fluids
within the wellbore. This phenomenon is known as wellbore storage .

A means of avoiding this problem, at least for pressure build-ups, is to include a

valve and pressure gauge in the test string near the perforations whereby the well
is shut in down hole. Consequently there is little volume of wellbore fluid, below
the valve, which can influence the reservoir pressure response.

This system is probably not warranted when fluids remain monophasic within the
wellbore, as liquids have fairly low compressibilities. However, if the reservoir
fluid falls below bubble point and gas is present in the wellbore, then wellbore
storage is likely to mask a large proportion of the reservoir pressure response.

Rate measurement

Production rates are typically measured at surface through a test separator.

A standard offshore 3-phase separator will operate at up to 1500 psig and handle
80 MMscf/d gas and 10,000 b/d oil. Gas is metered using an orifice plate, while
oil is measured with a positive displacement meter, turbine meter or a vortex
meter.

It is essential to record the pressure and temperatures at which the

measurements are made so that a conversion can be made to express the
volumes of fluid at standard conditions and at reservoir conditions where the
pressure is measured.

The accuracy of such a measurement is approximately +/-10%. Any water

content must also be reported to allow the conversion to be made. Oil meters are
calibrated offshore at periods during the test using a gauge tank.

16
Pressure analysis techniques require downhole flow rates to calculate reservoir
properties. Surface rates therefore need to be converted using an appropriate
formation volume factor. Some error may be generated here as the formation
volume factor is not always known for the test separator conditions on the rig,
giving a possible additional error of around +/-10%. A downhole flow rate can be
calculated directly by running a PLT spinner. The accuracy of such a rate is
between +/2% and +/-10% depending on the spinner type and logging company.

Time measurement

The pressure-time data is recorded by the clock run with the pressure gauge.
Traditionally a mechanical clock was used, but this is now invariably an electronic
clock.

The sequence of events at surface is recorded by the test crew in absolute time,
and forms part of the report provided.

Fluid sampling

The objective of reservoir fluid sampling is to collect representative samples of

the reservoir fluids at the time of sampling. In general terms oil, gas and even
water samples are required to properly characterise the formation fluids.

Sampling is generally performed in the initial exploration and/or appraisal phase

when the fluid is still characterized by its original composition. This is a crucial
step for reliably predicting the future reservoir behaviour.

Two methods are used for sampling reservoir fluids.

They are referred to as “subsurface sampling“ and “surface sampling”. In this

second method, sampling can be made at the separator (most likely) as well as
at the wellhead.

When sampling exploration wells, subsurface sampling is always associated with

surface sampling.

As a general procedure, sampling operations can be planned either during the

main flow phase or at the end of the test after the final build-up.

All the surface/downhole sampling must be properly validated at the wellsite

before sending the fluid samples to the labs. In the case of samples
inconsistency the operation must be repeated.

17
The choice of the sampling method is influnced by several factors, such as :

 lable gas-oil separators equipment.

The key factor to collect a representative reservoir fluid sample is the preliminary
conditioning of the well. This consists of producing the well, for a certain time, at
a rate which removes all the altered (non representative) fluid from the wellbore.

The recommended procedure to reach such a situation, consists of producing the

well in a series of “step by step” flow rate reduction. A stabilized gas-oil ratio
(GOR) should be achieved and measured at each step. The well is considered to
be sufficiently conditioned when further rate reductions have no effect on the
GOR which remains constant over time.

Monophasic flow conditions are then basically achieved and sampling can be
successfully performed.

Special attention must be dedicated when sampling oil reservoirs (light - volatile
oil) if the saturation pressure (or dew point pressure for gas condensate) is
closed to the initial static pressure.

During the sampling phase the following parameters should be stabilized and
properly monitored:

 Fluid flow rates (Qoil, Qgas, Qwater),

 Bottom Sediment & Water (BSW),

 Gas Oil Ratio (GOR),

 Wellhead pressure and temperature,

 Separator pressure and temperature.

In addition, the main physical fluid properties, such as oil and average gas gravity
as well as the presence of CO2/H2S, should be carefully evaluated.

18
As a general procedure, all the surface/downhole samples collected during the
production test must be properly validated at the wellsite before they are sent to
the labs. In the case of samples inconsistency, the operation must be repeated.

3.4 Well Testing Workflow

Workflow field data :The following figures 2 and 3 give an idea of all data to be
recorded during a well test workflow:

19
Date Time Duration Evants Name Choke Rate GOR WHP BHP BHP Grd CUMUL
b/d Set/bbl Psi.g Psi.a °F PLT
8519.6 8519.6
ft ft
06/12/98 10h40 00h05 Preflow Q1 32/64 51 3058 257
10h45 01h45 Int. BU1 0 3596.3 257
pross.
12h30 00h20 Wash Inj-1 -1224 569 3623.6 253.8
13h50 01h40 Clean- Q2 Adjust. 531 3526 266
up
15h30 01h30 Clean- 48/64 3600 552 265 3504 265 194
up
10h30 01h00 Ship BU2 0
17h30 04h20 Clean- Q3 32/64 2630 1020 3532 266.5 421
up
21h50 15h00 SRO BU3 0 82.7 3595 263.5
07/12/98 12h50 10h40 Surf Q4 20/64 1020 660 1147 3573 267.2 438
sampl.
23h30 13h45 BHS Q5 08/64 1
08/12/98 13h15 01h00 Main Inj-2 -7800 2165 3860 245
acid
14h15 01h45 Clean- Q6 40/64 3700 816 3537 269.8
up
16h00 02h00 Flush BU4 0
lines
09/12/98 18h00 18h00 Main Q7 40/04 3700 600 953 3537 269.8 2676
flow
12h00 04h00 Main Q8 32/64 2700 600 1096 3551 269.8 395
flow
16h00 14h00 Main Q9 40/64 3700 600 964 3534 270 2078
flow
10/12/98 06h00 60h00 Main BU BU5 0 3601 261.8
12/12/98 18h00 11h00 PLT- 3601
shut
13/12/98 05h00 04h00 PLT- 40/64 4300 831 3542 269.9 0.73 645
open adj
09h00 04h00 PLT- 28/64 2120 1107 3564 269 0.75 317
open
7104
Tab. 3.1 : Well testing Workflow

20
Phase Time WHP WHP P.sep T.sep Q all GOR °API CO2 II2S Gas gr. Cumulative
p sig °F psig °C Pd(60”F Ct/bb std % PPM air-1
)
Clean- 20h30 1017 81.4 159 77.2 2628 31.7 45 9000 1.068 Total-4h25
up
32/64 21h00 1017 83 130.9 77.9 2632 45 9000 1.07 Cumul in
4h:
05/12/98 21h30 1020 03.2 130.9 78.4 2638 31.7 45 9000 1.07 421.1 bbl
7h25 21h40 1020 83 130.8 77.5 2626 31.7 45 9000 1.07 Av rate
21h5 12681 bpd
Pte-
4h25

Girf. 18h00 1138 72 174 98.2 1061 864 32 39 11000 1.084 Total-
sampl 11h30
20/64 20h00 1144 73 176 108 1008 685 31.8 40 11000 1.092 Cumul in
10h15:
07/12/98 21h15 1144 73 176 109 1027 667 32.7 40 11000 1.092 438.5bbl
2h00 22h30 1147 74 177 105 1035 689 32.4 40 11000 1.092 Av rate:
23h3 1027bpd
Tal - 23h00 1147 72 176 107 1018 674 32.4 40 11000 1.092
11h3

32/64 13h00 1097 94.3 148.7 82 2714 606 32.4 38 9000 Total-4h00
08/12/98 14h00 1097 95.3 148.6 81.9 2714 614 32.4 38 9000 Cumul in
3h30:
2h00 15h00 1098 95.7 149.8 30.1 2718 62D 32.5 38 9000 395bbl
16h0
15h30 1096 95.5 151 83.7 2686 628 32.6 38 9000 Ev rate:
2708bpd
Tal-04h0 16h00 1096 94.3 152.6 85.5 2706 624 32.6 38 9000 1.082

40/54 21h00 911.1 87.2 160.2 74.6 3645 610 32.4 38 8500 Total-h00
8- 23h45 923.8 89.1 160.5 76.5 3704 600 32.2 38 9000 Cumuli
9/12/98 1/h30
8h00 10h00 950.3 103 180.7 82.5 3705 810 32.2 38 9000 1.071 2876.5bbl
12h0
09- 19h00 956 105.6 163 88.7 3696 624 32.4 39 10000 1.072 Av rate:
10/12/98 367bpd
6h00 23h00 959 103.4 161.2 93.5 3701 613 32.4 39 10000 1.075
06h0
02h00 951.6 113.1 165 102.5 3685 627 32.2 38 9000 1.074
Total – 05h00 964.5 115.1 168 109.1 3682 634 32 39 9000 1.074
32h

Tab. 3.2: Summary of Production Sequence

3.5 Defining the Well Test Procedure

The selection of the test type clearly depends upon the objectives of the test.
Given the objectives of the test of well B-4 in our example of paragraph 3.2, the
most appropriate test type will be a pressure drawdown and build-up, with fluid
sampling being part of the test procedure.

In general, single rate are used to measure reservoir properties. For a pressure
drawdown test this means flowing at a single stable rate for a period of time.
However, it can be difficult to maintain a constant rate due to fluctuations through
the wellbore and surface equipment.

21
The rate during a build-up period is obviously zero, but the analysis is simpler if
the preceding drawdown has been carried out at a single constant rate. Build-up
periods are generally considered more useful for analysis if the preceding flow
rate was constant.

Multi-rate test are typically used to measure rate dependent properties such as
some skin effects and wellbore effects, and are more common in gas wells where
skin due to turbulent flow around the wellbore is a function of the flow rate.

A basic well test sequence is shown below indicating some of the different
requirements from each part of the test. This test does include a multi-rate test,
which would be more common in gas wells than oil wells:

Fig. 3.2: Well test sequence for an oil bearing formation

22
 Fig. 3.3: Well test sequence for a gas bearing formation

Clean-up

Clean-up is suggested to stress the well with different increasing chokes in order
to remove non representative fluids (i.e., drilling and completion fluids). It is
important to underline that a proper clean-up phase is essential for a consistent
well test interpretation.

The duration of the clean-up can be variable depending on the well response. In
general the cleaning phase will be terminated when the main wellhead
parameters (pressure and rates) are stabilised for at least 3-4 hours.

The final BSW should not exceed 5%. Any evidence of sand and/or fines
production must be monitored. In addition, all the physical parameters of the
produced fluids such as Ph, salinity, density, gas SG, etc. must be acquired.

First build-up

To measure initial reservoir pressure & temperature, restore pressure equilibrium

before starting main test. The duration of the first build up should be the same .

Main flow- drawdown pressure

23
In the case of oil bearing formations a flow after flow sequence consisting of two
isochronal increasing flow rates is recommended.

In general each step should last 8 to 12 hours.

In the case of gas bearing formations a flow after flow sequence of isochronal
increasing rates is suggested. A minimum of two flow rates is necessary to
estimate the turbulence factor and the flow equation. However, three flow rates
are highly recommended.

Each step should last 8 hours

It is suggested that the maximum flow rate does not exceed the greater flow rate
achieved during the clean-up phase.

Final build-up

 Build-up pressure analysis is used to interpret the surrounding reservoir

properties (permeability, boundaries, heterogeneity) and the connection
efficiency of the well to the reservoir (skin factors).

 Final reservoir pressure may be observed to check for reservoir depletion.

The duration of the main build-up should be 1.5 – 2 times the duration of the
main flow.

Remarks

Choke sizes and testing time should be adjusted according to the well behaviour.

Once the open hole logs are available and a “quick look” interpretation has been
made, an office-based operations meeting is usually called between the
subsurface and operations teams to decide on the exact test procedure.

Flow And Shut-In Periods Durations

The length of flow and shut-in periods are a compromise between the quantity of
information required and the expense of performing the test. Longer flow & shut-
in periods will provide information on the reservoir more accurate.

The time taken to first observe a reservoir heterogeneity at distance r from the
wellbore is given for drawdown tests as:

24
  c t r 2
T  1191.4
k

The time, T, is in hours all the other units are the American practical oil field units.

The estimate of permeability in mD of above will need to be taken from core

measurements. The open hole log interpretation estimates a permeability based
on an empirical porosity -permeability relationship from the region.

For a build-up, calculating the time taken is more complex depending in part on
the length of the preceding flow period.

Early time data is often dominated by wellbore storage effects, which make
interpretation very difficult if not impossible. Consequently flow & shut-in periods
should be of sufficient length to pass this period.

At the other extreme, in reservoir limit testing, it may be necessary to flow for
weeks or months to generate a measurable depletion of pressure.

As a rule of thumb, a 50 psi depletion is significant and sufficient to estimate the

connected volume. From an initial estimate of the connected volume, material
balance calculations can be made to determine the produced volume required to
create such a pressure drop.

Well test interpretation techniques depend mostly on establishing transient flow

and derivatives on type curves indicate when this flow regime commences for a
given reservoir type (i.e. homogeneous, fractured). This method can be used to
estimate the minimum time required for the flow and build-up periods.

In general the time taken to observe all the required reservoir properties
surrounding a well is best modelled using the design feature in a computerized
well test package. An expected reservoir model should be constructed in liaison
with the field geologist and used within the well test package to anticipate the
required test duration.

Although it is impossible to give a unique time for the periods, typical drawdown
and build-up periods are between 6-12 hours and 12-24 hours respectively.

Flow Rate

The size of flow rate has little bearing on the mathematics of well test analysis.
The rate should however be sufficient to maintain stable flow.

25
A wellbore hydraulics package should be used to design tubing sizes and
minimum flow rates to give an acceptable flow regime within the wellbore.
Slugging should be avoided if possible.

The maximum possible rate from the well is not necessary for the well test
analysis, but sometimes in exploration wells there is a requirement to establish
this maximum potential, especially if it is to be used as part of the information
provided to a potential purchaser of the block, or in equity discussions.

Location Of Measurements for Pressure, Rate and Type of Fluids

Time, rate and pressure are the key measurements required for well test
analysis, and this data set is often referred to as the TRP data. It is essential to
specify in the test proposal the frequency and location of:

 pressure measurements

 flow rate measurements

 fluid samples.

The following schematic shows the typical points for monitoring these
parameters.

26
 Fig. 3.4: Typical locations for pressure and rate monitoring, and fluid sampling

The exact set-up will depend upon the type of location (eg land, floater or
production platform) but the main components will remain the same.

The down hole pressure gauge can record pressure and time data downhole and
can display this information in real time at surface using surface read out (SRO) if
required.

27
The data header provides ports for monitoring flowing tubing head pressure
(FTHP), temperature (FTHT), taking flow line samples, monitoring sand
production, and performing chemical injection.

The choke manifold controls fluid flow, and is used to establish stable flow
conditions and to shut the well in. A heat exchanger may be required to prevent
hydrate formation (gas testing) or to allow viscous oil to flow at surface
conditions.

The test separator (typically a three phase horizontal design) not only separates
the three phases (oil, water, gas) but also measures the flow rate of each stream
using flowmeters on each of the outlet lines.

It is important to record the separator temperature and pressure to allow the rates
measured to be corrected to standard conditions (typically 60°F and 14.7 psia).

A test tank may be required to measure liquid flow rates if the FTHP is insufficient
to allow the use of the three phase separator, and may be used as a check on
the three phase separator measurements.

The diverter manifold directs oil and gas to the appropriate burners, depending
on the current wind direction. To keep the heat away from the installation, flare
booms are used, and oil burners inject compressed air and water through nozzles
to create efficient combustion and to cool the flame.

Fluid samples can be taken down-hole or at surface.

28
4.0 DIFFERENT TYPES OF WELL TEST

The main objective when drilling an exploration well is to test and evaluate the
target formation. There are three types of well test methods available:

1. Wireline Formation Tester (WFT)

Simple test by using wireline tools

2. Drill Stem Test (DST)

Where the drill pipe / tubing in combination with down hole tools is used as a
short term test to evaluate the reservoir.

3. Production Test (PT)

Many options of string design are available depending on the requirements

of the test and the nature of the fluid.

Testing is an expensive and high risk operation and, therefore, should only be
conducted for essential data. The starting premise should be that testing is not
required unless it is clearly justified.

The second premise is that, if testing is warranted, it should be done in the

simplest possible manner, avoiding any operations which entail higher risk, such
as running wireline or coil tubing through the testing string.

By adopting this position, the Petroleum Engineer should not appear to be

negative but work towards obtaining essential data, which the company needs
rather than that which is nice to have, in the most cost-effective manner.

The test objectives must be agreed by those who will use the results and those
who will conduct the test before the test programme is prepared.

The Petroleum Engineer should discuss with the geologists and reservoir
engineers about the information required and make them aware of the costs and
risks involved with each method.

They should select the easiest means of obtaining data, such as coring, if
possible. Such inter-disciplinary discussions should be formalised by holding a
meeting (or meetings) at which these objectives are agreed and fixed.

The objectives of an exploration well test are to:

29
 

 y and kh and skin value

 ory nalysis

 nvestigate formation characteristics

The following table indicates the typical objectives of well testing, using bottom
hole pressure surveys, for various type of wells:

Exploration Appraisal Well Early Late Production

well Production well well

Objective Are there What types of Completion Understand

hydrocarbons HC ? efficiency. productivity
in the Productivity PI? Changes in after stimulation
reservoir? productivity. job to check PI
Reservoir improvement.
pressure
response to
production.
Type of DST or Production test Production test Production test
test production
test

Tab. 4.1: Typical Objectives of Well Testing

Exploration well

On the first exploration well, well testing is used to confirm the exploration
structure, establish the nature of the produced fluids as well as the initial reservoir
pressure and its consistency with the RFT/MDT trend when available.

Other common targets are both the evaluation of the main reservoir properties
(kh, Skin) and the assessment of the well productivity. In addition, any reservoir
heterogeneity as well as the presence of potential boundaries should be
investigated.

30
A proper reservoir characterization through testing of an exploration well is crucial
for any future action/decision and, for this reason, it is strongly recommended to
maximise the value of the information achieved by the testing phase.

Appraisal wells

The reservoir description can be refined by testing appraisal wells to confirm

average properties, productivity, reservoir heterogeneities, and boundaries as
well as drive mechanism if detected.

In order to identify representative reservoir fluids, surface/bottom samples are

collected for PVT laboratory analysis.

Production / Development wells

On producing wells, periodic tests are scheduled to confirm and/or re-adjust the
existing 3D-dynamic reservoir model and to evaluate the need for well treatment
(re-perforation, acid stimulation, sand control, fracturing, etc) with the target to
maximise the well production life.

In addition, interference testing is a quite common methodology to confirm

possible communication between existing wells.

During the well testing time a quite large volume of reservoir rock can be
investigated. As a consequence, the main reservoir parameters, such as
permeability, should be considered as average values.

4.1 Wireline Formation Tester (WFT)

It is not the purpose of this manual to discuss extensively the Wireline Formation
Tester (WFT) applications and, as a consequence, only some general concepts
are here presented.

In particular WFT is one of the most used tools in formation evaluation and
reservoir studies due to its ability of:

 depths.

The pore pressure regime, the fluid mobility as well as the in-situ fluid contacts
within the formation are provided by WFT.

31
Due to the very short duration of WFT, generally ranging from tens of seconds up
to few minutes, the investigated volume is very limited and, therefore, the major
parameters (i.e. fluid mobility) are considered reliable only close to the tool depth.

Information obtained from WFT interpretation is very useful especially in

designing a consistent testing programme for a new exploration and/or for
appraisal wells.

In particular:

 of the
initial PVT properties;

 pressure of
the reservoir. A cross–check between this value and the extrapolated
pressure from well testing analysis should always be made;


permeability;

 z) can be estimated if spherical flow regime is

clearly detected from WFT analysis.

4.2 Drill Stem Testing Methods

A drill stem test (DST) is a production test in which a full completion string is not
run as part of a final well completion, but a temporary test string (usually the drill
pipes) is used.

This avoids the cost of setting a completion string with a permanent packer.

The drill stem battery includes the drill pipe, the bottom hole assembly, the
packer and the fluid sample container. A drill stem test (DST) is a procedure for
testing the hydrocarbons bearing formation through the drill pipe, so in open hole
without casing.

Mr Johnston developed in Arkansas the first drill stem tester in 1927. The test is a
measurement of pressure behaviour at the drill stem and is a valuable way to
obtain important sampling information, when the tool is brought to the surface,
on the formation fluid and to establish the probability of commercial production.

32
The basic drill stem test tool consists of a packer, valves or ports that may be
opened and closed from the surface, and pressure- temperature recording
devices. The packer is set to isolate the zone from the drilling fluid column.

A DST is normally used in exploration well in order to know quickly if a promising

interval is hydrocarbon bearing. The pressure gauges at the bottom give
important information on the initial reservoir pressure, pi.

The flowing duration of the DST is very short, few hours, in order to avoid the
arrival of e significant quantity of hydrocarbons on surface, where the necessary
disposal arrangements have not been taken.

A DST is conducted to determine the productivity characteristics of one specific

zone. DST analysis can provide data to help evaluate the productivity of the
zone, the completion arrangements, extension of formation damage and if there
is a requirement for stimulation.

This technique was quite common in the past especially for testing new
exploration wells. It consisted of using a drill string (drill pipe) controlled by a
down hole shut-in valve. This testing methodology is not used anymore.

In most cases the testing duration was limited to few hours and, as a
consequence, the production period was very short and no hydrocarbons were
produced at the surface.

The main targets to be achieved were basically the following:

 the measurement of the static formation pressure;

 the collection of a representative reservoir fluid sample.

The reservoir fluid was recovered by reverse circulation and thus the risk of
contamination of hydrocarbon by mud or completion fluid was quite high.

The evaluation of the other reservoir properties, such as permeability and skin,
could not be very accurate because the interpretation approach was not strictly
conventional. This was particularly true when tight reservoirs and/or viscous oil
reservoirs were tested and when no flow at the surface was observed.

In a conventional DST, flow and shut-in were operated by the down hole shut-in
valve located below the drill pipe. The wellhead always remained open to the
atmosphere, whether directly or through a flare.

33
If the wellhead, equipped with a pressure gauge, remains closed during the flow
phase, the DST becomes a Closed Chamber Test (CCT) for the tested flow
period.

4.3 Production Test (PT)

The production test is the most complete well testing procedure since implies
also the presence of surface equipments for proper measurements of the rates of
oil, gas and water and the separation of these three phases.

The PT is usually done with tubing and not with drill pipe. The tubing string
should be equal to the one foreseen for the final completion of the well.

The PT is done in a cased hole and the formation is perforated with a proper gun.

The PT may involve different days of execution and can last even more than a
week. The purpose to organize a PT in a well is to sanction in exact way the
productivity of the well, completed in the same way as when will go in the
permanent production. So the interrelation of the formation with the completion
string can also be studied.

The possibility to run the Production Test for long time give the chance to study
better the reservoir boundary. The disturb of pressure during flowing has time to
go far and reach the boundary the reservoir. This can be done because the
production on surface of the fluids, oil, gas and water can be properly handled
and disposed.

Also the build-up period can be longer than in a DST since the draw-down has
been long.

The PT is normally done for better planning the future development of the field.

The PT is much more expensive than a DST.

Production tests may be classified as follows:

Periodic production tests have the purpose of determining the relative quantities
of oil, gas and water produced under normal producing conditions. They serve as

34
an aid in well and reservoir operation and meeting legal and regulatory
requirements.

Productivity or deliverability tests are usually performed on initial completion, or

recompletion, to determine the capability of the well under various degrees of
pressure drawdown. Results may set allowable production, aid in selections of
well completion methods, design of artificial lift systems and production facilities.

Transient pressure tests require a higher degree of sophistication and are used to
determine formation damage or stimulation related to an individual well, or
reservoir parameters such as permeability, pressure, volume and
heterogeneities.

Periodic tests

Production tests are carried out routinely to physically measure oil, gas and water
produced by individual wells under normal producing conditions.

From the well and reservoir viewpoint, they provide periodic physical well
conditions where unexpected changes such as extraneous water or gas
production may highlight well or reservoir problems. Abnormal production
declines may also indicate artificial lift problems, sand build-up, scale build-up in
perforations, etc.

On oil wells, results are reported as oil production rate, gas-oil ratio and water oil
ratio as a percentage of water in the total liquid stream. Accuracy in
measurement, with careful recording of the conditions is essential. Choke size,
tubing pressures, casing pressure, details of artificial lift system operation and all
other effects on the well producing capability should be recorded.

Potential production problems should be recognised in order that they can be

properly handled such as emulsions, security of power fluid or gas lift gas supply,
etc.

It is important that the well is produced at its normal conditions as flow rate will
vary the relative quantities of oil, gas and water.

On gas wells, routine are less common as each well normally has individual
measuring capability. Gas production is reported as well as condensate and
water. Similar to oil wells, the wells must be produced at the normal rates.

Productivity or deliverability tests

35
This test is different from the periodic test in that the liquid flow performance can
be determined empirically using measured flow rates at varying bottom-hole
pressure drawdowns and they do not rely on mathematical descriptions of the
flow process.

With a limited number of measurements, they permit prediction of what a well

could produce at other pressure drawdowns. This is then used to predict the PI
and is successfully applied to non-Darcy conditions.

They do not permit calculation of formation permeability or the degree of

abnormal flow restrictions (formation damage) near the wellbore. They do
however include the effects of formation damage; therefore can be used as an
indicator of well flow conditions or a basis for simple comparison of completion
effectiveness among wells in a particular reservoir.

Commonly used deliverability tests for oil wells may be classified as:

 -After-Flow

Transient tests

Flow from reservoirs are characterised as transient, pseudo-steady state or

steady state flow, depending on whether the pressure response initiated by
opening the well had reached the drainage area boundary and on the type of
boundary.

Transient flow occurs when the well is initially opened or has a significant rate
change, and is a result of the pressure disturbance moving out towards the outer
boundary of the drainage area.

During this the production conditions at the wellbore change rapidly and the
FBHP pwf, decreases exponentially with time.

Most DSTs and many production tests are conducted under transient flow
conditions and consequently the observed productivity will often appear greater
than that seen in long term production.

36
This means that corrections need to be made to compensate for transient flow
behaviour as well as for skin effects.

When the flow reaches the outer boundary, flow becomes steady state or
pseudo- steady state. If the boundary is a constant pressure boundary, then PR
will not alter with time and is termed steady state.

However if it is a no-flow boundary, then P will decline purely as a result of

depletion and the flow is then termed pseudo-steady state.

When the FBHP appears to be constant or declining slowly proportionally with

time, the well is stabilised and pseudo-steady state flow equations can be used to
predict the long term deliverability of a well.

Transient pressure tests are classified as:

 Build-up test

 Limit test

 Interference (Areal, Vertical and Pulse)

Each type presents certain advantages and limitations and factors which are
important for reasonable results.

Drawdown test

In the pressure drawdown test, the flowing bottom hole pressure is measured
while the well is flowing, is a primary method of measuring productivity index (PI).

Establishing a stable rate and a stable flowing pressure may requires a long
period. With many rate it is possible to construct the inflow performance
relationship (IPR curve), which is the Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure (FBHP) vs
the Oil rate, see figure.

With this test it is possible to compute the PI, Kh, and skin factor S.

37
 production rate (bbl/d)
PI 
pressure drawdown (psi)

Fig. 4.1: Pressure Drawdown

Fig. 4.2: IPR Curve

Build-up test

The pressure build-up test measures the bottom hole pressure response during
the shut in period which follows a pressure drawdown. This is useful for
measuring reservoir Kh, near well skin S, and final pressure of reservoir, equal to
the initial one Pi.

38
 Fig. 4.3: Pressure Build-up

Multi-rate test

The multi-rate test is used to determine rate-dependent properties such as skin,

and are common in gas well testing. This is a form of pressure drawdown test
with many rates.

It is useful to determine if skin factor S is function of rate.

Inflow performance curve (IPR) for oil wells, q vs flowing pressure, can be
determined with accuracy, in this case the variation of PI with rate can be
evaluated too.

Fig. 4.4: Multi-rate Drawdown

Limit test

The reservoir limit test is designed to establish the hydrocarbon volume

connected to the well. The flow rate is constant and once the limit of the reservoir
has been reached the pressure drops linearly with time, indicating that the

39
reservoir is fully bounded. This “semi steady state” response can be used to
estimate the connected volume of fluid.

Fig. 4.5: Reservoir Limit Test - 1

well

fault

Fig. 4.6: Reservoir Limit

The limit test is long in duration since the disturbance of pressure has to travel
along the reservoir until reach the boundary of the reservoir or some
impermeable obstacle in the reservoir such as fault, drastic change (drop) in
permeability and porosity, facies variation.

Since this disturbance travels during pressure draw-down it is necessary that the
well stay in production at a stabilized rate for this reason are necessary surface
equipments for proper disposal of the fluid produced, oil, gas and water (if any).

40
The limit test records the return of the pressure disturb in the same well, which
has generated the disturb. Actually the waves of the pressure disturb are
reflected by the boundary and returns to the flowing well, where a pressure
gauge is installed.

Interference test (areal, vertical, pulse)

The interference test between two wells is used to estimate the transmissibility
(kh/µ) of the formation in the interval between the wells. A pressure change is
created at the active well by opening up the well, and a pressure gauge in the
closed-in observation well awaits a pressure response, the arrival time of which
can be used to estimate transmissibility.

Fig. 4.7: Interference test

It is a test usually done in a field already developed. So are not necessary

surface equipments for the disposal of the fluids produced since the development
already provide means to convey the production towards the production centre.

The interference test is done to analyze if the reservoir has a certain continuity in
its areal extension (Areal Interference Test).

Fig. 4.8: Areal Interference test

41
The procedure is to keep only one well in production and all the other wells
closed. Among the closed wells is chosen one, practically far from the producing
well, on which the pressure is monitor at the bottom hole with a pressure gauge
descended with wireline.

The active well under production generates a pressure disturb (draw-down) which
travel in the reservoir and reaches the observation well. If the observation well
records a certain pressure drop after a certain time, this time can be also long of
days and even weeks, the reservoir has continuity between the two wells.

Instead if in the observation well will not be recorded any pressure drop , even
after a very long time, the reservoir is not connected between the two wells.
Between the two wells there is an heterogeneity: i.e. a fault or a facies variation.

Other interference test is the Vertical Interference Test, as depicted below:

Fig. 4.9: Vertical Interference Test

The layer 1 is put on production with q, while the layer 2 is shut in, but a pressure
recorder is in front of the layer 2. If this latter gauge record a pressure drop it
means that the two layers are in communication.

Pulse test

The pulse test is a version of the interference test, but attempts to provide
enough information to allow the interpreter to eliminate the effects of noise and
gauge drift in pressures (to which the interference test is prone) as measured at
the observation well. It determine the transmissibility (kh/µ).

This method is an effective alternative to the conventional interference test.

42
A sequence of relatively short flow (production or injection) and shut-in periods is
applied to the active well.

The rate and the duration of the each flow are the same. Also the shut in periods
have the same duration, but not necessarily the same as the flow periods.

Three or four pulses are generally enough to analyse the pressure response at
the observation well.

This sequence generates a pulsing pressure response at the observation well,

which is analyzed in terms of amplitude and time lag. The measured parameters
are compared to the theoretical simulated responses and, as a result, the
average permeability and other parameters are estimated.

Even if they are more difficult to interpret, pulse tests should be preferred
because the oscillating response is easier to identify in a noisy reservoir
environment (field under production).

Fig. 4.10: Pulse test

Injection test

Injection well testing has its application in water injection wells for pressure
maintenance as well as in water disposal wells.

The main targets of this test are:

 infectivity index of the well;

Injection well testing involves the following methods :

43
1. Step rate test: these tests are specifically made to evaluate the pressure at
which fracturing could be induced in the reservoir rock. A series of injection
test rates are applied to the well.

The rate should be constant during each step; the observed pressure is
plotted versus rate. If fracturing conditions have been reached, two
different straight lines are present and their intersection defines the
fracturing pressure.

2. Injectivity/falloff test: in this test, a constant flow rate is injected into the well
while the downhole pressure is recorded at the sandface. Then the well is
shut-in for a final falloff.

The interpretation of such a test would be similar to a conventional

production test provided that physical properties (viscosity, density, etc.) of
the injected fluid and those of the reservoir fluid are compatible. This would
be the case when water is injected into an aquifer. As a result, standard
well testing objectives can be easily achieved including heterogeneities
and/or permeability boundaries if investigated.

However, because the properties of the injected fluid are usually different from
those of the actual reservoir fluids, the interpretation of the injection/falloff tests is
much more complex than the interpretation of a conventional injection test.

Moreover the pressure behaviour during the injection phase is different from the
observed one during the falloff.

Injection Phase

During the injection period the flooded region increases in time and a “movable
front“ exists in the reservoir.

The evaluation of the skin from injection tests is difficult to interpret because the
total (or apparent) skin is made of two components: the conventional well skin
and the two-phase skin. As a consequence, a proper interpretation of the
injection phase can only be performed with advanced tools (i.e numerical
simulator) provided that the two-phase relative permeability curves are available.

Artificial fractures potentially induced during the injection phase represent another
important factor that heavily complicate the interpretation. To avoid fracture
induction, it is strongly recommended to inject fluid into the reservoir in “matrix
conditions”.

44
 Falloff phase

Due to the different pressure response during injection and falloff, the principle of
superposition is, in theory, not applicable. In practice, it has been noticed that,
when a Radial Composite model with stationary front is used, no significant error
is introduced.

As a result, the following main targets can be achieved with the usual approach:

The derivative response describes the change of saturation in the transition zone
separating the inner water region and the uncontaminated, outer oil region.

However, in practice, due to wellbore storage effects the response of the inner region is
generally masked. Therefore, only the permeability of the outer oil region and the total
skin can be evaluated.

45
5.0 GENERAL FLOW DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION IN POROUS SYSTEMS

5.1 Effect Of Hydraulic Diffusivity In Reservoir Behaviour

There are various type of hydraulic flows, linear, radial and spherical, as
depicted below:

Fig. 5.1: Hydraulic Flows

We consider the horizontal radial flow of a single phase fluid moving to centre to
the wellbore.

The assumption to be done are :

 the formation is homogeneous and isotropic

 the central well is perforated across the entire formation thickness

 the pore spare is entirely saturated with the fluid.

Darcy Law

In a porous medium the linear flow rate, Q, of a fluid is proportional to the ΔP

applied to the medium to the section A and inversely proportional to the fluid
viscosity μ and to the length of the medium L.

The overall constant of proportionality is K, that is the permeability.

46
Where. All unit are in the so called Darcy units :

 Q = fluid rate, cm3/sec

 K = permeability, Darcy

 A = area, cm2

 ΔP = differential pressure, Pe – Pw, atm

 μ = fluid viscosity, centpoise

 L = length, cm

 h = thickness, cm

 re = drainage radius, cm

 rw = wellbore radius, cm

 Ln = natural logaritmic

In case the flow is radial the Darcy formula, with the same above units, will
change as follows:

47
 Fig. 5.2 : Darcy low in case of Radial flow

q re p q
From Darcy law we have : p  ln(  and r  .
2 kh rw r 2 kh

Te equation of mass continuity for radial flow is the following:

Where:

 q = fluid rate, cm3/sec

 k = permeability, Darcy

 ρ = fluid density, gr/cm3

 μ = fluid viscosity, centpoise

 Φ = medium porosity, dimensionless

 r = drainage radius, cm

 t = time in sec

The combination of the radial flow equation of Darcy with the mass continuity
equation gives the Radial Flow Diffusivity Equation, as follows (in oil field units):

1   p  φ μ c p
 r  =
r r  r  0.000264 k t

Which is a second order differential equation with the variables: pressure p, the
radius r, and the time t.

All parameters of the above diffusivity equation are in oil field units, as follows:

 k = permeability, mD

 r = radius, feet

 dp = differential pressure, psia

 μ = fluid viscosity, centpoise

 dt = differential time, hours

 Φ = porosity, dimensionless

48
Unfortunately the diffusivity equation is non linear since, μ, c, Φ, k and also ρ are
dependent from the pressure. Because of this complication it is not possible to
determine direct analytical solutions for use in well test analysis.

But if we assume :

 μ, c, Φ, k and also ρ independent from the pressure;

 a pressure gradient dp/dr small

 a single fluid flow with small and constant compressibility c.

The radial diffusivity equation of above can be accepted.

The reciprocal of the coefficient on the right hand is k/Φμc is the hydraulic
diffusivity constant, which plays a major role in the in the whole reservoir
engineering discipline.

In the context of well testing, the higher is k/Φμc, the greater is the depth of the
investigation by pressure analysis in the reservoir.

The solution of the above equation by means of the Ei(x) function gives for the
oil field units the following equation of flowing pressure at the wellbore for an
infinite reservoir with a constant production q:

162.6 q μ B  kt 
p wf = pi - log - 3.23 
kh  φμcrw 2 

Where :

pwf = flowing pressure in the wellbore at any time t, in psi

pi = initial reservoir pressure in psi

q = oil rate in s.t. barrel per day

B = oil formation volume factor, dimensionless

k = formation permeability in milliDarcy (mD)

h = formation thickness in feet

Φ = formation porosity, dimensionless

μ = viscosity of the oil in cent poise (cp)

49
c = oil compressibility or overall compressibility, c = coSo + cwSw +cf, in 1/psi

rw = wellbore radius in feet

Fig. 5.3: Flowing Pressure at the Reservoir

This solution can be represented with an hydraulic circular simulation as depicted

below:

Tab. 5.1: Infinite Reservoir - 1

Since this hydraulic circular simulation is equivalent to an infinite reservoir with

constant external pressure and constant q rate, with the only slightly difference
that the pwf at wellbore in the infinite reservoir diminisnes very gently with time
(with log(t)).

50
 Tab. 5.2: Infinite Reservoir - 2

The plot of pwf vs time in hours is the following:

Pwf vs Time - ideal and infinite oil reservoir

3000
Flowing Pressure at the wellbore (Pwf) in psi

2900

2800

2700

2600

2500

2400
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73
Time in hours

Fig. 5.4 : Pwf vs Time in Hours – Ideal and Infinite Oil Reservoir

The same plot with the time in months is the following:

51
 Pwf vs Time in month

3000

2900

2800
Pwf, psi

2700

2600

2500

2400
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
time in months

Fig. 5.5: Pwf vs Time in Month

The same plot with the time in years is the following:

Pwf vs Time in years

3000

2900

2800
Pwf, psi

2700

2600

2500

2400
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72

time in years

Fig. 5.6: Pwf vs Time in Years

52
The three plot indicate the following.

 the flowing pressure at the well bore pwf, being the reservoir infinite and
producing at all time at constant q rate, never reaches the zero value,
even after 72 years;

 the value of the pwf diminishes very rapidly at the opening of the well
(transient flow);

 the value of the pwf continue to gently diminishe , after the transient flow,
and enters into the steady state flow, which is proportional to log(t)..

53
6.0 FLOW CONDITIONS

6.1 Well Transient Testing And Analysis

During the initial pressure decline at the wellbore , the pressure recording is
totally unaffected by the presence of any faults or boundaries in the reservoir. In
this respect the system appears to be infinite in extent.

Up to the transient period estimated in t (hours) as follows:

φ μ c re 2
t
0.00264k

Where :

 k = formation permeability in mill Darcy (mD)

 Φ = formation porosity

 μ = viscosity of the oil in cent poise (cp)

 c = oil compressibility or overall compressibility, c = coSo + cwSw +cf, in

1/psi

 re = reservoir external radius in feet

 t = time since the well has been open with the rate q, in hours

Larger the diffusivity constant k/Φμc the sooner discontinuity in the reservoir will
influence the wellbore pressure and the therefore the period of transience will be
short.

Conversely, in very low permeability reservoirs, the transient phase may extend
for months rather than hours.

Any pressure disturbance caused in the reservoir, such as opening a well to flow,
closing it in or even changing its rate will induce a transient pressure response,
identification and isolation of which permits the engineer to apply the simple
transient solution of the diffusivity equation to the pressure–time record to
calculate the permeability and skin factor of the formation under test.

The diffusivity equation for the determination of pwf in the transient time is still
the same of the infinite reservoir:

54
 162.6 q μ B  kt 
p wf = pi - log - 3.23 
kh  φμcrw 2 

In the transient flow both the infinite and limited reservoir have the same
pressure behaviour as shown in the following figure:

Fig. 6.1: Limited Reservoir-Pressure drawdown

A semi-steady state in a circular bounded reservoir can be reached in time

(hours) equal or greater than .

φ μ c re 2
t
0.00088k

Where :

 k = formation permeability in mill Darcy (mD)

 Φ = formation porosity

 μ = viscosity of the oil in cent poise (cp)

 c = oil compressibility or overall compressibility, c = coSo + cwSw +cf, in

1/psi

55
  re = reservoir external radius in feet

 t = time since the well has been open with the rate q, in hours

The periods of transient and steady state should be anticipated when testing an
appraisal well.

The condition of steady state should hopefully not to be encountered in appraisal

well testing for it implies that all the outer boundaries are influencing the pressure
in the wellbore and this results in a stable rate of pressure decline throughout the
system.

If this observed, dpwf / dt = constant, during a well testing it means that the
reservoir is small and so the calculated OOIP.

Fig. 6.2: Bounded /limited reservoir

In the bounded reservoir , circular finite with a radius re, the hydraulic similitude
is the following:

56
 Fig. 6.3: Bounded Reservoir Hydraulic Similitude

We can notice that pressure at the wellbore continuously decrease and so the
rate q, furthermore the pi also decreases.

But there is something similar with the infinite reservoir: the same pressure
behaviour at the beginning of the flow (transient flow) before the pressure
disturbance reach the boundary of the reservoir.

6.2 Steady State Flow Regime

The steady state flow regime happens only in an infinite reservoir and the pwf is
proportional to

the logarithm of time. This means that Pwf declines in infinitesimal way with time
since approximately Pwf is equal to (Pi –m log(t)). Being m a constant of the
formation.

57
Fig. 6.4: Comparison: infinite and limited reservoir for pressure drawdown

58
7.0 GAS TESTS

7.1 Concepts of pseudo-pressure function m(p) with respect to P and P

approach

The Darcy's law, and the gas equation of state must be combined to develop a
differential equation for the flow of gas through porous media.

1. Darcy's law for flow in a porous circular medium is:

2πhk δp
q=
μ δr

2.The mass conservation equation is :

q ρ = qsc ρsc
where :

q = gas rate in reservoir

qsc = gas rate on surface at the standard condition (sc) :

psc=14.7 psi

Tsc = 520°R

ρ and ρsc = gas density at reservoir and standard conditions

μ = gas viscosity

3. The equation of state for a real gas is :

pM
ρ=
zRT

The combination of the three above equations and the integrals from wellbore
pressure pw to the reservoir pressure ¯p and from the wellbore radius, rw to the
drainage radius, re, give the below equation:

59
The integration of the above equation gives the following result:

 kh T  pe 2 -pw 2 
sc

qsc=
 re 
μg z T ln  
 rw 

In oil field units the above gas rate at standard conditions, qsc, will be :

0.000305 kh  pe 2 -pw 2 
(a) qsc=
 re 
μg z T log  
 rw 

Where :

 qsc = Mscf/d

 k= permeability in mD

 h = formation thickness in feet

 pe = reservoir pressure, psia

 pw = well bore pressure, psia

 Tsc = Temperature at standard condition = 520 °R

 T = reservoir temperature, °R

 re = drainage radius, ft

 rw = well bore radius, ft

 z = average compressibility factor, dimensionless

 μg = gas viscosity, cP.

The above gas flow rate (a) at sc is proportional to the pseudo-pressure function
m(p), defined in 1966 by Al-Hussainy:

pavg
p
m  p  =2  dp
pw
z μg

where :

60
  m(p) = pseudo-pressure of real gas

 z = gas compressibility factor

 μg = gas viscosity

 p = pressure

The gas flow rate at sc (equation (a)) in terms of pseudo-pressure function m(p)
becomes the following:

0.000305 kh m(p)e-m(p)w  

(b) qsc =
T log  r e 

 rw 

Where :

 qsc = Mscf/d

 k= permeability in mD

 h = formation thickness in feet

 T = reservoir temperature, °R

 re = drainage radius, ft

 rw = well bore radius, ft

 m(p)e = pseudo-pressure function in MM psi2/cp for the external reservoir

pressure.

 m(p)w = pseudo-pressure function in MM psi2/cp for the wellbore

pressure.

For a typical natural gas at constant temperature we have that the product μz is
constant for values of wellbore pressure less then 2000 psia and this product μz
is linear with wellbore pressure for values of pressure greater than 3000 psia.
See graph below:

61
 Fig. 7.1: Isothermal variation of µ Z vs pressure in linear scale

This implies, being μz a costant, that the equation (b), for value of pressure less
than 2000 psia, is exactly equal to the equation (a).

pw
p
m  p  =2  z μg dp = (p w
2
–po2) / (μ z)
p0

For value greater than 3000 psia the equation (b) has that p/μz is almost constant
since the product of μz is linear with the pressure.

Therefore, when the pressure is higher than 3000 psia the pseudo-pressure m(p)
becomes :

pw pw
p
m  p  =2
p

po
z μg
dp = 2
μz po
dp = (pw - po) x constant

Thus:

 Below 2000 psia, either the p2 approach or the m(p) approach can be
used (usually engineers use the p2 because is more easy).

 Above 3000 psia, the m(p) function can be substituted with the linear p.

62
  High-pressure gas wells behaves like a slightly compressible fluid, and
therefore the pressure data, can be used directly in linear mode i.e.
without being squared.

 Between 2000 psi and 3000 psia, no simplification is available, and the
m(p) function must be used.

The two limits of validity of the simplified forms ( p<2000 psia and p>3000 psia)
are approximate, and depend upon the gas composition and temperature.

When the m(p) function can be estimated with a computer program, the pseudo-
pressure m(p) is preferably used for the complete range of test pressure.

However, the practical engineers prefers to see the analysis in real pressure or
even in pressure squared, rather than m(p) values.

Example

Given the following data:

p µ z
(psia) (cp) dimensionless
400 0,0143 0,9733
800 0,0149 0,9503
1200 0,0150 0,9319
1600 0,0151 0,9189
2000 0,0155 0,9100
2400 0,0160 0,9113
2800 0,0180 0,9169
2970 0,0190 0,919
3500 0,0232 0,9445
4000 0,0246 0,9647

It is possible to compute the m(p) function as follows:

63
 p µ z µz p/(µz) m(p)
2
(psia) (cp) dimensionless cp psi/cp (MM psi /cp)
400 0,0143 0,9733 0,014 28.665 11,47
800 0,0149 0,9503 0,014 56.378 45,48
1200 0,0150 0,9319 0,014 85.846 102,4
1600 0,0151 0,9189 0,014 115.312 182,8
2000 0,0155 0,9100 0,014 141.794 285,7
2400 0,0160 0,9113 0,015 164.600 408,2
2800 0,0180 0,9169 0,017 169.654 541,9
2970 0,0190 0,919 0,017 170.093 599,7
3500 0,0232 0,9445 0,022 160.065 774,7
4000 0,0246 0,9647 0,024 168.689 939,1

Tab. 7.1: m(p) pseudo pressure

The above m(p) is actually calculated as follows.

Tab. 7.3: m(p) calculation

From the table above it can be noted that the product μz is constant up to 2000
psia, so the m(p) can be computed directly with the p2 approach up to the
pressure of 2000 psia.

After the 2000 psia the function m(p) must be used.

After the 3000 psi the linear p could be used, by considering the p/μz product
constant.

64
8.0 WELL DELIVERABILITY IN BOTH OIL & GAS WELLS

8.1 Productivity Index In Oil Well (Pi )

The definition of the Productivity Index (PI) of an oil well is the ratio between the
oil rate, q, at stock tank condition (60°F and 14.7 psi) and the delta pressure at
the bottom hole in front the perforation.

The ΔP is the difference between the static pressure of the well, pws and the
actual flowing pressure, pwf, in the wellbore for generating the oil rate q.

q q
PI  
p pws - pwf

Where :

 pwf = flowing pressure in the wellbore stabilized , in psi

 pws = static reservoir pressure, measured in the wellbore with a pressure

buildup in psi

 q = oil rate in s.t. barrel per day

 PI = stb/psi

Example

A well produces 1000 stb/d with a pws of 3000 psi and a flowing pressure at the
bottom hole of 2500 psi, then the PI is equal to 4.0 stb/d/psi.

But if the pwf was equal to 2800 psi the PI is equal to 10.0 stb/d/psi.

Greater is the PI better is the well for the oil production rate. For example a well
with PI of 10.0 can produce oil rate equal to:

q = PI x Δp = 10.0 x Δp

if the Δp, induced by the operator to the bottom hole, is equal to 200 psi the well
will produce 2000 stb/dand, if the operator induces a Δp of 500 psi the well will
produce 5000 stb/d.

To determine the PI of a well at least two drawdown with relatives pwf pressure
and oil rate are necessary. Plus two buildup to establish properly the static well
pressure.

65
8.2 Productivity Index (Pi) In Oil Well (Pseudo-Steady Conditions)

The PI equation of the previous paragraph is in transient conditions, since is

determined during well test of short duration.

The PI can be determined in semi-steady conditions or pseudo-steady state if all

the parameters q, pwf, etc have been taken after a long time, when the semi-
steady state has been reached.

This will happen after the time in hours equal to:

φ μ c re 2
t
0.00088k

The estimation of this time implies the knowledge of the external radius of the
reservoir, re (feet).

8.3 The Inflow Performance Relation (IPR Curve)–Well Deliverability

The PI is constant for pwf not too far from the pws, afterwards tends to decline
because the pressure in the well goes under the bubble point value with gas
liberation.

The PI method assumes that all future production rate changes will be in the
same proportion to the pressure drawdown as was the test case.

This may not always be true, especially in a solution gas drive reservoir
producing below the bubble point pressure.

The bubble point pressure is the condition of temperature and pressure where
free gas first comes out of solution in the oil.

When the pressure in the formation drops below the bubble point pressure, gas is
released in the reservoir and the resulting two phase flow of gas and oil around
the wellbore can cause a reduction in the well productivity.

Typical IPR curve, well deliverability, that is the plot of various pwf vs the oil rate
Q, is as follows:

66
 Fig. 8.2: Inflow performance relationship (IPR)

From above curve it can be noted the non linearity of the IPR for pwf low and
below the bubble point pressure.

PI will no longer be constant and will start to deviate (decrease) after bubble point
pressure.

The closer the reservoir pressure will be to Pb, the earlier the deviation from the
straight line will occur and production decrease will be consistent; this is due to
the larger quantity of gas flowing, together with oil, in the formation, and to the
turbulence effect.

Oil viscosity will consequently decrease, while loosing its associated gas, further
turbulence will occur; then Inflow Performance curve will be more like a curve
than a straight line.

In the following figure there are two kind of reservoirs , reservoir 1 has the bubble
point pressure far from the initial pressure of the reservoir, while reservoir 2 has
the pb very close to the pi. The IPR curve is good for reservoir 1 while is ba d for
reservoir 2.

67
 Fig. 8.3: IPR Comparison

8.4 Vogel Formula

Vogel has developed a formula useful for drawing the IPR curve from he bubble
point pressure to zero pressure value. This because the portion of the curve from
the static pressure to the bubble point curve is linear.

The Vogel formula, to draw the IPR curve from pb to p atmospheric is the
following:

2
q pwf  pwf 
 1.0  0.2   
qmax pb  pb 

Where :

 pwf = flowing pressure in the wellbore in psi

 pb = bubble point pressure in the weelbore, psi

 q = oil rate in s.t. barrel per day

 qmax = represents the maximum oil rate obtainable from the well in a
theoretical case where the formation could be brought directly to the
atmosphere from its depth and put on production at the atmospheric
pressure.

Note: the above formula is valid for a reservoir with a static pressure already next
to the bubble point pressure , so pws = pb.

68
Example

A well has been tested with q = 65 bpd and pwf = 1500 psi, we know from PVT
analysis that the bubble point pressure is equal to pb = 2000 psi.

Furthermore the static pressure of the well is next already to the bubble point
pressure.

From the Vogel formula is possible to determine the qmax.

Infact : 65/qmax = 0.40 from which qmax = 162.5 bpd.

Knowing qmax from the Vogel formula we can determine all the other value of q for
each pwf and so drawing the IPR curve from pb to downward, which is not linear,
as follows:

2500
pwf, psi

2000

1500

1000

500
q, bpd
0
160,0 140,0 120,0 100,0 80,0 60,0 40,0 20,0 0,0

Fig. 8.4: Non linear IPR curve

8.5 Oil Rate For A Damaged Well (Skin Factor, S)

In case the well is damaged, so the skin factor , S, is greater than 0, the
computation of the oil rate can be done with the following adapted Darcy formula
per radial flow in a porous media:

7.08 x 10-3 k h  Ps-Pwf 

Q=
μ B  ln (re/rw   0.75  S 
Where :

69
  Q = oil rate in s.t. barrel per day

 Pwf = flowing pressure in the wellbore stabilized , psi

 Ps = static reservoir pressure, psi

 K = permeability, mD

 μ = fluid viscosity, cent poise

 h = thickness, feet

 re = drainage radius, feet

 rw = wellbore radius, feet

 ln = natural logarithmic

 B= oil formation volume factor, dimensionless

 S = skin factor , dimensionless

8.6 Examples Of IPR Curves

1-IPR curve changes for different skin factors, S. The IPR, as the damage
increases (S = 0; S= 10; S= 50), worsens in quality:

Fig. 8.5: IPR Curve – Skin factor S variation

70
 2-IPR curve changes for different permeability k. The IPR, as the permeability
decreases (k = 10 mD; k= 5 mD; k= 1 mD), worsens in quality:

Fig. 8.6: IPR Curve – Permeability, k, variation

3-IPR curve changes for different thickness h. The IPR, as the thickness
decreases (h = 100 ft; k= 10 ft; k= 1 ft) worsens in quality:

Fig. 8.7: IPR Curve – Formation thickness, h, variation

71
4-IPR curve changes during the depletion of the reservoir (i.e.Ps decreases from
300 atm to 200 and then to 100 with the time life) The IPR, as the depletion
evolves , worsens in quality:

Fig. 8.8: IPR Curve – Progressive Depletion with time

5-IPR curve changes before and after a stimulation job. The stimulation job
improves the IPR curve:

72
Fig. 8.9: Well Head flowing pressure, WFTHP Vs flow rate; IPR before and after
stimulation

8.7 Tubing Outflow Curves

The pressure losses in the tubing from the bottom hole up to the surface are
given by the following equation:

FBHP – FWHP = (Hydrostatic pressure exerted by the fluid) + ( Tubing friction

losses)

f ρ Q2 L
FBHP - FWHP = Lρ +
D5

Where:

 FBHP = Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure

 FWHP = Flowing Well Head Pressure

 L = tubing length

 D = tubing diameter

 f = tubing friction coefficient

 ρ= fluid density

The following figure clarifies the tubing configuration. The FWHP, usually is
almost defined since the surface facilities must work at certain pressure (being
this pressure the downstream pressure after the choke).

For a stabilized oil rate it is necessary that the upstream pressure to the choke be
twice or more than downstream pressure. Therefore the FWHP is quite a known
and well established parameter.

73
 Fig. 8.10: Surface equipments configuration

Typical outflow performance curves for a tubing string with various diameter D
(1”, 2.5” and 4”) and for a given fixed FWHP is the following:

Fig. 8.11: Outflow Performance Curves for tubing with various diameters, D

8.8 Operating Point Of The Two Systems, Reservoir And Tubing

The two systems have the following inflow and outflow curves:

74
 Fig. 8.12: Inflow and Outflow Curves

The operating point, also equilibrium point, will be given by the intersection of the
two curves, as follows:

Fig. 8.13: Operation Point

8.9 Flow Equation In A Gas Well (Transient Conditions)

The rigorous approach to evaluate the deliverability for gas wells relies on the
pseudo-pressure function m(p).

p
p
m  p  =2  z μ dp
po

Where :

75
  m(p) = pseudo-pressure of real gas (concept introduced by Al-Hussainy

 z = gas compressibility factor

 μ = gas viscosity

 p = pressure

Then the flow equation for a gas well with the pseudo-pressure approach (the
m(p) function) should be :

Δm(p) = Aq + Bq2

However for practical purposes, the difference of the square pressure Δ(p2) is
generally preferred (being : Δ(p2) = pws2 - pwf2 ), the flow equation for the gas
flow in a porous media is proportional to the gas rate q for the laminar flow and to
the square of q2 for the turbulent flow, as follows.

Gas Well deliverability equation in transient state:

Δ(p2) = Aq +Bq2

But the laminar flow in the formation not damaged is: A‟q = m x n and the
turbulent flow in the formation not damaged is B‟ q2.

Then we should add the laminar flow in the formation damaged (As q) , and the
turbulent flow in the formation damaged (Bs q2).

Therefore the above equation becomes in broad sense:

Δ(p2) = (A‟ + As)q +(B‟+Bs)q2

Where (see also next chapter to understand the symbols):

 A‟ q= squared pressure drop of the linear flow in the formation not

damaged;

A‟ = m x n/q.

 Asq = squared pressure drop of the linear flow in the formation

damaged (skin effect); but As is unknown.

 B‟ q2= squared pressure drop of the turbulent flow in the formation not
damaged.

76
 4.7 x10 -10  ND  m K
 B‟ = in American units
h  rw q

 Bs q2 = squared pressure drop of the turbulent flow in the formation

damaged by skin effect ; but Bs is unknown.

To determine A‟ , As, B‟ , Bs is necessary to have a full well testing interpretation,

but in case we have two flow rates of gas and two flowing pressures as shown in
figure below:

Fig. 8.14: : Gas deliverability well test with two rates and two buildups

where:

 q1 and q2 are different ;

 Kh of the two buildup are equal i.e. m1/q1 = m2/q2.

 the two rates and the two buildup must be done sequentially or with time
interval very narrow;

 the two pseudo times of flowing to be equal to1 = to2; i.e. Gp1/q1 = Gp2/q2

Therefore we have two flow equations with two rates q 1 and q2, and relative
pressures constituting a system with two unknowns A and B:

we can determine A and B , which must be always positive, from the system of
two equations as follows:

77
Example

Tab. 8.1: Gas flow equation calculation

The gas flow equation Δ(p2) = Aq +Bq2 represented in log-log scale is linear as
follows:

Fig. 8.15: Diagram of Gas Flow Equation in log-log scale

7.10 Absolute Open Flow (AOF)

The gas well if is left to flow at the atmospheric pressure, will produce the
maximum flow rate, since the counter pressure is the minimum vailable in nature.

78
This condition does not exist since the flow equation of the gas has been
determined at the bottom hole, but ideally if the reservoir could be brought on
surface the maximum gas rate in direct flow into the atmosphere will be reached.

From the formula, Δ(p2) = Aq +Bq2 , the AOF can be derived by putting in the :

Δ(p2) = pws2 - pwf2

pwf = atmospheric pressure, i.e. equal to 14.7 psi.

But it is not easy to solve the equation Δ(p2) = Aq +Bq2 for q .

To find the AOQ it is easy to use the log-log diagram and find for

Δ(p2) = pws2 - 14.72

in the linear curve the corresponding value of q, which is the AOF.

The above example gives Δ(p2) = 50002 - 14.72 = 24,999,784 psi2, by entering
with this value in the diagram we find AOF =4.24 MScf/d

4.24

Fig. 8.16: AOF determination

8.11 Flow Equation In A Gas Well (Pseudo-Steady Conditions)

79
The flow equation in transient conditions : Δ(p2) = Aq +Bq2 can be applied in
pseudo-steady state if all the parameters q, pwf, etc have been taken after a long
time, when the semi-stedy state or pseudo steadi state has been reached.

This will appen after the time in hours equal to:

φ μ c re 2
t
0.00088k

The estimation of this time implies the knowledge of the external radius of the
reservoir, re (feet).

7.12 Gas Back Pressure Curve (Mainly For Well Head Flow)

Another gas flow equation beyond the Δ(p2) = Aq +Bq2 named the empirical
relationship by Rowlins-Schellardt is the Back-Pressure Equation:

qgas = C (Δp2) n

Where:

 q = gas rate

 C = Constant to be determined by production test

 n= flow coefficient depending on flow type, laminar, intermediate and

turbulent

 Δ(p2) = pws2 - pwf2

This equation can be used mainly for the well head pressure.

This equation to be determined needs a Back Pressure Test with two gas rates
and relative well head pressures (static and flowing).

 n , flow coefficient, n = 1 : is an indication of laminar flow

 n =< 0.5 : is an indication of turbulent flow.

 0.5 <n < 1 : is an indication of intermediate flow between laminar and

turbulent.

The above equation in log-log scale is a straight line : logq = logC + n log Δp2.

80
With two flow rates q1 and q2 and two flowing pressures pwf1 and pwf2, by having
always the same static pressure pws , that can be done even in the transient time
it is possible to determine the C and n values of the back pressure equation.

q1
C
(  (P 2 )1 ) n

(log q 2 - log q 1)
n
(log ( p 2 ) 2 - log (p 2 )1 )

Example

Tab. 8.2: Back pressure equation calculation

From the above example it is clear that we can compute the AOF at the bottom
well the same way of the equation Δ(p2) = Aq +Bq2.

The flow in the above example, being n =0.89, is intermediate between laminar
and turbulent.

81
9.0 DRAWDONW AND BUILD-UP TESTS

9.1 Reservoir Properties Estimate

Geometrical data

rw = well radius

It is the radius of the bit that has drilled the producing formation. This is valid both
in the case of cased hole and open hole wells.

hp = flowing interval

The flowing interval shall coincide with the lenght of the perforated interval in
cased hole or with the formation thickness in open-hole wells.

If several perforated intervals are open to production, the distance between the
top of the first perforated interval and the bottom of the last one is considered.

However, if direct well information is available, the actual flowing thickness shall
be used.

Lh = horizontal length

In horizontal wells it defines the horizontal length drilled in the producing

formation.

The whole length of the perforated portion shall be used for cased hole wells. If
several perforated intervals are open to production, the distance measured
between the first perforated interval and the last one will be considered.

The whole open hole length will be used in the case of open hole wells.

D = distance between the wells

Distance between the producer and the observation well. It is used only in the
case of interference tests.

Petrophysical data

When defining petrophysical parameters, it is important to stress that, though

evaluated at the well, they are considered as average reservoir values.

The hypothesis of homogeneous formation might be in contrast with the actual

reservoir characteristics. Only numerical models allow the discretisation of the

82
reservoir volume into blocks, to which specific values of petrophysical parameters
and saturations can be assigned.

Only large scale reservoir heterogeneities can be taken into account in both
analytical and 2-D numerical models.

Φt = porosity (%)

Total (communicating) porosity of the producing formation. In the case of

fractured carbonate formations, total porosity is defined as the sum of primary (or
matrix Øm) and secondary (or fracture Øf) porosity:

Øt = Ø m + Øf

Matrix porosity is generally higher than the fracture one. Fracture porosity is
generally lower than 1.0% of the total porous volume. Depending on the type of
rock, degree of fracturation and fracture spacing the most probable Øf values are
as follows:

 es : 0.01 - 0.5%

 - 1.5%

When the total porosity is greater than 5-6%, as a first approximation, it can be
assumed:

Øt = Ø m

When the test investigates several layers with different petrophysical

characteristics (multilayers) or zones inside the same producing formation, it is
possible to define an “average” porosity value calculated as follows:

Øm = (Ø1 h1 + Ø2 h2 +… +Øn hn) / hTot

The porosity value is evaluated on the basis of the compared analysis of logs and
cores.

hn = net-pay

Net thickness of the producing formation. It is defined as the sum of the single
layer thickness actually contributing to production.

It is evaluated starting from the total reservoir gross thickness „„hGROSS”

considered as the difference between the bottom and the top of the structure.

83
The average net thickness is calculated by multiplying the total vertical thickness
by the net/gross ratio, which is evaluated by the compared analysis of logs and
cores.

However, when interpreting a test, the total net-pay (orthogonal with respect to
the dip of the formation) must be used. When present, the dynamic response of a
PLT (Production logging tool) represents a further information to characterize the
actual producing pay.

This parameter enables the user to evaluate the effective permeability of the fluid
considered when the kh of the formation is known.

Fluid saturations data

Sw = water saturation (%)

Water saturation of the producing formation. It is evaluated by log analysis. When

the test involves several layers with different petrophysical characteristics
(multilayers with or without cross-flow) or zones inside the same producing
formation, it is possible to define an average water saturation value calculated as
follows:

Swm = (Sw1 Ø1 h1 + Sw2 Ø2 h2 + … + Swn Øn hn) / hTot Øm

where hTot and Øm represent the net total thickness and the average formation
porosity.

So = oil saturation (% )

Oil saturation of the producing formation. It is evaluated by log analysis. As

before, in the case of multilayers formations, an average oil saturation calculated
is calculated:

Som = (So1 Ø1 h1 + So2 Ø2 h2 + … + Son Øn hn) / hTott Øm

Sg = gas saturation (%)

Gas saturation of the producing formation. This case is similar to oil saturation.
i.e.:

Sgm = (Sg1 Ø1 h1 + Sg2 Ø2 h2 + … + Sgn Øn hn) / hTott Øm

When the producing formation is characterized by the co-existence of the three

phases, the following equation must be satisfied:

84
 Sg + So + Sw = 100%

Compressibilities data

Fluid saturations are used to define the total compressibility of the system, i.e.:

Ct = Co So + Cg Sg+ Cw Sw+ Cf

being Co, Cg, Cw the oil, gas and water compressibility, respectively.

These values are evaluated by PVT analyses or by suitable empirical literature

correlations. Cf represents the actual formation compressibility.

For reservoirs with primary or matrix porosity:

Cf = Cfm

where Cfm is the pore volume compressibility by lab measurements.

If no experimental data are available, interpretative softwares directly calculate

the pore compressibility as a function of the matrix porosity (Hall diagram).

In fractured reservoirs with secondary porosity, the formation compressibility

takes into account the contribution of the matrix, fractures and possible
communicating vuggy systems (Karst phenomena):

Cf = Cfm + Φfrac Cfrac +Φv Cv

where:

 fm : matrix pore compressibility

 frac : fracture compressibility in the range 1.0 – 6.0 x 10-4 (kg/cm2)-1

 Cv : vug compressibility

 frac : secondary porosity (fractures)

 v : vuggy porosity (vugs) comprised in the range 0.1 – 3.0 %.

In this case, the total value of the rock compressibility shall be evaluated with
respect to its components and shall be manually introduced into the interpretative
softwares.

All the compressibility values are referred to the average static conditions of
reservoir

85
pressure and temperature.

As a first approximation it can be assumed Cv = 3 Cfm.

PVT data

The evaluation of PVT parameters is always made based on reservoir

bottomhole pressure and temperature:

Reservoir pressure

It defines the average static pressure of the reservoir during the test. When a
remarkable depletion occurs during the test, average PVT parameters are
calculated on the basis of an average pressure value, comprised between the
initial and the final value.

Reservoir temperature

It defines the average reservoir static temperature. It is assumed that reservoir

phenomena are isothermal. As a consequence, the reservoir temperature is
always considered constant.

In the case of gas wells, the average static value shall be considered.

The highest value measured during the test (usually recorded during the
drawdown phases) shall be used for oil wells.

Reference depth

The above defined average static values, as well as all the other pressure and
temperature values recorded during the test, are referred to the depth at which
the gauge is located.

On the other side, all the corresponding PVT parameters must always be referred
to the pressure evaluated at the depth of the middle point of the producing
interval. (Reference depth).

The PVT parameters should be corrected also for the temperature of the middle
point depth. However, the PVT corrections due to temperature variations are
negligible in most practical cases.

The gauge is generally located close to the producing zone and hence the
variation of the PVT parameters is absolutely negligible. When the producing

86
formation has a remarkable thickness (order of magnitude of many hundreds of
meters) there can be significant differences in the PVT.

This is particularly evident in the case of oil bearing formations where it is also
possible to encounter a vertical distribution of the oil physical properties due to
gravitational effects.

Correction of pressure "at well level"

If the actual vertical distribution of the fluids inside the well is not known, the
correction of the reservoir average static pressure at a conventional depth can
generate remarkable errors.

The error is directly proportional to the distance between the measurement point
and the reference depth at which the static pressure and the corresponding PVT
parameters are evaluated.

In these cases, it is recommend to verify the fluid nature and the possible fluid
distribution in the wellbore and to carry out some static profiles, generally at the
end of the final pressure build-up, with numerous steps along the producing
formation.

The knowledge of the parameters (P,T) measured during the static profiles allows
the evaluation of the distribution, nature and density of the different phases in the
well.

Where no information on the real well fluid distribution is available, the pressure
at which the PVT parameters are referred can be calculated according to different
hypotheses (two simple situations are generally considered):

1. Single phase oil: it is assumed that the fluid is single phase oil from the
measurement point to the reference depth. Based on the average oil
gradient γo (kg/cm2/m) and on the difference Δh (m) between the
reference and the gauge depths the reference pressure Pr is calculated as
follows:

Pr (kg/cm2) = Pgauge + γo Δh

2. Single phase gas: assuming that the fluid is dry gas and based on the
average gas gradient the reference pressure Pr is calculated as follows:

Pr (kg/cm2) = Pgauge + γg Δh

87
A significant control on field data and particularly on the nature of the produced
fluids can be useful to support the adopted hypothesis. For example, the
presence of water, also in minimum percentages, found during the flowing
phases can be (but not necessarily) a sign of the presence of liquid levels in the
well. On the contrary, dry flowing phases do not a priori exclude the presence of
liquid levels.

However, the assumptions made to calculate the reference pressure and the
value of the average gradient of the fluid must be expressly mentioned.

Use of PVT reports data (laboratory analysis)

When laboratory fluid analysis are available, the required parameters to be used
in the interpretation can be directly obtained from PVT reports. These parameters
are specific and representative of the reservoir fluids at different pressure and
temperature conditions.

For this reason, they replace any empirical correlation.

The PVT parameters to be used during an interpretation are those obtained in

laboratory tests and particularly:

Oil volume factor, Bo

Considered as the ratio between the measured oil volume at static reservoir
conditions at the time of the test and the corresponding oil volume measured at
Stock Tank conditions (P = 1.033 kg/cm2 , T = 288 °K ).

The oil volume factors at Stock Tank conditions are obtained in laboratory by
flashing a sample at the bubble pressure through Test Separator (Flash
Liberation) .

Between the different tests of pressure separator, the oil volume factor must be
selected on the basis of the field separator data, possibly interpolating laboratory
data.

The correct Boi value at the reservoir pressure must be calculated through the
equation:

Boi (corrected) = Bob (flash) x [ Boi ( diff ) / Bob (diff ) ]

where:

88
  oi (diff ): differential volume factor at reservoir Pi and T

 ob (diff ): differential volume factor at Pb and reservoir T

 ob ( flash ): flash volume factor at Pb ( Separator Test )

The “Differential Liberation” is representative of the phenomena which take place

in the reservoir at a constant temperature and is characterised by gas
development and production due to the progressive pressure depletion.

In contrast, “Flash Liberation” is more consistent with the production process. In

fact the oil (and the possible free gas) is produced from the reservoir at surface
with a gradual decrease of both pressure and temperature.

Then the oil is sent to one more separators in sequence (high and low pressure)
and it is then measured, completely deposited, in storage tanks at atmospheric
pressure. In each separation stage, gas is separated from oil and measured.

Oil viscosity, μo

Oil viscosity at static reservoir conditions at the time of the test. The viscosity
value obtained by a transformation of the type “Differential Liberation" at reservoir
temperature shall be used in the interpretation.

In the case of saturated oil (Pi = Pbubble), the oil viscosity at the saturation
pressure μob shall be used.

Oil compressibility, Co

Oil compressibility at static reservoir conditions at the time of the test. Laboratory
analyses measure the average value of oil compressibility from the initial static
pressure (Coi) to the saturation pressure (Cob) at reservoir temperature. For
pressures lower than Pbubble, taking into account that there are generally no Co
laboratory measurements, the oil compressibility can be preliminarily evaluated
according to the following equation:

Co (P) = Cob x [ Pb/P ] x [ Rs (P)/Rsb]0,5

where:

 o(P): oil compressibility at the pressure P < Pbubble

 ob: oil compressibility at the pressure Pbubble

89
  s(P): laboratory value at the pressure P ("Composite" transformation)

 sb: laboratory value at the pressure Pbubble

The value obtained by the equation is to be considered as a first approximation

since the Specific gravity variations of the gas separating from oil due to
reductions of pressure dp = Pbubble - P and oil density in API degrees are not
taken into account.

The empirical correlation used for the evaluation of the oil compressibility below
the bubble point is the following:

Co = 6,8257 x 10-6 x Rs 0.5002

x P-1 x T 0.76606 x S.G -0.35505 x API 0.3613

where the parameters are expressed in the Oil Field System, except for
temperature T expressed in F degrees.

Use of empirical data from correlations

Field Data

Due to the lack of PVT reports, the reservoir fluid parameters are obtained from
empirical correlations provided by the literature. In any case, field data evaluated
at the surface during the test and presented in the test reports of the Service
Companies are used. The reports provide:

 for gas wells: the average value of the Specific Gravity ( air = 1.0 ) of the
gas mixture at Standard Conditions (P = 1.0 atm, T = 288 °K).

 for oil wells: the oil density expressed in API degrees, the Specific Gravity
of the gas separating from oil and the GOR gas/oil ratio from test at
Standard Conditions. They also include the separation conditions at
different stages. The oil Shrinkage coefficient for converting the
measurements from separator conditions to ST conditions, is also
presented.

In both cases, the field evaluation of the Specific Gas Gravity is referred to the
total gaseous mixture, i.e. the measurement takes specifically into account the
presence of H2S, CO2, N2.

Gas correlations

90
Starting from field data, both the software programmes, Interpret/2003 and
Saphir, directly calculate all the PVT parameters necessary for the test analysis
(z factor, Bg volume factor, Cg compressibility) based on the static reservoir
pressure and temperature and the Specific Gravity by using their internal
correlations.

In the case of laboratory analysis the gas composition shall be directly

introduced.

The Lee- Gonzales - Eakin correlation must be used for the calculation of gas
viscosity.

Condensate correlations

In gas condensate reservoirs, the fluid at reservoir pressure and temperature

conditions is in the gaseous phase. At constant reservoir temperature and after
pressure depletion, the dew point can be reached and the liquid phase can
precipitate (retrograde condensation phenomenon).

During production gas is the dominant phase. The liquid phase which
condensates at the surface is gathered and measured in the test separator. In
the gas condensate test, the GOR has a wide range (from 5000 to 10000
Scf/STb) while the Specific Gravity of the condensate is generally greater than 45
API degrees.

The PVT calculation for tests in condensate gas reservoirs with retrograde
condensation is made by using the average specific gravity SGaverage at initial
reservoir conditions.

From a conceptual point of view, this value is completely different from the one
measured at the surface since its composition varies after the separation of the
liquid component.

The average specific gravity is defined by the relationship ("Applied Petroleum

Reservoir Engineering" - Craft and Hawkins):

SGaverage = (GOR x SGgas + 4584 x SGoil) / (GOR + 132800 x SGoil / Moil)

where:

 GOR : test gas-oil ratio, Scf for Stb of condensate

 SGgas: specific - gravity of the surface gas (air = 1.0)

91
  SGoil: specific - gravity of the surface condensate (water = 1.0)

 Moil : molecular weight of the condensate

where:

 SGoil= 141.5 / (131.5 + APIcond)

 Moil = 6084 / (APIcond - 5.9)

For the evaluation of the PVT parameters (z, Bg, μg), the interpretative softwares
consider the SGaverage value calculated using the internal correlation of Lee-
Gonzales-Eakin.

Oil correlations

The correlation internal to the softwares, Interpret/2003 and Saphir, are deemed
insufficient to cover all the different types of reservoir oils.

The most reliable correlations with the name of the Author, for each physical
property, as a function of the oil API gravity are given in the following table:

Type of API range Bubble Solution Volume Compressibilit

oils pressure, PB gas, RS Factor, BoB y Co

Super < 10 Standing Standing Glaso Vasquez-Beggs

Heavy

Heavy 10<AP<22.3 Standing Vasquez- Vasquez- Vasquez-Beggs

Beggs Beggs

Medium 22.3<API<33.1 Kartoatmodjo Kartoamodjo Kartoamodjo Vasquez-Beggs

Light >33.1 Glaso Kartoamodjo Kartoamodjo Labedi

Tab. 9.1: Oil Properties Correlations

In the above table the evaluation of the oil volume factor Bob is referred to the
reservoir temperature and bubble pressure. Since both programmes
,Interpret/2003 and Saphir, requires the Bo,volume factor at the reservoir average
static pressure at the time of the test, the following relationship shall be used ( P
≥ Pb ):

92
 Bo = Bob x e-Co (Pi - Pb)

where Co represents the oil compressibility at the average reservoir static

conditions.

The oil viscosities under the different conditions have been evaluated through the
following correlations:

93
Type of API range Dead oil Saturated Unsaturated oil
oils viscosity, µod oil viscosity, µo
viscosity,
µob

Super < 10 Egbogah-Jack Kartoatmodjo Labedi

Heavy

Heavy 10<AP<22.3 Egbogah-Jack Kartoatmodjo Kartoatmodjo

Medium 22.3<API<33.1 Kartoatmodjo Kartoatmodjo Labedi

Light >33.1 Egbogah-Jack Beggs- Labedi

Robinson

Tab. 9.2: Viscosity Correlations

where:

 μod: viscosity of the dead oil at the atmospheric pressure and at reservoir
temperature;

 μob : viscosity of the saturated oil at bubble pressure and at reservoir

temperature;

 μo: viscosity of the undersaturated oil at reservoir pressure and

temperature.

The application software "Predator ver. 1.0" ( APSERIIN - 9/94 ) allows the
evaluation of the PVT parameters by automatically selecting the option which
always gives the most reliable correlation.

The parameters obtained are manually introduced into the interpretative software
independently from its internal correlations. In particular, the program requires:
μo, Bo, Co at the average reservoir static conditions at the time of the test. The
Bo value is calculated based on the Bob via equation ,Bo = Bob x e-Co (Pi - Pb) .

Note: The correlations developed by Gorini-Palma, which give both the Bo and μo
curves as a function of pressure and temperature, can be used as an alternative.

94
These correlations shall be introduced into a program already existing in MODI
("Mbal") or developed in an ad hoc application.

Two phase/three phase flow

In addition to the single phase flow condition, there is the possibility of analysing
tests with multiphase flow both at the well (i.e.: flowing pressures lower than Pb
with gas phase development) and in the formation (i.e. gas development, as
mobile phase, in the reservoir where Sg > Sgcritical).

In all cases the PVT calculation imposes the selection of the dominant flow
phase. It is important to underline that the test interpretation will have to be
reviewed afterwards when the PVT data obtained through laboratory analysis are
available.

In fact, as previously stated, the empirical correlations cannot replace laboratory

parameters. An additional further weakness of any correlation is due to the fact
that correlations are based on field measurements affected by uncertainty.

In particular, the GOR evaluation, from which the bubble pressure value Pb and
the oil volume value Bo depend, can be difficult due to the instability of the gas
phase during the flowing periods.

The average error on the measurement is at least 5% in the case when the
surface equipments are perfectly calibrated. The phenomenon is remarkable in
the case of saturated or very volatile oils due to the high gas rates. This results in
large errors in the determination of the other PVT parameters and, as a
consequence, in the evaluation of the results of the interpretation.

Other data from PLT, RFT, MDT, LOGS and Cores

The well test interpretation must be integrated with other information provided by
measurements taken before and/or after the production test. This data allow a
complete validation of the well test results.

The main additional information are obtained by the following tools:

 the real fow profile

vs depth at different rates and the presence of possible cross-flow under
shut n conditions. The PLT is strongly recommended when testing
heterogeneous reservoirs (multi-layer or multi-zone formations, etc...)

95
  RFT (Repeat Formation Test) and MDT (Modular Formation Dinamic
Tester): they are used to collect reservoir fluid samples and to measure
reservoir pressure at different depth along the well profile.


sedimentology, stratigrafy etc. are useful for a correct interpretation
and must be taken into account when available.

 CORES: all the information obtained from lab analyses on cores must be
integrated with other available information for a complete rock
characterization.

9.2 Main Drawdown (Oil Well)

A pressure drawdown test is simply a series of bottom-hole pressure

measurements made during a period of flow at constant production rate.

Usually the well is closed prior to the flow test for a period of time sufficient to
allow the pressure to stabilize throughout the formation, i.e., to reach static
pressure.

The transient flow in the wellbore area has the following limit time, t, in hours:

  rw 2
t
0.000264k

Where :

 k = formation permeability in milli Darcy (mD)

 Φ = formation porosity

 μ = viscosity of the oil in cent poise (cp)

 c = oil compressibility or overall compressibility, c = coSo + cwSw +cf, in

1/psi

 re = reservoir external radius in feet

 t = time since the well has been open with the rate q and has completed
the transient flow , in hours

96
 Fig. 9.1: Flowing times

In the transient flow time the diffusivity equation for an infinite reservoir is still
valid for a finite reservoir; the diffusivity equation is the following :

162.6 q μ B  kt 
p wf = pi - log φμcrw 2 - 3.23 
kh  

Skin Effect, S

In many cases it has been found that the permeability of the formation near the
wellbore is reduced as a result of drilling and completion practices.

Invasion by drilling fluids, dispersion of clays, presence of a mud cake and of

cement , presence of a high gas saturation around the wellbore, partial well
penetration, and plugging of perforations are some of the factors responsible for
this reduction in permeability.

Since this effect is close to the well, transient pressure caused by the damage is
of small duration and may be neglected.

Hence the effect of a reduction in permeability near the well can be taken into
account a san additional pressure drop Δp proportional to the rate of production
q.

The zone of reduced permeability, where the original fluid has beeen
contaminated by the mud, has been called “skin” and the resulting effect “skin
effect”.

97
 Fig. 9.2: Formation damaged by mud filtration

Fig. 9.3:Damaged area near wellbore shows permeability Ks inferior of formation

permeability K.

The skin effect shall be understood as a further pressure drop in the formation
near the wellbore. According to Van Everdingen such a pressure drop can be
estimated with the following equation (oil field unit):

 q 
pskin  141.4 B S
 kh 

Where :

 Δpskin = pressure drop near the wellbore for damaged caused while
drilling, psi

 k = formation permeability in mD

98
  h = formation thickness in feet

 q = oil rate in s.t. barrel per day during the flowing time

 B = oil formation volume factor, dimensionless

 μ = viscosity of the oil in cent poise (cp)

 S = skin factor, dimensionless

Being the slope of the flow equation:

162.6 q μ B
m=
kh

The above Δpskin equation can become the following in oil field units:

pskin  0.87 m S

 q 
By introducing the pskin  141.4 BS in the diffusivity equation :
 kh 
162.6 q μ B  kt 
p = p-
wf i

kh log
 φμcr w
2
- 3.23
 we have the diffusivity equation with skin effect:

162.6 q μ B  kt 
p wf = pi - log - 3.23 +0.87 S
kh  φμcrw 2 

Where :

 pwf = flowing pressure in the wellbore at any time t, in psi

 pi = initial reservoir pressure in psi

 q = oil rate in s.t. barrel per day

 B = oil formation volume factor, dimensionless

 k = formation permeability in milliDarcy (mD)

 h = formation thickness in feet

 Φ = formation porosity, dimensionless

 μ = viscosity of the oil in cent poise (cp)

99
  c = oil compressibility or overall compressibility, c = coSo + cwSw +cf, in
1/psi

 rw = wellbore radius in feet

 t = time since the well has been open with the rate q, in hours

 S= skin factor, dimensionless

Drawdown test interpretation (oil well)

The diffusivity equation for an infinite reservoir still valid for a finite reservoir
(provided to be utilized in the transient time) with the skin effect is re-written as
follows:

162.6 q μ B  k 
p wf = p-
i
log t + log - 3.23 + 0.87 S 
 φμcr 
2
kh w

This equation in semilog scale, pwf vs log t, represents a straight line of the type:

pwf = p1hr + m log t

with intercept p1hr and slope m.

The intercept, p1hr, will happen for log t = 0, which means time, t = 1 hour.

Knowing p1hr at t = 1 hr and then log t=0 from the above formula it is possible to
determine the Skin factor, S, as follows:

pi-p1hr k
S=1.15  -log   +3.23 
m φμcr 2 w

Where :

 S = Skin factor, dimensionless

 pwf = flowing pressure in the wellbore at any time t, in psi

 p1hr = flowing pressure at 1 hour time, psi; or the intercept for log t = 0

 pi = initial reservoir pressure in psi

 k = formation permeability in milliDarcy (mD)

 Φ = formation porosity, dimensionless

100
  μ = viscosity of the oil in cent poise (cp)

 c = oil compressibility or overall compressibility, c = coSo + cwSw +cf, in

1/psi

 rw = wellbore radius in feet

And from the slope m given by :

162.6 q μ B
m=
kh

It is possible to determine the Capacity of the formation, k h, as follows:

162.6 q μ B
k h= = mD x ft
m
Where :

 k = formation permeability in milliDarcy (mD)

 h = formation thickness in feet

 q = oil rate in s.t. barrel per day

 B = oil formation volume factor, dimensionless

 μ = viscosity of the oil in cent poise (cp)

 m = slope in the semilog graph , pwf vs log t

The radius of investigation, ri during the transient time can be estimated with the
following formula:

kt
ri =
848  μ c

Where :

 Ri = radius of investigation at time, t, in feet

 k = formation permeability in milliDarcy (mD)

 h = formation thickness in feet

101
  μ = viscosity of the oil in cent poise (cp)

 Φ = formation porosity, dimensionless

 c = oil compressibility or overall compressibility, c = coSo + cwSw +cf, in

1/psi

Example

A drawdown test has been done on a well. The stabilized oil rate and other
parameters were the following:

Tab. 9.3: Stabilized Oil Rate and Other Parameters

The bottom hole pressure, pwf recordings while the well was flowing at oil rate q
were as per the following graph:
DRAWDOWN TEST

3500

3000

2500

2000
pwf, psi

1500

1000

500

time, hrs
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Fig. 9.4: Drawdown Test

We woul like to determine, kh, h, S and ri of this well.

102
Procedure of solutions:

1. Plot the above data in semilog scale, i.e pwf vs log t:

2. Draw the straight line (red) and compute m and pihr for t = 1hr
DRAWDOWN INTERPRETATION IN semilog scale

1.100 pwf
1.050
1.000
950
900
850
p1hr= 1022 psi
800 m= 142 psi/cycle
750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
logt
50
0
1 10 100

Fig. 9.5: Drawdown interpretation in semilog scale

162.6 q μ B
3. Compute k h = and k :
m

pi-p1hr k
4. Compute Skin factor, S=1.15  -log   +3.23 
m φμcr 2 w

S= 10,1 adim

5. Compute radius on investigation, ri, for the time of the drawdown, almost

80 hours: ri = kt
848  μ c

9.3 Main Build-Up Test (Horner Method) (Oil Well)

103
Pressure buildup testing is the most familiar transient well-testing technique,
which has been used extensively in the petroleum industry.

The test is conducted by producing a well at constant rate for some time, shutting
the well in (usually at the surface), allowing the pressure to build up in the
wellbore, and recording the down-hole pressure in the wellbore as a function of
time.

The pressure buildup test use the principle of superposition. To develop this
principle we shall consider a well which flows at rate q for a fixed time to as
follows:

162.6 q μ B  k to 
p wf = pi - log φμcrw 2 - 3.23 + 0.87 S
kh  

Then the well is closed and we continue we the same equation of above but the
time is to + Δt:

162.6 q μ B  k  to + t  
p ws = pi - log - 3.23 + 0.87 S
kh  φμcrw 2 

This equation by the principle of superposition (see fig below) must be counter
balanced by a negative flow –q from the time to onward (the new shut-in time is
called Δt) as follows :

Fig. 9.6: The principle of superposition

162.6 q μ B  k  to + t   162.6qmB  k t 
p ws = pi - log - 3.23 + 0.87S   log - 3.23  0.87 S 
φμcrw 2   crw 
2
kh   kh

104
The simplification of the above equation gives the following equation for the build-
up test::

162.6 q μ B  t 
p ws =pi + log  
kh  tot 
Where :

 pws = bottom hole well shut in pressure at any time Δt, in psi

 pi = initial reservoir pressure, or static reservoir pressure, in psi

 q = oil rate before closing the well, in s.t. barrel per day, stb/d

 B = oil formation volume factor, dimensionless

 k = formation permeability in milliDarcy (mD)

 h = formation thickness in feet

 μ = viscosity of the oil in cent poise (cp)

 Δt = closing time , after to, in hours.

 to = time since the well has been open with the rate q and then closed, in
hours practically:

(cumulative well production since the opening of the well)

to 
(production rate q, before closing in)

This equation tells us that if we plot the pressure pws observed during a closed-in
period vs logarithm of Δt/(to + Δt) we should obtain a straight line, as follows.

Furthermore we have (see following figure) :

 If Δt/(to + Δt) tends to 1 , that is after an infinite time of closure (Δt = ∞)

log( Δt/(to + Δt)) will be equal to zero, the extrapolation of the pressure plot
will give us the p*, the static pressure of the reservoir.

p* is a check for the depletion of the resrervoir:

if p* is less than pi the reservoir has started its depletion.

105
  The slope of the pressure curve vs log( Δt/(to + Δt)) is equal to:

162.6 q μ B
m=
kh

From wich we derive the Capacity of the formation, k h, as follows:

162.6 q μ B
k h= = mD x ft
m
Where :

 k = formation permeability in milliDarcy (mD)

 h = formation thickness in feet

 q = oil rate in s.t. barrel per day during the flowing time

 B = oil formation volume factor, dimensionless

 μ = viscosity of the oil in cent poise (cp)

 m = slope in the semilog graph , pws vs log( Δt/(to + Δt))

Fig. 9.8: Slope m

We can derive the skin effect from the equation of diffusivity while the well is
closed:

162.6qmB  k t 
p ws = pwf   log - 3.23  0.87 S 
  crw 
2
kh

106
If in this equation if we put Δt = 1 hr, we will have (being logΔt =0) :

 k 
p 1hr - pwf = m log -3.23  0.87 S 
  crw 2


and so the skin factor S:

 p1hr-pwf  k  
S=1.15  -log  2 

+3.23
 m  φμcrw  

Where :

 S = Skin factor, dimensionless

 pwf = flowing pressure in the wellbore before closing the well, in psi

 p1hr = flowing pressure at 1 hour from closing time, psi; to be taken on the
straight line portion of the buildup

 k = formation permeability in milliDarcy (mD)

 Φ = formation porosity, dimensionless

 μ = viscosity of the oil in cent poise (cp)

 c = oil compressibility or overall compressibility, c = coSo + cwSw +cf, in

1/psi

 rw = wellbore radius in feet

 m = slope in the semilog graph , pws vs log( Δt/(to + Δt))

The graph below shows where to take p1hr:

107
 Fig. 9.9: P1hr determination

S is the skin effect around the wellbore, is a number without dimension, to be

determined by the equation above mentioned. In particular we have if:

 S = 0, no skin , no damage around the wellbore, permeability of the skin

a ks is equal to the formation permeability k.

 S > 0, there is formation damage around the wellbore ks<<k,

 S < 0, there is no damage around the wellbore, exceptionally we have i

improvement. That usually happen after a stimulation job, such as
acidizing, fracturing etc. In this case the permeability of the wellbore area
is even better than the permeability of the formation one , k s>k.

S can vary between -5 and 500.

Sometimes a better relative index than the skin effect for deciding upon the
efficiency with which a well has been drilled and completed is provided by the
“Flow Efficiency” (FE), denominated also “Completion Factor” (CF).

The Completion Factor is defined as the ratio of actual Productivity Index, PI,
over the PI ideal, calculated as if there were no skin (S=0).

Completion Factor, CF = PIactual / PIideal = %

Since :

PIactual = q/ΔP = q/(p*-pwf), where sometimes p* = pi

108
and

PIideal = q/(p* - (pwf +Δpskin))

We obtain:

p * - p wf - pskin
Completion Factor , CF  %
p * - p wf

CF should be around 70%-90% to represent a good well with little damage due to
the drilling. If CF is less than 70%, we should improve the flowing around the
wellbore with a stimulation job.

Example of Pressure Buildup Test Interpretation.

An exploration well has flown for 48hrs with an oil rate of 4600 BPD, afterwards
was closed for 38 hours to record the bottom hole pressure buildup.

By knowing all the relevant input parameters such as:

 Φ = formation porosity, dimensionless

 μ = viscosity of the oil in cent poise (cp)

 c = oil compressibility or overall compressibility, c = coSo + cwSw +cf, in

1/psi

 rw = wellbore radius in feet

 B = oil formation volume factor

we must deteminre from the buildup test the followings:

 m = slope of the buildup in psi/cycle

 k h= formation capacity , mD x ft

 k= formation permeability

 p* = static pressure of the reservoir, (sometimes equal to pi), psi

 if p* is less than pi the reservoir has already started the depletion.

 S = skin factor

 FE = flow efficiency

109
The following shows the table of the calculation and the plot of pws vs
log(Δt/(to+Δt)) :

Tab. 9.4: Pressure Buildup Interpretation

PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS

4500
P* =4450
4400

4300

m= 200 psi cycle

P1hr =4090 4200

BHP, psi 4100

4000

3900

3800

3700

3600

3500

3400
1,00E-03 1,00E-02 1,00E-01 1,00E+00
Delta t /(delta t +t)

Fig. 9.10: Pressure Buildup plot (Horner plot)

110
10.0 INTRODUCTION TO TYPE CURVE AND PRESSURE DERIVATIVE
APPROACH

10.1 Type Curve Matching Methods

The diffusivity equation:

162.6 q μ B  kt 
p wf = pi - log - 3.23 +0.87 S 
kh  φμcrw 2 

can be expressed in form of dimensioless pressure pD and time tD

Dimensionless pressure, pD is given by :

pi - pwf pi - pwf Δp kh
pD= = =
m 162.6 q μ B 162.6 q μ B
kh
Dimensionless time, tD is given by:

0.000264kt
tD 
  c rw 2

Where :

 pD = dimensionless pressure

 tD = dimensionless time

 pwf = flowing pressure in the wellbore at any time t, in psi

 pi = initial reservoir pressure in psi

 q = oil rate in s.t. barrel per day

 B = oil formation volume factor, dimensionless

 k = formation permeability in milliDarcy (mD)

 h = formation thickness in feet

 f = formation porosity, dimensionless

 μ = viscosity of the oil in cent poise (cp)

111
  c = oil compressibility or overall compressibility, c = coSo + cwSw +cf, in
1/psi

 rw = wellbore radius in feet

 t = time since the well has been open with the rate q, in hours

 S= skin factor, dimensionless

 m = slope in the Horner plot, psi/cycle

The two last equations introduced in the first one give the following:

pD = logtD + 0.35 +0.87S

This pD and tD are the basis for the “Type Curve” analysis commonly used in the
petroleum industry up tp to 80‟s.

The Type Curve matching consisted in drawing many curves in log-log scale for
pD vs tD with different ideal reservoir carachteristics (literature curves). Then the
actual field data generated by a well testing are transformed in a curve of pD vs
tD. When the field data curve in transparent paper matched the basic curve of
literature it was possible to define further reservoir parameters such as: reservoir
size, wellbore storage, recalculation of permeability (already perhaps computed
with the Horner method), etc.

This traditional Type Curve analysis has two major drawbacks:

1. Non uniqueness: many reservoir models have similar looking type

curves, and different values can be obtained by choosing the different
type curves.

2. Drawdown and not Buildup: the numerous type curves that have been
published are for drawdown data. They can be used for buildup data in
approximate manner, only under certain circumstances. Where
boundaries or reservoir heterogeneities are evident and buildup data are
more available than drwadown data the type curve method is
misleading.

10.2 Derivative Analysis

112
In the 80‟s Bourdet and others introduced the “derivative” concept which helped
to make type curve matching more easy than the previous one and sometimes
also without the need of the matching procedure.

This new method of analysis has its basis in the published literature, and is
rooted in the recognition and behaviour of various flow regimes.

The pressure derivative application in oil well test analysis involves the combined
use of existing type curves in both the conventional dimensionless pressure form
(pD vs logtD) and the new dimensionless pressure derivative (pD‟ vs logtD)

Thus, this new approach has combined the two approaches, (pD vs logtD ) and
(pD‟ vs logtD ), in a powerful method of well test interpretation.

Use of the pressure derivative pD‟ with pressure pD type curves reduces the
uniqueness problem in curve matching and gives greater confidence in the
results.

Features that are hardly visible on the Horner plot or that are hard to distinguish
because of similarities between a reservoir system and another are easier to
recognize on the pressure derivative plot.

In the Horner plot pressure changes are plotted vs logarithm of time and if the
reservoir is infinite the plot has a straight line with a certain slope, m, as in the
following equation:

 kt 
p wf = p - m log
i - 3.23 + 0.87 S 
 φμcr 
2
w

From this equation we can derive the following by simplification:

Δp = pi-pwf = m log(t) + b

And by taking derivative of Δp in log(t), the symbol is Δp‟ but is commonly used
p‟, we obtain, (being b a constant) :

p
p'  m
 log t

The plot of p‟ vs log t gives a zero slope line of a constant value m. Having m in
oil field units always the same meaning :

113
 162.6 q μ B
m=
kh

Example of Δp And Derivative of Δp Plot Vs Log(T)

We have the following well testing data:

114
 Tab. 10.1: Well Testing Data

The plot of normal ΔP vs log(t) as per Horner Method is indicated in blue in the
following graph, while the plot of the derivative of ΔP is indicated in red:
Plot of DeltaP and P' vs log(t)

901

801

701

601
delta P e P'

501

401

301

201

101

1
time

Delta P Derivative

Fig. 10.1: Plot of Delta P and P‟ vs log (t)

Plot of DeltaP and P' vs log(t)

100
delta P e P'

1
time

Delta P Derivative

Fig. 10.2: Plot of Delta P and P‟ vs log(t)

The Horner plot in blue above does not give many information except for the
slope m, while the derivative give more information.

115
Usually the plot of the two, ΔP vs log(t) and derivative of ΔP vs logt (t) is done in
scale log-log,

Because the log-los plot manifests many carachteristics of the reservoir, as

follows (the same graph of before from semi-log scale to log-log scale).

10.3 Pressure Derivative Applications In Well Test Analysis

The application of the pressure derivative plot is that it is able to display in a

single graph many separate characteristics that would otherwise require different
plots. For example can shows:

 Finite conductivity fracture

 Infinite conductivity fracture

 Dual porosity behaviour

 Closed outer boundary

 Linear impermeable boundary

 Constant pressure boundary

Infinite acting radial flow shows on a log-log derivative plot, the following

a. A flat region of the derivative curve, Δp‟,: This indicates the radial flow.

b. The two curves, Δp and Δp‟, at the beginning with the same slope. This
indicates the wellbore storage effect.

c. A peculiar different shape of the derivative tail after the flat region. This
may indicates: dual porosity zone, drawdown or buildup test, boundary
etc

d. The 1.5 log cycle from the end of the wellbore storage effect. After that
time can be taken the linear portion for the m determination in the
Horner plot.

See figure below for all carachteristics of the derivative curve.

116
 Fig. 10.3: Characteristics of derivative curves

9.4 Type Curves Of Dervative

Fig. 10.4 : Infinite acting radial flow regime

117
 Fig. 10.5: Radial flow in composite reservoir

Fig. 10.6: Radial Flow for dual porosity/dual permeability

118
Fig. 10.7: Flow regime for Layered Reservoir

Fig. 10.8: Flow regime for Fault boundary

119
 Fig. 10.9: Flow Regime for Horizontal Well with Strong skin effect

7- Drawdown and Buildup derivative curves. Comparison of the buildup and

drawdown responses for the same closed reservoir :

 he drawdown behaviour has an upward trending in the derivative;

 the buildup behaviour has a downward trending derivative.

Fig. 10.10: Comparison of buildup and drawdown responses

9.5 Software Packages Dor Derivative Anaysis

120
The two main software package available in the market are the following:

Both of them are Pressure Transient Analysis softwares.

Their methodology is based on the use of the pressure derivative. This

methodology consists in matching the pressure data using simulation models
which takes into account the detailed well production history.

Interpret 2003 (Paradigm)

Tool description

Interpret/2003 is based on the conventional Horner analysis and advanced type

curves analysis techniques which use the pressure derivative curves as the main
diagnostic tools.

The analysis is performed using analytical models for early, middle and late time
effects.

The software is structured into 6 functional sections:

1. Data section: allows the input of basic data, fluid type and PVT
parameters (including a simple window for PVT estimation via
correlations), bottom hole pressure and temperature data from multiple
gauges, produced fluids rates.

Options such as multiphase flow at the wellbore and in the reservoir are
also available. Temperatures can also be loaded.

Rates can be loaded as measured rates or analysis rates, the latter

being the averaged values to be used for the interpretation

2. Validate gauges: if more than one gauge is loaded, this section allows
the user to compare recorded pressures and to perform a pressure and
time shift on gauges.

Gauge combination is also allowed. Gauges can also be compared by

displaying pressure differences and, if rates are already loaded, log-log
and superposition function for different flow periods.

121
3. Validate rates: for a single selected gauge diagnostic plots (Log-Log and
Superposition function) relative to different flow periods (draws-down
and builds-up) can be compared for consistency. Automatic rate
adjustment can be performed even on subset data.

4. Diagnose: this section presents on the same windows the main

diagnostic plots (Log-Log and Horner) and the diagnostic tools (trend
lines for pressure derivative for early, middle and late time models).
Partial results are also presented.

Fig. 10.11: Interpret 2003 – Diagnostic plot

5. Matching: after setting the diagnose lines the matching option generates
the corresponding analytical model. Real data and model lines are
compared in Log-Log, Horner and Pressure History plots. Interpretation
refinement can be done using the Model Controls window where
different combinations of the interpretation models can be chosen and
model parameters can be manually set. Variable storage and variable
skin options are also available.

Regression in the different plots and for selected parameters and data
subsets can be done in order to automatically improve the match. Using

122
the regression option care should be taken to the meaningfulness of
output parameters, even if the matching is satisfactory.

Results of the model can be viewed also. Different analysis can be

saved, re-loaded (file menu) and compared (select display).

123
 Fig. 10.12: Interpret 2003 – Plots

6. Design: this section allows generation of the theoretical pressure

response of a test performed in a well with certain characteristics,
inputting flow rates and test sequence. Input data (see data section)

124
 must be loaded. The Model Control window allows selection of the
model, input model parameters and definition of the gauge properties.

The designed test is plotted in the usual Log-Log, Horner and Pressure
History plots. The pressure response can be saved as a gauge (file
menu) for conventional analysis.

Saphir (Kappa Engineering)

Tool description

A well test analysis performed by Saphir software may enhanced its reliability by
using the following features:

 a wide QA/QC section with, in particular, the tidal effect correction tool;

 development of a numerical linear model based on under structured

automatic grids with a modelling flexibility far beyond that of an analytical
model;


(pressure/saturation fields);

 development of a numerical non-linear model with advanced features

near to reservoir simulation.

Saphir analytical method

The analytical method of Saphir software is based on the same approach as in

Interpret/2003 Nevertheless it presents some additional features as:


the regression on zone contributions.

 Multiple flow period analysis: allows to analyze multiple flow periods

considering superposition effect.

 rd Log-Log- and superposition

function, Saphir offers the possibility to plot Horner and user defined
graphs. Analysis can also be performed on selected plots.

125

production history of a well whose behaviour has changed at a certain
time (due to acidizing, fracturing, etc in a single analysis.


petrophysical or fluid properties in a linear direction.

126
127
 Fig. 10.13: Saphir graphs

Numerical analysis (linear)

The 2-D numerical module can extend the modelling capabilities to simulations
which takes into account a number of factors that cannot be considered in
analytical analysis.

The model is set up defining a under structured grid scaled on the reservoir map.

The numerical model allows to consider the following items:

 irregular outer boundary shape;

 fault trajectories and leakage factor of each fault;

 irregular composite zones;

 reservoir thickness and porosity variation by a discrete set of values using

 grids and other interpolations;

 evaluation of the pressure response of a well when other

production/injection wells are active in the same reservoir at the same
time;

 2-D and 3-D display and animations of pressure and/or saturation fields.

128
Numerical analysis (non-linear)

Saphir covers also the assumption of slightly compressible fluids and the
pseudo-pressure function and takes into account non- linearities such as:

 -Darcy flow into gas reservoir;


permeabilities curves;

Fig. 10.14: Example of Saphir numerical model

129
Fig. 10.15: Example of Saphir numerical model

130
11.0 EARLY TIME MODELS

11.1 Buildup Division Into Three Time Models

We can divide a buildup curve into three regions :

1. Early-Time Region (ETR). In this region, a pressure transient is moving

through the formation nearest the wellbore.

2. Middle-Time Region (MTR). In this region, the pressure transient has

moved away from the wellbore into the bulk formation.

3. Late-Time Region (LTR). In this region, the pressure transient has

reached the drainage boundaries well.

Fig. 11.1: Behaviour of shut-in pressure in an oil well during buildup

The reasons for the distortion from a straight line in the ETR portion are the
followings:

 Wellbore storage effect.

 Altered permeability near the wellbore, skin effect.

The MTR portion of the curve should be a straight line. This is the portion of the
buildup curve that we must identify and analyze. Analysis of this portion will
provide reliable reservoir properties of the tested well with Horner method.

Some distortion from a straight line occurs also in the LTR portion. Here the
pressure is influenced by boundary configuration, interferences from nearby

131
wells, reservoir heterogeneities, and different fluid contacts i.e. water/oil or
gas/oil).

The analysis of the pressure buildup in the transient time, MTR region, using the
Horner method involves the following steps:

 Find to, the equivalent flowing time before the well is shut–in, which is
equal to the cumulative production of oil divided the oil rate q.

 Plot pws versus log (Δt/(to+Δt)) in semilog paper.

 Plot Δp = pws-pwf versus Δt to identify wellbore storage effects; identify

ETR and beginning of MTR.

 The MTR ends when the radius of investigation begins to detect the
drainage boundaries of the tested well; at this time the buildup curve
starts to deviate from the straight line.

 Once the MTR is identified, determine the slope and intercept. The slope
m is of the straight-line portion of the Horner plot (MTR region), by
extrapolating this line to infinite time at log Δt/(to+Δt) = 1 it is possible to
determine the intercept, p*.

 On the straight-line portion of the curve (MTR region) we should read p1hr
at Δt = 1 hour, which is useful for the skin factor determination..

11.2 Wellbore Storage Effect

When a well is opened, the production at surface is initially due to the expansion
of the fluid stored in the wellbore, and the reservoir contribution is initially
negligible.

This characteristic flow regime, called the wellbore storage effect, can last from a
few seconds to a few minutes. Then, the reservoir production starts and the
reservoir rate increases until it becomes the same as the surface rate.

When this condition is reached, the wellbore storage has no effect any more on
the bottom hole pressure response, the pressure data describe the reservoir
behaviour and can be used for transient analysis.

During shut-in periods, the wellbore storage effect is also called after flow: after
the well has been shut-in, the reservoir continues to produce at the layer face and
the fluid stored in the wellbore is recompressed. See figure below.

132
 Fig. 11.2 : Wellbore Storage Effect

Wellbore storage coefficient, C

For a wellbore full of a single-phase fluid, the expansion of this compressed fluid
when the well is open to the surface is given by the following equation:

ΔV = -coVwΔp

Where:

 ΔV = volume variation of the fluid inside the wellbore, bbl

 co = fluid compressibility, psi-1

 Δp = pressure variation in the wellbore, psi

 Vw = volume of the wellbore, bbl

The Storage coefficient, C, is defined as the vriation of the Volume per unit of
pressure drop, as follows:

C = - ΔV/Δp = coVw

q B t
p  - V/C 
24 C

Where:

 ΔV = volume variation of the fluid inside the wellbore, bbl

 C = storage coefficient in bbl/psi

133
  Δp = pressure variation in the wellbore, psi

 q= oil rate at the surface, stb/d

 Δt = time in which the flow q is happened, hours

 B =oil formation volume factor, dimensionless

During the pure wellbore regime, the well is acting as a closed volume and, with a
constant surface rate condition, the pressure changes linearly with time.

The wellbore storage coefficient, C, can be estimated on a plot of the pressure

change Δp versus the elapsed time Δt on a linear scale.

The response follows a straight line of slope mwbs, intercepting the origin of Δp
axis.

Therefore C, wellbore storage coeficient is equal to:

qB
C=
24 mwbs

Where:

 C = storage coefficient in bbl/psi

 q= oil rate at the surface, stb/d

 B =oil formation volume factor, dimensionless

 mwbs = slope in the graph Δp vs Δt, psi/hrs

Example Of Wellbore Storage

A well with a production of 4600 Bpd (formation volume factor, B = 1.47) has
been shut in and has the following Horner plot of buildup:

134
 PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS

4500
P* =4450
4400

4300

m= 200 psi cycle

P1hr =4090 4200

BHP, psi 4100

4000

3900

3800

3700

3600

3500

3400
1,00E-03 1,00E-02 1,00E-01 1,00E+00
Delta t /(delta t +t)

Fig. 11.3: Pressure Buildup Analysis-Wellbore storage in the early time

It is evident that the well in the ETR region has not a linear pressure this id due
to the wellbore storage effect beside the skin effect due to to a damaged well
while drilling.

If we plot pws-pwf vs Dt in the ETR region we have a straight line as follows:

135
 Fig. 11.4: Pws-Pwf vs delta time

Then the value of the wellbore storage coefficient is :

C = 4600 x 1.47 / (24 x 1600) =0.176 bbl/psi

When a well is opened, the production at surface is initially due to the expansion
of the

fluid 10

11.3 Skin Effect

As already said in capter 8 the skin effect around the wellbore is caused by the
drilling activity. This causes a pressure drop in the buildup, as shown in the
following graph:

136
 PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS

4500
P* =4450
4400

4300

m= 200 psi cycle

P1hr =4090 4200

BHP, psi 4100

4000

3900

3800

3700

3600

3500

3400
1,00E-03 1,00E-02 1,00E-01 1,00E+00
Delta t /(delta t +t)

Fig. 11.5: Pressure Buildup analysis – The Skin effect

The skin effect around the wellbore, is a number without dimension, to be

determined by the equation above mentioned. In particular we have if:

 S = 0, no skin , no damage around the wellbore

 S > 0, there is formation damage ad the wellbore

 S < 0, there is no damage around the wellbore, exceptionally we have

improvement. W

See figure below:

137
 Fig. 11.5: Skin Effect, S

11.4 Infinite And Finite Conductivity In Vertical Fracture

A common well stimulation method consists of creating a hydraulic vertical

fracture from the wellbore to the formation .

The reservoir / well surface of contact is significantly increased, thus producing a

negative skin factor.

Two main types of fractured well behaviour are observed: infinite and finite
conductivity fractures.

138
The fracture is symmetrical on both sides of the well and it intercepts the
complete formation thickness, xf is the half fracture length.

With the infinite conductivity fracture model, it is assumed that the fluid flows
along the fracture without any pressure drop.

The hydraulic fracturing technique has been used from the 1950's to improve the
productivity of damaged wells, or wells producing from low-permeability
reservoirs.

By injecting fluid into the formation, a vertical plane fracture is created and filled
with propping agents to prevent closure.

Infinite conductivity vertical fracture model

The well intercepts a symmetrical vertical plane fracture of half-length xf (see

figure below).

Fig. 11.7: Vertical Plane Fracture

The well and the fracture penetrate totally the reservoir thickness and there is no
pressure loss along the fracture plane.

Wellbore storage effects can be present in the well, and the fracture can be
affected by a skin damage.

Two characteristic regimes can be observed after the wellbore storage in the
early time (ETR) , linear flow and pseudo radial flow, as illustrated in the following
figure.

0.5
Linear flow, with Δp proportional to Δt and a half unit slope straight line on
pressure and derivative log-log curves (see figure below). The linear flow regime
defines the hxf product, and therefore the fracture half-length xf.

139
 Fig. 11.8: Derivative log-log curve in red

From the following formula it is possible to determine xf :

qB μ
Δp'=2.03 Δt 0.5
hxf  c k

Then xf is equal to:

qB μ Δt 0.5
xf = 2.03
h  c k p'

Where:

 Δp‟ = derivative of the pressure vs logΔt, for Δt value

 q= oil rate at the surface, stb/d

 B =oil formation volume factor, dimensionless

 h = vertical fracture thickness, feet

 xf = half fracture length, in respect to the well, feet

 μ = oil viscosity, cp

 Φ = formation porosity, dimensionless

 c = fluid compressibility , 1/psi

 k = formation permeability, mD

140
  Δt = shut-in time, hours

Pseudo-radial flow regime when the flow lines converge from all reservoir
directions. During the pseudo-radial flow regime, the pressure follows a semi-log
straight-line behaviour, as during the usual radial flow regime towards a
cylindrical vertical well.

The fracture influence is then described by a geometrical negative skin and the
pseudo-radial flow analysis provides the permeability thickness product kh and
the skin factor S.

Finite conductivity vertical fracture model

When the pressure gradient along the fracture length is not negligible, the low
conductivity fracture model has to be used for the analysis of hydraulically
fractured wells.

This may happen for example when the permeability of the fracture is not very
high compared to the permeability of the formation, especially when the fracture
is long.

With the finite conductivity fracture model linear flow is produced within the
fracture, in addition to the linear flow regime from the pay zone into the fracture
plane. The fracture geometry is defined as bilinear flow in following figure :

Fig. 11.9: Fracture Geometry

When the pressure drop in the fracture plane is not negligible, a second linear
flow regime is established along the fracture extension. Before the two ends of
the fracture are reached, this well configuration produces the so-called bi-linear
flow regime.

During the bilinear flow, the pressure change, Δp, is proportional to the fourth
root of the elapsed time since the well was opened . With wf the width of the finite

141
conductivity fracture and kf the permeability in the fracture, the formula for Δp vs
Δt is the following:

qBμ
Δp = 44.11 4
Δt
h kf wf 4 φμck

Where:

 Δp = pressure drop during drawdown, pws-pwf, psi

 q= oil rate at the surface, stb/d

 B =oil formation volume factor, dimensionless

 h = vertical fracture thickness, feet

 μ = oil viscosity, cp

 f = formation porosity, dimensionless

 c = fluid compressibility , 1/psi

 kf = fracture permeability, mD

 wf = fracture width, ft

 k = formation permeability, mD

 Δt = elapsed flowing time, hours

On a plot of the pressure change Δp versus the fourth root of elapsed time Δt,
pressure response follows a straight line of slope mBLF, intercepting the origin,
during the bilinear flow regime as in following figure:

142
 Fig. 11.10: Plot of the pressure change vs time

From the slope mBLF it is possible to calculate the fracture conductivity, kf wf, as
follows:

2
1  qBμ 
kf wf = 1944.8  
φμck  h mBLF 

Where:

 kf wf = frctiure conductivity, mD ft

 q= oil rate at the surface, stb/d

 B =oil formation volume factor, dimensionless

 h = vertical fracture thickness, feet

 μ = oil viscosity, cp

 f = formation porosity, dimensionless

 c = fluid compressibility , 1/psi

 kf = fracture permeability, mD

 wf = fracture width, ft

 k = formation permeability, mD

11.5 Partial Well Penetration

143
In the case of limited entry or partial penetration into the formation, the well
communicates with only a fraction of the producing zone thickness.

This could be due to plugged perforations, or for production problem to stay away
from Gas Oil contact (GOC) or from Water POil Contact (WOC).

Fig. 11.11: Partial Well Penetration

The distortion of the readial flow creates additional pressure drop in the well and
increase the skin effect.

The skin factor determined by a well test, Sw will comprise both the Skin factor
due to the permeability change, Sk ,and the skin due to the partial penetration SB:

Sw= Sk + SB

The geometry of the partial penetration shall be the following:

Fig. 11.12: Geometry of partial penetration

The sequential flow regime that happen in a well with partial penetration are the
followings:

144
1. Radial flow over the open interval hw, generates a Δp proportional to
log(Δt) and a first derivative plateau (see below figure).

Analysis of the initial radial flow regime gives the kH x hW for the open
interval and the skin factor of the well, Sw.

Fig. 11.13: Derivative plateau in red

-1/2
2. Spherical flow with Δp proportional to Δt and a negative half unit
slope straight line on the derivative log-log curve (see below figure). The
spherical flow regime lasts until the lower and upper boundaries are
reached. Analysis yields to the permeability anisotropy kV/kH .

Fig. 11.14: Derivative slope in red

145
3. Radial Flow over the entire reservoir thickness with Δp proportional to
log(Δt) and a second derivative stabilization. The reservoir permeability-
thickness product kH x hW , and the total skin Sw can be estimated from
the second radial flow regime.

The following figure represent the sequence of the three flow regime above
described:

Fig. 11.15: Three Flow Regime in the derivative mode (red)

11.6 HORIZONTAL WELL

Advances in drilling and completion technologies have placed horizontal wells

among the techniques used to improve production performance.

For example in the case of gas cap or bottom water drive, horizontal wells
prevent coning without introducing the flow restriction seen in partial penetration
wells.

Horizontal drilling is also efficient to increase the well surface area for fluid
withdrawal, thus improving the productivity

146
 Fig. 11.16: Horizontal well

The geometry of an horizontal well is the following:

Fig. 11.17: Geometry Horizontal Well

In the above figure we consider :

 homogeneous reservoir with sealing upper and lower boundaries,

 the well is strictly horizontal,

 the total penetration is 2L and half penetration length is L,

 zw defines the distance between the drain hole and the bottom-sealing
boundary,

 the vertical part of the well is not perforated,

147
  there is no flow towards the end of the well,

 kH and kV are the horizontal and the vertical permeabilities.

In an infinite system, the geometry of the flow lines towards a horizontal well
produces a sequence of three typical regimes, as described below:

1. The first regime is radial flow in the vertical plane.

On a log-log derivative plot, the wellbore storage effect is followed by a

first stabilization.

During this radial flow regime, the permeability-thickness product , , is defined

with the average permeability in the vertical plane, the average horizontal
permeability and the well effective length 2L.

Fig. 11.18: Radial Flow Vertical Plan

2. When the sealing upper and lower limits are reached, a linear flow
behavior is established, as per following figure.

The derivative follows a half-unit slope log-log straight line, from where
kHL2 can be derived.

148
 Fig. 11.19: Linear Flow

3. Later, the flow lines converge from all reservoir directions towards the
well, producing a horizontal radial flow regime (see figure below).

The derivative stabilization corresponds to the infinite acting radial flow

in the reservoir, the permeability-thickness product is kHh.

Fig. 11.20: Horizontal Radial Flow

The three above regime, which happen in sequence in an horizontal well, since
its opening to the production are depicted below in logΔp and derivative logΔp‟
vs log Δt, time elapsed since the opening of the well:

149
Fig. 1.21: Log Dp and derivate Dp‟ Vs log Dt

150
12.0 MIDDLE TIME MODELS

12.1 Homogeneous Reservoir

The Middle Time Region (MTR) of a buildup curve (see below figure), after the
Early Time (affected mainly by the wellbore storage and skin effects) is the
typical transient regime of an homogeneous reservoir.

In this portion of the buildup curve we must identify and analyze the straight line
with Horner method, in order to identify the slope, m, the kh, the skin factor S, the
Flow efficiency etc, as already seen.

Homogeneous reservoir means:

 one porosity,

 one permeability,

 constance of fluid carachteristics with pressure variation as, viscosity and

compressibility,

 one reservoir uniform thickness,

 homogeneous radial flow.

Fig. 12.1: Behaviour of shut-in pressure in oil well during- The Middle Time
Region (MTR)

12.2 Heterogeneous Reservoir

151
Heterogeneous reservoir models have attracted a lot of attention from petroleum
engineers since advanced software were available (last 30 yrs).

Reservoir heterogeneities are identified by variations in the pressure response.

Sometimes the pressure data deviates from the homogeneous behaviour only
during the first minutes of the test period under investigation, in other cases it
takes from several hours to several days before the heterogeneity becomes
evident.

The introduction of high accuracy pressure measurements and computerized log-

log analysis technique explains today's recent use of heterogeneous
interpretation models. In addition, the derivative of pressure exaggerates the
characteristic features of the response.

The basic heterogeneous solutions assume two different behaviours are

combined in the reservoir response. They are described as double porosity
models and/or double permeability models and composite systems, radial
composite system and linear composite system.

These three models will be analyzed in details:

 double porosity- double permeability model

 radial composite system

 linear composite system.

12.3 Double Porosity- Double Permeability Model

Among the different heterogeneous interpretation models, the double porosity

model has been the most frequently discussed in the technical literature.

They assume the existence of two porous regions within the formation. One
region, of high conductivity, is called the fractures whereas the other, of low
conductivity, is called the matrix blocks.

As described in below figure the concept of double porosity is representative of

the behaviour of fissured and multiple-layer formations, when the permeability
contrast between layers is high.

152
The "fracture system" describes the high permeability layers, and the "matrix
blocks" the tight zones. The matrix blocks are not producing to the well, but only
to the fissures.

In all cases, the fissure network provides the mobility, and the matrix blocks
supply most of the storage capacity.

A double porosity response depends upon the storativity contrast between the
two reservoir components, and the quality of the communication between them.

ACTUAL RESERVOIR MODEL RESERVOIR

Fig. 12.2: Double porosity model

Basic assumptions of the double porosity model

1. Each point in the reservoir is associated with two pressures, namely pf

the pressure of the fluid in the fractures, and pm, the pressure of the fluid
in the matrix pore volume.

2. The fluid flows to the well through the fractures system only; the matrix
blocks are not connected.

3. Most of the reservoir fluid is stored in the matrix blocks porosity, the
storage of the fractures network is only a small fraction of the reservoir
storage.

153
4. Three matrix block geometries are usually considered, depending upon
the number n of fissure plane directions:

• n = 3, the matrix blocks are cubes

• n = 2 , the cylinder matrix blocks are cylinder

• n = 1 matrix blocks like slab.

5. Two different types of matrix to fissure flow have been considered:

• flow under pseudo-steady state conditions.

• flow under transient flow conditions.

6. In the double porosity models, all matrix blocks are homogeneous, and
they have the same size.

Behaviour of the double porosity model

When a well is opened in a fractures reservoir, a rapid pressure response occurs

in the fractures network due to its high diffusivity.

A pressure difference is created between matrix and fissure, and the matrix
blocks start to produce into the fractures. The pressure of the matrix blocks pm
decreases as flow progresses and, finally, tends to equalize with the pressure of
the surrounding fissures pf.

Definitions

 For the permeability thickness product kh, an equivalent permeability is

used. I

The equivalent distributed permeability (bulk fracture permeability) kf is a

function not only of the actual fissures thickness and intrinsic
permeability, but also of the fractures network characteristics (such as
tortuosity and fissure connectivity when material separates individual
fractures).

k h = kf hf

 Two porosities are defined in double porosity systems. We call Φf and

Φm, the ratio of pore volume in the fractures and in the matrix, to the total
reservoir pore volume (Vf + Vm)

154
 The average reservoir porosity Φ is given by:

Φ = ΦfVf + ΦmVm

In n fractured formations, both Φf and Vm are close to 1 . The average

porosity of above equation becomes then :

Φ = Vf + Φm

 The storativity ratio w expresses the ratio between the two porous
systems, the fractures system and the reservoir system in broad sense:

w = fractures storativity / reservoir storativity = dimensionless

Where:

 Fracture storativity = (fluid pore volume in the fracture ) by (fluid

compressibility).

 Reservoir storativity = (fluid pore volume in the reservoir,

matrix+fractures ) by (fluid compressibility)

Usual values of w are 0.1, sometimes down to 0.01 or even 0.001.

 A second heterogeneous parameter, called interporosity flow coefficient λ,

is used to describe the ability of the matrix blocks to flow into the fissures.

λ as expressed by Warren and Root is a function of the matrix blocks

geometry and permeability km:

Where:

 λ = interporosity coefficient, dimensionless

 α is related to the geometry of the fractures system

 rw is the wellbore radius, feet

 km is the matrix permeability, mD

 k is the reservoir permeability in broad sense, mD

λ defines the communication between the matrix blocks and the fissures. When λ
is small, the fluid transfer from matrix to fissure is difficult, and it takes a long time

155
before the double porosity model behaves like the equivalent homogeneous total
system.

Such behaviour is obtained for example, when the matrix is tight, and the
permeability km, is small. Low density of fissures is another example of poor
matrix communication: the characteristic block size is large, and α is small.

Usual values for λ are in the range of 10 -4 to 10 -10.

-6
A typical buildup diagram for an infinite fractures reservoir with a λ of 5 x 10
and various w is the following:

Fig. 12.3: Buildup of fractured reservoir with various w

In the above graph it appears as the w, varies from 1, all fractured reservoir with
very little matix, to zero, i.e. no fractures in the reservoir, the beavihour of the
buildup moves from a straight line to a double slope curve. The two slopes m are
equal.

156
From the distance of the two slopes in psi , Δp, and from the slope m, as depicted
in the following figure it is possible to derive the value of w, as follows:

 p 
2.303 

 e  m 

Fig. 12.4: Buildup of fractured reservoir with double identical slope

157
Fig. 12.5: Buildup of fractured reservoir and derivative with variuos w

12.4 Radial And Linear Composite Systems

For the composite reservoir models, like all heterogeneous reservoirs two
geometries are considered for the interface between the reservoir areas.

1. Radial composite system assumes that the well is at the center of a

circular zone, the outer reservoir structure corresponds to a second
element (see figure below).

This geometry is used to describe a radial change of properties,

resulting from a change of fluid or formation characteristic. Such change
can be man-induced in case of injection wells and in some cases of
damaged or stimulated wells. It can also be observed when oil and gas
saturations vary around the wellbore, for example when the reservoir
produces below bubble point or dew point .

158
 Fig. 12.6: Radial composite system, as two reservoirs

2. Linear composite system assumes a vertical plane interface between the

two reservoir regions: the reservoir is divided into two semi-infinite
zones, the well is located in one of them .

This composite configuration can be observed for example when a linear

fault separates two different reservoir elements with different
characteristics, or when a water drive is active in one direction of the
producing zone.

Fig. 12.7: Linear composite system, as two reservoirs

Composite reservoir assumptions

A discontinuity defines two distinct homogeneous regions in the infinite reservoir.

The interface has no thickness.

159
The mobility (k/μ) and storativity (Φct) are different on each side, but the reservoir
thickness h is constant.

The change of reservoir properties is abrupt, and there is no resistance to flow

between the two reservoir regions.

The well, affected by wellbore storage and skin, is located in the region 1: with
the radial composite model, it is at the center of a circular zone of radius R, with
the linear composite, the interface is at a distance L.

Definition

The changes of reservoir mobility (k/μ) and storativity (Φct) are expressed with
the mobility ratio M and storativity ratio F of the two systems, defined as follows:

M =
 k/μ 1
 k/μ  2

F=
 φct  1
 φct  2
A mobility ratio M greater than 1 indicates a better fluid mobility (higher
permeability and lower viscosity) in region 1 compared to region 2.

A storativity ratio F greater than 1 indicates an better fluid storage (by higher
compressibility and space) in region 1 in respect to region 2.

12.5 Radial Composite System

With the radial symmetry of the system, the two reservoirs have the pressure
responses in sequence:

1. First, the pressure response depends upon the inner zone 1

characteristics, and the well behavior corresponds to a homogeneous
reservoir 1 response.

2. When the circular interface is reached, a second homogeneous

behaviour, corresponding to the outer region 2, is observed.

160
 Fig. 12.9: Radial composite system, as two reservoirs figura uguale e allora ?

The pressure response at the well in derivative analysis for different values of
mobility ratios, M, and constant storativity ratio (F assumed equal to 1) is as
follows:

Fig. 12.9: Derivative analysis for a radial composite system - The M influence.

The pressure response at the well in derivative analysis for different values of
storativity ratio, F, and constant mobility ratio (M assumed equal to 1) is as
follows:

161
Fig. 12.10: Derivative analysis for a radial composite system - The F influence.

The duration of the first homogeneous regime is a function of the inner region
radius: with a large R, the transition occurs later.

Before the transition, the early time response corresponds to the behaviour of a
well with wellbore storage and skin in a homogeneous reservoir.

The shape of the transition is a function of M and F. When both the mobility and
the storativity change, the two transitions illustrated in the two above figures are
superimposed on the response.

12.6 Linear Composite System

Two homogeneous pressure responses happen in the linear composite

reservoirs, but the second homogeneous reservoir describes an equivalent total
system:

1. The region around the well is producing alone, and the pressure
behaviour corresponds to a homogeneous reservoir 1.

2. When the linear interface is reached, the two regions are producing
together.

A second homogeneous response is observed due to the equivalent

homogeneous system, which is defined by the average properties of the
two regions.

162
 Fig. 12.12: Linear composite system, as two reservoirs figura uguale e allora ?

The pressure response at the well in derivative analysis for different values of
mobility ratios, M, and constant storativity ratio (F assumed equal to 1) is as
follows:

Fig. 12.13: Derivative analysis for a linear composite system - The M influence.

163
LATE TIME SCHEDULE

In the Late-Time Region (LTR) the pressure transient has reached the drainage
boundaries of the well.

The effect of boundaries has been considered from the earlier studies of pressure
transient analysis. In 1951, when presenting his historic paper, Homer discussed
the response due to a single linear sealing fault on a build-up example.

Today, complex boundary systems are used in well test interpretation, with
sealing or constant pressure conditions. Partially sealing and conductive linear
boundaries can also be identified and interpreted on well pressure responses.

13.1 Sealing Boundary : Fault Concept

The sealing fault model consists of a linear no-flow boundary, which closes the
reservoir in one direction (see figure below).

Such a configuration is encountered in faulted reservoirs but it can also be

considered, as an extension of the linear composite system already discussed in
paragraph 12.6.

fault

pressure waves L = distance well-fault

well

Fig. 13.1: Fault boundary as a linear no flow boundary

At the time t2 ,on above figure, the pressure wave has reached the boundary and
the pressure image his rturned to the well.

164
As the flow time increases, the radius of investigation of the theoretical infinite
reservoir curve continues to expand, and the image curve reaches the well and
go further (time t3) .

The well bottom hole pressure in its drawdown starts to deviate from the infinite
reservoir response, and drops faster.

Ultimately, when the well has been flowing long enough (after time t4 ), the hemi-
radial flow regime is reached: the flow lines converge to the well with a half circle
geometry.

During the hemi-radial flow regime, the pressure at the well varies with the
logarithm of the elapsed time and the slope of the semi-log straight line is double
(2m) that of the infinite acting radial flow, as per following figure:

Fig. 13.2: Drawdown pressure with fault – Double slope indicates the presence of
a fault

The interpretation of the drawdown follows the Horner method , with the m slope
and the other parameters, furthermore the distance L of the well from the fault is
given by :

Where:

 L = distance well-fault, feet

 k = formation permeabilità, mD

 Δtx = is the time corresponding to the intercept of the two slopes, hour

165
  f = porosity, dimensionless

 μ= oil viscosity, cp

 ct = total compressibility, 1/psi

Also a pressure buildup test will give the two slope as follows:

Fig. 13.3: Buildup pressure test with fault – Double slope indicates the presence
of a fault.

In the derivative analysis a typical drawdown response is presented on the

following figure for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a homogeneous
reservoir limited by a sealing fault.

Fig. 13.4: Drawdown pressure test with fault in derivative model

In the above typical derivative analysis with a sealing fault we note the following:

166
  The early time part of the well response corresponds to the infinite
reservoir behaviour.

 During radial flow, the pressure response follows the first semi-log straight
line as illustrated above in semi-log plot and, and on the derivative plot
follows the first stabilization.

 When the influence of the sealing fault is felt, the flow becomes hemi-
radial. On semi-log scale, the slope of the straight line doubles and, with
the derivative, the curve follows a second stabilization at a level twice the
first.

In dimensionless terms ΔpD‟ and tD, the first derivative plateau is at 0.5
and the second at 1.

13.2 Parallel Boundaries: Channel Model

The well is located between two parallel sealing boundaries, like a channel sand
deposit.

The well can be equidistant from the sealing faults as per following figure:

Fig. 13.5: Parallel Boundaries

Or the well can be closer to one boundary than the other as per following figure:

167
 Fig. 13.6: well cluster to one boundary

This type of configuration corresponds to long narrow reservoirs such as channel

sands.

Typical example of parallel sealing boundaries (sand channel type) responses

are presented in the following figures in drawdown semi-log plot and in derivative
analysis log-log plot..

 On the semi-log plot , after wellbore storage and skin effect the curve
present the usual straight line slope m of the Horner method. Afterwards
the curve tends to increase significantly without showing particular
carachteristics.

 In the derivative analysis the curve describes first the wellbore storage
and skin effect, then it follows the 0.5 stabilization (dimensionless plot with
ΔpD‟ and tD).

 Later, when the two reservoir boundaries have been reached, the flow
lines become parallel to the reservoirs limits, and a linear flow regime is
established .The pressure changes proportionally to , and the derivative
follows a ½ slope straight line.

 The shape of the transition between radial and linear flow is a function of
the well location in the channel.

When the well is equidistant from the two boundaries, such as the well A,
the transition between radial and linear flow regimes is short.

If the well is closer to one of the two boundaries (well B), the characteristic
behaviour of one sealing fault is seen before the linear flow.

The derivative stabilizes first at 0.5, then at 1 and finally it reaches the half unit
slope straight line. solution, the well is located between two parallel sealing
faults.

168
Fig. 13.7:Drawdown pressure test with a channel.

Fig. 13.7: Drawdown pressure test in a sand channel in dimensionless derivative

analysis

13.3 Intersecting Boundaries: Wedge Model

With the intersecting sealing faults model, two linear no-flow boundaries limit the
reservoir drainage area, the wedge is otherwise of infinite extension. The angle of
intersection between the two faults can take any value smaller than 180° . See
below figure:

169
 Fig. 13.9: Wedge model

The effect of two intersecting sealing faults on semi-log plot (Horner method) and
in derivative analysis (log-log plot) is illustrated in the following two figures for a
well with wellbore storage and skin in a homogeneous reservoir. In the following
example, the angle between the faults is 60°.

 The pressure response first describes the infinite reservoir behavior and
later, when the two faults are reached, a fractional radial flow limited by
the wedge.

 When two intersecting faults limit the drainage area, a smaller fraction of
the plane produces: on the semi-log scale, the slope of the straight line is
increased by a factor of 360°/q° ( in this example 6m, being q = 60°) and,
with the derivative, the curve follows a second stabilization at a level
equal to 180°/ q ° (in this example 3, being q = 60°).

170
Fig. 13.10: Drawdown pressure test in a well boundary in dimensionless
derivative analysis

Fig. 13.11: Drawdown pressure test (dimensionless) with a wedge boundary in

the Horner plot(1)

13.4 Multiple Boundaries: Closed System

A closed system behaviour is characteristic of limited reservoirs but it can also be

encountered in developed fields, when several wells are producing and each well
drains only a certain volume of the reservoir .

It is important to note that the responses are different for a drawdown and a build
up.

 -During drawdown periods, when all boundaries have been reached after
the infinite acting behaviour, the reservoir starts to deplete. The response
follows the pseudo steady state flow regime, and the well flowing pressure
becomes proportional to time. Pressure and derivative log-log curves
merge on a straight line of slope unity at late time.

 During build-ups, the shape of the well response is different. After shut-in,
the pressure starts to build-up during the initial infinite regime but, later, it
stabilizes and tends towards the average reservoir pressure .

In a closed reservoir, when all boundaries have been reached, the flow regime
changes to pseudo steady state: i.e at any point in the reservoir the rate of

171
pressure decline is proportional to time, i.e. dp/dt is equal to a constant, as per
following figure:

Fig. 13.12: Closed reservoir : pressure behavior from infinite to closed reservoir

The above graph with the logarithm of r, radius from wellbore axis, will be the
following:

Fig. 13.13: Closed reservoir : pressure behaviour from transient to pseudo steady
state.

The pwf, measured at the bottom well, during drawdown will be as follows (as
already seen:

172
Fig. 13.15: Closed reservoir : pressure behaviour at the bottom well . OK

As long as the closed reservoir behaves as an infinite one (time from t1 to t3 on

the above figure), the pressure at the bottom well drops with the logarithm of
time.

When the well after a certain production is closed for a shut-in period, the
pressure builds up until the average reservoir pressure p is reached, and the
curve flattens, as per below graph:

Fig. 13.15: Closed reservoir : pressure behaviour at the bottom well in drawdown
and buildup

173
The depletion, expressed by the difference (pi - p ) between the initial pressure
and the final stabilized average pressure, is proportional to the cumulative
production.

The longer the duration of the drawdown period, the lower is the final average
reservoir pressure p .

Typical delta pressure and derivative curves (dimensionless) in log-log scale are
presented on the below figure:

Fig. 13.16: Closed reservoir : pressure and derivative behaviour for drawdown
and buildup

The pseudo steady state flow regime, characterized by a straight line of slope
unity on the late time, is seen only during drawdown test (dotted line).

As opposed to drawdown responses, the derivate build-up response, as in the

above figure, flattens and then drops.

This illustrates the particular behaviour of closed systems, where derivative

drawdown and derivative build-up curves have totally different late time
responses.

Calculation of reservoir volume

In a circular reservoir closed after a long drawdown with constant production rate
it is possible to calculate the Original Oil in Place (OOIP).

174
 Fig. 13.17: Calculation of reservoir volume (slide 171)

The Δp = pi-pwf, during the pseudo steady state , after a long time of flowing, is
given by the following equation:

qB qB  A 
p  0.234 t  162.6 log 2 - log (C A )  0.351  0.87S
c1hA Kh  rw 

Where :

 Δp = pi-pwf, reservoir static pressure less bottom hole flowing pressure,

psi

 A = circular area of the reservoir, feet2

 q = oil rate in s.t. barrel per day

 B = oil formation volume factor, dimensionless

 k = formation permeability in milliDarcy (mD)

 h = formation thickness in feet

 Φ = formation porosity, dimensionless

 μ = viscosity of the oil in cent poise (cp)

 ct = oil compressibility or overall compressibility, ct = coSo + cwSw +cf, in

1/psi

 rw = wellbore radius in feet

 Δt = time since the well has been open with the rate q, in hours

 S= skin factor, dimensionless

175
  CA= shape factor of the area A of the reservoir, dimensionless..

The above equation plotted in linear scale as pwf vs Δt is a linear function of

slope m* in the pseudo steady state as per following figure:

Fig. 13.18: Drawdown test up to the semi steady state in a circular limited
reservoir- m*

From the above equation:

qB
m* =0.234
hA ct

From which:

hA q
OOIP = = 0.234
B ct m*

Where :

 OOIP = Original Oil In Place, without the water saturation Sw, at stock
3
tank condion, ft

 A = circular area of the reservoir, feet2

 q = oil rate in s.t. barrel per day

 B = oil formation volume factor, dimensionless

 Φ = formation porosity, dimensionless

176
  ct = oil compressibility or overall compressibility, ct = coSo + cwSw +cf, in
1/psi

 m* = slope at pseudo steady state of pwf vs Δt, psi/hour

The shape factor CA can be determined by the following equation:

CA = 5.456
m
-  2.303 p - p* /m 
e 
 t int   
m*
Where :

 CA = shape factor of the reservoir area, dimensionless

 m* = slope at pseudo steady state on linear scale of pwf vs Δt, psi/hour

(see below graph).

 pi= initial reservoir pressure, psi

 m = normal slope in the transient time of pwf vs log Δt, psi/cycle (see
below graph)

 pi-p*int = intercept for Δt = 0 on the y axis (see below graph)

177
Fig. 13.19: Drawdown curves to determine, m*, m, and p*int

178
13.0 WELL TEST EQUIPMENT

14.1 Surface Equipment

Fig. 14.1: General Layout of surface equipment

Well head

Fig. 14.2: Well head

Well head pressure

179
The pressure measurement is made through a Dead Weight Tester (DWT) which
hydraulically balance the well pressure. Its accuracy is of the order of 0.1% of the
measured value.

Electric sensors are seldom used.

The wellhead pressure data are not directly used in analyzing the test, but they
allow a comparison with the pressure data recorded by bottom hole electronic
gauges (Quality Control).

Well head temperature

The measurement of the temperature of the produced fluid is generally made by

thermometers located on the production line.

The surface temperature measurement at static conditions is not meaningful from

a physical point of view. The temperatures measured under dynamic conditions
have a low degree of reliability since they are affected by the external
temperature.

However, they have not a specific value in the interpretation.

In the absence of measured gas rates, the Twf is used only to estimate the
theoretical gas rate at critical flow conditions.

The dynamic wellhead temperatures have a remarkable importance in

dimensioning and planning the surface facilities.

Safety valve

180
 Fig. 14.3: Safety Valve

Choke

Fig. 14.4: Choke

Critical flow occurs when the pressure downstream of the choke is one-half or
less than the pressure upstream from the choke. In this case, the flow rate
through the choke depends only on variations of the upstream pressure and on
choke setting. Changes in the separator pressure within the critical flow range
does not affect the rate of flow through the choke. Flow rates can be estimated
from choke coefficient tables in the critical flow condition range.

Non-critical flow occurs when the downstream pressure is more than half of the
upstream pressure. In this case, changing the separator pressure downstream
from the chocke will affect the flow rate through the chocke. In the non-critical
flow condition, estimation of flow rate cannot to be made from choke coefficient
tables.

181
 Flowlines

TUBING
O.D. lbs/ft Internal pressure
inches E.U. Nom. Up J55 N 80
1.900 2.90 2.75 6,870 psi 8,980 psi
2.375 4.70 4.60 7,180 psi 9,380 psi
2.875 6.50 6.40 6,800 psi 8,900 psi
3.500 9.30 9.20 6,560 psi 8,580 psi
DRILL PIPE
O.D. lbs/ft Internal pressure
inches Grade D Grade E
2.375 6.65 11,350 psi 15,470 psi
2.875 10.40 12,120 psi 16,530 psi
3.500 13.30 10,120 psi 13,800 psi
4.500 16.60 7,210 psi 13,830 psi

All dimension in inches

NOMINAL 0D SCHEDULE40 XH – SCHEDULE80
SIZE ID Thickness Ibs/ft Allowable ID Thickness Ibs/ft Allowable
WP, psi WP, psi
1 1.315 1.049 -133 1.678 2110 .957 -179 2.171 3470
2 2.375 2.067 -154 3.652 1470 1.939 -218 5.022 2490
2½ 2.875 2.459 -203 5.793 1850 2.323 -276 7.661 2820
3 3.500 3.068 -216 7.575 1640 2.900 -300 10.252 2560
4 4.500 4.026 -237 10.790 1440 3.826 -337 14.983 2280
6 6.625 6.065 -280 18.974 1210 5.761 -432 28.573 2070
NOMINAL 0D SCHEDULE 160 XXH
SIZE ID Thickness Ibs/ft Allowable ID Thickness Ibs/ft Allowable
WP, psi WP, psi
1 1.315 .815 -250 2.85 5720 -599 -358 3.659 9540
2 2.375 1.689 -343 7.45 4600 1.503 -436 9.029 6290
2½ 2.875 2.125 -375 10.00 4200 1.771 -552 13.695 6850
3 3.500 2.626 -437 14.30 4130 2.300 -600 18.583 6090
4 4.500 3.438 -531 22.60 3980 3.152 -674 27.541 5310
6 6.625 5.189 -718 45.30 3760 4.897 -864 53.160 4660

Tab____. Flowlines specifications

Example

Given: Flowline 2 ½” SCH 160 - Long 1000 ft.

Oil : Specifc gravity = 0.82; Viscosity: 60 cStokes; Oil rate = 800 BPD.

Find : Pressure drop in the flowlines.

Result: from graph. Pressure drop = 0.48 psi/100 ft ;Effective pressure drop =
0.48 x 10 x 0.82 x 2.48 = 9.76 psi

182
Heater

1. Prevent hydrating at separators.

2. Compensate for heat loss through a flow control throttling device (choke
which consumes a large amount of well stream heat through free
expansion.

3. Assist in separation of water in oil or in water emulsions.

4. Lower the oil viscosity to promote better Oil Measurement.

5. Prevent waxes from coming out of solution in wax bearing oils, which
would foul the separator.

For safety reason only indirect heater are used.

Indirect heaters are heaters that transfer the heat, generated by gas or diesel
combustion, indirectly via hot water (steam) to the hydrocarbon fluid

Fig. 14.6: Heater

183
 Fig. 14.7 : Indirect Heater

Fig. 14.8: Flopetrol indirect heater specifications

184
Hydrates

The gas hydrates are generated by the contact of the light hydrocarbons (mainly
methane) with water at liquid state.

They are solid crystals, compact, and looks like snow. Hydrates occur with low
temperature and high pressure.

Hydrate Formation Conditions:

This free water gas is a serious problem because it tends to freeze in the field
equipment in the form of hydrates making maters and valves inoperative and
even plugging chokes or pipe lines, This is why gas transmission companies
require that most of the water vapour be removed (7 lbs of water vapour per MM
cu.ft is a typical requirement).

Natural gas hydrates have the appearance of hard snow and consist of chemical
compounds of light hydrocarbon

Ns dissolve in liquid water under certain low temperature and high pressure
conditions. This formation process is accelerated where there are high gas
velocities, pressure pulsations or other agitation, such as at elbows, which cause
mixing of the hydrate components.

These conditions can be predicted using the chart by D.L. The higher the gas
pressure, the higher the temperature at which hydrates form. The higher the
specific gravity of the well stream, the higher this temperature is, at equal
pressures, ethane, propane, H2O and CO2 form hydrates at higher temperatures
than methane – Hydrate formation is therefore promoted by the presence of
these components in the gas, whereas N2 and penthane plus have no noticeable
effect.

185
Fig. 14.9: Hydrates

186
 Fig. 14.10 Temperature at which gas hydrates will freeze (from KATZ)

Hydrates will form above each curve of typical gas (SG).

Below the typical gas curve the hydrates will not form.

Fig. 14.11: Gas type curve and hydrates area

Fig.14.12 :KATZ Diagram for hydrates formation

Separation

The separation is a receiver vessel where the total well-stream effluent is

separated into liquid and vapour by using the large difference in densities of the

187
two phases. In principle, the separator could be simply a sufficiently large
pressure vessel which would lower the velocity of the stream passing through it
enough for complete separation. In order to reduce the dimensions and cost of
separator, several flow system or device are used in assisting separation.

Fig.14.13- Separator

Inside an horizontal test separator the velocity of the flow stream is considerably
reduced due to his large size. Liquid mist extractor are installed in the gas
chamber. The mist extractor are usually baffles, plates mesh contractors, etc.
The advantage of a contracts separator is good handling of liquid slugs, some
foam and heavy crude oils. Their disadvantages are their relatively large size,
weight and cost in relation to their separating capacity.

The liquid phase may itself be separated into the lighter density oil and the
heavier water, thus obtaining three phase separation. This liquid separation
requires relatively large water-oil contact area to be effectively carried out,
making the small diameter, vertical separator somewhat unsuitable for three
phase separation. Water in oil or oil in water emulsion will not separate readily by
gravity from each other. In this case, heating of the wellstream and the use of
emulsion breaking chemical injected into the stream may be of assistance.

Condition to be met by a test separator

1. A test separator should permit the separation, the metering and the
sampling of all elements or phases of the effluent.

2. It should be able to separate very different types of effluent.

3. It should also accept products containing quantities of impurities such as

muds, acids, etc…, particularly when the well is being cleaned up.

188
4. Another requirement concerns the physical dimension of the separator:
it should be as compact as possible facilitate transportation to the site,
and to be easily accommodated on offshore platforms.

5. Adequate protective frames for transportation also necessary, as well as

protection against corrosion (tropical climate, marine environment,
etc…)

6. Lastly, a test separates should have appropriate ancillary piping to

enable quick connection on site.

On account of the versatility necessary, test separators are not expected to

achieve as perfect a separation as production station separators, but rather to
separate in such a way that the separated elements can be reliably metered.

Fig 14.14: Haliburton Test Separator

189
 (a)

ENTRY

(b) (c)

ENTRY

HUILE
LIBRE
DU GAZ

ENTRY

(a)Spoon (b) Plate (c) Cyclon

Fig. 14.15: Different types of fluid entries

The volume of gas that a separator will remove is dependent upon:

1-Physical and chemical characteristics of the crude
2-Operating pressure
3-Operating temperature
4-Rate of throughput
Vsep= Qoil x time = Q x 3 min = m3
Being Qoil in m3/min.
5-Size and configuration of the separator
6- Retention time

EXTRACTION OF GAS
SPEED EXIT
REDUCER LIQUID
Q
ENTR
Y GA
Z

EAU HUIL To measure rates oil, gas and water

E It is necessary to have:
-No liquid foaming
-Steady flow
LIQUID WATER OIL -Adequate lines and valve capacities
RETENTION EXIT EXIT

Fig. 14.16:Horizontal test separator - 3 phases (Oil, Gas and Water)

190
 gas D +6”.

0
d -6”.
Diameter “D” in inch x Length in ft Liquid level “d” in inch oil

Fig. 14.17: Technical specifications Flopetrol Test Separator

Fig. 14.18- Surface sampling of Oil and Gas at the separator

Rate measurements

Oil Rate

191
The oil rate, in case of lack of surface measuring systems, could be estimated by
an empirical relationship (W.E.Gilbert) which relies on the GOR and on the
wellhead flowing pressure:

Qoil = Pwf x D1.89 / [ 435 x ( GOR/1000 )0.546 ]

where:

 Qoil: oil rate at Stock Tank conditions (STb/day);

 D dimensionless choke diameter, expressed as a fraction of 64” (i.e.: for

choke 12/64", Ø = 12),

 Pwf: wellhead flowing pressure (psig);

 GOR: gas-oil ratio from test (Scf/STb).

Above equation is valid in the case of critical flow. Critical flow conditions occur
when the upstream pressure is at least twice the downstream pressure. In this
case the fluid velocity reaches a maximum value and then keeps constant, apart
from pressure variations downstream.

However, the values obtained from this equation must be considered as a first
approximation of the real rate data: the average error can be greater than 10 -
12%.

In particular, this equation is affected by the uncertainty in the Twf temperature

measured at well head under dynamic conditions.

When temperature dynamic profiles are available, the wellhead T wf value

obtained by interpolating the average temperature gradient in the string shall be
used.

In the absence of any measurement, the value of 520° Rankine (15.5°C) can be
assumed as a first approximation.

In all other cases, when surface measuring systems are available, the following
measuring tools are used:

192
 Oil Metering manifold

On all types of separator the

separator oil outlet is fitted with two
meters in parallel with
isolating valve.

The ranges of these two

meters make it possible to
cover all oil rates.

FLOCO Flowmeter

Fig.14.19 Oil Metering manifold

Gas Rate

The gas rate is estimated according to the following equation :

Qgas = C x Pwf / ( SGgas x Twf )0.5

where:

 Qgas: gas rate at standard conditions (MScf/day);


diameter (inches);

 Pwf: wellhead flowing pressure (psia);

 gas: gas specific gravity (air = 1.0);

193
  wf: wellhead flowing temperature (Rankine degrees).

In the table below the values of the C coefficient are reported as a function of the
diameter of the measurement line and as a function of the calibrated orifice
(choke):

Choke diameter C coefficient C coefficient

inches 2 inches pipe 4 inches pipe

1/16 1.524

3/32 3.355

1/8 6.301

3/16 14.47

7/32 19.97

1/4 25.86 24.92

5/16 39.77

3/8 56.68 56.01

7/16 81.09

1/2 101.8 100.2

5/8 154.0 156.1

3/4 224.9 223.7

7/8 309.3 304.2

1 406.7 396.3

11/8 520.8 499.2

Tab.: C Coefficient for Gas Rate

194
 Gas Metering manifold
A calibrated orifice plate is
used to meter the gas.

Orifices can be changed also

with the vessel under pressure.

Differential and static pressure

are recorded on a Barton
recorder.

Fig. 14.20 Gas Metering manifold

Oil burner

The burner is a main element of well testing set-up designed to dispose of the
separated oil by combustion without air pollution by smoke and without site
pollution by fall out of unburnt residues.

Description

The burner main piece is the combustion head, the combustion head comprises:

195
  An atomizer to reduce oil into fine droplets

 A cylindrical hearth to stabilize the flame and facilitate the circulation of

the combustion air

 A pilot flame fed with either propane, butane, or with gas from the
separator.

 A spark plug to ignite the pilot flame.

 A water rig with special nozzles to inject water into the flame.

The burner is mounted on a standard FLOPETROL rotation device with its

vertical swivel joint distributor, allowing a suitable orientation of the hearts
according to the direction of the wind. Correct burning is obtained with an aft wind
or a three-quarter aft wind and the maximum angle of rotation is 80° on each side
of the burner‟s axis. Therefore, in order to continue testing, even when abrupt
changes in the wind‟s direction occur, it is recommended that two burners be
installed on opposite sides of the offshore drilling unit.

When requested. FLOPETROL can provide the standard supporting boom,

complete with independent gas flare, and necessary piping to supply the burner.
The boom is an assembly of several elements which are easy to carry and set
up. Once mounted on the standard boom the BURNER is about 50 feet away
from the structure of the barge.

Fig. 14.21 Seadragon

196
 Flopetrol
Seadragon
Oil atomizer

Fig. 14.22 Oil burning capability

14.2 Down Hole Tools

Wireline

Wireline is the technology that allows internal measurements of producing wells

without interruption of production from the well.

The aim of the wireline is to operate inside the producing tubing under producing
pressure.

It allows safe and rapid intervention with a minimum amount of preparation and
minimum interruption of production.

It can use AMERADA bomb as pressure and temperature gauge.

DST

The DST is usually conducted with a downhole shut-in tool that allows the well to
be opened and closed at the bottom of the hole with a surface-actuated valve.

One or more pressure gauges are customarily mounted into the DST tool and are
read and interpreted after the test is completed.

197
The tool includes a surface-actuated packer that can isolate the formation from
the annulus between the drill-string and the casing, thereby forcing any produced
fluids to enter only the drill-string.

Occasionally, operators may wish to avoid surface production entirely for safety
or environmental reasons, and produce only that amount that can be contained in
the drill-string.

Drill Stem Tests are typically performed on exploration wells, and are often the
key to determining whether a well has found a commercial hydrocarbon reservoir.

The formation often is not cased prior to these tests, and the contents of the
reservoir are frequently unknown at this point, so obtaining fluid samples is
usually a major consideration..

DST String

The well testing objectives, test location and relevant planning will dictate the
most suitable test string configuration to be used. Some generic test strings used
for testing from various installations are shown below.

In general, well tests are performed inside a 7” production liner, using full opening
test tools with a 2.25” ID. In larger production casing sizes the same tools will be
used with a larger packer. In smaller casing sizes, smaller test tools will be
required, but similarly, the tools should be full opening to allow production logging
across perforated intervals.

For a barefoot test, conventional test tools will usually be used with a packer set
inside the 95/8inch casing.

If conditions allow, the bottom of the test string should be 100ft above the top
perforation to allow production logging of the interval.

In the following description, tools which are required both in production tests and
conventional tests are included. The list of tools is not exhaustive, and other tools
may be included. However, the test string should be kept as simple as possible to
reduce the risk of mechanical failure.

The tools should be dressed with elastomers suitable for the operating
environment, considering packer fluids, prognosed production fluids, temperature
and the stimulation programme, if applicable.

198
 Two packers DST

Fig. ____ DST in open hole

Fig. 14.23 Running in the wellbore the DST

199
Fig. ___ : Typical Jack Up Test String with TCP Guns on Permanent Packer

200
Fig. ___ : Typical Test String with TCP Guns Stabbed Through Production
Packer

201
Fig. ___ : Typical Jack Up test String Retrievable Packer

202
Fig. ___ : Typical Semi-Submersible Test String Retrievable Packer

The most common test sequence consists of a short flow period, perhaps five or
ten minutes, followed by a buildup period of about an hour that is used to
determine initial reservoir pressure.

This is followed by a flow period of 4 to 24 hours to establish stable flow to the

surface, if possible, and followed by the final shut-in or buildup of a duration
almost double of the flowing time.

Basis of DST operations

In simple terms, a DST is carried out by running test tools in a BHA on a test
string in the hole . When the string is successfully installed and all pressure and
function testing is completed, a fluid is circulated into the tubing to provide an
under balance to allow the well to flow after perforating.

The down hole tester valve is opened to flow the well to clean up perforating
debris and invasive fluids from the formation, the tester valve is then closed to

203
allow the formation fluids to build-up back up to reservoir pressure which is
recorded on pressure recorders or gauges.

After a suitable time (usually 11/2 times the flow period), the tester valve is then
reopened to conduct the planned flow and shut-in periods in accordance to the
programme requirements to obtain other additional data and verification.

Following figure shows a typical schematic of a simple single flow operational

sequence.

Fig. __ : DST Typical Sequence of Events

204
 Static pressure profile
Bottom
hole pressure

time

Bottom Fall-off test

hole pressure Temperature profile

Fig. ____ Typical Pressure Charts with DST Pressure Gauge (amerada)

Completion type- test string

Cased hole Open hole

h
reservoir
thickness

Sand face Sand face

Fig. Type of completion

205
The test string refers to the subsurface equipment run below the well head. The
configuration will depend upon the type of well, the installation, and the type of
test. The simplest test string is that required for a DST (drill stem test) in which a
temporary test string is run in the hole and set using a retrievable packer.

The following diagram shows different versions of the DST.

Fig. Different type of DST Configuration

The concerns with a DST are as follows:

 will the inflatable packer seal,

 is the formation strong enough at the casing shoe to withstand gas influx,

 will the borehole remain stable throughout the duration of the test (all for
open hole DSTs),

 will the tubing joints have sufficient integrity to stop gas leaks around the
joints or to withstand the corrosion of fluids such as H2S?

The latter can be managed by specifying sufficient quality tubing materials and
gas tight connections, but the packer integrity and borehole stability may be of
sufficient concern that the policy may be not to run open hole DST.

At the other extreme from a DST, the following figure shows a full production test
string for a well test of a cased and lined well.

206
 Fig. __ : Test String Details

Note in this test string design that tubing conveyed perforating (TCP) guns are
run on the bottom of the test string to reduce the need for wireline perforation,
and allow underbalanced perforating.

Note also the position of the gauge carrier relative to the TCP guns which will be
at the reservoir depth.

The test string should be designed to acquire sufficient data to meet the
objectives of the test with the simplest equipment to run and operate (minimum
wireline requirement), in a safe manner. Some of the constraints which will affect
the test string design include :

 the expected flowrate

 the test pressures and temperatures

207
  sufficient tubing size to run required wireline tools (i.e. a 2 1/8" through
tubing perforating gun)

 the ability to carry sufficient pressure and temperature recorders

 the ability to control the well safely

 the ability to withstand corrosive fluids (i.e. CO2, H2S) - in new areas
where

 the presence of it is uncertain the string will normally be for sour service.

A typical test string is 3 1/2" tubing for a standard well test, with 5" tubing for high
rate tests. Remember that the rate has little material effect on the well test
interpretation, unless one objective is to establish the maximum potential of the
well.

Perforations

Perforations procedure

Here are some general guidelines on perforating procedures. Intervals should be

perforated bottom up to avoid wireline passes across perforated intervals and
thus reduce the potential for stuck tools.

Perforating is generally performed underbalanced in order to clean debris out of

the perforated channels. This can be optimised by perforating all intervals
together through the use of tubing conveyed perforating (TCP) guns.

Perforating can also be performed over pressured in order to fracture the

reservoir as the well is perforated. This can help to increase well productivity, but
is a special application.

As soon as the first perforating run has taken place a clean up period should be
considered to displace wellbore completion fluid from the well and avoid it
slumping into the formation and potentially causing wellbore damage.

Perforation gun type and ratings should be designed to maximize well

productivity.

208
 Wireline Gun Through tubing Gun Tubing conveyed Gun

Fig. Perforating gun

Packer

Function

To isolate the production layer from mud weight

Types of packers, according to utilization.

 For Open hole test

 For Cased hole test

 For Tubing completion

Principal components

 Friction slips

 Rubber packing element for sealing

 By-pass

209
 Fig. _Packer

Tester valve

Operated with annulus pressure

 Dual Valve

Tester + Circulating Valve operated by pressure pulses in the annulus

(Pulse Operated Tool)

210
 Fig. Tester valve

Circulating valve

Function

It permits the mud circulation after the test and the fluid recovery inside the tubing

Types

 operated with pressure from the tubing (MIRV and MCCV).

 operated with pressure from the annulus (OMNI )

 single shot (SHRV, APR-A)

211
Fig. Circulating valve

Bottom hole fluid sampler

The sampler has two valves and a small tank (capacity from 2 to 10 litres). It is
mounted above the Tester valve.

The sampler takes a fluid sample (for PVT study) during the flowing of the well in
dynamic conditions.

The formation fluid sample is taken at the end of the test.

212
Fig. Bottom hole fluid sampler

14.3 Measuring Equipments

Gauge Carrier

The Memory Gauges are located in the DST assembly by means of a Gauge
Carrier (Bundle Carrier).

The carrier can take up to four gauges for pressure and temperature recording.

The reading are done through dedicated ports, located inside the tubing.

213
Fig. Gauge carrier

214
Fig. Memory gauges

215
15.0 DOWN HOLE GAUGE

15.1 Down Hole Data

The Well Testing principle is to analyse the reservoir response to an input signal
(the imposed rate) to which an output signal (the bottom hole pressure)
corresponds. The identification of the flow regimes in the formation, the main
petrophysical properties, the potentialities and the physical limits of the reservoir
are based on the bottom hole pressure response.

15.2 Bottom Hole Pressures And Temperatures

The recording of bottom hole data during the test is possible by using electronic
gauges.

Mechanical gauges (Amerada) are obsolete due to their poor performances with
respect to electronic gauges.

In accordance with the operation constraints and depending on the string-well

system, the gauges are located as close as possible to the producing formation in
order to reduce errors in referring the values from the measurement point to a
reference depth.

The electronic gauges can provide the bottom hole temperature and pressure
with variable sampling rates (from a minimum of 2 seconds between the
measured data).

However, it is recommended to use sampling intervals higher than 5 seconds

since lower values can lead to wrong temperature measurements. This is due to
the thermal inertia of the tool which is not able to adapt to fast temperature
variations.

A general criteria to be followed is to decrease the sampling rate at each phase

modification (from flowing to shut-in and vice versa). At longer times, the
sampling interval can be gradually increased.

However, for tests shorter than 10-15 days it is suggested not to select sampling
rates longer than 15 minutes so as to have a suitable data management without
affecting the continuity of the measurement.

As a common procedure, the Service Company provides the results of the

instrumental monitoring such as cumulative times, pressure and temperatures..

216
 15.3 Pressure Measurement

Pressure measurement can be made at surface and down hole. For production
tests down hole gauges are invariably run, and these are of three main types:

 mechanical gauges (eg Amerada type)

 electronic memory gauges

 electronic surface readout (SRO) gauges

Electronic gauges have now replaced mechanical gauges for most down hole
applications.

There are two main categories of electronic gauge; strain gauge and quartz
crystal gauge.

Gauge selection is based on the criteria listed in the following table, plus price.

The following table gives the manufacturers specifications for a typical strain
gauge and quartz crystal gauge:

MSG-S-20 strain MQG-20

Quartz
Pressure
range (psi) 0-2000 p 0-20000
accuracy (psi) ±4 ±4
resolution (psi) 0.6 0.2
Temperature range (°F) 32-347 32-347
accuracy (°F) 1.08 0.36
resolution (°F) 1.08 0.036
memory type EEPROM EEPROM
(electrically)
memory capacity 32768 (temp+press) 32768 press, 8192 temp
O.D./ lengh (in) 11/4 / 56.3 1 11/16 56.3

Tab. ____ Geoservice gauges

In general, the gauge accuracy, resolution, robustness for the reservoir

conditions and price are prime considerations in gauge selection. Resolution
refers to how small a difference in pressure the gauge can detect.

15.4 Technology

Apart from technical specifications, the measurement instruments can be

subdivided into two main types:

217
1. SRO Gauges (Surface Read Out),

2. Memory Gauges

Surface Read Out (SRO) gauge

During the various test phases SRO gauges allow a real time monitoring of the
data being measured. This is because the gauges are run in the well by a mono
conductor cable allowing the transmission of the signal from the bottom to the
surface.

Advantages:


minimization of costs (very high if the tests are carried out with the rig on
site or in offshore operations).

 or
static profiles to assess the real flow distribution and the nature of the
fluids along the wellbore. It is also possible to have relevant information
on the portion of the formation that actually contributes to production
(thermometry).

 Direct action on sampling times during the data acquisition when the
original test programme needs to be modified.

Disadvantages:


personnel provided by Service Companies.


consequence, in the case of malfunctioning, there is no way to verify the
reliability of the instrument response.

Use:

Recommended in exploration wells to have an immediate verification of the

reservoir response and in all situations requiring real time monitoring and
immediate decision making for peculiarity and importance.

Other memory gauges

218
These gauges are run in the well by a harmonic steel cable (slick-line) and placed
in nipples in the completion string. Alternatively, they are directly run with the
testing string in a tool called "bundle carrier”.

At the end of the test they are retrieved from the well.

The main difference with respect to the SRO gauges is that it is not possible to
monitor the pressure response in real time; only at the end of the test the
collected data can be analysed.

In fact, the acquisition is guaranteed by a battery pack (generally lithium based)

located below the gauges. All the relevant data are stored in the tool internal
memory.

Only at the end of the test the gauges are retrieved and the data recorded
unloaded and available for interpretation.

Advantages:


data acquisition.


redundancy in some cases (especially in exploration wells) a third
memory gauge is added, also to solve potential inconsistencies between
measurements.


and support personnel during the test.

Disadvantages:


the test in real time.

 Limited test time due to the battery efficiency that depends on the
sampling rate and on the number of data recorded (times, pressures and
temperatures). Moreover, the battery duration is a function of the bottom
hole temperature: the higher the temperature the lower the duration of the
batteries.

Use:

219
Conventional memory gauges can be combined with SRO in exploration wells
and, generally, in development wells with definitive completion.

15.5 Main Gauges Specifications

When planning a test, the gauge is the key element to reach the designed
targets. The main gauge properties are: stability, resolution, accuracy, and
stabilization time.

Stability

Property related to the drift phenomenon. It defines the shift in measured

pressure compared to the actual value. Drift phenomena tend to amplify in time
and are generally positive.

Drift does not depend on the magnitude of the measured pressure.

The importance of the drift varies from gauge to gauge and for the same type of
gauge there are different types of drifts.

As an example, the indicative laboratory drift values for different types of gauges
are reported:

 psi/week;

 s: ~0.2 psi/first week, then < 0.1 psi/week.

It can be noted that quartz gauges are very stable and do not have drift
problems. Long tests, of the order of several weeks, require the application area
of Quartz Gauges.

Resolution

The resolution of an instrument represents the amplitude of the smallest step

detectable in monitoring the real pressure. Thus, all the gauges reproduce the
real physical pressure behaviour in a reservoir by steps.

The resolution is a property varying from gauge to gauge. A high resolution

gauge can be an efficient choice for tests carried out in very high permeability
formations.

Indicative laboratory resolution values are as follows:

220
  psi @ 10000
psi);

Accuracy

For a given pressure, it defines the relationship between the gauge pressure
measure and the actual value.

Accuracy laboratory values for the different gauges are as follows:

 psi);

 psi);

 Quartz Gauges: 0.02% full scale (i.e. 2 psi @ 10000 psi).

Stabilization times

Time necessary to stabilize a gauge after abrupt pressure and temperature

variations (i.e. during the steps when carrying out static and/or dynamic profiles).

It is defined as the time necessary so that the difference between the gauge
value and the actual value is smaller than 1 psi. It can vary from more than 10
minutes in the case of Amerada to less than 1 minute (quartz gauge).

All the above values provided by Manufacturers were obtained under laboratory
conditions by submitting the gauges to increasing pressure steps from 1000 psi
to 10000 psi.

The temperature was kept constant at a value of 150 °C for the testing time.

Based on the existing technology, all the electronic gauges are suitable to work
at reservoir temperature up to 150°C. Special gauges must be required when
testing HP-HT environment with reservoir temperature greater than 150°C. The
current technological limit is some of 185-190°C.

HP Quartz pressure gauge

The quarts technology that Hewlett-Packard first introduced to the oil and gas
well industry an 1970 is still the standard for pressure measurement applications

221
requirement applications requiring extremely high accuracy resolution and
repeatability. These features combined with its rugged construction, make the
probe ideally suited for petroleum applications, oceanographic research and
subterranean hydrodynamic studies.

High Precision, Resolution and Repeatability

Capable of sensing wellbore pressure changes as small as 0.001 psi, the probes
measurements can be instantly observed and recorder on the surface. With an
accuracy better than ± 1.0 psi and ± 0.01% of the precision of you
measurements.

How it works.

The essential pressure-measuring components of the HP 2813C Quartz Pressure

Probe are its sensor crystal, reference crystal and electronics pc board. The
sensor crystal, which is an direct fluid communication with the well changes the
frequency of its oscillations in response to pressure. The reference crystal, which
is protected from applied pressure, subtracts the effect of the temperature
changes from the sensor crystals frequency

The resulting frequency is then transmitted by the electronics pc board through a

centre conductor, armoured electric line to an HP 2816A Signature Process on
the surface. This processor conditions the pressure-related signal frequency
counter. The counters signal can be converted to a pressure reading when
processed with the calibration data in a desktop computer.

The sensor crystals high resolution is essentially constant and independent of

operating pressure and temperature. It‟s in essentially minimizes hysteresis and
zero draft thus estimating the need for frequent recalibration

222
Fig. Truck with winch

Double drum winch

 Electrical line

20000 feet of 7/32” electrical line

Cable rating:

Maximum pull: 4.500 lbs. Maximum temperature: 250°F ; 390°F

 Slick line

25000 feet of .92” slick line

 On both drums hydraulic power provided by hydraulic pump controlled by

progressive servo valve

 Winch accessories

Adjustable depth meter, CCL box, Martin Decker

Hp quartz pressure gauge

Resolution = 0.001 psi

Accuracy = + - 1.0 psi or + - 0.01 % of the reading

Downhole gauge location

Pressure gauges are best located down hole close to the reservoir, but there is
an extra cost compared to surface location. Gauges can be located above or
below the perforations.

Advantages below the perforations are the ability to perform wireline logging,
avoiding constricting the wellbore and minimising turbulence. Disadvantages are
that perforating debris or sand may fall onto the tools making them difficult to
subsequently retrieve.

In any case, the gauge is unlikely to be located at the reservoir datum depth
(which is a specific reference depth for any one reservoir) and reservoir pressure
measured at the gauge will need to be corrected to the datum depth.

223
This requires knowledge of the fluid gradient inside the wellbore as well as the
reservoir fluid gradient.

The former can be determined from the gradient stops performed when the
gauge is run in the hole and the latter from the RFT pressures.

Real time pressure readout (surface read out: SRO)

If down hole pressure gauges are monitored in real time, the test can be
interpreted in real time, giving the opportunity to extend or curtail the test as the
opportunity arises. There are large potential rig time savings in being able to do
this.

For example, if the test objectives can be met after 12 hours of build-up, there is
no additional benefit of remaining shut in for another 12 hours, even though the
well test design specified a 24 hour build-up.

SRO gauges are powered from surface, so the need for battery packs is
eliminated, making them attractive for harsh conditions (HP/HT wells).

SRO is achieved by passing a signal from the down hole gauge to surface using
electric cable run inside the production tubing to surface. Typically a down hole
gauge will record the drawdown data and upon shut in, the wireline will be run
into the well to transmit the stored drawdown data and then transmit the build-up
data in real time.

If a PLT is run with the well test, the electrical wireline provides the real time data.
The downside to such operations is the increased potential for fishing jobs du e
to wireline operations.

224
16.0 WELL TEST DESIGN AND COSTS

After the well test objectives have been defined, the following steps are required
to design a test.

16.1 Well Test Design For An Oil Well

1. Acquisition of input data:

Input data Source of input data

Geological information Geologist

Sedimentological information Sedimentologist

Petrophysical data Geologist

PVT data PVT analyst

P,T reservoir Subsurface geologist/Reservoir Eng.

Tab . 16.1 Input data for Well Test

For production wells additional information is necessary:

 tion history,

 -fracturing operations, well washing due to

asphaltens & paraffins presence,

2. Acquisition of information about possible constrains relative to:

225
3. Selection of the optimal test sequence; Generation of the theoretical
pressure response to be used as the reference case with the
interpretation software (i.e. Interpret/2003 and/or Shaphir);

4. Performance of sensitivity analyses by modifying the relevant

parameters:

 -up (drawdown),

 l reservoir model.

5. Display the obtained results (oil well), i.e.:

 (k) (Fig. 16.1) at different skins

(S);

 permeability (k) (Fig. 16.2) considering

different models;

 s (Ri) vs. time (t) (Fig. 16.3) at different permeability

values.

Fig 16.1 Sensitivity PI vs k at different skin S

226
 Fig 16.2 Sensitivity PI vs k with different model

Fig 16.3 Sensitivity Ri vs time at different k

16.2 Well test design for a gas well

After the well test objectives have been defined, the following steps are required
to design a test:

227
1. Acquisition of input data: as per Tab 6.1

For production wells additional information are necessary:

 er rates),


asphaltens/paraffins presence,

2. Acquisition of information about possible constrains relative to:

3. Selection of the optimal test sequence;

Generation of the theoretical pressure response to be used as the reference case

with the interpretation software (Interpret/2003 and/or Shaphir);

4. Performance of sensitivity analyses by modifying the relevant

parameters:

 in,

 -up (drawdown),

5. Display the obtained results, i.e.:

 2
) vs. Log(q) (Figure 16.4) at different skins;

228
  Log (Δp2) vs. Log(q) (Figure 16.5) considering different models;

Fig 16.4 Log (Δp2) vs. Log(q) at different skin (S)

Fig 16.5 Log (Δp2) vs. Log(q) with different models

16.3 Design Appproach

229
230
17.0 FLUID SAMPLING

17.1 Surface Sampling

The objective of reservoir fluid sampling is to collect representative samples of

the reservoir fluids at the time of sampling. In general terms oil, gas and even
water samples are required to properly characterise the formation fluids.

Sampling is generally performed in the initial exploration and/or appraisal phase

when the fluid is still characterized by its original composition. This is a crucial
step for reliably predicting the future reservoir behaviour.

Two methods are used for sampling reservoir fluids. They are referred to as
“subsurface sampling“ and “surface sampling”. In this second method, sampling
can be made at the separator (most likely) as well as at the wellhead. When
sampling exploration wells, subsurface sampling is always associated with
surface sampling.

As a general procedure, sampling operations can be planned either during the

main flow phase or at the end of the test after the final build-up.

The choice of the sampling method is influenced by several factors, such as :

 type of reservoir fluid;

 volume of sample required by lab analysis;

 mechanical conditions of the well;

 limits of the available gas-oil separators equipment.

The key factor to collect a representative reservoir fluid sample is the preliminary
conditioning of the well. This consists of producing the well, for a certain time, at
a rate which removes all the altered (non representative) fluid from the wellbore.

The recommended procedure to reach such a situation, consists of producing the

well in a series of “step by step” flow rate reduction. A stabilized gas-oil ratio
(GOR) should be achieved and measured at each step. The well is considered to
be sufficiently conditioned when further rate reductions have no effect on the
GOR which remains constant over time. Monophasic flow conditions are then
basically achieved and sampling can be successfully performed.

231
Special attention must be dedicated when sampling oil reservoirs (light - volatile
oil) if the saturation pressure (or dew point pressure for gas condensate) is
closed to the initial static pressure.

During the sampling phase the following parameters should be stabilized and
properly monitored:

 Fluid flow rates (Qoil, Qgas, Qwater),

 Bottom Sediment & Water (BSW),

 Gas Oil Ratio (GOR),

 Wellhead pressure and temperature,

 Separator pressure and temperature.

In addition, the main physical fluid properties, such as oil and average gas gravity
as well as the presence of CO2/H2S, should be carefully evaluated.

As a general procedure, all the surface/downhole samples collected during the

production test must be properly validated at the wellsite before they are sent to
the labs. In the case of samples inconsistency, the operation must be repeated.

Sampling Recommended Practice

Recommended Practices:

1. Single phase downhole samples may be taken for oil wells with low water cut
to compare with surface recombination samples. These samples are
particularly useful for wax or asphaltene detection.

2. Ensure that sufficient separator gas is acquired when taking surface

separator samples to allow recombination with the oil samples to replicate
reservoir conditions.

3. Samples of separator water and any solids production should always be

taken.

4. If samples taken during the main test are thought to be poor, further samples
can be taken by reversing out the tubing contents. Maintaining back pressure
at the choke manifold may allow single phase samples to be collected,
however this will not always be possible.

232
5. Chemical injection (e.g. Methanol, Glycol) should not take place upstream of
the sampling point, when samples are being collected, unless operationally
unavoidable. If chemicals are injected upstream of the sampling point, this
should be noted on the sampling tag and samples of the injected chemicals
should be sent with the hydrocarbon samples to the laboratory.

6. Dead oil and condensate samples should be taken for assays. Small
separator gas (300cc), stock tank oil or condensate (lOOcc) and water
(lOOcc) should be taken for geochemical analysis.

7. Duplicate samples should always be taken as a minimum, however triplicate

are preferred.

8. Cylinders should never be shipped liquid full (it is illegal). If a piston cylinder is
used, an inert gas should be used on the backside of the piston. Cylinders
should be liquid filled to no more than 90% of capacity. All cylinder pressure
ratings should be checked to make sure they are appropriate. The pressure
rating needs to have been certified within the last five years and this will be
shown by a stamp on the cylinder.

Sampling Programmes

The particular sampling programme for a test must be designed taking account of
the expected fluid type, reservoir conditions and overall aims of the test.

Many test procedures include a low rate sampling flow period after completion of
the main test. If sampling is preceded by a high rate test with flowing bottom hole
pressures below the saturation pressure of the fluid, then the well needs to be
conditioned prior to sampling. This conditioning period is designed produce out
all the fluid that has been below the saturation pressure. If the saturation
pressure is not known or the reservoir fluid is saturated, all fluid that has seen
more than about 100 psi drawdown needs to be produced before sampling, in
order to ensure that the sample is representative.

In all cases it is important that the samples are collected under stable flowing
conditions. For fluids near their saturation pressure, it is sometimes
recommended that the low rate sampling flow period should be early on in the
test, to assure that the reservoir has not been dropped below the dew point or
bubblepoint pressure during previous flows. Unfortunately, information on
saturation pressures are in many cases unknown before conducting the test.

233
 The typical sampling requirements for oil, gas and gas condensate reservoirs are
as shown in table 17.1. These are however only a guideline and depending on
the detailed objectives of the test additional samples may be required.

Sample Source Container Typical Number Remarks

Type Type Size Requires
Separator Separator Pressure 20 Litre 3 per flow Used for PVT
Gas Gas Line Bottle 300cc for period recombination
geochem. of reservoir
Analysis fluid.
Geochemical
analysis
Separator Separator Pressure 600 cc 3 per flow Used for PVT
Oil or Oil Line Bottle period recombination
Condensate of reservoir
fluid.
Condensate
also for
Geochemical
Analysis
Single Wellhead Pressure 600 cc As Required Only if
Phase Oil Bottle saturation
pressure is
less than the
flowing
wellhead
pressure
Dead Oil or Separator Metal 45 gallon 2 per test For crude
Condensate or Gauge Drum assay
Tank
Produced Separator Plastic 1-5 Litre Water salinity For water
Water water outlet Bottle 100 cc for every hour salinity
Gauge Geochem and retain 2 analysis, Rw
Tank or Analysis to 3 samples and
Reverse per flow Geochemical
Circulation period analysis

234
Produced Wellhead or Plastic 1 cubic Check every For gravel
Solids Separator Bottle centimetre hour or more pack sizing
packages. frequencly if
5 litre well high solids
head fluid production
samples retain 2 to 3
for samples per
filtration test
Bottom hole Bottom of Pressure Tool Size Minimum of 3, Reservoir
Fluid test string Bottle dependant but as PVT fluid
Samole required to analysis
obtain
representative
reservoir
samples

Tab. 17.1: Typical Sampling Requirements

It is important that all necessary flowing conditions are noted whilst sampling.
This information is used for the recombination of samples and for fluid analyses.
Indeed this data is as critical to good sampling as the samples themselves.

The conditions to be noted are as follows:

Upstream of Choke Downstream of Choke Reservoir

Flowing Pressure Separator liquid rate Reservoir Pressure

Flowing Temperature Separator gas rate Reservoir Temperature

Separator temperature Flowing Bottomhole

Pressure

Separator pressure

Stock tank liquid rate

Stock tank temperature

Stock tank pressure

Other:

 Choke size

 Gas lift rate and composition (if used)

235
  Gas gravity used to calibrate orifice meter readings (Fg)

Stable Flow

When sampling to obtain representative samples for PVT analysis the following
producing conditions are needed:

 Stable flowing bottom hole pressure with minimum drawdown.

 Stable flowing wellhead temperature and pressure.

 Well producing clean, fresh fluid from reservoir.

 Separator flowrates stable and measurable.

 No major fluctuations in separator levels.

 Stable separator pressure.

 Flowrates not too high - avoid liquid carry over.

Although separator samples are the most convenient samples to take, the
accuracy of the PVT analysis on these samples relies on a large number of
conditions being stable.

Even fairly small disturbances to separator the equilibrium or stability will effect
the sample quality.

The absolute accuracy of any PVT data derived from these surface samples is a
direct function of the accuracy of the measurement of oil and gas production
rates. Since oil rates can generally be measured to no better than 5% accuracy
and gas rates to no better than 3 % accuracy, recombination GOR's are always
uncertain. This means that bottomhole sampling will usually always give more
representative fluid samples.

Surface Sampling Points

The choice of sampling location will depend on the fluid properties and the
flowing conditions of the well. In general the following will apply:

Well head pressure greater than bubble point pressure - surface samples
upstream of choke.

236
Well head pressure less than bubble point pressure - downhole sampling or
separator recombination sampling

The following guidelines should be followed in selecting sample points:

Separator Gas Line

 Upstream of the Orifice Plate / Daniels Box.

 As close to the separator vessel as possible.

 Not immediately downstream of thermo well or other tappings in the

flowline.

 Not immediately after a bend in the flowline.

 Ideally the sampling point should protrude into the centre of the gas
flowline and face upstream. However, a pipe into the stream is
acceptable.

Note: The sampling point should not be on the lower half of the flowline cross
section, due to any possible free liquid or liquid carryover being present. If the
sampling point has to be fitted flush to the inside surface of the flowline, then it is
preferable that it is on the tog of the line and not on the side.

Separator Oil Line

 As close as possible to the exit of the oil flowline from the separator
vessel.

 Not immediately downstream of the thermo wells or bends in the flowline.

 Ideally the sampling point should protrude into the centre of the flowline,
with the mouth facing upstream. However a pipe into the stream is
acceptable.

 It should be upstream of any increase in flowline diameter.

Note: The sampling point should not be on the upper half of the flowline cross
section, due to any possible free gas. If the sampling point is on the wall of the
flowline, then it is preferable that it is on the side, rather than the top or the
bottom - due to possible free gas or water in the flowline.

Wellhead

237
  Upstream of the choke manifold as close to the flowhead as possible.
However, in practice samples are normally taken at the data header,
upstream of the choke.

 Ideally the sampling point should protrude into the centre of the flowline
with the mouth facing upstream. However a pipe into the centre of the
flowline is acceptable.

 Not immediately after a bend in the flowline.

 Ensure that the sampling point is chosen where the main flow is passing
through. Not in any dead legs or alternative flow paths.

17.2 Downhole Sampling

As previously discussed in order to obtain representative downhole samples it is

important that the well should be produced at a minimum drawdown (to maintain
bottom hole pressure above dew point or bubble point) but still allow continuous
flow of produced liquids (oil or water) to surface. Surface readout pressure
gauges should most definitely be considered to monitor flowing bottom hole
pressure to ensure the draw down is low.

Samples should always be collected at a known downhole depth, temperature

and pressure. Samplers run into the well on either electric line or slickline should
always be run in association with a pressure and temperature gauge (SRO or
memory gauge).

Samplers should normally be positioned within 300 ft of the perforations, never

attempt to take samples below the perforations as the samplers may become
stuck in debris and samples recovered may be of mud or water from the rat hole.
A gradient survey may be required prior to sampling to locate any oil water
contact in the well.

The sampler should be placed at the very least 30 ft above the oil water contact
to avoid sampling emulsion.

Formation-fluid samples can be acquired using one of three main techniques.

First, wireline formation tester deployed in open hole can acquire fluid samples
and also perform downhole analysis of fluids, ensuring optimal sample acquisition
and the possibility of analyzing fluids early in the life of well. These testers
provide a cost-effective method of acquiring early fluid samples, with

238
performance now often equal to or above that achievable with the second
method, drillstem tests (DTSs). In the past, DSTs, typically designed to test
production and investigate reservoir extent, have produced samples with less
contamination that openhole sampling. DSTs require early planning and a well
completion that withstand production pressure, and can cost much than openhole
sampling, especially in offshore wells. In a third method, samples can be
acquired by wireline tools deployed in a cased, producing well.

An important aspect of fluid sampling is analysis of the fluids at reservoir

conditions. This helps validate sample quality during the sampling process, but
also enables the mapping of vertical variations in fluid properties, allowing
interpreters to determine zonal connectivity and define reservoir architecture
early in field life.

Uncontaminated fluid samples allow accurate measurement of fluid properties

both dowhole and at the surface.

After samples are acquires, they typically are analyzed in laboratories, where
they undergo a series of tests depending on what the client needs to
understand. Standard analyses for hydrocarbon samples include chemical
composition to C30+, gas/oil ratio (GOR), density, viscosity, and phase properties
such as saturation pressure, bubble point, puor point and stability of asphaltanes.
Several measurements can now be performed downhole, using optical
spectroscopy to characterize formation fluids under reservoir conditions. These
include density, optical density, GOR and chemical composition to C30+.

Laboratory and dowhole fluid measurements both require pure, uncontaminated

samples. Contamination occurs when miscible drilling fluid filtrate that has
invaded the formation mixes with the formation fluid being sampled. For istance,
hydrocarbon samples are contaminated by oil-base mud (OBM) filtrate, and water
samples are contaminated by water-base mud (WBM) filtrate.

To reduce contamination during sample collection, engineers rely mostly on

increasing the volume of fluid pumped from the reservoir by pumping longer or at
a higher rate. Downhole analysis of contamination level can determine when fluid
flowing through the sampling-tool flowline is clean enough to be collected.
However, long pumping time increases rig time and associated costs, and may
increase the risk of downhole tool sticking. Depending on the reservoir
permeability, high pumping rates can cause the reservoir permeability, high
pumping rates can cause the reservoir fluid to drop below saturation pressure. If

239
this happens, the downhole samples will not be representative of the reservoir
fluid.

In the case of unconsolidated formations, high pumping rate may induce sand
production. Also, in settings involving high vertical permeability, even long
pumping times and increased pumping rates do not clean samples.

Fluid-analysis experts have worked to understand and mitigate the effects of

contamination on samples. Some methods attempt to derive the composition or
GOR of a pure sample knowing the composition of the OBM contaminating the
collected sample. However, uncertainties and errors accompany fluid properties
estimated in this manner. Researchers have quantified the errors caused by
contamination on some measurements. For example, the pressure at which
asphaltenes precipitate from solution in crude oil decreases in the presence of
OBM contamination by weight caused asphaltene precipitation onset pressure to
decrease by 100 to 150 psi [0.7 to 1.0 MPa]. Thus, measurements on
contaminated samples under-estimate asphaltene-precipitation onset pressure,
and may negatively affect flow-assurance and production predictions. These
results emphasize the need for extremely low-contamination samples.

Downhole Fluid Analysis

In most reservoirs, fluid composition varies with location in the reservoir. Fluids
may exhibit gradations caused by gravity or biodegradation, or they may be
segregated by structural or stratigraphic compartmentalization. One way to
characterize these variations is to collect samples for surface analysis. Another
way is to analyze fluids downhole, without bringing them to surface. Downhole
fluid analysis (DFA) is emerging as a powerful technique to characterize fluids
downhole. DFA helps determine the best intervals for sample collection, if
necessary. Analyzing fluid composition while the tool is still in the hole also allows
more detailed fluid characterization, because interpreters can modify the fluid-
scanning program in real time to investigate unexpected results.

The ability of the Quicksilver Probe module to supply uncontaminated fluids

ensures optimal DFA results, and the faster cleanup time allows several DFA
fluid-scanning stations to be conducted efficiently without the long station times
associated with conventional sampling. A combination of DFA and sample
collection helped a Norwegian operator understand fluids in a well drilled on the
Norwegian Continental Shelf.

240
The well was drilled ad a final appraisal before development of an oil field.
Because of environmental restrictions, a production test was not planned, so it
was critical to obtain uncontaminated samples and fully characterize fluid
variation within reservoir. The fluid analysis would be used in the material
selection of subsea pipeline and surface facilities, process design and production
planning. Because of the high priority to capture representative hydrocarbon
sample within miscible contamination, the well was drilled water-base mud
(WBM). The Quicksilver Probe tool was run in the 12 ¼ in, and 8 ½ in section to
collect samples of gas condensate, oil and formation water, and filled 19 samples
chambers from many levels. An example from one of the more challenging
zones, sampling oil in a relatively tight zone with mobility of 17 mD/cP, shows hoe
the focusing technology results in an uncontaminated sample. Fluid cleanup
began with commingled flow first through the guard flowline, then through the
sample flowline. After 1,300 seconds, flow is split and focusing is achieved by
increasing the flow rate in the guard probe. The real-time GOR detected by the
CFA module stabilized at around 2,300 seconds, indicating that the fluid was
clean. However, pumping continued, and a sample was acquired at 2,800
seconds. The spikes in the GOR curve indicate the presence of produced fines
from the formation, confirmed later when the samples was analyzed at surface.
Wellsite analysis showed some sand in the samples, but no detectable level of
WBM filtrate.

In the same well, the focusing method created optimal conditions for DFA. The
spectroscopic analyzers that indicate when fluid in the flowline is pure enpugh to
sample also characterized the fluid composition in terms of three component
groups: methane (C1), ethane to pentane (C2 to C5), and hexane and heavier
(C6+). This allows in situ-compositional analysis without collecting a sample and
retrieving it to surface.

241
18.0 TEST IN AGGRESSIVE ENVIRONMENTS

18.1 Environmental Concerns

Dangerous Substance

During the implementation of a well test a wide variety of hazardous substances

may be used. Prior to commencing a well test operation, consideration should be
given to each of these substances to ensure that safe handling procedures are
drawn up. Steps should be taken to ensure that exposure of personnel to these
substances is minimised.

Any personnel handling these substances should be aware of the required

precautions and associated hazards. These substances must only be handled in
strict accordance with specified procedures and by authorised personnel.

Typical hazardous substances used during well testing are listed below:

Acid additives Hydraulic oil

Benzene Cement

Biocides Diesel

Glycol Oil based muds

Hydrochloric acid Crude oil

Hydrofluoric acid Hydrocarbon gas

Hydrogen Sulphide Scavengers Scale Inhibitors

Methanol Mineral Oils

Oxygen Scavengers Brines

Pipe Dope Mercury

Toluene Xylene

Daylight/High Visibility Working

Some operations undertaken during a well test will require good visibility in order
to be carried out safely. Moreover, some operations which could be carried out
without problems on offshore rigs, may not be possible on onshore rig sites
where the overall site lighting may not be so good. Whenever possible, additional

242
explosion proof lighting should be installed at onshore wellsites for testing
operations.

Generally the following activities will become considerably more hazardous if

carried out under low light conditions:

 Acidizing and fracturing.

 Coiled tubing work.

 High pressure pumping.

 Igniting flares.

 Initial perforating and flowing the well.

 Slickline and electric wireline work.

 Well kill.

Where possible these activities should be avoided during the hours of darkness.

In certain circumstances some of the operations listed above will be required

during the hours of darkness. In these cases it is imperative that adequate
lighting is provided and that personnel involved in this phase of the test are alert
and aware of any increased hazards. Restrictions on work requiring daylight or
high visibility should be indicated within the detailed well testing programme.

Oil Spill Contingency

An oil spill contingency plan will normally be formulated prior to the drilling of any
well. This plan should be written so as to include any possible spillage occurring
during well testing.

Oil spills associated with testing would probably come from the following:

 Unburned oil falling from burner booms, " Fall Out".

 Separator rupture disk blowing causing liquid dumping.

 Well blowout.

 Catastrophic failure of production piping or vessels.

 Unburned oil based mud falling from burner booms.

243
  Leakage of crude oil storage vessel or tanks.

 Rupture of tanks or compartment during crude oil transport.

Each of the above types of oil spill would vary in severity depending on the
nature of the test or on the amount and type of oil storage at the well site.

The oil spill contingency plan for a particular well should be reviewed prior to
writing the detailed well test programme. If necessary, additional section should
be added to the detailed programme to cover specific oil spill contingency
planning.

18.2 Detection System

Breathing Apparatus

Basic breathing apparatus will normally be available on the rig. However, this
equipment may be limited in quantity.

Therefore, if a well test is to be carried out and H2S is 'possible' in the well,
sufficient breathing apparatus sets must be made available for all personnel on
the rig. This breathing apparatus should be self contained and allow at least 20
minutes usage without refilling air bottles.

For tests where H2S is 'expected' a full cascade air system should be installed in
preference to the use of air bottles.

The use of breathing apparatus (particularly air bottles) to carry out normal well
testing operations in an H2S contaminated environment is more physically taxing
to workers. Therefore, regular rotation of test crew working in contaminated areas
will be required.

Spare sets of breathing apparatus should always be maintained in a safe area

close to the work sites to enable rapid change over in the event of an equipment
failure.

Emergency escape air packs found on the rig should only be used for this
purpose and not for normal working.

Further information on H2S is contained in section 4.9. However, the advice of a

specialist H2S contractor is recommended when planning a sour well test.

Gas Detection

244
Gas detection equipment is used during well testing to monitor the area around
the test equipment for hydrocarbon gas emissions and to ensure that H2S
concentrations in the atmosphere are safe for working.

Portable gas detection equipment is used for both monitoring contaminants in

produced gases and to ensure a safe working environment exists before carrying
out work in enclosed areas.

Permanent gas detection equipment should be located in areas where releases

of gas are likely i.e. on rig floor, in the vicinity of the test separator and close to
the choke manifold (if this is located away from the rig floor).

Permanent gas detectors should be located so that normal operations will not
cause the detectors to be activated, however they must be located such that they
will detect quickly any abnormal quantities of gas. For this reason the detectors
should be located close to the equipment but away from "dead air" areas.

During the well test flow periods, regular sampling of the produced gases should
be carried out. These tests are carried out using various hand held analysers,
either disposable, or re-usable.

Gas measurements are usually in parts per million (ppm) by volume of H2S and
percentage of CO2. These measurements are particularly important on wildcat
wells to ensure that test equipment is not exposed to unsafe operating
conditions. Regular measurements will ensure that personnel are continuously
aware of any changes required in the safety procedures, should high
concentrations of H2S be present.

The measurements obtained from portable gas detection devices are generally
regarded as a more qualitative than quantitative. To obtain quantitative analytical
results more sophisticated equipment such as a gas chromatography may be
used.

However, for the purposes of establishing a safe working environment prior to

entry into any confined space e.g. test separator, gauge tank, mud pits etc. these
portable devices are adequate. Work permits should be obtained where
applicable and breathing apparatus must be available at the work site.

Hydrogen Sulphide

Hydrogen sulphide gas is extremely toxic and in relatively low concentrations can
quickly cause unconsciousness and death.

245
At concentrations in the range of 1 - 30 ppm it can easily be identified by its
characteristic smell of rotten eggs. However, a noticeable odour can be detected
even at concentrations as low as (0.01 ppm)

At higher concentrations the smell becomes sweetish and at about 150 ppm
olfactory paralysis occurs when the sense of smell can no longer be relied upon.

Table 18.1 provides a summary of the hazards and precautions to be taken if H2S
is expected.

Each operating centre should produce a detailed H2S procedures document,

specific to the rig, wellsite location and operating environment. The procedures
described below are recommended for use in the testing section of these H2S
procedures document.

246
HAZARDS TO LIFE
1. Highly
2. At low concentration dulls the sense
of smell
3. Higher concentrations- paralyses
the olfactory nerves at about 150 ppm
4. Can be masked by other odours
(such as Butane and Propane)
5. Heavier than air (S.G. 1.185) – it
can accumulate
6. Flammable gas (burn with a blue
flame)
PRECAUTIONS/TREATMENT
Monitoring H2S concentration with
detectors during flow
If H2S levels in the gas stream reach 10
ppm the test will have to be terminated
unless sour service equipment is being
used.
When testing sour wells (with sour
service equipment) inform the drilling
supervisor if H2S concentration in the
well stream exceeds 20 ppm
If H2S is detected around the rig, locate
and repair leaks. If H2S persists,
terminate test and bullhead fluids back
into the formation.
First treatment for those affected by
H2S
Remove person to fresh air

Maximum allowable concentration Resuscitate if required

10ppm (Safe up to 8 hours)
100ppm – May sting eyes and throat Oxygen may help
200ppm – Kills sense of smell rapidly,
sting eyes and throat
300ppm- Severe headache, eyes and
lungs affected – over 1 hour exposure
may cause death
500ppm – Loose sense of reasoning
and balance. Respiratory paralysis in
2 – 15 minutes.
Casually will need prompt artificial
resuscitation
700ppm-Breathing will stop and death
will occur if not rescued promptly.
Requires immediate artificial
resuscitation
800ppm- Fatal after few minutes
Requires immediate artificial
resuscitation
1000ppm – unconscious at once.
Permanent brain damage may result
unless rescued promptly

Tab. 18.1: Hydrogen Sulphide- A summary of hazards and precautions

247
Fire Fighting Equipment and alarm system

Fire fighting equipment should always be available at the rig site. Prior to
commencing a well test this equipment should be thoroughly checked to ensure it
is in good working condition.

Fire extinguishers of the appropriate type should be moved to within easy reach
of the test separator area.

All testing personnel should be trained in the use of hand held fire extinguishers.

The rig fire crew should be briefed on the layout of the test equipment and the
location of any portable fire fighting equipment in the area.

For onshore testing the local fire department, where appropriate, should be made
aware of the nature and timing of test operations.

18.3 Prevention Measures

General Provisions

Certification, Service Testing and Safety Review

All equipment purchased, or rented to carry out a well test should be fit for
purpose. This means the safe working limits in terms of pressure, temperature,
flowrate, nature of services and tensile/compressive loading should not be
exceeded during any part of the well test operation.

Well testing operations are often planned with very little information available
about the reservoir and these tests carry the greatest risk. The worst case
scenario cannot routinely be designed for and therefore a risk analysis, safety
review or HAZOP should be undertaken in such circumstances. This will
determine if worst case scenario is required in the well test design.

It is recommended that all equipment supplied for a well test should have current
certification available prior to being sent to the rig. Full pressure testing and
function testing of equipment should be carried out prior to and on arrival ot the
rig. These tests should be witnessed by a competent person. Records of all
certification and preservice tests should be retained on the rig until completion of
the test.

For North Sea tests it is a requirement that the equipment layout and P. & I.D.
meets with the approval of the rig contractors certifying authority e.g., DNV, ABS,

248
Lloyds. Generally, this will be organised by the surface testing contractor. The
equipment should be placed such that it complies with any zoning requirements.
Although this may not be a regulatory requirement elsewhere, it is recommended
that this be considered as part of a safety review. It is strongly recommended that
a HAZOP or safety review be conducted to ensure that the equipment and
procedures are fit for purpose. The extent of the review will be dependent upon
the complexity of the operation. At the very minimum, a safety review
orchestrated by the surface testing contractor should be undertaken. HP/HT tests
for example, would justify a formal HAZOP. These Safety Review/HAZOPS
should follow a format.

Restricted Access

During certain parts of the well test operation it is important to restrict access of
personnel to specific areas of the rig or well site. This may require using signs
and barriers and making PA announcements.

Principally the times when restricted access will be required are as follows:

 Offloading areas while loading or backloading equipment.

 The rig floor or catwalk while making up perforating guns.

 The rig floor while running the test string.

 The rig floor and test separator area etc. while pressure testing.

 The rig floor, derrick and cellar, separator area, burner booms and flare
area during perforating and flow periods.

 The rig floor, derrick and cellar while killing the well and pulling the DST
string.

These restrictions are related to the type of work being carried out and details
should be given in the detailed well test programme. Typically these restrictions
would only allow access to personnel directly involved with the procedures.

The start and end of operations requiring restricted access should be announced
where possible by using the rig PA system. The status of existing restrictions
should be retransmitted over the PA system at crew changes, so that on-coming
personnel are made aware of the situation.

Safety Meetings

249
Safety meetings should be carried out prior to each critical phase of the well test
operations. These meetings are required to inform all relevant personnel of the
work being carried out, specific hazards and hazardous areas. Safety meetings
are also a good opportunity to ensure that all personnel are aware of their
individual responsibilities.

Typically safety meetings would be held at the following times.

 Prior to picking up the test string and perforating guns.

 Prior to perforating or initial flowing of the well.

 Prior to carrying out a stimulation treatment.

 Prior to killing the well and pulling the DST string.

Additional meetings may well be required depending on the nature of the test and
in certain circumstances these may have to be held at the beginning and end of
each tour with both day and night crews being represented. Some points, which
may be discussed at a safety meeting are detailed below.

Pre-Test Considerations

A pre test meeting should take place with all supervisory personnel present and
all the points below which are applicable to the operation should be addressed.

 All breathing apparatus should be checked for serviceability.

 All personnel should be trained in use of B.A. sets if H2S is expected.

 Carry out an H2S drill, if H2S is expected.

 All fire fighting appliances to be inspected.

 Fire pumps to be functioned and the system pressurised.

 Fire drill to be carried out in test area.

 Fire appliances to be positioned next to the test spread.

 Gas detectors to be function tested.

 Explosion meter to be function tested.

 Lifeboat engines to be function tested.

250
  Lifeboat launching equipment to be function tested.

 Radio and telephones to be function tested.

 Life-jackets and survival suits checked.

 Drill floor sprinkler system to be function tested.

 List of safety muster points to be posted on the notice boards and

reviewed at the

 pre-test safety meeting.

 Firedrill and abandon rig drill to be held prior to testing.

 Schematic showing hazardous areas to be posted.

 ESD system to be installed and tested. Personnel to know location and

function.

 All rig cooling systems to be function tested.

 Kill fluid to be prepared in suitable quantities. Kill lines and pump to be

tested and manifold correctly lined up to kill wing.

 All diesel units to be checked for spark emissions.

 All pressurised bottles to be stowed away from hazardous areas.

 All unnecessary electrical appliances to be disconnected.

 All annulus monitoring sensors to be checked and purged.

 Escape routes to be clearly marked and kept clear of obstructions.

Personnel Briefing:

Overleaf on a single page is a personnel briefing that may be copied and

distributed to personnel at the well site prior to holding the pre-test safety
meeting.

18.3 Prevention Measures

Prevision in Presence of H2S

251
The risk of encountering H2S must be assessed from available information
relating to the current well and other wells in the area.

Danger signals must remain displayed while also carrying out production testing
where a presence of SO2 greater than 5ppm is expected (due to the combustion
of layer fluids).

H2S Emergency Provisions

In the event that the occurrence of H2S is a possibility, provisions must be made
as follows:

1. Detection - any H2S fixed or portable detectors which may be required in

addition to those already on board.

2. Wind Direction - indicators such as pennants or socks will be positioned in

at least 4 locations such that the movement of H2S can be foreseen and
its impact on escape

3. routes/ systems and support vessels/helicopters can be assessed.

4. Any person working on a rig that is drilling in a known H2S area or which
encounters H2S while drilling must be clean shaven.

The Production Superintendent and representatives from the Drilling and Safety
Departments

must inspect the rig and ensure that a safety meeting has been held before the
well test operations start.

General Procedures

The requirements below must be reconciled with the Drilling Contractor‟s onboard
equipment and emergency procedures to ensure that they cover all the points
addressed. In the event that there are deficiencies they must be dealt with to
ensure that the overall provisions are at least equivalent to the requirements of
this manual.

Detection

Detection is accomplished by smell, mud analysis, fixed detectors and hand held
detectors.

252
Only the fixed detectors will automatically provide an alarm, all other detection
methods require personnel to raise the alarm.

Brine/Mud Analysis

In the event that brine/mud analysis shows the presence of H2S, the logging
engineer will immediately raise the alarm indicating the level of gas. He must be
provided with adequate means of communication.

Personal Monitor

Any detection of H2S by personal monitor must be reported immediately to the

senior drill floor personnel or Production Test Supervisor during well test
operations and the OIM, giving the location of detection and the concentration
measured.

Fixed Detectors

Provision of the fixed detectors must be such that detection of H2S will result in a
suitable alarm being raised in all areas manned during drilling or well test
operation, i.e. in the mud treatment room and in the control room, and also give
the detector position and the concentration detected.

Safe Breathing Areas (offshore rigs)

The OIM will designate at least two Safe Breathing Areas (SBAs) of which one
will be in the open air upwind of any incident. The second SBA will be inside the
accommodation in the gallery/cinema/recreation area. An H2S detector will be
provided in the inside SBA and must be switched on when the alarm is given. If
deemed necessary, a second open air SBA will be designated to ensure that at
least one SBA will be upwind of any incident.

H2S Detection While Tripping

Prior to pulling out of the hole, circulate the brine/mud system.

Circulating

All drill floor and mud room personnel will wear SCBA and be masked up
(fireman‟s sets or tied into the cascade system) immediately. At the same time
the mud/gas separator (degasser) will be started and all non essential personnel
will be warned to stay away from the drill floor and mud treatment areas.

253
Mud logging personnel will inform the Tool pusher and the OIM when the trip gas
is up and when the H2S level falls below 10ppm.

Logging

When pulling out of the hole, all tools and cable must be washed with scavenger
and spray inhibitor.

Persons handling repeat formation tester (RFT) samples/chambers must wear

SCBA until the chamber has been vented and purged.

Flow Testing

During this phase (time from first opening of test tools until tools are recovered to
surface) H2S will be produced to the surface for the first time with consequent
increase in risk. To counter this the following precautions are required:

1. Before well test operations take place:

2. The onshore Drilling Manager/Drilling Superintendent, Snr Production

Engineer, Workover Superintendent and Safety Superintendent in
consultation with the Rig OIM, the offshore Eni- Agip Senior Drilling
Supervisor and Production Test Supervisor must agree whether or not it is
necessary to specify any in stream concentration of H2S at which the well
test crew and other essential personnel involved in well test operations
must mask up.

3. A safety meeting prior to opening the well must be held to inform all
personnel of the increased risk of the presence of H2S.

4. All testing equipment and systems must be capable of withstanding the

effects of H2S.

5. All critical activities such as the first opening of downhole tools must be
performed in daylight.

6. All personnel considered by the OIM to be non-essential must be taken off

the rig before the start of the test and remain off until after the end of the
test.

7. During the testing period, all off duty personnel shall be restricted to the
accommodation area and their movements will be controlled by the OIM.

254
8. At the production of first hydrocarbons to surface, essential personnel will
all wear SCBA and be masked up. Masks will be worn until the level of
H2S being produced has been established at the choke or at the
separator.

9. In stream H2S levels will initially be monitored every 10min for changes,
initially, and thereafter at periods agreed by the OIM, Production Test
Supervisor and H2S technician.

10. When H2S is present in the flow stream, the well will be shut-in if the wind
speed is less than 5 knots. In any event, it is the responsibility of the OIM
to decide if the wind speed or direction presents a hazard which requires
the suspension of testing.

11. Testing personnel must wear SCBA and mask up prior to operating or
performing work on equipment or systems which have contained H2S, e.g.
changing chokes, operating flowhead valves, using bubble hoses, taking
separator samples, etc.

12. No open tanks will be used for collecting flow products. Surge tanks and
separators will be equipped with vent/overflow lines which discharge at
the flare.

13. Background levels of H2S will occur from various sources such as flare
residue, valves, flanges, couplings etc. This level must be monitored for
increases so that preventative actions can be taken.

14. The installation must be monitored for the presence of sulphur dioxide
(SO2) using portable monitors.

15. When the test tool retrieval gets to within five stands of tubing from the
first test tool, i.e. the reverse circulating valve, all rig floor personnel will
wear SCBA and be masked up until the testing string has been broken
down, sample chambers have been emptied and purged and slip joints
stroked.

255
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
Equipment for the constant of H2S concentration
consisting of:
Unit with control panel and tool indicator of Dependent on rig type
the H2S concentration with range capacity of
0-50 ppm and two levels (10 ppm – 20 ppm)
Sensor with short response time as per Dependent on rig type
market availability
Portable detectors to measure H2S in the 3 manual
atmosphere (either manual or electronic) 2 electronic
Colorimetric vials for H2S
10 vials package: 1-200ppm 10
10 vials package: 50-500ppm 5
10 vials package: 100-2000ppm 5
Colorimetric vials for SO2
10 vials package: 1-200ppm 5
10 vials package: 20-200 ppm 5
10 minutes Automatic Positive Pressure 30 for land rig 120% of the rig
Escape Breathing Apparatus and supply vessel personnel
for off-shore rig
30-45 mins Self Contained Breathing Apparatus 15
for land rig
Extra cylinders for Breathing Apparatus for land 45
rig
30-45 mins Self Contained Breathing Apparatus 120% of emergency team
for off-shore rig
Extra cylinders for Breathing Apparatus for off- 3 spare bottles per breathing
shore rig apparatus
AMBU type reanimator 2
Battery operated portable explosimeter 2
Wind sleeve 2
Two tone alarm hooter 2
Walkie talkie completed with batteries and 6
battery loader
Electric lamp (explosion proof type) 6
Alarm flashlight 2 red 2 yellow
Gas garret Train test Kit or Hatch Kit 1 (in sour area)
H2S Scavenger for mud 30 kg/m3 of mud
Fan 3

Tab. 18.2: Constant H2S Detection for Land Rigs

256
Tab. 18.2: Constant H2S detection for land rigs

257
19.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Well Testing: J. Lee

 Oil Well testing handbook: A.U. Chaudhry

 Gas Well testing handbook: A. U. Chaudhry

 The practice of Reservoir Engineering: L.P. Dake

 Well test analysis - The use of advanced interpretation models: D. Bourdet

 Pressure buildup and flow tests in wells: C.S. Matthews and D.G. Russel

 Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering: B. Craft and M.Hawkins

258