P. 1
ENI Well Testing Manual

ENI Well Testing Manual

|Views: 509|Likes:
Published by Tugerhu Agberia
Oil & Gas
Oil & Gas

More info:

Published by: Tugerhu Agberia on Apr 08, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less






  • 9 Areal Interference
  • 4. DESIGN
  • 4.2.1 FLOW RATES
  • 4.3 SAMPLING
  • 5.2.1 POROSITY
  • 5.2.2 NET PAY
  • 5.3 PVT DATA
  • 9. REPORT


Eni S.p.A. E&P Division







1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................4
1.1 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE MANUAL .................................................................................... 4 UPDATING, AMENDMENT, CONTROL & DEROGATION ........................................ 4


THE PRINCIPLE OF WELL TESTING........................................................................5
2.1 2.2 WELL TESTING DEFINITION .................................................................................... 5 MAIN TARGETS......................................................................................................... 5


TYPE OF WELL TESTS .............................................................................................8
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 OPTIMAL WELL TEST SELECTION ......................................................................... 8 WIRELINE FORMATION TESTER (WFT) .................................................................. 8 DRILL STEM TEST (DST) .......................................................................................... 9 STANDARD PRODUCTION TEST ........................................................................... 10 LONG PRODUCTION TEST (LIMIT TEST) .............................................................. 11 INTERFERENCE TEST ............................................................................................ 12
3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 AREAL INTERFERENCE ............................................................................................12 VERTICAL INTERFERENCE.......................................................................................14 PULSE TESTING .........................................................................................................14


INJECTION TEST..................................................................................................... 15


4.1 4.2 FOCUS ON MAIN OBJECTIVES ............................................................................. 17 WELL TESTING SEQUENCE .................................................................................. 18
4.2.1 4.2.2 FLOW RATES ..............................................................................................................18 DRAWDOWN AND BUILD-UP DURATION ................................................................18

4.3 4.4 4.5

SAMPLING............................................................................................................... 20 TEST DESIGN FOR AN OIL BEARING FORMATION............................................. 22 TEST DESIGN FOR A GAS BEARING FORMATION.............................................. 25


INPUT DATA.............................................................................................................30
5.1 5.2 GEOMETRICAL/SEDIMENTOLOGICAL INFORMATION........................................ 30 PETROPHYSICAL PARAMETERS.......................................................................... 31
5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 POROSITY ...................................................................................................................31 NET PAY ......................................................................................................................32 FLUID SATURATIONS ................................................................................................32 COMPRESSIBILITY.....................................................................................................33


PVT DATA................................................................................................................ 34


Eni S.p.A. E&P Division
5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3







REFERENCE DEPTH ..................................................................................................34 USE OF PVT REPORTS (LABORATORY ANALYSIS)..............................................35 USE OF EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONS......................................................................37 PRODUCED FLUIDS ...................................................................................................41 TESTS IN GAS CONDENSATE WELLS ......................................................41 TESTS WITHOUT SURFACE FLOW ...........................................................42 WELLHEAD DATA ......................................................................................................43 WELLHEAD PRESSURES ...........................................................................43 WELLHEAD TEMPERATURES ....................................................................43 BOTTOM HOLE DATA ................................................................................................44 BOTTOM HOLE PRESSURES AND TEMPERATURES .............................44


PRODUCTION DATA ............................................................................................... 41


PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE DATA............................................................... 43



OTHER INFORMATION (PLT, RFT, MDT, LOGS, CORES) .................................... 44


GAUGE SPECIFICATIONS ......................................................................................46
6.1 6.2 SURFACE AND DOWN-HOLE EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS ............................. 46 TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................... 46
6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 SURFACE READ OUT (SRO) GAUGES.....................................................................46 MEMORY GAUGES .....................................................................................................47 MAIN PROPERTIES ....................................................................................................48 FILE FORMAT STANDARDIZATION OF DATA RECORDED DURING WELL TESTING ......................................................................................................................50 PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE HISTORY FILES .................................50 SURFACE & DOWNHOLE DATA .................................................................52


DATA ACQUISITION PROGRAMME....................................................................... 50


WELL TEST INTERPRETATION..............................................................................55
7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 WELLHEAD PARAMETERS.................................................................................... 55 VALIDATE RATES: DEFINITION OF PRODUCTION HISTORY ............................. 56 VALIDATE GAUGES ............................................................................................... 59 WELL TEST INTERPRETATION PROCESS ........................................................... 61


WELL TEST INTERPRETATION PACKAGE...........................................................63
8.1 8.2 INTERPRET 2003 (PARADIGM) .............................................................................. 63 SAPHIR (KAPPA ENGINEERING)........................................................................... 66
8.2.1 8.2.2 8.2.3 ANALYTICAL ANALYSIS............................................................................................67 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS (LINEAR) ............................................................................69 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS (NON-LINEAR) ...................................................................69


REPORT ...................................................................................................................71
9.1 9.2 MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ...................................................................................... 71 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT .............................................................................. 73


Eni S.p.A. E&P Division








The purpose of this manual is to guide technicians and engineers involved in Drilling & Completion activities through the requirements, methodologies and rules pertinent to Well Testing Design and Interpretation. Well Testing Design and Interpretation shall be performed uniformly and in compliance with Eni E&P Principles and according to the laws and environmental constraints of the Country where the tested well is located. This manual defines guidelines and procedures for both exploration and production wells. The final aim is to improve the Well Test performance and efficiency in terms of safety, quality and costs, while providing all personnel involved in Drilling & Completion activities with common guidelines in all areas where Eni E&P operates. This manual should not to be intended as an interpretation manual where methodology and general criteria for interpretation of well testing data are presented. For this reason, all the mathematical concepts, as well as the theoretical reservoir models of the well testing transient analysis, are not part of this manual. Readers who would like to improve their personal knowledge on these topics can refer to Technical Literature or address to the ENI in house “Well Testing” (see link: http://wwwdsc.sd.agip.it/intranetdsc/Reservoir/Production/Well-Test/index.htm).


This manual is a “live” controlled document and, as such, it will only be amended and improved by the Company, in accordance with the development of Eni E&P operational experience. Accordingly, it will be the responsibility of everyone involved with the use and application of this manual to review the policies and the related procedures on an ongoing basis. Derogations from the manual shall be approved solely in writing by the Company Well Operations Manager after the Company Manager and the Corporate Drilling & Production Optimisation Services Department, in the Eni E&P Division Head Office, have been advised in writing. The Corporate Drilling & Production Optimization Services Standards Department will consider such approved derogations for future amendments and improvements of the Corporate manual, when the updating of the document will be advisable. Feedback for manual amendment is also obtained from the return of completed “Feedback and Reporting Forms” compiled by well operations personnel.

the “input“ signal is represented by surface producing (or injecting) flow rates while the “output“ signal is the associated downhole pressure measurements. This is a typical inverse problem and its solution is usually not unique because different reservoir models can provide the same response if sollecitated with the same input. 2. In most cases. Well Testing is a powerful tool to describe an unknown system (i. the principle is to analyse the “output“ signal of a well to which a known “input“ signal has been applied. . Production/Injection flow-rate Bottom hole pressure IIn np pu utt W WE EL LL L O Ou uttp pu utt Figure 2. 2.A. In order to avoid uncertainties it is important that any solution obtained from dynamic well test interpretation be coherent with all static information such as geological.e: well + reservoir) by indirect measurements.p.1. geophysical and petrophysical data.1 . E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 5 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 2.2 MAIN TARGETS Well Testing analysis provides information on the reservoir characteristics and on the interaction between the well and the reservoir.SPEO Eni S. During a well test.Principle of Well Testing The interpretation of the pressure signal coupled to the flow rate sequence allows the identification of model(s) whose behaviour is consistent with the behaviour of the actual reservoir.1 THE PRINCIPLE OF WELL TESTING WELL TESTING DEFINITION In its simplest form. All the available static information should always be used in conjunction with the well test data to build a consistent reservoir model for a proper prediction of the future well/field performance.

and the average formation permeability (k) (this permeability must be regarded as the effective permeability). pinch outs) in the rock volume investigated during the test. it is strongly recommended to maximise the value of the information achieved by the testing phase. . • to evaluate any areal/vertical heterogeneity (i. natural fractures).A. Other common targets are both the evaluation of the main reservoir properties (kh.e: sealing boundaries. the following priorities for the main targets can be indicated: 9 Exploration wells On the first exploration well.p. A proper reservoir characterization through testing of an exploration well is crucial for any future action/decision and. • to determine the presence of permeabilty barriers (i. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 6 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 In general terms. Environmental constraints must be kept into due account too. • to quantify the permeability damage near the wellbore as well as the major skin components. Well test objectives should be clearly defined before planning a test with respect to budget and operational requirements. well testing is used to confirm the exploration structure.SPEO Eni S. for this reason. establish the nature of the produced fluids as well as the initial reservoir pressure and its consistency with the RFT/MDT trend when available. layering. • to estimate reservoir properties such as static pressure (PS). • to assess the well productivity (Productivity Index for oil wells – Flow equation for gas wells). permeabilitythickness product (kh). • to evaluate the reservoir size (Long Production Test or Limit–Test). Skin) and the assessement of the well productivity. Depending on the type of well to be tested.e: change in lithological properties. • to confirm hydraulic communication between existing wells (Interference Test). any reservoir heterogeneity as well as the presence of potential boundaries should be investigated. In addition. the main well testing targets could be summarised as follows: • to define the nature and the amount of produced reservoir fluids (expecially for exploration/appraisal wells).

productivity. the main reservoir parameters. In order to identify representative reservoir fluids. 9 Production / Development wells On producing wells. fracturing. such as permeability. surface/bottom samples are collected for PVT laboratory analysis. E&P Division 9 Appraisal wells IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 7 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 The reservoir description can be refined by testing appraisal wells to confirm average properties. As a consequence.A. In addition. .p. etc) with the target to maximise the well production life. reservoir heterogeneities. interference testing is a quite common methodology to confirm possible communication between existing wells. sand control.SPEO Eni S. should be considered as average values. periodic tests are scheduled to confirm and/or re-adjust the existing 3D-dynamic reservoir model and to evaluate the need for well treatment (reperforation. During the well testing time a quite large volume of reservoir rock can be investigated. and boundaries as well as drive mechanism if detected. acid stimulation.

• Inteference Test. Well test targets definition leads to the proper selection of test type and. The main well test types can be summarised as follows: • Drill Stem Test (DST).4.Design).6. the Wireline Formation Tester technique will be also discussed in the next Chapter because of its importance with respect to the conventional well tests.2 WIRELINE FORMATION TESTER (WFT) It is not the purpose of this manual to discuss extensively the Wireline Formation Tester (WFT*) applications and. 3. Even if it is not considered as a conventional well test. • Long Production Test (or Limit Test). 3. • Standard Production Test. In particular WFT is one of the most used tools in formation evaluation and reservoir studies due to its ability of: • collecting samples of reservoir fluids.SPEO Eni S.1 TYPE OF WELL TESTS OPTIMAL WELL TEST SELECTION Different types of well testing could be planned either on exploration.p. therefore. only some general concepts are here presented. • obtaining formation pressure measurements at different depths. . as a consequence.7.5. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 8 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 3. 3. • Injection Test.3. 3.A. The previous test types are described in details in Chapters 3. appraisal and/or production wells. 3. respectively. 3. to the most appropriate test design procedures (see Chapter 4 .

In particular: • the sampling of fluids from WFT allows the first characterization of the initial PVT properties. This testing methodology is not used anymore. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 9 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 The pore pressure regime. the major parameters (i. the fluid mobility as well as the in-situ fluid contacts within the formation are provided by WFT. • the fluid mobility allows a first evaluation of the effective reservoir permeability. . could not be very accurate because the interpretation approach was not strictly conventional. The evaluation of the other reservoir properties. • the WFT pressure regime is assumed as the initial static pressure of the reservoir. the investigated volume is very limited and. The main targets to be achieved were basically the following: • the measurement of the static formation pressure. A cross–check between this value and the extrapolated pressure from well testing analysis should always be made. 3.e fluid mobility) are considered reliable only close to the tool depth.A. Information obtained from WFT interpretation is very useful especially in designing a consistent testing programme for a new exploration and/or for appraisal wells.3 DRILL STEM TEST (DST) This technique was quite common in the past especially for testing new exploration wells. In most cases the testing duration was limited to few hours and.SPEO Eni S. • 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. It consisted of using a drill string (drill pipe) controlled by a down hole shut-in valve. the production period was very short and no hydrocarbons were produced at the surface. Due to the very short duration of WFT. • the vertical permeability (kz) can be estimated if spherical flow regime is clearly detected from WFT analysis.p. as a consequence. This was particularly true when tight reservoirs and/or viscous oil reservoirs were tested and when no flow at the surface was observed. generally ranging from tens of seconds up to few minutes. such as permeability and skin. therefore.

The main objectives of a Production Test are: • to define the nature and the amount of the produced reservoir fluids (expecially for exploration/appraisal wells). flow and shut-in were operated by the down hole shut-in valve located below the drill pipe.SPEO Eni S. The use of any wireline cable for collecting downhole sampling is not needed. The configuration of the DST string is very flexible and depends on the test requirements and of the targets to be achieved. a final completion string is utilized when testing wells already in production. • Perforations can be made in underbalance conditions with TCP gun (Tubing Conveyed Perforating). thus optimising the original programme with a considerable saving of time and money.A. If the wellhead. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 10 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 In a conventional DST. equipped with a pressure gauge. which are components of the string. 3. On the other side.4 STANDARD PRODUCTION TEST A Standard Production Test (SPT) can be applied to both exploration/appraisal and production wells. whether directly or through a flare. permeabilitythickness product (kh) and the average formation permeability (k). As a result. • The use of the data latch-system allows real time acquisition and interpretation of downhole pressure data. • to estimate reservoir properties such as static pressure (PS). The duration of a conventional production test ranges from a couple of days to one week or more. production tests performed during the exploration and appraisal phase are conducted by using a temporary completion string (DST string). the DST becomes a Closed Chamber Test (CCT) for the tested flow period. Testing a well with the DST completion string allows several advantages: • the shut-in of the well is performed downhole by operating the tester valve. As a consequence. remains closed during the flow phase. . • Downhole samples can be collected by activating dedicated sampling tools. the distorsion on thr pressure response due to Wellbore Storage effects is strongly minimized.p. the damage of the formation is strongly reduced. The wellhead always remained open to the atmosphere. In general.

based on simple material balance calculations. • to determine the presence of permeability barriers (i. . Production tests require a great effort in planning and obtaining authorization. For the same reason. • evaluation of the overall reservoir limits (pseudo-steady flow regime is reached).e sealing faults) in the rock volume investigated during the test. • to assess the well productivity (Productivity Index for oil wells – Flow equation for gas wells). thus. core analysis.p. This last point is of crucial importance because the reservoir size can be estimated and. etc.e change in lithological properties). it is a crucial issue that a big effort be devoted to design and interpret any test in agreement with all the available information such as seismic and geological data. logs.5 LONG PRODUCTION TEST (LIMIT TEST) The long production test (LPT) is a long term test which consists of a single rate drawdown followed by a final build-up. Other targets such as the identification of lateral hydrocarbon–water contacts are generally complex. on the opposite.SPEO Eni S. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 11 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 • to quantify the well damage as well as the major skin components.A. Therefore. In order to meet the planned targets and thus maximise the VOI (Value Of Information). a first estimation of the volume of fluid in place is obtained. 3. lateral gas–water contacts are quite easy to detect due to extremely high mobility contrast. since they have a relevant impact on HSE issues. especially when the mobility contrast between the fluids is not very large. • identification of the main drive mechanism. a large portion of the reservoir is investigated. The main objectives can be summarized as follows: • investigation of multiple boundaries. • to evaluate any areal/vertical heterogeneity (i. Due to the long test duration. well testing procedures shall be compliant with the Eni E&P and Statutory regulations in order to ensure safe operations.

Sometime the producer (or injector) is also called “active well”. • an observation well located at some distance form the producer. the involved wells should first remain shut-in until their bottom hole pressure stabilizes. In most cases long term tests. To perform an interference test. 3. The reservoir is assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic. Accurate pressure gauges are placed in the observation well. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 12 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 This type of test is not very common because of the extremely high associated costs and also because of the large amount of hydrocarbon to be flared. a pressure drop (or rise) is recorded at the observation well within a reasonable interval of time.1 AREAL INTERFERENCE In its simplest form the areal interference test involves two wells: • a producer (or injector).6 INTERFERENCE TEST Three types of interference tests are presented in this manual : 9 Areal Interference 9 Vertical Interference 9 Pulse Testing 3.6. The time for the pressure disturbance to reach the observation well is called “lag time”. are confined to particular situations where the confirmation of the reservoir extension is critical to make decision on possible development strategies. where the effects of wellbore storage and skin are considered negligible at the two wells.p. Then the producer (or injector) is opened to production (or injection) at a costant rate.SPEO Eni S. especially in off-shore enviroments.A. The production (or injection) flow rate does not affect the distance reached by the pressure disturbance within the reservoir. If the two wells interfere. Analysis is then made on the pressure response by applying the “line source solution“ theory. Interference tests are generally carried out for the following reasons : . but only the amplitude of the pressure signal.

A. when testing such reservoirs a very small pressure amplitude (sometimes less than 1 psia) is recorded at the observation well. • presence of a gas cap (or free gas within the reservoir).e Interpret/2003. Thus. When reservoirs are not considered homogeneous there are several scenarios that could make the analysis of an interference test more complex. In these scenarios additional care is needed in the design phase.SPEO Eni S.p. even if in theory interpretation of interference tests should be possible with the standard analitical well testing software (i. • to determine the average reservoir properties such as the permeability thickness product (kh) and the apparent storage capacity (φCth). Design and interpretation of interference tests in production wells generally require great skill because the pressure response at the observation well could be strongly affected by . Saphir). In fact. • in high permeability reservoirs the critical issue is represented by the gauge selection. • double permeability/double porosity reservoirs. it is also possible to estimate the areal permeability anisotropy within the reservoir. both low k reservoirs and large distances could be critical because the duration of the interference test and thus its economical impact could be prohibitive. For this reason high quality quartz gauges with no drift should be selected. • if more observation wells located in different directions are involved. The most common scenarios are: • composite reservoirs. Time could be even longer when the distance between the wells is very large (more than 1 km). • reservoirs with permeability barriers and/or faults. especially because the latter can not be estimated from convention production tests. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 13 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 • to recognise areal continuity between wells. In the design phase of an interference test. depending on the average reservoir permeability. special attention must be paid to the following items: • in low permeability reservoirs the time for the pressure response to reach the observation well can be very long (even several weeks).

while the other layer is shut-in. The two zones are isolated at the wellbore by mechanical devices (i. Even if they are more difficult to interpret. 3.p. to predict gas and/or water coning.. the average horizontal permeability of the active layer. as well as the vertical permeability between the two layers involved in the test. the average permeability and storativity (φCth) are estimated. thus monitoring the pressure of each of the layers. During a vertical interference test. the well is perforated and completed on two different layers which are in hydraulic communication within the reservoir. Only one layer is active (flowing or injecting).e. In order to design and/or analyze an interference test in such a scenario a numerical model is needed. packer). as a result. but generally show different lithological properties. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 14 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 the other producing (or injecting) wells.3 PULSE TESTING This method is an effective alternative to the conventional interference test. Three or four pulses are generally enough to analyse the pressure response at the observation well. The measured parameters are compared to the theoretical simulated responses and. . A sequence of relatively short flow (production or injection) and shut-in periods is applied to the active well. Some examples of decisions based on vertical permeability are: • completion decisions.A.2 VERTICAL INTERFERENCE The knowledge of the vertical permeability is of great importance for a field development strategy. can be determined.SPEO Eni S.6. The same approach is extremely useful also in detecting vertical interference between layers which are isolated in the reservoir.6. Also the shutin periods have the same duration. 3. but in communication at the wellbore due to mechanical leakage or poor cementation behind the casing. The rate and the duration of the each flow are the same. With the combined analysis of the two different pressure responses. Pressure gauges are located in the well at different depths. • production strategy. This sequence generates a pulsing pressure response at the observation well. but not necessarily the same as the flow periods. which is analyzed in terms of amplitude and time lag. such as the evaluation of potential increase in productivity by horizontal wells. pulse tests should be preferred because the oscillating response is easier to identify in a noisy reservoir environment (field under production).

However.A. Injection well testing involves the following methods : 1. a constant flow rate is injected into the well while the downhole pressure is recorded at the sandface. standard well testing objectives can be easily achieved including heterogeneities and/or permeability boundaries if investigated. As a result. 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. Then the well is shut-in for a final falloff.) of the injected fluid and those of the reservoir fluid are compatible. The main targets of this test are: • the evaluation of the injectivity index of the well. A series of injection test rates are applied to the well. The rate should be constant during each step. . 9 Injection Phase During the injection period the flooded region increases in time and a “movable front“ exists in the reservoir. the observed pressure is plotted versus rate. the interpretation of the injection/falloff tests is much more complex than the interpretation of a conventional injection test.7 INJECTION TEST IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 15 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 Injection well testing has its application in water injection wells for pressure maintenance as well as in water disposal wells.p. 2. Moreover the pressure behaviour during the injection phase is different from the observed one during the falloff.SPEO Eni S. Injectivity/falloff test: in this test. If fracturing conditions have been reached. The interpretation of such a test would be similar to a conventional production test provided that physical properties (viscosity. density. two different straight lines are present and their intersection defines the fracturing pressure.e numerical simulator) provided that the two-phase relative permeability curves are available. because the properties of the injected fluid are usually different from those of the actual reservoir fluids. This would be the case when water is injected into an aquifer. etc. Step rate test: these tests are specifically made to evaluate the pressure at which fracturing could be induced in the reservoir rock. E&P Division 3. • the ability for these well to receive large volumes of water.

it has been noticed that.A. • skin components. the following main targets can be achieved with the usual approach: • formation Pressure. in practice. 9 Falloff phase Due to the different pressure response during injection and falloff. it is strongly recommended to inject fluid into the reservoir in “matrix conditions”. • permeability in the (inner) water region. the principle of superposition is. However. in theory.SPEO Eni S. not applicable. To avoid fracture induction. . As a result. In practice. • mobility contrast between the water and the oil.p. only the permeability of the outer oil region and the otal skin can be evaluated. when a Radial Composite model with stationary front is used. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 16 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 Artificial fractures potentially induced during the injection phase represent another important factor that heavily complicate the interpretation. The derivative response describes the change of saturation in the transition zone separating the inner water region and the uncontaminated. Therefore. outer oil region. no significant error is introduced. due to wellbore storage effects the response of the inner region is generally masked. • permeability in the (outer) oil region.

WFT Derivative.1 . E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 17 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 4. They must be established a priori in order to plan a suitable well test procedure. In fact. should be accounted for.SPEO Eni S.Test duration and flow regimes for WFT and Production Test PT .1 DESIGN FOCUS ON MAIN OBJECTIVES To design a well test the first step is to know which are the main objectives to be achieved. 4. the well testing sequence as well as the total test duration are strongly dependent on the targets to be achieved.01 PT Wellbore Storage Spherical Radial Horizontal Well/Fractures Reservoir Boundaries 0.p. such as environmental constraints. bar/(Sm3/day) 0. In the planning phase all other external limitations.A. The optimal well testing schedule should be able to maximise the value of the information by obtaining the expected goals respecting all the existing constraints (budget limitation included). Based on both the reservoir properties (when available) and the well testing duration different flow regimes as well as potential heterogeneity and reservoir boundaries can be investigated within the testing time.1.1 1 10 100 seconds Time (k = 750 mD) Courtesy of Baker Hughes 1 10 100 hours 1 10 100 days Figure 4.

It is important to underline that a proper clean-up phase is essential for a consistent well test interpretation. • the type of test (production or injection test). depending on: • the type of mineralization (oil. condensate gas).2. 4. 4. must be acquired. 4.e. gas SG. The final BSW should not exceed 5%. 2) Build-up: the duration of the first build-up should be the same as the clean-up phase. • the kind of well (exploration/appraisal or development well). In general the cleaning phase will be terminated when the main wellhead parameters (pressure and rates) are stabilised for at least 3-4 hours.2. salinity. Any evidence of sand and/or fines production must be monitored..1 FLOW RATES The flow rates depend on the well response. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 18 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 Different kind of results can be obtained by a well test analysis. In exploration wells the flow rate sequence can be selected and tuned on the basis of the clean up response. 3) Main Flow: in the case of oil bearing formations a flow after flow sequence . density. The duration of the clean-up can be variable depending on the well response.SPEO Eni S.p.A. In addition. all the physical parameters of the produced fluids such as Ph. gas. drilling and completion fluids). etc.2 DRAWDOWN AND BUILD-UP DURATION A well test programme can be structured as follows: 1) Clean-up: it is suggested to stress the well with different increasing chokes in order to remove non representative fluids (i.2 WELL TESTING SEQUENCE The well test sequence is evaluated on the basis of the objectives to be achieved. • the geological/sedimentological environment. They can be estimated considering the production of previously tested nearby wells draining the same formation.

1 – Well test sequence for an oil bearing formation . In the case of gas bearing formations a flow after flow sequence of isochronal increasing rates is suggested.5-2 times the duration of the main flow.A. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 19 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 consisting of two isochronal increasing flow rates is recommended. 4) Final Build-up: The duration of the main build-up should be 1. Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [hr]) Figure 4.2. 5000 Clean-up 1 Build-up 4000 st Main Build-up 1st Drawdown 2nd Drawdown 3000 4000 2000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 History plot (Pressure [psia]. Remarks: choke sizes and testing time should be adjusted according to the well behavior.2.2). However. A minimum of two flow rates is necessary to estimate the turbulence factor and the flow equation. It is suggested that the maximum flow rate does not exceed the greater flow rate achieved during the clean-up phase. three flow rates are highly recommended.1). Each step should last 8 hours (Figure 4.p.2.SPEO Eni S. In general each step should last 8 to 12 hours (Figure 4.

As a general procedure. They are referred to as “subsurface sampling“ and “surface sampling”. All the surface/downhole sampling must be properly validated at the wellsite before sending the fluid samples to the labs.3 SAMPLING The objective of reservoir fluid sampling is to collect representative samples of the reservoir fluids at the time of sampling. .A. sampling can be made at the separator (most likely) as well as at the wellhead. Gas Rate [Mscf/D] vs Time [hr]) Figure 4.2. gas and even water samples are required to properly characterise the formation fluids. subsurface sampling is always associated with surface sampling. In this second method. Two methods are used for sampling reservoir fluids. In the case of samples inconsistency the operation must be repeated. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 20 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 4950 Clean-up 1st Drawdown Main Build-up 2nd Drawdown 1 Build-up st 4850 4750 3rd Drawdown 30000 20000 10000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 History plot (Pressure [psia].p.SPEO Eni S. When sampling exploration wells. This is a crucial step for reliably predicting the future reservoir behaviour. In general terms oil.2 – Well test sequence for a gas bearing formation 4. Sampling is generally performed in the initial exploration and/or appraisal phase when the fluid is still characterized by its original composition. sampling operations can be planned either during the main flow phase or at the end of the test after the final build-up.

such as oil and average gas gravity as well as the presence of CO2/H2S. the main physical fluid properties. • limits of the available gas-oil separators equipment. • Gas Oil Ratio (GOR). The well is considered to be sufficiently conditioned when further rate reductions have no effect on the GOR which remains constant over time. consists of producing the well in a series of “step by step” flow rate reduction. In addition. Special attention must be dedicated when sampling oil reservoirs (light . all the surface/downhole samples collected during the production test must be properly validated at the wellsite before they are sent to the labs.SPEO Eni S. should be carefully evaluated. • mechanical conditions of the well. As a general procedure.volatile oil) if the saturation pressure (or dew point pressure for gas condensate) is closed to the initial static pressure. • Wellhead pressure and temperature.A. . This consists of producing the well. A stabilized gas-oil ratio (GOR) should be achieved and measured at each step. at a rate which removes all the altered (non representative) fluid from the wellbore. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 21 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 The choice of the sampling method is influnced by several factors. the operation must be repeated. • Separator pressure and temperature. such as : • type of reservoir fluid. The key factor to collect a representative reservoir fluid sample is the preliminary conditioning of the well. Monophasic flow conditions are then basically achieved and sampling can be successfully performed. for a certaint time. The recommended procedure to reach such a situation. Qwater). • volume of sample required by lab analysis. In the case of samples inconsistency. • Bottom Sediment & Water (BSW). During the sampling phase the following parameters should be stabilized and properly monitored: • Fluid flow rates (Qoil.p. Qgas.

T reservoir Source of input data Geologist Sedimentologist Geologist PVT analyst Subsurface geologist /Reservoir eng. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 22 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 Readers who would like to improve their personal knowledge on these topics can refer to the “API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR SAMPLING PETROLEUM RESERVOIR FLUIDS“.in. well washing due to asphaltens & paraffins presence. • maximum fluid volumes to be treated (flared or stored). the following steps are required to design a test: 1) Acquisition of input data: Input data Geological information Sedimentological information Petrophysical data PVT data P. 2) Acquisition of information about possible constrains relative to: • maximum testing time.A. gas. For production wells additional information is necessary: • • • • production history of the tested well (oil. • wells status at current testing time • other injecting or producing wells into the tested layer. . workovers due to sand and/or water production.agip.SPEO Eni S. hydraulic-fracturing operations. completion history. For futher information see the “Well Test Procedures Manual” STAP-P-1-M-7130 (see link: http://wwwdsc. acidizing.html).it/drilling/manuals/pagdrill/pagdrill.4 TEST DESIGN FOR AN OIL BEARING FORMATION After the well test objectives have been defined. water rates). 4.p. • environmental constraints.

A.SPEO Eni S. • Productivity Index (PI) vs. permeability (k) (Figure 4. Time (t) (Figure 4.e. Generation of the theoretical pressure response to be used as the reference case with the interpretation software (Interpret/2003 and/or Shaphir). Productivity Index vs Permeability 8 7 6 S=0 S=-3 S=3 5 PI [m /d/bar] 3 4 3 2 1 0 0 0. theoretical reservoir model. skin.1) at different skins.5 3 Figure 4.Sensitivity PI vs.2.p. i.5 k [mD] 2 2.2. duration of the build-up (drawdown). k .2) considering different models. E&P Division 3) IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 23 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 selection of the optimal test sequence. 4) Performance of sensitivity analyses by modifying the relevant parameters: • • • • 5) permeability.: • Productivity Index (PI) vs.2.5 1 1. permeability (k) (Figure 4. Display the obtained results.3) at different permeability values.1 .2. • Investigation radius (Ri) vs.

k Investigation radius vs Time 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 k=25 mD k=50 mD k=10 mD k=100 mD Ri (m) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (hr) 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 4.Sensitivity PI vs. Time .SPEO Eni S.3 – Sensitivity Ri vs.2.A.2. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 24 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 DESIGN (S=0) 180 160 140 120 PI [m3/d/kg/cm2] 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 Wedge model Rectangle model Infinite model 1000 k [mD] 10000 Figure 4.p.2 .

4) Performance of sensitivity analyses by modifying the relevant parameters: • permeability. gas.SPEO Eni S. 2) Acquisition of information about possible constrains relative to: • maximum testing time. completion history. hydraulic fracturing operations. For production wells additional information is necessary: • • • • production history of the tested well (oil. . • wells status at current testing time • other injecting or producing wells into the tested layer.5 IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 25 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 TEST DESIGN FOR A GAS BEARING FORMATION After the well test objectives have been defined. acidizing. well washing asphaltens/paraffins presence.A. due to Generation of the theoretical pressure response to be used as the reference case with the interpretation software (Interpret/2003 and/or Shaphir). water rates). the following steps are required to design a test: 1) acquisition of input data: Input data Geological information Sedimentological information Petrophysical data PVT data P. T reservoir Source of input data Geologist Sedimentologist Geologist PVT analyst Subsurface geologist /Reservoir eng. 3) Selection of the optimal test sequence.p. • environmental constraints. • skin. • maximum fluid volumes to be treated (flared or stored). E&P Division 4. workovers due to sand and/or water production.

3.9 6.e. Investigation radius (Ri) vs.A.6 log(pi . Log (∆p2) vs.p. Log(q) (Figure 4.1 6 5. 5) display the obtained results.5 4.2) considering different models. • theoretical reservoir model.SPEO Eni S.1) at different skins.7 6.4 4.2 logqSC 4.: • • • • Investigation radius (Ri) vs.8 6.5 6. permeability (k). Log(q) 2 . E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 26 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 • duration of the build-up (drawdown).3 4.2 6.4 6. Log (∆p2) vs.6 6.9 3.pwf ) 2 2 S=0 S=5 S=10 Figure 4.Log (∆p ) vs.9 4 4.3. Time (t) at different permeability values.3. Log(q) (Figure 4.3 6. Back Pressure Test 6. i.1 .1 4.

p.2 logqSC 4.1 4.pwf ) 2 2 6.6 6.2 .3 Homo Infinite model 6.1 One Fault model Rectangle model 6 5.3 4. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 27 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 Back Pressure Test 6. the rigorous equation for gas flow under pseudo-steady state conditions is the following: ∆m(p) = aqSC + bqSC2 However.7 6.4 log(pi .9 3.3.A. the difference of the squared pressure ∆p2 is generally used: ∆p2 = (pr2 – pwf2) The approximation is acceptable when p<2000 psi . Log(q) 2 The rigorous approach to evaluate the deliverability for gas wells relies on the pseudopressure function m(p): m(p) = 2 ∫ p p0 p dp zm Therefore. for practical purposes.5 4.SPEO Eni S.4 4.9 4 4.6 Figure 4.5 6.2 6.Log (∆p ) vs.

p. .5<n<1): qSC = C(pr2 – pwf2)n In the case of condensate gas.A.SPEO Eni S. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 28 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 The empirical relationship of Rowlins-Schellardt. provided that the condensates are transformed into equivalent gas and that the proper Gas Gravity is used. often referred to as the backpressure equation. the procedure is the same as for gas reservoirs. is (with 0.

2 6.9 Back Pressure Test 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.5 log(pi2 .1 6 5.4 4.5 6.pwf2) PI [m3/d/bar] S=0 S=-3 S=3 6. Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [hr]) History plot (Pressure [psia].6 6.3 4. kh) Oil Gas Graphs Productivity Index vs Permeability 8 7 6. Gas Rate [Mscf/D] vs Time [hr]) Sensitivity (S.2 4.4 6.5 4.5 2 2.3 6.5 1 1.6 3 k [mD] logqSC .1 4.7 6. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 29 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 Design Approach 0 INPUT DATA Geological data Sedimentological data Petrophysical Liquid rates Flow Period duration data PVT data Reservoir P&T Well Test Sequence Oil Gas 5000 4950 4000 4850 3000 4750 4000 30000 20000 2000 10000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 History plot (Pressure [psia].8 6.A.9 S=0 S=5 S=10 3.SPEO Eni S.p.9 4 4.

5. the actual flowing thickness shall be used. the flowing interval shall coincide with the lenght of the perforated interval in cased hole or with the formation thickness in open-hole wells. the distance measured between the first perforated interval and the last one will be considered. However.1 INPUT DATA GEOMETRICAL/SEDIMENTOLOGICAL INFORMATION The main geometrical parameters considered in the interpretation are the following: 9 Rw = well radius It is the radius of the bit that has drilled the producing formation. the distance between the top of the first perforated interval and the bottom of the last one is considered.SPEO Eni S. dynamic profiles). The whole length of the perforated portion shall be used for cased hole wells. if direct well information is available. The whole open hole length will be used in the case of open hole wells. It is used only in the case of interference tests.A. If several perforated intervals are open to production. 9 hp = flowing interval This parameter is used only in the case of test analyses in wells characterised by “Partial Completion or Partial Penetration”. In the absense of other information (PLT.p. It allows the evaluation of near-well permeability. . E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 30 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 5. 9 Lh = horizontal length In horizontal wells it defines the horizontal length drilled in the producing formation. 9 D = Distance between the wells Distance between the producer and the observation well. This is valid both in the case of cased hole and open hole wells. If several perforated intervals are open to production.

In the case of fractured carbonate formations.p. Fracture porosity is generally lower than 1. Only numerical models allow the discretisation of the reservoir volume into blocks.5% • System of microfractures : 0.2 IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 31 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 PETROPHYSICAL PARAMETERS When defining petrophysical parameters. The porosity value is evaluated on the basis of the compared analysis of logs and cores. it is important to stress that.1. 5. total porosity is defined as the sum of primary (or matrix Øm) and secondary (or fracture Øf) porosity: Øt = Øm + Øf Matrix porosity is generally higher than the fracture one. Only large scale reservoir heterogeneities can be taken into account in both analytical and 2-D numeical models. as a first approximation.2. to which specific values of petrophysical parameters and saturations can be assigned.5% When the total porosity is greater than 5-6%. The hypothesis of homogeneous formation might be in contrast with the actual reservoir characteristics. Depending on the type of rock. though evaluated at the well. it can be assumed: Øt = Øm When the test investigates several layers with different petrophysical characteristics (multilayers) or zones inside the same producing formation.01 .0.Net is the sum of the net thicknesses of the considered layers or zones. it is possible to define an “average” porosity value calculated as follows: Øm = (Ø1 h1 + Ø2 h2 +… +Øn hn) / hTot – Net where hTot .SPEO Eni S. E&P Division 5.01 . .1 POROSITY 9 Øt = porosity (%) Total (communicating) porosity of the producing formation. degree of fracturation and fracture spacing the most probable Øf values are as follows: • System of fractures : 0.A.0% of the total porous volume. they are considered as average reservoir values.

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 .: Øm .A.3 FLUID SATURATIONS 9 Sw = water saturation (%) Water saturation of the producing formation.2. 5.Net .2. E&P Division 5. the dynamic response of a PLT (Production logging tool) represents a further information to characterize the actual producing pay. the total net-pay (orthogonal with respect to the dip of the formation) must be used.Net = Net-Pay Net thickness of the producing formation.e. It is evaluated by log analysis. It is evaluated starting from the total reservoir gross thickness ‘‘hGROSS” considered as the difference between the bottom and the top of the structure. in the case of multilayers formations. This case is similar to oil saturation. As before. However. When present.p. This parameter enables the user to evaluate the effective permeability of the fluid considered when the kh of the formation is known. It is evaluated by log analysis. when interpreting a test.Net where hTot -Net and Øm represent the net total thickness and the average formation porosity.2 NET PAY IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 32 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 9 hTot . 9 So = oil saturation (% ) Oil saturation of the producing formation. i. an average oil saturation calculated is calculated: Som = (So1 Ø1 h1 + So2 Ø2 h2 + … + Son Øn hn) / hTot 9 Sg = gas saturation (%) Gas saturation of the producing formation. 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.SPEO Eni S. 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 defined as the sum of the single layer thickness actually contributing to production.

Net Sgm = (Sg1 Ø1 h1 + Sg2 Ø2 h2 + … + Sgn Øn hn) / hTot Øm When the producing formation is characterized by the co-existence of the three phases. i. Cw the oil. fractures and possible communicating vuggy systems (Karst phenomena): Cf = Cfm + Φfrac Cfrac +Φv Cv where: • • • • • Cfm Cfrac Cv Øfrac Øv : matrix pore compressibility : fracture compressibility in the range 1.e. In this case.0 – 6. Cg.SPEO Eni S. respectively.3 PVT data).2. If no experimental data are available.4 COMPRESSIBILITY Fluid saturations are used to define the total compressibility of the system. In fractured reservoirs with secondary porosity.p. the formation compressibility takes into account the contribution of the matrix.0 x 10-4 (kg/cm2)-1 : vug compressibility : secondary porosity (fractures) : vuggy porosity (vugs) comprised in the range 0.1 – 3.A. the following equation must be satisfied: Sg + So + Sw = 100 5. For reservoirs with primary or matrix porosity: Cf = Cfm where Cfm is the pore volume compressibility by lab measurements. All the compressibility values are referred to the average static conditions of reservoir pressure and temperature. These values are evaluated by PVT analyses or by suitable empirical literature correlations (see paragraph 5. As a first approximation it can be assumed Cv = 3 Cfm . gas and water compressibility. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 33 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 . the total value of the rock compressibility shall be evaluated with respect to its components and shall be manually introduced into the interpretative softwares.0 %.: Ct = Co So + Cg Sg+ Cw Sw+ Cf being Co. Cf represents the actual formation compressibility. interpretative softwares directly calculate the pore compressibility as a function of the matrix porosity (Hall diagram).

On the other side. . When a remarkable depletion occurs during the test. the correction of the reservoir average static pressure at a conventional depth can generate remarkable errors. However. 5. In the case of gas wells.3. (Reference depth). all the corresponding PVT parameters must always be referred to the pressure evaluated at the depth of the middle point of the producing interval. When the producing formation has a remarkable thickness (order of magnitude of many hundreds of meters) there can be significant differences in the PVT. It is assumed that reservoir phenomena are isothermal. 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. as well as all the other pressure and temperature values recorded during the test. E&P Division 5. 9 Reservoir temperature It defines the average reservoir static temperature. average PVT parameters are calculated on the basis of an average pressure value.SPEO Eni S. comprised between the initial and the final value.p. the average static value shall be considered. As a consequence. The gauge is generally located close to the producing zone and hence the variation of the PVT parameters is absolutely negligible. the reservoir temperature is always considered constant.1 REFERENCE DEPTH The above defined average static values. the PVT corrections due to temperature variations are negligible in most practical cases. 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. The highest value measured during the test (usually recorded during the drawdown phases) shall be used for oil wells.A. The PVT parameters should be corrected also for the temperature of the middle point depth. 9 Correction of pressure "at well level" If the actual vertical distribution of the fluids inside the well is not known.3 PVT DATA IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 34 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 The evaluation of PVT parameters is always made based on reservoir bottomhole pressure and temperature: 9 Reservoir pressure It defines the average static pressure of the reservoir during the test. are referred to the depth at which the gauge is located.

T) measured during the static profiles allows the evaluation of the distribution. These parameters are specific and representative of the reservoir fluids at different pressure and temperature conditions. is not discussed. Where no information on the real well fluid distribution is available. dry flowing phases do not a priori exclude the presence of liquid levels.2 USE OF PVT REPORTS (LABORATORY ANALYSIS) When laboratory fluid analysis are available. On the contrary. which must be the same for all the wells of the reservoir. Based on the average oil gradient γo (kg/cm2/m) and on the difference ∆h (m) between the reference and the gauge depths the reference pressure Pr is calculated as follows: Pr (kg/cm2) = Pgauge + γo ∆h 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 ∆h A significant control on field data and particularly on the nature of the produced fluids can be useful to support the adopted hypothesis.A. the assumptions made to calculate the reference pressure and the value of the average gradient of the fluid must be expressly mentioned. 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.3. For this reason. The knowledge of the parameters (P. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 35 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 In these cases. 5.p. nature and density of the different phases in the well. the required parameters to be used in the interpretation can be directly obtained from PVT reports. found during the flowing phases can be (but not necessarily) a sign of the presence of liquid levels in the well.SPEO Eni S. However. also in minimum percentages. they replace any empirical correlation. the presence of water. with numerous steps along the producing formation. 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. The PVT parameters to be used during an interpretation are those obtained in laboratory tests and particularly: . For example. 9 Correction of the pressure in the reservoir In this report the correction of pressure from a reference depth in the well to a general “datum”.

A.SPEO Eni S. possibly interpolating laboratory data. In each separation stage. µo Oil viscosity 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. In contrast. 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 = 0. 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. Co Oil compressibility at static reservoir conditions at the time of the test. the oil viscosity at the saturation pressure µob shall be used. Between the different tests of pressure separator. .p. completely deposited. T = 288 °K ). Then the oil is sent to one more separators in sequence (high and low pressure) and it is then measured. in storage tanks at atmospheric pressure. gas is separated from oil and measured. In the case of saturated oil (Pi = Pbubble). E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 36 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 9 Oil volume factor. The correct Boi value at the reservoir pressure must be calculated through the equation: Boi (corrected) = Bob (flash) x [ Boi ( diff ) / Bob (diff ) ] where: • Boi (diff ): differential volume factor at reservoir Pi and T • Bob (diff ): differential volume factor at Pb and reservoir T • Bob ( flash ): flash volume factor at Pb ( Separator Test ) 9 Oil viscosity. The viscosity value obtained by a transformation of the type “Differential Liberation" at reservoir temperature shall be used in the interpretation. 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. 9 Oil compressibility.1013 Mpa .5 where: (*) 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. the oil volume factor must be selected on the basis of the field separator data. 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" (*) type). “Flash Liberation” is more consistent with the production process.

G-0. The reports provide: 9 for gas wells: the average value of the Specific Gravity ( air = 1. They also include the separation conditions at different stages.0 ) of the gas mixture at Standard Conditions (P = 0. T = 288 °K). the measurement takes specifically into account the presence of H2S.8257 x 10-6 x Rs0.1013 MPa.P and oil density in API degrees are not taken into account.76606 x S. 5.35505 x API0.3613 where the parameters are expressed in the Oil Field System. In any case. The oil Shrinkage coefficient for converting the measurements from separator conditions to ST conditions.A. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 37 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 • Co(P): oil compressibility at the pressure P < Pbubble • Cob: oil compressibility at the pressure Pbubble • Rs(P): laboratory value at the pressure P ("Composite" transformation) • Rsb: laboratory value at the pressure Pbubble ("Flash” transformation Separator Test) 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 δp = Pbubble . except for temperature T expressed in F degrees.SPEO Eni S.3. 9 for oil wells: the oil density expressed in API degrees.3 USE OF EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONS ¾ Field Data Due to the lack of PVT reports. In both cases. N2. The empirical correlation used for the evaluation of the oil compressibility below the bubble point is the following: Co = 6. the Specific Gravity of the gas separating from oil and the GOR gas/oil ratio from test at Standard Conditions. field data evaluated at the surface during the test and presented in the test reports of the Service Companies are used. the field evaluation of the Specific Gas Gravity is referred to the total gaseous mixture. . i. is also presented.e.5002 x P-1 x T0.p. the reservoir fluid parameters are obtained from empirical correlations provided by the literature. CO2.

Craft and Hawkins): SGaverage = (GOR x SGgas + 4584 x SGoil) / (GOR + 132800 x SGoil / Moil) where: • • • • where: SGoil= 141. The Lee.A. both Interpret/2003 and Saphir directly calculate all the PVT parameters necessary for the test analysis (Z factor. In the gas condensate test.5.Gonzales . 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. Cg compressibility) based on the static reservoir pressure and temperature and the Specific Gravity by using their internal correlations.Eakin correlation must be used for the calculation of gas viscosity. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 38 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 ¾ Choice of the correlations: Main Phase GAS Starting from field data. the interpretative softwares consider the SGaverage value calculated using the internal correlation of Lee-Gonzales-Eakin. In the case of laboratory analysis the gas composition shall be directly introduced. GOR : test gas-oil ratio.5 / (131.0) Moil : molecular weight of the condensate .SPEO Eni S.9) For the evaluation of the PVT parameters (Z.gravity of the surface gas (air = 1.5 + APIcond) Moil = 6084 / (APIcond . The liquid phase which condensates at the surface is gathered and measured in the test separator. 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. Bg. the fluid at reservoir pressure and temperature conditions is in the gaseous phase. this value is completely different from the one measured at the surface since its composition varies after the separation of the liquid component. ¾ Condensate case In gas condensate reservoirs. At constant reservoir temperature and after pressure depletion.p. Bg volume factor. From a conceptual point of view.gravity of the surface condensate (water = 1. the dew point can be reached and the liquid phase can precipitate (retrograde condensation phenomenon). µg). Scf for Stb of condensate SGgas: specific .0) SGoil: specific . During production gas is the dominant phase. The average specific gravity is defined by the relationship ("Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering" .

September 1994) listed the optimal empirical correlations for reconstructing the main thermodynamic parameters with respect to the experimental PVT data assumed as the reference values.3.A. BoB GLASO VASQUEZBEGGS KARTOATMODJO KARTOATMODJO Compressibility.3 22. The most reliable correlation was selected. volume factor at the reservoir average static pressure at the time of the test. The oil viscosities under the different conditions have been evaluated through the following correlations: . Co VASQUEZ-BEGGS < 10 10<AP<22. PB STANDING Solution gas. Since both Interpret/2003 and Saphir requires the Bo. as a function of the oil API gravity. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 39 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 ¾ Choice of the correlations: Main Phase OIL The internal Interpret/2003 and Saphir correlations are deemed insufficient to cover all the different types of reservoir oils.3. the following relationship shall be used ( P ≥ Pb ): Bo = Bob x e-Co (Pi .Pb) (1) where Co represents the oil compressibility at the average reservoir static conditions. The results are presented in the following tables: Table 5. The conclusions of the “Reliability Study” of the correlations that estimate the properties of the reservoir oils (RIIN .3<API<33.SPEO Eni S.1 Type of oils Super heavy Heavy Medium Light API range Bubble pressure.p. Rs STANDING VASQUEZBEGGS KARTOATMODJO KARTOATMODJO Volume Factor.1 > 33.1 STANDING KARTOATMODJO GLASO VASQUEZ-BEGGS VASQUEZ-BEGGS LABEDI In the previous table the evaluation of the oil volume factor Bob is referred to the reservoir temperature and bubble pressure. for each physical property.

In particular. can be used as an alternative. µo LABEDI KARTOATMODJO LABEDI LABEDI < 10 10<API<22.SPEO Eni S. The Bo value is calculated based on the Bob via equation (1). In all cases the PVT calculation imposes the selection of the dominant flow phase. • µob : viscosity of the saturated oil at bubble pressure and at reservoir temperature. µob KARTOATMODJO KARTOATMODJO KARTOATMODJO BEGGS-ROBINSON Undersaturated oil viscosity. 1.p. there is the possibility of analysing tests with multiphase flow both at the well (i. µod EGBOGAH-JACK EGBOGAH-JACK KARTOATMODJO EGBOGAH-JACK Saturated oil viscosity. The parameters obtained are manually introduced into the interpretative software independently from its internal correlations.e.3.3<API<33.A.3. • µo: viscosity of the undersaturated oil at reservoir pressure and temperature. the program requires: µo. Note: The correlations developed by Gorini-Palma.2 0 Type of oils Super heavy Heavy Medium Light API range Dead oil viscosity.: flowing pressures lower than Pb with gas phase development) and in the formation (i.e. These correlations shall be introduced into a program already existing in MODI ("Mbal") or developed in an ad hoc application. which give both the Bo and µo curves as a function of pressure and temperature.1 > 33. 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. Co at the average reservoir static conditions at the time of the test.0" ( APSERIIN . in the reservoir where Sg > Sgcritical). gas development. Bo.3 22. ¾ Two phase/three phase flow In addition to the single phase flow condition. as mobile phase. The application software "Predator ver. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 40 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 Table 5.9/94 ) allows the evaluation of the PVT parameters by automatically selecting the option which always gives the most reliable correlation. .1 where: • µod: viscosity of the dead oil at the atmospheric pressure and at reservoir temperature.

in the evaluation of the results of the interpretation. the empirical correlations cannot replace laboratory parameters. This discrete monitoring describes the evolution in time of each observed parameter.4. The measurement is carried out through three phases separators which can give the flow rates of the condensate. as a consequence.A. The surface monitoring takes place at various time steps. The average error on the measurement is at least 5% in the case when the surface equipments are perfectly calibrated. 5. The phenomenon is remarkable in the case of saturated or very volatile oils due to the high gas rates. The first flow rate value is generally given after 30 minutes. relevant to production data. The equivalent gas volume expressed in Scf referred to a barrel of condensate measured at Stock Tank conditions is given by the following relationship (“Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering" – “Craft and Hawkins"): GE = 13300 x SGoil / Moil . In the initial phase. quantity and petrophysical properties of the fluids produced as well as wellhead pressures and temperatures. and water produced (or injected) at Stock Tank conditions and of gas at Standard conditions. 60 minutes. This allows a better monitoring of the well flowing profile which is sometimes characterised by remarkable oscillations.4.SPEO Eni S. oil. the measurement is made every 30. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 41 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 In fact. An additional further weakness of any correlation is due to the fact that corralations are based on field measurements affected by uncertainty. can be difficult due to the instability of the gas phase during the flowing periods. after a stabilisation trend of the flowing parameters. the GOR evaluation. immediately after the well opening. pressure measurements are taken every 5-10 minutes. they reflect the nature. as previously stated. Then. These are showed in the following paragraphs. Two different situations may occur. to the corresponding gas flow rates.p. transformed into equivalent gas. The specific physical properties are defined for each fluid phase. 5.4 PRODUCTION DATA The surface data. from which the bubble pressure value Pb and the oil volume value Bo depend. 5. This results in large errors in the determination of the other PVT parameters and.1.1 PRODUCED FLUIDS The flow rates of the fluids produced at the surface or injected in the formation are given during any test. Practically. define the information recorded at wellhead during a test.1 TESTS IN GAS CONDENSATE WELLS The correct interpretative approach consists in adding the contribution of the condensate volume. In particular.

• TP: production time (hours) 9 The recovery is not known If the recovery is not known or it is only partial. the oil column will exert a pressure on the gauge which will increase in time. The average oil rate in the i-th interval is calculated through the following relationship: . It is thus possible to divide the whole production period in discrete time intervals ∆t. it is always possible to estimate the oil rate history in time provided that the oil API gravity is known and a bottomhole gauge is available.A. • Cstring: string capacity (bbl/ft). • Hov: oil column in the string (ft).p.2 TESTS WITHOUT SURFACE FLOW No surface flow may occur in tests. During the different filling phases.9) Molecular weight of the oil 5. reflecting high viscosity heavy oil in very low permeability formations.SPEO Eni S. / (131. In this situation.5 +API) Specific gravity of the oil (water = 1 .0) • Moil = 6084 / (API . Two simple procedures can be followed: 9 The total recovery is known The total vertical length of the oil column in the string is known and an average oil rate can be estimated through the relationship: Qo = Hov x Cstring x 24 / TP where: • Qo : average oil rate (Stb/day). E&P Division where: IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 42 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 • GE = Gas equivalent expressed in Scf/STb • SGoiI = 141. it is necessary to reconstruct the oil rate history during the filling of the string. a pressure increase ∆p will correspond to each of them. generally DST's.

2 WELLHEAD TEMPERATURES The measurement of the temperature of the produced fluid is generally made by thermometers located on the production line.SPEO Eni S.1. 5. • ∆ti = ti+1 – ti: i-esim time interval during the filling of the string (hours). acid jobs and gravel packs).A. However.empirical formula). • Fluid gradient: 0. The wellhead pressure data are not directly used in analysing the test.5. they have not a specific value in the interpretation. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 43 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 Qoi = ∆pi x Cstring x 24 / (∆ti x Fluid Gradient) where: • Qoi: average oil rate in the i-esim time interval (STb/day). at a certain time of the test. . the Twf is used only to estimate the theoretical gas rate at critical flow conditions (see Chapter 7. The final test report provided by the Service Companies presents all the surface data according to a chronological sequence that includes all the testing sequence and the main operations carried out (profiles. but they allow a comparison with the pressure data recorded by bottomhole electronic gauges (Quality Control). 5. The pressure measurement is made through a Dead Weight Tester (DWT) which hydraulically balances the well pressure. drillings.pi: i-esim pressure increase recorded by the gauge (psi). This means that. • ∆pi =pi+1 . Its accuracy is of the order of 0.2 .1. there is always a direct correspondence between the rate value and the dynamic pressure.1 WELLHEAD PRESSURES Monitoring of wellhead pressure and temperature is carried out.433 x SGoil average fluid gradient (psi/ft). Electric sensors are seldom used.5.5 5.1 PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE DATA WELLHEAD DATA 5.5. 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. The dynamic wellhead temperatures have a remarkable importance in dimensioning and planning the surface facilities. In the absence of measured gas rates.p. The wellhead dynamic parameters are reporte at the same sampling rate of the produced fluids.1% of the measured value.

A. the sampling interval can be gradually increased. The PLT is strongly recommended when testing heterogeneous reservoirs (multi-layer or multi-zone formations. However. 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. As a common procedure. it is recommended to use sampling intervals higher than 5 seconds since lower values can lead to wrong temperature measurements. E&P Division 5.5. Mechanical gauges (Amerada) are obsolete due to their poor performances with respect to electronic gauges.2. At longer times. Paragraph 6. RFT. This is due to the thermic inertia of the tool which is not able to adapt to fast temperature variations.p. the Service Company provides the results of the instrumental monitoring such as cumulative times. However. the main petrophysical properties. CORES) The well test interpretation must be integrated with other information provided by measurements taken before and/or after the production test.1 BOTTOM HOLE PRESSURES AND TEMPERATURES The recording of bottomhole data during the test is possible by using electronic gauges. pressure and temperatures organised in ASCII files.. In accordance with the operation constraints and depending on the string-well system. The electronic gauges can provide the bottomhole temperature and pressure with variable sampling rates (from a minimum of 2 seconds between the measured data).. 5.2 BOTTOM HOLE DATA IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 44 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 The Well Testing principle is to analyse the reservoir response to an input signal (the imposed rate) to which an output signal (the bottomhole pressure) corresponds. A general criteria to be followed is to decrease the sampling rate at each phase modification (from flowing to shut-in and vice versa).5.6 OTHER INFORMATION (PLT. 5.SPEO Eni S. The main additional information are obtained by the following tools: • PLT (Production Logging Tool): it is used to evaluate the real fow profile vs depth at different rates and the presence of possible cross-flow under shutin conditions. The identification of the flow regimes in the formation. LOGS. etc. the potentialities and the physical limits of the reservoir are based on the bottomhole pressure response. MDT.2 gives the main properties and “performances” of the different types of instruments. This data allow a complete validation of the well test results. 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.) .

.p. • LOGS: all the information obtained from logs related to geology. • CORES: all the information obtained from lab analyses on cores must be integrated with other available information for a complete rock characterization. stratigrafy etc. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 45 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 • 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.SPEO Eni S. are useful for a correct interpretation and must be taken into account when available. sedimentology.A.

. the measurement instruments can be subdivided into two main types: 1) SRO Gauges (Surface Read Out).agip. 9 Advantages: • Direct reservoir control for optimization of the testing sequence and thus minimization of costs (very high if the tests are carried out with the rig on site or in offshore operations).A. 2) Memory Gauges 6.1 GAUGE SPECIFICATIONS SURFACE AND DOWN-HOLE EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS Readers who would like to improve their knowledge about surface and down-hole equipment can refer to the well test operative manual (“Well Test Procedures Manual” STAP-P-1-M-7130.it/drilling/manuals/pagdrill/pagdrill.2 TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS Apart from technical specifications.SPEO Eni S.in. • Direct action on sampling times during the data acquisition when the original test programme needs to be modified. see link: http://wwwdsc. • Real time well monitoring in any phase of the test by making dynamic or static profiles to assess the real flow distribution and the nature of the fluids along the wellbore. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 46 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 6. It is also possible to have relevant information on the portion of the formation that actually contributes to production (thermometry).2. 6. This is because the gauges are run in the well by a monoconductor cable allowing the transmission of the signal from the bottom to the surface.1 SURFACE READ OUT (SRO) GAUGES During the various test phases SRO gauges allow a real time monitoring of the data being measured.p.html) 6.

9 Advantages: • At least two gauges (tandem) are run into the well to guarantee a safer data acquisition.p. Alternatively. At the end of the test they are retreived from the well. 9 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. In fact. All the relevant data are stored in the tool internal memory. also to solve potential inconsistencies between measurements. • Less expensive since they do not require the use of surface facilities and support personnel during the test. in the case of malfunctioning. they are directly run with the testing string in a tool called "bundle carrier”. • SRO gauges are generally run in the well in a stand alone mode. As a consequence. For redundancy in some cases (especially in exploration wells) a third memory gauge is added. 6. Only at the end of the test the gauges are retreived and the data recorded unloaded and availble for interpretation.SPEO Eni S. E&P Division 9 Disadvantages: IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 47 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 • High monitoring costs due to the use of surface equipment and personnel provided by Service Companies. only at the end of the test the collected data can be analysed.2 MEMORY GAUGES These gauges are run in the well by a harmonic steel cable (slick-line) and placed in nipples in the completion string. . 9 Disadvantages: • It is not possible to modify the sampling rate during the test and control the test in real time.A. The main difference with respect to the SRO gauges is that it is not possible to monitor the pressure response in real time. • Possibility to compare the data recorded by each gauge.2. the acquisition is guaranteed by a battery pack (generally lithium based) located below the gauges. there is no way to verify the reliability of the instrument response.

A high resolution gauge can be an efficient choice for tests carried out in very high . Drift phenomena tend to amplify in time and are generally positive.5 psi/week. The resolution is a property varying from gauge to gauge. resolution. of the order of several weeks. the battery duration is a function of the bottomhole temperature: the higher the temperature the lower the duration of the batteries. 9 Use: Combined with SRO in exploration wells and. generally. It can be noted that quartz gauges are very stable and do not have drift problems. As an example. pressures and temperatures). • Quartz Gauges: ~0.A. • Strain Gauges: < 3 psi/first day. Long tests. and stabilization time. in development wells with definitive completion. accuracy.SPEO Eni S. 9 Resolution The resolution of an instrument represents the amplitude of the smallest step detectable in monitoring the real pressure. then < 1.3 MAIN PROPERTIES When planning a test. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 48 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 • Limited test time due to the battery efficiency that depends on the sampling rate and on the number of data recorded (times. 9 Stability Property related to the drift phenomenon. It defines the shift in measured pressure compared to the actual value. the indicative laboratory drift values for different types of gauges are reported: • Mechanical Gauges (Amerada) : 10 psi/first day. Thus. The importance of the drift varies from gauge to gauge and for the same type of gauge there are different types of drifts. require the application area of Quartz Gauges. The main gauge properties are: stability. then 10 psi/week. Drift does not depend on the magnitude of the measured pressure. Moreover.1 psi/week.2 psi/first week. the gauge is the key element to reach the designed targets. all the gauges reproduce the real physical pressure behaviour in a reservoir by steps.p. then < 0.2. 6.

e. The current technological limit is some of 185-190°C.e. 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. 2 psi @ 10000 psi).4% full scale (i.001 psi @ 10000 psi. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 49 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 permeability formations. 5 psi @ 10000 psi). It can vary from more than 10 minutes in the case of Amerada to less than 1 minute (quartz gauge). It is defined as the time necessary so that the difference between the gauge value and the actual value is smaller than 1 psi.05% full scale (i. Indicative laboratory resolution values are as follows: • Mechanical Gauges (Amerada): 0. .p. • Strain Gauges: 0. • Quartz Gauges: 0. Based on the existing technology. 40 psi @ 10000 psi).e. 9 Accuracy For a given pressure. it defines the relationship between the gauge pressure measure and the actual value. 9 Stabilization times Time necessary to stabilize a gauge after abrupt pressure and temperature variations (i. The temperature was kept constant at a value of 150 °C for the testing time. all the electronic gauges are suitable to work at reservoir temperature up to 150°C. Accuracy laboratory values for the different gauges are as follows: • Mechanical Gauges: 0.2 psi @ 15000 psi.A. • Quartz Gauges: 0.e.SPEO Eni S. during the steps when carrying out static and/or dynamic profiles).e. 10 psi @ 10000 psi).02% full scale (i.1 % full scale (i. Special gauges must be required when testing HP-HT environment with reservoir temperature greater than 150°C. • Strain Gauges: 0.

the corresponding value must be specified from position 25 on. note that in all cases the recorded values are implicitly referred to pre-arranged units. 6.1. the line must be left empty . either relevant to information data or recorded values. must be concluded by a carriage return (<CR>). The following pages present details concerning the file format for the in-hole recordings – paragraph 6. and not special characters or indicators of end of file. and a <CR> typed. The last line of the file should contain the last values recorded.A. If pressure and temperature profiles have been carried out.3 6.1 IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 50 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 DATA ACQUISITION PROGRAMME FILE FORMAT STANDARDIZATION OF DATA RECORDED DURING WELL TESTING The release of ASCII files containing the following information is generally required: • a few heading lines . • lines relevant to the required numerical values recorded as a function of time.1. the values recorded during the run-in hole and pull-out of hole operations must be also included. Each line. Note : the use of <CR> or <CR><LF> as the line ender is absolutely indifferent.1 PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE HISTORY FILES History files must contain the pressure and temperature values recorded by the tool in the well. numerical values of quantities not depending on time. E&P Division 6.p.paragraph 6.2 (Surface & Downhole data) -.information notes.3. The recorded values must always be reported starting from a defined line number.1. it should be noted that a well-defined meaning is associated to each line: the information shouldn’t be available. without length limit.3. which can be reported in one of the file heading lines for information purposes only.3.bottom hole recordings (Pressure and temperature history files) . As far as the information data are concerned. <FILE HEADER> <from line 1 to line 21: the description of the line content can occupy the first 24 positions. but spaces > only line 1------------------------24 25---------------------------------<CR> .3.and surface recordings . The recommended file format is shown in the following pages.SPEO Eni S. A <CR> is always necessary.1 . As far as the system of units is concerned. the line must NOT contain <tab>.

(Note) 23 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx... This is valid also when no temperature values have been recorded...000 16 Working temperature (°C) 0. the <CR> at the end of the line MUST be typed after position 65.containing a <CR> only -> line 1--------------------------------------------------------------<CR> 22 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...000 8 (to mRT) 0...) 0.) 0.A..00 17 Resolution xxxxxxxxxx.. pressure(kg/cm2 rel. If there are no notes... 18 Accuracy xxxxxxxxxx... 13 N° series xxxxxxxxxx. the first 4 must have a fixed length. it does not contain <CR>. Lines 27 and 28 must always contain the description of the variables and the reference measurement units and are not considered as containing data..(Note) 24 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. (as indicated in Eni E&P . Representative xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 19 DWT THP (kg/cm2 rel. line 1-----------------20 21-------------35 36----------50 51---------65 66----------------------------------<CR> . Test identification xxxxxxxxxxxxxx...(quartz/strain gauge/..(SRO/Memory/. can be specified from position 1 on...) 12 Trade name xxxxxxxxxx.00 (pressure measured at well head with the Dead Weight Tool) 20 Gauge THP (kg/cm2 rel..SPEO Eni S.p.. if any. without length limits. must start from position 66 and doesn’t have length limit. There are no limits on the number of decimals for the recorded numerical values...) 0...000 10 Instrument type xxxxxxxxxx.(Note) 25 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx..000 9 Instrument depth (mRT) 0....) 11 Sensor type xxxxxxxxxx. line 26 must be empty ...SPARE reports) 5 Period (since) MM/DD/YYYY hh:mm:ss 6 (to) MM/DD/YYYY hh:mm:ss 7 Tested interval (from mRT) 0.. to be used for notes. E&P Division 1 2 3 4 IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 51 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 Service Company xxxxxxxxxxxxxx..(Note) 26 <RAW DATA ROWS> <from line 27 on: data must be organised into 5 columns. the line must NOT contain <tab>. the recorded values start from line 29.. except the one INDICATING THE END OF THE LINE. Well name xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.... but only spaces.. 14 Date of last calibration mm/dd/yyyy 15 Work.00 (pressure measured at well head with the instrument) 21 Date/hour recording start MM/DD/YYYY hh:mm:ss <from line 22 to line 25: notes.. The last column.


Eni S.p.A. E&P Division
27 28 29 30 date MM/DD/YYYY 01/01/0001 01/01/0001 time hh:mm:ss 00:00:00 00:00:00






REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 elapsed time hours dec. 0.0000 0.0000 pressure kg/cm2 r. 0.000 0.000 0 temperature remarks °C 0.00 xxxxxxx 0.00 xxxxxxx SURFACE & DOWNHOLE DATA Surface data files must contain values of the significant variables as a function of time, i.e. pressure, temperature, flow rates, and fluid properties, recorded by tools/equipment located at surface, notes, and a set of pressure and temperature data downhole recorded (based on variable sampling time intervals, coinciding with the monitoring at the well head). Find here below the variables which have been identified, together with their relevant units, and the order according to which they must be reported inside the file: 1) date time 2) elapsed time 3) choke size 4) BHP 5) BHT 6) THP 7) THT 8) CHP 9) separator pressure 10) separator temperature 11) gas flow rate 12) oil rate 13) water rate 14) cumulative oil 15) cumulative water 16) G.O.R. 17) W.O.R. 18) B.S.W. 19) oil density 20) gas grav. - air = 1 21) water density 22) NaCl 23) pH 24) shrink factor 25) H2S 26) remarks (events) MM/DD/YYYY hh:mm min inch kg/cm2 rel. °C kg/cm2 rel. °C kg/cm2 rel. kg/cm2 rel. °C Sm3/day STm3/day m3/day m3 m3 Sm3/STm3 m3/STm3 % °API ad g/l g/l ad ad ppm notes


Eni S.p.A. E&P Division







The proposed file format is presented in the following pages. <FILE header> <from line 1 to line 9 : the description of the line content can occupy the first 24 positions; the corresponding value must be specified from position 25 on, without length limits; the line must not contain <tab>, but only space line 1------------------------24 25----------------------------------<CR> 1 2 3 4 Service Company Representative Well name Test identification 1 reports) 5 Period (from) 6 (to) 7 Tested interval (from mRT) 8 (to mRT) 9 Gauge depth. (mRT) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx... xxxxxxxxxxxxxx... xxxxxxxxxxxxxx... xxx.(as indicated in Eni E&P - Spare MM/DD/YYYY hh:mm:ss MM/DD/YYYY hh:mm:ss 0.000 0.000 0.000

<from line 10 to line 13: notes, if any, can be specified from position 1 on,without length limits; line 14 must be empty - it contains only a <CR> line 1-------------------------------------------------------------<CR> 10 11 12 13 14 <DATA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.....(Note) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.....(Note) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.....(Note) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.....(Note) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.....(Note) ROWS>

<from line 15 on: the data must be reported in the order already described in the previous page, starting from position 1, and separated by “ ; “ If a value is lacking, “ ; “ must be typed in any case to allow the correct identification of the next value unless it is the last data of the list- the remarks which must contain neither “ ; “ nor <CR>, except the one indicating the end of the line. Lines must not be broken; there is no limit on the number of decimals of the numerical values. Lines 15 and 16 must always contain the description of the variable and reference unit and are not considered as containing data; the recorded values start from line 17.


Eni S.p.A. E&P Division








15 date time; elapsed; choke; BHP; BHT;(the variables must be reported; 26 columns are normally expected separated by “ ; “) 16 MM/DD/YYYY hh:mm;min;inch;kg/cm2 rel.; °C;.......(the units of each variable must be all reported; 26 columns are normally expected separated by “ ; “) 17 01/01/0001 00:00;0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0. 0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;xxxxx..... 18 01/01/0001 00:00;0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0. 0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;xxxxx.....


Eni S.p.A. E&P Division








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.


Wellhead pressure readings are not directly used in the analysis of a test, because they only take part in the estimation of the deliverability of gas wells through the (empirical) wellhead flow equation. However, the wellhead pressure is used for comparison with the pressure data recorded by the electronic bottomhole gauges. In fact, when the electronic gauges are at wellhead before being run into the well, they must read a pressure measurement consistent with that of the D.W.T. The difference shall not exceed 0.2 - 0.4%. To obtain a valid quality control, the comparison must be repeated at the end of the test at the same conditions and the error must be of the same magnitude as the one found at the beginning of the test. Significant differences can indicate an inadequate calibration of the gauge (hysteresis and drift phenomena in long duration tests), which can invalidate the response of the bottomhole gauges. Obviously, in the case of SRO gauges, the control takes place in real time, whereas in the case of memory gauges, the control is possible only after unloading the data. It is also recommendable to compare the measurements when the well is under static conditions in order to avoid effects due to the fluid flow.

(a) . surface rates can be estimated on the basis of the dynamic wellhead data.SPEO Eni S. E&P Division 7. • Pwf: wellhead flowing pressure (psia). 1242): Qgas = C x Pwf / ( SGgas x Twf )0. • C: calibrated orifice coefficient. 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). • Twf: wellhead flowing temperature (Rankine degrees).p. In the case that test flow rate data is missing or anomalous. given as a function of the choke diameter (inches).A.1 – pag.0). In particular: ¾ Gas wells The gas rate is estimated according to the following equation (See Frick – Vol.5 where: • Qgas: gas rate at standard conditions (MScf/day). • SGgas: gas specific gravity (air = 1.2 IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 56 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 VALIDATE RATES: DEFINITION OF PRODUCTION HISTORY The rates of the produced fluids must be adequately controlled so that they are consistent with the corresponding bottomhole pressure trends.

92 56. • Ø: dimensionless choke diameter.Gilbert) which relies on the GOR and on the wellhead flowing pressure: Qoil = Pwf x Ø1.E.2 156.47 19.301 14.: for choke 12/64".68 81.p.9 309.7 520.8 C coefficient 4 inches pipe 24.97 25. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 57 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 Table 8.SPEO Eni S.8 154.355 6.1 – C coefficient 0 Choke diameter inches 1/16 3/32 1/8 3/16 7/32 ¼ 5/16 3/8 7/16 ½ 5/8 ¾ 7/8 1 1 1/8 C coefficient 2 inches pipe 1.524 3.2.0 224.3 499.89 / [ 435 x ( GOR/1000 )0. Ø = 12). expressed as a fraction of 64” (i.09 101.546 ] where: • Qoil: oil rate at Stock Tank conditions (STb/day).3 406.1 223.e. (b) .77 56.86 39.7 304.A.01 100.2 396.2 ¾ Oil wells The oil rate is estimated by an empirical relationship (W.

In fact.p. When temperature dynamic profiles are available. • In the case of tests carried out in wells already completed and producing for a long time. it is not possible to exclude variations of the total kh. Critical flow conditions occur when the upstream pressure is at least twice the downstream pressure. Practically this means that all the flow periods should show the same radial flow and. equation (a) is affected by the uncertainty in the Twf temperature measured at well head under dynamic conditions. hence. Moreover. • GOR: gas-oil ratio from test (Scf/STb). it is important to define the production rate history during the test. The constraints to be satisfied are the real beginning and ending time of each flowing phase and the cumulative produced fluid. that the Kh of the formation is constant. Each step defines the corresponding flow period. is assigned to each step. However.5°C) can be assumed as a first approximation. it is a delicate operation since the model automatically corrects the flow rate values in the different phases starting from a reference value which must be considered by the interpreter as the most reliable value.12%. the wellhead Twf value obtained by interpolating the average temperature gradient in the string shall be used. In particular. The main difficulty consists in the identification of this reference value. the value of 520° Rankine (15. apart from pressure variations downstream.SPEO Eni S. in this case. In the absence of any measurement. it is important not only that the average rates during each time step of the test be defined. • The discretisation adopted should reproduce the actual production trend. representing the average value. the values obtained from equations (a) and (b) must be considered as a first approximation of the real rate data: the average error can be greater than 10 . especially when the well has not been cleaned up enough or is characterised by very high wellbore storage that might hide the total kh of the formation. a constant flow rate value. • Interpret/2003 and Saphir present the “Validation rates” option which enables the user to check whether the flow rate data and the corresponding bottom ∆p is homogeneous. However. but also that the total volume of the produced fluids and the total flowing duration before the test be known. especially in multilayer formations. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 58 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 • Pwf: wellhead flowing pressure (psiG). . higher rates generate bottom ∆p which can activate layers that previously did not contribute to production. Before the interpretation.A. Both equations (a) and (b) are valid in the case of critical flow. The definition of a correct production profile is made as follows: • Reconstruction of the real production trend according to discrete steps. In this case the fluid velocity reaches a maximum value and then keeps constant. great attention must be paid to the automatic correction of the rate values since.

This must be made by laboratory tests before the operation. are accurately calibrated in laboratory. it helps identifying the most correct gauge response. This also allows identification of small deviations with respect to the initial response. The "validate gauges" option is very useful in this case.T. In the case of discrepancy between the gauges. false trends in the derivative shape might be induced. as previously described.W. is of great importance since. It is fundamental that the gauges. the Service Company must provide the certification and the specifications found in the last calibration. problems induced by drift phenomena of the order of magnitude of some psi/week only. can be correctly taken into account. it is not necessary to describe the past production profile in details since they do not affect the derivative response too much. Possible time shifts due to an imperfect synchronisation of the gauges can be evaluated and corrected. should the production history prior to the test be disregarded and the test analysis be based on the testing rates only. The pressure differences due to the distance between the measurement points allow the definition of the fluid phase (liquid or gas). The safest method to carry out a reliable quality control on the recorded data is the evaluation of the calibration specifications. in many cases.SPEO Eni S. Possible shut-in periods must always be taken into account. As already mentioned. The control is made only against the wellhead pressure with the well shut-in. For this reason. .p.W. In case two or more gauges are used. 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 bottomhole pressure and of its derivative. Then these specifications must be compared to the one obtained in the same laboratory conditions at the end of the operation. If the ∆p is almost constant.3 VALIDATE GAUGES The quality control on bottomhole parameters has a remarkable impact on the test interpretation. they can be of the two types: Memory or SRO Gauges. their responses must always be compared not only in terms of pressure. 7.T. which are hardly recognisable by the D. as far as pressure and temperature are concerned. The acquisition of bottomhole data. independently from the type. but also of bottomhole temperatures. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 59 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 In fact. the latter allowing for real time readings.A. is made by using high precision electronic gauges located just above the producing formation. On the other hand. For example. the comparison between wellhead data and D.W. In the case of a single gauge the quality check of the recorded data is essentially based on the double comparison (pre and post job) with the reference D. this means that the gauges are immersed in the same fluid for the whole test duration.T.

since even minimal variations of the original parameters might have a high impact on the shape of the derivative which could show false trends that are not representative of the reservoir response. The smoothing is used when the pressure values are of low quality (poor resolution) and/or are affected by remarkable instrumental noise.2-0. since more immediate. the interpretation can be made directly. which enables the user to adjust the shape of the derivative curve. This operation is very problematic since very high smoothing values can mask the reservoir response. Interpret/2003 offers two types of algorithm for the evaluation of the smoothing1: • N-Points Algorithm. • Windows Algorithm (used by default). The smoothing enables the user to average the raw data.SPEO Eni S. this algorithm has the advantage of being independent from the length of the flow period considered. the smoothing value can be progressively increased up to a maximum value of 0. If the quality of the data is good. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 60 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 Important: particular attention must be paid when correcting the raw data.25. 1 Manual INTERPRET/2003: Option “Validate Gauges” . • Otherwise.A. • It is recommendable. to use the N-Points algorithm with even numbers greater than 1 (raw data) to obtain an interpretable shape. ¾ Smoothing The smoothing option available in interpretative softwares implies the application of a mathematical algorithm.p. Very high smoothing values reveal a poor quality of the data recorded. Compared to the Windows Algorithm. This means to impose N = 1 in the first case and Smoothing = 0 in the second case. The scattering is reduced without significant changes in the general shape of the derivative. The following procedure is recommended: • always start by displaying of the raw data without any smoothing. reducing the scattering to obtain better recognizable trends on the pressure derivative.

a point before and a point after. consecutive points are used to calculate the derivative. etc. • • The complete well testing interpretation process is represented on the following workflow chart (Courtesy by A.A.Gringarten): . For the first and last data points a 3 points right and a 3 points left derivative is used to reduce end effects. The simulation is adjusted on the three common plots: semi-log superposition. Well test analysis consists of a three step process: • Identification of the theoretical interpretation model. log-log and complete rate history on a linear scale. since they must reasonably reproduce the same reservoir response. 7.4 WELL TEST INTERPRETATION PROCESS Provided that a Quality Control has been carefully performed on all geometrical. The log-log pressure and derivative plot is used to make the first match and first-attempt parameters are found. Evaluation of the interpretation model.p. All the other specialized plots are also of a great help in selecting the proper model. In the case of doubt in the interpretation of the derivative shape.2 distort the shape of the curve. presence of boundaries. Saphir accepts smoothing of up to 2. Verification on the interpretation model. In this step all the characteristic flow regimes are identified as well as any change in fluid/rock properties. but values over 0.SPEO Eni S. petrophysical and dynamic data (pressure & rates). the interpretation can be started. The derivative plot is the primary identification tool. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 61 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 Saphir features only one type of algorithm for smoothing evaluation. It uses a 3 point central derivative obtained from the weighted average of the slopes between the given point. it is always recommendable to make a check with other tests previously carried out on the same layer. With no smoothing.

SPEO Eni S.1 – Well Test interpretation Process .A. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 62 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 Courtesy of A.p.4. Gringarten Figure 7.

1 INTERPRET 2003 (PARADIGM) The software Interpret 2003 is a commercial package by Paradigm. . The aim of this chapter is to briefly describe the main potentialities of these softwares and the advantages/disadvantages experienced with their use. Their methodology is based on the use of the pressure derivative. The software is structured into 6 functional sections: 1) Data section: allows the input of basic data. 8. theoretical background and user interface. This chapter is not intended as a manual for the use of the described software and can not – by no means . The analysis is performed using analytical models for early. This methodology consists in matching the pressure data using simulation models which takes into account the detailed well production history. fluid type and PVT parameters (including a simple window for PVT estimation via correlations). WELL TEST INTERPRETATION PACKAGE In ENI Exploration and Production Division two well test interpretation softwares are available: 9 Interpret/2003 by Paradigm (ex Baker Atlas). Temperatures can also be loaded. middle and late time effects. Options such as multiphase flow at the wellbore and in the reservoir are also available.p. Rates can be loaded as measured rates or analysis rates. Both of them are Pressure Transient Analysis softwares.A. Furthermore. 9 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.replace the software manuals for detailed description of features.SPEO Eni S. the latter being the averaged values to be used for the interpretation. indications on the best approach for software use and continuous learning is given. produced fluids rates. 9 Saphir by Kappa Engineering. bottom hole pressure and temperature data from multiple gauges. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 63 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 8.

middle and late time models). Gauges can also be compared by displaying pressure differences and. Real data and model lines are compared in Log-Log.1 Elapsed time (hrs) 1 10 100 Figure 8.1. Different analysis can be saved.SPEO Eni S. Results of the model can be viewed also. Log-Log Diagnostic . Using the regression option care should be taken to the meaningfulness of output parameters. Horner and Pressure History plots. Partial results are also presented.p. 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. even if the matching is satisfactory.1 – Interpret 2003 – Diagnostic Plot 5) Matching: after setting the diagnose lines the matching option generates the corresponding analytical model.1 0. if rates are already loaded. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 64 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 2) Validate gauges: if more than one gauge is loaded. Gauge combination is also allowed. this section allows the user to compare recorded pressures and to perform a pressure and time shift on gauges. 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.0001 0. 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.001 0. Automatic rate adjustment can be performed even on subset data. Regression in the different plots and for selected parameters and data subsets can be done in order to automatically improve the match. Varible storage and variable skin options are also available.Flow Period 3 100 Rate Normalised Pressure Change and Derivative (bar) 10 1 0. . log-log and superposition function for different flow periods. re-loaded (file menu) and compared (select display).A.01 0.

p.A.001 0.01 0.Flow Period 3 350 340 330 320 Pressure (bar) 310 300 290 280 270 260 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 Superposition Function (Sm3/D) Simulation (Constant Skin) . E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 65 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 Log-Log Match .Flow Period 3 350 340 330 320 Pressure (bar) 310 300 290 280 270 260 0 10 Elapsed time (hrs) 20 30 Figure 8.1 Elapsed time (hrs) 1 10 100 Horner Match .1.Flow Period 3 0 100 Pressure Change and Derivative (bar) 10 1 0.SPEO Eni S.1 0.2 – Interpret 2003 .0001 0.

com/Saphir/index. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 66 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 6) Design: this section allows generation of the theoretical pressure response of a test performed in a well with certain characteristics. • development of a numerical linear model based on understructured (Voronoi) automatic grids with a modelling flexibility far beyond that of an analytical model. the tidal effect correction tool.paradigmgeo. Web site for informations and support is: www.kappaeng.2 SAPHIR (KAPPA ENGINEERING) The software Saphir v3. The designed test is plotted in the usual Log-Log. inputting flow rates and test sequence. Input data (see data section) must be loaded. in particular. The Model Control window allows selection of the model.A.php Learning: the main reference for software self-learning is the online help and the tutorials.p.20 is a commercial package by Kappa Engineering.asp . A more detailed description of the features of analytical analysis and numerical analysis (linear and non-linear) is provided in the following chapters. The pressure response can be saved as a gauge (file menu) for conventional analysis.com/products/interpret. input model parameters and definition of the gauge properties. Web site for informations and support is: http://www.SPEO Eni S. 8. Horner and Pressure History plots. 9 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. • development of a numerical non-linear model with advanced features near to reservoir simulation. • visualization options of numerical analysis on animated 2D map (pressure/saturation fields).

the manuals and the tutorials.and superposition function. Saphir offers the possibility to plot Horner. Analysis can also be performed on selected plots. • Flexible plot analysis: besides standard Log-Log.2. Nevertheless it presents some additional features as: • Multilayer analysis: allows the simulation of individual layer rates and the regression on zone contributions.1 ANALYTICAL ANALYSIS The analytical method of Saphir software is based on the same approach as in Interpret/2003 (Figure 8. • Changing well model: this options allows the simulation of the production history of a well whose behavior has changed at a certain time (due to acidizing. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 67 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 Learning: the main reference of the software self-learning is the online help. fracturing. The download area of Saphir web site provides the manuals with guided interpretation and exploration of software capabilities.SPEO Eni S. .1). …) in a single analysis.A. MDH. user defined graphs. • Linear composite model: allows the simulation of changes in the petrophysical or fluid properties in a linear direction. basic theoretical background and software user guide. 8.p. • Multiple flow period analysis: allows to analyze multiple flow periods considering superposition effect.2.

1 1 10 Log-Log plot: dp and dp' [bar] vs dt [hr] 500 496 492 488 484 480 -5 -4.SPEO Eni S.1 Saphir: Analytical model .1 1E-4 1E-3 0.p.5 Semi-Log plot: p [bara] vs Superposition time 500 490 480 2000 1000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 History plot (Pressure [bara].5 -2 -1.2.5 -1 -0.A. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 68 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 10 1 0.5 -4 -3.01 0. Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [hr]) Figure 8.5 -3 -2.

• non-Darcy flow into gas reservoir.2. E&P Division 8. • multiphase flow (water + oil or water + gas) in reservoir using relative permeabilities curves.3). .20 covers the same 2-D geometries as the numerical module of Saphir. The numerical model allows to consider the following items: • Irregular outer boundary shape. • Fault trayectories and leakage factor of each fault. • Evaluation of the pressure response of a well when other production/injection wells are active in the same reservoir at the same time. 8.2. • 2-D and 3-D display and animations of pressure and/or saturation fields (Figures 8.2.A.SPEO Eni S. • water injection in oil reservoir. the assumption of slightly compressible fluids and the pseudo-pressure funcion are replaced by the exact solution of the diffusion equation. • Irregular composite zones.2 and 8.2 IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 69 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 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. • real dead oil diffusion.2. however.3 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS (NON-LINEAR) Saphir Numerical v3.p. • Reservoir thickness and porosity variation by a discrete set of values using grids and other interpolations. The model is set up defining a understructured (Voronoi) grid scaled on the reservoir map. Saphir Numerical takes into account non-linearities such as: • real gas diffusion.

SPEO Eni S.A.2 – Saphir: Numerical model Well B Well A Figure 8.2. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 70 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 Figure 8.p.3 – Saphir: Numerical model .2.

.A. REPORT The interpretation of a production test will result in a final report which will include all the information necessary to obtain a complete and reliable vision of the parameters used and the results obtained.).p. After selecting the measurement system. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 71 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 9.SPEO Eni S. The following table shows the most widespread parameters as concerns Well Testing and their units of measurement in the different systems.I. • International System (S. 9. • Practical Metric System. the physical parameters must be consistent with the choice adopted.1 MEASUREMENT SYSTEM The final report will make reference to a precise system of measurement units which will have to be selected between the following: • Oil Fields Units. Here below is a proposal of a final report structure to be followed.

See the convertion table: pag.SPEO Eni S. L µo. µw Cc. permeability will be expressed in md (1 md = 9.L. Cg. Cw. R hours ft cp 1/psia md Rb/STb RScf/STcf Metric Practical STm /day Sm /day STm /day Sm /STm kg/cm 2 3 3 3 3 3 Kelvin degrees.I.1.1 – System of Units International (S. Ct k Bo Bg Oil Fields STb/day MScf/day STb/day Scf/STb psia Rankine degrees. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 72 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 Table 9.A. re h. K seconds m Pa·sec 2 3 3 3 3 3 0 Parameter Oil rate Gas Rate Water Rate Gas/Oil Ratio Pressure Temparature Time Lenghts Viscosity Compressibility Permeability Oil Volume Factor Gas Volume Factor Water Volume Factor Z Factor Skin Factor Symbol Qo Qg Qw GOR P T t rw.p. K minutes m cp 1/kg/cm md Rm /STm Rm /Sm 3 3 3 3 1/Pa m 3 2(*) Rm /STm Rm /Sm 3 3 3 3 3 Bw Z S Rb/STb adimensional adimensional Rm /Sm 3 Rm /Sm 3 adimensional adimensional adimensional adimensional In the Oil Fields System: In the Metric System / SI: M = 103 K = 103 MM = 106 M = 106 B = 109 G = 109 (*) For practical resaons. .) STm /sec Sm /sec STm /sec Sm /STm Pa Kelvin degrees. 1 – “Principi di ingegneria dei Giacimenti Petroliferi” – G.86923·10-16 m2). µg. 10 – Vol. Chierici.

E&P Division 9. production/injection).Venture with shares.SPEO Eni S.p. • Type of mineralization (gas/oil). b) Introduction It must contain the following general information for the well characterisation: • Location and Concession. • Possible Joint . • Type of well (exploration/development.2 IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 73 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT The report should be completed with the following main items: 9 List of Contents 9 Introduction 9 Conclusions 9 Discussion of the test 9 Well flow deliverability 9 Figures 9 Annexes a) List of Contents It defines the list of the different paragraphs and sub-paragraphs composing the report. • Test completion (test or definitive string). .A.

This program will estimate the bottomhole and/or wellhead flow equation (gas wells) or the productivityindex (oil wells). N2 must also be mentioned in this paragraph. geological maps. All the main conclusions will be discussed with respect to the original well testing objectives to be achieved. . static and dynamic pressure and temperature profiles must also be cited. • Test analysis.p. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 74 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 • Intervals tested and testing periods. will be discussed. must be presented. They will be discussed and analysed in function of their impact on the results. d) Discussion This paragraph will be subdivided into the following parts: • Chronology of test operations. • Objective of the test/s. as well as the different operations composing the test. electric or production logs and tests previously carried out on the same well or made on the near wells etc. only the most significant phases.SPEO Eni S. an evaluation of the well deliverability must be evaluated. At Iast. PLT. All the operations which can be carried out during the test such as acidifications. partialisations. The calculation can be carried out either at “Transient” conditions for a predefined observation time or at "Pseudo Steady-State” conditions if the pressure perturbance reaches the drainage radius re of the well being tested. For this reason. • Summary of the data recorded during the test. d. The chosen reservoir model must be consistent with the other information available such as seismic sections.Saphir) and all the main results of the model adopted will be presented. gravelpacks. The presence of sand and/or fine sediments (typical of gas wells) and the possible contamination of the gas phase for H2S. CO2.1) Chronology of test operations The series of events. disregarding secondary events. • Input data used. c) Conclusions The reservoir physical model used in the test interpretation (Interpret/2003 .A.

• Oil total volume produced in the test and relevant properties (Np. The reference parameters for each flow-period are referred to the end of the period considered. H2S. density. • In the case of several gauges. SG. the total volume injected in the formation and its petrophysical properties must be indicated in the case of water injection. • Measurement gauge depth (RT and ssl).p. • Volume of the produced fluids and their properties (W p.A. API Degrees). density). PH.2) Summary of the data recorded during the test The main static and dynamic parameters recorded during the test at surface and bottomhole conditions will be summarised in a general table (for example in the Practical Metric System): Table 9. mention the one used for the interpretation. NaCl. CO2. • Gas total volume produced during the test and relevant properties (Gp.1 – Static and dynamic parameters Period type Clean-up Build-up Drawdown Build-up Time minutes Choke 1/64” Qo STm3/d Qg Sm3/d GOR Sm3/STm3 BSW % BHP kg/cm2 BHT Kelvin THP kg/cm2 ∆pbottom % ∆pwellhead % For gas tests the pressure values will always be expressed in absolute measurement units. The other information to be specified are as follows: • Rotary table (ssl). N2 content). • Remark the possible presence of sands and/or fine sediments. The injection rates in each period. .2.SPEO Eni S. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 75 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 d.

5) Water saturation. the data used in the analysis of the production test can be subdivided as follows: • Geometrical data: 1) Well Radius. So.3) Input data used IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 76 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 In the most general case. hnet. 2) Total porosity of the formation. 3) Horizontal length.SPEO Eni S. d (Interference test). it is necessary to introduce the petrophysical parameters and the fluid saturations. hp (Partial Penetration/Partial Completion: spherical flow). • PVT parameters • For test in oil/gas/water injection wells PVT parameters will be presented in the following table: . 3) Oil saturation. • Petrophysical data: 1) Total net thickness of the formation. 4) Gas saturation. E&P Division d. Sw. 4) Distance between the wells.A. 2) Flowing interval. L (horizontal wells). These parameters are estimated as arithmetical average between the values evaluated at the observation well and the values evaluated at the nearby active wells. Sg. Interference Test: in the case of interference tests. rw. Ø.p.

2). the reservoir model used and its consistency with the previous flow periods. The source (PVT studies/Literature correlations) must be defined for each of the parameters presented.2 – PVT parameters 0 PVT Parameters Bubble Pressure Volume Factor Viscosity Adimensional Factor Fluid Compressibility Rock Compressibility Total Compressibility Oil wells Pb Bo µo Co Cr Ct Gas wells Bg µg Z Cg Cr Ct Water Injection Bw µw Cw Cr Ct Interference Test: in the case of interference tests between one or several wells. The definition of the petrophysical parameters is exhaustively illustrated in the present report. it should be defined the flow period on which the analysis was built (generally the final build up). i. possible boundaries and/or closures and the relevant results is presented for each of them.SPEO Eni S. spherical etc. . previous tests) supporting the choice adopted must be cited. The known flow regimes (radial. early middle and late times is briefly discussed.e. Interference Test: the production history to be used in the interpretation will be the one of the active wells.4) Test analysis This paragraph shows the main results of the final simulation. geophysical. Particularly.2. Each flow period is characterised by its length and an average rate value assumed as constant during the phase considered ( See Chapter 8. • Production history The production history is used to simulate the test with interpretative softwares. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 77 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 Table 9.). all the information (geological. If present. linear. The main parts of the model used. It is the chronologic sequence of the different phases or flow periods in which the test is subdivided. the PVT parameters of the observation well must be introduced during the interpretation phase.p. d.A.

5: turbulent flow n = 1. E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 78 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 Particular operations carried out before or during the test as acid-job. For gas wells we must define: • the bottomhole flow equation : (∆p2)bottom = A x Q + B x Q2 where the A and B coefficients must always be positive.A.SPEO Eni S. it is possible to estimate the bottomhole flow equation (1) at "Pseudo Steady-State" conditions. temperature measurements.I.) considered as: P. Assuming a certain drainage radius re.1013 MPa).I.O.0 . = Q / (∆p)bottom .F.5 < n < 1. gravel pack. • the wellhead flow equation (empirical): (1) Q = C x [(∆p2)wellhead]n where: 0. static and/or dynamic profiles are analysed taking into account the general results obtained. which represents the maximum theoretical gas rate if the maximum bottom ∆p is imposed (Pwf = 0.p.). e) Well flow deliverability The test report must include the evaluation of the well production potential. production log such as PLT. The previous relationships can be considered as "Transient" conditions at a defined time t. For oil wells: the well production capacity is more simply defined through its Productivity Index (P.0: laminar flow (2) The evaluation of the well deliverability is characterised also by the value of the Absolute Open Flow (A. n = 0.

is referred to “Transient” conditions.Top of the formation. f ) Figures The list of the figures to be included in the report is as follows: • Index map . equation and flow capacity of the formation (gas/oil). E&P Division IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 79 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 The P. • Flow/P. .Concession. • Diagnostic plot: Log-log/Horner. Assuming a drainage radius re.p. it will be possible to estimate also productivity at "Pseudo Steady-State" conditions.log match. • Isobath map . • Reference Flow Period: Log . it must also be introduced: • Formation production profiles: Production Logging Tool (PLT). • General simulation of the whole test. time.I. • Formation logs (CPI).I. • Test history linear plot P & Q vs.A. If any. calculated from a conventional well test is a function of time and as such.SPEO Eni S. • Completion scheme of the well at the test time (provisional or definitive). • Static and/or dynamic profiles carried out during the test. • Reference Flow Period: Horner match.

SPEO Eni S.p.A. . E&P Division g) Annexes The annexes must include: IDENTIFICATION CODE PAG 80 OF 80 REVISION STAP-P-1-M-14520 0 • Reference to tests already interpreted on the same well. • PVT laboratory study.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->