PTRL 4010 Final Year Thesis

Drillstem Test, DST Analysis
Ahmad Zikri B Nor Azlan z3270484
Date of submission: 2 April 2012

0 Introduction Pressure versus Time for the Whole Test Period and Validity Check Page 2 3 4 5 6 3.0 Average Production Rate 13 5.0 Horner Semi-Log Plot Analysis 19 19 7.0 2.0 Conclusions 22 23 References 25 .0 Pressure versus Time Plot for Main Build-Up Period 10 4.0 Production Time 16 6.TABLE OF CONTENT Topic List of Figures List of Tables Abstract 1.0 Actual Sand Thickness for Producing Interval 21 8.

Figure 7. Figure 3. Horner Semi-Log plot with the slope m2 Figure 13. Figure 2.LIST OF FIGURES Figures Figure 1. Figure 4. Figure 9. Figure 6. Extrapolation to the y-axis to determine the initial reservoir pressure Figure 11. Horner Semi-Log plot with the slope m1 Figure 12. Figure 5. Actual sand thickness based from well logs . Figure 8. Downhole DST tool string Pressure-Time plot for DST Pressure versus time for the whole test period Plot of pressure versus time for initial cycle Plot of pressure versus time for main cycle Plot of pressure versus time for unloading cycle Plot of pressure versus time for surge cycle Plot of pressure versus time for main build-up test Production time for main cycle Page 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 23 Figure 10.

Oil Rate during the main flow period Data needed for Horner Semi-Log plot analysis (SCOPE4) The parameters obtained from slope m1 The parameters obtained from slope m2 Page 15 19 22 22 .LIST OF TABLES Tables Table 1. Table 3. Table 3. Table 2.

from the graph. However. using Mathcad. drillstem test. there are some limitation and more investigation needed to reduce uncertainty. the presence of shale is also determined in using the gamma logs to calculate the shale thickness around perforation area. For Horner analysis. Then. it suggests that the formation is good permeability and had damaged. Horner semi-log plot is evaluated and associate parameters are calculated. establishing well productivity and obtaining representative fluid samples. DST is conducted in order to determine the Original Oil in Place (OOIP) in Skua 4 field. the production time and average flow rate are extracted and calculated from the Well Completion Report. 4 sections are identified and are showed in larger scale to detect any anomalies. pressure data on main build-up period is focused more.5 to 3. skin factor is between 2. Although the result is not the same as the Well Completion Report. Permeability is between 500 to 800 md. actual sand thickness is determined based from gamma log due to presence of shale. skin factor and initial reservoir pressure. Besides that.Abstract In this report. Then. analysis of Horner semi-log plot is described step-bystep to determine the formation permeability. This program is usually run during the exploration phase with the main purpose of gaining information on reservoir geometry. Based on our calculation. The body of the report contains pressure data versus time graph for the entire test period to check its validity on whether the test is accurate.9 and the initial reservoir pressure lies between 3334 to 333 psia. Therefore. Next. Inside this report. . DST analysis is proven to be beneficial in helping to understand the reservoir behavior. Lastly.

The well has found a 50 m gross hydrocarbon column with approximately 5 m net gas pay and 19 m net oil pay. which is important whether to continue with the appraisal well. DST also gives indication of well production rate. formation damage indication and initial reservoir pressure. Skua -4 was drilled in August 1988 as appraisal well. Figure 1: Downhole DST tool string To run the drillstem test. DST provides a temporary completion that allows pressure testing of a part of a formation. the value calculated may be differ with well log data. DST can provide sample of reservoir fluid for further analysis. DST data interpretations are able to estimate the formation permeability. Figure 2 below shows a typical pressure profile of a DST: . The calculation and correlation will be described in details in this report. Furthermore. In addition. Once at the bottom. High production rate is highly favorable. The 7 m interval in the oil bearing sand was perforated and a production test was performed.Introduction In determining the Original Oil In Place OOIP in the Skua Field. DST is able to provide static and flowing reservoir pressures as well as gives short pressure transient test (pressure buildup). The low pressure inside the DST tool allows formation fluid to flow into the drillpipe and continuously records the pressure during the test. drillstring is lowered to the zone to be tested with a special DST tool attached. However. DST typically performed on exploration or appraisal well in order to determining whether a well has found a commercial hydrocarbon reservoir. the packer is set to seal the bottom to isolate the formation from the mud column annulus. (SCOPE 4) Production test in another word can be called as drillstem test (DST). Besides that.

it depends on the test behavior during the final flow period. After completion of the main test. The pressure increases with the same pattern of initial cycle. during initial part (1).Figure 2: Pressure-time plot of a DST The graph above is a schematic DST pressure chart for a two-cycle test. For a standard DST. The second flow also need to be long enough in order to achieve stabilization. DST for Skua-4 aims to gain information on reservoir geometry. However. Finally. The initial shut-in however needs to be sufficiently long to allow the measured pressure to approach stabilized formation pressure and normally is 1 hour. while the second cycle includes the flow and final buildup periods. final cycle of flow and shut-in period takes place and showed in (4) and (5). the packer is set leading to decrease in pressure to Pifl. Next. a short surge test was conducted in an attempt to improve the productivity of the well. Pff1 at (3) shows an increasing pressure to formation pressure prior to the start of shut-in period and eventually reaches to the initial shut-in pressure. Final flowing pressure. Mentioning the pressure profile. For the final shut-in period. Pisi. The initial flow period in (2) follows as a packer being released to allow formation fluid to flow into the drillpipe indicating a slight increase in pressure. Then. establish the productivity of the well and obtain representative fluid samples. not as high as the initial cycle pressure at shut-in period. initial flow period. shows that a drillstring is being run into the hole that indicates by increased in pressure. Pfhm is obtained and DST tool is unpacking and is pulled out. . hydrostatic mud pressure. The initial hydrostatic mud pressure at the depth of interest is represented as Pihm. The first cycle test includes the initial flow and buildup periods. the initial flow period is usually short approximately 5 to 10 minutes. The reason is to release the high hydrostatic mud pressure.

the DST of Skua-4 consists of four test cycles of different periods. The test cycles are:     The initial flow (4.3 hours) and the unloading build-up (0.1 hour)  The main flow (25.6 hours) The surge flow (4.3 hours) The report consist into 6 parts which consists of:       Plot of pressure versus time for the whole test period and test validity check Pressure versus time plot of the main build-up period Production time determination Estimate average flow rate of the main flow period Sand thickness determination Horner semi-log analysis .5 hours) and the surge build-up (2.Generally.3 minutes) and the initial build-up (1.5 hours)  The unloading flow (0.7 hours) and the main build-up (26.

5. The longest cycle can clearly seen to be the main cycle. .00 70. skin factor and initial reservoir pressure from the analysis of Horner semi-log plot. main cycle.Pressure versus Time for the Whole Test Period and Validity Check Before proceed with determination of associated parameters such as permeability. 6.00 Figure 3: Pressure versus time for the whole test period The graph above is divided into 4 cycles. Figure 4. unloading cycle and surge cycle.00 80.00 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 40. The anomalies are checked by looking into the pressure data as a function of time for the entire test period. 7 will show each section in details. 30.00 Time (hours) 60.00 100.00 90. which are initial cycle. Using data from SCOPE4 a figure below is plotted (Pressure versus time).00 50. a quality check is measured to detect any anomalies during the test.

15 3220 3240 3260 Pressure psia 3280 3300 3320 3340 3360 35.00 70.35 Figure 4: Plot of pressure versus time for initial cycle 30.60 89.40 3220 3240 3260 Pressure psia 3280 3300 3320 3340 3360 88.25 35.00 90.80 89.00 3290 3300 Pressure psia 3310 3320 3330 3340 3350 40.35.30 35.00 89.00 50.60 Figure 6: Plot of pressure versus time for the unloading cycle .40 89.00 Time (hours) 60.00 Figure 5: Plot of pressure versus time for the main cycle Time (hours) 88.20 Time (hours) 35.00 80.00 100.20 88.

However.00 93.00 2700 2800 2900 Pressure psia 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 90.00 94.00 Time (hours) 91. The correction was made to pressure data of Skua-2 and Skua-5. there was a problem with MUST tool that restrict the flow between the gauge bundle carriers and the top of the MUST creating an increase in pressure different. This restriction causes the small different of pressure curve compare with ideal curve. somehow the data was affected by the “tidal effects”. . pressures increase is noticeable during flow period. In some of the cycle. The problem was detected by the pressure data from surface readout (SRO) gauge that recorded a significant different when compared with CF015 data during the main flow. the surge cycle does not give a complete data and is suspected to be missing from the well completion report. in Skua-4 there was no correction applied. the mechanical problem with MUST tool does not dominantly affect the shape of main build-up curve and Horner semi-plot is constructed and analyze below.89.00 Figure 7: Plot of pressure versus time for the surge cycle From the SCOPE4 report. Nevertheless.00 92. During the testing. as it is not too significant.00 95. Besides that.

. the pressure versus time is drawn from Mathcad and shows below: Figure 8: Plot Pressure versus Time for the main build-up test A not smooth shape of pressure build-up graph above is contributed with the problem of MUST tool that discussed in previous section.Pressure versus Time Plot for Main Build-Up Period In constructing a Horner semi-log plot analysis.

the change is neglected and average rate is used. However. the rate will decrease with time as the bottom hole pressure increase and liquid head builds up with production. the average flow rate is 586 STB/day.Average Flow Rate An average value of flow rate needs to be determined in order to create a Horner semi-log plot graph. Table 1: Oil Rate during Main Flow Period (SCOPE-4) By taking average. . Table below shows a recorded flow rate of period of 22 hours of main flow period. Under typical oil production.

Production Time The production time must be obtained from the main cycle for further analysis in creating Horner semi-log plot.00 3290 3300 Pressure psia 3310 3320 3330 3340 3350 40.00 50.7 hours. the production time is 25. The production also can be determined from the pressure time curve as shown below: Time (hours) 60.00 25.00 30.00 80.00 70.00 100.7 hours Figure 9: Production time from the main cycle . From the Well Completion Report.00 90.

The Horner equation is: The graph (pi – pws) versus log [{tp+t)t] create a straight line slope m. After constructing a Horner graph. skin factor and initial reservoir pressure based on assumption that the reservoir is in infinite acting and has no wellbore storage effects. The interpolation is shown in the figure below: . the well will eventually build up to its initial pressure. m can be determined. This is the generally term used as infinite shut-in.Horner Semi-Log Plot Analysis The Horner Semi-Log plot is used generally to estimate the formation permeability. the initial reservoir pressure can be obtained by extrapolating the Horner pressure build-up test semi-log plot to the y-axis. Permeability canbe calculated if the formation thickness. Finally. h is known giving the equation: The skin factor on the other hand is determined based from the equation below: Positive value shows the formation is damaged and negative values points to a stimulated formation.

774psia Table 2: Data needed for the Horner Semi-Log plot analysis.198 x 10-4 0. pwf 3299.3 cp Viscosity. tp 25. q 586 STB/day Production time. B 1. 0.7 ft Formation volume factor. For this case. due to non-linear graph created.  Formation thickness. Horner semi-log plot analysis is carried out. The graphs are illustrated below: . rw 0.7 hours Pressure at shut-in. h 19. skin factor and initial reservoir. (SCOPE4) The Horner Semi-log is drawn using Mathcad using the data from the main build-up period. c 0.Figure 10: Extrapolation to the y-axis to determine the initial reservoir pressure. two graphs are constructed as we take two different slopes to give range of values for permeability.354 ft Average flow rate. The data needed for analysis is extracted from the report and compiled in table below: Parameters Values Compressibility. By using Mathcad and data from the Well Completion Report.57 RB/STB Well radius.24 Porosity.

4 md 3. the parameters are in the table below: Permeability Skin Factor Initial Reservoir Pressure 741.9 3334 psia Table 3: The parameters obtained from slope m1 .Figure 11: Horner Semi-Log plot with slope m1 For slope m1.

the parameters are in the table below: Permeability 597. skin factor between 4-7 and initial reservoir pressure of 3337. The different in these values are due to different pressure data point to construct associated slope. the values calculated in this report is still relevant showing that the formation have a good permeability and the formation is damaged as a result of positive skin factor. Horner anlaysis gives permeability between 900 and 1100m.5 psia.Figure 12: Horner Semi-Log plot at slope m2 For slope m2. the range of permeability is between 600 to 800 md.5 Initial Reservoir Pressure 3337 psia Table 4: The parameters obtained from slope m2 In general. the skin factor between 2. .9. The initial reservoir pressure is estimated to be between 3334 and 3337 psia. In comparison with Well Completion Report. Even though different values of parameters obtained.5 and 3.2 md Skin Factor 2.

which uses data from the gamma ray log to determine shale volume as a fraction. radioactive index. Gamma ray log is used to identify the sand and shale layers in the reservoir. Then. a shale layer thickness to be 1 m givinh 6 m of actual sand thickness. perforation is conducted between the interval of 2318 m and 2325 m in the oil-bearing sand to perform DST. Before using Larionov equation.Actual Sand Thickness for Producing Interval Based from well completion report. However. This is done through Larionov equation for older rocks. Larionov equation for older rocks is applied for determination of shale volume. Cut-off shale volume of 40% is assumed and the perforated interval can be separated into producing and nonproducing ones. . Vsh: The interpretation is illustrated in Figure 14. IRA is calculated using formula below: Maximum gamma-ray reading shows a presence of shale while minimum reading show clean sand. as there is existence of shale has not been considered into account. The figure on the left shows a plot of Vsh against depth with cut-off indicator. The actual sand thickness needs to be determined from well logs. As a result. DST cannot be performed.

Figure 13: Actual sand thickness based from well logs .

DST has been extremely convenient tools in formation evaluation tool. it suggests that the formation has good permeability and had been damage. Despite obtaining good results in DST. a further investigation needs to be done to improve understanding and reduce the uncertainty within the reservoir. In this report.Conclusion As a conclusion. It also used to gain more information on reservoir geometry and establish the productivity of the well. Nearby truncation of the sand which will decrease transmissibility 3. a reservoir simulation of the test is planned to fully interpret the pressure data. further analysis using analytical technique cannot be undertaken because of three opposing influences on the buildup: 1. A nearby gas cap which increase the apparent transmissibility 2. Based from parameters show in this report and although the values are different compare with Skua-4 report. skin factor and initial reservoir pressure. Communication with other sands further away from the well Therefore. the parameters of interest are permeability. It takes sample fluid for further investigation and also collects pressure data to be analyzed using Horner semi-log plot to evaluate more about formation properties. . For instance.

2011. W. Advances in well test analysis. 2011. Salisch. Well Testing Course Notes.References 1. Earlougher. Well Completion Report for Skua-4 (SCOPE 4) 4. Introduction to Petrophysics Course Notes. 1977 . H.V. Pinczewski. SPE Monograph Volume . UNSW 3. UNSW 2.