Assalamualaikum Warohmatullahi Wabarokatuh

Good Afternoon ladies and gentle-men,.

First off all, I would like to say thank you for coming to my presentation. Actually, it’s an
honor for me to stand here and share to you about my paper.
The title of my paper is Pressure Transient analysis in tight oil reservoir, A comparison
between leak off test and PBU test in term of reservoir properties.

1
My presentation will be divided into five major parts. The first part is background and
objective, it contains about the main reason why we conduct this workflow.
The second part is introduction. It covers the short introduction of the field, basic the
theory of hydraulic fracturing, PBU in hydraulic fractured well and leak off test.
The next section is the workflow how to develop the comparison between LOT and PBU.
The next part is the result and discussion. It consist the result of LOT and PBU and also the
comparison as well.
Finally, in the last part, I will summarize my presentation in conclusion.

2
I will start my presentation with Background and Objectives.
The background why we conduct this work are tight oil reservoir especially in mature field,
becomes a new challenge. It has to be developed to maintain the oil production.
The reservoir properties have to be defined first, so we can choose the best development
strategies especially for the reservoir.
Because of the low permeability, some well testing methods can no be applied since there
is no production without stimulation.

The objectives of this paper is:

To find effective method in obtaining the properties of tight oil reservoir.
To compare the well testing methods to obtain reservoir properties.
And to get suitable well stimulation design according to the well properties.

3
Let me introduce the field first. The field is located in South Sumatra and the typical
formation layer as described in this figure. Tight oil reservoir discussed in this paper in
Telisa Sand Stone. This formation is underlying above BRF which is high WC and high Perm.
Telisa sandstone has low resistivity in between 2-5 ohm.m due to high clay content.

It also confirmed by testing. When we only perforate this layer, the swab test result is dry. It
indicates very low oil production.

For general reservoir properties, the GOR is about 300 scf/stb, the viscosity is nearly 1, the
formation volume factor is 1.2 and the current reservoir pressure is ranging between 300 –
1100. The permeability itself is in between 0.1 – 20 md. Thus this well have to be
stimulated.

Based on this chart, the suitable stimulation method for this layer is hydraulic fracturing
either long penetration design or high conductivity design.

4
Before we discuss about the well testing, we will a little bit go through about the hydraulic
fracturing concept.
There are 2 primary variables in hydraulic fracturing that will affect to the production.
The first is fracture geometry. It consists about the fracture length that represent the
lateral fracture penetration, the fracture height that represent the fracture vertical growth
and the widht of the fracture.
FCD is the conductivity of the proppant inside the fracture that represent the ability of
fracture to flow the fluid.

Related to well production, Hydraulic Fracturing in Darcy’s Law, able to change the wellbore
radius into effective wellbore radius (Rw’). Cinco Ley, have created the correlation between
the fracture geometry and FCD to effective wellbore radius. The higher Rw’, the higher fluid
flow we can get.

5
We continue to the basic theory of PBU test in Hydraulic Fractured Well. As usual PBU
method, we have to record the pressure since producing and the transient flow. The basic
assumption in hydraulic fracturing well are
1. The fracture is propagating equally is two opposite direction.
2. The FCD is uniform along the fracture.
3. The fracture is fully penetrate the formation.
4. The fracture is vertical.

The flow patterns, that we can observe in PBU test in sequential are:
1. Linear flow, the flow inside the fracture.
2. Bilinear flow, the linear flow from reservoir into the fracture and inside the fracture as
well.
3. The reservoir linear flow, it comes after bilinear flow.
4. Radial flow, the flow based on far field that well and the fracture can be decribed as one
node.

All of the flow regime can be observed by determining the slope of derivative pressure
difference.
Reservoir and fracture properties can be determined by log-log plot type curve matching.

6
This slide describes about the general basic theory of leak Off Test.
LOT is executed by injecting liquid at pressure above the fracture initiation pressure.
LOT is frequently applied in pre-fracturing test as Diagnostic Fracture injection test.
In the analysis, we have to separate analysis into two analysis, before closure analysis and
after closure analysis.
In Before closure analysis, we can get fracture properties include closure pressure, fluid
efficiency and abnormal behavior.
In After closure analysis, we can get the reservoir properties,
Log-log plot is applied to observe the flow regime include linear, spherical and radial flow
by determining the slope of the derivate pressure changes between P closure and shut in
pressure.
While radial flow has not observed yet, we can use Tp Type curve plot to obtain the
reservoir permeability. Actually, Tp is the curve of permeability divided by half-length
square.

7
The workflow is established to compare LOT and PBU test.
LOT in this paper is utilizing the pre-fracturing test and frequently mentioned as breakdown
test of mini fall off test. It is conducted prior to main fracturing job.
In this phase we have to analysus the fracture dominate region and reservoir dominated
region.
In fracture dominated region, we have to determine the closure pressure (the most
important parameter) to be used in reservoir dominated region so that we can get the
reservoir parameters in LOT test.

After that, hydraulic fracturing job is executed in this well. In this phase, proppant and frac
fluid is pumped. After that, we have to conclude the fracture geometry and the FCD by
utilizing the net pressure matching. This result become the reference in design and analysis
of PBU test.

The next phase is PBU test. We have to produce the well until the well have stabilize
production rate. It has to be confirmed that the well has reached the PSS regime. After
that, PBU test can be applied. We can get the hydraulic fracturing and reservoir parameters.

The last is the comparison itself. We compare the reservoir parameters between PBU test
and LOT test and also the fracture parameters between net pressure matching result and
PBU test.

8
This slide shown the data and result of LOT.
We inject the well with water at rate 10 BPM and then shut in for several times. We record
the pressure leak off.
After that, we conduct before closure analysis by G function time and determine the
pressure closure. The closure that we can observed I about 1726 psig.
Then, this closure value is input to define the pressure changes and its derivative and plot it
in log-log plot. In the log log plot, we can see that LOT have not reached the radial flow yet.
So we have to pallied type curve plot to obtain the permeability and transmissibility. As we
can see here, the plot is matched to Tp 0.05 and the permeability observed is 10.9 md.

9
Hydraulic Fracturing has been executed in this well.
The rate injected is 14 BPM with fluid 1100 BBls and proppant amount nearly 80 klbs. The
maximumproppant concetration is 6 PPA and net pressure observer nearly 400 psog.
The frac geometry result as described in this table, the frac length is bout 552 ft, the height
is 0.156 inch, the conductivity 3500 md.ft and yield 0.5 FCD.

10
After a couple month and the production rate was stable, PBU test was conducted to this
well. We recorded the bottom hole pressure since production and 7 days shut in time. To
analyze the PBU test, we use log-log plot type curve matching. As we can see in here, we
can observe the wellbore storage, bilinear and linear reservoir flow. The radial flow is not
actually observed that can be masked by the detection of reservoir boundary and facies
change. To analyze the data, we use constant wellbore storage and finite conductivity
fracture so we can get the fracture conductivity. The permeability of this well is …..

IPR curve has been developed based on the PBU result to verify the PBU result. And it
conclude that it match with the well production rate.

11
Then, the comparison was established between LOT, Hydraulic Fracturing form net pressure
matching, and PBU test after hydraulic fracturing.
As we can see in this table, The transmissibility and permeability LOT and PBU test provide
a close value. In term of fracture properties, the fracture half length have number with
significant difference. It could be suspected caused by some proppant embedment during
production. The fracture conductivity is nearly same. The FCD is different because it is the
product of conductivity and half length, so when there is difference in half length, the FCD
will yield different number. The skin is quietly good. Unfortunately, the reservoir pressure
can not be compared because the LOT has not achieved the radial flow yet.

12
Finally, to conclule all of my presentation
1. Reservoir properties especially in well A can be conclusively measured by both leak off
test and PBU test.
2. The comparison between LOT and PBU test in well A, especially for reservoir
permeability gives nearly the same number. The pressure reservoir couldn’t
conclusively compared because the LOT has not reached the radial flow regime yet. In
term of fracture properties, the half length is significantly shorted than the result od
hydraulic fracturing result. It propbly causeb by low proppant concentration in the tip of
the fracture or because of the proppant embedment.
3. The most suitable stimulation method for well A should be high conductivity fracturing.
Itsable to change ….

For better comparison in the future, our recommendation is:

1.

13
Thank you for your attention.
If there is some question please feel free to ask and discuss together.

Thank you.

14