SPE 108665
HP/HT Gas-Condensate Well Testing for Shell's Onyx SW Prospect
Arild Fosså, Expro; Derek MacKenzie, Norske Shell; Odd Steinveg and Eric Henderson, Expro; and
Bart van den Bosch, Halliburton/Shell
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at Offshore Europe 2007 held in Aberdeen,
Scotland, U.K., 4–7 September 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper covers the HPHT Gas-Condensate Exploration
Well, 6406/9-1 on the Onyx SW prospect of the Norway Sea
in the late spring of 2005 (Figure 1 and 2). The well test
design and execution is presented in the paper, including; up
front planning, job design, technology selection and review of
the test results vs. the objectives for the well test. The paper
also addresses how health, safety and environmental
considerations were handled.
Traditional well testing methods and equipment have evolved
over the years, adapting to changing requirements. This has
resulted in requirements for more complex data gathering over
a shorter time with much stricter environmental and safety
constraints. Coupled with increased needs for more accurate
reservoir data for prospect evaluation, this has put a higher
emphasis on upfront planning and improved technical
performance together with extensive use of advanced fluid
data gathering methodologies.
This paper demonstrates how the above was addressed for the
Onyx SW and how the results compared with the set goals.
The application of the latest technologies in Gas-Condensate
well testing was used on this job. Experiences from this were
later used as the basis for other gas-condensate prospects,
including those in the Russian sector of the Barents Sea.
This paper focuses in particular on Fluid Sampling, Surface
Well Testing and Subsea equipment. As several service
companies were involved on this particular job, we have only
included some general and limited content for the other
services involved.
Introduction
The Onyx South West exploration well, 6406/9-1, was the
second well to be drilled within licence PL 255 (Table 1). The
first well 6406/5-1 in the Tott East prospect was drilled in
2002 to intersect sands of the Middle–Lower Jurassic Garn, Ile
and Tofte formations2.
Well 6406/9-1, Onyx SW, was planned as a vertical
exploration well, with a HTHP pressure regime. The HPHT
conditions in the well were marginal; however it was designed
and executed as if under full HPHT conditions. Maximum
anticipated surface pressure, with anticipated reservoir fluids
to surface, was deemed to be less than 690 bar. Anticipated
bottom hole static temperatures were anticipated in excess of
150°C. This well was drilled using a semi submersible drilling
rig.
The Geological objectives for the well were to test the Middle
and Lower Jurassic; Garn, Ile, Ror/Tofte and Tilje Formations
for the presence of Hydrocarbons (see Table 2 for details). The
stacked reservoirs were sandstones with intercalated shales
belonging to the Fangst and Båt Groups. Separate by shale
intervals (Not, Ror) typically formed intra-formational seals.
The main objective of the Onyx SW well test was to
investigate the stacked formations Ile, Ror/Tofte and Tilje by
conducting a multi-zone DST, with each interval being tested
separately. Testing of two zones with a third as a contingency
was planned to cover the formations of interest. Results from
the well logging narrowed this to execution of a two zone
DST, from a cost vs. benefit stand point.
Key performance indicators
One of the most important and basic requirements in the
Norwegian and international oil industry is to have control of
the activities offshore, to act on issues in a proactive manner,
and to capture experience data. For the Onyx SW well the
operator used their KPI system to the fullest in close
cooperation and supported by the corresponding service
company systems.
The objectives set for the job were clear and concise;
• Zero LTI’s
• Zero HPI’s
• Zero Environmental incidents
• All well test objectives achieved
and driven by the operator throughout the planning and
execution phases of the job with full support from the service
companies.
2
The drivers used by the operator company to achieve the KPI
objectives were;
• To work to client technical standards and procedures
• To work to all 3rd party standards and procedures
• Accountability and performance through HSE
• Good pre-job planning and communication (working to
well services quality plan)
• Competent personnel
• Good HSE awareness throughout the operation
In addition to the client’s KPI system, the service providers
utilized corresponding KPI systems providing supplementary
activity controls. All these systems were ISO 9001 type
continuous improvement systems, supplemented by ISO
14001 type systems for environmental control.
The lessons learnt below stem from these systems, which were
instrumental for the control and successful completion of the
Onyx SW well test.
Well test objectives
The primary well test objectives, for each of the reservoirs,
were to assess the productivity and to obtain representative
fluid samples. Obtaining reservoir pressure and temperature,
determining kh and skin, and identifying possible reservoir
boundaries and heterogeneities were the secondary objectives
for the formations to be investigated by the well test.
To achieved the well test objectives, it was determined that a
set of special requirements to the quality of the test design had
to be met to obtain the desired data quality. These
requirements were:
• Down hole shut-in
• Well had to be tested with seawater as the packer fluid8
• Down hole memory gauges had to be used
• Single phase sampling had to be used
These objectives and special requirements fell in line with
industry recommendations9, without lessening the importance
due to the universal nature of such exploration objectives.
For the Onyx SW exploration well which was in unknown
formations, the primary objective of assessing the productivity
and to obtaining representative fluid samples were natural
since both affect the value of the discovered reserves.
The secondary objective obtaining accurate reservoir pressures
and temperatures was selected due to the importance for safety
and equipment selection for future wells, along with giving the
start point for further reservoir analytical work. The kh and
skin could not be satisfactorily attained for HPHT wells in any
other way, since alternative methods have a poorer
performance under such well conditions9,10. kh and skin were
also selected as a target to further aid analytical reservoir
simulation work and to enable improved use of the
productivity data. The detection of possible reservoir
boundaries and heterogeneities was included as a secondary
target due to the significance of this information when
planning a future field’s drainage strategy and development
cost. This also impacts the accuracy of seismic interpretation
and reservoir modelling9.
Design considerations
From the operator company’s perspective several design
requirements were set for the equipment solution, due to the
uncertainties associated with the Onyx SW prospect. The key
factors which had to be included, in addition to the HPHT and
expected fluid properties were:
• Unknown H2S concentration
• Sand Monitoring due to uncertain formation properties
• Fire fighting
• Personnel Safety
• Shut-down system(s)
Several of there factors were not unique to the Onyx SW
exploration well, but took on a higher significance than usual
due to the HPHT conditions and the fact that this was an
exploration well, not an appraisal of a known prospect.
A review of the potential leak & rupture sources for the well
test showed the following key points to be taken into account
for the equipment and procedure design:
• Test string leak below SSTT
• Packer leak or Seal Assembly leak
• Landing string leak or rupture
• Surface line failure
• Process failure downstream of choke
In addition the following key points were identified as design
considerations for the overall well test.
• Rig mooring system failure
• Weather
• Wave height
• Heat radiation
The potential leak & rupture sources together with the key
overall points were included in the pre-job design work.
Addressing the KPI goals and well test objectives the service
provider undertook a detailed job design taking governmental,
industry standards and client technical standards into due
consideration. An overview of the well test plant can be seen
in Figure 3. The number of planned shut-ins was minimized to
reduce the likelihood of hydrate formation.
To avoid accidental environmental discharges a two pronged
approach was selected. Firstly highly efficient, well proven
burner heads (Figure 8) were included in the design4, 5, 6, and
secondly no fluid flushing to sea via the burner heads was
planned. Both approaches have been in use since around 1995
in Norway and have proved to be highly successful in
reducing recordable spills to sea to a negligible level for well
test and well clean-up operations. Practical handling of the
clean-up fluids included the use of a Storage Tank for fluid
interface collection (Figure 3). The Storage Tank was set up
for decanting into transport tanks for slop transfer to shore, or
for alternative routings on the rig for added flexibility.

The anticipated reservoir fluid was a lean gas-condensate
system and both choke cooling effects and hydrate issues were
anticipated. To provide for sufficient heating and reduced
pressure drop a highly efficient multi-tube heat exchanger
design was provided. This style heat exchanger was
approximately twice the heat exchange efficiency of a
traditional coil & shell type well test heater. The equipment
also can handle the flow at pressure drops below 1 bar.
Numerous safety features were also included into the design,
for example welded walkways and pipe support with full
consideration for escape routes. Enhanced firefighting
capability was also taken into consideration by using well test
equipment fully equipped with deluge lines incorporated into
each skid. In addition an Electric / Hydraulic ESD / PSD
system was included for overall protection.
High specification well test equipment was included
throughout the plant, including 250 psi calibration tanks, state
of the art detonation flame arrestors capable of handling flame
kick-backs at the speed of sound and a degassing unit for
potential heat exchanger coil / tube leak detection. Several
back-up pumps incorporated into the design further enhanced
the flexibility and redundancy in the system (Figure 3).
A sand monitoring system was included in the equipment
design to enable accurate monitoring of any solids production
from the well, which covered the formation property
uncertainty.
To cater for subsea disconnect capability and to enhance the
BOP barrier, a robust and proven SSTT solution was elected.
In addition a new temperature sensor was introduced to
monitor sea bed temperatures to avoid over exposing the BOP
ram elements.
The fluid sampling technologies selected took account of the
client requirements for single phase fluid samples. This was
coupled with detailed discussions with the client during the
design phase11, 13. All technologies chosen were proven and
qualified; with the exception of newly developed tubing
conveyed carrier based fluid sampling technology aimed at
collecting fluid samples downhole, whilst avoiding
contamination from chemical injection for hydrate-formation
temperature suppression. (See below sampling program
information for a complete overview of the techniques
included.) It was also planned for optional separator sampling,
but this was always understood to be a technique to be used if
deemed advantageous as the job progressed.
A particular point in the design planning was the Norwegian
flow velocity limitation for erosion control. This drove the
decision to employ double choking (heater and choke
manifold simultaneously) to restrict the flow velocity between
the heater inlet and the choke discharge. This had the knock-
on effect of reducing the temperature drop at the choke
manifold, thereby removing a temperature low point in this
pipe segment. This again had a further implication that it
reduced the likelihood of hydrate formation.
3
Well program and procedure summary
The well test program for the Onyx SW well was based on a
variation of the n-rate test method7 (Figure 11), tailored to
each of the two zones tested. A DST consisting of the
following main periods was planned for both zones:
• Initial clean-up flow and build-up (surface shut in)
• Main clean-up flow
• Sampling flow
• Main flow with main build-up (downhole shut-in)
Additional contingency periods could be added to adapt to the
actual well and reservoir conditions.
The above test-outline translated into the following practical
tasks set by the operator company to meet their goals and
objectives:
Preparation (only for DST #1)
• Rig up surface test equipment
RIH procedures
• Drift, log and set the permanent packer
• Make up and run the gun system, BHA and tubing
string
• Space out and run the SSTT and landing string.
• Pressure test string
Initial clean-up flow and build-up
• Fire perforation guns and unload water from string
• Close in well for initial reservoir pressure
Main clean-up flow
• Flow well clean
Main flow and build-up
• Perform multi flow rate test – 2 rates
• Take good quality samples (during 1st rate)
• Perform build up using downhole shut-in valve
Zone Kill procedure
• Kill zone and recover DST string.
• Check gauge information.
• Isolate zone
The use of the combined Sampling and Main flow to provide
the required step rates effectively saved a build-up plus two
flow rates during the main flow, saving rig time in the design
phase. On DST #1 a contingency extended flow period was
included as a second chance to obtain fluids samples
illustrating the usefulness of having a flexible job design in
case unexpected reservoir behavior.
Another job design point was to minimize the number of shut-
ins on the two zones tested, due to risk of seeing hydrates on
this job. By keeping the well flowing as much as possible
reduced the risk of forming hydrates by keeping the well
warmed up.
The overall time allotted for the well testing operations on two
zones was 51 days of testing at a cost of NOK 130.5 million.
Figure 12 gives an overview of the original 90% probability
plan for the well test with the corresponding actual time
consumed. (The cut off point for the days referenced above
happens in the middle of the step).
4
To capture the required data from the well tests a program
containing the following elements was planned:
• Bottom Hole Pressure & Temperature from memory
gauges.
• Surface Data Acquisition of flow rates and process
parameters.
• Fluid Sampling
In addition a subsea temperature sensor was added to monitor
the 121ºC temperature limitation of the BOP rams.
The planned fluid sampling program on the Onyx SW well
planned with the following main data gathering elements14:
• Bottom hole carrier based single phase fluid sampling
• Single phase well head fluid sampling (Figure 13)
• Iso-kinetic fluid sampling for CGR (and WGR)
• Optional Separator recombination sampling
• Gas Trace element analysis (including mercury12)
• Contamination of reservoir liquid phase (to monitor for
OBM base oil lost in reservoir during the drilling phase)
• Process parameters for the Surface Data Acquisition
system (densities, BS&W, etc.)
Results and discussion
KPI results
The resulting KPI from the Onyx SW job gave the following
overall performance picture for the entire job.
ƒ Planned time, 51 days actual, 72 days
ƒ NPT, 24% actual 20%
Main NPT events seen on the job were rig related issues,
which were just below 50% and a downhole leak which
resulted in an aborted first DST. Weather also contributed to
the NPT, but to a lesser degree.
Of the overall NPT the Surface Well Test, Subsea and Fluid
sampling side contributed with 6% of the overall
(approximately 22 hours). The overriding reason for the NPT
allocated towards the Surface Well Test, Subsea and Fluid
service company was due to a single hydrate plug event. This
has been discussed further in the lessons learnt below.
Objectives – theory vs. reality
All above mentioned well test objectives were met satisfactory
for this well, including boundary and heterogeneity
identification. In addition the well test provided useful
corrective data vs. wireline deployed tools.
However, on the operational side there were several lessons
learnt. The following is a summary of the additional practical
tasks that were required to achieve the goals for the two
DST’s.
Additional tasks for DST #1 grouped under each main step of
the design:
Preparation
• Rig preparation.
RIH procedures
• Review and change the cushion and annulus fluid
chemical make up.
• Rerun the packer assembly
• Failed pressure test. POOH the string. Change BHA
components. Reran string with pressure test every
1000 m.
Initial clean-up flow and build-up
• Unexpected shut in resulted in Hydrate. Dissipate
hydrate.
Main clean-up flow
• Continues injection of hydrate preventative chemical
Main flow and build-up
• Bottom hole samplers not available due to lack of
qualification for the client
Extended flow (contingency used)
• Extended flow rate to reduce OBM contamination in
fluid samples
• Additional fluid samples taken
Zone Kill procedure
• Bottom hole tester valve failed to open.
• Kill line kick-out sub leak. Secured well and
disconnected on SSTT, pulled LMRP for repair.
• Rerun of BOP and landing string. Reconnected and
gained control of the well.
Prior to DST #2 both the client and the service providers used
the time lag while securing the well after DST #1 to learn as
much as possible from the first zone and to incorporate these
into the job procedures. This work resulted in a reduced
number of additional tasks required to meet the set goals. For
DST #2 the only additional steps required were:
• Displace well and cushion with inhibited seawater
(water glycol mix used on DST #1)
• Clean tubing when running tubing in hole
• Bent tubing joint and replaced it
• 4 ½” slips hinge pin broke. Replaced same
All steps occurred during the RIH procedure, and the two
main ones were improvements done to minimize hydrate and
well clean-up issues, actually having an overall positive effect
on the job execution.
Lessons learnt
For the Surface Well Testing, Subsea and Fluid Sampling part
of the job the following learning points were experienced for
the two DST’s, grouped under DST #1, DST #2 and General:
DST #1 – Learning points
Rig-crane lift radius
During the installation of the main well test equipment the
crane was found to have inadequate lifting capacity for
handling the Steam Heat Exchanger, which on this job
weighed 26 tonn.
Confirmation of the lifting capability of the crane had
been reviewed in the pre-job planning meetings onshore.
However, a communication breakdown led to an
erroneous conclusion that the crane was capable of lifting
the heat exchanger. This was overcome (Figure 4, 5 and
7) by installing the unit on the other side of the cat-walk.
Consequence – the final position of the heat exchanger

necessitated two additional crew members for operation
of the heater choke, adding cost to the job.
Learning point – equipment weights vs. crane capacity is
an increasingly important check point as unit weights
have increased over the years.
H2S readings on water cushion returns
During the execution of the job significant, but relatively
low H2S levels were detected. This was due to the filtered
seawater not being inhibited, coupled with bacteria
growth at elevated temperatures.
Due to no significant H2S seen at the earlier stages of the
well, no plans had been made for bringing H2S
scavenging chemicals offshore; for tasks like vessel entry
and inhibition of well fluids.
Consequence – no practical impact on the job, but could
have been one.
Learning point – plan for having inhibitors offshore.
Plug in sub sea test tree
During the pre-running checkouts of the Subsea
equipment it was found a plug had been installed in the
chemical injection port. This was corrected prior to RIH.
Consequence – a minor NPT incident.
The investigation of this incident showed that it was an
onshore maintenance procedure which had not been
followed correctly. Also, a contributing factor was that the
normal pre-job checks offshore prior to RIH had been
prevented due to client procedures. The client procedures
banned high pressure testing on deck for safety reasons.
Learning point –procedures require to be reviewed more
critically if deviations from normal practices are to be
accepted. (In this case an offshore pre-job procedure
could have been run at the onshore workshop in addition
to the normal maintenance procedures, with a 3rd party
witness present, and prevented the near miss offshore
issue.)
Bottom Hole Samplers did not qualify in time for the job
Carrier based, tubing deployed bottom hole samplers were
planned for this job. However, during a pre-job
verification of the equipment they failed, and the
qualification testing had to be re-done. This took more
time than allocated. Due to this carrier based bottom-hole
fluid samplers could not be run on this job.
Consequence – less single phase fluid samples than
planned. However, the surface samples taken were valid
therefore no consequence.
Learning point – plan for sufficient time to allow for
recovery if equipment fails during the pre-job checkouts.
5
High pilot activated – hydrate plug
On the job the operational procedures for well flow were
based on using double choking, both at the choke
manifold and at the heat exchanger (Figure 3). This
required changing from a normal clean-up job set point to
a less used DST set point for the PSD input signal
between the choke manifold and the heat exchanger inlet
(higher than normal). This set point change was not
implemented prior to the operational start, and not caught
in the pre-job check-outs. This resulted in a PSD shut
down early in the clean-up phase on DST #1.
Consequence - the interruption of the flow caused a
hydrate plug in the landing string, which was the major
NPT incident during the DST’s from the services covered
by this paper.
Root-cause was human error, not capturing the non-
standard pressure set point for the electronic PSD system.
Learning point – same as for the previously described
plug in the SSTT chemical injection port. (Procedure
change to a non-standard solution not clearly conveyed to
the personnel involved.)
BOP temperature cable
After DST #1 it was found that the cable used for the
temperature probe measuring the sub sea BOP
temperature was not sufficiently robust. Although the
temperature signal transmitted throughout the job the
cable was damaged during POOH. The investigation
showed that the fastening procedure for the cable to the
landing string had not been applied correctly.
Consequence – none for this job.
Learning point – use armored cables for future jobs with
more emphasis on following the fastening procedure for
the cable.
SSTT Disconnect
During the Zone Kill procedure after DST #1 a leak was
identified in the Kill line kick-out sub. This led to
securing the well and a planned disconnect on the SSTT,
along with pulling of the LMRP to surface for repair.
While repairing the LMPR a review of the SSTT relatch
and pressure integrity check procedures was conducted.
The procedure was amended since the original landing
string design with a Fail-Close Retainer Valve can not be
used to pump through for washing of the SSTT top prior
to re-latch. The amended procedure with the Retainer
Valve removed was reviewed and used during the re-
connect at the SSTT after the installation of the repaired
LMRP. The reconnect of the SSTT was successful in line
with the revised procedures, allowing completion of the
Kill procedure.
Learning point – Review on the Retainer Valve
philosophy in the early stages of the design. The aim
6
should be to determine if the valve should be run in Fail-
Close or Fail-Open mode, taking the implications for an
Unlatch / Re-latch into consideration.
OBM contamination of fluid samples
Some OBM base oil had seeped into the formation during
the drilling phase of the Onyx SW well. After the
successful and quick off loading of the well bore content
the base oil was produced back from the reservoir. This
combined with a dryer than expected reservoir fluid gave
a contamination issue.
The contamination levels in the liquid phase normally
ranged between 10% and 50%. The base oil content in the
condensate had a target of 2%, something which was
never achieved. However, since the overall reservoir fluid
was dryer than anticipated the contamination did not play
a significant role for the overall sample quality, which
was within set quality parameters. Regardless if the fluid
samples were well within the set quality requirements
nevertheless, it was felt that the samples could have been
better, so it was decided to use an Extended Flow at the
end of the job in an attempt to improve the sample quality
further.
Consequence – use of an Extended Flow period in an
attempt to reduce the contamination levels. Reduced
contamination levels were achieved, further improving the
fluid sample quality. The implementation of the Extended
Flow cost more rig time.
Learning point – be prepared for an extended clean-up
period (longer weather window), and higher clean-up flow
rates.
DST #1 – other issues
Several other issues were seen offshore during DST #1, not
related to the primary services covered by this paper. The
following is a brief mention of these points aimed at
completing the overall scenario for the job;
• Faulty memory gauge chip found offshore
• Firing panel malfunction resulted in two attempts at
setting the production packer.
• Early downhole string leak seen, causing a DST #1
re-run.
• Non-heat treated explosives (for packer setting)
• Downhole tester valve failure caused implementation
of back-up bullhead procedure after DST #1.
• A memory gauge failure seen together with some
unreliable data sets in the surviving gauges. (Data
gathered, but show importance of back-up
equipment.)
DST #2 – Learning points
Separator gas meter differensial sensor (delta P)
When preparing for DST #2 an operator error caused
damage to the differential sensor on the gas meter. When
changing to the back-up sensor this was found to be out of
calibration. This was corrected by sending over by boat an
extra sensor from a neighboring rig with the service
provider’s equipment installed. The cause for the back-up
sensor being faulty was found to be a combined lack of
faulty equipment tagging, and inadequate handover notes.
Consequence – cost of diverting boat paid by service
provider. No rig time loss.
Learning point – focus on procedure and importance of
handover notes in the pre-job meetings with the crew on
future jobs.
Well fluid contamination
During DST #2 it was found that the well fluids did not
heat up sufficiently to allow the glycol / methanol
injection to be switched off. This led to more than
expected contamination of the fluid samples. The
contamination however was well within acceptable limits
due to the lean nature of the gas-condensate system.
Learning point – carrier based bottom hole samplers
would have been useful for obtaining better fluid samples,
and this was viewed as an important improvement for
future lean gas-condensate jobs.
DST #2 other issues
Other issues seen for the other services employed on DST #2
included the following:
• Reoccurrence of packer setting issues – 6 attempts
required prior to setting of the packer.
• Production packer setting sleeve got stuck in BOP
ram cavity
• One memory gauge rejected during pre-job checkouts
due to leak between oil trap and gauge connection.
• Overall poor memory gauges performance for one
brand.
• Poor internal tubing cleanliness
• 4-½” hand slips with sheared hinge pin
• Bent tubing joint
General learning points
In addition to the above DST #1 and #2 specific learning
points a number of general learning points were seen.
Calibration Tank Ladder position and Sight Glasses
During the job the position of the Calibration Tank ladder
and the Sight Glass types caused problems reading the
tank level (Figure 9). This led to difficulty in reading the
tank level accurately when it exceeded approximately
40% tank filling, and made it difficult to distinguish
between condensate and water levels.
Consequence 1 – Operational constraints when taking
meter factors, limiting the overall tank level to about 40%,
and potentially diminished meter factor accuracy.
Consequence 2 – Problems distinguishing fluid levels
when transferring liquids to the Storage Tank (Figure 3
and 9).

Consequence 3 – Shut down initiated by gas alarm in mud
room when accidental transfer of condensate to pits
occurred due to undetected condensate / water level in
Storage Tank (Figure 3 and 9).
Learning points:
• Do not transfer fluids to rig mud pits, use
independent handling equipment for fluids.
• Tank instrumentation must be adequate for accurate
interface identification, and it must be accessible.
• Design and operational procedures must be reviewed
if well conditions are found to be significantly
different from originally predicted.
• Fluid transfer procedures should be job specific.
• Non-routine fluid transfer procedures needs to be
added to the rig controls.
Loss of rig main electrical power due to water ingress
During the well test job the equipment was sea fastened
and secured by welds to the deck. Welded walkways were
used. While cutting loose the equipment for
demobilization after the job, a pin hole was accidentally
made in the rig main deck (Figure 10) when removing a
walkway. Water subsequently ingresses through this hole,
entering the high voltage electrical switchgear room,
tripping the primary power generation circuit breakers.
Consequence - shut down of the generators causing the
emergency generators to come on-line.
Learning points:
• Adjacent-area consequences must to be taken into
consideration for all 3rd party operations on rigs.
• Double structural plates for all fastening points
should be used for all equipment welded to the deck
or main structure.
• Implement verification checks to ensure that all
personnel involved in hot work understands relevant
procedures.
• Include deck inspection for pre-job rig surveys.
• Include demobilization as a specific Hazop item.
Technology benefits proven / disproved
All the applied technologies were generally proven on this job.
However, some of the benefits anticipated did not materialize.
The inbuilt flexibility of being able to route suitable fluids
back to the mud pits from the Storage Tank did not
materialize, due to difficulties in reading the condensate /
water interface. This caused a shut down from a minor gas
release in the mud pit area, which led to having to ship the
water to shore in transport tanks (as normally done in
Norway).
The SSTT disconnect / re-connect capability was proven on
this job. The disconnect at the end of DST #1 was executed as
per procedure and within specified parameters, while the re-
connect and mechanical verification took approximately 20
7
minutes. Both operations proved the SSTT for this well and
Norwegian Sea conditions.
Verification of the BOP temperature using the temperature
probe proved to be a successful way of verifying the flowing
sea bed temperature, providing useful data throughout the job,
by measuring the steel temperature on the outside of the
landing string. Improvements to cable type should be looked at
for future job.
The only technology that did not qualify for DST #1 was the
carrier based tubing conveyed bottom-hole sampler
technology. This did qualify in time for DST #2, but fluid
sampling experience from DST #1 prompted the client not to
employ this technology for DST #2. Due to this the
technology was neither proven / nor disproved during the well
tests. However, if the technology had been used and it had
worked as intended, the fluid sampling results show that this
could possibly have further improved fluid samples.
Avoiding pollution by using the burners elected4, 5, 6 and the
Storage Tank in conjunction with transport tanks, gave further
proof for correct design for this job, avoiding recordable spills.
Flow velocity control by active use of the heater choke also
proved a successful technique, except for the above mentioned
PSD set point error, and was used throughout the two DST’s.
This also posed a procedural challenge to the well test crew
since they could not by-pass the heat exchanger due to the
required backpressure. The crew successfully met the
challenge and conducted this rather unusual procedure without
any significant difficulty.
Multi-Tube heater performance throughout the job proved that
this heater type removed the common heat exchanger flow
capacity bottle-neck caused by the older coil & shell designs.
Experience from the job also showed that there was an issue
related to the heater performance being on the low side vs.
fluid heating requirement. However, this was linked to lack of
steam generator capacity rather than the heater design.
Experience from other jobs in Norway has shown that the
Multi-tube heater is capable of condensing steam quicker than
a large 6 MM Btu/hr generator can produce. This has the
effect of moving the heat transfer bottle neck traditionally
caused by the exchanger to the generator. It is very likely that
a simple inclusion of an additional generator would have given
the sought after performance margin. This was looked at as an
improvement potential between DST #1 and #2, but in the end
it turned out to be insufficient deck space on the rig for adding
a steam generator to the equipment rig up.
Except for some minor hydrate issues the employed single
phase well head sampling technology worked as intended.
This technology used a high end injectable probe high
pressure sampling manifold installed upstream of the choke
manifold14. This technique was specifically developed for lean
gas-condensate systems.
The other fluid sampling techniques for this lean gas-
condensate system were also proved. The onsite laboratory
8

performed onsite gas compositional analysis, OBM
contamination analysis, CO2, H2S, Hg, Radon and other
analyses successfully and consistently throughout the jobs.
The only part of the fluid sampling which did not prove to be a
success was the CGR measurements using the Mini-lab on
location. This was due to unusually high water saturation of
the gas, combined with the hydrocarbon composition being
leaner than expected. This caused water condensing from the
gas throughout the jobs, and the water was by far the most
dominant phase. Due to this, small differences in condensate
vs. water readings had a large impact on the dry CGR reading.
The unusually high water content had not been captured as a
design parameter prior to the job. However, the on-site CGR
measurement was not an objective for the job and the single
phase well head samples proved to contain the required
information to satisfy the well test goals. Hence the CGR
measurement issues did not diminish the value of the well test.
Another point which was proven was the usefulness of real
time data transfer. This allowed the client team onshore to
follow the job as it progressed and to give advice / make
decisions as the job progressed. From the client’s side this was
seen as a positive experience from the job.
Other proven / disproved
Of the other technologies applied (outside Surface Well
Testing, Fluid Sampling and Subsea), some technologies
should be mentioned to complement the experiences
mentioned above. The production packer with seal assembly
performed well throughout the job. The stab-through TCP gun
design also proved itself together with the downhole tool
string design. Another technology that generally worked very
well was the special water cooling / curtain system provided
for the job. This effectively kept the radiated heat load down
throughout the job, and prevented heat damage on the rig. The
tubing handling and procedures also proved to be generally
satisfactory with a relatively low number of threads recuts
after the job.
Data gathering – usefulness
The main reasons for conducting the two zone DST on the
Onyx SW prospect was rooted in the fact that alternative
methods to well testing were not perceived to be able to
deliver sufficient data on the prospect. Experience has shown
that alternatives to well test frequently yield in-sufficiently
accurate data alone for HPHT wells10. There are also further
issues related to the alternative methods for lean gas-
condensate systems in combination with OBM contamination
of the reservoir9.
In retrospect when comparing the WFT data back to the well
test results for the Onyx SW prospect clear knowledge
improvements can be demonstrated (based on interview with
client experts, confidential data unfortunately not available for
publishing in this paper).
All the primary and secondary objectives for the DST’s on this
well were met. These objectives were partially set to fill gaps
in the knowledge base not covered by alternative methods to
well testing. Therefore the overall data gathering must be said
to be useful.
When reviewing each element of the data gathering offshore:
• Single phase fluid sampling (at well head)
• Iso-kinetic sampling for CGR / WGR measurements
• Trace element analysis
• Contamination of reservoir liquid phase (OBM base oil)
• Process parameters for the Surface Data Acquisition
system (densities, BS&W, etc.)
• Surface Data Acquisition (flow rates and process
parameters)
• Sand monitoring
• BOP temperature monitoring
It becomes clear that all of these data sources have their
particular usefulness.
From an operational stand point the least successful data
gathering was the Iso-kinetic sampling for CGR / WGR.
However, the failure to detect a stable CGR measurement
proved another unexpected point. The reservoir fluid had an
unexpectedly high water saturation level, something which
was a surprise since other data sources had indicated this. Post
job review of the equipment set-up for the Iso-kinetic
sampling also showed that had the water saturation level been
known further optimization could have been carried out and
the CGR measurement quality improved.
Conclusions
The Onyx SW lean gas-condensate HPHT well tests were
conducted in a safe and environmentally responsible manner,
meeting all the well test objectives, proving that a well
planned well test can yield good results.
The job lasted 21 days more than anticipated, but this was to
an extent caused by unrelated occurrences, which could have
happened at other stages of the well. Even if the cost for the
two well tests was high to the client, the question of the cost of
not having the data needs to be taken into consideration.
The main overall learning points from this well that were
carried over into the plans for the follow up appraisal well
campaign for Onyx West and SW-2 were:
• Adjustment of the setting sleeve on the packer to prevent
being stuck in BOP cavities.
• Upgraded packer setting explosives with high temperature
ones. Special testing and heat treatment for the explosives
was carried out.
• Qualification testing has been done for the gauges from
two different suppliers, one additional supplier failed the
test, while yet another one is being looked at.
• Qualification of bottom-hole single phase sampling has
been carried out; one company failed one qualified.
• Fluids should not be transferred from the well test plant to
the rig systems in the future. Independent handling should
be planned for.
 9

This does not mean that the other learning points do not count, Abbreviations
but these 5 bullet points were the most important ones for the
operator company. BHA - Bottom Hole Assembly
BOP - Blow Out Preventer
Acknowledgements BS&W - Base Sediment & Water
We wish to express appreciation to Norske Shell and Expro CGR - Condensate Gas Ratio
for their support and permission to publish this paper. DST - Drill Stem Test
DWOP - Drill Well On Paper
Special thanks are extended to the Norske Shell’s Onyx team ESD - Emergency Shut Down
and Expro’s QA department in Norway which were supportive HPI - High Potential Incidents
and forthcoming with advice and background information for HPHT - High Pressure High Temperature
this paper. HSE - Health, Safety & Environment
ISO - International Organization for
References Standardization
1. The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate – Factmaps – kh - Permeability x formation thickness
www.npd.no KPI - Key Performance Indicators
2. The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate - Fact-pages – LMRP - Lower Marine Riser Package
www.npd.no LTI - Lost Time Injury
3. IFP Drilling Data Handbook, 1st English edition MM - Million
4. SPE 35687 - Environmentally Safe Burner For Offshore OBM - Oil based mud
Well Testing Operations, Timothy M. Young, P.E., SPE, POOH - Pull Out Of Hole
Halliburton Energy Services RIH - Run In Hole
5. Report: “Fallout from Well Test Burners,” Halliburton PSD - Process Shut Down
Burner Tests, Norsk Energi, (Oct 1994). SSTT - Sub Sea Test Tree
6. OLF Status Report – Environmental Developments in TCP - Tubing Conveyed Perforating
Well Testing, March 2000, Revision 1 WFT - Wireline Formation Tester
7. Overview & Selection of Well Testing Methods & WGR - Water Gas Ratio
Equipment, Sjur Hundsnes & Sigurd Hundsnes, Stavanger
3
University College, 2001 Conversion factors
8. Well Testing Network - HT/HP Welltesting from a
Mobile Drilling Unit with an Under-Balanced Annulus Metric Oilfield
Fluid - Martin Rice, Norman Day, Myo Thant - Shell, Length 1m = 3.2808 ft
1997 Pressure 1 bar = 14.5038 psi
9. 2001 SPE Applied Technology Workshop - Well Testing Flow rate 1 m3/d = 6.28994 bbl/d
- To Test or Not To Test: Risks and Rewards”, 14-16 Temperature ºC = [(ºC * 1.8) + 32]ºF
November 2001 – Summary report and conclusions Volume 1 m³ = 6.28994 bbl
report.
10. Well Testing Network Multi-Topic Meeting #3 – 2007,
WFT Mini-DST-Advantages and Limitations, June 6th
2007 - Kåre Otto Eriksen – Statoil
11. SPE ATW – Gas Condensates, Moscow, 2007 – Session 2
paper - A systematic Approach to Sampling and Fluid
Characterisation during Well Testing, Bjørn Dybdahl –
Expro
12. JAAS – On the Determination of Total Mercury in
Natural Gases Using the Amalgamation Technique and
Cold Vapour Atomic Absorption Spectrometry – W.
French and D. C. Baxter – University of Umeå, Sweeden,
and G. Dyvik and Bjørn Dybdahl, Petrotech
13. SPE 19729 – Sampling Gas-Condensate Wells - W. D.
McCain Jr., SPE and R.A. Alexander, SPE, Cawley,
Gillespie & Assocs. Inc.
14. SPE 69668 – Testing of Gas Condensate Reservoirs –
Sampling, Test Design and Analysis - H. Kool, M. Azari,
M. Y. Soliman, M. A. Proett - Halliburton, C. A. Irani –
Westport, and B. Dybdahl, Petrotech
Tables

Table 1 – Well facts page2

Table 2 – Formation overview

 11

Exploration wellbore: 6406/9-1

General information

Well name: 6406/9-1

Drilling operator name: A/S Norske Shell
Geodetic datum: ED50
Coordinates: 64° 26` 46.85`` N 6° 48` 55.23`` E
UTM coordinates: 7148739.49 N 394862.07 E
UTM zone: 32
Drilled in production licence: 255
Area: NORWEGIAN SEA
Discovery: 6406/9-1
Field: NOT YET DEVELOPED
Drill permit: 1077-L
Drilling facility: TRANS. LEADER
Drilling days: 353
Wellbore entry date: 15.06.2004
Wellbore completion date: 02.06.2005
Original wellbore purpose: WILDCAT
Wellbore purpose: WILDCAT
Wellbore status: P&A
Wellbore contents: GAS
Discovery wellbore: YES
Seismic location: HWE95m:inline 4340 & xline 1540
Kelly bushing elevation (KB) [m]: 24
Water depth [m]: 308
Total depth (MD) [m]: 5080 (See below note)
Deepest penetrated age: EARLY JURASSIC
Last updated by NPD: 17.05.2007
Note: All depths are relative to kelly bushing (RKB)

The NPDs recoverable resource estimates as of 31.12.2006 (Norwegian share)

Resource category 5F
Oil [mill Sm3] 0.00
Gas [bill Sm3] 40.83
NGL [mill tonn] 0.00
Condensate [mill Sm3] 1.41

2
Table 1 – Well facts page

Note from Norske Shell: The correct total depth of the well, including RKB height is 5076 m.
12

Geological objective
The objective of the well was to test the Middle and Lower Jurassic Garn, Ile, Ror/Tofte and Tilje Formations for the presence of
Hydrocarbons.

Group Formation Depth

(m TVD
Lithology
MSL)
Nordland Seabed 308 Clay and sand streaks
Top Kai 1230 Claystone and sst streaks
Hordaland Top Brygge 1645 Claystone, occ. siltst/lst streaks
Rogaland Top Tare 2260 Claystone, tuff, traces of dolomite
Base Tertiary 2400
Shetland 2400 Claystone with some siltst. and sst streaks, occ. dol/lst
Cromer Top Lysing/Lange 3145 Claystone, siltst and sst beds, occ. dol/lst streaks
Knoll Fm
SK84 hrz 3330
Base Cretaceous 4275
Viking Spekk 4275 Claystone/shale with occ. lst streaks
Melke 4305
Fangst Garn 4440 Sandstones and claystones/shales
Not 4515
Ile 4555
Båt Ror 4665 Sandstones and claystones/shales
Tilje 4790
TD 4840 50 m into Tilje
4965 contingent if HC bearing, below HWC;base Tilje at ca. 4965
m

Table 2 – Formation overview

 13

Figures

Figure 1 – License map of the Onyx prospect1

Figure 2 – Shell license maps

Figure 3 – Simplified P&ID for well 6406/9-1

Figure 4 – Overall rig General Arrangement drawing

Figure 5 – General Arrangement drawing (well test area zoom)

Figure 6 – Bill of Material for Figure 4

Figure 7 – Equipment layout seen from the derrick

Figure 8 – Flare pictures from the rig

Figure 9 – Shell EPE HS&E Learning Bulletin – Condensate to mud pit room

Figure 10 – Shell EPE HS&E Learning Bulletin – Loss of main power

Figure 11 – Generic n-rate well test7

Figure 12 – Onyx SW time plan – Original plan vs. reality

Figure 13 – Single phase well head sampling

Figure 14 – Cooling at choke manifold

14

1
Figure 1 – License map of the Onyx prospect
 15

Figure 2 – Shell license maps

16

Figure 3 – Simplified P&ID for well 6406/9-1

 17

Figure 4 – Overall rig General Arrangement drawing

18

Figure 5 – General Arrangement drawing (well test area zoom)

 19

Figure 6 – Bill of Material for Figure 5

20

Figure 7 – Equipment layout seen from the derrick

 21

Figure 8 – Flare pictures from the rig

22

Figure 9 – Shell EPE HS&E Learning Bulletin – Condensate to mud pit room
 23

Figure 10 – Shell EPE HS&E Learning Bulletin – Loss of main power

24

n-Rate Flow Test

The advantages with a complex (n-rate) flow test is that the complex flow test provide extra data compare to the
two-rate flow test. The extra data obtained during multiple rate test is the data for turbulent skin and max sand free
rate. Figure 4 schematically illustrates an example of a complex multiple-rate test
Bottom Hole Pressure
Flowrate

Time
1 2 3 4 5

Figure 1. Complex Multiple-Rate Test

Explanation to figure 4:
1. Initial flow with build-up.
Usually two string volumes are produced before shut in.
Initial pressure is measured at the end of the build up period.
2. Cleanup flow with cleanup build-up.
The intention is to flow until no solids and mud filth is detected in the hydrocarbons.
Typical time on each rate is 6 hours.
Max sand-free rate can be obtained in the end of the highest flow rate.
Data is used to decide sampling flow rate.
3. Sampling flow with build up.
4. Main flow with main build-up.
5. Mini-fraction.

Main application today: Extensive exploration-well testing for gas and oil wells.

7
Figure 11 – Generic n-rate well test
 25

Figure 12 – Onyx SW time plan – Original plan vs. reality

26

Figure 13 – Single phase well head sampling

Figure 14 – Cooling at choke manifold