Spe 177055 Ms

SPE-177055-MS
Well Testing Improvement Using Nitrogen Lifting in Shushufindi Field:
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPELACP/proceedings-pdf/15LACP/1-15LACP/D011S006R005/1456310/spe-177055-ms.pdf/1 by OMV E&P GmbH, Sari Humadi on 24 August 2022
Accelerating Well Response and Transient Data Quality
Y. Lopez Ruiz, A. Betancourt, G. Villanueva, A. Vargas, M. Tayo, and J. Burgos, Schlumberger; I. Vela, A. Egas,
and R. Loyola, Petroamazonas EP
Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Quito, Ecuador, 18 –20 November
2015.
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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.
Abstract
Shushufindi field is the largest field in the Oriente Basin in Ecuador and is located 100 miles east of Quito.
It contains 3.7 billion barrels original oil in place (OOIP) and represents 10% of country’s production.
Determining reservoir properties using evaluation with hydraulic pumping for well testing has been a
common practice in Shushufindi field since development in the early 1970s by Texaco Gulf Company and
continuing in recent history with state company Petroamazonas.
Due to the high level of depletion and reservoir characteristics, obtaing good quality data from well
testing is a challenge, and if a decision is made based on the wrong information, it could have a severe
negative impact on the asset. Ambiguity in the results of well testing with a hydraulic pumping method
can stem from failure on downhole shut-in that allows the development of wellbore storage, which in turn
would lead to difficulties for well test interpretation, accurate flow capacity/ productivity evaluation, fluid
sampling, etc.
To clarify all well testing concepts and results, a new procedure was developed for well testing in this
field that uses a combination of drillstem testing tools, coiled tubing, and nitrogen lifting. With the
developed method, the test is combined and continually conducted to test flow rate and drawdown
buildups including downhole shut-in, providing reservoir and fluid parameters for a better evaluation and
for artificial lifting design.
This paper will present a study of the implementation of this new method, covering the areas of well
evaluation and the outstanding results in accelerating well response. The procedures are generally easy to
follow and to understand and have an impact in reducing rig time and nonproductive time and result in
a faster return of the well to production (workover). The pilot showed excellent results in obtaining
reservoir property measurements that were validated by reservoir modeling and production history. The
process is robust, repeatable, and applicable to other fields with similar characteristics.
Introduction
As part of well production activities, each well is evaluated to determine its potential, either after a
workover job (e.g., open a new zone with additional perforations, acid stimulation, fracturing job, etc.) or,
2 SPE-177055-MS
for a new well, during the completion. Well evaluation is done by performing well testing operations,
which are methods, techniques, and procedures that allow getting information from the reservoirs, such
as flow capacity, well productivity, skin, permeability, bottomhole pressure, reservoir pressure and
temperature.
In some cases, depending on reservoir pressure condition, artificial lift is required to flow the wells.
Different types of artificial lift methods are used around the world for testing purposes; some of them are
suitable for a wide range of reservoir conditions and limitations due equipments and tools on location. In
this context, in Shushufindi field, the wells are tested using artificial lift due to the low pressure of the
reservoirs because of depletion (1,000 to 2,500 psi). Historically, hydraulic pumping has been the selected
method (jet pump type) for well testing; this has been common and relatively inexpensive practice in
Shushufindi field since field development in the early 1970s with Texaco Gulf Company, and the practice
was continued in the recent history with the NOC Petroamazonas.
Despite the long history and the practical aspects and versatility offered by the hydraulic pumping,
three major problems have been detected during well testing operations: 1) uncertainty about reservoir and
fluid parameters, 2) failure on downhole shut-in during buildup tests, and 3) long flowing times to get
formation fluid response and production stabilization.
Regarding reservoir and fluid parameters uncertainty, the estimation of the formation’s water cut
during a well testing operation with hydraulic pumping is an indirect calculation that depends on water
cut of drive fluid being injected (power fluid) and water cut of the mixed fluid being produced in the
annulus between casing and tubing. This material-balance formula affects the reliability of the measure-
ment. In terms of failure, during the 2013 workover and completion campaign, 10 out of 29 buildup tests
were not successful due to ineffective closure caused by debris found in the ball’s seat when using
conventional shut-in method with memory gauges and a standing valve. This affects the quality of the data
and makes the test difficult to analyze or, in the worst case, results in a failed buildup test. Moreover, it
is necessary to displace all the annular fluid before having reservoir fluids at surface, and this, combined
with the low drawdown effect provided by the artificial lift method, means that long flowing periods are
required to get a representative flow test. Again, the 2013 statistics show an average of 1.68 days of
flowing time while testing in completions operations before well production parameters get steady and a
decision of shutting the well for a buildup test can be taken.
Considering the above, the ambiguity in the results of well testing in Shushufindi field generates
inaccurate estimates of a well’s flow capacity/productivity; and if a decision is based on wrong
information, it could have a severe negative impact on the asset. Similarly, an extended test implies
additional rig time, costs, and delay in bringing the well into production.
The situation described underscores the need to find an alternative method to evaluate wells, and that
is why, for the first time in the field, a procedure was developed for well testing that uses a combination
of drillstem tools (DST), coiled tubing (CT), and nitrogen as the lifting system. Also, this procedure
included surface well testing equipment for proper sampling, measurement, and handling of wellbore
fluids. DST tools are included to achieve effective downhole shut-in and a successful buildup test.
Nitrogen lifting accelerates the well response, which means reducing the impact of nonproductive time
related to waiting for the artificial lift design and this brings the well to production faster
This paper will cover the successful implementation of this procedure in one well, as part of a pilot
designed for this purpose. In this case, the execution took place during well completion operations.
Hydraulic Pumping
Hydraulic pumping is a proven artificial lift method that has been used since the early 1930s. The system
transmits power downhole by means of pressurized power fluid that flows in wellbore tubulars. The
downhole pump acts a transformer to convert the energy into pressure in the produced fluids. The
operating pressures in hydraulic pumping systems usually range from 2,000 to 4,000 psi. The most
SPE-177055-MS 3
common pump used to generate this pressure on the surface is a multiplex positive displacement pump
driven by an electric motor or multicylinder gas or diesel engine. The two basic types of installations of
downhole pumps are the ⬙fixed⬙-pump and the ⬙free⬙-pump design. In the fixed installation, the downhole
pump is attached to the end of a tubing string and run into the well. Free-pump installations are designed
to allow the downhole pump to be circulated into and out of the well inside the power-fluid string, or it
can also be installed and retrieved by wireline operations. There are two kinds of hydraulic pumps:
reciprocating pumps and jet pump. The reciprocating hydraulic downhole pump is similar to a sucker-rod
pump because it uses a rod-actuated plunger (also called the pump piston) and two or more check valves.
Jet pumps are a type of downhole pump where the pumping action is achieved through energy transfer
between two moving streams of fluid. The high-pressure power fluid, supplied from the surface, passes
through the nozzle, where its potential energy (pressure) is converted to kinetic energy in the form of a
very-high-velocity jet of fluid. The mixed fluid enters an expanding area diffuser that converts the
remaining kinetic energy to static pressure by slowing down the fluid velocity. The pressure in the fluid
is now sufficiently high to flow it to the surface from the downhole pump. The most significant feature
of this device is that it has no moving parts. Successful jet-pump adaptations have also been made for
sliding side doors in both the normal and reverse-flow configurations (Wiggins 2007).
Drillstem Testing
Drillstem testing (DST) provides a method of temporarily completing a well to determine the productive
characteristics of a specific zone. As originally conceived, a drillstem test primarily provided an indication
of formation content. Reservoir characteristics that may be estimated from DST analysis include, among
others, average effective permeability, reservoir pressure, and wellbore damage. The DST, properly
applied, has become a very useful tool for well completion engineering. Simply, a drillstem test is made
by running in the hole on drillpipe a bottomhole assembly consisting of a packer and a surface operated
valve. Once on bottom, the packer is set to isolate the desired formation zone from the mud column, and
the control valve is opened to allow formation fluids to enter the drillpipe. After a suitable period, the
valve is closed, and a pressure buildup occurs below the valve as formation fluids repressure the area
around the wellbore. After a suitable buildup time, the control valve usually is opened again, and the
flowing and shut-in periods repeated (several times if desired) to obtain additional data and verification
(Allen and Roberts 1993).
Coiled Tubing and Nitrogen
Coiled tubing and nitrogen are commonly used during well testing, either individually or together. Coiled
tubing on its own has many varied uses during well testing, such as running production logging tools and
bottomhole samplers in horizontal wells, spotting acid or other chemicals across perforations, acid jetting
of perforations, spotting wax solvents to remove wax plugs inside tubing, and much more. The list of uses
for coiled tubing only seems to be limited by the imagination of engineers’ planning the operations.
Similarly, the uses for nitrogen are quite varied, such as its use as a drillstem test cushion, for mud weight
reduction, for dry perforating, and for gas lift displacement. However, the coiled tubing-nitrogen
combination is one that seems to be particularly useful during well testing and other well operations.
Coiled tubing and nitrogen are used for gas lifting after completion or to restart a well after a shut in or
after an acid job to encourage cleanup. The coiled tubing and nitrogen combination along with a
high-viscosity fluid is effective for cleaning sand-outs of wells (McAleese 2003).
Well Testing in Shushufindi Field
In Shushufindi field, well testing is carried out with a jet pump in a free-pump installation. The operation
entails running a simple testing string with completion accessories such a mechanical packer, no-go nipple
and sliding sleeve. In some cases, well testing can take place right after a tubing-conveyed perforating
4 SPE-177055-MS
(TCP) job, so a combination string is prepared with TCP guns to do both jobs in the same run.
Conventional testing strings are shown in Fig. 1 and 2.
Figure 1, 2—Shows a conventional and a combinated TCP-perforating and evaluation strings
The common method used to obtain reservoir flowing and static pressures, and to perform buildup
tests, is by running downhole pressure-temperature sensors (memory gauges) attached to a standing valve.
The standing valve is run in with a slickline operation and is seated on the no-go nipple located below the
sliding sleeve. Then, the jet pump is dropped and/or pumped with completion fluid until it reaches the top
of the sliding sleeve. The seated jet pump creates a seal in the test string above and below the pump. All
produced fluids must pass through the jet pump (Peavy and Fahel 1991). When it is time to perform a
buildup test, the downhole shut-in is achieved by stopping the flow test and allowing the standing valve’s
ball to fall and seal.
At surface, a mobile testing unit is rigged up. Flow lines are armed and tested with 4,000 psi of
pressure. Operating pressure during well test is 3,500 psi. A laboratory cabin at the wellsite is equipped
with the proper equipment to measure water cut and well fluid salinity.
Based on the statistics of workover and completion campaign executed in 2013, a review of the
performance of well testing operations is shown in the following figures. Fig. 3 shows an operation time
analysis made for a total of 10 wells tested during completion operations, all using a combined
TCP-testing string and jet pump. This plot reflects the amount of time (on average) of each operation
executed during a well completion and its percentage referred to the total. Flowing time represents
approximately 10% of the total time of the operation.
SPE-177055-MS 5
Figure 3—Well testing time analysis during 2013 completion campaign
Also, 10 out of 29 buildup tests executed were unsuccessful. Fig. 4 shows an example of buildup test
using conventional method that failed because of seal failure.
Figure 4 —Example of unsuccessful buildup and transient analysis during 2013 completion and workover campaign
Well Testing Improvement

To improve the success rate of the testing procedure, as well as to lower uncertainty and accelerate well
response, it was necessary to overcome the main problems observed during conventional well testing
operations in the Shushufindi field. This required having reliable downhole tools and an artificial lift
method with a better drawdown effect over downhole pressure. With that in mind, it was decided to
6 SPE-177055-MS
incorporate drillstem test (DST) tools in the testing string and use coiled tubing with nitrogen to lift the
well during the test.
Nitrogen Lifting
One of the advantages of nitrogen lifting with coiled tubing is the ability to change the flow rate within
a broad range to obtain the maximum well response. Also, it can reproduce the desired or existing
production profile. High-quality fluid sampling is obtained by nitrogen lift because no extraneous fluids
are commingled with the formation fluid (Peavy and Fahel 1991).
DST Tools
The advantage of using DST tools when compared to the conventional method is that they provide a
reliable shut-in, so the success of the buildup test is guaranteed. The DST tools included a tester valve,
which is a full-opening, annulus-pressure-operated tool. With applied pressure, the tool can be locked
open and then returned to normal at any time. The ball valve operates independently of pressure changes
from operations such as acidizing and fracturing. This gives the tester valve greater compatibility and
flexibility with other tools in the string (Boscan et al. 2003).
Testing Planning and Design

The implementation plan included the selection of the well candidate for the pilot, testing string design,
coiled tubing and nitrogen injection performance analysis, tubular design and analysis, surface well testing
equipment selection, and operation execution.
Candidate Selection
The premise for the selection of the candidate considered two main aspects: well potential and well
integrity. For well potential, the goal was to select a well with a good flow capacity, so as not to
compromise the performance of nitrogen lifting during the test. This was especially important considering
this would be the first application of this procedure in the area; if results were good with the candidate
well, then the procedure could be applied to low-potential wells. Similarly, a reservoir with low water cut
was desirable so that the stabilization of this parameter could be monitored throughout the test. Regarding
well integrity, the mechanical condition of the candidate became a key parameter with inclusion of DST
tools in the testing string. An old well or a well with integrity issues (problems in casing) do not qualify
for this application. Based on these considerations, the decision was to perform the pilot in a recently
drilled well. Its status of new well covered the well integrity requirement, and the evaluation of nearby
wells would determine the accomplishment on the production requirements, preserving applications in
worked over wells based on results of the pilot.
Case Study
Well SSF-169D is located in the south-eastern part of the field. The well was drilled to a total depth of
10,970 ft measured depth (MD). The well was constructed with a conductor casing of 20-in. K-55 94
lbm/ft cemented to 227 ft MD, surface casing of 13 3/8-in. K-55 54.5-68 lbm/ft cemented to 6,509 ft MD,
intermediate casing of 9 5/8-in. L-80 47-53.5 lbm/ft cemented to 10,181 ft MD, and production liner of
7in., L-80, 29 lbm/ft from 9989 ft to 10967 ft MD. Maximum inclination angle is 31.95º to 9,431 ft MD,
and an average of 23.56º along the production liner.
The well was part of the plan to develop and better outline the south area of the field. The completion
program included perforating and testing operations in main reservoirs: Lower U and Lower T sands. The
offset wells analysis (Fig. 5) confirmed the Lower U reservoir had the ideal production condition for
testing with nitrogen lifting. Table 1 shows the estimated production and pressure parameters for the
Lower U sand reservoir in this well taken from a pseudosteady-state reservoir model.
SPE-177055-MS 7
Figure 5—Offset wells analysis for SSF-169D
Table 1—Estimated production and pressure parameters for SSF-169D

Reservoir Gross Fluid (STB/d) Bottomhole Pressure (psi) Reservoir Pressure (psi) Productivity Index (STB/psi) Water Cut (%)
Lower U 3,384.00 2000 3250 2.60 40.00
TCP-DST String Design

With the need to perforate and evaluate the zone of interest, a combined tubing-conveyed perforation
(TCP)-DST string was designed to achieve both objectives in the same run (Fig. 6). The string included
the following:
8 SPE-177055-MS
Figure 6 —TCP-DST string run in SSF-169D completion operation
● Perforating system: 4 ½-in. guns with electronic firing head activated by nitrogen pulses as a
primary system and mechanical (drop-bar) firing head as backup. The electronic head mechanism
allows running downhole sensors from the beginning, thus saving slickline operation time.
● No-go nipple, 2 7/8 in. ⫻ 1.81 in., to place downhole sensors attached to a non-ball standing valve.
The only function of the non-ball standing valve is to hang the sensors on the string so they can
be easily recovered by fishing the standing valve with slickline operations after the buildup test.
These sensors provided the primary source of reservoir pressure information for nodal analysis
model validation and further artificial lift design.
● Fullbore, cased-hole, automatic J-slot mechanism, retrievable compression-set packer to isolate
annulus from the perforated interval. The packer is installed with a hold-down system to prevent
the packer from being pumped uphole during perforating and flowing operations.
● Downhole recorder carrier to place backup sensors to allow acquisition and validation of downhole
pressure measurements during test operations.
● Pressure controlled tester valve to downhole shut-in. This valve included a module that permits the
locked-open position. With this module, the valve can be held open when the annulus pressure is
bleed off allowing wireline or slickline operations inside the string. The tester valve is run in
conjunction with a pressure-operated reference tool that offers a reference pressure to the tester
valve, eliminating the need of high nitrogen precharge at surface and, in consequence, high
annulus pressure to operate the valve. The configuration of the tester valve used for this case study
SPE-177055-MS 9
provided five cycles of open-closed position during the test, which enabled the versatility of more
than one shut-in.
● Circulation or reversing valve as a backup device for a well killing operation. This valve also
operates by applying annulus pressure to burst a rupture disc. Once actuated, the reversing ports
are locked open.
Nitrogen Lifting Performance Analysis
To achieve a better lifting design and procedures and a coiled tubing design, and an evaluation software
was used to simulate the flow of fluids through the coiled tubing and into the wellbore environment. The
output from this simulator is a series of sensitivity plots that show the effect of the modification of job
parameters. These plots help when studying the effects of input parameters, such as pressures, rates, and
fluids on the output parameters that are critical to operations. The simulator provides the estimated
production rate, downhole pressure, circulation pressure plots for various coiled tubing depth, and
nitrogen rate designed either for minimum downhole pressure or maximum production rate.
Using the reservoir and well data available as input for the software (Table 2), the simulation
determined the effect of nitrogen injection rate over the bottomhole pressure and thus defined the optimum
injection rate. The result is shown in Fig. 7. As can be observed, a higher rate of injection, there is a lower
bottomhole pressure, which in turn means, a greater drawdown effect over reservoir pressure.
Table 2—Basic well data for SSF-169D (Lower U sand)

Parameter Value Parameter Value
Rig To be defined Productivity Index 2.6 bbl/D/psi

Wellhead connection 3-1/2-in. EUE Water cut 40%
Wellhead operating pressure 3,500 psi Gas-oil ratio 560 scf/stb
Well Type Producer API 27.5°API
Maximum Deviation 31.95° @ 9,431.9 ft Surface temperature 86°F
Interval 10,368 ft – 10,377 ft H2S/CO2 N/A
10,389 ft – 10,414 ft Coiled tubing size 1-3/4 in.
10,423 ft – 10,440 ft Job Type Completion
Reservoir Pressure 3,250 psi
Reservoir Temperature 198°F
Figure 7—Downhole pressure (at perforations) versus coiled tubing depth for various N2 rates
10 SPE-177055-MS
Tubular Design and Analysis

The main concern over testing string analysis was the effect of pumping low-temperature fluid such as
nitrogen on tubing movement. Thermal expansion or contraction causes a major length change, and the
impact of this could lead to a costly failure of the string. By using specialized software, it is possible to
estimate the necessary load over the packer to counteract the upward movement of the pipe. Table 3 shows
the movement for different effects simulated for case study (movement down is positive, and movement
up is negative), for the temperature effect with the highest magnitude
Table 3—String analysis showing length changes (in)
Restore Length
Pressure Buckling Balloon Temp. Friction Point Length Change Movement
MD (ft) TVD (ft) Area (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) Load (in) (in) (in) (in)
10,532 9,362 8.63 0.35 4.99 ⫺26.26 - 27.55 ⫺15.26 - 0.00 in

(Fixed)
Surface Well Testing Equipment

The surface equipment package selected for handling wellbore fluids during the test, included a choke
manifold to regulate downstream pressure and to take the fluid samples, a conventional horizontal
separator to separate well effluents in three phases, a laboratory cabin equipped with appropriate
equipment to measure formation fluid parameters such as water cut and water salinity, two vertical
production tanks of 500-bbl storage capacity each to receive produced fluid, and a vertical flare with
on/off remote system and flame arrestor to handle gas if necessary.
Testing Execution
The testing program, execution, and results are described in this section.
Operations Program and Overview
The operational programs that were prepared included additional considerations to both optimize and
guarantee the success of the job, including the following:
● Run the downhole sensors attached to the standing valve and seated on 1.81-in. no-go nipple from
surface. This saves rig time on slickline operations.
● Test the integrity of the string while running against the tester valve, which is run in closed
position.
● Apply additional weight after having seated the mechanical packer and testing the annulus space
to overcome the upward movement of the string during the test caused by temperature effect.
● Place the end of the coiled tubing string (injection point) 300 ft above the tester valve to avoid
malfunction of the sealing mechanism induced by cooling effect.
● Perform a coiled tubing pulling test every 90 min to avoid sticking the coiled tubing inside the
tubing.
● Set the three pressure-operated valves located in the string—tester valve, reference tool and
circulation valve—to different ranges of pressure with a wide range to avoid mistakes when
operating.
● Keep circulating nitrogen during and after a buildup’s shut-in. Check returns. Only nitrogen at
surface and a drop in circulating pressure confirms that the tester valve is closed.
The tubing-conveyed perforating-drillstem test (TCP-DST) string was run in 3 ½-in. 9.2 lbm/ft
premium-thread production tubing using a computerized torque recorded power tong system. As planned,
the string had downhole sensors both on the no-go nipple and also in the carrier as backup. The string
SPE-177055-MS 11
could be tested only until achieving underbalance perforating requirements. After the string was at the
desired depth, a gamma ray-casing collar locator (GR-CCL) run located the radioactive sub to correlate
the TCP guns. The packer was set with additional weight following recommendations of tubular design
and analysis. Pressure was applied on the annulus to test the packer and active both the reference and tester
valves] Then, the well was successfully perforated on proposed intervals 10,368 ft to 10,377 ft measured
depth (MD), 10,389 ft to 10,414 ft MD, and 10,423 ft to 10,440 ft MD from the Lower U sand using the
primary firing head. Finally, all the necessary equipment (coiled tubing, nitrogen unit, and surface testing
equipment) was rigged up and set to be ready to start operations.
The well testing operation commenced by running coiled tubing in the hole to the designed injection
point (9,800 ft MD). The first 5,000 ft MD were run without pumping nitrogen and then nitrogen was
pumped at a rate of 250 scf/min from there, all at a speed of 80 ft/min. This was done in this way to help
lighten the column. With the coiled tubing on depth, the flow period started at a rate of 250 scf/min. This
rate came from the nitrogen lifting performance analysis, and meant 600 psi of drawdown over the
estimated reservoir pressure. Although a higher rate also signified higher drawdown, the chosen rate was
considered appropriate for starting and also as a measure to optimize the volume of nitrogen to be
consumed. Initial testing parameters were kept steady during the first 12 hours of flow while production
parameters stabilized. Then, it was decided to increase the injection rate to verify the well production
capability. The well kept flowing at a rate of 300 scf/min for the next 6 hours. Next, the shut-in period
started by applying annular pressure to close the tester valve. At this moment, the change in coiled tubing
circulating pressure and lack of both liquid and nitrogen returns confirmed the closure. Then, the coiled
tubing string was pulled up to surface and disarmed. After 8 hours of buildup test, the tester valve was
opened, the slickline unit recovered the standing valve with sensors, and the information was downloaded
for interpretation.
Results
The first evidence that the application was working relates to the fast response of the reservoir, which
significantly reduced the flow time during the well testing operation. Fig. 8 shows the results of the test
by placing all the main testing parameters on the same plot. For example, after 10 hours of flow,
production rate was steady at approximately 400 BFPD and water cut was as low as 8%. By the time the
injection rate was increased to 300 scf/min, the production rate almost doubles, reaching a steady
production rate of 550 BFPD[RH4]. (It should be noted that this increasing of the injection rate cannot
be done in testing performed with a jet pump.) In terms of percentages, 20% of increment in injection rate
generated an outcome of 37.5% increment in flowing rate. The use of DST tools allowed a ⬙clean⬙ shut-in,
which results in successful buildup test and a precise transient analysis. No leaks or alteration were
detected. There was an almost perfect match of the buildup data to the transient curves, radial flow was
obtained, and reservoir parameters such as permeability and skin were clearly estimated (Fig. 9). There
were no operational issues when recovering downhole sensors.
SPE-177055-MS
Figure 8 —Results of well testing operations
Figure 9 —Results: buildup interpretation

12
SPE-177055-MS 13
Conclusions
1. Nitrogen lifting was proved to be a suitable alternative method for well testing in the Shushufindi
field.
2. Nitrogen lifting improved the reliability of the reservoir parameter measurements made during
well testing operations. The results from the pilot exhibited better-quality production and reservoir
data than hydraulic pumping.
3. With the use of nitrogen lifting for well testing, the water cut measurement ceased to be indirect,
making it an accurate parameter for better understanding the production response of the well.
4. The incorporation of drillstem test (DST) tools in the testing string allowed obtaining effective
downhole shut-in.
5. Flowing time decreased in a ratio of 50 to 60% with nitrogen lifting in comparison to hydraulic
pumping based on available statistics.
6. The versatility of the nitrogen lifting was proved against hydraulic pumping when increasing pump
rate to obtain an accelerating well response.
7. A planned improvement to the operation is real-time data transmission to decrease the time for
getting downhole pressure and temperature data.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank to the Ecuadorian NOC Petroamazonas EP and the Shushufindi
consortium for the opportunity to present these results from the pilot project.
References
Allen, T. O. and Roberts, A. P. 1993. Production Operations—Well Completions, Workover and
Stimulation, fourth edition. Oil and Gas Consultants, International.
Boscan, J., Almanza, E., and Wendler C. 2003. Successful Well Testing Operations in High
Pressure/High Temperature Environment: Case Histories. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5– 8 October. SPE-84096-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/84096-MS.
McAleese, S. 2003. Operational Aspects of Oil and Gas Well Testing. In Handbook of Petroleum
Exploration and Production, 1, second edition, Chap. 2, 5–13, 58 –70. Elsevier.
Peavy, M. A. and Fahel, R. A. 1991. Artificial Lift with Coiled Tubing for Flow Testing the Monterey
Formation, Offshore California. SPE Prod Eng 6 (2): 142–146. SPE-20021-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/20024-PS.
Wiggins, M. L. 2007. Inflow and Outflow Performance. In Petroleum Engineering Handbook, Volume
IV, Production Operations Engineering, ed. J.D. Clegg, Chap. 1, 1–36. Richardson, Texas: SPE.

Spe 177055 Ms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spe 177055 Ms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE-177055-MS

Well Testing Improvement Using Nitrogen Lifting in Shushufindi Field:

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

Well Testing Improvement

Testing Planning and Design

Table 1—Estimated production and pressure parameters for SSF-169D

Lower U 3,384.00 2000 3250 2.60 40.00

TCP-DST String Design

Table 2—Basic well data for SSF-169D (Lower U sand)

Rig To be defined Productivity Index 2.6 bbl/D/psi

Tubular Design and Analysis

10,532 9,362 8.63 0.35 4.99 ⫺26.26 - 27.55 ⫺15.26 - 0.00 in

Surface Well Testing Equipment

Figure 8 —Results of well testing operations

Figure 9 —Results: buildup interpretation

You might also like