Identification of well problems using

well testing

Written by :
En. Aimen Mohamed Mohamed Al Shipany

University ID: 21162305

Search Supervisor :

……………….
Identification of well problems using well testing

Abstract

Although most educators as among the most important learning outcomes regard
problem solving, few instructional design prescriptions are available for designing
problem-solving instruction and engaging learners. This paper distinguishes between
well-structured problems and ill-structured problems. Well-structured problems are
constrained problems with convergent solutions that engage the application of a
limited number of rules and principles within well-defined parameters. Ill-structured
problems possess multiple solutions, solution paths, fewer parameters which are less
manipulable , and contain uncertainty about which concepts, rules, and principles are
necessary for the solution or how they are organized and which solution is best. For
both types of problems, this paper presents models for how learners solve them and
models for designing instruction to support problem-solving skill development. The
model for solving well-structured problems is based on information processing
theories of learning, while the model for solving ill-structured problems relies on an
emerging theory of ill-structured problem solving and on constructivist and situated
cognition approaches to learning.

INTRODUCTION

In the petroleum industry, a well test is the execution of a set of planned data
acquisition activities to broaden the knowledge and understanding of
hydrocarbons properties and characteristics of the underground reservoir
where hydrocarbonsare trapped. The overall objective is identifying the
reservoir’s capacity to produce hydrocarbons, such a soil, natural gas and
condensate. Data gathered during the test period includes volumetric flow
rate and pressure observed in the selected well. Well testing can be surface or
subsurface testing and each type has its own objectives. A properly designed,
executed and analyzed well test usually can provide information about
formation permeability, extent of well bore damage or stimulation, reservoir
pressure, reservoir boundaries and heterogeneities
Types of Well Tests

Test types are briefly discussed below Pressure Build-Up, Injection/Fall-Off, Multi-
rate, Multiple well, and Closed Chamber.

Pressure Build-Up Test (PBU) – A pressure transient is induced by producing

a well for a period of time and subsequently shutting the well either downhole or at
the surface for a buildup period. The rate schedule depends on the objectives of the
well test.
Usually, data from the production periods of a test are noisy and, thus, not usable for
pressure-transient analysis. Although a PBU test means a loss of revenue, it is
preferred over a simple drawdown test when the objectives of the test involve
obtaining reservoir properties and completion efficiency.
Injection/Fall-Off Test (IFOT) – Alternatively, a pressure transient can be
created by injecting fluid into a well. When the well is shut-in after injection, the
reservoir pressure falls off. Usually, the injection fluid is water. The different
properties between water and reservoir fluid must be taken into account for the
analysis. The shut-in time is generally shorter than for PBU tests because the main
objective does not include a characterization of reservoir heterogeneity.
Similar to the advantages of buildup tests over drawdown tests, it is preferable to
conduct a fall-off test whenever an accurate estimate of kh is needed. For injection
wells that go on vacuum when shut-in, a rate-change test should be considered rather
than a falloff because much of the test will likely be dominated by after flow caused
by the falling liquid level in the wellbore.
Multi-Rate Test – These tests can be conducted on both oil and gas wells. In these
tests, several stabilized flow rates are achieved at corresponding stabilized flowing
bottom-hole pressures. In gas wells, flow rates are sufficiently high that turbulent or
inertial pressure drops near the wellbore can be significant. In such cases, the
additional pressure drop measured by the skin can be confused with the pressure drop
caused by non-Darcy or inertial flow. In gas wells in which it takes a long time to
achieve stabilized rates, wells are shut in and produced for a fixed time interval at
several different rates. This test is usually considered for a gas well to characterize the
degree of turbulence and to measure the parameters associated with deliverability.
Flow after flow, isochronal, and modified isochronal are different versions of multi-
rate tests. The isochronal test is conducted by alternately producing the well then
shutting it in and allowing it to build to the average reservoir pressure before the
beginning of the next production period. The modified isochronal test is conducted
like an isochronal test, except the shut-in periods are of equal duration. The shut-in
periods should equal or exceed the length of the flow periods.

Multiple-well Tests – These are used to establish communication between wells

and determine the inter-well reservoir properties. The principle of multiple-well
testing can also be applied between various sets of perforations in the same wellbore.
Multiple-well tests between offsetting wells determine the reservoir properties areally.
Tests that are run between various sets of perforations in the same wellbore usually
determine the vertical reservoir permeability. Multiple-well tests are more sensitive to
reservoir heterogeneity than single-well tests (SPE-10042-PA). There are two types of
multiple-well tests: Interference and pulse.
1. Interference test – The flow rate of a production or injection well is changed
abruptly and the pressure response of a static observation well is monitored.
The time required for the pressure transient to reach the observation well and
the associated pressure change can be measured to characterize the degree of
communication between the two wells.
2. Pulse tests – An alternative to interference tests in situations where the
physical separation between wells is small, such as in pattern floods. Instead
of simply changing the rate at the active well, a series of pressure pulses are
created by alternatively flowing and shutting in the active well. Pressure is
 monitored at one or several observation wells. This type of test is difficult to
execute successfully in low-permeability, high-compressibility reservoirs with
wide well spacing.
Interference tests are usually much more expensive than pulse tests because of the
loss of revenue arising from having to shut-in a major portion or all of the tested
reservoir to conduct the test. In addition, ambiguity exists in interference test
interpretation because it is uncertain that an observed response was actually caused by
the active well.
In a pulse test, if a repeated signal is received in an observation well, there is little
doubt that it was caused by the rate changes in the active well.
Closed-Chamber Test – The technique was originated to reduce operational and
safety problems caused by hydrate formation during conventional drill stem tests in
the Canadian Arctic. A closed-chamber test is conducted with the drill-string in the
borehole. The surface valve is closed for the duration of the test. A downhole gauge is
recommended. When the well begins to flow, air in the string is compressed and the
volume of reservoir-fluid inflow is calculated as a function of time by monitoring the
surface pressure. The downhole valve is closed to stop flow when the surface pressure
reaches a value calculated a priori. This ensures that a known volume of reservoir
fluid has been produced. No hydrocarbons are brought surface. The fluids are
produced into the drill or completion string. Closed chamber tests are environmentally
friendly and safe when H2S is expected.

Most well tests consist of changing the rate, and observing the change in pressure
caused by this change in rate. To perform a well test successfully one must be able to
measure the time, the rate, the pressure, and control the rate. Well tests, if properly
designed, can be used to estimate the following parameters:

 Flow conductance
 Skin factor
 Non-Darcy coefficient (multirate tests)
 Storativity
 Fractured reservoir parameters
 Fractured well parameters
 Drainage area
 Distance to faults
 Drainage shape

Flow conductance

A Flow test is an operation on a well designed to demonstrate the existence of

moveable petroleum in a reservoir by establishing flow to the surface and/or to
provide an indication of the potential productivity of that reservoir. Some flow tests,
such as drill stem tests (DSTs), are performed in the open hole. A DST is used to
obtain reservoir fluid samples, static bottomhole pressure measurements, indications
of productivity and short-term flow and pressure buildup tests to estimate
permeability and damage extent. Other flow tests, such as single-point tests and multi-
point tests, are performed after the well has been cased. Single-point tests typically
involve a measurement or estimate of initial or average reservoir pressure and a flow
rate and flowing bottomhole pressure measurement. Multi-point tests are used to
establish gas well deliverability and absolute open flow potential

This test has also been called daily test and may have various other namings. Often,
and especially at offshore fields, a number of wells produce to a common separator,
and flows from several separators or facilities may be headed into a commingled flow
in pipeline that transports oil or gas for sale (export).
The total flow rate of all wells in total are measured, but the contributions of the
individual wells are unknown. It is important to know the individual contributions to
account hydrocarbon material balance and for well monitoring and reservoir
management.
To obtain individual well flow rates, it is common to use a smaller test separator. This
is an isolated and down-scaled processing system in parallel with the normal flows.
Regularly, for example once a month per well, the flow from one and only one
selected well is led into the test separator for determining well flow rate for the
selected well.
The separator divides the flow from the well into the streams of individual products
which typically are oil, gas and water, but may include natural-gas condensate.
Contamination may also be removed and fluid samples collected. This helps to
allocate individual flow rate contributions, but the method has uncertainties. Flow
rate, water cut, GOR and other parameters for the test system can deviate from
production separators.
This is generally taken into account by the allocation of products back to individual
wells based on the field total, and by using data from the individual well tests.
Another method to obtain individual well flow rates takes the state observer approach,
where the states to be estimated as the unknown flow rates from individual wells. This
approach allows the incorporation of other modes of measurements such as spin-cuts
(manual water cut readings) and dynamometer card based inferred rates.
The reconciliation of these measurements with the flow tests, along with a systematic
mechanism to account for measurement noise, leads to improved per well rate
estimation accuracy.
Multiphase flow meters have to some degree reduced the need for flow tests and test
separators. Multiphase flow meters are not suitable for all applications where clean-
ups are required post work over. In the absence of accurate, robust and low-cost
multi-phase flow meters, large oil fields with thousands of wells continue to rely on
well tests as the primary source
of information for production
surveillance.

Simplified process flow diagram. A plant is receiving a multi phased flow of oil
RFT and gas from many wells via a manifold. Flow from one well only may be taken
to the test separator (shaded). The test separator has the feature to separate
To check pressure equilibrium and thus homogeneity wells
gas and water from canand
the oil, betotested using
have each component measured, under
different conditions
wireline-conveyed tools, either in casing or open-hole. These tools include RFT,
MDT, etc. and are typically run to the desired depth before actuating levers or other
.devices seal them against the side of the wellbore
Drill-Stem test
In newly developed reservoirs or high-risk developments it may be worthwhile to test
the well before completing it or installing full production facilities. This is usually
done with a drilling rig on-site, and the string through which the well is produced is
.manipulated by the drilling rig
Drawdown test
A drawdown test is one in which the rate is held approximately constant while the
well pressure is measured. Shut in the well till pressure reaches static level and then
.flowing the well at a constant rate ,q & measuring Pwf
Advantages
Suitable in new wells. With No need to lose production, reservoir size can be
.determined
Disadvantages
Difficult to maintain constant production rate. Long shut in so that Pi is achieved is
.required
Multirate tests
.Accounts for variable rate history and applications
Rate variations
kh product, Pr
Boundary configurations
Skin
FE
PI
Advantages
No problems with variable flow rate, no loss of production, and reduced wellbore
.storage
.Precise control of rate and P* can be determined

Disadvantages
.Rate fluctuations are difficult to measure on a continuous basis
Production test
A production test is just like a drawdown test, except that it is generally run for a
.longer period of time
Buildup test
This is the most preferred well testing technique. The well is first produced at a
constant rate till pressure is stabilized and then the well is shut in. Pressure is recorded
.as a function of time
Disadvantages
.Loss of production due to shut in
Banker’s Test
This is a productivity test to demonstrate that adequate rates can be obtained from the
.well
Interference test
This test is designed to give large-scale reservoir property trends which can give
.improved estimates of directional permeability and reservoir storativity
Well Test Deconvolution
Deconvolution transforms variable-rate pressure data into a constant-rate initial
drawdown with a duration equal to the total duration of the test and directly yields the
corresponding pressure derivative, normalized to a unit rate. This derivative is free
from the distortions caused by the pressure-derivative calculation algorithm and from
.errors introduced by incomplete or truncated rate histories
Deconvolution is not a new interpretation method but rather is a new tool to process
pressure and rate data in order to increase the amount of data that can be analyzed
with derivative, pressure, and straight-line analyses. The gain is clearly greater in long
tests, such as with permanent downhole pressure gauges, in which the total test
duration is one or two orders of magnitude greater than the duration of the longest
flow period at constant rate. Deconvolution, however, is also useful in short tests such
as DSTs because it gives access to a greater radius of investigation and enables
.differentiation between true test behavior and artifacts of the derivative calculation
An example of deconvolution is shown in Fig The red curve in Fig.b is the
deconvolved derivative obtained by deconvolution of the entire rate history shown in
Fig.a. Its duration, equal to the total production time, is two orders of magnitude
greater than the longest buildups, represented by discrete points in Fig.b. The shift
between the deconvolved derivative and the buildup data in Fig.b is from the rate
history before the respective buildups. In this particular example, the extended
derivative showed contribution to production from a lower layer after 104 hours. This
.could not be seen from the longest buildups, limited to 103 hours
D
e
c
o
n
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

a
c
t
u
a
l
l
y

b
l
u
r
s the difference between conventional well test and production-data analysis. During
the course of many years, several methods have been proposed to analyze production
data to extract all the information that is usually obtained from conventional well test
analysis without the constraint of shutting in wells. These methods have been
attempting to convert variable rate and pressure into variable pressure at constant rate
or into variable rate at constant pressure. Examples are the decline curve analysis by
use of material balance time, the reciprocal productivity index method, and the
rate/time type curve. The aim of all these methods is achieved with deconvolution,
which produces much cleaner transformed data and much better results when
.estimating permeability and distances to boundaries
CONCLUSIONS
The well testing process allows the wellbore status evaluation and the reservoir .1.
;characterization
It allows the reservoir properties determination for the purpose of the accurate .2
reservoir description
;It helps for the identification of the productive section of the well .3
The wellbore status, reservoir permeability calculation combined with the .4
statistical and graphical processing of the information’s allows the skin effect
calculation. These processes facilitat the decision making regarding the EOR
;implementation
The reservoir numerical modelling, as the most important scope toward the .5
reservoir exploitation optimization is based in the identification of the
;type, spatial extension and its geometry, human and financial resources
The multilayers reservoirs exploitation process is very complex, mostly due to .6
;their heterogeneity and anisotropy
The well testing allows the evaluation of the conditions and characteristics of .7
;these kinds of reservoirs
Though the well testing is possible the determination of the parameters for each .8
;layer for the purpose of the accurate description of the multilayers reservoir
This process allows the prediction of the reservoirs performance along their .9
;exploitation period
The economic indicators of these reservoirs exploitation tend to be more .10
positive than of the simple one
References

 Aghar, Hani; M. Caire; H. Elshahawi; J. R. Gomez; J. Saeedi; C. Young; B. Pinguet;

K. Swainson; E. Takla; B. Theuveny (Spring 2007). "The Expanding Scope of Well
Testing".  Oilfield Review (A Schlumberger Magazine). 19 (1): 44–59. Retrieved 2013-05-
23.
1. ^ Jump up to:a b c Aghar, H et al (2007)
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Langston, Leslie Vernon (2003). The lease pumper's
handbook (PDF). Norman, Okla.: Oklahoma Commission on Marginally Producing
Oil and Gas Wells.
3. ^ I. Atkinson, B. Theuveny et al. (Spring 2005).  "A New Horizon in Multiphase
Flow Measurement" (PDF). Oilfield Review (A Schlumberger Magazine).  16 (4): 52–
63. Retrieved 2013-05-23.
4. ^ Ron Cramer, Dave Schotanus, Kolin Ibrahim, and Nick Colbeck (21 Dec
2009). "Continuous well-flow estimates improve production allocation".
Retrieved 2013-05-23.
5. ^ Ashutosh Tewari, Stijn De Waele, Niranjan Subrahmanya (May
2018). "Enhanced production surveillance using probabilistic dynamic
models". International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management. 9 (1): 1–12.
6. ^ Thorn, R.; G. A. Johansen; B. T. Hjertaker (2013-01-01). "Three-phase flow
measurement in the petroleum industry". Measurement Science and
Technology. 24 (1): 012003. Bibcode:2013MeScT..24a2003T. doi:10.1088/0957-
0233/24/1/012003. ISSN 0957-0233.