Integration of Wireline Formation Testing

and Well Testing EvaluationAn Example

From the Caspian
S. Ramaswami and H. Elshahawi, Shell International E&P, and A. El Battawy, Schlumberger
Summary
Well testing has long been a valuable tool for the petroleum
industry. The practice continues to be widely used today, but
increasingly more situations arise in which conventional well tests
can be impractical because of cost, logistical, or environmental
constraints. For instance, weather conditions may dictate a time
window beyond which operations have to cease, as in Arctic con-
ditions. In such cases, a wireline- formation testing (WFT) may
present a viable alternative to acquire formation-uid samples and
pressure-transient data [WFT-PTA, commonly known as a mini-
drillstem test (mini-DST)].
WFT a or mini-DST uses a probe or a straddle packer to test a
selected reservoir interval. Downhole pumps are used to cleanup
mud ltrate invasion and ow formation uids at a stable rate.
Downhole uid analysis (DFA) is used simultaneously to monitor
clean up and measure uid properties such as uid color, density,
and gasoil ratio (GOR) in real time. As part of the sequence,
one or more pressure-buildup periods may be performed on each
mini-DST station. Similar to classic well-test analysis, transient-
pressure interpretation of the drawdown and buildup responses is
used to derive the mobility thickness product and skin relevant to
the rock volume investigated by the test. The permeability of that
ow unit can be then calculated using the thickness of the ow
unit and viscosity of the formation uid as inputs.
In this paper, we present eld data from the Caspian region in
which WFTmini-DST results are compared with conventional
well testing using DST results. We show that, as long as the scale
of measurement is taken into account, reservoir parameters
obtained are in close agreement over the same interval. In addi-
tion, the mini-DST reveals differences in permeability between
individual ow units.
Two case studies are presented to compare independently
derived productivity parameters of the reservoirs. Permeability
and thickness from mini-DST results are used to construct reser-
voir models to represent individual zones.
In the rst eld case, we have shown where mini-DSTs are
able to provide detail that a DST cannot, and we show an example
of how nuclear-magnetic resonance permeability can be used to
upscale mini-DST results to estimate the total permeability-thick-
ness of a reservoir.
In the second eld case, we have shown that with adequate
sampling using mini-DSTs, it is possible to estimate the total per-
meability-thickness across several reservoir sands. Additionally,
nodal analysis is used to predict downhole ow rates. Individual-
zone parameters are used to predict zonal contributions and hence
construct a composite inow prole response for commingling
selective zones. These have then been compared with actual
results from production logs performed during the well test.
This integrated approach can be used to complement and cali-
brate well testing (DST) results or to acquire sufcient reservoir
information when a full well test is not feasible and/or not
required. The advantages and limitations of this approach are dis-
cussed to assist the proper selection of test types depending on
desired objectives.
Introduction
Tests on oil and gas wells can be categorized as either productiv-
ity or descriptive tests. Productivity well tests aim to identify/
sample produced uids and determine well/reservoir deliverability.
They usually involve owing the well at several ow rates using
different choke sizes while measuring the stabilized bottomhole
pressure and temperature at each corresponding production rate.
Descriptive well tests on the other hand, induce pressure dis-
turbances in the wellbore and surrounding rock but focus on ana-
lyzing the associated transient changes in sandface pressure to
evaluate reservoir parameters such as permeability and skin and
to characterize reservoir heterogeneities. Extended well tests are
used to assess reservoir continuity and architecture. Whatever
the objectives, well-test data are essential for the analysis, predic-
tion and improvement of reservoir performance (Schlumberger
2003).
Because of a combination of nancial, logistical, environmen-
tal, and safety constraints, well testing has become less common-
place in exploration and appraisal settings in recent years (Whittle
et al. 2003). Fortunately, several alternative testing methods have
become available to bridge that gap. Elshahawi et al. (2008) pro-
vide a general overview of the optimal value testing concept,
which describes three main alternative methods to conventional
well tests. These are WFT-PTA, closed chamber testing, and
Injection Testing. Depending on the objectives and cost or opera-
tional limitations of the test, one or more methods can be used to
achieve those objectives. By inspecting the results of past well
tests, Elshahawi et al. (2008) conclude that with the exception of
testing reservoir boundaries, the collection of large volumes (bar-
rels) of uid samples, or investigating completion efciency,
WFT is able to meet or exceed most well-testing objectives in
some play types.
In this paper, we focus on WFT methods to extract productiv-
ity parameters of formations through the use of pressure-transient-
analysis. Also known as mini-DSTs, the pressure buildup infor-
mation obtained from WFT stations are presented in the classical
Pressure Transient Analysis log-log plot (Bourdet et al. 1983),
where the pressure rise during the buildup and its derivative are
plotted against superposition time.
The model generally used for performing pressure-transient
analysis on WFT tests is a limited entry model. There can be up
to four ow regimes observed with a limited entry testwellbore
storage, an early radial ow, a spherical-ow regime, and a nal
radial-ow regime. The early-radial-ow regime is generally not
observed. While conventional pressure-transient-analysis starts
with three matching parametersa wellbore storage coefcient,
skin, and horizontal permeabilitythe limited-entry model has
three additional parametersthickness of the open inow inter-
val, the location of the interval within the ow unit, and the
permeability anisotropy ratio, K
v
/K
h
. The rst two additional pa-
rameters are usually known and not part of the matching process.
With the inclusion of this additional matching parameter, a unique
solution can also be obtained when innite-acting radial ow
(IARF) is not observed, but spherical ow is, through the use of
an observation probe to match K
v
/K
h
.
Copyright VC 2012 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 139837) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Caspian Carbonates
Technology Conference, Atyrau, Kazakhstan, 810 November 2010, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 9 December 2010. Revised manuscript
received for review 1 November 2011. Paper peer approved 16 January 2012.
300 June 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
A mini-DST typically starts by stationing the tool at some
depth and then either setting a probe against the sandface or inat-
ing the straddle-packer elements using mud from the wellbore.
Packers are inated to a few hundred psi above hydrostatic pres-
sure to maintain a seal against the mud cake. A pretest is then per-
formed with either device to measure formation pressure, and to
conrm the integrity of the seal that the device has obtained, pre-
venting pressure communication with the wellbore. In the case of
straddle packers, the downhole pump is then used to clean up the
interval between the packers, initially lled with mud, followed
by mud ltrate and formation uid. With the probe, there is no
interval to evacuate, and so mud ltrate is owed immediately,
gradually followed by formation uid. Throughout, pressure and
ow rate are recorded, and the efuent is monitored using down-
hole uid analyzers. Once formation uid has been owed at a
stable rate for a sufcient time, the pump is stopped, and a pres-
sure buildup is recorded. One or more intermediate buildups are
typically performed while cleaning up, with a nal buildup per-
formed at the end of the station, usually after samples are cap-
tured, if any are taken on that station. Then, a nal pretest is
performed, and the straddle packer is deated and/or the probes
are retracted. Now the tool string can be moved to the next station
depth.
Well A Case Study
Mini-DST on Well A. Well A is a vertical exploration well
drilled in a clastic reservoir in the Caspian with water-based mud
(WBM). Conventional wireline openhole logs were run, and an
extensive pressure-proling program was carried out using the
modular formation-dynamics tester (MDT). More than 110 pre-
tests were recorded in order to identify the different reservoir
zones and the uid content therein.
This was followed by wireline sampling and downhole uid
analysis, with 16 pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) quality
samples collected from 5 different zones. The sampling string
used a probe module equipped with a large- diameter probe
(LDP) as the sampling source. Filtrate cleanup was monitored by
a combination of the live-uid analyzer and the compositional
uid analyzer, giving real time measurements of the in-situ GOR
and hydrocarbon composition.
Fig. 1 shows the petrophysical interpretation of the zone of in-
terest using conventional open hole wireline logs. The nuclear-
magnetic resonance (NMR) permeability curve and the separation
of the resistivity curves indicate ow units with higher permeabil-
ity on top and bottom and lower permeability in the middle.
Two ow units were tested in conjunction with sampling sta-
tions using the LDP. Intermediate buildups while cleaning up and
a nal buildup after capturing samples were acquired in each of
the sampling stations.
Three further ow units were tested with the straddle packer
during dedicated mini-DST stations using the tool string presented
in Fig. 2. The lower pump was used to inate the packer elements
and evacuate the interval between the packer elements. The upper
pump was then used to clean up and obtain stable owing periods.
Mini-DSTs 1 and 4 were acquired with the LDP, and mini-
DSTs 2, 3, and 5 were acquired with the straddle packer.
Mini-DST1 tested the interval 74.575.3 m. Several short
buildups were performed while cleaning up and capturing sam-
ples, and a long buildup was performed at the end of the station.
Fig. 3 shows the pressure plot and the model history match for
mini-DST1. The intermediate buildups and nal buildup along
with the model match on a log-log plot are shown in Fig. 4. The
estimated horizontal permeability from this test was 583 md.
A similar procedure while sampling was followed for mini-
DST4, which tested the interval 85.45 7.6 m.
Mini-DST2 tested the interval 77.079.4 m. The pressure-his-
tory plot, Fig. 5, shows that three buildup periods were carried out
to conrm the repeatability of results.
The pressure change and derivative of the three buildup peri-
ods are presented in Fig. 6. The estimated reservoir properties for
this sand unit from the three buildup periods are in close agree-
ment with a horizontal permeability of 608 md.
A similar procedure was followed for the other two ow
units tested with the straddle packer where mini-DST3 and mini-
DST5 tested the intervals 82.584.25 m and 88.891.4 m,
respectively.
Table 1 lists the results from the mini-DSTs. The sum of the
permeability-thicknesses of the ve mini-DST stations acquired is
5268 md.m, and the averaged permeability-thickness product for
the three zones yields an average permeability of 570 md. For all
mini-DST interpretations, the cleanest buildup was taken as the
reference for the model match. It should be noted that for some of
the mini-DSTs in Well A, there was distortion in the derivative,
particularly during the transition from spherical to radial ow. In
all cases, radial ow was present, hence the IARF match of the
dominant radial ow remains unchanged.
Production Test on Well A. Following the completion of Well
A with a 7-in liner, the interval 7592 m was perforated, and a
production well test (DST) was performed with a full surface
GR, CAL RES DEN-NEU PORO SW PERM GR, CAL RES DEN-NEU PORO SW PERM
Fig. 1Conventional openhole logs over the zone of interest in Well A.
June 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 301
testing setup across the same formations as tested earlier with the
mini-DSTs.
During the well test, a multiphase meter was used to provide
surface oil-, gas-, and water-ow-rate measurements. Conven-
tional well-test separation units with associated metering were
also used to estimate rates of oil, gas and water.
The pressure-rate history match for the well test is shown in
Fig. 11, while the pressure buildups and derivative on a log-log plot
for the four main buildups are shown in Fig. 12. The model match
used for the interpretation of the nal build up is shown in Fig. 13.
Unlike a mini-DST test, which is capable of evaluating each
ow unit separately, the DST averages the properties of all zones.
Interpretation of the DST yields a permeability-thickness of 6948
md.m, resulting in an average horizontal permeability of 421 md
and a skin factor of 0.8, using an effective ow thickness of 16.5 m.
Comparison Between Mini-DSTs and DST in Well A. Fig. 14
shows the intervals that were tested by the mini-DST (green) and
DST (red) plotted over the NMR permeability curve (blue). It can
be clearly seen that while the DST averages the permeability across
the tested interval, mini-DSTs are able to evaluate each zone sepa-
rately and identify variations in permeability across different
zones. The gure also shows the photographs of the core across the
intervals tested by mini-DSTs 3 and 5. The interval tested by mini-
DST 3 is highly laminated with a very low K
v
/K
h
, and hence the
thickness of the reservoir that is sensed is almost the same as the
inow thickness, which is the interval between the straddle-packer
elements, 1 m. This is likely true for the interval 79.485.5 m in
Fig. 14, and apart from the 1m tested in mini-DST 3, contribution
from the rest of this laminated section is not reected in the sum of
permeability-thicknesses from the mini-DSTs. In order to make a
sensible comparison between the mini-DST permeability-thick-
nesses and that of the DST, the NMR curve can be used to estimate
the permeability-thickness of the intervals within the laminated
section that were not tested, calibrated to mini-DST results, hence
effectively upscaling the mini-DST results to a larger interval, as
depicted by the orange lines in the permeability track of Fig. 14.
The intervals that were added are tabulated in Table 2.
The addition of these intervals yields a total permeability-
thickness estimate of 6149 md.m. The effective owing thickness,
permeability-thickness, and average permeability obtained from
the upscaled mini-DST results and from the DST are tabulated in
Table 3.
Taking into account small variations in ow thicknesses con-
tributing to ow, the agreement between mini-DST and DST
results is remarkable for permeability.
Well B Case Study
Mini-DST on Well B. Well B was drilled to appraise a discovery
well in the same general prospect as Well A using WBM. Geolog-
ical sampling and petrophysical logs indicate that twelve sands
were penetrated and identied in Well B, seven of which were oil
bearing. A comprehensive WFT program was carried out using
the WFT tool.
An extensive pressure-acquisition program resulted in 108
pressures, measured using an LDP. The pressures were used to
identify the different reservoir zones and uid content. Fig. 15
Fig. 2mini-DST/VIT tool string used on Well A.
2500
3500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
0
5E-6
1E-5
History plot (Pressure [psia], Liquid Rate [m
3
/sec] vs Time [sec])
Fig. 3History match for mini-DST1 performed on top sand of Well A.
302 June 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
shows the pressure prole, including gradients and contacts in
Well B, plotted against petrophysical logs.
MDT sampling and uid-identication stations were then
acquired using the tool string in Fig. 16. Finally, the remaining sam-
ples and dedicated mini-DST stations were acquired using the tool
string shown in Fig. 17. In total, 29 sample bottles were lled in nine
stations, eight of them oil and one water. Two uid-identication
stations and six dedicated mini-DST stations were also performed.
Pressure-transient-analysis data were acquired at 17 stations in total.
This paper will discuss the results of the pressure-transient-
analysis data acquired in the zones corresponding to the DST
intervals in Fig. 15 and comparison of those results with results of
the DST production tests.
Four separate ow units were tested using WFT. These also
overlapped with the DST production test interval.
Mini-DST1 tested the interval 01.804.8 m using the straddle-
packer. The pressure-history plot, Fig. 18 shows that two buildup
periods were carried out. An industry standard program for
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
0.1
1
10
100
1000
build-up #4
build-up #5
build-up #7
build-up #9 (ref)
Log-Log Plot: dp and dp' Normalized [psi] vs dt
Fig. 4Model match on log-log plot and derivatives of buildups
of Well A mini-DST1.
2930
2970
3010
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
0
5E-6
1E-5
1.5E-5
History Plot (Pressure [psia], Liquid Rate [m
3
/sec] vs Time [sec])
Fig. 5History match for mini-DST 2 performed on top sand of Well A.
0.01
0.1
1
10
d
p

a
n
d

d
p

N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

[
p
s
i
]
100
0.1 1 10
build-up #2 (ref)
build-up #5
build-up #10
dt
100 1000 10000
Fig. 6Model match on log-log plot and derivatives of buildups of Well A mini-DST 2.
TABLE 1RESULTS OF MINI-DST IN WELL A
Mini-DST
Top of
Interval (m)
Bottom of
Interval (m)
Position of
Probe/Packer (m)
Permeability
Thickness (md.m)
Thickness
(m)
Permeability
(md)
1 XX74.5 XX75.3 XX74.8 467 0.8 583
2 XX77.0 XX79.4 XX78.5 1460 2.4 608
3 XX82.5 XX83.5 XX83.2 91 1.0 91
4 XX85.45 XX87.6 XX87.0 1354 2.1 630
5 XX88.5 XX91.4 XX90.5 1895 2.9 654
June 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 303
pressure-transient analysis was used to interpret the derivative
response, and Fig. 19 shows the two buildups and derivatives on a
log-log plot and the match obtained for the interpretation. The
permeability-thickness obtained from this interpretation was 1224
md.m. Petrophysical logs and cores were used to determine the
thickness of the ow unit as 3 m, resulting in an average perme-
ability of 408 md. The average permeability obtained from an
early buildup of the DST production test, assuming that only
Zone 1 contributed during the test resulted in, an average perme-
ability-thickness of 1265 md.m. The agreement is remarkable.
Mini-DST2 tested the interval 18.320.4 m using the single-
probe module in conjunction with a sampling station. Mini-DST3
tested the interval 32.333.2 m using the straddle- packer module,
and mini-DST4 tested the interval 41.843.2 m using the single-
2900
3000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
0
1E-5
2E-5
History Plot (Pressure [psia], Liquid Rate [m
3
/sec] vs Time [sec])
Fig. 7Pressure-history plot and model match for mini-DST3 performed on middle sand of Well A.
0.1 1 10 100 1000
1
10
100
build-up #1
build-up #2
build-up #3 (ref)
Log-Log Plot: dp and dp' Normalized [psi] vs dt
Fig. 8Model match on log-log plot for mini-DST3.
2970
2980
2990
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
0
1E-5
2E-5
History Plot (Pressure [psia], Liquid Rate [m
3
/sec] vs Time [sec])
Fig. 9History match of Mini-DST5 performed on bottom sand of Well A.
304 June 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
probe module in conjunction with a sampling station. Figs. 20
through 25 show the ow history match as well as pressure
buildup and derivatives for mini-DSTs 2, 3 and 4.
Table 4 lists the results from mini-DSTs 1, 2, 3, and 4. The
total permeability-thickness from the four zones tested with WFT
is 2566 md.m. The interpretation of the corresponding DST pro-
duction test yielded a permeability-thickness of 3163 md.m.
Well B Production Test. Following the completion of Well B
with a 7-in liner, a production well test was performed over the
DST interval in Fig. 15. Tubing Conveyed Perforating (TCP)
guns were used to perforate interval 0106 m (Fig. 26). This is
the same interval as mini-DST zone-1 (Table 4).
Two buildups were performed while only owing from this
Zone. Fig. 26 shows the ow history and two buildups performed.
Fig. 27 shows the pressure buildup and pressure derivative in a
log-log plot. The pressure-transient-analysis interpretation yielded
a permeability-thickness of 1265 md.m for Zone 1, in excellent
agreement with the mini-DST result.
The well was then killed to add perforations to test the inter-
vals tested during mini-DSTs 2, 3, and 4. Before perforating, the
well was owed to determine the effect that killing the well had
on the productivity index (PI) of Zone 1. The PI changed from
2 STB/D/psi to 1.35 STB/D/psi.
Intervals 1621 (B), 31.536.5 (C), and 4045 m (D) were then
additionally perforated through tubing on wireline, and the well
was owed. A PLT run was performed at 3 different ow rates,
corresponding to 20/64, 28/64, and 36/64 choke sizes at the choke
manifold. From the PLT, it appeared that the perforation from 31.5
to 36.5 was not contributing. This corresponded to the zone tested
in mini-DST 3, which appeared potentially productive. The zone
was therefore reperforated, and the well was owed again and a
PLT was rerun while owing the well at 36/64 choke.
Fig. 28 shows the ow history throughout the DST. Fig. 29
shows the pressure buildup and pressure derivative of the last
buildup on a log-log plot, which corresponds to all four zones
0.1 1 10 100 1000
0.01
0.1
1
build-up #2
build-up #3
build-up #4 (ref)
Log-Log Plot: dp and dp' Normalized [psi] vs dt
Fig. 10Log-log-type curve match for mini-DST5.
History Plot (Pressure [kPa, Liquid Rate [m
3
/D] vs Time [hr])
Fig. 11History match for the Well A well test.
Clean up and
Main Buildup
BHS
PLT
Clean up and
Main Buildup
Log-Log Plot: dp and dp' Normalized [kPa] vs dt
1E-3
10
100
1000
0.01 0.1 1 10
BHS
PLT
Fig. 12Log-log analysis and model match for the rst buildup
of Well A well test.
Log-Log Plot: p-p@dt=0 and Derivative [kPa] vs dt [hr]
Fig. 13Log-log analysis and model match for the main
buildup of Well A well test.
June 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 305
owing. The interpretation of this buildup yielded a permeability-
thickness of 3163 md.m.
Nodal Analysis of Mini-DST Results for Well B. A nodal-anal-
ysis model was created to simulate the production of the interval
tested by the four mini-DST zones. The nodal-analysis point was
placed just above Zone 1. The purpose of this model was to pre-
dict downhole oil rates in res bbl/D, independent of DST results,
by describing each of the mini-DST intervals as a pseudosteady-
state model reservoir using the outputs from the mini-DST inter-
pretations: permeability, thickness, and skin. Fluid properties for
each of the models were taken from PVT analysis of samples
obtained during the WFT sampling run. PVT quality samples
were available from the zones tested by mini-DSTs 1, 2, and 3,
Geological
layer with inter-
bedded sand &
silt -low Kv
Geological
layer with
more massive
sand unit
high Kv
XX
XX
GR Porosity Sw Core Photo Production Logs RXOI Permeability
Geological
layer with inter-
bedded sand &
silt -low Kv
Geological
layer with
more massive
sand unit
high Kv
XX
XX
GR Porosity Sw Core Photo Production Logs RXOI
Permeability Blue:NMR Perm; Red:DST Perm; Green:MiniDST Perm;
Orange:Additional permeability thickness upscaled using NMR Perm
Permeability
Fig. 14Permeability results from Well A.
TABLE 2INTERVALS ADDED USING NMR PERMEABILITY
Interval
Top of
Interval
(m)
Bottom of
Interval
(m)
Thickness
(m)
Permeability
(md)
Permeability
Thickness
(mdm)
1 XX79.4 XX81 1.6 150 240
2 XX81 XX82.5 1.5 91 137
3 XX83.5 XX85.45 2.0 120 234
4 XX87.6 XX88.5 0.9 300 270
TABLE 3COMPARISON OF PERMEABILITY-THICKNESS
AND PERMEABILITY BETWEEN MINI-DST AND DST
RESULTS IN WELL A
Upscaled Mini-DST DST
Thickness, m 15.2 16.5
Permeability Thickness, md.m 6149 6948
Average Permeability, mD 405 421
Fig. 15Pressure prole, gradients, and contacts from Well B.
306 June 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 16Sampling and uid-identication tool string featuring
a single extra-large-diameter probe.
Fig. 17Sampling and mini-DST tool string featuring straddle
packer and two probes.
0
0
1E-5
2E-5
3E-5
16200
16400
16600
2000 4000 6000
Pressure [kPa], Liquid Rate [m
3
/sec] vs [sec]
[
m
3
/
s
e
c
]
[
k
P
a
]
8000 10000 12000 14000
Fig. 18Well B mini-DST 1 history match at XX03.2 m.
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time [sec]
0.1
1
10
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
p
s
i
]
build-up #6
build-up #10 (ref)
Log-Log Plot: dp and dp' Normalized [psi] vs dt
Fig. 19Well B mini-DST 1 pressure buildup and derivative
response at XX03.2 m.
June 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 307
and exhibited similar uid properties. The zone tested by mini-
DST 4 was therefore assumed to have the same properties also.
Because of killing the well after the rst ow period, where
Zone 1 was tested, we needed to correct for the effect that well
kill had on productivity of the zone tested by mini-DST 1. The
observed PI during the ow period pre- and post-well kill was
used to reduce the productivity of the zone tested by mini-DST 1
in the nodal-analysis model.
Nodal analysis was then run to predict the inow prole
response, in terms of downhole oil rates in res bbl/D for a given

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Pressure [kPa], Liquid Rate [m
3
/sec] vs Time [sec]
[
m
3
/
s
e
c
]
[
k
P
a
]
10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
1E-5
2E-5
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Fig. 20Well B mini-DST 2 history match at XX18.5 m.
0
1E-5
2E-5
3E-5
16250
16450
16650
2000 4000 6000
Pressure [kPa], Liquid Rate [m
3
/sec] vs Time [sec]
[
m
3
/
s
e
c
]
[
k
P
a
]
8000 10000 12000 14000
Fig. 22Well B mini-DST 3 history match at XX33.0 m.
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time [sec]
0.1
1
10
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
p
s
i
]
build-up #11
build-up #12
build-up #16
build-up #17 (ref)
Log-Log Plot: dp and dp' Normalized [psi] vs dt
Fig. 23Well B mini-DST 3 pressure buildup and derivative
response at XX33.0 m.
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Pressure [kPa], Liquid Rate [m
3
/sec] vs Time [sec]
[
m
3
/
s
e
c
]
[
k
P
a
]
10000 12000 14000
1E-5
2E-5
15500
16500
Fig. 24Well B mini-DST 4 history match at XX42.0 m.
0.1
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
1 10
dt [sec]
p
-
p
@
d
t
=
0

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e

[
p
s
]
100 1000 10000 1E+5
Fig. 21Well B mini-DST 2 pressure buildup and derivative
response at XX18.5 m.
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time [sec]
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
p
s
i
]
build-up #3
build-up #5
build-up #8
build-up #9 (ref)
Log-Log Plot: dp and dp' Normalized [psi] vs dt
Fig. 25Well B mini-DST 4 pressure buildup and derivative
response at XX42.0 m.
308 June 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
owing pressure for all four zones. The analysis was then run
again deactivating Zone 3 to simulate production from Zones 1, 2,
and 4. Fig. 30 shows a schematic of the nodal-analysis model
used for both cases. Analysis results refer to the downhole oil rate
at the nodal-analysis node, just above Zone 1. The observed
downhole owing pressure and corresponding downhole oil rate
from the PLT for different choke sizes were then plotted on the re-
sultant inow-prole response from the nodal analysis models
(Figs. 31 and 32). The agreement between the predicted rates and
observed rates is very good for all the rates, except while owing
Zones 1,2, and 4 at a 36/64 choke.
The inow prole results from the nodal-analysis allow the
prediction of the total downhole oil rate resulting from the cumu-
lative contribution of the active zones at any given owing pres-
sure at the nodal-analysis point. The observed owing pressure
from the PLT for the different choke sizes was then used to pre-
dict the total downhole oil rate using the inow-prole responses
from the two nodal analyses.
An effective relative PI for each of the reservoirs modeled can
also be extracted from the reservoir models in the nodal analysis,
and hence contribution in terms of downhole oil rate can be deter-
mined. This is tabulated in Table 5.
Using the total predicted downhole oil rate and relative contri-
butions of each zone, the inow response of each zone can then
be predicted for any given owing pressure. Comparison of the
predicted oil rates and the oil rates observed during the PLT run is
tabulated in Table 6 and displayed in Fig. 33. Note that all com-
parison of downhole rates are expressed in res bbl/D.
Finally, 3
1
=
2
-in production tubing was used to simulate surface
production rates in STB/D, imposing the wellhead pressure
observed while owing all four zones, which was 28 bar. The re-
sultant total surface ow rate predicted by the nodal-analysis
model was 2,140 STB/D, compared with the observed surface liq-
uid rate of 1,859 STB/D during the DST. By imposing a downhole
owing pressure of 1905 psi, the predicted surface ow rate is
1,763 STB/D.
Comparison of Various Permeability Results From Well B.
Using the permeability-thickness obtained from the pressure-tran-
sient analysis of the DST while owing from all zones and the
zonal contributions measured during the PLT run, individual
TABLE 4RESULTS OF MINI-DST 1, 2, 3, AND 4
Zone
Top of
Interval (m)
Bottom of
Interval (m)
Position of
Probe/Packer (m)
Permeability
Thickness (md.m)
Thickness
(m)
Permeability
(md)
1 XX01.8 XX04.8 XX03.2 1224 3.00 408
2 XX18.3 XX20.4 XX18.X 338 3.10 109
3 XX32.27 XX33.1 XX33.0 178 0.83 214
4 XX41.8 XX43.2 XX42.0 826 1.40 590
History Plot (Pressure [psia], Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [hr])
R
a
t
e

[
S
T
B
/
D
]

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
p
s
i
a
]
-1970
0
1000
1800
2200
2600
-1960
FP1-clean-up
FP2-main flow period
main build up
-1950 -1940 -1930
Time [hr]
-1920 -1910 -1900
Fig. 26History match of Well B production test with only Zone
1 owing.
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10
Time [hr]
1
10
100
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
p
s
i
]
Kh =1265 mDm
Fig. 27Pressure buildup and derivative log-log analysis of
DST in Well B while owing only Zone 1.
8/19/2009 8/20/2009 8/21/2009
Pressure [psia], Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [To D]
[
p
s
i
a
]
[
S
T
B
/
D
]
0
625
1250
1000
2000
3000
8/22/2009 8/23/2009 8/24/2009 8/25/2009
Fig. 28History match for DST in Well B while owing all four
zones.
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10
Time [hr]
1
10
100
1000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
p
s
i
]
Log-Log Plot: p-p@dt=0 and Derivative [psi] vs dt [hr]
Fig. 29Pressure buildup and derivative log-log analysis of
DST in Well B while owing all four zones.
June 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 309
permeability-thicknesses (kh) can be assigned for each of the
zones. The permeability of each zone was then extracted by
assigning an effective thickness of contributing layers using petro-
physical logs and core, as was done for the mini-DSTs. The re-
sultant permeability for each of the layers was then plotted
alongside the estimated permeability from the mini-DSTs, NMR
permeability, and core permeability. There is a very good agree-
ment between the different sources of permeability, as can be
seen in Fig. 34.
Discussion
Several methods have been used in this paper to compare results
from mini-DSTs and DSTs. This section discusses the different
parameters that were compared and the uncertainty associated
with each of them.
Permeability and Permeability-Thickness. The reliability of
obtaining the permeability and permeability-thickness of reser-
voirs using mini-DSTs depends on three main factors:
The quality of the data obtained during the mini-DST is very
important in order to perform sensible interpretations, and hence
estimate reservoir parameters. Real-time monitoring and control
of the acquisition of data are critical to ensure that the data are of
sufcient quality to be useable and that the lengths of buildups are
optimized to obtain the required data without spending excessive
time on station. A good handle of the PVT properties of the for-
mation uid is also critical. Sufcient formation uid should be
owed such that the buildups used for pressure-transient-analysis
is sensing predominantly formation uid, hence negating any ra-
dial viscosity variation. The assumption that the viscosity of the
uid affecting the pressure-transient response is the same as vis-
cosity measured in the PVT laboratory at in-situ conditions is rea-
sonable if the uid being owed is mainly formation uid.
Estimation of the ow thickness being sensed by the WFT
device is key to assigning permeability and permeability-thick-
nesses to individual ow units. This is not trivial, and inspection
of all data available is required to be able to reduce this uncer-
tainty. Some of the data that are commonly used to estimate this
include petrophysical logs, core photographs, and mud logs.
Adequate coverage across the reservoir is required to accu-
rately describe permeability and permeability-thicknesses of the
reservoirs being investigated. In situations where K
v
/K
h
is very
low for example, in highly laminated sands, the straddle-packer is
required to test several interval across the laminated sand, and the
total permeability-thickness across the laminated sand must be
upscaled with the aid of calibrated continuous permeability
Inflow Profile at Nodal Analysis Point - Production From
3 Zones
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Downhole Oil Rate (bbl/day)
F
l
o
w
i
n
g

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
MiniDST Composite
PLT 36/64 Choke
PLT 28/64 Choke
PLT 20/64 Choke
PLT Shut In
Fig. 31Comparison of predicted cumulative production from
nodal-analysis based on mini-DST results with observed down-
hole oil rate and owing pressures from the PLT while owing
the well from three zones.
Nodal Analysis model for
production from Zones 1,
2 and 4
Nodal Analysis model for
production from all four
zones
Nodal Analysis model for
production from Zones 1,
2 and 4
Nodal Analysis model for
production from all four
zones
Fig. 30Nodal-analysis models to predict production from all
four zones, and selectively from only 3 zones based on mini-
DSTresults.
Inflow Profile at Nodal Analysis Point - Production From
all 4 Zones
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Downhole Oil Rate (bbl/day)
F
l
o
w
i
n
g


P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
)
MiniDST Composite
PLT 36/64 Choke
PLT Shut In
Fig. 32Comparison of predicted cumulative production from
Nodal analysis based on mini-DST results with observed down-
hole oil rate and owing pressures from the PLT while owing
the well from all four zones.
TABLE 5RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF EACH ZONE
FROMMINI-DST RESULTS
Relative PI
(bbl/D/psi)
Zones 1, 2,
and 4
All
Zones
MiniDST1 1.38 41% 38%
MiniDST2 0.62 19% 17%
MiniDST3 0.35 - 10%
MiniDST4 1.33 40% 36%
310 June 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
curves, such as NMR permeability. In stacked reservoirs, in order
to sensibly compare mini-DST results with DST results, sufcient
coverage of the individual packages is necessary.
Downhole and Surface Flow Rates. Assuming the permeability
and thickness of a particular ow unit are known, the largest
uncertainty associated with predicting downhole ow rates from
that ow unit is the effective skin. Generally, the model used in
pressure-transient analysis of mini-DST data is a limited-entry
model where the actual ow thickness, h, of the ow unit being
sensed is a few times that of the thickness of the inow interval,
hw (Fig. 35). This usually results in a skin that is higher than
would be expected in open hole. Conversely, skin effects
observed during a DST are affected by mechanical skin intro-
duced by the perforations and completion string. Correcting for
either of these would be introducing additional variables, and
hence the data presented in this paper have used the skin (hw)
taken from mini-DST results as a direct input to the pseudos-
teady-state reservoir models used in the nodal analysis. The agree-
ment between downhole ow rates predicted by the mini-DST
results and that observed during the DST suggest that this assump-
tion yields results that are within the acceptable range of error.
Generating a composite inow-prole response for selected
zones using mini-DST results allows prediction of total downhole
ow rates at any given owing pressure at the nodal-analysis
point. Predicting surface ow rates introduce additional varia-
blesnamely, the lift behavior of the uid being produced and
effects of the completion string modeled. Because these parame-
ters are highly uncertain, it is recommended that predicted sur-
face-ow-rate results be treated with caution, and be used only
indicatively. Although there are methods available in the industry
to do so, accurate modeling of the lift behavior and completion
effects is not covered in this paper.
Conclusions
The use of WFT tool to describe the uid and pressure distribu-
tion in a reservoir as well as to collect uid samples is by now
well established and accepted by industry.
Although the use of wireline formation testers to describe the
productivity of wells is becoming more commonplace, compari-
sons between WFT and conventional DSTs for the purpose of
productivity assessment are relatively few and recent. In homo-
geneous clastic reservoirs, such as the two examples presented in
this paper, the position of the sampling device radially (for
example a single probe) is irrelevant because the ow regime
eventually develops radially, and is bounded by the vertical bar-
riers of the ow unit. It has been shown that the responses of a
dual packer and single probe in these environments are similar.
Care should be taken, however, when attempting to interpret
pressure-transient-analysis responses in heterogeneous forma-
tions, such as carbonates. The position of the probe may affect
the response because of radial heterogeneity.
Describing the permeability of individual zones can be
achieved reliably using WFT.
TABLE 6COMPARISON OF PREDICTED DOWNHOLE OIL RATES FROMTHE MINI-DSTS AND
RATES OBSERVED DURING THE PLT RUN
Downhole Oil Rate Contribution (bbl/D)
36/34 Choke 3 zones 28/64 Choke 3 zones 36/64 Choke 4 zones
1,844 psi 1,986 psi 1,905 psi
Flowing
Pressure at NA MiniDST DST MiniDST DST MiniDST DST
Mini-DST1 912 667 679 501 811 38% 725 36%
Mini-DST2 410 475 305 325 364 17% 380 19%
Mini-DST3 - - - - 206 10% 233 11%
Mini-DST4 879 811 654 777 782 36% 687 34%
Total 2200 1953 1637 1604 2163 - 2026 -
PIPESIM Project:
0
0
200
400
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,200
2,400
600
800
1,000 2,000 3,000
Stock-tank Liquid at NA point (STB/d)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
t

N
A

P
o
i
n
t

(
p
s
i
a
)
Pressure at NA Point :: Inflow: Inflow = : Y = 1807.091 : X = 2140.681
4,000
Inflow: Inflow= Outflow: Outflow=
5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
Fig. 33Predicted surface ow rates from all four zones using nodal analysis by using a standard production tubing and imposing
a wellhead pressure of 28 bar.
June 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 311
It is important that sufcient formation uid is owed during a
mini-DST station to negate effects of viscosity changes to the
pressure buildup and derivative response.
Upscaling of mini-DST results can be achieved using continu-
ous permeability responses, such as NMR permeability.
WFT cannot replace conventional well tests if the objective of
the test is to examine reservoir boundaries or to take large vol-
ume samples.
WFT results can be used to construct a composite inow prole
response by selectively including individual zones.
The relative production of each zone can be accurately described
and downhole ow rates can be estimated using WFT.
Absolute downhole ow rate prediction carries a larger error
with it owing to uncertainty of skin.
Nomenclature
h thickness of owing unit
h
w
thickness of inow interval
K
h
horizontal permeability, md
K
v
vertical permeability, md
K
v
/K
h
permeability anisotropy
References
Bourdet, D.L., Whittle, T.M., Douglas, A.A., and Pirard, Y.M. 1983. A
new set of type curves simplies well test analysis. World Oil 196 (6):
95106.
Elshahawi, H., Hite, R.H., and Hows, M.P. 2008. The State of Optimum
Value TestingThe Vision and the Reality. Paper IPTC 12075 pre-
sented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, 35 December. http://dx.doi.org/10.2523/12075-MS.
Whittle, T.M., Lee, J., and Gringarten, A.C. 2003. Will Wireline Forma-
tion Tests Replace Well Tests? Paper SPE 84086 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 58 October.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84086-MS.
Shyam Ramaswami is a Petrophysicist with the Fluid Evaluation
and Sampling Technologies (FEAST) team in Shell based in the
Netherlands, advising on Shell operations worldwide, particu-
larly in the exploration and appraisal domain. His current role
focuses on the integration of fluid data across disciplines,
incorporating advanced mud gas, petrophysical logs, wireline
formation testing, well testing, production logging, and fluid
analysis. He also works on field-development studies and is an
experienced operations petrophysicist. Before joining Shell in
2009, Shyam worked with Schlumberger Wireline for 7 years in
MiniDST
3 zones
Predicted
DST
3 zones
Measured
MiniDST
4 zones
Predicted
DST
4 zones
Measured
Permeability Porosity Sw GR
XX
XX
MiniDST
3 zones
Predicted
DST
3 zones
Measured
MiniDST
4 zones
Predicted
DST
4 zones
Measured
Permeability Porosity Sw GR
XX
XX
Fig. 34Comparison of predicted inow prole from mini-DST results compared to prole of measured downhole rates during
DST ow periods.
h
w
h
Z
w
Fig. 35Schematic of the limited-entry model used for pres-
sure-transient analysis of mini-DST stations.
312 June 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
the field and in operations management. He holds an MEng
degree in aeronautical engineering from the University of Bristol.
Hani Elshahawi is currently a Deepwater Technology Advisor
for Shell. Previously, he led FEAST, responsible for the planning,
execution, and analysis of formation testing and fluid-sam-
pling operations. email: Elshahawi@gmail.com. He has over 25
years of oil industry experience with both service and operat-
ing companies in more than 10 countries around the world. He
has held various positions in interpretation, consulting, opera-
tions, marketing, and technology development. He holds
several patents and has authored over 100 technical papers
in various areas of petroleum engineering and the geoscien-
ces. Elshahawi has been active with the SPE and the
SPWLA. He is a former Distinguished Lecturer for both SPE and
SPWLA.
Ahmed El Battawy is a Principal Reservoir Engineer with
Schlumberger based in Kazakhstan. He started his career in
the oil industry with Schlumberger in 1993 as a Wireline Field
Engineer, with assignments in Libya, Kazakhstan, and Equato-
rial Guinea. He later continued his career with Schlumberger
Data and Consulting Services. His roles included production
enhancement in Indonesia, reservoir simulation in Azerbaijan
and Turkmenistan, and then, since 2004, supporting wireline
operations as the reservoir domain champion in the Caspian
region. El Battawy holds an MSc degree in petroleum engi-
neering from Heriot-Watt University.
June 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 313