TECHNOLOGY FOCUS

Well Testing

Often, the trial-and-error method is viewed as an imperfect surrogate for system- Renzo Angeles, SPE, is an Engineering
atic scientific research. Yet, great advances never would have taken place without Specialist with ExxonMobil Upstream
such an approach. Take shale gas, for example. Despite scarce research conducted Research Company. He has 11 years
by only a few companies, shale-gas plays have undergone massive development of petroleum engineering experience, 3
and have progressed techniques (e.g., horizontal drilling and multistage fractur-
ing) that enabled resources unavailable less than a decade ago. According to a US years as a field engineer for Schlumberger.
Department of Energy report, US shale-gas production is expected to increase from Angeles has conducted and received
1.4 Tcf in 2007 to 4.8 Tcf in 2020. That same year, 64% of the total US gas produc- training in Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, the
tion will come from unconventional gas. USA, Norway, and Canada. Currently,
Well testing is no exception. Although transient-linear-fluid-flow and dual- he works with the subsurface-technology
porosity concepts for fractured horizontal wells have been available for many years,
division supporting ExxonMobils global
painstaking trial and error has been the key to accommodating such extremely-
low-permeability ranges in current prefracture- and post-fracture-well-test designs. exploration, development, and produc-
Similarly, many if not all operators have diligently re-evaluated their appraisal tion affiliates. Angeles areas of interest
programs in an effort to collect data needed for critical parameters (e.g., gas-in- include well testing, formation testing,
place and initial pressure) in a cost-effective manner while accounting for varying near-wellbore modeling, petrophysics,
relationships between matrix and natural- and hydraulic-fracture networks. and subsurface engineering. He holds
It is undeniable that trial and error should not be used to replace the rigor and
thoroughness of systematic scientific research. However, the expanded range of MS and PhD degrees in petroleum engi-
environments that we encounter (from unconventional, to multilayered, to high- neering from the University of Texas
pressure/high-temperature reservoirs) requires rapid learning and adaptation, and, at Austin. Angeles serves on the JPT
therefore, experimentation. The papers selected for this issue are clear examples of Editorial Committee.
best-in-class knowledge development in well testing through first principles and an
old familiar approachtrial and error. JPT

Well Testing additional reading

available at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org

IPTC 13912 A Novel Analysis Procedure for Estimating Thickness-

Independent Horizontal and Vertical Permeabilities From Pressure Data at
an Observation Probe Acquired by Packer/Probe Wireline Formation Testers
by M. Onur, Istanbul Technical University, et al. (See JPT, September 2010,
page 56.)

SPE 134534 Practical Use of Well-Test Deconvolution by A.C. Gringarten,

SPE, Imperial College, London.

SPE 131675 Pressure-Falloff-Test Interpretation for Leakage Detection

During CO2 Injection in a Deep Saline Aquifer by C.A. Ehlig-Economides,
Texas A&M University, et al.

68 JPT FEBRUARY 2011

WELL TESTING
Best Practices in Testing and Analyzing Multilayer Reservoirs
Layered formations are the norm
rather than the exception among oil
and gas reservoirs. Knowing individ-
ual-layer properties is important for
development strategies, especially for
secondary recovery. A set of best prac-
tices was established in the design,
execution, and analysis of multilayer
pressure-transient tests in the Tengiz
oil field in western Kazakhstan. Use
of multilayer testing and analysis
techniques provided a lower level of
uncertainty in layered-reservoir char-
acterization than can be obtained
with a simpler commingled-pressure-
transient test alone.
Introduction
Formations in the platform area of
Tengiz consist of multiple zones
with different reservoir pressures.
Therefore, crossflow often occurs dur-
ing shut-in periods. In some cases, the
effect from different layer pressures
and skin distributions could result in
100% difference in individual-layer
permeability estimations. To reduce
uncertainty, the selective-inflow-per-
formance (SIP) production-logging
technique is used to measure the
bottomhole pressures and flow con-
tributions of individual layers dur-
ing a commingled-pressure-transient
test. Pulsed-neutron-capture (PNC)
logs are used to gain information
This article, written by Senior Technol-
ogy Editor Dennis Denney, contains
highlights of paper SPE 132596, Best
Practices in Testing and Analyzing
Multilayer Reservoirs, by Yan Pan,
SPE, Chevron Energy Technology Com-
pany, and Michael Sullivan and
David Belanger, SPE, Tengizchevroil,
prepared for the 2010 SPE Western
Regional Meeting, Anaheim, California,
2729 May. The paper has not been
peer reviewed.
For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.
JPT FEBRUARY 2011
about stimulation effectiveness (skin)
in each zone. Then, a robust step-
by-step analysis method that uses
all data and information is applied
to obtain individual-layer proper-
ties. The best practices for use of
this methodology and the associated
uncertainty are detailed in the full-
length paper.
The challenge in characterizing lay-
ered reservoirs is the large number of
unknown parameters. The approach
described in the paper resolves
enough of these unknowns in a sys-
tematic fashion for a more direct solu-
tion to be obtained, with a resulting
lower uncertainty.
Tengiz Field
The central platform of the Tengiz
carbonate reservoir is dominated by
matrix porosity. The surrounding rim
and flank regions exhibit evidence
of fracture networks. Three major
zones contribute to oil production.
The upper reservoir units have been
produced for a longer period of time
and, therefore, are more depleted.
All Tengiz wells are essentially ver-
tical and are producing single-phase
oil with flowing bottomhole pressure
above the bubblepoint, which pro-
vides good conditions for production-
log profiling. Because most wells pro-
duce no water, the connate water has
low salinity, and irreducible water
saturation is approximately 10%, ele-
vated chlorine-concentration levels
remained in the near-wellbore region
of the formation after acid stimulation,
which increased the chance for a PNC
log to detect acid effects.
Sour-gas injection for miscible
flooding began in late 2007 in the
central-platform area. Understanding
individual-zone formation properties
was important in the success of the
hydrocarbon-miscible flood.
Multilayer-Testing Procedure
The production-logging tool (PLT)
contains gauges that measure the flow
profile and bottomhole pressure simul-
taneously. The procedure for testing a
two-zone reservoir includes the follow-
ing steps.
1. Shut in the well at least 2 days
before PLT runs are made to stabi-
lize crossflow during the initial build-
up. Then, shut-in PLT passes are run
upward and downward to measure the
stabilized shut-in flow profile and
bottomhole pressure.
2. Place the tool above the top layers
perforations, open the well to flow to
reach a constant rate (first low-flow
rate), and collect bottomhole-pressure
data until infinite-acting radial flow
(IARF) is observed on a pressure-tran-
sient log-log graph (usually 4 to 6
hours). At the end of this drawdown,
record the first set of flowing-period
upward and downward passes to col-
lect layer-flow-contribution data.
3. Station the tool above the bot-
tom layer. Increase the choke size to
flow at a higher constant rate. Record
the drawdown pressure until IARF is
observed on the transient-diagnosis
log-log graph. Then, run the second set
of flowing-period passes.
4. Keep the tool at the same posi-
tion as for Step 3 where crossflow
occurs. Shut the well in, and collect
the final buildup-pressure data. At the
end of buildup, record one shut-in
upward and downward pass with the
PLT across the entire testing interval.
5. Pull the tool out of hole and rig
down.
The bottomhole pressures measured
at the end of each stabilized shut-in and
flow period at different tool positions
(Steps 1 thorugh 4) are used to estimate
the initial pressures of the layers by
applying the SIP technique. The qual-
ity of the layer-pressure estimations
69

Faculty Positions
Texas A&M University
Harold Vance Department of Petroleum
Engineering
The Harold Vance Department of Petroleum
Engineering at Texas A&M University invites
applications for faculty positions at the assistant,
associate and full professor level at the College
Station campus and for faculty positions in our
Doha Qatar campus.
Successful candidates are expected to have a
strong commitment to teaching excellence at the
under-graduate and graduate levels, and a
demonstrated research capability that will enable
the candidate to develop an externally funded,
independent research program and publish in
leading scholarly journals. These new faculty
will also be expected to not only teach, but also
participate in departmental and college service
efforts, to be active in the profession, to
supervise and mentor students, and to interact
with current faculty. Applicants will be
evaluated based on current credentials as well as
potential for future impact.
We invite applicants from all areas of
specialization in Petroleum Engineering.
The Harold Vance Department of Petroleum
Engineering is a leading petroleum engineering
department in the US and is well known in the
international oil and gas community. The
Department has 37 faculty members in College
Station and 8 at our campus in Doha, Qatar. We
have 630 undergraduates and 338 graduate
students in College Station. In Doha, we have
128 undergraduates. The department also has a
rapidly expanding research program, with over
$7 million in annual external funding from a
wide range of governmental and industry
sources. As part of the Dwight Look College of
Engineering, the largest engineering program in
the US, the Department is well positioned to
maintain its leadership position in the coming
years. More information about the department
can be viewed at www.pe.tamu.edu.
Applicants must have an earned doctorate in
petroleum engineering or a closely related field.
To apply, submit a detailed resume; a brief
statement of interests that includes vision for
research and teaching; and the names, addresses,
telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of at
least three references. Applicants will be
considered until the positions are filled. Texas
A&M University is responsive to the needs of
dual career couples. Texas A&M University is
an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity
Employer. The university is dedicated to the goal
of building a culturally diverse and pluralistic
faculty and staff committed to teaching and
working in a multicultural environment and
strongly encourages applications from women,
minorities, individuals with disabilities, and
covered veterans. Employer paid advertisement.
To apply for a position at the College Station
campus, please submit your application to:
Dr. Mike King
Chair, Faculty Search Committee
Texas A&M University
Harold Vance Department of Petroleum
Engineering
3116 TAMU
College Station, TX 77843-3116
(979) 845-1488
mike.king@pe.tamu.edu
70
depends on the stability of measured
pressures. If the pass-to-pass pressures
agree during shut-in and flowing sur-
veys, there is confidence in the result-
ing SIP pressures. For some newly
drilled wells, the layer-pressure-calcu-
lation results from SIP were bench-
marked against concurrent measured
reservoir pressures, and were deter-
mined to be fairly consistent. However,
because the calculated layer pressures
used in later pressure-transient analysis
were not direct measurements, uncer-
tainty remained and must be evaluated.
The flowing-period passes during
Steps 2 and 3 provide the layer-flow-
contribution data. The downhole well
pressure is measured throughout the
entire test duration. All these data are
used for transient analysis to obtain
individual-layer properties.
Multilayer-Transient-Analysis
Workflow
Data Preparation.
1. Apply the SIP technique to cal-
culate layer pressures using stabilized
pressures measured at different depths
during shut-in and flowing passes at
different rates.
2. Use the hydrostatic gradient to
convert all SIP layer pressures, pj , at
different depths to the same gauge
depth at which the bottomhole pres-
sures were collected during the tran-
sient test.
3. On the basis of the PLT layer-
flow contribution, calculate the sand-
face layer rates, qj , during shut-in and
flowing surveys. Usually, a negative
rate value is used for flow into the
formation. At any time, the total rates
and layer rates should be consistent
under the same conditions (surface
or sandface).
4. Enter the pertinent reservoir and
well parameters (well radius, total net
pay of each layer, average formation
porosity, and fluid pressure/volume/
temperature properties) into pressure-
transient-analysis software.
5. Check pressure-data quality, and
select the best gauge. Then, combine
pressure data collected from different
stations and convert them to the same
reference depth.
6. Import the total surface rates after
the first shut-in survey into the pres-
sure-transient-analysis software. The
rate history before the first shut-in sur-
vey is not required for analysis because
the layer pressures at that time have
been obtained by use of the SIP tech-
nique and will be used as initial layer
pressures. However, there is uncer-
tainty resulting from the accuracy of
the layer-pressure calculation.
Single-Layer Analysis. Perform before
multilayer analysis.
1. Extract the pressure derivative
from the final buildup-pressure data to
create the log-log diagnosis graph.
2. According to the transient sig-
nature on the log-log graph, select
the appropriate well, reservoir, and
boundary models. Selecting the sim-
plest model to match the data is rec-
ommended unless specific information
supports a complex model.
3. By matching the pressure and
pressure-derivative curves, obtain esti-
mates of the initial total permeabili-
ty-thickness product, (kh)0; average
skin; and reservoir pressure, p0. These
estimates will be used as reference for
multilayer analysis.
Multilayer Analysis.
Data Input.
1. Enter the layer information, such
as the number of layers and individual-
layer net pay.
2. Enter the stabilized sandface (or
surface) layer-flow rates during all
surveys.
First Estimates.
1. Select the same well/reservoir/
boundary models as used in the single-
layer analysis for each layer.
2. Set individual-layer pressures to pj ,
which were obtained from the SIP tech-
nique and converted to gauge depth.
3. Calculate individual-layer-kh [i.e.,
(kh)j] percentage using pj , qj during
shut-in survey, and the p0 obtained
from single-layer analysis.
4. Use the (kh)0 estimated from sin-
gle-layer analysis and the (kh)j percent-
age to calculate the individual-layer-kh
value, (kh)j0, and then the initial layer
permeability, kj0.
5. Set each layers skin value equal to
the total average skin value obtained
from single-layer analysis.
6. Generate the model response
using these first estimates and the well-
bore-storage coefficient obtained from
single-layer analysis.
The calculated pressures should
be close to the gauge measurements.
However, the simulated layer rates
could be quite different from the values
obtained from PLT measurements.
JPT FEBRUARY 2011
 Adjustment Based on Shut-in Survey.
Keep the same (kh)0 value.
7. Adjust the (kh)j percentage and
the corresponding layer permeability
to match the layer rates during the
first shut-in survey. Use the same well/
reservoir/boundary models as used in
the single-layer analysis for all the
layers.
Adjustment Based on Flowing
Passes. Keep the same (kh)0 value; and
keep the (kh)0-weighted skin value,
(kh)sj /(kh)j, approximately equal to
the average skin value estimated from
single-layer analysis.
8. Adjust the layer skin value
to match layer rates during flowing
survey(s).
9. Adjust the (kh)j percentage and
the corresponding layer permeability
slightly to rematch layer rates during
the first shut-in survey.
10. Repeat Steps 8 and 9 to match
layer rates during the first shut-in and
flowing surveys.
Adjustment Based on Well Bottom-
hole Pressure at the Time of Final
Shut-In.
11. Keep the same (kh)j percent-
age obtained in Step 10, and adjust
the (kh)0 slightly until the pressure
and pressure-derivative curves align
at the beginning of the final buildup
in the log-log graph [increasing (kh)0
will separate the two curves more;
decreasing (kh)0 will bring the two
curves closer].
12. Keep the same layer skin ratio,
(kh)sj /(kh)sj, obtained in Step 10, and
adjust each layer skin value accord-
ingly to align the pressure and pres-
sure-derivative curves at the beginning
of the final buildup (increasing total
skin will bring the two curves closer;
decreasing total skin will separate the
two curves more).
13. Repeat Steps 11 and 12 until
the pressure and pressure-derivative
curves match throughout the final
buildup.
Layer-Skin Distribution
For layered reservoirs, the skin dis-
tribution has high uncertainty. The
typical range of skin factors in Tengiz
is 5 to 20, which could result in
an order-of-magnitude difference in
layer-permeability estimation because
permeability and skin value corre-
late strongly.
When wells are completed initially
and stimulated with several reciproca-
JPT FEBRUARY 2011
tions of a coiled-tubing acid wash, the
stimulation effects are somewhat even Tomax Anti-Stall Technology
throughout the interval. Under such (AST) eliminates motor stalls and
ideal circumstances, it is reasonable to provides a significant reduction in
assume uniform distribution of skin at downhole vibration in coiled tubing
different producing zones. However, if operations. Secondary effects are
a workover was performed on a well less fatigue cycles on the coil and
and the well was killed, making the faster rate of penetration.
assumption that all intervals have the
same skin factor is questionable when Use of AST in combination with
the depth of mud invasion may be dif-
mud motor on coiled tubing is
ferent for various reasons.
established as best practice with
One way to determine information
several major oilfield operators.
about skin distribution is to assess
Other main areas of use are rotary
the effectiveness of acid stimulation.
drilling for exploration, long reach
Most wells in Tengiz receive either
wells and under-reaming while
acid washes or bullhead diverted treat-
drilling.
ments. Use of PNC logs to detect
elevated chlorine-concentration levels
in formation near the wellbore caused
by acid stimulation provides the rela- For examples and field
tive scale of zonal skin factors. reports (from around
370 jobs completed
Discussion worldwide) visit our
Multilayer systems involve more anti-stall website:
unknown reservoir parameters than a www.anti-stall.com
single-layer problem does. With only
the pressure obtained during a com-
mingled well test, the uncertainty in The AST tool is
transient analysis is high. Collecting made-up above
more data, such as layer flow contri- the motor and
butions from production logs, layer any steering
tools.
pressures by use of the SIP technique,
and acid effects detected by PNC
logs, makes it possible to estimate
individual-layer properties better and
to reduce the uncertainty in multi-
layer analysis.
However, as with any reservoir-
engineering problem, the pressure-
transient-analysis solution is not
unique. Obtaining one solution with
a good match of all types of data does
not mean that other possible solu-
tions do not exist. It is recommended
to always use the simplest model
unless there is specific information
to support a more complex situation.
Engineering judgment must be used
when conditions differ.
Blind use of nonlinear regression
on all unknown parameters in a mul-
tilayer system to search for a solu-
tion is not recommended because
the algorithm is a simple mathemati-
cal optimization procedure without
basis in physics. It may give unreal-
istic answers. Use of knowledge of
the well and reservoir, and applying
transient-analysis techniques listed in
this workflow on all the data, leads to
reasonable solutions. JPT www.anti-stall.com
See us at stand 210 in Amsterdam
71
WELL TESTING
Applying Linear-Flow Analysis to
Shale-Gas WellsField Cases
Tight gas wells behave as if controlled
by transient linear flow. The half-
slope on a type curve indicates this
behavior, which enables determining
certain reservoir parameters. Linear-
flow behavior has been observed in
shale-gas wells also, but these wells
tend to exhibit a significant skin effect
that is less common in tight gas wells.
This skin effect can mask early linear
behavior but may be accounted for with
a modified equation.
Introduction
Shale-gas reservoirs are being developed
with horizontal wells and multistage
fracturing. These wells produce in a
transient-linear-flow manner, and, in
some cases, this flow regime could last
for years and might be the only flow
regime available for analysis. A half-slope
on the log-log graph of gas rate vs. time
or a straight line on the square-root-of-
time graph characterizes this behavior.
Fig. 1 shows an example of a shale-gas
well in transient linear flow for more
than 2 years.
The approach used in this study was
to assume that linear-transient-flow
drainage out of matrix blocks controls
production. However, unlike tight gas
wells, shale-gas wells tend to exhibit a
significant skin effect, which masks the
early linear behavior and which must be
accounted for with a modified equation.
This article, written by Senior Tech-
nology Editor Dennis Denney, con-
tains highlights of paper SPE 130370,
Application of Linear-Flow Analysis
to Shale-Gas WellsField Cases, by
Hasan A. Al-Ahmadi, SPE, Anas
M. Almarzooq, SPE, and R.A.
Wattenbarger, SPE, Texas A&M Uni-
versity, prepared for the 2010 SPE
Unconventional Gas Conference, Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, 2325 February.
The paper has not been peer reviewed.
For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.
72
Gas adsorption is not accounted for in
this model because most of the data are
in the transient-flow regime in which
gas-desorption effects are negligible.
Occurrence of Linear Flow
Fig. 1 shows a log-log graph and a
square-root-of-time graph for daily pro-
duction from Well 114. Transient linear
flow is shown as a half-slope on the log-
log graph and as a straight line on the
square-root-of-time graph. However,
the early part of these curves, before
200 days, does not seem to represent
transient linear flow. In earlier work, it
was thought that the early departures
from a half-slope might represent bilin-
ear flow in a dual-porosity reservoir. A
more-plausible explanation and analysis
were determined with this study.
Dual-Porosity Linear-Flow Model
An ideal shale-gas well would produce
from a rectangular dual-porosity reser-
voira system of fractures with matrix
blocks flowing into the fractures, with
the reservoir not extending beyond the
fracture system. Thus, this system is a
linear dual-porosity system, and solu-
tions have been presented as Laplace-
domain solutions.
Two conceptual models are shown in
Fig. 2. They are equivalent in the sense
that they both represent dual-porosity
linear systems. Model 1 is a linear,
dual-porosity transient-slab model.
The dominant fracture system in Model
1 is hydraulic fractures emanating from
equally spaced perforation clusters in the
wellbore. The matrix blocks in Model 1
are treated as homogeneous, although
they may contain natural fractures. The
main calculation advantage of Model
1 is knowledge of fracture spacing, L1,
because it depends on the perforation-
cluster spacing.
Model 2 is a linear, dual-porosity
transient-cube model. In this model,
hydraulic fractures enhance the conduc-
tivity of a natural-fracture system, which
is a network of fractures. The calculation
disadvantage of Model 2 is that the frac-
ture spacing, L2, generally is unknown.
Whether Model 1 or Model 2 is more
appropriate for analysis purposes may
depend on the analysts preference. It
may be worthwhile to compare results
from both models. It may be the case that
one model may be more appropriate than
the other model in a particular reservoir
or for a particular completion technique.
As Fig. 3 shows, the solution for
this linear, dual-porosity model identi-
fies flow regions that a horizontal well
may exhibit throughout its production
life. Region 4, transient linear drainage
from the matrix blocks to the fractures,
is the dominant flow regime for most
shale-gas wells in early years.
Linear-Flow Period, Region 4
Because the hydraulic fractures have
very high conductivity, the duration of
transient flow through these fractures
(Regions 1 and 2) usually is very short
and may end in less than 1 day. Therefore,
well performance can be analyzed effec-
tively by considering the transient linear
drainage from the homogeneous matrix
blocks into the fractures (i.e., Region-4
flow). See the full-length paper for details
and examples of the calculations.
Field Applications
The plotting and calculation method
was applied to several shale-gas wells. In
many wells, the flow behavior appeared
to match patterns described in this
paper and the calculation results seemed
reasonable. However, several wells did
not fit the pattern very well. The main
reasons for these wells not conforming
were production interruptions, recom-
pletions, liquid loading at lower rates,
and interference from nearby well-frac-
turing treatments and production.
JPT FEBRUARY 2011
 Well 114 Well 114

[m(p)m(pwf)]/qg , psi2/cp(Mscf/D)
10,000 2.0E+6
Slope=1/2 1.8E+6
1.6E+6
1,000
Gas Rate, Mscf/D

1.4E+6
1.2E+6
100 1.0E+6
8.0E+5
6.0E+5
10
4.0E+5
2.0E+5
1 0.0E+0
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time, days Time1/2, days1/2
Fig. 1On the left, a log-log graph of field production data shows a half-slope line indicating linear flow
after approximately 200 days. On the right, the corresponding square-root-of-time graph shows a straight line
indicating linear flow after approximately 200 days.
Discussion
Hydraulic- Approximately 400 shale-gas wells
Hydraulic Unknown were analyzed, and most exhibited
Fracture Natural-Fracture
Fractures L2
Spacing L1 Network clear Region-4 behavior. They did not
show early linear and bilinear flow
(Regions 1 and 2) because of the high
Fracture Half-Length

fracture conductivity, which resulted

in a very short fracture-transient-flow
Matrix time. Calculations that seemed to be
Matrix valid were made on many of these
wells. Other wells could not be ana-
lyzed because of various problems.
Most of the wells exhibited significant
skin effect. Although this mathematical
Horizontal Well Horizontal Well treatment was for a constant skin effect,
it is believed that this early behavior is
Drainage-Area Length Drainage-Area Length caused by water in the fractures after
the fracturing treatment. Eq. 6 in the
Fig. 2Model 1, left, uses hydraulic-fracture spacing for the slab-matrix full-length paper seems to fit the early
size. Model 2, right, is characterized as natural fractures enhanced by behavior if the first few days are ignored.
the hydraulic-fracturing process. This method helps confirm that transient
linear flow (Region 4) from the matrix
E+01 blocks occurred rather than bilinear flow.
=103 (=103) The primary advantage of Model 1 was
E+00 =105 (=103) that fracture spacing was known from
=1010 (=103) completion data. For either method,
E01
=10 3 Region 2 there are two ways to calculate origi-
E02 =1
0 5
nal-gas-in-place (OGIP) values if the
Region 1
= end of transient flow is observed. This
10
10
advantage may enable adjusting assumed
qDL

E03
parameter values to obtain agreement
E04 between two different OGIP values.
E05
Region 4 Conclusions
E06 A calculation procedure has been pre-
Region 5
sented to aid analysis of shale-gas-well
E07 performance. The procedure is based
E06

E05

E04

E03

E02

E01

E+00

E+01

E+02

E+03

E+04

E+05

E+06

E+07

E+08

E+09

E+10

on two possible models of a wells frac-

ture pattern, and it uses analytical solu-
tDAcw tions for dual-porosity linear flow. This
procedure may be helpful in the early
Fig. 3Flow regions for linear, dual-porosity reservoir. The dashed lines years of a wells performance, but other
show half-slope of Region 4 for the three values of , while only two
curves developed Region 2 quarter-slope. =dimensionless interpo-
methods might be more appropriate
rosity parameter, =dimensionless storativity ratio, qDL=dimensionless and more accurate at later times in the
rate, tDAcw=dimensionless time. life of a shale-gas well. JPT

74 JPT FEBRUARY 2011

 World-Class
Coating Solutions
Rhino Linings Industrial Division has over 20 years of experience
manufacturing and applying high quality coatings that are
formulated to provide consistent performance and protection
against abrasion, corrosion and cathodic disbondment. Our products
meet the most rigorous standards. Whether the job calls for superior
chemical resistance, an impermeable barrier against moisture and long term
protection from corrosion, rest assured there is a Rhino solution for you.

Polyurethane, Polyurea, Polyaspartic and Epoxy Products

The Rhino family of tough, 100% solids* (zero or low VOC) coatings is
environmentally friendly and easy-to-apply in a single coat, multi-pass application.
Our diverse products include formulations that are fast set or have extended
work times and products that can be used on grit blasted steel with and
without primers. That means you can choose to get your tough jobs
done on time and on budget.

Call Rhino Industrial today!

1-877-509-4603
email: rli@RhinoLinings.com
www.RhinoLiningsIndustrial.com

For information on becoming a Rhino Industrial Applicator call: in the USA 877-509-4603, in Europe, Africa and
Middle East: +49 6103 936474, in Latin America: 1-858-450-0441 ext. 6021, in Australasia: +61 7 5585 7000
*All Rhino urethanes are 100% solids. Some epoxy and polyaspartic products may contain less than 100% solids. All businesses independently owned and
operated. 2010 Rhino Linings Corporation. All rights reserved. JPT 1010 5865
WELL TESTING
Well-Testing Operations in High-Temperature
EnvironmentsWorldwide Experiences and Best Practices
Wells with bottomhole temperatures in
excess of 300F are classified as high-
temperature (HT) wells. Many offshore
developments with these conditions
offer large hydrocarbon reservoirs. All,
however, have presented significant
challenges in terms of operational
planning, equipment, engineering
design, and job execution with respect
to HT-well testing. Different reservoir
scenarios required changes in proce-
dures, equipment configuration, and
safety requirements. All jobs had to
consider environmental criteria in addi-
tion to the operators testing policies.
Introduction
Traditionally, well testing is a reliable
dynamic method to acquire a variety of
information from the reservoir, includ-
ing permeability, formation damage,
bottomhole pressure and temperature,
fluid samples, and production quan-
tification. Over time, methods and
equipment have evolved, expanding
well-test capabilities to different sce-
narios and adapting to more-demand-
ing environmental and safety con-
straints. In recent years, high-pressure/
high-temperature (HP/HT) wells have
become more common. Documented
This article, written by Senior Tech-
nology Editor Dennis Denney, con-
tains highlights of paper OTC 21060,
Challenging Well-Testing Operations
in High-Temperature Environments
Worldwide Experiences and Best
Practices Learned, by Alejandro
Salguero, SPE, Edgar Almanza, and
Josmar Haddad, SPE, Halliburton
Energy Services, prepared for the 2010
Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, 36 May. The paper has not
been peer reviewed.
Copyright 2010 Offshore Technology
Conference. Reproduced by permission.
The full-length paper is available for purchase at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org.
76
30,000
25,000
20,000
Pressure, psi
15,000
10,000
TCP1,299 jobs
Memory gauge2,303 jobs
5,000
0
100 150 200
Temperature, F
Fig. 1Database of well tests performed in an HP/HT environment.
TCP=tubing-conveyed perforating.
experience in similar cases will be well
received because it provides relevant
information that will help to make
appropriate decisions. With HT wells
defined as having bottomhole tempera-
tures in excess of 300F, extreme-HT
wells are defined as wells having bot-
tomhole temperatures between 350F
and 400F.
Background
As shown in Fig. 1, many wells around
the world with bottomhole tempera-
tures above 300F have been tested.
Tool configuration has changed lit-
tle because equipment reliability has
improved. The lessons learned are
extremely valuable for planning and
design. Extreme temperatures repre-
sent the main challenge for the equip-
ment, particularly for electronics, elas-
tomers, explosives, and some surface
equipment, including flexible hoses. In
250 300 350 400 450
most of these cases, a deep-well simula-
tor was used to test equipment above
the expected conditions.
Design Consideration
Elastomers. The following service
conditions must be considered before
selecting the proper elastomers.
Fluids to be sealed: Consider the
type of well fluid, including drilling
mud, aggressive brines (such as formi-
ates or calcium bromides), acids, and
alcohols.
Temperature range: Include mini-
mum and maximum operating condi-
tions along with thermal cycling and
potential exclusions. Some seals are not
appropriate for low temperatures (i.e.,
seabed in offshore wells or cold-fluid
injection).
Pressure range: Maximum and
minimum operating range must be
considered along with the compression
JPT FEBRUARY 2011

Snubbing jack
Load flange
Heating-system air handler and controls
Hot-air discharge
Hot-air return
Fig. 2The 26-in. inside-diameter test chamber is 63 ft deep.
and decompression rate if the pressure
is high.
Unusual well procedures.
Drillstem-Test Tools. Annulus-pres-
sure-operated tools, such as a tester
valve or multicycle circulating valve,
were used in all cases studied. These
valves can be operated several times
during the test and are the main com-
ponents. Rupture-disk-operated tools,
including single-shot circulating valves,
tubing-tester valves, and samplers, also
were evaluated. Each of these tools is
rated to 450F, except the sampler,
which is rated to 400F.
Usually, mechanical packers are
avoided because they require the use
of additional tools, such as slip joints,
safety joints, and jars. However, such
tools were used for temperatures below
400F without problems.
Calculated operating pressures are
documented in the well-test program to
ensure that all of the involved rig per-
sonnel will be informed and will follow
the proper procedure to perform the
test. The appropriate fault-tree analysis
also is presented to avoid time lost to
identify possible causes that, in turn,
could result in an unexpected problem.
Testing Chamber. The deep-well sim-
ulator shown in Fig. 2 was used to
test equipment designs for use in HP/
HT wells. The simulator is a below-
JPT FEBRUARY 2011
Power pack for snubbing jack
Heated-air flow path
Test fixture
Packer
ground test facility designed to accom-
modate assemblies up to 60 ft long at
temperatures up to 1,000F. Much of
the technology developed today, and
supported by research and testing, will
aid production of oil by enhancing
recovery methods and gas production
from deep, hostile formations.
Data Acquisition. Data acquisition is
the most important objective of well
testing. The latest versions of memory
gauges have proved suitable for tem-
peratures up to 400F. Above this tem-
perature, the use of mechanical gauges
is recommended. Mechanical gauges
also can be used as backup systems
when temperatures are below 400F,
especially when the temperature data
may not be correct or when the flow-
ing temperature may be higher than the
original reservoir temperature because
of the frictional-heating effect when
flowing through the sandface.
Use of permanent gauges that use a
capillary tubing to monitor pressure in
real time, and that do not use downhole
electronics, is an option for long-term
monitoring in extremely harsh envi-
ronments. However, the use of capil-
lary tubing in the strings could lead
to other complications and additional
costs that must be analyzed.
Sampling. The preferred method for
obtaining a representative sample of
reservoir fluid is to collect the sample
downhole. Current available sampling
systems are rated to 400F and 20,000
psi, are capable of collecting six to nine
400-cm3 samples, and are operated by
annulus pressure.
Tubing-Conveyed-Perforating (TCP)
Guns. Operating conditions (including
temperature) must be analyzed when
choosing the equipment and will deter-
mine the type of explosive to be used.
Also, the pressure rating of the guns
must be considered because TCP guns
must be capable of withstanding the
hydrostatic pressure plus the hydraulic-
firing-head operating pressure. The actu-
ating pressure must not exceed the maxi-
mum pressure rating of the gun or any
other atmospheric-chamber tool, such as
memory gauges. Normally, the primary
firing head is actuated by dropping a bar.
The pressure-actuated firing head nor-
mally is used as a backup system.
Temperature Simulations. Software
is available to simulate the tempera-
ture profile under flowing conditions.
Such software will help to ensure use
of the correct equipment at surface,
considering that flexible hoses are rated
up to only 260F. Some subsea equip-
ment may have temperature limitations
because it is specifically designed for
low seabed temperatures.
Conclusions
Many tests have been carried out in
wells with temperatures above 300F.
The following items were found to be
critical for HT conditions.
Maintenance procedures, pressure/
function tests, and proper equipment
inspection ensure tool reliability at
expected well conditions.
When working with HT, the expo-
sure time is very important for elec-
tronic devices, such as memory gauges,
and for some elastomers and explosives.
Before testing in harsh environ-
ments, it is appropriate to simulate a
test at well conditions.
A database for all the jobs per-
formed around the world is fundamen-
tal in creating sufficient information to
help in the design of new jobs in similar
conditions.
A well-detailed test program is
important when testing a well under
harsh conditions, and all involved oper-
ations personnel should participate in
the elaboration of this program. JPT
77