SPE/PAPG ANNUAL TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 2005
November 28-29, 2005, Islamabad
ADDRESSING SOME OF THE UNIQUE CHALLENGES OF
DRILLSTEM TESTS IN TIGHT GAS RESERVOIRS
Agha Hassan Akram1, Mohammed Riaz Khan2
1
Schlumberger Data & Consulting Services, 4th Floor, Saudi Pak Towers, Islamabad, Pakistan.
2
OGDCL, 8th Floor, OGDCL House, Blue Area, Islamabad
ABSTRACT
An innovation in the methodology of conducting
drillstem tests (DSTs) in tight gas reservoirs is presented,
along with a simplification in the interpretation of the
data obtained. DSTs in tight gas reservoirs are a problem
because the flow rates are often too low to be measured
by conventional equipment. In these cases a normal
flowing and buildup test should be followed by a closed
chamber test to produce usable estimates of flow rates
at various times during the preceding normal flowing
and buildup test. This estimated flow rate can then be
used to interpret the buildup after the flow testing, which
is produced by shutting the downhole valve.
In the interpretation of DST data from a tight gas
reservoir, factors such as the following have to be
considered: 1) large variation of gas properties resulting
from the large pressure range involved1,2 ; 2) flow rate
duration that can be many times shorter than the buildup
period3,4,5,6 ; 3) varying flow rate during the flowing
part of the test; and 4) impact of boundaries and
heterogeneities.
We show that a simple interpretation approach with
constant flow rates and pseudo-pressure yields results
that are within the intrinsic accuracy limits expected
from such a test.
The benefits to the field interpreter of using the methods
presented are 1) operational flexibility: if the well flows
strongly enough the rate may be measured at surface;
if it does not, a closed chamber test can be added; 2)
the benefit of the deeper radius of investigation of a
test flowing at surface is retained; 3) field interpretation
is simpler whether surface measurement is possible or
not.
INTRODUCTION
The two major challenges that face the interpreter in
tight gas DSTs are the difficulty in measuring rate, and
1
the selection of interpretation tools and techniques.
First, about the measurement of rate. In tight gas testing,
the gas rate at surface during the main flowing period
may be too small to be measured. In such cases, often
all that is reported is a qualitative comment regarding
the strength of the bubbles or “blow” at surface, or the
length of the flare flame. We are proposing an innovative
measurement of the gas rate by shutting in the well a
second time, using surface shut-in. This results in a
known storage volume, and enables calculation of the
last rate before shut in using the storage volume,
compressibility and the rate of rise in pressure.
The second challenge is interpretation of the data. The
issues facing the interpreter are numerous. Commonly
interpretation methodology is based on approximating
a series of constant rates followed by a build up. To
quote Enachescu and Ostrowski7: “The engineer is
usually confronted with a low permeability test in a
complex reservoir and has to analyze it using standard
petroleum industry software, i.e. the constant rate
solution is frequently used for analyzing this type of
test”
Here we have a situation as follows:
- Initially there is no flow
- The downhole valve opens, causing the pressure
in the wellbore to drop from formation pressure to
water cushion head in a matter of seconds.
- The fluid inflow from the formation starts with a
pulse, as wellbore pressure plummets, and then
drops with time, as the wellbore pressure rises,
and/or the transient moves outwards.
How does the interpreter model a valve opening? How
does he take into account other complexities such as: 1)
large variation of gas properties resulting from the large
pressure range involved, sometimes down to 100 psia
BHFP or less; 2) flow rate duration that can be many
times shorter than the buildup period; 3) varying flow
rate during the flowing part of the test; and 4) impact
of boundaries and heterogeneities.

We show that a simple interpretation approach with a

constant flow rate and pseudo-pressure yields results
that are within the intrinsic accuracy limits expected
from such a test. In this paper, the impact of changing
skin is not covered, nor is non darcy flow.

MEASURING THE RATE

An example of a tight gas DST in an exploration well Fig. 1 - Example of tight gas DST
is shown in (Fig. 1), which is labeled with the main
events of the test. In this case, the gas rate at surface
during the main flowing period was too small to be
measured. In such cases, often all that is reported is a
qualitative comment regarding the strength of the bubbles
or “blow” at surface, or the length of the flare flame.
If the storage volume below the downhole shut in valve
were accurately known, the rate during flow could be
calculated from the early shut in data. Knowing the
storage volume, compressibility and the rate of rise in
pressure, we could calculate the last rate just before
shut in. However, the compressibility is not known as
the amount of gas trapped below the packer is not
known. See (Fig. 2). Nor is the gas-cut of the water
column between the perforations and the packer at the
instant of shut in. The compressibility can therefore
vary by a factor of 100, depending on the volume of
gas below the packer, and the pressure.

We are proposing measurement of the gas rate by

shutting in the well with a known storage volume, and
calculating the last rate before shut in using the storage
volume, compressibility and the rate of rise in pressure.
This is accomplished as follows: in case the gas rate
during the test was too small to be measured, then add
another flowing period after the main shut in. This
flowing period should be similar to the main flow in
terms of choke size and WHFP. This flow does not need
to be very long, 2-4 hours is adequate. Then shut in the
well at surface, and record the build up for 2-4 hours.
Now the storage volume and the compressibility are
known quite accurately, and the last rate can be
calculated. The BHFP during flow before the second
“rate measuring” shut-in is about 100 psia.

This is consistent with the gas gravity, and the wellhead

pressure measured, and we can conclude that the tubing
is filled with gas only, and no water column. We present
the calculations for our example (Fig. 1) is shown in
the Appendix. Using the calculated volumes with the Fig. 2 - Completion diagram

2
parameters we obtain the following rates:
Gas rate in first hour: 0.177 MMSCF/D
Gas rate in fourth and final hour: 0.174 MMSCF/D
We are not surprised to see that there is little change in
the rate as BHFP is very low, and we are close to AOFP,
albeit still in transient. Here the PI curve is so steep that
a change in pressure results in a small change in rate,
as illustrated in (Fig. 3). We can use the rate thus
calculated as a good estimate of the flow rate before
the main shut in, and carry out an interpretation.
Fig. 3 - IPR of Gas Well
Fig. 4 - Log-log plot of build up
Fig. 5 - Numerical simulation model match
3
INTERPRETATION
We first plot the build up pressure and its derivative on
a log-log plot, using the given rate. See (Fig. 4). To
start with, we match the response using a numerical
simulator. A radial grid is used, and BHFP is used as
a target, and the simulator adjusts the rate accordingly.
The match is obtained by varying permeability and
skin, until the correct flow rate is achieved, and the
pressure & derivative matches on the log-log plot. The
pressures and rates output by the simulator are presented
in (Fig. 5).
The derivative matches well, as shown in (Fig. 6). We
are only attempting to match the late storage regime,
and the radial flow, and are ignoring the early storage.
Initially there is formation clean up, gas influx, and
changing storage due to compression of gas. While it
may be possible to match the early storage period, it is
not of interest to this analysis.
The results of the match are:
K = 0.10 mD
Skin = 28.5
We note that the flow rate is dropping with time, and
that the last flow rate in the final shut-in is 180 mscf/d
at 100 psia BHFP, which is very close (2.5%) to the
175 mscf/d in the main flow at 450 psia. As mentioned
earlier, this is expected when the well is producing close
to the AOFP.
This is now the best analysis possible with the given
data, and we take it as our reference.
Analytical modeling
Downhole valve opening: In order to analytically model
the DST, we have to answer the question: How do you
model the downhole valve opening, with the pressure
dropping by thousands of psi in seconds? As far
Fig. 6 - Numerical simulation model match
as the formation is concerned, it does not matter Simple analytic model. In this model we simply
whether you evacuate a volume of fluid out of a assume that the rate is a constant 175 mscf/d from
wellbore at equilibrium, or open a downhole valve start to finish, and ignore the difference between
in a DST string. The pulse of pressure and reservoir actual and modeled pressures during the main flow
flow is the same. While there are no downhole period. See (Fig. 7 & 8).
valves in the equations of the reservoir-wellbore
system, we can cause a lot of fluid to be evacuated
in our mathematical model by using a high flow
rate for a short period of time. Although there is no
corresponding physical high pulse of gas
produced at surface, the model is correct.

During interpretation, the rate of the initial pulse is

best set by trial and error, with the objective of
matching the observed pressure drop on opening
the downhole valve. The duration of the initial pulse
must be short, and the resulting pressure response
should come close to that observed. A longer pulse Fig. 7 - Single rate analytical match
will have an impact on the results.

Changing gas properties: The properties of the gas

vary dramatically between the wellbore at one
extreme, and the far field reservoir at the other. The
differences are large, typically an order of magnitude
or more. This is handled in conventional analysis
by the use of pseudo pressures. Very low BHFP call
for the use of pseudo-time, and we examine the
impact of pseudo time on this analysis.

Varying flow rates during the test. The post build

up flow and shut-in are designed to measure the
rate of gas. It helps if this second flow is conducted
under the same conditions as the pre-build up main
flow, and has a BHFP close to that of the main flow.
This gives us a first approximation to the main rate.
Matching the second rate is an objective of this
modeling, and this rate is not adjusted. The pre-
build-up rates are adjusted slightly to match their
flowing pressures. Superposition takes into account
the changes of rate before the build up, including
the high initial pulse.
Short duration of test. The flow period may be ½
to ¼ of the build up period. We study the impact of
this on the results of the analysis. Usually it is taken
care of by the modeling technique used by the
software we have, however in this case we expect
some impact due to the initial high rate pulse, which
is out of proportion to subsequent flow rates.
Fig. 8 - Single rate analytical match
Multi-rate model. In this model, we use an initial
pulse, and varying rates to model the flowing
pressure closely.
We get a reasonable match of modeled and real
flowing pressures during the main flow. See Fig. 9
and 10. We note that the multirate analysis gives
the best match, and is only 4% away from the
reference interpretation in K, and 10% in skin. The
simple model does not disappoint us, however, and
we get an acceptable result keeping in view the
inherent inaccuracies in a test of this type: error in
flow rate estimation due to uncertainty in storage
volume (upto 10%), errors in the assumptions of a
homogenous formation assumption in the horizontal
and vertical direction, errors in net pay estimations.

We now model the DST analytically using a simple The Horner plots are off by upto 20%, but that is
single rate approach, and a more representative not unexpected, as the long production period
multirate approach. Results are presented in table 1. assumption has been violated here.

4
Table - 1: Results of modeling
Fig. 9 - varying rate analytical match
Fig. 10 - varying rate analytical match
Pseudo time impact. We now plot the above data using
pseudo-time. See (Fig. 11 & 12). This has the effect of
bringing the Horner plot results equal to those from the
model match. It also straightens out the radial flow
derivative, making it horizontal.
Fig. 11 - Pseudo time model match
5
Fig.12 - Pseudo time model match
Short producing time effect
In our example, the producing time is about 1/3rd of
the build up time. What would happen if the producing
time were much shorter? Say 5% of the build up?
Using the same numerical simulation model, we simulate
a case in which we have a 3 hour flow followed by a
60 hour build up.
We then analyze the resulting data set with the simple
and multirate models as above. The results are in Table
2, and the plots in (Fig. 13, 14, 15 & 16).
The Horner plot results are worse now, as expected,
with such short production. And the simple one-rate
analysis is quite far from the actual value. However,
the multirate analytic model matched K is still within
10% of the correct value despite the unfriendly
production time, and is quite adequate for a first
approximation.
Fig. 13 - Single rate analytical match

Fig. 14 - Single rate analytical match
Fig. 15 - Stepped rate model match
Fig. 16 - (Stepped rate model match)
Table-2: Results of modeling
6
CONCLUSIONS
Using surface shut in, we can obtain an estimate of flow
rate for tight gas DST wells in which the rate is too low
to be measured using surface equipment.
Commonly used interpretation techniques will give a
good approximation to K and Skin despite the aspects
of such tests that appear to stretch the assumptions on
which these techniques are based. However, the
interpreter must use an initial pressure pulse that matches
the pressure drop observed upon opening the downhole
valve.
REFERENCES
[1]. Al-Hussainy, R, and Ramey, H. J. Jr., “Application
of Real Gas Flow Theory to Well Testing and
Deliverability Forecasting”. J Pet Tech (May 1966)
637-642; Trans. AIME, 237.
[2]. Agarwal, Ram G., Amoco Production Co “REAL
GAS PSEUDO-TIME - A NEW FUNCTION FOR
PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS OF MHF GAS
WELLS”, paper SPE 8279, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, 23-26 September,
Las Vegas, Nevada
[3]. M.Y. Soliman, SPE, Halliburton Services Research
Center “Analysis of Buildup Tests With Short Producing
Time”, paper SPE 11083, SPE Formation Evaluation,
1986, 363-371.
[4]. Rajagopal Raghavan, SPE, U of Tulsa, Albert C
Renolds jr, SPE, U of Tulsa, Hai Zui Meng, U of Tulsa,
“Analysis of Pressure Build up Data Following a Short
Flow Period”, paper SPE 9290, J Pet Tech April 1982,
904-916.
[5]. J A Ayoub, SPE, Schlumberger, D P Bourdet, SPE,
Schlumberger, Y L Chauvel, SPE , Schlumberger,
“Impulse testing”, Paper SPE 15911, SPEFE, Sept 1988,
534-546.
[6]. M.Y. Soliman, M. Azari, J. Ansah, Halliburton
Energy Services, Inc.; C.S. Kabir, ChevronTexaco,
“Design, Interpretation, and Assessment of Short-Term
Pressure-Transient Tests”, paper SPE 90837, presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
26-29 September, Houston, Texas 2004.
[7]. Enachescu, Cristian, Ostrowski, L.P., Golder Assocs.
GmbH, “Special Aspects of Applying Constant Rate
Analysis Approach in Low-Permeability Formations”.,
paper SPE 25877, presented at the SPE Symposium,
Denver, April 1993.
APPENDIX
Gas rate calculations

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Agha Hassan Akram Riaz Khan

Agha Hassan Akram is a Riaz Khan is a Petroleum

Principal Reservoir Engineer Engineer. He earned his BS
with Schlumberger Data and in Petroleum and Gas
Consulting Services, Engineering from UET
Islamabad. He obtained his Lahore in 1978. He joined
BE (EE) from UET Lahore, OGDCL as an Assistant
and MSc in Petroleum Engineer. Currently he is
Engineering from Imperial working as Acting General
College London. He has Manager (Process). He has
worked in the Far East, Russia, and Caspian countries. diversified and rich experience in petroleum engineering,
He is a member of PEC and SPE. production operations and surface facilities. He has
attended extensive advance courses on Production
Project Development and Petroleum Economics in
Oxford UK, Calgary Canada and Tulsa, USA. He is a
member of PEC and SPE.