IDENTIFICATION OF WELL PROBLEMS USING WELL TESTING

(A CASE STUDY OF UMU-N2 WELL OF MIDWESTERN OIL AND GAS COMPANY, KWALE, NIGERIA)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Content

Title

Certification

Dedication

Acknowledgement

Table of contents

List of figures

List of tables

Nomenclature

Abstract

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Types of Well Testing

1.2 Aims / Objectives

1.3 Scope and Limitations

1.4 Methodology

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 Literature review

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Division of Well Testing

2.3 Objectives of Well Testing (Surface Well Testing)

2.4 Objectives of Well Testing (Sub-surface Well Testing)

2.5 Other reasons for Well Testing

2.5.1 Legal consideration

2.5.2 Economic consideration

2.6 Classification of Well Testing

2.6.1 Periodic productivity test

2.6.2 Production or Deliverability test

2.6.2.1 Productivity index test

2.6.2.2 Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) test

2.6.2.3 Flow after flow test

2.6.2.4 Isochronal test

2.6.2.5 Modified Isochronal test

2.6.2.6 Potential test

2.6.2.7 Pressure Transient test

2.7 Classification of Pressure Transient test

2.7.1 Pressure Drawdown test

2.7.2 Pressure Build-up test

2.7.3 Injectivity test

2.7.4 Fall-off test

2.7.5 Interference test

2.7.6 Multiple rate test

2.7.7 Drill Stem test

2.7.7.1 Drill Stem test tools and technique

2.7.7.2 Drill Stem testing operations

2.7.8 Pulse test

2.8 Flowing Gradient (FG) and Static Gradient (SG)

2.8.1 Flowing Gradient (FG)

2.8.2 Static Gradient (SG)

2.8.3 Complete BHP (Well testing) profiles

2.9 Basis of Well testing

2.9.1 Reservoir Environment

2.9.2 The inner boundary condition

2.9.3 Well bore storage

2.9.4 Skin effect

2.9.5 Induced fracture

2.9.6 Condition around region Two

2.9.7 Homogenous Reservoir

2.9.8 Heterogenous Reservoir

2.9.9 Outer boundary condition

2.9.10 Transient State phase

2.10 Reservoir boundary phase

2.11 Flow regimes

2.11.1 Steady State flow

2.11.2 Unsteady State flow

2.11.3 Pseudo Steady State flow

2.12 Diagnostic analysis

2.13 Difficulties encountered while performing well test

2.13.1 Periodic change of flowrateand pressure

2.13.2 Stabilization period

2.13.3 Fluid Slugging into the separator

2.13.4 Formation Hydrate

2.14 Well problems

2.14.1 Low productivity

2.14.2 Low reservoir permeability

2.14.3 Low reservoir pressure

2.14.4 Formation damage and skin value

2.14.4.1 The concept of damage zone around the wellbore

2.14.4.2 Skin

2.14.4.3 Formation damage skin

2.14.5 Wellbore or Tubing plugging

2.14.6 High viscosity oil

2.14.7 Excessive back pressure on formation

2.14.8 Inadequate Gas lift system

2.14.9 Gas problem in oil wells

2.15 DESCRIPTION OF TERMS

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 Case Study

3.1 Well History

3.2 Production data table

3.3 Production versus Time reading for UMU-N2 WELL

3.5 BHP Graph of Pws versus∆t

3.6 The Graph of log ∆p versus ∆t

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 Analysis of Data

4.1 Production data analysis

4.2 Analysis of the BHP data

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 Conclusion and Recommendation

5.1 Conclusion

5.2 Recommendations

References
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this project to God Almighty who has kept me, seen me through and made my entire careera
success.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

All glory goes to God for making this project a success. Special thanks to my project supervisor and HOD,
Engr.U. S.OFFIA who has opened the door whenever i came knocking, taking time to listen, tutor and
direct me. I would be forever grateful to my wonderful parents, Mr. And Mrs. Harrison Edore for their
all-round support throughout my entire career. I will not forget the support of my siblings, Gilbert,
Judith, Joy, Precious, Abigail. I wish to extend my sincere thanks to my friends and roommates who has
encouraged me in one way or the other. I also thank the staff and management of Mid Western Oil and
Gas for giving me access to the data which was used for this project.
 LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 2.1

Figure
 NOMENCLATURE

Ct=Total compressibility psi-1 (kpa-1)

FE=Flow efficiency (dimensionless)

Net formation thickness, ft, (m)

J=Productivity index, Stb/psi

K=Reservoir rock permeability

M=absolute value of slope of middle time line in psi/cycle

β=Formation volume factor

P*=MTR pressure trend extrapolated to infinite shut-in time, psi

βo=Oil formation volume factor

C= compressibility, psi

Kv=Vertical permeability

Kh=Horizontal permeability

Hp=height of perforation

Ht=Top of perforation

Pi=Original reservoir pressure, psi(kpa)

Pwf=flowing bottom hole pressure

Pws=Shut-in bottom hole pressure psi (kpa)

P1hr=Pressure at 1 hour shut-in (or flow) time on middle-time line (or its extrapolation) psi (kpa)

Q=flow rate, STB/D

r=distance from center of wellbore, ft9m0

re=External drainage radius, ft (m)

ri=Radius of investigation ft
rw=Wellbore radius ft(m)

S=skin factor, dimensionless

T=elapsed time, hours

µ=Viscosity, cp

µo=Oil viscosity, cp

Ø= Porosity of reservoir rock, dimensionless

ABSTRACT

Well tests exist already for a long time. Since the first oil reservoir was discovered, oil companies have
always been keen on estimating reservoir properties such as size. Present day well testing has gone
beyond this and its usefulness cannot be overemphasized. This project work is concerned with the use
of well testing in identifying well problems. The case under study is the UMU-N2 well of Umusadege
field, Kwale. From analysis of the well test data, it was seen that the well had impairment which was due
to reduced permeability and thus, required stimulation for improved recovery of the hydrocarbons
present. Also, there was high sand and water production which also reduced the productivity of the
well.
 CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In the petroleum industry, awell test is the execution of a set of planneddata acquisitionactivities to
broaden the knowledge and understanding of hydrocarbons properties and characteristics of the
undergroundreservoirwherehydrocarbonsare trapped. The overall objective is identifying the reservoir's
capacity to produce hydrocarbons, such asoil, natural gasand condensate. Data gathered during the test
period includesvolumetric flow rateand pressure observed in the selected well. Well testing can be
surface or subsurface testing and each type has its own objectives. A properly designed, executed and
analyzed well test usually can provide information about formation permeability, extent of wellbore
damage or stimulation, reservoir pressure, reservoir boundaries and heterogeneities etc. Outcomes of a
well test, for instance flow rate data andgas oil ratio data, may support thewell allocationprocess for an
ongoing production phase, while other data about the reservoir capabilities will support reservoir
management. A well is said to have problem when its behavior deviates from the normal production
pattern. Typical well problems for producing wells include low productivity, low reservoir pressure,
formation damage and skin value, high viscosity oil, wellbore and tubing plugging, high gas- oil ratio etc.
Hence, well testing is therefore one of the economic source of valuable information about reservoir
properties such as porosity, permeability, fluid viscosity, reservoir limit, drainage volume and vertical
permeability orientation etc.

1.1 TYPES OF WELL TESTING

Generally,Well testing can be divided into three types viz:

 Pressure transient test

 Periodic productive test
 Deliverability test

1.1.1 PRESSURE TRANSIENT TEST:This is a means of assessingreservoirperformance by

measuring flow rates and pressures under a range of flowing conditions and then
applying the data to a mathematicalmodel. During the flow period, thepressure at the
formation is monitored over time. Classification of pressure transient test includes
pressure drawdown test, pressure build-up test, injectivity test, inference test, fall off test
etc. These tests requires higher degree of sophistication and used to determine formation
 damage or stimulation related to reservoir parameters such as permeability, porosity,
pressure, volume etc.
1.1.2 PERIODIC PRODUCTIVE WELL TEST: This is a routine test carried out to
physically measure oil, gas and water produced by a particular well under normal
producing conditions. It helps to determine the daily production of oil, water and gas.
These information serve as an aid in well and reservoir operations and also in meeting
legal and regulatory requirements.
1.1.3 DELIVERABILITY PRODUCTIVITY TESTS: This is an intensive oil and gas well
test which involves the physical or empirical determination of fluid flow rate versus
bottom hole pressure drawdown with a limited number of measurements in order to
determine the capability of the well under various degree of pressure drawdown. This test
is usually carried out on a newly completed well. Results may be used to set allowable
production and in the selection of artificial lift system and production facilities.
Classification of deliverability tests include Inflow performance relationship (IPR) test,
flow after flow test, isochronal test, Potential test etc.
1.2 AIMS/OBJECTIVES:

 To study the various types of well tests carried out in the oil industry and how they
can be used in identifying well problems.
 To analyze well test data gotten from UMU-N2 well in order to determines its
reservoir characteristics by the application of well test knowledge.
 To make conclusions on the state of the UMU-N2 well on the basis of data analysis
and give possible recommendations.

1.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The scope of this project is limited to the data of a particular well test that was carried out
on UMU-N2 well which would be used for determining problems and evaluating well
productivity.

1.4 METHODOLOGY

 Literature review of textbooks, journals, articles etc., and surfing the internet for
necessary information.
 Obtaining well test data of well UMU-N2 well from the company and carrying out
analysis with the aid of mathematical calculations and graphical plots to evaluate the
well problems.
 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Oil well testing is a branch of reservoir engineering. It is one of the most powerful tools available for
determining reservoir characteristics. Generally, a well test is a period of time during which the rate
and/or pressure of a well is recorded to estimate well or reservoir properties to prove reservoir
productivity or to obtain general reservoir management data. It involves producing a well at constant
rate or series of rates, some of which may be zero(well closed in) while simultaneously taking a
continuous recording of the changing pressure in the wellbore using some of the pressure measuring
devices. Well test information is second only to production data in importance for the prudent
management of oil or gas reservoir. As such, well testing is an integral part of the overall production and
depletion strategy of a reservoir. The interpretation of pressure data recorded during a well test has
been used for many years to evaluate the reservoir characteristics. Static reservoir pressure measured in
shut-in wells is used to predict reserves in place through material balance calculations. Transient
pressure analysis provides a description of the reservoir flowing behavior. Many methods have been
proposed for interpretation of transient tests but the best known and most widely used is Horner’s.
More recently, type curves which indicate the pressure response of flowing wells under a variety of well
and reservoir configurations were introduced. Recently, the quality of well test interpretations has
improved because of the availability of accurate pressure data (from electronic pressure gauges) and the
development of new software for computer aided analysis.

2.2 DIVISION OF WELL TESTING

Well testing can be divided into two viz:

 Surface well testing

 Sub-surface well testing

2.3 OBJECTIVES OF SURFACE WELL TESTING

 To determine the productivity or producing ability of a hydrocarbon bearing formation

 To establish the well completion method
 To determine the need to stimulate the producing formation
 To establish actual well producing rates
  To establish Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) or the relationship between the
producing rates and varying bottom hole pressure
 To determine Gas-Oil ratio

2.4 OBJECTIVES OF SUB-SURFACE WELL TESTING

 To establish the reservoir permeability and reservoir porosity

 The reservoir flowing and static pressures
 The reservoir fluid viscosity
 Skin effect or degree of well damage
 The reservoir limitetc

2.5 OTHER REASONS FOR WELL TESTING

Other reasons or objectives of well testing can be categorized into the following:

2.5.1 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

 Tests data are necessary for the establishment of production rates by state conservation
commissions and regulatory bodies in order to avoid waste.
 Test data used for the allocation of oil production between fields and wells within individual
fields.
 Taxes such as direct taxes on production and mineral and property taxes based on value are
levied on oil and gas production.
 Test data are needed for the proper development and management of oil and gas reserves
 Gas-oil rate and water-oil rate penalties are determined by well test.

2.5.2 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

 Maximum daily income can be achieved from an accurate well test data reflecting the
producing capabilities of each well or field.
 Production supervisors make constant use of well test data in planning and scheduling
remedial or workover jobs.
 The petroleum engineer depends largely upon well test data for the effective utilization of
pipelines, water disposal facilities, pump sizing, production tubing and well equipment.
 Field personnel need to know the potential and performance of individual well in order to
make rate adjustments from time to time to meet allowable control and optimum use of
handling and processing equipment.
 Test data are needed by personnel for trouble shooting. For example, if gas/oil or oil/water
production suddenly changes.
 Test data are used in recognition of reservoir drive mechanisms and to initiate programmers
that offer them.
2.6 CLASSIFICATION OF WELL TESTING
Well testing is classified into 3 main parts viz:
 Periodic production test
 Production or Deliverability test
 Pressure transient tests
 2.6.1 PERIODIC PRODUCTIVITY TEST

The features of these test include

 They are run routinely to physically measure gas, oil and water produced from a well under
normal producing conditions.
 Provide physical evidence of well conditions
 Unexpected changes such as extraneous water or gas production may signal well or
reservoir problems
 Abnormal production declines may mean artificial lift problems, sand fill up, scale etc
 To help the operators/engineers to maintain accurate production records of each well
 It helps the field engineers to analyze well problems and predict future performance of the
well.
 Measure reservoir pressure and temperature.
 Obtain samples suitable for PVT analysis.
 Evaluate completion efficiency

2.6.2 PRODUCTION OR DELIVERABILITY TEST

A deliverability test is a test to predict the absolute open flow potential (AOFP) of a well and
it’sdeliverability potential under various pipeline back pressures. A deliverability relationship is needed
because a gas well may not be producing to capacity. It permits prediction of what the well should
produce at other pressure drawdown. The main types of deliverability tests used today are:

 Flow after flow test

 Inflow performance relationship test
 Potential test
 Productivity index test
 Single point test

2.6.2.1 FLOW AFTER FLOW TEST

This test requires a static reservoir pressure and stabilization of 3 to 4 flow rates. This method
is very useful for reservoir producing below the bubble point where mathematical model is impractical.
In this case, a well is allowed to flow at a selected constant rate until pressure is stabilized ie pseudo
steadystate is reached. The stabilized rate and pressure are recorded. The rate is then changed and the
well flows until the pressure stabilizesagain at the new rate and the process is repeated for 3 to 4 rates.
This test provides good radius of investigation but often results in a lengthy test, resulting in excessive
flaring of gas. For this reason, this test is best for use in high permeability reservoirs that stabilize quickly
otherwise, serious consideration should be given to the testing in-line

2.6.2.2 ISOCHRONAL TEST

This test requires a static reservoir pressure, a flow period of fixed durationfollowed by shut-in
until pressure stabilizes again. The objective of this test is to obtain data to establish a stabilized
deliverability curve for a gas well without flowing the well for sufficiently long to achieve stabilized
conditions (ri≥ re) at each rate. This sequence of flow and build up to stabilize pressure is repeated with
only the final flow rate required to stabilize. This test is still quite lengthy and again best suited to high
permeability reservoirs. In an Isochronal test, the production time is not equal to build up time because
you have to wait for different rate for the well build up to maximum.

2.6.2.3 MODIFIED ISOCHRONAL TEST

This test requires a static reservoir pressure, then flows and shut in periods of equal duration. This is the
best isochronal test because the well does not build up to the maximum pressure and thus, it is not time
consuming. The production and build up time are equal. This method was developed for testing tight
reservoirs but it is often used today on high volume, tubing restricted and or partially penetrated wells
with fair to good permeability.

2.6.2.4 SINGLE-POINT TEST

This test requires a stabilized rate and flowing pressure measured before the well is shut in and
built up to a stabilized reservoir pressure. The test is widely used for deliverability tests where the
turbulence factor is known, usually for subsequent tests on a well, for initial tests in a relatively mature
pool or where deliverability may be poor or flow conditions are predetermined by pipeline or plant
restrictions.

2.6.2.5 PRODUCTIVITY INDEX TEST

This is well the simplest form of deliverability test. It involves the measurement of shut in and
and bottom hole pressure and at one stabilized producing condition, measurement of the flowing
bottom hole pressure and at corresponding rates of liquids produced to the surface with this,it is
possible to know at what reduced flowing bottom hole pressure will flow rate peak. Productivity index is
defined as the ratio of production rate (q) to the pressure drawdown (Pr─Pwf). The difference between
the reservoir pressure and the bottom hole flowing pressure is called pressure drawdown. Productivity
index can be expressed mathematically as:

pr
PI= ( pr− pwf )

Where PI = Total liquid (stb/day)

Pr= reservoir pressure (psi)

Pr─Pwf= pressure drawdown (psi)

2.6.2.6 INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIP (IPR) TEST

The inflow performance relationship or IPR is defined as the functional relationship between the
production rate and the bottom hole flowing pressure. This is a tedious concept of productivity index
that attempts to represent the inflow performance of a well as a straight line function of the pwf against
q. This should in effect consist of PI test of several production rates in order to provide a better
representation of the time when IPR of the well will reach maximum.
 Fig 2.1: Basic shape of IPR curve

Where Pr=average reservoir pressure

Pwf=flowing well pressure

qm=maximum flow rate

q=flow rate

2.6.2.7 POTENTIAL TEST

This type of test determines the amount of oil and gas a particular well will produce under
specific condition and time. It helps to know the production allowable for the operators to flow. It may
be ordered by government (DPR) to determine the production rate between operator and government.

2.7 PRESSURE TRANSIENT TEST

These tests provide a means of assessing reservoir performance by measuring flow rates and
pressures under a range of flowing conditions and then applying the data to a mathematical model.
During the flow period, the pressure of the formation is monitored over time. These tests are used to
determine formation damage or stimulation related to an individual well or reservoir parameter such as
permeability, porosity, pressure, volume and heterogeneity.

2.7.1 CLASSIFICATION OF PRESSURE TRANSIENT TEST

Pressure transient tests are classified as follows:

 Pressure drawdown test

 Pressure buildup test
 Injectivity test
 Fall off test
 Interference test
 Multiple rate test
 Drill stem test
 Wireline formation test
 Pulse test

2.7.1 PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TEST

A drawdown test is simply a series of bottomhole pressure measurements made during a

period of flow at constant production rate. Usually, the equipment is first set into the welland the
well is closed prior to the flow test for a period of time sufficient to allow the pressure to stabilize
throughout the formation i.e to reach static pressure. Drawdown test is suitable in new wells because
the reservoir still has a uniform pressure andproduction is not lost during test though it is difficult to
maintain production rate. The consideration for having this test is simply when there are some
uncertainties in buildup interpretations. Therefore, analysis from drawdown test can be used
for comparative analysis.
2.7.2 PRESSURE BUILD-UP TEST

Pressure build-up testing is the most familiar transient well testing technique which has been used
extensively in the petroleum industry. In this test, the rate in the tested well is stabilized for several
days, that is, to maintain the rate approximately constant. The pressure measuring device is then placed
as near the perforations as possible several hours before shut-in. The device should record for at least
15 minutes prior to shut-in. The well is then shut in and pressure is allowed to build up. Buildup test is
started right after tp(which is representing the duration of production) with zero production by shutting-
in the well at the wellhead.The rate at which pressure builds up with time reflects the formation
properties.The primary purpose of performing a build-up test is todetermine the wellbore damage (skin)
and reservoir permeability. However, during the course of build-up, it is possible to encounter reservoir
boundaries. If all the reservoir’s boundaries are contacted during the build-up, the size of the reservoir
can also be determined. A method to analyze the pressure response of buildup test is using Horner
method (1951). It is a semilog plot of shut-in pressure pwsversus horner time (tp+Δt)/Δtas illustrated
below. This plot creates a straight-line which represents the transient flow during the middle-time of the
test. Different behavior regions during buildup test are shown below. Middle-time region indicates that
the pressure transient has spread away from the wellbore into the formation. Slope of the straight-line
m is a tool to predict reservoir permeability by using below formula

Fig2.2 Horner’s plot for build up analysis

The nonlinear part of the curve on Figure indicates the effect of after flow or wellbore storage. Skin
factor may also cause the early-time deviation which can be positive or negative. Positive skin can be
formed due to wellbore damage, otherwise a negative skin indicates stimulation (fracturing, acidizing,
etc). This shape is formed at the beginning of the curve which means that a pressure transient is
spreading around the formation nearest the wellbore.
Fig 2.3 Behavior of static pressure on shut in well

2.7.3 INJECTIVITY TEST

An injectivity test is conceptually identical to a drawdown test except that flow is into the wellbore
rather than out of the wellbore. Injection rate can often be controlled more easily than production rate
however, analysis of the test result is the same as the original reservoir fluids

2.7.4 FALL OFF TEST

A fall off test measures the pressure decline subsequent to the closure of an injection. It is
conceptually identical to build up test as with injectivity test. Fall off test interpretation is more difficult
if the injected fluid is different from the original reservoir fluid. The pressure profile takes the same
shape as the drawdown test.

2.7.5 INTERFERENCE TEST

Sometimes, we are concerned about large scale reservoir property trends. We can monitor the
pressure changes at one well (the observation well) due to flowrate changes at another well(the active
well). This can give improved estimates of directional permeability and reservoir storativity. Reservoir
properties are characterized over a greater length scale than single well test pressure changes.
Interference test can be used regardless of the type of change induced at the active well.
Fig 2.4 Schematic illustration of rate history and pressure response for an interference test

2.7.6 MULTIPLE RATE TEST

These are pressure transient tests which can be applied to several well flow situations and they
account for variable rate history. The advantages of this test include

 No problem with variable rate test

 No loss of production
 Reduced wellbore storage and phase and phase segregation effect thus providing a good
result where build up or drawdown test fails (Wells having altered permeability near the
wellbore due to damage especially when the damage is not concentrated in a very thin skin
at the sandface). The disadvantage can be seen in the fact that rate fluctuations are difficult
to measure, especially on a continuous basis

2.7.7 DRILL STEM TEST

In newly developed reservoirs or in high risk developments, it may be worthwhile to test the well
before completing it or installing full-fledged production facilities. This is usually done with a drilling rig
on site and the string through which the well is produced is controlled by the drilling rig thus, it is often
known as drill stem test. This is done to determine production characteristics of a specific zone of
pressure survey to be made and the well killed prior to abandonment or permanent completion.
Analysis of drill stem test provides useful information to help evaluate:

 Productivity of the zone

 The well completion practices
 The extent of formation damage
 The need for stimulation of the zone
 Actual well producing rate
 Radius of investigation
 Average effective permeability which may be better than core permeability

2.7.7.1 DRILL STEM TESTING TOOLS AND TECHNIQUE

 Most drill stem testing tools include two or more clocks driven bourdon recording pressure gauges or
two packers and a set of flow valves. The tools are opened and closed by manipulation of the drill pipe.
The DST is run while values are manipulated.

2.7.7.2 DRILL STEM TESTING OPERATION

In a standard drill stem test, the initial flow period is usually shut for 5 to 10 minutes. The idea is
simply to release the high hydrostatic mud pressure. The initial shut in period should be sufficiently long
to allow the measured pressure to approach stabilized formation pressure. Experience indicates that 1
hour is usually required for initial shut in period. The second flow period should be long enough to allow
flow stabilization.

2.7.8 PULSE TEST

This is another form of multiple well test which involves more than one well. A pulse test provides
equivalent data by using short rate pulses (with smaller observed pressure changes). Following
parameters such as hydraulic diffusivity, transmissibility and formation storage can be estimated. Pulse
test values are much less affected by boundary conditions such as faults and acquifers than are
interference test values. Analysis technique is more complicated and usually requires a computer. The
diagram below illustrates pulse test for two well system. These show a producing well that is pulsing.
Although the time and shut in time are equal in the figure below, pulse test can be done with unequal
shut in time.

Fig 2.5Schematic illustration of rate (pulse) history and pressure response for a pulse test

2.8 FLOWING GRADIENT (FG) AND STATIC GRADIENT (SG) SURVEY

The flowing gradient and static gradient tests are auxiliary surveys that complement bottom hole
pressure tests.

2.8.1 FLOWING GRADIENT (FG)

This involves measuring flowing pressure at different depths in the well while the well is flowing.
Result of this test is used for gas lift optimization. The figure below show cases where the flowing
pressure measured along the transverse of the well reveals example of optimized and non-optimized gas
lifting. The flowing gradient survey provides flowing pressure which can be used to determine the
appropriate correlation for modelling flow along the wellbore. In all cases during the flowing gradient
survey, the depth where pressure is measured is important.

2.8.2 STATIC GRADIENT (SG)

In static gradient, pressure at different depth in the well is measured while the well is shut in.
Usually before a static gradient is run, the well must have been shut in for some time to allow the
pressure to stabilize. At every static gradient, the gauges must be left for a minimum of 15 minutes so
that pressure will be steady. Static gradient survey is used to determine the fluid distribution in the
wellbore. This information is required for pressure correction and locating the depth of operating gas lift
valves. The basis for determining fluid gradients using static gradients survey is that gradients depends
on density of the fluid.

2.9 BASIS OF WELL TESTING

Understanding and correctly analyzing well test data requires understanding physical process
involved in fluid flow processes, the effect of reservoir geometry and heterogeneity.

2.9.1 RESERVOIR ENVIRONMENT

 Reservoir starting pressure (0.433 psi/ft)

 Hydrostatic pressure: this is the pressure acting against the formation pressure ie the
pressure exerted by the mud column.
 Flowing well pressure: this is the pressure that drives the reservoir fluid to the surface.It is
the pressure measured when the well is flowing (Pwf)
 Differential pressure (p) is the difference between the reservoir pressure and flowing
bottomhole pressure.

The reservoir as a model is divided into 3 regions under physical and mathematical terminologies:

Table 2.1: Principal Reservoir regions

PHYSICAL TERMINOLOGY MATHEMATICAL TERMINOLOGY

Region 1: The wellbore and near wellbore The inner boundary condition
region
Region 2: The reservoir beyond the The basic model
wellbore
Region 3: The pressure and flow The outer boundary condition
conditions at the outer extent of the well
drainage area

2.9.2 THE INNER BOUNDARY CONDITION

The conditions around the inner boundary are

  Wellbore storage
 Skin effect
 Induced fracture

2.9.2.1 WELLBORE STORAGE

Wellbore storage is after flow of fluids into the wellbore after the well is shut-in at the well head.
It also occurs in the early life of a well when the fluid produced does not come immediately from the
reservoir but it is the fluid stored in the wellbore thus, there is a delay in time before the reservoir
flowrate equals surface production. During wellbore storage, reservoir effects are distorted, making it
impossible to quantify well properties such as permeability, skin and P*. Wellbore storage effect lasts
until pressure is equalized between the wellbore and formation. The duration of wellbore storage is
primarily dependent on three factors viz: the wellbore volume, the formation permeability and fluid
compressibility. Larger volumes, lower permeabilities and larger compressibilities (gas wells) increase
the duration of wellbore storage. The wellbore storage phase is a problem during well test
interpretation because it pollutes the transient phase from which useful information about the reservoir
can be obtained.

2.9.2.2 SKIN EFFECT

Pressure drop during flow resulting from damage to the formation is caused by invasion of
drilling fluid, formation of mud cake, cement and insufficient perforation density. Skin is the term used
to refer to the damage or stimulation that exists near the wellbore. The condition of near wellbore
region is critical in production of crude oil. Skin effect is generally used to characterize this region. At
steady state condition, skin effect results in a pressure drop for flow of crude oil through the wellbore
region. In general, any phenomenon that causes a distortion of the flowlines would result in a positive
value for the skin factor. Positive skin effect can be created by mechanical causes such as partial
completion. Any phenomenon which can decrease the permeability of the reservoir around the wellbore
can increase skin effect. A negative skin effect denotes that the pressure drop in the near-wellbore zone
is less than it would have been from normal undisturbed reservoir mechanisms. Negative skin effect is
usually due to acid fracturing or hydraulic fracturing which increases the permeability. Production rate
increases if skin effect decreases.

2.9.2.3 INDUCED FRACTURE

Human activities around the wellbore can cause induced fracture. If a well is fractured (induced
fracture), the flow pattern in the fracture into the wellbore will be bilinear, linear into the fracture and
linear within the fracture .After producing for some time, the pressure transient shape begins to become
radial(pseudo-radial flow period).

2.9.3 CONDITION AROUND REGION 2

There are basically two types of reservoir viz:

 Homogenous reservoir
 Heterogenous reservoir

2.9.3.1 HOMOGENOUS RESERVOIR

 This is a reservoir that has identical property throughout eg porosity and permeability.

2.9.3.2 HETEROGENOUS RESERVOIR

This reservoir may be classified into two major types such as Double porosity reservoir and
Double permeability reservoir. Double porosity reservoir consists of two homogenous porous media of
distinct porosity and permeability that interact with one medium, producing fluid into the well while the
other acts as a source. Double permeability reservoir consists of two homogenous media with each
medium producing fluid into the wellbore.

2.9.4 OUTER BOUNDARY CONDITION

Due to the pressure flow in the reservoir, the infinite acting reservoir is a reservoirthat has a large
extent of fluid communication and a large drainage area while in a finite acting reservoir, the fluid
volume communicating with the well is limited because of fault and constant pressure value.

2.9.5 TRANSIENT STATE PHASE

This state phase occurs when the well is not influenced by the nature of the reservoir. This is the
most important phase because the reservoir parameter such as permeability and skin are deduced from
pressure-time data obtained during this phase is the part not polluted by the wellbore storage phase.
Due to the usefulnessof this phase, the following guidelines must be followed during test:

 Design and run test so that not all part of the transient state will be polluted by the wellbore
storage phase.
 Test duration must reach transient state before test is stopped.

The duration of transient state is affected by the following:

 Permeability of the formation: The higher the permeability, the shorter the duration of the
transient phase. Thus, the well with higher permeability will have short transient state. This
imposed a problem during interpretation stage because transient state duration could be
easily marred by the wellbore storage phase.
 Location of test well: The location of test well with respect to reservoir boundary affect the
duration of transient state well that are closer to the boundary will have shorter transient
period compared to the well that are farther from the boundary

2.10 RESERVOIR BOUNDARY RESPONSE

There are different types of reservoir boundary responses:

 Close boundaries: When a reservoir is closed on all sides, the pressure transient will be
transmitted outwards until it reaches all sides after which reservoir depletion will enter a
pseudo state making the pressure in the reservoir to decline at the same rate everywhere in
the reservoir.
 Fault boundary: Fault boundary usually act as impermeable barriers and therefore, the
pressure response of a well closedto a single linear fault can begin to look like the response
of a closed reservoir. However, the response is different since the wells response is only one
 boundary instead of being completely closed on all sides thus, no pseudo steady state. The
well will see itself in the minor and the net later time response will be like that of two
identical wells. In Horner’s plot, the original infinite acting response will undergo a doubling
in slope at the time the boundary effect is felt.
 Constant pressure boundaries: When the reservoir is supported by fluid encroachment due
to natural influx from an acquifer or gas cap or by fluid injection when a constant pressure
may be present, such a boundary may completely enclose the well or may be an open
boundary to one side of the well, the effect of any constant pressure as the boundary, for
circular constant pressure boundary with the well at the center, the wellbore pressure
response will depart from semilog straight line and achieve a steady state.

2.11 FLOW REGIMES

There are three types of flow regimes namely:

 Steady state flow

 Unsteady state flow
 Pseudo steady state

2.11.1 STEADY STATE FLOW

Steady state exists in a flow system when there is no change in density at any position within the
reservoir as a function of time. The system has the following characteristics:

 There is no change in pressure at any position in the reservoir.

 No material accumulation at any point in the reservoir system.
 The mass flowrate into the reservoir equals mass flowrate out of the reservoir.
 Pressure and rate distribution throughout the reservoir are independent of time.
 Steady state condition is closely approximated by a reservoir under strong water drive, a
large gas cap or secondary recovery on a regular pattern basis and pressure maintenance by
gas injection up dip.

2.11.2 UNSTEADY STATE FLOW

This flow occurs when rate and pressure changes with time or when pressure changes with time.

2.11.3 PSEUDO STEADY STATE FLOW

This occurs when a reservoir is produced at a constant rate for a long enough period of time so
that the entire drainage area of the reservoir is affected by pressure disturbance. Its characteristics
include

 There is a constant change of pressure with time at all radii.

 There is parallel pressure distributions and corresponding constant rate distributions and
corresponding constant rate distribution.
 Pressure becomes relatively constant at each radius

2.12 DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS

The buildup is divided into three time regions– early, middle, and late time. The middle time represents
radial flow and it is not until middle time is reached that the permeability can be determined.The
permeability is calculated from the slope of the semi-log straight line, from the vertical location of the
flat portion of the derivative. These two answers should be the same. The skin is calculated from the "p
curve. In Figure3, the larger the separation between the curves in the middle time region, the more
positive is the skin. Early time represents the wellbore and the near wellbore properties (effects of
damage, acidizing, or hydraulic fracture). It is often associated with a (log-log) straight line of fixed slope.
A slope equal to “one” means “wellbore storage,” and during that period, nothing can be learned about
the reservoir because the wellbore is still filling up. A slope of “half” typically means linear flow as a
result of a hydraulic fracture. From this straight line, the fracture length or fracture effectiveness can be
calculated if the permeability is known. The period after middle time is known as late time, and it
reflects the effect of the reservoir boundaries and heterogeneities. It is from this region that the
reservoir shape can be determined. A straight line of slope approximately “half” would indicate a long,
narrow reservoir. A straight line slope approximately “one” could imply a low permeability reservoir
surrounding the region investigated during middle time. If the derivative trends downward during the
late time period, it could indicate an improvement in permeability (actually mobility) away from the
well. If this downward curvature is severe, it might be indicative of a depleting reservoir. The average
reservoir pressure (Pr) is obtained by extrapolating the semi-log straight line to infinite shut-in time (=1
on the Horner plot). This extrapolation is called p* and it is used, along with an assumed reservoir shape
and size, to calculate the average reservoir pressure. For short flow durations, for example in a DST or in
the initial test of a well, the correction from P* to Pr is negligible, and P* does equal Pr.

2.13 DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED WHILE PERFORMING WELL TESTING

2.13.1 PERIODIC CHANGE OF FLOWRATE AND PRESSURE

This can result in accumulation effect or wellbore storage will occur. This problem can be solved
by increasing the production rate to draw the accumulation in the tubing.

2.13.2 STABILIZATION PERIOD

In some wells, it is not easy to obtain the nature of flow in the reservoir and well or the location
of the equipment.

2.13.3 FLUID SLUGGING INTO THE SEPERATION EQUIPMENT

This occurs if there is a long flowline with chokes at the well head. This can cause erratic
production rate or a short increased back pressure.

2.13.4 FORMATION OF HYDRATE.

In the system of flowlines, it may be difficult to obtain a good result. This is solved by changing
the equipment or installation of heater treated up stream of the high pressure separator or use of low
temperature separator. Glycol or alcohol can be injected into the flowing system or bottom hole choke
can be installed in the well.

2.14 WELL PROBLEMS

A well is said to have problem when its behavior deviates from the normal production pattern.
Well problem analysis involves the determination of such abnormal behavior. In order to understand
well’s abnormality, it is necessary to know what exactly constitutes normal behavior such as:
  The amount of gas or oil produced.
 The gas oil ratio(GOR)
 The water cut
 The rate of injection (for gas injection wells)

To analyze well problems, the study can be reservoir area or on well basis. However, before
studying an individual well, it should be ascertained that it is not reservoir problem that the problem
actually exists. The following are typical well problems for producing wells:

 Low productivity
 High GOR
 Low reservoir permeability
 Low reservoir pressure
 Formation damage and skin value
 Wellbore and tubing plugging
 High viscosity oil
 Excessive back pressure on the formation
 Inadequate gas lift
 Gas problem in oil wells
 For injection wells, the problem may be low volume of fluid, high injection pressure,
mechanical problem.

2.14.1 LOW PRODUCTIVITY

Many reasons can be deduced for low production rate. The question to be answered is which of
the reasons is actually responsible? The likely cause of low or limited production rate are as follows:

 Low reservoir permeability

 Low reservoir pressure
 Formation damage and skin value
 Wellbore or tubing plugging
 High viscosity oil
 Excessive back pressure on formation
 Inadequate gas lift system
 Mechanical problem

2.14.2 LOW RESERVOIR PERMEABILITY

Low reservoir permeability may be an overall reservoir characteristic or it may be limited to a

specific area. In a low permeability reservoir, well productivity declines rapidly as fluids near the
wellbore are produced, production test and pressure buildup test may be used in differentiating
between low permeability and formation damage.

2.14.3 LOW RESERVOIR PRESSURE

If reservoir pressure measurements have been carried out on a routine basis, reservoir pressure
history should be well documented. The next step is to consider the dominant reservoir drive in a
particular reservoir and how this drive mechanism is associated with the apparent problem being
investigated.

2.14.4 FORMATION DAMAGE AND SKIN VALUE

This is the partial or complete plugging of the near wellbore area which which reduces the
original permeability of the formation.

2.14.4.1 THE CONCEPT OF DAMAGE ZONE AROUND THE WELLBORE

The causes of formation damage are as follows:

 Drilling: A situation when wrong drilling practices are carried out.

 Cementing: A situation where wrong or incomplete cementing job is done.
 Perforating: A situation where perforation is either too high to the gas cap or too low to the
water zone.
 Completion and workover operations.
 Gravel packing.
 Production at high rates that exert drag on the walls of the formation.
 Injection operation perhaps with fluid that is not compatible with the formation.

Generally, formation damage can be characterized by the following causes:

 Migration of fines (based on nature of injection fluid, type and compatibility with
formation).
 Swelling clay
 Scale deposits (based on nature of injection fluid, type and compatibility with formation).
 Organic deposits (based on nature of injection fluid, type and compatibility with formation).
 Induced solids.
 Induced kill fluids.
 Induced precipitates.

Correct identification is critical to successful removal of the damage or other impairment. It

requires more than little experience and a thorough knowledge of field operations. Formation
damage is totally unacceptable to production engineers because it restricts the flowrate into the
wellbore. To improve the flowrate, the damage has to be removed or at least reduced ie
permeability near the wellbore must be increased. Formation damage is quantified by a
dimensionless factor called skin factor (simply skin). Pressure transient tests help to estimate
the magnitude of the damage.

2.15 DESCRIPTION OF TERMS

 SKIN DUE TO PARTIAL PENETRATION: When a well does not fully penetrate the formation, or
the perforations do not open up the whole formation, the reservoir fluid has to flow
vertically with the flow lines converging near the penetrated area at the wellbore. The
 convergence of the flow lines near the wellbore cause an additional pressure drop near the
wellbore, an effect similar to that caused by wellbore damage. The effects of partial
penetration are accounted for by treating it as a skin effect called skin due to partial
penetration (spp). This skin is always positive and typically varies from 0 to 30. It is a
function of the height of the perforated interval (hp), the distance from the top of the zone
to the top of the perforations (htop), and the horizontal to vertical permeability ratio ( k h /k
v ). The height of perforations or perforated interval (hp) is that portion of the net pay (h)
that is open to flow into the wellbore either through partial penetration of the wellbore, or
incomplete perforation. Normally, in order to maximize production, the entire net pay (h) is
open to flow into the wellbore (fully penetrated, hp = h). In some cases, it is necessary to
perforate so only a portion of the net pay (h ) is open to the wellbore in orderto minimize
coning effects. This perforated interval is judiciously placed a certain distance from the top
of the zone to the top of the perforations (htop ).The perforated interval has a maximum
value dependent on the net pay ( h) and the net wellbore inclination ( s) . Top of Zone to Top
of Perforations (htop ) In a partially penetrated well is the distance from the top of the zone
to the top of perforations. When a formation is only partially penetrated, the location of the
perforated interval has an effect on the skin due to partial penetration (spp). Thus we could
have the same net pay (h) and the same perforated intervals, but because these perforated
intervals are located at different locations they will have different skin effects due to partial
penetration.The horizontal-to-vertical permeability ratio represents the contrast in
permeability between the horizontal and vertical planes within a formation (anisotropic
permeability). This ratio is applicable when dealing with partially penetrated or horizontal
wells and directly affects the skin due to partial penetration (spp). It typically ranges in value
from 0.1 to 1000. For example, in a well with partial penetration the fluid has to travel
vertically because the whole of the net pay (h) is not open to the wellbore as shown below.
This vertical component of flow calls into play the vertical permeability, in addition to the
horizontal permeability. A large horizontal-to-vertical permeability ratio implies a relatively
low vertical permeability, which creates a larger pressure drop near the wellbore due to the
vertical component of flow. Thus, this increase in pressure drop near the wellbore is
represented as an increase in the skin due to partial penetration (spp).
 RADIUS OF INVESTIGATION:Radius of investigation represents how far into the reservoir the
transient effects have traveled.A pressure transient is created when a disturbance such as a
change in rate occurs at a well. Astime progresses, the pressure transient advances further
and further into the reservoir. Thisconcept is not theoretically rigorous, but is adequate for
practical purposes. Theoretically, when apressure disturbance is initiated at the well, it will
have an immediate effect, however minimal, atall points in the reservoir. At a certain
distance from the well, however, the effect of the disturbancewill be so small as to be
unmeasurable. The furthest distance at which the effect is detectable iscalled the radius of
investigation. There is a time t when the pressure disturbance reaches the distanceri
(radius of investigation).
 STIMULATION: Oil well stimulation is the general term describing a variety of operations
performed on a well to improve its productivity.it can be conducted on old wells and new
wells alike; and it can be designed for remedial purposes or for enhanced production. Its
main two types of operations are matrix acidization and hydraulic fracturing. Matrix
 acidization involves the placement of acid within the wellbore at rates and pressures
designed to attack an impediment to production without fracturing or damaging the
reservoir (typically, hydrofluoric acid is used for sandstone/silica-based problems, and
hydrochloric acid or acetic acid is used for limestone/carbonate-based problems). Hydraulic
fracturing, which includes acid fracturing, involves the injection of a variety of fluids and
other materials into the well at rates that actually cause the cracking or fracturing of the
reservoir formation.

CHAPTER THREE

3.1 WELL HISTORY

The UMU-N2 well is one of the wells in the Umusadege field in Kwale, Delta state. It is an onshore oil
and gas field located in north central of the Niger Delta basin. The field was discovered in 1974. The
UMU-N2 well was drilled in 1980 and flowed at a rate of 1673bbls/day. It is being operated by
Midwestern Oil and gasalthough, the field was originally permitted to Elf Petroleum Nigeria.The well was
drilled to a depth of 9560ft.The well experienced high sand and water production. The Well was closed
in 1996.

3.2 PRODUCTION DATA TABLE FOR UMU-N2 WELL

Table 3.1Production data Table for Umu-N2 well

DATE BEAN /64 BS&W THP(psig) GOR(scf/bopd)

03/81 28 0 400 680
07/81 24 0 570 661
01/82 20 0 490 473
06/82 20 0 500 426
11/82 16 0 550 397
05/83 16 0.75 700 411
11/83 10 2 600 312
04/84 8 2.16 500 312
11/84 8 2.28 550 494
05/85 10 2.56 550 421
12/85 - - - -
11/86 - - - -
03/87 24 4.92 600 559
09/87 20 6.84 700 661
04/89 20 9.45 450 820
11/89 16 10.45 320 473
01/90 20 4.12 175 661
09/90 24 2.05 240 661
05/91 36 0.75 420 900
12/91 20 0.10 420 473
06/92 16 0.86 350 300
01/93 8 2.56 300 208
11/93 8 4.35 250 285
03/94 8 5.62 350 209
06/95 20 6.94 400 384
04/96 20 8.56 600 450

3.3 PRESSURE VERSUS TIME READING FOR UMU-N2 WELL

Table 3.2Pressure versus time reading for UMU-N2 Well

∆t(hr) Pws(psig) (Tp+∆t) /∆t ∆p(pws-pwf)psig

0.0 1850.25 - -
0.02 1880 360 29.75
0.028 1892 280 41.75
0.037 1907 220 56.75
0.045 1920 180 69.75
0.05 1935 150 84.75
0.06 1950 130 99.75
0.068 1962 118 111.75
0.08 1975 100 124.75
0.088 1987 92 136.75
0.101 2000 80 149.75
1.127 2020 64 169.75
0.163 2027 50 176.76
0.205 2030 40 179.75
0.24 2032 34 181.75
0.276 2033 30 182.75
0.36 2035 23 184.75
0.4 2037 21 186.75
0.47 2038 18 187.75
1.6 2047 6 196.75
2 2050 5 199.75
2.58 2051 4.1 200.75
6.67 2057 2.2 206.75
10 2060 1.8 209.75
11.43 2061 1.7 210.75

BUILDUP WELL TEST RESULTS

CLIENT: MIDWESTERN OIL AND GAS COMPANY

WELL NAME: UMU- N2

DATE: JUNE 1990

PRODUCTION TIME: 8 hrs

PRODUCTION RATE: 150bopd

HORNERS PLOT FOR UMU-N2 WELL

2090.25

2070.25

2050.25

2030.25

2010.25
Shut-in pressure(Pws)

1990.25

1970.25

1950.25

1930.25

1910.25

1890.25

1870.25

1850.25
1000 100 10 1 0.1

Horner's time((tp+∆t)/∆t (hr)

Fig 3.1 HORNER’S DIAGNOSTIC PLOT FOR UMU-N2 WELL

 THE GRAPH OF LOG ∆P VS LOG ∆t
1000

100
log ∆p

10

1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

log ∆t
Fig 3.2THE GRAPH OF LOG ∆P VS LOG ∆t

3.5 PARAMETER FOR BHP ANALYSIS

Q=150bbl/day

µo=1.80cp

βo=1.15rb/stb

Ct=1.8×10-5

Rw= 0.40

Ø =27

H=65ft

3.6 DATA FROM THE BHP GRAPH OF UMU-N2 WELL

P*=2065

Pwf=1850.25

P1hr=2045

P∗−P 1hr
Slope (m)= log 1−log0. 1

2065−2045
m= 1
m= 20psi/cycle

PERMEABILITY, K

162.6 qub
K= mh
 162. 6×150×1 .80×1.15
K= 20×65

K=38.8md

TOTAL SKIN St

2045−1850. 25 k
[ −log
St= 65 ( μctrw 2 ) +3.23]

PRESSURE DROP DUE TO SKIN

141. 2q μβ s
P= kh

141.2×150×1. 8×1.15×8. 66
P= 38 .8×65

P=150.55

FLOW EFFICIENCY

pr−pwf − Δp
FE= pr− pwf
2065−1850 . 25−150 . 55
FE= 2065−1850 . 25

FE= 0.3

PSEUDO SKIN (SKIN DUE TO PARTIAL PERFORATION)

h
[ −1 ] ln( h √ kh )−2]
Sp= hp [ rw kv

65 65 kh
[ −1] ln( √ )−2]
31 [ 0.4 kv

kh
Assuming = kv =1

(1.097×5.09)─2

=3.58
DAMAGE SKIN (Sd)

hp
(st−sp )
Sd= ht

31
(8 .66−3 .58)
Sd= 62

TRANSMISSIBILITY

kh
Transmissibility= μ
38 .8×65
= 1 .8

PRODUCTIVITY INDEX

q
PI= pr−pwf − Δ ps
150
= 2065−1850 . 25−150 . 55

=2.34bopd/psi

DAMAGE RATIO

1
D.R= FE

1
= 0.3

=3.3

R-FACTOR

Δ ps
R-factor = pr −pwf
150 .55
= 2065−1850 . 25

=0.7
DAMAGE FACTOR

D.F=1─F.E

= 1─0.3

=0.7

RADIUS OF INVESTIGATION

kt
Ri= 948 μct
kt
[ ]0 .5
= 948×1. 8×0 .27×1 . 8×10−5
=193.46ft

RATE AFTER SKIN IS REMOVED

p1 hr −pwf
Q= q × p∗− pwf −Δ ps
2045−1850 . 25
=150 × 2065−1850 . 25−150 . 55

=455.02bopd

EFFECTIVE WELLBORE RADIUS (Rwa)

Rwa=rwe-s

=0.4×e-8.66

=6.94×10-5

POTENTIAL PRODUCTION RATE WITHOUT SKIN

150
Q= 0.3

=500 bopd

SUMMARY OF PARAMETERS CALCULATED FROM BHP DATA

PARAMETERS VALUES AND UNITS

Permeability(k) 38.8 md
Total skin(St) 8.66
Pseudo skin(Sp) 3.61
Damage skin(Sd) 2.54
Pressure drop due to skin 150.55
Productivity index 2.34bopd/psi
Damage ratio(D.R) 3.3
Flow efficiency(F.E) 0.3
Damage factor 0.7
Radius of investigation 193.46ft
R-factor 0.7
Transmissibility 1401.1bblmdft/cp
Potential production rate without skin 500 bopd
Rate after skin is removed 455.02b0pd
Effective wellbore radius(Rwa) 6.94×10-5

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 PRODUCTION DATA ANALYSIS

From the production data of UMU-N2 well, the production started in march 1981 at a rate of 1673
bopd and choke size of 28/64. With time, the production rate kept decreasing with increasing BS&W.
Gravel packing was done to curb the sand production. As a result, the production rate increased
gradually. With further production, the rate reduced with increasing BS&W until the well was shut in.

4.2ANALYSIS OF BHP DATA

The BHP survey was carried out on June 1990.The well was produced for8hrs before it was shut in. The
data obtained are analyzed as follows:

PERMEABILITY(K)

The permeability was found to be 38.8md. This reduced permeability is indicative of damage caused
during drilling and completion process. This could be as a result of migration of fine particles which
could block the pore spaces. It could also be caused during the perforation process.

TOTAL SKIN(St)
The total skin is calculated as 8.66 .It is greater than 1 and positive. This indicates that there is damage in
the near the wellbore region.

FLOW EFFICIENCY (FE)

The flow efficiency is lesser than 1 which is indicative of formation damage

PRESSURE DROP DUE TO TOTAL SKIN (∆P)

With the well producing at a drawdown of 214.75, a pressure drop of 150.55psi of the total drawdown
occurs across the altered zone. If the damage is removed, the well could produce more fluid with the
same drawdown or alternatively, could produce the same at a much smaller drawdown.

SKIN DUE TO PARTIAL PERFORATION(3.61)

The value of this skin is positive, indicating that there was damage due to insufficient or improper
perforation during completion process.

DAMAGE SKIN

The damage skin was 2.54, a positive value indicating that there was formation damage as a result of the
drilling operations.

R-FACTOR

When the R-factor is lesser than 0.6, the well does not require stimulation but when it I greater than 0.6,
it requires stimulation. Since the calculated value was greater than 0.6, the well requires stimulation.

RATE AFTER SKIN IS REMOVED

After skin is removed, the average production rate increased from 150bopd to 455.02bopd
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 CONCLUSION

From the analysis carried out on Umu-N2 well, it was discovered that there was formation damage
which has made the permeability inadequate to allow the well to produce at rates high enough for the
timely recovery of investment in drilling and completing the well. Also, the high sand and water
production is detrimental to high productivity.

5.2 RECOMMENDATION

 The formation damage should be removed or repaired. This requires a damage removal
technique which is usually matrix acidizing but may occasionally involve hydraulic fracturing
 As for the sand production, the wellbore should be cleaned out and the gravel pack re-
installed such that it has high intergrity.
 The excessive water production can be curbed by squeezing off the perforations and re-
perforating at a suitable upper interval.
 REFERENCES

Agarwal, R. G., Al-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H. J.(1970)An Investigation of Wellbore Storage

and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: I. Analytical Treatment. SPE-2466-PA
Energy Resources conservation board(ERCB) 1975Theory and Practice of the p 3Testing of
Gas Wells,Thirdedition.pp 3,4,5
Fekete Associates Inc. Fast Well Test Help Guide. 2
IlfiBinti Edward Yasin (2012) Pressure Transient Analysis Using Generated Well Test Data
From Simulation of Selected Wells in Norne Field, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology.
I.T.J. Kuiper(2009):Well Testing in the framework of system identification, Delft University of
technology.
John lee(1982): Well Testing SPE AIME, New York Dallas, USAOffia U.S. 2010 and Okorie
O.M. Fundamentals of Well Testing by Ava publisher
Schlumberger (1998): Introduction to Well Testing: Section 5 Basic Well Test
Interpretation.