GAS INJECTION TESTING & PLT OFFSHORE ENI EXPERIENCE

E. Azzarone, E. Beretta, A. Guglielmelli, eni e&p, P. Nunzi, P. Mariotti, eni UK.

th

This paper was presented at the 10 Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition in Ravenna, Italy, March 23-25, 2011.
It was selected for presentation by OMC 2011 Programme Committee following review of information contained in the abstract
submitted by the authors. The Paper as presented at OMC 2011 has not been reviewed by the Programme Committee.

ABSTRACT
Two injection tests with production logging (PLT) runs were performed on two appraisal wells
in an offshore gas field, in the period between January and February 2010.
These two field applications represent the first eni experience in injecting nitrogen into a
depleted gas reservoir with the target of characterising the main reservoir properties and
assessing the well deliverability.
The first application was carried out in a vertical pilot hole well, whilst the second operation
was in a horizontal well. In both cases nitrogen was selected as the injected gas. The
nitrogen supply was from dedicated storage tanks sent to the rig site.
The high degree of reservoir depletion was recognised to be the main driver in choosing
injection testing instead of conventional well testing. In fact, the reservoir pressure was quite
low and achieving stabilised and reliable gas production rates was considered to be at risk.
An additional crucial issue was to verify whether the selected drilling fluid and the completion
well architecture would be suitable for systematic application to all the wells in the final
development plan. In this context the evaluation of the well damage was one of the goals to
be reached.
From the operational point of view, significant lessons were learned from the operation on
the vertical well and the experience was effectively applied to optimise the injection/PLT
strategy when testing the horizontal well.
All the major targets were satisfactorily accomplished from the vertical well test interpretation,
while some critical issues were recognised to be still present in the horizontal well behaviour.
In both the applications the PLT response was of great importance in identifying the effective
flow profile during the injection phase.

INTRODUCTION
The interpretation objectives of the injection testing and PLT runs were to improve the
reservoir understanding and to assess the most suitable well architecture to be adopted in
the field development plan.
Fundamental issues were to establish the well injectivity at the current reservoir conditions
and to evaluate the drilling mud technology as well as the completion scheme, in order to
minimise the induced damage thus maximising the well deliverability. In this perspective the
evaluation of the skin factor proved to be of crucial importance.
The main objectives of the injection test interpretation were as follows:
To determine major average reservoir parameters: reservoir pressure (Pav_i),
permeability-thickness (kh) and permeability (k).
To evaluate the well skin factor and its major components, induced by drilling &
completion operations in depleted reservoir conditions:
Mechanical skin, due to the wellbore damage or stimulation.
Geometrical skin, due to partial penetration or to horizontal well geometry.
To investigate reservoir heterogeneities within the radius of investigation.
To establish the transient well injectivity and make a comparison between the well
performance of the horizontal drain and the vertical pilot hole.
1

The main objectives of the PLT interpretation were as follows:

To evaluate the flow profile at different nitrogen injection rates.
To identify and locate possible cross-flow effects.

DISCUSSION
Due to the huge field depletion, the decision was made to run an injection test instead of a
conventional production test to evaluate the major reservoir information and the well
parameters together with the injectivity performance, which was recognised as the main well
test objective to be achieved. In this specific case, a conventional test (i.e., by flowing the
well) was not considered completely reliable because of the risk of intermittent and/or
unstable flow during the production phase.
The injection testing technique generally consists of injecting a fluid into the reservoir at a
constant rate, which is non damaging and compatible with the formation hydrocarbons. In the
case of these field applications, nitrogen was selected as the injected fluid into a gas bearing
formation (basically methane). This technique addresses the same objectives as
conventional well testing: formation pressure, permeability, boundaries, skin and well
deliverability. A fall-off period, with the well shut-in, follows the injection phase. The injection
phase must be performed in matrix conditions without exceeding the formation fracture
gradient [1], [2], [3], [4].
Eni has patented a proprietary technology for field operations and interpretation workflow
(WO2007/134747) for injection testing.
After the tests, PLT operations were performed in order to estimate the most likely injection
profile.
BACKGROUND
The vertical (through the reservoir) well is the S shaped original pilot hole for the appraisal
well and the horizontal well is the following appraisal sidetrack, both located in the same
offshore field, in 39.4 m of water (Figure 1).

Well A

Horizontal Sidetrack

Well B

Vertical Pilot Hole

Well C

Fig 1: Field Location Map

The vertical well was drilled in overbalanced conditions with an oil base mud (OBM) of 1.14
kg/l, intercepting in the vertical section the gas bearing sandstone reservoir down to a total
depth of 2007 m MD. The reservoir fluid is basically methane, with a specific gas gravity of
0.6, with air = 1.0.
After acquiring logs the decision was made to avoid MDT surveys due to the risk of being
stuck because of the high degree of reservoir depletion.
The well was completed with a 7 slotted liner (from 1798 m MD down to 2004 m MD) and
tested by using a 3 tubing DST string. The tested slotted section open to flow was set
between 1840 and 1912 m MD.
The horizontal well was drilled as the sidetrack of the previous pilot hole, in overbalanced
conditions with an oil base mud of 0.96 kg/l density into the same reservoir.
The well was completed with a 7 slotted liner (from 1849 m MD down to 2840 m MD) and
tested by a 3 tubing DST string. The horizontal section was set between the top of slots,
at a depth of 2100 m MD, to the total depth of 2851 m MD. The tested interval covered by the
slots was from 2100 m MD to 2815 m MD. Nitrogen (SG = 0.97) was injected into the
formation. Due to surface constraints the maximum injection rate was set at 50000 Sm3/d for
the vertical well. This limit was extended up to 100000 Sm3/d during the operations in the
horizontal well.
INTERPRETATION
The injection test interpretation was performed by analysing the pressure transient response
recorded during the nitrogen injection phases and the subsequent shut-in/fall-off phases.
The petrophysical, well and fluid PVT input data used for the interpretation are reported in
Table 1.
Tab. 1:

Input Data

Well
Net pay thickness
Water saturation
Porosity
Wellbore radius
PLT estimated injected interval
Ref. reservoir pressure @ gauge depth
Ref. reservoir temperature @ gauge depth
Gas specific gravity (air=1)
Gas formation volume factor
Gas viscosity
Z-factor
Gas compressibility
Total system compressibility

Vertical

Horizontal

80 m
80 m
25 %
20 %
15 %
12 %
0.108 m
0.108 m
~ 50 m
285 m
238 psia @ 1770 m
354 psia @ 1822 m
MD
MD
140 F @ 1770 m MD 140 F @ 1822 m MD
0.6
0.6
3
3
0.069 Rm /Sm
0.045 Rm3/Sm3
0.012 cP
0.013 cP
0.98
0.96
-1
0.004 psia
0.003 psia-1
0.003 psia-1
0.002 psia-1

a) VERTICAL WELL
The injection test in the vertical well showed a good formation response and a high quality
interpretation analysis was possible. However, only a PLT qualitative analysis was performed
because both spinners (Full Bore Turbine and Inline) did not work properly due to the
residual viscous mud in the wellbore. This viscous mud is a sort of mixture between the
OBM drilling fluid and a special product, called Micro Wash, used to remove the induced filter
cake.
3

Injection Test
The Log-Log diagnostic plot in Figure 2 shows the fall-offs validation. A comparison between
the two main fall-off periods performed during the test showed consistent trends. The fall-off
performed after the PLT was selected as the reference period for the analysis. The
interpretation model is: partially penetrating well for early time, homogeneous for middle time
and infinite lateral extent for late time. The injection test interpretation results are presented
in Table 2. As forecasted by numerical simulations, the total fluid miscibility at the well testing
scale was confirmed [5], [6], [7], [8].

100

Rate Normalised nm(p) Change and Derivative (psi)

PLT Phase Fall-Off

10

IARF
1

Main Phase Fall-Off

0.1

0.01
0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

100

Elapsed time (hrs)

Fig 2: Vertical Well Log-Log Diagnostic Plot

Tab. 2:

Vertical Well Injection Test Interpretation Results

Well

Reservoir pressure @ gauge depth, Pr

Pore pressure gradient, pore
Permeability thickness product, kh
Gas permeability, kxy
Anisotropy ratio, kz/kxy
PLT estimated injection interval, hw
Pure mechanical skin, Sm
Well skin (with turbulence effect), Sw
Geometrical skin, Sc
Total skin, Stot
D-factor
Investigation radius, rinv

Vertical
238 psia @ 1770 m MD (~ 5493 ft TVD SS)
0.043 psi/ft
1840 mDm
23 mD
0.57
~ 50 m
1.9
2.2
2.7
6.3
-6
3
5.33 E d/Sm (~ 1.51 E-4 d/Mscf)
100 m

PLT Operation
The PLT operation was affected by the presence of residual drilling fluids (viscous mud)
compromising the rotation of both spinners (Full Bore Turbine and Inline). As a consequence
only a qualitative analysis was carried out. However, it was observed that the section of the
interval receiving injection increased with increasing nitrogen injection rate up to the
maximum limit of 50000 Sm3/d. It was assumed that a most likely thickness of about 50 m
could be uniformly receiving injection. This interval was estimated to be from the reservoir
top (1840 m MD) to the deepest liquid contact observed during the test (1890 m MD).
In addition, unexpected changes in the liquid level were observed, going down during the
injection phase and rising up during fall-off phase.
The evolution of this contact was more evident from the analysis of temperature, density,
pressure and also spinner curves. No cross-flow effects were detected. Below 1890 m MD
the PLT curves did not show any evidence of nitrogen injection. (Figures 3-6)

Fig 3: Vertical Well Spinner Failure due to the Wellbore Conditions

Fig 4: Vertical Well Not Interpretable Spinner Curves

5

Fig 5: Vertical Well Borehole Gas-Viscous Mud Contact Evolution

N2 Injected Rate (Sm /d)

7" Slotted Liner

1840 m MD

10000

20000

1840

40000

50000

1862

1860
1870

0
60000

Time

1850
Fluid Level (m MD)

30000

1875

1878.5

1880

1886

1890

1890
1900
1910

1912 m MD

1920

Fig 6: Vertical Well Liquid Head Evolution during PLT Operation

b) HORIZONTAL WELL
Both Injection Test interpretation and PLT analysis were significantly affected by liquid
movements and residual viscous mud still present in the horizontal section of the wellbore.
Injection Test
The injection testing interpretation was extremely complex since the pressure response
achieved by the main fall-off phase was completely altered by wellbore storage effects (i.e.,
presence of liquid, change in liquid level, etc.). As a result, only the first radial flow in the
vertical plane could be extrapolated as a first approximation. The remaining flow regimes,
corresponding to the linear and the pseudo radial flows, were not detected. Sensitivities
performed assuming different ranges of the most critical parameters (i.e., kh) seemed not to
have a huge impact on the major results. However, the conclusions reported in Table 3 must
be considered as a first approximation.
6

Tab. 3:

Horizontal Well Injection Test Interpretation Results

Horizontal Well Cases

Reservoir pressure @ gauge depth, Pr
Pore pressure gradient, pore
Radial flow in vertical plane,

Case 1 (Lw=285 m)

Case 2 (Lw=383 m)

354 psia @ 1822 m

MD (~ 5401.18 ft
TVD SS)
0.06 psi/ft

354 psia @ 1822 m

MD (~ 5401.18 ft
TVD SS)
0.06 psi/ft

260 mDm

260 mDm

285 m
120 mD m
2 mD
0.4
10
10
-4
1
~ 40 m

383 m
120 mD m
2 mD
0.2
10
10
-4
1
~ 40 m

k xy k z Lw

Minimum PLT effective horizontal length, Lw

Permeability thickness product, kxyh

Average Gas permeability, kxy
Anisotropy ratio, kz/kxy
Pure mechanical skin, Sm
Well skin (with turbulence effect), Sw
Completion skin, Sc
Total skin, Stot
Investigation radius, rinv

The Log-Log diagnostic plot in Figure 7 shows the fall-offs validation. A comparison between
the two fall-off periods performed during the test and considered the most reliable for the test
interpretation, the WT fall-off and the PLT final fall-off, indicated quite similar trends, but the
derivative response appeared to be affected by the well phenomena which masked the real
reservoir response.

Rate Normalised nm(p) Change and Derivative (psi)

10000

WT Fall-Off

Assumed Horizontal Flow ~ 120 mD m

1000

100

10

PLT Final Fall-Off

Linear Flow
1

Uncertainty in Vertical Flow detection ~ 260 mD m

0.1
0.001

0.01

0.1

10

100

1000

Elapsed time (hrs)

Fig 7: Horizontal Well Log-Log Diagnostic Plot

The interpretation assumptions were fixed on the basis of:
The estimation of the most likely effective horizontal well length, which ranged from a
minimum value of 285 m (base case) to a maximum of 383 m, from the PLT qualitative
analysis of the temperature profile response
An anisotropy ratio which was considered lower than one, in the order of 0.1 0.4.
7

The well test fall-off was selected as the reference period for the analysis. The interpretation
model is: uniform flux horizontal well for early time, homogeneous for middle time and infinite
lateral extent for late time. The injection test interpretation results are presented in Table 3.
Sensitivity studies were performed to assess the impact of the two effective injection intervals
calculated from the PLT on the interpretation results. The effect on the test results proved to
be negligible. The only difference between the two cases was identified in the anisotropy
ratio value: the vertical permeability, kz, corresponding to the longest injection interval (Lw=
383 m) was approximately half the vertical permeability corresponding to the minimum
injection interval (Lw= 285 m).
PLT Operation
After the main test, a series of PLT attempts were made by injecting nitrogen at a maximum
nitrogen rate of 92000 Sm3/d. The PLT interpretation was only of a qualitative nature, again
due to the combination of the presence in the wellbore of viscous mud and the changing
liquid level over time. Both the Full Bore and FSI mini-spinners did not work. As a
consequence, the most likely injection profile was estimated based on the variation in the
temperature response observed comparing static vs dynamic passes. As a first
approximation the horizontal portion that was potentially receiving injection ranged from a
minimum of 285 m up to a maximum of 383 m. Below a depth of 2511 m MD the
temperature profiles did not show any evidence of injectivity. As from logs response, below
2600 m MD the formation seemed to be quite tight and, as a consequence, not suitable to
accept nitrogen. No cross-flow effects were detected. (Figures 8-10)

Fig 8: Horizontal Well FBS & FSI Spinner Failure due to Wellbore Conditions

Fig 9: Horizontal Well Shut-in and 1st Injection Temperature Analysis

Fig 10: Horizontal Well Shut-in, 1st Injection and 4th Injection Temperature Analysis

WELL DELIVERABILITY EVALUATION

The deliverability performances were evaluated for both the wells at the current reservoir
static pressure based on the data measured during the injection phases and reported in
Table 4.
Tab. 4:

Injection Data

Vertical Well
Phase

Injection Test

PLT Injection

Horizontal Well

Injection Rate
(Sm3/d)

BHP
(psia)

Injection Rate
(Sm3/d)

BHP
(psia)

10200

257

30000

585

30600

284

60000

750

49000

304

100000

875

10200

262

92000

925

30600

287

92000

893

49000

305

92000

840

The empirical Rowlins-Schellard equation, calculated under transient injection conditions,

proved that laminar flow was basically established (Figure 11).
Vertical
Vertical(Jan
(Jan2010)
2010)vs
vsHorizontal
Horizontal(Feb
(Feb2010)
2010)

10000000
10000000

2
(p 2 2-pres2 2) (psia
)
(pwfwf
-pres ) (psia2)

1000000
1000000

2 1.0
QQSC ==0.14
0.14(p
(p2) )1.0
SC

PP
res ~~354
354psia
psia
res
kh
kh==120
120mD
mDmm
SS
w ==10
10
w

100000
100000

INJECTIVITY REDUCTION by a factor of 5

2 1.0
QQSC ==1.27
1.27(p
(p2) )1.0
SC

10000
10000

PP
res ==238
238psia
psia
res
kh
~
1800
kh ~ 1800mD
mDmm
SS
w ==2.2
2.2

n ~ 1 --> Laminar Flow Conditions

n ~ 1 --> Laminar Flow Conditions

1000
1000
10000
10000

Q (Sm3/d)
3
Q (Sm /d)

100000
100000

Horizontal WT Horizontal PLT Vertical WT Vertical PLT

Horizontal WT Horizontal PLT Vertical WT Vertical PLT

Fig 11: Well Injectivity Comparison

The injectivity performance of the horizontal well proved to be five times lower than the one
calculated for the vertical well. This was recognised to be due to a combination of a strong
reduction in the productivity thickness product and a larger skin value observed in the
horizontal well.
10

CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusions of the well test interpretations and the PLT analyses on both wells are
the following:
From the operational point of view, significant lessons were learned from the vertical
well operation and the experience was effectively applied to optimise the injection/PLT
strategy when testing the horizontal well.
Even if some criticalities were recognised to be present in the interpretation of the
horizontal well response, all the major targets were effectively achieved.
In particular:
In the injection testing time the total miscibility/compatibility between
nitrogen and the reservoir gas was confirmed.
As expected, the reservoir was found to be highly depleted. The current
static pressure ranges from 250 to 350 psia.
The use of PLT was of great importance in identifying, at least in a
qualitative way, the most likely flow profile during the injection phase. A
reliable quantitative interpretation was not possible because both the PLT
operations were affected by a non-continuous spinner rotation response due
to the presence of a sort of residual viscous mud in the wellbore. This effect
was particularly severe in the horizontal well. A further criticality was
recognised to be due to a change in the liquid level observed during both the
tests. No cross-flow effects were detected.
The estimated mechanical skin resulted to be not a critical issue. As a
consequence both the efficiency of the mud cake in minimising fluid losses
and its removal were considered satisfactory. Well completion architecture
with 7 slotted liner must be considered a valid option.
The current injectivity performance was evaluated for both the wells at the
current reservoir conditions. The injectivity performance in the vertical well
was five times larger than the one in the horizontal well. The reason for that
was recognised to be due to a combination of both a higher damage and a
strong reduction in the lithological formation properties (i.e.: kh) observed in
the horizontal well.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks to the Petroleum Engineering Group of Politecnico di Torino for their relevant
and valuable technical contribution.

REFERENCES
[1]

Levitan, M.M., Application of water injection/falloff tests for reservoir appraisal: new
analytical solution method for two-phase variable rate problems, Paper SPE 77532,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 2002.

[2]

Gunawan Gan R., Nai-Shyong Yeh, Bennett C.O., Application of injection tests for
reservoir appraisals: a conceptual study, Paper SPE 77454, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 2002.
11

[3]

Abbaszadeh M. and Kamal M. M., Pressure-transient testing of water-injection wells,

Paper SPE 16744, SPE Reservoir Engineering Journal Vol.4 N.1 pag.115-124,
February 1989.

[4]

Beretta E., Tiani A., Lo Presti G., Verga F., Injection Tests As A Reliable Alternative
To Conventional Well Testing: A Real Field Experience, Paper SPE 100283,
presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, 12
15 June 2006.

[5]

Todd M. R., Longstaff W. J, The Development, Testing, and Application of a Numerical

Simulator for Predicting Miscible Flood Performance, SPE 3484,1972

[6]

Span R., Lemmon E.W., Jacobsen R.T., Wagner W., A Reference Quality Equation of
State for Nitrogen, International Journal of Thermophysics, Vol 19. No. 4., 1998

[7]

http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/fluid/

[8]

Verga F., Viberti D., Salina Borello E., A new 3-D numerical model to effectively
simulate injection tests, Paper SPE 1113832, presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE
Annual Conference and Exhibition, Rome, 912 June 2008.

NOMENCLATURE
BHP
DST
e&p
FBS
FSI
IARF
MD
MDT
OBM
PLT
PVT
SG
TVD SS
WT

Bottomhole Pressure
Drill Stem Test (indicates test with temporary completion)
Exploration & Production
Full Bore Spinner
FloScan Imager
Infinite Acting Radial Flow
Measured Depth
Modular Formation Dynamics Tester
Oil Base Mud
Production Logging Tool
Pressure Volume Temperature
Specific Gravity
True Vertical Depth Sub Sea
Well Test

12