SPE 111344

Evaluating Exploratory Well: Comparison of Rig or Rig Less Testing

Strategy
Khalifa R. Mohammed, and Alberto Danny Massacese, RepsolYPF; Eric Goldschild, Schlumberger; Javier
Fernandez Betria, RepsolYPF; Patrick Perrin, Schlumberger; and Ludovic Caillet, RepsolYPF
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Marrakech, Morocco, 12–14 March 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Efficient Evaluation for an exploratory well with multiple targets is the key to achieve the exploration objectives and success.
For that, define Test Strategy has become a critical issue for most of the operators. However, it has not received yet attention in
the literature.
The main goal of this paper is to formulate a discussion for well-testing strategy and management approach that meets
exploratory evaluation objectives in the most effective and economical way. It can be achieved through good understanding of
the following.
• Exploration commitments
• Exploratory well: aim of evaluation through well testing
• Well test design and implementation
• Environmental issues
• Testing method: economic evaluation
• Perforating and testing management
• DST rig operations versus rig-less testing evaluation
Proper weighting of the previously mentioned points will help to decide the suitable testing technique; retrievable DST string
or permanent completion testing string, in other words Rig or Rig less operations. Reservoirs of high uncertainties on the
expected response require flexible techniques that can handle any unexpected conditions. They are thus candidate for
retrievable DST string rig operation. Otherwise reservoirs of lower uncertainties are usually candidate for permanent
completion to test on rig less operations without DHSI (Down Hole Shut-in Tool).
The majors benefits of the permanent completion testing string over the retrievable DST testing operation are the flexibility in
test time and that the rig could be free to drill new wells, mainly in the running times where is very difficult to find available
rigs. Nevertheless, one need to weight Time spent versus Value before making a final decision. Few cases from Repsol
Exploration SA wells will be presented and discussed.
Introduction
Repsol is exploring inside the North of Africa (see map in Figure 1). The age of the formations targets are: Carboniferous,
Devonian, and Cambro-Ordovician, these targets are found at the depth ranging between 2000 to 5000 mbrt; normally they are
tight gas sandstone reservoirs.
Based on the testing results, from all the tested wells in the area of the contractual permit, the produced hydrocarbon was dry
gas, and the formations are of low permeability.
Until now, in the exploratory campaign the wells were drilled and tested in rig and rigless operations.
2 SPE 111344

Figure 1: Map of North Africa showing working area

Standard testing objectives
Most of the standard objectives of a testing operation, as summarized below, could be achieved regardless of the testing
strategy (Rig or Rig less).

• Evaluate the well deliverability in efficient way.

• Measure initial reservoir pressure and temperature for each level tested.
• Evaluate formations productivity and flow capacity.
• Obtain PVT Samples to determine effluent properties of the evaluated formations.
• Identify and measure any contaminants (CO2, H2S, etc.)
• Determine the presence and nature of any heterogeneity within the test radius (faults, fluid contacts, connectivity,
reservoir boundaries…)
• Estimate the gas in place with-in the radius of investigation.
• Determine permeability and skin components.
• Define stimulation needed
• Evaluate completion efficiency
The main difference between Rig and Rig less testing are:
• Evaluation of the well deliverability in low permeability formations
• Time to achieve these objectives with Rig less, without downhole shut-in tool, the expended test time could be longer
than with Rig; and
• Cost, DST rig operations are more expensive as consequence of the daily rig charge.
The decision will depend on how large is the difference in data quality, in time and in budget between the two options. A case
study that illustrates the differences is presented in this paper. Two wells were considered: well A that have been tested with
permanent completion / Rig less (Figure 2) and well B, which has been tested using DST / Testing with Rig (Figure 3)
Considerations about Completion strategy for Rig and Rig less testing operations
Basically, a few elements need to be considered in order to choose one of the options and they are:
1. Urgency in the collection of the reservoir information
SPE 111344 3

2. Operations flexibility and quality

3. Cost efficiency and
4. Fulfillment of the drilling plan of new wells, this will be one of the most important factor at the decision moment.
It is impacted by rig availability.
The objective of the testing, regarding the quality and the timing of the information to be collected during the test, needs to be
taken into consideration. Rig operations are expensive but they let obtain faster and better quality information at earlier times
than rig less testing.
Some tests need flexibility in the application of technologies. As the behaviour of the formation is unknown, the strategy must
include an adequate capability to change the program in function of the on going results.
Rig testing operations provides the capability of running and pull out a DST string to test a given reservoir, which is not the
case in a rig less operation that required a permanent completion string.
Rig less operations generate a restriction to the use of large sizes guns since the maximum ID, in a permanent completion
string, is normally smaller than the OD of the guns normally used in TCP operations with a retrievable DST test string (4½”).
This situation may imply a shallower penetration not enough to bypass the damage zone or the flow area through the
perforation are too small, consequently, could give as result a lower productivity than expected.
The availability of drilling rig or of snubbing tunit has proven to be one of the major driver for the choice of the strategy.
In a rigless operation, the snubbing unit maybe required to move the completion string to test the different objectives. This was
the Repsol case in North Africa where, the available snubbing unit at that time, didn´t have the capability to handle the string
in well tested by Repsol. It does not mean that the unit can not be used in more shallow wells where the weight of the string is
within of the lifting capacity of the snubbing.
In a rig operation, the test delays the drilling of further wells and has a cost in lost opportunities.
Overall the strategy will balance the lower cost of rigless testing and rig availability with the flexibility of the rig testing.
Let’s review in more depth of few elements that are critical in this decision.
Data Quality:
The first element that has to be considered is the quality of the reservoir information; in retrievable DST rig operations a down
hole shut-in valve is used meanwhile in rig less operations, normally, it is not installed. The main advantages of using down
hole shut-in are the minimization of both: wellbore storage effect and the elapsed time of the after flow period.
The Figure 5 shows the comparative log-log plot of the two well tests, one was shut-in at surface Well A, while the other was
shut-in at down hole Well B. In the first one test, wellbore storage masks the early times and delay the radial flow plateau for
more than 100 hr; but in the second one, where down hole shut-in valve was used, the collected data show that the formation
information and radial flow plateau emerges clearly after just 1 hr into the transient.
As can be seen in the test overview of these wells in Figure 6 & 7, they had equal final build up duration (72 hours). However,
the diagnostic Log – Log Plot of the pressure and its derivative for these wells (Figure 8) show how big is the wellbore storage
effect when well is shut-in at surface; on the other hand, the Figure 9 show how down hole shut–in reduces the effect of the
same phenomenon.
In both wells the sand tested were the same with poor to very low permeability, emphasizing the difference between both kind
of shut-in well head or bottom hole. Otherwise, in gas wells with very high permeability the effect of after flow could be
negligible.
A summary of the main well testing results from both wells are presented in Table 1, as can be seen the well bore storage
coffiecent have been reduced by one order of magnitude when down hole shut in was used. On the other, the skin has been
reduced when perforating with TCP-DST guns in well B.
4 SPE 111344

DESCRIPTION

Rotary Table Elevation

DESCRIPTION

Control Head
X Mas Tree. 10000 psi
Rotary Table Elevation

Tubing Hanger 4 1/2" pup joint

4 1/2" pup joint 4 1/2" tubing joint
4 1/2" tubing joint
18 5/8" Csg shoe 4 1/2" pup joint
4 1/2" pup joint

4 1/2" tubing joint

4 1/2" pup joint

4 1/2" tubing
TOL 7" 4 1/2" tubing

4 1/2" x 3 1/2" X-over

4 1/2" pup joint

3.813" R Landing Nipple Slip Joint

4 1/2" pup joint Slip Joint

4 1/2" pup joint
Drill Collar
4 1/2" Ratch Latch Locator
13 3/8" scg shoe Reverse Valve
7" PACKER 10000 psi
Radioactive Marker
Mill out extension

5 x 4 1/2" X-over Safety Valve

9 5/8" csg shoe
4 1/2" pup joint TOL 7" Drill Collar
3.813" R Landing Nipple
Tubing Fill Test Valve
4 1/2" pup joint
Gauge Carrier
4 1/2" tubing joint

Mule shoe WL Re-Entry Guide Down Hole Shut In Valve

3700 m Pipe Test Valve

Bed F 9 5/8" csg Shoe Hydraulic Jar
3800 m Safety joint
Bed E
7" PACKER 10000 psi
3900
Bed D 3700 m 2 7/8" tubing joint

4000 Bed E 2 7/8" Circulating sub

Bed C 2 7/8" tubing joint
3800 m
Bed D Mule shoe WL Re-Entry Guide

3900 m
TOL 4 1/2" Bed C
4200 m

7" Liner shoe 4000 m

Bed B Bed B

TOC
4570 m
4500 m 4-1/2" Liner shoe
7" Liner Shoe
Bed A
Bed A
6" Open hole
TD 4900 m 6" Open hole

TD 4700 m
Basic configuration for welltest DST Rigless Operation

Basic configuration for welltest DST Rig Operation

Figure 2: Basic Configuration for testing with permenant Figure 3: Basic configuration for testing with DST (Well B configuration).
completion (Well A configuration).
SPE 111344 5

Figure 4: schematic well diagram showing Down hole shut – in Figure 5: Plot illustrating the reduction of wellbore storage with downhole shut –
Tool (from Modern reservoir testing, Schlumberger, 1994). in (from Joseph and Ehlig – Economides 1988)

Figure 6: Well A test overview Figure 7: Well B test overview

Figure 8: diagnostic plot showing the pressure and it’s derivative Figure 9: diagnostic plot showing the pressure and it’s derivative for Well B
for Well A
Table 1: Main Testing results of the wells A & B
Well Well A Well B
Reservoir Bed C Bed C
Model Radial homogenous Radial composite
Boundaries Single fault infinite acting
well bore storage (Cs) 0.04 0.0034
permeability (k), mD 4.3 7.8
Skin factor (S) 3 -2.4
Initial reservoir pressure at datum (4000 m) 6168 6163
6 SPE 111344

Perforating techniques
Several perforating techniques can be used to optimize inflow on both rig and rigless operations. The main factors to take into
account are:
9 Penetration in order to reach beyond the damaged zone
9 Entry diameter for sand control, and frac objectives flow area
9 Phasing to obtain optimum non pertubated flow
9 Minimized skin.
Generally speaking, perforating with a DST string allows for the best results in terms of reservoir evaluation. DST / TCP will
allow bigger carriers and charges as there is no need to pass through completion tubular, hence providing better penetration,
charge and phasing optimization.
It will be also provide PWOK (Production WithOut
Killing) where the reservoir can be assessed with the
cleanest possible perforations.
With proper planning the guns can be dropped allowing
access to reservoir level for associated operations such as
Production logging ( PLT ), Coil tubing for lifting or acid
washing.

Figure 10: Although achievable under certain conditions with rigless operations, dynamic underbalance perforating is easier and more flexible
when combined with a DST string.

Conventional vs. Dynamic

Underbalance
Conventional Underbalance Dynamic Underbalance
(example): (example):
BHP before perf. = 1000 psi BHP before perf. = 1500 psi
UB OB
Instantaneous UB = No (< 0.1 Instantaneous UB = 2500 psi
sec) Max UB = 2500 psi
Max UB < 500 psi (variable) Kc/K = 1 -> PR = 100%
Kc/K = 0.047 -> PR < 70%

Figure 12: Design of a Pure perforating for Repsol Well B

Figure 11: Comparision between conventional and dynamic
underbalance.

Figure 13: Dynamic under balance (DUB) achieved during Figure 14: Zoom in of the achieved DUB, DUB of 3200 psi was
perforating Bed C. achieved.

When using optimized perforations, it is important to minimize formation contamination and damage by reducing exposure to
Drill / Kill fluid (advantage of PWOK). Example of Dynamic (PURE ) perforation simulation can be seen in Figures 10, 11 &
SPE 111344 7

12.
Under rigless conditions, the most probable options are to perforate the well before completing it and expose it to kill fluid for
a long time or perforate it with through tubing wireline guns.
Several techniques can be used to overcome these limitations in a rigless scenario, generally by running the guns below the
completion.
The first technique is to run an automatic gun drop sub activated by the detonation itself. The underbalance will be achieved
by circulating the proper fluid thru sliding sleeves.

Figure 16: Benefits and limitations of perforating technologies that can

Figure 15: Automatic gun drop sub system
be used rig less

The guns can also be anchored in the well prior to run the completion. They are activated when the well is ready to flow, this
method is also combinable with ESP completion and has recently been applied on another Repsol field in North Africa
Both the above methods provide the options of optimized perforating design, but are limited to monobore completions.
The effect of gun size selection on the penetration
The acquired petrophysical data (logs and core data) from the the different zones have demonstrated that these sandstone
reservoirs have relatively low porosity (5 – 12 %) and low net pay. On the other hand, the testing data showed that some of
these reservoirs have a relatively low permeability (1-7 mD).
Considering the petrophysical parameters of these sands, deep penetration charges are usually required to connect the well
bore with the reservoir. It can only be achieved through a good selection of the perforating guns. Therefore a sensitivity
analysis was performed to select the suitable guns.
For this study the penetration depth was estimated using different guns and charges for different porosity values for a reservoir
at 4000 m, 6200 psi and 275 F behind a casing size of 7’’ P 110 and 29 lb/ft.
The study showed that the best penetration is achieved by 4 ½’’ guns (Figure 17). It also demonstrated that for a small size
gun, the penetration is not very sensitive to the porosity changes. It is not the case for the bigger size gun.
8 SPE 111344

Strip Spiral Gun HMX 8g Deep Penetrator, HMX 7.3 g Deep Penetrator, HMX 16 g Deep Penetrator, HMX 38,8 g
Porosity (%) 1 11/16" Tot. Pen 1 11/16" Form. Pen 2" Tot. Pen 2" Form. Pen 2 7/8" Tot. Pen 2 7/8" Form. Pen 4 1/2" Tot. Pen 4 1/2" Form. Pen
6 4.11 2.95 4.92 3.76 7.89 6.73 11.26 10.11
8 4.34 3.18 5.21 4.05 8.41 7.26 12.06 10.9
10 4.71 3.56 5.69 4.53 9.27 8.11 13.35 12.19
12 5.15 3.99 6.24 5.08 10.26 9.1 14.83 13.67

PERFORATION DEPTH 4000 M.

POROSITY Vs PENETRATION

16

14

12
Penetration (Inches)

10

0
6 8 Porosity (%) 10 12

1 11/16" Tot. Pen 1 11/16" Form. Pen 2" Tot. Pen 2" Form. Pen
2 7/8" Tot. Pen 2 7/8" Form. Pen 4 1/2" Tot. Pen 4 1/2" Form. Pen

Figure 17: Effect of gun size selection on the penetration in function of the porosity

Well testing management

The key role of well testing management in an exploration project is to determine the best way to achieve the objectives
related to the exploration commitments.
Logistic has an important impact for those operations. Transport can take up to 3 days between locations and the wells.
Explosive movements are very complex and depending on the level of security in the area can create long delays. To improve
this situation, Repsol has pushed the development of a support / service infrastructure in the vicinity of the wells.
In this particular case , RepsolYPF have completed and tested exploratory wells using both methodologies (Drilling Rig / Rig
less testing). Based on our limited experience in the specific area, we have performed an exercise to estimate the average cost
for testing four sands by using three different testing methodologies (drilling Rig, Rig less and work over Rig testing).
When completion/testing rig operation are considered, it is important define the type of rig to be used, drilling or workover,
because there are cost differences between both. As exercise RepsolYPF has compared the relative costs of the three options
for completion/testing: drilling rig, workover rig and rigless operation. The conclusion is that:
9 Drilling rig operations are the most expensive
9 Rigless operation is the cheapest, approximately 40% less than the previous
9 Workover rig costs are located in the middle of the other two options
Based in the comparative costs and the benefits of one or the other, the workover rig strategy appears as the most convenient
option for Repsol in this specific case, because it combines the flexibility of the rig operations with the reduction in the cost.
Conclusions and Recommendations
• Exploratory well evaluation using retrievable DST technology is an effective, as well as appropriate, testing
technology that achieves and quantifies the exploratory objectives in North Africa.
• Independent of the testing method, the use of retrievable DST testing string is also dependent on safety,
environmental, and expected operational risk conditions while testing.
• From an operational and well testing data acquisition point of view, retrievable DST strings brings major advantages
over rig less testing because of the data measurement quality at early times, the perforation efficiency, the testing
SPE 111344 9

operational flexibility, the reliable down hole shut in tool, the flexible under balance pressure for perforating and the
quality of the fluid characterization.
• Rig less testing offers the advantage that rig time is not a critical factor to decide the length of the flowing and/or
build up periods.
• Rig less testing leaves the drilling rig available to drill new locations.
• Reservoir layers of low uncertainties on the expected testing response should be tested using permanent string, rig
less operation. The major benefit comes from the rig time savings and the freedom to fix the length of the flowing
and/or build up periods.
• In the case of exploratory wells drilled through known and unknown layers, retrievable DST string is suggested for
the first one and permanent completion string for the others
• Layer evaluation testing costs associated to retrievable DST are more expensive than rig less testing.
• A study of the effect of gun size selection on the penetration show that best penetration could be achieved by 4 ½’’
guns, it also demonstrated that for a small size guns the penetration is not very sensitive to the porosity changes as the
bigger size guns.
• Layer evaluation results derived from an integrated study performed based real field experience must be used define
appropriate testing strategy either retrievable DST string or permanent completion string.
• Testing with a work over rig probably is the most convenient option, since it allow testing using with DST or
permanent completion, drilling rig could be released to drill another exploration wells and extended well testing could
be performed.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like thank to Repsol YPF and their partners for giving the permission to publish this paper, SLB for their
contribution and support. Special thanks are also due to Anibal Caceres (Repsol well testing advisor) for his contribution and
support for this work.
References
1. Schlumberger, Fundamentals of Formation Testing, 2006
2. SPE, ATW on Testing Exploratory Wells: Rig or Rigless? Puerto la Cruz, Venezuela, 6-8 March 2006.
3. Schlumberger, Modern Reservoir Testing, 1994.
4. RepsolYPF, Final well testing report, 2005, 2006 and 2007 (Company internal document).