FALL OFF TESTING FOR RESERVOIR

EVALUATION IN THE KHAZZANMAKAREM FIELD

Presented by: Christine Samaroo, Razeem Khan and Nandani Sudama

PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Background
Drilling History
General
Flow Regimes
Build Up Test and Results
Fall Off Test/After Closure
Analysis
Advantages of MFO/ACA
Conclusion

BACKGROUND
BPs Khazzan-Makerem (KM) located in Central Oman, far
eastern tip of the Arabian Peninsula.
Discovered in 1993.
Location: KM block or Block 61 in the north-central part
Oman consisting of 2,780 sq. km in a flat stony desert
Operations have been ongoing for over 60 years with high
degree of maturity in operations.
BP acquired block in 2007.
BP committed to appraise four deep tight gas reservoirs and
has drilled seven wells to date.
Commercial interest in the development has been growing
over the past two decades.

Gas Infrastructure in North Central Oman and KM Block location

Various dune seas and mountains.

Background digital elevation model.

DRILLING HISTORY
Primary objective is to appraise the hydrocarbon
potential of four gas reservoirs that underlie the
block.
Objective was that several wells would be drilled and
tested to evaluate the commerciality of the block.
To date, seven wells have been drilled by BP. This
would be an addition to eight wells previously drilled
by the prior operator.
Four reservoir include: Barik, Miqrat, Amin
(sandstone) and Buah (carbonate)
Field is a low permeability, tight gas reservoir

Taken from Rylance et al (2011)

INTENT OF STUDY
The fracture half length and the fracture dimensionless
conductivity are the two main principal design parameters,
goals and characteristics.
The fracture dimensionless conductivity compares the ability
of the fracture to convey fluids along the wellbore against the
capability of the reservoir to support the flow into fractures.
For estimating an accurate value for effective permeability,
pressure build up tests were done on two of the wells.
Because of the impractical nature of build up tests, mini fall
off tests were attempted as a possible alternative of testing
The data from the MFO was then use to determine formation
properties and compared to PBU results
This study is a comparison of the results obtained

FLOW REGIMES

Flow regimes coexist with testing phases. However, well test interpretation has
the ability to distinguish the dominant flow regime relative to others. Different
flow regimes can be identified from derivative plots in a tight gas environment.

FLOW REGIMES
1. Wellbore Storage Unit Slope in tight gas
where volumetric flow is low, wellbore storage
can take long (hours to days). For short test,
downhole shut in tools are used to minimize
wellbore storage.
2. Instantaneous Radial Flow for very short lived
flow regime the stabilization kh is derived from
this line.
3. Spherical Flow when propped fractured
height or flow effective reservoir height is
greater than the effective perforation height.
4. Instantaneous Radial Flow Kh at this
stabilization represents fracture and matrix
properties.
5. Linear Flow represents the contribution of an
effective propped fracture and gives
information about the heterogeneity of the
matrix.
6. Bi-Linear Flow As pressure wave reaches the
end of the propped fracture, matrix starts to
show contribution.
7. Radial Flow Zero-Slope takes a long time in
tight gas environment.

PERMANENT DOWNHOLE GAUGES

These are spaced approximately 100 meters apart in upper
completions to fulfil various surveillance requirements and also
to provide the capability to measure gradients in the wellbore.
After stimulation, the gauges would provide good flowing well
data to assess the productivity of the well and to evaluate
flowing well parameters.

BUILD UP TEST
A fundamental component of fracture performance assessment
requires the company of in-situ reservoir data which are permeability
and pressure however this data is not readily available for use.
This data is generally obtained from performing conventional well test
operations such as pressure build up (PBU) and pressure transient
analysis (PTA).
The PBU/PTA requires that the formation actually flows before a shut in
period which for this field is often realistic and cannot easily be
sustained nor monitored, for extensive periods. This is in order to
assess proper formation values.
Despite the long shut in periods, the PBU test offer valuable
information and insight into the evaluation of fracturing parameters.

BUILD UP TEST
Two of BPs wells, wells A and B were subjected to
pressure build up tests. These targeted the Barik
formations
Because of low permeability the well had to be
shut in for long time
Establishment of an Extended well testing facility
meant that all wells had to be shut in and it was
during this period that the PBU was conducted

BUILD UP TEST RESULTS FOR WELL A

The kh value offers a

reasonable evaluation
of determine the true
well kh

BUILD UP TEST RESULTS FOR WELL A

Analysis of Results for Well A
Wellbore storage: 0.23
BBLS/PSIA
Permeability: 0.063 MD
Fracture Half Life: 871 Feet
Frac. Conduct: 5816 MD-FT
Frac Skin: 0.3
Kh: 2.67 MD-FT
The Darcy Skin was found to
be -6.32

BUILD UP TEST RESULTS FOR WELL B

Analysis of Results for Well B
Wellbore storage: 0.063
BBLS/PSIA
Permeability: 0.82 MD
Fracture Half Life: 1693
Feet
Frac. Conduct: 8892 MD-FT
Frac Skin: 0.255
Kh: 24.5 MD-FT
The Darcy Skin was found to
be -6.9

MINI FALL OFF TEST/AFTER

CLOSURE ANALYSIS
(MFO/ACA)

WHAT IS ACA
Tight gas reservoirs differs from conventional reservoirs in that appraisal
continues during development rather than as separate phases.
Reservoir evaluation for conventional reservoirs have been adapted to
give rise to techniques such as After Closure Analysis (ACA)
Mini Frac Test - A fixed volume of fluid is injected above fracture pressure
at low rates and the pressure decline response is monitored after shutting
in the well MFO/ACA)
Fracture is created and allowed to close while monitoring pressures during
the fall off period
Analysis entails
1.Pre closure analysis uses special derivatives and time functions to identify leak off
behaviour and closure pressure
2.After closure analysis uses an Impulse solution to determine permeability and
initial reservoir pressure

WHAT IS ACA
Pre closure analysis makes use the data obtained during
injection
After closure analysis uses pressures obtained during the
decline period, after the well is shut in.
Parameters for reservoir evaluation

Fracture breakdown pressure

Fracture propagation pressure
Instantaneous shut in pressure
System frictional pressure
Fracture closure pressure
Fracture efficiency
Fracture net pressure
Non-ideal behaviour
Reservoir pressure
Formation transmissibility

WHY PERFORM ACA

Applied in tight formations where conventional
testing is impractical due to added cost, risk and
time.

Table comparing cost, time and risk for different approaches to appraisal testing (Usmanova et al)

Taken from Fekete.com

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
ACA is performed on fall off data collected after
fracture closure
Two main techniques of analysing data: Nolte (1997)
and Soliman/Craig (2009)
This case study employs the method by Nolte and
uses type curve matching to determine formation
properties for reservoir evaluation
Data from the pseudo-radial flow period is used to
determine reservoir pressure and transmissibility to
accurately estimate reservoir quantity and quality

RESULTS FROM MFO/ACA IN KHAZZAN FIELD

Two wells were tested, Well A and Well B

ACA was done on the Miqrat formation to gather data
and improve understanding of reservoir quality
ACA and main fracture treatment was done in the
Barik sub intervals
ACA results will be compared to the PBU results

RESULTS FROM MIQRAT FORMATION TESTS WELL A

Perforations: 4739m
4741m
18bl of 2% KCl injected
at 5.5bbl/min
Pressure decline
monitored for 72hrs

= 12181 psi
= 11345 psi

The maximum pressure

recorded indicates
formation breakdown

Change in gradient of
G-slope indicating
fracture closure

Graph showing closure pressure analysis for Miqrat formation in Well A (Taken from Rylance et al,
2011)

RESULTS FROM MIQRAT FORMATION

TESTS WELL A

=
=

8748psi

3.6mD.ft/cp

Graph showing ACA analysis for Miqrat formation in Well A (Taken from Rylance et al, 2011)

RESULTS FROM MIQRAT

FORMATION TESTS

Table summarising Well A and Well B ACA results (Taken from Rylance et al, 2011)

RESULTS FROM BARIK

FORMATION TESTS
The results from the MFO/ACA testing were compared
to an extensive PBU conducted in the Barik formation
subdivisions
Also compared to results from nodal analysis on post
frac flow tests and production simulation using post
frac multi-rate tests

BUILD UP TEST RESULTS FOR WELL A

Table comparing results from different analyses for the Middle Barik
Formations in Well A (Taken from Rylance et al, 2011)

BUILD UP TEST RESULTS FOR WELL B

Table comparing results from different analyses for the Middle Barik
Formation in Well B (Taken from Rylance et al, 2011)

COMPARISON OF PBU AND MFO/ACA

Similar results obtained for transmissibility and
reservoir pressure
PBU requires a much longer time, especially since
reservoir is tight
One of the more affordable methods of directly
estimating the reservoir transmissibility
ACA identified naturally occurring fractures in the
formation and this cud not be detected by PBU
Can also identify non-ideal behaviour of formation
Able to identify a tip screen out during actual
fracturing
Does not require calibration to any logs or core data
that can increase error in analysis

CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY

Knowledge of permeability and reservoir pressure are
necessary to development of a tight gas field,
especially in heterogeneous reservoirs.
PBU can take a significant time to attain the data
required. MFO/ACA can potentially cut this time by a
factor of 5 as seen in the Wells in the Khazzan Field
MFO/ACA when planned properly, can be a valuable
tool in reservoir evaluation of tight gas reservoirs
that is cost effective, simple and relatively quick .

REFERENCES

Clark, Robert Alfred, Badr Salim Al-Busafi, Adil Imtiaz, Hussain Moosa Al-Lawati, Paul
Huggins, and Stephen Rainey. "A Comprehensive Approach to Surveillance in
Appraisal of a Tight Gas Project in Central Oman." SPE Middle East Unconventional
Gas Conference and Exhibition, 2011. doi:10.2118/142754-ms.
Nolte, K.g., J.l. Maniere, and K.a. Owens. "After-Closure Analysis of Fracture
Calibration Tests." Proceedings of SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
1997. doi:10.2523/38676-ms.
Rylance, Martin, Tobias Conrad Judd, and Areiyando Makmun. "After Closure
Analysis an Underutilized and Undervalued Approach to Understanding Kh." SPE
Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, 2011. doi:10.2118/141681-ms.
Rylance, Martin, Arild Nicolaysen, Tobias Conrad Judd, Omar A. Ishteiwy, Troy Huey,
and Wade Jonathon Giffin. "Hydraulic Fracturing:Key to Effective Khazzan-Makarem
Tight Gas Appraisal." SPE Middle East Unconventional Gas Conference and
Exhibition, 2011. doi:10.2118/142783-ms.
Soliman, Mohamed Y., Carlos Gustavo Miranda, and Hong Wang. "After Closure
Analysis for Unconventional Reservoirs and Completion." SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 2009. doi:10.2118/124135-ms.
Soliman, Mohamed Y., Carlos Gustavo Miranda, and Hong Wang. "After Closure
Analysis for Unconventional Reservoirs and Completion." SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 2009. doi:10.2118/124135-ms.
Usmanova, A., P. Smith, and M. Rylance. "After Closure Analysis as an Appraisal
Approach (Russian)." SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference and Exhibition,

THANK YOU
ANY QUESTIONS.?