IPA16-32-E

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Fortieth Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2016

SUCCESSFUL MDT DUAL PACKER SURVEY FOR CUT-OFF DETERMINATION IN THE

ABADI FIELD: DESIGN, EXECUTION, AND ANALYSIS

Deni Fitrio*
Ricardo Oentoe*
Masahiko Nomura*

ABSTRACT in 2001, and carried out three drilling campaigns

This paper presents the operation design, job
execution, and data analysis results of MDT
(Modular Dynamic Tester) dual packer survey
proposed to define the net pay cut-off in the Abadi
field.
Although there are still different perceptions
concerning net pay cut-off determination, it is
becoming increasingly accepted that cut-off must
have a dynamic significance and thus cut-off
determination should be driven by the available
dynamic data rather than by imported static concepts
(Worthington et al., 2005). Toward this end, we
carried out MDT dual packer surveys to acquire cut-
off basis by directly testing lower permeability
intervals. MDT dual packer survey provides a fast
and flexible way of testing multiple zones of interest,
while avoiding an expensive well testing operation
(Schlumberger, Modular Formation Dynamic Tester
Module, 2013).
The tool configuration and operation procedures
were carefully designed at the preparation stage to
avoid tool sticking issue and acquire high quality
data from low permeability intervals for the
subsequent analysis. The results from wireline log
including XPT survey (single probe pressure
measurement) was effectively utilized to select the
target station points from the cored intervals.
until 2014 (Figure 1).
Subsurface evaluation has been carried out
incorporating the newly acquired data from each
drilling campaign and gas in place and reserves
evaluation have been updated for the full field
development planning. In the 4th (latest) drilling
campaign, extensive data gathering was conducted
and MDT dual packer survey was proposed as one of
the key data to define the cut-off basis for reserves
evaluation purpose. Cut-off values have a role to
classify net sand/reservoir/pay from gross intervals
and there have been many different approaches to
quantifying cut-off values with no single method
emerging as the definitive basis. In many cases they
are basing the quantification of cut-off on reservoir
specific criteria that governs the flow of
hydrocarbons. More importantly, cut-off
determination should be driven by the available
dynamic data rather than by imported static concepts
(Worthington et al., 2005). In this paper, we firstly
explain the operation design for MDT dual packer
survey and second show the actual job execution and
data analysis results and finally define the net pay
cut-off to be applied to the Abadi field based on the
core data within the tested intervals.
DESIGN OF OPERATION PROCEDURE AND
TOOL CONFIGURATION

At all the station points, MDT jobs were successfully
executed based on the design, confirming the gas
flow by LFA (Live Fluid Analyzer) and sampling.
The average permeability in the tested intervals was
estimated in a range from 0.002 mD to 0.067 mD
from pressure transient analysis. Core measurement
results suggested the petrophysical cut-off values
could be defined as 0.04 mD for permeability.
INTRODUCTION
INPEX discovered the Abadi gas field in 2000 by the
first exploration well, conducted a 3D seismic survey
* INPEX Masela, Ltd
Basic operation procedure
In order to clearly define cut-off basis, the following
data acquisition plan was firstly considered for MDT
dual packer survey.
 Direct confirmation of gas flow
LFA (Live Fluid Analyzer) monitoring and sampling
of gas is a direct way to confirm gas flow from target
intervals and can be a strong dynamic evidence to
define cut-off basis based on the core porosity and
permeability data within the intervals.
 Dynamic mobility estimation
After gas flow is confirmed, build-up data needs to
be taken to estimate effective permeability through
pressure transient analysis. Although the estimation
may be affected by relative permeability effect and
flow regime misidentification, the value will be used
for consistency check of the core data.
Considering the data acquisition plan, the following
procedure was proposed to conduct MDT dual
packer survey (Figure 2).
Step1) Inflate packer.
Step2) Single probe test.
Step3) Pretest to confirm packer seal and formation
pressure.
Step4) Main flow.
a) Pump out with LFA monitoring.
- Keep pump out until 1st gas is confirmed.
b) Build up measurement.
- Start build-up once 1st gas is confirmed.
- Stop build-up once packer interval pressure
stabilizes (ideally radial flow regime needs
to established).
Step5) Deflate packer.
Design of tool configuration
When mud loss occurs above the tool station points,
the probability of differential sticking across mud
loss zone increases especially in depleted fields.
However, if reservoir pressure is high at the initial
state like the Abadi field, it is much less likely to
have such a tool sticking. When mud loss occurs
below the bottom packer, the hydrostatic pressure
below bottom packer decreases during measurement.
If bypass line (used to equalize hydrostatic pressure
above and below packers) can’t feed enough fluid
due to plugging, huge differential pressure will be
applied to the packer, resulting in severe tool stuck
due to mechanical failure without being able to
deflate the packer.
Considering the above, the following mitigations
were considered under the mud loss conditions;
1) Put one MRSC chamber (2.75 gallon) filled with
distillation water.
The chamber is used to remove the plugging
inside flow line once plugging is identified.
2) Put single probe below the bottom packer
(MRPQ).
This single probe is used to monitor the pressure
below bottom packer to detect the mud loss.
Once mud loss is identified, equalization will be
carried out to maintain the pressure as possible.
3) Set one pump out module above top packer and
another below bottom packer (MRPO).
At initial stage of pump out, the bottom pump is used
to clean packer interval fulfilled with mud and avoid
a mud coating in LFA module which monitors the
type of fluids drawn by top pump. The bottom pump
is used for equalization of pressure above top packer
and below bottom packer. These two pumps may be
used if drawdown and electric power allows to
achieve earlier 1st gas arrival into the tool by higher
pump rate.
As a tool specification of dual packer module, the
packer interval can be set between 3.3 ft and 11.2 ft
fit for purpose. The rating of packer differential
pressure (mud pressure – flowing pressure) is 1200
psi for 11.2 ft and 3000 psi for 3.3 ft. For the target
well, the overbalance pressure was around 660 – 760
psi (average 710 psi) and thus for 11.2 ft and 3.3 ft
packer intervals, allowable maximum drawdown
was estimated around 500 psi and 2300 psi
respectively.
Longer interval results in lower drawdown due to the
larger surface area for the same pump rate. However
the surface area for 11.2 ft is only 3.4 times as large
as that for 3.3 ft and thus the longer interval does not
provide any advantage for the tight zone testing
considering the allowable maximum drawdown in
our particular case. Shorter interval testing is better
to well define cut-off basis because less variation of
porosity and permeability is expected. Another
advantages of shorter interval testing is gas flow can
be confirmed earlier than longer interval testing for
the same pump rate and the tool sticking risk can be
reduced. Due to the reasons, the minimum packer
interval of 3.3 ft was selected for the dual packer
module. The designed MDT tool configuration is
shown in Figure 3. Table 1 summarizes the modules
required for MDT dual packer survey and their
usage.
Selection of station points
The following criteria to select station points were
considered to achieve the objective and safe
operation in MDT dual packer survey.
 Tight zone
The intervals resulting in invalid test such as
supercharged or tight in the precedent XPT
survey and/or clearly tight intervals, which were
not selected for XPT survey should be selected.
 Good hole condition
The intervals with good hole condition should be
selected to secure the packer seal. The hole size
enlargement is allowed up to 9.625 inch for 8.5
inch tool and ovality up to 1.2 is accommodated
for 3.3 ft packer interval. Here the ovality is
defined as L1/L2. L1 and L2 are length of long
and short axis respectively. FMI four arm caliper
was used to check the hole condition.
 No induced/natural fracture
The intervals with induced/natural fractures
should be avoided to assure the packer seal.
 Cored interval
Petrophysical cut-off values should be defined
based on the direct core measurement without
ambiguity rather than log evaluation results.
Thus it is necessary to select target intervals
among cored intervals.
 Shallower interval
If two intervals satisfy other criteria at the same
level, shallower interval should selected.
Selecting shallower zone may have an advantage
of avoiding tool sticking risk, since it reduces the
chance of differential sticking and of being stuck
by the collapse of the shallower interval.
Based on the selection criteria, the following three
intervals were selected for MDT dual packer survey
(Figure 4).
 Station 1
Among three selected tight intervals, this
interval was expected to have the better quality
based on the well logs, however XPT pressure
survey resulted in supercharge at the three
adjacent measurement points.
 Station 2
This interval was expected to have poorer quality
than station 1. XPT pressure survey resulted in
tight test at the two adjacent measurement points.
 Station 3
This interval was considered to have the poorest
reservoir quality. XPT pressure survey was not
conducted, since valid test could not be expected
in this interval.
All the station points were selected from cored
intervals with good hole condition and no
induced/natural fracture.
JOB EXCUTION AND RESULTS
Station 1
Figure 5 shows the entire test sequence at station 1
and Figure 6 shows the pressure below bottom
packer and upper and lower pump rate. The operation
was conducted following the planned procedure.
After packer inflating, packer seal was tested.
However we encountered the difficulty in obtaining
the formation pressure even after several attempts
due to the supercharge effect, the pressure continuing
to increase higher than the expected formation
pressure from XPT survey. Thus without further
attempt, we started pump out using lower pump for
clean-up and after clean-up continued pump out
using upper pump to confirm gas flow by LFA
monitoring. The first gas arrival was confirmed after
around 120 minutes (pump out time: 81 minutes,
pump out volume: 48 liters). Then one gas sample
was taken with MPSR bottle. After sampling, final
build-up pressure was measured. During the build-up
the quartz gauge was plugged and some sneezing
operation was attempted to get rid of the plugging.
However, the plugging could not be removed. So the
strain gauge was used for the pressure transient
analysis at this station. The job was finished within 6
hours. At maximum 14 minute build-up data could
be obtained. During the job, the pressure below
bottom packer was monitored carefully and at this
station the pressure was well stabilized without any
equalization operation. At the other stations, some
equalization operation was required but the pressure
was well stabilized after the equalization. The first
longest build up data was selected for the pressure
transient analysis. Figure 7 shows the pressure
derivative plot. With reference to the classical 1.5
cycle rule, the permeability was estimated at 0.02
mD assuming the radial flow regime is established
for packer interval of 3.3 ft.
Station 2
In the same way, after packer inflating, we conducted
packer seal test and directly started pump out to
confirm the gas flow without trying to get formation
pressure as shown in Figure 8. LFA monitoring
confirmed the 1st gas after around 270 minutes
(pump out time: 230 minutes, pump out volume: 44.5
liters). Then two gas samples were taken with MPSR
bottle. After sampling, final build-up pressure was
measured. The job was finished within 6 hours and
around 30 minute build-up pressure was obtained.
Figure 9 shows the pressure derivative plot
exhibiting the wellbore storage effect was still
dominant until the end of the build-up. This indicates
the reservoir quality is poor in this interval. The
permeability could not be estimated by the
conventional approach due to missing radial flow
regime. As one mitigation, we applied deconvolution
to the data set, fixing the initial pressure on XPT
survey. For the deconvolved response, the
permeability was estimated around 0.0022 mD for
this interval.
Station 3
Figure 10 shows the entire test sequence at this
station. LFA monitoring confirmed the 1st gas after
around 90 minutes (pump out time: 30 minutes,
pump out volume: 44.5 liters). Then one gas sample
was taken with MPSR bottle. After sampling, final
build-up pressure was measured. The job was
finished when pressure reached the expected
formation pressure. Around 105 minute build-up
data was obtained. Final build-up data was analyzed
in the same way. Figure 11 shows pressure derivative
plot. The permeability was estimated in a range from
0.039 to 0.067 mD for this interval.
CUT-OFF VALUE DETERMINATION BASED
ON THE CORE DATA
Table 2 summarizes the job execution and data
analysis results in the MDT dual packer surveys. At
all the stations, gas flow could be confirmed by LFA
and sampling and low permeability was confirmed
by pressure transient analysis. The average
permeability for the intervals was estimated in a
range from 0.002 mD to 0.067 mD. However, due to
the ambiguity of the permeability estimation by
pressure transient analysis such as flow regime
identification and definition of effective thickness,
core data was used to define the final cut-off value
for permeability. The tested intervals were selected
from cored intervals and porosity and permeability
measurement were conducted under the stressed
conditions for 15 samples, which are expected to
have higher porosity and permeability based on well
log responses.
Figure 12 shows the porosity-permeability
relationship for all the core data and average core
porosity and permeability measured for testing
intervals. Based on the core data and strong dynamic
evidence from MDT dual packer survey,
permeability cut-off value of 0.04 mD was proposed
to define net pay for reserves evaluation. The values
may be still conservative, since gas flow was
confirmed at all the stations and true border line
between pay and non-pay zone could not be well
defined. However the cut-off values could be
accepted, since it was confirmed further reduction is
a negligible impact on reserve estimation.
CONCLUSION
1. MDT dual packer survey was carried out to
define net pay cut-off with careful job design,
execution and analysis.
2. In all the intervals selected, the gas flow could be
confirmed by LFA monitoring and gas sampling,
and pressure transient analysis confirmed all the
intervals were tight as expected.
3. Based on the core measurement for all the
intervals, permeability cut-off value of 0.04 mD
was proposed to define net pay in the Abadi
field.
4. The selected cut-off values may be still
conservative, since gas flow was confirmed for
all the intervals. However the values could be
accepted, since further reduction is a negligible
impact on reserve evaluation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Takeshi Kawai for his
valuable comments in our work. We would like also
thank INPEX Masela, DITJEN MIGAS and
SKKMIGAS for permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
P. F. Worthington and L Cosentino, 2005, The Role
of Cut-Offs in Integrated Reservoir Studies, SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, Vol.8.
Schlumberger, 2013, MDT Modular Formation
Dynamic Tester Module.
 TABLE 1

MODULES SELECTED FOR MDT DUAL PACKER SURVEY. THE LAST THREE MODULES
WERE ADDED TO MINIMUM REQUIRED SET OF MODULES

Module Explanation Remarks

LEH Logging equipment head
EDTC Enhanced digital telemetry cartridge
EDTA Enhanced digital telemetry adapter
MRPC Modular reservoir power cartridge
MRFA Modular reservoir fluid analyzer
MRPO1 Modular reservoir pump out module
MRHY Modular reservoir hydraulic power
MRPA Modular reservoir packer assembly
MRSC1 Modular reservoir sample chamber
Additional pump out module set
MRPO2
below the bottom packer
Single probe set below the bottom
MRPQ
packer
2.75 gallon sample chamber filled
MRSC2
with water set below the packer
Weak point, 6000-6700psi
-
-
Converts AC power from the surface to
DC power to all other modules
Two sensors available.
Absorption spectrometer : to detect gas
and oil
Gas refractometer : to differentiate
between gas and liquid
Can be used to pump unwanted fluid from
the formation to the borehole so
representative samples can be taken and
also from the borehole to flowline to
inflate packer.
Electric motor and hydraulic pump to
provide hydraulic power for setting and
retracting the single probe modules
Packer interval: 3.3 ft to 11.2 ft
Available in three sizes: 1, 2.75, and 6 gal.
1 gallon size is used as exit port
(1) Increase pump rate to accelerate 1st gas
coming into the tools if drawdown allows.
(2) Clean up packer interval with lower
pump to avoid coating problem in LFA
module set above packer
Monitor pressure below the bottom packer
to detect mud loss and control pressure
Clean up flow line once flow line is
plugged by LCM

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF JOB EXECUTION AND DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS

Station 1 Station 2 Station 3

Build-up time, hrs 0.23 0.34 1.4
Keff, md 0.02 0.0022(*) 0.039-0.067
Gas flow Confirmed by LFA Confirmed by LFA Confirmed by LFA
Gas sample One MPSR bottle Two MPSR bottles One MPSR bottle
(*) Guesstimation by deconvolution
 Figure 1 - Delineation well location

Figure 2 - Basic procedure of MDT dual packer survey

 Figure 3 - Tool configuration for MDT dual packer survey

Figure 4 - Three intervals selected for MDT dual packer survey (expanded view)
Figure 5 - Entire test sequence at Station 1, Upper: interval pressure and pump rate – Bottom: LFA monitoring
result

Figure 6 - Pressure below the bottom packer at Station 1

 Figure 7 - Pressure derivative at Station 1

Figure 8 - Entire test sequence at Station 2. Upper: interval pressure and pump rate – Bottom: LFA monitoring
result
 Figure 9 - Pressure derivative at Station 2

Figure 10 - Entire test sequence at Station 3. Upper: interval pressure and pump rate – Bottom: LFA
monitoring result
 Figure 11 - Pressure derivative at Station 3

Figure 12 - Porosity-permeability relationship and proposed cut-off values