SPE 113650
A New Method for Gas Well Deliverability Potential Estimation Using
MiniDST and Single Well Modeling: Theory and Examples
N.Karthik Kumar, SPE, Sameer Joshi, SPE and Raj Banerjee, SPE, Schlumberger, K.M.Sundaram, ONGC
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 Indian Oil and Gas Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Mumbai, India, 4–6 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
This paper presents techniques for interpretation of Mini-
Drill Stem Test (MiniDST) for establishing commingled
Absolute Openhole Flow Potential (AOFP) in deep water
exploration wells in India. These gas bearing reservoirs
are vertically heterogeneous with high permeability.
MiniDST’s are conducted using the inflatable straddle
packer system of wireline formation tester. A MiniDST
transient sequence consists of a single or multiple flow
periods, induced using a downhole pump, followed by a
pressure buildup. The objectives of a MiniDST are
sampling, estimation of reservoir properties such as
permeability (k), skin(s), radial extrapolated pressure (p*)
and estimating AOFP. AOFP is an important gas well
flow parameter and is used to determine the
commerciality of discovered prospects. We use a two step
approach in establishing commingled AOFP of gas wells.
First, we conduct a multiple station MiniDST run and
interpret the data to estimate reservoir parameters (k, s,
and p*). We also compute non-Darcy flow coefficient (D)
using Swift & Kiel expression and then use an analytical
pseudo-steady state equation to establish single point
AOFP for each of the tested zones. Second, we extend
routine forward modeling and incorporate features such as
scaled permeability data, rock types and hydraulic flow
units through interpretation of Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance (NMR) and wireline petrophysics, into a
model. The model is built in two different ways. One is
based on numerical simulator and another based on
cumulative permeability-thickness product for the gas
bearing zones, using average reservoir pressure and
temperature for the whole zone of interest. The success of
single well simulation has given us the capability to
forecast total AOFP for multiple zones using commingled
approach. Furthermore, we also included production
tubular and choke in our simulation model for well
deliverability estimation.
Our technique has resulted in immense saving in rig time
and cost since the workflow allowed delivering answers
which enabled us to determine AOFP without resorting to
conventional four points deliverability testing.
Introduction
Deliverability testing of gas wells is based on theory of
transient and pseudosteady flow of gases (Lee, 1982).
Traditionally, different testing procedures like flow-after-
flow, isochronal and modified isochronal are used to
estimate parameters required to provide deliverability
estimates.
The turbulent or non-Darcy flow effects close to the
wellbore, which appear as rate-dependent or non-Darcy
skin, requires gas wells to be tested at a number of rates
with the above mentioned tests so as to be able to estimate
the non-Darcy flow coefficient by separating the
mechanical skin component from the total skin factor (st ).
All these multirate methods of interpretation require well
tests of quite long durations (Horne and Kuchuk, 1988).
Kabir (2006) suggested a two step approach based on
multirate transient drawdown tests, followed or preceded
by a buildup. Firstly, he estimates reservoir parameters (k,
s, D and p*) with transient data, rather than doing the
traditional deliverability calculation with four points.
Then he uses these parameters to predict future
deliverability by forward simulations with an analytic
tool.
As opposed to multirate testing, a number of authors have
shown that a single transient such as a flow or buildup test
can be used to estimate reservoir parameters which can be
used to generate a simulated deliverability characteristic
of the well. Horne and Kuchuk (1988) concluded that
using automated type-curve matching on gas well single
drawdown or buildup test, in which simultaneous flow
rate and pressure measurements are available, can result
in determination of non-Darcy skin parameter along with
other reservoir parameters. Mishra and Caudle (1984)
2 SPE 113650
proposed a new method for deliverability calculations of
gas wells, which eliminated multi-rate testing by
developing dimensionless Inflow Performance curves
(IPR) for stabilized non-Darcy flow in unfractured gas
reservoirs. They characterized turbulent flow effect by a
constant D-coefficient, evaluated using the expression
given by Swift and Kiel (1962).
In this work we use a two step approach to establish gas
well deliverability. First, we use single point transient
testing consisting of single flow and buildup, to establish
reservoir parameters k, s and p*. This is done by
conducting Wireline Formation Tester (WFT) based one-
meter straddle-packer MiniDST. D-coefficient for tested
zone is calculated using the Swift and Kiel expression.
AOFP for the tested zone is then calculated as the positive
root of the Forchheimer’s pseudo-steady state quadratic
equation, whose coefficients are functions of these
reservoir parameters, and drainage area and drainage
shape factor. Second, we build a well model to predict
combined well deliverability of all the gas bearing
objects. We build the model in two different ways. One is
based on a numerical simulator and the other is based on
cumulative permeability-thickness product for the gas
bearing zones, using average reservoir pressure and
temperature for the whole zone of interest. These
techniques were implemented in deepwater exploratory
gas wells, where conventional four-point deliverability
test is highly expensive due to exorbitant rig costs.
Single Point AOFP from MiniDST - Theory
Modern WFT technology is designed around a modular
principle, i.e. different functional parts of the formation
tester tool are divided into separate and independent
modules. Thus, there may be a single probe module, a
downhole pumping module, a fluid analyzer module, an
inflatable straddle packer module and various types of
sampling modules.
The straddle packer module has two packer elements that
are inflated to isolate a borehole interval of approximately
1 m to 3m. The entire borehole wall is open to the
formation, so the fluid flow area is nearly thousand times
larger than with conventional probes (Joshi et al. 2007).
MiniDST operation using straddle packer comprises of a
cleanup period and an extended flow period, using
downhole pump, followed by a build up period. Cleanup
period is monitored using the downhole fluid analyzer
module of WFT tool string. The extended flow period is
conducted at a constant pumping speed. After the buildup
period, flow is again carried out and then samples are
collected. Buildup Pressure-derivatives are monitored and
interpreted in real time so as to determine onset and
development of radial flow regimes.
MiniDST operations can be carried out both in open-hole
and cased-hole completions. In a cased-hole MiniDST
operation, the test objects have to be isolated by cement
from adjacent formations to prevent crossflow (Hurst,
2000) and casing-cement integrity has to be verified from
cement bond quality logs. Then a depth correlation run
needs to be done. A 0.33m to 1 m interval within the test
object is perforated, preferably using deep penetrating
charges. After this, the packers are set across the
perforated depth interval and then the flow and buildup
operations follow.
Basic objectives of MiniDST are estimating reservoir
parameters (k, s, and p*) and collecting reservoir fluid
samples. But in addition to these, any MiniDST (for this
matter, any testing operation) in exploratory gas wells has
to be conducive to estimating AOFP. But in MiniDST,
flow periods are conducted using downhole pumps in
which flowrate variations and the maximum flowrate
inducible (i.e. the maximum pumping speed) are limited.
Therefore conducting a multi-pumping rate MiniDST (for
estimating Non-Darcy coefficient, D) on the lines of
stabilized multirate gas well testing is not feasible using
downhole pumps currently being used in WFT’s,
especially in the case of high permeability gas zones.
Therefore, in applying MiniDST techniques for gas well
deliverability estimation, we avoid the method of
stabilized multirate gas well testing and in place, apply
single point AOFP technique (Lee and Wattenbargar,
1996).
Single Point AOFP technique, as opposed to multirate
testing, requires either single flow period or a flow period
followed by a buildup, depending on whether flow period
transient can be interpreted or not. Flow period pressures
and derivatives can be extremely noisy in gas reservoirs,
especially those having high flow capacity. We have seen
that while conducting Single Point AOFP tests using
MiniDST, flow periods are generally noisy; therefore
flow-buildup sequence is used. Many a times, two
sequences of flow-buildups are carried out for data quality
control purposes.
The buildup transient is interpreted to estimate reservoir
parameters (k, s, and p*). The interpretation methodology
of a MiniDST pressure transient is same as that of any
other testing technique – flow regime identification based
on rate normalized pressure derivative and a conventional
Horner analysis followed by analytical modeling. The
pressure transient data is analyzed using a commercially
available well testing software package.
A single-point AOFP is estimated using the reservoir
parameters,obtained from analysis of the MiniDST
transient, in the pseudo-steady state expression with
pseudo-pressure approximation for gas flow rate (Lee
and Wattenbargar, 1996), given as follows:
SPE 113650 3

q=
(
703 × 10 −6 kh p 2 − p wf
2
) bounded cylindrical reservoir under pseudosteady-state
flow contains the term pi initially and this term is
μ T z ⎡⎢ln⎛⎜ re r ⎞⎟ − 0.75 + s + Dq ⎤⎥ replaced by p only as an approximation (Lee, 1982).
⎣ ⎝ w ⎠ ⎦
In using Eq. (1), we assume a pseudosteady state flow
…………………………. (1) with a prior knowledge of the drainage radius, re, of the
well. With MiniDST in exploratory wells, these
Gas viscosity, μ and gas compressibility factor, z in conditions may not be met. Lee (1982) has discussed that
equation (1) are evaluated at average reservoir pressure, even in cases where the drainage radius of the well is
p and average reservoir temperature T . unknown; Eq. (1) can be applied assuming a drainage
radius. The drainage radius, re appears as a logarithmic
term in Eq. (1). Therefore drainage radius does not have a
The non-Darcy flow coefficient, D, is calculated based on major effect on flow rate computation. This has also been
the expression given by Swift and Kiel (1962): shown in a later example in the paper.

2.715 × 10 −15 βkMPsc

D=
hrwTsc μ wf Field Example -1

…………………………... (2) MiniDST was carried out in exploratory deepwater gas

well ‘A’, across 1m-straddled interval with midpoint at
The term, β, in equation (2) is the gas turbulence factor XX61.8m consisting of two sequences of flow-buildup.
and is given by Jones (1987) as: Table 1 presents the petrophysical, wellbore and fluid
data for the test zone. Fig.1 shows the log-log diagnostic
β = 1.88 × 1010 k −1.47φ −0.53 plot of the final buildup. The pseudo-pressure, dm(p) and
…………………………… (3) its derivative, dm(p)’ show that the transient response has
come out of storage and skin effects and has developed
Equation (1) can be expressed as a quadratic equation in into a radial flow regime in between time periods 0.01 to
‘q’ as follows: 0.1 hr. A high data scatter is seen in the derivative
plot.This occurs because of a very small drawdown of 0.8
Aq 2 + Bq + C = 0 psi, whereas the pressure gauge used has a resolution of
…………………………… (4) the order of 0.01psi. This small drawdown happened even
Where, though the downhole pump was run at highest possible
speed. This is a typical signature in a high permeability
1422 z μ T D gas reservoir.
A= .……………………... …... (5)
kh
1422 z μ T [ln (re / rw ) − 0.75 + s ] φ
B= ………... (6)
0.18
kh
C = −( p 2 − p wf ) ……………………………. (7)
h 2.1 m
2
rw 0.5104 ft

To estimate AOFP, flowing bottom-hole pressure term, T 168.08 °F

pwf, in Eq. (7) is set to 14.7 Psia, i.e, atmospheric
pressure. Then the quadratic Eq. (4) is solved for positive γ 0.58
root, which gives AOFP as:
μ 0.0198 cP
− B + B 2 − 4 AC
AOFP = μwf 0.0133 cP
2A
…….……………………... (8) Bg 0.004758 cf/scf

For a well in a new reservoir with negligible pressure z 0.9133

depletion like an exploratory well, the initial reservoir
pressure, pi is the Horner-extrapolation of the middle time
-6 -1
cf 3x10 Psi
line to infinite shut-in time, p*. This p* is taken as the
measure of average reservoir pressure, p in these Table 1: Petrophysical, Wellbore and Fluid data
equations. Also, the solution to diffusivity equation for a of MiniDST station in well ‘A’
 4 SPE 113650
dm(p) and dm (p)’ [Psi / cP]
2
dt [hr]
Fig. 1: Log-log plot for MiniDST Buildup
A constant wellbore storage and vertical limited entry
well with homogeneous infinite acting reservoir model
was used in matching the pressure history. A MiniDST is
analyzed specifically using a limited-entry model so as to
account for and estimate the partial penetration skin effect
induced due to 1m straddled interval available for flow in
a zone of thickness higher than 1m. The modeled curves
are shown in Figs. 1 & 2. On the basis of semi-log plot
and analytical modeling, a p* of 3405.14 psia, k of 747
mD and s of 90 was estimated. A D-coefficient of 7.7E-5
(Mscf/D)-1 was calculated based on Eqs. (2) and (3).
AOFP of 19.7 MMscfd was calculated for the test zone of
2.1m thickness, using Eqs. (1) through (8), assuming a
100 Acre drainage area (i.e. re = 1177.5 ft).
Pressure [Psia]
Rate [Mscf/D]
Time [hr]
Fig. 2: History plot of MiniDST Station
Composite AOFP using Cumulative Permeability-
thickness Product – Theory
Once MiniDST’s are conducted in different gas zones, the
next task is to find a suitable method to evaluate the
combined flow potential of all the gas bearing objects
encountered in the well, including those zones in which
MiniDST’s were not conducted.
For this, we generate NMR based Timur-Coats (KTIM)
permeability log (Davis et al. 2002) and upscale this
continuous near-wellbore permeability log using the
effective-permeability to gas estimated for different
MiniDST tested zones in the well.
The idea behind this scaling exercise is to upscale the
static log-based KTIM permeability to dynamic flow-
based MiniDST permeability. If multiple MiniDST
stations were conducted in the well then different scaling
factors can be used zone wise. Scaling factors can also be
decided based on rock-types. Each rock-type may have a
different scale factor.
The scaled continuous permeability log was used in
estimating cumulative permeability – thickness (Σ kh)
product of the whole gas bearing interval in the well. Σ kh
is estimated based on an upscaling methodology similar to
the one given by Whittle et.al. (2003), for upscaling WFT
based single probe permeabilities.
Assuming that the gas bearing reservoir interval is made
up of a vertical sequence of n layers, each with thickness,
hi and KTIM permeability, ki, then the cumulative
permeability-thickness (Σ kh) of such a reservoir interval
is given by,
∑ kh = ∑ k i hi
i =1
.........................…................... (9)
The layer thickness hi is taken equal to the intervals
(nearly 0.1504m) at which there are discrete
measurements in the KTIM log. Only those intervals are
considered for this summation, which pass cut-off criteria
based on minimum effective porosity, minimum
permeability, and maximum saturation of non-clay
intergranular water. Industry standard reserve summation
applications can be used in carrying out this summation.
Net hydrocarbon pay thickness (h), net-thickness based
average permeability ( k ), net-thickness based average
porosity ( φ ), were estimated for the zone of interest as
follows:
n
h = ∑ hi …………………………………………. (10)
i =1
SPE 113650 5

2.715 × 10 −15 β k MPsc

k =
∑ kh ………………………………………… (11) D=
hrwTsc μ wf
…………………….. (16)

h
Where,
n

∑φ h i i β = 1.88 × 1010 ( k )−1.47 ( φ )−0.53

φ = i =1
…………………………………….. ..(12)
h ..................................... (17)

To estimate composite AOFP, we will again use Eqs. (1)
through (8). Therefore we also need to compute average
pressure and average temperature for the zone of interest.
Formation pressures obtained from WFT single-probe
pretests at various depths across the zone of interest were
used in calculating the average formation pressure for the
zone based on the expression,
Equation (15) is then solved as a quadratic equation in a
similar manner as discussed earlier and the positive root
of this equation for flowing pressure of 14.7 psia gives
composite AOFP for the entire zone of interest.
An important assumption here is that damage skin, s, is
constant throughout the zone of interest. Also, drainage
radius may have to be assumed especially in an
exploration scenario. Therefore it is prudent to estimate

p=
∑ pΔh ……………………………………… (13)
composite AOFP for a range of possible damage skin
factors. Similarly, sensitivities may also be carried out on
∑ Δh drainage radii of the well.

Where, Δh is the depth difference between successive Field Example – 2

WFT pretest points and p is the Pretest pressure.
Near wellbore temperatures that were measured at
different depths across the zone of interest using WFT
single probe were used in calculating the average
temperature. Assuming a constant geothermal gradient
over the zone of interest, average temperature is
calculated as the arithmetic average of temperature
measured at top of the zone of interest (T1) and at bottom
of the zone of interest (T2) and is given as:
T1 + T2
T = ............……………………………... (14)
2 KTIM log was scaled to MiniDST measured permeability
AOFP is estimated by substituting above estimated
parameters in equation (1) as follows:
We demonstrate an application of the above discussed
cumulative permeability-thickness based composite
AOFP estimation technique in the well ‘A’ mentioned in
Field Example -1. Composite AOFP was estimated for the
gas zone across the interval, XX34.8m to XX99.5m based
on average formation pressure, average temperature, net
hydrocarbon pay thickness, net-thickness based
permeability and porosity.
To estimate the cumulative permeability-thickness
product based on net pay thickness for the zone of
interest, two steps were followed. First the gas-corrected
values. MiniDST’s were conducted in this well at five
depth stations, viz., XX40.5m, XX45.5m, XX61.8m,
XX83.1m, and XX91.5m. Different scaling-factors were
estimated interval-wise based on the permeability-

q=
2
(
703 × 10 −6 (∑ kh ) p 2 − p wf ) thickness product obtained from the MiniDST stations as
shown in Table 2.
μ T z ⎡⎢ln⎛⎜ re r ⎞⎟ − 0.75 + s + D q ⎤⎥
⎣ ⎝ w ⎠ ⎦
Depth Interval Scaling factor
……………………………… (15) XX34.8 – XX77.2 m 1.25

The factor D in Eq. (15), is the non-Darcy flow

XX77.2 – XX86.5 m 1.5

coefficient for the zone of interest and is estimated using XX86.5 – XX99.5 m 1.25
net hydrocarbon pay thickness (h), net-thickness based
average permeability (k ) and net-thickness based Table 2: Scaling factors for NMR derived
average porosity ( φ ), as follows: permeability log for different intervals in the gas
bearing zone of well ‘A’
6 SPE 113650

Fig. 3 shows a section of the gas bearing interval with the 7500
NMR permeability log, scaled permeability log and re = 1177.5 feet
Elemental log analysis (ELAN) volumes (lithology and 6500
fluid saturations). Secondly, an industry standard well-log

based reserve summation application was used for
calculating net-thickness, net-thickness based average
permeability and net-thickness based average porosity for
the gas bearing zones. Only those zones were considered
for summation which had an effective porosity greater
than 8% and non-clay intergranular water saturation lower
than 90% and scaled permeability greater than 1mD.
Based on these cut-off parameters a net hydrocarbon pay
thickness of 52.12m, average permeability of 413.5 mD
and average porosity of 28.5% were obtained.
WFT single-probe pressure and temperature
measurements were used in estimating an average
reservoir pressure of 3406 Psia and average temperature
of 621.6°R based on Eqs. (13) and (14).
A D-coefficient of 2.4E-6 (Mscf/D)-1 was calculated
based on Eqs. (16) and (17). Since damage skin varied
highly in this zone as obtained for the five MiniDST
stations therefore composite AOFP for the zone was
estimated as a function of damage skin ranging from an
optimistic value of 0 to quite a high value of 15 (Fig. 4).
KTIM Scaled - KTIM ELAN
Volumes
AOFP [MMscfd]
5500
A
4500
3500
B
2500
1500
0 5 10 15
Damage skin [dimensionless]
Fig 4: Composite AOFP plotted as a function of
Damage Skin, with and without rate dependent
skin. Curve ‘A’ shows AOFP calculated without
accounting for rate dependent skin and curve ‘B’
shows AOFP calculated considering effect of
rate dependent skin.
Composite AOFP was calculated both with and without
rate dependent skin to understand the effect of this skin on
AOFP values for a 100 Acre drainage area (equal to a
drainage radius of 1177.5 feet). Fig. 4 shows that for
damage skin values from 0 to 5, there is a steeper decline
in AOFP values when calculated without accounting for
rate dependent skin, as compared to AOFP values
calculated accounting for rate dependent skin.

Composite AOFP was also estimated as a function of

drainage radius for a zero damage skin (Fig. 5). This
XX85 m shows that a 300% increase in drainage radius results in a
decrease in composite AOFP by maximum 6%.
3450

s=0
3400
AOFP [MMscfd]

3350

3300

XX90 m
3250

3200
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Drainage Radius [feet]

Fig. 3: A section of the gas bearing interval of Fig 5: Composite AOFP plotted as a function of
well ‘A’ with KTIM permeability log, scaled KTIM drainage radius
permeability log and ELAN volumes.
SPE 113650
Single Well Modeling and Prediction
In a deepwater exploration scenario where rig days and
associated service cost are important components of
exploration project cost, a single well modeling, based on
well logs, and simulation can help in predicting flow
potential of the well.
In the method discussed previously for composite AOFP
estimation from cumulative-permeability thickness
product, simplified assumption was made in respect of
using average pressure for the whole zone of interest.
Moreover multiphase flow could not be handled. Using a
numerical simulator helps in handling variations in
pressure and multiphase flow. Multiphase flow is handled
through the use of relative permeability curves for
different phases present in the reservoir.
Moreover rock typing concepts can be used in
establishing different average porosity and permeability
for different rock types rather than using a single average
value. Also, different sets of capillary pressure and
relative permeability curve can be established depending
on rock-types.
We use an interactive, workflow driven application to
build 1D petrophysical and 3D simulation model from
wellbore data. The simulation model could be either
numerical (Schlumberger, 2006) or semi-analytical
(Gilchrist et.al. 2007). We simulate these models to first
optionally calibrate the models with well test or
production data and then predict the well’s future
performance. Integration of existing core, pressure and
production/testing data in the model building and
calibration phases provides a critical link between the
wellbore and the reservoir, as well as validation.
Petrophysical interpretation results (total porosity,
permeability, total fluid saturations and irreducible water
saturation) are used to define hydraulic flow units and
rock types within the defined interval of interest.
Capillary pressure and relative permeability are input
from either core measurements, or derived and calibrated
internally using logs or empirical relationships.
Reservoir fluid properties are based on PVT analyses if
available. Alternatively, standard correlations built into
the application can be used.
Building the 3D static model requires definition of the
expected drainage area, vertical interval of interest, rock
type based layering, and location of existing completions.
Once the 3D grid is defined, different property-population
techniques can be used for populating all of the cells in
the model with properties defined for each rock type. The
application passes the 3D, property populated model to a
simulation engine where optimization (calibration) and
simulation are performed.
7
Field Example – 3
Well ‘B’ encountered multiple gas-bearing objects. A
MiniDST was conducted for testing the potential of one
of the objects. A DST was planned but could not be
carried out due to some operational reasons. However, it
was necessary to estimate flow potential for all the objects
of this well in order to determine the commercial viability
of the reserves.
We use the application described earlier in building a
single well model. The application was carried out in the
following broad steps:
1. 1D modeling from ELAN and NMR log
2. Permeability calibration
3. 3D static modeling
4. Dynamic flow simulation and AOFP estimation
5. Production modeling and well deliverability
estimation
1D modeling from ELAN and NMR log: Petrophysical
interpretation results (porosity, permeability and fluid
saturations) from ELAN were used to define hydraulic
flow units and rock types within the interval of interest.
Fig. 6 shows the well log section and rock types. The rock
types and flow units were identified based on the neural-
network technique given by Amaefule et al. (1993). Total
four rock types were identified based on this technique.
Rock types were identified as 0, 1, 2 and 3. Rock type 0 is
the best quality reservoir rock, having highest sand
content. Rock type 3 has the highest clay content and is
set as non-reservoir rock. Rock types 1 and 2 are
intermediate quality rocks in that order. Capillary
pressure and relative permeability were not used as this
was a dry gas reservoir with a thick gas-shale contact
scenario.
Permeability calibration: In the absence of core derived
absolute permeabilities, the NMR based KTIM
permeability curve was calibrated to WFT measured
permeability in the following steps. MiniDST transient
was analyzed to estimate effective-permeability to gas for
the tested zone. A scale factor was derived as a ratio of
this MiniDST effective-permeability to the WFT single
probe drawdown mobility measured in the same zone.
This scaling factor was multiplied to drawdown mobility
measured at different depths across the zone of interest.
This resulted in discrete effective-permeability value at
respective depths. These WFT-effective permeabilities
were used in calibrating the KTIM permeability log. Thus
a continuous log of effective permeability to gas was
obtained (Fig. 6). Other calibration techniques are also
possible where core data is available.
8 SPE 113650
3D static modeling: A 3D model was built based on an
assumed drainage radius of the well, rock type and
hydraulic flow units based layering, and location of
perforations for local grid refinement. These were used to
define a rectangular grid around the well, with
logarithmic growth (Fig. 7). Once the 3D grid was
defined, properties were populated in all the cells in the
model based on flow units identified earlier. Variable
lateral and vertical properties were assigned within each
flow unit based on stochastic distribution of given
property for each rock type.
Dynamic flow simulation and AOFP estimation: The
application passed the 3D, property-populated model to a
numerical simulator in this case. Further calibration of
this model with production data was not carried out due to
lack of sufficient production data. Moreover, the model
has already been calibrated with MiniDST in step 2.
Damage skin obtained for one of the MiniDST tested
zone, was used throughout the wellbore for all the
perforations. For each connection in the well, a D-
coefficient is calculated by the simulator based on the
permeability and porosity of the connected grid block
together with the fluid properties of the wellbore gas and
is based on Swift and Kiels’s method described earlier. A
commingled AOFP of 149.5 MMscfd was obtained for
the well as the maximum gas flow rate prediction at a
bottomhole pressure target of 14.7 psia (Fig. 8).
Production modeling and deliverability estimation:
Production scenarios were simulated from the 3D model
under different bottomhole pressure targets to generate
the IPR curve for the well. This along with the tubing
intake curves for different choke sizes obtained from a
commercial pipeline simulator was used to perform nodal
analysis. A well deliverability of 27 MMscfd was
obtained for 1000psi pipeline pressure, 32/64 inch choke
and 3.5inch tubing (Fig. 9).
Conclusion
The objective of well testing includes determination of a)
reservoir parameters b) well potential c) well
deliverability and d) PVT samples. We have outlined a
methodology that successfully uses MiniDST to achieve
the above goals. This technique has a wide variety of
practical field applications and benefits. These include:
1. MiniDST technique is non-destructive to the
environment and can result in substantial cost
savings especially in deepwater offshore context.
2. Additionally, the risk due to possible failure is
considerably mitigated.
3. Since MiniDST is carried out at low flowrates,
the effect of turbulence is minimized. Therefore,
the data is more amenable to interpretation.
4. Single well modeling technique in combination
with production logs can help in predicting the
potential of even those zones which could not
contribute to flow during a conventional testing
operation due to operational reasons like
incomplete cleanup of completion fluid sump in
the wellbore, off-depth perforation, sanding etc.
Nomenclature
D = non-Darcy flow coefficient, (Mscf/D)-1
D= non-Darcy flow coefficient based on average rock
properties, (Mscf/D)-1
dm(p) = gas pseudo-pressure , Psi2 / cP
dm(p)’ = gas pseudo-pressure derivative, Psi2 / cP
Bg = gas formation volume factor, cf/scf
cf = formation compressibility, Psi-1
h = net pay thickness, ft
k = permeability, mD
ki= permeability of ith layer, mD
k = average permeability based on net-thickness, mD
Σ kh = cumulative permeability-thickness product, mD-ft
M = molecular weight of gas (gas gravity x 28.96)
pi= initial reservoir pressure, psia
p = average reservoir pressure, psia
Psc = standard pressure condition, 14.7 psia
pwf= flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
p* = extrapolated radial pressure, psia
q = gas flow rate, Mscf/Day
re = drainage radius, ft
rw = wellbore radius, ft
s = formation damage skin, dimensionless
T = average reservoir temperature, °R
Tsc = standard temperature condition, 520 °R
T1 = formation temperature at the top of the zone of
interest, °R
T2 = formation temperature at the bottom of the zone of
interest, °R
z = real-gas deviation factor, dimensionless
β = gas turbulence factor
β = gas turbulence factor based on average rock
properties
γ = gas gravity
φ = effective porosity, fraction
φ i = effective porosity of ith layer, fraction
φ = average porosity based on net-thickness, fraction
μ = gas viscosity at average reservoir pressure, cP
μwf =viscosity at flowing pressure, cP
SPE 113650 9

AOFP = Absolute Openhole flow potential, Mscf/Day
ELAN = Elemental Log Analysis Volumes
IPR = Inflow Performance Relationship
KTIM = NMR based Timur-Coats permeability
NMR = Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
WFT = Wireline Formation Tester
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on a project supported by ONGC and
Schlumberger.We wish to thank them for their support.
We also wish to gratefully acknowledge Dibyatanu
Kundu, Mihira Narayan Acharya and Kapil Seth for their
contribution.
We wish to clarify that the views expressed by the authors
in this paper are their own and do not necessarily reflect
any position of the companies concerned.
Kabir, C.S. 2006. What is the Real Measure of Gas Well
Deliverability? SPEREE April 2006: 126-134; SPE-84469-
PA.
Lee, J. 1982. Well Testing. Dallas: SPE Textbook Series.
Lee, J. and Wattenbargar, R.A. 1996. Gas Reservoir
Engineering. Richardson: SPE Textbook Series, Volume 5.
Mishra, S. and Caudle, B.H. 1984. A Simplified Procedure for
Gas Deliverability Calculations Using Dimensionless IPR
Curves. Paper SPE 13231 presented at SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 16 –
19 September.
Schlumberger 2006. Eclipse Reference Manual
Schlumberger 2007. SWPM version 2.0 Users Guide.
Swift, G.W. and Kiel, O.G. 1962. The Prediction of Gas Well
Performance Including the Effect of Non-Darcy Flow.
Trans., A1ME 225791-798.
Whittle, T. M., Lee, J., and Gringarten, A.C. 2003. Will
Wireline Formation Testers Replace Well Tests? Paper
SPE 84086 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado,
USA, 5 – 8 October.

References

Amaefule, J. O., Altunbay, M., Tiab, D., Kersey, D.G., and

Keelan,D.K. 1993. Enhanced Reservoir Description: Using
Core and Log Data to Identify Hydraulic (Flow) Units and
Predict Permeability in Uncored Intervals/Wells. Paper
SPE 26436 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3 – 6 October.
Davis, B., McDonald, T. and Mohamed, A. 2002. Practical
Applications of NMR Technology Enhance Formation
Evaluation, Testing and Completions Decisions. Paper SPE
76717 presented at SPE Western Regional / AAPG Pacific
Section Joint Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, 20-22
May.
Gilchrist, J.P., Busswell, G., Banerjee, R., Spath, J.,
Thambynayagam, R.K.M. 2007. Semi-analytical Solution
for Multiple Layer Reservoir Problems with Multiple
Vertical, Horizontal, Deviated and Fractured Wells.Paper
IPTC 11718 presented at International Petroleum
Technology Conference, Dubai, 4-6 December.
Horne, R.N. and Kuchuk, F. 1988. Use of Simultaneous Flow
Rate and Pressure Measurements To Replace Isochronal
Gas Well Tests. SPEFE 3(2): 467-470; Trans., AIME, 285,
SPE-14494-PA.
Hurst, S.M., McCoy, T.F. and Hows, M.P. 2000. Using the
Cased-hole Formation Tester Tool for Pressure Transient
Analysis. Paper SPE 63078 presented at SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1 – 4
October.
Jones, S.C. 1987. Using the Inertial Coefficient, b, To
Characterize Heterogeneity in Reservoir Rock. Paper SPE
16949 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 27-30 September.
Joshi, S., Saxena, A.K., Kundu, D. and Karthik Kumar, N.
2007. Innovative Applications of Advanced Wireline
Formation Tester Modules in Exploration and
Development Scenarios in India. Paper ID 512 presented at
Petrotech-2007, New Delhi, India, 15-19 January
10 SPE 113650

y e [ ]

1726
MD
Completions 0.00 PHIT 0.40 0.1 WFT-PERM 10000.0 Moved hydrocarbon RT_NN_HFU T2_DIST
0.1 KTIM 10000.0 Bound water
0.1 PERM_CAL 10000.0 Water
Gas
Special mineral 2
Special mineral 1
Biotite
Muscovite
17280

Orthoclase
Quartz
Clay 2
Clay 1
Montmorillonite
Kaolinite
Illite
17300
17320

Horizon 1
Horizon 1 Horizon 1
17340

rock 3

Horizon 2
Horizon 2 Horizon 2
rock 1
Horizon 3
Horizon 3 Horizon 3
rock 2
Horizon 4
Horizon 4 Horizon 4
17360

rock 3

Horizon 5
Horizon 5 Horizon 5
rock 0 Horizon 6
Horizon 6 Horizon 6
rock 3 Horizon 7
Horizon 7 Horizon 7
rock 0 Horizon 8
Horizon 8 Horizon 8
17380

rock 2
Horizon 9
Horizon 9 Horizon 9
rock 1
Horizon 10
Horizon 10 Horizon 10
rock 3
Horizon 11
Horizon 11 Horizon 11
17400

rock 0

Horizon 12
Horizon 12 Horizon 12
17420

7425

Fig 6: Shows well log section and rock types in the gas bearing zone in Well ‘B’. Figure total porosity
(PHIT), KTIM Permeability, Calibrated KTIM (PERM-CAL) based on WFT permeabilities, ELAN volumes
(lithology and fluid-saturations), Rock-types based on neural network and NMR T2 distribution.
SPE 113650 11

Rock-0
Rock-1

Rock-2

Rock-3

Fig 7: Rock types and logarithmic gridding in the 3D model of well ‘B’

Inflow
Performance
Curve
24’’ 32’’
40’’

Tubing Intake
Curves

Fig.8: AOFP prediction from single well model of
well ‘B’ with bottomhole pressure target of
14.7psia.
Fig.9: Well deliverability from Nodal Analysis.
Figure shows Inflow performance curve and
tubing intake curves for different choke sizes of
well ‘B’. The intersection of these two curves
gives the well deliverability at respective choke
size.