SPE-178298-MS

Gas well Test Interpretation: Niger Delta Field Experience

P. P. Obeahon, O. Daodu, and A. Sedgwick, Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC)

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 4 – 6 August 2015.

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 work details how production data, well test analysis and PVT data analysis can be used to evaluate
the effects of near wellbore condensate accumulation on well productivity for a green field in the Niger
Delta. The field, comprising shore-face deposits that were later cut by channels in a high-energy deltaic
setting. Prior to this study, six wells had been drilled. Wells -1 and -2 had exploration and appraisal
objectives while wells -3, -4, -5 and -6 had development objective. After drilling wells -3, -4, -5 and -6,
MRT were conducted on these wells with the key objective of verifying analogue based well deliver-
ability.
The following conclusions arise from the interpretation of the test data. Well-3 will deliver at a lower
rate of 50MMscf/day as opposed to the pre-test estimate of 100MMscf/day. This is due to higher Darcy
and non-Darcy coefficients. Furthermore, flowing bottom hole pressure recorded during testing and from
the first four months of production indicates that the reservoir was been depleted below the dew-point
pressure of 4724 psi by about 100 psi. These observations, in combination with declining productivity
index and producing condensate-gas ratio suggest that condensate dropout is most likely responsible for
the high skin, hence well-3 potential was revised from MRT interpreted estimate of 89MMscf/day to
50MMscf/day. This decrease in well potential from 100MMscf/day to 50MMscf/day decelerated gas
recovery by about 3 years.
Well-4 data interpretation indicated low non-Darcy skin and Darcy coefficient. Single pressure
build-up (PBU) interpretation indicated pressure leaks into the casing-tubing annulus, an inference
substantiated by the observation of consistent high casing-head pressure in the well. Possible causes of
high casing-head pressure were investigated and attributed to poor tubing connection.
Both wells 5 and -6 penetrate the same sand. A four-point test was performed on Well-6 while
performing PBU on Well-5 hence no pressure stabilization on these well due to Interference effect.
Interpreted results indicates that Well-5 has a higher Darcy skin and lower non-Darcy coefficient
compared to Well-6, with both wells expected to deliver the planned offtake rates of 100MMscf/day
within acceptable drawdown limits.
This work identifies dew point pressure as an extremely important factor to consider when designing
gas well test, generating deliverability envelopes and optimizing condensate recovery as productivities can
be reduced by 50% when condensate banking begins.
2 SPE-178298-MS

Introduction
The field was discovered in 1975 by well-1 and is regarded as partially appraised. It structure comprising
a series of interlocking gentle NW-SE trending rollover anticlines. Hydrocarbons were encountered
between 7500 and 11250ftss in 12 intervals. These stacked reservoirs are made up of shore-face deposits
later cut by channels, all deposited in wave-dominated, high-energy deltaic setting. Prior to this study, six
wells have been drilled. The wells -1 and -2 had exploration and appraisal objectives while wells -3, -4,
-5 and -6 had an objective of developing D99, E99 and E99 reservoirs.
Employing the principles of analogy with wells in similar geological and operating environment, the
average pre-drill deliverability of these wells was each estimated as 100MMscf/day. Following the
successful drilling, completion and hook-up of these wells, it became pertinent to re-evaluate the well
potentials in relation to the pre-drill estimates. In line with best practices, such evaluation requires
multi-rate tests (MRT) with the key objective of verifying the pre-drill well potentials. A set of MRT was
designed, conducted and analysed by a multi-disciplinary team of subsurface and operations personnel.
This paper discusses the results of integrating findings from well-test analysis, geoscience data, and
pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) relationship of the reservoir fluid. The primary focus is on demon-
strating the strength of multidisciplinary interpretation of gas well-test data to maximise information on
the reservoir characteristics, as well as distinguish between Darcy and non-Darcy skin, optimize conden-
sate-recovery and in generating well operating envelopes. Details of the interpretations of the MRT data
from the four (well -3, -4, -5 and -6) development gas wells are presented.

WELL-3
Well-3 is one of the gas wells recommended by the Field Development Plan (FDP) to develop the F99
reservoir. This well, which would provide a drainage point in the crest of F99 reservoir, was expected to
develop 54.5Bscf and 1.66MMstb of gas and associated condensate reserves, respectively. Based on
previous well penetration and analogue data, the predicted initial offtake rate was 100MMscf/day at a
drawdown of 51 psi. To facilitate further evaluation of well performance and predict optimum produc-
tivity of the well, MRT was conducted after completing the well to acquire surface production data.
Total well clean-up lasted for 24.5 hours and then the well was shut-in for 10-hour stabilization (figure
1) before testing. The maximum choke size at the end of the clean-up period was 52/64th (fixed choke)
corresponding to a gas flow rate of 46MMscf/day. The well was shut-in to run memory gauges and inspect
sand filters. No traces of sand were found.

Figure 1—Quality check on pressure gauges for Well-3

SPE-178298-MS 3

The well was then open to flow at different choke sizes (fixed) in the order of 24/64th, 32/64th, 40/64th,
48/64th and 52/64th, corresponding to rates of 12, 21, 31, 42 and 46MMscf/day, respectively. The average
duration for each flow period was about 4 hours followed by a 52-hour pressure build-up (PBU) test.
Discussion of Result (Well-3)
The comparison of the two gauges (figure 1) suggests that they are not fully synchronized. The top gauge
(brown line in figure 1) was shifted by -0.01hr to synchronize it with the bottom gauge (reference gauge).
To check the drift, the top gauge was depth-shifted to the bottom gauge (green line in figure 2) depth by
adding 0.75psi (difference of 2ft), hence the good correlation between the two gauges and negligible drift.
The pressure-difference plot with bottom gauge as the reference gauge is shown in figure 1. Ideally in a
build-up period; the pressure difference should be zero after correcting for depth. During the final build-up
period, the difference is very close to zero to account for frictional pressure drop between the gauges.
During shut-in period, there is after-flow occurring in the wellbore due to wellbore storage which can be
detected in the difference plot, as no down-hole shut-in tool (DHSIT) was used. The difference plot in this
case suggests an after-flow for a very short period (⬍0.02hrs), hence a very short wellbore storage period
expected in the diagnostic plots. Although both gauges are suitable for interpretation, the bottom gauge
was selected as the reference gauge for this analysis.

Figure 2—Four-point plots for wells -3, -4, -5 and -6

Figure 2 shows a Cartesian plot of ⌬p/rate against rate as described by Jones et al. (1976) for all the
wells in this study. The black line shows the well behavior for well-3. The slope suggests a high turbulence
while the intercept is relatively high, suggesting a high skin or low permeability in the vicinity of the well.
A closer investigation suggests that the latter scenario is more likely than the former. The match on
pressure and pressure derivative shows a permeability of 182md and total skin of 5 (Obeahon et al. 2014).
The permeability value is consistent with the 160mD estimated the permeability-porosity transform as
implemented on the petro-physical log.
Gas rates and their corresponding bottom-hole pressure (BHP) obtained from the MRT were used to
calibrate the well-3 inflow model, using the Multi-Rate Jones model (Jones et al. 1976). To estimate the
well-3 technical potential, an appropriate wellbore hydraulic correlation was used to account for pressure
drop in the tubing. Figure 3 shows that the calculated technical potential for the existing completion (7⬙
tubing and external gravel pack, EGP) and from matching the test data is 89MMscf/day at a drawdown
of 180psi. Although this productivity is lower than the expectation case of 100MMsc/day at a drawdown
of 51psi, it however compares with the low-case scenario, thus demonstrating the robustness of the initial
predictions within the uncertainty bounds. This high drawdown is indicative of either high turbulence or
4 SPE-178298-MS

non-Darcy skin coefficient of about 26psi2/(MMscf/day)2 (estimated from figure 2). This is regarded as
acceptable, given that typical drawdown limitation in the Niger-Delta is about 500 psi to safeguard the
integrity of the sand-exclusion system. Notwithstanding that the drawdown is acceptable, the impact of the
high drawdown on future production and possible causes were investigated as one or some combinations
of the following.

Figure 3—Matched IPR/VLP Curve for Well-3

Water Blockage/coning: During the testing, water production was in the range 0.35- 0.45bbl/MMscf.
Given the low water-production, water blockage or coning was regarded as an unlikely cause.
Scales: Statistics on scale-formation in the Niger-Delta indicate that scales are formed at depth
shallower than this reservoir. As a result, this is unlikely the cause of the high drawdown.
Partial Penetration: The top of sand and gas-water contact (GWC) relative to top and bottom of
completion are 10957/11109ftss and 10979/11050ftss, respectively. The difference in depth between the
GWC and bottom completion is about 50ft. This might have caused the well to partially penetrate the
reservoir and be an additional source of drawdown.
Condensate dropout: Laboratory analysis of subsurface fluid samples obtained from this reservoir
indicates a dew-point pressure of 4724 psi (Figure 4). Early production and test data show that reservoir
depletion was about 100psi below the dew point. Given the likelihood of condensate drop-out below the
dew-point, it is regarded that this is most likely the cause of the reduced potential and high drawdown,
potentially becoming a challenge for this well in the future. Due to this reasonable likelihood, the
prospects of condensate-banking as an impairment mechanism in this well were studied in detail.

Figure 4 —F99 Phase Envelope - Recombined EOS

SPE-178298-MS 5

Investigation of condensate-banking (Well-3)

In a gas-condensate field, a bank of condensate can rapidly build up around a producing well when
flowing bottom-hole pressure (FBHP) falls below dew point. This bank grows as reservoir pressure
declines, thus leading to reduced deliverability, loss of heavy components at surface and high drawdown.
Clearly, a good understanding of the process of condensate-banking is essential for robust prediction of
well and reservoir behavior.
Understanding the nature of condensate-blockage and fluid-flow in near wellbore region requires the
following aspects: (i) characterization of flow process and PVT properties, (ii) determination of phase
mobility and relative permeabilities, and (iii) modeling and testing of well performance (deliverability).
Surface samples were acquired from the separator and taken to the laboratory for detailed PVT
analysis. The recombined gas-condensate sample exhibited a dew-point pressure of 4724psi at reservoir
temperature of 184oF. The separator gas and liquid compositions were mathematically recombined to a
condensate-gas ratio (CGR) of 44bbl/MMscf to replicate the well-stream composition. Using the Soave-
Redlich-Kwong equation-of-state (SRK-EOS), the recombined sample was then analyzed; yielding a
phase-envelope for evaluating the current well, reservoir and plant conditions (Figure 4). . The dew-point
pressure and temperature for this fluid exceed the corresponding critical temperature and pressure, but
below the cricondentherm. This observation suggests the system is a retrograde gas-condensate. Point A
to point B in Figure 4 describes flow process from the reservoir to the sand-face. As pressure drops below
the dew-point pressure of 4724 psi, condensate is expected to drop out as the gas stream approaches the
wellbore area. Point B to point C describes flow process from sand-face to the slug catcher at the gas plant.
This also shows that additional condensate dropout is expected as the fluid journeys to the plant.
Figure 5 displays actual surface-measured CGRs vs. FBHP as recorded during the MRT. Three district
regions can be recognized. Region-1 covers the pressure-range above the dew-point pressure during which
CGR increased with declining FBHP. Region-2, spanning the pressure range 4724 - 4700 psi, exhibited
some stability in condensate dropout as FBHP decreased. This implies that most of the condensates that
dropped out within the wellbore/reservoir were transported by the gas stream to the surface. Region-3
describes the pressure-interval beyond which expelled condensate no longer flows away from the wellbore
upon further depressurization.

Figure 5—Well-3 CGR Trend from MRT

In essence, under the conditions that the MRT was conducted, region-2 maximizes condensate recovery
as it provides optimum pressure range to flow this well at maximum and minimum rates of 50MMscf/day
and 20MMscf/day, respectively. Based on these results, operating envelope was revised for this well. The
estimated technical potential of 89MMscf/day (region-3) was revised to 50MMscd (region 2). This was
6 SPE-178298-MS

done to maximize condensate recovery. With this revision, it is expected that most of the condensate
dropout will occur within the wellbore expelled and will flow to the surface. Due to this dynamic
condition, the advised strategy was to conduct MRT regularly when well operating condition deviates
from the operating envelopes.
Figure 6 shows the first four months production data from November 2013 to February 2014. On 15th
January 2014, the well was beaned-up from 50% to 100% choke opening due to the inability to meet
daily-contractual quantity (DCQ) as other wells were shut-in for routine maintenance. As the well was
beaned up, with gas-rate increasing from 50 to 86MMscf/day, there was a sharp drop from the minimum
tubing-head pressure (THP) constraint of 240Bar to about 200Bar. Notice that the gas rate of 86MMscf/
day lasted for about one day then dropped back to 50MMscf/day with a stabilized THP of 200Bar still at
100% choke opening. This observation was not expected because, as higher choke-opening corresponds
to higher gas rate if other factors remains constant. This decrease in gas rate could be due to condensate
dropout, a hypothesis that is consistent with Figure 5. On this observation, the well was beaned back to
50MMscf/day. Figure 7 shows the productivity index (PI) trend across the entire period. The region-2
shows an approximately constant and high PI of about 0.3MMscf/day/psi. The impact of condensate-
banking on ultimate recovery (UR) was also studied (figure 8). This was based on a simple optimization
of the gas- rate constraint. Overall, while the gas UR remains largely unchanged, gas-recovery is
decelerated by some 3 years, but condensate-recovery is increased.

Figure 6 —Well-3 Early-time production Data

Figure 7—Well-3 Productivity Index Trend

SPE-178298-MS 7

Figure 8 —Effect of Condensate banking on reserve forecast

WELL-4
Well-4 was drilled with an objective to provide an optimum drainage point in the crest of the D99
reservoir and develop 77Bscf and 0.61MMstb of gas and associated condensate reserves respectively.
Based on previous well penetration and analogue data, the predicted initial offtake rate was 100MMscf/
day at a drawdown of 200psi. To facilitate further evaluation of well performance and predict optimum
productivity of the well, MRT was conducted after completing the well to acquire surface production data.
Total well clean-up lasted for 7hours before shut-in for 20 hour stabilization (Figure 1) before testing.
The maximum choke size at the end of the clean-up period was 52/64th (fixed choke) corresponding to
a gas flow rate of 50MMscf/day. The well was shut-in to run memory gauges and inspect the sand filters.
No traces of sand or condensate were found from this well hence a dry gas reservoir.
The well was then open to flow at different choke sizes (fixed) in the order 24/64th, 36/64th, 40/64th,
48/64th and 52/64th corresponding to rates of 10MMscf/day, 25MMscf/day, 33MMscf/day, 46MMscf/
day and 50MMscf/day respectively for MRT. The average duration for each flow period was about 4
hours.

Discussion of Result (Well-4)

The comparison of the two gauges (figure 9) suggests that they are not fully synchronized. The top gauge
(brown line in figure 9) was shifted by -0.001 hr to synchronize it with the bottom gauge (green line in
figure 9) to check the drift, the top gauge was depth shifted to the bottom gauge depth by adding 2psi
(difference of 4ft), hence the good correlation between the two gauges and negligible drift. However, the
black circle in figure 9 indicates a delay in final PBU. This is indicative of possible pressure leaks from
the tubing into the casing tubing annulus as recorded by the tubing head pressure gauge (no DHSIT
installed).
8 SPE-178298-MS

Figure 9 —Quality Check on pressure gauges for Well-4

The cause of this was investigated to be from poor tubing connection. However, we were able to
identify a pseudo IARF, and Permeability value of 2500md obtained seems comparable to obtained from
analogue (500md to 3500md). The red line in figure 2 shows a Cartesian plot of ⌬p/rate against rate for
well-4. The slope of the line shows a low turbulence while the intercept on the y-axis is high suggesting
a low skin or high permeability in the vicinity of the well (Permeability value of 2500md). This non-Darcy
skin coefficient for this well is about 24psi2/(MMscf/day)2.
Gas rates and their corresponding BHP obtained from the MRT were used to calibrate the well-4 inflow
model, using the Multi-Rate Jones model (Jones et al. 1976) to estimate the well-4 technical potential; an
appropriate wellbore hydraulic correlation was used to account for pressure drop in the tubing. Figure 10
shows calculated technical potential for well-4 existing completion (7⬙ tubing and EGP) and from
matching the test data is 100MMscf/day at a drawdown of 99psi against an expected value of 200psi
indicating an incorrect skin value used in the post drill inflow model. This well was opened up to flow
at 100MMscf/day and it was producing little or no condensate.

Figure 10 —Matched IPR/VLP Curve for Well-4

WELL-5
Well-5 objective was to provide an optimum drainage point in the crest of E99 reservoir and develop
66.9Bscf and 1.27MMstb of gas and associated condensate reserves respectively. The initial reservoir
pressure and temperature from early RFT are 4064 psi and 156oF respectively. Based on previous well
penetration and analogue data, the predicted initial offtake rate was 100MMscf/day at a drawdown of
135psi. To facilitate further evaluation of well performance and predict optimum productivity of the well,
MRT was conducted after completing the well to acquire surface production data.
SPE-178298-MS 9

Total well clean-up lasted for 23hours and then the well was shut-in for 13hours stabilization (figure
1) before testing. The maximum choke size at the end of the clean-up period was 56/64th (fixed choke)
corresponding to a gas flow rate of 57MMscf/day. The well was shut-in to run memory gauges and inspect
the sand filters. No traces of sand were found. Average condensate production from field throughout test
duration is about 7MMscf/day.
The well was then open to flow at different choke sizes (fixed) in the order of 24/64th, 36/64th, 40/64th,
48/64th and 56/64th corresponding to rates of 11MMscf/day, 26MMscf/day, 33MMscf/day, 45MMscf/
day and 57MMscf/day respectively. The average duration for each flow period was about 4 hours. The
step-rate test was followed by a 52-hour build-up (PBU) test.

Discussion of Result (Well-5)

Figure 11 shows well-5 test history. The blue circle shows declining pressure during the build-up test
caused by interference effect from well-6 (flow after flow test was carried out on well-6 when build-up
test was observed in well-5) hence pressure build-up data not feasible for well and reservoir diagnosis.
Only the flow-after-flow test sequence was analyzed.

Figure 11—Well-5 MRT Pressure and Rate data

Flow after flow analysis shows that well-5 (Green line in figure 2) has a higher Darcy skin and lower
non-Darcy skin than well-6. This non-Darcy skin coefficient for this well is about 11psi2/(MMscf/day)2.
Gas rates and their corresponding bottom-hole pressures obtained from the test were used to calibrate the
well-5 inflow model, using the Multi-Rate Jones model (Jones et al. 1976). To re-estimate the well-5
technical potential, an appropriate wellbore hydraulic correlation was used to account for pressure drop
in the tubing. Figure 12 show calculated technical potential for well-5 existing completion (7⬙ tubing and
EGP) and from matching the test data is 100MMscf/day at a drawdown of 43psi against a drawdown is
135psi. This is due to wrong value of Pi used in the well-5 inflow model. The well was open to flow at
100MMscf/day with 8bbl/MMscf of condensate.
10 SPE-178298-MS

Figure 12—Matched IPR/VLP Curve for Well-5

WELL-6
Well-6 was drilled to provide an optimum drainage point also on the E99 reservoir to develop 53Bscf of
gas and 0.48MMstb of associated condensate reserves respectively. Based on previous well penetration
and analogue data, the predicted initial offtake rate was 100MMscf/day at a drawdown of 39psi.
Total well clean-up lasted for 28 hours and then the well was shut-in for 10 hour stabilization (Figure
1) before testing. The maximum choke size at the end of the clean-up period was 52/64th (fixed choke)
corresponding to a gas flow-rate of 51MMscf/day. The well was shut-in to run memory gauges and inspect
the sand filters. No traces of sand were found. Average condensate production from field throughout test
duration is about 8MMscf/day.
The well was then open to flow at different choke sizes (fixed) in the order 24/64th, 36/64th, 40/64th,
48/64th and 52/64th corresponding to rates of 11MMscf/day, 26MMscf/day, 33MMscf/day, 46MMscf/
day and 51MMscf/day respectively for MRT. The average duration for each flow period was about 4
hours. The step-rate test was followed by a 90-hour build-up (PBU) test.

Discussion of Result (Well-6)

The comparison of the two gauges (figure 13) suggests that they are not fully synchronized. The top gauge
(green line in figure 13) was shifted by ⫺0.005hr to synchronize it with the bottom gauge (reference
gauge). To check the drift, the top gauge was depth shifted to the bottom gauge (brown line in figure 12)
depth by adding 2 psi (difference of 4ft), there is a good correlation between the two gauges and negligible
drift. The pressure-difference plot with bottom gauge as the reference gauge is shown in figure 13. Ideally
in a build-up period; the pressure difference should be zero after correcting for depth. During the final
build-up period, the difference is very close to zero to account for frictional pressure drop between the
gauges. During shut-in period, there is after-flow occurring in the wellbore due to well bore storage which
should be detected in the difference plot, as no down-hole shut-in tool (DHSIT). The difference plot in
this case suggests an after-flow for a very short period (⬍0.02hrs), hence a very short wellbore storage
period expected in the diagnostic plots (Obeahon et al. 2014). Although both gauges are suitable for
interpretation, the bottom gauge was selected as the reference gauge for this analysis.
SPE-178298-MS 11

Figure 13—Quality-check on pressure gauges for Well-6

In the Flow-after-flow analysis, interpretation shows well-6 (blue line) has a lower Darcy skin and
higher non-Darcy skin than well-5 in figure 2. The Darcy and non-Darcy skin coefficient for this well is
18 and 56 psi2/(MMscf/day)2 respectively. Gas rates and their corresponding BHP obtained from the MRT
were used to calibrate the well-6 inflow model, using the Multi-Rate Jones model (Jones et al. 1976). In
order to re-estimate the well-6 technical potential, an appropriate wellbore hydraulic correlation was used
to account for pressure drop in the tubing. Figure 14 shows calculated technical potential for well-6
existing completion (7⬙ tubing and EGP) and from matching the test data is 100MMscf/day at a drawdown
of 35psi against an expected drawdown of 39psi. Currently this well is producing at 100MMscf/day with
7bbl/MMscf of condensate.

Figure 14 —Matched IPR/VLP Curve for Well-6

Conclusion
MRT data when properly interpreted can reveal potentially more information that can aid in well &
reservoir description. This paper has demonstrated the strength of multidisciplinary integration of gas
well-test interpretation in providing information on the reservoir characteristics, optimize condensate
recovery and in generating well operating envelopes. Table 1 below summarizes the deliverability
envelope for these wells.
12 SPE-178298-MS

Table 1—Well -3, -4, -5 and -6 Well Deliverability Envelope

The following conclusions were draw from the study of each well:
1. WELL-3 will deliver at a lower rate of 50MMscf/day as a result of high Darcy and non-Darcy
coefficient. Furthermore, flowing bottom hole pressure recorded during testing and from the first
four months of production indicates that the reservoir was been depleted below the dew-point
pressure of 4724 psi by about 100 psi. These observations, in combination with declining
productivity index and producing condensate-gas ratio suggest that condensate dropout is most
likely responsible for the high skin, hence well-3 potential was revised from MRT interpreted
estimate of 89MMscf/day to 50MMscf/day. This decelerated reserve recovery by three years. This
decrease in well potential from 100MMscf/day to 50MMscf/day decelerated gas recovery by about
3 years.
2. WELL-4 interpretations indicate very low non-Darcy skin and Darcy coefficient hence producing
at a lower drawdown than expected consistent with observed high permeability (Permeability
value of 2500md). Single PBU interpretation also shows pressure leaks into the casing tubing
annulus which was consistent with High casing head pressure observed in this well. Causes of high
casing head pressure was investigated and seen to be from poor tubing connection. The study also
showed that this well can deliver the pre-drilled potential of 100MMscf/day at a drawdown of
99psi against an expected value of 200psi indicating an incorrect skin value used in the post drill
inflow model. This well was opened up to flow at 100MMscf/day and it was producing little or
no condensate.
3. WELL-5 and WELL-6 both penetrate the E99 sand (wet gas reservoir). Four point test was
performed on Well-6 when PBU was been observed in Well-5, hence no pressure stabilization due
to Interference effect. Evaluation of the four point test data indicates that Well-5 has a higher
Darcy skin and lower non-Darcy coefficient compared to Well-6 and that both wells will both
produce 100MMscf/day at an acceptable drawdown.

Recommendation
The following recommendations arise from this study.
1. Well test data should be validated while in the field before de-mobilizing contractors to increase
the confident level in data quality and interpretation results.
2. Dew point pressure should be considered when designing gas well test, generating deliverability
envelopes and optimizing condensate recovery as productivities can be significantly reduced by
50% when condensate banking begins.
3. Well test data interpretation should be an integrated approach between all subsurface discipline
and field production operators to better maximize value of information from test data as demon-
strated in this paper.
SPE-178298-MS 13

Nomenclature
MRT ⫽ Multi Rate Test
NLNG ⫽ Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas
FDP ⫽ Field Development Plan
IPR ⫽ Inflow Performance Relationship
DHSIT ⫽ Down-hole shut in tool
VLP ⫽ Vertical lift performance
Bscf ⫽ Billion standard cubic feet
Tscf ⫽ Trillion standard cubic feet
OML ⫽ Oil Mining Lease
GIIP ⫽ Gas initially in Place
UR ⫽ Ultimate recovery
TVDSS ⫽ True vertical depth subsea
EGP ⫽ External Gravel Pack
NLNG ⫽ Nigeria Lignified Natural Gas
OGWC ⫽ Original Gas Water Contact
PVT ⫽ Pressure Volume Temperature
RFT ⫽ Repeat formation tester
Pi ⫽ Initial reservoir pressure in psi
MMscf ⫽ Million standard cubic feet
FBHP ⫽ Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure
FP ⫽ Flow Period
PBU ⫽ Pressure Build Up
DD ⫽ Draw Down
CGR ⫽ Condensate Gas Ratio
EOS ⫽ Equation of State
IARF ⫽ Infinite Acting Radial Flow
DCQ ⫽ Daily contractual quantity

Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledge the management of Shell Petroleum Development Company for the
permission to publish this work

References
Jones, L. G., Blount, M., and Glaze, O. H.:“ Use of Short Term Multiple Rate Flow Tests to Predict
Performance of Wells Having Turbulence,” Paper SPE 6133 presented at the 1976 51st SPE
Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana October 3– 6.
Obeahon, P., Sedgwick, A. and Okereke, O:“ Practical Application of Multi Rate Deconvolution”
Paper SPE 172446 presented at the 2014 SPE Conference held in Lagos, Nigeria August 5–7.
Schlumberger Dowell “Well performance, Matrix engineering manual”
Afidick, D, Kaczorowski, N. J., Srinivas, B:“Production performance of a retrograde gas reservoir”
Paper SPE 28749 presented at the 1994 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference held in
Melbourne, Australia Nov 7–10.
Rocke R. S.:“Improving Well Productivity in Gas Condensate Reservoirs via Chemical Treatment”:
A paper presented in 2010 at 3rd Tobago gas technology conference, Lowlands, Tobago Oct 7–10
14 SPE-178298-MS

Wheaton R. J., Zhang H. R.:“Condensate Banking Dynamics in Gas Condensate Fields” Paper SPE
62930, presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
Oct 1– 4
Hamoud A. A:“A Successful Methanol Treatment in a Gas-Condensate Reservoir – Field Application”
Paper SPE 80901, presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, March 22–25
Peffer, J. W., Miller, M. A., and Hill, A. D.:“ An Improved Method for Calculating Bottom-hole
Pressure in Flowing Gas Wells with Liquid Present,” Paper SPE 15665 presented at the 1986 61st
SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana October
5– 8.
Richardson. J. M., and Shaw, A. H.:“ Two-Rate IPR Testing” 1982 Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, March to April.
Gilbert, W. E.:“ Flowing Gas Well Performance,” 1954 Drilling and Production Practice