SPE 129032

Well Testing in Tight Gas Reservoir: Today’s Challenge and Future’s Opportunity
Piyush Pankaj and Vikash Kumar, Schlumberger

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition held in Mumbai, India, 20–22 January 2010.

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

With the increase in demand and rapidly diminishing resources in conventional reservoirs, economically producing gas
from unconventional reservoirs e.g. tight gas reservoir is a great challenge today. The character and distribution of
tight gas reservoirs are not yet well understood. Low quality reservoirs are often seen as involving higher costs and
risk than high-medium quality reservoirs. There is no formal definition for “Tight Gas”. Law and Curtis (2002) defined
low-permeability (tight) reservoirs as those with permeabilities less than 0.1 mD. The best definition of tight gas
reservoir is “reservoirs that cannot be produced at economic flow rates or economic volumes of natural gas are
unrecoverable, unless the well is stimulated by a large hydraulic fracture treatment or produced by use of a horizontal
wellbore or multilateral wellbores.”

Unlike conventional reservoirs, which are small in volume but easy to develop, unconventional reservoirs are large in
volume but difficult to develop. Improved technology and adequate gas price is the key to their development. Gas
production from a tight-gas well will be low on a per-well basis compared with gas production from conventional
reservoirs. A lot of wells have to be drilled to get most of the gas out of the ground in tight gas reservoirs.

Testing a tight gas reservoir is a big challenge today but in coming future more and more numbers of wells are
expected in tight gas reservoirs. If we want to grab a piece of this upcoming opportunity, we will have to accept the
challenge today. More data and more engineering manpower are required to understand and design a well test in tight
gas reservoir than a well test in good permeability conventional reservoirs.

In this paper, a possible way to test a tight gas reservoir using hydraulic fracturing will be discussed. Since hydraulic
fracturing is one of the most successful ways of producing a tight gas reservoir economically so far, an idea of
integrating hydraulic fracturing job with well testing job as a complete package for testing tight gas reservoirs,
especially in the exploratory phase, will be discussed.

Introduction

In today’s world of shrinking reserves and aging brownfields, focus of the oil and gas industry has already moved
towards exploration of unconventional hydrocarbon reserves. Tight gas reservoir is one such difficult areas of
exploration, where technology and planning needs to go hand-in-hand to develop a commercially viable proposition.
Well test has been a common and proven methodology to identify the economic deliverability of oil and gas reservoirs.
Well test on a reservoir can be done at any stage of the life of the well ranging from drilling, completion and production
phases. The objective at each stage may be either identification of producible fluids, determination of reservoir
deliverability or characterization of complex reservoir parameters. Primary goals of well testing in a tight gas reservoir
is to identify the gas bearing horizon, obtain initial reservoir pressure, permeability, characterize well damage and
extent of the damage, evaluate completion efficiency, evaluate well deliverability and heterogeneities, evaluate the
2 SPE 129032

effectiveness of a stimulation job and also to estimate recoverable reserves in conjunction with other data.

Initial reservoir pressure is one such critical information which can define the complete economics of development
planning of a new field. Traditionally, the initial reservoir pressure is determined from a flow and build-up test and
extrapolating the shut-in-data. However, today’s economic and environmental considerations encourage short duration
testing. Low permeability tight gas reservoirs are therefore more difficult to test and evaluate for critical reservoir
parameters. Hence this may result in incorrect reserve or original gas-in-place estimation.

The traditional methodology of reservoir development in tight gas reservoirs involves drilling pilot wells and well testing
therefore may need long rig time and eventually is a costlier proposition. Shorter build-up tests may be even more fatal
with erroneous interpretation and hence incorrect reserve estimates. Reservoir exploitation strategy and true potential
in tight gas reservoirs can be only estimated when well tests are combined with hydraulic fracturing at the exploration
stage of the well itself. Hydraulic fracturing has been a proven methodology to enhance production for a aging oil or
gas field. So, in the first part of the paper a complete workflow has been presented to demonstrate the necessity of
well testing and hydraulic fracturing in conjunction, which is applicable not only for a tight gas well in exploratory but
also in the development phase. We will discuss how hydraulic fracturing data analysis can play a crucial role as a well
testing methodology in a tight gas reservoir along with establishing commercial producibility.

The workflow design

The workflow starts with running openhole well logs to gather petrophysical information. Cores obtained during drilling
is put through conventional or advanced coring analysis, depending on the magnitude and complexity of the
information required. Important reservoir and petrophysical parameters like porosity, permeability, grain density, fluid
saturations and lithology are determined from routine core analysis whereas relative permeability, wettability, capillary
pressure, X-Ray Diffraction (XRD), thin section analysis is done by special core analysis. MDT (Modular Dynamic
Formation Tester) can be a helpful device to estimate reservoir pressure, fluid type and fluid mobility in the formation.
This information from core testing and MDT is helpful to calibrate the log derived petrophysical parameters. Tight gas
pay zones are eventually identified, and to validate the presence of commercially producible hydrocarbons, and
hydraulic fracturing needs to be done on the pay zone. A well test at this stage will also help in realizing presence of
any natural fractures which may help make essential design changes for hydraulic fracturing. Results obtained from
LOT/FIT (Leak-off Test/ Formation Injection Test) done during the drilling phase can be a useful input to calibrate sonic
logs to estimate approximate frac gradient and hence horse power requirement for hydraulic fracturing. Mineralogy
data along with core tests would help suggest the use of water based or oil based frac fluid. Depending on the clay
type and quantity, the base fluid of frac fluid is adjusted with appropriate amount of clay stabilizing agent. This can
simply be done by core flow experiments and retained permeability test results, obtained by passing fluid through the
cores obtained from the gas pay horizon.

Hydraulic fracturing involves two stages of fluid pumping exercise. The first stage is the mini-frac where a small fluid
volume is pumped to establish injectivity and the data is analyzed to obtain critical reservoir parameters pertaining to
frac-fluid and reservoir. These parameters are then used to design the optimized main frac job, which involves
pumping fluid along with proppant. The detailed methodology of the mini-frac data analysis will be discussed in later
section. Well test data, especially reservoir permeability would help in designing optimal hydraulic fracture. Optimal
hydraulic fracturing job in the exploratory stage of the tight gas field development will determine the maximum potential
of the field to produce, which reduces the risk of unplanned field development. Hydraulic fracturing establishes the
sure-shot methodology to exploit the reservoir. In the event that ost fracturing, no gas production is observed, then the
reservoir can be classified as low/non-producing zone. Fracturing on exploratory wells will also help in gathering data
for optimizing frac design for the development wells in the field and therefore to maximize recovery.

Post fracturing well testing would help to evaluate the hydraulic fracture effectiveness as well as fracture clean-up
effectiveness. This is important to know as different fracturing fluid, aggressive breaker schedule or a different
flowback strategy can be designed in the future, for maximizing fracture clean-up and conductivity. The reservoir
permeability estimated from pre-frac well test and pressure decline analysis from mini-frac will be revalidated by the
post frac well test. Post hydraulic fracturing in a tight gas formation, a well test helps to evaluate the non-darcy flow
effects and pressure losses while the gas flows through the conductive proppant pack in the fracture, along with it’s the
tendency to drop into condensate near fracture face. In an exploratory well, more than one well test is recommended
SPE 129032 3

to be spread over time, to understand the reduction in fracture conductivity due to proppant crushing and embedment.
This information would then, help us judge the necessity of using higher-strength proppants or a different size of
proppant for future fracturing on such wells.

The petrophysical evaluation of OH logs, well tests and production data post fracturing will be used in the making the
static well and dynamic well model for simulation of reservoir and fluid properties, production forecast and reservoir
depletion with time.

Figure1. Workflow chart for developing tight gas reservoir

4 SPE 129032

Analysis of post fracture production data involves understanding of the flow patterns in the reservoir. The technique
applied to analyze the data must be compatible with the flow regime that is occurring in the formation while the data is
being collected. Essentially, the flow regimes are bilinear flow, linear flow, transitional flow and pseudo-radial flow. The
flow regimes of a vertical well containing a finite-conductivity fracture can be defined by the use of dimensionless time,
tD.

tD = 0.000264kt / (ΦµCtLf2) ------------------------------(1)

Holditch showed that linear flow occurs when tD is in between 0.0225 and 0.1156. Pseudo-radial flow does not begin
until tD of 2 to 5 depending on value of dimensionless conductivity. These flow regimes can be clearly identified during
the post frac well test.

Figure 2 Different flow regimes in a fracture

For reserve estimates, the volumetric method does not work very well in tight gas reservoirs because of uncertainty in
drainage area. Classical reservoir engineering techniques and volumetric calculations often result in overestimation of
the ultimate recoverable reserves in tight gas formations. Reserves estimates that are derived from such simulation
models do not reflect the effective drainage radius or the permeability heterogeneity. Permeability variations in the gas
bearing horizon, hydraulic fracture properties and fracture connectivity to the formation are the main parameters for
gas rate and hence ultimate reserve estimates. A representative permeability in the drainage area should be averaged
harmonically or geometrically. In tight gas reservoirs well productivities are also impacted by water blocking due to the
strong capillary forces and condensate drop out in an elliptic flow regime. Therefore, the relative permeabilities are not
only changing in space but also in time domain. Production analysis using material balance and decline curve analysis
are important applications to estimate ultimate recoverable reserves in tight gas reservoirs. Therefore, after the
empirical model is in place well test in tight gas reservoirs need to be done spaced in time to re-estimate the formation
fluid mobility and condensate drop out near wellbore. The best method for reserve estimation would be to build a semi
analytical or numerical dynamic reservoir model, history match and then forecast. The model should be able to
simulate different hydraulic flow units and non-Darcy effects due to gas flow.
SPE 129032 5

Common industry well tests for Tight Gas

Apart from the quick injection fall off mini-frac well test, there are other tests that are done in the industry and they are
broadly categorized as openhole tests, cased hole test, drill string conveyed tests and wireline conveyed well tests.
Open hole DST (drillstem tests) are short flow build-up tests conducted while drilling. This typically has half an hour of
flow time with one hour of build-up. Wireline Formation tests are similarly done but instead of drill stem, wireline is
used as conveyance method. These tests are very short duration and may last only for few minutes. Cased Hole DST
is performed after the well has been cased and completed. This test lasts for several hours. Cased hole formation tests
are done similar to wireline but in a cased hole environment where multiple shut-in and flow with controlled drawdown.

Testing tight gas reservoirs using conventional technique is difficult primarily because of difficulty in measuring flow
rates. However, tools and techniques have been developed to analytically solve the problems in measurement and
interpretation

Hydraulic fracturing as a well test in tight gas reservoirs

Most of the tight gas reservoirs are usually thick and multilayered, and hydraulic fracturing is the most efficient way to
unlock these reservoirs to produce gas at commercial rates. To optimize the hydraulic fracture design, it is important to
understand the rock mechanical properties of all the layers lying above, within and below the pay horizon. Important
rock properties like In-situ stress magnitude, stress distribution profile, Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio are
required to design a fracture job.

When the pumping pressure of fluid creates a pressure more than the in-situ stress of the target horizon, then the
fracture opens up and closes as soon as the pressure in the fracture goes below the in-situ stress. Closure of a
fracture is an important event in the injection fall-off history. Closure pressure is defined as the fluid pressure at which
an existing fracture globally closes i.e. pressure at which the frac width is zero. So, since now we know that frac is the
only way to produce these formation, then how about using frac data as way to perform some well testing?

Figure3. Bottom Hole pressure History (Nolte 1988)

Mini-Frac pumping is a routine part of hydraulic fracturing operation. Mini-frac pressure decline analysis can be done
for two distinct phases of pre closure and post closure analysis. Mini frac pumping and data analysis involves Mini-Fall-
off technique. This technique is performed to determine closure pressure, fluid efficiency, reservoir pressure and
transmissibility. The use of MFO theory was used long before when Ken Nolte developed this technique further in 1997
and currently known as Mini-Fall-Off (MFO) in the industry. The after closure pressure behavior is independent of the
physical properties of the fracture and depends only on the spatial and temporary history of fluid loss, fracture half
length and reservoir parameters. The later time behavior can be treated as a pseudo-radial flow and this allows
interpreting reservoir transmissibility and initial reservoir pressure in a way similar to type curve matching, done in a
traditional way for well testing. It is to be noted here that to compute permeability from transmissibility, the injection of
non viscous fluid in necessary to minimize height growth. This permeability is the average permeability across the net
6 SPE 129032

perforated interval. Usually, permeability in a gas formation within a basin is statistically normally distributed function.
Therefore, this median permeability calculated is the best measure of central tendency and should be used to forecast
flow rates.

A typical Mini-fall-off (MFO) test includes injection of a small volume of water/brine to a create mini-fracture and then
followed by a shut-in period to record the pressure decline or fall-off data. As shown in figure3, the chronology of
injection, shut-in and pressure fall off is followed. The injection period is used to evaluate the nature of fracture
propagation. The fracture closing period is used to evaluate the non-ideal effects like pressure dependent leak-off, post
injection fracture propagation and near wellbore effects. This also helps to quantify the fluid efficiency and fracture
geometry. The after closure period consists of pressure decline resulting from pseudo-linear flow followed by pseudo
radial flow regime. The pseudo linear flow period is used to estimate the closure time, spurt loss and fracture half
length. The pseudo-radial flow helps to determine transmissibility and reservoir pressure.

The late time pressure decline analysis is similar to Horner analysis which is a part of conventional log-log pressure
build-up analysis. After closure radial-flow is a function of the injected volume, reservoir pressure, formation
transmissibility and closure time. Their relationship is provided in the following equations using the radial –flow time FR.
p(t) – pr = mr FR(t,tc) -----------------------------------------(2)

Where tc is the time to closure where time t=0 is the time at the beginning of pumping. Pr is the initial reservoir pressure,
mr is functionally equivalent to Horner Slope for conventional well testing, and

FR(t,tc) = ¼ Ln(1+κ tc /(1- tc)) , κ = 16/π2 ≈ 1.6 --------------(3)

Therefore from the above equation, a Cartesian plot of pressure versus radial flow time function yields reservoir
pressure from the y-intercept and the slope (mr) that can be used to determine reservoir fluid transmissibility.

Kh/µ = 251,000 (Vi/ mr tc) -----------------------------------(4)

Where k, h, µ are expressed in oilfield units i.e. mD, ft, cp, tc in minutes and Vi is injected volume(bbls).

Harting et al have already validated the results from mini-fall-off analysis and well test in tight gas fields.

Figure4: G-Function Plot for mini-fall-off test Figure5: Pseudo-radial type curve match
(Source: Mini-Fall-off software, Schlumberger)
SPE 129032 7

Importance of Well test for a tight gas reservoir

Simulation on a tight gas well (refer to appendix for well information) has been run to see the importance of the well
test data and effect that it has on in production forecast. As said before, the uncertainty in reservoir pressure and
permeability can be more critical and have pronounced effect in an exploratory tight gas well. A tight gas well was
simulated for the following results. The data for the well is attached in the appendix.

Production Forecast
200
K =0.1mD
180

Cumulative Gas Production(MMscf)

K=0.075mD
160
K=0.05mD
140
K=0.025mD
120
K=0.01mD
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time (Days)

Figure6. Production forecast : Sensisitvity run on permeability variance

The permeability is an important factor that affects the production forecast from a well and therefore a correct estimate
is absolutely imperative for field development decisions. Unfortunately most of the E&P companies are highly unaware
of the formation permeability and guess out of their experience from similar fields, depths, formations types etc.
however from figure6 it is clear that there may be a huge difference in the productivity of a tight gas reservoir which
may change the complete gamut of investment versus return economics.

Figure7. Production forecast : Sensisitvity run on fracture half length variance

A successful hydraulic fracturing can help bring the tight gas formation to commercial production rates. However, a
sub-optimal hydraulic fracture will not realize the full potential of the reservoir. An optimized fracture design needs to
have a good estimate of the reservoir permeability. A well test prior to frac and validated by mini-frac mini-fall-off
analysis will help in optimizing frac half length. A hydraulic fracture also helps to calibrate the sonic logs for stress
profile and therefore fracture height can be better simulated using P3D model.
8 SPE 129032

Figure8. Production forecast : Sensisitvity run on pressure variance

It is seen from the simulation run that an estimated reservoir pressure estimate difference of 200psi does not change
the productivity of a hydraulically fractured well tight gas well significanlty. However, the reservoir pressure is a critical
parameter which will decide the PVT properties of gas as well as the gas in place.

Conclusions

1. Hydraulic fracturing should be included in the exploratory phase of the field history and also field development for a
tight gas reservoirs.

2. Well test by conventional methods needs revalidation from min-frac data as conventional methods use build-up
periods to gather data. This build-up is usually short and depending on the tightness of the formation, may result in
wrong interpretation of reservoir parameters.

3. Hydraulic fracturing helps to measure reservoir pressure and transmissibility by mini-fall-off analysis.

4. Well testing post fracturing helps to evaluate fracture effectiveness and fracture clean-up efficiency.

5. Measurement of reservoir properties along with hydraulic fracturing is important for reserves estimates and hence,
helps realize the true production potential of the well.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to acknowledge Schlumberger-DCS and Well Services for license to use Mini-Fall-Off software
and other softwares for simulation. We also acknowledge Mr. R.Venkateshwaran and Mr.R.Bahadur, Schlumberger for
their support and encouragement and Mr. S.Patwardhan, Schlumberger for his reviewing comments on the paper.

References

Holditch, S., Tight gas Sand”, SPE 103356

Soliman et al., “After Closure Analysis to determine formation permeability, reservoir pressure, and residual fracture
properties” SPE 93419 presented at Middle East Oil and Gas Show and conference at Bharain, March 2005.

Rovira, A.M. and Jacot,R.H., “Case Study: Detailed Hydraulic Fracture Analysis Leads to a Better Understanding of a
Complex Reservoir” SPE 95397 presented at SPE annual Technical Conference held in Dallas,Texas, October 2005
SPE 129032 9

Ionescu,G.F. et al., “Fracture Considerations for the Development of Tight Gas Formations”, SPE 100231 presented at
SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Austria, June 2005.

Garcia,J.P. et al. , “Well Testing of Tight Gas Reservoirs”, SPE 100576 presented at SPE gas Technology Symposium
held in Calgary in May 2006.
Shaoul,J. et al. , “Massive Hydraulic Fracturing Unlocks Deep Tight Gas Reserves in India”, SPE 107337 presented at
European Formation Damage Conference held in Scheveningen, The Netherlands, June 2007.

Economides, M.J., “Observations and Recommendations in the Evaluation of Hydraulically Fractured Wells”, SPE
16396 presented at Low Permeability Reservoir Symposium held at Denver in may 1987.

Gulrajani,S.N. et al, “ Enhanced Calibration Treatment Analysis for Optimizing Fracture Performance: Validation and
Field Examples”, SPE 50611 presented at European Petroleum Conference held at Hague, The Netherlands in
October 1996.

Craig, D.P. et al, “Estimating Pore Pressure and Permeability in Massively Stacked Lenticular Reservoirs Using
Fracture –Injection Tests”, SPE 56600 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held at Houston
in October 1999.

Harting,T.A., et al, “Application of Mini-Falloff test to Determine Reservoir Parameters and optimize Fracture Designs
in a Tight Gas Field.”, SPW 90455, presented at SPE SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held at
Houston in September 2004.

Britt, L.K., et al., “Application of After-Closure Analysis Techniques to determine permeability in tight formation gas
reservoirs” SPE 90856, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held at houston in September
2004.

Nolte,K.G. and Economides,M.J., “ Reservoir Stimulation”, 3rd Edition, Wiley.

Appendix

Simulation Well Data for sensitivity run

General Properties:

Well Type : Gas (SG=0.65)

Depth to Top of Zone.............................. 4900.0 ft

Wellbore Radius................................... 0.4 ft

Well Dev. From Vert............................... 0.0 deg

Transmissibility Properties:

Horizontal Total Mobility......................... 0.599 md/cp

Vertical Total Mobility.......................... 5.991 md/cp

X-direction Total Permeability.................... 0.100 md

Y-direction Total Permeability.................... 0.100 md

Z-direction Total Permeability.................... 0.010 md

Oil Horizontal Effective Permeability............. 0.000 md

Oil Vertical Effective Permeability............... 0.000 md

10 SPE 129032

Gas Horizontal Effective Permeability............. 0.010 md

Gas Vertical Effective Permeability............... 0.100 md

Brine Horizontal Effective Permeability........... 0.000 md

Brine Vertical Effective Permeability............. 0.000 md

Initial Oil Saturation............................ 10.0 %

Initial Gas Saturation............................ 65.0 %

Initial Water Saturation.......................... 25.0 %

Oil Compressibility............................... 5.698E-05 1/psi

Gas Compressibility............................... 4.394E-04 1/psi

Brine Compressibility............................. 2.845E-06 1/psi

Pore Compressibility.............................. 8.430E-06 1/psi

Total System Compressibility...................... 3.004E-04 1/psi

Model:

Reservoir Model................................... Single Porosity

Outer Boundary.................................... No Flow

Reservoir and hydraulic fracture properties:

Net Pay Thickness................................. 30.0 ft

Completed Thickness............................... 30.0 ft

Effective Porosity................................ 10.0 %

Reservoir Drainage Area........................... 60 acres

Initial Reservoir Pressure........................ 2300 psi

Reservoir Temperature............................. 160.0 degF

Fracture Face Skin Effect......................... 0.00

Drainage Radius................................... 912.1 ft

Fracture Half-Length.............................. 300.00 ft

Fracture Conductivity............................. 5.000E+02 md.ft

Dim Fracture Conductivity......................... 16.67

Fracture Height................................... 30.0 ft

Fracture Width.................................... 0.10 in