Journal of Petroleum and Gas Exploration Research (ISSN 2276-6510) Vol. 2(10) pp.

188-193, November, 2012

Available online http://www.interesjournals.org/JPGER
Copyright © 2012 International Research Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Well deliverability test of Kailastila gas field (Well no.

KTL-01, KTL-02)
Arifur Rahman

Department of Petroleum & Mining Engineering, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet-3114,
Bangladesh.
E-mail: djarif30@yahoo.com; Tel: +88-01717265093
Accepted September 03, 2012

The purpose of analyzing well test and pressure data is to determine the ability of a formation to
produce reservoir fluids, where this is done by estimating formation properties from these data. Some
of the relevant properties are estimated in this work are permeability, skin factor, absolute open flow
(AOFP) potential, average reservoir pressure, dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient and reservoir
areal extent. Deliverability testing refers to the testing of a gas well to measure its production
capabilities under specific conditions of reservoir and bottomhole flowing pressures. A common
productivity indicator obtained from these tests is the absolute open-flow (AOF) potential. In this paper,
the inflow performance relationship (IPR) or gas backpressure curve is generated. The IPR curve
describes the relationship between surface production rate and bottomhole flowing pressure for a
specific values of reservoir pressure. The IPR curve can be used to evaluate gas-well current
deliverability potential under a variety of surface conditions, such as production against a fixed
backpressure. In addition, the IPR can be used to forecast future production at any stage in the
reservoir’s life.

Keywords: Well deliverability, absolute open flow potential, flow-after-flow test, productivity of the well, inflow
performance curve.

INTRODUCTION
Deliverability Test
Deliverability testing refers to the testing of a gas well to
measure its production capabilities under specific
conditions of reservoir and bottomhole flowing pressures.
A common productivity indicator obtained from these
tests is the absolute open-flow (AOF) potential. The AOF
is the maximum rate at which a well could flow against a
theoretical atmospheric backpressure at the sand face.
Although in practice the well cannot produce at this rate,
regulatory agencies often use the AOF to establish field
production schedules or to set maximum allowable
production rates for individual wells.
a series of different stabilized flow rates and measuring
the stabilized bottomhole flowing pressure at the sand
face. Each different flow rate is established in succession
either with or without a very short intermediate shut-in
period. Conventional flow-after-flow tests often are
conducted with a sequence of increasing flow rates;
however, if stabilized flow rates are attained, the rate
sequence does not affect the test. The requirement that
the shut-in and flowing periods be continued until
stabilization is a measure limitation of the flow-after-flow
test, especially in low-permeability formations that take
long times to reach stabilized flowing conditions (Figure
1).

Flow-After-Flow Test
Flow-after-flow tests, sometimes called gas backpressure
or four-point tests are conducted by producing the well at
Objectives
The objectives of this study are to analyze the well test
data available for well KTL-01 and, KTL-02, to estimate
the following parameters.

Figure 1. Flow-after-flow test.
 Productivity of the formation and well deliverability’s
 The Absolute-Open-Flow-Potential (AOFP) of the well
 The estimated parameters are matched with the
parameters obtained from vertical modeling.
 Comparing the results with Al Mansoori Wire Lines
Services.
METHODOLOGIES
There are several methods may be used to estimate the
reservoir parameters. The flow after flow test is used to
complete this study. The absolute open flow potential
(AOFP) is estimated by the flow after flow test. To
conduct the flow after flow test the reservoir production
rate and the pressure of sand face and well head are
used. For this, inflow performance (IPR) and outflow
Rahman 189
performance (OPR) curves are created. In this work, the
data collected from the flow-after-flow test that has
conducted with a sequence of increasing flow rates. All
data are analyzed in terms of pseudo-pressure and
pressure squared. There are two types of deliverability
analysis available as the simplified analysis or the
laminar-inertial-turbulent (LIT) analysis. LIT analysis is
more rigorous than simplified analysis and is usually only
used in tests where turbulence is dominant and the
extrapolation to the AOFP is large. However, in most
cases the simplified analysis is sufficient to determine the
AOFP and deliverability. For both of the simplified and
LIT analysis, two pressure options are available, the
pressure squared or the pseudo-pressure approach.
Here simplified analysis is used in terms of Pseudo-
pressure and Pressure squared method to obtain the
actual open flow potential (AOFP) for KTL-01 and KTL-
190 J. Pet. Gas Explor. Res.

Table 1. Deliverability test results for KTL-01 in terms of pressure

squared.

Parameter Sand face value Well head value

Pavg(psia) 3499.3 2860
AOF(mmscfd) 293.210 237.292
C[(mmscfd/10 6)/(psi 2) n] 8.50e02 2.57e02
n 0.781 0.863

Table 2. Deliverability test results for KTL-02 in terms of pressure

squared.

Parameter Sand face value Well head value

Pavg(psia) 3222.4 2714.7
AOF(mmscfd) 531.567 216.251
C[(mmscfd/10 6)/(psi 2) n] 1.65e05 2.93e01
n 0.5 1.0

Table 3. Comparison of sand face flow-after-flow test results in terms

of Pseudo-pressure with Al Mansoori W ireline Services model results
for KTL-01.

Parameters Analysis Value Al Mansoori value

AOF (mmscfd) 336.961 852.2
C [mmscfd/(10 6psi /cp)
2 ]n 1.80 4.86e01
n 0.778 1.15

Table 4. Comparison of sand face flow-after-flow test results in terms

of Pseudo-pressure with Al Mansoori W ireline Services model for KTL-
02.

Parameters Analysis Value Al Mansoori value

AOF (mmscfd) 583.610 3575
C [mmscfd/(10 6psi /cp)
2 ]n 2.1401 7.99e05
n 0.5 0.638

The flow-after-flow test analysis results obtained from this but in case well head flow it indicates a Darcy flow. This
study are so much dissimilar with the results obtained is because; it was not possible to record the production
from Al Mansoori Wire Lines Services. This may happen test appropriately for KTL-02 due to inactiveness of gas
for several causes as, Al Mansoori Wire Lines Services flow meter. 02.
was performed model analysis only which is theoretical.
The obtained value of ‘n’ from their study is 1.15 for KTL-
01 which should be in between 0.5 to 1.0. (Tables 1,2,3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
and 4; Figure 2,3,4 and 5). flow indicate the Darcy flow
which are consistent with assumption of the empirical The obtained value of ‘n’ for KTL-01 from both
equation . On the other hand, the value of n for KTL-02 pseudo-pressure method and pressure squared
in case of sand face flow indicates the non-Darcy flow method in case of sand face flow and well head
 Rahman 191

Figure 2. Flow-after- flow test of KTL-01.

5 FAF test(sandface)
analysis output
3

2 AOF 336.961 M Mscfd

n 0.778
3
C 1.80e+00 M Mscfd/(10 6psi 2/cP) n
10 pi 3499.3 psi(a)

6
/χΠ)
πσι/χΠ)
/χΠ

4
2
πσι
πσι
(10 πσι

3
)
6
(10
∆ψ (10

2
10

4
3

Isochronal Points
1
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3
10 10

Gas Rate (MMscf d)

Figure 3. Sand face flow-after-flow test analysis in terms of Pseudo-pressure for KTL-01.

Figure 4. Sand face IPR curve for KTL-01.

192 J. Pet. Gas Explor. Res.

Isochronal Points
4

2
3
10

10 2
FAF test (sandface)
4 analysis output
i /

2
AOF 583.610 MMscfd
∆ψ (16 0ps
2

1
10 n 0.500
C 6 2 n
c P)

2.14e+01 MMscfd/(10 psi /cP)

∆ψ

4 pi 3222.4 psi(a)

1.0

10 -1

2
-2
10
1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10

Gas Rate (MMscfd)

Figure 5. Sand face flow-after-flow test analysis in terms of Pseudo-pressure for KTL-02.

CONCLUSIONS Howladar, Assistant Professor, Department of Petroleum

and Mining Engineering, SUST, Sylhet, for his very useful
comments before finalization of the method are
The early portion of the data is unfortunately, distorted by acknowledged.
wellbore storage and skin effects. Well tests have
therefore to be made long enough to overcome both
effects and to produce a straight line in a semi logarithmic REFERENCES
plot. But even this approach presents drawbacks. Al Mansoori W ireline Services (2007). Pressure Transient Analysis
Sometimes more than one apparent straight line appears Report of Kailastilla Gas Field.
and analysis finds it difficult to decide which one to use. Cobb W M, Smith JT, Denson AH (1976). “Determination of W ell
An alternative straight line could be the signature of a Drainage Pore Volume and Porosity from Pressure Buildup Tests,”
fault located near the well. The latter portion of the SPEJ (August) 209-216.
Craft BC, Hawkins MF (1959). Applied Petroleum Reservoir
pressure transient is affected by the interference from Engineering, PrenticeHall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs
other wells or by boundary effects such as those that Dake LP (1978). “Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering”. Elsevier,
Amsterdam-London-New York-Tokyo.
occur when the pressure response reaches the edge of Economides J Michael, Hill Daniel A, Ehlig-Economides Christine
the reservoir. (1994). “Petroleum Production Systems”. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper
In this study, pressure data are analyzed and different Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
Horne N Ronald (1990). “Modern W ell Test Analysis” A Computer-Aided
reservoir parameters are estimated. These parameters Approach, Forth printing.
are compared with the previous study of Al Mansoori Horner DR (1951). “Pressure Build-Up in W ells,” Proc., Third W orld Pet.
Wire Lines Services, which revealed better results of this Congress, Sec II, 503.
study and fortified the robust analysis procedure. We can Imam Badrul (2005). “Energy Resourcesof Bangladesh”. UGC
easily forecast the future production of the wells. Publication No. 89, ISBN 984-809-020-1.
Lee John (1982). “W ell Testing”, Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME, New York, Dallas.
Lee John, W attenbarger AR (1996). “Gas Reservoir Engineering”, SPE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Textbook Series, Vol. 5 (Dallas, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers).
Muskat M (1949). Physical Principles of Oil Production, McGraw-Hill
First of all, I would like to thank Petrobangla for permitting Book Co., Inc., New York, 1949, pp. 126.
me to get the required data. I also thank, Mohammad Rahman Md Mizanur, Rahman Arifur (2010). “Pressure Data Analysis
and Reservoir Parameter Estimation of Kailastilla Gas Field”.
Shahedul Hossain, Assistant Professor, Department of Tiab Djebbar (1991). “Gas Reservoir Engineering”. PE 4613-Lecture
Petroleum and Mining Engineering, SUST, Sylhet for his Notes.
assistance during this study. In particular, Dr. M. Farhad Ursin JR, Zolotukhin AB (2000). “Reservoir Engineering”.
 Rahman 193

APPENDIX

Table 5. Flow-after-flow test data sheet.

Shut in Flowing Wellhead

Flow Gas flow Oil flow Water CGR WGR
Test wellhead wellhead temperatur Gas GOR
no. Period pressure pressure e rate gravity rate flow rate Scf/BBL BBL/m BBL/
0
hours Psig Psig F mmscfd STBcfd BBL/D mscf mmscf
1 6 28.60 2818 118 11.0782 0.59 89 3 125005 8.0 0.3
2 12.5 28.60 2799 124 16.2187 0.59 130.8 4.9 124999 8.0 0.3
3 5 28.60 2780 128 18.8 0.59 150.8 5.7 124996 8.0 0.3