SPE-196738-MS

DFIT Survey for Reservoir Evaluation of a Low Permeability Formation

during Well Testing

Oleg Kulyatin, RN – Peer Review and Technical Development Center, LLC; Alexander Lomukhin, ROSPAN
INTERNATIONAL, subsidiary NK, ROSNEFT; Alexey Prokhorov, RN – Peer Review and Technical Development
Center, LLC; Sergey Romashkin, ROSPAN INTERNATIONAL, subsidiary NK, ROSNEFT; Mikhail Samoilov,
RN – Peer Review and Technical Development Center, LLC

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference held in Moscow, Russia, 22 – 24 October 2019.

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
Conventional well testing methods and techniques on low permeability formation are not practical and
inefficient due to weak natural flow rates. For such formations performing hydraulic fracturing is planned
to increase flow rates and engage formation into flowing, but at such status it is impractical to carry out
hydrodynamic testing survey, as it required long duration of survey, up to several weeks and months.
As a sound option for low permeability formation could serve Diagnostic Fracture Injection Test (DFIT)
survey. The main interest of this paper was to execute DFIT survey, full cycle from planning to wellsite job
execution, obtain the required data, results and confidence to decide if DFIT is effective method to practice
at exploration and appraisal phase.
For performing reliable evaluation of formation permeability it is important to design and execute
fracturing job in optimal to obtaining descriptive and timely formation response. The target fluid filtration
"pseudo-radial" regime takes place at latest stage of pressure fall-off, develops at investigation radius beyond
fracture length and usually non-observed, as takes tremendous time for low permeability formation.
In frame of present project, the intention was to initiate compact fracture with small length, therefore
to be capable to register pseudoradial flow regime at reasonably short time, up-to three days. DFIT survey
with small length fracture was executed with well shut-in bottomhole with tester valve.
For first time on low permeability formations in Urengoy area DFIT survey was performed with well
shut-in bottomhole with tester valve immediately after fracture placement. High resolution descriptive
bottomhole data was gathered. Targeted "pseudo-radial" regime was achieved starting at 50 hours and lasted
to the end of 72 hours fall-off period duration. DFIT data processing and After-closure-analysis (ACA)
allowed deriving initial pressure and fluid mobility in remote formation zone. DFIT data processing and
After-closure-analysis (ACA) was carried out in three alternative software packages, data discrepancies
were analyzed for conclusions and decision for future usage.
Within complex well testing program set of formation evaluation parameters – formation pressure,
permeability and skin – was targeted to be extracted from various conventional methods, such as initial Drill
2 SPE-196738-MS

Stem Test (DST) with short opened and closed periods, extended flowing on fixed chokes with stabilized
rates, descriptive build-up at end of flow testing sequence. These evaluated formation parameters are to be
compared with those, derived from DFIT survey to justify DFIT survey applicability and uncertainties.
Based on data, results and experience gathered through project execution built our confidence in claiming
DFIT as sound instrument for evaluating properties of low permeability formation wells. This applies for
wells at exploration and appraisal phase, and potentially can bring corresponding benefits when expanded
to exploitation drilling wells to be put into production.

Introduction
Descriptive well testing of low permeability formations at exploration and appraisal wells quite often is
a hard task to achieve, as conventional methods appear in-efficient and non-descriptive due to low or
insignificant natural flow rates.
To overcome these complications, formation fracturing becomes a solid solution to the problem as
it drastically improves productivity (Schlumberger Edition, 2000)(1) and allows executing flow testing
program with increased flow rates. At same time, formation fracture strongly reformats pressure behavior
during build-up, expanding to mere weeks and even months build-up duration, required to identify infinite-
acting radial flow for defining formation permeability.
Executing DFIT survey (Diagnostic Fracture Injection Test) may become viable option to conventional
hydrodynamic testing for such low permeability formations (R.D.Barree et al., 2007)(2). During this test, it is
crucial to design and perform hydraulic fracturing in such manner, that fine-tuned hydrodynamic response
from formation would deliver important geological information on remote formation zone, reaching beyond
fracture length and would allow estimating permeability.
From time-requirement aspect, to be practical option for use as well testing instrument at exploration and
appraisal stage, DFIT survey shall take relatively short timing and confidently achieve required "filtration
regime at formation" at quite early times (say first days, up-to one week).
The scope of present paper covers full cycle of DFIT survey, from planning and execution at well site to
welltest data processing and interpretation, as well as extracting permeability value and evaluating practical
side of using DFIT as well testing instrument.

Project Development Overview

During planning for well testing first target zone well N1 Eastern-Urengoy license block «ROSPAN
INTERNATIONAL» LLC, decision was taken to carry out field test of DFIT survey complimentary to
conventional well testing program. As outcome of thorough planning optimized DST (drill stem test)
string was developed to be deployed to minimize operating time, number of runs and excluding need for
intermediate well killing.
Downhole tester valve with capability of multiple opening and closing cycles enabled fulfilling "opened"
and "closed" short periods was a key element of DST string at first stage of well testing. Steady underbalance
pressure was to be exerted on target zone to enable inflow by virtue of lowered liquid level in tubing. Further,
upon filling liquid level in tubing by inflow, series of opening/closing tester and circulating valve was to be
initiated and to allow circulate to lighter fluid for more significant underbalance at next step. Several steps
of increased underbalance pressure were planned to ensure efficient clean-up of near-wellbore zone and to
create pressure drawdown in formation.
At second stage of well testing it was planned to perform low-volume pumping to create compact fracture
with half-length of first meters (i.e. 5-10 meters). In such conditions, shutting-in for pressure Fall-off would
reveal pseudo-radial filtration regime beyond fracture at relatively short timing, presumably at first tens
of hours. Optimal relation between designed fracture length and practically viable moderate timing of
fall-off period allows to extract required hydrodynamic data and to evaluate formation properties, namely
SPE-196738-MS 3

undisturbed initial formation pressure and fluid mobility in distant zone. This aspect makes DFIT survey
as efficient instrument for formation evaluation at exploration and appraisal phase. Downhole shut-in (as
alternative to common shut-in at surface or simple pump stop) is a key feature of executed survey and will
be reviewed in more details further in the paper.
After completing DFIT survey it was planned to proceed with third stage of well testing - pump whole-
tonnage hydraulic fracturing job through given DST string. This process imposes abnormal load on DST
string and sets specific requirements on DST tools, its parts and materials to withstand arising wear and tear.
Prior to proceeding with frac flowback, preparation part for fulfilling fourth stage of well testing – flow
testing, deactivation of certain DST tools and valves was to be done. This deactivation was eventually done
due to fact that execution of first and second stages of well testing took extended time, resulting in running
out of operations autonomy for downhole tester valve, which was deactivated by setting in "open" position.
Additionally, packer bypass was set open to enable circulation path between tubing and annulus. This was
done for purpose of pumping hot brine of calcium chloride to eliminate hydrates plugging during flow
testing at stabilized flow.
During fourth stage of well testing it was planned to carry out frac flowback, well clean-up and flow
testing at stabilized flows, obtaining well productivity via productivity chart.
During fifth (and last) stage of well testing it was planned to carry out recording of final build-up. Due
to presence of fullsize fracture (50-100 meters) achieving "pseudo-radial" flow regime in low permeability
formation was not viable at moderate timing of well test. Therefore, duration of final build-up was shortened
to several days. Such shortened build-up would give possibility to roughly only estimate fracture and
formation parameters.
DST test string schematic developed for executing all five stages of well test is illustrated below.
Detailed description of downhole DST string, included tools and its usage, as well as well test executing
details can be found in (Y.Kaipov et al., 2019)(3).
It was expected that consequent execution of two complimentary surveys – productivity testing,
hydrodynamic testing with build-up and DFIT survey – would give two sets of formation evaluation results,
which could be used for comparison. Based on such comparison confidence and accuracy of obtained
formation evaluation shall be improved, as well as serve for validation of applying DFIT survey for low
permeability formations in Nadym-Pur-Taz region.
During planning and preparation for DFIT survey, search for related and similar projects described in
technical literature was carried out. The most close to our needs in general project framing, set goals and
objectives, turned out to be SPE-paper (Rylance, Smith, Usmanova, 2016)(4).
Key element in DFIT survey and confident evaluation of fluid mobility in distant zone by ACA (After-
Closure-Analysis) processing is to condition the test in a way that pseudo-radial flow regime is well recorded
at latter stage of pressure fall-off. Per our objectives, pseudo-radial flow regime was to appear distinct at
practically viable timing – 50 to 100 hours.
4 SPE-196738-MS

Fig. 1—Well test downhole string schematic

Based on derived and described in specialized technical paper (Rylance, Smith, Usmanova, 2016)(4)
formulae [1] and accounting dimensionless time equal 2 we can derive upper limit of maximum allowed
fracture half-length Xf corresponding to expected formation permeability.

[1]

where
tDXf – dimensionless time for pseudoradial flow beginning,
k – formation permeability, mD
t – time for pseudoradial flow beginning, hours
mu – fluid viscosity in formation conditions, cP
phi – formation porosity, fraction of one
SPE-196738-MS 5

Ct – total compressibility, 1/psi

Xf – fracture half-length, feet
In our case, estimating quite low formation permeability in range of 0,1 - 0,5 mD, it is required to
create compact fracture in size of 5-10 meters. Only under these conditions, we can expect to observe well
distinct pseudo-radial flow regime within 3 days (72 hours) of pressure fall-off period. Schematically, such
correlation between involved parameters can be illustrated on Figure 2 (Rylance, Smith, Usmanova, 2016)(4).

Fig. 2—Dependence between pseudo-radial flow regime beginning time and permeability (k) and fracture half-length (Xf) range

We would like to emphasize once again, that for obtaining descriptive data for ACA-analysis it is required
to create compact fracture of optimal length: sufficiently long, to allow characteristic response of reservoir
with fracture, but relatively short to observe pseudo-radial flow regime at moderate timing within 100 hours
of fall-off. Key parameter which controls the fracture length, in our limited case, is pumped fluid volume.
Keeping volume constant, there is variability in pump rates (from small to moderate) and in pumping
duration (from short to extremely short). Maximizing chances success it was decided to stick with minimal
rates practically achieved and perform pumping required small volume of 1m3 with rate of 0,5 m3 per day
in short timing of 2 minutes. Per this design fracture half-length of 5-10 meters was expected.
Proceeding with described above plan, we noted and evaluated the risk that in case of certain relation
between natural (and unknown by now) formation permeability and pumped volume per design factually
created fracture may appear "super-compact". This means, that half-length of fracture would be so small,
that pseudo-linear flow regime could appear suppressed at fall-off and not distinctly visualized at DFIT
chart. Taking this risk in consideration, never-the-less it was decided to proceed with settled plan as the main
target was obtaining distinct pseudo-radial flow regime at moderate times (up to 100 hours) for formation
permeability estimated in range of 0,1 - 0,5mD.

Data processing: what are results

Upon completing all testing stages full-detailed downhole data was retrieved. Redundant memory gauges
with quartz sensors recorded full set of downhole pressure and temperature covering the whole well testing
6 SPE-196738-MS

period. Meticulous review and discussion on retrieved data falls beyond interest of present paper. At
necessity and own interest, detailed discussion on obtained data can be found in (Y.Kaipov et al., 2019)(3).
Here, we will focus on performed DFIT survey, details of ACA-analysis and obtained results and
conclusions.
Downhole pressure behavior during DFIT survey is illustrated on Figure 3. At beginning, due pumping
liquid at high pressure formation fracture is taking place with fracture growing in length. Then, after stopping
pumping pressure fall-off due to filtration to formation results in fracture closure. Further on, fluid filtration
takes place in closed fracture and remote formation zone with corresponding pressure regimes developed at
latter times. At certain conditions both "pseudo-linear" and "pseudo-radial" flow regimes can be distinctly
observed at pressure fall-off. Obtaining "pseudo-radial" flow regime and its processing with ACA-analysis
for deriving fluid mobility in remote formation zone was a key objective of present paper.

Fig. 3—Overview on downhole pressure behavior during DFIT survey

DFIT survey pressure data was processed and analyzed similar to approach, outlined by our colleagues
(Rylance, Smith, Usmanova) (4) in two paths:
1. employing diagnostic bi-logarithmic plot, also named as «transient pressure analysis», based on
fundamental papers of Dominique Bourdet and incorporated into hydrodynamic testing software
packages,
2. employing time-dependant pressure plot with bi-logarithmic scale with identification and asymptotic
line fitting on "pseudo-linear" and "pseudo-radial" flow regimes and ACA-analysis, outlined in paper
(Chipperfield and Britt, 2000) and incorporated in Frac simulation design package, such as «FracPro».
Additionally, it was found to be fruitful to process DFIT data with ACA-analysis in recently
developed in-house Frac simulation design package «RN-GRID» to evaluate its capabilities and
accuracies in data processing.
SPE-196738-MS 7

DFIT data processing per first path was carried-out in Kappa Saphire software package specialized for
hydrodynamic data analysis. ACA-analysis was done in accordance to prescribed "Mini-frac" procedure,
obtained results are presented at «G-plot» and «Square Linear Flow, FL2» charts.
Pressure curve on G-plot (Fig. 4a) allows confidently define fracture closure pressure and corresponding
to this event time, equal to 14 hours.

Fig. 4a—G-plot

By data processing with algorithm prescribed in Saphir "Mini-frac" module, «Square Linear Flow, FL2»
chart is produced, given at Fig. 4b, where pseudoradial flow can be clearly identified. Pseudoradial flow
appears as straight line with unit slope starting from 50 hours of pressure fall-off and extends up-to the end
of Fall-off duration of 72 hours.

Fig. 4b—Square Linear Flow, FL2

It shall be noted that on «Square Linear Flow, FL2» chart there is distinct presence of pseudoradial flow,
but pseudolinear flow does not appear in distinct way. As it was suspected at planning phase, this turned
out this way: due to short fracture length flow lines distribution in formation does not have clearly linear
symmetry to be distinctly visible as pseudolinear flow regime.
8 SPE-196738-MS

Table 1—Parameters values, obtained by closure analysis in Kappa Saphir.

DFIT data analysis per second data processing path was carried out in «FracPro» software, specialized
for frac simulation and design. Below, on Fig. 5a and 5b, presented «G-plot» and «Square Linear Flow,
FL2» charts.

Fig. 5a—«G-plot» chart

Fig. 5b—«Square Linear Flow, FL2» chart

Additionally, data processing and analysis was done in recently developed «RN-GRID 2018» software
(development of NK «ROSNEFT»). Below, on Fig. 6a and 6b, presented «G-plot» and «Square Linear
Flow, FL2» charts.
SPE-196738-MS 9

Fig. 6a—«G-plot» chart

Fig. 6b—«Square Linear Flow, FL2» chart

The event of fracture closure can be distinctly seen on Fig. 5a and Fig. 6a. Then, through data analysis
on chart «Square Linear Flow, FL2» (Fig. 5b and Fig. 6b) fluid mobility in formation remote zone is derived.

Comparison of ACA-analysis results

Results obtained from DFIT data processing and analysis are giver in Table 2. It can be noted, that formation
pressure at remote zone (calculated to top of formation depth) varies in range of 667,7-672,3bar. Based on
observed, it can be concluded that value of formation pressure derived from DFIT data and ACA-analysis
is subject to 1% variability.

Table 2—Comparison table with observed difference in values

10 SPE-196738-MS

Also, based on comparison outlined in Table 2 it can be seen, that DFIT survey and further ACA-analysis
allows evaluating fluid mobility in remote zone of formation with high confidence and accuracy. Data
processing in various specialized software, available on market give consistent and corresponding results.

Application of various survey (at consequent testing stages)

For achieving one of main goals of present project – to qualify DFIT survey as applicable method for
formation evaluation at exploration and appraisal phase – comparison of formation parameters, obtained
by various surveys shall be done. In particular, we need to compare obtained and derived values of initial
formation pressure and permeability from various methods.
It shall be noted, that executing flow testing at stabilized flow and build survey did not deliver descriptive
data for formation evaluations. Low quality of obtained data at these stages was an outcome of extremely
low factual permeability 0,02 mD of target zone, on contrary to expected at planning stage permeability of
0,1-0,5 mD. Formation turned out to be extremely tight.

Table 3—Comparison table of evaluated formation parameters by various survey

DFIT survey for low permeability formation at exploration and appraisal

phase
After executing the whole test program with various evaluation methods employed at consecutive stages
of well testing 1 target zone of N1 well, DFIT survey turned out to be the only methon which gave the
descriptive data for formation evaluation. This implies that DFIT survey shall be incorporated into well
testing program at exploration and appraisal phase for target zones with low permeability and in possibility
to encounter extremely low permeability formation. It shall be noted, that executing DFIT survey comes
at small extra cost in comparison to resources, already involved for performing conventional formation
fracture on low-perm exploration well.
SPE-196738-MS 11

Discussion on obtained results and findings

A. The question on ultimate need of downhole shut-in during DFIT survey for low permeability
formations is under discussion. Searching through related technical papers published (HanYi Wang,
Mukul M. Sharma, 2019)(6) and data processing with ACA-analysis under present project authors came
to conclusion that downhole shut-in is ultimately crucial for low and extremely low permeability, as
it does ensure appearance of pseudoradial flow and late stage of pressure fall-off within DFIT survey
and allows confidently derive properties of remote formation zone.
B. Quite peculiar is the finding that DFIT survey and ACA-analysis deliver combination of parameters k/
mu – fluid mobility in remote zone. This differs from hydrodynamic data processing of build-up where
combinations k*h/mu is derived, incorporating formation thickness value. Taking in consideration
that formation thickness value is often not known confidently, this means that DFIT survey and ACA-
analysis give evaluation of formation permeability with lower uncertainties.
C. It shall be noted, that early partial reading out downhole data at any stage of testing program (for
example by read-out with run-in-hole production logging tools) or real-time-readout (by means of
deployed data cable in annulus) can significantly improve well test program efficiency by taking
program changes in contingency.
As outcome of accomplished project, based on obtained formation evaluation results practical decisions
were taken putting target zone 1 well N1 into production at optimized flow regime.

Conclusion
In wrap-up to present article authors would like to outline key findings and conclusions, gathered during
executing this project, from planning DFIT survey and performing works at wellsite to data processing,
ACA-analysis and obtained:
- DFIT survey shall be incorporated into well testing program at exploration and appraisal phase in case
that weak natural flowrates would not allow executing well test program per conventional sequence,
as well as in possibility to encounter extremely low permeability formation.
- DFIT survey shall be incorporated into well testing program at early stage of planning as it would
required usage of optimized downhole test string with downhole tester valve.
- Combining conventional well testing techniques and methods along with DFIT survey with shut-
in at bottomhole and usage of downhole tester valve will drastically increase descriptiveness of
testing data. This will significantly improve evaluation of formation parameters (formation pressure,
permeability, skin), increase accuracy and reliability.
- DFIT survey shall be executed prior to main fracture treatment, as in other case big length of
convention fracture will result in extended fall-off duration for obtaining pseudoradial flow regime.
- DFIT data processing and ACA-analysis can be successfully carried out in several software packages
available at market, including in-house software «RN-GRID».

Acknowledgement
Authors would like to thank our colleagues from Exploration and Apprasial Department of «ROSPAN
INTERNATIONAL» LLC and our colleagues from service companies involved for successful planning and
accomplishment of well testing project at target zone 1 well N1.

Reference
1. "Reservoir Stimulation", издание Schlumberger, 2000
12 SPE-196738-MS

2. SPE 107877 «Holistic Fracture Diagnostics», R.D. Barree, V.L. Barree, D.P. Craig, 2007
3. SPE 196843 «How not to fail during the Reservoir Test for Jurrasic Formation: Case study»,
Y.Kaipov et al, 2019 (under publishing)
4. SPE 181968 «Применение метода АСА (Анализ после закрытия трещин) на этапе оценки
проектов», А.Усманова, П.Смит, М.Райланс, 2016
5. SPE 60316, «Application of After-Closure Analysis for Improved Fracture Treatment
Optimisation: A Cooper Basin Case Study», 2000
6. SPE 194344-MS «A Novel Approach for Estimating Formation Permeability and Revisit After-
Closure Analysis from DFIT», HanYi Wang, Mukul M. Sharma, 2019