One role of the petrophysicist is to characterize the fluids encountered in the reservoir. Detection of a change in fluid type in the rocks while drilling is usually straightforward with the use of gas and chromatographic measurements. Gas shows and oil shows while drilling are time-honored indicators of zones that need further investigation through logs, testers, and cores. In the rare case of gas-bearing, high-permeability rock drilled with high overbalance, gas will be flushed from the rock ahead of the bit, will not be circulated to the surface in the mud, and will not produce a gas show. Because hydrocarbons are not always part of a water-based-mud formulation, sophisticated analytical chemical techniques can be used on the oil and gas samples circulated to the surface and captured to determine the properties of hydrocarbons in a given zone penetrated by the drill bit.

Formation damage caused by drilling-fluid invasion, production, or injection can lead to positive skin factors and affect fluid flow by reducing permeability. When mud filtrate invades the formation surrounding a borehole, it will generally remain in the formation even after the well is cased and perforated. This mud filtrate in the formation reduces the effective permeability to hydrocarbons near the wellbore. It may also cause clays in the formation to swell, reducing the absolute permeability of the formation. In addition, solid particles from the mud may enter the formation and reduce permeability at the formation face.

This article focuses on interpretation of well test data from wells completed in naturally fractured reservoirs. Because of the presence of two distinct types of porous media, the assumption of homogeneous behavior is no longer valid in naturally fractured reservoirs. This article discusses two naturally fractured reservoir models, the physics governing fluid flow in these reservoirs and semilog and type curve analysis techniques for well tests in these reservoirs. Naturally fractured reservoirs are characterized by the presence of two distinct types of porous media: matrix and fracture. Because of the different fluid storage and conductivity characteristics of the matrix and fractures, these reservoirs often are called dual-porosity reservoirs.

Both the Rawlins and Schellhardt and Houpeurt analysis techniques are presented in terms of pseudopressures. Flow-after-flow tests, sometimes called gas backpressure or four-point tests, are conducted by producing the well at a series of different stabilized flow rates and measuring the stabilized BHFP at the sandface. 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. Fig 1 illustrates a flow-after-flow test.

A wellhead choke controls the surface pressure and production rate from a well. Chokes usually are selected so that fluctuations in the line pressure downstream of the choke have no effect on the production rate. This requires that flow through the choke be at critical flow conditions. Under critical flow conditions, the flow rate is a function of the upstream or tubing pressure only. For this condition to occur, the downstream pressure must be approximately 0.55 or less of the tubing pressure.

Below are the field cases in which applied power was reported together with the oil production increase, so that we can evaluate and compare the energy gains of the different processes tested. Comments The EG calculation assumes that the power reported is the 60 Hz power of the HF power supply. Data reported by Pizarro and Trevisan[3] Comments Test stopped after 70 days of heating because of voltage control system problems. Comments Both wells were badly sanded, and operations were suspended. There was a history of short circuits and power supply problems (casing isolation failure suspected).

Facility operability is the ability of an organization to operate a facility in a safe and efficient manner. The ultimate goal of facility operability is to design and construct a facility that will remain safe, efficient and cost effective throughout its lifetime use. The majority of oil and gas facilities are built and operated successfully, but issues can arise during the design phase and those issues can eventually lead to costly or even detrimental incidents.[1] Proper planning and preparation can enable an organization to adhere to guidelines of licensing organizations and insurance companies. Hazard operations (HAZOP) studies assess the effectiveness of facility operability plans, to identify potential or existing hazards and to evaluate the potential effectiveness of planned changes to a facility.[2]Elements

Steam generation for the purposes of thermal recovery includes facilities to treat the water (produced water or fresh water), generate the steam, and transport it to the injection wells. A steamflood uses high-quality steam injected into an oil reservoir. The quality of steam is defined as the weight percent of steam in the vapor phase to the total weight of steam. The higher the steam quality, the more heat is carried by this steam. High-quality steam provides heat to reduce oil viscosity, which mobilizes and sweeps the crude to the producing wells.

Treatment evaluation leads to problem identification and to continuously improved treatments. The prime source of information on which to build an evaluation are the acid treatment report and the pressure and rate data during injection and falloff. Proper execution, quality control, and record keeping are prerequisites to the task of accurate evaluation. Evaluation of unsatisfactory treatments is essential to recommending changes in chemicals and/or treating techniques and procedures that will provide the best treatment for acidizing wells in the future. The most important measure of the treatment is the productivity of the well after treatment.

The single well chemical tracer (SWCT) test can be used to evaluate an Improved oil recovery (IOR) process quickly and inexpensively. The one-spot procedure takes advantage of the nondestructive nature of the SWCT method. The single-well (one-spot) pilot is carried out in three steps. First, Sor for the target interval is measured (see Residual oil evaluation using single well chemical tracer test. Then an appropriate volume of the IOR fluid is injected into the test interval and pushed away from the well with water.