The First Successful ImpulseTest on Coiled Tubing Results in Reliable Reservoir Evaluation for Non-naturally Flowing Wells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In mature fields it can often be a challenge to obtain accurate well data and reliable formation parameters without imposing high cost and time constraints on development or production schedules. One common method to test non-naturally flowing wells is impulse testing, which makes use of differential pressures between the formation and a surge chamber or wellbore to perform a short flow period or surge test, followed by a relatively short shut-in period. Unfortunately, these tests frequently result in invalid or uninterpretable data as a result of several uncertainties and test constraints. An improved version of this common technique encompasses a three-fold approach to optimize the impulse test. A new numerical simulator designs the test to maximize depth of investigation without compromising the interpretable data. The coiled tubing-conveyed intelligent bottomhole assembly used to execute the impulse test may, in certain environments, reduce operating times in comparison to use of conventional tubing-conveyed solutions. The combination of the prejob design package and a functional bottomhole assembly enables consideration of the complexities that can result from impulse testing so that a valid data set is delivered. The interpretation is performed using traditional well test interpretation methodology and an analytical solution specifically designed for impulse testing. This solution considers the wellbore fluid density variation during the test while still maintaining the simplicity of the wellbore model; variable skin is described by an exponential function, thus improving on established analytical methods. A comparison of the results from both interpretation methods establishes the test validity in terms of flow capacity and skin. This paper describes the systematic approach, including its design, execution, and interpretation, and highlights advantages and limitations through the case study and field data of a well in the Wadi Rayan field of Qarun Petroleum Company. This technique offers a rigless testing method that can optimize test time while delivering valid, accurate results that aid in production forecasting, completion optimization, and planning of remedial intervention for non-naturally flowing wells.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".