Investigation of Wellbore Storage Effects On Analysis of Well Test Data

INVESTIGATION OF WELLBORE STORAGE
EFFECTS ON ANALYSIS OF WELL TEST DATA

By
Omid Shahbazi

Supervisor:
Dr.A.Hashemi

A Thesis Submitted To Department of Petroleum Engineering
For Fulfilment Of Bsc Degree Of Petroleum Engineering

MAY 2011
I

Abstract

Usually flow rate of wells is controlled from the surface and the pressure is measured at
the bottom hole. At the beginning of Drawdown test or Buildup test, the production is
due to expansion of fluids and we could not use the radial flow equations for this period
of time. After any change of surface rate, there is a time lag between the surface
production and the sand face rate. This effect is called wellbore storage. The
analysis/interpretation of wellbore storage distorted pressure transient test data remains
one of the most significant challenges in well test analysis .there is two models for
wellbore storage
1. Constant wellbore storage
2. Changing wellbore storage
For the elimination of wellbore storage effects in pressure transient test data, a variety of
methods using different techniques have been proposed .The objective of this project is
to investigate the wellbore storage effects in oil wells. We wish to determine the extent
of this effect using a test design for different type of reservoir and well model.

II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr.A.Hashemi for his unfailingly positive
attitude,encouragement,trust and support all long. I would also like to express my gratitude to
everyone who offered friendship and encouragement along the way.
III

Nomenclature

Dimentionless variables
C
D
dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient
k
fD
dimensionless fracture permeability
p
D
dimensionless pressure
t
D
dimensionless time
t
Dxf
dimensionless time based on the fracture length
w
fD
dimensionless fracture width
Field variables
a
p
Constant for the pressure drop model
a
q
Constant for the rate model
A

Constant for the power law deconvolution model
b
p
Constant for the pressure drop model
b
q
Constant for the rate model
B Constant for the power law deconvolution model
B
o
Formation volume factor, bbl/STB
C Wellbore storage coefficient, bbl/psi
C
2
Arbitrary constant, hr
-1

c
f
Final fluid compressibility,psi
-1

c
i
Initial fluid compressibility,psi
-1
c
t
Total compressibility, psi
-1
IV

h Reservoir net pay thickness, ft
h
w
Perforated thickness, ft
k Reservoir penneability, md
k
f
Fracture permeability, md
k
H
Horizontal permeability, md
k
m
Matrix blocks permeability, md
k
r
Radial permeability, md
k
s
Spherical permeability, md
k
V
Vertical permeability, md
m(p) Pseudo pressure, psia
2
/cp
m
sl
Slope of semilog plot, psi/hr
m
wbs
Slope of wellbore storage dominated regime, psi/hr
N
p
Cumulative oil production, STB
p Reservoir pressure, psi
p
wf(t=0)
Wellbore pressure at the time of shut-in, psia
p
u
Constant rate pressure response,psi
p
wf
Flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
p
ws
Shut-in bottomhole pressure, psia
q Volumetric production rate, STB/D
q
wb
Wellbore unloading fluid rate,STB/D
q
sf
Sandface rate, STBID

r
w
Wellbore radius, ft
S Skin coefficient, or saturation
V

Sm Matrix skin
Spp Geometrical skin of partial penetration
ST Total skin
Sw Skin over the perforated thickness
t Producing time, hr
t
ps
Pseudotime,hr
V
w
Wellbore volume, bbl

w Fracture width, ft
x
f
Fracture half-length, ft
Z
w
Distance to the lower reservoir limit, ft
t Shut-in time, hr
p
s
Wellbore pressure drop for deconvolved, constant rate
data,psi
Greek
Geometric coefficient in or "beta-deconvolution"
variable(field variable), hr
-1

beta deconvolution variable, hr
-1
Difference
Porosity, fraction
Mobility ratio
Interporosity (or layer) flow coefficient
Oil viscosity, cp
Storativity ratio
VI

Fluid density, lb/cuft
Subscript
D Dimensionless
m Matrix
pp Partial penetration
ps Pseudo
sf Sandface
w Observed data (variable rate)
wbs Wellbore storage
wf Flowing well conditions
ws Shut-in well conditions

VII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. .II
NOMENCLATURE .............................................................................................................. III
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... VII
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. IX
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. X
Chapter 1 .................................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2 .................................................................................................................................. 3
REVIEW OF WELL TEST ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 3
2.1.Pressure Transient Tests ................................................................................................... 3
2.2.Well Model ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1.Vertical Well .............................................................................................................. 4
2.2.2.Fractured Model ........................................................................................................ 4
2.2.3. Partial Penetration..................................................................................................... 7
2.3. Reservoir Model .............................................................................................................. 9
2.3.1. Homogenous ............................................................................................................. 9
2.3.2. Dual Porosity ............................................................................................................ 9
2.3.3. Dual Permeabillity .................................................................................................. 11
Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................................ 14
WELLBORE STORAGE MODELS ....................................................................................... 14
3.1. Constant Wellbore Storage............................................................................................ 14
3.2. Changing Wellbore Storage .......................................................................................... 17
3.2.1. Use of a changing wellbore storage analytical model ............................................ 18
3.2.2. Use of pseudotime .................................................................................................. 19
3.2.3. Use of a numerical model ....................................................................................... 20
Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................................ 21
METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF WELLBORE STORAGE DISSTORTED WELL
TEST DATA ............................................................................................................................ 21
VIII

4.1. Russell Method ............................................................................................................. 21
4.2. Rate Normalization ....................................................................................................... 23
4.2.1. Gladfelter Rate Normalization ................................................................................ 23
4.2.2. Fetkovich Rate Normalization ................................................................................ 24
4.3. Material Balance Deconvolution ................................................................................... 24
4.4. Power Deconvolution .................................................................................................... 25
4.5. - Deconvolution .......................................................................................................... 27
Chapter 5 ................................................................................................................................ 28
INVESTIGATION OF WELLBORE STORAGE EFFECT ON WELL TEST DATA USING
TEST DESIGN ........................................................................................................................ 28
5.1.Oil well Data .................................................................................................................. 29
5.1.1. Constant wellbore storage, Homogenous reservoir, Vertical well, Infinit acting .. 30
5.1.2. Constant wellbore storage, Homogenous reservoir,H.C fracture, Infinit acting .... 31
5.1.3. Constant wellbore storage, Homogenous reservoir,L.C fracture, Infinit acting ..... 32
5.1.4. Constant wellbore storage, Homogenous reservoir, Limited entry well, Infinit
acting ................................................................................................................................ 33
5.1.5. Constant wellbore storage, Double porosity reservoir, Vertical well, Infinit acting
..................................................................................................................................... .34
5.1.6. Constant wellbore storage,Double permeability reservoir,Vertical well,Infinit
acting ................................................................................................................................ 35
Chapter 6 ................................................................................................................................ 36
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................... 36
6.1.Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 36
6.2.Recommendation ............................................................................................................ 36
REFRENCES ......................................................................................................................... 37
APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................................... 39
APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................................... 40
APPENDIX C ......................................................................................................................... 42

IX

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig2. 1.Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in an infinite homogeneous reservoir ..... 4
Fig2. 2.Schematic of fractures ................................................................................................................ 4
Fig2. 4.loglog responce of finite conductivity fracture ........................................................................... 5
Fig2. 3.Flow Pattern of finite conductivity fracture ................................................................................ 5
Fig2. 6.loglog responce of infinite conductivity fracture ........................................................................ 6
Fig2. 5.Flow Pattern of infinite conductivity fracture............................................................................. 6
Fig2. 7.Flow pattern of partial penetration ............................................................................................. 7
Fig2. 8.Schematic of partial penetration ................................................................................................. 7
Fig2. 9.Log-log response Sensitivity to anisotropy k
V
/k
H
....................................................................... 8
Fig2. 10.Semi-log response Sensitivity to anisotropy k
V
/k
H
................................................................... 8
Fig2. 11.Fissured system production ...................................................................................................... 9
Fig2. 12.Pressure and derivative response for a well in double porosity reservoir ............................... 10
Fig2. 13.Sensitivity to in double porosity reservoir .......................................................................... 10
Fig2. 14.Sensitivity to in double porosity reservoir ........................................................................... 11
Fig2. 15.Double permeability reservoir ................................................................................................ 11
Fig2. 16.loglog Responce of double porosity reservoir when two layers are producing ...................... 12
Fig2. 17.loglog Responce of double porosity reservoir when layer 2 is producing ............................. 12
Fig2. 18.log log responce sensitivity to with high storativity contrast .............................................. 13
Fig2. 19.log log responce sensitivity to with low storativity contrast................................................ 13
Fig3. 1.Schematic diagram of well and formation during pressure build-up ........................................ 14
Fig3. 2.Wellbore storage effect. Sand face and surface rates ............................................................... 15
Fig3. 3.Wellbore storage log-log responses .......................................................................................... 16
Fig3. 4. log-log plot of pressure drop versus time ................................................................................ 16
Fig3. 5.Production; increasing storage ................................................................................................. 17
Fig3. 6.Build-up; decreasing storage 17
Fig4. 1. Schematic plot showing determination of the correct C2 value.......22
Fig5. 1.Input Temperature an Pressure..............................................................................................28
Fig5. 2.Input reservoir characteristic.....28
Fig5. 3.schematic of model chosen in test design..29
Fig5. 4.test design screen...29
Fig5. 5.Sensitivity to C for homogenous reservoir30
Fig5. 6.Sensitivity to C for high conductivity fracture..31
Fig5. 7.Sensitivity to C for low conductivity fracture ..32
Fig5. 8.Sensitivity to C for limited entry well.......33
Fig5. 9.Sensitivity to C for Double porosity reservoir...34
Fig5. 10.Sensitivity to C for Double permeability reservoir..35
X

LIST OF TABLES
Table5. 1.Reservoir properties ................................................................................................. 28
Table5. 2.Reservoir initial condition ....................................................................................... 28
Table5. 3.Fluid properties ........................................................................................................ 29
Table5. 4.Production data ........................................................................................................ 29
Table5. 5.Start of flow regimes for limited entry well ............................................................ 33
Table5. 6.Start of flow regimes for double porosity reservoir ................................................. 34
Table5. 7.Start of flow regimes for double permeability reservoir......35
Investigation of wellbore storage effect on analysis of well test data 1

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
During a well test, a transient pressure response is created by a temporary change in
production rate. The well response is usually monitored during a relatively short
period of time compared to the life of the reservoir, depending upon the test
objectives. For well evaluation, tests are frequently achieved in less than two days. In
the case of reservoir limit testing, several months of pressure data may be needed.
When a well is opened, the production at surface is first due to the expansion of the
fluid in the wellbore, and the reservoir contribution is negligible. After any change of
surface rate, there is a time lag between the surface production and the sand face rate.
This effect is called wellbore storage
[1]
. For instance, during the beginning of a
buildup test (often referred to as "afterflow"), wellbore storage affects the pressure and
flowrate in such a way that these rates rapidly fall below the measurement threshold of
the tools, which then record a no-flow period. This scenario causes a loss of
information with regard to the behavior in the wellbore and in the reservoir.
In the presence of such limitations, well test interpretation techniques have been
developed to analyze the wellbore storage distorted pressure response using only
pressure transient data (which are recorded with higher accuracy than the well
flowrates).
For the elimination of wellbore storage effects in pressure transient test data, a variety
of methods using different techniques have been proposed. An approximate "direct"
method by Russell
[2]
"corrects" the pressure transient data distorted by wellbore
storage into an equivalent pressure function for the constant rate case. Rate
normalization techniques [Glatfelter. Al
[18]
, Fetkovich and Vienot
[19]
] have also been
employed to correct for wellbore storage effects and these rate normalization methods
were successful in some cases. The application of rate normalization requires
measured sandface rates, and generally yields a shifted results trend that has the
correct slope (which should yield the correct permeability estimate), but incorrect
intercept in a semilog plot (which will yield an incorrect skin factor).
Material balance deconvolution (an enhancement of rate normalization) is also thought
to require continuously varying sandface flowrate measurements. Power and Beta

deconvolution are another methods that compute the undistorted pressure drop
function directly from the wellbore storage affected data.
First ,we should review the well test analysis methods for some reservoir and well
models that we are going to investigate wellbore storage effect for them. Second ,two
models for wellbore storage(constant and changing) will be discussed in chapter 3.
Finally, we will review methods for eliminating this effect also investigate wellbore
storage sensitivity to change in well model and reservoir model.
Here we change model parameters to see the sensitivity of model to these parameters.
Main parameter that we change is Wellbore storage coefficinet.we want to investigate
the effect of wellbore storage coefficient on pressure response of models(including
reservoir model and well model).


Chapter 2
REVIEW OF WELL TEST ANALYSIS
2.1.Pressure Transient Tests
Oil well test analysis is a branch of reservoir engineering. Information obtained from
flow and pressure transient tests about in situ reservoir conditions are important to
determining the productive capacity of a reservoir. Pressure transient analysis also
yields estimates of the average reservoir pressure. The reservoir engineer must have
sufficient information about the condition and characteristics of reservoir/well to
adequately analyze reservoir performance and to forecast future production under
various modes of operation. The production engineer must know the condition of
production and injection wells to persuade the best possible performance from the
reservoir. Pressures are the most valuable and useful data in reservoir engineering.
Directly or indirectly, they enter into all phases of reservoir engineering calculations.
Therefore accurate determination of reservoir parameters is very important. In general,
oil well test analysis is conducted to meet the following objectives:
To evaluate well condition and reservoir characterization
To obtain reservoir parameters for reservoir description
To determine whether all the drilled length of oil well is also a producing zone
To estimate skin factor or drilling- and completion-related damage to an oil well.
Based upon the magnitude of the damage, a decision regarding well stimulation can be
made
[17]
.

2.2.Well Model
Well geometries are generally assessed in the first part of the well test / production
response, after wellbore effects have faded. Specific flow regimes related to the well
geometry may allow the engineer to assess well parameters, sometimes in complement
of some reservoir parameters.
2.2.1.Vertical Well
The simplest model is a vertical well fully penetrating the reservoir producing interval.
This is the model used to derive the basic equations . This model is sometimes called

wellbore storage & skin, reference to the original type-curves of the 1970s. The reason
is that the two only parameters affecting the log log plot response will be the wellbore
storage and the skin factor. On the log-log plot, the shape of the derivative response, and
with a much lower sensitivity the shape of the pressure response, will be a function of
the factor C
D
.e
2s
.

Fig2. 1.Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in an infinite homogeneous reservoir
[1]
2.2.2.Fractured Model
The interpretation of well tests from such wells must therefore consider the effects of the
fracture; indeed, often tests of fractured wells are conducted specifically to determine
fracture properties so that the effectiveness of the fracture stimulation operation can be
evaluated. The case of common practical interest is of a vertical fracture of length x
f
,
fully penetrating the formation .

Fig2. 2.Schematic of fractures
[3]

For the purposes of fractured well analysis, we often make use of a dimensionless time
t
Dxf
based on the fracture length x
f
:

2
Dxf
kt 0.000264
f
t
x c
t
u
=

(2.1)
In well test analysis , two main fracture types are commonly considered
2.2.2.1.Finite Conductivity Fracture
The most general case of a finite conductivity fracture was considered by Cinco,
Samaniego and Dominguez (1978)
[18]
and Cinco and Samaniego (1981)
[19]
.

Fig2. 4.log log response of finite conductivity fracture
[3]

At early time, there is linear flow within the fracture and linear flow into the fracture
from the formation. The combination of these two linear flows gives rise to the bilinear
flow period. This part of the response is characterized by a straight line response with
slope at early time on a log-log plot of pressure drop against time since the pressure
drop during this period is given by:
4
1
Dxf
fD fD
.w k
451 . 2
t PD =

(2.2)
where the dimensionless fracture permeability and width are given respectively by:
k
k
k
f
fD =

(2.3)
f
fD
x
w
w =

(2.4)
Following the bilinear flow period, there is a tendency towards linear flow, recognizable
by the upward bending in Fig. 2.4 towards a slope on the log-log plot. In practice, the
slope is rarely seen except in fractures where the conductivity is infinite. Finite
Fig2. 3.Flow Pattern of finite
conductivity fracture
[3]


conductivity fracture responses generally enter a transition after bilinear flow ( slope),
but reach radial flow before ever achieving a slope (linear flow).

2.2.2.2. Infinite Conductivity Fracture
If the product k
fD.
w
fD
is larger than 300, then the fracture conductivity can be considered
to be infinite. In the high conductivity we assume that the pressure drop along the inside
of the fracture is negligible .

Fig2. 6.log log response of infinite conductivity fracture
[3]

Such highly conductive fractures are quite possible in practice, especially in formations
with lower permeability. The pressure response of a well intersecting an infinite
conductivity fracture is very similar to that of the more general finite conductivity
fracture case, except that the bilinear flow period is not present. A high conductivity
fracture response is characterized by a truly linear flow response , during which the
pressure drop is given by:
2
1
. |
.
|
\
|
= Dxf D t P

(2. 5)

Such a response shows as a slope straight line on a log-log plot of pressure drop
against time as shown by Gringarten, Ramey and Raghavan
[17]
.

Beyond the linear flow period, the response will pass through a transition to infinite
acting radial flow (semilog straight line behavior).
Fig2. 5.Flow Pattern of infinite
conductivity fracture
[3]


2.2.3. Partial Penetration
This model assumes that the well produces from a perforated interval smaller than the
drained interval. In theory, after wellbore storage, the initial response can be radial in the
perforated interval h
w
(Fig.2.7), shown as Radial Flow (Fig.2.8). This will give a
pressure match resulting in the mobility k
r
h
w
(the subscript r stands for radial) and it can
be imagined that if there were no vertical permeability this would be the only flow
regime. In practice this flow regime is often masked by storage.
In flow regime Spherical flow (Fig.2.8) there is a vertical contribution to flow, and if
the perforated interval is small enough a straight line of slope (negative half slope)
may develop in the derivative, corresponding to spherical or hemi-spherical flow.
Finally, when the upper and lower boundaries have been seen, the flow regime becomes
radial again, and the mobility now corresponds to the normal k
r
h.

Fig2. 7.Flow pattern of partial penetration
[1]
Fig2. 8.Schematic of partial penetration
[5]

The total skin combines the wellbore skin S
w
and an additional geometrical skin S
pp
due
to distortion of the flow lines
S
pp
is large when the penetration ratio h
w
/h or the vertical permeability k
V
is low
(high anisotropy k
H
/k
V
).
For damaged wells, the product (h/h
w
)S
w
can be larger than 100.
pp w
w
T
S S
h
h
S + =

(2.6)
When the vertical permeability k
V
is low (low k
V
/k
H
), the start of the spherical flow
regime is delayed (-1/2) derivative slope moved to the right.

Fig2. 9.Log-log response Sensitivity to anisotropy k
V
/k
H
[1]

Fig2. 10.Semi-log response Sensitivity to anisotropy k
V
/k
H
[1]
During spherical and hemispherical flow linearity will develop in a plot of p versus
1/t
slope m related to the spherical permeability (k
x
k
y
k
v
)
3
2
9 . 2452
|
|
.
|
\
|

=
m
c
qB k
t
s
u
u

(2.7)


3
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
r
s
r
v
k
k
k
k

(2.8)
2.3. Reservoir Model
In Pressure Transient Analysis , reservoir features are generally detected after wellbore
effects and well behavior have ceased and before boundary effects are detected. This is
what we might call a Middle time response.
2.3.1. Homogenous
The homogeneous reservoir is the simplest possible model assuming everywhere the
same porosity, permeability and thickness. The permeability is assumed isotropic. That
is, the same in all directions.
The governing parameters are:
kh Permeability-thickness product, given by the pressure match.
c
t
Reservoir storativity, input at the initialization of a standard test or as a
result in interference tests.
S Skin
2.3.2. Dual Porosity
The double-porosity (2) models assume that the reservoir is not homogeneous, but
made up of rock matrix blocks with high storativity and low permeability. The well is
connected by natural fissures of low storativity and high permeability. The matrix blocks
can not flow to the well directly, so even though most of the hydrocarbon is stored in the
matrix blocks it has to enter the fissure system in order to be produced.

Fig2. 11.Fissured system production
[4]

Fig2. 12.Pressure and derivative response for a well in double porosity reservoir
[1]

The double-porosity model is described by two other variables in addition to the
parameters
defining the homogeneous model:
1. is the storativity ratio, and is essentially the fraction of fluids stored in the fissure system (e.g.
=0.05 means 5%).
m f t
f t
m t f t
f t
Vc
Vc
Vc Vc
Vc
+
=
+
=
) (
) (
) ( ) (
) (

(2.9)

Fig2. 13.Sensitivity to in double porosity reservoir
[1]
2. is the interporosity flow coefficient that characterizes the ability of the matrix blocks
to flow into the fissure system. It is dominated by the matrix/fissures permeability
contrast, k
m
/k
f
.
f
m
w
k
k
r
2
=

(2.10)

Fig2. 14.Sensitivity to in double porosity reservoir
[1]

2.3.3. Dual Permeability
In the double-permeability (2k) model the reservoir consists of two layers of different
permeabilities, each of which may be perforated or not. Crossflow between the layers is
proportional to the pressure difference between them.

Fig2. 15.Double permeability reservoir
[4]


Fig2. 16.log log Response of double porosity reservoir when two layers are producing
[1]

Fig2. 17.log log Response of double porosity reservoir when layer 2 is producing
[1]

There is one more parameter than seen in the previous double-porosity PSS model.
and have equivalent meanings.
, layer storativity ratio, is the fraction of interconnected pore volume occupied by layer
1
2 1
1
) ( ) (
) (
t t
t
Vc Vc
Vc

+
=

(2.11)
, inter-layer flow parameter, describes the ability of flow between the layers
2 1
1
2
) ( ) (
) (
kh kh
kh
r
w
+
=

(2.12)


In addition another coefficient is introduced:
is the ratio of the permeability-thickness product(Mobility ratio) of the first layer to the
total for both layers:
2 1
1
) ( ) (
) (
kh kh
kh
+
= (2.13)

Fig2. 18.log log response sensitivity to with high storativity contrast
[1]

Fig2. 19.log log response sensitivity to with low storativity contrast
[1]


Chapter 3
WELLBORE STORAGE MODELS
3.1. Constant Wellbore Storage

Fig3.1.Schematic diagram of well and formation during pressure build-up
[2]

Whenever a well is shut in, fluid from the formation will flow into the wellbore until
equilibrium conditions are reached. Similarly, a part of the fluid produced when a well
is put on production is the fluid that was present is the wellbore prior to the opening of
the well. This "ability of the well to store and unload fluids"
[18]
is the definition of
wellbore storage.
dt
dp
B
C
q
wf
wb
24
= (3.1)
Where q
wb
represents the rate at which the wellbore "unloads" fluids, and C represents
the storage constant of the well. In the specific case where the wellbore storage is
entirely due to fluid expansion, then the wellbore storage constant is defined by:
[19]

p
V
C
= (3.2)
Where V is the change in volume of fluid in the wellbore at wellbore conditions
and p is the change in bottom hole pressure.
When the wellbore is filled with a single fluid phase, Eq. 3.2 becomes

c V C
w
= (3.3)
where V
w
is the total wellbore volume and c is the compressibility of the fluid in the
wellbore at wellbore conditions. The use of dimensionless pressure functions in most of
the derivations of this work leads to the use of a dimensionless wellbore storage
coefficient, C
D
.
2
894 . 0
w t
D
hr c
C
C
= (3.4)

Fig3.2.Wellbore storage effect. Sand face and surface rates
[3]

The overall effect of wellbore storage can be seen in Fig 3.3

w sf
q q q + =
(3.5)

At early time q
sf
is close to zero, as all the fluid produced at the wellhead originates in
the wellbore. As time goes on, the wellbore storage is depleted, and eventually the
reservoir produces all the fluid .The corresponding pressure transients due to the
wellbore storage effects are seen in Fig. 3.3. It is important to recognize that, as a
consequence of the wellbore storage effect, the early transient response during a well test
is not characteristic of the reservoir, only of the wellbore. This means that a well test
must be long enough that the wellbore storage effect is over and fluid is flowing into the
wellbore from the reservoir. As we will see later, we can also overcome the problem of
wellbore storage by specifically measuring the sandface flow rate q
sf
down hole. The
form or the width of the hump is governed by the parameter group Ce
2s
, the position of
the curves in time is governed by the wellbore storage coefficient C.

Fig3. 3.Wellbore storage log-log responses

From material balance, the pressure in the wellbore is directly proportional to time
during the wellbore storage dominated period of the test:
D
D
c
t
=
D
p

(3.6)
On a log-log plot of pressure drop versus time, this gives a characteristic straight line of
unit slope (Fig. 3.4).

Fig3. 4. log-log plot of pressure drop versus time
[3]
The unit slope straight line response continues up to a time given approximately by:

D D
0.02s) (0.041 C t + =
(3.7)
provided that the skin factor s is positive. However, the storage effect is not over at this
time, as there is a period (roughly one and a half log cycles long) during which the
response undergoes a transition between wellbore response and reservoir response. Thus
the reservoir response does not begin until a time:
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
1
10
100
C =0.01
C=0.1
C=1
C=10


D D
3.5s) (60 C t + =

(3.8)
During the design of a test, care should be taken to ensure that the test is at least this long
and usually very much longer, even if nonlinear regression techniques are to be used for
the interpretation.

3.2. Changing Wellbore Storage
Wellbore storage may vary. This is the case when fluid compressibility varies in the
wellbore during the test operation. A typical case is tight gas reservoirs, where the
pressure drop in the well will be considerable and the compressibility will vary during
both production and shut-in periods. In such case the wellbore storage may vary
considerably during the flow period being analyzed.
As another example, an oil well flowing above bubble point condition in the reservoir
may see gas coming out of solution in a wellbore below bubble point pressure. Initially
oil compressibility would be dominating and this would gradually change to gas as more
and more gas is produced in the wellbore. We would have the phenomenon of
increasing wellbore storage. When, the well is shut in the reverse will happen. First, the
gas first dominates, and then later the oil compressibility takes over. The response will
exhibit decreasing storage.

Fig3. 5.Production; increasing storage
[4]
Fig3. 6.Build-up; decreasing storage
[4]

Other conditions may produce changing wellbore storage:
Falling liquid level in an injector during fall-off (increasing);
Pressure dependant gas PVT during a build-up (decreasing) or production (increasing);
Diameter change in the completion in a well with a rising or falling liquid level;

Redistribution of phases in a multi phase producer (also called humping). Some
analytical formulations of changing wellbore storage may be integrated in analytical and
even numerical models. The two most popular formulations are from Hegeman et al
[17]

and Fair. The assumptions are that the wellbore storage starts at one value, and then
there is a change to a second value where it remains constant. The input is final storage
Cf, the ratio of initial to final storage (Ci/Cf) and the dimensionless time () of the
change of the storage. The response of the Hegeman model was already presented in Fig.
3.4 and Fig. 3.5

3.2.1. Use of a changing wellbore storage analytical model
The easiest way to match such data is the use of an analytical changing wellbore storage
model. In the case above it is a decreasing wellbore storage option. Using any software,
the principle will be to position the early storage and the time at which the transition
takes place (in this case, the position of the hump in the derivative response). The initial
model generation may be approximate, but non linear regression will generally obtain a
good fit.
There are two main models used in the industry. These are the Fair and the Hageman et
al
[17]
models. The latter is more recent and more likely to match this sort of response.

However these models should be use with care, for three reasons:
These models are just transfer functions (in Laplace space) that just happen to be good
at matching the real data. There is no physics behind them. They may end up with initial,
final storage and transition time that make no physical sense.
These models are time related. There will be a wellbore storage at early time and a
wellbore storage at late time. This is not correct when one wants to model pressure
related storage. In the case of a production, the real wellbore storage at early time will
correspond to the storage at late time of the build-up, and the reverse. So the
superposition of a time related solution will be incorrect on all flow periods except the
one on which the model was matched. This aspect is very often overlooked by
inexperienced interpretation engineers.


3.2.2. Use of pseudotime
This variable was, historically, the first solution used to modify the data to take into
account changing wellbore storage, and transform the data response that could then be
matched with a constant wellbore storage model or type-curve. The principle was that
the model does not match the data, but rather the opposite, the data matches the model.
Using pseudotime and considering the diffusion equation the idea was to enter in the
time function the part that is pressure related, i.e. the viscosity compressibility product.
The gas diffusion equation can then be re-written:

Modified diffusion equation:
) ( 0002637 . 0
) (
2
p m
k
c
t
p m
t
=
u

(3.9)
We introduce the pseudotime:

where
t
c
p I
u
1
) ( =

(3.10)
or, better, the normalized version:

where
t
ref t
c
c
p I
u
u ) (
) ( =

(3.11)
Where the diffusion equation becomes:

) (
) (
0002637 . 0
) (
2
p m
c
k
t
p m
ref t ps
=
u

(3.12)

Although this is not a perfect solution the equation becomes closer to a real linear
diffusion equation. In addition, the time function is essentially dependent on the gas
compressibility and the pseudotime will therefore mainly compensate the change of
wellbore storage in time. The replacement of the time by the pseudotime in the log log
plot will therefore compress the time scale, which, on a logarithmic scale, will mean an
expansion of the X axis to the right at early time. As a result, the compressed wellbore
=
t
wf ps
d p I t t
0
)) ( ( ) (
=
t
wf ps
d p I t t
0
)) ( ( ) (

storage shape of the derivative response will become closer to a constant wellbore
storage solution.

There are two drawbacks to this approach:

This method modifies, once and for all, the data to match the model, and not the
opposite. This excludes, for example, the possibility of comparing several PVT models
on the same data. The method was the only one available at the time of type-curve
matching, where models were limited to a set of fixed drawdown type-curves.
In order to calculate the pseudotime function one needs the complete pressure history.
When there are holes in the data, or if the pressure is only acquired during the shut-in, it
will not be possible to calculate the pseudotime from the acquired pressure. There is a
workaround to this: use the pressures simulated by the model, and not the real pressures.

This amounts to the same thing once the model has matched the data, and there is no
hole. However it is a bit more complicated for the calculation, as the pressure at a
considered time requires the pseudotime function, and vice versa.

3.2.3. Use of a numerical model
The principle is to use a wellbore model which, at any time, uses the flowing pressure to
define the wellbore storage parameter. In order for the model to be stable, the wellbore
storage has to be calculated implicitly at each time step. As the problem is not linear, this
can only be done using Saphir Nonlinear .
This is by far the best way to simulate pressure related wellbore storage. However there
are a couple of drawbacks:
The model is slower than an analytical model or a change of time variable
It is inflexible: once you have entered the PVT and the wellbore volume there is no
parameter to control the match. The model works, or it does not.


Chapter 4
METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF WELLBORE
STORAGE DISSTORTED WELL TEST DATA

4.1. Russell Method (1966):
this method does not provide results which can be considered useful in the context of
modern well test analysis and interpretation methods. Russell made the following
assumptions in the derivation of his wellbore storage "correction" solution:
Completely penetrating well in an infinite reservoir
Slightly compressible liquid (constant compressibility)
Constant fluid viscosity
Single-phase liquid flow in the reservoir
Gravity and capillary pressure neglected
Constant permeability
Horizontal radial flow (no vertical flow)
Ideal gas (for the gas cushion in the well)
Russell's
[2]
wellbore storage correction is given as:

+ +
= = s
cr
k
t
t C kh
qB
t p t p
w
wf ws
87 . 0 23 . 3 log ) ( log
1
1 6 . 162 ) 0 ( ) (
2
2 u
u
(4.1)
Where the C
2
-term is defined as:
= + = ) 0 (
1
000528 . 0
2
2
t p
L
g
r
kh
C
wf
t
u
(4.2)
Combining Eqs. 4.1 and 4.2 into a plotting function format, we obtain:
) ( log ) hr 1 (
1
1
)] 0 ( ) ( [
2
t m t f
t C
t p t p
sl
wf ws
+ = =
=
(4.3)

Russell treated the C
2
-term as an arbitrary constant to be optimized for analysis in
other words, the C
2
-term is the "correction" factor for the Russell method.
As prescribed by Russell, the C
2
-term is obtained using a trial-and-error sequence which
yields a straight line when the left-hand-side term of Eq. 4.3 is plotted versus log(t).
Where the general form of the y-axis correction term prescribed by Eq. 4.3 is:
=
=
t C
t p t p
y
wf ws
2
1
1
)] 0 ( ) ( [
(4.4)
A schematic of the Russell method is shown in Fig. 4.1, where we note Russell's
interpretation of the effect of the C
2
-term (i.e., where C
2
is too large and C
2
is too small).

Fig.4. 1. Schematic plot showing determination of the correct C2 value
[2]

Once the C
2
-term is established, the kh-product is estimated using:
sl
m
qB
kh
u
6 . 162 = (4.5)
And the skin factor can be estimated using:
+
=
= 23 . 3 log
) hr 1 (
151 . 1
2
w sl
cr
k
m
t f
s
u
(4.6)


In short, the Russell method has an elegant mathematical formulation, but ultimately, we
believe that this formulation does not represent the wellbore storage condition, and hence,
we do not recommend the Russell method under any circumstances.

4.2. Rate Normalization
4.2.1. Glatfelter Rate Normalization
Glatfelter, Tracy and Wilsey
[18]
introduced the "rate normalization" deconvolution
approach which, in their words "permits direct measurement of the cause of low well
productivity."
The objective of rate normalization is to remove/correct the effects of the variable rate
from the observed pressure data. Rate normalization can also be defined as an
approximation to convolution integral
[18]
.
) ( ) ( ) ( t p t q t p
u
(4.7)
Where p
u
is the constant rate pressure response.
The afterflow rate-normalized pressure equation proposed by Glatfelter et al to analyze
pressure buildup data dominated by afterflow was given as
[19]
=

s
r c
t k
kh t q q
p t p
w t o
s wf ws
87 . 0 23 . 3
) (
log
6 . 162
) (
) (
2
,
u
u
(4.8)

Eq. 4.8 indicates that a plot of

) log( .
) (
) (
,
t vs
t q q
p t p
o
s wf ws

(4.9)

should be linear with slope equal to
kh
m
u 6 . 162
= (4.10)

The skin is determined from
)
`

= 23 . 3
) (
log
) (
) (
515 . 1
2
,
w t o
s wf ws
r c
t k
t q q
p t p
s
u
(4.11)


Rate normalization has been employed for a number of applications in well test analysis.
For the specific application of "rate normalization" deconvolution, we must recognize
that the approach is approximate and while this method does provide some
"correction" capabilities, it is basically a technique that can be used for pressure data
influenced by continuously varying flowrates.
4.2.2. Fetkovich Rate Normalization
Rate normalization techniques and procedures are best illustrated by first examining their
application to drawdown data. Although the nature of the rate variation of drawdown
data with time is different than that of afterflow rate variation, the end result is the same.
Also, drawdown rate variations generally last much longer than afterflow rate
variations.
[19]

Most notably, Fetkovich and Vienot
[19]
, and Doublet et al.
[18]
,have demonstrated the
effectiveness of "rate normalization" deconvolution (albeit for specialized cases). In
particular, for the wellbore storage domination and distortion regimes, rate normalization
can provide a reasonable approximation of the no wellbore storage solution. For this
infinite-acting radial flow case, rate normalization yields an erroneous estimate of the
skin factor by introducing a shift on the semi log straight line (obviously, the sandface
rate profile must be known). This last point, however, makes the application of rate
normalization techniques very limited in our particular problem we do not have
measurements of sandface flowrate. Therefore, this method must be applied using an
estimate of the downhole rate which will definitely introduce errors in the
deconvolution process. Such issues make rate normalization a "zero-order"
approximation that is, rate normalization results should be considered as a guide, but not
relied upon as the best methodology.
4.3. Material Balance Deconvolution
Material balance deconvolution is an extension of the rate normalization method.
Johnston
[19]
defines a new x-axis plotting function (material balance time) which provides
an approximate deconvolution of the variable-rate pressure transient problem. The
general form of material balance deconvolution is provided for the pressure drawdown
case in terms of the material balance time function and the rate-normalized pressure drop
function. The material balance time function is given as:

q
N
t
p
mb
= (4.12)
The wellbore storage-based, material balance time function for the pressure buildup case
is given as:
] [
1
1
1
1
,
, ,
,
ws
wbs
ws
wbs
BU wbs
BU wbs p
BU mb
p
t d
d
m
p
m
t
q
N
t
= (4.13)
And the wellbore storage-based, rate-normalized pressure drop function for the pressure
buildup case is given as:
ws
ws
wbs
BU wbs
ws
BU s
p
p
t d
d
m
q
p
p

=
] [
1
1
1
1
,
,
(4.14)
Plotting the rate-normalized pressure function versus the material balance time function
(on log(t
mb
) scales) shows that the material balance time function does correct the
erroneous shift in the semilog straight-line obtained by rate normalization. We believe
that the material balance deconvolution technique is a practical approach (perhaps the
most practical approach) for the explicit deconvolution of pressure transient test data
which are distorted by wellbore storage and skin effects.
4.4. Power Deconvolution
This development assumes that variable (or constant) rate flow conditions exist in the
reservoir. We will use the familiar convolution integral to develop our new deconvolution
technique, The convolution integral is given as
=
D
t
D sD D D wD
d t p q t p
0
) ( ) ( ) (

(4.15)
The development of this method requires the Laplace transform and if we find that the
inverse Laplace transform it becomes

D
D D D sD
t t p

= ) (

(4.16)
In order to apply Eq. 18 to field data, i.e., time, pressure, and flowrate, we merely
compute q
D
= q(t)/q and substitute p
w
and p
s
for p
wD
(t
D
) and p
ws
(t
D
).
now we will describe how to use this deconvolution method, and apply it to field well
test data .we should outline a general procedure to convert wellbore storage dominated
data to the data that would have been obtained if storage effects were non-existent, and to
recommend methods of calculating the sandface rate during afterflow.
[17]
1. Obtain m
wbs
and P
o
:
a. Drawdown
I. m
wbs
is the slope of the early time data from a plot of P
wf
vs. t .
ii. P
o
= P
i
, the intercept of the plot of P
wf
vs. t .
b. Buildup
I. m
wbs
is the slope of the early time data from a plot of Pws vs. t .
ii. P
o
= P
wf
(t = 0), the intercept of the plot of P
ws
vs. t.
2. Compute the pressure drop function, pw, and the time function, t:
a. Drawdown
I. p
w
= P
o
- P
wf

ii. t=t.
b. Buildup
I. p
w
=P
ws
-P
o

ii. t = t
e
= t / (1 + t / t
p
) . Here, t
e
is the equivalent time introduced by Agarwal.
3. Compute a
q
, b
q
, a
p
and b
p
from curve fitting , where:
q
b
q D
t a q =

(4.17)
p
b
p w
t a p =

(4.18)
4. Compute p
s
where is the pressure drop for the deconvolved, constant rate data, by
the expression:
B
s
At p =

(4.19)
Where
) 1 ( ) 1 (
) 1 (
+ +
+
=
B b a
b a
A
q q
p p

And
q p
b b B =

4.5. - Deconvolution
Van Everdingen
[18]
and Hurst
[19]
demonstrated empirically that the sandface rate profile
can be modeled approximately using an exponential relation for the duration of wellbore
storage distortion during a pressure transient test. The van Everdingen/Hurst exponential
rate model is given in dimensionless form as:
D
t
D D
e t q

1 ) (

=

(during wellbore storage distortion) (4.20)
A similar approximation can be used for pressure buildup data:
D
t
D D
e t q

) (

=

(4.21)
The convolution integral is given as
=
D
t
D sD D D wD
d t p q t p
0
) ( ) ( ) (

(4.22)
The -deconvolution formula, which computes the undistorted pressure drop function
directly from the wellbore storage affected data, is given as:

D
D wD
D wD D sD
dt
t dp
t p t p
) ( 1
) ( ) (
+ =

(4.23)
And in terms of field variable
dt
w
p d
w
p
s
p
) (
1

+ =

(4.24)


Chapter 5
INVESTIGATION OF WELLBORE STORAGE EFFECTS
ON WELL TEST DATA USING TEST DESIGN
TECHNIQUE
All Saphir analytical and numerical models may be used to generate a virtual gauge on
which a complete analysis may be simulated. Simulation options taking into account
gauge resolution, accuracy and potential drift can be the basis for selecting the
appropriate tools or to check if the test objectives can be achieved in practice but here we
change model parameters to see the sensitivity of model to these parameters. Main
parameter that we change is Wellbore storage coefficinet.we want to investigate the
effect of wellbore storage coefficient on pressure response of models(including reservoir
model and well model).in other words we determine the effect of wellbore storage
coefficient on the wellbore storage disappearing of different models and investigate the
extent of this effect on model recognition.
For test Design we have some basic parameter of these reservoir that is common in all
cases listed below
Table5. 1.Reservoir properties
Wellbore
radius
Net pay
thickness
Porosity Permeability
Formation
compressibility
r
w
(ft) h(ft) K(md) C
f
(psi
-1
)
0.25 50 0.15 20 4E-6

Initial
Pressure(psi)
Temperature(F)
P
i
(psi) T(F)
5000 210
Table5. 2.Reservoir initial condition
Fig5. 1.input reservoir characteristic Fig5. 2.input Temperature an Pressure

After we introduce the basic parameters, we should calculate the fluid properties using
default correlations of software(Saphir) so we need the fluid properties at reservoir initial
condition.
After defining of reservoir and well parameters next we can choose different model for
test design and derive pressure response according to this model(including reservoir
model and well model).

5.1.Oil well Data
As mentioned , we need the fluid properties at initial condition of reservoir . these
parameters are listed below
At Reservoir Condition :(T=210F , P=5000psi)
Table5. 3.Fluid properties
Formation volume
factor
Oil compressibility

B
o
(bbl/STB) C
o
(psi
-1
)

1.25 5E-5

Also well production data is required :
Table5. 4.Production data
Time Flow Rate
t (hr) q
o
(STBD)
200 500
300 0
Fig5. 4.test design screen(Saphir software) Fig5. 3.schematic of model chosen in test
design(Saphir software)

5.1.1. Constant wellbore storage, Homogenous reservoir, Vertical well, Infinite
acting
Fig. 5.4 with various constant wellbore storage constants is illustrated below. Pure
wellbore storage is characterized by the merge of both Pressure and Bourdet Derivative
curves on the same unit slope.
At a point in time, and in the absence of any other interfering behaviors, the Derivative
will leave the unit slope and transit into a hump which will stabilize into the horizontal
line corresponding to Infinite Acting Radial Flow.
The horizontal position of the curve is only controlled by the wellbore storage
coefficient C.
Taking a larger C will move the unit slope to the right, hence increase the time at which
wellbore storage will fade. More exactly, multiplying C by 10 will translate the curve to
one log cycle to the right.
The figure below presents the response with wellbore storage values, C of 0.0001, 0.001,
0.01,0.1 and 1 (bbl/psi).

Fig5. 5.Sensitivity to C for homogenous reservoir
The value of C has a major effect, which is actually exaggerated by the logarithmic time
scale. When the influence of wellbore storage is over both the pressure change and the
derivative merge together. Wellbore storage tends to masks infinite acting radial flow on
a time that is proportional to the value of C.
According to derivative curve of above figure the radial flow for C = 0.0001bbl/psi starts
at t = 0.01hr and wellbore storage almost not be seen and for other value of C we have
C=0.01
C=0.1
C=1
C=1E-4
C=0.001


For C=0.001 bbl/psi Radial flow Starts At t=1hr
For C=1 bbl/psi Radial flow not be seen
And we see that characterization of reservoir behavior for C=1 bbl/psi is impossible and
wellbore storage effect distorted pressure response of reservoir.
5.1.2. Constant wellbore storage, Homogenous reservoir, H.C fracture, Infinite
acting
For high conductivity the linear flow should be seen in early time region .the
characteristics of this flow regime is +1/2 slope and the distance of log2 between the
pressure and pressure derivative curve.
Fig5. 6.Sensitivity to C for high conductivity fracture
we see in the Fig 5.6 for C=0.001 according to pressure derivative curve radial flow
starts at t = 0.1hr and the two curve have slope of +1/2 and the distance of log2 but if
we go to larger value of C the slope tend to 1 and the distance tend to zero between two
curves. For example the slope of Curve for C=0.01 bbl/psi is about +3/4 and the distance
is lower than log2.
For wellbore storage coefficient C ,0.1 bbl/psi, 1 bbl/psi we can not see the linear flow.
Start of radial flow for different value of C is listed below :
For C=0.001 bbl/psi Radial flow Starts At t=0.1hr
C=0.001
C=0.01
C=0.1
C=1
1E-3bbl/ psi(current)
0.01bbl/ psi
0.1bbl/ psi
1bbl/ psi


For C=1 bbl/psi Radial flow Starts At t=100hr
And we see that characterization of reservoir behavior for C= 1bbl/psi is almost
impossible.
5.1.3. Constant wellbore storage, Homogenous reservoir, L.C fracture, Infinite
acting
For Low conductivity the bilinear flow should be seen in early time region .the
characteristics of this flow regime is +1/4 slope (both curves) and the distance of log4
between the pressure and pressure derivative curves.
Fig5. 7.Sensitivity to C for low conductivity fracture
we see in Fig 5.6 for C=0.001bbl/psi according to pressure derivative curve radial flow
starts at t = 1hr and the two curve have slope of +1/4 and the distance of log2 but if we
go to larger value of C the slope tend to 1 and the distance tend to zero between two
curves. for example the slope of Curve for C=0.01 bbl/psi is about +1/2,maybe confused
with high conductivity fracture, and the distance is lower than log4.for C ,0.1 bbl/psi,
1bbl/psi the linear flow disappear and wellbore storage overcome this flow regime.
Start of radial flow for different value of C is listed below :
C=0.001
C=0.01
C=0.1
C=1
1E-3bbl/ psi(current)
0.01bbl/ psi
0.1bbl/ psi
1bbl/ psi


For C=1 bbl/psi Radial flow is not seen
And we see that characterization of reservoir behavior(Middle time Region) for
C= 1bbl/psi is impossible.
5.1.4. Constant wellbore storage, Homogenous reservoir, Limited entry well,
Infinite acting

Fig5. 8.Sensitivity to C for limited entry well
For the wellbore storage coefficient C= 0.0001bbl/psi wellbore storage is not seen . For
the Partial penetration ,Wellbore storage will quickly mask the spherical flow regime. If
we look at the curve of C=0.0001bbl/psi ,we can see the 1
st
stabilization occurs at
t=0.04hr(In practice this flow regime is more often than not masked by wellbore
storage.) then spherical flow is seen (slope = -1/2). next to spherical flow ,second
stabilization is seen at t=100hr.as wellbore storage coefficient increases ,the spherical
flow seen at later time until at C=1 bbl/psi spherical flow disappears . the similarity of all
curves is 2
nd
stabilization at which all of them reach together about t= 100hr .start of 1
st

Stabilization, Spherical Flow and 2
nd
Stabilization for different value of wellbore
storage coefficient are listed below :
Table5. 5.Start of flow regimes for limited entry well
Time(hr)
C(bbl/psi)
1
st
Stabilization Spherical Flow 2
nd
Stabilization
C=0.0001bbl/psi 0.04 2 100
C=0.001bbl/psi 0.7 4.5 100
C=0.01bbl/psi 2.8 6 100
C=0.1bbl/psi Not Be Seen Not Be Seen 100
C=1 bbl/psi Not Be Seen Not Be Seen Not Be Seen
C=0.0001bbl/psi
C=0.001bbl/psi
C=0.01bbl/psi
C=0.1bbl/psi C=1bbl/psi
1E-4bbl/ psi
1E-3bbl/ psi
0.01bbl/ psi(current)
0.1bbl/ psi
1bbl/ psi


5.1.5. Constant wellbore storage, Double porosity reservoir, Vertical well, Infinite
acting
Wellbore storage will invariably mask the fissure response in the double porosity
reservoir. The transition can thereby easily be misdiagnosed and the whole interpretation
effort can be jeopardized. we can see for C=0.0001bbl/psi there is almost no wellbore
storage and two stabilization on 0.5 and valley shaped transition are seen .1
st

stabilization starts at t=0.01hr if we change wellbore storage coefficient to
C=0.001bbl/psi ,start of 1
st
stabilization shift to t= 0.1 hr.for C=0.01bbl/psi the 1
st

stabilization disappear immediately and we will face to transition valley .finally for
C=0.1bbl/psi we can not see 1
st
stabilization.

Fig5. 9.Sensitivity to C for Double porosity reservoir
At higher wellbore storage coefficients even the whole transition period may be lost such
C=0.1bbl/psi 1
st
that stabilization and transition valley disappear.the similarity of curves
with different value of wellbore storage coefficient is 2
nd
stabilizatiion at which all of
them meet eachother at 0.5 .
Table5. 6.Start of flow regimes for double porosity reservoir
Time(hr)
C(bbl/psi)
1
st
Stabilization Transition Valley 2
nd
Stabilization
C=0.0001bbl/psi 0.01 0.25 100
C=0.001bbl/psi 0.1 0.45 100
C=0.01bbl/psi 0.5 1 100
C=0.1bbl/psi Not be seen 4 100
C=1 bbl/psi Not be seen Not be seen 100
C=0.0001
C=0.001
C=0.01
C=0.1
1E-4bbl/ psi
1E-3bbl/ psi
0.1bbl/ psi


5.1.6. Constant wellbore storage, Double permeability reservoir, Vertical well,
Infinit acting
For the double permeability, First, the behavior corresponds to two layers without cross
flow .At intermediate times, when the fluid transfer between the layers starts, the
response follows a transition regime. Later, the pressure equalizes in the two layers and
the behavior describes the equivalent homogeneous total system. The derivative
stabilizes at 0.5.if we look at Fig 5.10,for C =0.0001bbl/psi we have no wellbore storage
and the reservoir behavior is obviously seen.

Fig5. 10.Sensitivity to C for Double permeability reservoir
for C=0.001bbl/psi we cannot see pure wellbore storage but wellbore storage is seen and
the 1
st
stabilization starts at t=0.1hr.if we change the wellbore storage coefficient to
C=0.01bbl/psi ,start of 1
st
stabilization shift to t=0.5hr .with increasing of value of
wellbore storage coefficient to C= 0.1bbl/psi 1
st
stabilization disappear. For C=1bbl/psi
transition disappear and we can see only 2
nd
stabilization.
Table5. 7.Start of flow regimes for double permeability reservoir
Time(hr)
C(bbl/psi)
1
st
Stabilization Transition
Valley
2
nd
Stabilization
C=0.0001bbl/psi 0.01 0.3 100
C=0.001bbl/psi 0.1 0.7 100
C=0.01bbl/psi Not be seen 1 100
C=0.1bbl/psi Not be seen 4.2 100
C=1 bbl/psi Not be seen Not be seen 100
C=0.0001
C=0.001
C=0.01 C=0.1
C=1
1E-4bbl/ psi
1E-3bbl/ psi
0.1bbl/ psi
1bbl/ psi


Chapter 6
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1.Conclusions
As we have seen, the wellbore storage effect distort pressure data and make it difficult
to interpret well test data. In Chapter 5 ,we have analyzed wellbore storage for
different type of reservoir models and well models to see difference of wellbore
storage effects between them. For homogenous model, curve would shift to right. For
high conductivity and low conductivity in early time, wellbore storage have not be
seen .With increasing the value of C linear and bilinear flow disappear which make it
difficult to detect hydraulic fracturing . In some cases wellbore storage will prevent
detection the type of fracture. In limited entry well for small value of C there is no
wellbore storage but with increasing value of C the time of pure wellbore storage
increases and more data is distorted. For double porosity and permeability reservoirs
with increasing the value of C, there is common trend in wellbore storage effect .

6.2.Recommendation
1. For performing well test in any type of reservoir, first we should estimate the time
for production or build up to see all reservoir behavior .for this we can obtain rock
and fluid properties from laboratory and running a test design for estimating this
time.

2. For preventing distortion of pressure data, we can set a flow rate estimator that
records flow rate and pressure simultaneously .

3. In a well where there is no designed partial penetration the interpreter can easily miss
the effect and as the limited entry can result in a high geometrical and thus a high total
skin this can often be misdiagnosed as damage alone when coupled with the wellbore
storage effect and lead to ineffective acidizing.


REFRENCE

1. Bourdet, D. : "Well Test Analysis: The Use of Advanced Interpretation Models"
,ELSEVIER 2002
2. Russell, D.G.: "Extensions of Pressure Build-Up Analysis Methods," paper SPE
1513 presented at the 1966 SPE Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas, 25 October.
3. Horne,R.N.: "Modern Well Test Analysis ", Petroway, 1995
4. Houze,O.: " Dynamic Flow Analysis " , Kappa , 2008
5. Bourdarot, G., Well Testing: Interpretation Methods Translated from the
French by Barbara Brown Balvet 1998
6. Glatfelter, R.E., Tracy, G.W., and Wilsey, L.E.: "Selecting Wells Which Will
Respond to Production-Stimulation Treatment," Drill. And Prod. Pract., API, Dallas
(1955) 11729.
7. Fetkovich, M.J., and Vienot, M.E.: "Rate Normalization of Buildup Pressure By
Using Afterflow Data," JPT (December 1984) 221124.
8. Chaudhry, Amanat U. Oil Well Testing Handbook. Oxford (GB): Elsevier/GPP,
2004. Print.
9. Cinco, H., Samaniego, F., and Dominguez, N.: "Transient Pressure Behavior for a
Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture", Soc. Petr. Eng. J., (August 1978),
253-264.
10. Cinco, H., Samaniego, F.: "Transient Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells", J.
Pet. Tech., (September 1981).
11. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J., Jr., and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady State Pressure
Distribution Created by a Well with a Single Infinite Conductivity Vertical Fracture",
Soc. Petr. Eng. J., (August 1974),347-360.
12. Raghavan, R.: Well Test Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
1993.
13. Ramey, H.J. Jr.:"Non-Darcy Flow and Wellbore Storage Effects in Pressure Build-
up and Drawdown of Gas Wells," Trans., AIME, (1965) 210, 223-233.
14. Hegeman, P.S., Hallford, D.L., and Joseph, J.A.: "Well-Test Analysis With
Changing Wellbore Storage", paper SPE 21829 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain

Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium in Denver, Colorado, April 15-17
1991.
15. Doublet, L.E., Pande, P.K., McCollum, T.J., and Blasingame, T.A.: "Decline
Curve Analysis Using Type CurvesAnalysis of Oil Well Production Data Using
Material Balance Time: Application to Field Cases," paper SPE 28688 presented at the
1994 Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico held in Veracruz, Mexico,
October 1013.
16. Johnston, J.L.: Variable Rate Analysis of Transient Well Test Data Using Semi-
Analytical Methods, M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
(1992).
17. Blasingame, T.A., Johnston, J.L., Lee, W.J., and Raghavan, R.: "The Analysis of
Gas Well Test Data Distorted by Wellbore Storage Using an Explicit Deconvolution
Method," paper SPE 19099 presented at the 1989 SPE Gas Technology Symposium,
Dallas, TX, 07-09 June 1989.
18. van Everdingen, A.F.: "The Skin Effect and Its Influence on the Productive
Capacity of a Well," Trans., AIME (1953) 198, 171-76.
19. Hurst, W.: "Establishment of the Skin Effect and Its Impediment to Fluid Flow
into a Well Bore," Pet. Eng. (Oct. 1953) B6B16.


APPENDIX A
Summary of usual log-log responses

Geometry
LOG - LOG TIME RANGE
Shape Slope Early Intermediate Late
Radial

Double
porosity
restricted
Homogeneous
behavior
Semi infinite
reservoir
Linear

Infinite
conductivity
fracture
Horizontal
well
Two sealing
boundaries
Bi-linear

Finite
conductivity
fracture
Finite
conductivity
fault
Double
porosity
unrestricted
with linear
flow
Spherical

Well in
Partial
penetration

Pseudo
Steady
State

Wellbore
storage
Layered no
cross flow
with
boundaries
Closed
Reservoir
(drawdown)
Steady
State

Conductive
fault
Constant
pressure
boundary


APPENDIX B
DERIVATION OF THE -DECONVOLUTION
FORMULATION

We note that the lack of accuracy in flowrate measurements (when these exist) narrows
the range of application of Glatfelter deconvolution method (i.e., rate normalization).
Van Everdingen

and Hurst

(separately) introduced an exponential model for the sandface
rate during the wellbore storage distortion period of a pressure transient test. The
exponential formulation of the flowrate function is given as:
D
t
D D
e t q

=1 ) ( (B.1)
Eq. (B-1) is based on the empirical observations made by Van Everdingen and Hurst.
Recalling the convolution theorem, we have:
d t p q
t
t p
D sD
'
D
D
D wD
) ( ) (
0
) ( =
(B.2)
Taking the Laplace transform of Eq. B.2 yields:
) ( ) ( ) ( u p u q u u p
sD D wD
= (B.3)
Rearranging Eq. B.3 for the equivalent constant rate pressure drop function, ) (u p
sD
, we
obtain:
) (
1
) ( ) (
u q u
u p u p
D
wD sD
= (B.4)
The Laplace transform of the rate profile (Eq. B.1) is:
+
=
u u
u q
D
1 1
) ( (B.5)
Substituting Eq. B.5 into Eq. B.4, and then taking the inverse Laplace transformation of
this result yields the "beta" deconvolution formula:
D
D wD
D wD D sD
dt
t dp
t p t p
) ( 1
) ( ) (
+ = (B.6)

Where we note that Eq. (B-6) is specifically valid only for the exponential sandface flowrate
profile given by Eq. B-1. This may present a serious limitation in terms of practical
application of the -deconvolution method.


APPENDIX C
DERIVATION OF THE POWER DECONVOLUTION
FORMULATION

This development assumes that variable (or constant) rate flow conditions exist in the
reservoir. We will use the familiar convolution integral to develop our new
deconvolution technique, The convolution integral is given as
d t p q
t
t p
D sD
'
D
D
D wD
) ( ) (
0
) ( =
(C.1)
Taking the Laplace transform of Eq. C.1 yields:
) ( ) ( ) ( u p u q u u s p
sD D wD
= (C.2)
Rearranging Eq. C.2 for the equivalent constant rate pressure drop function, ) (u p
sD
, we
obtain:
) (
1
) ( ) (
u q u
u p u p
D
wD sD
= (C.3)
At this point we will state that it is our objective to obtain functional forms for P
wD
(s)
and q
D
(s) that yield a closed form solution for p
sD
(t
D
) when the inverse Laplace
transform of Eq C.3 is taken. The functional form that was chosen for this solution is the
power law equation where

b
at t f = ) ( (C.4)
In this work, Eq C.4 is applied as a piecewise approximation to the data function. We
now need the Laplace transform of Eq C.4 to develop our new deconvolution solution.
The Laplace transform of Eq C.4 is

1
) 1 (
) (
+
+
=
b
s
b a
s f (C.5)
Here, (x) is the gamma function. We have found empirically that Eq C.5 is valid
although Eq C.4 is only a piecewise continuous function. We also expect Eq C.5 to be

valid for monotonic data functions and indeed this method fails for well test data
distorted by wellbore phase redistribution. Using Eq C.4 we obtain the Laplace
transforms of the Pw
D
(t
D
) and q
D
(t
D
) profiles. These relations are given as
1 1
) 1 (
) (
+ +
=
+
=
qD qD
b
qD
b
qD qD
D
u
C
u
b a
u q (C.6)
And
1 1
) 1 (
) (
+ +
=
+
=
pD pD
b
pD
b
pD pD
wD
u
C
u
b a
u p (C.7)
Here the subscripts p and q denote Laplace transforms pertaining to pw
D
(t
D
) and q
D
(t
D
)
respectively.
Combining Eq C.3,C.6,C.7 we obtain

1 1
) 1 ( 1
) (
+ +
+
= =
D qD pD
u u C
C
u p
D
D b b
qD
pD
sD
(C.8)
qD pD D
b b = (C.9)
) 1 (
1
+
=
D
D
qD
pD
D
C
C
(C.10)
By Eq C.4 , C.5 We find Laplace transform of Eq C.8
D
D D D sD
t t p

= ) ( (C.11)

Investigation of Wellbore Storage Effects On Analysis of Well Test Data

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigation of Wellbore Storage Effects On Analysis of Well Test Data

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INVESTIGATION OF WELLBORE STORAGE

EFFECTS ON ANALYSIS OF WELL TEST DATA

You might also like