Fluid Flow in Porous Media

M.Sc.
in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003
Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman
Section 1 Page 1
1.
Diffusion Equation for Fluid Flow in Porous Rocks
1.1. Darcys law and the definition of permeability The basic law governing the flow of fluids through porous media is Darcys law, which was formulated by the French civil engineer Henry Darcy in 1856 on the basis of his experiments on vertical water filtration through sand beds. Darcy found that his data could be described by
Q= CA( P gz ) L
(1)
where:
P = pressure [Pa]
= density [kg/m3]
g = gravitational acceleration [m/s2] z = vertical coordinate (measured downwards) [m] L = length of sample [m] Q = volumetric flowrate [m3/s] C = constant of proportionality [m2/Pa s] A = cross-sectional area of sample [m2] Any consistent set of units can be used in Darcys law, such as SI units, cgs units, British engineering units, etc. Unfortunately, in the oil industry it is common to use oilfield units, which are not consistent. Darcys law is mathematically analogous to other linear phenomenological transport laws, such as Ohms law for electrical conduction, Ficks law for solute diffusion, or Fouriers law for heat conduction.
Department of Earth Science and Engineering Imperial College
M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003
Section 1 Page 2
Why does the term P gz govern the flowrate? Recall from fluid mechanics that Bernoullis equation (which essentially embodies the principle of conservation of energy) contains the terms
P v2 1 v 2 gz + = P gz + , 2 2
(2)
where
P/ is related to the enthalpy per unit mass, gz is the gravitational energy per unit mass, v2/2 is the kinetic energy per unit mass.
As fluid velocities in a reservoir are usually very small, the third term is negligible, and we see that the combination P gz represents an energy-type term. It seems reasonable that the fluid would flow from regions of higher to lower energy, and, therefore, the driving force for flow should be the gradient (i.e., rate of spatial change) of P gz . Subsequent to Darcys initial discovery, it has been found that, all other factors being equal, Q is inversely proportional to the fluid viscosity, [Pa s] . It is therefore convenient to factor out , and put C = k/, where k is known as the permeability, with dimensions [m2]. It is also more convenient to work with the volumetric flow per unit area, q = Q/A. Darcys law is therefore usually written as
q= Q k (P gz) = , A L
(3)
where the flux q has dimensions of [m/s]. It is perhaps easier to think of these units as [m3/m2s].
Section 1 Page 3
For transient processes in which the flux varies from pointto-point, we need a differential form of Darcys law. In the vertical direction, this equation would take the form
qv = Q k d( P gz ) = . A dz
(4)
The minus sign is included because the fluid flows in the direction from higher to lower potential. The differential form of Darcys law for one-dimensional, horizontal flow is
qH = Q k d( P gz ) k dP = = . dx A dx
(5)
In most rocks the permeability kH in the horizontal plane is different than the vertical permeability, kV; in most cases, kH > kV. The permeabilities in any two orthogonal directions within the horizontal plane may also differ. However, in this course we will usually assume that kH = kV. The permeability is a function of rock type, and also varies with stress, temperature, etc., but does not depend on the fluid; the effect of the fluid on the flowrate is accounted for by the viscosity term in eq. (4) or (5). Permeability has units of m2, but in petroleum engineering it is conventional to use Darcy units, defined by
1 Darcy = 0.987 10
12
m 10
12
m .
(6)
The Darcy unit is defined such that a rock having a permeability of 1 Darcy would transmit 1 cc of water (with viscosity 1 cP) per second, through a region of 1 sq. cm. cross-sectional area, if the pressure drop along the direction of flow were 1 atm per cm.
Section 1 Page 4
Many soils and sands that civil engineers must deal with have permeabilities on the order of a few Darcies. The original purpose of the Darcy definition was therefore to avoid the need for using small prefixes such as 10-12, etc. Fortunately, a Darcy is nearly a round number in SI units, so conversion between the two units is easy. The numerical value of k for a given rock depends on the diameter of the pores in the rock, d, as well as on the degree of interconnectivity of the void space. Very roughly speaking, k d 2 /1000 . Typical values for intact (i.e., unfractured) rock are given in the following table: Rock Type coarse gravel sands, gravels fine sand, silt clay, shales limestones sandstones weathered chalk unweathered chalk granite, gneiss k (Darcies) 103 - 104 100 - 103 10-4 - 100 10-9 - 10-6 100 - 102 10-5 - 101 100 - 102 10-9 - 10-1 10-8 - 10-4 k (m2) 10-9 - 10-8 10-12 - 10-9 10-16 - 10-12 10-21 - 10-18 10-12 - 10-10 10-17 - 10-11 10-12 - 10-10 10-21 - 10-13 10-20 - 10-16
The permeabilities of various rock and soil types vary over many orders of magnitude. However, the permeabilities of petroleum reservoir rocks tend to be in the range of 0.001-1.0 Darcies. It is therefore convenient to refer to permeability of reservoir rocks in units of milliDarcies (mD), which equal 0.001 Darcies.
Department of Earth Science and Engineering
Imperial College
Section 1 Page 5
The values in the above table are for intact rock. In some reservoirs, however, the permeability is due mainly to an interconnected network of fractures. The permeabilities of fractured rock masses tend to be in the range 1 mD to 10 Darcies. In a fractured reservoir, the reservoir-scale permeability is not closely related to the core scale permeability that one would measure in the laboratory. 1.2. Datum levels and corrected pressure If the fluid is in static equilibrium, then q = 0, and eq. (1.1.4) yields
d( P gz ) =0 dz P gz = constant .
(1)
If we take z = 0 to be at sea level, where the fluid pressure is atmospheric, then

Pstatic ( z ) = Patm + gz .
(2)
As we always measure the pressure as gauge pressure (i.e., the pressure above atmospheric), we can essentially neglect Patm in eq. (2). We then see by comparing eq. (2) with eq. (1.1.4) that only the pressure above and beyond the static pressure given by eq. (2) plays a role in driving the flow. In a sense, then, the term gz is superfluous, because it only contributes to the static pressure, but does not contribute to the driving force for flow. In order to remove this extraneous term, it is common to define a corrected pressure, Pc , as
Pc = P gz .
(3)
Imperial College
Section 1 Page 6
In terms of the corrected pressure, Darcys law (for, say, horizontal flow) can be written as
q= Q k dPc = . A dx
(4)
Instead of using sea level (z = 0) as the datum, we often use some depth zo such that equal amounts of initial oil-in-place lie above and below zo. In this case,
Pc = P g ( z zo ) .
(5)
The choice of the datum level is immaterial, in the sense that it only contributes a constant term to the corrected pressure, and so does not contribute to the pressure gradient. The corrected pressure defined in eq. (5) can be interpreted as the pressure of a hypothetical fluid at depth zo that would be in hydrostatic equilibrium with the fluid that exists at the actual pressure at depth z. 1.3. Representative elementary volume Darcys law is a macroscopic law that is intended to be meaningful over regions that are much larger than the size of a single pore. In other words, when we talk about the permeability at a point (x,y,z) in the reservoir, we cannot be referring to the permeability at a mathematically infinitesimal point, because a given point may, for example, lie in a sand grain, not in the pore space! The property of permeability is in fact only defined for a porous medium, not for an individual pore. Hence, the permeability is a property that is in some sense averaged out over a certain region of space surrounded the mathematical point
Imperial College
Section 1 Page 7
(x,y,z). This region must be large enough to encompass a statistically significant number of pores. Likewise, the pressure that we use in Darcys law is actually an average pressure taken over a small region of space. For example, consider Fig. 1.3.1 below, which shows a few pores in a sandstone. Two position vectors, R1 and R2, are indicated in the figure. However, when we refer to the pressure at a certain location in the reservoir, we do not distinguish between two nearby points such as these. Instead, the entire region shown in the figure would be represented by an average pressure that is taken over the indicated circular region, which is known as a representative elementary volume (REV). Similarly, the permeability of a rock is only defined over the REV length scale.
R1
R2
Fig. 1.3.1. Representative Elementary Volume (REV). In practice, we rarely need to have a precise idea of the size of the REV. Roughly, it must be at least one order of magnitude larger than the pore size. Although it is important to be aware of this concept, for most reservoir engineering purposes, no explicit consideration of this issue is required.
Section 1 Page 8
1.4. Radial, steady-state flow to a well Before we proceed to derive the general transient equation that governs flow through porous media, we will examine a simple (but illustrative) problem that can be solved using only Darcys law: flow to a well in a circular reservoir that has a constant pressure at its outer boundary. Consider a reservoir of thickness H and horizontal permeability k, that is fully penetrated by a vertical well of radius Rw . Assume that at some radius Ro , the pressure remains at its undisturbed value, Po . If we pump oil from this well at a rate Q, what will be the steady-state pressure distribution in the reservoir?
Q
P = Po
Ro R
Fig. 1.4.1. Well in a bounded reservoir. (1) The analogue of eq. (1.1.5) for flow in the R direction is
Q=
kA dP . dR
(1)
Imperial College
Section 1 Page 9
(2) The cross-sectional area normal to the flow, at a radial distance R from the centre of the well, is 2RH (i.e., a cylindrical surface of height H, and perimeter 2R ), so
Q=
2kH
dP . dR
(2)
(3) Separate the variables and integrate from R = Ro to some generic location R:
dR 2kH = dP R Q
P 2kH dR = dP R Q Ro Po R
ln
R 2kH = ( P Po ) Ro Q
R Q ln . 2kH Ro
P(R) = Po
(3)
Eq. (3) is the famous Dupuit-Thiem equation. It shows that the pressure varies logarithmically. Most of the pressure drawdown occurs in the vicinity of the well, whereas far from the well, the pressure varies slowly. The pressure distribution for steady-state flow to a well located at the centre of a circular reservoir is shown in Fig. 1.4.2:
Imperial College
Section 1 Page 10
0.00 (P-Po )2kH/ Q 1.00 2.00 3.00 Thiem formula 4.00 5.00 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 R/Ro 0.8 1
Fig. 1.4.2. Steady-state flow to a well in a bounded reservoir. We can make the following comments about eq. (3): If fluid is pumped from the well, then (mathematically) Q is negative, and P(R) will be less than Po . The amount by which P(R) is less than Po is called the pressure drawdown. The only reservoir parameter that affects the pressure drawdown is the permeability-thickness product, kH. The pressure varies logarithmically as a function of radial distance from the well. This same type of dependence also occurs in transient problems. The pressure drawdown in the well is found by setting R = Rw in eq. (3): Q Rw Pw = Po ln . (4) 2kH Ro
Section 1 Page 11
Since we are usually interested in fluid flowing towards the well (i.e., production), it is common to define Q > 0 for production, in which case we write eq. (4) as
Q Rw Pw = Po + ln . 2kH Ro
1.5. Conservation of mass equation
(5)
Darcys law in itself does not contain sufficient information to allow us to solve transient (i.e., time-dependent) problems involving subsurface flow. In order to develop a complete governing equation that applies to transient problems, we must first derive a mathematical expression of the principle of conservation of mass. Consider flow through a one-dimensional tube of crosssectional area A; in particular, lets focus on the region between two locations x and x+x:
A q(x) x x+x q(x+x)
Fig. 1.5.1. Prismatic region used to derive an equation for conservation of mass. The main idea behind the application of the principle of conservation of mass is
Flux in - Flux out = Increase in amount stored .
(1)
Imperial College
Section 1 Page 12
Note that the property that is conserved is the mass of the fluid, not the volume of the fluid. Consider the period of time between time t and time t +t. To be concrete, assume that the fluid is flowing from left to right through the core. During this time increment, the mass flux into this region of rock between will be Mass flux in = A(x)(x)q(x)t. The mass flux out of this region of rock will be Mass flux out = A(x+x)(x+x)q(x+x)t. (3) (2)
The amount of fluid mass stored in the region is denoted by m, so the conservation of mass equation takes the form
[ A( x ) ( x )q ( x ) A( x + x ) ( x + x )q ( x + x )]t = m (t + t ) m( t ) .
(4)
For one-dimensional flow, such as through a cylindircal core, A(x) = A = constant. So we can factor out A, divide both sides by t, and let t 0 :
A[ q ( x + x ) q ( x )] = lim
m (t + t ) m (t ) dm = , t 0 t dt
(5)
where we temporarily treat q as a single entity. But m = Vp , where Vp is the pore volume of the rock contained in the slab between x and x+x. So,
m = Vp = V = Ax ,
(6)
Imperial College
Section 1 Page 13
A[ q ( x + x ) q ( x )] =
d ( ) Ax . dt
(7)
Now divide both sides by Ax, and let x 0 :

d ( q ) d ( ) = . dx dt
(8)
Eq. (8) is the basic equation of conservation of mass for 1-D linear flow in a porous medium. It is exact, and applies to gases, liquids, high or low flowrates, etc. In its most general, three-dimensional form, the equation of conservation of mass can be written as
d ( ) d( q ) d ( q ) d ( q ) + + = . dx dy dz dt
(9)
The mathematical operation on the left-hand side of eq. (9) is known as the divergence of q; it represents the rate at which fluid diverges from a given region, per unit volume.
1.6. Diffusion equation in Cartesian coordinates Transient flow of a fluid through a porous medium is governed by a certain type of partial differential equation known as a diffusion equation. In order to derive this equation, we combine Darcys law, the conservation of mass equation, and an equation that describes the manner in which fluid is stored inside a porous rock. (Strangely enough, this last aspect of flow through porous media was only first understood many decades after Darcys law was discovered!)
Section 1 Page 14
Lets look more closely at the right-hand side of eq. (1.5.8), and use the product rule (and chain rule) of differentiation:
d( ) d d = + dt dt dt = d dP d dP + dP dt dP dt
= 1 d + 1 d dP dP dP dt
= (c + cf ) dP , dt
(1)
where
cf is the compressibility of the fluid, c is the compressibility of the rock formation.
Now look at the left-hand side of eq. (1.5.8). The flux q is given by Darcys law, eq. (1.1.5):
d ( q ) d k dP k d 2P d dP = = 2+ dx dx dx dx dx dx k d 2P d dP dP = 2+ dP dx dx dx
k d 2P 1 d dP = + 2 dx dP dx

Imperial College
Section 1 Page 15
dP k d 2 P = + cf . 2 dx dx
(2)
Now equate eqs. (1) and (2) to arrive at

dP 2 (cf + c ) dP d 2P + cf . dx = k dt dx 2
(3)
The second term on the left is usually negligible compared to the first. To prove that this is the case, we can use eq. (1.4.5), and ignore the difference between x and R, to find
dP 2 Q 2 cf dx cf 2kHR ,
d 2P dx
2
(4)
Q
2kHR
2
(5)
Ratio =
cf Q cf (Po Pw ) = . 2kH ln(Ro / Rw )
(6)
Typical values of these parameters (for liquids) are

cf 10 10 /Pa ,
Po Pw 10 MPa = 10 Pa ,
ln(Ro / Rw ) ln(1000 m / 0.1m) = ln(10 ) 10 ,
4
10 10 107 Ratio = = 10 4 << 1 . 10

Imperial College
(7)
Section 1 Page 16
This example shows that, for liquids, the nonlinear term in eq. (3) is small. In practice, it is usually neglected. For gases, however, it cannot be neglected (see section 9). The one-dimensional, linearised form of the diffusion equation is therefore
dP k d 2P = , dt ct dx 2
(8)
in which the total compressibility is given by

ct = cformation + cfluid = c + cf .
(9)
The product of the compressibility and the porosity, c, is called the storativity. Typical values of these compressibilities are shown in the following table: Rock (or Fluid) Type Clay Sand Gravel Intact rock Jointed rock Water Oil c (1/Pa) 10-6 - 10-8 10-7 - 10-9 10-8 - 10-10 10-9 - 10-11 10-10 - 10-12 5 x 10-10 10-9
For many rocks, the pore compressibility is negligible, and the storage is due mainly to the fluid compressibility; for soils and sands, the opposite is the case. In general, both contributions to the total compressibility must be taken into account.
Section 1 Page 17
Much of the remainder of this module will be devoted to solving the diffusion equation in various situations. For now, we make the following general remarks about it: The parameter that governs the rate at which fluid pressure diffuses through a rock mass is the hydraulic diffusivity [m2/s], which is defined by
DH = k . ct
(10)
Roughly, the distance over which a pressure disturbance will travel during an elapsed time t is (we will prove this in section 2.5)
= 4D H t =
4kt . ct
(11)
Conversely, the time required for a pressure disturbance to travel a distance is found by inverting eq. (11):
t=
ct 2
4k
(12)
Pressure pulses obey a diffusion equation, not a wave equation, as one might have thought. Rather than travelling at a constant speed, they travel at a speed that continually decreases with time. To prove this, differentiate eq. (11) with respect to time, and observe that the velocity of the pulse, d/dt, decays like 1/ t .
Imperial College
Section 1 Page 18
1.7. Diffusion equation in radial coordinates In petroleum engineering we are often interested in fluid flowing towards a well, in which case it is more convenient to use cylindrical (radial) coordinates, rather than Cartesian coordinates. To derive the proper form of the diffusion equation in radial coordinates, consider fluid flowing radially towards (or away from) a vertical well, in a radially-symmetric manner. Return to eq. (1.5.4), replace x with R, and note that A( R) = 2RH :
R q(R)
q(R+R)
Fig. 1.7.1. Annular region used in deriving diffusion equation in radial co-ordinates.
[2RH( R)q( R) 2 (R + R)H(R + R)q( R + R )]t
= m (t + t ) m( t ) .
(1)
As before, divide by t, and let t 0 :

2H[ R(R )q (R ) (R+R ) (R+R )q (R+R)] = dm . dt
(2)
On the right-hand side:

m = V = 2HRR ,
(3)
Section 1 Page 19
d ( ) dm d ( 2HRR ) = = 2HR R . dt dt dt
(4)
Equate eqs. (2) and (4), divide by R, and let R 0 :
d ( ) d ( qR ) =R . dt dR
(5)
Eq. (5) is the radial-flow version of the continuity (i.e., conservation of mass) equation. Now use Darcys law in the form of eq. (1.4.1) for q on the left-hand side, and eq. (1.6.1) on the right-hand side:
dP dP k d R ( c + c ) R . = f dR dR dt
(6)
Follow the same procedure as that which led to eq. (1.6.3), to find
dP 2 (cf + c ) dP 1 d dP R . + cf = k R dR dR dt dR
(7)
For liquids, we again neglect the term cf ( dP / dR ) 2 , to arrive at

dP k 1 d dP R = . dt ct R dR dR
(8)
Eq. (8) is the governing equation for transient, radial flow of a liquid through porous rock. It is the governing equation for flow during primary production, and it is the starting point for all welltest analysis methods. We will develop and analyse solutions to this equation in later parts of this module.
Section 1 Page 20
1.8. Governing equations for multi-phase flow In all of the derivations given thus far, we have assumed that the pores of the rock are filled with a single-component, singlephase fluid. Oil reservoirs are typically filled with at least two components, oil and water, and often also contain some hydrocarbons in the gaseous phase. We will now present the governing flow equations for an oil/water system, in a fairly general form. Recall from the rock properties module that Darcys law can be generalised for two-phase flow by including a relative permeability factor for each phase:
qw =
kkrw dPw , w dx kkro dPo , o dx
(1)
qo =
(2)
where the subscripts w and o denote oil and water, respectively. The two relative permeability functions are assumed to be known functions of the phase saturations. For an oil-water system, the two saturations are necessarily related to each other by
Sw + So = 1.
(3)
In general, the pressures in the two phases at each point in the reservoir will be different. If the reservoir is oil-wet, the two pressures will be related by
Po Pw = Pcap (So ) ,
(4)
where the capillary pressure is given by some rock-dependent function of the oil saturation.
Section 1 Page 21
As the volume of, say, oil, in a given region is equal to the total pore volume multiplied by the oil saturation, the conservation of mass equations for the two phases can be taken directly from eq. (1.5.8), by inserting a saturation factor in the storage term:
d ( oqo ) d (oSo ) = , dx dt
(5)
d ( wqw ) d (wSw ) = . dx dt
(6)
The densities of the two phases are related to their respective phase pressures by an equation of state:
o = o ( Po ) . w = w ( Pw ) .
(7) (8)
where the right-hand sides of eqs. (7) and (8) are known functions of the pressure, and (for our present purposes) the temperature is assumed constant. Finally, the porosity must be some function of the phase pressures, Po and Pw . Currently, little is known about the manner in which these two pressures independently affect the porosity. Fortunately, the capillary pressure is usually small, and so Po Pw , in which case we can use the pressure-porosity relationship that would be obtained in a laboratory test performed under single-phase conditions, i.e.,
= ( Po ) .
(9)
Imperial College
Section 1 Page 22
Eqs. (1)-(9) give nine equations for the nine unknowns (count them!). In many situations, the equations are simplified to allow solutions to be obtained. For example, in the BuckleyLeverett problem of immiscible displacement (module 4.1), the densities are assumed to be constant, and the capillary pressure is assumed to be zero. If the fluid is slightly compressible (or if the pressure variations are small), the equations of state are written as
(Po ) = oi [ 1 + co (Po Poi )],
(10)
etc., where the subscript i denotes the initial state, and the compressibility co is taken to be a constant. ______________________________________________ Tutorial Sheet 1: (1) A well located in a 100 ft. thick reservoir having permeability 100 mD produces 100 barrels/day of oil from a 10 in. diameter wellbore. The viscosity of the oil is 0.4 cP. The pressure at a distance of 1000 feet from the wellbore is 3000 psi. What is the pressure in the wellbore? Conversion factors are as follows: 1 barrel = 0.1589 m3 1 Poise = 0.1 Newton-seconds/m2 1 foot = 0.3048 m 1 psi = 6895 N/ m2 = 6895 Pa (2) Carry out a derivation of the diffusion equation for sphericallysymmetric flow, in analogy to the derivation given in section 1.7 for radial flow. The result should be an equation similar to eq. (1.7.8), but with a slightly different term on the right-hand side.
Imperial College
Section 2 Page 23
2. Line Source Solution for a Vertical Well in an Infinite Reservoir

One of the most basic and important problems in petroleum reservoir engineering, and the cornerstone of well-test analysis, is the problem of flow of a single-phase, slightly compressible fluid to a vertical well that is located in an infinite reservoir. This problem can be formulated precisely as follows:
Geometry: a vertical well that fully penetrates a reservoir which

is of uniform thickness, H, and which extends infinitely far in all horizontal directions.
Reservoir Properties: the reservoir is assumed to be isotropic

and homogeneous, with constant properties (i.e., permeability, etc.) that do not vary with pressure.
Initial and Boundary Conditions: the reservoir is initially at

uniform pressure. Starting at t = 0, fluid is pumped out of the wellbore at a constant rate, Q.
Wellbore diameter: it is assumed that the diameter of the

wellbore is infinitely small; this leads to a much simpler problem than the more realistic finite-diameter case, but with little loss of applicability, as we will see later. Problem: to determine the pressure at all points in the reservoir, including in the wellbore, as a function of the elapsed time since the start of production. The conditions outlined above lead to the so-called line source solution, also known as the Kelvin solution or Theis solution. It was derived by Kelvin in the 1880s in the context of heat conduction; Charles Theis was the first to use it in the context of flow to a well, in 1935.
Department of Earth Sciences and Engineering Imperial College
Section 2 Page 24
2.1. Development of the line-source solution The basic governing equation for this problem is the diffusion equation in radial coordinates, eq. (1.7.8):
ct dP
k
1 d dP R = . dR dt R dR
(1)
The assumptions that are inherent in this equation are: (1) The reservoir is homogeneous and isotropic - i.e., k, , etc., do not vary with position in the reservoir, and so they can be assumed to be constant. (2) The thickness of the reservoir is uniform - this implies that the flow will be horizontal flow to the well, with no vertical component. (3) The well fully penetrates the entire thickness of the reservoir (or else there would be a vertical flow component). (4) The fluid is only slightly compressible - this is implicit in treating the compressibility term ct = cf + c as a constant.
If the reservoir is anisotropic, the equations can be modified by

a change of variables that is equivalent to stretching the x and y coordinates (de Marsily, pp. 178-9).
Inhomogeneity is difficult to treat, and methods for this situation

are still being developed. Variation in the thickness of the reservoir is somewhat equivalent to spatial variation in k (i.e., inhomogeneity).
If the well does not fully penetrate the reservoir, we must add
d 2P/dz2 to the RHS of eq. (1). The solution to this much more difficult problem is discussed by de Marsily, pp. 179-190.
Section 2 Page 25
The case of a highly compressible fluid, such as a gas, will be

discussed in detail in section 9. To solve the line-source problem, (or to solve any partial differential equation), we not only need a governing equation, but we also need initial conditions and boundary conditions. In this case they are as follows. Initial Condition: At the start of production, the pressure in the reservoir is assumed to be at some uniform value, Pi . Boundary condition at infinity: Infinitely far from the well, the pressure will always remain at its initial value, Pi . Boundary condition at the wellbore: At the wellbore, which is assumed to be infinitely small, the flux must be equal to Q (into the well) at all times t > 0. We can therefore formulate the problem in precise mathematical terms as follows: Governing PDE: Initial condition: BC at wellbore: BC at infinity:
1 d dP c dP R = , k dt dR R dR
P( R, t = 0) = Pi , 2kH dP lim R dR = Q, R 0
R
(1) (2) (3) (4)
lim P(R, t ) = Pi .
There are many ways to solve this equation, but we will solve it using a method that avoids advanced techniques such as Laplace transforms, etc.
Section 2 Page 26
First define transformation:
new
variable
using
the
Boltzmann
cR 2
kt
(5)
Now, rewrite eq. (1) in terms of the new variable, . The right-hand side transforms as follows:
dP dP d 2cR dP cR 2 2 dP 2 dP = = = = . kt R d R d dR d dR kt d
(6)
So we see that differentiation with respect to R is equivalent to differentiation with respect to , followed by multiplication by 2/R. Hence,
1 d dP 1 2 d dP 4 d dP R = . 2 d = 2 d d R R dR d dR R R
(7)
The left-hand side of eq. (1) transforms as follows:

dP dP d cR 2 dP dP = = = , 2 d t dt d d dt kt
c dP
k
c dP cR2 dP 2 dP = = = 2 . (8) 2 d kt dt k t d d R R
Using eqs. (7) and (8) in eq. (1) yields

d dP dP . = 4 d d d
(9)
Section 2 Page 27
Eq. (9) is an ordinary differential equation for P as a function of . We must also transform the boundary/initial conditions so that they apply to P() instead of to P(r,t). First note that both limits, R and t 0 , correspond to the limit . Hence, conditions (2,4) take the form

lim P() = Pi .
(10)
Using eq. (6) in eq. (3) leads to a second BC:

4 kH dP lim = Q, d 0 dP Q = lim d 4 kH . 0
(11)
The problem is now a two-point ODE boundary-value problem, defined by eqs. (9-11). To solve this problem, we first note that although eq. (9) appears to be a 2nd-order equation, it is actually a first-order equation for the function (dP/d). If we temporarily denote this combination of terms by y, we can write eq. (9) as
y dy = , 4 d where y = dP , d
(12)
Now separate the variables, and integrate from = 0 out to an arbitrary value of :
d dy = 4 y
Section 2 Page 28
y ( ) dy
y (0)
d
0
y () = ln 4 y (0)
y () = y (0)e
/ 4
(13)
Now note that the boundary condition (11) is equivalent to

y (0) =
Q , 4 kH
(14)
which implies that eq. (13) can be written as

y () =
Q / 4 e . 4 kH
(15)
Recall that y = ( dP / d) , and rewrite eq. (15) as

dP() Q e / 4 = . d 4 kH
(16)
Eq. (16) can now be directly integrated to find P(). We cannot start the integral at = 0, because we do not know the pressure in the wellbore. We do, however, know from eq. (10) that the pressure at = must be equal to the initial pressure, Pi. Therefore,
Department of Earth Sciences and Engineering
Imperial College
Section 2 Page 29
P ( )
Q e / 4 d dP = kH 4 Pi
Q e / 4 d . P() = Pi 4 kH
2
(17)
2
Now recall that = cR / kt . We replace with cR / kt on the left-hand side of eq. (17), and also at the lower limit of integration on the right, but not inside the integral, because inside the integral, is merely a dummy variable:
2 cR Q e / 4 . P = Pi 4 kH 2 d kt cR
kt
(18)
Simplify the integrand by defining u = / 4 , in which case d / = du / u , and the lower limit of integration becomes u = cR2 / 4kt :
cR 2 Q e u . P = Pi 4 kH 2 u du 4 kt cR
4kt
(19)
The integral in eq. (19) is essentially the so-called exponential integral function, which is defined by mathematicians as (see Matthews and Russell, p. 131)
Ei ( x ) =
u
e u du . x
(20)
Unfortunately, this function was defined long before it was first used to solve the problem of a well in an infinite reservoir, and so it contains extraneous minus signs that are inconvenient.
Section 2 Page 30
We can summarise the solution to this problem as follows:

P( R, t ) = Pi +
Q Ei ( x ) , 4 kH
u
(21) (22) (23)
where and
Ei ( x ) =
u du , x
x = cR2 / 4kt .
Numerical values for the pressure drawdown are found as follows. Assume that we want to know the pressure at a certain distance R from the centre of the well, at some time t. (a) (b) (c) Use these values of R and t to compute a value of x from eq. (23). Look up the value of -Ei(-x) from a table or graph of the exponential integral function (see next page). The pressure at (R,t) is then given by eq. (21).
In practice, the more common situation is that the pressure is measured at some distance from the well, as a function of time, and the data is used to infer the values for the reservoir parameters, by fitting the data to the analytical solution. This procedure will be demonstrated after first analysing the linesource solution in more detail. Note: to find the pressure in the wellbore, we merely plug R = Rw into eq. (21)! This is because R = Rw corresponds to the wellbore wall, where the pressure must be the same as in the wellbore. Tabular values of the Ei function are shown below. The table is based on the one given by de Marsily, Quantitative Hydrogeology, Academic Press, 1986:
Section 2 Page 31
Table 2.1.1. Exponential Integral Function, - Ei(-x)

x x1 x10-1 x10-2 x10-3 x10-4 x10-5 x10-6 x10-7 x10-8 x10-9 x10-10 x10-11 x10-12 x10-13 x10-14 x10-15 1 .219 1.82 4.04 6.33 8.63 2 .049 1.22 3.35 5.64 7.94 3 .013 0.91 2.96 5.23 7.53 4 5 6 7
1.2e-4
8
3.8e-5
9
1.2e-5
.0038 .0011 3.6e-4 0.70 2.68 4.95 7.25 9.55 0.56 2.47 4.73 7.02 9.33 0.45 2.30 4.54 6.84 9.14
0.37 2.15 4.39 6.69 8.99 11.29 13.60 15.90 18.20 20.50 22.81 25.11 27.41 29.71 32.02
0.31 2.03 4.26 6.55 8.86 11.16 13.46 15.76 18.07 20.37 22.67 24.97 27.28 29.58 31.88
0.26 1.92 4.14 6.44 8.74 11.04 13.34 15.65 17.95 20.25 22.55 24.86 27.16 29.46 31.76
10.94 10.24 9.84
13.24 12.55 12.14 11.85 11.63 11.45 15.54 14.85 14.44 14.15 13.93 13.75 17.84 17.15 16.74 16.46 16.23 16.05 20.15 19.45 19.05 18.76 18.54 18.35 22.45 21.76 21.35 21.06 20.84 20.66 24.75 24.06 23.65 23.36 23.14 22.96 27.05 26.36 25.96 25.67 25.44 25.26 29.36 28.66 28.26 27.97 27.75 27.56 31.66 30.97 30.56 30.27 30.05 29.87 33.96 33.27 32.86 32.58 32.35 32.17
For example, if x = 5 x 10-7, then -Ei(-x) = 13.93. 2.2. Dimensionless pressure and time
Section 2 Page 32
Although the pressure drawdown seems to depend on many variables and parameters, there are only two independent, dimensionless mathematical variables in the line-source solution. This can be proven from the pi-theorem of dimensional analysis, or can be seen directly from eqs. (2.1.21-23). Traditionally, these dimensionless time, variables
kt
are
defined
as
the
tD =
cR2
(1)
and the dimensionless pressure drawdown,
PD =
2kH( Pi P) . Q
(2)
In terms of these dimensionless parameters, the line-source solution takes the form
PD = Ei ( 1/ 4t D ) .
1 2
(3)
The usefulness of dimensionless variables is that they allow the pressure drawdown to be plotted and discussed in a form that is applicable to all reservoirs, without being restricted to specific values of the permeability, porosity, etc. These parameters are accounted for by the definitions of the dimensionless variables.
Imperial College
Section 2 Page 33
Line Source Solution Dimensionless Drawdown, P D

0 0 -1 1 -2 -3 -4 2 -5 3 -7 4 4 0 200 400 600 800 1000
PD = 2kH(Pi-P)/ Q tD = kt/ cR2
Dimensionless Time, t D
Fig. 2.2.1. Line-source solution in terms of dimensionless variables. 2.3. Range of applicability of the line source solution The line-source solution assumes that the wellbore radius is zero, when in reality it is always non-zero. Does this cause a problem in practice?
Not really; we can use the line-source solution as soon as the

radius of penetration of the pressure pulse, as predicted by the line-source solution, is greater than Rw, the wellbore radius.
This seems reasonable, and can be proven rigorously by

examining the solution to the diffusion equation with finite wellbore radius (which will be developed in section 6).
Imperial College
Section 2 Page 34
According to eq. (1.6.12), the time required for the pressure pulse to travel at least a distance Rw (starting from the infinitelysmall hypothetical borehole at R = 0) is
t>
2 cRw
4k
(1)
If we use typical values for the parameters, such as
= 0.20 (a typical reservoir value), = 0.001 Pa s (reasonable for liquid hydrocarbons),

c = 10 k = 10
10
Pa (reasonable for liquid hydrocarbons),

2
-1
Rw = 0.1m ,
14
m (10 mD - somewhat low, but possible),
then eq. (1) predicts that the line-source approximation will become valid after an elapsed time of only 0.005 s! Note: In terms of the dimensionless time defined by eq. (2.2.1), condition (1) is equivalent to tDw > 0.25, where the subscript w denotes the fact that this is the dimensionless time relative to the position R = R w. Although one should always check the validity of the linesource approximation, using eq. (1), in practice it is almost always valid. 2.4. Logarithmic approximation to line-source solution The exponential integral function is unfamiliar to most engineers, and is difficult to calculate. Fortunately, for sufficiently small values of x, which is to say, large values of t, the
Section 2 Page 35
exponential integral essentially becomes a logarithmic function, which makes it very easy to use. To derive this long-time approximation, we proceed as follows: a. For large times, x will be small, and we can break up the integral into two parts:
1 u u e e e Ei ( x ) = du = du + du . u u u x x 1
(1)
b. Use the Taylor series for exp(-u) in the first integrand:

1 e u
du =
11
u 1!
u2 2!
u3 3!
+L du .
(2)
c. Break up integral into a series of integrals, and evaluate them term-by-term:

1 u 11 11 11 11 2 e du = du du + udu + u du L u 1 !x 2! x 3! x x xu
= ln u
1 1u u + ]1 ] x x 2! 2
1 2
1u +L 3! 3 x
1 3
= (ln1 ln x ) (1 x ) +
1 1 2 3 (1 x ) (1 x ) + L 2!2 3!3
= ln x + x
1 2 1 3 1 1 x + x + L 1 + + L 2!2 3!3 2!2 3!3 1 2 1 3 x + x + L, 2!2 3!3

Imperial College
Ei ( x ) = ln x ln + x
(3)
Section 2 Page 36
where
e u 1 1 du . ln = 1 + + L u 2!2 3!3 1
(4)
Eq. (4) may look messy, but the important point is that the term ln is merely a number, and does not depend on x, so we can evaluate it numerically to find
ln = ln(1.781) = 0.5772 .
(5)
[Note: Both and ln are sometimes known as Eulers number, so be careful when reading the literature on this topic!] We can further simplify eq. (3) if we can find conditions under which the power series terms are negligible. If this is the case, we are left with only a log term and a constant. First, recall that large t implies small x, and so
x 1 2 1 3 x + x +L < x . 2!2 3!3
(6)
If we want the power series terms to be, say, two orders of magnitude less than (which itself is ~1), then we need
x=
cR2
4kt
< 0.01
kt
cR 2
> 25 .
(7)
So, if the dimensionless time is greater than about 25, we have from eqs. (2.1.21) and (3):
P( R, t ) = Pi +
Q [ln x + ln ] 4 kH
Imperial College
Section 2 Page 37
P(R, t ) = Pi +
Q ln( x ) 4 kH

Q cR2 P(R, t ) = Pi + ln 4 kH 4kt

4kt Q P(R, t ) = Pi ln 2 4 kH cR
2.246kt Q ln 4 kH cR2
P(R,t ) = Pi
(8)
kt Q + 0.80907 . P(R, t ) = Pi ln 2 4 kH cR
(9)
The form given in eq. (8) is used in groundwater hydrology, and is called Jacobs approximation; the equivalent form of eq. (9) is used in petroleum reservoir engineering, where it is called the logarithmic approximation. By comparing eq. (9) with eqs. (2.2.1-3), we see that the dimensionless form of the logarithmic approximation can be written as
PD =
1 ln(t D ) + 0.80907) 2
(10)
For values of the dimensionless time that are typically of interest in the wellbore, the logarithmic approximation is very accurate. For example, the Fig. 2.4.1 below shows that the range of validity of the logarithmic approximation seems to be consistent with the criterion given in eq. (7).
Section 2 Page 38
Line Source Solution Dimensionless Drawdown, P D

-1 0 1 2 3 4 0.1 1 10 10 2 10 3 Exponential Integral Solution Logarithmic Approximation
PD = 2kH(Pi-P)/ Q tD = kt/ cR2
Dimensionless Time, tD
Fig. 2.4.1. Range of validity of the logarithmic approximation. Although smaller values of tD are usually not of interest in the wellbore, they are needed if one wants to calculate the drawdown at a location far from the well. For tD < 1, the logarithmic approximation is very poor. Verify this for yourself for, say, tD = 0.25, by evaluating eq. (9), and comparing the result to that obtained from Table 2.1.1. 2.5. Instantaneous pulse of injected fluid Some insight can be gained into the diffusive nature of flow through porous media by considering the problem of a finite amount of fluid injected into a well over a very small period of time. This problem also introduces the important concept of superposition, which will be described more rigorously in section 3.1.
Imperial College
Section 2 Page 39
Note: The problem of injecting fluid is mathematically equivalent to that of producing fluid, except for the sign, but it is easier to visualise the pressure pulse propagating into the reservoir in the case of injection. If we start injecting fluid at a rate Q (m3/s) at time t = 0, then, according to eq. (2.1.21), the pressure at a distance R into the reservoir will be
Q e u P( R, t ) = Pi + du, x = cR2 / 4kt , 4kH x u
(1)
where t is the elapsed time since the start of injection. The + sign is used because we are injecting rather than extracting fluid, so the pressure in the reservoir will increase. Now imagine that we stop injecting fluid after a small amount of time t. This is equivalent to injecting fluid at a rate Q starting at t = 0, and then producing fluid at a rate Q (or, equivalently, injecting at a rate -Q) starting at time t. The pressure drawdown in the reservoir due to this fictitious production would be given by the same line-source solution, except that: (1) For extraction of fluid we must use a - sign in front of the integral; (2) If t is the elapsed time since the start of injection, then tt will be the elapsed time since the start of the fictitious extraction of fluid (i.e., since the end of injection!) Hence, the full expression for the pressure will be
Q P( R, t ) = Pi + 4kH
x=
e u Q du 4kH cR2 u
4kt
x=
cR2 4k (t t )
e u du u
Imperial College
Section 2 Page 40
Q = Pi + 4kH
x=
cR2 4k (t t ) cR2
4kt
x=
e u du . u
(2)
But if t is small, then the two limits of integration are close together, and we can use the following approximation:
x2
f ( x )dx f ( x1)[x 2 x1] ,
(3)
x1
which in the present case gives

Q 4kt P( R, t ) Pi + e 4kH cR 2
cR2
4kt
cR 2 2 cR 4kt 4 k( t t ) cR 2t 2 4kt
4kt
Q 4kt Pi + e 4kH cR 2
cR2
4kt
Q t Pi + e 4kHt
cR2
(4)
As Q is the rate of injection in [m3/s], and t is the duration of the injection, the total volume of injected fluid is Qt, which we can denote as Q*, with units of [m3]. Now imagine that we are monitoring the pressure at some distance R from the borehole. From eq. (4), we se that the pressure buildup at R will be the product of two terms: (a) an exponential term that increases with t, then levels off to a value of 1 as t ; (b) a 1/t term that decays to zero as t .
Imperial College
Section 2 Page 41
Their product gives a function that first increases, and then decreases with time, as shown below in Fig. 2.5.1:
Response to Injection Pulse

0.4
2H(P-Pi) cR2 /Q*
0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 0.01
0.1
1
D
10 1
Dimensionless Time, t
= kt/ cR 2
Fig. 2.5.1. Pressure buildup due to an injected pulse of fluid. It seems reasonable to identify the time at which the pressure buildup reaches its maximum value as the time at which the pressure pulse has arrived at location R. This time is found by setting dP/dt = 0 in eq. (4):
P t R
1 cR2 cR2 + e 4kt , = 2 3 4kH 4kt t
(5)
P =0 t R
t =
cR 2
4k
(6)
which is equivalent to eq. (1.6.12).
Imperial College
Section 2 Page 42
2.6. Estimating permeability and storativity from a drawdown test In sections 2.1-4 we derived the line-source solution, and showed how to use it to calculate the pressure drawdown, based on assumed knowledge of the reservoir properties. However, the most common use of this solution, and the other solutions that we will derive shortly, is for the inverse problem:
We use measured wellbore pressures, in conjunction with the

mathematical solutions, to estimate reservoir properties such as permeability, porosity, etc.
This process, known as well-test analysis, is the subject of a

subsequent module of the course. For now, we will do one simple example to see how to calculate the reservoir permeability from a drawdown test. Recall from eq. (2.4.8) that, in the long-time regime,
2.246kt Q . P( R, t ) = Pi ln 2 4 kH cR
(1)
At the wellbore wall,

2.246k Q . P( Rw , t ) = Pi ln t + ln cR 2 4 kH w
(2)
In general, we will not know the values of any of the parameters on the RHS of eq. (2); we will only know Q, and the wellbore pressure as a function of time, P( Rw , t ) Pw (t ) . In particular, we dont know k or c, so we cant use criterion (2.4.7) to find out when our data falls in the late-time regime.
Imperial College
Section 2 Page 43
However, the second logarithmic term, although unknown, is a constant. Hence, if we plot Pw (t ) vs. lnt, the data will (eventually, at large enough values of t) fall on a straight line! The slope of this line on a semi-log plot gives kH, i.e.,
dPw Pw Q = m= , d ln t ln t 4 kH
(3)
kH =
Q . 4 m
(4)
Q is known, and can be measured, so the semi-log slope

gives the permeability-thickness product, kH.
This method is unable to distinguish separately between the

effects of permeability and thickness; i.e., a thick impermeable reservoir can give the same drawdown as a thin, permeable reservoir. Now, lets do a simple example to learn how to calculate the permeability of a reservoir from a drawdown test. Example: A well with 4 in. radius produces oil with a viscosity of 0.3 cP, at a rate of 200 barrels/day, from a reservoir that is 15 ft. thick. The pressure in the wellbore as a function of time is: t (mins) Pw (psi) 1 4740 5 4667 10 4633 20 4596 30 4573 60 35
Use the semi-log straight line method to estimate the permeability, k.

Section 2 Page 44
(1)
Plot wellbore pressure against the logarithm of time:

4800 Wellbore Pressure (psi) 4750 4700 4650 4600 4550 4500 1 10 t (mins) 100 Wellbore Pressure (data) Straight line (fitted)
(2)
Look for a straight line at long times, and find its slope:
m=
P 4760 4510 = = 54.3 psi ln t 2 2.303

6895 Pa = 374,400 Pa . psi
= 54.3psi
Note: ln t has the same value regardless of which units are used for t! (3) Calculate k from eq. (4). First convert all data to SI units:
= 0.3 cP
0.001 Pa s = 0.0003 Pa s cP
3 hr bbl 0.1589 m3 day 4 m Q = 200 = 3.68 10 24hr 3600 s day bbl s
Imperial College
Section 2 Page 45
H = 15 ft
0.3048 m = 4.572 m ft
Q (0.0003Pa s)(3.68 10-4 m 3/s) k= = 4mH 4 (4.572m)(374,400Pa)

= 5.13 10 -15 m2
1mD 0.987 10
-15
= 5.1mD .
We can also use a semi-log plot to estimate the storativity term, c. To see how this works, first note that on a semi-log plot of Pw vs. lnt, there are two asymptotic straight lines: (a) At early times, Pw = Pi (plots as a horizontal line). (b) At late times, Pw slopes downward as a function of lnt, according to eq. (4). Q: A: At what time t* do these straight lines intersect? When Pw (early t asymptote) = Pw (late t asymptote) :
a 2.246kt * Q Pi = Pi ln 2 4 kH cRw a 2.246kt * =0 ln cR2 w a
2.246kt *
2 cRw
=1
c =
2.246kt *
2 Rw
(5)
where t* is the intersection time; see the well test analysis module for details.
Section 2 Page 46
______________________________________________ Tutorial Sheet 2: (1) A well with 3 in. radius is located in a 40 ft. thick reservoir having permeability 30 mD and porosity 0.20. The total compressibility of the oil/rock system is 3x10-5/psi. The initial pressure in the reservoir is 2800 psi. The well produces 448 barrels/day of oil having a viscosity of 0.4 cP. (a) How long will it take in order for the line-source solution to be applicable at the wellbore wall? (b) What is the pressure in the wellbore after six days of production, according to the line-source solution? (c) How long will it take in order for Jacobs logarithmic approximation to be valid at the wellbore? (d) What is the pressure in the wellbore after six days of production, according to the logarithmic approximation? (e) Answer questions (b)-(d) for a location that is 800 ft. (horizontally) away from the wellbore. Conversion factors can be found at end of Tutorial Sheet 1. (2) A well with radius 0.3 ft. produces 200 barrels/day of oil, with viscosity 0.6 cP, from a 20 ft. thick reservoir. The wellbore pressures are as follows:
t (mins) Pw (psi)
0 4000
5 3943
10 3938
20 3933
60 3926
120 3921
480 3911
1440 3904
2880 3899
5760 3894
Estimate the permeability and the storativity of the reservoir, using the semi-log method presented in section 2.6.
Imperial College
Section 3 Page 47
3.
Superposition and Buildup Tests
3.1. Linearity and the principle of superposition A basic property of the diffusion equation that governs flow of a single-phase compressible liquid through a porous medium is its linearity. Linearity is the most important property that any differential equation can have, because it implies that the principle of superposition can be used to construct solutions to the equation. Most of the analytical methods that have been developed to solve differential equations, such as Laplace transforms, Greens functions, separation of variables, etc., can be used only on linear differential equations. These analytical methods will be discussed in later sections of this module. In this section we will discuss a simple form of the principle of superposition that will allow us to solve many important reservoir engineering problems, such as pressure buildup tests. The diffusion equation is a linear PDE because both of the differential operators that appear in it are linear operators. In general, a differential operator M that operates on a function F is linear if it has the following two properties:
M( F1 + F2) = M ( F 1) + M ( F 2 ), M(cF1) = cM (F1) ,
(1) (2)
where F1 and F2 are any two differentiable functions, and c is any constant. The process of partial differentiation is a linear operation, since
dP (R, t ) dP2 (R, t ) d P1(R, t ) + P2 (R, t ) = 1 + , dt dt dt
Department of Earth Science and Engineering Imperial College London
(3)
Section 3 Page 48
dP d 1(R, t ) cP . 1(R, t ) = c dt dt
(4)
By this definition, we see that eq. (1.7.8) is a linear PDE. This is will be the case if the coefficients that appear in the diffusivity, such as , c, and k, are constants. If these coefficients were instead functions of position or time, the governing equations (see section 1.8) would still be linear, albeit more difficult to solve. However, if any of the coefficients were functions of pressure, the equation would no longer be linear. This is the case, for example, with gas flow, for which the compressibility varies with pressure (see section 9). It is also the case for stress-sensitive reservoirs in which the permeability varies with pressure. A simple rule-of-thumb is that a differential equation will be nonlinear if it contains any term in which the dependent variable (in our case, P) or any of its derivatives appear to a power higher than one, or are multiplied by one another. For example, M = P(dP/dt) is a nonlinear operator, because it violates condition (1):
M{ P1 + P2}= ( P 1 + P2) d(P1 + P2 ) dt
dP dP 1 = (P + P ) + 2 1 2 dt dt = P1 dP1 dP dP2 dP + P2 1 + P + P2 2 1 dt dt dt dt dP1 dP + P1 2 dt dt
= M{ P1}+ M { P2}+ P2
L{ P1 + P2} L{ P1}+ L{ P2} !
(5)
Imperial College London
Section 3 Page 49
The importance of linearity is that it allows us to create new solutions to the diffusion equation by adding together previously known solutions. Care must be taken, however, with the initial conditions and boundary conditions. For example, if P1 and P2 are two solutions that each satisfy the diffusion equation (2.1.1) and the initial condition (2.1.2), then the sum of P1 and P2 will also satisfy the diffusion equation, but will not satisfy the correct initial conditions, because
P1(R, t = 0) + P2 (R, t = 0) = Pi + Pi = 2Pi (!)
6)
This difficulty can be circumvented by working with the drawdown instead of the actual pressure. Linearity of the diffusion equation implies that the drawdown P = Pi P(R, t ) satisfies the same diffusion equation as does P(R,t) itself, since, for example,
dP(R, t ) d[ Pi P(R, t )] dPi dP(R, t ) = = , etc. dt dt dt dt
(7)
As the drawdown satisfies zero initial condition, by definition, eq. (6) shows that the sum of two drawdown functions will also satisfy the correct initial condition (i.e., that the drawdown must be zero when t = 0.) Likewise, the drawdown is also zero infinitely far from the well, so if two drawdown functions satisfy the boundary condition at R = , their sum will also satisfy this outer boundary condition. 3.2. Pressure buildup tests In a pressure buildup test, a well that has been producing fluid at a constant rate Q for some time t is then shut in - i.e., production is stopped. After this occurs, fluid will continue to flow towards the well, because of the pressure gradient, but will not be
Section 3 Page 50
able to exit at the wellhead. Consequently, the pressure within the well will rise back towards it initial value, Pi. The rate of this pressure recovery in the well can be used to estimate both the transmissivity, kH, and the initial pressure, Pi, of the reservoir. The analysis of a pressure buildup test is based on the principle of superposition that was discussed in the previous section, and proceeds as follows: First imagine that we produce at a rate Q, starting at t = 0, in which case the pressure drawdown due to this production will be
cR 2 Q . P1 = Pi P1( R, t ) = Ei 4kH 4 kt
(1)
Now consider the following fictitious problem, in which, at some time t1, we begin to inject fluid into the reservoir at a rate Q. The drawdown due to this injection would be given by the same line-source solution, except that: (a) The elapsed time used in the solution must be measured from the start of injection, i.e., the variable must be t - t1; (b) Since we are injecting rather than producing, we must use Q in the solution. Therefore, the pressure drawdown due to this fictitious injection is
cR 2 Q . P2 = Pi P2( R, t ) = Ei 4kH 4k (t t 1)
(2)
NOTE: it is implicitly understood in all equations such as (2) that the Ei function is taken to be zero when the term in brackets is positive, which is to say when t < t1.
Section 3 Page 51
We now superimpose these two solutions (for the drawdown!), putting P = P1 + P2 . In light of the discussion given in the previous section, this composite function is also a solution to the diffusion equation. However, we note that (i) For t < t1, the injection has not started, and so the composite solution corresponds to production at rate Q. (ii) For t > t1, the composite solution corresponds to production at rate Q, and injection at rate Q, which is to say, a well that is neither producing nor injecting, i.e., shut in! (iii) Therefore, this superposition of solutions solves the problem of production for a time t1, followed by shut-in:
P( R, t ) = P1(R, t ) + P2 (R, t )
cR 2 cR2 Q Q = Ei Ei + 4kH 4kt 4kH 4k (t t1)
cR 2 cR2 Q Ei . Ei = 4k (t t ) 4kH 1 4kt
(3)
Now recall that P( R, t ) = Pi P( R, t ) , P( R, t ) = Pi P( R, t ) , and so
in
which
case
cR 2 cR 2 Q Ei . Ei P( R, t ) = Pi + 4k (t t ) 4kH 1 4kt
(4)
If t is sufficiently large that we can use the logarithmic approximation for both terms in eq. (4), then
Section 3 Page 52
2.246k 2.246k Q ln(t t 1) ln ln t + ln P( R, t ) = Pi 2 2 4kH cR cR
P( R, t ) = Pi
Q ln t ln(t t1)} { 4kH

t Q ln . 4kH (t t1)
P( R, t ) = Pi
(5)
This is the equation for the pressure in the wellbore during a buildup test. However, the usual nomenclature used in buildup tests is the following:
The duration of production period is denoted by t, not t1. The duration of the shut-in period is denoted by t, not t-t1.
Using this notation, the shut-in pressure is given by
Q t + t Pw (t ) = Pi ln . 4kH t
(6)
This equation is used for graphical analysis of the data from a buildup test, allowing estimation of the kH product and the initial reservoir pressure. The ratio of times that appears in the logarithmic term of eq. (6) is known as the Horner time, tH. Note that it has the following peculiar properties: (a) it doesnt have units of time, but is dimensionless, and (b) it becomes numerically smaller as the duration of the shut-in period increases! Be aware of these facts when using the Horner time.
Section 3 Page 53
The wellbore pressure that would be measured during a shut-in test is shown schematically in Fig. 3.2.1.
Pw
t time
Fig. 3.2.1. Wellbore pressure during a buildup test. 3.3. Multi-rate flow tests The superposition principle that was used to solve the problem of a buildup test can also be used in the more general situation in which the production rate is changed by discrete amounts at various time intervals. For example, imagine that the production rate is given by
Q = Q0 Q = Q1 for for 0 < t < t1, t > t1 .
(1) (2)
To find the drawdown, we superpose the solution for production at rate Q0 starting at time t = 0, plus a solution starting at t1 that corresponds to the increment in the production rate, Q1 Q0 :
Section 3 Page 54
cR 2 (Q Q ) cR2 Q0 1 0 . (3) P( R, t ) = Ei Ei 4kH 4kH 4 kt 4k (t t1)
To verify that it is correct to use the flowrate increment, note that for t > t1, the first Ei function corresponds to a flowrate of Q0 , and the second corresponds to a rate of Q1 Q0 , so the total flowrate is
Q( t > t1) = Q0 + (Q1 Q0 ) = Q1.
(4)
The drawdown in the general case in which flowrate Qi commences at time ti can therefore be represented by
cR 2 cR 2 Q0 ( Q Q ) i i 1 . P( R, t ) = Ei Ei 4kH 4kt i =1 4kH 4 k( t t i )
(5)
We can simplify the notation by defining the pressure drawdown per unit of flowrate, with production starting at t = 0, as PQ(t). For the line-source in an infinite reservoir, this definition takes the form
PQ (R, t )
P( R, t ; Q)
Q
cR2 , Ei 4kH 4kt
(6)
with the understanding that PQ(t) = 0 when t < 0. Using definition (6), the drawdown in a multi-rate test can be written as
P( R, t ) = Q0 PQ (R, t ) + (Qi Qi 1) PQ ( R, t t i ) .
i =1
(7)
Section 3 Page 55
3.4. Convolution and variable-rate flow tests The superposition formula (3.3.7) can be generalised further, to the case where the flowrate at the well is some arbitrary (but continuous) function of time, Q(t). We first note that an arbitrary production schedule can always be approximated by a discrete number of time periods during which the flowrate is constant, as shown in Fig. 3.4.1:
Q
Q4
Q0
t0
t1
t2
t3
t4
t5
Fig. 3.4.1. Variable-rate production approximated by multi-rate production. Now recall that the time derivative of the flowrate can be approximated as
dQ Q Qi Qi 1 = . dt t t t i t i 1
i
(1)
Conversely, the flowrate increment can be approximated by

Qi Qi 1 dQ(t i ) [t i t i 1 ] . dt
(2)
Using this approximation in eq. (3.3.7) gives

Section 3 Page 56
P( R, t ) = Q0 PQ (R, t ) +
dQ( t i ) PQ ( R, t t i )[ t i t i 1 ] . (3) dt i =1
We now simplify the notation by rewriting eq. (3) in the following equivalent form:
P( R, t ) = Q0 PQ (R, t ) + Q (t i ) PQ (R, t t i )t i .
i =1
(4)
As we make each time increment smaller, approximation (1) becomes more accurate, and the step-function approximation to Q(t) also becomes more accurate. In the limit as each time increment goes to zero, the errors due to these approximations will vanish. But as the time increments get smaller, the series in eq. (4) becomes an integral with respect to ti:
P( R, t ) = Q0 PQ (R, t ) + Q ( t i )PQ (R, t t i )dt i .

ti = 0
ti = t
(5)
The integral in eq. (5) ends at ti = t, because when ti > t, the function PQ(t-ti) is zero, by definition. Physically, this reflects the fact that a change in flowrate that occurs at a time later than t cannot possibly have an effect on the drawdown at time t. Finally, we note that in the limit as each of the time increments become infinitely small, the finite number of times that we were denoting by ti evolve into a continuous variable, which we will denote by . The drawdown can then be written as
P( R, t ) = Q0 PQ (R, t ) +
dQ( ) PQ (R, t )d . d 0
t
(6)
The integral in eq. (6) is known as a convolution integral. Formula (6) is also known as Duhamels principle, after the French
Section 3 Page 57
physicist who first derived this equation in 1833 (in the context of solving heat conduction problems). The importance of eq. (6) is that it allows us to find the drawdown for any production schedule, by merely performing a single integral utilising the constant-flowrate solution. The principle also works for other boundary-value problems that are governed by a linear PDE. For example, if we have a reservoir with, say, a closed outer boundary (see section 6), then we need only to find the solution for the case of constant flowrate in a reservoir with a closed outer boundary; the solution for a variable flowrate then follows from eq. (6), with the constant-flowrate solution playing the role of the function PQ. Another form of the convolution integral that is sometimes more convenient to use can be derived by applying integration-byparts to the integral in (6). First, recall that the general expression for integration by parts is
t t dg( ) df ( ) d = f ( )g ( ) 0 g( ) d . f ( ) d d 0 0 t
(7)
We now put f ( ) = PQ (R, t ) and g ( ) = Q ( ) , in which case (6) becomes
P( R, t ) = Q0 PQ (R, t ) + Q( )PQ (R, t )]

t
Q( )
0
dPQ (R, t ) d d
(8)
= Q0 PQ (R, t ) + Q( t ) PQ (R,0) Q(0)PQ (R, t ) Q( )

0
dPQ (R, t ) d . d
Section 3 Page 58
But Q(0) = Q0 , by definition, so the first and third terms on the right cancel out. And PQ (R,0) is the drawdown at time zero, which must be zero, so the second term drops out. Using the chain rule we can see that
dPQ (R, t ) dPQ (R, t ) = , d dt in which case (8) can finally be written as
(9)
P( R, t ) = Q( )
0
dPQ (R, t ) d . dt
(10)
______________________________________________ Tutorial Sheet 3: (1) Which, if any, of the following differential equations are linear, and why (or why not)? (a) (b) (c)
d2y dy +y + y = 0. 2 dx dx d2y dy +x + y = 0. 2 dx dx d2y dy +x + xy = 0 . dx dx 2
(2) What would be the wellbore pressure in a well in an infinite reservoir, if the production rate increases linearly as a function of time according to Q(t) = Q t / t , where Q and t are constants? * * * * Use convolution, in the form of either (3.4.6) or (3.4.10), and recall that PQ(R,t) for a well in an infinite reservoir is given by eq. (3.3.6).
Section 4 Page 59
4.
Effects of Faults and Linear Boundaries
4.1. Superposition of solutions in space In section 3.1 we saw that if we add together two different line-source solutions that start at different times, we still have a legitimate solution to the diffusion equation. We can also add together solutions that represent line-sources that are located at different places in space, and the sum will represent a solution to the diffusion equation. The most simple and straightforward example of the use of spatial superposition is for the problem of two wells located in an infinite reservoir, as shown in Fig. 4.1.1. Well 1 is located at point A, and the distance from A to a generic point in the reservoir is denoted by R1. Well 2 is located at point B, and the distance from B to a generic point in the reservoir is denoted by R2. Well 1 starts producing at rate Q1 at time t1, and well 2 starts producing at rate Q2, starting at time t2.
R2 R1 Well 2 Well 1 k,,,c,H
Fig. 4.1.1. Two wells producing from an infinite, homogeneous reservoir. We now claim that the drawdown at any point in the reservoir at time t is given by the sum of the two line-source solutions:
cR 2 Q cR 2 Q1 2 1 2 . + P( R, t ) = Pi + Ei Ei 4 kH 4 k( t t 1) 4 kH 4k (t t 2 )
(1)
Section 4 Page 60
To prove that this is indeed the proper solution to this problem, we note that: (1) The line-source solution for well 1 satisfies the diffusion equation at all points in the reservoir (except at R1 = 0, where it gives an infinite drawdown), and at all times. Similarly for the second line-source solution. Hence, their sum satisfies the diffusion equation at all times, and at all points except R1 = 0 and R2 = 0. But these two points are not actually located in the reservoir, so we dont care that the diffusion equation is not satisfied there! (2) Both line-source solutions satisfy the initial condition of zero drawdown, so their sum also satisfies this initial condition. (3) Both line-source solutions satisfy the far-field boundary condition that the drawdown is zero at infinity, so their sum also satisfies this boundary condition, i.e.,
P( R , t ) = Pi +
Q Q Ei ( )+ Ei ()= Pi , 4 kH 4 kH
(2)
because, as can be seen from Table 2.1.1, Ei(-x) goes to zero as x becomes very large. Hence, it seems that the drawdown given by eq. (1) is the correct solution for the two-well problem. Obviously, spatial superposition can be used for any number of wells. The principle of superposition can also be used in conjunction with the concept of fictitious wells, or image wells, to solve problems such as finding the effect of a nearby impermeable fault, as explained in the next section.
Section 4 Page 61
4.2. Effect of an impermeable vertical fault Hydrocarbon reservoirs are often transected by numerous faults, many of which are nearly vertical. Due to mineral deposition on the fault surfaces, accumulation of fault gouge, and other geological processes, faults are often impermeable to flow. In order to properly interpret the results of well tests, it is important to understand the effect that an impermeable linear boundary will have on a drawdown test. It is therefore desirable to find the solution for the problem of constant-rate production from a well located in an infinite, homogeneous reservoir that is bounded on one side by a vertical fault of infinite extent that is impermeable to flow. This solution can easily be found from the Theis solution for a well in an infinite (unbounded) reservoir, by using the principle of superposition. Consider a well located at a perpendicular distance (i.e., nearest distance) d from an impermeable fault, which appears in planview as a straight line that extends infinitely far in both directions, as in Fig. 4.2.1. This well produces fluid at a constant rate Q, starting at t = 0. Now imagine a fictitious image well that is situated as the mirror image of the first well (i.e., at a distance d on the other side of the fault) which also produces at rate Q starting at t = 0, as in Fig. 4.2.1. By the symmetry of this situation, no fluid will cross the plane of the fault. Hence, this plane will effectively act as a no-flow boundary. We therefore have found the solution for a well near an impermeable fault!
Section 4 Page 62
R1 d Actual Well k,,,c,H
R2 d Image Well Impermeable fault
Fig. 4.2.1. Use of an image well to solve problem of a well near an impermeable fault. The pressure drawdown in this situation is the superposition of the drawdown due to the actual well, plus the drawdown due to the fictitious image well:
cR2 cR 2 Q Q 1 2 . + P( R, t ) = Pi + Ei Ei 4 kH 4kt 4 kH 4kt
(1)
To find the pressure in the wellbore, we put

R1 = Rw , R2 = 2d Rw 2d ,
(2)
in which case eq. (1) becomes

cR 2 c(2d ) 2 Q Q w + . (3) Pw (t ) = Pi + Ei Ei 4 kH 4 kt 4 kH 4kt
There are several time regimes to consider:
Section 4 Page 63
(i) There is an early time regime, during which the logarithmic approximation is not yet valid for the actual well solution (nor for the image-well solution). From eq. (2.4.7) this regime is defined by
2 25cR w t< , k
or
t Dw < 25 .
(4)
In this regime, we would have to use the full infinite series expansion for the exponential integral function. However, we saw in Section 2.3 that the duration of this regime is usually very short, so there is no need for us to study it further.
(ii) There is another regime in which the logarithmic approximation can be used for the well solution, but the drawdown in the wellbore due to the image solution is still negligible. The start of this regime is defined by eq. (4), i.e.,
2 25cR w t> , k
or
t Dw > 25 .
(5)
This regime ends when the front edge of the pressure pulse from the image well reaches the actual well (which is a distance 2d away). We can consider that this occurs when the second Ei function in eq. (3) reaches, say, 0.01. According to Table 2.1.1, this occurs when the argument of the Ei function reaches about 3.3. Therefore, the upper limit of this time regime is defined by
Section 4 Page 64
0.3cd 2 t< , k
or
t Dw < 0.3(d / Rw )2 .
(6)
In this regime, the pressure in the well is given by

2.246kt Q . Pw (t ) = Pi ln 2 4 kH cRw
(7)
i.e., this is the drawdown that would occur in the absence of the fault, because in this time regime the actual pressure pulse has not yet had time to travel to the fault and reflect back to the wellbore (where it can be detected).
In particular, during this regime the slope of the wellbore

pressure curve on a semi-log plot will be
dPw Pw Q = = . d ln t ln t 4 kH
(8)
(iii) There is a late time regime during which the logarithmic approximation is valid for both the actual well solution, and the image well solution.
This regime is defined by

25c (2d )2 t> , k or t Dw > 100(d / Rw ) 2 .
(9)
In this regime, the pressure in the well is

2.246kt 2.246kt Q Q Pw (t ) = Pi ln ln 2 2 4 kH cRw 4 kH c(2d )
Section 4 Page 65
2.246k 2.246k Q + ln t + ln = Pi ln t + ln 2 2 4 kH cRw c 4d
2.246k 2.246k Q + ln . = Pi 2ln t + ln cR 2 2 4 kH c 4d w
(10)
This equation will also yield a straight line on a plot of Pw vs. lnt, but with a slope that is twice that of the earlier slope:
dPw Pw 2 Q Q = = = . d ln t ln t 4 kH 2 kH
(11)
The occurrence of a doubling of the slope of Pw vs. lnt is an

indication of a nearby impermeable boundary! Moreover, the distance from the production well to the fault can be estimated from the transition time between the regime when eq. (7) is applicable, to the regime when eq. (10) becomes applicable (see module 2.1.6). Physical Explanation: Because of the impermeable boundary, oil is being produced from a semi-infinite reservoir, rather than an infinite reservoir. Hence, we expect that only half as much oil will be produced, for a given wellbore pressure. So, in order to maintain a constant flowrate, we must double the pressure drawdown!
Section 4 Page 66
4.3. Two intersecting impermeable faults The method of images that was used in section 4.2 to study the effect of a single fault can also be used to study the effect of two or more intersecting faults. For example, consider a well located equidistant from two impermeable faults that intersect at a right angle, as in Fig. 4.3.1:
Reservoir: k,, ,c,H Well d Impermeable faults
Fig. 4.3.1. Well located near two intersecting faults. To solve this problem, imagine that the reservoir is laterally infinite in extent, and has no impermeable boundaries. We want the locations of the actual impermeable boundaries to correspond to no-flow boundaries in our fictitious unbounded reservoir. This will be the case if we have vertical and a horizontal lines of symmetry located at distances d from the actual well. This can be accomplished by introducing the following three images wells:
Section 4 Page 67
Image Well 1 d d
Actual Well
Symmetry lines d
d d Image Well 2 d
Image Well 3
Fig. 4.3.2. Use of image wells to solve problem of a well near two intersecting impermeable faults. Image wells 1 and 3 are both at a distance of 2d from the actual well, whereas the distance to image well 2 is 22d. Hence, to the line-source solution for the actual well we must add three more line-source solutions, as follows:
cR2 2 2 4 kH [Pw ( t )Pi ] w + 2Ei c 4d + Ei c8d . (1) = Ei 4kt 4kt 4kt Q
Recalling the definitions of dimensionless time and dimensionless drawdown given in section 2.2, we can write eq. (1) in dimensionless form as
PDw
( d / R )2 1 2(d / R ) 2 1 1 w w = Ei Ei Ei . 2 4t Dw 2 t t Dw Dw
(2)
Section 4 Page 68
The wellbore pressure will exhibit an early stage in which the effect of the image wells is not yet apparent, and the semi-log slope of the wellbore pressure vs. time curve will be -Q/4kH. Eventually, at a sufficiently long time such that the drawdown in the actual well due to production from all four wells can be approximated by the logarithmic approximation, the semi-log slope will be four times greater in magnitude, i.e., -Q/kH. Note that application of the method of images is not quite as simple as saying if we had one impermeable boundary we added in one image well, so for two impermeable boundaries we add two image wells; this statement might seem logical, but it is not correct. The trick is to place image wells so as to create a fictitious unbounded reservoir that has the proper symmetry in its flow field. Several other examples of the use of the method of images (two infinite parallel faults, two faults intersecting at 45o, etc.) can be found in the book Well Testing in Heterogeneous Formations, by T. D. Streltsova (Wiley, 1988). 4.4. Linear constant-pressure boundaries Another situation that sometimes arises in reservoirs is that of a linear constant-pressure boundary. This boundary may, for example, be formed by a gas cap that borders a slightly dipping oil reservoir. The effect that such a boundary has on a drawdown test can also be studied by using the method of images. Imagine an image well, located as in Fig. 4.2.1, but injecting fluid at a rate Q. Again, we ignore the actual constant-pressure boundary, and assume that the actual well and the image well are located in an infinite reservoir. By superposition, the drawdown at a generic location in the reservoir will be
Section 4 Page 69
cR2 cR 2 Q Q 1 2. P( R, t ) = Pi + Ei Ei 4 kH 4kt 4 kH 4 kt
(1)
Now consider a point on the mid-plane between the two wells. At such a point, R1 = R2 , and so eq. (1) gives
cR2 cR 2 Q 1 1 . Ei P(midplane, t ) = Pi + Ei 4 kH 4kt 4 kt
= Pi
for all t,
(2)
proving that the midplane is indeed a constant-pressure boundary. Now, consider the pressure drawdown in the actual well, which is found by setting R1 = Rw and R2 = 2d - Rw = 2d:
cR2 c (2d )2 Q Q w . P( R, t ) = Pi + Ei 4 kH Ei 4 kH 4 kt 4 kt
(3)
Again, aside from a very-early time regime defined by eq. (4.2.4), which we ignore, we have, in analogy with eqs. (4.2.5,6), a regime defined by tDw > 25 and
0.3cd 2 t< , k or t Dw < 0.3(d / Rw )2 ,
(4)
during which the effect of the image well has not yet been felt in the actual well, and so the pressure in the well is given by
2.246kt Q . Pw (t ) = Pi ln 2 4 kH cRw
(5)
Section 4 Page 70
There is a late-time regime during which the logarithmic approximation is valid (in the production well) for both the actual line-source solution and the image line-source solution. In analogy with eq. (4.2.9), this regime is defined by
25c (2d )2 t> , k or t Dw > 100(d / Rw ) 2 .
(6)
In this regime, the pressure in the well is given by

2.246kt 2.246kt Q Q Pw (t ) = Pi ln ln + 2 2 4 kH cRw 4 kH c(2d ) 2.246k 2.246k Q = Pi ln t + ln ln t ln 2 2 4 kH cRw c (2d ) 2.246k Q 2 ) ln 2.246k + ln (2d )2 ln( R = Pi ln w 4 kH c c
{ }
(7)
Q Q 2d 2 = Pi ln (2d / Rw ) = Pi ln . 4 kH R 2 kH w
In this case, the pressure in the production well eventually stabilises to a constant value. The steady-state value of the drawdown is a function of the dimensionless distance to the boundary (relative to the wellbore radius).
Section 4 Page 71
Recall that the slope of Pw vs. lnt was -Q/4kH for a well in an infinite reservoir. An impermeable linear boundary eventually causes an additional slope of -Q/4kH, leading to a total latetime slope of -Q/2kH. On the other hand, a constant-pressure linear boundary causes and additional slope of +Q/4kH, leading to a late-time slope of 0:
Dimensionless drawdown, Pw
0 t Dw ~ 1.781(d/Rw ) 2 5 10 15 20 10-1
infinite reservoir impermeable fault constant-pressure boundary
101
103
105
107
109
Dimensionless time, tDw
Fig. 4.4.1. Wellbore pressure for a well near a vertical fault.
Section 4 Page 72
____________________________________________________ Tutorial Sheet 4: (1) As explained in Section 4.2, a doubling of the slope on a semilog plot of drawdown vs. time indicates the presence of an impermeable linear fault. The drawdown data can also be used to find the distance from the well to the fault, as follows. If we plot the data and then fit two straight lines through the early-time and late-time data, the time at which these lines intersect is called tD w. Show that the distance to the fault can then be found from the following equation:
d = 0.749 (t D w )1/2Rw .
(2) The curves in Fig. 4.4.1 were actually drawn for the case d/Rw = 200. What would the curves look like for the case of a fault located at a distance d = 400Rw? (3) Consider a well located equidistant from two orthogonal boundaries, as in Fig. 4.3.1, but imagine that the boundaries are constant-pressure boundaries, rather than impermeable boundaries. How would you utilise the method of images to find the drawdown in this well?
Section 5 Page 73
5.
Inner (Wellbore) Boundary Conditions
In the line-source solution that we have been discussing thus far, the effect of the borehole itself is actually ignored - the borehole is idealised as an infinitely-thin line. In this section, we will examine two physical phenomena associated with the borehole that necessitate a more detailed analysis of the diffusion equation. One of these phenomena is the existence of a zone of altered permeability around the borehole; the second is the effect of transient fluid storage within the borehole itself. 5.1. Wellbore skin concept - steady-state model The solutions to the diffusion equation that were presented in previous sections were all based on the assumption that the permeability of the reservoir is uniform in space. However, it is often the case that the rock immediately surrounding the wellbore has a lower permeability than the remainder of the reservoir, for various reasons: (1) (2) (3) Infiltration of drilling mud into the formation, which clogs up the pores of the rock. Swelling of clays in the formation due to contact with drilling fluid. Incomplete perforation of the casing, which causes the flowpaths of the fluid to be constricted as they approach the wellbore. This has an effect that is similar to that caused by a low-permeability zone near the wellbore.
To account for these possibilities, we introduce the concept of wellbore skin, which can be thought of as a thin annular region surrounding the borehole in which the permeability ks is lower than that of the undamaged reservoir rock, as illustrated schematically in Fig. 5.1.1.
Section 5 Page 74
Reservoir, kR Skin Zone, ks Rw

Pw
P=Po
Rs
Ro
Fig. 5.1.1. Skin surrounding a wellbore. The permeability in this idealised composite reservoir is discontinuous, with k(R) given by
Rw < R < Rs Rs < R < Ro k = ks , k = kR .
(1) (2)
To quantify the effect of the wellbore skin, consider the steady-state radial flow model presented in section 1.4. The governing equation is the radial version of Darcys law:
Q= 2kH R dP , dR
(3)
where we use the convention that Q > 0 for production. We can separate the variables of eq. (3), and then integrate from R = Rw to R = Ro , bearing in mind that k depends on R:
1 dR 2H = dP Q k R
Section 5 Page 75
1 dR Ro 1 dR Po 2H + = dP Q k k R R Rw s Rs R Pw
Rs
1 Ro 2H 1 Rs ln + ln = ( P Pw ) ks Rw k R Rs Q o
1 kR 1 kR
R k R 2H ln o + R ln s = ( Po Pw ) Rs ks Rw Q
R Rs k R Rs R s 2 H o ln = + ln + ln ln (Po Pw ) R R k R R Q s w s w w
1 kR
R R k R 2H o s + R 1 s = ln ( Po Pw ) ln R R k R Q s w s w
R 2kR H( Po Pw ) Ro kR = ln + 1 ln s . Q Rw k s Rw
(4)
Equation (4) is identical to eq. (1.4.3), except for the second term on the RHS. This excess dimensionless pressure drop, which is due to the presence of the skin effect, is denoted by s, i.e.,
2kR H( Po Pw ) R = ln o + s . Q Rw
(5)
The effect of the skin is therefore to add an additional component to the pressure drawdown, over-and-above that which is due to the hydraulic resistance of the reservoir itself. The dimensional form of the pressure drawdown in the well can be written as
Section 5 Page 76
Pw = Po
Q Ro ln + s , 2k RH Rw
(6)
k R R 1 s where s = k ln R . s w
(7)
The additional pressure drop caused by the skin is
Ps =
Qs . 2k RH
(8)
Eq. (7) shows that if the permeability in the damaged zone is reduced, or the thickness of the damaged zone is increased, the skin effect will increase. The value of the skin factor is usually less than 20. On the other hand, well stimulation (i.e., acidising) can increase the near-wellbore permeability, and give rise to a negative skin factor; a practical lower limit to s is about -5. The following schematic illustration of the wellbore skin effect is based on a figure from Pressure Transient Analysis by Stanislav and Kabir (Prentice-Hall, 1990):
Wellbore
Damaged Zone
w/o skin
w/ skin Rw Rs
Ps
Fig. 5.1.2. Effect of skin on pressure drawdown near a well.

Section 5 Page 77
Another interpretation of the skin effect is based on the observation that the effect of skin is the same as the effect of having a smaller wellbore radius, i.e., it reduces the flow, for a given pressure drawdown. Hence, we can write eq. (6) as
Q Ro s ln Pw = Po ln(e ) 2k RH Rw
R Q o = Po ln s 2kR H Rwe R Q = Po ln o , eff 2kR H Rw
(9)
where Rw = Rwe
eff
eff
(10)
Rw can be thought of as the hypothetical wellbore radius (in an undamaged formation) that would lead to the same drawdown as is actually observed in the well that is surrounded by the damaged formation.
[However, this interpretation general it is not correct to radius with the effective interpretation only applies reservoir.]
is potentially misleading, because in merely replace the actual wellbore radius given in eq. (10). This to drawdown tests in an infinite
Section 5 Page 78
5.2. Effect of skin on drawdown tests The preceding derivation was carried out under the steadystate assumption. However, the thickness of the skin region is usually small, and so transient effects due to the skin region will die out rapidly. The time required for transient effects to die out within the skin region can be estimated using eq. (1.6.12), with the distance taken to be Rs:
2 (c ) s Rs ts = . 4ks
(1)
If we assume reasonable values of the parameters, such as 10 1, 103 Pas , c 10 9 /Pa , Rs 100 m , and ks 10 15 m2 , we find that t s 25 s . So, after a short period of time, the skin region will be in a quasi-steady regime. If the flowrate into the wellbore is constant, the pressure drop through the skin region will be constant. Therefore, it is usually assumed that, even during a transient well test, the effect of the skin is to contribute an additional pressure drop in the wellbore, as given by eq. (5.1.8). For example, the drawdown in an infinite reservoir producing at a constant rate, with a skin region around the wellbore, is found by subtracting the additional skin-related pressure drop given by eq. (5.1.8) from the usual line-source solution:
cR 2 Q w + 2 s , Pw = Pi Ei 4kH 4kt
(2)
where we now revert to using k instead of kR to denote the reservoir permeability, since the permeability kS is absorbed into the skin factor, s.
Section 5 Page 79
If t is large enough that the logarithmic approximation can be used for the Ei function, the drawdown will be given by
kt Q + 0.80907 + 2s , Pw = Pi ln 2 4kH cRw
(3)
or,
Q 2.246e 2s kt . Pw = Pi ln 2 4kH cRw
(4)
It is clear from eq. (3) that the skin will have no effect on the semi-log slope of pressure vs. lnt, but it will shift the entire drawdown curve downward by a constant amount. The skin factor can be found by proper interpretation of a pressure buildup test. Incorporating the skin effect into the equation for the buildup pressure, eq. (3.2.5), gives
2s 2.246e kt Q 2.246e 2s k (t + t ) ln Pw = Pi ln 2 2 4kH cRw cR w
Q t + t Pw = Pi ln . 4kH t
(5)
The two skin terms cancel out, and do not appear in the equation for the wellbore pressure. Now consider the difference between the wellbore pressure immediately before shut-in, which we will call Pw , and the + wellbore pressure a short time after shut-in, Pw . Using eq. (4) for + Pw , and eq. (5) for Pw , we find
Section 5 Page 80
+ Pw
Pw
Q t + t Q 2.246e 2s kt = ln + 4kH ln 2 4kH t cRw

2.246k Q t + t 2s . = ln ln 2 4kH tt cRw
(6)
For times shortly after shut-in, t is small, and (t + t ) / t 1, so eq. (6) reduces to
+ Pw Pw
2.246k Q + 2s . = ln t + ln 2 4kH cRw
(7)
Eq. (7) gives us an equation that can be solved for s. In practice, however, we cant use the pressure at a time immediately after shut-in in eq. (7), for several reasons: (a) Wellbore storage effects, (called afterproduction in the case of a buildup test), will cause the actual pressure drawdown measured at the bottom of the borehole to deviate from that predicted by the equations used above, for a certain period of time (see section 5.3 below). (b) Eq. (5) made use of the logarithmic approximation to the exponential integral function; this approximation is only valid after a sufficiently long elapsed time after shut-in. It is traditional practice to use eq. (7) with Pw evaluated after one-hour of shut-in time; this value was originally chosen because, when using oilfield units, lnt = ln1 = 0 when t = 1 hour. However, in many cases one hour is not enough time for afterproduction to cease and radial flow to be established.
Section 5 Page 81
Therefore, we must extrapolate the straight-line portion of the + Horner plot back to t = 1 hour, and use that pressure for Pw . Use of buildup data to estimate the skin factor will be illustrated in more detail in the Well Test Analysis module. 5.3. Wellbore storage phenomena The pressure drawdown is usually measured at the bottom of the borehole, whereas the flowrate is usually measured at the wellhead. The flowrate Q in our equations, however, refers to the sandface flowrate from the reservoir into the borehole. In a quasisteady situation, the measured wellhead flowrate will be identical to the influx from the reservoir. Immediately after a change in flowrate, such as after the start of a drawdown test, or after shut-in, these two flowrates will be different. The difference is due to the fact that the fluid in the borehole is compressing (or expanding) due to the changing pressure to which it is subjected. For example, imagine that we begin to withdraw fluid at time t = 0 at rate Qwh that is measured at the wellhead. Initially, the fluid that flows at the wellhead is taken mainly from the wellbore itself; only gradually does this fluid begin to be supplied by the reservoir. Eventually, the fluid in the wellbore reaches a quasisteady state, and all of the flow measured at the wellhead does in fact emanate from the reservoir. After this time, Qwh = Qsf . Conversely, if a well that is producing at a constant rate is shut in, fluid will continue to enter the borehole from the reservoir, even though it is not allowed to flow out at the wellhead. This additional fluid will be restricted to the wellbore; as the mass of the fluid in the wellbore increases, the wellbottom pressure will gradually increase. These two situations are illustrated in Fig. 5.3.1, modified from p. 43 of Stanislav and Kabir:
Section 5 Page 82
Buildup
Drawdown
Flow Rate Qwh Qsf
Flow Rate
Qwh Qsf
Time
Time
Fig. 5.3.1. Effect of wellbore storage on pressure tests. We can begin to analyse the effect of wellbore storage effect by taking a mass balance on the fluid in the wellbore, along the lines of that given for the reservoir in section 1.5. Assuming that the wellbore is completely filled with a single-phase liquid, then: Mass flux in - Mass flux out = rate of change of mass storage i.e.,
f Qsf f Qwh =
d ( f Vw ) , dt
(1)
where Vw is the volume of the wellbore. If we assume uniform pressure and uniform density of the fluid within the wellbore, we have
f (Qsf Qwh ) = Vw
d f d dPw dPw = Vw f = Vw f cf , dt dPw dt dt dPw dP Cs w , dt dt
Qsf Qwh = Vwcf
(2)
where Cs is the wellbore storage coefficient., and Vw is the total volume of fluid within the wellbore, from the wellbottom to the
Section 5 Page 83
surface. [If the wellbore is not fully filled with liquid, the appropriate expression for Cs can be found in Advances in Well Test Analysis by Earlougher (SPE, 1977)]. At early times after the start of a constant-rate drawdown test, Qwh = Q (the nominal flowrate), but Qsf 0 , so eq. (2) takes the form
dPw . (3) dt Eq. (3) can be integrated, using the initial condition that Pw = Pi when t = 0: Q = Cs
Pw (t ) Q dt = dPw C P 0 s
i
Pw = Pi
Qt . Cs
(4)
Eq. (4) can be written in dimensionless form as follows: (1) Rewrite eq. (4) in terms of the dimensionless pressure:
PDw = 2kH (Pi Pw ) 2kHQt = . Q QCs
(5)
(2)
Express the RHS of eq. (5) in terms of tD:

PDw
2t 2kHQ ct Rw t Dw = Dw , QCs k CD
(6)
where the dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient CD is defined by

CD =
Cs
2 2Hct Rw
,
(7)
Section 5 Page 84
with ct being the total reservoir compressibility. Aside from the factor of 2, CD is the ratio of the storativity of the borehole to the storativity of the rock that had occupied the borehole before it was drilled. On a log-log plot, eq. (6) takes the form
ln PDw = ln t Dw ln CD , d ln PDw = 1. d ln t Dw
(8)
A slope of unity occurring at early times on a log-log plot (dimensionless or not) of wellbore pressure vs. time is therefore an indicator of a pressure response that is dominated by wellborestorage effects. 5.4. Effect of wellbore storage on pressure tests The preceding analysis focused on fluid produced from wellbore storage, and neglected flow from the reservoir into the wellbore. In reality, fluid is supplied to the wellhead by wellbore storage at early times, but these effects gradually die out as the flow regime in the wellbore reaches a steady-state. An analysis that includes both contributions to the measured well-head flowrate Qwh, i.e., from the wellbore storage and from the reservoir, can be carried out by solving eq. (2.1.1), with the inner boundary condition, eq. (2.1.3), replaced by (see eq. (5.3.2)):
2kH dP dP R = Qwh + Cs . dt dR Rw Rw
(10)
This problem has been solved by Wattenbarger and Ramey (SPEJ, 1970) using finite differences, and by Agarwal et al. (SPEJ, 1970) using Laplace transforms. The analysis shows that there are three regimes of behaviour for a well in an infinite reservoir, with skin and wellbore storage:
Section 5 Page 85
An early-time regime that is dominated by wellbore storage,

during which the drawdown is given by eq. (6). The duration of this regime is defined by
t Dw < CD (0.04 + 0.02s) .
(11)
A transition regime during which both wellbore storage and

reservoir inflow contribute to the wellhead flowrate. The duration of this regime is defined by
CD (0.04 + 0.02s ) < t Dw < CD (60 + 3.5s ) .
(12)
A third regime during which wellbore storage effects have died

off, and the drawdown is given by eq. (5.2.4). The duration of this regime is defined by
t Dw > CD (60 + 3.5s ) .
(13)
Criterion (13) can be used to estimate when the drawdown curve can be aproximated by the logarithmic equation (5.2.4). During a build-up test, however, the time required in order to reach a straight line on the Horner plot is best estimated by the following equation, found by Chen and Brigham (JPT, 1978): tDw > 50 CD exp(0.14s).
10 10 102 1
(14)
P Dw
0.1
103
104
CD=105
0.01 102 103 104 105
(s = 0) 106 107
tDw
Fig. 5.4.1. Effect of wellbore storage on drawdown.

Section 6 Page 86
6.
Outer Boundary Conditions
6.1. Well at the centre of a circular reservoir with constant pressure on its outer boundary and constant wellbore pressure Thus far, we have assumed that our wells are located in an infinite (or at least semi-infinite) reservoir. In reality, the reservoir is always of finite size, and the pressure disturbance will eventually reach some outer boundary that effectively encloses the reservoir. This outer boundary may be an aquifer, i.e., a vast expanse of water-filled rock that surrounds the hydrocarbon-filled reservoir. In this case, the appropriate outer boundary condition may be one of constant pressure. On the other hand, if a number of wells are producing from the same reservoir, each will drain fluid from only a finite region, and so each well will effectively behave as if it were surrounded by a no-flow boundary, as illustrated in Fig. 6.1.1. (The effective drainage area of each well will depend on the production rate of that well, and of all nearby wells.)
Outer boundary of reservoir
Wells
No-flow boundaries
Fig. 6.1.1. Reservoir with several production wells.
Section 6 Page 87
Problems involving wells producing from a finite, bounded drainage area can be solved using either of two mathematical techniques: Laplace transforms, or the method of eigenfunction expansions. Laplace transforms will be discussed in section 7. In this section we use the method of eigenfunction expansions to solve the problem of a well located at the centre of a circular reservoir, with its outer boundary maintained at constant pressure, and with a constant borehole pressure. This is by no means the most important of such problems, but it will allow us to develop the method of eigenfunction expansions in a (relatively) simple context. The first point to note is that the Boltzmann transformation is of no use in bounded-reservoir problems. The reason that it worked in the infinite-reservoir case is that the initial condition, at t = 0, and the outer boundary condition, at R , both correspond to the same limit , and both also correspond to the initial pressure, Pi. This collapsing of two conditions into one equivalent condition allowed us to replace a 2nd-order PDE (which requires 2 BCs + 1 IC = 3 conditions) with a 2nd-order ODE (which requires a total of 2 subsidiary conditions). This does not occur in the bounded-reservoir problem, because the outer BC is imposed at R = Re , and R = Re does not correspond to a fixed value of the Boltzmann variable, . (In general, a Boltzmann-type transformation will not work in a problem that contains a natural length scale, such as a wellbore radius or an outer radius; the problem of an infinitely-small linesource in an infinite reservoir had no natural length scale associated with it.)
Section 6 Page 88
So, now let us imagine that we have a well at the centre of a circular reservoir, which is initially at pressure Pi . At time t = 0, the pressure in the wellbore is immediately lowered to some value Pw , and it is maintained at that value (see Fig. 6.1.2). (In contrast to previous problems, in which the flowrate was controlled, and we calculated the drawdown, in this problem the drawdown in the well is specified, and we must calculate the flowrate).
Reservoir P=Pw Rw R Re P=Pi
Fig. 6.1.2. Circular reservoir with constant-pressure inner and outer boundaries. This problem can be stated mathematically as: Governing PDE:
1 d dP c dP R = , dR R dR k dt P( R = Rw, t ) = Pw , P( R = Re, t ) = Pi , P( R, t = 0) = Pi .
(1)
BC at wellbore: BC at outer boundary: Initial condition:
(2) (3) (4)
Section 6 Page 89
The first step in solving this problem is to simplify its appearance by introducing dimensionless variables. Define Dimensionless radius: Dimensionless time:
RD = R / Rw , tD = kt , 2 cRw
(5) (6)
Dimensionless drawdown:
PD =
Pi P . Pi Pw
(7)
(Note that the production rate Q is unknown a priori, so we cant define PD as we did before, in terms of Q.) In terms of these variables, eqs. (1-4) take the form Governing PDE:
1 d dP dP RD D = D , RD dRD dRD dt D
(8)
PD (RD = Rw / Rw = 1, t D ) = 1, PD (RD = Re / Rw RDe , t D ) = 0 , PD (RD, t D = 0) = 0 .
(9) (10) (11)
We next invoke the principle of superposition to break up the s (R ) , and a transient part, pressure into a steady-state part, PD D pD (RD , t D ) :
s ( R ) + p (R , t ) . PD (RD, t D ) = PD D D D D
(12)
Section 6 Page 90
By definition, the steady-state pressure function must satisfy eq. (8), as well as both BCs, (9) and (10). The time derivative is zero for the steady-state part, so the actual governing differential s (R ) is eq. (8) with the RHS set to zero. equation for PD D
s (R ) is governed by Therefore, PD D
Governing ODE:
s dPD 1 d = 0, RD dRD RD dRD

s PD ( RD = 1) = 1 ,
(13)
BC at wellbore: BC at outer boundary:
(14) (15)
s PD (RD = RDe ) = 0 .
Integrate eq. (13) once to get (i.e., an indefinite integral):

s dPD RD = B = constant . dRD
(16)
Separate the variables in eq. (16) and integrate again:

s PD (RD )
s dPD
RD
dR B R D + A, D
s PD ( RD ) = B ln RD + A .
(17)
Comparison of eq. (17) with eqs. (14) and (15) shows that A = 1 and B = 1/ ln RDe , so eq. (17) can be written as
s PD ( RD ) = 1
ln RD ln(RD / RDe ) = . ln RDe ln RDe

(18)
Section 6 Page 91
Note 1: The steady-state solution satisfies the diffusion equation (8), and the boundary conditions (9,10), but it doesnt satisfy the initial condition (11); this is why we also need the transient component of the solution. Note 2: Eq. (18) is just the Thiem equation, eq. (1.4.3), in a dimensionless form. If we substitute (12) into eqs. (8-11), and make use of eq. (18), we see that the transient pressure function must satisfy Governing PDE:
1 d dp dp RD D = D , RD dRD dRD dt D
pD (RD = 1, t D ) = 0 , pD (RD = RDe , t D ) = 0 , pD (RD , t = 0) =
(19)
(20) (21) (22)
ln(RD / RDe ) . ln RDe
Thus far, we have transformed a diffusion equation with a nonzero BC, eq. (9), and zero IC, eq. (11), into a diffusion equation with zero BC and a nonzero IC, eq. (22). We may not appear to be making progress, but we are, because the eigenfunction method requires zero boundary conditions, but does not require zero initial conditions. To solve eqs. (19-22), we again make use of the superposition principle, and first search for (as many functions as we can find!) that each satisfy eq. (19) and the boundary conditions (20,21); later, we will superpose these functions to satisfy eq. (22).
Section 6 Page 92
(a)
Assume that these functions can be written in the form

pD (RD , t D ) = F(RD )G (t D ) .
(23)
(b)
Insert eq. (23) into eq. (19) to find:

1 d dF dG G (t D ) R = ( ) F R . D D dR dt D D RD dRD
(24)
(c)
Divide through by F( RD )G (t D ) to find:

1 d dF 1 dG R = D . RD F ( RD ) dRD dRD G (t D ) dt D
(25)
(d) The LHS of eq. (25) doesnt depend on tD, and the RHS doesnt depend on RD; since they are equal to each other, they cannot depend on either variable! Hence, each side of eq. (25) must equal a constant, which we call 2 :
1 d RD F ( RD ) dRD dF 1 dG 2 = = R D . dRD G (t D ) dt D
(26)
(e)
The space-dependent part of eq. (26) can be written as

F (RD ) +
1 F (RD ) + 2F( RD ) = 0 . RD
(27)
We now make a change of variables x = RD , after which eq. (27) can be written as
F ( x ) + 1 F ( x ) + F( x ) = 0 . x
(28)
Section 6 Page 93
Eq. (28) is known as a Bessel equation of order zero. It is a 2nd-order ordinary differential equation, so it must have two independent solutions. One solution is readily found by assuming a power-series solution:
F( x ) =
n =0
an x n .
(29)
If we insert eq. (29) into eq. (28), we find
n(n 1)a x
n =0 n
n2
+ nan x
n =0
n2
+ an x n = 0 .
n =0
(30)
In order to have x appear to the nth power in each term, we let n n + 2 in the first two series, which, after combining the first two series and taking the unmatched terms outside of the series, leads to
0a0 x + a1 x + [(n + 2) 2 an+2 + an ]x n = 0 .

2 1 n =0
(31)
The coefficient of each power of x in eq. (31) must be zero. The x 2 term already has a factor of zero, so it will vanish regardless of the choice of a0 ; we may as well pick
a0 = 1.
(32)
In order for the x 1 term to vanish, we must pick

a1 = 0 .
(33)
For all higher-order terms to vanish, eq. (31) shows that the coefficients must satisfy the following recursion relationship:
an +2 =
an . ( n + 2) 2
(34)
Section 6 Page 94
This recursion relationship allows us to generate all subsequent coefficients, starting with the first two coefficients, given by eqs. (32) and (33):
a3 = a5 = a7 = ... = 0 , a2 =
1 1 1 , a4 = , a6 = .... 4 64 2304
(35) (36)
The solution to eq. (28) that is given by eqs. (29), (35) and (36) is known as the Bessel function of the first kind (of order zero), and is denoted by Jo(x):
x2 x4 x6 J 0 ( x) = 1 + + ... , 4 64 2304
or
x2 x4 x6 J 0 ( x) = 1 2 2 + 4 + ... , 2 (1!) 2 (2!) 2 26 (3!) 2
(37)
where n! 1 2 3 ... n is the factorial function. The function J0(x) is similar to a damped cosine function (see Fig. 6.1.3). It starts at J0 (0) = 1, oscillates (but not quite periodically), and then slowly decays to zero according to (see Theory of Bessel Functions, G. N. Watson, 1922, or any book on advanced applied mathematics)
J 0 ( x) 2 cos x asx . x 4
(38)
Section 6 Page 95
1.0 Jo(x) or Y o(x) 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0
Bessel Functions of Order Zero
Jo(x) Yo(x) 0 2 4 x 6 8 10
Fig. 6.1.3. Bessel functions of order zero. The derivation of the second independent solution to eq. (29) entails a somewhat lengthier procedure, because it is not an analytic function (i.e., it is not a pure power series). This solution, called the Bessel function of the second kind (of order zero), is defined by
Y0 ( x ) = ln(x / 2) + ] J0 ( x ) x 2n , [ ( n!) 2 22n 2 2
n= 1
( 1)n hn
(39)
where 0.577 is Eulers constant, and

1 1 + ... + . (40) 2 n This function becomes infinitely negative as x 0 , due to the ln(x) term, then oscillates in a manner similar to J0 ( x ) , and eventually decays to zero according to (Fig. 6.1.3) hn = 1 + Y0 ( x ) 2 sin x x 4 as x .
(41)
Section 6 Page 96
The general solution to eq. (28) can be written as a linear combination of these two kinds of Bessel functions:
F( x ) = AJ0( x ) + BY0 ( x ) .
(42)
Recalling that x = RD , we have

F( RD ) = AJ0 ( RD ) + BY0 ( RD ) .
(43)
Eq. (43) will be a solution to eq. (28) for any value of . However, it will satisfy the boundary conditions (20) and (21) only for certain special values of , which we will now find. Insertion of eq. (43) into BCs (20) and (21) yields
AJ0 ( ) + BY0 ( ) = 0 , AJ0 ( RDe ) + BY0 (RDe ) = 0 .
(44) (45)
These two equations can be written in matrix form as

J 0( ) Y0 ( ) A 0 = . ( R ) Y ( R ) J 0 B 0 De 0 De
(46)
In order for eq. (46) to have non-zero solutions for A and B, the determinant of the matrix must be zero:
J0 ( )Y0 ( RDe ) Y0 ( )J0 ( RDe ) = 0 .
(47)
The values of that satisfy eq. (47) are the eigenvalues of this problem. They will depend on the dimensionless size of the reservoir, RDe = RD / Rw . There will always be an infinite number of eigenvalues, and they can be arranged in order as
Section 6 Page 97
. Each of these eigenvalues eigenfunction (see eq. (43)): is associated with its
(48) own
Fn (RD ) = AnJ0 ( nRD ) + BnY0 ( nRD ) .
(49)
From eq. (44), the constants An and Bn are related by
Bn =
An J 0 (n ) Y0 (n ) ,
(50)
and so eq. (49) can be written as

Fn (RD ) = AnJ0 ( nRD ) An = J 0( n ) Y0 ( nRD ) Y0 ( n )
An Y0 ( n ) J0 (nRD ) J 0( n )Y0 ( nRD ) Y0 ( n )
]
(51)
= Cn Y0 ( n )J 0( nRD ) J0 ( n )Y0 ( nRD ) ,
where the Cn are arbitrary constants, and the functions inside the brackets are the eigenfunctions of this problem. We now return to the time-dependent part of the solution, which, according to eq. (26), must satisfy
dGn = 2 nGn (t D ) . dt D
(52)
The solution to eq. (52) is

Gn (t D ) = e nt D .
2
(53)
Section 6 Page 98
Recalling eq. (23), the most general solution that satisfies the diffusion equation (19) and the BCs (20,21) is given by
pD (RD , t D ) = Y0 ( n )J 0( nRD ) J0 ( n )Y0 ( nRD ) ] e ntD . (54) Cn [
2
n=1
All that remains now is to satisfy the initial condition, eq. (22). Evaluating eq. (54) at t D = 0 , and invoking eq. (22), yields
Y0( n )J0 ( nRD ) J0 (n )Y0( nRD )]= Cn[
n= 1
ln(RD / RDe ) . (55) ln RDe
The constants Cn must be chosen so as to satisfy eq. (55) for all values of the dimensionless radius. This can be done using the orthogonality properties of eigenfunctions (see Muskat, The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids through Porous Media, 1937, chapter 10 for details). The result is
Cn =
J0 (n )J0 ( nRDe ) . 2 2 J0 ( n ) J 0 ( nRDe )
(56)
We now combine the transient and steady-state pressures to find, from eqs. (12), (24), (54) and (56), the complete solution to this problem:
ln( RD / RDe ) J 0 (n ) J 0 (n RDe ) 2 nt D PD ( RD , t D ) = U ( R ) e + 2 n n D 2 ln RDe n =1 J 0 (n ) J 0 (n RDe )
(57)
where
Un (nRD ) = Y0 ( n )J0 ( nRD ) J0 ( n )Y0 ( nRD ) .
This completes the solution to this problem. The dimensional values can be found by recalling eqs. (5-7). The flowrate into the well can be found by differentiating the pressure, and applying Darcys law at the wellbore. A detailed
Section 6 Page 99
analysis (not given here) of the flowrate shows that at early times it is proportional to t -1/2, and it gradually approaches a steadystate value given by eq. (1.4.4). 6.2. Well at the centre of a circular reservoir with constant pressure on its outer boundary and constant flowrate into the wellbore Consider a well at the centre of a circular reservoir, producing fluid at a constant rate, with the pressure at the outer boundary maintained at the initial pressure at all times (see Fig. 6.2.1):
Reservoir Q Rw R Re P=Pi
Fig. 6.2.1. Circular reservoir with constant flowrate, constant pressure at outer boundary. The mathematical formulation of this problem is equivalent to that discussed in section 6.1, except that the inner BC, eq. (6.1.2) is replaced by 2kH dP BC at wellbore: R = Q, (1) dR R =R w where we take Q > 0 if the flow is into the borehole.
Section 6 Page 100
This problem can also be solved using the method of eigenfunction expansions, as in the previous section. The solution is (Muskat, Flow of Homogeneous Fluids through Porous Media, 1937, p. 643):
R J 2 ( nRDe )Un ( nRD ) 2 D 0 PD (RD, t D ) = ln e ntD , 2 ( R ) J 2 ( )] RDe n =1n [ J0 n De n 1
(2)
where the eigenfunctions Un are given by

Un (nRD ) = Y1( n ) J0 ( nRD ) J1( n )Y0 ( nRD ) ,
(3)
and the eigenvalues n are defined implicitly by

Un (nRDe ) = Y1( n )J 0( nRDe ) J1( n )Y0 ( nRDe ) = 0 . (4)
The functions J1 and Y1 are Bessel functions of order one, and are defined by
J1( x ) dJ0 ( x ) dY ( x ) , Y1( x ) 0 . dx dx
(5)
The dimensionless variables in eq. (2) are defined by Dimensionless radius: Dimensionless time:
RD = R / Rw , tD = kt
2 cRw
(6) (7)
Dimensionless pressure:
PD =
2kH( Pi P) . Q
(8)
The pressure in the wellbore, PDw(tD), is found by setting RD = 1 in eq. (2), and then making use of the following Besselfunction identity (see Muskat, p. 631):
Section 6 Page 101
Y1( x )J0 ( x ) J1( x )Y0( x ) =
2 ; x
2
(9)
the result is (Matthews and Russell, p. 12):

2 J 02 (n RDe )e ntD PDw (t ) = ln RDe + 2 2 . 2 n =1 n [ J 0 (n RDe ) J 1 (n )]
(10)
A detailed analysis of this solution shows that at early times the pressure agrees with that given by the Theis solution, because the pressure pulse will not yet have reached the outer boundary. Eventually, the wellbore reaches a steady-state pressure (see Fig. 6.3.2) that is equivalent to the pressure found in the Thiem problem. 6.3. Well at the centre of a circular reservoir with a no-flow outer boundary and constant flowrate into the wellbore This problem (see Fig. 6.3.1) is similar to the problem of section 6.2, except that the outer BC is now replaced by BC at outer boundary:
2kH dP R = 0. dR R =R e
Reservoir Q Rw R Re No-flow
(1)
Fig. 6.3.1. Circular reservoir with constant flowrate into borehole, no flow across the outer boundary.
Section 6 Page 102
The solution to this problem was found by Muskat in 1937 using the eigenfunction method; it was re-derived by van Everdingen and Hurst in 1949 (Trans. AIME, 1949), using Laplace transforms (see section 7). The solution is
PD ( RD , t D ) = 2
2 RDe 2 RD 2 ln RD + t D RDe 1 4
4 4 2 3R De 4 R De 1 ln R De 2 R De 2 2 4 ( R 1 ) De
J12 (n RDe )U n (n RD ) t e + , 2 2 n =1 n [ J 1 (n RDe ) J 1 (n )]
2 n D
(2)
where the eigenfunctions Un are given by

U n (n RD ) = J1 (n )Y0 (n RD ) Y1 (n ) J 0 (n RD ) ,
(3)
the eigenvalues n are defined implicitly by
J1 (n )Y1 (n RDe ) Y1 (n ) J1 (n RDe ) = 0 ,
(4)
and the dimensionless variables are defined as in section 6.2. Because of the importance of this problem, we will examine the solution in detail. The pressure in the wellbore is found by setting RD = 1 in eq. (2), and again using eq. (6.2.9) to simplify:
PDw (t D ) =
1
2 RDe
1 3R 4 4R4 ln RDe 2R 2 1 De De + 2t D De 2 2 4(RDe 1) 1 2
2 J 12 (n RDe )e ntD + 2 2 . 2 n =1 n [ J 1 (n RDe ) J 1 (n )]
(5)
Section 6 Page 103
In most cases of practical interest, however, RDe >> 1 , and eq. (5) can effectively be written as
2 ( nRDe )e nt D 2J1 2t D 3 . PDw (t D ) = 2 + ln RDe + 2 2 2 4 RDe n= 1n[ J1 ( nRDe ) J1 ( n )]
2
(6)
There are three important time regimes in this problem: (i) A regime in which t is sufficiently large that the logarithmic approximation to the line-source solution is valid, but for which the leading edge of the pressure pulse has not yet reached the outer boundary of the reservoir. From eq. (2.4.7) and Fig. 2.5.1, we find that this regime is defined by:
25 < t Dw < 0.1RDe .
2
(7)
It is not easy to see that eq. (5) reduces to eq. (2.4.10) during this time regime, but it does.
(ii) A second regime that is late enough that the presence of the closed outer boundary is felt at the well, but still early enough that the exponential terms in eq. (6) have not yet died out. The start of this regime is given by the upper bound in eq. (7); 2 (see Tutorial Sheet 5). This regime it ends when t Dw 0.3RDe is therefore defined by
2 <t 2 0.1RDe Dw < 0.3RDe .
(8)
In this regime we must use the entire series in eq. (6) to calculate the wellbore pressure, and the Pw(tDw) curve has no simple description. (iii) A third regime that is late enough such that the exponential terms in eq. (6) have died out. This regime is defined by
Section 6 Page 104
2 . t Dw > 0.3RDe
(9)
In this regime the wellbore pressure is given by
PDw =
2t Dw 3 + ln R . De 2 4 RDe
(10)
NOTE: These regimes have been given various names, such as early-transient, intermediate, late-transient, quasi-steady-state, semi-steady-state, steady-state, etc. There is no consistent usage of these terms, and most are mathematically incorrect. We will refer to the first regime as the infinite reservoir regime, the second as the transitional regime, and to the last as the finite reservoir regime. An important feature of the third time regime is that the pressure in the well declines linearly with time. The rate of pressure decline can be used to find the drainage area of the well, as follows: (1) First, rewrite eq. (10) in terms of the actual variables, rather than the dimensionless variables:
Re 3 2kt Q . Pw (t ) = Pi + ln 2 4 2kH R w cRe
(11)
(2)
Now take the derivative of Pw with respect to t:

Q 2k dPw Q = = . 2 2 dt 2 kH cRe Re Hc
(12)
Section 6 Page 105
The rate of increase of the late-time drawdown can therefore be used to find the radius of the drainage area, or, equivalently, the drainage area A, i.e.,
1/ 2 Q , Re = H c ( dP / dt ) w
2 A = Re =
(13)
Q . cH(dPw / dt )
(14)
Eq. (12) can also be derived in the following, much simpler way, by just doing a mass balance on the oil in the reservoir: (a) Imagine that the entire reservoir is at a uniform pressure, P (i.e., a zero-dimensional model, so to speak). (b) (c) Let M = V be the total amount of oil in the reservoir. Following the line of reasoning of section 1.6,
dM = V c dP . t dt dt
(15)
(d) - dM/dt is the mass flowrate out of the reservoir, and Q is the volumetric flowrate, so dM/dt = -Q, in which case
-Q =Vct dP . dt
2
(16)
(e) The volume of the reservoir is V = Re H , so eq. (16) is equivalent to eq. (12)!
Section 6 Page 106
The dimensionless wellbore pressure for a well located at the centre of a bounded circular reservoir is plotted from eq. (6) in Fig. 6.3.2, for various values of RDe = Re / Rw . Also shown is the wellbore pressure for the case of constant flowrate into the borehole and constant pressure at the outer boundary, from eq. (6.2.10). Note that a) In accordance with eq. (7), the semi-log straight line begins at about t Dw = 25 . b) In accordance with eq. (8), the finite reservoir regime begins 2 . For example, when R when t Dw = 0.3RDe De = 1000 , the curve deviates from the semi-log straight line at about 2 5 t Dw = 0.3RDe = 3 10 .
Dimensionless Pressure, PDw
0 2 4 6 8 10 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 Dimensionless Time, t Dw Constant-pressure outer boundary RDe = 102 No-flow outer boundary RDe = 102 103 103 104
Fig. 6.3.2. Well at the centre of a circular reservoir.
Section 6 Page 107
6.4. Non-Circular Drainage Regions If the drainage region is not circular, and/or the well is not located at the centre, then the problem treated in section 6.3 is more difficult to solve. If the drainage region is bounded by a polygon (as would occur if the reservoir was bounded by a set of linear faults), then the problem can be solved by superposing solutions from appropriately located image wells, as in section 4.3. For example, an infinite array of image wells arranged on a square lattice will create a square reservoir that is bounded by four no-flow boundaries, etc. Some examples of this type of analysis can be found in Well Testing in Heterogeneous Formations, by T. D. Streltsova, Wiley, 1988. Without going into the details of this analysis, the following can be said about a well producing from within a non-circular drainage region: There is an infinite reservoir regime, during which the pressure pulse has not yet reached any portion of the outer boundary. The duration of this regime can be calculated using eq. (1.6.11), if the geometry of the drainage area and the location of the well is known. During this regime,
PDw =
1 [ln(t Dw ) + 0.80907] . 2
(1)
At sufficiently long times, the mass-balance argument presented in the previous section must hold, and so the rate at which the wellbore drawdown changes must be given by eq. 2 (6.3.12), with Re replaced by A / . Hence, an equation of the same form as eq. (6.3.10) must hold for the drawdown, except that the constant term may be different. The duration of this regime is roughly given by eq. (6.3.9), 2 again with Re replaced by A / , although the start of this regime
Section 6 Page 108
is delayed if the well is located off-centre of the drainage region by an appreciable amount. During this regime, the dimensionless wellbore drawdown is traditionally written in the following form:
PDw 4A 1 = 2 t DA + ln 2 , 2 RwCA
(2)
where tDA is a dimensionless time based on the drainage area A:

t DA = kt , cA
(3)
= 1.781, and CA is a dimensionless constant known as the

Dietz shape factor. Comparison of eq. (2) and eq. (6.3.10) reveals that, for a well at the centre of a circular reservoir,
CA =
e 3 / 2
= 31.62 .
(4)
The shape factor tends to decrease as the drainage area becomes more non-circular, or as the location of the well becomes more off-centre. Shape factors for numerous geometries can be found on p. 111 of Matthews & Russell; a few cases are shown in Fig. 6.4.1.
Section 6 Page 109
CA 31.6 1 2
CA 22.6
31.6
1 2
2.07
27.6
1 4
2.36
12.9
1 4
0.232
Fig. 6.4.1. Dietz shape factors for various geometries. ______________________________________________ Tutorial Sheet 5: (1) Show that the transition regime for the closed circular 2 . Hints: reservoir problem ends when t Dw = 0.3RDe (a) e x 0 when x > 4, so the terms in the series will be negligible when 2 nt Dw > 4 for all n. (b) When RDe is large, the smallest eigenvalue, 1, i.e., the smallest value of that satisfies eq. (6.3.4), is very small. This fact should help to estimate the value of 1 as a function of RDe . Also, make use of eqs. (6.2.37,39,48), and Fig. 6.1.3. (2) Starting with eq. (6.3.2), calculate the average pressure in 2 ), as the reservoir during the finite reservoir regime ( t Dw > 0.3RDe a function of time. Is your result consistent with the mass-balance that is embodied in eq. (6.3.15)?
Section 7 Page 110
7.
Laplace Transform Methods
The diffusion equation for fluid flow in a porous medium, in the linearised form that is often used, is a linear PDE. As such, many of the classical methods of applied mathematics can be used to solve it. In section 2.1 we used the Boltzmann transformation to solve the problem of a single, fully-penetrating well in an infinite, homogeneous reservoir, although we saw in section 6.1 that this method is only occasionally applicable. In section 6 we used the method of eigenfunction expansions to solve problems involving a well in a circular reservoir. Although this method is in general the most widely-used method in applied mathematics, it has not been used very often in petroleum engineering. Traditionally, reservoir engineers have solved the diffusion equation using the method of Laplace transforms. In this section we will describe the Laplace transform approach, and give an example of its use in solving reservoir problems. 7.1. Laplace transforms The method of Laplace transforms allows us to transform PDEs, which are generally difficult to solve, into ODEs, which can be solved in essentially all cases. Specifically, the function P(R,t), which satisfies the PDE, is transformed into a different function ~ P(R, s) , which satisfies an ODE. This ODE is then solved to yield ~ P(R, s) . The only difficult part of the method of Laplace transforms is the process of inverting the function from the Laplace domain back into the time domain, to get P(R,t). This last step can be achieved either by contour integration in the complex plane, or by numerical integration along the real axis. In this section we present the definition of the Laplace transform, along with a few of its more important properties. A fuller treatment can be found in essentially any textbook on
Section 7 Page 111
advanced applied mathematics. Three books that are devoted exclusively to Laplace (and related) transforms are (1) Operational Mathematics, R. V. Churchill, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1958. (2) Operational Methods in Applied Mathematics, H. S. Carslaw and J. C. Jaeger, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1949. (3) Integral Transforms in Mathematical Physics, C. J. Tranter, Chapman & Hall, London, 1971. Definition: If we have a function f (t ) , its Laplace transform is defined by
~ L {f (t )} f (s ) f (t )e st dt .
0
(1)
~ Both notations, L{ f (t ) } and f (s ) , are useful, depending on the context. In the general theory of Laplace transforms, s must be regarded as a complex variable, but for our purposes this is usually not necessary.
If we have a function of two variables, such as P(R,t), we can defined its Laplace transform in the same manner:
~ P (R, s ) P (R, t )e st dt . 0
(2)
Note that the Laplace transform is taken with respect to the time variable, not the spatial variable. To simplify the notation, we will usually suppress the R variable when discussing the general theory.
Section 7 Page 112
The Laplace transform operator L is a linear operator, because it follows directly from definition (1) that
L{ cf ( t )} =
0 0
cf (t )e st dt
= c f ( t )e st dt = cL {f (t )} ,
0
(3)
L{ f1(t ) + f 2( t )} = [ f1(t ) + f2 (t )]e st dt

=
f1(t )e st dt 0
+ f2 (t )e st dt = L {f1(t )} + L{ f2 (t )}.
0
(4)
The most important property of the Laplace transform is that

differentiation in the time domain corresponds to multiplication by s in the Laplace domain. To prove this, consider the Laplace transform of the time derivative of f (t ) :
L{ f ( t )} f (t )e st dt .
0
(5)
Now recall the formula for integration by parts:

0
f ( t )g (t )dt = f (t )g (t )]0 f (t ) g (t )dt .

0 0
(6)
If we apply formula (6), with g (t ) = e st , we have

L{ f ( t )} = f (t )e
st
] + s f (t )e
0
st
dt
= f ( )e s f (0)e s0 + sL{ f (t )} ,
so:
L{ f ( t )} = sL{ f (t )} f (0) .
(7)
Section 7 Page 113
Hence, the Laplace transform of f ( t ) is equal to the Laplace transform of f (t ) multiplied by s, minus the initial value of f (t ) . Eq. (7) illustrates two important properties of Laplace transforms: (i) Differentiation in the time domain corresponds (essentially) to multiplication by s in the Laplace domain; (ii) The initial conditions get incorporated directly into the governing equation - unlike in time domain methods, where initial conditions must be considered separately after we have found the general solution. [For our purposes, since we often work with drawdowns, which are defined so as to be zero when t = 0, the f(0) term will usually drop out]. Differentiation with respect to time corresponds to multiplication by s in Laplace space, so we might expect that integration with respect to time corresponds to division by s in Laplace space. To prove this, let F(t) be the integral of f(t), i.e.,
F( t ) f ( )d .
0 t
(8)
By definition, then,
F (t ) = f (t ), F(0) f ( )d = 0 .
0 0
(9)
Now, using property (7),

t L{F (t )} = sL{ F(t )} F(0) = sL{F(t )} = sL f ( )d , 0
so:
t 1 L f ( )d = L{F (t )} = s 0
1 1 L{ f (t )} = f (s) , s s
(10)
Section 7 Page 114
which proves that, in order to find the Laplace transform of the integral of f (t ) , we merely have to take the Laplace transform of f (t ) , and divide it by s. Another useful property of Laplace transforms is the timeshift property. Consider a function f (t ) , and the time-shifted function f(t - t0), defined by the following graph:
f (t )
f(t-t0)
t0
Fig. 7.1.1. A function, f(t), and its time-shifted variant, f(t-t0). Note that f(t - t0) = 0 if t < t0, which is consistent with the fact that, when using Laplace transforms, we always consider all functions f (t ) to be zero when t < 0. (This is also consistent with the physical fact that drawdowns will be zero before production begins.). The Laplace transform of f(t - t0) can be found directly from the Laplace transform of f(t), as follows. First,
L f (t t 0 ) = f (t t 0 )e st dt .
0
(11)
Now, let t - t0 = , in which case dt = d. But the limits of integration change, according to
Section 7 Page 115
= - t 0 when t = 0,
Hence,
L f (t t 0 ) =
= when t = .
(12)
t 0
f ( )e s ( +t )d .
0
(13)
But f() = 0 when < 0, so

L f (t t 0 ) = f ( )e
0
s( + t0 )
d = f ( )e s e st0 d
0
=e
st 0
f ( )e s d
(s ). = e st 0 f
(14)
So, delaying a function f (t ) by an amount of time t0 corresponds to multiplying its Laplace transform by e st 0 . If we take a function f (t ) , and damp it out by multiplying it by e , this is equivalent to replacing s with s+a in the Laplace transform of f (t ) . The proof is as follows:
-at
e at f ( t )
}= f (t )e
0 0
at e st dt
(15)
( s + a). = f (t )e ( s +a)t dt = f
Finally, consider a function f(t), and the stretched function f(at). The Laplace transform of f(at) is related to the Laplace transform of f(t) as follows (see Tutorial Sheet 6):
1~ L{f (at )} = f (s/a) . a
(16)
Section 7 Page 116
If we think of a as a frequency, as in the function sin(at), eq. (16) shows that speeding up a function by a factor a is essentially equivalent to slowing down its Laplace transform by the factor 1/a. The usefulness of the various rules presented above is that they minimise the number of times we actually have to calculate a Laplace transform via the basic definition (1). By knowing the Laplace transforms of a few functions, we can use these rules to calculate the Laplace transforms of other functions. For example, first note that if f (t) = 1, then
L f (t ) = L 1 = 1e st dt =
0
{ } {}
1 st e s
1 . s
(17)
[Note: f (t) = 1 is a very well-behaved mathematical function, but ~ its Laplace transform is not, since f (s ) when s = 0. Points ~ where f (s ) becomes infinite, or is otherwise non-analytic (i.e., cant be represented by a Taylor series), are known as ~ singularities. The singularities of f (s ) are actually the key to inverting f ( s ) in order to find the actual function, f (t ) . However, we will not make use of these ideas, because they require knowledge of complex variable theory]. Now suppose that we want to calculate L{ f (t ) } for the case of f(t) = t. We could use eq. (1), but it is easier to see from eq. (10) that, since t is the integral of 1, then L{t} can be found by dividing L{1} by s, i.e.,
t 1 1 L{} t = L 1d = L{} 1= 2. s s 0
(18)
Section 7 Page 117
A particular Laplace transform that is very useful in solving diffusion problems is L{t -1/2}:
L{ t
1/ 2
} = t 1/ 2e st dt .
0
(19)
To evaluate this integral, we let st = u, in which case dt = du/s, and the integral becomes
L{ t
1/ 2
} = (u / s)
0
1/ 2
du 1 1/ 2 u = u e du . s s0
(20)
Now put u = m2, in which case du = 2mdm = 2udm, and so

L{ t
1/ 2
}=
2 s
e m dm =
2
s 2
(21)
which can also be expressed as

L1{ 1/ 2s 1/ 2 } = t 1/ 2 .
(22)
By applying the rule that division by s in the Laplace domain corresponds to integration with respect to t in the time domain, we can show that
L1{ 1/ 2s 3 / 2 } = 1/ 2d = 2t 1/ 2
0 t
L{ t 1/ 2 } =
2s 3 / 2
(23)
.
This process can be repeated to give, for n = 1,2,...:

Section 7 Page 118
L{ t n (1/ 2) } =
1 3 5 ... (2n 1) 2n s n+(1/ 2)
(24)
The most difficult aspect of using Laplace transforms is ~ inverting the Laplace transform f (s ) to find the function f (t ) . The difficulty lies in the fact that, even though we, as petroleum engineers, are ultimately interested only in real-valued functions, the standard inversion procedure involves integration in the complex plane. The inversion formula, which allows us to recover ~ f (t ) from f (s ) , is the following:
y Singularity
1 f (s ) = f (s )est ds 2i i
+ i ~
6 6 6
x x=
(25) where i = 1 is the imaginary unit number, and the integration takes place along any vertical line in the complex plane (see above) that lies to the right of all the singularities ~ of f (s ) . The proof of eq. (25), which not elementary, can be found in the books by Carslaw and Jaeger, or Churchill. One additional fact about Laplace transforms that is needed in order to use them to solve partial differential equations is the following rule:
~ If P(R,t) is a function of R and t, and P (R, s ) is its Laplace transform, as defined in eq. (2), then the LT of the partial
Section 7 Page 119
derivative of P with respect to R is equal to the partial derivative, with respect to R, of the LT of P, i.e.,
dP d ( R, s ) dP = L L P( R, t ) = . dR dR dR
[{
} ]
(26)
The proof of this fact follows directly from Leibnitzs theorem for differentiating an integral with respect to a parameter that appears in the integrand:
dP(R, t ) dP(R, t ) L e st dt = dR 0 dR
(R, s ) d dP st = P (R,t )e dt = dR . dR 0
(27)
In the second term we first differentiate with respect to R, and then integrate with respect to t, whereas in the third term we first integrate with respect to t, and then differentiate with respect to R. Leibnitz theorem says that the order in which we carry out these two operations is immaterial. 7.2. Flow to a hydraulically-fractured well In general, exact inversion (as opposed to numerical inversion, which will be briefly discussed in section 7.4) of a Laplace transform requires knowledge of complex variable theory. One of the few important problems that we can solve with Laplace transforms without knowledge of complex integration is the one-dimensional diffusion equation in a semi-infinite region.
Section 7 Page 120
The one-dimensional diffusion problem is relevant to flow to a hydraulically-fractured well, for example. In low permeability reservoirs, we often introduce fractures into the rock by pumping fluid into the borehole at high pressure (see the geomechanics module). These hydraulic fractures then provide very conductive paths for the oil to reach the borehole. Oil first flows to the fracture, and then through the fracture to the well. Imagine that the thickness of the reservoir is H, and that the hydraulic fracture extends out from the borehole a distance L in each direction, as shown in Fig. 7.2.1:
Top View L Flow Wellbore Fracture z
Fig. 7.2.1. Schematic diagram of one-dimensional flow to a hydraulically-fractured well. Initially, fluid flows straight to the nearest part of the fracture, after which it travels through the hydraulic fracture to the wellbore. If the length L is large, we can model this process as uniform, one-dimensional, horizontal flow.
Section 7 Page 121
The governing equation for this problem is the 1-D diffusion equation in Cartesian co-ordinates, eq. (1.6.8): PDE:
d 2P dP =D , dt dz 2
(1)
where z is the coordinate normal to the fracture plane, and D is the hydraulic diffusivity k / ct . If the total flowrate into the well is Q, and this flow is distributed uniformly over an area of 4LH (two fractures with two faces each), then the initial and boundary conditions are IC: far-field BC: fracture BC: (1)
P( z, t = 0) = Pi , P( z , t ) = Pi , dP Q ( z = 0, t ) = . dz 4kLH
(2) (3) (4)
To solve this problem, we first define the LT of P( z, t ) :

~ P ( z,s ) P ( z,t )e st dt . 0
(5)
(2) Next, we take the Laplace transform of both sides of eq. (1). Using eq. (7.1.7), and eq. (2), the LHS of eq. (1) is transformed into:
dP ( z, s ) Pi . L = sL{ P( z, t )} P( z, t = 0) = sP dt
(6)
Section 7 Page 122
Applying rule (7.1.26) twice, the Laplace transform of the RHS of eq. (1) is
( z, s ) d 2P d2 d 2P L D 2 = D 2 L P( z, t ) = D . 2 dz dz dz
[{
} ]
(7)
So, the transformed representation of eq. (1) is ODE:

D
( z, s ) d 2P
dz
2
(z, s) = Pi . sP
(8)
~ Although P ( z,s ) is a function of two variables, z and s, there ~ are no derivatives of P ( z,s ) with respect to s in eq. (8). So s really appears in eq. (8) as a parameter, not a variable. Consequently, eq. (8) is an ODE rather than a PDE.
The initial condition is already incorporated into eq. (8). However, we must now take the Laplace transforms of the two BCs, eqs. (3) and (4): far-field BC:
(z = , s) = L{ Pi } = Pi , L{ P( z = , t )} = P s fracture BC:
(9)
dP dP Q Q = L (z = 0, t ) = (z = 0, s ) = L . (10) dz dz 4 kLH 4 kLHs
(3) Next, we solve the problem in the Laplace domain. The general solution to eq. (8) is
( z, s ) = Ae z P
s/ D
+ Be z
s /D
Pi , s
(11)
where A and B are arbitrary constants.

Section 7 Page 123
The far-field boundary condition, eq. (9), shows that A must be zero. The fracture BC, eq. (10), implies that
dP Q ( z = 0, s ) = B s / D = , dz 4kLHs
B=
Q 4 kLHs s / D
(12)
So, the solution to this problem in the Laplace domain is

( z, s ) = Pi Q D e z P s 4kLHs 3 / 2
s/ D
(13)
( z, s ) to find P(z,t). To keep (4) Finally, we must invert P the analysis simple and brief, we will only invert for the pressure in the fracture, P(z=0,t).
Note: This illustrates another advantage of Laplace transform methods: we can usually find the wellbore pressure without having to find the pressure at every point in the reservoir; with other methods, you must find P(z,t) first as a complete function, and then set z = 0. So,
( z = 0, s) = Pi Q D . P s 4 kLHs 3 / 2
(14)
We now invert to find P(z=0,t), using eqs. (7.1.17,23):

i Q D 1 P P( z = 0, t ) = L { P( z = 0, s )} = L 3/ 2 s 4 kLHs
1
Section 7 Page 124
1 Pi L1
Q D
4kLH
L1 Dt
1 s 3 / 2
= Pi
Q
2kLH
(15)
But, if the permeability of the fracture is much greater than that of the reservoir (which is the idea behind hydraulic fractures!), then there will be very little pressure drop in the fracture itself, and the fracture pressure will be equal to the wellbore pressure. So, eq. (15) shows that the (early-time) drawdown in a fractured well should increase in proportion to t1/2. 7.3. Convolution principle in Laplace space The convolution integral that appeared in eq. (3.4.6) is a particular case of a more general mathematical operation that can be defined by
f g f ( )g (t )d ,
0 t
(1)
and which is known as the convolution of f and g. If we let t - = x in eq. (1), then = t - x and d = - dx, and the limits of integration are transformed into x = t and x = 0. Hence,
f g = f ( t x )g ( x )dx = f (t x )g ( x )dx g f ,
t 0 0 t
(2)
which shows that f g = g f .

Section 7 Page 125
Now, lets look at the Laplace transform of f g :

L{ f g } = f ( )g (t )d e st dt . t = 0 = 0
t = = t
(3)
t=
t=
Fig. 7.3.1. Two paths of integration for eq. (3). The region of integration covers the first octant of the t plane, as can be seen from Fig. 7.3.1. The thick line on the left runs from = 0 to = t, for fixed t, which corresponds to the inner integral in eq. (3). If we sweep this line across from left to right, then t will cover the range from t = 0 to t = , which corresponds to the outer integral. But this octant can also be covered by first letting t run from t = out to t = , for fixed (see the thick line on right), and then letting run from = 0 to = . Hence,
st L{ f g } = g (t )e dt f ( )d . = 0 t =
= t =
(4)
Section 7 Page 126
If we now let t - = x in eq. (4), then t = + x, dt = dx, and the limits of integration of the inner integral are transformed into x = 0 and x = :
s ( + x ) L{ f g } = dx f ( )d g( x )e = 0 x= 0 x= s sx ( s ). = f ( )e d g( x )e dx = f ( s) g x= 0 =0
= = x=
(5)
We have therefore proven that convolution of two functions in the time domain corresponds to multiplication of the their respective Laplace transforms. This is extremely useful, because (a) It implies that, if we can break up a difficult Laplace transform into the product of two simpler transforms whose inverses are known, then we can find the complete inverse function by convolution. (b) More importantly, it implies that, for any given reservoir geometry, if we can solve the diffusion equation for the case of a constant production rate, then the solution for an arbitrary production schedule can be found by convolution. Actually, we already knew this from section 3.4. However, the concept is more general, since, for example, we can also use it to find the solution for the case of varying wellbore pressure from the solution for the case of constant wellbore pressure. As an example of the use of convolution in the Laplace domain, consider the hydraulic fracture problem of section 7.2, but with an arbitrary time-dependent flowrate into the
Section 7 Page 127
fracture, Q(t). The only change in the formulation of the problem will be in the fracture boundary condition, eq. (7.2.4), which now becomes
dP Q(t ) ( z = 0, t ) = . dz 4kLH
(6)
If we follow the solution procedure used in section 7.2, the only change occurs when we take the Laplace transform of this boundary condition, in which case Q / 4kLHs is ( s) / 4kLH . replaced with the more general expression Q The solution in Laplace space then becomes
( z, s ) = Pi Q( s ) D e z P s 4kLHs 1/ 2
s /D
(7)
We again restrict our attention to the fracture, where z = 0:

(s ) D Pi Q P( z = 0, s) = . s 4 kLHs1/ 2
(8)
We now take the inverse Laplace transform, and in doing so make use of linearity and convolution:
P( z = 0, t ) = L
1
( s ) D Q ( z = 0, s ) = L P 1/ 2 s 4kLHs
1Pi
1 Pi L1
Q( s) L1 4kLH 1/ 2 s
1{Q (s )}
= Pi
[L 4kLH
D
] [L
1{ s 1/ 2 }
].
(9)
Section 7 Page 128
( s )} = Q(t ) , by definition, and L1{ s 1/ 2 } = (t ) 1/ 2 But, L1{Q by eq. (7.1.22), so

P(z = 0,t ) = Pi D [Q (t )] [(t )1/2] 4kLH = Pi
D/
4kLH
Q ( ) t
1 t Q( ) d = Pi 4LH kc 0 t 1 t Q( ) d = Pi A kc 0 t
t q ( ) d . = Pi kc 0 t
(10)
Eq. (10) gives us the pressure in the fracture as a function of the time-varying flowrate per unit area, q(t) = Q(t)/A. Although it may be difficult to evaluate this integral analytically for some particular q(t), it will always be straightforward to evaluate it numerically. Convolution leads to an integral over time, which is a real variable, and such integrals are generally easier to evaluate than the complex integral specified in eq. (7.1.24).
Section 7 Page 129
7.4. Numerical inversion of Laplace transforms The complex integral that allows us to invert the Laplace transform of the pressure to obtain the pressure as a function of time is often very difficult to evaluate in closed form. Consequently, numerous algorithms have been devised to carry out this inversion numerically. Their use in petroleum engineering problems is reviewed in the book Fundamental and Applied Pressure Analysis by Daltaban and Wall (Imperial College Press, 1998). The most widely-used numerical algorithm for inverting a Laplace transform is the Stehfest algorithm. Although the derivation of this algorithm is very lengthy, and beyond the scope of this course, we can gain a rough understanding of it as follows. In general, any integral can be approximated by a summation whose terms consist of the integrand evaluated at various discrete points, which each functional evaluation multiplied by an appropriate weighting factor. For example, consider a simple numerical approximation of an integral based on the trapezium rule. Imagine a function f(x), which we want to integrate from x = a to x = b. Recall that an integral can be interpreted as the area under the graph of the function. The area under the graph of f(x) can be approximated by the area of the trapezium shown in Fig. 7.4.1, i.e.,
f ( a) + f ( b) (b a) . f ( x )dx 2 a
b
(1)
Section 7 Page 130
This formula approximates the integral by evaluating the integrand at x = a and x = b, multiplying the two function values by the weighting factor (b - a)/2, and then summing.
f(x) f(b) f(a) x
Fig. 7.4.1. Approximation of an integral. More accurate numerical approximations of an integral can be made by (a) evaluating the integrand at a larger number of points,
(b) carefully choosing the points at which the integrand is evaluated (i.e., they need not be equally-spaced), (c) carefully choosing the weighting factors.
With these ideas in mind, we can think of the Stehfest algorithm as an optimised method for approximating the complex inversion integral by a weighted finite sum of function evaluations.
Section 7 Page 131
Actually, the situation is a bit more subtle than this, because the Stehfest method also manages to avoid ~ evaluating f (s ) at complex values of s, as would seem to be required by the path of integration shown in eq. (7.1.25); ~ instead, the method requires only that the function f (s ) be evaluated at real values of s. If we could perform the complex inversion integration analytically, we would arrive at a single mathematical equation that is valid for all values of t. On the other hand, if we use a numerical procedure, we must perform a new calculation for each value of t at which we want to know the pressure. If we have the Laplace transform of, say, the wellbore ~ pressure Pw (s ) , the actual wellbore pressure at time t is given, according to Stehfest, by
Pw (t ) = ln 2 2N ~ nln 2 Vn Pw s = , t n =1 t
(2)
where the weighting factors Vn are defined by

Vn = ( 1) n
min(n,N ) k = (n+ 1) / 2
k N (2k )! . ( N k )! k!( k 1)!( n k )!(2k n)!
(3)
In principle, the accuracy of the approximation should increase as the number of terms in the series, which is 2N, increases. In practice, if too many terms are taken, accumulated round-off error begins to overshadow the additional accuracy. It has generally been found that an optimum value of 2N is about 18.
Section 7 Page 132
______________________________________________ Tutorial Sheet 6: (1) What is the Laplace transform of the function f(t) = e-at?
(2) Starting with the basic definition of the Laplace transform, eq. (7.1.1), verify eq. (7.1.16). (3) Following the steps that were taken in section 7.2, use Laplace transforms to try to solve the one-dimensional diffusion problem with a constant-pressure boundary condition: PDE: IC: far-field BC: fracture BC:
1 dP d 2P = , 2 D dt dz P( z, t = 0) = Pi , P( z , t ) = Pi , P( z = 0, t ) = Pf .
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
(a) Find the solution for the pressure in the Laplace ~ domain, i.e., find P(z,s) . (b) Find, in the Laplace domain, an expression for the ~ flowrate into the fracture; call it Qf (s) . ~ (c) Invert Qf (s) to find the flowrate into the fracture as a function of time, Qf (t ) .
Section 8 Page 133
8.
Naturally-Fractured Reservoirs
Many reservoirs contain a network of interconnected naturally occurring fractures that provide most of the reservoirscale permeability. In fact, it has been estimated that about 40% of the worlds known reserves occur in fractured reservoirs. Flow through such reservoirs is more complicated than through unfractured reservoirs, and cannot be analysed with the equations that we have developed and solved in the previous sections. The basic mathematical model used for fractured reservoirs was first developed by Barenblatt, Zheltov and Kochina in 1960, and by Warren and Root in 1963 (SPEJ, 1963). Several refinements have been made since then, and the resulting equations have been solved for many different reservoir geometries, with and without wellbore storage, skin effects, etc. In this section we will briefly describe this model, and present and discuss the solution for flow to a well in an unbounded dualporosity reservoir. 8.1. Dual-porosity model of Barenblatt et al. In this model, the permeability of the reservoir is assumed to be provided solely by the fracture network. The regions of rock between the fractures, called matrix blocks, store most of the fluid, and feed this fluid into the fractures. The first step in constructing a mathematical model for dualporosity media is to start with a pressure diffusion equation for the fracture network. In radial co-ordinates, this equation takes the form
dPf kf 1 d dPf R (c )f = + qmf , dt R dR dR
(1)
Section 8 Page 134
where the subscript f denotes the properties of the fracture network, and the term qmf represents the volumetric flux of fluid from the matrix blocks into the fractures, per unit time and per unit volume of the reservoir. The fracture-matrix interaction term qmf therefore has dimensions of [m3 /m 3s] , or [1/s]. Note: in a dual-porosity model, every point R is supposed to represent an REV (see section 1.3) that is large enough to encompass several fractures and matrix blocks. The fracture-matrix flow term could be found by solving a flow equation in the matrix blocks, as has been done by Kazemi (SPEJ, 1969) and others. However, most dual-porosity formulations follow Barenblatt et al. and assume that the flow from the matrix blocks to the fractures, at point R in the reservoir, is proportional to the difference between the pressure in the fractures and the average pressure in the matrix blocks, Pm ; this is called pseudo-steady-state fracture/matrix flow. The flow should also be proportional to the permeability of the matrix, and inversely proportional to the fluid viscosity, so qmf is assumed to have the form
qmf =
km ( Pm Pf ) ,
(2)
where is a shape factor that accounts for the size and shape of the matrix block. Dimensional analysis shows that must have dimensions of [1/L2 ] , or [1/ m2 ] in SI units. The precise value of for a matrix block of a given shape is found by calculating the smallest eigenvalue of the diffusion equation inside the matrix block. The shape factors for a few simple, idealised geometries are as follows (Zimmerman et al., Water Resources Research, 1993):
Section 8 Page 135
spherical block of radius a:
2
a
2
(3)
long cylindrical block of radius a:
=
cubical block of side L:
5.78
a2
(4)
3 2
L
2
(5)
rectangular block of sides { Lx , Ly , Lz } :

1 = 2 + 2 + 2 . L x Ly Lz
2
(6)
If the fracture system in the reservoir consists of three mutually orthogonal sets of parallel fractures, with spacings { Lx , Ly , Lz } , then the matrix blocks would be rectangular slabs; hence this last model, although simplified, is not unrealistic. Eqs. (1,2) give two equations for three unknowns, { Pf , Pm , qmf } . Three equations are needed in order to find a solution. The third equation is found by performing a massbalance on the matrix blocks. In analogy with eq. (6.3.16), we find
qmf = (c )m dPm . dt
(7)
Eqs. (1,2,7) give a complete set of equations that can be solved for the unknown pressures and flowrates.
Section 8 Page 136
8.2. Dual-porosity equations in dimensionless form Before presenting the solution to the problem of constant flowrate to a well in a dual-porosity reservoir, it is convenient to first write the governing equations in dimensionless form. We define the following dimensionless variables: z Dimensionless time:
tD = kf t ; 2 ( f c f + mcm ) Rw
(1)
this is the standard definition, but based on the reservoir-scale permeability, which is kf, and the total storativity, which is the sum of fracture storativity plus the matrix storativity. z Dimensionless pressure in the fractures:
PDf = 2kf H( Pi Pf ) ; Q
(2)
this is again the standard definition, as in section 2.2. z Dimensionless pressure in the matrix blocks:
PDm = 2k f H( Pi Pm ) ; Q
(3)
this definition is based on kf, rather than km, so as to be consistent with the definition of PDf. z Dimensionless radius:
RD = R ; Rw
(4)
which is the standard definition we have used previously for single-porosity reservoirs.
Section 8 Page 137
We now use these definitions, along with the chain rule, to transform eqs. (8.1.1,2,7) into dimensionless form. We start with the left-hand side of eq. (8.1.1):
(c )f dPf dPf dPDf dt D = ( c) f dt dPDf dt D dt Q dPDf = (c ) f 2kf H dt D kf 2 ( f cf + mcm ) Rw
dP c Q f f Df . = 2 dt ( f c f + mcm )2HRw D
(5)
Applying the same procedure to the spatial derivative term in eq. (8.1.1) gives
Q kf 1 d dPf 1 d dPDf R RD = . 2 R dR R dR dR dR 2HRw D D D
(6)
Lastly, we transform the qmf term in eq. (8.1.1), using eq. 8.1.7). In analogy with eq. (5), this term becomes
qmf dP dPm mcmQ Dm = (c )m = . 2 dt dt ( f cf + mcm )2HRw D
(7)
Inserting eqs. (5,6,7) into eq. (8.1.1) yields

1 d dPDf f cf dPDf mcm dPDm . (8) + RD = RD dRD dRD (f cf +mcm ) dt D ( f cf + mcm ) dt D
Eq. (8) is the dimensionless form of eq. (8.1.1).

Section 8 Page 138
We now write eq. (8.1.2) in terms of the dimensionless variables:

qmf =
km kmQ ( Pm Pf ) = (PDm PDf ) . 2kf H
(9)
Equating this result to eq. (7) gives

2 mcm dPDm kmRw = (PDf PDm ) . (f cf + mcm ) dt D kf
(10)
Eqs. (8,10) are two coupled differential equations for the two dimensionless pressures, PDf and PDm . These two equations contain two dimensionless parameters. The first is the ratio of fracture storativity to total (fracture + matrix) storativity, known as :
f cf . (f cf + mcm )
(11)
The second dimensionless parameter, , is essentially a ratio of matrix permeability to fracture permeability:
2 kmRw
kf
(12)
In practice, we usually have < 0.1, and < 0.001. In terms of these dimensionless parameters and , and the dimensionless variables defined in eqs. (1-4), the two governing equations for a dual-porosity reservoir are
1 d dPDf dPDf dPDm , = R + (1 ) D RD dRD dRD dt D dt D
(13)
Section 8 Page 139
(1 )
dPDm = ( PDf PDm ) . dt D
(14)
If the reservoir is actually a single-porosity reservoir, then the storativity ratio would be 1, and these two equations, (13) and (14), would reduce to the standard pressure diffusion equation, (6.1.8). In the usual form of the dual-porosity model, fluid does not flow from one matrix block to another. Only the fractures provide the macroscopic, reservoir-scale permeability. Hence, the pressure that we measure in the wellbore represents the pressure in those fractures that are nearest the wellbore. Therefore, the drawdown in the wellbore is found from
PDw (t D ) PDf (RD = 1,t D ) .
(15)
A more general model of naturally fractured reservoirs, in which fluid can also flow from one matrix block to another, is known as the dual-permeability model; it is used by hydrologists, but is not yet widely used in petroleum engineering. 8.3. Solution for a well in a dual-porosity reservoir Warren and Root (SPEJ, 1963) solved the problem of a well producing at constant flowrate Q in an unbounded dual-porosity reservoir, using Laplace transforms. They found that, if the dimensionless time satisfies the condition
t D > 100 ,
(1)
(which usually covers the times that we are interested in), the dimensionless drawdown in the well is described by
Section 8 Page 140
PDw
t D t D 1 . = ln t D + 0.8091+ Ei Ei 2 (1 ) (1 )
(2)
As usual, it is instructive to analyse the behaviour of the solution in the various time regimes. When t D is > 100, but is not too large, the variables inside the Ei functions in eq. (2) will still be small enough to use eq. (2.4.3), which says that, if x < 0.01,
Ei ( x ) 0.5772 ln x
(3)
Use of eq. (3) in eq. (2) yields
PDw
t D t D 1 ln = ln t D + 0.8091+ ln 2 (1 ) (1 )
t D t D 1 ln ln = ln t D + 0.8091 + ln 2 (1 ) (1 ) = 1 ln(t D / ) + 0.8091 . 2
(4)
If we use eqs. (8.2.1,2,11) to convert the drawdown to dimensional form, we find

2kf HPw 1 kf t [(c )f + ( c) m ] = ln + 0.8091 2 Q c ) 2 ( [( c ) + ( c ) ] R f f m w
i.e.,
kf t Q + 0.8091 , ln Pw = 2 4k f H (c )f Rw
(5)
Section 8 Page 141
which is precisely the drawdown that would occur in a singleporosity system consisting only of the fractures (i.e., without matrix blocks)! Note also that in the early-time regime, the drawdown will be a straight line on a semi-log plot. The physical explanation of this behaviour is as follows. At early times, fluid flows to the well only through the fractures; fluid has not yet had time to flow out of the matrix blocks, because of their relatively low permeability. Hence, in this regime the matrix storativity is irrelevant. Now lets consider very large times. Recall from Table 2.1.1 that when x is large, Ei ( x ) 0 . So, in this regime the two Ei terms in eq. (2) drop out, and the drawdown is
PDw =
1 ln t D + 0.8091 , 2
(6)
which in dimensional form is

k Q t f . ln Pw = + 0.8091 [(c ) + ( c) ] R2 4k f H f m w
(7)
This is the drawdown that would occur in a single porosity reservoir whose permeability is that of the fracture system, but whose storativity is that of the fractures plus the matrix blocks. The physical explanation of this behaviour is (essentially) as follows: At very large times, the matrix blocks have had sufficient time for their pressures to equilibrate with the pressure in the fractures. So at large times, the reservoir behaves like a homogeneous, single-porosity reservoir whose storativity is composed of the fracture storativity plus the matrix storativity. The overall permeability of the reservoir is always the permeability of the fracture system, because the matrix blocks are assumed not to be interconnected to each other.
Section 8 Page 142
Both the early-time solution given by eq. (5) and the late-time solution given by eq. (7) will give straight lines when plotted on a semi-log plot, with exactly the same slope,
dPw Q = . d ln t 4k f H
(8)
The vertical offset of these two lines, denoted by PDw , can be found by comparing eqs. (4) and (6):
PDw = ln = ln(1/ ) .
In dimensional form, the vertical offset is
1 2
1 2
(9)
Pw =
Q ln(1/ ) . 4k f H
(10)
The full curve for the drawdown in a well in an infinite dualporosity reservoir is shown below, in schematic form, adapted from Gringarten (SPEJ, 1984):
r tu te ys s e m
PDw
g i-lo r st ht ai g
li n
fo r
c fra
PDw
ne a tot r fo
te ys ls
m se
i-lo m se
a ig str
li ht
tD1
ln(tD)
tD2
Fig. 8.3.1. Drawdown in a well in a dual-porosity reservoir.
Section 8 Page 143
Fig. 8.3.1 shows that there is a transition regime between the two semi-log straight lines. In this regime, the pressure drawdown changes very gradually. This regime is dominated by the effect of fluid beginning to flow out of the matrix blocks and into the fractures. During this regime, the flow from the matrix blocks into the fractures nearly compensates for the flow from the fractures into the borehole, and the wellbore pressure is (nearly) constant. Bourdet and Gringarten (SPE paper 9293, 1984) showed that if you draw a horizontal line through the drawdown curve at the midpoint between the two semi-log straight lines, this line will intersect the first semi-log straight line at a dimensionless time t D1 that is given by
tD1 = ,
(11)
where = 1.78 is Eulers constant, and and are the two dualporosity parameters defined in eqs. (8.2.11,12). This horizontal line intersects the late-time semi-log straight line at a dimensionless time t D2 given by
t D2 =
(12)
Eqs. (11,12) show that the horizontal offset of the two asymptotic semi-log straight lines is equal to ln(1/). In dimensional form, these intercept times are
t1 = t2 =
( c )f , km
(13) (14)
[(c )f + ( c )m ] . km
Section 8 Page 144
The first intercept time, t D1, is essentially a measure of the time required for the volume of fluid that has been depleted from the matrix blocks near the wellbore to become of the same order of magnitude as the volume depleted from the fractures. The second intercept time, t D2 , is a measure of the time required for the pressure in the matrix blocks nearest the well to come into equilibrium with the pressure in the surrounding fractures. Eqs. (11) and (12) allow one to calculate the dual-porosity parameters and from well-test data, as will be demonstrated in the module on well test analysis.
______________________________________________ Tutorial Sheet 7: (1) Without looking at the paper by Warren and Root, sketch the forms that you think the drawdown curve in Fig. 8.3.1 would have if (a) The storativity ratio increased (or decreased) by a factor of 10. (b) The permeability ratio increased (or decreased) by a factor of 10. (2) By examining eq. (8.3.2), and making use of either eq. (2.1.22) or Table 2.1.1, derive an expression for the dimensionless time that must elapse in order for the approximation (8.3.6) to be accurate to within about 1%. Your answer should be in terms of the parameter .
Section 9 Page 145
9.
Flow of Gases in Porous Media
9.1. Diffusion equation for gas flow The main difference between analysing flow in gas reservoirs as opposed to liquid reservoirs is that, for gases, the governing partial differential equation becomes unavoidably nonlinear. The main reason for this nonlinearity is that, whereas the compressibility of a liquid can be assumed to be constant, and relatively small (in the sense that was quantified in section 1.6), the compressibility of a gas varies greatly with pressure. Furthermore, the viscosity of a gas also usually varies with pressure. The result is that the governing equation for gas flow cannot usually be well approximated by a linear diffusion equation with constant coefficients, as was the case for liquids. To derive the governing equation for gas flow, we return to the analysis given in section 1.7, and note that, up to eq. (1.7.5), no assumptions were made about the magnitude of the compressibility. Hence, we can begin our analysis of gas flow with eq. (1.7.5):
d ( qR ) d ( ) =R . (1) dR dt We now use Darcys law, in the form given by eq. (1.4.1), for the flux term q on the left-hand side, i.e.,
q= k dP , dR
(2)
in which case eq. (1) takes the form

1 d k dP d ( ) R = dt . dR R dR
(3)
Section 9 Page 146
We next note that the process of expressing the RHS of eq. (3) in terms of the pressure, which was carried out section 1.6, did not require any assumptions about the magnitude of the compressibility terms, etc. Hence, we can use eq. (1.6.1) to rewrite eq. (3) as
dP 1 d k dP = (Cf + C ) R . dt R dR dR
(4)
Eq. (4) is completely general, in that it contains no assumption that the compressibility of the pore fluid is small. It also allows for the possibility that the density, permeability, and viscosity vary with pressure. As such, it is too general to be useful, except as the basis of a numerical solution. However, there are many cases of practical interest in which it can be either linearised, or almost linearised, in which case the standard solutions presented in the previous sections can be used. 9.2. Ideal gas, constant reservoir properties One situation in which the nonlinear diffusion equation for gas flow can be effectively linearised is if the gas can be assumed to obey the ideal gas law:
P = R T ,
(1)
where R is the gas constant, and T is the absolute temperature. If we use eq. (1) to express the density in terms of the pressure, eq. (9.1.4) takes the form
dP (Cf + C ) dP 1 d kP R P . = dt R dR RT dR RT
(2)
Section 9 Page 147
The simplest model of gas flow can be derived from eq. (2) by making the following assumptions. (a) Assume that the temperature is constant.
(b) Assume that the viscosity of the gas is independent of pressure. This is actually rigorously true for an ideal gas, for which the viscosity depends only on temperature. This assumption allows us to take outside of the derivative on the left-hand side of eq. (2). (c) Assume that the compressibility of the gas is much larger than that of the formation, as is usually the case. In fact, the compressibility of an ideal gas is (1/P), since
1 d RT d P RT 1 1 = = . Cf = = dP T P dP RT T P RT P
(3)
As the reservoir pressure is usually less than 10,000 psi, the compressibility is at least 10 4 /psi. The formation compressibility, on the other hand, is usually less than 10 5 /psi (see Matthews and Russell, p. 159; Zimmerman, Compressibility of Sandstones, Elsevier, 1991). Hence, we can usually neglect C relative to Cf . (d) Assume that the permeability of the formation is independent of the pore pressure. This is reasonably accurate for many reservoirs, but is sometimes not a very good assumption in fractured reservoirs or in tight gas sands, for example. This assumption allows us to take k outside of the derivative on the left-hand side of eq. (2). Under these four assumptions, eq. (2) can be written as
Section 9 Page 148
1 d dP dP RP = kP P dt . R dR dR
(4)
We now note that

dP 1 d ( P 2 ) P = , dR 2 dR dP 1 d ( P 2 ) and P = , dt 2 dt
(5)
which allows us to write eq. (4) as

1 d d ( P 2 ) d ( P 2 ) . R = kP dt R dR dR
(6)
Eq. (6) is the standard diffusion equation in radial coordinates, except that (1) The dependent variable is P 2 rather than P; term,
Ct Cf = 1/ P ,
(2) The compressibility pressure.
varies
with
Because of point (2), eq. (6) is still nonlinear, and is not quite equivalent to the diffusion equation used for liquid flow. However, we can linearise eq. (6) by evaluating the term P in the denominator of the RHS at either the initial pressure, Pi, or at the mean wellbore pressure during the test, i.e., at
Pm = Pi + Pw (end of test) . 2
(7)
If this is done, then eq. (6) becomes a linear diffusion equation, with P2 rather than P as the dependent variable.
P
Section 9 Page 149
3.
Real gas, variable reservoir properties
The ideal gas law is a good approximation to gas behaviour only at low pressures. It is also generally more accurate for monatomic or diatomic gases than for larger molecules such as gaseous hydrocarbons. Hence, for gas reservoirs, which are usually at relatively high pressures, it is more accurate to replace the ideal gas law, eq. (9.2.1), with the real gas equation of state,
P = zRT, or
P , zRT
(1)
where z is the (dimensionless) gas deviation factor. Using this equation of state, eq. (9.1.3) takes the form
1 d d P k dP R P . = dt zRT z R T R dR dR
(2)
Under isothermal conditions, this becomes

1 d k dP d P R P . = dt z R dR z dR
(3)
Eq. (3) is highly nonlinear, but we can partially linearise it by defining a new variable, the real gas pseudopressure, as follows (see G. L. Chierici, Principles of Petroleum Reservoir Engineering, Vol. 1, Springer-Verlag, 1994, chapter 7):
m ( P) = 2
P
k (P )P dP . ( P ) z ( P ) 0
(4)
Section 9 Page 150
The real gas pseudopressure m(P) is just a generalisation of the P 2 parameter that was used for ideal gases; this can be seen by noting that if we assume permeability and viscosity to be independent of pressure, and recall that z = 1 for an ideal gas, then
k 2 2k P m ( P) PdP = P .
(5)
Hence, for an ideal gas in a stress-insensitive reservoir, the pseudopressure m is, aside from a multiplicative constant, equal to P 2 . Returning to the real gas case, we differentiate eq. (4) with respect to P, to find
dm( P ) 2k (P )P = , dP ( P )z( P )
(6)
which implies that

dm dm dP 2k( P )P dP = = . dR dP dR ( P )z( P ) dR
(7)
Substituting eq. (7) into the left-hand side of eq. (3) leads to
1 d dm d P R . = dt z 2R dR dR
(8)
The left-hand side of eq. (8) is essentially in the standard form for the diffusion equation. On the right-hand side, we recall that P / z = RT , so that under isothermal conditions,
Section 9 Page 151
d P d ( RT ) d d dP = RT = RT . = dt dt dP dt dt z
(9)
But from the definition of compressibility,

Cg =
1 d , dP T
so
d = Cg , dP T
(10)
in which case eq. (9) can be written as

d P dP . = R T( P )Cg (P ) dt z dt
(11)
Next we recall from eq. (1) that = P / zRT , and rewrite eq. (11) as
d P Cg ( P) P dP = z (P ) dt . dt z
(12)
Combining eq. (12) with eq. (8) yields

1 d dm Cg ( P )P dP R = z (P ) dt . dR 2R dR
(13)
But by analogy with eq. (7), we have

dm 2k( P )P dP = , ( P) z( P) dt dt
(14)
so that
Section 9 Page 152
dP ( P )z( P ) dm = . dt 2k ( P) P dt
(15)
Combining eq. (15) with eq. (13) yields

1 d dm (P )Cg ( P) dm R . = dR dt R dR k ( P )
(16)
Eq. (16) is in the form of a standard diffusion equation in radial coordinates, except that the diffusivity term on the RHS is pressure-dependent. As a final step in linearising the equation for gas flow to a well, we make the approximation that the diffusivity terms on the right can be replaced by some representative constant value, such as the value at the mean wellbore pressure encountered during a well test, i.e.,
1 d dm (Pm )Cg (Pm ) dm R , = dt R dR k( Pm ) dR
(17)
where Pm is defined by eq. (9.2.7). Eq. (17) is the (approximate) governing equation for the flow of real gases to a well. If the pressure-dependent terms on the RHS are evaluated at Pm , we can then use all of the standard solutions that have been developed for liquid flow, provided that we use m instead of P as the dependent variable. The transformation between P and m is made by evaluating the integral that is given in eq. (4). If the reservoir is stresssensitive, we would need to know k(P) to do this. Usually, we do not have this information. If we ignore the pressure-dependence of permeability, then the relationship between P and m becomes
Section 9 Page 153
m ( P) = 2k
P dP . 0 ( P ) z( P )
(18)
Since z(P) and (P) can be measured in the laboratory on samples of the reservoir gas, this integral can be evaluated a priori. The result is usually a relationship between m and P in tabular form, which is used to transform the measured pressures into values of m that are used in conjunction with our solutions to eq. (17). 9.4. Non-Darcy flow effects All of the previous analyses have been based on Darcys law, which states that the flowrate is proportional to the pressure gradient. Darcys law is an empirical law that is known to hold only at low flowrates, which can be defined, roughly, as flows for which the Reynolds number is less than one. The Reynolds number is a dimensionless measure of the relative strengths of inertial forces relative to viscous forces. Using the definition of Reynolds number, this condition can be written as
Re =
vd < 1,
(1)
where is the density of the fluid, is the viscosity, d is a mean pore diameter, and v is the mean (microscopic) velocity. It would be useful to be able to express this criterion in terms of macroscopically measurable quantities. If we use any of the common correlations between pore diameter and permeability, such as the following simplified form of the Kozeny-Carman equation,
k=
d 2
96
d 2
100
(2)
Section 9 Page 154
we can express the pore diameter as

d = 10 k / .
(3)
The criterion for Darcys law to be valid can therefore be written as

v<
. 10 k
(4)
Next, we note that the macroscopic flowrate q must be equal to the microscopic flowrate v, multiplied by the porosity, i.e., q = v , so that
v= q
(5)
Hence, the criterion (4) for the validity of Darcys law can be written as
3 / 2 q< . 10 k
The total flowrate towards the well is related to the flux by
Q = Aq = 2RHq ,
(6)
(7)
so condition (6) can be written as

Q< 2RH 3 / 2 10 k RH 3 / 2
(8)
which is expressed solely in terms of our usual reservoir parameters.
Section 9 Page 155
Criterion (8) becomes more stringent near the wellbore, because as a fixed volumetric flowrate gets channelled through a smaller area, the velocity must increase. If we use typical reservoir values in eq. (8), we would find that this criterion is usually violated for gas wells in the vicinity of the wellbore, but not for liquids, unless the flow is through fractures rather than pores. If the fluid is flowing through fractures, then the actual area available for flow is smaller, and the velocity of the fluid must be greater. In this case, it is more likely that the flow will be turbulent. If criterion (8) is violated, Darcys law must be replaced with a nonlinear law such as Forchheimers equation:
dP q = + q 2 , dR k
(9)
in which the coefficient accounts for non-Darcy (inertial) effects. [In eq. (9), we assume that q is positive if it is towards the well]. Dimensional analysis of eq. (9) shows that the factor has dimensions of L-1. As k has dimensions of L2 (recall eq. 2), it is roughly the case that 1/ k . If this is true, then the magnitude of the nonlinear term in eq. (9) relative to that of the linear term is
q 2 qk q k ratio = = . (q / k )
(10)
The term on the right of eq. (10) is essentially a Reynolds number based on a length scale of k . Hence, if the Reynolds number is much less than one, the nonlinear terms in eq. (9) are negligible, and we recover Darcys law. The Forchheimer equation can be justified heuristically by noting that q 2 is related to the kinetic energy per unit volume of
Section 9 Page 156
fluid, and the kinetic energy is not negligible at higher flowrates (recall eq. 1.1.2). Alternatively, one can interpret the Forchheimer equation as an empirical law. Eq. (9) implies that the flowrate under a given pressure gradient will actually be less than would be predicted on the basis of Darcys law. Another way of interpreting eq. (9) is that, for a given flowrate, the pressure drop will be larger than that which would be predicted by Darcys law. Hence, non-Darcy effects can be said to contribute an additional pressure drop. As non-Darcy flow is confined to a region near the wellbore, its effect during a well test is therefore somewhat similar to a skin effect. In fact, the main consequence of non-Darcy flow near the wellbore is that the skin factor gets replaced by an apparent skin factor, s , which is given by s = s + DQ , (11)
where D is the non-Darcy skin coefficient. This coefficient is related to the coefficient that appears in Forchheimers equation (see Chierici, p. 241, for the details). 9.5. Klinkenberg effect Liquids, as well as gases at typical reservoir pressures, behave like continua, in the sense that we can ignore the motions of individual molecules, and instead work with mean velocities that are averaged over a (very) large number of molecules. This leads to continuum-type theories such as Darcys law for flow through porous media, or the Navier-Stokes equations for fluid flow on the pore scale.
Section 9 Page 157
A fundamental aspect of the Navier-Stokes equations is that the fluid velocity is assumed to be zero at the boundary with a solid - such as at the pore walls. This obviously must be true for the normal component of the velocity, but it is in fact also true for the tangential component. This boundary condition is the main reason why the N-S equations average out (upscale) to yield Darcys law. However, this micro-scale boundary condition will not hold for a gas at very low densities, which is to say at very low pressures. The reasons are complicated, but they boil down to the fact that in order for the gas to behave like a continuum, a given gas molecule must collide much more frequently with other gas molecules than with the pore walls. To quantify whether or not this will be the case, we must consider the concept of the mean free path, which is essentially the mean distance travelled by a molecule between subsequent collisions with other molecules. According to the kinetic theory of gases (see Molecular Theory of Gases and Liquids, Hirschfelder, Curtiss, and Bird, Wiley & Sons, 1954), the mean free path is essentially given by
1 = 2n 2
kBT
2 2P
(1)
where n is the molecular density in molecules/volume, kB is the Boltzmann constant (i.e., the gas constant per molecule), and is an effective molecular diameter. If the pore size is smaller than the mean free path, collisions with the pore walls will be much more frequent than collisions with other molecules, and the gas will essentially flow through the pores as individual molecules, rather than as a fluid continuum. This type of flow is known as Knudsen flow, or slip flow.
Section 9 Page 158
Klinkenberg (1941) assumed that gas flow through a porous medium could be modelled as Knudsen flow through a capillary tube, and showed that the apparent permeability measured during gas flow will be related to the true absolute permeability k by
kgas 8c , = k 1 + d
(2)
where is the mean free path, d is the pore diameter, and c 1 is a dimensionless coefficient. If we combine eqs. (1) and (2), we find
8c k BT 1 . = k 1 + 2 d 2 P
kgas
(3)
If we now use eq. (9.4.3) to relate the pore diameter to the permeability, we find
kgas 4c = k 1+ 5 2 kBT . 2 k P
(4)
The second term in the brackets in eq. (4) is the relative discrepancy due to the Klinkenberg effect. Noting that absolute temperature, molecular diameter, and will not vary by very much, for all cases of practical interest, we see that the parameters that control the strength of the Klinkenberg effect are pressure and permeability. Eq. (4) shows that the Klinkenberg effect is enhanced if either (i) the pressure is low, or (ii) the permeability is low.
Section 9 Page 159
For a given gas flowing through a given rock at a fixed temperature, we can evaluate all the terms inside the bracket except P, and call the result P*. Eq. (4) can then be written as
kgas P * , = k 1 + P
(5)
where P* (which is usually written as b) is a characteristic pressure that has the following significance: the Klinkenberg effect will have a noticeable effect on the measured permeability if (roughly) P < 10P*. Alternatively, we can say that the Klinkenberg effect will be negligible if P > 10P*. To quantify the magnitude of the Klinkenberg effect, consider a rock having a porosity of = 0.10, with a gas flowing through it at 300K. Boltzmanns constant is 1.3810-23 J/K, and typical molecular diameters are on the order of 4, so we find from eq. (4) that for k = 10 mD: for k = 1000 mD: P* 15 kPa 2 psi , P* 1.5 kPa 0.2 psi .
We see that reservoir pressures will be much larger than P* for typical reservoir rocks, and so the Klinkenberg effect is usually negligible for flow in the reservoir. However, laboratory permeability tests are often conducted using gas at low pressures (because these measurements are quicker, safer and cheaper than measurements made at simulated reservoir pressures), and so the lab-measured permeabilities must be corrected to eliminate the Klinkenberg effect. (Note that it is the actual permeability k that we want to know, not the apparent gas permeability kgas, which is an experimental artefact!).
Section 9 Page 160
This is done by measuring kgas over a range of pressures, and then plotting the results as a function of 1/P. According to eq. (5), the data should fall on a straight line with a positive slope. Often, we do not make measurements at sufficiently high pressures to be able to avoid the Klinkenberg effect. But, if we fit a straight line through the k vs. 1/P data, and extrapolate this line back to 1/P = 0, we find the absolute permeability, k. This procedure is illustrated in Fig. 9.5.1 on the next page, taken from Chierici, p. 78. Note that 1/P = 0 corresponds to very large values of the pressure, at which the gas does behave like a continuum.
Klinkenberg Effect
300
Permeability, kGAS (mD)
250 200 150 100 50 0 0 200
Kgas data Fitted line
kabs = k gas (line, at 1/P = 0) = 30 mD

400 600 800 1000
1/Pressure (atm -1)
Fig. 9.5.1. Apparent gas permeability at low pressures, extrapolated to 1/P = 0 to find true permeability. Note that the parameter P* contains k in it as part of its definition, and we dont know k before we measure it! However, the extrapolation procedure does not require knowledge of k. The data can be plotted against 1/P in any units, dimensionless or not; extrapolation to 1/P = 0 will give the actual permeability.

Fluid Flow in Porous Media

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Fluid Flow in Porous Media

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M.Sc.

in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

Diffusion Equation for Fluid Flow in Porous Rocks

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

Department of Earth Science and Engineering

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

If we take z = 0 to be at sea level, where the fluid pressure is atmospheric, then

Department of Earth Science and Engineering

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

Department of Earth Science and Engineering

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

Department of Earth Science and Engineering

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

Department of Earth Science and Engineering

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

Department of Earth Science and Engineering

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

Department of Earth Science and Engineering

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

Now divide both sides by Ax, and let x 0 :

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

cf is the compressibility of the fluid, c is the compressibility of the rock formation.

Department of Earth Science and Engineering

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

Now equate eqs. (1) and (2) to arrive at

cf Q cf (Po Pw ) = . 2kH ln(Ro / Rw )

Typical values of these parameters (for liquids) are

10 10 107 Ratio = = 10 4 << 1 . 10

Department of Earth Science and Engineering

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

in which the total compressibility is given by

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

Department of Earth Science and Engineering

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

As before, divide by t, and let t 0 :

On the right-hand side:

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003

Flow in Porous Media Dr. R. W. Zimmerman

Equate eqs. (2) and (4), divide by R, and let R 0 :

For liquids, we again neglect the term cf ( dP / dR ) 2 , to arrive at

M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering 2002-2003