Professional Documents
Culture Documents
17/11/2012
INTRODUCTION
IATMI
TO WELL TESTING
Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo
Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
2
OBJECTIVES
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
Production
remainst
constant
Pressure
essu e
stabilizes
t
6
17/11/2012
Production
to 0
P d i drops
d
q
t
Sensor is
lowered
into well
p
Pressure
rises
t
7
17/11/2012
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS
17/11/2012
Deliverability tests
W generate and
We
d measure pressure changes
h
with
i h time
i
(Production Analysis)
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
11
17/11/2012
12
17/11/2012
SINGLE
SINGLE-,, MULTIWELL TESTS
q
Well is
allowed
ll
d to
t
produce
normally
Sensor is
lowered
into well
13
17/11/2012
SINGLE
SINGLE-,, MULTIWELL TESTS
14
17/11/2012
SINGLE
SINGLE-,, MULTIWELL TESTS
Well is
shut in
Sensor is
lowered
into
offset
well
. . . pressure is
measured at
offset well(s)
15
17/11/2012
Pwf
t
16
17/11/2012
Produce
well
ell at
constant
rate
Lower
sensor
into well
Pws
t
17
17/11/2012
Inject fluid
into well at
constant rate p
Plot
pressure
response
18
17/11/2012
Measure
pressure
response
p
t
19
17/11/2012
MULTIWELL TESTS
. . . measure pressure
response at offset
well(s)
Produce
one well
ll at
constant
rate . . .
p
t
20
17/11/2012
MULTIWELL TESTS
q
. . . measure
pressure
response at
offset well(s)
Alternately
produce and
shut in one
well . . .
p
t
21
17/11/2012
press re b
pressure
buildup
ild p test
injectivity test
17/11/2012
23
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
MULTIWELL TESTS:
Interference tests
The active
Th
ti wellll iis produced
d
d att a measured,
d constant
t t
rate throughout the test
((Other wells in the field must be shut in so that anyy
observed pressure response can be attributed to the
active well only.)
Pulse tests
17/11/2012
26
17/11/2012
typically,
yp
y, with a sequence
q
of increasingg flow rates
27
17/11/2012
low-permeability formations
requires
q
prior
p
knowledge
g of the well's deliverabilityy behavior
28
17/11/2012
ISSUES
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
Reservoir p
properties
p
(p
(permeability,
y, skin
factor, fracture half-length, etc).
17/11/2012
Narrated
a ated by:
by RS
S Trijana
ja a Kartoatmodjo
a toat odjo
Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
32
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
(Av)1
(Av)2
Av 1 Av 2
m
34
17/11/2012
kAp
kA
q
L
or,, in differential form,,
k x p
ux
x
35
17/11/2012
oe
c p po
36
17/11/2012
1 p ct p
r
r r r
k t
37
17/11/2012
Vres
B
Vsurf
For oil:
For gas:
For water:
Vres
Bo
Vsurf
Vres
Bg
Vsurf
Vres
Bw
Vsurf
38
17/11/2012
VISCOSITY
viscosityy
Vaselinehigh viscosity
39
17/11/2012
FLUID COMPRESSIBILITY
1 V
lnV
c
V p
p
40
17/11/2012
POROSITY
41
17/11/2012
PERMEABILITY
q L
k
Ap
A
42
17/11/2012
PORE COMPRESSIBILITY
1 ln
cf
p
p
43
17/11/2012
h1
h2
Shale
h3
Sand
h = h1 + h2 + h3
(No perforations
in this sand)
h4
44
17/11/2012
Vertical well,
horizontal formation
Deviated well,
horizontal formation
Vertical well,
slanted formation
Deviated well,
slanted formation
45
17/11/2012
SATURATIONS
46
17/11/2012
WELLBORE RADIUS
rw
47
17/11/2012
TOTAL COMPRESSIBILITY
ct c f So co Sw cw S g c g
48
17/11/2012
Narrated
a ated by:
by RS
S Trijana
ja a Kartoatmodjo
a toat odjo
Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
49
17/11/2012
INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
17/11/2012
Assumptions
Single-phase
Single phase liquid with constant
, c, B
Bulk
formation
rw
r
51
17/11/2012
EI-FUNCTION
EI
FUNCTION SOLUTION
TO THE DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION
qB 948ct r
p pi 70.6
Ei
kh
kt
Ei x
du
52
17/11/2012
EI-FUNCTION GRAPH
6
Log approximation
Ei-function
d
drops
to
t zero
0
0 001
0.001
0 01
0.01
01
0.1
10
100
-x
53
17/11/2012
SHORT
SHORT-TIME
TIME APPROXIMATION FOR EI
EI-FUNCTION
FUNCTION
SOLUTION
p pi
948 ct r
10
kt
2
Applies when
17/11/2012
LONG
LONG-TIME
TIME APPROXIMATION
TO EI-FUNCTION SOLUTION
qB
1688
c
r
t
p pi 162.6
log10
kh
kt
948 ct r 2
0.01
Applies when
kt
(small radius or large time)
55
17/11/2012
PRESSURE PROFILE
DURING DRAWDOWN
2000
ri
t=0
ri
ri
ri
t = 0.01 hrs
t = 1 hr
Pressure,
psi
t = 100 hrs
t = 10000 hrs
1000
1
10
100
1000
10000
56
17/11/2012
PRESSURE PROFILE
DURING BUILDUP
2,000
ri
t = 10,000
10 000 hrs
h
1,800
ri
t = 100 hrs
1,600
1 400
1,400
ri
t = 1 hr
ri
1,200
t = 0.01 hrs
t=0
1,000
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
57
17/11/2012
2
948 ct ri
58
17/11/2012
CHARACTERIZING DAMAGE
AND STIMULATION
Narrated
a ated by:
by RS
S Trijana
ja a Kartoatmodjo
a toat odjo
Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
59
17/11/2012
INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
60
17/11/2012
61
17/11/2012
PRODUCTION DAMAGE
p > pd
P< pd
Gas Condensate
Reservoir
Immobile condensate
ring
i reduces
d
effective permeability
p < pb
p > pb
Oil Reservoir
Free gas reduces
effective permeability
62
17/11/2012
INJECTION DAMAGE
dirty
water
incompatible
water
63
17/11/2012
RESERVOIR MODEL
Skin Effect
Altered
zone
ka
Bulk
formation
rw
ra
64
17/11/2012
Prressure
e, psi
2,000
2 000
1,500
1 000
1,000
ps
500
1
10
100
1 000
1,000
10 000
10,000
17/11/2012
0.00708 k h
ps
s
qB
B
66
17/11/2012
141.2qB
ps
s
kh
67
17/11/2012
k
ra
s
1 ln
l
ka
rw
The skin factor may be calculated from
the properties of the altered zone.
If ka < k (damage), skin is positive.
rw
rds
h
r
68
17/11/2012
ka
k
1
lnra rw
69
17/11/2012
rwa rw e
rwa
s ln
rw
70
17/11/2012
smin
re
ln
r
w
71
17/11/2012
smin
re
ln
rw
745
ln
7.3
0.5
72
17/11/2012
Geometric Skin
73
17/11/2012
PARTIAL PENETRATION
hp
h
Geometric Skin
74
17/11/2012
h1
hp
ht
ht
s
sd s p
hp
Geometric Skin
75
17/11/2012
PARTIAL PENETRATION
APPARENT SKIN FACTOR
h1 D h1 ht
Geometric Skin
hpD hp ht
1
A
h1 D hpD 4
1
hpD A 1 2
1
sp
1 ln
ln
hpD
2rD hpD 2 hpD B 1
rw kv
rD
ht kh
1
B
h1 D 3hppD 4
76
17/11/2012
DEVIATED WELLBORE
h sec
s sd s
Geometric Skin
77
17/11/2012
DEVIATED WELLBORE
APPARENT SKIN FACTOR
w'
w'
s
41
2.06
kv
tan
tan w
kh
w'
56
1.865
hD
log
100
h
hD
rw
kh
kv
78
17/11/2012
L f 2rwa
rwe
Lf
rwa
Geometric Skin
Lf
2
79
17/11/2012
COMPLETION SKIN
rw
rp
kdp
s s p sd sdp
rdp
kR
Lp
kd
sdp
h rdp kR kR
ln
Lp n rp kdp
k
d
d
rd
80
17/11/2012
sgp
kR hLg
2
2nk gp rp
Lg
81
17/11/2012
PRODUCTIVITY INDEX
q
J
p pwff
82
17/11/2012
FLOW EFFICIENCY
J actual p pwf ps
Ef
J ideal
p pwf
We can express the degree of damage on stimulation with the flow efficiency.
For a well with neither damage nor stimulation, Ef = 1.
For a damaged well, Ef < 1
For a stimulated well,
well Ef > 1
83
17/11/2012
qnew qold
E fnew
E fold
We can use the flow efficiency to calculate the effects of changes in skin
factor on the production rate corresponding to a given pressure
drawdown.
qnew
qold
Efnew
f
Efold
=
=
=
=
17/11/2012
SEMILOG ANALYSIS
FOR OIL WELLS
17/11/2012
INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
Analyze
86
17/11/2012
EI-FUNCTION SOLUTION
qB 948ct r
Ei
p pi 70.6
kh
k
kt
6
4
2
0.001
-x
100
87
17/11/2012
Negative skin
(s = -2)
2)
Pressure,
psi
Unsteady-state pressure
((s=0))
Positive (damage) skin (s = +5)
500
1
10
100
1,000
Di t
Distance
from
f
center
t off wellbore,
llb
ft
10,000
88
17/11/2012
948 c t rw2
2 s
Ei
k
kt
For r > ra
948 c t r
q B
p pi 70.6
Ei
kh
kt
89
17/11/2012
y = mx + b
pwf
k
3.23 0.869s
log10 t log10
2
ct rw
90
17/11/2012
162.6qB
k
mh
p p
k
3.23
s 1.151 i 1hr log10
c r 2
m
t w
91
17/11/2012
Pressure,
psi
(t1, pwf1)
Powers of 10
700
0.1
10
100
1,000
Elapsed
apsed Test
est Time,
e, hrs
s
92
17/11/2012
EXAMPLE
q = 250 STB/D
h = 46 ft
rw = 0.365 ft
ct = 17 x 10-6 psi-1
pi = 4,412 psia
= 12%
B = 1.136 RB/STB
/
= 0.8 cp
p p
k
3.23
s 1.151 i 1hr log
g10
2
m
ct rw
93
17/11/2012
EXAMPLE
q = 250 STB/D
h = 46 ft
rw = 0.365 ft
ct = 17
1 x 10-66 psi-11
pi = 4,412 psia
= 12%
B = 1.136 RB/STB
= 0.8
0 8 cp
162.6qB
k
mh
p p
k
3.23
s 1.151 i 1hr log
g10
2
m
ct rw
94
17/11/2012
EXAMPLE
3,600
Extrapolate to get p1 hr
O log
One
l cycle
l
Plot data points
from field data
3,300
1
10
100
Time, hrs
95
17/11/2012
EXAMPLE
q = 250 STB/D
h = 46 ft
rw = 0.365 ft
ct = 17 x 10-6 p
psi-1
pi = 4,412
4 412 psia
= 12%
B = 1.136 RB/STB
= 0.8 cp
p
162.6qB
k
mh
p1hr
3 540 psi
1h 3,540
p p
k
3.23
s 1.151 i 1hr log
g10
2
m
m 100 ct rw
96
17/11/2012
97
17/11/2012
ALTERNATIVE TO DRAWDOWN
TESTS
98
17/11/2012
tp + t
t
q
0
t
99
17/11/2012
tp
100
17/11/2012
k
q
qB
3.23 0.869s
pws pi 162.6
log10 t p t log10
2
kh
c
r
t w
k
qB
3.23 0.869s
162.6
log10t log10
2
kh
ct rw
t p t
qB
log 10
pws pi 162.6
kh
t
t
y = mx + b
101
17/11/2012
162.6qB
B
k
mh
Horner time ratio
pi b
t p t
t
1
102
17/11/2012
2,000
pi
1,400
10,000
1,000
100
10
103
17/11/2012
k
3.23
s 1.151
log 10
2
m
c t rw
104
17/11/2012
tp
pws
24N p
qlast
t p t
qlast B
logg10
pi 162.6
kh
t
t
105
17/11/2012
SEMILOG ANALYSIS
FOR GAS WELLS
17/11/2012
INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
1. Identify range of validity of pressure,
pressure-squared, and adjusted
pressure analysis
p
y methods
2. Estimate pressure drop due to
nonDarcy
D
fl
flow
3. Analyze
y flow and buildup
p tests usingg
semilog analysis
107
17/11/2012
OUTLINE
Flow
Pseudopressure
Pressure
Pressure-Squared
Squared
Pressure
Adjusted
Non-Darcy
Non Darcy
Pressure
Flow
Example
p
108
17/11/2012
1 p c t p
r
r r r
k t
Continuity Equation
Equation
E
ti off State
St t For
F Slightly
Sli htl
Compressible Liquids
Darcys Law
109
17/11/2012
pV=znRT
pV znRT
volume,
number of moles
temperature, R
ft3
110
17/11/2012
absolute
b l t pressure, psii
p p p 2
p
p0
pdp
z
111
17/11/2012
1 p p
r
r r r
c t p p
k t
Continuity Equation
Real Gas Law Equation of State
Darcys Law
112
17/11/2012
1 p
r
r r r
c t p
k t
Continuity Equation
Real Gas Law Equation of State
Darcys
y Law
The term z Is Constant
113
17/11/2012
PRESSURE-SQUARED
PRESSURE SQUARED RANGES
0.16
SG=1.2
Fairly constant at
rates <2,000 psi
SG=1.0
Tf = 200 F
mu*z,
psi/cp
SG=0.8
SG=0.6
0
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
Pressure, psia
114
17/11/2012
1 p ct p
r
r r r
k t
Continuity
C
i i E
Equation
i
Real
ea Gas Law
a Equation
quat o of
o State
Darcys Law
115
17/11/2012
250
Tf = 200F
SG=0.6
SG=0.8
SG=1.0
SG=1 2
SG=1.2
Fairly
y constant at rates >3,000 psi
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
Pressure, psia
8,000
10,000
116
17/11/2012
117
17/11/2012
Strong
g Variation
With Pressure
118
17/11/2012
t ap
dt
p ct p
119
17/11/2012
ADJUSTED VARIABLES
z
pa p
p i
t a ct i
p0
pdp z
p p p
z 2 p i
dt
ct i t ap
p ct p
120
17/11/2012
HTR
t p ta
t a
121
17/11/2012
NON-DARCY FLOW
Flow equations developed so far
assume Darcy flow
For gas wells
wells, velocity near wellbore is
high enough that Darcys law fails
Non-Darcy behavior can often be
modeled as rate-dependent skin
122
17/11/2012
s ' s Dq g
123
17/11/2012
ESTIMATING NON-DARCY
COEFFICIENT
FROM MULTIPLE TESTS
10
Apparent
skin factor
D = 5.1x104D/Mscf
4
s = 3.4
2
0
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
124
17/11/2012
ESTIMATING NON
NON-DARCY
DARCY COEFFICIENT
FROM TURBULENCE PARAMETER
Often,
Often only one test is available
If so, we can estimate D from
k g Mpsc
h rwTsc g , wff
2.715 10
15
125
17/11/2012
ESTIMATING TURBULENCE
PARAMETER
If is not known,
known it can be estimated from
1.88 10 k
10
1.47 0.53
126
17/11/2012
WELLBORE STORAGE
17/11/2012
OBJECTIVES
Define wellbore unloading
Define afterflow
Calculate wellbore storage (WBS)
coefficient for wellbore filled with a
singlephase fluid
Calculate WBS coefficient for rising
liquid level
128
17/11/2012
Surface Rate
Ei-function
Ei
f
ti
solution
l ti
assumes constant
reservoir rate
Bottomhole
R t
Rate
Time
Mass b
M
balance
l
equation resolves
problems
p
q qsf B
dppw
dt
24Vwbcwb
129
17/11/2012
Fluid-Filled
Fluid
Filled Wellbore - Afterflow
Rate
Bottomhole flow
continues after
shut-in
Surface Rate
Bottomhole
Rate
Time
q qsf B
dpw
dt
24Vwbcwb
130
17/11/2012
Rising
g Liquid
q
Level
Rate
Surface Rate
Bottomhole
Rate
Time
q qsf B 5.615 wb g
dpw
dt
24
144 Awb gc
131
17/11/2012
WELLBORE STORAGE
q qsff B
dpw
Fluid-filled wellbore
dt
24Vwbcwb
q qsf B 5.615 wb g
dpw
d
dt
24
144 Awb gc
General
q qsf B
dpw
dt
24C
132
17/11/2012
q qsf B
C
dpw
24
dt
Fluid-filled
Fl
id fill d
wellbore
C Vwbcwb
Rising
liquid level
144 Awb gc
C
5.615 wb g
25.65
Awb
wb
133
17/11/2012
Narrated
a ated by:
by RS
S Trijana
ja a Kartoatmodjo
a toat odjo
Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
134
17/11/2012
OBJECTIVES
1. Identifyy wellbore storage
g and middle time
regions on type curve.
2 Identify pressure response for a well with high,
2.
high
zero, or negative skin.
3 Calculate equivalent time.
3.
time
4. Calculate wellbore storage coefficient,
permeability,
bili and
d skin
ki ffactor ffrom type curve
match.
135
17/11/2012
DIMENSIONLESS VARIABLES
qB 948ct r 2
Ei
p pi 70.6
kh
kt
kh pi p
1
Ei
141.2qB
2
kh pi p
pD
141.2qB
0.0002637 kt
4
2
c
r
t
w
rD
r
rw
0.0002637 kt
tD
2
ct rw2
1 rD
pD Ei
4t D
136
17/11/2012
0.0002637 kt
tD
ct rw2
r
rD
rw
khps
s
141.2q
qB
0.8936C
CD
ct hrw2
137
17/11/2012
138
17/11/2012
CDe2s
PD
CDe2s=1060
Type curve
CDe2s=100
CDe2s=0.01
Stem
Ti
Time
group
100,000
0.01
tD/CD
139
17/11/2012
PD
100,000
0.01
tD/CD
140
17/11/2012
PRESSURE DERIVATIVE
162.6qB
p
kh
kt
3.23 0.869 s
log
2
ct rw
p
p
t
t
ln t
tD
pD
pD
t D ln t D
p 70.6qB
t
kh
t
tD
pD
0 .5
t D
141
17/11/2012
Differences in curve
shapes make
matching easier
CDe2s=1060
tD/PD
CDe2s=100
100
CDe2s=0.01
100,000
0.01
tD/CD
142
17/11/2012
Combining curves
gives
i
each
h stem
t
value two distinctive
shapes
PD
100,000
0.01
tD/CD
143
17/11/2012
WBS
PD
Transition
Radial Flow
Unit
Horizontal Derivative
Slope
p
Line
0.01
tD/CD
144
17/11/2012
High skin
PD
No skin
Low skin
100,000
0.01
tD/CD
145
17/11/2012
pi pws
qB
162.6
kh
k
3.23 0.869 s
log10 t p log
2
ct rw
qB
162.6
kh
k
3.23 0.869 s
log10 t p t log
2
c
r
t w
qB
162.6
kh
k
3.23 0.869 s
log10 t log
2
ct rw
146
17/11/2012
pws pwf
qB
162.6
kh
k
3.23 0.869 s
log10 t p log
2
ct rw
qB
162.6
kh
k
3.23 0.869 s
log10 t p t log
2
ct rw
q
qB
162.6
kh
k
3.23 0.869 s
log10 t log
2
c
r
t w
t p t
k
qB
logg
3.23 0.869 s
logg10
162.6
2
c r
t p t
kh
t w
147
17/11/2012
qB
162.6
kh
k
3.23 0.869 s
log10 t p log
2
ct rw
k
t p t
qB
3.23 0.869 s
log
pws pwf 162.6
log10
t p t
c r 2
kh
t w
k
B
qB
3.23 0.869 s
pws pwf 162.6
log10 te log
c r 2
kh
t w
148
17/11/2012
p pi pwff vs t
Buildup
p pws pwf vs t e
149
17/11/2012
t p t
t p t
tp
t p t
t
t p t
t , t t p
tp
t p , t t p
tp
HTR
150
17/11/2012
t a ct reff
p ' dp '
p ' 0 p 'z p '
dt '
t ' 0 p ct p
Ca Vwb cg ref
151
17/11/2012
1 000
1,000
teq
1,000
152
17/11/2012
1,000
PD
teq
1,000
100,000
0.01
tD/CD
153
17/11/2012
1,000
PD
Align
g data with
horizontal part of
1,000
teq type curves
100,000
0.01
tD/CD
154
17/11/2012
PD
P
Begin to move toward unit slope line
1
teq
1,000
100,000
0.01
tD/CD
155
17/11/2012
PD
teq
1,000
100,000
0.01
tD/CD
156
17/11/2012
Assume
pD =1,000
1 10
000
Assume
p = 262
Lets
say s=7x10
Calculate
s from9
matching
t hi stem
t
value
l
p/pD k
pD
Extrapolate curve
as necessary
p
Assume
teq = 0.0546
1
teq
Teq/tD CD
0.01
Assume
tD/CD = 1
1,000
100,000
tD/CD
157
17/11/2012
USE RESERVOIR,
RESERVOIR WELL PROPERTIES
q = 50
B = 1.325
1 325
= 00.609
609
h = 15
= 0.183
ct = 1.76
1 76 x 10-55
rw2 = 0.25
CD = 1703
158
17/11/2012
h
p M .P .
141.2501.3250.609 10
15
262
14.5 md
159
17/11/2012
CD
2
t
C
ct rw D D M .P .
0.000
0002637
637 14.5
0546
6
0.05
CD
5
0.1830.6091.76 10 0.25 1
1703
160
17/11/2012
1 C De
s ln
2 C D
9
1 7 10
s ln
l
2 1703
7.6
161
17/11/2012
LOG LOG
MANUAL LOG-LOG
ANALYSIS
162
17/11/2012
INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
To
163
17/11/2012
p
r
100
(tp)r
10
1
0.01
0.1
10
tr
100
1000
164
17/11/2012
ESTIMATING PERMEABILITY
AND SKIN FACTOR
70.6q
qB
k
htp r
kt r
1 pr
s
ln
2
2 tp r
1688c t rw
165
17/11/2012
Example
q = 50 STB/D pwf
h = 15 ft
f
B = 1.36 RB/STBct
= 0.563
0 563 cp
rw
= 2095 psia
= 18.3%
18 3%
= 17.9 x 106 psi1
= 0.25
0 25 ft
f
166
17/11/2012
ESTIMATE (TP
(TP))R, TR, AND PR
1000
Pressure chang
ge, psi
400
100
14
10
1
0.01
0.1
10
20
100
1000
17/11/2012
ESTIMATE PERMEABILITY
70.6qB
k
htp r
1514
12.9 md
168
17/11/2012
kt r
1 pr
s
ln
l
2
2 tp r
1688c t rw
1 400
12.9 20
ln
2
6
2 14
1688
0
.
183
0
.
563
17
.
9
10
0
.
25
7.23
169
17/11/2012
FLOW
O REGIMES
G
S
AND THE
DIAGNOSTIC PLOT
17/11/2012
OBJECTIVES
1. Identify early, middle, and late time
regions on a diagnostic plot.
2. Identify characteristic shapes of flow
regimes on a diagnostic plot.
3. List factors that affect pressure
response in early time.
4. List boundaries that affect pressure
response in late time.
171
17/11/2012
Pressure derivative (p )
17/11/2012
Unit-slope
Unit
slope
line
Near-wellbore effects
(wellbore storage)
EEarly-time
l ti
region
MiddleMiddl
time
region
LLate-time
t ti
region
17/11/2012
Homogenous reservoir
horizontal derivative
(best estimate of k )
E penetration,
Early-time
l ti
Partial
penetration
region
phase redistribution,
fracture conductivity
MiddleMiddl
time
region
LLate-time
t ti
region
17/11/2012
Infinite-acting
behavior
E penetration,
Early-time
l ti
Partial
penetration
region
phase redistribution,
fracture conductivity
Boundary
effects
MiddleMiddl
time
region
LLate-time
t ti
region
17/11/2012
FLOW REGIMES
176
17/11/2012
VOLUMETRIC BEHAVIOR
177
17/11/2012
VOLUMETRIC
O U
C BEHAVIOR
O
Wellbore Storage
qBt
p
24C
Pseudosteady-State Flow
pi pwf
0.0744qBt 141.2qB
2
ct hr
he
kh
General Form
re 3
ln s
rw 4
p mV t bV
178
17/11/2012
VOLUMETRIC BEHAVIOR
General Form
Derivative
p mV t bV
mV t bV
p
t
t
t
t
mV t
179
17/11/2012
VOLUMETRIC BEHAVIOR
Pressure derivative
17/11/2012
VOLUMETRIC BEHAVIOR
Wellbore
storage
g
17/11/2012
RADIAL FLOW
Wellbore
182
17/11/2012
RADIAL FLOW
Wellbore
Fracture
183
17/11/2012
RADIAL FLOW
Late radial flow
Wellbore
184
17/11/2012
RADIAL FLOW
Vertical Well
162.6qB
p
kh
kt
3.23 0.869 s
log
2
ct rw
General Form
p m logt b
185
17/11/2012
RADIAL FLOW
General Form
Derivative
p m logt b
p
m log
l t b
t
t
t
t
m
2.303
186
17/11/2012
RADIAL FLOW
Pressure
Pressure derivative
Elapsed time (t ), hrs
187
17/11/2012
RADIAL FLOW
Radial
flow
17/11/2012
SPHERICAL FLOW
x
y
z
189
17/11/2012
SPHERICAL FLOW
Vertical wellbore
Few perforations
open
Spherical flow
190
17/11/2012
S
SPHERICAL
C FLOW
O
Vertical wellbore
Small part of
zone perforated
Spherical flow
191
17/11/2012
SPHERICAL FLOW
Vertical wellbore
Certain wireline
testing tools
Spherical flow
192
17/11/2012
SPHERICAL FLOW
Spherical Probe (RFT)
pi pwf
ct rp
q
1
kt
4krp
General Form
p bS mS t
1 2
193
17/11/2012
SPHERICAL FLOW
General Form
Derivative
p bS mS t
1 2
bS mS t
p
t
t
t
t
1
1 2
mS t
2
1 2
194
17/11/2012
SPHERICAL FLOW
Pressure
Pressure derivative
2
Elapsed time (t ), hrs
195
17/11/2012
SPHERICAL FLOW
Spherical flow
17/11/2012
LINEAR FLOW
Vertical wellbore
Fracture
Linear flow
197
17/11/2012
LINEAR FLOW
Vertical
wellbore
llb
Linear
flow
Channel (ancient
stream) reservoir
198
17/11/2012
LINEAR FLOW
Wellbore
199
17/11/2012
LINEAR FLOW
Late linear flow
Wellbore
200
17/11/2012
LINEAR FLOW
Channel
Hydraulic
Fracture
Generall
G
Form
16.26qB kt
p
kh
khw
ct
4.064qB kt
p
khL f ct
p mL t
12
12
12
bL
201
17/11/2012
LINEAR FLOW
General
Form
Derivative
p mL t
12
bL
p
mL t bL
t
t
t
t
1
12
mL t
2
12
202
17/11/2012
LINEAR FLOW
Pressure change in fractured/damaged
or horizontal well
Pressure change
g in
undamaged
Pressure 1
fractured well
derivative
2
Elapsed time (t ), hrs
203
17/11/2012
BILINEAR FLOW
204
17/11/2012
BILINEAR FLOW
Hydraulic Fracture
44 .1qB
p
h
General Form
wk
f
12
c t k
p mB t
14
14
bB
205
17/11/2012
BILINEAR FLOW
General Form
Derivative
p mB t
14
bB
p
mB t bB
t
t
t
t
1
14
mB t
4
14
206
17/11/2012
BILINEAR FLOW
Pressure in fractured,
damaged well
ell
Pressure in fractured,
undamaged well
Pressure derivative
4
Elapsed time (t ), hrs
207
17/11/2012
DIAGNOSTIC PLOT
Wellbore
storage
g
Radial
flow
Spherical flow
Recharge?
17/11/2012
ESTIMATING AVERAGE
RESERVOIR PRESSURE
17/11/2012
Method
Method
Muskat Method
Arps-Smith Method
210
17/11/2012
Based
B
d on extrapolation
l i and
d correction
i off MTR
pressure trend
Advantage
Disadvantages
Need
eed accurate
accu ate fluid
u d property
p ope ty estimates
est ates
Need to know drainage area shape, size, well location within
drainage
g area
May be somewhat computationally involved
211
17/11/2012
MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZEBROEK
Producing time prior to shut-in, tp = 482 hr
Porosity = 0.15
Porosity,
0 15
Viscosity, m = 0.25 cp
T t l compressibility,
Total
ibilit ct = 1.615
1 615 x 10-55
Drainage area, A = 1500 x 3000 ft (a 2x1 reservoir)
2
1
212
17/11/2012
pMBHD
-1
0.01
0.1
tpAD
10
213
17/11/2012
pMBHD
-1
1
0.01
0.1
tpAD
10
214
17/11/2012
pMBHD
-1
-2
2
0.01
0.1
tpAD
10
215
17/11/2012
MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZEBROEK
2750
p*=2689.4
m=26.7
2650
Shut-in well
pressure, psia
2550
2450
Step
Step1:2:Plot
Extrapolate
pressureslope
vs. Horner
m to find
timep*ratio
2400
106
105
104
103
102
10
17/11/2012
MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZEBROEK
Step 3: Calculate dimensionless producing time
0.0002637
0002637kt pp
t pAD
ct A
0.00026377.5482
5
0.150.251.61510 15003000
0.35
217
17/11/2012
MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZEBROEK
Step 4: On appropriate MBH curve, find pMBHD
6
5
2x1 rectangle
4
3
pMBHD
2.05
2
1
0
-1
0.01
tpAD = 0.35
0.1
tpAD
10
218
17/11/2012
MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZEBROEK
Step 5: Calculate average reservoir pressure, p
m
pMBHD t pAD
p p*
2.303
26.7
2.05
2689 .4
2.303
2665
665 .6
219
17/11/2012
MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZEBROEK
Calculate p
17/11/2012
MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZEBROEK
Advantages
Disadvantages
221
17/11/2012
RESERVOIR SHAPES
1
1
Di t shape
Dietz
h
ffactor
t CA = 4.5132
4 5132
Dietz
Dietzshape
shapefactor
factorCCAA==12.9851
30.8828
222
17/11/2012
RESERVOIR SHAPES
2
223
17/11/2012
RESERVOIR SHAPES
4
224
17/11/2012
RESERVOIR SHAPES
Dietz shape factor Dietz shape factor Dietz shape factor
CA = 31.62
31 62
CA = 19.17
19 17
CA = 27.1
27 1
Dietz
Di
t shape
h
ffactor
t
CA = 31.6
Dietz shape
Di
h
ffactor
CA = 0.098
225
17/11/2012
RAMEY
RAMEY-COBB
COBB
Step 1:
St
1 Plot
Pl t pressure vs. H
Horner time
ti
ratio
ti
Step 2: Calculate dimensionless producing time
t pAD
0.0002637kt p
ct A
0.00026377.5482
0.150.251.615105 15003000
0.35
226
17/11/2012
RAMEY-COBB
Step 3: Find the Dietz shape factor CA for the drainage
area shape and well location
t p t
C At pAD
AD
t p
21.80.35
7.63
227
17/11/2012
RAMEY
RAMEY-COBB
COBB
2750
2650
Shut-in wellbore
pressure, psia
p 2665.8
2550
HTR = 7.63
2450
2400
106
105
104
103
102
10
17/11/2012
RAMEY-COBB
RAMEY COBB
Read p at HTRavg
229
17/11/2012
RAMEY-COBB
RAMEY COBB
Advantages
Disadvantages
Requires
q
drainage
g area size,, shape,
p , well location
Requires accurate fluid property data
Requires producing time long enough to reach
pseudosteady state
230
17/11/2012
Based
B
d on extrapolation
l i off post-middle-time
iddl i
region
i
pressure trend to infinite shut-in time
Advantages
Disadvantage
g
231
17/11/2012
2
250 ct re
2
750 ct re
232
17/11/2012
10
Dimensionless
pressure
1
0.1
0.01
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
17/11/2012
p pws Ae
bt
l p pws ln
ln
l A bt
b
ln p pws C bt
234
17/11/2012
ln p pws C bt
235
17/11/2012
p pws , psi
100
5600
5575
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
5560
4500
Time, minutes
236
17/11/2012
Advantages
Very
simple to apply
Disadvantages
Somewhat
17/11/2012
Recommendations
Don
Dontt
238
17/11/2012
ARPS-SMITH METHOD
bt
p pws Ae
dppws
bt
bt
Ab
Abe
dt
dpws
b p pws
dt
239
17/11/2012
ARPS
ARPS-SMITH
SMITH METHOD
Step 1: Assume a value for average
pressure, accepting theory based on
empirical observation
dpws
b p pws
dt
240
17/11/2012
ARPS-SMITH METHOD
Step 2: Plot dpws/dt vs pws on Cartesian scale
10
9
8
7
dpws/dt, 6
psi/hr 5
p
4
3
2
1
0
5300
5400
5450
Pws, psi
5500
5550
5600
241
17/11/2012
ARPS
ARPS-SMITH
SMITH METHOD
Optional: Estimate the productivity index
p from the slope
p b and the
in STB/D/psi
wellbore storage coefficient C
dpws
b p pws
dt
q qsf
24Cb
J
q J p pwf
Bo
dpw
B 24C
d
dt
242
17/11/2012
ARPS
ARPS-SMITH
SMITH METHOD
Advantages
Simple
to apply
Easily automated
Disadvantages
Requires
17/11/2012
HYDRAULICALLY
C
FRACTURED
WELLS
17/11/2012
Bilinear
Flow Analysis
y
Linear Flow Analysis
Semilog Analysis
17/11/2012
Hydraulic fracture
(permeability =kf )
Wellbore
Fracture width,, wf
Fracture
h lf l
half-length,
th Lf
246
17/11/2012
fD
kf
ct
f ct f k
Cr
wf k f
kL f
tL f D
CL f D
0.0002637 k
t
2
ct L f
0.8936C
ct hL2f
FcD
wf k f
kL f
Cr
247
17/11/2012
Fracture flow
Linear
Bilinear
Formation flow
Linear
Elliptical
Pseudoradial
248
17/11/2012
249
17/11/2012
((Log-log
g g plot)
p )
2
pD
fD t L f D
FcD
Time
(Too early for practical application)
250
17/11/2012
Dimensionless
time
tL f D
2
0.01FcD
2
fD
Time
251
17/11/2012
Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cf < 100
252
17/11/2012
Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cf < 100
253
17/11/2012
BILINEAR FLOW
((Log-log
g g plot)
p )
Pressure
drop:
pD
1.25 2 FcD
tL f D
4
2.45 14
tL f D
FcD
Time
254
17/11/2012
BILINEAR FLOW
((Log-log
g g plot)
p )
255
17/11/2012
BILINEAR FLOW
If FcD < 1.6
If 1.6 < FcD < 3
If FcD 3
tL f D
4.55
2 .5
FcD
t L f D 0.0205FcD 1.5
1.53
tL f D
0 .1
2
FcD
17/11/2012
Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cr < 100
257
17/11/2012
Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cf < 100
258
17/11/2012
Transient
a sFlow
eo t moves
from
oo esbeyond
beyo
linearly
ea dyends
einto
ds
to of
o
wellbore
e bo e
fracture not yet significant
259
17/11/2012
p D t L f D
100
0
.
016
L
D
2
f
FcDD
260
17/11/2012
ELLIPTICAL FLOW
261
17/11/2012
PSEUDORADIAL FLOW
262
17/11/2012
PSEUDORADIAL FLOW
162.6qB
p
kh
kt
3.23 0.869 s
log
2
ct rw
tL f D 3
263
17/11/2012
DEPTH OF INVESTIGATION
a
Lf
2
Lf
a b
2
264
17/11/2012
DEPTH OF INVESTIGATION
tbD
0.0002637kt
ct b 2
tbD
Depth
p of investigation
g
for
a linear system at time t
12
kt
b 0.02878
ct
265
17/11/2012
DEPTH OF INVESTIGATION
12
Depth of investigation
along
l
minor
i
axis
i
kt
b 0.02878
ct
Depth of investigation
along major axis
a L2f b 2
Area of investigation
A ab
266
17/11/2012
HYDRAULIC FRACTURE
WITH CHOKED FRACTURE DAMAGE
k
kfs
k
f
wf
Ls
Lf
267
17/11/2012
qBL
0.001127 kA
ps
qBLs
0.001127 k fsf 2h f w f
0.00708kh
qBLs
0.00708kh
sf
ps
0.001127 k 2h w
qB
qB
fs
f f
sf
kLs
k fs w f
268
17/11/2012
HYDRAULIC FRACTURE
WITH FRACTURE FACE DAMAGE
k
k
ws
ks
wf
Lf
269
17/11/2012
qBws
ps
0.001127 4h f L f
1 1
k
s k
0.00708
00 08kh
qBws
0.00708kh
sf
p s
qB
qB 0.001127 4h f L f
1 1
k
s k
ws k
1
sf
2 L f ks
270
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
t Be
14
tp
14
t p t
14 4
t Be t , t t p
t Be t p , t t p
272
17/11/2012
wk f
h
m
B
c k
t
0.5
Drawdown
0.00708kh
pi p0
sf
qB
Buildup
0.00708kh
sf
p0 pwf
qB
273
17/11/2012
2750
pws, psi
m=63.8 psi/hr1/4
ps
2700
2650
p0=2642.4 psi
pwf=2628.6 p
psi
2600
0
0.5
1
1/4
1.5
1/4
teqB , hrs
274
17/11/2012
LIMITATIONS OF
BILINEAR FLOW ANALYSIS
275
17/11/2012
276
17/11/2012
t Le
12
tp
12
t p t
12 2
t Le t , t t p
t Le t p , t t p
277
17/11/2012
Lf
mL h k ct
12
Drawdown
0.00708kh
pi p0
sf
qB
Buildup
0.00708kh
sf
p0 pwf
qB
278
17/11/2012
5000
m=211 psi/hr1/2
paws, psi
4000
ps
3000
pa0=2266.0
=2266 0 psi
2000
pawf=1656.2 psi
1000
0
0
10
1/2
12
14
16
18
1/2
taLeq , hrs
279
17/11/2012
LIMITATIONS OF
LINEAR FLOW ANALYSIS
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
p p
k
i
1hr
3.23
s 1.151
log10
2
c r
m
t w
Buildup
p1hr pwf
k
3.23
s 1.151
log
l 10
2
c r
m
t w
282
17/11/2012
pws, psi
2200
m=120 psi/cycle
p1hr=2121 psi
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
te, hrs
283
17/11/2012
Lf/rwaa
100
10
1
0.1
10
100
1000
FcD
284
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
LIMITATIONS OF
PSEUDORADIAL FLOW ANALYSIS
17/11/2012
0.00708kh
pD
pi pwf
qB
Cr
wf kf
kL f
0.00708 kh
sf
ps
qB
tL f D
FcD
0.0002637 k
ct L2f
wf kf
kL f
CL f D
C r
0.8936C
2
ct hL f
287
17/11/2012
TYPE-CURVE ANALYSIS:
17/11/2012
141.2qB pD
k
h
p MP
0.0002637 k t
Lf
tL D
ct
f MP
289
17/11/2012
290
17/11/2012
p MP
Lf
141.2qB
B
pD MP
kh
0.0002637 k t
tL D
ct
f
MP
291
17/11/2012
pD, tDp''D
Cr = 0.2
0.5
1
3
10
50
0
1000
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1E-06
1E
06 0.00001
0 00001 0.0001
0 0001
0 001
0.001
0 01
0.01
01
0.1
10
100
tLfD
292
17/11/2012
INTERPRETING CR STEM
w f k f kL f C r
293
17/11/2012
pD, tDp'D
0.1
0.01
0.001
sf = 1
0.3
0.1
0.03
0.01
0 003
0.003
0
0.0001
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
tLfD
294
17/11/2012
INTERPRETING SF STEM
q
qB
ps
sf
0.00708 kh
295
17/11/2012
pD, tDp'D
0.1
5x10-5
3x10-4
-3
2x10
1.2x10-2
8x10-2
5x10-1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
tLfD
296
17/11/2012
BARKER
BARKER-RAMEY
RAMEY TYPE CURVE
INTERPRETING CLFD STEM
2
ct hL f
0.8936
8936
CL f D
297
17/11/2012
LIMITATIONS OF
TYPE CURVE ANALYSIS
Type
yp curves mayy ignore
g
important
p
behavior
Shut-in time
Equivalent time (radial, linear, bilinear)
Superposition type curves
Variable WBS
Boundaries
Non-Darcy flow
298
17/11/2012
PRESSURE
SS
TRANSI
S ENT
ANALYSIS
FOR HORIZONTAL WELLS
17/11/2012
300
17/11/2012
COMPLICATIONS IN ANALYSIS
17/11/2012
302
17/11/2012
303
17/11/2012
important reservoir
properties
Determine
equations
Expect complex iterative processes
requiring use of a computer
304
17/11/2012
nonunique results
Simulate
305
17/11/2012
Five
e possible
poss b e flow
o regimes
eg es
(1) early radial
(2) hemiradial
(3) early linear
(4) late pseudoradial
(5) late linear
Calculate different
formation properties
from each period
17/11/2012
b
z
y
h
a
307
17/11/2012
Tip
p of well
Dx
x
z
h
0
dx
dy
dz
Dz
z
y
a
308
17/11/2012
FLOW REGIMES
Radial
Flow nott affected
Fl
ff t d by
b
reservoir boundaries
309
17/11/2012
FLOW REGIMES
Hemiradial
Flow affected
Fl
ff t d by
b one
vertical boundary
310
17/11/2012
FLOW REGIMES
Early Linear
Flow affected by
vertical boundaries
311
17/11/2012
FLOW REGIMES
Early Linear
Flow effects not seen
at ends of wellbore
312
17/11/2012
FLOW REGIMES
Late Pseudoradial
313
17/11/2012
FLOW REGIMES
Late Linear
314
17/11/2012
FLOW REGIMES/DRAWDOWN
2
1
Log (p)
or
Log (p
(p))
p'
2
1
1
Wellbore
storage
Early
Radial
Flow
Early
Linear
Flow
Pseudoradial
Flow
Late
Linear
Flow
Log (time)
315
17/11/2012
REQUIRED PERMEABILITIES
Flow
Regime
Result
R
lt
of
Analysis
Permeabilities
P
biliti
Required for Limit
Calculations
Permeabilities
P
biliti
Required to
Calculate Skin
E l Radial
Early
R di l
k xk z
E d - kz and
End
d ky
k xk z and
d kx/kz
Hemiradial
k xk z
End - kz and ky
Start - kz
End - ky
k xk z and kx/kz
Early Linear
kx
kx and kz
k h k xk y Start - ky
kx, ky and kz
End - ky and kx
Start - ky and kz
kx
Late Linear
kx and kz
End - kx
Note: We can use k h k xk y in our analysis. In some cases, for simplicity,
Late
Pseudoradial
316
17/11/2012
Pretesting
g a Vertical Section
Determines kh and kz
Determines properties useful in
horizontal test design (using an
analytical or finite
finite-difference
difference
simulator)
Identifies
317
17/11/2012
Required
q
Distances
Flow
Regime
Result
of
Calculation
Early Radial
Hemiradial
Early Linear
Lw
Lw
Lw and h
Late
Pseudoradial
Late Linear
h
b and h
Distances
Required for Limit
Calculations
Distances
Required to
Calculate
Skin
End - dz and Lw
End - dz and Lw
Start - Dz
Lw and h
End - Lw
Start - Lw
Lw, h and dz
End - dy, Lw, and dx
Start - Dy, Lw, and
b, h and dz
Dz
End - dx
318
17/11/2012
May be masked by
wellbore storage
effects
ff t
319
17/11/2012
Wellbore
end
effects
1800d z2 ct
tErf
kz
125 L2w ct
tErf
ky
320
17/11/2012
pi p wf 162 . 6 qB
k x k z Lw
k x kz t
3 . 2275
lo g
2
c t rw
1
2l o g 4
0 . 8686 sa
k x 4 kz
kz
k x
321
17/11/2012
Semilog plot
162
.
6
qB
B
m
Lw k x kz
33
0.1
Time
100
322
17/11/2012
Semilog plot
162
.
6
qB
kxkz
m Lw
33
0.1
Time
100
323
17/11/2012
k x kz
pi p1hr
1.1513
log
3.2275
2
m
c rw
kz
1 k x
2.3023 log 4
4
2` kz k x
324
17/11/2012
Semilog plot
33
1,000
10
325
17/11/2012
Semilog plot
162
.
6
qB
B
m
Lw k x kz
33
0.1
(Equation same as in
drawdown tests))
Time
100
326
17/11/2012
Semilog plot
162
.
6
qB
kxkz
m Lw
33
0.1
(Equation same as in
drawdown tests))
Time
100
327
17/11/2012
k k
p
1hr w f
x z
sa 1.1513
log
3
.
2275
m
c r 2
t w
1 k k
2.3023 log 4 x 4 z
2 kz kx
328
17/11/2012
Begins
B
i after
ft closest
l
t vertical
ti l b
boundary
d
(at
( t
distance dz from wellbore) affects data
andd before
b f
farthest
f th t boundary
b
d
(at
( t Dz from
f
wellbore) affects the data.
dz
Dz
329
17/11/2012
tShrff
2
1800 dz
ct
kz
330
17/11/2012
Dz
331
17/11/2012
. . . or when
h effects
ff t are felt
f lt att ends
d off
wellbore, whichever comes first.
2
125 Lw c t
t Ehrf
ky
dz
Dz
332
17/11/2012
HEMIRADIAL FLOW/DRAWDOWN
47
Semilog plot
325
.
2
qB
m
Lw k x kz
33
0.1
Time
100
333
17/11/2012
HEMIRADIAL FLOW/DRAWDOWN
47
Semilog plot
Radial flow
qB
162
.
6
B
m
Lw kxkz
Hemiradial flow
33
0.1
325
.
2
qB
m
Lw k x kz
Time
100
334
17/11/2012
HEMIRADIAL FLOW/DRAWDOWN
p p
k k
1hr
i
x z
sa 2.3026
log
3
.
2275
m
c r 2
t w
d
k
z
2.3026 log 1 x
r
k
z
335
17/11/2012
Start
1800d z2 ct
tSlf
kz
336
17/11/2012
End
160 L2w ct
t Elf
ky
337
17/11/2012
Cartesian plot
8.128q
qB
kx
m Lw h ct
4
Time1/2
338
17/11/2012
k x kz ( pi p1hr )Lw
sa
sc
141.2qB
C
Convergence
skin
ki
sc
rw
kz
kx
i
sin
h
339
17/11/2012
340
17/11/2012
8.128qB
kx
m Lw h ct
1400
p,
psia
1000
600
18
22
26
30
tp t t ,
hr1/2
34
38
341
17/11/2012
k x kz ( p1hr pw f )Lw
sa
sc
141.2qB
sc
rw
kz
kx
sin
342
17/11/2012
Lw
b
Lw
0.
0 45
b
343
17/11/2012
1480 L2w ct
tSprf
ky
Wellbore
end effects
344
17/11/2012
tEprf
Lw
2000 ct D y 4
ky
Ends when
flow from beyond
the ends of the
wellbore hits a
boundary ...
345
17/11/2012
or reach
h
end boundaries
of reservoir
(whichever is reached first)
346
17/11/2012
PSEUDORADIAL FLOW/DRAWDOWN
59
Semilog plot
162
.
6
qB
kx k y
m h
53
100
200
300
400
500
Time
347
17/11/2012
sa
1.1513
sc
kz
ky
p p
i 1hr
Lw
m
1.83
rw
kz
kx
ky
lo g
s
2
ct Lw c
sin
h
348
17/11/2012
PSEUDORADIAL FLOW/BUILDUP
sa
1.1513
sc
kz
ky
p
t p 1
1hr pw f
lo g
t
m
Lw
p sc
h
k
y 1.83
l
o
g
c
L
t w
rw
kz
kx
sin
349
17/11/2012
Effects of pressure
reach boundaries in
y, z directions
350
17/11/2012
Pseudosteady-state
Pseudosteady state
flow in these directions
351
17/11/2012
Starts with
effects of end
boundaries . . .
352
17/11/2012
. . . or
effects of
vertical
boundaries . . .
(whichever is reached last)
353
17/11/2012
End
1650 ct d x2
t Ellf
kx
354
17/11/2012
LATE LINEAR/DRAWDOWN
E ti t kx
Estimate
60
kx
8.128qB
miv bh ct
Cartesian plot
30
5
8.128qB
b
miv h ct kx
Time1/2
17
355
17/11/2012
356
17/11/2012
k x kz ( pi p1hr
)
b
h
st
141.2qB
sa st s p
sa sa b
Lw
357
17/11/2012
k x kz ( pi p1hr )b
st
141.2
.2qB
Lw k x kz ( p1hr
h )b
s
s
sa
p c
b 141.2qB
358
17/11/2012
359
17/11/2012
8.128qB
m iv h ct k x
360
17/11/2012
4,000
kx
8.128qB
B
miv bh ct
Extrapolate semilog
straight line to infinite
shut-in
shut
in time to calculate p
p*
Semilog
Se
og plot
p ot
3,400
1
Horner Time
10,000
361
17/11/2012
andd skin
ki due
d to
t altered
lt d permeability,
bilit
sa, from
sa
Lw
k x kz ( p1hr pw f )b
s p sc
141.2qB
362
17/11/2012
Calculate kx
363
17/11/2012
Calculate kx
364
17/11/2012
365
17/11/2012
Calculate kx
Calculate kz from data in early radial or hemiradial
flow regimes
Calculate ky from pseudoradial flow regime
366
17/11/2012
Calculate kx
Calculate kz from data in early radial or
hemiradial flow regimes
Calculate ky from pseudoradial flow regime
Check on expected durations of flow regimes
using tentative results from the analysis to
minimize ambiguity in results
367
17/11/2012
PRESSURE TRANSIENT
ANALYSIS
FOR HORIZONTAL WELLS
Using the Techniques
368
17/11/2012
p'
Linear flow
Radialhalf-slope
flow
line
horizontal derivative
Log (time)
369
17/11/2012
Build-Up
DRAWDOWN
DIAGNOSTIC PLOT
Shapes may not
appear in
build up tests
build-up
Log (p)
or
Log (p)
(better chance
if tp>>tmax)
Wellbore
storage
Early
Radial
flow
Early
Linear
Flow
Pseudoradial
Flow
Late
Linear
Flow
Log (time)
370
17/11/2012
2,470
0.25
5
150
104
1 40
1.40
0.45
238
Horizontal
p
well
exploration
Vertical tectonic
fracture
Permeability
probably results
from fracture
371
17/11/2012
p
Wellbore
1000
storage
L
Log
(p
(
Radial flow?
or p )
p'
100
10
10
t, hr
100
372
17/11/2012
1,500
10
Horner Time
2.4
100
373
17/11/2012
p
Wellbore
1000
storage
L
Log
(p
(
Radial flow
or p )
p'
100
10
k = 0.027 k = 0.011
s = 11.5 s = 2.9
(from Horner plot)
1
10
t, hr
100
374
17/11/2012
2,000
0.30
17
75
200
1 60
1.60
1.80
1,320
375
17/11/2012
1000
p, psia
or p
p
100
Radial flow
Wellbore storage
10
1
10
100
Linear
flow
1000
t, hr
376
17/11/2012
t hr
t,
146 67
146.67
13 33
13.33
tErf
E f = 165 hr
k = 0.15
k = 0.14
p, psia
i
m = 336.4
3600
3500
k = 0.14
3400
10
Horner time
100
377
17/11/2012
1000
p, psia
or p
p
100
k = 0.15
k = 0.14
10
1
Good
agreement
10
100
1000
t, hr
378
17/11/2012
WELL B: TANDEM-ROOT
TANDEM ROOT PLOT
1800
1600
h = 75 ft
Nearest boundary = 29 ft
1400
p, psia
i
1000
m = 39.6
800
600
10
tp t t ,
100
hr1/2
379
17/11/2012
FIELD EXAMPLE C
Ld, ft
Lw, ft
rw, ft
, %
h ft
h,
q, STB/D
Bo, RB/STB
, cp
tp, hours
1,400
484
0.41
17
54
2,760
1 10
1.10
4.88
36
Horizontal well
High
High-kk sandstone
Extensive
underlying
d l i aquifer
if
380
17/11/2012
Radial, hemiradial,
or elliptical flow
100
p, psia
or p
No apparent
wellbore storage
0.1
Decline caused by
underlying aquifer
0.01
0.1
t, hr
10
100
381
17/11/2012
WELL C: TYPE
TYPE-CURVE
CURVE MATCH
1000
p
p
100
p, psia
or p
1
0.1
0.01
0.1
t, hr
10
100
382
17/11/2012
WELL C
C: HORNER
O
PLOT
O
5 44
5.44
4000
3800
t hr
t,
0 0490
0.0490
4 90E 03
4.90E-03
k = 53
p, psia
k ~ 48
3600
3400
0 4949
0.4949
((confirms
fi
validity
lidit off
earlier findings of
no wellbore storage)
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
Horner time
383
17/11/2012
p
p
100
p, psia
or p
1
0.1
Geometric average
of horizontal,
vertical k ~ 48
0.01
0.1
t, hr
10
100
384
17/11/2012
385
17/11/2012
386
17/11/2012
387
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
OBSTACLES TO INTERPRETATION
Multiple parameters frequently yield
inconclusive test analysis results
Wellbore storage obscures effects of
transient behavior
Middle- and late-time response behavior
may require several hours, days, or
months to appear in transient data
389
17/11/2012
390
17/11/2012
EFFECTS OF ERRORS
IN INPUT DATA
17/11/2012
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Introduction
Examples
Summary
392
17/11/2012
PROBLEM 1
10 md
Skin
factor, 0
Distance to boundary,
boundary 250 ft
17/11/2012
PROBLEM 2
Seismic interpretation indicates
boundaryy 300 ft from Well B
PBU test interpretation indicates
nearest boundary 900 ft away
Can th
C
these inconsistencies
i
i t
i
possibly be resolved?
What could have caused this much
error in the distance estimate?
394
17/11/2012
Log interpretation
Fluid properties
395
17/11/2012
Porosity
Water saturation
396
17/11/2012
397
17/11/2012
Deviation
Without
correction
With
correction
Porosity
15 %
5%
Water saturation
40 %
10 %
Net p
pay
y
50 %
15 %
398
17/11/2012
Compressibility
Viscosity
399
17/11/2012
Deviation
Bg from composition
p
1.1% to 5.8%
Bg from composition
1.3 % to 7.3%
(as much as 27% if
impurities are ignored)
cg
2% to 4%, g < 1
up to 20% low
low, g > 1.5
15
400
17/11/2012
Deviation
Bo, p > pb
10%
%
Bo, p pb
5%
co, p > pb
co, p pb
O d off magnitude
Order
it d only
l
401
17/11/2012
Flow rate
Wellbore radius
Formation compressibility
T t l compressibility
Total
ibilit
402
17/11/2012
Error
Flow rate
Wellbore radius
Formation compressibility
Estimation errors
Total compressibility
17/11/2012
TOTAL COMPRESSIBILITY
ct c f S o co S wcw S g c g
Formation
compressibility
404
17/11/2012
EFFECTS OF ERRORS
Vertical well
Single-phase
g p
flow
Homogeneous reservoir
Boundary
No-flow,
Test
Drawdown,
buildup,
p injection,
j
or fall-off
Duration long enough to identify boundary
405
17/11/2012
ERRORS IN VISCOSITY
If input = 2 true
Then:
kcalc
= 2 ktrue
Nothing
406
17/11/2012
ERRORS IN POROSITY
If input = 2 true,
Then:
scalc
= strue+ 0.5ln(2)
Lx calc = Lx true/sqrt(2)
A calc = Atrue/2
407
17/11/2012
408
17/11/2012
ERRORS IN COMPRESSIBILITY
If ct input = 2 ct true
Then:
409
17/11/2012
If hinput = 2 htrue
Then:
kcalc
= ktrue/2
scalc = strue+ 0.5ln(2)
Lx calc
l = Lx true/sqrt(2)
A calc = Atrue/2
410
17/11/2012
If qinput = 2 qtrue
Then:
kcalc
= 2 ktrue
scalc = strue- 0.5ln(2)
Lx calc = sqrt(2)
q ( ) Lx true
A calc = 2 Atrue
411
17/11/2012
If Binput = 2 Btrue
Then:
kcalc
= 2 ktrue
scalc = strue- 0.5ln(2)
Lx calc = sqrt(2)
q ( ) Lx true
A calc = 2 Atrue
412
17/11/2012
If rw input = 2 rw true
Then:
413
17/11/2012
SOLUTION TO PROBLEM 1
Well A estimates Net pay50 ft
y, 10 md
Permeability,
Skin factor, 0
Boundary,
Boundary 250 ft
y, 5 md
Permeability,
Skin factor, 0.35
Boundary,
Boundary 177 ft
414
17/11/2012
SOLUTION TO PROBLEM 2
Seismic interpretation indicates
boundary
y 300 ft from Well B
PBU test interpretation indicates
nearest boundary 900 ft away
Total compressibility
p
y
could be off by a factor
of 10
Boundary could be a
factor of 3 too far away
415
17/11/2012
SUMMARY
Permeability is most affected by
errors in viscosity, net pay, and flow
rate
Distances to boundaries and
drainage area are most affected by
errors
e
o s in compressibility
co p ess b ty
Skin factor is not affected to a large
degree by any input variable
416
17/11/2012
BOUNDED RESERVOIR
BEHAVIOR
17/11/2012
CAUTIONS
Recognizing may be as important as
analyzing
Many reservoir models may produce
similar pressure responses
Interpretation model must be consistent
with
ith geological
l i l and
d geophysical
h i l
interpretations
418
17/11/2012
CHARACTERISTICS
Boundaries control pressure response
following middle-time region
Equivalent time functions apply rigorously
only to situations where either
Producing
P d i
and
d shut-in
h i times
i
b
both
h lilie within
i hi
middle-time region
Shut-in
Sh i time
i
iis much
h lless than
h producing
d i
time
17/11/2012
SHAPES OF CURVES
Durations of flow regimes explain shape
of drawdown pressure responses
Shape of buildup derivative type curve
p
on how the derivative is
depends
calculated and plotted
Shut-in
time
Equivalent time
Superposition time
420
17/11/2012
SUPERPOSITION IN SPACE
Producing wells
Radial
ad a flow
o patte
pattern
Apparent no-flow boundary between wells
421
17/11/2012
Superposition in space
Producing well
I
Image
wellll
17/11/2012
Superposition in space
No-flow boundary
Image well
Image well
Producing well
423
17/11/2012
Superposition in space
No-flow boundary
Producing well
424
17/11/2012
Superposition
p p
in space
p
425
17/11/2012
INFINITE
INFINITE-ACTING
ACTING RESERVOIR
426
17/11/2012
INFINITE
INFINITE-ACTING
ACTING RESERVOIR
100
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
No boundaries encountered
1
0.1
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
Dimensionless time
1E+08
1E+09
427
17/11/2012
Infinite-acting
Infinite
acting reservoir
100
BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimensionless prressure
0.1
tpD=105
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
tpD=106
1E+07
Dimensionless shutin
Dimensionless
shut-intime
time
tpD=107
1E+08
tpD=108
1E+09
428
17/11/2012
BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimens
sionless pressure
p
Not
N t affected
ff t d by
b producing
d i time
ti
1
tpD=105
tpD=10
106
tpD=10
107
tpD=108
0.1
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
1E+08
1E+09
429
17/11/2012
Dimens
sionless pressure
p
100
10
BUILDUP RESPONSE
DERIVATIVE TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO
EQUIVALENT TIME, PLOTTED AGAINST SHUTIN TIME
1
5
D
Drawdown
d
0.1
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
1E+08
1E+09
430
17/11/2012
LINEAR NO-FLOW
NO FLOW BOUNDARY
No-flow boundary
Producing well
431
17/11/2012
Linear no
no-flow
flow boundary
100
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
H i di l flow
Hemiradial
fl
1
0.1
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
Dimensionless time
1E+08
1E+09
432
17/11/2012
Linear no
no-flow
flow boundary
100
BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimensionless prressure
Drawdown
tpD=10
108
0.1
tpD=105
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
tpD=106
1E+07
Dimensionless shutin
Dimensionless
shut-intime
time
tpD=107
1E+08
1E+09
433
17/11/2012
BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
tpD=105
0.1
tpD=106
tpD=107
tpD=108
Drawdown
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
1E+08
1E+09
434
17/11/2012
Linear no
no-flow
flow boundary
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
100
10
BUILDUP RESPONSE
DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO
EQUIVALENT TIME, PLOTTED
AGAINST SHUT-IN TIME
tpD=10
108
tpD=107
Drawdown
1
tpD=105
0.1
0.01
0
01
1E+03
tppD=106
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
1E+08
1E+09
435
17/11/2012
Producing well
Possible injection,
waterflood, or gas/oil
contact causing
constant-pressure
boundary
436
17/11/2012
Linear constant
constant-p
p boundary
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
100
10
0.1
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
Dimensionless time
1E+08
1E+09
437
17/11/2012
Linear constant-p
constant p boundary
100
BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
Drawdown curve
0.1
tpD=105
0.01
0
01
1E+03
Drawdown
tpD=107
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
Dimensionless
shut-intime
time
Dimensionless shutin
tpD=108
1E+08
1E+09
438
17/11/2012
Linear constant-p
constant p boundary
100
BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
0.1
tpD=105
D
Drawdown
d
tpD=106
tpD=107
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
tpD=108
1E+07
1E+08
1E+09
439
17/11/2012
Linear constant
constant-p
p boundary
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
100
BUILDUP RESPONSE
DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO EQUIVALENT TIME
SHUT-IN
SHUT
IN TIME
10
tpD=105,10
106
1
tpD=10
107
0.1
Drawdown
Derivative curves resemble
drawdown curve
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
tpD=108
1E+08
1E+09
440
17/11/2012
CHANNEL RESERVOIR
No-flow
No
flow boundaries
(Effects
(Eff
t
of ends
not felt )
Producing well
441
17/11/2012
Channel reservoir
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
100
Slope 1/2
10
Slope = 1/2
0.1
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
Dimensionless time
1E+08
1E+09
442
17/11/2012
Channel reservoir
100
BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
Drawdown
1
0.1
Derivative reaches a
slope of -1/2 if shut-in
time
i
iis much
h llarger
than producing time
tpD=10
107
tpD=106
tpD=105
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
Dimensionless
shut-in
time
Dimensionless shutin
time
1E+08
1E+09
443
17/11/2012
Channel reservoir
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
100
10
BUILDUP RESPONSE
DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO
EQUIVALENT TIME, PLOTTED AGAINST
DIMENSIONLESS TIME
Drawdown
tpD=10
tpD=105
tpD=108
tpD=106
Radial equivalent
time not appropriate
in linear flow regime
0.1
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
1E+08
1E+09
444
17/11/2012
Channel reservoir
100
BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
Drawdown
tpD=107
1
tpD=105
0.1
0.01
0
01
1E+03
tppD=106
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
1E+08
1E+09
445
17/11/2012
Producing well
446
17/11/2012
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
100
10
0.1
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
Dimensionless time
1E+08
1E+09
447
17/11/2012
BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
tpD=108
1
tpD=107
0.1
tpD=106
tpD=105
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
1E+08
1E+09
448
17/11/2012
BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
tpD=108
5
tpD=10
tpD=10
tpD=107
Drawdown
0.1
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
1E+08
1E+09
449
17/11/2012
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
100
10
BUILDUP RESPONSE
DERIVATIVE WITH RESPEDT TO
EQUIVALENT TIME, PLOTTED AGAINST
SHUT-IN TIME
Drawdown
tpD=107
1
tpD=105
0.1
0.01
0
01
1E+03
tppD=108
tppD=106
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
1E+08
1E+09
450
17/11/2012
No-flow boundary
Producing well
451
17/11/2012
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
0.1
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
Dimensionless time
1E+08
1E+09
452
17/11/2012
BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimensionless prressure
tpD=10
0.1
0.01
0
01
1E+03
ttpD
=1066,1077,108 8
pD=10 ,10 ,10
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
Dimensionlessshut-in
shutin time
Dimensionless
time
1E+08
1E+09
453
17/11/2012
Dimensionless prressure
100
10
BUILDUP RESPONSE
DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO
EQUIVALENT TIME
Drawdown
0.1
8 8
7,10
tpD
=107,10
pD=10
tpD=105
0.01
0
01
1E+03
tpD=106
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+08
1E+09
454
17/11/2012
BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimensionless p
pressure
1
tpD=105
0.1
6 7 7 88
6, 10
,10
,10
tpD=t10
, 10
pD=10
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
Derivative, drawdown
type curves differ
fundamentally
1E+06
1E+07
1E+08
1E+09
455
17/11/2012
CIRCULAR CONSTANT-P
CONSTANT P BOUNDARY
Possibly strong aquifer
pp
gp
pressure
supporting
equally from all directions
Constant-pressure
boundary
Producing well
456
17/11/2012
Circular constant-p
constant p boundary
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
100
10
P
Pressure approaches
h
constant value at late times
Derivative falls exponentially
0.1
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
Dimensionless time
1E+08
1E+09
457
17/11/2012
Circular constant-p
constant p boundary
100
BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
0.1
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
1E+08
1E+09
458
17/11/2012
Circular constant-p
constant p boundary
100
BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
Drawdown
tpD=105
0.01
0
01
1E+03
1E+04
tpD=106
1E+05
tpD=107,108
1E+06
1E+07
1E+08
1E+09
459
17/11/2012
Circular constant
constant-p
p boundary
100
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
BUILDUP RESPONSE
10
Results in somewhat
changed
somewhat-changed
curve on the plot
0.1
tpD=105
Drawdown
tpD=107,108
0.01
0
01
1E+03
tpD=106
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
1E+08
1E+09
460
17/11/2012
k1
k2
Producing well
461
17/11/2012
M1/M2 = 100
VARYING M1/M2
10
m (mobility)
1
M1/M2 = 10
M1/M2 = 0.2
0.1
M1/M2 = 0.05
0.01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
Dimensionless time
1E+08
1E+09
462
17/11/2012
Dimens
sionless p
pressure
100
10
10
1
S1/S2 = 100
0.05
1
S1/S2 = 0.01
0.1
S (storativity) = cth
If
1, plot
drainage area
If s
S11/s
/S22><<1,
plotlooks
lookslike
likeclosed
closedcircular
linear flow
If M1/M2<<1, plot looks like constant-p circular
boundary during transition
0.01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
Dimensionless time
1E+08
1E+09
463
17/11/2012
FINAL COMMENTS
464
17/11/2012
dy
dx
465
17/11/2012
CAUTIONS
Make sure the model is consistent with
known geology before using the model
Two most dangerous models (because they
can fit so many tests inappropriately)
Composite
p
reservoir
Well at arbitrary point in closed reservoir
466
17/11/2012
FINAL COMMENTS
Assuming
467
17/11/2012
BUILDUP TESTING
AND THE
DIAGNOSTIC PLOT
17/11/2012
OBJECTIVES
Become
17/11/2012
TIME-PLOTTING
TIME PLOTTING FUNCTIONS
Shut-in Time
Horner Pseudoproducing Time
Multirate Equivalent Time
Superposition Time Function
470
17/11/2012
q1
qn
0
t1
t2
tn-2
tn-1
471
17/11/2012
Expressed
another way...
24 N p
tp
qn1
n 1
Cumulative
produced oil
Final rate
before
shut-in
shut
in
24 q j t j t j 1
tp
j 1
qn 1
472
17/11/2012
tp
24 N p
qn1
Cumulative
produced oil
Final rate
before
shut in
shut-in
17/11/2012
q j q j 1
n1 tn1 t j 1 qn1 qn
te
t
t
t
t
j 1
n 1
j 1
474
17/11/2012
1
STF
qj qj1 ln t tn1 t j1
qn qn1 j1
lnt
So
e literature
te atu e recommends
eco
e ds . . .
Some
Pressure derivative for buildup calculated as
pressure derivative with respect to superposition
time function; plotted vs. shut-in time
475
17/11/2012
476
17/11/2012
n 1
q
q
n 1 n
1
STF ln
n
1
j
j 1
(p
e ous equat
o , rearranged
ea a ged again
aga
(previous
equation,
using properties of natural logarithm)
477
17/11/2012
n 1
q
q
n 1 n
1
STF ln
t
e
n
1
j
1
j 1
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
CONCLUSIONS
482
17/11/2012
CONCLUSIONS
483
17/11/2012
CONCLUSIONS
484
17/11/2012
RADIAL FLOW
485
17/11/2012
APPROACHING STABILIZATION
486
17/11/2012
Drawdown
10
pD
Buildup
1
Drawdown
0.1
Producing
oduc g ttimes
es must
ust
be at least 10x
maximum shut-in time
0.01
0
01
1E+02
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
tD
Buildup, tpD=10
1E+06
1E+07
1E+08
487
17/11/2012
LINEAR FLOW
488
17/11/2012
Drawdown
pD
100
10
tpD=103
Derivative
response
slope = -1/2
0.1
1E+00
1E+01
1E+02
1E+03
tD
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
489
17/11/2012
VOLUMETRIC BEHAVIOR
490
17/11/2012
STABILIZATION IN VOLUMETRIC
SYSTEM
100
Dimension
nless press
sure
Drawdown
1
tpD=106
0.1
0.01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
Drawdown
D
d
response
feels boundary later than
build-up
build
up response
1E+07
1E+08
1E+09
491
17/11/2012
CONCLUSIONS
Shapes of the buildup and drawdown
diagnostic plots are fundamentally different
as the reservoir approaches stabilization.
Dont expect to see the same shape on a
diagnostic plot for a build up test as for a
drawdown test.
492
17/11/2012
INTEGRATED WELL
TEST INTERPRETATION
17/11/2012
Integrating
g
g Test Interpretation
p
Model
S l ti
Selection
Geology
gy
Geophysics
Flow Regime
Identification
Petrophysics
Engineering
Data
Parameter
Estimation
Model
Validation
Well Test
Interpretation
494
17/11/2012
Geological
Data
Geophysical Data
Petrophysical Data
Engineering Data
495
17/11/2012
Composite Reservoir
496
17/11/2012
MULTIPLE KNOBS
KNOBS CONFUSE
Composite Reservoir
Well in a Box
W
R
M1,S
S1
M2,S2
L
D2
D1
Distance to wall D1
Distance to wall D2
Reservoir length L
Reservoir
R
i width
idth W
497
17/11/2012
MODELS SIMPLIFY
SIMPLIFY GEOLOGY
Well A
17/11/2012
Cl
Closed
d Reservoir
R
i - DD TC
C
Const
t Pres
P
B
Boundary
d
- DD TC
Close match
Closed Reservoir - BU TC
17/11/2012
Mostt major
M
j errors caused
d by
b use off wrong
model instead of wrong method
Meaningless
estimates
Misleading estimates
reservoir geometry
Identifying
y g features of p
pressure response
p
500
17/11/2012
Depositional
environment
Reservoir size
Shape
Orientation
Reservoir
heterogeneity
Layering
Natural fractures
Diagenesis
Types of boundaries
Faults
Sealing
Partially
sealing
Fluid contacts
Gas/oil
G
Oil/water
501
17/11/2012
Location
Size
Reservoir
compartments
Shape
Orientation
502
17/11/2012
ENGINEERING DATA
Drilling data
datadaily
daily reports
Production and flow test data
Stimulation treatment results
Fracture
design half
half-length,
length, conductivity
Fracture treating pressure analysis results
Problems during treatmentdaily
treatment daily reports
interferenceproduction records
Well test results
503
17/11/2012
REALITY
REALITY CHECKS
CHECKS VALIDATE MODEL
Wellbore storage coefficient
Skin factor
Core permeability
Pressure response during flow period
Productivity index
Average reservoir pressure
Radius of investigation
g
Distances to boundaries
Independent estimates of model parameters
504
17/11/2012
C Vwb cwb
144 Awb g c
C
5.615 wb g
505
17/11/2012
SKIN FACTOR
Lik l estimates
Likely
ti t by
b completion
l ti type
t
Natural
completion
Acid treatment
Fracture treatment
Gravel pack
Frac pack
0
-1 to -3
-3 to -6
+5 to +10
-2 to +2
506
17/11/2012
CORE PERMEABILITY
IIn-situ
it permeability
bilit from
f
wellll ttestt
Core p
permeabilityy to air
Highoverburden
and saturation
Lownatural
Low natural fractures
core
M
Most
useful
f l when
h entire
i iintervall cored
d
507
17/11/2012
Interpret
508
17/11/2012
PRODUCTIVITY INDEX
Field Data
q
J
p pwf
Model Parameters
kh
1 10.06 A 3
s
141.2 B ln
2
2
C
r
Aw 4
17/11/2012
balance
Analytical simulation
Numerical simulation
510
17/11/2012
RADIUS OF INVESTIGATION
ri
kt
948 c t
ri
k te
948 c t
off middle-time
iddl ti
region
gi
End of middle-time region
511
17/11/2012
DISTANCE TO BOUNDARIES
R
Reservoir
i size
i
Production
data
Geological data
Geophysical data
Distances to boundaries
Geological
data
Geophysical
p y
data
17/11/2012
INDEPENDENT PARAMETERS
Dual porosity from fracture width,
width spacing
Storativity ratio
Interporosity flow coefficient
513
17/11/2012
INDEPENDENT PARAMETERS
Dual porosity from fracture width,
width spacing
Composite
C
it reservoir
i parameters
t
ffor
waterflood-injection well
Radius
of waterflooded zone
Mobility ratio (k/)1/(k/)2
Storativity ratio (ct)1/ (ct)2
514
17/11/2012
INDEPENDENT PARAMETERS
Dual
D l porosity
i from
f
fracture
f
width,
id h spacing
i
Composite
C
it reservoir
i parameters
t
ffor
waterflood-injection well
515
17/11/2012
COMMON ERRORS/MISCONCEPTIONS
M t ft
Most-often-misused
i
d models
d l
Well
Common misconceptions
Unit-slope
17/11/2012
Angle
g between faults
Distance from well to 1st fault
Distance from well to 2nd fault
517
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
RECTANGULAR RESERVOIR
W ll iin a B
Well
Box
W
L
D2
D1
Distance to wall D1
Distance to wall D2
Reservoir length L
Reservoir width W
519
17/11/2012
flow
(drawdown test only)
Recharge
g of high-permeability
g
y zone (either
drawdown or buildup test)
520
17/11/2012
17/11/2012
Mobility
M
bili off water must b
be much
h hi
higher
h
than that of reservoir fluid to act as
constant pressure boundary
Maybe,
Maybe
522