Professional Documents
Culture Documents
L. l?. Maier
8
Dktributed
by Hallibution
Company
SPE 290
0!
.,. .,
JUNIORMEMBER AIME
Abstract
1962
of Basic
DST Data
rwor~lng
dvm at
end of pap=.
121s
Curves
wells. Theoretically,
a plot of p, vs log
t-to
()
~
t+e
e
()
will
162,6 qpfl
~h
, and
Fig.
Fig.
1214
lDST
production
test kit,
2-Pressure
OF
PETROLEUM
partially
TECHNOLOGY
de.
but in using
t+e
the points with the lowest value of ~
for the straightline extrapolation, good resuits may generally be obtained.
Under normal testing conditions, for example, if the
second flow period is more than five or six times that of
the first flow period and at least as long as the initial
closed-in ueriod. there will be virtually no error in the
extrauolat~d pressure and the error ii the sIope of the
plot ~ill be l&s than 2 per cent, If the first flow- period is
equal to the second flow period, error in extrapolated
easuredslOpeby
104++)
(%+::+
~+])yas
illustrated in Fig. 4.
One assumption in ~. 1 is that constant rate of production exists prior to shut-in; however, on a liquid recovery test the tlow rate usually decreases throughout the
ffow period. DoIan, et aL illustrated that the error through
use of an average flow rate was not significant provided
the rate of change of q was relatively constant, This usually holds true in the majority of tests on oil reservoirs,
at least where the calculated productivity index is les$
than approximately 1.5 B/D-psi, However, with the
marked increase in the number of water-source wells
drilled in recent years and the use of the drill-stem test
for their evaluation, large numbers of very prolific wells
have been tested where the average-flow-rate simplification
does not apply. The entire interpretation of such cases
must be handled in a different manner, which is beyond
the scope of this paper.
011 Flow
The transmissibility of the formation tested may be
calculated from the slope of the build-up plot.
k. h
162.6 q. B,
.
.. . . . . . . . (2)
%
b
Since B. is usually unknown at the time of the DST
anaIysis, it may be necessary to estimare it from some
type of average correlation plot, An estimate may also
have to be made of the oil viscosity under reservoir conditions in order to calculate the in situ capacity (M),
and through knowledge of the net pay thickness in the
test interval the average effective permeability may be
estimated. This permeability represents the estimated res~ervoir permeability to the extent of the radius of investigation during the test. It would not normally include the
effect of skin damage in the immediate vicinity of the
tJJ
e
I
.-
II
In
0.
lope. ml
cat
E
Slope~ m
II
I
Fig. 3&bct
NOVEMBER,
showing
influenced
1962
build-up
11111
10
(w%%%)
~,g. 4-Approximate
and exact buildup
plots, considering
influence of first flow period.
1215
o
-..........,(3)
Pt-P
1.1515
~
log(k.t)
1.80
. (4)
o
[
1
Damage ratio, defined as the ratio of theoretical J to actual J, is derived from the skin equation.
(P1 ~) /mO
Iog(k.t)+l.80
. . . . 5)
The pressuse drop caused by the skin may then be calculated from Eq. 6,
DR z:
1800
,
(o,;)
(DR 1)
. . . . . ./,
(6)
DR
Undw the trai~sient flow conditions existing during the
DST flow period, the drainage mdhm coincides with the
wellbore radius at zero flow time and continually propagates outward until the flow period ends urdess the transient radius reaches some barrier. This radhss is commonty
referred to as the effective radius of investigation, since
the reservoir properties are being measured to its extent.
One solution was obtained by an empirical correlation
of known mathematical data, which may be expressed
by F@.7 (see Appendix C).
pD -_
r,&4.63(kOZ)~.
(7)
\.
,=
a
& 1600
Initial ~P
L
II
!500
D
\
!450
10
t+e
7-
Gas Flosv
Ga%well test interpretation
1216
may be conducted
with
Fig. 6-BuiId.np
plo~
sOURNAL
South Csrievale
OF
PETROLEUM
,.
Well M-12.
TECHNOLOGY
P/-
;;;q,o,(+
,.,
t+e
~
()
t+e
~
()
(8,
is constructed
1,1515
(p; - p;)[m.
log (k,rpf) - 1.40+ Y/1.1515
(12)
1962
? -P.
. ,.
. (13)
)
The radius of investigation of the gas well during a DST
may be approximated by the expression
Po=
As in the case of the liquid interpretation, the transmissibility may be calculated after measuring the slope of
the build-up plot.
k,h
1632 q, ZT
(9)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
mg
1%
With a knowledge of h and an estimation of ~, and z
from suitable data on gas properties, the capacity and
permeability of the formation may be calculated.
The assumption of constant flow rate in the build-u})
equation usuaUy is not a serious one. Variations in flow
rate are not rmrmally extreme and the rate usually becomes fairly constant if adequate flow times of one hour
or longer are allowed. One accepted practice is to measure
the flow rate at a number of equally spaced time intervals
throughout the test. In the event of any tippreciable deviation from constant flow rate, the average of the various
measured rates should be used in Eq, 9, Likewise, p,
usually becomes reasonably constant; when necessary, however, ~ may be used in any expression containing flowing
pressure.
To date, there has been no general analytical solution
to the nonlinear partial differential equation describing
the flow of natural gas through porous media. However,
by reducing the differential equation to an appropriate
finite-difference equation, numerical solutions have been
obtained by digital simulation on electronic computers.
Aronofsky and Jenkhrs3 concluded that the numerical
solutions nearly coincided with the solutions for transient
liquid flow for a wide range of dimensionless flow rates.
By combining the liquid and gas equations, a theoretical
equation was given for gas flow during the early stages
of production which may be expressed as
s+
r, s0,125
pf~DR-I)+p:
DR
(k,tp, )~
(14)
performance
-p,)
. . . . . . . . . (15)
q, =C(p;
Data taken from a DST which achieves a constant flow
rate may be considered valid for plotting as a single point
on a back-pressure plot of q. vs PI= - p.?. Such a pOint
certainly could be in error; however, for the purpose of
an estimation of the absolute open-flow potential it does
have some value. This is particularly true since the information in most cases would be available prior to completion of the well. Expressed in equation form (see Appendix D),
(16)
If the exponent n cannot be estimated, it may be assumed
to have the extreme values of 0.5 and 1.0, and n range
of q. calculated.
The computed value of g. will be with respect to the
time at which q, and p, were measured, usuallY at time r.
Studies of isochronal-performance
testing- show that
the performance coefficient C decreases with time until
stabilized flow conditions prevail. This may require considerable time except in Klghly permeable wells. In most
cases, therefore, the open-flow potential calculated by
Eq. 16 will be somewhat higher than that which would
be calculated for stabilized flow. A corrected value may
be calculated by Eq. 17.
(17)
~{.=q,{[p:yp,,]p::;;:]]}.
)?kSW
In certain cases drill-stem tests are performed on reservoirs which may produce various combinations of oil,
water and gas as separate phases. Such tests may be irrterpreted by applying the same theory as was used for
the single-phase interpretations, the only modification being
the substitution of the efiective total fluid properties of
the multiphase system for the equivalent single-phase
properties.w
The pressure build-up curve may be plotted as in an
oil test, and the plot extrapolated to obtain reservoir
pressure.
Each fluid is first considered separa~ly to obtain the
indhidual transmissibilities.
k.h
162.6 B,q.
.
%~.......
(2)
..
.
1217
kJt
.-
162,6 B.qw
,.
P.
l%
k,h
.
1632 ZT
(% -q,,R,)
m.
Pa
(18)
. . , . . .
(19)
;+
s,,
(3
x 10-) .
(20)
DR ~
1.1515 ~
!, 0
[
. . . . .
(+)
. .
(Pf F) /mz#
l.~lr.i
10(:)
wf
(+)1
. .
...:
3231
. (2])
.
- 323
(22)
Fig. 8Pressure
chart for tin exampIe multipimse
test,
H:mtilton Lake Well !5-13 (S!nndard Oil Co. of California).
-4.4
4,2
800
~- 3.8
.5
Q
.;
a
Final
~
\
.
a 3.4
CIP
,,
II
111111-.
11111111
II
ill
1.
800
3.0
10
f+e
550
m
[
10
f+e
=1-
Fig. 9Build-up
plot, Hamilton
JOURNAL
OF
PETKOLEIJM
TECHNOLOGY
b=~
Suggestions
t, + t,
, minutes
.._.
TASLE 1DST PREDICTED GAS-WELL
Well
White Rose
Pembina 11-26
H, B. Uno.Tex
Wknberne 7.29
ZaPOta Mazy 11.23
Zgpata Mozy 17-27
F.armaiian
.
IJlolrmore (ss)
D-3
PERFORMANCE COMPtiE
(M&D)
[Is)
2.30
0.108
Glauconitic
;iklns (ss)
(ss)
3.20
1,10
DA
D WITH
PDST.COMPLETION
Predlcled
q,i (hVAcF/D)
Ffnd
[MMcf/D)
stlmk!~fon
. .._
4<50
1.22
35.5
4.00
17.20
4,30
3.0
10,80
0.70
2,39
50-sal acid
14,0004b.
sand frac
7,50
2.0
3.35
7.40*
1.46
2.50
3.50
I .31
MO
2.03
2.6
2.95
16,750-soI
Pa:!;
jedney
Baldennel
1.41
1.7
2..6S
4,250-Eal
jedney
acfd
acid
edd
Halfway
($S)
S.25
6.3
9.07
40,000.lb
sand frac
Pagf&6 :dney
. .
Halfwsy
[ISI
I .79
1.6
3,03
36,600.lb
sand frac
Doma Laprtse
Creek b-2.ff
8aldwmel
[del]
0.64S
12.8
S,47
6,000wII
acid
7.70
13.20
2.55
1.56
Dame LaDrlse
Creek u.25.H
Dome Lawlse
Creek 0.81 .H
Baldwmel
(d.al)
0.310
10.1
3.13
5,500.991
acid
2.20
0.70
Saldonnel
[del)
0,486
3,6
~ .77
18,500.gal
acid
4.80
2.71
MCIXIY Dome
8ubbles b.a62.B
Bald.nnel
[dol}
0.486
2.1
1.04
11,500-ga[
acid
4.80
4.61
Panatta
Glaumnltfc
2.50
4.1
11.50
10,000.lb
$and,
350-lb Al.-
39.00
3.39
belier
Drum.
4.3
(SII
ASSUMED n = 0.8
qA
-_ .
500.s01 acid
?.10
NQVBMBJZR,
1,040.gal
8aId.annol (dol)
Pa:f;
.
PERFORMANCE,
SNmulaNOn
Treatment
FacJf}7 ~bbles
. .
[del)
_.
B,6S5
1,42
t+e
p,o=poat~=
10 on straight-line portion of
Subscripts
A =absolute open-flow potential
g = gas
o = oil
t = total
w = water (except for r.)
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to express his appreciation to the
various producing companies for permission to publish
their well data, and to Halliburton Oil WelI Cementing
Co. Ltd. for permission to present and publish this paper.
References
1. Black, W. M.: A Review of Drill-Stem Testing Techniques
and Analysis,lour. Pet. Zkch. (June, 1956) VIII, No, 6, 21.
2. Olson, C: C.: YSubsurfacePressures Tell Story, World Oil
(Feb., 1953).
3, Zak, A. J,, Jr. and Griffin, P,, III: Heres a Method for
Evaluating DST Data, Oil od Gas Jour. (April, 1957),
4. Dolan, J. P., Einarsen, C. A. and Hill, G. A.: Special Ap.
placations of Drillstem Test Pressure Data, Trans., AIME
( 1957) 210, 318.
5. Ammann, C, B,: Caee Histories of Analyses of Characteristics of Reservoir Rock from Drillstem Tests, Jour. Pet.
Tech. (May, 1960) XII, No. 5,27.
6. Horner, D, R.: Pressure Build-Up in Wells, Proc.. Third
~~~$, Pet, Cong., Section II, E. J. Brill, Leiden, Holland
i. van.,Everdingen, A. F.: The Skin Effect and Its Influence on
~~8 P~$etive Capacity of a Well, Trurw, AIME (1953)
,.
8. van Poollen, H, K.: Status of DrfI1-StemTesting Techniques
o
1963) 20.
APPENDIX
( ,)(
L+t,-to=
e
t, + t,
O=T.
loor
Let
b
t,-it,
= -T
Then
=ig
6--lT==J 25)
Thus, the slope of the plot of log
may be corrected by dividing by log
+1
), The
correction
t,+t,
($+
is approximate
-1-fl
Vs po
)1
t,
L9+t,
+h
0S
PETROLEUM
7?ECStNOLOG3f
Fig. 4 illustrates the magmtude of error ot the approximate plot and shows application of the correction factor.
APPENDIX
Pf
s=
-;
1.1515 *
(4)
When S = O, DR = 1.0.
Let q,, = q., I?lo= m. for undamaged system
0=
1,1515
;
[
m.
162.6 q./&
k~
Since m. =
~,,
=
Pr2(~R
(30)
) ..- ~,
APPENDIX
(6)
terms would b?
I)fi,:
DR
(13)
=26408
()~
31)
B, then
. .., (27j
.,O
pD=Q?L-@D(~-_!l
k~
Rearranging,
,,,
(P + P.)
(28)
(oil flow)
(gas flow)
r, s 4.63( k.t)t,
.
r, s 0.125 (krp,)*,
.
.
.
,
.
.
. . . . . . .-00143[(
. . . .3(91
.....
(7)
(14)
(multiphase flow)
Also,
m.k.h
q. = -162.6 p,B.
(1% ;) /w
DR ~ ~:~
c?,, 1% (M +ZKiti
. . (5)
The skin equation for gas, containing the Y function,
becomes
s+
Y=
...
Assuming c = ~
jf)=o.15(1 --
DRz
,.
(PI = -
p.) /mg
1,1515 +;o
[
...
...
(12)
log(:)(+)
.,
+ 3.23]
.,
...
(2!)
(p/ ;) /mu
DR z
10g(+)(+)i
-.323
22)
It is of value to know the pressure drop across the
XOYEMBER,
% =C(p;
-p:)
1962
the back-pressure
as
, . . . .
performance
,
. . ,
(15)
.~
mce
90 = qf when p. = O,
Ihen
,J
(/);)
rft=
APPENDIX D
s+
(23)
,,
(f:
,,
[1
(16)
Prz -P.
(32)
and
rluPI
n,.
,.,
..
(33)
minimum tf~ = -,,
(P, - P*)i
During the DST flow period, the performance coetlicient C may be somewhat higher than it would be for
stabilized flow, particularly if the permeability were not
very high. Thus, the flow potentials calculated by the
afore-mentioned methods would Jikewise be higher than
the actual stabilized values.
Considering r. as the stabilized drainage radius and C,
as the stabilized perfornumce coefficient, and rl thedrainage radius and C? the performance coefficient at time /,
then by applying Eq. 5 of Ref. 17,
~~
()
c,
In r,/r,.
lnrc/r,,
(34)
1:21
Since stabilized
q4 =
then stabiliid
29A,
(17)
0,.
DISCUSSION
H. K. VAN POOLLEN
MEMBER AIME
AUTHORS
REPLY
TO
H.
K.
VAN
POOLLEN
:.
,,.
3222
.. .
,.
. . ..-.
JO UR~AL
OF
PETROLEUM
.
TECHNOLOGY