Constant Pressure Boundary - TestWells https://www.testwells.

com/constant-pressure-boundary/

Site Menu

Join | Library | Logout

Constant Pressure Boundary Your Subscriptions

The constant pressure boundary is sometimes used to match a Well Testing Group

late-time drop in the derivative data, as shown below.

Note that the changes in the derivative are due to the short
initial production times and the derivative calculation algorithm
(more information is available in the training
video called Deconvolution).

The three marked PBU tests can be seen in the production history

plot below.

1 sur 8 10/08/2016 18:42

Constant Pressure Boundary - TestWells https://www.testwells.com/constant-pressure-boundary/

In the following well test interpretation, a constant pressure

boundary was placed at 517 feet from the well.

By definition, the pressure at this boundary is a constant equal to

the initial pressure. As a result, the simulated PBU data stabilizes
to this constant pressure and the derivative falls to 0, creating a
drop in the log-log plot.

The constant pressure boundary was often used in the past as a

source for additional pressure support, in particular for the
following cases:

the presence of a gas cap,

the presence of an aquifer with the mobility of the water

2 sur 8 10/08/2016 18:42

Constant Pressure Boundary - TestWells https://www.testwells.com/constant-pressure-boundary/

much greater than that of the oil.

Now Obsolete !
There is no physical mechanism that would explain a static
boundary remaining at initial reservoir pressure. The use of this
immobile boundary is not plausible.
The constant pressure boundary is in fact an old solution that was
developed using the obsolete method of images. This solution
should no longer be used, but replaced by the linear composite
model and a linear interface.

Linear composite model

The constant pressure boundary model should now be obsolete
and replaced by the linear composite model, where the reservoir
is divided into various regions of different mobility (kh/µ) and/or
storativity (Φ Ct h) values.

The presence of a reservoir region with high fluid mobility (gas

cap or aquifer) further away from the well drives the derivative
downwards at late times (first statement in the derivative post or
in the well test theory   video). This sometimes gives the
impression that the derivative falls. While a constant pressure
boundary would have been used in the past, the modern well test
analyst should use a linear composite model.

In this case, the oil reservoir, gas cap and aquifer are represented
as three zones of the linear composite model with different
values of total compressibility, viscosity and permeability. We
consider the same reservoir fluid in all the regions of the model
and represent the differences in fluid properties as
heterogeneities.

Example

3 sur 8 10/08/2016 18:42

Constant Pressure Boundary - TestWells https://www.testwells.com/constant-pressure-boundary/

A new vertical well Mu-12 was drilled and quickly cleaned up.
After an initial PBU test, the well was put on production.

The figure below shows the pressure and rate data for the first
month of production. There were several instances when the well
was shut-in for short time periods. These flow interruptions
provide some “opportunistic” PBUs and give an idea of reservoir
pressure and the changes in effective permeability, in skin and
even sometimes in fluid contacts.

The static and PVT data used in the analysis are as follows:
Formation Volume Factor 1.3 rb/stb
Oil viscosity 2.6 cp
Oil compressibility 5.10E-06 1/psi
Water compressibility 3.00E-06 1/psi
Porosity 13 %
Water saturation 20 %
Net thickness 88 FEET
Rock compressibility 2.00E-06 (1/psi)
Wellbore radius 0.354 FEET

As presented in the schematic below, the oil reservoir is overlaid

by a gas cap on one side and attached to an aquifer on the other
side.

4 sur 8 10/08/2016 18:42

Constant Pressure Boundary - TestWells https://www.testwells.com/constant-pressure-boundary/

Several PBUs are shown in the derivative plot below.

After some wellbore storage and skin, a derivative stabilization is

visible between 1 and 5 hours into the PBU test. The derivative
then decreases and rapidly drops over the reminder of the
pressure build-up.

A rapid fall of the derivative at late times could usually be

explained by a closed reservoir (compartmentalization) or the
presence of fluid contact. Based on Deconvolution and on our
subsurface understanding, the effect of the gas cap was
considered.
Due to the significantly higher gas compressibility and therefore
mobility, the transition from an oil reservoir to a gas cap is
indicated by a rapid decrease in the derivative. This feature
dominates the pressure response and can sometimes mask other
behaviour or characteristics.

5 sur 8 10/08/2016 18:42

Constant Pressure Boundary - TestWells https://www.testwells.com/constant-pressure-boundary/

The total system compressibility is defined as follows:

With Cr: the rock compressibility, Si: the saturation of fluid i and
Ci: the compressibility of fluid i.

With the compressibility and saturation values in the table above,

this formula gives the oil zone total compressibility of 6.7e-6
1/psi. A similar estimate of compressibility in the water zone
gives 5.0e-6 1/psi and the water zone to oil zone storativity ratio
is estimated as 0.75.
The gas compressibility can be estimated as the inverse of
reservoir pressure 1/p = 1/4209psi = 238e-6 1/psi. This results in
a total compressibility in the gas cap of 192.7e-6 1/psi. The gas
cap to oil zone storativity ratio is then 28.8.

The water to oil zone mobility ratio can be estimated as the ratio
of oil and water viscosities, i.e. 5.2. If we assume a gas viscosity
of 0.02 cp, the gas to oil mobility ratio is estimated at 130.
These estimates will help reduce the non-uniqueness and
understand the behaviour created by the gas cap and aquifer.

We then define a linear composite model with 3 reservoir regions

to represent the oil zone, the gas cap and the aquifer.
We can match the pressure buildup data by adjusting the
permeability and the location of the fluid interfaces. Then we can
slightly tweak the mobility and storativity ratios to improve the
match. The results are shown below.

The reservoir permeability is 234mD and the total skin S= +4.6,

with boundaries at 950 ft and 2,080 ft from the well. The well
pressure behaviour is mostly controlled by the gas cap at about
530 ft and the aquifer at 1,200 ft away.

6 sur 8 10/08/2016 18:42

Constant Pressure Boundary - TestWells https://www.testwells.com/constant-pressure-boundary/

Tagged with: aquifer, constant pressure boundary, gas cap, linear composite
Posted in: General

More Articles

Leave a reply
Logged in as fattah mine. Log out?

Account TestWells Ltd Menu Popular Posts

Account 27 Old Gloucester Home Well Testing and Pressure

Street Transient Analysis
Logout Well Test Services
WC1N 3AX London, UK What is Well Testing ?

7 sur 8 10/08/2016 18:42

Constant Pressure Boundary - TestWells https://www.testwells.com/constant-pressure-boundary/

Your Subscriptions Learning Centre Why you should avoid a

T:+ 44 (0) 208 610 complex oil and gas
Well Testing Group My Account
deliverability test
9336
Secure Transfer
E: info@TestWells.com
Contact

Registered in London:
8757988

Terms and Conditions · Privacy Policy · Cookie Policy

Copyright © 2016 TestWells Ltd. All rights reserved.

8 sur 8 10/08/2016 18:42