DFA Book 09 Gas

Dynamic Flow Analysis - v4.
02 - KAPPA 1988-2007 Chapter 9 Gas Analysis - p1/19

9 Gas Analysis
OH OSF - DV

The methods originally developed in Dynamic Flow Analysis used the assumption of a single-
phase slightly compressible fluid, for which the diffusion equations can be considered linear.
Unfortunately gas, as a single-phase fluid, is not slightly compressible, neither is its diffusion a
linear process. Pseudo-functions were developed to get closer to a linear problem. Other issues
include material balance, datum correction, non-Darcy flow and rate dependent skin. Special
test procedures were also developed for gas. Whilst all these issues may be encountered in
some light oil cases, they must be addressed systematically when dealing with gas.
There is another aspect of handling gas when it is produced and/or diffusing in conjunction
with other phases, separately, with water, or in thermodynamic phase equilibrium, oil,
condensate. This may require the relatively simple recombination of the phases produced at
surface to an equivalent single-phase fluid at downhole condition (Perrines method), or more
complex methods when one has to consider the multiphase production within the formation or
through the wellbore.

9.A Dry gas
9.A.1 The PVT of real dry gas
When the problem is no longer linear, the superposition of drawdown solutions are replaced by
more complex semi-analytical models or, preferably, by numerical models. Though the
superposition time functions, used to qualify and quantify flow regimes for linear problems, will
no longer be strictly valid, they will be generally kept as diagnostic tools, although specialized
analyses will be incorrect, and only the match with nonlinear models will be a valid option.
However, there is a case of nonlinear diffusion where we will try to use the principle of
superposition by substituting the pressure, and in some cases the time, with a function of the
pressure that makes the equation a bit more linear. This case of nonlinear diffusion is the
diffusion of dry gas, and the substituted functions are called pseudopressure and pseudotime.
The problem of diffusion we have been solving so far is assuming that the reservoir fluid is
slightly compressible and that both viscosity and compressibility are independent of pressure.
This assumption is not valid for gases.
Regarding compressibility, the PVT relation is given by:
Ideal gas: nRT PV =
Real gas law: ZnRT PV =
Dynamic Flow Analysis - v4.02 - KAPPA 1988-2007 Chapter 9 Gas Analysis - p2/19

Regarding diffusion, Darcys law, the gas viscosity is also a function of pressure and
temperature. The Z factor and viscosity may be input from tables at a given temperature or we
may use correlations. The correlations for Z factor (Beggs & Brill, Dranchuk et al, Hall and
Yarborough) and for viscosity (Lee et al, Carr et al) can also be matched using flash reference
data. From the Z factor table / correlation, one can then calculate the volume factor and
compressibility correlations.
The two figures below give a typical relation between Z and as a function of p at a given T:

Fig. 9.A.1 - Z factor vs p [psia] Fig. 9.A.2 -
g
[cp] vs p [psia]

Volume factor and compressibility are then calculated from the Z factor:
Volume factor and compressibility:
sc
sc
g
pT
T Zp
B =
dp
dZ
Z p dp
dB
B
c
g
g
g
1 1 1
= =

Fig. 9.A.3 - B
g
[SCF/RCF] vs p [psia] Fig. 9.A.4 - c
g
[psi
-1
] vs p [psia]

It is possible today to take the PVT elements as they are, input them in a numerical simulator
and generate a solution which can be matched to the data. However, this possibility is recent,
and we would be short of diagnostic plots if we were just blindly simulating and matching.
Therefore the idea was to rearrange the equations by changing variables in order to get us to a
gas diffusion equation that looks like the slightly compressible fluid equation, and therefore
extend the methodology and diagnostic plots developed for the linear process to the nonlinear
process of gas diffusion. This was done by the introduction of the pseudopressure.
The (optional) derivation of the gas diffusion equation is shown in the next paragraph:

9.A.2 Derivation of the real dry gas diffusion
We are starting the derivation at the point before we made the slightly compressible fluid
assumption:
Raw diffusion equation:
( )
t x
p
x
k
x
0002637 . 0
The real gas law gives: ZnRT PV = where
M
m
n =
This gives the gas density:
Z
p
RT
M
V
m
= =
Diffusion equation becomes:

Z
p
RT
M
t x
p
Z
p
RT
M
x
k
x
0002637 . 0
Which simplifies to:
x
p
Z
p
x
k
Z
p
t
x
0002637 . 0
The first term develops as:
t
p
Z
p
p p
Z
p Z
p
Z
p
t
T

1

The gas compressibility is written:
T T
T
g
Z
p
p p
Z
RTZ
Mp
p Mp
RTZ
p
c

1

So: ( )
t
p
Z
p
c
t
p
c c
Z
p
Z
p
t
t g f
+ =

And the diffusion equation becomes:
x
p
Z
p
x
k
t
p
Z
p
c
x t
0002637 . 0
Or:
x
p
Z
p
x c
k
t
p
Z
p
t
x

0002637 . 0
We add the viscosity on both sides of the equation to approach the slightly compressible fluid
diffusion equation:

Gas diffusion equation:
x
p
Z
p
x c
k
t
p
Z
p
t
x

0002637 . 0
We now introduce the pseudopressure as a means to eliminate the additional terms in the gas
diffusion equation. There is an historic factor 2 in this equation, but the multiplication by a
constant would exactly do the same:
Gas pseudopressure:
=
p
dp
Z
p
p m
0
2 ) (

Taking the partial differential:
t
p
Z
p
t
p
p
p m
t
p m
2 ) ( ) (

And, the same way:
x
p
Z
p
x
p
p
p m
x
p m
2 ) ( ) (

The gas diffusion equation becomes:
2
2
) (
0002637 . 0
) (
x
p m
c
k
t
p m
t
x

Extending to x, y, z directions: ) ( 0002637 . 0
) (
2
p m
c
k
t
p m
t

We now arrive at the same formulation as the case of a slightly compressible fluid.

9.A.3 Diffusion of real dry gas
9.A.3.a Standard pseudopressures
In order to extend the methodology of Dynamic Flow Analysis to gas cases, one introduces a
function of the pressure called the pseudopressure. It is given by:
Gas pseudopressure: ( ) dp
Z
p
p m
p
=
0
2

The Field unit for pseudopressures is psi/cp. A typical pseudopressure response as a function
of pressure, and for a given temperature, is shown below. There is a rule of thumb regarding
the behavior of this function:
Below 2000 psia, Z is fairly constant, and m(p) behaves like p
2

Above 3000 psia, Z is fairly linear, and m(p) behaves like p


Fig. 9.A.5 - Pseudopressure vs. pressure

Gas diffusion equation: ) ( 0002637 . 0
) (
2
p m
c
k
t
p m
t

The principle of traditional real gas analysis is to replace the pressure by the pseudopressure
and interpret the data as if the fluid was slightly compressible.
However, there is an important shortcoming in this method. Although the equation looks the
same, it will only be linear as long as we can consider the diffusion term k/c
t
constant. This
is valid as long as the average reservoir pressure does not substantially decrease which is a
reasonable assumption for a standard, relatively short, well test. In the case of extended tests
such as limit tests and production well tests, this may not be the case.

9.A.3.b Normalized pseudopressures
The gas diffusion equation remains valid if we multiply the pseudopressures by a fixed
number. Because the unit and orders of value of the standard pseudopressures are not
intuitive, one possibility is to use normalized pseudopressures by selecting a reference
pressure p
ref
, with the condition:
Normalized pseudopressures: ( )
( )
( )
ref
ref Norm
p m
p m
p p m =
Normalized pseudopressure at p
ref
: ( )
ref ref Norm
p p m =
The normalized pseudopressures have the dimension and unit of the pressure, it follows the
same diffusion equation and it coincides with the pressure at p
ref
:

Normalized pseudopressures: ) ( 0002637 . 0
) (
2
p m
c
k
t
p m
Norm
t
Norm


9.A.4 Dry gas and pressure related changing wellbore storage
For a gas test, the wellbore storage is a function of the gas compressibility and the wellbore
volume. It is therefore a pressure related coefficient, unlikely to be constant, especially in the
case of tight reservoirs, where the pressure change in the wellbore is likely to be high:
Wellbore storage in a gas test:
wellbore g
V c C =
In the case of a build-up in a tight gas reservoir, the derivative of the pressure (and
pseudopressure) response will not have the usual hump shape. The hump will be very narrow
and high, a characteristic shape of decreasing wellbore storage.
There are several ways to handle this problem: pseudotime, changing wellbore storage with an
analytical model or pressure related wellbore storage in a numerical model.

Fig. 9.A.6 - Changing wellbore storage data Fig. 9.A.7 - Match using an analytical model

9.A.4.a Use of a changing wellbore storage analytical model
The easiest way to match such data is the use of an analytical changing wellbore storage
model. In the case above it is a decreasing wellbore storage option. Using any software, the
principle will be to position the early storage and the time at which the transition takes place
(in this case, the position of the hump in the derivative response). The initial model generation
may be approximate, but non linear regression will generally obtain a good fit.
There are two main models used in the industry. These are the Fair and the Hegeman et al
models. The latter is more recent and more likely to match this sort of response.
However these models should be use with care, for three reasons:
These models are just transfer functions (in Laplace space) that just happen to be good at
matching the real data. There is no physics behind them. They may end up with initial, final
storage and transition time that make no physical sense.
These models are time related. There will be a wellbore storage at early time and a wellbore
storage at late time. This is not correct when one wants to model pressure related storage.
In the case of a production, the real wellbore storage at early time will correspond to the
storage at late time of the build-up, and the reverse. So the superposition of a time related
solution will be incorrect on all flow periods except the one on which the model was
matched. This aspect is very often overlooked by inexperienced interpretation engineers.

These models are dangerous to the extent that they work beautifully in matching anything
that goes wrong in early time. This is true even if the real behavior is completely unrelated
to a justified changing wellbore storage.
In conclusion these analytical models are handy but should be used with care.

9.A.4.b Use of pseudotime
This variable was, historically, the first solution used to modify the data to take into account
changing wellbore storage, and transform the data response that could then be matched with a
constant wellbore storage model or type-curve. The principle was that the model does not
match the data, but rather the opposite, the data matches the model. Using pseudotime and
considering the diffusion equation the idea was to enter in the time function the part that is
pressure related, i.e. the viscosity compressibility product. The gas diffusion equation can then
be re-written:
Modified diffusion equation: ) ( 0002637 . 0
) (
2
p m
k
c
t
p m
t

We introduce the pseudotime:
=
t
wf ps
d p I t t
0
)) ( ( ) ( where
t
c
p I
1
) ( =
or, better, the normalized version:
=
t
wf ps
d p I t t
0
)) ( ( ) ( where
( )
t
ref t
c
c
p I
= ) (
Where the diffusion equation becomes:
( )
) ( 0002637 . 0
) (
2
p m
c
k
t
p m
ref t ps

Although this is not a perfect solution the equation becomes closer to a real linear diffusion
equation. In addition, the time function is essentially dependent on the gas compressibility and
the pseudotime will therefore mainly compensate the change of wellbore storage in time.
The replacement of the time by the pseudotime in the loglog plot will therefore compress the
time scale, which, on a logarithmic scale, will mean an expansion of the X axis to the right at
early time. As a result, the compressed wellbore storage shape of the derivative response will
become closer to a constant wellbore storage solution.

Fig. 9.A.8 - Match using the pseudotime function Fig. 9.A.9 - Match using a numerical model

There are two drawbacks to this approach:
This method modifies, once and for all, the data to match the model, and not the opposite.
This excludes, for example, the possibility of comparing several PVT models on the same
data. The method was the only one available at the time of type-curve matching, where
models were limited to a set of fixed drawdown type-curves.
In order to calculate the pseudotime function one needs the complete pressure history.
When there are holes in the data, or if the pressure is only acquired during the shut-in, it
will not be possible to calculate the pseudotime from the acquired pressure. There is a
workaround to this: use the pressures simulated by the model, and not the real pressures.
This amounts to the same thing once the model has matched the data, and there is no hole.
However it is a bit more complicated for the calculation, as the pressure at a considered
time requires the pseudotime function, and vice versa.

9.A.4.c Use of a numerical model
The principle is to use a wellbore model which, at any time, uses the flowing pressure to define
the wellbore storage parameter. In order for the model to be stable, the wellbore storage has
to be calculated implicitly at each time step. As the problem is not linear, this can only be done
using Saphir NonLinear (Saphir NL).
This is by far the best way to simulate pressure related wellbore storage. However there are a
couple of drawbacks:
The model is slower than an analytical model or a change of time variable
It is inflexible: once you have entered the PVT and the wellbore volume there is no
parameter to control the match. The model works, or it does not.

9.A.5 Gas material balance
The issue of material balance in gas diffusion has become increasingly critical in recent years
with the spread of permanent gauges. The origin is the same as for changing wellbore storage.
Even with the use of pseudopressures, the diffusion equation can be considered linear for as
long as the diffusion terms left outside the time and pressure variables remain constant. This
time, we are not facing problems of changing wellbore storage, a process only linked to the
pressure in the wellbore, but to the whole diffusion process throughout the reservoir.
Diffusion equation: ) ( 0002637 . 0
) (
2
p m
c
k
t
p m
t

As soon as we have a pressure gradient in the reservoir, the diffusion term, and especially the
product ct, will become different from one reservoir block to the next.
Although one could consider that it also happens during any well test, this becomes critical
when the reservoir average pressure declines in the reservoir and/or in the well drainage area.
It is therefore necessary to adjust the models or the data.


Fig. 9.A.10 - Match without a material balance correction

If we look at a real gas simulation for a long term limit test, or a production survey using
permanent gauges, and use it to match with an analytical model where the diffusion was taken
at initial pressure, we can see a divergence between the simulated pressure and the measured
data, even though the reservoir geometries and the PVT used are strictly the same.
There are again three ways to handle this problem:

9.A.5.a Using pseudotime functions
It is the same principle as for the changing wellbore storage, but this time the pressure from
which the pseudotime function is calculated will be the reservoir, or drainage area, average
pressure:
The process starts from an initial estimate of the reservoir initial pressure and volume.
These two parameters are required to calculate the initial oil in place G
i
.
At each time step, the cumulative production is calculated and subtracted from the initial oil
in place. A standard p/Z calculation is used to estimate the reservoir average pressure at
this time, to be used to calculate the pseudotime integrand, and then the pseudo time. This
pseudotime is used on the loglog plot, and the data is therefore expanded to the right,
allowing the match with a classic closed system type-curve.

This method was useful at the time when one only had type-curves as models. Today
computers can do much better and faster. The main shortcoming was that the initial estimate
of the volume and the initial pressure was made before the model was matched. The model
would give a value of initial pressure and volume, which might not be the same as the initial
guess, hence requiring another modification of the data, another match, and so on. The
process would however, converge quickly.

9.A.5.b Integrating the material balance correction in the analytical model
The theory behind this solution is the same, but the use of a model makes the process simpler
and more coherent. The model includes a reservoir size and an initial pressure. So the initial
gas in place can be calculated as an integral part of the model. At any time step the algorithm
calculates the average pressure from the cumulative production using p/Z, and replaces the

viscosity and total compressibility in the superposition by the one coming from the average
pressure. So at any time step the simulated pressure is coherent with the material balance of
the model. The optional derivation is shown below:
We consider the total gas in place at initial pressure. V
res
is the pore volume occupied by the
gas. T
res
is the fluid temperature at reservoir conditions. G
i
is the initial gas in place at
standard conditions.
Real gas equation at initial pressure:
res i res i
nRT Z V p =
Same amount of fluid at standard conditions:
sc i sc
nRT G p =
So we get immediately G
i
:
res sc
sc res
i
i
i
T p
T V
Z
p
G =
We now consider, at time t, the same situation after a total cumulative production of Q(t). We
now want to calculate the average reservoir pressure:
Real gas equation at initial pressure:
res res
RT t n Z V p ) ( =
Same amount of fluid at standard conditions: ( )
sc i sc
RT t n t Q G p ) ( ) ( =
So we get immediately G
i
:
res sc
sc res
i
T p
T V
Z
p
t Q G = ) (
We calculate the average pressure from: ( ) ) (t Q G
T V
T p
Z
p
i
sc res
res sc
=

Fig. 9.A.11 - Match with a material balance correction

9.A.5.c Using a numerical model
The use of a numerical model is, conceptually, even simpler. As the gas equation is entered at
the level of each cell, the material balance is automatically honoured, not only globally, as
above, but at the level of each cell. Solving the problem numerically is by far the most rigorous
approach.

As the problem is nonlinear, this requires Saphir NL and the use of a nonlinear solver, but in
the case of single gas this will rarely require more than one iteration. So this sort of model, for
reasonably simple geometries, will be both fast and accurate.
For information, the case presented above is an actual simulation using Saphir NL.

9.A.6 NonDarcy flow
The diffusion equation used as the basis of the methodology in Dynamic Flow Analysis is based
on three components: the conservation of mass, a PVT equation and Darcys law. We have
seen above that the gas PVT required some adjustments in the equations and the method:
pseudopressures, changing storage, material balance. In complement there are some cases,
and especially for gas, where the assumption of Darcy flow is invalid. Sections of the reservoir,
generally close to the well, will flow at such speed that turbulence will occur and have a strong
impact on the well response. We now need to add a turbulence component to the flow
equation, replacing Darcys law by a second degree equation, such as Forscheimers.
Darcys law expressed in terms of speed, in SI units: u
k x
P
=

Forscheimers equation, same references and units:
2
u u
k x
P
+ =

is called the turbulence factor. There are two main options to address nonDarcy flow:
The first is to focus on the impact of nonDarcy flow on the well productivity. This is what
was done historically using rate dependent skin. Normal diffusion is used, but an additional,
rate related skin component is added.
The other way is to model nonDarcy flow by numerically integrating the Forscheimer
equation in the model.
A diagram of the two options is shown in the figure below:

Fig. 9.A.12 - Two ways to model nonDarcy flow


9.A.6.a Simulating nonDarcy flow with a rate dependent skin model
There are two complimentary approaches to determine the rate dependency caused by high
flow velocities and turbulence using the simplified assumption that the relationship is linear. In
an analytical model the nonDarcy flow effect is simulated by an additional skin using the linear
function of the rate.

Dq dq ds dq ds S S
total
= + = / /
0

This is illustrated in the figure above. D is called the (linear) nonDarcy flow coefficient.
In order to access the rate dependency it is necessary to conduct a multi flowrate test, these
tests are described in chapter A.7.b.
The classical way of determining the skin versus rate relationship is to use semilog analysis of
each flowperiod if this analysis is valid. Then plot the resulting skin versus the corresponding
rate as illustrated in the figure below. This will return the skin without turbulence ie: the
mechanical skin, the intercept of the assumed straight-line, S
0
and the rate dependency D
derived from the slope. Here it is important to remember that a flow/after flow test with only
one single shut-in may not produce the required results as a semilog analysis of a producing
period may be impossible due to the inherent fluctuation of the rates masking the pressure
response where semilog analysis is valid.
It is therefore recommended to use the type of tests that have intermediate shut-ins,
isochronal or modified isochronal, where we stand a better chance of obtaining the skin from
the analysis of these shut-ins. The plot of skin versus rate is done automatically in Saphir. The
results can then automatically be transferred and the model generated with regression to
improve the model match as necessary.
If the skin versus rate plot fails because semilog analysis is not valid, the rate dependency
parameters cans still be set in the model dialog using an initial guess. Then the model match
can be refined by regression.

Fig. 9.A.13 - Skin versus rate plot

9.A.6.b Simulating nonDarcy flow with a numerical model
In a numerical model the (non linear) nonDarcy flow effect is included in the flow equation
through the value of the (non linear) nonDarcy flow coefficient, which appears in the
Forchheimer equation:

2
u u
k x
P
+ =

It can be evaluated from the linear assumption described above using dq ds / with:
k
h r
dq ds
w

2
/

or from an empirical equation:
( ) [ ]
5 . 0 5 . 5
1
005 . 0
k Sw
=

9.A.7 Gas IPR and AOF
The goal of an Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) is to establish a relation between the
flowing pressure and the flowing rate. The Absolute Open Flow (AOF) uses this IPR in order to
estimate the maximum possible rate when the flowing pressure is as low as possible, i.e. at
atmospheric pressure.
Objection: Needless to say the idea of IPR and AOF is an anathema to the purist Pressure
Transient Analyst. Everyone knows that, even in the optimistic case of an infinite reservoir, the
pressure will continue drawing down when we are at constant rate, and the rate will keep
declining when we are at constant flowing pressure. So, from a well testing point of view, this
makes as little sense as the notion of a productivity index.
Objection to objection: Of course this objection is not completely correct. There is a regime
where there is such a relationship and that is Pseudo-Steady State. When PSS is reached the
shape of the pressure profile stabilizes and moves downwards. A relation between the
production and the difference between the average pressure and the flowing pressure can be
established.
Objection to objection to objection: Unfortunately we generally do not wait for PSS to be
reached before performing an IPR, and the conditions under which the data is acquired are,
generally, transient. We therefore look for changes that become small enough to be ignored.
This complete process is therefore not strictly correct.
Objection to objection to objection to objection: This will not be too far out and, in any case, it
has proven to work relatively well in the past, especially for gas reservoirs. In addition, IPR
from PSS models are the best we have to simulate production networks and input in reservoir

simulators where the details of the transient responses are not this important. IPR / AOF are
useful because they give accurate ideas of the performance of the wells, and they are really
the least bad thing to use when we optimize reservoir production.

9.A.7.a Principle
Any available method is based on an equation which links the rate and the flowing pressure
drawdown values.
For instance:
The Rawlins and Shellhardt IPR equation:
( )
n
wf
p p C q
2 2
=
Where:
C is the performance coefficient
n the turbulent flow exponent, equal to 0.5 for fully turbulent flow and equal to 1 for laminar
flow.

The LIT IPR equation, deduced from the Houpeurt or Forchheimer equation:
2
) ( ) ( bq aq p m p m + =
Where :
a = laminar flow coefficient
b = turbulent flow coefficient
The method consists in getting from a multirate well test the pressure values corresponding to
the production rate and to determine graphically the equation coefficients values, respectively
C&n or a&b, then to calculate the Absolute Open Flow.

Another approach is to evaluate the a&b values from empirical equations using the well and
reservoir parameters values as input (i.e. Jones method).

9.A.7.b Different types of tests
The IPR equations assume stabilized rate and flowing pressure conditions, the most basic
multirate test design is the back pressure test also called the flow/after flow test which is a
sequence of flow periods long enough to reach stabilized conditions originally proposed by
Rawlins et al in 1936.


Fig. 9.A.14 - Back pressure test

A second approach is based on the fact that only the laminar coefficient of the equations
depends on the flow duration, the nonDarcy coefficient remains independent.
The test design includes short flow periods of equal duration, not necessarily stabilized, at
various rates followed by shut-ins of equal duration until stabilization which are not necessarily
the same duration as the drawdowns. The resulting values are used to determine the nonDarcy
flow coefficient.
An extended flow period until stabilization allows determining the correct laminar coefficient.
This is the isochronal test proposed by Cullender in 1955.

Fig. 9.A.15 - Isochronal test

The flowing pressure drawdown values are calculated from the initial average pressure.
The modified isochronal test, proposed by Katz et al in 1959, is characterized by short shut-ins
between production periods, of equal duration, with neither of the periods necessarily
stabilized. The final flow to stabilization is followed by a final long shut-in.


Fig. 9.A.16 - Modified isochronal test

The flowing pressure drawdown values are calculated from the previous last shut in pressure.

9.A.7.c Different types of IPR / AOF
9.A.7.c.i The Rawlins and Shellhardt method (C&n)
It can use either the p
2
:
( )
n
wf
p p C q
2 2
=

or the pseudo pressure m(p)
( ) ( ) ( )
n
wf
p m p m C q =

The pressure and rate data are plotted on a log-log scale:
( ) ( ) ( ) ) log( log q versus p m p m
wf

Fig. 9.A.17 - Back pressure test Fig. 9.A.18 - Isochronal test

The n value is calculated from the slope, C from the line intersect.
Then: ( ) ( ) ( )
n
m p m C AOF 7 . 14 =

9.A.7.c.ii The LIT Method
It is based on the equation:
2
) ( ) ( bq aq p m p m + =

The pressure and rate data are plotted:
) (
) ( ) (
q versus
q
p m p m
wf

Fig. 9.A.19 - Back Pressure test Fig. 9.A.20 - Isochronal test

The b value is calculated from the line slope and the a value from the intersect:
The AOF is then:
[ ]
b
m p m b a a
AOF
2
) 7 . 14 ( ) ( 4
2
+ +
=

9.A.7.c.iii Jones method
The methods is also based on the IPR equation:
2
) ( ) ( bq aq p m p m + =

But the parameters a and b are estimated from empirical equations:
kh
s
C r
A
T
a
A w

+
=
87 . 0
2458 . 2
log log 6 . 1495
2

kh
TD
b
15 . 1299
=

333 . 0
00003 . 0
k hr
gg
D
w
=
Where :
Ca Dietz shape factor
D Turbulence factor (1/ft)
k permeability
hw perforated interval
h net formation drained thickness
A drainage area
rw wellbore radius
gg gas specific gravity
S skin
m viscosity
T reservoir temperature (deg R)

Other similar methods exist, the difference remains in the empirical equations.

9.A.8 Correcting the pressure to sandface
Usually the pressure gauge is not set at the sandface due to mechanical constraints in the
completion. Because of this, the results obtained from the pressure transient analysis are at
the level of the gauge and not the sandface which, in terms of pressure (Pi) and skin (S), will
not reflect the true sandface conditions.
It is necessary first to define the vertical pressure profile in the well. The Saphir/Topaze
internal flow correlations or an actual lift curve generated by some external program can be
used for this.
The available correlation for gas is an external lift curve or the internal Cullender & Smith
method, but with two modifications for handling water and condensate.
The correlation is based on the gas properties as defined in the PVT setup, and a general
friction factor is calculated using the Colebrook and White equation. Note that when you deal
with a condensate case with equivalent gas gravity and total rates, the proper gradient and
rates are used in the correlation to account for the condensate presence. The presence of
water can be accounted for, based on a constant water to gas production ratio.

The solution selected in Saphir is to include both the hydrostatic and friction pressure loss in
the model and correct the generated model response to the actual gauge depth, and then to
return all the results at the sandface.

In fact, the gauge pressure is not transformed, nor corrected hence it is the model that is
brought to the level of the gauge.

Fig. 9.A.21 - Analysis at gauge level

Fig. 9.A.22 - Analysis after model correction to gauge level

You can observe that results (Pi and skin) are now returned at the sandface and that the rate
dependent skin attributed to the formation is now a lot smaller and should be attributed to the
pressure loss through, in this example, the 500 ft of 1.5ID tubing.

Once the sandface parameters have been returned by the model match, the sandface pressure
can be properly corrected to a common reservoir datum though the, hopefully appropriate,
knowledge of the fluid gradients in the reservoir.

The solution selected for Topaze is to correct the gauge data to the sandface depth.

DFA Book 09 Gas

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

DFA Book 09 Gas

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Dynamic Flow Analysis - v4.

02 - KAPPA 1988-2007 Chapter 9 Gas Analysis - p1/19

Anda mungkin juga menyukai