Anda di halaman 1dari 522

17/11/2012

WELL TESTING ANALYSIS

Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo


Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
1

17/11/2012

INTRODUCTION
IATMI
TO WELL TESTING
Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo
Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
2

OBJECTIVES

17/11/2012

List the more common objectives of well testing.


Describe the diffusivity equation by explaining
its purpose and applications
assumptions made in its derivation and how it is
derived
its form for one-dimensional radial flow.
List, define, give the units for, and specify typical sources
for each of the variables that influence responses in a well
test.
C
Compute
t the
th ttotal
t l compressibility
ibilit for
f different
diff
t reservoir
i
systems (undersaturated oil, saturated oil, gas).
3

17/11/2012

WHAT IS A WELL TEST?

A tool for reservoir evaluation and characterization


Investigates a much larger volume of the reservoir than
cores or logs
Provides estimates of
permeability under in-situ conditions
near-wellbore conditions
distances to boundaries
average pressure

17/11/2012

17/11/2012

HOW IS A WELL TEST CONDUCTED?


q
Well is
allowed
ll
d to
produce
normally
Sensor is
lowered
into well

Production
remainst
constant
Pressure
essu e
stabilizes

t
6

17/11/2012

HOW IS A WELL TEST CONDUCTED?


q=0
Well is
shut in

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

Applications and objectives of well testing

Development of the diffusivity equation

Definitions and sources for data used in


well testing

17/11/2012

TYPES AND PURPOSES OF WELL TESTS

Pressure transient tests

Deliverability tests

W generate and
We
d measure pressure changes
h
with
i h time
i

Well controlled production

(Production Analysis)

Use of production data for goals usually achieved by


wellll testing
i
9

17/11/2012

PRODUCTION DATA ANALYSIS

Reservoir properties (permeability,


(permeability skin
factor,, fracture half-length,
g , etc).
)

Reservoir pore volume (estimated using


long-term production performance).

Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)movable


fluid volumes.
10

17/11/2012

WELL TEST APPLICATIONS

11

17/11/2012

WELL TEST OBJECTIVES

Define reservoir limits

Estimate average drainage area pressure


Characterize reservoir
Diagnose
g
pproductivity
y pproblems
Evaluate stimulation treatment effectiveness

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

Well is shut in,


pressure is
measured

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

KINDS OF WELL TESTS


q
Plot
Produce well
at constant pressure
response
rate
Lower
sensor
into well

Pwf
t

16

17/11/2012

KINDS OF WELL TESTS


Shut in well
Plot
pressure
response

Produce
well
ell at
constant
rate
Lower
sensor
into well

Pws
t

17

17/11/2012

KINDS OF WELL TESTS

Inject fluid
into well at
constant rate p

Plot
pressure
response

18

17/11/2012

KINDS OF WELL TESTS


q=0
Shut in well
Inject fluid
into well at
constant rate

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

PTA: SINGLE-WELL TESTS

press re b
pressure
buildup
ild p test

(specific drawdown tests: are called reservoir limits


tests

pressure falloff test

shut in after controlled production

drawdown or flow test

one well in which the pressure response is measured


following a rate change.

similar to a pressure buildup test, except it is,


cond cted on an injection well
conducted
ell

injectivity test

Inject into the well at measured rate and measure


pressure as it increases with time
analogous to pressure drawdown testing.
22

17/11/2012

23

17/11/2012

PTA: MULTIWELL TESTS

Flow rate is changed


g in one well

Pressure response is measured in one or more


other
th wells
ll

Directional variations of reservoir properties


(orientation of natural fractures)

Presence or lack of comm


communication
nication bet
between
een ttwo
o
points in the reservoir

Ratio of the porosity-compressibility products of


the matrix and fracture systems
24

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

The active well produces and then, is shut in, returned


to production and shut in again
g
Repeated but with production or shut-in periods rarely
exceeding more than a few hours
Produces a pressure response in the observation wells
which usually can be interpreted unambiguously (even
when other wells in the field continue to produce)
25

17/11/2012

DELIVERABILITY TESTS (DT)


p
production
capabilities
p
of a well under
specific reservoir conditions
primarily for gas wells
absolute openflow (AOF) potential
inflow performance relationship (IPR) or
gas backpressure curve

26

17/11/2012

DT: FLOW-AFTER-FLOW TESTS


((referred to as ggas backpressure
p
or four-point
p
tests))

producing the well at a series of different


stabilized flow rates

measuring the stabilized bottomhole flowing


pressure at the sandface

typically,
yp
y, with a sequence
q
of increasingg flow rates

27

17/11/2012

DT: SINGLE-POINT TESTS

low-permeability formations

flowing the well at a single rate until the bottomhole


flowing pressure is stabilized

required by many regulatory agencies

requires
q
prior
p
knowledge
g of the well's deliverabilityy behavior

(from previous testing or from correlations with other wells


producing in the same field under similar conditions)

28

17/11/2012

DT: ISOCHRONAL TESTS

Specifically, the isochronal test is a series of


single-point
i l
i t ttests
t developed
d l
d to
t estimate
ti t stabilized
t bili d
deliverability characteristics without actually
flowing the well for the time required to achieve
stabilized conditions

The isochronal test is conducted by alternately


producing the well,
well then shutting in the well and
allowing it to build up to the average reservoir
pressure prior to the beginning of the next
production period.
29

ISSUES

17/11/2012

Development Wells vs. Exploration Wells


Producing Wells vs. Injection Wells
Shallow Wells vs. Deep Wells
Sti l t d W
Stimulated
Wells
ll vs. U
Unstimulated
ti l t d Wells
W ll
Effects of Reservoir Properties
Low Permeability vs. High Permeability
Formations
Single Zones vs. Multiple Zones
Safety and Environmental Considerations
Sweet Gas vs. Sour and Corrosive Gases
Other environmental Concerns
30

17/11/2012

PRODUCTION DATA ANALYSIS

Reservoir p
properties
p
(p
(permeability,
y, skin
factor, fracture half-length, etc).

Reservoir pore volume (estimated using


long-term production performance).

Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)


movable fluid volumes.
volumes
31

17/11/2012

THE DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION

Narrated
a ated by:
by RS
S Trijana
ja a Kartoatmodjo
a toat odjo
Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
32

17/11/2012

THE DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION

Describes the flow of


a

slightly compressible fluid


having constant viscosity
in a p
porous medium
at constant temperature

Deri ed from basic relationships of


Derived
continuity
flow

equation (Darcys law)


equation
equation-of-state
of state
33

17/11/2012

THE CONTINUITY EQUATION

(Av)1

(Av)2

Av 1 Av 2
m
34

17/11/2012

FLOW EQUATION (DARCYS LAW)

kAp
kA
q
L
or,, in differential form,,

k x p
ux
x
35

17/11/2012

EQUATION OF STATE FOR A SLIGHTLY


COMPRESSIBLE LIQUID

oe

c p po

36

17/11/2012

THE DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION


One-dimensional,, radial form:

1 p ct p
r
r r r
k t

37

17/11/2012

FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR

Vres
B
Vsurf
For oil:

For gas:

For water:

Vres
Bo
Vsurf

Vres
Bg
Vsurf

Vres
Bw
Vsurf
38

17/11/2012

VISCOSITY

A fluids resistance to flow


Gasolinelow

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

NET PAY THICKNESS

h1
h2
Shale
h3

Sand

h = h1 + h2 + h3
(No perforations
in this sand)

h4

44

17/11/2012

NET PAY THICKNESS

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

MODELING RADIAL FLOW

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

State the Ei-function solution to the diffusivity equation,


and list all the assumptions on which it is based. State
practical rules for determining the numerical values of
the Ei-function.
Given formation and fluid properties, be able to
calculate the radius of investigation
g
at a ggiven time and
the time necessary to reach a given radius of
g
investigation.
Describe the effects of reservoir properties on the
radius of investigation.
50

17/11/2012

RADIAL FLOW RESERVOIR MODEL

Assumptions
Single-phase
Single phase liquid with constant
, c, B

Bulk
formation

Formation with constant , h


Well completed
p
over entire sand
thickness
Infinite reservoir containing only
one well

rw

Uniform pressure in reservoir prior


to production
Constant production rate q
beginning at time t=0
t 0
Homogeneous reservoir

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

(large radius or small time)


54

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

Distance from center of wellbore, ft

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

Distance from center of wellbore, ft

10,000
57

17/11/2012

RADIUS OF INVESTIGATION EQUATIONS

Radius of investigation for a


given time t:
kt
ri
948ct

Time required to reach a given


g
ri:
radius of investigation
t

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

List ffactors that


Li
h cause skin
ki d
damage or geometric
i skin
ki ffactor.
Calculate skin factor for a given additional pressure drop due to
damage; conversely,
conversely calculate additional pressure drop for a
given skin factor.
Calculate flow efficiency given the skin factor, wellbore pressure,
and average drainage area pressure.
Express skin factor as an apparent wellbore radius; conversely,
express apparentt wellbore
llb
radius
di as a skin
ki ffactor.
t
Express a given skin factor as an equivalent fracture halflength
(for an infinite
infinite-conductivity
conductivity fracture); conversely,
conversely express
fracture half-length as an equivalent skin factor.

60

17/11/2012

Drilling Fluid Damage


Fines may clog pore
throats, reducing
effective permeability
Mud filtrate
invasion

Filtrate may cause


clays to swell,
swell
causing damage

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

RESERVOIR PRESSURE PROFILE

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

Distance from center of wellbore, ft


65

17/11/2012

SKIN AND PRESSURE DROP

0.00708 k h
ps
s
qB
B

66

17/11/2012

SKIN AND PRESSURE DROP

141.2qB
ps
s
kh
67

17/11/2012

SKIN FACTOR AND PROPERTIES


OF THE ALTERED ZONE

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

If ka > k (stimulation), skin is negative.


If ka = k, skin is 0.

r
68

17/11/2012

SKIN FACTOR AND PROPERTIES


OF THE ALTERED ZONE

ka

k
1

lnra rw
69

17/11/2012

EFFECTIVE WELLBORE RADIUS

rwa rw e

rwa

s ln
rw
70

17/11/2012

MINIMUM SKIN FACTOR

smin

re
ln
r
w
71

17/11/2012

MINIMUM SKIN FACTOR


Example

smin

For a circular drainage area of 40 acres (re = 745


feet) and a wellbore radius of 0.5 feet, this gives a
minimum skin factor (maximum stimulation) of -7.3.

re
ln
rw
745
ln
7.3
0.5
72

17/11/2012

CONVERGING FLOW TO PERFORATIONS

Geometric Skin
73

17/11/2012

PARTIAL PENETRATION

hp
h

Geometric Skin
74

17/11/2012

INCOMPLETELY PERFORATED INTERVAL

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

WELL WITH HYDRAULIC FRACTURE

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

GRAVEL PACK SKIN


Cement

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

FLOW EFFICIENCY AND RATE

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

=
=
=
=

Flow rate after change in skin factor


Flow rate before change in skin factor
Flow efficiency after change in skin factor
Flow efficiency before change in skin factor
84

17/11/2012

SEMILOG ANALYSIS
FOR OIL WELLS

Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo


Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
85

17/11/2012

INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
Analyze

a constant-rate drawdown test using


semilog
il analysis.
l i
Analyze a buildup test following a constantrate flow period using the Horner method.

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

RESERVOIR PRESSURE PROFILE


2,000

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

INCORPORATING SKIN INTO THE


EI-FUNCTION SOLUTION
For r = rw
qB
p pi 70.6
kh

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

LOG APPROXIMATION TO THE


EI-FUNCTION

y = mx + b
pwf

qB Use |m| in computations


pi 162.6
from this point forward
kh

k
3.23 0.869s
log10 t log10
2

ct rw

90

17/11/2012

ESTIMATING PERMEABILITY AND


SKIN
A graph of pwf vs. log10(t) should fall on a straight line.
p m allows us to estimate p
y
permeability.
Slope

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

DRAWDOWN TEST GRAPH


1,200

Usually several cycles apart


(t2, pwf2) p1hr is p at
1 hr on bestfit line

Pressure,
psi

Pl t pressure vs. time


Plot
ti

(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

slope = p10 hr-p1 hr


-100
m 100
p10hr 3,440 psi

p1hr 3,540 psi

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

PROBLEMS WITH DRAWDOWN


TESTS

It is difficult to produce a well at a strictly


constant rate
Even small variations in rate distort the
pressure response

97

17/11/2012

ALTERNATIVE TO DRAWDOWN
TESTS

There is one rate that is easy to maintain a


flow rate of zero.
A buildup test is conducted by shutting in a
producingg well and measuringg the resultingg
p
pressure response.

98

17/11/2012

BUILDUP TEST - RATE HISTORY


q

Rate during production of +q.


0

tp + t
t

Rate after shut-in of -q


-q

q
0

Sum after shut


shut-in
in
of 0.
tp

t
99

17/11/2012

BUILDUP PRESSURE RESPONSE


0

Pressure normally declines


during production...
tp + t

but rises during the


injection (buildup) period...
0

yielding a pressure curve that is the


sum of the two rate curves:

tp

100

17/11/2012

BUILDUP TEST - SUPERPOSITION

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

BUILDUP STRAIGHT-LINE ANALOGY

162.6qB
B
k
mh
Horner time ratio

pi b

t p t
t

1
102

17/11/2012

BUILDUP TEST GRAPH

2,000

pi

1,400
10,000

1,000

100

10

Horner time ratio

103

17/11/2012

ESTIMATING SKIN FACTOR


FROM A BUILDUP TEST
p1 hr pwf

k
3.23
s 1.151
log 10
2
m

c t rw

104

17/11/2012

HORNER PSEUDOPRODUCING TIME

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

Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo


Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
106

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

Equations For Gas Wells

Pseudopressure
Pressure
Pressure-Squared
Squared
Pressure
Adjusted

Non-Darcy
Non Darcy

Pressure

Flow

Example
p
108

17/11/2012

DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION - LIQUIDS

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

REAL GAS LAW

absolute pressure, psi


ideal
gas constant,
real gas
deviation
factor, 10.72
dimensionless
(ft3)(lb)/(mole)(in2)(R)

pV=znRT
pV znRT
volume,

number of moles
temperature, R

ft3

110

17/11/2012

REAL GAS PSEUDOPRESSURE

absolute
b l t pressure, psii

p p p 2

p
p0

pdp
z

111

17/11/2012

GAS FLOW EQUATION


REAL GAS PSEUDOPRESSURE

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

GAS FLOW EQUATION


PRESSURE-SQUARED

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

GAS FLOW EQUATION: PRESSURE


If p/z is constant,

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

PRESSURE: RANGE OF APPLICATION

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

GAS - DEPENDENT VARIABLES


Pressure-Squared - Valid Only For Low
Pressures (< 2000 psi)
Pressure - Valid Only For High Pressures
(> 3000 psi)
Real Gas Pseudopressure - Valid For All
Pressure Ranges

117

17/11/2012

GAS FLOW EQUATION:


REAL GAS PSEUDOPRESSURE
1 p p ct p p

r
r r r
k t
Continuity
C
ti it E
Equation
ti
Real Gas Law Equation of State
Darcys Law

Strong
g Variation
With Pressure

118

17/11/2012

REAL GAS PSEUDOTIME


Agarwal proposed the use
of the real gas pseudotime
function to further
linearize the gas flow
equation. Subsequent
studies found that it is
particularly useful for
analysis of buildup tests
distorted by wellbore
storage when using type
curves for slightly
compressible liquids.

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

USING HORNER TIME RATIO


WITH ADJUSTED TIME

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

APPARENT SKIN FACTOR

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

Flow rate, Mscf/D

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

Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo


Yogyakarta,
gy
, 20-22 November 2012
127

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

Fluid-Filled Wellbore Unloading


Rate

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

Liquid rises until


hydrostatic
y
head in
wellbore matches
pressure in formation

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

Rising liquid level

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

WELLBORE STORAGE DEFINITION

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

TYPE CURVE ANALYSIS

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

RADIAL FLOW WITH WBS AND SKIN


kh pi p
pD
141.2qB

0.0002637 kt
tD
ct rw2
r
rD
rw

khps
s
141.2q
qB

0.8936C
CD
ct hrw2

137

17/11/2012

GRINGARTEN TYPE CURVE

Constant rate production


V i l well
Vertical
ll
Infinite-acting
g homogeneous
g
reservoir
Single-phase, slightly compressible liquid
Infinitesimal skin factor
Constant wellbore storage coefficient

138

17/11/2012

GRINGARTEN TYPE CURVE


100

Wellbore storage coefficient


Skin factor

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

GRINGARTEN TYPE CURVE


100

PD

Similarities of curves make


matching difficult

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

DERIVATIVE TYPE CURVE


100

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

PRESSURE + DERIVATIVE TYPE CURVES


100

Combining curves
gives
i
each
h stem
t
value two distinctive
shapes

PD

100,000

0.01

tD/CD
143

17/11/2012

PRESSURE/DERIVATIVE TYPE CURVE


100

WBS

PD

Transition

Radial Flow

Unit
Horizontal Derivative
Slope
p
Line

Early Time Region

Middle Time Region


100,000

0.01

tD/CD
144

17/11/2012

PRESSURE + DERIVATIVE TYPE CURVE


100

High skin
PD

No skin

Low skin

100,000

0.01

tD/CD
145

17/11/2012

EQUIVALENT TIME FOR PBU TESTS


pi pwf

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

EQUIVALENT TIME FOR PBU TESTS


pws pwf

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

EQUIVALENT TIME FOR PBU TESTS


pi pwf

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

EQUIVALENT TIME FOR PBU TESTS


Drawdown

p pi pwff vs t
Buildup

p pws pwf vs t e
149

17/11/2012

PROPERTIES OF EQUIVALENT TIME


te

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

ADJUSTED VARIABLES FOR GAS WELLS


z
pa
p ref

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

FIELD DATA PLOT

1 000
1,000

teq

1,000

152

17/11/2012

OVERLAY FIELD DATA ON TYPE CURVE


100

1,000

PD

teq

1,000
100,000

0.01

tD/CD
153

17/11/2012

MOVE FIELD DATA TOWARD HORIZONTAL


100

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

MOVE FIELD DATA TOWARD MATCH


100
1 000
1,000

PD

Stop when data align


with horizontal stems

P
Begin to move toward unit slope line
1

teq

1,000

100,000

0.01

tD/CD
155

17/11/2012

MOVE FIELD DATA TOWARD STEMS


100
1 000
1,000

PD

teq

1,000

100,000

0.01

tD/CD
156

17/11/2012

MOVE FIELD DATA TOWARD STEMS


100

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

CALCULATE K FROM PRESSURE MATCH


141.2qB pD
k

h
p M .P .

141.2501.3250.609 10

15
262

14.5 md
159

17/11/2012

CALCULATE CD FROM TIME MATCH


0.0002637 k teq

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

CALCULATE S FROM CDE2S


2s

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

Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo


Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012

162

17/11/2012

INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
To

be able to manually estimate


permeability and skin factor from the log
loglog diagnostic plot without using type
curves

163

17/11/2012

ESTIMATING PERMEABILITY AND SKIN


FACTOR FROM THE DIAGNOSTIC PLOT
1000

Pressure change,, psi

p
r
100

(tp)r
10

1
0.01

0.1

10

Equivalent time, hrs

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

Equivalent time, hrs


167

17/11/2012

ESTIMATE PERMEABILITY
70.6qB
k
htp r

70.6 50 1.36 0.563


1514

12.9 md

168

17/11/2012

ESTIMATE SKIN FACTOR

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

Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo


Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
170

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

THE DIAGNOSTIC PLOT


Pressure change (p)

Pressure derivative (p )

Elapsed time (t ), hrs


172

17/11/2012

THE DIAGNOSTIC PLOT

Unit-slope
Unit
slope
line
Near-wellbore effects
(wellbore storage)
EEarly-time
l ti
region

MiddleMiddl
time
region

LLate-time
t ti
region

Elapsed time (t ), hrs


173

17/11/2012

THE DIAGNOSTIC PLOT

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

Elapsed time (t ), hrs


174

17/11/2012

THE DIAGNOSTIC PLOT

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

Elapsed time (t ), hrs


175

17/11/2012

FLOW REGIMES

Common characteristic shapes of derivative


Volumetric
Radial
Linear
Bilinear
Spherical

Different flow patterns may appear at


different times in a single test
Flow regimes follow sequence within model

176

17/11/2012

VOLUMETRIC BEHAVIOR

Fluids from outside recharge tank

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 change during recharge


or pseudosteady-state flow

Pressure derivative

Elapsed time (t ), hrs


180

17/11/2012

VOLUMETRIC BEHAVIOR

Wellbore
storage
g

Elapsed time (t ), hrs


181

17/11/2012

RADIAL FLOW
Wellbore

182

17/11/2012

RADIAL FLOW
Wellbore

Fracture

183

17/11/2012

RADIAL FLOW
Late radial flow
Wellbore

Early radial flow

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

Elapsed time (t ), hrs


188

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

Elapsed time (t ), hrs


196

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

Early linear flow

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?

Elapsed time (t ), hrs


208

17/11/2012

ESTIMATING AVERAGE
RESERVOIR PRESSURE

Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo


Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
209

17/11/2012

ESTIMATING RESERVOIR PRESSURE

Middle Time Region Methods


Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
Ramey
Ramey-Cobb
Cobb

Method

Method

Late Time Region Methods


Modified

Muskat Method
Arps-Smith Method

210

17/11/2012

MIDDLE-TIME REGION METHODS

Based
B
d on extrapolation
l i and
d correction
i off MTR
pressure trend
Advantage

Use only pressure data in the middle-time region

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

CURVES FOR SQUARE DRAINAGE AREA


6

pMBHD

-1
0.01

0.1

tpAD

10
213

17/11/2012

CURVES FOR 2X1 RECTANGLE


6

pMBHD

-1
1
0.01

0.1

tpAD

10
214

17/11/2012

CURVES FOR 4X1 RECTANGLE


5

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

Horner time ratio


216

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

Plot pws vs (tp+t)/t on semilog coordinates


Extrapolate to (tp+t)/t=1 to find p*
Calculate the dimensionless producing time tpAD
Usingg the appropriate
pp p
MBH chart for the
drainage area shape and well location, find
pMBHD

Calculate p

If tp >> tpss, more accurate


t results
lt may be
b
obtained by using tpss in place of tp in calculating
th H
the
Horner time
ti
ratio
ti and
d tpAD
220

17/11/2012

MATTHEWS-BRONS-HAZEBROEK

Advantages

Applies to wide variety of drainage


g area shapes, well
locations
Uses only data in the middle-time region
Can be used with both short and long producing
times

Disadvantages

Requires drainage area size, shape, well location


Requires accurate fluid property data

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

Dietz shape factor CA = 10.8374

223

17/11/2012

RESERVOIR SHAPES
4

Dietz shape factor CA = 5.379

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 shape factor


CA = 21.9

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

Shape factor CA = 21.8369

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

Horner time ratio


228

17/11/2012

RAMEY-COBB
RAMEY COBB

Plott pws vs (tp+t)/t on semilog


Pl
il g coordinates
di t
Calculate the dimensionless producing time tpAD
Find the Dietz shape factor CA for the drainage
area shape and well location
Calculate HTRavg
Extrapolate middle-time
middle time region on Horner plot to
HTRavg

Read p at HTRavg
229

17/11/2012

RAMEY-COBB
RAMEY COBB

Advantages

Applies to wide variety of drainage


g area shapes, well
locations
Uses only data in the middle time region

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

LATE-TIME REGION METHODS

Based
B
d on extrapolation
l i off post-middle-time
iddl i
region
i
pressure trend to infinite shut-in time
Advantages

No need for accurate fluid property estimates


No need to know drainage area shape, size, well location
within drainage area
Tend to be very simple

Disadvantage
g

Require post-middle-time-region pressure transient data

231

17/11/2012

LATE-TIME REGION DATA

2
250 ct re

2
750 ct re

232

17/11/2012

LATE-TIME REGION DATA


100

10

Dimensionless
pressure
1

0.1

0.01
103

104

105

106

107

108

109

Dimensionless shut-in time


233

17/11/2012

MODIFIED MUSKAT METHOD


Exponential decline
Average reservoir pressure
Shut-in
Shut
in pressure

p pws Ae

bt

l p pws ln
ln
l A bt
b
ln p pws C bt
234

17/11/2012

MODIFIED MUSKAT METHOD


Step 1: Assume a value for average
pressure

ln p pws C bt

235

17/11/2012

Modified Muskat Method


1000

Assumed pressure too low

p pws , psi

100

5600
5575

Assumed pressure fits


Assumed pressure too high
10
1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

5560

4500

Time, minutes
236

17/11/2012

Modified Muskat Method

Advantages
Very

simple to apply

Disadvantages
Somewhat

subjective: Which data points


should I try to straighten?
More sensitive to estimates that are too low
than to estimates that are too high
g
Not easily automated
237

17/11/2012

Modified Muskat Method

Recommendations
Don
Dontt

try to straighten data until there has


been a clear deviation from the middle-time
region
Once middle-time region has ended, try to
straighten all data
Expect best reliability for wells reasonably
centered
d in
i d
drainage
i
areas

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

Step 3: Fit a straight line


through the data points

dpws/dt, 6
psi/hr 5
p
4

Pavg = 5575 psi

3
2
1
0
5300

Step 4: Read p from the xintercept


5350

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

data in late-time region, after all


boundaries have been felt

Assumes pws approaches p exponentially


Requires numerical differentiation of pressure
with respect to time
243

17/11/2012

HYDRAULICALLY
C
FRACTURED
WELLS

Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo


Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
244

17/11/2012

HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELLS


Flow R
Fl
Regimes
i
Depth
p of Investigation
g
Fracture Damage
Straight Line Analysis

Bilinear

Flow Analysis
y
Linear Flow Analysis
Semilog Analysis

Type Curve Analysis


245

17/11/2012

IDEAL HYDRAULIC FRACTURE


Reservoir sand
(permeability=kr )

Hydraulic fracture
(permeability =kf )

Wellbore
Fracture width,, wf

Fracture
h lf l
half-length,
th Lf

246

17/11/2012

DIMENSIONLESS VARIABLES FOR FRACTURED


WELLS
0.00708kh
pi pwff
pD
qB

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

FLOW REGIMES IN FRACTURES

Fracture flow
Linear
Bilinear

Formation flow
Linear
Elliptical
Pseudoradial

248

17/11/2012

FRACTURE LINEAR FLOW

Transient moves down fracture length

Transient has not


moved
d into
i t reservoir
i

Transient has not


reached end of fracture

249

17/11/2012

FRACTURE LINEAR FLOW

((Log-log
g g plot)
p )

2
pD
fD t L f D
FcD
Time
(Too early for practical application)
250

17/11/2012

FRACTURE LINEAR FLOW


End of linear flow
((Log-log
g g plot)
p )

Dimensionless
time

tL f D

2
0.01FcD
2
fD

Time

251

17/11/2012

Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cf < 100

Pressure transient moves down


fracture, into formation

252

17/11/2012

Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cf < 100

Pressure transient has not reached end of fracture

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 )

(Time depends on dimensionless


flow, fracture conductivity)
Time

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

(Time depends on dimensionless


flow, fracture conductivity)
256

17/11/2012

Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cr < 100

Data can yield fracture conductivity wkf if kf is known.

257

17/11/2012

Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cf < 100

Data cannot yield Lf, but may identify lower bound .

258

17/11/2012

FORMATION LINEAR FLOW


Negligible pressure drop down fracture

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

FORMATION LINEAR FLOW

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

For linear flow,, pseudosteadyp


y
state flow exists out to a
distance b at a dimensionless
time given by

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

CHOKED FRACTURE SKIN FACTOR


p

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

FRACTURE FACE SKIN FACTOR


qBL
p
0.001127 kA

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

BILINEAR FLOW ANALYSIS


PROCEDURE

Identify the bilinear flow regime using the


diagnostic plot
Graph pwf vs.
vs t1/4 or pws vs tBe1/4
Find the slope mB and the intercept p0 of the
best straight line
Calculate the fracture conductivity wkf from the
slope and the fracture skin factor sf from the
intercept
271

17/11/2012

BILINEAR EQUIVALENT TIME

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

BILINEAR FLOW ANALYSIS


EQUATIONS
44.1q B

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

BILINEAR FLOW ANALYSIS


2800

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

Applicable only to wells with low-conductivity


fractures (Cr < 100)
Bilinear flow mayy be hidden byy wellbore storage
g
Requires independent estimate of k
Gives estimate of wkf and sf
Cannot be used to estimate Lf

275

17/11/2012

LINEAR FLOW ANALYSIS


PROCEDURE

Identify the linear flow regime using the


diagnostic plot
Graph pwf vs. t1/2 or pws vs tLe1/2
Find the slope mL and the intercept p0 of the
best straight line
Calculate the fracture half-length Lf from the
slope
p and the fracture skin factor sf from the
intercept

276

17/11/2012

LINEAR EQUIVALENT TIME

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

LINEAR FLOW ANALYSIS


EQUATIONS
4.064q B

Lf

mL h k ct

12

Drawdown

0.00708kh
pi p0
sf
qB

Buildup

0.00708kh
sf
p0 pwf
qB

278

17/11/2012

LINEAR FLOW ANALYSIS


6000

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

Applicable only to wells with high-conductivity


fractures
(Cr > 100)
f t
Wellbore storage may hide linear flow period
Long transition period between end of linear
flow (tLfD < 0.016) and beginning of
pseudoradial
d di l flow
fl (tLfD > 3)
Requires independent estimate of k
Gives estimate of Lf and sf
Cannot be used to estimate wkf
280

17/11/2012

PSEUDORADIAL FLOW ANALYSIS


PROCEDURE

Identify the pseudoradial flow regime using the


diagnostic plot
Graph pwf vs. log(t) or pws vs log(te)
Find the slope m and the intercept p1hr off the
best straight line
Calculate the formation permeability k from the
slope and the total skin factor s from the
intercept
Estimate fracture half-length
g from total skin
factor
281

17/11/2012

PSEUDORADIAL FLOW ANALYSIS


EQUATIONS
162.6qB
k
mh
Drawdown

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

PSEUDORADIAL FLOW ANALYSIS


2500
2400
2300

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

APPARENT WELLBORE RADIUS

Lf/rwaa

100

10

1
0.1

10

100

1000

FcD
284

17/11/2012

ESTIMATING LF FROM SKIN FACTOR


1. Calculate rwa from rwa = rwe-s
2. Estimate Lf from Lf = 2rwa
3. Estimate fracture conductivityy wkf
4. Calculate FcD from FcD = wkf/kLf
5. Find Lf/rwa from graph or equation
6. Estimate Lf from Lf = ((Lf//rwa))*rwa
7. Repeat steps 4 through 6 until convergence
(W i g may nott converge)
(Warning:
g )
285

17/11/2012

LIMITATIONS OF
PSEUDORADIAL FLOW ANALYSIS

Boundaries of reservoir may be encountered


before
pseudoradial
b f
d di l flow
fl develops
d l
Long transition period between linear flow and
pseudoradial
d di l flow
fl
Pseudoradial flow cannot be achieved for
practical
ti l test
t t ti
times iin llow permeability
bilit
reservoirs with long fractures
Gi
Gives
estimate
ti t off k and
d st
Does not give direct estimate of Lf, wkf, or sf
286

17/11/2012

DIMENSIONLESS VARIABLES FOR


FRACTURED WELLS

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:

FRACTURED WELLS, UNKNOWN K


1. Graph field data pressure change and pressure
derivatives
d i i
atc field
e d data to type curve
cu e
2. Match
3. Find match point and matching stem
4. Calculate Lf from time match point
5 Calculate k from pressure match point
5.
6. Interpret matching stem value (wkf, sf, or C)
288

17/11/2012

INTERPRETING MATCH POINTS,


POINTS
UNKNOWN PERMEABILITY

141.2qB pD
k

h
p MP

0.0002637 k t
Lf
tL D
ct
f MP
289

17/11/2012

TYPE CURVE ANALYSIS:

FRACTURED WELLS, KNOWN K


1. Graph field data pressure change and pressure
derivatives
2. Calculate pressure match point from k
3 Match field data to type
3.
t pe curve,
c r e using
sing calculated
calc lated
pressure match point
4 Find
4.
Fi d match
h point
i and
d matching
hi stem
5. Calculate Lf from time match point
6. Interpret matching stem value (wkf, sf, or C)

290

17/11/2012

INTERPRETING MATCH POINTS


KNOWN PERMEABILITY

p MP

Lf

141.2qB
B
pD MP

kh

0.0002637 k t
tL D
ct
f

MP
291

17/11/2012

CINCO TYPE CURVE


10

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

CINCO TYPE CURVE:

INTERPRETING CR STEM

w f k f kL f C r

293

17/11/2012

CHOKED FRACTURE TYPE CURVE


10

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

CHOKED FRACTURE TYPE CURVE:

INTERPRETING SF STEM

q
qB
ps
sf
0.00708 kh

295

17/11/2012

BARKER RAMEY TYPE CURVE


BARKER-RAMEY
10
CLfD = 0

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 curves are usually based on solutions for


drawdown - what about buildup tests?

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

Need independent estimate of permeability for


best results

298

17/11/2012

PRESSURE
SS
TRANSI
S ENT
ANALYSIS
FOR HORIZONTAL WELLS

Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo


Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
299

17/11/2012

HORIZONTAL WELL ANALYSIS


Describes unconventional and complex
reser oirs
reservoirs
Defines effectiveness of completion
technique
h i
options
i
Distinguishes between poor reservoir and
damaged wellbore
Differentiates between completion
p
success
and in-situ reservoir quality

300

17/11/2012

COMPLICATIONS IN ANALYSIS

Three-dimensional flow geometry, no radial


symmetry

Several flow regimes contribute data

Significant wellbore storage effects, difficult


i t
interpretation
t ti

Both vertical and horizontal dimensions


affect flow geometry
301

17/11/2012

STEPS TO EVALUATING DATA

Identify specific flow regimes in test data

Apply proper analytical and graphical


procedures

Evaluate uniqueness and sensitivity of


results
lt to
t assumed
d properties
ti

302

17/11/2012

STEP 1: IDENTIFY FLOW REGIMES


Five

major and distinct regimes


possible
may

or may not even occur


may or may not be obscured by
wellbore storage effects, end effects,
or transition effects

303

17/11/2012

STEP 2: APPLY PROCEDURES


Estimate

important reservoir
properties
Determine

parameter groups from

equations
Expect complex iterative processes
requiring use of a computer

304

17/11/2012

STEP 3: EVALUATE RESULTS


Expect

nonunique results

Simulate

test to confirm that the


analysis is consistent with test data
Use simulator to determine whether
other sets of formation properties will
also lead to a fit of the data

305

17/11/2012

HORIZONTAL WELL FLOW REGIMES

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

Any flow regime may be absent from a plot


of test data because of geometry,
geometry wellbore
storage or other factors.
306

17/11/2012

WELL AND RESERVOIR GEOMETRY34


Horizontal wellbore
Lw

b
z

y
h

a
307

17/11/2012

WELL AND RESERVOIR GEOMETRY

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

we assume kx = ky = kh. This assumption may reduce analysis accuracy.

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

likely flow regimes


Estimates required test duration
Identifies probable ambiguities

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

EARLY RADIAL FLOW REGIME


Similar to radial
flow near vertical
wells

May be masked by
wellbore storage
effects
ff t

319

17/11/2012

END OF EARLY RADIAL FLOW


Vertical
b
boundary
d
effects

Wellbore
end
effects

1800d z2 ct
tErf
kz

125 L2w ct
tErf
ky

320

17/11/2012

EARLY RADIAL FLOW PRESSURE

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

EARLY RADIAL FLOW/DRAWDOWN


47

Semilog plot

162
.
6
qB
B

m
Lw k x kz

33
0.1

Time

100

322

17/11/2012

EARLY RADIAL FLOW/DRAWDOWN


47

Semilog plot

162
.
6
qB

kxkz
m Lw

33
0.1

Time

100

323

17/11/2012

SKIN IN EARLY RADIAL FLOW


sa

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

EARLY RADIAL FLOW BUILDUP PLOT


47

Semilog plot

Correct onlyy if ((tp+t))


and t appear
simultaneously
or if tp >> t.
t

33
1,000

Horner Time Ratio

10

325

17/11/2012

EARLY RADIAL FLOW BUILDUP PLOT


47

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

EARLY RADIAL FLOW BUILDUP PLOT


47

Semilog plot

162
.
6
qB

kxkz
m Lw

33
0.1

(Equation same as in
drawdown tests))
Time

100

327

17/11/2012

EARLY RADIAL FLOW/BUILDUP


p

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

START OF HEMIRADIAL FLOW

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

START OF HEMIRADIAL FLOW

Begins after closest vertical boundary (at


distance dz from wellbore) affects data and
before furthest boundary (at Dz from wellbore)
affects the data.

tShrff

2
1800 dz

ct

kz
330

17/11/2012

END OF HEMIRADIAL FLOW

Ends when furthest boundary (at distance


Dz from wellbore) affects the data . . .
2
1800 Dz ct
tEhrf
k
z
d
z

Dz

331

17/11/2012

END OF HEMIRADIAL FLOW

. . . 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

EARLY LINEAR FLOW REGIME

Start

1800d z2 ct
tSlf
kz

336

17/11/2012

EARLY LINEAR FLOW REGIME

End

160 L2w ct
t Elf
ky

337

17/11/2012

EARLY LINEAR FLOW/DRAWDOWN


11

Cartesian plot

8.128q
qB
kx
m Lw h ct
4

Time1/2

338

17/11/2012

EARLY LINEAR FLOW/DRAWDOWN

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

EARLY LINEAR FLOW/DRAWDOWN


Flow converges from
total cross-section of
reservoir radially into small
area of wellbore
C
Convergence
skin
ki

340

17/11/2012

EARLY LINEAR FLOW/BUILDUP


1800

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

EARLY LINEAR FLOW/BUILDUP

k x kz ( p1hr pw f )Lw
sa
sc
141.2qB
sc

rw

kz

kx

sin

342

17/11/2012

LATE PSEUDORADIAL FLOW


Start

Lw
b

Lw
0.
0 45
b

343

17/11/2012

LATE PSEUDORADIAL FLOW


Start

1480 L2w ct
tSprf
ky
Wellbore
end effects

344

17/11/2012

LATE PSEUDORADIAL FLOW

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

LATE PSEUDORADIAL FLOW


1650 ct d x2
t Eprf
kx

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

PSEUDORADIAL FLOW/ DRAWDOWN

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

LATE LINEAR FLOW


Late Linear

Effects of pressure
reach boundaries in
y, z directions

350

17/11/2012

LATE LINEAR FLOW


Late Linear

Pseudosteady-state
Pseudosteady state
flow in these directions

351

17/11/2012

LATE LINEAR FLOW


4800 ct ( D y Lw / 4 )2
tSllf
ky

Starts with
effects of end
boundaries . . .

352

17/11/2012

LATE LINEAR FLOW


1800 c t D z2
t S llf
kz

. . . or
effects of
vertical
boundaries . . .
(whichever is reached last)
353

17/11/2012

LATE LINEAR FLOW

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

LATE LINEAR FLOW

Calculate total skin, st, including partial


penetration skin, sp
(a complex function
from literature)

356

17/11/2012

LATE LINEAR FLOW

Calculate total skin, st, including partial


penetration skin, sp

k x kz ( pi p1hr
)
b
h
st
141.2qB
sa st s p
sa sa b
Lw
357

17/11/2012

LATE LINEAR FLOW

Calculate total skin, st, including partial


penetration skin, sp

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

LATE LINEAR FLOW/BUILDUP

Pressure is plotted vs. ( t p t t )

359

17/11/2012

LATE LINEAR FLOW/BUILDUP


From the slope, miv we can calculate kx:
8.128qB
kx
iv
m bh ct
or

8.128qB
m iv h ct k x
360

17/11/2012

LATE LINEAR FLOW/BUILDUP

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

LATE LINEAR FLOW/BUILDUP

Calculate total skin,


skin st, from
k x kz ( p1hr pw f )b
st
141.2qB

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

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Calculate kx

Early linear flow regime data: from effective


wellbore
ellbore length,
length Lw

Late linear flow regime: from reservoir length, b,


parallel to wellbore

Effective wellbore length, Lw, can be


calculated from data in the early linear
flow regime if kx has been calculated.

363

17/11/2012

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Calculate kx

Early linear flow regime data: from effective


wellbore
ellbore length,
length Lw

Late linear flow regime: from reservoir length, b,


parallel to wellbore.

Length of the boundary, b, parallel to


wellbore can be calculated from data in
late linear flow regime if kx is known.

364

17/11/2012

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS PROCEDURES


Calculate kx
Calculate kz from data in early radial or
hemiradial flow regimes
Calculate ky from pseudoradial flow regime

If data such as Lw or b are unknown or if


flow regimes are missing, analysis is
iterative at best and will result in
nonunique results.

365

17/11/2012

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Calculate kx
Calculate kz from data in early radial or hemiradial
flow regimes
Calculate ky from pseudoradial flow regime

We can assume kx = ky = kh and often


simplify analysis
analysis, but validity is
questionable.

366

17/11/2012

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

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

Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo


Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012

368

17/11/2012

DRAWDOWN DIAGNOSTIC PLOT


Wellbore storage
unit-slope line
p
Log (p)
or
Log (p)

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

FIELD EXAMPLE: WELL A


Ld, ft
Lw, ft
rw, ft
, %
h ft
h,
f
q, STB/D
Bo, RB/STB
, cp
tp, hours

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

WELL A: DIAGNOSTIC PLOT


10,000

p
Wellbore
1000
storage
L
Log
(p
(

Radial flow?

or p )

p'

100

10

10

t, hr

100

372

17/11/2012

WELL A: HORNER PLOT


Test time too 24.69 Time
short to
d t t lower
l
4,000 detect
m -392.63
boundary,
3,500
linear flow,
flow
or anisotropy
p
k = 0.011
2,500
s = 2.9
2,000
Semilog plot
4,500

1,500

10

Horner Time

2.4

100

373

17/11/2012

WELL A: BUILDUP HISTORY MATCH


10,000

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

FIELD EXAMPLE: WELL B


Ld, ft
Lw, ft
rw, ft
, %
h ft
h,
q, STB/D
Bo, RB/STB
, cp
tp, hours

2,000
0.30
17
75
200
1 60
1.60
1.80
1,320

Well in west Texas


carbonate
Expected isotropic
k caused by
fracturing,
dissolution

375

17/11/2012

WELL B: DIAGNOSTIC PLOT

1000

p, psia
or p
p
100

Radial flow
Wellbore storage

10
1

10

100

Linear
flow
1000

t, hr
376

17/11/2012

WELL B: HORNER PLOT


4000
3900
3800

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

WELL B: BUILDUP HISTORY MATCH

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

WELL C: DIAGNOSTIC PLOT


1000

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

WELL C: REGRESSION MATCH


1000

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

HORIZONTAL WELL TEST CONFIGURATION


Measurements usually made
above horizontal wellbore
Conventional tools can be
used
d in
i horizontal
h i
t l well
ll tests
t t

Tools may be too rigid to pass through curve

385

17/11/2012

HORIZONTAL WELL TEST CONFIGURATION


Wellbore storage inherent
in horizontal well testing

386

17/11/2012

HORIZONTAL WELL TEST CONFIGURATION


Wellbore crossflow may
dominate test results

387

17/11/2012

FACTORS THAT AFFECT TRANSIENT


RESPONSE
Horizontal

permeability (normal and


parallel to well trajectory)
Vertical permeability
Drilling damage
Completion damage
Producing
P d i g interval
i t
l that
th t may b
be
effectively much less than drilled length
Variations in standoff along length of
well
388

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

ENSURING INTERPRETABLE DATA


Estimate horizontal and vertical k from
tests in pilot hole before kicking off to
h i t lb
horizontal
borehole
h l segment
g
t
Estimate standoff from directional drilling
survey
Determine p
producingg p
part of wellbore from
production log flow survey
Flow wells in developed reservoirs long
enough to equilibrate pressures along the
wellbore and minimize crossflow

390

17/11/2012

EFFECTS OF ERRORS
IN INPUT DATA

Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo


Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
391

17/11/2012

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

Introduction

Sources of Error in Input Data

Effects of Error on Results of Welltest


Interpretation

Examples

Summary

392

17/11/2012

PROBLEM 1

Well A estimates from PBU test


Permeability,
y,

10 md

Skin

factor, 0
Distance to boundary,
boundary 250 ft

Analysis assumed net pay 25 feet

If the net pay were actually 50 feet, how


would that affect our estimates of
permeability, skin factor, and distance to
the boundary?
393

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

SOURCES OF INPUT DATA

Log interpretation

Fluid properties

Reservoir and well properties

395

17/11/2012

DATA FROM LOG INTERPRETATION

Porosity

Water saturation

Net pay thickness

396

17/11/2012

CAUSES OF ERROR IN LOG


INTERPRETATION

Failure to calibrate the logging tool

Failure to make necessary environmental


corrections

Failure to calibrate the log-derived


properties
p
p
against
g
core measurements

Failure to select appropriate cutoffs for net


pay estimation

397

17/11/2012

ERROR IN LOG INTERPRETATION DATA


Parameter

Deviation
Without
correction

With
correction

Porosity

15 %

5%

Water saturation

40 %

10 %

Net p
pay
y

50 %

15 %

398

17/11/2012

FLUID PROPERTIES DATA

Formation volume factor

Compressibility

Viscosity

399

17/11/2012

ERROR IN FLUID PROPERTIES DATA


F
ti C
l ti
From G
Gas P
Properties
Correlations
Parameter

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

Negligible at low pressure

2% to 4%, g < 1
up to 20% low
low, g > 1.5
15
400

17/11/2012

ERROR IN FLUID PROPERTIES DATA


F
ti C
l ti
From Oil P
Properties
Correlations
Parameter

Deviation

Bo, p > pb

10%
%

Bo, p pb

5%

co, p > pb

Up to 50% low at high pressure


Best near pb

co, p pb

10%, p > 500 psi 20%, p < 500 psi

O d off magnitude
Order
it d only
l
401

17/11/2012

OTHER INPUT DATA

Flow rate

Wellbore radius

Formation compressibility

T t l compressibility
Total
ibilit

402

17/11/2012

ERROR IN WELL AND RESERVOIR DATA


F
l l ti
From M
Measurementt or C
Calculations
Parameter

Error

Flow rate

Failure to record rate before BU test


Inaccuracy in estimates, averages

Wellbore radius

Poor choice of measurement

Formation compressibility

Estimation errors

Total compressibility

Variations in fluid saturations


Abnormally pressured reservoir
Oil compressibility
403

17/11/2012

TOTAL COMPRESSIBILITY

ct c f S o co S wcw S g c g
Formation
compressibility

Each phase of fluid


times its compressibility

404

17/11/2012

EFFECTS OF ERRORS
Vertical well
Single-phase
g p
flow
Homogeneous reservoir
Boundary

No-flow,

linear constant pressure, closed

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

else will be affected

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

ERRORS IN WATER SATURATION

Cause errors in calculating total compressibility

408

17/11/2012

ERRORS IN COMPRESSIBILITY
If ct input = 2 ct true
Then:

scalc = strue+ 0.5ln(2)


Lx calc = Lx true/sqrt(2)
A calc = Atrue/2

409

17/11/2012

ERRORS IN NET PAY

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

ERRORS IN FLOW RATE

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

ERRORS IN FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR

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

ERRORS IN WELLBORE RADIUS

If rw input = 2 rw true
Then:

scalc = strue+ ln(2)


( )

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

Assumed net pay 25 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

Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo


Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
417

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

Boundaries affect pressure responses of


drawdown and buildup tests differently
419

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

Equal distances from


no-flow boundary

Real no-flow boundary


422

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

Drawdown Type Curve


10

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

DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO SHUT-IN TIME


10

Shape depends on duration of


production time prior to shut-in
Drawdown

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

Infinite acting reservoir


Infinite-acting
100

BUILDUP RESPONSE

Dimens
sionless pressure
p

DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO EQUIVALENT


TIME
10

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

Dimensionless equivalent time

1E+08

1E+09
429

17/11/2012

Infinite acting reservoir


Infinite-acting

Dimens
sionless pressure
p

100

10

BUILDUP RESPONSE
DERIVATIVE TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO
EQUIVALENT TIME, PLOTTED AGAINST SHUTIN TIME

1
5

tpD=10 ,10 ,10 ,10

D
Drawdown
d

0.1

Largest time on plot is not limited


to producing or shut-in time
0.01
0
01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time function

1E+08

1E+09
430

17/11/2012

LINEAR NO-FLOW
NO FLOW BOUNDARY

(If so, far away.)

No-flow boundary

Producing well

431

17/11/2012

Linear no
no-flow
flow boundary
100

Dimens
sionless p
pressure

DRAWDOWN TYPE CURVE


10

H i di l flow
Hemiradial
fl
1

0.1

0.01
0
01
1E+03

Change in derivative from 0.5 to 1


Change occurs over about 12/3 log cycles
1E+04

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

DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO SHUT-IN TIME


10

Drawdown

tpD=10
108

The longer the equivalent time before shut-in, the


longer the coincidence between buildup and drawdown

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

Linear no-flow boundary


y
100

BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimens
sionless p
pressure

DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO EQUIVALENT TIME


10

tpD=105

0.1

tpD=106

tpD=107

tpD=108

Drawdown

Derivative doubles over only a tiny fraction of a log


cycle for very short producing times prior to shut-in
shut in

0.01
0
01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless equivalent time

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

Similar to drawdown response

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time function

1E+08

1E+09
435

17/11/2012

LINEAR CONSTANT-P BOUNDARY


Constant-pressure boundary

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

DRAWDOWN TYPE CURVE

10

Slope can (and in this


case, does) reach -1

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

DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO SHUT-IN TIME


10

Slope steeper than drawdown slope for


very short producing times before shut-in
tpD=106

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

DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO EQUIVALENT TIME


10

Derivative falls sharply over tiny fraction of log cycle


for very short producing times prior to shut-in

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

Dimensionless equivalent time

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

Dimensionless time function

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

DRAWDOWN TYPE CURVE

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

DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO SHUT-IN


TIME
10
tpD=108

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

Dimensionless equivalent time

1E+08

1E+09
444

17/11/2012

Channel reservoir
100

BUILDUP RESPONSE
Dimens
sionless p
pressure

DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO EQUIVALENT


TIME, PLOTTED AGAINST SHUT
SHUT-IN
IN TIME
10
tpD=108

Drawdown
tpD=107
1
tpD=105
0.1

0.01
0
01
1E+03

tppD=106

Derivative curve shape resembles


drawdown curve shape

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time function

1E+08

1E+09
445

17/11/2012

INTERSECTING SEALING FAULTS


Wedge reservoir
No-flow boundaries

Producing well
446

17/11/2012

Intersecting sealing faults

Dimens
sionless p
pressure

100

DRAWDOWN TYPE CURVE

10

The narrower the angle, the


longer to reach new horizontal
1

0.1

0.01
0
01
1E+03

Derivative levels off at


(360/) x (derivative of infinite-acting
infinite acting response)

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09
447

17/11/2012

Intersecting sealing faults


100

BUILDUP RESPONSE

Dimens
sionless p
pressure

DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO SHUT-IN TIME


10

Dramatic difference in curves


Drawdown
when shut-in is greater than
producing time prior to shut-in

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

Dimensionless shutin time

Dimensionless shut-in time

1E+08

1E+09
448

17/11/2012

Intersecting sealing faults


100

BUILDUP RESPONSE

Dimens
sionless p
pressure

DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO


EQUIVALENT TIME
10

tpD=108
5

tpD=10

tpD=10

tpD=107

Drawdown

0.1

0.01
0
01
1E+03

Derivative shape same as drawdown


response
p
only
y when p
producing
gp
period
reaches fractional flow regime
1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless equivalent time

1E+08

1E+09
449

17/11/2012

Intersecting sealing faults

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

Derivative, drawdown curves similar

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time function

1E+08

1E+09
450

17/11/2012

CLOSED CIRCULAR BOUNDARY

No-flow boundary

Producing well
451

17/11/2012

Closed circular boundary


100

Dimens
sionless p
pressure

DRAWDOWN TYPE CURVE


10

Unit slope may be seen


earlier if two zones with
different permeability
are present

Both slopes approach unit


slope at late times
(pseudosteady-state
(p
y
flow))

0.1

0.01
0
01
1E+03

Reservoir limits test yields


pore volume of interval

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09
452

17/11/2012

Closed circular boundary


100

BUILDUP RESPONSE

Dimensionless prressure

DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO SHUT-IN


TIME
10
Drawdown

tpD=10

Derivative falls rapidly


for all combinations of
plotting functions

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

Closed circular boundary

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

Slope drops sharply


for veryy small values
of producing time
before shut-in
1E+07

Dimensionless equivalent time

1E+08

1E+09
454

17/11/2012

Closed circular boundary


100

BUILDUP RESPONSE

Dimensionless p
pressure

DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO EQUIVALENT


TIME PLOTTED AGAINST SHUT-IN
TIME,
SHUT IN TIME
10
Drawdown

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

Dimensionless time function

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

DRAWDOWN TYPE CURVE

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

DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO SHUT-IN


TIME
10
Drawdown
1
tpD=106,107,108
tpD=105

Curve can be identical to


drawdown p
plot jjust seen

0.1

0.01
0
01
1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless shutin time

Dimensionless shut-in time

1E+08

1E+09
458

17/11/2012

Circular constant-p
constant p boundary
100

BUILDUP RESPONSE

Dimens
sionless p
pressure

DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO


EQUIVALENT
Q
TIME
10

Derivative falls off rapidly


p y
0.1

Drawdown
tpD=105

0.01
0
01
1E+03

1E+04

tpD=106

1E+05

tpD=107,108

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless equivalent time

1E+08

1E+09
459

17/11/2012

Circular constant
constant-p
p boundary
100

Dimens
sionless p
pressure

BUILDUP RESPONSE
10

DERIVATIVE WITH RESPECT TO EQUIVALENT


TIME PLOTTED AGAINST SHUT
TIME,
SHUT-IN
IN TIME

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

Dimensionless time function

1E+08

1E+09
460

17/11/2012

RADIALLY COMPOSITE RESERVOIR


Significant difference in permeability
near, farther from well

k1

k2

Producing well
461

17/11/2012

Radially composite reservoir


100

M1/M2 = 100

DRAWDOWN TYPE CURVE


Dimens
sionless p
pressure

VARYING M1/M2
10

m (mobility)
1

M1/M2 = 10

Responses resemble other tests


M1/M2 = 1

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

Radially composite reservoir

Dimens
sionless p
pressure

100

DRAWDOWN TYPE CURVE


VARYING S1/S2

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

Assuming a well is in an arbitrary point in a


closed rectangular reservoir can lead to
closed,
apparent fit of test for many different
reservoirs
i

464

17/11/2012

ARBITRARY WELL POSITION

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

a well is in an arbitrary point


in a closed,
closed rectangular reservoir can
lead to a poor fit of test for many
different reservoirs

467

17/11/2012

BUILDUP TESTING
AND THE

DIAGNOSTIC PLOT

Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo


Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
468

17/11/2012

OBJECTIVES
Become

familiar with time plotting


functions used with diagnostic plots for
buildup tests
Become aware of the very different
shapes in the diagnostic plots of
buildup and drawdown tests as buildup
tests approach stabilization
469

17/11/2012

TIME-PLOTTING
TIME PLOTTING FUNCTIONS
Shut-in Time
Horner Pseudoproducing Time
Multirate Equivalent Time
Superposition Time Function

470

17/11/2012

VARIABLE RATE HISTORY


q
q2
qn-1
n1

q1

qn
0

t1

t2

tn-2

tn-1

471

17/11/2012

HORNER PSEUDOPRODUCING TIME

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

HORNER PSEUDOPRODUCING TIME

tp

24 N p

qn1

Cumulative
produced oil
Final rate
before
shut in
shut-in

Good results as long as last


producing time is at least 10x
maximum
i
shut-in
h t i time.
ti
473

17/11/2012

MULTIRATE EQUIVALENT TIME

q j q j 1

n1 tn1 t j 1 qn1 qn

te
t

t
t
t

j 1

n 1
j 1

(Agarwal equation for radial flow)

474

17/11/2012

SUPERPOSITION TIME FUNCTION


n1

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

SUPERPOSITION TIME FUNCTION


n 1 q j q j 1
ln t t n 1 t j 1
STF
j 1 qn qn 1
ln t

(previous equation, rearranged)

476

17/11/2012

SUPERPOSITION TIME FUNCTION


q j q j 1

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

SUPERPOSITION TIME FUNCTION


q j q j 1

n 1

q
q

n 1 n
1

STF ln

t
e

n
1
j
1

j 1

STF lnC lnte


478

17/11/2012

SUPERPOSITION TIME FUNCTION


Superposition time function is simply the
log of a constant plus the log of the
equivalent time.
Derivitive with respect to multirate equivalent time
= derivitive
d i iti with
ith respectt to
t superposition
iti
time
ti

STF lnC lnte


479

17/11/2012

SUPERPOSITION TIME FUNCTION


Some literature recommends . . .
Pressure derivative for buildup calculated as
pressure derivative
d i ti with
ith respectt to
t superposition
iti
time function; plotted vs. shut-in time
Some literature
S
lit t
recommends
d ...
Pressure derivative for buildup calculated as
pressure derivative with respect to equivalent time
function

STF lnC lnte


480

17/11/2012

SUPERPOSITION TIME FUNCTION


Since the derivatives with respect to
multirate equivalent time and
superposition time are equal,

STF lnC lnte


481

17/11/2012

CONCLUSIONS

Horner pseudoproducing time is adequate


when producing time is 10 times greater
than the maximum shut-in time

482

17/11/2012

CONCLUSIONS

Derivatives with respect to time for the


superposition time function and radial
equivalent time are identical. They can be
plotted vs.
vs shut-in
shut in time
time, superposition
time, or equivalent time

483

17/11/2012

CONCLUSIONS

Some literature or software documentation


may specify the method of taking or plotting the
derivative, but any of these will work for these
situation.

484

17/11/2012

RADIAL FLOW

485

17/11/2012

APPROACHING STABILIZATION

Stabilization is the stage where pressure


has built up completely and is no longer
g g
changing.

486

17/11/2012

STABILIZATION IN RADIAL SYSTEM


100

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

STABILIZATION IN LINEAR SYSTEM


1000

Drawdown

pD

100

(spherical flow may also


produce slope = -1/2)

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

All boundaries have been felt


10

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

Dimensionless shutin time

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

Narrated by: RS Trijana Kartoatmodjo


Yogyakarta, 20-22 November 2012
493

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

INTERPRETING INTEGRATED DATA


IImportance
t
off Model
M d l Selection
S l ti
Integrating
g
g Other Data

Geological

Data
Geophysical Data
Petrophysical Data
Engineering Data

Validating the Reservoir Model


Common Errors and Misconceptions

495

17/11/2012

SIMILAR MODEL RESPONSES


Well in a Wedge

Composite Reservoir

496

17/11/2012

MULTIPLE KNOBS
KNOBS CONFUSE
Composite Reservoir

Well in a Box
W

R
M1,S
S1

M2,S2

Mobility ratio M1/M2


Storativity ratio S1/S2
Distance to boundary R

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

Interpretation model must be consistent


with
ith ((nott identical
id ti l tto)) geological
l i l model
d l

Have we oversimplified the geology?


498

17/11/2012

RESPONSES DIFFER WITH TEST TYPE


Slight divergence;

Cl
Closed
d Reservoir
R
i - DD TC

C
Const
t Pres
P
B
Boundary
d
- DD TC

Close match

Closed Reservoir - BU TC

Const Pres Boundary - BU TC


499

17/11/2012

IMPORTANCE OF MODEL SELECTION

Mostt major
M
j errors caused
d by
b use off wrong
model instead of wrong method
Meaningless

estimates
Misleading estimates

Two aspects of model selection


Selecting

reservoir geometry
Identifying
y g features of p
pressure response
p

500

17/11/2012

GEOLOGY OFFERS INSIGHTS

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

GEOPHYSICS AND PETROPHYSICS


Structure
Faults

Location
Size

Reservoir
compartments
Shape
Orientation

Net pay thickness


Porosity
y
Fluid saturations
Fluid contacts
Lithology
Layering
Evidence of natural
fractures

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

Data from offset wells


Possible

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

WELLBORE STORAGE COEFFICIENT


Fluid-filled wellbore

C Vwb cwb

Rising liquid level

144 Awb g c
C
5.615 wb g

WBS coefficient from test should be within


order of magnitude of estimate
Phase segregation can cause smaller WBS
WBS coefficient >100x estimated value may
y
indicate reservoir storage instead of WBS

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

Local field experience


p
mayy suggest
gg
more
appropriate values
Skin factor < -6
6 very unlikely

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

Total kh from core adjusted to in-situ


value less than kh from well test
Fractures
Missing

core

M
Most
useful
f l when
h entire
i iintervall cored
d
507

17/11/2012

PRODUCTION PERIOD PRESSURE


Mustt b
M
be consistent
i t t with
ith shut-in
h t i pressure
response
Must ensure consistency

Interpret

flow periods independently


Predict flow period pressures from results of
b ild
buildup
Match flow and buildup periods
simultaneously

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

Correct model should give consistent values


509

17/11/2012

AVERAGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE

Compare average reservoir


C
i pressure ffrom
test interpretation
Material

balance
Analytical simulation
Numerical simulation

Results should be similar if same


reservoir model is used

510

17/11/2012

RADIUS OF INVESTIGATION
ri

kt
948 c t

ri

k te
948 c t

Estimate radius of investigation


Beginning
B gi i g

off middle-time
iddl ti
region
gi
End of middle-time region

Unrealistically large ri may indicate selected


MTR is incorrect
Very small ri may indicate wrong MTR or test
not measuring reservoir characteristics

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

Geoscience professionals should develop


common interpretation model
512

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

Fracture properties from treatment design


Fracture half-length lf
Fracture conductivity wkf

515

17/11/2012

COMMON ERRORS/MISCONCEPTIONS

M t ft
Most-often-misused
i
d models
d l
Well

between two sealing faults


Well in a radially composite reservoir
Well in a rectangular reservoir

Common misconceptions
Unit-slope

line indicates wellbore storage


Peak in derivative indicates radial flow
Strong aquifer acts as constant-pressure boundary
516

17/11/2012

WELL BETWEEN TWO SEALING FAULTS


Well in a Wedge

Angle
g between faults
Distance from well to 1st fault
Distance from well to 2nd fault

517

17/11/2012

RADIALLY COMPOSITE RESERVOIR


Composite Reservoir

Mobility ratio M1/M2


Storativity ratio S1/S2
Distance to boundary R
518

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

UNIT-SLOPE LINE ALWAYS


INDICATES WELLBORE STORAGE

Unit slope line may be caused by


Unit-slope
Pseudosteady-state

flow
(drawdown test only)
Recharge
g of high-permeability
g
y zone (either
drawdown or buildup test)
520

17/11/2012

PEAK IN DERIVATIVE IMPLIES RADIAL FLOW


Linear
Bilinear
Radial
Spherical

Peak in derivative may be caused by a


fl restriction
flow
i i for
f any flow
fl regime
i
521

17/11/2012

STRONG AQUIFER ACTS AS


CONSTANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY

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

maybe not for oil


Never for gas

522