Well Test Analysis

PCB 3013 Well Test Analysis

Instructor: Prof. Dr. Mustafa Onur Schlumberger Professorial Chair
Assistants (GAs) for the Course:

General
Instructor: Mustafa Onur Office: 16.03.04 Office Hours:
Wednesday 9:00-11:00 am. Friday 9:00-11:00 am

Phone: (05) 368-7099 E-mail: mustafa.onur@petronas.com.my Course notes, handouts, homework, and test solutions will be available at e-learning system. HWs will be graded by the GAs.
2

Mohamed Ali Hamid

Azeb Demisi Habte
September 2013 Semester PE Department UTP 09 September -13 December 2013

Assessment
Final Exam Course work Course work:
Test 1 (23 October 2013, 4-6 pm) Test 2 (11 December 2013, 4-6 pm) Assignment(5-10) Total 20% 20% 20% 60%

General Remarks
On each exam, you will be responsible for all material covered to that point in the course. The date of the final is fixed. It is possible, but unlikely that the times of the other exams will be changed.

40% 60%

Well Test Analysis

General Remarks
There will be no makeup of tests. If you miss a test, you will receive a zero on the exam. unless (i) you notify me prior to the exam that you will miss it and (ii) have a medical excuse that is supported pp by y a letter from a medical doctor. You cannot pass this course without taking the final exam. The University policy on attendance and cheating will be enforced.

Weekly Timetable

Course outline
Wks 1-3 3-5 5-7 Date 9 Sept. 23 Sept. 23 Sept 07 Oct. 07 Oct. 24 Oct. Chapters 1. Introduction & fundamental s (basic methodology , data and equation) 2. Drawdown , Buildup , Interference Tests 3. Semilog and Type Curve Matching Mid -Semester Break (24-27 October) 7-9 28 Oct. -11 Nov. Superposition in Space (Linear Discountunities) Superposition in Time (Buildup and Multi rate Testing) Gas Well Testing Other well tests and new advances (wire Line Formation Testing and complex well and reservoir systems TEST 1 Remarks

References
Horne, R.N. (1995), Modern Well Test Analysis, Petroway L.P. Dake (1981), Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering (Chapters 5-8). R. C. Eourlougher (1977), Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE Monograph No. 5. J. Lee, (1982), Well Testing, SPE, New York. D. Bourdet (2002), Well Test Analysis: The Use of Advanced Interpretation Models, Elsevier Science. Kuchuk, F., Onur, M, Hollaender, F. (2010). Pressure Transient Formation and Well Testing: Convolution, Deconvolution and Nonlinear Estimation, Elsevier, 2010. Medhat M. Kamal (Editor) (2009). SPE Monograph, Volume 23, Transient Well Testing,

9-11

11 Nov. - 25 Nov.

11-13

25 Nov. 09 Dec.

13-14

09 Dec. 13 Dec.

TEST 2

Study Week (14-18 December) and Exam Week (19-29 December)

Well Test Analysis

Course Learning Outcomes

At the end of this course, the students will be equipped with: Fundamental knowledge on well testing and its methodology. Knowledge of basic theory and physics (including mathematical equations) describing pressure transient fluid flow in porous media and its applications. Basic knowledge on conventional and modern pressure transient analysis methods. Information needed on well test design to improve the students quantitative capabilities in solving reservoir engineering problems.

Introduction to Pressure Transient Test (PTT) Instructional Objectives

1. List 4 objectives of pressure transient testing. 2. Understand the basic methodology of PTT interpretation and analysis 3. Define testing variables. 4. Be familiar with various fluid and rock properties of reservoir systems.

What Is A Pressure Transient Test?

A pressure transient test is a field experiment, that is like any experiment, partially controlled. It cannot be repeated under the same conditions, but can be rerun using the results from earlier test (experiments) (experiments). There are many ways to interpret pressure transient test data; There are many models with a set of parameters that may match the observed data, but there is only one correct and more than a few probable answers.
(Source: Kuchuk, Onur, Hollaender, 2010; Pressure Transient Formation and Well Testing)

What Is A PTT?
A tool for well and reservoir evaluation and characterization Investigates a much larger volume of the reservoir ese o t than a co cores es o or logs ogs Provides estimate of porosity, permeability under in-situ conditions Provides estimates of near-wellbore condition Provides estimates of distances to boundaries

Well Test Analysis

Primary Objective of PTT

is to obtain the productivity of a well and properties of the formation from downhole and/or surface pressure and flow-rate measurements. The formation and reservoir information obtained from pressure transient measurements are essential (Why) They reflect the in-situ dynamic properties of the reservoir under realistic production/injection conditions.

How Is A PTT Conducted?

q=0

q t

Some Definitions
The rate change at the surface or subsurface
creates pressure diffusion (transient) in porous, but permeable formations.

Pressure Diffusion ProcessLimited Entry Well

The pressure diffuses away from the wellbore

deep into formation and contains (brings) information about the properties and characteristics of the reservoir.

Probe Dual packer interval

This process is traditionally called pressure

transient well testing.
t = 0.05 hour t = 0. 5 hour

Well Test Analysis

Some Definitions (Contd)

Drill Stem Testing (DST) is also part of pressure transient testing. Pressure transient tests are also conducted d t d with ith Wireline Wi li Formation F ti Testers (WFT). Such tests are called wireline formation pressure transient tests. DSTs and WFTs are usually run in exploration and appraisal wells.

Well Testing vs. Formation Testing

Both are subsets of PTT. A well test may last from several days to
several weeks and even months, and hence provide information on reservoir over a large scale. Large volumes are produced/injected.

On the other hand,

WFTs refer to small scale tests with low flow rate and short duration (e.g., from a few minutes to a few hours).

Both obey the same law of physics and can theoretically be interpreted in the same way, but note their scales are different.

Wireline Formation Testing

Interval Pressure Transient Testing (IPTT)(MDT)

Vertical 2 Vertical 2 Vertical 1 Vertical 1 10.3 Dual-Packer 2.3 ft Horizontal 3.2 Sink 14.4 6.4

Trade mark of Schlumberger.

Allows determination of vertical continuity and horizontal and vertical permeability

Well Test Analysis

IPTT

IPTT - Wireline Formation Testing

It provides dynamic in-situ information about discrete permeability distribution (kh and kv) along the wellbore in the medium scale (1 foot to 100 ft).
zo2 zo1

er 1

Vertical 2 Vertical 1 zo2 Dual-Packer zo1

Probe 2 Probe 1

er 2

Identify and test possible barriers and faults/fractures in the vertical directions (or in general along the wellbore axis).

er 3

hw

Provides information on the scale of a simulation grid. Cost effective and no production to surface.

Slug and DST Tests

DST Response

Well Test Analysis

Primary Objective of PTT

When pressure transient test data are incorporated into with geoscience data such as geophysical, geological, core, log, etc., it considerably improves reservoir characterization. Particularly, when the long-term production data are not available for undeveloped reservoirs, it is necessary to complement the volumetric estimate of oil or gas in-place with long duration well tests to estimate well productivity and reservoir size before the optimization of the field development.

A Note on Scale
H2 O molecules Visible light core Well Logs sample Well Tests
WFTs

Earth to sun

mm cm

10-10 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103
wellbore diameter deepest sediment

107 1011

pore sizes Microscopic scale (Navier stokes and Poiseuille Equation)

vugs

Earth diameter

Macroscopic scale (Darcys equation and continuum approach)

A Note on Scale

Reservoir Characterization
It is a process of building (or coming up with) a reservoir simulation model including spatial variability of rock/fluid properties and boundaries that inegrates and satisfies all sources of data available (static and dynamic data) to reduce gelogical uncertainties in performance predictions. The purpose is to define a well/reservoir model that honors both static and dynamic knowledge about the well/reservoir system.

Well Test Analysis

Tools for Reservoir Characterization

Well/Formation/Reservoir Evaluation: Core Analysis/Petrophysics Wireline Well Logs Production Logging (Flowmeter) Pressure Transient Formation and Well Testing Measurement While Drilling (MWD) Borehole Geophysics Siesmics (2D, 3D, or even 4D) Geostatistics (stochastic modeling) Upscaling and Numerical Reservoir Simulation

Reservoir Characterization

Scale

Numerical Reservoir Simulation

F i Facies

Porosit Porosity

Source: Tiab

Sw

Perm

Well Test Analysis

Numerical Reservoir Simulation

Reservoir Management Process

static data
Drilling Geological Data/Model Geophysical Data/Model Geochemical Data/Model Petrophysical Data/Model Geomechnanical Data/Model Fluid Data/Model Production Logging Model

dynamic data

Well Test Model

Integration g

Tracer Model

Well Performance
history matching

Well/Reservoir Model
upscaling

Production Data

Numerical Simulation Model Calibrated Simulation Model Performance Prediction

Well Performance

Well Performance/Production Optimization

Source: Gringarten (2007)

Source: Gringarten (2007)

Well Test Analysis

Role of PTT in Reservoir Characterization

PTT belongs to the dynamic part of the characterization process. The contribution of pressure transient testing is the well test interpretation model. This model is part of well and reservoir performance predictions.

How Is A PT Test Conducted?

q=0

q t

PTT Applications
Exploration Reservoir engineering g g Production engineering

PTT Objectives
Define reservoir limits Estimate average drainage area pressure Characterize reservoir Diagnose productivity problems Evaluate stimulation treatment effectiveness

10

Well Test Analysis

Types of PTT
q

Productivity Testing
The primary purpose of well testing is the determination of the Productivity Index and the average reservoir pressure Used for designing tubulars and artificial lift systems.

Single-Well

Multi-Well

Productivity Index
Productivity Index is a measure of the well's ability to produce fluids under an imposed reservoir pressure drop.
J= q (t ) p pwf

Productivity Index
Function of many parameters Transmissibility, kh/ Storativity, cth Skin Ski d damage, s Drainage area of the well, A Reservoir and well geometry
Can we determine individual values of these parameters?

Productivity Index, STB/d/psi J p (t ) Average pressure in drainage area, psia pwf (t ) Bottomhole flowing pressure, psia

q(t ) Production rate, STB/day

11

Well Test Analysis

Productivity Tests

Productivity Tests
qsc = J p pwf

pwf = p

1 qsc J

Is Well A or B more productive? y is Well C exhibiting g a curved Why behavior instead of straight-line?

Productivity Tests
qsc = J p pwf

Oil Well Productivity Index

1 qsc J

pwf = p

Is Well A or B more productive? y is Well C exhibiting g a curved Why behavior instead of straight-line?

Single-phase flow of oil and partially penetrating well (hp) in a homogeneousisotropic system with thickness h:
q= kh 141.2 B 4 A 1/ 2 h ln + sp + 2 e C r h A w p
J What could be the reason(s) for the well producing less? Is it due to skin, limited entry, or low permeability?

( p pwf )

12

Well Test Analysis

Gas Well Productivity Index

Single-phase flow of gas and limited entry well (hp) in a homogeneous-isotropic system with thickness h:

Limitations of Productivity Testing

Assumes stabilized flow conditions (steady state or pseudo-steady state flow regimes to be discussed later). It does not allow us to determine individual values of parameters (kh, skin, limited entry skin, non-Darcy term, etc.) So, we need (actually transient) tests that allow individual values of parameters.

q=

kh 2 ( p 2 pwf ) 1422T z 4 A 1/ 2 h ln + + + s s Dq ( ) p 2 e C Arw hw J

What could be the reason(s) for the gas well producing less? Is non-Darcy flow significant?

Skin Effect

Skin Evaluation
Vertical well with gravel pack

Prior to acid operation

After acidizing

13

Well Test Analysis

Skin Evaluation
Vertical well with gravel pack

Drawdown Testing
q>0
Rate q, STB/D

q=0

1000

4300

6300

Bottom-hole pressure, pwf, psi

t1

time

t1

time

Buildup Testing
q>0
Rate q, STB/D

Injection/Falloff Testing

q =0

t1
Bottom-hole pressure pwf, psi

time

buildup drawdown

t1

time

14

Well Test Analysis

Variable Rate Testing

Slug and DST Tests

DST Response

Multi-Well Testing

15

Well Test Analysis

Vertical Interference Testing

Wireline Formation Testing (MDT)

Vertical 2

Vertical 2 Vertical 1

Vertical 1

10.3 Dual-Packer 2.3 ft 3.2 Sink

14.4 6.4

Horizontal

Allows determination of vertical continuity and horizontal and vertical permeability information.

Trade mark of Schlumberger.

Wireline Formation Testing (MDT)

Layer 1
Vertical 2 Vertical 1 14.4 Dual-Packer 6.4

Wireline Formation Testing (MDT)

kv kh
lw zo Dual-Packer zw h Probe

Layer aye 2

Layer 3

3.2

Trade mark of Schlumberger.

Trade mark of Schlumberger.

16

Well Test Analysis

Summary on PTT Types

In summary, a basic pressure transient test consists of a production/injection rate change, during which the wellbore pressure is measured in general the d downhole, h l and d Production is monitored (measured directly or in directly) either at the wellbore or surface, a subsequent buildup/falloff period during which the wellbore pressure is usually measured downhole.

Basic Steps of PTT Interpretation

It involves three basic steps: Step 1: Model Identification Step 2: Estimation of model parameters Step 3: Validation of results

Interpretation Methodology of PTTs

During a well test, a transient response is created by a temporary and controlled change in production rate. Then, the response (pressure, temperature and/or flow rate at bottom hole) of the well/reservoir system to changing production (or injection) is monitored. The response is, to a greater or lesser degree, characteristic of the properties of the well/reservoir sytsem and thus it is possible in many cases to infer well/reservoir parameters from the observed response.

Interpretation Methodology
A Constant-Rate Drawdown-Buildup Sequence:

q>0
Rate, q R

q=0

Bottom-hole pressure, pwf, psi

t1

time

buildup drawdown

t1

time

17

Well Test Analysis

Interpretation Methodology
Is to identify the appropriate interpretation model(s) and obtain reasonable estimates of the formation (or reservoir) parameters of interest from indirect measurements of pressure and rate data. These estimates are defined in terms of a mathematical well/reservoir model, derived based on simplified assumptions, yet from physical principles (conservation laws) governing the behavior of the system under observation. All monitored pressure transients in porous media are governed by some form of the diffusivity equation with appropriate initial and boundary conditions.

Interpretation Methodology
Pressure transient interpretation sequence is applications of inverse/forward(direct) problems:
I (rate-time)
Real system ( S )
O (observed pressure vs time)

I (rate-time)
Model (k, , s, etc)

OM (model pressure vs time)

O OM

Matching

Forward and Inverse Problems

Inferring an interpretation model from an observed response (or signal) is an application of inverse problem. Once model is identified, estimating model parameter is application of both forward and inverse problems, depending on the estimation method used. Therefore, a mathematical (analytical/or numerical) model is required to estimate the model parameters from observed data. There are variety of models developed for pressure transient analysis.

STEP 1: Model Identification

Find a model SM which behaves in the same way as the real system S given the input and output.

I I

S SM

O OM

OM should show the same features of O Inverse problem with a non-unique solution

To reduce non-uniqueness: -More test data: pressure/rate -Checking procedure on model -Consistency with geology, geophysics, petropyhsics, etc.

18

Well Test Analysis

STEP 1: Model Identification

Tools for Model Identification Pressure-Derivative signal based on superposition time Pressure Pressure-Derivative Derivative signal based on deconvolution To reduce non-uniqueness: More test data: pressure/rate Checking procedure on model Consistency with geology, geophysics, petropyhsics, etc.

STEP 1: Model Identification

(Taken from Schlumberger Modern Reservoir Testing book)

STEP 1: Model Identification

STEP 2: Model Parameter Estimation

Adjust the parameters of the MODEL SM so that OM matches O quite well.

I I
(a) Well (near sealing fault) producing in homogeneous-isotropic reservoir (b) Well producing in a naturally fractured reservoir system.

S SM

O OM

O OM

(Taken from Schlumberger Modern Reservoir Testing book)

Direct or Inverse problem depending on the method as well as quality and span of the test data.

19

Well Test Analysis

STEP 2: MP Estimation
Tools for Model P. Estimation Straight line methods (semilog, Cartesian plots, etc.) Type-curve matching based on Pressure and/or Pressure-Derivative responses Non-linear regresion To reduce non-uniqueness: Calculated parameters should be very similar independent of the method (or tool) used.
p and p' , psi

STEP 2: MP Estimation
Pressure change

102
Closed reservoir model

101

100

Reservoir boundary has no effect on the responses

Infinite acting reservoir

10-1 10-4

ttest = 3 h. 10-3 10-2 10-1 Time (h) 100 101 102

STEP 3: Validation of Results

Verify the consistency of the interpretation model by: matching with test observed data (log-log, Horner, simulation) matching atc g results esu ts from o ot other e well e tests matching with other knowledge (geology, petrophysics, cores, fluids, completion) common sense (range of plausible parameter values). Inspect confidence intervals, correlation coefficients, RMS errors if non-linear regression is used.

PTT Interpretation (Outer Loop)

(Source: Kuchuk, Onur, Hollaender, 2010)

20

Well Test Analysis

PTT Interpretation (Inner Loop)

PTT Interpretation Models

Near Wellbore Effects Wellbore storage Skin Fractures Limited Entry Horizontal/ slanted well Reservoir Behavior Homogeneous Heterogeneous 2-Porosity Layered Composite Boundary Effects

Infinite acting No-flow Constant pressure Leaky

(Source: Kuchuk, Onur, Hollaender, 2010)

Early times

Middle times

Late times

Remarks on Reducing Uncertainty in PTT

We should always resort to other independent sources of information (geoscience data, drilling, logs, cores). We should carefully design tests by taking into consideration of flow rate history to be applied, accuracy and resolution of pressure gauges. Perform sensitivity studies prior to testing by performing forward runs with the appropriate model(s) for the system under consideration.

Pressure-Derivative

21

Well Test Analysis

Pressure-Derivative (P-D)
It was introduced in 1980 by Bourdet et. al and has become a standard tool in PTT Interpretation since then. It helps identifying the appropriate model for the system under consideration and flow regimes. It also helps reducing non-uniquess in parameter estimation when it is used together with pressure. It magnifies the changes in pressure data so it is useful for diagnostic purposes.

Pressure-Derivative
It is defined as the rate of pressure change with respect to natural logarithm of time.

p =

d ( pi pwf (t )) dp d ( p ) d ( pi pwf (t )) = =t = t wf d ln (t ) d ln (t ) dt dt

Why is it based on logarithm of time? What is the unit of pressure-derivative?

Pressure-Derivative-Example 1
p and p' , psi
Circular no-flow reservoir 102

Pressure-Derivative-Example 2
103

p an nd p' , psi

102
= 0 .1

101

101
= 0.01

100 10-1 -4 10

Pressure-derivative 10-3 10-2 10-1 Time (h) 100 102

100

101

Naturally fractured reservoir (Warren-Root, =10-7) 10-1 -4 100 101 102 10-1 10-3 10-2 10 Time (h)

22

Well Test Analysis

Some Remarks on P-D

Unlike pressure, pressure-derivative is not measured and has to computed by numerical differentiation of the measure pressured data with respect to time. Differentiation amplifies the noise in pressure data. This often causes pressure-derivative data to oscillate wildly and complicate model identification and parameter estimation. To eliminate the oscillatory behavior, we often apply smoothing methods to pressure derivative.

P-D Computation
It is computed by numerical differentiation of the measure pressured data with respect to time.
p pj+1 p j pj-1

p ( t j ) = +

ln ( t j +1 / t j 1 ) ln ( t j / t j 1 ) ln ( t j / t j 1 )

ln ( t j +1 / t j )

p j 1 +

ln ( t j +1 / t j ) ln ( t j / t j 1 )

ln ( t j +1t j 1 / t 2 j )

p j

ln ( t j +1 / t j 1 ) ln ( t j +1 / t j )

p j +1

Bourdet method (2nd degree polynomial through successive three points)

lntj-1 lntj lntj+1 t

P-D Computation
Differentiation amplifies the noise in pressure data. This often causes pressure-derivative data to oscillate wildly and complicate model identification and parameter estimation.
Suppose we have equally spaced pressure data data, containing uncorrelated noise with zero mean and constant standard deviation p, and are using Bourdet method to generate pressure-derivative, then we can show that std. of noise in pressure derivative is:

Effect of Noise on P-D

d =

1 p 2L

t L = ln j = constant < 1 t j 1

Noise in derivative data will also be correlated, though noise in pressure is not, see SPE 71579

23

Well Test Analysis

A Catalogue of P-D: Flow Regimes

Log-Log Plot

PTT : A Signal Analysis-CR DD

Log-log plot (Flow regime identification)

p =

70.6q = constant for radial flow khh

Specialized St. Line Analysis (e.g., MDH)

PTT : A Signal Analysis-CR BU

Log-log plot (Flow regime identification)

A Summary of Straight Line Methods

Horner Plot

Source: Gringarten (SPE 102079)

24

Well Test Analysis

Interpration of PTTs

Various Flow Regimes

We attempt to recognize specific flow regimes exhibited (on log-log log log plot) that dominate the data behavior to identify the appropriate interpretation model.

Various Flow Regimes

Various Flow Regimes

H Homogeneous (IARF)

High conductivity fracture

2-Porosity or Multilayer

Composite or Multiphase Fluid

Source: Gringarten (SPE 102079)

25

Well Test Analysis

Various Flow Regimes

Date
50s 70s

History of PTT Analysis

Modified from Gringarten (SPE 102079)
Analysis Method
Straight lines Pressure Type Curves

Emphasis
Homogeneous reservoir Near wellbore effects, 2porosity, fractured wells Heterogoneous H reservoirs and boundaries Computerized analysis, variable rate tests, multilayer reservoirs Computerized analysis, enhance radius of investigation

Identification
Poor Fair (limited)

Verification
None Fair to good

80 80s

P Pressure Derivatives Non-linear Regression

V Very good d

V Very good d

90s

Very good

Much better

00s

Deconvolution

Much better

Same as Derivative

Source: Gringarten (SPE 102079)

26