0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
26 Ansichten10 Seiten
This paper presents a summary of the latest drill-stem test interpretation techniques. Oil, gas and multiphase flow are considered. Methods of calculation are advanced to help determine reservoir pressure, productivity index, transmissibility, radius of investigation and absolute open-flow potential.
This paper presents a summary of the latest drill-stem test interpretation techniques. Oil, gas and multiphase flow are considered. Methods of calculation are advanced to help determine reservoir pressure, productivity index, transmissibility, radius of investigation and absolute open-flow potential.
This paper presents a summary of the latest drill-stem test interpretation techniques. Oil, gas and multiphase flow are considered. Methods of calculation are advanced to help determine reservoir pressure, productivity index, transmissibility, radius of investigation and absolute open-flow potential.
Abstract L. F. MAIER JUNIOR MEMBER AIME This paper presents a summary of the latest drill-stem test interpretation techniques which may be applied by well operators to the majority of field cases. Recommenda- tions are submitted for obtaining better DST data, and the evaluation of data received is discussed. Oil, gas and multiphase flow are considered. MeJhods of calculation are advanced to help determine reservoir pressure, productivity index, transmissibility, damage ratio, radius of investigation and absolute open-flow potential. Application of calculated information to well completion is discussed, and several gas case histories are tabulated which illustrate the general correlation between DST in- formation and actual well performance. Introdnction The information contained with a drill-stem test report may be considered to be of four general categories: (1) factual data including statistical well information and a description of the testing tools; (2) measured data con- cerning the recovered fluids and their properties, the time periods involved and general remarks based on observa- tions during the test; (3) recorded pressure and tempera- ture data; and (4) interpretation calculations, where ap- plicable. Greater emphasis is now being placed on the quality and completeness of the physical measurements and ob- servations made during the test. This has been necessary in order to complement the accuracy and dependability of the pressure-recording instruments. Interpretation is considered an important part of the drill-stem test, and for this reason the necessary calcula- tions are now being done on the majority of tests run in Canada. This information has proven to be of consid- erable assistance to the well owner in well-completion. formation-evaluation and hydrodynamic studies. This paper is an up-to-date presentation of practical methods of drill- soom test interpretation and suggestions for improved test- ing techniques generally applicable to Canadian conditions. Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office March 12, 1962. Revised manuscript received July 27, 1962. Paper pre- sented at SPE Production Research Symposium held April 12-13, 1962, in Tulsa, Okla. NOVEMBER, 1962 SPE 290 HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO. LTD. CALGARY, ALTA. Previous authors' interpretation methods'-' are combined with new developments and modifications to present a comprehensive interpretation guide for the great majority of DST results encountered. Evaluation of Basic DST Data Before he can begin the drill-stem test interpretation, the well operator must evaluate the basic data which were measured and recorded. Examination of the pressure data and the charts will reveal whether or not the test was satisfactory from a mechanical viewpoint and will help to verify the accuracy of the gauges. A zero-pressure base line is drawn on the chart by the bourdon tube pressure- recording ins.trument prior to assembly in the testing string, and the recorded pressure must "zero-in" on this base line at the time of tool assembly and "zero-out" during disassembly after the test. Since stair-stepping pressure curves may be caused by gauge malfunction, they must be considered to be un- representative of true formation pressures. Depending upon the severity of the steps, such pressure data may be of some value but must be used with extreme caution. If all gauges appear to have recorded correctly, the proper way to check their accuracy is to compare their recorded pressures at such key points as initial closed-in pressure, final flow pressure and final closed-in pressure. If the initial and final hydrostatic pressures are clearly defined on the charts, these may be used as well. The recorded pressure difference between any two gauges at these key points is compared with the predicted difference due to the hydrostatic head between the gauges. The dis- crepancy between the recorded and calculated difference is divided by two, and this is calculated as a percentage of the average pressure of the two gauges. This is equal to the possible per ctfnt error of each gauge, assuming their accuracies to be equal. The volumes of liquid recoveries often are difficult to determine accurately due to intermingling of the various fluids produced and, occasionally, due to severe gas-cutting. Gas flow measurements may be hampered by liquid flow through the flare line. Production test kits containing the 'References given at end of paper. 1213 necessary equipment can materially assist in evaluating the recovery. The kit illustrated in Fig. 1 contains a pitot tube, side static device, orifice well tester, manometers, pressure gauges, thermometers, hydrometers, pH paper, etc. Assuming friction drop is nil, the final flow pressure on the uppermost gauge equals the hydrostatic head of fluid above it; thus, the reported liquid recovery may be veri- fied. A check may also be made on the reported flow times and closed-in-times. Since time deflection on the chart is measured in thousandths of an inch, then for anyone chart the ratios of reported times to chart deflections should be equal for all timed periods. Pressure Build-Up Curves The well known equation",7 describing pressure build-up characteristics of a well is expressed as _ 162.6 qpl3 (I + ()) po - Pt - kh log -()- . (1) The boundary conditions make this equation particu- larly well suited for DST application, and the assumptions usually are as valid for a DST as they are for producing wells. Theoretically, a plot of po vs log (I ()) will It . . h r f I 162.6 qfLB resu m a stralg t me 0 s ope m equal to kh ' and I , I (I + ()) .. extrapo atmg og -()- to zero Will Yield Pt. The dual closed-in pressure method of testing has now become an almost universal standard, and only this tech- nique will be considered in this paper. The sequence of events usually is classified as first fiow, initial closed-in pressure, second flow and final closed-in pressure. The first flow period of several minutes aids in the removal of any "supercharged" pressure caused by drilling- mud or filtrate invasion near the well bore, During this period there also may be a removal of some of the dam- age or skin effect. This would tend to stabilize the effective permeability (and, hence, the flow conditions) prior to the second flow period, improving the accuracy of the interpretation. Failure to remove the "supercharged" pressure will be indicated by an extrapolated initial closed-in pressure Fig. I-DST production test kit. 1214 which is significantly higher than the extrapolated final closed-in pressure. A study of the build-Up plots on the majority of tests run in Canada for the past two years illustrates that, in many cases, "supercharged" pressures were not removed prior to initial shut-in. This is par- ticularly true in the case of gas-well testing, where almost half of such tests indicate "supercharging". Experience shows that a first flow time of 5 to 15 minutes generally is satisfactory in removing "supercharge". While these longer flow times may result in build-up curves of lesser closure, requiring slightly more extrapolation to determine reservoir pressure, it still is more desirable to work with true pressures. Good initial closed-in pressure curves are nearly always obtained provided the closed-in time is approximately 30 minutes or more. A discrepancy in the extrapolated pressures may also be caused by partial depletion of the reservoir during the second flow period, and there are several cases on record where this has hap- pened in various formations and localities. Fig. 2 illus- trates a pressure chart from such a test. It is often diffi- cult to distinguish between "supercharged" pressure and partial depletion, which is another important reason for eliminating "supercharge". It is not uncommon to observe an initial closed-in pressure which has a slower build-up than the final closed- in pressure; an example is shown in Fig. 3. In such cases, the initial build-up is influenced by the presence of a deeply-invaded, low-permeability damaged zone, since the radius of investigation is quite small for short flow times, Longer first flow times would result in build-ups more characteristic of the undamaged formation. For adequate interpretation, the time required for the second flow period is subject to a large number of factors. This usually is dictated by experience and knowledge of reservoir and hole conditions, as well as by the nature of the blow. It is usually desirable to have the final closed-in time equal to the second flow time-or perhaps longer in the event of a poor blow. Exceptions to this rule include most gas wells, very badly damaged wells, or oil wells with an indicated kh of greater than 500 md-ft. Here, a closed-in time equal to one-half the flow time usually is sufficient. Another common build-up characteristic is the S-type curve, and some causes of this have been described' as Fig. 2-Pressure chart for limited reservoir partially de- pleted during DST. JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY follows: (1) minute mud leakage around the packer, - through vertical permeability, results in a build-up plot which extrapolates approximately to the hydrostatic mud pressure; and (2) high drawdowns on low-permeability wells may cause gas to come out of solution, thus increas- ing the gas saturation near the wellbore. As the pressure increases during the build-up, the gas goes back into so- lution and some after-production of oil must take place. This slow-rate after-production is probably the most com- mon cause of the S-type build-up. Since two separate combinations of flow and closed-in periods are involved, two sets of calculations may be carried out if desired. The second-period calculations generally can be considered more accurate, since longer flow times are customary and more stabilized skin condi- tions exist. In the extrapolation of the final closed-in pressure, it must be considered that the well has been producing for a time equal to the sum of the two flow periods, but interrupted by the initial closed-in period. If the initial closed-in pressure build-up is complete, or very nearly so, then the influence of the first flow period may be disre- garded in the final closed-in pressure build-up plot, and the flow time used would be that of the second period only. If the initial build-up is poorly developed, the final build-up will be affected by all previous events and a modified build-up equation will apply, derived by super- imposing the point-source solution. As discussed in Ap- pendix A, this solution may be closely approximated by b f I fl . . h . t + () Th su stItutlOn 0 tota ow time III t e expression -()-. e build-up plot will have a slight curvature, but in using the points with the lowest value of t () for the straight- line extrapolation, good results may generally be obtained. Under normal testing conditions, for example, if the second flow period is more than five or six times that of the first flow period and at least as long as the initial closed-in period, there will be virtually no error in the extrapolated pressure and the error in the slope of the plot will be less than 2 per cent. If the first flow period is equal to the second flow period, error in extrapolated Fig. 3-Chart showing initial closed-in pressure build-up influenced by wellbore damage. NOVEMBER, 1962 pressure generally will be only about 0.5 per cent, but the error in the slope could be approximately 10 per cent. The error in the slope may be corrected by dividing the measured slope by log ( + 1) ((), + t;, + b + 1 ) , as illustrated in Fig. 4. One assumption in Eq. 1 is that constant rate of pro- duction exists prior to shut-in; however, on a liquid re- covery test the flow rate usually decreases throughout the flow period. Dolan, et aZ: illustrated that the error through use of an average flow rate was not significant provided the rate of change of q was relatively constant. This usu- ally holds true in the majority of tests on oil reservoirs, at least where the calculated productivity index is less than approximately 1.5 BID-psi. However, with the marked increase in the number of water-source wells drilled in recent years and the use of the drill-stem test for their evaluation, large numbers of very prolific wells have been tested where the average-flow-rate simplification does not apply. The entire interpretation of such cases must be handled in a different manner, which is beyond the scope of this paper. Oil Flow The transmissibility of the formation tested calculated from the slope of the build-up plot. ko h 162.6 qo Bo }Lo rno may be (2) Since Bo is usually unknown at the time of the DST analysis, it may be necessary to estimate it from some type of average correlation plot." An estimate may also have to be made of the oil viscosity under reservoir con- ditions! in order to calculate the in situ capacity (koh), and through knowledge of the net pay thickness in the test interval the average effective permeability may be estimated. This permeability represents the estimated res- ervoir permeability to the extent of the radius of investi- gation during the test. It would not normally include the effect of skin damage in the immediate vicinity of the '" 0. .. 0.
- t
,I'- - I- I'ro II 10 Let tl=9;=t2 Correction Factor= 0.901 =089 m2 . Slope= m l ........
"'- '-.... Fig. 4-Approximate and exact build-up plots, considering influence of first flow period. 1215 well bore , unless the investigation radius did not extend beyond the damaged zone. The next step is to calculate the average productivity index during the flow period. It has been common prac- tice to assume that the flow rate is constant, and to cal- culate productivity index by dividing the average flow rate by the difference between reservoir pressure and final flow pressure. However, the flow rate is rarely constant, and a more realistic drawdown would be calculated by considering some average wellbore pressure during the flow period. As the flow period progresses the well bore pressure increases, causing the flow rate to decline. These factors can vary widely, depending upon the well's capability. The flow period could be divided into a number of time in- crements and the productivity index calculated for each increment. Such calculated values mayor may not be relatively constant during the flow period. An identical to the average of these values is obtained by di- vldmg the. production rate (total liquid recovery volume dIvIded by total flow time) by the difference between reservoir pressure and the weighted average flow pressure. J = _q_o_ Pt - P (3) P may be obtained by reading the flow pressure at a number of equally spaced time intervals and calculating the average of these values. A total of 10 intervals is usually adequate. If well bore damage exists at the time of the DST the producing characteristics' of the well will be affected.' The P?ssible causes of damage or skin effect have been widely dIscussed and several calculation methods have been pre- sented. As a close approximation for the DST case (see Appendix B), the van Everdingen dimensionless skin fac- tor may be expressed as [ p - p ] s;:::::; 1.1515 - log (kot) - 1.80 (4) Damage ratio, defined as the ratio of theoretical J to ac- tual J, is derived from the skin equation. DR;:::::; (Pt - p)/mo log (kot) + 1.80 (5) The pressure drop caused by the skin may then be calcu- lated from Eq. 6. (Pt - p) (DR - 1) PD = DR (6) Under the transient flow conditions existing during the DST flow period, the "drainage radius" coincides with the wellbore radius at zero flow time and continually propa- gates outward until the flow period ends unless the tran- sient radius reaches some barrier. This radius is commonly referred to. as the effective radius of investigation, since the reservOir properties are being measured to its extent. One solution" was obtained by an empirical correlation of known mathematical data, which may be expressed by Eq. 7 (see Appendix C). r, ::::: 4.63 (kot)' . (7) A. pressure chart for an example oil test is shown in Fig. 5, WIth the build-up plot given in Fig. 6. Gas Flow Gas-well test interpretation may be conducted with 1216 some degree of accuracy, similar to the methods used for oil reservoirs. It must be realized that the applied equa- tions assume that the compressibility and viscosity of the gas remain reasonably constant over the range of tempera- ture and pressure variation encountered in the reservoir during the flow period. Such is not the case, of course, since these parameters are functions of pressure and the differential pressure between reservoir and wellbore may be quite large on some drill-stem tests. This situation is most common with low-permeability reservoirs and/or some degree of skin damage. In the event of skin, how- ever, a large percentage of the pressure drop would be in the immediate vicinity of the well bore , and the majority of the effective area of investigation would have a relatively small drawdown. In reviewing a large number of drill- stem tests performed on a variety of reservoirs, it was found that only a small percentage showed excessive pres- sure drawdowns between the reservoir and the external boundary of the skin. Nevertheless, reducing the draw- down will certainly improve the accuracy of the calcu- lations, and more extensive use of chokes should be made in instances where required. Fig. chart for an example oil test, South Canevale Well 13-12 (Mobil Oil-'Pure-'Sinclair-British American). 1800
'iii a. 1700
1500 1450 I
\ '\ .\ CI
Initial CIP 1\ \ BT No, 1506 D 3883' Pf 1791 psi mo 288 psi/cycle
r-.. "1\ ,\, I 10
e Fig. 6-Build-up plot, South Carievale Well 13-12. JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY The pressure build-up equation applicable to gas wells - is expressed by ,_ ,_ 1632 q'/LZT[ I (t + ())] (8) p. - PI k h og -()- 9 The build-up plot of po' vs log (t ~ ()) is constructed ( t + ()) b' 0 and extrapolated to log -()- = 0 to 0 tam P/. As in the case of the liquid interpretation, the trans- missibility may be calculated after measuring the slope of the build-up plot. k.h 1632q,zT (9) /Ly my With a knowledge of h and an estimation of/Ly and 7. from suitable data on gas properties, the capacity and permeability of the formation may be calculated. The assumption of constant flow rate in the build-up equation usually is not a serious one. Variations in flow rate are not nQrmally extreme and the rate usually be- comes fairly constant if adequate flow times of one hour or longer are allowed. One accepted practice is to measure the flow rate at a number of equally spaced time intervals throughout the test. In the event of any appreciable de- viation from constant flow rate, the average of the various measured rates should be used in Eq. 9. Likewise, p, usually becomes reasonably constant; when necessary, how- ever, p may be used in any expression containing flowing pressure. To date, there has been no general analytical solution to the nonlinear partial differential equation describing the flow of natural gas through porous media. However, by reducing the differential equation to an appropriate finite-difference equation, numerical solutions have been obtained" by digital simulation on electronic computers. Aronofsky and Jenkins13 concluded that the numerical solutions nearly coincided with the solutions for transient liquid flow for a wide range of dimensionless flow rates. By combining the liquid and gas equations, a theoretical equation was given" for gas flow during the early stages of production which may be expressed as 1.1515 [log kgtjcp/L cr,': + 5.01] = 1.1515 (p/ - p,') mg (10) Noting that actual gas-well behavior did not conform with the theoretical equation, Smith" proposed that it be modified by the addition of the S factor and another cor- rection term designated as the Y function. The resulting equation is equivalent to the van Everdingen skin equation modified by the addition of the Y term. For DST use, it may be simplified by assuming the parameters as given in Appendix B. S + Y:::::: 1.1515 [ p / ~ ? p , - - log (kutpI) + 1.40] (11) The damage ratio may then be calculated by Eq. 12. DR:::::: (p," - p,")/my . log (kgtPI) - 1.40 + Y/1.1515 (12) The Y function is an empirical term designed to adjust the theory to conform with actual gas-well behavior in accounting for the additional pressure drop caused by a condition commonly referred to as turbulent flow. Its importance in the presented equations is unknown since no attempt has been made to evaluate it from DST NOVEMBER, 196:1 data. It could be determined as outlined in Ref. 14 if the drill-stem test were run in a particular manner; however, if it has not been determined, it may be ignored and ap- parent values of DR and S calculated. The pressure drop across the skin may be calculated from the following equation. = (P/ (DR - 1) + p.')l _ PD DR P., (13 ) The radius of investigation of the gas well during a DST may be approximated by the expression r, :::::: 0.125 (k.tPI)' (14) The equation describing the back-pressure performance of a gas well is expressed as qg = C (p/ - p,')" (15) Data taken from a DST which achieves a constant flow rate may be considered valid for plotting as a single point on a back-pressure plot of q. vs p/ - p,'. Such a point certainly could be in error; however, for the purpose of an estimation of the absolute open-flow potential it does have some value. This is particularly true since the infor- mation in most cases would be available prior to comple- tion of the well. Expressed in equation form (see Ap- pendix D), [ p/ 1" q, = qg -,--, P! - p, (16) If the exponent n cannot be estimated, it may be assumed to have the extreme values of 0.5 and 1.0, and a range of qA calculated. The computed value of qA will be with respect to the time at which q. and p, were measured, usually at time t. Studies of isochronal-performance testing 15 - 17 show that the performance coefficient C decreases with time until stabilized flow conditions prevail. This may require con- siderable time except in highly permeable wells. In most cases, therefore, the open-flow potential calculated by Eq. 16 will be somewhat higher than that which would be calculated for stabilized flow. A corrected value may be calculated by Eq. 17. {[ p/ ][In (r./r w ) ]}" (17) q, = qu p/ _ p,' In (r,/rw) The value of r, is calculated as previously discussed, and r, is established from the well spacing. Figs. 3 and 7 illustrate the pressure chart and build-up plot of an example gas test interpretation. Multipbase Flow In certain cases driII-stem tests are performed on reser- voirs which may produce various combinations of oil, water and gas as separate phases. Such tests may be in- terpreted by applying the same theory as was used for the single-phase interpretations, the only modification being the substitution of the effective total fluid properties of the muItiphase system for the equivalent single-phase properties.18 The pressure build-up curve may be plotted as in an oil test, and the plot extrapolated to obtain reservoir pressure. Each fluid is first considered separately to obtain the individual transmissibilities. 162.6 B,qo (2) l:!l7 (18) kgh 1632 zT - = (qg - q"R,) (19) fLu my where mu = p/ - PlO'. Eq. 19 assumes that the gas phase is distributed uniformly throughout the interval h. If the two phases are segregated within this interval, separate values of h must be estimated for each phase. From these equations, individual mobilities (k/ fL) are determined, and total mobility is calculated as the sum of the individual mobilities. Individual permeabilities and relative-permeability ratios may also be calculated. It must be stressed that in certain cases it is possible to recover large quantities of filtrate water which are sometimes mistaken for formation water." Such cases usually can be identified by proper sampling and labora- tory analysis. More-reasonable values of effective perme- ability would be calculated by considering the filtrate water as hydrocarbon production rather than formation-water production. The remaining calculations involve fluid compressibility. In multiphase work the total compressibility, which is the sum of the fractional compressibilities, is used. When oil and gas compressibilities are unknown, total fluid com- pressibility may be approximated as _ I c, :::::: So (10-') + SrI - + Sw (3 X 10-'). (20) PI Knowledge of fluid saturations is also required, and these may be estimated through use of relative-perme- ability-ratio plots'O when actual data are unknown. Errors through approximations of the individual fluid compressi- bilities and the fluid saturations will be minimized since they are applied in the logarithm; however, the following equations must be regarded as estimates only. 1218 s:::::: 1.1515 P -log (+.-) (:} + 3.23] (21) DR:::::: (PI - p)/m" log ( +.-) (:} - 3.23 (22) 4.4 4.2 8T No. 542 D 5945' Pt 2 4,230,000 psi 2
Pt 2057 psi mg 850,000 psi7cycle
I-- "- i'-- Initial CIP '" i'i' I ! !' 1 i P I I 10 Fi.g. 7-Build.up plot, Pembina Well 11-26 (White Rose, et al). I r, z 0.0143 [(:} (:,)r (23) Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate the pressure chart and build-up plot of an example multi phase test interpretation. Field Application of DST Interpretation The reservoir information obtained from the drill-stem test analysis generally is considered to have some degree of reliability and to be of considerable worth in formation evaluation. The acceptance of this information has ex- panded such that the drill-stem test must be considered as much an evaluation tool as it is an exploration tool. While much of the information is considered to be ap- proximate, in many cases it is the only information and can often be available before the well is completed. In fact, DST information has proven to be of great assistance to the well owner in the well completion itself. The wide variations in skin conditions encountered at the time of the DST clearly show that a well's potential should not be based on recovery alone, and in some in- Fig. 8-Pressure chart for an example multi phase test, Hamilton Lake Well 5-13 (Standard Oil Co. of California). 900
800 700 600 550 I
:::::::-
i-- "I-- i I I 8T No. 676 D 2981' Pt 842 psi ma opprox.99psilcycle .
i -i I 10 Fig. 9-Build.up plot, Hamilton Lake Well 5-13. JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY stances the question of whether or not to abandon may be decided by the well owner through knowledge of the - damage ratio. Well stimulation is becoming increasingly important, and more emphasis is being placed on designed or engineered treatment recommendations for maximum efficiency. These calculations involve a two-step operation of first removing the well bore damage and then increasing the formation capacity. Thus, a knowledge of DR and formation kh is essential, and this information may be gained from the DST analysis. Table 1 presents a comparison between the absolute open-flow potential calculated from the DST and that derived from back-pressure testing after well completion on a number of gas wells. It must be considered that the skin effect could change from the time of the DST to the time of completion and the stimulation treatment may or may not remove all of the damage, or it may improve the formation capacity such that the net result in produc- tion improvement is greater than that possible from removal of damage alone. Considering the many complex and unknown factors involved, there is a relatively good correlation between the DST predicted and the actual well performance figures when considered in the light of the stimulation treatments involved. Suggestions The following may be of assistance in normal situations, depending upon the specific conditions of the well in ques- tion. 1. The volume of liquid recovery should be carefully measured. The various liquids or contaminated mixtures should be adequately described and density measurements taken. 2. Measure the gas flow at several equally spaced time intervals throughout the flow periods. 3. Pressure drawdown on gas tests should be reduced, where necessary, through more extensive use of chokes. 4. The first flow period should be at least five minutes, and the initial closed-in period at least 30 minutes. The second flow period is dictated by experience and knowl- edge of conditions and generally should be longer for weaker blows. The final closed-in period usually should equal the second flow period. 5. Prior to interpretation, evaluate the accuracy of the pressure gauges by comparing their recorded pressures at several key points. 6. The hydrostatic pressure of liquid recovery should be calculated and compared with the final flow pressure. Conclusions 1. Regardless of the type of fluid recovery, most DST results may be interpreted with a reasonable degree of accuracy to help obtain reservoir pressure, average effec- tive permeability, productivity index, damage ratio, radius of investigation and absolute open-flow potential. 2. The calculated data are in relatively good agreement with data from other sources. 3. In addition to its contribution towards formation- evaluation and hydrodynamic studies, DST interpretation may be of considerable help in the well owner's design of stimulation treatments. Nomenclature b = t, + t, minutes 9 ' B = formation volume factor, reservoir bbIjSTB c = compressibility, psi- ' C = coefficient in back-pressure equation, McfjDj psi' D = gauge depth, ft DR = damage ratio, dimensionless h = net reservoir thickness, ft J = productivity index, BjD-psi k = permeability, md m = slope of pressure build-up plot, psi/cycle or psi2jcyc1e n = exponent in back-pressure equation, dimen- sionless p f = static reservoir pressure, psi TABLE l-DST PREDICTED GAS WELL PERfORMANCE COMPARED WITH POSTCOMPLETION PERfORMANCE, ASSUMED n = 0.8 q. Predicted Stimulation Final Stimulation Well Formation (MMeI/D) DR qA (MMcf/D) Treatment qA (MMcf/D) Effect _._--- White Rose Blairmore (55) 2.S0 1.42 13.68S 1,000gal acid 4.S0 1.22 Pembina 1126 H. B. Uno-Tex 03 (Is) 0.108 35.S 4.00 500gal acid 17.20 4.30 Wimborne 729 Zapata Mazy 11 23 Glauconitic (ss) 3.20 3.0 10.80 50gal acid 7.S0 0.70 Zapata Mazy 1727 Viking (ss) 1.10 12.0 2.29 14,000lb. sand frac 3.35 1.46 Pacific Bubbles Baldonnel (dol) 1.10 2.6 2.95 16,7S0'gal odd 7.40' 2.S0 ,d771 Pacific Jedney Baldonnel (dol) 1.41 1.7 12.68 4,250gal acid 3.50 1.31 d77J Pacific Jedney Halfway (ss) 1.25 6.3 9.07 40,000lb d77J sand frae 18.40 2.03 Pacific Jedney Halfway (ss) 1.79 1.6 3.03 36,600lb C86c .sand froc 7.70 2.S5 Dome Laprise Boldonnel (dol) 0.648 12.8 8.47 6,000'gal acid 13.20 1.56 Creek b2H Dome Laprise Baldonnel Creek a2SH (dol) 0.310 10.1 3.13 5,SOOgal acid 2.20 0.70 Dome Laprise BaldonneI (dol) 0.486 3.6 Creek a81H 18,SOOgal add 4.80 2.71 McCoy Dome Baldonnel (dol) 0.486 Bubbles ba62B 2.1 1.04 11,SOO'gal acid 4.80 4.61 Panalta Drum Glauconitic (ss) 2.50 4.1 11.S0 10,OOOlb heller 63 3S0lb AI. 39.00 3.39 pellet frae 'qA was 2.90 MMcf/D after 3,000'901 acid wash. 1962 1219 P. = flowing welIbore pressure, psi p = weighted average flowing weIlbore pressure, psi P. = weIIbore pressure at time B, psi 1+ B . h I' P,. = P. at -B-- = 10 on strmg t- me portion of build-up plot, psi PD = pressure drop across skin, psi q = production rate, STB/D or Mcf/D (14.65 psia and 60F) r. = stabilized radius of drainage, ft r, = radius of DST investigation, ft r w = weIIbore radius, ft R, = solution gas-oil ratio, Mcf/D /STB s = fluid saturation, fraction S = skin effect, dimensionless I, = first flow time, minutes I, = second flow time, minutes I = effective flow time (I, + 12, or (2 ), minutes T = temperature, OR Y = correction factor, dimensionless z = compressibility factor, dimensionless p.. = viscosity, cp cp = porosity, fraction B = time point during the closed-in period, min- utes B, = total time of initial closed-in period, minutes Subscripts A = absolute open-flow potential g = gas 0= oil I = total w = water (except for r.,) Acknowledgments The author wishes to express his appreciation to the various producing companies for permission to publish their weII data, and to Halliburton Oil WeII Cementing Co. Ltd. for permission to present and publish this paper. References 1. Black, W. M.: "A Review of Drill-Stem Testing Techniques and Analysis", Jour. Pet. 1'ech. (June, 1956) VIII, No.6, 21. 2. Olson, C. c.: "Subsurface Pressures Tell Story", World Oil (Feb., 1953). 3. Zak, A_ J., Jr. and Griffin, P., III: "Here's a Method for Evaluating DST Data", Oil and Gas Jour. (April, 1957). 4. Dolan, J. P., Einarsen, C. A. and Hill, G. A.: "Special Ap- plications of Drill-Stem Test Pressure Data", Trans., AIME (1957) 210, 318. 5. Ammann, C. B.: "Case Histories of Analyses of Characteris- tics of Reservoir Rock from Drill-Stem Tests", Jour. Pet. Tech. (May, 1960) XII, No.5, 27. 6. Horner, D. R.: "Pressure Build-Up in Wells", Proc . Third World Pet. Cong., Section II, E. 1. Brill, Leiden, Holland (1951) . 7. van Everdingen, A. F.: "The Skin Effect and Its Influence OIl the Productive Capacity of a Well", Trans., AIME (1953) 198, 171. 8. van Poollen, H. K.: "Status of Drill-Stem Testing Techniques and Analysis", Jour_ Pet. Tech. (April, 1961) 333. 9. Nisle, R. G.: "The Effect of a Short Term Shut-In on a Subsequent Pressure Build-Up Test on an Oil Well", Trans., AIME (1956) 207, 320. 10. Calhoun, J. c., Jr.: Fundamental's of Reservoir Engineering, 1220 U. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Okla. (1955). 11. Hurst, W., Haynie, O. K. and Walker, R. N.: "Some Prob- lems in Pressure Build-Up", Paper SPE 145 presented at 36th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE in Dallas (Oct. 8-11, 1961); also "New Concept Extends Pressure Build-Up Analysis", Pet_ Engr. (Aug., 1962) 34, No.9, 41. 12. Jenkins, R. and Aronofsky, J. S.: "Unsteady Radial Flow of Gas Through Porous Media", lour. Appl. Mech. (June, 1963) 20. 13. Aronofsky, J. S. and Jenkins, R.: "A Simplified Analysis of Unsteady Radial Gas Flow", Trans., AIME (1954) 201, 149. 14. Smith, R. V.: "Unsteady-State Gas Flow Into Gas Wells", Jour. Pet. Tech. (Nov., 1961) 1151. 15. Cullender, M. H.: "The Isochronal-Performance Method of Determining the Flow Characteristics of Gas Wells", Trans., AIME (1955) 204, 137. 16. Tek, M. R., Grove, M. L. and Poettmann, F. H.: "Method for Predicting the Back-Pressure Behavior of Low-Permeabil- ity Natural Gas Wells", Trans., AI ME (1957) 210, 302. 17. Poettmann, F. H. and Schilson, R. E.: "Calculation of the Stabilized Performance Coefficient of Low-Permeability Nat- ural Gas Wells", Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 240. 18. Perrine, R. L.: "Analysis of Pressure Build-Up Curves", Paper presented at meeting of Pacific Coast Dist. API, Div. of Production, Los Angeles, Calif. (May, 1956). 19. Grynberg, J.: "DST-Success or Failure?", Oil and Gas Jour. (June 22, 1959). APPENDIX A The effect of interrupting the total flow time during a DST with a short initial closed-in period may be accounted for by using a modified build-up equation: which is applied . (/2 + B) (I, + B, + I, + B) by plotting P. vs log -B- B, + I, + B . For normal DST time periods, this plot will be very closely . t + ~ + B apprmamated by a plot of P. vs log B In accordance with theory, both curves will converge to the same pressure as B approaches infinity_ However, h I . I' I, + t, + B . h t e p ot mvo vmg 0 wIII ave some curvature and a lesser slope in the region under consideration. This slope equals P, - PlO' The slope of the exact plot, m = P, - PlO (24) log (t2 + B) (t, + B, + t, + B)' B B, + I, + 0 t, + I. + 0 PlO occurs when B = 10, or Let Then B = t, + t, 9 . b = t, + I, 9 . In = P, - p" (25) log ~ + 1 ) (B i +- I;, + b= + 1 ) ( I, + t2 + ()) Thus, the slope of the plot of log B vs P. may be corrected by dividing by 10g( + 1) (B. + IL + b + 1 ). The correction is approximate since the inexact plot was assumed to have no curvature. No correction is necessary for DST accuracy unless t, approaches t,. JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHI'(OLOGY Fig. 4 illustrates the magnItude of error of the approxi- mate plot and shows application of the correction factor. APPENDIX B Use is made of the van Everdingen skin equation to calculate damage ratio. Eq. 13 of Ref. 7 may be expressed in field units as S = 1.1515 [Pi: P, - log (kf/cf>fLcrw') + 5.01] . (26) Parameters .p, .fL and c are usually unknown at the time of the immediate DST analysis. Assuming average values of .p = 0.15 and fLC = 0.955 X 10- 5 cp-psi'" then for the oil case the equation may be simplified and all approximate solution derived. While I'w is known, for simplicity assume it equals 0.333 ft, since actual variations would cause less error than probable deviations from the assumed cp, fL and c values. Then Sz 1.1515 [Pi; P -log (kot) - 1.80] (4) When S = 0, DR = 1.0. Let qo = qa', rno = rna' for undamaged system Oz -log (k"tJ -- 1.80] (27) 162.6 q.'fL"Bo Since rn,' = --,--:-- k"h q.' z koh (PI - p) (28) 162.6 fLoBo [log (kot) -+ 1.80] . Also, rnokoh qo = -j 62.6 J-LoB. ' DR = (PI - p) /111" _ qo log (kot) + 1.80 (5) The skin equation for gas, containing the Y function, becomes S + Y = -log (kgt/cf>fLPw') + 5.01J (29) Assuming C =_1_ psi", fLg = 0.02 cp, S", = 0.26, gas-filled PI .p = 0.15 (I -- 0.26) and r w = 0.333 ft, then S + Y z 1.1515' p/ - --log (k9tPi) + 1.40] L rnv . (11) Solving for damage ratio as before, (p/-p,')/rn g (12) log (k9tPi) - 1.40 + Y/1.1515 For multiphase flow, the skin equation may be handled as in the liquid case, with the substitution of total com- pressibility and total mobility. Assuming .p = 0.15 and r", = 0.333 ft, S z 1.1515[PI::' p - 10g( +-)( +) , + 3.23] (') 1 \
DR Z (PI - p)/rna IOg(+)( t - 3.23 (22) It is of value to know the pressure drop across the i'iOVEMBER, 1962 skin. By definition, for liquid and multi phase flow DR = Pi - P (30) Pi - (p + PD) Rearranging, PD = (PI - p) (DR - I) DR (6) For the gas case, pressure-squared introduced into Eq. 30, resulting in terms would be Pf) = [p/ (DR ;;R 1 ) + p,' 1'-- p, (13 ) APPENDIX C The transient drainage radius during the drill-stem test continually increases with flow time. Its maximum value is of interest since reservoir properties are being measured out to this extent. A radial drainage formula (Eq. 8 of Ref. 11) has been developed by an empirical correlation of known mathematical data, applicable to the constant- rate case with a fixed pressure at the exterior boundary. This equation can be applied to estimate the radius of investigation during the test, and can be expressed as r, Z 2.6408 -- ( kt )! .pfLc (31) Assuming the same values of cp, JL and C as in Appendix B, then (oil flow) (gas flow) (multiphase flow) r, z 4.63(k.t)!, r, z 0.125(kg tPI)t, r, z 0.0143 t (:Jr APPENDIX D (7) (14) (23) The equation describing the back-pressure performance of a gas well is expressed as qg = C(p/ - p,')" . (15) Since qg = qA when p, ,= 0, then qA = C (p/)" = q" [ ,Pt" ,]" Pi - p, (16) Assuming n varies from 1.0 to 0.5, then . q9Pi- maximum q" = -.,----:;. P/ - p,- (32) and (33) During the DST flow period, the performance coeffi- cient C may be somewhat higher than it would be for stabilized flow, particularly if the permeability were not very high. Thus, the flow potentials calculated by the afore-mentioned methods would likewise be higher than the actual stabilized values. Considering r, as the stabilized drainage radius and C as the stabilized performance coefficient, and r, the drain- age radius and C, the performance coefficient at time t, then by applying Eq. 5 of Ref. 17, C , (InrJrw)" C, = In r,/r". (34) 1221 Since stabilized C, q" = C. qA, then stabilized {[ P,' ] [In(r';r,,)]}" q" = q. p,' - p; In(r./r .. ) (17) DISCUSSION H. K. VAN POOLlEN MEMBER AIME L. F. Maier is to be commended on an excellent paper in which he ably updates and summarizes drill-stem test evaluation methods. In using some of the published works, the author oversimplified the concepts without further elaboration. The author of this discussion takes exception to the use of Eq. 17 as derived in Appendix D, using Eqs. 34 and 16. Maier refers to a paper by Poettmann and Schil- son 17 and, particularly, to Eq. 5 of that reference. He assumed that a = r.", which is an oversimplification. The "a" referred to by Poettmann and Schilson is the effective welibore radius. Because a is usually unknown, a much more elaborate relationship of absolute open flow to poten- tial at any time t was originally given. So Maier's short-cut is only valid if his r w, the actual wellbore radius, is equal to the effective well bore radius. MARATHON OIL CO. lITTLETON, COLO. In Table 1, Maier shows a comparison of predicted gas-well performance with post-completion performances. To obtain the predicted absolute flow, the author has made use of Eqs. 16 and 12, while assuming certain values for porosity and wellbore radius. Also, a value of n = 0.8 was assumed for the slope of the back-pressure curve. The difference between final measured open flow and the predicted open flow was accounted for by the stimulation treatment. Ratios given between measured and predicted open flows were called "stimulation effect". It could be quite possible that this effect is due to errors introduced while making the afore-mentioned assumptions. The discussor does not object to the use of simplifying assumptions for the purpose of field analyses of drill-stem tests. Nevertheless, the use of such assumptions should be clearly indicated. AUTHOR'S REPLY TO H. K. VAN POOLLEN In order to estimate open-flow potential from DST data, certain assumptions must be made; for example "n" was assumed equal to 0.8 in the calculated data of Table 1. You may consider a = r w an assumption which appears valid for this particular application from our experience in this area. The stimulation effect as used here is considered to be the effect of the stimulation treatment over and above that of removing the well bore damage. The effect of ignoring the possible range of variations in effective wellbore radius under normal DST conditions would be slight compared to the magnitUde of most of the damage-ratio factors 1222 which are used in calculating the stimulation effects of Table 1. The significance of Table 1 is that, even though the calculated stimulation effects are dependent on the validity of the single-point estimation of absolute open- flow potential as well as the approximate nature of the damage-ratio equation, the results are in reasonbly good agreement with expected productivity increases which are normal for the type and size of stimulation treatments used on the particular wells. *** EDITOR'S NOTE: A PICTURE AND BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF L. F. MAIER WERE PUBLISHED IN THE SEPT., 1962 ISSUE OF JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY. JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY