Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AIME PAPER

6200 North Central Expressway NUMBER SPE 3872


Dallas, Texas 75206

THIS IS A PRXPRINT --- SWJECT TO CORRECTION

Evaluation of a Gas Wel I Testing Method

By

W. John Lee, Humble Oil & Refining Co., Robert R. Harrell, Mobil Oil Co.,
and William D. McCain, Jr., Mississippi State U., Members AIME

@ Copyright 1972
American Institute of Mhbg,MetaUurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for the Northern Plains Section Regional Meeting of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, to be held in Omaha, Neb., Mq 18-19, 19T2. Permission to copy is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented.
Publication elsewhere after publication in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY or the SOCIETY OF
PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL is usually granted upon request to the Editor of the appropriate
journal provided agreement to give proper credit is made.

Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion should be sent to the
Society of Petroleum Engineers office. Such discussion may be presented at the above meeting
and, with the paper, may be considered for publication in one of the two SPE magazines.

ABSTRACT This paper reports the results of a study


which was performed to test the validity of the
In principle, drawdown teata provide data analysis technique proposed by Winestock and
that allow a complete characterization of a gas Colpitts. The study, which was based on a nu-
well. Unfortunately, rapid analysis of draw- merical simulation of the pressure-production
down test data is generally regarded as possible history of a gas well, showed that the analysis
only for the special case in which production technique of Winestock and Colpitts is indeed
rate is maintained strictly constant for the valid for pressure drawdown data obtained with
duration of the drawdown test. In many tests, smoothly varying production rates.
constant production rates are either inconven-
~~~a~~~ i~p~~~ihle CO ~.~~~t~in; analyais of data INTRODUCTION
from such tests has been thought to require the
tedious use of superposition, which, as a prac- To completely characterize a gas well, a
tical matter, means that a computer must be used testing program should provide an estimate of
to perform the necessary arithmetic. reservoir permeability-thickness product, infor-
mation about t-heextent of well ciamag~,iilfOYm=-
Actually, a technique for analyzing vari- tion leading to estimates of the possible effect
able-rate drawdown test data easily and rapidly of stimulation, and deliverability. Unfortunate
has been in the literature since 1965. This ly, conventional gas well testing methods do not
method, proposed by Winestock and Colpitts, is provide all this information. For example, the
virtually as rapid as conventional techniques most common method is the Back-Pressure Testl.
used to analyze constant-rate drawdown tests; This test has two major weaknesses: First, this
and it provides estimates of formation permea- test, at best, provides only deliverability es-
bility-thickness product, skin factor, and tur- timatea, and gives none of the other information
bulence effects. Knowledge of these parameters needed to completely characterize a gas well.
allows more accurate predictions of current and Second, the apparent deliverability detrmined
future deliverability of a tested well than are from this type test is often not the true de-
usually possible with conventional back pressure liverability
tests or isochronal tests.
A second conventional method of testing gas
References and illustrations at end of paper wells, the Isochronal Method2, offers the pOe.Si-
2 UVA711ATTnNnw
nvmulla..v..
“. 4A ~J.~ ~.~~ TESTING METHOD SPE 3872

bility of better deliverability estimates than included in the equation. Further, the equatior
the back-pressure test, but this method also pro contains a turbulence constant, B, which charac-
vides little additional information about the terizes the degree of turbulent or non-darcy
well. flow near the wellbore.

A third method of testing gas wells uses Equation (1) is the basis for the conven-
pressure drawdown tests3. These tests CSI’I pro- tional analysis of a drawdown test: It suggests
vide estimates of permeability-thickness product that if we plot pwf2 vs. the logarithm of time,
and extent of well damage, in addition to deliv- a etraight line should result, and the slope of
erability estimates. Unfortunately, drawdown the line should be related to permeability-thicl
tests must be run at strictly constant rate if ness product. Unfortunately, use of this equa-
the drawdown data are analyzed in the usual way. tion to model a pressure drawdown test requires
‘il
...._
BVeLL m~~~ ...lGnvt matolv
w..”..,..-.--, $ ~oIM~~n~ rate drawdown the drawdown test to be run at an absolutely COY
tests are inconvenient and, at times, virtually stant rate. Winestock and Coipitts~ anaiysis
impossible to perform. One can always use super showed that if the rate varies during a drawdovn
position in analysis attempts, but superposition test by even a few percent, eq. (1) does an ex-
requires tedious arithmetic, and as a practical tremely poor job of modeling the test.
matter, forces much of the arithmetic required
in analysie to be performed on a computer. Winestock and Colpitts suggest that the COI
ventional pressure drawdown equation for tran-
In an attempt to fill this gap in gas well sient flow in a gas well be rearranged as fol-
testing technology, Winestock and Colpitts4 in lows :
1965 proposed a technique for analyzing variable
rate drawdown tests. They claim that their me- rl
thod offers all the information theoretically Pe2 - Pwf2 - @tj2
possible with the drawdown test, and in additior =
qg(t)
they claim that the test data are easily ana-
lyzed.
1
+2s * . . (2

-)
The testing program which Winestock and ● ●

Colpitts recommended is as follows:

1. Run a drawdown test with a constant or


fixed choke. In general, production rate
Notice in the rearrangement that the only
will decrease slowly during this step. Re-
variable on the right hand side is time. Wine-
cord pressure and rate data throughout the stock and Colpitts claim that the rearranged
test. form of the equation can be used to model a
drawdown test in a gas reservoir with a varying
2* Shut-in the well and let reservoir pressure
flow rate if the rate varies smoothly. It is
return to a uniform value. Record pressure
not necessary that the total variation be small
data during this period; this will, Of
it is necessary only that the variation be
course, provide pressure buildup data.
smooth. The equation in this form suggests thai
if the entire group on the left hand side of tht
3. Run another drawdown test with a different
equation is plotted versus the logarithm of timt
fixed choke.
a straight line should result with a slope re-
lated to the permeability-thickness product.
Let us examine the reasoning behind this
proposed testing program. First, consider the
To demonstrate the importance of their mo-
equation which is commonly used to model tran-
dified drawdown analysis method, Winestock and
sient flow in a gas reservoir:
Colpitts presented a field example in their
paper. Figure 1 shows data from the test plot-
Pe2 - Pwf2 = ted as suggested by eq. (l). During this test,
the flow rate decreased by about 30 percent.
Note that two distinct straight-line se~ents
~ zTq (t) appear on the graph. The estimates of permeabi
712 ~

{1” [-l+2g lity-thickness product made from the slopes of


these two straight lines are 39 md-ft and 118
md-ft. Taken literally, this means the permea-

L1
bility-thickness product changed from one re-
+Bq(t)2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(1)
gion of the reservoir to another.

On the other hand, if the same data are


Note that the equation includes the skin factor, plotted using the method suggested by Eq. (2),
S; thus, a characterization of the degree of a far different answer is found. Figure 2 show
damage or stimulation around the tested weii is
----- . . . .- .. ---- .+- .
iPE 3872 W. JOHN LEE, ROBERT R. HARREL and WILLIAM D, McGAIN, JK. 3

this analysis. Permeability-thickness product bility-thickness product, kh; the p=-= at


appears uniform throughout the entire tested in- the drainage radius, Pe; and the extent of dam-
terval, about 11 md-ft. age or stimulation, reflected by the skin factor
s. With this information, one can estimate how
This example shows that serious errors can much pressure drawdown is due to low permeabili-
be made using conventional drawdown test ana- ty, how much is due to wellbore damage and how
lysis methods if Winestock and Colpitts’ ana- much is due to non-darcy flow as reflected in
lysis procedure really does give the true per- the Bq 2 term. Knowledge of the contribution
- L-.
1-.
A..
-&L...-.
meaiJll*LY Tr.. ..Vn??,,o+
cllluwe~~ p.uu-&L. made by each of these to deliverability prob-
lems can often suggest a cure -- or suggest that
Before we discuss our evaluation of the no stimulation treatment can possibly be effec-
Winestock and Colpitts Method, let us complete tive enough to be economical.
the discussion of the results that are obtained
from the testing program suggested by Winestock The fact that the stabilized delti{erabilit~
and Colpitts. ~qQ2ticw can be found from data obtained in the
testing program suggested by Winestock and Col-
From this program , all the parameters that pitts is interesting, but its practical utility
are needed to characterize a tested weii can be ~ep2cd~ vi~a~~y CG whether or not the drawdown
estimated; these parameters are then included in test analysis method proposed by Winestock and
a stabilized deliverability equation. This eq- Colpitts is really a sound method. Mckinley6
.
uation, which completely characterizes the gas has pointed out that the Duhamel variable rate
well, was given sound theoretical basis by integral can be integrated directly by parts to
Houpeurt5. give

~e2 . ~wf2 . At)=


+ ‘t

. . ...*

This equation relates flow rate, or deliv-


erability, q , to flowing bottom-hole pressure,
. . . . (3)

+*J L

AFJ(t T) $# d’r. . . . . . . (4:

pwf, so it ii a de2ivembiZitg equation. It is o


independent of time--so it is a stabilized de-
liverability equation. where

The pressure at the drainage radiuS:hPe, Ap(t) = pressure drawdown at time t in vari-
~r~
and the permeability-t”hickness product, roll, =kl~ rate test
u..-
found from an analysis of the buildup and draw-
down tests, and the skin factor, S, is found AP(t) ‘ pressure drawdown caused by productio

from the drawdown tests. Equations used to cal- at unit rate
culate these quantities are summarized in Appen-
dix A. q(t) = ~$n ;~s~ime t in variable rate draw-

Equation (3) assumes a well centered in a


circular drainage area of radius, re. As a ‘(())= rate at time t=o in variable rate
practical matter, the equation adequately de- drawdown test
scribes a well reasonably centered in its drain-
age area; such as a well in a field with uniform The Winestock-Colpitts Method would be exact
spacing. The equation does not describe a one- only if the integral on the right hand side of
well reservoir of irregular shape nor does it Eq. (4) were zero, as it would be in the specia
apply to any well which is highly off-center in case of constant flow rate for which @/dT
its drainage area, such as a well near a sealing equals zero. The method is approximately cor-
fault, even if the field is developed on regular rect only when
spacing.

Note that this approach in testing gas


wells not only gives the deliverability but also
gives the other information needed to properly
characterize the well. This information in- o
cludes reservoir properties, notably permea-
4 EVALUATION OF A GAS WELL TESTING METHOD SPE 3872

is negligible when compared to the simulated variable rate drawdown tests vs.
the logarithm of flowing time, t. Note that
o ● AP(t) “Pi” is used instead of “pe”; in our simulated
qt
++ — tests of “new” reservoirs the quantities are
identical. Now if the Winestock and Colpitts
and there clearly must be some magnitude of rate method is valid, a straight line should appear ox
change with time beyond which the Winestock and such a plot, and the slope of this line should
:olpitts method will “overcorrect” drawdown data. properly reflect formation permeability-thickness
k evaluation of the drawdown test analysis pro- product used in the calculations. Further, the
cedure is thus required before we accept its total drawdown in pressure at any time should
validity. agree with that predicted by the equation

METHODOF ATTACK pi2 - pwf2 - ‘[q (t)]2


=

The method of attack used in our evaluation qc(t)


of the Winestock and Colpitts method was as fol-
lows: First, the differential equation which de-
scribes unsteady-state flow of gas in a reservoir
was solved numerically, utilizin a modified form
of the Crank-Nicholson technique 5 . For simpli-
city, gas viscosity and Z-factor were assumed to This test for validity was made for all the var-
be independent of pressure. Equations and boun- iable rate drawdown tests simulated.
dary conditions are summarized in Appendix B.
For computational work, equations were re-
The numerical solution was tested in two duced to non-dimensional form, and results were
ways before it was used to evaluate the Winestock generated in terms of non-dimensional variables.
and Colpitts method. First, results from the These variables include
program for constant rate production were com-
nared with other theoretical work in the litera-
~---- kpit
ture8; agreement was excellent. Second, results dimensionless time, td = 0.00026flL12
from the program with constant rate production gw
were compared with the results of calculations
made with the equation dimensionless sand-face flowing pressure,

~i2 - ~wf2 .
Pwd = Pw/Pi

dimensionless drainage radius, red = re/rw

dimensionless rate, qd = 1424p-zTqg/khp,2


& .
. ..*OO . (5)

and the agreement was again found to be excellent dimensionless normalized plotting function,
Note that gas compressibility, Cg, has been re- fd ‘ (1 - pwd2 “dqd2)/qd
placed by I/pi in the logarithm term.

The numerical scheme was then used to simu-


late drawdown tests conducted at declining rates. where B =
For drawdown tests conducted with fixed chokes, (~)(l$I;T)2
the Winestock and Colpitts paper suggests that
rate declines can be approximated with equations
of the form qg(t] = ~ - b l@j{@C), where ?i,~, .,.
results
Au pres~lltsd i~!thliSpsper ‘were
and C are constants. This is the only form of calculated for red = 1000. Dimensionless time
rate decline investigated in this study. range was such that computations ceased at a tim~
near the time at which reservoir boundaries
With the exception of a few cases, skin should begin to affect the drawdown data; i.e.,
factor, S, and turbulence constant, B, were zero t = 0.06’5red2. Thus , all results reported
in our systematic study of variable rate drawdowr d .max
tests. This results in no loss of generality, in-this paper are for “infinite-acting” reser-
since both the quantities affect only pressure at voirs.
the wellbore; i.e., they do not influence distri-
In terms of non-dimensional variables, the
bution in the formation.
stabilized absolute open flow otential of a gas
well from Eq. (3) with B[qg(t)!2 negligible is
The test for the validity of the Winestock
and Colpitts method was as follows: We plotted 1
(Pi2- Pwf2 - ‘[qg(t)12)/qg(t) as calculated from ‘ . (7)
d,AOF ‘~,(r=~) - 0.5 + S “ “ “ “ ●
In this evaluation we let the rate, qd, at Further, for S = 0, the VdJe of fd at ‘d =

td ~ax be 10, 25, 50, and 75 percent of the 24,400 should be 5.45 frOmW. (8); the computed
‘d =
value from the simulated drawdown test was 5.53,
absolut~ open flow to check whether the magnitud
which is excellent agreement.
of the rate affected validity of the Winestock-
Colpitts method. The rate was allowed to declin
Figure 4 shows results from another simu-
from a high starting value to its final value in
lated drawdown test, but with S = 1.0and
the following way: Dimensionless rateY qdY varie
B’ = 1000. At td= 62,500, the rate, Cld,was
with dimensionless time, td, according to the
0.0609, and the rate was declining at 10 percent
-., cycle.
equation qd = a - b log(t+-O.l). Note that or Cn%s Eiid r~te over nsrh Iogio
-..-..
t ~ , ~~~ = 62,500 for rde = 1000; thus the constan
In this simulated test, pwd2 does not Plot
0.1 in the logarithm above is completely negli-
as a straight line against td; in fact, over the
gible for all but earliest times. The constant
“b” was chosen such that the decline in rate, wa range of times plotted, Pwd 2 is increasing dur-
O, 10, 25, 50, 75, 100, and 200 percent of the
ing the drawdown test. The cause of the increas(
f<nal rate per loglo cycle, and the constant “a”
, -..ql.* L.+ desired in sand-face pressure is the decrease in rate --
was cnoSeilsu~l~ ~,,=.~ ~e121~ ~~ve the
.--,~mtifim=l analysis would predict a
d note tY1atG“LLJ=...AU----
final value at td =td max. This variation in rat’ meaningless “negative” permeability if applied tf
- ,-. -..- s a test such as this.
of change or r~ow ra~e ..-- d...6..~-
-o~m-.A to ~he~k hOW
w~~

rate of change affected validity of the method--


Once again, fd plots as a straight line
as McKinley6 suggested, there must be a rate of
change so large that the approximation used by against t~ and the slope of this line iS 1.15.
Winestock and Colpitts does not hold.
Further, ~he computed value of ‘d at t = 24,400
d
was 15.49 in the simulated drawdown test; from
RESULTS Eq. (8), the value of fd is predicted to be 15.4s

Figure 3 shows results of a typical simu- Figure 5 shows the effect of the magnitude
lated drawdown test from our investigation. The of rate decline on the nomalized drawdown test
plot is in terms of dimensionless variables: The plotting method. Curves are shown for constant
nomalized plotting function, fd, sand-face pres- rate, rate declining at 50 percent of the final
rate (at td = td max = 62,500), rate declining at
sure squared, pwd2, and rate, qd, against dimen- s
100 percent , and-rate declining at 200 percent.
sionless time, td. For this particular test,
At each rate decline magnitude, final rate mag-
skin factor, S, and turbulence constant, B, were nitudes from 10 percent to 75 percent of the ab-
zero. At td = td max = 62,500, the rate, Cld,wa solute open flow rate were used; and this final
rate magnitude proved to have almost no effect
25 percent of abs~lute open flow, or qd(tmax) ‘
of fd.
0.0390. Rate was declining at 25 percent of thi
finai rate over eackt IOgIo cycle; e.g.$ st The slope and position of the line for con-
td = 6250, qd = 1.25(0.0390) = 0.0488 and at stant rate agrees exactly with the predictions
of Eq. (8); for rate declining at 50 percent per
= 625, qd = 1.5(0.0390) = 0.0585.
‘d cycle, the slope ia still essentially correct,
but the line is shifted upward somewhat. This
Note that pwd2 does not plot as a straight
means that a small error would result in esti-
line against td; thus, in this case, it is not mating skin factor from such data. For rate de-
clining at 200 percent per cycle, the data for
possible to estimate the permeability-thickness
t > 104 deviate noticeably from the desired
product from the plot of pwd2 vs. td. Note, how
s1!raight line, but even here, the Slcwe at earl-
; eht ~~~-e
ever, that fd does plot ss a straAa... ier times, and thus permeability estimates, are
of acceptable accuracy. In any event, results
against td; further, the slope of this line is
for larger magnitudes of decline in rate are pro-
1.15, which is preciseiy the slope thzt shculd b bahIY of more academic than practical value -- if
observed if Winestock and Colpitts method were should usually be possibly to keep rate changes
exact, as shown by writing Eq. (2) in dimension- within the 50 percent decline rate curve, and for
less form: this decline, normalizeddrawdown test piotting
appears to be of high accuracy.

fd= 1.151 ~og(td) +0.351’ +s. . . . . (8


J
,L lC,O!.LINW L7LIJJ.lLUU
SPE 3872
6 EVALUATION OF A GAS w T ““@~’”” -~unn

. Cullender, M. H.: “The Isochronal Perfor-


ONCLUSION mance Method of Determining the Flow
Characteristics of Gas Wells,” Trans.,
From this study, we conclude that for the AIME (1955) 204, 137-142.
ypes of rate declines most likely to be en-
countered in practice, qg= a-b ln(t+c), and . Carter, R. D., Miller, S. C., Jr., and
or the magnitudes of rate changes most likely Riley, H. G.: “Determination of Stabilized
o be encountered, the Winestock and Colpitts Gas Well Performance from Short Flow Tests,’
lethod of analyzing gas well drawdown tests Journal of Petrolezm TeohnoZogy (June,
,eades to acceptable estimates of reservoir 1963) 651-658.
md well properties.
. Winestock, A. G. and Colpitts, G. P.: “Ad-
vances in Estimating Gas Well Deliverabil-
[NOMENCLATURE ity,” The Journal of Canadian Petrolewn
Technology (1965) VO1. 4, 111-119*
B= turbulence constant,(psia2/MSCF/D)
Bd = (B/pi2)(khpi2/1424~gzT)2 = dimensionless ,. Houpeurt, A.: “Sur l’Ecoulement des Gas dan~
. ..-l_..l___ -- ,.?...-+--+ 3- -117..-4..4..4
LULUULCILGC LULL=L-LIL ies Miiieux l?oreux,” fievue
‘--’-’-w ~“~ns~-~wti
c gas compressibility, vollvollpsi Fp~.cajs ~U PetroZe (December, 1959) Xl_Va
~: :
(1 - Pwd2 - Bdqd2)/qd = dimensionless 1959.
normalized plotting function
h= formation thickness, ft ). McKinley, R. M., personal communication
k= formation permeability, md
m= slope of gas-well drawdown plot, 1. Camaham, B., Luther, H. A., and Wilkes,
psia21cycle J. O.: AppZied htunericaZ Methods, John
pd = P/Pi = dimensionless pressure
Wiley & Sons, Inc. , New York (1969)
Pe = external boundary pressure, psia 440-451.
pi = uniform reservoir pressure to drawdown
test , psia 3. Bruce, G. H., Peaceman~ D. w.> and Rachford
pwd = ~/Pi = dimensionless sand-face flowing H. H.: “calculations of Unsteady-State Gas
pressure F1OW Through Porous Media,” TPcmsactions,
ad,uc = dimensionless sand-face flowing pressure AIME (1953), 298, 79-92.
uncorrected for skin effect and turbu-
lence 1. Ramey, H. J.: “Non-Darcy Flow and Wellbore
Pwf = flowing-bottom hole pressure, psia Storage Effects in Pressure Buildup and
qd . 1424MgzTqg/khpi 2 = dimensionless rate
Drawdown of Gas Wells,” Jou~az Ofpetrozeu
qg = gas production rate, MSCF/D
Technology (l?ebruary,1965) 223-233.
qg,f = gas production rate just prior to shut-
in, MSCF/D 10. Miller, C. C., Dyes, A. B., and Hutchinson,
rd = rjrw = dimensionless radius
C. A., Jr.: “The Estimation of Permeability
‘e = external boundary radius, ft and Reservoir Pressure from Bottom-Hole
red = rejrw = dimensionless drainage radius Pressure Buildup Characteristics,” Trans-
rw = well radius, ft actions, AIME (1950) 189, 91-104.
s= skin factor, dimensionless
s’ = apparent skin factor calculated fron co] 11. Matthews, C. S. and Russell, D. G.: Pressur
ventional buildup test analysis, Bui_hiup and FZm Tests in WeZZs, Monograph
dimensionless Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
T= re~~rv~ir ternnerature:
=—__——. “R m–ll.— T ~~e
uauas, Texas (~9~~) L,
t= time, days
td . 0.000264 kPit/$pgrw2 = dimensionless
12. Craft, B. C. and Hawkins, M. H.: Applied
time PetroZeum Reservoir Engineering, prentice-
z. gas-law compressibility factor, dimen-
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J., (1959)
sionless 288.
!-lg= gas viscosity, cp
. reservoir porosity? fraction .,-.mm..T.T..
nrrnlAuLAA

Summary of Analysis Procedure


REFERENCES for Testing Program

1. Manual of Back PPessures Testing of Gas The analysis procedure for the buildup and
Wells, Interstate Oil Compact Commission,
drawdown tests closely follows the procedure
Oklahoma City (1962). suggested by Carter, Miller, and Riley3 for con-
stant rate drawdown tests.
SPE 3872 W. JOHN LEE, ROBERT R. HARRELL. and WILLIAM D. McCAIN, JR. 7

We first calculate the turbulence constant, khBq f


,
B. It is obtained from simultaneous solution of s ‘=s+ .**. .(A-4)
Eq. (2) applied to each of the drawdown tests. 1424PgZT “ “ “ “ “
The explicit express for B is
where q = finai fiow just Prior t~ ~bL’dt=in9
g,f
Mscf/D.

Static drainage area pressure, ~, deter-


B=
mined a buildup test, is related to pressure,
Pe, at the well’s drainage radius by the eq-
uation
. . . . . . ● ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ (A-1)
356P zTq f
In this equation, the subscript 1 refers to the
first drawdown test and the subscript 2 to the Pe*-F*= +”*” ““*” ”(A-:
second drawdown test. Flowing bottom-hole pres-
sures and instantaneous flow rates are chosen
elapsed time in both tests. Data
after the scm’?e This is a modification of Eq. (6.28) given by
obtained after wellbore unloading has ceased Craft and Hawkins.12
and before boundary effectsl” appear must be
used in Eq. (A-1). In summary, methods exist to calculate B,
kh, S, and pe ; these quantities can then be
e.,.. p~g~ ~~e cjrawdowndata as
we then used in the stabilized deliverability equation,
Pe*-Pwf 2-B[q (t)]* Eq. (3).
vs. log t as in Fig. 2; kh
qg(t)
is est~mated from the slope, m, of this plot APPENDIX B

kb.- m
. . . . . . . . , ●(A-2) Details of Mathematical Analysis

This appendix describes the mathematical


kh may also be estimated from the buildup test, development of the numerical simulation of the
and an average value of kh from the two draw- gas well and gives the procedure used to solve
down tests and the buildup test used in sub- the equations.
sequent calculations.
The differential equation describing the
The skin factor S is calculated next from radial, unsteady-state flow of a gas with con-
a rearrangement of Eq. (2): stant Z-factor is

{pe*-Pwf2 - B[q , (t)*]]_ kh


s=
ay+l sp*_
1424 qg(t)ugzT a~2
r ar

/0.014 kt \
-~ln . . . . . . ..** (A-3)
[\+Bgcgrw* ,I

Values of pwf and qg(t) used in this eq- This equation was solved with the initial and
uation must be at a time, t, at which wellbore boundary conditions
storage effects have ceased and boundary effect:
have not yet appeared.
p=piforallratt=o. . . . . . ..(B-2
Skin factor can also be calculated from a
buildup test, of course, but one must be cau-
tious: The equation ordinarily used to calculate qg = Oor~=Oatr=refort>O . ..(B-3
skin factor for a buildup test assumes 6 ~ ~;
the relationship between the apparent skin fac-
tor~ S’, as calculated from.? buildup test and qe0. = q,(t) Orqg(t) =* ~
the true skin factor, S, isiL ii
atr= rwfort>O . . . . . . . . . . . .(B-4
8 EVALUATION OF A GAS 1 .L TESTING METHOD SPE 387

In terms of non-dimensional variables, and aftel and


.L. -..l.
cf-.i+.,
+inn
A”..~v = ~n(rd)$ the differential
LLLCVU”DI-*LU.
equation and the initial and boundary conditions - 4(p$)M+n+~
‘pd2)M-2,n+l
become

+ 3bd2)M,n+l=0, ,0 . . . .. O.. .(B-ll


a2pd2 e2Y apd2
—= — —0 ● **0* ● ., (n–c\
\u—>)
3Y2
Pd atd The backward difference equation is only first-
order accurate in Atd, so solutions to the
system (B-9), (B-1O), (B-n) were used as a
Pd = forallyattd= O..... (B-6) first approximation to the second-order accurat
Crank-Nickolson-type equation

apd2
—= O aty = ln(re/rw) for t>O . . (B-7)
ay
L

apd2 + )i+l,n
(Pd2)i-1 n-2(~d2)i,n+(pd2
—=qdaty=Ofort>O . . . . . (B-8)
(AY)2
ay 1

Eq. (B-5) is non-linear; its solution was ap-


e2(i-l)Ay /(P
d
2)i ~+1-(PA2)i
. ~1
.
=
proximated by first GsiGg 2 bad-ward differel?ce ‘1 . (B-12
At
equation of the form ‘pdji,n+l/2 \ d 1“

(Pd2)i_ln+l - 2(pd2)i n+~+(pd2)i+~n+~ For the quantity (pd)i n+l,2 we used the ap-
proximation 9
(AY)2

=
~2(i-l)Ay
(pd2)in+~- (pd2)in (pd)i,n+~/2 = ~ (pd)’~,n+~+ (Pd)i,n
[ 1
(pd)i,n Atd . . ...0 .* (B-1:
‘)

. (B-9)
(pd)’i,n+~ is our first approximation to
● ✎ ✎✎✎☛ .0.0
where

(Pd)ian+l from the backward difference equatior


where .
The result of solving the Crank-Nicholson-type
Ay = grid spacing in Y - direction equation the first time we call (pd)”i n+l. W(
,
Atd = time increment spacing
j= grid-point index in Y - direction,
chosen such that y = (j-l)AY,
i=l *****S M L
(pd)i,n+~/2 = ~ (pd)’’~,n+~+ (Pd)i,n
J
time level index . . . . . . ● ✎ (B-11
;: value of grid-point index, i, at the
drainage radius.
and repeat this iterative process until the
Tb&eb~~~p.d~rycQn______
dition~ were approximated by average deviation between iterates
the following equations, second-order accurate
in Ay: k
(pd)::+~ and (Pd)i,n~l is less than 1X10-5

In summary, we simulated the pressure dra~


down behavior of a gas well; i.e., calculated
Pd as a function of td, in the following way:
I
‘(qd)n+l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(B-lc
SPE 3872 W. JOHN LEE, ROBERT R. HARRELL, and WILLIAM D. McCAIN, JR. 9
1
1. Choose Atd and calculate new total elapsed above is independent of the values of the s-kin
time, td. factor, S, and turbulence constant, B. Thus, a
corrected dimensionless sand-face pressure,
2. Estimate (p ~)’i n+l from solution of the
Pwd, which includes turbulence and skin effect
system of equati~ns (B-9), (B-1O), and must be calculated from the equation
(B-n) .
3. Improve the estimate of (Pd)i n+l with so-
9 pwd2 . pwd , UC2 . ‘qd - 13dqd2 . . . . .(B-15)
lution of the system of equations (B-1O),
(B-11)3 and (B-12), and continue to improve
this estimate until the changes between Note that this approach treats skin and tur-
successive estimates is negligibly small. bulence as affecting pressure in a zone of zero
thickness at the sand-face. Once pwd is cal-
The new value of pd of most interest is culated, dimensionless normalized plotting func-
that at the sand-face. The uncorrected value, tion, fd, is calculated and plotted against
PwtiUc, calculated using the scheme described log td.
9

I I I I I I I I I I /
I I I

20 50 100 200
TIME (hours)
I 1/ kh(convontionol) 39 ~ 118md. ft.
I

10 20 50 I 00 200
TIME (hours)

Fig. 2 - Normalized method of


analyzing drawdown data.4

I-

d---
z-

R
0
i=
v
z
?

DIMENSIONLESS TIME, td

Fig. 3 - Simulatedpressure drawdown test for


,w,e~~
.W*!.,’,
...l+L
-- .b:w ~ff=~~ ~~ +I,mh,.1
.,” -m&L,
-mr.a “u. “WA G.. GG .
/“ o q(j
I
+

2
N.
.0
103 10’ 10=
DIMENSIONLESS TIME, td

Fig. 4 - Simulated pressure drawdown test


‘for well with s ~ 10 and Bd = 1,000.
z-
Q
~1-
Z
i?
~

oCONSTANT RATE
VDECLINING RATE:50 PERCENT/CYCLE
A DECLINING RATE: 100 PERCENT/CYCLE
—IJDECLINING RATE:200pE RcENT/cycLE

I ! 1!11 I I ! II I I I Ii
1(32
.- 1(33 I 04 105
‘DIMENSI(JNLESSTIME, td -

Fig. 5 - Effect of magnitude of rate decline on normalized drawdown


test plot for well with no skin effect or turbulence.