Q SPE 50946 Numerical and Analytical Well Test Analysis: A Case History W. John Lee and John P. Spivey, SPE, S. A. Holeltch & Associates, Inc. ‘multilayer, multiphase reservoir. Some engineers believe that recent improvements in analytical models have made ‘mumerical modeling for well test interpretation all but ‘obsolete. Others believe just as strongly that sumerical ‘models should be used for routine well test interpretation. Still others believe that both tools are useful, and that a ‘combination of the two approaches provides the best general strategy for reservoir characterization. ‘This field case focuses on the Gas Research Institute (GRI) Staged Field Experiment (SFE) No. 2. This well was ‘hydraulically fractured. A variety of different analysis ‘techniques were applied in order to evaluate the consistency between reservoir and fracture properties estimated by the different methods of analysis. ‘Analysis methods applied to the flow and buildup tests performed on this well include type curve matching using analytical solutions, numerical modeling with single-phase, ‘multi-layer radial and Cartesian grids, and merical modeling with multiphase, multi-layer radial and Cartesian grids. The simpler models were able to match segments of the production ‘and pressure history; only the full multiphase, multilayer mode! was able to satisfactorily match the complete production and pressure history. ‘We have found that an approach combining analytical and ‘mumerical models has been the most successful strategy in our ‘work. As in this field case, analysis begins with the simple ‘models and proceeds through more complex models as ‘necessary to match the reservoir behavior in the desired detail 153 Introduction ‘At the May, 1998, SPE Pacific-Asia Forum on “Integrating. Well Testing and Reservoir Characterization,” there was an catire session devoted to use of numerical models in well est analysis. The reason for the session was that some engineers fool that, given the increasing sophistication of analytical models available in commercial software, we can obtain a reservoir description consistent with available data in most if not all cases. That is not the same as saying itis the “corect” reservoir description: that, we will never know becaute we will never have sufficient data. However, some feel that a sufficient analytical model can almost always be found. Other engineers believe that mmerical models are all we need today, and that we can use them to history match test data to obtain the reservoir description we desire. This camp believes implicitly that real reservoirs have complexities than ‘cannot be captured with the most comprebensive analytical models. Therefore, we should include in our model all the complexives of which we are aware, and proceed to adjust reservoir parameters until we match the dats, completely ‘bypassing the step of test interpretation with analytical ‘models. To still other engineers, a combination of the two approaches is of considerable value in certain situations with complex reservoir geometry or multiphase fluid flow. This paper discusses a case history in which the combination approach proved valuable. The case history summarized in this paper is an analysis of a hydraulically fractured, low- permeability gas reservoir. The analysis was done by Peter ‘Bastian and Jan Sherman and is summarized in reference 1 ‘and discussed in more detail in reference 2. I have selected this particular case history to illustrate how analytical and ‘mumerical methods can be combined because the case is typical of reservoir characterization needs in tight case formations; i¢., the formation characteristics in this example arise repeatedly in practice. ‘The Situation ‘The well characterized in this example was the Staged Field Experiment (SFE) Well No. 2, located in County, Texas. This well, drilled as part of the Tight Gas Sands program funded by the Gas Research Institute (GRD,2 W. J. LEE and J.P. SPIVEY SPESO0S \ was hydraulically faced in the lower Travis Peak formation. The fracture was modeled with a three- dimensional fracture propagation model, and it was of great interest in the research program to determine the consistency of fracture properties determined from fracture models and from post-fracture production and transient test analysis. In the lower Travis Peak formation in SFE No. 2, there ‘were two mini-fracs followed by two main fracture treatments totaling 331,000 gallons of el and 188,000 pounds of intermediate strength proppant. The Travis Peak formation is a massively thick, deltaic deposit composed of stacked channel belts and flood plain deposits. Multiple gas and water-bearing sands are present in the vertical sequence. ‘Thick shale beds are absent; thus, hydraulic fractures are expected to grow vertically. without comainment, placing numervus gas and water sands in communication with each other through the fracture and with te wellbore. ‘The properties of the multiple layers in the Travis Peak formation vary significantly. The layers tested in the SFE No. 2 produced fracture fluid followed by formation water ‘throughout ‘their flow histories; thus, two-phase, gas-water flow bad to be modeled. Further, the hydraulic fracture changed the geometry of the flow system near the wellbore ‘and altered the fluid distributions near the wellbore. By any ‘measure, tis is a complex flow situation. ‘Post-fracture production performance of the well is shown in Fig. 1. Notable on this figure are (1) gas breakthrough at about 22 days after the fracture treatment; (2) the beginning of bottom-hole pressure measurements after about 31 days; (3) shut-in of the well for a four-point test at sbout 41 days; (4) recovery of a water volume equal to the load volume in about 46 days, and (5) shut-in for a pressure buildup test after about 83 days. A 30-day shut-in period followed. Note that the ‘water production rate never dropped below about 100 STB/D, ‘even long after the load volume had been recovered. Searreacsanna, 0 ‘Note also a linear decline in pressure during the flow period, suggesting a flow regime similar to pseudo-steady- state and, and more importantly, a very limited reservoir. Performance Analysis Bastian and Sherman analyzed the production and test data ‘with successively more complex models. Fist, they attempred analysis with conventional type curves for hydraulically fractured wells in infinite-acting formations, which assume single-phase flow and a single-layer formation. Given the complexity of the situation, we might ask: Why bother? The answer is that a single phase and a single layer might dominate the test performance; we need to determine whether this is the ‘case and also determine fracture and formation properties that should be directionally correct. This philosophy is not unlike ‘that of using a tanktype material balance as a first step in a ‘complex multi-dimensional simulation. Frequently, much can be teamed. Fig. 2 shows the shape of the pressure and pressure erivative graphs. Plotting functions include normalized pscudo-pressures and radial equivalent shut-in times. Fig. 3 shows @ match with an infinie-conductivity type curve (Gncluding wellbore storage) and Fig. 4 shows a match with a finite-conductivity fractare type curve (but with high conductivity, so there was nothing new here except to provide ‘more confidence in the infinite conductivity curve match). ‘The result of these matches was a gus permeability of 0.0076 im and a fracture half-length of about 280 - 290 ft. (See Table | near the end of the paper.) The matches are good, end if the good match were our sole criterion, we could say that we hhave found an adequate reservoir description. However, the significant and varying water production rates, the delayed gas production rates, and the observed bottomhole flowing ‘pressures have to be consistent with the proper reservoir Gescription. Regardless of the type curve match, we must check consistency with other data, gett rem cen : 154‘nt Const Wats Sa 4— Finke conduetty facture snatysis of ‘ar pressure boi, Lower Tava Pak ca Numerical Modeling ‘Two types of gridding were used for numerical modeling, as ilustrted in Fig. 5. A two-dimensional radial model was ‘used for rapid screening of alternatives, and a three- ‘dimensional Cartesian model was used to model the expected flow geometry more rigorously. This approach is similar in principle to following tank-type material balance in a reservoir study with first « simplified one or two-dimensional model to identify major reservoir features, followed by a more rigorous (but more time-consuming) three-dimensional model. 155 NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL WELL TEST ANALYEIC: AGASE HISTORY 3 ‘TWO-DIMENSIONAL RADIAL MODEL (MODEL TYPE | AND It Layer 1 Fig. 5 Schematics of reservoir model geometries used In Travis. oak history matching. Bastian and Sherman noted that use of the radial model in history matching required transformation of fracture properties from a Cartesian coordinate system to a radial coordinate system, Details of the transformation are provided in reference 1. Variables compared in the history matching procedure ‘included (1) the post-facture cleanup period during which the well produced only water; (2) the time of initial gas ‘Production following the cleanup period; (3) the post-fracure ‘Production performance; and (4) the post-fracture buildup test. Bastian and Sherman wed several different combinations ‘of models in the process of obtaining a final history match. ‘They started with simple, single-phase models and proceeded ‘to more complex, multi-layer, two-phase models.‘4 W.J. LEE and JP. SPIVEY SPE sone Single-Phase Modeling Single-phase modeling was done first to provide initial estimates of reservoir and fracture properties. Both radial and Cartesian coordinate systems were employed numerous times. The primary limitation of this work, of course, was the analysts’ inability to model fracture fluid cleanup and gas breakthrough, Therefore, the history matching began at the start of gas breakthrough; water production before and after this time was ignored. Tike multi-layer system. Fig. 1 indicates an almost linear ecline in pressure during the flow period, similar to pseudo- steady-state flow. and characteristic of a limited system. The flow period and shut-in period pressures could not be matched simultaneously with a single-layer model of limited areal ‘extent. Fig. 6 shows a match of the drawdown pressures with 1 single-layer model; Fig. 7 shows an attempted match of the | ‘shut-in pressures, with the same reservoir description. The limited reservoir size used to match the flowing pressures also affects the calculated shut-in pressures and causes the shape of the graph of the simulated pressures to be different from that of the observed pressures. Fig. 6— History match of Lower Travis Peak drawdown pressures ting single-phase, single-layer areal mol - Example Match No. 156 Tie Bees Bate urs mgmt et Sera pec ae ae Figs. 8 and 9 show different matches of both data sets. The shape of the shut-in pressure graph is matched more closely. ‘In this case, reservoir permeability-thickness product ‘was reduced and reservoir size was increased to improve the shut-in pressure match — but the linear tread in flowing pressure dectine is not reproduced. Thus, there is a need for a reservoir description that bebaves somewhat like a limited system during the flow period and somewhat like a larger system during shut‘in. Single-layer, multi-phase flow systems failed to reproduce the observed reservoir performance characteristics, so subsequent modeling efforts included ‘multiple layers and multi-phase flow. ewig Stam Prema a 1NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL WELL TEST ANALYSIS: A CASE HISTORY 5 ‘roe rautont sT80 ‘Slcoecornn a Fig. 0 — History match of Lower Travie Pesk bulldup prosoures sig engl phase sigleayerarel mode —| ‘Example Match No. ‘Simulating Cleanup and Gas Breakthrough To sinmlate the long time to gas breakthrough, Bastian and Sherman used two techniques. The first was to place a region of increased water saturation around the fracture, with the amount equal to the net load volume remaining to be produced at the start of production. The second technique was to employ relative permeability hysteresis, using imbibition relative permeability curves constructed from the only laboratory data available, drainage relative permeability ‘curves. Residual gis saturation on the imbibition relative permeability curves was an important history-matching parameter. Multitayer, Multiphase Modeling ‘The history match was improved considerably with a two- layer reservoir description. One layer produced mostly gas and was limited in size. The second layer contained mobile ‘water and was essentially infinite acting. Both layers communicated with the wellbore and with each other through the hydraulic fracrure. Imporcanty, this reservoir description is consistent with the complex nature of the Travis Peak formation and with all known well and completion data. Of course, there are doubtless more than two layers that ‘contribute flow, but the field performance is at leat consistent with the simplified two-layer system. Figs. 10 and 11 present the history match ofthe flow and shut-in data with the radial model. The match captures many aspects of actual well performance, especially shut-in ‘pressures. Gas breakthrough time and water rates match wel. Flowing pressures are lower than observed, but follow the ‘correct trend, 157 ‘am tes et are 1 — Hor maton of tor Tavs Peak bul pressures (Shag twophaas mutiayr scsi mocet os NM ‘These results from the radial model are not the final match. The radial model has the advantage of speed; it allows relatively rapid examination of a umber of sltematives However, it does not capture the detail of flow near the well correctly. For this reason, a final three-dimensional Cartesian model was also developed. History matches are shown in Figs. 12 and 13. With the exception of flowing pressures, (rend is correct, although the pressures are low), this reservoir description leads to a match of the key characteristics of ‘observed well performance. ‘A summary of reservoir descriptions from conventions! analysis and reservoir simulation is given in Table 1.as Prteion a a ‘Scrreocton tm ee? W.J. LEE and J.P. SPIVEY ‘SPE 0048 Fig. 12 — History match of performance Lower Travie Peak production i. I Fig. 12 — History match of Lower Travie Peak bulldup pressures sing two-phase multlayer areal model. "TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF CONVENTIONAL ANALYSIS AND RESERVOIR SIMULATION RESULTS LOWER TRAVIS PEAK Siuulation History Matching Single-Phase ‘Two-Phase Single-Layer Two-Layer ‘Conventional Analysis ‘Cartesian Radial Caress Tafinite Finite Conductivity | Conductivity Fracture | Fracture Type Curve | TypeCuve | Caset_| Case? | avert | Laver? | tavert | Laver: Gas permeability, md 0.0076 0076 [0.012] 0.0070] 0.0014] 0.0019 | a.0014 | 0.0019 Net pay, a a 4 4 35 a 35 a Fracture hal-lengt, ft 289 280 160 160] 310 310} 300 300 ‘Oa porosity, % 45 45 29 20 29 20 Area, 26 24 160 WwW 40 26 160 Formation permeabitity, oor oos| 001] 0.08 nd ‘Water permeabiy, md 0.0003 02 | 0.0003] 0.02 Total porosity, % 45 49 45 49 Water saturation, % 35, oo 2» oo. 158SPE 2096 NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL WELL TEST ANALYSIS: A GASE HISTORY Discussion and Conclusions ‘Wo must ack: Is the match chown in Figs, 12 and 13 corrcot? In response, we say that the match is sufficient; it appears to be adequate for forecasting, and it is also consistent with the results of three-dimensional fracture modeling. In the longer term, the model might need to be modified to provide a match ‘of production after several months or years, perhaps caused by other layers becoming dominant. No dats available at the time of the match, though, indicated that the reservoir description is not adequate. The same cannot be said of the single-phase, single-layer matches; thus, the value of numerical modeling in this case. ‘But is the match unique? The short answer: no. Many possibilities were eliminated during the history-matching process; sill, there are other possibilities. For example, here is the possiblity that two layers are insufficient for a proper reservoir description that will lead to a “correct” 20-year forecast. ‘Was the match with the analytical solution helpful? Certainly. It provided a valuable starting point. Results in Table 1 show a remarkably (and perhaps coincidentally) accurate” fracture half-length estimate and order-of- smagnitude-comrect gas permeability estimate. This model cannot, however, lead to 2 useful forecast of future well performance. Multi-layer, multi-phase analytical models ‘could be expected to do better, but must allow different ‘drainage areas in different layers and different gas and water sanurations and relative permeablliy characteristics in the layers. Further, they must model fractures in some layers and cleanup of fractare fluids in case like the present one. References 1, Bastian, P. A. and Sherman, J. B.: “Analysis of Hydraulically Fracture, Low-Permeability Gas Reservoir Using, Numerical Simulation,” paper SPE 21511, presented at the SPE Gas ‘Technology Symposium, Hoosten, Texas, January 73-25, 1991 2, “Staged Field Experiment No. 2: Applicaton of Advanced Geological, Petophysical and Engineering. Technologies to Evaluate and Improve Gas Recovery from Low Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs ~ Vol. I.” CER Corporation and S. A. Holditch & Associates, Inc, April 1990, GRI Contract No. 5088-211-1682. 159