Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Critical Evaluation and Processing of Data

Before PressureĆTransient Analysis


Louis Mattar, SPE, Fekete Assocs. Inc.

Summary Theory vs. Practice


With the common use of highly sensitive electronic pressure record- The theory of pressure-transient analysis has become so sophisti-
ers and the widespread use of reservoir characterization by type-curve cated that, “In fact, practising engineers are reading about many
pressure-derivative techniques, preprocessing data has now become techniques and models for which there may never be examples of
an important prerequisite to pressure-transient analysis. In almost all actual data to fit.”1 Most of the analytical solutions available are
cases during a well test, the electronic pressure recorders measure a based on highly idealized assumptions of which the analyst is either
multitude of effects other than the intended reservoir pressure tran- unaware (because they are embedded deeply into some mathemati-
sients. For example, multiphase, geotidal, microseismic, changing cal procedure, for example, ignoring second order derivatives) or
liquid levels, recorder drift, recorder plugging, etc. can mask the res- has forgotten about (for example, constant compressibility). More-
ervoir transient. If not properly identified, these effects could easily over, many of the analysis procedures yield ambiguous answers and
be misinterpreted as reservoir characteristics, such as pressure deple- unless one is aware of all the possible answers, one easily arrives at
tion, boundaries, or dual porosity. The preprocessing of the digital the wrong interpretation. Some of the pitfalls in interpretation have
data, starting with the comparison of pressures from multiple record- been addressed by Ershaghi.1 Notwithstanding these comments, it
ers and ending with data filtration to remove the noise associated with is the domain of the researcher to tackle increasingly complex prob-
the signal, is a significant component of well-test interpretation and lems, while the responsibility of the practising engineer is to keep
is a prerequisite to pressure-transient analysis. up with these developments and apply them as appropriate.
From experience with thousands of well tests, we have chosen The more than 1,000 papers written on pressure-transient analy-
several examples to illustrate the need for preprocessing the data. sis deal primarily with reservoir complexities. There are very few
papers that treat the multitude of wellbore effects that are being ob-
The observed pressures must be corrected to remove the nonreser-
served with the use of the new generation of pressure recorders. The
voir effects before pressure-transient analysis is attempted. Often,
only two classical wellbore topics that have been addressed in any
diagnosis of the observed data can only be done with the help of in-
detail are those of wellbore storage2 and phase redistribution,3 and
formation other than the pressure trace.
even these are treated mostly from a theoretical perspective.
It is not the intent of this presentation to discredit the theoretical
Introduction process. To the contrary, the intent is to emphasize that the proper
During the 1980’s, two major developments took place in the field application of the theory must be based on reliable and relevant data.
of pressure-transient analysis. These were the (1) common use of It is not sufficient to combine abundant and extremely accurate pres-
very sensitive electronic pressure recorders and (2) sophisticated sure data with sophisticated and complex reservoir models and ex-
analytical solutions available at the analyst’s fingertips. pect the correct interpretation to emerge. This is because a signifi-
1. Some electronic recorder manufacturers claim a pressure resolu- cant amount of these very accurate pressure data that are being
tion of 1 part per million. This is equivalent to saying that pressure measured and recorded do not reflect reservoir phenomena at all,
changes of less than one hundredth of a psi are readily detectable with but are dominated by many effects which will be discussed in the
many of the “high-end” recorders. The reliability of these electronic Wellbore Dynamics section.
recorders has improved to the point where the chances of failure are
no greater than by using mechanical gauges. Some electronic gauges Wellbore Dynamics
have a surface read-out of the data, which makes the number of data The existing theory of pressure-transient analysis implicitly as-
points available virtually limitless (a reading every second if desired). sumes that the reservoir pressure can be measured directly. In real
Most “memory” gauges can record 20,000 and many 40,000 or more life, this is practically impossible to do because, in general, the re-
time/pressure/temperature data points. Compare this to the approxi- corder is located “somewhere” in a wellbore, not in the reservoir (as
mately 100 data points obtainable from mechanical gauges. Electron- is demanded by theory). The recorder is linked to the reservoir by
ic recorders present a plethora of tens of thousands of pressure data means of the wellbore and therefore, the pressures that are measured
with unprecedented resolution and at affordable costs. by the recorder are a combination of wellbore and reservoir effects.
2. Many sophisticated analytical and semianalytical solutions have Often the resulting response is dominated by the reservoir effects,
been developed for analyzing complex reservoir situations, such as and pressure-transient analysis can proceed along the lines dictated
multilayers, finite-conductivity hydraulic fracture with skin on the by the existing body of literature. In a large number of cases, howev-
fracture face, dual-porosity systems, horizontal wells, etc. er, the response observed on the recorders is dominated by wellbore
The dramatic increase in computer power has kept pace with, and effects. In such instances, pressure-transient analysis of this portion
often promoted, the development of these complex reservoir models. of the data is not valid and will lead to erroneous answers in both the
With the proliferation of personal computers, every well-test analyst identification of the reservoir model and the calculations of parame-
can have ready access to these sophisticated methods of analysis. ter values.
These two phenomena have synergized each other to the point The phenomena that occur at or near the wellbore have been
where many people think that the use of very accurate electronic termed “wellbore dynamics.”4 These include liquid influx/efflux;
gauges, coupled with complex modeling, can identify hitherto un- phase redistribution; wellbore and near wellbore cleanup; plugging;
definable reservoir characteristics. This drive towards complex recorder effects such as drift, hysteresis, malfunction, temperature
analysis has also been fueled by the trend in “advanced” reservoir sensitivity, and fluid PVT changes; gas/oil solution/liberation; ret-
engineering towards “reservoir characterization.” rograde condensation; leaks; geotidal/microseismic; and effects
with no obvious explanation.
Copyright 1996 Society of Petroleum Engineers This list of wellbore dynamics has been compiled from the au-
thor’s experience in “practical” well-test interpretation following
Original SPE manuscript received for review Nov. 4, 1992. Revised manuscript received April
9, 1996. Paper peer approved April 10, 1996. Paper (SPE 24729) first presented at the 1992
many years of specialization (more than 25,000 tests have been ana-
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Washington, DC. lyzed and supervised by the author and his colleagues).

120 SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996


Fig. 1—Schematic—liquid moving past recorders.

The detection of many of these wellbore dynamics has been made


possible by the advent of electronic recorders. These sometimes
minute effects that would have gone unnoticed in the past can now
be observed very clearly and are often misinterpreted as reservoir
events, rather than wellbore events. Some of these events can be
minimized by the use of downhole shut-in tests.
Because of these numerous wellbore dynamics that sensitive
electronic recorders have now made observable, it has become
imperative that the measured data be critically evaluated and pro-
cessed before pressure-transient analysis. This preprocessing is
necessary to validate the data before analysis. Once nonreservoir ef-
fects have been identified, they can either be filtered out, corrected,
or ignored, but they should never be interpreted as reservoir effects.
The cause of these wellbore dynamics is often not found easily, but
may be obtained from other sources, such as field notes during the
test, previous tests, discussions with the operator, comparison with
tubing or casing pressures, unreported gas or liquids production, etc.
A lot of this information is often not supplied at the same time, or
from the same source as the pressure data, and must be sought out,
usually with a lot of effort. Fig. 2—Falling liquid level—EFFLUX.
The following sections will illustrate some of the many wellbore
dynamics that are observed regularly during well testing. An ex- the liquid level moves down from RRD to MPP. After t2 , the liquid
planation for the observed effect will be given whenever possible. level is below MPP.
In a situation like this, the RRD pressure must be corrected to
Liquid Influx/Efflux MPP before it can be used for pressure-transient analysis. Before
A simple schematic can be used to show that the recorders do not time t1 , the correction is 100 m the liquid gradient (100 10
necessarily reflect the reservoir pressure. In Fig. 1, the reservoir +1000 kPa). After time t2 , the correction is 100 m gas gradient
pressure is shown by the line labeled mid-point of perforations (100 1+100 kPa). If these corrections are applied, the RRD pres-
(MPP). It is a straight line. On the same figure, the line labeled re- sures become equal to the MPP pressures, and what was a crooked
corder run depth (RRD) shows the pressure recorded at a point 100 pressure trace becomes a straight line and validly analyzable by
m above the MPP. Obviously, these two pressure traces look very pressure-transient analysis.
different, and the RRD pressure signature does not reflect the true Does this really happen, or is this an intellectual exercise? Experi-
reservoir pressure (MPP). The reason for this significant difference ence with thousands of well tests has shown that approximately
is very simply a change in liquid level in the wellbore. Before time three quarters of the wells flowing a mixture of gas and liquid exhib-
t1 , the liquid level was higher than the recorder. Between t1 and t2 , it this phenomenon. For example, many oil wells that flow oil (and

Fig. 3—Liquid level past recorder. Fig. 4—Liquid level past tandem recorders.

SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996 121


Fig. 6—Phase redistribution.

Fig. 5—Dual porosity or something else?


If this effect is not recognized as a wellbore phenomenon, it could
very easily be misinterpreted as a reservoir characteristic. Fig. 5
shows the type curve and derivative plot for a well with liquid efflux.
gas) to surface show no trace of oil in the wellbore after a 2-week This plot is very reminiscent of a dual porosity reservoir! Very often
shut-in. Similarly, many gas wells producing large quantities of wa- this phenomenon results in parallel semilog straight lines because
ter during flow will show a total absence of water in the wellbore af- the shift between the first and second line equals a constant (RRD—
ter a lengthy shut-in. MPP) times the change in fluid gradient.
Fig. 2 shows direct evidence of a falling liquid level measured ev-
ery 3 days in a shut-in oil well. Not only does this cause a changing
Phase Redistribution
wellbore storage effect, but it can also distort the recorded pressure
trace if the gas-liquid interface moves between the recorder run Phase redistribution is one of the few well-documented wellbore phe-
depth and the MPP. nomena.3–6 Slider5 gives a very clear explanation of the phenome-
There are many documented instances in which the reverse hap- non. It consists of gas and liquid movement inside the wellbore,
pens. A liquid that is not normally produced during a flow test in- which causes the pressure to rise quickly and significantly. If the pres-
fluxes into the wellbore during a shut-in. Indeed, a combination of sure rises above the surrounding reservoir pressure, it can cause the
influx and efflux most certainly takes place during a shut-in, and the well-known “humping effect.” This excess pressure is relieved by
wellbore is very dynamic. For example, if an oil well that produces discharging fluid from the wellbore into the reservoir. This phenome-
at 50% watercut is shut-in, theory predicts that afterflow will contin- non is very different from that of “liquid movement past recorders”
ue at approximately the same watercut. However, because gravity described in the preceding section. Two examples of phase redistribu-
segregation of the oil and water will take place, and we know that tion are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Notice that, in Fig. 7, the pressure at
efflux also takes place, the liquid content of the wellbore changes the top of the hump is much higher than the reservoir pressure.
from 50% oil towards 100% oil. Percolation of gas through a liquid column is also a form of phase
Figs. 3 and 4 show the effect of liquid moving past a recorder in redistribution. Fig. 8 shows two electronic recorders in which the
a gas well and an oil well, respectively. Fig. 4 shows the trace of tan- first 6 hours of shut-in are dominated by what we believe was gas
dem recorders, 2-m apart vertically. The top recorder (the lower bubbling/slugging/coalescing in an oil column.
curve on Fig. 4) sees the gas liquid interface at the 238 hour point
whereas the bottom recorder sees it at 265 hours (some 27 hours lat- Depletion? Or Wellbore Phenomena?
er). From these observations, one can calculate the rate of liquid ef- This section illustrates how a simple piece of information from a
flux. In Fig. 3, the change in pressure (approximately 300 kPa) cor- source other than the well test being analyzed can have a dramatic
responds to the difference between MPP and RRD times the effect on the results. Fig. 9 shows a test in which depletion is ob-
difference between water and gas gradient. Similarly, in Fig. 4 the served “clearly” during the test. Usually, this would indicate rela-
difference between the two traces reflects initially a liquid gradient tively small and uneconomic reserves, leading to abandonment of
and then, ultimately, a gas gradient. the zone. Typically, the recorder is left at the bottomhole for 24
hours to record the initial pressure before the flow is begun. It is ob-
vious from Fig. 9 that no matter how long this well is shut-in, it will

Fig. 7—Phase redistribution—large hump. Fig. 8—Phase redistribution—gas bubbling through oil?

122 SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996


Fig. 9—Depletion or something else? Fig. 10—Near-wellbore clean-up.

never return to the initially measured pressure. While the obvious over, it is a near-wellbore effect. In theoretical terms, it is the problem
conclusion is that depletion has occurred, there are other explana- of changing skin. In this example, the skin is becoming less positive.
tions for this “apparent” depletion that have nothing to do with the The reverse of this effect—the pressure falling much faster than
size of the reserves, but rather simple wellbore phenomena that will expected from pressure-transient analysis—also is often observed.
be described later. This effect can be caused by an increasing near-wellbore skin owing
The tubing and the recorder were landed below the perforations, to fines movement, coning, loss of proppant, etc.
and there were some completion fluids in the wellbore at the begin-
ning of the test. The true initial reservoir pressure is the pressure re- Plugging
corded during the first 24 hours less the hydrostatic head of the Figs. 11 and 12 show the pressure from two electronic recorders lo-
completion fluids (10 kPa/m). The well was then flowed and the gas cated at exactly the same depth in the well. Note that the pressures
blew out all the completion fluids. At the end of test, the wellbore track very well except for the last flow immediately before the last
gradient showed dry gas all the way to the recorder. This means that shut-in. On one recorder, the pressure is decreasing, on the other, it
the recorded pressure should be decreased by the gas gradient (1 is increasing! This misbehavior was traced to hydrate plugging at
kPa/m) to give the reservoir pressure, whereas the initial pressure the pressure sensing port of one of the recorders; one was an “inside”
had to be decreased by the liquid gradient of 10 kPa/m. Recognizing recorder and the other one was an “outside” recorder, and hydrate
that the recorded pressures are not necessarily the reservoir pressur- was occurring at the perforations of the recorder carrier. A similar
es saved this pool from being abandoned. problem has also been observed in oil wells where the culprit was
a wax plug.
NearĆWellbore Effects
Recorder Effects
Fig. 10 shows a well flowing at a constant rate. During the draw-
Electronic pressure recorders are sophisticated electronic instru-
down, the flowing pressure is increasing rather than decreasing. The ments. They are very sensitive and can be affected sometimes by
explanation for this behavior is that during the flow period, the well very unexpected events. For example, in both strain and quartz
was cleaning up. When a well is drilled and completed, there can be gauges, we have observed that sometimes something as simple as
significant invasion of fluids and particulates (planned or other- a change in sampling frequency can cause the pressure to change.
wise) into the reservoir. During flow, these invaders can be pro- Fig. 13 is such an example.
duced, usually resulting in an improved near-wellbore permeability. Usually in electronic recorders, both the pressure and the temper-
Even though this is not truly a wellbore phenomenon, it is included ature are measured. In some recorders, however, these two are not
in this presentation because it happens so frequently and affects measured simultaneously and we have observed (Fig. 14) a slope
pressure-transient analysis in the same way as wellbore effects. More- change in the pressures every time a temperature is sampled! These

Fig. 11—Response shown on Recorder 1. Fig. 12—Response shown on Recorder 2.

SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996 123


Fig. 13—Change in sampling frequency. Fig. 14—Effect of temperature sampling on the pressure data.

errors arise out of the internal voltage change and component tem- recorders in an observation well as part of a pulse test. Several ob-
peratures, as well as interpolation routines used with external cal- servations are in order.
ibration table. 1. One is a strain gauge and the other a quartz gauge, yet the re-
There are many causes for inconsistencies between recorders. sponses are identical in every detail. This is a glowing tribute to the
Some are related to wellbore hydraulics or known recorder charac- accuracies and resolutions of these two gauges.
teristics, such as resolution and drift. However, many others remain 2. The general declining trend does not correlate with the pulse
unexplained. An example is Fig. 15, which is Problem #4 from the test procedure and has to be attributed to external factors (such as
SPE Petroleum Showcase at the 1992 Petroleum Computer Confer- a declining regional aquifer pressure?).
ence in Houston. Whereas the two recorders track each other within 3. The observed spikes correspond in every detail between the
¼ of a psi throughout most of the test, there is an alarming difference two gauges. Therefore, these effects actually took place and are not
in the trend during the last 4 hours of shut-in. The bottom recorder gauge malfunctions.
pressure is increasing at a rate of 10 times that of the top recorder. 4. Some of the spikes are of the order of 60 kPa (10 psi) and are
The cause of this rather sudden change at 168 hours is undeter- orders of magnitude larger than the resolution of the two gauges.
mined.
Veneruso et al.8 have studied the performance of electronic
gauges using transfer functions. Some of the effects they discussed
were short term drift; long term drift; errors owing to temperature
gradient; noise; calibration and aging of tranducer; hysteresis owing
to temperature and pressure cycling; signal processing errors; and
adiabatic sensitivity. They also give some examples of comparative
gauge performance and discuss pressure gauge overshoot caused by
a step change in pressure.

External Factors
Other than transients imposed at the well during a test, there are
many external factors that affect the recorded pressure. The most
documented one is that of geotidal effects in which the rise and set
of the moon is observed in these very sensitive gauges. An example
is shown in Fig. 16. This is part of the buildup test in a high perme-
ability oil well. We have observed other cases in which the peak to Fig. 16—Geotidal effects.
trough magnitude of the geotidal effect was 1 psi (7 Kpa).
There are numerous cases, however, for which there is no known
explanation. Such an example is shown in Fig. 17, which shows two

Fig. 15—Different recorder trends. Fig. 17—Mysterious pressure effects.

124 SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996


Fig. 18A—Dual porosity.
Fig. 18B—Type curve/derivative.
5. At the 400 hour point, there is a major spike downwards. This
is not an instantaneous spike. There are over 100 data points moni-
toring the downward then upward pressure change that took place
over a period of 17 hours.
6. The causes of these external effects are unknown. It can only
be speculated at this time that these are micro-seismic or tectonic ef-
fects. However they could just as well be the effect of some farmer
operating his tractor near the wellhead.
7. This example is only one out of many cases in which mysteri-
ous effects are observed. Often the only thing that can be said about
them is “these effects are not caused by my test procedure.”

Detection of Anomalies
The easiest way for engineers to detect anomalous pressures is
graphical inspection. Electronic pressure recorders are one case
where you definitely need a graphical tool. A computer program
with a graphical user interface capable of comparing pressures, tem-
peratures, zooming-in on portions of the data (most of the anomalies
are not evident on the scale of plots supplied by the service compa- Fig. 18C—PPD
nies) is absolutely necessary. Often all that is needed is a detailed
graphical scrutiny of the data and the anomalies become obvious. caused by a reservoir’s well-test transient. This follows from the en-
Many times, the pressure irregularities are directly associated with gineering gut feeling that the largest effect will be observed first, and
temperature inconsistencies and so temperatures should also be the strength of the transient decreases with time. Figs. 18 and 19
graphically inspected. Quick-zooms, multicurve displays, easy-to- show synthetic data for two models—a dual porosity reservoir, and
use software, etc. are a must in this visual analysis, otherwise the a homogeneous reservoir with wellbore phase redistribution. Figs.
task becomes onerous and impractical. 18A and 19A show the strip chart. A simple visual inspection of Fig.
There are a few simple procedures that help detect anomalies. 19A shows the wellbore dynamics in action at 10 to 15 hours. Figs.
1. The difference between two recorders (after they have been 18B and 19B, which portray the derivative (semilog derivative), do
synchronized) should be constant. not demonstrate any shape difference in the derivative between the
2. The primary pressure derivative (PPD)7 should be monotoni- two effects. However, the PPD7 (dp/dt) shown in Figs. 18C and 19C
cally decreasing. This in effect says that in a pressure buildup, the clearly identifies the wellbore dynamics by the increasing PPD.
strip chart (graph of pressure vs. time on arithmetic coordinates) is 3. By its very nature, the reservoir acts as a filter for a signal. This
concave downwards at all times. Any upward concavity cannot be is confirmed by the behavior of the diffusivity equation. This means

Fig. 19A—Phase redistribution. Fig. 19B—Type curve/derivative.

SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996 125


Fig. 20—Expanded view of Fig. 15.
Fig. 19C—PPD.
sometimes this remedy can be worse than the disease. In the vicinity
that if any abrupt effect is noticed at the recorders, it is likely to be of abrupt changes, some of the smoothing algorithms can get out of
a result of wellbore dynamics and not a reservoir transient (which hand. Fig. 22 shows the raw data and the smoothed data supplied to
will be diffuse and smooth).
us by a service company. Their algorithm did a fine job of smoothing
the data everywhere except in the vicinity of the shut-in time. Many
Effect on PressureĆTransient Analysis smoothing algorithms work very well for most well-behaved data
Wellbore dynamics, if not recognized, can easily be misdiagnosed as but none work automatically for all the data. Smoothing of data in-
a reservoir effect, thus resulting in an incorrect interpretation. An ex- volves a lot of judgement and indeed forms part of the well-test in-
ample of this can be clearly seen from Fig. 19b, which shows the clas- terpretation process. It is only another step in a series of judgement
sic signature for a dual porosity reservoir. In reality, this is a homoge- calls. It is not sufficient to use purely statistical procedures for inter-
neous reservoir with wellbore dynamics (phase redistribution). preting practical well-test data. The use of the well-known “least
Very often the analysis of a drawdown test differs significantly squares” method for minimizing errors can sometimes lead to incor-
from the subsequent buildup analysis. This is not surprising when rect analysis. For example, Fig. 23 shows how a few erroneous, out-
one takes into consideration such wellbore dynamics as changing lying, data points can skew the “least squares fit” away from the true
skin, different wellbore storage during drawdown and buildup, gas observed trend.
going in or out of solution in the wellbore, etc. Some effects that have a periodicity can be filtered using Fourier
Fig. 20 shows a zoom of a portion of the SPE Problem 4 referred transform or similar procedures. In other instances, some people
to earlier. This erratic behavior is clearly a nonreservoir effect. Such
have developed equations or tables to calculate the geotidal effects
irregularities result in anomalous behavior on the derivative plot
and thus correct the pressure data accordingly. Often a simple loga-
seen in Fig. 21. Often parallel lines of unit slope on the derivative
plots are evident. These should in no way be interpreted as reservoir rithmically spaced sampling of the data results in sufficiently
heterogeneities. smoothed pressures for pressure-transient analysis. Many computer
When do these wellbore dynamics effects take place? One expects programs also have procedures for smoothing the derivatives. In the
them to occur very early in the test, and many of them do. When this end, it should be the analyst’s judgement that determines whether a
happens, the early time data may not be analyzable, but the reservoir particular procedure has achieved the desired smoothing.
characteristics can still be obtained from the late time data. However, Some oil companies are now aware of the inconsistencies be-
in many instances, the wellbore dynamics can last tens or hundreds tween gauges and the limitations of electronic recorders. They have
of hours. It is very natural to misinterpret these effects as reservoir issued Recorder Performance Requirements in which they detail the
characteristics, rather than the wellbore dynamics that they are. We quality of acceptable pressure data and some criteria that the record-
have documented cases similar to Fig. 4, where the liquid level move- ers must meet. For example, they are requesting plots showing the
ment past recorders is observed 400 hours into the buildup! difference between recorders, overlay plots of all recorders, ex-
Once some of these nonreservoir effects have been identified, ploded plots to show the resolution of each gauge, comparison of ap-
what does one do about them? They can be smoothed or filtered, but parent to specified resolution, calibration details, etc.

Fig. 21—Type curve/derivative of Fig. 15. Fig. 22—Erroneous smoothing.

126 SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996


6. Use the PPD or its visual equivalent (change in concavity on
the strip chart trace) to diagnose wellbore dynamics.
7. Insist on using a minimum of two recorders on every test, and
examine all the recorders used.

References
1. Ershaghi, I. and Woodbury, J.J., Example of Pitfalls in Well Test Analysis;
J. Pet. Tech., pp. 335–341, February 1985.
2. Agarwal, R.G., Al-Hussainy R., and Ramey, H.J., Jr., 1970, An Investiga-
tion of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: 1. Ana-
lytical Treatment; Soc. Pet. Eng. Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 279-290.
3. Fair, W.B., Jr., Pressure Buildup Analysis with Wellbore Phase Redis-
tribution Effects; Soc. Pet. Eng. Journal, pp. 259-270, April 1981.
4. Mattar, L. and Santo, M., How Wellbore Dynamics Affect Pressure Tran-
sient Analsyis; J. Can. Pet. Tech., pp. 32-40, February 1992.
5. Slider, H.C., Worldwide Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering
Methods; PennWell Books, pp. 209-211, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
6. Stegemeier, G.L. and Matthews, C.S., 1958, A Study of Anomalous Pres-
Fig. 23—Statistical vs. engineering interpretation. sure Build-up Behaviour; Trans., AIME, 213, pp. 43-50.
7. Mattar, L. and Zaoral, K., The Primary Pressure Derivative (PPD)—A
A minimum of two gauges must be used during a test. Some com- New Diagnostic Tool in Well-Test Interpretation; J. Can. Pet. Tech., pp.
panies will use three gauges on a routine basis. In some tests we have 63-70, April 1992.
8. Veneruso, A.F., Ehlig-Economides, C. and Petitjean, L., Pressure Gauge
even had ten gauges in the wellbore! There are many companies that Specification Considerations in Practical Well Testing; SPE 22752 pres-
run two gauges but only look at one. The author has known this to ented at the 66th Annual Technical Conference of the SPE, Dallas, Texas,
happen even for some very high-profile wells. October 1991.

Conclusions SI Metric Conversion Factors


Data processing has become a significant component of well-test in- ft 3.048* E*01 +m
terpretation and must be viewed as an integral part of the process. psi 6.894 757 E)00 +kPa
This processing must incorporate all relevant external information
*Conversion factor is exact. SPEFE
and involves its own level of judgement and interpretations. Data
filtration and reduction is an interpretive process and can affect the
results of the subsequent pressure-transient analysis. Louis Mattar is President of Fekete Assocs. Inc. He specializes in
1. Well-test interpretation is more than just pressure-transient wellĆtest analysis. He has been exposed to some 25,000 well
analysis. tests and has written 30 publlications, many of them relating
2. Wellbore dynamics are constantly at work in conjunction with and contrasting the practice of well testing to the published
reservoir transients. theory.
3. The wellbore configuration can affect the shape of the response
curve recorded on pressure recorders.
4. Insist on being supplied with the raw, not smoothed, data. If the
data needs to be smoothed, do it yourself, using your own judgement
and knowledge of pressure transient behavior, as well as wellbore
dynamics.
5. If it happens abruptly, it is not a reservoir effect.

SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1996 127

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen