Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
WELLBORE STORAGE:
HOW IT AFFECTS PRESSURE BUILDUP AND PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TESTS
ABSTRACT
Pressure buildup and drawdown tests, including drill stem tests, are
frequently used to estimate formation characteristics such as permeability
and wellbore damage. Unfortunately, differences between sandface and sur-
face flow rates during the initial part of these tests cause serious discrep-
ancies, called wellbore storage effects, which cause serious interpretation
problems. Difficulties arise for two main reasons: (1) wellbore storage
effects in a buildup or drawdown test delay or prevent the appearance of the
ideal straight line region on a plot of test data--and the slope of this line,
which is related to formation permeability, is the key to proper analysis
of the test. (2) “False” straight lines appear in plots of the data distorted
by wellbore storage. If the analyst attempts to estimate formation perme-
ability from the slope of a “false” straight line, serious error can result.
This paper presents techniques which allow the test analyst to dis-
tinguish between “false” straight lines caused by wellbore storage effects,
and straight lines which truly reflect formation permeability.
INTRODUCTION
-1-
SPWLA TWELFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, MAY 2-5, 1971
PWs
‘1 s ope m = 162.6 @
\ //
,/”’”
‘y
I I
10 1 100 10
t+At
(—)
At
k = 162.6 # (2)
Further analysis 2 shows that we can use the data obtained during a
buildup test to characterize the extent of damage or the degree of stim-
ulation by calculating the skin factor, s, with the equation
P’
S = 1.151 [( ‘S; pwf) - log (-) + 3.23] (3)
w
where p$s is the pressure at any shut-in time At’. The pressure p+s must
lie on the straight line whose slope is related to formation permeability
by eq. (2). Frequently, At’ is arbitrarily chosen to be 1 hour and p’ws is
The most important implication of our discussion to this
~~~~~e~spk~;~ If Homer’s ideal theory is obeyed, all data from the bufld-
up test should lie on a straight line if we plot the data as suggested by
his theory; if part of the data deviates from a straight line, then the
ideal theory does not describe this portion of the test. In practice when
we run a pressure buildup test and, armed with the ideal theory, plot the
data as suggested by Homer we usually observe a non-linear curve over at
least part of the time range (Fig. 2). Logical questions are: Why don’t
we see an exactly straight line in practice? In what ways is the real
reservoir different from the ideal reservoir which was assumed by Homer
in his analysis? Complete answers to these questions are quite complicated,
but one important consideration is this: Homer’s analysis assumes that the
flow at the sandface ceases immediately when a well is shut in for a pressure
buildup test. If flow at the sandface does not cease immediately, then we
SPWLA TWELFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, MAY 2-5,
c #.e-- P*
B
f
Pw
,oo~
t+At
(-)
At
have no right to expect the ideal theory to apply. In practice, wells are
ordinarily shut in at the surface and flow continues into the wellbore for
some time. The additional fluid entering the wellbore compresses the liquid
and gas that were present in the wellbore at shut-in. This continued pro-
duction in a buildup test is called “afterflow”.
This equation suggests the flowing pressure at the sandface, pwf, be plotted
against the logarithm of flowing time, t; a straight line should result (in
the ideal case) with slope, m = 162.6 qpB/kh (Fig. 3). An assumption in this
equation is that the well started flowing at a constant rate at zero time and
0.1 1 10 1
t-4
Fig. 3. Plot of drawdown test as sug-
gested by theory.
!
Pwf
c
I i
0.1 1 10 1
t~
t (5)
aft =
Pv Clw
t = 2X105 + (6)
aft
(7)
SPWLA TWELFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, MAY 2-5, 1971
keh
JR= ‘B (8)
P - Pwf = 141.2p[ln(re/rw)-0.5]
from which
keh
—= 141.2[ln(re/rw)-0.5]JR = 1000JR (9)
u
Eq. (9) was developed assuming ln(re/rw) = 7.6; deviations from this value
by more than 20 percent are rare. The equation can be used for either an
oil well or gas well with satisfactory accuracy. Note that for both oil
and gas wells JR must be expressed in reservoir barrels per day per psi--
unusual units for a gas well.
The permeability, ke, in eq. (8) is not the same as the permeability,
k, ineqs. (l)-(7). ke is greatly influenced by damage or stimulation near
the well; k is formation permeability away from the well. Thus, we alter
eqs. (5)-(7) when we replace k by kc--but this alteration proves beneficial.
In terms of productivity index, JR, the equation for a gas well be-
comes
A
t = 5.25x103 ~ (12)
aft
‘RPIw
Eq. (13) shows that flow efficiency should be greater than unity for a
stimulated well and less than unity for a damaged well. We frequently find
that a “false” straight line from the afterflow-dominated region will lead
to an apparent flow efficiency of 2 or greater for damaged wells. Such an
inconsistency is a reliable indicator that the wrong straight line has been
chosen.
5.25x103Awb
— (5.25X10 S)(2.18X10-2) = ~ , ~r
t
aft =
‘Rplw (3.21x10-1)(5x101) “
I
/
4600. .
If
------—-
4200. -
~z-
Table 1
Data for Example Buildup Test Analysis
4 = 0.039
c = 1.7x10-5psi-l
P = 0.8cp
rw = 0.198 ft
A = 0.0218 ft2 (2-inch I.D. tubing)
wb
~ = 250 STB/D
B. = 1.136 RB/STB
Plw = 50 lb/ft3
-9-
SPWLA TWELFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, MAY 2-5, 1971
than 1920 (i.e., shut-in time, At, less than 7.1 hr) are probably distorted
by afterflow; pressures at values of (t+At)/At less than 1920 are probably
free from the effects of afterflow. Thus, according to this test, the final
straight line is the most likely candidate for estimating formation proper-
ties. A significant assumption remains: If we estimate formation permeability
from the slope of the final straight line, we must assume that boundary effects
have not yet appeared in this buildup test. One final note on this technique:
One should by no means expect such remarkable agreement between calculated
values of taft and the beginning the “true” straight line in all cases.
m = 157 psi/cycle
(1.626x102 )(2.5x102)(0.8)(1.136) = s ~1 md
k = 162.6$= .
(1.57x102)(6.9x101)
From the buildup test plot, we read p~s = 3620 psi at At’ = 1 hr, or
(t+At)/At = 13631. Then
s = 1.151
(P;s - Pwf)
m-
~)
10g ‘$ucr~
+3.23
1
3.23
)+
[
= 1.151 (+-109
= -5.10
[
(
(3.41)(1)
(3.9x10-2)(0 .8)(1.7x10-5)(3 .92x10-2) 1
Then
p*-pwf-0.87ms
= 4284-3534-(0.87)(157)(-5.10) = , ~
E= .
P*-Pwf 4284-3534
Similar calculations show that apparent values of E are 2.2 for the second
straight line and 0.631 for the final straight line. Since E must be less
SPWLA TWELFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, MAY 2-5, 1
than one for a damaged well, and since the tested well is believed to be
damaged, only the third straight line leads to physically reasonable re-
sults.
Table 2
Sunmary of Results of Example Buildup Test Analysis
!
PWs
1000 100 10 1
(*)
Fig. 6. Buildup test with afterflow
dominating early times.
SPWLA TWELFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, MAY 2-5, 1971
CONCLUSIONS
NOMENCLATURE
‘Wb = Area
area
of wellbore containing fluid (area of tubing if packed off;
of tubing plus annulus if not packed off), ft2
P’
Ws = Pressure on ideal straight line of pressure buildup test, psi
r = Wellbore radius, ft
w
s = Skin factor, dimensionless
+ = Porosity, fraction
REFERENCES
11. Matthews, C. S.: “Analysis of Pressure Build-Up and Flow Test Data”,
J, pet. l’~~h. (Sept. 1961) 862-870.
SPWLA TWELFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, MAY 2-5, 19
W. John Lee
-15-