Characterization of Complex Reservoir Boundaries and GIIP of Ultra

Tight Naturally Fractured Carbonate Gas Condensate Reservoir using

Pressure/Rate Transient Analysis
Sadam Hussain, Shahnawaz Soomro, University of Oklahoma

Abstract

Ultra-Tight Fractured carbonate reservoirs (UTFCR) are the most geologically complex and heterogeneous
reservoirs in the World. In order to develop the UTFCR, reservoir dynamics and boundaries must be
characterized. The modern techniques such as pressure and rate transient analysis can be performed to
characterize the UTFCR. The objective of this study is to interpret pressure buildup tests, characterize the
boundaries of the reservoir, and evaluate the gas initial in-place (GIIP) and the well spacing for the field
development using pressure/rate transient analysis of a naturally fractured carbonate gas condensate
reservoir. The X-field is in Upper Indus Basin in Pakistan.
The well test simulator has been used to interpret three pressure buildup tests and characterize the
boundaries of the reservoir with different wellbore, reservoir, and boundaries models. The production
history (gas, condensate, water, and WHFP) of two years and six months was synchronized with the
pressure buildup tests. Actual reservoir rock and fluid properties were used in the interpretation. The
flowing wellhead pressure was converted into bottom-hole flowing pressure (BHFP) using a wellbore
steady state simulator. The rate transient analysis was performed to match the production history and BHFP
with different wellbore, reservoir, and boundary models. The characterization of complex boundaries with
respect to GIIP and drainage area was performed for field development. Sensitivity analysis was also
performed to evaluate the uncertain parameters and their impact on the deliverables.
During analytical interpretation of pressure buildup tests and production analysis, different reservoir and
boundary models were matched with the data. It was observed that wellbore storage dynamics were
improved during second and third pressure build tests (PBU) whereas permeability decreased from 3.6 md
to 2 md from first PBU to third PBU. The decrease in permeability may be due to reservoir compaction and
healing of natural fractures. In addition to this, due to improved wellbore dynamics, reservoir system also
changed from dual porosity to homogeneous single porosity system. The complexity of reservoir
boundaries was also recognized as reservoir initially behaved as closed system but at very late time of
pressure transient analysis showed increase in flow capacity. Also, multi-linear composite model matched
with all PBUs showed that reservoir is producing from multiple composites having different permeabilities
(mobilities) and porosities (diffusivities). It can also be concluded from pressure transient analysis that
facies far away from the well are improving. On top of that, the rate transient analysis matched with dual
porosity closed reservoir system. The Gas initial in-place (GIIP) ranged in between 38-43 BSCF and
drainage radius ranged in between 2 – 2.30km.
This study will help in matching pressure buildup tests and production analysis of ultra-tight over-pressured
naturally fractured carbonate gas condensate reservoir. It will also help in quantifying the uncertain
parameters such as natural fracture half-length, dynamics of wellbore storage, and rapid changes in the flow
behavior of the flow/no-flow boundaries.
Introduction

Ultra-Tight fractured carbonate reservoirs (UTFCR) are the trickiest and challenging reservoirs to
understand and characterize the fluid flow in different mediums. It is necessary to understand the fluid flow
mechanisms in these reservoirs to delineate reservoir boundaries, to evaluate Oil/Gas In-place, and to
predict reservoir performance accurately.
The natural fractures are the planar discontinuities within the formation caused by rock deformation and
diagenesis (Nelson, 2001). Nelson et, al. (2001) identified four types of naturally fractured reservoirs:

• Type I: Fractures provide all the reservoir storage capacity and permeability
• Type II: Matrix has negligible permeability but contains most of the HC. Fractures provide the
essential permeability.
• Type III: The matrix already has good permeability and fractures add to this resulting in very high
flow rates.
• Type IV: Fractures are filled with minerals, acting as barrier to fluid flow and make reservoir
anisotropic.
Most of the UTFCR in northern Pakistan fall into the type I reservoir category where natural fractures are
main source of porosity and permeability with very low matrix porosity (Asad Ilyas, 2011)
The most challenging feature of these reservoirs is to identify flow/no-flow (Faults, composites, and
constant pressure, etc.) boundaries that are not interpreted by the high-quality seismic data. In addition to
these, the geo/over-pressurization is another feature that makes them tougher to examine the initial
production period due to rapid drop in both the pressure and the production. The extensive research has
been conducted to understand the flow behavior and boundaries in these reservoirs (Roberto Aguilera,
1989). Pressure/Rate transient analysis has showed promising results in characterizing these reservoirs and
has received attention.
In addition, the change in the wellbore storage has high impact on reservoir system, boundary type, and
distance. In many cases, the early wellbore storage is masked by the fracture linear flow (finite conductivity)
in the NFRs, like hydraulically fractured wells (Djebbar Tiab, 2007, Roberto Aguilera, 1989, and Cinco-
Ley 1988). This behavior is often evident after an acid stimulation in these reservoirs and as matter of fact
that natural fractures near wellbore connects with the pervasive fractures network. The behavior of a
hydraulic fractured well during early time flow is shown in Figure-1, where similar on log-log plot is shown
in Figure-2:

Fig. 1 - Linear Flow in a hydraulic fracture (Ref: Kappa DDA)

 Fig. 2 - Early time behavior of a hydraulic fractured well on log-log plot (Ref: Kappa DDA)

In order to quality check the pressure buildup before well test interpretation, the primary pressure derivative
(PPD) should be used to distinguish between wellbore and reservoir effects (L. Matter, 1992). The main
objective of PPD was to recognize the wellbore influences within a pressure response. Few examples of
wellbore effects are given below:

• Phase redistribution due to liquid influx

• Gauge malfunction
• Wellbore cleanup operations
• Geo-tidal or seismic effects
The PPD is defined as follows:
𝑑(Δ𝑝)
𝑃𝑃𝐷 =
𝑑(Δ𝑡)
Pressure transient analysis of naturally fractured reservoirs considers the use of dual porosity reservoir
models. Warren and Root (1963) developed dual porosity models assuming that the reservoir is no more
homogenous but is composed of high storage, low permeable matrix and high permeable, low storage
fissure system. The flow from reservoir is through matrix to fractures and then to the wellbore rather than
direct fluid flow from matrix as in homogenous reservoirs. The two parameters described earlier, ω and λ
governs the flow behavior in these reservoirs and influence the shape of the diagnostic plot.
(𝑉∅𝐶𝑡)𝑓 𝑘𝑚 𝛼
𝜔 = (𝑉∅𝐶𝑡) 𝜆 = 𝑟𝑤 2
𝑓 +(𝑉∅𝐶𝑡)𝑚 𝑘𝑓

In the above equation, 𝛼 is related to the geometry of the fracture network. If ω = 0: no fracture and ω = 1
porosity due to fractures. Also, if λ ≥ 10-3 shows good connectivity between matrix and fracture whereas λ
≤ 10-7 shows poor connectivity between matrix and fracture.
The model developed by Warren and Root included two flow regimes: 1) matrix to matrix flow and 2)
fracture to fracture flow. This model has one skin component that is skin at fracture face.
As the well is put on to production, the initial flow of fluid is from the fissures due to the pressure drop and
subsequently most of the fluid is withdrawn from the fractures. Further pressure drop affects the fluids to
come out of the matrix body and flow into the fractures to ultimately produced through the wellbore as
shown in the Figure-3.
 Fig. 3 – Dual porosity reservoir system (Ref: Kappa DDA)

The response of dual porosity system is on a semi-log plot is represented by a set of parallel straight lines
as shown in the Figure-4.

Fig. 4 – Semi log plot of dual porosity reservoir system (Ref: Fekete Reference Material)

The first straight line on the semi-log plot represents the early time and indicate fluid flow from fissure
system and thus the permeability evaluated from this is fracture permeability. The total system response is
reflected in the second straight line as the fluid is delivered by the fractures from matrix to the wellbore.
When reservoir is type III as defined by Nelson et, al. both the matrix and fracture contribute into production
and reservoir system is known as Dual-Permeability system. In this case, matrix has relatively better
permeability and connectivity between matrix and fracture good. Even though, two permeability systems
are present, there is a huge contrast between the permeabilities of both systems. This model was first
presented by Warren and Root (1963) and later modified by Chen (1989). This model is also valid when
multiple layers with different porosities and permeabilities are producing at the same time. The main
assumption of this model was that matrix to fracture is always in pseudo-steady state conditions. The key
parameters in this model are ω, λ, and Kappa. Kappa is defined as the ratio of the permeability-thickness
product of one system to the total system. The dual-permeability reservoir system is shown in the Figure-
5. The log-log response of dual-permeability reservoirs is shown in Figure-6.
 (𝑘ℎ)1
𝛫=
(𝑘ℎ)1 + (𝑘ℎ)2

Fig. 5 – Dual-Permeability reservoir system (Ref: Kappa DDA)

Fig. 6 – Response of dual-permeability reservoir in log-log plot (Ref: Kappa DDA)

The UTFCRs are geologically heterogeneous and structurally complex due to rapid changes in facies and
deformation. The characterization and delineation of boundaries is the most challenging task in these
reservoirs. In order to better understand and predict future performance of the reservoir, the boundary type
must be known.
The multi-linear composite model is a newly developed boundary model that can model the mobility change
in the lateral direction (Kappa DDA, 2020). The most common cases where one can observe a change in
mobility are:

• Compartmentalization
• Facies Changes
• Actual changes in reservoir characteristics (k, Φ)
This model simulates the behavior of a well producing from a reservoir made up of multiple rectangular
compartments, with each compartment characterized by its mobility (M) and diffusivity (D) ratios and the
connection between compartments characterized by a leakage factor. The well may be located anywhere in
any of the compartments and all outer boundaries are assumed to be sealing except for the extreme left and
extreme right boundaries that can be open, sealing or kept at constant pressure.
The model implicitly assumes that linear flow conditions dominate at the end of each reservoir segment
away from the well. In other words, flow is assumed to be linear in all compartments, with a radial
correction in the vicinity of the well. Therefore, large vertical restrictions or expansions (e.g., two
consecutive reservoirs with a high contrast in height) cannot in theory be correctly simulated by this model.
The multi-linear composite model is shown in Figure-7.

Fig. 7 – Multi-Linear Composite reservoir boundary model (Ref: Kappa Saphir)

Methodology

The proposed methodology in this study is based on a commercial well test simulator. This study involves
two parts:
1. Pressure Transient Analysis
2. Rate Transient Analysis
The flow chart of each part is given in Figure-8 and 9:

Fig. 8 – Flow chart of pressure transient analysis methodology

 Fig. 9 – Flow chart of rate transient analysis methodology

The proposed methodology is an iterative process. In order to get good match with pressure buildup and
production history, different parameters such as changes in wellbore dynamics, fracture half-length,
reservoir permeability, reservoir system, boundary type, and related features.
Case Study

The X-field was discovered in Upper Indus Basin (Potwar Plateau) Pakistan in September 2017. The
exploratory well X-1 has been producing gas condensate from low porosity carbonate packages of
Eocene/Paleocene age since October 2017. The basin oilfields map is shown in the Figure-10. The basin is
geologically complex due to nearby main boundary thrust (MBT). The production profile of the well is
given in the Figure-11.

Fig. 10 – Potwar Plateau oilfields map

 Fig. 11 – Production history profile of well X-1
Data Available

The following data was available and used as input for pressure/rate transient analysis:

• Daily Production history (gas, condensate, water, and wellhead flowing pressure) for 2 years and 6
months.
• Three pressure buildup tests
• PVT, rock properties, and top depth map of the formation
• Converted bottom-hole flowing pressure for production analysis
• Production logs
• Completion Schematic
The rock properties such as total porosity and water saturation were derived from open hole well logs and
net producing thickness was based on production logs. Other parameters such as formation compressibility,
dew point pressure, and estimated initial reservoir pressure are given in Table-1:

Parameter Value Unit

Avg. Porosity 2.5 – 3.0 %
h (net thickness) 28.5 ft
Avg. Sw 25 – 45 %
Formation Compressibility 4.4e-7 1/psi
Dew point Pressure 7,301 Psi
Initial reservoir pressure 15,500 psi
Table 1 – Rock and Fluid properties

Pressure Transient Analysis

Three pressure buildup tests were conducted in the well. The durations of the tests are given below:

• 1st pressure buildup = 34 hours

• 2nd pressure buildup = 90 hours
• 3rd pressure buildup = 100 hours
The comparison of all pressure buildup tests in the log-log plot and PPD quality check of all pressure
buildup tests is shown in the Figure-12.
 1st PBU

2nd PBU 3rd PBU

Fig. 12 – Combined log-log plot of all PBUs and log-log plot with PPD of each PBU

It can be observed after comparing all the pressure buildup tests (PBU) that wellbore dynamics have
improved in the second and third PBU whereas permeability has decreased in the second and third PBU.
The PPD showed no evidence of wellbore effects during all PBU that means all PBUs contain high quality
reservoir information.
First Pressure Buildup Test

The first pressure buildup test was conducted in March 2019. The well remained shut-in for PBU for 34
hours after producing at ~8.5 MMSCFD Gas, 795 BPD Condensate, and 483 BPD water for 6.35 hours.
Different reservoir and boundary models were matched with first PBU and results of different models are
shown in Figure-13, 14, and 15, respectively. The summary of results is shown in Table-2.

Fig. 13 – Model-1 analytical interpretation results of first PBU

 Fig. 14 - Model-2 analytical interpretation results of first PBU

Fig. 15 - Model-3 analytical interpretation results of first PBU

Table 2 – Summary of interpretation results of all models matched with first PBU
Key outcomes – First Pressure Buildup

• The initial pressure estimated by models is close to estimated Pi based on drilling information.
• Both dual porosity/dual permeability reservoir models matched with the data, but dual porosity
model matches well with both rectangle and multi-linear composite models.
• It was observed from omega and lambda that matrix has the higher storage and it is poorly
connected with the natural fractures.
• Rectangular boundary could not match very late time of buildup because of higher flow capacity
(derivative went down) whereas multilinear composite matched better that part of the derivative.
• It can be concluded from the analytical interpretation of the first pressure buildup that reservoir has
dual porosity system and it is producing multiple composites having different porosities,
permeabilities, and leakage factors.
Second Pressure Buildup Test

The second pressure buildup test was conducted in June-July 2019. The well remained shut-in for PBU for
90 hours after producing at ~7.03 MMSCFD Gas, 660 BPD Condensate, and 577 BPD water for 22.50
hours. Different reservoir and boundary models were matched with first PBU and results of different models
are shown in Figure-16, and 17, respectively. The summary of results is shown in Table-3.

Fig. 16 - Model-1 analytical interpretation results of second PBU

Fig. 17 – Model-2 analytical interpretation of second PBU

 Table 3 – Summary of interpretation results of all models matched with second PBU

Key outcomes – Second Pressure Buildup

• The initial pressure estimated by models is close to estimated Pi based on drilling information.
• Second PBU showed improved wellbore characteristics due to acid stimulation and depicting single
porosity homogeneous system due to poor relative deliverability of fractures as compared to low
porosity matrix.
• Decrease in permeability was also observed in the second PBU which is might be due to decrease
in natural fracture dimensions after the formation pressure normalized.
• Rectangular boundary could not match very late time of buildup because of higher flow capacity
(derivative went down) whereas multilinear composite matched better that part of the derivative.
• It can be concluded from the analytical interpretation of the second pressure buildup that reservoir
has single porosity system and it is producing multiple composites having different porosities,
permeabilities, and leakage factors.
Third Pressure Buildup Test

The third pressure buildup test was conducted in September 2019. The well remained shut-in for PBU for
100 hours after producing at ~4.97 MMSCFD Gas, 470 BPD Condensate, and 246 BPD water for 22.60
hours. Different reservoir and boundary models were matched with first PBU and results of different models
are shown in Figure-18, and 19, respectively. The summary of results is shown in Table-4.

Fig. 18 – Model-1 analytical interpretation of third PBU

 Fig. 19 – Model-2 analytical interpretation of third PBU

Table 4 - Summary of interpretation results of all models matched with third PBU

Key outcomes – Third Pressure Buildup

• The initial pressure estimated by models is close to estimated Pi based on drilling information.
• Third PBU replicating the improved behavior near wellbore due to acid stimulation and depicting
single porosity homogeneous system.
• Slight reduction in permeability was also observed in the third PBU (56.96 md. ft) which is might
be due to decrease in natural fracture dimensions after the formation pressure normalized.
• Rectangular boundary could not match very late time of buildup because of higher flow capacity
(derivative went down) whereas multilinear composite matched better that part of the derivative.
• It can be concluded from the analytical interpretation of the third pressure buildup that reservoir
has single porosity system and it is producing multiple composites (3 composites) having different
porosities, permeabilities, and leakage factors.
• It can also be concluded that far away from the well, formation facies are improving.
Rate Transient Analysis

Rate transient analysis was performed to evaluate reservoir boundaries, GIIP, and drainage area/radius. The
production history (gas, condensate, and water) of 2 years and 6 months along with bottom-hole flowing
pressure (converted from wellhead flowing pressure) was used in the production analysis. Different
reservoir, boundary models were matched with the data and analytical interpretation results are shown in
Figure-20, 21, 22, and 23, respectively. The summary of the results is given in Table-5 and 6.

Fig. 20 – Model-1 analytical interpretation of rate transient analysis

Fig. 21 – Model-1 Fetkovich and Flowing material balance plots

Fig. 22 – Model-2 analytical interpretation of rate transient analysis

 Fig. 23 – Model-2 Fetkovich and Flowing material balance plots

Table 5 – Summary of interpretation results of all models in rate transient analysis

Model-1 Model-2
Method
GIIP (BSCF) GIIP (BSCF)
DCA 7.71 (EUR) 7.36 (EUR)
Flowing MB 23.64 23.77
Log-log 38.35 43.59
Table 6 – Summary of GIIP interpretation results in rate transient analysis

Key outcomes – Rate Transient Analysis

• The initial pressure estimated by models is close to estimated Pi based on drilling information.
• Different Flow capacity (32.58 md. ft) was lower as compared to third PBU (57 md.ft) due to
different models.
• Fracture half-length (~2300 ft) showed that natural fracture network was very pervasive.
• Omega and Lambda showed that low porosity matrix has the higher storage and connectivity
between fractures was good.
 • Production and pressure history after 15000 hours have become flat, this showed that the possible
no-flow boundaries were far as compared to initial production period.
• Multilinear model could not match with the production history.
• Drainage radius and GIIP based on different method in rate transient analysis is in range of 2 – 2.30
km and 38 – 44 BSCF, respectively.
• The appraisal well should be drilled outside the drainage radius of well X-1.
Conclusion and Recommendation

Keeping in mind the geological complexity and production from multiple formations, a unique solution
from analytical modeling (well test analysis) is not possible. Under such conditions, there is non-uniqueness
associated with derived model and result. The initial pressure was in range between 15300 – 15600 psi
based on pressure/rate transient models. The improved wellbore characteristics has been observed after acid
stimulation and reservoir has good connectivity with the natural fractures. Decrease in formation
permeability was analyzed due to formation compaction and healing of natural fractures. Complexity of
boundaries was also observed, and it could be concluded with confidence that multi-linear composite model
showed better results as compared to rectangle model in pressure transient analysis. The drainage area and
GIIP based on both pressure/rate transient analysis was in range between 2.0 – 2.30 km and 38 – 43 BSCF,
respectively.
It is recommended that wellhead flowing pressure should be converted into bottom-hole flowing pressure
using transient wellbore model such as OLGA for rate transient analysis. For a good PBU analysis, it is
advisable to test at a stabilized rate with enough flow duration prior to PBU. In subject well, rates
measurement was at plant level (at a farther distance from well) resulting in some uncertainty due to mode
of measurement. Similarly, a single rate averaged over total duration might not be truly representative of
the transient flow due to gradual change in choke size.
Acknowledgement

We are thankful to Dr. Xingru Wu for his constant support and guidelines during this study.
Nomenclature

PBU Pressure Buildup Test

GIIP Gas Initial In-place
ω Omega
λ Lambda
Κ Kappa
Xf Fracture Half Length
Pi Initial Reservoir Pressure
Pbar Average Reservoir Pressure
NF No-Flow
BSCF Billion Standard Cubic Feet
PPD Primary pressure derivative
References

Aguilera, R. (1989). Well Test Analysis of Dual-Porosity Systems, Intercepted by Hydraulic Vertical
Fractures of Finite Conductivity. Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium. doi: 10.2118/18948-MS

Nelson, R. A. (2001). Geologic analysis of naturally fractured reservoirs. Boston: Gulf Professional Pub.

Ilyas, Asad, Farooq, Umar, Ahmad, Jawad, Hassan, F. (2011, January 1). An Integrated Approach to
Evaluate Naturally Fractured Carbonate Reservoir in TAL Block, Kohat Basin. Retrieved from
https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-156215-MS

Cinco-Ley, H., & Meng, H.-Z. (1988). Pressure Transient Analysis of Wells with Finite Conductivity Vertical
Fractures in Double Porosity Reservoirs. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. doi:
10.2118/18172-MS

J.E. Warren and P.J. Root, The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Society of Petroleum Engineers
Inc. (1963) SPEJ 426.

Fekete, P., Bruno, L. A., Dosunmu, A., Odagme, S., Sanusi, A., & Bowe, E. (2015). The Effect of Wellbore
Stability in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition.
doi: 10.2118/178267-ms

Lu, J., & Qu, J. (2017). A New Dual-Permeability Model for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference. doi: 10.2118/188553-ms

Larsen, L., & Straub, R. B. (2007). Determination of Connected Volume and Connectivity from Extended
Tests in Compartmentalized and Layered Reservoirs. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. doi:
10.2118/110011-ms

Houze, O., D. Viturat, and O. S. Fjaere. "Dynamic Data Analysis v. 5.30. 01." (2020).

Mattar, L., & Zaoral, K. (1992). The Primary Pressure Derivative (Ppd) A New Diagnostic Tool in Well Test
Interpretation. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 31(04). doi: 10.2118/92-04-06

Zarrouk, Sadiq J., and Katie McLean. Geothermal well test analysis: fundamentals, applications and
advanced techniques. Academic Press, 2019.

Ahmed, Tarek, and D. Nathan Meehan. Advanced Reservoir Management and Engineering. 2nd edition,
Massachussets: Editora Elsevier (2012).

Fekete Reference Material (2014)