Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Description of a well test: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Types of tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Why we do transient testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Flow States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Development of Flow Equations for Flow in Porous Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Solutions to the Diffusivity Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Skin Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Wellbore Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Wellbore Storage (WBS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Radius of Investigation (ROI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Pseudo Steady-State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Shape Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Principle of Superposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Horner’s Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Buildup Test Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Derivative Analysis (Drawdown case) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Ideal vs. Actual PBU/DD Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Flow Regimes & Model Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Gas Well Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Introduction
Instructors:
Jeff App
email: app@wt.net
Grading:
• 20% homework
• 40% midterm
• 40% final
Textbook:
• Well Testing by John Lee
Introduction Page 2
© 2000-2001 M. Peter Ferrero, IX
Pressure Transient Analysis
Schematic:
Gas
Choke
Separator Oil
Water
Packer
Pressure gauge
Perforations
Process:
• flow well at single or multiple rates for time, tp.
• shut well in for pressure buildup (PBU), ∆t.
• measure P, T, and q’s (pressure, temperature, and flow rates, respectively).
Information gained:
• reservoir fluids [BHS (bottom hole sample), separator samples for PVT analysis]
• reservoir temperature and pressure (from gauge)
• permeability and skin (completion efficiency)
• reservoir description, qualitative (faults, changes in permeability, oil/water contact)
Types of tests
T im e
T im e
Injection test
• advantage: injection rates are
easily controlled
• disadvantage: analysis is compli-
cated by multiphase effects and q
possible fracturing P
T im e
Falloff test
T im e
Interference/pulse test
• Tests connectivity of wells using a producers and observation wells
kh
- , and storativity φ hc t
• Used to estimate transmissibility -----
µ
Flow States
• Steady-state, ∂------
P
- = 0 , pressures
∂t
in reservoir/wellbore do not vary
with time.
rw re
t1
t2
t3 P Linear
P
rw re Time
• Transient, ∂------
P
- = f ( x, y, z, t ) , pres-
∂t
sure in reservoir/wellbore are
t1
changing as a function of both
t2
time and location.
t3
P
rw re
Development of Flow
Equations for Flow in Porous Media
Note: there is a good writeup in Appendix A of Lee.
∂
ρv z r dr dθ + ( ρv z ) dz r dr dθ
∂z
ρv r dθ dz
r
ρv θ dr dz
dz rd θ
dθ
ρv z r dr dθ
dr
lbm ft lbm
mass flux, ρ v = ---------
3
- × --- = -------------
-
ft s 2
ft ⋅ s
[Rate of mass accumulation] + [Rate of mass outflow] - [Rate of mass inflow] = 0
∂ ∂
( ρθr dθ dr dz ) = r dθ dr dz ( ρθ )
∂t ∂t
∂
ρv r r dθ dz + ( ρrv r ) dθ dr dz – [ ρv r r dθ dz ] ....r direction
∂r
∂
ρv θ dr dz + ( ρv θ ) dθ dr dz – [ ρv θ dr dz ] ....θ direction
∂θ
∂
ρv z r dr dθ + ( ρv z ) dz r dr dθ – [ ρv z r dr dθ ] ....z direction
∂z
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
r dθ dr dz ( ρθ ) + ( ρ rv r ) dθ dr dz + ( ρ v θ ) dθ dr dz + ( ρ v z ) r dθ dr dz = 0
∂t ∂r ∂θ ∂z
.... divide by r dθ dr dz
∂ 1∂ 1∂ ∂
( ρθ ) + --- ( ρ rv r ) + --- ( ρ v θ ) + ( ρ v z ) = 0
∂t r ∂r r ∂θ ∂z
.... note that since there is no z or θ, the last two terms are 0
.... therefore, for a fully perforated interval, the RADIAL DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION is
∂ 1∂
( ρθ ) + --- ( ρ rv r ) = 0
∂t r ∂r
B. Darcy’s Law
k dP
ν r = – ----r
µ dr
k
ν = – --- ∆ P k dP
ν θ = – ----θ-
µ µ dθ
k dP
ν z = – ----z-
µ dz
Isotropic: k=kr=kθ=kz
∂ 1∂ k dP
∴ ( ρφ ) + --- – ρ r ----r = 0
∂t r ∂r µ dr
or
1 ∂ k r dP ∂
--- ρ r ---- = ( ρφ )
r ∂r µ dr ∂t
c ≡ – --------- d Vol → 1
1 dρ 1
--- ; Vol = ---
Vol d P ρdP ρ
By integration:
P ρ
c ( P – P0 ) ∂ρ
ρ = ρ0e = ∫P 0
c dP = ∫ρ 0
------ ; ρ 0 ≡ base ρ
ρ
∂ρ c ( P – P0 ) ∂P ∂P
= c ρ0 e = cρ
∂r ∂r ∂r
∂ρ c ( P – P 0 ) ∂P ∂P
= c ρ0 e = cρ
∂r ∂r ∂r
1 ∂ k ∂P ∂
--- ρ r --- = ( ρφ )
r ∂r µ ∂r ∂t
2
1 ∂θ
--- ∂P r --k- ∂P + ρ --k- ∂P + ρ r --k- ∂ P = φ ∂ρ + ρ
r ∂r µ∂r µ∂r µ ∂ r2 ∂t ∂t
2
k 1 ∂P 2 ∂P ∂ P ∂P
--- --- cr ρ + + ρr = c φρ
µr ∂r ∂r ∂r ∂t
Note:
2
ρ k ∂P ∂ P ∂P
--- --- + ρ r = c φρ
r µ∂r ∂r ∂t
2
1 ∂P ∂ P c φµ ∂P
--- + ρ r = ----------
r ∂r ∂r k ∂t
.... therefore, for a fully perforated interval, the RADIAL DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION
including Darcy’s law is
1 ∂ ∂P 1 ∂P k
--- r = --- where η = ----------
r ∂r ∂r η∂t φµ c
To solve this you need two boundary conditions and one initial condition. For a closed
system:
Initial condition: P = Pi @ t=0
Boundary condition 2: ∂P qµ
= ----------------
∂r rw
2π hr w
P1
q
k dP
velocity, u = – 0.001127 ⋅ ------- ⋅ P2
µβ d l
P e rm e a b i l i ty , k
W a te r v i sc o si ty , µ w
kA dP
q
q = – 0.001127 ⋅ ------- ⋅
µβ d l l
k dP
velocity, u = – 0.001127 ⋅ --- ⋅
µ dr rw
2π r w k dP
q = – 0.001127 ⋅ ---------------- ⋅ h
µ dr
r2
dr 2π r w k P2
q ----- = – 0.00708 ⋅ ---------------- ⋅ dP
r µ Pw
rw
kh ( P 2 – P w ) A re a , A = 2 π r w h (a re a o f c y lin d e r)
q = – 0.00708 ⋅ ------- ⋅ -------------------------
µβ r2
ln -----
r w Fig. 11. Darcy velocity in cylindrical coordinates
Examples of tests:
• In transient flow, pressure will decrease wrt time at constant flow rate.
• Separation of log-log and derivative plot indicates skin (larger separation=larger skin)
• Continuity equation
• Darcy’s law
• EOS
2. Assumptions:
a. Radial flow over entire net thickness
b. Homogeneous and isotropic porous media (kr=kθ=kz)
c. Uniform net thickness
d. q and k are constant (independant of pressure)
e. Fluid is of small and constant compressibility
f. Constant µ
2
g. Small pressure gradients ( ∂P « 1 )
∂r
h. Negligible gravity forces
∞ 2
–α tD 2
141.2 q µβ 2 tD 3 e J 1 ( α η r eD )
P wf = Pi – -------------------------- ⋅ --------
kh 2
r eD
+ ln r eD – --- + 2
4 ∑ ---------------------------------------------------
2
-
η=1 2 J 1
αη
2
( α η r eD – J 1 α η )
∞ –µ
2
µβ --------
–r
Line source solution: P (r,t) = P i + 70.6 q---------
- Ei
- ; where – Ei ( – x ) = ∫ e
-------- dµ
kh 4η t x µ
• DRAWDOWN ONLY
• Constant rate
• Unbounded reservoir
Skin Development
Skin, S, refers to a region near the wellbore of improved or reduced permeability
compared to the bulk formation permeability.
Impairment (+S):
• Overbalanced drilling (filtrate loss)
• Perforating damage
• Unfiltered completion fluid
• Fines migration after long term production
• Non-darcy flow (predominantly gas well)
• Condensate banking- acts like turbulence
Stimulation (-S)
• Frac pack (0 to -0.5)
• Acidizing
• Hydraulic fracturing
Flow efficiency, FE, is the ratio of flow without skin to the flow with skin,
Darcy w/o S 8
-------------------------------- , or FE ≈ -------------
Darcy /w S S+8
∆ P s = ∆ P ks – ∆ Pk
q µβ rs q µβ rs
∆ P s = 141.2 ---------- ln ----- – 141.2 ---------- ln -----
ks h r w
kh r w
Pressure
q µβ k rs
∆ P s = 141.2 ---------- ----- – 1 ln -----
kh k s
r w
rs
We define ----- – 1 ln ----- = S
k
∆ Pk k r w
s
∆Pks
q µβ
∴∆ Ps = 141.2 ---------- S
∆ Ps kh
q µβ re q µβ q µβ re
∆ P total = 141.2 ---------- ln ----- + 141.2 ---------- S = 141.2 ---------- ln ----- + S
kh rw kh kh r w
S > 0 → Damaged ∴k s < k
S < 0 → Stimulated ∴k s > k
S = 0 → Undamaged ∴k s = k
Fig. 13. Smectite (left) and kaolinite (right) coat grains and fill a Fig. 14. Delicate wisps of "hairy" illite project into a pore. Note
pore. Note distinct differences in morphology of each that the fibers not only form a highly rugose surface
clay ("honeycomb" smectite; vermicular booklets of within the pore, but the fibers could break and migrate
kaolinite (x2000) under extreme fluid pressures (x2500)
(image courtesey of Westport Technology Center) (image courtesey of Westport Technology Center)
Fig. 15. Well-formed chlorite platelets form partial rosettes Fig. 16. Well-formed, but rather randomly oriented kaolinite
adjacent to, and coating quartz overgrowths (x2500) booklets post-date quartz overgrowths (x700)
(image courtesey of Westport Technology Center) (image courtesey of Westport Technology Center)
Fig. 17. SEM image of perforation damage with percussion fines Fig. 18. SEM image of completion damage with polymer
(x305) filament (x105)
Fig. 19. SEM image of pre-acid treatment (x3100) Fig. 20. SEM image of post-acid treatment (x3100)
Wellbore Solutions
1. Ideal reservoir (no skin)
2
q µβ 0.445 r w
–4
×10 k
P w (r,t) = Pi + 70.6 ---------- ln -------------------- ; where η = 2.637
---------------------------------
kh η t φµ c t
2
q µβ 1688φµ c t r w
P w ( t ) = P i + 70.6 ---------- ln ------------------------------- ; from Lee
kh ktp
Storage between the sandface and shut-in valve allow the formation to continue to flow
when we affect a shut-in. This is due to fluid compressibility.
General definitions
Pt
Awb
Gas-liquid interface hliquid
24 dv dv dh
∴( q SF – q )β = --------------- WB ; where v WB = A WB h ; WB = A WB
5.615 d t dt dt
24 dh
( q SF – q )β = --------------- A WB
5.615 dt
Note:
144 ( Pw – P t )
h = ---------------------------------
-
ρg
dh 144 dP w dP
= ---------- ; assume→ t =
dt ρg dt dt
24 144 A WB dP w
∴( q SF – q ) )β = --------------- ---------------------
-
5.615 ρ g d t
Example:
3.5” tubing, A WB = 0.041 ft 2
ρ o = 50 lbm/ft 3
vwb = 100 bbl
depth = 17,000 ft
A
- = 25.65 --------------- = 0.02 --------
WB 0.041 bbl
Solution cs = 25.65 ----------- 50
ρl psi
(note that for a gas-liquid interface the cs is independent of well depth!)
Why?
A - 100% WBS, q=0 (PBU)
c dP w
• qSF = 24 ----s-
β dt
∆t
c ∆P
qSF = 24 ----s- --------
β ∆t
β q SF
- ∆t
∆ P w = ------------
24 c s
β q SF
log ( ∆ P w ) = log ------------
- ∆t
24 c s
log ∆Pw
β q SF m=1
log ( ∆ P w ) = m log ( ∆ t ) + log -------------
24 c s
β q SF
-------------
24 c s
Estimate c s from any ( ∆ Pw ,∆ t )
pair on unit slope line
log ∆t
d
(x)
d ln t
d d d d
( x ) = ln ( t ) ⋅ ( x) = t ( x)
dt dt d ln ( t ) d ln ( t )
d (x) = t d (x)
dt d ln ( t )
d β q SF
∴∆ P W = ( ∆ P W ) = t ⋅ -------------
dt 24 c S
[ Take log of both sides ]
β q SF
log ( ∆ P W ) = log ( t ) + log -------------
d
dt 24 c S
β q SF
∴m = 1 intercept = ------------- for ∆P
24 c S
24 d
( q SF β – q β )ρ = --------------- ( ρ v WB )
5.615 d t
[ Note → v WB = A WB h ]
( q SF – q )βρ = --------------- v WB
24 dρ
5.615 dt
1 ∂ρ dP dρ dP w dP
by chain rule c ≡ --- → = = cρ w
ρ∂P dt d P w d t dt
24 dP
( q SF – q )βρ = --------------- v WB c ρ w
5.615 dt
24 dP
( q SF – q )β = --------------- v WB c w
5.615 dt
v WB c bbl
c s ≡ --------------- -------- where c = average fluid compressibility
5.615 psi
Example:
vWB = 100 bbl
c = 1X10 -5 psi -1
–5
v WB c 100 ( 1 ×10 ) bbl
Solution cs = --------------
- = --------------------------------- = 0.0002 --------
5.615 5.615 psi
Note: for cs < 0.003 there is basically no WBS
c dP
WBS is over when 24 ----s- w ≤ 0.01 q
β dt
PWF
q3
q2
q1
Ri = 4η t
2.637 ×10 k
–4
; η = --------------------------------- R feet
φµ c t
t hou P i
t1
k mD t2
P
f frac t3
m cp
c psi-r w r1 r2 r3 re
Pseudo Steady-State
Depletion of a closed system
Pseudo steady-state occurs when the pressure transient has reached all boundaries in a
closed system.
The solution, based on the Van Everdingen & Hurst terminal exact solution of a bounded,
cylindrical reservoir is
2
q µβ 2η t re re
-------------------------- --------- + ln ----- – 0.75 for t ≥ -------
PWF = P i – 141.2
kh 2 r w 4η
re
∂P WF 0.234 q β ∆P
= – ---------------------- = --------
∂t ct Vp ∆t
Shape Factors
p. 9-10 of Lee text
Principle of Superposition
The diffusivity equation is a linear homogeneous equation (with homogeneous BC’s).
1 ∂ ∂P 1 ∂P
--- r = ---
r ∂r ∂r η ∂t
Therefore, linear combinations of solutions are also solutions. The combined linear
solution eliminates the following restrictions:
• Single well
• Reservoir boundaries
• Constant rate
Multi-well solution
A
qC
rAB q
qB
rAC
B
qA
C
t
Determine ∆ P A
∆ P TOTAL = ∆ PA + ∆ PB + ∆ PC
A
2
qµβ 0.445r
∆P (r,t) = P i + 70.6 ---------- ln -------------------- – 2S
kh ηt
2
∆P = P i – P (r,t) = – 70.6 ---------- ln -------------------- – 2S
qµβ 0.445r
kh ηt
2 2
q A µβ 0.445r 2 q B µβ – r AB q C µβ – r AC
∴∆ P TOTAL - E i ------------ – 70.6 -------------
- ln -------------------- – 2S A – 70.6 -------------
= – 70.6 ------------- - E i ------------
A kh ηt kh 4η t kh 4η t
2
r
Check for ln ( 1.781 x ) if --------
- < 0.02
4η t
Boundaries
Single fault
L L
L
q q
q actual image
no flow boundary
2 2
0.445 ( 2 L )
For long time, E i 4---------
L
≈ ln ------------------------------
4η t ηt
For not totally sealing faults use FOG FACTORS (for q of image well):
• 1 = sealing
• 0 = no fault
• -1 = water drive (constant P)
L 2
L L
q L L
q q
actual image
no flow boundary
(use e well)
Fig. 27. 90 degree intersecting fault geologic model Fig. 28. 90 degree intersecting fault mathematical model
q q
image image
q q
image image
q q
image image
q q q
actual image
Variable rate
Single well producing at variable rates (ideal, infinite reservoir)
q2
q1
∆P = f(q,t) q3
t0 t1 t2
=
q1
-q1
q2
-q2
+
q3
OR
q1
q2 -q 1
q3-q 2
General Solution
m 2
µβ 0.445 r w
∆ P = P i – P WF = – 70.6 -------
kh ∑ ( q i – q i – 1 ) ln -------------------------- – 2 S
η ( t – ti – 1 )
i=1
Horner’s Approximation
• Avoids the use of superposition to model variable rates
• Can replace the need for multiple E i ( ln x ) function evaluation each representing a rate
change, with a single function ( E i ) that contain a single rate and producing time.
Procedure
• Single rate used is most recent non-zero rate, qlast
• Producing time is cumulative production (Np) divided by qlast
2
q last µβ 0.445 r w qnext PBU
∆ P = Pi – P WF = – 70.6 -----------------
- ln -------------------- – 2 S
kh η tP q=0
Note: t last > 2 ⋅ tnext to last
q
∆t
tP
-q
∆ P = ∆ Pq – ∆ Pq = DD – PBU = ( P i – P WF ) – ( P WS – P WF ) = P i – P WS
t + ∆t ∆t
p
2 2
qµβ 0.445rw ( – q )µβ 0.445r w
∆ P = P i – P WS = – 70.6 ---------- ln ------------------------- – 2S – 70.6 ------------------ ln -------------------- – 2S
kh η
p ( t + ∆ t ) kh η( ∆t )
2 2
qµβ 0.445r w 0.445rw
P i – P WS = – 70.6 ---------- ln ------------------------- – 2S – ln -------------------- + 2S
kh η
p ( t + ∆ t ) η( ∆t )
2 2
qµβ ------------------------
0.445r w 0.445r w
P WS = Pi + 70.6 ---------- ln - – ln --------------------
kh η
p ( t + ∆ t ) η(∆t)
∆t
= Pi + 70.6 ---------- ln ---------------------
qµβ
kh ( t p + ∆ t )
Note: ln x = 2.302 log x
( tp + ∆ t )
∴P WS = Pi – 162.6 ---------- log ---------------------
qµβ
kh ∆t
q is the rate prior to PBU. Use Horner’s approximation with multiple rates
∆y P2 – P1
m = ------- = -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Pi = P* (infinite shut-in) ∆x tP + ∆ t2 t P + ∆ t 1
162.6 q µβ log -------------------- – log --------------------
m = --------------------------
kh ∆ t2 ∆ t1
PWS
P2 – P 1 P2 – P1
= ------------------------------------------------- = ------------------- = P 1 – P 2
log ( 10 ) – log ( 100 ) 1–2
1000 100 10 1
tP + ∆ t
P + ∆t
Note: lim t----------------
------------------ - = 1
∆t ∆t → ∞ ∆t
P* is always taken as the extrapolation from the MTR irregardless of whether boundaries
or late time effects are seen. If late time effects are observed, P* may not correspond to Pi
or P
PWF
162.6 q µβ
m = --------------------------
kh
1 1000
log t P
70.6 q µβ
m = ------------------------
kh
70.6 q µβ
∴kh = -----------------------------------------------------------
d(∆P)
----------------
d ln t @ stabilization
d(∆P)
log ----------------
d ln t MTR
1 1000
log t
Skin
a. DD
2 2
70.6 q µβ 0.445 r w 162.6 q µβ 0.445 r w
Pi – P WF = – ---------------------- ln -------------------- – 2 S = – -------------------------- log -------------------- – 0.87 S
kh η t kh ηt
ηt η
Pi – P WF = m log --------------------
2
+ 0.87 S = m log t + log -------------------- + 0.87 S
0.445 r w 0.445 r 2w
P i – P WF η
----------------------- = log t + log -------------------- + 0.87 S
m 0.445 r 2 w
P i – P WF 2.25η
∴S = 1.151 ----------------------
- – log --------------- – log t
m 2
r w
Take t = 1 hour
P i – P WF 2.25η
∴S DD = 1.151 ---------------------------
1hr
- – log ---------------
m r
2
w
Semi-log MTR!
PWF
1hr
162.6 q µβ
m = --------------------------
kh
tp =1
log t P
∆ P = P i – P WF
∆P′ 70.6 q µβ
kh = – -------------------------
d(∆P)
----------------
d ln t
t ps
tP
b. PBU
The instant a well is shut-in, PWF :
2
q µβ 0.445 rw
P WF = P i + 162.6
-------------------------- log -------------------- – 0.87 S
kh η tP
η tP
P WF = P i + m – log -------------------- – 0.87 S
0.445 r2w
P WS – P WF tP + ∆ t k
----------------------------- = – log ----------------- + log ----------------2- – 3.23 + 0.87 S
m tP ∆ t φµ c r
t w
P WS – P WF k tP + ∆ t
∴S PBU ∆t = 0
= 1.151 ------------------------------------------------- – log ----------------2- + 3.23 + log ----------------- – log ∆ t
m Horner semi-log MTR φµ c t r w tP ∆ t
162.6 q µβ
m = --------------------------
kh
PWS
tP + ∆ t
log ----------------
-
∆t
∆ P = P WS – P WF
PWSskin ∆t = 0
∆P
q µβ
m ′ = 70.6
------------------------
d(∆P) kh
--------------------------------
tP + ∆ t
d ln -----------------
∆t
∆t s
log ∆ t
PWF
162.6 q µβ
m = --------------------------
kh
Ideal (no WBS or LTR)
log t P
ETR LTR
Transient reaches boundaries
Actual PWF WBS
Reservoir heterogeneity
MTR
kh, S
Infinite acting
R adial flow
log t P
∆P
∆P
∆P’
Ideal
∆P’
log t P
∆P
∆P
∆P’ ∆P’
Actual
Radial flow
homogeneous, infinite acting system
q µβ
Pi – P WF = 162.6 ---------- log t + constant
kh
∆P
∆P’ d( ∆P) q µβ
---------------- = 70.6 ----------
d ln t kh
ETR 70.6 q µβ
WBS dominates kh = -----------------------------
∆ P ′ stabilized
MTR
∆t
single fault
Using superposition and image wells
∆ P total = ∆ P well + ∆ P imag e
2
qµβ 0.445r w
2
q µβ 0.445 ( 2 L )
= Pi – P WF = – 70.6 ---------- ln -------------------- – 2S – 70.6 ---------- ln ------------------------------
kh ηt kh ηt
increase/decrease in kh or decrease in kh
Concentric model:
∆P’
log tP
Radius for kinner:
–4
2.637 ×10 k
ROI = 4η t ; η = ----------------------------------i
increase φµ c t
decrease t is where slope becomes negative
contacts
Same kh!
∆Po’ ∆Pw’
µw
( ∆ P w )′ = ------
- ( ∆ P o )′
µo
log t P
variable kh!
µw < µo -----
kh
-
µ o
µw > µo ( ∆ P w )′ = ---------------- ( ∆ P o )′
-----
kh
-
µ w
2
µβ 0.445r w 0.445 ( 2 L )
2
∆ P = = – 70.6 ------- q ln -------------------- – q ln ------------------------------
kh ηt ηt
2
µβ rw
= – 70.6 ------- q ln --------------- – q ln --------------- + q ln -------------
0.445 0.445
-
kh ηt ηt 2
(2L)
q µβ rw 2
∆ P = – 70.6 ---------- ln -------
kh 2 L
m=0
P WS
g o e s to z e ro (in th e o ry )
re a lity
1 tP + ∆ t 1000
log ----------------
∆t
- ∆t
hp hT
Linear Radial
∆P
flow flow
m=0.5
log tP
∆P
m=0.25
m=0.5
log tP
- if you can see the bi-linear region, it can be used to estimate frac-conductivity (if the
matrix permeability is known)
- linear region is used to estimate frac. half length
- radial flow region is used to estimate kh, S
For gases: µ and z may vary considerably as a function of pressure. Therefore, to account
for this, the pseudo-pressure function was developed.
P
P
ψ(P) = 2∫ ------ dP
PB µ z
b. Darcy’s law
k k ∂P k ∂P k ∂P
u = --- ∇P ; u x = ----x- ; u y = ----y- ; u z = ----z-
µ µ ∂x µ ∂y µ ∂z
c. EOS
- For gases
ρ = ----------- ----
MW P
RT z
P
P
ψ( P) = 2∫ ------ dP
PB µ z
ρ = ----------- ----
MW P
Input EOS: RT z
∂ P ---- = ---- c g ∂P
P
c g ≈ c t for gas reservoir
∂ t z z ∂t
∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂Ψ ∂ P
Substituting ; ; ; ----
∂x ∂ y ∂ z ∂ t z
φ c g ----
P
∂ -----
P µ z ∂Ψ ∂ P µ z ∂Ψ ∂ P µ z ∂Ψ z ∂P
- ------- + ------ ------- + ------ ------- = -------------------
∂ x µ z 2 P ∂ x ∂ y µ z 2 P ∂ y ∂ z µ z 2 P ∂ z k ∂t
φ c g ----
P
2 2 2
1 d Ψ d Ψ d Ψ z µ z ∂Ψ
--- + + = ------------------- -------
2 d x2 d y2 d z 2 k 2P ∂t
2 2 2
d Ψ d Ψ d Ψ 1 ∂Ψ
+ + = ------
dx
2
dy
2
dz
2 ηg ∂ t
In radial coordinates:
–4
1 ∂ ∂Ψ 1 ∂Ψ 2.637 ×10 k
--- r = ------ where η g = ---------------------------------
r ∂r ∂r ηg ∂ t φµ g c g
Gas Liquid
r
ea
n
Li
Liquid: slightly compressible system
µz µz
Constant
c ( P – Po )
P
2
Ψ(P) P ρ = ρo e
2 0 00 3 0 00
P P
Approximation to Ψ(P)
0 ≤ P ≤ 2000 P
2
Transient development
Drawdown equation
2
P sc q g T 1688φµ c t r w
Ψ ( P wf ) = Ψ ( P i ) + 50300 ------------------
- 1.151 log ------------------------------- – S + D q g
T sc kh ktp
Buildup equation
Ψ(P))
Pseudopressure or Real Gas Potential (Ψ Page 41
© 2000-2001 M. Peter Ferrero, IX
Pressure Transient Analysis
tp ∆t
time
1637 q g T tp + ∆ t
Ψ ( P ws ) = Ψ ( P i ) + ----------------------- log ----------------
kh ∆t
Pseudo-steady state equation (PSS): when transient reaches all boundaries of reservoir -
must be a closed system.
P sc q g T r e
- ln ----- – 0.75 + ( S + D qg )
Ψ ( P wf ) = Ψ ( P i ) + 50300 ------------------
T sc kh rw
OR
qg T r e
- ln ----- – 0.75 + ( S + D q g )
Ψ ( P wf ) = Ψ ( P i ) + 1422 ---------
kh r w
b. P2- valid for low pressures (P<2000psi) where µz is constant. Gas properties µ, z, Bg,
etc. are evaluated at static pressure or initial pressure
Ψ(P))
Pseudopressure or Real Gas Potential (Ψ Page 42
© 2000-2001 M. Peter Ferrero, IX
Pressure Transient Analysis
P
P
Ψ(P ) = 2∫ ------ dP
PB µ z
- µz is a constant
P 2
2 P
Ψ ( P ) = ------ ∫ P dP = ------
µ z PB µz
2
P
- Drawdown transient equation: replaceΨ ( P ) with ------
µz
2 2 2
P wf Pi 1637 q g T 0.445 r w
------------ = -------
- + ----------------------- log -------------------- – 0.87 ( S + D qg )
µz µz kh η tp
2000
for P 0
→ µz is constant
2
2 2 1637 q g µ zT 0.445 rw
- log -------------------- – 0.87 ( S + D q g )
P wf = Pi + ------------------------------
kh ηtp
PSS equation:
2 2 q g µ zT r e
- ln ----- – 0.75 + ( S + D q g )
P wf = P i + 1422 ----------------
kh rw
c. P- valid for high pressures (P>3000psi) where uz/P is constant. Gas properties evalu-
ated a initial/static pressure. Can use P for tests where Pi and lowest Pware greater than
3000 psi.
Ψ(P))
Pseudopressure or Real Gas Potential (Ψ Page 43
© 2000-2001 M. Peter Ferrero, IX
Pressure Transient Analysis
P Pi
Assume ------ = constant = --------- → at initial reservoir pressure
µz µi zi
P
P P P 2 ( Pi ) P
Ψ(P ) = 2∫ ------ dP = 2 --------i- ∫ dP = -----------------
-
PB µ z µi zi PB µi zi
1000 ----------
Scf
Vr P sc z i T r Mcf 14.7 z i Tr z i T r RB
βg - in ----------
= --------- = --------- ---------- = ------------------------------ ----------- ---------- = 5.035 ---------
V sc T sc P i 520 P Pi Mcf
i
Scf i
5.615 ---------
bbl
2
162.6 q g µβ g 0.445 r w
P wf = P i + --------------------------------i log -------------------- – 0.87 ( S + D qg ) where µ is at end of drawdown
kh ηg tp
PSS equation:
qg µi βg re
P wf = P i + 141.2 ------------------i ln ----- – 0.75 + ( S + D q g )
kh r w
Summary
1. Buildup and drawdown analysis are conducted on gas wells in the same manner as for
oil wells.
2. Choose Ψ(P), P2, or P depending upon the pressure range during test period
• Ψ(P) - valid for all pressures ranges. Gas properties for diffusivity, η , are evaluated at
the static or initial pressure.
• P2 - valid for low pressures (below 2000 psi) where µz is constant. Gas properties µ, z,
βg, etc. are evaluated at static or initial pressure.
P
• P - valid for high pressures (above 3000 psi) where ------ is constant. Gas properties are
µz
Ψ(P))
Pseudopressure or Real Gas Potential (Ψ Page 44
© 2000-2001 M. Peter Ferrero, IX
Pressure Transient Analysis
evaluated at static or initial pressure. Can use P for tests where Pi and lowest Pwf are
greater than 3000 psi.
3. For critical systems or systems where large variation in gas properties occur across the
range of test pressures, use Ψ(P).
S g = Sm + D q
Well deliverability or potential is not linear with P, but is dependent upon rate if D ≠ 0 . For
D ≠ 0 , Sg increases as a function of rate.
P D = 0
D≠0
PSS Equation:
q µβ re
-------------------------- ln ----- – 0.75 + [ S + D q ]
P wf = P i – 141.2
kh r w
D=1x10-5(MCF/D) D=1x10-4(MCF/D)
q=40,000MCF/D q=40,000MCF/D
a. Theoretical method
The flow equation can be written in the form (Deliverability equations):
2
ψ ( P i ) – ψ ( P wf ) = aq + bq
2 2 2
P i – P wf = aq + bq
2
P i – P wf = aq + bq
q µβ ηg tP µβ 2
P i – PWF = 162.6 ---------- log --------------------
2
+ 0.87 Sm + 141.2 ------- Dq
kh 0.445 r w kh
P i – P WF µβ ηg tP µβ
----------------------- = 162.6 ------- log --------------------
2
+ 0.87 Sm + 141.2 ------- Dq
q kh 0.445 r w kh
P i – P WF
----------------------- = a ( t ) + bq
q
b (turbulence)
Pi – P wf
--------------------
q
a(t)
µβ ηg tP
a ( t ) – 162.6 ------- log --------------------
kh 0.445 r2w
Sm = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
µβ
141.2 -------
kh
a ( t ) kh ηg tP
S m = ---------------------- – 1.151 log --------------------
141.2µβ 0.445 r 2 w
2
r
2. Pseudo-steady state flow attained ( t P > ------e- for well centered in circular drainage area)
4η
q µβ re
P i – P WF = 141.2 ---------- ln ----- – 0.75 + ( S m + D q )
kh r w
P i – PWF µβ re µβ
----------------------- = 141.2 ------- ln ----- – 0.75 + Sm + 141.2 ------- Dq
q kh r w
kh
µβ re
∴a = 141.2 ------- ln ----- – 0.75 + Sm
kh r w
µβ
b = 141.2 ------- D
kh
b
P i – P wf
--------------------
q
a
This yields the stabilized flow equation: P i – P WF = aq + bq2 . Use this to estimate flow rates
as a function of ∆P . Therefore, given “a” and “b”, you can estimate a drawdown for a
specified rate, or a rate for a specified drawdown.
NOTE: This development is possible only if PSS is reached during all rates in the multi-
rate test.
2 2
P i – P WF
------------------------ = a ( t ) + bq
q
zT η tP
a ( t ) = 1637µ
------------------------ q log -------------------- + 0.87 S m
kh 0.445 r2w
zT
b = 1422µ
------------------------ D
kh
a ( t )kh η tP
b S m = 1.151 ------------------------ – log --------------------
2
Pi –
2
P wf 1637µ zT 0.445 r 2 w
---------------------
q bkh
a(t) D = ------------------------
1422µ zT
Deliverability equations:
Now, say we want a deliverability equation of the form Pi – P WF = aq + bq2 , but cannot flow
each rate to PSS. Alternative - flow 3 rates at transient conditions and final rate to PSS.
PSS
b Transient
P i – P wf
--------------------
q
a
b
a(t)
c. Empirical method
• AOF - absolute open (hole) flow - ( PWS ≈ 14.7 psia )
Empirical equation:
2 2 n
q = c ( P i – P WF )
2 2 n q
( Pi – PWF ) = ---
c
1 1
--- ---
2 2 n 1 n
( Pi – P WF ) = q ---
c
2 2 1 1 1 1 1
log ( P i – P WF ) = --- log q + --- log --- where --- log --- is constant
n n c n c
2 2 n = 1: Darcy flow
( P i – ( 14.7 ) )
n = 0.5: non-Darcy flow
Therefore,
2 2
slope = 1/n slope = 1: Darcy flow
log ( P i – P wf )
slope = 2: non-Darcy flow
AOF
log (q)
q
Once slope is determined, 1--- , estimate c from measured data: c = -------------------------------
- . Then the
n
n 2 2
( Pi – PWF )
n
deliverability equation becomes: q = c ( P 2i – P 2WF )
Lee’s book refers to stabilization or PSS for each rate, i.e. each rate must reach PSS.
Generally this is never feasible and not necessary. Usually never possible to have even
one rate reach stabilization.
b. Isochronal testing
q4
q3
q q2
q1
µβ ηtP
a ( t ) = 162.6 ---------g log -------------------- + 0.87 S m
kh 0.445 r2w
µβ
b = 141.2 ---------g D
kh
STANDARD: all 4 rates in transient flow
RARE: 3 rates transient flow, last rate in PSS
Comments:
• Estimation of D is independent of flow regime (transient/PSS)
• Calculation of intercept, “a”, is dependent upon flow regime which will impact deliver-
ability equation.
- If final rate reaches stabilization, deliverability equation will be more accurate
- If all rates are in transient regime, extrapolated rates based on deliverability equation
will be high (optimistic)
c. Modified isochronal
• Applicable to any permeability system
q4
q3
q q2
q1
Pi 1 Pi 2 Pi 3 Pi 4
Analysis procedure:
1. Analyze each PBU for
• kh, S
• kh should be roughly the same from each PBU. If not, most likely error is in rate mea-
surement
2. Estimate Sm and D
• Plot Sg vs. q ( Sg = Sm + Dq )
- if Sg is constant then there is no turbulence
- if Sg is linear with q then there no turbulence
D
SG SG = Sm + Dq
Sm
- can be developed if accurate estimates for kh, Sm and D are made from multi-rate/
PBU testing.
- need estimate of reservoir size, re. However, this is normally not very sensitive to the
r
answer ( ln ----e- ≈ 7.5 )
rw
The advantage of flow after flow followed by a PBU is that it saves time. It does not require
multiple PBU’s. The disadvantage is that if a reliable kh value cannot be estimated from
the final PBU, then the entire analysis can be in error.
D
SG SG = Sm + Dq
Sm
Odeh-Jones Analysis
Skin analysis (Sm) for gas wells based on flowing pressures. Extension of theoretical
development presented earlier.
Assume 2 rate test (both rates are non-zero) and apply superposition.
q2
q1
t0 t1
t
( P i – P WF ) = ∆ P
2 2 2
µβ 0.445 rw 0.445 r w 0.445 r w
= – 162.6 ------- q 1 log -------------------- – 0.87 Sq 1 – q 1 log -------------------- + 0.87 Sq 1 + q 2 log -------------------- – 0.87 Sq 2
kh η t η ( t – t 1 ) η ( t – t 1 )
µβ
let m ′ = 162.6 ------
-
kh
∴( P i – P WF )
2 2 2
0.445 rw 0.445 r w 0.445 r w
= – m ′ – q 1 log t + q 1 log ( t – t1 ) – q 2 log ( t – t 1 ) + q 1 log -------------------- – q 1 log -------------------- – m ′ q 2 log -------------------- – 0.87 S
ηt ηt ηt
divide through by q2
( P i – P WF ) m′ η
--------------------------- = ------ [ q 1 log t + ( q 2 – q 1 ) log ( t – t1 ) ] + m ′ log -------------------- + 0.87 S
q2 q2 0.445 r 2w
STF/q2
η
b ′ = m ′ log -------------------- + 0.87 S
0.445 r 2w
b′ η
S G = 1.151 ------ – log --------------------
m′ 0.445 r 2 w
Now, if non-Darcy flow effects are present, skin increases with increasing rate. Therefore,
intercept values, b ′ , increases as skin increases.
b2′ η
q2 - – log --------------------
S 2 = 1.151 -------
m′ 0.445 r 2 w
P i – P wf
-------------------- b1′ η
q2 b2' q1 - – log --------------------
S 1 = 1.151 -------
m′ 0.445 r 2 w
b1'
S2 > S1
STF/q2
D
SG
Sm
Flow Regimes
1. Radial flow - increase in separation of ∆P and ∆P' indicates increasing skin
∆P
cs kh, S, Pi
∆P′
∆P Pi Same rate q
log ∆P, ∆P'
4. Bi-linear flow
- Finite conductivity fracture (∆P in fracture accounted for)
Flow regime sequence:
- bilinear - flow through fractures (usually masked- rarely seen)
- linear - flow from matrix to fractures
- late radial - radial flow in matrix (basically pure radial)
∆P
∆P '
∆t
Horizontal wells
h
kv, k h
kh h
L kvkh L
late radial
Early radial:
h L
Transition:
L
Late radial:
L
• Transition region - estimate L (drainhole length) from beginning of transition. You need
khh to estimate L.
k k h
L -----v » k h h or ----v- » ---
kh kh L
k
Physically this means thin reservoir sections with long drainholes with decent ----v- (0.05-0.1)
kh
Horizontal well outperforms vertical well Vertical well outperforms horizontal well
when: when:
k k
L -----v » k h h L -----v « k h h
kh kh
(Seen a number of times in Prudhoe Bay)
k h h, S g L kv kh , Sm
L kv kh , S m
k h h, S g
P*=Pi
P*=Pi MTR LTR
1 tP + ∆ t 1000 1 tP + ∆ t 1000
log ----------------
- log ----------------
-
∆t ∆t
A B C
P
P
P
L or distance
P*=Pi
LTR
P MTR
ETR
P WS
1 tP + ∆ t 1000
log ----------------
-
∆t
2.302 ( P∗ – P )
------------------------------------- = P D , calculate P .
m MBH
P∗ – P 2.302 ( P∗ – P ) µβ q µβ
Note: ----------------------- = ------------------------------------- where m = horner MTR slope ( 162.6 q---------
- ). Also, 70.6 ---------- =
q µβ m kh kh
70.6 ----------
kh
the derivative m.
Advantages
• does not require data beyond MTR. However, MTR MUST be present
• applicable to wide variety of drainage shapes (well need not be centered)
Disadvantages
• requires knowledge of drainage area size and shape
• not good for layered reservoirs
• requires knowledge of fluid properties and porosity and ct
Example 2.6 P* method
Use data from examples 2.2-2.4
Well centered in square drainage area
–4 2
( 2.637 ×10 ) ( 7.65 ) ft
tp = 13630 hours η = ------------------------------------------------------------- = 3800 ------
( 0.039 ) ( 0.8 ) ( 1.7 ×10 )
–5 hr
P* = 4577 psia
m = 70
k = 7.65 mD
A = (2640)2 = 6.97x106 ft2 (160 acres)
ηtP ( 3800 ) ( 13630 )
-------- = ---------------------------------------- = 7.45
A 6.97 ×10
6
Using superposition and PSS solution, the late time PBU can be approximated by:
q µβ – 0.00388 k ∆ t
P – P WS = 118.6 ---------- exp ---------------------------------
2
-
kh φµ c t r e
q µβ k∆t
log ( P – P WS ) = log 118.6 ---------- – 0.00168 ----------------2-
kh φµ c t r e
log ( P – P WS ) = A + B ∆ t
Therefore, plot log ( P – PWS ) vs.∆t. If correct, P will plot as a straight line. Data must be in
following time range:
2 2
250φµ c t r e 750φµ c t re
--------------------------- ≤ ∆ t ≤ --------------------------
-
k k
or
2 2
( 0.51 re ) ( 0.89 r e )
- ≤ ∆ t ≤ -----------------------
----------------------- -
4η 4η
Too large
log ( P – PWS )
Too small
∆t
Advantages
• requires no knowledge of reservoir properties (A, φ, ct, etc.)
• works for hydraulically fractured wells (assuming radial flow is established)
Flow/PBU periods
• oil: 24 hour stable flow after cleanup (defined as basic sediment and water < 5%)
36 hour PBU
• gas: 3-4 rate test after cleanup, 8 hours per test (single rate, same as oil test, if D not
required)
36 hour PBU
Pressure measurement
• memory gauges
• surface readout
• Rate of pressure measurement can be modified with surface readout gauges (EL)
4. Gauge/flowmeter installation
• Exal/Expro permanent gauge/flowmeter
• Quartz gauge
• Flowmeter, venturi effect, estimate flow rate based on ∆P (Bernoulli’s principle)
• Remote locations, subsea applications where a dedicated flowline per well is not feasi-
ble
• Only good for single phase flow
• An example of such an installation is the BP-Amoco/Shell/Marathon Troika project
Wellbore Effects
Phase segregation
• Need two or more phases
• If gradient changes between gauge and perforations during PBU due to phase segrega-
tion (water falling/oil rising, water falling/gas rising), the pressure data will be corrupted
until phase segregation is complete
• If gauge is above the interval and phase segregation occurs during PBU, the pressure
is greater than pure reservoir response
• Gas humping: Water falling back/imbibing into formation during PBU. Can be especially
severe in low permeability gas reservoirs. Remedy: Place gauges as close as possible
to top of perforations or within perforated interval or below interval (within 50 feet should
be OK)
Index
ù
Buildup Test Solutions 28
÷
Continuity equation (cylindrical coordinates) 7
õ
Darcy’s Law 8
Derivative Analysis (Drawdown case) 30
Drawdown test 4
Drill Stem Tests 65
Drillstem test (DST) 5
ñ
Falloff test 5
Flow efficiency 13
Flow Regimes & Model Recognition 34
í
Horizontal wells 60
Horner’s Approximation 28
ë
Injection test 4
Interference/pulse test 5
Isotropic 8
ã
Mathews-Brohs-Hazeroch 62
Modified Muskat Method 63
Multiple Rate Testing 45
Multi-rate Drawdown Test Analysis 56
!
Odeh-Jones Analysis 56
#
Pressure buildup test 4
Pseudo (Y(P)) Equation Development 38
'
Radius of Investigation 21
)
Skin (drawdown) 31
Index Page 67
© 2000-2001 M. Peter Ferrero, IX
Pressure Transient Analysis
Index Page 68
© 2000-2001 M. Peter Ferrero, IX