SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER SERIES

is funded principally through a grant of the

SPE FOUNDATION
The Society gratefully acknowledges those companies that support the program by allowing their professionals to participate as Lecturers. And special thanks to The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers (AIME) and individual SPE sections for their contribution to the program.

APPLICATION OF TOTAL CONCEPT TO WELLTESTS IN HIGH PERMEABILITY RESERVOIRS

M. ONYEKONWU Petroleum Engineering Department University of Port-Harcourt, Nigeria
2

OUTLINE
! ! ! ! ! !

BHP Tests and Objectives Typical Problems in High Permeability Formation What is Total Concept? Test and Analysis Principles Problems and Remedies Conclusions
3

BHP Test
!

Measure Sand-face Pressure with Time at Specified-Rate Conditions

Objectives of Test
! ! !

Determine Reservoir Parameters Determine Well Parameters Determine Dynamic Influence of Other Wells/Aquifer Assess Changes since Previous Survey Datum

Pressure, Damage Skin, Drainage Area

Usefulness of Tests
! Reservoir Surveillance ! Determination of Stimulation Candidates ! Input for Reservoir Simulation ! Material Balance Calculation ! Gaslift Optimization

Typical Problems in High Permeability Reservoir

! Possible marred Transient State Phase

Wellbore Storage Phase A B C Transient State Phase D E Late Time Phase

Increasing Time Figure 1

6

 Fast Stabilization
Fast Stabilisation after about 3 mins
3550

Shut - In Pressure (psi)

3540

3530

3520

3510

3500

3490

3480 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130

Figure 2

Shut - In Time (min)

Total Concept
Achieved Objective
Test Analyst

O ield F

r rato pe

Pro pos al

Wr iter

BHP Test Figure 4

Test and Analysis Principle

Test Principle
Rate Change

(Input)

Reservoir K ?, s ?

Pressure Change

(Output) Same

Analysis Principle
Rate Change

(Input)

Model k, s, etc known

Pressure Change

(Output)

Figure 5

Implications of Test and Analysis Principles

"

Rate Changes (Input) are needed to create Pressure Changes (Output) Correct rate (input) applied to the reservoir must be known Unrecorded rate changes will render test useless Correct pressure changes caused by rate changes must be measured Leak, gauge movement, etc cause pressure changes not associated with rate changes

"

" "

"

10

Sources of Problems

Proposal (Test Programme)

# Objective/Type of Test # Test Sequences # Test Duration

Procedure
# Depth Control # Rate Measurement # Inefficient Shut - In
11

Sources of Problems Continued

Equipment
# Gauges # Lubricator # Packer # Gaslift # Test Separator

Analysis
# Data Quality # Realistic Model # Non Reservoir Responses # Application

12

Table 1: Tests and Objectives

Type of Test Drawdown Ideal Conditions of Test
1. 2.

Information Derived from Test

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Constant Rate Long shut-in Time

Permeability Skin Factor Drainage Volume Flow Efficiency Linear No Flow Boundary Permeability Skin Factor Flow Efficiency Average Pressure Linear No Flow Boundary Permeability Storativity Anisotropic Permeability Values and Orientation Sand Continuity

Buildup

1.

Constant Rate

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Interference

1.

Constant Rate Production or Injection at the Active Well

1. 2. 3. 4.

13

Problems on Objective and Types of Test

!Obtaining K and S in active Wells
P*
Skin Permeability

Pressure

Figure 6

Time
14

$ Example 1 Table 2: Production Data Prior to Shut-In

Time Meter Reading (bb) 12:45:00 13:00:00 13:15:00 14:00:00 14:15:00 14:30:00 15:30:00 15:45:00 16:30:00 16:45:00 17:00:00 17:15:00 18:15:00 205.70 210.00 248.40 336.70. 355.00 372.50 391.70 391.80 391.90 391.90 391.90 391.90 391.90 Oil Observed Volume (bbl) 67.00 04.30 38.40 2.90 18.30 17.50 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15

FG/SG For Dead Well

16

FG/SG For Live Well

0
m = average pressure gradient, 0.13 psi/ft m = 0.01psi/ft

-2000

Depth (ft)

-4000

-2306 -2893 -3290 -3392 -3594 -4090 -4493 -5083 -5793

m = 0.377 psi/ft m = 0.354 psi/ft

-6000

-8000 0
Flow ing Gradient

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Pressure (psia)

Static Gradient

Valve Figure 7: Static Flowing Gradients for a Live Well FigureLocation and and Flowing Gradients for a Live Well 7: Static

$ Example 2 Interference Test with many Active Wells

17

Test Duration
Example 1: Normal Well

18

Table 3: Effect of Buildup Period on Calculated Results

Parameter Long Shut - In Calculated Results Short Shut - In Case 1 (Constrained Skin) Case 2 (Unconstrained Skin)

Permeability (md) Skin CS (STB/psi)

1840 32.4 0.0248

708 9.09 0.0237

2090 37.8 0.025

19

$ Example 2: Horizontal Well (LP = 2100ft, k = 1500md, = 0.65cp, = 0.2)

Wellbore Storage Phase Transient State Phase Radial Flow Linear Flow Pseudo-Radial Flow Late Time Phase

6.0 7.4 7.65

11.5

Increasing Time (hrs.)

Figure 11: Flow Geometry and Phases in Well on a Horizontal Well

20

Procedure: Depth Control Problems

!Good Gauges Imply Accurate Pressure Measurement !Wireline Depth Measurement not so Accurate !Depth Error of 50 ft Result to an Error of about 17.5 psi !Some Reservoir not Depleted by as much as 17.5psi per Year !Depth Error may be Detected from Calculated Wellbore Fluid Gradient, FG
P (psi/ft) FG = Z
21

Table 4: Depth Control Check

Pressure (psia) 953 973 1016 1342 1659 1754 1814 1879 1916 1957 1999 2016 2037 Gradient Shift Depth s (ft) (ftBCHH) (ftss) (psi/ft) 793 1793 2793 3793 4793 5093 5293 5493 5593 5693 5793 5843 5893 771 1770 2739 3684 4612 4895 5085 5276 5371 5466 5562 5610 5657 0.020 0.044 0.345 0.342 0.335 0.316 0.340 0.383 0.435 0.435 0.356 0.456 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 -6.0 -24.0 -30.0 -22.0 0.0 0.0 -8.8 -7.0 CORRECTED DEPTHS Gradient (psi/ft Depth (ftBCHH) (ftss) 793 1793 2793 3798 4794 5087 5269 5463 5571 5693 5793 5834 5886 771 1770 2739 3689 4613 4889 5061 5246 5349 5466 5562 5601 5650 0.020 0.044 0.343 0.344 0.344 0.349 0.351 0.354 0.354 0.435 0.437 0.439
22

SG SURVEY : 10543
457 857 1257 1657 SG = 0.04(Gas) 2057 2457 2857 3257 3657 4057 4457 4857 5257 5657 953 1153

Depth (ft)

SG = 0.34(Oil)

SG = 0.434(Water)

1353

1553
Pressure (psia)

1753

1953

2153

Figure 12: Depth Control Check

23

Procedure: Rate Measurement Problem

Implication

162.6q k = (md) mh
Quality Check on Rate Measurement

qB t CS = ( )USL 24 p
24

Table 5 Calculated Wellbore Storage Constant (STB/psi) From Analysis From Well Configuration 0.00176 0.0071 0.00556 0.00724

Remedies

!There should also be Interest in Correct Rate Measurement !Flowstation Staff should perform the Flowrate Measurement

25

Procedure: Sampling Frequency

! High Sampling Frequency as Tests are of Low Duration ! Pressure Shift caused by Frequency Change during Critical Period

26

Procedure: Bad Practices

Figure 14: Rocking of Wing Valve

27

Procedure: Honest Reporting

28

Equipment: Gauge Problem

29

Gauge Movement Problem

Pwf Analysis 2 Pwf Analysis 1

Figure 16: Unnecessary Gauge Movement

30

EFFECT OF GAUGE MOVEMENT

Analysis 1

Analysis 2

31

Effect of Gauge Movement on Results

Table 6

Parameter
K (md) S CS (STB/psi)

Analysis 1
690 - 4.58 0.0044

Analysis 2
950 - 5.22 1.6045

32

Equipment: Gaslift Valve

33

Equipment: Gaslift Valve

34

Equipment: Lubricator Leak

35

Lubricator Leak Continued

Figure 22: Semilog Plot of Data with Initial Leak from Lubricator

36

Equipment: Packer Problem

Communication between Test String and Annulus

Figure 26: Surface Pressure of Test String and Casing (Case with Communication)

37

Analysis: Data Quality

38

Data Quality Continued

39

Data Quality Continued

Figure 29: Unrealistic Pressure Difference

40

Analysis: Unrealistic Model

Figure 30: Misinterpretation of Interference

41

Unrealistic Model
Table 7 Parameter Calculated Results Conventional Type Curve K, md S CS, rb/psi 1043 26.18 1.016 X 10-2 1316.7 34.6 0.917 x 10-2 1000 25 0.9 x 10-2 Correct Results

42

Unrealistic Model Continued

Dip due to Double Porosity

Log P

Dip due to Phase Segregation

Log t

Log t
43

Figure 31: Pressure Derivatives Showing Dips due to Phase Segregation

and Double Porosity

Unrealistic Model Continued

Figure 32: Effect of Gas Phase Segregation on Pressure Derivative

44

Unrealistic Model Continued

Figure 33: Pressure Difference Plot Showing Gas Segregation Effects

45

Upward Movement of liquid Interface

Gauges

46

Non Reservoir Response

Figure 35: Liquid Interface Movement on a Cartesian Plot

47

Non Reservoir Response Continued

Liquid Interface Movement

48

Analysis: Systems Approach

No Straight Line

Leak

Straight Line

Leak

Figure 37(a) &(b): Semilog Plots of Tests in adjacent Wells

Draining the same Reservoir

49

Application of Results
P
Psc

Useful Drawdown

Pwf rw

Psd Psp

PT

ro

p-p wf 141.2qB sd p sd = kh

p sd

Indices for Selecting Stimulation Candidates

WELL TEST NUMBER 1 Total Skin PT, psi Damage Skin Psd, psi R 18.4 57.86 3.34 30.72 0.34 2 3.5 174.2 9.1 135.2 0.71 3 26.4 216.6 16.6 204 0.75 4 192 723 45 677 0.91 5 6.1 9.9 -17.6 -17.5 6 196 119 66 115 0.95 7 63.6 367 3.15 190 50 0.47

Example
Table 8: Results of Pre-Stimulation and Post-Stimulation Test (Well A)
Parameter Rate (STB/day) Drawdown (psi) Total Skin (s) p due to Total Skin (psi) Mechanical Skin Damage Skin pdamageskin (psi) R = pdamageskin/Drawdown Oil PI Pre-Stimulation 568 68.16 9.82 32.45 2.2 7.57 25.02 0.367 2.37 Post-Stimulation 570 168.72 4.85 59.7 2.2 1.3 32.3 0.191 3.08
51

Example
Table 9: Results of Pre-Stimulation and Post-Stimulation Test (Well B)
Parameter Rate (STB/day) Total Skin (s) Mechanical Skin Damage Skin Drawdown, psi pdamageskin (psi) R = pdamageskin/Drawdown Oil PI Pre-Stimulation 66 46.74 0.2 46.57 365.63 259.53 0.71 0.15 Post-Stimulation 539 8.58 0.2 8.4 212.18 102.2 0.48 2.14
52

Good Test Possible if:

!Good proposal that meets objective !Calibrated gauges and equipment in good working conditions !Good test procedure
Rate Measurement Depth Control Truthful Reporting

!Analysis based on knowledge

53

Savings from Applying Total Concept

Table 10: Benefits from BHP Survey
ACTIVITIES SAVING ($ million) 0.8 1.0

Well Surveillance Stimulation (about 5 Jobs contribute to finding 5 more) Gaslift Optimization (10% improvement of Target at
$1/bbl)

Reservoir Surveillance
Sand F4.0/F4.1X Production (3 Mbopd) Sand-X Block (New Well Cancelled) Dump Creek (10% of the 6 fewer Wells required) Well-11 (Sidetrack raise Trajectory) 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 4.0

Sand D5.0X Development

Horizontal Well changed to Recompletion 10% Well Campain)

Total

16.8

54

Conclusions

!BHP Analysis NOT an Isolated Event !The BHP Proposal and Field Practices Influence Results !Problem Sources Include
#Unrecorded Rate Changes #Leak/Interference #Gauges #Improper Procedure #Improper Analysis/Usage #Non-Uniqueness

55

Conclusions Continued

!Need for Enlightenment and Supervision of Tests !Need to ascertain what causes the Pressure change before the Analysis !Total Concept is Useful and can generally be applied in all Reservoirs

56

THANK YOU

57