100%(5)100% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (5 Abstimmungen)

832 Ansichten522 SeitenAug 14, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PPT, PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

© All Rights Reserved

Als PPT, PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

100%(5)100% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (5 Abstimmungen)

832 Ansichten522 Seiten© All Rights Reserved

Als PPT, PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 522

Homework

20%

Examinations (3)

45%

Final Examination

25%

Class Participation/Pop Quizzes 10%

total = 100%

Grade Cutoffs: (Percentages)

A: < 90

B: 89.99 to 80

C: 79.99 to 70

D: 69.99 to 60

F: < 59.99

Introduction

to Well Testing

Objectives

List the more common objectives of well testing.

Describe the diffusivity equation by explaining

its purpose and applications

assumptions made in its derivation and how it is

derived

its form for one-dimensional radial flow.

List, define, give the units for, and specify typical sources

for each of the variables that influence responses in a well

test.

Compute the total compressibility for different reservoir

systems (undersaturated oil, saturated oil, gas).

A tool for reservoir evaluation and characterization

Investigates a much larger volume of the reservoir

than cores or logs

Provides estimates of

permeability under in-situ conditions

near-wellbore conditions

distances to boundaries

average pressure

q

Well is

allowed to

produce

normally

Sensor is

lowered

into well

Production

remainst

constant

Pressure

stabilizes

q=0

Well is

shut in

Production drops to 0

q

t

Sensor is

lowered

into well

p

Pressure

rises

Fundamental Concepts

Applications and objectives of well testing

Development of the diffusivity equation

Definitions and sources for data used in

well testing

Tests

Pressure transient tests

We generate and measure pressure changes with time

Deliverability tests

Well controlled production

(Production Analysis)

Use of production data for goals usually achieved by

well testing

Reservoir properties (permeability, skin

factor, fracture half-length, etc).

Reservoir pore volume (estimated using

long-term production performance).

Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)

movable fluid volumes.

Define reservoir limits

Estimate average drainage area pressure

Characterize reservoir

Diagnose productivity problems

Evaluate stimulation treatment effectiveness

q

Well is

allowed to

produce

normally

Sensor is

lowered

into well

Well is shut in,

pressure is

measured

Well is

shut in

Sensor is

lowered

into

offset

well

. . . pressure is

measured at

offset well(s)

q

Plot

Produce well

at constant pressure

response

rate

Lower

sensor

into well

Pwf

t

Shut in well

Plot

pressure

response

Produce

well at

constant

rate

Lower

sensor

into well

Pws

t

Inject fluid

into well at

constant rate p

Plot

pressure

response

q=0

Shut in well

Inject fluid

into well at

constant rate

Measure

pressure

response

p

t

Multiwell Tests

. . . measure pressure

response at offset

well(s)

Produce

one well at

constant

rate . . .

p

t

Multiwell Tests

q

. . . measure

pressure

response at

offset well(s)

Alternately

produce and

shut in one

well . . .

p

t

one well in which the pressure response is measured

following a rate change.

shut in after controlled production

(specific drawdown tests: are called reservoir limits tests

similar to a pressure buildup test, except it is, conducted on

an injection well

injectivity test

Inject into the well at measured rate and measure pressure

as it increases with time

analogous to pressure drawdown testing.

Flow rate is changed in one well

Pressure response is measured in one or more other

wells

Directional variations of reservoir properties

(orientation of natural fractures)

Presence or lack of communication between two

points in the reservoir

Ratio of the porosity-compressibility products of the

matrix and fracture systems

Multiwell tests:

Interference tests

The active well is produced at a measured, constant rate

throughout the test

(Other wells in the field must be shut in so that any

observed pressure response can be attributed to the active

well only.)

Pulse tests

The active well produces and then, is shut in, returned to

production and shut in again

Repeated but with production or shut-in periods rarely

exceeding more than a few hours

Produces a pressure response in the observation wells

which usually can be interpreted unambiguously (even

when other wells in the field continue to produce)

production capabilities of a well under

specific reservoir conditions

primarily for gas wells

absolute openflow (AOF) potential

inflow performance relationship (IPR) or gas

backpressure curve

(referred to as gas backpressure or four-point tests)

producing the well at a series of different stabilized

flow rates

measuring the stabilized bottomhole flowing

pressure at the sandface

typically, with a sequence of increasing flow rates

low-permeability formations

flowing the well at a single rate until the bottomhole

flowing pressure is stabilized

required by many regulatory agencies

requires prior knowledge of the well's deliverability

behavior

(from previous testing or from correlations with other

wells producing in the same field under similar conditions)

Specifically, the isochronal test is a series of singlepoint tests developed to estimate stabilized

deliverability characteristics without actually flowing

the well for the time required to achieve stabilized

conditions

The isochronal test is conducted by alternately

producing the well, then shutting in the well and

allowing it to build up to the average reservoir pressure

prior to the beginning of the next production period.

Issues

Producing Wells vs. Injection Wells

Shallow Wells vs. Deep Wells

Stimulated Wells vs. Unstimulated Wells

Effects of Reservoir Properties

Low Permeability vs. High Permeability

Formations

Single Zones vs. Multiple Zones

Safety and Environmental Considerations

Sweet Gas vs. Sour and Corrosive Gases

Other environmental Concerns

Reservoir properties (permeability, skin

factor, fracture half-length, etc).

Reservoir pore volume (estimated using

long-term production performance).

Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)

movable fluid volumes.

End of Class

Describes the flow of

having constant viscosity

in a porous medium

at constant temperature

continuity

flow equation (Darcys law)

equation-of-state

(Av)1

(Av)2

Av 1 Av 2

m

kAp

q

L

or, in differential form,

k x p

ux

x

Compressible Liquid

oe

c p po

One-dimensional, radial form:

1 p ct p

r

r r r

k t

Vres

B

Vsurf

For oil:

For gas:

For water:

Vres

Bo

Vsurf

Vres

Bg

Vsurf

Vres

Bw

Vsurf

Viscosity

A fluids resistance to flow

Gasolinelow viscosity

Vaselinehigh viscosity

Fluid Compressibility

1 V

ln V

c

V p

p

Porosity

Permeability

qL

k

Ap

Pore Compressibility

1 ln

cf

p

p

h1

h2

Shale

h3

h4

Sand

h = h1 + h2 + h3

(No perforations

in this sand)

Vertical well,

horizontal

formation

Deviated well,

horizontal

formation

Vertical well,

slanted formation

Deviated well,

slanted formation

Saturations

Wellbore Radius

rw

Total Compressibility

ct c f So co Swcw S g c g

Instructional Objectives

State the Ei-function solution to the diffusivity equation, and

list all the assumptions on which it is based. State practical

rules for determining the numerical values of the Ei-function.

Given formation and fluid properties, be able to calculate the

radius of investigation at a given time and the time necessary

to reach a given radius of investigation.

Describe the effects of reservoir properties on the radius of

investigation.

Bulk

formation

rw

Ei-Function Solution

to the Diffusivity Equation

qB 948ct r

p pi 70.6

Ei

kh

kt

Ei x

u

e

du

Ei-Function Graph

Log approximation

-Ei(-x)

Ei-function

drops to zero

0

0.001

0.01

0.1

-x

10

100

p pi

2

Applies when

948 ct r

10

kt

Long-Time Approximation

to Ei-Function Solution

2

qB

1688

c

r

t

p pi 162.6

log10

kh

kt

948 ct r 2

0.01

Applies when

kt

(small radius or large time)

Pressure Profile

During Drawdown

2000

ri

t=0

ri

ri

ri

t = 0.01 hrs

t = 1 hr

Pressure,

psi

t = 100 hrs

t = 10000 hrs

1000

10

100

1000

10000

Pressure Profile

During Buildup

2,000

1,800

Pressure,

psi

ri

t = 100 hrs

1,600

1,400

ri

t = 1 hr

1,200

t = 0.01 hrs

1,000

ri

t = 10,000 hrs

ri

10

t=0

100

1,000

10,000

Radius of investigation for a

given time t:

kt

ri

948ct

Time required to reach a given

radius of investigation ri:

948 ct ri2

t

k

Stimulation

Instructional Objectives

List factors that cause skin damage or geometric skin factor.

Calculate skin factor for a given additional pressure drop due to

damage; conversely, calculate additional pressure drop for a given

skin factor.

Calculate flow efficiency given the skin factor, wellbore pressure,

and average drainage area pressure.

Express skin factor as an apparent wellbore radius; conversely,

express apparent wellbore radius as a skin factor.

Express a given skin factor as an equivalent fracture halflength (for

an infinite-conductivity fracture); conversely, express fracture halflength as an equivalent skin factor.

Fines may clog pore

throats, reducing

effective permeability

Mud filtrate

invasion

clays to swell,

causing damage

Production Damage

p > pd

P< pd

Gas Condensate

Reservoir

Immobile condensate

ring reduces

effective permeability

p < pb

p > pb

Oil Reservoir

Free gas reduces

effective permeability

Injection Damage

dirty

water

incompatible

water

Reservoir Model

Skin Effect

Altered

zone

ka

rw

ra

Bulk

formation

Pressure, psi

2,000

1,500

1,000

ps

500

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

0.00708 k h

s

ps

qB

141.2qB

ps

s

kh

of the Altered Zone

k

ra

s

1 ln

ka

rw

rw

rds

h

r

of the Altered Zone

ka

k

1

ln ra rw

rwa

r

e

wa

w

rwa

s ln

rw

re

smin ln

r

w

Example

re

smin ln

rw

745

ln

7.3

0.5

Geometric Skin

Partial Penetration

hp

h

Geometric Skin

Incompletely Perforated

Interval

h1

hp

ht

ht

s

sd s p

hp

Geometric Skin

Partial Penetration

Apparent Skin Factor

h1 D h1 ht

Geometric Skin

hpD hp ht

sp

1

A

h1 D hpD 4

hpD A 1

1

1

1 ln

ln

hpD

rw kv

rD

ht kh

1

B

h1 D 3hpD 4

Deviated Wellbore

h sec

s sd s

Geometric Skin

Deviated Wellbore

Apparent Skin Factor

w'

w'

s

41

2.06

tan

kv

tan w

kh

w'

56

1.865

hD

log

100

h

hD

rw

kh

kv

L f 2rwa

rwe

Lf

rwa

Geometric Skin

Lf

2

Completion Skin

rw

rp

kdp

s s p sd sdp

rdp

kR

Lp

kd

rd

sdp

h

Lp n

rdp kR kR

ln

kdp kd

r

p

Cement

sgp

Lg

kR hLg

2

2nkgp rp

Productivity Index

q

J

p pwf

Flow Efficiency

J actual p pwf ps

Ef

J ideal

p pwf

qnew qold

E fnew

E fold

Semilog Analysis

For Oil Wells

Instructional Objectives

Analyze a constant-rate drawdown test using semilog analysis.

Analyze a buildup test following a constant-rate flow period

using the Horner method.

Ei-Function Solution

qB 948c t r

p pi 70.6

Ei

kh

kt

-Ei(-x)

4

2

0.001

-x

100

2,000

Negative skin

(s = -2)

Pressure,

psi

Unsteady-state pressure

(s=0)

Positive (damage) skin (s = +5)

500

1

10

100

1,000

Distance from center of wellbore, ft

10,000

Ei-Function Solution

For r = rw

2

948 c t rw

qB

2 s

p pi 70.6

Ei

kh

kt

For r > ra

948 c t r 2

q B

p pi 70.6

Ei

kh

kt

Ei-Function

y = mx + b

pwf

pi 162.6

from this point forward

kh

k

3.23 0.869 s

log10 t log10

2

ct rw

Skin

162.6qB

k

mh

pi p1hr

k

3.23

s 1.151

log10

c r 2

m

t w

1,200

(t2, pwf2) p1hr is p at

1 hr on bestfit line

Pressure,

psi

(t1, pwf1)

Powers of 10

700

0.1

10

100

1,000

Example

q = 250 STB/D

h = 46 ft

rw = 0.365 ft

ct = 17 x 10-6 psi-1

pi = 4,412 psia

= 12%

B = 1.136 RB/STB

= 0.8 cp

p p

k

3.23

s 1.151 i 1hr log10

c r 2

m

t w

Example

q = 250 STB/D

h = 46 ft

rw = 0.365 ft

ct = 17 x 10-6 psi-1

pi = 4,412 psia

= 12%

B = 1.136 RB/STB

= 0.8 cp

162.6qB

mh

p p

k

3.23

s 1.151 i 1hr log10

c r 2

m

t w

Example

3,600

Extrapolate to get p1 hr

-100

m 100

p10hr 3,440 psi

Pressure,

psi

from field data

3,300

1

10

Time, hrs

100

Example

q = 250 STB/D

h = 46 ft

rw = 0.365 ft

ct = 17 x 10-6 psi-1

pi = 4,412 psia

= 12%

B = 1.136 RB/STB

= 0.8 cp

162.6qB

mh

p p

k

3.23

s 1.151 i 1hr log10

c r 2

m

m 100

t w

Tests

It is difficult to produce a well at a strictly constant

rate

Even small variations in rate distort the pressure

response

Alternative to Drawdown

Tests

There is one rate that is easy to maintain a flow

rate of zero.

A buildup test is conducted by shutting in a

producing well and measuring the resulting

pressure response.

q

+q.

t + t

-q

q

0

of 0.

tp

0

during production...

tp + t

injection (buildup) period...

0

sum of the two rate curves:

tp

k

qB

3.23 0.869 s

pws pi 162.6

log10 t p t log10

2

kh

c

r

t w

k

qB

3.23 0.869 s

162.6

log10 t log10

2

kh

ct rw

t p t

qB

pws pi 162.6

log 10

kh

t

y = mx + b

Buildup Straight-Line

Analogy

162.6qB

k

mh

Horner time ratio

pi b @

t p t

t

2,000

pi

Pressure,

psi

1,400

10,000

1,000

100

10

From a Buildup Test

s 1.151

p1hr pwf

k

3.23

log 10

2

c t rw

tp

pws

24 N p

qlast

t p t

qlast B

pi 162.6

log10

kh

t

Semilog Analysis

For Gas Wells

Instructional Objectives

1. Identify range of validity of pressure,

pressure-squared, and adjusted pressure

analysis methods

2. Estimate pressure drop due to nonDarcy

flow

3. Analyze flow and buildup tests using

semilog analysis

Outline

Flow Equations For Gas Wells

Pseudopressure

Pressure-Squared

Pressure

Adjusted Pressure

Non-Darcy Flow

Example

1 p c t p

r

r r r

k t

Continuity Equation

Equation of State For Slightly Compressible

Liquids

Darcys Law

absolute pressure, realideal

gas deviation

gas constant,

factor,

10.72 (ft3)

psi

dimensionless

(lb)/(mole)(in2)(R)

pV=znRT

pV znRT

number of moles

temperature, R

volume, ft

3

absolute pressure, psi

p p p 2

p

p0

pdp

z

Real Gas Pseudopressure

1 p p c t p p

r

r r r

k t

Continuity Equation

Real Gas Law Equation of State

Darcys Law

Pressure-Squared

2

2

c t p

1

p

r

r r r

k t

Continuity Equation

Real Gas Law Equation of State

Darcys Law

The term z Is Constant

Pressure-Squared Ranges

0.16

SG=1.2

Fairly constant at

rates <2,000 psi

SG=1.0

Tf = 200 F

mu*z,

psi/cp

SG=0.8

SG=0.6

2,000

4,000

6,000

Pressure, psia

8,000

10,000

If p/z is constant,

1 p ct p

r

r r r

k t

Continuity Equation

Real Gas Law Equation of State

Darcys Law

Pressure: Range Of

Application

250

Tf = 200F

SG=0.6

SG=0.8

p/*z,

psi/cp

(x103)

SG=1.0

SG=1.2

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

Pressure, psia

8,000

10,000

Pressure-Squared - Valid Only For Low

Pressures (< 2000 psi)

Pressure - Valid Only For High Pressures (>

3000 psi)

Real Gas Pseudopressure - Valid For All

Pressure Ranges

Real Gas Pseudopressure

1 p p ct p p

r

r r r

k t

Continuity Equation

Real Gas Law Equation of State

Darcys Law

Strong Variation

With Pressure

t ap

dt

p ct p

Adjusted Variables

z

pa p

p

t a ct i

i

t

p0

pdp z

p p p

z 2 p i

dt

ct i t ap

p ct p

With Adjusted Time

HTR

t p t a

t a

Non-Darcy Flow

Flow equations developed so far assume

Darcy flow

For gas wells, velocity near wellbore is

high enough that Darcys law fails

Non-Darcy behavior can often be

modeled as rate-dependent skin

s ' s Dq g

Estimating Non-Darcy

Coefficient

From Multiple Tests

10

8

Apparent

skin factor

D = 5.1x104D/Mscf

6

4

s = 3.4

2

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

From Turbulence Parameter

Often, only one test is available

If so, we can estimate D from

2.715 10

15

k g Mpsc

hrwTsc g ,wf

Estimating Turbulence

Parameter

If is not known, it can be estimated from

10 1.47 0.53

1.88 10 k

Wellbore Storage

Objectives

Define wellbore unloading

Define afterflow

Calculate wellbore storage (WBS)

coefficient for wellbore filled with a

singlephase fluid

Calculate WBS coefficient for rising

liquid level

Rate

Surface Rate

Ei-function solution

assumes constant

reservoir rate

Bottomhole

Rate

Time

Mass balance

equation resolves

problems

q qsf B

dpw

dt

24Vwbcwb

Rate

Bottomhole flow

continues after

shut-in

Surface Rate

Bottomhole

Rate

Time

q qsf B

dpw

dt

24Vwbcwb

Rate

Surface Rate

Bottomhole

Rate

Time

hydrostatic head in

wellbore matches

pressure in formation

q qsf B 5.615 wb

dpw

dt

24

144 Awb

gc

Wellbore Storage

q qsf B

dpw

Fluid-filled wellbore

dt

24Vwbcwb

Rising liquid level

q qsf B 5.615 wb

dpw

dt

24

144 Awb

General

q qsf B

dpw

dt

24C

gc

q qsf B

C

dpw

24

dt

Fluid-filled

wellbore

C Vwbcwb

Rising

liquid level

144 Awb gc

C

5.615 wb g

Awb

25.65

wb

Objectives

1. Identify wellbore storage and middle time regions

on type curve.

2. Identify pressure response for a well with high,

zero, or negative skin.

3. Calculate equivalent time.

4. Calculate wellbore storage coefficient,

permeability, and skin factor from type curve

match.

Dimensionless Variables

qB 948ct r 2

p pi 70.6

Ei

kh

kt

r

w

r

rD

rw

kh pi p

1

Ei

141.2qB

2

0.0002637 kt

4

2

c

r

t

w

kh pi p

0.0002637 kt

pD

t

141.2qB

1

rD2 D

ct rw2

pD Ei

2 4t D

Skin

kh pi p

pD

141.2qB

0.0002637 kt

tD

ct rw2

r

rD

rw

khps

s

141.2qB

0.8936C

CD

ct hrw2

Vertical well

Infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir

Single-phase, slightly compressible liquid

Infinitesimal skin factor

Constant wellbore storage coefficient

100

Skin factor

CDe2s

PD

CDe2s=1060

Type curve

CDe2s=100

CDe2s=0.01

Stem

Time group

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

100

PD

matching difficult

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Pressure Derivative

162.6qB

p

kh

log

kt

3.23 0.869 s

2

ct rw

p

p

t

t

ln t

pD

pD

tD

t D ln t D

p 70.6qB

t

t

kh

tD

pD

0. 5

t D

100

Differences in curve

shapes make

matching easier

CDe2s=1060

tD/PD

CDe2s=100

CDe2s=0.01

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Curves

100

Combining curves

gives each stem

value two distinctive

shapes

PD

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Pressure/Derivative Type

Curve

100

WBS

PD

Transition

Radial Flow

Unit

Horizontal Derivative

Slope

Line

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Curve

100

High skin

PD

No skin

Low skin

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Tests

pi pwf

pi pws

qB

162.6

kh

qB

162.6

kh

qB

162.6

kh

log10 t p log

k

3.23 0.869 s

2

ct rw

log10 t p t log

log10 t log

k

3.23 0.869 s

2

ct rw

k

3.23 0.869 s

2

ct rw

Tests

pws pwf

pws pwf

qB

162.6

kh

k

3.23 0.869 s

2

ct rw

log10 t p log

qB

162.6

kh

qB

162.6

kh

log10 t p t log

log10 t log

k

3.23 0.869s

2

ct rw

k

3.23 0.869 s

2

ct rw

t p t

qB

k

log

3.23 0.869 s

log10

162.6

c r 2

t p t

kh

t w

Tests

pi pwf

qB

162.6

kh

log10 t p log

k

3.23 0.869 s

2

ct rw

t p t

qB

k

3.23 0.869 s

log

pws pwf 162.6

log10

t p t

c r 2

kh

t w

qB

k

3.23 0.869s

pws pwf 162.6

log10 te log

c r 2

kh

t w

Tests

Drawdown

p pi pwf vs t

Buildup

p pws pwf vs t e

Properties Of Equivalent

Time

te

t p t

t p t

tp

t , t t p

tp

t p t

t p , t t p

t p t

tp

HTR

Wells

z

pa

p

ref

t a ct ref

p' dp '

p ' 0 p ' z p '

dt '

t ' 0 p ct p

Ca Vwb cg ref

1,000

teq

1,000

Curve

100

1,000

PD

teq

1,000

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Horizontal

100

1,000

PD

horizontal part of

1,000

teq type curves

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Match

100

1,000

PD

with horizontal stems

P

Begin to move toward unit slope line

1

teq

1,000

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Stems

100

1,000

PD

teq

1,000

100,000

0.01

tD/CD

Stems

100

Assume

pD =1,000

10

Assume

p = 262

Lets

say s=7x10

Calculate

s from9

matching stem value

p/pD k

pD

Extrapolate curve

as necessary

p

Assume teq

= 0.0546

1

0.01

Assume

tD/CD = 1

teq

Teq/tD CD

1,000

100,000

tD/CD

Properties

q = 50

B = 1.325

= 0.609

h = 15

= 0.183

ct = 1.76 x 10-5

rw2 = 0.25

CD = 1703

Match

141.2qB pD

k

h

p

M .P .

15

14.5 md

10

262

Match

CD

CD

0.0002637 k

2

ct rw

teq

tD C D

M .P .

0.0002637 14.5

5

0.183 0.609 1.76 10 0.25

1703

0.0546

2s

1 C De

s ln

2 C D

9

1 7 10

s ln

2 1703

7.6

Manual Log-Log

Analysis

Instructional Objectives

To be able to manually estimate permeability and

skin factor from the log-log diagnostic plot

without using type curves

Skin Factor from the

Diagnostic Plot

1000

pr

100

(tp)r

10

1

0.01

0.1

10

tr

100

1000

Estimating Permeability

and Skin Factor

70.6qB

k

h tp r

ktr

1 pr

s

ln

2

2 tp r

1688 c t rw

Example

q

h

B

= 50 STB/D

= 15 ft

= 1.36 RB/STB

= 0.563 cp

pwf

ct

rw

= 2095 psia

= 18.3%

= 17.9 x 106 psi1

= 0.25 ft

1000

400

100

14

10

1

0.01

0.1

10

20

100

1000

Estimate Permeability

70.6qB

k

h tp r

15 14

12.9 md

ktr

1 pr

s

ln

2

2 tp r

1688 c t rw

1 400

12.9 20

ln

2

6

2 14

1688 0.183 0.563 17.9 10 0.25

7.23

Flow

Regimes and

the

Diagnostic

Plot

Objectives

1. Identify early, middle, and late time regions

on a diagnostic plot.

2. Identify characteristic shapes of flow

regimes on a diagnostic plot.

3. List factors that affect pressure response in

early time.

4. List boundaries that affect pressure

response in late time.

Pressure change (p)

Pressure

change (p )

and derivative

( p ), psi

Pressure derivative ( p )

Unit-slope

line

Pressure

change (p )

and derivative

Near-wellbore effects

( p ), psi

(wellbore storage)

Early-time

region

Middletime

region

Late-time

region

Pressure

change (p )

and derivative

( p ), psi

Homogenous reservoir

horizontal derivative

(best estimate of k )

Early-time

Partial

penetration,

region

phase redistribution,

fracture conductivity

Middletime

region

Late-time

region

Pressure

change (p )

and derivative

( p ), psi

Infinite-acting

behavior

Early-time

Partial

penetration,

region

phase redistribution,

fracture conductivity

Boundary

effects

Middletime

region

Late-time

region

Flow Regimes

Common characteristic shapes of derivative

Volumetric

Radial

Linear

Bilinear

Spherical

different times in a single test

Flow regimes follow sequence within model

Volumetric Behavior

Fluids from outside recharge tank

Volumetric Behavior

Wellbore Storage

qBt

p

24C

Pseudosteady-State Flow

pi pwf

0.0744qBt 141.2qB

2

ct hre

kh

General Form

re 3

s

ln

rw 4

p mV t bV

Volumetric Behavior

General Form

Derivative

p mV t bV

mV t bV

p

t

t

t

t

mV t

Volumetric Behavior

Pressure

change (p )

and derivative

( p ), psi

or pseudosteadystate flow

Pressure derivative

Volumetric Behavior

Pressure

change (p )

and derivative

( p ), psi

Wellbore

storage

Radial Flow

Wellbore

Radial Flow

Wellbore

Fracture

Radial Flow

Late radial flow

Wellbore

Radial Flow

Vertical Well

162.6qB

p

kh

log

General Form

kt

3.23 0.869 s

2

ct rw

p m log t b

Radial Flow

General Form

Derivative

p m log t b

p

m log t b

t

t

t

t

m

2.303

Radial Flow

Pressure

change (p )

and derivative

( p ), psi

Pressure

Pressure derivative

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Radial Flow

Pressure

change (p )

and derivative

( p ), psi

Radial

flow

Spherical Flow

x

y

z

Spherical Flow

Vertical wellbore

Few perforations

open

Spherical flow

Spherical Flow

Vertical wellbore

Small part of

zone perforated

Spherical flow

Spherical Flow

Vertical wellbore

Certain wireline

testing tools

Spherical flow

Spherical Flow

Spherical Probe (RFT)

pi pwf

ct rp

q

1

4krp

kt

General Form

p bS mS t

1 2

Spherical Flow

General Form

Derivative

p bS mS t

1 2

bS mS t

p

t

t

t

t

1

1 2

mS t

2

1 2

Spherical Flow

Pressure

Pressure

change (p )

and derivative

( p ), psi

Pressure derivative

2

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Spherical Flow

Pressure

change (p )

and derivative

( p ), psi

Spherical flow

Linear Flow

Vertical wellbore

Fracture

Linear flow

Linear Flow

Vertical

wellbore

Linear

flow

Channel (ancient

stream) reservoir

Linear Flow

Wellbore

Linear Flow

Late linear flow

Wellbore

Linear Flow

Channel

Hydraulic

Fracture

General

Form

16.26qB kt

p

khw ct

12

4.064qB kt

p

khL f ct

12

p mL t

12

bL

Linear Flow

General

Form

Derivative

p mL t

12

bL

p

mL t bL

t

t

t

t

1

12

mL t

2

12

Linear Flow

Pressure change in fractured/damaged

or horizontal well

Pressure

change (p ) Pressure change in

and derivative undamaged

Pressure 1

( p ), psi fractured well

derivative

2

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Bilinear Flow

Bilinear Flow

Hydraulic Fracture

44.1qB 1

p

wk

h

f

General Form

12

ct k

p mB t

14

bB

14

Bilinear Flow

General Form

Derivative

p mB t

14

bB

p

mB t bB

t

t

t

t

1

14

mB t

4

14

Bilinear Flow

Pressure

change (p )

and derivative

( p ), psi

Pressure in fractured,

damaged well

Pressure in fractured,

undamaged well

Pressure derivative

4

Elapsed time (t ), hrs

Diagnostic Plot

Pressure

change (p )

and derivative

( p ), psi

Wellbore

storage

Radial

flow

Spherical flow

Recharge?

Estimating

Average Reservoir

Pressure

Estimating Reservoir

Pressure

Middle Time Region Methods

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek Method

Ramey-Cobb Method

Modified Muskat Method

Arps-Smith Method

Based on extrapolation and correction of MTR

pressure trend

Advantage

Use only pressure data in the middle-time region

Disadvantages

Need accurate fluid property estimates

Need to know drainage area shape, size, well

location within drainage area

May be somewhat computationally involved

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek

Producing time prior to shut-in, tp = 482 hr

Porosity, = 0.15

Viscosity, m = 0.25 cp

Total compressibility, ct = 1.615 x 10-5

Drainage area, A = 1500 x 3000 ft (a 2x1

reservoir)

2

Area

pMBHD

-1

0.01

0.1

tpAD

10

pMBHD

-1

0.01

0.1

tpAD

10

pMBHD

-1

-2

0.01

0.1

tpAD

10

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek

2750

p*=2689.4

m=26.7

2650

Shut-in well

pressure, psia

2550

2450

Step

Step1:

2:Plot

Extrapolate

pressureslope

vs. Horner

m to find

timep*

ratio

2400

106

105

104

103

102

10

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek

Step 3: Calculate dimensionless producing time

0.0002637 kt

ktpp

t pAD

pAD

ctt A

5

0.15 0.25 1.615 10 1500 3000

0.35

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek

Step 4: On appropriate MBH curve, find pMBHD

6

5

2x1 rectangle

4

3

pMBHD

2.05

2

1

0

-1

0.01

tpAD = 0.35

0.1

tpAD

10

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek

Step 5: Calculate average reservoir pressure, p

m

p p*

pMBHD t pAD

2.303

26.7

2.05

2689.4

2.303

2665.6

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek

Plot pws vs (tp+t)/t on semilog coordinates

Extrapolate to (tp+t)/t=1 to find p*

Calculate the dimensionless producing time tpAD

Using the appropriate MBH chart for the drainage

area shape and well location, find pMBHD

Calculate p

If tp >> tpss, more accurate results may be obtained

by using tpss in place of tp in calculating the Horner

time ratio and tpAD

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek

Advantages

Applies to wide variety of drainage area shapes, well

locations

Uses only data in the middle-time region

Can be used with both short and long producing

times

Disadvantages

Requires drainage area size, shape, well location

Requires accurate fluid property data

Reservoir Shapes

1

1

Dietz shape factor CA = 4.5132

Dietz

Dietzshape

shapefactor

factorCC

==30.8828

12.9851

A A

Reservoir Shapes

2

Reservoir Shapes

4

Reservoir Shapes

Dietz shape

factor CA =

31.62

Dietz shape

Dietz shape

factor CA = 19.17 factor CA = 27.1

Dietz shape

factor CA = 21.9

Dietz shape

factor CA = 31.6

Dietz shape

factor CA = 0.098

Ramey-Cobb

Step 1: Plot pressure vs. Horner time ratio

Step 2: Calculate dimensionless producing time

t pAD

0.0002637kt p

ct A

5

0.15 0.25 1.615 10 1500 3000

0.35

Ramey-Cobb

Step 3: Find the Dietz shape factor CA for the drainage

area shape and well location

t p t

C At pAD

p

21.8 0.35

Shape factor C

7.63

= 21.8369

Ramey-Cobb

2750

2650

Shut-in

wellbore

pressure, psia

2550

p 2665.8

HTR = 7.63

2450

2400

106

105

104

103

102

10

Ramey-Cobb

Plot pws vs (tp+t)/t on semilog coordinates

Calculate the dimensionless producing time tpAD

Find the Dietz shape factor CA for the drainage area shape

and well location

Calculate HTRavg

Extrapolate middle-time region on Horner plot to HTR avg

Read p at HTRavg

Ramey-Cobb

Advantages

Applies to wide variety of drainage area shapes, well

locations

Uses only data in the middle time region

Disadvantages

Requires drainage area size, shape, well location

Requires accurate fluid property data

Requires producing time long enough to reach

pseudosteady state

Based on extrapolation of post-middle-time region

pressure trend to infinite shut-in time

Advantages

No need for accurate fluid property estimates

No need to know drainage area shape, size, well location

within drainage area

Tend to be very simple

Disadvantage

Require post-middle-time-region pressure transient data

2

250ct re

2

750ct re

100

10

Dimensionle

ss pressure

1

0.1

0.01

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

Exponential decline

Average reservoir pressure

Shut-in pressure

p pws Ae

bt

ln p pws ln A bt

ln p pws C bt

Step 1: Assume a value for average

pressure

ln p pws C bt

1000

p pws , psi

100

5600

5575

10

1500

Assumed pressure too high

2000

2500

3000

3500

Time, minutes

4000

5560

4500

Advantages

Very simple to apply

Disadvantages

Somewhat subjective: Which data points

should I try to straighten?

More sensitive to estimates that are too low

than to estimates that are too high

Not easily automated

Recommendations

Dont try to straighten data until there has

been a clear deviation from the middle-time

region

Once middle-time region has ended, try to

straighten all data

Expect best reliability for wells reasonably

centered in drainage areas

Arps-Smith Method

bt

p pws Ae

dpws

bt

Abe

dt

dpws

b p pws

dt

Arps-Smith Method

Step 1: Assume a value for average

pressure, accepting theory based on

empirical observation

dpws

b p pws

dt

Arps-Smith Method

Step 2: Plot dpws/dt vs pws on Cartesian scale

10

9

8

7

dpws/dt, 6

psi/hr 5

through the data points

the1 x-intercept

0

5300

5350

5400

5450

Pws, psi

5500

5550

5600

Arps-Smith Method

Optional: Estimate the productivity index

in STB/D/psi from the slope b and the

wellbore storage coefficient C

dpws

b p pws

dt

q qsf

24Cb

J

q J p pwf

Bo

dpw

B 24C

dt

Arps-Smith Method

Advantages

Simple to apply

Easily automated

Disadvantages

Requires data in late-time region, after all

boundaries have been felt

Requires numerical differentiation of pressure

with respect to time

Hydraulically

Fractured

Wells

Hydraulically Fractured

Wells

Flow Regimes

Depth of Investigation

Fracture Damage

Straight Line Analysis

Linear Flow Analysis

Semilog Analysis

Reservoir sand

(permeability=kr )

Hydraulic fracture

(permeability =kf )

Wellbore

Fracture width, wf

Fracture

halflength, Lf

Fractured Wells

0.00708kh

pi pwf

pD

qB

fD

ct

f ct f k

kf

Cr

wf k f

kL f

tLf D

CL f D

0.0002637 k

t

2

ct L f

0.8936C

ct hL2f

FcD

wf k f

kL f

Cr

Fracture flow

Linear

Bilinear

Formation flow

Linear

Elliptical

Pseudoradial

Transient moves down fracture length

moved into reservoir

reached end of fracture

(Log-log plot)

Pressure

2

pD

fD t L f D

FcD

Time

(Too early for practical application)

End of linear flow

(Log-log plot)

Pressure

Dimensionless

time

tL f D

Time

2

0.01FcD

2

fD

Bilinear Flow

Low-conductivity fracture, Cf < 100

fracture, into formation

Bilinear Flow

Low-conductivity fracture, Cf < 100

Bilinear Flow

(Log-log plot)

Pressure

Pressure

drop:

1

2.45 14

4

pD

tL f D

tL f D

1.25 2 FcD

FcD

Time

Bilinear Flow

(Log-log plot)

Pressure

flow, fracture conductivity)

Time

Bilinear Flow

If FcD < 1.6

If 1.6 < FcD < 3

If FcD 3

tL f D

4.55

2.5

FcD

tL f D

1.53

0 .1

2

FcD

flow, fracture conductivity)

Bilinear Flow

Low-conductivity fracture, Cr < 100

Bilinear Flow

Low-conductivity fracture, Cf < 100

Negligible pressure drop down fracture

Transient

Flowmoves

from beyond

linearlyends

into of

wellbore

fracture not yet significant

pD t L f D

100

0

.

016

L

D

2

f

FcD

Elliptical Flow

Pseudoradial Flow

Pseudoradial Flow

162.6qB

p

kh

kt

3.23 0.869 s

log

2

ct rw

tL f D 3

Depth Of Investigation

a

2

Lf

Lf

a b

Depth Of Investigation

tbD

0.0002637kt

2

ct b

distance b at a dimensionless

time given by

tbD

a linear system at time t

kt

b 0.02878

ct

12

Depth of Investigation

Depth of investigation

along minor axis

kt

b 0.02878

ct

Depth of investigation

along major axis

a L2f b 2

Area of investigation

A ab

12

Hydraulic Fracture

With Choked Fracture

Damage

k

kfs

kf

wf

Ls

Lf

p

qBL

0.001127 kA

ps

0.00708kh

0.00708kh

sf

ps

qB

qB

qBLs

0.001127 k fs 2h f w f

qBLs

0.001127 k fs 2h f w f

kLs

sf

k fs w f

Hydraulic Fracture

With Fracture Face Damage

k

kf

ws

ks

wf

Lf

qBL

p

0.001127 kA

qBws

ps

0.001127 4h f L f

0.00708kh

0.00708kh

sf

ps

qB

qB

ws

sf

2L f

1 1

k k

s

qBws

0.001127 4h f L f

1

ks

1 1

k k

s

Procedure

Identify the bilinear flow regime using the

diagnostic plot

Graph pwf vs. t1/4 or pws vs tBe1/4

Find the slope mB and the intercept p0 of the best

straight line

Calculate the fracture conductivity wkf from the

slope and the fracture skin factor sf from the

intercept

t Be

14

tp

14

t p t

t Be t , t t p

t Be t p , t t p

14 4

Equations

44.1q B

wk f

h

m

B

c k

t

0.5

Drawdown

0.00708kh

pi p0

sf

qB

Buildup

0.00708kh

sf

p0 pwf

qB

2800

2750

pws, psi

m=63.8 psi/hr1/4

ps

2700

2650

p0=2642.4 psi

pwf=2628.6 psi

2600

0

0.5

1

1/4

teqB , hrs

1.5

1/4

Limitations of

Bilinear Flow Analysis

Applicable only to wells with low-conductivity fractures

(Cr < 100)

Bilinear flow may be hidden by wellbore storage

Requires independent estimate of k

Gives estimate of wkf and sf

Cannot be used to estimate Lf

Procedure

Identify the linear flow regime using the diagnostic plot

Graph pwf vs. t1/2 or pws vs tLe1/2

Find the slope mL and the intercept p0 of the best straight

line

Calculate the fracture half-length Lf from the slope and

the fracture skin factor sf from the intercept

t Le

12

tp

12

t p t

t Le t , t t p

t Le t p , t t p

12 2

Equations

4.064q B

Lf

mL h k ct

12

Drawdown

0.00708kh

sf

pi p0

qB

Buildup

0.00708kh

sf

p0 pwf

qB

6000

5000

m=211 psi/hr1/2

paws, psi

4000

ps

3000

pa0=2266.0 psi

2000

pawf=1656.2 psi

1000

0

0

10

taLeq1/2, hrs1/2

12

14

16

18

Limitations of

Linear Flow Analysis

Applicable only to wells with high-conductivity

fractures (Cr > 100)

Wellbore storage may hide linear flow period

Long transition period between end of linear flow (t LfD

< 0.016) and beginning of pseudoradial flow (tLfD > 3)

Requires independent estimate of k

Gives estimate of Lf and sf

Cannot be used to estimate wkf

Procedure

Identify the pseudoradial flow regime using the diagnostic

plot

Graph pwf vs. log(t) or pws vs log(te)

Find the slope m and the intercept p 1hr of the best straight line

Calculate the formation permeability k from the slope and

the total skin factor s from the intercept

Estimate fracture half-length from total skin factor

Equations

162.6qB

k

mh

Drawdown

p p

k

i

1hr

3.23

s 1.151

log10

2

c r

m

t w

Buildup

p1hr pwf

k

3.23

s 1.151

log10

2

c r

m

t w

2500

2400

2300

pws, psi

2200

m=120 psi/cycle

p1hr=2121 psi

2100

2000

1900

1800

1700

1600

1500

0.001

0.01

0.1

te, hrs

10

100

Lf/rwa

100

10

1

0.1

10

FcD

100

1000

Factor

1. Calculate rwa from rwa = rwe-s

2. Estimate Lf from Lf = 2rwa

3. Estimate fracture conductivity wkf

4. Calculate FcD from FcD = wkf/kLf

5. Find Lf/rwa from graph or equation

6. Estimate Lf from Lf = (Lf/rwa)*rwa

7. Repeat steps 4 through 6 until convergence

(Warning: may not converge)

Limitations of

Pseudoradial Flow Analysis

Boundaries of reservoir may be encountered before

pseudoradial flow develops

Long transition period between linear flow and

pseudoradial flow

Pseudoradial flow cannot be achieved for practical test

times in low permeability reservoirs with long

fractures

Gives estimate of k and st

Does not give direct estimate of Lf, wkf, or sf

Fractured Wells

0.00708kh

pD

pi pwf

qB

Cr

wf kf

kL f

0.00708 kh

sf

ps

qB

tL f D

FcD

0.0002637 k

ct L2f

wf kf

kL f

CL f D

C r

0.8936C

ct hL2f

Type-Curve Analysis:

1. Graph field data pressure change and pressure derivatives

2. Match field data to type curve

3. Find match point and matching stem

4. Calculate Lf from time match point

5. Calculate k from pressure match point

6. Interpret matching stem value (wkf, sf, or C)

Unknown Permeability

141.2qB pD

k

h

p

MP

0.0002637 k t

Lf

tL D

ct

f

MP

1. Graph field data pressure change and pressure derivatives

2. Calculate pressure match point from k

3. Match field data to type curve, using calculated pressure

match point

4. Find match point and matching stem

5. Calculate Lf from time match point

6. Interpret matching stem value (wk f, sf, or C)

Known Permeability

p MP

Lf

141.2qB

pD MP

kh

0.0002637 k t

tL D

ct

f

MP

10

pD, tDp'D

Cr = 0.2

0.5

1

3

10

50

1000

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001

1E-06 0.00001 0.0001

0.001

0.01

tLfD

0.1

10

100

Interpreting Cr Stem

w f k f kL f Cr

10

pD, tDp'D

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001

1E-06

sf = 1

0.3

0.1

0.03

0.01

0.003

0

0.00001 0.0001

0.001

0.01

tLfD

0.1

10

100

Interpreting sf Stem

qB

ps

sf

0.00708kh

10

CLfD = 0

pD, tDp'D

0.1

5x10-5

3x10-4

2x10-3

1.2x10-2

8x10-2

5x10-1

0.01

0.001

0.0001

1E-06

0.00001 0.0001

0.001

0.01

tLfD

0.1

10

100

Interpreting CLfD Stem

2

ct hL f

0.8936

CL f D

Limitations of

Type Curve Analysis

Type curves are usually based on solutions for drawdown what about buildup tests?

Shut-in time

Equivalent time (radial, linear, bilinear)

Superposition type curves

Variable WBS

Boundaries

Non-Darcy flow

Pressure Transient

Analysis

for Horizontal Wells

Describes unconventional and complex

reservoirs

Defines effectiveness of completion technique

options

Distinguishes between poor reservoir and

damaged wellbore

Differentiates between completion success and

in-situ reservoir quality

Complications in Analysis

Three-dimensional flow geometry, no radial

symmetry

Several flow regimes contribute data

Significant wellbore storage effects, difficult

interpretation

Both vertical and horizontal dimensions affect

flow geometry

Identify specific flow regimes in test data

Apply proper analytical and graphical

procedures

Evaluate uniqueness and sensitivity of results

to assumed properties

Five major and distinct regimes possible

may or may not even occur

may or may not be obscured by wellbore storage

effects, end effects, or transition effects

Estimate important reservoir properties

Determine parameter groups from equations

Expect complex iterative processes requiring use of

a computer

Expect nonunique results

Simulate test to confirm that the analysis is

consistent with test data

Use simulator to determine whether other sets of

formation properties will also lead to a fit of the

data

Five possible flow regimes

(1) early radial

(2) hemiradial

(3) early linear

(4) late pseudoradial

(5) late linear

Calculate different

formation properties

from each period

of test data because of geometry, wellbore

storage or other factors.

Horizontal wellbore

Lw

b

z

y

h

Dy

Tip of well

Dx

x

z

h

0

dx

dz

Dz

dy

z

y

Flow Regimes

Radial

Flow not affected by

reservoir boundaries

Flow Regimes

Hemiradial

Flow affected by one

vertical boundary

Flow Regimes

Early Linear

Flow affected by

vertical boundaries

Flow Regimes

Early Linear

Flow effects not seen

at ends of wellbore

Flow Regimes

Late Pseudoradial

Flow Regimes

Late Linear

Flow Regimes/Drawdown

1

p

1

Log (p)

or

Log (p)

2

1

2

1

p'

Wellbore

storage

Early

Radial

Flow

Early

Linear

Flow

Pseudoradial

Flow

Log (time)

Late

Linear

Flow

Required Permeabilities

Flow

Regime

Result

of

Analysis

Permeabilities

Required for Limit

Calculations

Permeabilities

Required to

Calculate Skin

Early Radial

k xk z

End - kz and ky

k xk z and kx/kz

Hemiradial

k xk z

End - kz and ky

Start - kz

End - ky

k xk z and kx/kz

Early Linear

kx

kx and kz

kh k xk y Start - ky

kx, ky and kz

End - ky and kx

Start - ky and kz

kx

Late Linear

kx and kz

End - kx

Note: We can use k h k xk y in our analysis. In some cases, for simplicity,

Late

Pseudoradial

Determines kh and kz

Determines properties useful in horizontal

test design (using an analytical or finitedifference simulator)

Identifies likely flow regimes

Estimates required test duration

Identifies probable ambiguities

Required Distances

Flow

Regime

Result

of

Calculation

Early Radial

Hemiradial

Early Linear

Lw

Lw

Lw and h

Late

Pseudoradial

Late Linear

h

b and h

Distances

Required for Limit

Calculations

Distances

Required to

Calculate

Skin

End - dz and Lw

End - dz and Lw

Start - Dz

Lw and h

End - Lw

Start - Lw

Lw, h and dz

End - dy, Lw, and dx

Start - Dy, Lw, and

b, h and dz

Dz

End - dx

Similar to radial

flow near vertical

wells

May be masked by

wellbore storage

effects

Vertical

boundary

effects

1800dz2 ct

t Erf

kz

Wellbore

end

effects

125L2w ct

t Erf

ky

k x kz t

l

o

g

3

.

2275

0

.

8686

s

a

2

ct rw

162

.

6

qB

pi pwf

k x kz Lw

1 4 k x 4 kz

2

l

o

g

2 kz

k x

47

Semilog plot

162

.

6

qB

m

Lw k x kz

33

0.1

Time

100

47

Semilog plot

162

.

6

qB

k x kz

m Lw

33

0.1

Time

100

pi p1hr

k x kz

sa 1.1513

log

3.2275

2

m

c rw

1

2.3023 log

2`

k

k

4 x 4 z

k k

z

x

47

Semilog plot

t appear simultaneously

or if tp >> t.

33

1,000

10

Plot

47

Semilog plot

162

.

6

qB

m

Lw k x kz

33

0.1

(Equation same as in

drawdown tests)

Time

100

Plot

47

Semilog plot

162

.

6

qB

k x kz

m Lw

33

0.1

(Equation same as in

drawdown tests)

Time

100

p

k k

p

1hr w f

x z

sa 1.1513

l o g

3

.

2275

m

c r 2

t w

1

2 .3023 log

kx

kz

kz

kx

Begins after closest vertical boundary (at

distance dz from wellbore) affects data

and before farthest boundary (at Dz from

wellbore) affects the data.

dz

Dz

Begins after closest vertical boundary (at distance

dz from wellbore) affects data and before furthest

boundary (at Dz from wellbore) affects the data.

tShrf

2

1800 d z

kz

ct

Ends when furthest boundary (at distance

Dz from wellbore) affects the data . . .

2

1800 Dz ct

t Ehrf

k

z

dz

Dz

. . . or when effects are felt at ends of wellbore,

whichever comes first.

2

125 Lw ct

t Ehrf

ky

d

z

Dz

Hemiradial Flow/Drawdown

47

Semilog plot

325

.

2

qB

m

Lw k x kz

33

0.1

Time

100

Hemiradial Flow/Drawdown

47

Semilog plot

Radial flow

162

.

6

qB

m

k

k

z

x

HemiradialL

flow

w

33

0.1

325

.

2

qB

m

Lw k x kz

Time

100

Hemiradial Flow/Drawdown

p p

k k

i

1hr

x z

sa 2.3026

log

3

.

2275

m

c r

t w

k

2.3026 log 1 x

kz

dz

r

w

Start

1800d z2 ct

tSlf

kz

End

160L2w ct

t Elf

ky

11

Cartesian plot

8.128qB

kx

m Lw h ct

1

Time1/2

k x kz ( pi p1hr )Lw

sa

sc

141.2qB

Convergence skin

d

rw

sc

1

sin

h

kx

h

kz

Flow converges from

total cross-section of

reservoir radially into small

area of wellbore

Convergence skin

1800

8.128qB

kx

m Lw h ct

1400

p,

psia

1000

600

18

22

26

30

tp t t , hr

1/2

34

38

k x kz ( p1hr pw f )Lw

sa

sc

141.2qB

d

kz

rw

z

sc

1

sin

h

kx

h

Start

Lw

b

Lw

0.45

b

Start

1480L2w ct

tSprf

ky

Wellbore

end effects

L

w

2000ct D y 4

t Eprf

ky

Ends when

flow from beyond

the ends of the

wellbore hits a

boundary ...

1650 ct d x2

t Eprf

kx

or reach

end boundaries

of reservoir

(whichever is reached first)

Pseudoradial Flow/Drawdown

59

Semilog plot

162

.

6

qB

kx k y

m h

53

100

200

Time

300

400

500

pi p1hr

k

y

l

o

g

L

k

2 sc

sa 1.1513 z w

m

c

L

t w

ky h

1

.

83

kz d z

rw

sc

1

sin

h

k x h

Pseudoradial Flow/Buildup

p1hr pw f

t p 1

lo g

t

m

L

k

p sc

sa 1.1513 z w

ky h

y

1.83

lo g

c

L

t

w

d

kz

rw

z

sc

1

sin

h

kx

h

Effects of pressure

Late Linear

reach boundaries in

y, z directions

Late Linear

Pseudosteady-state

flow in these directions

4800 ct ( D y Lw / 4 )2

tSllf

ky

Starts with

effects of end

boundaries . . .

1800 ct Dz2

tS llf

kz

. . . or

effects of

vertical

boundaries . . .

(whichever is reached last)

End

1650 ct d x2

t Ellf

kx

Late Linear/Drawdown

Estimate kx

60

8.128qB

kx

m iv bh ct

Cartesian plot

30

5

8.128qB

b

m iv h ct kx

Time1/2

17

Calculate total skin, st, including partial

penetration skin, sp

(a complex function

from literature)

Calculate total skin, st, including partial

penetration skin, sp

k x kz ( pi p1hr )b

st

141.2qB

sa st s p

b

sa sa

Lw

Calculate total skin, st, including partial

penetration skin, sp

k x kz ( pi p1hr )b

st

141.2qB

Lw

sa

b

k x kz ( p1hr )b

s p sc

141.2qB

Pressure is plotted vs. ( t p t t )

From the slope, miv we can calculate kx:

8.128qB

kx

m iv bh ct

or

8.128qB

iv

m h ct k x

4,000

8.128qB

kx

m iv bh ct

Extrapolate semilog

straight line to infinite

shut-in time to calculate p*

Semilog plot

3,400

Horner Time

10,000

Calculate total skin, st, from

k x kz ( p1hr pw f )b

st

141.2qB

sa, from

Lw

sa

kx kz ( p1hr pw f )b

s p sc

141.2qB

Calculate kx

wellbore length, Lw

Late linear flow regime: from reservoir length, b,

parallel to wellbore

calculated from data in the early linear

flow regime if kx has been calculated.

Calculate kx

wellbore length, Lw

Late linear flow regime: from reservoir length, b,

parallel to wellbore.

wellbore can be calculated from data in

late linear flow regime if kx is known.

Calculate kx

hemiradial flow regimes

Calculate ky from pseudoradial flow regime

If data such as Lw or b are unknown or if

flow regimes are missing, analysis is

iterative at best and will result in

nonunique results.

Calculate kx

Calculate kz from data in early radial or hemiradial flow regimes

Calculate ky from pseudoradial flow regime

simplify analysis, but validity is

questionable.

Calculate kx

Calculate kz from data in early radial or hemiradial flow regimes

Calculate ky from pseudoradial flow regime

Check on expected durations of flow regimes using tentative results from the analysis to

minimize ambiguity in results

Pressure Transient

Analysis

for Horizontal Wells

Using the Techniques

Wellbore storage

unit-slope line

p

Log (p)

or

Log (p)

p'

Linear flow halfslope

Radial flowline

horizontal derivative

Log (time)

Build-Up

Drawdown Diagnostic Plot

Shapes may not

appear in build

up tests

Log (p)

or

Log (p)

(better chance

if tp>>tmax)

Wellbore

storage

Early

Radial

flow

Early

Linear

Flow

Pseudoradial

Flow

Log (time)

Late

Linear

Flow

Ld, ft

Lw, ft

rw, ft

, %

h, ft

q, STB/D

Bo, RB/STB

, cp

tp, hours

2,470

0.25

5

150

104

1.40

0.45

238

Horizontal

exploration well

Vertical tectonic

fracture

Permeability

probably results

from fracture

10,000

p

Wellbore

1000

storage

Log (p

Radial flow?

p'

or p )

100

10

10

t, hr

100

Test time too 24.69 Time

short to

4,000 detect lower

m -392.63

boundary,

3,500

linear flow,

or anisotropy

p

k = 0.011

2,500

s = 2.9

2,000

Semilog plot

4,500

1,500

10

Horner Time

2.4

100

10,000

p

Wellbore

1000

storage

Log (p

Radial flow

p'

or p )

100

10

k = 0.027 k = 0.011

s = 11.5 s = 2.9

(from Horner plot)

1

10

t, hr

100

Ld, ft

Lw, ft

rw, ft

, %

h, ft

q, STB/D

Bo, RB/STB

, cp

tp, hours

2,000

0.30

17

75

200

1.60

1.80

1,320

carbonate

Expected isotropic

k caused by

fracturing,

dissolution

1000

p, psia

or p

100

Radial flow

Wellbore storage

10

1

10

100

t, hr

Linear

flow

1000

4000

3900

3800

t, hr

146.67

13.33

tErf = 165 hr

k = 0.15

k = 0.14

p, psia

m = 336.4

3600

3500

3400

k = 0.14

10

Horner time

100

1000

p, psia

or p

100

k = 0.15

k = 0.14

10

1

Good

agreement

10

100

t, hr

1000

1800

1600

h = 75 ft

Nearest boundary = 29 ft

1400

p, psia

1000

m = 39.6

800

600

10

100

tp t t, hr1/2

Field Example C

Ld, ft

Lw, ft

rw, ft

, %

h, ft

q, STB/D

Bo, RB/STB

, cp

tp, hours

1,400

484

0.41

17

54

2,760

1.10

4.88

36

Horizontal well

High-k sandstone

Extensive

underlying aquifer

1000

Radial, hemiradial,

or elliptical flow

100

p, psia

or p

No apparent

wellbore storage

0.1

Decline caused by

underlying aquifer

0.01

0.1

t, hr 1

10

100

1000

p

p

100

p, psia

or p

1

0.1

0.01

0.1

t, hr 1

10

100

5.44

4000

3800

t, hr

0.0490

4.90E-03

k = 53

p, psia

k ~ 48

3600

3400

0.4949

(confirms validity of

earlier findings of

no wellbore storage)

1

10

100

Horner time

1,000

10,000

1000

p

p

100

p, psia

or p

1

0.1

Geometric average

of horizontal,

vertical k ~ 48

0.01

0.1

t, hr 1

10

100

Measurements usually made

above horizontal wellbore

Conventional tools can be

used in horizontal well tests

Configuration

Wellbore storage inherent

in horizontal well testing

Configuration

Wellbore crossflow may

dominate test results

Transient Response

parallel to well trajectory)

Vertical permeability

Drilling damage

Completion damage

Producing interval that may be effectively

much less than drilled length

Variations in standoff along length of well

Obstacles to Interpretation

Multiple parameters frequently yield

inconclusive test analysis results

Wellbore storage obscures effects of transient

behavior

Middle- and late-time response behavior may

require several hours, days, or months to

appear in transient data

hole before kicking off to horizontal borehole

segment

Estimate standoff from directional drilling survey

Determine producing part of wellbore from

production log flow survey

Flow wells in developed reservoirs long enough to

equilibrate pressures along the wellbore and minimize

crossflow

Effects of Errors

in Input Data

Presentation Outline

Introduction

Sources of Error in Input Data

Effects of Error on Results of Welltest

Interpretation

Examples

Summary

Problem 1

Well A estimates from PBU test

Permeability, 10 md

Skin factor, 0

Distance to boundary, 250 ft

If the net pay were actually 50 feet, how

would that affect our estimates of

permeability, skin factor, and distance to

the boundary?

Problem 2

Seismic interpretation indicates

boundary 300 ft from Well B

PBU test interpretation indicates

nearest boundary 900 ft away

Can these inconsistencies

possibly be resolved?

What could have caused this much

error in the distance estimate?

Log interpretation

Fluid properties

Reservoir and well properties

Porosity

Water saturation

Net pay thickness

Interpretation

Failure to calibrate the log-derived properties against

core measurements

Failure to select appropriate cutoffs for net pay

estimation

Parameter

Deviation

Without

correction

With

correction

Porosity

15 %

5%

Water saturation

40 %

10 %

Net pay

50 %

15 %

Formation volume factor

Compressibility

Viscosity

From Gas Properties Correlations

Parameter

Deviation

Bg from composition

1.1% to 5.8%

Bg from composition

1.3 % to 7.3%

(as much as 27% if

impurities are ignored)

cg

2% to 4%, g < 1

up to 20% low, g > 1.5

From Oil Properties Correlations

Parameter

Deviation

Bo, p > pb

10%

Bo, p pb

5%

co, p > pb

Best near pb

co, p pb

Flow rate

Wellbore radius

Formation compressibility

Total compressibility

From Measurement or Calculations

Parameter

Error

Flow rate

Inaccuracy in estimates, averages

Wellbore radius

Formation compressibility

Estimation errors

Total compressibility

Abnormally pressured reservoir

Oil compressibility

Total Compressibility

ct c f S o co S wcw S g c g

Formation

compressibility

times its compressibility

Effects of Errors

Vertical well

Single-phase flow

Homogeneous reservoir

Boundary

No-flow, linear constant pressure, closed

Test

Drawdown, buildup, injection, or fall-off

Duration long enough to identify boundary

Errors in Viscosity

If input = 2 true

Then:

kcalc = 2 ktrue

Nothing else will be affected

Errors in Porosity

If input = 2 true,

Then:

scalc = strue+ 0.5ln(2)

Lx calc = Lx true/sqrt(2)

A calc = Atrue/2

Cause errors in calculating total

compressibility

Errors in Compressibility

If ct input = 2 ct true

Then:

scalc = strue+ 0.5ln(2)

Lx calc = Lx true/sqrt(2)

A calc = Atrue/2

If hinput = 2 htrue

Then:

kcalc = ktrue/2

scalc = strue+ 0.5ln(2)

Lx calc = Lx true/sqrt(2)

A calc = Atrue/2

If qinput = 2 qtrue

Then:

kcalc = 2 ktrue

scalc = strue- 0.5ln(2)

Lx calc = sqrt(2) Lx true

A calc = 2 Atrue

Factor

If B = 2 B

input

true

Then:

kcalc = 2 ktrue

scalc = strue- 0.5ln(2)

Lx calc = sqrt(2) Lx true

A calc = 2 Atrue

If rw input = 2 rw true

Then:

scalc = strue+ ln(2)

Solution to Problem 1

Well A estimates Net pay50 ft

Permeability, 10 md

Skin factor, 0

Boundary, 250 ft

Permeability, 5 md

Skin factor, 0.35

Boundary, 177 ft

Solution To Problem 2

Seismic interpretation indicates

boundary 300 ft from Well B

PBU test interpretation indicates

nearest boundary 900 ft away

Total compressibility

could be off by a factor

of 10

Boundary could be a

factor of 3 too far away

Summary

Permeability is most affected by errors

in viscosity, net pay, and flow rate

Distances to boundaries and drainage

area are most affected by errors in

compressibility

Skin factor is not affected to a large

degree by any input variable

Bounded Reservoir

Behavior

Cautions

Recognizing may be as important as analyzing

Many reservoir models may produce similar

pressure responses

Interpretation model must be consistent with

geological and geophysical interpretations

Characteristics

Boundaries control pressure response

following middle-time region

Equivalent time functions apply rigorously

only to situations where either

Producing and shut-in times both lie within

middle-time region

Shut-in time is much less than producing time

drawdown and buildup tests differently

Shapes of curves

Durations of flow regimes explain shape of

drawdown pressure responses

Shape of buildup derivative type curve depends on

how the derivative is calculated and plotted

Shut-in time

Equivalent time

Superposition time

Superposition in space

Producing wells

Apparent no-flow boundary between wells

Superposition in space

Producing well

Image well

no-flow boundary

Superposition in space

No-flow boundary

Image well

Image well

Producing well

Superposition in space

No-flow boundary

Producing well

Superposition in space

Infinite-acting reservoir

Infinite-acting reservoir

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

No boundaries encountered

1

0.1

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Infinite-acting reservoir

Buildup Response

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

time

production time prior to shut-in

Drawdown

0.1

tpD=105

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

tpD=106

1E+07

Dimensionless shutin

Dimensionless

shut-intime

time

tpD=107

1E+08

tpD=108

1E+09

Infinite-acting reservoir

Buildup Response

Dimensionless pressure

100

time

10

1

tpD=105

tpD=106

tpD=107

tpD=108

0.1

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

Infinite-acting reservoir

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response

Derivative taken with respect to

equivalent time, plotted against

shut-in time

1

5

Drawdown

0.1

to producing or shut-in time

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

(If so, far away.)

No-flow boundary

Producing well

100

Dimensionless pressure

10

Hemiradial flow

1

0.1

0.01

1E+03

Change occurs over about 12/3 log cycles

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

100

Buildup Response

Dimensionless pressure

10

Drawdown

tpD=108

longer the coincidence between buildup and drawdown

0.1

0.01

1E+03

tpD=105

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

tpD=106

1E+07

Dimensionless shutin

Dimensionless

shut-intime

time

tpD=107

1E+08

1E+09

100

Buildup Response

Dimensionless pressure

time

10

tpD=105

0.1

tpD=106

tpD=107

tpD=108

Drawdown

cycle for very short producing times prior to shut-in

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response

Derivative with respect to

equivalent time, plotted

against shut-in time

tpD=108

tpD=107

1

tpD=105

0.1

0.01

1E+03

Drawdown

tpD=106

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

Constant-pressure boundary

Producing well

Possible injection,

waterflood, or gas/oil

contact causing

constant-pressure

boundary

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

case, does) reach -1

0.1

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response

Derivative with respect to shutin time

very short producing times before shut-in

tpD=106

0.1

5

tpD=10

0.01

1E+03

Drawdown curve

Drawdown

tpD=10

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless

shut-intime

time

Dimensionless shutin

tpD=108

1E+08

1E+09

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response

Derivative with respect to equivalent

time

Derivative falls sharply over tiny fraction of log cycle

for very short producing times prior to shutin

0.1

tpD=105

Drawdown

tpD=106

tpD=107

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

tpD=108

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response

Derivative with respect to equivalent time

shut-in time

tpD=105,106

1

tpD=107

0.1

0.01

1E+03

Drawdown

Derivative curves resemble

drawdown curve

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

tpD=10

1E+08

1E+09

Channel reservoir

No-flow boundaries

(Effects

of ends

not felt )

Producing well

Channel reservoir

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Slope = 1/2

0.1

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Channel reservoir

Buildup Response

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

tpD=108

Drawdown

1

0.1

Derivative reaches a

slope of -1/2 if shut-in

time is much larger

than producing time

tpD=107

tpD=106

tpD=105

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless

shut-in

time

Dimensionless shutin

time

1E+08

1E+09

Channel reservoir

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response

Derivative with respect to

equivalent time, plotted against

dimensionless time

Drawdown

tpD=10

tpD=105

tpD=108

tpD=106

Radial equivalent

time not appropriate

in linear flow regime

0.1

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

Channel reservoir

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response

Derivative with respect to

equivalent time, plotted

against shut-in time

tpD=108

Drawdown

tpD=107

1

tpD=105

0.1

0.01

1E+03

tpD=106

drawdown curve shape

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

Wedge reservoir

No-flow boundaries

Producing well

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

The narrower the angle, the

longer to reach new horizontal

0.1

0.01

1E+03

(360/ ) x (derivative of infinite-acting response)

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Buildup Response

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

time

Dramatic difference in curves

Drawdown

when shut-in is greater than

producing time prior to shut-in

tpD=108

tpD=10

0.1

tpD=106

tpD=105

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response

Derivative with respect to

equivalent time

tpD=108

5

tpD=10

tpD=10

Drawdown

tpD=107

0.1

0.01

1E+03

response only when producing period

reaches fractional flow regime

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response

Derivative with respedt to

equivalent time, plotted against

shut-in time

Drawdown

tpD=107

1

tpD=105

0.1

0.01

1E+03

tpD=108

tpD=106

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

No-flow boundary

Producing well

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Unit slope may be seen

earlier if two zones with

different permeability

are present

0.1

0.01

1E+03

slope at late times

(pseudosteady-state flow)

pore volume of interval

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Buildup Response

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Drawdown

6 6, 7 7 8 8

ttpD

=10

,10

=10

10,10

,10

pD

tpD=10

0.1

0.01

1E+03

for all combinations of

plotting functions

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response

Derivative with respect to

equivalent time

Drawdown

0.1

tpD

=1077,108 8

pD=10 ,10

tpD=105

0.01

1E+03

tpD=106

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

for very small values

of producing time

before shut-in

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response

Derivative with respect to equivalent

time, plotted against shut-in time

Drawdown

1

tpD=105

0.1

6

6

7

8

,10

tpD= t10

, 10,10

, 10

pD=10

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

Derivative, drawdown

type curves differ

fundamentally

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

Possibly strong aquifer

supporting pressure

equally from all directions

Constant-pressure

boundary

Producing well

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Pressure approaches

constant value at late times

Derivative falls exponentially

0.1

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response

Derivative with respect to shutin time

Drawdown

1

tpD=106,107,108

tpD=105

drawdown plot just seen

0.1

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response

Derivative with respect to

equivalent time

0.1

Drawdown

tpD=105

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

tpD=106

1E+05

tpD=107,108

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

Dimensionless pressure

100

10

Buildup Response

Derivative with respect to equivalent

time, plotted against shut-in time

Results in somewhat-changed

curve on the plot

0.1

tpD=105

Drawdown

tpD=107,108

0.01

1E+03

tpD=106

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

Significant difference in permeability

near, farther from well

k1

k2

Producing well

Drawdown Type Curve

Dimensionless pressure

100

Varying M1/M2

M1/M2 = 100

10

k

m (mobility)

M1/M2 = 10

M1/M2 = 1

M1/M2 = 0.2

0.1

M1/M2 = 0.05

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Dimensionless pressure

100

Varying S1/S2

10

10

1

S1/S2 = 100

0.05

1

S1/S2 = 0.01

0.1

0.01

1E+03

S (storativity) = cth

If

1, plot looks like closed circular drainage area

If sS11/s

/S2>

2<<1, plot looks like closed linear flow

If M1/M2<<1, plot looks like constant-p circular

boundary during transition

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

1E+07

Dimensionless time

1E+08

1E+09

Final comments

Assuming a well is in an arbitrary point in a

closed, rectangular reservoir can lead to

apparent fit of test for many different

reservoirs

L

dy

dx

Cautions

Make sure the model is consistent with known

geology before using the model

Two most dangerous models (because they

can fit so many tests inappropriately)

Composite reservoir

Well at arbitrary point in closed reservoir

Final comments

Assuming a well is in an arbitrary point in a

closed, rectangular reservoir can lead to a poor

fit of test for many different reservoirs

Buildup Testing

and the

Diagnostic Plot

Objectives

Become familiar with time plotting

functions used with diagnostic plots for

buildup tests

Become aware of the very different

shapes in the diagnostic plots of buildup

and drawdown tests as buildup tests

approach stabilization

Time-Plotting Functions

Shut-in Time

Horner Pseudoproducing Time

Multirate Equivalent Time

Superposition Time Function

q

q2

qn-1

q1

qn

0

t1

t2

tn-2

tn-1

t

t

Expressed

another way...

24 N p

tp

qn1

n 1

tp

Cumulative

produced oil

Final rate

before

shut-in

24 q j t j t j 1

j 1

qn1

tp

24 N p

qn1

Cumulative

produced oil

Final rate

before

shut-in

producing time is at least 10x

maximum shut-in time.

n 1

te

t n 1 t j 1

t

j 1

n 1

j 1

q j q j 1

q

n

1

n

n 1

j 1

1

STF

qn qn 1

ln t

q j q j 1 ln t tn 1 t j 1

Pressure derivative for buildup calculated as

pressure derivative with respect to superposition

time function; plotted vs. shut-in time

n 1

q j q j 1

ln t tn 1 t j 1

STF

j 1 qn qn 1

ln t

STF ln

n 1

t tn 1 t j 1

j 1

q j q j 1

q

n

1

n

using properties of natural logarithm)

STF ln

n 1

1

t t

j 1

j 1 n 1

q j q j 1

q

n

1

n

STF ln C ln te

te

Superposition time function is simply the

log of a constant plus the log of the

equivalent time.

Derivitive with respect to multirate equivalent time

= derivitive with respect to superposition time

STF ln C ln te

Some literature recommends . . .

Pressure derivative for buildup calculated as

pressure derivative with respect to superposition

time function; plotted vs. shut-in time

Some literature recommends . . .

Pressure derivative for buildup calculated as

pressure derivative with respect to equivalent time

function

STF ln C ln te

Since the derivatives with respect to

multirate equivalent time and

superposition time are equal,

STF ln C ln te

Conclusions

Horner pseudoproducing time is adequate

when producing time is 10 times greater

than the maximum shut-in time

Conclusions

Derivatives with respect to time for the

superposition time function and radial

equivalent time are identical. They can be

plotted vs. shut-in time, superposition time, or

equivalent time

Conclusions

Some literature or software documentation

may specify the method of taking or

plotting the derivative, but any of these will

work for these situation.

Radial Flow

Approaching Stabilization

Stabilization is the stage where pressure has

built up completely and is no longer

changing.

100

Drawdown

pD

10

Buildup

1

Drawdown

0.1

be at least 10x

maximum shut-in time

0.01

1E+02

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

tD

Buildup, tpD=10

1E+06

1E+07

1E+08

Linear Flow

1000

Drawdown

pD

100

produce slope = -1/2)

10

tpD=103

Derivative

response

slope = -1/2

0.1

1E+00

1E+01

1E+02

1E+03

tD

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

Volumetric Behavior

100

Dimensionless pressure

10

Drawdown

1

tpD=10

0.1

0.01

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

1E+06

Drawdown response

feels boundary later than

build-up response

1E+07

1E+08

1E+09

Conclusions

Shapes of the buildup and drawdown

diagnostic plots are fundamentally different as

the reservoir approaches stabilization.

Dont expect to see the same shape on a

diagnostic plot for a build up test as for a

drawdown test.

Interpretation

Geology

Geophysi

cs

Petrophys

ics

Model

Selectio

n

Paramet

er

Flow

Estimatio

Regime

n

Identificati

Model

on

Validatio

n

Engineerin

g Data

Well Test

Interpretat

ion

Importance of Model Selection

Integrating Other Data

Geological Data

Geophysical Data

Petrophysical Data

Engineering Data

Common Errors and Misconceptions

Well in a Wedge

Composite Reservoir

Composite

Reservoir

Well in a Box

W

R

M1,S1

M2,S2

Storativity ratio S1/S2

Distance to boundary R

L

D1

Distance to wall D1

Distance to wall D2

Reservoir length L

Reservoir width W

D2

-79

Well A

-9

10

0

-8

9

00

-87

00

-85

00

-83

00

00

-81

00

geological model

Slight divergence;

Closed Reservoir - DD TC

Close match

Closed Reservoir - BU TC

Most major errors caused by use of wrong

model instead of wrong method

Meaningless estimates

Misleading estimates

Selecting reservoir geometry

Identifying features of pressure response

Depositional

environment

Reservoir size

Shape

Orientation

Reservoir

heterogeneity

Layering

Natural fractures

Diagenesis

Types of boundaries

Faults

Sealing

Partially sealing

Fluid contacts

Gas/oil

Oil/water

Structure

Faults

Location

Size

Reservoir

compartments

Shape

Orientation

Porosity

Fluid saturations

Fluid contacts

Lithology

Layering

Evidence of natural

fractures

Engineering Data

Drilling datadaily reports

Production and flow test data

Stimulation treatment results

Fracture design half-length, conductivity

Fracture treating pressure analysis results

Problems during treatmentdaily reports

Possible interferenceproduction records

Well test results

Skin factor

Core permeability

Pressure response during flow period

Productivity index

Average reservoir pressure

Radius of investigation

Distances to boundaries

Independent estimates of model parameters

Fluid-filled wellbore

C Vwb cwb

144 Awb g c

C

5.615 wb g

magnitude of estimate

Phase segregation can cause smaller WBS

WBS coefficient >100x estimated value may indicate

reservoir storage instead of WBS

Skin Factor

Likely estimates by completion type

Natural completion

Acid treatment

Fracture treatment

Gravel pack

Frac pack

0

-1 to -3

-3 to -6

+5 to +10

-2 to +2

appropriate values

Skin factor < -6 very unlikely

Core Permeability

In-situ permeability from well test

Core permeability to air

Highoverburden and saturation

Lownatural fractures

less than kh from well test

Fractures

Missing core

Must be consistent with shut-in pressure

response

Must ensure consistency

Interpret flow periods independently

Predict flow period pressures from results of

buildup

Match flow and buildup periods simultaneously

Productivity Index

Field Data

Model Parameters

q

J

p pwf

kh

1 10.06 A 3

s

141.2 B ln

2

2

C Arw 4

Compare average reservoir pressure from

test interpretation

Material balance

Analytical simulation

Numerical simulation

model is used

Radius of Investigation

ri

kt

948ct

ri

kte

948ct

Beginning of middle-time region

End of middle-time region

MTR is incorrect

Very small ri may indicate wrong MTR or test

not measuring reservoir characteristics

Distance to Boundaries

Reservoir size

Production data

Geological data

Geophysical data

Distances to boundaries

Geological data

Geophysical data

common interpretation model

Independent Parameters

Dual porosity from fracture width, spacing

Storativity ratio

Interporosity flow coefficient

Independent Parameters

Dual porosity from fracture width, spacing

Composite reservoir parameters for

waterflood-injection well

Radius of waterflooded zone

Mobility ratio (k/)1/(k/)2

Storativity ratio (ct)1/ (ct)2

Independent Parameters

Dual porosity from fracture width, spacing

Composite reservoir parameters for

waterflood-injection well

Fracture properties from treatment design

Fracture half-length lf

Fracture conductivity wkf

Common Errors/Misconceptions

Most-often-misused models

Well between two sealing faults

Well in a radially composite reservoir

Well in a rectangular reservoir

Common misconceptions

Unit-slope line indicates wellbore storage

Peak in derivative indicates radial flow

Strong aquifer acts as constant-pressure boundary

Faults

Well in a Wedge

Distance from well to 1st fault

Distance from well to 2nd fault

Composite Reservoir

Storativity ratio S1/S2

Distance to boundary R

Rectangular Reservoir

Well in a Box

W

L

D1

Distance to wall D1

Distance to wall D2

Reservoir length L

Reservoir width W

D2

indicates wellbore storage

Pseudosteady-state flow

(drawdown test only)

Recharge of high-permeability zone (either

drawdown or buildup test)

Linear

Bilinear

Radial

Spherical

restriction for any flow regime

pressure boundary

that of reservoir fluid to act as constant

pressure boundary

Maybe, maybe not for oil

Never for gas